There's a thread around here somewhere with diagrams. IIRC, the plan is to extend the blue line to the other side of the intersection and have it stop there. I don't think it's more than 1/4 mile worth of distance. However, getting it through that intersection theoretically makes it easier to do a serious expansion later. I know of no plans for that though.

 

I would hope they have plans to extend the Blue Line before they spend the money to get it through the intersection.  Otherwise it is a mammoth waste of money, as I would think that would have to be about 80% of the cost of extending it for a few more miles.

^Depends what sort of development is viable southeast of that clusterf*&k intersection.  If it's something ambitious, I could imagine that short extension (about 900 feet) having a better ridership bang then extended it another mile or two into sparsely populated exurbia.

I think it's actually a fairly solid plan...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17886.0.html

 

 

Definitely a solid plan.  Improving the intersection is a benefit in itself, and once the rail line is past it, additional extension should be easier.  Still, we should be looking ahead and getting cracking on where the blue line goes next.  The rail aspect of this project, if it doesn't lead to a few miles of additional service, is indeed stupid.  That part doesn't seem necessary to fix the intersection, so if we're going to pay for it, there should be a clear reason.  This area doesn't become exurbia for several miles.  Is Randall Park exurbia?  The center of Solon isn't even exurbia, in fact it appears to have been built around a train station.

How long will it take to complete the alternative analysis/environmental study?

Usually a year, but since this is such a localized project, it may take less.

Definitely a solid plan.  Improving the intersection is a benefit in itself, and once the rail line is past it, additional extension should be easier.  Still, we should be looking ahead and getting cracking on where the blue line goes next.  The rail aspect of this project, if it doesn't lead to a few miles of additional service, is indeed stupid.  That part doesn't seem necessary to fix the intersection, so if we're going to pay for it, there should be a clear reason.  This area doesn't become exurbia for several miles.  Is Randall Park exurbia?  The center of Solon isn't even exurbia, in fact it appears to have been built around a train station.

 

I hope the Shaker-Warrensville Center TOD spurs officials to extend the Blue Line beyond just a couple thousand feet -- but knowing this area's historical anti-rail mentality, I won't hold my breath... Certainly a Blue Line branch to Randall could really help rejuvenate that deeply depressed area.  There's obviously right of way all the way there down the center of Northfield.  If Mayor Jackson's initiative to pull the region together, he and others should support things like high-densityTOD in places like N. Randall, that really need it...

 

... of course, then again, we can't even get Frank to push for TOD along the Red Line which, to date, only has TOD in the form of a half block of Eco Village --- too busy fronting for the Opportunity Corridor, I s'pose.

Failing to advocate for transit is but one of Jackson's problems, and the others are bigger so I'll let this one slide.  The blue line is already well outside of Cleveland at that point.  This is a county issue, a regional issue, an issue of multiple redundant municipalities. 

 

I think it's funny for us to consider Cleveland anti-rail when we have an enviable system for our size, while Cincinnati thinks one little rail line will bankrupt every taxpayer and block out the sun with its filth.  People in Cleveland are at least used to the idea of rail transit.

 

The Blue Line should go to Randall Park and maybe Solon, while the Green Line should extend to Richmond Rd then shoot north up Richmond to Cedar, turning Legacy Village into retroactive TOD.  I also like StrapHanger's idea (from another thread) of running BRT up Cedar Rd from University Circle.  That would be extremely cost-effective and useful. 

The Randall Park Mall makes more sense as a destination for the Blue Line than Chagrin Highlands.  Randall is done; it would be nice to level the whole damn thing, run the Blue line to it and see what happens.  If we ever get casinos, maybe Thistledown would shut down for good, opening up even more land along the line for TOD.  I just personally wish we'd see a push for more in the city around existing lines, rather than having to wait for an extension to a place that quite frankly is among the least interesting in the county.  I agree that Frank Jackson could do more in this regard.  Quite frankly it seems the mayor has just been fanning his balls as far as that's concerned.

 

As far as BRT goes - I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that it signifies anything other than "souped up busline".  There's already bus service from UC up Cedar.  What aspects of BRT would you implement that you are required to make a significant improvement to the route, especially given that it seems as if signal prioritization and offline fare collection are also not exactly working as advertised on Euclid?

I cannot believe RTA has not extended transit in the region by now. It is basically the same since the 60's I wrote to them several times about the need for this to re-connect the region to also help in producing a more broad and diverse demographic of riders. They seldom return inquests about anything. This is a county transportation network, yet the light rail predominantly serves only the city limits proper, and a couple older inner ring areas. It needs to be updated to meet the regional needs, otherwise they are NOT a regional transportation authority as titled.

^I think KJP could answer your assessment the best...

What aspects of BRT would you implement that you are required to make a significant improvement to the route, especially given that it seems as if signal prioritization and offline fare collection are also not exactly working as advertised on Euclid?

 

a)  24-hour service

 

b)  Consistency... too many of those routes go different places each time.  As in "what do you mean THIS ONE doesn't go downtown?"

 

c)  Theoretically, the express signal timing.  I've mentioned before that if it ain't working by now, we're all due a hellacious refund.  You can't just sell a fake product to 1.3 million people.  It has to work or you just defrauded the government and you go to jail.  Where this process broke down here I couldn't tell you, but the optimist in me still believes that if we payed for a signal system (which we did) we still have one coming.

You have a good point about the consistency factor.  It would be nice to get Cedar-Fairmount, the redone Cedar Center, and maybe even Legacy Village connected by a visible transit presence. 

Failing to advocate for transit is but one of Jackson's problems, and the others are bigger so I'll let this one slide.  The blue line is already well outside of Cleveland at that point.  This is a county issue, a regional issue, an issue of multiple redundant municipalities. 

 

I think it's funny for us to consider Cleveland anti-rail when we have an enviable system for our size, while Cincinnati thinks one little rail line will bankrupt every taxpayer and block out the sun with its filth.  People in Cleveland are at least used to the idea of rail transit.

 

The Blue Line should go to Randall Park and maybe Solon, while the Green Line should extend to Richmond Rd then shoot north up Richmond to Cedar, turning Legacy Village into retroactive TOD.  I also like StrapHanger's idea (from another thread) of running BRT up Cedar Rd from University Circle.  That would be extremely cost-effective and useful.  

 

You make a valid point, 327.  We are farther ahead compared to similar cities, esp w/in Ohio.  But for too long we've rested on the laurels of progressive predecessors who built and/or spearheaded rail transit and TOD growth: the Vans, Donald Hyde, Ron Tober, among them... We have much, but transit isn't supposed to be static; it's supposed to grow to meet the needs of its urban home -- if that home wants to be progressive...

 

Of course many have addressed the need for increased state funding (a Joe C initiative) and true regional organization; as in beyond just Cuyahoga County... Frank has admirably preached economic cooperation of all area cities and towns (of course, then we had Eaton)... It would be nice if our Mayor would work with and advocate TOD... We note that, even in struggling Cleveland, the best, up & coming neighborhoods, though maybe not TOD themselves, share many TOD-type characteristics: Battery Park/Detroit Shoreway (esp Gordon Sq); Ohio City, Shaker Sq and Little Italy ... and of course, downtown (more residentially and, hopefully, increasingly commercially and business-wise).  The Blue Line/Shaker Van Aken/Warrensville makeover should give a green light to extend and develop TOD.  I know it's tougher for leaders to wrap their minds around using transit to save a truly dying area like North Randall (and hell, East Cleveland for that matter where heavy rail already exists)... but then we haven't faced such shared dire economic times since the Great Depression.

 

A Blue Line extension split to serve both Chagrin Highlands and the old Randall Mall area could both enhance a growing (albeit in the wrong way) area and kick-start the rescue of the other.

My understanding is that it was a developer, the Van Sweringens, who were instrumental in getting the Blue line built in the first place.  Certainly the Randall Park Mall site needs work.  Maybe a developer would step up to extend the Blue line to the mall and then build a dense mixed-use development at the terminus.  Make it both a destination and a livable area.  Could be a big success.  Any takers?

 

 

^If I had the money, hell yeah.

^If I had the money, hell yeah.

 

If I had the money, I can think of several transit-accessible sites along existing lines that I'd like to turn into TOD before I ever thought about Randall.  Randall is a mess.  With our region's shrinking population and surplus of housing units, the best thing for Randall would be to nuke it, let it revert to nature and forget it ever happened (like the Richfield Coliseum).

^If I had the money, hell yeah.

 

If I had the money, I can think of several transit-accessible sites along existing lines that I'd like to turn into TOD before I ever thought about Randall. Randall is a mess. With our region's shrinking population and surplus of housing units, the best thing for Randall would be to nuke it, let it revert to nature and forget it ever happened (like the Richfield Coliseum).

 

Agreed.  It's just such a low priority for what we need to do to make Cleveland a better place, imo.

^If I had the money, hell yeah.

 

If I had the money, I can think of several transit-accessible sites along existing lines that I'd like to turn into TOD before I ever thought about Randall. Randall is a mess. With our region's shrinking population and surplus of housing units, the best thing for Randall would be to nuke it, let it revert to nature and forget it ever happened (like the Richfield Coliseum).

 

Agreed. It's just such a low priority for what we need to do to make Cleveland a better place, imo.

 

Maybe that one, but I don't think the same is true of an eastward red line or waterfront extension, or a west shore line.  I think any of those would have a big impact.  Seems like there's less to be gained from extending the blue or green lines right now.

i remember something about the west shoreway one day being turned into a 35 mph boulevard, or something like this. seeing as how the 'west shore flyer' bus route already connects a densely populated and largely transit-oriented few miles, i would think this would have a lot of potential to become a light rail route. i think clifton is already 12 lanes wide so taking over the center of it should be too much of a problem and this would create a lot of really great TOD real estate between W65 and downtown. it would also provide an excuse to reopen the detroit-superior subway deck to trains. yeah!

 

who's with me?

 

also, i think this has something to do with TOD, at least as an example of things for cleveland not to do. but i went to pittsburgh for the first time and rode their 'train' which is more or less a tiny, articulated bus on rails. and they're spending millions right now to make a tunnel for it, under a river. i think cleveland can be a lot more frugal and creative with its existing infrastructure than this...

i remember something about the west shoreway one day being turned into a 35 mph boulevard, or something like this. seeing as how the 'west shore flyer' bus route already connects a densely populated and largely transit-oriented few miles, i would think this would have a lot of potential to become a light rail route. i think clifton is already 12 lanes wide so taking over the center of it should be too much of a problem and this would create a lot of really great TOD real estate between W65 and downtown. it would also provide an excuse to reopen the detroit-superior subway deck to trains. yeah!

 

who's with me?

 

also, i think this has something to do with TOD, at least as an example of things for cleveland not to do. but i went to pittsburgh for the first time and rode their 'train' which is more or less a tiny, articulated bus on rails. and they're spending millions right now to make a tunnel for it, under a river. i think cleveland can be a lot more frugal and creative with its existing infrastructure than this...

 

 

Then tell the tax payers and the government to pony up!  I'm so sick and tired of people saying its "Clevelands fault" or that "Cleveland is cheap". COMPLAIN TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!

 

AND if money is approved for a project, don't expect it to happen immediately!

 

Then tell the tax payers and the government to pony up!  I'm so sick and tired of people saying its "Clevelands fault" or that "Cleveland is cheap". COMPLAIN TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!

 

AND if money is approved for a project, don't expect it to happen immediately!

 

...not exactly what i was saying. my point was that i think what pittsburgh is doing is silly. i think it would be really great to reopen a subway that is already there. it would be so cool. and so many clevelanders have no idea its there. my assumption is that it would be less expensive to reopen an existing tunnel than to build a new one. no?

 

 

Then tell the tax payers and the government to pony up!  I'm so sick and tired of people saying its "Clevelands fault" or that "Cleveland is cheap". COMPLAIN TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!

 

AND if money is approved for a project, don't expect it to happen immediately!

 

 

...not exactly what i was saying. my point was that i think what pittsburgh is doing is silly. i think it would be really great to reopen a subway that is already there. it would be so cool. and so many clevelanders have no idea its there. my assumption is that it would be less expensive to reopen an existing tunnel than to build a new one. no?

 

I just typed a bunch of bullet points and lost it.  Before I respond can you please edit/clarify your post.  It's to confusing.

^Cyclovert, I think you're on the right track.  Several posters (including me) have discussed using the D-S subway to rise up for a surface LRT serving W.65... Gordon Square is growing stronger everyday and the streetscaping to narrow Detroit is moving along as well as the (Capital?) movie theatre inside Gordon Sq.  North of there, Battery Park, though still only partially developed, has already turned that Detroit-Shoreway section into the hottest/emerging Cleveland nabe.  I think the 'boulevarding' of the West Shoreway, at the moment, has more potential than the East, mainly b/c both the RR tracks and the current freeway version of the Shoreway are a barrier btw Battery Pk residents and Edgewater Park (though a ped tunnel is in BP's plans, I think... And w/ it a strong TOD possibility at Battery Park, and in between there and north Ohio City.

 

Then tell the tax payers and the government to pony up!  I'm so sick and tired of people saying its "Clevelands fault" or that "Cleveland is cheap". COMPLAIN TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!

 

AND if money is approved for a project, don't expect it to happen immediately!

 

 

...not exactly what i was saying. my point was that i think what pittsburgh is doing is silly. i think it would be really great to reopen a subway that is already there. it would be so cool. and so many clevelanders have no idea its there. my assumption is that it would be less expensive to reopen an existing tunnel than to build a new one. no?

 

I just typed a bunch of bullet points and lost it.  Before I respond can you please edit/clarify your post.  It's to confusing.

 

sorry about that. what i meant was that pittsburgh spending a zillion dollars to build a tunnel for their silly train seems totally useless and i see that project as their more expensive version of the waterfront line.  conversely, cleveland pursuing a light rail project on the west shoreway and reusing the lower-level tracks of the detroit superior bridge would be totally amazing.  it seems (in my imagination) a cheaper way of extending a light rail system than building a mile long tunnel to nowhere and most likely will be successful due to the ridership on the 'gold coast flyer.' this area already seems like TOD with the development on the coast.

 

 

i think one of the unfortunate things about the eastern half of the red line is that, aside from the stations east of cedar, most stations are a bit of a hike from where people live. i wonder if a boulevard along the north and south parts of the rapid tracks would make the stations at 79th and 105th more TOD friendly. maybe this doesn't have to be too ambitious, just roads within tight proximity to the tracks that follow their path like shaker boulevard.

i think one of the unfortunate things about the eastern half of the red line is that, aside from the stations east of cedar, most stations are a bit of a hike from where people live. i wonder if a boulevard along the north and south parts of the rapid tracks would make the stations at 79th and 105th more TOD friendly. maybe this doesn't have to be too ambitious, just roads within tight proximity to the tracks that follow their path like shaker boulevard.

At the time the train was built, people lived much closer to the train.  As the neighborhoods deteriorated, the stations saw less use.

Moreso, the Red Line was built next to freight railroad lines because it offered a "quick and cheap" way to build rapid transit. Lining the freight railroad lines were their customers -- numerous industries established in the 1800s when the rail lines were built. Those industrial buildings were obsolete by the 1960s and 70s and shuttered, eliminating a source of ridership for the Red Line. Today, those sites are heavily polluted -- there are 40+ EPA Superfund sites along the Red Line between East 55th and University Circle. Since there are no EPA funds to clean up those sites, a road was proposed to be built through them to do the defacto clean up instead.

 

Also, between 1955-1975, CTS depended much more heavily on busing people to the Rapid than relying on a walk-in trade like other heavy-rail lines around the nation. When the neighborhoods that were within a few miles of the Red Line declined, the bus transit feeders to the Red Line withered and with it, the ridership.

 

But it wasn't the neighborhoods right next to the Red Line between East 55th and University Circle that faded. There simply weren't very many neighborhoods there when the Red Line was built; the industries that were there at the time were on their last legs.

i think one of the unfortunate things about the eastern half of the red line is that, aside from the stations east of cedar, most stations are a bit of a hike from where people live. i wonder if a boulevard along the north and south parts of the rapid tracks would make the stations at 79th and 105th more TOD friendly. maybe this doesn't have to be too ambitious, just roads within tight proximity to the tracks that follow their path like shaker boulevard.

 

Understand your point, but unfortunately, that's flawed thinking.  Roadways aren't supposed to make development TOD, it's the transit itself (hence the name: transit-oriented development).

 

Also, the Red Line was built the way it was because the Van Sweringen brothers left the Red Line partially built when their empire collapsed in the Depression.  When Cleveland revived the idea, there was, I believe thought to putting the line in the middle of a freeway along Central ave that was never built.  I also believe the money for the initial Red Line, the completion of the Van project, was in the form of the loan from a federal agency who's name escapes me.  Bottom line is Cleveland had the Hobson's choice of build the current system or have nothing at all (aside from the Blue Green lines today which, chances are, would have probably withered died w/o the Red Line built).  Then, of course, Cleveland compounded the problem when Albert Porter lent his weight to defeating a loop subway downtown, which would have lead to a dual hub subway we, again, were unable to build in the 90s.

 

But like I said, roadways and cars shouldn't be looked at as saviors for what rail transit can't do for itself: that's a purely Cleveland approach; no place else... Btw, I think the Pittsburgh tunnel makes sense since they will probably use it as a springboard to build an 18-20 mile extension to their airport... and develop several TOD's along the way, including around the stadium (temporary) terminal that's currently going up.

I also believe the money for the initial Red Line, the completion of the Van project, was in the form of the loan from a federal agency who's name escapes me.

 

The Reconstruction Finance Corp. which was disbanded in 1953, but stopped making loans five years earlier. I believe the Cleveland Transit System Rapid transit was one of its last projects, which the RFC financed by purchasing City of Cleveland bonds (the CTS was a municipally owned transit agency - I know you know that clvlndr. That was for the benefit of others who are new to the issue).

 

But like I said, roadways and cars shouldn't be looked at as saviors for what rail transit can't do for itself: that's a purely Cleveland approach; no place else...

 

How many Chicago rail lines were built when Chicago built its expressways? Three? Consider the following from....

 

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/440.html

 

Urban expressways provided greater challenges. A West Side superhighway, heir to the Plan of Chicago's vision of a Congress Street arterial axis, had been tied to transit improvements with the creation in 1939 of the city's Department of Subways and Superhighways.

 

Other cities followed suit, including San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles and Baltimore. I'm not saying I favor this approach. I am saying that it is a practice intended to "improve cities" and is not unique to Cleveland.

OK KJP, you got me...

 

there is one (1) rapid transit line in the entire country that does parallel what Cleveland's trying to do: that is, relocate an existing/working rapid line into a highway median; and only 1 of the 3 aforementioned Chicago L routes you mentioned: the Eisenhower Expressway (Blue) Line.  Note: the other 2 L expressway lines aren't comparable: the Blue Line to O'Hare was an extension from a NW terminal (Logan Square) thru a subway to the new expressway; the existing old Chicago Metropolitan West Side Elevated (the Met) to Logan Sq remained in tact.  Also, the Dan Ryan was not a relocation either; it was a brand new line paralleling the old (original) South Side Elevated (now Green Line) route -- Dan Ryan acts as an express line w/ fewer stops and extends beyond the ends of the Green line; Dan Ryan didn't replace the Green line, either...

 

But in the 50s, the newish CTA did relocate its worn out Garfield Park L into the new Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway.  Note, however, even this isn't exactly parallel to RTA/Opportunity Corridor, because according to the map here at L.org's excellent, though oft grammatically challenged website: 

 

http://www.chicago-l.org/maps/route/maps/1898met-map.jpg

 

... it shows that (and there are old photos on at L.org) the Garfield L rode mostly at street level clogging streets, slowing trains and exposing kids to the dangerous "hot" L 3rd rail.  So this relocation actually helped a poorly built, slow L line.  Not so in RTA's case.

 

Also, the point you miss is that rapid transit, in freeway medians, in cities still generally is not an ideal mix as the 2 transportation modes attract types of development that are diametrically opposed to one another: high-density, pedestrian oriented vs. low-density car/sprawl oriented.  Chicago mainly did it because the city is highly built out, there were no other adequate right of ways for their trains and CTA was extending/creating regional suburban-oriented routes (the Blue Line to O'Hare is about 20 miles long) where, unlike most L routes, commuters would drive and park at the extended lines as opposed to walking or busing to trains as they do for the bulk of CTA (which has very few parking spaces on the whole). 

 

So in the end, I still say Cleveland's thinking is still badly misguided and, will ultimately, serve autos and hurt the Red Line rather than the latter. (btw: SF's BART and Balto's Owings Mills METRO extension, are exactly the suburban regional lines I'm talking about.... Red Line's East Cleveland route, only 7.8 miles, fails to meet that paradigm.

Wait, who's trying to relocate the Red Line to the middle of a highway?  Can you explain that part to me, clvndr?

Wait, who's trying to relocate the Red Line to the middle of a highway?  Can you explain that part to me, clvndr?

 

I think he's talking about the Opportunity corridor  :roll: :roll: :roll:.

wow- thanks for the history lesson, KJP and clvlndr. you're great!

 

have you read this book 'life between buildings' by jan ghel? some of it really left an impression on me. its deals roughly with the way in which people interact with their surroundings and how the move through spaces and urban environments. one example forms in the grass of campuses from foot commuters finding a shorter route from one place to another and the planned walkway becomes obsolete. anyway, with this in mind and knowing the circumstances of the red line's creation and its current troubles,  today it feels really inaccessible between E 55th and 105th.  i started thinking that if its route was also an arterial path for more than just freight trains and itself, that it might be a step in a good direction. please, no highway.

 

i'll bet there are some ideas for a revival better than mine.

 

 

Now that Amtrak is eye-balling the Puritas-W. 150 Rapid station as its Cleveland suburban station for 3-C's, I think it's really time to press for TOD in this area -- RTA, admirably, has plans for TOD, including a hotel, at Brookpark, but apparently the developer's financing collapsed (or something like that) so this project is on hold.  Originally, I had pitched the idea for 3-C's trains stopping at Brookpark for the Amtrak passenger transfer to the Red Line for the short (3-min) ride into Hopkins Airport...

 

Well, Puritas is a little farther away, but still has many of the same advantages.  I'm guessing Amtrak and/or AAO decided on Puritas because it has more TOD elements already in place, along with better access from both I-71 and 480.  Even though Puritas is not very friendly to pedestrians from nearby accessing the Red Line, there is nearby: 3 hotels, the NCB processing (?) center, a few other small businesses and low-density, mainly bungalow houses (w/ a few duplexes and a small apt or 2, if I recall).  Also, the I-71 exit ramp feeds right into the Rapid parking area.

 

As flimsy a TOD as Puritas currently is, Brookpark has none of this; has much less current potential than Puritas, despite the sprawling Ford Plant across the street.  With with a dual-Amtrak-Red Line station, Puritas could truly be a high-density TOD regional transportation center...

 

... it would be nice if we could get Mayor Laid Back on board since, to-date, his big initiatives have been geared towards big-box shopping w/in City limits or the Opportunity Corridor (road/freeway extension)... Jackson has given some verbal support for trying to jumpstart Wolstein's Flats East Bank project, which would clearly be a Waterfront Line TOD, but...

Carried  over from the general RTA thread...

 

Our goals may not be as easily obtainable as we'd like, but failing to pursue them locks us into a fate that nobody wants.  True leadership stands against outside forces and seeks the best possible chance to beat those odds.  It drives me crazy when people describe market forces like some angry thunder-god, against which we can only cower and beg.  Market forces are simply an amalgamation of human decisions... and it's time for us to start making courageous, disciplined, forward-thinking decisions around here.   

 

I agree with you to an extent- I am certainly a strong proponent of the form based zoning along Euclid in Midtown and wished it were extended to Fairfax as well.  The drug store at 79th drives me up the wall.  But I feel this way about Euclid because I think there is actually some demand for that land and that stuff will get built.  I know it wasn't popular, but I think siting a major employer- the new mental hospital- on the corridor actually did show some leadership.

 

But getting back to E116 and Shaker Blvd- I'm not against "leadership"- I just think it's nuts to blame a lack of it for the absence of high density TOD there.  How much high density residential or multistory commercial/office has been built anywhere in the City outside of the downtown to University Circle corridor in the last 10 years?  How many people with incomes necessary to finance new multifam housing want to live in the Buckeye neighborhood or will want to anytime soon?  [Most households in the census tracts on the east side of E116 north and south of Shaker Blvd earned less than $25k in 2000].  How many UO folks would put their life savings in a condo there?  It's not a terrible area, but there is a lot of well priced competition our there.

 

Which leaves us with publicly financed/subsidized projects, where the government actually has a greater say in site selection and design.  Which of these should be built near transit?  There is definitely opportunity here for some leadership to try to build consensus among the many interested parties to focus project in transit-accessible neighborhoods.  But this means other parts of the city lose out.  How do you think Colinwood would react if the city required all subsidized high density senior housing, for example, be built within 1/2 mile of a rapid station?

 

Let's also think about UARD at University Circle- even here, even during the recent housing boom, already vacant land, tons of money and planning energy ("leadership" even) have not yet born fruit.  That's not a criticism- I love that project- but an acknowledgment that a leadership vacuum is not the main constraint here.

 

So yes, "leadership" is good and necessary, but no, I don't think that's the main problem with E116th and Shaker Blvd.  And my guess is that neighbors there are happier with a SS office and a nice new school than they would be with empty lots for 10, 20 (who knows) years.

Thank you for that post, Strap. As much as I wish we could, no one can "will" the market into acting anymore than we can control the weather. We can certainly influence it, but it happens in very small increments. Even a relatively small market like Cleveland's has a myriad of financial players, external factors and consumers that a few big investors cannot change things by themselves, nor will they if they cannot make a buck. It takes patience and persistence.

Center for Neighborhood Technology study urges Cleveland to rebuild around transit lines, port

Published: Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 5:30 AM

  By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The City of Cleveland has suffered from a half century of population loss and suburban sprawl, and most recently, from the after-effects of sub-prime lending.

 

But it can help itself recover if it focuses new development around core assets - especially mass transit and its lakefront port.

 

So says a new report released Monday by the non-profit Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago, a 33-year-old think tank devoted to sustainable urban development.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2011/05/center_for_neighborhood_techno.html

^ Very interesting... of course, nothing new to the people on UrbanOhio  :roll:

"To a large extent, the report echoes existing policies of the City of Cleveland"

 

No... which is why the report advises changing to the zoning code to allow for more multi-famly development.  Recall what just happened in University Circle.  Density requires a variance around here.  Our exsting policies obstruct and prevent TOD.

 

"Schipper said the report supported the logic behind the $200 million bus rapid transit line installed by RTA along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to East Cleveland in 2008."

 

'“Euclid Corridor is a prime example of transit-oriented development,” said Robert Brown, the city’s planning director.'

 

No... what's getting built there involves a lot of surface parking and practically zero mixed-use.  This is because it's zoned for commercial/industrial, and because the city and CDC have actvely sought out non-mixed-use developments for that area.  If they meant for the HealthLine to be nothing more than a commuter service for large employers then they built too many stops for it. 

 

Sorry.  There is no way that a report calling for change is also a report suggesting we maintain the status quo and continue down the exact same path we've been on.

sorry, but you really don't understand zoning.

Has Shaker and Lee been looked at for TOD? Both corners north of Shaker have grassy real estate. I do see that the NE corner is some kind of nature/historical park, and that the NW quadrant has some electrical switches, or something, back behind that wall. But this intersection is not only on the Rapid, it's bus-accessible to both Cedar-Lee and Lee-Warrensville. Just wondering if that had ever been discussed by anyone with any tools to make it happen?

Has Shaker and Lee been looked at for TOD? Both corners north of Shaker have grassy real estate. I do see that the NE corner is some kind of nature/historical park, and that the NW quadrant has some electrical switches, or something, back behind that wall. But this intersection is not only on the Rapid, it's bus-accessible to both Cedar-Lee and Lee-Warrensville. Just wondering if that had ever been discussed by anyone with any tools to make it happen?

 

Not that I'm aware. The only area along Shaker that has been proposed to have TOD-type development is on the east side of Warrensville, between the east/westbound lanes of Shaker.

'“Euclid Corridor is a prime example of transit-oriented development,” said Robert Brown, the city’s planning director.'[/i]

 

No... what's getting built there involves a lot of surface parking and practically zero mixed-use.

 

Practically zero if you ignore developments like 668, Uptown, Schofield, etc.  And for every 'surface lot' there are no less than two great 'single-use' (is that the term?) project like MOCA, CMA and PHS renovations, CSU construction, apartment/condo renovations like University Lofts, Coltman, Circle 118, the Park Building, the Casino Phase I, UH construction, UC Hotels, CIA addition, Cle Hearing and Speech Center, CCF heart center and main entrance, CIM addition, Park Lane Villa, and probably many more I can't think of off the top of my head.

 

 

This is because it's zoned for commercial/industrial, and because the city and CDC have actvely sought out non-mixed-use developments for that area.  [/b]

 

The City has 'sought out' all kinds of developments for the Corridor.  All kinds of developments have ensued (see above).  If you are restricting your comment to the area between the innerbelt and CCF, I keep telling you all you have to do is either secure a loan or buddy-up with some multi-billionare and the City will roll out the red carpet for you to create your 2 mile strip of urban utopia.  It won't turn down any proposals to create the 100 feet of vibrancy on each side of Euclid you seek.

HTs121, most of what you're listing had nothing to do with the transit system and was planned before construction on it had even started, let alone finished.  Seriously, if the downtown casino is TOD then I'm an aardvark.  They aren't planning it around the rail hub it sits upon, let alone the HealthLine out front. 

 

Apart from having their own anchors and drawing power, Downtown and Uptown were already connected via rail... so it's hard to attribute new developments in ether area to an upgraded #6 bus.  Yes, I think the middle section of Euclid is a better barometer of the HealthLine's TOD effectiveness.  It's the control group, if you will.

Then give it some time.  Don't be a backseat driver criticizing the officials who spend countless hours actually trying to make this City better, not just banging away at their keyboards with zero consideration or understanding for the realities of turning an intersection like Euclid and 55th into mid-town Manhattan.

I'm not criticizing the results, I'm criticizing the specific actions they've taken and not taken.  Is that not fair game for public officals?  If not I don't know what is.  Seems like the heart of the matter, really.  Even more specifically, I'm criticizing responses to a report calling for policy changes which seem to claim that no changes are needed.  They act like they're two steps ahead of the report's conclusions when it seems more like those conclusions are being dismissed.

What actions have they not taken for which you think your constant barrage of criticism and belittling is deserved?  Try to keep in mind that you only see the end result, perhaps option C.... after A and B have already been dilignetly pursued and ruled out.  Have you ever sat on a governing body or commission?

Have you ever sat on a governing body or commission?

 

Have you ever worked on Wall Street?  Well then who are you to judge their actions.  Ever played pro football?  That's what I thought.  And here you're suggesting that public officials are entitled to degree of deference that nobody even expects for private-sector athletes and investment bankers.  You rail against Kasich and his policy choices all the time, but I don't recall you ever being governor.  I'm sure it's tough being governor, cut the dude some slack.

 

Why don't we stop evaluating each other's unseen resumes and stick to discussing urban development.  The current discussion in this thread involves a report that suggested policy changes which I generally support.  What's your opinion? 

I only ask because your understanding of how these bodies operate, and more importantly how they CAN operate, seems more than a bit off.

 

And you didn't answer the first question.... I assume because you don't know..... not that the information could not be made available to you if you did want to find out.