I have the same exact opinion of those condos, ccars.

 

I don't quite understand what differentiates Crocker/Wendys bricks from Little Italy bricks.  Are we saying the new "old" stuff falls short on detail, compared with the actual old stuff?  I would agree with that.  And there is something to be said for doing the old style right or sparing it the parody treatment. 

 

And I'm trying to avoid stoking the classic old vs new debate that belongs in another thread.  But I'm very disappointed in this station design, because given the context it's just obnoxious.  It's straining to be different for no good reason.  We're talking about a neighborhood that's so serious about its character it won't tolerate anything being higher than the main church steeple.  I find that a little on the quirky side, but their heart is in the right place. 

 

Little Italy is popular because very few places in Cleveland still look like that, when so many once did.  Why must we bookend it with Star Wars playsets?  Bringing it back around to general TOD Discussion, why not do the modern treatment somewhere like 79th between the trains?  There's a clean slate to work with, almost.  Although maybe there's enough left there I might still want to do it old-school.  But what about Randall Park Mall, after it's leveled and the blue line is extended.  That's a clean slate area needing to shoot for the moon.  Brook Park Road, right by NASA!  Modern architecture couldn't be any more appropriate for TOD at that station. 

 

Anywhere but Mayfield, basically.                 

It's just crazy, imo. 

There is no reason to replicate and disrespect past architecture with illegitimate, "historic" design.  If design should be anything, it should at least be truthful to the viewer.

Throwing crocker park type buildings all over the place would be a wasted opportunity.

 

??????????

 

Just build the dang thing to blend in with the surroundings.  I was listening to Frank DeFord discussing how some "planners/design" students were disappointed that the new Yankee Stadium went for the nostalgic feel, as opposed to something out of Star Wars.  I think the same argument is trying to be made here, and shows a total lack of understanding for people's respect for tradition and character.  Please, save these futuristic/"progressive" designs for somewhere that has no character to build on. :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:

Or, look at it this way:  The modern style deserves a chance to thrive on its own, somewhere it can make up a whole environment.  Shoehorning it into intact historical districts doesn't do justice to either style.

 

Though it would be far from ideal, I would rather have a station there identical to the new one at W117th.  Bricks is bricks.  It would fit much better than the proposed design, in my view.

^Lame.

Even Europeans, with their centuries old city centers, have the guts to pepper in a few contemporary buildings onto their urban fabric.  This is one building that sits at the boundary of 2 hopefully future integrated neighborhoods. 

Interesting that the Old World always wants to be new, and the New World always wants to be old.  Puritan conservatism I suppose.

Puritanical conservatism?  Maybe.  I'm not sure what it is.  I can't imagine any European city bulldozing quite as much as we have.  Most of them have multiple historic areas left intact, even if there are a few modern buildings here and there.  I see Cleveland as being different.  We have very few links to our past remaining.  I guess it's a matter of proportion.

Interesting that the Old World always wants to be new, and the New World always wants to be old.  Puritan conservatism I suppose.

 

This is a very misplaced analysis.  We're not exactly talking about the Scarlet Letter.  We're talking about a style of design that some people, such as yourself, call "contemporary," and others, like myself, call "hideous." 

 

Please, leave the "contemporary buildings" for Erieview or in the classroom.  A lot of us want no part of them.

you guys do realize that architecture is subjective and different people like different things, right?... my guess is you have polar opposite view points are probably aren't going to agree on this one...

Yes.  We will agree to disagree.  But if I see a big glassy looking futuristic construction (or a freaking Breur-type thing) being put on Mayfield, I will bring my bayonet and defend la patria with honour, courage, and dignity.

 

 

 

http://escienz.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/normal_don-juan-de-marco-promo-005-copy.jpg

Puritanical conservatism?  Maybe.  I'm not sure what it is.  I can't imagine any European city bulldozing quite as much as we have.  Most of them have multiple historic areas left intact, even if there are a few modern buildings here and there.  I see Cleveland as being different.  We have very few links to our past remaining.  I guess it's a matter of proportion.

 

What great "historic" building is being demolished for the station?  I agree that we as a society don't value the existing urban fabric of this country, and that we should do everything we can to redensify our fair city while respecting what exists, but pigeonholing yourself into a realm of individual building design that is predetermined is just plain boring.

Palijandro, thank you for proving my point with that previous comment. 

"BURN CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE AT THE STAKE!"

Agree to disagree...

Obviously there's no demo involved here and the debate is largely aesthetic/unwinnable.  I have several non-subjective concerns about contemporary architecture and I admit I'm generally against it.  I've listed those concerns in a more theoretical thread, whose title escapes me right now. 

 

One concern that I would add, especially in this context, is that many contemporary structures I've seen have aged very poorly-- and I'm not talking about aesthetics.  I'm talking about rust trails and chipping concrete expanses and peeling plastic panels.  Not knowing much about how architecture is done, I can't determine if these are simply risks of experimentation, or if they're oopsies that no competent contemporary architect would allow. 

 

But gosh they're everywhere, these oopsies.  I can't count the number of modern buildings I've seen crying orange tears out of a chip in a giant concrete windowless wall.  It's depressing.  And when we're talking about RTA (which we are), we need to look at how the shiny modern health-line accoutrements have held up over 2 years:  very very poorly.  There's rust everywhere, and someone forgot to account for our climate when they decided to get cute with the "walls."  That last concern comes to mind when I look at the rendering for this station.  Couldn't it be a little more buildingy, rather than sky-deckish?

So the stairway is part of the over grown bridge on 117? 

 

You would think that would be easy to make ADA compliment and it is kind of a good location.  Give me some plywood and nails and I'll have that station ready in a week.

So the stairway is part of the over grown bridge on 117?

 

The bridge was for a siding track that went into Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Branch Assembly Plant that is the Cleveland Institute of Art today.

One concern that I would add, especially in this context, is that many contemporary structures I've seen have aged very poorly-- and I'm not talking about aesthetics.  I'm talking about rust trails and chipping concrete expanses and peeling plastic panels.  Not knowing much about how architecture is done, I can't determine if these are simply risks of experimentation, or if they're oopsies that no competent contemporary architect would allow. 

 

Pretty much all buildings show their age if not properly maintained.  And the choice isn't between 1920s craftsmanship and contemporary craftsmanship; among other things, we're talking about whether or not to staple on brick veneers to a structure that will be thoroughly modern underneath its skin no matter what.

 

Anyhoo, something to keep in mind: this rapid station is at the downhill edge of Little Italy...above a railroad overpass, across the street from a retaining wall; even for the haters, I really don't think a contemporary design will compete much with the ambiance of neighborhood.

At risk of going totally off topic I'll keep this short.

As with anything else there are good and bad examples of new, traditional and contemporary, structures.

The one variable that exists between the two is the quality of the materials that the owner buys (whether it's brick, glass, metal panels, stone, etc), and the craftsmanship and skill level of the construction workers that build the buildings.

Neither seem to be up to the level that was typical of buildings built in the past and both suffer for it.  Cost concerns and value engineering seem to be much bigger parts of the construction industry today because there are so many substitutes for legitimate materials such as stone and brick.  Stonebridge Apartments for example, has thin brick as the facade treatment.  In the past, this material didn't exist and wasn't an option for the cost concerned owner.  Now, the facade is visibly falling apart at the bottom and is sometimes sited as an example of poor contemporary design at no fault of the architect (not that I necessarily enjoy the design).  In the past, quality of construction really wasn't an option because what was available was robust natural materials that weather beautifully.  It was the cost of doing business. 

Formally, most older structures are uninteresting, but their quality materials and finely detailed and constructed features make them the structures we admire today.

If this craftsmanship and quality of materials existed today, and adding in the technological advances that have been made in the structural systems over the past 60 years, I think a lot of people would have different opinions on today's more progressive architecture, that admittedly is often not up to the construction standards of the past.

We pretty much have to accept this station design no matter what we think.  Even in the 1920s and prior, attractive brick building fronts were acknowledged to be "facades."  So even though the guts have changed, I'm still not clear on why bricks are suddenly more fake than plastic.  That concept isn't working for me at all.  What am I missing? 

 

And I would respectfully disagree about age showing equally.  I do have some expertise in modern material properties.  Brick and stone respond better to the elements than rebar and plastic do.  Few brick/stone buildings need serious rustoleum help a couple decades (or years) after being built.  I used to make plastic products for long-term outdoor use, and it's tricky because there's almost no way to prevent discoloration or adhesive failure.  So our pitch was "but it's cheaper!" and our thought process was "so they can keep buying more."

 

Edit:  W28th, our posts are crossing in the mail.  Are you saying that no actual brick is used today anywhere?  All of it is thin veneer?  I'm open to the fact that that could be true, but standing on a giant rock it seems like that'd be the last thing we could run out of.

 

And I view all of this as on-topic since we're still talking about a TOD project.  I could be very wrong about that, and I'm open to that possibility as well.

The same can be said about poorly made brick.  White efflourescence on a building that is a year or 2 old is hardly a fine quality of brick built structures.  Cracks in brick that hasn't been built with the proper control and expansion joints is just about the most unsightly thing possible. 

Also, I don't think many people build with plastic other than vinyl siding (which is obviously garge), so I'm not sure of the relationship with contemporary architecture.

Plastic is a fairly broad term... I could spend a good while listing off trade names that more or less fit under the "plastic" heading.  In general I'm talking about synthetic materials.  When those are made, there is a tendency to maximize out-of-the-box performance and let post-purchase deterioration issues kinda slide.  We are a society that lives for today.

 

Consistency?  Check.  Weight?  Check.  Insulation?  Check.  Color choices?  Check check check!  Lasting beauty?  Ummm... have you seen our line of pastels? 

This is TOD related, but you two are starting to converse with each other. In other words, "get a room" in PM-land. ;-)

I don't think the problem with the design is so much the style as the scale.  It seems to me like it would "clobber" the feel of the neighborhood.  Not in the way a 90 story skyscraper would, but it just feels like too much to me.  I wouldn't have a problem with the same style of architecture, but a much smaller footprint (like no grassy bridge over a bridge, a small station will stairs leading to it from under the bridge and a ramp off of E. 119th St.).

^I can get with that statement.  While I'm not necessarily a fan of the aesthetics I applaud RTA's vision in terms of creating an open slate on which to build upon, both in terms of architecture and thinking in the realm of neighborhood interaction.  In other words, a transit station is never JUST a transit station.  It's a communally interactive piece of urban equipment.

Earlier today I was wondering "how do we measure if land uses are being successfully designed as a Transit Oriented Development?" Perhaps someone has done a scorecard to measure the effectiveness?

 

Google provided me with this worthwhile document....

 

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/TOD_Checklist-oct06(1).pdf

the 120th street station always gave me such a sad feeling. i think moving that station to a busier place and getting some human-scaled projects on the western side of the mayfield bridge will only have a positive effect...

 

conversely, wtf is that blue bit that's being erected on 118th? the images look like the kind of thing someone in the 90s thought looked 'funky.' i thought it was just generally understood that nobody could do terrible things to euclid avenue anymore.

 

i guess they're 'townhouses.' does that count as TOD?

 

 

wtf is that blue bit that's being erected on 118th? the images look like the kind of thing someone in the 90s thought looked 'funky.' i thought it was just generally understood that nobody could do terrible things to euclid avenue anymore.

 

i guess they're 'townhouses.' does that count as TOD?

 

I'm with you.  These aren't as bad as some others we've seen, but they're hardly anything a less deprived city would be excited about.  This kind of thing appears so dated precisely because of its effort to look modern.  Is there an ironic component to the aesthetic that us fogies are missing?  I've started judging new local architecture on a "well, it is Cleveland" scale because the stuff we tend to get is so infested with Zeerust.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Zeerust

 

 

 

^Someone needs to post some photos of those townhouses.  The renderings were certainly a little worrisome, but I hoped the physical manifestations would be a little more muted.

One example of how NOT to do TOD is around the E.116 Blue/Green (grade separated) rapid transit station.  Within the last 5 years, there's been built there: a sprawling bunch of mainly wood frame, single family, suburban style homes (the failing St. Luke's Pointe), a couple small, 1-story office and medical buildings and a rebuilt gas station mini mart.... Could the would be TOD planner kindly hop the Rapid 1-stop eastbound to Shaker Square to see how TOD is REALLY done?  Done 80 years ago, yes, ... but done right!

I never understood that St. Luke's Point idea... or any of the single family woodframes they keep putting up around here.  It sure as hell ain't TOD, since its only claim to "density" is having smaller yards than the burbs, so when it's done next to a rapid stop it's that much more infuriating.  What's the appeal?  Why do people keep building those?  Here's our move-back-to-the-city pitch:  "What you need is the same type of house, but with a smaller yard than you already have.  Nothing more urban than that.  We'll be waiting.  Just give us a call."

 

Conventional Cleveland Development Wisdom: "well, something is better than nothing."

 

Worldview: "Great cities are the product of thoughtful planning, patience, perseverance and development discipline" (translated for Americans: "Stupid is as stupid does").

I never understood that St. Luke's Point idea... or any of the single family woodframes they keep putting up around here. It sure as hell ain't TOD, since its only claim to "density" is having smaller yards than the burbs, so when it's done next to a rapid stop it's that much more infuriating. What's the appeal? Why do people keep building those? Here's our move-back-to-the-city pitch: "What you need is the same type of house, but with a smaller yard than you already have. Nothing more urban than that. We'll be waiting. Just give us a call."

 

 

Oh yeah, and I forgot the relocated Harvey Rice ES rising on forlorn/closed St. Luke's east campus...It's a shame, too,  because if ever an area was ripe for TOD revitalization (w/ potential to spill over to struggling Buckeye to the south), w/ plenty of developable land surrounding a high-frequency, high capacity transit line, it is E.116 & Shaker...

 

Happy will be the day when Greater Cleveland finally 'get's it', finally appreciates the development potential of its rail system and not constantly have such a car-first mentality towards every friggin' development.  If ever there was a poster city for unrealized potential TOD, it's Cleveland. 

^ We live in a world that has bulldozers.  We can fix this.

This is also a nation that respects the individual's privacy more than the community's well-being.

And this is also a nation that overwhelmingly prefers driving cars and owning single family homes.

 

I never understood that St. Luke's Point idea... or any of the single family woodframes they keep putting up around here. It sure as hell ain't TOD, since its only claim to "density" is having smaller yards than the burbs, so when it's done next to a rapid stop it's that much more infuriating. What's the appeal? Why do people keep building those? Here's our move-back-to-the-city pitch: "What you need is the same type of house, but with a smaller yard than you already have. Nothing more urban than that. We'll be waiting. Just give us a call."

 

 

It's not hard to understand.  A vast majority of Americans who can afford not to live in multifamily housing strongly prefer not to.  Eve in NYC, the price per square foot for townhouses is significantly higher than for apartments.  We can bitch all we want, but the only way you're going to get higher density than small lot single family housing in depressed parts of the City (meaning almost every part of the city) is if it's heavily subsidized, like the stuff proposed for Euclid Ave.

 

There is pretty much zero market premium for transit accessibility in Cleveland.

So it's wrong to subsidize transit and density as much as we subsidize driving and single-occupant housing in sprawling suburbs? Let's eliminate government and see what happens. Only then would we know what people want WHEN THEY HAVE TO PAY THE FULL COSTS OF IT.

^Nope, not wrong at all.  I should have prefaced my comment with, "Given current conditions."  Though I am actually pretty skeptical that making gasoline more expensive is going to do much to change development patterns in Cleveland.  I think people will just buy more fuel efficient cars and continue happily driving long distances.  There is so, so little congestion and parking, even downtown, is so, so plentiful.

Strap I think you're right but I think change is achievable.  Why would there be a market premium for transit accessibility when the transit system has so many holes in it, and it takes you to a downtown that has no major retail?  If we offer TRUE urban living, all of it, it won't be that hard to sell.  We just refuse to do that, and the market has spoken on that approach. 

 

People aren't willing to put up with the urban negatives, which Cleveland has a lot of, when those negatives aren't offset by urban positives like being able to take transit to a place that offers competitive retail.  TOD presumes a transit system that can take you somewhere relevant to your daily life, not just to downtown parties that have to end by 1230 or you can't get home.  TOD also presumes that its residents will have a reasonable shot at going car-free.  Until we can offer that, we don't have a functional city to sell, and we look naieve by pretending we do.

 

If market forces are against you, it's not the market's fault.  It's your product's fault.  Your product has to match the market... you can't wait around expecting the market to eventually validate a product that's not competitive.  That will never happen.

 

If you build it, they will come.  If you don't build it, don't ask why they aren't coming.

^I agree with some of that.  Frankly, there is very little high quality dense neighborhood product in Cleveland at the moment that has good transit connectivity.  Shaker Square is pretty much it, though downtown and Ohio City are arguably in there too (but on the edge, IMHO for various reasons).  Which is why I think UARD and the Mayfield RTA station relocation are so crucial...they're kind of pilot projects to see what happens if you actually have good transit choices, retail, restaurants, employers and high quality residences, new and old, all in close proximity.  Fingers crossed.

My fingers are crossed too.  I fear that returns may be limited until that kind of development takes place at the transit system's hub, instead of along its spokes.  My global theory remains that Cleveland was designed to function a certain way, with downtown and the transit system and the neighborhoods each playing defined roles and filling defined needs.  Either those entities continue filling those needs or the whole thing is dysfunctional, which means the coolest bar/restaurant scene on the planet cannot save it.  That is the essence of TOD.  The transit, as well as the downtown it all goes to, must be fully operative.  Then you have something to sell.

^I agree with some of that.  Frankly, there is very little high quality dense neighborhood product in Cleveland at the moment that has good transit connectivity.  Shaker Square is pretty much it, though downtown and Ohio City are arguably in there too (but on the edge, IMHO for various reasons).  Which is why I think UARD and the Mayfield RTA station relocation are so crucial...they're kind of pilot projects to see what happens if you actually have good transit choices, retail, restaurants, employers and high quality residences, new and old, all in close proximity.  Fingers crossed.

 

I'd count Ohio City.  Even though the immediate area around the station is somewhat forlorn, it's only one block to the core of (downtown) of Ohio City; New York subways often don't do much better than that... I think the Wolstein's Flats East Bank project will be TOD... that is, if RTA hasn't killed off the Waterfront Line by the time it's built...

 

Also, since Eaton's building in Chagrin Highlands, see:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17327.300.html

 

there could be TOD potential if RTA acted to extend the Blue Line from it's new terminal in Northfield after Shaker Hts extends it a couple thousand feet in the next few years, and... oh, silly me.  I forgot, RTA's gen. mgr; you know the guy, the one who's killed, fought and/or badmouthed every rail expansion proposal (including Amtrak's 3-Cs) since he's been in office ... right now, he's preoccupied lending his support by sitting on the steering board helping plan the new urban freeway (aka the "opportunity corridor")... so RTA, I'm sure isn't interested.  Our transit chief probably should be more interested in freeway building/expansion as opposed to, ... er, transit, ... right?

there could be TOD potential if RTA acted to extend the Blue Line from it's new terminal in Northfield after Shaker Hts extends it a couple thousand feet in the next few years, and... oh, silly me. I forgot, RTA's gen. mgr; you know the guy, the one who's killed, fought and/or badmouthed every rail expansion proposal (including Amtrak's 3-Cs) since he's been in office ... right now, he's preoccupied lending his support by sitting on the steering board helping plan the new urban freeway (aka the "opportunity corridor")... so RTA, I'm sure isn't interested. Our transit chief probably should be more interested in freeway building/expansion as opposed to, ... er, transit, ... right?

I don't think it's fair to criticize him for sitting on the steering board for the OC. In fact I think its completely appropriate that our transit cheif be involved in transportation decisions not directly related to transit so that he can fight for better transit access to the area, and make sure that RTA isn't ignored in the planning process for the new road. I think that being involved in planning a new highway is a poor reason to criticize the man, especially since there are so many better reasons to be dissatisfied with him.

there could be TOD potential if RTA acted to extend the Blue Line from it's new terminal in Northfield after Shaker Hts extends it a couple thousand feet in the next few years, and... oh, silly me.  I forgot, RTA's gen. mgr; you know the guy, the one who's killed, fought and/or badmouthed every rail expansion proposal (including Amtrak's 3-Cs) since he's been in office ... right now, he's preoccupied lending his support by sitting on the steering board helping plan the new urban freeway (aka the "opportunity corridor")... so RTA, I'm sure isn't interested.  Our transit chief probably should be more interested in freeway building/expansion as opposed to, ... er, transit, ... right?

I don't think it's fair to criticize him for sitting on the steering board for the OC. In fact I think its completely appropriate that our transit cheif be involved in transportation decisions not directly related to transit so that he can fight for better transit access to the area, and make sure that RTA isn't ignored in the planning process for the new road. I think that being involved in planning a new highway is a poor reason to criticize the man, especially since there are so many better reasons to be dissatisfied with him.

 

I haven't attended any of the OC meetings, but from some of the public NOACA meetings, I'd say Joe C. is pretty critical of the ODOT and NOACA highway focus, and has spoken up in favor of projects and priorities that are good for transit in the region.  I'd also say he is realistic though, and that at least within the NOACA region and with the current funding environment, unveiling huge expansion plans isn't very practical - he seems to be fighting to keep the system at least at the current level, which isn't a given.

 

i also think that having a seat at the table is better than refusing to be involved because the project doesn't necessarily on its face help transit. 

remember.  keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

I think thats what a seat on this board equates to.

Also, since Eaton's building in Chagrin Highlands,

there could be TOD potential if RTA acted to extend the Blue Line from it's new terminal in Northfield after Shaker Hts extends it a couple thousand feet in the next few years, and...

 

There is not, and will never be, anything transit-oriented about Chagrin Highlands.  I hate to make negative predictions but in this case I'm fairly confident.

I agree, I don't see the sense in extending into a bunch of auto centric developed office parks and strip centers.

There is not, and will never be, anything transit-oriented about Chagrin Highlands.   I hate to make negative predictions but in this case I'm fairly confident.

 

I don't know if the Jacobs Group is still the lead developer on the Chagrin Highlands, but when the Blue Line was proposed to be extended to that area, the Jacobs Group was contacted to see if they were interested in pursuing Chagrin Highlands as a TOD. They weren't, so RTA didn't see much point to extend the Blue Line to it.

There is not, and will never be, anything transit-oriented about Chagrin Highlands.   I hate to make negative predictions but in this case I'm fairly confident.

 

I don't know if the Jacobs Group is still the lead developer on the Chagrin Highlands, but when the Blue Line was proposed to be extended to that area, the Jacobs Group was contacted to see if they were interested in pursuing Chagrin Highlands as a TOD. They weren't, so RTA didn't see much point to extend the Blue Line to it.

 

That seems a pretty lame excuse.  Why can't transit influence future development out there?  CH is far from being built out, even figuring a built Eaton "campus", there's plenty of growth room; there isn't any apts or high-density residential development of any kind yet, so why can't the Blue Line influence it?  And what about all the students traveling back 'n forth from Cleveland and Tri-C East?  The Blue line would stop at Tri-C East's door... And we still have the I-271 exit right there at Harvard to funnel downtown, Shaker Hts/Shaker Square and airport travelers right into a rapid transit parking garage...

 

Meanwhile, Shaker Heights is throwing its weight behind the project to finally reconfigure the Van Aken/Warrensville intersection and develop TOD... and extend the Blue Line-- with RTA, as usual, not taking a proactive lead but instead just being along for the ride. ... I have hoped for years (and written the Mayor's and CPC offices) that Cleveland would take the lead in developing TOD, esp in our depressed econ climate, while effectively utilizing a community asset: the Rapid (at least, I think it is anyway).

 

Baltimore has it's Hunt Valley LRT extended to a suburban office, commercial retail development that's even more sprawling, and less appealing than Beachwood/CH.  Seems like with transit, and other positive urban initiatives: while other cities find ways to make them work, here in Cleveland we come up with lame excuses to justify doing nothing. 

Good points, especially about adding transit to help low-income Clevelanders save money to spend on the local economy. Historically, when transportation investments reduce the cost of travel/shipping, economic growth results. See the bold text from the USDOT Secretary Ray Lahood's blog....

 

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/06/public-transportation-delivers-public-benefits.html

 

June 02, 2009

Public transportation delivers public benefits

 

President Obama was elected to harness a national will to do things better.  One thing I think Americans would like to see improved is how transportation serves the communities in which they live.

 

We love our cars, but sometimes there can be a better way to get to work or to the beach, or simply to the drug store.  And providing Americans with those choices can also be good for the economy.

 

In fact, each 1% of regional travel shifted from automobile to public transit increases regional income about $2.9 million, resulting in 226 additional regional jobs. Other economic benefits include increased productivity, employment, business activity, investment and redevelopment.

 

Cities with well-established rail systems have less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle mileage, and higher transit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service.

 

Moreover, whether in Houston, Texas, or Portland, Oregon, rail transit systems not only provide economic, but social and environmental benefits.

 

Social benefits of transit include improved public health, greater flexibility in trip planning and accessibility for non-drivers.

 

Rail travel consumes about a fifth of the energy per passenger-mile as automobile travel. Electric powered rail produces minimal air and noise emissions.

 

Many criticisms of rail transit investment are based on inaccurate or incomplete analysis. For example, transit critics often cite operating costs. This overlooks the significant returns that rail transit offers. In 2002, for example, rail transit required about $12.5 billion annually in public subsidy. However, these costs were offset several times over by $19.4 billion in congestion costs savings, $8.0 billion in roadway cost savings, $12.1 billion in parking cost savings, $22.6 billion in consumer cost saving, and $5.6 billion in reduced crash damages.

 

Developing public transportation increases choices, for drivers as well as riders. Developing public transportation makes sense.

just had the opportunity to ride my bike through east cleveland and the rockefeller houses between taylor and lee. such a fantastic view of that city. and the ride down euclid into university circle is great. can't wait to see some of this non-118th street TOD finally pop up. its anyways a really a dramatic change from what i remember ten years ago. well done!

 

 

This continues the planning work necessary for the Warrensville TOD. Good news....

 

http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=1319

 

2009-45: Authorized a $1.12 million contract with transportation planning consultant PB Americas Inc. to perform an alternative analysis/environmental study for the Blue Line Corridor in Shaker Heights, especially the Warrensville Center Road-Van Aken Boulevard intersection and the end of the Blue Line. The study must be completed before work can receive federal New Starts funding. Part of the contract will use federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. About 19.1 percent of the work, or $213,431, will be shared by 3 DBE firms.

^Seriously good news.  This has to be one of the more viable TOD sites in the area.

This continues the planning work necessary for the Warrensville TOD. Good news....

 

http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=1319

 

2009-45: Authorized a $1.12 million contract with transportation planning consultant PB Americas Inc. to perform an alternative analysis/environmental study for the Blue Line Corridor in Shaker Heights, especially the Warrensville Center Road-Van Aken Boulevard intersection and the end of the Blue Line. The study must be completed before work can receive federal New Starts funding. Part of the contract will use federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. About 19.1 percent of the work, or $213,431, will be shared by 3 DBE firms.

 

Is this a study about extending the Blue Line or simply reworking the station and development around the station?

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.