Sorry for the old article, but I didn't see it posted here. I thought it would lend to recent discussions.

______________

 

Americans discover charms of living near mass transit

Nov. 8, 2004

By John Ritter, USA TODAY

 

LOS ANGELES — The last thing Alex Thacher wanted was to jump from the frying pan into the fire, from the molasses of Washington, D.C., traffic to an even more gut-churning commute here. So Thacher found an apartment in Pasadena next to a light-rail station. He leaves his building, steps onto a train and walks into his downtown L.A. office 40 minutes later.

 

................

Great article about a great trend. I'm jealous!

isn't it great are these areas area re-learning what they forgot? you would never know, but los angeles once had the greatest streetcar transit network in the usa. once again it's the turn of the century and just look what is happening in the world of transit---the same thing as happened in the last century! good news yes, but it's like watching the reinvention of the freakin wheel.

Heartening news. I get really discouraged over the local resistance to change.

 

Driving is a ritual here, a sacred rite. If a Fort Wayne resident lived in the same building where he worked, he'd still get into his car each morning and drive it around the block and park again before entering his office. If transit were free and came to the door on demand, these bozos wouldn't ride it because they think of it as something for people who don't have cars because they never made anything of their lives. They equate riding transit with eating at the rescue mission.

 

Where I used to work downtown, a lot of people drove somewhere for lunch, often to the food court at the mall or some other distant destination. The ones who didn't leave at lunch scurried out to the parking lot before going to the cafeteria, in hopes of finding vacated parking spots closer to the door and moving their cars into them. Many employees filled up all the metered on-street parking next to the buildings every day and went out every two hours to feed two quarters to the meters, rather than park free one or two blocks away. A parking violation cost $10, and one of my co-workers was picked up by police at his home in the wee hours because of $600 in unpaid parking tickets that he got at work.

They equate riding transit with eating at the rescue mission.

 

This is one of the best lines I've heard in a long time.

The ones who didn't leave at lunch scurried out to the parking lot before going to the cafeteria, in hopes of finding vacated parking spots closer to the door and moving their cars into them. Many employees filled up all the metered on-street parking next to the buildings every day and went out every two hours to feed two quarters to the meters, rather than park free one or two blocks away. A parking violation cost $10, and one of my co-workers was picked up by police at his home in the wee hours because of $600 in unpaid parking tickets that he got at work.

 

Some people really don't know how to function without a car.  I don't use a car in my daily routine and I've had people look at me like a frickin alien when I've told them that I've sometimes gone a week or more without driving anywhere at all.

It took me about 20 - 25 minutes to walk to work downtown at the insurance company, and about ten to bike. Biking was convenient because the company provided a free bike rack inside a secure parking garage across the street. I seldom drove unless I knew I'd need my truck to transport computer equipment to another site, and some of the people at work thought I was weird for not driving. I think they were just envious because they had to wait for somebody to retire or die if they wanted a garage spot for their car, and then pay $60 a month for it.

 

Before that I worked for General Electric at two different plant locations, both within a mile of my house. One of my suburbanite redneck bosses chastised me for walking to work "in this neighborhood" because he thought I risked getting shot and robbed. I don't think we was concerned for my well-being so much as he dreaded the thought of having to hire and train someone new to do my job. Hehe! I was there the day he got hired, and the day he got shipped off to a flunky job in a plant in the boondocks. :evil:

All hope is not lost for the auto-dependent (or even the auto-addicted). Remember the scene in the movie LA Story when Steve Martin drove from his home to the house two driveways down? If transit investment and spin-off development can happen in LA, it can happen anywhere.

 

By the way, I wrote in my newspaper column a few years ago in which I called such people "Car Potatoes" -- the automotive equivalent of couch potatoes. I got some interesting and diverse feedback from that one!!

 

KJP

Remember the scene in the movie LA Story when Steve Martin drove from his home to the house two driveways down?

 

I had a neighbor who used to do that, literally. He had a heart attack and died at age 47.

from the Project for Public Spaces.....   KJP

_____________

 

http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/june2005/transportation_as_place

 

Streets Are People Places

 

The first step in winning back our communities is realizing that cars should not rule the roads.

 

By Fred Kent

 

I have a favorite saying about transportation: "If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." It sounds obvious, but when I make this point to audiences around the country, it's a real eye-opener. They love it.

 

The power of this simple idea is that it reflects basic truths that are rarely acknowledged. One such truth is that more traffic and road capacity are not the inevitable result of growth. They are in fact the product of very deliberate choices that have been made (for us, not by us) to shape our communities around the private automobile. We as a society have the ability to make different choices--starting with the decision to design our streets as comfortable places for people.

good article

Ahh, Belgium...

 

Good article. Just the tip of the iceberg on the topic, though.

It sounds good if the public goes for it.

The public has gone for it. Haven't they gotten to that part in your urban planning curriculum yet?

 

KJP

The public has gone for it. Haven't they gotten to that part in your urban planning curriculum yet?

 

KJP

 

Hello KJP, I live in the suburbs. The only people I know who would go for this are on urbanohio.

Please look at market/sales data for various TOD projects nationwide (just a Google click away). I'm disappointed that you tend to offer opinions about things you're not familiar with. But one of the things that makes this such a great and wonderful country is that one need not grasp an issue prior to having and sharing an opinion on it.

 

KJP

I love toying with you!

 

Anyway, I did not respond in a knowledge based manner. You have heard me before, I am sceptical of public transportion being successful. You can throw me a million figures, but if the people around me don't seem to like the idea, I am skeptical that it will work. Although I hope it does. Like I said, suburbanities can't imagine not having their cars.

 

Additionally, I said "it sounds good if the public goes for it." Isn't that true based on data or not? Wouldn't it sound good to you if the public went for it?

 

Then my next statement told you exactly who I was getting my ideas from. Thats not something that requires research first.

 

BTW, the only times I usually tend to respond without knowing the facts are yours, if you would look at my thread count, most of my comments are based on something I have knowledge on, straight humor, or an honest question. Your threads are just so idealist I am always left doubting and drawing conclutions. And I hope you don't expect me to know hundreds of years of railroad history, I have to look at what I do know.

 

I may not look at the data for everything, but I think about people, and thats all life comes down to, people.

 

So next time when you see me doubting public transportation, don't publically insult me, just site your data and believe that you will have the last laugh, because I really hope you do. A society that isn't depended on cars is a society I want to be part of.

Also, if I didn't throw all my skeptical igornace on you, you would pretty much be talking to yourself. I give you an open forum to elaborate on your points and prepare arguments for the other naysayers. What would you do without me? You'd probably lose interest.  :laugh:  :laugh:

 

And BTW, how is one supposed to learn if he doesn't question or ponder? I would think you would be happy to share all your knowledge, but I guess you do just so that you can beat down my arguments. I defiently feel more knowledgeable after reading your replies, so I hope you continue to enlighten me.

 

I believe UrbanOhio is about sharing knowledge and educating those who may not be in the field. If I wasn't getting anything but insults from you, I would stop giving my opinions.

 

 

The insult was in response to one directed at me, that only people who support expanded rail service do so only because they are "train enthusiasts." I would have hoped by now that you would see that my interest is much broader in scope. To say otherwise is a slight of that interest and care which I have come to hold deeply for my city, my state and my country.

 

After 20 years in the field of transportation planning and advocacy, I get very frustrated having to say the same things in response to the same prematurely reached conclusions and misunderstandings. I would rather people ask questions and read about the complex interaction of transportation, land use, environmental and energy issues for a number of years before offering opinions and coming to conclusions. If they don't care enough to take the time to do those things, then why care enough to offer an opinion? Sometimes, the smartest thing someone can say is "I don't know." The smartest thing they can do is keep striving to know.

 

KJP

Those weren't my exact words, but I can see how you could twist it around to that because you like to take every comment as if it were one's gospel. It is evident you take your responses much more seriously than I and many others. You even take the time to type KJP at the bottom of your posts, maybe hoping someone will think it says KJV haha. But really, I have seen that your interest is much broader, I just still consider you an entusiast. That is your solution to the countries inadequate and wasteful transportation plan.

 

Good luck getting this thing throught the legislature if you want people to prepare for several years before they are allowed to form an opinion on it. I hope in 30 years I am not so knowledgable and all knowing to think that one needs to study for three years before they can discuss something with me. You might be able to tell that why this topic does peak my interest, I am not interested enough to spend countless hours reseraching it when I can just get a quick answer from an authority like you. I am sure you have opinions on things you don't know inside and out.

 

You don't have to worry about replying, I'm not going to look at this page again, and I will leave you and your posts alone.

The public has gone for it. Haven't they gotten to that part in your urban planning curriculum yet?

 

KJP

 

 

Hello KJP, I live in the suburbs. The only people I know who would go for this are on urbanohio.

 

I'm not sure about that.  I have family and friends that live in Cleveland Heights, Beachwood that actually said to me they wish subway went under mayfield or Monticello; the green line went to beachwood mall or 271; I have friends that work on chagrin and wish the blue line went out further on chagrin just past 271.  I have friends in garfield, Hough, Forest Hills, Upper Prospect and in the city proper that envy what we have on Shaker Square and have stated they which they had subway or light rail service.

 

I think the public (in Metro Cleveland) would welcome a better rapid rail (subway) and regional rail (commuter) in the metro Cleveland area.  271 is a monster on the east side. As I rarely drive in Cleveland (if I do its after 9pm), I don't know what car traffic patterns are like on the west side.  But I can imagine as the area's become repopulated its getting pretty bad.  I know Ohio City (20s & 30s) has horrible parking and its spilling over to the 40s and Tremont.  When I come to that area I usually take the train, unless its late night.  Now that battery park is coming on AND the projects in between on Detroit ramping up - Its only going to get worse.

 

Now here is the funny part.  My friends in the 'burbs said that they would actually vote "yes" and accept a tax increase for building a rail transportation network.  However, my friends in the city feel as thought it should have ALREADY been built !  They said would vote yes for the system, but felt RTA shouldn't ask for more money to build/extend the rapid rail - but should ask for tax dollars for commuter rail. sidenote - all think BRT is stupid and RTA should be building a real rail line instead of a specialized bus lane.

I know my folks out in Brunswick are envious that I have the option of taking the subway to work.  I can't even tell you how many tourists (from all over, including Ohio) I've met on the Metro that are amazed at how fast, convenient, cheap, and clean public transportation can be. 

 

The sad truth is, TOD simply doesn't exist in most parts of America not because people don't like it, but because it's ILLEGAL!  Start demanding more out of your daily existence.

 

It sounds like INK could stand to get out of the suburban bubble and start exploring places a bit more.  In my neck of the woods, homes within a short walk of a transit stop command a premium. 

MyTwoSense, I think you're right that Ohio City has a scarcity of parking relative to the entire NEO region, but still it's funny to me what people consider "difficult parking" here. I lived in New York for seven years and people were accustomed to driving around for perhaps 30 minutes looking for parking in some of the more popular neighborhoods. Here, you can find parking in even the most popular areas within maybe 5 minutes, tops (at least that's been my experience, though admittedly I usually take public transit).

Despite some neighborhoods getting rid of their surface lots (Ohio City, downtown), it's still waaaay too easy to park in Cleveland. It comes from:

1) 50 years of government policies encouraging auto-oriented transportation and

2) having an abundance of space, in both the low-density suburbs and the depopulated city proper.

I long for the day when these conditions change! (And I think they are beginning to.)

Oh, and DaninDC, tell your parents that there are plenty of places they can live in NEO where they *would* have access to convenient transit! We have 3 1/2 rail lines and countless bus lines. I use them almost exclusively to get around. Living outside the city and inner-ring suburbs, you cut yourself off from many of these options, and living outside the county (e.g. in Brunswick), you're cut off from almost all. It's the price to be paid for the dubious benefits of living in exurbia -- in almost any metro area.

Oh, don't get me started on the wonders of the Hinterlands!  LOL  My parents know that I hate where they live.  Some people can't be bothered with shelling out the extra 1% sales tax, though, ya know?  Little brother, on the other hand, has enough sense to live in Lakewood, and despite owning a car, relies on his RTA pass to get him to school and work. 

MyTwoSense, I think you're right that Ohio City has a scarcity of parking relative to the entire NEO region, but still it's funny to me what people consider "difficult parking" here. I lived in New York for seven years and people were accustomed to driving around for perhaps 30 minutes looking for parking in some of the more popular neighborhoods. Here, you can find parking in even the most popular areas within maybe 5 minutes, tops (at least that's been my experience, though admittedly I usually take public transit).

Despite some neighborhoods getting rid of their surface lots (Ohio City, downtown), it's still waaaay too easy to park in Cleveland. It comes from:

1) 50 years of government policies encouraging auto-oriented transportation and

2) having an abundance of space, in both the low-density suburbs and the depopulated city proper.

I long for the day when these conditions change! (And I think they are beginning to.)

 

Yeah NY parking is a bitch!!  Which is why I didn't even bother to bring my car here. 

 

Everytime i've been to the near westside to party and I've driven (when im the designated driver) It's taken me 10/15 (weekend) min to find parking.  I think 5 minutes is lil low estimate.

 

When I went too farenheit and sage...it took a buddy from mansfield about 10 min to find parking in tremont, but i attribute that to not knowing the terrain.

 

Blinky (if i may call you that  lol  :wink:) I think we have more educated and culturally diverse people are repopulating Cleveland and the city population is larger then the census, people TODAY want a better transportation system as they see how it has:

a) maintain core populations in certain cities Boston, Philly, NY;

b) rejuvenate other older cities like Toronto & DC;

c) help grow newer cities like Denver, San Diego, Minneapolis (but the bus system sucks) & Seattle

d) Company's view a strong transportation network an asset

e) citizens have real alternative to driving and interact with others of different ages, sexual orientation, race, financial status, etc. which helps break stereotypes and encourage exploring outside of your own neighborhood.

f) Enviornmentaly friendly

 

At the same time there are rail failures like ATL & Houston and cities with worse systems than Cleveland like Miami /Detroit people movers & (i think) Buffalo?

While I would definitely count Buffalo's rail system as a failure, I wouldn't put Houston's in that category since its ridership (33,000 daily) is above projections (as are the car-train accidents!). Nor would I include Atlanta's mARTA system, which carries nearly 250,000 riders per day on 2.5 routes, totalling 48 route miles. Cleveland's doesn't even come close to Houston's or Atlanta's ridership numbers. Miami's downtown people mover carries 18,000 people each day. Plus, Miami has its 22-mile Metrorail route (similar to Cleveland's Red Line) which carries 48,000 people per day, not to mention its Tri-Rail commuter rail service 60 miles north to West Palm Beach with trains every hour and 5,000 riders daily. Cleveland's Red Line carries only 16,000 per day. I guess that puts us in Buffalo's class....

 

KJP

The sad truth is, TOD simply doesn't exist in most parts of America not because people don't like it, but because it's ILLEGAL!

 

Brilliant, Dan!  This is the truth in Cleveland and many other similarly de-concentrated/de-populated cities.  Thankfully, there have been several significant concerted efforts by the powers-that-be to change this.  As boring and dense as zoning code may be to the wider populus, it affects how we live EVERY DAY in so many ways.  This is one reason why I'm thankful that we have city planners in some of the most powerful positions in the City.  They understand this stuff and are taking vital steps to reverse the sort of regulations that have prevented mixed-use and transit-oriented development for decades!

While I would definitely count Buffalo's rail system as a failure, I wouldn't put Houston's in that category since its ridership (33,000 daily) is above projections (as are the car-train accidents!). Nor would I include Atlanta's mARTA system, which carries nearly 250,000 riders per day on 2.5 routes, totalling 48 route miles. Cleveland's doesn't even come close to Houston's or Atlanta's ridership numbers. Miami's downtown people mover carries 18,000 people each day. Plus, Miami has its 22-mile Metrorail route (similar to Cleveland's Red Line) which carries 48,000 people per day, not to mention its Tri-Rail commuter rail service 60 miles north to West Palm Beach with trains every hour and 5,000 riders daily. Cleveland's Red Line carries only 16,000 per day. I guess that puts us in Buffalo's class....

 

KJP

I've riden both those systems they're bad!  Houston's dead and slow as all get out. I was just in Houston and people avoid that "trolley" like the plague.

 

Atlanta's marta is horrible and if we complain about our system not going anywhere, that system is even worse - now thats a car crazed city.  and they both have bad bus systems, in addition, we all know how ATL has inflated numbers about population, housing, olympic funds...and i suspect the same here.

 

Miami has that many people on that thing?  who knew??!!  The Tri-Rail line is a true commuter line and the red line is city rail.

 

That just my personal opinion...or my 2cents...lol

Two Sense I am glad you put in something about inflated numbers.  This happens everywhere and should make you take every statistic with a grain of salt.  For example Louisville KY claims to have a larger population than Cincinnati and Indianapolis.  We all know that this is false and the numbers only exist because their city boundaries are the entire county they lie in.  Everyone would have huge numbers to show if they too had enormous subject areas.

Hmmm...according to the FTA National Transit Database, Atlanta's rail system *does* carry about 250,000 people per day.  The MARTA website, though, states that their system (rail and bus) carries 300,000 people per day.  I find it hard to believe that over 80% of their transit ridership is on rail.  No U.S. city has such a high  rail ridership as a percentage of all transit users, let alone one as sprawling as Atlanta.

For example Louisville KY claims to have a larger population than Cincinnati and Indianapolis.  We all know that this is false and the numbers only exist because their city boundaries are the entire county they lie in.

 

Yes, and good for them. We in Ohio should take a hint from their lead! It would be a great help to older cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland, which have been strangulated by their suburbs for decades now.

The data I found on MARTA is that their combined rail and bus system carries 450,000 to 500,000 daily, with rail comprising about 50 percent. Even if it's just 50 percent, consider that 48 route miles of rail service, on just 2.5 lines, has such a high density of use. I find that pretty remarkable, especially in such a sprawling city as Atlanta.

 

KJP

OK, hear me out on this one. I know it's long, but I needed to get this in print and let the chips fall where they may...

 

Introduction

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) faces a tightening budget situation, yet there are calls from the community for improved transit service including commuter rail, light-rail, bus rapid transit, transit centers and the like. At the same time, there is rising interest in Greater Cleveland for mixed-use, higher-density, transit-oriented developments (TOD) around stations, transit centers and busy transit intersections. TOD accommodates accessible housing, employment, retail, basic services, recreation and other uses for empty nesters, students, low-income citizens, an increasingly older population and many other groups.

 

These factors, combined with a desire to repopulate the city, counter urban sprawl, bring jobs to more accessible locations, provide healthier, less energy-intensive lifestyles and boost the taxbase of Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs, point to an increasing need and desire for development patterns that encourage transit use and promote greater investment in transit infrastructure.

 

Background

 

While GCRTA has made TOD one of its mission priorities, it appears that the transit agency is not in the most advantageous position of bearing the leadership role for this economic development responsibility. This is true from an institutional perspective as well as a practical one. Since RTA began in 1975, there has been an intermittent debate over whether RTA should be a "safety net" social service for people whose mobillity is impaired by financial or physical constraints. Or, should it be a broad-based transportation service to build fixed-guideway (rail, BRT) transit that encourages people who can afford to drive to choose transit, and stimulates high-density development near stations.

 

While it is true that GCRTA does both, providing a "safety net" and economic development functions, it is clear that GCRTA is operated more of a social service. It's lack of economic development activity can be best shown in that GCRTA has no full-time staff people dedicated solely to TOD responsibilities. Two staff planners, in conjunction with a staff architect, do undertake TOD activities, but do so only as a part of other service planning and facility architectural work.

 

In reality, for some organizations like GCRTA, the social service and economic development components don't mix well under the same roof. A social service organization is typically an unassertive, process-oriented, non-innovative, bureacratic entity, which does not seek "customers"; it's customers usually come to it. While some economic development organizations also have those features, the most successful examples are more nimble, aggressive and opportunistic. Often, the differentiating factor is how they are funded. If the organization's growth or survival depends on generating revenue from its own activities, it is more likely to be opportunistic.

 

The latter has not been the case with GCRTA, which is funded primarily by a one percent Cuyahoga County sales tax. Only 16 percent of its revenue is internally generated. However, as costs rise faster than the growth in sales tax receipts, GCRTA is coming to grips with a future where it may have to become more aggressive and opportunistic in generating more of its own revenues. Since additional operating funding is unlikely to be provided through new local taxes, nor does it appear that additional state funding is forthcoming in the foreseeable future, internally generated revenues appear to be only recourse to ensuring the stability of the transit system. Two other basic alternatives -- reducing staffing and/or services to cut costs or increasing fares to raise revenues threaten the system's stability.

 

But is GCRTA up to the task of pursuing economic development to generate revenue? Can a bureaucratic, process-oriented organization become nimble, aggressive and opportunistic? It might, but could take years if not decades to change the corporate culture within GCRTA. Even then, GCRTA still must provide an essential social service function to the community. The dual mission -- social service and economic development -- can be at odds with each other and risks creating an institutional culture clash that could still take an extended period of time to sort out. Another alternative is proposed herein.

 

Northeast Ohio Transit Oriented Development Corp.

 

Proposed is a new, nonprofit community development corporation that would not be neighborhood-specific. Indeed, its operating area would be the whole of Cuyahoga County, and possibly extend beyond to adjacent counties. For discussion purposes here, the new operation is called the Northeast Ohio Transit Oriented Development Corp. (NEO-TOD).

 

Having NEO-TOD backed by a consistent stream of tax revenue is essential to support its development activities, namely for issuing low-interest loans, tax-exempt bonds and appropriating property by eminent domain where necessary. However, passage of a new tax levy may be difficult for such an endeavor without a track record and little local awareness of TOD and its benefits. It can also be argued that some local entities already possess the potential economic development abilities of NEO-TOD, but lack the will, organizational structure, mission and strategy to carry out TOD activities.

 

Structure

 

Thus, NEO-TOD is proposed as a "bridge organization" in that it would be a joint endeavor between GCRTA and the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. GCRTA's specialty is operating transportation services and, to a lesser extent, building transportation facilities. The port authority also constructs transportation facilities, but has become primarily an economic development entity, and seeks to increase those activities.

 

Both entities are supported by local tax revenues as well as internally generated revenues. As already noted, GCRTA is supported by a permanent 1-percent sale tax on all goods purchased in Cuyahoga County, generating between $160 million to $170 million per year. The port authority is funded by a 0.13-mill county-wide property tax levy which generates about $3.2 million per year. It must be renewed every five years, and was last renewed in 2002. Its Development Finance Group has assisted about $1 billion in economic development initiatives since 1993.

 

A board of trustees should ovesee NEO-TOD, possibly with two members appointed by GCRTA's board and two appointed by the port authority's board. One additional member could be appointed by the mayor of Cleveland, one by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners and one by the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association. Terms could be for two years, with three members' terms expiring in odd-numbered years and four in even-numbered years. The NEO-TOD board of trustees would designate a board president, establish committees comprised of board, staff and persons not affiliated with NEO-TOD. The board would hire an executive director under a renewable contract. The executive director would hire staff.

 

Funding

 

A consistent, base-level budget for NEO-TOD would be provided from GCRTA's capital budget and the port authority's Development Finance Group. The GCRTA contribution would be to fund the construction of passenger facilities (although GCRTA would continue to fund the construction of maintenance and heavy overhaul facilities, fleet and equipment storage centers, administrative offices and other fixed assets necessary for operational management). The port authority contribution would be to fund economic development activities, including basic staffing, property acquisitions and debt retirement. Proposed is a GCRTA contribution of $5 million per year and a port authority contribution of $2 million per year.

 

Mission, duties, goals

 

NEO-TOD's proposed mission would be "to promote transit-supportive land uses to encourage transit ridership, smart-growth patterns, job creation and community accessibility by assisting development opportunities, the revenues from which shall sustain the corporation."

 

Its duties and responsibilities could include:

 

> Creating and updating a publicly accessible inventory of properties, owners, existing uses, conditions, zoning, etc. along current and proposed transit routes serving Cuyahoga County;

> Establishing manuals of TOD design criteria and standards for different scales of buildings and districts, model zoning/overlay language options for municipalities to adopt, and samples of best practices of actual TOD projects locally and around the world;

> Creating and updating a development masterplan for current and future principal transit corridors to maximize the utility of the transit service, promote linkages with other modes of transport, enhance employment opportunities, foster sustainability and promote innovation;

> Offering regular TOD seminars locally and "best practices" tours of TOD projects within and beyond Northeast Ohio for local elected leaders, community development officials, developers and the public;

> Purchasing, appropriating or otherwise acquiring properties for renovation or demolition to enable development for another end user(s), or to clear for a transit right of way;

> Marketing NEO-TOD owned properties to end users, using advertising, an internet-based inventory and user incentives (such as SmartCommute Plus mortgages, low-interest loans and bonds, off-balance-sheet debt shown as leases and others);

> Coordinating with municipalities for tax-increment financing districts;

> Issuing debt instruments for economic development and transportation facility construction projects;

> Providing operating subsidy support to transit services;

> Leveraging grants from local, state and federal sources;

> Awarding contracts to private firms for management, engineering and construction services.

 

Goals include increasing the density and diversity of development along transit corridors, enhancing property values near transit services, increasing transit ridership, and using real estate revenues to facilitate construction and operation of fixed-route transit services. All of these will be geared to reinvesting in existing neighborhoods and communities, providing a powerful counter-force to urban sprawl.

 

 

    I appreciate your work but I am skeptical.

 

    Ultimately, transit requires density. Few places in the United States exist anymore that are dense enough to support a transit system without a subsidy.

 

    Paris, London, Hong Kong, Moscow, New York, Tokyo, Mexico City, and a few other cities have extraordinary density, with associated transit systems, but no city in Ohio comes close. With our stagnant and soon to be declining population, there is little hope for increased density.

 

    So, if I may back up one step, do you think it's possible in today's world to build a neighborhood in Ohio dense enough to support transit without a subsidy?

   

   

   

I disagree.  A "bridge" organization like this is an entity that could encourage the kind of development that "creates" density. Some of that is happening around GCRTA stations, though not (as KJP points out) at a rate that build momentum and encourage further dense development.

 

This is innovative thinking and an idea worth pursuing.

so sad that rta feels it cannot handle it's dual mission. guess what rta? every transit agency deals with that. the blame lies in rta leadership. instead of creating a new beuracracy rta could manage this. they are sitting on a tod goldmine and have no clue -- thats because the people in rta leadership who work there have no or little transit education background. 

No one is suggesting RTA would operate without subsidy. That is not the point of my suggestion. And to suggest there is no hope of creating density is to say that there is no hope for cities. For an urbanist to believe that is to concede defeat; it is to believe there is no hope for civilization; and it is to convey the appearance that the fire in your soul has burnt out. I hope I am wrong in my assessment of you.

 

Cleveland has achieved baby steps toward success, even with a half-hearted effort by RTA and others, to create density around transit stations. And, in other cities where populations have stagnated, density has increased near stations (St. Louis and Baltimore, to name two). Plus, look at the demographic changes in the housing market -- younger people who want exciting 24-hour mixed use neighborhoods, an the aging Baby Boomers who will need better treatment than their parents who too often became shut ins and were artificially and prematurely removed as productive citizens from the economy.

 

We can do better, but we need the development mechanisms to create the opportunities. I suspect RTA feels it can handle the dual mission, but I don't believe they are up to the task. If RTA is honest with itself and can recognize its own limitations, then something like this NEO-TOD organization can and should happen.

what rta really needs is a few more high ranking transit experts to counter it's top heavy administrative bean counters. and more outside public advocates to back them up -- of course. that would be an easier solution vs. create a new bureaucracy.

The thought is not bad, but I just don't know about mixing/mingling w/ the PA and RTA boards -- officials from both have motives that, frankly, I can't say I trust.  Moreover, I think in your scenario, the City should have more than one board seat out of 5.  The city has the highest dependency and, I'm sure, ridership.  I know in Philly the burbs have such a powerful advantage over the city in terms of board seat power, and city officials & residents resent that the burbs have such a relatively small ridership % base.

 

I do think encouraging T.O.D.'s is important and I do think RTA should get involved.  I don't know the operating funding viz sales revenues, but I'll trust your figures as you seem to know the inside of things RTA.  Like I said, the idea's nice but the devil's in the details.

 

THE REAL Q IS WHO/WHAT ENTITY SHOULD REALLY GET BEHIND TOD DEVELOPMENT?  WHO HAS THE BIGGEST STAKE transit?  central city? close-in burbs? etc...

 

That asked, the scary thing about your scenario is that the elephant in the room nobody is talking about is that your proposal seems a defensive measure to ‘save’ both RTA and the city. 

 

Not faulting you, but it seems so much in America is always premised by Reaction to threats (war, financial insolvency, total in-competency of our youth, math/science-wise viz the rest of the industrialized world, etc) rather than proactively seeking competent courses of action.  I mean, it took on OPEC oil embargo to stop our fat-‘n’sloppy Detroiters from building auto-boats, now, even with the obvious instability of the Middle East we STILL are squirming for our lack of development of alternative fuel sources, lack of alternative transportation systems (vs air and roads – can you say AMTRAK?) and our, still, inability to build cars that won’t fall apart before warranty.  Do you think Americans buy Japanese cars (from the folks who bombed Pearl Harbor 65 years ago) because they hate America?  Or do you think it may have something to do with the fact they want a car that, er, works?  This from the, self-proclaimed, greatest industrial/technological Mecca on the earth.  This from the country that, allegedly, has a “love affair” with the auto – funny, we just haven’t gotten around to perfecting the damn thing we supposedly have a love affair with, ain’t it?  Oh, and yes, the very folks (G.M., et al., who pump that old tired slogan, and who still fight mass transit, are the very ones who continually get left behind by the Saabs, Toyotas, Nissans and BMW’s of the world – funny how that works, isn’t it?  And don’t look now, GM’s teetering on bankruptcy and total collapse, and yet Detroit can only sit back and blame UAW for the recent contract negotiated where the union, among other things,  fought to hold on to such benefits as health care that isn’t co-paid out employees asses (as, after all, this greatest Mecca on earth can find it’s way to have universal health care – which would save small businesses as well as the poor and unemployed, or a prescription drug program for our seniors so they won’t have to run to Canada to just afford decent drugs).  The solution for some Wall Street types: let ‘em die; best to write the chaff off the books, right?  Health care’s a privilege not an entitlement, right?

 

So what does all this have to do with transit and TOD and your proposal?  … in my book, everything, cause it speaks to our total reactionary approach to everything… IF THERE AIN’T A CRISIS, WHY DO IT, … right?  Remember that electric car we proposed in the 60s?  Well, the Japanese are building them more and better than we are.  And didn’t the idea of airbags come up in the 60s?  Yep, but guys like Lee Iacocca sat on it cause it cost an extra few thousand bucks per car, until so many car lives were lost because too many folks hated seatbelts, he couldn’t keep it bottled up anymore so, shazzam!, here are front and side airbags some 4 decades after they were proposed – and, yep, they are (since the late 90s), mandatory! … that is, by federal law?

 

… but back to TOD’s…

 

It's interesting that Cleveland is far from the only old line rail transit city that's thumbed it's nose at TOD.  Of all places, Philly has, too -- at least in the modern era.  Quite obviously, many of Philly's outer city area and burbs were built by rail -- i.e. the famed Main Line and Chestnut Hill, to name a few, were literally laid out by Pensy RR execs... But many gripe that, in the modern era, it seems Philly's emulating Houston more than D.C. w/ it's extensive Metrorail T.O.D. development since that system bowed in the mid 70s.  I travel to Philly quite a bit on biz, and last fall I heard a commercial for T.O.D. sponsored by PATCO, the bi-state port authority that runs such facilities as the Ben Franklin Br and, most importantly, the 14-mile Hi-Speed, heavy rapid-rail line into South Jersey, built in 1969.  They literally, in the commercial, gave a quickie tutorial in what TOD's are and how they promote urban "smart growth".

 

Bottom line to this long-winded response is: somehow the Greater Cleveland political power structure -- be it RTA, the City of Cleve, the PA, the burbs (individually or separately), must buy into TOD as stakeholders,-- obviously, that ain't happening, to date.

 

And yet, TOD's (and at least, the talk of them) are popping all of a sudden (w/in the last 5 years or so) at different spots along the rail line: W. 65 (though, aside from the nice row of EcoCity townhomes, this area has a long ways to go), the Brookpark hotel/garage planned devel slated for this year to start; Wolstein's E. Bank, St. Luke's Pointe at E.116, Avalon Station along the Blue line, Windermere, and, of course, Tower City, itself -- surely you'd consider the new-ish Stokes Fed CHouse and Gateway areas TOD wouldn't you?  I mean, Ron Tober helped sell officials/the public on Gateway with the promise of the underground, temp-controlled walkway directly to Gund Arena's basement, didn't he?

 

In short, not a bad idea, but as I said, the entities' leaders, in question, are imho too questionable as to their motives for me to buy into this idea --- at least, for now.

 

 

KJP,

 

Very interesting idea.  I'll post my thoughts when i can organize them.

I still need to cite some examples of how this might work.

Agreed that this is a very interesting idea, but also agreed that it might be more feasible to build this into the GCRTA's structure.  If there's enough momentum to create a new, publicly funded body, then there should be enough to change the modus operandi of the RTA. 

 

I do understand your points, however, of how the RTA has a dual mission and tends to lean towards the social service side of things, leaving a big gap on the economic development side.  But I think there's a lot of validity to what MrNYC is saying about the leadership within the organization shaping the way that they operate in a negative way. 

 

This is just one more example of how Cleveland has stagnated because of the inability of some of our most influential organizations/bodies to adapt and progress.  We need a sort of "coup" to get the next generation of leaders into those positions ASAP!

One comment on the Philly thing.  They may have one of the more dated and slowly progressing systems around, but what they have to start with is far greater than what we have here in Cleveland.  They do have daily inter-city and regional commuter rail that is depenable.  They have more than one station Downtown (I know, we have the Waterfront Line, but who uses it?).  They have a Downtown residential population that creates a 24-hour neighborhood that puts ours to shame.  Our rail system, as it stands today, is primarily a commute in, commute out system.  Until we have more people living in the center and more density and uses clustered around our stations, we're not going to have anything resembling what Philly has, regardless of how poor their system is reputed to be.

KJP, I love the idea. But what about making it a private entity? That would free NEO-TOD of the need to rely on the ever-shrinking pot of grants and sponsorships available in Cleveland. And frankly, I believe there is enough demand for TOD to warrant private investment.

 

I say, subvert The System and go it alone.

Part of my thinking with the public entity is that it could offer bonds at a below-market interest rate, can engage in TIF financing for rail or BRT projects, and can otherwise plow real estate leases and other revenues back into funding in transit facilities.

One comment on the Philly thing.  They may have one of the more dated and slowly progressing systems around, but what they have to start with is far greater than what we have here in Cleveland.  They do have daily inter-city and regional commuter rail that is dependable.  They have more than one station Downtown (I know, we have the Waterfront Line, but who uses it?).  They have a Downtown residential population that creates a 24-hour neighborhood that puts ours to shame.  Our rail system, as it stands today, is primarily a commute in, commute out system.  Until we have more people living in the center and more density and uses clustered around our stations, we're not going to have anything resembling what Philly has, regardless of how poor their system is reputed to be.

 

My point wasn't so much to compare the 2 systems -- you're right, of course, Philly's dwarf ts Cleveland's and is much older -- my point was to note that older systems (Cleveland's would qualify as "older" viz, say, BART, D.C. Metro, MARTA, etc.) is that they all have issues regarding the challenge to build TOD's near them.  I sense the general feel in cities with older systems is these old dogs won't generate new development; that only modern rail (like METRO) will spur modern development.  It's akin to thinking re soil erosion -- once the rails been in place for X period of years, it can spur new growth -- which, of course, ignores the possibility of (neighborhood) adaptive reuse.

 

Surprisingly, for a system of its size and complexity, Philly's SEPTA has seen only spot new TOD growth near its rail lines (i.e. Conshohoken, downtown Norristown, among them) while there's been significant sprawl away from the huge network, ie: King of Prussia, Valley Forge/Rte 422 corridor, Cherry Hill (and much of S. Jersey where most office/housing devel is away from the PATCO rail line).

 

Yes, Philly's system has size and natural advantages over ours.  But it's instructive to note even a great transit city is wrestling with issues of sprawl, TOD and smart growth.

clvlndr, while you make good points, zoning has a lot to do with it too.  Philly seems to have been preoccupied with "megaprojects" like the Liberty Place skyscrapers, and the new stadia (located away from transit, no less) in recent years, and hasn't really encouraged new TOD, much less preserve decent transit service.  The success story you note (DC) meanwhile intentionally located the new arena above a subway station, and will build the new baseball stadium next to a subway station.  You can have transit infrastructure, but that doesn't mean the TOD will happen automatically (see Atlanta, Baltimore). 

 

By definition, though, TOD must have the transit component, and Cleveland is lucky in this regard.  Cleveland just doesn't have very good zoning, and a lot of the transit stations are poorly located to take advantage of TOD, which in turn leads to the woeful underperformance of the lines.  As you hinted, DC has seen a tremendous amount of TOD, but only because it was planned for.  In fact, it was expected that wherever the subway was built, investment would follow (which is why Georgetowners didn't want a station in their historic neighborhood).  Arlington County, VA, in particular, overhauled its zoning regs in order to concentrate development at the rail stations instead of just throwing down rail and playing "wait and see".  The results have been mind-boggling to say the least, as 90% of new development in that county is within walking distance of a subway station. 

 

DC has also been successful because the service is good and well-maintained.  That, and compared to the other cites, there aren't really any freeways criss-crossing the city, so the subway is an extremely competitive mode of travel.  Just for fun, betcha didn't know the DC Metro carries more passengers than the subways in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and San Francisco combined.   

Absolutely, Dan.  Planning is what it's all about.  As for sports stadia, I do think Cleveland's Gateway is a rare modern TOD. 

 

As for D.C.'s Metro usage: I'm not surprised at all (after all, you noted earlier that Metro moves more people than huge Chicago's CTA).  It goes hand-in-hand with good planning.  From the beginning, metropolitan D.C. bought in to Metro as the future of D.C.  Cleveland thumbs it's nose at its train system.  And, surprisingly, so does Philly -- you'd be surprised at how many Philadelphians despise SEPTA on all levels.  And SEPTA does very little to make its huge, highly-Balkanized rail system attractive.  Regional Rail runs with cars, the newest (about 5-10 years old) are pulled by engines only on a few rush hour routes; the "newest" self-propelled electricts were built in the early 70s while THE oldest ones (about, I'd guess, 1/3rd of all cars) were built either in the late 50s or early 60s (and still have long-defunct "Pennsylvania, RR" on them).  Stations are run down and dirty, trains, perpetually late and the transit personnel are unusually surly (even by RTA standards!!  -- course, maybe that's just a Philly "addytood" thing).

 

BTW, the new/old Philly stadia complex in the South Philly no-mans land of warehouses and factories was chosen SOLELY for its convenience to freeways (esp the ones across the Walt Whitman Br into South Jersey), and NOT the Broad St subway that terminates on the edge of the stadium campus.

 

 

... oh, and btw, those old SEPTA regional rail cars are known to sometimes conk out and even have their electrical units catch on fire.  Just recently a new (2-year old) order for new cars was cancelled because SEPTA fumbled the bidding process causing SEPTA to lose a lawsuit whereby a low-bid, RFP respondent that lost out to a higher-bidding, inexperienced bidder sued.  Now SEPTA must re-bid the whole package.  Typical Philly, a town that lurches from scandal to scandal.