#Philly: latest proof that city built around transit

can also be revived by improved transit http://bit.ly/1VqfCYC

Could they use a taxing district for revenue-backed bonds for the local match? There's prob good TOD potential, esp east of Euclid.

Rail extension wouldn't go east of Euclid. Cost goes way up without  much of an increase in projected ridership. A taxing district probably could generate enough revenue to help offset the projected annual operating cost of $12 million. But doing that and retiring revenue bonds for construction is probably beyond the capabilities of a taxing district in this corridor.

For sure. This Red Line extension is iffy if poverty in one area is too high to support new development, yet once poverty goes down so does the ridership and development potential. As for Euclid, I think it's just on the wrong side of I-90 to be a dynamic corridor, and won't really help Euclid much. The only beneficiary that gets enough benefit for it to be worthwhile is Lake County, which I'm not against, but doesn't seem to be involved. This is the exact conundrum that tells me there are better rail projects out there. W. 25th from Lakeview to Brooklyn for instance would be a slam dunk.

 

If RTA was willing to look at PPP financing for these projects, maybe the priority for new transit corridors should actually be economic development. Right now by trailing development, and not trying to shape it, the tail is sort of wagging the dog. Like when Eaton moved from a transit-accessible HQ to a new one that isn't, requiring RTA to then take service away from somewhere to move a nearby bus route to accommodate Eaton.

 

I guess I'm just saying I don't see this Red Line extension being what Cleveland needs.

I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the project. No one is saying that the rail extension would trail development. In fact, it was proposed as a joint transportation/land use development. Real estate experts from around the country were brought in and said that if the Red Line was extended, tied in with a multi-city redevelopment plan including land assembly, site clean-up funding and targeted infrastructure modernization, it would be a strong district of industrial zones, innovation districts and mixed-use TODs.

 

Unfortunately no one seems interested in this area of the city. Apparently many folks believe it is hopeless and not deserving of investment. So it will likely become the new Forgotten Triangle and continue to account for 90+ percent of the population loss in Cuyahoga County as it has since 1970. Once this area becomes an urban prairie, then ODOT will likely come in with a plan to extend the Opportunity Corridor to Euclid. The result will be more suburban-style land use patterns that can't support transit.

 

I just wish we could act now before we allow the bones of a large urban corridor to rot away.

 

Unfortunately no one seems interested in this area of the city. Apparently many folks believe it is hopeless and not deserving of investment. So it will likely become the new Forgotten Triangle and continue to account for 90+ percent of the population loss in Cuyahoga County as it has since 1970. Once this area becomes an urban prairie, then ODOT will likely come in with a plan to extend the Opportunity Corridor to Euclid. The result will be more suburban-style land use patterns that can't support transit.

 

When it comes to transit and smart-growth, why can't this town get it's head out of its arse?  I always have believed E. 105 is not the real projected terminus of this roadway, and let's stop pussy-footing around with this silly Opportunity Corridor name and call it what it is: a freeway which will facilitate typical Cleveland sprawl.

 

That's not a terrible idea actually.  Good road and rail networks are not mutually exclusive.  Plenty of cities have both.  Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both have full-blown freeways connecting their downtown and uptown areas.  Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Lack of transit support is an independent problem.  Development around any road or rail line will be influenced primarily by planning and zoning.  If those policies demand sprawl, that's what we'll get. 

Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Why is it "egregious" if it's in the inner city?  Isn't it better than abandonment and urban prairie?

Transit debate redirected from the Public Square construction thread.....

 

Public Square should have been designed as one park, no bus lane through it.  The ring of steel around the Square now doesn't seem to be that bad but the bottom line is that Public Square should no longer be the city's bus depot.  This will create short term issues for the new Public Square.

 

Why shouldn't it? It's been the transit hub since the 1850s. With it being the hub of streets, it's a natural transit hub too. So why is that suddenly bad? All public realms in this city belong to everyone.

 

With the goal of making Public Square more inviting, leaving it as the bus-hub kind of holds it back from those goals. We can't deny that the bus stops have been an underlying cause of unpleasant situations or public disturbances that have given Public Square its reputation. Just because it's been the hub through time doesn't mean it cannot change. Times Square is a hub of streets, but it isn't NYC's bus hub. It's more focused on visitors' experience and the aesthetics, which makes it enjoyable. Moving the hub away from the square would just make the "new" Public Square more enjoyable and more comfortable for those who want to enjoy it peacefully.

 

Times Square was never THE transit hub of NYC. We can argue whether it was a transit hub at all.

 

Let's be honest what moving transit off Public Square is all about. It's about shoving poor people and minorities into dark corners of the city where we can forget about them in furtherance of desires to create a caste system for America where different classes no longer mix.

At least with the rollout of the CNG buses, the fumes of idling buses will be less intense.

Transit debate redirected from the Public Square construction thread.....

 

Public Square should have been designed as one park, no bus lane through it.  The ring of steel around the Square now doesn't seem to be that bad but the bottom line is that Public Square should no longer be the city's bus depot.  This will create short term issues for the new Public Square.

 

Why shouldn't it? It's been the transit hub since the 1850s. With it being the hub of streets, it's a natural transit hub too. So why is that suddenly bad? All public realms in this city belong to everyone.

 

With the goal of making Public Square more inviting, leaving it as the bus-hub kind of holds it back from those goals. We can't deny that the bus stops have been an underlying cause of unpleasant situations or public disturbances that have given Public Square its reputation. Just because it's been the hub through time doesn't mean it cannot change. Times Square is a hub of streets, but it isn't NYC's bus hub. It's more focused on visitors' experience and the aesthetics, which makes it enjoyable. Moving the hub away from the square would just make the "new" Public Square more enjoyable and more comfortable for those who want to enjoy it peacefully.

 

Times Square was never THE transit hub of NYC. We can argue whether it was a transit hub at all.

 

Let's be honest what moving transit off Public Square is all about. It's about shoving poor people and minorities into dark corners of the city where we can forget about them in furtherance of desires to create a caste system for America where different classes no longer mix.

 

Though I agree with your second paragraph, the first part is definitely not correct. Times Square is the busiest subway station in NYC and has direct transfers to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a shuttle to Grand Central Terminal, etc. It's most definitely a transit hub. If you're in Times Square you can quickly get to basically every single transit mode available in NYC.

My home city is Manchester, England which has a very similar situation with Piccadilly Gardens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piccadilly_Gardens.

 

It's both a public green space and the very hub of the metro's bus and tram network which is, I believe, much more extensive and patronized than Cleveland's. To my eye, they are also very similar in size. The story is very familiar; one upon a time it was a public green space in the heart of a rapidly industrializing and expanding city. Over time it fell into slightly shabby, though still green, state and was largely considered a bit of an eyesore and an unsafe place, especially after dark. About 15 years ago, a plan was born to make it more friendly. Out went most of the greenery and in came some 'urban design' that looked good on paper, but turned most of it into a wind-swept concrete jungle. Thankfully, I'm 100% positive that the Public Square redesign will avoid this and is much better thought out.

 

Piccadilly Gardens remains the transit hub and also remains a place where sketchy characters hang out and occasional dodgy situations happen, but it is still hugely populated with foot traffic most every hour of every day. It never feels unsafe, if you want to find trouble you can - but that's the same in every city the world over.

 

I'm fine with PS staying as the transit center, but there are a couple of things it currently lacks compared to the situation in Manchester and they will make a difference. Firstly, Piccadilly Gardens is fully enclosed on all four sides giving it a much more comfortable feel - that gaping hole on the Jacob's lot and beyond really makes PS feel very exposed. Hopefully the plans come through soon to get those holes plugged. This will also help with the second aspect, which is foot traffic of people with things to do and places to go. Not just hanging around waiting for buses, or killing time because they've nothing better to do.

 

I'm really looking forward to PS reopening and as a downtown resident I want to use it. I'm not much for sitting on a park bench and people watching, or reading a book, so I really hope the retail and events calendar etc give people like me a reason to go there.

Though I agree with your second paragraph, the first part is definitely not correct. Times Square is the busiest subway station in NYC and has direct transfers to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a shuttle to Grand Central Terminal, etc. It's most definitely a transit hub. If you're in Times Square you can quickly get to basically every single transit mode available in NYC.

 

I see what you're saying. My point was that if you combined Grand Central Terminal, Penn Station and Fulton Transit Center into a single facility at Times Square, that would be what Public Square/Tower City mean to Cleveland transit-wise. Diffusing transit into more mini-hubs/connection points in downtown Cleveland creates more confusion, especially for transit users, and perhaps more importantly, more operating costs that GCRTA cannot afford. If we're going to diffuse transit connectivity to more locations throughout downtown Cleveland, I hope we do it in a thoughtful way and give GCRTA the resources to implement it.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. I think too many powerbrokers in this city see transit and its riders as a nuisance and don't care where they're relocated to, if GCRTA can afford being moved off the square, or if it will negatively impact ridership. Just get rid of them and let someone else deal with "the problem."

I'm quite a big cheerleader for public transit and RTA is my primary mode of transportation as I do not have a car. I agree with much of what KJP has said, but I am also torn. When I lived in Collinwood for a few months I caught my bus on Public Square every day. I found the experience to be less than pleasant and the station areas were usually filled with litter. Almost every day I would see multiple people throw wrappers, pop cans, plastic bags, etc on the ground, even though there were trash cans just feet from them. I on multiple occasions saw fights break out, both physical and verbal. Now with Public Square being closed, whenever I pass Ontario Street, I can't help notice how the sidewalk on the west side where all the bus stops are now located is, quite frankly, disgusting.

 

I'm a believer in transit. We need to have more of it and have more people use it. We as a region need to invest in transit and view it as a integral part of the life of the city. We need to get rid of the stigma that surrounds transit. We need to use it as an economic tool that can help impoverished people reach jobs. But I also completely understand why some people don't want buses on Public Square.

I thought the downtown ambassadors have done a pretty good job of cleaning up Public Square (until construction). I remember what a unkempt mess it was before the ambassadors.

I can't help but to think of how many employers are based around PS when I hear of reducing or rerouting transit there.

I'm quite a big cheerleader for public transit and RTA is my primary mode of transportation as I do not have a car. I agree with much of what KJP has said, but I am also torn. When I lived in Collinwood for a few months I caught my bus on Public Square every day. I found the experience to be less than pleasant and the station areas were usually filled with litter. Almost every day I would see multiple people throw wrappers, pop cans, plastic bags, etc on the ground, even though there were trash cans just feet from them. I on multiple occasions saw fights break out, both physical and verbal. Now with Public Square being closed, whenever I pass Ontario Street, I can't help notice how the sidewalk on the west side where all the bus stops are now located is, quite frankly, disgusting.

 

I'm a believer in transit. We need to have more of it and have more people use it. We as a region need to invest in transit and view it as a integral part of the life of the city. We need to get rid of the stigma that surrounds transit. We need to use it as an economic tool that can help improvised people reach jobs. But I also completely understand why some people don't want buses on Public Square.

 

Whoa whoa whoa back up there buddy.  You apparently did not get the memo.

 

There are 2 sides to this debate.  You must either believe PS with buses will closely resemble the 9th circle of hell and will drag the rest of downtown with it to Satan's abode.  Or, you believe that PS with buses is the highest possible form of public good and all things pious and anyone who disagrees wants to ship minorities off to labor camps.

 

Pick. A. Side.

I'm quite a big cheerleader for public transit and RTA is my primary mode of transportation as I do not have a car. I agree with much of what KJP has said, but I am also torn. When I lived in Collinwood for a few months I caught my bus on Public Square every day. I found the experience to be less than pleasant and the station areas were usually filled with litter. Almost every day I would see multiple people throw wrappers, pop cans, plastic bags, etc on the ground, even though there were trash cans just feet from them. I on multiple occasions saw fights break out, both physical and verbal. Now with Public Square being closed, whenever I pass Ontario Street, I can't help notice how the sidewalk on the west side where all the bus stops are now located is, quite frankly, disgusting.

 

I'm a believer in transit. We need to have more of it and have more people use it. We as a region need to invest in transit and view it as a integral part of the life of the city. We need to get rid of the stigma that surrounds transit. We need to use it as an economic tool that can help improvised people reach jobs. But I also completely understand why some people don't want buses on Public Square.

 

What are you torn about?  The litter, fighting and overall unpleasant experience of actually using public transit is carried over to the experience of waiting for public transit.  Public Square will have problems from the get go or at least after the initial buzz wears off.  Homeless bathing in the splash pool, urinating, taking up benches as camp-out sites, threatening visitors...you know, the usual stuff.  Oh, and panhandling a plenty.

Wow, I must be in a different city than you. Never seen any of that stuff, except for the panhandling. And if you think panhandling is annoying in Cleveland, you don't travel much.

I'm quite a big cheerleader for public transit and RTA is my primary mode of transportation as I do not have a car. I agree with much of what KJP has said, but I am also torn. When I lived in Collinwood for a few months I caught my bus on Public Square every day. I found the experience to be less than pleasant and the station areas were usually filled with litter. Almost every day I would see multiple people throw wrappers, pop cans, plastic bags, etc on the ground, even though there were trash cans just feet from them. I on multiple occasions saw fights break out, both physical and verbal. Now with Public Square being closed, whenever I pass Ontario Street, I can't help notice how the sidewalk on the west side where all the bus stops are now located is, quite frankly, disgusting.

 

I'm a believer in transit. We need to have more of it and have more people use it. We as a region need to invest in transit and view it as a integral part of the life of the city. We need to get rid of the stigma that surrounds transit. We need to use it as an economic tool that can help improvised people reach jobs. But I also completely understand why some people don't want buses on Public Square.

 

What are you torn about?  The litter, fighting and overall unpleasant experience of actually using public transit is carried over to the experience of waiting for public transit.  Public Square will have problems from the get go or at least after the initial buzz wears off.  Homeless bathing in the splash pool, urinating, taking up benches as camp-out sites, threatening visitors...you know, the usual stuff.  Oh, and panhandling a plenty.

 

I say we build a wall around PS. A big beautiful wall. And I don't know why but for some odd reason, Mexico is going to pay for it!

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

For everyone who says that Public Square was fine the way it was, I invite them to spend some time in Campus Martius in Detroit or Fountain Square in Cincinnati. Both of those squares also happen to have a transit center a block or two away. I know no one has the money for such a project right now, but I think a west side transit center just west of Public Square is the answer.

Those cities don't even have a rail hub.  We do, and we would squander that advantage by having our bus system converge elsewhere.  That STJ thing over by CSU was a big wasteful mistake.  I'd rather not double down on it.  Our rail system needs that money.

Am I the only one who thinks the current scheme is actually an OK compromise? Bus service won't be harmed, but the square is likely to be far more enjoyable, both as a place to walk through and a place to be used in all sorts of ways.  EDIT: and mostly with private funds, at that.

Am I the only one who thinks the current scheme is actually an OK compromise? Bus service won't be harmed, but the square is likely to be far more enjoyable, both as a place to walk through and a place to be used in all sorts of ways.  EDIT: and mostly with private funds, at that.

 

I get the idea it will be pedestrian friendly but a "place to be used in all sorts of ways"? How so?

The same way any other properly designed public square can be utilized in a number of ways. Again, go to the examples listed in Detroit and Cincinnati. The prior layout of Public Square was not conducive to much programming other than being a waiting place for transit and occasionally a large scale event by closing down the roads through the square. Now there will be a variety of areas that offer different scales and levels of openness which allows for a wider variety of types of programming in addition to the large lawn which had no counterpart in the previous setup.

 

Landscape urbanism isn't a new realm. I will never understand how people can't see that a properly designed space has more opportunity for use than a poorly designed one. And the previous iteration was just that. Poorly designed.

Am I the only one who thinks the current scheme is actually an OK compromise? Bus service won't be harmed, but the square is likely to be far more enjoyable, both as a place to walk through and a place to be used in all sorts of ways.  EDIT: and mostly with private funds, at that.

 

I get the idea it will be pedestrian friendly but a "place to be used in all sorts of ways"? How so?

 

A place to sit and hang out, eat & drink at the cafe, play in the water feature, ice skate, go to a farmer's market, maybe listen to live music or watch a movie on a big screen, etc etc

Am I the only one who thinks the current scheme is actually an OK compromise? Bus service won't be harmed, but the square is likely to be far more enjoyable, both as a place to walk through and a place to be used in all sorts of ways.  EDIT: and mostly with private funds, at that.

 

I get the idea it will be pedestrian friendly but a "place to be used in all sorts of ways"? How so?

 

A place to sit and hang out, eat & drink at the cafe, play in the water feature, ice skate, go to a farmer's market, maybe listen to live music or watch a movie on a big screen, etc etc

 

I get the extra amenities added but I loved to sit and hang out day and night at the "old" Public Square back in the 1980s and 1990s. What made you not want to do it previous to the redesign?

 

 

The same way any other properly designed public square can be utilized in a number of ways. Again, go to the examples listed in Detroit and Cincinnati. The prior layout of Public Square was not conducive to much programming other than being a waiting place for transit and occasionally a large scale event by closing down the roads through the square. Now there will be a variety of areas that offer different scales and levels of openness which allows for a wider variety of types of programming in addition to the large lawn which had no counterpart in the previous setup.

 

Landscape urbanism isn't a new realm. I will never understand how people can't see that a properly designed space has more opportunity for use than a poorly designed one. And the previous iteration was just that. Poorly designed.

 

The "bad" form of Public Square stood for over 200 years. It functioned fine when Cleveland was a far larger city with a more intact urban core. I completely disagree that it was poorly designed in the first place. Sorry I can't see that.

^^ There's already a very large lawn a couple blocks away.  I'm not saying the square's original setup was better, I'm saying it wasn't bad enough to justify spending another fortune on another downtown lawn.  Cleveland has many problems and lack of lawn is not among them.  Even if it were, I'm pretty sure we've solved it at this point, so we should probably start investing in something else. 

^ Because it was an unpleasant place to be. The quadrants were not well designed and it was not comfortable. Then there's the obvious point of having to wait for a pedestrian signal and then cross massive expanses of concrete to get from one part to the next. My negative feelings increased for Public Square once I got older and started traveling more and saw great public spaces in other cities that were people friendly and nice places to be.

^ Because it was an unpleasant place to be. The quadrants were not well designed and it was not comfortable. Then there's the obvious point of having to wait for a pedestrian signal and then cross massive expanses of concrete to get from one part to the next. My negative feels increased for Public Square once I got older and started traveling more and saw great public spaces in other cities that were people friendly and nice places to be.

 

Why was it unpleasant? What made you uncomfortable about it? I never got that feeling there at all. It was very urban to me. You met people from all over the area, all over the world.

Wow, I must be in a different city than you. Never seen any of that stuff, except for the panhandling. And if you think panhandling is annoying in Cleveland, you don't travel much.

 

Travel to the east coast all the time; just took the Northeast Regional from DC to NYC this afternoon.  So, I know big cities.  The east coast cities have lots of different people all mixed in.  Cleveland, not so much, although downtown is getting a better mix of residents, finally.

I'm quite a big cheerleader for public transit and RTA is my primary mode of transportation as I do not have a car. I agree with much of what KJP has said, but I am also torn. When I lived in Collinwood for a few months I caught my bus on Public Square every day. I found the experience to be less than pleasant and the station areas were usually filled with litter. Almost every day I would see multiple people throw wrappers, pop cans, plastic bags, etc on the ground, even though there were trash cans just feet from them. I on multiple occasions saw fights break out, both physical and verbal. Now with Public Square being closed, whenever I pass Ontario Street, I can't help notice how the sidewalk on the west side where all the bus stops are now located is, quite frankly, disgusting.

 

I'm a believer in transit. We need to have more of it and have more people use it. We as a region need to invest in transit and view it as a integral part of the life of the city. We need to get rid of the stigma that surrounds transit. We need to use it as an economic tool that can help impoverished people reach jobs. But I also completely understand why some people don't want buses on Public Square.

 

Hmm...interesting in that when I see this and state it in this forum, I'm told I don't like city life, not an experienced transit user, racist etc....At least the empty May Co. and Higbee building doorways aren't public urinals anymore.  So progress is happening I guess.

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system. 

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

Downtown Cleveland lacked connectivity and PS was a huge disconnect in the urban flow.  Cities are all about walking and connectivity now, this redo of PS will connect to the Mall and surrounding areas.

 

This redesign is long overdue.

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

Downtown Cleveland lacked connectivity and PS was a huge disconnect in the urban flow.  Cities are all about walking and connectivity now, this redo of PS will connect to the Mall and surrounding areas.

 

This redesign is long overdue.

 

Cleveland was all about walking and connectivity in the 1920s and 1930s moreso than today. No need to change PS back then.

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system.

 

See, I still envision Tower City being a transit hub because that's what it is, but the bus-portion of it can move and still be next to the "hub." An example of this would be the west side transit hub that had been talked about, just a block away. Tower City has more than one set of doors, therefore the bus hub can be in many different locations. It doesn't HAVE to be there to be accessible. I understand that some people are more tolerant of wild behavior than others because they're used to it- but that doesn't mean everyone should have to deal with it if they just want to enjoy the square. I understand that you don't see the "bad," but others do, because they're realistic about how a human (any age, color, height, ethnicity) should act. No one is saying that these "bad people" (as you refer to them) can't use the square.. it's the fact that they HAVE to use the square to wait for their bus. Let the bus hub be on a less-utilized street around Tower City, and let Public Square serve for a more enjoyable use. Why pour millions of dollars into a public park when that park may just turn into a giant bus stop, again. Let the park serve its purpose of being a park.

I don't understand how this rebuild addresses the connectivity problem.  The square still occupies the same space as before, so needing to walk through it still means the same thing it did before.  You're going to be walking for a bit.  Maybe there will be programming along the way, maybe there won't, but that's a separate issue.  The one added retail amenity happens to be right in front of Tower City.  Might have had more impact in the NW quadrant, in terms of filling in empty space that separates active districts. 

 

The only way this project would address connectivity would be to move the buses away, impairing connectivity on a city-wide level.

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system. 

 

Uh, yes it was. It's why Terminal Tower was built where it was built -- on Public Square, the hub of the city's streetcar system. Now the hub of the local bus system. So how is the rail hub not designed to interface with the local transit system?

I don't understand how this rebuild addresses the connectivity problem.  The square still occupies the same space as before, so needing to walk through it still means the same thing it did before.  You're going to be walking for a bit.  Maybe there will be programming along the way, maybe there won't, but that's a separate issue.  The one added retail amenity happens to be right in front of Tower City.  Might have had more impact in the NW quadrant, in terms of filling in empty space that separates active districts. 

 

The only way this project would address connectivity would be to move the buses away, impairing connectivity on a city-wide level.

 

No, needing to walk through it does not mean the same thing it did before. It's not about the length of the walk, it's about the quality of the walk. Going from Tower City to the opposite side of the square will be a much nicer walk than it ever has been. And thus more people will be willing to do that walk and thus downtown will begin to feel more connected

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system. 

 

Uh, yes it was. It's why Terminal Tower was built where it was built -- on Public Square, the hub of the city's streetcar system. Now the hub of the local bus system. So how is the rail hub not designed to interface with the local transit system?

 

It was originally planned for the lakefront, the site of the isolated Amtrak station near the area you think a new transit hub should go now.  The rail hub was moved to the Van Sweringens' Terminal Tower project on PS.  Money and politics controlled that decision and it wasn't because of the streetcar system.  Same old Cleveland story I know, especially when it comes to transit.

 

How does the rail hub buried under TC interface exactly?  You think that's good interfacing?  You must not travel much to other cities.

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system. 

 

Uh, yes it was. It's why Terminal Tower was built where it was built -- on Public Square, the hub of the city's streetcar system. Now the hub of the local bus system. So how is the rail hub not designed to interface with the local transit system?

 

It was originally planned for the lakefront, the site of the isolated Amtrak station near the area you think a new transit hub should go now.  The rail hub was moved to the Van Sweringens' Terminal Tower project on PS.  Money and politics controlled that decision and it wasn't because of the streetcar system.  Same old Cleveland story I know, especially when it comes to transit.

 

How does the rail hub buried under TC interface exactly?  You think that's good interfacing?  You must not travel much to other cities.

 

I actually enjoy the walk through TC to RTA. To me it's reminiscent of NYC Port Authority or LA Union Station. 

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system. 

 

Uh, yes it was. It's why Terminal Tower was built where it was built -- on Public Square, the hub of the city's streetcar system. Now the hub of the local bus system. So how is the rail hub not designed to interface with the local transit system?

 

If Tower City is so great, why are you an advocate for creating a transit hub on the lakefront?  Hardly a rail hub area, especially since the Red Line will not be a part of it.

Move the rail hub from Tower City.  TC is the old railroad station, not designed for a local transit system. 

 

Uh, yes it was. It's why Terminal Tower was built where it was built -- on Public Square, the hub of the city's streetcar system. Now the hub of the local bus system. So how is the rail hub not designed to interface with the local transit system?

 

If Tower City is so great, why are you an advocate for creating a transit hub on the lakefront?  Hardly a rail hub area, especially since the Red Line will not be a part of it.

 

1. The Waterfront line is right there

2. Amtrak trains can no longer access TC

It's the only place where a multi-modal hub that includes Amtrak can be built without breaking the bank. Even so, the city is balking at spending anything meaningful for this facility.

 

There will be no moving of rail lines or rail transit hubs in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio for that matter. Not until Ohio is willing to spend more than 64 cents per capita on public transportation  (vs $300 per person for roads).

Transit debate redirected from the Public Square construction thread.....

 

Public Square should have been designed as one park, no bus lane through it.  The ring of steel around the Square now doesn't seem to be that bad but the bottom line is that Public Square should no longer be the city's bus depot.  This will create short term issues for the new Public Square.

 

Why shouldn't it? It's been the transit hub since the 1850s. With it being the hub of streets, it's a natural transit hub too. So why is that suddenly bad? All public realms in this city belong to everyone.

 

With the goal of making Public Square more inviting, leaving it as the bus-hub kind of holds it back from those goals. We can't deny that the bus stops have been an underlying cause of unpleasant situations or public disturbances that have given Public Square its reputation. Just because it's been the hub through time doesn't mean it cannot change. Times Square is a hub of streets, but it isn't NYC's bus hub. It's more focused on visitors' experience and the aesthetics, which makes it enjoyable. Moving the hub away from the square would just make the "new" Public Square more enjoyable and more comfortable for those who want to enjoy it peacefully.

 

Times Square was never THE transit hub of NYC. We can argue whether it was a transit hub at all.

 

Let's be honest what moving transit off Public Square is all about. It's about shoving poor people and minorities into dark corners of the city where we can forget about them in furtherance of desires to create a caste system for America where different classes no longer mix.

 

 

Well it's about time. Get them off the square. Next, apply this to tower city and then we really got something.

 

 

Opinion as someone who used to own a store in Tower City.

 

*side note* sorry to quote from so far back up thread

THAT'S what you're sorry about??

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

I'm generally in agreement with you.  My only beef with the old design are the the 2 mega-wide streets, Ontario and Superior, cutting the Square into 4 little square-lets.  The new design only partially fixes that allowing buses and "special" vehicles to traverse the Square.  Even though it's congested, I'm not sure the current temporary bus terminal next to the casino is the worse thing in the world.  I'm not for sticking bus riders out of sight, out of mind, but at least at the casino location riders are still very accessible to the Rapid.  I actually thought a similar bus terminal on Prospect behind Terminal Tower would be even better ... it has more space and is directly at the entrances to TC and the Rapid ... on both sides of the street.  They are almost like subway entrances; but a lot more classy.

It's the only place where a multi-modal hub that includes Amtrak can be built without breaking the bank. Even so, the city is balking at spending anything meaningful for this facility.

 

There will be no moving of rail lines or rail transit hubs in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio for that matter. Not until Ohio is willing to spend more than 64 cents per capita on public transportation  (vs $300 per person for roads).

 

Of course there will be no moving of rail lines or anything but this should have all been done correctly from the get-go.  Cleveland's transit mishaps predate Ohio's current lack of funding.

 

What other city is using Cleveland's rail lines as a model for planning?  Only the HealthLine.  It's what we're stuck with though for the foreseeable future.

 

With Tower City being the rail hub, moving the bus connections away doesn't make much sense to me.  Expecting some quiet pastoral contemplation zone in the middle of downtown doesn't make much sense to me either.  I mean, why not hang out on the Mall if you want that, it's peaceful to a fault over there. 

 

That's why I'm not sure redesigning the square was a great use of funds in the first place.  Landscape design was never really that big of a problem.  But we're throwing massive piles of money at it, and claiming there's no money for anything else.  Just based supporters' stated rationales, I think some folks had an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that the bus system was going to disappear as part of this project.  No.

 

I'm generally in agreement with you.  My only beef with the old design are the the 2 mega-wide streets, Ontario and Superior, cutting the Square into 4 little square-lets.  The new design only partially fixes that allowing buses and "special" vehicles to traverse the Square.  Even though it's congested, I'm not sure the current temporary bus terminal next to the casino is the worse thing in the world.  I'm not for sticking bus riders out of sight, out of mind, but at least at the casino location riders are still very accessible to the Rapid.  I actually thought a similar bus terminal on Prospect behind Terminal Tower would be even better ... it has more space and is directly at the entrances to TC and the Rapid ... on both sides of the street.  They are almost like subway entrances; but a lot more classy.

 

Cleveland's rail riders are out of sight, out of mind. Unless you're in the Flats, no visitor to Cleveland would know there is a rapid transit system.

 

The Casino is an example of Cleveland's latest TOD.  An all indoor connection to the rail hub.  How much of an increase in ridership has the Casino generated?