http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/post_536.html

 

Just posted on cleveland.com

 

I don't think this is a good idea. This will bring people that should not be in the warehouse district there. Maybe i'm wrong??

 

Yes, you're wrong.

My first reaction is to say yes, but I can't prove it. I think Jerry is in a much better position to answer.

^ now let the guy explain himself.  Perhaps he doesnt want bus traffic outside where people like to dine....hopefully.

Getting back to the article...

I was very excited to read this. It addresses a number of things and solves many problems: removes the buses from public square to allow redevelopment, finally would develop a WHD parking lot, create a more pleasant environment for RTA riders, and best of all allow for retail AND housing. A lot of people on the board have been discussing housing downtown lately and so to finally see some possible progress is exciting! I hope this is done the right way because I think it could be great.

I think this could be either really good or really bad, depending on the design and if its truly transit oriented development. I love the idea of having these transit centers that resemble airport terminals like the STJ transit center somewhat is. If they make sure that the design and location are right and that its integrated with the neighborhood, this could work. Plus, it does the all-important goal of freeing up Public Square, which we desperately need.

I don't think the poster is out of line whereas calling him disgusting and racist just like that is beneath you, KJP. I get what he's saying too and it is a fair, albeit simplified, comment on the complexities of having a hub there.

 

If I resided in an expensive condo on w6, you can bet I'd have concerns with a hub across the street. Sure there would be pros, but you have to look at both sides. A walk along public square part ii at 3am over the summer may not be what I want with this investment.

What I am thinking about with this development is that while the positives are that it sucks up surface parking, I think about it and .. would anyone want to take a bus that terminates here in the morning? I suppose they are going to run the trolley service right by so maybe this is how it will be done. But in all honesty (and I am just raising the question to be critical) how well does it compliment the transit system? And how will they establish a connection with the rapid lines? (that is very important if you ask me)

I'm all for filling in the sea of parking lots in the Warehouse District, but a BUS HUB? "Cleveland" has it right but says it wrong...

 

How many bus riders currently disembark on public square less than a block from a shopping mall? How many of those bus riders do any shopping or dining while waiting for their connecting bus? You can probably count those people on one hand.

 

Why is public square consistently panned now by people from the suburbs, who refuse to go downtown? Because they see scary people are milling about waiting for busses! Therefore, lets take some/all of the preconceived negative biases from public square, and transplant them THREE BLOCKS over to the part of downtown that has the closest thing to a 24/7 bustle we all want in the big city. Is this area currently underserved by RTA?

 

There are already enough areas on the west side that would benefit a million times more from the same investment being talked about here. The former Giant Eagle at 117th and Clifton comes to mind, as well as the unused RTA bus barn at Pearl and State. Build a bus hub there with retail and a few floor office/apartment buildings attached instead. 

Taking the buses off public square is a terrible idea, because that's where the rail hub is.  Our whole system becomes disjointed if the buses converge elsewhere.  I've asked several times for someone to explain the logistics behind this "east/west transit center" concept and I'm still curious.  And yeah, bus stations rarely improve their immediate vicinity.  Seems at odds with all other aspects of WHD development to this point.  Also, RTA has a lot of other needs that ought to trump this.  I don't even see why this is a need at all.  It just seems like yet another horribly misguided move.

I tried to being ISO 9000 style procedures to a county agency here a few years ago.  For the most part, they were flabbergasted at the concept.  We did have some success but not without overcoming substantial resistance.  They didn't even want to write down what their procedures were, let alone analyze them.

Like other big developments the devil is in the details.  Hopefully this idea would be a transfer facility not the total relocation of all buses from the Tower City/Public Square area.  I noticed looking at one of the posts in the Public Square thread showed the various stops on PS that the buses typically have 2 stops in PS.  My impression of what this facility could do is take one of those stops off that have all the people congregated around disparate areas of PS because they are transferring.  This way PS could close off both roads. 

  I would think that the transfer facility would only use maybe half the block closest to PS if it were to have 6-8 bays.  Perhaps have the HealthLine swing by this new facility?  Maybe have a free shuttle connecting the East side Transit station to the Warehouse one.

  With an efficient transfer facility it is safer, controlled and I believe the whole transfer process would be much more expedient and Cleveland would stop using Public Square as its main bus terminal. 

 

KJP, do you have any examples of "nice" bus hubs so that people can envision them? 

IIRC, Ann Arbor (boo UM) has some nice bus hubs/parking garages that fit well into the city grid. 

3 things

- buses would most likely still go through/stop on public square, but the trip might start or end at the transit center, with layovers taking place there

- this offers opportunities to extend the healthline to the whd, which is a good thing, and also provides layover space for healthline vehicles, many of which now go back to a garage after peak periods.

- it is all in the details and execution.

^^Denver.  Seeing the operation of its bus hubs was a real revelation for me.  Both designed to be discreet, with occupiable space above, either plaza or building.  Note that the visible drop-off areas are for the free downtown shuttles, not for the mainline bus routes- the stations are entirely enclosed.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denver,+CO&hl=en&ll=39.75063,-104.998441&spn=0.002607,0.006539&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.799322,107.138672&vpsrc=6&t=w&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&z=18

 

and

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denver,+CO&hl=en&ll=39.741308,-104.986682&spn=0.002607,0.006539&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.799322,107.138672&vpsrc=6&t=w&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&z=18

 

 

KJP, do you have any examples of "nice" bus hubs so that people can envision them? 

IIRC, Ann Arbor (boo UM) has some nice bus hubs/parking garages that fit well into the city grid. 

 

Denver is a good one (see above).

 

This is the layout of the Columbus transit center, although it hasn't been built yet. It shows how it will fit into the downtown street grid:

 

 

 

I wish I could find a better picture, but the Lancaster, PA Queen Street Station transit center is an excellent design. The facade is offices on the upper floors with the interior an open-air transit hub:

 

 

 

OK, found more! Here's a view of the Lancaster Queen Street station, looking toward Queen Street from the area where bus bays are located:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an article about transit centers with two small pictures included. I wish I could find a better photo of Minneapolis' Uptown Transit Center showing its clock tower and facade:

 

http://www.metrocouncil.org/directions/transit/transit2006/transitcentersFeb06.htm

 

 

 

 

This is the East Michigan Street transit center in Milwaukee that could be demolished for a 20-story office building on the lakefront:

 

 

 

This is the Federal Way Transit Center in Seattle:

 

 

 

Bellevue Transit Center in metro Seattle:

 

 

 

There's a few others worth posting (Pittsburgh, Ogden, etc), but I can't find good (large) pictures of them.

If the facility is enclosed and doesn't occupy the lot right on PS, it's not a bad idea. I'd like to think Jacobs won't dump his PS lot to RTA; someone will build something there eventually. The other ones, I could care less - anything is better than parking lots, and if it promotes the new public square concept, all the better. If it occupies the lot just west of that, is there still an easy way to get people to the red line?

^^Denver.  Seeing the operation of its bus hubs was a real revelation for me.  Both designed to be discreet, with occupiable space above, either plaza or building.  Note that the visible drop-off areas are for the free downtown shuttles, not for the mainline bus routes- the stations are entirely enclosed.

 

 

I attempted to use this bus stop last month to get from downtown Denver to the airport. I looked up the bus schedules and arrived at this station a few minutes early to catch the bus. I found it very confusing where I was supposed to go and which bays the buses actually stopped that I wanted (of course no one to ask). By the time I figured it out, the bus had just left, and required me to hail a taxi to the airport. Boo!

 

KJP, do you have any examples of "nice" bus hubs so that people can envision them? 

IIRC, Ann Arbor (boo UM) has some nice bus hubs/parking garages that fit well into the city grid. 

 

There was a hub downtown that was sandwiched behind the post office and a ymca (later torn down). It was very discreet for a bus terminal, yet in a great location. There's been a lot of construction around this spot recently. They also had a hub in the parking lot of shopping plaza a few miles from downtown near the interstate. It served both as a park and ride and transfer spot. There was a Starbucks and other food joints adjacent to this so if you had 20 minutes til your next bus, you could occupy your time well.

 

The downtown public square "bus stop" doesn't work. Waiting 20 minutes outside at 11:30pm in the winter time is not a pleasant experience. It's dark, it's cold, it's uncomfortable, and it doesn't feel safe. It would be nice for a dedicated facility that was lit and had security present.

What about here? This would give direct indoor access to the rapids.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Cleveland&hl=en&ll=41.498244,-81.695623&spn=0.002101,0.004823&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.094886,79.013672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&t=h&z=18

If anybody remembers my post in the redesigning public square thread about a bus transit center there with GCRTA HQ on top and private development on top of that.... This is what I was hinting at :).  Just wasn't sure if I was supposed to talk about it.  :lol:

A bus depot in the WHD is a terrible idea. when the market rebounds, housing/retail projects will return to the drawing board and eventually the surface lots will disappear. putting a bus transfer station in the WHD will prevent the area from become a nice walkable area. The bus transfer area is just for that--for transfers--and where buses can layover at the end of their routes. Why do this in such a prime piece of real estate in the city? This could be done anywhere--say somewhere in the West Flats or by Browns Stadium. This idea is REALLLLLY crazy and misguided.

 

Note--i'm not against these bus transfer centers, but they should located where they will not negatively impact areas that strong potential for economic vitality.

What about here? This would give direct indoor access to the rapids.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Cleveland&hl=en&ll=41.498244,-81.695623&spn=0.002101,0.004823&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.094886,79.013672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&t=h&z=18

 

I think that site is too small for a transit hub, unless the buses are just passing through.

 

A bus depot in the WHD is a terrible idea. when the market rebounds, housing/retail projects will return to the drawing board and eventually the surface lots will disappear. putting a bus transfer station in the WHD will prevent the area from become a nice walkable area. The bus transfer area is just for that--for transfers--and where buses can layover at the end of their routes. Why do this in such a prime piece of real estate in the city? This could be done anywhere--say somewhere in the West Flats or by Browns Stadium. This idea is REALLLLLY crazy and misguided.

 

Note--i'm not against these bus transfer centers, but they should located where they will not negatively impact areas that strong potential for economic vitality.

 

Sorry chief, but many bus transit centers create foot traffic and economic activity -- especially of the high density urban kind.

^I agree. I think the proper thing to do is to take as "wait and see" approach because the design and the layout of this thing will really make a difference as to whether it succeeds or not. But for people to shut the idea down before we even see the full plan is sad and is indicative of the caveman stereotypes some still think of whenever public transportation is brought into the conversation. Because, of course, Public Transportation attracts "those people". Its sad, because I think this COULD (keyword: could) be a great idea. And it'd be a shame to see it killed by elitism. Now we may see all the details and decide, "gee, this thing really sucks". But WAIT for the details! Don't shut it down out of hand. Calling it "misguided" when we don't even have all the details yet is, well, "misguided".

Because, of course, Public Transportation attracts "those people". Its sad, because I think this COULD (keyword: could) be a great idea. And it'd be a shame to see it killed by elitism.

 

You think I'm an elitist? I take the bus and I assure you I'm a practicalist and no elitist. Actually "those people" are school kids, but I bet you were thinking of other people...which makes YOU the elitist. Right now Public Square IS this transit center. It is where routes are designed to intersect to allow a central location for transfers amongst numerous routes. But---its not a true 'transit center' because--thank God--buses don't sit there on layover. That said, a lot of people stay away from Public Square at key times per day is because of the school kids--that's what people are really trying to avoid (not the guy who takes the bus to and from work). Yes, there may be some of that too, people just sitting around, yet public square is just that, a 'public square'. some of those folks will stay at public square, though provide a nice roof/shelter and the WHD is an even better place to hang out/sleep. This scene will stunt growth and development. Waiting for plans means waiting for it to be further developed.

 

Here's a hint--Why do you think this WHD bus concept is arising? because the powers that be realize the impact of bus transfers/school kids on Public Square and want to revitalize the area (casino, main walkway between Tower City and the Convention Center, etc.) and thus have to move this function SOMEWHERE.

 

This isn't about making the WHD a better place, its about trying to improve Public Square by removing an undesirable element there and moving it elsewhere.

^I agree. I think the proper thing to do is to take as "wait and see" approach because the design and the layout of this thing will really make a difference as to whether it succeeds or not. But for people to shut the idea down before we even see the full plan is sad and is indicative of the caveman stereotypes some still think of whenever public transportation is brought into the conversation. Because, of course, Public Transportation attracts "those people". Its sad, because I think this COULD (keyword: could) be a great idea. And it'd be a shame to see it killed by elitism. Now we may see all the details and decide, "gee, this thing really sucks". But WAIT for the details! Don't shut it down out of hand. Calling it "misguided" when we don't even have all the details yet is, well, "misguided".

As I've said before, this is a perfect example of certain people in Cleveland always pointing out the negative (whats "bad"/"wrong") in developments or situations and never (or rarely) pointing out the positives.

 

Just to be clear, im not picking on you PUGU, but using your post as an example on something I've said many times on many different projects/developments/topics across the board here on UO.

Because, of course, Public Transportation attracts "those people". Its sad, because I think this COULD (keyword: could) be a great idea. And it'd be a shame to see it killed by elitism.

 

You think I'm an elitist? I take the bus and I assure you I'm a practicalist and no elitist. Actually "those people" are school kids, but I bet you were thinking of other people...which makes YOU the elitist. Right now Public Square IS this transit center. It is where routes are designed to intersect to allow a central location for transfers amongst numerous routes. But---its not a true 'transit center' because--thank God--buses don't sit there on layover. That said, a lot of people stay away from Public Square at key times per day is because of the school kids--that's what people are really trying to avoid (not the guy who takes the bus to and from work). Yes, there may be some of that too, people just sitting around, yet public square is just that, a 'public square'. some of those folks will stay at public square, though provide a nice roof/shelter and the WHD is an even better place to hang out/sleep. This scene will stunt growth and development. Waiting for plans means waiting for it to be further developed.

Here's a hint--Why do you think this WHD bus concept is arising? because the powers that be realize the impact of bus transfers/school kids on Public Square and want to revitalize the area (casino, main walkway between Tower City and the Convention Center, etc.) and thus have to move this function SOMEWHERE.This isn't about making the WHD a better place, its about trying to improve Public Square by removing an undesirable element there and moving it elsewhere.

 

Really?  If you can make a statement like that, please show us some written proof.

^I don't think anybody has actually put that in writing. I'd be very surprised it they did.

^I don't think anybody has actually put that in writing. I'd be very surprised it they did.

 

Then how could you come to that conclusion?

^I don't think anybody has actually put that in writing. I'd be very surprised it they did.

 

The west side transit center will not relieve any bus traffic from Public Square. The buses currently idle on Prospect. While this project may benefit the casino, that's not why it is being investigated. My info is first hand.

Then how could you come to that conclusion?

 

Its what I've heard (not read).

 

Then how could you come to that conclusion?

 

Its what I've heard (not read).

 

 

This is crazy talk.  Some crap people posted on cleveland.bomb.  The transit centers, plural, were discussed even before the casino was a though.

About the extension into Euclid: I think its a FANTASTIC idea. I'm torn between which line should be extended. Which one would be the easiest and more beneficial? (As we know in Cleveland, the easier we can keep it, the more likely it is to get done) My heart says to extend the Red Line. But my head says to extend the Healthline. Just seems like logistically, it'd be easier to do that. I hope I'm wrong though, because I'd love to see an extension of the Red Line.

 

As far as how far it would go, I would like to see whatever line extended go into Lake County. That makes a lot of sense. I'm not too optimistic about that, however, because Lake is served by another governmental agency (Laketran) and we ALL know how hard it is to get different governmental agencies in differing counties to work with each other in a timely manner for the common good. So if we can't get it extended INTO Lake County, we should get it up to the Cuyahoga County line. I think there's a huge market for that. And the easier that we can get Lake County residents into University Circle and downtown, the better.

 

Thirdly, while I understand the need for RTA to diversify its routes, I think attempting to remove downtown Cleveland from the center of gravity would be unnecessary and a quick way to render downtown into irrelevance. You don't have to do that. As another poster mentioned, its okay to have employment centers in Independence, Beachwood, etc. but you've got to protect your downtown. (And I think we've done a pretty good job at doing that). Without your downtown, you're Detroit (and even THEY are starting to rebuild their downtown). Instead of having a situation where its like "well we have to choose downtown or Beachwood or Independance or University Circle, etc." why not choose all of them? UC and Downtown are already connected. Why not link Independance to Downtown Cleveland? And extending RTA into Chagrin Highlands should've been done like yesterday. No we shouldn't put all of our eggs in one basket. But Downtown Cleveland is the mecca and should always remain the mecca. But that doesn't mean we can't do things to strengthen all of our regional employment centers. Why choose? Have it all! Regions are starting to realize that a strong downtown in the center city is critical for the region, especially among young companies that WANT to be downtown. So, while all of these employment centers in the city and in the suburbs are fine, we shouldn't act as if Downtown Cleveland is disposable. It's not. I want to make it easier for MORE people to get downtown. Linking the business districts around the county together strengthens all of them. We can have our cake and eat it too, in this instance.

And KJP, if a Red Line extension were to go through Collinwood Yards, how close would that be to the Collinwood Yards business district over there? Its a nice little district with a ton of potential for more growth. Jergens, Sodexo (sp?), the Cleveland Foodbank, and the Social Security Administration building are all on that Collinwood Yards development. I've only been to where the buildings are and never paid any attention to the rail lines, but if its close, that could be a GREAT thing for the Collinwood neighborhood and their business district.

It appears this project is geared toward getting public/federal money to help jump start development that private developers (see Bob "talk big/big talk" Stark) couldn't afford.  I too am weary of the negative stereotype of public transit "people" as well as those who will crap on a project before knowing full details.  Done right, this could work.  Off street/pull out bus bins (not unlike the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones transit center to the East), but integrated into a building with shops, stores and offices over and adjacent to the transit center (as the above, photo gallery of similar projects indicates), could be very positive.   

 

But most importantly, it can jump start to fill one of those horrible Cleveland bug-a-boos we have been unable/unwilling to accomplish (along side developing the lakefront, extending the Rapid and winning a pro champhionship): filling the hole between Public Square (and the downtown core) and the WHD... It's now 21 years and counting, and still nothing concrete. 

 

As for the purely transit aspect, 327, I don't think moving the bus terminal off the Square will necessarily hurt/kill the rail-bus connection, although you raise a good point... so long as all routes continue to pass through and around Public Square, I think it's OK (I realize our winters suck, but passengers not having the luxury of sitting in idling, dead-head/turn- around (see toasty warm) buses, as some do in/around the Square area, now, won't kill riders (and heck, most of that was elimnated with the Health Line anyway, right?)... KJP notes that connections would be better from Prospect, anyway, because the street passes directly over the Tower City rail terminal with escalator/elevator access from street-to-tracks on both sides of the street)... Keep in mind, also, that if we are serious about redeveloping Public Square to better accommodate/be attractive to, the greater crowds generated by the casino and it's spin-off development, we're going to have to displace/eliminate the bus terminal at the Square, anyway...

 

... but this is drifting to a discussion better left to the Transit threads... In sum, though, as a development tool to bridge downtown and the WHD, I like the thinking of this project.

I tried to being ISO 9000 style procedures to a county agency here a few years ago.  For the most part, they were flabbergasted at the concept.  We did have some success but not without overcoming substantial resistance.  They didn't even want to write down what their procedures were, let alone analyze them.

 

I was involved with the early days, back when ISO 9000 was still an ANSI standard.  We saw the exact same kind of resistance during the implementation phases.

 

I would think such a mindset would do wonders for an agency which might not otherwise face outside competition. 

 

Unlike other conservatives, I don't think government always screws things up.  It does things well when there's a closed end objective, ideally with outside competition, or there are concrete measurable results.  Wars, the interstates, and Apollo come to mind.  When goals are open ended and subject to change, they don't do so well....but neither do companies.  The difference is, companies don't survive when they don't do well.  RTA falls sort of in the middle.

The west side transit center will not relieve any bus traffic from Public Square. The buses currently idle on Prospect. While this project may benefit the casino, that's not why it is being investigated. My info is first hand.

 

Thank you for that.  I don't know why people would think otherwise.  This transit center has been on RTA's wish list for years now, long before the casino initiative was proposed.  We already have a transit center downtown serving the west side routes and it didn't change their service to public square.  This one is meant to work the same way, serving the east side routes.  Under current conditions, the operational justification for this is very sound and transparent.

 

I think there are two big open questions with this thing: (1) what impact will this have on the WHD in terms of traffic, noise, air quality and opportunity costs? and (2) is the siting being viewed in light of a possible public square reconfiguration?  For #1, I would be a bit hesitant to site this thing north of Frankfurt, but I would think something on Superior between 6th and 3rd could work very well without any serious negative effects on the WHD. 

I'm skeptical but willing to hear them out, so I'm going to try and attend the 6pm meeting on Wednesday at RTA headquarters.

 

The positive is that this may spur new residential/office/retail opportunities.  Then again, if the "retail" is a check cashing place and a convenience store selling Wild Irish Rose and mini cigars, that could quickly become a negative.

 

I appreciate the examples of mixed use bus stations in other cities, but I don't know of any in Cleveland.  It's great if it works in other cities, but that doesn't mean it will work here where getting around by car is easy and most bus riders do it out of necessity, rather than choice.  (yes, I know Urban Ohio readers buck the trend on this one)  Cleveland's current hottest neighborhoods did not become that way thanks to public transit.

 

I also feel that in the near future the parking lots in the Warehouse District could get developed without the help of RTA and I would hate future developers to be saying, "If only that bus depot wasn't there." 

 

A transit station with a lot of buses entering and leaving it will hurt walkability in the same way the casino parking garage will and many on this forum argued against that garage for that reason.

 

I do agree with StrapHanger that if this has to go somewhere in the WHD, fronting Superior between West 6th and 3rd would be a better option than something north of Frankfurt. 

The positive is that this may spur new residential/office/retail opportunities.

 

Oh, yes. Now that there's an RTA bus transfer facility, I'm going to decide to build a $50m apartment and office building next door to cash in on that.

jborger....I might be misreading your post, specifically par. 3, but it seems that you are suggesting that the retail mix-used aspect of the center is some how related to public transportation in and of itself.  My view of the proposed mix used development is that we are building this more or less in the heart of downtown.  Therefore, it would be a superior development if there was new retail (whether downtown currently can support new retail is for another thread) at this location and it would be patronized by office workers, residents or visitors no matter how they got downtown (whether by car, taxi, public transportation or horse drawn buggies).

I think thats the right thinking Jborger.  I’m equally skeptical as you and some of the others with many of the same concerns, but would also like to know more. 

 

As Clvlndr mentions it is basically being used as another tool to pull in some fed funds in order to jumpstart something in the Warehouse District (which unfortunately Cleveland tends to need in order to make a project feasible), but I’m not sure at what cost it would come at in this case, as far as possibly limiting future uses. 

 

Another good point Jborger makes is that people are quick to show where something worked somewhere else, but that is “somewhere else”, likely in a place with totally different dynamics than Cleveland has and arent necessarily based on the reality there. 

Thus my DC examples would not apply at all whatsoever to Cleveland.... 

Also somebody mentioned that the East side transit center is almost always nearly empty???  So is it even serving its purpose?

 

Thus why your statement “Cleveland's current hottest neighborhoods did not become that way thanks to public transit”, is so important to remember (not that it couldn’t be that way, but the dynamics just don’t really support that). 

 

Showing examples of development in other cities doesn't mean that's what can be done here, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to show what's possible. Too many people in this town are unaware of the world around them and therefore believe something is impossible if it hasn't been done here already.

 

And yes, access to public transportation has spurred economic development. That's not new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_oriented_development) It's just new to those of us who still mentally live in the 20th century.

 

Public transportation is important to any 21st century city. I don't believe we should have a no-car society, but we MUST improve and increase our public transportation in order to compete in this era. As long as 20th century thinking continues to rule the day by putting a bad taste in the mouths of some any time RTA is even mentioned, we will continue to get left behind in that department.

 

As I've said before, I want to see some renderings. I want to see some plans. I want to know exactly where this thing is going to be. I want to know the details. THEN, I'll make a judgment on it.

Showing examples of development in other cities doesn't mean that's what can be done here, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to show what's possible. Too many people in this town are unaware of the world around them and therefore believe something is impossible if it hasn't been done here already.

 

And yes, access to public transportation has spurred economic development. That's not new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_oriented_development) It's just new to those of us who still mentally live in the 20th century.

 

Public transportation is important to any 21st century city. I don't believe we should have an no-car society, but we MUST improve and increase our public transportation in order to compete in this era. As long as 20th century thinking continues to rule the day by putting a bad taste in the mouths of some any time RTA is even mentioned, we will continue to get left behind in that department.

 

I show examples all the time when its something that can be compared in the same context (and then MTS ususally chimes in saying "thats like comparing apples to oranges" :lol:).  I think most of us already know of the possiblilities for the Warehouse district. 

 

Your other statement: "And yes, access to public transportation has spurred economic development. That's not new".  Of course it has... That goes without saying.  I dont think anybody said that it hasnt or cant, I mean I live in DC!!!  There are billions of dollars in construction around pretty much all of the metro stations here, with crazy costing housing due to the proximity to transit.  This is due to many factors, of which Cleveland shares almost none of.  But then again thats not exactly a bus hub either.  The demand is there for development in the WHD, the bus hub is irrelevent to that, its a feasability issue. 

 

I think most of us would like to see Cleveland make make better use of its current transit situations in making transit and living succesful (O.C., Shaker, etc) and build on that.  The growth in Ohio City has little to do with the rapid station thats there, in fact you can likely still buy a house for 20,000 within a block of this station (the low property values in such close proximity to Clevelands rapid stations indicates quite a bit here)...  I think and hope many people are seeing the value of not having to rely on a car in Cleveland, but most of the factors that make this kind of thinking a necessity just do not exist there.             

 

Oh, yes. Now that there's an RTA bus transfer facility, I'm going to decide to build a $50m apartment and office building next door to cash in on that.

 

Ask Ari Maron why MRN Ltd. is investing where they are. I'll tell you what he told me. MRN is preferring to invest in sites along the Red Line because he sees energy constraints lasting for a long time and he sees that Greater Cleveland lacks the housing product necessary to provide competitive, high-quality, low-mileage lifestyles for GenY and Baby Boomers. While Greater Cleveland lacks the population and traffic pressures of competing cities, if Cleveland doesn't offer some semblance of that lifestyle it will continue to lose more young professionals to places that do.

 

And to bring this back to the Warehouse District, since it offers perhaps the most "clean slate" land downtown, it's one of the best places to build this lifestyle -- IF the public sector is willing and able to step in and help improve the financing economics of building it.

KJP--Rail lines attract investment, I don't doubt that. Just look at NYC. So, if MRN is building along the Red Line, its a smart thing to do. But we're talking about a bus depot of sorts. My fear is that it would have the opposite effect of a rail station--it would hinder future development. I'm not familiar with the Tubbs transit center mentioned above. Did that bring nearby economic development (as we should, as others mentioned above, use a Cleveland example in this town)? I know the Greyhound station didn't attract any development in the last 20 years---maybe it did when buses were fashionable, but not lately. In fact I know folks who avoid even that side of the street to not walk by it.

I know, this beling Cleveland, that many people will be skittish about extending the Red Line as opposed to the Health Line because of cost... Keep in mind, however, that even the Vans, who planned the line 90 years ago, in the 1920s, always projected the line to extend beyond East Cleveland.  The Vans had the line ending at Dille Road in Euclid (which was largely farm land in those days) -- only a few miles away from the current proposed eastern end, either at Euclid Square Mall or the Cuyahoga County line.

KJP--Rail lines attract investment, I don't doubt that. Just look at NYC. So, if MRN is building along the Red Line, its a smart thing to do. But we're talking about a bus depot of sorts. My fear is that it would have the opposite effect of a rail station--it would hinder future development. I'm not familiar with the Tubbs transit center mentioned above. Did that bring nearby economic development (as we should, as others mentioned above, use a Cleveland example in this town)? I know the Greyhound station didn't attract any development in the last 20 years---maybe it did when buses were fashionable, but not lately. In fact I know folks who avoid even that side of the street to not walk by it.

 

A fixed transit facility is what attracts investment. The reason why most bus routes don't attract significant investment is because you can move the routes too easily to makes a developer/investor weary that the service will be there in the future. But a bus transit center represents as much of a long-term investment as a rail line does, offers possibly as frequent of a service (depending on where you're going), and usually offers more destination possibilities than a rail line. So even a bus service that is stabilized by a fixed alignment with frequent or enough service, such as the HealthLine, can attract investment.

KJP,

 

do you know if the tunnels under tower city extend westward at all towards the warehouse district?

A fixed transit facility is what attracts investment.

 

Then how do you answer Pugu's valid point about the lack of investment around the Greyhound bus station?  I think there is a point to be made about developers feeling certain transit is more desirable than others (right or wrong, or even being an opinion that can change over time).

The difference is, companies don't survive when they don't do well.  RTA falls sort of in the middle.

 

Ever since companies became "too big to fail," I'm not sure that applies anymore.  Most large companies are so diverse in their offerings (and monopolizing) these days that they can fail in one area, but make enough profit in others to stay afloat (or fail in one area but still maintain it because they have squashed out competition through practices which would have been deemed illegal before the anti-trust laws were relaxed in the 1980s).

Or...  "I'm not familiar with the Tubbs transit center mentioned above. Did that bring nearby economic development (as we should, as others mentioned above, use a Cleveland example in this town)?"

 

 

KJP--Rail lines attract investment, I don't doubt that. Just look at NYC. So, if MRN is building along the Red Line, its a smart thing to do. But we're talking about a bus depot of sorts. My fear is that it would have the opposite effect of a rail station--it would hinder future development. I'm not familiar with the Tubbs transit center mentioned above. Did that bring nearby economic development (as we should, as others mentioned above, use a Cleveland example in this town)? I know the Greyhound station didn't attract any development in the last 20 years---maybe it did when buses were fashionable, but not lately. In fact I know folks who avoid even that side of the street to not walk by it.

 

A fixed transit facility is what attracts investment. The reason why most bus routes don't attract significant investment is because you can move the routes too easily to makes a developer/investor weary that the service will be there in the future. But a bus transit center represents as much of a long-term investment as a rail line does, offers possibly as frequent of a service (depending on where you're going), and usually offers more destination possibilities than a rail line. So even a bus service that is stabilized by a fixed alignment with frequent or enough service, such as the HealthLine, can attract investment.

Bingo.  :clap: