Just to be clear, there are two kinds of project goals here; one is transit operation and palatable design, where other cities can definitely offer inspiration, even if their conditions are different.  The other is some more generalized economic development/spill-over effect, for which I agree it's very difficult to compare the experiences of once city to another.

Bus terminals and rail stations aren't even in the same ballpark, in terms of wanting to be nearby.  People rarely want to live near an active truck yard of any kind.  They get more traffic than a train station gets and it's all loud & smelly.  Plus, I just can't see spending this much money on two new facilities just for buses to idle at.

This won't have the same function, purpose, design, or effect as a Greyhound bus station.  It won't be the Port Authority in NYC either.

This won't have the same function, purpose, design, or effect as a Greyhound bus station.  It won't be the Port Authority in NYC either.

 

I don't doubt that this project *could* have a positive effect.  I'm just pointing out that not all fixed transit centers have positive effects, so it's disingenuous to try to say something necessarily will have a positive effect just because it is a fixed transit center.  It needs to have some other merits to attract development.

... btw, if you want to look at a similar-sized city with LESS density, more sprawl than Cleveland and that is currently a car-oriented/easy driving city, but that is investing $Billions in an enormous rail network, that is already developing TOD: look no further than Denver.... Just goes to show what we could have if we had 1) vision and 2) planning... But the fact that, even on a sophisticated board like UO, some posters have a negative view of how transit investiment, including the proposed WHD (investment-attracting) project, indicates the depth of the problem we have toward transit smart growth in this town... The nation goes one way, but Cleveland (and Ohio -- see Cincy and Columbus) march to their own backwards drummer.... Damn shame.

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).

 

I'm not so sure about that, corporations these days are pretty ruthless about squeezing out noncompetitive divisions, or shaking them up enough to force them to get their stuff together.

Guys, we are drifting off topic.

I don't doubt that this project *could* have a positive effect.  I'm just pointing out that not all fixed transit centers have positive effects, so it's disingenuous to try to say something necessarily will have a positive effect just because it is a fixed transit center.  It needs to have some other merits to attract development.

 

Very true. We could end up creating another Rosa Parks Transit Center in Detroit, which has become a complete disaster thanks to it having the only public restrooms in downtown Detroit. The building has had to undergo rehab even though it is only a few years old. It's a beautiful design, but great design doesn't excuse day-to-day upkeep (why do I think EC is going to use that to take this thread in a totally different direction?!?). Cleveland's Greyhound station is another example. It's a cool, art deco design. But the upkeep and security at the building leaves much to be desired. Here's the Rosa Parks Transit Center in Detroit....

 

 

 

Mayor Gets Earfull On Dirty Detroit Transit Center

November 22, 2010 12:36 PM

 

Detroit Mayor Bing’s Administration is being forced to answer questions about the ongoing cleanliness problem at the new Rosa Park’s Transit Center.

 

The Rosa Park’s Transit Center, which opened in 2009, sits on the corner of Cass and Michigan Ave. The city-owned facility serves as a 24-hour center for public transportation around Detroit and Windsor.

 

The center also has the only public restrooms in the downtown Detroit area that are open to the homeless community without question or security checks.

 

Read more at:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2010/11/22/issues-of-cleanliness-at-detroit-transit-center/

Or we could create a Lancaster, PA transit center that is well integrated into the downtown fabric and has been a part of a restored retail district nearby, commonly referred to as the 300 block of North Queen Street. The county also moved its administration building across Queen Street, built right up to the sidewalk, to create a nexus of public services in a compact, walkable setting...

 

http://www.redrosetransit.com/queen-street-station.html

 

Queen Street Station

 

Queen Street Station is RRTA's Downtown Lancaster transit center. The station offers a clean, safe, urban park setting for customers waiting or transferring to many RRTA routes. The park offers shelters and benches amongst trees to create a pleasing environment for customers waiting for their bus.

 

There are eleven bus routes that serve Queen Street Station. Other routes are only a short walk away. The RRTA Information Center at Queen Street Station, which is connected to the transit center, offers a waiting area, restrooms and a sales outlet for our customers to use while they visit the station.

 

Services & Amenities

 

Bike Racks

Public Restrooms

Seating Area

Snack Machines

ATM

Television in Waiting Area

 

Ticket and Pass Sales

General Service Information

Red Rose Access Office Hours - weekdays 9:30 AM to 12 PM and 2 PM to 4 PM

 

http://www.redrosetransit.com/queen-street-station.html

 

 

 

Thanks, KJP.  Regardless of what clvnldr's comment insinuates, some of us here are just realistic and realize that there are good transit centers and bad ones.  I think a new transit center would be great, it's just that I can understand that people want to make sure the type/design/location of the center is good and not a "whatever we can get we'll take" approach.

well this has been pitched as a mixed use facility to help spur (and tap into funds to make possible) all the types of development we would all like to see on these lots. So... perhaps we should wait to see the actual plan before condemning or extolling this potential development. :)

... btw, if you want to look at a similar-sized city with LESS density, more sprawl than Cleveland and that is currently a car-oriented/easy driving city, but that is investing $Billions in an enormous rail network, that is already developing TOD: look no further than Denver.... Just goes to show what we could have if we had 1) vision and 2) planning...

 

I'd say those are the least of our problems.  Funding is issue #1.  Mayor Jackson has proven to be somewhat of a fiscal conservative.  Take a look at the numbers and you will find that our budget shortfall projections are significantly less than free-spending cities like Denver, which has been projected at nearly 5x our shortfall.

I went to the meeting this evening to hear more about RTA's plans for a bus transit center in the warehouse district.  I went in cautiously optimistic and left feeling like this is a good plan - if a developer ever buys into it.

 

RTA's consultant looked at parking lots throughout the Warehouse District and settled on the lot bordered by Superior, West 6th, West 3rd and Frankfort as the best option.

 

The transit center would have one lane of buses entering via Superior, just east of West 6th.  They would exit via four lanes that dump out onto West 3rd.  So the buses would turn right into the center off Superior, then exit by turning right onto West 3rd and then left on Superior to head back east.

 

Around the edges of the transit center - along West 6th and down Frankfort - would be retail that would be 60-65 feet deep.  There seems to be concern from some that this is not deep enough for retail.  There was talk of moving Frankfort slightly north to make more room for retail, but they decided not to do this because a water main would have to be moved and because they wanted a straight road connecting West 9th to West 6th, West 6th to West 3rd and West 3rd to Public Square.

 

There would also be a small amount of retail (maybe one store) along Superior.  West 3rd would pretty much be a dead zone due to four lanes of bus traffic exiting the building. 

 

Above the retail would be three floors of housing along West 6th and Frankfort.  Then at the corner of West 6th and Superior, there would be a 13 story residential tower, about the same height as the Rockefeller building across West 6th.

 

Above the transit center would be 3 levels of parking for about 540 cars.  The current parking lot holds around 240.

 

There had been previous suggestions of a 450,000 sq. ft. office tower at West 3rd and Superior, but this has since been taken off the table due to lack of demand.  There may be the possibility of creating the transit center in such a way that a tower could be built on top in the future, but the consultant said this is a very involved process and adds a lot more work because you have to plan for things like stairwells for a building that doesn't exist and that you don't know how tall it will be.

 

Some have voiced concern that people heading west down Superior towards the Warehouse District will first be greeted by a parking garage/transit center at the corner of West 3rd and Superior.  Not the best entryway to this neighborhood.  So they're going to see if they can make that corner more appealing somehow.  Fancy entrance or something. 

 

They showed block renderings which I'm sure will be available online soon.  The next step is creating more realistic renderings that they can shop around to developers.  Because none of this happens without a private developer wanting to be a part of it.  The public-private partnership may be appealing to a developer because RTA can gather all the land and even do things like build the parking garage which may make new construction of the residential tower more affordable than it would be without RTA.

I went to the meeting this evening to hear more about RTA's plans for a bus transit center in the warehouse district.  I went in cautiously optimistic and left feeling like this is a good plan - if a developer ever buys into it.

 

RTA's consultant looked at parking lots throughout the Warehouse District and settled on the lot bordered by Superior, West 6th, West 3rd and Frankfort as the best option.

 

Thanks for the write-up! I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I just had an "ah ha!" moment. I find it very interesting that this is the block that Forest City Enterprises bought just last year! See my posting at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3323.msg578258.html#msg578258

 

We have often discussed on this forum that it would take subsidies to make the financial numbers work for either housing or office developments to occur. Well.... This transit center would create a large, structural foundation and build a substantial amount of parking for any developer who wants to build on top of it. I can certainly see why a developer would be interested in this, because a big piece of their site development costs would be taken care of by RTA.

Thanks for the detailed report.  That plan is at least 9x better than I expected.  A new residential tower?  Now we're talking.  And I'm glad someone brought up the street wall of W Superior.  Putting the exit on W 3rd helps, that's a good idea. 

I'm quite sad that they tabled the 450,000 sq. ft.  I know it would be pointless now, but I was hoping the future build idea like at 515 would happen.  It's a shame for something in the center of the city to only be as tall as the Rockefeller building.  Other than that.... I think this is awesome! Opens up RTA HQ in the warehouse district, makes the district almost the center transportation hub in the region, adds more retail and housing.... and possibly makes it easier to close down Ontario and Superior for the redesigned Public Square.  Winning all around!!!

Save the 450,000-square-feet of office space for the parking lot on Public Square.

Save the 450,000-square-feet of office space for the parking lot on Public Square.

 

That

Any discussion at the meeting of what the odds are that RTA will actually get funding for this project (obviously necessary before they can even begin to solicit a private developer) in the near future or, for that matter, ever....after all they have been having trouble getting federal funds for the Mayfield Rapid Station and that has been planned for ages.

Moved from the Warehouse District thread.

 

The Mayfield Red Line station has been planned for a long time, but not as long as the West Side Transit Center. This project has been in the planning stages since at least 1998 -- the first media reference I can find.

I think that sounds like a very good plan. Actually increases the parking capacity and adds more people to the area. I am surprised at the size of the residential tower, nice.

 

Question: Does this mean that fewer buses/bus stops are on public square/elsewhere, or is this all 'new' transit?

From what you shared, I liked this plan. And if this is done correctly, I can really see this promoting development on the adjacent lots.

I was also there, the specs weree for 100 unit of housing. 

 

the design was pretty much a blank slate, the Warehouse district and Downtwn cleveland Alliance, brought the project to RTA  DCA also paid for the consultant. 

 

much like the Westshore commuter Rail study RTA is taking a passive role and letting the community come to them, not investing much time and effort on project until considerable community demand warrants their involvement.  Not wanting to be burned again by changing tides of local politics, it seems this is there new model.

 

the issues with development in downtown are understood by DCA, warehouse district and RTA.  in order for development of the parking lots to be profitable the land must be aquired and assembled at lower than market rates, in order for that to work eminent domain may be required, if not the acquisition cost would drive of the costs of the devleopment (remember Stark was planning 5-10 story buildings not the 3-4 story building that would be marketable in the Warehouse district.)  The basic issue is the lots are valued too high to attract development that would be profitable in Cleveland.

 

Maybe the threat of imminent Domain will facilitate the sale of lots at rates closer to what the county values the land.  I think a similar situation to what the port did for the flat east bank., the RTA could do for the the Warehouse district.

From what you shared, I liked this plan. And if this is done correctly, I can really see this promoting development on the adjacent lots.

 

I agree. This is how it usually starts.

I don't know this but I would not surprised that Forest City Enterprises, the new owner of the block where the transit center is located, might remain as the property owner after GCRTA builds its transit center and then FCE adds the apartment tower above it. GCRTA is already the tenant and FCE the landlord at Tower City where GCRTA has its rail station.

 

And considering this project was brought to GCRTA by the Downtown Cleveland Alliance and the Historic Warehouse District CDC, perhaps FCE went to them first and said "the numbers don't work for us building residential towers downtown, but if you were able to get GCRTA to revive its West Side Transit Center project and we built on top of it, then the numbers work a lot better." Of course, FCE could approach them directly, but it would not be a request from community. And given some of the past opposition by Warehouse District stakeholders to prior plans for the transit center, having this request come from DCA and HWHD would probably short-circuit much of that opposition.

How do you use eminent domain to obtain property for less than market rate?  I always thought market rate is what must be paid (i.e. just compensation) whenever ED is used.

 

Any mention of whether the healthline buses would be using this transit center.... or would they continue to loop around PS?

FYI........

 

 

SUPPORT THE LORAIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COALITION!!

 

The mission of the Lorain County Transportation Coalition is to advocate for a well-funded and balanced Lorain County transportation system that meets the needs of all groups and individuals within our community.

 

The goal of the Lorain County Transportation Coalition is to provide an organized local voice for individuals and organizations willing to work together to ensure that Lorain County’s public transit system is affordable, accessible and adequately funded by Federal, State and local dollars, to meet the needs of our community.

 

The objectives of the Lorain County Transportation Coalition are to educate Lorain County residents on the importance of public transit and to help create a consensus Public Transit Vision consisting of a range of affordable, effective and high-quality transit services.

 

Good Public Transit Creates A More Equitable, Vibrant

And Sustainable Lorain County

 

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), every dollar invested in public transportation generates $6 in economic returns. New bus and rail service investments can help make Lorain County more sustainable and accessible and provide new job opportunities.

For public transportation to be a viable alternative it must be safe and reliable, get people where they need to go, when they need to get there, in a timely fashion.  This requires a greater investment in transportation infrastructure and service, which will help our economy as well as auto and transit users.  Investments in transportation infrastructure like road and bridge renewal projects helps the flow of commercial traffic and creates jobs in Lorain County.  Investments in transit services makes Lorain County more competitive in existing and emerging job markets.  Both types of investments are needed.

 

How Does This Affect You and Others?

 

Cars are expensive to own, operate and maintain. For middle-income families, transportation costs for essential trips represent up to 20 percent of basic family budgets, depending on location and family size. Low-income workers spend an even larger share of their paychecks on transportation for essential purposes. 

 

For those who are aging, persons with disabilities and young people, driving a car may not be an option at all. Transit systems with a full range of travel options such as main line buses, trolleys, express buses, community connectors, bus & rail rapid transit, commuter rail, van pools and cab vouchers can reduce or eliminate the need for private car ownership.

 

Nearly 40 percent of those who use public transit depend on it as their only means of transportation. Urban transit riders use transit primarily to get to work. Rural transit riders are mostly the elderly and persons who are mobility challenged.

 

Based on Automobile Association of America data daily transit commuters can save on the order of $9,500 per year by riding transit instead of driving.  Places where a greater percentage of commuters can use public transit are far more productive because riding on transit allows commuters to avoid hazardous weather and road conditions while reading, resting, socializing or working during travel.  Studies have shown these commuters are less stressed and generally lead more healthy lives than commuters who depend solely on the automobile for work-related travel.

 

___  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____  ____ 

 

Yes, Betty, I’ll help the Lorain County Transportation Coalition achieve its mission, goal and objectives!

 

 

Name (Please Print)_______________________________________

 

 

Phone Number________________________________

 

 

Email Address _______________________________________

 

 

SEND THIS TO:

 

Virginia Haynes

Lorain County Community Alliance

[email protected]

How do you use eminent domain to obtain property for less than market rate?  I always thought market rate is what must be paid (i.e. just compensation) whenever ED is used.

 

I mean that lot owners have a tendency to bid up the price of the land once developers become interested in the property. these same owners will often petition the county to lower the appraised property values of parking lots, to lower their tax burden.  the honest truth is that if properties like the the lot on public square were appraised at valued close to that of what could be built there, it would force the lot owners to develop something to make the land generate more revenue. 

 

It is common for large developers to act as silent partners and form shell corporations to hide their true intentions for the property to not give the seller any leverage over the property.  for the FEB, the port acted as a public authority to secure property for the devloper, an (i think) used eminent domain to secure land from a stubborn land owner.

 

Using RTA keeps the City's hands clean because both the port and RTA are Quasi public organizations that are more resistant to political interference, they can operate like ODOT, and whether opposition better than politicians can.

 

 

Any mention of whether the healthline buses would be using this transit center.... or would they continue to loop around PS?

 

My guess is yes the  slide listed slots for 60ft buses, consider all East side buses will terminate there. ALL OF THEM.

 

the big guy in the sweatsuit, Calabreese (SP?) said he was in conversation with the city or FOUR days about how to get the buses of the square, He said it is impossible , ALL buses must go thru the Square, regardless of the West side transit center, they must go thru the Square.  he speculated about a BUS ONLY lane thru the Square, he said a 3 lane road would be more than adequate to handle bus Traffic.

 

If we add all of this together

Forest city aquiring the site in secret

Group plan commission redesign of public square.

Mayor Jackson support the closing of the entire square

The sponsorship of the West side transit center by both WHD and DCA.

 

there seems to be a plan in the works to over come all obstacles to the redesign of the square with honey for all parties involved.

 

Here is a link to the plan that was shown last week:

 

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

 

 

My only reactions are of a non-transportation variety, which I will post in the Warehouse District thread.

I would think, given the potential for moving all bus terminals from Public Square, including the Health Line, in accordance with plans to turn the Square into a public park, RTA should consider a Ron Tober/Gateway-like tunnel/underground walkway, from Tower City under super-wide Superior to the new Transit Center.  Although this tunnel would be wider than the Tober walkway, and have some retail space... This tunnel would not only funnel bus-to-rail/rail-to-bus commuters, it could also connect Tower City (and the casino) more comfortably to the WHD.  How about it?

Cool! Start digging!!

Here is an example from another city, similar to what FCE may be interested in doing here although apparently on a smaller scale.....

 

Forest City Wins Prized Atlanta TOD Contract

Posted December 1, 2011

 

ATLANTA - Forest City Real Estate Asset Services has won the nod from the Georgia Department of Transportation to lead the project team for the development of a multi-modal transportation hub in downtown Atlanta.

 

Cleveland-based Forest City will partner with Cousins Properties Inc. and the Integral Group, both Atlanta-bred firms. Forest City role is fee-based master planning for the 119-acre project in the "Gulch: area near Philips Arena, the Georgia Dome and World Congress Center. Forest City also will coordinate planning, engineering and architectural activities plus facilitate stakeholder involvement.

 

"This will be one of the largest transit-oriented developments in the country," said Emerick J. Corsi Jr., president of Real Estate Asset Services for Forest City Enterprises Inc. "We envision a project that combines residential, office, retail and recreational components to energize and connect downtown Atlanta."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://atlantarealestate.citybizlist.com/3/2011/12/1/Forest-City-Wins-Prized-Atlanta-TOD-Contract.aspx?CFID=148047&CFTOKEN=40595171

Passageway Option1 assumes something is built in the triangle of land across Superior from the transit center, and can incorporate the passageway in its basement. Passageway Option2 assumes that nothing is built in the triangle of land and as much existing infrastructure, including part of the old Cleveland Union Terminal taxi cab stand, is used for the passageway.......

 

 

 

Zoom-in view showing the area where the possible passageway could go:

^That's what I'm talkin' about. :clap:

Would it be possible to have the West Shore Commuter rail and a potential Orange Line running on the same N&S tracks?  My thoughts are that an RTA line to Lakewood could be up and running in a shorter period of time because it is a smaller project.  It could even be an extension of one of the Green-Blue lines west instead being a line of its own color.  Furthermore, the tracks through Lakewood run close enough to Detroit Ave that it should be able to pull cars off that street.  Of course, the station entrances must face Detroit Ave to spur TOD and not to steal pedestrians away from Detroit Ave.

 

First get a downtown Lakewood - Tower City line running and then work on a separate expanded service from Lorain on one end to Mentor (via UC) on the other.  I just get the feeling that focusing on the bigger project means that we'll have to wait longer for it to happen.

 

 

Would it be possible to have the West Shore Commuter rail and a potential Orange Line running on the same N&S tracks?  My thoughts are that an RTA line to Lakewood could be up and running in a shorter period of time because it is a smaller project.  It could even be an extension of one of the Green-Blue lines west instead being a line of its own color.  Furthermore, the tracks through Lakewood run close enough to Detroit Ave that it should be able to pull cars off that street.  Of course, the station entrances must face Detroit Ave to spur TOD and not to steal pedestrians away from Detroit Ave.

 

First get a downtown Lakewood - Tower City line running and then work on a separate expanded service from Lorain on one end to Mentor (via UC) on the other.  I just get the feeling that focusing on the bigger project means that we'll have to wait longer for it to happen.

 

 

 

These are two different types of services.  InnerCity rapid (subway) vs.  Commuter rail.  I can see a dual station in Lakewood where both types of lines used that station, but other than that, there would need to be rail right-of-way space for at least 4 tracks.

I know this is an old, old, old thread, but I was curious to know what has happened with this project.  BRT-light only?  No further consideration of a light rail from Parmatown to Market Square, via the zoo?  If not, it's a shame.

If I recall correctly, some streetscape enhancements ultimately were proposed in Old Brooklyn. There never was much business community support or political backing for doing much more than that.

In terms of ridership, I think an extension of the redline into Lakewood is far and away the lowest hanging fruit for rail expansion.

 

Lakewood would probably be the greatest beneficiary of a rail expansion, and the loudest opponent, too.

 

 

Lakewood opposes having rail service?  Can you elaborate on this?  Never heard of such a thing.  Most people I know are passionate about wanting it.  Even those who don't care, who would never use it, agree that it should have happened years ago.   

"... it should have happened years ago."

 

You're right about that 327.  The Van Sweringen's original plan for an east-west rapid transit was originally a Lakewood-Rocky River to East Cleveland/Euclid line along what's now N-S utilizing the route through Lakewood... way back in the 1920s!!  Of course, CTS in the 1940s & 50s designed and built the current Red Line using much of that route, but it got no further than Windermere on the East, and on the West, they decided to turn the line to the SW toward the airport (along the main line N-S route) rather than going to through Lakewood per the Vans plan... IIRC KJP noted that sandy soil issues in Lakewood prevented the type of sunken/open cut method used up to Detroit W. 98th...

 

My guess is that Lakewood residents wanted neither a surface or elevated line (given the high number of crossing streets) so extension beyond W. 98th never materialized.

Lakewood is a Medium city with a Small Town mentality.

 

they abhor change.

 

Imagine the protest from residents when 30-60 trains roar through those grade level crossings everyday.

 

 

How do they feel about the current freight trains? 

 

Imagine the protest from residents when 30-60 trains roar through those grade level crossings everyday.

 

 

Wait -- what?

So this means we need a subway under Detroit instead, right?  :clap:

 

I do think BRT or streetcar is possible on Detroit, even though it's a narrow street.  The current configuration of lanes, from north to south, is:

 

- Parking

- Westbound traffic

- Turning lane

- Eastbound traffic

- Parking

 

This could be changed to:

 

- Westbound transit

- Eastbound transit

- Westbound traffic

- Eastbound traffic

- Parking

 

A few park and rides will probably be needed along the way, though.  There'll probably be a lot of people angry over reduced parking.

Lakewood is a Medium city with a Small Town mentality.

 

they abhor change.

 

Imagine the protest from residents when 30-60 trains roar through those grade level crossings everyday.

 

I haven't encountered anything like this through years of living in Lakewood.  Various parts.  It's the most progressive and urbanist populace I've ever had the pleasure of joining.  Residents are against the McDonalds on Detroit not because they hate change, but because replacing a mixed-use twin cinema building with a McDonalds drive thru is anti-urban and stupid.  Similarly, many are against the West Shoreway conversion because they think it's just a bad idea.  Too much connectivity lost for too little gained, at too great a cost.  People were against RTA cutting the circulator buses, not because they hate change but because they prefer a transit-oriented lifestyle.  The common theme is that being able to get around is a good thing.  Lakewood by definition is a dense center of population and entertainment that's 5 miles outside downtown.  Transportation will always be forefront issue.  I think most people in Lakewood would welcome a rail expansion of any kind.

 

Imagine the protest from residents when 30-60 trains roar through those grade level crossings everyday.

 

 

Wait -- what?

 

If the redline was extended to Lakewood As someone else proposed.

 

In theory if you had you had 15-30 minute interval between trains serving a downtown Lakewood stop from 6:30am -10:30pm, that would be a lot of trains over those grade level crossings. 

 

even with a commuter Rail line as proposed it could trigger a Nimby uproar, in the city.

 

 

 

 

 

If the redline was extended to Lakewood As someone else proposed.

 

In theory if you had you had 15-30 minute interval between trains serving a downtown Lakewood stop from 6:30am -10:30pm, that would be a lot of trains over those grade level crossings. 

 

even with a commuter Rail line as proposed it could trigger a Nimby uproar, in the city.

 

 

It could but didn't. There were public hearings last year on the commuter rail project, including a hearing at the Lakewood City Hall. But there was no NIMBY uproar. In fact I don't remember anyone taking a stance of outright opposition.

 

Maybe they would if a branch of the Red Line was offered, but that's not what has been proposed.

Lakewood is a Medium city with a Small Town mentality.

 

they abhor change.

 

Imagine the protest from residents when 30-60 trains roar through those grade level crossings everyday.

 

I haven't encountered anything like this through years of living in Lakewood.  Various parts.  It's the most progressive and urbanist populace I've ever had the pleasure of joining.  Residents are against the McDonalds on Detroit not because they hate change, but because replacing a mixed-use twin cinema building with a McDonalds drive thru is anti-urban and stupid.  Similarly, many are against the West Shoreway conversion because they think it's just a bad idea.  Too much connectivity lost for too little gained, at too great a cost.  People were against RTA cutting the circulator buses, not because they hate change but because they prefer a transit-oriented lifestyle.  The common theme is that being able to get around is a good thing.  Lakewood by definition is a dense center of population and entertainment that's 5 miles outside downtown.  Transportation will always be forefront issue.  I think most people in Lakewood would welcome a rail expansion of any kind.

 

How about the proposed land swap for Kaufman park that could have led to a lifestyle center in the center of downtown Lakewood?

 

or the west end project,

 

Or the Clifton BRT lite concept, that would have transformed the street into one more pedestrian friendly.

 

or the rejection of the West shoreway conversion by some people.

 

Even some people in some positions at the city who feel mixed use development has no future in the city.

 

You can say these people are progressive, but their actions from a Economic development POV and even architectural POV are very conservative.  How hard would it be to reform the Zoning of the city to prevent the abominations that SSA, CVS, and McDonalds, are.  Lakewood residents think they are more rocky river than they are Gordon Square, but the opposite s true. there seems to be conflict between being a bedroom community and the most densely populated city between NYC and Chicago.  the city does not embrace its urban roots and prefers to behave like it is a traditional suburb, which it is not.

 

 

 

If the redline was extended to Lakewood As someone else proposed.

 

In theory if you had you had 15-30 minute interval between trains serving a downtown Lakewood stop from 6:30am -10:30pm, that would be a lot of trains over those grade level crossings. 

 

even with a commuter Rail line as proposed it could trigger a Nimby uproar, in the city.

 

 

It could but didn't. There were public hearings last year on the commuter rail project, including a hearing at the Lakewood City Hall. But there was no NIMBY uproar. In fact I don't remember anyone taking a stance of outright opposition.

 

Maybe they would if a branch of the Red Line was offered, but that's not what has been proposed.

 

I know I am being a bit pessimistic about things, but I also remember the public support for the street scape plans for Detroit and Clifton, only to see an public uproar at the last minute doom the project.

 

I also know about the public reaction to the removal of Stop lights on Detroit, when in fact the public was informed of the removals 18 months ago.  Often we can go though a public process build consensus, only to fail by the fear and paranoia of people late in the process.

 

there has been nothing in the last 10 years that makes me believe that Lakewood would be anymore friendly to transit than rocky river or fair view park.  like I said there is alot of small town nostalgia, and that has been hindering their vision.