A few minutes ago, mjarboe[/member] tweeted the renderings I tweeted (and tagged her & Stan Bullard) last night. This will start to get some more public reaction.

A few minutes ago, mjarboe[/member] tweeted the renderings I tweeted (and tagged her & Stan Bullard) last night. This will start to get some more public reaction.

 

It says lots are “available for sale or build to suit”. Doesn’t that suggest that Geis et al are not necessarily developing the site?

Depends on what you mean by developing. Geis often builds commercial structures to suit the needs of the end user. Are they securing financing for individual buildings? Perhaps not.

Depends on what you mean by developing. Geis often builds commercial structures to suit the needs of the end user. Are they securing financing for individual buildings? Perhaps not.

 

They could secure the financing though.  They often do deals where they line up a tenant(s) and then get financing based on the projected rents.

It's pretty common for huge sites like this for there to be a "land developer" who gets the master plan through government approvals and basic infrastructure completed or lined up, and then sells/leases some (or even all) of the development sites to third party builders/developers.

Here are the renderings...

Here are the renderings...

 

Um, look on the previous page ASPhotoman[/member]

SCENE & HEARD

CBRE is Marketing the Scranton Peninsula as "Thunderbird," a Bespoke Cleveland Neighborhood

Posted By Sam Allard on Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm

 

The real estate firm CBRE is marketing the western portion of the now-vacant Scranton Peninsula as "Thunderbird," a brand-new mixed-use neighborhood "in the heart of a reemerging American city."

 

As PD real estate reporter Michelle Jarboe notes, the renderings in the PDF below are extremely early and "very conceptual," and the entire development — envisioned as a "small, compact and walkable community" — is for the moment purely aspirational. But acreage is indeed available for lease or sale.

 

Thunderbird, CBRE says in its lit, "will be designed with both the honest and self-evident character embedded in the city as well as a thoughtful overlay of

placemaking that looks beyond Cleveland today and towards a bright future."

 

MORE:

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2018/06/25/cbre-is-marketing-the-scranton-peninsula-as-thunderbird-a-bespoke-cleveland-neighborhood

Let's hope something comes to fruition here, unlike what happened after Forest City first announced their plans 30 years ago for "condominiums, apartments, marinas, and select retail"on the Scranton Peninsula. From the PD on June 15, 1988:

 

True. Thanks for the article -- from when I was 21 years old! So many names I remember from when I first started paying attention to Cleveland developments.

I like it a lot. I would definitely buy in a neighborhood like that if there was just some transit options. I wonder how much it would cost to restore the train lift bridge next to Carter bridge and feed into the waterfront line Tower City approach.

I've seen a cost estimate a few years ago for restoring a similar, decades-long-mothballed railroad lift bridge over the Calumet River in East Chicago. I believe it was in the $50 million to $100 million range. Also if you look at the track "chutes" for the Waterfront Line, they curve to the north, especially the inbound track. The outbound and inbound tracks cannot have a track or tracks turn south from the chutes because they would be blocked by the bridge supports for RTA's Cuyahoga Viaduct. So while there could be a single-track rail transit line across the Cuyahoga River from Scranton Peninsula, it could not go into Tower City unless it made a reversing move at Settlers Landing. I'd run it south to Tremont as a single-track streetcar. A friend of mine would run it to Ohio City instead.

 

Scranton Peninsula to Tower City is one place where an aerial tram would actually make sense and cost less to build less and operate than a rail transit line.

"Aspirational" Scranton Peninsula plans show mixed-use neighborhood on Cuyahoga River

By Michelle Jarboe, The Plain Dealer

on June 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, updated June 26, 2018 at 8:19 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The owners of the western slice of Scranton Peninsula, which juts into the Cuyahoga River from the west bank, have started marketing their vision for a mixed-use, largely mid-rise neighborhood with views of downtown.

 

Very early, conceptual renderings posted online last week by CBRE Group, Inc., a real estate brokerage, allude to the potential for offices, housing and limited retail on roughly 14 acres flanking Carter Road. The plans also depict riverfront access and public trails the developers hope to create - if they can find the funding.

 

An investor-developer group led by Fred Geis, Jesse Grant and Matthew Weiner bought 25 long-barren acres on the peninsula last year from Forest City Realty Trust, Inc., a national real estate company that controlled the land for decades.

 

During an interview, Grant described the images as "aspirational" and stressed that the trio doesn't have firm plans or start dates yet for projects.

 

MORE:

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2018/06/aspirational_scranton_peninsul.html

A few minutes ago, mjarboe[/member] tweeted the renderings I tweeted (and tagged her & Stan Bullard) last night. This will start to get some more public reaction.

 

It says lots are “available for sale or build to suit”. Doesn’t that suggest that Geis et al are not necessarily developing the site?

 

Depends on what you mean by developing. Geis often builds commercial structures to suit the needs of the end user. Are they securing financing for individual buildings? Perhaps not.

 

They could secure the financing though.  They often do deals where they line up a tenant(s) and then get financing based on the projected rents.

 

Right, that's a lot of land / density / scale for one developer to undertake in a short timeframe. If you want to stretch it out over 20 years, it could be done by one developer. Ideally I would think you would want different pots of money / financing so multiple projects could be happening at one time.

Also, the renderings are eye candy for what could happen and again, to attract other money. Those are not final designs, forms, shapes, scale, etc...

 

Right, that's a lot of land / density / scale for one developer to undertake in a short timeframe. If you want to stretch it out over 20 years, it could be done by one developer. Ideally I would think you would want different pots of money / financing so multiple projects could be happening at one time.

Also, the renderings are eye candy for what could happen and again, to attract other money. Those are not final designs, forms, shapes, scale, etc...

 

The Rouse Company developed Columbia, MD, an "instant city" half-way between Washington and Baltimore by acting as a sort of general contractor. They did build a lot of it themselves, but they also sold off portions to individual developers who then built their parts within Rouse's broad form and function guidelines, so Columbia ended up being a more-or-less harmonious whole.

 

Geis, working in concert with the city, could use the Rouse pattern - some on his own and some not.

I love it.  Aspiration like this is what we need more of.

I've seen a cost estimate a few years ago for restoring a similar, decades-long-mothballed railroad lift bridge over the Calumet River in East Chicago. I believe it was in the $50 million to $100 million range. Also if you look at the track "chutes" for the Waterfront Line, they curve to the north, especially the inbound track. The outbound and inbound tracks cannot have a track or tracks turn south from the chutes because they would be blocked by the bridge supports for RTA's Cuyahoga Viaduct. So while there could be a single-track rail transit line across the Cuyahoga River from Scranton Peninsula, it could not go into Tower City unless it made a reversing move at Settlers Landing. I'd run it south to Tremont as a single-track streetcar. A friend of mine would run it to Ohio City instead.

 

Scranton Peninsula to Tower City is one place where an aerial tram would actually make sense and cost less to build less and operate than a rail transit line.

 

Any idea what the expected total population will be related to this project? 

 

Any idea what the expected total population will be related to this project? 

 

There's no way to know (or even guess) that at this early stage.

 

Any idea what the expected total population will be related to this project? 

 

There's no way to know (or even guess) that at this early stage.

 

There are comments on Cleveland.com discussing this. I actually laughed at the suggestion to raze Parma for farmland and relocate the population to Scranton Peninsula. 

 

Any idea what the expected total population will be related to this project? 

 

There's no way to know (or even guess) that at this early stage.

 

Right. If the population determination is premature, then so are transit options.

 

Right. If the population determination is premature, then so are transit options.

 

Wrong. Transit can and does create markets for population and heavily influences land use form. In most cities, transit was built (often by real estate-utility-transportation trusts) before the neighborhoods were. This continues in many cities today (see Salt Lake City, Denver, Portland, Toronto, etc).

 

Any idea what the expected total population will be related to this project? 

 

There's no way to know (or even guess) that at this early stage.

 

Right. If the population determination is premature, then so are transit options.

 

This logic doesn't begin to make sense when we're talking about the middle of a major city.  There's population all around.  And it's not like the early-stage planning wouldn't include roads, so why shouldn't it include everything else?  That's the whole point of planning.

 

Any idea what the expected total population will be related to this project? 

 

There's no way to know (or even guess) that at this early stage.

 

Right. If the population determination is premature, then so are transit options.

 

This logic doesn't begin to make sense when we're talking about the middle of a major city.  There's population all around.  And it's not like the early-stage planning wouldn't include roads, so why shouldn't it include everything else?  That's the whole point of planning.

 

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

As stated, a great starting point is how many people are expected to live in Thunderbird.  So why would early stage planning include rail if the population doesn't warrant it?

 

So far this is only a proposal; early stage planning may, in fact, include transit.  Rail? Unlikely.

 

My response related to a poster stating that he/she wouldn't live there due to a lack of transit options.  This same poster proposed extending the WFL, another the aerial tram perhaps or a streetcar up to Tremont or Ohio City.  That's a bit premature considering no one knows how many people will live here (1,500?)  Hardly a # to warrant rail extensions etc.

 

Maybe a trolley bus loop would work through here eventually but unless this becomes a tourist/visitor mecca, that's not gonna happen.  Look at the abysmal WFL ridership; a line that serves the lakefront stadium, rock hall etc.

 

Anyone living in "Thunderbird'' can hoof it to the WFL Settlers Landing station if they need transit so much.  Perhaps sufficient demand/density would warrant the cost of extending or creating a rail line.

 

As we know, transit is politics in Cleveland as well.  RTA faces an uphill battle in putting its tin cup out to taxpayers given the recent internal issues (George Dixon).

 

So far, even in these early stages, no mention of transit except of course in this forum.

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

As stated, a great starting point is how many people are expected to live in Thunderbird.  So why would early stage planning include rail if the population doesn't warrant it?

 

Even if transit infrastructure isn't built immediately you would probably want to plan for it in the initial build-out of the site. Otherwise you would be attempting to cram it into existing development in the future which would be more expensive and potentially impossible. Not planning for growth would be a pretty short-sighted mentality.

 

This site would also probably be kind of a nightmare in terms of traffic once it hits capacity. It's not as if there are a ton of vehicle access points.

 

I also maintain that a lot of the WFL's woes result from it's extremely inconvenient hours of operation.

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

Transit can come first and can be the catalyst for the density. The Van Sweringens built Shaker by first putting a rail line into farmland. You use the rail line as the amenity to sell people on the otherwise disconnected neighborhood. "Live in Thunderbird, quick commute downtown on transit." It's the same thing with roads, honestly. You build a road somewhere, and then people want to live there.

 

The WFL is not a good comparison because of exactly what you mentioned - it goes to a bunch of tourist stops. The Thunderbird transit would be for commuting and if transit were to be built, you'd have to make the neighborhood zoned for very high density and require development to be high density.

 

Of course there are plenty of reasons why it most likely will not happen, funding being the most important. But also a question of demand - do we have the demand to support a high density neighborhood on Scranton Peninsula?

 

But inherently the idea that you can't build transit until you have density has many historical counterexamples. Often the transit comes first.

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

As stated, a great starting point is how many people are expected to live in Thunderbird.  So why would early stage planning include rail if the population doesn't warrant it?

 

Even if transit infrastructure isn't built immediately you would probably want to plan for it in the initial build-out of the site. Otherwise you would be attempting to cram it into existing development in the future which would be more expensive and potentially impossible. Not planning for growth would be a pretty short-sighted mentality.

 

This site would also probably be kind of a nightmare in terms of traffic once it hits capacity. It's not as if there are a ton of vehicle access points.

 

I also maintain that a lot of the WFL's woes result from it's extremely inconvenient hours of operation.

 

Right, see how it plays out, such as building a bus-lane in re-built roadways.  Not sure what the long-range plans are for the peninsula other than this Thunderbird plan and Great Lakes offsite building.

 

The WFL extremely inconvenient hours of operation relate to lack of demand. 

WFL doesn't go by any residences except for FEB. If I lived at FEB and worked say, by Superior / E. 9th, I'm not going to save any time by taking the rapid to Tower City. I'd probably lose time. It goes back to a topic we've discussed at length on other threads. Having only one downtown rail station at Public Square severely affects ridership on the rail system. WFL is limited by only going by tourist stops.

 

Scranton is further out and I would assume people would hop on a shuttle/train/cable car/whatever if it could quickly get them to Public Square.

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

Transit can come first and can be the catalyst for the density. The Van Sweringens built Shaker by first putting a rail line into farmland. You use the rail line as the amenity to sell people on the otherwise disconnected neighborhood. "Live in Thunderbird, quick commute downtown on transit." It's the same thing with roads, honestly. You build a road somewhere, and then people want to live there.

 

The WFL is not a good comparison because of exactly what you mentioned - it goes to a bunch of tourist stops. The Thunderbird transit would be for commuting and if transit were to be built, you'd have to make the neighborhood zoned for very high density and require development to be high density.

 

Of course there are plenty of reasons why it most likely will not happen, funding being the most important. But also a question of demand - do we have the demand to support a high density neighborhood on Scranton Peninsula?

 

But inherently the idea that you can't build transit until you have density has many historical counterexamples. Often the transit comes first.

 

The Shaker Rapids were built for Shaker Hts at a time when Cleveland was one of the fastest growing cities in 1913.  Cars weren't really a factor yet; different era.  And look at the low ridership #s on those lines today.

 

Downtown Cleveland needs jobs, and lots of them, to rebuild its current transit lines ridership, rail specifically.  If Thunderbird generates 1,500 or 2,000 residents, how many will commute daily round-trip into downtown?  Look at Cincy's abysmal streetcar ridership, and that runs from The Banks to OTR.

 

So given the WFL has been around since 1996, the Red Line 1955, and Shaker Rapids (1913) why aren't the riders there anymore?  Not many people living around the WFL use it for commuting, especially into downtown but then again the line was a city of cleveland invention designed to bring visitors to the old booming flats of the '90s.

 

 

So given the WFL has been around since 1996, the Red Line 1955, and Shaker Rapids (1913) why aren't the riders there anymore?  Not many people living around the WFL use it for commuting, especially into downtown but then again the line was a city of cleveland invention designed to bring visitors to the old booming flats of the '90s.

 

I don't think any of the main (non-WFL) lines perform poorly during rush hour. Do they? Red Line, at least in my anecdotal experience, is packed during commute times and seems to be pulling riders at more random hours than it seemed to three years ago.

 

I do think Scranton is in kind of an odd spot to tie into any existing lines (an elevator up to the bridge from Carter Rd would put the stop basically right as you enter TC, so probably not ideal). It would almost need to be a new LTR line that did something like shoot down Lorain into the Scranton Peninsula, down Carter Rd, then up to Superior, terminating at Public Square (or shooting east, if we want to dream even bigger).

Downtown Cleveland needs jobs, and lots of them, to rebuild its current transit lines ridership, rail specifically.  If Thunderbird generates 1,500 or 2,000 residents, how many will commute daily round-trip into downtown? 

 

I agree with you on this point - That's what I meant when I said this:

 

But also a question of demand - do we have the demand to support a high density neighborhood on Scranton Peninsula?

 

I was just pointing out that in many cases, it's entirely appropriate to build transportation infrastructure before residents are already there.

So given the WFL has been around since 1996, the Red Line 1955, and Shaker Rapids (1913) why aren't the riders there anymore?  Not many people living around the WFL use it for commuting, especially into downtown but then again the line was a city of cleveland invention designed to bring visitors to the old booming flats of the '90s.

 

I don't think any of the main (non-WFL) lines perform poorly during rush hour. Do they? Red Line, at least in my anecdotal experience, is packed during commute times and seems to be pulling riders at more random hours than it seemed to three years ago.

 

I do think Scranton is in kind of an odd spot to tie into any existing lines (an elevator up to the bridge from Carter Rd would put the stop basically right as you enter TC, so probably not ideal). It would almost need to be a new LTR line that did something like shoot down Lorain into the Scranton Peninsula, down Carter Rd, then up to Superior, terminating at Public Square (or shooting east, if we want to dream even bigger).

 

Of course you have more riders during rush hour but I've seen the changes over the years regarding rush hour, especially in and out of downtown/TC.  Not many standing room only, packed trains at 8:15 or 5:15 or so.  Commuters are the backbone of transit systems.  Picking up random off hours riders is great as well but the daily commuters carry a line.

 

I would, if the $ was there, loop the WFL up E 9th via TC, back east; another line up E 9th, west on Superior out to the west side, using the old D-S streetcar line, grade on Detroit, perhaps connecting at W98th Street, out through Lakewood.  One can dream...

 

All is key to massive job and population creation in Cleveland, Cuyahogo County, and the region.

So given the WFL has been around since 1996, the Red Line 1955, and Shaker Rapids (1913) why aren't the riders there anymore?  Not many people living around the WFL use it for commuting, especially into downtown but then again the line was a city of cleveland invention designed to bring visitors to the old booming flats of the '90s.

 

I don't think any of the main (non-WFL) lines perform poorly during rush hour. Do they? Red Line, at least in my anecdotal experience, is packed during commute times and seems to be pulling riders at more random hours than it seemed to three years ago.

 

I do think Scranton is in kind of an odd spot to tie into any existing lines (an elevator up to the bridge from Carter Rd would put the stop basically right as you enter TC, so probably not ideal). It would almost need to be a new LTR line that did something like shoot down Lorain into the Scranton Peninsula, down Carter Rd, then up to Superior, terminating at Public Square (or shooting east, if we want to dream even bigger).

 

Of course you have more riders during rush hour but I've seen the changes over the years regarding rush hour, especially in and out of downtown/TC.  Not many standing room only, packed trains at 8:15 or 5:15 or so.  Commuters are the backbone of transit systems.  Picking up random off hours riders is great as well but the daily commuters carry a line.

 

I would, if the $ was there, loop the WFL up E 9th via TC, back east; another line up E 9th, west on Superior out to the west side, using the old D-S streetcar line, grade on Detroit, perhaps connecting at W98th Street, out through Lakewood.  One can dream...

 

All is key to massive job and population creation in Cleveland, Cuyahogo County, and the region.

 

I think we can all agree that job growth is sorely needed in the region.

Downtown Cleveland needs jobs, and lots of them, to rebuild its current transit lines ridership, rail specifically.  If Thunderbird generates 1,500 or 2,000 residents, how many will commute daily round-trip into downtown? 

 

I agree with you on this point - That's what I meant when I said this:

 

But also a question of demand - do we have the demand to support a high density neighborhood on Scranton Peninsula?

 

I was just pointing out that in many cases, it's entirely appropriate to build transportation infrastructure before residents are already there.

 

I get what you're saying.  I guess the question is what type of transit infrastructure would be built for a Thunderbird type area.  Dedicated bus lane?  This all depends on how much population is expected here in the end.

 

As an aside, really don't like this Thunderbird name; can't they just go with The Peninsula?

The WFL is about the worst example of rail transit I have seen, on par with Detroit's People Mover.  And I would agree that since this area is already flanked by existing rail stations, it probably doesn't need one... although it's never too early to start thinking about a new Parma-bound line where this might be the first stop.  We've needed that for ages.

 

I don't like the name either; Thunderbird is what you buy when they run out of Mad Dog.

The WFL is about the worst example of rail transit I have seen, on par with Detroit's People Mover.  And I would agree that since this area is already flanked by existing rail stations, it probably doesn't need one... although it's never too early to start thinking about a new Parma-bound line where this might be the first stop.  We've needed that for ages.

 

 

Well, the voters created the RTA in 1974 with the expectation of a rail network being built.  Just like the voters affirmed building a downtown subway in the early '50s.  See most recent example as to what the problem continues to be: George Dixon, with a sideshow of Dr. Valerie McCall, for starters.

Getting way off topic, so let me wrap up with this -- it would take a massive amount of subsidies including for cleanup of abandoned industrial sites to put transit-supportive land use patterns around rail stations that would change the ridership fortunes of our rail system. And I think we also forget that Cleveland is the only city in the USA in which its heavy-rail line (Red Line) has just one station in the Central Business District. The Waterfront Line added CBD light-rail stations but only at the outer fringes of it.

 

If you want to discuss this more, might I suggest this thread where I've posted some discussion-provoking photos:

 

https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php?topic=1977.msg922833#msg922833

 

As for Scranton Peninsula, an aerial tram is a light-traffic mode of transport. If it should someday be overwhelmed by passengers clamoring to ride from a rapidly developing Scranton Peninsula to Tower City Center and the CBD, then we can scale up the transportation offerings with BRT, light-rail/streetcar line or something else. But I think if pedestrian access to the CBD were improved with the addition of an aerial tram over the river (which would be an attraction unto itself), it would similarly help Scranton Peninsula be a more pedestrian-friendly setting.

I get what you're saying.  I guess the question is what type of transit infrastructure would be built for a Thunderbird type area.  Dedicated bus lane?  This all depends on how much population is expected here in the end.

 

As an aside, really don't like this Thunderbird name; can't they just go with The Peninsula?

 

I don't see why they couldn't start with some kind of bus/trolley/shuttle, the developer could even partially or totally fund it and pass that cost to business owners and residents of the area. If traffic gets bad at rush hour they can take a look at dedicated lanes. I would imagine that something would have to be done from the point of view of the developer. They are going to want to attract the crowd that doesn't want to drive to work, but it's just a bit too far that lots of people aren't going to want to walk it.

 

As far as the name I'd prefer Scranton Peninsula. Clevelanders like to pay homage to the city's past. I see no reason to change the name of the area, they'd be best of embracing it and working its history into the new development, as much of the successful urban redevelopment in town has done.

By the looks of the rendering, it appears that there's a big vision for solar energy and other forms of DG. Considering the dynamic of a large scale brewing complex (i.e. anchor tenant, combined heat, waste outputs to provide baseload power), that could lend for some interesting possibilities from a district energy / microgrid planning perspective. Anybody out there in the energy development / planning world care to weigh in?

 

Take, for example, what the new Lagunitas brewery is doing in CA:

 

http://cambrianinnovation.com/craft-beer-pioneer-lagunitas-signs-up-to-save-22-5m-in-water-wastewater-and-energy-costs-with-cambrian-innovations-wepa/

 

If the Sustainability Manager at GLBC is worth his salt he would be all over this.

Will GLBC retain its Ohio City location?

Will GLBC retain its Ohio City location?

 

Yes, this Scranton Peninsula location for GLBC is supposed to be a 2nd production facility.  Business as usual in Ohio City otherwise.

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

As stated, a great starting point is how many people are expected to live in Thunderbird.  So why would early stage planning include rail if the population doesn't warrant it?

 

So far this is only a proposal; early stage planning may, in fact, include transit.  Rail? Unlikely.

 

My response related to a poster stating that he/she wouldn't live there due to a lack of transit options.  This same poster proposed extending the WFL, another the aerial tram perhaps or a streetcar up to Tremont or Ohio City.  That's a bit premature considering no one knows how many people will live here (1,500?)  Hardly a # to warrant rail extensions etc.

 

Maybe a trolley bus loop would work through here eventually but unless this becomes a tourist/visitor mecca, that's not gonna happen.  Look at the abysmal WFL ridership; a line that serves the lakefront stadium, rock hall etc.

 

Anyone living in "Thunderbird'' can hoof it to the WFL Settlers Landing station if they need transit so much.  Perhaps sufficient demand/density would warrant the cost of extending or creating a rail line.

 

As we know, transit is politics in Cleveland as well.  RTA faces an uphill battle in putting its tin cup out to taxpayers given the recent internal issues (George Dixon).

 

So far, even in these early stages, no mention of transit except of course in this forum.

 

My comment was meant to be read as two separate thought processes.

 

The first was that I really like this type of layout and built form. I would want to live in such a place. On the other hand there was no consideration in the initial plan for transit other than personal auto. I don't own a car so this would not be a viable option for me. Yes, I could walk but that would not be ideal 365. And I wouldn't walk to Settlers Landing, I would walk to Tower City in that instance. I don't think RTA should shell out the money to expand transit here, I would prefer the developers pool money to provide the option. If they don't, fine, that's their choice. I just wouldn't be able to live there, and other car-less persons would find it difficult to live here as well, that's all.

 

The second portion was just spit balling about what "could be" with a feeder single rail into TC (and KJP logistically shot it down :'( ). I'm aware it's extremely early in the process but I don't think it hurts to get initial thoughts out there. Who knows who reads this forum...

 

 

Sorry!  I'm aware that developers do read this forum although I don't know if Scranton peninsula developers read it. The reason why I know developers read this form is because some have contacted me through this form to give me off the record news for my blog. In hindsight I should have posted the Scranton peninsula renderings to my blog 1st, but I wanted to share them right away so I posted them here.

 

Anyway, because developers visit the site, that's why I posted the idea of linking Tower City to Scranton peninsula with an aerial tram. Who knows where it will lead.

It's not your "typical" transit but I could get into the idea of an air tram! I have ridden them in other parts of world and I could see it working here.

I'm sorry did you say...

http://clevelandskylift.com

 

:)

Yes, but their proposed vehicles are too small. I think the one in Portland could be more appropriate.

 

I suppose they could always start with a water taxi and an escalator, but the water taxi wouldn't work in winter.

Yes, but their proposed vehicles are too small. I think the one in Portland could be more appropriate.

 

I suppose they could always start with a water taxi and an escalator, but the water taxi wouldn't work in winter.

The one in Portland is very ugly.

Yanni reminds us that people have an opinion on ANYTHING. It's just an aerial tram. They all look alike to me.

Most of this area is within a half-mile walk of the Settler's Landing station already. The points about the WFL's efficacy are taken as well-known and often-lamented facts of transit lore. However, one can pray for the relocation the Browns stadium and elimination of W. 3rd onramp and subsequent development of the Muny lots. Dense mixed use development on those sites coupled with development of the north end Scranton Peninsula would make the WFL something worth riding?

Yanni reminds us that people have an opinion on ANYTHING. It's just an aerial tram. They all look alike to me.

Hmm, like your opinion it is good, I have something contrary. Is that not allowed?

 

Remember all of the comments about the skyline when the Nucleus renderings came out? What do you think this would do. Have you ever seen the Portland one in person? It's a behemoth that is out of scale for its surroundings. It' not cute / kitsch like the Pittsburgh Inclines.

Because you don't build an air-tram, light rail, or streetcar into an area until you have proper density.  There's population all around Cleveland's current rail lines, yet rail ridership is anemic especially given your description of Cleveland being a major city.

 

As stated, a great starting point is how many people are expected to live in Thunderbird.  So why would early stage planning include rail if the population doesn't warrant it?

 

So far this is only a proposal; early stage planning may, in fact, include transit.  Rail? Unlikely.

 

My response related to a poster stating that he/she wouldn't live there due to a lack of transit options.  This same poster proposed extending the WFL, another the aerial tram perhaps or a streetcar up to Tremont or Ohio City.  That's a bit premature considering no one knows how many people will live here (1,500?)  Hardly a # to warrant rail extensions etc.

 

Maybe a trolley bus loop would work through here eventually but unless this becomes a tourist/visitor mecca, that's not gonna happen.  Look at the abysmal WFL ridership; a line that serves the lakefront stadium, rock hall etc.

 

Anyone living in "Thunderbird'' can hoof it to the WFL Settlers Landing station if they need transit so much.  Perhaps sufficient demand/density would warrant the cost of extending or creating a rail line.

 

As we know, transit is politics in Cleveland as well.  RTA faces an uphill battle in putting its tin cup out to taxpayers given the recent internal issues (George Dixon).

 

So far, even in these early stages, no mention of transit except of course in this forum.

 

My comment was meant to be read as two separate thought processes.

 

The first was that I really like this type of layout and built form. I would want to live in such a place. On the other hand there was no consideration in the initial plan for transit other than personal auto. I don't own a car so this would not be a viable option for me. Yes, I could walk but that would not be ideal 365. And I wouldn't walk to Settlers Landing, I would walk to Tower City in that instance. I don't think RTA should shell out the money to expand transit here, I would prefer the developers pool money to provide the option. If they don't, fine, that's their choice. I just wouldn't be able to live there, and other car-less persons would find it difficult to live here as well, that's all.

 

The second portion was just spit balling about what "could be" with a feeder single rail into TC (and KJP logistically shot it down :'( ). I'm aware it's extremely early in the process but I don't think it hurts to get initial thoughts out there. Who knows who reads this forum...

 

 

 

This parcel was discussed amongst private developers as a landing spot for Amazon, but the land was ultimately not part of the proposal to my knowledge. Among the ideas of developing this property with or without Amazon was bringing one of the RTA rail lines across the river to serve the area. They have a dollar amount figured and know it would be at least partially if not completely a developer cost to get the line over there.