June 16, 201212 yr Thankfully the decision is not up to you. And yes the city should cater to the auto. Because that is your consumer right now like it or not. And nobody stuck in traffic around PS is going to say, boy that's a nice park. I wish I lived here. Things are changing around here. They are going in the right direction as people move back. This dream about living in a car free city is a ridiculous. I can run from one end of town to the other on foot in 5 minutes. Take away my car and I might as well live in an aquarium fishbowl. People need there car and need easy access to the city. Pedestrian unfriendly? Give me a break. I've walked to the warehouse district and nautica pavilion several times through PS and it was as easy as can be.
June 16, 201212 yr Thankfully the decision is not up to you. And yes the city should cater to the auto. Because that is your consumer right now like it or not. And nobody stuck in traffic around PS is going to say, boy that's a nice park. I wish I lived here. Things are changing around here. They are going in the right direction as people move back. This dream about living in a car free city is a ridiculous. I can run from one end of town to the other on foot in 5 minutes. Take away my car and I might as well live in an aquarium fishbowl. People need there car and need easy access to the city. Pedestrian unfriendly? Give me a break. I've walked to the warehouse district and nautica pavilion several times through PS and it was as easy as can be. You're half right. I agree to the extent of that we shouldn't ignore those who travel via car, but you cannot (CANNOT) cater to the auto in urban planning. You can't do it. Those two concepts are not compatible with each other. Catering to the auto would mean East 4th Street in its current state wouldn't exist. Some on UO are extreme and want to force people to not use their cars. I don't agree with that view. Like it or not, people are going to use their cars and that's okay, as long as we don't make decisions for cars that could damage the urban fabric of the area. This is not Beachwood, nor should it be. But having a mentality that the city should CATER to the car is the mentality that gets you a sea of parking lots in the Warehouse District. I agree that the city shouldn't IGNORE the car, but CATER to it? No.
June 16, 201212 yr I agree that more events on PS would increase the use of the area. Simply closing the roads and turning the square into a large park will not increase usage and pedestrian trafic. I walk through PS almost every day on my way to Fitworks and it seems fine to me. Given limited resourses I would like to focus on our new park - the Malls over our new convention center.
June 16, 201212 yr ^^^If you have been lurking on this board for a while before signing up I am sure you know that your view, as expressed above, is going to be in the minority on the board. Your expressing them is great as this is what the forum is all about. However, you going to have to be a little more persuasive in expressing your "auto centric" views if you want to win over any of the tough nuts that populate UO.
June 16, 201212 yr Htsguy, I think your comment was directed to me so I will respond. I am not auto-centric. My wife and I are planning to get ride of our only car someday soon. We walk everywhere downtown and take RTA to get to most other places. My only point was that when the Malls are completed, they will once again produce an enormous downtown park given the size of our downtown. As a city we have many needs and limited resources. I would like to do a great job with the Malls and let the design of PS which has survived for over 100 years stay the same for a while. We continually argue whether an historic building like the Stanely building should be torn down for new construction, but many of those same people have no problem changing the historic design of Public Square.
June 16, 201212 yr Thankfully the decision is not up to you. And yes the city should cater to the auto. Because that is your consumer right now like it or not. And nobody stuck in traffic around PS is going to say, boy that's a nice park. I wish I lived here. Things are changing around here. They are going in the right direction as people move back. This dream about living in a car free city is a ridiculous. I can run from one end of town to the other on foot in 5 minutes. Take away my car and I might as well live in an aquarium fishbowl. People need there car and need easy access to the city. Pedestrian unfriendly? Give me a break. I've walked to the warehouse district and nautica pavilion several times through PS and it was as easy as can be. You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. The people that live in the Park Building might say that as it's their front door. the people that live in Downtown neighborhoods within a half mile of Public Square and those in hotels might also think our PS Park is a nice reprieve from the hustle and bustle of the city. Did I say or imply that Cleveland or those in the city should live a car free lifestyle? Have you ever lived without a car? I do and I dont feel as though I live in a fishbowl. I personally believe PS is pedestrian unfriendly and overall uninviting. PS is a great location yet it's grossly under used therefore looked upon as a liability and a place with little or no value. This is a great opportunity to change that thinking and connect it to the Malls.
June 16, 201212 yr ^Agree...and I think the will is FINALLY there....now if we can only find the $$$ (after convincing RTA the really hard part).
June 17, 201212 yr Has anyone noticed the bottleneck at virtually every intersection downtown this week? It must be caused by closing Ontario and Superior for Marine Week. Is this what we can expect if Public Square is turned into a giant park with no cross roads? Indians game Marine week and rush hour traffic on friday, the The "chaos" lasted for about and hour drvien by people from Pittsburgh and other visitor's unfamiliar with the area. The problem is we need to better educate people on the utter absence of congestion in our region and simply because an event or two causes congestion for a short period of time does not mean we need to build more lanes, more parking lots and convert a parking into and roadway. In my years of living downtown there are plenty of people living "in the area" who are "unfamiliar with the area." Visitors from our own suburbs. The closing of the square this weekend is a good example--most people in our area do not know alternate routes. If you closed down E9th or Ontario on a game day, can you imagine the chaos of the suburban Tribe fans on the innerbelt? I watch them line up at those 2 exits in the current state of affairs, while I fly by, get off at Superior then back track into town to one of my favorite free meter spots. Most of them are still in the queue for the lots while I'm enjoying my first beer inside!
June 18, 201212 yr ^Agree...and I think the will is FINALLY there....now if we can only find the $$$ (after convincing RTA the really hard part). I think RTA would be on board if planners came up with a plan to allow the smooth transfer of commuters from buses to trains. Just moving buses off the Square is not enough, and I'm in agreement with RTA on that point.
June 18, 201212 yr Thankfully the decision is not up to you. And yes the city should cater to the auto. Because that is your consumer right now like it or not. And nobody stuck in traffic around PS is going to say, boy that's a nice park. I wish I lived here. What is this consumer consuming, besides gas? Things people can consume from a car: Petroleum, fast food, highway tolls, some dry cleaning maybe, and that's about it - hopefully you share the civic vision that others in your community have that downtown Cleveland develop more business base than gas stations, fast food, and dry cleaners. The fact is that people don't become consumers until they leave their cars. Also, downtowns aren't going to compete with suburbs in the purest Darwinian economic sense. If one places a premium on parking and chain retail there is no way I can convince them to patronize downtown businesses. What downtowns are successfully selling, instead is lifestyle. That is what the "downtown consumer" (if you're only capable of looking at it in business terms) is "consuming." I would argue that then you are looking to not only cater to pedestrians above all, but try and get cars and other urban clutter out of the picture as much as possible. Here is an excellent study on economic benefits of walkability: http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf Take away my car and I might as well live in an aquarium fishbowl. People need there car and need easy access to the city. I'd rather live in a fishbowl aquarium than in the middle of a highway interchange. I don't understand the obsession over combining the squares into one space. I like how each has it's own style and design. I would entertain the idea of thinning the roadways so they aren't 5+ lanes wide. But closing even one of them? How about spending some of that money for more streetscaping, lights, trees, etc, or repaving the horrific streets. So let me get this straight. Instead of having a well-designed Public Square that meets the objectives of a landmark green space, and keys in on uniformity in a way that is easy for the pedestrian and visitor to understand his/her surroundings - Cleveland should spend that money on fixing pot holes so that you can drive faster? That said, it's definitely a good thing that you seem to be a staunch minority, and that many others have this "obsession" over good planning.
June 18, 201212 yr Interview with Enrique Peñalosa on Vimeo Thankfully the decision is not up to you. And yes the city should cater to the auto. Because that is your consumer right now like it or not. And nobody stuck in traffic around PS is going to say, boy that's a nice park. I wish I lived here. By catering to the Automobile downtown cleveland tore down 60% of the warehouse district, what Was once a connection of occupied industrial building across from Jacobs field is now surface parking, Let me be clear you did not move downtown for the Surface lots. by Accommodating the automobile we have made it more profitable to tear down buildings and tun them into parking. by accommodating I mean wider roads, faster traffic, and the subordination of pedestrian utilities for congestion mitigation. For example. What is wrong with this picture? They removed the crosswalk They prioritized Vehicle traffic over pedestrians. this took a long 145ft crossing and turned it into 427ft crossing plus you have to wait 3 more light cycles to make simple crossing. Now we want to prioritize Public Square for Pedestrians and people have a problem With it. This is what happened to the Warehouse district after the justice center was built before after Do you want this to happen to the East 4th district because of the Casino? This is what you call Catering to the Auto. Things are changing around here. They are going in the right direction as people move back. This dream about living in a car free city is a ridiculous. I can run from one end of town to the other on foot in 5 minutes. Take away my car and I might as well live in an aquarium fishbowl. People need there car and need easy access to the city. not car free car less, fewer people driving reduces the need for parking, that means fewer parking lots and less congestion. Pedestrian unfriendly? Give me a break. I've walked to the warehouse district and nautica pavilion several times through PS and it was as easy as can be. try doing that at rush hour. or Crossing superior Ontario or east 9th street during rush hour. better yet try to cross Ontratio at Carnegie during the day, Tell us how crossing that Street made you feel. A couple quotes “God made us walking animals – pedestrians. As a fish needs to swim, a bird to fly, a deer to run, we need to walk, not in order to survive, but to be happy.” "You can have a city that’s friendly to cars, or friendly to people; you cannot have both."
June 18, 201212 yr Interview with Enrique Peñalosa on Vimeo Thankfully the decision is not up to you. And yes the city should cater to the auto. Because that is your consumer right now like it or not. And nobody stuck in traffic around PS is going to say, boy that's a nice park. I wish I lived here. By catering to the Automobile downtown cleveland tore down 60% of the warehouse district, what Was once a connection of occupied industrial building across from Jacobs field is now surface parking, Let me be clear you did not move downtown for the Surface lots. by Accommodating the automobile we have made it more profitable to tear down buildings and tun them into parking. by accommodating I mean wider roads, faster traffic, and the subordination of pedestrian utilities for congestion mitigation. For example. What is wrong with this picture? They removed the crosswalk They prioritized Vehicle traffic over pedestrians. this took a long 145ft crossing and turned it into 427ft crossing plus you have to wait 3 more light cycles to make simple crossing. Now we want to prioritize Public Square for Pedestrians and people have a problem With it. This is what happened to the Warehouse district after the justice center was built before after Do you want this to happen to the East 4th district because of the Casino? This is what you call Catering to the Auto. Things are changing around here. They are going in the right direction as people move back. This dream about living in a car free city is a ridiculous. I can run from one end of town to the other on foot in 5 minutes. Take away my car and I might as well live in an aquarium fishbowl. People need there car and need easy access to the city. not car free car less, fewer people driving reduces the need for parking, that means fewer parking lots and less congestion. Pedestrian unfriendly? Give me a break. I've walked to the warehouse district and nautica pavilion several times through PS and it was as easy as can be. try doing that at rush hour. or Crossing superior Ontario or east 9th street during rush hour. better yet try to cross Ontratio at Carnegie during the day, Tell us how crossing that Street made you feel. A couple quotes “God made us walking animals – pedestrians. As a fish needs to swim, a bird to fly, a deer to run, we need to walk, not in order to survive, but to be happy.” "You can have a city that’s friendly to cars, or friendly to people; you cannot have both." Amen!
June 18, 201212 yr Author biker16 is quoting Lewis Mumford. ;) "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 201212 yr biker16 is quoting Lewis Mumford. ;) nope, Enrique Penalosa former Mayor of Bogota, Columbia. http://www.pps.org/reference/epenalosa-2/ Mr. Mumford and Mr. Penalosa share similar Views. Other quotes. “Public space is for living, doing business, kissing, and playing. Its value can’t be measured with economics or mathematics; it must be felt with the soul.” “In my country, we are just learning that sidewalks are relatives of parks – not passing lanes for cars.” “Urban transport is a political and not a technical issue. The technical aspects are very simple. The difficult decisions relate to who is going to benefit from the models adopted.” “The importance of pedestrian public spaces cannot be measured, but most other important things in life cannot be measured either: Friendship, beauty, love and loyalty are examples. Parks and other pedestrian places are essential to a city’s happiness.” “The world’s environmental sustainability and quality of life depends to a large extent on what is done during the next few years in the Third World’s 22 mega-cities. There is still time to think different… there could be cities with as much public space for children as for cars, with a backbone of pedestrian streets, sidewalks and parks, supported by public transport.” “Higher income groups always have access to nature at beach houses, lake cabins, mountain chalets, on vacations – or in urban settings at golf courses or large gardens. Parks allow the rest of society that contact as well.” “For the poor, the only alternative to television for their leisure time is the public space. For this reason, high- quality public pedestrian space, and parks in particular, are evidence of a true democracy at work.” “Why is all the power of the State applied in opening the way for a road, while it is not done for a park such as the Long Island Sound greenway? Despite the fact that more people may benefit from the greenway than the highway?” “Do we dare create a transport system giving priority to the needs of the poor? Or are we really trying to solve the traffic jams of the upper income people? That is really the true issue that exist?” “God made us walking animals – pedestrians. As a fish needs to swim, a bird to fly, a deer to run, we need to walk, not in order to survive, but to be happy.” “A premise of the new city is that we want a society to be as egalitarian as possible. For this purpose, quality-of-life distribution is more important than income distribution. [And quality of life includes] a living environment as free of motor vehicles as possible.” “I do not think exactly as the new urbanists, that the answer is simply to go back to the 1900 city center. I believe that a radically more pedestrian city, with both more pedestrian streets and parks, can be created in a dense urban environment.” “I dream of a tropical city, crisscrossed by large pedestrian avenues, shaded by enormous tropical trees, as the axes of life of those cities.” “We had to build a city not for businesses or automobiles, but for children and thus for people. Instead of building highways, we restricted car use. … We invested in high-quality sidewalks, pedestrian streets, parks, bicycle paths, libraries; we got rid of thousands of cluttering commercial signs and planted trees. … All our everyday efforts have one objective: Happiness.” “We built symbols of respect, equality and human dignity, not just sidewalks and bike paths. Motor vehicles on sidewalks were a symbol of inequality — people with cars taking over public space.” “Over the past 40 years, environmentalism has created a culture of respect for the environment, but there’s much less clarity about the kind of environment that creates a happy child.” “Over the past 80 years we have been building cities for cars much more than for people. If only children had as much public space as cars, most cities in the world would become marvelous.” “What we most want to see is people. You know, in the United States they invented a word that is called ‘shopping’ you know, and it is a very interesting word, because first when one is learning English one thinks shopping means to go buy things. But not it is not to buy things; it is just to go look at things where they sell them, so that you might eventually become interested in buying one. But of course later on you realize that what it really means is people go to shopping malls to see people so that they do not commit suicide in desperation.”
June 18, 201212 yr Author Penalosa is a johnny-come-lately compared to Mumford, who started challenging America's highway-only mentality before it disembowled America's cities and their still-diverse transportation systems. I'm sure you know that, long before Penalosa, Mumford's quote was summarized in his 1963 film "THE CITY - CARS OR PEOPLE?" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0226952/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 201212 yr Author FYI...... http://www.riderta.com/newsroom/releases/?listingid=1745 News & Updates: Newsroom RTA news June 14, 2012 RTA's Stance on Public Square Proposal CLEVELAND -- The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is pleased that the consultant team (Nelson Nygaard), hired by the City of Cleveland to evaluate changes to Public Square, fully understands the importance of public transportation and its important role in the region. RTA has been part of the discussions since the consultants were hired to do this study. Public Square is RTA's busiest bus boarding location, serving approximately 40,000 customers daily with approximately 4,000 individual bus trips through or around the Square. The suggested closing of Ontario will slow down traffic, including RTA buses, and increase RTA costs an estimated $1 million annually, according to the consultants. RTA asked the consultants to determine if the use of enhanced or additional traffic signal prioritization systems can be used to mitigate the impact on RTA and our customers. "As the plan is presented, a major transit bus stop will need constructed on West Roadway to include medians and large sheltered customer waiting areas," said Joe Calabrese, General Manager, RTA. "It is critical that this part of the plan be completed before the roadways are closed and any other changes are made." RTA will continue to work closely with the consultants and other involved stakeholders regarding any changes to Public Square. RTA provides quality, economic and safe public transportation via rail, bus and Paratransit throughout Cuyahoga County. Check www.riderta.com for timetables, schedules and route information or call the RTAnswerline at 216.621.9500. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 201212 yr FYI...... http://www.riderta.com/newsroom/releases/?listingid=1745 News & Updates: Newsroom RTA news June 14, 2012 RTA's Stance on Public Square Proposal CLEVELAND -- The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is pleased that the consultant team (Nelson Nygaard), hired by the City of Cleveland to evaluate changes to Public Square, fully understands the importance of public transportation and its important role in the region. "As the plan is presented, a major transit bus stop will need constructed on West Roadway to include medians and large sheltered customer waiting areas," said Joe Calabrese, General Manager, RTA. "It is critical that this part of the plan be completed before the roadways are closed and any other changes are made." Not sure I understand why the closing of Ontario would require this type of major construction on PS (especially it they are still planning the transist station a block away). Can somebody explain?
June 18, 201212 yr By catering to the Automobile downtown cleveland tore down 60% of the warehouse district, what Was once a connection of occupied industrial building across from Jacobs field is now surface parking, Let me be clear you did not move downtown for the Surface lots. by Accommodating the automobile we have made it more profitable to tear down buildings and tun them into parking. You act as if the buildings in the Warehouse district were torn down because there was a lack of parking. The buildings were empty and underutilized because people were leaving the city in droves as suburban sprawl got worse and worse. You've got bigger problems than a lack of pedestrian walkways if a surface lot is more profitable than a semi-empty building. And why don't you ask the restaurant and business owners in the Warehouse district how they feel about the surface lots. I think you'll be surprised by the answer. That area has been fairly successful over the last decade. I was pretty disappointed when the Stark Enterprises plan (or some variation of it) went tits up. not car free car less, fewer people driving reduces the need for parking, that means fewer parking lots and less congestion. See this is where the urban fantasy dies. If I need my car once a week, then I still need a parking spot downtown. And until more people live and work downtown, you will need somewhere to put the 25,000 people coming into the city for Indians games, or 6000 people coming to the casino or 60,000 for Browns games. And let me fill all the daydreamers in on a little secret -- the city is competing with 60 years of some of the worst suburban sprawl I've seen anywhere in the country. The key to getting people back into the city is to make it easy and convenient to get here. It's how they hooked me. Fell in love with the area and moved in this Spring. You would think I would be the first person begging for a nice park area... try doing that at rush hour. or Crossing superior Ontario or east 9th street during rush hour. better yet try to cross Ontratio at Carnegie during the day, Tell us how crossing that Street made you feel. Crossing a busy street is no more difficult than crossing an empty one. Wait for the little white "walk" sign, then go. As a side note, rush hour is rush hour because people don't live downtown. Tearing up infrastructure is not going to convince anybody to live downtown. It'll only convince them to find a job that is closer to home in the burbs. A couple quotes “God made us walking animals – pedestrians. As a fish needs to swim, a bird to fly, a deer to run, we need to walk, not in order to survive, but to be happy.” "You can have a city that’s friendly to cars, or friendly to people; you cannot have both." That is a beautiful fantasy. How about getting the 90% of the people commuting into the city to live downtown first? Then we can start talking about this drive-less society.
June 18, 201212 yr Not sure I understand why the closing of Ontario would require this type of major construction on PS (especially it they are still planning the transist station a block away). Can somebody explain? Maybe he means the added traffic from people being diverted from Ontario onto the outer roads would require serious changes to the bus paths around PS? I don't know. More than likely, Calabrese sees this as an opportunity to shoehorn some pork into the PS project for RTA improvements, even if they aren't necessary. Would that surprise anyone?
June 18, 201212 yr Author Mendo, Sounds like some chicken-and-egg arguments. Does the quality of public spaces downtown attract residents or does the number of downtown residents provide the basis for providing quality public spaces? I think downtown could probably attract just as many residents and workers if we demolished the whole thing and made it into Beachwood Part II but I wouldn't want to be part of this city anymore. And that's what this is all about -- a value judgement. There is no right or wrong way of designing urban centers, but there is a value some of us have about what a downtown should or should not be. Call it dreaming or whatever you want. These are manmade creations, not the result of erosion, or earthquake or some other natural phenomenon. And thus we all put our collective values into what you see when waking up in, or arriving to our urban center. If you want something different, then make it so. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 201212 yr Hey....It's my job to post snarky/sarcastic pictures! Stay in your lane or quadrant. (see how I brought this back on topic?) :whip: :whip:
June 18, 201212 yr ^^^^Lol! Yeah, think this back and forth is kind of besides the point. It's reminiscent of the Cleveland State parking discussions. This project is going to make our relatively light downtown traffic only incrementally heavier. This is not some kind of declaration of war against driving and cars, even if some people want it to be. And people should not look to last week as a foreshadowing to what traffic will ultimately look like downtown. Htsguy, I don't quite understand RTA's position either. It seems predicated on maintaining the current north/south route flows. I would have thought there was some flexibility to switch some of these to the east/west pattern through downtown that most buses use, especially if the new transit center gets built.
June 18, 201212 yr By catering to the Automobile downtown cleveland tore down 60% of the warehouse district, what Was once a connection of occupied industrial building across from Jacobs field is now surface parking, Let me be clear you did not move downtown for the Surface lots. by Accommodating the automobile we have made it more profitable to tear down buildings and tun them into parking. You act as if the buildings in the Warehouse district were torn down because there was a lack of parking. The buildings were empty and underutilized because people were leaving the city in droves as suburban sprawl got worse and worse. You've got bigger problems than a lack of pedestrian walkways if a surface lot is more profitable than a semi-empty building. And why don't you ask the restaurant and business owners in the Warehouse district how they feel about the surface lots. I think you'll be surprised by the answer. That area has been fairly successful over the last decade. I was pretty disappointed when the Stark Enterprises plan (or some variation of it) went tits up. you are obviously new here so let me explain it to you. the lot owners sit on property that is dirt cheap to mange and very profitable to run, when an investor wants to purchase the property the lot owner uses a formula that take into account the lost revenue over 10-15 tears and usually come up with a price 10 time higher than the appraised value of the property, for bank or investor to buy a property that is appraised so low, yet is very costly to purchase, is very risky bet. Stark had to convenience the lot owners that development would be more profitable than the surface lot. to do that he had to go big and I like the idea of what he was doing, but building 8-9 story residential blocks on west 6th would have strongly clashed with the neighborhood. It was the size of the project along with the economy that killed it. In the end the Surface lot owner is not a developer, developers buy land develop it to add value to the property. Than they either sell it, or lease it to earn revenue. the lot owners goal is to do as little as possible while bringing in as much revenue as possible. they revenue is akin to buying a stock for dividends as opposed to buying a stock for growth in value. If the lot owners were forced to sell their property at the appraised value you would see alot more development on those parcels. not car free car less, fewer people driving reduces the need for parking, that means fewer parking lots and less congestion. See this is where the urban fantasy dies. If I need my car once a week, then I still need a parking spot downtown. And until more people live and work downtown, you will need somewhere to put the 25,000 people coming into the city for Indians games, or 6000 people coming to the casino or 60,000 for Browns games. And let me fill all the daydreamers in on a little secret -- the city is competing with 60 years of some of the worst suburban sprawl I've seen anywhere in the country. The key to getting people back into the city is to make it easy and convenient to get here. It's how they hooked me. Fell in love with the area and moved in this Spring. You would think I would be the first person begging for a nice park area... I am not saying get rid of your car, I am saying take the Grossly underused road system that 98% of the time is vacant and make it more accessible to pedestrians. we have street in downtown that rarely reach capacity, why not make that underused asset into a bikeway or another amenity. You are correct about the area's sprawl and the effect is has had on the City is horrible, but you don't try to out suburb the suburbs our assets are our transit and pedestrian access, not our road access because We will never be a place with excessive amount os free parking or be as easy to access by car as the suburbs are. the goal is to reduce the usage of vehicle by downtown residents that happens when you have all the amenities they need with in walking distance of where they live. when this happens people will go from 2 car households to 1 or 0 cars households, but this cannot happen if they do not feel comfortable crossing the street or the grocery store is a 1/2 mile away on the other side of surface lot. try doing that at rush hour. or Crossing superior Ontario or east 9th street during rush hour. better yet try to cross Ontratio at Carnegie during the day, Tell us how crossing that Street made you feel. Crossing a busy street is no more difficult than crossing an empty one. Wait for the little white "walk" sign, then go. As a side note, rush hour is rush hour because people don't live downtown. Tearing up infrastructure is not going to convince anybody to live downtown. It'll only convince them to find a job that is closer to home in the burbs. so making downtown into North Olmsted will get more people to Move downtown? once again the numbers do not back up your statement, downtown is growing FASTER than the suburban areas. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/clevelands_inner_city_is_gorn.html Cleveland's inner city is growing faster than its suburbs as young adults flock downtown The new urbanites include Joe Baur, a freelance writer and the creator and host of an online satirical news show, "Mildly Relevant News." It airs thrice weekly on YouTube, the broadcast medium of his generation. Baur, 25, grew up in Mentor. When he resolved to move back to the region from Chicago last summer, he toured a neighborhood he had seldom experienced. He said he was surprised to discover a tribe of people like himself moving through the Gateway and Warehouse districts. He saw young professionals picking up ready-made meals at Constantino's Market, working out at the 24-hour Titan's Gym, and hopping onto the Healthline for rides to work. "Cleveland was very, very foreign to me," Baur said. "I had only come downtown for baseball games." Now he seldom leaves the city center and when he does it's by bus or cab. He sold his car. "I know I'm never going to leave Cleveland," he said. The data suggests he'll change his mind. Downtown's population nearly doubled from 1990 to 2010, to reach 9,098 people, Piiparinen found, and young adults drove the growth. Between 2000 and 2010, he said, more than 2,000 people younger than age 25 moved into the neighborhood. So people are moving downtwon becuase of parking or is parking an impediment to investment. A couple quotes “God made us walking animals – pedestrians. As a fish needs to swim, a bird to fly, a deer to run, we need to walk, not in order to survive, but to be happy.” "You can have a city that’s friendly to cars, or friendly to people; you cannot have both." That is a beautiful fantasy. How about getting the 90% of the people commuting into the city to live downtown first? Then we can start talking about this drive-less society. last count 25% of downtown workers use public transit and Growing. Redline Ridership was up %11.6 in May. this is not fantasy these are real numbers.
June 18, 201212 yr Not sure I understand why the closing of Ontario would require this type of major construction on PS (especially it they are still planning the transist station a block away). Can somebody explain? Maybe he means the added traffic from people being diverted from Ontario onto the outer roads would require serious changes to the bus paths around PS? I don't know. More than likely, Calabrese sees this as an opportunity to shoehorn some pork into the PS project for RTA improvements, even if they aren't necessary. Would that surprise anyone? If you make superior into a bus only corridor buses that once deboarded on Ontario would be moved to superior, drastically increasing the number of passengers in that small area. so take all the people waiting for a bus on the square and place them in a smaller area.
June 18, 201212 yr last count 25% of downtown workers use public transit and Growing. That is awesome news. Where did you find this number?
June 18, 201212 yr ^^I don't know...I think this is all leverage and propaganda on RTA's part. Due to the closing of Ontario they are losing maybe 3 loading areas that currently contain very small shelters. Why the need to build a "large sheltered" waiting area on PS, when one does not exist now, simply due to the closing of Ontario. I could see the closing resulting in routing issues, but not the need to turned PS into more of an RTA transit station than it is now (again, especially if they are actually vigoursly pursuing the transit station on the next block). After all, the idea behind closing Ontario is to make PS more appealing not less.
June 18, 201212 yr ^^I don't know...I think this is all leverage and propaganda on RTA's part. Due to the closing of Ontario they are losing maybe 3 loading areas that currently contain very small shelters. Why the need to build a "large sheltered" waiting area on PS, when one does not exist now, simply due to the closing of Ontario. I could see the closing resulting in routing issues, but not the need to turned PS into more of an RTA transit station than it is now (again, especially if they are actually vigoursly pursuing the transit station on the next block). After all, the idea behind closing Ontario is to make PS more appealing not less. I posted these somewhere else, but RTA claims there were more than 3200 bus movements per day on public square that service thousands of customers. There is also a critical link to rail in tower city. The consultants basically are proposing that to route this many buses around the perimeter of the square will not work. Some routes would be changed, but for routes that continued through or around the square, some sort of accommodation needs to be provided - ie expanded bus loading area that could allow multiple buses to load at once. Basically add up stops G,L,I and M and possibly a few others, and this gets your existing bus movements North and South on Ontario that would be routed around the square.
June 18, 201212 yr last count 25% of downtown workers use public transit and Growing. That is awesome news. Where did you find this number? My nuber were a bit off it is 19.1% source http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf
June 18, 201212 yr Could the West Side transportation center, proposed for the WHD, handle some of this load?
June 18, 201212 yr Could the West Side transportation center, proposed for the WHD, handle some of this load? I kind of thought that was the purpose but now I'm confused. What the hell is the purpose if it?
June 18, 201212 yr Could the West Side transportation center, proposed for the WHD, handle some of this load? I kind of thought that was the purpose but now I'm confused. What the hell is the purpose if it? place for buses to rest and turn around. as opposed to dispersing the buses through out downtown to layover they layover in one locating like the west side buses layover At STJ Transit Center.
June 18, 201212 yr Author I kind of thought that was the purpose but now I'm confused. What the hell is the purpose if it? To add a significant enough number of structured parking spaces which lowers the parking rates at surface lots in the Warehouse District, so their financials may work better as developable sites. And it will provide a subsidized foundation for a mid-rise apartment tower at West 6th/Superior plus street-facing development along Frankfort. Seriously. The transit angle is like a third or fourth priority in this project, which was requested of RTA by the Historic Warehouse District. If RTA is booted off the square, then perhaps RTA may actually consider the West Side Transit Center for its own needs. See the West Side Transit Center thread for more about this project, including this post of mine showing how to link the WSTC into Tower City Center.... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.msg590155.html#msg590155 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 19, 201212 yr Why can't these be synthesized into an intermodal transit hub facility connected to Tower City? The intermodal hub could be a primary target for TOD (as it should). I know there has been discussion about a new transit hub, or at least I've seen a few references to it but not actually seen the project, but why can't such a project help be a game-changer for Public Square? I also don't understand why if the BRT, which has heightened bus access requirements than the normal city buses, can operate in a slimmed-down and beautified corridor, why do these seriously over-capacity downtown arteries have to remain in a position that dices Public Square like a tomato and prevents a contiguous sense of place? (Sorry, long run on question, but many implied points) It seems like RTA's needs for Public Square are very different from the city's, which seems a lot more enthusiastic about generating new ideas for this space.
June 19, 201212 yr Author Here's the discussion on the West Side Transit Center which is in RTA's capital improvement budget: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.0.html And here's my idea for keep Superior Avenue open "under" the square, ala Dupont Circle in Washington DC. And you could still do a West Side Transit Center with some vehicular access from Superior... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 19, 201212 yr KJP, I know we've discussed a similar idea before (and I was in favor of it), but didn't we determine that Superior would have to go pretty far underground and that the incline would have to be too steep to get it to go down far enough between W. 3rd and W. Roadway?
June 19, 201212 yr Why can't these be synthesized into an intermodal transit hub facility connected to Tower City? The intermodal hub could be a primary target for TOD (as it should). I know there has been discussion about a new transit hub, or at least I've seen a few references to it but not actually seen the project, but why can't such a project help be a game-changer for Public Square? I also don't understand why if the BRT, which has heightened bus access requirements than the normal city buses, can operate in a slimmed-down and beautified corridor, why do these seriously over-capacity downtown arteries have to remain in a position that dices Public Square like a tomato and prevents a contiguous sense of place? (Sorry, long run on question, but many implied points) It seems like RTA's needs for Public Square are very different from the city's, which seems a lot more enthusiastic about generating new ideas for this space. Because all buses from the east have to cross the square. there are 3 east west arteries through downtown prospect, superior and St Clair, superior is the most direct route, and the highest capacity route. although you could in theory eliminate all stops on buses going through the square, the square tower city was designed to pass people from the square into the transit station. using prospect as has been done before has many issues mainly the roof of tower city.
June 19, 201212 yr how about we make e 3rd a pedestrian road, close down the west roadway intersection so it the square isn't a full loop but make traffic turn right onto superior instead of being able to go completely around the square. if you would need a longer incline. like this?
June 19, 201212 yr Here's the discussion on the West Side Transit Center which is in RTA's capital improvement budget: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.0.html And here's my idea for keep Superior Avenue open "under" the square, ala Dupont Circle in Washington DC. And you could still do a West Side Transit Center with some vehicular access from Superior... So basically if Cleveland goes with the park design (I'll post an image later) that the part that is by superior will be raised like an arch so cars can ride under it while Ontario will be closed? If this is the image I'm thinking of I'm in favor of the "connected park" design is my favorite out of the designs I saw.
June 19, 201212 yr If you are talking about thread it, forest it, or fence it, or whatever those things were called, all three of those options were pathetic. I believe that they are doing new designs this time around.
June 19, 201212 yr If you are talking about thread it, forest it, or fence it, or whatever those things were called, all three of those options were pathetic. I believe that they are doing new designs this time around. What's wrong with the park like design?
June 19, 201212 yr Author how about we make e 3rd a pedestrian road, close down the west roadway intersection so it the square isn't a full loop but make traffic turn right onto superior instead of being able to go completely around the square. if you would need a longer incline. like this? FYI, when you copied the road in Photoshop, you left it in the upper-right corner. :) "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 19, 201212 yr Why can't these be synthesized into an intermodal transit hub facility connected to Tower City? The intermodal hub could be a primary target for TOD (as it should). I know there has been discussion about a new transit hub, or at least I've seen a few references to it but not actually seen the project, but why can't such a project help be a game-changer for Public Square? I also don't understand why if the BRT, which has heightened bus access requirements than the normal city buses, can operate in a slimmed-down and beautified corridor, why do these seriously over-capacity downtown arteries have to remain in a position that dices Public Square like a tomato and prevents a contiguous sense of place? (Sorry, long run on question, but many implied points) It seems like RTA's needs for Public Square are very different from the city's, which seems a lot more enthusiastic about generating new ideas for this space. Because all buses from the east have to cross the square. there are 3 east west arteries through downtown prospect, superior and St Clair, superior is the most direct route, and the highest capacity route. although you could in theory eliminate all stops on buses going through the square, the square tower city was designed to pass people from the square into the transit station. using prospect as has been done before has many issues mainly the roof of tower city. Did RTA take the steering wheels out of their buses or something? I don't understand why these large vehicles could not go around Public Square to the south. Really, considering that this area is pretty cramped and offers little room to work with and maintaining RTA access and the goal of a landmark green space seem incongruent, the bus hub needs to go underground it seems. Most European bus terminals were underground in my experience. Helsinki had an excellent model where it was the underground level of their main downtown shopping mall, and also had a metro station, and people could walk across the square to the rail terminal (most visitors usually got horribly lost doing this, so clearly the connection between separate facilities needed re-thinking). Something like this terminal connected to these underground parking bays, which could be positioned east/west if RTA is obsessed with maintaining route horizontality.
June 19, 201212 yr Why can't these be synthesized into an intermodal transit hub facility connected to Tower City? The intermodal hub could be a primary target for TOD (as it should). I know there has been discussion about a new transit hub, or at least I've seen a few references to it but not actually seen the project, but why can't such a project help be a game-changer for Public Square? I also don't understand why if the BRT, which has heightened bus access requirements than the normal city buses, can operate in a slimmed-down and beautified corridor, why do these seriously over-capacity downtown arteries have to remain in a position that dices Public Square like a tomato and prevents a contiguous sense of place? (Sorry, long run on question, but many implied points It seems like RTA's needs for Public Square are very different from the city's, which seems a lot more enthusiastic about generating new ideas for this space. Because all buses from the east have to cross the square. there are 3 east west arteries through downtown prospect, superior and St Clair, superior is the most direct route, and the highest capacity route. although you could in theory eliminate all stops on buses going through the square, the square tower city was designed to pass people from the square into the transit station. using prospect as has been done before has many issues mainly the roof of tower city. Did RTA take the steering wheels out of their buses or something? I don't understand why these large vehicles could not go around Public Square to the south. Really, considering that this area is pretty cramped and offers little room to work with and maintaining RTA access and the goal of a landmark green space seem incongruent, the bus hub needs to go underground it seems. Most European bus terminals were underground in my experience. Helsinki had an excellent model where it was the underground level of their main downtown shopping mall, and also had a metro station, and people could walk across the square to the rail terminal (most visitors usually got horribly lost doing this, so clearly the connection between separate facilities needed re-thinking). Something like this terminal connected to these underground parking bays, which could be positioned east/west if RTA is obsessed with maintaining route horizontality. I like the idea but it would probably be horribly expensive and thus unrealistic. I would love it if we had this though
June 19, 201212 yr That Helsinki transit center is awesome and THAT'S what having a national government that values public transit in its cities will get you. My guess is that kind of facility can only be funded by a national government, and we know where our government's transit priorities lie... (thinking Avon interchange)
June 19, 201212 yr how about we make e 3rd a pedestrian road, close down the west roadway intersection so it the square isn't a full loop but make traffic turn right onto superior instead of being able to go completely around the square. if you would need a longer incline. like this? Much more expensive but place both ramps between W.6th and W.3rd then from E.3rd to E.6th. You'd end up with a smaller gradient of less than 3%. Note: highway max gradient is 6%
Create an account or sign in to comment