urbanlife

Here is a screenshot from page 14 of the LD-01 CCG1 Roadway Engineering, dated Dec. 2009. Things may have changed in the actual design-build.

It seems like 1 of the issues with the ridership study is that under the best proposed condition, it would still be a 2 seat train ride to University Circle from the new extensions. I would think that ridership would be significantly enhanced if there was a 1 seat option to both downtown and UC. Is there any reason that there can't be an improved connection between the blue/green line and the existing red line track nearer to UC? And is there any reason that the existing light rail cars, which operate on the red line row from e55 to downtown, couldn't operate east to UC? It seems with 2 new stations coming online in UC over the next few years, it would be a big loss to not explore a 1 seat rail connection from the southeast to UC.

+1 I'd also like to personally see a small play area with some swings at lower edgewater.

And there never will be any of that so long as it stays a limited access 50 mph freeway... yes, according to ODOT. the thing is, there is nothing preventing ODOT and the city from making this a 35 mph roadway now - with no improvements whatsoever. this would require legislative or ODOT policy change (depending on who you believe), but it is the same process that has to be followed after the boulevard is reconstructed. i guess it is just a question of priorities, imo, with constrained budgets, you get the speed limit reduced now and build bicycle and pedestrian access first. Otherwise bicycle and pedestrian access will become a phase iv part of the project, a project that started with just 1 phase.

Is there any hope of having the median along Chester improved with some actual plantings? I rarely drive down this route, but every time I do, I am amazed at how barren the median looks from CSU to the Clinic. There are probably only a handful of trees in the entire area. It seems like a good area for midtown (or the city) to invest in actually planting something. http://g.co/maps/v46yg

Improved access would be an improvement, but the current TRAC application for phase II doesn't include any improved pedestrian access. The only access improved is the pedestrian tunnels, currently under construction and unsuable for the 2d year, and the proposed interchange at w73 which is being funded out of the original 49.8 million grant from a few years ago. This project has shifted quite a bit, but if you review the most recent plans that the city is working from, there is no additional land that is opened up to development and the "boulevard" looks much like the existing highway - except that the whole thing is completely rebuilt with trees added down the middle. There are no sidewalks added, no signalized intersections added, and no multi-purpose path added. So, the $35 million funds only rebuilding the entire stretch of roadway to feel like a boulevard, without many of the critical elements that actually make it a boulevard - including opening additional land for development.

ODOT and the city have a high level design for the entire project. the estimates to complete that project (no traffic lights, pedestrian tunnels, a w73 tunnel, w25/28 reconfiguration, multipurpose path, and a tree lined median, again with no true intersections, just "right on, right off" ramps) are now $104 million. The city has $49.8 million. So, the city started to phase this project even further, with these being the proposed phases: Phase I - 2 pedestrian tunnels (under construction, but facing serious delays), and the west 73 interchange, which has almost doubled in price; Phase II - rebuild entire roadway to make it "feel like a boulevard" even though there are no sidewalks, intersections, or multipurpose trails included. This phase is estimated at around $35 million, and this is what the city recent submitted to the TRAC process for additional funding, which scored very low; Phase III - possibly something at w25/28, and the addition on multipurpose paths. This phase in unfunded and the city isn't currently seeking funding for these elements. To my knowledge, nothing is shovel ready, with the most detailed (but not final) engineering work having been done on w73 interchange.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people are so up in arms about this, ESPECIALLY UrbanOhio people. And it seems many of the same people who are against the Opportunity Corridor boulevard are for keeping this road a limited access freeway. It makes no sense. An extra 2 or 3 minutes added to a commute from a suburb isn't a game changer. +1 also, it was interesting to hear that the shoreway at one time had more than 82,000 vehicles per day. it is now in the low 30,000s. A huge decrease in traffic with the same number of lanes, speed limit, etc.

Here is the screen shot from the presentation. It looks like there is actually 172 feet between curb cuts on w3.

the enclosed passenger waiting area, with glass, possibly some limited vending/retail, and access to sidewalk are along superior, so at least in this proposal, there should be some activity, light, eyes on the street, and some reason to walk there. also, iirc, there are only 2 lanes entering from superior, and the 3 or 4 exit lanes go out to w3. I think w3 actually will be a bit of a deadzone between superior and frankfort with this large bus exit as well as the proposed entrance and exit to the parking garage. there could be a 60 foot + curb cut here that pedestrians have to cross - but that also means no curb cuts on frankfort or west 9.

this is an "intermodal" facility for federal funding purposes only, and in practice is meant to be a parking garage for cars. Similar to the intermodal transportation center (parking garage) that was built for the art museum. as for the specific waiting environment, perhaps some use case scenarios as well as possible improvements could be posted. the clinic in the past had heated shelters for its own shuttle buses and smoking pavilions, and there seems to be an opportunity to create a decent waiting environment somewhere in this vicinity - but what is the proposal? having attended the service cut public meeting in cleveland heights, maybe almost 2 years ago now, i can tell you that there were numerous comments from people that wanted to get to the clinic on a 1 seat ride.

this building is under option from a group led by a ny investor. my understanding is that it is currently being eyed as a hotel conversion by this group, that would introduce a new hotel brand into the market. however, i expected to hear some more details by now, so perhaps this is dead. the property is complicated, and although the bones of the building are good, it will need a complete gut. I would be shocked if anything will go forward on this corner lot that would block views from that side of the pinnacle. the most recent plans i had seen, showed maybe 3 or 4 story townhouse type construction there.

according to RTA, there is a significant capacity issue east of UC, which is why they are proposing to go back to the original routing. during rush hours, the every-other-bus set up is not providing enough capacity.

Any updates on Tomo or the new mexican place going in the former Phoenix on West 9th? Tomo looked like it was ready to go more than a month ago, and now just sits dark. It also looks like the new liquor store on west 6 is going to be half liquor store and half cafe/restaurant. Any info on this place?

Here is a link to the plan that was shown last week: http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

It's good to see the city step up to fight for this project. I hope they will continue to fight for the original vision of this corridor (and not what was submitted in the last TRAC application). The city's current proposal for phase II is the one that removed much of the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure - or at least reprioritized it to unfunded status. My fear is that even if money is found for this project, it is so far gone from the original vision in the early 2000s of multiple intersections, retail, residential, multi-modal access, etc. The original concept of at least a few at grade intersections and much improved pedestrian and bicycle elements needs to be put back on the table. IMO, you can't create a boulevard just by lowering the speed limit and planting some trees in the middle for $35million - you need to actually have pedestrian and bicycle access, and open up additional land for development and other uses. Otherwise, you've basically just created a "nicer" limited access highway, perhaps with a lower speed limit.

3 things - buses would most likely still go through/stop on public square, but the trip might start or end at the transit center, with layovers taking place there - this offers opportunities to extend the healthline to the whd, which is a good thing, and also provides layover space for healthline vehicles, many of which now go back to a garage after peak periods. - it is all in the details and execution.

Here is some information that was distributed at an RTA board meeting a few months ago. It shows the current number of bus movements/stops at different locations around public square.

I'm guessing that it's the currently inoperable bridge [next to the fire station on corner of carter and scranton] that would connect stones levee and scranton/carter. not to go off topic, but the picture shows a draw bridge which you still see in other cities crossing rivers but we seem to have eliminated all of these in favor of the lift bridges and 1 swing bridge. any reason for this? it seems the draw bridges could be cheaper to operate and might offer the opportunity to make more connections over the river.

Actually, the PD wrote about this two weeks ago - Graystone plans more renovation at former W.S. Tyler plant http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/graystone_plans_more_renovatio.html

no.

I was thinking the same thing. The May Co building location couldn't be any more conducive to RTA. i think the main issue is that the campuses themselves aren't well connected to each other, so if you have a class downtown at May Co. and need to get back in 30 minutes for a class at the main downtown campus, or the eastern campus, there isn't an easy or time efficient connection on RTA. The downtown campus is relatively well connected by the 14 or 15 bus, but again depending on exactly where you are going this might not work well. The same 15 will connect with the TriC east campus, but take more than an hour to get there. It was proposed using Strickland's ODOT money to create a new campus connector circulator which would better connect TriC and CSU/transit, but this was cut.

the installation isn't complete. the PD had an article a month ago about this. apparently this fall sometime all of the boards should be working.

any one know what happened to mister magic car wash at carnegie and e36? it looked like it closed a few months ago and there was a dumpster out front for a while, but now it appears quiet. downtown/nearby could use a good gas station and a good car wash.

Akron has taken this approach, somewhat. The city owns a number of garages and offers incentives, free parking even at times, to drive business during evenings and weekends. Cleveland seems to want to get rid of any garage it owns. For instance, although the Gateway garages haven't been very profitable the past few years, as soon as there is demand - new casino - the city immediately sells the north garage for cash as soon as it can. so, i don't think you'll see any sort of consolidated parking developed by the city any time soon.