Litening

It's state law. Any continuous street that's more than a mile long, not in a business district, and within a single municipality, is designated a "through highway". (ORC 4511.65) And the designated speed limit for through highways within a municipality is 35 MPH. (ORC 4511.21). There are provisions for municipalities to do appropriate engineering and traffic studies to raise or lower the standard speed limit. I'm not certain if this current effort is going to be used to request a speed limit change for Franklin. If this was happening, you would think they would mention it on the project website, and I don't see it there. I'll just mention that folks already routinely ignore the current 35 MPH speed limit. It seems logical that if the speed limit is lowered, and nothing else is done to calm traffic, that not much will change in this regard. Speed limits need to reflect conditions -- they rarely work to impose them. (See the West Shoreway for a great example of this.)

I'm surprised that people are praising this botched job. We will be spending $3.2MM to basically take out the traffic lights and resurface the street. As others have noted, this design is unlikely to calm traffic; it seems like it might even allow speeds to increase. Most of the proven calming techniques that were on the preliminary proposals have been removed from the final design. The roundabouts will just be low rounded concrete bumps that can simply be driven over instead of forcing cars to slow way down and go around The lanes will remain at their current speed-encouraging width, instead of narrowed to make drivers less comfortable There will not be curb bump outs at intersections to calm traffic and provide a shorter crossing distance for pedestrians The sides of the street used for parking will not alternate to cause the road to seem less like a drag strip Crosswalks will just get the easily-ignored flashing signs instead of being raised into speed tables There will be no additional safety features for bicycles -- just the same useless "sharrows" that are there now Extremely disappointing. As the project website states, "some adjustments from the TLCI plan are necessary as the design advances from conceptual to engineering design standards". My guess is that any design elements that did not strictly follow the MUTCD were simply removed by city traffic engineers. I've written to Councilman McCormack expressing my extreme disappointment that yet another community engagement effort has been derailed and ignored by the city.

I also agree. My biggest peeve with this one -- and you can't see it too well in this photo -- is that the façade almost lines up with the building next to it, but doesn't quite. It's a couple of feet off. If they couldn't get it to line up for some important reason, it would have been better to come nowhere close.

Dental Clinic: https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/09/how-ohio-city-residents-fought-for-one-property-to-be-used-for-the-greater-good-and-won.html

Been saying this for years. It will soon be time to replace the Main Ave Bridge. It's been rehabbed on an increasingly regular basis in recent years and was improved only from "Poor" to "Fair" condition by the last big rehab in 2013. It also has a "fracture critical" design which means that the failure of a single member can cause a portion of or the entire bridge to fail. To give some idea of the potential cost to replace the bridge, just its deck replacement in 1992 cost $62 million (with inflation, would be $115 million today). And as something possibly comparable that's happening now, the project that's building the new Valley View Bridge is $228 million. (To be clear, it's not a clean comparison: In addition to the new third bridge it also includes deck replacements on the two existing bridges -- on the other hand, each of the Valley View Bridges are about 2,400 ft. shorter than the Main Ave Bridge.) In other words, the high cost alone dictates that we should not just automatically replace the existing 6,500 ft span + 1,500 ft of ramps. And as we all know, there are many other issues with the current bridge. We should look for a better solution. Here's what I think would be much better: From west to east: Have the Shoreway replace Ed Houser (Whiskey Island) Drive as a four lane 35 mph boulevard. Maintain two intersections on this section of road: The first would be for the Treatment Plant and Old River Yacht Club. The second would go to Wendy Park and the Ore Docks. Then as low and short a bridge as we can get away with. My preference would be a medium height (50 ft?) drawbridge that would only need to open for the tallest boats. After the bridge, the boulevard would continue across the south side of the Port. Reconnect with the East Shoreway at W 3rd by widening the ramp that currently provides Shoreway access to the Port parking lot west of the stadium. Since it was just rehabbed, I'd probably leave the section of the existing West Shoreway between the Westinghouse curve and W 45th as a route into Ohio City or an alternate route into Downtown via Detroit Ave. (For example, when the drawbridge is open signs could route traffic onto Detroit.) Just have a merge at W 45th or at Dogbone park. Could be modified to include KJP's intersection/transit suggestions at W 54th and W 45th. Upsides: Could mostly be built without disrupting the current route. Eliminate a significant number of twisty/unsafe sections of road and oddly designed ramps. Free up acres of "lakefront" or "riverfront" property in downtown, the flats, and the near west side. Get rid of the "Berlin Wall" between Lakeview Terrace and the rest of Ohio City. Create a more direct western route in and out of the Stadium/lakefront area. With some added access over/under the rail line, add another needed route in and out of the Flats East Bank area. Possible improved development opportunities at the south end of the Port property. Rework of interface to the East Shoreway could include a better road connection to the Amtrak station. Seems likely to be cheaper overall than replacing the long high-level bridge, especially if traffic disruption is taken into account. Downsides: It's a tight fit on some sections of the road out to Whiskey Island. The bridge over the tracks that go to the ore docks would need the be rebuilt. Construction would likely significantly disrupt access to Whiskey Island - although building the eastern portion of the road and the bridge first would perhaps allow access from that direction while the western road is being built. Would likely interfere with the new pedestrian bridge over the rail line at Whiskey Island. Brings more traffic closer to Whiskey Island, possibly making it less peaceful. There's a warehouse at the Port of Cleveland that would have to relocate north. Depending on route there is possible interference with both the RTA tracks and the W 9th St. extension at the Port. If a high-level (90') bridge is still required, long ramps would be needed and the financial advantage is reduced. A drawbridge would likely enrage some motorists (and sailboaters with larger boats), but I say, "Screw 'em" 🙂.

Then today's your lucky day -- Fulton and the Franklin Circle roundabout are open.

Lots of good info on the Circle out there. Cleveland Historical Encyclopedia of Cleveland History Cleveland Historic Maps From the above we can see that It was the first park on the west side -- 1836. The street around the circle was paved with brick. There were no plazas around the old circle - the street was indeed where the brick areas in front of the church and hospital are (and, until very recently, where the new apartment building is). The pavers currently in front of the hospital are not original, though. However, the street was not as close to the hospital because that wing had not yet been built when the circle was functional. The old circle had a radius of 140' to the outside of the street. The street itself was 30' wide. But the circle was bisected first by Franklin Blvd itself, and then later by several streetcar lines, so by the time it was removed it really didn't function much like a traffic circle or park anymore. From the plans for the new roundabout, here, it has a radius of about 70' to the outside of the street. (The circle itself seems to have a radius of 45'.) So nothing like the original Franklin Circle.

The roundabout is under construction. You can see the new northeast and southeast curb lines in the photo. The dirt area in the center left of the photo is where the splitter island in the middle of Franklin will go. Franklin is scheduled to be closed between W 25th and W 29th until October. And at the moment 29th is also closed in Hingetown. Take Detroit or Bridge instead.

The Rhodes Mansion was discussed at a later meeting: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2019/04112019/index.php

The plans, including colors, were brought to Landmarks: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2018/10112018/index.php http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2018/10252018/index.php (Probably posted up-thread as well.) TLDR: They are keeping the back section and the porch is pretty close to the original one.

NOACA's posted the info from this meeting at http://www.noaca.org/index.aspx?page=7580 Lots of mini-roundabouts and lots of raised crosswalks. I don't believe that any traffic lights remain. Looks like the preferred design has full-sized roundabouts at both Fulton and 65th.

The US Bank branch at the corner of Market Ave. closed in January. And the former Orale space between Bridge and Jay is currently empty, but an outpost of Cleveland Heights' Rib Cage Smokehouse was just announced as moving in: http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2018/03/the_rib_cage_smokehouse_and_ba.html

PM Foundation is the controlling non-profit for UCS. ("PM" stands for "St. Patrick, St. Malachi", the two parish schools that merged to form UCS.) So between the school itself and the Foundation, it sounds like they control much of that block between 47th and 48th.

Metro's McCafferty Health Center is just two blocks away, so why build another clinic? (SSSB is the law firm Schneider Smeltz Spieth Bell, BTW. Just playing legal agent for the company, I'd guess.)

Plus a bunch of new infill housing going into long-term empty lots (such as at John & 44th, along 41st south of Lorain, and along 29th between Franklin & Clinton).

At Vine Ct. and 32nd there are just empty lots. At Franklin and 32nd there's a mostly disused parking lot -- used to be one of the lots for the West Side YMCA and, prior to that, the Franklin Boulevard Methodist Church (1870-1947):

Its the fourth busiest airport in Ohio, and it's not needed? What does that say about the rest of them....? According to the FAA ATADS system Burke was the 7th busiest airport in Ohio in terms of flight operations (takeoffs/landings) in 2014, behind CLE, CMH, LUK, CAK, OSU and DAY and ahead of CGF, TOL, YNG, TZR, and MFD.

The Burns-Bowe Baking Company. Once claimed to be Cleveland's largest supplier of pies. The explanation for the location in the middle of a residential neighborhood is that they started the business in a home there and then expanded. Looks like a portion of the current building was there by 1898. There were houses in front of it on Clinton (where the "parking lot" is now) into at least the 1920's.

So the Plain Press (Near West Side free newspaper) wrote up the resolution to this story about the used car lot at 4157 Lorain. As several folks above surmised, there was no Certificate of Occupancy. An interesting point raised during the commission meeting was that there are apparently three other used car lots in the Pedestrian Retail Overlay that were operating without CO's at that time. From the sounds of things, now that this issue has been uncovered, the city might move to shut them down as well. http://plainpress.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/planning-commission-tells-lorain-avenue-used-car-dealer-it-is-time-to-move-on/

Noticed that the new Columbus Rd. Bridge still has an operators booth on it. Did anything come of this study? I poked around a little and other than the RFP document I don't see any evidence that a study was ever done. It was interesting to see that the recommendation to look into this as a money saving possibility came in a 2009 consultant's report and it took council two years to get around to requesting the study. And then (perhaps) nothing... Estimated savings, by the way, of over $700K per year. One other question came to mind: This is all around the six lift/swing bridges the city runs. How are the various rail bridges controlled?

Yes. Trying to permanently close a section of a federally designated road is damn near impossible. Who's proposing to "close" anything? The road would be re-routed 400 ft around the outside of the square. No closing. As StrapHanger mentions, minor changes to federal highways are a common occurrence.

I lived in DC for many years, so the Georgetown analogy is interesting to me. Not from the prejudice perspective (since it's pretty clear that there was never really any serious thought given to putting a station there during Metro planning, so no need for opposition). But more from a connectivity perspective and what the lack of a Metro stop there has meant. In a lot of ways Georgetown is like many of the east side "inner ring" suburbs of Cleveland - Shaker, Cleveland Hts., Univ. Hts. Both areas are generally nice places, but generally a pain in the neck to travel into and out of. So much so that in the time I was in DC, I can count on one hand the number of times I was in Georgetown. Frankly my attitude was, "If I can't take the train there, it's not worth going to." (And of course, driving in DC is basically a non-starter.) And obviously, I would never have considered moving there. Georgetown is still doing fine despite the lack of Metro connectivity, but I'd submit that's due more to DC's overall health and to the ongoing presence of the University. Having lived there, the lack of train access into Georgetown has been an ongoing point of discussion for years. Note that there is a very nice circulator bus with service every 10 minutes that covers Georgetown. Doesn't matter. Folks want a train. (Trains and buses are apparently not the same. Hmm.) From what I understand, DC is now finally looking at putting some sort of light rail/trolley line from Georgetown into downtown DC. Still a Metro station would be better. The key here is that Georgetown is both a neighborhood and a significant destination and both it and the region would benefit greatly if a Metro station was there. Now apply this to the east side of Cleveland. Again most of the suburbs there are doing OK, if perhaps on a downward slide. And similar to Georgetown the overall feeling in the Cleveland area is that there isn't great connectivity to these areas. People talk all the time about how hard (read "slow") it is to get into and out of Cleveland Hts, University Hts and Shaker. It's undeniable that many folks never consider moving there because it is "too hard" to get anywhere. This cannot be great for the health of those neighborhoods. The weird part of this is that, unlike Georgetown, there is already rail transit through much of the East Side that should be providing much better connectivity. But unfortunately the Shaker Rapid really doesn't go anywhere or have any destinations (except Shaker Square and Van Aken Plaza) along its route. It's designed to only be really useful if you want to go downtown in the morning for work and then back home in the evening. So add more destinations to these lines and I believe that those destinations, the neighborhoods along the lines, and the entire RTA rail system will benefit. I'm sure that population density along the lines is important, but so is having the lines go places that people actually want to go. Right now Cleveland's rail lines don't have a lot of destinations on them. And in the few cases where they kind of go to important destinations (for example, University Circle, even Downtown) the stations are placed poorly. So there's no particular reason for folks not living along the train lines to use them except perhaps to get downtown or maybe the airport. So to rectify this, the Green line should be extended to Beachwood HS/Rec Center/Library, Beachwood Place/Legacyland, a new Park and Ride at 271, the office parks at Lander, the big apartment blocks south of Mayfield Rd., and then finally Hillcrest/Eastgate. The Blue line should be extended out Chagrin through Woodmere. (I know that GCRTA has recently studied this and found low benefit to cost, but I don't think studies like this correctly take into account how land use and behavior actually change when there is convenient and regular rail transit available. Disabuse me of this opinion if you know differently.) If these extensions happened, folks living in Shaker could take a train out to Eton or Beachwood instead of always hopping in the car. People downtown could get to some of this high end shopping. Will everyone do this? No of course not. But there's at least some other reason than commuting to ride the train. And psychologically it makes Shaker, for example, feel like a much more connected place to live. Of course, we'd also need to address the appalling frequency of service during much of the day/weekend. And going west, there needs to be some way of connecting the Shaker Lines directly into University Circle (other than transferring to buses which, as we saw above, are apparently not the same as trains). Different topics.

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable. Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well. Work really well? http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn How does that work really well? It absolutely is "separating", "dead", and "forbidding" for anyone that is not driving a car. That might as well be a freeway. Would you walk on that sidewalk with cars whizzing past you at 50+ MPH inches away, a wall on the other side, no eyes on the street, no street lights, and absolutely no destinations in sight to walk to? And the walls are pretty much the definition of separating. Imagine living right across that street from a friend and trying to walk to their house. You'd probably half to walk over a mile and still cross a busy 5-lane 45 MPH speed limit road. I think this pattern is an extreme example of what is wrong with auto-centric development. That's funny. Ignore my example, pick some other random place and then talk about this new place you picked as if that's what I was referring to. Nice trick. I'll have to remember that one. How about instead we use my actual example: an arterial, in Irvine. http://bit.ly/15fl0Gl You cannot say the street in Irvine is forbidding. Or bereft of destinations. Or lacking street lights. Or impossible to walk along or across. (Or, I should add, tough to bike on. Or missing public transportation.) Yes, the speed limit on that street is 45 and there are multiple lanes and occasional sound barriers. But despite these "auto-centric" features, the street in Irvine works very well at a lot of things besides moving cars as quickly as possible. It is absolutely a model Cleveland's planners should be considering when building an arterial. Now, you can say that this model is not what you have in mind for this specific road on the east side of Cleveland. That's fine. There are lots of options. However, in my opinion, most of them are worse. The bottom line is that the new portion of the "Opportunity Corridor" is going to be an arterial road. Not a residential street. Not a "Main Street". There are already those kinds of streets in Kinsman/Fairfax. An arterial can look and work like a freeway, or your strawman in Glendale, or plenty of other bad things (see much of eastern Chester Ave.). Or it can look and work like the street in Irvine. I certainly know which model I prefer. It's pretty clear that they are building this road. With $300 million of our money. Shouldn't we insist they make it the best road it can be so that there is at least a small chance it lives up to its name? (By the way, if you want a chuckle, pull up Zillow on some of the condos near the address above in Irvine... Yikes. That's Opportunity for you.)

Don't want to continue to sidetrack this topic, but I was only going by what has been reported in the PD on many occasions. One example: http://blog.cleveland.com/pdworld/2007/08/david_i_andersenthe_plain_deal.html. Apparently the truss arch design and loading/deterioration issues are similar enough to the Minneapolis bridge that ODOT has the Main Ave. bridge on their list of truss bridges to watch. The Innerbelt Bridge is simply (1) much more important and (2) in worse shape. Hence all the work there. Doesn't mean that the Main Ave. bridge doesn't need to have a plan for removal or replacement.

maybe we should remove that elevated freeway? The Main Ave. Bridge was built in 1939 (twenty years earlier than the Innerbelt Bridge currently being replaced) and will definitely need to be torn down soon, despite several recent rounds of repairs. It has the same design as the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed and ODOT has stated that replacement of the bridge will happen as soon as they can find the funds (of course). I would love to see a Shoreway plan that restructures the road to have a much shorter, straighter route -- which would mean a cheaper, simpler bridge. (Plus likely a lot of land/airspace freed up in the Warehouse district and East Bank.) The current West Shoreway rebuild plans don't address any of this. They only change the dangerous W 28th St. ramps onto and off of the bridge but otherwise ignore the bridge's impending end of life. Just too expensive to think about, I guess.