jam40jeff

I hate speculation as much as anyone here, but having been at that intersection a fair amount, I think it's pretty safe to say that 99% of the trouble comes to the corner store from the other side of the bridge.

And then they tease us like that.

Ugggghhhhhhhhhh

It's likely a combination of many factors, no matter how hard we try to simplify it.

Meanwhile, I thought the Euclid Corridor made perfect sense as a New Urbanist Paradise... but it was decided that our city's main thoroughfare-- Millionaire's Row-- was too far gone for any such thing, so we should be happy to get light manufacturing there... even though we'd just rebuilt the road to feature a block-by-block mass transit system that was clearly designed to service a New Urbanist Paradise. But here... in what has always been the worst part of town, interspersed with heavy industry and logistical infrastructure, soaked through with chemicals... here we should hold out for ideal high-density residential and retail. Amen. There's a little to much Sim-City idealism at work here. While we all debate the merits of this project, let's not forget this is supposed to prop up our new largest industry: healthcare. I'm all for rail and anti-car. But let's face it, if it keeps UC and the Clinic growing, we need to do this. What's most important is that the influx of cars is carefully managed and doesn't overstep the growth in residential and retail in the area also. I'm not sure I buy that this road will help UC or the Clinic grow any faster than they already are. I'm actually afraid it will stunt the growth and/or shift the growth into something much less desirable for an urban area. I know I keep beating a dead horse, but I'm really tired of the growth argument, because it insinuates that the area is stagnating right now. UC and the Clinic are already booming, I see no way that this road will accelerate that. The only benefit I think that may be had from this road is that we may get some new light industrial in a barren section of the east side between UC and downtown.

I don' t live on a railroad track. That makes no damn sense! NONE. However, if you did liv eon a railroad track the infrastructure could be rehabilitated to move people throughout the city and region. Huh? I mean the road DOES closely follow railroad tracks and does not pass through too many homes. I don't see this argument against the road so much, although it would be interesting to hear from people who will be forced to relocate by it (although that's an incredibly small number of people for a 2.7 mile road through an urban area due to the industrial nature and level of residential demolition of the area).

And the lack of criss-crossing highways is why nobody does business in Manhattan.

Then why don't we rip up the whole city and make a 50-lane freeway with a 90 MPH speed limit to get there? Anything less costs these salesman money!

This community already has a bunch of roads. How many times do I have to say this? It's not like anybody is talking about ripping roads up. Plenty of people somehow already are able to make it to University Circle. Enough so that it's thriving! So why do we need ANOTHER road?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to blend into the "society of MTS".

I third that motion.

http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/report-refutes-texas-rangers-reliever-tanner-scheppers-memory-of-thursday-attack.html/ Can the city sue for slander?

No, but they are negatively correlated. The more cars you invite into an area, the less density-friendly it will be. And the more dense you build an area, the less car-friendly it will be. So why take a thriving fairly density-friendly neighborhood that is already not that bad to navigate by car and make it more car-friendly? It's not like we're asking that all roads to University Circle be ripped up and replaced with rail lines.

Exactly.

Umm, that's what we are doing. Taking a thriving area and trying to make it more auto-friendly will likely only make it worse. That is bad policy.

Now that I've stated my fear, I'll state my hope for the Opportunity Corridor, since it is pretty much inevitable the project is going to happen. I hope the OC is merely a waste of money. Anything better than that will be more than I expecting. And what I am fearing is worse (a waste of money that also damages a thriving neighborhood or at least changes its complexion in a way that many of those that live near it don't want to see). But by saying I hope it is merely a waste of money means that I hope it just siphons off some traffic from Chester and Carnegie and makes some suburbanites a little happier, and maybe even brings a few more in, all while not siphoning off hardly any transit riders. I hope the road is no worse than a Chester. I don't know how much (if anything) it will do for the area (I don't think Chester did too much for Hough), but if it does bring in some new business and helps out the neighborhood, then that would be a great added bonus in my book. I also hope that much of the increased traffic simply ends up in Cleveland Clinic parking garages. The Clinic is already an auto-centric zone, I can't see this road doing much more damage to it than the Clinic has already done (compare old photos of E. 105th and Euclid to new ones to see what I'm talking about). However, what I would hate to see is this road have an adverse effect on the congestion and danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders east of E. 105th, where the environment has been (and continues to be) designed in a more walkable, urban fashion. I hope that any talk of rewidening or raising speed limits on Euclid or other roads in that area is met with as much resistance as plowing a 6-lane "boulevard" through the heart of Little Italy would be.

Encouraging more vehicles doesn't necessarily mean growth. If 2,000 new vehicles travel to University Circle a day and it siphons off 1,500 transit riders, I think the added congestion will do much more harm than the 500 new people travelling to University Circle will do it good.

So even if most people like sprawl, there can't be nice dense areas in America just because the majority has to rule everything? What about the cities I mentioned above? What about the fact that University Circle is ALREADY THRIVING, despite not cowtowing to this supposed preference of the overwhelming majority of Americans? Can't we leave well-enough alone? Didn't we learn from the past mistakes of ramming wide roads (whether they're called highways or parkways or expressways or freeways or boulevards or just 6 lane arterials?) through walkable neighborhoods?

I still don't believe most people, maybe even not a majority of people, prefer sprawl. It's just cheaper right now for various reasons and they'll live with the upsides and give up their dream of living in a place like Hudson or Chagrin Falls or Alexandria, Virginia. But that discussion is probably better left for the Suburban Sprawl thread.

ERocc, if density is so despised by people, what explains the absurd $/sqft for a home in the old, dense part of Chagrin Falls?

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created. UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood. The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there. In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable. Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood? Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods? How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns? Oh, wait we already know. Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

This got me thinking about the Sidaway Bridge and how much easier that walk/bike ride would be if it were reopened, which led me to this interesting blog post: http://silverstravels.blogspot.com/2012/01/returning-to-sidaway-bridge.html

It shows African American plurality, not majority. Whites are split amongst multiple ethnicities, so none of them must top 35%. The same is true for Cuyahoga County.

I'm sure Mitchell's would rather be compared to Heinen's than Giant Eagle. :P