KJP

I can turn my head to the right from looking at this computer, and see Fedor Manor about a mile south from my fifth-floor window. I'd be happy to take some pics, but I'd rather wait until after Thanksgiving (especially since it may take that long before we see the sun again!).

Thanks Wimwar. Now you can tell me what to do since you now pay 0.00000000001 percent of my salary! If I can borrow a quarter from you, yell heads or tails, I'll show you. Don't expect to get the quarter back though. Remember, I work at Sun. I was with a friend of mine from Chicago at Tower City today and he saw the WSSN at the newstand near the hotel walk-through. He bought a copy to read on the bus to Kent. I guess he really needed a nap. That copy had the live-work article in it, as well as a large artice about the Innerbelt (including a map on which I accidentally typed the label of the "Greek Orthodox Church of the Assumption"). Of course, we got some calls about that! Oh well. When you make a mistake as a reporter, 50,000 people get to see it....

I'd like to see what CBRE has to say about it.

Usually. Most appear in the West Side Sun News (covers from downtown west to West Park), Brooklyn Sun Journal (Old Brooklyn, Brooklyn Centre and Brooklyn) and Sun Herald (West Shore suburbs). But they can sometimes also be printed in any of the 23 other Sun papers....

Why don't we have an UrbanOhio holiday meetup at Sokolowski's and find out for ourselves?

I agree. But now it's your turn to come up with a diagram!

We're looking into here at Sun. Will advise.

I can't be all over everything and still expect to keep my sanity! :-P

The Lakefront Boulevard is also proposed to have bus stops along it, and one might possibly be located near the Westinghouse building. I also like the low-level building adjoining the Westinghouse "tower" which, for some reason, reminds me of a mini Station Square-type structure. It could be a terrific retail site, fresh foods market, etc. for the neighborhood or for transit commuters making a stopover to buy ingredients for dinner, before continuing their trips home.

Discussion of it is really taking off at the Cleveland TOD group. There's a number of developers and planners in that group, so it's not like they're looking at this specifically as a TOD opportunity. But it could be..... The question came up: what if someone went to the folks at the Greek Orthodox Church and said "For the good of the region, would you be willing to move if major features of the church were preserved? if your church could be anywhere else, where would you want to be?" If they want to stay, that's fine. But I note that they probably don't have to move. But if they did, why not disassemble much of the church and reassemble it at a location of their choosing?

Very interesting. I just e-mailed Norm Roulet to learn more about their efforts.

Nope. I'm serious.

Funny you should mention that area. I had an article about live-work spaces in Thursday's paper, and how some progress in spurring more could really spur areas like St. Clair-Superior (and give more entrepenuers a home, literally, and an inexpensive start).

^I never thought about that! Good thinking!

Thanks. The existing bridge's piers were built into the slopes which, as you noted, are sliding. If a cable-stayed span, or some other suspension-type bridge were built, it wouldn't be necessary for the new span to be supported by piers built into the hillside. Having a central pier or two, or a tower or two, built in the Flats shouldn't be a problem -- especially if it were built on caissons that extended down to bedrock (or on a large concrete pad like ones on which many downtown buildings smaller than 25 stories were built).

If we want to spur development, consider a site east of downtown, such as near Superior, St. Clair or Payne around the East 20th area. CSU proposes such a park in that area just south of Payne, but I think most of it would be athletic fields (baseball, soccer, etc.). Perhaps a parking lot in that area could be converted to "general purpose" park? I agree there needs to be a park in the Flats. Settlers Landing is pretty decent, but there should be something farther south than that on the Scranton or West 3rd peninsulas. By the way, I think they've done a nice job restoring Rockefeller Park, despite the depressed neighborhoods that surround it.

Since there are number between the 6's, I don't see what the big deal is. It's random.

Very cool. I will check out the area the next time I'm in Youngstown...probably next month.

I think the minimum legal speed is 40 mph. But reducing speed reduces the capacity of a highway, and would probably cause traffic to back up beyond the trench areas of the Innerbelt.

Here's how a new Central Viaduct on a southern alignment could be cut into the existing Innerbelt in Tremont. One thing ODOT said is that one side (e.g. the eastbound side) of the existing Central Viaduct's truss bridge cannot be demolished without significantly weakening the structure of the remaining half (e.g. the westbound side). But the truss part of the bridge ends on the immediate south side of Abbey Road in Tremont. There, another bridge begins, built on rolled beams, for another block to the south side of Fairfield Avenue, where the Innerbelt is built atop a dirt fill. My question is, why can't this rolled-beam bridge be replaced first with a dirt fill so that the signature bridge on the southern alignment can be cut into it? I would also think that a highway built on top a dirt fill would create less traffic noise (right by the Greek Orthodox Church) than traffic pounding across a bridge deck. See the images below which look northeast from Tremont towards the Cuyahoga Valley and downtown (Fairfield is the left-to-right cross-street in the middle of the picture, Abbey is the next cross-street nearer to the top). Also, with this scenario, only Sokolowski's University Inn would have to be demolished west of downtown. It could be relocated anywhere the owner wants. The green shown on the images below represents either fill dirt or a removed highway lane(s), and the gray represents new highway lanes/ramps....

Great news! Hell, I'm surprised you didn't make all the text bold!

By the way, Councilman Cimperman, who chairs council's Planning Committee, says ODOT's Innerbelt proposal will be DOA at City Council. Another consultant with whom I spoke said that ODOT needs to come clean on what the true safety impacts will be on the Innerbelt. He said that, while the number of accidents will likely go down as a result of their proposed improvements easing the flow of traffic, the severity of the accidents will likely increase from the higher speeds. Most of the accidents that are occuring in the congested "trench", according to ODOT, are fender benders, sideswipes and other minor accidents that result in minor injuries -- the kind of thing that happens when there is congestion and slow highway speeds. I'll wager that ODOT ends up having to do the rehabilitation option for the existing trench for maybe half the cost (or less) of the reconstruction option (with frontage roads for $90 million). I couldn't find data on the rehab option, though. If that's the case, selecting the southern alignment for the signature bridge, with the shrunken Central Interchange, might be supported more easily. One thing ODOT said is that one side (e.g. the eastbound side) of the existing Central Viaduct's truss bridge cannot be demolished without significantly weakening the structure of the remaining half (e.g. the westbound side). But the truss part of the bridge ends on the immediate south side of Abbey Road in Tremont. There, another bridge begins, built on rolled beams, for another block to the south side of Fairfield Avenue, where the Innerbelt is built atop a dirt fill. My question is, why can't this rolled-beam bridge be replaced first with a dirt fill so that the signature bridge on the southern alignment can be cut into it? I would also think that a highway built on top a dirt fill would create less traffic noise (right by the Greek Orthodox Church) than the bridge. See the image below which looks northeast from Tremont towards the Cuyahoga Valley and downtown (Fairfield is the left-to-right cross-street in the middle of the picture, Abbey is the next cross-street nearer to the top)....

Here is the latest statement (11-18) from All Aboard Ohio (formerly the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers)... www.allaboardohio.com Amtrak president’s firing threatens Ohio’s trains, plans for future All Aboard Ohio said the recent firing of Amtrak President David Gunn by the corporation’s board of directors represents a direct threat to Ohio’s already limited passenger train services, comprised entirely of long-distance trains. Furthermore, the nonprofit association said there needs to be a fully appointed, seven-member Amtrak board of directors, with at least some having railroad expertise and a more bi-partisan base. Currently, there are only four board members, two of whom are “recess appointments” who were named by the Bush Administration while Congress was in recess. Those two members’ terms expire at the end of the year. The other two members are Chairman David Laney, also a Bush appointment, and Norm Mineta, Bush’s secretary of transportation who has yet to attend an Amtrak board meeting. After Gunn’s firing, the ousted railroad turnaround expert predicted that the Amtrak board would proceed with discontinuing numerous trains, particularly long-distance routes that comprise all of Ohio’s passenger rail services. Mineta has proposed on numerous occasions that the federal government stop providing operating subsidies to all trains, and leave that responsibility to cash-strapped states to fill the void. Most train services, even short-distance routes, cross state lines. “It's pretty difficult to improve train services when they are no longer there," said Bill Hutchison, president of All Aboard Ohio. "Until we get a stable and significant source of federal capital and operating funding for fast passenger trains, it would be irresponsible to expect cash-strapped states to pick up the pieces of an interstate rail system." “History's path is littered with disjointed transportation schemes when the federal government asked states to take the leadership in promoting the movement of goods and people," Hutchison added. "The difficulty in getting states to agree on cost-sharing formulas in the absence of federal funding leadership is why the Founding Fathers urged inclusion of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. That clause gives the federal government responsibility over interstate commerce – a responsibility being abdicated by the Bush Administration when it comes to having a world-class rail system.” Hutchison said Ohioans can expect such recommendations, given that this is the same administration which proposed earlier this year to use the bankruptcy courts to reform Amtrak. On Feb. 18, 2005, the Bush Administration delivered its Fiscal Year 2006 budget request, offering no subsidies for Amtrak. On Page 243, in the "major savings and reforms" section, the administration wrote: "With no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy, which would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the reorganization of the railroad through bankruptcy procedures. Ultimately, a more rational passenger rail system would emerge, with service on routes where there is real ridership demand and support from local governments-such as the Northeast Corridor. ...Such a scenario would likely yield restructuring and efficiencies through the auspices of a bankruptcy court." “Instead, it would destroy Amtrak, which is a lousy way to save a railroad, especially one that has no profit centers,” Hutchison said. He added that Gunn’s Nov. 9th firing came only days after the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed Amtrak reform legislation 93-6. In addition to structurally reforming Amtrak and requiring it to compete with other railroads to operate publicly funded trains, the legislation would also permit an increase in capital funding to modernize Amtrak’s trains, tracks and stations while reducing its debt burden and lowering its annual operating subsidy by 40 percent. Also, Congress recently turned down the Bush Administration’s request to eliminate dining- and sleeping-car services on trains – essentially reducing them to steel-wheeled buses that would have eroded ridership. "The Bush Administration’s desire to sell pieces of Amtrak to private enterprise, which cannot compete with the tens of billions in federal funds given each year to air and highway modes, reveals their double-standard that only passenger trains should live or die in a ‘transportation free-market’ – which does not exist,” Hutchison said. “What they are proposing will leave us with little or nothing in the way of rail service at a time of increasingly unstable gas prices, an aging population, a troubled airline industry, a bus network in retreat, chronic highway congestion and a nation threatened with less mobility.” END

Actually, if a cable-stayed bridge is desired, then it could be built starting at the middle and moving outward. To me, this whole debate about the Innerbelt can be described best as one between mobility vs. access. Also, for ODOT's critics who spoke this morning at the Cleveland Planning Commission, they contended that the ramp eliminations ODOT is seeking in order to rid congestion and safety issues on the Innerbelt will merely transfer those very problems to the city streets, especially the north-south roads like East 30th, East 22nd and the new north-south, two-lane road ODOT proposes to build near the highway.

Something has struck me here. What if the signature bridge on the southern alignment was built and was "attached" to the existing bridge abutments in Tremont? That way, NOTHING has to be demolished! Certainly, as much of the signature bridge could be built before sections of the existing bridge in Tremont were demolished (actually, they'd have to do that for the westbound-only bridge anyway!). So, the question is, how long would it take to transition the old highway alignment into the new alignment? What remedial measures would have to be taken? Could "some" traffic be detoured via the Shoreway or I-490/I-77/Broadway? The old Innerbelt bridge over the valley wouldn't have to be shut down during the transition. It could keep 2-3 lanes open in each direction during the transition. Unfortunately, ODOT's transit options for the construction period are totally inadequate, adding only a modest number of parking spaces to park-n-rides in Westlake, North Olmsted and Strongsville, where the lots are anywhere from 85-110 percent full, according to RTA. I remain convinced that this bridge can be done -- but I suspect ODOT will have to shrink the Central Interchange and sell the leftover land to be able to afford it.