KJP

I found this article from the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation and thought it was applicable to this development (as well as many others).... http://www.biketraffic.org/biketraffic/BT1101/ The Moat of Parking By Payton Chung The lords of medieval castles dug moats to keep invaders out. Today, many shopping centers and office complexes seem to have the same mentality — but, instead of keeping away marauding tribes of Visigoths, it’s cyclists, pedestrians, and transit patrons who are being kept away. The number of parking lots built to accommodate driving customers has grown, surrounding many buildings in impenetrable moats of asphalt, access roads, and landscaping. A typical mall in the suburbs might sit in a sea of parking five times as large as the mall itself, and the ratios are similar for offices and schools. Communities across Chicagoland are working to remedy this problem. The city of Chicago requires any new store be built alongside streets and requires that parking be placed behind or beside the building. PACE, the bike-friendly suburban bus network, reviews site plans (for free!) and recommends ways for developments to be friendly to transit riders. Solutions include, continuous sidewalks (sheltered by trees) through parking aisles, painting crosswalks, discouraging high speed turns with tight corners and T intersections, reducing the total number of curb cuts, and placing buildings so that they address the street, rather than the parking lot. At the same time, it’s often the municipalities’ requirements that force developers to build parking lots. Almost all new developments must include parking spaces, and the numbers can be absurdly high —— shopping malls must provide enough spaces for day-after-Thanksgiving crowds, all year. Having adjacent buildings share parking lots could cut huge parking lots down to a more manageable size. Bringing buildings closer to one another, making it possible for people to bike or walk between buildings, would eliminate the short car trips which create a disproportionate share of the region’s air pollution and traffic congestion. Making parking scarce can also discourage people from driving; surveys show that the expense of parking downtown is a major reason why people ride CTA. Parking lots don’t have to be moats girdling our buildings. Instead, smart planning can welcome both those arriving by car and those arriving on bikes, feet, or buses. END

Not yet. The developer still has property to acquire, and has been very cautious, using different companies to make different property acquisitions, so as to disguise his intentions and keep sale prices to a minimum. The hope is for a breakthrough by as early as the middle of this month. If so, I will spill the beans at that time. I don't want to say anything right now or my article might kill the project. When I sent out the teaser on this forum, I didn't know that there were still properties to be acquired. I now regret sending out that teaser because, as we all know, anything can happen during a negotiation. By the way, I updated the list again, adding three projects in the "on hold/maybe" category. Call me optimistic! I'll bet that at least one of them happens. None are my "mystery project" however.

If the GAO actually opened their eyes, they might have noticed this: http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/strategic06.pdf (3.3MB) But I guess any strategic plan that needs the federal government to spend anything for domestic stuff other than bullets, bombs and billionaire bailouts is not a "meaningful strategic plan." Now, if the states or private enterprise pay for choo choos and not the feds, that's probably worth it to them.

It's essential this bill passes, as it will provide more capital funding to Amtrak to rebuild and expand, restructure its debt and reduce its operating subsidy. Please take a minute to contact your Congressional representative right now and ask that they support Amtrak reform. If you aren't sure who your Congressperson is, go to http://www.house.gov/ and use their search function (all you need to know is your five-digit zip code). Please e-mail or call your rep (contact info is also available on that Web site), as regular mail will take too long. All you need to do is tell your rep "Please support the inclusion of the Amtrak reform language in the budget reconciliation bill." Then give a person reason why. Examples: "I would like to travel by train more often; We need more transportation choices to promote economic development; I'm concerned about energy supplies and believe we need to invest in railroads; I'm sick of driving everywhere; etc. etc." Don't worry about writing the perfect e-mail! It's more important to speak your mind, as members of Congress use a sort of "scorecard" to track how their constituents feel about a particular issue.

It passed, 93-6. See the transportation section of this forum, under Ohio Hub/ORDC -- which is where this discussion ought to be continued.

^Wimp! Freezebaby! Get your best Cleveland babushka and goulashes on and snap away@!&$!

Good find. Take them to task on it. We did the same thing with RTA, which gave directions on how to get to media events and public hearings about transit stuff, but they listed how to get there only by car! This is how you reverse one trend and start another -- by raising awareness.

This press release is from Senator Lott's office: http://lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=232&Month=11&Year=2005 -- -------- November 3rd, 2005 Contact: Susan Irby Phone: 202-224-6253 11/3/05 SENATOR LOTT'S AMTRAK REFORM BILL ADOPTED BY SENATE WASHINGTON, D.C. – Calling it one last chance for the Senate to be heard on whether it wants a national passenger rail system, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi today asked the Senate to adopt as an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill, the Amtrak reform bill he introduced in July. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 93-6. "I know it is highly unusual to add an authorization bill to reconciliation, but time is running out," said Lott, the chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. "Despite the Commerce Committee’s having reported out this bill in July, we have been unable to schedule it for the full Senate. Because the Administration has indicated it will not support any funding for Amtrak this fiscal year unless Congress enacts Amtrak reforms, it is imperative for the Congress to make its voice heard on Amtrak. Time is running out. "Do we help support highways? Do we help the airlines? If we want a complete system of infrastructure and transportation, America needs to include rail as well. Do we want Amtrak to wither on the vine?" The Amtrak reauthorization bill centers around three themes: reform and accountability, cost cutting, and creating funding options for the states. "The amendment improves how Amtrak works and ensures that the taxpayers’ money is used more effectively," Senator Lott said. "It cuts the Amtrak operating subsidy by 40 percent and creates a new rail capital grant program that states can use to start new inter-city passenger rail service. It requires Amtrak to develop much better financial systems and be held accountable for its use of federal funding." ###

Nah, they have to honor Cleveland's wishes as, under Ohio's Home Rule law, municipalities dictate land use within their jurisdictions.

True, ODOT has collected extensive public input, much of which wasn't included in the project (more effective land use strategies, adding commuter rail, etc.). But most of these don't fit within ODOT frame of familiarity (or Burgess & Niple's) and were rejected. The short answer to all of this is that ODOT lack of creativity when it comes to the Innerbelt bridge and Central Interchange alignment is nothing short of bizarre. They were very creative in coming up with the traffic circle for the Quigley Road Connector, at the south end of Tremont, as a traffic-calming technique for cars and trucks coming off I-71. They deserve credit for that. But that is far overshadowed by their intransigence on the bridge/Central Interchange issue. I just don't understand why they've dug in their heels on that, when it's indefensible.

Boy, those PRTs make me feel warm all over! Here's George Jetson...! :weird:

Thanks

Here's an interesting PowerPoint presentation, converted to PDF (as 400K download) .... http://members.cox.net/neotrans/RTATOD11-01-2005.pdf In it the presentation, there's a page with a graphic showing the West Park YMCA/Birchwood School, near the West Park Rapid station. Including this shows that some at RTA still have a ways to go to understand what TOD is. Just because it's built at or near a transit station, doesn't automatically make it a TOD design...

Fall Dinner Benefit Who: anybody in the public interested in supporting the development of high speed passenger rail service within Ohio and the region. Where: Black River Landing Transportation Center 421 Black River Landing, Lorain, Ohio. When: Saturday November 5, 2005- 5:00 PM till……. How Much: $ 40.00 per person, $70.00 per couple Featured Speaker: Congresswoman Marci Kaptur, Democrat of Toledo We will have live music from UFIK “Oberlin’s 3rd best garage band”, and a raffle to win 2 1st class round trip tickets on Amtrak's "Capitol Limited" from any Northern Ohio stop to Washington DC! The raffle ticket price is $25.00 Dinner will be catered by the Oberlin Inn Garden Restaurant, recipient of the Gourmet Diners Club of America’s Silver Spoon Award for dining excellence To register, go to http://www.allaboardohio.com/

Looks like I need to update the downtown Cleveland projects list, and put District Park back in it!

You know, there's an easier solution to all of this -- start encouraging friends of yours (or, more specifically, friends of developing the Euclid/Ford corner) to move onto Hessler and change the consensus. It's a nice street. Market it to more open-minded people!

Don't get your hopes up. This is what RTA is looking at for the Euclid Corridor, per an RTA PowerPoint presentation as part of an update of ECIP given at yesterday's board meeting. I think these things look like hump-back whales or a rock band's tour bus. The front looks OK, though....

By the way, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners have posted on their web page a link to Paul Alsenas' PowerPoint presentation on the iconic Innerbelt bridge. I'll post the link here for convenience: http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/bocc/bridge_presentation.ppt They also have a press release worth reading, available at: http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/bocc/mediaadvisory/2005/10272005.htm

The list is updated

Kevin, Feel free to use any and all graphics I've posted here in this string. Also, check out the West Side Sun News on Thursday. I think all of the graphics will be able to make it into the paper, and my article and opinion column will likely appear in their entirety.

Yep, but it wasn't because of the bridge issue. It was because of the conflict of interest issues raised by Steven Litt in his column. But I'll take a delay anyway I can get it!

Here's a troublesome story, and part of the reason why the signature bridge for the Innerbelt has had problems gaining favor with city officials. I encourage you all to read it, and share it with others. I will write about it next week.... First, some background... ODOT and the city reached a memorandum of understanding about the Innerbelt project early on. In a nutshell, the memo said the city didn't want existing neighborhoods harmed by the project. Two years ago, Cuyahoga County Planning Director Paul Alsenas gets a brilliant idea for a new "signature bridge" over the Cuyahoga Valley. Proposed is a curving, cable-stayed bridge, and a southern alignment through the Central Interchange area, allowing for a huge development downtown, and in the Cuyahoga Valley off West Third. ODOT looks into the idea, but doesn't want the Innerbelt routed as far south through the Central Interchange area as Alsenas' proposal. The reason is that ODOT's civil engineers fervently hold on to the notion of keeping looping ramps onto Ontario and East 9th Street. They also would put the Innerbelt over those streets, rather than under them. That's an important point, because a lower highway would allow ODOT to build a signature bridge that's 25 feet lower and 1,000 feet shorter -- dramatically reducing construction and maintenance costs. Now here comes the really troublesome part, and why Alsenas and others want a "second opinion" from another engineering firm. When ODOT asked their engineering consultant, Burges & Niple, about a cable-stay bridge, B&N said Alsenas' proposal for a curving, cable-stay bridge couldn't be built. Instead, B&N said, the Innerbelt's Cuyahoga Valley approach would have to start curving farther south in Tremont so a cable-stay bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley bridge could be straight. That realignment would require the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation in Tremont to be demolished. Problem is, curved bridges can be cable-stayed, and one very similar to what the Innerbelt bridge could look like has already been built. An example is the 4,260-foot Clark Bridge over the Mississippi River at Alton, Illinois (see pictures below). That bridge is slightly longer than what the Innerbelt bridge would need to be, and has four vehicular lanes with two bicycle lanes (the Innerbelt would have 10 vehicular lanes and possibly one bicycle lane). So now, ODOT takes B&N engineers at their word, and tells Cleveland city officials that Alsenas' signature bridge idea would result in the demolition of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation. If true, that would have violated the memorandum of understanding between the city and ODOT, to ensure the Innerbelt project doesn't harm the city. Problem is, it's not true. This is why a second opinion from another engineering firm is needed, before ODOT starts hiring firms to lay out the final design for the Innerbelt before a consensus has been reached -- or the truth has been told. Here is the photographic truth: a curving, cable-stay bridge can be built....

The short, text-answer (I believe) is that it's everything between the interstate north to the Home Depot store. That includes the residential areas on Elmwood, Sector, West 120th, etc., plus the self-storage facility and the Highland Party Center immediately north of the residences. In addition to a new Target will be a Giant Eagle store, relocated from Clifton and West 116th Street. If a new-urbanist Target and grocery store were built, both could fit where the party center and self-storage facility are located -- possibly without demolishing the neighborhood.

There is every reason for the city to have both. Funding is not the issue. Having the will to demand more from ODOT and from our city is the issue. Great cities expect nothing less.

Oops! Thanks for the save!