Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

Lots of icons are torn down. Maybe it's in our best interest to seek out an alternative. Who could tell. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis?

 

It sure would.  Be sure & include reduced property values all across the Warehouse District & new FEB project, since they'd no longer have the Shoreway accessible.

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

Lots of icons are torn down. Maybe it's in our best interest to seek out an alternative. Who could tell. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis?

 

It sure would.  Be sure & include reduced property values all across the Warehouse District & new FEB project, since they'd no longer have the Shoreway accessible.

 

See above. What wouldn't be accessible? You could still have a boulevard running east/west.

 

The WHD and Flats existed - THRIVED - before the Main Ave Bridge ever existed.

It would be an amazing day to see that scar on the City of Cleveland removed.

 

So your saying the view of the city from the lake would be better with it gone?

 

/not following the scar angle.

 

 

It would be an amazing day to see that scar on the City of Cleveland removed.

 

So your saying the view of the city from the lake would be better with it gone?

 

/not following the scar angle.

 

 

 

Im not someone who really cares about how the city looks from far away. That massive bridge is a scar on the West Bank of the Flats, East Bank of the Flats, and Warehouse district. Those neighborhoods would function a lot better if the bridge was gone.

Between West 65th and West 25th there really is not any reason to slow it down IMO. I would love to see it become street level, and 25 mph once it hits West 25th heading east. It would become a widened Main Avenue, which will go into a lift bridge over to the east bank of the flats. From there traffic would go up Main Avenue through the Warehouse District, and Main Avenue would then connect with Lakeside. The bridge over the tracks, south of the stadium would be removed, and everything from West 3rd to dead mans curve would be converted into a 35 mph boulevard.

 

Really, what is so unworkable about this idea?  Lets see a study to determine just how much valuable real estate is created by this. And of course the traffic studies.

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

Lots of icons are torn down. Maybe it's in our best interest to seek out an alternative. Who could tell. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis?

 

It sure would.  Be sure & include reduced property values all across the Warehouse District & new FEB project, since they'd no longer have the Shoreway accessible.

 

See above. What wouldn't be accessible? You could still have a boulevard running east/west.

 

The WHD and Flats existed - THRIVED - before the Main Ave Bridge ever existed.

 

OK, so long as the mods are allowing the hypothesis conversation to continue, you are proposing to tear down the superstructure of the Shoreway bridge, install a new at-grade boulevard street which would cut through the west bank of the flats... no doubt require buildings to be demolished,  then have some type of draw bridge which would open & close for ships passing, literally several times per hour... holding up traffic... then re-emerge on the East bank somewhere, probably as Lakeside Ave?

 

Tell me again what's gained in this scenario? 

 

EDIT: Flats thrived before the Shoreway bridge in the 20's & 30's because poor immigrant families lived in shacks along the river in poverty conditions where men worked for pennies loading & unloading ships.  Not going back to that scenario anytime soon

Diverting all that commuter traffic down into the flats and back up again wouldn't be a scar so much as a festering wound.

^^ I propose a cost benefit analysis of the idea. There is absolutely nothing hypothetical about our roads budget, it's real.

 

As for the bridge, generally those types are of certain height to allow for ships, they only open for larger ones. Luckily we have three other bridges crossing the river unaffected.

 

^ I honestly don't see that traffic crippling the city. Especially the Flats, which we'd be hard pressed to see traffic there as we did in the 80s/90s.  Now if we're talking changing the Shoreway/90 East of downtown, I'm with you. That change including the Interstate has many more issues.

Cost:  Sharply reduced access to downtown

 

Benefit:  Your view of Venus is unobstructed

Cost:  Sharply reduced access to downtown

 

Benefit:  Your view of Venus is unobstructed

Cost:  Sharply reduced access to downtown

 

Benefit:  Your view of Venus is unobstructed

 

Come on Spock, get Venus off your mind! You actually don't think there is an argument to how much real estate this could open up? It's interesting to consider.

 

Sounds like you're taking your ball and going home with that post lol.

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

I understand change is difficult for you, especially if you're stubbornly invested in the status quo, but it doesn't change the fact we're in a whole new set of economic and demographic circumstances, transportation-wise, in this country. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's not your call or mine. Nothing stays the same forever. Revenues from highway users have fallen from covering 72% of highway system expenses in the 1960s to less than half of system costs today, according to FHWA. So what lane-miles would you cut to sustain the rest of the highway system? Probably the most-expensive, least-used sections of the highway system, correct?

 

So if I were a betting man, that 73-year-old, 8,000-foot-long, cantilever truss Main Avenue bridge is going to be an early victim of the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the declining financial position of the Ohio Department of Transportation. If not, then something else is. Sorry to insult your desire for ever-more pavement, but the 20th century is over.

 

EDIT: the solution for the West Shoreway is to return to the Bulkley Boulevard of old. It ended at West 25th and Detroit, before funneling on to the Veterans Memorial Bridge. It was horribly congested back then, which justified the Main Avenue Bridge. Today, Veterans Memorial is way under capacity. It can handle whatever traffic the West Shoreway can put on it.

Here we have an iconic viaduct that plays an important role in thousands of lives each day, and people want it destroyed for aesthetic reasons alone.  I'm not calling that a non-starter but I think the needs of those thousands of users are being swept under the rug a bit.  Much like the diminutive Martian who would wipe out a planet just to get a better look at another planet.

 

This is not to say that all highways must endure, but this one in particular serves an elevated peninsula that has a downtown on it.  Probably not the first one we need to get rid of. 

Wow.  This hypothetical situation really took off.  Just wanted to make a comment as a Warehouse District resident.  The Shoreway bridge is of little value to me as a resident.  When I travel East I get on the shoreway at W3rd or E9th.  When I travel West I travel over the Detroit-Superior bridge and get on the shoreway at W25th.  To travel West across the bridge you need to make no less than two left turns (onto W3rd then Lakeside) to enter the shoreway.  It's back tracking slightly and does take longer for most residents than simply going across the Detroit Superior bridge.  It only makes sense to use the bridge if you live very close to W3rd or park on Lakeside.  What I'm trying to say is that I don't see the hypothetical removal of the bridge having much of an impact on WHD property values.

 

If the bridge is ever torn down and not rebuilt I would imagine that they could shift the traffic over to the Detroit-Superior bridge (very under-utilized), up W9th and back over to a reconfigured shoreway with intersections downtown.  The cost would be longer travel times and greatly increased traffic counts on W9th, but the monetary cost would be tiny compared to a new bridge.

This is only partially speculative, as the City of Cleveland (like other U.S. cities) has long desired removing or at least de-emphasizing highways from its waterfronts. While Cleveland's Shoreway removal was limited to the downtown section, I'm suggesting that current trends may force ODOT to remove more than that. And the Main Avenue Bridge's condition is not "fine." Trucks and buses are already banned from crossing it, as was the case several years ago with the Inner Belt bridge. The only difference there is no $600 million solution for the Main Avenue Bridge as with the Inner Belt bridge when ODOT is facing a $1.6 billion near-term shortfall that will only grow with all the bonding ODOT is doing against future user revenues that won't materialize.

 

Here we have an iconic viaduct that plays an important role in thousands of lives each day, and people want it destroyed for aesthetic reasons alone.

 

Not this people. I couldn't care what happens to it either way. I like the views of downtown from the bridge, and it doesn't bother me that this bridge crosses the Flats. But I'm suggesting that it could be a victim of current trends that show no sign of stopping or reversing to the "good ol' days" of the 20th century....

 

Detroit-Superior Bridge looking west in 1938, before the Main Avenue High Level Bridge opened a year later...

 

 

 

The Main Avenue High Level Bridge plan...

 

 

 

Looking west on Detroit-Superior Bridge in 1948. Yep, that new highway bridge sure reduced congestion into downtown. Only new highways out into the farmland and their resultant sprawl reduced congestion downtown by reducing downtown...

 

 

 

Back to the future? In this southward-looking view in 1930, look to the right side where Bulkley Boulevard comes off the Detroit-Superior Bridge and heads west on its right of way toward Edgewater and Lakewood.

 

 

 

BTW, to underscore my multi-modal transportation interests, this is my car. It is a 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe Turbo with six-speed manual transmission, racing tires, four-wheel disc brakes and all the trimmings. It is without a doubt the most fun car I've ever had and the day I have to sell it or trade it will be one of the saddest car-farewells in my life. It takes curves like no other sports car I've driven (including 1983 Mazda RX7, 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse and 2001 Hyundai Tiburon). And so one of my most favorite roads to drive in Greater Cleveland is the West Shoreway. At 80-100 mph, that road is like a rollercoaster for sports cars. If you're passed by this car on the Shoreway, don't call the police. Just wave at me.....

 

Here we have an iconic viaduct that plays an important role in thousands of lives each day, and people want it destroyed for aesthetic reasons alone. 

 

I'm pretty sure nobody advocated what you're suggesting. That is, removal for aesthetic reasons alone.

What's to be gained then?  I was responding primarily to the bridge being characterized as a scar.  Replace the elevated roadway with a surface roadway and it's still roadway, i.e. the land under the bridge doesn't suddenly become developable.

 

I've never really seen the benefit of any aspect of this boulevard idea.  Seems like the main drawback of having the current shoreway there could be eliminated with pedestrian bridges.  Neighborhood access to the lake is thus easily obtainable, shoreway or no shoreway.  But the Main Avenue bridge already solves that problem for its area-- it allows pedestrians to pass under commuter traffic without impeding either one.  Eliminate the bridge and then they have to take turns using the same surface, making any number of fatal accidents possible for the first time in decades. 

BTW, to underscore my multi-modal transportation interests, this is my car. It is a 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe Turbo with six-speed manual transmission, racing tires, four-wheel disc brakes and all the trimmings.

 

You got one of those double-decker spoilers on the rear of that thing?  Fart-can exhaust pipe?  "Too-fast, Too-Furious" stickers?

 

LOL

What's to be gained then?  I was responding primarily to the bridge being characterized as a scar.  Replace the elevated roadway with a surface roadway and it's still roadway, i.e. the land under the bridge doesn't suddenly become developable.

 

I've never really seen the benefit of any aspect of this boulevard idea.  Seems like the main drawback of having the current shoreway there could be eliminated with pedestrian bridges.  Neighborhood access to the lake is thus easily obtainable, shoreway or no shoreway.  But the Main Avenue bridge already solves that problem for its area-- it allows pedestrians to pass under commuter traffic without impeding either one. 

 

The Main Avenue bridge is irrelevant to the entire discussion of the Shoreway and making the lake more accessible.  The land around the Shoreway bridge is all industrial - West bank is Cargill salt mines & stone depot, East bank is the port.  Neither is going anywhere.

You got one of those double-decker spoilers on the rear of that thing?  Fart-can exhaust pipe?  "Too-fast, Too-Furious" stickers?

 

LOL

 

Nope. But it has a pulse, Buickman.

 

The Main Avenue bridge is irrelevant to the entire discussion of the Shoreway and making the lake more accessible.  The land around the Shoreway bridge is all industrial - West bank is Cargill salt mines & stone depot, East bank is the port.  Neither is going anywhere.

 

If the Main Avenue bridge is irrelevant to the entire Shoreway, then the neck is irrelevant to the head.

Main avenue bridge is irrelevant to discussion of this thread, which is BOULEVARD CONVERSION.

 

None of the ODOT plans or any other early renderings for the Shoreway boulevard conversion or Lakefront plan ever proposed eliminating or substantially changing the bridge.  Changes were proposed to the on/off ramps at 25th & 28th but that's it.  The only person to bring the bridge into the discussion was you.

Removal of the bridge is relevant when talking about declining highway revenues.  Obviously it would be way off in the future, but conversion of the existing stretch from 25th to Clifton now would pave the way (pun intended) for future changes when the bridge is in danger of collapsing.

 

BTW, the funny thing about the entire Shoreway as a commuter freeway argument to me is 99% of the commuters use Clifton and Lake Ave to get to that point for at least some distance.  They have no problem using surface streets until that point, so how would an additional couple miles of surface streets really affect their lives?  Especially if a portion of the budget was put into properly timing and aligning traffic signals. 

The only person to bring the bridge into the discussion was you.

 

Proof that one man can make a difference!

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

and trucks were banned from the bridge because of paint?

i did not know that.

 

Isn't it the same design used on the innerbelt bridge?

 

didn't they have majr problems with the drainage system on the bridge not working properly?

 

no bridge lasts forever, it will have to be replaced sooner or later.

I don't know about any trucks being banned from the bridge, I drive it every day and usually see semi's getting on at 28th and trying to merge with eastbound traffic...  as for buses, the latest RTA map still shows #55 bus going across the bridge...

Yep. Just 'cuz there's a bridge there now doesn't mean it will be there tomorrow. Or should be there tomorrow. If you go back through this thread, there's also discussion of turning the Shoreway into a boulevard through downtown, though much of that discussion was previously done through the lakefront planning thread(s). But turning the East Shoreway into a boulevard is as relevant to this thread as turning the West Shoreway to a boulevard -- as is offering our opinion on what should happen to the bridge connecting those halves of the Shoreway.

 

If someone feels like this city can't do without the bridge, or shouldn't ever consider downgrading any part of the Shoreway, then that's cool. Your opinion is duly noted. But if you don't like someone else's opinion on the matter or feel it doesn't belong here, that's also your opinion. Say it and move on. Refrain from using insults or you may get some time off from this forum.

I don't know about any trucks being banned from the bridge, I drive it every day and usually see semi's getting on at 28th and trying to merge with eastbound traffic...  as for buses, the latest RTA map still shows #55 bus going across the bridge...

 

Depending on the weight of those trucks, they may be on the bridge illegally. And I guess you don't ride the 55 (or notice it). I do ride it. All RTA buses are detoured off the bridge. FYI....

 

Main Avenue Bridge suddenly closed to truck and bus traffic in Cleveland, ODOT says

Published: Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 10:36 AM    Updated: Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 4:29 PM

    By Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Ohio Department of Transportation has closed the Main Avenue Bridge to bus and truck traffic following  a report, which revealed the need for immediate repairs.

 

Cleveland officials were notified about the restrictions at 2 p.m., spokeswoman Andrea Taylor said.

 

....The Main Avenue Bridge, which links the East and West Shoreways carries about 35,000 vehicles a day. The condition of the bridge, which is more than 70 years old, has been rated poor for years.

 

Federal funds were allocated in June  to make structural steel repairs to the truss portion of the bridge, which stretches high over the Cuyahoga River. But that project was not estimated to begin until after December of 2013.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/07/main_avenue_bridge_suddenly_cl.html

 

_________________

 

 

GCRTA's advisory remains in effect (except for the Lakeside routing). We're still detouring over Detroit-Superior and staying on Superior between the bridge and Public Square....

http://www.riderta.com/ridersalerts/list/?listingid=1745

 

ODOT's presser on this situation doesn't define what the weight restrictions are for trucks. And I love the truck detour map at:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D12/Deputy%20Director/News/Pages/ODOT-to-Begin-Repair-Project-on-Main-Avenue-Bridge.aspx

Here we have an iconic viaduct that plays an important role in thousands of lives each day, and people want it destroyed for aesthetic reasons alone. 

 

I'm pretty sure nobody advocated what you're suggesting. That is, removal for aesthetic reasons alone.

 

some people are suggesting this and it is valid reason IMO as it ages opens up the possibility of its replacement and what effect it's demolition would have on the neighborhoods around.

 

There are only 31,000 users per day vs 130,000 for the innerbelt and 168,000 for the I-480 bridge over the same river.

 

of those bridges the the route 2 bridge is the longest at 1.5 miles, the oldest at 76 years, and and the least used. 

 

You cannot ignore this, and looking at future without a high level bridge  it begs the question of how much road we need between west 25th and lake avenue.

 

replacing the high level bridge with a 50-75 million dollar lift bridge make sense for the amount of traffic on shore way and Would be more cost effective than a new 300-500 million dollar high level bridge.

 

 

The Main Avenue bridge is irrelevant to the entire discussion of the Shoreway and making the lake more accessible.  The land around the Shoreway bridge is all industrial - West bank is Cargill salt mines & stone depot, East bank is the port.  Neither is going anywhere.

 

If you weren't speeding on the shoreway maybe you could see that the Bridge is surrounded by acres of develop-able land and hundreds of residential units.

 

because you cannot walk directly from main avenue on the west bank of the flats to main avenue on the east bank and to downtown  you limit the viability of development on the west bank of the flats.  Which explains the vast swaths of land dedicated to parking.  it the bridge were replaced with low level bridge how much more attractive would those vacant lots on surrounding Nautica become?

 

I don't know about any trucks being banned from the bridge, I drive it every day and usually see semi's getting on at 28th and trying to merge with eastbound traffic...  as for buses, the latest RTA map still shows #55 bus going across the bridge...

 

how can you vouch for the condition of the bridge without knowing the condition of the bridge?

 

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

Lots of icons are torn down. Maybe it's in our best interest to seek out an alternative. Who could tell. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis?

 

It sure would.  Be sure & include reduced property values all across the Warehouse District & new FEB project, since they'd no longer have the Shoreway accessible.

 

See above. What wouldn't be accessible? You could still have a boulevard running east/west.

 

The WHD and Flats existed - THRIVED - before the Main Ave Bridge ever existed.

 

OK, so long as the mods are allowing the hypothesis conversation to continue, you are proposing to tear down the superstructure of the Shoreway bridge, install a new at-grade boulevard street which would cut through the west bank of the flats... no doubt require buildings to be demolished,  then have some type of draw bridge which would open & close for ships passing, literally several times per hour... holding up traffic... then re-emerge on the East bank somewhere, probably as Lakeside Ave?

 

Tell me again what's gained in this scenario? 

 

did you ever bother to look at a Map?  Main avenue exists already on both banks of the flats the only thing that doesn't is the bridge to connect them.  there is no need to demolish anything now, your lack of knowledge of the area is showing.  if you didn't know about Main ave today how can you offer an opinion about it's future?

 

The at-grade connections which some people are big fans of is essentially a moot point.  And not because it confounds the west side commuters.  It's a huge cost for very little benefit.  What's the point of having an at grade intersection at 76th & 65th when you already have one at 73rd?  Likewise for 54th & 58th, when 45th is 1.5 mins away, just up Tillman.

 

The whole thing that got this thread stirred back up is the cost of the 73rd interchange.  The railroad tracks here are a huge obstacle which is very expensive to overcome.

 

intersections force people to stop, they allow for the removal of ramps, which increases the devlopable land surrounding the road, they also pave the way for curb cuts I.E. development, that can front the road. ODOT's plan does not open up any land for development at all.  if the bridge isn't there ODOT's paranoid fears of congestion would disappear.  the idea of opening up land for development was a focus of the original lakefront plan, it allowed the city to Increase it's tax base and attract new residents with new lakefront housing.  How can any planner be against this?

 

The railroad tracks have also been studied fro removal by none other than KJP, all with the goal of removing the barriers to the lake in Cleveland.

 

you should learn to better control of your knee jerks.

 

 

 

Here we have an iconic viaduct that plays an important role in thousands of lives each day, and people want it destroyed for aesthetic reasons alone. 

 

I'm pretty sure nobody advocated what you're suggesting. That is, removal for aesthetic reasons alone.

 

some people are suggesting this and it is valid reason IMO as it ages opens up the possibility of its replacement and what effect it's demolition would have on the neighborhoods around.

 

 

Biker, I think you and I have different understanding of "aesthetic reasons alone" ha ha.

Anyone else notice that ODOT installed exit number signage for the West Shoreway yesterday? Kind of funny for a road that may become a boulevard there are now numbered exits! I think West 45th was exit 194. Not sure how they got the numbering scheme.

 

And with regards to RTA and the 55, it's such a shame what's happened to that route with such service cut backs. I made the mistake of hopping on the 55 at Clifton only to find it exiting the shoreway at West 45th and crawling up Detroit. Consequently I was 20 minutes late for work and will avoid the 55 in the future. The bus seemed emptier than usual. I'm curious how much ridership the 55 has lost now that it can't "express" into downtown?

 

it is supposed to "express" into downtown, but the route 2 bridge is closed to trucks and buses, so it has to detour onto local streets and use detroit-superior bridge.

 

it is however a shame that there is limited 55 service on nights and no service on weekends on this route, although there is some service nearby with the 26.

The Shoreway bridge problem hasn't slowed the 55. I ride it often and I think it gets to Public Square as fast as it did via the longer routing via the Shoreway. Other, non-Shoreway issues with the 55 are best left to the GCRTA thread.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

MassDOT Secretary: “We Will Build No More Superhighways”

by Tanya Snyder

 

OK, everybody, pack your bags. We’re all moving to Massachusetts.

 

The Bay State’s transportation secretary, Richard Davey, has launched a “mode shift” campaign, saying in no uncertain terms that it’s time for people to get out of their cars and onto trains, buses, bikes, and their own two feet. His goal is to triple the share of trips taken by those modes, as opposed to single-occupancy vehicles, by improving transit service and active transportation amenities like lighting, sidewalks, curb cuts and rail-trails.

 

Here’s the part that gives me the shivers: “I have news for you,” Davey said at a news conference yesterday. “We will build no more superhighways in this state. There is no room.”

 

Massachusetts has 76,200 lane-miles of roadway, in a state that’s just 190 miles long. That’s a lot more asphalt than any other state in New England.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/10/10/massdot-secretary-we-will-build-no-more-superhighways/

picture This.

 

400 -500 million on a new high-level bridge

 

or $350 million on a light rail line from Tower city to Crocker Park via Lakewood and $50 million for a new lift bridge in the flats.

 

which one has the most potential to benefit the region?

 

That lift bridge would be up and down constantly, since it's right at the mouth of the river. 

 

Both items you listed are needs but I'd say we need the bridge more right now.  Losing it puts a hole right in the middle of a functional highway system, while adding that rail line would only be the beginning of a functional mass transit system for the west shore.  Add similar rail lines radiating from downtown, or at least along the eastern shore, plus a more robust bus system to feed it, and the two start to become equivalent.  The Main Avenue bridge doesn't just go downtown, it also goes to Collinwood and Buffalo.

That lift bridge would be up and down constantly, since it's right at the mouth of the river. 

 

Both items you listed are needs but I'd say we need the bridge more right now.  Losing it puts a hole right in the middle of a functional highway system, while adding that rail line would only be the beginning of a functional mass transit system for the west shore.  Add similar rail lines radiating from downtown, or at least along the eastern shore, plus a more robust bus system to feed it, and the two start to become equivalent.  The Main Avenue bridge doesn't just go downtown, it also goes to Collinwood and Buffalo.

 

Sorry I just don't buy this argument.  Slowing the 31,000 cars a day down by 15 mph is not going to affect a region.

 

Adding light rail to the west side will.  Crocker park would be ambitious.  Oh how the Crockerhipsters living there would howl if they knew there was direct rail access for the real urbanites to come to their little hamlet.  But light rail to Rocky River and Bay may be conceivable.

picture This.

 

400 -500 million on a new high-level bridge

or $350 million on a light rail line from Tower city to Crocker Park via Lakewood and $50 million for a new lift bridge in the flats.

which one has the most potential to benefit the region?

 

interesting point but I think your numbers are skewed to support your argument.  a new high level bridge probably isn't necessary.  Massive structural support work could be done for half the price you quoted and likely extend the bridge life for decades especially if heavy bus & truck traffic is kept off.

 

No way you could do a lift bridge for $50 million to carry the traffic over the river.  The foundations for each side, the connecting roadways, traffic signalization further up stream, plus the hoist system and at least two lanes in each direction, you're more like $100 million and likely 150 million.

 

The light rail project is way underestimated.  This is farther than what was estimated in Detroit for their light rail project from downtown out to Midtown.  Figure the basic rail infrastructure, utility relocations, new street surfacing, new traffic signals and signage, right of way acquisitions required a long the way (did you map out the route you had in mind?  Detroit Ave possibly? I didn't see if you did further up thread)  Plus the cost of new rail cars & power connections...  more like $500 million at the minimum.  Just looking at the numbers, reinvesting in the Highlevel bridge is a no brainer.  Impact on the region is another issue and difficult to quantify

^^ That's a separate issue.  All discussion of the boulevard conversion to this point has assumed there's still a bridge over the flats.  I agree, that rail project would be phenomenal.  I just wouldn't choose it at a cost of losing the bridge.

That lift bridge would be up and down constantly, since it's right at the mouth of the river. 

 

It move up and down as much as Columbus or center street bridge do. the location of the bridge has 0 impact on the number of times it has to be moved, it is already upriver from the shipping canal.

 

Both items you listed are needs but I'd say we need the bridge more right now.  Losing it puts a hole right in the middle of a functional highway system, while adding that rail line would only be the beginning of a functional mass transit system for the west shore.  Add similar rail lines radiating from downtown, or at least along the eastern shore, plus a more robust bus system to feed it, and the two start to become equivalent.  The Main Avenue bridge doesn't just go downtown, it also goes to Collinwood and Buffalo.

 

Hole in our functional highway system?

 

much like a 35mph boulevard would right?

 

hey which is greater asset, a developable west bank of the flats, the greater connectivity to the Lakefront, increased multimodal options for flats and ohio city residents, Or the 31,000 users saving 3 mins in travel time per day? 

 

picture This.

 

400 -500 million on a new high-level bridge

or $350 million on a light rail line from Tower city to Crocker Park via Lakewood and $50 million for a new lift bridge in the flats.

which one has the most potential to benefit the region?

 

interesting point but I think your numbers are skewed to support your argument.  a new high level bridge probably isn't necessary.  Massive structural support work could be done for half the price you quoted and likely extend the bridge life for decades especially if heavy bus & truck traffic is kept off.

 

No way you could do a lift bridge for $50 million to carry the traffic over the river.  The foundations for each side, the connecting roadways, traffic signalization further up stream, plus the hoist system and at least two lanes in each direction, you're more like $100 million and likely 150 million.

 

Gilmerton Bridge

 

cost for the 6 lane 250 foot span including a 200 foot and a 500 foot approach ramp cost 134 million dollars.

 

for comparison the Main avenue lift bridge would be 4 lanes with out appreciable approach decks and minimum span of only 220 feet.

 

St. Croix Crossing Mn and Wi

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stcroixcrossing/pdf/TotalProjCostEstimate2-27-12.pdf

 

estimate cost 676 million dollars to replace a low level lift bridge with a highlevel bridge.

 

can you justify spending 200-300 million to retrofit a bridge that only carries 31,000 cars per day? 

 

To clarify the Bridge goes from West 25th to East 8th st.

 

The light rail project is way underestimated.  This is farther than what was estimated in Detroit for their light rail project from downtown out to Midtown.  Figure the basic rail infrastructure, utility relocations, new street surfacing, new traffic signals and signage, right of way acquisitions required a long the way (did you map out the route you had in mind?  Detroit Ave possibly? I didn't see if you did further up thread)  Plus the cost of new rail cars & power connections...  more like $500 million at the minimum.  Just looking at the numbers, reinvesting in the Highlevel bridge is a no brainer.  Impact on the region is another issue and difficult to quantify

 

At 25 million a mile it would be a 12 mile extension from the West 98th red line station to Crocker road via existing CSX ROW Equals $300 million Would use existing Light rail cars not new rolling stock. and if you wanted new cars It would run about 5 million per car.

 

BTW 25 million a mile was what RTA budgeted for a Blue line extension to Harvard Ave.

 

If a patch job was adequate for this type of bridge why are we building two new bridges for I-90?  I believe they at one time thought they could patch the I-90 bridge reduce travel lanes from 8 to 5 Eastbound lanes and build a new westbound bridge, after review they chose to replace the bridge because the Structural Design of the bridge is OBSOLETE.

 

I will say it again it is OBSOLETE and you think it is better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a patch job of an obsolete bridge. 

 

 

I will say it again it is OBSOLETE and you think it is better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a patch job of an obsolete bridge. 

 

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what ODOT thinks.

 

One other thing worth noting here, and ties back to some of KJP's comments about major roads being shut down, and possibly the Main Avenue Bridge, in the near future due to lack of funding...  while I totally respect KJP's insight on transportation issues, I just don't see this ever happening.  Not because it doesn't make financial sense, but because our elected leaders will never go for it. 

 

Road work = jobs.  What candidate is going to successfully run on the platform that more roads need closed down and they are going to work toward that goal?  At the same time, the road building industry is a powerful lobby.  Labor unions, asphalt, concrete, steel & stone suppliers, equipment companies...  they will bankroll candidates who vow to support bigger road budgets.  Who's bankrolling candidates that say "shut it down, let it be overtaken by nature"?   

 

The very topic we are discussing, the Shoreway conversion, is being pitched very hard because local leaders want this construction project in their backyard, to show progress, to show jobs & economic activity.  Who wants a busted up broken down highway in their district with pi$$ed off commuters in their district?  Nobody.  So just like local leaders "found" money for the second Innerbelt bridge and "found" money to move forward with the 73rd interchange on the Shoreway, I'm sure they will find money to replace the Main Avenue bridge and whatever else is needed.

Could river traffic be "ordered" to not cross the lift bridge during our "rush hours"?  I know how frantic container ship companies are about getting unloaded and getting underway, but it may be possible here because Cleveland's port handles different cargo.  Cleveland does not have container-unloading cranes as the bottleneck.

Neither is Ohio 59?

 

Seriously, since it was never completely finished, it is the most pointless expressway in the world. There's an advocate group out there that thinks it should be finished, But many think that the money could best be used to tear the expressway out, make a wide boulevard, and build a biomedical hub.

 

This is obviously an older thread that was recently resurrected, since I didn't need to go back a page to be quoting someone from September of 2008.  That said, that's illuminating in this case: Because here we are more than four years later, and OH-59 through downtown Akron is the same as ever, and is tremendously wasteful (and I say this as someone who uses it very frequently, since I live about 100 meters from it).  The canyon through what could have been the heart of downtown is just absurd.  The one potentially saving grace of it is that it does allow rapid access to ambulances to Akron General and Akron Children's, but if that were the highest priority, that could have been achieved with significantly less land use.  Not only is the dead-end expressway eight or nine lanes wide in places (plus a median), it's got wide, one-way feeder streets on either side of it as well (Dart and Rand).  I can still see the use of a road through that area, but not all roads are created equal.  A four-lane parkway would be more than sufficient, and would free up a tremendous amount of land (and a tremendous amount of operating/maintenance budget) to perhaps build a park for that parkway to go through.

I will say it again it is OBSOLETE and you think it is better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a patch job of an obsolete bridge. 

 

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what ODOT thinks.

 

One other thing worth noting here, and ties back to some of KJP's comments about major roads being shut down, and possibly the Main Avenue Bridge, in the near future due to lack of funding...  while I totally respect KJP's insight on transportation issues, I just don't see this ever happening.  Not because it doesn't make financial sense, but because our elected leaders will never go for it.  Road work = jobs.  What candidate is going to successfully run on the platform that more roads need closed down and they are going to work toward that goal?  At the same time, the road building industry is a powerful lobby.  Labor unions, asphalt, concrete, steel & stone suppliers, equipment companies...  they will bankroll candidates who vow to support bigger road budgets.  Who's bankrolling candidates that say "shut it down, let it be overtaken by nature"?    The very topic we are discussing, the Shoreway conversion, is being pitched very hard because local leaders want this construction project in their backyard, to show progress, to show jobs & economic activity.  Who wants a busted up broken down highway in their district with pi$$ed off commuters in their district?  Nobody.  So just like local leaders "found" money for the second Innerbelt bridge and "found" money to move forward with the 73rd interchange on the Shoreway, I'm sure they will find money to replace the Main Avenue bridge and whatever else is needed.

 

ODOT "found" the money for those projects by borrowing from the future growth of gas tax revenues which it anticipates will be generated by offering for more lane-miles. This is the concept of induced demand which has been the modus operandi of state highway departments since at least World War II. But more highway departments are recognizing that this M.O. no longer applies today, including FHWA....

 

"Construction costs for adding lanes in urban areas average $10–$15 million per lane mile. In general, the funding for this type of construction comes from taxes that drivers pay when buying gas for their vehicles. Overall, funds generated from gas taxes on an added lane during rush hours amount to only $60,000 a year (based on 10,000 vehicles per day during rush hours, paying fuel taxes amounting to about 2 cents per mile). This amount is grossly insufficient to pay for the lane addition." SOURCE: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_02.htm

 

Induced demand has topped out, and added lane-miles don't produce the gas tax revenues they once did. But ODOT hasn't gotten the memo. They continue to cling to the hope that none of this happening, and they can keep building roads as they always have. But between rising construction costs and flat or falling miles-driven, ODOT is losing 7 percent of its purchasing power every year. To keep up with this, ODOT would have to raise the gas tax 2 cents EVERY YEAR, says Gene Krebs of Greater Ohio and a former Republican state legislator. SOURCE: http://www.wksu.org/news/story/30516

 

ODOT is on a collision course with a reality. Unfortunately, all of us are passengers in ODOT's car.

But between rising construction costs and flat or falling miles-driven, ODOT is losing 7 percent of its purchasing power every year. To keep up with this, ODOT would have to raise the gas tax 2 cents EVERY YEAR,

 

That's an easy choice.  If an average person drives 15,000 miles a year and gets 20mpg, they use 750 gallons of gas.  an extra 2 cents/gallon is only $15 per year.  I don't see many commuters have a problem with that to keep the status quo

^the hysterical right will make it a problem, which means the Republicans will line up against it.  Also, considering the backlog of work that needs to be done the status quo of funding can't sustain the status quo of service, so the gas tax really needs to go up more.

New CAFE standards would reduce oil use by up to 3.1 million barrels per day by 2030.  Tax receipts will drop by more than 30%, by that account.  The standards would also save drivers US$8,000 over the life of a 2025 model; a logical country would use that space to increase gas taxes to pay for the highways.

 

http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/obamas-fuel-rules-to-halve-greenhouse-emissions-dramatically-reduce-oil-imports/18541

^the hysterical right will make it a problem, which means the Republicans will line up against it.  Also, considering the backlog of work that needs to be done the status quo of funding can't sustain the status quo of service, so the gas tax really needs to go up more.

 

so make it 10 cents per year.  You're still only impacting average commuter by $60 a year.  That's small potatoes to avert the catastrophe and game-changing consequences that are being predicted in this thread...

^the hysterical right will make it a problem, which means the Republicans will line up against it.  Also, considering the backlog of work that needs to be done the status quo of funding can't sustain the status quo of service, so the gas tax really needs to go up more.

 

Both parties have refused to consider a gas tax hike, or any changes that would increase revenue. Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland organized a transportation reform task force which recommended a gas tax hike (along with a constitutional amendment which allowed the added gas tax to be used flexibly for transportation other than just roads). Strickland flatly rejected the state gas tax hike.

 

The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, although a small portion of it (a few cents per gallon) was used for deficit reduction until 1998 and thereafter directed to transportation projects. So there's been no new federal revenue for roads and other transportation since 1998.

 

Question though, why should the status quo be maintained if the transportation market is changing (ie: baby boomers retiring and driving less, millennials driving 23% less over the past decade compared to the prior, smaller generation)? Don't we want government to operate more like business in this instance? If the status quo is maintained simply to avoid change, isn't government doing something that conservatives typically slam it for which is spending against the will of the people? As people drive less, shouldn't the roadway system capacity adjust accordingly to protect the user-funded concept that conservatives and free-marketeers advocate for government-run programs like highways? If the supply of highway lane-miles should match demand, then should we not stop adding lane-miles and, in some cases, reduce them where demand has fallen to protect the general taxpayer?

Just slowly raise the gas taxes to the amount that it takes to pay for the highways and let the free market decide what vehicles are produced rather than the government with CAFE regulations. People will be free to choose how much of their income they want to devote to driving.

Consumers don't buy automobiles based on lifetime energy costs. 

Or refrigerators, for that matter:  Refrigerators use less than a quarter of the energy they used 40 years ago.

Just slowly raise the gas taxes to the amount that it takes to pay for the highways and let the free market decide what vehicles are produced rather than the government with CAFE regulations. People will be free to choose how much of their income they want to devote to driving.

 

I always get nervous when someone proposes a solution by starting out saying "Just...." As if the solution is so simple. It's not. How many roads have we built that are not used as often as planned, or as they once were but aren't anymore? I can name many of them, starting with the West Shoreway. And you used "taxes" and "free market" as part of the same solution. I consider them oxymorons. If the free market should be at work here, then government should not be owning, financing and building roads. If the market determines there should be roads, then let the private sector own, finance and build them with no government involvement.

 

Think the private sector doesn't belong in owning and financing roads? They were, in the 1800s. This included Detroit Road through Lakewood which was a private plank road financed by tolls. Here is a tollbooth for the Detroit Plank Road Company at Warren Road in Lakewood.....

 

Consumers don't buy automobiles based on lifetime energy costs. 

Or refrigerators, for that matter:  Refrigerators use less than a quarter of the energy they used 40 years ago.

 

They don't now, but they will once the true costs of driving are bore by the users.

 

edit: KJP's post slipped in