Something I've been thinking about lately. This may be me being a bit counter narrative, but, at least on this forum, I think bike trails are underrated, and protected bike lanes are overrated. This is largely just my own personal opinion, based on my experience biking as someone who wouldn't go so far as to call themselves a cyclist. 

 

Bike trails: Bike trails are a pull factor. I think we tend to overemphasize the push factors when it comes to biking, danger, stress, etc, but I don't think enough attention is paid to the pull factors. Biking can be more enjoyable, particularly when riding through nature under the cover of trees. I'm much more willing to pay the time price of biking relative to driving if it's going to be an enjoyable ride. Nature does wonders for that.

 

Protected Bike Lanes: The problem with protected bike lanes (which isn't really a problem) is that no amount of concrete or bollards does anything for the enjoyability of the ride. They may remove push factors but they aren't adding any pull. You're still riding on a road, and unless it has the tree canopy of Cleveland Heights it's probably not very scenic. 

 

Another issue with protected bike lanes is that they are just harder to implement. I worry that pushing too hard for protected bike lanes may counterintuitively prevent bike lanes from going in. My concern is that there are lots of roads that could relatively easily add bike lines, but can't realistically add protected bike lines (the main example being two lane roads that are three cars wide for safety and emergency vehicle access), if normal bike lanes are viewed as not good enough, why build them? Obviously, public servants need not, nor shouldn't, view it that way, but it seems an easy, and therefore likely, logical error. 

 

For me at least, the reduction in push factor from normal bike lanes to buffered or protected bike lanes is fairly marginal. I don't know if I'm unique in that, but normal bike lanes seem sufficiently safe to me. But they don't make for a particularly enjoyable riding and neither do protected ones. I also personally just wonder how many more people are willing to pay the "time price" of biking if all push factors are removed, but no pull factors are added. How many currently non vehicular cyclists will start regularly biking anything more than a few blocks down a treeless, boring streetscape, surrounded by traffic noise if it is made to be perfectly safe?

 

I don't know the answer, I'm sure it's some, but I suspect it's less than many on this forum might suppose it will be. If instead, people can divert for the middle portion of their journey down a nice trail I think that will make more people seriously consider biking more than a few blocks, even if it adds a few more minutes. I view trails as effectively bike highways. With cars the point of going on the highway is higher top speeds; with bikes I think it's more about getting a more enjoyable ride (though they very often have fewer stops as well). 

 

I think I foreshadowed this above, but of course there are ways to add pull factors to street riding. A quality tree canopy is the number 1, 2, and 3 best way, but things like a quality streetscape and i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶e̶s̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ beautiful architecture are also great pull factors. Luckily those are all things we're already interested in here, but none of them come close to the pull potential of a quality trail. 

 

Anyways those are my thoughts, at the very least I think the concept of push/pull factors is an interesting way to think about bike advocacy, and I'd like to see more focus on pull factors. 

54 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Something I've been thinking about lately. This may be me being a bit counter narrative, but, at least on this forum, I think bike trails are underrated, and protected bike lanes are overrated. This is largely just my own personal opinion, based on my experience biking as someone who wouldn't go so far as to call themselves a cyclist. 

 

Bike trails: Bike trails are a pull factor. I think we tend to overemphasize the push factors when it comes to biking, danger, stress, etc, but I don't think enough attention is paid to the pull factors. Biking can be more enjoyable, particularly when riding through nature under the cover of trees. I'm much more willing to pay the time price of biking relative to driving if it's going to be an enjoyable ride. Nature does wonders for that.

 

Protected Bike Lanes: The problem with protected bike lanes (which isn't really a problem) is that no amount of concrete or bollards does anything for the enjoyability of the ride. They may remove push factors but they aren't adding any pull. You're still riding on a road, and unless it has the tree canopy of Cleveland Heights it's probably not very scenic.

If I'm out for recreational riding, then that makes a lot of sense.  I'm going to go someplace pleasant to ride -- and a protected bike lane on a wide or fast roadway can never be that "pleasant" a place to be.

 

On the other hand, if the goal is to make it easier to choose a bike when you need to go somewhere, then we need protected bike lanes.  Just as it seems ridiculous to choose to ride on a protected bike line on a wide or fast roadway for pleasure, it seems ridiculous to think that there would be some way to build a "bike trail" through downtown so that workers can get to their jobs or kids can get to school.  Very few people are going to choose a bike and share the road with motorists, so we do need protected bike lanes.

 

If available, I think a bike trail completely separate from a roadway should be the first choice, and the more separation between motorists the better even in a protected bike lane is second best (improved with a nice tree canopy and good street-cleaning!), while painted bike lanes are a sign of desperation at best and are unlikely to encourage anyone to choose cycling over the car.  

 

Getting more people to choose alternatives to the car will make driving better as well.

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Protected Bike Lanes: The problem with protected bike lanes (which isn't really a problem) is that no amount of concrete or bollards does anything for the enjoyability of the ride. They may remove push factors but they aren't adding any pull. You're still riding on a road, and unless it has the tree canopy of Cleveland Heights it's probably not very scenic. 

 

Another issue with protected bike lanes is that they are just harder to implement. I worry that pushing too hard for protected bike lanes may counterintuitively prevent bike lanes from going in. My concern is that there are lots of roads that could relatively easily add bike lines, but can't realistically add protected bike lines (the main example being two lane roads that are three cars wide for safety and emergency vehicle access), if normal bike lanes are viewed as not good enough, why build them? Obviously, public servants need not, nor shouldn't, view it that way, but it seems an easy, and therefore likely, logical error. 

 

Apologies in advance, but I'm very passionate about this.

 

I think there's an overemphasis on building major projects (midways) over functional quick fixes. Most bike lanes in this city are extremely dangerous and some barrier would be better than what we're currently dealing with. Bike Cleveland's outreach last week re:protected bike lanes wouldn't be possible in a lot of existing bike lanes, something that I was thinking when I was riding across Fulton Bridge, it's terrifying, especially when you get to the mixing zone going south.

 

 

Bike lanes are meant to help facilitate travel between places and bike paths are for recreational riding. For instance, my bike commute is about 5 miles/30 minutes door to desk, if I ride the towpath I'd be looking at closer to 40-45 minutes, which is safer but defeats the purpose of not driving/taking the bus - I want my commutes and drives to be as close to 1:1 as possible.

 

A lot of our bike lanes are disconnected and disjointed - you can ride the lane on Harvard but it doesn't connect to a N-S bike lane until you get to like E.116th (and even then it's not much of a bike lane). The west is better with routes such as Detroit-44/65/Denison/Fulton but even then you're going amazingly out of your way and the lanes vary in safety. The infrastructure that the near west side gets vs other parts of the city is very noticeable. 

 

I've got some bike friends down in Pittsburgh and navigating that city via bike is so much safer and convenient because their (former) mayor acted on his people over cars agenda...to the point of earning the nickname bike lane bill (peduto).

 

Here's my (and quite a few others') daily commute from Old Brooklyn, bike lanes would add some safety, but when cars are passing me at 40+mph a protected lane would make me feel a lot less closer to death: 

 

 

Now think about that route w/non-vehicular cyclists - I've ridden with my sister in law and seasoned cyclist brother and even they didn't feel comfortable taking a lane and fighting cars going the speed the road dictates. The adage is true - if you build it they will come. Tons of people are terrified to ride in our streets as designed, the city needs to do better.

Edited August 22, 2024Aug 22 by GISguy

Right, I think the disconnect here is recreational riding v utility riding. @Ethan's original post seems to be coming from the recreational riding perspective, and I agree with a lot of the points he articulated there. The push/pull analysis seems reasonable for recreational riding, but those push/pull factors are going to change when people are riding to get from point A to point B. A big reason I don't bike to commute places is because I can't be sure the bike lane wont turn into a sharrow or end all together and I'm not a very confident cyclist in traffic. 

 

I do think the bike trails are, to some extent, unfairly derided here, but it seems that mostly comes from the frustration of those trails' failed promise. The way they seemed to be sold was a spine for safe, quick, and direct biking between two points that a network would be built off of. Regional leaders celebrate each new trail opening, but never do the harder work of opening the network of bike lanes afterwards. 

 

Where I narrowly disagree Ethan's original post is on protected bike lanes. Again, if I was confident there was a safe and complete network of bike lanes I would be much more likely to bike around town. But protected bike lanes don't have to have jersey barriers separating cyclists from traffic. We could take the same amount of street space and situate on-street parking between bike lanes and traffic, protecting cyclists from being pushed into traffic by open doors or cars pulling in or out of parking spaces. Cleveland's streets are overwide as it is, we should be able to do this. Narrowing traffic lanes would have the knock-on effect of slowing traffic, making biking that much safer. 

10 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Right, I think the disconnect here is recreational riding v utility riding. @Ethan's original post seems to be coming from the recreational riding perspective

I appreciate the defense (genuinely) but you've softened my argument to the point of distorting it somewhat. I was specifically talking about people biking with an intent to get somewhere, not people out purely for enjoyment. Though it does bring up a highly controversial axiom underpinning my thinking. Almost all bicycling is to some extent recreational. Sure, there are some people bicycling for economics reasons, but the average cyclist owns a car and is choosing to ride their bike in part because it is more enjoyable than driving. I'm assuming people are rational and are weighing their personal utility against the costs, both time and money, as well as risks. My argument, more accurately phrased, is that a person choosing their transportation between points A and B will weigh not only risk, but also expected utility in choosing their transportation mode and route. To further clarify my point, most people enjoy cycling, but they don't love it, nor are they passionate about it. The expected utility of street riding isn't high enough for them to cover the cost (in time) that they incur relative to driving. In order to entice these people to ride from A to B the expected utility will have to increase, and I even contend they may be willing to pay a higher time cost than the most direct route for this added utility, but, importantly, I am still talking about people who have somewhere to go, not recreational riders. 

 

47 minutes ago, GISguy said:

Apologies in advance, but I'm very passionate about this.

No need to apologize! Disagreement in good faith is welcome. For what it's worth I actually think your passion (and the perspective that comes with it) is precisely why we disagree. I mean no offense of course, but as someone who quite clearly loves and is passionate about biking, I think you might have a blindspot for how someone who enjoys biking, but isn't passionate about it, might need a slightly more enjoyable ride to justify the additional time relative to driving. 

 

For what it's worth I 100% agree with your points about how far too much of our bike network is disconnected, and how we overemphasize major projects. I think a well connected web of bike lanes feeding the trails should be considered the goal. 

 

One of the reasons I think policy makers might get misled if they listen too much to vehicular cyclists is that they will overemphasize risk in the assumed utility calculations of their constituents, and underweight enjoyment. I say this because vehicular cyclists generally love biking, and as a result they are nearly maxing out utility by being able to take their bike at all; therefore, they tend to make their decisions exclusively on time and risk. That just isn't the case for everyone, some people will need a more enjoyable route to justify the time lost relative to driving. 

 

Using your commute to demonstrate my point, assuming the Towpath version of your commute is closer to 40 minutes instead of 45, I'd probably choose that route. I'd rather take the more enjoyable route, even though it's longer, and I have somewhere to be. Though obviously that's not infinite, I can't say for sure without knowing your commute, but my initial thought was that I might be willing to add an additional 20 minutes round trip for a more pleasant ride, but not an additional 30. This is the kind of utility maximizing equation I am talking about. Obviously people don't normally express it in these explicitly economic terms, but I do think this roughly approximates what people are implicitly doing. 

 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

painted bike lanes are a sign of desperation at best and are unlikely to encourage anyone to choose cycling over the car.  

Again, no offense meant, but this is precisely the kind of attitude that I was talking about vis-a-vis protected bike lanes undermining traditional more attainable bike lanes. To be useful bike lanes need to be relatively widespread and connected. A well connected network of protected bike lanes is so much less attainable than a comparably dense network normal bike lanes that I worry we'll get nothing. If you'll only accept a perfect bone, then policy makers might decide to not throw you anything. 

 

--

 

Anyway, these were my two cents, hopefully they are valuable. I can't say if I'm unique or if there are a lot of persuadable riders who think like I do. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

Again, no offense meant, but this is precisely the kind of attitude that I was talking about vis-a-vis protected bike lanes undermining traditional more attainable bike lanes. To be useful bike lanes need to be relatively widespread and connected. A well connected network of protected bike lanes is so much less attainable than a comparably dense network normal bike lanes that I worry we'll get nothing. If you'll only accept a perfect bone, then policy makers might decide to not throw you anything.

No, no, no offense taken, but nope, completely disagree (except that we need a well-connected network, absolutely). 

 

A painted bike lane provides zero protection from motorists, and I've seen (and experienced from a bike!) cars driving through and parking in the painted bike lanes enough that I would never want my grandmother or 5-year-old anywhere near one.  It's not a question of "the perfect bone" being the only acceptable option, it's that a painted bike lane provides an illusion of being better than a roadway without any bike lane, and in my experience it is not. 

 

In a road wide enough for a bike lane but without the painted bike lane, cars tend to drive a few feet from the center line and bikes can safely take the curb. There's usually not enough room for cars trailing behind to want to pass on the right (and unexpectedly crush a cyclist). 

 

Add a painted bike lane and the cars move toward the center line and the result is more room between the car and the curb -- which seems to entice drivers to accelerate and pass on the right (through the bike lane!) or (as also has happened to me) pull over and stop in the bike lane as if it was for parking.  Painted bike lanes by themselves are just not worth the cost of the paint and we shouldn't be spending the money on them if that is the case.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2024Aug 22 by Foraker

5 minutes ago, Foraker said:

No, no, no offense taken, but nope, completely disagree (except that we need a well-connected network, absolutely). 

 

A painted bike lane provides zero protection from motorists, and I've seen (and experienced from a bike!) cars driving through and parking in the painted bike lanes enough that I would never want my grandmother or 5-year-old anywhere near one.  It's not a question of "the perfect bone" being the only acceptable option, it's that a painted bike lane provides an illusion of being better than a roadway without any bike lane, and in my experience it is not. 

 

In a road wide enough for a bike lane but without the painted bike lane, cars tend to drive a few feet from the center line and bikes can safely take the curb.  Add a painted bike lane and the cars move toward the center line and the result is more room between the car and the curb -- which seems to entice drivers to accelerate and pass on the right (through the bike lane!) or (as also has happened to me) pull over and stop in the bike lane.  Painted bike lanes by themselves are just not worth the cost of the paint and we shouldn't be spending the money on them if that is the case.

 

 

I've said this before. Why don't we just expand sidewalks and put the bike lanes on the sidewalks like in Europe. 

On 8/22/2024 at 2:30 PM, Ethan said:

One of the reasons I think policy makers might get misled if they listen too much to vehicular cyclists is that they will overemphasize risk in the assumed utility calculations of their constituents, and underweight enjoyment. I say this because vehicular cyclists generally love biking, and as a result they are nearly maxing out utility by being able to take their bike at all; therefore, they tend to make their decisions exclusively on time and risk. That just isn't the case for everyone, some people will need a more enjoyable route to justify the time lost relative to driving. 

 

I was thinking about it a bit more and I think we're losing track of people who take alternative forms of transportation out of necessity. These type of people wouldn't consider themselves vehicular cyclists but they sure are living that life. The more routes that are built will benefit people that need to bike/scoot/walk from x to y that don't have the privilege/time to travel way out of the way. For instance, I rode across Denison the other day and people were using the lanes (yes they were salmoning but that's a convo for another day) instead of the more dangerous sidewalk route. A decent amount of people use lanes when they're there, even if it's weaving in between them - it's better than nothing.

 

I think things like the RISE project on the east side will be great to make connections for folks to take casual rides but I can't help but shake the mantra of 'if you build it they will come', I mean just look at how many ppl bike around OHC and Tremont because it feels safe to do so there (narrower roads, infrastructure, etc.) - I'd love to see the same all over the city. 

Edited August 23, 2024Aug 23 by GISguy

I’m going to do the Slow Roll tonight - anyone want to join me? Show up 6:30-6:45 for the 7pm ride. 2881 East 82nd; riding the Opportunity Corridor. Come find me and say hello! If you don’t know me, I have a bright red helmet and my new orange bicycle, and I would enjoy meeting you. 
 

Hey @Luke_S @PlanCleveland @Ethan @GISguy @Foraker and anyone else interested
 

https://www.slowrollcleveland.org/event-details/slow-roll-week-16-opportunity-corridor

 

On 9/9/2024 at 11:09 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m going to do the Slow Roll tonight - anyone want to join me? Show up 6:30-6:45 for the 7pm ride. 2881 East 82nd; riding the Opportunity Corridor. Come find me and say hello! If you don’t know me, I have a bright red helmet and my new orange bicycle, and I would enjoy meeting you. 
 

Hey @Luke_S @PlanCleveland @Ethan @GISguy @Foraker and anyone else interested
 

https://www.slowrollcleveland.org/event-details/slow-roll-week-16-opportunity-corridor

 

Last night @GISguy and I did the Slow Roll that went through Opportunity Corridor neighborhoods. It was another great turnout! For the short stretch that we did right along the OC on the parallel bike path, while it is great that they built a proper multipurpose trail to the side of the road, it still didn't feel safe to ride with as fast as cars drive on that road. (Plus the intersection designs are deadly.) I was thinking that those steel cable median barriers that they have installed in highway medians, installed right along the side of the road, would be a perfect way to reduce the risk of a car plowing into a cyclist or pedestrian on the multipurpose path. That would also keep the cost much more reasonable and reduce the number of lightposts that get knocked down. Has anyone seen those used to protect bike lanes anywhere?

NOACA is conducting a 5 county regional Metro Park connectivity survey.

 

It's great to invest in trail infrastructure, but while taking the survey it was hard not to feel that we are quickly approaching the point of diminishing returns on trail infrastructure so long as we continue to not invest in protected bike infrastructures in the communities these trails begin, end, or pass through. 

 

Regional Metroparks Trails Connectivity Study

 

The Regional Metroparks Trails Connectivity Study will develop a trail network plan for the entire Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) region. This network will connect park areas to each other, and enhance park access to residential neighborhoods. NOACA is working with Cleveland Metroparks, Lake Metroparks, Geauga Park District, Medina County Park District, and Lorain County Metro Parks to develop the trail network plan.

 

Project Goals:

1. Develop a connected regional trail network

 

2. Connect regional parks with one another through the creation and expansion of regional trail routes

 

3. Increase share of the regional trail network for non-recreational trip use

 

4. Improve residential access to park areas with a strong focus on environmental justice communities for recreational and non-recreational use

 

5. Assist and support the development of a multi-modal transportation system, including first- and last-mile transit connections

 

6. Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists in the NOACA region

 

7. Reduce the transportation carbon footprint in the NOACA region

 

8. Mitigate the negative impacts of traffic congestion

This is wild, I wonder how many people that attend St. Pats Parade even live in the city...

 

Organizers say Cleveland’s St. Patrick Day parade being ‘pushed out’ by new bike lane on Superior Ave

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/12/organizers-say-clevelands-st-patrick-day-parade-being-pushed-out-by-new-bike-lane-on-superior-ave.html

 

The argument is essentially over whether six feet of landscaping should be removed from the project — giving the parade route 30 feet to work with, instead of 24 feet.

 

(Parade Organizer) Murphy said the parade organizers are asking for the landscaped area to be made narrower along the route, with 5-feet on either side of the bike lane instead of 8-feet. That would allow the north side of Superior Avenue to be 30-feet wide, two 12-foot lanes and 6-feet of striped off extra space.

 

The 24-feet width is a sticking point, said Calley Mersmann, the city’s senior strategist for Transit and Mobility.

 

She said wider road leads to faster driving speeds, and that the reason to narrow Superior Avenue is to cut down on speeding and crashes lead to injuries. As it stands today, the downtown road is so wide the current traffic only uses 27% of Superior Avenue’s capacity.

It sounds like the parade organizers have already degraded the Superior Midway plan...

 

Parade organizers and city officials have been meeting for close to two years now, resulting in some compromises. Along the parade route, for example, the city has agreed to not plant trees or bushes on the north side of the bike lane — making room for spectators.

 

At least from the article, it's never made clear why the parade couldn't operate down slightly narrower streets. I'm totally in favor of preserving the St Paddy's day parade, but this response from the parade organizers seems more than a bit dramatic. 

 

I'm also a bit confused why their issue isn't with the median? It would seem that would be more disruptive to the parade route. It's been a while since I've looked at the Midway plans, but I would think the better design would be to have the bike lanes on the curb, not running down the center of the street.

28 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

It sounds like the parade organizers have already degraded the Superior Midway plan...

 

Parade organizers and city officials have been meeting for close to two years now, resulting in some compromises. Along the parade route, for example, the city has agreed to not plant trees or bushes on the north side of the bike lane — making room for spectators.

 

At least from the article, it's never made clear why the parade couldn't operate down slightly narrower streets. I'm totally in favor of preserving the St Paddy's day parade, but this response from the parade organizers seems more than a bit dramatic. 

 

I'm also a bit confused why their issue isn't with the median? It would seem that would be more disruptive to the parade route. It's been a while since I've looked at the Midway plans, but I would think the better design would be to have the bike lanes on the curb, not running down the center of the street.

It amazes me how people champion their own parochial agendas even when it might not be in the overall best interest of the city.  Cutting back on landscaping (by the way, I already had great fears that this project was not going to be properly landscaped to keep costs down)  and sacrificing a better design to be appreciated 365 days a year so 1 day a year (actually 4-5 hours one day a year) people will not be inconvenienced.  

 

I remember all the hand wringing by the parade organizers when the Health Line was built and they could not longer march down Euclid.  I guess they were able to figure it out and found a new parade route.  Maybe they can just do the same here.  I am sure the city will help out with this.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2024Dec 21 by Htsguy

22 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

It sounds like the parade organizers have already degraded the Superior Midway plan...

 

Parade organizers and city officials have been meeting for close to two years now, resulting in some compromises. Along the parade route, for example, the city has agreed to not plant trees or bushes on the north side of the bike lane — making room for spectators.

 

At least from the article, it's never made clear why the parade couldn't operate down slightly narrower streets. I'm totally in favor of preserving the St Paddy's day parade, but this response from the parade organizers seems more than a bit dramatic. 

 

I'm also a bit confused why their issue isn't with the median? It would seem that would be more disruptive to the parade route. It's been a while since I've looked at the Midway plans, but I would think the better design would be to have the bike lanes on the curb, not running down the center of the street.

Also, how many pedestrians does each tree remove? 2-3 at most? Probably not even one realistically. 

50 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Also, how many pedestrians does each tree remove? 2-3 at most? Probably not even one realistically. 

 

An argument could be made that for the warmer summer months the relationship goes the other way; for every tree removed you're decreasing pedestrian traffic.

 

Also, if we are going to be removing trees from one side of Superior shouldn't it be the south side? The south side will get less light over the course of the year meaning less need for shade trees (tho most needed in the summer when the difference is negligible...) and more light for the growth of the trees.

tha parade doesn't deserve to have this much juice.

 

March down st Clair.  

The parade folks need to stop the alarmist BS and clutching their shamrock beaded necklaces. The same argument was made back when the route was on Euclid. As far as room for spectators, apparently they didn't attend the Cavs championship parade - spectators have no problem making their own space. 
 

 

The St. Patrick's Day parade in 2015 on Superior - would you look at that, they simply shifted and the spectators responded accordingly.  
 

 

3 hours ago, MayDay said:

The parade folks need to stop the alarmist BS and clutching their shamrock beaded necklaces. The same argument was made back when the route was on Euclid. As far as room for spectators, apparently they didn't attend the Cavs championship parade - spectators have no problem making their own space. 
 

 

The St. Patrick's Day parade in 2015 on Superior - would you look at that, they simply shifted and the spectators responded accordingly.  
 

 

WOW I had completely erased old Euclid Ave from my memory. What an amazing transformation that was. 

On 12/21/2024 at 11:47 AM, Whipjacka said:

tha parade doesn't deserve to have this much juice.

 

March down st Clair.  

So true and how does this group have such juice to influence tree planting decisions on the transformational Superior Midway?  Shouldn't that comment have been referred to and been subject to open community plannning meeting forums and not given such private access and outdsized importance?  Who from this group and what city officials took this meeting?  Was there green beer sertved at these closed door meetings?  Hopefully the discussion on bikelane tree planing was preceded by in-depth discussions on broken sidewalks and potholes along that route. We admit we love their Irish chutzpah but come on man!  The city could have used their strong-arm tactics on the Bridgeworks design project and maybe in the current negotiations with HSG.

 

Speaking of Bridgeworks - the city should use this as an opportunity to move the Irish parade westward - such as to Detroit Ave either starting or ending at the new Irishtown Bend park - coupled with fundraising and a day of service next-door at the historically Irish immigtant serving St. Malachi - instead of just green beads and Irish beer. 

about the upcoming 3mi. downtown memorial bike loop — 💥

 

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/DEXqz8Lv9D-/?igsh=aGZ4bmp4enRleWdt

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc58O19MCGl9XSjcGc09yqKKEpubDuj7Jm7qiecvmg8oKQL0Q/viewform?fbclid=PAY2xjawIcVwBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABpoc67N_8IJNhCmuAY_IIjc4FslbVhzt7UTEracJFa9UBndvj4OIDc1dRfg_aem_AiWrK8JAZhE0OOGV-UIHhw

 

 

Survey closing on the 17th

Just filled this out, thanks for sharing!

Mayor Bibb picks bicycle, pedestrian safety staffer as Cleveland’s new planning director

Published: Feb. 28, 2025

By Sean McDonnell, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Mayor Justin Bibb announced Friday that he’s picked a top staffer who has focused on bicycle and pedestrian safety to be Cleveland’s next planning director.

 

Calley Mersmann, Bibb’s senior strategist for transit and mobility since the mayor took office, is being recommended to the City Planning Commission for appointment to the director’s role, Bibb said in a news release.

 

Mersmann has worked on initiatives like Cleveland Moves, a transportation initiative aimed at enhancing the safety and convenience of walking, biking and using public transit across the city. She also was tasked with Vision Zero, which seeks to reduce traffic deaths.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/02/mayor-bibb-picks-bicycle-pedestrian-safety-staffer-as-clevelands-new-planning-director.html

Cool video showing the future Slavic Village Downtown Connector (SVDC) to downtown and how it links up with Morgana Run, Opportunity Corridor Trail, Downtown Memorial Loop, etc.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2025/03/tracing-clevelands-next-big-multi-use-trail-drone-footage.html

The project development agreement between the city (Director of Capital Projects) and Metroparks to build 4 different trail extension projects, or the Raise East Side Trails Project, received approval from todays CPC meeting. The federal funding grant for this project is currently held up in DC right now, but the Metroparks said they were hopeful funding would come through. 

 

Well this looks great.

https://shakerheightsoh.gov/774/Lee-Road-Action-Plan?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4TAwIkpvusahzqnp3imt5FOc-_P9wnlT0E1nKPqdBUvNm4lb_Ni2nbHJa8jg_aem_IO0-X-tWEqWf_93_6r6tNQ

On 5/9/2025 at 7:10 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Well this looks great.

https://shakerheightsoh.gov/774/Lee-Road-Action-Plan?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4TAwIkpvusahzqnp3imt5FOc-_P9wnlT0E1nKPqdBUvNm4lb_Ni2nbHJa8jg_aem_IO0-X-tWEqWf_93_6r6tNQ

Lee is supposed to get improved once it crosses into Cleveland, too. Cleveland Moves is showing a mixed use path which should be nice! Honestly biking the entirety of Lee, its least safe in Shaker and somehow safer once you cross into Cleveland, so this'll be a really nice improvement.

On a related note, Bike Cleveland just released their 2024 Crash Report, things didn't get better:

https://www.bikecleveland.org/bike-cle/news/crash/2025/05/

If anyone's looking for something to do Saturday (before the UO meetup!), it's Pedal for Prizes in Old Brooklyn. It's FREE! and a great way to see the neighborhood.

(send a DM if you do make it, I'll be helping out)

Edited May 15May 15 by GISguy

Only a small half mile section of road, but with how over-wide Cleveland streets are there should be a lot of candidates for these quick conversions.

Ideastream Public Media

Cleveland will turn two Downtown streets into a one-way p...

In mid-June, the city will turn Prospect Avenue and Huron Road between Ontario Street and East Ninth Street from two-way streets into a one-way pair. Huron will be eastbound, and Prospect westbound...

Nice to see the curb bump outs on this project as well, not just re-striping - although that sounds like a later option. Gonna be a huge improvement! 🤩

Edited May 27May 27 by Geowizical

The mini plaza that will be created by this rerouting should be considered as a location for a statue. The one way streets will mean driver visibility isn't really a concern here so it's a fantastic opportunity to add some beauty into the city. Make it a two for one, make downtown more walkable, and add a beautiful statue (my preference would be art deco or art nouveau, classical would be fine too, but I'm pretty much fine with anything except abstract or modern art).

When I first quickly glanced at this I thought it was talking about the other side of Ontario. Clearly not, but I wonder if that is in the back of mind of some of these planners. I previously thought that if you made Huron/Prospect one way between Ontario and Superior there wouldn't be enough left turn lane space to prevent people from driving through the square and clogging it up with cars. However, closing Prospect on the other side of Ontario removes that concern, because now there's no need for a right turn lane, and it could maintain the same dual turn lane setup as currently exists (and sometimes fills up) from Ontario to Huron.

I understand most on this forum would prefer not to have to consider cars at all, but until we build a critical mass of high quality public transportation it needs to remain a concern.

All of that said, if this is a success and popular with the public we could hopefully be in a position to consider extending the one ways through to Superior

11 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I understand most on this forum would prefer not to have to consider cars at all, but until we build a critical mass of high quality public transportation it needs to remain a concern.

Eh, honestly it's a great compromise. You really cant exist in NEO without a car and that isn't changing anytime soon.

This is where I laugh though - a handful of comments on social media revolve around: who will think of the commuters, taking street parking for bike lanes, and nobody uses the bike lanes, among the typical peanut gallery (15 minute city conspiracies, anyone?). All of these comments are such an old trope. I'd love to tell folks that the city is making things better for people who live in the city (and visitors that aren't in a car), but it's not worth it with so many people (or bots, whatever).

6 hours ago, Geowizical said:

Nice to see the curb bump outs on this project as well, not just re-striping - although that sounds like a later option. Gonna be a huge improvement! 🤩

I am concerned that they will continue to just use the plastic delineators (spaced too far apart). I really hope they are considering using precast curbing to actually make these protected lanes.

Northeast Ohio pulled above it's weight in funding for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure projects, making up 7 of the 20 projects statewide, or $9.5 million out of roughly $23 million (40%) in the first year (FY2026) of the Transportation Alternative's Program.

cleveland

DeWine announces $52 million for Ohio pedestrian and biki...

Ohio communities will receive nearly $52 million in grants over the next four years to improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

List of all Ohio projects through 2029:

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/OHIOGOVERNOR/2025/05/30/file_attachments/3277059/06-XX-25%20-%20PROJECT%20LIST%20-%20TAP%20%281%29.pdf

cleveland

Work starts Friday on making Prospect and Huron one-way s...

New traffic pattern includes protected bike lanes and aims to improve flow for vehicles and pedestrians in the busy district

On 6/12/2025 at 1:43 PM, Geowizical said:

cleveland

Work starts Friday on making Prospect and Huron one-way s...

New traffic pattern includes protected bike lanes and aims to improve flow for vehicles and pedestrians in the busy district

Celebration ride! Friday June 27 at 5:30.

Eventbrite

Huron & Prospect 'Streets for People' Quick-Build Project...

Come celebrate the transformation of Huron & Prospect into a bike & pedestrian-friendly street!