we used to go from John Carroll to Ignatius in under 20 minutes during rush hour when we were in high school.  But we broke all sorts of traffic laws...

 

as for 490 and the O.C., the view is that it will aid the southern suburbs in getting to places like University Circle.  And the economic development through the desolate Forgotten Triangle area, of course.

I repeat, this is a bad idea!

I'm w/MTS... This just seems like it will divert traffic away from downtown and I'm very skeptical you're going to see a whole lot of development in the forgotten traingle. 

Because of the new GM - UAW contract there is a significant chance for increased manufacturing in Cleveland and other union areas.  With this new road, this area will look very attractive.  My long winded reasons are below

 

  This union - GM contract is such a great development, especially for union territory like Cleveland.  I have been pretty much a union basher because I have been frustrated with their "take it or leave it" negotiating stance.  But this contract is extraordinary because for the first time, the unions actually want to work with the company to make the company stronger.  How does that translate to Cleveland and other pro-union areas (and the forgotten triangle)?  The union went on strike to protect the number of workers, so the pool of union workers will remain constant.  Manufacturers will not likely want their non union facilities to become union, so the jobs will stay in the midwest.  But over the past few contracts, the UAW has been steadily requiring that suppliers (such as my company) be UAW organized.  I have not seen the contract, but I expect that to be a huge part of it. 

  So in the future suppliers will have to be union to supply to Ford/GM/Chrysler, even Tier II and Tier III.  So these manufactures might have to consider building new facilities in pro-union areas.

 

If you can't tell, I am very happy with this development in manufacturing.  It bodes well for Cleveland.  Sorry I rambled.  But I think this road will open the forgotten area to manufactures.

It might, if the emission-producing manufacturers will want to deal with the EPA restrictions that come with locating in a moderate air quality non-attainment area (which Cuyahoga County is). And the EPA's enforcement of those restrictions will get tougher after 2009.

 

Now, here's the kicker -- most of Cuyahoga County's air pollution doesn't come from manufacturers. In fact, two thirds of it comes from mobile sources (ie: vehicles). And 55 percent of the mobile-sourced emissions are from cars and light trucks (ie: minivans and SUVs).

 

We'd better find a way to encourage more cleaner-running vehicles in Cuyahoga County (including higher fees on more polluting vehicles -- possibly with proceeds going to mass transit, transit-supportive development, low-interest loans to LEED-certified buildings, and grants/no-interest loans to clean up brownfield sites). Otherwise, manufacturers will continue to locate in/relocate to rural areas and worsen the spatial mismatch between jobs and job seekers.

I have to question if large manufacturing plants are really appropriate for inner city sites anymore, when one compares the amount of land used to the amount of jobs generated.  It seems that everytime I see a new factory announced, it is 500,000 sq ft on 15 acres but employs only 400 people.  I'm sure an urban factory would try to be a little more space efficient, but perhaps not as efficient as other land uses.  There may be more value in using inner city land for dense housing, commercial, and office and institutional uses. 

 

It may make more sense to try to bridge the spatial mismatch with better public transportation out to suburban factories and with rural and suburban affordable housing.  This is how it is done in much of the world, and indeed when Cleveland was developing an industrial base the factories were located at the fringe when the were built.

Isn't a large portion of our non-attainment due to particulate matter more often associated with brakes on vehicles, rather then emissions?

I have to question if large manufacturing plants are really appropriate for inner city sites anymore, when one compares the amount of land used to the amount of jobs generated.

 

I don't, not when Cleveland has such a large amount of vacant land and such a great need for "unskilled" jobs.

 

It may make more sense to try to bridge the spatial mismatch with better public transportation out to suburban factories and with rural and suburban affordable housing.

 

It might, but think about the suburban hostility to affordable housing. And the most efficient trips are those which don't require vehicles, or at least short vehicular trips, including public transportation vehicles.

 

This is how it is done in much of the world, and indeed when Cleveland was developing an industrial base the factories were located at the fringe when the were built.

 

But that occurred and occurs because the density and availability of vacant land in the city is/was so scarce. That's not the situation in cities like Cleveland anymore.

 

Isn't a large portion of our non-attainment due to particulate matter more often associated with brakes on vehicles, rather then emissions?

 

I'll let the EPA answer that...

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/pm.htm

 

Particulate matter is the term for solid (soot/smoke) or liquid (hydrocarbons) particles found in the air. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke, but fine particulate matter is tiny and is generally not visible to the naked eye. Mobile source particulate emissions consist mainly of these very tiny particles, also known as PM2.5, because they are less than 2.5 microns in diameter.

 

Both on-road and nonroad mobile sources emit fine particulate matter. Diesel-powered vehicles and engines contribute more than half the mobile source particulate emissions.

 

 

And here's some information regarding Cuyahoga County's pollution emissions, by source:

 

http://www.ehw.org/Air_Pollution/AIR_CACC.htm

 

What are the main source types and pollutants in Cuyahoga County?

 

 

 

In the 2002 Cuyahoga County air toxics emissions inventory, the majority (64%) of emissions were estimated to come from mobile sources (this includes both onroad vehicles and nonroad vehicles). Nonpoint area sources made up 22% of total air toxics releases and large point sources constitute 14% of the county total.

 

 

How many tons per year (tpy) of air toxics come from Mobile Sources?

 

I'm w/MTS... This just seems like it will divert traffic away from downtown and I'm very skeptical you're going to see a whole lot of development in the forgotten triangle. 

 

I agree with both of you, it's a regressive project.  The 2 motivating "reasons" for this road are in conflict w/ each other: a) providing jobs and "opportunity" in the Forgotton Triangle, and b) speeding traffic to U.Circle.  A freeway-like road to create opportunity in a poor section where a large percentage of folks don't own cars is paradoxical.  Conversely, if the road is NOT a freeway, creating opportunities (and I'm skeptical) then where's the advantage to U. Circle when drivers can get to U.Circle just as fast over existing roads?

 

This OC makes no sense.  Haven't we focused enough on roads, freeways, cars and more parking opportunities enough inside the city limits?  And why are so many urbanites on this board in favor of a road that will hurt downtown?

How is this road going to hurt Downtown?  I don't see the link.  How is Downtown helped by people getting off of the Innerbelt at Chester or Carnegie and going east, let alone staying on the Innerbelt and taking MLK?  How are you so sure this road is going to be "freeway like"?

I don't see it hurting downtown, but I do see it hurting/stubbing growth of midtown and its corridors. Maybe not.

If it is purely a bypass, then I would agree.  If it connects with the street system then I think it will be more mixed.  It could give some competition in terms of allowing traffic another throughway and creating competing development opportunities along land made more developable.  But in the long run I would think that strengthening the Forbidden Triangle and strengthening Midtown should be complementary.  Perhaps it would help if the planning for these districts addressed the desired land use/business mix and how they might find non-competing niches.

 

I do think design is key to how well the OC works for Cleveland.  If it ends up something like what Shaker Blvd is along it's segment through Cleveland, with mid to high density residential and commercial and preferably the Red Line relocated to the median as KJP proposed, then I see it as a huge positive.  If it becomes the highway that some people fear, then it will probably be a net negative for the City as a whole.

This OC will most directly siphon traffic from Midtown but also downtown – consider those from Lakewood and NW who will travel south to I-90 and around downtown rather than the Shoreway or Detroit through it. …

 

I say this is “freeway like” if not a freeway.  Freeway builders want you to believe it won’t be with all the talk of development of the Forgotten Triangle… it’s the ruse.  The goal, instead, is to build a high-speed access way to speed Heights commuters around downtown and West Siders to U. Circle around the city.  ODOT and friends haven't given up on an East Side freeway since the Clarke Freeway was (thankfully) killed by grass roots activists 40 years ago.  If this is not the case, why do people still talk how much this road will help U.Cicrle when there are plenty of roads to it?  Why is ODOT pushing this as an extension of the Inner Belt?  And since when are "access roads" funnelling into freeways not freeways themselves?

 

As for the Rapd downt the middle: no city (in its collective right mind) puts a freeway around an existing rail system; none in the USA has ever done so because it makes no sense.  Rail is designed to reduce auto use and encourage the type of high-density that is directly at odds with freeways, cars and parking lots... this would be a black eye for Cleveland.  You’re not going to create another Shaker or Van Aken with a rapid in this freeway.  You’d only end up destroying the Red Line.   Why not pursue the TOD that’s been talked about and is happening at U. Circle, E. 105 and elsewhere rather than advocate this silly freeway?  What does make sense is the idea, mentioned here, that some may in the future wish to end Red Line service and run BRT buses along this OC. 

 

Clvlndr, very well said.  If this is the case.  Why not run this thru Tremont or up Lorain or State?  Surely if this is good enough for the folks on the East side, the folks on the West side would have no problems with cutting off their neighborhoods - aren't they used to this by now?

 

This is crap and another way to cut off and segregate neighborhoods, by race, class and financial status.

Not to mention making it faster and easier to get to a large employer enables more sprawl. 

 

The "sprawlers" IMO do not pay their fair share for extending the water/sewer/pavement/etc. out from the urban core.  For example, my guess is that Solon, Westlake, Avon, etc. would not help pay for maintenance upgrades of those lines within the city of Cleveland.  We may never stop sprawl, but we should make it harder not easier.  If it is more expensive or inconvenient to build on outlying Cuy. Co. farmland, then it will easier and perhaps financially beneficial to encourage renovating property within the city.

I still tend to side on the negative on this one too, so long as there is no transit component involved.  For once I would like to see things work in reverse.  Instead of promising "opportunity and development" in the triangle and instead getting a thruway for Westlakers and Stronsvillians, how about promising faster access to those same people and instead getting a well-designed corridor serviced by a rejuvenated east side red line?  Honestly I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive; a 35 mph roadway with good signal timing would be an improved route than Chester or 90-MLK for west siders; as long as they don't make it 6 lanes plus the transit, no problem.

Tell me, clvndr, where in my post I said it would make sense to place a freeway around the existing Red Line?  I agree that would be a mistake, but who ever suggested it?  The rest of your post is your opinion on what you think this thing will turn out like, for what that's worth.

Clvlndr is convinced the OC will be a freeway. I've shown him planning graphics from ODOT which shows it wouldn't be. It will have intersections, crosswalks, driveways, etc. But I do think ODOT's preference for a 45-mph road is a bit much. I realize ODOT's mission is to move as many vehicles as fast as possible and as safely as possible. But I would like them to take an urbanist approach with this project: to provide as much neighborhood and business access as possible. That means calming the traffic to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and to enhance the transit component and new-urbanist land use components. The transit component should be designed to increase access to the Forgotten Triangle, which I believe has the potential to be a transit hub for Northeast Ohio. If existing rail and transit infrastructure is adjusted and enhanced, the Forgotten Triangle would be a sigificant transit transfer location....

 

 

Detail of the area for the proposed transit hub...

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions: how can high-speed type road (we won't call it a freeway) sustain high-density, mixed-use, slow-speed type development, when such roadways encourage sprawl?  Conversely, how can advocates of a high-speed type road support such a plan that offers them little or no speed connectivity (see downtown/east side bypass) advantages?  (and why would highway planners and West suburbanites suddenly get so interested in inner-city development when, heretofore, they could care less?) The 2 road types are at odds with one another ... and then, why would anybody advocate rebuilding existing, healthy (and growing, passenger-wise) rapid rail system to its detriment (speed-wise, which would discourage use by their existing passenger base at the outer ends) to accommodate a roadway?   ... especially, where this has never been done before (and for good reason).

You're still waiting for your answers because you aren't paying attention to what we say.

Paying attention to what, X?  You're not saying anything... Try answering the questions, for once, rather than ducking them.

I don't see how he's ducking them. It does appear that you are not reading his responses.

 

 

KJP and I already answered your damned question, clvndr, and KJP with graphics to boot.  I for one have nothing more to add for you.

X -- I think we all agree that KJP showed how it could be done if done right. 

 

But clvndr's questions raise a good point, there are unanswered questions about this project that should be answered before we jump on board.  ODOT and the city planners ought to answer those questions.  KJP did express some reservations about ODOT's plan for a 45mph boulevard, and it's ODOT's plan that will be built, not KJP's.  At least not yet....

 

If KJP could get ODOT to endorse his plan, we'd all be a lot happier.

ODOT was interested in it. RTA wasn't. Game over.

clvndr's questions were addressed in earlier posts.  I'm not "jumping on board" anything.  I'm merely stating that done right, the Opportunity Corridor could be a boon to the neighborhood.  Done wrong, it won't.  No arguement there.

ODOT was interested in it. RTA wasn't. Game over.

 

This looks like a question for JMasek -- why wasn't RTA interested in working with ODOT to include transit in the Opportunity Corridor plan?

I met with Joe Calabrese to outline the plan. He responded that it probably wouldn't save RTA enough money (or boost ridership enough) to make it worthwhile.

I can't believe no one linked to this yet.  Still, it's only a PD opinion piece.  Here's the beginning, and the link to the full article.

 

 

Brent Larkin: City must have road to its future

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Brent Larkin

Plain Dealer Columnist

 

Aproject of huge importance to Greater Cleve land stands threatened by state indifference and an all-too-familiar local lack of urgency.

 

The Opportunity Corridor would connect Interstate 490 with the part of Cleveland with the greatest economic potential: University Circle - home to the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University and the city's many cultural treasures.

 

This three-mile stretch of road would traverse some of the city's poorest neighborhoods, open access to a part of Cleveland known as the Forgotten Triangle and could spur investment in neighborhoods ignored for decades.

 

But only if it's built.

 

See the rest at

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/brent_larkin/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1206779448229150.xml&coll=2

 

^I saw that.  But didn't agree with it.

personally i think the west shoreway conversion is more important... but maybe that's just me.

^Not just you, I agree 100%.

I was surprised to see that in the paper. They sure are pushing for that hard all of the sudden.

And how many people in these poor neighborhoods would benefit from the Opportunity Corridor? Only 25-50 percent of households in these neighborhoods don't even have cars, and many who do have cars have vehicles that aren't operable or reliably maintained. This reminds me of UN efforts to build roads in poor countries, yet few people actually used them except the wealthy or so troops could be moved quickly. So building a road to serve the poor may sound good, but it's not the real rationale for the Opportunity Corridor since the poor won't use it. The real rationale is so that suburbanites can drive to and from University Circle more quickly. Yes, I understand that the road will open up development sites along the way. But the way ODOT envisions it is as a high-speed, 45-mph roadway that will serve as anti-pedestrian barricade to area residents. Think Chester Avenue from the East 50s to East 90s -- but with traffic traveling even faster. And we're to think that neighborhood residents will want to cross this speed on foot after getting off buses to reach jobs at the new warehousing and light-industrial facilities? If we're going to build a "boulevard" then don't propose a freeway.

^Well said.  I am completely against the OC these days.  There is an existing road network serving this area already- I'm guessing contamination and dispersed ownership are the bigger barriers to redevelopment; neither of which are addressed by a new road...which just happens to shave 10mins off the drive from Strongsville to UC.

 

[Though I think you overstate your case a little bit when you relate it to road development in third world countries.  Only the wealthy use roads?  good roads predate passenger cars ya know- they're awfully handy for commerce, mass transport and even for walking!]

I should have explained it better. There was a report recently that was critical of a growing emphasis on building highways in Third World countries without providing safe facilities for transit, biking and walking.

I thought the the OC would be backed up against the rail lines on its south side.  Ergo, it would not be be cutting a neighborhood up.  It would not be an impediment to existing pedestrian routes either--nobody is walking into the rail lines.  Admittedly, the OC would have to cross the E. 55th Street area on its way to following the rail lines.

 

This would be akin to the parkways that follow the Potomac River into Washington, D.C.

The pink line is the recommended option....

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/OpportunityCorridor/2005-11-10Rec_Corridor.pdf

The Blue and the Pink alignments each have an amount of chopping through existing development.  I am not sure what is under the routes.  I see a lot of trees.  Some of it is commercial, and I don't know if it is all in use.  I am sure there are homes.  The area near the label "Grand Avenue" gets chopped up in either scenario.  This well makes the point that it is not the rail corridor.

 

Too bad that they cannot just make use of Woodland Avenue in the mode that they would be making use of E.105th Street at the east end of the project.  Just musing

^Woodland is difficult to use because there are a good number of historic cemeteries that line each side of the street. If they would use Woodland, it would need to be widened and then you get into some grave issues.

"Grave issues"

 

Ba-dum-bump! :laugh:

And how many people in these poor neighborhoods would benefit from the Opportunity Corridor? Only 25-50 percent of households in these neighborhoods don't even have cars, and many who do have cars have vehicles that aren't operable or reliably maintained.

 

All the more reason to bring economic development to their neighborhood!  Then the can walk, bike or more easily ride transit to work.  I get it, though, KJP.  If this is built like a freeway, it won't help.  If it's done right, it can actually bring a lot of new opportunities to the residents who live nearby or along the path of the corridor.

I just realized I misstated the statistic of car ownership in the Forgotten Triangle. Only 25-50 percent of households HAVE cars.

Governor thaws planning money for proposed East Side corridor

 

Posted by Jim Nichols June 26, 2008 18:46PM

Categories: Breaking News, Business Impact

 

Gov. Ted Strickland has freed up $4 million to get planning back on track for Cleveland's Opportunity Corridor roadway.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/06/governor_unthaws_planning_mone.html

Believe me, ODOT and the City are going to find a way to get this stupid road done before 1 inch of rapid transit, commuter rail or new Amtrak goes into operation in this City and State.

You know I think this is the most ridiculous project.  When that money could be funneled to improved public transportation.

 

This project is being proposed for an America that existed from 1950-2000 and which no longer exists today. How do we know? Because this road is being proposed to improve access to University Circle for people living in Brecksville and Westlake. The argument is that the access problem is at the Cleveland end because it lacks a highway to the circle.

 

But I argue that the access problem is more at the suburban end -- that's where the electrically powered public transit and the walkable communities are lacking.

 

Here's a better option -- improve the availability of transit and quality neighborhoods in the area of University Circle. Develop mixed-use communities around existing rapid transit stations. And for those who want to hold on to the nostalgia of the petroleum-soaked lifestyle, give them express buses and electric rail transit to University Circle using existing infrastructure (interstates, Norfolk Southern/Red Line and the Euclid Corridor).

The Plain Dealer totally averts including any kind of opposition of residents that may potentially be affected by the Opp Corridor.  The story is presented in a way that makes the project seem as if it has widespread support.

 

I've worked with long-time residents in the Forgotten Triangle, and they still have the fight in them from their experiences with the Clark Freeway.  There is visible opposition to the project.  It's just not being conveyed to the public. 

 

Could the whole situation have been avoided if residents were able to partake in a more democratic planning process?  Probably.  I can't recall a single community meeting being held on the corridor, and it's difficult to foresee community support being garnered when the entire thing has been developed in a vacuum.

I know that this is wishful thinking, especially with ODOT, but if we absolutely MUST have this roadway built, it must (in my opinion) include rail access straight down the middle of it throughout the entire length of the roadway.  We don't live in an era of cheap gas prices anymore, and providing quick access to exurbanites isn't the best urban planning idea floating around C-town right now.

I know that this is wishful thinking, especially with ODOT, but if we absolutely MUST have this roadway built, it must (in my opinion) include rail access straight down the middle of it throughout the entire length of the roadway. We don't live in an era of cheap gas prices anymore, and providing quick access to exurbanites isn't the best urban planning idea floating around C-town right now.

 

I agree, this thing better be a boulevard with rail in the middle and not some assinine highway.