Maybe he doesn't like transit but what exactly is his interest in this road?  Ego?  And the 21st Century Transportation Task Force is pushing 1950s and 1960s "pave it" "solutions"?  Sounds great.

Op-Ed in 8/3/08 PD by University Circle Inc. President Chris Ronayne:

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1217665933316100.xml&coll=2

The Opportunity Corridor is not a pork-barrel "bridge to nowhere." It's a bridge to somewhere. And that somewhere - University Circle - is an internationally distinctive eds, meds and arts district and the new engine of our state's economy.

 

...

 

Let's start this road to somewhere from University Circle. It may be the best way to keep it from going nowhere.

 

Ronayne is president of UCI, the development, service and advocacy corporation serving University Circle.

 

 

"eds, meds and arts"? God I hope that phrase doesn't catch on.

I've respected Chris Ronayne since he was planning director under Jane Campbell, but he's totally out to lunch on this OC folly and he and all the other powers that be should be fought tooth & nail on this... Surprisingly, though, the only objections I've seen has been on this board.  OC will be a "major step backwards" for all the positive steps forward the city and, specifically, U.Circle has been taking of late.

I agree with Clvlndr 100%!

 

With the transit situation, the government should be reallocating these funds to mass transit.

 

I say take a stand and let Ranayne and other leaders know that we don't want this 1950's smoke blown up our collective asses!

Is anybody drafting a response to the PD? I know that it would not get a half front page of a section but perhaps somebody would see it. I would do it my self but compared to the rest of the subject matter experts on the board I am a hack.

 

I loved the part about thanks to the PD reviving the project ODOT is now looking at it.

I have been quiet on this topic for a while and simply said....it's because I support it.  There, I said it, I'm sorry, I don't mean to support it, but I do.  I have tried to not support it, but it keeps coming back to me.  I don't know if I should be mad at myself about it, but oh well.  I can't change my mind.  I am so sorry KJP.  I jsut feal it cuts through a blighted area that is void of much housing, and if any, abandon housing.  I think it is good to have a direct link from Interstate 90 eastbound to U.Circle.  Folks coming from Vermillion, Sandusky, Toledo, Detroit could easily navigate thir way to U. Circle.  I don't think this will lead to more sprawl.  I don't think folks currently working at U. Circle will move further out because the Opportunity Corridor is built.  I view this as simply a feeder road, similar to 176, that alleviates cut thru traffic on city streets such as E 55, E 79, E 93, Woodhill.  I don't view this as highway construction such as 71, 77, 90, that forces Clevelanders to turn their back to the city and run the other way, but more as highway construction that invites tourists and out-of-towners to an easier and more accessible way to the Circle. 

 

I feal as though rail access to the circle from the west is good right now as is bus access from the west.  We could use some up-grade, but if anything is lacking, it is highway access to the circle.  I am so sorry I just said that, but it is simply my view.  Again, I repeat, this to me is simple a feeder road, not a life-sucking freeway to no mans land that sucks the life out of the inner-city.  Now go ahead and blast me.  MTS can start, the KJP, step in.

I understand the need for increased state and federal dollars to be used towards public transit - however I don't think that should trump the need for this "Medical Mile" - as Ronayne put it.

 

Promoting public transit to U.C. works for those that work and visit the cultural attractions - but what about the thousands of patients that have to visit UH and The Clinic?  You can not expect them to be willing or able to use public transit.  I think Ronaynes comment on people from Westlake and Akron (let alone people from outside the region) not having easy access to U.C. is a valid point.

 

The reality that U.C. is almost out of space should be sufficient reason for many to support this 'corridor'.  Opening up underutilized land to allow access as well as expansion of biotech firms and other medical companies is exciting!

 

I am all for Public Transit and try to use it as much as possible - however I think the opportunities this road presents far outweighs the lack of public transit funds into this area. 

 

 

I like this idea, but I wonder how much investment it will encourage; as well as if the transit lines nearby will be upgraded.

GoTribe and Lewarctj,

 

I agree with you. I don't like to post on this thread because I feel that my points are not understood. I feel that many of the anti-OC arguments are grounded in a SimCity view of how to improve Cleveland.

GoTribe and Lewarctj,

 

I agree with you. I don't like to post on this thread because I feel that my points are not understood. I feel that many of the anti-OC arguments are grounded in a SimCity view of how to improve Cleveland.

 

You know, I sit here and ask myself, is this road really what's "holding" UC back? And I tell myself, in no shape or form is the lack of this road hurting UC. And that's why I'm not for it. (armchair opinion)

GoTribe and Lewarctj,

 

I agree with you. I don't like to post on this thread because I feel that my points are not understood. I feel that many of the anti-OC arguments are grounded in a SimCity view of how to improve Cleveland.

 

You know, I sit here and ask myself, is this road really what's "holding" UC back? And I tell myself, in no shape or form is the lack of this road hurting UC. And that's why I'm not for it. (armchair opinion)

 

I see your point Pope, but I should rephrase myself.  It is not so much UC that is being held back, in fact UC is developing more and more.  Rather it is the Kinsman, Woodland Quincy areas between 55th and 93rd that is being held back.  It is a forgotten area in CLeveland that most people under the age of 40 don't even know about.  I feal putting a road that would be highly travelled through here would open peoples eyes to this area and also developers eyes this area.  And having U Circle at one terminex, and I-77/490 at the other would gaurantee it being highly travelled.  Having UC at the terminex automatically makes it a highly travelled road.  For once, Kinsman road would have an exit ramp allowing for visibility and development on a local level.  On the other hand, U circle would be more easily accessible for out-of-towners.

 

All points are good, and we will probably never agree, but I think this is a project that could basically make a once large residential neighborhood that is now "forgotten" semi-vibrant again. 

It's not so much that the road itself is a bad idea... it's that the road as currently constituted and planned is a bad idea.

What is wrong with those big streets named Quincy, Central, Carnegie, Euclid hough, Wade Park and Chester?  Outside of Euclid How much development has those streets seen?  NONE!  If there was a plan to improve ALL OF those streets and I could see development taking place TODAY, I might be moved.

 

What are we developing but a street - yes a street - that zips past the neighborhood and further divides several neighborhoods, not messing with or improving the neighborhoods it will go thru.

 

We're creating another street that will need to be maintained for years, and years.  WHY?   Where is that future funding coming from?  ODOT can't repair the roads/bridges we have now....so let create another. Brilliant!  :roll:

 

For people coming to the city, get them to change their transportation travel preferences and put that money toward regional mass transit.

I guess I am against it at this time due to fears of a half developed EC and a half developed Medical Mile.

I don't understand the big opposition to this project either - it improves access to Univ Circle from the west and south, and removes through traffic from the outdated and over-crowded Inner Belt bridge and trench.  It also takes vehicles off Chester and Carnegie, which essentially function as multilane freeways now.

 

A big proportion of the Clinic's clientele come from outside Cuyahoga County (when I worked there in the 90's it was over a third) and for these people, public transit will likely never be a viable option.  Why not make it easier for those people to come from Mansfield or Sandusky and get to University Circle?  It's not like they're going to stop at Hot Sauce Williams or the ghetto fast food joints on Carnegie for lunch anyway, so just get them to their destinations with a minimum of disruption..

so you want to break the state's budget on a road, just so suzy and timmy from mansfield can get to UC better?

What is wrong with those big streets named Quincy, Central, Carnegie, Euclid hough, Wade Park and Chester?  Outside of Euclid How much development has those streets seen?   NONE!  If there was a plan to improve ALL OF those streets and I could see development taking place TODAY, I might be moved.

 

What are we developing but a street - yes a street - that zips past the neighborhood and further divides several neighborhoods, not messing with or improving the neighborhoods it will go thru.

 

We're creating another street that will need to be maintained for years, and years.  WHY?   Where is that future funding coming from?  ODOT can't repair the roads/bridges we have now....so let create another. Brilliant!  :roll:

 

For people coming to the city, get them to change their transportation travel preferences and put that money toward regional mass transit.

 

Above is why I try not to post my controversial view of this road on this thread because people "roll their eyes" like I'm a dodo bird.  Simply put, better accessibility for out-of-towners/meeting goers to UC is good, and more accessibility to and through a blighted and forgotten neighborhood is good.  These are just my views and theories.  Obviously, others would disagree.

What is wrong with those big streets named Quincy, Central, Carnegie, Euclid hough, Wade Park and Chester?  Outside of Euclid How much development has those streets seen?  NONE!  If there was a plan to improve ALL OF those streets and I could see development taking place TODAY, I might be moved.

 

What are we developing but a street - yes a street - that zips past the neighborhood and further divides several neighborhoods, not messing with or improving the neighborhoods it will go thru.

 

We're creating another street that will need to be maintained for years, and years.  WHY?   Where is that future funding coming from?  ODOT can't repair the roads/bridges we have now....so let create another. Brilliant!  :roll:

 

For people coming to the city, get them to change their transportation travel preferences and put that money toward regional mass transit.

 

Above is why I try not to post my controversial view of this road on this thread because people "roll their eyes" like I'm a dodo bird.  Simply put, better accessibility for out-of-towners/meeting goers to UC is good, and more accessibility to and through a blighted and forgotten neighborhood is good.  These are just my views and theories.  Obviously, others would disagree.

 

we all have opinions, we don't have to agree, but should be civil to one another and respect each others difference of opinion.  :wink:  :-)  So post away man!

 

I don't understand the big opposition to this project either - it improves access to Univ Circle from the west and south, and removes through traffic from the outdated and over-crowded Inner Belt bridge and trench.  It also takes vehicles off Chester and Carnegie, which essentially function as multilane freeways now.

 

A big proportion of the Clinic's clientele come from outside Cuyahoga County (when I worked there in the 90's it was over a third) and for these people, public transit will likely never be a viable option.  Why not make it easier for those people to come from Mansfield or Sandusky and get to University Circle?  It's not like they're going to stop at Hot Sauce Williams or the ghetto fast food joints on Carnegie for lunch anyway, so just get them to their destinations with a minimum of disruption..

 

So instead of cleaning up the aforementioned streets, and improving the "ghetto businesses" and or perception of those "ghetto neighborhoods" we should build a road so that people - white folks from the burbs who think Cleveland is just shit - can speed to University Circle and feel safe in their cars (ie not spending any money in the city itself) and avoid setting foot in a part of Cleveland that the PD and others demonize?

 

That is the bottom line.  Brilliant right?  :roll: :roll:

 

Wouldn't that money be put to better use, cleaning up and redeveloping and making those neighborhood more desirable instead of putting a highway thru them?

 

Lastly, once ODOT starts with this new road, which neighborhood/community/suburb is next?  Trust me, they will not stop here!

Do we really believe gas prices are going to stabilize or even fall in the future? There is no data to suggest either will happen. There are no practical alternatives to oil (hydrogen's only purpose is to offer it as a false hope to keep the zombie hoards from panicking).

 

So who is going to be able to afford to drive in a few years anyway? Who is going to be able to afford medical care?

 

Why are we designing transportation systems for the petroleum-fueled economy of the 20th century?

 

Until Congress and the president makes solvent the highway trust fund, and the Ohio General Assembly and governor find funding sources that can financially support our existing transportation system, it makes no sense to add to our petroleum-based transportation system. That system is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.

I would say that "cleaning up" those neighborhoods has little to do with roads and everything to do with the crime issue....real or perceived.  It's very easy to say that people who work in the UC/CC complexes should live in the area, but I would say things like the McDermott case do more to discourage that than any road or manufactured news story ever could.

Cleaning up actually refers to the 40+ EPA Superfund sites along the Red Line between East 55th and University Circle. The EPA lacks the funds to clean them up and part of the rationale for the road is to use that project as a de facto means of removing the contaminants from old factory sites.

What is wrong with those big streets named Quincy, Central, Carnegie, Euclid hough, Wade Park and Chester?  Outside of Euclid How much development has those streets seen?  NONE!  If there was a plan to improve ALL OF those streets and I could see development taking place TODAY, I might be moved.

 

What are we developing but a street - yes a street - that zips past the neighborhood and further divides several neighborhoods, not messing with or improving the neighborhoods it will go thru.

 

We're creating another street that will need to be maintained for years, and years.  WHY?   Where is that future funding coming from?  ODOT can't repair the roads/bridges we have now....so let create another. Brilliant!  :roll:

 

For people coming to the city, get them to change their transportation travel preferences and put that money toward regional mass transit.

 

Above is why I try not to post my controversial view of this road on this thread because people "roll their eyes" like I'm a dodo bird.  Simply put, better accessibility for out-of-towners/meeting goers to UC is good, and more accessibility to and through a blighted and forgotten neighborhood is good.  These are just my views and theories.  Obviously, others would disagree.

 

we all have opinions, we don't have to agree, but should be civil to one another and respect each others difference of opinion.  :wink:  :-)  So post away man!

 

I don't understand the big opposition to this project either - it improves access to Univ Circle from the west and south, and removes through traffic from the outdated and over-crowded Inner Belt bridge and trench.  It also takes vehicles off Chester and Carnegie, which essentially function as multilane freeways now.

 

A big proportion of the Clinic's clientele come from outside Cuyahoga County (when I worked there in the 90's it was over a third) and for these people, public transit will likely never be a viable option.  Why not make it easier for those people to come from Mansfield or Sandusky and get to University Circle?  It's not like they're going to stop at Hot Sauce Williams or the ghetto fast food joints on Carnegie for lunch anyway, so just get them to their destinations with a minimum of disruption..

 

So instead of cleaning up the aforementioned streets, and improving the "ghetto businesses" and or perception of those "ghetto neighborhoods" we should build a road so that people - white folks from the burbs who think Cleveland is just sh!t - can speed to University Circle and feel safe in their cars (ie not spending any money in the city itself) and avoid setting foot in a part of Cleveland that the PD and others demonize?

 

 

MTS, please do not put words into my mouth.  I stated that the road terminating in UC would benifit out of towners and meeting goers as it would be a more direct and accessible way for them to get there.  Obviously sending them down Carnegie isn't doing a thing to spur development on that road.  It's not like there are restaurants all along there because it is hoghly travelled.  And I never said this road is so "white people" can get to UC quicker.  I said it was a good road on the local level b/c it would spur development on Kinsman/Woodland/Quincy between 55th and 93rd.  Maybe a distribution center at an exit ramp, or a office building or anything.  The area is truely a forgotten area.  Like I said, this road instantly would be highly travelled therefore making this area highly visible and therefore highly developable (if thats a word  :lol:). 

 

You said, what's next, what suburb.  Like I said, this road does not necessarilly contribute to sprawl.  It is not like extending 422 out to Parkman or Troy, or extending RT 44 freeway down to Auburn.  This is a feeder road that takes cars off of 55th and Carnegie.  B/C of this road, maybe BRT could be done along Carnegie (we all know that could never be done presently due to traffic congestion).  People have been using Carnegie as if it's a freeway for years.  They get on it downtown, drive 60 blocks and get off of it in UC.  Very few people go anywhere else along the road as it is.  Taking traffic off of it maybe a good thing.  Think about that with an open mind for a second.   

 

My main point in this reply is because UC is somewhat unaccessible to to a lot of Cuyahoga countians and visitors, our east west roads from downtown to UC have been transformed into freeways minus any construction activity due to the need to get to the two places. 

What is wrong with those big streets named Quincy, Central, Carnegie, Euclid hough, Wade Park and Chester?  Outside of Euclid How much development has those streets seen?  NONE!  If there was a plan to improve ALL OF those streets and I could see development taking place TODAY, I might be moved.

 

What are we developing but a street - yes a street - that zips past the neighborhood and further divides several neighborhoods, not messing with or improving the neighborhoods it will go thru.

 

We're creating another street that will need to be maintained for years, and years.  WHY?   Where is that future funding coming from?  ODOT can't repair the roads/bridges we have now....so let create another. Brilliant!  :roll:

 

For people coming to the city, get them to change their transportation travel preferences and put that money toward regional mass transit.

 

Above is why I try not to post my controversial view of this road on this thread because people "roll their eyes" like I'm a dodo bird.  Simply put, better accessibility for out-of-towners/meeting goers to UC is good, and more accessibility to and through a blighted and forgotten neighborhood is good.  These are just my views and theories.  Obviously, others would disagree.

 

we all have opinions, we don't have to agree, but should be civil to one another and respect each others difference of opinion.  :wink:  :-)  So post away man!

 

I don't understand the big opposition to this project either - it improves access to Univ Circle from the west and south, and removes through traffic from the outdated and over-crowded Inner Belt bridge and trench.  It also takes vehicles off Chester and Carnegie, which essentially function as multilane freeways now.

 

A big proportion of the Clinic's clientele come from outside Cuyahoga County (when I worked there in the 90's it was over a third) and for these people, public transit will likely never be a viable option.  Why not make it easier for those people to come from Mansfield or Sandusky and get to University Circle?  It's not like they're going to stop at Hot Sauce Williams or the ghetto fast food joints on Carnegie for lunch anyway, so just get them to their destinations with a minimum of disruption..

 

So instead of cleaning up the aforementioned streets, and improving the "ghetto businesses" and or perception of those "ghetto neighborhoods" we should build a road so that people - white folks from the burbs who think Cleveland is just sh!t - can speed to University Circle and feel safe in their cars (ie not spending any money in the city itself) and avoid setting foot in a part of Cleveland that the PD and others demonize?

 

 

MTS, please do not put words into my mouth.  I stated that the road terminating in UC would benifit out of towners and meeting goers as it would be a more direct and accessible way for them to get there.  Obviously sending them down Carnegie isn't doing a thing to spur development on that road.  It's not like there are restaurants all along there because it is hoghly travelled.  And I never said this road is so "white people" can get to UC quicker.  I said it was a good road on the local level b/c it would spur development on Kinsman/Woodland/Quincy between 55th and 93rd.  Maybe a distribution center at an exit ramp, or a office building or anything.  The area is truely a forgotten area.  Like I said, this road instantly would be highly travelled therefore making this area highly visible and therefore highly developable (if thats a word  :lol:). 

 

You said, what's next, what suburb.  Like I said, this road does not necessarilly contribute to sprawl.  It is not like extending 422 out to Parkman or Troy, or extending RT 44 freeway down to Auburn.  This is a feeder road that takes cars off of 55th and Carnegie.  B/C of this road, maybe BRT could be done along Carnegie (we all know that could never be done presently due to traffic congestion).  People have been using Carnegie as if it's a freeway for years.  They get on it downtown, drive 60 blocks and get off of it in UC.  Very few people go anywhere else along the road as it is.  Taking traffic off of it maybe a good thing.  Think about that with an open mind for a second.   

 

Gotribe I responded to TWO people in my post.  reread it. The top response was to you.

^ Gotcha

Why are we designing transportation systems for the petroleum-fueled economy of the 20th century?

 

While petroleum based transportation systems may be on their way out the infrastructure that supports our cars will continue to be used for whatever alternative they come up with.  Natural gas, electric, hydrogen... all of these fuels will be used to power four-wheeled vehicles which will continue to use our nations awesome highway system to get around.

 

Your argument that we shouldn't build this because petroleum supplies are dwindling doesn't hold any water.  We will continue to use this infrastructure, allbeit less, for generations to come.

 

gotribe has the right idea... keep an open mind on this project.

Why are we designing transportation systems for the petroleum-fueled economy of the 20th century?

 

While petroleum based transportation systems may be on their way out the infrastructure that supports our cars will continue to be used for whatever alternative they come up with. Natural gas, electric, hydrogen... all of these fuels will be used to power four-wheeled vehicles which will continue to use our nations awesome highway system to get around.

 

Your argument that we shouldn't build this because petroleum supplies are dwindling doesn't hold any water. We will continue to use this infrastructure, allbeit less, for generations to come.

 

gotribe has the right idea... keep an open mind on this project.

 

That was very well said.  Automobiles will always be a way of transportation in America (even though I wish rail would be more prevelant) granted fuel may not be the source for it. 

Look, my take on something like this is never to shout opposing opinions down, even when I so passionately feel this is a horrible mistake for the City.  No one here is God so no UOer should ever take such a stance.  I just want to hear why those of you support this thing.  So please, gotribe or one of you OC supporters, answer these 10 Qs 1-by-1:

 

1.  How is OC helpful to an area where most residents don't own cars and use transit anyway?

 

2. If OC really is about helping the Forgotten Triangle, why is such an emphasis made on this helping U.Circle, which tends to put OC at odds for its stated purpose of helping end FT blight and really make it seem like what it is (to me at least): a commuter freeway for West Siders and some Heights people to get downtown)?

 

3. Explain to me how this will NOT HURT the Red Line, since it will parallel it with a high-speed freeway-type road that will encourage commuters (esp the many who currently use the Red Line to get to work at UH, CWRU and other U.Circle institutions)?

 

4. RTA's building of ECP/Health Line to serve this area, plus the vast improvements to the (preexisting) Red Line -- esp relocating E.120 station to Mayfield/Little Italy, making it within much easier walking distance to both the core U. Circle institutions (and rebuilding Euclid/E.115th area, as well as Little Italy.  Given these vast improvements, which will make Univ. Circle one of THE most transit accessible areas in Greater Cleveland, why suddenly do we have to have this road? 

 

5. Given 4, is this not a huge waste of money for something that’s not proven to be needed? 

 

6. Why is Cleveland talking about building more freeway-roads when gas prices are headed toward $5.00/gallon and more and when RTA is strapped for cash?

 

7. Name a city (other than St. Paul, as the PD did, which has no rapid transit system) that actually has high-speed, rapid transit, esp to the same exact corridor, where the city is building roads to compete with the transit line.  (you’ll be stumped on this one cause there are none, and PLEASE don’t give me NYC’s Robert Moses who was a freeway wacko in the 40s and 50s during Detroit’s national onslaught – and where, even there, transit was and IS still dominant).

 

8. If the Forbidden Triangle is in such need, how come its ills not be solved on the existing road grid?  Where has it been shown that the current roads, as they exist, are holding the FT back? 

 

9. Isn’t development of commercial areas, investment and TOD things that would be more effective for residents?  Aren’t we seeing some of this progress in Fairfax with bank reinvestment in some of the homes, esp the brick rowhomes, along E. 89th and E. 93rd?  Aren't we seeing some Fairfax housing rejuvenation in the blocks near Cleve Clinic?  What about the a-building gigantic, (rapid-transit accessible) Juvenile Justice Center going up at E. 101 and Quincy?  What about the great influx of workers/commuters (and possibly new residents who will walk to work) the JJC will likely cause? What about spinoff development they’re talking about with this project?

 

10. There’ve been suggestions that money people, like the Ratners, stand to make $$$$ off OC because of land interests in the area – prove this ISN’T the case.

 

 

While I’m not shouting backers down (I do think you badly misinformed and just don’t get it), I sure hope you answer these questions because, if you don’t, I’ll think you’re either disingenuous, totally uniformed… or both.

 

 

I don't have time to answer all, so I will give a couple a shot. 

 

2.  If they said in the paper that they were trying to help the FT, it would probably be highly criticized by people who claim the area is so for gone and this road is going to cost all this money.  So, they say it is for UC because alot of people are familiar with that area for work and restaurants and I am sure alot of people reading the paper work in that area.  Also, poll all Plain Dealer readers, and I bet only 20% even know where Kinsman and 93rd is.  It truely is a forgotten area and I can not emphasize that enough.  As sad as it is, people just left that area. 

 

3.  As for the red line, if you are getting on at the airport, bkpk, putitas, 65th, OC, there is no reason to start using you car now because of this road.  You would be backtracking by tring to get to this road from any one of those locations.  So, The road dosen't parallel any of those stops.

1.  It is likely that development would spur along exit ramps along this.  Say Kinsman near 79th, gas stations, fast food, distribution centers.  This is all opportunities for residents in that neighborhood.

I don't have time to answer all, so I will give a couple a shot. 

 

2.  If they said in the paper that they were trying to help the FT, it would probably be highly criticized by people who claim the area is so for gone and this road is going to cost all this money.  So, they say it is for UC because alot of people are familiar with that area for work and restaurants and I am sure alot of people reading the paper work in that area.  Also, poll all Plain Dealer readers, and I bet only 20% even know where Kinsman and 93rd is.  It truely is a forgotten area and I can not emphasize that enough.  As sad as it is, people just left that area. 

 

3.  As for the red line, if you are getting on at the airport, bkpk, putitas, 65th, OC, there is no reason to start using you car now because of this road.  You would be backtracking by tring to get to this road from any one of those locations.  So, The road dosen't parallel any of those stops.

 

Number 3 only addresses riders from the westside.  Not those that currently take PT from the Eastside 'burbs or near the current redline/healthline stops.

 

Why give money to a highway when we've spent millions to build the EC?  To me that is saying, "the EC or the train is good enough for "those people" but I wont be on it." 

 

There are just so many wrong things with this road to nowhere!

 

1.  It is likely that development would spur along exit ramps along this.  Say Kinsman near 79th, gas stations, fast food, distribution centers.  This is all opportunities for residents in that neighborhood.

the Key word is "likely".  We've seen no concrete evidence like we did when SYC or EC were proposed.

From Ronayne's piece:

Look at a map and see how someone from Akron or Westlake might get to the Circle and why a boulevard from these points makes sense.

 

Um, yes, which is why we already have two boulevards (not just avenues) connecting UC to different points on the highway network.

 

I agree with everyone who has already pointed out that UC is not "inaccessible" by any stretch of the imagination.  And the idea that greater University Circle is running out of developable land is absurd.  This road is a solution in search of a problem.  It just points to the absurdity of doling out state and federal funding by category instead of geography or need.

From Ronayne's piece:

Look at a map and see how someone from Akron or Westlake might get to the Circle and why a boulevard from these points makes sense.

 

Um, yes, which is why we already have two boulevards (not just avenues) connecting UC to different points on the highway network.

 

I agree with everyone who has already pointed out that UC is not "inaccessible" by any stretch of the imagination.  And the idea that greater University Circle is running out of developable land is absurd.  This road is a solution in search of a problem.  It just points to the absurdity of doling out state and federal funding by category instead of geography or need.

 

Yes, but again our problem is that many of our main East West roads from downtown Cleveland to UC have already been transformed into freeways whether we like it or not.  That will never promote development.  Euclid used to be the same but thank God, not any more.  We could never do BRT along Carnegie and Chester because of the state those road are travelled now.  I seriously have been on Chester before going 55 mph and just keeping up with traffic.  The current state that Chester, Cedar and Carnegie are used for now will never promote developement. 

I don't have time to answer all, so I will give a couple a shot.

 

2. If they said in the paper that they were trying to help the FT, it would probably be highly criticized by people who claim the area is so for gone and this road is going to cost all this money. So, they say it is for UC because alot of people are familiar with that area for work and restaurants and I am sure alot of people reading the paper work in that area. Also, poll all Plain Dealer readers, and I bet only 20% even know where Kinsman and 93rd is. It truely is a forgotten area and I can not emphasize that enough. As sad as it is, people just left that area.

 

3. As for the red line, if you are getting on at the airport, bkpk, putitas, 65th, OC, there is no reason to start using you car now because of this road. You would be backtracking by tring to get to this road from any one of those locations. So, The road dosen't parallel any of those stops.

 

Number 3 only addresses riders from the westside. Not those that currently take PT from the Eastside 'burbs or near the current redline/healthline stops.

 

Why give money to a highway when we've spent millions to build the EC? To me that is saying, "the EC or the train is good enough for "those people" but I wont be on it."

 

There are just so many wrong things with this road to nowhere!

 

1. It is likely that development would spur along exit ramps along this. Say Kinsman near 79th, gas stations, fast food, distribution centers. This is all opportunities for residents in that neighborhood.

the Key word is "likely". We've seen no concrete evidence like we did when SYC or EC were proposed.

 

For number 3, the road does nothing for eastside burbs people.  This is simply a feeder road from 77 to UC.  Think of it as a long exit ramp.  Again, this runs parallel to the redline for I guess about 2 mile, but really only goes by the 55th rapid and the 101st and Quincy stop.  That is why I only referenced those.  Also, I am sure people along the OC could still use public transportation.  It is not like they will build the road and do away with buses.  I am sure buses will travel the road. 

From Ronayne's piece:

Look at a map and see how someone from Akron or Westlake might get to the Circle and why a boulevard from these points makes sense.

 

Um, yes, which is why we already have two boulevards (not just avenues) connecting UC to different points on the highway network.

 

I agree with everyone who has already pointed out that UC is not "inaccessible" by any stretch of the imagination. And the idea that greater University Circle is running out of developable land is absurd. This road is a solution in search of a problem. It just points to the absurdity of doling out state and federal funding by category instead of geography or need.

 

Yes, but again our problem is that many of our main East West roads from downtown Cleveland to UC have already been transformed into freeways whether we like it or not. That will never promote development. Euclid used to be the same but thank God, not any more. We could never do BRT along Carnegie and Chester because of the state those road are travelled now. I seriously have been on Chester before going 55 mph and just keeping up with traffic. The current state that Chester, Cedar and Carnegie are used for now will never promote developement.

 

ummmm.... so if carnegie and chester have already been "transformed into freeways whether we like it or not.", and that as you say "will never promote development" (and mind you I agree on both points)... then why exactly do you think adding a third freeway (or prolonged exit ramp as you put it) is going to be any different or spur any development?

ummmm.... so if carnegie and chester have already been "transformed into freeways whether we like it or not.", and that as you say "will never promote development" (and mind you I agree on both points)... then why exactly do you think adding a third freeway (or prolonged exit ramp as you put it) is going to be any different or spur any development?

 

Thank you. 

 

In addition, how do you pay for it and allocate cost for future maintenance, when ODOT cannot maintain it's current infrastructure?

From Ronayne's piece:

Look at a map and see how someone from Akron or Westlake might get to the Circle and why a boulevard from these points makes sense.

 

Um, yes, which is why we already have two boulevards (not just avenues) connecting UC to different points on the highway network.

 

I agree with everyone who has already pointed out that UC is not "inaccessible" by any stretch of the imagination. And the idea that greater University Circle is running out of developable land is absurd. This road is a solution in search of a problem. It just points to the absurdity of doling out state and federal funding by category instead of geography or need.

 

Yes, but again our problem is that many of our main East West roads from downtown Cleveland to UC have already been transformed into freeways whether we like it or not. That will never promote development. Euclid used to be the same but thank God, not any more. We could never do BRT along Carnegie and Chester because of the state those road are travelled now. I seriously have been on Chester before going 55 mph and just keeping up with traffic. The current state that Chester, Cedar and Carnegie are used for now will never promote developement.

 

ummmm.... so if carnegie and chester have already been "transformed into freeways whether we like it or not.", and that as you say "will never promote development" (and mind you I agree on both points)... then why exactly do you think adding a third freeway (or prolonged exit ramp as you put it) is going to be any different or spur any development?

 

My point to that is Carnegie and Chester should not be being used in the fasion that a freeway gets used.  They are between two of our most culurally diverse areas and employment centers.  They are constantly being used as though they are limited access freeways.  My point was if we build a freeway offset of these roads, maybe we can transform these roads into something of what Euclid is today.  Can you honsetly say in the state that these roads are travelled right now, we could make them one lane with BRT? 

Yes, but again our problem is that many of our main East West roads from downtown Cleveland to UC have already been transformed into freeways whether we like it or not.  That will never promote development.  Euclid used to be the same but thank God, not any more.  We could never do BRT along Carnegie and Chester because of the state those road are travelled now. 

 

 

Doesn't this point go against the OC?  I mean if infrastructure already exists, connecting downtown to UC with a bunch of vacant or misused land, why waste hundreds of millions of dollars on ANOTHER road with MORE vacant and/or misused land?  What will happen to Carnegie, Chester, etc? 

 

It really isn't that bad driving over there-it's not like we have Mumbai traffic.

 

This $$ should be spent of correcting the shoreway and innerbelt-or hell, replacing the pot-hole filled streets in Tremont and Ohio City.  Even our best neighborhoods are far from their full potential-we're not a huge city and I don't think we want to spread ourselves too thin.

Caveat: I don't think that OC makes a lot of sense from a purely commuter POV, but Ronayne and others who have supported OC over the last couple of decades haven't argued that it does.  The crux of the arguments have been about opening up land around UC for more development, especially the Forgotten Triangle.  And, I think that the argument in this thread has been pretty passenger-focused when it really should be broader and include an examination of how light industry and ancillary services still move goods (still primarily truck-based).  I'm not sure if there is a need for a road between E. 55th and Woodland, but I do support Ronayne's idea that connecting UC to Woodland would be immediately helpful for UC and for the Forgotten Triangle.

 

But, I'll try to answer the questions.  I'd like to think that I am not "either disingenuous, totally uninformed... or both."

 

1.  How is OC helpful to an area where most residents don't own cars and use transit anyway?: It is helpful in that it increases southwest to northeast connections for truck traffic into UC in ways that don't rely on making awkward jogs around E. 105th or cutting through neighborhood streets.  Think of it as similar to the Bessemer Extension that took trucks out of St. Hyacinth.

 

2. If OC really is about helping the Forgotten Triangle, why is such an emphasis made on this helping U.Circle... Because politically, folks generally care more about UC than FT.  It's pretty mercenary, but there it is.

 

3. Explain to me how this will NOT HURT the Red Line, since it will parallel it with a high-speed freeway-type road that will encourage commuters (esp the many who currently use the Red Line to get to work at UH, CWRU and other U.Circle institutions)? Again, I don't think that a UC to Woodland connector will make a significant difference for road commuters, but it is more for opening land southwest of UC that could be used for development that supports UC and helps FT

 

This answer should suffice for questions 4 and 5.

 

6. Why is Cleveland talking about building more freeway-roads when gas prices are headed toward $5.00/gallon and more and when RTA is strapped for cash? It's not a freeway.

 

7. Name a city (other than St. Paul, as the PD did, which has no rapid transit system) that actually has high-speed, rapid transit, esp to the same exact corridor, where the city is building roads to compete with the transit line.... Dallas, with the North Central Expressway that competes with DART.  Then again, if only the Woodland-UC section is built, then this question is irrelevant.

 

8. If the Forbidden Triangle is in such need, how come its ills not be solved on the existing road grid?  Where has it been shown that the current roads, as they exist, are holding the FT back? Because,other than the just-built Bessemer Extension helping the southern part of FT, any truck access to FT requires going from E. 55th through Grand Ave. to Kinsman or up through Woodland Ave.  The whole area is built for rail access back when there were spurs to every factory, but I don't see those days coming back even if gas prices stay high or go up higher.  Back when rail was king, there were no competing large trucks of scale.  Now, it would probably still be more efficient for trucks to handle short-haul, regional goods movement.  Woodland itself is narrow and a mess, too difficult to navigate even on a bike with existing traffic.

 

9. Isn’t development of commercial areas, investment and TOD things that would be more effective for residents?...  Yep, and you need road access to move goods that can be made by folks who get to work via bus/rail.  It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

 

10. There’ve been suggestions that money people, like the Ratners, stand to make $$$$ off OC because of land interests in the area – prove this ISN’T the case. Oh COME ON.  First, you can't prove a negative.  Second, anybody who is a developer stands to make money, otherwise they wouldn't be in the game.

 

By the bye, I'm a bike and transit guy living in Tremont who maybe uses 8 gallons of gas a month, if that.  So, I'm not coming at this from a suburban POV.

Yes, but again our problem is that many of our main East West roads from downtown Cleveland to UC have already been transformed into freeways whether we like it or not.  That will never promote development.  Euclid used to be the same but thank God, not any more.  We could never do BRT along Carnegie and Chester because of the state those road are travelled now. 

 

 

Doesn't this point go against the OC?   I mean if infrastructure already exists, connecting downtown to UC with a bunch of vacant or misused land, why waste hundreds of millions of dollars on ANOTHER road with MORE vacant and/or misused land?  What will happen to Carnegie, Chester, etc? 

 

It really isn't that bad driving over there-it's not like we have Mumbai traffic.

 

This $$ should be spent of correcting the shoreway and innerbelt-or hell, replacing the pot-hole filled streets in Tremont and Ohio City.  Even our best neighborhoods are far from their full potential-we're not a huge city and I don't think we want to spread ourselves too thin.

 

Sure, don't build it if you want Carnegie and Chester to continue being used as freeways and basically feeder roads to UC and DT. 

Carnegie and Chester are only 2 roads on the entire east side.  Right now, one would suffice as a feeder as the population in the area isn't producing gridlock  24/7 or even DURING rush hour.  These streets are wide enough to accomodate local and commuter traffic and there's enough wasted land between and around these streets to be redeveloped.

While petroleum based transportation systems may be on their way out the infrastructure that supports our cars will continue to be used for whatever alternative they come up with.  Natural gas, electric, hydrogen... all of these fuels will be used to power four-wheeled vehicles which will continue to use our nations awesome highway system to get around.

 

Don't you think it makes sense to learn to swim before you build a swimming pool in your backyard?

 

There is no "Plan B" for the post-petroleum economy. Hydogen is fools gold. Natural gas production is in decline in the U.S. and faces the same constraints as oil. And electricity? Do you realize how many cars there are on the roads -- just in this country? Do you realize how much the power grid would have to be beefed up to accommodate an electrical car fleet? Whatever we attempt will be done on the platform of petroleum as the launching point. That platform is crumbling.

 

 

Your argument that we shouldn't build this because petroleum supplies are dwindling doesn't hold any water.  We will continue to use this infrastructure, allbeit less, for generations to come.

 

For what, roller skating?

Caveat: I don't think that OC makes a lot of sense from a purely commuter POV, but Ronayne and others who have supported OC over the last couple of decades haven't argued that it does. The crux of the arguments have been about opening up land around UC for more development, especially the Forgotten Triangle. And, I think that the argument in this thread has been pretty passenger-focused when it really should be broader and include an examination of how light industry and ancillary services still move goods (still primarily truck-based). I'm not sure if there is a need for a road between E. 55th and Woodland, but I do support Ronayne's idea that connecting UC to Woodland would be immediately helpful for UC and for the Forgotten Triangle.

 

Time out, why are we shifting back to truck access when, again, our fuel supply is limited (and in the long run finite anyway) and we should be searching for alternative energy sources and transp modes?  And speaking of modes, one will note that the FT is laced with all kind of main line railroad access -- the many crumbling derelict and, indeed, demolished factories (like the Schlitz brewery where JCC is rising) attest to the fact that railroad access, for centuries, established FT as a prime area for industrial/commercial development.  So why can't these same rails be utilized for the goods & services for light industry you talk about?

 

But hey Avogadro, even though I disagree, many props for at least taking time to thoughtfully answer my Qs.

 

Do you realize how much the power grid would have to be beefed up to accommodate an electrical car fleet?

 

On the power generation side, a study was recently done by Pacific Northwest National Laboratories estimating that 84% of the current cars on the road in America (198M) could be powered by excess (off-peak) capacity in the system, if those cars were plug-in hybrids.  The idea with a plug-in hybrid (phev) is like a current hybrid, but with a larger battery that chargeable via a home outlet, therefore enabling gasoline free travel for upwards of 50 miles.

 

Defining PHEV's>

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/plugin_hybrids.html

Pacific Northwest Energy Labs Study > http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

 

Also Natural Gas does not face that same constraints as petrol as it can be produced through anaerobic (sans oxygen) digestion of organic materials, such as human and animal waste.  The Franklin County landfill (SWACO) and a composting facility in Akron are two local examples of renewable methane.

 

 

Carnegie and Chester are only 2 roads on the entire east side. Right now, one would suffice as a feeder as the population in the area isn't producing gridlock 24/7 or even DURING rush hour. These streets are wide enough to accomodate local and commuter traffic and there's enough wasted land between and around these streets to be redeveloped.

 

Amen!  ... in point of fact, Carnegie is SO underutilized these days, even during rush our, that Cleveland junked it's long standing 1-way, rush hour lighted arrows and have permanently made Carnegie a 2-way street... So yeah, where is all this debilitating gridlock that's literally choking off the access to Univ. Circle we keep hearing about? 

 

Cleveland’s Unique in having 3 major roadways to 1 compact area (U.Circle) in Euclid, Chester and Carnegie, the latter 2 were built wide and for higher speeds (and timed traffic lights).  In most cities, there’s only 1 such road.  Plus, nobody has offered a reason as to how supposedly difficult and time consuming it is for West Siders to hop off the Inner Belt and zip up Chester or Carnegie to U. Circle. 

 

Once again OCer’s WEAKEN their argument by mixing apples and oranges: If Inner Belt Bridge capacity is the issue, then the issue CAN’T be the lack of access to U. Circle, and vice-versa.

 

I still haven't heard an answer as to how this "thing" is going to be paid for and maintained.

I still haven't heard an answer as to how this "thing" is going to be paid for and maintained.

 

Duh, how can you forget that in this state, money grows on trees when it comes to roads and highways! This thing will be a go as long as a  _RT acronym isn't included!  :wink:

Carnegie and Chester are only 2 roads on the entire east side.  Right now, one would suffice as a feeder as the population in the area isn't producing gridlock  24/7 or even DURING rush hour.  These streets are wide enough to accomodate local and commuter traffic and there's enough wasted land between and around these streets to be redeveloped.

 

Amen!  ... in point of fact, Carnegie is SO underutilized these days, even during rush our, that Cleveland junked it's long standing 1-way, rush hour lighted arrows and have permanently made Carnegie a 2-way street... So yeah, where is all this debilitating gridlock that's literally choking off the access to Univ. Circle we keep hearing about?  

 

Cleveland’s Unique in having 3 major roadways to 1 compact area (U.Circle) in Euclid, Chester and Carnegie, the latter 2 were built wide and for higher speeds (and timed traffic lights).  In most cities, there’s only 1 such road.  Plus, nobody has offered a reason as to how supposedly difficult and time consuming it is for West Siders to hop off the Inner Belt and zip up Chester or Carnegie to U. Circle. 

 

Once again OCer’s WEAKEN their argument by mixing apples and oranges: If Inner Belt Bridge capacity is the issue, then the issue CAN’T be the lack of access to U. Circle, and vice-versa.

 

 

Exactly my Point!  It is used as a freeway moreso than a city street.  It has high traffic during rush hour periods, hence the width of the road which offers for no logical means for urban redevelopment.  Narrowing the road would be a nightmare in that it is used as a freeway for rush hour traffic therefore causing gridlock during peak hours.  It is the exact definition of a feeder road.  Alleviate the traffic off of Carnegie and Chester and you could actually make it a nice narrow dense street for BRT.  Take a ride down any one of Clevelands freeways and they are void of any traffic at 8 PM(71, 480, 90).  Carnegie and Chester are the same way.  But as we have talked about on this forum so many times, wide roads offer no means for redevelopment.   

 

Again, no one answered my question.  Would it be feasible to turn Carnegie and Chester into one lane traffic BRT roads in the current state that traffic is along them now?

Time out, why are we shifting back to truck access when, again, our fuel supply is limited (and in the long run finite anyway) and we should be searching for alternative energy sources and transp modes?  And speaking of modes, one will note that the FT is laced with all kind of main line railroad access -- the many crumbling derelict and, indeed, demolished factories (like the Schlitz brewery where JCC is rising) attest to the fact that railroad access, for centuries, established FT as a prime area for industrial/commercial development.  So why can't these same rails be utilized for the goods & services for light industry you talk about?

 

Main line railroad access is a good thing for transporting large quantities of goods all at once.  And, at some point, when manufacturing is ramped up from light to heavy, it absolutely makes sense to take advantage of existing rail access.  But, when it comes to ancillary development that would either support UC development (in terms of making products that take advantage of UC-derived intellectual property, or the basic nuts-and-bolts of supporting daily operations of all of those offices, hospitals, and classrooms), one will still be relying on trucks to move goods.  Rail access for such a short haul doesn't seem efficient, unless RTA allows the Red Line to be used for short haul, small capacity, just-in-time cars that will still need to be offloaded onto rubber-tired vehicles that will probably not be run on gasoline, but could be electric.

 

I don't see, given the historic truculence of Big Rail towards sharing access with short-line haulers, a way for the existing rail access to be used to move stuff from FT to UC or back again.  Roads will still be needed.  The historic establishment of industry in FT was not predicated on light industry but on moving really heavy stuff. Also, keep in mind that in Cleveland's manufacturing hey-day, trailer trucks did not exist.  If you wanted to move these medium-sized quantities, you used either multiple small trucks, or you waited until you had to get enough stuff where it would make sense to employ a train.  Now that we are accustomed to JIT, I don't see us going back.

 

Regarding maintenance, since it will be a state road, it will have to be maintained by ODOT.  Wouldn't you rather have ODOT spend money on building infrastructure in an already-developed area and pay for its maintenance (thereby sparing some traffic on city roads sloppily maintained by the city) than on exurban highways?  ODOT would probably kick in the same proportion as it is for the InnerBelt.  Yes, I know what a disaster ODOT is, but it makes sense to distract them from projects such as the Avon interchange.

Ok, besides the fact that the OC could possibly be a catalyst for development in the FT, I see this as mainly benefiting commuters from the westside and southside.The 10 minutes or 15 minutes that this would possibly save would not be an issue for someone going to UC to see a medical specialist or take a day trip to visit a musuem or go to a concert. However I think that if the OC was to cut 10 -15 minutes off the commute Lorain County or Summit County would look much more appealling on a day by day basis.