and if we can't even find a way to pay for OC?  Who's going to pay to completely redevelop carnegie or chester for BRT... particuarly when either is a whopping one block from the BRT on euclid?

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.

 

I think this sums it up for me.  If we are really interested in improving FT, I can think of better ways to spend $300M there.

and if we can't even find a way to pay for OC?  Who's going to pay to completely redevelop carnegie or chester for BRT... particuarly when either is a whopping one block from the BRT on euclid?

 

So now we aer strapped for cash for intelligent transportation systems also?  Tell me, what is the alternative to the opportunity corridor?  There is a need to better connect UC to Cuyahoga county and the rest of Ohio at that.  it is almost getting to the point of not having any freeway access to all of downtown Cleveland.  The daytime working popuilation of U Circle has to be one that is greater than say DT Akron, or DT Toledo.  I really think this area warrents it's own feeder road to and from.  It has a rail line, a BRT, and next a feeder road.  That would be great for out-of-towners.  P{resently they are buliding the RT 8 freeway in Summit County.  I am not at all for that as it contributes to massive sprawl in a huge way.  They are also paying to study the possibilities of extending the 422 freeway to RT 528 in Parkman.  That I am totally against.  But a feeder road through a semi-abandon neighborhood to a thriving bioscience and medical and cultural center, why not.  The destination is there.  It is not as though we are throwing a freeway into cornfields to steal destinations from the inner-city.  UC is getting more and more convention business every year bringing more trucks and visitors via the roads. 

By the way, I can't and won't make an argument for the OC on a congestion basis.  I agree that it doesn't make any sense.  To me, it only makes sense with regard to the redevelopment of the Forgotten Triangle, and this was the original argument for the OC way, way, way back when it was called the "Central Parkway".  But, there wasn't a whole lot of interest in the region on improving the FT, so the "access to University Circle" argument was made.  Yep, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but Joe Westsider and Mary Southsider can get behind this particular issue.

 

I think this sums it up for me.  If we are really interested in improving FT, I can think of better ways to spend $300M there.

 

If you can't easily get trucks (and I'm not talking about tractor trailers but panel trucks) to 93rd and Grand Avenue (epicenter of the FT) without navigating the narrow turn at 55th and Woodland (via I-490) or the E. 105th and Quincy intersection, how will you attract investment, even with $300M (that probably won't be coming from the state)?  There are other ways to weave vehicles around the area, but at considerable cost to residents.

I'm just saying litterally if we can't find a way to pay for OC... how are we supposed to pay to make the two feeders that exist into develop friendly roads?  And if you're not going to do that what's the point?  Honestly what do you think it adds to someone from westlake? 5-7 minutes to get off 90 at 77/9th and hop on carnegie?  There's a better argument for the people coming from south but I just don't care that much... what are we trying to do?  Make it easier for someone to live Mansfield and drive to UC?  These people either have to come for the service... or are commuting.  And if they are commuting I'm not willing to pay 300 million dollars to make their life easier to drive to work, when that money could be spent so much better doing something like say... opening up a lot of communities along the west shoreway to the lakefront by deconstructing a highway and truly seeing economic development take place as a direct result of the project.

 

I don't disagree that there could be better access to UC... but if you want a project that will really do something than at least make sure it relocates the existing rail lines to the middle of the boulevard.  That might actually create economic development and increase rail ridership.  This project does NOTHING for the people of the FT that don't own cars.  Nothing.  And putting a highway boulevard through their front yards which places a bus don't the main artery does nothing but siphon rapid passengers... which will make it even more difficult for us to ever get federal $ for rail, which is a crime in and of itself.

Once again, some OC backers make the same old argument: the Rapid is nice but, ... this is an auto-oriented town/society; I wish it were different...

 

Fine!  Why don't we junk the 'failed' rapid transit experiment, now.  Pull up the tracks and turn it into one of those hiker trails -- we'd have 32 such miles right through our core urban areas!  Hey!... I mean, rapid transit is simply too expensive to maintain and operate with a) a transit chief and administration who's totally against expanding it, and b) an electorate and most Clevelanders (even reflected on this 'urban' website), who take the attitude the Rapid's little more than a cute, Toonerville trolley that, maybe, we'll let the kids have fun on heading down to a Browns game or the like.... But when we REALLY need to get somewhere...

 

So let's open a hiking trail or, perhaps, pave it out for an expanded BRT and freeways.  Make no mistake about it, OCer's can rail till they're blue in the face: the goal is to make this "parkway" a full freeway, ultimately, extend it along the NS tracks to connect up with I-90 in Euclid -- er, that's why the little E.55 stub is called I-490... DUH!!

 

This would complete, sorta, Albert S. Porter's dream: it would complete part of the infamous Clark Freeway (aimed at the Heights/I-271), and the crosstown Heights freeway where it would have had an interchange w/ the Clark at Horseshoe Lake: AKA, that 2-bit duck pond.

 

And then Cleveland can continue sprawling into that Houston/Detroit/Phoenix-like, race-separated, mall-oriented, cul-de-sac breeding, core-less mass of suburbs so many of you seem to want...

I think we should also put things into context, globally, which is where I hope Cleveland is aiming to compete with proposed investments like the OC.

 

In Europe, where fuel prices have been high for years and I would argue there are far superior and more successful rail and public transit linkages, in the EU 27 country average, 81.8% of passenger km are made by passenger car.

 

In countries like France (83.9%) and UK (86.5%) of pkm are made by passenger car.  Urban rail (tram and metro) makes up around 1% of pkm.

Source: http://www.irfnet.eu/media/press_release/statistics/erfeuropean_road_statistics_2008_booklet_150x210mm_v08_press_passenger_transport.pdf

 

For the inland transport of goods, the EU 27 moved 76.7% on roads, 17.7% on rail and the rest on inland waterways (2006).

Source: http://www.irfnet.eu/media/press_release/statistics/erfeuropean_road_statistics_2008_booklet_150x210mm_v08_press_goods_transport.pdf

 

 

I think it is far more likely that we will begin to model the EU forms of land use and transportation systems over the coming decades as fuel prices rise and climate change regulations are implemented, but if the EU is our model, then we will still be making a number of trips by a personal vehicle and via a roadway, and a lot of local shipping will occur over roadways.  Our personal autombiles and trucks may be powered by other sources, we may devise smarter and more efficient ways to combine trips, and the end products may cost more, but I don't see a large number of roadway trips going away in the lifespan a new roadway construction - especially in an urban area -even when gasoline is $7,8,9 or 10 a gallon.

Once again, some OC backers make the same old argument: the Rapid is nice but, ... this is an auto-oriented town/society; I wish it were different...

 

And then Cleveland can continue sprawling into that Houston/Detroit/Phoenix-like, race-separated, mall-oriented, cul-de-sac breeding, core-less mass of suburbs so many of you seem to want...

 

Uh, wow.  That is not my argument at all.  Please read what I am saying with regarding to movement of material goods, and either accept my argument or let me know if there is a more reasonable, efficient (economically and environmentally) way to move goods that cannot be transported via bus/rapid or are in quantities too small to export via rail.

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.

 

I realize the grid has been beefed up since the 2003 blackout, but enough to accommodate our fleets of cars, SUVs and trucks?

 

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.

 

I'm familiar with them. How fast is the turnover? Actually, please post replies at the Peak Oil thread to keep this discussion on topic. My fault for getting this discussion off track.

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.

 

Quote of the day!! at least imho...

I'm just saying litterally if we can't find a way to pay for OC... how are we supposed to pay to make the two feeders that exist into develop friendly roads?  And if you're not going to do that what's the point?  Honestly what do you think it adds to someone from westlake? 5-7 minutes to get off 90 at 77/9th and hop on carnegie?  There's a better argument for the people coming from south but I just don't care that much... what are we trying to do?  Make it easier for someone to live Mansfield and drive to UC?  These people either have to come for the service... or are commuting.  And if they are commuting I'm not willing to pay 300 million dollars to make their life easier to drive to work, when that money could be spent so much better doing something like say... opening up a lot of communities along the west shoreway to the lakefront by deconstructing a highway and truly seeing economic development take place as a direct result of the project.

 

I don't disagree that there could be better access to UC... but if you want a project that will really do something than at least make sure it relocates the existing rail lines to the middle of the boulevard.  That might actually create economic development and increase rail ridership.  This project does NOTHING for the people of the FT that don't own cars.  Nothing.  And putting a highway boulevard through their front yards which places a bus don't the main artery does nothing but siphon rapid passengers... which will make it even more difficult for us to ever get federal $ for rail, which is a crime in and of itself.

 

I see your point of saving minimal time for Joe Westsider.  My point earlier today was that this really doesn't do much for the traveller on the local level other than changing their commute pattern to take them through the forgotten triangle versus down Carnegie or Chester.  That was my argument as to why this will not lead to more sprawl.  Carnegie or Chester would not lose any business simply because there is not any business's along there that the commuters support.  Rather FT has everything to benifit.  By redirecting the commuting pattern and opening a front door to Kinsman/93rd, investment can finally be made in that area. 

 

Also, for the out-of-town commuters, it provides them a much easier link to UC.  That's all.  To me, this isn't an "evil freeway" to cornfields.  This could/would actually be a sensible freeway in that it would open doors to once thriving neighborhoods by re-directing commuting patterns.  Therefore, in theory, Carnegie and Chester are no longer neede for the UC commuter and could then be narrowed to promote more redevelopment along those stretches.  In my mind, everyone wins.

 

Also, in my opinion, the people taking the bus and rapid now would not quit using that mode of transportaion simply because this feeder road would not offer a reason to.  Again, it is simply redirecting the commuters along an inner city outer-belt. 

 

If you can't easily get trucks (and I'm not talking about tractor trailers but panel trucks) to 93rd and Grand Avenue (epicenter of the FT) without navigating the narrow turn at 55th and Woodland (via I-490) or the E. 105th and Quincy intersection, how will you attract investment, even with $300M (that probably won't be coming from the state)?  There are other ways to weave vehicles around the area, but at considerable cost to residents.

 

Fair point.  So is the FT really cut out for industrial use if it is going to require $300M just for access?  And if that is really our goal, could we not build a much cheaper 2-lane bypass road from Grand to I-490 (something similar to the Bessemer extension)?

If you said, this project is announced to include streetscaping, reduction of lanes, commercial development geared towards the residential base on Carnegie, Quincy, Central & Chester, as well as funding for home/neighborhood improvements for the blocks in between 105-55 Streets, I might be in favor.

 

But this doesn't address the problem of getting working people and those that work in UC to live Fairfax, Hough and Central.  Nor a plan to bring in new or retain businesses that current and new residents would bring.

Fair point.  So is the FT really cut out for industrial use if it is going to require $300M just for access?  And if that is really our goal, could we not build a much cheaper 2-lane bypass road from Grand to I-490 (something similar to the Bessemer extension)?

 

Good question.  FT was cut out for industrial use way-back-when, but not so much now for present-day industrial needs.  If it isn't used for industrial, then for what will it be used?  Residential would require a much higher standard to be achieved for brownfield reclamation, commercial is a non-starter, given the low density and low incomes of surrounding neighborhoods, and parkland/ecological restoration would be really great, but you would want to do it in the context of redevelopment.

 

I personally think that six lanes is damned excessive and unnecessary, but two lanes might be too few.  How about 3.5?  (The original plan was for a four lane parkway, if'n I recall correctly.

 

But this doesn't address the problem of getting working people and those that work in UC to live Fairfax, Hough and Central.  Nor a plan to bring in new or retain businesses that current and new residents would bring.

 

Isn't that what UC is doing already?

Also, in my opinion, the people taking the bus and rapid now would not quit using that mode of transportaion simply because this feeder road would not offer a reason to.  Again, it is simply redirecting the commuters along an inner city outer-belt.  

 

Yes they would.  I'll bet evidence from this City has shown that, each time a West Side freeway was extended (I-480, I-71, I-90 West) that roughly parallel to the Red Line, ridership dropped.  OC's extension to I-490 would offer a continued, highspeed roadway from the upper West Side & burbs (along I-90 West) directly to University Circle.  I'm sure a lot of Red Line riders would be persuaded to blow off the Rapid for the "convenience" of their cars.

Isn't that what UC is doing already?

 

Where in Fairfax or Central?  They are starting to do things in northern Hough.

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.

 

So the law's geared toward building more roads to clean up Superfund sites, but to hell with the thousands of people who ride through there each day on Red Line trains?  ... er, makes a lot of sense.  If that's the case, what about similar sites along the Shoreway/Lakeland freeway adjacent the NS line?

 

This road to me is about opening up access to people that are coming from the area south of Cleveland.  It is a bit tricky to get to the UC or Cleveland Hts area coming from Medina, Summit, or Portage counties.  If there were to be a quick boulevard off of I-77 that would roll into that area it would definitely be well used and would take a lot of traffic off of 77 on its way to the innerbelt. 

 

It doesn't sound like a bad idea as long as its kept a boulevard and given neighborhood access and used for redevelopment of that area. 

 

 

This road to me is about opening up access to people that are coming from the area south of Cleveland.  It is a bit tricky to get to the UC or Cleveland Hts area coming from Medina, Summit, or Portage counties.  If there were to be a quick boulevard off of I-77 that would roll into that area it would definitely be well used and would take a lot of traffic off of 77 on its way to the innerbelt. 

 

It doesn't sound like a bad idea as long as its kept a boulevard and given neighborhood access and used for redevelopment of that area. 

 

 

 

That is the point I keep making.  This isn't to help the neighborhood, this is to make an EASY ACCESS THRU SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS.  It's be damn what the people live in this neighborhood want or how it will affect them.  I bet if ODOT announced that they were planning an "opportunity corridor" in Medina, Summit, or Portage counties, those folks would go to the end of the earth to stop it!

 

Sometimes easing access through neighborhoods can help neighborhoods.

From the plans it looks like the road will look like a highway, with no chance for new offices or homes or businesses to open up on the actual road, which means it'll end up being a huge driveway for the clinic similar to what MLK is on the North side of the circle. In fact that's how I think this road will end up except without the beautiful old houses, trees and stone bridges.

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.

 

Not in the context stated.  Superfund sites aren't causing suburbanites to avoid driving through areas like Carnegie or moving to the inner ring.

 

Still, I would agree with you that that's the biggest issue with development in the city or inner ring, but I would support revising the requirements for further land use to allow containment rather than cleanup of low toxicity contamination.  I would also recommend a complete waiver of potential CERCLA liability for new businesses locating in areas with unemployment rates more than 150% of the national average, provided their workforce meets established criteria and they achieve ISO 14000 certification with an RAB (or perhaps even EPA) approved registrar within a two year period.

 

As for the OC, I actually agree with MTS.  I don't see where the money is going to come from to build it and don't see it as that critical.  Of course, if I was still going to the Circle on a regular basis I might feel differently.  :)

I was away on vacation when the Ronayne/PD article came out, so I missed the fun. 

 

Ronayne did not do a good job expressing where the visitor traffic comes from and neither has anybody on this thread.  On the last occasion when I was in the Crile building at the Cleveland Clinic, I talked to users from Trumbull County and Kane, PA--obviously they were highway users.  I cannot see otherwise in my lifetime.

 

It's been charged that this boulevard would be a gimmick to get the professionals an easy commute from the west suburbs of Cleveland that connect with I-90/I-490.  That's a fair charge.  But I would like to see the alternative transportation.  I could see that commuters should use the BRT Health Line.  They could buy housing stock in Wade Park or East Cleveland.  I am skeptical, although I am sure that homes with access to BRT will go up in value.  That may be a stimulus for East Cleveland, but not a lot of professionals are going to buy there.  The Health Line could take them to Terminal Tower and they could change seats to get on the Red Line west to a park and ride or to home.  They could transfer to any of the huge number of busses at that hub.  They *could* change seats--what's the probability?

 

It would be nice if the hybrid transit vehicle could leap the Cuyahoga Gorge and take them home.  Well, that function is already in place with the RTA Red Line train that shoots through Terminal Tower on its way west.  Professionals would be happy to jump in their cars at a park and ride that was "near home".  Problem with the Red Line is that it does not serve the Cleveland Clinic.  Could use a north-south bus, but that gets us back to the problem of changing seats.  Walking outside. 

 

No supplier of equipment or professional services  coming from beyond the metropolitan area is going to come to the UC neighborhood on any transit system.  For that matter, a supplier from inside the city is going to need a highway to deliver a van full of "something".  Sorry.  I gather from Ronayne that there should be a lot of such supplier visits to the spin off companies that he is dreaming of.

 

If the OC highway would obviate the need to hugely expand capacity by building the second Innerbelt bridge over the Cuyahoga, it would be worth it.  I hate everything about the relocations involved to add that bridge.  By the time they firm up plans for that bridge, motoring will have fallen off another 4%, and gasoline tax receipts will drop precipitously.  ODOT will see that traffic is falling off.  They will have the bridge plans on the desk, be ready to start the project and ask themselves: "what the hell are we thinking?" 

Note the funding request for the Opportunity Corridor below.....

 

http://www.cleveland.com/westsidesun/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1231445328181590.xml&coll=4

 

Cleveland submits wish list of projects for federal funds

Thursday, January 08, 2009

By Ken Prendergast

[email protected]

West Side Sun News

 

Among $1.56 billion worth of infrastructure projects submitted by the city for federal economic stimulus funds, Mayor Frank Jackson singled out four projects as his highest priorities.

 

..........

 

Jackson submitted his 66-project list Dec. 22 to President-elect Barack Obama, Gov. Ted Strickland and Ohio's Congressional Delegation. In it, he highlighted these four projects:

 

+ $350 million for construction of a new westbound Innerbelt-Central Viaduct (Interstate 90) bridge over the Cuyahoga River valley.

 

+ $50 million for repair of the slumping Riverbed Road hillside in Ohio City which threatens to close the Cuyahoga River to shipping traffic.

 

+ $300 million for the Opportunity Corridor boulevard from Interstate 490 to University Circle.

 

+ $30 million for rebuilding the West Shoreway (state Route 2) between West 25th Street and Clifton Boulevard.

 

.....

is this deja vu? I've seen this information before.  :wink:

 

This project should not go get a green light.  Use the money for Transit instead and police!

Police? This is capital money, not operating money.

Police? This is capital money, not operating money.

 

I don't care!  Nothing should be allocated to this dumb@ss project!

Then suggest an appropriate alternative if you want your valid criticism taken seriously.

Then suggest an appropriate alternative if you want your valid criticism taken seriously.

 

Already done that chief!  ;)

How much more funding do you want these neighborhoods to get?  They get block grants, economic improvement grants, and any other kind of grant under the sun.  Why should further UC development be stifled simply because these neighborhoods are unstable? 

 

While I am not a big proponent of the trickle down theory, I do believe that further expansion/growth of UC will only contribute to a better situation for the surrounding neighborhoods.  Look what has happened with the Clinic.  They offer tremendous incentives for employees to live in the surrounding neighborhoods. 

 

I am just very opposed to stifling growth on account of lower-income neighborhoods.  There is no silver bullet to the situation, and I firmly believe that increased funding to these neighborhoods are not going to make a difference. 

 

Why not look at the bigger picture and consider Cleveland the poor neighborhood?  Thus, any project/growth that contributes to the city economy is a positive thing. 

I may get lit up for it, but I like this project.  The way 490 ends where it does just screams out Mistake.  No, I don't want a freeway through Shaker Lakes.  At all.  But the road setup around UC is terrible and this would improve it.  Everyone talks about how this road would help Avon pick up UC workers.  I can't deny that, but it's not like that isn't happening anyway.

 

The larger effect of this road will be increasing access to everywhere else for residents of UC and Cleveland Heights.  It makes those communities much more attractive by reducing their isolation. I think it will result in a significant net gain for the greater UC area.  In general I don't support road expansion when we need to rebuild our transit network.  But in Cleveland, the road system is highly unbalanced and that needs correcting, independent of car vs. transit questions.

If it is an Avenue, I'm in.  If it is a freeway, I'm out.

 

Is there any firm plans yet on where it would evenutally end?  Im guessing it will start where I-490 ends

Sorry for the big image -- scroll right to see where all the route alternatives end up (on East 105th). I believe Alternative 4 was the favored option...

Thanks, KJP for the refresher!

 

The larger effect of this road will be increasing access to everywhere else for residents of UC and Cleveland Heights.  It makes those communities much more attractive by reducing their isolation.

 

UC and Cleveland Heights isolated?  Serious question: is this really how non east-side Cuy. County people view these communities?    Even with the major arterial roadways that serve them?

EDIT:  misread the areas in question.

Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights remain excellent cities, probably due to the fact that they are "isolated" from freeway exits and sh!tty strip malls that define the the edge of freeways.  Is this point not obvious?

Nothing with as many lights as Chester, Carnegie, Mayfield, Cedar, etc can be considered arterial in light of what the west side has as arterials (90, 71, shoreway).  The east side has its own outerbelt and that's it.  Yes, I'm saying that the central east side is hurt by poor freeway access.  The internet age hasn't been kind to urbanization any more than the freeway age was, but we don't run away from computers.  Compared with Lakewood, Cleveland Heights is woefully isolated from other parts of the area.  Given that there is a freeway system, and given that it will still be an important part of life and commerce until we can lay down billions worth of train tracks, this critical part of town needs to be accessible to the freeway system.  We can't stick our heads in the sand and wish the automotive age away at this point. 

 

Inaccessible and isolated is how many EAST side Cuyahoga people view these communities.  Experiment with a stopwatch if you think they're nuts.  Anything we can do to increase access to UC is a good thing.  Even if we prefer better methods, increasing access remains a good thing.  There's no sense in hating all roads for the sake of hating all roads. 

Alternative 4- Of course!  Whatever tears through the most urban fabric is what the ODOT planners will prefer!

Freeways have been around for 60 years or so.  The Heights during that time, and even today is one of the most vibrant parts of town. 

Do you honestly feel that the heights is suffereing?  Is a town like Euclid, where I grew up is thriving becasue if the 4 freeway exits it has? 

 

Please correct me if I misunderstood your post. 

Brookpark has great highway access, so does Maple Heights.

Freeways have been around for 60 years or so.  The Heights during that time, and even today is one of the most vibrant parts of town. 

Do you honestly feel that the heights is suffereing?  Is a town like Euclid, where I grew up is thriving becasue if the 4 freeway exits it has? 

 

Please correct me if I misunderstood your post. 

 

I think the heights always will be one of the most vibrant parts of town.  I also think it's fairly clear that it's declined in recent decades, and I think we all agree that UC during those same decades has been lacking the vibrancy we'd like it to have.  I think with better access the UC/Heights area could be much more vibrant than it is today, maybe competive in vibrancy with the (highly accessible, I'm just saying) area around OSU main campus.  No, Case isn't nearly that big, but throw in all the other UC offerings and the Clinic and there's reason to expect the two areas might top out similarly.  Ours would be need to be more adult/professional focused instead of catering to freshmen hordes, but vibrancy comes in many forms.  We can have more of the party atmosphere downtown, which Columbus can't match.

 

I also think that without the good access it has, Euclid would have looked like East Cleveland for the past 20 years.

I think you think exactly like someone from ODOT, you obviously are very highway oriented and want to move traffic as quickly as possible.  I think the decisions that ODOT has made over the last 50 years which are very much in line with your way of thinking have been the biggest mistake in the city and have borderline crippled it.  Moving people as quickly as humanly possible from point A to point B does not make good cities.

 

Does access need to be improved? Yes.  Would something as KJP's proposal which shows an intersected boulevard with (eghast) stop lights, and a relocation of the redline help... you bet.  But throwing a freeway in extending 490 into UC wouldn't do anything for the forgotten triangle area, and would hurt UC as much as it would help it.

And as for any decline of the Heights: how is it different from the decline of Lakewood, with its great freeway access?  Note also that the situation in the Heights is complicated by intricate/complex racial dynamics that I have trouble imagining would be altered much by improved freeway access.

 

It's not a large sample size, but I don't think anyone I grew up with in the Heights thought of it as being isolated, because it was close to UC and an easy commute (via Rapid or Chester/Carnegie) to Downtown.  Which makes me think the Opportunity Corridor really is about shortening the "harrowing" commute to UC that folks outside the Heights have.  Which I'm not sure is worth $X hundred million.

Those are some mighty thick lines on that Alternatives map. 

 

And yes, UC and Cleveland Heights are considered isolated by Clevelanders on the west side, and really anyone on the east side who doesn't live in a community or neighborhood that does not border those locations.  I maintain that Chester Ave is a fine arterial road that gets the job done.  It is hard to get to, however, from the west side.  This road would provide relief for the innerbelt.  Having been through the area ignored... err.. "served" by this proposed road recently, I must admit that the configuration of the streets in this area is mind-bogglingly awful.  I'm back on the fence about it.

I am not highway oriented at all.  I use transit a lot more than I drive, based on principle, even when it's less convenient.  I also don't oppose all highways just because they're highways, and I don't believe good traffic flow within cities is bad for them.  Quite the contrary.  I see a huge difference between a new interchange in Avon (which I'm totally against) and a new highway increasing the connectivity among several dense urban areas.  That's the reason I support this project and question the west shoreway conversion.  Like somebody's tagline mentions, Cleveland is not an apple but a bunch of grapes.  The better the linkages between those grapes, the stronger the overall city. 

 

Being able to move people from A to B as quickly as possible is beneficial no matter what, because capability beats incapability.  It was true long before highways and it led to the development of mass transit as well.  Ease of getting around does not alone make for good cities, but there's absolutely no way it hurts.  Slowness and frustration are not values, while getting where you need to go is.  I see no benefit from forcing people to sit in traffic for one moment longer than they need to.  The "B" in A to B doesn't have to be Avon-- that's a separate issue.  A person going to from UC to Tremont instead would get the exact same benefit from this road.  That is good for Tremont and good for UC.

 

To expand on Matches' point, the area proposed for this has apparently been lacking in "urban fabric" forever.  It's an unfortunate mess of suburban-style dead ends.  I don't see what harm could come from giving it a thru street. 

because they aren't talking about a street with interesections coming off 490 that benefits everyone... they are talking about a thoroughfare with basically no street lights... which benefits no one really except some cars flying from point A to point B.  Done correctly this could be a great project that reinvigorates the neighborhoods around it while improving "connectivity".  Done as basically an extension of 490, it does nothing but further decimate this neighborhood and make it easier for people who live in the far flung reaches of the west side.

 

Sorry... often times good urban development inconveniences the automobile.  Too bad if people have to wait a couple extra minutes at the occasional stop light.

I disagree that even as a 490 extension it would do "nothing but" benefit the western extremities.  It would benefit any place with access to it.  That would include at minimum UC, Tremont, Broadway and E55th.  Those are all currently benefited by 490 as is, except for UC.

 

Tremont in particular would be in deep doo doo right now if not for 490.  Weren't Tremont business owners recently out protesting the lack of access to their neighborhood?  Obviously they should all go work for ODOT.  These are all inner-city entrepreneurs, so explain to them how good urban development should make their area harder for people to get to, from other parts of Cleveland itself.  I have a feeling those (fully urban) people love 490 and would love even more if a longer 490 could bring them some lunch business from UC.

 

Hopefully there would also be a couple more access points on the OCB, be they intersections or not.  Stop lights aren't the only way to get pedestrians across a street, they're just the most annoying way.  I realize they were invented by a Clevelander and I should be more respectful of them for that reason, but sorry I really hate stop lights.

 

And... making this thing the primary connector between the west side and UC should get a lot of traffic off of Chester, which should make Chester more suitable for all the residential development we'd like to see there.  It's win-win.  Besides money (a more troubling issue), all we'd lose by building this is a shred of the current fabric of the embarassingly awful forgotten triangle.

You and i could not possibly disagree and transportation solutions any more.  I'm serious, it's not possible.  Which is fine, you are completely entitled to your opinion.  I just think your way of thinking has been destroying cities for decades.  The only reason that Tremont is so dependent on that Highway exit is because 90 and 490 have both already destroyed a good portion of that neighborhood and cut it off from the rest of society.  Now about the only way to possibly access it is by one of those exits.  The bottome line is that there are far better solutions for providing access to somewhere like UC without destroying the neighborhood with some ridiculous highway.  Ahhhh but who cares about the triangle anyway, those people are poor and don't count.  You can just build a pedestrian bridge connecting one side of the ghetto to another over the highway... should give the kids a nice place to practice their rock throwing skills.

Which makes me think the Opportunity Corridor really is about shortening the "harrowing" commute to UC that folks outside the Heights have. Which I'm not sure is worth $X hundred million.

 

The Corridor would benefit West-siders who commute to UC... not so much east siders going anywhere.  Maybe it would shave 5-10 minutes off our trip to Hopkins.  I can think of better ways to spend that money... but I ain't turning it down either if offered.

It is not fair to extrapolate from any of these arguments that I support what the freeway system did to the city, or that I would rank freeways over transit like ODOT does.  My attitude towards the existing trasportation infrastructure has something to do with spilt milk and something to do with making lemonade.  You and I may differ greatly on how to get there, but I think we both have the same goal: a city built around walking and mass transit, with cars and trucks serving much smaller roles than they do today.

 

As for the people who live in the forgotten triangle-- I bet they like thru streets as much as anybody else does.  I don't think they don't count.  Putting 271 through Beachwood doesn't mean people in Beachwood don't count...?  I'm not even sure what that means.  Are you saying people like the forgotten triangle as it is now?  I just don't see much functional urban layout there to begin with.