"If our only hope for cleaning the abandoned, polluted, industrial sites along the Red Line on the east side is to build a road through them, then we have truly failed our urban areas."

 

I think its obvious that we have failed that area of the city. 

 

Looks like there are some serious hurdles to overcome if this project is to go forward.  Brancatelli's worries are the biggest concern.  I would bet that the project would not go forward if the Slavic Village takes are not lowered considerably.

 

The article mentions four churches.  I believe those are non-traditional church structures (empty storefronts renovated for church use).

 

 

 

I mentioned to Joe Cimperman the idea of putting the Red Line down the middle of the Opportunity Corridor. Getting the Red Line out of that trench would provide people at stations in that area a greater sense of visibility and security while giving better access to new job sites. His response was that that sort of inclusive thinking is needed for projects of this type. We'll see how inclusive ODOT's thinking is.

 

I wonder how much in the past ODOT has partnered with RTA.

Maybe not, but it would allow them to tap federal transit funds to pay for some infrastructure while keeping more of their precious federal highway funds for other projects.

If the following were implemented (see maps below), it could save RTA operating and maintenance costs by:

1. having the Red, Blue and Green lines share more right of way, thus reducing the track-miles and overhead catenary wires/structures that need to be maintained;

2. exchanging two or possibly three bi-level stations (with their escalators, stairs, more substantial structures, etc) with single-level stations;

3. eliminating the need to maintain substantial bridge structures on the Blue/Green lines between East 55th and East 93rd;

4. Only two existing stations, the East 79th stations on both the Red and Blue/Green lines, would need to be closed, replaced by one new, single-level station at the intersection of East 79th and the new boulevard.

 

Plus, RTA should gain new ridership with:

1. safer, more visible station locations (rather than the existing Red Line stations in the railroad trench);

2. improved access for transit riders to existing and potential residential and employment locations "across the street" from, and at the same elevation of the new Red/Blue/Green line;

3. easier/faster to travel by rail between Shaker Heights and University Circle by bringing the transfer point a total of three miles closer to their point of origin/destination;

4. potentially massive TOD opportunies in the vicinity of Buckeye/East 90th as well as along and near East 79th Street;

 

OK, here's the maps from west to east.....

 

 

 

 

 

Frankly, my concern is that if the existing rail transit lines (especially the Red Line) are not rerouted down the Opportunity Corridor, they will be considered redundant to potential bus services that would use the Opportunity Corridor. Then, some in this town will rationalize that the rail lines are no longer needed. I'd rather see our rail services strengthened than be marginalized.

I love the idea of sharing this right-of-way...if the corridor is to have the potential for jobs and housing that it claims to posess, the more multimodal we are, the better!  Anyone who's ever ridden the east-side rail lines has seen the route that these three lines run and how useless it is for a large part of that trip.  It would be amazing to link up a realignment to this project.  And if it could bring in more funding, that makes it even more attractive!  One problem, though, is that there are already a few big capital projects in the works for stations on the Red Line along this route.  Given that this project is about a decade off, this wouldn't be a total waste of money, but I'm curious to see what kind of effect this proposal would have on these investments.

Potentially, there may be no impacts to recent/ongoing station projects. The only two stations that are affected by the realignment are the East 79th stations on both the Red Line and the Blue/Green Lines. To my knowledge, there is no active planning underway for renovating either.

 

The most recent project is the new East 105th/Quincy station, which would be left in place under the scenario I proposed above. However, if the Red Line were continued in the middle of the new boulevard until the boulevard turns north onto East 105th, then that new station would have to be relocated. Instead, I turned the Red Line toward its old alignment before reaching Quincy/East 105th, but that could eliminate (or complicate) a potential development site.

 

The East 55th Station renovation also wouldn't be touched since there is no need to realign the rail lines anywhere near the Central Rail Facility -- which would be hugely expensive to attempt anyway!

 

Nor would I suggest relocating the East 93rd/Woodhill station on the Blue/Green lines in order to potentially save money. But if the acquisition of properties and the demolition of structures on the south side of Buckeye Road proves too expensive or controversial, then the rail line could stay on Buckeye at a low elevation as the lanes for Buckeye rise up the hill on either side of the rail line. In that case, the station might have to be relocated to the east side of East 93rd, between the lanes of Shaker Boulevard. But I'm not aware of major renovation plans for this station, either.

yeah, I was referring specifically to the East 55th Street station project that just went through the concept approval phase with City Planning.  There was mention several times of the effect that the Opportunity Boulevard would have on the station location...this is pretty much where the boulevard would start, correct?

Yes. ODOT proposes having the boulevard head straight east from I-490 at East 55th, which would requiring demolishing numerous homes on the east side of East 55th. In my first diagram, I have the boulevard veering a bit northeast, starting on the west side of East 55th to avoid as many demolitions as possible. However, that brings the boulevard closer to the rail station, but opens up some land on the southwest corner of the I-490/East 55th intersection for development. There are going to be some trade-offs.....

^I believe that that there are some very expensive utilities issues at the northwest corner of E 55th & I-490 that would prevent pushing the blvd to the north.  Additionally, ODOT/HNTB are racking their brains to avoid any as many takes as possible in Slavic Village.  KJP, have you forwarded any of your ideas on to RTA?

Yes. But, they've had less than one day to chew on it. I believe the utilities you speak of is an RTA substation.

 

For any of this happen, ODOT has to get the city's OK first. But the city won't push for something like this if RTA isn't. Thus, RTA must be the first public entity to embrace it (of course, some nudging by affected CDCs couldn't hurt!).

It's proving hard to get RTA's interest in this. Their concern is that the Red/Blue/Green Lines route consolidation for another mile or so wouldn't save them enough operating and maintenance costs to justify RTA spending a large chunk of valuable capital dollars for leverage a federal share. I can understand that. But I think there may be a way for to come up with new capital dollars up front, and get the rest reimbursed....

 

 

Potential sources for an RTA funding share of the Opportunity Corridor rail line

 

Revenue bonds from parking garages at existing or proposed stations to avail space for Transit-Oriented Development. Assumed are two 800-car parking garages. Property acquisition, demolition & construction costs are estimated at $4 million from federal grant leveraged by sale/lease of partial station properties. Net annual revenue from parking garages (80% occupancy@$4/car/day less expenses of one-third gross revenue)=$1.2 million (rounded). $1.2 million per year, at 5% bond interest rate, can retire a 20-year bond issue of about:

... $15 million

 

Sale of 1.25 miles of Blue/Green Line between East 68th Street and Ambler Street (such as to Cuyahoga County for biking/hiking trail construction, or to communications/fiber optics/utility or other uses):

... $1 million to $5 million

 

Sale of 1.5 miles of Red Line between Kinsman Avenue and vicinity of East 105th Street (such as to Cuyahoga County for biking/hiking trail construction, NS for track capacity expansion or industrial track leads, Flats Industrial Railroad for same, communications/fiber optics/utility or other uses):

... $1.25 million to $6 million

 

Scrap value of rails, ties, catenary, wires, East 79th Station(s) materials, hardware, etc. from the above segments (range of 15-30 percent value of new materials):

... $2.5 million to $5 million

 

 

Total $19.75 million to $31 million (RTA contribution)

 

 

Discussion

 

The proposed Opportunity Corridor rail route mileage would be about 2.15 miles. Construction of the Waterfront Line in 1994-96 cost about $70 million for a similar distance. With the Opportunity Corridor, much of the right of way could be provided for the rail line within the new boulevard’s median, saving significant costs. Thus, construction costs for the rail line were assumed to be $20 million to $30 million per mile, or $43 million to $64.5 million. If a 50 percent local share is required for the construction of the Opportunity Corridor rail line, the amount could range from $21.5 million to $32.25 million. If a 25 percent local share is required for the rail line’s construction, the amount could range from $10.75 million to $16.13 million.

I'm so against this.  Another street/highway, no matter how you sugar coated is not needed.

 

that money could be used to build a better rail transportation network and fix current streets

I disagree..I like to think of some of the positives

It better opens up University Circle, to the west side. Cleveland Clinic and all the others are among the cities largest employers and future growth should be supported as much as possible, since the city seems to be banking on biosicence as the new thing.  It remedies brownfields. Opens up that side of town to better industrial development or any type of development.

 

But lets face it the root of the reason for this is because joe westsider, dosent like his commute from westlake to his job in university circle, instead of moving closer to the job.

Yeah, it's no secret that the whole project started as a way to get people from 490 to University Circle -- and that makes me uneasy. However, if you think about the area the new street will go through, there really isn't hope for any other kind of economic stimulus.

I'm still on the fence about it.

But lets face it the root of the reason for this is because joe westsider, dosent like his commute from westlake to his job in university circle, instead of moving closer to the job.

 

A lot of people like to frame the development this way.  However, that is just a part of the reason for the Opportunity Corridor.  Much of the analysis that is going into this project is focusing on opening up and accessing abandoned land along the corridor so that the city can attract and retain more industrical businesses.  The design favors a blvd that creates as much frontage and connections as possible to the 'existing' neighborhoods. Also, its true that the rising employment numbers in the Circle and access to the museums and arts facilities are very important parts of the equation.  The museums think that this project will help Cleveland better support the existing arts instituttions that suffer from a perceived isolation.  Many west siders just don't travel to UC because of its 'crazy and confusing' road system.  By the way, maybe some folks will be interested in attending next Thursday's MLK corridor study as UCI continues its planning to redesign MLK Drive through the Circle.

HELL...THE F'IN WEST SIDERS NEED TO ASK FOR BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND GET OUT OF THEIR F'IN CARS!

 

ohhh....don't get me started..  I'm not in the mood to get my pressure up today!

I have always edged toward favoriing the boulevard and if something like KJP's sketches is considered then I have to say bring it on.

 

As it is though I just kind of worry.  I live in an east side suburb and therefore am prejudiced against the west.  You had me at "Joe Westsider doesn't like his commute from westlake to his job in university circle" and "because of the 'crazy and confusing' road system."  Screw them, if you don't like your commute, live closer.

 

What frightens me is the potential for negative impacts on surrounding places.  Granted, the UC area creating jobs is a good thing and if access from the west side is necessary for it, that's fine.  But how necessary is it?  What worries me is a lot of people living nearby in order to be close to their jobs suddenly decide, "ooh, now I can live in Brecksville or Bay Village" or some other such place because there's a nice corridor here.

 

I don't know the area very well but excuse me for asking, what about making the areas along the boulevard itself a place to live if you with in University Circle?  Using KJP's plan above you have so much more Opportunity for something they are lamely dubbing the "Opportunity Corridor".  Increased transit opportunities - TOD and all that along the corridor would REALLY transform the area more so than just putting in a road.  Add the benefits of better access for West Siders combined with the added visibility for the rail line (especially to those same West Siders) and you have a lot of positives.

I think the reaction to this blvd concept points out exactly why Clevelanders are ignorant as to the issues that this city faces. The whole "let the suburban residents take the bus" argument is not addressing the problem. 

 

 

1.  We are bleeding jobs because we don't have available acreage within the city for new  or expanding industrial businesses.  Whether existing vacant sites are brownfields or are poorly connected to the transportation and utilities network, businesses have much better options in the suburbs.  Our tax base will continue o dwindle unless we create a strategy to attract more business.  The industrial land bank, if implemented, is an excellent idea.

 

2. The "THE F'IN WEST SIDERS NEED TO ASK FOR BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND GET OUT OF THEIR F'IN CARS" argument is not productive.  The arm-twisting style of convincing suburbanites to come to University Circle by bus is never going to work.  C'mon now.  Let's give them another reason to be afraid of Cleveland.

 

3.  "Screw them, if you don't like your commute, live closer."  This is another attitude that will not help bring back residents to Hough, Fairfax, Glenville, etc. Can you imagine if Frank Jackson led off his inaugural address with this type of plan for improving Cleveland?   We need to plan so that people will want to move closer to UC.  Creating better, non-invasive access is just part of the strategy to create a more vibrant Greater University Circle area.  More jobs, better housing options, a calmer and less confusing road pattern, better schools, safer city streets--these things will bring people back into the neighborhoods near University Circle." 

 

The militant, anti--anything-that-doesn't-look-like-NYC attitude is very short-sighted and doesn't address the problems that face Cleveland. I can understand why we don't need more highways in this city, but this project doesn't fit that category.  The Opportunity Boulevard, in the end, may not be a viable strategy.  There are still may issues to study. However, the mentioned reasons for why it should not be built miss the point and ignore the problems that Cleveland faces. 

 

Matches, have you driven the corridor?  What negative impacts could you see?  Overall, its as blown-out as any neighborhood in the US.  Also, TOD is definitely part of the foreseen developments that would be targeted for this area.

Wimwar, you are wise beyond your years!

I might be mistaken, but isn't there already a freeway (the Shoreway) that allows West Siders to get to University Circle???  They bill this POS as a boulevard just so urbanites will greenlight it.  I envision this will end up as a roadway with a 50 mph speed limit which, quite frankly, is another freeway.

 

Cleveland is in the shape it's in because people keep subsidizing sprawl.  Why does anyone think that embracing the status quo is going to change anything?

It depends on what constitutes "West Siders". People who live in Bay, River, Westlake and Lakewood for the most part take I-90 to Chester Avenue or MLK to reach University Circle. Now if you mean West Siders as in the Clifton/Edgewater/Cudell/Detroit-Shoreway, this boulevard won't provide much benefit.

 

Even so, while the Shoreway becomes I-90 with an exit onto MLK which leads to University Circle, it's not at all convenient to the employment centers such as the Clinic and University Hospitals. MLK's speed limit was bumped up to 35mph but it's not designed to be a commuter route. An average trip during the workweek from say, River would be 20 minutes from River to downtown via I-90 and another 20-30 minutes from downtown taking Chester or MLK. And while I don't think that our priority should be increasing Cleveland's car-friendliness, wimwar is exactly right - there's a saying that goes "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar". 

Well, Cleveland's been giving honey to suburbanites for decades. 

There are going to be approximately ten thousand new jobs coming to UC in the next ten years (West Quad, VA Consolidation, CC Heart Center, and numerous smaller developments).  The roads to and from UC are all at or near capacity.  UC is one of the few places in metro Cleveland where this is so.

 

Yes, the Shoreway comes within a mile or so of UC, but it requires that the last mile be taken on residential, commercial, or park streets.  East 105th can't be widened to allow more traffic without demolition of what is left of its commercial strip, and it would be a shame to see East Boulevard or MLK redesigned to accomodate more traffic because they are currently beautiful tree lined avenues.  I would rather see this new access boulevard cut through an area in desperate need of investment than the above listed options. 

 

Would I rather see something like KJP's proposal, with the relocated Rapid and the development being transit oriented?  Yes, of course!  But even if that doesn't happen, the worst thing for our city would be to choke off the one part of town that is actually growing in jobs.  High paying jobs.  The kind of jobs that are increasingly available only in the suburbs, thus making people more likely to live out in the suburbs.

 

Do we need to have better transit to connect our city neighborhoods?  Yes, of course!  But the transit system needs to be considered as a whole and made into the best and most attractive system that it can be to service the growth in demand, not just used as an overflow to take trips that we opt not to service by car.

 

We need to think about what we need to do to make our city work pragmatically, not idealistically or rhetorically.

hey, isn't UC served by two red line stations?

 

(rhetorical question)

X, what you propose is the same fallacious argument that has been made for over 60 years.  Paving more roadway only serves to undermine what little of a transit system there is, and also removes valuable land that could otherwise be used for development.  You have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No one will use the transit system (except for the poor, disabled, and elderly) if driving is by far the easiest way to get anywhere. 

 

This boulevard is little more than the status quo all over again, and is an ugly and expensive precedent for future development in the city.

 

Fair enough.  So what do you think we should do?

Paving more roadway removes valuable land that could otherwise be used for development.  You have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No one will use the transit system (except for the poor, disabled, and elderly) if driving is by far the easiest way to

 

Dan,

 

Have you read about this study?  Do you know where it will go? Do you know why its called the Forgotten Triangle?  Before you expoud with a knee jerk response, look at the facts of the situation.  The OC is being proposed because the land is not developable as is. Businesses have fled.  Residents have fled.  It is a dead area that is the last place an industry would choose.  The road network is convoluted and isolated.  Conceptually, the boulevard would provide many of the advantages that businesses seek.  Furthermore, if the land is developed it should increase both vehicular traffic and transit ridership.  The entire project would be a TOD--putting industry next to or close to rapid stations. 

 

Or, would you prefer that we send our businesses to Strongsville or Mississippi? 

BS.  There is plenty of developable land in Cleveland.  The city chooses to use much of it for parking lots.  Transit options for this corridor have been proposed and ignored, even though TOD is a far more efficient means of development.  Furthermore, this roadway will do nothing to improve traffic circulation in University Circle.  It will simply add several thousand cars a day to the existing mess.   

 

Wimwar, I resent your implication that I have provided a knee-jerk response.  I can assure you I am well-studied in transportation issues.  As it is, Cleveland is sending jobs to both Strongsville AND Mississippi. 

"There is plenty of developable land in Cleveland.  The city chooses to use much of it for parking lots."

 

One, if it's used as a parking lot, it's likely that the city DOESN'T own it. Two, there may well be developable land but we're talking brownfields here. Again, the industrial landbank initiative should remedy a lot of these cases.

 

"As it is, Cleveland is sending jobs to both Strongsville AND Mississippi."

 

And the Heart Center at the Clinic will bring 1,500 to 2,000 jobs; the West Quad project will bring anywhere from 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. I don't see the Clinic or University Hospitals opening world-class facilities in either Strongsville or Mississippi.

BS.  There is plenty of developable land in Cleveland.  The city chooses to use much of it for parking lots.    

 

Does this one really have to be explained??  The city desperately wants to use its downtown surface lots for housing.  Are you suggesting that we use this land for industrial purposes?  Cleveland is losing a lot of industrial business each year because of the lack of clean, accessible and aggregated land parcels.  This is an opportunity to open and clean up this land for land that is currently grossly underused.

 

Transit options for this corridor have been proposed and ignored,

 

Thank God that they have been ignored.  Previous proposals would have placed a highway through the this part of the city and University Circle. Those proposals would have been horrible.  That said, not roads are evil.

 

Furthermore, this roadway will do nothing to improve traffic circulation in University Circle.  It will simply add several thousand cars a day to the existing mess.   

 

How will it add several thousand cars?  Additionally, there are two other studies being done that are focusing on future parking and traffic issues within UC, and that focus on MLK from Cedar Hill all the way to the West Quad.  There is nothing less than 100% communication between the studies.  A lot of people are working on these issues.

 

Wimwar, I resent your implication that I have provided a knee-jerk response.  I can assure you I am well-studied in transportation issues.

 

From your arguments, it appears that don't understand the nature of the problem.  I never challenged your knowledge of transportation.  I challenged your knowledge of the ills that affect this part of Cleveland.  It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction because it takes the general new urbanistic thinking and imposes it on a situation that is unique and complex.  I am all for new urbanism, but a city cannot be survive on storefronts and coffee shops alone.

 

As it is, Cleveland is sending jobs to both Strongsville AND Mississippi.

 

So you suggest that we enable more jobs to leave the city?

Dan,  there is plenty of empty land in Cleveland, which is not the same as plenty of developable land.  It takes serious time and money to make empty land into developable land.  It often requires environmental remediation, land assembly, and/or access improvements.  The area that the OC is supposed to go through will require all three for it to be "developable" land. 

 

At any rate, allow me to repose the question "what do you think we should do?"

Well, the City does own their fair share of parking lots in prime locations, but the browfields and vacant land issues are definitely true as well.  I had the privilege of witnessing a lecture by Brooke Furio, who is "on loan" from the US EPA to the City of Cleveland.  As is the case with many of the people who are "in the know," his perspective was sobering. 

 

It is, in fact, true that there is a ton of vacant land in Cleveland...about 10-25,000 properties, depending on whose estimates you use.  This includes homes, commercial buildings, industrial space, empty lots, and on and on.  The process of getting these properties back to productive, legal use either via a private investor or through public investment is very complex and the methods that the City and County have taken in the past to address these issues has been inefficient and ineffective. 

 

Bottom line, there's tons of land out there, but finding it, acquiring it, clearing or cleaning it (of liens, pollutants, etc.), marketing it, selling it, and eventually collecting taxes on it is more than we know how to do right now.  Furio and others have ideas, but they won't come quickly or easily.  If the real estate market heated up in Cleveland, we'd have a much easier time of it, because the private market would take care of a lot of these things on its own.  However, as it stands right now, Cleveland is far riskier than cities like Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul and continues to suffer as a result.

 

Sadly, there are companies out there who are interested...with jobs in hand and an interest in locating or remaining in Cleveland, but we just don't have the land that they want ready to go.  The land, as it stands, is too risky for them to do without significant prior site prep, but our means of bringing this land to a point where the risk is low enough for a profit to be certain are lacking. 

 

Enter, the industrial land bank.  This is new and very underfunded.  Ideally, a few pilot projects will help it to gather support that will bring more funding into the program.  If this happens, then larger groupings of land can be tackled and made ready for development.

 

As this pertains to the Opportunity Corridor, the assembly of these large amounts of land that the City can market to developers and employers is an important step.  Providing key infrastructure improvements (the boulevard) is another.  But will the land be attractive enough without further subsidy?  Who knows?  I think that's the theory, but if it doesn't prove to be true or if the market doesn't heat up enough on its own, then the City could be stuck with a ton of land that still needs additional subsidies before it becomes attractive enough to lure developers.  Pretty depressing, right?

 

^ re the first point, i agree with what i think dan meant --- the city does not have to own parking lots, they could just as easily declare the oceans of parking lots a blight and shrink them or get rid of them as allow them to exist. mayday i think you forget who is lining politicians pockets, thats why nothing is ever done about the lots. however, of course this topic is more to do with downtown, it's not really a uc issue is it?

 

and as for the other comment, i dk about strongsville or mississippi, but the clinic has facilities in florida and i think in the mideast. that's expansion not job loss.

 

finally, the loss of jobs in cleveland around the "opportunity corridor" has already happened. so some action needs to happen to open up that brownfield land for redevelopment. i think time & money are better spent right now further cleaning up sites and promoting tod and urban forms. that does not rule out beefing up roadways and auto access, but that should not be the primary change as odot and others try to force it to be. that area begs for a serious detailed master planning guide rather than these piecemeal ideas.

 

In this case, I think a "do nothing" option is better than installing a high-speed boulevard through the East Side.  The entire premise of economic development was drummed-up to justify what is essentially a highway project.  Does anyone realistically think that factories are going to make a sudden comeback if this road is built?  Why would development occur along this boulevard, when it isn't occurring along Euclid, or Chester, or on any of the other empty lots on any of the other major roads in Cleveland? 

 

I'm not trying to argue that the entire economy of the city should be predicated on coffee shops.  There are, however, many underutilized roadways and parcels of land in the city as it is.  What makes this project absolutely necessary?  To me, it seems that this entire project was concocted and foisted on the public rather quickly and abruptly.  Failure to follow-through with this project will not bring about impending doom for Cleveland.  I honestly think this is a case of misplace priorities.

 

TOD is needed to re-grow urban density and produce thriving neighborhoods, as this is the one competitive advantage Cleveland has over its suburbs.  By promoting the development of an automobile-oriented city, Cleveland will soon resemble its suburban counterparts and lose that advantage.  As it stands, public transit in Cleveland is relatively weak.  The money would be better spent improving access to the Rapid from University Circle, as that mode could move potentially more people than the boulevard could ever hope to do, but without taking up any additional real estate. 

 

It all depends on what kind of a city Cleveland wants to be.  Should it be an urbane place for people to work, live, and recreate?  Or should the urban fabric be sacrificed for an ever-expanding network of freeways that encourages long-distance commuting via automobile, with little interaction with one's surroundings?  If you had to pick a model for developing a city, why not choose a successful model instead of the same approach that has failed this city for 60 years?  It is ideas like this boulevard that convince me Cleveland has plainly forgotten how to be a city, and hence it is no wonder the jobs and the residents and the money are fleeing.

well i disagree doing nothing is the right approach, but certainly redevelopment of this area will take a lot of thought and consideration. developing a master plan as a guide is a good start. also, at the very least brownfield cleanup should remain ongoing.

 

also, fyi the uc access boulevard/highway plans are hardly new or abrupt, it has been talked about on and off over the years for quite a long time. however, unless the city gets much more deeply involved, odot will rule the process and that will ceratainly only lead to the most anti-urban action we can imagine. nocoa is no help either, so i put this issue squarely on the new mayor's plate.

 

Dan, I think you are really giving us the "false dichotomy" fallacy here.  You are assuming that we are either going to build a massive highway in disguise and make everything auto oriented, or we will go all out TOD.  You are giving us a clash of ideologies while we are trying to discuss the future of a specific neighborhood.  Two different conversations, really.

 

For example, what if this ends up being a boulevard a la the boulevards that we see in Cleveland Heights/Shaker Heights with the Rapid running down the middle?  I am thinking something similar to Van Aken, but with a more varied set of land uses.  Perhaps some of the land opened up is used for industrial, and other land is used for TOD.  What goes where should be predicated on how it would  integrate into surrounding neighborhood land uses.

 

I think that a master plan, as mrnyc is suggesting, is a good approach to looking at that neighborhood.

Screw them, if you don't like your commute, live closer."  This is another attitude that will not help bring back residents to Hough, Fairfax, Glenville, etc.

...

Matches, have you driven the corridor?  What negative impacts could you see?  Overall, its as blown-out as any neighborhood in the US.  Also, TOD is definitely part of the foreseen developments that would be targeted for this area.

 

I apologize if my message wasn't clear.  I was just being honest about my knee-jerk reactions when I hear that kind of talk.  Perhaps the Shoreway is good enough for use by drivers with access to it but connecting 490 opens up areas served by 71, etc.  I'm mildly aware that the area is "blown-out", as you say.  My fears were not necessarily negative impacts on the area but places such as Cleveland Heights and East Side neighborhoods whose potential attractiveness for a comeback would suddenly lose a major benefit - namely their proximity to this developing center of employment.  If jobs are being added to the area, my gut tells me to say that the residential areas nearest to said area should be developed or re-developed.  If someone is getting a job in or near UC, shouldn't we try to support residential development in areas closer to it?  If the boom is what it's expected to be, does it help the city more or less by building a road make it easier for those workers to live in Strongsville?  By building the road only you take away potential areas near UC for residential development.  What will NOT bring residents back to Hough, Fairfax and Glenville is a road that encourages them to suck up the commute that comes with living in any farther-flung west side neighborhood.

 

All that negativity I tried to temper by saying if the jobs aren't going to come without the boulevard then it's a lot harder to argue against the boulevard.  But are there not enough places in the city and in inner-ring east side suburbs that DO have decent access to UC?  My point was that it really looks like you can achieve two worthy goals by combining the UCAB with rail realignment that KPJ proposed - you provide access for west siders and their cars, AND add redevelopment opportunities by increased visibility of the rail line and TOD.  I'm just afraid that the boulevard alone will remove a significant chunk of UC-area workers who live nearby largely because they don't want to deal with the strange commute from the west side.  I do not know what route they currently take but it's significant that this was originally dubbed an "access boulevard" and is now called "opportunity corridor".  Call me a cynic but I think it hints at what the initial goals of the project were.  "Opportunity Corridor" is easier to sell, I guess.

 

unless the city gets much more deeply involved, odot will rule the process and that will ceratainly only lead to the most anti-urban action we can imagine.

This is a key point and we kind of just saw this with the Innerbelt bridge.  ODOT when crazy with the cheese whiz and then suddenly city officials got all up in arms just when ODOT was about to try and close the deal.  People need to get involved early, and if you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people; if you're smart, surround youself with smart people who disagree with you.

Don't expect a rail line down the Opportunity Corridor boulevard. RTA planning folk liked the out-of-the-box thinking, but said it would be a tough sell with the feds unless it saved RTA a meaningful chunk of change. I disagree, because I think the rail line consolidation via the boulevard would boost ridership (better visibility, safety and access to more developable land) and warrant the federal dollars. And I think it would save RTA a little bit of money because it would involve fewer track miles and give them a newer right of way that they would share with ODOT in its upkeep.

 

But, it opened some eyes at RTA to opportunities in the Opportunity Corridor, which includes looking at better access to existing rail stations, what bus services could be adjusted or added on the boulevard or to connect with it. While that doesn't "do it for me" -- perhaps them taking a harder look at the corridor will make them realize that the rail line in the boulevard actually makes some economic sense. RTA is a big bureaucracy with lots of regulations, attached strings, politics and dreams that seem out of reach. But if they talk through the issues enough, maybe their actions will be close behind.

What about BRT?  or is it too close to the red line?

hey, isn't UC served by two red line stations?

 

(rhetorical question)

 

Actually, I think it's a very valid question. Is UC truly "served" by these stations? Moving the Euclid/E120th station a little closer to Mayfield will help, but the Red Line misses the heart of UC and requires long walks to reach most of the traffic generators. The ultimate solution (see below) is to relocate the Red Line northward from near the Cedar station, via MLK's median, then east down the Euclid Corridor as a shared bus/rail right of way. Then, return to the Red Line just east of Euclid's underpass of the existing Red Line. My estimate for building all of that is $65 million, something I don't see RTA doing in the cost-conscious mode they are in. Sometimes they seem more interested in saving money than in raising revenue. Ironically, capital dollars can be had more readily than operating subsidies.

 

I don't think people would ride the Red Line if it were 'more visible' in the middle of this UCAB freeway folly.  In fact, I don't think people shun the Rapid for lack of visibility, at all.  I think they shun it for reasons most Americans shun public transit: they believe, falsely or not, that driving is easier and more convenient to them than transit.  Therefore, UCAB will only hurt Rapid riding not help it.  In fact, I believe the long-term goal or fallout of this project is total abandonment of the Red Line.  I can very much here officials opine that, what, with ECP and UCAB, who needs the Red Line which, after all, is more expensive to operate anyway, right?  These people know exactly where the Rapid and how to access it.  You see them with their kids riding trains downtown to big events like the tree lighting, or Browns games, fireworks, etc... Why?  Because they perceive downtown traffic during such events as too much a pain in the ass during such events  (and, frankly, the growing popularity of off peak downtown along with the parking lot robber-barons are, in part, fueling the up-tick in Rapid riding we've seen in recent years).

 

Also, some of you are mischaracterizing UCAB opposition—at least, mine.  Obviously there is little housing that would be destroyed if the too-narrow RTA/Norfolk Southern path is taken (although, as the PD maps noted a few weeks ago, planners are moving away from the railbed right-of-way along routes that would take down several neighborhood homes).  I object because, with all the great, true city building rail transit proposals (Dual Hub, the North Olmsted Red Line leg, the WL lakefront extension) left on the table allegedly because of cost (which is laughable since we're dumping $250M into that street-landscaping bus project called ECP), I strenuously object to My Tax Dollars being spent on a street-clogging freeway for a bunch of suburbanites who want to quickly skirt the city to get to Cleveland Clinic and (new) West Quad jobs with their fat asses in their gas-guzzling SUV's --- that's why.

 

Plus, it's a ridiculous folly to believe that businesses are going to sprout up along this freeway.  It’s also a flat out ODOT lie that this road will, somehow, help neighborhoods where most people don’t even own cars to begin with.  This fiction of this “opportunity boulevard” aiding “the Forgotten Triangle” as an auto-club ruse… Like most urban freeways, it's only going to dump more cars and cause more traffic-clogging traffic in U. Circle then will happen without it.  This will be even more so since the plan is for UCAB to replace a section of E.105 so that long lines of cars will clog and cut across the grain of our main east-west Euclid/Carnegie/Chester corridor out from downtown -- the route these UCAB proponents should be using, anyway, along with the mass transit that serves the area.

 

Fortunately, the RTA and City are doing the right thing with such TOD projects like the planned Juvenile Justice Center next to the new Quincy-E.105 Red Line stop.  Of course, the judges are beefing b/c they, too, neither want to use transit or drive through ‘the hood’ to get to the planned new digs.  Btw, that rapid station is only half complete -- a major station head-house and platform lengthening is planned once the dilapidated E. 105 Street bridge over the RTA tracks is replaced.  But that plan is 'indefinite' at the moment, probably because planners are waiting to see what's going to happen with UCAB.  What a joke.  Even the replacement of the rundown, ratty E.105 stop is with the new partial station/stop is attracting a trickle of CleveClinic interns and nurses to the Rapid.

 

Such a waste.  I'm surprised and disappointed that so many normally-wise posters on this board are drinking the ODOT Kool-Aid viz UCAB.

 

KJP, I while I think your proposal to relocate the Red Line would put trains closer to the popular U.Circle museums, I think it would put them further from where people live and work in the U.C. area. 

 

If you do a GOOGLE overhead map of the area, you'll note that the huge expanded U. Hospitals buildings actually sit back and well off Euclid and are actually closer to the existing U. Circle Red Line station.  Also, the greatest residential population core density is in tight Little Italy which hugs the existing Red Line and would more convenient to the proposed relocated E.120 RTA stop.  What's more, Case's new E.115 St. dorms is juicing the once downtrodden area near the current E. 120 stop with students who are mixing in with CIA’s McCullough Building kids.

 

And if you ever check out the University Circle station during rush hour, you'd see it's a beehive of commuter traffic with commuters heading both east and west (but mainly west, towards downtown and the West Side).  The overwhelming number of these people are from U. Hospital, who have managed to still find their way to the station even with the closure/reconstruction of the Adelbert Rd. bridge.  And let’s face it, even in its aging, dog-eared current existence, the U. Circle RTA station is textbook for how to correctly design a bus-rail feeder-transfer station.  In short, it works and works very well. 

 

For all these reasons, I think the Red Line is fine right where it is.  I would only move the E. 120 station, as proposed, a few hundred feet east/south – although, I think a new, modern open and safe station on-site would attract a lot more riders than the dank, dirty  dangerous station that exists.

 

Cleveland Plain dealer Editorial

Rerouting the future

Putting an 'Opportunity Corridor' on Cleveland's map could be a boon to residents and commuters alike

Monday, December 12, 2005

 

...

 

The prospect of a grand boulevard is appealing. University Circle is this region's second-largest employment center; given the importance of health care, higher education and research to Greater Cleveland's economic future, its growth should only accelerate. Then there's the chance to revitalize hundreds of acres, mostly former industrial property, in East Side neighborhoods so impoverished and abandoned that they are known as the Forgotten Triangle. With better access, the area could be reborn with industrial parks, commercial properties and housing.

 

...

 

Despite such questions, this is a project worth exploring in depth and without delay. And if further study indicates that the benefits would be as great as they appear, this community's leaders need to make the "Opportunity Corridor" a priority - and a reality.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1134293544264570.xml&coll=2

Fantastic.  I love how the Plain Dealer editorial board blindly accepts everything you can spoon feed it.  I don't think the editors of the PD have ever questioned a single damn idea that was ever floated out there. 

DaninDC.... I agree.  Unfortunately, most media are far too dazzled by the story of a new highway project and fail to seriously ask the question: "At what cost?"  And that question goes beyond the dollars and cents "cost". I'd like to see the P-D and other media take a braoder and more critical apprach to transportation and transportation projects.  Their former transportation reporter, Rich Exner, would often do some very good, in-depth pieces on other modes and various projects.  I don't see much from his replacement that I've been impressed with, but maybe he's still settling in to the job.

 

I know from where I speak, as I spent over 20 years in television news.  Now there is a medium that absolutely does not get it when it comes to transportation reporting.  What we get that passes for transportation reporting are either rush-hour traffic reports of some NIMBY story related to a road project.  What's ironic is that what other issue has such a deep and immediate impact on all of us than our mobility: how we move either ourselves or other and how we move the products and services we consume on a daily basis.  It all has to be transported in some way.  And as highways and air routes become more heavily used ... and congested.... mobility becomes an even more critical issue.

Oh, I agree with your wholeheartedly, noozer.  Issues like this speak to the kind and quality of places we want to create for ourselves.  The PD wants to isolate this one thing in a bubble and pretend it's a foregone conclusion, much like the "need" for a new convention center. 

Well, Dan and noozer what would you do with the forgotten triangle?

I don't like your question, particularly because it implies that *something* must be done with the corridor *immediately*, and this is not necessarily the case.  This is not unlike the convention center debacle, where the necessity was never debated, but the first question became, "What is the best option?".  There are many other, better located areas of Cleveland that could stand the investment before this forgotten corridor.  In this case, I propose do nothing with the corridor, and invest the money elsewhere, preferably in expanded public transit infrastructure like commuter rail.