Pardon my aluminum induced senility, but isn't there a road in DC in the dupont circle area that is sort of like a below ground interstate? Two lanes in each direction below street level with minimal grassy medians ( minimal width), and a lane at street level in each direction. I don't recall such a setup hurting the neighborhood any, and I would imagine that setup would be far better than a 80 yard wide freeway or another 35 mph stop and boulevard.

 

I'd provide more information but I'm posting from my fruit inspired phone, which lacks cut/ paste commands. :(

Pardon my aluminum induced senility, but isn't there a road in DC in the dupont circle area that is sort of like a below ground interstate? Two lanes in each direction below street level with minimal grassy medians ( minimal width), and a lane at street level in each direction. I don't recall such a setup hurting the neighborhood any, and I would imagine that setup would be far better than a 80 yard wide freeway or another 35 mph stop and boulevard.

 

I'd provide more information but I'm posting from my fruit inspired phone, which lacks cut/ paste commands. :(

 

Yes, but Connecticut Ave only descends a few blocks to go under the DuPont circle itself.

This might be more of the communications gap between local leaders and ODOT, where "T" stands for highways.

Look at the idea to turn the west shoreway into a boulevard.  ODOT is fixated on keeping it a freeway, with entrance and exit ramps.  This may be the same example.  It is hard to tell, because I have yet to hear a local political leader or proponant of the OC describe the vision of the road.

 

 

My thinking is: the goal of the opportunity corridor is to provide a quicker route to UC without destroying any future potential neighborhood growth. It wouldn't have to be a trench the whole way, have a few intersections along the way, and not seriously impact the surroundings. If we're asking for stimulus money anyways let's at least ask for something a bit more original then a freeway extension or a boulevard.

The entire thought process along with the project is flawed and stupid!

The entire thought process along with the project is flawed and stupid!

 

Agreed.

if this is going to be a toll road then please drop the opportunity from the name. You might as well just put one toll station at the beginning and one at the end at UC. I dont believe anyone is going to pay money to enter those neighborhoods as is. worst idea of the year so far. hands down.

Forget, for the moment ODOTs fixation with high speed motorways.

What if, the OC was an extension of MLK and the cultural gardens.  25MPH, but no lights but surrounded by parkland?

 

 

What if, the OC was an extension of MLK and the cultural gardens. 25MPH, but no lights but surrounded by parkland?

 

That is what should be there.  That's the best idea for it yet.  Better than industry, if they can get everything cleaned up instead.  It would have to be a serious cultural gardens extension.  No grassy weed fields, ODOT loves those.

"Tolls" could be used for the project without it being a freeway, using the concept of "shadow tolls," in which a private partner agrees to finance and build the road in exchange for a fee for each vehicle which uses the road. The risk is on the private partner if traffic or development projections fall short. With or without traffic, the public gets a new road.

 

But of course some people are against the OC for other reasons.

 

 

Also, I am very against private ownership of certain public goods, like roads.  Their goal would be to make a profit, which does not necessarily mean correct traffic issues, maintenance, etc.

 

The goal of a private partner in the transportation sector is to provide rail service or motorways to customers. It is a risky business, and those who manage the risk well will make a "profit."  Rarely is the ownership "private" and the concern over private investment is curious: the world over, water, wastewater, electricity, and telecommunications all benefit from private finance and operation; the American transport system (save for freight railroads) is an anomoly.

$20 million for Opportunity Corridor. Oh joy.

 

Look at an aerial view of Cleveland 50 or 80 years vs today. We're turning this city into a parking lot, or other flat paved spaces. Most U.S. cities already devote 40 percent or more of their land area to the car (either streets or parking). At this rate, we will all live on stilts above streets and parking areas.

A few years ago, KJP posted that there was at least people thinking of a master plan for RTA to extend BRT over this Opportunity Freeway and, I think, a proposed branch (also along a rapid transit corridor) to Woodhill & Shaker, and that the Stokes/Windermere Red Line branch and Shaker Green Line would be replaced by BRT buses.  Now, suddenly, powerful forces behind the scene have mysteriously gotten the seemingly dead OC back on the table backed by $20M in Obama Stimulus funds.  At the same time, 3 Windermere line projects seem suddenly in limbo: expansion of the E. 105 platform, the U. Circle rehab and the all important E. 120 relocation to Mayfield Rd/Little Italy.  I say in limbo because RTA's list of Obama Stimulus shovel-ready RTA projects (per their website) include a number of station rebuilding projects, and w/ the exception of the E. 55 rebuild, which serves all 3 lines, the rest are on the West Side... On top of this, Joe C is now giddy at BRT expansion along Clifton Blvd.

 

I don't think someone as well connected, transportation-wise, as KJP would put something like this disturbing "master plan" out there if there wasn't some juice to it.  That said, given that this horrible Opportunity Corridor is looking like it's now going to be a reality ($20M in taxpayer $$ in a troubled economy for a project that will hurt our city... think about that), it's not beyond the realm to think there are folks behind the scenes looking to roll out such a master plan.

I just do not think it is wise to have UC cut off to a lot of the NEO population.  Is this caving to our commuter-based society?  Probably.  But, unfortunately, it is what we need to do to keep money and jobs flowing into UC.  There is nothing in that area that is going to suffer from the OCB. 

I want to revisit the question/postulation that Punch posed back in January.

 

Call me naive, but it has not yet been proclaimed or determined that the OC will be a limited-access, freeway-style roadway like so many on here are (rightfully) fearing, correct?  The recent tollway discussion notwithstanding, what evidence do we have that planners are moving away from the mulitlane boulevard, possibly with some sort of public transit component, that was originally envisioned?  Seems like this would still provide the greatly enhanced access to University Circle that is desired, without the neighborhood scarring that a freeway (or tollway) would create.

 

Do we know for sure what City Hall and the powers that be envision for the OCB?

 

If the people on the board would be so kind, let me spout off what I think is the current situation, and what I hope will happen if it is built.  If anyone has facts that run counter to my ideas, it would help shape my opinion.

 

What I think is the current situation.

     -I-490 pretty much dead ends onto E. 55th, not close to any main arterial road

     -The path from the end of I-490 to University Circle, and the Heights beyond is cumbersome.

     -Between the end of I-490 and UC is a host of dead end streets and oddly aligned streets.  Many of them were constructed that way to serve factories that are no longer there.

     -There is a lot of vacant industrial land, aka brownfields along the path.

 

Here is what I think will happen if the OC is approved and begins construction (again, an opinion based on my reading of the subject)

    - An existing road will be chosen for a total reconstruction into a 5 lane Boulevard, much like Euclid Avenue was rebuilt (new sewers, pipes, electrial, gas...)

    -The road may be realigned, and pass through the brownfields.  This would require brownfield to be rehabilitated.  (thus fresh land for development)

    - Splinters of the new road would be constructed to connect to dead end streets and introduce more of a grid system to the area

   -Euclid Avenue at UC would reconfigured, and hopefully not be such a clusterf*ck.

 

So, that is how I read it.  If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

Thanks

 

 

I continue to be in support of this project. I don't see the damage to the neighborhood that many propose would happen. The simple fact is that people and businesses like new roads. They gravitate towards them. Much of what has happened with the ECP and Euclid ave. I see happening here. This project IMO will spur development and not be the divider everyone fears. From what I've read it is described as a boulevard not a freeway. And when it comes to urban roads I think we sometimes need to get over our AlbertPorter/RobertMoses fears. That was 50 years ago. To me this is all about connectivity. A connection to a very large employment area. I don't see this as "the man" trying to separate a neighborhood through some kind of class warfare. To me it would be negligent and a disservice to the area if this project doesn't happen. The area will adapt. People will adapt.

I continue to be in support of this project. I don't see the damage to the neighborhood that many propose would happen. The simple fact is that people and businesses like new roads. They gravitate towards them. Much of what has happened with the ECP and Euclid ave. I see happening here. This project IMO will spur development and not be the divider everyone fears. From what I've read it is described as a boulevard not a freeway. And when it comes to urban roads I think we sometimes need to get over our AlbertPorter/RobertMoses fears. That was 50 years ago. To me this is all about connectivity. A connection to a very large employment area. I don't see this as "the man" trying to separate a neighborhood through some kind of class warfare. To me it would be negligent and a disservice to the area if this project doesn't happen. The area will adapt. People will adapt.

 

What is this development you speak of?  Will it be IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS the road will pass thru or in University Circle?

Of course I can only project what I think might happen. But if I were a business looking to rehabilitate or locate myself in the cities central core, updated modern access to and from my business would certainly be at the top of my list. It could make the difference especially for a large manufacturer who has concerns about getting in and out of the area as it presently is. All I know with the way it is now, a road that dead ends in the middle of a major american city does not inspire anyone to invest in the area. Also below are a few quotes from ODOT's own study.

 

The purpose of the Opportunity Corridor project is to develop transportation solutions that address the need of improving access to University Circle, while also stimulating community and economic development.

Nearby neighborhoods and businesses have suffered decline over the past 60 years due to loss of manufacturing jobs, shifts in modes of transportation, and isolation from the Interstate System. As a result, areas such as the “Forgotten Triangle” have a large percentage of vacant properties and land banked parcels which will require investment for future development.

Is there a land bank map anywhere?

 

I don't know if there is anything specific, but if you go to the ODOT study, that will give you a better picture of what is being proposed.

http://www.innerbelt.org/OpportunityCorridor/OChistory.htm

Maps of vacant/publicly-owned land are available on the project website hosted by ODOT District 12.

 

The OC concept calls for an access-controlled boulevard of 5 lanes. A freeway really won't work due to the road's terminus and the right-of-way requirements for such a facility.

I still support this project and don't get the damage some are predicting.  Until the next transportation system is in place, we know what the current one is and we can either play it well or we can fail. 

 

There's no sense in cutting off a section of our city just to spite freeways.  That's what we've got right now.  And most of that cut-off section doesn't look good.  The better part of the cut-off section doesn't have the level of development or prestige we all think it should.  Let's connect it to the primary transportation network and see what happens.

 

I would feel differently if intact neighborhoods were being leveled to build this, but that doesn't seem likely.  And neighborhood revitalization isn't achieved by brute-forcing people to spend time there.  Give them the opportunity to stop by, make it nice, and hopefully they will.  But any restriction on people who have somewhere to go, in the hopes that it will help businesses in the vicinity of the restriction, is misguided. 

It's not that I am completely against an "oppurtunity corridor".  it's that I have absolutely no faith that the Ohio Department of Highways will get this right... and I still think this should be playing second fiddle to the shoreway conversion.

How's this for an alternative: use the OC construction costs to instead build a modest network of two land roads and bridges that tie the underused land more directly to I-490 (perfect acceptable for industrial uses), and spend the rest on beautifying and subsidizing redevelopment of E55th, Chester and Carnegie, our perfectly viable existing network of high capacity arterial roadways that connect University Circle to the highway network.

 

I am coming to peace with the idea that hundreds of millions of tax dollars are about to be used to massively subsidize a 10 minute shave off the commutes of relatively affluent West Side and SW suburban commuters.  But I am still slightly mystified by this idea that University Circle is somehow hard to get to by car or is cut off or isolated, despite being at the nexus of several arterial roads.

I'm mystified that others are mystified that UC has access problems.  Go look at Oakland in Pittsburgh.  That's what happens when people can get to your university area.  It's like night and day compared to what we have, yet we should be the ones having more.

 

I wouldn't call 35 with multiple cameras "arterial."  Not even close.  That's the problem.  We want more traffic going into and through UC, right?  At the same time, we don't want a lot more traffic along Chester if we want to amplify it as a residential corridor.  So all this (new additional) traffic has to come from somewhere, and I couldn't make a worse gateway than Carnegie if I had a poop cannon. 

I'm mystified that others are mystified that UC has access problems. Go look at Oakland in Pittsburgh. That's what happens when people can get to your university area. It's like night and day compared to what we have, yet we should be the ones having more.

 

I'm only slightly familiar with Oakland in Pittsburgh, but my impression was that it was full of apartments, houses and street level retail, not dominated by parking garages, low density institutional buildings and 6 lane arterial roads the way UC is.  I am very skeptical that freeway access explains Oakland's vitality.  Though I freely admit that Oakland may show that highway access doesn't inevitably ruin a place.  It just means that ODOT and local planners to need to have a backbone and not widen every street and throw a right turn lane at every intersection just because it will speed people to the highway a little faster.

Ive been teetering about this for a while but I must say I am now for this.  After a recent visit and talking to numerous people on the east side and along some of the affected area (residents and business owners), I really don't see what more damage it will/could do (with the lack of intact neighborhoods) and most of these neighborhoods ain't coming back.  At this point I feel it could only help, open up extremely desolate areas.

 

As an urban planner, in theory I'm not for it, but the realities of today combined with the current state of this part of town change that.  Pretty much what 327 said above (I actually agree with all of it! (post 474, not the poop cannon one)).

 

On my visit I talked to some longstanding property owners that are pretty much ready to pull up stakes and give up on the region because they only see things moving backwards and getting worse.  They say that "something has to be done", and that this can only help.  (one legendary establishment even mentioned the possibility of relocating to Pittsburgh!)

 

I also agree with McCleveland in that I doubt that ODOT will get it right.  Boulevard yes.  Toll road/interstate no. 

If there is danger of wrecking "good" neighborhoods then where is the opposition from those people?

And if it supposedly would harm Cleveland, should'nt the brilliant Mayor Jackson be against it?   

I haven't been to Pittsburgh for a while either.  But I remember that while people tend to complain about getting around that city in general, they never complain about getting to Oakland.  Not from downtown, nor from any freeway.  I'm suggesting that's why more is built there, because Oakland is better connected with its city.  I'm not suggesting it's the only reason, at all, but it's a big one.  I often refer to your tagline about the bunch of grapes... if that's what we're going to be, stems are a key part of it.

 

We focus on how OCB provides needless benefit to people in Strongsville, but what about the benefit it provides to Tremont and UC itself?  Tremont becomes an extension of UC, and UC suddenly has Strongsville to draw from in a way it never did before.

Is Oakland really a great comparison? Pitt as over 30,000 students, along with Carnegie Mellon, UPMC, and several county offices. You're talking about a hell of a lot more people working and living in and around Oakland. Imagine if Case had 30,000+ students and county employees working in UC. Also, South Oakland is a residential neighborhood that runs just south of Oakland Ave. So, there is just more density period. I don't think it's just because of connectivity.There may be some parallels, but Oakland has a lot more natural advantages than UC.

All the more reason to give ours every advantage possible.  Case is a smaller school, so to achieve comparable foot traffic should we make it harder or easier for other area hipsters and college students to frequent UC?  Easier.

 

And UC has plenty of residential around it, much of which used to be resplendent and is now empty.  In trying to repopulate those residential areas, do we want them more or less connected with the rest of the region?  More. 

 

I think we can get comparable density and foot traffic around UC, but not without addressing the number one complaint I get from people of all (non-UO) walks of life when trying to get them to attend an event or party in or near UC-- you can't very well get there!  Nobody wants to be cut off from everything else, and I've picked up a decent read on the perception of UC.  Right or wrong, people feel like it's too cut off.  Add in the perception (right or wrong) that it's intimidating to navigate once you get there, and many otherwise interested people stay away.

All the more reason to give ours every advantage possible.  Case is a smaller school, so to achieve comparable foot traffic should we make it harder or easier for other area hipsters and college students to frequent UC?  Easier.

 

And UC has plenty of residential around it, much of which used to be resplendent and is now empty.  In trying to repopulate those residential areas, do we want them more or less connected with the rest of the region?  More. 

 

I think we can get comparable density and foot traffic around UC, but not without addressing the number one complaint I get from people of all (non-UO) walks of life when trying to get them to attend an event or party in or near UC-- you can't very well get there!  Nobody wants to be cut off from everything else, and I've picked up a decent read on the perception of UC.  Right or wrong, people feel like it's too cut off.  Add in the perception (right or wrong) that it's intimidating to navigate once you get there, and many otherwise interested people stay away.

 

What people?  Westsiders?  Those who fear driving up Chester or Carneige. 

No, some of these people are from the far east side but only approach downtown via 90 or 480/77.  You can't solve this just by dissing my people.  It's an actual problem, and not just for them. 

327,

 

I agree with you. We need to make the area more accessible. I just wanted to point out Oakland and UC are really different.

All the more reason to give ours every advantage possible.  Case is a smaller school, so to achieve comparable foot traffic should we make it harder or easier for other area hipsters and college students to frequent UC?  Easier.

 

And UC has plenty of residential around it, much of which used to be resplendent and is now empty.  In trying to repopulate those residential areas, do we want them more or less connected with the rest of the region?  More. 

 

I think we can get comparable density and foot traffic around UC, but not without addressing the number one complaint I get from people of all (non-UO) walks of life when trying to get them to attend an event or party in or near UC-- you can't very well get there!  Nobody wants to be cut off from everything else, and I've picked up a decent read on the perception of UC.  Right or wrong, people feel like it's too cut off.  Add in the perception (right or wrong) that it's intimidating to navigate once you get there, and many otherwise interested people stay away.

 

What people?  Westsiders?  Those who fear driving up Chester or Carneige. 

 

I grew up on the western edge of the county and still have lots of family in north olmsted, westlake and lakewood.  I don't recall ever really hearing people complain about it being difficult to get to UC.  Some complained about finding your way around in a car once you arrive in the area, but that was about it.  Sure people complained while Euclid was all torn up through there, but obviously that is different.

I think it's totally cool that Tremont will someday be only 13 minutes from UC instead of 20 minutes (or whatever it is now), I'm just not sure its worth so many hundreds of millions.  And I am really sure I don't trust the City/ State's transportation planning not to ruin University Circle itself even more through incremental road widenings and suburban roadway curve radii and other crap that seems to go hand in hand with pushing cars in and out as fast as possible.  I doubt UC will ever be the type of place I'd find enjoyable if it depends on driving suburban commuters for its vitality.

 

I also wonder if people are a little overly optimistic about the this roadway revitalizing the area it passes through when the same has not happened to Chester or Carnegie.  These roadways not only connect UC to the freeway system, but also to downtown.  And yet they are lined with underused land.  Lots of it.  Any business owner who thinks they have to move from the forgotten triangle all the way to Pittsburgh for a site with better highway access is being completely disingenuous, even if he or she is not just blowing smoke.

"Any business owner who thinks they have to move from the forgotten triangle all the way to Pittsburgh for a site with better highway access is being completely disingenuous, even if he or she is not just blowing smoke."

 

I dont think it had any thing to do with better highway access as opposed to being in an area that has become even more desolate and devastated in the last 10 years.  They cited Pittsburghs vibrant commercial corridors etc, intact neighborhoods etc..... something that has continued to deteriorate in this area and has basically been written off.       

 

 

 

Pittsburgh is generally known for being hard to get around in.  But it ain't as nasty as what one sees approaching UC from just about any direction, and in terms of urban amenities it doesn't have the same gaping holes we do.  What they're trying to do here is different from Carnegie, as Carnegie is more of a commuter route to downtown and will never be zoned for the scale of industry they're looking for along the OCB.  Two different things.  And my estimate of travel time from Tremont to UC is more like 5-10 min with OCB, 30 min without.  You're talking about working your way to then thru downtown, or covering half the length of E55th street for zero reason.  Also, trips aren't just measured in minutes.  Both non-OCB routes I just looked at require near-constant driver activity, due to course corrections and cross traffic.  With OCB, it's more like rolling down a hill.

I have never understood why people think it's hard to get to University Circle.  First of all, if you're coming from downtown, you're an idiot if you aren't taking Carnegie.  Most times of the day it's 5-7 minutes (and not much more at rush hour the way the lights are timed) from E. 9th St. to MLK/Carnegie.  And coming off I-90 isn't bad either with MLK.  Sure, for about a half hour at rush hour it "backs up".  But my parents lived in Wickliffe at the time I went to Case and when I drove home on MLK, even at 5:00 pm, it was still no more than about 7 minutes from MLK/105 to I-90.  And of course, later in the evening, these times only get better, especially on MLK (which should be no more than 4-5 minutes).  Most of the people I know that think UC is "hard to get to" think anything is hard to get to if there's not a freeway leading there, regardless of how long it actually takes to get there.

 

And I see no way OCB will shave 10 minutes off a commute to UC from the west side.  MAYBE 5 tops.

I have never understood why people think it's hard to get to University Circle.  First of all, if you're coming from downtown, you're an idiot if you aren't taking Carnegie.  Most times of the day it's 5-7 minutes (and not much more at rush hour the way the lights are timed) from E. 9th St. to MLK/Carnegie.  And coming off I-90 isn't bad either with MLK.  Sure, for about a half hour at rush hour it "backs up".  But my parents lived in Wickliffe at the time I went to Case and when I drove home on MLK, even at 5:00 pm, it was still no more than about 7 minutes from MLK/105 to I-90.  And of course, later in the evening, these times only get better, especially on MLK (which should be no more than 4-5 minutes).  Most of the people I know that think UC is "hard to get to" think anything is hard to get to if there's not a freeway leading there, regardless of how long it actually takes to get there.

 

And I see no way OCB will shave 10 minutes off a commute to UC from the west side.  MAYBE 5 tops.

 

I really don't think that the main intention of building this road is to shave time off of a trip to U Circle.  I think it is moreso a way to make the Woodhill Corridor, Woodland Corridor, Kinsman Cooridor more visible and accessible.  These are perfect place for warehousing and industrial park projects.  I really equate the opportunity cooridor to the Jennings Freeway construction of the 90's.  People actually now know where Spring and Schaff Road are.  Also, several several businesses opened along Hinkley Parkway as a result of its opening.

 

Sure, political leaders may be calling it an opportunity to get to U Circle quciker, but thats just so suburbanites will accept the road.  ODOT and Political leaders know that if they portrayed this road as a road providing access to Kinsman, Woodland and Woodhill, suburbanites would laugh at it and make fun of Cleveland once again.  Honestly, I have to travel to these areas alot, and my only option is E 93rd which is an awful road to travel. 

I have never understood why people think it's hard to get to University Circle. First of all, if you're coming from downtown, you're an idiot if you aren't taking Carnegie. Most times of the day it's 5-7 minutes (and not much more at rush hour the way the lights are timed) from E. 9th St. to MLK/Carnegie.

 

5-7 minutes from MLK & Chester to E.9th?  NO WAY.  I do it every day, and have never made it in that time.  Hell, from E.55 to E.9 takes at least 5 minutes. 

^Even if it's 12 minutes from E9th to MLK, you're talking almost 4 miles there, so that's a perfectly acceptable time for going anywhere worth going.  Not sure why everyone seems to feel entitled to live out of the traffic engineer fantasy playbook of cul-de-sac to arterial to highway to subsidized destination parking garage all with an average speed of over 45 mph.  No one seems to accept the possibility that a cheaper social alternative would be living closer to where you need go every day.

 

Anyhoo, the battle over whether or not this thing gets built seems lost, so I'm going to turn my attention to fretting about the design of this thing and how it interacts with the UC neighborhood.

I have never understood why people think it's hard to get to University Circle. First of all, if you're coming from downtown, you're an idiot if you aren't taking Carnegie. Most times of the day it's 5-7 minutes (and not much more at rush hour the way the lights are timed) from E. 9th St. to MLK/Carnegie.

 

5-7 minutes from MLK & Chester to E.9th? NO WAY. I do it every day, and have never made it in that time. Hell, from E.55 to E.9 takes at least 5 minutes.

 

At rush hour maybe more, but I make that trip eastbound in the evenings multiple times per week and I can tell you every light I stop at E. 14th, E. 30th for about 3 seconds, E. 79th for about 5 seconds, and E. 100th.  6 minutes on average going about 40 mph.

An accurate measure would require many runs over many different times, and I'd be as interested in the variance as the mean.  Apparently we've all had different experiences driving it.  I've not had the 6 minute experience myself, though it's concievable.  It's just not reliable.  For such a key route you want more predictability.  Important business services love predictibility in travel times.  That distance with that many variables all make it harder. 

 

The OCB will have little effect on commuter traffic on these roads anyway.  They go downtown and it wouldn't. 

After driving it again this evening I realize I mean 5-7 minutes from E. 30th to MLK.  So add a couple minutes from E. 9th...say 7-9.  Regardless, it's extremely consistent.  In fact, as long as it's after about 7 pm, I hit the exact same red lights every single time.  The only time it takes me longer is when people drive side by side at 25 mph.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/05/opportunity_corridor_panel_hol.html

 

Opportunity Corridor panel holds first meeting

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter

May 15, 2009 21:09PM

 

The Opportunity Corridor, a proposed 2¾ -mile parkway extending from where Interstate 490 ends at East 55th Street to East 105th Street, could lead to economic development.

 

It could also lead to community development for neighborhoods ravaged by unemployment and foreclosure as well as provide a transportation link between interstates and the thriving medical and cultural hub in University Circle...

 

OK, 50-75 percent of the households in these neighborhoods don't have cars, and many housesholds that have cars have just one shared among more than one adult. In many cases, the car may not be in good working condition. So the only way this road benefits a super-majority of residents without adequate vehicular transportation is if new employment opportunities arise for them within walking distance or offers transit access. Thus, if new businesses open up along this road, they better give neighborhood residents first shot at the jobs they provide or the road will do worse than not benefit them. It may end up displacing them.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the people who live in/near the Opportunity Corridor (not the Clinic or UH physicians who live in Westlake or Brecksville). Then start your planning.

OK, 50-75 percent of the households in these neighborhoods don't have cars, and many housesholds that have cars have just one shared among more than one adult. In many cases, the car may not be in good working condition. So the only way this road benefits a super-majority of residents without adequate vehicular transportation is if new employment opportunities arise for them within walking distance or offers transit access. Thus, if new businesses open up along this road, they better give neighborhood residents first shot at the jobs they provide or the road will do worse than not benefit them. It may end up displacing them.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the people who live in/near the Opportunity Corridor (not the Clinic or UH physicians who live in Westlake or Brecksville). Then start your planning.

 

This is smoke and mirrors.  This is a road to nowhere.

Just watch this project take off once you here someone from UH or the Clinic voice their support.

What I don't get is why Central/Kinsman/Fairfax residents would oppose something on the rationale that it helps University Circle.  They're cutting off the nose to spite the face.  Doesn't helping UC also help their neighborhoods?  And are they actually viewing pass-thru commuter traffic as a boon?  Most people don't.  Commuters aren't on any given road to go shopping, they're there because they want to be elsewhere.  Let them go.  They might have more time to visit neighborhoods between home and work if their commute was quicker.  But they're certainly not going to patronize your antique store just because you funneled them there and put a stop sign out front.  Access is good, blockage is bad.

What I don't get is why Central/Kinsman/Fairfax residents would oppose something on the rationale that it helps University Circle. They're cutting off the nose to spite the face. Doesn't helping UC also help their neighborhoods? And are they actually viewing pass-thru commuter traffic as a boon? Most people don't. Commuters aren't on any given road to go shopping, they're there because they want to be elsewhere. Let them go. They might have more time to visit neighborhoods between home and work if their commute was quicker. But they're certainly not going to patronize your antique store just because you funneled them there and put a stop sign out front. Access is good, blockage is bad.

 

So the freeways didn't do anything bad when they cut through neighborhoods?

So the freeways didn't do anything bad when they cut through neighborhoods?

 

To the extent that they disrupted intra- and inter- neighborhood access, of course they're bad.  But mistakes made back then (if we can even call them mistakes because there appears to have been some disruptive intent) don't automatically mean roads or even highways are bad in themselves. 

 

The extent of the "cutting through" is the part I'm following closely on this one.  How many crossings for cars?  for pedestrians?  How functional are they?  Another issue in this area of town is that there isn't all that much to cut through, comparatively speaking.  There are obsolete factories (unsuitable for conversion), plus housing that was built to be lo-end originally and which is now old and poorly maintained, as well as entire neighborhoods that were zoned atrociously if at all and will be most difficult to renovate in any meaningful way.

 

I'm not sure how a new road could make the area any worse.  It's not like we're fighting to preserve an intact functional neighborhood in this case.  The part of town this road would go through has suffered a near total collapse.  Its problem is not too many roads, nor is its problem too many roads minus one.  If this new road causes one factory to open in Central employing one person, I would rate it a success.