That's a huge improvement over some of what we were hearing early on, but I still don't trust ODOT not to screw it up.

That's going to be a massively expensive project.  The required demolition, sitework, paving, roadway, sidewalks, all those bridges to build, lighting, signalization, landscaping...  I'm sure it'll go out in phases but I'll put the total cost at $100 million or more

For a road with 16 traffic lights, I don't see how it's going to be very effective.  At that rate, I can get off at 55th, go down the desolate Quincy and cut up to Cedar quicker than this road would be...

Opportunity Corridor in Cleveland: Whatever happened to ...?

By Tom Breckenridge, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, updated November 26, 2012 at 8:14 AM Print 

 

 

Whatever happened to Opportunity Corridor, the proposed boulevard between Interstate 490 and University Circle?

 

ODOT and roadway advocates are studying ways to pay for the long-sought project, which has no short-term prospects for funding.

 

Preliminary engineering continues on the 2¾-mile route. ODOT says much of the route needs to be one lane wider than originally proposed to handle the morning rush hour.

 

The 35 mph boulevard, estimated last year to cost $220 million, would move thousands of commuters and visitors from south and west of Cleveland more quickly to the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, as well as the educational and cultural institutions in University Circle.

 

Just as important, advocates say, is the road's potential to spur development in downtrodden neighborhoods, including parts of Central, Slavic Village, Kinsman, Fairfax and Buckeye.

 

Business and community leaders say the project is a top priority. ODOT has spent $4.5 million on preliminary engineering and committed $11 million more in 2014 for detailed design.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/opportunity_corridor_in_clevel.html

 

Wait a minute: $220 million for a 2-3/4 mile boulevard??? How about $220 million in transit improvements for the same area? Why do we seem to always default to more roads??? This in an area where up to 25% of residents do not own a motor vehicle.

 

Notice also that this road parallels the RTA Red LIne. Now what do you suppose the effect on RTA's ridership will be? Hmmm...

a waist of money

For a road with 16 traffic lights, I don't see how it's going to be very effective.  At that rate, I can get off at 55th, go down the desolate Quincy and cut up to Cedar quicker than this road would be...

If the lights are timed properly it might be competitive time wise.

 

 

Wait a minute: $220 million for a 2-3/4 mile boulevard??? How about $220 million in transit improvements for the same area? Why do we seem to always default to more roads???

That area could use $220 million in many many ways and roads wouldn't be my first choice, but it already has plenty of transit relative to its population. Now, improving the rapid stations and building some TOD would be a good use of funds, but if you're advocating spending that much on transit, I'm curious in what way.

 

Opportunity Corridor in Cleveland: Whatever happened to ...?

By Tom Breckenridge, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, updated November 26, 2012 at 8:14 AM Print 

 

 

Whatever happened to Opportunity Corridor, the proposed boulevard between Interstate 490 and University Circle?

 

ODOT and roadway advocates are studying ways to pay for the long-sought project, which has no short-term prospects for funding.

 

Preliminary engineering continues on the 2¾-mile route. ODOT says much of the route needs to be one lane wider than originally proposed to handle the morning rush hour.

 

The 35 mph boulevard, estimated last year to cost $220 million, would move thousands of commuters and visitors from south and west of Cleveland more quickly to the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, as well as the educational and cultural institutions in University Circle.

 

Just as important, advocates say, is the road's potential to spur development in downtrodden neighborhoods, including parts of Central, Slavic Village, Kinsman, Fairfax and Buckeye.

 

Business and community leaders say the project is a top priority. ODOT has spent $4.5 million on preliminary engineering and committed $11 million more in 2014 for detailed design.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/opportunity_corridor_in_clevel.html

 

Wait a minute: $220 million for a 2-3/4 mile boulevard??? How about $220 million in transit improvements for the same area? Why do we seem to always default to more roads??? This in an area where up to 25% of residents do not own a motor vehicle.

 

Notice also that this road parallels the RTA Red LIne. Now what do you suppose the effect on RTA's ridership will be? Hmmm...

 

But the construction of the Opp. Corr. has nothing to do with the residents of the area and was never claimed to have been for their use.  Nor, would its construction compete with the rapid transit that currently exists (the expected users of the corridor is not the same population that has the option of using the the rapid).

^Agreed.  This is built for people who work in University Circle but live south and west of Cleveland, not for residents in this area or for current rapid riders.  At present people coming from the south and west can only take congested freeways all the way downtown on the innerbelt and exit Chester and Carnegie, which also back up during rush hour, particularly Carnegie at the Clinic.  When this road is complete these people can bypass downtown and the crowded innerbelt and hop on little used 490 and get to 90 west, or 77, 71, 176 South.  This road is about an easier commute for these folks.

 

With that said the adjacent communities brought into this idea on the promise that an efficient road that will be highly visible and traveled will attract Euclid-esque development along it.  Ideally once this thing really gets built hopefully Euclid through Midtown will already be built out with new development creating demand for some TOD to occur between this route and the red line.  That for me would create a win-win.

Well its also about opening up this desolate area to the expected spin off companies from Clevelands medical sector etc.  The reality of the situation dictates that the current state of these areas do not support it remaining a residential area, at least not in its current or past form.  Nor can the city afford to maintain it that way.   

What's the logic of narrowing between 93rd and Frank?

What's the logic of narrowing between 93rd and Frank?

Probably because the clinic traffic will take 93rd while the rest of the UC traffic continues to 105th.

Would this road not be going through some of Cleveland's worst neighborhoods? Is there any potential safety issue to think about in the planning?

Why not encourage people to move closer to UC, rather than just making it easier to get in and out of town? Hasn't that been a major problem in this town?

Would this road not be going through some of Cleveland's worst neighborhoods? Is there any potential safety issue to think about in the planning?

 

Worst as in dead? Yes. Worst as in crime? No.

 

There is not much going on here so the crime is not as bad as one would probably expect. Southeast neighborhoods seem to be the worst.

Why not encourage people to move closer to UC, rather than just making it easier to get in and out of town? Hasn't that been a major problem in this town?

 

I was also wondering this. Could this also hurt Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights, making the jobs in UC more accesible from west side suburbs.

People tend to live in Cleveland/Shaker Hts because of the design standards. They don't want the boring homes elsewhere in the metro area. I don't see the road hurting that.

Why not encourage people to move closer to UC, rather than just making it easier to get in and out of town? Hasn't that been a major problem in this town?

 

That is happening as well, so dont make it an either or thing.  Its not even close to being the same thing as what was happening 40 years ago where the building of interstates caused the destruction of vibrant and viable neighborhoods for the sake of speeding traffic via highways which led to the empting out of the city.

Im not sure why people dont see the differences here..... Again, "The reality of the situation pretty much dictates that the current state of these areas do not support it remaining a residential area, at least not in its current or past form.  Nor can the city afford to maintain it that way.

 

 

Actually, the average percent of households without cars for the ENTIRE City of Cleveland is 25 percent. Instead, this neighborhood has 50-75 percent of households without cars. If this boulevard is to be of use to people in and near the neighborhoods through which it will pass, then it will be from the opening up of land to light industrial, warehousing and distribution facilities here, like the Orlando Baking Co. on Grand Avenue near East 75th.

 

I hope they leave a median in this boulevard for GCRTA to reconsider consolidating its rail lines down the center of the boulevard at some point in the future -- from the Buckeye/East 89th area west to where the OC would cross the Blue-Green lines.

 

And if this boulevard is successful, then University Circle is going to see a lot more traffic than it experiences now, as well as a much greater demand for parking. Those are bewildering thoughts for those of us who love UC for its urbanity, pedestrianism and physical beauty. What is the traffic congestion and parking mitigation strategy for University Circle?

 

Consider that UC's daytime population is already at 60,000 and forecast to rise another 10,000 by 2017 -- before the OC is built. In a few decades it may rival downtown Cleveland's daytime population of 100,000. And its population is rising at 12 percent -- a stunning rate of growth for any part of Cleveland's urban core. UC may face a traffic and parking crush the likes of which cannot be imagined now, yet its roadway system within UC and its rail system catchment area are insufficient to accommodate this traffic.

 

I believe addressing this situation is essential to ensuring UC remains to be the beautiful place we love and the reason why it is so attractive, and that it doesn't drown in its own success.

Sure it makes it easier to commute to UC from the west side, but there's already plenty of people doing that, just using Chester or Carnegie from the innerbelt. I don't see this as significantly sprawl inducing if it's not a freeway.

And those are some of the most important and vital ingredients that are necessary for increased transit use as well as an increase of the urban residential population (the very things that would help lead to increased residential in the UC area)..  Those are the kinds of problems that Cleveland could use.

 

Hopefully those things would more than balance any additional loss of population to the east side and inner suburbs/Heights.     

 

I did initially think of it as quite a gamble, but I now think it is more than worth it and necessary.  When you look at the reality of these neighborhoods (and where there would be in xx yrs without this) as well as looking at Clevelands strengths and its best chances of turing things around/possibilities for future growth, as well as its best chances of replenishing its tax base, then I think this project is a necessary one.  The possitives should definately outweigh any negatives.

Very true. And the worse the threat of traffic poses, the greater your chance of winning federal funds to address it. The crazy thing is if you want federal funding for rail transit and spinoff TOD, then create more serious highway traffic problems. Under current federal transportation policy, sometimes you have to destroy your urbanity to varying degrees in order to win federal dollars to build it anew.

Even though I moved to Florida a year ago, I still consider myself to have roots in NE Ohio and Cleveland. I hadn't thought too much about this project until yesterday when I saw the high cost for the very short length of this road. Then I started to consider what it would do to RTA's ridership (not good) and now KJP points out that 50-75% of residents in the immediate area do not drive and that the University Circle area would be negatively impacted with more traffic and a need for more parking.

 

I now think building this road would be exactly the wrong thing to do for these reasons and probably more. Can't we at least have ONE area that's not clogged with cars?

I don't really see how the Opportunity Corridor would affect RTA rail ridership.  The idea is to create access to University Circle for those living south of Cleveland and normally have to take 490 to 55th up to Carnegie.  I don't think those folks are currently (or would even consider) taking the rapid since it isn't an option for them.  The other folks the Corridor would really help are near East Siders (particularly from the Heights) who have terrible access to the interstate and Hopkins.  The net effect of the Corridor would be to substantially alleviate Carnegie traffic, which in my view is a good thing since Carnegie is far too automobile centric.  As for those folks in the forgotten triangle who may be taking the red line to University Circle, I doubt many even have cars, or if they do, would be willing to expend significant resources paying for University Circle parking.  Consequently, I really am finding it hard to believe RTA traffic would be substantially impacted in any way.  To the extent additional parking in UC is needed, it's a great way to develop that sea of surface parking at the Clinic, even if it means a few more garages.

I think the Opportunity Corridor could actually help increase ridership.  Who gets on/off at E. 79th?  Nobody, because there's nothing over there.  The new station at Buckeye is hardly used either.  With this new corridor, there should be some redevelopment parcels created for new housing, business, etc. 

A road won't create pedestrian-friendly development that is needed to build transit ridership. Cleaning up those properties will. As has been said here many times, there are dozens of EPA Superfund sites along the rail line between East 55th and University Circle. Dozens. Each requires millions of dollars worth of assessments and remediations done sufficiently enough that they yield covenents not to sue. There isn't enough brownfield remediation money to do all of these cleanups for TODs. But there is more money for a road project to level these properties and turn dirt that will yield cleaner properties for redevelopment. If these developments are sited and designed like the Orlando Baking Co. or the Miceli Dairy that are already along the planned OC, they won't support pedestrian activity.

 

But they will be better than the ruins of vacated, polluted industries that have prevented economic development in the corridor for decades, and would continue to do so for decades more. Believe me, I'm not a fan of this road project, but until we fund brownfield remediations sufficiently to meet the need, then a road project is one of the few remaining alternatives.

 

EDIT: here is a view of the Red Line under construction in 1954, looking east from East 75th toward the Van Dorn Co.'s East 79th plant which will soon be served by a Red Line station. The remaining buildings of Van Dorn will be demo'd for an expansion of the Orlando Baking Co....

I think the Opportunity Corridor could actually help increase ridership.  Who gets on/off at E. 79th?  Nobody, because there's nothing over there.  The new station at Buckeye is hardly used either.  With this new corridor, there should be some redevelopment parcels created for new housing, business, etc. 

 

Hold up.  How can you make a statement about the ridership?  That is a serious question and how can you honestly say the Buckeye station is hardly used?

A road won't create pedestrian-friendly development that is needed to build transit ridership. Cleaning up those properties will. As has been said here many times, there are dozens of EPA Superfund sites along the rail line between East 55th and University Circle. Dozens. Each requires millions of dollars worth of assessments and remediations done sufficiently enough that they yield covenents not to sue. There isn't enough brownfield remediation money to do all of these cleanups for TODs. But there is more money for a road project to level these properties and turn dirt that will yield cleaner properties for redevelopment. If these developments are sited and designed like the Orlando Baking Co. or the Miceli Dairy that are already along the planned OC, they won't support pedestrian activity.

 

But they will be better than the ruins of vacated, polluted industries that have prevented economic development in the corridor for decades, and would continue to do so for decades more. Believe me, I'm not a fan of this road project, but until we fund brownfield remediations sufficiently to meet the need, then a road project is one of the few remaining alternatives.

 

Excuse the digression, but this sounds like a great location for what I've been suggesting for years:  if you locate in certain high unemployment zones, employ x number of people per square foot of land, and attain ISO 14000 certification within three years, you are 100% exempt from any future liability for "legacy" hazards later found on the site.  They should also make more allowances for containment/proper use (put the parking lot over the old dump, don't dig there....) and relax the assessment requirements (the regulations concerning which are a jobs program for environmental scientists).

 

This issue has more impact on urban redevelopment than any other factor I can think of.  Ironically, the cases that triggered CERCLA had very little to do with corporate malfeasance.

I think the Opportunity Corridor could actually help increase ridership.  Who gets on/off at E. 79th?  Nobody, because there's nothing over there.  The new station at Buckeye is hardly used either.  With this new corridor, there should be some redevelopment parcels created for new housing, business, etc. 

 

Hold up.  How can you make a statement about the ridership?  That is a serious question and how can you honestly say the Buckeye station is hardly used?

 

A daily rider can usually make those assesments.  Even when I rode the red line on a regular basis during the early 1980s, E. 79th seemed to be the least used stop. 

What's the logic of narrowing between 93rd and Frank?

Probably because the clinic traffic will take 93rd while the rest of the UC traffic continues to 105th.

 

True, good point.  I just hope the third line terminates in a turn lane instead of a sudden merge.

^^It's been a few years since I rode the blue line daily, but Buckeye seemed to get a lot more riders than E79th.

 

What's the logic of narrowing between 93rd and Frank?

Probably because the clinic traffic will take 93rd while the rest of the UC traffic continues to 105th.

 

True, good point.  I just hope the third line terminates in a turn lane instead of a sudden merge.

Agreed, major pet peeve if it doesn't.

 

Excuse the digression, but this sounds like a great location for what I've been suggesting for years:  if you locate in certain high unemployment zones, employ x number of people per square foot of land, and attain ISO 14000 certification within three years, you are 100% exempt from any future liability for "legacy" hazards later found on the site.  They should also make more allowances for containment/proper use (put the parking lot over the old dump, don't dig there....) and relax the assessment requirements (the regulations concerning which are a jobs program for environmental scientists).

 

This issue has more impact on urban redevelopment than any other factor I can think of.  Ironically, the cases that triggered CERCLA had very little to do with corporate malfeasance.

 

That's true of industrial/warehousing or similar commercial activities. But if there's a desire to place housing, retail, basic services etc. within 1,000 feet of transit stops, then there's a lot more cleanup required.

 

Excuse the digression, but this sounds like a great location for what I've been suggesting for years:  if you locate in certain high unemployment zones, employ x number of people per square foot of land, and attain ISO 14000 certification within three years, you are 100% exempt from any future liability for "legacy" hazards later found on the site.  They should also make more allowances for containment/proper use (put the parking lot over the old dump, don't dig there....) and relax the assessment requirements (the regulations concerning which are a jobs program for environmental scientists).

 

This issue has more impact on urban redevelopment than any other factor I can think of.  Ironically, the cases that triggered CERCLA had very little to do with corporate malfeasance.

 

That's true of industrial/warehousing or similar commercial activities. But if there's a desire to place housing, retail, basic services etc. within 1,000 feet of transit stops, then there's a lot more cleanup required.

 

Even then, the level regulations and types of waste may not be enough for future residents: 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/lead-smelter-cleanup-liabilities/1766747/

 

 

 

Excuse the digression, but this sounds like a great location for what I've been suggesting for years:  if you locate in certain high unemployment zones, employ x number of people per square foot of land, and attain ISO 14000 certification within three years, you are 100% exempt from any future liability for "legacy" hazards later found on the site.  They should also make more allowances for containment/proper use (put the parking lot over the old dump, don't dig there....) and relax the assessment requirements (the regulations concerning which are a jobs program for environmental scientists).

 

This issue has more impact on urban redevelopment than any other factor I can think of.  Ironically, the cases that triggered CERCLA had very little to do with corporate malfeasance.

 

That's true of industrial/warehousing or similar commercial activities. But if there's a desire to place housing, retail, basic services etc. within 1,000 feet of transit stops, then there's a lot more cleanup required.

 

My thought is if the city had a choice between a large manufacturing plant and a large residential development in this area, they'd much prefer the former. 

 

By the way, I think the perfect name for this road would be (Garrett) Morgan Parkway.  Especially since it will contain traffic lights.    :-)

 

Excuse the digression, but this sounds like a great location for what I've been suggesting for years:  if you locate in certain high unemployment zones, employ x number of people per square foot of land, and attain ISO 14000 certification within three years, you are 100% exempt from any future liability for "legacy" hazards later found on the site.  They should also make more allowances for containment/proper use (put the parking lot over the old dump, don't dig there....) and relax the assessment requirements (the regulations concerning which are a jobs program for environmental scientists).

 

This issue has more impact on urban redevelopment than any other factor I can think of.  Ironically, the cases that triggered CERCLA had very little to do with corporate malfeasance.

 

That's true of industrial/warehousing or similar commercial activities. But if there's a desire to place housing, retail, basic services etc. within 1,000 feet of transit stops, then there's a lot more cleanup required.

 

My thought is if the city had a choice between a large manufacturing plant and a large residential development in this area, they'd much prefer the former. 

 

By the way, I think the perfect name for this road would be (Garrett) Morgan Parkway.  Especially since it will contain traffic lights.    :-)

 

Is there any precedent, besides 19th century factory tenaments, for actually tying the two together?  How about a manufacturing facility that employees local residents living in these new structures? 

My thought is if the city had a choice between a large manufacturing plant and a large residential development in this area, they'd much prefer the former. 

 

 

Except true transit oriented development offers enough density and mixed use that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

My thought is if the city had a choice between a large manufacturing plant and a large residential development in this area, they'd much prefer the former. 

 

 

Except true transit oriented development offers enough density and mixed use that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

No, but the whole area is not on the CERCLA list IIRC.

 

This won't be true TOD.  What's getting this paid for is hooking up UC and the Heights to the freeway system.  In any case, people in this area definitely believe in limits to density.

people in this area definitely believe in limits to density.[/color]

 

Try to speak only for yourself. It's dangerous to put all-encompassing feelings into other people's hearts. There are many of us who recognize that you can't have vibrant cities without density. And of course everything has limits, including good things like density, before they become bad things.

 

EDIT: I just posted this in the GCRTA thread, but it applies here too..... Ironically, now that most of the industries along the Red Line are gone, there exists an opportunity to redevelop those areas with land uses that have a mix and a level of density necessary to provide the Red Line with ridership levels that are more consistent with those of other rail transit lines in other cities.

 

Only density can provide sufficient ridership to rail transit. As a taxpayer, I want our rail transit system to perform better financially. And as a transit advocate, I know that only a dense mix of uses can provide sufficient ridership (50,000+ per weekday) to rail transit routes. Yet the Red Line carries only about 25,000 riders per weekday (quite a bit more than the 15,000 per weekday it was carrying just a few years ago).

 

The area between East 55th and University Circle was a pass-through area for the Red Line, even in its best years when it was dominated by industry. Now that the industry is gone, we have an opportunity to provide meaningful levels of ridership to this existing transportation investment, not replicate in the city anti-pedestrian suburban sprawl which transit cannot effectively serve, such as what is being considered for the Opportunity Corridor.

Opportunity Corridor in Cleveland: Whatever happened to ...?

By Tom Breckenridge, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, updated November 26, 2012 at 8:14 AM Print 

 

 

Whatever happened to Opportunity Corridor, the proposed boulevard between Interstate 490 and University Circle?

 

ODOT and roadway advocates are studying ways to pay for the long-sought project, which has no short-term prospects for funding.

 

Preliminary engineering continues on the 2¾-mile route. ODOT says much of the route needs to be one lane wider than originally proposed to handle the morning rush hour.

 

The 35 mph boulevard, estimated last year to cost $220 million, would move thousands of commuters and visitors from south and west of Cleveland more quickly to the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, as well as the educational and cultural institutions in University Circle.

 

Just as important, advocates say, is the road's potential to spur development in downtrodden neighborhoods, including parts of Central, Slavic Village, Kinsman, Fairfax and Buckeye.

 

Business and community leaders say the project is a top priority. ODOT has spent $4.5 million on preliminary engineering and committed $11 million more in 2014 for detailed design.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/opportunity_corridor_in_clevel.html

 

Wait a minute: $220 million for a 2-3/4 mile boulevard??? How about $220 million in transit improvements for the same area? Why do we seem to always default to more roads??? This in an area where up to 25% of residents do not own a motor vehicle.

 

Notice also that this road parallels the RTA Red LIne. Now what do you suppose the effect on RTA's ridership will be? Hmmm...

 

I agree  completely, BuckeyeB.  The hypocrisy irritates me.  This road has been sold as everything from the savior of the conveniently-dubbed "Forgotten Triangle" (where 75% of the locals don’t have cars to drive on it) to the lifeline of University Circle that will simply die without it – even the name “Opportunity Corridor” is a misleading farce to dupe people into supporting it.  Did anybody think about the fact that, with similar length rail line (to the OC) you could extend the Red Line to downtown Lakewood, the 2nd densest populated city between Philly and Chicago?  And with such an extension, thousands of Lakewood-ers could have a 1-seat rail ride to the Univ. Circle’s exploding employment center.  But no, rail expansion is always deemed controversial in this town while expanding roads and strip shopping is always sold as critical.  This wasteful roadway is only 2.7 miles for $220 million, while people are still grumbling about the near 20-year old Waterfront Line which only cost $60 million and is generating more urban-friendly TOD with the Flats East Bank development…  Any suggestion of rail extension gets people riled up in Cleveland; we ran RTA’s Ron Tober out of town for even broaching the subject.  Just shows how screwed up our priorities are.

It's definitely not just a Cleveland thing...more of a state and national level.

people in this area definitely believe in limits to density.[/color]

 

Try to speak only for yourself. It's dangerous to put all-encompassing feelings into other people's hearts. There are many of us who recognize that you can't have vibrant cities without density. And of course everything has limits, including good things like density, before they become bad things.

 

 

This is a running discussion here.  How many times around here have people lamented comments on other forums about projects being "too dense"?  How many times have we debated whether "sprawl" is caused by public policy or an innate tendency of Americans to desire "elbow room"?

 

Ironically, you may actually be able to put some high density residential areas in this stretch, assuming of course that you will be able to solve the crime issue.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who work at CC or UC that prefer such arrangements.  But....you won't take them out of Solon or Hinckley.  They will move there at the expense of areas like Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights....leaving a vaccum into which blight is likely to spread.

 

What's making this project economically viable is a desire for better regional access to UC and CC.  MY gut feeling is you're better off going for industrial expansion along this stretch.  It's a tax payer not a tax consumer (even with abatement there's job creation and the inherent income taxes), it's more tolerant to lower levels of contamination, a residual crime issue can be contained, and you're creating work opportunuties for the area's carless that they wouldn't have if the plant went up in Medina or Mentor.

It's definitely not just a Cleveland thing...more of a state and national level.

 

I agree it's a state problem (look, we happily elected John "3-C/Amtrak Killer" Kasich as gov), but not a national problem.  Cities from Boston to Charlotte to Houston to Salt Lake City to Denver (etc) are aggressively extending their rail transit systems...

 

JJames, I defy you to show many ANY city in the country with a substantial, well established rapid rail system as Cleveland's where rail expansion is so difficult and controversial. ... The extreme push to build this OC road/semi-highway right through the heart of urbanized area adjacent to our Rapid transit lines crystallizes Cleveland's folly... And I get KJP's noting officials' utilizing road building to clean EPA Superfund sites like those that exist in this corridor.  Still, it doesn't ease our local obstinacy toward expanding our rail systems while pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into new roads and their concomitant maintenance at taxpayer's expense -- and to be used by a generally narrow portion of our electorate, such as those living SW of the city trying to get to jobs, etc. in U. Circle.  In the face of all the progress Greater Cleveland is seeing, this lingering backwardness is extremely frustrating.

 

Redirected from the Van Dorn Iron Co. photo spread.......

 

Thanks KJP.

 

Looks like with the preferred alternative, more of the industrial site across the C&P will be removed (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/OpportunityCorridor/Documents/Central%20Section%20Alt%20B%20Impacts.pdf).

 

Stay tuned on that as well. A post will be coming up today.

 

That's a lot of hazardous materials sites impacted -- all of which need to be cleaned up as part of this project. It's one of the reasons why this project is being sought. They're using highway money which is more abundant that brownfield clean-up money to convert a toxic-wasteland into something productive. I'm glad for that, but wish the Red Line could have been brought out of the invisible, insecure trench and into this boulevard's highly visible median.

Opportunity Corridor project in Cleveland gets $29 million for planning gets $29 million for planning.

By Tom Breckenridge, The Plain Dealer on July 09, 2013 at 7:00 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Opportunity Corridor project has received $29 million from the state for full-bore planning.

 

The $324 million project would link Interstate 490 with University Circle by way of a 3 1/2-mile boulevard through Cleveland's East side neighborhoods.

 

Money for the long-sought project is starting to fall into place. Community leaders back the plan as a way to move traffic more quickly to the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals and other large employers in University Circle.

 

They also believe the four- to six-lane boulevard, featuring multiple intersections, will draw development to some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/07/opportunity_corridor_project_in_cle.html#incart_2box

Clevelanders for Transportation Equity

A grassroots group of citizens concerned about the Opportunity Corridor proposal.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/606909012674914/

There are many valid reasons to be opposed to the OC.  But, this group seems to always start the argument that it should be opposed because it is a highway, and we should not be building more highways.

 

Since this road is clearly not a highway, it is hard me as a supporter of the project to listen to any other points that could be made. If the first/best argument isn't true, why continue listening?

 

KJP, and other UOers, maybe you can use some influence there to try to have a more fact based debate.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

(P.S.  Also, this road is NOT in the southeast corner of the city, make them stop saying that too, please)

I support it.  I think it's a great idea. 

 

The argument against that I hear most often is that forcing people to access University Circle via Carnegie will stimulate business development along Carnegie.  And for some reason along Central and Quincy too.  I think if that were the case, it would have already happened.  Those neighborhoods can't get much worse, so let's try something else.  Let's try making them more accessible.

To some opponents of Opportunity Corridor, they view it as a highway no matter what is said. It was originally spun out of the Inner Belt alternatives analysis and was part of rerouting of Interstate 90 via University Circle and then north along the CSX line to the vicinity of the Collinwood Yards. It was then discarded as an I-90 alternative and recast as a secondary project called the University Circle Access Boulevard (UCAB). Since that was seen as too insensitive to the impoverished areas the road would be built through, it was renamed the Opportunity Corridor.

 

I think a bigger reason why this road is opposed is because the opponents want a much more localized economy. They see the regional, sprawling metro area as the source of demise of areas like the Forgotten Triangle. They would rather see self-sustaining neighborhoods where they grow their own food in community gardens, live in compact/pedestrian/sociable settings, and ride bikes/transit/car-sharing vehicles from place to place, to partake in an innovation-based economy. To them, this road is like a using bulldozer to draw on their preferred canvas for creating this vision. Read the Green City Blue Lake column from a month ago or so to get a better description than what I just gave.

 

I don't view it as a highway. I realize it will be a boulevard. And I think it could provide some benefits, but I am concerned that few residents in this and nearby neighborhoods will benefit from it. Most don't drive and many aren't trained for jobs at warehousing and light-industrial uses that are proposed along this corridor. Just spending public money on creating a corridor for jobs to locate in isn't sufficient. Public money is also needed to give more people physical and educational access to these jobs.

 

But my biggest concern is that we are adding lane-miles when we should be eliminating them to match the financial resources available to pay for their maintenance. Federal Highway Administration data on adding urban roadway lanes shows this road will only exacerbate a widening disconnect between maintenance needs and available financial resources to meet them. We used to build more roads to induce more demand and more gas tax revenues. That model has broken down and no longer works. And raising the gas tax or adding other new taxes/fees/tolls will only increase the cost of driving that has risen 71 percent so far since 2000 (according to AAA, IRS, etc).....

 

“Construction costs for adding lanes in urban areas average $10–$15 million per lane mile. In general, the funding for this type of construction comes from taxes that drivers pay when buying gas for their vehicles. Overall, funds generated from gas taxes on an added lane during rush hours amount to only $60,000 a year (based on 10,000 vehicles per day during rush hours, paying fuel taxes amounting to about 2 cents per mile). This amount is grossly insufficient to pay for the lane addition.”

 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_02.htm

 

So how long would it take for this road to generate revenue to sustain it? Never. And that's not even the biggest problem, as transportation never pays back its original costs. But we at least have identified revenue sources to pay those costs. This road lacks that.

 

So how bad is this tax-gap? How long it would for this road to repay its original construction cost? Depending on how you calculate it, the best scenario is that some toddlers and maybe some teenagers will live to see it. At worst, the youngest oak saplings now growing in Northeast Ohio probably won't live to see it.

 

So let's use two basic sets of data -- "only travel within the Opportunity Corridor" and "all travel involving the Opportunity Corridor."

 

ONLY TRAVEL WITHIN THE OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR

 

29,120 average daily traffic projected on all sections of the Opportunity Corridor by 2030 (SOURCE: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/OpportunityCorridor/Documents/2005-08-18OCWorkshop2Presentation.pdf)

x

3 miles, the project corridor length, including East 105th reconstruction and widening

=

87,360 is the approximate number of vehicle-miles traveling on the Opportunity Corridor per day

x

$0.02 cents per mile which is the Federal Highway Administration says is average yield in gas tax revenues generated per mile of driving (SOURCE: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_02.htm)

=

$1,747.20 is the average daily gas tax revenue produced by vehicles while on the Opportunity Corridor

x

365, the number of days per year

=

$637,728 is the projected gas tax revenues generated per year by vehicles while traveling on the Opportunity Corridor

so

$220 million is a projected cost of building the Opportunity Corridor (not including planning, property acquisition, etc costs)

/

$637,728

=

345 years is how long it will take gas taxes produced by vehicles ONLY WHILE TRAVELING WITHIN THE OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR to pay off the construction cost of Opportunity Corridor. Sadly the average lifespan of road infrastructure (bridges, subgrade, etc) in the USA is only 40-50 years before the road has to be completely replaced.

 

 

++++++++++++++++

 

ALL TRAVEL INVOLVING THE OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR

 

38,350 average daily traffic on the busiest section of the Opportunity Corridor, just east of East 55th, projected in 2030 (SOURCE: .

x

10.81 miles, the average commute distance in Greater Cleveland, according to the Texas Transportation Institute

=

414,553.5 is the approximate number of vehicle-miles routed via the Opportunity Corridor per day

x

$0.02 cents per mile which is the Federal Highway Administration says is average yield in gas tax revenues generated per mile of driving (SOURCE: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_02.htm)

=

$8,291.07 is the average daily gas tax revenue produced by vehicles using the Opportunity Corridor

x

365, the number of days per year

=

$3,026,240.60 is the projected gas tax revenues generated per year by vehicles using the Opportunity Corridor

so

$220 million is a projected cost of building the Opportunity Corridor (not including planning, property acquisition, etc costs)

/

$3,026,240.60

=

72.7 years is how long it will take gas taxes to pay off the Opportunity Corridor from ALL TRAVEL INVOLVING THE OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR. Sadly the average lifespan of road infrastructure (bridges, subgrade, etc) in the USA is only 40-50 years before the road has to be completely replaced.

 

And this does not take into account the fact that much of the traffic that will use the Opportunity Corridor will merely be diverted from other roads like Carnegie and Chester so they produce little new gas tax revenue to pay for this huge road investment. Approximately 13,500 vehicles per day could be rerouted off Carnegie and Chester to the Opportunity Corridor, according to the 2005 "Rosentraub Study" is by Dr. Mark Rosentraub, Ph.D., Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, on behalf of MidTown and other stakeholders.

 

Admittedly, this is a simplified analysis as there are many other inputs and factors at play. But most of those involve the source of diverted traffic to the Opportunity Corridor. Comparatively few "new" trips are projected to be generated by the Opportunity Corridor, so limiting the data to only the "new trips" will likely only increase the centuries required for the road to pay off its construction cost in gas taxes.

 

I think a bigger reason why this road is opposed is because the opponents want a much more localized economy. They see the regional, sprawling metro area as the source of demise of areas like the Forgotten Triangle. They would rather see self-sustaining neighborhoods where they grow their own food in community gardens, live in compact/pedestrian/sociable settings, and ride bikes/transit/car-sharing vehicles from place to place, to partake in an innovation-based economy. To them, this road is like a using bulldozer to draw on their preferred canvas for creating this vision. Read the Green City Blue Lake column from a month ago or so to get a better description than what I just gave.

 

In other words, pretty close to the opposite of how people in general, and not just the residents of the sprawlburbs, choose to live their lives.  I quite honestly don't see them as much different in principle from the Islamists who want everyone to pray five times a day, abstain from pork and alcohol, and force women to dress "modestly". 

 

In the case of this particular area, very little of that has taken root.  To some degree it has in some west side neighborhoods, but they have not grown to become a significant percentage of even Cuyahoga County's population.  Therefore, they want this area reserved in case they might want to build their communitarian dystopia on it later on. 

 

In a place where majoritarianism prevails in even a limited form, that's not going to fly in the face of a concrete (pun originally unintended) proposal that actually represents a major concession to those who actually live and work in the area known as the "Forgotten Triangle".  In its own way, it's an odd form of elitism.

 

I also disagree with the premise that it won't help those who do not have cars.  If industry begins to take root, they will be close to accessible jobs.

There's a whole new economic model emerging that you're missing. I'm sad you think something new and inclusive is a dystopia, but I would encourage you to understand it more before slamming it as being outside your experience. In fact economies are already becoming more localized and Cleveland is a leader in it -- being the second-largest grower of urban food. In addition to urban farms, the whole farmers market thing is an example, and many inner city farmers markets get their food from urban farms. This is self-actualizing urban residents, creating entrepreneurs and businesses where other career options are few. One of the largest urban farms is in the so-called Forgotten Triangle http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/urban_farm_in_clevelands_forgo.html

 

If that's a dystopia, then bring it on.

 

 

I also disagree with the premise that it won't help those who do not have cars.  If industry begins to take root, they will be close to accessible jobs.[/color]

 

What funding is included with this project to give inner-city residents the training necessary to have a competitive "opportunity" at these jobs? We can't just look at transportation projects anymore as a means to move more vehicles farther and faster. Now that would be dystopian.

There's a whole new economic model emerging that you're missing. I'm sad you think something new and inclusive is a dystopia, but I would encourage you to understand it more before slamming it as being outside your experience. In fact economies are already becoming more localized and Cleveland is a leader in it -- being the second-largest grower of urban food. In addition to urban farms, the whole farmers market thing is an example, and many inner city farmers markets get their food from urban farms. This is self-actualizing urban residents, creating entrepreneurs and businesses where other career options are few. One of the largest urban farms is in the so-called Forgotten Triangle http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/urban_farm_in_clevelands_forgo.html

 

If that's a dystopia, then bring it on.

 

You're only addressing the farming aspect, which I have nothing against as an adjunct to the food supply.  The implication in your statement is that the bulk of the areas food comes from there.  Certainly urban farming makes sense, though I'd be careful where I planted....

 

The whole thing sounds like an urbanized and densified version of a kolkhoz.  No thanks.