There's been a lively discussion about the proposed boulevard on the ClevelandLive forum. But I thought I'd share with you what's being talked about. Review this document from ODOT, and then think about what's wrong with it....

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/NEWFILES/newpdf0502/University%20Circle%20Access%20Boulevard%205-9-02.pdf

 

ODOT talks about the University Circle Access Boulevard (UCAB) linking Interstates 90, 71 and 77 with University Circle. And that's where they immediately start off on the wrong foot. Where is the traffic coming from? Identify the sources of the car trips, and it will become clear the UCAB is a regional issue, not just a University Circle issue.

 

What alternatives analysis was done? Unfortunately, none -- at least for the UCAB. Such an objective analysis, under federal regulations, is supposed to include transit alternatives as well as a consideration of land use changes. To my knowledge, the only alternatives associated with the UCAB were two different alignments the road could take to reach UC (via the Norfolk Southern/Red Line railroad corridor or via the Blue-Green Lines/CSX railroad corridor).

 

Either way, UCAB would be 4-6 lanes wide (with planners leaning to the six-lane version, or three in each direction) and travel from East 55th Street to MLK Boulevard at the foot of Cedar Hill. Projected cost of the 2.5-mile boulevard is estimated at about $100 million. If an alignment next to the Norfolk Southern railroad is desired, as it appears based on the data alone, it would likely require the relocation of RTA's Central Rail Facility and its rail yard at East 55th to an unspecified location.

 

Traffic count estimates and preliminary site maps show the UCAB would dump tens of thousands of additional cars per day into a new intersection at the convergence of the following roads in University Circle -- Carnegie, Cedar, Stearns and the Fairhill/MLK Boulevard combination. Innerbelt project consultants Burgess and Niple are predicting that the UCAB could handle up to 1,800 vehicles heading west and 1,600 heading east per hour during the rush hours.

 

UCAB's proponents argue that the road would create redevelopment where the Red Line has not. Why hasn't there been redevelopment? Quite simply, there are 43 EPA Superfund (extremely contaminated) sites along this short segment of rail corridor, where factories once stood, or still do, but sit abandoned or underutilized. Conservative estimates show that 20-30 apartments and 20 active business operations between E. 75th and E. 79th streets will have to be demolished in order to build the boulevard.

 

The lack of state and federal funding to clean up these sites is hampering the area's redevelopment. Construction of the UCAB would obliterate some of these sites and effectively clean them up in part by removing them, and the rest by providing a funding share from the boulevard project to leverage additional dollars for cleanup. In other words, without the six-lane boulevard project and its associated earthmoving, we lack the funds in this state to remedy some very environmentally troubled properties.

 

There is a sad commentary in this, that Ohio fails to provide the funds to urban areas to allow for their redevelopment unless a road project is involved. In this case, that road is next to a competing rail transit line. The addition of parallel transportation capacity will disperse ridership from the Red Line, for which Greater Clevelanders already have made a substantial investment. Together with the Euclid Corridor Project, such a dispersal could result in a call for the Red Line's eventual abandonment on the East Side, just when the Red Line is starting to regain lost ridership.

 

Consider instead what Portland, Oregon did, which was to change land use rather than expand the capacity of the roadway network. In the late 1990s, Oregon officials wanted to build a new freeway, but advocates redirected the process to develop land around a new rail transit service. Using Portland's model here, ODOT could establish a link deposit program or a revolving loan with that $100 million or similar funding for the UCAB and target it instead for residential development downtown and at Red Line stations on the East and West sides, while still providing a matching funds for environmental cleanup.

 

Additionally, to improve Red Line access to UC destinations, consider relocating the Red Line, between Stokes Boulevard and East 120th Street. RTA is considering replacing its rail fleet in the coming years, possibly with an all-light rail fleet. If they do, run the Red Line as a light-rail line on a mix of private right of way and down Euclid Avenue, sharing station facilities with the new busway.

 

Furthermore, since many UC employees come from the West Shore suburbs, operate several commuter trains in each direction during the rush hours only from Lorain, Avon Lake, Westlake, West Boulevard Red Line station, pass south of downtown, the new Stokes Red Line station, Windermere, and east to the Euclid Park-n-Ride (it's next to the NS line). If there was a time-of-day separation with NS freight traffic, a lightweight commuter train could be used and switch over to RTA tracks on the east and west sides to serve Tower City Center.

 

The question is, do we want a road to shape the land uses of redevelopment along the Red Line and around University Circle, or do we want transit to shape it? Look at the issue from a regional perspective first, in terms of what of what you want Greater Cleveland to be, then decide.

 

KJP

while they are at it, they should go ahead and build that freeway over the shaker lakes.........damn two-bit duck pond

 

 

anywho, regaring moving the redline to parts of euclid just doesn't make sense to me. KJP, you know construction costs for an overhead cantenary system the size of say the red lines eastern branch, or just a per-mile oneway estimate?

Cost of building an overhead catenary is about $2 million per mile for a double-tracked railway.

 

My rationale for wanting to relocate the Red Line down Euclid Avenue through the University Circle area (sharing the ROW with the ECIP busway) is to place it between the sources of ridership in that area, rather than off to one side. Putting it in the middle of the action is where transit should be. Consider this map and all the places that would be within a closer walk of the new, 1.1-mile segment.....

 

 

Even the existing University Circle station at Cedar would be moved only slightly. Of course, all of this would depend on the Red Line's heavy-rail trains being replaced with light-rail rolling stock. RTA is expected to start procurement on a new rail fleet as early as next year, with a possible delivery in 2011.

 

KJP

hmm.....

 

i wasn't aware of RTA's new fleet............

KJP, by that logic, wouldn't it be better to move the Red Line to Euclid for the entire route and merge that initiative into the Euclid Corridor?  That way, the Red Line would be getting to the heart of Midtown, Playhouse Square and CSU as well as University Circle.

Well, that would skip Shaker Square...

two things

 

1) maybe i'm confused or riverviewer is but shaker square is served by the blue/green lines, not the red

 

2) we do have the silver line coming, did we already forget this?

^Pardon me, I've been drinking...

 

(I'm sure you understand!)

^Pardon me, I've been drinking...

 

(I'm sure you understand!)

 

don't judge me

LOL...wouldn't dream of it!

banned!

2) we do have the silver line coming, did we already forget this?

 

Pope, that is exactly my point.  If we are to move part of the Red Line onto the same ROW as the Silver Line, does it not make more sense to roll the two together since several of the most important stops (Public Square, University Circle, Windemere) on either line are going to be so close?  Instead of a heavy rail going through industrial ruins and a half-assed BRT, we could have one well done LRT line.

or redevelop the areas around the red line stops.......43 superfunds.......eww

 

i wish rta would break their ridership down by station, i'm pretty sure E 34th campus has five people a day get off there

KJP, by that logic, wouldn't it be better to move the Red Line to Euclid for the entire route and merge that initiative into the Euclid Corridor? That way, the Red Line would be getting to the heart of Midtown, Playhouse Square and CSU as well as University Circle.

 

Two problems with that:

 

1. As Pope points out, the Silver Line is already a "go" -- it's designed and funded.

2. Even if there was a sudden, strong desire by community leaders to put rail down Euclid Avenue all the way from University Circle to downtown, the cost would be at least double the busway. Most of the added cost would come in the downtown area, associated with getting trains from Euclid Avenue back onto the existing Red Line from Tower City westward.

 

Keep in mind that RTA has up to $7 million in hand for relocating the East 120th/Euclid station to someplace, which might be reprogrammed to instead relocate the University Circle station per this proposal. The East120th/Euclid station would be removed.

 

Here's two cost estimates for realigning the Red Line through University Cirlce:

 

via Euclid under Stokes/NS/CSX and across Cedar/Carnegie

 

$1m - property acquisitions

$6m - bridges under NS/CSX

$3m - University Circle station

N/A - Wade Park station (included in ECIP)

N/A - Mayfield/Ford station (included in ECIP)

$3m - ROW gradient changes/cuts

$4m - new tracks

$2m - track-in-street enhancements, road signals, etc.

$1m - coded track circuits

$3m - overhead catenary

-------

$23m - subtotal

$7m - contingencies

$3m - engineering

-------

$33 million - total

 

via Euclid over Stokes/Cedar/Carnegie/NS/CSX:

 

$2m - property acquisitions

$7m - bridge over NS/CSX

$3m - bridge over Cedar

$3m - bridge over Carnegie

$7m - University Circle station

N/A - Wade Park station (included in ECIP)

N/A - Mayfield/Ford station (included in ECIP)

$15m - ROW gradient changes/approach embankments

$4m - new tracks

$1m - track-in-street enhancements, road signals, etc.

$1m - coded track circuits

$3m - overhead catenary

-------

$46m - subtotal

$14m - contingencies

$5m - engineering

-------

$65 million - total

 

 

KJP

I understand the difficulties in price and that the silver line is almost a go, but I'm thinking more in terms of end product.  Does it make sense to have two lines that are that redundant?  What will we achieve by doing this?  What does the one line take us to that the other doesn't?

 

I think that the two lines will poach from each other, as is. And only more so if the lines get even closer. Ideally, if the Red Line is moved at all, it should be moved the other direction.  Is there any way that light rail could make it up the hill into the Heights?  I'd think there'd be great ridership in the Cedar/Fairmount and Coventry areas.

 

Cleaning and reusing those superfund sites along the Red Line is a big if for the foreseeable future.  I don't think they are a priority for the city compared to the Euclid Corridor, the Lakefront, or neighborhood housing infill.  They're probably decades out. 

 

Simpsons is on, I will add more later....Priorities!

hell, lets restore all the old streetcar lines!

Cedar Hill had a double-tracked streetcar line that ran on a private right of way, which can still be seen on the right side of the road going up the hill. At the top, it split into three lines -- 1. Euclid Heights Blvd to Coventry, then east on Mayfield; 2. east on Cedar; 3. southeast on Fairmount (some of the original trolley wire poles are still there in the median). In fact, the first Shaker Heights "Rapid" was an extension of the Fairmount line, which headed south on Coventry, but was replaced with the direct routing of the Rapid in 1920. BTW, Mayfield had a single-track streetcar that went up the hill, but it had its problems in certain weather, as you can probably imagine!

 

Ironically, if the UC Boulevard is built, it would actually make the proposal for rerouting the Red Line though UC less expensive, as a graded right of way past Stokes Blvd would be provided by the UC Boulevard. The Red Line could use the UC Boulevard's median.

 

As for the Silver Line vs. the Red Line, keep in mind that the #6 bus already carries about 25,000 riders per day, while the Red Line carries 20,000 (though that's for the whole Red Line, which is used less on the east side). Most of the Silver Line's new ridership will come from intermediate segments (UC, Midtown, CSU) when the redevelopment comes.

 

The Silver Line will work well for travel between downtown and UC, but for those coming from the west side and going to UC, the Rapid could still the better choice. West side riders will not have to transfer at Tower City, but they may have to transfer at UC to a Circle Link or the Heights Community Circulator to reach their UC destinations. That's why I propose the Red Line realignment so us west siders don't have to make a transfer anymore, and so the need for the UC Boulevard is reduced.

 

Plus, if a limited commuter rail service is started on the line out to Lorain, uses a lightweight diesel rail car, and NS grants a time-of-day separation from freight traffic, commuter rail could switch over to the Red Line near West Boulevard and use RTA tracks through Tower City to UC. How's that for making good use of existing transportation infrastructure, rather than building a 6-lane boulevard that will dump tens of thousands more cars into already-congested University Circle?

 

So, should I develop this idea further and submit it to Peter Lewis in exchange for fulfilling his offer of an "idea bounty"?

 

KJP

Yes, you should.  I think its a really good idea.  I'd love to see the Red Line built down the median of the UC Boulevard.  I think that would bring the best possible redevelopment potential to that corridor.

I'd love to see the Red Line built down the median of the UC Boulevard.  I think that would bring the best possible redevelopment potential to that corridor.

 

this should be especially pressed for at least four other reasons i could think of:

 

a) commuter rail was abandoned by noaca :x

 

b) the (phoney) rail options were all quickly dumped by odot during the innerbelt redo planning :shoot:

 

c) the west shoreway calming plans have made little mention of built-in rail transit

      or any transit ---- and that one is a gimmee! train to the beach anyone?  :-D

 

d) if they are going to do a uc blvd highway anyway, it should be alternative transit friendly

      as possible especially since all the other new major road projects are not considerate of any transit  :?

 

 

 

 

wait, i thought uc blvd was going to be built along the red line area, through the conrail (or whoever it is) right of way?

Yes, it is. Here's the only way I can accept the UC Boulevard along the 6-10 track wide right of way (most of which has only 4-6 tracks) ....

 

1. Fill in the north side of the rail right of way, which is the unused part;

2. On this new fill, build the UC Boulevard with the Red Line running down the middle of it;

3. Relocate the two-track NS line to where the Red Line was located;

4. Fill in the vacated strip between the UC Boulevard and the NS Line (which would sit in a narrow, 2-3 track wide cut);

5. Redevelop along both sides of the UC Blvd and Red Line.

 

KJP

From my experience riding the Red Line, I don't see it as a street-level type of operation...the way the old Shaker Rapid is (Shaker is sort of a hybrid between a light-rail "streetcar"

sort of operation and a heavy rail rapid transit system).

 

The Red Line reminded me alot of the CTAs old Skokie Swift.  Although the Skokie Swift was a shuttle (from Howard to Dempster Ave, with no stops in between) it had alot of "Red Line" features....one car trains, overhead wire (at the time), but "heavy rail" construction and operation, with high-level platforms and high speeds.    It was not really a "street running" kind of rail line.

 

 

See my earlier message...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2267.msg21288#msg21288

 

...in this string about RTA possibly acquiring a standardized light-rail vehicle for use on all lines. RTA thought about doing it in the early 1980s, and some officials later regretted not doing so to save on maintenance costs and possibly route one of Shaker lines through to Hopkins Airport. Because the Breda LRVs and Tokyu HRVs were paid for in part with federal funds, a transit agency has to use them for at least 25 years before replacing them or they have to give back some of the federal funding. The Tokyu cars for the Red Line were delivered to RTA over several months from 1984-85. Since RTA said it doesn't expect to replace its rail fleet until 2011, that would "suggest"  RTA wants to go with the standardized LRV. However, they may start procurement as early as next year to identify the kind of rail car they want so that manufacturing can take place in time to meet that 2011 delivery date.

 

KJP

I know that there are some ideas floating about in University Circle's and Fairfax's master plans to reconfig the streets in the area around Ambler Park.  I don't remember how it was to be reconfigured just now.  Is that what you've shown with the streets you've drawn?

No, I didn't know they were, but I do now!

 

BTW, you like my "Grand Center Station"? I wanted to use a station name that suggested a transfer point, like "Metro Center" in D.C., but with Grand Avenue nearby, I couldn't resist. It's all about placemaking.....

 

KJP

dearest KJP,

 

please get a life

 

sincerely,

 

the pope

Dearest Pope,

 

Coming up with ways to make Cleveland a better place is my life.

 

I have to do something with my time ever since I quit drinking. Of course, just by bagging the booze, I immediately made Cleveland a better place!

 

Soberly yours,

 

KJP

These graphics are actually pretty good...

Thanks! But, actually....?

 

KJP

Thought many of you would find this letter of interest. The letter is a public record, so I'm not breaking a confidence here.  KJP

________________

 

June 3, 2005

 

David J. Coyle, Director

District 12

Ohio Department of Transportation

5500 Transportation Blvd.

Garfield Heights, OH 44125

 

Dear Dave:

 

The Opportunity Corridor project connecting I-490 to University Circle is a project that provides for the best interests of the City of Cleveland and the residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed new boulevard. That is why I am allocating $10,000 to help fund the study that ODOT is conducting in partnership with University Circle, Inc. in hopes of moving this project forward.

 

The creation of a boulevard between I-490 and University Circle will improve access to University Circle and allow for economic development to blossom on more than 400 acres of underutilized land in the City of Cleveland, including the Forgotten Triangle, while relieving congestion on the Innerbelt, all at a significantly lower cost than building a new freeway.

 

Both the short-term and the long-term benefits that will arise from the Opportunity Corridor are substantial and in the best interests of the City of Cleveland and its residents. Therefore, it should be the priority over the reconfiguration of the Innerbelt, particularly until we can solve the issues surrounding the on/off ramps of the new Innerbelt and the negative impact they would have on our neighborhoods.

 

There are just a few of the reasons why I support this project and urge you to make the Opportunity Corridor the priority for ODOT in the Greater Cleveland area. I look forward to working with you to make the project a reality.

 

Sincerely,

 

Frank G. Jackson

President of Council

 

cc: Craig K. Hebebrand, Project Director, ODOT District 12

Was this letter in response to a specific question asked?

OH H*LL NO!  I AM SO AGAINST THIS ACCESS ROAD.  MY BLOOD IS BOILING.  :x

 

HE SHOULD BE USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPUR MORE DEVELOPMENT ON EUCLID, CARNIEGE, CHESTER AND EXPAND CURRENT RAIL!  ARGH!!!

since when is traffic bad on the innerbelt anyway?

In theory, I am not against the Access road.  I haven't really seen a presentation on it.  I know that the city and UCI are definitely in favor of it.  I would think that there are a lot of economic positives that could come from it.  There are at least 43 superfund sites in the area.  This could provide an opportunity to revitalize and lost area of Cleveland. 

 

It would be nice to get some more info on the benefits that it would bring.

In theory, I am not against the Access road. I haven't really seen a presentation on it. I know that the city and UCI are definitely in favor of it. I would think that there are a lot of economic positives that could come from it. There are at least 43 superfund sites in the area. This could provide an opportunity to revitalize and lost area of Cleveland.

 

It would be nice to get some more info on the benefits that it would bring.

 

Here is a question?  if there are so many positives to this corridor, why build a road that is in DIRECT competition to Euclid (corridor project)?  We're spending millions to rebuild and attract infrastructure to EUCLID AVENUE. 

 

Have we not learned from the past?  We already destroyed the Westside with freeways, Cleveland does not have a congestion problem.  Use this money to campaign to make Cleveland LESS auto dependant.

 

Why build a road that is going to the same place, that would take, this so called traffic AWAY from a MAJOR development that the city went all half assed to have built?  We should have just gone all out and built a subway then built this "corridor" so that people just zip by neighborhoods that are trying to kick start themselves.

 

use this money to rebuild the lakefront roadways or develop more rail and improve all major city streets....or better yet BURY ALL THOSE DAMN UTILITY POLES/WIRES!!!

I don't think that it would be in competition with the ECP.  Its goals are: create better access to UC from 77 (presently, most people use MLK via 90 to get there); open up areas to light industrial development (the area has a large number of brownfields and superfund cites.), industry needs good access to highways and large tracts of land.  This would be a different use than the ECP.  Different goals.  I see them as complementary.  But again, its not like I studied it greatly.  I just think we have to take an honest look at all possibilities.

I agree with the point that wimwar is making, especially if this cooridor will open up large tracks of industrial wastelands to new development.  All future prospects for manufacturing in this city, or any older industrial city is smaller niche manufacturing. 

If Euclid is being reclaimed as the main street of Cleveland, this new access road could be lined with smaller factories, with efficient truck accessibility.

Thinking of it in that perspective, I now like the idea of the new road.

 

why can't this be reclaimed as a neighborhood????????????????????

We need to reclaim our neighborhoods as neighborhoods!  We still have tons of vacant residential land in Hough and Fairfax and even in Ohio City and Downtown.  We need places to generate jobs, too.

MyTwoSense is dead on, wimwar, not only would this road be competing with ECP, it would lie directly in the railroad bed along with the parallel Red Line Rapid Transit.  It makes no sense at all -- no other city on the planet builds a roadway -- a pseudo freeway -- access to it would be limited, to compete against a high-speed rail line.  And don't believe this garbage about it creating opportunity.  The planners of this thing have no intention of developing the land in this area; it is strictly a design to help certain people from both the Heights and the West Side, speed to their jobs even easier than they can now in their private autos -- in case you hadn't noticed, Cleveland has very few rush hour traffic jams and the high-speed road access to the East Side via Chester and Carnegie with very well time traffic lights.  University Circle will see no gain with this roadway other than more auto traffic passing through so, again, don’t believe the parallel hype that this stupid road will somehow boost patronization of U. Circle institutions … newsflash, these institutions are doing JUST FINE without it and the UCI, Case, Peter B. Lewis and Little Italy, while not always in perfect harmony, are trying to work out commercial/retail and Case Western U expansion – the latter being well underway – and the U. Circle Boulevard is not, in the least, a part of their plans.

 

As for Frank Jackson, and Jane Campbell throwing their weight behind this, these folks have clearly shown they have no clue about TOD's or urban development. Both are on board with that stupid Steelyards big box Wal-Mart and both are behind an equally foolish suburban-type a Target Store recently-announced development for W. 117 at I-90; this one displacing over 100 residents who will have their homes demolished for Target’s big box.  Jackson’s merely a typical pol trying to see which way the wind is blowing to lift his flat sails for his mayoral bid.  And they call Kerry a flip-flopper --  well this guy, Jackson, was at first dead set against Steelyards but then, when it became politically expedient after Union Club types leaning toward Jane began putting out press releases that Frank’s Steelyard stance was costing jobs (a really bogus rant), he turned full circle… and btw, more sensible Green, grass roots city promoters (folks like EcoCity Cleveland) who REALLY care about orderly development and protecting grocery jobs from big-box Wal-Mart’s union-busting and grocery price gouging, are still fighting tooth ‘n nail against Steelyards – I say, bless ‘em!

 

Wimwar, I know you're a (very welcome) newcomer to Cleveland, but don't buy into the hype of individuals like Jackson and Campbell who are mere patsies for the ODOT auto lobby.  This silly road/boulevard/semi-freeway (oh, now they've cooked up a new ruse/moniker: the "Avenue of Opportunity" -- bullshit!) is very destructive to the sensible, high-density development of our City.

 

 

Look, all I am saying is that we need to look more closely at the project.  Just because it may look bad at first glance doesnt mean that we should dismiss it.  And, I really don't think that it competes with the ECP.  They are different types of transit projects.  One is meant for more TOD development and the other is meant for industrial and access purposes.  University Circle is a growing area that needs increased options for all types of commuters.  I think that we too easily fall for the romanticized idea that we can make Cleveland a better place by shutting down all roads and forcing the entire population onto the Red Line.  We would do our city a disservice if we did not take an intelligent look at all the options. 

 

Clvndr,  Chicago has built quite a lot of transit in the middle of its freeways.  And, that area could hold potential to draw increased industry.  Cleveland is hindered by its lack of available quality industrial properties.  Many businesses have left town unwillingly because they could not find adequate space within the city limits.  Access to road transportation is very important for industry.  The Access blvd could provide the greatest opportunity to retain and draw increased industrial activity to the city.  Furthermore, its location on the redline is perfect for the lower-income workers that such work draws.  I am not the Access blvd spokeman.  I feel more like I have to play devil's advocate because some, like myself, have fallen quite hard for a beautiful and intelligent new innerbelt bridge that would be great for downtown.   

 

Other random points: 

-University Circle is very interested in the access boulevard.

-While I don't place much faith in Campbell or Jackson, I also don't summarily dismiss what they say without taking a closer look

-I agree that Cleveland traffic is just fine.  But, I do think that UC would see a boost in attendance from improved access.  Growing up a westsider, UC is not very accessible.  That lack of accessibility is a drawback.  However, I wouldn't do the project for that reason. 

 

University Circle is one part of Cleveland where traffic is not OK!  Traffic on MLK is absolutely horrible at rush hour, and Cedar and Carnegie can be a mess too.  This is our second largest concentration of employment in the region (over 30,000) and is rapidly growing.  There is no highway for over a mile!  And considering all the expansion that's going to happen there (the VA consolidation, Case West Quad, the Heart Center, etc.) it is only going to get worse. 

 

No one wants a highway plowed through the east side, but we need more than what we have.  Those roads are just about at capacity.  A boulevard, if done well, will contribute to the area where they want to run it, and may actually help the Red Line by getting some of the surrounding land redeveloped.

Here's my take on all this:

 

> Funding for cleaning up EPA Superfund sites is limited -- certainly not enough to tackle 43 of them in a 2-3 mile stretch;

> Highway funding is more available, and can be used to remove the Superfund sites;

> Redevelopment along the corridor will occur with the UCAB, or whatever it's called now, and that could help the Red Line. But I am concerned that the Red Line will become forgotten if it remains in that trench;

> Highway and transit funding can be brought to bear to put both the UCAB and the Red Line on the same right of way, thereby putting both on the same level (physically, visually and competitively);

> Rezone properties within a half-mile of the UCAB with transit-supportive zoning so that we don't get seas of parking and newer, more modern slums out of the deal;

> Reconfigure the street layout in University Circle -- they're damned confusing as it is for east siders and threaten to become overwhelmed with lost west siders, so rearrange things so that someone can park on the railroad side of UC while taking transit, biking and walking to UC's "front door" (on Euclid);

> See my graphics on the first page of this message string to see what wild things I have in mind.

 

I think this can be a win-win for the city, but if the powers-that-be merely want to slash a road through the east side, then I can't see it doing much for the surrounding neighborhoods. In that case, what I do see are newer, auto-centric slums that have the job-creating sites spread too thin to lift the neighborhood. If that happens, the east side ends up with just another through route for suburban motorists to use as if it were a gauntlet (see Chester, Carnegie, MLK).

 

Happy motoring!

 

KJP

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you guys.  I still don't want the so-called UCAB, or whatever, under any circumstances and see no value to it... but in response to a couple of you---

 

--- KJP's rationale for cleaning up EPA Superfund cites is the only one I'm on board w/, to a degree.  I just wish there were other means to this end.

 

-- Forgotten Red Line in the trench?  I don't think it need be and I don't think building a limited access road next to it will help... Look at the West Side Red Line... it is becoming more successful because some local leaders, in part pushed by EcoCity Cleveland (and KJP), have finally started pushing TODs.  The Red Line lies in a similar, though somewhat narrower, trench on the West Side, too, but TOD's and not a parallel freeway, are not deemed the fruits of Red Line rebirth.  Derilect factory buildings are either being razed or adaptively re-used as multi-unit housing (like what’s happening @ W. Blvd/Cudell).  If anything, the Red Line has been hampered by I-90 west, which destroyed many old Detroit-Superior homes and cut the neighborhood in 2 (aside from competing against and sucking potential commuters from the Red Line when, to me, I's 71, 480 plus Shoreway west could have satisfied commuter needs -- but I'm not a West Sider...

 

-- The Chicago Precedent – Chi-town’s a much denser/bigger city than ours so building a rail line in most any corridor there is almost guaranteed to be a success.  The 3 well-documented frwy median els you cite were either relocations or extensions of existing ancient L lines (w/ the Dan Ryan essentially being an express extension of the parallel/nearby 1892-built Jackson Park/Englewood line)... Putting rapid rail in freeways can deal w/ where-to-put-the-rail-line? space issues, particularly in a crowded city like Chicago which is really under-freeway-ed for its size.  But as a general rule, freeways and rapid rail create/attract diametrically opposed development types: rapid rail: dense/walkable; freeways: disperse, non-walkable w/ substantial parking lot needs pushing buildings further from the transit stops  – and in most cases, the freeway-inspired development trumps high-density TOD causing any new development to lower density and pushed away from transit stops.  At Chicago freeway-L stops in freeway trenches (which is most of them), commuters must walk across busy parallel marginal roads—the situation being all the more difficult if the transit stop is also at a freeway interchange…  So since Cleveland is not Chicago and since the Red Line already exists and is not being relocated or (unfortunately) extended, I think the median strip/parallel highway Chicago-type analogy falls short.

 

Right now, the rebuilding E. 105 Red Line station is attracting (if we can get it built) one of the 1st high density developments in the Fairfax/UC area outside of hospitals: the proposed Juvenile Justice Ctr on Quincy... I don't know why more of this type of TOD isn't being suggested which has nothing to do w/ UCAB... A number of years ago, there was talk of relocating the very-lightly used E. 79th Red Line stop (which is both in a low density area and a hop/skip/jump down the street from the Blue/Green line elevated stop) to the Buckey-Woodland-E.89th intersection... that busy corner, while dead and dilapidated currently, has much potential given that it's a heavy traffic corridor and much closer to Fairfax populations where there has, already, been some neighborhood rehab... why did this proposal die...

 

Also, while none of you guys are arguing it (others are), there's simply no substance to UCAB helping U.Circle in the least... The popular Flats of the 80s stands for the idea that, if you build it, they will come (from all over the Midwest and nation); even with horrific driving/parking problems the Flats used to present.

 

And sadly, given the bassackwards, negative approach we have toward urban development here in Cleveland, it wouldn’t surprise me if this UCAB plan (along w/ the much over-hyped ECP) are merely weak rubber-tire initiatives designed to put the Red Line out of business… a move that would be, of course, absurd, … but this is Cleveland.

 

... Anyway, that's my two ce--, er, ... ideas.

 

ODOT has created a web page for the "Opportunity Corridor" with documents available for downloads....

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/OCfrontpage1.htm

 

Of particular interest should be the four proposed alternatives for road alignments in the corridor in this document....

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/2005-08-18_OC%20Workshop2.pdf

 

Cost estimates are contained in the Sept. 22 Evaluation Matrix....

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/92205ConceptAlts%20Matrix.pdf

 

For quick reference, the estimated costs of building this road are from $181 million to $272 million.

 

Nowhere in any of the documents is anything said about its impacts on transit ridership, opportunities for TOD to reduce the need for the road, or related issues. But, then, it was ODOT's nickel (actually, yours and mine) who paid for these studies. IF continued efforts ignore these matters, then I encourage the formation of a Transit Riders United Cleveland (TRU Cleveland). And the first official act would be to file a lawsuit against such destructive transportation planning that devalues existing transit facilities and those that are under construction.

 

KJP

I despise this UCAB folly.  It's a waste and WILL ABSOLUTELY harm if not destroy Red Line service.  (and I wouldn't be surprised if JoeC's all for it)...

 

... btw, I rode the Red Line to U.Circle the other day from downtown.  Contrary to popular believe, and even my own misconception, the open-cut corridor along NS and the Red Line isn't all that wide, really -- certainly not wide enough for the wide type of boulevard/freeway they're planning (and certainly not in the portion from E.55 to the Circle).

 

We cannot give up fighting this thing.  Even our misguided pols (council people, mayoral candidates) all have bought into the myth that this thing will boost their neighborhoods...

 

... wow, I sure wish our pols could junket to other cities like Chicago, D.C, etc, that really do know about real city building, ... urban density building.

Clvlndr.  I agree. This will not only hurt the current redline but the people - regardless of how few or there income - who currently reside in the area's affected.

 

we need to improve rail transit up the east side and the west side to stop the "i can't get anywhere QUICKLY via public transportation" BS.

MTS, like a bad penny, this stupid project just keeps coming back; won't go away.  We in Cleveland have such a propensity to engage in city-sapping/killing projects so it's always 2 step forward, 2 steps backward.  And the pols are telling us how great this will be for the city... after coming back from the Steelyards ribbon-cutting ceremony.  argh!

Why would this hurt Redline ridership?  The idea behind the project should lead to an increase in demand for transit to the area.

 

The idea of the project is to open up land for industrial development.  Many firms are leaving the area because they cannot expand or because they are poorly situated and don't have streets that their trucks can get through.

 

 

If this will be industrial corridor, then it will be of marginal benefit to the Red Line. Most industries these days require single-level factories. Anything single-level is not high density. And lack of density favors auto use, not transit. For the limited transit ridership that will likely be generated by these light-densit uses, the times that this will occur is at shift changes.

 

Now, if there is a mix of light-industrial, offices, high-density housing, ground-floor retail (especially grocers and others that are sorely lacking in the urban core), then this will offer the kind of round-the-clock ridership generators that is needed. Each station needs to be the focal point of concentrated "village" of mixed uses, stacked one on top of the other, to be of meaningful value to a high-density transit facility like the Red Line.

 

Given that this corridor is so badly emaciated, there is a real opportunity to "start over" when it comes to land use, including high-density uses clustered in pedestrian settings around stations. And this can be done without the NIMBY factor that has threatened such transit-friendly land use at the Ohio City Red Line station. 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.

 

KJP