Why does pro-density have to mean anti-car?  The concepts aren't mutually exclusive

 

No, but they are negatively correlated.  The more cars you invite into an area, the less density-friendly it will be.  And the more dense you build an area, the less car-friendly it will be.  So why take a thriving fairly density-friendly neighborhood that is already not that bad to navigate by car and make it more car-friendly?  It's not like we're asking that all roads to University Circle be ripped up and replaced with rail lines.

@MTS I said if I worked there and lived " along the red line" I would.  I have walked along many 4-6 lane roads.  The ones that have neutral grounds are easier to cross than ones without.

 

But, you bring up what I suspect is a quiet, but powerful driver for the opposition.  The idea that if it doesn't benefit me or my friends, it's a waste of money.  The people trapped in that neighborhood, who can't sell their houses, have little employment opportunities, do not easy access to one of the largest employment centers in the state?  Well, let them eat cake, I don't like seeing too many cars when I go to new restaurant or gallery openings in UC.

^If I worked there and lived near the red line, sure.  That is why I want it built

 

Not just if you lived there, in general.  After all, this road is suppose to be a connector and good for the entire city, right?

 

None of the rapid lines are "good for the entire city". I guess we shouldn't have built those either? (I do have issues with the routes, but A route should have still been built)

@MTS I said if I worked there and lived " along the red line" I would.  I have walked along many 4-6 lane roads.  The ones that have neutral grounds are easier to cross than ones without.

 

But, you bring up what I suspect is a quiet, but powerful driver for the opposition.  The idea that if it doesn't benefit me or my friends, it's a waste of money.  The people trapped in that neighborhood, who can't sell their houses, have little employment opportunities, do not easy access to one of the largest employment centers in the state?  Well, let them eat cake, I don't like seeing too many cars when I go to new restaurant or gallery openings in UC.

Punch, I'm only asking questions.  I personally, do not believe your or any pro OC people will use it.  The people in this area don't need a road throught it they need economic development and redevelopment in the infrastructure they currently have.  Similar to what was done in Central Arbor Village.

 

Part of your statement makes no sense, "do not easy access to one of the largest employment centers in the state? "

 

Anyone who lives between Kinsman, E 55th, Carnegie and 79 street has easy access to UC.  As stated earlier, these folks most likely don't have vehicles so they are taking public transpiration.

 

Buses run on the following streets:

Kinsman- Cross town connections to UC

Woodland - the 12/13 bus lines have been cancelled

Cedar

Euclid

East 55 Street

East 79 Street

East 105 Street

 

They have plenty of transportation options.

 

Also, you say these people are "trapped".  If they have little employment opportunities, where are they going to go when their current homes are demolished?  There has been no information of any employment coming in, where are they going to obtain work. (I've asked that three different time now).  Those people will still be unemployed, trapped with a 4/6 lane road right thru their neighborhood.

 

 

 

^If I worked there and lived near the red line, sure.  That is why I want it built

 

Not just if you lived there, in general.  After all, this road is suppose to be a connector and good for the entire city, right?

 

None of the rapid lines are "good for the entire city". I guess we shouldn't have built those either? (I do have issues with the routes, but A route should have still been built)

WTF? You're comparing apples to oranges.  Stand down Boo!

My support of this road goes hand in hand with my work to bring industry and manufacturing to the city. 

My support of this road goes hand in hand with my work to bring industry and manufacturing to the city. 

1

Key words "to bring".  Not, we have a contract(s) with x company(s) to build x thing(s) to x location.  Ie., Not "here are concrete plans from x investors for this area, which warrant a new road"!

 

 

My support of this road goes hand in hand with my work to bring industry and manufacturing to the city. 

1

Key words "to bring".  Not, we have a contract(s) with x company(s) to build x thing(s) to x location.  Ie., Not "here are concrete plans from x investors for this area, which warrant a new road"!

 

The issue with that argument is that it basically stops any public project.

My support of this road goes hand in hand with my work to bring industry and manufacturing to the city. 

1

Key words "to bring".  Not, we have a contract(s) with x company(s) to build x thing(s) to x location.  Ie., Not "here are concrete plans from x investors for this area, which warrant a new road"!

 

The issue with that argument is that it basically stops any public project.

 

BINGO.  Why this shouldn't be public.  If private enterprise thinks this is so great, let them fund it and improve the neighborhood!

My support of this road goes hand in hand with my work to bring industry and manufacturing to the city. 

1

Key words "to bring".  Not, we have a contract(s) with x company(s) to build x thing(s) to x location.  Ie., Not "here are concrete plans from x investors for this area, which warrant a new road"!

 

The issue with that argument is that it basically stops any public project.

 

BINGO.  Why this shouldn't be public.  If private enterprise thinks this is so great, let them fund it and improve the neighborhood!

 

THEY DO FUND IT, it's called taxation.  That is how cities operate.  It's residents have jobs inside of these facilities.  The individual employees are taxed, and the company is taxed.  Those taxes pay for roads, fire departments, parks, etc. 

 

My support of this road goes hand in hand with my work to bring industry and manufacturing to the city. 

1

Key words "to bring".  Not, we have a contract(s) with x company(s) to build x thing(s) to x location.  Ie., Not "here are concrete plans from x investors for this area, which warrant a new road"!

 

The issue with that argument is that it basically stops any public project.

 

BINGO.  Why this shouldn't be public.  If private enterprise thinks this is so great, let them fund it and improve the neighborhood!

 

THEY DO FUND IT, it's called taxation.  That is how cities operate.  It's residents have jobs inside of these facilities.  The individual employees are taxed, and the company is taxed.  Those taxes pay for roads, fire departments, parks, etc. 

 

 

Sweetie, you're reaching here. Private investors should build this road. It should not be a public works (via taxation) project.  Since you mention "facilities", where EXACTLY are these so called facilities.  Show me in the presentation where it says there are concrete plans for facilities, that will hire individuals who can then be taxed.  What company or companies are planning to come into this area?

Building a subway would have never made sense. Too expensive for this areas ridership. The density is not there. Plus we have one of the lowest rail riderships in the country.

 

Completely disagree.  Rapid transit is as much, if not more-so, designed to direct urban growth and create density as it is to connect existing built-up populations.  With your thinking, historic rapid rail such as the Shaker (Blue-Green) lines or the New York subway (as steam-driven elevated train lines in its original form), to name a few, would have never been built.  If you study the history, those lines were built out into farm land and created dense, walkable neighborhoods, esp in NYC and at Shaker Square (actually, Shaker would have had had more apartments and density had not the Van Sweringen Co. initially banned apartment building within Shaker Hts.)... You can't look at Cleveland's Midtown, or any area, and say they would not have grown TOD density if the subway had been built.  That's craziness.

 

Our current system is based off of a park and ride system and TOD is not really happening here, especially as a first thought. It's more like, " Lets build in University Circle by CWRU and UH." Then rta or the media claims it is TOD for the Healthline and the developer gladly goes along with that as it is good press.

 

TOD IS happening but it has been slow in coming largely because of the road-building mentality/lobby here coupled with an equally historic weak advocacy for transit.  The Red Line was designed for bus transfers and, I agree, park & ride, because officials decided long ago that subways were too expensive for this area and so, as you know, freight rail lines tend to draw industrial uses and that puts distance between transit and people.  However, Jmecklenborg a couple years ago noted that little Buffalo built a straight-up-the-gut subway that would have been equal in length and similar in function to the proposed Dual-Hub route; and though Buffalo to date has refused to expand their starter line, it's been a success passenger-wise...  But Cleveland has/is evolving.  TOD is seriously being planned: at FEB, at Ohio City and at University Circle, esp the soon-to-be relocated UC-Little Italy station... One of our prime recent developers, Ari Maron, noted that all of MRN's development is deliberately along the Red Line (Ohio City, Downtown/E. 4th and UC-Uptown) so as to create dense, walkable areas... and as we know, MRN is batting 1,000% when it comes to the growth and success of their mixed-use development.

 

I would have strongly preferred streetcars, as they would probably have lower operating costs than bus and less frequent replacement costs.  Plus if done right you might have been able to tie it in to the current rail system. But streetcars would face the same issues that makes the Healthline sucks. Terrible traffic signals that cause delays and bunching.

 

If we've learned anything in Cleveland, it's that always building on the cheap ... gets you cheap results (just look at the slowness, overcrowding and quick unit replacement cycle of the HL) .  The Van Swerigens through their paper holding companies, built a tremendously expensive rapid transit network (including the mammoth underground, mixed use terminal/office/shopping complex and it's off-street rail access in the center of town), both the finished (in their lifetimes) Shaker lines and the planned Red Line that opened decades later... Had they settled for streetcars or even a cheap/half-ass/slow interurban/suburban trolley route, there would be no Rapid at all in Cleveland today... But the speed of the Shaker Rapid (it's as fast as or faster than cars into Public Sq during rush hour, even now) created quality housing demand, and TOD, thus assuring the Rapid's survival into the Auto Age ... while all the streetcars disappeared... a form of Transit Darwinism... but we still long for the cheap and the easy ...

 

This whole Opportunity Corridor ram-through is based on the public's belief (and ignorance) that all things relating to roads and rubber tires will be a success, . . . while all things rail transit-related are controversial and failures...

 

... for example, how many people (except me and maybe a few others) recognize that the Waterfront Line is largely responsible for, and will lead to the success of the dense new neighborhood rising at FEB?  It's been Cleveland's refusal to understand the WFL's benefits despite it's imperfections, will constantly turning the City's collective back on WFL TOD development ... until now.  The problem has been more Cleveland's than it has been the WFL's...

 

Meanwhile, once OC is built, people will bend over backward to tell you how necessary and what an advantage it is... that's just how we Clevelanders are wired ... sadly. 

Building a subway would have never made sense. Too expensive for this areas ridership. The density is not there. Plus we have one of the lowest rail riderships in the country.

 

Completely disagree.  Rapid transit is as much, if not more-so, designed to direct urban growth and create density as it is to connect existing built-up populations.  With your thinking, historic rapid rail such as the Shaker (Blue-Green) lines or the New York subway (as steam-driven elevated train lines in its original form), to name a few, would have never been built.  If you study the history, those lines were built out into farm land and created dense, walkable neighborhoods, esp in NYC and at Shaker Square (actually, Shaker would have had had more apartments and density had not the Van Sweringen Co. initially banned apartment building within Shaker Hts.)... You can't look at Cleveland's Midtown, or any area, and say they would not have grown TOD density if the subway had been built.  That's craziness.

 

Our current system is based off of a park and ride system and TOD is not really happening here, especially as a first thought. It's more like, " Lets build in University Circle by CWRU and UH." Then rta or the media claims it is TOD for the Healthline and the developer gladly goes along with that as it is good press.

 

TOD IS happening but it has been slow in coming largely because of the road-building mentality/lobby here coupled with an equally historic weak advocacy for transit.  The Red Line was designed for bus transfers and, I agree, park & ride, because officials decided long ago that subways were too expensive for this area and so, as you know, freight rail lines tend to draw industrial uses and that puts distance between transit and people.  However, Jmecklenborg a couple years ago noted that little Buffalo built a straight-up-the-gut subway that would have been equal in length and similar in function to the proposed Dual-Hub route; and though Buffalo to date has refused to expand their starter line, it's been a success passenger-wise...  But Cleveland has/is evolving.  TOD is seriously being planned: at FEB, at Ohio City and at University Circle, esp the soon-to-be relocated UC-Little Italy station... One of our prime recent developers, Ari Maron, noted that all of MRN's development is deliberately along the Red Line (Ohio City, Downtown/E. 4th and UC-Uptown) so as to create dense, walkable areas... and as we know, MRN is batting 1,000% when it comes to the growth and success of their mixed-use development.

 

I would have strongly preferred streetcars, as they would probably have lower operating costs than bus and less frequent replacement costs.  Plus if done right you might have been able to tie it in to the current rail system. But streetcars would face the same issues that makes the Healthline sucks. Terrible traffic signals that cause delays and bunching.

 

If we've learned anything in Cleveland, it's that always building on the cheap ... gets you cheap results (just look at the slowness, overcrowding and quick unit replacement cycle of the HL) .  The Van Swerigens through their paper holding companies, built a tremendously expensive rapid transit network (including the mammoth underground, mixed use terminal/office/shopping complex and it's off-street rail access in the center of town), both the finished (in their lifetimes) Shaker lines and the planned Red Line that opened decades later... Had they settled for streetcars or even a cheap/half-ass/slow interurban/suburban trolley route, there would be no Rapid at all in Cleveland today... But the speed of the Shaker Rapid (it's as fast as or faster than cars into Public Sq during rush hour, even now) created quality housing demand, and TOD, thus assuring the Rapid's survival into the Auto Age ... while all the streetcars disappeared... a form of Transit Darwinism... but we still long for the cheap and the easy ...

 

This whole Opportunity Corridor ram-through is based on the public's belief (and ignorance) that all things relating to roads and rubber tires will be a success, . . . while all things rail transit-related are controversial and failures...

 

... for example, how many people (except me and maybe a few others) recognize that the Waterfront Line is largely responsible for, and will lead to the success of the dense new neighborhood rising at FEB?  It's been Cleveland's refusal to understand the WFL's benefits despite it's imperfections, will constantly turning the City's collective back on WFL TOD development ... until now.  The problem has been more Cleveland's than it has been the WFL's...

 

Meanwhile, once OC is built, people will bend over backward to tell you how necessary and what an advantage it is... that's just how we Clevelanders are wired ... sadly. 

 

We're on the same team, so I'll ask you.  How necessary is it and what is the advantage?

^You got me dude, but as we see, there are some serious snake oil salesmen when it comes to this boondoggle.  And as we're seeing, there's not only a huge market for snake oil around here, there's a lot of multi-level marketing going on, too.

^You got me dude, but as we see, there are some serious snake oil salesmen when it comes to this boondoggle.  And as we're seeing, there's not only a huge market for snake oil around here, there's a lot of multi-level marketing going on, too.

 

Hallelujah!  This is road is a waste.

So with GCRTA closing down the East 79th Red Line station (it does not see enough ridership to justify its replacement to comply with ADA before the deadline), I wonder how this affects arguments for and against the Opportunity Corridor? Some proponents have said that the boulevard will open up land for transit oriented development near Red Line stations. Perhaps they were thinking of East 105th and, to a far lesser extent, East 55th which will have two large rail yards on one side of it and a six-lane road on the other? It certainly won't be for warehouses in the middle of the route as the Red Line station will be no more. Opponents of the boulevard said the road will weaken the Red Line by duplicating it with parallel bus services on the boulevard. And persons like me who are torn down the middle suggest that the Red Line should be rerouted into the median of a portion of the Opportunity Corridor. Now with the East 79th Station closing, there is one less reason why the Red Line should stay where it is.

 

^ Nice map. I agree completely. Can they reuse the track to lower cost? Plus this might make both sides happy.

^ Nice map. I agree completely. Can they reuse the track to lower cost? Plus this might make both sides happy.

 

Thanks, but it would take the Red Line out of service for a long, long time. I think I'd already posted these, but they may have gotten lost in the server crash. Here are progressively more distant views......

 

 

 

So with GCRTA closing down the East 79th Red Line station (it does not see enough ridership to justify its replacement to comply with ADA before the deadline), I wonder how this affects arguments for and against the Opportunity Corridor? Some proponents have said that the boulevard will open up land for transit oriented development near Red Line stations. Perhaps they were thinking of East 105th and, to a far lesser extent, East 55th which will have two large rail yards on one side of it and a six-lane road on the other? It certainly won't be for warehouses in the middle of the route as the Red Line station will be no more. Opponents of the boulevard said the road will weaken the Red Line by duplicating it with parallel bus services on the boulevard. And persons like me who are torn down the middle suggest that the Red Line should be rerouted into the median of a portion of the Opportunity Corridor. Now with the East 79th Station closing, there is one less reason why the Red Line should stay where it is.

 

 

KJP, lovely thought, but I highly thought that the Red Line wont be moved onto the new "road".

Funny how often this happens. Many people like something but most doubt it will happen, so it never happens. Maybe we should try do something before discarding it as undoable? Just a thought.

Funny how often this happens. Many people like something but most doubt it will happen, so it never happens. Maybe we should try do something before discarding it as undoable? Just a thought.

I'm being realistic.  This road is joke.  You do notice how none of the pro people never asked the direct questions I've asked.

So with GCRTA closing down the East 79th Red Line station (it does not see enough ridership to justify its replacement to comply with ADA before the deadline), I wonder how this affects arguments for and against the Opportunity Corridor? s/bb90/Peepersk/Railtransit/OCblvd-transit-zoom1_zps6cad5642.jpg[/img][/url]

 

Is this official?  It’s been speculated on this thread for awhile, mostly because I threw out the fact that the area has more green space these days than some exurbs and the idea that buses running between the 55th and 105th rapid stations could serve this area well internally and blend well with the red line for external service.

 

Getting rid of the 79th stop also speeds up the red line trip to the east.  It’s a matter of physics.

 

No, it's not official. And heavy rail transit lines typically have stations space 1 to 1.5 miles apart. Having such a long distance between stations tells me this line needs to be converted into something other than a rapid transit line, such as a hybrid service. But that's probably a discussion for another thread (like the Red Line/HealthLine extension study).

 

BTW, while sifting through old files, I found these. I shared these with ODOT and RTA nearly a decade ago. Between the two, guess which one expressed more interest?

 

 

No, it's not official. And heavy rail transit lines typically have stations space 1 to 1.5 miles apart. Having such a long distance between stations tells me this line needs to be converted into something other than a rapid transit line, such as a hybrid service. But that's probably a discussion for another thread (like the Red Line/HealthLine extension study).

 

BTW, while sifting through old files, I found these. I shared these with ODOT and RTA nearly a decade ago. Between the two, guess which one expressed more interest?

 

 

 

Neither, but at least I see housing, retail and places of employment that would potentially hire people from the immediate area.  What has the current "road" given us?  ZE-RO!  Right, Punch?

Neither, but at least I see housing, retail and places of employment that would potentially hire people from the immediate area.  What has the current "road" given us?  ZE-RO!  Right, Punch?

 

Bzzzt!

 

The correct answer is "ODOT."

No, it's not official. And heavy rail transit lines typically have stations space 1 to 1.5 miles apart. Having such a long distance between stations tells me this line needs to be converted into something other than a rapid transit line, such as a hybrid service. But that's probably a discussion for another thread (like the Red Line/HealthLine extension study).

 

BTW, while sifting through old files, I found these. I shared these with ODOT and RTA nearly a decade ago. Between the two, guess which one expressed more interest?

 

 

 

Neither, but at least I see housing, retail and places of employment that would potentially hire people from the immediate area.  What has the current "road" given us?  ZE-RO!  Right, Punch?

 

You give me half of that development with the OC, and I'm unequivocably in.

So with GCRTA closing down the East 79th Red Line station (it does not see enough ridership to justify its replacement to comply with ADA before the deadline), I wonder how this affects arguments for and against the Opportunity Corridor? Some proponents have said that the boulevard will open up land for transit oriented development near Red Line stations. Perhaps they were thinking of East 105th and, to a far lesser extent, East 55th which will have two large rail yards on one side of it and a six-lane road on the other? It certainly won't be for warehouses in the middle of the route as the Red Line station will be no more. Opponents of the boulevard said the road will weaken the Red Line by duplicating it with parallel bus services on the boulevard. And persons like me who are torn down the middle suggest that the Red Line should be rerouted into the median of a portion of the Opportunity Corridor. Now with the East 79th Station closing, there is one less reason why the Red Line should stay where it is.

 

 

Why should the 70 street station close?  Before answering, think about the constituents who live in the area where the station is located? 

 

I say if 79 Street is closed then, Attleboro, Eaton, Southington & Belvoir on the Shaker Line be closed and Drexmore on the Blue line be closed.  Although, that will never happen because the people of Shaker will be up in arms.  Shaker (and to a lesser degree Cleveland Hts. & University Hts.) would never allow that to happen, they would call the mayor, their county elected official, state and federal elected officials and Governor and say, "we don't use it, but we love our Shaker Rapid. It's what makes Shaker, Shaker!  How dare you try to take away a piece of our history!"  Their complaints would be met with "we here you and we understand". 

 

The people of Western Central called to complain about this road or the closing of the East 70 street station, would be met with "this is what's best for the city and region".  They have no voice.  That is the only reason this road is being placed where it is.

East 79th Street. I mentioned it in the context of alternatives for the Opportunity Corridor. I stated the reasons why it will be closed -- ADA noncompliance, high cost to make it compliant, and its low ridership doesn't justify the expense. If you want to discuss those reasons, then that's for the GCRTA thread.

East 79th Street. I mentioned it in the context of alternatives for the Opportunity Corridor. I stated the reasons why it will be closed -- ADA noncompliance, high cost to make it compliant, and its low ridership doesn't justify the expense. If you want to discuss those reasons, then that's for the GCRTA thread.

 

Typo, I mean East 79 Street!  :P :P .  You want the route of the Shaker Lines to move, so my discussion is geared toward that.

As much as I hate to see stations close, one is probably enough to service that section of E79th.

 

Kind of ridiculous not to have a concrete plan for redevelopment presented along with the plan for this new road.  Seems like that might have curtailed opposition somewhat.

Neither, but at least I see housing, retail and places of employment that would potentially hire people from the immediate area.  What has the current "road" given us?  ZE-RO!  Right, Punch?

 

Bzzzt!

 

The correct answer is "ODOT."

 

Of course it was ODOT.  This lets them build things, and justify same.

 

RTA is a federally guaranteed monopoly.  Their degree of proactiveness is strictly a management perogative.

[i say if 79 Street is closed then, Attleboro, Eaton, Southington & Belvoir on the Shaker Line be closed and Drexmore on the Blue line be closed.  Although, that will never happen because the people of Shaker will be up in arms.  Shaker (and to a lesser degree Cleveland Hts. & University Hts.) would never allow that to happen, they would call the mayor, their county elected official, state and federal elected officials and Governor and say, "we don't use it, but we love our Shaker Rapid. It's what makes Shaker, Shaker!  How dare you try to take away a piece of our history!"  Their complaints would be met with "we here you and we understand". 

 

The people of Western Central called to complain about this road or the closing of the East 70 street station, would be met with "this is what's best for the city and region".  They have no voice.  That is the only reason this road is being placed where it is.

 

If it wasn’t for those Shaker people, the Clark Freeway would already connect 77 to 271 and this conversation would not take place.  People have lived there for generations, they own expensive buildings there, they have serious skin in the game. 

 

The 79th area?  Even if we leave aside the depopulation of that immediate area, it’s largely a transient community.  I’m doubting many folks who live there go downtown much.  The owners of the property the OC would demolish?  They are likely overjoyed at the prospect.   

[i say if 79 Street is closed then, Attleboro, Eaton, Southington & Belvoir on the Shaker Line be closed and Drexmore on the Blue line be closed.  Although, that will never happen because the people of Shaker will be up in arms.  Shaker (and to a lesser degree Cleveland Hts. & University Hts.) would never allow that to happen, they would call the mayor, their county elected official, state and federal elected officials and Governor and say, "we don't use it, but we love our Shaker Rapid. It's what makes Shaker, Shaker!  How dare you try to take away a piece of our history!"  Their complaints would be met with "we here you and we understand". 

 

The people of Western Central called to complain about this road or the closing of the East 70 street station, would be met with "this is what's best for the city and region".  They have no voice.  That is the only reason this road is being placed where it is.

 

If it wasn’t for those Shaker people, the Clark Freeway would already connect 77 to 271 and this conversation would not take place.  People have lived there for generations, they own expensive buildings there, they have serious skin in the game. 

 

The 79th area?  Even if we leave aside the depopulation of that immediate area, it’s largely a transient community.  I’m doubting many folks who live there go downtown much.  The owners of the property the OC would demolish?  They are likely overjoyed at the prospect.   

 

Proof of a previous posts.  The Rich (Cleve Hts. & Shaker Hts.) have the money and political clout to fight what they see as an "invasion"!  Keep in mind the home I grew up in wouldn't be there because the Lee Road freeway would have also been built.

 

You asked about home owners, so did I.  We haven't heard one word from a Resident or home owner?  How do we know they're overjoyed?  Could it be false sense of security, considering there are no employment opportunities or neighborhood rebuilding developments mentioned?

 

You and I both know this is just the "Clark Freeway" with a new name.

You and I both know this is just the "Clark Freeway" with a new name.

 

In what sense? 

 

It's not a freeway, it only connects to a freeway at one end, and it doesn't extend past city limits.  The importance of University Circle's eds & meds to the local economy is a relatively recent development.  This is a relatively recent plan geard toward addressing that state of affairs.  It has nothing to do with putting criss-crossing freeways through the Heights.

You and I both know this is just the "Clark Freeway" with a new name.

 

In what sense? 

 

It's not a freeway, it only connects to a freeway at one end, and it doesn't extend past city limits.  The importance of University Circle's eds & meds to the local economy is a relatively recent development.  This is a relatively recent plan geard toward addressing that state of affairs.  It has nothing to do with putting criss-crossing freeways through the Heights.

 

It is a Freeway.  It's cutting up someones neighborhood, no matter with the state of the neighborhood.

Completely over dramatic.

 

The highway would have destroyed neighborhoods and demolished thousands of high quality housing. The OC will demolish a few houses, most of which are in TERRIBLE condition and are the only house on the street. If anything the state will buy those houses from the residents, giving them cash they never could have had because those houses were never going to sell. It gives them freedom.

Completely over dramatic.

 

The highway would have destroyed neighborhoods and demolished thousands of high quality housing. The OC will demolish a few houses, most of which are in TERRIBLE condition and are the only house on the street. If anything the state will buy those houses from the residents, giving them cash they never could have had because those houses were never going to sell. It gives them freedom.

Pah Lease!  It's a highway, freeway, Blvd.  It's not a street!

 

And how much money do you think they will get for their property?  And where do they go?

 

Not only would the Clark FW torn up Shaker and CH, but it would have torn up the middle class Larchmere are, as that would have been the southern portion of the highway.  Affecting the house I live in now!

 

Again, poor people have no voice!

I forgot, the highway also would have taken over the shaker lakes, which got environmentalists involved who added a lot of opposition.

I forgot, the highway also would have taken over the shaker lakes, which got environmentalists involved who added a lot of opposition.

 

2 courageous ladies, both still living I believe, led the environmental fight that finally killed the Clark Freeway which led to the excellent Shaker Nature Center...

 

...While the Clark Freeway was worse than OC, the parallels are similar.  You had the dream of extending that I-490 stub Eastward into a freeway similar to the OC highway of today.  Clark Freeway was the pet project of an extremely reckless, nasty conservative Democrat, Cuyahoga County Engineer Albert Porter, who hated rail transit and sought to destroy downtown with urban sprawl-by-urban freeway. 

 

Like the OC, Clark Freeway drew the interest and the backing of a downstate Republican governor, Jim Rhodes, who similarly threw his considerable political weight behind Clark Freeway and like his similar predecessor, John Kasich, despised Cleveland and was no friend of rail passenger trains (the original 3-C train service died under his leadership IIRC, and Rhodes had no interest in seeing it restarted ... and as we know, his political descendent actually killed the effort to see it restored)... at least Rhodes threw Cleveland a bone with the creation of CSU on the small Fenn College foundation. 

 

Like the OC, the Clark was to extend through the East Side destroying homes of people who overwhelmingly voted against the downstate Republican governor who backed it.

 

Like the OC, the Clark Freeway was designed to bypass Downtown and siphon traffic, primarily West Side commuters in OC's case, away from Cleveland's CBD.

 

Like the OC, the Clark Freeway directly paralleled a Rapid transit line (the Blue and Green Lines back then), ... and there were plans to run the outer portion of the Clark on opposite sides of the existing Green Line Rapid in the middle of widened Shaker Blvd...

 

... and As With The OC, there were transit plans, much like RTA's (Joe C's) of today, of running buses along the Clark to supposedly 'enhance' the Rapid ...  although savvy transit planners of the day realized this road and this plan would likely kill the Shaker Rapid. ... taking it a step further was the late Harry Christiansen, newspaperman-turned-(supposed)-transit-advocate who was Porter's buddy (See: lackey) and spokesman, openly advocated ending the Shaker Rapid, paving over their tracks and running express buses over the new pavement... Crazy?  Christensen's poorly-written, self published trolley picture books spouting this nonsense are in local libraries today (and maybe on Google Books, though I'd never waste my time looking them up). 

 

I believe it was George Santayana who wrote: those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it... Exhibit A: the Opportunity Corridor.

"Through the East Side destroying homes" means two very different things though.  The neighborhoods (currently) in question were built around factories that are long gone.  The street grid fans out from a downtown that was filled with retail.  University Circle was nothing more than Doan's Corner when that planning took place, to the extent that any planning even did take place.  Planning wasn't really a thing then, which is how we got neighborhoods built around heavy industry, which is why those neighborhoods ultimately failed, which is why urban planning was developed in the first place.

^actually, I just used it as a parallel in terms of politically.  The homes destroying aspect of OC doesn't bother me so much because, by law under the Constitution, people must be compensated for a loss of their homes.  And as many have noted, many of these homes (not all) are in poor condition and the owners will likely get new digs and much nicer areas.  My problem with this project is the overall impact it's going to have on the region and its transit network which, if you begin weakening it, which this plan will do, you weaken the urban fabric of surrounding neighborhoods...

 

... and I'll keep saying it: University Circle is growing on it's own without this damn highway, which is only getting rammed through because the CC and PD have got their Republican buddy/governor, John Kasich, to push full steam ahead.  And it should be sound warning bells that this man has nothing good to say or do for Greater Cleveland.

We're both partisan and both on the same side.  I'm well aware that the last statewide figure to push for this was Ken Blackwell.  Like all policies, I'm trying to judge it on its merits, and I think it has some.  It has some issues too, as you and others have pointed out.  I'd prefer the same monies went into rail expansion first.  No doubt about it.  But I would not turn away monies for this road, because I believe it will be a net positive. 

 

Yes UC is growing but it has a long way to go before it matches its parallels in other cities, and its surrounding neighborhoods are a total wreck.  The current course has not been particularly successful overall.

Shouldn't UC and the Clinic's growth and prosperity help its neighboring community, one of the highest concentrations of poverty in the country?

 

Manufactuing is still the best job for low skilled workers to make a living wage.  We have a good shot at medical device manufacturing, and high tech materials fabrication.  That would put the industrial land back to productive use for the tax base of the city.  That improves schools, roads, and all city services.

 

But, they will not come if proper road transportation is not there.

^actually, I just used it as a parallel in terms of politically.  The homes destroying aspect of OC doesn't bother me so much because, by law under the Constitution, people must be compensated for a loss of their homes.  And as many have noted, many of these homes (not all) are in poor condition and the owners will likely get new digs and much nicer areas.  My problem with this project is the overall impact it's going to have on the region and its transit network which, if you begin weakening it, which this plan will do, you weaken the urban fabric of surrounding neighborhoods...

 

... and I'll keep saying it: University Circle is growing on it's own without this damn highway, which is only getting rammed through because the CC and PD have got their Republican buddy/governor, John Kasich, to push full steam ahead.  And it should be sound warning bells that this man has nothing good to say or do for Greater Cleveland.

 

This is where I disagree.  So those people get paid for those homes.  Where are they going?  They wont have enough money to move into a better area, say the heights and pay the taxes and blend into the society of the heights.

Shouldn't UC and the Clinic's growth and prosperity help its neighboring community, one of the highest concentrations of poverty in the country?

 

Manufactuing is still the best job for low skilled workers to make a living wage.  We have a good shot at medical device manufacturing, and high tech materials fabrication.  That would put the industrial land back to productive use for the tax base of the city.  That improves schools, roads, and all city services.

 

But, they will not come if proper road transportation is not there.

 

Again, there are no plans for industry.  Where are the plans for the neighborhood?  None have been provided.

^actually, I just used it as a parallel in terms of politically.  The homes destroying aspect of OC doesn't bother me so much because, by law under the Constitution, people must be compensated for a loss of their homes.  And as many have noted, many of these homes (not all) are in poor condition and the owners will likely get new digs and much nicer areas.  My problem with this project is the overall impact it's going to have on the region and its transit network which, if you begin weakening it, which this plan will do, you weaken the urban fabric of surrounding neighborhoods...

 

... and I'll keep saying it: University Circle is growing on it's own without this damn highway, which is only getting rammed through because the CC and PD have got their Republican buddy/governor, John Kasich, to push full steam ahead.  And it should be sound warning bells that this man has nothing good to say or do for Greater Cleveland.

 

This is where I disagree.  So those people get paid for those homes.  Where are they going?  They wont have enough money to move into a better area, say the heights and pay the taxes and blend into the society of the heights.

 

Ok, two things here. 1) we're presuming the residents own the property. In actuality they may be renters, and the landlord lives in lands unknown. But more importantly 2) Even if they own their own home, it's not the city's (or ODOT, or whoever is buying the properties) respnsibility to pay them so much above the value of the home that they can move into a different income bracket and 'blend into the society of the heights'. Only enough to replace what they lost with a little pop for their troubles. There is certainly an abundance of housing available in the city itself. Enough so that the city could likely throw in a free house on top of the purchase price.

 

Again, that's not my problem. The cost of the road vs. the benefit we're getting, that's my concern.

@MTS- Can you give me a few examples, other than greenfield sprawl sites, where all all of the development around an infrastructure project (road, bridge, train, airport or otherwise) was pre-planned?

 

The plan is rather simple from the stakeholders, and similar to KJPs maps.  Bring back industry to the industrial areas and bring back housing to the residential areas.

 

As for the promise of manufacturing based on STEM principles, I agree with the head of the Brookings Institution

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/25/204862376/a-metro-revolution-cities-and-suburbs-do-what-d-c-cant?ft=1&f=1008

 

I want to blend into the "society of MTS".

@MTS- Can you give me a few examples, other than greenfield sprawl sites, where all all of the development around an infrastructure project (road, bridge, train, airport or otherwise) was pre-planned?

 

The plan is rather simple from the stakeholders, and similar to KJPs maps.  Bring back industry to the industrial areas and bring back housing to the residential areas.

 

 

I wouldn't say that they need to come up with a comprehensive development plan, with developers in line, but a general blueprint to show they put some thought into how potentially we might leverage this investment would be nice to see. I'd like to see some evidence that a little more effort than 'if you build it they will come' is going on.

@MTS- Can you give me a few examples, other than greenfield sprawl sites, where all all of the development around an infrastructure project (road, bridge, train, airport or otherwise) was pre-planned?

 

The plan is rather simple from the stakeholders, and similar to KJPs maps.  Bring back industry to the industrial areas and bring back housing to the residential areas.

 

As for the promise of manufacturing based on STEM principles, I agree with the head of the Brookings Institution

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/25/204862376/a-metro-revolution-cities-and-suburbs-do-what-d-c-cant?ft=1&f=1008

 

 

You ignore my questions, now you ask me one?!

 

BRING BACK WHAT INDUSTRY?  WHERE ON ANY PLAN DO YOU SEE A PLAN FOR INDUSTRY?  WHERE?  WHERE?  WHERE??

 

There is no damn plan.  They only want to shove a highway throw an area full of poor people and call it progress!  I call it BS.

 

As I've stated before, these highways have divided out city before and this will continue to do so.