While I am happy to see some brownfield cleanup in connection with this project, and like others may personally benefit from more direct highway access, I don't think we have really thought out what the returns on our investment are going to be.  That case needs to be made.

 

It never is for a road project because there is no such federal requirement placed on a road project. In fact the Inner Belt project in 2007 was the first time ODOT ever did an economic impact study prior to building a road. It did so only because the city of Cleveland demanded it.

 

I think the brownfield remediation aspects of this road project are its biggest benefits. But if we had as much taxpayer funding for brownfield remediations as we did for road construction, we wouldn't need a road to revitalize the Forgotten Triangle.

 

 

(EDIT: Not sure what happened to my text here - retyping it... although I don't recall the initial wording)

 

 

This would be permitted if a TIF was established, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would if a TIF were created, no?

While I am happy to see some brownfield cleanup in connection with this project, and like others may personally benefit from more direct highway access, I don't think we have really thought out what the returns on our investment are going to be.  That case needs to be made.

 

It never is for a road project because there is no such federal requirement placed on a road project. In fact the Inner Belt project in 2007 was the first time ODOT ever did an economic impact study prior to building a road. It did so only because the city of Cleveland demanded it.

 

I think the brownfield remediation aspects of this road project are its biggest benefits. But if we had as much taxpayer funding for brownfield remediations as we did for road construction, we wouldn't need a road to revitalize the Forgotten Triangle.

 

In addition, it becomes more practical to rehabilitate the roads which currently serve the CC/UC area, without the dramatic disruption such would currently cause.

 

In addition, it becomes more practical to rehabilitate the roads which currently serve the CC/UC area, without the dramatic disruption such would currently cause.

 

Except ODOT won't be to afford maintaining the existing roads with flat or falling gas tax revenues having to sustain more lane miles. The public sector doesn't tear up underutilized lane-miles like the private-sector railroads and interurbans did by ripping up underutilized track-miles.

Hough, Woodland, Quincy, Central, & Cedar could each received a "mini" ECP facelift and zone changes that would be more beneficial to the neighborhoods and help spark redevelopment and repopulate these areas considering their proximity to CC and Univ. Circle.  In addition, fix up the the 79 street and 105 street Cleveland rapid stations and the 79 street Shaker Rapid.  Must less disruptive than building another highway.

 

Opportunity Corridor planners need a strong vision to avoid lowest common denominator development (Commentary)

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

Follow on Twitter

on October 02, 2014 at 2:00 PM, updated October 02, 2014 at 2:24 PM

 

Cleveland City Planning Director Freddy Collier let slip the dreaded T-word at a Wednesday steering committee meeting on plans for Opportunity Corridor, the massive project to carve a new boulevard across the city's East-Side.

 

That was "T" as in: Transactions.

 

"We have some immediate concerns on the table as it relates to certain companies and organizations in the area and want to make sure we get out in front of these transactions so we don't create unnecessary problems for ourselves," Collier said.

 

Translation: Building a new, $331 million boulevard across a three-mile, economically devastated section of Cleveland to connect University Circle to I-490 will dramatically increase the value of surrounding land.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2014/10/opportunity_corridor_planners.html

And Collier outlined for the first time steps the city plans to take to establish guidelines for development of land flanking the boulevard. ...  Such rules could ensure that acres around Opportunity Corridor will be densely developed with housing and businesses that boost ridership on the nearby Red, Blue and Green rapid transit lines of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority.

 

Once again, fast (slick) talking by OC supporters in order to garner support.  How will building developments around the OC help boost rail ridership, esp. with RTA's (see Joe Calabrese) about to pull the plug on 2 East Side Red Line Stations -- notably E. 79th -- due to a supposed lack of funds to make them ADA compliant? ... The more I hear about this sick joke of a highway project, the more pissed off I get.  How stupid do they think the public is? ... very, apparently.

I've said it how many times?

More at grade intersections

 

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/OpportunityCorridor/Pages/default.aspx

 

*UPDATED* Based upon the results of a detailed analysis by the design team, ODOT has made a commitment to the City of Cleveland that Quincy Ave will remain open to traffic after the completion of the Opportunity Corridor project.  Additionally, in response to continued coordination between ODOT, the city, and the neighborhood community development corporations, the cul-de-sac locations that were previously depicted as part of the Preferred Alternative at the direction of the Federal Highway Administration have been removed from the project as preliminary design plans are developed.

 

 

Opportunity Corridor design changes eliminate streets dead-ending into boulevard

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio --  State planners say eight streets that were going to dead-end at the boundary of the planned Opportunity Corridor instead will be kept open, a move that addresses one of the deepest concerns among residents about the impact of the roadway on surrounding Cleveland neighborhoods.

 

The elimination of cul-de-sacs from the 3.2-mile corridor will be a key topic at a public information session this evening in Cleveland.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation will be on hand to explain the design changes, as will representatives of O.R. Colan Associates, the company in charge of  negotiations with residents whose homes are in the path of construction.

 

"This meeting is really about letting people know about the changes, because there are so many misconceptions out there," said state Rep. Sandra Williams, who is hosting the event. It will be from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Langston Hughes Center, 8111 Quincy Ave., Suite 100.

 

Residents also will hear about another alteration to plans for the boulevard connecting Interstate 490 and University Circle. Initially the $331 million project was expected to be done in two phases. ODOT now has broken it into three:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/10/opportunity_corridor_design_ch.html#incart_river

This might sound ironic coming from me, a full supporter of the project, but the tone of that article seemed a little too one sided, especially for one of Allison Grant's articles.

 

I think the spotlight on the shortcomings of the project is a good thing that can lead to improvements.  I hope she isn't pressured into presenting only one side.

Opportunity Corridor design changes eliminate streets dead-ending into boulevard

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio --  State planners say eight streets that were going to dead-end at the boundary of the planned Opportunity Corridor instead will be kept open, a move that addresses one of the deepest concerns among residents about the impact of the roadway on surrounding Cleveland neighborhoods.

 

The elimination of cul-de-sacs from the 3.2-mile corridor will be a key topic at a public information session this evening in Cleveland.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation will be on hand to explain the design changes, as will representatives of O.R. Colan Associates, the company in charge of  negotiations with residents whose homes are in the path of construction.

 

"This meeting is really about letting people know about the changes, because there are so many misconceptions out there," said state Rep. Sandra Williams, who is hosting the event. It will be from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Langston Hughes Center, 8111 Quincy Ave., Suite 100.

 

Residents also will hear about another alteration to plans for the boulevard connecting Interstate 490 and University Circle. Initially the $331 million project was expected to be done in two phases. ODOT now has broken it into three:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/10/opportunity_corridor_design_ch.html#incart_river

 

LOL the comments wish it really was a "freeway".

 

Actually, they should consider having the streets not directly enter the OC, but run a parallel side street right next to it.  They do this on Chester and it seems to work.

How much time will the construction if the OC reduce if you add 8 more at grade intersections.  Will need to be some sort of sophisticated signalization.

The talk of at-grade intersections is confusing me. How much of this road is actually elevated? I know there are a couple bridges going over rail lines, but the rest of it is all at-grade correct? The cul-de-sacs were just going to terminate at the same level as the OC, but with fencing or landscaping separating them.

I used the term at grade to distinguish it from highway type flyovers or underpasses

How much time will the construction if the OC reduce if you add 8 more at grade intersections.  Will need to be some sort of sophisticated signalization.

 

From the article, 7 of the 8 new intersections are just "Ts" (don't know the traffic engineering term), and the cross street traffic will need to turn right, presumably after a stop sign.  I don't think the OC traffic will be materially affected.

LOL the comments wish it really was a "freeway".

 

Actually, they should consider having the streets not directly enter the OC, but run a parallel side street right next to it.  They do this on Chester and it seems to work.

 

You are so suburban -- where cities are designed by traffic engineers.

LOL the comments wish it really was a "freeway".

 

Actually, they should consider having the streets not directly enter the OC, but run a parallel side street right next to it.  They do this on Chester and it seems to work.

 

You are so suburban -- where cities are designed by traffic engineers.

 

Roads usually are and that's what this is.

Roads usually are and that's what this is.

 

Back in the 20th century, sure. Today, we do Complete Streets.

Haven't seen this project animation yet.

 

http://youtu.be/ihWm1VEP7mU

Still has lots and lots of room for improvement. 

I still don't get the rationale for bypassing E55.  The justification was something about stopping traffic too quickly -- but it looks like there is a stop just past E55 anyway.  How does moving the stop essentially one block east justify the cost of digging a trench and a bridge and an on-ramp at E55? 

 

I'd like to see the neighborhood and the city and the county push back on this part of ODOT's plan.  It seems like an expensive approach with little benefit.  And quite a few downsides for pedestrians and the adjacent RTA station, as noted elsewhere on this forum.

I've been doing some property searches after reading that a real estate agent is marketing a property on East 79th next to the future Opportunity Corridor. My interest is in the future viability of the East 79th station whose replacement could be justified if there were new ridership generators in the surrounding neighborhood.

 

This is the property I'd heard about....

http://crsc.reapplications.com/asp/user/website/PropertyProfile.asp?TransID=30458&ParentID=34471

 

It is currently owned mostly by Poise Entertainment Education Co., a company formed by an East 151st Street resident on the southeast side of the city who self-publishes school books for schools in low-income areas.

 

Another owner is Seventh Generation Development, a nonprofit company which bought some land a couple months ago from Poise.

 

However the land between this property and the East 79th station remains in the possession of Opal Industrial Group, a Geauga County-based company which operates trucking and metal recycling businesses. But Opal has been shedding land in the Forgotten Triangle to Perk Company, a concrete, bridge and heavy highway builder that is already a major property owner in the Opportunity Corridor. Perk, owned by Anthony and Joseph Cifani, was the pavement contractor for the Euclid Corridor transitway and is a major campaign contributor to city and state politicians. So politics is still being run like a well-oiled machine....

This video is just an updated version of the one posted above which is no longer available.

^^^ Wow, check out all of those new storefronts along the corridor!

 

SMH...I actually really like the idea of this project on paper but every time something official gets released it reminds me just how anti-urban this project is.  Throwing a bike trail next to a horribly suburban road doesn't make it a "complete street."

There will be many storefronts along the Opportunity Corridor.... gas station/convenience stores selling 40-ounce beers and lottery tickets, quite a few check-cashing businesses and temp-employment agencies! That is how we will lift Clevelanders in the Forgotten Triangle out of poverty!

^^^ Wow, check out all of those new storefronts along the corridor!

 

SMH...I actually really like the idea of this project on paper but every time something official gets released it reminds me just how anti-urban this project is.  Throwing a bike trail next to a horribly suburban road doesn't make it a "complete street."

 

... and this video provides a graphic reminder why (for $330+M) it's being built-- to serve West Side/suburbanites commuting to the JJC, CC and UH.  Talk of neighborhood development was a ruse to get neighborhood pols to buy in. 

^^^ Wow, check out all of those new storefronts along the corridor!

 

SMH...I actually really like the idea of this project on paper but every time something official gets released it reminds me just how anti-urban this project is.  Throwing a bike trail next to a horribly suburban road doesn't make it a "complete street."

 

... and this video provides a graphic reminder why (for $330+M) it's being built-- to serve West Side/suburbanites commuting to the JJC, CC and UH.  Talk of neighborhood development was a ruse to get neighborhood pols to buy in. 

 

They would have been better served with 60 more blocks of 490 with an exit at 105.  It probably would have been cheaper too.

 

This is a compromise. In any case, ODOT won't do the actual developments so they can't really predict what they will look like.

^^^ Wow, check out all of those new storefronts along the corridor!

 

SMH...I actually really like the idea of this project on paper but every time something official gets released it reminds me just how anti-urban this project is.  Throwing a bike trail next to a horribly suburban road doesn't make it a "complete street."

 

... and this video provides a graphic reminder why (for $330+M) it's being built-- to serve West Side/suburbanites commuting to the JJC, CC and UH.  Talk of neighborhood development was a ruse to get neighborhood pols to buy in. 

 

They would have been better served with 60 more blocks of 490 with an exit at 105.  It probably would have been cheaper too.

 

This is a compromise. In any case, ODOT won't do the actual developments so they can't really predict what they will look like.

 

That would have made sense.  I supported this when the plan was to extend 490 to an actual destination.  Now it's been muddled to a point that it can't properly serve any purpose.  Now it's just a big price tag for diddly squat.

^^^ Wow, check out all of those new storefronts along the corridor!

 

SMH...I actually really like the idea of this project on paper but every time something official gets released it reminds me just how anti-urban this project is.  Throwing a bike trail next to a horribly suburban road doesn't make it a "complete street."

 

... and this video provides a graphic reminder why (for $330+M) it's being built-- to serve West Side/suburbanites commuting to the JJC, CC and UH.  Talk of neighborhood development was a ruse to get neighborhood pols to buy in. 

 

They would have been better served with 60 more blocks of 490 with an exit at 105.  It probably would have been cheaper too.

 

This is a compromise. In any case, ODOT won't do the actual developments so they can't really predict what they will look like.

 

That would have made sense.  I supported this when the plan was to extend 490 to an actual destination.  Now it's been muddled to a point that it can't properly serve any purpose.  Now it's just a big price tag for diddly squat.

 

I don't have much of an opinion about OC one way or another, but after reading the last two posts I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

I don't have much of an opinion about OC one way or another, but after reading the last two posts I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

Well, that didn't take long.  Have fun barfing at people.  Don't get up, I'll show myself out.

^Not sure I understand your previous post about "an actual destination", 327. The planned OC is routed directly to the Clinic and UC, no?  It will provide direct access to the Clinic's new 3,000 space garage before it even reaches Carnegie.

Seriously, dude flaunts that he has nothing on-topic to say, just came here to abuse people... how is that OK?

 

Hi Strap.  What I meant was that we already have surface streets connecting 490's current terminus to UC.  The fact that they're not ideally direct does not merit such an expensive solution.  Having 490 end at UC might be a worthy goal, worthy enough to support this project in that form.  But since we aren't getting that it seems wasteful.  Better to spend the money on transit improvements or neighborhood development, rather than on a hybrid project that serves neither purpose in any meaningful way.

^^I'm surprised and disappointed, 327, as I'm usually in simpatico with your beliefs... I firmly believe that cities, particularly this one, have been far too cut up by freeway gullies and elevated highway embankments -- just as older Tremont residents how they feel about I- 71 and 490... As a major opponent to the OC, I'll at least concede that the outer portion is a tad more tolerable since they it is a surface roadway that intersect streets (compromise can be good... this time considering the lesser of 2 evils).  In this sense the OC MAY stimulate SOME light industry along at the intersections.  But it's pretty clear to me that the talk of the OC causing Gordon Sq, Market District or Shaker Sq.-type walking districts to spring up is a total farce designed to dupe local pols looking for a rainbow ...

 

This is why I think the E. 55 grade separation with the goofy hook-down entrance ramp (complete with a traffic light with the OC), is beyond foolish... It's a needless expense without purpose; one of the more Rube Goldberg-ian roadway "improvements" I've ever seen.  You have grade separation, then a traffic light a few hundred feet past the separation, so there's little to no speed gained by OC drivers.  It harms the neighborhood more by taking out more homes and makes the still new (and very nice) RTA Rapid station at 55th more difficult to access.  It also makes ingress/egress between I-490, E. 55 and the OC actually WORSE than had it been made a surface intersection.  And on top of all that, it added umpteen millions of extra dollars in expense... for, as noted, an "improvement" that equals less than zero...

 

But my main reason for hating this project generally remains: why are we spending $330M in taxpayer money for a roadway that is not needed by residents (30-40% of whom don't own cars), when the only growth that's likely to be attracted (as I conceded above) will be more light industry?  (SIDE NOTE: there's been some expanded light industrial growth in this territory ANYWAY -- notably Miceli Dairy Co. (along Buckeye) and, of course, Orlando Bakery, near E. 79 & Grand).  Fixing the existing streets and improve transit options -- that's what residents wanted -- ironically, RTA just recently decided to spend $Millions to keep and (radically) improve the 3 area Rapid stations (the 2 E. 79s and E. 105) anyway.

 

So this roadway, surprising for fiscally conservative Republicans like Kasich, who jumped 4-square behind it-- when it's essentially flushing $330 essentially down the toilet... But at the very least the planned OC is LESS BAD than the full freeway desired by E Rocc, 327, Joe Calabrese ... and that late Albert S. Porter.

Seriously, dude flaunts that he has nothing on-topic to say, just came here to abuse people... how is that OK?

 

Hi Strap.  What I meant was that we already have surface streets connecting 490's current terminus to UC.  The fact that they're not ideally direct does not merit such an expensive solution.  Having 490 end at UC might be a worthy goal, worthy enough to support this project in that form.  But since we aren't getting that it seems wasteful.  Better to spend the money on transit improvements or neighborhood development, rather than on a hybrid project that serves neither purpose in any meaningful way.

 

Gotcha.  I'm not sure there's anything left to be said about the OC that hasn't been said before in this thread, but FWIW, that money wasn't going to spent on transit or neighborhood improvements. I tend to agree with you, though, that this seems like a fairly extravagant expenditure (and would think so even if this were to be a limited access highway).

clvlndr, I would cosign 90% of what you just said, and our areas of disagreement have been off the table for some time.  There will be a project it won't be a freeway.  It will likely spur some amount of light industry, although the cost-benefit on that remains to be seen.  I would submit that CERCLA remains the primary hurdle to redeveloping that area, road or no road.

 

This project seems like a good example of two sides talking past each other.  I doubt that anyone honestly believed the original freeway plan would have much direct benefit for the areas it passed through.  I believe its purpose was to strengthen UC and, by extension, the region as a whole.  It was a mistake to sell it as anything else.  But because the needs of the immediate area were so obvious and so significant, tenuous promises were made that this project could somehow accomplish everything at once. 

 

There's a strong argument to be made that these neighborhoods deserve targeted development funds before UC deserved a freeway connection.  I'm not even sure where I stand on that, nor am I sure that "deserve" is the right way to frame it.  But instead of addressing that conflict, we ended up with a costly plan that does little for anyone.  While there's value in compromise, there's not so much value as to override all other considerations.

^^I'm surprised and disappointed, 327, as I'm usually in simpatico with your beliefs... I firmly believe that cities, particularly this one, have been far too cut up by freeway gullies and elevated highway embankments -- just as older Tremont residents how they feel about I- 71 and 490... As a major opponent to the OC, I'll at least concede that the outer portion is a tad more tolerable since they it is a surface roadway that intersect streets (compromise can be good... this time considering the lesser of 2 evils).  In this sense the OC MAY stimulate SOME light industry along at the intersections.  But it's pretty clear to me that the talk of the OC causing Gordon Sq, Market District or Shaker Sq.-type walking districts to spring up is a total farce designed to dupe local pols looking for a rainbow ...

 

This is why I think the E. 55 grade separation with the goofy hook-down entrance ramp (complete with a traffic light with the OC), is beyond foolish... It's a needless expense without purpose; one of the more Rube Goldberg-ian roadway "improvements" I've ever seen.  You have grade separation, then a traffic light a few hundred feet past the separation, so there's little to no speed gained by OC drivers.  It harms the neighborhood more by taking out more homes and makes the still new (and very nice) RTA Rapid station at 55th more difficult to access.  It also makes ingress/egress between I-490, E. 55 and the OC actually WORSE than had it been made a surface intersection.  And on top of all that, it added umpteen millions of extra dollars in expense... for, as noted, an "improvement" that equals less than zero...

 

But my main reason for hating this project generally remains: why are we spending $330M in taxpayer money for a roadway that is not needed by residents (30-40% of whom don't own cars), when the only growth that's likely to be attracted (as I conceded above) will be more light industry?  (SIDE NOTE: there's been some expanded light industrial growth in this territory ANYWAY -- notably Miceli Dairy Co. (along Buckeye) and, of course, Orlando Bakery, near E. 79 & Grand).  Fixing the existing streets and improve transit options -- that's what residents wanted -- ironically, RTA just recently decided to spend $Millions to keep and (radically) improve the 3 area Rapid stations (the 2 E. 79s and E. 105) anyway.

 

So this roadway, surprising for fiscally conservative Republicans like Kasich, who jumped 4-square behind it-- when it's essentially flushing $330 essentially down the toilet... But at the very least the planned OC is LESS BAD than the full freeway desired by E Rocc, 327, Joe Calabrese ... and that late Albert S. Porter.

 

As I've said, I would, slightly, prefer the freeway.  But a well designed properly flowing road ranks a close second.  There's currently no good way to get to UC/CC from the west or south when downtown traffic is heavy.  Fixing up one of the existing routes would make this worse for a long time before it makes it (somewhat) better. 

 

Keep in mind that "west" includes the airport. 

 

As an aside, I agree about 300% that E 55th should be "at grade".  There's ways to make sure traffic is down to 35mph before it gets there.

As an aside, I agree about 300% that E 55th should be "at grade".  There's ways to make sure traffic is down to 35mph before it gets there.

 

It has to get down to 0 mph, as it does now. That being said, I'm not aware of this being a high-accident area.

Keep in mind that "west" includes the airport. 

 

That is a huge point-- thank you for making it.

 

Still, I don't think we solve much from that perspective unless redevelopment along the path gets addressed.  A couple of minutes and a couple of turns are shaved off the trip, and that's worth something... but the view for newcomers may actually be worse than before, and the stop lights give them plenty of Opportunity to ponder it.

 

In a perfect world, this would have been part of a comprehensive plan to improve East Side logistics, focusing on University Circle.  Such a plan would address UC's connectivity on scales ranging from metro to national, as well as its impact (or lack thereof) on immediately adjacent areas.  Time after time, our patchwork fiefdom-centric approach eliminates any hope for that kind of planning. 

 

The original freeway plan focused on giving UC the best possible connection to 7 billion potential visitors, investors and/or residents.  Anything that significant is likely to involve a backyard or two... and I think we as stakeholders need to do a better job of weighing NIMBY interests against the big picture.  Cleveland could really use a few more victories for the big picture. 

 

As noted earlier, the planning for this project is done.  But as the project itself draws closer, I think there's still a lot to be gained from post-game analysis on that planning, because it doesn't seem like anyone is happy with the result.       

Keep in mind that "west" includes the airport. 

 

That is a huge point-- thank you for making it.

 

Still, I don't think we solve much from that perspective unless redevelopment along the path gets addressed.  A couple of minutes and a couple of turns are shaved off the trip, and that's worth something... but the view for newcomers may actually be worse than before, and the stop lights give them plenty of Opportunity to ponder it.

 

In a perfect world, this would have been part of a comprehensive plan to improve East Side logistics, focusing on University Circle.  Such a plan would address UC's connectivity on scales ranging from metro to national, as well as its impact (or lack thereof) on immediately adjacent areas.  Time after time, our patchwork fiefdom-centric approach eliminates any hope for that kind of planning. 

 

The original freeway plan focused on giving UC the best possible connection to 7 billion potential visitors, investors and/or residents.  Anything that significant is likely to involve a backyard or two... and I think we as stakeholders need to do a better job of weighing NIMBY interests against the big picture.  Cleveland could really use a few more victories for the big picture. 

 

As noted earlier, the planning for this project is done.  But as the project itself draws closer, I think there's still a lot to be gained from post-game analysis on that planning, because it doesn't seem like anyone is happy with the result.       

 

Compromises rarely make anyone happy.  If this was to be a freeway, it would have been done during the Porter era and we'd be taking it for granted.  The political will peaked then, and the defeat of the freeways spooked several generations of politicians.  Perhaps unfairly, as Shaker Lakes was bound to attract much more influential support than a few declining neighborhoods.

 

Those neighborhoods now have tanked.  Many resemble wilderness in large chunks.  I'm not sure the view can get too much worse, and there is at least the chance of spurring some industrial development along this new path, especially as it has good freeway access, and railroads.

 

Doing nothing won't work.  The freeway didn't have the political pull to happen, in part because that would truly doom the intervening area.  This is more doable, and if the city handles things with even a modicum of intelligence (optimistic, I know) it can be a big plus.

As noted earlier, the planning for this project is done.  But as the project itself draws closer, I think there's still a lot to be gained from post-game analysis on that planning, because it doesn't seem like anyone is happy with the result.       

 

Amen to that, brother!

I think we all agree that this is being built solely to improve access to university circle.  I know that this will make the trip from the west seem more convenient, but is UC actually being hurt by the lack of OC?  Will more investments be made in UC because of this road?

^I'd say 90% to improve access to University Circle.  If it were truly 100%, there'd be fewer traffic lights/at-grade intersections, no sidewalks/multi purpose trails, and no money to improve the E 105th station.

 

I don't think the project is worth the money, but now that it's an inevitability, I'm legitimately curious about the East 79th St zoning and how (and whether) the city intends to prod the type of development we'd like to see in at least some of this area.  There's a chance this thing ends up being more of a financial boondoggle than an urban planning disaster.

I think we all agree that this is being built solely to improve access to university circle.  I know that this will make the trip from the west seem more convenient, but is UC actually being hurt by the lack of OC?  Will more investments be made in UC because of this road?

 

No and no.

^I'd say 90% to improve access to University Circle.  If it were truly 100%, there'd be fewer traffic lights/at-grade intersections, no sidewalks/multi purpose trails, and no money to improve the E 105th station.

 

In my opinion, that's all for show and not really about improving anything in those areas. I mean, let's ask ourselves, does this thing even pass if it didn't have the pretense of improving the neighborhoods that it's really destroying?

 

Seeing how bad I-480 East is in the mornings, I can only hope that this route ends up being just as bad or worse for westsiders going to UC. What a waste.

^I'd say 90% to improve access to University Circle.  If it were truly 100%, there'd be fewer traffic lights/at-grade intersections, no sidewalks/multi purpose trails, and no money to improve the E 105th station.

 

In my opinion, that's all for show and not really about improving anything in those areas. I mean, let's ask ourselves, does this thing even pass if it didn't have the pretense of improving the neighborhoods that it's really destroying?

 

Seeing how bad I-480 East is in the mornings, I can only hope that this route ends up being just as bad or worse for westsiders going to UC. What a waste.

 

Apparently there's been a request for a state $500M to extend the RTA Red Line to Euclid Square... Let's see how strong the community comes out to support this much more worthwhile expenditure of public funds the way local officials so strongly supported what was (I agree) wasted $330M for the OC; local pols seemingly had guns at their heads to support this road.

Apparently there's been a request for a state $500M to extend the RTA Red Line to Euclid Square... Let's see how strong the community comes out to support this much more worthwhile expenditure of public funds the way local officials so strongly supported what was (I agree) wasted $330M for the OC; local pols seemingly had guns at their heads to support this road.

 

GCRTA hasn't made any requests of state officials for it. There's been discussions locally to see if the local heavy hitters would be willing to push for it.

 

Bike Cleveland's push to add protected lanes to Opportunity Corridor gets a (mostly) positive response from steering committee

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on February 19, 2015 at 8:40 AM, updated February 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The city's leading bicycle advocate made headway Tuesday in a quest to have a protected bike path added to the design for the $331 million Opportunity Corridor boulevard, scheduled to be built between this winter and 2019.

 

Jacob VanSickle, executive director of Bike Cleveland, and a leading advocate for changing the design of the boulevard, shared his group's alternative plan Tuesday at a quarterly meeting of the Opportunity Corridor Steering Committee, the civic, governmental and community body advising the Ohio Department of Transportation on the project. (See VanSickle's presentation at the bottom of this post.)

 

The three-mile boulevard will extend east from the stub end of I-490 at East 55th Street to University Circle at East 105th Street. The idea is to help redevelop a blighted swath of the city's East Side and to better connect the rapidly developing University Circle area to the interstate highway system.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/02/bike_clevelands_push_to_add_pr.html#incart_river

Group believes opportunity is still there for Opportunity Corridor

"Multimillion-dollar question' is how to fund development along three-mile roadway on city's East Side

By JAY MILLER

February 22, 2015 4:30 AM

 

A group of civic organizations is working behind the scenes to make good on the moniker given to the extension of Ohio Route 1 on Cleveland's East Side — the Opportunity Corridor.

 

They're building the foundation for a revolving loan fund of as much as $20 million that could be used by neighborhood organizations to do the critical land assembly needed to begin the redevelopment of the unproductive land along the three-mile roadway, now a patchwork of vacant and abandoned property, foreclosed-on homes and underutilized commercial and industrial buildings.

 

Much of the land will require expensive environmental cleanup before it can be ready for redevelopment.

 

The goal is to rebuild some of Cleveland's poorest neighborhoods on the city's southeast side.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150222/SUB1/302229979/group-believes-opportunity-is-still-there-for-opportunity-corridor

Will be interesting to see some more detailed plans, especially of the sidewalk dimensions and layout for this stretch. Providing a high quality pedestrian route from the rapid station northward will be key to seeing riders take advantage of the new headhouse.

 

Construction starts March 16 on Opportunity Corridor, bringing traffic changes

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/03/construction_starts_monday_on.html#incart_2box

Will be interesting to see some more detailed plans, especially of the sidewalk dimensions and layout for this stretch. Providing a high quality pedestrian route from the rapid station northward will be key to seeing riders take advantage of the new headhouse.

 

Construction starts March 16 on Opportunity Corridor, bringing traffic changes

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/03/construction_starts_monday_on.html#incart_2box

 

Here's the presentation given at Karamu House:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/OpportunityCorridor/Documents/2015-03-05%20Bridge%20Aesthics%20Community%20Open%20House%20Presentation.pdf

 

This explains the phasing of construction. Note that while construction of East 105th north of tracks is now underway, the bridge over the tracks wont get underway until sometime after this July, likely this fall:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/OpportunityCorridor/Documents/2015-03-05%20Bridge%20Aesthics%20Community%20Open%20House%20Handout.pdf