I'm sure I'll be sorry I asked this....

 

How do and why do you propose a bike land and a pedestrian walkway on a bridge like that.  Where do bikers and walkers get on, especially in downtown, with all the on / off ramps?

 

I'm not sure why you are dreading the answer (don't you enjoy learning?), but here goes:

 

There are no fewer than 20 examples of bicycle/pedestrian lanes on Interstate highway bridges, where said lanes are usually separated from motor vehicle lanes by barriers.  These crossings aren't limited to warm or snow-free climates, but include Pittsburgh, Hartford, NYC, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

 

The Oregonian (Portland, OR) recently published a story on two such crossings in Washington state.

 

 

Callate!!  Humph!

 

I looked at that link and those smaller shorter bridges are nothing like the innerbelt bridge.

 

I get it on the LC or DS bridges but not the IB.

Can't imagine how the Greek Orthodox Church could be happy with ODOT, they have a freaking 10 lane city raping artery as a retaining wall 5 feet from their front steps.

I get it on the LC or DS bridges but not the IB.

 

Neither of those bridges goes to Tremont, which is why this feature is such a big deal.  We must have it.

I get it on the LC or DS bridges but not the IB.

 

Neither of those bridges goes to Tremont, which is why this feature is such a big deal.  We must have it.

 

I guess this is why I am no engineer!

I looked at that link and those smaller shorter bridges are nothing like the innerbelt bridge.

 

Well, yeah.  The innerbelt bridge is a whopping 4000 feet long while the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a measly 2 miles long and the Lake Washington Bridge is ONLY 1.8 miles.  DUDE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You don't have to be an engineer, not to realize the need.  Whether we have the engineers do ped lanes is a political issue.  We aren't talking about time loops or cold fusion here.

 

Just start in Tremont and walk downtown.  Or vice versa.  That tells you everything you need to know.

I looked at that link and those smaller shorter bridges are nothing like the innerbelt bridge.

 

Well, yeah.  The innerbelt bridge is a whopping 4000 feet long while the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a measly 2 miles long and the Lake Washington Bridge is ONLY 1.8 miles.  DUDE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

 

I only looked at the pictures!  lol

 

You don't have to be an engineer, not to realize the need.  Whether we have the engineers do ped lanes is a political issue.  We aren't talking about time loops or cold fusion here.

 

Just start in Tremont and walk downtown.  Or vice versa.  That tells you everything you need to know.

I still don't see why the bridge is needed, but that is just my opinion.  I understand that the folks in Tremont need access to downtown but I don't feel like that a major bridge or the IB trench is needed.

Is it too late to just remove the interstate system and get our city back?  :smile:

Is it too late to just remove the interstate system and get our city back? :smile:

 

Exactly.

Now kids, I've had it up to here with your pie in the sky visions.  On this site we only discuss proposals we can accomplish by ourselves with common household utensils.  You're asking for changes in government policy!  Who do you think you are? 

Now kids, I've had it up to here with your pie in the sky visions.  On this site we only discuss proposals we can accomplish by ourselves with common household utensils.  You're asking for changes in government policy!  Who do you think you are? 

 

ODOT open to ideas on Inner Belt Bridge design

Posted by Karen Farkas

Is there any concern in regards to the design-build process, as opposed to a design-bid-build process (which I'm assuming is the option)? Does this make room for more error and cost overruns?

ODOT open to ideas on Inner Belt Bridge design

Posted by Karen Farkas / Plain Dealer Reporter April 21, 2009 04:30AM

 

Cables are out, but arches, sculptures and any other design that makes an impact on Cleveland's gateway could be considered for the new Inner Belt Bridge.

 

 

If they were so open to all kinds of designs, then why did they hold a press conference before the public hearing to categorically exclude cable-stay designs? Does the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge in Boston shed ice a lot? Does the I-280 shed ice a lot too? Or is it just a couple of days per year? And even if it is a lot, how hard is it to add attractive lighting elements to the cables and also serve as heating elements to prevent ice accumulation? Sounds like some narrow-minded ODOT engineer with some pull got a bug up his ass about ice accumulation and everyone freaked out.

 

Oh, and by the way, the southern alignment may not be dead. Guess who's got some interest in it? How about Forest City Enterprises.......

 

 

I thought bikes, pedestrians, and farming equipment are not allowed on freeways?  Most freeway entrances have a sign saying such.  Maybe it is discretionary?

What do you exactly mean by "southern alignment"?  Are you saying they are thinking of building the additional bridge south of the current bridge?

ODOT open to ideas on Inner Belt Bridge design

Posted by Karen Farkas / Plain Dealer Reporter April 21, 2009 04:30AM

 

Cables are out, but arches, sculptures and any other design that makes an impact on Cleveland's gateway could be considered for the new Inner Belt Bridge.

 

 

If they were so open to all kinds of designs, then why did they hold a press conference before the public hearing to categorically exclude cable-stay designs? Does the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge in Boston shed ice a lot? Does the I-280 shed ice a lot too? Or is it just a couple of days per year? And even if it is a lot, how hard is it to add attractive lighting elements to the cables and also serve as heating elements to prevent ice accumulation? Sounds like some narrow-minded ODOT engineer with some pull got a bug up his ass about ice accumulation and everyone freaked out.

 

Oh, and by the way, the southern alignment may not be dead. Guess who's got some interest in it? How about Forest City Enterprises.......

 

 

 

Let me guess...FCE owns some land in the southern alignment path that they want to sell to the State of Ohio for 20 times what they paid for it 4 months ago or something like that?

I thought bikes, pedestrians, and farming equipment are not allowed on freeways? Most freeway entrances have a sign saying such. Maybe it is discretionary?

 

They aren't. This would be a pedestrian right of way built as part of the bridge structure, but separated from traffic by a concrete and/or steel barricade.

 

What do you exactly mean by "southern alignment"? Are you saying they are thinking of building the additional bridge south of the current bridge?

 

Correct. There is a great deal of discussion throughout the rest of this thread about the southern alignment, as well as my "way southern alignment" using I-490 and a small part of the I-77 right of way for I-90 (takes just 45 seconds longer to drive it compared to the existing I-90 routing).

 

I'm trying to find some pics of Cuyahoga County Planning's southern alignment.....

my "way southern alignment" using I-490 and a small part of the I-77 right of way for I-90 (takes just 45 seconds longer to drive it compared to the existing I-90 routing).

 

I thought your 490-77 proposal was a great one.  I always use this route as an alternative to the Innerbelt Bridge anyways.  I have driven it multiple times at rush hour and there just isn't much traffic on the 490 bridge, even with the Innerbelt Bridge being knocked down to 2 lanes.  The 77-90 interchange is definitely inadequate, but with your proposed realignment, I think it would be a great improvement.  I measured it at an extra 0.8 miles (probable less than 45 seconds the way most people drive) and it would open up a lot of new land for Tremont and the south and southeastern ends of downtown, as well as provide opportunity to build a more local bridge serving Tremont which could easily incorporate a (much safer than alongside an interstate) bike/pedestrain pathway.  I have been pushing your idea emphatically to everyone I know.  Unfortunately I don't know enough important people.

ODOT open to ideas on Inner Belt Bridge design

Posted by Karen Farkas / Plain Dealer Reporter April 21, 2009 04:30AM

 

Cables are out, but arches, sculptures and any other design that makes an impact on Cleveland's gateway could be considered for the new Inner Belt Bridge.

 

 

If they were so open to all kinds of designs, then why did they hold a press conference before the public hearing to categorically exclude cable-stay designs? Does the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge in Boston shed ice a lot? Does the I-280 shed ice a lot too? Or is it just a couple of days per year? And even if it is a lot, how hard is it to add attractive lighting elements to the cables and also serve as heating elements to prevent ice accumulation? Sounds like some narrow-minded ODOT engineer with some pull got a bug up his ass about ice accumulation and everyone freaked out.

 

Oh, and by the way, the southern alignment may not be dead. Guess who's got some interest in it? How about Forest City Enterprises.......

 

 

 

That would be great news... I take it that land holdings owned by Forest City would benefit more with the Southern Alignment?  This is a conversation I would love to have them in instead of the other ongoing Forest City conversation, but that's another story.

All hail the KJP southern alignment!  Seriously, we could get rid of the entire 77/90 mess, which eliminated the south end of downtown.  Then we get to build a new south end of downtown!

Here's the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission's vision for the Southern Alignment....

 

 

The S-curve is too tight, however, and ODOT says building this would disrupt traffic too much. I disagree on the latter point. The only traffic it would affect is that which bound to/from I-77, which could empty onto Woodland or Orange avenues during the construction period. This happens during Indians games anyway, as Cleveland police send after-game traffic down Orange to get on I-77 at East 30th to that traffic doesn't back up into downtown and cause gridlock.

"Or it could have twin steel arches that run parallel to the structure, a design idea that came out of public hearings several years ago." from PD

 

I think it means this one...

Why is it so swoopy?  The land between the bridges would be a near-total loss, so it makes sense to minimize that gap.

Because it's ODOT and they don't do anything that makes sense.

That is one of the worst designs i could have imagined for that bridge. This whole project is a joke, lets rip out any building that will slow down the commutes of those people who like 45 minutes away from the city center by a few seconds. U - S - A, U - S - A!!

That's ODOT for you... getting people through, around, and out of Ohio's cities as quickly as humanly possible for 50 years and counting.

 

That department has one objective and one only.  How quickly can they get someone from point A to point Z without ever having to slow down or turn.  If that involves tearing down buildings that get in the way... so be it.  If it involves ripping out exit ramps that are vital to access and thus downtown's economy... so be it.

 

They are like a cult.

 

The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway.

The highway is the rightway. The highway is the rightway. The highway is the --

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

;)

As I've said before, tear it down and provide transportation access. 

 

Make 490 the major connector and improve the connection points.

 

Somehow, come up with a non highway road so that Tremont residents have access to downtown.

Defeating the ODOT mentality may involve admitting that their goals have value.  It is not wrong to want a simple and unobstructed path to your goal, nor is it wrong to want to get there as soon as reasonably possible.  I don't think the public will be very receptive if we seek their approval by telling them that getting around easily is a bad thing.  We can't afford to be anti-car or anti-road.  Our best bet is to demonstrate how much better other options can be.   

As I've said before, tear it down and provide transportation access.

 

Make 490 the major connector and improve the connection points.

 

Somehow, come up with a non highway road so that Tremont residents have access to downtown.

 

Bring back the W14th Street Bridge.

Bring back the W14th Street Bridge.

 

Central Viaduct?

Defeating the ODOT mentality may involve admitting that their goals have value. It is not wrong to want a simple and unobstructed path to your goal, nor is it wrong to want to get there as soon as reasonably possible. I don't think the public will be very receptive if we seek their approval by telling them that getting around easily is a bad thing. We can't afford to be anti-car or anti-road. Our best bet is to demonstrate how much better other options can be.  

 

I just really wish we'd never made these mistakes in the first place. Oh, if I had a time machine. Or a reverse-time-and-change-history switch thingee.

Defeating the ODOT mentality may involve admitting that their goals have value.  It is not wrong to want a simple and unobstructed path to your goal, nor is it wrong to want to get there as soon as reasonably possible.  I don't think the public will be very receptive if we seek their approval by telling them that getting around easily is a bad thing.  We can't afford to be anti-car or anti-road.  Our best bet is to demonstrate how much better other options can be.   

 

I'm not anti road.  I'm not even anti highway.  In actuality highways connecting cities are good things.  However bringing highways into cities borderline destroyed them.  There isn't even arguing the irreparable harm they did. They sliced neighborhoods to pieces and have lead to and continue to lead to the exodus of cities. Further I'm not even sure how debatable it is that good urban planning inconveniences the automobile.  There is no way around it.  If something is pedestrian friendly, it can't be auto-friendly. If something is designed auto-centric people aren't going to feel comfortable around it.  In many ways this stuff comes down to two types of people.  One person is the guy behind you on the highway swerving and weaving, who eventually blasts by you going 100 miles an hour.  The guy who just got passed... ends up pulling up behind him at the stoplight for the next exit proving the impatient person saved about 1 second off their drive.  The other guy doesn't mind getting somewhere 5 minutes later if it's a good destination.  I don't think I have ever seen any of ODOT's proposals that have ever saved anyone more than about 5 minutes.

I agree with most of that, although I think cars and people can get along fairly well in most circumstances.  And sometimes 5 minutes can mean the world.  You sure as heck want it to be available when you need it.  Cost-benefit analysis should come into play of course, if we're talking about tearing something down.  And sometimes it's not about speed, it's about flow and order.  These carry their own benefits, primarily in reducing accidents.

 

Regarding that a-hole behind you on the freeway... it's me.  It's always me.  I'll wave next time.       

If people would just drive right there would be no need for a holes swerving and weaving in and out of traffic. Let the far left lane be the passing lane and used only for passing or people who like to go above the speed limit. If your in the far left lane DO NOT be going the speed limit, 5 miles, or even 10 miles over the speed limit. Move over and let the faster traffic go!

Sorry for taking this off topic, im done

To bring it back im all in favor of using 490 as an alternative and doing away completely with the 90 bridge. Will never happen but it would be great if we could get that part of downtown back.

If people would just drive right there would be no need for a holes swerving and weaving in and out of traffic. Let the far left lane be the passing lane and used only for passing or people who like to go above the speed limit. If your in the far left lane DO NOT be going the speed limit, 5 miles, or even 10 miles over the speed limit. Move over and let the faster traffic go! Sorry for taking this off topic, im done

 

This is why I don't drive!  Thank goodness for the train!

Regarding that a-hole behind you on the freeway... it's me. It's always me. I'll wave next time.

 

ha.  that was funny... and i have for a long time pictured every one of those people as Mr. 327.

 

I agree with most of that, although I think cars and people can get along fairly well in most circumstances. And sometimes 5 minutes can mean the world. You sure as heck want it to be available when you need it. Cost-benefit analysis should come into play of course, if we're talking about tearing something down. And sometimes it's not about speed, it's about flow and order. These carry their own benefits, primarily in reducing accidents.

 

Speaking solely for the innerbelt... it's part of those "analysis" that drive me insane.  I know some people that have been fairly involved in this project on behalf of several downtown groups.  A couple years ago I actually sat through an entire presentation watching people trying to justify the closing of just about every ramp downtown with that exact thought process... flow and reducing "accidents".  Apparently they think the trench is a high accident area.  I don't ever recall of hearing of a death race style "accident" in the trench... but they see a couple fender benders of people getting off ramps, and "CLOSE THE RAMPS!", "we need increased traffic flow!".  That may be all well and good for the people traveling from Buffalo to Toledo, but it's the worst idea ever for those of us in Cleveland.  They litterally had downtown with 1 exit left.  East 9th.  Traveling west you could either get off at route 2 or get off at east 9th.  Other than that you were getting off on the other side of the river.  They can take their accident reduction and flow and stick it.  We need those ramps.  And we need highway caps over the trench at Euclid and Prospect to reconnect Midtown and allow CSU to grow.  Last I heard (easily at least 18 months ago) they considered putting the foundation for caps in but would leave it up to the city to build the caps (I'm sure it would be very easy for a cash strapped tax base dwindling city to do)... of course in Columbus they just built the caps.

 

The bridge mess is a whole nother story.

My hope for the project has always been for one bridge with 8-10 lanes somewhere south of the current one. At that point we could tear down the current structure and reclaim that land for nature or development. The two bridge solution makes no sense to me, but I think that's what we will get. These guys at ODOT have very little interest in urban areas, they build turnpikes and rest areas. That's what they do best. I thought we had a chance for a better solution when Lee Fischer seemed to show an interest in making sure this was done right. But the more our fellow Clevander talks the less I listen. 

I don't disagree about the ramps & caps either.  That stretch of freeway is a bit suicidey no matter what you do, but the ramps are necessary.  If you can't get to downtown/midtown from it there is no reason at all for the innerbelt to exist.

I'm surprised society never looks at how dangerous driving actually is.  These idiots have no problem driving 80mph in rush hour traffic, but try convincing them to walk down Euclid Avenue and they would probably erspond with some BS about it being dangerous.  Certainly more likely to die in a car crash than murdered on a city street.

 

We are all pedestrains.

The problem is not the bridge itself.  The problem is the bridge is the only option for getting into town from the west side.  Pick any other city in the US, pull it up on Google Maps, and you'll see highways running right through them.

 

The difference is there are options.  Multiple subway lines, street cars - things that don't use roads.  It's not just you and your car (bus or cab) trying to get to the same place as everyone else.

 

Eliminating the bridge isn't going to solve the problem.  There needs to be a more exhaustive rail system heading west (extending due west) and south.

 

Even if you knock out the innerbelt bridge and construct a more exhaustive 490/77/90 interchange, nothing is really going to change...there are other parts of the flats/tremont that are struggling to be developed (FEB anyone) that have nothing to do with the bridge.  The vision for the entire infrastructure needs to be changed, which I have a hard time seeing ODOT ever getting there in its current state.

As I've said before, tear it down and provide transportation access.

 

Make 490 the major connector and improve the connection points.

 

Somehow, come up with a non highway road so that Tremont residents have access to downtown.

 

It's called:

- A repaved/improved Scranton Road. And a repaved/improved University Road for north Tremont to connect to Scranton.

- A repaved/improved Abbey Avenue to West 20th to Lorain. Make a left just past those dudes holding trains, wagons, etc.

- An improved Quigley/Canal/3rd/whatever that mess is down in the Flats.

- A repaved/improved Columbus Road from Abbey to Center Street.

- A repaved/improved Riverbed Street and Franklin between West 25th and the west bank of the Cuyahoga.

 

Granted, none are as speedy as a highway onramp but when I see Prosperity busy as h#ll on a Thursday at 5:30pm (with non-locals), I don't think Tremont's THAT lacking in accessibility.

The guy who just got passed... ends up pulling up behind him at the stoplight for the next exit proving the impatient person saved about 1 second off their drive. 

 

This happened to me once.  Some jacka$$ almost killed me with an incredibly dangerous maneuver right as we were nearing the E.30 exit on 77.  I was about to pass someone on the left, he sped up behind the person on the right, cut in front of me, then cut back over.  He had to have been doing this at 80mph. 

 

Sure enough, I get off at the E.14 exit, and guess who is sitting at the stop light in front of me.  I started clapping and was mouthing "was it worth almost killing us?  We're at the exact same spot, you fu**ing a$$hole."  So what does this moron do?  Instead of realizing what an idiot and how reckless he was, he jumps out of his car and runs at my car.  He starts telling me what a pu$$y I am, that I am unamerican(?).  I tell him he's a moron and white trash.  He then challenges me to a dual right there on E.14th & Carnegie.  Of course no fight broke out, but it was just so surreal.  I was thinking if I had a conceal & carry I would have waved it at him, probably would have gone to jail, and wouldn't have been able to post for 3-6 months. 

 

The unintended consequences of driving. 

The guy who just got passed... ends up pulling up behind him at the stoplight for the next exit proving the impatient person saved about 1 second off their drive. 

 

This happened to me once.  Some jacka$$ almost killed me with an incredibly dangerous maneuver right as we were nearing the E.30 exit on 77.  I was about to pass someone on the left, he sped up behind the person on the right, cut in front of me, then cut back over.  He had to have been doing this at 80mph. 

 

Sure enough, I get off at the E.14 exit, and guess who is sitting at the stop light in front of me.  I started clapping and was mouthing "was it worth almost killing us?  We're at the exact same spot, you fu**ing a$$hole."  So what does this moron do?  Instead of realizing what an idiot and how reckless he was, he jumps out of his car and runs at my car.  He starts telling me what a pu$$y I am, that I am unamerican(?).  I tell him he's a moron and white trash.  He then challenges me to a dual right there on E.14th & Carnegie.  Of course no fight broke out, but it was just so surreal.  I was thinking if I had a conceal & carry I would have waved it at him, probably would have gone to jail, and wouldn't have been able to post for 3-6 months. 

 

The unintended consequences of driving. 

 

 

That was really ghetto!  He got out the car?  You should have hit him.

Time to play with lines on the map..... My goals were to de-emphasize highways in a highly urban setting, open up more land downtown for parks and lower-cost development, reposition Rapid lines to boulevard-like alignments where they could interact more productively with their urban surroundings, and put that noisy Interstate 77 next to a noisy freight railroad line.

 

What prompted this was a desire to swap the alignment for the Rapid with the alignment for I-77 since I-77's ramps could be anywhere in that general area and still function well but not cause a pedestrian divide in an area that could be very pedestrian oriented. Whereas the Rapid line needs stations with pedestrian-oriented settings on both sides of the rail line. This feeds off the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission's concept for putting I-90 on the southern alignment through the central interchange....

 

 

Oooo, never saw that last one before.  I like it.  Much better than doing BRT up Buckeye.

Me likey.  Are you proposing a switch of the red line from heavy to light rail?

Me likey. Are you proposing a switch of the red line from heavy to light rail?

 

Yes, and standardizing the whole rail system to one type of rail car that can serve both low-level and high-level platform stations.

Alterations to Inner Belt plan suggested at ODOT public hearing

Posted by Karen Farkas