2028?  Dear lord I'll be old by then.

2028?  Dear lord I'll be old by then.

 

You poor thing.  You shouldn't feel bad, just think how Dan will feel and look!

 

 

 

Nah, you'll just change your name to Miss Clairol.  :-P

2028? Dear lord I'll be old by then.

 

You poor thing. You shouldn't feel bad, just think how Dan will feel and look!

 

 

 

 

Hahaha.  Perhaps downtown Cleveland will be in a state of ultimate awesomeness just in time for me to retire :-D.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/odot_plans_for_new_inner_belt.html

 

ODOT plans for new Inner Belt bridges to replace deteriorating span

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter

July 15, 2009 11:20AM

 

CLEVELAND — Plans for two new Inner Belt bridges over the Cuyahoga River are under way as the current deteriorating bridge is repaired so it can remain open to all traffic.

 

Ideas are being discussed for the design, landscaping and other aesthetics for a $400 million, five-lane Interstate 90 westbound bridge, now scheduled to open in September 2013...

While pedestrians and bicyclists will not be allowed on the bridge, ODOT will work on bike/pedestrian routes, which may include helping to extend the Towpath Trail from Tremont to downtown, said Tim Donovan, executive director of the Ohio Canal Corridor.

That's disappointing.

 

ODOT plans to build a straightforward steel or concrete girder bridge, similar to the Interstate 480 bridge over the Cuyahoga River Valley, or a box bridge, where the superstructure is four-sided.

 

"There are some elegant concrete girder bridges out there that are really quite beautiful," Starinsky said.

I'll take your word that there are some elegant concrete girder bridges, but I doubt ODOT is going to give us something attractive without a fight.

I am the least bit of an expert in the architectural field but are there really any concrete girder bridges in the world that actually look good?  The I-480 bridge is absolutely nothing to marvel at in my amatuer opinion.

everything i see when trying to search online looks like a monorail.  Thanks ODOT.

Does anyone know if ODOT will be opening this up to a public review process?

I don't know if additional public meetings will be held about the bridge, but there will be public meetings on other aspects such as the proposed sound walls in Tremont and along I-71 through Brooklyn Center....

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/brooklynsunjournal/2009/07/odot_hosts_public_meetings_on.html

 

ODOT hosts public meetings on Interstate 90 noise walls

Posted by Ken Prendergast July 09, 2009 18:50PM

Categories: Breaking News

 

Several meetings will be held in the coming weeks so Tremont residents can tell the Ohio Department of Transportation what they think about plans for adding noise walls along Interstate 90.

 

But based on early reactions by the public, the walls may be crumbling down.

 

"It's their choice," said Mark Carpenter, an environmental engineer at ODOT's District 12 offices. "Nothing is written in stone right now. The walls are a federal requirement when adding new roads or changing traffic patterns but they (the neighborhood) can reject them."

 

 

........

While pedestrians and bicyclists will not be allowed on the bridge, ODOT will work on bike/pedestrian routes, which may include helping to extend the Towpath Trail from Tremont to downtown, said Tim Donovan, executive director of the Ohio Canal Corridor.

That's disappointing.

 

ODOT plans to build a straightforward steel or concrete girder bridge, similar to the Interstate 480 bridge over the Cuyahoga River Valley, or a box bridge, where the superstructure is four-sided.

 

"There are some elegant concrete girder bridges out there that are really quite beautiful," Starinsky said.

I'll take your word that there are some elegant concrete girder bridges, but I doubt ODOT is going to give us something attractive without a fight.

 

Let's not make this an anti-ODOT thread. They are handling the situation as well as any DOT.

 

To answer your first comment, how is not including a bike lane on an interstate highway disappointing? Bike lanes should NEVER be on a high-speed interstate highway. Low speed roadways and arterials with at-grades where it is approperiate, yes, but 65 MPH traffic? You got to be kidding me. They are planning for a separate facility, most likely an 8- to 10-foot path to one side that would be more than sufficient.

 

As for the second, ODOT has designed many wonderful structures that are attractive and done without a fight. The U.S. Grant Bridge over the Ohio River in Portsmouth is an elegant cable-stayed design. So is the new Pomeroy-Mason Bridge. And the new Skyway in Toledo. Not every bridge over an interstate needs to be elegant or strikingly beautiful; most of the time, they need to just be functional.

ODOT's vision for the innerbelt is slightly grander than poo.

It may be a Cleveland thing, but the bridges mean something to this community.  Perhaps it is the idea of industrial might, that may be a memory at this point.  Perhaps because this community will always partition itself as West siders and Eastsiders, and the bridges are what joins us.  Whatever the reason, our bridges are a lot more than just a way to get from Legecy Village to Crocker Park.  Maybe that is why Columbus does not get it. 

very well said

I don't really care about the architectural details about this bridge.  The pertinent thing about it to me is path of the bridge.  Most of the people that have been following this thread for a while understand that a southern alignment will add many potentially valuable acres to downtown Cleveland that is currently inaccessible right now due to all the concrete blocking downtown from the innerbelt access ramps.  A southern alignment can be a very elegant solution to a very complicated problem and ODOT has said they have picked the path and they are going more northerly..

I don't know if additional public meetings will be held about the bridge, but there will be public meetings on other aspects such as the proposed sound walls in Tremont and along I-71 through Brooklyn Center....

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/brooklynsunjournal/2009/07/odot_hosts_public_meetings_on.html

 

ODOT hosts public meetings on Interstate 90 noise walls

Posted by Ken Prendergast July 09, 2009 18:50PM

Categories: Breaking News

 

Several meetings will be held in the coming weeks so Tremont residents can tell the Ohio Department of Transportation what they think about plans for adding noise walls along Interstate 90.

 

The first meeting is at 6:30 p.m. today at the Zion United Church of Christ, 2716 W. 14th St. and will be held by the Lincoln Heights-Scranton-Starkweather Block Club. The next will be held by the North of Literary Block Club, at 6:30 p.m. July 21 at Lago, 2221 Professor Ave. ODOT is planning public meetings in Tremont in August.

 

But based on early reactions by the public, the walls may be crumbling down...

 

Im just pumped for the 10 total lanes of traffic!

What's to hate? The reconstructed bridge will include an 8- to 10-foot shared path, 2 full 12' right shoulders, 2 full 8' left shoulders, and 10 12' lanes. The extra set of lanes is not an extra lane for through traffic. It will function as an acceleration and deceleration lane for the Interstate 77/US 422/SR 8/SR 14/SR 43/SR 10 and Abbey Avenue interchanges. Currently, both acceleration and deceleration lanes are very abrupt and short, and do not meet anywhere near the standards of today's traffic. The new shoulders will also be much safer for traffic -- ever had to break down on a shoulderless, narrow bridge?

 

I guess it beats the stop signs I encountered on ramps on Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania. That was a complete shock.

Are there any photos of what this may look like? It would be good if it did have some design to it--And, will the old bridge still be overhauled to carry traffic in one direction, as was the case last I checked? Sorry if the question was answered. I am not knowledgeable on this project.

S.C. this is not a traffic flow issue.  We dont care how fast you can transport people out of the city.  We care about what scar you will leave on our city.

 

As the largest metro area, contributing the most tax revenue in the state, we demand better than nifty wide road shoulders.

Just a quickie on this...ODOT needs to curb the senseless tree cutting along...trees which pose no safety/obstruction problem of any sort. They help reduce noise more effectively than barriers alone, as well as suck up some of the noxious highway fumes. Sorry, I'm not impressed with their efficiency to do very much.

 

There is an ODOT policy thread

Are there any photos of what this may look like? It would be good if it did have some design to it--And, will the old bridge still be overhauled to carry traffic in one direction, as was the case last I checked. Sorry if the question was answered. I am not knowledgeable on this project.

 

It seems like that's the plan still.

I don't really care about the architectural details about this bridge. The pertinent thing about it to me is path of the bridge. Most of the people that have been following this thread for a while understand that a southern alignment will add many potentially valuable acres to downtown Cleveland that is currently inaccessible right now due to all the concrete blocking downtown from the innerbelt access ramps. A southern alignment can be a very elegant solution to a very complicated problem and ODOT has said they have picked the path and they are going more northerly..

 

ODOT and the Jackson Admin have decided on a northern alignment.

S.C. this is not a traffic flow issue. We dont care how fast you can transport people out of the city. We care about what scar you will leave on our city.

 

As the largest metro area, contributing the most tax revenue in the state, we demand better than nifty wide road shoulders.

 

Out of the city? Is Cleveland really that depressing? I didn't think so. Let's stick with the topic here: Interstate 90 carries a substantial amount of through and local traffic, and is a highway span that is failing and needs to be completely replaced, regardless of one's thinking interstates through cities is a political and social-economic blunder. We don't need another interstate highway span collapse, and I'm sure that the industry that remains in the core of Cleveland -- along with the industry that feeds off of the spur interstate routes, will argue that the new bridge is woefully necessary.

 

Having trucks banned from the bridge due to severe deficiencies costs them money. As much as you may wish, you can't ship everything by water or rail. Highways are necessary -- painfully so in some instances, in the inner city. Interstate 90 is one such component that Cleveland simply cannot do without.

 

As for the "scar" -- there has been no final mention of a bridge design or rendering, so you are clearly wandering about some awful ODOT design. The fact that they have allocated a substantial chunk to bridge aesthetic treatments and have made a commitment to other improvements just for this span and its approaches and surrounding roadways is a step up from the past. If Fort Washington Way in downtown Cincinnati is one indication, and the inner-belt reconstruction in Columbus, ODOT has made strides in designing highways that conform to an urban environ. As it stands with the Interstate 90 span, concrete and steel girders are one choice among many, and those spans can really be quite elegant. An arch over the river is all but necessary due to the length of the channel, but there can really be no overhead bridge support structures due to the icing issue.

 

Regarding the alignment, one set of lanes will be constructed and the old set will be demolished, followed by the other set of lanes.

To answer your first comment, how is not including a bike lane on an interstate highway disappointing? Bike lanes should NEVER be on a high-speed interstate highway. Low speed roadways and arterials with at-grades where it is approperiate, yes, but 65 MPH traffic? You got to be kidding me. They are planning for a separate facility, most likely an 8- to 10-foot path to one side that would be more than sufficient.

There has been some discussion up-thread about this and the advantages of including a way for pedestrians/bicyclists to get between Tremont and downtown via the bridge. I'm not suggesting that we be allowed to walk along the side of an interstate highway with nothing between pedestrians and traffic but a 10 foot shoulder (I'm pretty sure the Feds would have a problem with that.)

 

I don't think that "ODOT will work on bike/pedestrian routes, which may include helping to extend the Towpath Trail from Tremont to downtown" is a guarantee that something will happen, and certainly don't think it's going to happen on the same timeline and with the same sense of urgency as getting these bridges done.

 

As for the second, ODOT has designed many wonderful structures that are attractive and done without a fight. The U.S. Grant Bridge over the Ohio River in Portsmouth is an elegant cable-stayed design. So is the new Pomeroy-Mason Bridge. And the new Skyway in Toledo.

Yes, ODOT has designed some nice looking bridges without a fight, but the fact that they've already determined it will be a concrete girder bridge is not a good sign.

 

Not every bridge over an interstate needs to be elegant or strikingly beautiful; most of the time, they need to just be functional.

I agree that not all bridges need be interesting, but I think that given the location, we deserve a bridge with some more character than the 480 bridge.

How did you conclude that not wanting a poorly designed and poorly located bridge would make me want the current poorly designed, poorly located and npn-functional bridge.

ODOT should realize that roads and bridges can not purely be designed as car conduits.

For the dozens of reasons why this idea is poor, read this thread

"... has made strides in designing highways that conform to an urban environ."

 

That is an oxymoron, highways are the least urbane piece of infrastructure in any city.  They break down the scale and connectivity of neighborhoods.  Highways work in all other terrain except the urban.  Even Henry Ford knew this.

 

The two examples I cited, Fort Washington Way and the upcoming Interstate 70/71 reconstruction (inner-belt) project is far better than the first iterations and other iterations. Not every highway can be as grand (or as outrageously expensive) as the Big Dig, which is all but known as the Big Failure due to massive cost overruns and the non-use of the new park space above. Some instances, such as the capping of Fort Washington Way -- which it is designed to be capped (much like the upcoming inner-belt), can remove the highway from the visible realm of the passing pedestrians and public while offering local and through traffic one major artery through the city.

 

Without Interstate 90, the only other good option for traffic to navigate is via Interstate 77/490. Interstate 77 would need to be extensively rebuilt, to create separate lanes for Interstate 77/90 (due to a brief multiplex of the routes), and to upgrade the downtown interchange. The Interstate 77/490 interchange would need to be reconstructed and substantially widened to carry through Interstate 90 traffic, and the Interstate 490 bridge over the river -- which is eight lanes with shoulders, would need to be widened to carry the extra burden. The Interstate 71/90/490 interchange would also need reconstructing. That's no small or cheap task, and I wonder if that is a reasonable alternative considering the areas Interstate 77 and 490 cut through have more right-of-way to work with.

 

With that said, I have some contacts with ODOT but not with this district. I called Mr. Teeuwen this morning who confirmed that they are planning for a Towpath connection as part of the required mitigation for a project of this size.

 

A concrete girder is not all that bad. You are probably thinking of generic interstate highway overpasses that are straight-girders or box-girder beams -- and for those applications, nothing more fancy is required. But even most of today's faux-arch spans on interstates are really girders with facade treatments. These can be seen on some older applications -- Kentucky's overpasses on interstates and parkways, and some new applications -- the new Putnam Avenue Muskingum River bridge in Marietta. Very few true arches are constructed today as they are simply not practical in many instances.

SC, I'm curious about your intense interest in a highway project that has tremendous urban land use design ramifications in a city you don't live in. If you're a highway-file or you work for a engineering company or even at ODOT, I would certainly understand that level of interest. After all, I take a great interest in rail/transit projects in cities other than my own because I am a rail-file and I earn a living from a statewide organization that promotes better rail/transit. But I wear that on my sleeve. You have merely piqued my curiosity, that's all.

Ideas are being discussed for the design, landscaping and other aesthetics for a $400 million, five-lane Interstate 90 westbound bridge, now scheduled to open in September 2013.

 

The current Inner Belt Bridge will then be replaced with a new five-lane bridge to carry eastbound traffic. That bridge, which could open around 2015, may be built a little north to parallel the westbound bridge.

From 2013 until "around 2015", the five lane, westbound bridge will have to carry eastbound and westbound traffic with only five lanes.  I expect that the middle lane will be blocked with barrier walls for the duration.  That means two lanes in each direction.

 

If they cannot reuse the original innerbelt bridge, they should just build one ten lane bridge and locate it south of the current viaduct and bridge.

 

Nod to Grumpy: ODOT talking about the towpath is hardly a subsitute for exclusive bike lanes on the new bridge.  We could make the old cantilevered truss span into an eight lane wide bike route.

^I would guess they would use the shoulders for traffic during construction giving you 3 lanes in each directions.  But again... just my semi-educated guess.

SC, I'm curious about your intense interest in a highway project that has tremendous urban land use design ramifications in a city you don't live in. If you're a highway-file or you work for a engineering company or even at ODOT, I would certainly understand that level of interest. After all, I take a great interest in rail/transit projects in cities other than my own because I am a rail-file and I earn a living from a statewide organization that promotes better rail/transit. But I wear that on my sleeve. You have merely piqued my curiosity, that's all.

 

I have had an interest in transportation infrastructure since I was a young lad. My original interest was in highway developments, but that has since progressed into rail. You won't find a stronger advocate for rail than me, but I also understand that there must be a delicate balance between highway and rail transport. I do acknowledge that a lot of mistakes were made in the past, especially to urban highway planning, but I believe it is essential to local industry and commuters that major highways must remain in place lest there is an affordable and acceptable solution.

 

For the Interstate 90 bridge, I listed one such solution by expanding Interstate 77 and 480 to handle through traffic by installing dedicated lanes for Interstate 90, but it would be very costly.

 

I don't expect to know the answers for every and all highway projects, but I wanted to clarify some issues regarding the bridge and ODOT. I know a lot bash ODOT on here (and in many threads), but many of their more recent projects have been pretty successful given the funding climate from the state. They only have a limited amount of funds to work with, which is why Fort Washington Way and the upcoming inner-belt do not feature full freeway caps -- although they are designed for such, a smart move for the future when funding can be dedicated for that.

 

And I also realize that ODOT has been all but dedicated to highway transport, although that is more of a national problem given that most state DOT's spend the vast majority of their money on highway maintenance and expansion. Some states have dedicated agencies for say, rail and waterway access, leaving the DOT for just highways (e.g. Kentucky), while others lob all into one department (e.g. West Virginia).

 

To get to my original statement, I worked with KYTC, WVDOH and ODOT on documenting and photographing many of their projects for years, and developed a lot of connections and relationships with many. I do run Bridges & Tunnels, and formerly ran a highway-transportation web-site.

Thank you. Like I said, I'm just curious. I still have a journalist in me. :)

What's to hate? The reconstructed bridge will include an 8- to 10-foot shared path, 2 full 12' right shoulders, 2 full 8' left shoulders, and 10 12' lanes. The extra set of lanes is not an extra lane for through traffic. It will function as an acceleration and deceleration lane for the Interstate 77/US 422/SR 8/SR 14/SR 43/SR 10 and Abbey Avenue interchanges. Currently, both acceleration and deceleration lanes are very abrupt and short, and do not meet anywhere near the standards of today's traffic. The new shoulders will also be much safer for traffic -- ever had to break down on a shoulderless, narrow bridge?

 

I guess it beats the stop signs I encountered on ramps on Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania. That was a complete shock.

 

LOL I was serious, I'm one of the few on this forums that likes huge bridges. While I'm not against pedestrian friendly, I AM PRO CAR! The more lanes the better, IMHO

The traffic through the Innerbelt just isn't heavy enough to justify 10 lanes.  At the current 6 lanes, it still doesn't seem to ever cost people more than 5 or 10 minutes, even at the peak of rush hour.  Talk about overbuilding just so noone ever has to slow down.

To answer your first comment, how is not including a bike lane on an interstate highway disappointing? Bike lanes should NEVER be on a high-speed interstate highway. Low speed roadways and arterials with at-grades where it is approperiate, yes, but 65 MPH traffic? You got to be kidding me. They are planning for a separate facility, most likely an 8- to 10-foot path to one side that would be more than sufficient.

 

you make mention of this attached path in 2 posts.  i think most people in the community would be happy with an attached 10' (or slightly wider) multi-use path attached to one of the sides of the project.  but my understanding is that this is NOT in the plan.  ODOT would prefer to make other improvements to biking infrastucture around this project, but not as part of the actual bridge.  if you know otherwise, please post a reference.

 

what many would like to see is a bridge built for the next 50 years.  a bridge that doesn't accomodate bikes and pedestrians crossing a large valley that divides downtown from neighborhoods is unexcusable in my opinion - and i'm not talking about a striped bike lane at the side of the road, i'm talking about a separated bike and pedestrian crossing. 

 

other state DOTs are doing this as a matter of course, so it isn't really a new or unproven idea anymore.  see here for a partial list: http://mobikefed.org/2006/05/bicycle-paths-on-interstate-freeway.php

 

so, when i-84, i-95, i-278, i-279, i-295, i-90(chicago), i-80, i-680 and 20 others have bike accomodations on the new bridges, i expect that ODOT includes bike accomodations on i-90, right here in cleveland.

I have read this thread from start to finish and I still don't understand why KJP's plan to by pass the I-90 bridge by transferring the traffic to I 480 is an official nonstarter.  It would seem that someone at ODOT must have considered it, what stopped them?  Is it just inertia? It seems like a no-brainer to me or did I miss something in the above thread?

To answer your first comment, how is not including a bike lane on an interstate highway disappointing? Bike lanes should NEVER be on a high-speed interstate highway. Low speed roadways and arterials with at-grades where it is approperiate, yes, but 65 MPH traffic? You got to be kidding me. They are planning for a separate facility, most likely an 8- to 10-foot path to one side that would be more than sufficient.

 

you make mention of this attached path in 2 posts.  i think most people in the community would be happy with an attached 10' (or slightly wider) multi-use path attached to one of the sides of the project.  but my understanding is that this is NOT in the plan.  ODOT would prefer to make other improvements to biking infrastucture around this project, but not as part of the actual bridge.  if you know otherwise, please post a reference.

 

what many would like to see is a bridge built for the next 50 years.  a bridge that doesn't accomodate bikes and pedestrians crossing a large valley that divides downtown from neighborhoods is unexcusable in my opinion - and i'm not talking about a striped bike lane at the side of the road, i'm talking about a separated bike and pedestrian crossing. 

 

other state DOTs are doing this as a matter of course, so it isn't really a new or unproven idea anymore.  see here for a partial list: http://mobikefed.org/2006/05/bicycle-paths-on-interstate-freeway.php

 

so, when i-84, i-95, i-278, i-279, i-295, i-90(chicago), i-80, i-680 and 20 others have bike accomodations on the new bridges, i expect that ODOT includes bike accomodations on i-90, right here in cleveland.

 

Why would someone want to bike on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can bike down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown?  Or that they can bike over Lorain or Detroit bridge?  Where are people coming from that they would need a bike lane on I-90?  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatves for bikers...

A clarification -- I proposed routing via I-490.

I have read this thread from start to finish and I still don't understand why KJP's plan to by pass the I-90 bridge by transferring the traffic to I490 is an official nonstarter.  It would seem that someone at ODOT must have considered it, what stopped them?  Is it just inertia? It seems like a no-brainer to me or did I miss something in the above thread?

 

I spoke with the wife about this, and her concern is that the addition of essentially 3 more interchanges to the route may create a deterrent for suberbanites to come downtown.  I know that everyone on here will relate that there are adaquate alternatives, i.e. Rapid, alternative streets, etc.  But most of the businesses survive off the abaility for them to come and spend their money there.  If it is made more difficult, even if it is only the perception of greater difficulty, then you may lose customers.

 

Additionally, with this being a major East/West artery there may be federal restrictions on how the routing can be changed.  At least the Fed may make things more difficult to acquire funding. 

 

Why would someone want to bike on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can bike down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown? Or that they can bike over Lorain or Detroit bridge? Where are people coming from that they would need a bike lane on I-90? It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatves for bikers...

 

Steep hills

 

Why would someone want to bike on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can bike down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown? Or that they can bike over Lorain or Detroit bridge? Where are people coming from that they would need a bike lane on I-90? It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatves for bikers...

 

Steep hills

 

Also, if you catch the lift bridge while it's up, you're talking about a wait of up to 20 minutes. Also, lots of potholes along the Flats route.

 

I do take Abbey to W. 20th to the Lorain Carnegie on the way to and from work.  It does take me a good 1/3rd mile out of my way, but it's a fairly decent ride (especially with the striped lanes on the bridge).  The bugaboo is Ontario St. going southbound from Huron to Carnegie.  With the "improvements" to the Innerbelt on-ramp at Ontario, there needs to be a significant improvement to accommodate cyclists going from Public Square to the Lorain Carnegie, because it's fairly hellish now.

I spoke with the wife about this, and her concern is that the addition of essentially 3 more interchanges to the route may create a deterrent for suberbanites to come downtown.

 

What three interchanges?

I have read this thread from start to finish and I still don't understand why KJP's plan to by pass the I-90 bridge by transferring the traffic to I 480 is an official nonstarter.  It would seem that someone at ODOT must have considered it, what stopped them?  Is it just inertia? It seems like a no-brainer to me or did I miss something in the above thread?

Can "we" rationalize an arguement for "The Grander Vision" to help the businesses at the Euclid, Prospect, and Carnegie exits of the Innerbelt?  They are very well organized and might like to hear this proposal.

 

I would expect that vacating the neighborhood, scrapping the central (I-90+I-77) interchange and adding lanes to I-77 has got to be cheaper than the elaborate two-bridge replacement strategy: it would be a better use of public funds. 

Boreal, I made that argument above, to upgrade Interstate 77 and 490, but it would require a substantial amount of money that might equal the construction costs of a new Interstate 90 span. Dedicated lanes for Interstate 90 through traffic would need to be constructed alongside the existing lanes for Interstate 77 and 490, because having traffic merge only to exit twice in a very short period of time would create mass weaving which is dangerous. The Interstate 490 bridge would likely need to be widened since it is only eight lanes, and has to carry the extra traffic. The interchanges, some of which feature one or two lanes, would need to be substantially upgraded or rebuilt to handle the through traffic.

 

KJP/tedders55, ODOT isn't adding three new interchanges to the project. They are rebuilding the existing interchanges within the project scope. I'm not sure how this will be a determent for suburbanites to come to downtown.

 

urbanlife: A 8' or 10' multi-use path (pedestrians and cyclists) is proposed for the Interstate 90 span as a dedicated facility that would be accessed via dedicated paths. Of course, it's useless if it isn't well connected to the Towpath. My reference comes from the individual I spoke with that I mentioned earlier. It's silly to state that ODOT doesn't care about this issue -- Glass City Skyway (Interstate 280, Toledo) has a very wide multiuse path. Others, like the U.S. Grant Bridge (US 23, Ohio River, Portsmouth) have a very wide lane that any cyclist can use.

urbanlife: A 8' or 10' multi-use path (pedestrians and cyclists) is proposed for the Interstate 90 span as a dedicated facility that would be accessed via dedicated paths. Of course, it's useless if it isn't well connected to the Towpath. My reference comes from the individual I spoke with that I mentioned earlier. It's silly to state that ODOT doesn't care about this issue -- Glass City Skyway (Interstate 280, Toledo) has a very wide multiuse path. Others, like the U.S. Grant Bridge (US 23, Ohio River, Portsmouth) have a very wide lane that any cyclist can use.

 

My reference to this project not including this multiuse path comes from the project manager, public meetings, and appears to be re-affirmed in a recent newspaper article regarding the project.  My "silly" problem with this ODOT project is that it is not going to include a multi use path, which i think doesn't follow best bridge building practices found in other parts of the country, and i don't think you can build a project for the future without including these essential elements.

 

Again, i'd love to be wrong, but having been to these public meetings in cleveland as well as reviewing the eis and alternatives documents, there isn't a mention anywhere of a multi-use path being included.  What ODOT appears to want to do is to spend a few million on making alternative biking routes more usable, certainly a welcome investment.  However, as others have noted, the alternative crossings have some significant drawbacks that aren't easily solved and although extending the towpath trail is great, as is, it is used primarily for recreational bicycling and not bike commuting.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/odot_plans_for_new_inner_belt.html

 

ODOT plans for new Inner Belt bridges to replace deteriorating span

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter July 15, 2009 11:20AM

Categories: Breaking News, Real Time News, Traffic

 

While pedestrians and bicyclists will not be allowed on the bridge, ODOT will work on bike/pedestrian routes, which may include helping to extend the Towpath Trail from Tremont to downtown, said Tim Donovan, executive director of the Ohio Canal Corridor.

 

 

I spoke with the wife about this, and her concern is that the addition of essentially 3 more interchanges to the route may create a deterrent for suberbanites to come downtown.

 

What three interchanges?

 

This is from our perspective living off 71.  With the routing of 71/90->490->77->90 there would seem to be 3 interchanges, 71->490, 490->77, and 77->90.  Without some major reconfiguration to the 77->90 interchange, which I'm sure there will be, i'm just not sure it is going to be enough to create a smooth enough trasition.  There would need to be some significant land acquisition in order to straiten the U-curve that is currently there between 90-77.

Actually, there's only two interchanges: 71->490 and 490->90. I-77 would end at what is now I-490 and the designation of I-490 would disappear to be called I-90. Your drive time would increase by 45 seconds.

 

Why would someone want to bike on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can bike down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown?  Or that they can bike over Lorain or Detroit bridge?  Where are people coming from that they would need a bike lane on I-90?  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatves for bikers...

I can ask the same questions in regard to cars;

 

Why would someone want to drive on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can drive down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown?  Or that they can drive over Lorain or Detroit bridge?  Where are people coming from that they would need a car lane on I-90?  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatives for drivers...

 

If cars and trucks need the innerbelt bridge, why don't bikes and pedestrians?

 

urbanlife: A 8' or 10' multi-use path (pedestrians and cyclists) is proposed for the Interstate 90 span as a dedicated facility that would be accessed via dedicated paths. Of course, it's useless if it isn't well connected to the Towpath. My reference comes from the individual I spoke with that I mentioned earlier.

The latest articles I've seen have said that this multi-use path was no longer under consideration, if you've heard otherwise, that's good news.

 

Why would someone want to bike on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can bike down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown?  Or that they can bike over Lorain or Detroit bridge?  Where are people coming from that they would need a bike lane on I-90?  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatves for bikers...

I can ask the same questions in regard to cars;

 

Why would someone want to drive on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can drive down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown?  Or that they can drive over Lorain or Detroit bridge?  Where are people coming from that they would need a car lane on I-90?  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatives for drivers...

 

If cars and trucks need the innerbelt bridge, why don't bikes and pedestrians?

 

 

Because bikes and pedestrian don't get along well with cars on a freeway during rush hour.  Or people aren't walking from Westlake to downtown. 

 

And I don't know of anyone who would prefer taking I-90 from Tremont to get downtown while driving a car as opposed to any of the side streets. 

 

The point is, I would never even consider riding my bike on I-90.  If I am in Tremont and I want to get downtown on my bike, I have multiple viable options.  And even if "biking down I-90" was one of them, I would choose another route that was safer and more enjoyable than immersing myself in rush hour traffic on an interstate bridge.  When travelling between downtown and Tremont in my car I don't take I-90.  I am not sure why anyone would want to ride their bike on that route either.

shs96, I suspect you're having a hard time envisioning what a bike path on an interstate bridge might look like. Here's a new example, showing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, across the Potomac River in Washington DC: