wow, that's your optimistic view?  sheesh!

 

well, at least it's constructive (no pun intended).  I'm finding it hard to be either one right now.  I need to see some serious backbone on the part of our local reps when it comes to the next stage of "planning" for the Innerbelt.  I need to see some positive externalities for the communities that it will pass through and I need to see them soon!  I'm really quite disgusted with this whole thing and I can't help but think that it would all be a lot different in 9 months if we had a different governor who actually gave a rat's ass about the city/region northeast of the state capital. 

KJP, those are great ideas.  When all is said and done, we've got to hold ODOT's feet to the fire so at least some of those things can happen (especially the rail component to the Opportunity Corridor).

Thanks. By the way, I found an interesting quote while doing research for another project. The following was in a booklet by the League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County on transportation issues...

 

 

“It is a myth that [TEA-21] is not flexible. Even if a local MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) rejects a project, the dollars usually stay in the district, depending on the category. Pavement and bridge monies stay within the district even if an ODOT-proposed project is rejected. ‘Use it or lose it’ is a myth. ODOT will not expand where the region doesn’t want it.”

-- ODOT Director Gordon Proctor

 

From the Quadrangle's newsletter:

 

Innerbelt Meeting

 

    There will be a Cleveland Innerbelt meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, at Myers University Club, 3813 Euclid Avenue. The Quadrangle, other area community development corporations and the City of Cleveland are hosting this important meeting. The meeting is expected to last until noon.

 

    Gordon Proctor, Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation will present ODOT’s plans and respond to community concerns. Representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, and our elected officials in Cleveland, Columbus and Washington D.C. will be present to hear the community’s response to ODOT’s planned access changes.

 

    For more information please contact the Quadrangle at (216) 344-9200 or [email protected].

 

Thanks for the heads-up!

 

I'd like to see CDC officials ask Proctor about the quote I found and posted in the message right before yours, X. If they won't, I will.

Just a reminder that the Inner Belt meeting is tomorrow morning. It is open to the public.

I, along with Blinker12 and Mister Good Day, attended the meeting this morning.  I will provide an expanded commentary at a later time, but overall I did not find the meeting to be that productive or promising. 

 

The place was packed with suites. Jim Haviland of MidTown gave an uninspired presentation on why closing certain entrance ramps would be a bad idea.  Proctor, the ODOT head, effectively responded to Haviland's arguments.  Its not that Proctor convinced me that ODOT's ideas are the right way to go, its more that Haviland didn't make the points that he needed to.  Someone with a voice needs to question ODOT's tunnel vision approach to urban highway construction.  Proctor continually cited examples of how his ideas had suceeded in other parts of the state.  Weak stuff--each place is different and needs unique approach.  ODOT seems to be imposing ideas that were successful in other areas and applying them to Cleveland without peeking out of the trench.  Also, Proctor was not being honest.  He showed the highway cap in Columbus and inferred that it would happen in Cleveland.  When questioned about it, he said that the city would have to partner with a developer to make it happen.  (I should get back to work, but just one more thing).  Procter said that they normally don't do economic impact studies and seemed to suggest that they were saints for doing one, albeit inadequate, for MidTown.  This one really got me. How the hell do you significantly alter the transportation patters of a city and not consider the economic impact!! I know that we've said this before...

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Proctor seemed unwilling to budge an inch.

Overall, I was disappointed in the narrow scope of the discussion. We keep fussing about details like the "signature bridge" and "downtown access points," when the entire project is wrong-headed. We don't need a faster and safer freeway through downtown; we need better public transit. We don't need frontage roads running alongside the freeway and requiring further property takes; we need caps that will mend the rips ODOT tore in the city's urban fabric 50 years ago.

I wasn't able to attend the meeting since today is deadline day at the paragraph factory. But I was able to interview a number of officials who were there. My understanding is that this is the FIRST TIME that ODOT has undertaken an economic impact study. Also, as part of the impact study, ODOT would show things like how heavy the traffic will be on various streets -- suggesting that is a positive. Extent of vehicular traffic in a particular vicinity may be of importance to retailers, but not to office, light industrial or other non-retail commercial uses. Futhermore, in a downtown/urban-core area, I question how valuable vehicular traffic figures are to retailers, as motorists usually can't just pull into a parking space and walk in after spotting a retailer. Foot traffic is often more important. But ODOT don't do the pedestrian thang.

here is a link to a blog that was done 'real time' during the event.  basically backs up prior comments, but it walks through step-by-step the events of the meeting:

 

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/02/live-blogging-from-cleveland-innerbelt.html

^ Very nice summary of the meeting. This one caught me by surprise (it was near the end)......

 

Hauser:

-the bridge has been decided on and that is the part that has been decided on.

FHWA: that desicion has not been finalized (wow, again)

 

Thanks KJP.

Let me tell you, that was the hardest three hours of typing I have ever done.

It is also very different then cramming a paper in hours before it is due in class.

I'm sure my numerous typos show that.

 

I walked away from this meeting with two items of notice: the deadline for public comment on the bridge will be extended from last January to... well, I don't know when, but the FHWA guy said it would be extended to Citizen Hauser, and, that the decision on the bridge has not been finalized. Pretty heavy statements, i wish I could have seen Proctors face when FHWA guy said that.

 

I have a copy of the powerpoint, but it is about 58mb big. When I am at school tomorrow, I will attempt the ftp thing and let everyone know when it is available... or you can wait a couple of days and get it from the innerbelt website. (thank you laura)

 

 

I wanted to go, unfortunately I was feeling like crap today.  Are they still doing the independent study of the Southern Alignment that was promised at the last meeting?  I was really pissed when they "came to an agreement" on the Northern Alignment without giving the public a chance to see the results of the study they promised us.

There also was a PDF sent to me about this Downtown Cleveland Partnership forum, but I won't be able to post its contents until later this evening after I return to my humble abode.

________________________

 

Dear DCP Members and Friends:

We invite you to join us at this informative panel discussion about the Innerbelt reconstruction project:

 

Monday 13 March 2006

7:30 am

US Bank Centre Auditorium

1350 Euclid Avenue at Playhouse Square

 

The Cleveland Innerbelt Improvement is an enormous building project for the city of Cleveland - probably the largest single construction project that the city has ever seen.  While not a lot of architects, city planners or even urban designers will be involved with its planning, it will have an enormous impact on our city, its future, its access and convenience as well as its livability and vitality.  Yet as the proposed plan has developed over the past couple of years, few have been able to take the time or energy to follow its development.  Never the less, it is important to know that it will have a profound affect on our lives.  Now is a critically important time to know more about this project and better understand what is being proposed.

 

Urban Design, Land Development and the Innerbelt - what we need to know about the ODOT Plan

 

AIA Cleveland, a Chapter of the American Institute of Architects along with the Kent State University Urban Design Center and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance are planning a joint information-sharing meeting next Monday morning, the 13th March, in the Conference room at the U.S. Bank in Playhouse Square.

 

Mr. Craig Hebebrand, Project Manager for ODOT will present the Recommended Preferred Alternative plan along with any other alternatives currently under consideration.

 

James Haviland, Executive Director of MidTown Cleveland will present the perspective of the affected, adjacent communities and their stakeholders.

 

Mr. Hunter Morrison will discuss the opportunities presented by land assembly and real estate development.  And Mr. Mark W. Duluk, AIA, will speak on the topic of opportunities for creative urban design.  He will focus on the challenges and outcomes of strategies used in the Central Artery project in Boston.

 

As a follow up to this meeting AIA Cleveland through its Executive Board may wish to take a position on important aspects of the plan and the KSU Urban Design Center proposes to work with representatives from several Cleveland architectural firms to react to the submission, and possibly, to suggest some alternative design ideas and concepts for consideration.

 

Your participation in this informative and stimulating event is urgently requested.

Here's the information that was on the PDF....

 

Urban Design,

Land Development

and the Innerbelt ...

...what we need to know

about the ODOT Plan

 

The panel will include:

Steve Rugare

Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative

 

Craig Hebebrand

ODOT Project Manager

 

James Haviland

Executive Director, MidTown Cleveland

 

Hunter Morrison

Director, Center for Urban & Regional Studies

Youngstown State University

 

Mark Duluk, AIA

Arkinetics

 

7:30 AM - March 13, 2006

U.S. Bank Centre Auditorium

1350 Euclid Avenue, Playhouse Square

 

A joint program of AIA Cleveland, Downtown

Cleveland Alliance and Kent State University

Cleveland Urban Design Collective

 

Continental breakfast will be served.

 

There is no cost for this event.

Please confirm your attendance by contacting

AIA Cleveland (216) 575-1242

or e-mail [email protected]

 

AIA Members will receive 1.5 continuing

education learning unit (AIA/CES) for attending

the event.

Thanks for that KJP!  This should be a good new perspective on the project.

Is anyone on the panel a "southern alignment" champion?

I know Hunter Morrison wrote an article in favor of giving it a due look and I would assume that Steve Rugare would share that perspective.  We know where Hebebrand stands and Haviland is likely pre-occupied with the trench.  Bob Brown began the last meeting by stating that the bridge alignment was not the topic of discussion and it was poo-pooed anytime someone tried to bring it up...

The proposed new bridge would run right over where I stand on West 14th, between Abbey and University:

 

Yup, and right where the old Central Viaduct was located (note the cracks in the pavement where the streetcar tracks were). Hence, the reason for my suggestion as posed at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3697.msg76372#msg76372

 

BTW, that picture's a real head-turner!

I enjoyed reading it then and I enjoyed it again right now!  I was wondering what the old bridge supports (visible in my recent photo thread) were for.  Now I know!

Made it to the meeting this moring...albeit a little late.  Seriously, 7:30 am on a Monday morning?!

 

First up was Craig Hebebrand (ODOT) who went through the roadway projects they're currently working on that are related.  He named the following:

• Opportunity Corridor: labeled as a "city street" that won't impact the Innerbelt to the extent that it would allow the new Innerbelt construction to be scaled down
  
• Lakefront West: a remnant of the original interstate plan that was never fully built...the result is a roadway with more capacity than is needed...they're currently evaluating 12 potential crossing points
  
• Quigley Road Connector: will take heavy truck volume off of West 14th and route it around residential tremont...will also provide access to Steelyard Commons
  
• CRV Intermodal Connector: in tandem with Quigly Road and West 3rd improvements, this will help keep industrial traffic in the flats and away from residential streets or streets that were not meant to handle heavy truck traffic
  

 

Hebebrand then went on to cover many of the same details as he did at the last meeting, talking about access points, how the marginal roads will work, where traffic will go, and segued to Jim Haviland by asking the question of how we bridge the gaps over the freeway...

 

Haviland (Midtown Cleveland) produced a list of unresolved conflicts, such as the closure of the Carnegie and Prospect ramps (big issues with them), the 19 takings along the trench, the incomplete economic impact and traffic modeling studies, and a general lack of faith in the solutions that ODOT is proposing.  Basically, they're afraid that the proposed marginal roads and roads like E. 22nd and E. 30th won't be able to support the load of traffic that they're expected to handle.

 

Next up, Hunter Morrison (former City Planning Director) talked about opportunities for development along the route.  His presentation was full of snide remarks about the history and inherent conflict of interstate planning and with colorful word selection to describe how the Innerbelt first "crashed" through Tremont and the Quadrangle.  Very entertaining!  He asked the important question: What do you do to leverage $900 million in public investment?  We're so caught up in the effort to cause "no harm" that we haven't really paid much attention to the opportunities that this project will afford. 

 

Namely, along the Central Interchange, Morrison talked about new land along the Nickel Plate Yards, at 14th & Carnegie and between 18th & 22nd on Carnegie.  Also, he mentioned the need to move the RTA station from 34th to 30th and build around that.  Along the Trench, he insisted upon the necessity of reinforced vertical retaining walls that could support new development overhead, building upon land that will be opened up by removing exit/entrance ramps, and bridging the gaps with creative and significant investment in new bridges.  His main focus was to create development opportunities that could reconnect and "re-knit" the neighborhoods that were torn apart by this roadway 50 years ago.

 

Finally, Mark Duluk (AIA and Arkinetics, Inc.) discussed "freeway urbanism" and the paradox that this statement implies.  He shared many examples, from Boston to Montreal to Duluth, of highways that have been buried or prepped in ways similar to what Hunter Morrison talked about that would allow for future development overhead.  Duluk was very interesting and gave us some good ideas to start from.  He suggested that we need to define the hierarchy of our east-west streets and that the Innerbelt can become an orienting device from both the street and highway levels. 

 

Steve Rugare (Kent State UDC) also mentioned that we should examine the non-functionality of our north-south streets as well.

 

When asked about the price and potential for freeway caps and the reinforced retaining walls, Hebebrand responded that they hadn't really been looked at yet (!) and that in other cases, additional funding from the county level was needed to make them happen.

 

When asked why the Innerbelt had to be widened to the extent that it is, causing many of the takings and creating an even wider gap, Hebebrand responded that with the new bridge and the way that I-77 will be connected to the new alignment, 5 lanes are required in both directions at the Carnegie Curve (!).  Also, the braiding of entrance and exit lanes at Chester Avenue create the demand for a wider right-of-way.

 

That's about it from my end!  I'll be at the Euclid Corridor meeting on Wednesday, so keep an eye out for more reporting from me after that...

Thanks for the very good and detailed report. Gotta luv Hunter Morrison!

 

I wish I could go to the Euclid Corridor meeting on Wednesday. To show my screwed up sense of priorities, I'd rather go to that than stick with my original plan -- start a five-day vacation in Florida.

geez, have a few vacations why don'tchya?  tell us you're taking a laptop with you to report from the road...

You guessed it -- laptop is coming with. I like taking vacations, just as long as I can unwind at home. Going out of town for a while is a big pain in the ass. But when it's time to come back home, I don't want to leave....

MGD, no talk about the bridge alignment?

nope, none.  Alsenas was even there, but the Q&A time was all of about 5 minutes due to the program running about 45 minutes over.  When has one of these actually NOT run over?

So what type of bridge is going to be built?

^an innerbelt bridge.

No doubt, ODOT will dictate a cable-stayed design like they're doing everywhere else in the state.

Last monday's meeting featured renderings of 4 or 5 different types of bridges, from a single-tower cable-stayed to one that looks very much like what's there now.  While looking at the images, I couldn't get past the fact that this is just one more ceiling being built over the flats...from the existing bridge to the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge, there's just going to be too much roadway passing overhead!

An innerbelt bridge, you got to be kidding me, I would have never thought that!Thanks for the info wimwar your a big help!!

An innerbelt bridge, you got to be kidding me, I would have never thought that!Thanks for the info wimwar your a big help!!

 

Deech...its the "replacement" (or addition) to what is currently there.

Deech,

 

I gave you that response because if you had read the topic, you would realize that the design is still up in the air.  No offense intended.

I know what bridge they are talking about, i was just making a joke out of what wimwar respounding to my question. I asked about the type of bridge because i read something that the grand bridge that Cleveland wants get got turned down.

This is what I read:

Bye, Bye signature bridge? The Ohio Department of Transportation has chosen expediency over inspiration. Rather than work harder to find a way to build a signature bridge as suggested by Cuyahoga County planner Paul Alsenas, it appears that our children's children will be living with the same plebian Innerbelt Bridge that we have now. Unfortunately, most elected officials are unwilling to pursue the matter further. Even the concerns of Midtown and Quadrangle businesses and retailers are being sacrificed to the streamlining of Downtown Cleveland exit ramps on the new Innerbelt. Great for passing through Cleveland at 65 miles an hour; not so great for getting on and off in the city. Still left to discuss: the significant property takings that ODOT has planned: 29 parcels in all. Check http://www.NeoBridge.net for a for an intelligent discussion on this issue. Watch this space for more reaction. See story here, send your comments to ODOT director Gordon Proctor here: [email protected], and Cc: us here: [email protected] .

 

 

To which, I responded (published in the following Cool Cleveland):

 

I have to respond briefly to the summary paragraph in Cool Cleveland of the recent decision by the City's powers-that-be to go forward with the proposed bridge alignment from ODOT. Ever since the term "signature bridge" came into the conversation, the media and the public have become disillusioned by it and have spent far too much of their time imagining a grand structure and far too little time thinking about what it actually means. My issue is that the "signature bridge" is not the argument. The argument being made by Paul Alsenas and others was about the alignment of the proposed bridge, the takings that it would necessitate and the impact that it and the entire innerbelt project will have on the communities that they pass through. Add to that, the impact on the City and region as a whole. ODOT's response to all the people at the November public meeting (has there been one since then?) who were crying out for a "signature bridge" was that of course they were going to build us a great bridge! The bridge's appearance is a non-issue. The issue was do we build another bridge right next to the existing one and further pen in Downtown and add another massive canopy over the river and the Flats? Or do we consolidate the roadway into a single new bridge and free up land Downtown for more growth? These issues appear to be dead in the water (or over it), however. Now, we must concentrate on the impact of the Innerbelt "trench" through the eastern end of Downtown and into St. Clair-Superior and Midtown. Combat the takings and listen to the communities that will be most affected by the proposals.

I think this can all be boiled down into the concerns expressed by Hunter Morrison. What economic development impact will be leveraged by this $900 million investment by ODOT in Cleveland's core? ODOT's investment is a monumental sum of money, but if it's simply to renew an existing infrastructure, then it's impact will be minimal. Granted, the added lane in each direction across the Cuyahoga Valley bridge will make it easier to access downtown Cleveland. But the reduction of access points in the trench area will at least negate that gain and even turn the wider bridge(s) into a negative impact on Cleveland's core by making it easier to simply drive through the city.

 

The end result is that this $900 million project could end up hurting the city. ODOT acts like they don't know how to build highway infrastructure that benefits an urban area. Yet their Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati, their High Street cap in Columbus, and even their traffic circle for the Quigley Road Connector in Cleveland shows they do. Smaller and less obtrusive makes for a better urban highway. Even worse is that the city doesn't know what to ask for from ODOT. They only seem to know what they don't want.

Good article in the newest issue of Crain's.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/REG/60317031/1053/TOC&Profile=1053

 

Although nothing earthshattering is brought up, the article ended with this:

 

Michael Armstrong, senior transportation engineer with the Federal Highway Administration’s Columbus office, said no decisions have been made on the Innerbelt. He said his office is expecting an environmental impact report from ODOT in November that will document the environmental, social and economic impact of the planned reconfiguration. It will open a public comment period and after that make a decision whether to adopt ODOT’s plan or ask the state to modify its plan. He wouldn’t put a timetable on the federal decision-making process.

for those too lazy to click or who may not have full access:

 

Innerbelt infighting

Fears voiced over freeway plans's possible economic impact

 

By JAY MILLER

 

6:00 am, March 20, 2006

 

A dispute between the Ohio Department of Transportation and some business and community groups in the city of Cleveland over the reconstruction of the Innerbelt Freeway is moving into its last rounds...

 

link above ^ ^ ^

This was sent we media sponges by citizen activist Ed Hauser....

 

Please let me explain why I am sending you this email message and attachments.  As a citizen, I have been participating in the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) public planning process for the Cleveland Innerbelt Plan (Innerbelt Plan), for over five years.  At this critical stage in the Innerbelt Plan, the Project Development Process (PDP) has broken down.  That is because of the numerous flaws in this 14 step public process have not been addressed or corrected by ODOT and the FHWA. 

 

It is clear that ODOT and the FHWA must correct its Project Development Process.  The citizens, stakeholders, public officials and media in this community must demand that we will not continue to accept the ODOT and the FHWA substandard and flawed Project Development Process, which will yield substandard and flawed outcomes.  Greater Clevelanders will have to live with these unacceptable decisions, made by a few public officials in Columbus.  Public officials come and go, but the Innerbelt Bridge will be with us for many generations.

 

It is up to you to get involved, because you have been notified of the problems.  If nobody cares to get involved, then that is what this community deserves- a substandard and flawed outcome for a BILLION DOLLAR PROJECT!

 

ODOT and the FHWA must correct its flawed Project Development Process to restore the public's trust and confidence by taking action on the following:

·        Hiring an independent consultant to do an Engineering Study and Economic Impact Analysis to compare the feasibility, traffic interruptions, and justify the costs of the Northern and Southern Bridge Alignments.

·        Update the existing PDP schedule (11/17/05) and distribute it to the public.  This schedule has not been followed as promised by ODOT and the city of Cleveland.  The result is that the public cannot participate in the PDP public process in a meaningful and logical manner.

·        Disregard the inappropriate endorsements for the Northern Bridge Alignment.  ODOT claimed it received endorsements at a clandestine meeting at Cleveland City Hall on January 23, 2006.  There is no record of these endorsements.

·        Conduct a Section 106 Review of the National Historic Preservation Act for the historic Strong, Cobb and Company building that was built in 1894 (ODOT property take #19- Gillota Fuel Products).  This grand building is an example of early Cleveland architecture and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

·        Complete the "Rollout of the Alternatives Report for the Cleveland Innerbelt," that was promised to be completed three months ago, in December 2005. The public never had the chance to review this report and make informed comments on ODOT's "Recommended Preferred Alternatives," prior to the public comment period deadline on January 31, 2006.

·        Complete the "Economic Impact Analysis," that was promised to be completed three months ago, in December 2005.  The public never had the chance to review this analysis and make informed comments on ODOT's "Recommended Preferred Alternatives," prior to the public comment period deadline on January 31, 2006.

·        Extend the public comment period for at least 30 days after the completion of the "Rollout of the Alternatives Report for the Cleveland Innerbelt" and the "Economic Impact Analysis"

·        Compile and assess the comments gathered during the extended public comment period.

·        After the public comments are assessed and properly documented, ODOT and the FHWA may move onto the next step in the PDP!

 

I encourage the media to cover and investigate this important story about the flawed ODOT and the FHWA Project Development Process.  This is not a "Done Deal" as ODOT and the FHWA would like you to believe.  ODOT and the FHWA have many corrections to make to its Project Development Process before this community can make logical and informed decisions about his BILLION DOLLAR PROJECT.

 

I am forwarding the email message and attachments that was sent to Relevant Public Officials (99 contacts) to the following: Organizations, Universities, and Public Officials (99 contacts) - Interested Citizens (99 contacts) - and the Media (51 contacts). 

 

Please visit and post content about the Innerbelt Bridge Project on the neobridge website:

http://www.neobridge.net

 

Send your comments about the Innerbelt Bridge Project to ODOT:

http://www.innerbelt.org/PublicInv/form.htm

More From The Plain Dealer  |  Subscribe To The Plain Dealer

Activist challenges Inner Belt plan

Requests landmark status for structures in span's path

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

Activists face an uphill battle trying to save a century-old building and nearby remnants of the old Central Viaduct, which ODOT wants to demolish for a new Inner Belt bridge.

 

Feisty activist Ed Hauser has asked the Cleveland Landmarks Commission to nominate the Broadway Mills building, built in 1894, and an old viaduct entry as landmarks...

It was 60 days ago today that Mayor Frank Jackson set a 60-day deadline for ODOT and affected neighborhood stakeholders to reach an agreement over proposed entrance and exit ramps on the trench portion of the Inner Belt. Without notifying Councilman Cimperman or the affected stakeholders, Jackson issued his decision today:

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/mayor/press/2006/200604/ODOT%20Innerbelt%20Plan%20RELEASE%204-21-06.pdf

 

City of Cleveland

Frank G. Jackson, Mayor

 

NEWS RELEASE

 

Mayor's Office of Communications

Cleveland City Hall

601 Lakeside Ave., Room 227

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Telephone: (216) 664-2220

Facsimile: (216) 664-3570

www.city.cleveland.oh.us

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Maureen Harper, Chief of Communications

(216) 664-2220

Michael House, Press Secretary

(216) 664-4171

 

Mayor Frank G. Jackson Announces Conclusions

Regarding ODOT Innerbelt Plan

 

CLEVELAND, April 21, 2006 Mayor Frank G. Jackson and the City of Cleveland have worked intensively with ODOT and local stakeholders to find the best approach to rebuilding the Innerbelt in Cleveland.

 

Our goal is to maximize access to local businesses and other destinations, while ensuring safe and efficient operation of the Innerbelt and nearby streets, says Mayor Frank G. Jackson. These conclusions are the result of our focus on that goal.

 

ODOT has agreed to modify its preferred alternative by reestablishing an exit ramp to Broadway to better serve the main Post Office and other uses in the Quadrangle area.

 

City engineers and planners have concluded that ODOTs concern for safety is founded and, as it exists today, there is no safe way to reestablish ramps at Carnegie Avenue and Prospect Avenue. ODOTs plan will significantly reduce travel delays and accidents on the Innerbelt, making trips to the Midtown and the larger downtown area quicker and safer.

 

The proposed new frontage roads and improved City streets appear to be able to handle new traffic patterns without serious congestion. However, final determination on this matter cannot be made until the next phase of the Innerbelt project which includes a more detailed traffic analysis.

 

During this phase, the City of Cleveland will work to ensure that ODOT commits to making all necessary improvements to local streets and proposed frontage roads in order to provide the best quality service to local businesses and citizens. If this cannot be accomplished, the City of Cleveland reserves the right to reexamine ODOTs plans.

 

The City of Cleveland and ODOT have also established a working group to make recommendations on the design of the proposed Innerbelt bridge. Upcoming meetings will also include representatives from community organizations, designers, and transportation and economic development professionals. This will ensure that the technical design will foster economic development activities in Clevelands trenches.

 

Mayor Jackson and his staff will continue to work on the Innerbelt project in close partnership with Cleveland City Council President Martin J. Sweeney and City Council Members, including Joe Cimperman, Ward 13, and Phyllis Cleveland, Ward 5, in addition to several neighborhood-based organizations and other stakeholders that have been a part of the review process.

 

-30-

Doesn't sound like MidTown will be too happy about this.

They aren't. I spoke with Jim Havilland earlier today about it.

 

Just as upset was Joe Cimperman, who wasn't informed by Mayor Jackson prior to Jackson's announcement. Seems that Jackson is starting to do what he decried his predecessor of doing -- keeping council out of the loop. But Cimperman, as chair of the planning committee, is sitting on legislation that ODOT needs passed before they can start work on the major aspects of the Inner Belt project. So we'll see who has the final word on this.

This morning, the Cleveland Landmarks Commission nominated the Broadway Mills building and the Central Viaduct remnant for inclusion as historically protected properties. Just by having them nominated, that means ODOT must thoroughly review all alternatives to demolishing them before they can be demolished. ODOT will probably say their consultant, Burges & Niple, has done that, but Citizen Hauser has a lot of documentation which suggests that may not be the case. Next step is for the nomination to go to the planning commission and then to City Council -- still very tenuous as to what will happen there, although Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland (who succeeded Frank Jackson in that ward) supports the historical nomination.

 

Plus, as you may have seen earlier, I came up with a drawing based on the ideas of others here, that could get ODOT around these issues. I am posting it again below for review....

 

 

Which was posted here at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=8230.msg88493#msg88493

I like...rather love the idea of no major highways entering downtown it's very similar to Vancouver.

Oh, KJP, I love your map. How beautiful.

I think our best hope at this point is to try to scuttle the current Innerbelt project altogether, using techniques such as Hauser's. Once we have some more progressive thinkers running the city and state (yes, I'm an eternal optimist), we can revisit the project and propose something like what KJP has posted.

I do believe that boards and commissions should follow their set guidelines, but I must say...this building was up before the landmarks commission 5 years ago and was tabled due to a lack of information by the individual compiling the info. So NOW, Mr. Hauser creates this emergency that it has to be landmarked because this is such a significant building. Where were the preservationist before the building was in jeopardy? I've seen the building, the address is PAINTED on the side of the building. It seems to me that Mr. Hauser has a problem with ODOT and their procedures.

^he does. He pointed out a long time ago how ODOT did not follow the proper procedures in evaluating the alternatives.