The first photo shows that grade separations can be used to enable pedestrians and cyclists can cross the freeway.  The path could be extended to Gateway and Cuyahoga Community College.

For the Interstate 90 bridge, I listed one such solution by expanding Interstate 77 and 480 Interstate 490 to handle through traffic by installing dedicated lanes for Interstate 90, but it would be very costly.

Four lanes over the Cuyahoga should be adequate to handle cross-town and interstate traffic.  The replacement boulevard would bring motorists into downtown.  I-77 could be widened for less than the cost of one of these Cuyahoga River bridges.

Great photos. Would be great to see this concept implemented on I-90

So I ran the proposal across ODOT today -- if they studied the idea of readapting Interstates 77 and 490, although I understood that it was past its prime for consideration. They had, and the estimated cost would have been slightly greater than the replacement bridge that is now proposed, because it would have required the reconstruction of the Interstate 77/90 interchange, the reconstruction of the Interstate 77/490 interchange, and the reconstruction of the Interstate 90/490 interchange, along with the widening of the Interstate 490 span and the doubling of capacity along the Interstate 77 and 490 mainline, which would require dedicated lanes. It's not as simple as adding another lane here and there -- dedicated lanes would be required because much of Interstate 90's traffic is through traffic -- they do not and should not need to (as a main line, not ramps) mingle or weave with traffic coming from the other interstates.

 

It was studied but dropped early because of those costs.

 

The multiuse path implemented above on the WWB was a success. Here is more from colleague Scott Kozel --

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge.html

 

It connects to the successful National Harbor development and when I went on the span earlier in the year, it didn't go to much else unless you were comfortable riding in the roads.

 

The WT has a good article on the path. Note that it is not normally this busy; the image was taken just after opening and it was shot with a telephoto lens, greatly exaggerating the distance. It is heavily used and a great connector where one did not exist before:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060602145.html

 

I noted other Ohio spans that feature multi-use paths, such as the Glass City Skyway.

I don't think it's a bad idea - and that path on the bridge looks like a great concept.  But how would one get across the potomic river on their bike or walking if that particular bridge wasn't there?  probably have to go down river a few miles to the next bridge. 

 

In this case, there are no less than 5 alternate routes that don't increase your travel distance by more than 1/2 a mile, some of which go through some of the best, yet most underdeveloped, land in the city.  It would seem to me those roads would benefit more from the foot traffic than a bridge over the valley. 

 

My point is simply I don't see the lack of a pedestrian/bike path in ODOT's plan to be that much of a negative in this instance.

ODOT's analysis also did not account for the money they would generate from the sale of land they currently own for Central Interchange ($100 million+ based on 2005 downtown real estate values). Also the economic impact would likely be greater from abandoning the Central Interchange, but they never looked at that. In fact, Gordon Proctor told me several years ago that the first economic impact analysis ODOT ever did in its history was the one for their plan to eliminate exit ramps along the trench section of the Inner Belt.

 

Pretty sad to spend $1 billion+ and not know the economic impact of it (let alone the billions spent in ODOT's history). Instead, ODOT's goal is merely to move as much traffic as possible, as fast as possible as safely as possible. It's time to stop designing city for highways and instead design highways for cities. The latter is what my plan does.

^^shs96 why are you against having a pedestrian and bike lanes?

The addition of bike lanes isn't all that much greater since it can be cantilevered off of the bridge, although there are other alternatives available. Other than that, if ODOT is willing to do that, or upgrade existing facilities...

^^shs96 why are you against having a pedestrian and bike lanes?

 

I am not against it.  I am just not disappointed there isn't one in ODOT's plans as another poster stated.  I don't see the lack of a pedestrian/bike path in ODOT's plan to be that much of a negative in this instance consdering the alternatives. 

 

 

ODOT's analysis also did not account for the money they would generate from the sale of land they currently own for Central Interchange ($100 million+ based on 2005 downtown real estate values). Also the economic impact would likely be greater from abandoning the Central Interchange, but they never looked at that. In fact, Gordon Proctor told me several years ago that the first economic impact analysis ODOT ever did in its history was the one for their plan to eliminate exit ramps along the trench section of the Inner Belt.

 

Pretty sad to spend $1 billion+ and not know the economic impact of it (let alone the billions spent in ODOT's history). Instead, ODOT's goal is merely to move as much traffic as possible, as fast as possible as safely as possible. It's time to stop designing city for highways and instead design highways for cities. The latter is what my plan does.

 

KJP did you consider straightening the curve that would be created around Tri-C and St.Vincent Charity Hospital?  This interchange works currently as routed because everything around that cure is moving at an off ramp speed, leaving this curve would create a second DMC.  At least it is my view that unless there is complete redesign of the way that 90 would connect to the current 77 it could create another dangerous freeway situation.

It is also doubtful that ODOT's "analysis" took into account studies that say that adding additional arterial lanes only adds to gridlock.  The "doubling" in size of the current 490 would likely be unnecessary, but it s what their "models" call for to keep ODOT in business.

KJP did you consider straightening the curve that would be created around Tri-C and St.Vincent Charity Hospital? This interchange works currently as routed because everything around that cure is moving at an off ramp speed, leaving this curve would create a second DMC. At least it is my view that unless there is complete redesign of the way that 90 would connect to the current 77 it could create another dangerous freeway situation.

 

 

Also see the pictures I took to show existing conditions where the rerouted Inner Belt would be built (most of this is owned by local governments):

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2438.msg137459.html#msg137459

Is there even still time to change the plans for the interstate routing?  It seems that ODOT is set on giving us some nice girder bridges.

I wish ODOT would consider the above plan, I hate that awful downtown interchange. Also, Tremont wouldn't feel so isolated from the rest of the world (well, Cleveland) if this plan was adopted. If not this plan then the southern alignment plan that you posted would also be great.

 

Has ODOT released any images of what their plan might look like?

Yes, see the images I posted about 20 pages back....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2438.msg159519.html#msg159519

This article is about 4 years old, but it may bring people up to speed on the southern alignment vs. northern alignment ideas.

 

One thing that is constant in this debate, every time ODOT revisits this proposal the worse it is for Cleveland

 

OK, I'm convinced... We have to work for the southern alignment! Everyone who cares about this issue, please come to the open house this Thursday, 4:30 - 8:30 p.m. at the Wolstein Center at CSU!

 

 

New I-90 span puts Cleveland's image at risk

Monday, November 14, 2005

 

By Steven Litt

 

It's hard to pinpoint the decisive moments that determine the image of a city for a hun dred years or more.

 

But one such moment has arrived for Cleveland. This could be a critical week in the fight over where to build a new I-90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River just southwest of downtown.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation will hold public meetings in town this week on its "recommended alternative" for the $860 million reconstruc tion of the Inner Belt, the tangle of interstate highways and bridges that converge on the south and east sides of down town Cleveland...

KJP, sorry to keep pestering you on this issue but it seems to me that the I 90 bridge idea keeps getting worse and worse.  Furthermore, the political opposition seems to be rising against it.  Considering that this is an election year, have any of the mayoral opponents seen your alternative proposal?  I think that politically it is now a winner. 

I don't believe any of them have seen it. Feel free to rectify that situation by sharing the information!

Buckeye1, Thanks for cleaning this thread and bringing it back.

Buckeye1, Thanks for cleaning this thread and bringing it back.

 

One down, 2999 to go.  We need additional thread cleaners to step up... 

Planned Inner Belt Bridge will not have fence or high barriers, says Ohio Department of TransportationBy Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

November 06, 2009, 6:30AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Views from the planned Inner Belt Bridge will not be marred by a fence or high concrete barrier.

 

A fence is unnecessary and a shorter barrier and railing will suffice, said Ohio Department of Transportation officials, reversing what they earlier maintained were requirements for the new span.

 

More at:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/new_inner_belt_bridge_will_not.html

I think we should rename this thread.  Something along the lines of "Lamer vision for the Inner Belt/I-90".

And WHY is it that we can't get a more iconic bridge for the pricetag of $450 million dollars?  Can someone please explain this to me?

Because highway engineers only care about function.

And WHY is it that we can't get a more iconic bridge for the pricetag of $450 million dollars? Can someone please explain this to me?

 

When given the choice of a couple extra lanes or ornate finishes highway engineers will always choose the extra lanes.  ODOT is in a tough position.  There are so many roads and bridges (general infrastructure really) crumbling in this state that it becomes very hard to justify spending extra money to do things that don't affect the form, fit, or function of the bridge.  I'm sure they would accept local funding to improve the aesthetics of the bridge!

The wall sounds very similar to what they constructed for the I-280 bridge in Toledo.  It is almost so low that it is a bit scary to ride across.

The wall sounds very similar to what they constructed for the I-280 bridge in Toledo. It is almost so low that it is a bit scary to ride across.

 

Sweet. More entertainment options near downtown!

I'll take a few deaths over the lifespan of the bridge over getting a copy of what has happened to the 480 Valley View bridge.

This thing is getting worse and worse.  Let's kill it and do the KJP plan!

I say tear the whole damn thing down and use the money to build rail links to the south/southwest portions of the city.

Well, you know what happened when the Bay Area lost its busiest toll bridge the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (and lost it 3 times for a week or more! -- 1989 earthquake, 2007 tanker fire below approach ramp, and 2009 cracked structural beam)?

 

Nothing! At least nothing horrific...

 

People made fewer trips, used public transit, telecommuted, and car-pooled. The massive traffic jams that residents feared would paralyze the region never materialized. In fact, the region adapted quite well. So what is the lesson to Cleveland from that?

Build the bridge more highwayier.  :)

ODOT needs Cleveland Cold Storage building for bridge, but it's caught up in a dispute

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

November 19, 2009, 9:00AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Cold Storage building -- known for its large painted billboards -- stands in the way of the new westbound Inner Belt Bridge, but the building isn't coming down without a fight.

 

The West 14th Street storage structure, next to the existing Interstate 90 Inner Belt Bridge, has been vacant for years. The Ohio Department of Transportation is prepared to pay $4.5 million for it, $2.6 million more than the department offered four years ago.

 

ODOT appraisers say the building itself is worth no more than $400,000. They said the value of the building is its high-profile signs, and Beautiful Signage, the company that holds the 99-year lease for the billboard, must be compensated.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/odot_needs_cleveland_cold_stor.html

The Ohio Department of Transportation is ready to purchase buildings and land in the way of the new Inner Belt Bridge

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

November 27, 2009, 12:01AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -   A few Cleveland landmark buildings, such as the 81-year-old trapezoidal-shaped Marathon gas station, and several nondescript commercial structures will be reduced to rubble to make way for the new westbound Inner Belt Bridge.

 

Appraisals are under way following the September ruling by the Federal Highway Administration that the Ohio Department of Transportation could proceed with the project.

 

The ruling freed up the $50 million ODOT expects to spend to acquire 57 parcels under the proposed bridge and the current Inner Belt Bridge from about 25 owners, said Dan Dougherty, real estate administrator for the ODOT district that includes Cleveland.

 

Read more at:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/the_ohio_department_of_transpo.html

See the 11/30/09 announcement in the following PDF for a link to Design Build documents development for the innerbelt bridge design build project:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Consultant/Consultant/announce.pdf

ODOT to pay $1 million stipend to get best Inner Belt Bridge design

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

January 19, 2010, 8:38AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Ohio Department of Transportation believes $1 million will encourage contractors, engineers and designers to develop outstanding proposals for the new westbound Inner Belt Bridge.

 

ODOT will choose three design/build teams in March to prepare detailed bids for the $450 million bridge. The two teams not chosen won't go away empty-handed. Each will be offered a $1 million stipend for their work.

 

"It is money to pay the unsuccessful bidders for the time and effort to draft the proposal," said Jocelynn Clemings, spokeswoman for the ODOT district that includes Cleveland. "And by accepting the stipend, the unsuccessful bidders give ODOT the right to use their ideas."

 

ODOT will award the contract in September, and construction will begin in 2011.

 

more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/01/odot_to_pay_1_million_stipend.html

 

Gee, I wonder if they would pay $1 million for a bridge design located much farther south.  :-P

That is good news!

 

Score one for Cleveland.

 

Of course if we turn our eyes to the scoreboard for this project Columbus Highway bullies 8,745, Cleveland residents 10.

^Wouldn't that be nice?

 

Good to hear that the State is willing to put some money in the game.  Hopefully we end up with some great designs for this bridge.

Is there precedence for this? Has anyone heard of another city doing something like this for such a large project? How did that turn out?

Just wondering.

 

 

Oh... and Hi  :wave:

Hi there Musky.  I was unable to attend any of the meetings or demonstrations... what became of the bike/pedestrian lanes?  Are they in or out?

There has been no "public" decision yet. Though I'm sure one has been made.

Since this bridge will have the capacity to allow both eastbound and westbound traffic concurrently on the same span, when the span will after 2017 only have traffic going in one direction, what will become of the extra space available after the transition?

 

I don't see why bike paths can't be allowed on this span after the second bridge is constructed.  Seems like there will be a lot of space left over.

As for weather or not this is unprecedented, the article goes on to mention that it is a relatively common practice.

 

 

EDIT: whether 

I saw that, but there should be some mention of how it worked in City X. Of course, consider the source.

Since this bridge will have the capacity to allow both eastbound and westbound traffic concurrently on the same span, when the span will after 2017 only have traffic going in one direction, what will become of the extra space available after the transition?

 

in the current plan, the extra pavement on the new bridge becomes 2, 17 foot wide breakdown lanes. 

 

basically odot seems willing to overengineer the bridge to make traffic during construction for cars and trucks easier (certainly very important), but refuses to consider bikes or pedestrians for any amount of space (citing safety and snow). 

At tomorrow's Cleveland Planning Commission meeting, Planning Director Bob Brown will provide a draft resolution calling for bike and pedestrian access to new Innerbelt Bridge.

Good for him

At tomorrow's Cleveland Planning Commission meeting, Planning Director Bob Brown will provide a draft resolution calling for bike and pedestrian access to new Innerbelt Bridge.

 

Attaboy!

Judge to decide who owns Cleveland Cold Storage Building, which is in the way of the westbound Inner Belt Bridge

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

January 22, 2010, 5:58PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- If Fred Finley wins a court battle to regain ownership of the Cleveland Cold Storage building, he is likely to face another legal fight, this time with the Ohio Department of Transportation.

 

The vacant 82-year-old concrete structure on West 14th Street, best known for its large painted billboards, stands in the way of the new westbound Inner Belt Bridge.

 

MORE AT http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/01/judge_to_decide_who_owns_cleve.html