Oh I understand your concern and thats not what I had in mind exactly, we see how that worked out for Toledo. All I am saying is this is the kind of kinetic, exciting, and foreward design of a bridge which we were promised. Not what they have proposed.

 

 

 

well no use doing this now..

Work on new Inner Belt Bridge in Cleveland set to begin this week

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/02/inner_belt_bridge_project_begi.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Nearly seven years in the planning, the Herculean task of building a new Inner Belt Bridge over the Cuyahoga River valley is about to begin.

 

Crews this week will start to prepare three buildings south of Progressive Field for demolition as part of a $287.4 million project that will be the largest of its kind in Ohio history.

 

Tear-downs and ramp closings will unfold in February and March, launching the three-year construction of a new Interstate 90 span. When that bridge is built, the existing I-90 viaduct will be torn down and replaced by another new bridge, scheduled to open in 2016, ODOT says.

 

Wow a 5-year project....

 

Sounds like ODOT to me.

That's not unusual for a project of this size and cost.

What houses are being demolished?

I secretly wish that after the first bridge is built and the existing bridge is demolished it is determined that the one bridge can handle the traffic, and the money is put toward another project downtown.

What houses are being demolished?

 

Houses in Tremont next to the highway are proposed for demolition. I think it's just the first row of houses west of the highway, so we're probably talking less than a half-dozen or so. Still, what major cities are still expanding highways anymore?

That's not unusual for a project of this size and cost.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge took 4 years...

What houses are being demolished?

 

Houses in Tremont next to the highway are proposed for demolition. I think it's just the first row of houses west of the highway, so we're probably talking less than a half-dozen or so. Still, what major cities are still expanding highways anymore?

 

These houses?

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Cleveland&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.847644,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&ll=41.479937,-81.695167&spn=0.001953,0.006866&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.480364,-81.694547&panoid=cNAVVAoqLmCF20Oi2CZWtw&cbp=12,285.28,,0,-4.81

That's not unusual for a project of this size and cost.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge took 4 years...

 

That was before the abuses of the highwaymen preferring to demolish the minority/low-income neighborhoods for their roads, or erasing historic and delicate natural areas plus other abuses without public involvement or even advanced notice. And so it was before the 1968 passage of the National Environmental Policy Act which requires alternatives analyses, extensive public involvement and extensive reviews of federally funded construction projects of any kind.

 

So the average time frame for any federally funded transportation project to go from start of planning to completion of construction is 10 years. For smaller projects that cost less and require less taking of private or sensitive land, the timeline is similarly less. For projects that are as big as the Inner Belt project, especially in an urban environment, a 15- to 20-year timeline is not unusual.

There aren't any houses (at least in Tremont) that are being demolished for the Innerbelt. The part of the Stripmatic building nearest to the Abbey Ave. exit is slated for demolition (I think) and there were a couple of vacant houses on Fairfield west of the highway that have already been torn down. We already know about the cold storage building and Gateway Animal Hospital (for which a new building on the other side of Abbey is already under construction). Perhaps also the industrial building on the south side of Fairfield. Nothing else is being touched, though, as far as I know.

Well the article only says "3 buildings south of Progressive Field will be torn down" as of now. 

Unless I'm looking at an old plan, not only is the Cold Storage and Gateway Animal Hospital getting demolished, but so is everything (ie: Stripmatic Products) within the area bounded by Abbey, Fairfield, the NS tracks and I-90.

 

Comparing this ODOT graphic with a Google satellite view, it also looks like the house on the north side of Kenilworth next to I-90 would get demolished. I remember that at least one house was to be demolished. There are three houses on the north side of Kenilworth between I-90 and West 16th Place. This diagram appears to show only two houses....

 

 

EDIT: here's a better-cropped image

I secretly wish that after the first bridge is built and the existing bridge is demolished it is determined that the one bridge can handle the traffic, and the money is put toward another project downtown.

 

Sadly I don't think we'd get that lucky.  If anything ODOT would direct funding would be put towards more concrete sound barrier walls in Medina.

I got a better idea, stop building next to highways if you dont want the sound, or if the developers really want to build there, let them pay for the fucking walls

Just so you know. The Collapsed Minnesota bridge cost $250 million and it took just a year to complete.

Sadly I don't think we'd get that lucky.  If anything ODOT would direct funding would be put towards more concrete sound barrier walls in Medina.

 

Sound walls are required under federal law anytime a highway project changes its traffic patterns -- even if the highway project is along a road like the Inner Belt which has been sending 100,000+ vehicles per day through neighborhoods for 60 years. However, the neighborhood can opt out of the sound walls -- if they know they have that option.

 

But I doubt ODOT will have the funding for anything new in the coming years. ODOT's mid-range scenario predicts a $600 million budget shortfall over the next to two years. Their worst-case scenario on gas tax revenues is more likely. Yet ODOT plans to spend $640 million on new highway capacity.

 

Just so you know. The Collapsed Minnesota bride cost $250 million and it took just a year to complete.

 

Yes, I know. It took an act of Congress to waive the NEPA regulations for this one project. And no demolitions or property acquisitions were required for the I-35 bridge.

 

FYI, Congress is considering relaxing the NEPA regs in the upcoming renewal of the surface transportation spending law, but I am skeptical. It seems every time Congress does something to try and simplify something, it only makes things more complicated and time-consuming.

Effort to find designer for second Inner Belt Bridge in Cleveland begins next week

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Efforts to build a new Inner Belt Bridge have just begun, but it's not too soon to start designing a second one.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation will seek firms interested in designing a second bridge that will work in tandem with a bridge going up now. Together, they will replace the existing, 50-year-old span over the Cuyahoga River.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/02/effort_to_find_designer_for_se.html

 

Huh?  I thought the same designer and design was going to be used for both bridges?

The second one will be iconic and have a bike path. We can try again

Agreed.  How can you not have the second bridge already planned out with the first?  Probably Gov't waste at it's best.  Maybe the second bridge can get a pedestrian access added now. 

^The second bridge will be North of the first, correct?  If that's the case then it may be better suited for a pedestrian/bike path anyway.

^The second bridge will be North of the first, correct? If that's the case then it may be better suited for a pedestrian/bike path anyway.

 

The second one goes in the footprint of the old one, to the south.

If we couldn't get Strickland behind ped/bike access, good luck with Kasich.

^The second bridge will be North of the first, correct? If that's the case then it may be better suited for a pedestrian/bike path anyway.

 

The second one goes in the footprint of the old one, to the south.

 

Ah, yes, I see that now.  Thanks for the clarification. 

 

Yeah, little chance for bike/ped lane on the second one, IMO.

If we couldn't get Strickland behind ped/bike access, good luck with Kasich.

 

What if we trick Mr Kasich and tell him it is not actually for pedestrians and bikes?  We could tell him it is a white- only full-sized SUV lane?  :wink:

Kasich thinks bikers have full beards and drive Harleys.  There's no way he'll allow a second lane be built for them

Unless I'm looking at an old plan, not only is the Cold Storage and Gateway Animal Hospital getting demolished, but so is everything (ie: Stripmatic Products) within the area bounded by Abbey, Fairfield, the NS tracks and I-90.

 

Comparing this ODOT graphic with a Google satellite view, it also looks like the house on the north side of Kenilworth next to I-90 would get demolished. I remember that at least one house was to be demolished. There are three houses on the north side of Kenilworth between I-90 and West 16th Place. This diagram appears to show only two houses....

 

Here is a more recent plan (from November 2009); I don't think these plans have changed. Red boxes denote buildings that either will be or are already demolished. There are four houses on the north side of Fairfield which have already been cleared.

I'd appreciate it if the biker cult would lay off the governor...

Here is a more recent plan (from November 2009); I don't think these plans have changed. Red boxes denote buildings that either will be or are already demolished. There are four houses on the north side of Fairfield which have already been cleared.

 

Thanks. They look like the same plans but yours is more detailed. Mine was actually a cropped image showing only the Tremont section north of I-90. The original graphic I had showed the Central Interchange and the approaches of I-90 and I-77 as far south as Clark. But it's way too large to post the whole thing here.

 

I see from your detailed graphic that the houses on Fairfield were to be demolished. That's probably the Tremont housing demolition I was thinking of. Thanks, I was starting to think my memory had gone when it's really only getting hazy. :-P

No bike or pedestrian for Inner Belt; however,

 

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/marc-lefkowitz/it-took-movement-cleveland-ensure-complete-street

No bike or pedestrian for Inner Belt; however,

 

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/marc-lefkowitz/it-took-movement-cleveland-ensure-complete-street

 

Yes, maybe even better.  I'm actually pretty happy that it includes lighting the Guardians!

For those not aware, there is a facebook page for the Innerbelt project.

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clevelands-Innerbelt-Bridge/158130137575685

Cleveland's new Inner Belt Bridge over the Flats kicks off

Published: Saturday, April 16, 2011, 5:30 AM    Updated: Saturday, April 16, 2011, 9:39 AM

By Plain Dealer staff The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Work has begun on the first of two Inner Belt bridges. ODOT's plan calls for the new span to handle trac by late 2013 and be finished in 2014.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/04/new_inner_belt_bridge_over_the.html

For those not aware, there is a facebook page for the Innerbelt project.

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clevelands-Innerbelt-Bridge/158130137575685

 

Since you can Friend and Like certain pages, why doesn't Facebook allow people to Enemy and Dislike other pages? :-P

For those not aware, there is a facebook page for the Innerbelt project.

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clevelands-Innerbelt-Bridge/158130137575685

 

Since you can Friend and Like certain pages, why doesn't Facebook allow people to Enemy and Dislike other pages? :-P

 

Yuck, I had to Like it in order to reply to someone's inaccurate comment.

So we had an official groundbreaking on Thurs., break out dem golden shovels.

 

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-innerbelt-bridge-construction-groundbreaking-kf-2-txt,0,1539912.story

Looking a bit closer, this project is so much more than just the bridge...  the straightening of Deadman's curve, all the work on I-77, all the new connections through downtown....  http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/Documents/CG%20large_10-21-10sm.pdf

Everything to make it easier to pass 'through' the city.....

^you must be one of those who enjoy seeing 18wheelers slow down to 5mph to navigate I-90...    There is a cost to that inconvenience KJP.  Straightening the curve makes Cleveland a better place to live, a better place to have a business, it makes the drive safer. 

 

We all know you love trains and hate cars, but sometimes your skewed viewpoint that "anything which improves auto traffic must be bad for the inner city" is really beyond logic.

Nice job of prejudging me on overly simplistic terms. But I guess that's what you're best at.

 

There is a way to design this road project in a way that benefits highway users and the city. The people who designed this project only understand the elements of throughput capacity and safety. Those are fine if you're designing a road to go through open land. But where are the urban-minded economic development elements of this project? How does this project, with its looping interchange ramps and disregard for existing built environments improve the urban core, while also increasing throughput capacity and safety? I believe I've posted images of it many times here on this forum (EDIT: reposted below). Too bad the highway designers at ODOT do not design transportation systems primarily for economic development. And even in the rare occasions when they have, they have shown they do not know how to build highways to benefit urban settings (Fort Washington Way is one rare exception I can think of).

 

So the next time you wonder why I have made a certain comment, it's best to ask me first to clarify what I mean, rather than to think you know I mean. Because you don't. I'm much more complicated than you can apparently imagine.

 

EDIT: My images and ideas from the past few years (this I-90 routing adds 45 seconds to a trip; and I didn't show the realign Dead Man's Curve because I ignored it, but because I don't have any problem with that part of the existing plan)....

 

 

 

I don't think you are giving the existing plan its due credit.  Like any major infrastruture projects, I can certainly see a few areas for improvement.  But overall, it is much better than what we have now.  Looking closely at the ODOT plans, I see some nooks and crannies opened up for potential development that did not exist before, several areas of needed street improvements, and the sensible elimination of underutuilized on/off ramps.  I also have to think that a cleaner flow of traffic through downtown, without all the stop and go logjams, is more environmentally beneficial. 

Not hardly. The ODOT plan promotes more fluid traffic through downtown with fewer access points even though 80 percent of Inner Belt traffic exits/enters the highway downtown. And faster-moving vehicular traffic only encourages more traffic, which defeats the earlier environmental benefit of eliminating the stop-and-go.

 

Having cloverleaf ramps in a major-city downtown is an abomination, in my opinion. ODOT wants the cloverleafs so they could stack traffic coming into downtown. But my Downtown Access Boulevard would have addressed that, as would putting the through traffic on a rerouted I-90 via the obsolete public housing projects which would be replaced with mixed-income developments citywide, including on the land vacated by the Central Interchange.

 

If you want to reduce traffic congestion, reduce lane-miles, price the highway capacity to provide the missing free-market element to highway supply/demand, and promote more housing choices closer to work, school and shopping. Don't increase free lane-miles that promote greater distances between home and work -- we've been doing the same thing over and over for 60 years in this country, hoping that the next widening will be the one to solve traffic congestion. It's no wonder that America, with 5 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of the world's oil!

^again, your logic is flawed.  Seemingly, if you can make it "inconvenient" enough, and congested enough, that somehow that will reroute traffic to public transit.  It won't.  All it will do is reroute passenger and freight traffic to other cities and routes with better infrastructure & less congestion.  What will increase usage of public transit is increased population & density.  Cost & convenience scales are tipped too far forward in favor of the car.

 

America consumes 25% of the oil with 5% of the people because of our WEALTH, not because of our infrastructure.  And I'd really like to see your source for the 80% of innerbelt traffic number you cited.

I've always liked the KJP innerbelt plan far better than what we're getting. 

 

That said, I strongly agree with gottaplan that traffc flow is good and traffic impediments are bad.  People will turn to transit when there's enough of it to provide a realistic choice... not because we intentionally make driving less convenient.  We should always be looking to improve our options, not to degrade them.

Not hardly. The ODOT plan promotes more fluid traffic through downtown with fewer access points even though 80 percent of Inner Belt traffic exits/enters the highway downtown.

 

And I would bet that 80% of that traffic does not utilize the access points which are being eliminated.

 

And faster-moving vehicular traffic only encourages more traffic,

 

Perhaps

 

which defeats the earlier environmental benefit of eliminating the stop-and-go.

 

I have a hard time believing that to be true in terms of net effect.  There are two aspects of the interbelt that really cause the stop and go - (1) dead man's curve and traffic merging from the off ramps following dead man's curve; and (2) the I-77 interchange.  Other than that, our traffic flow is fairly decent.  If anything, this new plan may encourage people from my neck of the woods to take the shoreway as opposed to looping around on 480 when going to the airport, but I don't foresee an increase in traffic beyond that.

 

^again, your logic is flawed.  Seemingly, if you can make it "inconvenient" enough, and congested enough, that somehow that will reroute traffic to public transit.  It won't.  All it will do is reroute passenger and freight traffic to other cities and routes with better infrastructure & less congestion.  What will increase usage of public transit is increased population & density.  Cost & convenience scales are tipped too far forward in favor of the car.

 

America consumes 25% of the oil with 5% of the people because of our WEALTH, not because of our infrastructure.  And I'd really like to see your source for the 80% of innerbelt traffic number you cited.

 

Gottaplan, that is a very unfortunate and ignorant message. I think you need to do some traveling around the world to see that America isn't all that you think it is. And you need to take some time to learn how transportation affects land use patterns which affects energy consumption before you can attempt to engage in an informed debate. You don't even have to travel out of the country.... Did you know that Houston, with its smaller population and lower density, consumes more energy than larger, denser New York City which built itself around a more diverse transportation system? It shows that within the U.S., one wealthy city can have very different energy consumption rates from another wealthy U.S. city because its transportation offerings are more diverse and its land use patterns don't require as much travel. It's a basic concept of urban planning. Please learn it.

 

 

Perhaps you did not know that America consumes twice as much oil as the 10 largest European Union nations (300 million people)? Do you mean to tell me that America is twice as wealthy as Europe? I don't disagree that most of America is wealthier than most of Europe (unless we're comparing Mississippi to Denmark!), but the disparity is not that wide. That's not where the correlation lies, especially when owning a car in America eats up a third of our household budget. We afford driving because we have no choice.

 

As for the 80 percent figure. I mis-remembered it. The figure is 85 percent. It was a topic of discussion at an Inner Belt public hearing where the business owners in Midtown were complaining that the project was more beneficial to the 15 percent of traffic that was passing through Cleveland than the 85 percent of traffic that was generated by Cleveland. Here is what I found:

 

Approximately 85 percent of the tratfic using the lnnerbelt Freeway has a destination within the study area during the AM peak period or an origin within the study during the PM peak period.

From Page 2 at:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/Documents/CIB%20ROD%20SCAN%20reduced.pdf

Yes, I'm sure the through traffic is greater at other periods of the day, but we design the capacity of a highway for the peak period (which isn't very cost-effective in my opinion -- this is where congestion pricing can be a more effective regulator, rather than using supply to regulate demand).

 

And 327, we have dramatically overbuilt our highway infrastructure in this country. Making it safer is great news. Making it bigger is not, not when have ignored up to one-half of the population (Baby Boomers: 75 million, GenY: 80 million) which are driving less. It's time to stop building a transportation system for a state that no longer exists. Perhaps you think we should be adding to our highway capacity while the level of driving (measured in vehicle-miles traveled) is decreasing. I don't.

 

EDIT:

 

You all might also find these links of interest.....

 

This was a pretty revolutionary article when it came out 12 years ago. But now its tenets are gaining widespread acceptance, except in Ohio of course:

http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/8260/1/93%20Kane.pdf

 

“With traffic congestion in certain areas set to increase dramatically over the [next] 20-year(s) ...

building more roads in already well served metropolitan areas is not the solution to congestion.

Experience internationally has shown that more roads attract more traffic which in turn generates

demand for even more roads. Instead, this strategy advocates managing car use in these congested

areas, pricing mechanisms and incentives whilst at the same time investing behind the core public

transport network as the emerging alternative”. (DOT 1999:27)

 

And here are the some of the follow-on actions around the world of this revolutionary thinking:

 

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysInducedReduced.html

 

And, Hts121, you might find this of interest:

 

http://www.westernite.org/annualmeetings/sanfran10/Papers/Session%207_Papers/ITE%20Paper_7B-Henderson.pdf

 

The point being, each widening tends to induce more vehicle-miles traveled, in a stable case example. Cleveland's example is not stable, since it is a declining region. So if it's declining, why do we need the added highway capacity?

 

 

Capacity and flow are two different things in my mind, so it doesn't really interest me for the purposes of this debate.  Although I certainly am in favor of adding HOV lanes to heavily traveled corridors.

 

Did you know that Houston, with its smaller population and lower density, consumes more energy than larger, denser New York City which built itself around a more diverse transportation system?

 

Did you know that the chart you posted to prove this point is based on a per capita analysis?

 

When discussing consumption 'rates' (as you put in your next sentence) then, yes, I can certainly agree with that.  But it would surprise me if "Houston, with its smaller population and lower density, consumes more energy than larger, denser New York City"

Yes, per capita. That's probably the most fair way to compare them. Sorry I missed adding the words "per capita." As PeeWee Herman said: "I meant to do that!"

 

 

I don't know why KJP gets so defensive when his ideas are challenged....  whatever.  I'm not going to go into my background or credentials but safe to say I mastered planning concepts awhile ago.  I also know enough about basic planning concepts to realize they are rarely implemented.  Everyone talks about mixed use, more density, access to tranit, etc but why do they all buy large free standing single family houses in places like Medina on culdesac streets?  Why isn't Public Square a hotspot for new high rise condos and why is Tower City mall dead? 

 

Comparisons to Europe are a moot point as well.  Totally different government, transportation funding, land use system, and even personal values.  A better comparison would be other midwest cities.  Like Columbus.  Which had an already huge outerbelt for it's size and doubled the lanes during the 90's and the city has continued to gain population quickly over the last decade.  Or how about Chicago, which already has a great light rail system, yet still LOST population in the last census and continues to sprawl...?  I'm interested to hear your application of urban planning fundamentals to these two situations

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't emphasize transit more in our spending.  That premise is one we all agree on.  But it's a stretch to move from that premise to "we shouldn't fix dead man's curve" or "we shouldn't replace a decrepit freeway bridge."  It's even more of a stretch to say we need to reduce capacity and/or speed on existing roadways.  The best way to get people on transit is to expand transit.  Good transit and good highways aren't mutually exclusive, and people are more likely to support transit expansions that aren't tied to losing something they already like.