Cool, thanks!

Are you curious about plans for the second Innerbelt Bridge?

 

Then mark your calendar for a Public Meeting on Tuesday, July 10 at Sokolowski’s University Inn from 5:30-7 p.m. to discuss options for the look and feel of community areas surrounding the second new Innerbelt Bridge.

 

This will be your first opportunity to see renderings of the two, new bridges together! 

probably old news to some of you, but public tours of the Innerbelt project are offered each month.  I'm signed up for the tour end of July!

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/InnerbeltBridge/NewsInformation/Pages/Project-Tours.aspx

This will probably come off as a dumb question, but why dont people just take the Clark Freeway bridge instead. It would save a lot of money, and wouldnt require us to build another bridge.

I'd think the same reason I don't drive over to Detroit/Superior to cross when I can cross Lorain/Carnegie. It's inconvenient and what happens if you lose one of them or have construction on one? I don't know that 77 is built to handle all of that traffic either. Plus, it's a state highway, not national freeway.

They'd need to completely rebuild the 490/77 interchange or create one crazy (likely completely impractical) fly over.

 

Edit: Err, nevermind I figure you mean only westbound traffic to take this route.

This will probably come off as a dumb question, but why dont people just take the Clark Freeway bridge instead. It would save a lot of money, and wouldnt require us to build another bridge.

 

That was part of my suggestion for the Inner Belt, but I didn't think of it early enough to build enough political interest to have it vetted by ODOT. Planning had already advanced too far by then....

 

This will probably come off as a dumb question, but why dont people just take the Clark Freeway bridge instead. It would save a lot of money, and wouldnt require us to build another bridge.

 

That was part of my suggestion for the Inner Belt, but I didn't think of it early enough to build enough political interest to have it vetted by ODOT. Planning had already advanced too far by then....

 

 

Damnit KJP! Why didn't you think of it earlier! :D And when are you going to take over ODOT. We need you!

Sorry, I'm too busy running the train cult right now....

Sorry, I'm too busy running the train cult right now....

 

Imagine the train cult with all that money and power though! Ha!

new artist's renderings of the second inner belt bridge

 

http://photos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2012/07/artist_renderings_show_inner_b_6.html

I'm actually more excited about the renderings of under the bridge!!!

http://media.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/photo/2012/07/11288199-standard.jpg

This PDF from ODOT really clears up a lot of questions as to how the landscape will be configured south of the new bridges. It will really clean up that whole area, a lot less cluttered and much more presentable. Yeah for ODOT...lol

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D12/Deputy%20Director/News/Documents/7.10.12%20Public%20Meeting%20Presentation.pdf

 

Also this:

 

Funding the Second Innerbelt Bridge Earlier this year, ODOT announced a $1.6 billion shortfall that affects major transportation projects in communities throughout Ohio. However, due to improved efficiency, workforce and vehicle fleet reductions, higher than projected gas tax receipts, the elimination of federal earmarks, and savings from a mild winter, ODOT is able to dump $400 million into the budget for major new construction projects throughout the state – including the Innerbelt Bridge project!

 

That means demolition of the existing Innerbelt Bridge and construction of a new eastbound span can happen much sooner than earlier projections. Funds for the demolition of the existing bridge have been approved by the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) and demolition of the existing bridge will begin as soon as all traffic is moved onto the new westbound Innerbelt Bridge in late 2013 – as was originally planned.

Construction of the new eastbound span has been moved up to begin in 2016, representing only a short delay from the original schedule. We’re closing the gap and ODOT stands with the people of Cleveland and will continue to seek funds to finish this priority project as soon as money becomes available.

We understand the importance of this project and its impact on jobs, commerce, commuters and northeast Ohio’s economic recovery and that is why we are doing everything we can to seek out innovative and alternative funding sources.

The Department is hopeful that additional funding will become available in order to move forward with the Eastbound Bridge project on its original timeline and limit impacts to commuters and businesses alike.

 

And from the CSS design website:

 

http://www.cssboston.com/portfolio/clevelandinnerbelt.html

^ Very impressive! I particularly like the RRHOF inspired bridge art. I don't think the city plays up the connection to rock music history enough.

I don't know that 77 is built to handle all of that traffic either. Plus, it's a state highway, not national freeway.

 

What do you mean?  77 and 490 are both interstate highways, just like 90.

ODOT made a presentation to Cleveland Planning Commission on July 20 regarding the eastbound bridge and how it interacts with the city on the Tremont and Downtown ends of it. I "love" (not) all the unusable greenspace at the downtown end although the overpass treatments are nice.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/07202012/index.php

 

 

I "love" (not) all the unusable greenspace at the downtown end although the overpass treatments are nice.....

 

It follows the pattern of unusable space all around Progressive Field. Love the place, but that was some bad planning (parking garage city!) but perhaps with some ingenuity it could be corrected someday.

 

I won't complain too too much about the "park-like" surroundings for the highway plan. It's so ugly right now that the landscaping should at least be a huge visual improvement.

 

 

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. The unusable portion is essentially non-accessible to the casual pedestrian. What else could possibly go in there?

^Yeah, agreed.  I'm actually really happy that these leftover spaces are being thought about at all.

 

I "love" (not) all the unusable greenspace at the downtown end although the overpass treatments are nice.....

 

It follows the pattern of unusable space all around Progressive Field. Love the place, but that was some bad planning (parking garage city!) but perhaps with some ingenuity it could be corrected someday.

 

OT, but wanted to register my complete disagreement about the planning of Progressive field given market constraints and tenant requirements.

 

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. The unusable portion is essentially non-accessible to the casual pedestrian. What else could possibly go in there?

 

I'm still stuck on the premise that the Inner Belt shouldn't even be there, let alone such land-gobbling, looping interchange ramps. But since the Inner Belt is going to stay there, then straight ramps with extra lanes for stacking cars is my preference. ODOT's preference is to keep traffic moving in a continuous manner, such as with looping ramps. So again a highway engineer gets to design an urban environment where pedestrian-friendly settings would otherwise exist.

Then where will the homeless people camp?

That was a joke - move along

 

Then where will the homeless people camp?

That was a joke - move along

 

 

What's your address?

Then where will the homeless people camp?

That was a joke - move along

 

 

What's your address?

 

41°25'48.54"N ,  81°23'29.14"W

Bring the family

 

 

 

I'll be quite happy if they just tree it up with a nice local variety of plantings. No sheep though. They can keep those near the shoreway.

The sheep are definitely a tourist activity now haha. Everytime I pass, I see someone snapping a pic.

I witnessed a couple making out on the fence next to North Marginal one night a few weeks ago. Those must be magical sheep.

Stalker

WTF. 

 

Oops! Pier for the new Inner Belt Bridge does not line up

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One of the large piers that will hold the new Inner Belt Bridge is nearly three feet out of place.

 

But officials with ODOT and the bridge contractor, Walsh Construction of Chicago, said Friday that the misplaced pier will not affect the cost, safety or timing of the $292 million project.

 

The looming hillside support, on a site south of Progressive Field, is 2 feet 9 inches north of its intended line, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Transportation acknowledged Friday after an inquiry from The Plain Dealer.

 

"It's not causing any concern, delay or increase in cost,'' said ODOT's Steve Faulkner. "And anything that's built on top, there's leeway built in.''

 

Neither Faulkner nor the spokeswoman for Walsh Construction could explain who is at fault.

 

"I assume there's a red-faced surveyor somewhere,'' Art Huckelbridge, a professor of civil engineering at Case Western Reserve University, said in an email. "I can't see why it would necessarily impact safety, though. Structurally, it is probably not significant.''

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/07/pier_for_the_new_inner_belt_br.html

 

What do they mean it's not a concern? So they will just cut corners now?

No, they will probably just make a curve in the bridge girders and road deck a little sharper going from one bridge pier to the next. For a displacement of 2.75 feet between bridge piers that are about 200 feet apart, that means increasing the curvature by about 1.375 percent. They could also add a little bit of bridge decking to compensate for it. I doubt you'll even notice while driving on it.

This was posted a few pages back, for those also curious which one is Pier 11 that was mentioned in the article as being the offending pier.

 

 

Pier 11 coming soon at a location 0.8 meters out of alignment apparently.

Pier 11 coming soon at a location 0.8 meters out of alignment apparently.

 

:oops: :oops:

What do they mean it's not a concern? So they will just cut corners now?

 

There is almost a 1-yr lead time on design, fabrication & delivery of the steel.  Catching this now is not an issue.

I'm still stuck on the premise that the Inner Belt shouldn't even be there, let alone such land-gobbling, looping interchange ramps. But since the Inner Belt is going to stay there, then straight ramps with extra lanes for stacking cars is my preference. ODOT's preference is to keep traffic moving in a continuous manner, such as with looping ramps. So again a highway engineer gets to design an urban environment where pedestrian-friendly settings would otherwise exist.

I presume that means they don't want traffic stopped at an intersection to back up into the active lanes of the real highway.

On tomorrow's Planning commission agenda:

 

Ordinance No. 898-12(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Giving consent of the City of Cleveland to the State of Ohio for the construction of the new eastbound Innerbelt bridge; authorizing the Director of Capital Projects to enter into any relative agreements.

 

Ordinance No. 899-12(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Giving consent of the City of Cleveland to the State of Ohio for the demolition of the eastbound Innerbelt bridge; authorizing the Director of Capital Projects to enter into any relative agreements.

 

 

 

I presume that means they don't want traffic stopped at an intersection to back up into the active lanes of the real highway.

 

Won't happen if it has at least as much stacking capacity as the existing looping ramps which have traffic lights at Carnegie just north of the highway. If your downtown access isn't via looping ramps but instead via access boulevards, as shown in my earlier Inner Belt graphic, then we wouldn't need any ramps into downtown. :)

The highway department could use highly-automated traffic sensors, cameras,  and control room operators managing traffic lights to keep traffic from backing up.  That would bring them up to date to what Japan has been doing for 25 years.

Here is a graphic of Ontario and Carnegie I don't see posted yet.

 

Also the link below is from an ODOT workshop during the early stages of the Innerbelt. I always find it interesting to read the behind the scenes thought process when a project is in the planning stages. Yeah I know it's probably not for everybody.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/accelerated/wsoh0602.cfm

Three local artist chosen

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/gov_john_kasich_to_make_major.html#incart_river_default

 

Gov. John Kasich to make "major" Inner Belt Bridge announcement

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Gov. John Kasich will travel to Cleveland Thursday for what his office has billed as a "major announcement" regarding the Inner Belt Bridge project.

 

Word of Kasich's visit raised hopes that the state has found a way to get the second of the two Inner Belt spans done by the original 2016 completion date.

^Political? 

Very interesting...

 

We'll see tomorrow.  Probably is the good news we're expecting.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/ohio_gov_kasich_announces_plan.html#incart_river_default

 

 

Ohio has plan to build Cleveland's second Inner Belt Bridge by 2016

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The construction of the second new Inner Belt Bridge is back on track for completion by 2016.

 

Gov. John Kasich and ODOT Director Jerry Wray this morning announced an unprecedented approach for the estimated $332 million project.

 

ODOT will seek a private designer and builder team to demolish the existing bridge and build the second new bridge.

 

Haha...this part made me laugh...

"They raised Cain, and they should have,'' said Kasich, who urged Wray to scour  ODOT's budget and construction-funding toolbox to get the Inner Belt Bridge done by 2016."

 

I'm sure they were hoping we'd just be content with 2023.

Are the bridge builders putting up the money?  Or is this some gimmick where Wall Streeters will get in the middle of it and charge "fees"?

Are the bridge builders putting up the money?  Or is this some gimmick where Wall Streeters will get in the middle of it and charge "fees"?

 

The construction firm would likely apply for a line of credit based upon the state's promise to pay.  There would be interest on that credit line and then the state would also be paying the construction company a bit extra for being a go between.  Depending on how lucrative that arrangement is and what the people running the construction company feel is in their best interest they could sell that debt to someone else.  It's basically a relatively short term municipal bond but without the restrictions and tax benefits. 

 

So if that meets your definition of Wall Streeters and fees then yes, but not anything we (the state) wouldn't have agreed upon beforehand.

understood...thanks

Recently added aerials of the Innerbelt project from www.aerialaspectphoto.com.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/innerbelt/archives/date-posted/2012/10/04/

Here is a cool shot from the Innerbelt Facebook page showing piers 5/6 in the distance.  http://facebook.com/Innerbelt

Here is a cool shot from the Innerbelt Facebook page showing piers 5/6 in the distance.  http://facebook.com/Innerbelt

 

That is a cool shot. I had to go to historicaerials.com to figure out what those bridge piers were for (a Big Four Railroad industrial spur).

I am trying to determine through renders from ODOT just how the area south of the new bridge might come together. I am only guessing but it appears that the on ramps to 77s from E9th and from Ontario will be removed. (Note the area I have highlighted in red) Also the Broadway off ramp from 90e will be eliminated.  The new configured Ontario St. would then carry traffic from E9th and from Ontario down past the post office to 77s. Ontario St. then becomes much more of a Blvd. with development opportunities around it.  Also the new E9th  St. extension now makes sense to me as it delivers congestion from the Gateway area to the flats. I don't see any of this confirmed anywhere but it seems to make sense.