Great point. But ODOT's mission/culture is to only ensure the safe, smooth flow of traffic as possible on the roads. When ODOT Director Gordon Proctor says "we can't build our way out of congestion," that statement rings hollow because it goes counter to everything ODOT strives to do according to their planning manuals and guidelines. It's not out of some mean-spirited agenda; it's simply been their modus operandi for decades.

Looks like ODOT has an update to their Conceptuals Alternatives Study.

http://www.innerbelt.org/Innerbelt/Conceptual%20Alternatives%20Study/conceptual%20alternatives%20study.htm

 

I have not read it all yet, (thee are many pages) so i cannot comment on any of the proposals.

 

Their is also a public open house coming up Wednesday September 13 from 4:00 to 8:00 (formal presentation starts at 6:30) at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation in Tremont

 

The flier I received in the mail specifically states discussion will be centered around the central viaduct and the bridge type selection process. There will be displays nd the public can be brainwashed discuss one-on-one with the design team members. They're even going to let you offer your opinion.

 

I will not be able to be there for the presentation portion, but I will stop in for the open house part before I go to class.

 

Gee, nice of ODOT to pick a neutral venue to explain how they are going to scar the entire city and region for 50 years.  But the Church will be safe...

Don't forget about the meeting tonight!

i saw the boring truck digging holes on the north side of the valley by the mess of ramps where 77/90 intersect. 

 

i'd like to see what this data is actually showing on the suitability of different build options. 

Well, I attended the Bridge Type presentation last night in Tremont and was less than enthused about the outcome.  The number of bridge types has been widdled down to three:  an arch bridge that raises about 60’ above the road deck only where the river goes under (gives the bridge no sense of scale), second, a four tower cable-stayed bridge meant to mimic the Lorain-Carnegie pylons (why copy a design from the 1930’s, and I don’t trust these designers to come up with anything interesting for the towers), and finally, a single-tower cable-stay bridge that rises 200’ above the road deck (this option has the most potential to be an interesting point of intensity, and is the only option that deals with the massive scale of the structure).

Of course the general public was most interested in the bridge that copied the 4 pylon idea because of the grand experience of the Lorain-Carnegie, but fail to realize that the towers on the new bridge will be closer together, and offer nothing to the skyline when approaching from the south.  The single tower cable stay is the only one I would stand behind.  The arch bridge looked feeble and pasted onto the road deck, and is purely aesthetic.

Everyone in the audience got caught on the topic of getting a bike right of way onto the bridge and really put the brakes on making any progress on what bridge type would be a better fit.

And in a one on one conversation with one of the designers, he said with a chuckle, “yeah, and we’ll finally get rid of that concrete cold storage building on Abbey.”  I didn’t let that one slide, and went on a 5 minute rant on how freeways raped this city 50 years ago by tearing down industrial structures and how they are doing it once again.  He sheepishly walked away, and by that p[oint I had heard enough vomit spew from their mouths for one evening.

 

^ Nominate X to fix ODOT.

Not to mention that there was a developer interested in redeveloping it into condos/apartments.

 

I was at the meeting as well.  It is disappointing that usually one or two groups takes over any one meeting and focuses on a detail (a particular exit, bike lanes) while the broader scope of what we're doing usually gets lost in the discussion.  Unfortunately, in the public meeting process having numbers and a specific grievance is more effective than trying to inspire new ideas.  I'm not particularly excited about any of the alternatives.  In fact, I was the (second) guy who said that it is pointless to build a signature bridge going exclusively out of town.  As I later suggested, if they could find a way of making both bridges an interesting experience to cross through artwork, rhythmic elements, or even landscaping then I might be able to think that this bridge isn't going to be a total disaster.

 

Maybe the signature statement of this bridge isn't a grand tower or arch, but that it says that the people of Cleveland care about how humane their environment is.

The single tower cable stay is the only option that allows for a moment of design intensity.  Simply spreading out what is going on (like the suburbs of this city) atop the bridge with landscaping or whatever else does not deal with the scale of the bridge as a whole.  One large, sculptural entity is the only one that gives the bridge a lasting identity.  We all know landscaping would eventually be neglected.

And honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is about the bridge heading out of the city.  When coming into the city from the south (90, 71, and 176) a tall cable stay bridge (around 230’) would become part of the skyline regardless whether or not it is over the westbound bridge.

 

It certainly could act as a terminal view when coming North on 71, but don't the big 3 do that already (and a more logical one to boot, as that is the destination)?  How will this mesh with that view?  It would have been nice to see a rendering of that.  I don't think it will have much of a gateway effect.  Not like it will to people leaving, at least. 

 

I thought about maintenance as well.  By landscaping I don't mean predominantly plants, although if an acceptable means of maintaining them could be found they would be nice.  I mean careful attention to the guardrails, lighting, signage, and other elements, including public art to make the bridge more interesting and to create a feeling of crossing and arrival.

The single tower cable stay is the only option that allows for a moment of design intensity.  Simply spreading out what is going on (like the suburbs of this city) atop the bridge with landscaping or whatever else does not deal with the scale of the bridge as a whole.  One large, sculptural entity is the only one that gives the bridge a lasting identity.  We all know landscaping would eventually be neglected.

And honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is about the bridge heading out of the city.  When coming into the city from the south (90, 71, and 176) a tall cable stay bridge (around 230’) would become part of the skyline regardless whether or not it is over the westbound bridge.

 

 

I disagree with this. It does not give a moment of anything except make the driver think that he is entering/leaving any one of numerous cities in the world that have similar bridges.

 

At least the second option is unique in that there is no other bridge like it in the country (except for one that is under construction in Connecticut right now). Also, all of these designs are just conceptual. The first one, if built, will have three different options. The second one, if built, has numerous options and would likely be at least another 50 ft taller. The third option, if built, could look different as far as geometry.

 

ODOT is now looking for public opinion as to which concept is most desirable.

 

I know there hasn't been much focus from ODOT on the land under their 'signature' bridge, but has anyone been able to determine if any of the options provides for fewer supports across the valley floor? Currently, the Lorain-Carnegie and I-90 bridge have an awful lot of land supports. I'd be interested in a longer uninterrupted span in addition to the eye candy above the roadway.

ODOT addressed this at the Planning Commission meeting last Friday. It was implied that there would be much attention to this type of area so that there is nothing the likes of what is currently happening across the street from University Inn. Plus, the Tow Path Trail will be going through there. They had one crude rendering with the tow path showing.

Ok, I finally scanned the renderings (then promtly found them online).

Here are the three types of bridges being proposed in order.

You can read about all of them here:

http://www.innerbelt.org/Central%20Viaduct%20Bridge/CVBridgeTypes3.htm

 

 

the first two are quite ho-hum. The third one is the only one that's interesting.

The second option is absolute dog shit.  It does next to nothing for the skyline.  You'll have something viewable above the bridge line for about 150' of a nearly one mile bridge.  It doesn't deal with the scale of the overall bridge at all.

And if it is under the bridge views you are concerned with, the single tower cable stay is the only one that, because of its structural design, can eliminate the need to have supports near where the bridge crosses the river.  The other options identity above the bridge are there for purely aesthetic reasons (not that there is anything wrong with that, ie Lorain-Carnegie pylons), but judging by what ODOT did for the bridges over I-77 (Fleet, Grant, and the rail bridges with cheesy brick covering the concrete abutements), I honestly don't trust ODOT's ability to get something that is strictly fluff, to look good.  They messed up many times over, who's to say it won't happen here?

So we are going to get a crappy bridge that is in the wrong location, going the wrong direction, and it does not even replace the old bridge, so it will take more real estate away from the city.

 

Why do we want this?

^^and those 'brick' piers aren't even brick at all... they are painted, pan-formed concrete

 

I'm still disappointed with the missed opportunity of this sort of investment to our city's infrastructure improvements. But faced with making a decision about the bridge concepts (given ODOT is moving on their desired course)... my choice is for option D a suspension bridge with a clear span from Tremont to the bluff south of Jacobs' Field  :-D.

Yeah, I don't like any of them.

Out of the three, I like the arch.  It speaks more to Cleveland's industrial heritage, as well as the character of the Flats down below, not to mention that the arch is more harmonious with the rest of the structure than the piers and cables are (see rendering #3).  The cable-stayed designs are almost cliche--everyone is building 'em just because they can.  ODOT, in particular, has a hard-on for cable-stayed designs anymore.

 

Why does everything ODOT does have to be so damn difficult? 

 

 

I don't like the arch. It looks too small. We already have one with the Detroit-Superior bridge. I don't think that we shouldn't build the tower cable-stayed bridge just because others are doing the same. If it looks cool, adds to the visual diversity and creates a great entryway to downtown, then I'm all for it.

and it has to be able to hold up the roadway.  that's kind of the idea of the support structure, after all!

I suppose in the grander scheme of ODOT design, those aren't the most abysmal I've seen. But none are really "signature" in character. This is signature (fictional, but signature):

 

 

I say screw the bridge.  Cut traffic at I-490.  use the funds to build a subway under the superior and lorain!

Dissapointed.

 

:-(

 

 

 

Dull design burns bridges to better future

Thursday, October 05, 2006

 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

A computer rendering of a proposal for a new I-90 westbound bridge over the Cuyahoga River shows that a steel arch concept for the main span would look like a blip in the landscape when viewed from downtown.

 

It's hard to raise hopes and crush them at the same time, but that's how the Ohio De partment of Transporta tion is han dling the design of a new I-90 bridge to carry westbound traffic over the Cuyahoga River...

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4136

 

SEARCH FOR FULL ARTICLE BY KEYWORD AT: cleveland.com

We just need to get this whole project scuttled -- the bridge, the Innerbelt reconstruction, everything. I'm hopeful we can under the new Democratic regime that will be taking office in the state house this fall. :)

Something we don't say too often,

 

But Hurrah for Steven Litt! 

 

Forget scuttling the project--can we scuttle ODOT???

As was alluded to in a previous post - it was done when they tried to pave Shaker Lakes, it can be done now.

More so when the elections are over.

Seriously, how can they justify spending this much money on a product that has so little support behind it?  Proctor isn't happy, Bob Brown isn't happy and we all know that the public isn't happy!  This is messed up.  I can think of quite a few things I'd rather spend the $500 mil on!

Well said, Steve Litt!

The path to mediocrity continues. Looks like they picked a concept.

 

From the PD:

 

Inner Belt bridge plan picked

Committee recommends most costly of three proposals to ODOT

Friday, October 06, 2006

James Ewinger

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

A broad-based committee chose the most expensive of three bridge concepts Thursday for the centerpiece of Ohio's Inner Belt project.

 

The group, composed of public officials and representatives of community development groups, recommended a single-tower cable-stayed bridge.

 

It is expected to cost $334 million, 12 percent more than the Ohio Department of Transportation's budgeted $297 million...

This bridge type selection is the best possible scenario in an overall ill conceived project like it or not.

But look at that picture!  It's like a big roof over the river and valley!  Four bridges over that small stretch of land???  Come on!

 

On another note, with all this talk of "iconic" this and "landmark" that, don't you think it's time that we revived the landmark status of one of our existing bridges by getting ODOT or the City or whomever to light the guardians of transportation on the Hope Memorial Bridge???  For Pete's sake!  The little things that make a difference get overlooked while we talk in intervals of tens of millions of dollars for a project that won't be finished until 2018!

(Moved from different thread)

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=10771.msg132395#msg132395

 

I could not find a related thread. With the soon to start reconstruction of Innerbelt, specifically, Dead-Man's-Curve and the Viaduct, I thought there should be a thread to discuss some of the related non-transportation construction (more likely demolition) around the project boundaries.

 

From Cleveland vs. The World:

 

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/10/september-15-2006-cleveland-planning.html

 

Ordinance No. 1447-06: Authorizes the sale of City-owned property located at East 30th Street off of Hamilton Avenue to State Industrial Products, Inc. (SIP - Formerly State Chemical)

Because of the impending construction on the Innerbelt and relocation of the Innerbelt curve, the bridge structure (14,300 sq ft) that currently is used for 40 parking spaces for SIP is proposed to come down. SIP will demo 38,000 sq ft of their manufacturing building to make room for a new employee parking lot and construct a new manufacturing facility on land on East 30th Street and Hamilton Avenue that will be vacated.

 

 

 

Excellent news. Hopefully, ODOT reconsiders the plan by Paul Alsenas within this time frame.

 

Ohio delays Inner Belt redesign; city officials applaud

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Susan Vinella

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Commuters can expect an extra year or two of traffic snarls on the Inner Belt and continued danger at Dead Man's Curve, the most perilous stretch of highway in Ohio.

 

The state will delay for up to two years the launch of Cleveland's Inner Belt redesign project to deal with rising costs and design flaws.

 

The state also might scale back renovations of the Inner Belt Bridge over the Cuyahoga River. Instead of fixing the bridge to last 50 years, at a cost of $266 million, the state proposes a 20-year rehab...

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-5010

 

 

Great news, hope alternatives are seriously considered - other than flattening Deadman's Curve, I would rather see nothing built from ODOT's current plans in the trench and for the bridges.

 

Maybe a change in state administration will provide an opportunity to consider other options.

Wow!

 

I bet "Citizen" Ed Hauser is peeing himself silly.

 

The pedestrian/bike must stay. There are too many people that walk across the current bridge to not consider including this element.

And how in the hell does that add thirty million dollars?

 

Yes, a new administration has got to be a better option.

Great news, hope alternatives are seriously considered - other than flattening Deadman's Curve, I would rather see nothing built from ODOT's current plans in the trench and for the bridges.

 

Maybe a change in state administration will provide an opportunity to consider other options.

 

I don't care for flattening the curve.  That throws away too much money. I'd rather take that money and spend it on a single new southerly bridge.  I'd love to see the trenches walled up, though.

 

Otherwise, what a big preliminary win for the city.

Yup, great news. I'm still hoping the whole rotten plan gets chucked. One negative aspect of this delay is that it will cause a few unrenovated warehouse buildings along the Innerbelt to remain in limbo even longer. (Cimperman has said he gets calls every week from interested developers but they get scared off by the potential takes -- and who can blame them.)

 

The only part I ever liked about this plan was capping the overpasses.

^I think capping the overpasses would be huge, and would give us the opportunity to seamlessly transition downtown into Midtown.

Here's my $0.02. Adds only 45 seconds to the travel time through downtown yet opens up a massive development area that can help reimburse the state's costs of paying for the Inner Belt project. But, unfortunately, public officials (like at ODOT) don't think in those terms...

 

 

More detailed view of access boulevard (scroll right)...

 

^I think capping the overpasses would be huge, and would give us the opportunity to seamlessly transition downtown into Midtown.

 

The capping part was never officially part of the plan. It was talked about, but was never in the scope of the plan.

 

This figures, I had just finished reading the billion page plan update this weekend, including all of the options that were taken off the table early on. It could have just been a snowball effect, but from what I saw, they looked at all options (within there limited vision).

http://www.innerbelt.org/Innerbelt/Conceptual%20Alternatives%20Study/conceptual%20alternatives%20study.htm

 

Not that it matters now, but these were the section alternatives that were being/not being carried forward as of the middle of August:

 

12.1 Innerbelt Curve Section

Innerbelt Curve Alternative F is selected to be carried forward as a Feasible Alternative analysis phase of the Project.

Innerbelt Curve Alternative E is not being carried forward.

 

12.2 Innerbelt Trench Section

The Far Eastern Alignment Alternative, the Chester Avenue (No Payne Avenue) Alternative, and the MidTown Corridor Extension are being carried forward.

The Minimum, Western Alignment, and Central Alignment Alternatives are not being carried forward.

 

12.3 Central Interchange Section

the Dual Intersections and Southern Alternatives are selected to be carried forward.

The Dedicated, Shared, and Indirect I-77 Connections Alternatives are not being carried forward.

 

12.4 Central Viaduct Bridge Section

The Northern and Southern Hybrid Alternatives are selected to be carried forward.

The Widen / Rehabilitate Existing Alternative with Clark Avenue Interchange is not being carried forward.

 

12.5 Southern Innerbelt Section

The Mainline Widening with Jennings Freeway Add Alternative is selected to be carried forward.

The Mainline Widening with Jennings Freeway Merge Alternative is not being carried forward.

 

12.6 C-D Roadways Section

The C-D Roadways Relocation Alternative including a Type II noise analysis for the C-D Roadways section, is selected to continue under ODOT’s noise wall and multi-lane reconstruction programs.

 

12.7 I-77 Access Section

The I-77 Access Improvements Alternative is selected to be carried forward.

 

12.8 West 7th Street Interchange Section

The No-Build Alternative is selected.

The Fully Directional West 7th Street Interchange Alternative is not being carried forward.

 

 

I say tear down the bridge. Make I-490 the connector.  entrence the 90/77 portion then IMPROVE AND CREATE RAIL options from the westside using Lorain, Memphis, West 25 & State/Ridge or Pearl.

 

I have spoken!  :whip:

No successful city in the world is expanding their downtown highway network. Let's get with the times.

I hope the new Administration cleans house at ODOT

^Amen, and good for Cleveland...for now.

Thanks Musky!. Glad you liked my conceptual rendering ...

 

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/10/innerbelt-redesign-at-stand-still-2.html

 

I jazzed it up a bit with some additional labels

 

I was checking out the area where my new right of way for I-90 would go, and if a straight shot linking I-77 to I-90 were built, it would require taking and demolishing a lot more buildings (and larger ones) than would otherwise be necessary if a slight curve were designed into the new alignment. See below (scroll right)...

 

 

This spares the Jane Addams High School, the Cedar Estates High Rise (which is being renovated), Cleveland Eye Clinic and Central Cadillac. However, it requires the demolition of a recreation center (I propose to have this rebuilt over the highway) and numerous low-level public housing buildings (which are very old, obsolete and should be replaced with mixed-income, mixed-use development where the Central Interchange now gobbles up the south end of downtown and blocks the Central neighborhood from downtown).