West Shoreway conversion plans received with enthusiasm, concern

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Jeff Blazek looks at plans to convert the West Shoreway to a tree-lined boulevard and sees Edgewater Park pushing south to join Lake Avenue, a possibility he loves.

 

Jerry Schmelzer looks at the same plan and sees increased traffic on Lake Avenue, an inconvenience for tenants in two buildings he owns on that street...

 

City and state planners want to have a final plan by early next year. The highway conversion is scheduled for completion in 2011.

 

The article gives a pretty accurate account of what happened.  Some people ignorantly bitched, others called for rail inclusion and some just tried to keep their baby quiet (that's me). 

 

Here is a link to the presentation:  http://www.innerbelt.org/Presentations/071906Lakefront/LakefrontPublicMtgJuly19_files/frame.htm

^And you did a fine job of it... I didn't even know there was a baby there.

 

As some of you may know, I am a big proponent of the modern roundabout. I was bothered that the concept was removed from the Lake/Clifton/West interections. I think that is one of the most perfect areas for one. I was, intrigued that they would suggest placing one at the Wetr 25th/Detroit intersection. I actually do not hink that would be a good area for one.

^From what I heard, most people didn't like the W.25th/Detroit roundabout. I think that would be completely unnecessary and complicate pedestrian and traffic patterns.

 

I'm totally in love with the plans for upper Edgewater. There is one option that for some reason creates a new access road--well that's pretty stupid. The other ones remove the Lake Ave access roads and add a lot of space to the park. 

I was only there for about an hour and managed to get pretty overwhelmed in that small amount of time.  With bossy newsmen telling me to move and 200 onlookers, it was tough to get in there and really examine the options.  The ODOT reps were very helpful if you could get their ear, but the whole thing was just a little too "busy."

 

That's obviously not the fault of ODOT, but my other issue could be.  The maps were pretty much just overhead shots with a bunch of lines and alternatives.  It would've been very helpful to have a zoomed out aerial at every station, as well as more elevations.  It was tough to really comprehend the terrain and where roads and trails were leading under the setup they brought.

 

Anyway, I couldn't stay, so I'm planning to study the plans with more time and perhaps propose an alternative or two that are not listed.  They kept saying that these were just the first set of ideas that had been put forward by a number of interests, so if they try to pull any Central Interchange stuff on us and tell us that "these are the only options..." well, I'm going to have to take somebody down!

MGD, it got a lot better after the lecture was over... there was more time to look at the maps and ask questions of the ODOT officials. It was cool that they had ballots for people to vote on different plans. Whether they'll actually pay attention to the results, who knows. I hope so.

 

During the official Q&A session after the Powerpoint, someone commented that the plan suffers from a lack of overall vision for how it will benefit the city as a whole, as well as individual neighborhoods and the lakefront. Is this about just making a freeway into a boulevard, with little attention to streetscape and design? If so, it may have minimal impact. The same issue was raised during the Innerbelt trench meeting I attended a few months ago.

During the official Q&A session after the Powerpoint, someone commented that the plan suffers from a lack of overall vision for how it will benefit the city as a whole, as well as individual neighborhoods and the lakefront. Is this about just making a freeway into a boulevard, with little attention to streetscape and design? If so, it may have minimal impact.

 

I really didn't follow that comment at all. Isn't the project all about paying attention to the city as a whole as well as the individual neighborhoods???  Besides some of the alternatives, the only thing that I didn't like is that they would take the neighbor of Linda's Suprette to widen W.28th. 

MGD,

 

The lecture portion really helped me understand all the different maps. I left having a pretty clear feeling about what I would like to see happen.

^well, we'll have to have a little catch-up session later after we watch Rachel Ray!

 

I think it's the City of Cleveland's responsibility to ensure that ODOT's plans feed into a larger community-based and citywide planning process.  That's what the Lakefront Plan was designed to be, so city planners and community leaders have to press really hard to make sure that those aims and objectives are met through this project.  I didn't get the sense, during my hour there, that this was apparent, but I know that the effort is there somewhere and I don't believe that city leaders are going to let it slip away.  The fact that three city council people and many other neighborhood representatives (plus residents and business owners) were present and involved gives me confidence.

The next meeting is August 8 at St. Thomas Luthern on Lake Avenue.

This is more of a block meeting, but anyone is encouraged to come.

 

The next big public meetin, which "should" have better renderings then the line plots they had yesterday, will be in the fall.

 

I'm not sure if anyone here is familiar with the Lakewood Observer, which is a volunteer (?) newspaper that reports on the city of Lakewood.  On their website (www.lakewoodobserver.com) they host a message board called the Observation Deck.  The reason I bring this up on this particular post is that as of the past couple of days there has been a pretty impressive display of NIMBYism regarding the Shoreway project (there are also a few supportive individuals).  Needless to say there are some pretty offensive generalizations made regarding the populace of the near West Side of Cleveland.  I am in the midst of trying to find figures regarding income growth for Detroit Shoreway to post on there, but in the mean time if anyone interested would like to take a look it was interesting to say the least.

This was posted on another forum, but is worth posting here, too...

 

Any ideas for convincing ODOT that the intersection designs for the

shoreway boulevard don't have to be massive? Any good examples of

projects in Cleveland, Ohio or elsewhere that have used pedestrian

friendly / new urbanist street standards, especially where there are

large numbers of large trucks involved? I am particularly concerned

about the proposed intersection at W28th and Detroit. Both currently

proposed options wipe out a couple of historic buildings in the

landmark district so Detroit Ave can be widened - seems like a bad

precedent. Anybody want to join me in pressing this issue at the next

public meeting on the Shoreway Sept 27th at 5:30 at Mt. Carmel Church

on Detroit Ave?

 

If I'm not working I'll try to be there.  I don't know of any examples that would be convincing offhand, though.

This was posted on another forum, but is worth posting here, too...

 

Any ideas for convincing ODOT that the intersection designs for the

shoreway boulevard don't have to be massive? Any good examples of

projects in Cleveland, Ohio or elsewhere that have used pedestrian

friendly / new urbanist street standards, especially where there are

large numbers of large trucks involved? I am particularly concerned

about the proposed intersection at W28th and Detroit. Both currently

proposed options wipe out a couple of historic buildings in the

landmark district so Detroit Ave can be widened - seems like a bad

precedent. Anybody want to join me in pressing this issue at the next

public meeting on the Shoreway Sept 27th at 5:30 at Mt. Carmel Church

on Detroit Ave?

 

  I would like to be there but need to get educated before I go.

I am particularly concerned about the proposed intersection at W28th and Detroit. Both currently

proposed options wipe out a couple of historic buildings in the landmark district so Detroit Ave can be widened - seems like a bad precedent. Anybody want to join me in pressing this issue at the next public meeting on the Shoreway Sept 27th at 5:30 at Mt. Carmel Church on Detroit Ave?

 

That issue was raised at the last public meeting by Mandy Metcalf of the Cleveland Ecovillage (she works out of Detroit-Shoreway's office), during the Q&A section. Hebebrand & Co. didn't respond to her point at all -- quite disappointing. You may want to contact her, or seek her out at the next meeting if you know her.

 

My theory is that Cimperman and/or other neighborhood groups pressured ODOT to take those two buildings. One is Linda's Superette, which is notorious for drug-related activity -- and if you're going to widen the road as an excuse to take it, you also have to take the Jamestown building. Only the latter is worth saving, IMO, but it is quite a beauty. If I'm at the next meeting I'll certainly be on your side!

Why would Cimperman pressure ODOT to take the Jamestown building?

How frickin' wide do they need Detroit to be, anyway?

^^No, I think he/others pressured them to take Linda's Superette, and then Jamestown gets lost in the process. (You couldn't widen Detroit without taking both buildings.)

Did they give a reason why Detroit needs to be widened?  Sure doesn't seem like it needs any further expansion.

 

On the other hand, if its not widened, do we lose an interesection at 28th? Does the roadway not come down to grade?  Before I make a fuss about losing the building, I want to know all the ramifications. (kind of like fighting for a bikelane only to lose an entire block of vintage buildings on Euclid at 55th).

^This brings us full circle -- I think the widening is a ruse for taking Linda's Superette (which then leads to Jamestown coming down). Just a theory. I, too, would be interested in hearing any other reasons the street would "need" to be wider by ODOT's reckoning.

How frickin' wide do they need Detroit to be, anyway?

 

I guess it has to be a hugely wide road, given all the traffic that clogs the road!

 

Of course, the road isn't busy. But even it were, when do these guys realize that the way to reduce traffic volumes is to reduce throughput capacity. Narrow the road. Add traffic calming. Preserve and promote high-density, walkable neighborhoods. I know these things aren't in ODOT's lexicon, but the 1950s have been over for a long time, and it's long past time to rewire the institutionalized thinking over there.

Hopefully Proctor and his ilk will be gone soon

Sure looks like they will be gone. Strickland has a huge lead over Blackwell.

Hopefully Proctor and his ilk will be gone soon

 

But the "corporate culture" at ODOT may take many years to change. There are civil service folks at ODOT whose ideas are literally set in concrete.

KJP for ODOT director! 

There would be a mutiny and I would probably dumped in Lake Erie wearing cement shoes.

Sure looks like they will be gone. Strickland has a huge lead over Blackwell.

 

Do we have any idea where Strickland stands on issues of urban development and transportation?

Lakefront West - Public Meeting Notice

 

Please be advised that there will be a public meeting to discuss the Lakefront West project on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 from 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM at Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, 1355 West 70th Street. 

 

For additional information, please visit our website: www.innerbelt.org and click on the Lakefront West icon.

A reminder about the meeting tonight.

 

State to air plans for Shoreway

ODOT, city seeking public opinion tonight

 

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Neighborhood pressure and a limited budget are shaping the West Shoreway-to-boulevard conversion, which is in its final planning stages.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation tonight will unveil favored options for improved lake access along the Shoreway, including three new intersections.

 

ODOT and city officials want to hear what the public thinks during a meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church West, 1355 West 70th St...

After reading this thread I still have a question. Does this project get rid of the Main avenue Bridge completely and replace it with a low level bridge, like it was pre-Main ave. bridge? Or will the Main Avenue Bridge stay in tact?

The bridge stays intact. Even future phases keep most of the bridge. Only the eastern portion, roughly east of West 9th Street, could be replaced with a street-level right of way.

Public can question Shoreway project

Cleveland Plain Dealer

 

The public can offer its opinion tonight on a plan to turn the West Shoreway from a divided highway into a boulevard with intersections, a grass median and bike and hike trails.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation is planning up to $50 million in renovations to the road, which connects downtown Cleveland to the Edgewater Park area.

 

By removing ramps near the park, the park would grow by about 10 acres. The speed limit on the road would be reduced from 50 mph to 35 mph.

 

ODOT has a special Web site set up regarding the project at http://www.innerbelt.org/Lakefrontwest/Lakefronthome.htm

 

The public meeting will be at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church West, 1355 West 70th St.

 

Doors open at 5:30 p.m. A one-hour presentation begins at 6 p.m. Then there will be a question-and-answer session from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Merge alert.

To X:  I understand that Strickland has spoken favorably about the Ohio Hub Plan and has stated we need to improve rail service to move more people and freight.

It would be extremely expensive to replace the bridge, and the bridge poses a huge inconvenience to the ideal shoreway boulevard plan. This is what I overheard from a drunk guy at a bar downtown who worked at the Downtown Cleveland Alliance. I know he worked there, but I don't know how credible he was. He was also talking a lot about how Jane Campbell was a closeted lesbian.

Did anyone attend the meeting?

I went, but had to leave early.  No comments as of now. Maybe later on today.

"He was also talking a lot about how Jane Campbell was a closeted lesbian."

 

That added absolutely nothing to your post or this thread and is completely unnecessary.

^Besides, she's not in the closet.

:-D

I was there.  I think that ODOT goes through a lot of contortions because they seem to think that because their model shows that there will be a traffic flow that they have to accomodate it.  There are at least a couple of problems with their alternative analysis that would be cleared up easily(I think) if instead of accomodating a movement that is undesirable, they discouraged it.  For example, they say they don't want to much commuter traffic moving down Lake because of the negative impact on the residents, but they widen the road, add turn lanes, and have on street parking be off limits at peak hours.  Or alternately, they use a messy two road solution.  Instead, they should divert traffic onto Clifton and calm that which remains on Lake by narrowing the street, or even close it off to through traffic at peak hours.  The W. 28th St. intersection is more problematic, but I think that if they think outside of this mental box they could fix that as well.  I made these comments to them, but was more or less blown off.

This could have gone in a number of threads... maybe even its own. Regardless, I thought this was interesting.

 

From the New York Times:

 

A City’s Waterfront: A Place for People or Traffic?

By KEITH SCHNEIDER

 

SEATTLE

 

THE din along this city’s waterfront does not come only from the procession of cars and trucks on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, an elevated highway over Elliott Bay that carries more than 105,000 vehicles a day. It also comes from the tumultuous civic dispute over a multibillion-dollar repair project involving the highway and the shoreline.

 

In February 2001, Seattle was struck by the 6.8-magnitude Nisqually earthquake, which severely damaged the 53-year-old viaduct and the seawall holding it up.

 

Everybody agrees that the seawall must be rebuilt, at a cost of roughly $1 billion. But in the nearly six years since the earthquake, the debate over what to do about the highway has grown more complex. Assertions by traffic engineers about the highway’s central place in the region’s transportation network — it carries a fifth of Seattle’s north-south traffic — are colliding with new ideas about building a waterfront park above a six-lane tunnel, replacing the viaduct with a new one or building a park and a boulevard with no shoreline highway at all.

 

The argument reflects the shifts that are occurring as American cities invest in infrastructure to become more economically competitive. Seattle is the latest city to weigh the value of replacing a 20th-century symbol of driving efficiency, designed to serve cars, with parks and boulevards, designed to enrich the human experience.

 

“Imagine our waterfront without the noise, blight and dirt from a nearby elevated freeway,” wrote Greg Nickels, Seattle’s mayor, in a 2004 article in The Seattle Times. “Imagine walking along the waterfront and actually hearing the words of the person next to you, or hearing the cry of a seagull and the splash of the waves instead of rush hour.”

 

Essentially, Seattle has three options.

 

One proposal, preferred by the speaker of the State Legislature, is to build a new and bigger elevated highway for about $3.3 billion.

 

Another proposal, backed by the mayor and the City Council, is to build a six-lane tunnel, a shoreline boulevard and a waterfront park for about $5.5 billion, a plan supported by several of the city’s most influential business and neighborhood groups.

 

The population of Seattle, about 573,000, and surrounding King County, about 1.8 million, is growing fast. Demographers and economists expect downtown Seattle to add 56,000 new residents and 69,000 more jobs by 2020. “The city’s proposal for the Alaskan Way Tunnel is a three-for,” said Grace Crunican, director of the city’s Department of Transportation. “The tunnel meets our transportation needs. We get a new seawall. And we get our waterfront back.”

 

The third idea, pursued by a citizens’ group, the People’s Waterfront Coalition, is to tear down the old highway, build a waterfront park and smaller boulevard, increase transit service and modernize existing streets.

 

The coalition’s proposal is based to some extent on the success of other cities, particularly San Francisco and Portland, Ore., which have replaced highways with waterfront parks and transit investments, and generated population gains and new economic vitality in neighborhoods once divided by highways. The coalition emphasizes one more point about its proposal — its cost, which is under $1 billion.

 

“The question before us is, Can an American city voluntarily get rid of a moderately significant link in its transportation grid?” said Clark Williams-Derry, 38, research director at Sightline Institute, a research center in Seattle, who helped the coalition refine its proposal. “Can it be done politically? Can it be done substantively? What’s clear is that it can be done substantively.”

 

When it was opened in 1953, the 2.2-mile-long viaduct represented the country’s economic development priorities, providing drivers efficient routes from the central city to growing suburbs. Similar shoreline freeways were built in New York, Boston, San Francisco, Portland, Cleveland and other cities.

 

But in the early years of the 21st century, Seattle’s old wall of concrete has come to be viewed as a barrier to the city’s quality of life. The viaduct has been accused of various civic offenses, including separating residents from easy access to natural resources, especially a spectacular shoreline.

 

“No one in the civilized world would build a double-decker freeway now on their beautiful waterfront if they had a good choice, which we do,” said Sally Bagshaw, a lawyer, downtown resident and co-author of a report describing various plans for replacing the viaduct with a tunnel and waterfront park.

 

But what Ms. Bagshaw calls a no-brainer is viewed as a potential calamity by many merchants in Pioneer Square, the historic section of Seattle close to the viaduct. “The people I know aren’t ready to swallow a tunnel,” said John Siscoe, who owns the Globe Bookstore, citing cost overruns and delays experienced during Boston’s $14.6 billion tunneling project known as the Big Dig. “Oh, boy, what a mess we would be buying. Of all the options, we should forget the tunnel.”

 

Yet as city and state leaders argue over whether to build a tunnel or a new viaduct, the idea of doing neither seems to be gaining credence as the experiences of other cities that faced similar turning points are brought into the discussion. Cleveland is replacing the western section of its Memorial Shoreway, along Lake Erie, with a boulevard that is intended to spur development. Buffalo is debating whether to build a boulevard in place of its elevated Skyway along Lake Erie. Washington is considering demolishing its elevated Whitehurst Expressway to link Georgetown to a new park along the Potomac River.

 

Milwaukee has already done so. The city spent $45 million to tear down the East Park Thruway in 2003, restored the street grid beneath it and freed up nearly 20 acres of land on the north side. “The hardest part was convincing people that the highway wasn’t needed,” said John Norquist, a former mayor of Milwaukee and now president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, a design and planning group in Chicago. “What happens is that traffic, for the most part, redistributes. Drivers have brains. They find other ways to get around.”

 

Cary Moon, an engineer and planner who directs the People’s Waterfront Coalition from her downtown Seattle apartment, said that regardless of what is built, the viaduct would be coming down. For three or four years, there will be no highway at all along the waterfront. Seattle’s traffic management plan calls for new transit service, improving streets, installing street signals and encouraging people to find alternatives. The city’s plan is similar to the one proposed by Ms. Moon’s group. “We’re going to find out that’s all we really need,” she said.

I guess the folks in Seattle didn't see what a mess the "Big Dig" did to Boston, along with "Big Dig 2": the project making I-93 go underground through downtown. Of course that is Mass DOT. :)

 

I don't know Seattle that well so I'm wondering if the viaduct expwy. is that necessary. $1 billion sounds like another Big Dig debacle to me.

I guess the folks in Seattle didn't see what a mess the "Big Dig" did to Boston, along with "Big Dig 2": the project making I-93 go underground through downtown. Of course that is Mass DOT. :)

 

I don't know Seattle that well so I'm wondering if the viaduct expwy. is that necessary. $1 billion sounds like another Big Dig debacle to me.

 

Agreed!

I imagine there second option would be very expensive do to implementing earthquake resistant construction.

 

Got a postcard in the mail today saying there is a neighborhood meeting Thursday, Jan. 25 at St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church, 9509 Lake Avenue, Cleveland.

 

They'll be presenting, discussing design options. Doors open at 5 p.m.Presentation at 6 p.m. and Q&A at 7 p.m.

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/lakefrontwest/lakefronthome.htm

See the blurb about the public hearing on Thursday, after my diatribe ...

 

Check out the visuals in the Jan. 11 PowerPoint presentation at:

http://www.innerbelt.org/Lakefrontwest/Lakefronthome.htm

 

Again, all but one of these looks like something suburban. Why is it wrong for traffic to go on the existing portion of Lake Avenue between West Boulevard and Clifton? Instead, most ODOT options would make Lake into a cul-de-sac or a marginal road like something in Mentor or Strongsville. If putting downtown bound traffic past existing Lake Avenue homes and driveways is OK west of West Boulevard, why isn't OK east of West Boulevard??   :weird:

 

________________________

 

DOT seeks comments on Lake Ave.-W. Boulevard intersection

 

11:53 a.m.

 

The public is invited to discuss plans for improving the intersection of Lake Avenue and West Boulevard. The Ohio Department of Transportation and city officials will present a design plan and seek comments at a meeting set for 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday at St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church, 9509 Lake Avenue. ODOT and the city want to connect Cleveland's West Side neighborhoods to the lakefront by building multiple routes to Ohio 2, also known as the West Shoreway.

I went to a meeting for this last summer. Some Lake Ave people showed up and said that the entire project was stupid just because of its impact on their portion of Lake. Of course this is to be expected, but I certainly hope that ODOT doesn't feel that these people are in the majority.

 

 

Bummer.....

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1169804348140120.xml&coll=2

 

Residents prefer keeping ramps to enlarging Edgewater Park

Friday, January 26, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Prospects of more green space at Edgewater Park appear to be losing to traffic fears in the Cudell and Edgewater neighborhoods.

 

Residents told the Ohio Department of Transportation and city planners last night they want to keep more of the West Shoreway ramps than early proposals called for in the Lakefront West project, a $65 million plan to convert the 50-mph Shoreway to a 35-mph boulevard by 2011...

 

^^That's stupid because the minute you stick traffic lights on the Shoreway, all those Lakewood and Rocky River drivers are going to go a different route, imho.

  I was at the meeting last night for a brief time (had to get back to the fire station) and I must say, after looking at all the proposals that were displayed, Westbrooks is the only one that made any sense.  Every plan that ODOT had on display looked as if it would make that area more of a clusterf*%K than it needed to be.  It just seemed as if the "improvements" would only make that area more dangerous for pedestrians and not really do anything except waste taxpayers money. 

  The short time I WAS there though, I did manage to ruffle the feathers of a few ODOTians.  I was one of the early ones there, so it was obvious that I was looking at each proposal before the presentation.  I was approached by a few people from ODOT and was asked which one I thought was best.  I LOVED watching the dismay when I answered they are ALL bad!  When asked why I came to this opinion, I stated that ODOT, RTA, and the city are really dropping the ball on this project by not including an alternative in the plan.  I went on to say that it seems EVERY plan that comes out to the public is ALWAYS an autocentric one.  If traffic reduction is a concern, what better way to reduce it than to reduce the numbers of cars using it.  (again..a puzzled look)  Stating that the Clifton corridor has MANY downtown employees living within a few blocks, and that Clifton once did, and still can ac comadate rail lines, why wasn't this part of the plan?  It would promote mass transit (in an area that people actually live and is highly visible...unlike the WFL and Red line), reduce the number of cars using the corridor, and relieve parking needs downtown as well.  Here are the answers I received in response.....

1) People won't ride trains...there is already enough problems getting people to use the BUS!  my response: because busses can be cramped during rush hour and unlike trains...a bus is STILL in the same traffic that you are trying to relieve.

 

2)Rail lines are very expensive to initiate ME:  maybe Ohio should look to Portland, St Louis, and Pittsburgh to see how they are funding their efforts

 

3) There may be plans for BRT in the future ME: isn't that still a bus...that still waits in traffic?

 

4) Finally, Westbrook overheard my concerns and stated that there is talk of a commuter rail line but that it would be WAY down the road.  I asked if he was referring to the Lorain/Cleveland line...(he seemed almost shocked that I knew of it)  He asked if I needed any web links to read up on it, I thanked him and politely said yes, but I also said there is PLENTY of info on a site that I have been reading for some time called Urbanohio.com   He was like hmmmmm....never heard of that one.

 

  Just about that time I threw up in my mouth and decided I had better return to the station.  My efforts were like trying to explain trigonometry to my brothers third grade class.  How sad!