Euclid Avenue is the main street of Cleveland, and most cities' main streets are not given over to industry.  That is not what "Main Street" is for, not on any level or in any situation.  The logic of this is so compelling, to most people, that I don't think I need to expand on it further.  I disagree strongly with your general view of Midtown but I won't get into that here.

 

I think you have mistaken my position regarding this or that industrial building on the bluff.  I'm not at all opposed to redeveloping these, particularly if the surrounding context indicates that industry is no longer the highest and best use for that area.  Clearly, such is the case with Battery Park.  The remediation numbers for something like this are a factor, but not necessarily a controlling one.  Don't conflate Battery Park with the West Shoreway.  I wasn't attempting to analyze BP's situation last week, only the shoreway proposal.  Each one is a different thing in a different context... so each one merits a different approach. 

 

The industry north of the shoreway, as well as elsewhere along our waterfront(s), is of a different class.  There is no way Euclid Ave or Battery Park, on the whole, would have remediation costs comparable with the heavier waterfront industries.  Nobody ever refined oil or made atom bombs on Euclid Avenue. 

 

There are and were limits to how filthy you can get without... sadly... an adjacent water source to dump in.  So these "reinventing the wheel" issues are far more significant when we're dealing with waterfront industries.  This is the case with the West Shoreway boulevard conversion, though not with Battery Park, which is not itself adjacent to any heavy waterfront industries.

take a look at these maps and tell me "where the industry is", and which is easier to develop as residential neighborhoods.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1020+Huron+Rd+E,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio+44115&ll=41.485273,-81.733775&spn=0.0077,0.021093&t=h&z=16

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1020+Huron+Rd+E,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio+44115&ll=41.504062,-81.648159&spn=0.007697,0.021093&t=h&z=16

 

euclid avenue in midtown has been primarily "industry" for about 100 years.  the shoreway conversion can dramatically impact everything west of w. 58th st, and the southern edge of the shoreway between 58th and 25th.

the shoreway conversion can dramatically impact everything west of w. 58th st, and the southern edge of the shoreway between 58th and 25th.

 

It sure could, but my notion of its "impact" is different than yours.

 

Look, you're attacking an argument I never made and a position I don't hold.  I never said we shouldn't redevelop D-S or BP.  I was talking specifically about the West Shoreway ROW and what we should or shouldn't do with that.  The context of that ROW is different from the context of neighborhood that is located up a cliff from it.  My point is that these two very different things may never interact in the way some are hoping for, which to me reduces the ROI of doing this conversion. 

No they made Batteries...hence the name battery park. 

 

Where battery park is being placed used to have the worlds largest battery factory.....and of course lead needs no remediation, not like oil or anything?

 

why don't you just say "this will affect my commute negatively" and leave it at that? 

 

Going from 50 mph to 35 mph = 50% reduction in speed and a battery factory <> heavy industry...... you are not doing yourself or your arguments any favors.

 

Go here http://www.edgewaterpark.net/Some%20Edgewater%20History.htm and scroll down a little bit and check out the photo....Edgewater park as it existed in the past would sit completely under the current shoreway.

 

The parkview tavern used to sit just above a little park that was right on the lake...Just like Burke and the Port land, pretty much everything out from the bluff is landfill.  Which is why people making the helpful suggestion that we should close down burke and build on it are just plain stupid.  It is a toxic landfill,  it is the dredgings of the Cuyahoga....from the time when it was used as an open industrial sewer.

 

Edgewater used to look a lot like Hunnington beach in Bay village, very small beach, hard up against the bluff.

 

We already re-invented the wheel once...we turned a beach into a highway, and highly desirable residential land into industrial...we have also turned incredibly productive farmland into industrial/commercial/residential.

 

We are now in the process of changing Industrial/commercial into residential.

 

We (or at least I) get it...this will affect you negatively, so you don't like it very much.

 

It affects me positively.  and more importantly it is a positive for Cleveland.  If it negatively affects Lakewood and Rocky River......well they haven't been so concerned about the decline of Cleveland (I grew up in RR)  so my sympathy meter is pegged at 0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well then I guess I still don't know what you're talking about...

 

"If nothing else, consider that it's inefficient and costly to constantly reinvent the wheel.  We can put industrial parks and "new industry" on these former factory sites a lot easier (and more safely) than we can put neighborhods there."

 

These former factory sites, are south of the shoreway.  They are prime for conversion to add to already existing neighborhood.

Well then I guess I still don't know what you're talking about...

 

"If nothing else, consider that it's inefficient and costly to constantly reinvent the wheel.  We can put industrial parks and "new industry" on these former factory sites a lot easier (and more safely) than we can put neighborhods there."

 

These former factory sites, are south of the shoreway.  They are prime for conversion to add to already existing neighborhood.

 

I hope you didn't stew about this all weekend.  I guess it's my fault for dealign with more than one issue at a time.

Believe it or not, that quote was a throwaway line, one of many examples I raised to illustrate my main point, a point which had nothing to do with BP.  What is the thread title?  Not BP.  Up till that point, I don't believe BP had entered our discussion about the west shoreway and I had no intention of bringing it in via that line.  I was highlighting my overarching point about context.  I was not making a covert dig at BP and I apologize for not clarifying.

 

FWIW I'm inclined to believe BP could be a lot closer to done right now if its location were 100% appropriate for such a thing.  That doesn't make the site inappropriate... it's just a factor to be weighed.  And I did mention last week, didn't I, that even if remdiation isn't prohibitive it's still a cost, and it has to come out of some budget somewhere. 

 

Anyway, there's nothing to be remediated, that I know of, in converting the shoreway to a family recreation area... but that doesn't mean the context is real good for that idea either.  Again, two different issues, with commonalities and distinctions.  No matter how hard you try, you can't make me be opposed Battery Park.  I'm not.  I'm opposed to the boulevard conversion.

 

why don't you just say "this will affect my commute negatively" and leave it at that? 

 

Going from 50 mph to 35 mph = 50% reduction in speed and a battery factory <> heavy industry...... you are not doing yourself or your arguments any favors.

 

We (or at least I) get it...this will affect you negatively, so you don't like it very much.

 

It affects me positively.  and more importantly it is a positive for Cleveland.  If it negatively affects Lakewood and Rocky River......well they haven't been so concerned about the decline of Cleveland (I grew up in RR)  so my sympathy meter is pegged at 0.

 

Well, that's... one way... to reduce a complex issue.  No one shall consider anything outside of their immediate interests, eh?  The narrative setup of Donkey Kong has more depth.

 

My commute is a rail commute from the east side, so that's not the deal here.  As always, you don't have to believe me.  Go ahead... fiddle with the speed numbers.  Same argument still applies.  If you go from unenforced 50 (which=70) to enforced 35 (enforced since it's new), that's 50%.  I thought we'd already been through that.

 

Go ahead... assert that the construction of Battery Park negates every possible environmental concern anyone might raise.  Ignore the fact that there have always been houses near the Eveready plant, but that the same can't be said for the upriver flats.  There are no distinctions between these two things, industry is industry, regardless of how many different kinds of industrial zoning Clevleand has.  Is that what you're saying?

 

What really matters is "boulevard vibrant greenspace" or some such combination of buzzwords. Any argument that raises issues outside this paradigm must have some "automatic win" button in it somewhere, right?  Attack the speaker ad hominem!  That always works.  Because the buzzword paradigm shall prevail. 

I think we are making progress...

the west shoreway conversion has everything to do with battery park, and any future like developments, which the shoreway conversion is attempting to encourage.

 

remediation is an issue just about everywhere in cleveland, this is the result of being a city that was born and had accelerated development during the industrial revolution.

the west shoreway conversion has everything to do with battery park, and any future like developments, which the shoreway conversion is attempting to encourage.

 

remediation is an issue just about everywhere in cleveland, this is the result of being a city that was born and had accelerated development during the industrial revolution.

 

As to both statements I partially agree and partially disagree. 

 

I don't think this will help BP to the extent others do, because I think its utility in its proposed role is more limited than others do.  That is largely an industrial issue, though it's not at all a remediation issue.  Two.  Separate.  Things.  This here is not an issue of former industry.  This is an issue of currently active industry, which isn't going anywhere, and whether or not the land immediately adjacent to it is our best choice for casual recreation. 

 

My last point on remediation is that no, it's not even close to being the same kind of issue for every plot of land in Cleveland.  If that were true we couldn't live here.  Some plots are a lot dirtier than others.  I don't understand how this particular issue is controversial.

Your right, some plots are a lot dirtier than others... which is why I found it absolutely perplexing that you were bringing the harshaw chemical plant located by the steel mills off Harvard Road, into any sort of conversation about the West Shoreway.  None of the properties targeted for reinvestment via the shoreway project are anywhere near something like that.  They are extremely similar to the battery park development.

That is nonsense Go from unenforced to enforced.  You don't get to just "make stuff up"

 

50 to 35 <> 50%  70 to 50 <> 50%....so you give your side of the argument the most favorable treatment and the opposing side the worst?

 

I don't need to "fiddle" with any numbers....it has already been done for you, more than once in this very thread...the ACTUAL numbers, no fiddling necessary.

 

The Shoreway from West Blvd to E 6th is less than 3.5 miles, so slowing down from 60mph to 40mph should reduce free flow traffic travel time from about 3.5 minutes to...5 mins, no?

 

It is telling that you need to Fiddle, discount direct counter examples and pretty much just make stuff up.

 

You sir are not discussing in good faith.

 

Battery Factory = heavy industry and requires remediation.....how hard is it for you to even consider conceding a  point?

 

Your argument was that the area north of the shoreway was comprised of heavy industry and required so much remediation that any other use was not worthy of considering.......The area SOUTH of the shoreway also consists of heavy industry....which has been successfully remediated and re purposed for residential use.

 

Properties in battery park are selling for north of $200,000 (prices starts at $200,00 and rise rapidly from there) the next 2 projects to the west are selling for 240,00 to 350,000.

 

How many neighborhoods in cleveland can claim that?  especially considering it is the former site of a battery plant and not some (relatively) clean warehouse or a former greenhouse? 

 

Downtown, Tremont, edgewater (north of Clifton/lake) perhaps Westpark? 

 

This project will Improve

 

Detroit shoreway.

Edgwater

Cudell

Ohio city

Everybody's access to Edgewater.

 

at the minor inconvenience of northern lakewood and possibly rocky river.

 

See, I concede the point that commute times from lakewood will increase.

 

Look I will even concede a secondary point....during rush hours the "accordion" affect of traffic WILL increase the commute times by more than the 2 minutes..the delay will be exacerbated the further north and west you are.

 

It will also cause some people to decide to use 90 instead of the shoreway for thier commute.

 

This will cause slightly longer commute times on 90.

 

See I can accept that 2 minutes isn't the "complete answer" 

 

but at 5 minutes or even 10 minutes in aggregate, it is worth it.....not  only is it worth it to me, the powers that be have determined that it is worth it overall.

 

ODOT, US Dept of transportation, NOACA, Cuyahoga county.....have all been given some sort of opportunity at input, and the project has been deemed worthy.

 

Allright Ksonic99, my point about the speed has now been soundly defeated by you.  With your sword.  Now what about the rest of the issues?  And have you yet read the part about no I don't live there and I'm not fighting for my own commuting convenience... because you were pretty sure about it earlier. 

 

You seem extremely concerned with defeating me because you like this project and I don't.  That's my read of your position, but I'm not going to suggest you're attempting to mislead everyone, even though you've already stated quite clearly (and falsely) where I live. 

 

Stick to the issues.

 

Your right, some plots are a lot dirtier than others... which is why I found it absolutely perplexing that you were bringing the harshaw chemical plant located by the steel mills off Harvard Road, into any sort of conversation about the West Shoreway.  None of the properties targeted for reinvestment via the shoreway project are anywhere near something like that.  They are extremely similar to the battery park development.

 

But... but ... the shoreway is still right by the salt mine and the tugboat factory, regardless of any remediation issues or lack thereof.  That's my actual point and has been all along.  I keep trying to tell you there is no remediation issue with the shoreway... that was noted an example of a type of thinking... it is not a specific issue involving the shoreway, and never was.  I'm talking about the present and future of industry along the shoreway, not the past.  These arguments are not directed at anything up the cliff from the shoreway. 

 

I keep mentioning this "up the cliff from" element because that's part of my reasoning in suggesting that the shoreway conversion may not be as beneficial as is hoped.  These neighborhoods are physically separated from the lake by a lot more than just the shoreway, and changing the shoreway will not change the basic geography of the situation.

"Go ahead... fiddle with the speed numbers.  Same argument still applies.  If you go from unenforced 50 (which=70) to enforced 35 (enforced since it's new), that's 50%.  I thought we'd already been through that."

 

Are "unenforced" and "enforced" speeds something engineers and consider when analyzing queueing systems?  Do cops decide to enforce speed limits in "new" areas only?  Have you ever driven 70 miles per hour on the somewhat narrow and curvaceous shoreway bridge (by the stadium) in any direction?  Especially when there is a higher volume of traffic?

 

If you tell me you have served in the fields of engineering, traffic enforcement, and racecar driving I am on board with your argument. 

and where has anyone said, that the shoreway is supposed to do anything about the tugboat factory and salt mine?  and because that area exists, it's not worth it to help rebuild all the other areas around it to the south, and increase access to the public lakefront that does exist? :wtf:

I keep mentioning this "up the cliff from" element because that's part ot my reasoning in suggesting that the shoreway conversion may not be as beneficial as is hoped.  These neighborhoods are physically separated from the lake by a lot more than just the shoreway, and changing the shoreway will not change the basic geography of the situation.

 

Yes...and Hunnington beach is separated from Bay Village by a cliff.

 

The cliff isn't the impediment...it is the 6 lane divided highway.  with 1.5 access points over a 3 mile span.  65th is the only one that anyone currently actually uses, and the only one anyone not walking CAN use.  no bikes, no rollerblades, no wheel chairs, no strollers.

 

 

 

 

 

"Go ahead... fiddle with the speed numbers.  Same argument still applies.  If you go from unenforced 50 (which=70) to enforced 35 (enforced since it's new), that's 50%.  I thought we'd already been through that."

 

Are "unenforced" and "enforced" speeds something engineers and consider when analyzing queueing systems?  Do cops decide to enforce speed limits in "new" areas only?  Have you ever driven 70 miles per hour on the somewhat narrow and curvaceous shoreway bridge (by the stadium) in any direction?  Especially when there is a higher volume of traffic?

 

If you tell me you have served in the fields of engineering, traffic enforcement, and racecar driving I am on board with your argument. 

 

And if thats the argument than Im even more for decreasing the speed limit just for safety reasons alone.  70mph is way too fast for such a short and curvy stretch. :| 

and where has anyone said, that the shoreway is supposed to do anything about the tugboat factory and salt mine?  and because that area exists, it's not worth it to help rebuild all the other areas around it to the south, and increase access to the public lakefront that does exist? :wtf:

 

No, all those things are good, but none of them require any major alteration to the shoreway, and I don't think a major alteration to the shoreway will advance those causes much.  We appear to disagree on that.  So be it.  My point about the tugboats and the mine is not that the shoreway project should "do" anything about them... just that their presence should be considered when we consider the shoreway. 

 

In short, I think there's a stronger relationship between the shoreway and what's north of it, than between the shoreway and what's south of it.  And I don't believe we can do much to change those relationships, because the issues involved-- primarily the location of the tugboats and mine, and of the RR tracks-- are constants and not variables.

and where has anyone said, that the shoreway is supposed to do anything about the tugboat factory and salt mine?  and because that area exists, it's not worth it to help rebuild all the other areas around it to the south, and increase access to the public lakefront that does exist? :wtf:

 

No, all those things are good, but none of them require any major alteration to the shoreway, and I don't think a major alteration to the shoreway will advance those causes much.  We appear to disagree on that.  So be it.  My point about the tugboats and the mine is not that the shoreway project should "do" anything about them... just that their presence should be considered when we consider the shoreway. 

 

In short, I think there's a stronger relationship between the shoreway and what's north of it, than between the shoreway and what's south of it.  And I don't believe we can do much to change those relationships, because the issues involved-- primarily the location of the tugboats and mine, and of the RR tracks-- are constants and not variables.

Developers disagree with you as well.  and i don't see the point of holding back all the potential great impact because of the roughly 1/3 stretch of land to the north which has a salt mine.  Actually i think it's kind of cool to be able to look out your window, or sit on a restaurant patio and watch the activity at the salt mine.  And the shroreway has almost no interaction with the salt mines to the north.

I see you completely ignore the other things north of the shoreway..

 

Like 2 parks and 3 marinas.  which occupy more area than the salt mine/tugboat factory.

 

And while the salt mine probably isnt going any where any time soon....perhaps with increased access the tugboat factory might find it better to sell the land they have now and move over to scranton peninusula or the port land.....hell if you make the property valuable enough there is nothing stopping the sale of the land the mine head occupies to a developer.  all of the salt is miles under the lake  there is no real need to have the mine head where it is except that is where it has always been.

 

 

.....hell if you make the property valuable enough there is nothing stopping the sale of the land the mine head occupies to a developer. all of the salt is miles under the lake there is no real need to have the mine head where it is except that is where it has always been.

 

And the ENORMOUS expense of moving a vertical mine shaft entrance to another location.

Oh and I was using "you" the same way you were...

 

Placing yourself in the shoes of somebody having to exit their driveway onto clifton during rush hour...that was pretty much your argument until it got crushed.

 

You kept putting yourself there, to the detriment of everybody who will benefit from this...then you spent 3 pages defending your made up numbers.

 

What have we deconstructed so far.

 

speed

heavy industry/remediation

grade separation

 

You are also completely ignoring that the plan will now have a multi purpose trail from West blvd to west 25th st.

 

which means there is actually an opportunity to ride your bike from the near west side to edge of downtown (the end of the Detroit superior bridge)  without having to fear riding in traffic, and at some point connecting to the towpath trail.

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if there are also amenities along the shoreway, because their existence does not cancel out that of the industry.  And they're reachable thru other means.  WestBLVD explained this aspect very nicely last week. 

 

That tugboat factory just made a major investment in their facilities here, which is why the Whiskey Island alternative for the port move was summarily dropped.  They aren't leaving.  And are you suggesting the mine have all its operations off shore?  Bottom line, that stuff is not mobile.

 

And looking out your window at something is very different from extending a family walking path right up next to it and making major changes to the adjacent roadway.  Clearly you guys believe there will be a lot of beneficial impact from slowing down this road and putting in sidewalks... I disagree.  And that's leaving aside the issues of negative impacts, on which we also disagree.  I'm happy to clarify my position, but I'm not sure anyone's convincing anyone of anything here.  A lot of it rests on our underlying views and theories.

 

And Mr. Ksonic, I'm not sure anyone got "crushed."  The Clifton thing actually happened, it was not a suggestion or prediction.  I did once live in Lakewood and commute on this road.  I no longer do... just to get that cleared up.  But the traffic backups a couple years ago were quite real.  Your statement about my commuting motivation suggested that I've been dishonest here to protect a personal interest.  Again, stick to the issues.  And realize that your view of the scorecard is your own, as it is for each of us.

wow...cant win the argument attack the person.

 

fair enough.

 

I used to live at 104 and lake....I have made the West shoreway commute.

 

my anecdote is just as valid as yours.

Does it matter for the purposes of this admittedly circular argument that neither Cargill nor Great Lakes Towing uses the West Shoreway except for access to the W. 28th and W. 25th ramps, all of which will be improved because of the West Shoreway project?

Let's cool it down or we'll lock and clean up the thread.

wow...cant win the argument attack the person.

 

fair enough.

 

I used to live at 104 and lake....I have made the West shoreway commute.

 

Is there an echo?  I've been fielding ad hominem material all day here, and I don't recall dishing much out.  If you don't like my numbers, supply numbers of your own.  Don't go after me because you don't like the assumptions I made.  Tell us why they're wrong... not why I'm bad.

 

And again, traffic backups on Clifton were a reality in the recent past.  I was there.  I was coming from Warren Rd, and by the time I got to 104 I had already been creeping for 1/2 hour sometimes.  It varied.  I stated last week that the further west one enters the road, the more backup one will deal with, because the bottleneck was at the eastern end then, as it would theoretically be under this plan.  By 104 we'd almost gotten through the entire backup, because once we finally got on the freeway part we got moving again in a hurry. 

I dunno, this has been remarkably mild for an internet "discussion"

 

The inter-tubes don't do nuance,  My wife and I end up "fighting" over e-mail when we are saying the same thing.  I suspect that this happens quite a bit to most people.

 

...the smiley face is not the end all be all.

 

I will tell you this Mr. 327  reading your comments next to a bug eyed, vein popping avatar adds a certain "flavor" to your comments--he looks a lot like my uncle Jimmy who gets drunk at thanksgiving and rants about how the world has gone to heck.  It is your choice, but if you want a better level of discourse you might want to switch to a puppy....nobody I know would "kick" a puppy, just sayin'.

I had no idea Captain Kirk would affect people so!  Live and learn.

I'm just still curious why the cargile salt mines are such an impediment or reason for not doing anything with the shoreway?  They don't really use the shoreway.  They aren't even really that close to the shoreway.  there's the garret morgan water treatment plant, the river, and then the salt mine and tug boat factory.  And yet we're supposed to believe that their very existence should prohibit doing anything with this road or land to the south and west of it? Or that their existence should mean that no person should ever walk or bike anywhere within a 1 mile radius of it?  Perhaps we should close down wendy park... wwwwaayyyy to close to those operations.

 

 

I will tell you this Mr. 327 reading your comments next to a bug eyed, vein popping avatar adds a certain "flavor" to your comments--he looks a lot like my uncle Jimmy who gets drunk at thanksgiving and rants about how the world has gone to heck. It is your choice, but if you want a better level of discourse you might want to switch to a puppy....nobody I know would "kick" a puppy, just sayin'.

 

Hmmm....

Again, land to the south is not involved in my argument, unless you mean something like 10 yards to the south of the ROW.  And I hadn't even mentioned the treatment plant, good call.  There's another thing that makes its immediate area less than ideal for outdoor recreation.  I'm not saying you can't possibly have outdoor recreation next to a salt mine, and a treatment plant, and a tugboat factory.  It just wouldn't top my list of investment ideas.  My theory is that we should locate things, all things, where we can get the most out of them, and where each thing can be the best thing it can be.

but land to the south is the targeted investment area, that's the point of the project.  and the shoreway conversion will aid in that investment.  and with 2/3 of the land to the north edgewater park... well... Have you even looked at the target investment areas?

Have you even looked at the target investment areas?

 

Not only am I personally familiar, I've sat through long and detailed reports about them.

 

I think this is about played out.  We agree on some points.  The neighborhoods will benefit from additional access to the shoreway.  I'm wholly in favor of that.  It's the speed limit and the re-configuration I don't like, and I'm not the only person with that opinion, even though I pretty much am the only one in this here sample. 

 

Please note that I used to be in favor of the entire project, traffic lights and all, but in my efforts to convince others I found myself convinced by them.  It happens... and it's the reason I believe in really talking things through.  I always appreciate when others are willing to join in that.  No matter who "wins" I think this ultimately leads to better decisions and a stronger community.       

Fuzzy math aside, I noticed a surveying crew working on Clifton between the Shoreway and West Blvd today. 

 

Hopefully it's a part of the design money for the Clifton to W 117th project and will get the street at least redone, with nice new sidewalks, crossing and maybe a median (and a paltry 35 MPH sort-of enforced speed limit)?

^They need to make Clifton FEEL like a 35 mph street.  People will drive as fast as they feel comfortable.  It's pretty easy to get up to 50 mph on Clifton since it feels like a 6 lane highway at times.  A median would help.

Clifton needs a trolley.  That's the reason it's so wide in the first place.

Clifton was a two-lane road when the streetscars ran down both sides of it (one track or 12 feet per side). The street had huge front yards along it which were cut back to widen the road to a seven-lane boulevard in the late 1940s.

Interesting... we lost the trolleys and added more lanes, though not necessarily at the same time.  Time to put the trolleys back.

Where did the trolleys run to and from?  All the way to DT or was it a shorter route? 

Where did the trolleys run to and from?  All the way to DT or was it a shorter route? 

 

Two separate rail services used the Clifton tracks. One was the Cleveland Railway Co. (predecessor to the Cleveland Transit System and later RTA), which operated the city's streetcar system. Its operation down Clifton began at the carbarns just east of the Detroit Ave bridge over the Rocky River (where the apartment buildings are now). They ran northward up Sloane Avenue to West Clifton, under the Nickel Plate RR (today's Norfolk Southern), then east on Clifton to Lake (at Don's Lighthouse Grill), then down Detroit Avenue and through the subway deck of the Detroit-Superior Bridge. The Clifton streetcar line ended service on Nov. 16, 1947 and was replaced by buses.

 

The second rail service to use these tracks was the Lake Shore Electric, an electric interurban railway. Until May 15, 1938 it used all of the above routing of the Cleveland Railway Co. West of Rocky River, the LSE traveled on its own 80-mph double-track electrified routing about 500-2000 feet south of Lake Avenue, all the way to Lorain. It had two branches to Elyria. From Lorain, the LSE continued west on single track on two routes -- one through Sandusky and the other through Norwalk before coming back together at Fremont to head to Toledo. Through another electric interurban, the LSE offered through service to Detroit. It offered passenger and light-freight services.

 

Interesting... we lost the trolleys and added more lanes, though not necessarily at the same time. Time to put the trolleys back.

 

Yes, at the same time. We lost the streetcar tracks on Clifton to gain the added lanes.

 

As noted above, streetcar service on Clifton ended in November 1947. This photo was taken in the winter of 1948 as road construction plans by Cuyahoga County Engineer Albert Porter were finalized. This view looks west on Clifton from West 117th Street. The streetcar tracks are inactive, awaiting removal when spring comes...

 

 

County Engineer construction crews can be seen working in 1948 on widening Clifton on the Cleveland side of West 117th Street, again looking west into Lakewood where work has yet to begin....

 

 

This is how wide Clifton was in 1941 -- two lanes with huge lawns and the unique side of the road operation of the Cleveland Railway Co. (and Lake Shore Electric before 1938).....

 

Interesting... we lost the trolleys and added more lanes, though not necessarily at the same time. Time to put the trolleys back.

 

Yes, at the same time. We lost the streetcar tracks on Clifton to gain the added lanes.

 

 

So, at no point were commuters just told to shove it... we switched modes, quite wrongly, but we never simply cut capacity on this route without replacing it. 

Sigh, is there any way any of this could be revived?

Interesting... we lost the trolleys and added more lanes, though not necessarily at the same time.  Time to put the trolleys back.

 

Yes, at the same time. We lost the streetcar tracks on Clifton to gain the added lanes.

 

 

So, at no point were commuters just told to shove it... we switched modes, quite wrongly, but we never simply cut capacity on this route without replacing it. 

 

Yet in 1950 the city population was double (perhaps more) what it is now.  So the capacity issues were vastly different, especially on the Clifton stretch of the city border.

 

I don't buy this argument of affecting a commute by adding a median to Clifton or the Shoreway. 

 

Humans are adapting creatures.  Even those that live in outer-ring suburbs.  :)

Outer-ring suburbs like Lakewood, which itself is denser than many major cities?  This "us vs them" business is not helpful to anything we advocate.  It needs to go... at least in regard to freaking Lakewood.  Come on.

 

I realize some Lorain County folks will hop off 90 and onto the Clifton in a pinch... but it's not exactly a quick maneuver... are you suggesting Clifton gets substantial commuting use from exurbanites?  That's conceivable, but it seems unlikely.  I think it's mostly the northern end of the former Rockport Township that uses Clifton.  I-90 is too much more direct for people west of Rockport.

 

And in 1950 half the workforce stayed home, so that would presumably even out.  And I don't think the downtown workforce has shrunk proportionally... far fewer people work at small operations in the city and inner ring the way they used to.  Jobs now are seemingly more concentrated downtown and in the outer ring.

Wow. The intersection of 117th and Clifton looks about the same today (minus the streetcars of course) As far as the houses on Clifton go, yes the road is closer today, but it really doesn't look like they lost much in the front yards because of the rail beds.

Sure, got a few hundred million dollars sitting around?

 

We can discuss it more at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10253.0.html

 

I've enjoyed our sidetrack. Now back to the West Shoreway....

What really are the goals of this project?

 

Anyone who really thinks this will provide greater accessibility to Edgewater Park should look at the plan. There really aren't any new access points being added to Edgewater via tunnels or bridges. All we are getting is a spruced up version of the access points that already exist. If you want to get to the park, you will still access it through the same underpasses as you do today (lake/clifton, W 76th, W 65th).

 

Second point to make, a multi-purpose path ALREADY EXISTS between West Blvd and W 65th. The addition of a multi-purpose path along the shoreway from these two roads does NOT provide greater accessibility to the park as it BYPASSES the park to the south. The stretch of multi-purpose path being created from W 65th and to the east doesn't increase accessibility to Edgewater because the walking distance is still the same as if you took the sidewalk to W 65th and used that underpass. As I stated last week, the neighborhoods around W 45th to W 25th are over a mile from Edgewater. The amount of foot traffic that would use this section will be negligible.

 

I'm tired of this project being touted as an accessibility to Edgewater project. Where are the additional underpasses, bridges that people will use to access the park?

 

I'm also skeptical of a landscaped median. It's going to be hard to grow anything in this section of road because of the wind swept sand effect of Edgewater and the salting necessary to keep this stretch of road going in winter. I'm afraid we'll have a landscaped median that looks like the dead, brown grass median of Chester Ave.

WestBlvd - you can't just pick & choose the items about the project that you don't like, and then classify the entire thing as a boondoggle.  What about the ramp reconfiguring at 25th & 28th?  What about the underpass at 73rd?  The connection at 54th?  Your comment that the ramps at Clifton & W. 76th are fine?  Seriously?  I  walked down the 76th tunnel last night and it was a mess.  Dark, damp, crumbling stairs is your idea of fine accessibility?  People who have lived in this area for years and have recently bought in want & deserve more.  Edgewater is one of the city's best assets and should be promoted as such.  Now it's like an afterthought and if people can get down there fine, if not fine.

 

Surprised to see you're a student in the MUPPD program at CSU.  So am I. 

WestBlvd - you can't just pick & choose the items about the project that you don't like, and then classify the entire thing as a boondoggle. What about the ramp reconfiguring at 25th & 28th? What about the underpass at 73rd? The connection at 54th? Your comment that the ramps at Clifton & W. 76th are fine? Seriously? I walked down the 76th tunnel last night and it was a mess. Dark, damp, crumbling stairs is your idea of fine accessibility? People who have lived in this area for years and have recently bought in want & deserve more. Edgewater is one of the city's best assets and should be promoted as such. Now it's like an afterthought and if people can get down there fine, if not fine.

 

Surprised to see you're a student in the MUPPD program at CSU. So am I.

 

Yes, the underpasses and tunnels definitely need to be redone, but the point is that they don't provide greater accessibility. If you used to access the park from that access point, then you will access it from the same point when the project is completed. I would have really liked to have seen this project provide more pedestrian access to Edgewater, and frankly it doesn't to the level that it's being hyped as.

 

The reconfiguration of W 25th/W 28th, is just that, a reconfiguration.

 

The only real plus from this that I see, is added vehicular access from W 76th. But then again, if you lived in Battery Park, would you really need to drive down to Edgewater?

 

I would really like to see a better plan unveiled for the shoreway project. I just feel that Cleveland is getting ripped off by a not so great design, that in the end isn't going to benefit a lot of people.

WestBlvd - you can't just pick & choose the items about the project that you don't like, and then classify the entire thing as a boondoggle.  

 

Yes you can.  You absolutely can.  If we were to do something less elaborate here, like fix up the tunnels and provide some additional shoreway access, that leaves us (or the state, whomever) with more money for other things.  It's not like we don't have a backlog of projects that need funded.

 

And I'm beginning to wonder which text at CSU MUPPD says "thrown down some grass and some automotive barriers" to develop a city.  That seems to be the thrust of everything I hear these days.  It's always the same story, slow driving and empty grassland are what makes a city great.  And heavy industry is so yesterday that even going concerns must yield to the interests of vibrant greenspace.  I will say though that some of these ideas sound fantastic for Galveston. 

 

This here is a northern industrial port, and I'm sorry, but most of our urban development successes are going to involve structures and indoor amenities.  Less like a Mediterranean resort... more like London.  Again, I'm very sorry to point this out.  But there you go.