38 minutes ago, X said:

 

Both the Shoreway and Lakeside are wildly overbuilt for the amount of traffic they carry.  While they should do a traffic study, of course, I doubt there would be any serious issue getting to Downtown because of this.  It will make cutting across the Shoreway to get to the westside slower, for sure.  But should that be a priority?

 I don't have data, so my impression about how much the traffic on Lakeside would increase may be simply wrong. I don't see a problem with increasing the traffic on Lakeside somewhat. I'm just saying that if you end up with a LOT more traffic on Lakeside, even with crosswalks, you're sorta defeating the purpose of the land bridge.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

While I have no data to back up my position, my experience driving on Lakeside and driving on the Shoreway (both of which I do on a regular basis) leads me to believe this is not true. The shoreway isn't usually real crowded, but it's also a 60 mph stretch (that's how fast people go regardless of what the speed limit is). If you take those cars and make them go 25 instead, it would seem like a whole lot more of them.

 

Also anecdotally, when I lived downtown I liked running in this stretch because it was comparatively a ghost town. The mostly institutional uses meant far less traffic than the rest of downtown. It could easily handle the extra traffic from those passing through. They are also welcome to take I-90 instead.

 

56 minutes ago, bjk said:

We did a live traffic experiment - it was called "The Winter Soldier". It was a mess.

 

1. The second innerbelt bridge has opened since the filming of Winter Soldier adding 4 lanes of traffic to bypass downtown. And there are plans to rebuild the remainder of the innerbelt and Dead Man's curve to improve flow.

2. The Main Ave bridge was closed for filming. It would stay open with the current land bridge proposals.

39 minutes ago, bjk said:

We did a live traffic experiment - it was called "The Winter Soldier". It was a mess.

 

That also was filmed at the same time I-90's new Inner Belt bridges downtown were under construction (2011-16). Even if it wasn't, maybe a permanent, real rush hour might cause Clevelanders to change their living/working/commuting behaviors? It would make the proposed Haslam development and others like it in the core city more attractive and living in a sprawled-out metro area less attractive. The Shoreway and every thing we've built since has been in furtherance of sprawl. This project would start to reverse it.

 

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

That also was filmed at the same time I-90's new Inner Belt bridges downtown were under construction (2011-16). Even if it wasn't, maybe a permanent, real rush hour might cause Clevelanders to change their living/working/commuting behaviors? It would make the proposed Haslam development and others like it in the core city more attractive and living in a sprawled-out metro area less attractive. The Shoreway and every thing we've built since has been in furtherance of sprawl. This project would start to reverse it.

 

I took the Shoreway to work when that was getting rebuilt. The traffic maybe added five minutes to my commute and that five minutes was more because I was trying to go from the west side to the east side. The traffic into downtown would be hardly changed for it to be a real burden. I also agree with all of @KJPpoints. 

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Routing all of the shoreway's traffic to East 9th then down Lakeside. The overall goal is to have pedestrians be able to go to the lake without crossing a wall of cars. Well, by moving the traffic onto lakeside you are not only creating a traffic disaster for motorists (imagine the left turn lane from lakeside onto E. 9 during rush hour) but also effectively moving the wall of cars onto Lakeside. You're turning Lakeside--a road with heavy pedestrian crossings--into a boulevard that would have easily four to five times as much traffic as it currently does. It's like saying "Let's make a land bridge but then move the shoreway so that it's just south of the land bridge and you have to cross the shoreway to get to the land bridge." I don't get it.

 

I-90 isn't a feeder highway, either.   It is one of the major transcontinental freeways, indeed it is the longest interstate highway. 

 

Removing it isn't an option.   Moving it would cost billions and the benefits are strictly a matter of preference and perception.

20 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

That also was filmed at the same time I-90's new Inner Belt bridges downtown were under construction (2011-16). Even if it wasn't, maybe a permanent, real rush hour might cause Clevelanders to change their living/working/commuting behaviors? It would make the proposed Haslam development and others like it in the core city more attractive and living in a sprawled-out metro area less attractive. The Shoreway and every thing we've built since has been in furtherance of sprawl. This project would start to reverse it.

 

I am all for reducing sprawl. I don't know that purposefully making traffic worse is a good way to reduce sprawl (and I'm not saying that is what you're suggesting). It just seems like all else being equal, we should go for a lakefront solution that doesn't create bad traffic and keeps high auto traffic and high pedestrian traffic areas generally separate.

52 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I am all for reducing sprawl. I don't know that purposefully making traffic worse is a good way to reduce sprawl (and I'm not saying that is what you're suggesting). It just seems like all else being equal, we should go for a lakefront solution that doesn't create bad traffic and keeps high auto traffic and high pedestrian traffic areas generally separate.

 

I think the point in this -- and to keep it on topic -- is that the Haslam's lakefront development that includes turning the Shoreway downtown into a boulevard makes Cleveland more attractive. You can't separate these components. Yes, eliminating the Shoreway alone is a bad idea. But replacing it with a boulevard that also adds an extended East 18th Street (and hopefully a Downtown Loop extension of the Waterfront Line) AND building a land bridge AND building new housing/offices/shops/etc with public spaces along the water AND a multi-modal transportation center AND a port access road is a great idea to me. Any one of these by itself makes less sense.

 

Oh, and BTW, I remain convinced that Haslam wants all of this development so it can produce new revenue to reduce the public ask for a new football stadium. I'm big on spatial relationships when it comes to urban design and this rendering (SEE BELOW) screams to me that the Haslams don't expect FirstEnergy Stadium to stand in future phases of this lakefront development. Look at how it just comes to a crashing halt next to the stadium with no interaction between the stuff to the east of the stadium and the stadium. It's such an abrupt ending. I honestly believe all of this being done to get rid of the stadium after 2029. When they get a commitment for a landbridge, I think you'll start to hear more details. I've also heard rumors that the Haslams favor a stadium site north of St. Clair, somewhere in the East 20s. In that respect, extending East 18th and extending the Waterfront Line make a lot more sense.

 

What about this idea.  Basically leave the shoreway the same except remove the exit/entrance ramps at E 9th and build new shoreway exit/entrance at E 18th. Then put the land bridge on the west side of E 9th from Willard Park to Erieside Ave.  They could possibly relocate/reconfigure the small section of Erieside/N Marginal a bit to the south so the land bridge passes over that roadway also.  Perhaps this is similar to the NOACA idea mentioned upthread about widening the E 9th bridge.

 

Edited January 28, 20223 yr by LibertyBlvd

I agree with Ken on this. ALL of the features in his first paragraph bring a great synergy. The whole IS greater than the parts. 

 

There has been talk periodically about what to do with the Browns stadium. I love the idea of building a new one around the East 20's and St. Clair. Especially if it comes with a RTA Downtown Loop. I would rather see a Loop than a new stadium but I digress. The only problem with this wonderful (and grandiose) plan is money. We still haven't figured out how to pay for a new Justice Center and that project appears to be on the same timeline as this one. Adding a new stadium seems to me one project too many. 

 

We can do these things. We can connect the Lakefront to the city. We can build a new stadium and we can build a new Justice Center. We just can't do them at the same time. If anyone on this forum can show me how to pull off that trifecta I welcome your thoughts.

Well, I suppose a new stadium is the least urgent need of those you mention.  We can live with the current stadium for a while.

19 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

What about this idea.  Basically leave the shoreway the same except remove the exit/entrance ramps at E 9th and build new shoreway exit/entrance at E 18th. Then put the land bridge on the west side of E 9th from Willard Park to Erieside Ave.  They could possibly relocate/reconfigure the small section of Erieside/N Marginal a bit to the south so the land bridge passes over that roadway also. 

 

I'm willing to consider alternatives, particularly at a lower cost, but we really need a better Amtrak station, and getting to the current location is made far more difficult by the Shoreway being a limited-access "interstate" rather than a boulevard.  So "basically leave the shoreway the same" gives me a lot of concern, but maybe you've got a solution.

 

How do you envision a new train station and access to it in your "just widen E9th" plan?

19 hours ago, KJP said:

 

I think the point in this -- and to keep it on topic -- is that the Haslam's lakefront development that includes turning the Shoreway downtown into a boulevard makes Cleveland more attractive. You can't separate these components. Yes, eliminating the Shoreway alone is a bad idea. But replacing it with a boulevard that also adds an extended East 18th Street (and hopefully a Downtown Loop extension of the Waterfront Line) AND building a land bridge AND building new housing/offices/shops/etc with public spaces along the water AND a multi-modal transportation center AND a port access road is a great idea to me. Any one of these by itself makes less sense.

 

Oh, and BTW, I remain convinced that Haslam wants all of this development so it can produce new revenue to reduce the public ask for a new football stadium. I'm big on spatial relationships when it comes to urban design and this rendering (SEE BELOW) screams to me that the Haslams don't expect FirstEnergy Stadium to stand in future phases of this lakefront development. Look at how it just comes to a crashing halt next to the stadium with no interaction between the stuff to the east of the stadium and the stadium. It's such an abrupt ending. I honestly believe all of this being done to get rid of the stadium after 2029. When they get a commitment for a landbridge, I think you'll start to hear more details. I've also heard rumors that the Haslams favor a stadium site north of St. Clair, somewhere in the East 20s. In that respect, extending East 18th and extending the Waterfront Line make a lot more sense.

 

Just build that! No  more studies or renderings, public meetings or surveys.  Find the money, get permits and break  ground by the end of the year. That bridge is fine build that first.

3 minutes ago, freethink said:

Just build that! No  more studies or renderings, public meetings or surveys.  Find the money, get permits and break  ground by the end of the year. That bridge is fine build that first.

 I see somebody else shares my frustration with endless  lakefront planning and studies to no tangible end.

On 1/28/2022 at 1:27 PM, Foraker said:

 

I'm willing to consider alternatives, particularly at a lower cost, but we really need a better Amtrak station, and getting to the current location is made far more difficult by the Shoreway being a limited-access "interstate" rather than a boulevard.  So "basically leave the shoreway the same" gives me a lot of concern, but maybe you've got a solution.

 

How do you envision a new train station and access to it in your "just widen E9th" plan?

I thought Amtrak might be moving to Tower City, but apparently that ain't happening.  The idea I mentioned isn't great, but it seems like it might be quick and easy.  And Cleveland likes to do things quick and easy.  Converting the shoreway to a blvd sounds good, but then we still need to deal with the rail tracks.  

 

Perhaps Amtrak station moves to a location near E 9th and integrated with RTA station and accessed via Willard Park garage. Roof of Amtrak station could be part of a land bridge to the harbor.  If that location isn't doable, then maybe near W 3rd. 

 

Edited February 1, 20223 yr by LibertyBlvd

2 hours ago, Htsguy said:

 I see somebody else shares my frustration with endless  lakefront planning and studies to no tangible end.

 

@freethink You cannot get public dollars (especially federal, which is where the money is at), without going through a multi-phase project development process as proscribed by the 1,000-page NEPA law. How do we know what is the best option to fund and build if we don't do traffic studies and environmental impact planning to mitigate the impacts on natural and and manmade environments? To not do them is the bull-in-a-china-shop approach. The studies and plans aren't the problem. It is the lack of political will to act on them that's the problem. Unfortunately, the shelf life of a federally compliant plan is five years. Anything older than that and a federal agency will not recognize its findings. 

4 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Well, I suppose a new stadium is the least urgent need of those you mention.  We can live with the current stadium for a while.

 

It's 23 years old, so yes.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

@freethink You cannot get public dollars (especially federal, which is where the money is at), without going through a multi-phase project development process as proscribed by the 1,000-page NEPA law. How do we know what is the best option to fund and build if we don't do traffic studies and environmental impact planning to mitigate the impacts on natural and and manmade environments? To not do them is the bull-in-a-china-shop approach. The studies and plans aren't the problem. It is the lack of political will to act on them that's the problem. Unfortunately, the shelf life of a federally compliant plan is five years. Anything older than that and a federal agency will not recognize its findings. 

Obviously I m speaking out of frustration. Still I try and stay positive with these developments. But there is a very good chance 5 years from now there will be no bridge. I was a big proponent of the Rosales design. We were just months away from that starting construction. I remember posting at the time it may not happen for another 10 years.

I would be very surprised if the landbridge starts construction in five years, especially if federal funds are used. Federal funds also require significant amounts of public involvement and, based on some of the public reactions we're already seeing, that PI process is going to cause some politicians to get skittish about this project. Some may require additional mitigation be included such as more roadway capacity added elsewhere. After all of the mitigation, we might be able to arrive at a FONSI in five years, but then the hard part starts... Competing for the money.

 

BTW, I hated the Rosales bridge. 😛

38 minutes ago, KJP said:

I would be very surprised if the landbridge starts construction in five years, especially if federal funds are used. 

 

BTW, I hated the Rosales bridge. 😛

Meanwhile, we are lucky we got the new inner harbor bridge built to enjoy while we wait. 🙄

1 hour ago, KJP said:

BTW, I hated the Rosales bridge. 😛

 That's fine, but it's more about a visitors  experience and impression of your city. That's where we are losing.

Edited January 29, 20223 yr by freethink

2 hours ago, freethink said:

 That's fine, but it's more about a visitors  experience and impression of your city. That's where we are losing.

 

It would look nice in photos. Not so nice to use.

To me I see a need for both. The  once mostly funded  Rosales bridge leading into the Rock Hall and the attractions at North coast Harbor would have made a beautiful statement.   While the land bridge an extension of the mall is part of a different development . A larger long term project.

Edited January 29, 20223 yr by freethink

l just finished reading the Steven Litt article on what to do about the Shoreway/Lakefront in the Sunday PD. The first paragraph starts with a NOACA meeting on what to do. The friggin LAKE COUNTY!! Engineer says he can't support anything that would slow traffic down. No Lakeside diversion. No boulevard. No nothing. Status quo. Litt says the biggest driver (no pun intended) may not even be money but traffic. 

 

There are two things wrong here. No. 1 l get that NOACA is a regional organization but how the hell do voices outside the County or City trump the voices of those who live here? How do their interests carry more weight than local interests? And No. 2 if that small area of highway is turned into a boulevard or traffic is diverted to Lakeside so what? We are talking about maybe one mile at best? If it means an additional 10 minutes to get through so friggin what!? If you want to haul ass so bad stay on 90. 

 

The plusses of finally connecting downtown to the lake far, far outweigh adding a little driving time. What do the drivers in Chicago do to get across town? They take the highway or take the scenic route along the lake. Two choices and each have their advantages. We can't do that here??

 

Anyway who has a clue can see the advantages of connecting downtown to the lake. More development, more jobs, increased tax dollars. Not to mention more beauty, more use, more people. More life! Something this town is in desperate need of. 

 

And we can't create any of that because some traffic engineers from OUTSIDE the County say it's all about traffic flow. Somewhere Albert Porter is cackling from the grave.

I've really been struggling with this idea lately that developing the Cleveland lakefront will diminish the economies of the the far east and far west sides. In conversation with a few local groups, this is apparently a real concern of some (i.e. Gills, etc...) But of those traveling from the west side to the east, mostly Lakewood, Rocky River, Bay Village and farther out, those communities close to the lake that would actually utilize route 6 & 20-- it would be expected that most of those people would take I-90 to begin with to save time. All that the shoreway really serves as is a commuting motorway between the suburbs, University Circle, and the I-271 corridor. Having said this, I fail to understand the argument that Lakewoodites and Bay Villagers will no longer be visiting Lake County for fall foliage and stopping at a local restaurant, or that Lorainians will no longer be able to take the trek to photograph Perry Power Plant and stop for a pint afterwards at a local pub ( I don't know what people do with their time 🤷‍♂️). Heavy traffic and freight vehicles already can't travel this route. I'm not sure if that's just a Lakewood law, or a county/state matter. So it's not as if the lakefront proposal is cutting off a lifeline. 

Having said this, I do hope the lakefront plan is fully realized. And if James Gills is truly so in love with our storied and beautiful automobile-chute, I mapped out a really nice straight line for him along the lakefront for a new tunnel, a la Boston's "Big Dig." I'll even provide the shovel. 

The Lake County engineer, and indeed Cleveland's and Cuyahoga County's traffic and road engineers are ultimately adherents to Norman Bel Geddes and his thoughts about highways and urban redesign to maximize our use of cars. See the opening sentences of my article at:

 

Downtown lakefront development may depend on removing the Shoreway

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/01/26/downtown-lakefront-development-may-depend-on-removing-the-shoreway/

 

His approach was embraced by the likes of Shell Oil, Chevron, Studebaker, General Motors and others to push highways through cities, rather than around them, to redesign cities and sell more cars, gas, parts, etc. Toward the end of the 1920s, Americans were buying more used cars than new cars and the automobile market seemed to have tapped out. Bel Geddes championed a way to affect the market on a grand scale. The results were shown to an American public at "City of Tomorrow" displays in 1937-39, including at the New York World's fair. Only World War II delayed them for a bit. The Shoreway was an early, pre-war example that actually required very little demolition at the time....

 

 

"These new roads must 'gash... ruthlessly through built-up sections of overcrowded cities', in the words of Studebaker's president Paul Hoffman who argued that, 'Cities must be remade. The greatest automobile market today, the greatest untapped field of potential customers, is the large number of city people who refuse to own cars, or use the cars they have very little, because it's a nuisance to take them out.'" Paul Hoffman wrote this in the Saturday Evening Post in 1939 -- the same year the Shoreway was built.

 

The inverse of his statement is true. Removing highways like the Shoreway restores the city and reduces driving, possibly to the detriment of the suburbs. And that's why they will fight it.

 

This will be yet another missed opportunity for Cleveland because we are scared to pull the trigger on the better option of a major project. This type of mindset is what consistently prevents us from reaching that next level that we know we are capable of. I get that the study with multiple options presented is necessary but we constantly let voices that love the status quo ring louder than those who are ready to take us to the next level and that is why we are such a stagnant region. 

When a second thoroughfare was proposed to the east side (Opportunity Corridor) there was so much fear that it would be a highway, a way to pass through the City without experiencing it.  There was so much rhetoric about how much better a boulevard would be for the City and what an economic boost it would be.  Weren't there studies that weighed economic value vs. traffic counts?  And what was the final decision?  BOULEVARD.

 

And when the West Shoreway was getting redone recently, wasn't there strong support to turn it into a boulevard?  Wasn't there strong support for the connection to lake, and the economic benefits of connecting to the neighborhoods?  And what was the final decision?  BOULEVARD.  (could've been more-boulevard-like, but nonetheless, it was decided to become less highway-like)

 

I won't debate the pros or cons- I'm just saying.  Greater Cleveland has had this debate twice in very recent memory and it was decided that boulevard beats highway! 

All of these plans are fantastic but as I've indicated before it is 10 years away especially when you involve removing a highway. I have already given my thoughts on the Rosales bridge. So how about in the meantime we spend maybe 5 million dollars and  reopen/refurbish he bridge that is already there into a nice pedestrian experience. We will at least have something over the next 10 years that would be heavily used.

 

Edited February 6, 20223 yr by freethink

^ Problem is pedestrians need to cross over a few roadways north of the rail tracks.  I think that's the reason they were closed.

NOACA consists of county engineers and government leaders from places all over Northeast Ohio, including Lorain County, Median County, Geauga County and Lake County - and, of course, Cuyahoga County.  They seem to have altruistic and worthy goals, including well functioning highways, clean air and fighting congestion - generally things most people agree on.  But there's a divergence between the city of Cleveland's interests and NOACA when it comes to the subject of the downtown lakefront.  Building a city is not their focus.  

 

So this is going to be a political calculus.  There's little doubt that by making the downtown lakefront accessible to Clevelanders, the quality of life for its citizens improves immeasurably.  There is general agreement that Lake Erie is perhaps Ohio's greatest asset.  The question is - who gets to enjoy it?  What is the most equitable society for those with and without cars to access the lake and the man made attractions that are built on its shoreline?  Is this a society that values those that don't depend on automobiles on a daily basis as well as those that do depend on automobiles?  And if you don't go for that warm and fuzzy kind of stuff - than think of it as a pure development question - How can we best build the city's future at its core in its downtown region?

 

With the shifts in our society in recent years (we can look at the growing population in downtown Cleveland as one data point) some philosophical concerns that drove the highway proponents of the earlier-mid 20th century  have to be reconsidered in a contemporary context.  Any significant infrastructural changes will present some degree of inconvenience - whether in the short term or long term.   There will be detractors.  However, the positives that can result for the city of Cleveland by removing the shoreway and replacing it with a downtown boulevard that promotes pedestrian access and further development is well worth a degree of inconvenience - be it in the construction phase - or in terms of a few minutes of added commuting time for a percentage of drivers.  I'm sure some will debate the degree of inconvenience.

But thinking of this picture in context -   Is Cleveland a city facing ongoing gridlock traffic conditions like many other major growing urban areas?  No way.  It's a city that wants to claim its connection to its great natural asset - its lakefront - and one that can be achieved without loss of efficient east-west access in the region.

 

But downtown Cleveland's fundamental ability to improve, to grow, and to become more attractive to its citizenry,  to tourism and to its builders simply cannot be blocked by well-meaning, but divergent and possibly directly conflicting interests of those that determine traffic management for a metropolitan area.  Even when some of those are political leaders from our own backyard, so to speak.

 

Political will and effectiveness ultimately will determine the course of this issue.  There's new leadership in key places - both politically and in terms of the business community - but "our voices" as members of the community is vital.  NOACA is providing a forum, according to Steven Litt's article, to voice opinions on its website, which I visited.  If you haven't done so already, take time to voice yours.

 

I hope that the calculus between building Cleveland's future and the cost of doing so can be arrived at expeditiously.  Years are going by quickly.  Studies have been had and more studies are in process and  yes, having data is vital - and big ideas require big funding that only results from a data-driven process.  However, sometimes I wonder if certain studies are not for some,  a means to delay progress for another period of years.  That's why our voices are important.  With the change to younger, hopefully more visionary leadership and the recent passage of the federal Infrastructure bill, there's a sense that Cleveland has a generational opportunity to further transform itself via a new design for  downtown lakefront access.   The recent NEOTRANS article depicting the progress of the Cleveland and Toronto lakefronts since the middle of the 20th century was very illuminating.  The consequences of our actions or inactions will be profound.

 

  And let's remember that all those communities in the counties around Cuyahoga that have sprung up in the last 50 - 100 years have a direct connection to the city of Cleveland, relying upon its vitality and relevance to continue supporting the quality of life that comes from being adjacent to a major league city.  The more vital the city's core - the more it benefits all of those communities.  

13 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

Political will and effectiveness ultimately will determine the course of this issue.  There's new leadership in key places - both politically and in terms of the business community - but "our voices" as members of the community is vital.  NOACA is providing a forum, according to Steven Litt's article, to voice opinions on its website, which I visited.  If you haven't done so already, take time to voice yours.

Could you pass along that link?

31 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

^ Problem is pedestrians need to cross over a few roadways north of the rail tracks.  I think that's the reason they were closed.

So you put in a prioritized flashing signal crossing. There is no reason that bridge cannot be used. Would be cool to walk/bike/scooter from the mall.

14 minutes ago, freethink said:

So you put in a prioritized flashing signal crossing. There is no reason that bridge cannot be used. Would be cool to walk/bike/scooter from the mall.

I'd love to get a pedestrian connection here ASAP too, but I've never heard of or seen a crosswalk through a highway entrance ramp. Not saying it can't or hasn't been done, just that it isn't quite as simple as you're making it out to be. It's a safety hazard for pedestrians and drivers. 

How about a "trial" tactical style road diet to E9th. Painted bike lanes on left and right most lanes with those plastic bollards as dividers. I assume that could be implemented fairy quickly with the right people behind it. Not super pretty but would definitely make the statement that walkers and bikers are welcome on this route down to the lake. 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Could you pass along that link?

https://www.noaca.org/regional-planning/major-planning-documents/transportation-improvement-program-tip/comment-on-pending-projects/3rd-quarter-sfy-2022-project-planning-review-7783

 

Thanks for the link CleveFan. I hope those of us on this forum who care about the outcome of this project will take the time to let NOACA know our concerns. I really have no idea how much the feelings of local citizens will be taken into consideration but it's worth a shot. 

 

It may not matter at all if the "jury" has already decided but if there truly is an open discussion and it's close enough then maybe enough pro lakefront, anti traffic flow comments will tip the scales our way. 

 

To jump on one point that I don't think has been fully expressed above. The difference between Rte 2 and 90 is not even ten minutes. Anywhere. I've been playing with it on Google maps, and I am unable to find a possible east-west or west-east route where taking 90 instead of the shoreway adds more than six minutes. And the only place I can find even six minutes added is trips to and from certain parts of the Edgewater neighborhood.

 

If somebody can find a bigger difference in some trip, I'd love to see it. But it looks like the biggest inconvenience will be to people who live in Cleveland (Ward 15 specifically)--all of six minutes. For most trips between east-west suburbs, 90 is actually faster, and for the few trips where Rte 2 is faster, it's only true by like 3 minutes.

 

So, leaving aside the principle-based arguments on cars vs. pedestrians, maybe we oughta let the elected representatives of the people of Cleveland decide because they're the ones most inconvenienced (potentially) by the change.

^ Does your analysis take into account rush hour traffic?  I suppose rush hour isn't so bad now since many are still working at home, but that may not be the case forever.  And then there are the frequent accidents at dead man's curve.  

10 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

^ Does your analysis take into account rush hour traffic?  I suppose rush hour isn't so bad now since many are still working at home, but that may not be the case forever.  And then there are the frequent accidents at dead man's curve.  

It takes into account the traffic conditions at 8:30 AM on this random Monday, so there is probably some rush hour built in there but not necessarily the worst of it.

20 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

^ Does your analysis take into account rush hour traffic?  I suppose rush hour isn't so bad now since many are still working at home, but that may not be the case forever.  And then there are the frequent accidents at dead man's curve.  

Combining turning the shoreway into a boulevard with smoothing out Dead Man's curve might be a politically feasible package. 

A similar effort in Philadelphia was killed by whittling it down to the status quo with a decade of "planning."

 

4 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

 

 

Leaders in Columbus right now: "look what irrelevant Joe posted. This is great. We love the infighting. let's spend their lakefront money on expanding the road to intel"

If I remember, Cleveland has one of the best highway networks out there. Exits and on-ramps are perfectly spaced, everything is clearly marked, bridges are overhauled, and even 90 is getting redirected at the old powerplant iirc. Sure beats Texas highways, from a stop sign to a highway ramp that's nowhere near straight, 50 ft long, and goes from 0-75 on a 2 lane highway with no easements. And they apply the same logic in big cities as well... it's just flat out dangerous.

 

Edited February 8, 20223 yr by tastybunns

🙄

 

Does he even realize that most of those Shoreway ramps and exits are closed when the game ends?   

Tell him.

 

And once again we have someone that doesn't even live in Cuyahoga County, let alone in Cleveland, trying to dictate to Clevelanders how they should live and design their city.

He's also harping on concept B which is (in my view) clearly the worst of the proposals. Maybe somebody oughta show him the boulevard proposals which really, really would not be a problem for Browns games.

Even if something is "a problem" for Browns games, it's obviously ridiculous to organize the entire Lakefront planning scheme around 9 days per year of peak auto activity.

^ This is the kind of ignorance we have to deal with here. In a lot of ways the Old Timers in this town are to be celebrated. They represent Old Cleveland and are a link to many of the things we love about this town. Unfortunately, a lot of that old thinking is what got us where we are in today. At the very least, that old thinking is holding us back from creating the vibrant city we desire. 

 

A funny thing I've noticed about many of these people is they will come back from visiting some place and will talk about how nice it was, how they could walk around these really cool areas with open air bars and cafes, or neat waterfronts with shops and activities. People everywhere just enjoying themselves. Then they have the opportunity to support the creation of something like that here and they say "No." They can't seem to make the connection that the very things they liked about the place they just came back from could also be created here. You don't have to run away to Strongsville to live or drive to Crocker Park to have a semblance of a real old fashioned town with shops on the first floor and apartments above. 

 

Why the disconnect? You liked it on vacation but you don't like it here? I don't get it. I've had this discussion with friends and family so many times I've lost count. And the only thing that came out of those discussions is I was never able to change their minds. It was like talking to a brick wall.