I'm sure the amazing and wonderful Mayor Frank Jackson could sway them with the help of his friends at the FTA.  :roll:

 

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration. Unlike any other mode of vehicular transportation (ie: not pipelines), the railroads own their right of way. And only 7% of US railroad route-miles werr the result of federal land grants (mostly West of the Mississippi River). They bought the rest of their rights of way themselves with their own money.

^ that's amazing! 7%. What an undeniable indicator of efficiency and cost effectiveness.  The fact that rail has managed to stay relevant  all these years while every other form of transportation infrastructure is heavily financed or even fully backed by the government is amazing to me.

 

I am for waiting and extending the city with a cap over the shoreway and rails. In my mind that is the only way to do it right. I don't see any type of narrow bridge in that location as Iconic no matter what is spent on it. Well maybe an iconically bad decision.

^ that's amazing! 7%. What an undeniable indicator of efficiency and cost effectiveness.  The fact that rail has managed to stay relevant  all these years while every other form of transportation infrastructure is heavily financed or even fully backed by the government is amazing to me.

 

I am for waiting and extending the city with a cap over the shoreway and rails. In my mind that is the only way to do it right. I don't see any type of narrow bridge in that location as Iconic no matter what is spent on it. Well maybe an iconically bad decision.

 

Google "Toronto rail deck park" sometime. Estimated cost is $1 billion.

Ok. I am going to try to mock this up this weekend, but here is my nutty idea for the lakefront. And I think it could work to fix many of these problems.

 

Reroute the shoreway.

 

Crazy, I know, but listen. The shoreway is basically three lanes in each direction. Through downtown it is only two--with pretty low volumes of traffic. Cut out the section of the shoreway through Downtown and route all traffic onto Lakeside. Its a huge street with little traffic. The shoreway would route onto Lakeside via the existing off-ramps, travel through downtown, and a new flyover would be constructed wayyyyyyy down Lakeside back to where the shoreway is now to connect into I-90.

 

We use existing infrastructure, we significantly narrow the gap between downtown and the lakefront, we clean up the mess of roads down there, we create developable land, the 9th street bridge is no longer a mess of on-ramps. It would cost money, but not nearly as much money as we are talking for all these massive buildings and spans that can support skyscrapers. And there is money to dramatically alter roads. Let's do it!

I, for one, look forward to the mock up. The slowing down of the shoreway would make sense to me if this urbanist idea was the overall goal of getting rid of the shoreway proper going by downtown. 

  IIRC, it seems that the bridge over the Cuyahoga is coming up for replacement in 5-10 years and could be a very expensive bridge to replace. So what you are suggesting could be a legitimate alternative.

 

I've had similar thoughts about the Shoreway Downtown. Would be interesting to know how much shoreway traffic is thru traffic between the east and west sides vs headed to Downtown. But in any case, if we're going to spend $Billions on things like the Opportunity Corridor and the inner belt bridge replacement/expansion despite a stagnant population, it really should free us to think creatively about some of the older crossings.

Ultimately, it may be the high cost, lack of funds and lack of traffic that dooms the Shoreway bridge. Replacing the Inner Belt bridges, which carry 150,000 +/- vehicles a day, cost $650 million. The new Inner Belt bridges were the most expensive bridge project in ODOT's history. At nearly one mile long, the Shoreway bridge is the longest bridge in the state of Ohio. Replacing it will be a monumental project. Yet it carries less than 40,000 vehicles per day. Meanwhile the Detroit-Superior bridge sits underutilized nearby.

 

The city of Cleveland planned not to long ago to remove the Shoreway from the lakefront. But it may be the eventual demise of the steel truss Shoreway bridge may cause the Shoreway's removal, not any civic-minded plan to better link the lakefront with the city.

Does that longest span stat count the length from W. 29th to all the way in front of the GLSC?

 

I'd bet we will replace the bridge with something, but it might end up scaled down significantly from what's there.  Maybe a smaller, lower capacity high level bridge that lands at grade at W. 9th and W. 25th, instead of the long approach with all the ramps- an equivalent to the Detroit-Superior or Lorain-Carnegie bridges.

Does that longest span stat count the length from W. 29th to all the way in front of the GLSC?

 

 

Yes. It's about 1 mile long.

Google "Toronto rail deck park" sometime. Estimated cost is $1 billion.

 

^That's the idea, thanks for sharing the project. Toronto rail deck park is reported at 21 acres so about 48M/acre. Quick measurement of Cleveland's gap from E9th to about the old browns bridge is 17 acres (*add another 10 if you wanted W3rd to E9th). Using Toronto rail deck as a model that would our price tag at 850M-1.3B. Admittedly I didn't dig that deep into what that 1B price tag for Tor. rail deck included and how it would relate to Cleveland's scenario.

 

Either way that's a lot of $. But I say: so what. Phase it then. Do what you can now and allow it to easily interface with additional pieces in the future.  Also the way I see it, unlike rail deck's public park once Cleveland owns the air-rights and start to devise the platform/grid infrastructure then you can sell the rights to private investors to plug in their pieces, at their cost thus lessening the public investment needed to span the the whole area. I don't know, is that too pie-in-the-sky? I'm attaching a visual of what a half acre looks like on our Lakefront which as calculated above, is what we could afford with the 25M that would be spent on a one and done iconic bridge.  Its not much, I know. But ironically (not really) its consistent with what was imagined (by KJP I believe) for the NCTC.

 

Also I agree with everyone about the uncertain future of the shoreway. I don't think that effects this bluff cap too much though. The rail will most likely always be there.

CbusTransit[/member], I also look forward to seeing what you draft out.

Ok here is my idea for Cleveland's lakefront. Remove the shoreway, tons of build able land, direct connections to the lake. Enjoy :)

 

(If there is a better way to include this picture, please assist!)

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90439456@N03/32072119831/in/dateposted-public/

 

 

I like it. 

 

I'm not sure it can handle that much crosstown traffic but it's worth doing the math to find out. There's clearly some extra capacity, even at peak times. Still seems like a lot of cars to funnel past city hall and divorce court.  And the feds.  Oddly, the rest of Lakeside is a Pink Floyd industrial hellscape.  I wonder how much of that land could be redeveloped without a lot of soil cleanup.  Might as well try. 

I like this line of thinking a lot. Not nearly the same overall benefit, but a near term half measure might be closing some or all of the shoreway ramps at West 3rd and East 9th. That would allow thru-traffic to continue to bypass downtown but would open up land and greatly improve pedestrian crossings to the lakefront on the existing bridges.

The Shoreway's entire removal would be a hinderance, no offense. It carries 32,000 vehicles per day (2016 numbers) and is a critical east-west connector between Lakewood and Edgewater to points east, and vice versa. Providing a cap, especially as it passes by the stadium where there is development on both sides of the highway, would be an improvement.

Our highway system was built for a top-10 city that no longer exists. A network of free-flowing highways exists only in dead or dying cities.

Columbus, Ohio?

Cincinnati, Ohio?

Indianapolis, Indiana?

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?

 

I mean, there are countless cities with free flowing highways that are prospering - or at least have positive GDP growth. Cleveland is unique in that its GDP is shrinking, along with its population, for reasons that are now out of the realm of "blame the highway."

Columbus, Ohio?

Cincinnati, Ohio?

Indianapolis, Indiana?

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?

 

I mean, there are countless cities with free flowing highways that are prospering - or at least have positive GDP growth. Cleveland is unique in that its GDP is shrinking, along with its population, for reasons that are now out of the realm of "blame the highway."

 

Given the very high cost of maintaining the Shoreway bridge, are you positive that reworking the Shoreway isn't the most fiscally responsible measure to take?

Would you say the same for the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge (OH 10), or the Detroit-Shoreway Bridge (US 6, US 20, OH 3) or the Innerbelt Bridge (I-90)?

 

The Shoreway Bridge, completed in 1940, received thorough reconstruction of its top deck circa 1992. As of December 2014, it has a good deck, has a sufficient superstructure and fair substructure, for a total ranking of 60/100. It carries around 32,000 vehicles per day, increasing significantly at West 25th.

 

Before you get all too concerned, the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge, built in 1932 and last rehabilitated in 1983, ranks 69.5/100. It has a satisfactory deck, poor superstructure and good substructure. It carries around 14,040 vehicles per day.

 

The Detroit-Superior Bridge, built in 1917 and rehabilitated in 1965 and 1997, ranks 72/100. It has a satisfactory deck and fair superstructure and substructure. It carries around 19,590 vehicles per day, with its capacity constrained when lanes were removed for a wide sidewalk/bike path.

 

So, let's close it? The Center Street Swing Span was built in 1901 and rehabilitated in 1989, has weight/height limits, and ranks 61/100. It's also just two lanes but carries just 4,500 vehicles per day. It can close for up to 10-30 minutes when a boat passes through. Carter? It's newer, from 1940, but has height restrictions. It is also a lift bridge. It was rehabilitated around 1999 (NBI does not have a date) and thus has a ranking of 93/100. Columbus is also newer, built in 1940, and carries 9,300 vehicles per day. Prior to rehabilitation, it ranked 73/100. Like other lift bridges, it has height restrictions.

 

Let's be realistic.

 

While the Shoreway/Main Avenue Bridge is considered fracture critical, it is not programmed for replacement. Considering it is in good condition and serviceable for at least another 20 years. At that point, it will have reached the end of its serviceable lifespan and will most likely be replaced.

Columbus, Ohio?

Cincinnati, Ohio?

Indianapolis, Indiana?

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?

 

I mean, there are countless cities with free flowing highways that are prospering - or at least have positive GDP growth. Cleveland is unique in that its GDP is shrinking, along with its population, for reasons that are now out of the realm of "blame the highway."

 

Cleveland's GDP isn't shrinking..

There are numerous examples of cities that have removed waterfront or neighborhood-dividing freeways and reaped major benefits. I was just in San Francisco and way trying to imagine what the Embarcadero looked like when it had a double-stacked highway built over it--and in front of the Ferry Building. Pretty mind-blowing.

 

Louisville lost a huge opportunity to remove their riverfront freeway. If Cleveland ever has an opportunity to remove or partially-parkway the Shoreway, I hope the option is considered and studied.

 

Here's some background on the Embarcadero, and a few others: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html

Worth noting that CbusTransit[/member] 's proposal didn't call for removing the Main Avenue Bridge. He's essentially turning it into a link between Lakeside and the West Shoreway. Can't say for sure, but after the Opportunity Corridor is opened up, I suspect the area's highways would still flow pretty freely even without the downtown segment of the Shoreway he proposes removing. It would no doubt inconvenience some number of thru-drivers, but the region's highway network will have significant redundancy built in at that point for a lot of West Side - East Side routes, so I'm guessing the effects would be pretty light. 

Columbus, Ohio?

Cincinnati, Ohio?

Indianapolis, Indiana?

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?

 

I mean, there are countless cities with free flowing highways that are prospering - or at least have positive GDP growth. Cleveland is unique in that its GDP is shrinking, along with its population, for reasons that are now out of the realm of "blame the highway."

 

Cleveland's GDP isn't shrinking..

 

I was looking at the percentage, which has been declining since 2010 - but is still positive. In real numbers, it's increased.

Columbus, Ohio?

Cincinnati, Ohio?

Indianapolis, Indiana?

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?

 

I mean, there are countless cities with free flowing highways that are prospering - or at least have positive GDP growth. Cleveland is unique in that its GDP is shrinking, along with its population, for reasons that are now out of the realm of "blame the highway."

 

If you consider those sprawling cities within your definition of prospering, no wonder we're having a disconnect. There are areas within those cities I like, but none are engaged in sustainable development patterns as a region.

 

You know as well as I that DOT's have a formula for determining the cost-effectiveness of a roadway project. The only thing replaced in the 1992 Shoreway bridge project was the roadway deck (there were probably some structural steel elements replaced too). Compare that to the Inner Belt in which the entire bridge was replaced. That's not going to happen with the Shoreway bridge. It simply lacks the traffic volumes to justify the massive cost of a whole bridge replacement. When the steel truss bridge reaches the end of its life, I suspect it will mean the end of the Shoreway bridge, barring large and unlikely increases in traffic between now and then.

Would you say the same for the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge (OH 10), or the Detroit-Shoreway Bridge (US 6, US 20, OH 3) or the Innerbelt Bridge (I-90)?

 

Sure, all deserve cost-benefit analysis. So being "real," I still haven't heard you or anyone make the case that the Shoreway bridge deserves a future, at least not in its current configuration.

Thanks Straphanger---yea my proposal was not to demolish the bridge but rather clip the bridge at Lakeside, route traffic down lakeside at street level through Downtown, and have a new offramp at the end of downtown that would reconnect Lakeside to 90. Traffic would still be accommodated---though slowed---while the space taken by ramps, the highway, and marginals could be used for development and parks.

 

I thoroughly agree KJP that we do not need the excessive roadways we have. These vehicles could be re routed.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/superman.php

 

An updated plan for The Superman Monument and Plaza

 

"Plaza Features

The monument base will project from the plaza through molded, irregularly formed concrete rising upward; providing the appearance of the crystal base dramatically ascending from the earth.  The incorporation of a fog feature within and around the perimeter of the monument's base will provide a free-flowing dimension that accentuates the plaza experience by creating an interactive cloud of mist.

The adjacent Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge activates the vertical plane of the site, causing one to experience the plaza from different heights – adding comprehensive interest.  Furthermore, terraced steps combines functionality and elegance; while providing the opportunity for intimate gathering spaces and impromptu outdoor classroom settings. "

 

^Horrible. That would bring the ugly statue count to two at North Coast. I feel everything about the Lake Front is wayyyy too forced right now. The city needs to take some steps back. It okay to not be ready to tackle this whole lake front thing yet but forcing decisions to get "something" in there will ruin it for generations.

^Horrible. That would bring the ugly statue count to two at North Coast. I feel everything about the Lake Front is wayyyy too forced right now. The city needs to take some steps back. It okay to not be ready to tackle this whole lake front thing yet but forcing decisions to get "something" in there will ruin it for generations.

 

Could not agree more. This pursuit should be stopped. IMO NC Harbor is not the place to put anything regarding Cleveland's connection to Superman.

 

A lot of people believe (rightly, or wrongly) that the AT&T building on Prospect Ave. is the building that was used as the blueprint for The Dailey Planet in the Superman Comics. So why not put a statue of Superman somewhere in the vicinity of the AT&T building on Prospect Ave. Maybe there could even be a Superman Museum somewhere in that area too.

Totally agree with the AT&T building, or the immediate vicinity, being a better choice for the Superman statue. Seems like it would be a better fit with the Gateway neighborhood being an entertainment district.

^The lake shore, our dumping grounds since forever. Although now-a-days it not literally waste/garbage. 

 

"Hey, where do you want to put this?"

"I don't know just throw it out on the Lake, it might bring people out to see it" 

^The lake shore, our dumping grounds since forever. Although now-a-days it not literally waste/garbage. 

 

"Hey, where do you want to put this?"

"I don't know just throw it out on the Lake, it might bring people out to see it" 

 

Hey, be easy on our lakefront. We've got a nice Mexican restaurant!!!

Hey, be easy on our lakefront. We've got a nice Mexican restaurant!!!

 

I do still need to go check out Nuevo soon...

I love this superman thing.  Although I'm no comic-con guy, I think it's unique, thrilling and cool.

People hate the Free Stamp too, but so what.  That's not based on any sound reasoning.

Superman has a bit more cultural impact than the free stamp does.  Cleveland should be doing more to capitalize on its "home of the superhero" heritage.  This is a good start.

I agree with both assertions.  Cleveland should be promoting this heritage.  But the lakefront is not the place to do it.  That small "plaza" at E9th/Prospect/Huron would be perfect, including historical background on the AT&T building and it's inspiration as the Daily Planet.

Maybe we can put the comics museum in that area.

^Horrible. That would bring the ugly statue count to two at North Coast. I feel everything about the Lake Front is wayyyy too forced right now. The city needs to take some steps back. It okay to not be ready to tackle this whole lake front thing yet but forcing decisions to get "something" in there will ruin it for generations.

 

Could not agree more. This pursuit should be stopped. IMO NC Harbor is not the place to put anything regarding Cleveland's connection to Superman.

 

A lot of people believe (rightly, or wrongly) that the AT&T building on Prospect Ave. is the building that was used as the blueprint for The Dailey Planet in the Superman Comics. So why not put a statue of Superman somewhere in the vicinity of the AT&T building on Prospect Ave. Maybe there could even be a Superman Museum somewhere in that area too.

 

It doesn't even matter if it was or not.  The building looks like the Daily Planet's, and the creators are from here.  It's a perfect match.

For those who prefer truth, which is trying to make a comeback along with "justice, and the American way" - It always matters "if it was or not."

 

When Superman first appeared, Clark Kent worked at "The Daily Star" Joe Shuster named the Daily Star after the Toronto Daily Star newspaper in Toronto, Ontario, which had been the newspaper that Shuster's parents received, and for which Shuster had worked as a newsboy. It was not until later years that the fictional paper became the Daily Planet.

 

The Toronto Star building in the link below was the actual model.  similar as it is, the Ohio Bell Building was not the model for the Daily Planet.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Toronto_Star_Building

 

The building design is from Toronto but the setting was explicitly here, at least for a while.  They came up with Metropolis later.

This group seems to be very narrowly focused on greenspace.

 

CLE Chatter: New lakefront group surfaces with big ambition

 

By Mark Naymik, cleveland.com

on February 07, 2017

 

Making waves: The Green Ribbon Coalition has quietly surfaced as a new advocacy organization promoting a more accessible and connected lakefront along Lake Erie that goes beyond Cleveland's borders. The organization is the product of a merger between three groups focused on the lakefront: The Cleveland Waterfront Coalition, Cleveland Lakefront Parks Conservancy and The Cleveland Lakefront Development Corp. The new group, which was formalized last year, takes it name from the nascent Lakefront Ribbon of Green Coalition, which was formed by big-idea guy Dick Clough, an advertising and marketing professional and waterfront activist.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2017/02/cle_chatter_new_lakefront_grou.html#incart_river_home_pop

FirstEnergy lakefront site could host parks, housing, gardens and more, planner says

 

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on March 29, 2017 at 2:06 PM, updated March 29, 2017 at 3:12 PM

 

The contaminated site of the largely demolished FirstEnergy lakefront power plant at East 72nd Street could become a park, or it could host housing, commercial and institutional development, a creative zone for small-scale innovators, or a food production center.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2017/03/planner_says_firstenergy_lakef.html

 

 

The Green Ribbon Coalition idea to move the highway 1/4 mile south is absolutely the way to go.  Reconnect Gordon Park to the lake.

^ And just like that, Litt resurfaces!

 

Food production center? What on earth?

^ And just like that, Litt resurfaces!

 

Food production center? What on earth?

 

Yeah, it would be called the Chernobyl Urban Garden, the veggies would be bigger than humans!

What's the story with the mixed use building along the E. 9th Street pier?  Have they started building?

^ And just like that, Litt resurfaces!

 

Food production center? What on earth?

 

Yeah, it would be called the Chernobyl Urban Garden, the veggies would be bigger than humans!

 

As I understand it, certain crops help clean out the soil.  Asparagus maybe?  Might not want to eat the first batch.

 

I like the idea of moving the freeway here, cost-benefit seems problematic though.

^ And just like that, Litt resurfaces!

 

Food production center? What on earth?

 

Yeah, it would be called the Chernobyl Urban Garden, the veggies would be bigger than humans!

 

As I understand it, certain crops help clean out the soil.  Asparagus maybe?  Might not want to eat the first batch.

 

I like the idea of moving the freeway here, cost-benefit seems problematic though.

 

Everyone loves moving the freeway, except ODOT maybe.

 

Regarding your asparagus, this lakefront reuse article comes to mind:

 

NEWS Brownfield-based vineyard ready to expand

http://www.chroniclet.com/news/2007/08/04/Brownfield-based-vineyard-ready-to-expand.html

 

Everyone loves moving the freeway, except ODOT maybe.

 

 

Frankly, I wouldn’t see the benefit if it cost 25% of what it eventually would.  Look at it on a map, that’s the spot where the waves hit so hard even during moderate storms that they get all over the freeway.  To benefit from this new shoreline, you’d need a new breakwall.  For starters.  Plus, unless you’re going to run this new freeway straight through Gordon Park, you don’t really make the highway any smoother.

 

I drive by this four or five times a week.  Best use would be an apartment/office complex with a parking deck on the lower floors and a sound wall in front of that.  Once you get up to the third or fourth floor it is basically lake view property just the same as if you built right on it.  Tunnel under the Shoreway in that area and it’s still connected.

 

 

Everyone loves moving the freeway, except ODOT maybe.

 

 

Frankly, I wouldn’t see the benefit if it cost 25% of what it eventually would.  Look at it on a map, that’s the spot where the waves hit so hard even during moderate storms that they get all over the freeway.  To benefit from this new shoreline, you’d need a new breakwall.  For starters.  Plus, unless you’re going to run this new freeway straight through Gordon Park, you don’t really make the highway any smoother.

 

I drive by this four or five times a week.  Best use would be an apartment/office complex with a parking deck on the lower floors and a sound wall in front of that.  Once you get up to the third or fourth floor it is basically lake view property just the same as if you built right on it.  Tunnel under the Shoreway in that area and it’s still connected.

 

 

An apartment/office complex the way you describe doesn't address one of our most glaring needs --  to be in better actual, physical connection with the waterfront.

 

Tunnels and bridges technically do funnel people, but seem a much inferior option to the admittedly optimistic "B" proposals in the article.

 

Everyone loves moving the freeway, except ODOT maybe.

 

 

Frankly, I wouldn’t see the benefit if it cost 25% of what it eventually would.  Look at it on a map, that’s the spot where the waves hit so hard even during moderate storms that they get all over the freeway.  To benefit from this new shoreline, you’d need a new breakwall.  For starters.  Plus, unless you’re going to run this new freeway straight through Gordon Park, you don’t really make the highway any smoother.

 

I drive by this four or five times a week.  Best use would be an apartment/office complex with a parking deck on the lower floors and a sound wall in front of that.  Once you get up to the third or fourth floor it is basically lake view property just the same as if you built right on it.  Tunnel under the Shoreway in that area and it’s still connected.

 

 

An apartment/office complex the way you describe doesn't address one of our most glaring needs --  to be in better actual, physical connection with the waterfront.

 

Tunnels and bridges technically do funnel people, but seem a much inferior option to the admittedly optimistic "B" proposals in the article.

 

Maybe this could be the first phase of capping the Shoreway? 

There were several factors in the odd routing of the highway. The old Lakeshore Blvd. hugged the shores of the Lake before there was infill (mostly debris). It curved around the power plant that once dominated the shoreline and did a sweeping curve through Gordon Park, hugging the railroad. By 1952, a good portion of the Lakeshore Freeway/OH 2 had been completed from East 136th Street (the current Exit 180A ramps) to Rockefeller Park.

 

Lakeshore Blvd's odd termination and sharp curve at Rockfeller Park where it connected to the Lakeshore Freeway in 1952 was temporary. Lakeshore Blvd. once terminated at East 88th Street which was an important north-south connector as it passed under the railroad.

 

See: Historic aerial