^ Do you think "stakeholders" includes the transit riders who have been inconvenienced by all of this?

So these have been popping up around downtown. Snapped this pic from along Ontario, opposite the Q. The Facebook page is weird and has the air of a conspiracy theorist...

 

Nothing says grass roots like Kinko's printed banners.

Reminds me of the signs Art Model made up thanking him for his years in CLE at the last Browns game.

 

To me, it's seems like the people in City Hall & Rock gaming who were managing the "grass roots" campaign to have the old convention center saved to be the casino, rather than the new CC.

 

 

^ This is the guy behind that campaign http://www.cleveland.com/style/index.ssf/2009/05/fashion_week_cleveland_organiz.html

Keeping it classy:

 

 

Fencing off Public Square and charging admission... #publicspace #fail https://t.co/DeTUMvSs4R

 

Then there's the closing of the HealthLine's lanes and stations for parking on Friday night. WTF? Is this what I paid my federal public transit taxes for?

Fencing off Public Square and charging admission... #publicspace #fail https://t.co/DeTUMvSs4R

 

Then there's the closing of the HealthLine's lanes and stations for parking on Friday night. WTF? Is this what I paid my federal public transit taxes for?

 

Get em Ashley! Cleveland needs to start pulling theirs heads out their...

The northern "grass kidney" is showing some wear in the middle because so many pedestrians are still using Ontario Street.  Going around the square adds a lot of distance between Tower City and the courthouse.  Unsurprisingly, few people are interested in that.  Any chance of installing a paved walking path?  Less than ideal aesthetically, but function does matter and concrete looks better than mud.

^I think that was a pretty significant design mistake, and was entirely foreseeable. Was mentioned as a flaw multiple times in this thread as initial designs were released. Wouldn't surprised me if the first major change to plan is bisecting the lawn with hardscape, but doubt it happens anytime soon. Would not be cheap to do it right.

The northern "grass kidney" is showing some wear in the middle because so many pedestrians are still using Ontario Street.  Going around the square adds a lot of distance between Tower City and the courthouse.  Unsurprisingly, few people are interested in that.  Any chance of installing a paved walking path?  Less than ideal aesthetically, but function does matter and concrete looks better than mud.

 

Yeah, this is a significant design flaw.  Me and my friend walked across the grass returning to TC from (the amazing) Bar 32 at the new Hilton.  Maybe if they installed large stepping stones as opposed to a hard sidewalk or path, it wouldn't visually harm the terrific look of the place.

^I think that was a pretty significant design mistake, and was entirely foreseeable. Was mentioned as a flaw multiple times in this thread as initial designs were released. Wouldn't surprised me if the first major change to plan is bisecting the lawn with hardscape, but doubt it happens anytime soon. Would not be cheap to do it right.

 

No doubt.  Classic case of form over function.  People will always take the shortest path, even if it means trampling the lawn. 

^I think that was a pretty significant design mistake, and was entirely foreseeable. Was mentioned as a flaw multiple times in this thread as initial designs were released. Wouldn't surprised me if the first major change to plan is bisecting the lawn with hardscape, but doubt it happens anytime soon. Would not be cheap to do it right.

 

No doubt.  Classic case of form over function.  People will always take the shortest path, even if it means trampling the lawn. 

Hopefully the City of Cleveland will consider these points from national transit advocate Jarrett Walker regarding its exclusionary and dismissive attitudes toward bus riders...

 

 

 

I'm planning a trip to Cleveland this October to see my sister and I'm very excited to check out the renovated Public Square.  Has there been an official decision made about the bus lanes? Since permanently banning busses would require a bit of construction to remove the lanes, has anyone proposed a compromise of sorts? Why can't there just be 2 lanes for the busses (one in each direction) that would allow for a narrower, safer street for peds to cross, while also lessening the chasm impact of a street through a square, and providing a bit more dedicated pedestrian space? Without experiencing the new square yet, I'm not in a position to say anything definite, but it does seem awfully silly to have dedicated bus lanes sitting completely unused and nice, new shelters shuttered.

Nothing yet.

^I think that was a pretty significant design mistake, and was entirely foreseeable. Was mentioned as a flaw multiple times in this thread as initial designs were released. Wouldn't surprised me if the first major change to plan is bisecting the lawn with hardscape, but doubt it happens anytime soon. Would not be cheap to do it right.

 

No doubt.  Classic case of form over function.  People will always take the shortest path, even if it means trampling the lawn. 

I was downtown last week too and found myself walking South on Ontario approaching the Square.  I did walk around on the sidewalk, but only because I had the time to do it and I wanted to experience the space as it is designed.  That grass will always be getting trampled except when there is lots of snow on the ground.

so long as Superior is going to be closed to traffic through Public Square, they should do something more attractive than the beat up cross bucks with truck tire sidwalls holding them in place.  Something a little more thoughtful like removable bollards, or some type of attractive fencing or a gate that can open/close easily enough.

Cleveland opts to keeps Public Square closed to buses

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Mayor Frank Jackson just announced that Public Square will remain closed to buses permanently.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/cleveland_announcement_on_publ.html

I am disappointed that Public Square was designed with the intent to have transit lanes dividing the park in two.  What is the plan now?  I assume the needless bus shelters , traffic signals, and road need to be either removed or adjusted.  Senseless in not even testing the intended use. Wasn't the plan to only use buses during the weekdays and closed on weekends and special events?  When the road doesn't have food trucks or the farmer's market I don't see people hanging out on that area of the park. Way to much hardscape . Has James Corner been contacted to see how the design should adjust and cost of doing so? 

So what of all the talk for years about Superior being a federal route and taking an act of congress to close off the square? I guess that was all talk for when the city just didnt have the funds to redo the square then, huh?

It's just a minor petition to AASHTO for the rerouting. There won't be any opposition from AASHTO to move the routes around Public Square.

The routing around the square is an idiotic idea.  Once again Cleveland half-asses something.

There should a lot of angry people in GCRTA but I expect we'll hear nothing but line-towing. I know I'm ticked at how this has played out.

It's just a minor petition to AASHTO for the rerouting. There won't be any opposition from AASHTO to move the routes around Public Square.

 

AASHTO?? Don't you mean the FTA?

 

Earlier this afternoon, the PD publishes a story about how much the closure of Public Square is costing GCRTA. In it, the City of Cleveland and GCRTA says they have no new updates. The article comes out and then all of a sudden Mayor Jackson has made a decision, in a press conference publicized six minutes before it was held....

 

So I have a few questions... What City of Cleveland and GCRTA data was used in today's decision, that GCRTA won't be harmed by permanently closing Public Square to transit? I have yet to see it and apparently no one in the media has seen it either.

 

Mayor Jackson denies GCRTA has been delayed by Public Square's closure. Well, it's obvious none of his advisers use transit thru Public Square.

 

Mayor Jackson says Public Square wasn't revitalized with transit in mind. WTF? It seems that politicians denying the obvious has become contagious lately....

 

How much taxpayer money was used to build the bus lanes in Public Square? How much money will be spent to eliminate them?

 

Will GCRTA offer meetings, web, other venues for the public to give input on a draft plan in response to Public Square's closure prior to submitting the plan to the FTA?

 

Bottom line: Public Square's closure to GCRTA is about Mayor Frank Jackson valuing the input of a few biz leaders (KeyBank CEO Mooney, Forest City's Ratners, etc), over the needs of 60,000 daily commuters. That, my friends, is elitism. That, my friends, is America in the 21st century...

 

 

 

Interesting...

 

So sounding off/voicing one's opinion - which I am guessing most on this particular board know a little something about right now - is only a good thing if "everyman" is involved and the cause is one you personally support?

 

But CEOs and business leaders - many of whom have done 60,000 riders worth of good for our region - (and don't forget the "lot of calls" from the public) don't deserve their opinion being voiced or listened to?

 

The right decision was made for the region...

 

#BizTrumpsBus

Now that Superior Avenue can be eliminated from Public Square, how would one like to see the space adjusted?  My wish list would be an adjusted plan that could incorporate some of Field Operations design elements designer James Corner had proposed for Pershing Square in Los Angeles. There are some similarities in layouts with this design having  one cohesive space. I enjoy the oval sculptural canopies that could enhance the east/west access providing shade in the summer for additional seating areas and event spaces for all types of activities

 

http://la.curbed.com/2016/4/28/11528784/pershing-square-james-corner-field-operations#5

 

  Even though I know it is too late to relocate the fountain to the center of Public Square I would love to see a central stage area that is better than a temporary rental stage and tent.  Love to hear others ideas and I hope that TPTB can get a sense of what could be.

 

 

 

 

This upsets me not simply because of the conclusion, but how we got here.

- The City wasted $120,000  on a study they are now deciding to ignore. 

- They then wasted unknown but significant amounts of money on signal poles, cable, pavement, utility relocation, ect

-  After the square was designed for bus traffic, they never decided to actually test out what that would look like. Even though that would've cost the city ZERO dollars and actually saved RTA money.  If they really wanted to 'study' a closed Square, they would've at least tried seeing what bus traffic in the square would've looked like.

 

 

Now who knows what the plan for a closed square is going to look like, because let's be honest the city probably doesn't have one.

I take the 26 through the square every day and I think this is fantastic. That square represents a huge investment in Downtown Cleveland, it is spurring spin-off retail that adds to the vibrancy of the City, and it is a showpiece for anyone living in or visiting Downtown. We now have a single, unified civic space that is the envy of most cities.

 

There are basic, minor things RTA and the City can do to speed up traffic through there in the morning. Like getting rid of the stop signs on the northern half and having officers on hand at rush hour (which at this point they have largely been doing on a daily basis), and reworking the traffic signals now that buses won't be going straight. But let's not lose sight of what a great public amenity this is. And as somebody who rides the bus through it daily, this really is not a huge hassle.

Many if not most of the transit-dependent must make connections at Public Square, and often with buses that run infrequently.  Missing one might mean the loss of a job.  This may sound very odd coming from a conservative/libertarian such as myself.  But I used to be among the transit-dependent, and I understand how this potentially might impact them.  For them, at the very least, this is NOT a good thing.  And since it is a part of RTA's mission to serve the transit-dependent, and since it is that particular part of its mission that makes me willing to pay taxes to fund it, I expect to see some answers as to how they will address this problem.

 

Interesting...

 

So sounding off/voicing one's opinion - which I am guessing most on this particular board know a little something about right now - is only a good thing if "everyman" is involved and the cause is one you personally support?

 

But CEOs and business leaders - many of whom have done 60,000 riders worth of good for our region - (and don't forget the "lot of calls" from the public) don't deserve their opinion being voiced or listened to?

 

The right decision was made for the region...

 

#BizTrumpsBus

 

Sorry I don't respect titles or wallets. I've met poor people who are worth a lot more in their humanity than some wealthy people I've met. And if pushing aside 60,000 people trying to get to work for a seldom used park is the definition of doing good for the community then people have a very destructive sense of what is good. Either empower the poor or destroy them all. Putting them on hold as we have done for the last 50-100 years is not a solution (neither is destroying them so we really have only one true solution).

Whatever happened with the FTA stating that closing this is a violation of the Healthline BRT funding Cleveland received?  Does this just go away?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/federal_agency_says_closed_pub.html

 

Whatever happened with the FTA stating that closing this is a violation of the Healthline BRT funding Cleveland received?  Does this just go away?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/federal_agency_says_closed_pub.html

 

 

If GCRTA comes up with a new plan that the FTA is willing to support, then yes. But I've contacted GCRTA and the FTA urging that the public be given the opportunity to review draft plans and data, just as they were with the prior plans and data that the city, GCRTA and FTA accepted but now don't seem to mean anything. Whatever is done must do no further harm to the accessibility and connectivity for the disadvantaged, disabled and elderly, as proscribed by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It's not a seldom used park and transit advocates going for that line will find a hard wall. Let's be realistic here.

 

This wasn't the best manner to come to this conclusion but it's been done. It should have been planned from the start. If there was consensus then to close Public Square to all vehicles, then there could have been cost savings from not having to build the reinforced concrete roadway. Now that will have to be taken out. The shelters are nominal costs. They are easily moved from their base (a few bolts removed) and transported by flatbed to other locations.

 

As far as my AASHTO comment, yes, KJP[/member]. AASHTO is involved in route movements for federal routes (interstates, U.S. routes). That was in reply to a specific comment about the movement of the U.S. routes through the Square, which isn't really an issue since the U.S. routes have long been routed around the Square and not through it.

This upsets me not simply because of the conclusion, but how we got here.

- The City wasted $120,000  on a study they are now deciding to ignore. 

- They then wasted unknown but significant amounts of money on signal poles, cable, pavement, utility relocation, ect

-  After the square was designed for bus traffic, they never decided to actually test out what that would look like. Even though that would've cost the city ZERO dollars and actually saved RTA money.  If they really wanted to 'study' a closed Square, they would've at least tried seeing what bus traffic in the square would've looked like.

 

 

Now who knows what the plan for a closed square is going to look like, because let's be honest the city probably doesn't have one.

 

The decision was truly a "Cleveland is going to Cleveland" moment. Why not just remove "Public" from the Square. Can't wait until it's closed off for corporate events.

OK, I'll bite. If you can demonstrate that Public Square non-transit usage represents a significant percentage (10%, 20%, 30%...) of weekday RTA transfers at Public Square, I will apologize and say that Public Square is not a seldom-used park. Here's the source data:

 

Every weekday, more than 30,000 customers are served by RTA’s rail hub in Tower City, and 40,000 customers are served by RTA’s bus hub on Public Square. As many as 50 percent of these customers transfer between modes, so it is critical to maintain that interconnectivity.

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/publicsquare

 

However, every time I'm at/near Public Square, it is desolate. I could count the number of people on the square with the fingers on both hands and have a couple of fingers left over for contingencies.

 

AASHTO is an educational/advocacy organization. It encourages federal policies. It doesn't set them. FHWA, FTA, FRA and Congress sets the rules and policies. The feds can accept the advice and suggestions of AASHTO. It can also tell them to go pound salt.

 

Now that will have to be taken out.

 

With what money?

I wonder if the city was waiting for the income tax vote before deciding to close the square permanently. They now have extra cash to pay off GCRTA.

 

The decision was truly a "Cleveland is going to Cleveland" moment. Why not just remove "Public" from the Square. Can't wait until it's closed off for corporate events.

 

It sometimes is, including closing the bus only Lanes around the perimeter of the square which is a violation of the full funding Grant agreement with the FTA...

AASHTO is an educational/advocacy organization. It encourages federal policies. It doesn't set them. FHWA, FTA, FRA and Congress sets the rules and policies. The feds can accept the advice and suggestions of AASHTO. It can also tell them to go pound salt.

 

Come on KJP[/member]. Specifically, it's this Committee that sets the rules. Decisions made by this Committee is used by all 50 state DOT's (and Guam & Puerto Rico) to guide their route numberings for U.S. and interstate routes. AASHTO considers the proposals and then submits them to FHWA for official approval based on their decision. To my knowledge, there has been no discrepancy between AASHTO's decisions and that of the FHWA - which controls the route designations (not the FTA or FRA) - which was the original question in the original post. The decision then comes back to AASHTO and the requests are then routed to the various DOT's.

 

For instance, Kentucky submitted a proposal to designate the Pennyrile Parkway as I-69. It was approved, like most other Kentucky proposals, based on AASHTO and the FHWA's approvals. The state does not submit them directly to the FHWA; it goes through AASHTO.

 

This is getting off-topic at this point, but looking through the archives, I can't see where either AASHTO/FHWA have been consulted about any route changes at Public Square. The designations have long been removed through the Square (since it was bus only lanes).

Decision to close Public Square to buses answers one big question but raises many others

 

 

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on November 16, 2016 at 9:54 AM, updated November 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The city's decision to permanently end bus service on Superior Avenue in the newly renovated Public Square answers the biggest question about the beautifully revitalized civic space in the heart of downtown.

 

But it also raises a host of other questions about whether Superior Avenue would be entirely removed from the six-acre square, or simply modified to give the space a more completely unified look.

 

Would James Corner Field Operations, the globally respected landscape architecture firm that designed the square be invited back to finish the job? Or will the city turn to a cut-rate firm to complete the square on the cheap?

 

And would closing Superior Avenue to buses mean ripping out costly utilities that were just reinstalled underneath the square in state-of-the-art manner?

 

Officials at City Hall did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did James Corner's office in New York.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/11/decision_to_close_public_squar.html#incart_m-rpt-1

AASHTO is an educational/advocacy organization. It encourages federal policies. It doesn't set them. FHWA, FTA, FRA and Congress sets the rules and policies. The feds can accept the advice and suggestions of AASHTO. It can also tell them to go pound salt.

 

Come on KJP[/member]. Specifically, it's this Committee that sets the rules. Decisions made by this Committee is used by all 50 state DOT's (and Guam & Puerto Rico) to guide their route numberings for U.S. and interstate routes. AASHTO considers the proposals and then submits them to FHWA for official approval based on their decision. To my knowledge, there has been no discrepancy between AASHTO's decisions and that of the FHWA - which controls the route designations (not the FTA or FRA) - which was the original question in the original post. The decision then comes back to AASHTO and the requests are then routed to the various DOT's.

 

Last time I checked, federal law supersedes state law. FHWA/FTA/FRA/FAA has the final say.

The state cannot designate an interstate or U.S. route without approval from the FHWA. To start the process, it must petition AASHTO for their approval that must then be sent to FHWA for their approval. For instance, the alternate designation for Interstate 90 (via Interstate 490 and 77) was something that had to be petitioned from ODOT to AASHTO who approved of the measure, which then went to the FHWA for their approval. (As part of the Innerbelt Bridge construction.)

 

The state can designate as many state routes it wants without AASHTO/FHWA.

No argument. But I don't care about state routes here. Moving on......

It's too bad we didn't have the political will and/or foresight to make this decision from the get-go.  Instead, in typical Cleveland fashion, we've wasted tons of dollars on a consultant (whose conclusions we now ignore); a design that now needs be re-worked; and costly infrastructure that now proves to have been unnecessary.  Also, notwithstanding James Corner's comments, you have to ask yourself how much better the whole design could have been had the decision to close Superior been made at the outset.  Now I fear we're going to be left with a lot of hard surface to the exclusion of green space.

It's too bad we didn't have the political will and/or foresight to make this decision from the get-go.  Instead, in typical Cleveland fashion, we've wasted tons of dollars on a consultant (whose conclusions we now ignore); a design that now needs be re-worked; and costly infrastructure that now proves to have been unnecessary.  Also, notwithstanding James Corner's comments, you have to ask yourself how much better the whole design could have been had the decision to close Superior been made at the outset.  Now I fear, we're going to be left with a lot of hard surface to the exclusion of green space.

 

There's a very easy solution available, and it involves stealing retail design from Crocker Park of all places.

$50 million to tear up a park, and replace it with a different park, only to immediately tear it up again because the people in charge didn't really want what they were buying.  Hadn't even bothered to think it through.  Again, $50 million.

I cant believe we didn't even get to see a limited weekday rush hour trial run and how that might look. It could have resulted in complete chaos and the city would say "see, we told you" OR we realize it's not that bad of a compromise ... we will never know.

$50 million to tear up a park, and replace it with a different park, only to immediately tear it up again because the people in charge didn't really want what they were buying.  Hadn't even bothered to think it through.  Again, $50 million.

 

Not all of that $50 million relates to the street--not even close to the majority. Much of the project cost was actually utility work.

The Public Square redesign plan has been in the works for years (a decade?).  I just wonder why the RTA issue, especially quantifying greater bus expenses due to Superior's closing, wasn't addressed until now?  RTA had mentioned their concerns about their passengers being inconvenienced by the removal of bus stations/terminals from the middle of the Square.  But I don't recall RTA discussing/complaining about the amount of money they would lose due to the Ontario and Superior closures.

The Public Square redesign plan has been in the works for years (a decade?).  I just wonder why the RTA issue, especially quantifying greater bus expenses due to Superior's closing, wasn't addressed until now?  RTA had mentioned their concerns about their passengers being inconvenienced by the removal of bus stations/terminals from the middle of the Square.  But I don't recall RTA discussing/complaining about the amount of money they would lose due to the Ontario and Superior closures.

 

The operating losses cost wise (in not sure about time) were explicitly outlined in the Traffic Study that I'm not sure the City has ever opened up. All three scenarios were detailed there.