Jump to content
zaceman

Cleveland: Lakefront Development and News

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

There’s money here, but it’s spent in sequence.   More to maintain steady employment for the construction workers than any other reason.   That way if there’s a disaster we have experienced people ready to rebuild.

 

Right now the OC and 480/271 division are the main projects.   When those come to a close they will look for something else.

The irony of Deadman’s Curve (remember the laughable effort to start calling it the Be Safe Curve?) is people respect it and there hasn’t been a problem in a long time.  (Yes, I knocked wood when I said that.)  Therefore it’s not that much of a priority.

 

 I was thinking more in the design/conceptual sense.  No one ever does them because our dollars must be spent on $500 toilet seats for navy ships, etc.   Road projects always go to the lowest bidder therefore lack originality and durability.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it took so long......

 

Lakefront-I-90_shoreway-Gordon+Park-c201

 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2020

Moving I-90 an option in new ODOT & Metroparks lakefront plans

 

Sliced in half by a freeway nearly 70 years ago, Cleveland's Gordon Park and its surrounding area were recently dubbed by east-side real estate developers as a potential "Edgewater East." It could be that and more depending on the results of two separate but related planning efforts that got underway last week.

The first is a multi-agency effort led by the Cleveland Metroparks called the Cleveland Harbor Eastern Embayment Resilience Study (CHEERS). Its goal is to accommodate dredge disposal, create additional aquatic and terrestrial habitat, protect existing highway infrastructure and enhance the lakeshore from near the east end of Burke Lakefront Airport to Dike 14 at Gordon Park as a dynamic community asset.

 

A $125,000 grant was recently awarded to the Metroparks by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to cover nearly half of the $251,000 cost of the CHEERS plan. The Metroparks, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Office of Coastal Management and City of Cleveland each pledged $25,200 as their matching shares.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2020/06/moving-i-90-option-in-new-odot.html

  • Like 12
  • Love 3
  • Thanks 4

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KJP said:

 

I'm working on it. Slowly. Took me 20 minutes just to figure out when CPP's lakefront power station was built....

I'm guessing that KJP's article will be about the ICE BREAKER WIND TURBINES PROJECT...

 

Can I get a second guess??

 

THANKS KJP for ANOTHER GREAT ARTICLE!!

Edited by Larry1962
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their acronym game is on point.

 

Quote

The first is a multi-agency effort led by the Cleveland Metroparks called the Cleveland Harbor Eastern Embayment Resilience Study (CHEERS).

 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relocating the highway would be an absolute game changer--arguably, even more transformative than the land bridge downtown. 158 acres of a high-quality park and public beach on the east side of downtown would dramatically increase Clevelanders' access to our region's most valuable asset.  Thanks, as ever, for the reporting KJP.  

  • Like 8
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone remember the cost of this idea when the inner belt was being rebuilt?  I remember Litt discussing it, but I don't know if ODOT ever really looked at relocating the shoreway at that time

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smimes said:

Relocating the highway would be an absolute game changer--arguably, even more transformative than the land bridge downtown. 158 acres of a high-quality park and public beach on the east side of downtown would dramatically increase Clevelanders' access to our region's most valuable asset.  Thanks, as ever, for the reporting KJP.  

Absolutely!

 

Anybody who’s been to Edgewater on the weekend in recent years knows that Cleveland NEEDS another beach.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, punch said:

Anyone remember the cost of this idea when the inner belt was being rebuilt?  I remember Litt discussing it, but I don't know if ODOT ever really looked at relocating the shoreway at that time

 

 

I think that the idea that was discussed at that time was moving the entire east Shoreway down next to the tracks, which would of course be a much more expensive proposition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to wonder why they built so close to the water in the first place? was there a reason? it seems like a non-brainer to build the highway to follow next to the tracks and keep the water access more open, but they didn't. very, very, poor planning in the 1950s or whenever and you cannot help but always wonder about that when you are driving around there. 

 

i hope they can find the money to move it and open up the waterfront back up, that would be fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FirstEnergy, then Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co, property had facilities that were pretty close to the tracks 70 years ago. And I-90 was built on the right of way of its predecessor, Lake Shore Blvd, which had at-grade intersections through Gordon Park and also went to the lake side of the then-CEI power plant.

 

BTW, I added to the article a quote from Chris Ronayne who was the architect of last citywide lakefront development masterplan. 

  • Like 2

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

The FirstEnergy, then Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co, property had facilities that were pretty close to the tracks 70 years ago. And I-90 was built on the right of way of its predecessor, Lake Shore Blvd, which had at-grade intersections through Gordon Park and also went to the lake side of the then-CEI power plant.

 

BTW, I added to the article a quote from Chris Ronayne who was the architect of last citywide lakefront development masterplan. 

 

i know, but it looks like they could have moved a substation or two and squeezed the shoreway in between it and the tracks instead of it and the lake.

 

anyway oh well, whats done is done. its good to move it now.

 

 

spacer.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I remember that during the winter, waves would come up over the break wall and freeze, leaving icicles hanging over the barrier and onto the Shoreway.  

 

Great to see this open up, since BKL isn't moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Growth Mindset said:

I love this bridge as well. My concern is the entry and exit ramps, particularly on the west 25th/28th side. They are just not safe. There have been wrong way drivers and huge accidents at the eastbound merge. These need to be reworked to meet current safety requirements.

 

Yeah, I used to live over there, would normally take the bus downtown but I remember one morning a few years ago in the winter I had to drive in for whatever reason and the 29th at onramp to get downtown, yikes, almost got in a bad wreck. I don't think the off ramps are too bad though, especially the eastbound one.

 

They could probably just close the eastbound onramp and make people get on at 49th, it's not far at all. Or just take Detroit.

Edited by mu2010
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

 I was thinking more in the design/conceptual sense.  No one ever does them because our dollars must be spent on $500 toilet seats for navy ships, etc.   Road projects always go to the lowest bidder therefore lack originality and durability.   

 

Anyone who's ever seen the DoD specifications and documenation requirements, along with the typical order quantities, knows why pretty much anything like that is so expensive.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Growth Mindset said:

I love this bridge as well. My concern is the entry and exit ramps, particularly on the west 25th/28th side. They are just not safe. There have been wrong way drivers and huge accidents at the eastbound merge. These need to be reworked to meet current safety requirements.

There really is no room to rework. There are three option:

- drop a through lane coming in

- close the ramp

- keep it the way it is
 

They tried going the closing route and the neighborhood threw a FIT. So I don’t see anything changing.

 

Also, I can’t predict how long the bridge will last, but I’m confident in saying it’s safe right now. It was built in 1938, and last (majorly) rehab’ed in 1992. I’m sure they will try and maintain the superstructure as much as possibly because frankly I can’t fathom money going into a replacement. But then again other people decide that.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enginerd said:

There really is no room to rework. There are three option:

- drop a through lane coming in

- close the ramp

- keep it the way it is
 

They tried going the closing route and the neighborhood threw a FIT. So I don’t see anything changing.

 

Also, I can’t predict how long the bridge will last, but I’m confident in saying it’s safe right now. It was built in 1938, and last (majorly) rehab’ed in 1992. I’m sure they will try and maintain the superstructure as much as possibly because frankly I can’t fathom money going into a replacement. But then again other people decide that.

 

 

Since its 35 MPH on the west side, is it feasible to put a traffic light at the ramp?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, punch said:

 

Since its 35 MPH on the west side, is it feasible to put a traffic light at the ramp?  

I'm not sure if that section is 35MPH. i think it's a bit farther west where the speed limit drops.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freefourur said:

I'm not sure if that section is 35MPH. i think it's a bit farther west where the speed limit drops.

 

Pretty much it's wild wild west from the point where the bridge starts/ends- going west (Expressway Ends in X miles, aka at bridge end), and going East - 55MPH as soon as elevation starts going up towards the bridge...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Pretty much it's wild wild west from the point where the bridge starts/ends- going west (Expressway Ends in X miles, aka at bridge end), and going East - 55MPH as soon as elevation starts going up towards the bridge...

Heading EB the speed limit goes from 35 to 50 past the ramp merge. @GISguy is correct though, people drive whatever they want.
 

Could you put a traffic signal in? Maybe. There are different things required by law for a signal to be warranted. Remember though, the entire reason the shoreway is the way it is is because “people” didn’t wan’t the proposed signals on this stretch.

 

I believe it would be legal to put a stop sign at the top of the ramp though, which might be more politically tolerable.

 

I’ll need to do a little research...

Edited by Enginerd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Enginerd said:

There really is no room to rework. There are three option:

- drop a through lane coming in

- close the ramp

- keep it the way it is

 

I don't understand why dropping the through lane wasn't considered at the time they proposed closing the ramp. They had it closed for months during the Shoreway construction and it seemed to work fine. I lived off that exit at the time and it was much less stressful getting on the highway while the entire thing was under construction just for that reason. Three lanes coming from the west, one exits off to 25th, two continue on and are joined by the one coming on from 28th bringing it back to three. Seems simple.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all appreciate @KJP’s journalistic skills - he’s put most of the rest of the Cleveland media to shame time and again! And the news of the study on the relocation of part of 90 at Gordon Park is great. But the article’s gut punch and reality check for me was the line that federally funded projects of this kind, to go from study phase to ribbon cutting, take an “average” of ten years.  It made me remember that our dreams for the lakefront’s transformation have not only been a long, long time coming but will still take many years. . 
I do believe  that, in the future, the lakefront, like the city itself -which we are already seeing - will be a more activated, better utilized treasure. When I think of all the mostly landlocked cities in the country and contrast them with those on an ocean or great body of water, I feel like the most desirable tend to be the latter. That’s a broad stroke, but point being- what a resource and what further potential Cleveland has.  I’m looking forward to the (hopefully) bold transformation to come. I just wish it could come even faster... 

Edited by CleveFan
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...