In May, 2006 Kent State University’s Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative hosted two professional workshops in which members of the design community advanced a dialogue on the future of Downtown Cleveland in relation to the reconstruction of the Innerbelt.
The first session was held on Friday, May 19 and focused on connections and traffic patterns around the Innerbelt from the Central Interchange to the Shoreway. Topics included:
- The character of the proposed “frontage road” and wayfinding requirements to make it effective
- Experience of “entry” at major exits into Downtown
- Integration with CSU’s master plan
- Crossing the gap, bridges over the trench and continuity of east-west surface streets
- Strengthening the north-south streets so that the grid can better absorb traffic displaced due to a reduced number of exits
- Integrating public opportunities and innovative landscape strategies
The session split into three groups sketching ideas on acetate over base maps of the Innerbelt and connected city streets. When the groups met to share their ideas, similar themes emerged. Items that may generate public discussion include:
- Put the proposed 'frontage' road to be built alongside the Innerbelt in the service of strengthening the connection between Cleveland State University and Tri-C Metro campus and the urban fabric. Read more and comment here.
- ODOT's plan reduces the number of exit ramps to downtown and places more emphasis on the remaining ramps, particularly the exit at E. 22nd Street, to bring people into the city. East 22nd will be a major north-south artery and thus an opportunity to redefine the entrance to Tri-C Metro at E. 22nd. In addition, the I-77 exit at E. 30th will be a major Downtown exit and signage should indicate such.
- The proposed frontage road should offer more than an artery for vehicular traffic to access the highway from the Quadrangle and Midtown areas. The new road is a chance to ask "how can we create an evocative experience for pedestrians?" and offers a way of reconnecting with the historic street grid. For example, one group referenced a 1920s street map of Cleveland and merged the frontage road to E. 25th St. between Carnegie and Cedar roads.
The redevelopment of a new Innerbelt trench — a below-grade section between Carnegie and Superior — should be considered a subway system with a green cap or land bridge built over top. The Ohio Department of Transportation recently built a similar cap over I-670 in Columbus (which was developed into a retail area to connect Short North and Downtown). A cap creates developable land or even greenspace instead of simply a bridge. It could reconnect CSU and the Quadrangle with the rest of Midtown or offer a campus quad adjacent to where CSU's Master Plan calls for new housing between Prospect and Carnegie (at E. 24th and the Innerbelt)- With E. 22nd and the frontage road serving to move traffic, should E. 24th Street be designed to offer a better pedestrian experience by slowing traffic down and developing the cap/land bridge around it at pedestrian scale?
- ODOT would like to cul-de-sac Cedar Road between E. 22nd and E. 30th to encourage traffic flow north off the exit. However, what will be the impact to the neighborhood surrounding Tri-C metro and the public housing for interrupting the street grid? What access will EMS, fire and police have?
- If a cap isn't an option, can part of the existing green embankment be saved and incorporated into the wall of the trench?
- Keep in mind the connections of the Innerbelt to the rest of the area - how well does it serve as a gateway to downtown, and how important are approaches to important landmarks such as the lake, the river and scenic vistas?
Share your thoughts on the connections of the Innerbelt to downtown, the frontage road, the idea of a cap or land bridge and the other topics raised here.
- Image gallery from Innerbelt design charrette
- Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative's summary of design charrettes
- CSU Urban Affairs Professor Tom Bier explains how the frontage road and closing downtown ramps will create "the mother of all rush-hour snarls [and] is simply too risky."
Cap in Phoenix adds large urban greenspace
benlimmer Says:I saw the blurb regarding the Innerbelt cap in the latest edition of GCBL and immediately thought of “Deck Park” here in Phoenix. The cap in Columbus is retail, and I’m not sure that would add as much as a campus/urban greenspace. In the 1980’s when I-10 came through downtown Phoenix, the City had the foresight to cap the freeway with a park. The cap covers I-10 for nearly 2 miles. The park might be worth taking a peak at. Link.
Innerbelt cap gaining ground?
Marc Lefkowitz Says:The PD's Steven Litt reports (8-16-07) that the Greater Cleveland Partnership is dropping its lobby effort on behalf of Midtown Cleveland and its business members to keep the downtown / Carnegie Avenue exit ramp open as part of the $1 billion Innerbelt Project.
This is the last major snag, Litt writes, to moving the road building project forward. Sure, but last I checked, the half-billion dollar Innerbelt Bridge project was also open for debate. Shouldn't the GCP, Mayor Jackson and ODOT District 12 Director sit down and soberly assess the rising costs of construction and that building two bridges while maintaining the old bridge (before knocking it down) is probably the single largest drain on resources? Maybe then they'll recognize the visionary leadership of Cuyahoga County Planning Commission director Paul Alsenas and his singular, signature southern bridge alignment .
The GCP dropping its lobbying effort for the Carnegie exit must be part of a negotiated deal that has ODOT paying for the basic infrastructure supporting a land cap or deck park over the Innerbelt around E. 22nd—the idea floated by Hunter Morrison to connect Tri-C Metro with CSU. That's not to say the reported $7 million savings from pushing the Innerbelt project ahead will pay for the land cap—the cost to complete the cap will be, most likely, triple that.
Just in case....
KJP Says:...folks like Ed Hauser and others are able to alter the course of the Inner Belt planning work to force the consideration of more urban-friendly highway designs and alignments, I would like to suggest the following....
Overview:
http://members.cox.net/neotrans2/innerbeltremovalmidprojectrr-s.jpg
Bridge detail:
http://members.cox.net/neotrans2/innerbeltrrbridge01s.jpg
Here are some features of the concept:
> New routing adds only 45 seconds (or an additional 4,000 feet of distance) to the trip of an I-90 motorist passing through downtown.
> Assumes the Opportunity Corridor is built and that transit services to the suburbs are enhanced (such as regional rail, express bus, etc.).
> Demolished for the new section of highway are several old public housing complexes, Central Cadillac, a park and some additional structures. Each of these would be relocated or put back once construction is complete (public housing would be replaced with scattered-site subsidized units mixed with market-rate housing, such as where the Central Interchange was located).
> Access to downtown from the south and west is via an extension of State Route 176, which I've dubbed the "Downtown Access Boulevard" -- a landscaped, at-grade roadway north of the I-90/490 interchange that opens up land for development in Tremont and is less of a physical barrier between Tremont and Ohio City.
> The new Cuyahoga Valley Viaduct incorporates the NS tracks, which would become the Lakefront Bypass route for nearly all freight train traffic. The old two-track NS viaduct would be replaced with a three-track bridge and have about 10 feet more clearance than the old span to avoid opening as often for river traffic. In the new bridge, the lower rail deck only could be raised some 20 feet to clear even the largest of lake-borne ships.
> Sale of land on which the Central Interchange was located could net ODOT $1 million to $3 million per acre for the 60-acre site. This may win favor with the Federal Highway Administration, as the Federal Highways Trust Fund is faced with bankruptcy by 2009. Link.
> The Inner Belt trench on the east side of downtown is a mix of ODOT's proposal to remove ramps, and the locals' desire to keep them. It continues ODOT's proposed access roadway south to near Community College Avenue.
> Also a new center exit/entrance for downtown-bound I-77 motorists only would be built just north of I-490 for an enhanced thoroughfare providing quick access to downtown. Location proposed is to use Broadway, but could be adjusted one block farther north to Orange. The enhanced thoroughfare would likely be no slower than I-77 is during rush hours, along I-77's last mile entering downtown.
> The new highway routing and demolition of the Central Interchange would reunite the Central neighborhood with downtown. Caps over the new highway would create a visually seamless neighborhood streetscape in the affected areas.
I'd be happy to provide more information on this concept, or make available higher-resolution images.
more clarity please
Susan Miller Says:Let me be a "regular joe" reading your post and say, I have little clue as to which/what concept you are discussing. Are you addressing issues concerning the seeming “only” alternative? The drawings available on the web without the accompanying explanations may be part of the reason that it is difficult for many folks to care about this massive undertaking. Hebebrand’s PDF file on the CUDC website, for example, staggers both my computers.
As a consulting party to the section 106 process, I have been told that alternatives must be considered, and that though trench plans and bridge alignments may be “recommended” or “preferred” by ODOT or even endorsed by the mayor, no determinations have been made by the Federal Highway Administration regarding what will become of our innerbelt or bridge or trench.
Interestingly the map (the only one) of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) presented to the consulting parties was also unintelligible. Consulting parties asked for a map that would clearly show all alternatives. We were asked to help identify historic properties in the APE. However we pointed out that we could not tell how large the APE should be with only one alternative outlined.
The Powerpoint presentation available for download (I recommend waiting for the download as the alternative view is misleading) is here.
other maps and plans are available at ODOT site for innerbelt plans. Most are unintelligible especially without the words of the presenter. However, it is interesting to note that all the maps I can find address only the “recommended, preferred” alternative.
I would be most appreciative of further explanation and clarification of whose concept or which concept you are addressing and better images with keys as to what the red dotted lines, blue and black lines are or mean.
Thanks for the bankruptcy note. That could have a huge bearing on all these plans. Always good to follow the money
Oh, and I thought we were supposed to use our full names on this site, Ken J. Prendergast. Or are you someone in disguise as Ken?
Will try
KJP Says:The diagram is starting from a clean slate, with few preconceptions as to what ODOT or anyone else has proposed.
The dashed line is where the Rapid (Red Blue/Green lines) is routed. Black Line is a proposed realignment of Norfolk Southern Corp. via the Lakefront Bypass (see my report at EcoCity's Blue Project section). Green is recovered land area and/or newly developable land. Light Green represents parks/greenspace. Gray are new streets, boulevards, thoroughfares. Light gray are interstates. I can provide labels for future versions if you like. I would still like to provide some more close-in views for the alignment of interstate lanes in some key areas (if I get around to it someday).
I didn't give my name because I wear another hat in life (OK, several) and want to keep them as separate as possible. It doesn't always work, but at least I'd like to try.
intriguing ideas for innerbelt development
Susan Miller Says:I like the ideas. Thanks for improving my understanding of the maps.
I was amazed to read in the PD that with Stark's plan for the downtown development in the Warehouse district (http://www.gcbl.org/planning/warehouse-district/stark-plan) Port Authority official, Carney is quoted as saying that the plan might involve the Port 1) lowering the Main Avenue Bridge and turning it into a boulevard, 2) moving the railroad tracks on the lakefront underground and 3) moving the port operations from their current location.
The concept of making the Main Avenue Bridge more boulevard-like seems interesting, but how will it affect clearance in the shipping channel? How low can it go? Can you really tunnel through the manmade dredge filled marsh that is our lakefront area to run trains through it? Are the suggesting that they might cover the tracks with green space in much the same way that the parking garage at Case library is a lawn? Have the Port board members been privy to the bypass idea? Where is the best location for Port activities? East? West? I doubt if anyone in Lakewood or Bratenahl wants the Port closer to them, but it seems that very few members of the public have access to the lakefront at Burke Airport, so Jim Danek's idea seems to work for the Port along with some method of moving materials. Since you're the train expert, can you offer advice as to how to move materials via rail from dike 12 Burke Airport to the industrial areas of the valley that need to receive these shipments? Have I missed this in my reading of the proposed plans?
Is anyone from the Port Authority reading these posts and comments?