Summary of the Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee Meeting

June 9th, 2005 at NOACA

 

 

 

Agenda

 

 

 

1. Opportunity Corridor Update – Mary Cierebeij (HNTB)

 

2. Intermodal Connector Update – Craig Hebebrand

 

3. East 55th Street Railroad Bridge Update – Craig Hebebrand

 

4. Quigley Road Connector Update – Craig Hebebrand

 

5. Cleveland Innerbelt Plan Update – Paul Dorothy and Craig Hebebrand

 

6. Other Business

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following were in attendance to the Urban Core Project Advisory Committee Meeting #2 at NOACA – June 9, 2005

 

 

  1. Brian Adams – COA
  2. Mahmond Allozi - NOACA
  3. Paul Alsenas – Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
  4. Michael Armstrong – Federal Highway Administration
  5. William Beckenbach – Quadrangle
  6. Debbie Berry – City of Cleveland – Planning
  7. Robert Brown – City of Cleveland – Planning
  8. Millie Caraballo – Cleveland Industrial Retention Initiative
  9. Neil Chase - URS
  10. Mary Cierebeij – HNTB
  11. Joseph Cimperman – Cleveland City Council, Ward 13
  12. David Coyle – ODOT
  13. Paul Creighton – Cuyahoga Community College
  14. Andrew Cross – City of Cleveland – Traffic Engineering
  15. Brian Cummins – Archwood Denison CC
  16. Randy DeVaul – City of Cleveland
  17. Paul Dorothy – Burgess & Niple
  18. Bruce Mansfield – Burgess & Niple
  19. Ronald Eckner - NOACA
  20. Bob Gardin – Archwood Denison CC
  21. Colleen Gilson – Tremont West CC
  22. Jim Haviland – Midtown Cleveland
  23. Craig Hebebrand - ODOT
  24. Jonathan Holody – BOCC
  25. Emily Holan – City of Cleveland Councilwoman
  26. Lora Hummer – ODOT
  27. Jamal Husani – Cuyahoga County Engineer’s office
  28. Kevin Kehres - URS
  29. Clair Kilbane – Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
  30. Steven Litt – The Plain Dealer
  31. Howard Maier – NOACA
  32. Joseph Mazzola – Ohio City Near West
  33. Mike McCarthy – Burgess & Niple
  34. John Motl – ODOT
  35. Phil Hartman – Ohio Motorist Association
  36. Jeff Noble – URS
  37. Scott Pollock – Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
  38. Jackie Ryan-Krupp – RCJ Resources
  39. Dale Schiavoni - ODOT
  40. Mike Schipper - GCRTA
  41. Aubrey Sippola – Whelan Communications
  42. Thomas Starinsky – Historic Warehouse District/The Historic Gateway Neighborhood Corp. 
  43. Diane Swander – St. Clair Superior CDC
  44. Timothy Tramble – Burten, Bell, Carr CDC
  45. Jerome Walcott – Catholic Commission on Community Action
  46. Ned Whelan – Whelan Communications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

The second meeting of the Innerbelt Plan’s Urban Core Project Advisory Committee took place on June 9th, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. The purpose of the meeting was to go over the Preferred Alternatives and to further refine them in the Project Development Process. 

 

Craig Hebebrand of the Ohio Department of Transportation began the meeting with a brief introduction and welcome.

 

 

East 55th Street Highlights

 

Craig Hebebrand explained the East 55thStreet project, including the widening of East 55th near the Shoreway, the construction of bicycle lanes where East 55th comes into the Shoreway, and the construction of a new railroad bridge above the underpass.  He said construction should begin in 2007.

 

Quigley Road Connector Highlights

 

Hebebrand then turned to the Quigley Road Connector and explained how it would calm traffic coming off of I-71 into Tremont, while providing a new road past the proposed Steelyard Commons Shopping Center into the Industrial Valley.  He said construction would begin in 2006 and also talked about the public meeting for the Quigley Connector set for June 16 at MetroHealth Center in Tremont.

 

Millie Caraballo asked how far along the Quigley Connector will extend. Hebebrand answered just up to Clark Avenue.

 

Caraballo inquired about the possibility of improving access to West 3rd, inquired if ODOT can commit to additional parts. Randy DeVaul from the City of Cleveland said that the City is committed to improving Clark Avenue near West 7th Street and I-490. Craig Hebebrand asked if the City’s work will include Jennings Road nearby.  Randy answered yes, construction will start this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colleen Gilson of the Tremont West CDC asked about sound pollution abatement possibilities for existing houses near the Quigley Connector with regards to the improved road and increased traffic. Neil Chase of URS said that from their studies they found only one house will be affected by increased noise, and they are working to deal with it.

 

Hebebrand mentioned the Ohio Canal Corridor Towpath will be positively impacted by the Quigley Connector construction. Randy DeVaul asked about what agency is taking on maintenance of the Towpath.  Craig informed him that the Cleveland Metroparks has volunteered to maintain the path, but that ODOT will be responsible for fixing any structural damage that may occur.

 

Hebebrand then talked about environmental studies and noted there are virtually no serious environmental impacts involved with the Quigley Connector.  Neil Chase spoke about cultural resources that URS studied and the hazardous waste clean-up spots that they need to consider.

 

Emily Holan, the new councilwoman from Ward 15, gave her endorsement of the Quigley Road Connector Project.

 

Cuyahoga County Planning Commissioner Paul Alsenas asked about the cost of Quigley Road construction. Craig said it is estimated at $10 million.

 

 

Opportunity Corridor Update by Mary Cierebeij of HNTB

 

            Mary Cierebiej explained the goals and objectives of the project, as well as the four different alternatives under consideration.  She also described the current state of the land nearby the proposed extension of I-490 as a boulevard east into University Circle.  She said much of the land is vacant and underutilized.  She added, however, some of the land is occupied and there are sensitive areas with churches and other institutions.

 

            The three goals and objectives of the Opportunity Corridor:

 

·        Goal 1: Access.  There must be better east/west transportation connections in the area and they must be faster than current routes.

o       Objectives

§         Improve access to University Circle employment, health care, education, and cultural venues.

§         Improve access to the Interstate highway system.

§         Improve access to the neighborhoods along the corridor.

 

 

 

 

·        Goal 2: Mobility.  Reduce travel time to the Interstate and neighborhood. Thus, there are congestion issues to consider.  Can the residents get around easily?  Commuters? Service levels? The RTA Red Line?

o       Objectives

§         Improve mobility between the Interstate highway system and University Circle.

§         Improve mobility between the neighborhoods along the corridor and University Circle.

§         Improve mobility between the Interstate highway system and the neighborhoods along the corridor.

           

·        Goal 3:  Economic Development – Improving University Circle’s competitive advantage, as well as economically helping the Corridor neighborhoods.  This could be achieved by improving movement of people and goods through the Corridor. In turn, this will encourage business development, enhance property values, and attract new residents.

o       Objectives

§         Improve the movement of people, goods and materials through the corridor.

§         Improve competitiveness of identified development sites.

§         Improve competitiveness of the corridor to attract residents, customers, employees and businesses.

 

 

The Corridor alternatives, as outlined by Mary Cierebiej:

 

  • Alternative 1 follows an existing rail alignment.
  • Alternative 2 crosses over a trench and has a broader range of possibilities.
  • Alternative 3 is the north alignment of the Corridor; the issue here is the possibility that there could not be an intersection at East 79th Street, the only continuous north/south street in the area.
  • Alternative 4 stays on the south side of the trench and may have the widest range of possibilities. 

 

Dialogue about the Opportunity Corridor included:

 

Alternative 4, some participants agreed, might include more property takes than the others, but it would avoid most sensitive areas, such as churches and cemeteries, and it might offer more economic development possibilities than the others. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Alsenas suggested that the Corridor Study look at his agency’s green space plan for the opportunities that are inherent in it.  Alsenas proposed a hybrid of road and green space to make the people that live there feel like it is theirs, not just a throughway for suburbanites to get to University Circle. 

 

Craig Hebebrand thoughtfully responded that the Opportunity Corridor is a unique and challenging opportunity. The city owns 40% of the land already.  The area needs to be ‘activated.’

 

Downtown Councilman Joe Cimperman asked if ODOT had calculated how much traffic the Opportunity Corridor would take off of the Innerbelt and should these two projects be looked at together and possibly modified.  Craig Hebebrand responded that it does not take away enough traffic to warrant a lane reduction on the Innerbelt or Central Viaduct.

 

Paul Dorothy spoke about east/south connections and access points of the Opportunity Corridor. Tom Starinsky of the Historic Warehouse District and The Historic Gateway Neighborhood Corp. asked if ODOT is also looking at the traffic count on Route 2 and I-90. Will it help with Shaker Square?  The Burten, Bell, Carr neighborhood?  Warehouse District? Is ODOT looking at the whole picture? Starinsky stated he hoped the Corridor would not fail like the Lakefront Plan.

           

Craig Hebebrand said, to Tom Starinsky’s point, it is difficult to consider how proposed projects will change traffic flow when funding for them has not yet been committed. 

 

Millie Caraballo asserted that Shaker Heights killed the last two plans for a Corridor because that suburb’s government perceived it as too much traffic into Shaker neighborhoods.  She spoke of the Forgotten Triangle area around the proposed Opportunity Corridor and noted that it is destitute; no one presently wants to invest in the area.  Caraballo pointed out that people do not feel safe going through there.  She said if you took the direct route to University Circle, through what is now a dangerous area, it would take only five minutes.  In order to take a “safe” way, you must go 20 minutes around. 

 

 

Innerbelt Curve

 

Paul Dorothy went on to speak about the Innerbelt Curve.  He said they will be analyzed based on six categories: physical condition, safety, operational performance, accessibility, environmental impacts, and capital costs.

           

He added there were three alternatives under consideration for the Curve: no build, minimum build and Alternative F. Alternative F is the design they have basically already selected.  Paul explained the option in detail which features a broad flattening of the curve.

 

Questions that followed included:

 

Randy DeVaul asked what the reasoning was for removing the East 33rd underpass in the nearby neighborhood. Paul Dorothy said they are redoing the rail tracks and if they wanted to keep that underpass, it would have required a lot of additional work and money. DeVaul said it seems to him that it is an important EMS route and he suggested ODOT check with the City’s EMS to see how the its administrators feel about the elimination.

 

Councilman Cimperman asked if the East 30th extension ending at Hamilton would possibly to go through and end on Lakeside Avenue.  Paul Dorothy said the plan presently calls for it ending on St. Clair Avenue, and that it could not extend to Lakeside in the future.

 

Diane Swander of St. Clair Superior CDC asked if ODOT could specify what improvements will be made to East 26th Street

 

Ron Eckner of NOACA asked that since ODOT is eliminating the East 33rd underpass near St. Clair, will ODOT build an alternate access point in somewhere else to cross over the tracks. Paul Dorothy said no. Craig Hebebrand said it was not worth the impacts.

 

Paul Alsenas said he sees two sections where the Innerbelt changes do not bring improvements:

 

  1. Why carry west-bound Route 2 traffic closer to Lakefront? he asked.

 

    1. Paul Dorothy said they have to adhere to safety standards – they proposed a curve to slow traffic that presently is merging too fast.  The improvement brings together two flows of traffic going at the same speeds.  Route 2 eastbound will eventually be shifted somewhat to the south.
    2. Craig Hebebrand noted that I-90 was main route going that way, not State Route 2. They will be working on signage to make this clear to motorists.

 

 

  1. It still looks like a severe curve, continued Alsenas.

 

    1. Paul Dorothy explained pacing distances and weave distances.  He said the curve shown on the screen is better than the existing one, but that nothing will be perfect because of all the existing surrounding development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councilman Cimperman asked if they will ever include truck access to I-90 before reaching East 55th/South Marginal.  Craig Hebebrand said there is zero chance of this happening. Cimperman noted that the Municipal Parking lot will not always be a parking lot, as development will happen eventually.

 

 

 

The Trench

 

Paul Dorothy went into an explanation of the Trench options that ODOT is still studying:

  • No build.
  • Western Alignment (problems with the Cleveland State University master plan).
  • Eastern Alignment (dovetails with CSU’s master plan).

 

With all of the alternatives, however, it is not possible to maintain the present Carnegie Avenue ramp. 

 

Jim Haviland of the Midtown Cleveland CDC thanked the Committee and ODOT for responding to Midtown’s concerns about the Trench. He predicted that at the June 14th public meeting at Myers University Club, ODOT would have Midtown’s support for the minimum build plan with the modification of finding a way to keep open the Carnegie ramp. 

 

He said access to Carnegie is critical for Midtown’s master plan.  He suggested that, with all the other new access roads being built and others improved, enough traffic will be alleviated to allow for the preservation of that ramp.

 

In response to Haviland’s comments, Hebebrand explained that the Trench has the highest number of accidents in the state and is the most congested Interstate.  He agreed there needs to be a solution to solve both problems: the CDC’s economic development concerns and the safety of motorists.

 

Cimperman agreed that this decision is difficult. He said that Midtown and Jim Haviland are looking at the economic development issues and ODOT is looking at safety and engineering.  He asked if there will be more traffic on Payne Avenue in the new Innerbelt configuration.  He speculated that might be a concern of the Payne Avenue Asian-American neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central Interchange

 

Paul Dorothy then explained the changes to the Central Interchange. Cimperman said there may be problems with the U.S. Postal Service Main Post Office on Orange Avenue.  Paul said the study team has spoken with Postal authorities, and everyone is on the same page.

 

Cimperman asked if there will be traffic problems with Cuyahoga Community College.  Paul Creighton from Community College replied there still are a couple of traffic problems.  He asked how much more traffic will be on East 30th Street because of the ramps that will be eliminated. Paul Dorothy said actually the same number of exits will exist.

 

A question was asked about I-77 and how it flows into the Central Interchange.   Randy DeVaul of the City of Cleveland answered that it will be a re-alignment.

 

The configuration settled on by ODOT allows for the tie-in to the favored Central Viaduct Bridge alignment.  The fly-over interchange in that area that was once planned has been eliminated from further consideration.

 

Paul Alsenas said since most vehicles are headed downtown, traffic will have to go through a so-called “keyhole” on the realigned I-77 to get there.  He contended that it does not make sense.  He asked how many lanes will there be.  Paul Dorothy said that such a traffic “keyhole” is not the case.  He said there will be two lanes.

 

 

Central Viaduct Bridge

 

Paul Dorothy explained the options: widen and redeck the existing bridge; keep the exiting bridge and build a new bridge – use both – one in each direction then build a second new bridge when the old one needs to be replaced perhaps 40 years hence; build one new large 10-lane structure.  He also pointed out that what alternative is chosen for Central Interchange traffic will directly affect which bridge option ODOT chooses.

           

Millie Caraballo asked why not build a whole new structure now.

 

Paul Dorothy went on to explain that one single structure with 10 lanes is the most expensive option: around $500 million.  He noted there is only about $700 million in the entire Innerbelt Plan budget.

 

A lady asked if they will create an extension back to Abbey Avenue in Tremont.  Paul Dorothy answered yes they would.  Cimperman asked if there will still be a connection to Ohio City.  Paul Dorothy said, yes, all of the alternatives will do that.

 

Paul Dorothy added that the Southern Alignment for the bridge has been removed from further consideration because it would require taking the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation on the south end of the bridge.  Cimperman agreed that it was a bad idea to take the Greek Orthodox Church.

 

Paul Alsenas said at the last Committee meeting, a Southern Alternative was shown that allowed the church to remain.  What happened to that? he asked.  He said he would like to speak about the bridge to Paul Dorothy and Craig Hebebrand at another time when they can discuss technical issues. He also asked Paul why it must be built now.  Why not wait 40 or 50 years, which is the ordinary lifecycle of such a bridge. Dale Schiavoni of ODOT asked about the partial rehabilitation costs.

 

Paul Alsenas then brought up the aesthetics of the bridge.  He asked, What is the plan? How does that work? Craig Hebebrand said it all comes down to money. Paul Alsenas asked if they build one bridge now and one in the future have they considered inflation and how much a bridge will cost in 50 years? 

 

Cimperman asked about traffic detours: When will these be determined?  Will it be the responsibilities of the CDCs to figure them out?  He thought the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority should contribute funds to the Plan, since the Port will be positively impacted.  He also asked if the $700 million is part of the current transportation bill.  Dale Schiavoni replied, yes, and moreover since this is federal funding, it has potential to be a problem with the Opportunity Corridor.

 

Mille Caraballo asked if ODOT can use Issue 2 money, particularly to rehab roads for detours.

 

 

Collector-Distributor (CD) Roadways

 

Paul Dorothy began explaining the CD roadways and how they may get bumped out of the Innerbelt Plan budget.  He said, however, they could be revisited in future budgeting cycles if in fact they did get bumped. 

 

Bob Gardin from Archwood-Denison CDC passed out a handout with signatures he has collected from people in his organization.  He said the citizens in this area of the city do not want sound walls built along the Innerbelt.  He said they would like natural barriers like trees and shrubs planted instead of the “unsightly” walls.  ODOT said they would send representatives into that neighborhood to find out about concerns.  Gardin said that is what Archwood-Denison has been trying to do -- get ODOT to come to a meeting so ODOT planners can here citizens’ opinions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      Dale Schiavoni of ODOT explained the ODOT Retrofit Walls program – said this area qualifies for this program and that the Innerbelt Plan does not need to put its own money into it. 

 

Brian Cummins, former director Old Brooklyn CDC and presently a Cleveland City council candidate, asked about the Fulton/I-71 interchange. Will ODOT be building bike lanes?  Cummins and Gardin pushed for Craig Hebebrand or another representative from ODOT to come to the Archwood-Denison/Clark Metro meeting on Monday June 27th at the Applewood Centers.  Craig promised someone would be there.

 

Colleen Gilson of Tremont West asked if ODOT would provide maps for the CDCs, and Hebebrand said they would get them out to them soon.

 

The meeting came to an end and Hebebrand announced the next meeting will be at the end of summer.

 

 

####