OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 89194... · OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Thank you for...

OHIO DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

Thank you for participating in this workshop. Please let us know what you think!

1. Do you live near or travel across the Hope Memorial (Lorain-Carnegie) bridge?

a. Yes~

b. No__

2. Understanding that options are limited because ODOT is working with anexisting, historic bridge, do you think the proposed design options are consistentwith the "Complete Streets" philosophy, which promotes more walkable,attractive streets that serve all types of users - not just those who drivevehicles?

a. Yes~

b. No__

c. Don't know---3. Why or why not?

4. In addition to your table discussion, please let us know what do you think of thefollowing:

Description Preference Why This Was Preferred/Other Commentsc(C;ircle) .---,-~

Conceptual ("1,/2,3,4 or MVVi 1'l"!l-f/-lAse P!'-t1H to /.1;;i?:fH ~·IPt.

Option(s) '-Mix

BikejPed Lane, multi- &IS£ Or ~ ;f-1J12{20;.;/ Cio' /.f) ~/!. 4w.41'/CtCl C-y(",,(~rr

Treatments use path,./·s~arrow~mix ,;

Barrier ItYes:--'orNoEnhancements r---.'--"

Railing Option (l¥ or B--

v.,--

Lighting (if I(js or Nobudget allows)East End Ideas Blre (JO)(itr

West End (y;t;lJil tVHlI. ·n•. iI1lE PA--()-i ~'.•J tJ;l!.nI stoe Au- 'trJ-t W4f f4 (y£IIr.:/lJ~.ideas

Please write additional comments on the back.

NOVEMBER 18, 2010




a. Yes~

b. No__


a. Yes-X-

b. No__

c. Don't know _

3. Why or why not?


Description Preference Why This Was Preferred/Other Commentsf.Circle)

Conceptual r-:

fV0'f~ ') ~·olc~ y.~j2, 3, 4 or -::> Vl!lUS+ '../:><"5 (J

Option(s) IXYX 'J~ V~<'--'-'(jS !~(e.~<;

BikefPed Lane, Curnl.th:::>Treatments (ti~~~ .

rslfarroV>f..~mIX

Barrier ~rNoEnhancementsRailing Option A or B

-Lighting (if ,( ~orNo n~ " -!+'---"--"- f l\.~(

l/ b«..o.c«:\ I\A... f c--( hv\.+ (,budget allows) p/chrulEast End Ideas

West Endideas


NOVEMBER 18, 2010




a. Yes 'y.-1-

b. NO_'_-_

2. Understanding that options are limited because ODOTis working with anexisting, historic bridge, do you think the proposed design options are consistentwith the "Complete Streets" philosophy, which promotes more walkable,attractive streets that serve all types of users - not just those who drivevehicles?

a. YesA

b. No__

c. Don't know _

3. Why or why not?


Description Preference Why This Was Preferred/Other Comments(Circle)

Conceptual 1,2,3,4 orJ {r ( ~(r d /' J...,' \ J .~ ",'j:'Option(s) Mix I........ :<01 r\ \. - I

I <, .J

BikefPed Lane, multi-Treatments use path,

sharrow, mixBarrier Yes or NoEnhancementsRailing Option A orB

Lighting (if Yes or No Yej \ I, f' . T.r ?" ) ,'r ~budget allows) lA,v('rJ, t..,.) '"' ~-; 1.."..J..j

East End Ideas

West End I 'ideas 1C \4' :V ~

'vi d r-: vi c I ?,.,a iI""'l v'-\.... \. ~\H( ~ o?u\C'v:Q, '1/1 J \-- h,."" J J•...J


NOVEMBER 18, 2010




a. YesA

b. No__


a. Yes __ 5(b. No__

c. Don't know ---3. Why or why not?



Conceptual 1,2,3,4 orI i 5- / j1i~/'~ ~;'C4 YVlv (of I;' •.' 'P').f-f'

Option(s) Mix ~

P?''1 M Vv I'~h S{JfA~ •.., tt / 3. 'IC'i Vlpl /' f-1'f flU

BikejPed Lane, multi-Treatments use path,

sharrow, mixBarrier Yes or No '--I f. )EnhancementsRailing Option A or B f iJ ~~TLi'\-r-sQ i/V1. u,() {:?..-

L (;v- €'; T CG""'-<...- (.-- i.,AJ YLA-t I....--l tv < •

Lighting (if Yes or No,

budget allows) \\b; ) - r~(.)t S:fy'2,i v4rJ ~vl'L.·GEast End Ideas ,-

. ..--( IV'1\) £A--Cp L( Ai;;;'lll

~'VlvGI! pv (L (>0 $ (:: p~rWest Endideas ( ~ r....J.T) r- vE Vll1v C-n (lv(L (>6 5e-

'{v !IV 0(- t: S'IOf" VVl ;4yZ~~Please write additional comments on the back.

NOVEMBER 18, 2010


Thank you for participating in this workshop. Please let us know what you thffnkl


a. Yes-X-

b. No__

2. Understanding that options are limited because ODOTis working with anexisting, historic bridge, do you think the proposed design options are consistentwith the "Complete Streets" philosophy, which promotes more walkab!e,attractive streets that serve all types of users - not just those who drivevehicles?

a. Yes-L-

b. No__

~r (joV' ~r'u~k. ~Sj;;o~i',lV", (pel ,it;,I

c. Don't know _

3. Why or why not?



Conceptual Q)2, 3, 4 or fJ..~'\ J~('o"'J (\1\01 ~; ;) tA'i. Ao.l'ro'uf IO'tL. 01\

"Iv" ;~t"'"I '

Option(s) Mix .DeC\~ J ho....iJ-t1' ()1J «oce kr0" t(. (;:',i. ,(~\ t- ~fJ>.L\,. fiof'J-~ .r j'clZ I

(f)f\

BikeJPed Lane, multi- I.,' eY\J /Oo-tL,Treatments use path, <~ f\Of\'o tv{J

sharrow, mixBarrier Yes or No ~aJ 'IL ~~EnhancementsRailing Option A or B

I~Lighting (if Yes or No

Yf2J J7t?JeJt-<- ;~ +\12)~budget allows)East End Ideas 6:~ L,,~ for er~ of- ' I I VI !\o,to h' vs<0,1; .J~!,o'w',

N'ori- \"/j'.J~~i\ (tOJ,i V-6.! t( OUOij LLRf'~.

West End Ef(ieAd , " ~-t~ ~ G-eJ\i"~ideas I V£.-t:Jl

L1\'\Qvn-·~Ive.- c..fo,i.; VJOlk -tv (Q 'fA J'To?

J ,lJD0\1' f\j ; j,

[)-.'J h.

Please write additional comments 011 the back.

NOVEMBER 18, 2010

CJ\.·VEL"f

~~ •.•.I*.*..•.""'0>- I >I-

~. . ~\) ~ a-OHIO DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION



a. Yes.-i_

b. No__


c:tc~ (OCl,.CL1A/(,Lt L{.,kh~ f~iltl-f- ,'5

t~'D}?j/T(o} ..Lr"1 (0 tL5iS!-e."J· c·:..,nd no ~'o J--i 10"\N-t:r'?{O "U'l1('h'O /"j r.. c.; ...d" ,rI I. 'I~ L-t"t1'//V'-l'-r

/)

Cin~YlOL-.{ 9~ ic hk:h ;"Y:'5 §} VVLOy"e h,--e.~-tV2IJ·

h"",te/V'Cti.5f-u IrUf..! tl t \J /"}\.<YI c.:LhI) t1 '3)-iJ iCtJ1.,t,:r.L()l<.1


a. Yes1-

b. No__

c. Don't know _

3. Why or why not?

Why This Was Preferred/Other CommentsDescription PreferenceiC,ircle)1~), 3, 4 or

'WlixConceptualOption(s)

BikefPedTreatments

Lane, multi ..use path,sharrow, mix

BarrierEnhancements

~~rNo

Railing Option A or B

Lighting (if Yes or Nobudget allows) I'-J

F~{e5Yld-t:".- jyz:(;d tJ':) .1)'lf1{Yi~e(l lltrVJ,/l£'\.dc'.

UIIW q1A.c~1../L1n4 f..-.l On/c:.4'-i7; /aZr7)t'[11c).\ V

East End Ideas

West Endideas

.fvef{, \ {t 1YL l; J COr vJ (Jitht lc iuio h·, c:t'6:eh:'Tt'!j l./ f{)5<J))/1 ~) I C cFiJ'u' ci tu t{)(9f.5i{lLN,j;?--jt;:.."f, (')k.. 1'1It t t:U1. of" <:;' k' h'Z~) Ii'; U)r0/ i, "ul/L

Please write additional comments on the back.h{,Cl oy\.()1 il'.f5~el$i( ct1 IJY-1't~-£,,"

NOVEMBER 18, 2010



1. Do you live near or travel across the Hope Memorial (Loraln-Carneqle) bridge?

a. Yesl[.- ,

b. No__


a. Yes\/'b. N01.L

J

c. Don't know _

3. Why or why not? N 1 t·i C n. It:; -t }v'l\ ~ ,~·.~r/~i j '\<~ t! :1 ~!r (isU 1:J';t;;:'l~..!\V-·$ i./v. \.. .r.... t~-','<' -r ....•·"""'l·-./!./.r:;,:-:-,/ >:x P+>' :'iJc~"'-vr...1«

. ." or-- ,- -, -, ,. " c., L l;:::;- • , 1;... •••.•. \ ,/,....... ""f;:'t--1:~~~-\,.teJ',f\~-{-- 'j" f t t.....;!\t1~t: l) ) ~,..---i J';~' -'~i ,_?/- --f


Description Why This Was Preferred/Other CommentsPreference(Circle)

ConceptualOption(s)

1,2,3,4 orMix

BikeJPedTreatments

Lane, multi-use path,shan-ow, mix

BarrierEnhancements

., \~1..~'~<"~'l-y'l:JX ~,-,--\,}-,.-r" '-r;.-t '1 ~~ "y-i\ ,~~{~..-f.~~:~,t:~»;:;.:t,-~:~,,-~1:':X) 'f:'t.'>}<L. -n~--t;;:)\...-'\

Yes or No

Railing Option A or B

,P.~~:'I>(tjd./ T £::l,.L~j Ct.v/>';.;:'> ri'·f·!~5l:L~\\'.A~_:~})

~-_) ;T- - -~ ·fe.r)5 r-~'~/~;r'.:"t>~:"~'~:'~~L?'~J\ t-- S {~rl~;:t'~(

Lighting (if (Yesor Nobudg-et allows) "'-'...East End Ideas

_\3i"·oi~(~t;.>':.,h

West Endideas

NOVEMBER 18, 2010

~_v\J? \~.:::\,~l:$ ~.2J.~> ~'""'-4)\~~~;):..--..E':1\J';- ~~

'':f~ ~,<.'\.C."<i'. -'_:'.;~,; f!A"'<::";:::"'··",:.n i- i;:',::' t ,..,,<:. Y:::Cr/T:Ji 'I'. i, r::-t 1'-\ f ):"J.:.,' tc,. - I -- -. , '- ..

rz-' !-::::\ \(:.(j TJ( il. t:J~~~..;,\.~Ln- fl.;1\ n-\ "vti5-'~ Tb

,.~'l v {~~~~l ~~ '~> l;~",·lf~i~:':() "c'$~·;~~-~~

~l~t;1;rf--'~t.:





a. Yes ~

b. No__


a. Yes--b. No--c. Don't know V'

3. Why or why not?

(>'/:~:"'j_"') \.'1\ ~('lrrf':-'}"')) ;:;:';-


Description

ConceptualOption(s)

Preference(Circle)1,2,3,4 or~

~

Why This Was Preferred/Other Comments

:, :,!'~:r··:[ :.. tj

BikefPedTreatments

Lane, multi-use pafli';'~="~Sl1arrow;mix

F) ¢ <)

BarrierEnhancementsRailing Option A orB

Lighting (if Yes or Nobudget allows)East End Ideas

West Endideas

NOVEMBER 18, 2010




1. Do you live near or travel across the Hope Memorial (Loraln-Carneqie] bridge?a. yes"":!..

b. No__

2. Understanding that options are limited because ODOT is working with anexisting, historic bridge, do you think the proposed design options are consistentwith the "Complete Streets" philosophy, which promotes more walkable,attractive streets that serve all types of users - not just those who drivevehicles? \f.

a. Yes_I_'_

b. No__

c. Don't know---3. Why or why not?


Description Preference(Circle)

Why This Was Preferred/Other Comments

1 2, Ai) 4 or, 'fV'Mix

ConceptualOption(s)

BikejPedTreatments

Lane, multi-use path,sharrow, mix

BarrierEnhancementsRailing

NOVEMBER 18, 2010

OHIO CITYBICYCLECO-OP

1823 Columbus Road Cleveland Ohio 44113 OhioCityCycies.org 216 830 2667

Basic principles to keep in mind when designing transportation facilities for bicyclists:

1. Since most collisions occur at intersections, they should be designed before roadway treatments,and with all users in mind, and accommodations prioritized from the most to least vulnerable.

2. Engineered facilities should encourage cyclists to ride with traffic, on the right (whether in a bikelane, shoulder, or shared-traffic lane).

3. Bicycles are highly vulnerable to dangerous mechanical failure (tire blowouts) -- or at leastdebilitating inconvenience (flats) -- caused by debris on the road, which is nearly eliminated bysharing roadway space with auto traffic (and which can not be adequately addressed even byfrequent, and costly, maintenance).

4. Large speed-differentials between users of shared spaces should be discouraged by design.

5. Operated legally, bicycles at high speeds mix more safely (for all) with cars than with pedestrians.

6. Cyclists (and to a lesser degree pedestrians) will avoid steep and/or high inclines.

7. On declines, cyclists will travel - 25 - 35 mph., and are very averse to stopping.

8. Pedestrians (and some cyclists) prefer routes of the shortest distance over almost all other criteria.

9. There are some cyclists who will always ride in pedestrian spaces (children, very slow, very scaredof cars); this should be anticipated in design of facilities. There are others who will do so occasionally,if they perceive it as more convenient (the ignorant, inconsiderate, and scofflaws); this should bediscouraged by proper design elements.

10. Addition of facilities for "pedestrian" cyclists should not be detrimental to "vehicular" cycliststhrough the loss of on-road accommodation; either real (loss of useful roadway space), or virtual (bycreation of motorists' perception that cyclists are subject to mandatory sidepath use).

11. In designing engineered facilities, cyclists and pedestrians are owed the highest safety standardseverywhere possible, and deserve higher convenience wherever reasonable.

12. Environmental factors are secondarily important to non-motorized users: exposure to wind, sun,rain,snow, noise, dark, and seclusion should be minimized; while broad vistas (with resting spots) anddiversity of environments and destinations should be maximized -- but only after safety and utilityconcerns have been satisfied.

file:///C|/...%20Worksop%201/Summary%20and%20Comments/Comments_PDFs/Cronin_Followup%20on%20ODOT%20Meeting_16.txt[12/13/2010 10:54:25 AM]

From: Kevin Cronin [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:35 AMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: <[email protected]>Subject: Followup on ODOT Meeting on Bridge and Pedestrian Paths Around the Innerbelt Bridge

Thank you for the opportunity to supplement the public session regarding the bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge and the surrounding area. You asked for the continuing input of cyclists and pedestrians and with that in mind, I want to share some additional thoughts from the cycling community.

While there was support for some variant of ODOT option 3 (concentrating the bike traffic on one side), the largest chuck of support was for option 1, with 10 ft. multi-use paths on both sides of the bridge. To that, I would add that cyclists support:1) Evaluating options to replace the barriers with something narrower (like the California highway option approved for the Bay Bridge in San Fransisco), which would have the added advantage of creating additional pedestrian/cyclist space;2) Evaluate the availability of a waiver to allow 11 ft. traffic lanes, which will encourage speed law compliance and also create additional bicycle/pedestrian space. The 12 ft. lanes encourage, or at very least faccilitate, automobile non-compliance with speed laws;3) Add speed control and feedback mechanisms (cameras and speed monitor messaging) to encourage compliance with a 30 mph speed limit;4) Evaluate the space under the bridge and beside the Fire Museum for routing southside bridge bike/pedestrian traffic at the east end of the bridge or other bicycle traffic leaving the bridge to go south or east;5) Signs should be liberally provided, with specific warnings at the east and westside access points to watch for cyclists and pedestrians.

There was some support for option 3, travel lanes on both sides of the bridge will better serve cyclists moving south from the east end of the bridge (also, the reform of Abbey Avenue Bridge route will likely deliver more cyclists and pedestrians to the south side of the bridge). As there will be higher maintenance costs for caring for both sides of the bridge, the state and city should work with cyclists to develop creative solutions to the path maintenance needs, potentially including collaboration with cyclists to develop bike-based solutions .

Unsettled Issues that Did Not Receive Sufficient Discussion:Ongoing maintenance is an important issue and there was little if any discussion of this issue.How does ODOT intend to mark the 10 multi-use path to limit the potential for conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians?Signage warning motorists about the cyclists and pedestrians as they exit the paths will be a critical safety issue.There has been insufficient discussion and evaluation of the merit of passing under the bridge to cross from the north side of the bridge to proceed south or east. The idea is different, but shouldn't be rejected out of hand. There is a need to look at creative solutions.

Thank you for the opportunity to supplement the record.

file:///C|/...%20Worksop%201/Summary%20and%20Comments/Comments_PDFs/Cronin_Followup%20on%20ODOT%20Meeting_16.txt[12/13/2010 10:54:25 AM]

ClevelandBikes : When ClevelandBikes, Cleveland Benefits!

Kevin Cronin, Attorney at LawThe Brown Hoist Building4403 Saint Clair AvenueCleveland, Ohio 44103-1125kevincronin.us

Ph: 216.377.0615 or 216.374.7578Fx: 216.881.3928

Jocelynn

Clemings/Administration/D

12/ODOT

11/22/2010 02:28 PM

To Matthew Schulz/Production/D12/ODOT@ODOT

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: Hope Memorial Bikeway Comments

[email protected]

h.us

11/22/2010 01:49 PM

To [email protected]

cc

Subject Hope Memorial Bikeway Comments

Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes

Please let us : Conceptual Option #2

Please let us 0: Lane; Multi-Use Path; Sharrow

Please let us 1: No

Please let us 2: Option B

Please let us 3: Yes

Please let us 4: The 14 - 15 ft multipurpose path should be on the north side of the

bridge and connect to the greenspace on the east end with the multipurpose path

heading toward eagle avenue. There should be sharrows and bike boxes at the

intersection at Ontario and any other intersection to provide priority for bikes.

Please let us 5: Th multipurpose path should continue to Gerhing on the north side

of lorain to allow for a tranisiton to the market and to the 25 mile hour road. A

multipurpose path and signage should wrap under the bridge and traffic both east

and west should be encouraged to go that route instead of east bound going up to

west 2oth street. This should be reserved for the road bicyclists.

Please provide addit: Lighting is important and having a clean smooth concrete

barrier that is as low as possible. Sharrows are essntial and recommend increasing

ht eshoulder on the south (eastbound) and expanding hte multipurpose path on the

northside to 15 ft, reduce the shoulder on that side. Don't like either option for

the railing.

Jocelynn

Clemings/Administration/D1

2/ODOT

11/22/2010 02:29 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/22/2010 02:18 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes


Please let us 0: Multi-Use Path


Please let us 2: Option A


Please provide addit: Railing Option A and Option B are not shown. I do however

like the combination jersy barrier with railing.

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/22/2010 02:29 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/22/2010 02:18 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes

Why or why not: ODOT has done a great job at looking at numerous options that

include more than just motorized users. Thank you!


Please let us 0: Multi-Use Path; Sharrow




Please let us 4: Crossing and/or turning left is really difficult all through this area

because it is such a vast swath of pavement and also because motorized vehicles

heading east are usually speeding as they come downhill from Hope Memorial.

Anything you can do to take away pavement, create things to slow motorists down

and/or increase speed enforcement will make the area safer for everyone

Please let us 5: As a result of this initiative with the bridge, I discovered the

W18th way under the bridge and I use it all the time instead of making a left from

Hope Memorial to head towards my home in Brooklyn Centre. Please put up some

signage and painted marking on the roadways so that more cyclists find out about

this bike route.

Please provide addit: The verbal comments made at the meeting regarding speed

are extremely valid. You can design and build incredibly safe and inclusive streets

and bridges, but if motorists drive too fast all is for naught. There needs to be

more enforcement via electronic cameras or other enforcement means.

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/22/2010 02:29 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/22/2010 02:03 PM


cc


Do you live ne: No

Do you think t: Don't know

Why or why not: Don't know what the "Complete Streets" philosophy is.

Please let us : None

Please let us 0: Lane; None

Please let us 1: No


Please let us 3: No

Please provide addit: I believe that before you even consider bike enhancements,

you should take a look at the Veterans-Memorial Bridge. The bicyclists need to

follow the specified bike paths and know the rules. In addition, I do not believe the

amount of bicyclists jsutifies the exhorbitant cost of the modifications. Finally,

before lighting the Guardians, they should be repaired, cleaned and sealed - money

should be spent on this in lieu of bike lanes and such; it is an historic structure.

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/22/2010 02:30 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/22/2010 01:53 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes


Please let us 0: Lane; Multi-Use Path; Sharrow

Please let us 1: No



Please let us 4: Multipupose path should be on the north side of the bridge and

connect to the greenspace and multi purpose path heading up to eagle.

Please let us 5: Multipurpose path shoudl extend to Gehring. Shouold direct traffic

in both directions headed to tremont to the path that wraps under the bridge to

West 18th street. Direct east bound bike traffice this way while still providing

sharrows for the road way bikers up 20th streeet.

Please provide addit: Increase multipurpose path on north side of bridge to 15 feet

by reducing the shoulder on that side of the bridge, Increase shoulder on south

side Eastbound to 2 feet from one. Use Sharrows and bike boxes.

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/22/2010 03:06 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/22/2010 02:48 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes

Why or why not: The four alternatives are better for bicyclists and peds than

what exists but it looks like the study does not focus on the hard part-- getting

through the intersection at either end.


Please let us 0: Lane




Please let us 4: The PDF for the east end looked like a selection of generic ideas.

At a minimum the end should be shown in plan to see how difficult it will be to

bicycle through the intersection to Carnegie. It's great that the bridge cross

section is being studied but the challenge is getting through the intersection and

changing lanes without getting squashed.

Please let us 5: The best way to know what is needed is to ride it yourself (if you

haven't)and then prescribe what should be done. A bike box at the light might

work if drivers knew what they were.

Please provide addit: Thanks for considering bicyclists' comments. If given the

choice, I'd rather see the funds and expertise focused on bicyclists' comfort

beyond the bridge itself. Has anyone from ODOT ridden a bike eastbound and tried

to keep riding to Carnegie?

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/22/2010 03:07 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/22/2010 03:07 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes

Why or why not: yes, but a mix best achieves the designation.

Please let us : Mix

Please let us 0: Lane; Multi-Use Path; Mix




Please let us 4: a mini park at the northwest corner at Ontario and Carnegie across

from Progressive Field would be a nice stop over.

Please let us 5: improved connection to the West Side Market

Please provide addit: It seems to me a 6' sidewalk and a 6' bike lane on the south

side (with a barrier) and a 12' all purpose trail on the north side would serve

everyone's needs (walkers, recreational cyclists, roller bladers and serious bikers).

"Watterson, Andrew"

<[email protected]

d.oh.us>

11/22/2010 05:22 PM

To "'[email protected]'"

<[email protected]>

cc "[email protected]"

<[email protected]>,

"'[email protected]'" bcc

Subject RE: Lorain Carnegie bike/ped comment form

Thank you!

Andrew C. Watterson

Chief of Sustainability

Office of the Mayor

Cleveland City Hall

601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 227

Ph: 216-664-2405 fax: 216-664-3570

[email protected]

web: Mayor's Office of Sustainability

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:16 PM

To: Watterson, Andrew

Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'

Subject: RE: Lorain Carnegie bike/ped comment form

Hi all:

I added an "other" field to that question. Does that do it, or do I need to do something else?

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D12/PlanningPrograms/Pages/HopeMemorialBridgeComments

.aspx

Safe and pleasant travels,

Jocelynn Clemings, Public Information Officer

Ohio Department of Transportation

District 12: Serving Cuyahoga, Lake & Geauga Counties

Ph: 216.584.2006

"Moving Ohio into a Prosperous New World"

"Watterson, Andrew" <[email protected]>

To"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> cc"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

11/22/2010 04:59 PM Subject

RE: Lorain Carnegie bike/ped comment form

Hello Matthew, I agree with the stakeholders.

The online survey however still had the railing options question and in fact only allowed you to select option A or Option B and did so automatically, so you could not select other or skip that question.

If this can be corrected, it would reduce the confusion.

Thanks and best regards,

Andrew C. Watterson Chief of Sustainability

Office of the Mayor

Cleveland City Hall


Ph: 216-664-2405 fax: 216-664-3570 [email protected]


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:04 PM

To: Watterson, Andrew

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Lorain Carnegie bike/ped comment form

Andrew,

The railing options, plexi-glass atop a concrete barrier and tubular railing provided at the meeting

were not preferred by the stakeholders, therefore, Odot will need to look into more options .

I have attached a copy of the railing options . This pdf copy is part of the power point

"Presentation" from Odot's website page 29/36.

Matthew G. Schulz, PE

ODOT District 12

5500 Transportation Blvd.

Garfield Hts., OH 44125

216-584-2117

Fax: 216-584-2279

"Watterson, Andrew" <[email protected]>

11/22/2010 01:44 PM

To"'[email protected]'"

<[email protected]> cc

SubjectRE: Lorain Carnegie bike/ped comment form

Hello Matthew:

The railing options did not seem to be posted on online, but there is a question about which railing is

preferred.

Best,

Andrew C. Watterson Chief of Sustainability

Office of the Mayor

Cleveland City Hall


Ph: 216-664-2405 fax: 216-664-3570 [email protected]


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 1:29 PM

Subject: Lorain Carnegie bike/ped comment form

Dear Stakeholders,

Please take a moment out of your day to fill out the on -line comment form from Odot's website

regarding the ped/bike enhancements to the Lorain Carnegie bridge project . This comment form

will be available till Tuesday 11/30.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D12/PlanningPrograms/Pages/Lorain-Carnegie(HopeMemorial

)BikewayImprovements.aspx

Thank you,

Matthew G. Schulz, PE

ODOT District 12

5500 Transportation Blvd.

Garfield Hts., OH 44125

216-584-2117

Fax: 216-584-2279

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/23/2010 10:59 AM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/23/2010 10:48 AM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes


Why or why not: We need to spend more time and effort planning the bike and

pedestrian transitions to streets, trails and sidewalks at both the east and west

ends of the bridge

Please let us : Mix

Please let us 0: Mix


Please let us 2: Other


Please let us 4: I think the best option is for a pedestrian sidewald on both sides of

the bridge combined with a bi-directional bike path on the North side of the

bridge adjacent to the sidewalk. The curb lane on the South side of the bridge

should be narrowed to the minumum allowed for vehicles and sharrows shold be

painted for bikes going East. The East end North side should connect to the all

purpose trail at least. The sounth bike lane should end in a bike "block" painted at

the intersection. This is my first impression based on meeting discussions and

feedback.

Please let us 5: Haven't spent enought time or sketched out possibilities but trails

should extend all the way to W 25th street in some safe design.

Please provide addit: I think eventually that an under the bridge access makes the

most sense. There is structure available with plenty of overhead clearance and at

least 15' width. The slide shown in the meeting last week shows an existing access

path but it is below the strucutre put in for streetcars and therefore doesn't

afford enought overhead clearance. I will assume that was just a mistake and not

intentionally misleading.

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/23/2010 09:19 AM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/23/2010 09:08 AM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes


Why or why not: It depends on which option is used. I cycle the bridge almost daily

for my commute. The current bike lane without a barrier is used as a breakdown

lane. So, any option without a bike lane barrier will be filled with glass, car parts

and broken down automobiles. However, there are other bridges in Cleveland with

pedestrian barriers (Abbey) and when we have snow and ice, it accumulates

because of the barrier and does not get plowed. Almost all winter, everyone bikes

and walks in the street because the barriers make those sidewalks impassable. So,

I think yes to barriers, but also a maintenance plan to plow the multi-use lanes

during a snow event. The multi-use lane should have a clearly painted bike lane to

prevent accidents.


Please let us 0: Lane; Multi-Use Path




Please let us 4: On the East end, the bike lane should continue accross the Ontario

intersection clearly marked. Also there should be "Share the road signage" in that

area.

Please let us 5: On the West End, again the bike lane should continue through the

busy W 25th intersection.

Please provide addit: I like barriers, but there should be breaks to allow

pedestrians and cyclists to exit the multi-use path if needed. As someone who

cycles at night in an urban area, pedestrians and cyclists need to have a way to exit

the enclosed multi-use path if they feel threatened.

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

11/29/2010 05:09 PM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

11/29/2010 05:08 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes


Please let us 0: Multi-Use Path; Sharrow; Mix




Please let us 4: Extend multi-purpose trail on the northside of the Lorain -

Carnegie bridge across the new greenspace being created when the triangular

piece of roadway is removed along Ontario. cross the eastside of Ontario at Eagle

Ave.

Please let us 5: Extend multi-purpose trail on the northside of the Lorain -

Carnegie Bridge as far to the west as possible. if it could reach the Westside

Market parking lot that would be great .

www.historicgateway.org ● Caxton Building, Suite 417 ● 812 Huron Road ● Cleveland, Ohio 44115 ● Phone 216.771.1994 ● Fax 216.771.8082

November 29, 2010

Kathy Sarli Program Manager, District 12

Ohio Department of Transportation 5500 Transportation Blvd. Garfield Heights, OH 44125

Dear Ms. Sarli:

I am writing on behalf of the Historic Gateway Neighborhood Corporation (HGN) regarding the multi-modal improvements on the Lorain Carnegie Bridge. I attended the workshop on November 18th and have since discussed the

various elements in each of the Options with key HGN stakeholders and our strategic downtown partner Downtown Cleveland Alliance. In collaboration

with our downtown partners we would like to offer the following suggestions. Preferred Option

Options 1 and 3 are acceptable. With both options, the use of bicycle enhancements should be used including sharrows, bike boxes, route signage and traffic signage that mitigate auto-bike conflict points.

Option 1 on the north side of the bridge provides a generous multi-use path for families and less experience riders. It also provides space for amenities such

as benches etc. The connection at the west end of the bridge works very well – with the designated path to Tremont via Abbey Avenue and the extension of the multi-use path to Gehring Avenue. On the east end of the bridge, the

connection to downtown works well. However, the connection to the future bike path southward to Slavic Village will require the less experienced rider to cross Carnegie Avenue and the on ramp to connect with the bike path.

Option 2 provides a multi-use path on the north and south sides of the bridge.

This provides flexibility for users to get to all destinations. However, the narrower path would not allow for amenities and might be congested during peak times.

Bridge Treatments

Lighting Lighting on the bridge will be essential to the success of the project from a safety and aesthetic standpoint. The investment that ODOT will be making

with this project and the fact that this structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places provides a great opportunity bring glory to this Cleveland icon. This opportunity provides safe, ample lighting for traffic and

pedestrians while highlighting the architectural integrity of the bridge.

www.historicgateway.org ● Caxton Building, Suite 417 ● 812 Huron Road ● Cleveland, Ohio 44115 ● Phone 216.771.1994 ● Fax 216.771.8082

November 29, 2010

Kathy Sarli Page Two

First, the inset picture shows historic lampposts that were originally located on the bridge. The need for lighting

presents an opportunity to return historic fixtures to the bridge. The fixtures could be located and spaced in such a way that

they provide lighting for both traffic and pedestrians and not require “high-top” fixtures. The fixtures could be located as

pictured or perhaps between the multi-use path and the traffic lanes.

Additionally, lighting the Guardians of Transportation would greatly enhance the experience of crossing the bridge – for automobiles and pedestrians. This

would also be a gesture of civic pride for Cleveland’s legacy of bridge design. Cleveland Public Art has received a grant for the design of the lighting scheme contingent upon a commitment to implementing the design.

Barrier and Railing Treatments We question the need for barriers between traffic and pedestrians. The Detroit

Superior Bridge project does not include barriers. Although, we do not have suggestions, we would recommend exploring traffic calming measures that slow traffic to the posted speed to eliminate the need for barriers. However,

safety is priority for any project such as this; therefore the inclusion of barriers should consider issues such as snow removal and maintenance concerns. Aesthetically, the barriers should be minimal and should include as much railing

as possible to provide pedestrians visual reference to traffic. Historically, the barrier should be minimal in detail and not detract from the historic details of

the bridge. Additionally, if a barrier is required, the historic light fixtures could be located along the top of this wall with railing in between each fixture.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the workshop and to submit more detailed suggestions to this very important project. We look forward to working with ODOT, our CDC partners and the community to finalize the design

and throughout the completion of the project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me – 216.771.1994 or [email protected].

Respectfully,

Thomas Starinsky Associate Director

mailto:[email protected]

Jocelynn


2/ODOT

12/02/2010 07:29 AM


cc

bcc


[email protected]

.us

12/01/2010 06:12 PM


cc


Do you live ne: Yes

Do you think t: Yes


Please let us 0: Lane; Multi-Use Path




Please provide addit: I think if barriers are included in the plans, that distinctive

lanes in the mixed-used ped/bike path should be made. A shared walk is always

difficult between cyclists and pedestrians. A good example would be the mixed-use

path on the Golden Gate bridge. It is hard to navigate on a bike with pedestrians,

and can be just as dangerous as cyclists close to motorists.

file:///C|/...orksop%201/Summary%20and%20Comments/Comments_PDFs/Trulio_Follow%20up%20to%20yesterday's%20meeting_14.txt[12/13/2010 10:52:56 AM]

From: [email protected]: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:58 AMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]: Fw: Follow up to yesterday's meeting

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Please see below. Matthew G. Schulz, PE ODOT District 12 5500 Transportation Blvd. Garfield Hts., OH 44125 216-584-2117 Fax: 216-584-2279 ----- Forwarded by Matthew Schulz/Production/D12/ODOT on 11/22/2010 11:57 AM ----- Natalie Conley/Production/D12/ODOT 11/22/2010 11:35 AM ToMatthew Schulz/Production/D12/ODOT@ODOT ccKathy Sarli/Production/D12/ODOT@ODOT SubjectFw: Follow up to yesterday's meeting

Matt, please be sure that Mrs. Trolio's comment are forwarded to the design team. She had to leave early. Thank you, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Natalie Conley Ohio Department of Transportation - District Twelve v: 216.584.2103 | f: 216.584.2279 | e: [email protected] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ----- Forwarded by Natalie Conley/Production/D12/ODOT on 11/22/2010 11:19 AM ----- "Kristen Trolio" <[email protected]> 11/19/2010 03:09 PM To<[email protected]> cc"Chris Garland" <[email protected]>, "Michelle Davis" <[email protected]>


SubjectRE: Follow up to yesterday's meeting

Thanks Natalie. It was good to see you too. We, here, are concerned about the jersey barriers. As you know, money is being spent to remove the barriers on Abbey Avenue. We are concerned that the same complaints will be made – the sidewalks become impassable in the winter months and pedestrians and cyclists use the street. It would be awfully dangerous to use the street on the Lorain Carnegie bridge. I really hope that you consider these issues. Kristen Trolio Community Organizer/Model Blocks Manager Tremont West Development Corporation 2406 Professor Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Phone (216) 575-0920 Fax (216) 575-0998

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:00 PM To: Kristen Trolio Subject: Re: Follow up to yesterday's meeting You should be receiving a follow-up email with a web notification. If you have, or would like to reinforce any of your comments, the comment form and materials are supposed to be posted. Responses are due w/i a week. As far as consensus, I'm not sure what all results will be, but so far it looked like option 1 and 3 were at the top of the list. it was great to see you again, and thanks for your work on this project. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Natalie Conley Ohio Department of Transportation - District Twelve v: 216.584.2103 | f: 216.584.2279 | e: [email protected] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Kristen Trolio" <[email protected]> 11/19/2010 10:31 AM

To<[email protected]> cc


SubjectFollow up to yesterday's meeting

Hi Natalie - Since I had to leave early yesterday from the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge meeting, I was wondering what the consensus in the room was regarding the different options for bike lanes? What’s the next step in this process? Thanks! Kristen Trolio Community Organizer/Model Blocks Manager Tremont West Development Corporation 2406 Professor Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Phone (216) 575-0920 Fax (216) 575-0998

Date post:	17-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 89194... · OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Thank you for...

Documents