Campus District Connectivity

8/12/2019 Campus District Connectivity

1/46

CAMPUS DISTRICTCONNECTIVITY

Identifying Assets & Barriers for Pedestrians & CyclistsCampus District, Cleveland, OH

Report by the Kent State UniversityCleveland Urban Design CollaborativeNovember 2013


2/46

Funding for the Walk & Ride events and final report was graciously

provided by the Cleveland YMCA through a Racial & Ethnic Approaches to

Community Health (REACH) Grant from the Federal Centers for Disease Con-

trol & Prevention (CDC).

Campus District Inc. and the Kent State CUDC would like to thank

Bike Cleveland for their support and advertising of the events.

* * * * *CAMPUS DISTRICT INC.:

Bobbi Reichtell, Executive Director

Anna Meyer, Intern

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

CLEVELAND URBAN DESIGN COLLABORATIVE:

Terry Schwarz, Director

David Jurca, Assistant Director

Kristen Zeiber, Urban Designer

Jeffrey Kruth, Urban Designer

Julie Whyte, Post-Graduate Fellow

Spencer Mischka, CUDC Volunteer

Brad Valtman, CUDC Volunteer


4/464

SUMMARY

ABOVE: The Campus District,

a neighborhood directly east of

Clevelands downtown.

1 - Robert Wood Johnson

Foundations Active Living Research

website: http://activelivingresearch.

org/blog/2012/06/role-communities-

promoting-physical-activity

CAMPUS

DISTRICT

DOWN-

TOWN

euclid

superior

e2

2e

18

e30

N

e9

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Campus District Inc. and Kent State Universitys Cleveland

Urban Design Collaborative, funded through a grant from the

Cleveland YMCA, embarked on a community engagement

process in the late Summer of 2013 called the Eastside Walk

& Ride. The Walk & Ride was a series of neighborhood tours

designed to gather perceptions of barriers to pedestrian and

bicycle mobility in the area. Ideally, the study will lead to targeted

work, focusing on improving the biking and walking infrastructurein informed ways throughout the neighborhood. In this way, this

study can be seen as the preliminary neighborhood site analysis

that will lead directly to design proposals.

The Walk & Ride was conducted twice, once during lunchtime

and once in the evening, in order to gauge differences in

perceptions of safety and access across a typical day. This report

outlines the process and the findings, frames the problems and

barriers, and ultimately makes recommendations for specific

areas of future investigation and study in the Campus Districts

physical environment.

BIKING & WALKING: PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT

According to Active Living Research1, people who live in walkable communities

are two times as likely to get enough physical activity as those who dont. The

interface between our health and our built environment is becoming increasingly

well understood by public health practitioners and planners alike in view of the

growing body of evidence which illustrates how well-designed environments

foster increased physical activity. Often lost in public health messaging is the fact

that small doses of physical activity, like a 10 minute walk to a meeting or a half

hour bike ride at lunch, also yield important health benefits.

From a public health perspective, cities must be plannedor retrofittedto

ensure that the healthy choice also becomes the easy one for users of all

groups. Ensuring connectivity between destinations was a primary consideration

in undertaking the Eastside Walk & Ride process owing to its essential role in

encouraging more walking and bicycling.


5/46

BELOW: Preparing for the nighttime

Walk & Ride at the corner of E 22nd

St and Euclid Ave, just before dusk.

FRAMING THE BARRIERS & ASSETS

The Walk & Ride events were conceived as a means of engaging a wide variety of

public stakeholders in the action of framing the barriers to complete pedestrian

and bicycle connectivity within the Campus District and beyond. The primary

barriers that the study unearths are:

Lack of high-quality, continuous routes

Bridges over the Innerbelt

Lack of off-campus destinations and wayfinding to points-of-interest

Several streets & sidewalks feel unsafe, in poor repair Poor lighting and lack of storefront activity at night

Vehicular behavior

The study also exposes a cross-section of neighborhood assets that any future

development could highlight in order to capitalize on existing strengths:

Proximity to Downtown

Two growing centers for higher education

Interesting building stock and unique industrial character

Lakefront identity

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ultimately the report recommends the following as main priorities

around bicycle and pedestrian access in the Campus District:

Focus on the overall network

Redevelop the bridges

Consider bike share between campuses

Duplicate Euclids success

Consider alternatives to traditional bike lanes

Highlight good building stock

Design street lighting and vegetation to work together,

not against each other

Enforce vehicular laws

Promote universal accessibility

Postpone a new lakefront connection...but not forever.


6/466


7/46

BACKGROUND


8/468

CAMPUSDISTRICT

The Campus District is the neighborhood encompassing Cleveland State

University and the Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) Metro campuses, in

addition to their immediate surroundings. According to the Campus District Inc.

website, the neighborhood is a 500 acre area directly east of Clevelands Central

Business District, bounded by Lakeside Ave on the north, Broadway Ave to the

south, East 18th Street on the west, and East 30th Street on the east.

Due to its two large anchor institutions, as well as large businesses like St

Vincent Charity Medical Center and the Plain Dealer, the neighborhood has manyindividual strengths, but has struggled to claim a broader identity encompassing

the entirety of its area. The neighborhood is further divided by the Innerbelt,

I-90; and blocked from the lakefront by the Shoreway and existing railroad

infrastructure.

NEAR EAST SIDE INFRASTRUCTURE:

From the Campus District Inc.s 2011 TLCI Proposal:

The Campus Districts East 22nd Street corridor serves as a spine that connects

several large institutions, including CSU and Tri-C. The corridor is a main

thoroughfare that is currently dominated by vehicular traffic. The TLCI proposes

turning East 22nd Street into a multi-modal Complete Street that allows for

transit, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Recent and ongoing projects with the greater Near East Side of Cleveland are

transforming how people access and utilize the Campus District. Given the

construction currently ongoing for the new innerbelt bridge, changing traffic

patterns are and will be affecting the district. Once construction on the innerbelt

is complete, all traffic from I-77 will enter East 22nd Street at Community

College. It is important to keep these broader changes in mind as the Campus

Districts corridors are re-envisioned.

In addition to roadway infrastructure, the Slavic Village Community Development

Corporation has proposed a Downtown Connector Trail. The trail will not only

connect Slavic Village cyclists to downtown much more easily and quickly, it will

culminate near the southern edge of East 22nd Street, further emphasizing the

corridor as a significant, multi-modal connector.


9/46

BELOW: Current TLCI proposals, with

the Campus District for context.

CAMPUS

DISTRICT

East 22nd Street is serviced by the newly-completed Stephanie Tubbs Jones

Transit Center, which has become a major node of GCRTAs transit system and

encourages the use of transit to access the Campus District.

The Euclid Avenue Corridor Bike Lanes extend from the east side to E. 22nd

before terminating towards Downtown. Pedestrian character throughout the

Euclid corridor varies. While well lit and trafficked by students during class

exchanges, CSUs campus generally lacks frontage on Euclid Ave, particularly

on the north side of the street. This prevents the character and pedestrian trafficfrom extending further west into the corridor.

EXISTING ANCHORS, INSTITUTIONS, AND AMENITIES:

The Campus District is serviced by several local assets. Superior Avenue,

an emerging arts corridor, is characterized by local art studios and galleries,

including Negative Space, Superior Glass, and Litton Baila. Several local bars and

restaurants dot the neighborhood as well, including Beckys, the Croatian Tavern,

and Emperors Palace. Given the Campus Districts encapsulation of several

ethnicities, assets include culturally-significant venues with a regional draw.


10/4610

EXISTINGPLANS

RIGHT: The 2011 TLCI application

from the Campus District targeted the

potential for E 22nd St below Euclid

Ave to become a major connector

through a Complete Streets redesign.

CSU and Tri-C, the two main anchors within the Campus District, are

both in the process of implementing their updated master plans. CSUs

Infrastructure Master Plan focuses on reorienting towards Euclid Avenue,

Chester Avenue, East 21st Street, and East 22nd Street as well as unifying

the district with landscaping and placemaking elements. Meanwhile, Tri-

Cs new master plan focuses on establishing the campus as a campus

on a green roof through the implementation of campus-wide storm water

treatment and collection systems.

The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center has also established plans for

improvements and expansion through the construction and development

of additional transit connectors. These proposed transit connectors will

further establish East 22nd Street as a connecting spine. Prospect Avenue

will also be seeing the construction of bicycle lanes, as part of initiatives

proposed by the Gateway District TLCI.


11/46

However, due to its disparate character, the Campus District as a whole has

previously also gone through several planning projects, most recently in 2013.

The CUDC studied the following plan proposals and developed the Eastside

Walk & Ride routes partially in response to the suggested corridors these plans

illustrated.

2011 TLCI PROPOSAL

In 2011, the Campus District Inc. submitted a proposal to NOACA entitled East

22nd Street Corridor / Campus District Transportation and RedevelopmentPlan. The proposal focused on redesigning E 22nd St from Woodland Ave up to

Chester Ave as a Complete and Green Street. Funding is still pending.

From the proposal:

The underlying goal of the 2011 Campus District TLCI was to establish a uni-

fying identity to tie the campus district together. A strategy to realize this goal

included creating a stronger transit connection between Tri-C and CSU in order

to allow residents, employees, and students of Tri-C greater access to the Euclid

BELOW: The 2011 TLCI proposal for

East 22nd Street shows a redevel-

oped corridor with emphasis on

pedestrian and bicycle connections

and a redesigned streetscape.


12/4612

corridor. An additional strategy was to create integrated Transit Waiting Environ-ments to utilize public transit to support surrounding businesses. Another meth-

od to support the proposed neighborhood unification was the creation of bike

lanes to re-shape the districts streets for multi-modal traffic. The focus for the

East 22nd Street corridor was to build bike lanes into the infrastructural fabric,

enhance the existing retail anchors, and re-think land within the corridor that is

currently being under-utilized. Due to East 22nd Streets central location within

the district, there is potential for the street to be better utilized as a connector

between Tri-C and CSU.

There is an opportunity to furnish a sense of identity around the larger scale

Campus District, which encapsulates both Tri-C and CSU. Conceiving of thesetwo universities as a unified whole creates the potential to strengthen connec-

tions between the two entities, fostering a more holistic transportation network.

2013 CSU STUDIO: STUDIO 611

Studio 611s Campus District Master Plan was a collaborative effort between the

students of CSUs Urban Studies 611 course during the spring semester of 2013.

The students worked with their professors Dr. Robert Simons and James Kastelic

to create an overall vision for CSUs campus. The overall goals of the master plan

were to encourage collaboration between main anchor institutions; develop the

neighborhood as vibrant, livable, and sustainable; and provide entertainment and

education for all citizens.

Several design strategies were proposed for the realization of these overall

goals. One strategy was to implement a central plaza on East 22nd Street

where it crosses the highway. This plaza would help to establish this crossing

as a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly node rather than an underutilized

freeway underpass. Another key strategy was the proposal of 1,600 new housing

units within the district. Cleveland State is working towards becoming less of

a commuter school and is focusing instead on bringing students to live in the

Campus District. Providing a multitude of housing options would aid in CSUs

efforts to bring students to the district. A third strategy was to establish a multi-

modal hub for bus, rapid, and bicycles south of Burke Lakefront Airport. This

multi-modal hub would help to re-establish the lakefront as a location that is not

only publicly-accessible, but also has the ability to develop the lakefront as more

of a regional attractor. Finally, a fourth key strategy was to promote the identity

of the areas entertainment districts, including Old Chinatown / Art Quarter and

Playhouse Square / College Town. The idea is that by strengthening the individua

sense of identity of the neighborhoods within the Campus District, the identity of

the Campus District as a whole is strengthened as well.

BELOW AND BOTTOM: Images

from the 2011 TLCI for E. 22nd

St. Both images show proposals for

E. 22nd St. including bike lanes,

a vegetated median, crosswalk

treatments, public green space, and

amenities which would serve the

campus-such as a coffee shop.


13/46


14/4614

can be enhanced by a comprehensive, overall vision. The waterfront, for whichaccess is currently limited, can play a more pivotal role in connecting visitors,

employees, and residents of the Campus District to Lake Erie.

2013 KENT STATE STUDIO

During the summer studio semester of 2013, Kent State University Professor

Charles Graves prompted a group of students at the Cleveland Urban Design

Collaborative to establish a master plan for Cleveland States Campus District. The

group of students collaborated to create an overall vision for the district, and then

each chose a specific site to design an architectural intervention. The overall goals

of the master plan were to link the district to the waterfronts, thread amenitiesthrough new infrastructure, revitalize natural resources to improve health and

well-being, and to attract residents through new development and activity.

Within the master plan, students determined corridors of focus and reinvestment

based on their overall goals. East 18th Street and East 22nd Street were

established to be key North-South connectors. East 18th Street is significant

due to its potential to connect to the lakefront, and East 22nd Street is important

as its already connects CSU with Tri-C. As a result, there is an opportunity to

strengthen this connection by providing multi-modal options. In addition to

establishing and strengthening East 18th Street and East 22nd Street as key

North-South corridors, the master plan proposed the strengthening of the existing

East-West corridors. A final connector deemed crucial to the master plan was

a planned trail extension to increase bicycle accessibility to and through the

Campus District as well as strengthening bicycle connections to the riverfront.

The aforementioned corridors of interest within the Campus District provided

natural focus sites for students to select for their individual design investigations

that followed the master plan phase of the summer studio.

A major takeaway from the project is that while the existing East-West

connections within the Campus District are relatively strong, the North-South

connections need work in order to be transformed into true, multi-modal

neighborhood connectors. Another key takeaway is that there is a need and an

opportunity for the Campus District to reconnect to its waterfronts, including Lake

Erie and the Cuyahoga River.


15/46

LEFT: Kent State Universitys summe

2013 Masters of Architecture design

studio produced this overall plan

for the Campus District, connecting

the Industrial Valley all the way to

the lakefront. Students then each

chose sites, in yellow, to develop into

building proposals. Note the strong

emphasis on both extending E 22nd

St and linking it with E 18th through

east-west improvements.


16/4616

WALK & RIDERESEARCH

The Eastside Walk & Ride did not take place outside the larger context of research

on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, from the larger field of urban design or

within Cleveland itself. Several of these analyses are examined below, in order to

frame the larger neighborhood issues and also guide the survey design: walking

audits; walkability metrics; low-stress bicycle networks; complete & green streets;

and the CUDCs own work on widening community engagement around urban

design issues.

WALKING AUDITSAs part of the background research in preparation for designing the Eastside Walk

& Ride events, the CUDC studied previous examples of surveys designed to gather

pedestrian input. Specifically, the CUDC referenced the walking audits of Dan

Burden, currently with the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute. Burdens

walking audits take participants on short walks through neighborhoods in order to

encourage pedestrians to understand existing street design and visualize how the

street might be redesigned or improved for increased walkability.1

The walking audit model specifically reaches out to existing civic servants, like

policemen and firefighters, as well as participants in wheelchairs, in order to raise

questions about access and service needs in a cross-disciplinary collaboration.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundations Active Living Research website also

includes a selection of walking audits for consultation, as well as research reports

detailing the nuances and quantifiability of audit design.2

WALKABILITY METRICS

The book Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places3also attempts to

quantify some of the environmental perceptions that lead to livability and usability

of urban spaces, particularly streets. The book is useful to consult while studying

the design of public spaces and streets, especially its analysis on the five qualities

most essential to increasing walkability. These five qualities are human scale, or

the sizing and articulation of physical elements to correspond to the proportion of

humans and the speed at which they walk; imageability, or the quality of a place

that makes it distinct, recognizable, and memorable; enclosure, or the degree to

which streets and public spaces are defined by buildings, walls, trees, and other

vertical elements; transparency, or the degree to which people can perceive the

setting and human activity which lies beyond the edge of a public space; and

tidiness, or the overall upkeep and order of the space. Walkability is defined by

the measurements of each of these five elements, in that order of priority.

Unlike previous metrics for urban design, which primarily focused on

1 - WLCIs Walkability Workbook,

including the Walking Audit Survey

Tool: http://www.walklive.org/project/

walkability-workbook/

2 - http://activelivingresearch.org/

node/11563

3 - Measuring Urban Design: Metrics

for Livable Places, Reid Ewing and

Otto Clemente. Washington DC:

Island Press, 2013.

___

BELOW AND BOTTOM:Dan Burden

from the Walkable and Livable

Communities Insitute with community

members on a walking audit.


17/46

neighborhood density and street connectivity, the manual suggests particular

fine-grained urban design characteristics and particular measurements they

should aim for in order to achieve a holistic sense of walkability along a street.

Though the Walk & Ride surveys did not attempt to measure these elements

quantitatively, the general concept of identifying physical characteristics within a

streetscape and linking their design to perceptions of comfort and safety should

remain useful for further work in the Campus District around walkability.

LOW-STRESS BICYCLE NETWORKSAs a counterpart to the research on walkability, the Eastside Walk & Ride

also examined a 2012 paper entitled Low-Stress Bicycling and Network

Connectivity, by Mekuria et al.4The report proposes that tolerance to traffic

stress, which is comprised of elements such as perceived danger, exhaust,

fumes, and a lack of separated bike lanes, is the most important factor

determining bicycle usage in the city. The report proposes a system to classify

people by their tolerance to traffic stress, from LTS-1 to LTS-4. Accordingly,

streets throughout the city are given rankings from LTS-1 through LTS-4, thereby

linking particular sections of the overall network with the type of cyclist most likely

to use that street. The report indicates specific criteria for rating streets traffic

stress levels. Although some people have a higher tolerance for traffic stress and

4 - Maaza C. Mekuria, Peter Furth,

and Hilary Nixon. Low-Stress

Bicycling and Network Connectivity.

Mineta Transportation Institute: http://

transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1005.html

___

LEFT:San Jose, CA, with its streets

categorized into the four levels of

bicycle stress.


18/4618

would fall under LTS-3 or LTS-4, the report suggests designing streets using thecriteria for LTS-2, the Dutch standard, in order to tailor bicycling-accessible

street design to the average adult.

The report also makes the claim that any corridor is defined not by an average

rating, but by its weakest link: if a corridor is overall low-stress but has a higher-

stress section, the whole corridor takes on that high-stess categorization. In

this way, any street is only as bikable as its weakest link. Since intersections

oftentimes have a higher traffic stress level than their linear counterparts, streets

can potentially be rated by the quality of their intersections.

COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS

In April 2013 the City of Cleveland passed a Complete and Green Streets

Ordinance, and in August 2013 published a complementary Complete and Green

Streets Typologies Plan illustrating new street design possibilities.5The concept of

a complete street prioritizes the design of streets that are not simply for funneling

traffic through quickly, but are inclusionary of multiple means of transportation,

notably bicycle, pedestrian, and bus transit. However, Clevelands addition of a

Green Streets initiative to this ordinance illustrates the citys burgeoning interest

in finding ways to include green infrastructure in their street designs, particularly in

ways that include stormwater catchment and tree canopies.

Clevelands Euclid Ave, which runs through the center of the Campus District,

recently completed reconstruction as the best-practice Complete Street for

Cleveland. However, its does not include integration with green stormwater

catchment, as in bioswales and other green infrastructure. As the ordinance

BOTTOM:The City of ClevelandsComplete and Green Streets Ty-

pologies study, published August

2013, outlines design guidelines for

the redesign of streets to include

multimodal transit, green space, and

green stormwater infrastructure.


19/46

is so newly adopted, no true best practice has yet to be constructed. Instead,the Typologies Plan includes several design recommendations, broken down by

categories for types of streets throughout Cleveland. These recommendations

include traffic calming, intersection improvements, and green infrastructure ideas

and show various configurations for integrating these into vehicular corridors.

Categories of streets in the Campus District range from Very Large Streets,

Commuter Street (Superior Ave, Chester Ave, Carnegie Ave) to Medium Streets,

Industrial (Hamilton Ave).Any street redevelopment in the neighborhood will

need to include suggestions from the ordinance, and the typologies report is a

good place to begin parsing out streetscape redesign ideas.

CUDC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The CUDC has been collecting community input and feedback in survey form

for many years and across a diverse array of projects. Though each project

is necessarily different in scope and design, several previous surveys and

information gathering tools were referenced in designing the Eastside Walk &

Ride surveys.

Primarily, the CUDCs work on opening the lower level of the Detroit-Superior

Bridge to pedestrians and bicyclists was referenced.6In a series of events held

on the Bridge, a variety of surveys were generated to ask cyclists opinions and

observations as they traveled the bridge and nearby paths. At various stations

throughout a prescribed route, cyclists were asked to stop and offer insight as to

their perceived safety and general comfort with various conditions.

A similar strategy was undertaken in the series of events staged for the Campus

District. A public outreach campaign sought out cyclists who usually travel in the

area for their input and to partake in the daytime and nighttime rides. Maps with

a predetermined route and stops along the route were stationed to gather input.

At the various stops, a group leader would ask the cyclists to offer their opinions

on whether the route felt safe, whether it lacked lighting, road maintenance, et

cetera. Later this data was compiled such that various comments could be col-

lected for each station on the route.

5 - City of Clevelands

Sustainable Mobility initiative:

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/

CityofCleveland/Home/Government/

CityAgencies/OfficeOfSustainability/

SustainableMobility

6 - Kent State University Cleveland

Urban Design Collaborative,

Bridge Project: http://www.

bridgeprojectcleveland.com/

___

BELOW AND BOTTOM:The CUDC

has a long history with new forms

of community engagement, most

recently with gathering community

input regarding pedestrian and

bicycle opportunities on the lower

level of the Detroit-Superior Bridge.


20/4620

METHODOLOGY

The previous plans helped the CUDC develop specific routes for the Walk & Ride

events to gather feedback about particular areas of interest or potential future

corridors. For instance, because several of the plans identified East 22nd St as

a proposed north/south connector, the Walk & Ride routes made sure to begin

or end along E 22nd and asked questions about the perceived viability of that

alignment. The routes also focused attention on the various bridges across the

depressed Innerbelt, and potential connections to the lakefront.

The survey questions were not strictly scientific; for instance, several questionssubtly changed depending on whether the route was a cycling route or a walking

route. Many questions simply asked about perceptions and asked participants

to rank streets, or rate sites on a scale of 1-5. The CUDC also encouraged

participants to mark the map handouts with comments, which, though strictly

anecdotal, contributed to a crowdsourced Google map marking neighborhood

assets and barriers.

Because the daytime Walk & Ride was held to one hour in length, the routes

were necessarily shorter. The daytime walks were 2 miles each, meaning the

entire Campus District was split into two routes, north of Euclid Ave and south

of Euclid. The daytime bicycle route was 4 miles, focusing on north/south

connections and bridges across the Innerbelt.

Meanwhile, the night Walk & Ride, due to its two-hour length, was able to

traverse more territory. Because connections to the lakefront were such a key

factor in the overall study, the night cycling group biked across the bridge at

E 9th St and headed down the North Marginal Rd across from the Campus

District. The night pedestrians were also able to venture both north and south of

Euclid Ave, looking at potential walking connections between the two campuses

and into the larger neighborhood beyond.


21/46

Daytime cyclists received this map showing the route and

points of interest along the way, as well as a series of

survey questions which they filled out upon their return.

Similarly, the daytime pedestrians received one of two route

maps, a north-end route and a south-end route.

The night Walk & Ride filled two hours, rather than one.

The cyclists took advantage of the extra time to trek down

to the North Marginal Rd.

The night pedestrians were able to tour both the north end

and the south end routes in one 2-hour trip.


22/4622

WALK & RIDEEVENTS

The Walk & Ride events attracted a wide range of attendees, including current

college students, university employees, business owners, avid cyclists, and

curious passersby. Close to 40 bicyclists and pedestrians attended the lunchtime

event and 24 individuals participated in the night time event, mostly by bike.

Many participants commented that they were drawn to the project by the

innovative format of the public engagement process and the chance to provide

feedback while gaining first-hand experience of the neighborhoods streets.

In addition to creating a fun and active alternative to the typical public meeting,the guided tours provided a great opportunity for attendees to become more

familiar with the various areas that comprise the Campus District. Some

attendees were unfamiliar with the geographic boundaries of the Campus

District, so the Walk & Ride also served as a valuable marketing tool to attract

new visitors. As the planning process for improving connectivity in the Campus

District continues, the participants increased familiarity with the area will improve

the amount and quality of public feedback anticipated in the future.

RIGHT:Public announcements and

outreach were spread through the

Campus District Observer, as well as

through online social media.

BELOW: A daytime tour participant

posted the image below on Facebook

with the hashtag #eastsideasset,

noting the clear sightlines from

the neighborhood to Clevelands

downtown.

DAY NIGHT

bicyclists 11 20

pedestrians 28 4


23/46

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Tri-C

Restaurants /Nightlife

Other

Recreation /Green Space

Work

CSU

What most often brings you to the Campus District? LEFT: Based on feedback from thesurveys conducted during the Walk

& Ride events, most attendees came

to the Campus District for Cleveland

State University, but Work and

Recreation purposes also scored

quite high. This range of high-scoring

attractions to the area implies a

diversity of key stakeholders, which

much be kept in mind during future

planning processes.

BOTTOM LEFT and BELOW: The

group of bicyclists on the lunch time

neighborhood tour, led by the CUDCs

David Jurca wearing a reflective

safety vest.

BOTTOM:Attendees write out

responses to survey questions upon

returning to the welcome station from

the night time walking tour.


24/4624


25/46

FINDINGS


26/46


27/46

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Daily

Once A Week

Once A Month

Only DuringSpecial Events

How often would you use a bridge to the lakefront bikeway?

LAKEFRONT CONNECTIVITY

There arent enough attractions

on the lakeside to make me go

there. I think the improvement of

E. 9th is the priority for lakeside

connections.

POSSIBLE ADDITIONS

0 5 10 15 20 25

Increased Amenities

Improved Lighting

More Trees/Vegetation

More Street Furniture

Traffic Calming

Improved BridgesAcross Highways

Bike Lanes/Signage

What could be added to this neighborhood that would increase

your likelihood of biking?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Improved BridgesAcross Highways

Other

Pedestrian Bridgeto Lakefront

Traffic Calming

Better Sidewalks

More Street F urniture

More Trees/Vegetation

What could be added to this neighborhood that would increase

your likelihood of walking?

STREET CHOICE

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

E 30th Street

E 22nd Street

E 18th Street

Which North/South street are you most likely to use to

walk or bike through the Campus District?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

St Clair Ave

Superior Ave

Euclid Ave

Which East/West street are you most likely to use to

walk or bike through the Campus District?

The whole district needs increased amenities - retail, green space, art -

especially north of CSU.

Destinations. Art for t he public; cultural sites. More businesses north of CSU.


28/4628

ASSETS

9th

StClair

Euclid

Superior

Carne

gie

Prospect

Carnegie

Payne

30th

22nd

12

th

Ontario

25th

21st

Cedar

2

6th

14th

Hamilto

n

24th

Central

23rd

Lakeside

Woodland

Erie

27th

Davenp

ort

Bolivar

13t

h

Sumner

19th

20th

CommunityCollege

Rockwe

ll

28th

31st

30th

4th

33rd

3rd

Rockwe

ll

2nd

Margin

al

Lakesid

e

18th17

th

Rockwe

ll

22nd

21st

BIKEW

AY

N

GREEN SPACE

ASSET LEGEND

ATTRACTIVE STREETSCAPE

COLLEGE CAMPUS

GOOD BUILDING STOCK

POINT OF INTEREST

WALK & RIDE ROUTE


29/46

OLD CHINATOWN

Fabulous building, good dim sum. Could be a

pedestrian center, if more businesses join it.

The commercial strip along Rockwell Ave just west of E 22nd St,

known as Old Chinatown, was a welcome detour for tour participants,

many of whom had no idea the area existed. Though there was little

signage or commercial activity, the care and aesthetic character of

the street could become a niche asset for the neighborhood.

SUPERIOR AVE LOFTS

The brick warehouse buildings here are

fantastic! Makes for a great street.

The brick warehouses along Superior Ave, largely on the south side of

the street between 19th and the innerbelt, are in good repair and are

a healthy mix of light industrial, creative, and residential uses. The

consistent multi-story street edge brings a perception of density and

enclosure, especially strong assets for a streets walkability.

EUCLID AVE COMPLETE STREET

Nice buildings, green space, and lots of other

pedestrians - a real city vibe.

Euclid Ave, with its recent reconstruction to integrate bike lanes,

pedestrian amenities, and the bus rapid transit line, currently acts as

the public heart of the Campus District. Currently Euclid stands as a

best-practice precedent for the rest of the neighborhood.

CSU & TRI-C

CSU and Tri-C are not only the institutional anchors for the CampusDistrict neighborhood, bringing thousands to the neighborhood on a

regular basis, but they are areas of activity even after dark. Though

their internal urban design does not always take full advantage of

street potential for pedestrians, frequently locating buildings far back

from the street edge, it is clear to passers-by that the campuses are

well-maintained and well-patrolled.


30/4630

MAP HERE9th

StClair

Euclid

Superior

Carne

gie

Prospect

Carnegie

Payne

30th

22nd

12

th

Ontario

25th

21st

Cedar

2

6th

14th

Hamilto

n

24th

Central

23rd

Lakesid

e

Woodland

Erie

27th

Davenp

ort

Bolivar

13t

h

Sumner

19th

20th

CommunityCollege

Rockwe

ll

28th

31st

30th

4th

33rd

3rd

Rockwe

ll

2nd

Margin

al

Lakesid

e

18th17

th

Rockwe

ll

22nd

21st

N

STREET TOO WIDE

BARRIER LEGEND

BRIDGE TOO NARROW

POOR PAVEMENT

WALK & RIDE ROUTE

LAKEFRONT BIKEWAY

BICYCLINGBARRIERS


31/46

N MARGINAL RD

The roar of the highway, the pot holed road,

poorly maintained bicycle path, and the fact that

you arent actually riding along the waters edge

contribute to the less than fun ride.

As part of the Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway, N Marginal Rd, between

E 9th St and E 55th St, is incredibly poorly paved, poorly lit, and

blocked from any real lakeside views by Burke Lakefront Airport.

SUPERIOR AVE

Walkable but too wide, with high-speed traffic -

needs to be narrower to feel safe for cyclists.

Superior Ave, though boasting some attractive warehouse buildings,

is far too wide for comfortable bicycling. The lack of bike lanes or

center median, combined with the width that encourages vehicular

speeding, creates an alienating feeling of vulnerability.

E 22nd ST at INNERBELT

Environment is damaged by presence of

freeways - how to mitigate their encroaching onroad user experience?

As the major north/south connection between CSU and Tri-C, E 22nd

St could be an major biking throughway, except that the E 22nd St

bridge across the Innerbelt lacks bike lanes, sharrows, or even a

shoulder. As a result, most students drive between campuses.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE AVE

On the south side of Community College Ave, cars park on a diago-

nal. Though there is no bike lane, the striping pattern is confusing

and potentially misleading. Drivers back out into the road right into

the bicycle traffic. When vehicles are too long for the parking spaces,

they push bicyclists into vehicular traffic.


32/4632

9th

StClair

Euclid

Superior

Carne

gie

Prospect

Carnegie

Payne

30th

22nd

12

th

Ontario

25th

21st

Cedar

26

th

14th

Hamilto

n

24th

Central

23rd

Lake

side

Woodland

Erie

27th

Davenp

ort

Bolivar

13t

h

Sumner

19th

20th

CommunityCollege

Rockwe

ll

28th

31st

30th

4th

33rd

3rd

Rockwe

ll

2nd

Margin

al

Lakesid

e

18th17

th

Rockwe

ll

22nd

21st

N

NO CROSSWALK

BARRIER LEGEND

INHOSPITABLE BRIDGE

PERCEPTION OF DANGER

WALK & RIDE ROUTE

POOR LIGHTING

LAKEFRONT BIKEWAY

PEDESTRIANBARRIERS


33/46

E 22nd ST NORTH OF CHESTER

Sketchy and vacant north of the Langston.

Like many of the north/south side streets, E 22nd St suffers from a

lack of foot traffic, few destinations, and an overabundance of poorly

maintained surface parking. Buildings which do line the street are too

often lacking entrances or even windows onto the street, creating an

overall feeling of abandonment and disinvestment.

E 30th St

Terrible lighting; trashy; weird brick median.

The sidewalk bordering the under-demolition Cedar Extension public

housing complex suffers from poor lighting, overgrown vegetation,

and trash and broken glass. In addition, the brick center median on

E 30th St struck pedestrians as bizarrely pointless, with sidewalks far

too narrow for real passage and bricks in place of planters.

CEDAR AVE at INNERBELT

Inconsistent sidewalks and no traffic barriers;

whole area is ugly, noisy, and dirty. The triangular area bridging over the Innerbelt at E 22nd St and Ce-

dar Ave was seen by many as the most bizarre urban design decision

of the entire route. The Cedar Ave bridge was particularly unwelcom-

ing for pedestrians, lacking crosswalks, shoulders, and even side-

walks, essentially creating a break in the pedestrian network.

E 22nd St under CSU

Feels like a parking garage wasteland; dark,

scary & uninviting, with high-speed traffic.

Construction on the sidewalks under the CSU student center exac-

erbated the already-unwelcoming pedestrian conditions. The area

is dark during the day and lacks a shoulder, and traffic speeding

through creates a perception of danger along the whole block.


34/4634

When biking north of Lakeside Ave to hook up with the

Lakefront Bikeway, bicyclists noted that E 9th, the only

lakefront connection west of E 55th, has no bike lane

or signage, no shoulder, poor lighting at night, and fast

car traffic coming on and off the Shoreway. These two

existing north-south streets that link the Campus Distric

to the lakefront, and wayfinding signage to these streets

must be significantly improved in order to attract

pedestrians and cyclists.

SIDEWALK TOO

NARROW

NO BIKE LANE

OR SHOULDER

INSUFFICIENT

LIGHTING

HIGH-SPEED

CAR TRAFFIC

Pedestrian lights & planters. Columbus, OH Attached pathway. Richmond, VA Wayfinding to Lakefront routes.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES:

COMMON BARRIER_LAKEFRONT LINKS


35/46

Several bridges create harsh and unsafe areas in the

larger pedestrian network. The Campus District feels

divided into north and south halves in large part due

to the bridges over the Innerbelt. Occasionally, as

seen on the bridge across the Innerbelt on Cedar Ave,

sidewalks would simply disappear, without a crosswalk

to get to the other side. Any neighborhood redesign

should prioritize reworking these connection points for

pedestrians and bicyclists.

SIDEWALK ENDS

ABRUPTLY

UNAPPEALING

AESTHETIC

INSUFFICIENT

LIGHTING

NOT UNIVERSALLY

ACCESSIBLE

NO BIKE

LANE

Inserted multi-use path. Cleveland, OH5th St. bridge expansion. Atlanta, GA Bridge extended for path. St. Louis, MO


COMMON BARRIER_BLEAK BRIDGES


36/4636

NO CENTER

MEDIAN

Some of the east/west streets, like Superior Ave

and Community College Ave, are wide enough to be

trecherous to both pedestrians and cyclists. Vehicular

traffic moves far too quickly, and the lack of bike

lanes or sharrows emphasizes the risks for cyclists.

In addition, pedestrian crosswalks are few and far

between, which creates even more of a disincentive to

cross the wide expanse of asphalt.

Pedestrian crosswalks. --- Bicycle greenway. Philadelphia, PA Sidewalk seating. ----


COMMON BARRIER_COLOSSAL CORRIDORS

TOO FEW

CROSSWALKS

HUGE BUILDING

SETBACKS

NO BIKE LANE

OR SHARROWS

STREET TOO

WIDE


37/46

Green street infrastructure. New Jersey Building murals. NYC, NY

COMMON BARRIER_INHOSPITABLE INDUSTRIAL

Much of the area north of CSU is comprised of low

industrial buildings with little to no street presence,

particularly along the north/south side streets.

That there is little foot traffic and few commercial

businesses heightens the feeling of vulnerability for

pedestrians. Finding ways to mitigate this alienating

and unsafe walking experience should be a priority for

these side streets.


CLUTTERED

POWERLINES

LACK OF STREET

FURNITURE

MINIMAL

VEGETATION

BLANK BUILDING

FACADES

NO VISUAL

CONNECTION TO

THE LAKE

Contextual street furnishings.Manchester, UK


38/4638

DAY &NIGHT

E 22nd ST

The area along East 22nd directly north of Euclid, where the street passes below the CSU student center bridge, feels dark and

dangerous during the day. The sidewalk is under construction and there is no shoulder; this, combined with the lack of daytime

lighting, makes the area feel very treacherous to both pedestrians and cyclists. However, at night the area actually seems more

appealing than during the day. The area is pleasantly well-lit and traffic is at a minimum. In this case, a site that felt dangerous

during the day actually felt relatively safe at night, due to well-considered lighting, vehicular absence, and the presence of CSU

campus police.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE AVE

Conversely, the sidewalk along the north side of Community College Ave feels much less safe at night. The public housing

complex to the north is currently fenced off due to demolition, resulting in a lack of foot traffic. Still, the generous tree canopy

overhead might serve to create a pleasant walking experience, if the sidewalk were kept clean of trash and broken glass.

Instead, after dark the same tree canopy obscures any street lighting from falling on the sidewalk, though the street itself is l it.

Urban designers working in this neighborhood need to design tree canopies and lighting in tandem to avoid this scenario.


39/46

VEHICULARBEHAVIOR

STOPPING IN THE CROSSWALK

Even when bike and pedestrian infrastructure like bike lanes and crosswalks exist already, driver behavior too often results in

these amenities becoming dangerous to cyclists and walkers. Jason Moore, a local bicycling advocate, has begun documenting

incidents of drivers stopping for red lights in the middle of the crosswalk, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the street

even when they have the right of way. In many cases drivers turning into the crosswalk do not yield to the pedestrians either.

The City of Cleveland has begun regulating and enforcing these rules, but bad driver behavior persists.

DRIVING & PARKING IN THE BIKE LANE

Euclid Aves well-designed bike lane does not guarantee safety for cyclists. Many drivers use the bike lane for quick parking, as

if it were not really a lane of traffic, requiring bicyclists to veer around them into the vehicular lane. In some cases, such as this

RTA bus, drivers drift in and out of the bike lane while driving, potentially endangering bicyclists already in the lane. The more

often these incidents occur, the less comfortable bicyclists will feel in the bike lane, no matter the streets physical design.


40/4640

SUMMARY OFFINDINGS

The Eastside Walk & Ride events and subsequent report identified the following

as primary walkability & bikability barriers in the Campus District:

Lack of high-quality, continuous routes.

What bike and walking amenities do exist within the Campus District are often

scattered and disconnected. Subsequently, without real connectivity in a broader

network, the Campus District will discourage cycling and pedestrian through-traf-

fic, despite its central location in the city.

Bridges over the Innerbelt.

The Innerbelt functionally divides Tri-C from CSU. Many of the existing bridges

across the Innerbelt currently suffer from narrow sidewalks, poor lighting, and a

lack of bike lanes or shoulder, meaning pedestrians and bicyclists are less likely

to cross the highway unless necessary.

Lack of off-campus destinations and wayfinding to points-of-interest.

Beyond the edges of the campuses, particularly north of CSU, there are few

commerical or cultural destinations that bring foot or bicycle traffic into the

broader neighborhood. This lack of destinations hurts overall neighborhood

health, but more importantly, it also creates pockets of inactivity perceived as

dangerous to those on foot or on bike, exacerbating the problem.

Several streets & sidewalks feel unsafe, in poor repair.

Streets and sidewalks were very frequently cracked, potholed, narrow, or strewn

with glass or other trash. These characteristics of the neighborhoods streets and

sidewalks do not just give a perception of carelessness and abandonment, but,

more practically, they can be detrimental to bicycle tires and wheelchairs.

Poor lighting and lack of storefront activity at night.

Apart from the CSU and Tri-C campuses, lighting was scattered and inconsistent.

On sites that also suffered from a lack of evening activity, this created many

zones of perceived danger after dark. Even in areas with street lighting, a lack of

overall coordination often leads to the disruption of lighting by street trees.

Vehicular behavior.

Not every barrier to pedestrian and bicycle use is physical. Many choose not to

bike because of perceptions of danger from vehicular drivers. Even on Euclid

Ave, drivers too often ignore bike lanes and crosswalks, and subsequently cyclists

and pedestrians have to remain wary and vigilant.


41/46

ASSETS & OPPORTUNITIES

Despite these very real barriers to bicycle and pedestrian use, the Walk & Ride

events identified many existing assets and future opportunities for bicycle and

pedestrian connections within the Campus District.

Proximity to Downtown.

The Campus Districts geographic location just east of Clevelands Downtown

is its strongest asset. As downtown residential demand continues to increasethe Campus District could capitalize on the larger population through its strong

east-west connections, particularly Euclid Ave. Future connectivity studies could

prioritize bicycle and pedestrian links to the downtown by looking at possibilities

for restructuring other east/west streets into models for the citys new Complete

and Green Street ordinance.

Two growing centers for higher education.

Tri-C and CSU bring thousands of adult learners to the Campus District every

day, with a broad diversity of student demographics and needs. This energy

and vibrancy could be a real opportunity for the neighborhood if encouraged to

explore the broader area. These students are also highly likely to support bike

and pedestrian infrastructure, if developed.

Interesting building stock and distinctive industrial character.

Peppered throughout the Campus District, particularly in the industrial area from

Superior Ave north to the lakefront, are some incredibly sturdy and interesting

buildings. Though these buildings are scattered, participants in the Eastside Walk

& Ride tours reacted with favorable surprise upon discovery. Finding ways to

feature them within broader neighborhood routes should be a priority.

Lakefront identity.

Connecting to the lakefront may not be a top priority at present, since as of now

there is such minimal public access along the lakefront that there is little reason

to make the trip. Still, if the lakefront is ultimately redeveloped, the Campus

Districts prime location directly south of the Burke Airport site may recalibrate

the whole neighborhoods relationship with the lake. In this eventuality, the

question of creating a new connection from the Campus District north will

become crucial to the larger city bicycle network.


42/4642

RECOMMENDATIONS

Final urban design recommendations for how to move forward with bicycle and

pedestrian connectivity include the following:

Focus on the overall network.

Any future planning and transportation study of the Campus District will

have to begin with an overall strategy for bicycle and pedestrian connections.

Though as of now there are some discrete sections of the neighborhood rated

highly for bicyclists and pedestrians, the network as a whole too often lacks

overall connectivity, severely hampering usability. By focusing first on makingconnections between already-functioning components of the system, some

streets in the neighborhood could quickly be brought into the larger city-wide

network. Particular focus should be made on those east/west connections to the

Downtown, in order to capitalize on the Campus Districts central location.

Redevelop the bridges.

The bridges over the Innerbelt are currently the weakest link in the entire

Campus Districts bicycle and pedestrian network. Cyclists and pedestrians are

unlikely to cross over the highway unless absolutely necessary, and tend to drive

instead, even if the street conditions on either side of the bridges are favorable

for cycling or walking. As the primary north/south street between campuses,

the E 22nd St bridge should be the first in line. That said, the bridge at E 9th

St, though technically outside the Campus District, should also be reworked to

include bicycle connections, as it is currently the only link across to the Lakefront

Bikeway west of E 55th St.

Consider bike share between campuses.

A potential alternative to encouraging cycling from outside the neighborhood in

is to provide bike share options between Tri-C and CSU, with stations at each

campus. In this way, students would be able to quickly move between the two

campuses without driving, cutting down on internal traffic and parking needs.

However, if this option is pursued, the north/south connections of E 22nd St and

E 30th St need to be the top priority for redevelopment, as neither currently rates

highly with cyclists for safe navigation.

Duplicate Euclids success.

Though Euclid Ave has become a model for successful redesign of a Cleveland

street to include bicycle, pedestrian, and Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure, it

is currently the only such street in the Campus District. Two more such street


43/46

redevelopments, one each for the north and south sides of the neighborhood,

would serve the Campus District well in strengthening its east/west bike &

pedestrian connections into the downtown and out to the east side of the city.

These streets would also be simpler to redevelop than Euclid without BRT

requirements.

Consider alternatives to traditional bike lanes.

Some streets, like Superior, may be wide enough to accommodate not simply

traditional bike lanes, but also green medians, midways, or cycle tracks. Thougha full transportation study is needed before moving forward with specific

streetscape alternatives, such green additions could also include stormwater

infrastructure as detailed in the City of Clevelands newly-adopted Complete

and Green Streets Ordinance, creating a number of public and environmental

benefits with one simple redesign.

Highlight good building stock.

The Campus District is peppered with attractive buildings beyond the borders of

its campuses. These industrial buildings are not perceived as part of the overall

Campus District neighborhood, and are often unknown or difficult to find for

students. Signage or specific routes to bring visitors and students past these

buildings in order to feature them should be part of the larger redevelopment

strategy.

Design street lighting and vegetation to work together.

Though there were many areas in the Campus District which lacked sufficient

vegetation or lighting, in some cases both were present but the street trees

actually blocked the lighting. When redeveloping streets in the Campus District

and elsewhere, both lighting and trees need to be considered as one unit.

Promote universal accessibility.

Though the campuses are internally committed to constructing buildings and

streets accessible to all, the broader neighborhood is not. Inconsistent sidewalk

widths, curb cuts, poor paving and sidewalk conditions, and the awkward

placement of street infrastructure like telephone poles and fire hydrants make it

difficult or impossible for those in wheelchairs or scooters to navigate. Retrofitting

the neighborhood to make it inclusive for all should be a district-wide priority.


44/4644

Postpone a new lakefront connectionbut not forever.Future development in the Campus District should begin by strengthening east/

west connections into Downtown, and reworking the bridge to the lakefront at E 9th

St to safely accommodate bicyclists, rather than seeking to construct an additional

bridge across to the lakefront. However, if the Burke lakefront airport is ever

redeveloped to include public access or open space, the Campus District is well-

situated to make a physical connection across to it. In this eventuality, the question

of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be revisited.

CONCLUSIONS

The organization of the Campus District of a whole can be read as a series ofinstitutional islands - educational (Tri-C and CSU), residential (Cedar Estates

and Cedar Extension), and hospital (St. Vincent) - sparsely scattered with more

traditional urban fabric, including industrial uses to the north and downtown

mixed use to the east. Future uses of vacant parcels or adaptive reuse ought


45/46

to be considered within this existing unique configuration of urban elements.Traditional means of connectivity may not be well suited given the unique identity

and uses of each of these places. Likewise, a series of easily identifiable landmark

buildings ought to be considered as organizing elements in future development and

connectivity plans.

Though this report proposes general guidelines and not specific, targeted design

recommendations, they are culled from observation and feedback of a wide variety

of community stakeholders. These guidelines should be thought of as the first step

in a larger redevelopment process. Ultimately, the Campus District, though facing

some existing challenges to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, could be well-poised to become a model for how Clevelands bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

might link the downtown to the east side of the city, and Tri-C to the Lakefront, in

order to provide real, safe, and attractive alternatives to vehicular travel.


46/46

Campus District Connectivity

Documents

Transcript of Campus District Connectivity