Hope Memorial Bridge: Conceptual Alternatives for an Enhanced Bike/Pedestrian Multi-Use PathEnhanced Bike/Pedestrian Multi Use Path

TED STRICKLAND, OHIO GOVERNOR JOLENE M. MOLITORIS, ODOT DIRECTOR

BONNIE TEEUWEN, P.E., DISTRICT 12 DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WelcomeWelcome

Bonnie Teeuwen P EBonnie Teeuwen, P.E.Deputy Director, ODOT District 12

2

Agenda

Welcome and introductionsWelcome and introductionsProject overviewTable discussionsGroup summaries and discussionNext steps

3

Roles

• Facilitator role• Your role

– Respect each other’s opinions– Respect each other’s time

4

Project BackgroundDesire for bicycle/pedestrian access on the new Cleveland Innerbelt Bridge

Advocates helped ODOT understand the community’s goals and expectations

While not practical on InnerbeltWhile not practical on Innerbelt bridge, another solution emerged

ODOT conducted analysis and rodeODOT conducted analysis and rode the area on bikes with local representatives

5

ODOT’s Commitment

Seek a mutually agreeable approach that:Provides a safer, more user-friendly bicycle/pedestrian bridge that symbolizes Cleveland’s commitment to sustainability Encourages more citizens to bike and walkgPreserves or enhances the historic bridge

6

The Process

ODOT “rode the bridge” with:gJim Sheehan, Ohio City Bicycle Co-opMichael Neundorfer, Sustainable Cleveland 2019S tt C t W t R Fi MScott Carpenter, Western Reserve Fire Museum

Based on field trip and prior input, ODOT developed multiple concepts p pODOT and the City of Cleveland identified pros and cons of each concept based on design parameters,

hi h ill lk th h t dwhich we will walk through today

7

Study Area

8

Bridge History

Built between 1930-1932930 93Declared most beautiful bridge built in 1932National Register of Historic Places in 1976R h bilit t d 1980 1983Rehabilitated 1980 – 1983Re-opened as “Hope-Memorial Bridge”, honoring William Henry Hope, local stone mason and Bob Hope’s father

9

“Guardians of Transportation”

Art deco style, 43-foot pylons designed by Frank Walker and sculpted by Henry Heringsculpted by Henry Hering Each holds a transportation iconBerea sandstone

10

The Hope-Memorial Bridge Today

Two existing, six-ft sidewalks and six-ft bicycle lanesTwo existing, six ft sidewalks and six ft bicycle lanes11,630 vehicles daily at 35 +/- mph70+ cyclists a day (2007)Safety concerns

11

Design Parameters –Engineering Restrictions

Must maintain one 12 ft lane width in each direction This is ODOT’s

Engineering Restrictions

Must maintain one 12-ft lane width in each direction. This is ODOT sagreement with the FHWA.

Must maintain 4 vehicular lanesCannot remove sidewalk because it is integral to the structure, but

12

can improve it

Design Parameters –Engineering Restrictions

Outside railing cannot be changed because it is historicNot enough vertical clearance to use deck under bridge

Engineering Restrictions

Not enough vertical clearance to use deck under bridgeRailing and barriers must be crash-worthy to ensure safety

Maintenance and utility deckunder bridge2004

Bicyclist operatingspace3’-4” Wide by8’-4” High

13

20048 -4 High

Design Parameters –Bridge Deck DrainageBridge Deck Drainage

The “hidden” costScuppers move in every option

14

Design Parameters –Bridge Deck DrainageBridge Deck Drainage

15

Continuity is Important

Looking east at On bridge looking west 20th

Looking north onOntario Street

Looking west atOhio City

west

16

Ontario Street

We Need Your Input(F f T bl Di i )

P f d ti ( )

(Focus of Table Discussion)

Preferred option(s)Recap of those considered and dismissedConsideration of potential optionsConsideration of potential optionsVarious bike/pedestrian treatment(s)

Barrier enhancementBarrier enhancementRailingsLightingIdentify issues and preferences at either end of bridge to ensure continuity

17

Bicycle Facility Options

Bike Lanes

Signage

Multi-Use Path

Sharrows

18

Today’s Bridge

Four 12-ft travel lanes12 ft 9 in multi use area for pedestrians and bicyclists12-ft 9-in multi-use area for pedestrians and bicyclistsSidewalk has 13” curbNo barrier between cars and cyclists

19

Options Considered and Dismissed: #1and Dismissed: #1

Three 12-ft travel lanesMulti-use path of 16-ft on north side of bridge; 8-ft 11-in bike laneMulti use path of 16 ft on north side of bridge; 8 ft 11 in bike lane on south sideReduces vehicular capacity; creates continuity problems; & complex drainage system

20

complex drainage system

Options Considered and Dismissed: #2and Dismissed: #2

Two 12-ft lanes and one 14-ft travel laneE d lti th t 16 5 ft th id f b id kExpands multi-use path to 16.5-ft on north side of bridge, keeps sidewalk on both sidesReduces vehicular capacity; creates continuity problems &

l d i t21

complex drainage system

Options Considered and Dismissed: #3and Dismissed: #3

Three 12-ft travel lanesKeeps existing sidewalk, adds 8-ft. bike lanes and bufferReduces vehicular capacity; creates continuity problems

22

Options Considered and Dismissed: #4

Two 12-ft lanes, two 11-ft travel lanes (Minimum travel lane width)10-ft multi-use paths on both sides of bridge, with railing p g , gseparationIncreases pedestrian and bicycle roomDoes not increase safety as railing is not crash worthy

23

Does not increase safety as railing is not crash worthy

Potential Option: #1

Two 12-ft and two 11-ft travel lanesExisting sidewalk on one side14-ft multi-use area on opposite side; barrier for safetyConnectivity at ends of bridge may be an issueComplex drainage system

24

Complex drainage system

Potential Option: #2

Two 12-ft lanes, two 11-ft travel lanes Bicycle Safe

Existing sidewalks plus 5.5-ft bike lanes on both sides Would retrofit scuppers

Scupper

ppBarrier increases pedestrian safety

ADA Scupper

25

Potential Option: #3

Two 12-ft lanes, two 11-ft travel lanes 10-ft multi-use paths on both sides of bridge, with barrier separation and railingIncreases pedestrian and bicycle room and safety

26

p y y

Potential Option: #4

Two 12-ft lanes, two 11-ft travel lanes Bicycle Safe

Keeps existing sidewalk, adds 7-ft. bike lanesIncreases bike lane width by 1-ft

Scupper

yWould retrofit scuppers

ADA Scupper

27

Barrier EnhancementsLines on vehicleLines on vehicle side of barrier

Can form line (texture) the path side of the barrier butTextures on “sidewalk” side of barrier

Can form line (texture) the path side of the barrier but not the vehicular side Color should be similar to original bridge

28

Railing Options

Option A Option B

Must be 42” high and crash-worthy

29

ust be g a d c as o t y

Lighting

Lighting can be made to match originalmatch originalInstalled on new barrierCleveland public art has grant p gto light the guardians of transportation

1940

30

East End Continuity

31

West End Continuity

32

Discussion Guidelines

• Each “Table Captain” has discussion guide, maps p g , pand other visuals

• 60 minutes for your table to discuss:Barrier EnhancementsRailingsLightingLightingPreferred option(s)Continuity issues and preferences at either endContinuity issues and preferences at either end of bridge

33

Group Summaries

• Report out (one spokesperson per table)p ( p p p )Barrier Enhancements – yes or noRailings – option A or BLighting – yes or noPreferred option(s)C ti it i d f t ith dContinuity issues and preferences at either end of bridge

34

Next Steps

Compile results of this workshopCompile results of this workshopDevelop cost estimates and report back to youPresent preferred alternative to Cleveland Planning CommissionMove into final design B i t ti tBegin construction next summer

35

Thank You for Coming!Thank You for Coming!

For more information visit For more information visit t t ti hi /bikt t ti hi /bikwww.transportation.ohio.gov/bikewww.transportation.ohio.gov/bike

and click on the "Projects" link.and click on the "Projects" link.jj

36