CAMPUS DISTRICT CONNECTIVITY

Identifying Assets & Barriers for Pedestrians & Cyclists Campus District, Cleveland, OH
Report by the Kent State University Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative November 2013

Funding for the Walk & Ride events and nal report was graciously provided by the Cleveland YMCA through a Racial & Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) Grant from the Federal Centers for Disease Control & 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
01 | SUMMARY p.4 02 | CAMPUS DISTRICT p.8 03 | EXISTING PLANS p.10 04 | WALK & RIDE RESEARCH p.16 05 | METHODOLOGY 06 | EVENTS 07 | FINDINGS p.20 p.22 p.25

08 | RECOMMENDATIONS p.42

SUMMARY
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 infrastructure in 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 ndings, frames the problems and barriers, and ultimately makes recommendations for specic areas of future investigation and study in the Campus Districts physical environment.
e9

DOWNTOWN

superior

CAMPUS DISTRICT
e1

euc
e2 2

lid

N
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-communitiespromoting-physical-activity

e3

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 benets. From a public health perspective, cities must be plannedor retrottedto 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.

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 waynding 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.

BELOW: Preparing for the nighttime Walk & Ride at the corner of E 22nd St and Euclid Ave, just before dusk.

BACKGROUND

CAMPUS DISTRICT
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 many individual 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 trafc. 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 trafc patterns are and will be affecting the district. Once construction on the innerbelt is complete, all trafc 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 signicant, multi-modal connector.

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 trafcked 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 trafc from 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-signicant venues with a regional draw.

BELOW: Current TLCI proposals, with the Campus District for context.

CAMPUS DISTRICT

EXISTING PLANS
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, TriCs 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.

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.

10

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 Redevelopment Plan. 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 unifying 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 redeveloped corridor with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle connections and a redesigned streetscape.

11

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.

corridor. An additional strategy was to create integrated Transit Waiting Environments to utilize public transit to support surrounding businesses. Another method to support the proposed neighborhood unication was the creation of bike lanes to re-shape the districts streets for multi-modal trafc. 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 these two universities as a unied whole creates the potential to strengthen connections 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 multimodal 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 individual sense of identity of the neighborhoods within the Campus District, the identity of the Campus District as a whole is strengthened as well.

12

Two key takeaways from the Studio 611 project are that establishing a legible overall identity for the Campus District, as well as rmly establishing public access to the waterfront, are equally crucial. Neighborhoods within the Campus District have their own established sense of identity, but these individual identities

TOP: View showing recommendations for greenery, separated bike facilities, and waynding & identity signage in the district. From the Studio 611 plan. LEFT: Wide sidewalks and rst oor retail spaces can be used for outdoor cafe space. From the Studio 611 plan.

13

can be enhanced by a comprehensive, overall vision. The waterfront, for which access 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 specic site to design an architectural intervention. The overall goals of the master plan were to link the district to the waterfronts, thread amenities through 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 signicant 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 nal 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.

14

LEFT: Kent State Universitys summer 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.

15

WALK & RIDE RESEARCH

The Eastside Walk & Ride did not take place outside the larger context of research on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, from the larger eld 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 AUDITS As 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. Specically, 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 specically reaches out to existing civic servants, like policemen and reghters, 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 quantiability of audit design.2 WALKABILITY METRICS The book Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places3 also 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 ve qualities most essential to increasing walkability. These ve 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 dened 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 dened by the measurements of each of these ve 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.

16

neighborhood density and street connectivity, the manual suggests particular ne-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 NETWORKS As 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.4 The report proposes that tolerance to trafc 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 trafc 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 specic criteria for rating streets trafc stress levels. Although some people have a higher tolerance for trafc 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.

17

would fall under LTS-3 or LTS-4, the report suggests designing streets using the criteria 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 dened not by an average rating, but by its weakest link: if a corridor is overall low-stress but has a higherstress 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 trafc 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.5 The concept of a complete street prioritizes the design of streets that are not simply for funneling trafc 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 nding 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 Clevelands Complete and Green Streets Typologies study, published August 2013, outlines design guidelines for the redesign of streets to include multimodal transit, green space, and green stormwater infrastructure.

18

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 trafc calming, intersection improvements, and green infrastructure ideas and show various congurations 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.6 In 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 collected for each station on the route.

5 - City of Clevelands Sustainable Mobility initiative: http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/ CityofCleveland/Home/Government/ CityAgencies/OfceOfSustainability/ 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.

19

METHODOLOGY
The previous plans helped the CUDC develop specic 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 identied 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 scientic; for instance, several questions subtly 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.

20

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 lled 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 lled 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.

21

WALK & RIDE EVENTS

DAY NIGHT bicyclists pedestrians 11 28 20 4

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 rst-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.

22

What most often brings you to the Campus District?

CSU Work Recreation / Green Space Other Restaurants / Nightlife Tri-C 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

LEFT: Based on feedback from the surveys 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 reective safety vest. BOTTOM: Attendees write out responses to survey questions upon returning to the welcome station from the night time walking tour.

23

24

FINDINGS

25

SURVEY RESPONSE
Unique and interesting; a great ride through back streets; makes you feel connected to industry. During the day I feel safe but I might not at night - lots of dead zones, not enough other people north of CSU. The biggest issues are a lack of lights and the prevalence of glass, potholes, and rough paving... bike lanes are practically nonexistent, roads are mostly in disrepair.
Cyclists and pedestrians noted that the route took them through previously unknown territory, and many appreciated the glimpse into industrial and underused parts of the city few CSU students, for instance, had explored very far north of the campus. Some also pointed out the patchwork of good building stock scattered throughout, especially along Superior Ave. The majority of respondents were afliated with CSU, although a fair number worked or recreated in the neighborhood. Respondents were concerned with the piecemeal approach to providing bicycle and pedestrian amenities in the neighborhood. Some streets, like Euclid Ave, were clearly designed to encourage non-vehicular activities, but most lacked bike lanes or sharrows; crosswalks; sufcient vegetation and lighting; and street furniture. Where these amenities were visible, they were most often singular, outside of a larger network that would give them real connectivity. The relative desolation of the more vacant and industrial blocks north of Superior Ave, and the lack of specic programming to draw foot or bicycle trafc, serves to keep those areas feeling unsafe, especially at night. Lastly, regarding connections to the lakefront, a minority of respondents felt a dedicated bridge in between E 9th and E 55th was a primary concern for the neighborhood. Most respondents, especially pedestrians, would prefer a shoring up and improvement of infrastructure within the existing neighborhood, such as more trees, bike lanes and signage, and street furniture. The overall perception from the respondents is that there is currently little value in connecting to the lakeside of the Shoreway due to the presence of Burke Airport, limiting public access outside the Lakefront Bikeway. Few felt that a bridge from the existing Campus District to the Lakefront would be well-used without a direct public destination. If public access does open up around Burke Airport, however, a bridge in between E 9th and E 55th may become more essential. In the meantime, it is possible that strengthening bike and pedestrian connections within the Campus District, not only north/south but also east/west, may be a better use of transportation resources than building a new bridge.

26

LAKEFRONT CONNECTIVITY
How often would you use a bridge to the lakefront bikeway?
Only During Special Events Once A Month

Once A Week

Daily

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.

10

POSSIBLE ADDITIONS
What could be added to this neighborhood that would increase your likelihood of biking?
Bike Lanes/Signage Improved Bridges Across Highways Trafc Calming More Street Furniture More Trees/Vegetation Improved Lighting Increased Amenities 0 5 10 15 20 25

What could be added to this neighborhood that would increase your likelihood of walking?
More Trees/Vegetation More Street Furniture Better Sidewalks Trafc Calming Pedestrian Bridge to Lakefront Other Improved Bridges Across Highways 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

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.

STREET CHOICE
Which North/South street are you most likely to use to walk or bike through the Campus District?
E 18th Street

Which East/West street are you most likely to use to walk or bike through the Campus District?
Euclid Ave

E 22nd Street

Superior Ave

E 30th Street

St Clair Ave

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

27

ASSETS
B W IKE
al

AY
Lak esi de

26 th

Ma

rgin

Dav

rt npo

Lak

e esid

Ham

ilto

t 31s

20t h

St C

lair

Roc

kwe

ll

Sup

erior
25t

24t h

23r d
22n

21s

Roc

kwe

9th

19t

18t

14t

17t

Roc ll

kwe

ll

Payne
27th

30th

3rd
12th
2nd

13th

Euclid

4th

POINT OF INTEREST WALK & RIDE ROUTE

28

33

rd

Wo od

lan

30

th

On tari o

Prospect

Bol

var Eri e

21st

22nd

Carnegie 28th

Su

ner

Cedar

ASSET LEGEND
GREEN SPACE ATTRACTIVE STREETSCAPE gie COLLEGE CAMPUS GOOD BUILDING STOCK

Centr

al

Ca

rne

Com

mu

nity

Col

lege

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 Campus District 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.

29

BICYCLING BARRIERS
26 th
Ma rgin al

Lak

esi

de

Dav

or enp

Lak

e esid

Ham

ilto

t 31s

MAP HERE
23r d
22n
21s

h 20t

St C

lair

Roc

kwe

ll

Sup

erior

25t h

24t h

Roc

kwe

9th

19t

18t

14t

17t

k Roc

wel

Payne

27th

30th

ll

3rd
12th
2nd

13th

Euclid

4th

LAKEFRONT BIKEWAY

30

33

rd

Wo od

lan

30 th

On tari o

Prospect

Bol

var Eri e
Su m ner

21st

22nd

Carnegie 28th

Cedar

BARRIER LEGEND
STREET TOO WIDE BRIDGE TOO gieNARROW POOR PAVEMENT WALK & RIDE ROUTE

Centr

al

Ca

rne

Com

mu

nity

Col

lege

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 on road 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 diagonal. Though there is no bike lane, the striping pattern is confusing and potentially misleading. Drivers back out into the road right into the bicycle trafc. When vehicles are too long for the parking spaces, they push bicyclists into vehicular trafc.

31

PEDESTRIAN BARRIERS
Ma rgin al

Lak

esi

de

Dav

or enp

Lak

e esid

Ham

ilto

26 th
n

t 31s

h 20t

St C

lair

Roc

kwe

ll

Sup

erior

25t

24t h

23r d
22n

21s

Roc

kwe

9th

19t

18t

14t

17t

Roc ll

kwe

ll

Payne
27th

30th

3rd
12th
2nd

13th

Euclid

4th

WALK & RIDE ROUTE LAKEFRONT BIKEWAY

32

33

rd

Wo od

lan

30 th

On tari o

Prospect

Bol

iva

r
21st

22nd

Eri

e
Su er mn

Carnegie 28th

Cedar

BARRIER LEGEND
NO CROSSWALK INHOSPITABLE gie BRIDGE PERCEPTION OF DANGER POOR LIGHTING

Centr

al

Ca

rne

Com

mu

nity

Col

lege

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 trafc, 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 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 exacerbated the already-unwelcoming pedestrian conditions. The area is dark during the day and lacks a shoulder, and trafc speeding through creates a perception of danger along the whole block.

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 Cedar Ave was seen by many as the most bizarre urban design decision of the entire route. The Cedar Ave bridge was particularly unwelcoming for pedestrians, lacking crosswalks, shoulders, and even sidewalks, essentially creating a break in the pedestrian network.

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.

33

COMMON BARRIER_LAKEFRONT LINKS

HIGH-SPEED CAR TRAFFIC

INSUFFICIENT LIGHTING

NO BIKE LANE OR SHOULDER

SIDEWALK TOO NARROW

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 trafc coming on and off the Shoreway. These two

existing north-south streets that link the Campus District to the lakefront, and waynding signage to these streets, must be signicantly improved in order to attract pedestrians and cyclists.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES:

Pedestrian lights & planters. Columbus, OH

Attached pathway. Richmond, VA

Waynding to Lakefront routes.

34

COMMON BARRIER_BLEAK BRIDGES

INSUFFICIENT LIGHTING

UNAPPEALING AESTHETIC

NO BIKE LANE

SIDEWALK ENDS ABRUPTLY

NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE

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.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES:

5th St. bridge expansion. Atlanta, GA

Inserted multi-use path. Cleveland, OH

Bridge extended for path. St. Louis, MO

35

COMMON BARRIER_COLOSSAL CORRIDORS

TOO FEW CROSSWALKS

NO CENTER MEDIAN

STREET TOO WIDE

NO BIKE LANE OR SHARROWS

HUGE BUILDING SETBACKS

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 trafc 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.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES:

Pedestrian crosswalks. ---

Bicycle greenway. Philadelphia, PA

Sidewalk seating. ----

36

COMMON BARRIER_INHOSPITABLE INDUSTRIAL

LACK OF STREET FURNITURE

CLUTTERED POWERLINES

NO VISUAL CONNECTION TO THE LAKE

BLANK BUILDING FACADES

MINIMAL VEGETATION

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 trafc 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.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES:

Green street infrastructure. New Jersey

Contextual street furnishings. Manchester, UK

Building murals. NYC, NY

37

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

38

VEHICULAR BEHAVIOR

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 difcult 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 trafc, 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.

39

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Eastside Walk & Ride events and subsequent report identied 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-trafc, 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 waynding 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 trafc 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.

40

ASSETS & OPPORTUNITIES Despite these very real barriers to bicycle and pedestrian use, the Walk & Ride events identied 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 increase the 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.

41

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 rst on making connections 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 rst 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 trafc 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

42

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. Though a full transportation study is needed before moving forward with specic 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 benets 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 difcult to nd for students. Signage or specic 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 sufcient 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 re hydrants make it difcult or impossible for those in wheelchairs or scooters to navigate. Retrotting the neighborhood to make it inclusive for all should be a district-wide priority.

43

 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 wellsituated 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 of institutional 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

44

to be considered within this existing unique conguration 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 identiable landmark buildings ought to be considered as organizing elements in future development and connectivity plans. Though this report proposes general guidelines and not specic, 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 rst step in a larger redevelopment process. Ultimately, the Campus District, though facing some existing challenges to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, could be wellpoised 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.

45