Should parking be allowed on Lake Avenue during rush hour?

[Jim O'Bryan]

That's not a half bad idea, actually.

Joan

Sorry that was my plan for Rocky River and Bay Village!



.

[Bill Call]

Obviously, a limited number of people would benefit from removing the rush hour ban, and many more would be inconvenienced.

When Clifton Avenue was widened the project damaged one of the finest avenues in the City.

When Clifton Avenue was extended into Rocky River the project destroyed one of the finest residential areas in the State.

When I-90 was built some of the nicest streets in Lakewood were ruined, some of the nicest neighborhoods were obliterated.

Why? They were sacrificed on the alter of the shorter commute. For who?
The people of Westlake and Rocky River.

Lakewood has sacrficed a great deal to shorten commute times for the people of Lorain County. All I am saying is that it seems reasonable to allow people to park on their own street.

[Joan Roberts]

But it's my point that it's LAKEWOOD people who are driving those streets, too. Inconveniencing Lakewood residents because Rocky River and Bay people also use the route seems a little, well, spiteful.

I don't go back to the days of I-90 and the Clifton extension, but two years ago, when I looked to rent on Lake, I was told that, if I didn't pay extra for the off-streeet parking, I had to get my car off the street by 7 a.m. or I would be towed.

Seems to me the rules were pretty clearly laid out in advance. The people who live in the Lake apartments agreed to the deal. The signs are pretty unambiguous. It's a "rhymes with witch" when your car gets towed, but it's almost always a case of "the rules don't apply to me."

The larger point though, is that those cars are going to go SOMEWHERE. They're not going to just vanish into the ether. And for Lake residents to say screw the commuters, let 'em take Clifton marginalizes the desires of CLIFTON residents, who are already dealing with a street that's pretty darn busy at rush hour.

Again, when Taft is closed in 3yrs, EVERY student in Lakewood (K-12) who lives north of Clifton will need to cross both Lake AND Clifton to get to school. This is not just a parochial Lake Ave issue, and it calls for a solution that takes a lot of different perspectives into consideration.

Mr. Crino says Clifton is a 7-lane road, so send the drivers there. The Franklin residents said Mr, Crino's street had wider tree lawns, so send the drivers THERE. Are you discerning a pattern?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Bill/Joan

I have been in Rush Hour(chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Ney York, Toronto, etc. Cleveland's East-Side has Rush Hour, Lakewood has heavy traffic (almost never, without an accident causing it).

What about turning Lake into one lane heading west in the morning. If you go 25, you only get one light, that sets up the sequencing. Add a bike lane, and let it go two directions between 8pm to 5am.

I have to agree with Bill. If we took one for the regional team with I-90, then we should be able to reclaim Clifton and Lake. We have made their lives easier, with speed traps we could make it more exciting as well. While getting a strip of property on I-90 long enough for a proper speed trap. Say all the property North of the I-90's Southern fence to Madison Ave., East to Highland Road. (Time to reclaim the Highland Party Center.)

Interesting side note: If you are south of Detroit, Madison East to W63rd, South to Lorain, East to Downtown is only 4-10 minutes slower, than I-90 on a normal traffic day.

.

[Joan Roberts]

I'll take your word on the Madison/W. 63rd/turn right at the green Torino route.

But look, it's been 30 years since those "taking one for the team" events you mentioned happened. Most of those Lake Ave apartment tenants weren't even born then. Ditto for many Clifton and Lake homeowners. Ancient history.

If I have a d***head boss who wants me at my desk at 8:30 sharp, I don't care how many houses were knocked down in 1968. That was then. My paycheck (1.5% of which goes to the city of Lakewood)is now. You can appreciate that, can't you?

One reason--one BIG reason, if you listen to the folks--- for living in Lakewood is that you don't have to set the alarm at 6:00 to be at work at 8:30, and if you leave work at 5, you see your kids before 6.

WHY MESS WITH THAT?

[Shawn Juris]

great to see another example of spinning our council's wheels on a fruitless endeavor. gotta love politics.

[john crino]

Coming full cirle...what would satisfy me and my neighbors is if the cops would ticket people driving faster than 35mph on Lake. To repeat myself, I have no problem with the volume of traffic on lake nor the 35mph speed limit......its the people who drive 40 or 50mph.

[Bill Davis]

Bill:

Just for the record, the actual name is Clifton Boulevard in Lakewood and Cleveland. Also in Lakewood, It's Detroit Avenue. In Rocky River and west, Detroit Road. Same thing with Lake Ave. in the 'Wood, and Lake Road to the west.

Go figure.[i][/i]

[John Farina]

When I was a council candidate in '99 and '03, one of the biggest issues I heard about door-to-door was the rush hour situation on Clifton and Lake. I agree with those who would like to scrap the rush hour restrictions altogether. If you live west of Lakewood, either deal with the extra few minutes or take I-90. For those who live IN Lakewood, this should not be a major inconvenience. If I were on council, I would have proposed the same idea.

I can't tell you how many times it is the cop car and tow truck that are eating up the extra lanes. Why bother? Of course there is one reason the city likes this restriction - parking tickets. Parking tickets = revenue.

Plus why should Lakewood's renters and homeowners line Baker Motor's pockets to keep up that awful facility of theirs. (The people who live around it, hate it, but thats another story - kind of like the Calanni thing except the mess is hidden.) Those nice shiny new trucks have come at the expense of many people who proabably can't afford that extra hit in their wallet.

[Jamie Carracher]

I !SUPPORT! this idea.

What's up with every morning seeing a cop sitting on Lake with a tow truck -- why don't those guys radar or watch the road instead? The way people drive on Lake is simply insane and DANGEROUS. Is it two lanes or four lanes? Is the speed limit 35 or 50? The street is narrow, yet people are zigging and zagging all over the place.

How fast do you REALLY need to go? I believe if parked cars were left on the road, it could clog the street and reduce speeds to the SPEED LIMIT! If you want to go 50 mph, take 90 not a residential street.

Sorry, but this is something that really resonates with me. I get so irritated on Lake when I drive downtown, I drive the speed limit and take up the whole lane. I don't want somebody buzzing by and taking out my rear-view mirror.

[Joan Roberts]

So I guess the obvious question becomes:

Do we all also support ending the rush-hour restrictions on CLIFTON as well? (Although I agree with John; speed limits should be enforced.)

Or is it just Lake residents who have to deal with traffic?

Anyone drive as slow as possible the middle of Clifton to purposely slow down traffic?

Sorry to ask a tough question here, but fair's fair.

[john crino]

I !SUPPORT! this idea.

What's up with every morning seeing a cop sitting on Lake with a tow truck -- why don't those guys radar or watch the road instead? The way people drive on Lake is simply insane and DANGEROUS. Is it two lanes or four lanes? Is the speed limit 35 or 50? The street is narrow, yet people are zigging and zagging all over the place.

How fast do you REALLY need to go? I believe if parked cars were left on the road, it could clog the street and reduce speeds to the SPEED LIMIT! If you want to go 50 mph, take 90 not a residential street.

Sorry, but this is something that really resonates with me. I get so irritated on Lake when I drive downtown, I drive the speed limit and take up the whole lane. I don't want somebody buzzing by and taking out my rear-view mirror.

As I do....35mph or less right down the middle......."Take back the Lake!"

[Brad Babcock]

Speed is the commonly cited cause of many accidents. There are places where people tend to drive faster than is appropriate. The many residential streets of Lakewood are a prime example. 25MPH is appropriate and safe.
That is not to say that we should all be doing 45-50MPH down Lake. What I would like to point out is that a lot of collisions are caused not by absolute speed but by congestion and the reaction of drivers to congestion. When the amount of space between cars is reduced to less than zero...we call that a collision.
When one forces a given amount of fluid (or drivers) through a constriction, the result is increased speed, increased pressure, and increased temperature.
Some drivers just have to go fast, and there is not to much other Thant tickets that will stop them. Other drivers are just trying to break free of the congestion. When the flow is constricted, problems arise. When rush-hour traffic encounters that one car parked in the street on Lake, everyone must squeeze in to the remaining lanes. It is sort of like following an RTA bus as it stops every few blocks, converting a two-lane road into a one-lane road until someone in the left lane wants to turn left or won't out-accelerate the bus. The result is the same: congestion and accidents as people make mistakes in changing lanes.
Anything we can do to ease the congestion makes things safer. I like Jim's idea of variable lanes. It works well elsewhere.
It is not the job of the citizenry to enforce the speed limits by obstructing traffic. This practice is not just spiteful and inconsiderate of the hundreds of people caught-up in the resulting traffic snarl. It is dangerous! That is about as counter-productive as it gets.

[john crino]

It is not the job of the citizenry to enforce the speed limits by obstructing traffic. This practice is not just spiteful and inconsiderate of the hundreds of people caught-up in the resulting traffic snarl. It is dangerous! That is about as counter-productive as it gets.

Speeding by my house at 50mph is inconsiderate.
The idea of driving the speed limit or slower (within the law of course) is to set the course for how fast Lake ave should move, and for the sake of my kids and my dogs and the traffic noise I see nothing wrong with taking some action since the police do not seem to ticket the speeders on Lake for some reason. And if there is a snarl then maybe you should drive down the 7 lane state route clifton blvd...........

[Brad Babcock]

I don't condone going 50 MPH down Lake.
I don't have a problem people driving at or slightly under the speed limit.
I do have a problem with the right-down the middle part.

Purposely obstructing traffic flow creates situations that are arguably as dangerous as speeding. Is it safer to let a speeder go on their way or to create a situation where they are trying to barge through packed-up traffic behind the obstructor?
The worst of the bunch (and they are out there) will tail-gate, cut people off, and pull psychotic left-of-center passes in the face of on-coming traffic. As they start to barge through traffic, people tighten-up the pattern to avoid being cut-off. Then it is impossible to politely change lanes for a turn.
I don't much care for most old platitudes, but two wrongs don't make a right. It is all about getting where we are going safely and with minimal ruffled feathers. Creating a dangerous situation (obstructing two lanes) that amplifies another dangerous situation (speeding) does not fix anything. It only exposes more people to more danger and aggravation.