The Observation Deck

I take Lake to work every morning. Since I am usually at the office before 7 AM I am used to seeing cars parked on the South side of the street. The parked cars don't seem to affect my commute one way or the other.

Councilman Demro has proposed that the City allow parking on the South side of the street during rush hour in the morning and on the North side of the street during the afternoon rush hour. He want's the City to examine the pros and cons.

It seems like a good idea. I am sure the frustration of seeing their cars towed at 7:01 AM has caused many a renter to move out of town.

This is a good example of how a simple change in City policy can have a big affect on quality of life issues.

As a multi-level colony Lakewood has a difficult time controling its own destiny. I suspect the County or State might nix the idea.

as a resident of lake ave I would approve of parking on both sides at all times for the sake of clogging up the street and slowing traffic or better yet frustrating people enough to take the SEVEN lane clifton or the the business routes,detroit and madison liek they should.
Your commute is not affected because you are early enough to avoid the traffic. If you are on lake at 730-830am then I am sure the parked cars would couse a slowdown. And sure, i'm all for more parking for renters.

Have I had a psychotic break? Have those kids been slipping airplane glue into my aromatherapy candles again? I warned them the last time.

Am I the only one who wonders why, in a city where so many residents claim "easy to get downtown' as a big reason for living here, we keep talking about making it HARDER to get downtown?

Now, I know its oh-so-uncool to drive a car in Lakewood 2006. I know we're all supposed to be walking or biking or riding Segways or taking our hyper-convenient RTA to work, or better yet walking downstairs in our PJs to telecommute.

But for goodness sake, if your customers tell you they love your pepperoni-and-chourico pizza, why do you take it off the menu? Why is there such a fetish for screwing drivers,especially when RTA service to Lakewood has been on a downward spiral for 20 years?

How about this new slogan; "Lakewood: Just 6 miles away. It'll only FEEL like an eternity."

If the goal is just driving downtown commuters crazy(and away), why not put up a tollbooth at 117th? At least, we'd get 20 or 30 bucks into the budget before everyone moved to Avon.

PLEASE explain.

Joan Roberts wrote: I had a psychotic break PLEASE explain.

my re-explain:as a resident of lake ave I would approve of parking on both sides at all times for the sake of clogging up the street and slowing traffic or better yet frustrating people enough totake the SEVEN lane clifton or the the business routes,detroit and madison like they should.

With all due respect, I am wondering where those seven lanes on Clifton is. At any given time, there are no more than 3 heading in any one direction. I don't think you can count the turning lane.

Detroit and Madison are laughable as commuter routes. Show me someone who drives all the way downtown on either one of those, and I'll show you someone with way too much time on their hands.

I'm all for speed enforcement on Lake (I live there, too), but purposely clogging it seems yet another way to punish people who've chosen to live here.

As a level-headed alternative, why can't we bring back the timed lights on Clifton? Maybe even look at some of the superfluous lights on that route (Edwards, Webb). Do we need one light at Belle, one at Bunts, and one at Whipporwhill, especially when Taft closes?

But more important. What is in the civic mindset that sells proximity to town on one hand and then targets downtown commuters for punishment on the other?

I have nothing against the volume of commuters on lake really...my gripe is that they drive 40-50 mph down lake during two periods a day.....the cops sit out there sometimes but I rarely see them ticket. I mentioned before that I'll continue to drive down the middle of lake at 30mph during rush hourswith people piled up behind me..... hopefully pissing off enough people that they go elsewhere. Like the state route that is Clifton blvd with it's 7 lanes......
My neighbors and I are horrified that our kids or dogs or cats will even in the front yards during rush hours. It's like being near 90.

john crino wrote:I have nothing against the volume of commuters on lake really...my gripe is that they drive 40-50 mph down lake during two periods a day.....the cops sit out there sometimes but I rarely see them ticket. I mentioned before that I'll continue to drive down the middle of lake at 30mph during rush hourswith people piled up behind me..... hopefully pissing off enough people that they go elsewhere. Like the state route that is Clifton blvd with it's 7 lanes......
My neighbors and I are horrified that our kids or dogs or cats will even in the front yards during rush hours. It's like being near 90.

I agree with the idea there should be enforcement of speed limits.

I don't understand the concept of deliberately pissing people off. Sorry.

Have you considered there are people with children and pets who live on Clifton, too? I was one of them. There are currentlly 3 schools on Clifton, one more than on Lake. Up until last year, there were 4.

In 3 years, any elementary school child living on Lake or North will have to cross Clifton to get to school (Lincoln, Horace Mann, Emerson)

And there are still no more than 3 lanes in any one direction on Clifton.

The wider a street is the faster and safer cars move..clifton is 7 lanes wide,Lake is 4 lanes wide. Also, if there are turning lanes then cars do not need to slow down to allow people to turn off the street therefore making clifton even easier to navigate (one does not have to slow down).

Just as a point of historical reference.

Some years back, homeowners on Franklin were lobbying to get the speed limit reduced to 25 from 35. I believe our mayor, who was then ward II councilman, was involved in this.

A friend of mine, who was a Lake Ave resident at the time, thought this would push more traffic down to Lake.

She was told by the Franklin residentsm(and some city officials), that was OK, because Lake had wider treelawns and that the speeding cars didn't come as close to the kids as they do on Franklin.

As they say, it all depends on whose ox...yada yada yada

Personally I would also like to see the rush hour parking scrapped on Clifton as well. Barely anyone drives in the parking lane from what I can tell.

I also drive down clifton early in the morning to work and the cars parked on the south side don't affect me at all.

Another rush hour nightmare parking situation is Edgewater Dr. That's even worse because it's just sections of the street that are rush hour. Talk about a waste of time.

Joan Roberts wrote:If the goal is just driving downtown commuters crazy(and away), why not put up a tollbooth at 117th? At least, we'd get 20 or 30 bucks into the budget before everyone moved to Avon.

PLEASE explain.

On those mornings when I am driving down Lake after 7:00 AM there are always cars being towed.

1. Since someone always forgets to move their car there is only one lane of traffic anyway.

2. There is always a car being towed. The 20 minute process of towing the car or cars actually causes more disruption in the flow of traffic than just alowing the car to remain parked.

3. If allowing more parking causes people to move out of Lakewood because it makes their commute time longer they won't be moving to Avon Lake.

4. If they move to Avon Lake I don't care how long their commute is.

5. Lakewood has lost hundreds of homes in the name of a shorter commute times for people living in Westlake, Bay etc.. Those projects have not benefited this City one bit.

6. Don't get in a panic. Since this is Ryan Demro's idea the City will take no action.

Bill Call wrote:

Joan Roberts wrote:If the goal is just driving downtown commuters crazy(and away), why not put up a tollbooth at 117th? At least, we'd get 20 or 30 bucks into the budget before everyone moved to Avon.

PLEASE explain.

On those mornings when I am driving down Lake after 7:00 AM there are always cars being towed.

1. Since someone always forgets to move their car there is only one lane of traffic anyway.

2. There is always a car being towed. The 20 minute process of towing the car or cars actually causes more disruption in the flow of traffic than just alowing the car to remain parked.

3. If allowing more parking causes people to move out of Lakewood because it makes their commute time longer they won't be moving to Avon Lake.

4. If they move to Avon Lake I don't care how long their commute is.

5. Lakewood has lost hundreds of homes in the name of a shorter commute times for people living in Westlake, Bay etc.. Those projects have not benefited this City one bit.

6. Don't get in a panic. Since this is Ryan Demro's idea the City will take no action.

I know that the viewpoints expressed here are a little skewed. By the very nature of the forum and website, this is an extreme Lakewoodcentric board, and I know that lots of folks would just as soon put up a force-field around the city, allowing no one to enter or leave.

I do believe the average Lakewood resident sees a more personal picture, and that picture involves not how it affects the city as much as how it affects her daily life.

I also know the board is skewed toward entrepreneurs and those who have a greater degree of control over their work environment. From the posts I see here, there aren't a lot of good old fashioned wage slaves posting on the Observer.

(NOTE: The above comments about the Observer makeup are not intended as criticism, only as observations. Communities are what they are)

I'm glad your schedule makes you immune to this particular aggravation. However, there are others who start work at 8 or 9 o'clock and have to deal with getting into town SOME way.

If Lakewood doesn't work for Mr or Mrs X, they'll just simply move, as thousands already have. We can keep saying, "don't let the screen door hit you, yada yada," as so many seem to relish doing,If they move to Avon Lake I don't care how long their commute is.
but that doesn't seem like a plan for civic success to me. Call me crazy.

In any event, once we force all of our traffic to Clifton, the next step will be the Clifton residents complaining about the congestion on their street. Clifton, I believe, also runs through Ward II, and in fact the largest elementary school in the city is in Mr. Demro's ward, so I'm sure he'll eventually hear from the other side.[/b]

Marty Hout wrote:I read this week in the PD that Demro's car was towed in violation of the rush-hour ordinance. Is this an issue now because his car was towed ? Why wasn't he concerned about it as much before it effected him ?
Just curious ...

Marty

Enlightenment comes in different forms. While it is interesting, as it highlights something that at least two residents on Lake find the topic worthy of discussion, let's kick it around.

John Crino does offers some great ideas. If we learn from what he told us about Clifton, and Joan's ideas to improve movement to "all" those jobs in Cleveland. Why not permit NO PARKING on Lake Road between 6:30am and 9:30am, 4:30pm to 7:00pm. Then we would make it one way going east in the morning, and west in the afternoon. We could then make it 4 lanes, and safely increase the speed to possible 50mph.

While Clifton is way too wide for this, Lake with it's new surface and deep tree lawns would be perfect. With the increase in traffic, we could possible build walk overs, and sell space on the side for advertisements. If residents complain we could build those sound deadening walls just off the sidewalks, possibly sell more ad space on them.

Every six blocks we could add parking lots, and areas for Community Circulators to sit and wait with their engines running. RTA has assured that they are quiet and resident friendly. Even sell naming rights to the parking lots.

Let's not forget, we just lost a lane or more to planters and trees on Clifton. Which will look nice but decrease speeds and traffic on Clifton.


.


PS -

That's not a half bad idea, actually.

I looked at vintage apts on Lake Ave and was turned off by the fact that there was limited or no parking and the few dedicated parking spaces each building had commanded an extra $50-$75 a month. By and large, the issues created on Lake are limited to a relatively small number of apartment buildings.

I didn't see the PD article about Mr. Demro geting towed. Was it in Ward II? That's not one of the rush hour "hot spots" from my observation.

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

No matter how much we want to romanticize Lakewood as a city of walkers, bikers, and pubic transit workers, the fact remains that Lakewood is as car-dependent as any suburb in the world. Yes, we can walk or bike for fun, and for some, publilc transportation provides a workable alternative, but for work and the basic errands of life, we need to deal with the automobile.

I know this is a relatively new thread, but I really would like to hear opinions from people who actually go to work downtown during traditional 9-5 business hours. Personally, I only do that a few days a month, just for the record.

Joan Roberts wrote:That's not a half bad idea, actually.

Joan

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



.