Council hears design, funding details and concerns about North Coast Connector land bridge and Shoreway boulevard

City officials on Tuesday outlined plans for the North Coast Connector — a multimillion-dollar project that would convert sections of the Shoreway into a boulevard and build a pedestrian land bridge linking downtown to the lakefront. The administration said it has been awarded federal grants that total about $60 million (INFRA) and $70 million (Reconnecting Communities), is holding $20 million in state funding, and is pursuing additional financing including a TIFIA loan to cover the project’s estimated $284 million price tag.

The briefing, led by Assistant Director Chambers of Capital Projects, described the project’s Phase 1 scope as west of East Ninth Street and listed elements that include Shoreway reconfiguration, demolition of the Main Avenue Bridge approach where needed, retaining-wall work and the land bridge design and access improvements. Chambers said construction work is scheduled to start in 2027, with a target completion in 2029, and stressed that the FHWA will administer the federal awards and require completion of NEPA and other approvals before construction.

Why it matters: the plan would change how cars, pedestrians and cyclists move between the east and west sides of downtown and the lakefront. Councilmembers pressed for specifics about traffic routing, parking, and maintenance of dedicated bike lanes and asked how the project would be paid for if key elements such as the nearby stadium were removed.

Councilmembers pressed the administration for clarity on traffic patterns. Councilman Casey asked repeatedly whether motorists traveling east–west would need to exit the Shoreway and route through downtown to reconnect; Chambers confirmed that the proposed design would truncate the Main Avenue Bridge circulation such that some through traffic would be routed to West Third and other downtown streets. Chambers said detailed traffic analyses and bridge type studies are being completed and that the INFRA and Reconnecting Communities grants required such studies.

Several members emphasized maintenance and operational impacts. Councilman Palenski asked whether the city has the sweepers and specialized equipment needed to maintain newly configured bike lanes and boulevards; Public Works staff said the city currently has two multipurpose vehicles that can service narrow lanes and bridges but would evaluate whether additional equipment is required before committing to purchases. Members warned that adding bike lanes without a maintenance plan could create long‑term problems.

Financing and risk were major themes. Staff said $60 million in INFRA funds and $70 million from Reconnecting Communities have been awarded (staff described the INFRA award as being administered by FHWA and the Reconnecting Communities award likewise). The administration said it has $20 million in state design funds “in hand” to advance design work. Chambers and the mayor’s senior adviser Jessica Trevisano said any future TIFIA loan or tax increment financing would return to council for approval; Trevisano added that allocations of TIF or any bonds would come back for legislative approval.

Councilmembers urged caution. Councilman Slife and Councilman Light questioned whether removing the Main Avenue Bridge connection would worsen everyday traffic for Cleveland residents who rely on the route, and asked whether the plan had adequate alternatives for commuter movements. Councilman McCormick argued the project would reclaim public access to the lakefront and called it a long‑overdue step to reconnect people with waterfront land: "For the first time in my lifetime...our residents deserve access to the lakefront," he said.

What’s next: staff said they are finalizing the alternative evaluation report required by ODOT and FHWA, completing traffic and railroad coordination studies, and preparing procurement documents for design‑build work. Council asked staff to return with more detailed traffic modeling, equipment and maintenance plans, and in particular to show how design decisions would affect regular commuting patterns as well as event days.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting provided an update and produced a set of requests and amendments to clarify funding language on related legislation; no final construction contract was approved at the hearing. Council and staff agreed that further detailed analysis and community engagement will be needed before execution of long‑term financing.