At the Summit we had eight breakout sessions organized around the yearwide community celebrations. We asked the groups to align with the Celebration Points (which were identified in the 2019 Action and Resources Guide) and with groups that have cross-cutting interest in all the groups such as Communications.

The eight Celebration Committees are to act as a funnel for projects from the Working Groups to the city. Instead of arbitrarily deciding what to focus on, we want the eight committees to prioritize, for example, if its policy or funding. We want every Working Group to nominate at least one person from their group to populate the Celebration Committees. So, for example, Local Foods now has eight Working Groups (it had one going into the 2010 Summit). The Celebration Committee will be for them to decide what to focus on. We’re not trying to add a layer or block anyone, but a resource.

Q: For Sustainable Transportation, the Celebration year is 2016, that seems like a long way off, on what should we focus in the meanwhile?
A: We have a few main goals including how the committees will work with the city and how we will make inroads (incomplete)…

Q: We have the Office of Sustainability, the Mayor’s Office and the Stewardship Council, why are there so many ‘cooks in the kitchen’?
A: Previously the Stewardship Council was the Mayor’s Advisory Council who served as advisors to the mayor and were connected to a lot of resources in the community. Now the Celebration Committees will give information to the Stewardship Committee.

Q: Can we get a clear, concise statement of what are the Working Groups’ objectives? Celebration Points are a great framework but in order to have something to celebrate we need substance.

Q: What is the accountability route? For those not at the summit, how do they give their input?

Q: We have many groups, much overlap. How to we improve the integration?

Q: In order to understand what the mayor’s office wants, for example, if it’s all about job creation, how do we meet that objective

Q: It should be easier to know how all the pieces work together…

Q: How does the Council differ in make-up and scope than the Stewardship Council?

Q: Who’s the customer? Are we (the Work Groups) the customer? Is the mayor? The region? If we can answer that, it might guide us.

(These questions will be submitted for further consideration to McGowan, who will provide answers.)

Sara Maier at NOACA agreed with the partnership. She explained that NOACA’s Transit Council is looking for ways to incorporate transportation into the sustainability discusssion. At the moment, NOACA will hold an annual competition between businesses and organizations in Geauga, Lake, Medina, Lorain and Cuyahoga counties rewarding those who have the highest percentage of employees who are using public transit, biking, walking and other sustainable commuting methods.

The STAT group wondered how it can make the effort more impactful. Could it, for instance, track the progress of the participating businesses over time (rather than just one week during the competition)?

NOACA also sees the index as an opportunity to test 1. what incentives influence behavior (in the adoption of transportation) and 2. What reporting / survey work can be done.

Neundorfer will lead a small group meeting focused on the next steps / implementation of the Sustainable Transportation Index on Nov. 8. He will make connections to the Corporate Sustainability Network (which is formulating a business progress dashboard as was announced at the 2010 Summit) and also figure out the connection to the Downtown Green Building index also under development.

(A once around the table confirmed unanimous support to engage with NOACA in building the index as a STAT project. One comment that is worth noting is the possibility of tapping other business development partners such as Greater Cleveland Partnership and COSE).

Active Transportation Act (Rhonda Border-Boose, RTC)
Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenaur introduced the ACT act in March. The act calls for $2 billion invested to improve transportation options in 50 communities. It’s very relevant to sustainable transportation efforts in Cleveland, Border-Boose said, because the city is featured in the case studies being shopped around the country. Cleveland’s case study is held up as a leading example of what can be done. Congressman Kucinich recently joined 75 co-sponsors of the bill. Other Ohio representatives are still undecided, so a strategy to pursue them is RTC’s main focus. They’ll help anyone interested in reaching out to their legislator (keep up to date at railstotrails.com)

Complete Streets (Barb Clint for Jennifer Scofield)
Scofield had a meeting with Gund Foundation’s John Mitterholzer and Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman about introducing Complete Streets legislation for Cleveland. They decided the best lead on it would be Councilman Eugene Miller, an “avid cyclist” and head of council’s Public Service committee. The next step is to convene a task force with interested council members like Brian Cummins, Matt Zone, Cimperman, Miller, etc. Clint said it was decided the STAT group didn’t need to be overly involved in this process as the group of council should have enough pull to get it passed. (during a break-out session after lunch the Complete Streets group talked about the need for education – among city council -- as a project for them to take on).

Bike-ped accommodation on the Innerbelt Bridge (Jacob Van Sickle and Kevin Cronin)
Cleveland’s Complete Streets coalitions—Access for All—wants to improve every street, as a matter of course. The bridge issue led the group to discover how Departments of Transportation and cities across America are adopting “complete streets” ordinances that bring more flexibility to road engineering: Designs that have safety and comfort for all users—in a city, that means cyclists, walkers, wheelchair users and drivers—at their core.

Some in the group still believe that ODOT, with more creativity and the will of the city behind it, could insist that its designer add a bike-ped path on the bridge. At the same time, Access for All, which includes advocacy group, ClevelandBikes, and cycling educators Ohio City Bike Coop, wants to be at the table to shape the alternative route which snakes through the Near West Side and which ODOT has promised to pay to improve.

The STAT group will gather ideas to leverage new investments ODOT has said it will make to the alternative route. ODOT Region 12 staffer John Motl, also a participant in the SC2019 group, said that ODOT is open to input about their alternative route plans.
At this point, here’s what ODOT is offering as a compromise:

Part One: (to be paid for by ODOT and get built at the same time as the new westbound Innerbelt Bridge, scheduled to begin construction in 2011)

• ODOT will reallocate existing pavement and stripe in a bike lane on Abbey Avenue from W. 11th Street (near Sokolowski’s) in Tremont to the W. 25th Rapid Station in Ohio City.
• ODOT will widen the Abbey Avenue Bridge deck 12 inches and remove a concrete “jersey” barrier in order to maintain a continuous bike lane and sidewalk on that stretch.
• They are willing to add Share the Road and possibly Sharrows to W. 20th Street, the connection from Abbey to Lorain-Carnegie Bridge. Also, to help cyclists avoid having to make a left turn from the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge on to W. 20th, ODOT would add bike route signs pointing you, with a right turn when heading toward Ohio City, under the bridge -- circling back to Abbey using Old Lorain Avenue and W. 18th. Motl was asked if this route could have sharrows and improved lighting under the bridge.
• Connections with the Towpath Trail and its Tremont trailhead at Literary were also discussed.

Part Two: (ODOT funded, according to Motl, but not in their estimation part of the Innerbelt Project – even though its their alternative route, but anyway…) Improvements to The Lorain-Carnegie Bridge

• ODOT would like to extend the bike route on the bridge at the west end to Gehring (the W. 25th Rapid Station) and to the intersection on the east end with Carnegie-Ontario.
• They are considering ‘skinnier’ 11-ft. inside lanes and wider lanes on the outside to accommodate trucks and a striped shoulder for the bike route (as exists).
• ODOT plans to connect the east end with a new pedestrian promenade located on a triangular plot across from Progressive Field. The promenade with bike trail would lead to a crosswalk at Eagle Avenue that, if designed well, could lead cyclists and pedestrians to the downtown bike station at E. 2nd (behind the arena). In the larger context, this would put a connecting piece in the puzzle for a plan emerging to link the Towpath Trail, Canal Basin Park to downtown/Gateway and the lakefront (this is part of the vision of the new Group Plan Commission).
• ODOT also plans to design a off-road bike trail from Carnegie-Ontario-Broadway along the latter south in the direction of the Orange Avenue Post Office and Slavic Village.
• On the Ohio City side, the bridge portion would need to connect with the circular W. 18th route. It’s an ideal place for a wayfinding signage program, says Kevin Cronin of ClevelandBikes.

Jacob Van Sickle of Slavic Village Development will organize the Access for All/2019 Transportation group in a planning session before the November 18 public meeting about the proposed alternative /Lorain-Carnegie improvements. The public meeting is from 3-5 p.m. in a location to be determined (check back on this page for more details).