Does ODOT’s argument against a multi-purpose path on the Innerbelt Bridge add up? ODOT finally released a letter explaining why it doesn’t see a way to design a bridge today with a simple multi-purpose path. Working against ODOT in this case are at least 30 instances (see picture on right for a bike/ped path on a highway bridge in South Carolina) where multipurpose paths are already on highway bridges. The problem has never been one of can it be done, the issue has always been our DOT cannot imagine why it should be done.

Who wants to side against progress when it’s very much within our reach? The only explanation for ODOT rejecting the innovative idea after studying 24 cases of paths on bridges must be there is no value system for infrastructure other than moving automobiles. Evidence can be found in their approach to studying the path after the Governor told them to take a second look. In her letter to the Governor last week, ODOT Director Jolene Molitoris shed more light on ODOT’s thinking – the bridge is a problem to be solved, not an asset to be gained. Molitoris writes: “ODOT took a different approach to evaluating this issue as part of this renewed second look. To start, we asked the very simple question: if bicycle and pedestrian access were added to the Innerbelt Bridge, what challenges would need to be overcome?”

That sounds eerily similar to the old approach. Rather than figure out how to meet the community’s expectation, ODOT is looking for an excuse to lower those expectations. Perhaps the problem is one of capacity? If it were only the responsibility of ODOT’s engineers, the challenge would be steep. But, that is not what the advocacy campaign seeks, any more than this illustration produced by the Access for All group represents a final engineering document. No doubt designing a path comes with its set of challenges. It will add cost (that much has been known), but it will also open up new federal funding streams for multi-modal investments. But when ODOT concludes that extra time and a giant spiral ramp system are the only way, we have to shake our head and wonder if that’s all we should expect from the designers they’ve hired to figure out how $450 million can ‘run and chew gum’ or solve multiple challenges at once.

Many of the conclusions flow from the ODOT’s assumption that a spiral access ramp structure for bicycles and pedestrians is needed on both ends of the bridge. This spiral ramp adds considerable distance, cost, and the potential for additional property acquisition needs – however ODOT has never shown the engineering assumptions or design necessity for the spiral ramps. Until ODOT is more forthcoming with its analysis (advocates have filed a Sunshine Act request) it’s difficult to accept at face value that what cannot be achieved is simply a failure to think creatively (not one of their strong suits).

ODOT also hasn’t shared any details of the cost or design on the proposed accommodations on the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge, West 20th Street and Abbey Avenue. What is ODOT proposing? Where are those funds going to come from? When is the projected completion date of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements? The City shouldn’t be stuck with another unfunded plan that sits on a shelf for lack of funding, especially when a fully funded project that could accommodate bicycles and pedestrians is occurring in the nearby Innerbelt project.

While Director Molitoris attempts at the end of her letter to strike the right tone, admitting that “biking and walking are critical components of a thriving, healthy and complete multi-modal transportation system” their solution – a barrier separated bike lane on the nearby Lorain-Carnegie Bridge isn’t a substitute. ODOT should do both, improve the surface streets and invest 4% or less from the state’s largest infrastructure project to serve the needs of the 25% of Clevelanders without cars. It’s the right thing to do. ODOT should embrace it, declare victory and move on.

**************************************

Last week, we reported that the campaign to innovate the Innerbelt Bridge with a multi-purpose path had hit a roadblock – ODOT was preparing to say “no”, the Plain Dealer reported. Well, it appears the death of the bridge path has been very much exaggerated. Member of Congress and local business leaders alike continue this week to press Governor Strickland to request that ODOT Region 12 ask the bridge designers to think of a creative solution in their bids. In other words, this fight isn’t over; not by a long shot. In that spirit, we share two recent letters to the Governor and ODOT’s Director – from LubeStop President Tom Morley and from Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

The advocacy campaign has been ramping up its inclusion of business leaders who tend to be more clear eyed about issues like cost-benefit analysis. In fact, business owner Mike Neundorfer’s letter to the editor in Crain’s this week was a wake up call to other area business owners that this issue is not dead (conversations we’ve had with some of Cleveland’s most influential business leaders confirm this. They have taken notice and are getting on board with a bridge path that’s well connected to the city’s central business district).

This passage from Morley’s letter sums up all of the frustration with ODOT’s lugubriousness:

The Innerbelt Bridge is one of the most visible landmarks in Northeast Ohio and its redesign must symbolize the direction the region is headed, not where it has been. All of the bidding design firms have experience building pedestrian-friendly bridges that must be leveraged. In March, you ordered ODOT to reexamine the inclusion of a pedestrian lane. It is ironic that ODOT’s June response studied 24 similar bridges in 12 different states to conclude it was not feasible.

Rep. Kucinich and Senator Sherrod Brown have not accepted ODOT’s old line thinking, and have sent Columbus strongly worded letters to push for change. In his latest letter, Kucinich reminds Molitoris of U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) new "Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations.” Among the specific recommendations of the DOT policy is: "Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated and limited-access bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on limited-access bridges with connections to streets or paths."

Stay tuned. There will be more to come about a multipurpose path on the Innerbelt Bridge.