No doubt, building bridges is an adult endeavor. The nuts and bolts, the girders, the EISs and RFPs, and then the responsibility inherent with carving a form that people will or will not take pride in as they negotiate a city that is or is not sustainably evolving. Yes, building bridges is not for the unserious, the depthless. And so its ironic (yet not unsurprising) that ODOT has reacted to the latest round of Inner Belt discussion with a bit of childish unsophistication; in effect, hijacking the conversation by not allowing one—not unlike the kid refusing the rest of us the game by taking their ball back home with them.

At least that is how it felt when word broke last Thursday that ODOT would in fact not be ready to reply to the Planning Commission’s formal resolution asking ODOT to reconsider the addition of a multipurpose path, then waking up the next morning to see that ODOT was in fact ready to make a statement—in a vacuum, to a reporter. The answer: leave us alone, we have serious work to do that does not involve amending paperwork that could allow for the betterment of the designs we’re paying $3 million to request.

To be fair, ODOT has disallowed the presence of real discourse for months now, the conversations instead mostly between the Commission members and the citizens who have been hanging around their bi-monthly meetings like groupies[1]. Eventually, all involved realized we weren’t getting anywhere without the elephant in the room, and so the elephant was invited, which of course the elephant accepted before it curtly declined. Yet prior to all that, the situation: it was vexing, especially for us access advocates—as it was like playing a game with only the referees present; in ODOT’s place, then, the sound of a silence that was in truth a thunderous statement saying: We are not participating. You are not here.

But we are. Pestering in the eyes of some. Giving voice in the eyes of others. But nonetheless, we are here. Here like bugs with little hammers that chip away at the stagnation that has rested in the halls of State Transportation for some time now. Here to borough in the ears of those too serious to listen, or those too embedded in the old way of doing things to know what the rest of us are trying to get across. Specifically: that the process of insularity to build a bridge for the purpose of connection is downright inane—and that the moment to plan for the future can not rest on past decisions made in a different time, a different place. The world is fluid and moves, and plans made in 2006 for a bridge to be built in 2014 is like dressing for the dance a decade ago and then being laughed at as you try to find a partner to twirl with. So, we are here. Here to obscure far less than to aim to give voice to those who want access, or health—or those who feel that such a massive form must be carved with an American vision that has so often made the average the supreme.