With the recent announcement of the three design-build teams now officially competing for the right to streak steel and rock across Cleveland’s skyline, time is ticking. And the ball, suffice to say, is in ODOT’s court.

Extending this metaphor of gamesmanship, say for a second that we—the advocates for access—are the underdogs, but have been scoring points for some time now. There was the City Planning Commission resolution. There was the most recent Rep. Kucinich letter of support to FHWA and also a letter from Sen. Brown to the Governor encouraging bike-ped access on the Innerbelt. There were the assurances in each of those letters that the feds would not rescind Cleveland’s $85 million in stimulus funds if the city re-builds itself sustainably, with thoughtfulness. Then came support from the Governor himself to his employees at ODOT which stated—in so many words—figure it out. Another basket, then. Another point. Momentum. And then Monday, Cleveland City Council got on board, in fact passing a resolution 16-3 stating—among other things—that: “adding a multipurpose lane to the Inner Belt Bridge will demonstrate Ohio’s emergence into a green economy”.

Of course with every game there runs a clock. And so, with the three design-build teams officially getting their marching orders to begin designing the possibilities of what could or won't be a landmark, you could say perhaps that the clock is winding down. Specifically, each of the firms—who are being paid $1 million apiece just to compete—are now charged with coming up with 30% of the total design by August, with the winner of course getting their visions stamped onto the minds of Clevelanders for as long as the bridge is (or isn’t) allowing us to multimodally pass.

 As for what comes next, it is hard to say, because with all the advances made in the past few months it can seem as if the decision(s) rests solely on what play ODOT decides to make. Because while there have been recommendations, and letters, and advice, and assurances, there have been no mandates, and thus there is a sense that, yes, the ball is in ODOT’s court. And given the clock is now more than ever a factor, will State Transportation just hold the ball and let time expire? In effect doing something by doing nothing until the designers have laid a lot of their visions out without direct guidance from ODOT stating: oh yeah, we have added an addendum. We have seen your guys past multimodal bridges. We can attest to your visions. So, design one bridge with a path, and one without. 

Or will ODOT, and more directly, the taxpayers, get their money's worth by allowing the game to be settled on the court, and in the hands of the designers who have every incentive to one-up their competition with an ingenuity allowing for what the people and our leaders want? In fact, come to think of it, the game is not really between us: ODOT and the citizens. Rather, the game is between the design-build teams and the clock is running. So ODOT, can you give us the ball back? So it can be passed along to the design-build teams so we can all watch the potential sweetness that plays out…