All right, I got some clarification about the bridge. The plans still call for the new bridge. The only change is some "value engineering" of the rehab of the existing Innerbelt bridge. ODOT is probably going to cut back on new railings, art or decorative elements—which has officials at the city upset. Not too mention, this is an end-around by ODOT to cut the budget and argue that enhancements like a bike/ped path are too expensive. I guess we'll see with the new administration if the 'no build' option and alternatives that add real value to the city will be revisited.

Justin,

I think you’re on to something here. The PD article quotes ODOT proposing a cheaper fix of the old bridge. If this plan includes scraping plans for the new bridge, in effect this would represent a no-build option. More importantly, the delay means we can step back and rethink the need for more highway infrastructure versus a better designed system (of ramps, etc.) coupled with an investment that strengthens the community.

Looking long-term, once we have a new governor (and, presumably, a new ODOT director), we’ll have a better sense of how these issues will play out. In the meantime, we can make a strong case for investing the $1 billion Inner belt budget on ways that attract people back to the city.

Will the new administration be amenable to linking transportation investments with an urban reinvestment strategy—ideas that strengthen the core, such as a housing strategy, a land cap over Euclid Avenue, a bike/ped path on the bridge (or investing in the Towpath Trail extension under the Innerbelt Bridge)? We’ll continue to showcase images and ideas here.

Dear Mr. Hebebrand,

Please accept this email in your public comment process on the Central Viaduct on behalf of myself, as a cyclist and professional bicycle safety educator, certified by the League of American Bicyclists. Though I am the Regional Representative of the Board of Directors of that group for the area that includes Ohio; and member of the Board of Trustees of ClevelandBikes, our local bicycle advocacy organization; and Director of the Ohio City Bicycle Co-op, theses comments should not be construed as the official position of any of those organizations.

While I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project, the public input process I have observed, particularly your Department's seemingly arbitrary decision to exclude any consideration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities connected with this project, has been a disappointment. I, along with many others, in person, in writing, and on your website, have enthusiastically proposed a range of sensible, useful bike/pedestrian treatments — which would satisfy not just the spirit, but the letter of federal law regarding multimodal accommodations in this important project — only to be told that this decision had already been made, as if the project were already far past its preliminary design phase.

So I was surprised to read in the Plain Dealer of Oct 18th 2006 that "...an Ohio Department of Transportation memo obtained by The Plain Dealer... says the state wants to scrap a $30 million plan to build a bike path on the bridge because of safety concerns." Though this explanation was evidently due to journalistic "shorthand", my initial reaction was astonishment at the Department of Transportation having scrapped a "plan" for a bike path that it has previously refused to even consider.

In the applicable section of the memo in question, kindly supplied to me by your office, I am heartened to read that, "ODOT needs to resolve [the bike path issues] with community consensus." As a cyclist, a former longtime resident of the Tremont neighborhood at the western end of the innerbelt bridge, and a concerned citizen, I hope that the planning delay announced in this memo will offer a true opportunity to explore such a consensus. In my capacity as a bicycle safety instructor, leading student cyclists on educational rides from a facility in close proximity to this bridge, I can attest to the need for more and better routes for cyclists traveling in this area: the proposed towpath trail and Hope Memorial Bridge do not connect points served by this bridge in any way commensurate with the convenience for motor vehicle users it is conceived of providing.

I would like to see a thoughtful, comprehensive dialogue about the potential for non-motorized uses of this valuable public project; and a thorough, transparent assessment of the many benefits &mdash and attendant costs — of all the possible options for accommodating all citizens, no matter their mode of transport; in planning such a visible, long-term, and significant part of our city's infrastructure.

Sincerely,

Jim Sheehan
Director, Ohio City Bicycle Co-op
1823 Columbus Rd
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
216 830 2667
OhioCityCycles.org

Actually, I'm hoping the delay gives us occasion to reconsider the value of the entire plan. Why are we adding infrastructure to a downtown freeway system that is already vastly overbuilt for a city our size, and plays a major role in encouraging people to live far from the urban core? We could easily eliminate the Innerbelt Bridge altogether and divert Eastbound traffic onto the I-490 bridge from both I-71 and I-90. Who cares if it would add a few minutes to some people's commutes? Adding inconvenience to automobile-centric commuting patterns is the kind of thing progressive cities are already doing, and it's a strategy that we -- a shrinking city -- should be considering doubly seriously. Vancouver, B.C., for example, has long forbidden improvements to its downtown freeway system, a stance that has encouraged a forest of residential high-rises to spring up in its core.