Pittsburgh firm to pick bridge for Inner Belt

Thursday, December 15, 2005

James Ewinger

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The state has chosen a Pittsburgh firm to pick the type of bridge that will be a key element in the massive Inner Belt project.

 

Michael Baker Jr. Inc. beat out two other finalists. He is affiliated with Dr. Christian Menn, a Swiss bridge designer responsible for innovative spans around the world...

oh great, it'll look like azz -- the pittsburghers will want to spite their rival, "yunz aint gettin no gooder bridge than we gots!" -- lol!

 

seriously tho, it sounds like an ok choice. alsenas's comments are heartening, i hope these people slow it down and listen to him carefully and make those changes.

What type of bridge are they going to build?

well... if odot gets it's way some type of truss bridge with some decorative architectural elements so they can call it a signature bridge. If many other people get their way it will be some sort of cable stayed bridge,  because that's the only thing that can be "signature" or "original" anymore; because we all know we have way too many suspension bridges in Cleveland.  (a little rant that's been brewing for some time)

 

Or really it's to be determined at this point.

From the 12/17/05 PD:

 

 

Idea for bridge full of problems, city planners say

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

City planners say a proposal to build a signature span over the Cuyahoga River could mean closing the Inner Belt for up to a year and diverting unacceptable volumes of traffic into Cleveland neighborhoods.

 

City officials reacted warily Friday to Cuyahoga County Planning Director Paul Alsenas, who is campaigning to build a single, iconic bridge, contrary to the preferred plan of the Ohio Department of Transportation... 

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

[email protected], 216-999-4695

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1134811802245490.xml&coll=2

 

But faced with spirited support for Alsenas' plan, and with criticism over proposed ramping in the Inner Belt trench, ODOT is working with federal transportation officials to have a team of national experts review the entire Inner Belt plan.

:-o

 

Did I miss something?  When did this happen?

Great news...unless it is a cover, that they only hired someone to agree with them in that case.... :whip:

 

A federal review of transportation projects that involve federal funds is standard procedure. The only question is will Federal Highway Administration look at the economic impacts on the city, or merely look at what ODOT is doing to promote a safer, more fluid flow of traffic. I suspect the latter.

If they start building we'll form a local militia and burn the mofo down... 

I still don't completely follow why traffic would have to be completely shut down; Maybe extremely hampered but why completely shut down?   Step one Build Bridge... step two Build roads leading up to bridge...  step three connect the dots temporarily like they've been doing I71 for the last eon or so... step four, blow up the old bridge and everything else that isn't needed... step five start building more permanent ramping, freeway lanes etc.

^ See my series of diagrams earlier in this thread on how it could be done. A mix of fear and routinism, rather than creativity, is driving too much decision-making in this endeavor.

Why is ODOT so persistant in getting THEIR idea through and not taking in any other ideas when ODOT is funded by state tax-payer money? 

It was either ODOT or their engineering consultant Burgess & Niple (or both!) that pushed the northern alignment so hard.

 

As a humorous aside, I was surprised to receive in the mail today a Christmas card from Burgess & Niple! After some of the stuff I wrote about them and ODOT for Sun, the last thing I was expecting from them was a Christmas card. I wasn't sure if I should have had the envelope screened for chemical or biological hazards before opening it!

It's great that the local media are keeping the heat on ODOT. This is the kind of aggressive coverage (bordering on activism) we don't normally see from the PeeDee.

true, it's important that the local media keep the attention on this project, but the same theme is constant throughout...we're all getting involved very late in the game.  I wasn't here over the past two years, but I read the PD and the County Weblog and I don't remember hearing much or anything about this.  And it may seem like there are lots of voices chiming in now, but as Litt said in his latest article, some of the loudest ones are still quiet (Jackson, Campbell, Cimperman).  How are we going to convince people that they need to get involved in this?  Unless you're a planner or an Urban Ohioan or you own a business in Midtown or live in Tremont, chances are you're not getting involved and don't really see the need to.  It's unfortunate, because everyone's money is going into this and just as we need to convince the entire region that Cleveland's vitality affects them, we need to convince everyone that this project could impede or augment Cleveland's vitality for decades to come.

Here's my assessment of the political situation:

 

The CDC's that have been involved in the process this far are behind the Midtown businesses that want to maintain their access.  That is where their efforts will remain until that access is restored.  That includes the downtown CDC's, who would be the most likely to support the Southern Alignment for the development opportunities that it presents.  The leadership in the Tremont community seems to be against the Southern Alignment because of fears about taking the Greek Orthodox Church and Sokolowski's.  Cimperman is going to follow the concerns of those two groups instead of fighting for the Southern Alignment.  Leadership will have to come from someone else.  Maybe Jackson will pick it up, but I don't know.

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

I understand why Midtown and Tremont would be fiighting primarily for those causes, but Joe C's got to think on a grander scale.  He represents parts of Midtown and Tremont, but also Downtown and Gateway.  He's got to see how the bridge alignment that's currently on the boads would be detrimental to his contituency on the east side of the bridge, as well as the west side. 

 

Also, I-90 is currently a huge barrier that separates Tremont from the surrounding neighborhoods.  With the addition of a new bridge, this barrier grows.  On the other hand, the southern alignment results in a more minimal bridge and the demolition of the current one.  I see this as a huge improvement for Tremont.  Of course they can't knock down sacred structures, but assuming this can be done without harming the Greek Orthodox Church, Joe C's got to recognize how this can improve both Tremont and Gateway.

Well the problem is that like any politician he is going to want to be cautious and "lead from behind".  He needs the cover of being able to say 100% "this will not hurt the Greek Orthodox Church" before he is likely to even consider coming out in favor of the Southern Alignment.  He is doing all that can realistically be hoped for from a politician in just allowing the study to proceed forward.

 

There is no current and organized consituency in Gateway beyond the Gateway Development Corp., which stands firmly with Tremont and Midtown in the policy of "first do no harm".  Until the concerns that fit under that heading are taken care of, that is what the CDC's are going to work on.  At least if they can stall ODOT, that gives more time for the Southern Alignment to gain momentum.

That's exactly my point, though!  They're missing the fact that the northern alignment will do lots of harm to both Gateway and Tremont by adding twice as much roadway and structural supports to neighborhoods that have already been marred by them!  I understand that the church issue is a much more volatile one, but in the end, both issues need to be considered for what they are.

Yeah, I understand, but nobody lives to the north of the Innerbelt.  The section of Tremont that the North Aligment would be going through is industrial, and the part of Gateway that would be impacted is in on the other side of Jacob's Field, and is considered a no-man's land.  The political question then becomes one of balancing the fears of people in Tremont against the potential to expand into the no-man's land on the southern side of Gateway.  Who has more votes- the people of Tremont, or the potential residents of Gateway 20 years from now?  That is the political calculus.

This from 90.3 WCPN on Decemober 22...

 

A proposed revamping of Cleveland’s inner belt has local leaders debating various options. But since most of the money to pay for it is funneled through the Ohio Department of Transportation, that agency holds the ultimate decision-making authority. In the past few weeks, the Cuyahoga and Cleveland Planning Commissions have pressed ODOT to evaluate other alternatives. But ODOT seems locked in its own plan. If Cleveland doesn’t approve it the project could founder - with millions of federal dollars diverted to other projects instead. ideastream’s Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports...

 

SEE NEXT POST FOR LINK TO ARTICLE

\/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/

 

 

That story came from this link:

 

http://www.wcpn.com/news/2005/10_12/1222innerbelt.html

 

Here's the graphic which WPCN referred to:

 

Cimperman is very committed to blocking this project as it now stands -- and I'm so grateful to him for that. What concerns me more than the bridge are ODOT's proposed plans for the downtown trench, which would hurt downtown business and further devastate the city's remaining urban fabric through takings.

If the bridge is closed I don't see that loads of traffic would be "dumped" into Tremont.  The purpose of the bridge is to get cars from the south and the west across the river.  The other way to get across the river would be to cross at 490 and use 77 to get downtown.  I can't imagine any real benefit for drivers to get off at W. 25th and use that to reach the Lorain-Carnegie bridge.  I guess the issue is once the new bridge is in place and they start the trench area of 90, how, if at all, do they plan to connect this roadway with the 77?  That's one thing I've never seen addressed in southern alignment plans.  Is an interchange preserved at all?  I rarely use the spaghetti straps myself so I'm not sure how distruptive it would be.

 

The green squiggles in the map posted above is kind of nondescript.  I don't know if it represents ramps that would be destroyed (as clearly the ones in the path of and NW of the new roadway would be) or new/redesigned exit/entrance/interchange ramps providing access to/from 77.

 

Blowing up the the map and superimposing the new alignment of the innerbelt onto the current cluster of ramps sort of yields this, with green representing new space afforded by eliminating existing ramps that the old I-90 alignment used.

 

 

So on the west side of the innerbelt, things are peachy.  It would be interesting to see what happens on the other side

 

 

 

 

I don't think the Innerbelt has to be shut down at all for a new bridge on the southern alignment. If it does, it's for a brief period in the middle of the night while lanes are shifted, in which case the I-490/I-77 detour would go into effect for a matter of hours, not weeks or months or worse.

 

I suggested as much in a series of renderings I posted on this site, at the west end of the bridge. I suggested the bypass roadways be built on the east flank of the Innerbelt, but they could just as easily be built on the west side, away from the church. But that would require demolitions, yet give ODOT more space to work with. Besides, ODOT is planning on tearing down those buildings on the west side of the highway anyway. But I would prefer to limit the demolitions as much as we can.

CLEVELAND, Jan. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --

Michael Baker Jr., Inc., an engineering unit of Michael Baker Corporation (Amex: BKR), has been selected

by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) to provide bridge type selection and preliminary and final engineering design services for the new

Interstate 90/Central Viaduct Bridge in Cleveland, Ohio, crossing over the Cuyahoga River Valley.  The company will begin work on the project in February

2006.

 

Under this multi-million-dollar, multi-year contract, Baker will provide project management, preliminary and final design, and public involvement

services.  The company will assist ODOT in engaging the public in the bridge type selection process in order to design a bridge that satisfies both the

residents of the area and the functional needs of the structure while recognizing the fiscal limitations of the overall project.  Baker will be

assisted under subcontract by Dr. Christian Menn, who is well known and widely respected for his expertise in designing signature bridges throughout the world.  Dr. Menn will serve primarily as a design consultant on the bridge type study.

 

"This bridge is a significant project for the city of Cleveland and the surrounding region, and marks the first element of the $874 million Innerbelt

project to move beyond the conceptual design phase," Bob Parker, assistant vice president and project manager, said.  "From the public's perspective,

this project will be the most visible piece of the Innerbelt project and offers an opportunity to deliver a bridge that visually enhances the Cleveland

skyline.  From Baker's perspective, this selection strengthens our company's reputation as a leader in complex bridge design."

 

Michael Baker Corporation (http://www.mbakercorp.com) provides engineering and operations and maintenance services for its clients' most complex

challenges worldwide.  The firm's primary practice areas are aviation, environmental, facilities, geospatial information technologies, linear

utilities, transportation, water/wastewater, and oil & gas.  With more than 4,500 employees in over 40 offices across the United States and

internationally, Baker is focused on providing services that span the complete life cycle of infrastructure and managed asset projects.

 

 

 

SOURCE Michael Baker Corporation

Web Site: http://www.mbakercorp.com

Photo Notes: NewsCom:

http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020605/BAKERLOGO AP

Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org PRN Photo Desk,

[email protected]

Bad news for those of us who support the southern alignment for the Inner Belt bridge...

 

There was a meeting held today between ODOT Director Gordon Proctor, Senator George Voinovich, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, Councilman Joe Cimperman and others (ie: support staff and aides). Discussion topics included issues surrounding the Inner Belt trench and the alignment for the Cuyahoga Valley bridge.

 

The end result of this meeting was an agreement by all parties to proceed with the northern alignment. As for the trench, all parties, including the affected CDCs, will continue to meet regularly in the next 45-60 days to come to an agreement on that issue.

 

Thus, it appears the dream is dead for developing a walkable, high-density urban neighborhood next to the Gateway district on the south side. Forever more will the massive pile of concrete spaghetti blight the south side of downtown, while development (certainly the urban extent of it) will continue to be stifled beyond. What a waste of a wonderful opportunity.

 

Unfortunately, I will not be able to write about this until next week's paper. So, if you can be patient, I will find out more details as best I can and share them here if I am able.

:cry:

Where was Alsenas? Not invited?

Also, KJP, what was discussed regarding the trench? Was there any talk of the takings/demolitions?

odot is a demon, what a disgusting waste of an oppotunity.

:cry:

Where was Alsenas? Not invited?

Also, KJP, what was discussed regarding the trench? Was there any talk of the takings/demolitions?

 

To my knowledge, Alsenas wasn't invited. I will call him tomorrow to see if he is aware of the meeting that occurred today.

 

There were presentations made by ODOT regarding the trench, the accidents, the takings, etc., but no agreement was made amongst the parties about a response, other than to continue to meeting and talking. One note, though, is that the affected CDCs are uniting to come up with some solutions and political pressure to force a more favorable outcome.

Elected officials back state plan for Inner Belt

Thursday, January 26, 2006

James Ewinger

Plain Dealer Reporter

The Ohio Department of Transportation got what it wanted this week when a handful of elected officials blessed the state's plan for a second Inner Belt bridge north of the current span...

 

Right, I'm sure that ODOT's version of working with neighborhoods for 8 months will really come to a community-driven solution.

 

As disappointed as I am with the decision to proceed with the new, northern bridge, it appears that this is a battle lost.  I'll be left to wonder why the damn thing is there in the first place and why we're not replacing it, but doubling its size...

 

Next, the Trench.  I may not have the same motive for objecting to this plan as it stands as some of the Midtown folks.  I'm inclined to support, as CSU does, less on and off ramps, freeing up more land for development.  However, what I dislike is the apparent "necessity" to demolish some 20+ properties along the route in order to build a "marginal" road and avoid traffic disruption during construction.  What?!  The economic opportunity cost is already making itself apparent with projects put on hold or forgone altogether and the plan is still just a plan.  What happens when they actually approve it and start knocking down buildings?  What does that say to the people that have spent so much time and money rehabbing buildings that were thought to be obsolete?  To the people that chose to locate businesses and homes along this route?  Well, what I hear is that the State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland (if they let this happen) don't care much for their money or effort or presence.

 

Time for another series of letters.  Let's hope we don't give in to the dark side on this one as well!

So, in other words, we are going to demolish downtown buildings to  maintain traffic without disruption during construction that could have been done by commuter rail without demolishing anything? I'd blame ODOT only, but this one is as much RTA's fault (see Mike Schipper) for removing commuter rail as a maintenance of traffic option.

The part of the article that really made me worry is when Procter said "He is not sure what type of bridge we were going to get", and that a bland steel truss bridge is an option. Our elected officials better not let this happen. :whip:

No, the part that worries me (other than ODOT's stubornness to depart from a pre-ordained solution) is the reference to a cable-stayed bridge as "graceful" and the reference to a steel truss bridge as "bland".  Bias, anyone?

 

Seriously.  The State of Ohio, and ODOT in particular, do not have their crap together at all.  They have no idea what it takes to build and maintain a functioning metropolis, which is ironic, considering how many large cities Ohio has.  The 1950s are over, people.     

Yeah, I find it hard to care deeply about how the bridge is going to look when I object to an additional bridge in principle.

 

As for the takings, it's time to turn up the heat on this issue. In case anyone missed it, here are photos of what we stand to lose: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7101.0

 

I'm working on an op-ed for Cool Cleveland and have written to Steven Litt of the PD; MayDay has alerted the Preservation Society. Anyone else got ideas?

I am upset on the whole backroom deal aspect of this.  The northern alignment will scar downtown for a few more generations, but the politicians must have gotten something.

 

I called Voinovich's office. Told them I thought that after this meeting, now I think that maybe Modell was not lying when he said that Voinovich told him to move the Browns

Anyone interested in marching to the offices of Voinovich, DeWine, Kucinich, and/or Tubbs-Jones, you are more than welcome to crash on my couch.

I feel sick, again.  This whole project seems to be shaping up in the worst possible way for the city.

Franks first imprint on the city.

 

great

Ive actually expiernced much more exteme curves on the interstate, than dead mans curve. The interchange of 79 and 70 in west virginia. I think it is refered to a trumpet style interchange. Anyways the speed limit down there is 70 mph, and as you approach this interchange, it is going down a mountain. The closer you get, the speed limit cuts down to 25 mph (while still going down a mountain), it loops around and under itself so you make a left. Lots of accidents and backups happen there. The jersey barriers are higher than the semi-trailers.

Thought I'd just share with ya'll some anecdotal info I've heard regarding the most recent developments with the innerbelt project, specifically the whole bridge fiasco. 

 

As I explained in my first post on the boards, I'm from a western suburb but currently attending college in Washington D.C.  When not in class and participating in various other college related  :wink: activities, I intern for a Cleveland area politician that has an office here in D.C.  I was speaking with one of his aides last week about the innerbelt project, asking him many of the same questions that have been brought up here.  According to him--who's been handling this issue for my boss--the entire process has been as shady and corrupt as we would all suspect.  In fact, he became quite agitated when talking about ODOT and how they go about business.  Apparently the outcome of  meeting that occurred a few weeks ago between ODOT, Frank Jackson, and the area's Congressional representatives was somewhat misrepresented by the PeeDee (no surprise there) and there indeed was not a consensus among the group as the article insinuated.  In fact, it seems that the statements indicating that Dennis Kucinich had, in the end, supported ODOT's plan were not true at all. 

 

The person I was speaking with said that it was all but a done deal that the new bridge would be another concrete monstrosity.  Nothing is set in stone, but he would be very, very surprised if this did not end up being the case.  As we all know, ODOT is completely hostile to any other suggestions, but it is ultimately the city's decision what is approved.  Unfortunately--and this is really disgusting news in so many ways--Frank Jackson is ready to bend over for ODOT because of some "very shady and suspicious" deals he worked out with ODOT.  He didn't tell me what these deals were, but I didn't get the impression that they were concessions from ODOT on, for example, something positive like a reevaluation of their reconstruction of the trench.  It sounded like we've been screwed over just as much by Jackson as by ODOT.

 

So things don't look good at this point.  Like I said, nothing is apparently a done-deal yet, but the collusion and corruption at ODOT that we all suspected seems to be very real.  And its even more frustrating that is seems our new mayor has already lost his backbone.  But one can never underestimate the power of the pen; could salvation come in the form of the PD?  Steve Litt has written strongly in favor of the signature bridge, if he could convince the editorial board to take up this issue a la Quiet Crisis, perhaps the ensuing groundswell would be too great for the city and ODOT to ignore.  What if we got a developer--I'm talking about you, Forest City, but Robert Stark, Wolstein, etc. etc. would do--to publically announce their support of the southern alignment, and commit to to investing hundreds of millions into the construction of the new neighborhood that could then be built.  How could the city consciously say no to such an offer? At any rate, we cannot rollover at this critical time when so much of our city's future is at stake.

I also have very little knowledge and zero experience in the industry, but I do have the view of a slightly jaded 20 year old.  IMHO, ODOT doesn't gain anything by their plans,  BUT it's what's easiest for them.  They're used to building concrete bridges, so why should they try something new?  They're completely disinterested in a challenge, and molded by the government culture in Columbus, where there hasn't been change in over a decade. 

 

I don't want to sound elitist or stoke-up some Cleveland-Columbus rivalry, but I think that if these bureaucrats were located in Cleveland, they would have a lot more progressive attitude toward the project.  Cleveland's no New York City, but we are much more the Eastern, trend-setting locale than Columbus is.  That's just the way it is.  Now if we can only unite this spirit of progressivism--from our political leaders and Forest City to Peter B. Lewis and Thomas Mulready--in opposition to ODOT's complacency, we will all witness the power of a unified Monster on the Lake!

Interesting news from DC. Thanks for the news tip. I'll check it out.

This is what my imagination thinks transpired when Frank Jackson was trying to hold ODOT accountable to the city

 

ODOT: "Frank, if you want an opportunity boulevard, let us build the great wall of Jacobs field, the northern aligned bridge"

Frank Jackson: "OK"

Feb. 2, 2006

 

City missing chance to develop prime site

Write of Way

Ken Prendergast

 

Cleveland would be a much better city if vacant land had a political constituency. Of course, vacant land cannot write letters or make phone calls to elected officials, or attend meetings to make its case as can the stakeholders of occupied land.

 

That difference came to mind during the debate over how the Inner Belt highway (Interstate 90) through downtown Cleveland should be reconstructed.

 

Consider, for example, the question over where to build the “Signature Bridge” across the Cuyahoga Valley. The Ohio Department of Transportation wants to build a westbound-only bridge north of the existing viaduct, bringing it even closer to Jacobs Field. The existing 50-year-old bridge would be renovated to carry eastbound traffic only.

 

To accommodate the northern alignment for the new bridge requires demolishing four homes and four commercial buildings scattered from Tremont to the old Central Viaduct downtown. A fire station and the new Western Reserve Fire Museum will be impacted, but not fatally, by a ramp from Ontario Street being brought to their front doors.

 

The alternative was to put the Signature Bridge for both eastbound and westbound traffic south of the existing viaduct. It would be entirely below street level and designed as an urban highway. No longer would its interchange ramps downtown look like some tentacled, land-gobbling monster transplanted from suburbia.

 

The alternative would open up some 50 acres of prime downtown land for a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood on the southern edge of Jacobs Field. Cuyahoga County officials estimated a development totaling $1 billion could fit there. If vacant land could speak for itself, city officials would be jumping through hoops for it and ODOT might not have rejected the idea.

 

It seems many ODOT officials don’t understand urban design. They argued that vacant land south of the Inner Belt could be developed just as easily. They fail to comprehend how much their Central Interchange dissuades pedestrianism, urbanity and a continuation of human-scale development patterns.

 

At first, ODOT officials rejected the southern alignment because they didn’t want to demolish the Greek Orthodox Church in Tremont. That was disproved. Besides, when ODOT believes they have to take a building, they will make every effort to justify it, as we will later see.

 

Then ODOT officials said the southern alignment would be too expensive, but only because eastbound and westbound traffic would be routed across it. ODOT’s plan throws good money after bad in rebuilding the existing viaduct for eastbound traffic for $50 million, knowing it will have to be replaced in another few decades. ODOT doesn’t include that future cost in its current estimate.

 

Ultimately, ODOT officials resorted to scare tactics, saying if they don’t start the project soon, ODOT risks losing $900 million committed for the project. They also claimed the Inner Belt would have to be closed for two years. I suggested a way around that, posted at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3697.msg61660#msg61660 on the Web.

 

On Jan. 23, Mayor Frank Jackson, Senator George Voinovich, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Councilman Joe Cimperman met with ODOT brass and signed off on the northern alignment. No southern alignment proponents, including the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, were included to make their case.

 

Thus, the dream appears dead for a walkable, urban neighborhood south of the Gateway district. For decades more will the sprawling pile of concrete spaghetti blight the south side of downtown with its elevated roar and wind-blown trash. What a waste of a wonderful opportunity.

 

But the fight is not over. Threats to occupied buildings, and thus a constituency, remain farther east on the Inner Belt. There, I-90 descends into a trench, with entrance and exit ramps spaced closely together.

 

ODOT plans to reduce the number of ramps and instead add parallel roads next to the highway. ODOT is probably correct that this will reduce the number of fender benders and sideswipes, but the accidents that remain will likely be more catastrophic with higher speeds.

 

Further, ODOT’s highway engineering-only mentality seeks to make the traffic more fluid for traffic passing through downtown on I-90. Never mind that 85 percent of all vehicles on the Inner Belt are downtown-bound.  In other words, ODOT is making travel easier for 15 percent of the traffic and tougher for the 85 percent.

 

Worse, consider how many downtown buildings, including an emerging live-work district, will succumb to the wrecking ball if ODOT’s plans for the Inner Belt trench are realized.

 

To gain an appreciation of the scale of this threatened loss, check out this photo essay by Justin Glanville, a Cleveland State University urban planning student, which he posted at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7101.msg71018#msg71018 on the Internet.

 

Here, Cimperman is fighting the good fight, with the help of affected community development corporations and others.

 

It’s time that ODOT realizes that the “two D’s” — density and diversity — is what makes a city vibrant. Density of development and population energizes a community, as do diversity of buildings, architecture, people and transportation.

 

Instead, ODOT seems to think the two D’s are demolitions and driving. Here’s hoping the city’s approvals process gives ODOT another letter — an F, and sends this project back to the drawing board.

 

######

By the way, I called Congressman Kucinich's office today to verify whether he was supporting Mayor Jackson et al regarding ODOT's preference for the northern bridge alignment. His spokesman, Doug Gordon, gave me a half-assed answer after consulting with Kucinich transportation staffer/legal counsel Marty Gelfand back in the district.

 

It was something to the effect of "We will continue to work with Mayor Jackson et al to ensure the best project is developed for the region." When I asked him about ODOT possibly not being above-board in their decision to build the northern bridge alignment, Doug soft-pedaled that one too, saying something that was equally forgettable.

 

I have his response in my notes at work, but when I heard it, I thought "Why in the hell do people keep re-electing your boss?" I know the answer because I've seen it: Kucinich's opposition has been comprised of some of the most pathetic excuses for Congressional candidates I've ever come across. But I digress.... Rant complete.

Perhaps someone can get Fred Nance involved in this injustice from a state agency.  Its a pretty obvious case of neglect on the part of ODOT.  Shown the facts side by side of a northerly signature bridge vs a southernly aligned signature bridge, the benefits are obvious and great.  The other statement ODOT made was that if a southernly aligned bridge were considered there would be major traffic disruptions while it was being built.  They should be made to come forward with their research they did or didn't do to prove their point.  ODOT has stalled and dragged its feet the entire time.

Nice article KJP.  You have been a great advocate for a better Cleveland- please don't give-up!

 

If neighborhoods in Tremont are an issue with the Southern alignment, does it make any sense at all to build a new bridge that crosses over the existing bridge as described in my "Cleveland Plans" posting in the "City Discussion" section?  I know almost nothing about bridge design, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Here's my optimistic thought about the bridge issue....

 

"ODOT, go ahead and build your northern alignment, five-lane bridge with breakdown lanes on each side (total of seven equivalent lanes) for westbound traffic only. Go ahead and rebuild the existing bridge for eastbound traffic only to buy you a couple of decades. Just don't undertake your Act II of Downtown Demolition to accommodate your short-sighted ramping/arterials plan. We'll just have to find it in our non-ODOT souls to endure what we've endured for lo' these past 45 years.

 

"Go ahead and build the Opportunity Corridor to take some traffic off the Inner Belt, just as long as you put the Rapid lines down the median of the OC Boulevard so that this project has value to the 56-70 percent of the households that do not have a car in the affected areas. And, so that the OC Boulevard/Rapid consolidation can build pedestrian-oriented, energetic urban neighborhoods along the way.

 

"Once those pieces are in place, tear down the old Inner Belt viaduct. And where does the eastbound traffic go, you ask? Over the Northern Alignment bridge. After all, it's seven lanes wide. If you fine folks at ODOT put a temporary median-barrier down the middle of it, you can offer three lanes in each direction. Won't traffic be a nightmare? It won't be as fun as with five lanes offered in each direction, I'll grant you. But it won't be as bad as it would have been without the Opportunity Corridor. With the Opportunity Corridor boulevard in place, all those downtown commuters who can still afford to be addicted to oil can have a fluid ride over the Inner Belt's Cuyahoga Valley span, even if reduced to three lanes in each direction. No interstates are shut down for two years, as ODOT earlier told us to fear.

 

"So, now you've got the traffic comfortably detoured on other routings and the old bridge removed. What does that give ODOT? A wide-open site to build a new Inner Belt bridge on the southern alignment. The new east-west trafficked bridge can be built starting from where the old one started in Tremont, without demolishing anything more than ODOT already has.

 

"OK, what does ODOT do with the northern alignment bridge that it built? You sell it to the city for $1 to rebuild it as a street arterial from downtown directly into Tremont. That's something Tremont hasn't had since the old Central Viaduct was demolished many decades ago. Ironically, the northern alignment bridge would be situated exactly where the old Central Viaduct was. It was a viaduct that built Tremont then, and can enhance its value in the future.

 

"This wide bridge can be kept to two lanes of traffic so it can have broad pedestrian/biking promenades, with historical displays and features on it like those on the Detroit-Superior Bridge. It could even offer little kiosks where people can get a cold pop in summer or a hot chocolate in winter. And it could have optical viewers to see long distances or show historical pictures to compare with what's there now. So, how do you like that, ODOT? I know, the pedestrian part stinks almost as much as the concept of urban neighborhood enhancements. But give us a moral victory, at least. OK?"

 

Anyway, that's my optimistic view of things.