...but I must say...this building was up before the landmarks commission 5 years ago and was tabled due to a lack of information by the individual compiling the info. So NOW, Mr. Hauser creates this emergency that it has to be landmarked because this is such a significant building. Where were the preservationist before the building was in jeopardy?

 

Is it possible, that in five years time, Mr. Hauser was able to gather more supporting documentation and build a stronger case?

It is possible! However, It doesn't take an activist of Mr. Hauser capabilities 5 years to gather anything. My point is simply Mr. Hauser's disdain for ODOT is more than his concern for the building itself, and he is using the "landmark" issue as a way to make his point. If that building was as important to him or anyone else for that matter it would have been nominated before it was marked as ODOT take #19 (or #17). I am a Cleveland resident and I too am not a big fan of ODOTS plans but I'm not going to run and find a building to landmark. Instead, I have attended meeting and have written my share of letters to our government leaders as well as ODOT.

All in all the highway they are planning is worse than what we have now, so if it is not fixed I hope the plan gets scuttled.

Mr. Hauser's point is that ODOT did not follow its own rules.  While it may not be completely genuine, he is using the system to try to force ODOT to follow its own regulations. 

 

I find ODOT's behavior to much more egregious than Mr. Hauser's.

Without looking more closely at what would have to be demolished for the new ROW (I'm sure it's a lot less than ODOT wants to knock down), I think the plan in KJP's diagram (thanks for reposting!) is brilliant and I have no problem with Hauser's methods.  The interstate tangle south of the Jake is a disgrace.

Cleveland has hundreds, if not thousands of buildings that could be nominated successfully for landmark status. They often are not nominated until their is a pressing reason to do so- either staving off demolition or securing historic tax credits for rehabilitation.  This is only out of the ordinary because of the scale of the project, not because of the methods used.

I just did some rudimentary calculating.... Routing I-90 over I-490 and then north on I-77 and a new right of way through the park and the old public housing means a trip that is 0.75 miles longer than the more direct route via the Central Viaduct and Central Interchange (17,000 feet vs 13,000 feet). That might mean a trip that's some 45 seconds longer than at present to go around downtown.

 

Let's see -- a huge swath of land just south of downtown is gobbled up by a massive highway interchange so motorists can save 45 seconds. Only in America, I guess.

With regard to Jackson, do you think ODOT is using the Opportunity Corridor / UC access boulevard / Case Medical center parkway as leverage to try to hurry things up along locally?

He seems to be blazing this course alone and I'm not sure why.

KJP,

 

I love the renderings that you have come up with for many projects around the city, and this one is as good as any....the question is, have you sent these ideas to people who are directly linked to the projects?  Have they seen any of your ideas or plans?  If so, what kind of feedback have you gotten on them.....from either the ODOT side, or the anti ODOT side?

Thanks, but I just put Wimwar's and X's idea down on paper (digital or otherwise).

 

To answer your question, yes I send some to various folks around town. But since I generate a lot of these renderings and such, and since I have a different full-time job, I don't get to do as much campaigning of them as I would like. However, by placing them here, I hope that some of the renderings interest people who view this forum enough so that they can consider them. And I've become aware that folks from ODOT, RTA, NOACA, Cleveland city officials and others visit this site and some are members.

 

Unfortunately, some of my renderings are so radical or outside the current thinking of some agencies, that they have trouble getting any legs. My only hope is that, since many who visit this site are young (and ambitious, thankfully), by the time they get into leadership positions and grow in power, that they will remember these ideas and renderings and seek to implement something like them. It won't be too late, either, not unless the ground on which I would like to see these things built disappears by then.

Here's a couple more renderings. I was looking at the map I drafted and saw the Norfolk Southern rail line (the one I proposed in the EcoCity report for the Lakefront Bypass) might be incorporated into the new Central Viaduct. That would give NS a three-track wide bridge deck below the roadway deck, yet still be high enough that it would clear ships on the river. The current NS bridge, even though it is about 45 feet high, requires a drawbridge and 24-hour staffing by NS personnel. Plus, the NS bridge is old and double-tracked. All of those are insufficient for a major rerouting of rail traffic (70 freight trains a day) off the lakefront.

 

Here is an overview, based on the earlier map I posted....

 

 

Here is a more detailed map....

 

Sorry I've been out of the loop for a while...I've made my excuses elsewhere...

 

I'm not really sure what's going on with that NS realignment, but the proposed scrapping of the Central Interchange and Innerbelt Bridge altogether sounds brilliant!  When I first talked with my boss, a long-time neighborhood development figure here in Cleveland, about the Innerbelt project, the first thing he said was, "Why do they need that bridge at all?  Why don't they just connect via 490 to 77?"  This, he pointed out, would ameliorate some of the barriers that were placed around and through the Tremont neighborhood over the years and help to re-establish neighborhood connections.  I thought about it and couldn't come up with a reason why this wouldn't work...  However, I was sure that ODOT had plenty.  Such as?  adding 45 seconds to your commute?  not good enough.  capacity?  without a doubt.  alignment?  probably. 

 

So, what's the deal?  Has anyone suggested this at a meeting?  Is this an alternative they will have to consider if these buildings are approved as landmarks?

 

Also, to echo what others have already said, Hauser is using the system and the established rules of the game to combat the bulheaded and short-sighted practices that ODOT has been using.  He's been to every public meeting, he's filed comments, gone to the City, written letters, etc. etc.  But as many of us here have discovered, that doesn't make much difference to our Mayor, let alone ODOT.  So, more power to him for throwing a legitimate wrench in the works!  I hope we can make some progress off of this.

One interesting item is that I estimate the NS tracks might reasonably be raised only 10 feet higher over the river (for a total clearance of about 50-55 feet). That still might not be high enough to clear all river traffic. So I suggest the following -- since a lift bridge on a heavily trafficked road bridge is probably out of the question, why can't only the rail deck be raised when needed? A 20-to 25-foot clearance between the rail deck and the road deck above will probably be needed. So the raise the rail deck the 20 feet when the biggest ships come through. That ought to provide the clearance, but without specific information on what the minimum shipping clearances would need to be, I'd just be guessing on the measurements.

Here's a report from 2002 that has direct correlation to the Inner Belt project...

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans2/Freeway%20urban%20impact.pdf

 

In it, on Page 4, is this quote that's very relevant to the Inner Belt:

 

As historian Mark I. Gelfand has noted: "No federal venture spent more funds in urban areas and returned fewer dividends to central cities than the national highway program."

Gordon Proctor, ODOT director, to speak at the Cleveland City Club about the Innerbelt project.

 

http://www.cityclub.org/content/speakers/SpeakerDetail.aspx?spkID=5349

 

Speakers  > Gordon Proctor

Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:00 PM

Driving into the Future: The Innerbelt Project

Gordon Proctor

Director, Ohio Department of Transportation

 

Reservation

The Ohio Department of Transportation is planning for the rehabilitation and redesign of the 50-year-old Innerbelt between MetroHealth Center and “Dead Man’s Curve.” This change includes the Innerbelt Bridge, which carries I-71/I-90 traffic over the Cuyahoga River Valley. This project—costs estimated at $900 million dollars—will not begin for at least three years and not be completed until 2017. A major determinant for urban redevelopment for decades, the Innerbelt project will shape economic development in Cleveland and perhaps the region for the near and long-term future.

 

What opportunities does this new project present? How can state and local government work together to create a brighter and more exciting future for Northeast Ohio? How will the project change the look of Cleveland a decade from now? Gordon Proctor, director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, will present the plan and discuss these issues.

 

Director since 1999, Proctor oversees Ohio’s $2.1 billion annual transportation program used to design, build and maintain Ohio’s nearly 20,000 miles of state, U.S., and interstate highways. ODOT also helps coordinate and develop Ohio’s public transportation and aviation programs.

 

Previously, Proctor served as ODOT’s chief of staff and as a deputy director of planning and a legislative liaison. Prior to joining ODOT in 1991, he spent more than a decade as a news reporter and editor for newspapers and wire services in Colorado, Ohio, Arkansas and Massachusetts.

 

A former Peace Corps volunteer, Proctor has a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from Ohio University and a master’s degree in Public Administration with a specialization in natural resource policy from The Ohio State University.

Thanks for the heads up!

AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE PREVIOUS GRAPHICS, WITH A SLIGHTLY CHANGED ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN POSTED AT:  http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2438.msg136987#msg136987 AND WHICH REQUIRES FEWER PROPERTY TAKINGS THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED.

__________________________

 

This is an informational overview of the visual concepts I posted at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3697.msg96145#msg96145 earlier in this string....

 

Some features of this new Innerbelt concept:

 

> New routing adds only 45 seconds (or an additional 4,000 feet of distance) to the trip of an I-90 motorist passing through downtown.

 

> Assumes the Opportunity Corridor is built and that transit services to the suburbs are enhanced (such as regional rail, express bus, etc.).

 

> Demolished for the new section of highway are several old public housing complexes, Central Cadillac, a park and some additional structures. Each of these would be relocated or put back once construction is complete (public housing would be replaced with scattered-site subsidized units mixed with market-rate housing, such as where the Central Interchange was located).

 

> Access to downtown from the south and west is via an extension of State Route 176, which I've dubbed the "Downtown Access Boulevard" -- a landscaped, at-grade roadway north of the I-90/490 interchange that opens up land for development in Tremont and is less of a physical barrier between Tremont and Ohio City.

 

> The new Cuyahoga Valley Viaduct incorporates the NS tracks, which would become the Lakefront Bypass route for nearly all freight train traffic. The old two-track NS viaduct would be replaced with a three-track bridge and have about 10 feet more clearance than the old span to avoid opening as often for river traffic. In the new bridge, the lower rail deck only could be raised some 20 feet to clear even the largest of lake-borne ships.

 

> Sale of land on which the Central Interchange was located could net ODOT $1 million to $3 million per acre for the 60-acre site. This may win favor with the Federal Highway Administration, as the Federal Highways Trust Fund is faced with bankruptcy by 2009 (see http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/agcnvws/issues/2005-11-04/6.html ).

 

> The Inner Belt trench on the east side of downtown is a mix of ODOT's proposal to remove ramps, and the locals' desire to keep them. It continues ODOT's proposed access roadway south to near Community College Avenue.

 

> Also a new center exit/entrance for downtown-bound I-77 motorists only would be built just north of I-490 for an enhanced thoroughfare providing quick access to downtown. Location proposed is to use Broadway, but could be adjusted one block farther north to Orange. The enhanced thoroughfare would likely be no slower than I-77 is during rush hours, along I-77's last mile entering downtown.

 

> The new highway routing and demolition of the Central Interchange would reunite the Central neighborhood with downtown. Caps over the new highway would create a visually seamless neighborhood streetscape in the affected areas.

 

I'd happy to provide anyone with more information on this concept, or provide you with higher-resolution images if you like. Just contact me at [email protected]

KJP, this is a fascinating idea! I like the way it converts what is now the urban wasteland south of downtown into a new, vital neighborhood with ample park space and transit access. The only question I would have is whether the I-90 bridge would be adequate to handle all the traffic off I-71.

 

Still, this could be a radical step forward for downtown. I'm sure you've already thought of this, but the money ODOT would get from the sale of all that land occupied by the Inner Belt could be used to help finance the entire project. Talk about thinking outside the box!!!

 

Obviously, the next step is to get the ear of those who make the decisions.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Additional thought: That entire Inner Belt trench should be capped and the space used for park lands or new buildings in order to stitch downtown back together with the neighborhoods to the east. expensive, yes, but well worth it.

The question of traffic v. capacity across what is now the I-490 bridge (proposed new route for I-90) is an issue of concern. But consider that 85 percent of the traffic on the existing Inner Belt bridge is downtown-bound. Some of that actually is bound for University Circle, which I'm assuming would be redirected across the I-490 bridge to the proposed Opportunity Corridor Boulevard. But most of the existing downtown-bound traffic would continue to cross at/near the existing Inner Belt bridge, on my Downtown Access Boulevard (SR 176).

 

The I-490 bridge is four lanes each way and may require an additional lane across it to handle the traffic. That would have to be determined by a traffic flow analysis. My main concern is for southbound traffic (by compass) on I-90 turning west across the existing I-490 bridge. If that traffic wants to continue heading west on I-90, it would have to cross over the traffic coming from the Opportunity Corridor wanting to go south on I-71 or SR-176. That crossing of traffic would have to be done in a pretty short distance -- a recipe for traffic jams and side-swipe accidents! Thus, I've proposed having the ramp for I-71/SR-176 rise up from the middle of the lanes westbound for I-90, west of the I-490 bridge.

 

To simplify, this is how it could operate:

 

> There could five lanes westbound across the I-490 bridge.

> The two left lanes near the median barrier would carry traffic off I-77 north and the Opportunity Corridor to I-90 west.

> The three remaining lanes could split into two two-lane roadways. One would rise up and diverge for I-71 and SR-176 (this could even be a three-lane ramp).

> West of where the I-71/SR-176 ramps diverge, the farthest north two lanes would join the two lanes next to the median barrier for I-90 west.

 

I'm going to have to do a graphic of this!

here is a link to the urban design workshops at CUDC that were held in regards to the design of the innerbelt

 

CUDC's site is much improved.  have a look here at sesssions 1 and 2>>

http://www.cudc.kent.edu/c-Public-Engagement/pages/Innerbelt.html

 

Is ODOT and MBC looking for a bridge designer on monster? What, couldn't they find someone to design the most important bridge of our lifetime on craigslist.

 

http://jobsearch.monster.com/getjob.asp?JobID=37695634&AVSDM=2006%2D06%2D02+11%3A07%3A23&Logo=1&lid=560&cy=us

Hmmm, the candidate could get hired with just a bachelors degree.

 

This limits the field.

Knowledge of Ohio ODOT processes and procedures a plus.  Client management skills a plus.

Got this in the mail yesterday. I hate when I'm told of meeting at the last minute.

 

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE

 

TO DISCUSS BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION FOR THE NEW I-90 BRIDGE OVER THE CUYAHOGA RIVER

 

WHO:            The Ohio Department of Transportation, the City of Cleveland and the Central Viaduct Bridge consultant team

 

WHAT:          A public open house

 

WHEN:          Wednesday, June 7, 2006 from 4 – 8 p.m.

 

Two identical presentations will take place at 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.

 

WHERE:        The Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation

 

                        2187 West 14th St.

 

                        Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

WHY:          The public meeting is an opportunity for the public learn about the Bridge Type Selection Process for the proposed new I-90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River. The public will have an opportunity to view interactive project displays, meet with members of the design team and offer input.

 

In addition, information will be available about the on-going construction of the Quigley Rd. Connector including the up-coming temporary closure of the SR 176/I-71 ramps to W. 14th St.

 

###

 

Contact Lora Hummer in the ODOT District 12 Public Information Office at 216.584.2007 or visit the project Web site at www.innerbelt.org.

Thanks for posting musky.

Got this in the mail yesterday. I hate when I'm told of meeting at the last minute.

 

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE

 

TO DISCUSS BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION FOR THE NEW I-90 BRIDGE OVER THE CUYAHOGA RIVER

 

WHO:             The Ohio Department of Transportation, the City of Cleveland and the Central Viaduct Bridge consultant team

 

WHAT:           A public open house

 

WHEN:           Wednesday, June 7, 2006 from 4 8 p.m.

 

Two identical presentations will take place at 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.

 

WHERE:        The Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation

 

                        2187 West 14th St.

 

                        Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

WHY:           The public meeting is an opportunity for the public learn about the Bridge Type Selection Process for the proposed new I-90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River. The public will have an opportunity to view interactive project displays, meet with members of the design team and offer input.

 

In addition, information will be available about the on-going construction of the Quigley Rd. Connector including the up-coming temporary closure of the SR 176/I-71 ramps to W. 14th St.

 

###

 

Contact Lora Hummer in the ODOT District 12 Public Information Office at 216.584.2007 or visit the project Web site at www.innerbelt.org.

 

you just got that and the meeting is coming up that soon? thats outrageous. just awful and deceitful. not that i could go, but fyi i get the mailer updates and i haven't even gotten one about that.

 

forget bridge style, i hope everyone can go and give'm hell until they do the southern alignment. rock the house clevelanders!

 

 

 

forget bridge style, i hope everyone can go and give'm hell until they do the southern alignment. rock the house clevelanders!

 

^Or some form of a southern alignment, i.e. KJP's proposal.

Anyone go to the City Club?

^ I was wondering that myself. ODOT posted a few things on their site from the mtg.

http://www.innerbelt.org/Central%20Viaduct%20Bridge/CentralViaductHome.htm

 

 

 

 

 

hmm those look rather bland, i feel like that list is like a pick of which mcmansion someone would want.  we need some real proposals, not cookie cutter

 

too bad we cant get something more innovative like this:  http://www.landmarkeast.org.uk/IsolatedStorage/f90256d3-0aab-42a7-808f-4985a979ffb8/ContentAssets/Images/landscapeEast/large-images/LE-bridge-Land.jpg

 

cant cleveland public art get involved???

Oh god, I hope they at least turn some ambient lights on that thing. Those designs are boring as hell.

Frankly, I think that if all we are going to do is build a bridge going out of town, adjacent to another bridge which will cover much of it up from most views, then we should just build a matching steel truss bridge.  The discussion over what kind of bridge is just a sideshow now that the real meat of moving the bridge and opening up land and building an iconic gateway to our central city are gone.  What does it achieve?  A grand exit from downtown?

Thanks for the link Freethink...here is the reply I sent back after looking at the link...

 

ALL of those bridges look as if they were taken out of a bridges R us catalog! This whole project could be a HUGE deal for Cleveland and the State of Ohio, but as usual, there is no real design and the project is being rushed and not thought out. The alignment stinks, the idea of two seperate bridges stink, and the designs stink. Typical ODOT...anti progressive, anti rail, anti urban! How does Europe do things SO well with architechture and urban design, but we can't here.....typical. YAWN

 

 

Those drawings look as if someone did it in paint.  Geeeez, what laziness and poor (geez so many words I could insert here).  This looks like a high school project, not a multi-million dollar hello from Cleveland.  How do you make a decision based on those pictures?  Eh……

Are these guys up to the task?  Honestly, how can we stop these guys, Jackson included?

^I'm officially jealous. Great find, KJP.

Racing to design a new bridge for I-90

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Steven Litt

Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

The proposed new Interstate 90 bridge in Cleveland should be a unique masterpiece and an inspiring symbol of the city at the dawn of the 21st century.

 

Sadly, the Ohio Department of Transportation's process of designing the $275 million bridge is coming to resemble the practice of fast-tracking, in which construction starts on parts of a building before blueprints for the rest are finished...

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4136

 

 

so those renderings arent final on the website??

Inner Belt project: path to doubt

Business owners on hold until ODOT decides which properties it needs

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

James Ewinger

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The mathematics of road design will add a new Inner Belt to Cleveland by 2018, multiply the number of bridges, divide neighborhoods and subtract dozens of buildings.

 

It's the price we pay for living far away from the city where we work and play.

 

For the moment, though, the people paying the price are those in buildings that might be claimed by the Ohio Department of Transportation as the massive public-works project gets under way...

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

[email protected], 216-999-3905

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1156246397264990.xml&coll=2

 

This whole project just sucks in my opinion!  I hate losing those buildings......why can't they bury the trench.....build over it and make even MORE space to build MORE things!?

I read somewhere that Stickland was going after Proctor in a campaign speech, or something.  Maybe if the Dem's get into the governors mansion, he could shake up ODOT.

 

It is a hope

If Strickland wins, Proctor is gone. I can't state it more simply than that.

So is there still time to rethink this whole mess?

^If the feds do not approve ODOTs plan, then they will have no choice but to redo things.

 

I was wondering about the construction of I90 in the 80s. There was to be an interchange at West 65th street, but the residents put up a fight and it was never built. The same things happened for the original layout the West Shoreway (which was to run along the shoreline west until Rocky River, then travel south to the airport.) and the Clark Freeway (which would have cut through the Shaker lakes area). How was it that residents were able to stop the state then, but we cannot now? Politics?

Lawsuits and enlisting city officials as part of the opposition. The only one I know of who has a chance of forcing a change in the plans is Ed Hauser, by using historic preservation (the Broadway Mills building) to force ODOT's hand.

^If the feds do not approve ODOTs plan, then they will have no choice but to redo things.

 

I was wondering about the construction of I90 in the 80s. There was to be an interchange at West 65th street, but the residents put up a fight and it was never built. The same things happened for the original layout the West Shoreway (which was to run along the shoreline west until Rocky River, then travel south to the airport.) and the Clark Freeway (which would have cut through the Shaker lakes area). How was it that residents were able to stop the state then, but we cannot now? Politics?

 

What a bunch of dummies. Why in the world would you put a freeway right on top of the lake? So you can call it a "scenic byway"? Boy, that lake sure looks pretty over that concrete median as we are going 60 mph.

I encourage everyone to take a trip to the Nature Center at Shaker Lakes (disclaimer: I used to work there), where they have displays that explain the entire history of the Clark Freeway fiasco and how citizens banded together to successfully fight it. Had it gone through, the freeway would have bisected many east side neighborhoods, would have virtually destroyed the parklands and the lakes and would have had horrible spillovers for adjacent Shaker Square. Among their tactics, the group (AKA, the little old ladies in tennis shoes) arranged to build a nature center right squah in the middle of a proposed highway cloverleaf. The effort was pretty amazing.

 

The Clark Freeway protest had a number of advantages not enjoyed by us current I90/Innerbelt protesters, namely:

 

- New infrastructure: the Clark Freeway was to provide the same ease and speed of travel on the east side as was available on the west side. But existing residents were overwhelmingly not interested in the amenity. In communities that enjoyed both meandering boulevards/suburban mansions and high-density, transit-oriented retail, not to mention a range of natural amenties, a freeway seemed like more of a threat than a benefit. Meanwhile, I-90 already exists. People do value it as an amenity for easy access to (or bypass of  :cry:) the central city. Meanwhile, the lack of competing amenities in this stretch (high-value properties, retail options, greenspace) make it more difficult to get a sizable group of people riled up about it. Overwhelmingly, I think greater Clevelanders undervalue the Tremont/Quadrangle/Chinatown properties in question.

 

- 40 years too late: Forty years ago, the city/inner ring population was still largely intact. With the advent of exurban living and the corresponding need to develop infrastructure for their daily migration, transportation "experts" have increasingly placed emphasis on the needs/desires of commuters and less on the needs/desires of residents. With limited residential density, it is also more difficult to band together any concerted effort with teeth. Moreover, one could certainly argue that there is considerably less public engagement with the civic process across the board. Citizens are less likely to call their representatives, to write editorials, to attend meetings or to communicate concerns to ODOT now than 40 years ago.

 

- Different constituents: Place of residency is not the only difference; the spatial distribution of wealth is also a LOT different. The Clark Freeway efforts were led, predominantly, by well-educated, wealthy, homeowning, Caucasian women. Many did not work and were able to devote a great deal of time and energy to attending meetings; their backgrounds also afforded them a great deal of connection with decision makers. ODOT's current considerations impact primarily a) businesses that lack the visual appeal of upscale retail but that are nonetheless obviously important to our local economy; b) artists, who despite increasingly positive press and research reports, still lack political clout and are often stereotyped as transient, easily movable to other neighborhoods when need be; and c) lower-income households who overwhelmingly have low levels of educational attainment, represent minority populations, are NOT politically well-connected and may be ESL or non-English speaking. If the history of "urban renewal" has taught us anything, it's that planning decisions in low-income and minority neighborhoods are much less likely to give proper attention to the needs of existing residents or be challenged by a cohesive, time-intensive group of citizens.

 

So the little old ladies had an advantage. But as Musky pointed out, there are a number of more recent examples of citizens successfully airing their grievances. I for one hope that we can get people from across the region to provide the proper level of scrutiny to ODOT's plans, to actively collaborate with resident groups in these neighborhoods and get out and attend these meetings! I'm horrified that ODOT is ready to tear down one of the early examples of how the live-work overlay district is positively impacting the surrounding neighborhood. If you haven't checked out the building or eaten at Tastebud's, you don't know what you're missing. Come on over, see what you're missing and then join the fight!

 

 

 

I don't think that this has been posted here yet.  I believe that it ran as a column in the PD written by Tom Bier from CSU.  I originally saw the link on CoolCleveland.com

 

Will downtown traffic get all tied up?

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Thomas Bier

What if the Ohio Department of Transportation were to announce that it intended to close the I-77/Rockside Road interchange in Independence because of too many accidents? My guess is all hell would break loose. Building owners, businesses, residents and their elected officials would explode and demand that ODOT find another way to address the situation.

 

More at:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/othercolumns/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1155371487275120.xml&coll=2

http://www.coolcleveland.com/index.php?n=Main.CoolCoventry

Now, on CoolCleveland.com this week, they posted a response from Craig Hebebrand, the ODOT Project Director.

 

http://www.coolcleveland.com/files/docs/HebebrandODOT08.25.06.pdf

 

And I think that the writer nailed it dead-on by introducing the response with this:  " While not actually addressing the massive traffic concerns raised by CSU Prof. Tom Bier's op-ed (See Earth to ODOT here), Ohio Department of Transportation Project Director Craig Hebebrand responds point-by-point with his justification of ODOT's plan to reduce to two the number of Innerbelt ramps."

 

http://www.coolcleveland.com/index.php?n=Main.Current

 

 

Hebebrand makes a variation of the following point on a few occasions:  "Continually reducing the number and severity of crashes is a primary goal of the Ohio Department of Transportation."

 

That might be well and dandy, but it has to be balanced out with other "primary goals."

 

I work in business and I wouldn't recommend that a company focus all of its efforts on ONLY increasing revenue........without subsequently reducing costs, maximizing profits, serving customers needs, providing well-paying, safe employment opportunities for its employees, being a good corporate/community citizen, maximizing shareholder value, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. 

 

You can't run any organization while focusing on one metric.  If you do, you encounter the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Focusing on raising performance on one metric will just cause performance on another metric to fall. ODOT doesn't seem to get that point.