The arguments I've heard (from a recent meeting with someone working on the project) against the southern alignment are:

 

1. Demolition of the Greek Orthodox Church (and another building in Tremont - I can't remember)

2. Design does not have good engineering (?)

3. Curve in the bridge will be dangerous (compared it to dead man's curve)

4. $$$ - all the on and off ramps by Jacob's Field would have to be rebuilt

5. The current bridge still has ~50 years of life in it (waste of $ to knock it down now, although it will be demolished in 50 yrs)

 

If it's to be considered, I think all those points would have to be disproved with hard facts.  Unfortunately, I agree that the meeting on the 17th is just going through the motions.

I've heard that the Southern alignment's S-curve in the vicinity of the Central Interchange is the problem, and may not be able to be relocated as far south as Alsenas wanted to ease the S-curve. I dunno, it looks like a pretty easy curve to me -- assuming the 50-55 mph speed limit is preserved. If ODOT wants 60 mph, then it could be a problem.

 

To quote a former mayor of San Francisco when the waterfront highway was proposed "what do you want to go so fast through our beautiful city for? Slow down, park, get out and walk around a bit." Of course, the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 got rid of that highway, and allowed the waterfront to be reopened for the people once again -- not to cold, lifeless concrete bridge piers and steel deck work. Mother Nature apparently doesn't like highways....

I wish she'd be a little harder on them in the NEO! :)

5. The current bridge still has ~50 years of life in it (waste of $ to knock it down now, although it will be demolished in 50 yrs)

 

If ODOT's saying that, then they're talking out of both sides of their mouths. They propose to spend $50 million on that bridge "to make it last another 40 years" they've said. Worse, the existing bridge piers keep sliding, especially on the Tremont side, and will continue to need millions of dollars worth of repairs, including jacking up the bridge every so often.

^Yeah so tons of people can die cruched in their cars and the whole nations economy goes into turmoil from the disaster.

 

Yes, I am sure he meant to that degree.

^Yeah so tons of people can die cruched in their cars and the whole nations economy goes into turmoil from the disaster.

 

Yes, I am sure he meant to that degree.

 

To a lesser degree would mean millions in road repair dollars.

5. The current bridge still has ~50 years of life in it (waste of $ to knock it down now, although it will be demolished in 50 yrs)

 

If ODOT's saying that, then they're talking out of both sides of their mouths. They propose to spend $50 million on that bridge "to make it last another 40 years" they've said. Worse, the existing bridge piers keep sliding, especially on the Tremont side, and will continue to need millions of dollars worth of repairs, including jacking up the bridge every so often.

 

That's the sense I got, although the person I met doesn't work for ODOT, just with them.

It took a bit longer than I'd hoped, but we finally have some materials online that should answer your questions about the proposal. You can read them at http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/bridge/ . Thank you to those of you who wrote to ODOT and your elected officials. Keep those letters coming! Also, if you'd like us to post excerpts on our site, feel free to send us copies of your letters. Thanks for the support, and we welcome your comments and suggestions.

Nice web page! Congrats

OK, I'm convinced... We have to work for the southern alignment! Everyone who cares about this issue, please come to the open house this Thursday, 4:30 - 8:30 p.m. at the Wolstein Center at CSU!

 

 

New I-90 span puts Cleveland's image at risk

Monday, November 14, 2005

 

By Steven Litt

 

It's hard to pinpoint the decisive moments that determine the image of a city for a hun dred years or more.

 

But one such moment has arrived for Cleveland. This could be a critical week in the fight over where to build a new I-90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River just southwest of downtown...

 

This should be a warning to us in Cincy to press our ideas early on.

 

Unfortunately, Alsenas presented his idea a couple of years ago, and ODOT rejected it. B&N told them a curved, cable-stayed bridge couldn't be built, and so Alsenas' bridge would have had to start curving much farther south, requiring the Greek Orthodox Church to be demolished. Problem is, cable-stayed bridges can be curved -- the Clark Bridge over the Mississippi at Alton, Illinois is proof.

 

Hopefully, I will be able to break a story on this Innerbelt bridge matter in this Thursday's paper.

I've heard that the Southern alignment's S-curve in the vicinity of the Central Interchange is the problem, and may not be able to be relocated as far south as Alsenas wanted to ease the S-curve. I dunno, it looks like a pretty easy curve to me -- assuming the 50-55 mph speed limit is preserved. If ODOT wants 60 mph, then it could be a problem.

 

Yes, this doesn't make sense to me.  Compare the two bridge alignments on the site http://www.planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/bridge/ and tell me which looks like the harsher curve, the blue (Alsenas) replacement or the yellow (ODOT) supplement.

 

First, if the argument is that cable-stay bridges can't be curved (and this may be a bogus argument as KJP has suggested, I don't believe that I"ve heard anyone say that they are married to a cable-stay bridge for the new alignment.  IMO as long as the bridge functions well and is not butt-ugly, aligning it to the southeast is the way to go.  Second as Mr. Litt mentioned in the article, ODOT says they want the new northern bridge to be an "iconic" design.  It sounds like they treat the word "iconic" to mean "cable-stayed" when talking about the southern alignment and come up with curvature excuses for it, but the northern alignment is also curved, so what type of bridge design can we really expect there?

 

Very frustrating and as lazy as I usually am about these matters I really feel like going to the thing on Thursday.

I'm sending out eight more letters today!

 

Everyone who is able, be sure to attend the meeting this Thursday!!!

"Nevertheless, ODOT refuses to get a second opinion."

 

Is there any possibility of someone else funding a second opinion on the Southern Alignment plan? 

^You would think Alsenas and the County could afford to do a formal study. A pretty Web site is great, but we need some cold hard facts.

well, if Voinovich and his $85m are actually behind more research on this, that could be a source, no?

I think Voinovich just wants a 'signature bridge' - I don't know that he cares whether it's the 2-bridge or southern alignment plan that gets him his bridge.  Is that right?

At first, I thought my big scoop for this week was going to be the news that Cleveland was going to hire it's own engineering consultant to look into the bridge, as well as the loss of ramps (which is a bigger issue for many one council). Alas, despite rumors, the city is not planning on hiring an outside consultant and will instead use its traffic engineers to review ODOT's plan (I'd like to see civil engineers involved, though). Then, at the City Council meeting tonight, I told Councilman Cimperman (chair of council's Planning Committee), and who also heard the rumor about the city hiring its own consultant, that the rumor is untrue. His response was a bit crytpic: "This whole thing is just heating up." Frank Jackson gave me a bit of a rootless reaction (ie: "too many loose ends to answer how I feel about it"), but he had to put a plug in for the Opportunity Corridor....

it had better be "just heating up!"  I just got here!  Seriously, though, where was the public response when the community meetings were going on?  I get the feeling that there wasn't any sense of urgency at the time.  It probably means that no one knew what this all meant or what the timelines were and what not.  But why weren't Alsenas et al more adamant about this "forgone" option back then?

I guess Alsenas hoped ODOT would buy into it. Or, he might have wanted the process to play out before bringing in the big guns (ie: the county commissioners).

too many loose ends to answer how I feel about it

 

WTF?

In preparation for Thursday's meeting, here is something to think about:

 

Public involvement vs.

public relations

 

There are a lot of public meetings to gather citizen input. How do you know if officials are really listening?

 

If...

 

... only 25 minutes of a 2-hour meeting are devoted to public comment

 

... the drawings look perfect

 

... the public involvement process begins after key decisions have been made

 

... presenters have answers for everything, including why your idea won't work

 

... the presenter says "we'll get back to you," then doesn't

 

... you feel like you're at a pep rally

 

... a steering group's meetings are not open to the press

 

... a steering group is composed of like-minded individuals/interests

 

... almost everyone in the room looks pretty much the same

 

... you start feeling the presenter is really the expert and you're unqualified to speak

 

... you see the info for the first time at the meeting where decisions are requested

 

... you get notice of a meeting three days before the meeting

 

... final decisions are made before public meetings are held

 

... pivotal interim decisions are made before public meetings are held

 

... decision days are set for two days after the public meeting

 

... technical information is offered only in technical language or formats

 

... you can't get your hands on technical reports or back-up documents

 

... you can't find out the underlying assumptions

 

... meetings are scheduled during business hours in small or private rooms

 

... the only presentations are slide shows, overheads and power point

 

... there are no take-home handouts providing more detail

 

... there's no significant budget left for the consultants to make revisions

 

... the presenter assures you that there's plenty of room for "tweaking"

 

... you've just encountered Public Relations, not Public Involvement, and it's time to insist on the real thing.

 

 

— Genevieve Ray

 

 

 

 

Did anyone catch the discussion about the Innerbelt bridge on WCPN this morning? I missed it. Who was on? What was said?

^I missed it too - hopefully we can listen to it online soon at http://www.wcpn.org/.  I do know that Hebebrand and Steven Litt were guests.

And, here's part of the blurb they have online (http://www.wcpn.org/nine/schedule/2005/1114.html):

 

San Francisco has its Golden Gate Bridge; New York has the Brooklyn Bridge; Brasilia, Brazil has the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge. All have a distinctive character that help define the city in which they’re located. They’re “signature bridges,” structures immediately identifiable with their surroundings. Officials in Cleveland are suggesting that we should have a signature bridge, too; and that it should be part of a new I-90 Innerbelt. We’ll talk to a planner and to Plain Dealer architecture critic Stephen Litt about the viability of a signature bridge for Cleveland.

 

I heard the whole program this morning...all 30 minutes of it.  It felt like it should have been more like 2 hours, though!  Also, it was marketed all-wrong.  The blurb makes it sound like the issue at hand is whether or not Cleveland deserves a signature bridge.  They started out with about 2-minutes of comments from some random caller on why Cleveland needs this new landmark.  And within about 3 seconds of turning it over to the experts, the true issue emerged (duh!).  Paul Alsenas, Steven Litt and Craig Hebebrand all agree that what is built should be a landmark with design that befits the aspirations of this city.  But as well all know (on this forum, at least), the issue is not what kind of bridge should be built, but WHERE it should be built, why and what impacts the different options should have. 

 

I could type the entire dialogue, as I remember it, but I'd rather just mention my favorite part.  Paul Alsenas likened this project to a major surgery.  He asked which of us wouldn't want to get a second opinion before going under the knife (not exact words, but you get the picture).  Would you get a major organ taken out without knowing for certain that this would be the solution that made the most sense?  That it would have the least negative side effects?  That it would offer you the most opportunity to remain healthy and perhaps get even healthier?  And so on. 

 

All three made intelligent arguments and the thing seemed to be over before it began.  I hope that there were listeners out there who hadn't thought about this subject yet.  I hope that they show up en masse tomorrow at the Wolstein Center. 

I am getting the idea that this is becoming one of those things that Cleveland is great at, rallying around a single cause, Rock Hall, Saving the Browns, etc.

 

Hope it is not too little to late

Wait until ODOT drops its manufactured bomb that, if it doesn't begin construction by 2009, it will lose the federal funds for this project. When that bomb blows up, watch our timid elected officials scatter. ODOT is saving a special weapon just for Frank Jackson -- that construction of the signature bridge on the southern alignment will mean that ODOT cannot afford the Opportunity Corridor. Jackson knows so little about this issue, he will actually believe it.

^you quoted yourself?

^And seconded your own question?

Well, I guess he really wants his question answered!  Unfortunately, I do not know the answer.  Sorry, inkaelin!

 

Many of you have probably already looked through ODOT's powerpoint from June '04 - if you haven't I would recommend it.  It has price ranges next to each alternative plan for the entire I-90 plan, not just the bridge.  It has the Southern Alignment listed as 'an alternative that will not be studied further'.  You can download it at http://www.innerbelt.org/innerbelthome.htm.

^but still didn't get an answer?

 

Good question.

Good luck tonight guys.

Well I didn't bring Wimwar's checklist to the open house but remembered it's theme in my head and mentally ticked off a few things from it that I remembered.

 

I didn't stay long - a presentation had already begun in the quite packed conference room, so I just milled about in the hallway eavesdropping on a guy doing his best to explain why the ODOT plan had to be the real deal to a couple of people and a really tall, younger looking guy in an Oregon sweatshirt.  Oregon seemed to want to clarify something the guy had said earlier, about how given two alternatives, some sort of regulation exists that states that if one of the alternatives infringes on a historic district, the one that does not should/must be used/preferred.  The ODOT guy agreed and then Oregon tried to call him out, wondering why neither he nor anyone at any newspaper seems to have heard that; the only think anyone mentioned was the chruch that supposedly must be sacrificed, implying the church was used as a scare tactic.  No real answer, and then the woman, who apparently was from Tremont, raised a beef about wanting to make sure no more of Tremont was lost to highway stuff.  Bizarrely it truly looks like there would be a much lesser impact with the replacement bridge based on drawings of that alignment that I've seen.  Shortly afterward I headed out hoping to get a nice summary of any public Q/A from someone here able to sythesize it all.

Oregon seemed to want to clarify something the guy had said earlier, about how given two alternatives, some sort of regulation exists that states that if one of the alternatives infringes on a historic district, the one that does not should/must be used/preferred.  The ODOT guy agreed and then Oregon tried to call him out, wondering why neither he nor anyone at any newspaper seems to have heard that;

 

I hadn't heard that either, but would like to learn more. I had to take a pass on tonight's meeting, owing to a headache. A nap took care of that. Besides, the real meeting is tomorrow morning at 9 in front of Cleveland City Planning Commission. But, I would be interested in hearing more about what was said at the ODOT hearing.

I spent about an hour at the pre-presentation session, chatting up ODOT and B&N reps and listening in on other conversations.  There were many constant themes from these people and they presented the core issues that have to be addressed.  It's hard to argue with an engineer as a lay-person.  It's also hard to argue with the person who hired the engineer when they keep citing the work done by the engineer that I can't argue with.  Bottom line, if there's going to be any legitimacy to Alsenas's recommendations, there's going to have to be an alternative assessment and analysis by an equally reputable engineering firm.  Unfortunately, this does not yet exist and the momentum behind this one is so significant that it doesn't seem like there's much left to do discuss.  We can tinker with the fine details...a shrub here, a curb height there...but that's about it. 

 

Honestly, I felt pretty helpless in this discussion.  I am knowledgable about what I want, but there are so many people on either side of the table that it's tough to claim that my view is the correct one.  For example, I don't think that there need to be any more exit ramps or any more mass to the bridge or the innerbelt as it runs through Downtown.  However, you get one individual who is about to lose their building to a new exit ramp and they're on my side.  You get another one from a half-block away and they are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep the exit ramp as close to them as possible.  It's pretty ridiculous. 

 

What if I bring my "urbanist" view that we should just get rid of the freeway through downtown, cancel the bridge altogether, close all the ramps, and turn the trench into a cozy river running along the eastern edge of downtown where I can row my gondola and skip rocks?  well, the reality is that if they did that, or more realistically, if they just shut down the bridge for a year or two in order to build a new one, that Downtown businesses would suffer SEVERELY.  And that would leave me with not a whole lot to be proud of Downtown.  Of course, I could argue that this would be better for everyone in the long-run, after Downtown caught up from a two-year purging period, but that's not really practical.

 

That last scenario was actually the one given by Paul ___ from B&N.  His response to Paul Alsenas's recommendation for a southern alignment bridge was that it would require one of two options.  One would be to knock down the church...a true non-starter.  The other would be to shut down or knock down the bridge for at least a year, leaving us with the effects I just described.  And really, I haven't seen a proposal that tells me that he's not doing all of his homework!  Enter: engineering second opinion.

 

Another issue that permeated the discussion was the amount of takings.  There are some 29 at this stage in the game and that number is subject to change either way as the study progresses, but many of these buildings are occupied and many are what some of us would consider historic.  The responses varied from "well, if we save that one, we'll have to knock down this one," to "well, it comes down to a matter of cost.  is the cost of losing that building more than the cost of building around it?"  gee, I don't know!

 

anyway, the turnout appeared good.  the representatives were there and were getting drilled and were holding there own.  was there any impact from the part I was at or the presentation I missed (thanks to my stats class!) in respect to citizens changing their mind or feeling like they understood or respected the decision any more or less?  were any of the representatives from ODOT, B&N, URS, etc. swayed one way or another?  Who knows?

 

It would've been great to find that one B&N or ODOT official who said, "hey, don't tell anyone I told you this, but this is all a load of crap...this is all politics and good luck getting them to change their minds."  but that didn't happen and honestly, i don't think that's the case, so what do we do next?

ps: is the planning commission meeting in that tiny little room in City Hall?  That won't work!  If anyone has heard otherwise, let us know here!

I was there.  I even spoke!  There was a huge turnout- several hundred people.

 

Basically, every single person who spoke was unhappy with the ODOT plan.  And a lot of people spoke (i'd say 50 or so).  Some wanted the southern alignment.  Some didn't want any alignment that would take any properties at all.  The Greek community was out, and it is clear to me that if the southern alignment was to take the church, we'd have a bunch of angry Greeks on our hands.  We don't want that. 

 

Most wanted to keep the interchanges in the trench area as they are.  That was by far the most commented upon thing, as the businesses and CDC's in Midtown are all organized and adamant about that.  They had, at a previous meeting, decided to study keeping interchanges, but didn't in their recommended alternative.

 

Paul Alsenas spoke about the need to make sure that if we are going to make this sort of investment, that it needs to make the City of Cleveland and the region, a better place, not just give us a better highway.  ODOT has apparently promised to do an independent study of the southern alignment.

 

BTW, I spoke about the need to think about servicing the city, not just the flow of traffic, and that if servicing the flow of traffic is the only consideration (as it seems to have been based on their presentation), then the decisions won't necessarily be the best for the city as a whole; we need to consider impacts on businesses, development opportunities, aesthetics, regional image, etc.

 

Something has struck me here. What if the signature bridge on the southern alignment was built and was "attached" to the existing bridge abutments in Tremont?  That way, NOTHING has to be demolished!

 

Certainly, as much of the signature bridge could be built before sections of the existing bridge in Tremont were demolished (actually, they'd have to do that for the westbound-only bridge anyway!). So, the question is, how long would it take to transition the old highway alignment into the new alignment?

 

What remedial measures would have to be taken? Could "some" traffic be detoured via the Shoreway or I-490/I-77/Broadway? The old Innerbelt bridge over the valley wouldn't have to be shut down during the transition. It could keep 2-3 lanes open in each direction during the transition. Unfortunately, ODOT's transit options for the construction period are totally inadequate, adding only a modest number of parking spaces to park-n-rides in Westlake, North Olmsted and Strongsville, where the lots are anywhere from 85-110 percent full, according to RTA.

 

I remain convinced that this bridge can be done -- but I suspect ODOT will have to shrink the Central Interchange and sell the leftover land to be able to afford it.

Something has struck me here. What if the signature bridge on the southern alignment was built and was "attached" to the existing bridge abutments in Tremont?  That way, NOTHING has to be demolished!

 

I was wondering that too.  But without being an engineer, I couldn't even guess if such a thing is possible.

 

Ink, it'd hard to say if they were really responsive at this meeting.  Mostly they just sort of stood up there and took the beating.  But their overall pattern has been to study things just enough to decide they won't work, instead of working to find ways to solve problems.  They seem to see their role as being the eliminator of ideas instead of being a generator and problem solver of ideas.

Well put X!  I look forward to continuing this conversation on here tomorrow!

As far as leaving the existing bridge up and then connecting it, thus shortening the downtime of the inner belt itself, my guess is that not only would they have to wait to build the southern section, but the northern section as well.  From what I know the southern alignment pretty much goes right through that whole noodle-y mess on the other side of the river.  So there would be a long period where all 77 traffic would have to be routed elsewhere (Woodland/Broadway) while work is done on the northern part of the project, plus it feels like you're basically eliminating a lot of exit access from 90 itself.  I don't know offhand but I think it's the Ontario/Orange, Broadway, and E. 9th exits that would all be effected/eliminated during construction on the east side of the river.  So you'd have to push them north pass all that (E. 22nd, Carnegie?) or direct them to 77 as well.  This would have to happen eventually as it looks like the plan calls for the trench to be extended south quite aways.  So you have problems at both ends and while I know nothing of bridge contstruction it seems logical that they start at an end and go across... or at both ends and work to the middle.  not the middle and then out, but I could be wrong of course.

 

Truthfully, I can't say that it's not worth it.  I'm just saying why THEY will say they it can't be done.  Again, it's all coming back to the fact that no one really knows for sure what the impacts would be because - no one's really taken a hard look at it.  Why it hasn't come up until fairly recently is a solid question and I wonder if it was addressed or will be tomorrow evening.

Actually, if a cable-stayed bridge is desired, then it could be built starting at the middle and moving outward.

 

To me, this whole debate about the Innerbelt can be described best as one between mobility vs. access. Also, for ODOT's critics who spoke this morning at the Cleveland Planning Commission, they contended that the ramp eliminations ODOT is seeking in order to rid congestion and safety issues on the Innerbelt will merely transfer those very problems to the city streets, especially the north-south roads like East 30th, East 22nd and the new north-south, two-lane road ODOT proposes to build near the highway.

By the way, Councilman Cimperman, who chairs council's Planning Committee, says ODOT's Innerbelt proposal will be DOA at City Council. Another consultant with whom I spoke said that ODOT needs to come clean on what the true safety impacts will be on the Innerbelt. He said that, while the number of accidents will likely go down as a result of their proposed improvements easing the flow of traffic, the severity of the accidents will likely increase from the higher speeds. Most of the accidents that are occuring in the congested "trench", according to ODOT, are fender benders, sideswipes and other minor accidents that result in minor injuries -- the kind of thing that happens when there is congestion and slow highway speeds.

 

I'll wager that ODOT ends up having to do the rehabilitation option for the existing trench for maybe half the cost (or less) of the reconstruction option (with frontage roads for $90 million). I couldn't find data on the rehab option, though. If that's the case, selecting the southern alignment for the signature bridge, with the shrunken Central Interchange, might be supported more easily.

 

One thing ODOT said is that one side (e.g. the eastbound side) of the existing Central Viaduct's truss bridge cannot be demolished without significantly weakening the structure of the remaining half (e.g. the westbound side). But the truss part of the bridge ends on the immediate south side of Abbey Road in Tremont. There, another bridge begins, built on rolled beams, for another block to the south side of Fairfield Avenue, where the Innerbelt is built atop a dirt fill.

 

My question is, why can't this rolled-beam bridge be replaced first with a dirt fill so that the signature bridge on the southern alignment can be cut into it? I would also think that a highway built on top a dirt fill would create less traffic noise (right by the Greek Orthodox Church) than the bridge.

 

See the image below which looks northeast from Tremont towards the Cuyahoga Valley and downtown (Fairfield is the left-to-right cross-street in the middle of the picture, Abbey is the next cross-street nearer to the top)....

 

 

Here's how a new Central Viaduct on a southern alignment could be cut into the existing Innerbelt in Tremont. One thing ODOT said is that one side (e.g. the eastbound side) of the existing Central Viaduct's truss bridge cannot be demolished without significantly weakening the structure of the remaining half (e.g. the westbound side). But the truss part of the bridge ends on the immediate south side of Abbey Road in Tremont. There, another bridge begins, built on rolled beams, for another block to the south side of Fairfield Avenue, where the Innerbelt is built atop a dirt fill.

 

My question is, why can't this rolled-beam bridge be replaced first with a dirt fill so that the signature bridge on the southern alignment can be cut into it? I would also think that a highway built on top a dirt fill would create less traffic noise (right by the Greek Orthodox Church) than traffic pounding across a bridge deck.

 

See the images below which look northeast from Tremont towards the Cuyahoga Valley and downtown (Fairfield is the left-to-right cross-street in the middle of the picture, Abbey is the next cross-street nearer to the top). Also, with this scenario, only Sokolowski's University Inn would have to be demolished west of downtown. It could be relocated anywhere the owner wants.

 

The green shown on the images below represents either fill dirt or a removed highway lane(s), and the gray represents new highway lanes/ramps....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One brainstorm that I've been having is that a lot of the "geometry" and "safety" problems that they keep talking about might be reduced or eliminated if they did something highly unorthodox, like say reducing the speed limit of the highway to 35-45 mph through the trench, while still keeping it a limited access highway.  I would think some sort of rumble strip pattern, like what they have at the approaches to Dead Man's curve but less extreme, could calm the traffic enough to make that a realistic speed.  The time lost to the lower speed limits would probably be made up for by a smoother traffic flow and less accidents.

 

Would something like that even be legal, given the laws regulating Federal Highways?

I think the minimum legal speed is 40 mph. But reducing speed reduces the capacity of a highway, and would probably cause traffic to back up beyond the trench areas of the Innerbelt.

KJP, you have a life!  And your life is all about making our lives better!  I love the drawings and they look sensible to me, but I don't know if an engineer from ODOT would understand all those numbers and colors...not too quick, you see...

 

I'm joking, of course, and I'm sure all of the engineers that have worked on this project have done all the i-dotting and t-crossing that they've been asked to do.  But how about compelling them, as X mentioned, to find a better solution, rather than just crossing options off.  It looks like KJP's given them a good start!

 

Another technical question:  with all the sliding slopes heading into the Cuyahoga Valley that we've heard so much about recently, what are the constraints here?  I understand the existing supports have been slipping for years and have been steadied to a large degree.  There's the west bank, but also the peninsula in the Flats.  How are the supports there?  The retaining walls, or whatever they're called...

Thanks. The existing bridge's piers were built into the slopes which, as you noted, are sliding. If a cable-stayed span, or some other suspension-type bridge were built, it wouldn't be necessary for the new span to be supported by piers built into the hillside. Having a central pier or two, or a tower or two, built in the Flats shouldn't be a problem -- especially if it were built on caissons that extended down to bedrock (or on a large concrete pad like ones on which many downtown buildings smaller than 25 stories were built).