I'm sold!  Let's start digging!  Seriously, though, this was one of the bigger issues that the B&N rep I talked to cited for having to keep the current alignment and the one they're advancing.  From what you're saying, it shouldn't be an issue one way or another!

At the presentation, they made it sound as if traffice maintenance was THE reason that the Southern Alignment was removed from further consideration, so if the engineering were to work out on your idea, KJP, that would be a major battle won.

It looks like REALNEO is also getting into the act.  Hopefully everyone is focusing on the 'real' stumbling blocks to get this done, as there seems to be good community support (this board aside).  From an email this morning:

 

In collaboration with leaders in government, education and the

community, we are developing http://neobridge.net to help transform the I-90

bridge over the Cuyahoga into a landmark “Signature Bridge” – a work of public

art – that will provide Cleveland with the world-class gateway we deserve. The

PD had an editorial on this subject just today.

Visit http://neobridge.net to learn more about this project and important

upcoming planning events.

 

NOTE: November 22nd, REALNEO will host an Excellence Roundtable to further

citizen discussions on the NEO Bridge initiative. This roundtable will focus

on the ODOT plan and alternatives, and will feature fascinating Cuyahoga

County Planning Commission Director Paul Alsenas – ODOT representatives have

also been invited. For further information, visit

http://neoexcellence.realinks.us/Innerbelt

 

While you are cruising the information superhighway, be sure to visit

http://realneo.us to view our redesign and participate in our new “Community

Forums”, initiated during Rebecca Ryan’s recent “world-café” visit here… many

of the forums feature video clips from the world cafés, to help bring this to

life.

Very interesting. I just e-mailed Norm Roulet to learn more about their efforts.

The more people discussing this, the better.  It's too bad it took so long for this discussion to enter the mass public mind in earnest!  If only they could all be Urban Ohioans!

Discussion of it is really taking off at the Cleveland TOD group. There's a number of developers and planners in that group, so it's not like they're looking at this specifically as a TOD opportunity. But it could be.....

 

The question came up: what if someone went to the folks at the Greek Orthodox Church and said "For the good of the region, would you be willing to move if major features of the church were preserved? if your church could be anywhere else, where would you want to be?" If they want to stay, that's fine. But I note that they probably don't have to move. But if they did, why not disassemble much of the church and reassemble it at a location of their choosing?

Good question and I know it's one you brought up earlier on here... considering that most of the church's parishioners don't live in the neighborhood anymore.  However, I don't want to be the one to propose this to them!

I've heard that it is very very difficult to move brick structures.  Wood is easier because it has some bend to it.  I may be wrong as I am just repeating what one man told me.

It's possible.  And even large structures can be moved.  But it would be very expensive, and I am not sure if all the decoration that makes a church special would be hardy enough to survive. 

 

The easiest thing would probably be to move the historic section of the church back on the same property without rotating it and build a modern addition space or a seperate building to replace their current annexes.  Parking would be an issue, but maybe the new building or annex could have a garage, thus letting parisioners park without going out into the elements.

 

The church could get something out of it this way.  Maybe that would make them more willing to consider.  I think it would be worth having an architect and a building mover study it to see if it's feasible.

take out sokolowskis? what? oh hail to the no!

 

in that case throw out the bridge --- big dig style tunnel instead!

I've never been inside Sokolowski's.  The building doesn't look like much from the outside.  Is the building itself special inside, or is it just the food?  And if it is just the food, couldn't the business be relocated?

Why don't we have an UrbanOhio holiday meetup at Sokolowski's and find out for ourselves?

oooh!  that sounds great!  For all the times I've been by it, I've still never set foot inside!

Did anyone attend the RealNEO event yesterday at the City Club? I couldn't go since Tuesday is deadline day and is my busiest day in the office. I'm interested to hear what happened.

KJP, if Sokolowski's gets taken out, I will hold you personally accountable and hunt you down.  :-)

I'm going to hide behind Mr. Good Day's house.

Great article KJP! And great to hear that Council is demanding a study first.

Now, can we also start talking about the buildings that ODOT wants to take for this project?? Some of them are quite beautiful and at least one, the 1400 E. 30th building, is one of my favorite spots in the city. It is a beacon for the city's live-work district on the near East Side and home to the vibrant Tastebuds organic restaurant, which is always packed at lunch.

Once I get a free minute, I'm going to go out with my digital camera and photograph all the buildings ODOT wants to tear down. They destroyed our city 50 years ago; let's not allow them to worsen the damage.

 

 

Job may limit downtown access

Thursday, November 24, 2005

By KEN PRENDERGAST

Brooklyn Sun Journal

 

CLEVELAND _ City Council members will not act on two pieces of legislation to permit a planned reconstruction of the Innerbelt highway because they fear the project will reduce highway access to downtown and force out businesses.

 

Council will act only after the Ohio Department of Transportation conducts an economic impact study and shows how the downtown section of Interstate 90 can be redesigned so it won't harm the city...

 

Thanks!

I second that...great article KJP!  You're a bastion of truth and solid reporting in NE Ohio.

 

Next, I sent out something like 13 letters to local, regional and state representatives and officials concerning this project.  I received an email from Jane Campbell's assistant to let me know that she had received it.  I received a letter in the mail from Governor Taft, ensuring me that he would share my opinion with the appropriate parties.  And today I received the letter from ODOT that YSOH posted on page 7 of this thread.  These are the three I expected the least feedback from... what about Joe Cimperman? Frank Jackson? Bob Brown?  Stephanie Tubbs Jones?  Dennis Kucinich?  Steve LaTourette?  The list goes on...

 

Finally, the more I hear about this, the more I think we're talking about a project that is much bigger than it needs to be.  Obviously, the bridge issue needs to be dealt with, as it's lifespan is limited.  But if we're talking about making all these changes to the "trench" and the loudest voices are up-in-arms over it, then why do it?  I know, the safety issue, but even that seems to be disputed!  Now, straightening "Dead Man's" curve seems practical and it doesn't look like it will involve any takings or piss anyone off, so let's do that and let's continue to push for an upstream bridge to replace the current one and let's talk about ways that we can cap the "trench" to open up more land (something that's been left out of the discussion altogether).  But the rest of it?  Who's pushing to make this happen?  ODOT?  Anyone else? 

 

Some tidbits from CoolCleveland....

 

ODOT still doesn't get it

If you attended the public meeting held on 11/17 at the Wolstein Center, one thing was obvious: the Ohio Department of Transportation already has made up their minds about the Innerbelt Bridge. While they say they want public input, read their letter to the PD closely (here): "The upstream (southern) alignment was fully considered prior to being removed from further consideration..." It is precisely the ODOT's refusal to get a second opinion on the southern option suggested by Cuyahoga County Planning Director Paul Alsenas that is frustrating citizens. Alsenas is rightly urging a signature bridge rather than the pedestrian model pushed by ODOT. And by eliminating four exit ramps and seven entrances to the Innerbelt, area residents and businesses are incredulous. During the audience Q&A, Midtown entrepreneur Mike Chesler of the Chesler Group politely but firmly asked the question we're all wondering: "How could ODOT make a recommendation without having conducted an economic impact study?" Their plan will move traffic very smoothly from Columbus to Buffalo right through Downtown Cleveland, but it's hard to see the logic for people who live and work in this city. Cool Cleveland has been recommending that you send a note to ODOT Project Manager Craig Hebebrand ([email protected]), and that might still be a good idea, but now we think you should also send a message to Deputy Director Dave Coyle ([email protected]), and see if we generate a little more respect for public opinion. After all, our tax dollars do pay their salaries, and will pay for the Innerbelt alignment and new bridge, whether it's beautiful or butt-ugly. While you're at it, Cc: Cool Cleveland at [email protected] and we'll keep the pressure on. See Yr Turn letters below.

 

 

On Cleveland's Innerbelt Bridge & ODOT

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has an obligation to Cleveland, its citizens and visitors in regards to the redesign of the innerbelt curve, the access ramps to point east and into the city center, and especially the unique opportunity to correct a great dis-service that was done when it was first built. Clevelanders and others in this region need to demand that the innerbelt be covered up (tunneled) so as to bridge the dividing gap created so many years ago. It will help remedy the concerns of business owners regarding the location of ramps and access to their areas of operation. This will also allow the building of an extensive park area with pedestrian as well as bicycle access from the lake to Tremont and other areas south and west. This new green space would be most inviting for businesses to locate nearby as well as real estate developers to consider building residential units, stimulating the resurgence of Cleveland's old neighborhoods east of the innerbelt. Specifically, the new covered area east of Cleveland State University could be developed into sports and open theater fields, freeing up existing land to allow building of "state of the art" facilities for education and innovation. ODOT would accomplish their safety and improved traffic pattern goals and would earn many accolades by incorporating urban planning that significantly contributes to the rebirth of Cleveland as a striving residential as well as innovative business and technology center.

from Cool Cleveland reader Ray Saikus, Citizen Vision, http://www.CitizensVision.org, rrsATcitizensvision.org

 

I like the idea of pressuring for a tunnel, for the simple fact that ODOT seems to be aways trying to bargin with the community, you want this but we can only give you that.  So lets freakin ask for the moon, so when they back off we will have a better plan than what they are giving us now

I wrote both Hebebrand and Coyle, and got this generic response on 12/2/05 ... am I wrong, or do they seem to be bending more on the possibility of reconsidering the southern alignment?

 

Oh, and among my comments that I sent was that they should check out this Transportation Forum if they cared to see what people are saying about this project!

 

*****

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.  We truly appreciate your input.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) initiated the study of the Cleveland Innerbelt Corridor in 2000. The first Advisory Committee Meeting was held on November 2, 2000.  The first public meeting was held on January 10, 2001.  Throughout the study process ODOT has met frequently with City Officials, Local Stakeholders and the General Public to develop goals and objectives for the study, to identify and evaluate alternatives and to discuss comments and concerns.

 

On November 17th and 18th, 2005 after five years of study, ODOT presented to the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee and the City Planning Commission, for their review and comment, recommendations for the reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Corridor.  The recommendations and the rationale behind those recommendations will be documented in the Alternatives Report that will be released for review and comment early in 2006. The Alternatives Report will be made available at ODOT District 12 headquarters Cleveland City Hall, via the internet at www.innerbelt.org and at branches of the Cleveland Public Library. 

 

We encourage you to read the report and offer your feedback to us via the internet at www.innerbelt.org or through the U.S. Postal Service at:

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation

District 12

5500 Transportation Blvd.

Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125

ATTN: Innerbelt Project Manager

 

ODOT understands that there are concerns with the recommendations that have been put forth for public comment.  ODOT remains committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to address those concerns.

 

Throughout the study process ODOT has worked closely with the City of Cleveland. In August 2004, the City of Cleveland and the Ohio Department of Transportation signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).  The MOU established the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee which is co-chaired by Craig Hebebrand, Project Manager for the Ohio Department of Transportation and Mark Ricchiuto, Public Service Director for the City of Cleveland.  The MOU established an Interagency Working Group that has met throughout the process to discuss issues and concerns.  The MOU also established the responsibility of the Cleveland City Planning Commission to review ODOT?s recommendations on behalf the City of Cleveland.  ODOT will continue to partner with the City of Cleveland to address the concerns that have been raised.

 

ODOT has already begun steps to better understand specific concerns that have been raised.  In response to the concerns regarding the impact that the recommended changes to the access points could have on businesses in the Quadrangle, MidTown and St. Clair-Superior areas, ODOT has hired Economic Development Research Group to conduct an Economic Impact Analysis.  This firm has already met with the Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and interviewed numerous businesses.  In addition they have developed a survey that will be distributed to 3,000 businesses located within the service areas of the three CDCs.  This Economic Impact Analysis is expected to be completed in February 2006.  At that time, ODOT will meet with the City of Cleveland and representatives of the CDCs to discuss the findings.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation developed and considered bridge alignments to both the north (downstream) and south (upstream) of the existing Central Viaduct prior to recommending the northern alignment in June 2005. However, based upon public comments received to date, ODOT commits to reviewing our alignment recommendation. Also, please be advised that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will conduct an independent review of the bridge alignment recommendation as a part of their review of the Alternatives Report.

 

Independent of the bridge alignment, ODOT is committed to building a signature bridge that will enhance the City of Cleveland's reputation as a city of bridges. ODOT received six statements of qualifications from firms interested in conducting the bridge type study.  Based on those qualifications, three firms: Michael Baker, HNTB and URS, were selected to make presentations to the selection committee.

 

The three firms selected to make presentations have assembled impressive teams and all three firms have proven experience in the design of signature bridges for the State of Ohio.  Michael Baker recently designed the Ironton-Russell Bridge.  HNTB recently designed the US Grant Bridge and URS recently designed the Pomeroy-Mason Bridge.  All three of these river crossings are cable stayed structures.

 

The selection committee, which includes representatives from the Ohio Department of Transportation; Cuyahoga County Engineer, Robert Klaiber; Cleveland City Planning Director, Robert Brown and Cleveland Public Service Director, Mark Ricchiuto, will meet on December 12, 2005 to hear the presentations, conduct interviews and select a team to conduct the bridge type study.

 

During the upcoming year, ODOT will continue to solicit public comments, work with our partners at the City of Cleveland to address concerns and revise the recommendations.  ODOT will bring the revised recommendations back to the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee, the City Planning Commission and the General Public prior to submitting them to the FHWA for their review and approval near the end of 2006.

 

Respectfully,

 

Craig Hebebrand

Innerbelt Project Manager

ODOT District 12

 

Dave Coyle   

District Deputy Director

ODOT District 12                               

Love the tunnel idea!

from hotel bruce blog, with help from kjp! --- news of some of that support for an iconic bridge that we have been looking for:

 

 

Rep. Tubbs Jones elevates citizens' calls for signature bridge

 

At its meeting on November 17, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) presented a plan for the Innerbelt Bridge, which includes building a new bridge just north of the existing bridge and re-decking the existing span for continued use.

 

Meanwhile, The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission has been raging against the machine with its alternative plan, arguing that a signature bridge will be huge step in improving the appearance of the region, its traffic flow, not to mention open up the land across from Jacobs Field for potential development (ODOT’s new bridge will erase those possibilities).

 

The commission’s plan has a cadre of proponents, such as Ken Prendergast of the

Ohio Corridors Campaign, who told EcoCity Cleveland that if the bridge alignment were changed "the entire area of land opened up for redevelopment...is roughly three times the size of the Gateway Complex. That's four to six million square feet with a conservative land value of $150 million."

 

Prendergast adds that revenue from land leases could be used to offset the additional costs of new bridge construction and associated land development.

 

In response to calls from citizens who showed up by the dozens to the ODOT meeting, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-11) called for an independent study to “find a location for the building of the I-90 Inner Belt that will be advantageous for both the residents of Tremont and the City of Cleveland.” Read Tubbs Jones’ letter in response to Bruce blog’s call for a signature bridge.

 

Tremont residents (led by ward councilman Joe Cimperman) oppose the county’s plan, saying that it will eat up more of Tremont, notably, the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation on West 14th Street. The county contends that its proposal will not affect the church and that ODOT’s plan requires taking more property than the county’s southern alignment, according to a source at the commission.

 

According to The Free Times, “as recently as March, ODOT officials met with (County Planning Commission director Paul) Alsenas to show him that a southerly route was viable. They changed their tune by June, though, and have never explained why — except to throw out that frightening bit about the church.” The county and Real Neo are hosting online conversations and news of the dueling bridge proposals.

 

A federal independent study should determine the cost (and benefits) of the county’s proposed bridge—which could be an elegant, cable-stayed design like the one currently being built over the Maumee River in Toledo rather than the aging steel-truss span that represents the monolithic approach to bridge design of the 1950s. Tubbs Jones will have to ensure that the study group acts swiftly since ODOT is prepared to pick a design team and engineer for the new westbound bridge on Dec. 12.

 

ODOT is making a joke of convening a stakeholder group and asking for their input. Five years its Innerbelt advisory committee deliberated over the impact of the $860 million investment and suggested alternatives such as a signature bridge. In an instant (and at the buzzer) ODOT swats aside engineering in a quality idea. The state agency owes the community paying for the bridge a complete explanation before it takes one more step as to why the Alsenas plan will or will not work.

 

Rep. Tubbs Jones sums it up: “After many years of negotiating, planning and designs, this project could make significant contributions to the economy, infrastructure and development of the Northeast Ohio corridor.”

 

We agree.

 

You can still send a letter of support for a signature bridge to ODOT

Project Manager Craig Hebebrand and Deputy Director Dave Coyle and cc Bruce blog.

 

 

link:

http://www.hotelbruce.com/01_02/bruceblog.php

 

 

 

Where is there office, we should have a sit in.

 

Way to take the lead there tubbs, but I guess better late than never

[merge with the innerbelt thread anyone?]

 

I'm still waiting for my personal response to the letter I sent her...

 

Another note, though, is that text like "A federal independent study should determine the cost (and benefits) of the county’s proposed bridge—which could be an elegant, cable-stayed design like the one currently being built over the Maumee River in Toledo rather than the aging steel-truss span that represents the monolithic approach to bridge design of the 1950s" seem to be off-track to me.  Every conversation that i heard at the meeting two weeks ago that brought up a "signature bridge" was met with "of course we're going to build something that  Cleveland can be proud of!"  The "signature bridge" is not the argument.  The argument is about the alignment and the takings and the impact that the entire innerbelt project will have on the communities that it passes through and the City and region as a whole.  The signature bridge argument seems to me to be a non-issue at this point.

You're right. This discussion needs to moved to the "Grander vision for the Inner Belt" string. Grasscat!?!?

 

While covering another story, I stumbled across a reason (not necessarily THE reason) why ODOT is proposing the signature bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct, and why others support the bridge at this location. It will be in this week's paper. I'll give you a clue: "Look below decks"

what kind of weird riddle is this?  are you talking about who owns the land?  is someone buried under a deck?  have you scrawled the answer on the existing bridge?  what?

Patience isn't one of your strongest points, is it?  :-D

 

It's going to have to wait until Thursday.

You're some sort of mental sadist, KJP.  You keep dropping these teaser hints about things, but then you go all "film at 11" on us.

KJP,

 

Can you at least tell us in which Sun we can find it?

 

 

I'm sure it will be in the West Side Sun News.

 

As for the mental sadism, put your brain here ----> :bang2:

You're right. This discussion needs to moved to the "Grander vision for the Inner Belt" string. Grasscat!?!?

 

 

You can ask THE MAYOR too, ya know... ;)

You're right. This discussion needs to moved to the "Grander vision for the Inner Belt" string. Grasscat!?!?

 

 

You can ask THE MAYOR too, ya know... ;)

 

Wouldn't want to bother his majesty.

Good point.  Get back to getting me ribs at Hook's!

Check out the latest issue of CoolCleveland (http://www.coolcleveland.com). The sheer number of letters submitted to them regarding the Innerbelt and the signature bridge (not ODOT's proposed northern bridge, but the county's southern alignment!) was pretty impressive. One letter writer reprinted a form letter they got back from ODOT, and noted that the Federal Highway Administration will conduct an independent review of the bridge alignment (see the unformatted letter below). The signature bridge isn't the main issue. It's where that bridge is located. Also one of the letter writers gave a nice plug for this message string.

_______________________

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns. We truly appreciate your input. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) initiated the study of the Cleveland Innerbelt Corridor in 2000. The first Advisory Committee Meeting was held on November 2, 2000. The first public meeting was held on January 10, 2001. Throughout the study process ODOT has met frequently with City Officials, Local Stakeholders and the General to develop goals and objectives for the study, to identify and evaluate alternatives and to discuss comments and concerns. On November 17th and 18th, 2005 after five years of study, ODOT presented to the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee and the City Planning Commission, for their review and comment, recommendations for the reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Corridor. The recommendations and the rationale behind those recommendations will be documented in the Alternatives Report that will be released for review and comment early in 2006. The Alternatives Report will be made available at ODOT District 12 headquarters Cleveland City Hall, via the internet at www.innerbelt.org and at branches of the Cleveland Public Library. We encourage you to read the report and offer your feedback to us via the internet at www.innerbelt.org or through the U.S. Postal Service at: The Ohio Department of Transportation District 12, 5500 Transportation Blvd., Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 ATTN: Innerbelt Project Manager. ODOT understands that there are concerns with the recommendations that have been put forth for public comment. ODOT remains committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to address those concerns. Throughout the study process ODOT has worked closely with the City of Cleveland. In August 2004, the City of Cleveland and the Ohio Department of Transportation signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU established the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee which is co-chaired by Craig Hebebrand, Project Manager for the Ohio Department of Transportation and Mark Ricchiuto, Public Service Director for the City of Cleveland. The MOU established an Interagency Working Group that has met throughout the process to discuss issues and concerns. The MOU also established the responsibility of the Cleveland City Planning Commission to review ODOT's recommendations on behalf the City of Cleveland. ODOT will continue to partner with the City of Cleveland to address the concerns that have been raised. ODOT has already begun steps to better understand specific concerns that have been raised. In response to the concerns regarding the impact that the recommended changes to the access points could have on businesses in the Quadrangle, MidTown and St. Clair-Superior areas, ODOT has hired Economic Development Research Group to conduct an Economic Impact Analysis. This firm has already met with the Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and interviewed numerous businesses. In addition they have developed a survey that will be distributed to 3,000 businesses located within the service areas of the three CDCs. This Economic Impact Analysis is expected to be completed in February 2006. At that time, ODOT will meet with the City of Cleveland and representatives of the CDCs to discuss the findings. The Ohio Department of Transportation developed and considered bridge alignments to both the north (downstream) and south (upstream) of the existing Central Viaduct prior to recommending the northern alignment in June 2005. However, based upon public comments received to date, ODOT commits to reviewing our alignment recommendation. Also, please be advised that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will conduct an independent review of the bridge alignment recommendation as a part of their review of the Alternatives Report. Independent of the bridge alignment, ODOT is committed to building a signature bridge that will enhance the City of Cleveland?s reputation as a city of bridges. ODOT received six statements of qualifications from firms interested in conducting the bridge type study. Based on those qualifications, three firms: Michael Baker, HNTB and URS, were selected to make presentations to the selection committee. The three firms selected to make presentations have assemble impressive teams and all three firms have proven experience in the design of signature bridges for the State of Ohio. Michael Baker recently designed the Ironton-Russell Bridge. HNTB recently designed the US Grant Bridge and URS recently designed the Pomeroy-Mason Bridge. All three of these river crossings are cable stayed structures. The selection committee, which includes representatives from the Ohio Department of Transportation; Cuyahoga County Engineer, Robert Klaiber; Cleveland City Planning Director, Robert Brown and Cleveland Public Service Director, Mark Ricchiuto, will meet on December 12, 2005 to hear the presentations, conduct interviews and select a team to conduct the bridge type study. During the upcoming year, ODOT will continue to solicit public comments, work with our partners at the City of Cleveland to address concerns and revise the recommendations. ODOT will bring the revised recommendations back to the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee, the City Planning Commission and the General Public prior to submitting them to the FHWA for their review and approval near the end of 2006.

Respectfully, Craig Hebebrand, Innerbelt Project Manager, ODOT District 12 & Dave Coyle, District Deputy Director, ODOT District 12

 

I just heard something pretty disturbing. You may recall that ODOT proposed commuter rail (as well as a downtown light-rail loop) as an option to manage traffic during construction of the Innerbelt. We all assumed it was ODOT who removed the rail options from further consideration. It wasn't. Instead, it was RTA, according to a former RTA exec. More specifically, the man responsible was Michael Schipper, Deputy General Manager, Engineering & Project Development. He is a former highway guy (and it sounds like he still is) from Texas who says rail offers little or no contribution to us. Though, he likes the Euclid Corridor, which fits!

 

Worse, I'm told he is the guy who will be meeting with ODOT soon about my idea to relocate the Red, Blue and Green Lines in the median of the Opportunity Corridor. ODOT is meeting with Schipper because of ODOT's interest in my idea. Guess what will happen to ODOT's interest after they meet with Schipper?

 

Here is a bio on Schipper:

 

http://www.gcrta.org/pressreleaselist.asp?listingid=210

 

Tuesday, July 10, 2001

 

CONTACT: Jerry Masek 216.566.5211

 

Lakewood engineer heads RTA division

 

CLEVELAND -- Professional engineer Michael J. Schipper, 40, of Lakewood, has been hired as the new Deputy General Manager of Engineering and Project Development at the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA). He assumes his new duties on July 31.

 

Schipper has 19 years experience in engineering, including 13 years at the HNTB Corp., a nationwide consulting engineering firm that focuses on highway and bridge design. Since 1998, he has been Associate Vice President and Engineer-in-Charge of HNTB's Ohio offices.

 

At HNTB, Schipper was based in Cleveland and supervised a three-office, 43-person staff. During his tenure there, he designed and managed more than $500 million in projects, including freeways, interchanges, railroad grade separations, major bridges, parking garages, an office complex, and transit facilities.

 

Schipper has both bachelors and masters degrees in civil engineering. He is Secretary of the Cleveland section of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and has made numerous presentations to professional conferences and community groups.

 

Schipper serves on the Board of Trustees at the Lawrence School, which serves students with learning disabilities and attention deficits, in Broadview Heights. He is married to Joanna Brell, M.D.

Leave it to RTA to hire a highway guy as their head engineer.

Actually, he was hired to head up the engineering of the Euclid Corridor project, but his actions and his title show he's doing more than that. It is highly unlikely we will see any rail expansion in Cleveland as long as this guy is at RTA.

Well, maybe we could leak the RTA info to Cool Cleveland, since they seem to be effectively putting ODOT's feet to the fire.

Be my guest. Tell Mike Gill at the Free Times, while your at it.

A Bridge Too Far North : ODOT races ahead with the biggest area highway project in a generation. Is the plan the best we could do?

 

By Michael Gill

 

 

Make way

While firefighters work on a museum, ODOT plans a highway for their doorstep.

WHILE TRAFFIC RUSHES THROUGH SNOW on the Innerbelt bridge about 100 yards away, a handful of retired firefighters jab steel scrapers at a foggy circle on the floor of their old dispatch station. They use dry ice to brittle the crust of old tile adhesive so it chips off more easily. They’re putting sweat equity into their vision of a Western Reserve Fire Museum, a dream that could open its doors to school kids and the curious public in less than a year.

 

But the Ohio Department of Transportation’s plan to build a second bridge between them and the one that’s there now would separate the museum from parking and almost literally put their historic building up against a concrete wall.

The building is home to banks of 120 round brass bells and Morse code stations. From 1928 to 1999, the bells rang when someone pulled one of Cleveland’s 1,200 red fire callboxes. No other fire museum in the country has such a system in its original location. Dan Hayden was working there on they day they shut the massive communication network down...

 

Speaking of Mike.... !

I just heard something pretty disturbing. You may recall that ODOT proposed commuter rail (as well as a downtown light-rail loop) as an option to manage traffic during construction of the Innerbelt. We all assumed it was ODOT who removed the rail options from further consideration. It wasn't. Instead, it was RTA, according to a former RTA exec. More specifically, the man responsible was Michael Schipper, Deputy General Manager, Engineering & Project Development. He is a former highway guy (and it sounds like he still is) from Texas who says rail offers little or no contribution to us. Though, he likes the Euclid Corridor, which fits!

 

Worse, I'm told he is the guy who will be meeting with ODOT soon about my idea to relocate the Red, Blue and Green Lines in the median of the Opportunity Corridor. ODOT is meeting with Schipper because of ODOT's interest in my idea. Guess what will happen to ODOT's interest after they meet with Schipper?

 

I'd never heard of these proposals before and naturally, I support them adamantly.  So, the thought that their removal from consideration is the result of RTA actions is just f-ing unbelievable!  How did someone with his background get placed in charge of engineering at a transit authority???  He's certainly qualified to continue designing overpasses and new ways to eat up farmland, but shouldn't he be working somewhere out in the exurbs or sitting in an ODOT desk in Columbus?  This is infuriating...

^it's just so stupid for rta to hire a guy like that it leaves ya speechless....and fuming with anger.

 

can you believe it, even odot knew they had to have a transit option in the initial innerbelt planning--odot!---and then some meathead yahoo texan from of all places rta comes in and shoots it down. somebody get a rope!

 

i am telling ya next rta is planning to ram that stupid el cheapo euclid bus thing down the west shoreway too -- you watch! ugh.

Furthermore, Schipper is a real hothead. Since I first heard about his arguing for the removal of commuter rail from cothe Innerbelt project, I've asked around about him, and just about everyone said he is a real hothead and his mission seems to be to outshout those having more logic than he has.

Sounds like someone else from Texas....

what do we do about something like this?  who does mr. hothead report to?  who's responsible for hiring him?  you KNOW I'm about to write some letters!

He reports to GM Joe.

and he likes to nod a lot during meetings even when nothing is directed at him.  very strange.