http://thegldc.com/blog/2010/02/05/real-change-takes-bold-measures-and-odot-has-no-balls/ Greening America one blog post at a time Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:32:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://thegldc.com/blog/2010/02/05/real-change-takes-bold-measures-and-odot-has-no-balls/#comment-7136 Kevin Cronin Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:51:36 +0000 http://thegldc.com/blog/?p=1503#comment-7136 Thank you for your perceptive post. The innerbelt bridge is intended to last for fifty years or so, but ODOT has refused to consider a bike/pedestrian path (see gcbl.org/innerbelt), protected by distance and concrete, to run alongside. Thirty communities have figured out how to have cyclists, pedestrians and motorists benefit from taxpayer-funded investment. Some of these are breath-takingly attractive, with a scenic overlook visitors travel hundreds of miles to enjoy. ODOT's explanation in refusing bikes is simply "we don't have to." I feel like cyclists are on "double secret probation" from the movie Animal House. Apparently, there was some letter between ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration, in which ODOT said "there are safe alternatives for bikes and pedestrians, there is insufficient demand and it will cost too much." This letter was outside the formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Draft EIS, which ignored the presentations of cyclists and residents at public hearings (25% of Cleveland residents don't have cars, with higher rates in neighborhoods around the proposed bridge). FHWA's boss, the President's Secretary of Transportation has said they support bike and pedestrian opportunities, but ODOT still points to the federal government as the impediment. The cycling population is growing in Cleveland, apparently at a rate higher than the national average. Cyclists and pedestrians have demonstrated ODOT's "alternatives" are longer and more dangerous and the cost is unknown at this point, but was less than the margin of error when ODOT first proposed bridges with a range of construction costs. I won't be as graphic as your expression, but there is an "Old ODOT" way of thinking, which is to support cars and trucks, and the new of thinking, which focuses on connecting neighborhoods and helping people get where get where they want to go. The new way of thinking really isn't understood at ODOT and, thus far, we haven't convinced them to change. Thanks for your post and the opportunity to comment. Thank you for your perceptive post. The innerbelt bridge is intended to last for fifty years or so, but ODOT has refused to consider a bike/pedestrian path (see gcbl.org/innerbelt), protected by distance and concrete, to run alongside. Thirty communities have figured out how to have cyclists, pedestrians and motorists benefit from taxpayer-funded investment. Some of these are breath-takingly attractive, with a scenic overlook visitors travel hundreds of miles to enjoy. ODOT’s explanation in refusing bikes is simply “we don’t have to.” I feel like cyclists are on “double secret probation” from the movie Animal House. Apparently, there was some letter between ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration, in which ODOT said “there are safe alternatives for bikes and pedestrians, there is insufficient demand and it will cost too much.” This letter was outside the formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Draft EIS, which ignored the presentations of cyclists and residents at public hearings (25% of Cleveland residents don’t have cars, with higher rates in neighborhoods around the proposed bridge). FHWA’s boss, the President’s Secretary of Transportation has said they support bike and pedestrian opportunities, but ODOT still points to the federal government as the impediment. The cycling population is growing in Cleveland, apparently at a rate higher than the national average. Cyclists and pedestrians have demonstrated ODOT’s “alternatives” are longer and more dangerous and the cost is unknown at this point, but was less than the margin of error when ODOT first proposed bridges with a range of construction costs. I won’t be as graphic as your expression, but there is an “Old ODOT” way of thinking, which is to support cars and trucks, and the new of thinking, which focuses on connecting neighborhoods and helping people get where get where they want to go. The new way of thinking really isn’t understood at ODOT and, thus far, we haven’t convinced them to change. Thanks for your post and the opportunity to comment.

]]>