Advocates for Sustainable Urbanism Fight for Bike Lanes
A rendering of the rebuilt Innerbelt Bridge with bike and pedestrian accommodations.
Rendering by: Gauri Torgalkar, David Jurca and Dru McKeown
A standing room only crowd of advocates for sustainable urbanism at the Cleveland Planning Commission meeting in November with half of the people there in support of including bike and pedestrian accommodations on the rebuilt Innerbelt Bridge.
After a year of considering a bike lane on the new Innerbelt Bridge and laying out reasons for it, including attracting a younger generation to Cleveland, members of the planning commission appeared to be split on whether the issue was resolved. Commission chair Tony Coyne pointed out that the city and Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) would like Abbey Avenue bridge—the connection between Tremont and Ohio City—widened and a 5-foot bike lane on each side plus two 5-foot sidewalks added.
Coyne blames the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for standing in the way of a separated bike lane on the bridge. But, FHWA has lent support to state departments of transportation in 30 other cases where bike and pedestrian lanes were added to bridges, and also sponsors an extensive document library on bike and pedestrian implementation activities. The point is, if the region is to get serious about meeting the reality of climate change it will have to accommodate members of the community other than motorists in its transportation investments. We need not make this another example where the planning commission and the city defer to the transportation agency. We need to check ODOT’s statements and assumptions.
For starters, too many flaws can be seen in ODOT’s plan to reroute bike and pedestrian traffic to Abbey Avenue. The biggest flaw is ODOT’s plan to cut off its design where the Abbey bike route meets West 20th Street—without giving a clear reason why. West 20th Street is the connection to the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge, where the agency expects cyclists and pedestrians to go. If this is a preferred surface street route, then W. 20th Street today is not suitable—its 27 ft. width means it is not wide enough to add a five-foot bike lane from Abbey.
One solution might be to retrofit W. 20th as a one-way ‘bicycle boulevard’—that is, if the goal is to make a suitable, safe route for cyclists coming from Tremont to Ohio City and downtown.
What’s striking about ODOT’s ‘hard no’ on the Innerbelt Bridge is how money was found for two 17-foot break-down lanes. These fatty shoulders and the cost for 34 feet of pavement and decking could easily be put on a 9-foot diet with the remainder dedicated to a separated bike lane. Meanwhile, ODOT has not provided cost estimates on what it would take to do this. Guidelines state that bikes and pedestrians should be accommodated when federal funds are being used to build roads unless it exceeds 20 percent of the total cost of the project—at $400 million for the Innerbelt Bridge, we don’t know but can only guess at what is a reasonable cost to slim down the break-down lanes—we can still have a break-down lane and a bike/pedestrian path just like they do in Washington, D.C.
ODOT may claim it’s a matter of cost, but what is the real reason they’re defensive about this? Is it because they do not accept the premise that bikes and pedestrians belong on the bridge? Until someone with authority is willing to step in and take a strong stand that we’re serious about complete streets and we’re building our infrastructure for the next 50 years, then ODOT will continue to rule the conversation.
Do you want bike and pedestrian accommodations on the rebuilt Innerbelt Bridge? If so, make your voice heard. Email Mayor Jackson’s Action Center at mayorsactioncenter@city.cleveland.oh.us. Call the Cleveland Planning Commission at 216-664-2210 and ODOT’s District 12 office at 216-581-2100.
For more information, visit www.gcbl.org.