The Honorable Ted Strickland
Governor of the State of Ohio
Columbus, Ohio

April 1, 2009

Dear Honorable Governor:

You deserve tremendous credit for the announcements regarding economic stimulus, transportation priorities and investment in Northeast Ohio. The Northeast Ohio projects, the Innerbelt and planning for the Opportunity Corridor, are critical priorities and the cycling community has been pleased to have been productively engaged with the Ohio Department of Transportation on these projects for years. While we appreciate the progress, we also not that important details are yet unknown, including issues of cyclist and pedestrian access to bridges and other improvements to advance cycling and walking to provide Ohioans with healthy transportation options.

The cycling community was pleased to assist in passage of the stimulus plan, encouraging support for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure to rebuild neighborhoods, promote cycling to reduce health care costs, increase employment productivity and business success. Investing in cycling and pedestrian transportation infrastructure has a strong stimulative impact and offers a “big bang for the buck” for modest public investment. While the ODOT “Opportunity Corridor” funding supports planning, which will present additional opportunities to address cycling and pedestrian access in a meaningful way, the Innerbelt Project and the bridge are presented as “shovel ready,” without adequate details. The absence of clear direction on the role for cycling and pedestrian access demonstrates that, contrary to a variety of federal directives, the project is not in a correct, final form, and even further from the “shovel-ready” status called for by the innovative federal plan of the President and Congress

As notes in prior communications, the financial value of improved mobility, measured by fuel savings, greenhouse gas reductions, and business and individual health care savings, ranges between $10-65 billion, outstripping any public spending costs in creating a bicycling and walking transportation infrastructure. Modest increases in bicycling and walking could lead to an annual reduction of 70 billion miles of car travel, with higher increases cutting as much as 200 billion miles per year. The decreased auto travel represent savings for Ohio businesses and individuals, equal to cutting oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by 3-8%.

Cycling is not a “fringe” activity, but an important transportation option. 20% of Americans used a bicycle for transportation in the 30 days measured in the Census Bureau Household Survey. Bicycling is the second most preferred form of transportation after the automobile, ahead of public transportation (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, October 2000 Omnibus Household Survey). Cyclists have always cared about good roads and effective transportation, initiating the "good roads" movement in the 19th century, before there were cars, calling for quality roads to serve the economy and population of a growing nation. Cyclists are ready, again, to help support the 21st century needs of our neighborhoods. However, the level of detail to incorporate cycling and pedestrian roles are both disappointing and, contrary to the requirements that should have guided ODOT progress. Investing in active transportation is a fiscally responsible step to recreate thriving neighborhoods, fully consistent with the needs of Northeast Ohio and the federal stimulus goals.

The cycling community is prepared to engage in steps to correct the gaps and assist in shaping the infrastructure projects to reflect local needs. I have attached a response, previously filed with the Ohio Department of Transportation, reflecting the deficiencies of the Innerbelt Bridge plans, for your reference. If you have questions, comments or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kevin Cronin

ClevelandBikes

Attachment:

ClevelandBikes, a volunteer administered 501(C)(3) charitable organization, is committed to advancing all forms of bicycling for health, transportation and recreation for the region's residents.  I recently had the opportunity to review a July memo from Howard Wood, Deputy Director of Planning, to Craig Hebebrand, Innerbelt Project Manager, outlining their basis for declining to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian accommodation into the Innerbelt Bridge Project. I believe several of the points to be inaccurate and warrant comment.

As you may know, ClevelandBikes is a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2003, to advance and promote all forms of bicycling as economical and healthful recreation, sport and transportation. ClevelandBikes is a broad, volunteer-driven coalition. Members include cycling clubs, retail stores, certified instructors, government and nonprofit staff and interested members of the public. ClevelandBikes volunteers also publish Crankmail, the thousand-copy monthly cycling newsletter, which serves as the "The Voice of Cyclists in Northeast Ohio.

The Woods Memo essentially raises two points:
* Cyclists and pedestrians have alternative routes, namely the Detroit-Superior Bridge, the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge and the West 3rd St./Flats roadway; and
* Low cycling and pedestrian demand does not warrant the additional investment. While the memo does not identify the research supporting the conclusory statements, the memo does reference inclement weather for 25% of the year as a rationale.

With regard to point one, the Woods memo exaggerates the value and suitability of the alternatives.

* The Flats roadway is an unsafe route, with a very high volume of trucks, often broken pavement, poor lighting and, in winter, very limited visibility and limited non-road options for pedestrians. I consider it contradictory that the Woods Memo asks cyclists and pedestrians to share the road in the flats and on the bridges, despite the trucks and traffic, while resisting the creation of a separate, barrier-marked pedestrian and cycling area for the Innerbelt Bridge.

* The City deserves tremendous credit for the plan and execution of efforts to create a more “bike friendly” environment on the Lorain-Carnegie and Detroit-Superior Bridges. However, even the staunchest advocates will recognize these plans were laudable retro-fit plans. By contrast, a well-designed cycling and pedestrian opportunity on a new signature bridge would generate substantial enthusiasm and use. The Innerbelt Bridge Project represents an extraordinary opportunity to get things right, right from the start. This is an opportunity that should not exclude pedestrians and cyclists.

* The availability of alternatives hasn't prevented cyclist and pedestrian accommodation in other cities. While I understand there are 15-20 highway bridges with cycling and pedestrian access, I would particularly point out cycling access on the 495/I-95 bridges in the Washington, DC area, despite multiple cycling and pedestrian routes on other bridges into the District of Columbia.

With regard to point two, bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on the Innerbelt Bridge would stand up to cost-benefit analysis, but ODOT should be open about the basis of their rationale.

* During the summer public sessions, ODOT posted cost ranges it considered to be acceptable for all bridge options, yet successful cyclist and pedestrian accommodation has already been acknowledged to be well below these acceptable cost ranges.

* Inclimate weather is an unavoidable issue and an inadequate reason for asking pedestrians and cyclists to accept one outdoor route over another.

* I also considered it unusual that the Woods Memo would proceed to design features for any cycling and pedestrian accommodation, concluding that some sort of cage structure would be needed to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe. I am unwilling to agree that such a feature is required from a safety standpoint. Further, I think a “cage” solution would be unsuccessful from a design standpoint and one I wouldn't recommend. Further still, I believe a cage would be aesthetically contradictory, given the repeated emphasis on design and the goal of creating a “signature” bridge. However, if ODOT conducts adequate review and proposes a “cage” as its best solution, I would encourage a public review and opportunity to weigh-in, similar to the design and aesthetics reviews for bridge options held during the summer.

In conclusion, if a bridge is to be a “signature” element, it should be enjoyed by everyone, including pedestrians and cyclists, not just those driving out of town on this structure for westbound traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists, more likely to be residents than the highway through traffic, deserve to be able to enjoy the facility too.