Friday, November 6, 2009
IT'S DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, NOT DEPT. OF CARS
Posted by Frank Lewis on Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:50 PM
City cyclists feel they're getting the metaphorical middle-finger when it comes to asking for fair, safe access to Cleveland roads. That sentiment surfaced Friday at Cleveland City Hall, where about a dozen cycling advocates expressed disappointment with the Ohio Department of Transportation's plan to nix a bicycle/pedestrian lane for the upcoming Inner Belt project.
Improvements would include creating 5-foot bike lanes and sidewalks on the Abbey Avenue bridge, Hebebrand says. These upgrades would cost about $800,000.
Cyclists with ClevelandBikes, a local advocacy group, say this alternative route still has significant safety issues, such as on-street vehicle parking. Advocates say similar bridges, including one in Charleston, South Carolina, were built with bike lanes, so why not here?
Cyclist Alex Nosse says the planning process disrespects cyclists and pedestrians, turning them into second-class citizens by forcing them to go out of their way. Advocates merely want a dedicated bike lane, they say, and have no interest in disrupting high-speed highway traffic.
One commission member says ODOT's planning doesn't go far enough. Lillian Kuri asked why ODOT didn't take the project a step further by redeveloping Abbey all the way to the West Side Market (according to the plan presented Friday, improvements stop at West 20th). Kuri says the cycling route should not be treated as an afterthought as ODOT moves forward in its search for a firm to handle the project.
Hebebrand says that ODOT will continue to work with city to hash out plans for the Abbey Avenue route. While Hebebrand admits that other cities included bike lanes on their highway bridges, they did so because of a lack of alternate routes, he says.
Kevin Cronin, of ClevelandBikes, tells Scene that ODOT wrongly continues to lay blame on the feds for its lack of movement on cycling issues, even though the local office of the Federal Highway Administration called for "improved conditions for bicycling and walking in terms of planning and safety in Ohio" in April. He says ODOT's $20 million price tag still represents a cost-effective investment in sustainable transportation.
And advocates pointed to what they view as a broader problem: a backwards mindset that fails to see how cycling benefits the environment, health and people who can't afford cars. Until then, Cronin says he and other activists will continue to be squeaky wheels. — Damian Guevara
Showing 1-7 of 7
I approve of bike lanes on surface roads: helps the cyclists get the h*** out of my way! :-D
I can think of two reasons not to put bike lanes on new freeways, however: fast vehicle speeds and big trucks!
And if you do put bike lanes on freeways, put a permanent barrier between the bicycle lanes and the other lanes so the big trucks won't make the cyclists go splat!
FHWA has lent support to state departments of transportation in 30 other cases where fully separated bike and pedestrian lanes were added to highway bridges. Check out this site for some really amazing examples
http://mobikefed.org/2006/05/bicycle-paths…
It won't matter if the state built bike lanes. Look at the metroparks - they built bike & walk paths & the bicyclists still ride on the narrow 2 lane parkway. I feel that if special lanes are built for cicyclists they should be ticketed for being on the roads & not on their pathways. No pity shown here for bicyclists.
When cyclists start paying something akin to the gas taxes I pay, I'll be more concerned.
As well; why add more weight to a bridge when it is clearly weight that causes bridges to crumble over the years?
The whole 'cyclists should pay gas taxes, and road taxes' argument doesn't really make sense if the cyclist in question, of which are many, and I am one as well, also own cars and simply choose not to drive them.
Jimster, cyclists may not have to pay gas tax, but they work a lot harder to get from place to place. If cyclists have it so good why don't you ditch your car?
Also, I have a car. I pay gas taxes. I would still like to be able to easily walk or bike from Tremont to downtown. This bridge path wouldn't just be for bike commuters, it would create a pedestrian gateway between two major Cleveland centers. Like SK said bikers and drivers are not neccessarily two different groups of people. For example, a person who lives in Tremont may drive to Independence for work, but want to bike into downtown on the weekend.
and mpetrie... check out bike/pedestrian paths on other highway bridges. They are completely seperate from the road. There would be practially no safety concern there. Bikes, of course, are not allowed on highways and no one is suggesting that.
Comments (7) RSS