Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
I appreciate this timely article and the depth that Jack Neely provides in regard to this very important structure. However, given that nuance is often everything, I thought I would take the time to comment and provide clarification on one small section.
While I am correctly quoted in the article I do have a bit of a quarrel with the paraphrase that precedes the discussion of traffic counts - "Lyons says the city accepted TDOT’s recommendation to widen the bridge to six lanes." In this case Jack's construction of my intent was a bit off. I was careful in the interview to avoid discussion of any specific design of the bridge including any reference to the number of lanes, which I never recall even coming up in explicit terms. I responded to a tangentially related question by indicating that I was not in a position to challenge TDOT's projected future traffic volume and it was not a city goal to use the bridge as a device to slow down traffic.
I understand the flexibility that authors must use to construct an article and understand the inference that Mr. Neely apparently drew, but, given the discussion of the bridge design, including the public discussion of providing for bicycles, I want to make it very clear that I never had any intention of communicating that I, or the City, had "accepted" any final design at this time. Thanks again for the excellent article and for the opportunity to comment.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.