Bikeboard

bikeboard@lists.bikelover.org

2521 discussions

Meeting is next Thursday
by Ryan Post 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

Gunnar asked me to clarify that the BB meeting is next Thursday. I suspect that's the date change Aira was referring to, but I had forgotten myself. So, now everyone can do the social ride at White Park this evening at 6:30, or hangout with Aira. Ryan

3 2

Re: [Bikeboard] aira absent tonight
by Aira Loren Burkhart 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

Nevermind, folks. I forgot about the date change. aira On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Frank Gmeindl <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net>wrote: > I believe the BB meeting is next Thursday, June 9. > > > > On Jun 2, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Aira Loren Burkhart <airaloren(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I will be absent tonight. I will be attending the Marcellus Meeting > tonight at Skyview Elementary. > > > > aira > > _______________________________________________ > > Bikeboard mailing list > > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >

1 0

aira absent tonight
by Aira Loren Burkhart 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

I will be absent tonight. I will be attending the Marcellus Meeting tonight at Skyview Elementary. aira

1 0

Fwd: Re: FWD: RE: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure
by Director 27 May '11

27 May '11

Good morning, Just realized that I sent this message to Butch, and meant to send it to the entire board. Nick -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] FWD: RE: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:01:20 -0400 From: Director <director(a)positivespin.org> Organization: Positive Spin, Inc To: Graber, Stephen <sggraber(a)hsc.wvu.edu> Butch, Actually the situation may be better than it would have been but it isn't nearly as good as you infer. My livelihood depends on being able to get back and forth across the lake during the day on an irregular schedule. I've had to adapt by means that put me in legal jeopardy. There's no guarantee that the 3 weeks is accurate, or that there won't be other closures in the future. The fact that DOH wouldn't even consider allowing bikes on I68 and that they weren't aware of their obligation to accommodate cyclists are further indications that WV will retain its ranking as the 50th most bike friendly state. The fact that so few local riders were aware (or cared) about our rights was discouraging to me. My interest is in making bikes effective transportation for everyone, and protecting the rights of everyone to equal road access. If this is all the effectiveness, encouragement or support I can get, it may be time for me to move to a different state where I can get better results for the time and effort I put in. If you think I should stay then I'd like to see a little more activism from all of you who use the roads for cycling. I know you're all busy and biking is mostly just your way to blow off steam, but if you want your rights to the road to continue or improve it's going to take some effort. If this didn't get you up in arms, what will it take? Nick On 5/25/2011 11:01 AM, Graber, Stephen wrote: > You should all feel good about the work you've been doing. I'll bet just 3 - 5 years ago there would have been no accomodation. Three weeks will be painful, but liveable. Look how long the trail's going to be down :( > ------------------------------------------- > Stephen G. Graber > Biochem& Mol Pharmacology > PO Box 9142, HSN-3122 > West Virginia University > Morgantown, WV 26506-9142 > phone: 304-293-2305 > > ------ _0 > ------ _ \<,_ > ---- (*)/ (*) > ________________________________________ > From: bikeboard-bounces(a)cheat.org [bikeboard-bounces(a)cheat.org] On Behalf Of director [director(a)positivespin.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:59 AM > To: Bike Board > Subject: [Bikeboard] FWD: RE: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure > > Good morning, > After meeting with the DOH (Fred Shoukry) to discuss bike alternatives while 857 is under construction, I sent this message to Bryan Radabaugh summarizing the results of the meeting. Long story short, the old bridge will stay open until the new one is up (one-lane only) as soon as they are done removing the utilities from the old bridge - in about 3 weeks. They won't allow bikes on I68 so I don't have a practical way to get to work until then. I'll continue using an impractical one, which I won't discuss on the grounds that it may incriminate me. Thought you might be interested in the DOT link that specifies the DOH's responsibilities to accommodate cyclists. > Nick > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "director"<director(a)positivespin.org> > Reply-To:<director(a)positivespin.org> > Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:53:36 -0400 > > Bryan, > Thanks for following up on this. Yes, Frank Gmeindl and I met yesterday at 2pm with Fred at the Marilla Park office and we talked for about an hour. Fred informed us that the construction contractor has promised to re-open the bridge to one-lane traffic for the duration of the project (expected to be about a year) after they complete the current work of moving the utilities from the old bridge. > > This is obviously good news and I appreciate the efforts of all parties to bring it about, however it still left me with the question of what I do until then. As I've stated before, I run a Morgantown non-profit business (Positive Spin, a sustainable transportation advocacy) that depends on my ability to get from home to work on an irregular and unpredictable schedule. Fred's best suggested alternative was for me to use the Mountain Line bus, which runs at 90 min intervals from 7am to 5pm. I was already aware of this alternative, and have been using it when possible but it rarely is. He offered to see if they can extend their schedule to run later, but I responded that I don't think that will offer any advantage in my situation. > > Fred stated that the WVDOH will not allow bicycles on I68, so it is evident to me that there is no alternative that can be put in place before the old bridge re-opens. I apologize if expressing my transportation needs has led to any hard feelings. I will continue to commute as I have been. However, in future situations I hope that the WVDOH will honor their statutory obligation to accommodate bicyclists as cited in the following DOT link: > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm > (During the meeting Fred indicated that he was unaware of these statutes and asked me to send them to him > When these statutes are followed bicycle accommodation can be put in place before construction begins. It is my sincere hope that they will be in the future. Please let Fred know that I appreciate the sincere effort and substantial time he put into finding a workable solution. The fact that none was possible is not a reflection on him or me personally, but rather the fact that bicycles were not considered early enough in the planning process. I hope that will be different in the future. > > I don't have an email address for Mr. Shoukry so that I could cc him directly. Please pass this on to him if possible. > Thank you > Nick Hein > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Radabaugh, Bryan L"<Bryan.L.Radabaugh(a)wv.gov> > Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:05:37 -0400 > >> I believe Fred was meeting with you and/or Frank Gmeindl today, please >> let me know if this was the case. >> >> Bryan Radabaugh >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: director [mailto:director@positivespin.org] >> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 12:24 PM >> To: Radabaugh, Bryan L >> Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Ice's Ferry Bridge closure >> >> Bryan, >> Just wanted to check in to see when I can expect to be able to bike from >> my home in Lakeview to Morgantown again since 857 is closed. I don't >> own a car and commute on an irregular schedule that doesn't lend itself >> to bus or carpooling. It's been 3 weeks since I first asked for an >> alternative route, which should have been taken care of before >> construction began. I apologize if I seem impatient, but this isn't >> really something I can wait for. There is currently no practical >> alternative but to use I68. Although it is technically legal for me to >> bike on the Interstate if there is no practical alternative, I'm >> reluctant to do so until I know that law enforcement is aware of this >> technicality. What should I do while I wait for your decision? >> >> Thanks for all you're doing, >> Nick Hein >> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >> From: "Radabaugh, Bryan L"<Bryan.L.Radabaugh(a)wv.gov> >> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:16:33 -0400 >> >>> Fred Shoukry is going to contact some other individuals that have >>> contacted us about this situation and will contact Mr. Gmeindl as well >>> prior to setting up a meeting to look at potential solutions to this >>> problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bryan Radabaugh >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Frank Gmeindl [mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net] >>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:15 AM >>> To: Bill Austin; Radabaugh, Bryan L; Damien Davis; >>> tmoore(a)cityofmorgantown.org; Roy Nutter >>> Cc: Bicycle Board >>> Subject: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure >>> >>> >>> >>> Gentlemen, >>> >>> >>> >>> What provision is being made for bicyclists to drive from Cheat Lake to >>> Morgantown during the closure and replacement of Ice's Ferry Bridge? >>> According to this morning's Dominion Post, the detour route is I-68 >> from >>> which bicycles are prohibited. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank D. Gmeindl >>> Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board >>> LCI #1703 >>> 491 WilsonAvenue >>> Morgantown, WV 26501 >>> 304-376-0446 >>> Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Nick Hein LCI# 1705 >> Director, Positive Spin >> 803 East Brockway Ave >> Morgantown, WV >> ph 304-276-0213 >> -- >> > > -- > Nick Hein LCI# 1705 > Director, Positive Spin > 803 East Brockway Ave > Morgantown, WV > ph 304-276-0213 > -- > > > -- > Nick Hein LCI# 1705 > Director, Positive Spin > 803 East Brockway Ave > Morgantown, WV > ph 304-276-0213 > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3659 - Release Date: 05/25/11 > -- Nick Hein Director, Positive Spin 803 East Brockway Ave Morgantown, WV 265605 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3662 - Release Date: 05/26/11

4 5

Breaking the "deal" between motorists and bicyclists
by Frank Gmeindl 27 May '11

27 May '11

Bob Shanteau, PhD, PE has decades of traffic engineering experience and accomplishments crafting the traffic laws that we have today. In the somewhat lengthy essay below, he explains much better than I have how cyclists have come to have to battle for our right to the road and how some bicycling advocates can be unwittingly working to lose that right. In the essay below, he is responding to 5 questions asked by another member of a group to which I belong, bicycledriving(a)googlegroups.com. Frank > 1) Bob, is it fair to say that you think cyclists should never share the road when it is safe to do so, or are you okay with sharing the lane and road when it is safe for you to do so? By "share the road", I assume you mean moving to the right edge of the roadway or on a paved shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass. In general terms, I believe that bicyclists should "share the road" whenever a driver of a vehicle in similar circumstances should. The problem is that, for all practical purposes, there are no drivers of vehicles in circumstances that are similar to what a bicyclist faces. The dominant vehicle on the roads today is the motor vehicle, virtually all of which can travel at freeway speeds. As a result, people treat every road as though it were a freeway, where the rule is, "if you can't keep up, you don't belong." Since bicyclists usually can't keep up, they are expected to stay out of the way. Bicyclists are narrow enough that they can sulk along at the edge of the road, out of the way of faster traffic. It's as bicyclists had a "deal" with motorists: Motorists will tolerate bicyclists on the roads as long as bicyclists stay out of their way. I recall a conversation with a CHP Lieutenant a few years ago who said that he would stop anyone going slower than other traffic for impeding, and anyone going faster than the speed limit for speeding. It is a common belief that the roads are safer and more orderly if everyone goes at about the same speed. And a few months ago, during a meeting of the California Statewide Bicycle Task Force, a CHP Captain said that he was not willing to accept revising California's impeding traffic law, which now applies to all drivers (including bicyclists), so that it applied only to drivers of motor vehicles, as in the Uniform Vehicle Code and the traffic laws of about 44 other states. So it should come as no surprise that almost no one knows how to treat a vehicle that is traveling slower than other traffic, and almost everyone believes that bicyclists acting as drivers of vehicles would disrupt the safe and orderly flow of traffic. When I asked Beck about how the rules of the road apply to a slow motorcyclist, he answered: > motorcycle and have little concern for the rights of motorcyclists. i > suspect smv, low cc motor vehicles have fairly strict road use > requirements in CA far stricter than the cyclist allowances, Actually, the provision granting motorcyclists to use of a full lane is in the Uniform Vehicle Code, but not the California Vehicle Code. The CHP FAQ <http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html> says that motorcyclists can split lanes to pass slower traffic, but says nothing about whether slower motorcyclists must move to the right edge of the right lane to allow faster traffic to pass. (A shoulder is not part of the roadway, and vehicles are allowed only on roadways in California.) Beck's comment about slow moving low cc motor vehicles having stricter road use requirements in CA than bicycles is true. That is but one more symptom of freeway thinking carried over to conventional streets and highways. It is one more manifestation of the belief, "if you can't keep up, you don't belong." Bicycles are just about the only slow moving vehicles (devices in CA) on the roads today. That is because bicycles were originally recognized as vehicles and organizations such as the LAW have, for the most part, been able to fight off challenges to the right of bicyclists to use the roads. But now that status is being challenged by well intentioned people who believe that, for their own good, bicyclists should be treated as something other than drivers of vehicles. If these people get their way, we may very well see bicyclists deprived of the right to use the roads as drivers of vehicles. With that introduction and the proviso that I am not a lawyer, I will now attempt to answer your questions. In your questions, you do not specify whether the road in question has lanes or not. Originally, all roads were unlaned, and on such roads the law is that drivers of slow moving vehicles, including bicyclists, must drive as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (CVC 21654(a) and UVC 11-301(b)) On a laned road, it has been the law since the 1930's that drivers (and bicyclists) proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (CVC 21654(a) and UVC 11-301(b)) California has a law requiring drivers of slow moving vehicles on two-lane roads to take the next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following. (CVC 21656) > 2) Should mature, adult cyclists ride safely right to share the road if safe when faster traffic is present? At the start of a recent meeting of the Statewide Bicycle Task Force, the same CHP Lieutenant talked about how everyone on the road needs to be courteous. And the same CHP Captain complained about a group of bicyclists on a two lane road in the Napa Valley were delaying him and a bunch of other motorists. Alan Wachtel, Jim Baross and I explained that if there were 5 or more vehicles following, those bicyclists were required to take the next safe turnout to allow faster traffic to pass. Apparently that was news to the CHP Captain, and if we had been able to ask the bicyclists, it probably would have been news to them, too. To answer your question, I believe that a bicyclist on a two lane road has the same duty as the driver of a vehicle to take the next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following. On a multilane road, I believe that a bicyclist has the same duty as the driver of a vehicle to use the right lane. Consider someone driving a fully loaded truck, a recreational vehicle or an old VW bus slowly climbing a steep upgrade. On a two lane road, that driver is required to use the next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following (although that law is honored more in the breach than in the observance). On a multilane road, that driver is required to use the right lane. In fact, there is even an exception in the impeding traffic law for grades. (CVC 22400) As a courtesy, some drivers of slow moving vehicles, particularly on two lane roads, will drive on a shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass (if the shoulder is paved and the pavement is in good shape). In California, bicyclists are explicitly allowed to operate on shoulders (CVC 21650(g)), and as a courtesy, that is generally where bicyclists ride if the shoulder is paved and the pavement is in good shape, even on multilane roads. But the law does not require bicyclists to use, in Andy Clarke's words, "a perfectly rideable shoulder." Otherwise, courts would be in the position of second guessing bicyclists about when the shoulder was perfectly rideable. It would also be a denial of the right of bicyclists to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles, which is something that groups like the LAW have been defending since the 1880's. > 3) is the notion of road sharing somehow beneath vehicular cyclists? You didn't say, but I will assume that you mean sharing a lane side by side with faster traffic. Drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to use the right lane. As a courtesy, I may decide to ride my bicycle on a shoulder if it is wide enough and the pavement is in good shape. Particularly on two lane roads, turning out every so often to allow faster traffic to pass is an expected action of the driver of any slow moving vehicle, including a bicycle. > 4) is your operating mantra One bike, the entire lane, no matter how wide, always? If we have a "mantra," it is that bicyclists should have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles (CVC 21200 and UVC 11-1202) We object to laws that micromanage the position of bicyclists on the road (CVC 21202 and UVC 11-1205) or that require bicyclists to use bike lanes (CVC 21208) or sidepaths. We believe such bicyclist-specific laws were enacted not for the safety of bicyclists, but to facilitate the movement of faster traffic. As such, we believe such laws discriminate against bicyclists. I helped write the exceptions contained in CVC 21202 and CVC 21208 in the early 1970's. At the time, there were no exceptions in CVC 21202 and there was no state law at all regarding bike lanes. I recall a meeting with the aide to the state senator who was authoring the legislation, and he said that the legislature would not go along with a bill without bicyclist-specific restrictions, and including the exceptions was the only way to prevent more onerous bicyclist-specific restrictions. I have since come to realize that the reason the legislature would not have gone along with having no bicycle-specific restrictions was the common lack of understanding among the public about how drivers of slow moving vehicles in general (and bicyclists in particular) should act and be treated. Most people believe that because it is usually physically possible for bicyclists to share the right hand lane side by side with passing vehicles of typical width (5 or 6 feet), that, out of common courtesy, bicyclists should always share the lane, even with vehicles of maximum legal width (8 1/2 feet by CVC 35100). If you watch how bicyclists behave on the roads, you will see that most of them engage in "edge riding" behavior. They ride in door zones, pass right turning vehicles on the right, and weave in and out of parked cars. They are staying out of the way, just as the "deal" with motorists dictates. And the penalty for bicyclists who violate that "deal" by getting in the way? They must be taught their place, of course. Thus the honking and shouting and other aggressive behavior that a minority of motorists subject on bicyclists who dare to violate the "deal" by operating their bicycles as drivers of vehicles. On the other hand, it's amazing to experience how most drivers respond to bicyclists acting as drivers. They simply treat such bicyclists as fellow drivers. Based on viewing old films of traffic, the "deal" between motorists and bicyclists apparently existed from the time when motor vehicles started to dominate the roads. It was formalized in 1944 when the original version of UVC 11-1205 was incorporated into the Uniform Vehicle Code and subsequently into the vehicle codes of most states. It required bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable on the roadway, without exception, as though bicycles were always slow moving and all roads were unlaned. At the same time, though, lane lines were being painted on more and more roads. Apparently the authors of UVC 11-1205 wanted bicyclists not to have the same lane use rights as drivers of vehicles. That is still the common belief today, despite the exceptions that were added in the 1970's. Things did not work out the way that we who wrote the exceptions hoped it would. Almost all bicyclists still engage in edge behavior or ride on sidewalks, and almost all motorists still expect bicyclists to stay out of their way. When faced with a narrow right hand lane with no shoulder, most people still say that there is no room on the road for bicyclists and that there is a need to create room with a bike lane or sidepath. Without special facilities, we see that bicyclists ride at the right edge, even if it means riding in the gutter or in the door zone. Most people behave as if they are still going along with the "deal" between motorists and bicyclists. Advocates of bicycle driving, on the other hand, want to break that "deal". We see a future when once again bicyclists act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. We want it to be OK for bicyclists to get in the way of cars. And the first step toward that future is repeal of the laws that discriminate against bicyclists so that legally, bicyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. Not more, not less. That will require educating legislators that bicyclists can and should be treated as drivers of vehicles. Subsequent action includes changes in highway design standards so that freeway style features are eliminated from streets and highways on which bicycles are allowed. And bicycles are detected at all traffic actuated signals. And changes are made in driver education so that motorists learn to deal with bicyclists using the full lane. And youngsters are taught how to operate their bicycles as drivers of vehicles with full lane use rights. And law enforcement officers and judges are educated about when bicyclists and motorists are operating within the law. Our biggest hurdle is getting other people to recognize that the world would be a better place if the "deal" were broken. We believe that bicyclists would be better off, but a lot of bicycle advocates disagree. They think that bicyclists would be better off instead of breaking the "deal", bicyclists were provided with segregated facilities. Most other people see nothing wrong with the "deal", so they go along with the segregated facilities. Who will prevail? Well, there are a lot more people who want to keep the "deal" in place than not. But that does not prevent us from pointing out the advantages to bicyclists of breaking the "deal". Bob Shanteau P.S. by Frank Gmeindl: CHP = California Highway Control (Bob is in CA) CVC = California Vehicle Code UVC = Uniform Vehicle Code: a national guide. States may choose parts to implement. WV has chosen not to include the exceptions to the "Far to the Right" provision that the UVC offers but PA and MD have. In WV, bicycles are not considered to be vehicles. LAW = League of American Wheelmen (now LAB, League of American Bicyclists)

2 1

Fwd: Additional information on the 2011 Bicycle Friendly State ranking and grades
by Frank Gmeindl 25 May '11

25 May '11

Bicycle Board, This year, WV ranked 50th again in the LAB Bicycle Friendly State competition. We got F's in all categories. Apparently, LAB gets their info from the State Bicycling coordinator. As far as I know, that was Bill Robinson but "Bicycle Coordinator" was never his real job (he was state "Trails Coordinator") and last I heard he's not doing that anymore. I don't know if anything about Morgantown was considered. (I would have expected to get the message below from Bill or maybe directly from Jeff Peel but instead, Dennis Strawn from Charleston forwarded it to me.) I can't help but wonder what rank WV would have received if Morgantown had submitted a Bicycle Friendly Community award application last year. The attached workbook has several worksheets. I found the last one most interesting as it shows many $millions were available to WV but not used. This is an opportunity that Morgantown should pursue. Frank > From: Jeff Peel [mailto:Jeff@bikeleague.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:14 AM > To: Jeff Peel > Cc: Andy Clarke; Bill Nesper > Subject: Additional information on the 2011 Bicycle Friendly State ranking and grades > > Many of you have asked to learn more about the process behind the League’s Bicycle Friendly State annual Rankings and the associated grades in each of the six categories. Please find the attached spreadsheet with each state’s ranking for the last 4 years, the 2011 ranking and category grades for each state, scores and grades per category for each state, obligation rates for key federal aid funding programs based on state DOT’s FMIS reports to FHWA and information on each state’s contribution to the 2010 transportation rescissions authorized by Congress. > > For some, this information should answer your questions on your state’s good or poor performance in a given area, particularly under the Infrastructure category which houses many funding related questions. For others, it may bring up new questions which the League is happy to answer, or at the very least create dialogue around. This in fact is the underlying reason for the Bicycle Friendly State program- to shine a light on the states’ role in creating a more bicycle-friendly America, and work collaboratively to improve any shortcomings. > > Also creating some confusion is whom this process evaluates- state agencies, state bike coordinators, law enforcement, advocates or legislators. The answer is all of them, but none of them individually. Each of these groups plays a significant role in accommodating and encouraging better bicycling within a state. States that consistently perform well and rank highly have each of these groups working together. This should not be seen simply as an evaluation of a state’s bicycle coordinator despite their role in completing our questionnaire (or State DOT for that matter). These hard-working professionals are too often under-appreciated within their own departments or are the first to be cut in department down-sizing. Poor marks should draw attention to the need for further support of state coordinators, not less. > > The generally poor grade for infrastructure (very few states got anything better than a F) is disappointing to everyone, including us at the League. The bottom line is that states didn’t have high obligation rates for core bicycle funding programs such as Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes; they spent virtually nothing out of their STP, HSIP and CMAQ programs. Also, states sent a disproportionate percentage of TE and CMAQ funds back to Washington DC as part of the 2010 rescission. That’s not good enough, especially now. With cycling rates higher than ever and gas prices continuing to rise, states should be spending more, not less on bicycling. Despite shrinking transportation budgets, the cost-effectivenessand job creation record of bicycling projects means states can’t afford not to invest in bicycling. > > The League is not content to just give states failing grades for poor spending records. Through our partnership with the Alliance for Biking and Walking, the Advocacy Advance program has released best practice reports on many under-utilized funding programs and will be conduction Action 2020 workshops throughout the country, training advocates, agency staff and elected leaders alike how to maximize the federal transportation dollars and the state, regional and local level. If you are interested in hosting one of these workshops, please visit AdvocacyAdvance.org for more information. > > > __________________________ > Jeff Peel > State & Local Advocacy Coordinator > League of American Bicyclists > 1612 K St. N.W., Suite #510 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202-621-5445 > www.bikeleague.org > > > This e-mail and any attachments to it are confidential and are intended solely for use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission. The views expressed in this e-mail message do not necessarily represent the views of Highmark Inc., its subsidiaries, or affiliates.

2 1

FWD: RE: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure
by director 25 May '11

25 May '11

Good morning, After meeting with the DOH (Fred Shoukry) to discuss bike alternatives while 857 is under construction, I sent this message to Bryan Radabaugh summarizing the results of the meeting. Long story short, the old bridge will stay open until the new one is up (one-lane only) as soon as they are done removing the utilities from the old bridge - in about 3 weeks. They won't allow bikes on I68 so I don't have a practical way to get to work until then. I'll continue using an impractical one, which I won't discuss on the grounds that it may incriminate me. Thought you might be interested in the DOT link that specifies the DOH's responsibilities to accommodate cyclists. Nick ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "director" <director(a)positivespin.org> Reply-To: <director(a)positivespin.org> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:53:36 -0400 Bryan, Thanks for following up on this. Yes, Frank Gmeindl and I met yesterday at 2pm with Fred at the Marilla Park office and we talked for about an hour. Fred informed us that the construction contractor has promised to re-open the bridge to one-lane traffic for the duration of the project (expected to be about a year) after they complete the current work of moving the utilities from the old bridge. This is obviously good news and I appreciate the efforts of all parties to bring it about, however it still left me with the question of what I do until then. As I've stated before, I run a Morgantown non-profit business (Positive Spin, a sustainable transportation advocacy) that depends on my ability to get from home to work on an irregular and unpredictable schedule. Fred's best suggested alternative was for me to use the Mountain Line bus, which runs at 90 min intervals from 7am to 5pm. I was already aware of this alternative, and have been using it when possible but it rarely is. He offered to see if they can extend their schedule to run later, but I responded that I don't think that will offer any advantage in my situation. Fred stated that the WVDOH will not allow bicycles on I68, so it is evident to me that there is no alternative that can be put in place before the old bridge re-opens. I apologize if expressing my transportation needs has led to any hard feelings. I will continue to commute as I have been. However, in future situations I hope that the WVDOH will honor their statutory obligation to accommodate bicyclists as cited in the following DOT link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm (During the meeting Fred indicated that he was unaware of these statutes and asked me to send them to him When these statutes are followed bicycle accommodation can be put in place before construction begins. It is my sincere hope that they will be in the future. Please let Fred know that I appreciate the sincere effort and substantial time he put into finding a workable solution. The fact that none was possible is not a reflection on him or me personally, but rather the fact that bicycles were not considered early enough in the planning process. I hope that will be different in the future. I don't have an email address for Mr. Shoukry so that I could cc him directly. Please pass this on to him if possible. Thank you Nick Hein ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Radabaugh, Bryan L" <Bryan.L.Radabaugh(a)wv.gov> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:05:37 -0400 >I believe Fred was meeting with you and/or Frank Gmeindl today, please >let me know if this was the case. > >Bryan Radabaugh > > >-----Original Message----- >From: director [mailto:director@positivespin.org] >Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 12:24 PM >To: Radabaugh, Bryan L >Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Ice's Ferry Bridge closure > >Bryan, >Just wanted to check in to see when I can expect to be able to bike from >my home in Lakeview to Morgantown again since 857 is closed. I don't >own a car and commute on an irregular schedule that doesn't lend itself >to bus or carpooling. It's been 3 weeks since I first asked for an >alternative route, which should have been taken care of before >construction began. I apologize if I seem impatient, but this isn't >really something I can wait for. There is currently no practical >alternative but to use I68. Although it is technically legal for me to >bike on the Interstate if there is no practical alternative, I'm >reluctant to do so until I know that law enforcement is aware of this >technicality. What should I do while I wait for your decision? > >Thanks for all you're doing, >Nick Hein > > > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: "Radabaugh, Bryan L" <Bryan.L.Radabaugh(a)wv.gov> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:16:33 -0400 > >>Fred Shoukry is going to contact some other individuals that have >>contacted us about this situation and will contact Mr. Gmeindl as well >>prior to setting up a meeting to look at potential solutions to this >>problem. >> >> >> >>Bryan Radabaugh >> >> >> >>From: Frank Gmeindl [mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net] >>Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:15 AM >>To: Bill Austin; Radabaugh, Bryan L; Damien Davis; >>tmoore(a)cityofmorgantown.org; Roy Nutter >>Cc: Bicycle Board >>Subject: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure >> >> >> >>Gentlemen, >> >> >> >>What provision is being made for bicyclists to drive from Cheat Lake to >>Morgantown during the closure and replacement of Ice's Ferry Bridge? >>According to this morning's Dominion Post, the detour route is I-68 >from >>which bicycles are prohibited. >> >> >> >>Frank D. Gmeindl >>Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board >>LCI #1703 >>491 WilsonAvenue >>Morgantown, WV 26501 >>304-376-0446 >>Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >-- >Nick Hein LCI# 1705 >Director, Positive Spin >803 East Brockway Ave >Morgantown, WV >ph 304-276-0213 >-- > -- Nick Hein LCI# 1705 Director, Positive Spin 803 East Brockway Ave Morgantown, WV ph 304-276-0213 -- -- Nick Hein LCI# 1705 Director, Positive Spin 803 East Brockway Ave Morgantown, WV ph 304-276-0213 --

3 3

Ice's Ferry Bridge
by Frank Gmeindl 20 May '11

20 May '11

Bicycle Board Members, At his invitation, Fouad Shakry of WVDOH and I will drive out to Ice's Ferry Bridge tomorrow morning to discuss solutions to the current problem of its being closed to bicycles from now through Oct. 2012. I don't have any solutions so if you have some, please give them to me ASAP. Frank D. Gmeindl Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board LCI #1703 491 WilsonAvenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

1 1

Fwd: Storage
by Frank Gmeindl 20 May '11

20 May '11

Parking Committee Members, I met today with Chris Fletcher, Morgantown Director Planning and Development to discuss expanding 1349.08 PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS. to apply beyond the B-4 district. He will arrange for the Bicycle Board to conduct an interactive workshop with the Planning Commission tentatively July 14. The purpose of the workshop will be to educate the Planning Commission on bicycle storage and to craft an approach to achieving it efficiently and effectively that will be acceptable to all stakeholders including real estate developers. Who will take the lead in this? FYI, we discussed Beech View and looked at the building plans. The plans include a couple multi-bike bike racks in the parking garage. I suggested that something like the Mountaineer Station bike storage room would be preferable. We agreed that a chain link fence surrounding each bike rack with a lock that residents could open with their apartment card swipe key could reduce the likelihood of vandalism of the bikes. We did not settle on how or if this idea would be presented to the builder however, Chris said they have been very easy to work with. Frank Begin forwarded message: > From: Frank Gmeindl <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net> > Date: May 16, 2011 10:05:15 AM EDT > To: Don Spencer <dspencer36(a)comcast.net>, chip wamsley <chipwamsley(a)gmail.com>, Hugh.Kierig(a)mail.wvu.edu, Gunnar Shogren <gshogren(a)gmail.com>, Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org>, Alice Vernon <vernon.mail(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Elizabeth Shogren <elizabeth.schauer(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Storage > > Parking Committee Members, > > On August 6, 2007, we sent to Chris Fletcher (then City Planner) the attached recommendation for bicycle storage in multi-family dwellings. That recommendation became Morgantown ordinance 1349.08 PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS. > > Unfortunately, our recommendation was for multi-family dwellings in areas zoned B-4 and we recently learned that only downtown is zoned B-4. So, that ordinance does not apply to multi-family dwellings such as the new BeechView and any other buildings around town that aren't in areas zoned B-4. > > Don Spencer has met with Chris Fletcher to try to get the areas expanded. Chris doesn't want to do it. He does not like the standards in B-4 and does not feel that he has adequate justification to address changing standards for bike “parking” in multi-family construction outside of B-4 in a facility like Beech View. Don explained to him that the issue is not just parking but also bike storage. It is not safe to leave a $500 bike in an open garage night after night, week after week. There needs to be other lock-up storage provided or else hooks in bed rooms, etc. > > Chris also feels that his office is being put in the middle between the Bike Board and the developers. He says that the Bicycle Board should be doing the education of the Planning Commission members and for the developers on the matter if the Bicycle Board feels strongly about the importance of the parking. > > Personally, I think that being in the middle between the BB and developers is exactly where Chris should be. The BB advises the TC and the TC advises the City Manager who is Chris' boss. I agree that we should educate Chris but not that we should get between him and the developers. > > I would like to arrange for the Parking Committee to meet with Chris Fletcher. I will set up a Doodle to find a date. Maybe waiting for the June BB meeting would be a better idea. You tell me. > > I will meet with Chris this week. My desired outcome for our meeting is that we have an agreement that the BB will educate him and the Planning Commission on bicycle storage by presenting a compelling case based on successes in other cities. I think this could be quite fun because Ken Martis and Jenny Selin are Planning Commission members. From working with Ken on the TC, I expect he would be very enthusiastic about our presentation and we already know that Jenny is on our side since she worked so hard with us to get the downtown parking rings done. > > ASAP, I would like to get prepared for the education meeting with the Planning Commission. if you have any bicycle storage standards, best practices, examples, case studies, etc. that would substantiate our recommendation, could you please send it to me? I will upload them to the Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/home#/Public/BicycleStorage::: I remember that we had good stuff when we made the attached recommendation but I no longer have any of that stuff. I only remember that I found some stuff on Pgh. I will search for that again and put it in the Dropbox as well. > > Frank D. Gmeindl > Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board > LCI #1703 > 491 WilsonAvenue > Morgantown, WV 26501 > 304-376-0446 > Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles > > > > > >

1 0

June Meeting
by Gunnar Shogren 20 May '11

20 May '11

Good morning Bicycle Board members. Frank will be on vacation during June, more specifically for the June 2nd meeting. I will also not be in town June 2nd. Betsy and I will be making our way out to Kansas for a 200 mile gravel-grinder race. We will however be back by the following Thursday, the 9th. If we can get a quorum (8) of members that can attend a Bicycle Board meeting on June 9, then I will chair it, otherwise we will have to cancel the meeting, something I would rather not do. Please reply to me/us as soon as you can. Thanks, and have a nice day further, gunnar.

1 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Bikeboard