I understand your perspective, however, I think there’s a limit to how hard you can push, before you just do damage.
I do agree that riding on I68 would be an awesome option. I’d personally ride it, just because it’s a nicer route to Cheat Lake than out to Tyrone and down, or conversely back up. The option was looked at, and I trust that there was a legitimate reason it was not chosen.
WV is NOT a bike friendly state. We have to work on getting cycling into more of a mainstream, and then we might be able to get something done that other cities who have a large cycling communities would think nothing of.
I cannot imagine the bridge will collapse. The contractor certainly doesn’t want to lose equipment into the lake, nor the hassle of having to work without a bridge to cross the water.
Just have to pick battles, and there’s plenty to choose from. I’m sure you’ll battle on.
From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Director
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:44 AM
To: bikeboard@cheat.org
Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] FWD: RE: Ice's Ferry Bridge closure
Good morning,
Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful replies, I'm sure there will be more but let me clear up something that I look at differently because I've lived in 5 of the 10 most bike friendly states.
You only have the rights that you stand up for. If you ignore them they will go away. If only 1 person stands up for them and everybody else just watches, they will still go away. The WV DOH is obligated to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians on any project that uses federal funds. That obligation holds whether it affects 1 cyclist or 100. Here again is the statutory basis of that obligation:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm
In bike friendly states this obligation is upheld because people stand up for it when they need it and others stand with them because they know that's what it takes to get results.
A few other items of information:
It isn't currently possible for cyclists and pedestrians to use the old bridge while the utility work is going on. There are truck and cranes on the bridge and at the approaches. As I mentioned, the utility work will be done in about 3 weeks. In the meantime I've been crossing before and after the workday, which makes for a pretty long day for me.
The reason I didn't get involved in this sooner is that the contractor was originally supposed to do all of the bridge and pier work first, leaving the roadway open, then do the approach and utility work last (about a year from now and I don't expect to be living out there then). When the contract was awarded the contractor surreptitiously declared that impossible, stating it would be necessary to close the bridge immediately. I only found out about this when I saw the closure sign go up.
Once the contract is awarded by DOH, the bridge and road become property of the contractor to do with as they please. They are under no obligation to provide passage to anyone unless it is specified in the contract. Consequently I am trespassing anytime I cross the bridge when the "road closed" signs are up. They have surveillance cameras up on the bridge (mostly to prevent theft and vandalism to their equipment) and could prosecute me at any time if the choose (although I've been given no indication that they intend to do so). If anyone tampers with their equipment, they'll probably take stronger measures to prevent unauthorized bridge crossing and I may be without a route again.
Considering the condition of the bridge, it may collapse before the new bridge is completed and then I'll also be without a route.
If either of these last 2 scenarios does occur, I hope you'll be willing to stand up for bike access to I68 - which will be the only practical alternative. I'd sure appreciate your support.
I may be the only person asking publicly for this access, but I doubt that I'm the only person needing it. Plenty of people who need things like this complain about it, but don't take effective action - either because they don't know how or don't have time. Don't wait until it's too late to act, like we did with fracking.
Thank you.
Nick
On 5/27/2011 9:03 AM, John Lozier wrote:
I gotta say, Nick and Ryan have it right on the substance, if the bridge is going to be there anyway it should be available for pedestrian and cycle use. How could DOH have even considered complete closure under these circumstances.
I am sorry to say, I see some unnecessary squabbles, rooted in personalities, in this case both these passionate folks who agree on so much.
DOH needs feet held to the fire. Bike Board should/could have been out front on this bridge business.
Thanks, Nick, for your consistency, I hope you and others can focus on substance and solutions.
No longer on the board, but still on the list, not riding as much as before, I remain ...
a booster of alternative transportation
John
On May 27, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Ryan Post wrote:
Once I realized the bridge would physically be there for the duration
of the construction, why wasn't a solution to just allow pedestrian
traffic on it? I can't imagine there's much more than a tripping
hazard on it during working hours?
I can understand disliking how WV looks down on cyclists, but that's
not going to change overnight and given the struggles in getting
people to ride in town, I think getting them to ride from Cheat into
town is a long ways off.
Although this bridge is a big deal for you, and a minor deal for some
weekend rec riders, we're limited in out matchsticks and kinda need to
burn them wisely.
Ryan
On May 27, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Director <director@positivespin.org> wrote:
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@positivespin.org>
Organization:
Positive Spin, Inc
To:
Graber, Stephen <sggraber@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: