Chip, Jim,
If I'm going to get this letter in front of the TC in time for Wednesday's meeting, I am going to submit it today as attached.
I did not include Jim's recommended changes but it does include earlier changes recommended by Derek seconded by Chip and recommended by Jenny and by Don Spencer. I could not figure out how to work in Chip's recommendation about Jim's since adding "safe alternative convenient option" begs for additional explanation of "alternative to what?". Since Chip was the only BB member to contribute guidance, I assume the remaining BB members were OK with it as it was.
If anybody can't live with this, please reply ASAP as I will submit something in time for the TC secretary to have it first thing tomorrow morning.
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
On 11/25/2009 10:01 AM, Chip Wamsley wrote:
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:48:33 -0500
Frank et al,
safe alternative. . .convenient option. . .(combination of both?)
Chip
Jim,
I'm going to need guidance from other BB members to decide what to do with your comments and questions. Personally, I would answer your first question, no, and your second question, yes. What do other BB members think?
Of course, whether an option is "convenient" is a matter of subjective personal judgment. So is "safe", which you added.
I must say that Hugh's original draft said, "The lack of a *viable* option to connect these two areas discourages citizens from using alternative modes such as walking and bicycling...". Having cycled frequently through downtown Morgantown and Evansdale for 30 years and having walked happily between Evansdale and downtown at least twice daily for 3 years, I opined that doing so is viable. I suggested replacing "viable" with "convenient" and Hugh accepted the change.
Derek's change seconded by Chip was a simple grammatical improvement and thus easy to accept.
Jonathan's change to omit language was easy to incorporate because as he explained, it would have weakened our argument to get the boundaries defined and was in fact outside the scope of the decision made at the last BB meeting which did not include funding.
Jenny's change to add "water tower" to greenhouse for the destination clarified the destination which I understand is in the vicinity of these two landmarks.
I will change the letter to say whatever is the consensus of the BB members. I incorporated Derek's, Jonathan's and Jenny's changes because I judged, hopefully correctly, that if we had adequate discussion of those changes the BB members would have agreed by consensus to include them. I don't have that confidence with your recommended changes, indeed, you did not propose an alternative to "compelled", therefore I ask for guidance from the BB members.
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
On 11/23/2009 10:02 PM, jimrye_adelphia1@comcast.net wrote:
I am fine with sending the letter as is. However, I do raise a couple of concerns with the introductory sentence. IâEUR^(TM)m not certain that âEURoelack of a convenient option to connect these two areasâEUR? is entirely true. The PRT does connect these two campuses and is a convenient (and free) option to WVU students, faculty, and staff...except for those time periods that it is not running. Instead, would it be better to say something like âEURoelack of a safe and convenient infrastructure for non-motorized transit between these two campusesâEUR¦âEUR?? Additionally, at the end of the sentence it states âEURoecompelled to use cars to travel back and forth.âEUR? Many folks choose to use cars instead of riding the PRTâEUR¦is âEURoecompelledâEUR? the best word?
jimrye_adelphia1@comcast.net mailto:jimrye_adelphia1@comcast.net
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Gmeindl" fgmeindl@verizon.net To: "Jonathan Rosenbaum" freesource@cheat.org Cc: "Bicycle Board" bikeboard@cheat.org Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:28:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC
Bicycle Board Members,
I am still waiting to hear from
* Marilyn, * Jim, * Alice and * Janelon the Campus Connector letter to the Traffic Commission. Attached is a revision of the letter that incorporates changes suggested by Derek, Chip, Jenny and Jonathan. If anybody has any problem with it, please let me know.
Following is the status of responses to the original letter:
Response date Comments
- Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me
- Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur.
- Hugh Kierig 10-Nov
- Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well!
- Elizabeth Shogren 20-Nov gunnar concurred for Betsy
- Gunnar Shogren 20-Nov Betsy and I concur.
- Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov
- Marilyn Newcome
- Jonathan Rosenbaum 23-Nov The letter delivers a strong
argument... Change: "Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and the actual cost of the construction." to "The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality has always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners." 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon. 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! 12. Jim Rye 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 15. Alice Vernon 16. Janel Bedard
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
/On 11/23/2009 12:04 AM, Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
The letter delivers a strong argument, and I agree with Derek's improvement, however, there is one sentence that I am concerned about that may contribute to a leaky argument: Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and the actual cost of the construction. If you are reading the sentence in this fashion, it works fine: Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and obtaining the actual cost of the construction. About ten years ago when the City first visited this request the second argument become the reason for not pursuing the project. The costs were determined on the basis of a hand drawn map taking into consideration elevation and ADA requirements. Because there was never a formal study performed, the project was not given a fair opportunity. I would hate to see that happen again. At our CC meetings we targeted several methods that could provide funding, but none of that mattered in the absence of an actual route without any property barriers. Our purpose of this letter is not to make a vague statement establishing how costs are one of the major stumbling blocks of which we have no hard data about, but rather to ask the City to formally establish where the CC route can exist in regards to private properties that the CC would have to cross. So I would like to see the word "obtaining" added to the concerned sentence above or even better have the sentence reworded as below: The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality has always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners. Finally, when considering what the real costs of the CC are, listen to what Bill Reger-Nash said in regards to the net gains it will have on human health: "The CC will have an unaccountable influence." -Jonathan Frank Gmeindl wrote: Bicycle Board Members, Thanks to Hugh for promptly writing subject letter. Thanks to Don D., Paul, Jake, Chet, Derek, Chip and Don S. for their concurrence or recommended improvements. As we agreed at the November meeting, I will deliver the letter to the Traffic Commission after everyone concurs. Following is a table that lists the responses. Derek's, Chip's and Don Spencer's comments can be addressed without BB discussion. In case it comes through illegible on your end, Betsy, gunnar, Marilyn, Jonathan, Jim, Alice, Janel, I'm waiting for your concurrence or comments. Member Response date Comments 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov Created the letter 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! 5. Elizabeth Shogren 6. Gunnar Shogren 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov Concur. 8. Marilyn Newcome 9. Jonathan Rosenbaum 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon. 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! 12. Jim Rye 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 15. Alice Vernon 16. Janel Bedard Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.orghttp://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard_______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard