Bikeboard

bikeboard@lists.bikelover.org

2521 discussions

Campus Connector
by Frank Gmeindl 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Ken, Damien, Attached is the Campus Connector map that I promised to give Damien at last night's Traffic Commission meeting. I hope you can read it. I scanned it from a paper copy. I will try to get the original electronic file for you. The map shows property boundaries and a potential Campus Connector route. Whose property the Campus Connector goes over will depend on a detailed design of the Connector. A detailed design has not been done. Concerning right of way, Greg Good says, "I'm pretty sure there is not a right-of-way the whole way through. The city has tried sporadically to list ROW'S and more importantly the official abandonment of ROWs. But I don't think the latter effort is totally up to date or systematically recorded." Jenny Selin says, " * Grant Street right-of-way goes (paper street) all the way to the WVU property line, except for a little corner right before the WVU property line. At the end of the day there is a little corner that the Saab's own that used to be part of the right of way for Grant Street. At some point this was conveyed to the Saabs. We would need permission to cross that piece of property, or purchase it, or arrange for a right of way (on the property downhill of Grant Street right-of-way) with the owners of Bent Tree Apartments. We could potentially follow Grant Street right of way, low on the hill, (remembering to resolve our little corner problem) continuing to the University line and then make switchbacks up the hill (on the university property) to the Water Tower and the WVU Greenhouse. * An additional concern is the washed-out part of the hillside at the beginning of the Grant paper street. It would be difficult but probably not impossible to build trail there. It would be an excellent first-step for an engineer to examine this section. The Grant paper street area we are talking about is below the WVU steam line. The steam line is the walking route being used currently. * Another possibility....We could check out whether the right of way rights for the steam line could be renegotiated to include walkers (we would need to change the routing near the top of the hill because it is so steep). Perhaps a long shot, but worth considering. * The Saabs own the upper hillside and at some point will want access to their upper acreage. At that point we may be able to negotiate the right to cross their "triangle" in exchange for rights to an access road for their property (adjacent to the lower portion of the trail). Right now the Saab's parents have both died within a year (the father very recently) so I am not inclined to ask them in the near future. However this could be a transition point and so we could ask them first and then ask the Bent Tree Folks. Or ask both. * Bent Tree: The recommendation from their representative is to have money and a plan, or at least a concrete idea, and then contact them. Jimmy Manilla and a few others have said that they know the Bent Tree Folks and would be glad to approach them once we have a clear idea of what we want." I hope this helps to investigate and identify property ownership within the general alignment of the Connector so that an earnest discussion with the area property owners and the City could commence. Frank Gmeindl Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board

1 0

aira will be slightly late again
by Aira Loren Burkhart 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

it's my friend's birthday (this is a year of thursday birthdays), so I will be at the blackbear beforehand. however, I am too concerned about the proposed cyclists-must-ride-in-path-provided proposed wv law to skip today. aira

2 1

Campus Connector
by Frank Gmeindl 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Greg, Jonathan, Jenny, Jake, I need to provide Damien Davis a map or maps that show the Campus Connector and the property lines under and adjacent to it. Can someone provide those to me in a format that I can send to Damien? At tonight's Traffic Commission meeting, the TC accepted our letter and passed a motion to request the City Manager to investigate and identify property ownership within the general alignment of the Connector. After I read the letter, Ken Martis said that the county property maps show who owns what property under and adjacent to the Campus Connector. Have any of you checked the property maps? He also said that the Planning Commission is pursuing the Campus Connector. He said that he thinks there is a right of way that can be used that avoids the property of any resistant owners (Saab). Ken is the Planning Commission representative on the TC and is a renowned WVU geography professor so he should know. In anticipation that the City Manager will assign the task to the Engineering Department, I agreed to give Damien Davis whatever information we already have on the Campus Connector planned route and property ownership boundaries. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

4 6

12/3 BB meeting agenda
by Frank Gmeindl 02 Dec '09

02 Dec '09

Bicycle Board Members, Attached, please find a zip folder that contains three documents: 1. Suggested agenda for tomorrow's, Thu 12/3 6:30 pm Bicycle Board meeting. 2. Minutes of our last meeting. 3. Procedural guidelines for working on the Bike Route Map. Please review these documents in preparation for the meeting, especially the Procedural Guidelines for working on the Bike Route Map so that we can make the best use of our time together. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

1 0

REI page
by Chet Parsons 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

All - just ran across this page randomly. Neat tips and tricks, plus there's a free iPhone app over on the right side if you're interested. http://www.rei.com/bikeyourdrive Chet

1 0

BB report to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Attached is a proposed November Bicycle Board report to the Traffic Commission. If you would like me to change anything in it, please reply ASAP. I intend to submit the report to the Traffic Commission secretary in time for her to have it first thing tomorrow morning. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

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(a)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(a)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(a)comcast.net <mailto:jimrye_adelphia1@comcast.net> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Frank Gmeindl" <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> >>> To: "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <freesource(a)cheat.org> >>> Cc: "Bicycle Board" <bikeboard(a)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 >>> * Janel >>> >>> on 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 >>> 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me >>> 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. >>> 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov >>> 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! >>> 5. Elizabeth Shogren 20-Nov gunnar concurred for Betsy >>> 6. Gunnar Shogren 20-Nov Betsy and I concur. >>> 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov >>> 8. Marilyn Newcome >>> 9. 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(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >

1 0

Interesting article on Treehugger from Wired.com
by director 26 Nov '09

26 Nov '09

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11/fixcityorg-crowdsourced-bike-racks/ Happy Thanksgiving! Nick -- Nick Hein LCI# 1705 Director, Positive Spin 2567 Univ Ave Ste 6000L Morgantown, WV ph 304-276-0213 --

1 0

Campus Connector letter to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 25 Nov '09

25 Nov '09

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/

4 4

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC
by jimrye_adelphia1＠comcast.net 25 Nov '09

25 Nov '09

I am fine with sending the letter as is. However, I do raise a couple of concerns with the introductory sentence. I’m not certain that “lack of a convenient option to connect these two areas” 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 “lack of a safe and convenient infrastructure for non-motorized transit between these two campuses…”? Additionally, at the end of the sentence it states “compelled to use cars to travel back and forth.” Many folks choose to use cars instead of riding the PRT…is “compelled” the best word? jimrye_adelphia1(a)comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Gmeindl" <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> To: "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <freesource(a)cheat.org> Cc: "Bicycle Board" <bikeboard(a)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 • Janel on 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 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! 5. Elizabeth Shogren 20-Nov gunnar concurred for Betsy 6. Gunnar Shogren 20-Nov Betsy and I concur. 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov 8. Marilyn Newcome 9. 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(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Bikeboard