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?
| 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 |
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:
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: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.
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