---------- 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.  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@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
    * 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@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard