In Message: 5, Chuck wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:10:31 -0500: > needed to formulate any feasible plans. so I invite all of you to reply > again with concise answers to the following questions: > > Would you be willing to pay for covered, secure (however that's > accomplished) bike parking?
The only bike parking I would consider for a fee would be a bicycle locker (reserved/dedicated access). I can't imagine any other form of bicycle parking for which a fee could be justified. Providing bicycle parking is just like any other "zoning"/planning requirement. If you want to be granted the privilege of doing business in a community, you gotta provide bicycle parking of at least a specified minimum standard. In Message: 7, Jesse the K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:39:34 -0500: > > FYI, Mike, the decision of Route 10's fate is planned for the public > hearing (on both fare increases & route changes). That meeting is Fare increases?? Again??? How many times and by how much have fares (cash fares, tickets, passes, stripped-down "commuter" passes not good on weekends, et cetera) ALREADY gone up in the last ten years? Enough is enough! The cash fare is already too expensive for the low (and decreasing) level of service provided, and the ticket rates only barely tolerable (but a poor value for isthmus zone trips). The only positive step I've seen on fares in recent years have been the UW/MATC pass agreements (the bike racks have been a positive measure, too, but that's not really a fare issue other than that it potentially extends the reach of the system to un(der)served areas), but nothing for the rest of us. How many more riders do you want to "drive" away from using the system? Get to work on cutting fares and increasing usage; either that or give up on the pretence that we even have a transit system in this city. (BTW, what is the fare increase proposal? It was not specified on the referenced webpage.) > The hearing notice is a link from the front of Metro's website > http://www.mymetrobus.com/2003/PublicHearings/0903Hearing/PubHearingSept2203.htm Any idea on why Madison is getting on this disturbing trend of downgrading/demeaning its URLs from government to ".com" Aside from the philosophical objection, coming up with "cute" ".com" identifiers makes it more difficult to find government information. When governments use the standard conventions like www.state.[ST].us, www.ci.[CITY].[ST].us, www.co.[COUNTY].[ST].us, et cetera, you have no trouble finding the information for a particular place without having to know or guess what they call it. But when you move away from uniform URL formats, it's a crapshoot. Who's to know that it's "cityofmadison.com," "milwaukee.gov," "denvergov.org," "in.gov," or whatever? If Madison, Wisconsin is cityofmadison.com, then what's Madison, Illinois, or Madison, Mississippi?? Okay, this is getting off the bike thing. It's just that anyone out there without having to see a URL can fill in the blanks and guess www.ci.madison.wi.us (and follow it to transit or buses). Who's going to guess cityofmadison.com or mymetrobus.com?? Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino >From the Department of Military Intelligence and Jumbo Shrimp: Sign seen on a recently poisoned lawn: TruGreen/ChemLawn ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail: / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages! A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
