Mike: I'm sorry that you feel that your suggestions were ignored. Point for point:
>-Sign placement: We suggested putting them at decision points, i.e., >at intersections. The signs ARE placed at decision points/intersections. They are set back from intersections somewhat so that people will not bottleneck...and so that the signs will not block the view of the intersection. Also...the signs can not be in the road right-of-way by city ordinance. I think that the signs are as close to the intercetions as they safely and legally can be. >-Prominent directional signage for navigating on the fly: There had to be compromises. The original design did include directional signage to navigate on the fly. The sponsor declined to sponsor the version of the signs that featured these directional arrows. There will likely be a phase two of the project at some point in the future...and we hope to get the directional arrows in then. > >-Use of both sides of the sign: We suggested putting further >bicycling info on one side of the sign, including information about >local bike advocacy groups and groups maintaining the trail >landscaping. Trek got a nice billing though. Creating 27 individual site maps is complicated, as I am sure you can appreciate as a geographer, and we had just a about two months to do it. To simplify things, we decided to orient all the signs in same way...that is, parallel to the paths. This simplified the map creation greatly...because not all sites would have allowed for perpendicular placement anyway. Again...phase two may have information on the back. By city ordinance no names could appear on the sign...including Bike Fed. A special exception was made for Trek. The original plan included information on trail maintance, etc...but the sponsor declined to fund that portion of the project. >-Orientation of the sign: See above...many of the sites would not allow for perpendicular orientation. And there were concerns that if the signs were too far off the paths, that wheelchair users would have trouble getting to them. In addition, we needed to simplify the map creation process, as I said, due to time constraints...and the fact that it was all volunteer time. >I had no intention of going to this meeting last fall since our input >is so routinely ignored and, believe it or not, I value my personal >time. I was talked into going because I was assured that my input >was desired and would be taken seriously. I went and it wasn't. This project involved 2 years of planning and input from many people. MANY people. Your input was not ignored...no one's input was ignored. Just because things do not turn out the way you personally want does not mean that you are not being listened to. The project was fairly complicated in terms of negotiating the various jurisdictions, different user group needs, etc. Your opinion was not the only one expressed. How do you suggest that differing inputs and needs be addressed, Mike? Not every single person can get exactly what they ask for. >Why even bother asking for someone's personal time and advice if the >intention is to go with the pre-conceived? The project went through at least three different major iterations that I know of...there may have been more. I feel that the concerns that you expressed were addressed the best that they could considering the circumstances and limitations of the project. It is truly unfortunate that you do not feel you were listened to...because it is far from the truth. -Marjorie Ward Executive Director Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin Marjorie S. Ward Executive Director Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin 106 E. Doty Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 1224 Madison, WI 53701-1224 Phone: 608-251-4456 Fax: 608-251-4594 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.bfw.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
