Chuck and All, On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Chuck Strawser <[email protected]>wrote:
> > In particular, I think it is backwards to decide where the curbs will go > before you have finalized what is going to be between the curbs. > This was the objection to late-to-the-game bicycle professionals who weighed in with a predetermined street width without first having participated in an ongoing & extensive public process, and without first listening to the concerns and preferences of cyclists and neighbors who *did *labor long and hard to reach consensus. How can professional bicycle activists demand a rigid street width -- or dictate 'what goes on within the curbs' -- without first putting in that good-faith effort or coming on with some basic respect? > so either what will be included has already been decided without, imo, > enough time for discussion, or there's something about the process thus far > that I don't understand. > There has been plenty of time for discussion. In fact, your participation was explicitly requested, precisely so that the consensus about the balance of uses on this project would incorporate proven traffic-calming features and deliver a cutting-edge design concept immune to the ill-informed and out-of-balance criticisms we're seeing now. I was told you were too busy with 'life' and couldn't be bothered. But I had still urged that you be issued a special invitation because the alternative -- reverting to a flawed status quo -- will again shortchange key considerations that are indispensable if we're to achieve the sustainable urbanism we all say we're working toward. One thing is clear: more than a few actors, some parachuting into this conversation, owe Tim Wong as well as some of the MNA folks an apology, as well as the good-faith effort to hear them out *and to balance their concerns and design methods with your own.* At this point, anything less is uncalled for. They've worked hard to optimize the street treatment to achieve a better balance of uses and goals, they have a valid point that can't be dismissed, and they know we're long overdue for a true complete street that actually does account for multiple goals and the adjacent land use context. Chuck, excluding the goals and considerations included in the current proposal (by reverting to the status quo) basically just defeats the purpose and point of complete streets. Such a stance is anti-urbanist and cuts against the city ethic so often cited around here. The question is whether the final design treatment will serve the city and its residents, which is the point of the current proposal, or exclude their input, needs and aspirations to shortchange the public interest yet again with a half-measure catering to other folks who live elsewhere -- an auto-centric design approach directly responsible for the recent hit-&-run of a cyclist on the Atwood-Monona freeway -- along with the full range of significant negative impacts you know so well. Best, Rich
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
