Subject: | March 11 meeting followup |
---|---|
Date: | Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:56:50 -0400 |
From: | Member Services CCK <memberservices@cycleck.ca> |
We could have continued
our
meeting all night and not run out of issues to discuss :-). Here are
some
updates on what we discussed:
1)
2009 cost of pavement
markings: The municipal website shows that contract awarded at approx
$48,500
which presumable was charged to our $750,000 2009 budget.
2)
Priority projects and costings:
Attached is a table
listing the priority projects we identified and my cost estimates based
on
standard consultant’s cost tables and also showing how the list relates
to the funding available. It would be great if we could get all this
done in
2010, especially if we could avoid the big cost hit for
3)
Bike rack
costs: The report going to Council Monday night confirms the cost of
post-and-ring racks at $181.65, or $90.83/bike space.
However,
there is a
reference to “200 racks for $60,000” later in Leo’s report
and Tom Beaton mentioned those figures at the January ACSC meeting.
Does that
mean that installation is expected to cost $120/unit? In my humble
opinion that
would be nuts!
There
is no mention
in Leo’s report of the project being spread over 5 years as indicated
in
the RFQ.
There
is no mention
of another RFQ being issued for inverted-U racks as agreed to by Don
Shropshire
at the February ACSC meeting.
The
ACSC is a party to this deal, but is not being treated as a full
partner.
-Did
the ACSC approve the details of the $100,000 program that was the basis
for the
TDM grant application? Leo has said that the money will have to be
spent as
shown in the submission.
-Did
you have any say in who was asked to bid on the racks contract? None of
the
major suppliers of bike racks in
-Does
the ACSC know how the municipality is deciding how many racks they need
and at
what locations? There are standard
guidelines agreed on by many municipalities that indicate how much bike
parking
is needed for various type3s and sizes of property. John J researched
those
guidelines. Is Administration using them or ignoring them?
-I
know that the
ACSC wasn’t told that the RFQ specifies 100 racks/yr over 5 years. When
I
emailed Don S about this he replied: “While this issue
was not discussed last night (Feb 16), the Active Communities Steering
Committee has in the past discussed the need to maintain our momentum
and move
ahead with the roll out of the bike rack program. While wanting to
maintain a
sense of urgency on this file I am not concerned with our current rate
of
progress”. That of course is not his decision to make.
The ACSC was created to
give
Council and the community initiative, advice, and action beyond what
the municipality
would get from staff alone. That won’t happen if the ACSC simply agrees
to whatever staff says or does. Initiatives from citizen members of the
ACSC
are needed and must come in the form of motions that get passed and so
become ACSC
policy. Anything short of that is just conversation
I believe that Leo, Don,
and Laurel
are trying to move this initiative forward in a professional manner.
That doesn’t
mean that they will always have the right answers or the same level of
commitment and sense of urgency that the ACSC should bring. .Also, they
are the
interface with their staff and with Council, and get push-back from
both. Sometimes
it may be helpful to them to be able to go back to these bodies and say
“I
initially disagreed, but this is
the ACSC decision”.
Those at our March 11
meeting who
are not ACSC members, and others receiving copies of this email, are
representative of the cycling community you have been appointed to
represent.
They are counting on you.
Thanks for bearing with
me on
this. Best of luck at the ACSC meeting Tuesday.
Regards
John Sigurjonsson