For clarification, the notice came from John Sigurjonsson, Cycle Chatham-Kent. The other people around the table at the meeting some being members of Cycle Chatham-Kent, are members of the Active Communities Steering Committee, a committee of municipal council. As part of the ACSC they represent various interests; active transportation of which cycling is a major part; trails and the public at large. The two manager/owners of the local cycle stores were also at the meeting. I will also add that while John S. is voicing valid concerns over the bike rack issue, the other members around the table have other views of priorities that need to be addressed. As a member of the ACSC, any opinions/comments on the issues facing cyclists in CK. you have will be appreciated. James. -----Original Message----- From: ckcycle-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca [mailto:ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of ckcycle-request(a)lists.ncf.ca Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 6:41 PM To: ckcycle(a)lists.ncf.ca Subject: CKcycle Digest, Vol 9, Issue 43 Send CKcycle mailing list submissions to ckcycle(a)lists.ncf.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ckcycle-request(a)lists.ncf.ca You can reach the person managing the list at ckcycle-owner(a)lists.ncf.ca When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CKcycle digest..." Today's Topics: 1. [Fwd: March 11 meeting followup] (Daniel Brousseau) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:40:36 -0400 From: Daniel Brousseau <fh511(a)ncf.ca&gt; Subject: [CKcycle] [Fwd: March 11 meeting followup] To: Chatham-Kent Commmunity Cycling Group <ckcycle(a)lists.ncf.ca&gt; Message-ID: <4BA6A064.4050201(a)ncf.ca&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Just got this update from the Chatham Cycling Counsel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: March 11 meeting followup Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:56:50 -0400 From: Member Services CCK <memberservices(a)cycleck.ca&gt; 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 Victoria Ave.! 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 Canada or the USA were included and would almost certainly have had lower bids. Toronto is installing 3000 post-and-rings in 2010 and their supplier could probably run off another 100 for us at very low cost. Other suppliers will have to retool to do this job. -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**