Hi John-Marc, To clarify, I sent Sue some typos and wording changes I had noticed in draft 10, but in the process of looking for them I also noticed several more substantive points I thought we could address. So I sent Sue those as well, and I'll bring them up at the meeting. I should mention that I'm more interested in outreach, voter registration, electoral reform and such, so I probably won't want to get involved with Transportation on a regular basis. These are just things I happened to notice that could improve the plank. A quick summary of my points: A4: focus on effect (CO2) instead of causes B5: feasible on crowded buses? how do they do crowded trains? C3: how successful in other cities C14: on same block when possible - some blocks will be full C16: "careless" is more tactful D preface: less pollution per trip or mile, not per vehicle D7: clarify why stands are better for environment D9: all or all new? more details on changeover E6: how would DPT know? F7: "is it safe?" F9: move to own section, it's not just about bikes G10: my own pet peeve: motorcycles Cheers, -- Tom Zych freethinker@pobox.com susan vaughan wrote:
I've forwarded this to John-Marc. We have agendas but our meetings are pretty informal.
These are my suggested items for the next meeting:
1) transportation platform, draft 11 2) bike plan update 3) no right turn onto the Central Freeway from Market Street going east, with ped bulbout. I suggest we endorse this. Gonzalez is introducing this into committee on AUgust 9, before our next meeting. JMC, is there anyway we can endorse this as the TWG online since this is coming up before our next meeting? The PSAC has endorsed this.