And I’d like to see an example of Morrison voting for the greater good against a parochial neighborhood concern. I have yet to see one such case; and all her comments in every set of minutes I’ve red have cemented my view of her (I was urged by many others to give her a chance after the election). Her comments on this case are no exception.

The parallel to Shoal Creek is pretty weak. Shoal Creek is a major inter-neighborhood route used by cyclists all over town. This bridge is frankly out of the way for anyone who doesn’t live in the neighborhood. If you are providing something that is essentially just for the neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood show up and tell you they hate it, it is prudent to listen and make adjustments to plans to address concerns. Just as the council shouldn’t have caved to a few neighbors on a route that servers the entire city so should they not ignore the concerns of the people the bridge is serving. You of all people should be tired of a city council that ignores what you say and pushes something through because the decision was predetermined.

In the end, it is up to use to hold the council to their promises or throw them out on their ears at election time. We certainly have the numbers to make that happen if we get our act together.

Why is the parallel to Shoal Creek so difficult to see? In SCB’s case, the old bike plan (as well as modern practice, pointed out by the TTI folks they brought in to consult) clearly called for car-free bike lanes there; yet councilmembers overly beholden to those same interests went directly against the plan when it came down to it.

The true pro-cycling councilmen are those who choose cycling interests when they are in conflict with the short-term parochical neighborhood interests; not those who talk a good game but then end up voting the other way.

Thanks to Annick and her staff for all of the good work.

So, as a citizen who really wants to see this implemented… what’s next? What can I/should I be doing to help move this forward?