<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" 	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Royal Oak accepts non-motorized proposal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2009/08/12/royal-oak-accepts-non-motorized-proposal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2009/08/12/royal-oak-accepts-non-motorized-proposal/</link>
	<description>Promoting non-motorized transportation in the Motor City</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 06:22:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2009/08/12/royal-oak-accepts-non-motorized-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-2214</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.m-bike.org/blog/?p=2608#comment-2214</guid>
		<description>Rory,

As far as I know there isn&#039;t a national standard for non-motorized planners. There is little to stop a planner submit a low bid and produce a substandard product.

And this extends beyond non-motorized planning. One local planner created a sustainability study for a local community that failed to address better bicycling facilities.

I&#039;m not sure what the solution is. I think the LMB needs to play an active role in monitoring and providing guidance on non-motorized planning. Planning organizations like SEMCOG and Oakland County should, but have not shown a willingness to lead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rory,</p>
<p>As far as I know there isn&#8217;t a national standard for non-motorized planners. There is little to stop a planner submit a low bid and produce a substandard product.</p>
<p>And this extends beyond non-motorized planning. One local planner created a sustainability study for a local community that failed to address better bicycling facilities.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure what the solution is. I think the LMB needs to play an active role in monitoring and providing guidance on non-motorized planning. Planning organizations like SEMCOG and Oakland County should, but have not shown a willingness to lead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rory Neuner</title>
		<link>http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2009/08/12/royal-oak-accepts-non-motorized-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-2213</link>
		<dc:creator>Rory Neuner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.m-bike.org/blog/?p=2608#comment-2213</guid>
		<description>Glad to see that Active Trans is getting into the game here in Michigan. That can do nothing but raise the bar for other, in-state planning firms. That said, are the firms that provided the sub-par plans being contacted to inform them that they aren&#039;t even hitting national standards? I am not familiar with the standards for whether / how local governments contact losing bidders, but I think that in this case it might be useful to prevent this from happening again, particularly to communities less bike-savvy than Royal Oak.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to see that Active Trans is getting into the game here in Michigan. That can do nothing but raise the bar for other, in-state planning firms. That said, are the firms that provided the sub-par plans being contacted to inform them that they aren&#8217;t even hitting national standards? I am not familiar with the standards for whether / how local governments contact losing bidders, but I think that in this case it might be useful to prevent this from happening again, particularly to communities less bike-savvy than Royal Oak.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2009/08/12/royal-oak-accepts-non-motorized-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-2210</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.m-bike.org/blog/?p=2608#comment-2210</guid>
		<description>This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  Royal Oak borders Detroit so perhaps we may see some carry over.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  Royal Oak borders Detroit so perhaps we may see some carry over.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel Batterman</title>
		<link>http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2009/08/12/royal-oak-accepts-non-motorized-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-2188</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel Batterman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.m-bike.org/blog/?p=2608#comment-2188</guid>
		<description>Wonderful news. A pity we don&#039;t currently have a broader range of local expertise, but at this point, the region could really benefit from some out-of-state experience. Plus, it&#039;s not like Chicago is all that far away. (High-speed rail will bring it still closer.) I look forward to seeing the results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonderful news. A pity we don&#8217;t currently have a broader range of local expertise, but at this point, the region could really benefit from some out-of-state experience. Plus, it&#8217;s not like Chicago is all that far away. (High-speed rail will bring it still closer.) I look forward to seeing the results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

