George,

As most of your readers know I have proposed a different approach to the Meadowcreek Parkway. This approach has come from listening to many people's views and developing an alternative approach based on their ideas and my convictions.

I went into my study believing that Alternative A was the best approach. However, I was presented with information that showed that another approach would be better and that I needed to change my position. This is consistent with the way I do things. I like to hear from people and listen to their ideas and rationale. This helps me formulate my position as inevitably it brings new information into my own mix. I do try to be as clear as I can in presenting my point of view; but, I am always open to new information and other people's thoughts and observations.

This Natural Area Preservation Alternative, if adopted, would do the following:

• Preserve 65 acres of Natural Area in a perpetual land trust
• Connect Pen Park and Towe Park with a pedestrian link
• Construct an efficient road with a portion adjacent to the railroad right of way
• Link the north and south sides of the city with a pedestrian and bicycle link
• Have a full interchange at 250, and
• No interconnection at Melbourne Rd.

I have also been asked about the interchange at 250. I support the size and scale of Will Rieley's design. The Parkway is a two lane road and thankfully can be handled with a much smaller grade separated interchange. Will's design is imaginative and attractive. We need to be sure that pedestrians and bicyclists have an uninterrupted and safe passage across 250 and the feeder roads coming into the interchange.

New ideas can bring new and positive solutions. I think this would be a positive change to the proposed Parkway plan.

Bern Ewert (electronic mail, February 12, 2002)