Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bicycle Pedestrian Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows focus on bike‑ped plan goals, asks staff to refine objectives
Summary
The village Pedestrian & Bicycle Committee reviewed goals and issues from its draft comprehensive plan, flagged scooters, sidewalks and retrofit limits, and asked staff to condense goals and return with objectives for the September meeting.
The Ashwaubenon Pedestrian & Bicycle Committee reviewed draft goals and issues for an updated bicycle and pedestrian comprehensive plan and instructed staff to condense the goals and prepare specific objectives for the committee to consider at its next meeting in September. Committee members said they want a shorter, more executable set of priorities rather than a long list of aspirational items.
The committee’s discussion centered on three decisions: whether the plan should explicitly include scooters and other micromobility devices, how to handle sidewalks in established neighborhoods, and whether to prioritize a small number of achievable projects over a larger aspirational list. Devin (staff member) told the committee, “I think the main thing is more that, basically, my work is done by, like, the end of the calendar year,” and said staff can accept a later adoption if necessary so long as the bulk of the work is finished.
Why it matters: the committee’s goals and objectives will guide staff engineering, capital planning and public outreach. Members said a concise set of 3–5 near‑term priorities will help the village deliver projects and respond to opportunities that arise.
Committee members repeatedly cited the plan’s public survey as supporting the draft list of issues. Dale Schmitz, committee member, and Kim McKenna, committee member, said many public comments aligned with the draft’s top issues, especially the need to improve crossings on major roads and to address sidewalks in particular corridors. Kim McKenna said she was “most in favor of simple plans that can be executed,” urging the group to “aim small” and deliver a few concrete items rather than a broad list that yields little implementation.
Staff and several committee members recommended using a multimodal framing that lists walking, biking and other personal mobility devices rather than naming individual technologies that may change over a five‑year horizon. Members discussed whether to call the network a “transportation network” or “bicycle/pedestrian network”; staff suggested “multimodal” with a parenthetical list (walking, biking, scooters) to make the meaning clear to residents.
On sidewalks, members noted that the village already requires sidewalks in new development but that retrofitting sidewalks in established neighborhoods is politically and physically challenging because of trees, front‑yard terraces and homeowner attitudes. Committee members asked staff to identify corridors where sidewalks are most necessary and to show likely costs, constraints and a timeline so the committee can set priorities.
Devin (staff member) said staff will revise the goals based on today’s discussion, review objectives for consolidation or simplification, and circulate updated materials before the next meeting. The committee asked members who could not attend to review the revised goals and objectives and return comments in advance.
Ending: The committee set homework for members to review the updated goals and objectives and signaled it will spend the next meeting focused primarily on finalizing objectives so staff can move into more detailed recommendations and draft text for public review.
