Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Bicycle Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ulster County committee adds bridges to pedestrian, bicycle policy; requires brief DPW report
Summary
The Public Works Committee advanced Resolution No. 225 to amend the county's Pedestrian and Bicycle Policy to explicitly include bridges and to ask the Department of Public Works for a short written explanation when a designated bike and pedestrian lane is considered but not required.
Ulster County Legislature Public Works and Capital Projects Committee advanced Resolution No. 225 on Aug. 25, 2025, to update the county Pedestrian and Bicycle Policy to explicitly include bridges and to require the Department of Public Works (DPW) to provide a brief written explanation if a designated bike and pedestrian lane is considered but not installed.
The change aims to close a gap in the county’s existing policy and provide written oversight when DPW weighs whether a bridge needs a designated bike and pedestrian lane. “This deals principally with adding bridges to our bike and pedestrian policy,” said Legislator Stewart, the resolution sponsor. Stewart said the requirement would not force DPW to produce design drawings, but would ask for a short report explaining why a designated lane would or would not be required. “We changed the language so that the design aspect would not be required, but merely the explanation,” Stewart said.
Supporters said the requirement is intended to work alongside the county’s safe-streets initiatives and to give the Legislature a written record of DPW’s considerations. Stewart said she discussed the idea with Brian Slack of the traffic safety board, and that Slack “thought the report aspect was a good thing.” She also said she had worked with Deputy County Executive Laval on the measure for several months.
County officials present said they had not yet had time to review the very latest amendments to the resolution. The committee recorded concerns from the executive branch that requiring a designated lane on every bridge could be inappropriate for very short or remote bridges with low traffic counts; the amended language, supporters said, was intended to address those concerns.
Legislator McCullough moved the resolution out of committee; Legislator Donelson seconded. The committee voted unanimously to advance Resolution No. 225.
The resolution does not appropriate new funds; the committee chair said it will be revisited if members raise additional objections before the next full Legislature consideration.
