Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Complete Streets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long Range Planning Committee presses for 'complete streets' policy to shape Grand Island Boulevard projects
Summary
The Grand Island Long Range Planning Committee discussed adopting a complete streets policy and forming a focused subcommittee to guide improvements on Grand Island Boulevard, align town code and funding, and coordinate with county, state and Greenway efforts to add multimodal facilities and pursue grants.
The Grand Island Long Range Planning Committee discussed advancing a complete streets policy for Grand Island Boulevard and forming a subcommittee to shepherd design, funding and interagency coordination.
The discussion focused on using a written policy to influence state and county projects and to make the town eligible for additional funding. Committee member Larry said that a complete streets designation for the boulevard would give the town leverage in state-led road projects, adding, “if we had complete streets in place and had a policy for Grand Island Boulevard and indicating it was multi mode, that it had to accommodate Viking, they would literally have to fix it to make it correct.”
Why it matters: committee members said a local policy could require more extensive repairs when the state or county repaves or reconstructs the road, potentially adding sidewalks, drainage fixes and multimodal accommodations that would otherwise not be included in a routine “restoration and preservation” project.
Committee members described the issue as both practical and political. They said adopting a clear, implementable plan—focused initially on a single “center spoke” or business district—would let the town seek targeted grant dollars and coordinate local priorities with DOT schedules and Greenway initiatives. Eric and other members emphasized the potential benefit to local businesses through increased foot and bike traffic if the bike path and boulevard were connected to commercial nodes.
Speakers pressed several implementation questions: whether the town would require developers to build sidewalks or instead collect a fee to have the town install them; how to enforce sidewalk requirements in building approvals; and how to phase corridor work by sub-district (central, north, south). The committee repeatedly returned to the Webb-to-Fantasy-Island sidewalk example: that sidewalk project received an 80/20 grant with a total award of roughly $1,300,000 and required a local share of about $260,000.
Several members warned that an overly complex complete streets document could stall progress. One committee member noted a prior six-page draft was “very detailed and very complex” and discouraged adoption; others urged a simpler, phased approach that starts with a tightly scoped area (for example, the town center) and expands outward while documenting connectivity and costs.
Direction and next steps: Larry said he will produce a proposal and assemble a dedicated subcommittee with representatives from highway/engineering, traffic and safety, economic development and advisory boards to provide technical input and to pursue funding and professional services. “I'm going to then go forward for, developing a committee to go forward with it,” he said, and told members he would bring a plan and funding strategy back to the committee.
Context: members noted that Greenway and other state-level stakeholders are already pushing for a bike connection “from bridge to bridge,” and that coordination with those groups could help unlock state funds if the town has a clear policy and project plan.
What wasn’t decided: the committee did not adopt a formal complete streets policy or select a final project scope; those items were left for the subcommittee to draft and return for committee review.
