A consultant for Brown County presented draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the Village of Ashwaubenon’s bicycle and pedestrian plan and asked the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee for feedback on guiding principles, data and language for future policy and implementation.

Devin, the project consultant, said the draft moves key goals and objectives forward in the plan and incorporates recent public input and census data. He described a shift toward a safe‑system approach recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation and summarized the plan’s aspirational Vision Zero aim: “there should be no deaths” on roadways as a guiding principle for design and policy.

Committee members welcomed the clearer structure and updated demographics but raised a series of substantive edits and clarifications. Several members asked that full public survey results remain in an appendix with a clear in‑text reference rather than occupying the main body; the committee agreed that readers should be able to find the full responses but that Chapter 1 should point to them rather than reproduce lengthy raw results.

The group debated a phrasing change to a goal that currently says the plan will “improve connections across the Fox River.” Members advised rewording to reflect the village’s authority and partnerships — for example, improving connections to the Fox River Trail or specifying east–west trail connections — because crossing the river often requires cooperation with external agencies.

Map accuracy drew scrutiny: committee members said the plan’s GIS layers appeared to show a bike trail on North Road that they believe does not exist. Devin said he would verify GIS data and confirm whether the new Ashwaubomay River Trail mileage has been captured with county staff and update the maps accordingly.

A recurring topic was how the plan treats marked curb lanes (white edge lines) and whether those should be labeled as bicycle facilities. Staff described marked wide curb lanes as an edge‑line or shoulder marking used primarily to delineate motor vehicle travel lanes, not a dedicated bike lane. The committee asked for a clear definitions section with examples and recommended not to imply that a painted white curb line is equivalent to a designated bicycle facility.

Members repeatedly raised electric devices — e‑bikes, e‑scooters and faster, motorcycle‑style units described in the meeting as “e‑motos” — as an issue that needs explicit policy attention. One staff member said the village’s ordinance is consistent with state statute but that enforcement is the limiting factor: “We have what we need in place. It comes down to education. It comes down to enforcement,” and identifying when a device is a statute‑defined e‑bike versus an e‑moto.

Committee members urged adding a policy statement and educational strategy for devices, and they recommended school‑based training (already planned for elementary grades) be expanded to reach middle and high school students. Public safety staff noted resource constraints for enforcement and said stronger definitions and public outreach will be important if the village expects behavior to change.

Devin outlined remaining work for the plan: a Chapter 4 existing‑conditions and needs assessment and a final action/policies chapter. He proposed returning to the committee in December to review the remaining chapters and completing a final draft for approval in January if necessary.

Next procedural steps: staff will verify map layers, add clear definitions (wide curb lane, bike route, bike lane), make the public‑survey location explicit, draft suggested policy language on e‑devices, and circulate the updated draft before the next meeting. The committee tentatively agreed to meet Dec. 15 (with an earlier start if needed) to allow time for review.