Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Birmingham leaders debate future role of Multimodal Transportation Board; staff to rewrite ordinance
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff and board members told a joint Dec. 11 workshop that the Multimodal Transportation Board should remain but its scope and processes need clearer limits; commissioners urged a public-facing decision matrix, better data and a prioritized action list before resuming regular board business.
BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 11, 2025 — City planning staff told a joint meeting of the Birmingham City Commission and the Multimodal Transportation Board that it is time to "modernize the city's approach to multimodal transportation planning" and to reconsider the board's role, sparking a wide-ranging discussion about whether the board should focus on visioning, neighborhood advocacy or technical review.
Staff recounted the board's origins in a 2011 "complete streets" resolution, the adoption of a multimodal plan in 2013 and the creation of the current advisory board in 2014. The staff presentation said the enabling language now lives in Chapter 110 of the Birmingham Code of Ordinances and that some multimodal goals have been implemented administratively without board action.
"We feel we're facing an opportunity here to modernize the city's approach to multimodal transportation planning," a member of the planning staff said, framing the meeting as the next step in producing clearer ordinance language and a smoother process for the board and commission.
Mayor Penn Ballard told attendees the commission would exercise its prerogative to set policy and budgets. "The city commission has the power of the purse," he said, urging the group to focus on defining the board's advisory role rather than taking on commission-level funding decisions.
Board members and commissioners disagreed about how much the multimodal board should consider costs. Several commissioners and board members advocated that the board evaluate the "value" of options (order-of-magnitude cost implications and tradeoffs) so residents and the commission can make informed choices. Others argued the board should not be responsible for deciding whether a street is "improved" or "unimproved" or for allocating special-assessment burdens to homeowners.
Participants discussed recent, contentious projects — including Wimbledon, Byrd and Arlington Shirley — as examples of how differing resident input and unclear process produced heated outcomes. Commissioners asked staff to create transparent, public-facing tools, such as a decision matrix that shows typical options and approximate cost magnitudes (for example, a stop sign versus a flashing sign versus a hawk pedestrian signal), while leaving final funding and policy decisions to the commission.
Data and experimentation drew sustained attention. Commissioners and board members noted that the city already collects traffic counts on a rotating schedule and that private providers such as TomTom can supply continuous speed and routing data. Several participants proposed pilot studies (for example, temporary speed-mitigation trials) to test solutions before broad deployment.
Residents who spoke at the meeting urged retaining the board. "I would be completely against disbanding the Multimodal Transportation Board," said Katie Viverwinski, a Poppleton resident, arguing the board performs both visionary planning and neighborhood-level advocacy and helps funnel complex options into digestible recommendations for the commission.
Staff said the commission earlier this year placed a moratorium on future board meetings while Chapter 110 is reviewed; staff asked commissioners for specific direction so it can draft revised ordinance language and a focused annual work plan. Multiple participants suggested separating the board's monthly operational docket (stop signs, crosswalks, unimproved-road requests) from periodic study sessions for visionary work such as advanced mobility or regional coordination.
The meeting concluded with broad agreement on next steps: staff will draft clearer ordinance language and a concise action list and present recommended priorities and public-facing decision tools to the commission. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded; the transcript does not record a roll-call vote on adjournment.
Next procedural steps: staff will circulate a proposed redraft of Chapter 110 and a recommended annual action list for the multimodal board; commissioners signaled interest in a streets workshop early next year to review priorities and community engagement plans.
