Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton ATP review sparks debate over paving Pheasant Branch trail and map clarity
Summary
The committee reviewed the draft Active Transportation Plan, asked staff to clarify map keys and crash/stress metrics, and debated whether to include a proposed paved connection through parts of Pheasant Branch Conservancy — an idea proponents said would improve accessibility while conservancy staff warned it could provoke controversy and recommended separate stakeholder outreach.
The Middleton Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Committee reviewed the draft Active Transportation Plan (ATP), heard public comments and map‑key clarifications, and spent substantial time debating a proposal to add a paved "missing link" through part of Pheasant Branch Conservancy.
A committee member proposed including a paved connection to improve year‑round accessibility and reduce maintenance issues associated with the existing gravel path. "I look at it as a transportation issue for Pheasant Branch Road," the member said, noting gravel surfaces rut, wash out and limit winter access.
Public commenters during the meeting urged minimizing boardwalk construction, arguing boardwalks are costly, disrupt habitat and require higher maintenance. "Boardwalks are the most expensive path to build, the most expensive to maintain, and the most causing habitat disruption," Barbara Bader said during public comment, urging use of existing alignments where possible.
Staff said the ATP will be circulated for broader public input throughout June and that map legends and stress metrics would be clarified; committee members requested clearer labeling for pedestrian crash heat‑maps, LTS/stress ratings and definitions of network tiers so the public can more easily understand the maps.
Conservancy staff cautioned that explicitly endorsing a paved option in the ATP could shift public input toward the paving debate and overwhelm plan‑level feedback. "Parks and conservancy staff are not incredibly supportive of the pavement in Pheasant Branch," a staff representative said, recommending the paving question be pursued with the Conservancy Lands Committee and other stakeholders before the ATP public process.
Committee members agreed on two practical next steps: (1) improve map keys and definitions for public release, and (2) note the paving alternative as a possible missing link while seeking targeted input from conservancy stakeholders rather than letting it dominate the ATP open houses.
Next steps: staff to update legend and map labels, add clarifying language to the missing‑links appendix, and coordinate conservancy stakeholder outreach in parallel with the ATP public input schedule.
