Clark County BPAC forwards active-transportation network, CFP project list and evaluation criteria to council

The Clark Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee voted June 23 to forward three recommendations to county decision‑makers as part of the comprehensive plan update, asking planning commission and county council to consider: a proposed active transportation network, a draft 2025–2045 Transportation capital facilities plan (CFP) project list, and draft evaluation criteria for prioritizing projects.

The motions were presented by staff as interlocked steps in a process that will guide 20‑year capital planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Scott Sloan moved that BPAC recommend approval of the active transportation network; Brian Watson seconded. The network motion passed by roll call with nine yes votes and one member absent. Patty moved to forward the draft CFP project list; Scott seconded and that motion also passed by roll call with nine yes votes and one absent. Scott then moved to forward the draft evaluation criteria; Kelsey seconded and the committee approved it by roll call with eight yes, one no (Paulsky) and one absent.

"Our end goal is a prioritized project list that will be used for our transportation CFP," Harrison, staff lead for the presentation, said, framing the three items as sequential steps to translate network needs into funded projects. Staff repeatedly emphasized that the proposed network is meant to serve as the active‑transportation component of the transportation element and to guide investments until a comprehensive update of the county's bicycle and pedestrian master plan can be completed.

Committee members pressed staff on specifics and limits. Vice chair John Vanderberg raised a map discrepancy, saying, "this isn't the map that we approved," after pointing to a missing north–south connection between 56th and 58th avenues; staff invited members to propose that segment as an amendment to the recommendation or to include it in a future master‑plan update. Several members expressed frustration that the 2010 master plan remains largely unimplemented after more than a decade; Patty said the long lead time for capital projects means council and staff must clarify priorities and implementation milestones.

Staff described how the network and CFP project list were developed: the team used the 2010 plan as a foundation, applied new multimodal level‑of‑service standards required by the Growth Management Act, and identified corridors that do not meet proposed standards. The CFP project list includes both large capital projects (roadway capacity/widening that would include active‑transportation elements) and about 140 standalone active‑transportation corridor projects with project descriptions, estimated missing sidewalk linear feet and an estimate of potential new pedestrian crossings based on 20‑year land‑use forecasts. For example, staff estimated roughly 6,000 linear feet of missing sidewalk on the discussed 78th Street corridor and suggested the corridor would likely need about three midblock pedestrian crossings and a protected bike lane to meet the standard (staff described these numbers as estimates to be refined in later design and costing).

Members also asked staff to make the evaluation and exception process more transparent. Jay urged that agencies be required to explain any exceptions to safety standards "including reason, duration, and impacts on the community." Harrison said the committee could recommend that the county develop a regular reporting tool to document exceptions and progress toward master‑plan implementation.

Staff said the draft materials will be packaged in a staff report to the planning commission and council. Next steps include completing cost estimates for CFP projects, entering funding discussions with council, and sharing meeting dates and materials with BPAC members; staff expects to reconvene BPAC in September after the summer break. The committee asked staff to post the presentation and maps on the county website so members and the public can review project locations.

The committee's role in the process is advisory: BPAC's recommendations will be forwarded for decision by the planning commission and county council, which must adopt the comprehensive plan updates. The committee voted to forward the three recommendations, and staff will document the votes and draft a formal staff report for the upcoming council and commission work sessions.

The committee adjourned after a brief discussion of outreach and construction work‑zone impacts on bike lanes; staff agreed to relay those work‑zone safety concerns to the contractor contacts.