BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC)
DRAFT Meeting Minutes for
BPAC Members Present:
Gil Johnson, Glenn Kirby, Tom Van Demark, Marcy Greenhut, Roger Marquis,
Staff Present:
Guests Present: Wendy Alfsen, Bay Area Walkable Communities;
Beth Walukas, CMA Consultant;
Chair
1) Welcome
and Introductions: Chair
a)
Public
Comment— Wendy Alfsen announced that the new federal Safe Routes to School
program may reduce the funding that has been going towards this program in
b)
Approval of
Minutes—July 14, 2005
It was moved by Gil Johnson and seconded by John Knox White that the
minutes of
2) Update on Board Actions/Staff Report
3) Countywide Pedestrian Plan: Discussion
& Updates
Ms. Wheeler introduced Victoria Eisen of Eisen/Letunic, ACTIA’s
consultant for the Countywide Pedestrian Plan, and noted that most of the
meeting would be spent on eliciting Committee members’ input on the vision and goals
of the plan.
Ms. Eisen presented a summary of what has been done to date
on the Pedestrian Plan and the next steps. She noted the five main goals of
developing the Pedestrian Plan:
a) Understanding
how walkable
b) Creating
a vision and goals to improve the pedestrian environment
c) Increasing
the importance of pedestrian planning throughout
d) Developing
countywide priorities for Measure B and other funding sources
e) Providing
useful tools for local agencies
Ms. Eisen stated that there are four committees advising on
the development of the Pedestrian Plan:
BPAC, ACTIA’s Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee, a Pedestrian Plan
Working Group and the Congestion Management Agency’s Alameda County Technical
Advisory Committee (ACTAC). She added
that the BPAC is considered the lead committee and that the BPAC will be the
forum for public input. The BPAC will be making the recommendation to the ACTIA
Board to adopt the final plan.
Ms. Eisen noted that the Existing Conditions and Obstacles chapters of the Plan had been drafted and summarized the information contained in them, starting with the existing conditions chapter.
Ms. Eisen noted that 3.3% of people who work in
A discussion ensued that included comments about East Bay Municipal Utility District trails, recreation, paved facilities, walking vs. driving to schools and Alameda County Healthy Start walking school buses.
Mr. Van Demark said he was happy with the information and was
interested in making sure the Plan has all the elements to build bridges with
public health and transportation engineering.
It is important that public transit and public health are part of
walkable communities and the Plan vision.
Ms. Eisen then reviewed the Obstacles chapter, emphasizing that these are institutional, not physical obstacles. Some of the obstacles described included:
Members expressed concern about whether the Existing Conditions and Obstacles chapters would be read by those who need to read it, and suggested that the committee might identify key people who should see the document and make sure they get it.
The BPAC members stressed the importance of framing and titling the obstacles accurately and making the suggested solutions easily accessible to those who can use them. Some questions were raised about the purpose of the obstacles chapter and the target audience for the entire plan. BPAC members felt these two chapters were written for two different audiences.
Ms. Wheeler asked that any additional comments on the draft
chapters be submitted to her by
Ms. Eisen noted that the Countywide Pedestrian Plan’s goals
will provide an opportunity to link the findings of the Existing Conditions and
Obstacles chapters and the Plan’s vision to any opportunities that ACTIA and
the Congestion Management Agency (the two adopting agencies) have to influence
the pedestrian environment in
Ms. Eisen then led the committee through a brainstorming
session to develop ideas for a pedestrian vision. Each Committee member was asked to think of
three words that describe how each of them would like the County to look in the
year 2025 in terms of the walking environment.
The following words/ideas were suggested (bolded indicates words were
suggested more than once):
a)
Safe
b)
Healthy
c) Wellness
d)
Widely
accessible
e) Access
f)
Connected
g) Continuity
h)
Active
i)
Walkable
j)
More (people watching)
k) Ease
of use
l)
Vibrant
m) Community
n) Neighborhood
o) Social
p) Beauty
q) Embraced
r) Moving
forward (with a plan)
s) People-free
zones (true open space)
t)
Car-free zones
u) Pathways
v) Maintainable
Staff indicated that the suggested words/ideas would be
shared with the Pedestrian Plan Working Group at its November 30 meeting, and
that the ideas would be used in developing a vision statement, which would be
presented to the BPAC at its January meeting for feedback and a final decision.
The BPAC members developed the following categories for
goals, noting that specific goals would be drafted by staff and brought to the
BPAC for discussion in January:
a) Rate
of Walking
b) Safety
c) Public
Health
d) Design
and Infrastructure
e) Essential
Destinations
f)
Access to Public Transit
g) Education
& Encouragement
h) Research
& Planning
i)
Funding
4) Countywide Bike Plan: Discussion &
Updates
Ms. Wheeler stated that the update of the Countywide Bicycle Plan began in August and was partially funded by the second cycle of the countywide discretionary program.
Ms. Wheeler then introduced Beth Walukas, Congestion Management Agency (CMA) consultant working on the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan update. She noted that Ms. Walukas would be asking for BPAC input at the meeting and would come back to a future meeting. She noted that the BPAC did not exist at the time the original Plan was adopted in 2001. Ms. Walukas previously worked at the CMA and was the CMA’s project manager for the first Countywide Bicycle Plan.
Ms. Walukas reported that the CMA is doing a focused update of the Bicycle Plan including improving the network maps. She said the local agencies identified bicycle facilities that have been completed since 2001. An important component of the Plan update will be to develop a list of fiscally constrained high-priority projects. Another goal for the Plan is to identify where bicycle and pedestrian needs overlap, making sure one mode does not degrade another mode, and to identify overlapping high-priority projects so one project can leverage another.
The Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC) is
the group that will be leading the update process and they will have workshops
in October, December and February. The
plan update will be adopted by the CMA and the ACTIA Boards. The CMA is also getting input from others
such as advocacy groups, cities, BART, AC Transit,
Ms. Walukas stated that the July 2001 Bicycle Plan proposed a 500-mile network. In the last four years, a total of a little more than 40% has been completed. It is clear that a countywide signing program is needed, but it is not being addressed as part of this update.
A short discussion by the BPAC ensued, including a question regarding which cities have adopted or modified their bicycle plans since 2001.
Ms. Walukas presented and discussed ideas for creating a list of high priority projects. The BPAC had the following input.
Ms. Walukas then discussed the definition of Transit
Bicycle/Priority Zones. The BPAC members discussed this issue, noting that the
one-mile radius was a weak link in the definition of priority transit zones and
that the emphasis should be on providing access to the hub regardless of its
shape. What matters is what is going on
inside the hub in terms of housing density, number and types of transit, and
how far its reach is. The BPAC felt that
the countywide bicycle plan should have a high priority to connect to the
center of the transit hubs and that multi-modal stations or areas with more
types of transit should have priority because this would be where there would
be the greatest opportunity to increase connections. However, they also felt the opposite could be
true, that it could be an opportunity to promote intermodalism at hubs,
stations and terminals with not as much choice in transit.
5)
Discretionary
Grants: Progress Reports
Ms. Wheeler noted that the progress reports for 13
Countywide Discretionary Fund grant projects were included in the packet. It is expected that three projects from the
first funding cycle will need extensions and three will be completed by the
required deadline of
It was suggested that the original project schedule be included in the progress reports so it is easy to compare the changes.
6) BPAC Member Reports – There were no reports by BPAC members.
7)
Adjournment/Next
meeting—The meeting adjourned at