The meeting notes were approved with no changes.

Task Force Mission and Membership

Mr. Miczek noted the concern expressed at the last meeting regarding participation from the Cook County Forest Preserve and stated that he has been working to improve the situation. He also explained, in response to a question from Mr. Paige, that the mission statement establishes the categories of task force membership. The individuals filling these positions are not named in the mission statement. It is assumed that the individuals participating on the task force will vary over time but that the groups represented will remain relatively constant.

Status of Council of Mayors Bike Planning Efforts

Mr. Miczek described the process used to evaluate the sub-regional plans. CATS used a bike plan template developed by NIPC. These reviews were forwarded to Randy Neufeld (CBF) for his use in developing the Council of Mayors Unified Work Program (UPW) proposal. Mr. Neufeld also mentioned the scoping meetings that were held with each council to assess the level of interest in bike planning. Draft recommendations are being finalized and should be ready shortly.

Mr. Winn gave an overview of the Northwest/North Shore efforts. The Northwest/North Shore council met to refine draft recommendations and was given a possible menu of planning options, drafted by Mr. Neufeld. The choices can then be used as the backbone of the UWP grant application. Council staff recommended to the council that high priority projects should be those that can be handled in-house. They are also suggesting a focus on planning at the municipal rather than the sub-regional level. The council members are most interested in technical assistance and training on how to work with traffic engineers since there are many opportunities to coordinate during maintenance and construction projects. He emphasized that the regional planning process is not as exciting to local officials as local work. 40 percent of the municipalities did send representatives to the scoping meetings. Results show that there is high interest in recreational planning, access to transit and technical assistance for local plans. Mr. Winn stated that the meetings were a good way to figure out what the municipalities want. Communication between planning and engineering departments was mentioned as a problem that might be solved by workshops where municipal staff from both departments come together. Mr. Rickert requested that Mr. Winn document the North Shore/Northwest experience for other councils going through the process. Mr. Winn is in the process of doing so.

Mr. Rickert asked if the 1995 regional planning effort was adequate to help municipalities make connections and promote the development of bikeway facilities. It was mentioned that if you start at the regional level, not everyone will be at the table anyway. Mr. Hamelberg added that these planning efforts should not be forced on resistant communities. Mr. Winn responded that the Northwest/North Shore 1995 regional effort did not result in much of a product. This was at least partially due to the fact that only 40 percent of the municipalities were involved. He added that having a range of options that councils can pick and choose from is a good idea. Mr. Paige asked if their 95 plan included a network and Mr. Winn responded that it did not. The plan does have a good list of policies and PTZ’s were established but it did not go farther than that. Mr. Paige noted that route inventories were used to put together the regional inventory.

Mr. Paige noted that he supports helping individual municipalities move forward, but that the task force should not forget it is a regional forum. Mr. Rickert summarized the difficulty of finding a balance when individual municipalities are starting from such different places and levels of interest, adding that half of Kane’s municipalities struggled to participate in the regional bike planning effort. Five years ago, they were in the same position as North Shore/Northwest; now bike planning is the norm. Mr. Winn brought up the need to provide resources for municipalities to get started.

Ms. Moore suggested that many municipalities are scared of regional planning because of concerns that they will lose some autonomy. It is better to use terms like smart growth and to help them see that regional planning will add, not detract. Mr. Christensen added that if he gets 25 percent of the municipalities at the table, he is lucky. As a result, Lake County will not be participating in the UWP project.

Mr. Zucchero attested to the usefulness of the subregional plans from the perspective of an implementer. When he worked in District 1 planning, he regularly consulted the subregional plans. He used them to help justify improvements to accommodate bikes, but would sometimes get resistance when he requested such improvements without the plans. He estimated that 80 percent of projects accommodate cyclists in some manner. Mr. Miczek explained that this was an example of how regional planning can be empowering.

Mr. Rickert stated that over 80 percent of new projects consider bicycle and pedestrian improvements because the municipalities are demanding it. Again, the local level is where the primary need is.

Presentation of CBF’s slide show

Mr. Neufeld presented the CBF slide show that was shown at the COM meetings. The show is designed to help people assess the bikability of their communities and start the bike planning process. Eventually, each council will have copies of the show. CBF is also working on a PowerPoint version, which will include a voiceover.

Ms. Meztger noticed that some of the slides showed incorrectly parked bikes (bikes parked parallel to racks, taking up multiple spaces). Mr. Neufeld explained that inverted U racks are designed for parallel parking while the wave racks are meant for perpendicular parking. Ms. Metzger clarified that she was referring to the old style racks, which Mr. Neufeld said are not recommended. They discussed removing slides that use those racks to discuss bike parking, or explaining that those aren’t recommended facilities.

Ms. Moore discussed the need for "top down" planning, i.e. from CATS and IDOT; bike routes and pedestrian accommodations must be considered as roads are built. This started a conversation about the extent to which bicycle and pedestrian planning should be regional. Mr. Neufeld stated that participation at the municipal level is what makes things happen. Mr. Hamelberg cited getting a bikeway grant from Illinois First as an example of local initiative. Ms. Moore asked if the bikeway connects and Mr. Hamelberg stated that it is an intergovernmental bikeway. Mr. Neufeld suggested that some areas will be more regional in focus than others. For example, in Barrington, the greatest potential for automobile trip reduction is within the municipality. There are other places where connections are more important.

Mr. Winn inquired about IDOT’s policy for major road improvements and was informed that bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are supposed to be considered as a matter of course. Mr. Neufeld cautioned against relying on that policy. Mr. Zucchero described IDOT’s process. Three-to-five years before project implementation, letters go out to municipalities calling for input. He noted that usually they do not get much of a response and decisions default to traffic engineers. Mr. Rickert ventured that this is another example of where coordination could be improved.

Regional Bike Planning

Ms. Heringa presented the work NIPC and Openlands has been doing on the Regional Greenways and Waterways systems. The 1997 Waterways map is much more extensive than the 1995 map (showing 4,300 miles compared to 1,600 miles), largely due to the addition of many streams. (The regional waterways network is an unprecedented effort.) Workshops revealed a demand for more East/West linkages and large loops. The 1995 bike inventory was used to identify some linkages. The Grand Illinois Trail (475 miles) will link Lake Michigan to the Mississippi. NIPC will bring a packet that summarizes these activities to the next meeting. Ms. Heringa distributed copies of the Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Trail Plan Executive Summary and a fact sheet.

Mr. Rickert asked if the effort plays into federal regional planning mandates. Mr. Miczek suggested it might in terms of access to recreation. Mr. Anderson proposed that a future task force meeting address Grand Illinois Trail issues and the task force agreed to put it on the agenda.

Status of Municipal Guide Update

Ms. Kilgore, a new CATS cadre focusing on bicycle and pedestrian issues, introduced herself and talked about her experiences as a cyclist and pedestrian. She presented some ideas about revising the Municipal Bicycle Planning Resource Guide, framed by several questions. Who is the audience? What tools do they need? What is the most effective and efficient format for communicating information? She suggested the audience was primarily local officials, municipal planners, engineers and private citizens in suburban municipalities who are interested in initiating and supporting a bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. Because there are already a lot of technical resources available in other publications, the guide should probably not be too technical. Tools might include:

Conceptual Overview - Why long range transportation planning? Why bicycle and pedestrian planning? How does it fit into the larger planning context? This may also include discussion of how to get started and draft an action plan and topics that a bicycle and pedestrian plan should address.

Case Studies - Model processes, plans and projects based on local and national municipal experience.

Resources - Technical and design advice, assessment tools, funding information, contacts, etc.

Ms. Fagan supported including private citizens in the audience. Mr. Paige proposed the guide deal with sub-regional and regional planning issues, i.e., include reference to the Council of Mayors, urge that planning efforts be linked with efforts in neighboring communities and mention the regional database effort. Mr. Winn suggested a "where do we go from here" component, to push municipalities that are further along in their local efforts to make connections with others. Ms. Metzger suggested NIPC’s Regional Greenways work be included. Ms. Moore was pleased that the guide will include a pedestrian section. This opened up the discussion on the format of the guide--specifically, the extent to which pedestrian and bike issues should be addressed jointly.

Mr. Neufeld explained that pedestrian planning is simultaneously newer and more embedded in the development process than bike planning. Mr. Winn asked if pedestrian issues should even be addressed in the guide, especially considering the immediate need for bike planning information. One possibility is to have a bicycle and pedestrian planning "tool kit" which would include an overview, specific sections on bicycle and pedestrian planning and appendices (that could contain model ordinances, Speaker’s Bureau, list of useful publications, etc.) that could be easily updated. Some information could also be posted on the CATS Web site and distributed via CD. Mr. Hamelberg endorsed the concept of pedestrian planning, noting that Barrington’s Master Plan includes a pedestrian component.

It was suggested that Ms. Kilgore come up with a draft outline of the guide and present it at the February PL meeting. Ms. Metzger suggested a meeting with the pedestrian intern at CNT before he leaves the position.

Formation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Standards Working Group

Mr. Miczek indicated that he was seeking persons interested in serving in the Data Standards Working Group. He noted that Mr. Neufeld has agreed to serve and Ms. Fagan was considering it. He was also going to ask Megan Swanson (PL representative) and Ryan Chew (task force alternate who has expressed interest in the topic). Some examples of data that might be collected include user counts and crash information. In response to a question on the types of standards to be set Mr. Miczek used the example of user counts. Standards would address such issues as: time of year, time of day and day of the week to collect data, whether data should be collected for one hour or 15 minute intervals, and whether counts should be taken in one or two directions. The issue of data interpretation was brought up, as well as avoiding collecting data for the sake of collecting it. Instead, consider what the data needs are in terms of programming. Mr. Winn said consideration should be given to collecting data that may be useful in the CMAQ evaluation process of bike projects

CATS staff will continue recruiting volunteers for the working group and set up a meeting.

Soles and Spokes

Ms. Lea directed the group’s attention to Attachment 5 and asked if there were any questions about the information. Mr. Miczek provided a summary of the where planning for the conference stood. Ms. Lea noted that attendance at the bicycle training session requires AASHTO’s 1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Task force members will receive a mailing, with registration and nomination information, before the next meeting.

Walkable Communities’ Train the Trainer

Mr. Petersen’s memo about bringing Dan Burden in to do training was discussed. Although he has been tentatively booked, funding sources and level of interest need to be identified before confirming. There was discussion about who the target audience for this kind of training would be. Consultants, municipal planners and advocates were mentioned. Mr. Neufeld explained that the phrase "train the trainer" is a little misleading; while participants will gain the skills to train others to do pedestrian assessments and planning, it will be sufficient if they use their skills to become leaders in community planning. The time commitment required for the training raised more concern than the cost. So did the proximity of the proposed training to the Soles and Spokes Conference. Mr. Winn suggested holding off until fall and looking into UWP grants.

CATS staff will continue to look into the feasibility of the training and put together more detailed information on what the training involves.

Other business

Mr. Rickert noted that the call for CMAQ projects has gone out. Ms. Meztger congratulated PACE for working on equipping busses with bike racks. A motion was passed to consider bikes on transit, especially Metra, at the next meeting.

Next Meeting

The next scheduled meeting is Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in the CATS Conference room.