Ms. Bolte explained that the issue of including a map of planned facilities had been brought up at a recent RTP committee meeting. The prevailing feeling there was that plans should not be shown but that there should be a strong statement of intent for a regional plan to be developed that includes planned facilities. The committee had also made some suggestions for revising the text of the bike/ped section of the update.

Ms. O’Keefe expressed concern that a protocol was bypassed by bringing up the issue of including a map of planned facilities as an aside at the meeting. She felt the task force needs a formal opportunity to communicate with the RTP committee. Ms. Bolte explained that the task force can still make a formal recommendation, but that she wanted the task force to be aware of the RTP committee’s thoughts on the matter.

Mr. Anderson stated that it would be healthy for the public to see and comment on the various plans in the region. Ms. Bolte explained that CATS can’t submit other agency’s plans for public comment. Mr. Neufeld suggested that, in many ways, what’s happening here is a model because in other places there is a top down planning approach. Other areas are envious of subregional planning. However, our region doesn’t yet have the "quilt" that puts together all the pieces that have been done. A regional bike/ped plan will knit it all together. He feels that to try to throw something together quickly is a mistake. Careful attention needs to be paid to issues like connectivity. He suggested the RTP text include strong language that calls for the development of a regional bike/ped plan. Mr. Hamelberg spoke on behalf of the Council of Mayors, which feels it would be an error to publish plan maps at this time. It would, however, support stronger language.

Mr. Privett asked about the scope of revisions in the other sections of the RTP. Ms. Bolte explained that, for the most part, the changes are minor. However, some new elements are being added, such as the universal access piece.

Mr. Privett stated that a map does not equal a plan. He cited Chicago as an example; the city developed a plan which included goals and strategies and progress has been made in almost all areas. Maps can be developed later, as part of the plan. He noted that bicycles are coming from behind in the transportation planning process. Rather than throw something together in reaction to this proposal, we need to get a running start, starting at the next meeting.

Mr. Rickert, speaking from the county perspective, concurred with the Council of Mayors. A planning process needs to be put together. There is so much going on in terms of local planning; it needs to be pulled together logically. Ms. Metzger called for specific language about how we can make this happen in the 2030 RTP, as well as a constant increase in resources. Ms. Bolte noted that the update shows that resources are already increasing. A solid plan would be another tool to increase funding. Mr. Bury added that his councils have made trails eligible for Surface Transportation Project funds. Last year, half the projects that came in had bike components.

Mr. Andersen explained that IPTA is still requesting recognition of its trail system in the RTP to acknowledge that there is a regional off-road trail plan that has gone through many public hearings and received a great deal of input. He added that it might not be the perfect transportation system (for example, it needs more connections to the local road network), but it’s hard to see where we are going to identify new off-road opportunities. This plan is also fairly consistent with other plans.

Mr. Rickert and Ms. Bolte called attention to the fact that the IPTA plan is mentioned in the text of the RTP. Mr. Andersen feels that is not enough; it should also be included in map form.

Ms. Kilgore stated that there is a difference between a regional bikeway network and a regional trails system. A regionally significant facility does not have to be off-road. She also expressed concern that regional bike planning is being equated with regional mapping. A regional bicycle and pedestrian plan will address more than facilities—it will address policy, funding and coordination. Mr. Privett added that a plan without a map is still a plan.

Mr. Neufeld created a motion to include a map of existing and committed facilities (i.e., keep the same format that is currently in the RTP) and add the following language to the RTP: a regional bicycle and pedestrian plan, including planned facilities, will be developed as part of the 2030 planning process. Mr. Chew noted that sometimes there is no evidence that a road designated as an existing bicycle facility on the map has any anything to recommend it as such. He gave the example of someone decreeing that the sun will rise and taking credit for it when it does.

Mr. Andersen asked to amend the motion to include adding existing maps to the RTP as an appendix. He feels the plans need to get out to the public. Mr. Neufeld countered that maps are not plans; such an action does disservice to those who created policies.

Ms. O’Keefe asked if the 2030 planned facilities would also include off-road trails. Many cyclists are uncomfortable riding on major highways. The off-road system needs to be part of plan. Mr. Neufeld responded that all subregional plans have on and off road components. Also, the IPTA is not the only agency implementing off-road facilities. A bikeway network includes a mix of facilities; to try to separate them out from one another would be a real problem. Mr. Rickert added that for Kane County off-road facilities are the largest component of the network. Ms. Bolte explained that the IPTA plan is not being put aside. The work IPTA is doing will be a part of the regional plan and network. We need to piece everyone’s work together to look for missing links. A regional plan might also address issues like bike parking, access to transit and marketing. Ms. Kilgore added that the education component is important as well, as it can help cyclists build the skills and confidence to not feel limited to the off-road network. We need to figure out how to accommodate travel within and between communities for people who wish to walk or bike, while acknowledging that there is a range of comfort level, ability and preferences.

Mr. Neufeld’s motion was put to a vote and passed. Mr. Andersen created a motion to include adopted local and sub-regional plans as an appendix to the RTP. Ms. Metzger suggested, as an alternative, making the plans available on the CATS website. Ms. Bolte noted that the RTP committee had asked the task force to expand the bike/ped promotional section in the RTP and that CATS staff had been discussing having a greater web presence for bike and ped planning. Mr. Andersen requested the consideration of his motion without changes.

Mr. Hamelberg communicated that the Council of Mayors is not in favor of such an action. There is concern that it would put municipalities in competition with one another. Ms. Bolte brought up a logistical concern. The plans exist in a range of formats and sizes; how large an appendix is practical? Will that be a useful tool? Mr. Andersen’s motion failed to pass.

Ms. Bolte suggested we make a call for all municipalities and sub-regions to send in their planning and map documents in anticipation of putting together a regional bicycle and pedestrian plan with facilities for the 2030 RTP. Mr. Privett suggested placing an electronic bibliography of available plans on the CATS website. Requests were made for CATS staff to present suggestions for web content at the next task force meeting and to add something to the RTP about the website being a planning and education tool.

Mr. Andersen stated that he hopes even if there is not total agreement by the 2030 RTP plan process, we can move forward. He feels this is the same conversation that occurred four years ago. Ms. Bolte noted that by calling for a regional plan to be developed in the next round we are making huge leaps. Mr. Chew explained that he has been siding with Mr. Andersen on the principle that we need to be working harder and faster. He suggested some priorities, such as developing or improving the criteria for the designation of bicycle facilities and gathering more statistics to help us understand the need and potential for bicycling. He asked what it means to regionally plan for bicycle and pedestrian travel when those modes usually involve distances that are not even visible on the region’s map. Does it mean to create guidelines and standards?

Mr. Rickert asked if the task force could spend some time focusing on what to communicate to the RTP committee. Ms. Metzger suggested setting targets for the scope of the regional plan, such as acquiring more data about the use and safety of bicycling and walking and developing better links to transit. Mr. Rickert stated that we need to define what is regionally significant. Some feel it’s the off-road network, others that it’s where the density and missing links are.

The conversation that followed addressed changes to the policy section, including the addition of examples of strategies to remove missing links as well as changing one of the access to transit statements from "Accommodate bicycles on transit where feasible" to "Accommodate bicycles on transit." The language about the data standards working group was clarified to show that it was created in 2000

Ms. Metzger suggested adding more specific language about where bicycle funding comes from and expressed frustration that IDOT does not mention bikes in its budget. Mr. Privett explained that bicycle accommodations are integrated into road projects. Ms. Metzger also stated that we need to hear from more people about their transportation needs. Mr. Neufeld responded that a lot of public involvement is already occurring and cited the council bike planning meetings as an example. He agreed with Ms. Metzger that these are all important issues, but also feels the committee can work on a lot of them without waiting for the development of the regional bike/ped plan.

CATS staff was directed to make the discussed revisions and additions to the RTP and the meeting was adjourned.