Page | 0
BPAC STRATEGIC
PLAN (FY2023-2033)
MEMBERS (FY 2023)
COUNCILOR MICHAEL GARCIA, MPA, CHAIR, DISTRICT 2
KHALIL SPENCER, PhD, VICE CHAIR, DISTRICT 1
YOLANDA EISENSTEIN, Esq., POLICY, PLANNING, & LAW SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR, DISTRICT 1
JUDITH GABRIELE, MPH, PROMOTION, EDUCATION & PROGRAMMING SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR, DISTRICT 2
TONY GERLICZ, DISTRICT 2
BEN PINGILLEY, TECHNICAL REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR, DISTRICT 3
STEVEN PILCHER, MIM, DISTRICT 3
CANDACE ELLA MARTINEZ, DISTRICT 4
PALOMA SANCHEZ, DISTRICT 4
ERIK AABOE, COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE
SUBCOMMITTEE CITIZEN MEMBERS
POLICY, PLANNING & LAW: LARA MILLER & GARY SCHIFFMILLER
PROMOTION, EDUCATION & PROGRAMMING: GABRIEL GAARDEN , JON PYLE & RACHEL WEXLER
TECHNICAL REVIEW: NATHAN LEMONS & TIM ROGERS
STAFF LIAISON
ROMELLA GLORIOSO-MOSS, PhD, AICP
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(BPAC)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION…………………………..…………………………………………….1
VISION……………………………….………..……………….…………….….………..2
MISSION STATEMENT…………………..……………………………………………..2
DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES…………………………………..…………………….3
EXTERNAL ANALYSIS: FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE FUTURES………...…..4
Table 1: Key Decision Factors (Opportunities and Threats)
Figure 1: The Building Blocks of a Bicycle Friendly Community
Figure 2: Clustering of Key Decision Factors into Societal Driving Forces
Figure 3: Scenario Formats
Figure 4: Scenarios Key Characteristics (2023-2033)
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: BPAC’S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES………..…...12
SWOT ANALYSIS – KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED……………………………..……...13
THE STRATEGY FOR CHARTING A DIFFERENT FUTURE…………..…………..14
ACTION PLAN (FY2023-2033)…………………………………………..……………14
Action 1: Formulate Policies, Programs, and Practices
Action 2: Assist Public Works and Land Use Departments
Table 2: BPAC’s Approved Priority Projects (2020-Present)
Action 3: Integrate Public Transport, Education, and Marketing Programs
Table 3: List of Possible Partner Organizations
APPENDIXES…………………………………..………………………………………23
A: Resolution No. 2021-8
B: Multiple Scenario Strategic Planning Process (MSSP)
C: October 2021 Survey Results
B I C Y C L I N G A N D P E D E S T R I A N A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E
1 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION
The Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was first established on September
24, 2003 as the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC) via Resolution No. 2003-87. It
was renamed on January 27, 2021 BPAC via Resolution No. 2021-8 (Appendix A). It’s an advisory
committee of the City of Santa Fe’s Public Works Department, Complete Streets Division.
As articulated in Resolution 2021-8, “The purpose of the Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee is to provide input and advice that supports the ongoing development and maintenance
of a transportation infrastructure that makes bicycling and walking in the City of Santa Fe safe,
equitable, viable, and comfortable modes of transportation, commuting, and recreation. This
includes the responsibility to deliberate on City projects, plans, and policies that impact both on-
road and off-road bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and to advise the Governing Body on
such matters.”
BPAC consists of ten members: one of whom is a member of the City Council who serves as its
Chair, along with nine members of the public, eight of whom are City residents and one who may
be a County resident. They are appointed by the Mayor for two-year staggered terms for no longer
than six consecutive years. They represent diverse interests among recreationists, youth and
neighborhood groups, commuters, pedestrian, and bicyclists.
Currently, BPAC has three subcommittees appointed by the Chair whose memberships consist of
four BPAC members and three members of the public. These three subcommittees are: (1) Policy,
Planning and Law (“PPL”); (2) Promotion, Education and Programming (“PEP”); and, (3)
Technical Review (“TR”). Each subcommittee is chaired by a BPAC member.
This Strategic Plan developed for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2033 was initiated in January 2022
by the Policy, Planning, and Law subcommittee. It’s the first strategic plan developed by the
Committee in recognition that a long-term view and a workable strategy and action plan are needed
to achieve its vision, mission and objectives. Ten years was chosen as the time-frame for the plan
since the majority of roadways and trails projects take an average of ten years from project
development through construction. Moreover, the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
– a $1.2 trillion funding mechanism for infrastructure, which the City is relying on for much of the
design and construction of transportation alternative infrastructure coincides with the time-frame
of this strategic plan. The methodology used for developing the plan follows the Multiple Scenario
Strategic Planning Process (“MSSP”) described in Appendix B.
In more recent years, BPAC has partnered with a few organizations such as the Santa Fe
Metropolitan Planning Organization, Santa Fe Conservation Trust, City of Santa Fe Public Safety
2 | P a g e
Committee and the Santa Fe Safe Route to Schools Program, which they can rely on to implement
parts of the Strategic Plan.
It is also important to note that the survey undertaken in October, 2021 conducted by the
Promotion, Education and Programming subcommittee, has been a rich resource for formulating
the strategy and action plan. Full survey results are attached as Appendix C.
VISION – A COMMUNITY’S DESIRED IMAGE OF THE FUTURE
By 2050, the City of Santa Fe has achieved the League of American Bicyclists Diamond-level
Bike Friendly Community designation where 20% of Santa Feans are commuting by bicycle with
0.2 fatalities and 50 crashes per 10,000 daily commuters. This is achieved through following the
Complete Streets design guidelines resulting in 90% of Santa Fe arterial streets having bicycle
lanes. See Fig. 1, The Building Blocks of A Bicycle Friendly Community, The League of American
Bicyclists.
Figure 1: The Building Blocks of A Bicycle Friendly Community
MISSION STATEMENT
Ensure that bicycling and walking in the City of Santa Fe are safe, equitable, viable, and
comfortable modes of transportation, commuting, and recreation. Within 10 years, by the end of
this planning period (FY 2033), the City of Santa Fe has successfully obtained the League of
3 | P a g e
American Bicyclists Gold-level Bicycle Friendly Community designation, increasing City’s
bicycle ridership from 1% to 5.5%; and 65% of City’s arterial streets have bicycle lanes. See Fig.
1, The Building Blocks of A Bicycle Friendly Community, The League of American Bicyclists.
DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES
Per Section 3 of Resolution 2021-8 the duties and responsibilities of Committee Members are:
a) Assist in the prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects to be completed
using city, state, and federal funds, through the development of the Santa Fe Metropolitan
Planning Organization (“SFMPO”) Bicycle Master Plan and the SFMPO Pedestrian Master
plan;
b) Review preliminary designs for new Public Works projects involving public roadways and
trails funded out of city, state, or federal sources to ensure designs comply with the City's
commitment to make bicycling and walking safe, equitable, viable, and comfortable modes
of transportation. Design plan reviews shall take place at 30% design and before plans are
presented to the public for comments or submitted for review to the New Mexico
Department of Transportation (“NMDOT”);
c) Advise on policies, programs, and ordinances as they relate to bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure safety, design, construction, and operation and maintenance;
d) Develop, review, and advise on media and educational campaigns providing information
and promoting bicycle- and pedestrian-related activities and education;
e) Work with other agencies for the enhancement of city and county trail systems;
f) Review and recommend updates to the Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan,
Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Parks Master Plan related to trails, and the City’s Land
Use Development Code as they pertain to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and
associated regulations;
g) Seek funding from city, state, and federal sources to implement the City-led projects
identified in the SFMPO’s 2019 Bicycle Master Plan and 2020 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan and consider reoccurring funding sources from the City to be applied
to the implementation of policies, programs, and other projects that are supported by the
plans;
h) Pursue the League of American Bicyclists Diamond-level Bicycle Friendly Community
designation for the City of Santa Fe, as well as any other local, state, or national awards or
designations that the City deems worthy of pursuit;
i) Advise on polices, projects, ordinances, and funding as they relate to bicycling and walking
as safe, equitable, viable, and comfortable modes of transportation; and
j) Educate the public on the work of the Committee.
4 | P a g e
EXTERNAL ANALYSIS: FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE
FUTURES (2023-2033)
As described in Appendix B, the next step in the MSSP is the External Analysis referring to the
formulation of multiple scenarios that begins with the identification of key opportunities and
threats that BPAC has no control over, but would likely impact BPAC’s mission achievement.
These opportunities and threats, called key decision factors, are listed in Table 1 below, and are
categorized as socio-cultural, economic, political, technological/infrastructure and environmental.
Table 1: Key Decision Factors (Opportunities and Threats)
Key Decision Factors
(Opportunities and Threats)
Socio-Cultural (S)
Economic (Eco)
Political (P)
Technological or
Infrastructure (TI)
Environmental
(Env)
Opportunity (+)
Threat (-)
1) Federal funding (Infrastructure and
Investment Jobs Act)
Eco
+
2) Numerous organizations with bicycle and
pedestrian focus (SFMPO, Santa Fe
Conservation Trust, Earth Care, Bike Santa Fe,
Chainbreaker Collective, Local Bike Shops,
etc.)
S, Env
+
3) Supportive City Council
P
+
4) League of American Bicyclist Silver Level
Bike Friendly Community Designation
S
+
5) High fuel prices, which means more income
for the state but which makes driving less
affordable to much of the public.
Eco
+/-
6) E-bikes (game changer especially for older
adults and longer trips, but expensive.
However prices will come down)
TI, Eco, Env
+
7) Aging population (decreasing stamina for
bicycling; older drivers have higher accident
rates (crashes and fatality) compared to
S, Eco, Env
+/-
5 | P a g e
Key Decision Factors
(Opportunities and Threats)
Socio-Cultural (S)
Economic (Eco)
Political (P)
Technological or
Infrastructure (TI)
Environmental
(Env)
Opportunity (+)
Threat (-)
younger drivers; no longer active in the
workforce, therefore bicycle/walk for
recreation; superior purchasing power)
8) No grants funding for maintenance of trails,
sidewalks, roads/streets, etc. Funded via Gross
Receipts Tax (“GRT”) or operational funds
therefore many trails, roadways, sidewalks,
etc. are not in good condition.
Eco, P
-
9) Limited connectivity particularly in Districts 3
and 4.
TI
-
10) Unsafe roads to bicycle and walk
TI
-
11) Sprawl/Land use pattern – long distances to
bicycle/walk to work, school, shopping or
entertainment
S, TI
-
12) Insufficient resource for effective traffic
enforcement
Eco
-
13) Strong car culture/ weak bicycle culture
S
-
14) Lack of educational/ environmental awareness
S, Eco, Env
-
15) Less bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
(especially bicycle trails) in Southwest of the
City where growth is the fastest and poverty
rate the highest.
S, Eco, TI
-
16) Competing priorities
Eco, P
-
17) Open space vs housing (rise of gated
communities where wealthy people live in
neighborhoods with excellent, well-
maintained streets, sidewalks, trails, open
space and parks)
S, Eco
-
18) Tourists’ needs and wants vs residents’ needs
and wants
S, Eco, P
-/+
6 | P a g e
Key Decision Factors
(Opportunities and Threats)
Socio-Cultural (S)
Economic (Eco)
Political (P)
Technological or
Infrastructure (TI)
Environmental
(Env)
Opportunity (+)
Threat (-)
19) Lack of pro-bicycle and pedestrian policy
implementation (i.e. Complete Streets, Smart
Growth, Infill)
S, P
-
20) Lack of political will
S, P
-
21) High crashes and fatality (State level
particularly)
TI
-
22) Infrastructure that favors cars over bicycles and
pedestrians.
S, TI
-
23) Sidewalks are too narrow and inappropriate for
bicycles, but often the only safe route; majority
are not ADA compliant; majority of sidewalks
are not well maintained because maintenance
is the responsibility of homeowners.
TI, S
-
24) Stigma towards people riding public transit;
therefore unwilling to make first and last mile
(FLM) of the trip via bicycle or walking.
S
-
25) More funding for roadways compared to
bicycle trails.
Eco
-
26) High real estate value downtown where work is
more available.
Eco
-
27) Lack of recognition of the work of BPAC.
S, P
-
28) Differing goals between design engineers who
have an interest in moving motor vehicles
quickly and transportation planners who
encourage multiple modes of travel sharing
facilities; engineers currently have more
influence in project outcomes.
S, TI
-
29) High cost of living.
Eco
-/+
30) Undependable public transit system – running
too hot/ too cold; not enough drivers; buses not
in good condition; routes too long and not
direct to places of work; lack of a grid system
that makes buses efficient.
S
-
7 | P a g e
Key Decision Factors
(Opportunities and Threats)
Socio-Cultural (S)
Economic (Eco)
Political (P)
Technological or
Infrastructure (TI)
Environmental
(Env)
Opportunity (+)
Threat (-)
31) High inflation rate.
Eco
-/+
32) Looming economic recession (may be global
due to Russian-Ukraine war).
Eco
-/+
33) Perceived high cost of construction and
maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure per user compared to cost of
roadways per motor vehicles user resulting in
lower Cost-Benefit Ratio for walking/
bicycling investments.
Eco, P
-
34) Local funding such as GRT, and Roads Impact
Fees collected to fund roads and trails
infrastructure all-time high.
Eco
+
35) Reducing climate change impacts and
increasing resiliency and adaptation (high cost
with huge impact to economy; how committed
is City government to Carbon Neutrality by
2040; is 2040 too late?).
Env
-/+
36) Will state or Federal government pass law that
will force a shift to emission-free vehicles (e-
vehicles, bicycles, mass transit), or will
resource depletion do the same, thus
controlling events?
P, Env
-+/
37) BPAC Survey shows that Santa Feans bicycle
and walk for recreation (exercise and
entertainment); not to work, school or
shopping.
S, TI
-
38) BPAC survey indicates that 72% of Santa Feans
surveyed don’t bicycle or walk to work,
school, etc. because bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are “inconvenient to access, not in
their neighborhood, hard to get to, and/or they
don't go where they want to go.” While 23% of
survey respondents stated “they don’t feel
safe.”
TI
-
8 | P a g e
Key Decision Factors
(Opportunities and Threats)
Socio-Cultural (S)
Economic (Eco)
Political (P)
Technological or
Infrastructure (TI)
Environmental
(Env)
Opportunity (+)
Threat (-)
39) BPAC survey respondents identified the
following infrastructure is needed in Santa Fe to
increase bicycling and walking:
a. Physically separated/protected bike
lane (90%)
b. Easily navigable bikeways to the
southside (74%)
c. Streets closed to motorized
traffic/cycling with pedestrian access
only (61%)
d. Universal user activated blinking stop
signals at crosswalks (58%)
e. Bike boxes (designated space for
bikes at intersections to direct them
through the intersection) (53%)
TI
-
The next step in MSSP is to coalesce or cluster the 39 key decision factors identified in Table 1
above into two or three groups which are called societal driving forces. As shown in Figure 1, the
key decision factors coalesced into two (2) societal driving forces, namely: 1) availability of
funding from federal, state and City to build safe, accessible, and convenient bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure; and 2) prevailing car culture defined as a way of life characterized by a prioritization
of cars over other modes of transportation, and excessive use of or reliance on motor vehicles in
American society. This is in part, a result of land use and transportation decisions that often lock
society into an auto-dependent paradigm, and in part, due to society’s higher valuing of
convenience, speed and social status over equity and environmental considerations.
9 | P a g e
Figure 2: Clustering of Key Decision Factors into Societal Driving Forces
LEGEND:
2
3
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
Car Culture
27
28
1
5
6
8
15
16
22
25
Funding Availability
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
2
8
20
10
23
Socio-cultural
Economic
Political
Technological/ Infrastructure
Environmental
37
38
39
Key Decision Factors
Key Societal Driving Forces
10 | P a g e
The next step in MSSP’s External Analysis is the formulation of alternative future scenarios. This
step is done by first making the societal driving forces neutral, or non-directional, then positioning
them in axial relationship, or what is called scenario formats. Their number will depend on the
number of societal driving forces. For example, two societal driving forces generate four scenario
formats as shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 3: Scenario Formats
The combination of the two societal driving forces forms the scenario logics that will define the
characteristics of each scenario. For example, in Figure 3, Scenario B has increasing (+) Funding
Availability and increasing (+) Car Culture. With the logics of Scenario B (+,+), one expects that
the percentage of the total federal, state and city funding allocated for multi-modal transportation
especially for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is much higher in Scenario B compared to
Scenario C and D with decreasing (-) Funding Availability but much less than Scenario A, where
Society’s valuing of Car Culture is decreasing (-). See Figure 3 for key characteristics of each
scenario.
Scenario
A
(+, -)
Scenario
B
(+, +)
Scenario
C
(-, -)
Scenario
D (-, +)
Increasing
Car Culture
Increasing Funding Availability
(this
Decreasing
Car Culture
Decreasing Funding Availability
(this
11 | P a g e
Figure 4: Scenarios Key Characteristics (2023-2033)
Scenario Key
Indicators*
Scenario A
“Our Vision”
(+, -)
Scenario B
“Our Planning
Period
Mission”
(+, +)
Scenario C
“Not A Bad
Future for Planet
Earth”
(-, -)
Scenario D
“Most Likely
Future to Unfold”
(-, +)
% of the total
federal, state and
city funding
allocated for multi-
modal transportation
especially bicycle
and pedestrian
infrastructure
15%
5%
2%
0.5%
% of City population
bicycling or walking
to work, school,
shop or recreation
20%
5.5%
3.5%
1%
Economic Recession
Moderate
No
Long & Deep
Short
Global Climate
change impacts
Very Low
Moderate
Low
Unabated
Connectivity
Excellent
Moderate
Poor
Very Poor
Total bicycle &
pedestrian network
mileage to total road
network mileage
70%
30%
15%
5%
Arterial streets with
bicycle lanes and
ADA compliant
sidewalks
90%
45%
15%
5%
Bike access to public
transportation
Excellent
Average
Above Average
Poor
* For bicycling key indicators, we used the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly
Community criteria for the 5 designations (Bronze through Diamond).
After we describe the characteristics of each scenario, we then choose the most likely scenario to
unfold in the future (2023-2033) to guide the strategy and action plan. For this planning period,
BPAC thinks Scenario D will unfold – the future BPAC needs to contend or to plan for.
12 | P a g e
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: BPAC’S STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
This analysis involves the identification and evaluation of BPAC’s Strengths and Weaknesses for
achieving its mission. They are usually identified in terms of human, financial, physical,
informational, and temporal resources. In contrast with the Opportunities and Threats identified in
the External Analysis section, BPAC has control over its own Strengths and Weaknesses
enumerated below. However, they are not listed in order of importance.
STRENGTHS
Committed group to achieve the mission and purpose
Members have relevant experience and knowledge
Diverse skill set
Mandate is documented through a resolution
Members are active
Cohesive / unified view of mission
Staggered terms
Unlike other Advisory Committees, BPAC is chaired by a City Councilor
BPAC has a seat on Public Safety Committee, which is also chaired by a City Councilor
Has long-time, well-established partnerships with SFMPO and SFCT
City is Silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community through BPAC
Member – League of American Bicyclists
WEAKNESSES
Little direct power to mandate meaningful changes; is dependent on others in government
(Public Works, SFMPO, Land Use)
Lack of diversity - gender, racial, some districts not represented, etc.
Lack of volunteers
Silos of committees – except for Public Safety Committee, BPAC does not interact or
coordinate their activities with other City Committees or Commissions such as Public
Transit or Planning Commission
Long meetings - dissuading participation or discouraging volunteers
Limited Staff support – only support from Staff Liaison. No Stenographer; no full-time
bike and ped coordinator with Civil Engineering or similar degree to provide clout
No strategic plan
Duties & responsibilities in the resolution exceed what members have the power to do due
to lack of resources: funding and staff
Lack of clarity in members’ mind – is BPAC a City Advisory Committee or Complete
Streets Advisory Committee? Is there a difference? Is BPAC advising the City or Public
Works Department?
13 | P a g e
Where does the responsibility for City’s bicycle and pedestrian planning lie? Is it with
BPAC, SFMPO, or Public Works Department’s Complete Streets? What is the process for
prioritizing projects?
SWOT ANALYSIS – KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
This step brings together the separately identified strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) of BPAC to
achieve the mission in the context of Scenario D – the most likely future to unfold in FY2023-
2033– opportunities (O) and threats (T) for mission achievement. This will result in identification
of key issues that need to be addressed for achieving the mission.
Evaluating the Opportunities and Threats of the Most Likely Future (see Scenario D, Figure 4
above) against BPAC’s Strengths and Weaknesses (see Table 1 above), the following key issues
must be addressed in the Strategy and Action Plan.
Shift the prevailing car culture towards a more multi-modal transportation culture. Included
in this shift is finding a way to a) reduce stigma towards people who ride public transit;
and 2) create a community where walking and bicycling live safely and comfortably with
faster, longer-distance modes.
Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning to create bicycle and pedestrian-friendly
communities that will result in connected neighborhoods and places with accessible,
convenient, and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Develop a meaningful public involvement process in road and street design that includes
respect for all user input into the project. The enabling Resolution authorizes review and
input when plans are at 30% and final design stages. Involvement at the conceptual stage
for both the public and BPAC will result in designs that better accommodate all users.
Need for paradigm shifts including:
a. from roadways to streets. Roads are thoroughfares designed to speed travel between
two points, streets have homes or shops on both sides to facilitate public interaction;
b. moving cars to moving people so all modes have equal value;
c. limiting choice to multiple choice;
d. from traffic signals to roundabouts;
e. street landscaping important component of Complete Streets;
f. counting all trips; not only vehicles miles traveled (VMT); and
g. from Gray Infrastructure to Green Infrastructure.
THE STRATEGY FOR CHARTING A DIFFERENT FUTURE
Shift City policies, programs and practices including those of Land Use and Public Works,
toward bicycle and pedestrian friendly infrastructure to help people feel safe and more
14 | P a g e
comfortable about traveling by bicycle or walking with other traffic. Substantial increases in
bicycling and walking require an integrated package of many different, complementary
interventions, including infrastructure provisions and pro-bicycle and pedestrian programs,
supportive land use planning, and restrictions on car use. Both the Strategy and the Action Plan
below need top-down buy-in from all levels of city government.
ACTION PLAN (FY2023-2033)
The Action Plan developed to implement the strategy is a three-pronged approach that addresses
distance; providing appropriate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; and the integration of public
transport, education and marketing programs. Although the Strategy developed is for 10 years, the
Action Plan below is focused on the first five years of strategy implementation (2023-2027).
The implementation of this Action Plan will be led by one of the three BPAC Subcommittees:
Policy, Planning & Law (PPL) – Ensures that the City of Santa Fe’s plans, policies, and laws
support BPAC’s purpose and the City’s goal to make bicycling and walking safe, equitable, viable,
and comfortable.
Promotion, Education & Programming (PEP) – Develops, reviews, and advises on
communications campaigns that inform and educate Santa Fe residents and visitors on the bicycle
and walking rules and regulations, BPAC, relevant events, safety, and other communications that
support BPAC’s purpose.
Technical Review (TR) – Ensures that Santa Fe’s infrastructure projects include critical
components that contribute to the safety, accessibility, connectivity and equity of bicyclists and
pedestrians.
15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
Table 2: BPAC’s Approved Priority Projects (2020 – present)
A) Roadway and Sidewalk Improvements:
1) Bishop’s Lodge Road Reconstruction – Project Termini: Paseo de Peralta to City/County
Boundary (2.8 mi). Engineering design funded via Transportation Project Fund ($800,000)
and Road Impact Fees ($327,000) for a total of $1,127,000. Design phase started January 1,
2022.
2) Buckman Road Pavement Rehabilitation – Project Termini: Cattle guard to Camino de las
Crucitas (1.32 mi). Engineering design funded via Local Government Road Fund ($73,000).
Cooperative Agreement not yet executed.
3) Add curb cut/bulb out at the end of Acequia Trail and Montezuma Avenue.
B) Trail Improvements
1) Acequia Trail - Otowi to La Cieneguita via Maclovia and Hermanos Rodriguez Parks with
connection to Cielo Vista Park. ~$1,650,000
2) Tierra Contenta Arroyo Chamiso Trail – design: Along South Meadows and to Camino
Entrada, via school crossing and city-owned corridor to Camino Estrada (design) ~$425,000
3) NM Central Rail Trail - Pinon Elementary School to Pueblos del Sol Trails - Safe Routes to
School. ~$650,000
19 | P a g e
4) Mid-town Campus Trail - Using east boundary easement, from Siringo to driveway near St.
Michael’s Dr., w/connections to LaFarge Library, Middle School, St. Michael's Village W.
shopping center. ~ $1,400,000
5) Arroyo Chamisos Trail Extension - Linking East and West Zia and connect to Botulph Road
and/or Gail Ryba Trail. ~ $1,500,000
6) El Camino Real Academy Trail connecting Cottonwood Mobile Home Village to El Camino
Real Academy. ~ $2,000,000
7) Mutt-Nelson Rd Trail to connect to Tierra Contenta Trail & SWAN Park
C. Signage/Striping Improvements
1) Wayfinding Project (Phase 1-3) (Phase 1 for implementation FY2023)
2) Sharrows Maintenance (Submitted to Traffic Operations Manager; for implementation
FY2023)
3) Striping on Calle Mejia (Submitted to Traffic Operations Manager and City Traffic Engineer
for evaluation)
4) Tierra Contenta Wayfinding (To be constructed with Tierra Contenta Trail Extension from
Buffalo Grass to South Meadows in FY2023)
5) Striping on Paseo de Peralta on Canyon Rd (To be submitted to City Traffic Engineer and
Traffic Operations Manager for evaluation)
20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
Table 3: List of Possible Partner Organizations
Santa Fe Organizations/Entities
Santa Fe Public Schools
Santa Fe Conservation Trust
Chainbreaker
Railyard Park Conservancy
Santa Fe Community College
Christus Community Health
Santa Fe Community Foundation
Girls, Inc.
Earthcare
Homewise
NM Techworks
Institute of American Indian Arts
Retail
BTI (Bicycle Technologies International)
Sirius Cycle
Broken Spoke
Second Street Brewery
REI
Biking Groups
Bike Santa Fe
Santa Fe Fat Tire Society
Seniors on Bikes (SOBs)
Hiking Groups
Events
Santa Fe Century
Other
Food Depot
AARP
The Green Chamber of Commerce
22 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
This Plan was developed by the BPAC Policy, Planning, and Law Subcommittee with input from
and the approval of the entire BPAC Committee, facilitated and drafted by Staff Liaison Romella
Glorioso-Moss. It is intended to be a dynamic document that changes with a changing Santa Fe
and its citizens.
BPAC Subcommittees will work to implement the Plan and report to the full committee as
appropriate. BPAC will officially review the Plan twice a year, revising as tasks are accomplished,
goals are reached, and new ones added. As BPAC members term out and new ones join, the
transitions will be transparent, as the Plan will be a major driver of the work of the committee.
BICYCLING AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FY 2023
YOLANDA EISENSTEIN
Chair, Policy, Planning
& Law Subcommittee
C
KHALIL SPENCER
Vice-Chair
COUNCILOR
MICHAEL GARCIA
CHAIR
JUDITH GABRIELE
Chair, Promotion,
Education &
Programming
Subcommittee
C
BEN PINGILLEY
Chair, Technical Review
Subcommittee
STEVEN PILCHER
CANDACE ELLA
MARTINEZ
PALOMA
SANCHEZ
Not Pictured
ERIK AABOE
Santa Fe County
Representative
TONY GERLICZ
ROMELLA
GLORIOSO-MOSS
Staff Liaison
OUR PARTNERS
23 | P a g e
APPENDICES
10176.7
1
CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-8
2
INTRODUCED BY:
3
4
Councilor Michael J. Garcia
5
Councilor JoAnne Vigil Coppler
6
Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth
7
8
9
A RESOLUTION
10
RE-ESTABLISHING THE BICYCLE AND TRAIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
11
12
WHEREAS, ) was created by
13
Resolution No. 2003-87 on September 24, 2003; and
14
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2003-87 was subsequently amended by Resolution No. 2010-
15
33, Resolution No. 2010-64, and Resolution No. 2017-46; and
16
WHEREAS, in 2007, the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (SFMPO) Policy
17
Board, of which the City of Santa Fe is a member, adopted a Complete Streets Policy, directing
18
transportation planners and engineers to routinely plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain the
19
entire right of way for safe access of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and
20
transit riders regardless of age, ability and mode of transportation; and
21
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City of Santa Fe was recognized by the League of American
22
Bicyclists as a Silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community, and the Committee and the MPO continue
23
to work to achieve the Gold-level by 2024 by considering the infrastructure needs of pedestrians
24
and bicyclists in all City-led transportation projects; and
25
APPENDIX A
10176.7
2
WHEREAS, requires the accommodation of
1
bicycle and pedestrian traffic along City streets as well as through off-road trails and requires all
2
new public streets to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and
3
WHEREAS, a bicycle-friendly Santa Fe can help promote improved public health through
4
active living, stimulate local and regional economic development, and achieve carbon neutrality by
5
2040 as adopted by the Governing Body in 2017; and
6
WHEREAS, the SF 2019 Bicycle Master Plan, which is updated every 5 years, has
7
, and requesting implementation
8
by the City of 26 on-road bicycle facilities projects including designated bike lanes, striped
9
shoulders, lanes shared with motor vehicle traffic, and 80 off-road or trails improvement projects 10
including paved multi-use trails and formal or informal soft-surface paths, for all of which the City
11
serves as the lead agency; and
12
WHEREAS,
13
p including protected and buffered lanes, bicycle
14
parking and storage facilities, curb extensions, intersection treatments such as bicycle boxes, stop
15
bars, lead signal indicators, landscaping, paved shoulders, pedestrian- and bicyclist-scale lighting,
16
pedestrian overpasses or underpasses, separation/buffers, shared-lane markings or sharrows,
17
sidewalks, signage especially high-visibility signage, signalized pedestrian crossings and mid-
18
block crossings, and trails or shared-use paths.
19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE
20
CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO that this Resolution re-names and re-establishes the
21
Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee as the Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
22
Section 1. NAME: The advisory committee shall be called the Bicycling and
23
Pedestrian Advisory Committee ("Committee").
24
Section 2. PURPOSE: The purpose of the Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory
25
10176.7
3
Committee is to provide input and advice that supports the ongoing development and maintenance
1
of a transportation infrastructure that makes bicycling and walking in the City of Santa Fe safe,
2
equitable, viable, and comfortable modes of transportation, commuting, and recreation. This
3
includes the responsibility to deliberate on City projects, plans, and policies that impact both on-
4
road and off-road bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and to advise the Governing Body on such
5
matters.
6
Section 3. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The Committee shall:
7
(a) Assist in the prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects to be
8
completed using city, state, and federal funds, through the development of the Santa Fe
9
SFMPO Bicycle Master Plan and the SFMPO Pedestrian 10
Master plan;
11
(b) Review preliminary designs for new Public Works projects involving public
12
roadways and trails funded out of city, state, or federal sources to ensure designs comply with the
13
City's commitment to make bicycling and walking safe, equitable, viable, and comfortable modes
14
of transportation. Design plan reviews shall take place at 30% design and before plans are presented
15
to the public for comments or submitted for review to New Mexico Department of Transportation
16
NMDOT ;
17
(c) Advise on policies, programs, and ordinances as they relate to bicycle and
18
pedestrian infrastructure safety, design, construction, and operation and maintenance;
19
(d) Develop, review, and advise on media and educational campaigns providing
20
information and promoting bicycle- and pedestrian- related activities and education;
21
(e) Work with other agencies for the enhancement of city and county trail systems;
22
(f) Review and recommend updates to Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan,
23
Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Parks Master Plan
24
Development Code as they pertain to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and associated
25
10176.7
4
regulations;
1
(g) Seek funding from city, state, and federal sources to implement the City-led
2
projects identified in the SF 2019 Bicycle Master Plan and 2020 Metropolitan
3
Transportation Plan and consider reoccurring funding sources from the City to be applied to the
4
implementation of policies, programs, and other projects that are supported by the plans;
5
(h) Pursue the League of American Bicyclists Diamond-level Bicycle Friendly
6
Community designation for the City of Santa Fe, as well as any other local, state, or national awards
7
or designations that the City deems worthy of pursuit;
8
(i) Advise on polices, projects, ordinances, and funding as they relate to bicycling and
9
walking as safe, equitable, viable, and comfortable modes of transportation; and 10
(j) Educate the public on the work of the Committee.
11
Section 4. MEMBERSHIP: The Committee shall consist of a member of the City
12
Council who shall also serve as its chair, along with nine members of the public, of whom eight
13
shall be residents of the city and one who may be a resident of Santa Fe County. Recommendations
14
for members shall be made by the City Council to the Mayor, who shall appoint the committee
15
members, balancing interests among recreationists, youth and neighborhood group users,
16
commuters, and bicyclists, with Council approval. The chair may appoint subcommittees, as
17
needed, to study, in-depth, certain responsibilities assigned to the Committee and to present such
18
information to the Committee. The subcommittees shall be made up of no more than four members
19
of the Committee and three interested members of the public.
20
Section 5. TERMS: the public members shall be appointed for two-year staggered
21
terms. Subsequent terms shall be for two years to maintain staggering of terms. Members shall
22
serve for no longer than six (6) consecutive years. The members shall serve at the pleasure of the
23
Mayor and may be removed at any time with or without cause.
24
Section 6. VACANCIES: Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as initial
25
10176.7
5
appointments and shall be for the remainder of the term. Vacancies shall be filled as to maintain
1
the balance of interest group representation.
2
Section 7. MEETINGS: A quorum shall be at least six members. The Committee
3
shall also conduct all meetings in accordance with adopted City policies and procedures and shall
4
use in conducting its meetings. The committee shall meet monthly.
5
BE IT FURTHRE RESOLVED that this Resolution supersedes, rescinds, and replaces
6
any other resolution that created or amended the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee, including,
7
but not limited to, Resolution Nos. 2003-87, 2010-33, 2010-64, and 2017-46.
8
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2021.
9
10
11
____________________________
12
ALAN WEBBER, MAYOR
13
ATTEST:
14
15
_______________________________
16
KRISTINE MIHELCIC, CITY CLERK
17
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
18
19
_________________________________
20
ERIN K. McSHERRY, CITY ATTORNEY
21
22
23
24
Legislation/2021/Resolutions/2021-8 BTAC Amendments
25
Page 1 | 8
STRATEGIC PLANNING NOTES (2022.04.30)
Introduction to Multiple Scenarios Strategic Planning (MSSP)
Laurence A. G. Moss & Romella S. Glorioso
IAMC, Santa Fe, NM & Port Townsend, WA, USA www.amenitymigration.org
Strategic analysis and planning determines where an entity or research undertaking
should be focused, so that the core effort will be concentrated on that path. Its origin is
centuries old, including Sun Tzu’s Art of War, the famous 5
th
C BCE strategizing for
peace. Futures research, as we know it today, has its beginning in the 1940s early
systems thinking, where it was linked mainly to safety issues and strategic analysis
(Berkhout & Hertin, 2002). Accepting as common the high variability and low predictability
of future outcomes, strategists in the 1950s and 1960s developed a more rigorous
approach to identifying likely futures by systemically integrating intuitive and analytical
skills in formulating multiple future scenarios. This was further refined at Stanford
Research Institute in the 1970s and early 1980s. While a Senior Planner at the Institute,
and subsequently, Laurence Moss further developed the method for applied research,
and planning by public and not-for-profits entities. In discussing this MSSP methodology
with Moss in 1994, Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize physicist, referred to it as non-
linear analysis and planning.
Why Use MSSP ?
Using a multiple futures approach in strategic analysis & planning is especially useful for
understanding and managing our increasingly complex and uncertain state. The method
more successfully investigates and plans, not mechanistically part by part, but through
the identification and understanding of societal patterning. It takes advantage of our
whole brain capability, integrating logic and intuition to identify, analyze and solve issues
and take advantage of opportunities. With teams, other groups or a larger community it
more effectively harnesses and using their resources by obtaining clear and common
understanding, intent and action. The method is particularly focused on better
understanding and gaining timely foresight about the strategic external environment of an
objective. Typically less resource consuming than other strategic methodologies, MSSP
identifies and uses only the information most relevant to the phenomenon to be
understood and objective to be achieved.
Key Characteristics of MSSP
• set of alternative, multiple future scenarios (not a single future view or foresight)
• clearly understood and agreed upon strategic concern, mission or objective
• use of pattern recognition to understand change, complexity and uncertainty
• focus on understanding of the external environment/ strategic environment
• bounded complexity and uncertainty
• participatory
• iterative
APPENDIX B
Page 2 | 8
• strategy viability in changing external and internal environments
• use of external environment surveillance
The MSSP Process
Referring to the attached Figure 1:The Multiple Scenarios Strategic Planning Process
will assist in understanding the description of the intuitive-logic process outlined below.
Vision
A vision is characteristically a preferred, positive image of the future. A strategic analysis
or planning process may or may not begin with visioning of such a future condition, for
example, that of a watershed, community or research outcome. It is particularly useful in
bringing together a new team, other interest group or refocusing an existing one.
Mission (Strategic Objective)
Formulating an entity’s or research mission is a critical element in this strategic planning
process. The mission is a clearly stated and understood reason for analysis and planning,
and should be specific enough to use as a tool for monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of the strategy or action plan formulated to achieve the mission (see below).
All principals involved in formulating the mission must agree upon it. As well, they must
commit to it for the time estimated for its achievement, or an otherwise agreed upon
period, such as until a mission’s annual review. While a vision is characteristically a
positive, and usually general view of the future, the mission is more bounded in scope,
time and more specific in its objective(s). Importantly, analysis and planning for its
achievement must include both positive and negative factors or influences (see below).
Caveat: mission and vision may be confused when their differences are not clearly
understood.
External Analysis
Step 1: This analysis begins with identifying the positive and negative key decision
factors (KDF), or influences, in a mission’s external strategic environment, ones that are
likely to greatly impact mission achievement; or its failure. This external environment is
often referred to as the world-of-the-mission. KDFs may be identified as characteristically
socio-cultural, economic, political, technological and environmental in their nature.
Positive key decision factors are typically referred to as opportunities, and negative key
decision factors as threats, or constraints, to mission achievement.
Step 2: Identify the clustering of the key decision factors that form a pattern of societal
driving forces (SDF) in the external environment (see Figure 2. below). These forces will
most likely drive the unfolding, alternative futures of the mission. This step harnesses
both intuitive insight and analytical reasoning.
Step 3: Formulate alternative future scenarios of the external environment of the mission.
This is done by first making the societal driving forces neutral, or non-directional, then
positioning them in axial relationship, or what are called scenario formats. Their number
Page 3 | 8
will depend on the number of societal driving forces identified. For example, 2 societal
driving forces generate 4 scenario formats.
Future scenarios are a tool strategic analysts and planners use to make sense of our
fluid, turbulent, and typically complex environment and its uncertain future. They are
descriptions of conditions occurring in a particular period of time, and need to be
plausible, internally consistent stories of main events and key stakeholders’ actions
reflecting the key decision factors. Typically, they inform the analysis about systemic
relationships among conditions that are typically not generally perceived and anticipated.
Some analysts and planners contend that people cannot cope with several scenarios and
so become confused. Others, including the authors, have found this is not the case, and
moreover, hold that the very uncertainty that requires a scenario approach demands
using multiple scenarios. Why ? 1) A well-structured set of future scenarios describes the
range of uncertainty that must be addressed for mission achievement; 2) multiple
scenarios significantly broaden the awareness of the analyst or client; and 3) they
increase resilience and the ability to respond to the certainty of future uncertainty in both
research and planning systems, and resulting strategy.
Step 4: Choose from the set of future scenarios the most likely scenario of the future to
guide decisions and actions for a set period of time (while also monitoring and scanning
for possible need to shift to an alternative one: see below). There is discussion about
what is better to use, the most desirable or the most likely scenario. Some strategists say
it is better to choose the most desirable one, because the analyst or client will do their
best to achieve the mission. However, in using this approach undesirable factors and
critical issues or threats to the mission have a strong tendency to disappear in analyses.
The less likely alternative scenarios should continue to be considered, mainly in the
surveillance process (see below). They will assist especially in identifying change in the
mission’s external environment, which can lead to early awareness of another scenario in
the set becoming more likely, and will assist in shifting a strategy or plan to address this
new external environment.
Internal Analysis
This involves identifying and evaluating of an entity’s or study’s internal strengths and
weaknesses for achieving its mission. They are usually identified in terms of human,
financial, physical, informational and temporal resources. A caveat: learners of this
process should guard against confusing internal and external factors. As a precaution
when using this method, private sector entities typically have separate teams undertake
the external and internal analyses.
SWOT Analysis
This step brings together for mission achievement the separately identified strengths (S)
and weaknesses (W) of the entity or research to achieve its mission in the context of
the chosen scenario’s opportunities (O) and threats (T) for mission achievement. This
action
Page 4 | 8
should result in identification of the key issues that need to be addressed in formulating
the strategy.
Strategy
Strategy is the core elements and actions an entity or study must include for achieving its
mission. It describes how the entity will respond to salient opportunities and threats in the
mission's unfolding world, especially by managing its strengths and weaknesses typically
by modifying or changing them. It sets out how key issues identified in the SWOT
Analysis will be managed to achieve the mission. The strategy is the sum of all products
of the strategic analysis and serves as the foundation for tactical actions in the context of
the mission’s external environment and internal resources. Typically, strategy is
composed of a several strategic objectives or thrusts, which form the bridge to tactics,
and are usually spelled out in an action plan (see below). When resources permit,
contingency strategies may be developed for the alternative, less likely scenarios that
have been formulated in the above process. Caveat: attempts to create a single strategy
for two or more scenarios usually result in too diluted or general a strategy to be of
practical value, and therefore not a real strategy.
Action Plan
The action plan entails the tactical level of this strategic planning process, or how the
strategy is to be implemented. It clearly sets out, who, what where, when and how
resources are necessary to implement the strategy, and typically within a 3 to 5 year time
frame. The plan is usually disaggregated into specific programs and projects. Caveat: the
who refers to exactly who in the entity will be responsible for implementing the plan, its
programs and its projects.
Surveillance
Multiple futures strategic analysis and planning includes a powerful surveillance system to
assess progress toward mission achievement, including the continuing validity of the
chosen most likely future scenario, strategy, and action plan. Surveillance is carried on at
set times, continuously to annually, in accordance with the uncertainty an entity faces and
its resources. Emphasis is placed on assessing the external, strategic environment, and
especially on: does the chosen most likely scenario, or an alternative one, continue to be
the most likely external environment of the mission? There are two surveillance activities:
scanning and monitoring. Caveat: the authors have found that this is often the weakest
aspect of the use of this method, a condition that is usually due to too infrequent
surveillance, and/ or insufficient resources being committed for this activity.
Scanning focuses on future uncertainty, and alerts analysts and decision-makers to the
signs of change. It is a systematic attempt to detect what the futures analyst Igor Ansoff
termed the weak signals of emerging new conditions in the external environment, and to
do so sufficiently early and accurately that an entity has as much lead time as possible to
shift to more likely, and usually in this method, an already identified alternative scenario,
Page 5 | 8
and more appropriate strategy and plan. The earlier scanning detects these signals, the
more resources a user can save.
Monitoring in this method is a more frequent activity of tracking known indices, events
and conditions (identified above in the External Analysis). Compared with scanning,
monitoring collects information in the present to be systemically assessed cumulatively,
and in conjunction with interpretation of the scanning activity.
Figure 1: The Multiple Scenarios Strategic Planning Process
Figure 2: Illustration of Clustering of Key Factors into Societal Driving Forces
In this example, for the mission of establishing a national urban environmental quality
platform to attract knowledge intensive economic and social activity, its external strategic
environment has 36 key factors, or influences, that cluster into 3 societal driving forces:
Global Economic Integration, Public Participation, Government Capability (to implement
the mission). In this case the key positive and negative factors have 4 dominant
characteristics: social/ cultural, economic, political/ institutional and environmental/
technological.
Page 6 | 8
Page 7 | 8
Note: While the authors have been successful in analyses and formulation
of strategies and strategic plans, this has been less the case with mission
achievement. For our experience and observation this outcome is likely due
to the MSSP methodological expert, often a consultant, not being retained
during the implementation of a strategy or plan, or for environmental
surveillance. This outcome is also often the case if the mission was to
institutionalize this method in an entity’s research and/ or planning systems,
and the expert was not available to monitor and evaluate the mission’s
achievement over time. Further, such follow-on usually demands a
committed entity insider who will champion the method’s use through its
implementation phase, or again, in the process of institutionalizing the
methodology. Unfortunately, this seems to be an uncommon condition.
Recommended Reading
Below is a selection of further reading about multiple future scenarios analysis and
planning. It includes a short hand form of the methodology called scenario planning. This
form, while not as powerful a tool as the one outlined above, is still a considerable
improvement over the commonly used single future scenario approach (implied or
prescribed), for example in urban, rural and regional research and planning. In addition,
the author includes several successful applications they have undertaken.
Berkhout, F. and J. Hertin (2002) Foresight futures scenarios: Developing and applying a
participative strategic planning tool, Greener Management International (pp. 37-52).
Chermack, Thomas J. (2011) Scenario Planning in Organizations: How to Create, Use
and Assess Scenarios, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Glorioso, Romella S. (2014) Planning for Sustainable Living in High Amenity
Communities: Charting the Course in an Era of Unprecedented Climate Change and
Uncertainty. In: Moss, L.A.G. & Romella S. Glorioso (Eds.) Global Amenity Migration:
Transforming Rural Culture, Economy & Landscape, The New Ecology Press, Kaslo, BC,
Canada & Port Townsend, WA, USA (pp. 407-426) (available at: www.researchgate.com;
www.academia.edu).
Glorioso, Romella S. (2014) The Role of Amenities in Crafting a Regional Sustainability
Strategy: The Similkameen Valley in Western Canada. In: Moss, L.A.G. & Romella S.
Glorioso (Eds.) Global Amenity Migration: Transforming Rural Culture, Economy &
Landscape, The New Ecology Press, Kaslo, BC, Canada & Port Townsend, WA, USA
(pp.137-159) (available at: www.researchgate.com; www.academia.edu).
Grenon, Michel and Michel Batisse (Eds.) (1989) Futures for the Mediterranean Basin:
The Blue Plan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Moss, Laurence A.G and Romella S. Glorioso (2010) Kaslo & District Community Forest
Long-Term Sustainability Strategy, Glorioso, Moss & Associates & Kaslo and District
Page 8 | 8
Community Forest Society, Kaslo, BC, Canada (available at: www.researchgate.com;
www.academia.edu).
Moss, Laurence A.G. and Romella S. Glorioso (2010) Strategy for a Sustainable
Similkameen Valley, BC, Canada, Glorioso, Moss & Associates & Similkameen Valley
Planning Society, Kaslo & Keremeos BC, Canada (available at: www.researchgate.com;
www.academia.edu).
Moss, L.A.G., J. Tesitel, F. Zemek, M. Bartos, D. Kusova, M. Herman (1999) Tourism in
Bioregional Context: Approaching Ecosystemic Practise in the Sumava, Czech Republic.
In: P. M. Goode, M. F. Price, F.M. Zimmermann (Eds.) CABI Publishing, Wallingford UK
& Cambridge, USA (pp.85-113).
Moss, Laurence A. G. and Romella S. Glorioso (1997) Strategic Planning for Sustainable
Development in a Central European Town and Bioregion, Office of the Mayor, Cesky
Krumlov, Czech Republic (available at: www.researchgate.com; www.academia.edu).
Ogilvy, Jay and Erik Smith (2004) Mapping Public & Private Scenario Planning: Lessons
From Regional Projects, Development, 47 (4) (pp.67-72).
Ralston, Bill and Ian Wilson (2006) The Scenario Planning Handbook, Thompson/ South-
West, Mason, OH.
Ringland, Gill (2002) Scenarios in Public Planning, John Willey & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (2020) The 2020-2045 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan, https://santafempo.org/plans/metropolitan-transportation-plan/.
Smith, E. (2007) Using a Scenario Approach: From Business to Regional Futures. In:
Hopkins, L. D. and M.A. Zapata (Eds.), Engaging the Future, Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, Cambridge, USA (pp.79-101).
Schwartz, Peter (1991) The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain
World, Doubleday,New York & London.
Wack, Pierre (1985) Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead, Harvard Business Review,
Sept.- Oct. (pp.73-89).
This technical paper was initially written for associates and clients of the
International Amenity Migration Centre and Laurence Moss & Associates
(Kaslo, BC, Canada, Santa Fe, NM and Port Townsend, WA, USA). Interest
in the paper by a larger community has suggested this revision.
L.A.G. Moss & R.S. Glorioso, 2018.06.10 (revised 2022.04.30)
BPAC KEY SURVEY FINDINGS
PROMOTION, EDUCATION &
PROGRAMMING
JUDITH GABRIELE, SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR
APPENDIX C
BPAC SURVEY RESULTS
• October 9 through November 15, 2021
• Total of 200 Online and Paper Survey Respondents
• Total of 18 Questions
• Conducted with the assistance of the SFMPO
95.96%
4.04%
Yes No
Are you a resident or second homeowner
in Santa Fe?
32.28%
24.68%
3.16%
12.66%
14.56%
12.66%
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Santa Fe County
resident
I don't know
What council district do you live in?
66.46%
33.54%
YES NO
Are you aware that Santa Fe has a citizen committee that advises the
city on bike and pedestrian issues?
River Trail RailTrail Acequia Trail ChamisaTrail La Tierra Trails Dale Ball Trails Spur Trail
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
How often do you walk, bike, or actively recreate on these trails?
Weekly
Monthly
Annually
Never
For each of the following types of trips, please indicate how often you use
BICYCLING as your primary mode of transportation.
I don't feel safe They're in bad shape
They're inconvenient to
access, not in my
neighborhood, hard to get to,
and/or they don't go where I
want to go (connectivity)
They're too crowded
Responses
23.26% 11.63% 72.09% 13.95%
23.26%
11.63%
72.09%
13.95%
If you don't use the city bike and walking trails for walking,
biking or actively recreating, please explain why.
Bike sharing systems
Physically
separated/protected bike
lanes
Easily navigable bikeways
to the southside
Universal user activated
blinking stop signals at
crosswalks
Bike boxes (designated
space for bikes at
intersections to direct
them through the
intersection)
Streets closed to
motorized traffic/cycling
with pedestrian access
only
Responses
26.42% 90.57% 73.58% 58.49% 52.83% 61.32%
0.00%
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
What kind of bike/pedestrian infrastructure does Santa Fe need that we don’t
currently have?
0.00% 0.00%
5.56%
21.30%
17.59%
53.70%
1.85%
Youngerthan 18 18-24 25-34 35-50 51-60 61 or older Prefer not to
answer
What age group best describes you?
46.73%
3.74%
Female Male Prefer not to answer Other (please specify)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
49.53%
60.00%
What gender identity best describes you?
0.00%
6.54%
25.23%
35.51%
15.89%
16.82%
Less than $10,000/yr $10,000 - $30,000/yr $30,001 - $70,000/yr $70,001 - $120,000/yr >$120,000/yr Prefer not to answer
What level best describes your household income?
QUESTIONS