I am working with a community that has lots of pass-thru traffic on its main street, a 5-lane state highway, during the summer. They are concerned about pedestrian safety and that this traffic doesn't slow and stop to spend time/money in their downtown. The community a few years ago formally adopted a downtown plan that identified bulbouts at several crossings. The elected officials cited this plan and talked about the need for bulbouts. Unlike some other towns I've heard about, the public indeed considers traffic speed a problem that needs to be solved. Yet, the Public Works director said there will not be bulb-outs because they are hard to plow around in winter.
I know this is all part of the planning process. I know its also common for departments or staff not to be supportive of broad goals in comprehensive plans, to make half-hearted attempts or to deride these goals as nice ideas we can't afford. I know its also common for staff to see electeds as people who come and go, and to ignore direction that staff thinks aren't high enough on the radar to be followed up on. But once a community has formally adopted an area or specific plan, isn't this the official policy of the community? Why is staff contradicting both adopted policy and the opinions of electeds? In your experience, how common is this? My concern is that if there isn't staff commitment, the plan sits on a shelf, and every time its brought up, staff will say, "there's no funding." Or "DOT won't allow it." Rather than actually being committed to the plan and working with the DOT and seeking grants. Frustrating! My recommendations will include that they revisit objectives and come to consensus on a package of improvements, and then start to look for grant funding.