All right, everyone, it's uh it's 10 30, uh, but we're gonna give it a couple minutes just to give people a chance to get into the meeting here, um, and then we'll get going.

It appears we were having some issues with some Zoom links, so try to Beth is having issues trying to state.

Okay.

Do you do you advise that we give it a couple minutes more than normal then?

Yeah, I guess it depends on whether or not we have a quorum.

Yeah.

So we'll reach out to uh the clerk and have them send a new address new link.

Jeff, if they want to just use the link on the agenda, I can promote them to a panelist too if they if that's easier.

Yeah, I'll do that.

Thank you.

Are you sitting in Brewmage today?

I am.

Sorry, we had some link issues going on with our calendars.

Not sure if we've already chatted about it.

A little bit.

Um being that it's uh ten thirty-three, it looks like uh we've got most of the folks we were expecting.

Um I will uh call the the meeting to order.

Uh this is the January 14th, 2026 uh meeting of the Gallatin Valley MPO's uh Transportation Technical Advisory Committee.

Uh this is the first uh meeting of the new year, so that's that's very exciting.

Um so thank you everyone for joining us.

Um Nick Ross uh is out today, uh so I will be uh acting in his place as the the current vice chair.

Um I did want to mention uh the various ways that uh you can participate in the public comment process that are listed in the meeting agenda today.

Um those are listed at the top of the agenda.

Um so I think with that uh Marcy, could we uh start roll call?

Chris Saunders.

Catherine King.

Mary Ulia.

Here Sean O'Callen.

Here.

That's Markson, proxy for Midge Vito.

Here we bearing, proxy for Brandon Jones.

Dungeon Ross.

Here.

We have seven out of eleven.

Here, I don't think you're a voting member.

Okay.

Thank you though.

All right, so remind me, Marcy.

Did we meet the quorum requirement with seven out of eleven?

It looks like Catherine King is here, so that will be eight out of eleven.

So that would be a quorum.

Thank you.

Okay.

Excellent.

Um, all right.

Uh so uh first first order business would be the uh approval of the previous minutes.

Those minutes were included with the agenda.

So I would ask for a motion to either approve or if we need to discuss any changes that need to be made to the minutes.

Uh there's also an opportunity for that.

I'll move to approve the minutes.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Hearing uh no other requests to modify the minutes.

Um Marcy, could we call a vote?

Seven being Camera Yulia.

Uh yes.

Hi.

Hi.

Beth Clarkson.

Hi.

Billy Beer.

Hi.

Todd Wilson.

Hi.

John Howe.

Right.

All right.

Uh excellent.

Uh so next up is the uh, well, before we get to that, I just Marcy uh just know it looks like Catherine might be having some audio problems, but um we have we have the video.

Uh so uh next up is the uh public comment forum.

Um this is a time to comment on items that are not uh specifically addressed in today's agenda.

Um there'll also be a time to make specific comments um at the end of each of the new agenda items we'll be discussing today.

Um, but uh we want to open the floor for any general public comment.

And uh so uh do we have uh any public comment at this time.

I'm not showing any public comment.

All right, uh one more opportunity.

Um is there any uh anyone wishing to make a public comment at this time.

Still showing no requests.

All right, thank you, Marcy.

Um with that, uh we can close the uh the public comment.

Um again, there'll be additional opportunities as we discuss the new business items.

Uh so first up uh on the agenda today is the uh um election of a new uh chair uh and vice chair of the TAC committee.

So currently uh Nick Ross is serving as chair, and I Camera Iuli am serving as vice chair.

And before I hand this off to uh um uh to Jeff to discuss further, um I did speak with Nick.

Uh he indicated he's willing to continue serving in his current role if the board so chooses to move forward that way.

And I would say the same for myself, but uh um we'll hand this off to Jeff and let him take it from here.

Great.

Thank you, Camry.

Um so this is our first time nominating new chairs, and so um another first here.

For the bylaws, the first meeting of the year for TAC is when a new chair and vice chair are nominated.

Um so they serve a one-year term or until the successor is elected.

Uh, as Camera had mentioned, the two positions are chair and vice chair.

The chair's role is to lead the meetings and the vice chair's role is to act as the chair if the chair is not available.

And so staff is requesting uh that you all select a chair and vice chair and consider the motion of moving to elect the chair and vice chair to these positions.

So thank you.

Open it up for discussion on this one.

Whoever um would like to nominate themselves to be chair if there are any nominations out there.

Um don't really have a process for this, just uh discussion and self-nomination.

If nobody nominates themselves, we can stick with the existing structure that we have.

Um or Nick has also said that he's willing to serve as chair again, and maybe Camry wants to do something different.

So open it up for any discussions or nominations.

Yeah, and just to clarify, I would be willing to continue as the vice chair.

Uh Nick Nick doesn't make it too tough on me.

So uh looks like uh John's got his hand raised.

Go ahead, John.

Thanks, Cameron.

I'd move to nominate Nick as chair and you as vice chair for the upcoming year to serve as TTAC representatives.

Oh, second.

All right.

Before we uh I believe before we call the vote on that, um, we do need to uh give the opportunity for any public comment associated uh with this topic.

Uh Marcy, uh, is there any uh public comment at this time?

I'm showing no request for public comment.

All right, one more opportunity for public comment.

Still showing no requests.

All right, hearing none, um uh let's uh take a vote on the motion.

Chris Saunders.

Hi.

John O'Callion.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

John Howe.

Hi.

Vote passes nine nine.

All right.

Thank you, everybody or uh everybody uh for that.

I I am uh flattered that you're willing to keep both Nick and I uh in this position for the upcoming year.

Um our next uh agenda item is uh Jeff will be discussing the long-range uh transportation plan draft goals and objectives.

So Jeff, please take it away.

Yeah, great.

Thank you very much.

And we should be being joined by the consultants, Marcy, if uh you can let them in.

Zachary's here, and I don't see Chris Johnson yet.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, I'm here.

Um great.

Um, so just to tee this up, we're working through the long-range transportation plan.

We have been doing our community engagement through the fall.

Um, we are now currently at the goals and objectives that will guide the rest of the development and the analysis moving forward.

Uh, these will be used in determining what projects advance when it comes down to uh scoring and that other stuff.

This is what we're going to look to.

And so the consultants have prepared a presentation for you all today.

What we are going to be asking you to do is consider the motion of moving to recommend adoption of the draft goals and objectives of the long-range transportation plan.

Of course, you all do have the opportunity to make amendments to these as you see fit.

So with that, I will turn it over to you, Zach.

Uh great.

And then can you all see the shared screen there?

We can.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um, so as Jeff mentioned, these are our uh draft vision statement, goals and objectives.

These reflect the technical review that we've done through existing conditions, public engagement to date, uh, the surveys that have been open, as well as all of the different interagency coordination, as well as meetings with this group in the past.

Um and they're going to inform the basis of our evaluation framework for the subsequent phases where we will score projects, look at alternatives for evaluation, and then the final project prioritization.

Um these are all also laid out in the agenda and materials packet that Jeff sent out for your reference, if that's easier to follow along that way as well.

Um so just a quick reminder on why we form the goals and objectives.

Um, first and foremost, these are affirming our combined and shared values that we've collected across the region.

Um we're also making sure that we are addressing uh existing and future needs of the transportation system, and then also importantly, meeting state and federal requirements, making sure that the long-range transportation plan that we're creating is going to enable funding to come to the region.

Um and then how we use these in the plan.

Uh, this example here is from another recently adopted um long-range transportation plan in the state, just in terms of how the goals are laid out for objectives that need to be met, and then are tied to performance measures.

Um and these performance measures are the trackable outcomes over time with quantifiable metrics in which we're able to track our progress towards these goals and objectives.

And per federal guidance, MPOs are required to make sure that we're linking these investments to the different seven national goals areas, uh, safety, the structure conditions, congestion, system reliability, missions, um, freight movement and reduced project delivery delays.

And as you'll go through our goals, you'll see how we've kind of used these as a scorecard to make sure that we are addressing them through all of our different objectives.

And then these also will tie together to the performance measures that the MPO will adopt through the statewide targets that are provided by MDT as well.

And then a quick reminder of how we began this process.

This all begins from the plan review of all the existing plans in the region to date, making sure that we're trying to memorialize those common plan values and build upon all of the work that's already been done and the key plan values that were pulled out from a number of different plans across the different jurisdictions, safety first and foremost comes out in many of them, connectivity, economic vitality, system preservation, accessibility, community identity, and sustainability.

And again, as you'll see in our goals, I think we did a really good job of reflecting those.

Quick reminder as well as some of the community that went into this throughout the summer.

We were out in the public at the farmers market in Bozeman, as well as out at the Albertsons in Belgrade in August and September, collecting feedback on overall issues and conditions, giving people ability to mark up maps, as well as the opportunity to take our survey both online and on paper.

Some of the things that are reflected in our objectives here, providing more mobility options, the airport came up a lot, but also connecting key destinations outside of the city of Bozeman, like Belgrade, as well as four corners, not just to downtown, but places like MSU and Gallatin College.

And then filling pedestrian network gaps and improving safety throughout the region.

A number of questions in there.

But when we're looking at goals here, some of the overarching values and goals that resonate the most, well-maintained infrastructure was number one, followed by safety and security and sustainability and resiliency.

And then you'll also see how we make that connection to health and connectivity between modes as well.

There are hundreds of different open-ended comments.

We summarize those in a number of different ways, but just some key takeaways there, lots of desire again for more different options when it comes to mobility, as well as accessing existing transit routes and expansion of the system, making sure that we're considering urban form and the way that development occurs around the transportation system, knowing that we're surrounded by some really great natural areas and protecting those areas while making sure that we're considering transportation linking up with new development and housing.

Again, also considering on the programmatic side that we want to couple things with strategies on the education level in terms of driving speeds, safe turning movements for drivers, as well as maybe looking at where freight traffic is moving on certain roads, improvements for traffic signals and signage, and then overall more access to trails as well as protected facilities for biking.

And then a number of you all, as well as others throughout the region were involved in listening sessions with different planners, engineers, and different professionals tasked with delivering these projects in the region and throughout the future.

Some really great conversations, but which resonated in many of those conversations, maintaining and preserving the existing system we have, making sure that their long-range transportation plan, given that this is the first one for the MPO, is actionable and achievable, looking to fill gaps in that existing network before going too far in terms of maybe future investments that are going to add more life cycles costs to that system.

Also making sure that we understand that we are trying to achieve mode shift as well, even some incremental shifts and biking and walking as well as transit riderships, can have some really catalog change for the region.

Again, making sure that we are supporting those state and federal targets.

And then also looking at how we manage impacts from pass-through travel.

So understanding that tourism is really big for the economy, but those are also trips that are really passing through the region, and how do we manage those, as well as things like severe weather events or things like maybe even evacuations.

And then in November, we had a number of meetings as well, the citizens advisory panel meeting.

We brought forward a number of these findings, and this is where we're really started to begin getting that input on developing vision statement that leads us to these goals and objectives today.

And they went through some of the similar questions, a little bit different than the ones that you all went through.

But in terms of being able to rank and inform the vision, goals and objectives, safety and security across all modes came across first.

These are open-ended responses, so it's a little bit different than what we did with this T TAC group, providing easy, easy and flexible connectivity across the region.

Again, look more options, making sure that the system we're creating is serving those daily trip making needs.

So accessing all the great places that makes it a great community to live, but also just those daily things like grocery stores, schools, activity centers, things like that.

And then human-centered design.

So really looking at how do we create connected neighborhoods with our transportation network.

And then given the opportunity to focus where they want to see investments focused, more on that, expanding out the safe multimodal network, accommodating future growth and change, supporting innovative design, and again how we might incorporate things like transit and housing into the transportation network.

And then with this group, we met on November 12th, where we went through a Mente meter exercise to try to craft a goal statement with a limited choice.

I believe each question had 12 total answers that you were given the opportunity to rank.

And from this group, safety and security came out number one, then that system preservation, fiscal responsibility, accessibility for all and community character.

So really capturing what we've seen from the input from other groups as well.

And then working towards our vision statement when we think about what we want to see this system provide in our horizon year of 2050.

We want to connect connectivity throughout the region, well-maintained infrastructure, safety for all modes, and then again linking that all back to access to opportunity for jobs and services, as well as all the great regions is a great place to live, like trails and recreation.

And then closing out the feedback from this group last time, in terms of where we want to address our needs for future projects and programs, coordinating land use with transportation, and that also means working with the folks that are on this meeting as well as well as everyone you work with and delivering these projects through this horizon, filling those network gaps, again, system preservation and maintenance comes out again, really high.

Resilient infrastructure, so understanding and maybe future proofing the network for technology as it evolves, and then supporting growth and development in align with enhanced transit services.

And then finally, where we want the LRTP to prioritize overall investments, system repairs and maintenance comes up there, collision reduction, reducing delay and congestion, which also ties back to us needing to meet our performance measures, uh, complete streets, and that's something we will try to work in there and expanding the network capacity.

And then one final uh touch point that happened in December was our virtual engagement meeting open to members of the public that was also recorded and posted on line on the MPO's website.

Um, so within that meeting, people were given the opportunity to provide feedback.

Also, that poll was posted on the MPO's website as well.

Um, so just a final opportunity to rank some of these key values around goals, accessibility for all came up top, safety and security, environmental sustainability got in there.

So that's something that we also worked in our language as well, as that wasn't as highly ranked on some of the other opportunities, fiscal responsibility and neighborhood connectivity.

And then the last one there in terms of uh that 2050 vision statement, well-maintained came out on top, which is really interesting because you don't always see that as the most ranked choice for public polls, uh then safety, security for all modes and access to jobs and services.

Um, so with that, we worked with uh Jeff on creating a draft vision statement.

Um, you all had the opportunity to kind of do this through our mentee poll last time.

Again, as Jeff mentioned, uh anything in these slides today is open for your feedback and comment, and these this is an opportunity to work through any of this language to how you see fit best to the context of the region.

Um but our first uh draft here is in 2050, Gallatin Valley's transportation system provides a safe, reliable and multimodal connectivity that supports people, goods, and communities as the region grows.

The system is well maintained, physically sustainable and designed to strengthen human-centered connections across the region.

Um so that that's our first draft on that.

Um the goals, objectives, performance measures, those are all required elements.

The vision statement is not necessarily required element of the LRTP.

Um, but we like to have that in there as something to aspire to.

And then a review of the draft goals.

Um, there are five proposed overall goals.

The first one um supports safe and secure travel across all transportation modes.

Number two, ensure a reliable and well-maintained transportation system.

Number three, expand mobility choices to better connect destinations to the region.

Number four, enhance health and quality of life while protecting the character of the region.

And number five, coordinate transportation and land use planning to address regional growth.

So with that, um, we have the five goals, and there are about five or six objectives under each of those.

Um, as I mentioned, they are all also in the packet that was shared out.

Um at this time, Jeff, I think I'd like to welcome maybe just we should have feedback on each one as we go through there.

I don't know how useful it is to have me read them out to everyone.

Might not be the best use of our time.

Um, I think that makes sense, Zach.

Okay.

And then again, just one key thing to mention here is thinking back to that um overall listing of um federal planning factors as well as we can link this to the um performance measures, using that as our scorecard to make sure that all of these objectives are going to line up to things that we will want to be able to track, as well as put in our evaluation framework as things that we're gonna look for to try to score to how well the project might perform to our overall goals and objectives.

Um, so the first one in here support safe and secure travel across all transportation modes.

Um, the things we really looked at here were um reducing um severe and fatal collisions.

Um this does not create a vision zero statement necessarily, but we are looking to uh reduce those with the overall goal of eliminating them, um, improving safe outcomes, and we're looking at all modes there.

Um, also looking at um making sure that we're including data and analysis in that.

So that's why we have that third objective there, which relates to developing high injury corridors and intersections.

Um, that's about improving that existing system, so reducing facility gaps as well as just a number of different ADA deficiencies when that comes to things like filling out the sidewalk network or even improvements at curbs.

Uh, and then finally, safety and security conditions um around the the transit network as well as the associated facilities.

Um, so now I will open up the comment and um to anyone if they want to begin.

Yeah, Zach, it looks like Chris has a comment.

I'm sorry, I don't have that.

Yeah, please go ahead.

Sorry.

Okay, thanks.

Um relating to numbers one and three there.

Um, I like the idea that I heard you stating about making sure things are measurable and trackable, that kind of thing.

One of the issues that's been in past planning documents um has been folks use language like what we have here, but then we have a bunch more people come into the system, whether that's new residents or tourists or whatever, and it looks like we're failing because the same rate per capita is happening, but we have more people.

So I would suggest modifying the wording here.

Um to say, for example, reduce per capita traffic related fatalities and serious injuries across transportation modes.

Then we actually see something.

We added 25 more thousand people in this in the planning area, and we have the same number of incidents.

We actually had a huge win because the number of incidents per capita has decreased functionally.

So I think for one and three, that wording would give us a much more measurable um metric to work with in determining whether the work that's proposed is gonna help us out with that.

Okay, that's great input.

And then for the overall performance measures, um, that ties to the adopted statewide target.

So that that would that would say the same.

So yeah, that's definitely, and then we'll, as we go through this, we'll also think if there's other opportunities to include that per capita.

Yeah, thank you, Jeff.

Um, kind of on a similar note.

Um, I guess I just wanted to throw this consideration out there too.

You know, when when you're talking about uh vehicular safety, it's really easy to look at that through through data, right?

Um, but for some of the other modes like walking and biking, particular.

Um some of that that data is a lot fuzzier, and uh a lot of that I think has to do with like perception of safety too.

And so I guess I just don't want to box ourselves into you know, there has to be this hard statistical number um that comes with that type of valuation, particularly for the the non-motorized modes, because I I think a lot of it can very much be about does does this actually feel safe.

Okay, yeah, I think that definitely that's also a good point because in number five, we're using the term security as well.

So that is definitely hard to make sure.

I think kind of related to that.

There's what is physically there, the hardware, you know, is it lit?

Is it stable surfaces?

Is it snow plow gets through and clears the surface?

But then there's also the just the human component.

Oh, gee, you know, there's um people who are misbehaving and causing people to feel unsafe, not because of anything that this organization can do, but because of their behaviors, and so figuring out how we do acknowledge that or somehow take it into account in whatever analysis happens to determine you know, things work, things don't work because improving safety outcomes like in number two, that might be as much about having sidewalks plowed so that you don't have a slip and fall as it does anything else.

Um else.

Okay, those are really good uses of anybody there.

Um the both reliability and um maintenance and preservation of the system.

Uh so number one, um, maintaining a state of good repair for roadway, bridge, and transit assets.

Um, and that relates as well to um the performance measures that do need to be reported on.

Um, maintaining reliable travel times across the transportation system, uh, maintaining the efficient movement of people and goods, um, maintaining a transportation system that can accommodate emerging technologies, improving the condition and continuity of sidewalks and pathways and downtown and activity centers, and then finally uh improving long-term system performance through preservation focused investment decisions.

I'm curious as to why the limitation in number five to only certain areas.

That was my um focus there, Chris.

Um, just uh in the area, what I've noticed is a lot of the new subdivisions are coming in with sidewalks that are up to standards.

The question I have for the city of Bozeman is around the downtown sidewalks.

There's a lot of tourists that come into the region, and I don't really know what the maintenance plan is for them, but a lot of them are quite deteriorated.

Uh, and then when you look at Belgrade, uh their downtown area is missing sidewalks.

There areas that we're not put in right now, and it's quite challenging to get those installed after the fact.

I think a lot of the new subdivisions going in are do have the sidewalks in there.

So that's where I was thinking when I wanted to focus particularly on the core areas for sidewalks, but then included activity centers for schools and parks and more of that suburban pathway type of design as well, but um was mostly considering the downtowns.

I think I'd suggest some revision to the language.

Let me think about what that might be for a minute here.

So I would second uh Chris's concern about the language there, particularly in Belgrade.

Um I mean, it it's not just our downtown that's lacking it, it's basically everything that I would call old Belgrade.

So basically pre-1980s, right?

Um, neighborhoods completely missing sidewalk.

Um, so you know, not only are you not connected to these core areas, there's just like there's no connectivity of the neighborhoods to anything to adjoining neighborhoods to activity centers, etc.

Um, so I I think maybe broadening that language a little bit.

I I think it's a I think it's a worthy goal, right, to clean up those those gaps in the network.

Um, but I think um restricting it in that manner uh doesn't really fit the picture so much in Belgrade at least.

I guess there's an option of considering keeping five with kind of the focus on these core, you know, high traffic type areas, and then adding something that covers the rest of it, or um maybe modifying five so that uh the improved condition and continuity of sidewalks and pathways, that's the universal statement, and then there's like an initial focus on downtowns and activity center.

So you're you're you're working on the whole system, you also have a beginning target point.

I I'm not sure, Jeff and Zachary, which approach if you're trying to keep the number of items under each goal limited or not.

No, I'm trying to think about strategically having you know how we're going to address this and just setting up that early uh framework that will allow us to go after um grants and any other tools that we may have to help provide some focus there.

Yeah, I mean, I would I would go there would be value in having it as a more broad statement, it it does cover those opportunities for things that might be um a downtown Bozeman pedestrian master plan versus um something that is just looking at making sure that we're filling gaps and um older neighborhoods and things like that.

So I do agree that we don't want to set limitations just within the overarching objectives.

Um, Cameron, sorry, go ahead.

Uh perhaps you could kind of keep this similar, right?

And you could you could recraft the statement to be, you know, we're gonna improve condition and continuity uh by closing gaps in the network prioritizing these areas first, and then I think it gives a little bit of guidance as far as like you know, project ranking and selection because I I do agree that I think there's there's definitely priority areas.

They usually center around you know, things like parks and downtowns, um, but also keeps that that that condition broad enough that you know we're not closing the door on on projects that maybe don't meet that that specific criteria of being in a downtown.

Yeah, I think the closing the gaps argument, unless unless a facility is really bad, it's still better than having nothing.

So filling in the gaps first.

I mean, it's a it's a different element of the focus of improving the system, but I think it's it's certainly worth.

I think I'd suggest closing the gaps as worthy of its own statement.

Because I could easily see a particular project where you know we're we're we've got two activity centers, and we're gonna make sure that there's a uh continuous connection between them.

And so we're gonna go after funding to close up three or four missing parts or something like that.

That'd be a nice discrete, you know, thing to chase a grant for.

Either either way, I like the wording that Cam Ree just used um as well for number five.

Because like in particular, right, the transportation alternatives program, one of its primary objectives, or I guess one of its priority objectives is uh um uh connecting you know islands of sidewalk to the rest of the network, right?

And creating those continuous pathways.

So just throw that out there for thought.

So I'm hearing two things here.

I'm hearing um it's good to provide some focus on these historic neighborhoods and activity centers, but at the same time we have these gaps.

Um we should adjust five uh uh curious if we should add another one for addressing the gaps and have that be its own separate objective, or if we would somehow want to include addressing the gaps within number five.

I'd lean towards um the gaps being its own thing.

The gaps focuses on the reliable element in the goal.

And then uh number five focuses more towards the well-maintained element in the goal.

Do others have thoughts on on whether they should be two or um one if we should add a second one here for addressing gaps within the sidewalk network or pedestrian network.

Does anybody have any objections to us doing okay?

Um so I I think that that's that approach could work pretty well, Chris.

Um, so we could we can add something in there, and then on number five uh would we want to say improved condition and continuity of sidewalks and pathways, or would we want to specify um starting with historic neighborhoods uh and activity centers or something that's a little bit broader than downtowns, but does provide some focus?

Um, or do we want to leave it more wide open?

I'd be in favor of providing a little bit of focus to it, yeah.

So you can kind of um I guess uh give a little bit of priority to certain certain uh ideas and projects.

And we're gonna be redoing this exercise in a few years.

So um we we don't need to lay out a 20-year work plan here.

Okay.

Um other comments on on these sections?

Other people we haven't heard from I think the one thing we wanted to call out here is that um there's a couple of drafts that were done.

This does not explicitly call out freight or freight routes or truck parking.

Um, or just have that overarching um fishing movement of people and goods, which covers things like um the performance measures like uh truck delay and would we want to um add something particular about freight in here?

We've had some discussions about freight.

The MPO does need to look at economic development.

Freight is a very important aspect of the transportation network and impacts other elements.

Would we want to include something particular about freight or put it under one of these other objectives?

You know, um items one, two, three, and even six, as already stated.

It's not specifically called out, but sure essential for the movement of freight.

I I think it's fairly uh well spelled out here, but uh just just one thought I've had.

We we've received a lot of feedback, particularly with uh like intersection design of um making sure that uh there are available routes, right?

Because I I think sometimes in these urban areas, uh, particularly for large trucking, it can get pretty hard to move through some of those intersections, especially like roundabout designs, underpass designs, things like that.

Um so I think um, you know, I don't think there's any expectation that the entire network meet the needs of uh trucking, but uh making sure that we are also um providing a network that has roots within it that are identified and makes sense as best options um for the the movement of freight.

Would there be anything um preventing us from doing that with this set of objectives, advancing freight routes or anything like that if we just stuck with this set of objectives, or do you think that would require adding another objective?

I uh yeah, I'm not sure.

I I just wanted to kind of throw that out there.

That's just like that's common feedback you receive, particularly with like large intersection projects.

Uh the trucking association is I'll be honest, or they're pretty critical of things like you know, underpasses and roundabouts because they can often be barriers, particularly to large trucking.

And so I don't know if maybe it's just a slight rewording of an existing condition here of just maybe emphasizing though um you know routes that that make sense and and don't put barriers in the place of of the efficient movement of people and goods.

Maintain and enhance the efficient movement of people and goods.

Yeah, there's undoubtedly some existing glitches that we could work on somewhere.

I'm sure they'd tell us all about it.

You guys have a preference there.

I think if we went with maintain, or we could even just say instead of maintain the efficient movement of people and goods, maybe we could say improve the efficient movement of people and goods, or we could say maintain and what was the word you use, Chris.

Uh I can't remember if it was improve or enhance or something like that.

That enhanced, I like that.

Yeah, that also might do better with lots of maintain helps us with those performance measures, right?

If we are showing or at least maintaining that, and then if we're we're working towards enhancing um, I guess additional areas where this would be put in a long-range transportation plan, but it's more just on the program recommendation side, is um for this process.

We don't really want to reinvent a freight route network for the first long-range transportation plan, but I do think long-term that's something that should be a consideration.

Jeff and I have also talked about how there's better ways to collect data on where trucks are moving throughout the region and different tools for that, but obviously there's there's constraints around that as well.

Um, and then we can also look at um through other objectives that may address things like design or complete streets.

Let's take a look at that language too to make sure that we're not preventing all of those.

Um we would also want to default to things um that MDT has done on their network too, um, that we can kind of point to where trucks are moving efficiently throughout the state where safety improvements have been made as well.

Chris, I see you have your hand up.

Yeah, Zach.

Yeah, just kind of thinking about this number three that we've been talking about and the scale that we're talking about.

Are we limiting this conversation to essentially the collector and arterial and interstate system, or are we talking about the more local system as well?

Because obviously the evolution of to the door deliveries is fundamentally different than what the transportation was designed for, however, many years ago.

And there's large vehicles ranging from the trash truck, the fire department, the moving van, you know, a lot of other things that occur at the local level.

And is that level of things supposed to be incorporated in this conversation?

Because that's a very different set of conversations, I would think.

Yeah, Chris.

Um when we look at funding for the MPO in particular, we are looking at the archeros and flectors, the on-system routes.

That's primarily where going to be focused.

Uh the way that I've been looking at this, of course, it's open to other perspectives.

The local street networks in particular, the connectivity of those local streets impacts the arterials and the collectors.

And so if you have a very disconnected local street network, you're going to get a lot of congestion on the arterials, which we see in some areas already.

Um, but we have not had any conversations about the MPO, uh looking at like the street design of the um say intersection or um those the local streets, the widths or anything like that.

We've had some conversations about the level of connectivity of those local street network, but leaving the design um to the individual local communities, but um open to hearing what others think about that.

Okay.

Sounds sounding but Chris, did you have anything that you wanted to say on that?

Are you thinking that no?

I just was wanting to make sure I was understanding the scope of what we were discussing with this.

I'm not advocating to shift um past practice at all.

But yeah, um, no, that's a good reminder.

I think one thing to uh also uh just remind folks of is the these objectives are setting the basis for also how we're going to prioritize and score and select the projects that are going to be funded through the long range transportation plan.

So those are going to be those regionally significant um projects.

If there are things that are more at like a neighborhood level or programmatic changes or even future studies, those are the ones that we could list um and put in the plan, but they're not necessarily going to be in that fiscally constrained list of projects, more thinking about things like emerging technologies or freight and delivery plans, um, things like that.

So uh halfway through here, goal number three uh expand mobility choices to better connect destinations through the region.

Um so this brings up a lot of the different feedback points that we get.

Number one in terms of improving access, uh two of also between schools, jobs, services, and key community destinations across all different modes.

Um improving the street network connectivity to support more direct multimodal travel.

Again, that also relates to getting to that local network getting to neighborhoods.

Uh number three, increase the share of trips made by non-single occupant vehicle modes.

Um, and that resonates to time to a number of current performance measures.

Number four, improve access, comfort and safety at transit stops and transit locations.

Uh, and then number five, reduce household transportation costs uh by improving access to affordable travel options.

And I think the one thing that we wanted to call out here, Jeff, this was in your comments on number four, maybe something for us to consider is we do talk about safety at transit stops.

We talked about previously how that might be difficult to measure.

Um, that was thinking about potentially future funding options for enhancements, not necessarily noting that there's a deficiency.

Um yeah, I will also talk a little bit about a number two here.

I think on improved street network connectivity, if we were to um discuss local streets at all, this would be the area of a higher local street density again to provide that more direct um bicycling and walking access mostly, and it can impact the travel time reliability of the arterials and collectors plus uh reliability when there's any sort of um event, you have those backups there, and so if the MPO, the only this could include um the arterials, the collectors, but potentially the local streets as well.

When we talk about connectivity, um this is up to your guidance, but um this this could be one where maybe um maybe there's a nexus there.

Uh on number two, I don't disagree with the language that's there, but I think it's just missing something.

So the street network connectivity is important, but um it may not only be streets, it may be you know pathway connectivity or something like that, where there's a reason you don't want to put a full board street through something, but it is reasonable to get a ped bike connection through.

Maybe there it's a willing versus unwilling landowner or you're crossing sensitive environmental area or something.

So I think it would be worth mentioning something besides just the motor vehicle way as um part of that connection.

I think if you look at the like the triangle trails plan, you're gonna find a bunch of spots where the trails are going through through areas that won't necessarily only line up with street rights of way, as of for instance, but could provide important connections.

So don't close the door on those other important connections.

Yep.

Okay, so maybe we look at something like um improve street work, street network and pathway connectivity to support more direct multimodal travel.

Yeah, just something simple like that.

Okay.

And yeah, that's something we've um thinking of Casper, Wyoming, where we've been able to put in things like uh bike and pedestrian bridges over rivers and things like that that connected both or trails.

And then number five, um maybe it's my skepticism about the world these days, but affordable travel options sounds like a euphemism for something else that you'd really rather say.

So if we mean something else, then we should probably say it.

Um, otherwise, does that just mean an inexpensive used car?

Or does that mean what?

Is it transit?

Is it biking?

Is it if that's what really what we mean to say, then we should just be plain about it.

So change affordable travel options to transit walking and bicycling.

If that's what the intention is, you know, affordable travel, or you know, we're gonna get a cheap airline in that flies out that we can all get to.

That's could affordable travel options could just mean an awful lot of different things.

And I'm saying not saying any of them are bad.

So if we want the super broad meaning, then we can leave it as is.

Also, affordable means something different to everyone.

So it sounds like we should we should clarify to that one.

Um maybe we should just list the actual modes of transportation that we're talking about there to reduce ambiguity.

We're not when we wrote this, we didn't have use cars in mind, but that is certainly um an important factor.

So I downsized my private jet.

Come on, I'm saving money.

Yeah, these are really great comments.

I think this is definitely more um this one is a struggle because this relates a lot to feedback that we will feedback that we got from uh different interviews, but also the public.

And I think what a lot of people mean is housing.

Um, and that's what we see a lot.

So maybe tying this better to what we actually have control over in the long-range transportation plan um with the different travel modes.

Um, this also does um link to relating things to land use as well, which I believe we still need to get through as well.

So maybe let's also consider that when we're thinking about affordability and that major challenge that the region faces.

Uh any other comments on items under goal three.

Uh so I just on item three.

Um, non-single occupant vehicle modes is quite the mouthful.

Is there a way to say that with a little more accessible language?

I guess um to me that sounds like multi-occupant would say the same thing.

Um non-drive alone, just usually a little bit more.

Yeah, I think the performance method.

Anything we could do to maybe make that a little more succinct and just kind of say what we're trying to say.

Okay.

Any other comments?

All right, so number four.

Uh, so this relates to enhancing health and quality of life while protecting the character of the region.

Uh so tying things to the physical activity element and and health related to that, uh, improve access to walking, bicycling, and other multimodal facilities support physical activity and healthy travel.

Number two, improve transportation access to parks, trails, and recreation areas.

Number three, uh reduce wildlife vehicle conflicts in approve safe wildlife movement across transportation corridors.

This comes out of uh both interviews you've had, but also a number of conversations that we have when we're meeting with people in um public over uh the summertime and maybe thinking about how we could at least include that in future considerations around grants and things like that.

Uh number four, reduce transportation related impacts on environmentally sensitive areas.

Number five, reduce air emissions from the transportation system.

Um number four and five really relate to those performance measures that we need to report on.

And then number six, which is something that we added in our second round of drafts and would like to get feedback on is improve emergency preparedness and coordination.

Um not necessarily emergency management, but just um what happens in the case of an event and what that means for things like evacuations and the overall mobility system.

Chris, do you have a hand raised?

Yeah, um, four and five.

That's an interesting combination of things because if you move the transportation system to not impact the area, but you make the travel longer than you've expanded your um air emissions.

And so what is the expectation there for acknowledging that those two may be in conflict with each other.

Um I think what the the main thing that we want to look at is just reporting on that, the specific performance measures that need to be adopted.

Um I need to pull them up.

Jeff, I don't know if you have them level pull them up otherwise.

Yeah, Chris, I think that that's a really good point.

And it's a conflict that we all live with.

We have multiple objectives that we're trying to meet.

And I would say that that's on a project by project.

Um I think I think we want to meet both of these things.

Um there's been a lot of discussion around protecting trees on some projects.

I know that there's um a environmentally or a sensitive lands index, and there's been a lot of work that has been done around that.

And so we've been trying to uh advance, continue advancing that work in what we do, at least you know, not cause any harm in that direction or limit it as best we can.

Um, and then on the air quality side of things, some of the things I've seen done to address this could include um I was involved with one MPO that they use canisters on top of the transit to reduce emissions, and so they're they were capturing those emissions at the source and um turning that from air pollution to essentially uh landfill product.

And so that was another way of going about it.

And then so um that's why I was thinking of these as two distinctive goals there or objectives, but you do raise a very good point.

And you're absolutely right.

We have to deal with all this stuff, and the world doesn't always line up in a neat way.

I just was curious about how.

And so maybe if it gets handled on a case-by-case basis, that's fine.

Um, I think number five would be one where we might want to include the per capita element as well.

Um it's hard hard to have the emissions go down if the population goes up.

Okay, that's great.

And then just in terms of those statewide adopted performance targets, that this is just reporting.

We don't have you know very specific targets that we need to be reporting to.

Um we're not in an attainment area, so there's not an additional air quality analysis that um goes along with this specific long-range transportation plan.

Um, those environmentally sensitive areas, that's also something that um this gets to the objectives, also informing those um things that we're looking at when we're scoring, so making sure that the available layers that we have in GIS, for example, um, understanding if any proposed projects might impact those areas.

Um other comments on these objectives.

Uh yeah, Catherine is still uh struggling with her audio.

Um, but she had she had suggested uh just uh uh for number six, maybe expanding that a little to kind of capture uh how we manage our infrastructure in those emergency situations.

Um and I think that's a really good point.

Um that seems to be, you know, they kind of fold into that that concept of preparedness and coordination, but I I think maybe uh also adding uh cooperation across the the MPO in those situations um to that and and you know developing good solid plans um and action items for when those events do happen, how do we manage them, like major snow events, um, you know, collisions, all those all those things across the network.

Yeah, that's a good point.

So improve emergency preparedness cooperation and coordination.

Is that what you suggested there?

Or did Catherine have ideas?

Yeah, I think that that kind of captures it and perhaps uh you know more robust uh planning um on the part of the the various members of the the MPO uh planning and coordination, maybe.

Um Jeff, was there a specific reason uh reason that we wanted to avoid the word management here?

Management in emergency situations is usually offered by offices of emergency management, and so there is a team that oversees this emergency management, and then within that transportation has its own function.

And when you look at the federal systems, it's called PSF one.

And so it's preparing to mobilize for evacuations or any sort of um in I moved out in Montana for a little while and was in another community that caught on fire, and 1,500 homes burned down.

Um we organized all the buses.

We had school buses, we had transit buses evacuated in the hospital, right?

As fire was coming up against it.

And we had to work with ambulances, and that's the type of coordination I'm thinking about.

Is like if you're in the heat of the moment and you have a emergency going on now, you know, a wildfire burning down homes, it's about as uh big of an emergency as you can get, but also the stormy events, um, just coordinating in advance.

Um, so maybe maybe that's coordinating, maybe that's planning, maybe that's everybody has their roles and know what to do with it.

But the intent here is to broach the discussion.

And uh yeah.

Jeff, based on what you just described, I would understand that to make two core example sizing um bridge replacements to carry the hundred-year flood if they don't already and things like that.

Is that also included?

I would consider that to be resiliency, and that's much more the planning in advance, so that way you can endure any sort of storm event.

So I think there are two different things here, Chris.

And maybe we would want to have something on resiliency, but this is more that operational component of there's an event, we all know what to do.

Okay.

Or maybe adding on there, improve emergency preparedness, planning, and coordination along with um resilient infrastructure or something.

Um, you know, the resilience piece could fit under one or goal number one or two, probably better than it would fit here.

Uh personally, I think a statement explicitly about doing this work in support of resilience would be a worthwhile statement to have in the document somewhere.

We could even add that to this goal, I think.

Yeah, I mean we I mean we could even add it at the goal level as well, ensure a reliable resilient and well-maintained transportation system.

Maybe both of those.

I kind of like adding it to the goal.

Um, I think that's that's really important that we hit on that, uh, especially as those types of uh, I guess extreme events, uh, particularly um things like you know, wildfire and um you know intense uh rainfall snowstorms, right?

It you know, they they they look to be trending to become more frequent over time.

And I think we do have a lot of infrastructure in the network that uh is likely needs uh improvement or enhancement to be able to handle some of the future challenges.

Okay, great.

So I have that as a we'll we will revise goal number two to incorporate that, and then um back on goal for number six.

We could update it in terms of improve emergency preparedness coordination and um cooperation.

Um we're not using the term management or response there though, which I think we're we're talking about.

That's probably something else.

Yeah, Catherine sounded like had a real good comment on this, but her uh audio is uh having some issues.

So I guess I'd be kind of curious if we should go with improve emergency preparedness planning and coordination.

It sounded like a lot of that how was Catherine's point, and if yeah if we did planning in here that would maybe address that.

Catherine just sent a message to uh I think I still think management slash response is important to include.

Okay.

Emergency preparedness and response coordination.

Uh probably prove emergency preparedness and response.

True planning and coordination of emergency preparedness and response, like that.

Yeah, Catherine.

Not sure if you're able to chat if you have a um if you have a preferred way of writing that.

I support the intent.

I'll leave you guys to do the wordsmithing and then we'll criticize you later.

Okay, perfect.

Um yeah, we'll work on it.

If you if you listen to email me directly.

All right.

Um, any other items on these other objectives.

I know number three is that's a little bit different than maybe some other regions have um adopted.

Okay, all right.

Well, then number five, which is the last the last one here.

So coordinate transportation and land use planning to address regional growth.

Um number one, aligned transportation system and network decisions with adopted growth plans.

Um, so that's part of the scoring process as well as also looking at those future projected conditions.

Uh, number two, aligned transportation system design to support walkable, human-centered and well-connected places.

Number three, improve the adaptability and flexibility of the transportation system to respond to changing needs and future conditions.

Number four, support placemaking, economic vitality and mobility and key activity centers through context appropriate solutions.

And then number five, accommodate seasonal and tourism-related travel demand while minimizing system-wide transportation impacts.

Um, so I know some of these do touch upon uh topics that maybe we've looked at, how other objectives the boarding may not address or might be leaving things out when we're talking about um neighborhood context, uh development, uh the difference between kind of the older outlying neighborhoods versus downtown areas.

Um, Chris, uh let you go ahead.

Yeah, and on number five, I'm wondering if we might want to lead with document before we accommodate.

Um thinking about the conversations we have in land use planning and things.

There's lots of folks who asked the question why is there so much X?

Right.

And we have a sense of this is the local traffic, this is the pass-through traffic.

Um, but being able to have more details about who are we really serving with a particular improvement, I think could help in the decision making process.

Are we prioritizing the local users, the permanent residents, or someone who's here for a couple of days?

So I think that documentation piece could be could be helpful.

Not sure if that's even practical to do, but um it seems like um could be useful.

Be interested in others' thoughts about if they think that's a waste of time or not.

What if you uh rewrote that statement?

Um kind of along the lines of uh balance the seasonal and tourism related travel demands.

Um you know, with the the needs of the permanent community.

Yeah.

I I like that in terms of getting towards prioritization of projects.

Um I also agree that this is an area where more some of this can be done through um travel model and things like that.

It collecting data going forward to try to understand that in terms of also answering questions about why things might not be able to be funded.

Um I believe that this also touches on one of the national planning factors, tourism.

And so um I don't know if that does anything, but yeah, that that's in there.

There's not a lot in terms of just you know performance measures that get towards tracking that very well, other than just saying that um it's reliable to travel on the interstate, right?

Um yeah, that's that's another key reason why we do want to have this language uh somewhere in our objectives.

So it so I guess what I'm hearing is instead of accommodate seasonal and tourism related travel, uh Zach's suggestion there of balance seasonal tourism related travel with the local needs.

Um would hit we're getting the same thing, just how do you word it?

Do we just all need to be patient for a couple of peak days in the year?

Or do we really want to spend the money on whatever that next increment of capacity looks like?

And having some solid information to help us judge that, I think would be really helpful in the conversation.

Thanks for clarifying, Chris.

That's that's why this was accommodate and not improve because I think we're reading the same thing, it's just how do we uh how do we spell that out clearly?

So we will take a nerf stab at that.

Do we have any other comments from anybody on anything that we've discussed so far today?

Maybe somebody that we haven't heard from, or if anybody has anything they'd like to add on anything we've discussed, even back to the vision, Danny.

I guess um, would it be all right if we went back to goal two, I believe, and it I think it was number five.

Um, I guess it initially when we were looking at this, I felt like it left out transit a little bit.

Um, I feel like sometimes the continuity of sidewalks, the issues that we run into are more in the residential areas and maybe not so much in the downtown areas.

Um, and then I noticed on goal three number four kind of covered that, and I was wondering if we wanted to add a little more transit to number five on goal two, or if we felt like it was kind of covered on goal three of the neck that next page.

Yeah, I see.

I kind of felt like number four covered it a bit here, just less specifically.

Are you thinking that on goal number two?

We maybe we want to have something improved, conditioning continuity.

We we're gonna have to rework this one, but of sidewalk, but include transit in there.

Yeah, I think a little bit.

I mean, I think sometimes for transit, it is more like the first mile and last mile and less of like the downtown court or activity centers, like people like the closest bus stop to their house, for example.

Accessibility in that area.

So I feel like number five on goal two is leaving out kind of conditioning continuity of sidewalks near bus stops.

Yeah.

And that also snow impacts that as well, is my understanding.

Yeah, yeah, I would say so.

And the continuity of sidewalks to bus stops is actually kind of another addresses another goal, I think on goal three as well, where sometimes with MDT policy, like the reason that a stop isn't visible is because of accessibility concerns from MDT.

Like we're not allowed to put a sign up, for example, if it's not accessible enough.

Yeah, that's definitely something that we tried to get at in number four here without explicitly stating that.

Yep.

Um, but that's a really good point.

I the other we didn't go through the slides on that, but I'm sure many of you have seen the transit strategic plan recommendations and things like that.

Um, where that backs up also what we had a lot in the public engagement here that we summarize as a need for uh first and last mile improvements.

We don't actually use that language and the objectives, but um, yeah, that's a really good point.

We want to make sure we're memorializing.

If you added the word two after access in number four, would that still be what you're saying?

I think it's it would address what Todd's saying.

Improve access to comfort and safety.

Yeah, I think so.

Improve access, or it could be improved comfort, safety, and access to yeah, I think that that makes sense.

We could say two and at transit stops because they're two different things, right?

Okay, yeah.

That's good.

I think that sounds good.

Yeah.

So kind of relating to two or three, not sure where it might fit.

And maybe this is more of an action than a goal or an objective.

But studying, you know, what are the barriers to mode shift?

What it is is it the fact that somebody's coming in from you know, three forks and there's no way they're walking.

Uh, or is it the snow?

Is it what?

Because if you don't know why there's a barrier, it's really tough to effectively act to lessen it.

So maybe that's more of an implementation thing that's not in this list.

I think a discussion to come after this list, you know, when we talk about how we're going to implement this, that that would be a real good um discussion to include there.

Because you're right.

Um living in three four years is very different than you know, there being a quarter mile of missing pathway that would cut off a mile of travel.

Because that could be an implementation there under three three.

Part of the way we're going to increase the shares understanding why we you know what's prohibiting that.

Is anybody seeing not seeing something in here that they had hoped to see, or maybe uh in the communities that you represent, the organizations you represent, something that you were hoping for, something that's really important that um could be a little bit stronger in here, or maybe isn't called out, or um something that we're missing.

Okay, great.

Um yeah, any other comments today?

We're about at time.

So I think it's stuff wrapped up.

Someone has an art comment, feel free.

Otherwise, we'll we'll keep we'll we'll get we'll work on these, we'll continue working on these, and then we'll come back to you all.

Zach, let's continue the presentation.

Yeah, just so it's this last slide here.

Um, in addition to what uh Jeff had just noted about wrapping that up in the next couple of weeks.

Um, other items that we're working on, um, and the would be a land use projections meeting later this afternoon is the projected conditions in terms of developing that future 2050 uh look at what land use will be in terms of population employment numbers, um, and the basis for uh assessing future travel needs across uh the region, uh those performance measures, um working on collecting the daily pieces that need to be reported out to the state for that, and then the evaluation framework, um, which is how we score the projects, and then also leads into that call for projects in terms of um gathering uh the ideas from you all as well as um what is documented in previous plans.

And then one other piece of that working with the MPO on is the first set of revenue projections to inform the horizon or the fiscal planning horizon through 2050, how we'll break up those phases, and then also informing uh the TIP at the end of 2026.

Uh any questions on those items.

Not a question, it's more just a thought about how it will be presented on the revenue projections.

Um, we're we're talking about a fairly short time frame for the plan uh compared to how long the world's been around.

And it would be, I think, uh helpful thing if we said, look, we expect X number of dollars, and by the way, that's equivalent to X number of miles of pathway or street.

Um, and this is how much we actually have today.

So just kind of helping people understand that we're talking about very small incremental changes.

Um there's not some huge pile of money that's gonna suddenly swoop in and fix everything.

Okay, I really like that idea.

Um, in terms of the the revenue projections also relate to the um the costs forecast for the projects, and that also needs to be that we we take a look at things like unit costs and making sure we're cross-referencing that with kind of MDT standard going right.

But I really like the idea of maybe even doing uh an infographic that's more public-facing, giving the idea of this type of project or this is cost that much per mile.

Is that kind of what you're thinking?

And that's just in these 2026 dollars.

Yeah, it is.

I I handle the city's impact fee program and have for pushing 30 years now.

And the thing that consistently is communicated from the public is why haven't you done more with the money?

And the understanding of the cost, unit cost for this work is never understood, even with folks that you think should.

And so being able to help folks understand the real scale that these things work on.

Yes, they're big projects, but it's you build up your money for a long time before you do that big project.

Um, I think is a really helpful reality check.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you for that suggestion.

I really like that idea.

Well, great.

Uh thank you all very much.

We will be back.

We will get these refined and we will we will come back to you and um appreciate your time today.

And so, Camry, I will turn them back to you.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you, uh Jeff and Zachary.

That was an excellent presentation and good discussion.

Um before we close this item officially, I'll I'll call for uh public comment um related to uh the presentation we just uh sat through.

It looks like uh Levi has his hand up too.

Um not on purpose if I do.

Oh, oh sorry, uh I I missed that.

It's merrily uh uh Merilee, please go ahead.

Hello everyone, I'll try and be fast and see you.

There's only one minute left here.

Um great presentation.

Um I am hoping that you will continue uh the following um three items.

And one is to work with legislatures, uh legislators to improve supportive um safety law.

Um I'm hoping that can be included somewhere.

I didn't see it anywhere in there.

Then on the plan review section at the top, I think it would be a great idea to memorialize the previous committee's work.

Um we had the TCC and the PTS that did all of the work for the the same area of um that you guys are addressing right now, uh map-wise.

And so to memorialize the TCC directives and past motions, I think is very important to carry that forward.

I can give you details as to why if anybody wants to contact me and and talk to me later.

did all of the work for the the same area of um uh that you guys are addressing right now uh map wise and so to memorialize the tcc directives and past motions i think is very important to carry that forward i can give you details as to why if anybody wants to contact me and and talk to me later and then finally i would love to see something mentioned about prioritization of projects and how there needs to be a want versus need in safety or other issues um so that just the popular projects aren't carried forward but projects that are really needed for the safety of the people so those are my three comments thank you very much thank you so much for that Marilee is there uh any other public comment at this time I'm showing no other request for public comment all right excellent well uh with that I uh would call to adjourn the meeting unless there's any additional business from the committee uh hearing none uh meeting is adjourned thank you everybody for your time today uh have a great rest of your week and uh looking forward to seeing you guys again soon thank you thank you all very much