Yeah.

Okay, well, we do not have a chair right now.

And so uh let's get started with the meeting and get moving on the agenda.

Marcy, if you want to move on to minutes and then after minutes, uh we can have the discussion on nomination of uh new chair and vice chair.

If you want to just We just need a motion to approve the minutes.

Well, if we want to get going, I guess on the agenda.

I'm sorry if we want to start moving our way through it.

I don't think we have a quorum, Jeff.

That's what I was just looking at.

Um Mayor Morrison and Commissioner McFarland are unable to make it.

And sounds like we have our chair and vice chair.

Possibly.

We have Commissioner Fisher still assigned to this board.

We have six.

We have Commissioner Bodie is now on this board, and it looks like she is joining us now.

So I think we will have a home.

Um so uh do we want to move forward first with nominating a chair and a vice chair to uh run the meeting.

I can have the agenda up here for whoever is acting chair today.

Um but let's start with uh our bylaws every single year, lay out that at the first meeting of the year, the committees both TTEC and TPCC will nominate a chair and a vice chair.

Previously uh Mayor Cunningham served as the chair.

He uh is no longer uh serving as the mayor, and vice chair McFarland uh is not here.

And so uh it would entertain some discussion and a motion on who we would like who the committee would like to nominate as a chair and a vice chair.

I don't know if there's been any previous discussion of this, uh it might make sense for uh for Commissioner McFarland to uh chair the committee if he was previously the vice chair.

Of course he's not here to defend himself, but yeah, he already has vice chair experience and so that yeah, are there any other uh nominations discussion for chair or vice chair?

The role of the chair is specifically to run these meetings, and then additionally um if you have an absence, then uh uh email the chair and if there is a signature that is needed, the chair puts the signature on it and um few other minor things.

The vice chair who runs the meetings in place if the chair is not available.

Today we don't have a chair nor a vice chair, so Jeff, I still think we need to pause for a second because I don't think we have enough people to actually have a quorum per our bylaws to actually make those decisions today.

How many do we have, Neil?

Um well it depends on how like who we have to go back and look at who's all in it, but when you're missing the one from Bozeman and the county.

Okay.

The bylaws are a majority.

Okay.

Commissioner Bodie, I assume that you are the new city of Bozeman uh appointee.

Yeah, both um myself and Joey will be representing from the city of Bozeman.

Joey is um traveling for for you know city moving to work today, so couldn't join us.

Thanks for having me.

I'm excited to be here.

Um so we do have a quorum for the bylaws.

Uh it is up to this committee.

Um we have some policy items on the discussion today.

Uh they are critical path policy items.

Um so today would be a day to preview those for a critical path item next month.

Uh well, so if we're if we're still discussing chair, um I would uh move to nominate uh Mayor Morrison from Bozeman to be the chair of this of this committee.

Okay.

So we have Mayor Morrison is uh is vice chair with uh commissioner McFarlane as chair.

Um I I stand by my motion.

Well, I'll second it for the sake of discussion.

Neil, do you like to expound on that at all?

Sure.

I just just knowing everything that's going on with the county and the different shuffling arounds of responsibilities.

I think the stability of Mayor Morrison uh would bring some continuity to that.

Uh Scott is great, and I have nothing against that.

And I think uh uh Commissioner McFarland as the vice chair continuing as long as he's able to do that would be well uh served on that front.

Um I think it worked really well to have uh the mayor of Bozeman as the chair uh last time around.

And it's also selfish that as uh I don't want uh to necessarily be a part of it as a non-elected official on on this board.

So um that it's it's really comes down to I think everything that's going on with the county and the shifting going on there that uh Mayor Morrison could bring some more stability to the board for for the chair.

Any other discussion on the nomination of Mayor Morrison as chair?

Is this something we can decide on without Mayor Morrison, you know, consenting or saying, yeah, I'm I'm game for it.

Um because I I do wonder if we can kind of um table the motion until we've heard from him to make sure that's you know a responsibility he wants.

And I mean I guess either way, vice chair or for chair.

I I defer to the to defer to the group on that.

Um not trying to be dismissive.

Uh this is usually one of those that uh when you're not here is when you get voluntold kind of kind of boards.

Um I'm I'm fine tabling it if we if we need to.

Um I'm also fine to just move forward.

Any other discussion right now?

There's a motion for Mayor Morrison to act as chair.

I'm you mentioned that there was uh the policy was we picked people the first meeting of the years or reason why we couldn't delay it to the next meeting as long as we get that confirmation because I kind of agree that it would be good to get their confirmation.

I mean, I understand that it's not a huge ask or huge lift, but it is good to maybe ask them before we nominate them and that they would accept the nomination.

Yeah, I would I would move that we table the current uh action item and motion to our February meeting.

I'll second that.

Okay, there is a motion to and a second to table until the next meeting.

Um for procedure's sake, uh Jeff, I will I will withdraw my previous motion, so that's no longer on the table.

Oh great, thank you.

Previous motion withdrawn.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Any discussion?

Okay, Marcy, do you want to take a vote?

Commissioner Bowdoin.

Aye.

Neil Cardwell.

Aye.

Gina Leva.

Aye.

Geggy.

Aye.

Jim Hansen.

Aye.

Vote passes five-five.

Okay, great.

So we will table this until the next discussion.

Uh would we like to have an acting chair to run the meeting today, or would you like the staff to act as the chair for this meeting?

Jeff, I would uh suggest you continue it if our colleagues agree.

Okay.

Okay, is there any opposition?

I think given the uh agenda today, that seems fine.

Okay.

Um should we motion for this?

Or is there any need to or just move forward with me on?

I'll make a motion that uh Jeff Butz, our staff representative, continues to uh chair and conduct the meeting for this meeting.

I'll second that.

Okay, the motion and a second, any discussion.

Okay, Marcy, take a vote, please.

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Neil Cardwell.

Aye.

Aye.

Yes.

Jim Hanson.

Aye.

Bill Passy's five-five.

Okay, great.

Um good thing I have the agenda pulled up.

Okay.

And so uh call the order.

We inserted uh this here, maybe a little bit early, but um, if we could do a roll call, Marcy.

Mr.

Bodie.

Lost my my thing there.

Present.

Thank you.

Neil Cardwell.

Here.

Dina Leva.

Here.

Mark Gigi.

Present.

Jim Hanson.

Here.

Yeah, five out of vote.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Um approval of minutes.

So approval of the December 10th Galton Valley MPO meeting minutes.

Any discussion on this item.

Okay, is there a motion for approval?

A motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Okay, Marcy, please take a roll call or a vote.

Mr.

Bodie?

Aye.

Neil Cardwell.

Aye.

I know Leva.

Aye.

Ark Eggie.

Aye.

Jim Hansen.

Aye.

Vote passes five-five.

Okay, great.

Approval of minutes are done.

And now we'll move on to public comment.

This is a time to comment on any non-agenda matter matter following within the scope of the Metropolitan Planning Organization.

There will also be a time in conjunction with each agenda item for the public.

Comment relating to that item, but you may only speak once per topic.

Please note the committee cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda.

All persons addressing the committee shall speak in a civil and courteous manner.

Are there any members of the public wishing to comment?

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

In case they couldn't um reach the hand up or whatever.

Is there any uh requests for public comment?

Still showing no requests.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Marcy.

We will now move on to new business E1 workshop on the draft of vision goals and objectives for the long-range transportation plan.

Staff has a presentation put together for you all.

And so now I will walk through that with you all.

Okay.

Starting to get into fun stuff.

So am I sharing the correct screen, first of all?

Okay, great.

Um presentation here.

The purpose of the presentation is to provide information in a workshop discussion on the draft, long-range transportation, vision statement, goals, objectives, and prepare for consideration of adoption at the next TPCC meeting.

As a reminder, and uh for Commissioner Bodhi joining us for the first time.

This is our planning area.

And so we're looking at Belgrade, Bozeman, out to four corners are on the map for long-range transportation plan.

The MPO is required to complete these four different documents.

They're um long-range transportation plan, is what we are talking about today.

Our governance structure has the transportation uh technical advisory committee and transportation policy coordinating committee.

Uh, just briefly here, the transportation technical advisory committee consists of director level staff.

Uh, they provide reviews and really refine a lot of the alternatives, they do evaluations, forecasting, come up with methodologies, a lot of the technical analysis, the scenarios, um, implementation risks and trade-offs, and they make recommendations to TPCC.

TPCC as a group, you all really look at the bigger picture and set the overall policy direction for the MPO.

Uh, your reviews come following T TAC recommendations in normally.

Um, there you provide policy guidance, and then uh you adopt an authorize submitted of our documents, and so you're at that policy level, and where we're talking about these values, this particularly the goals and objectives, they are going to have downstream effects on the projects that are selected.

And so we've interpreted this as a policy level discussion, which is why it is coming to you today for your review.

And so, quickly where we're at, we started the project in May of 2025.

We've been working through the existing conditions, which are about complete.

We are be going into the projected conditions uh this spring, which we're working on right now.

After that, we will get into the alternatives analysis and recommendations, and then finally writing a report.

The plan has to be complete by December of this year, and we are going to have a large public event this spring that we are planning, multiple workshops in each community.

Um, and then we do have to provide for a 30-day uh public review period at the end of this.

And so um overview of the schedule when we get into our uh community engagement that we have done to date overall.

Um, we have attended a couple different farmers markets.

We have tabled at Belgrade Albertsons, we have received uh 168 survey responses, done an online webinar and polling, and then we have a community advisory panel associated with this project, and we met with the community advisory panel, and then TAC has had their input as well and participation in this.

Over on the left-hand side is a preview of the polling results.

We will get into this a little bit more, but just at the top here, um, well-maintained infrastructure, safety, sustainability, uh, physical activity, connectivity, and travel options are really the big things that have been coming up.

Um as we shape these goals and objectives, things to think about is that we're trying to take all of those things people have said and the values behind those and turn them into action items.

And so we're affirming and combining here, and then looking at current needs and future needs as we go forward.

And another consideration are the federal and state requirements with the MPO.

Down on the bottom, we see a little slider just showing that those values or the vision eventually works its way down into measurable projects that impact the targets and performance measures.

On the right is some example goals that the consultants provide it.

So looking at other factors that we need to look at, national uh compliance with uh the national transportation law.

And so they includes performance goals on things like infrastructure condition and freight movement, national planning factors that we have to consider, including economic vitality and safety and system preservation, among others at the federal level.

And then at the state level, we the states um work with the MPOs to establish targets, and the MPO uh supports the statewide targets.

We are not establishing our own targets, but we have to help the we are helping the state advance, advance their targets.

And we've looked at a lot of the plans that have been done, transportation.

Um looked at the Belgrade LRTP, the existing one, uh multiple from the city of Bozeman and out at Gallatin County.

And these are a lot of the themes that came up across this uh safety, connectivity, access, system preservation, economic vitality, community identity, and uh sustainability.

So those are what's coming up from the themes of the plans.

When we did their uh survey, we got quite a few results as mentioned.

Here's themes that came out of here.

Uh there was a lot of discussion around transit and wanting to increase transit, both high frequency corridors and transit service to the airport.

That was a very big one, and um connectivity between modes there.

Uh the urban development and the form of the urban development.

There was a lot of discussion around the road network and connectivity of the road network, some missing chunks there, um, some design of the road network.

It may not be the easiest to get around.

Um, and then natural resource preservation came up.

Um driving and um safety, speeds were a big issue, uh, intersections, left-hand turns and freight, and then traffic signals again, uh signal timing and left-hand turns are an issue there.

And then on bicycle pedestrian, we heard quite a bit about these as well.

Um wanted real separation on those bicycles, and then safe crossings for pedestrians.

So over here surveys, and then we did uh interviews with the communities, uh high-level staff and their teams within the communities.

And you can see the themes here on screen, uh, maintaining and preserving the existing system, filling in the gaps of sidewalks and pathways, and mode shift, so more walk bike trips, separation between modes, uh supporting those statewide targets, not invented our own.

Um there's demand from the increased growth and the visitor travel coming in.

So managing that and then aligning transportation improvements with future land uses.

We got input from TAC.

This shows the results of what people were interested in.

So, number one that they showed, you know, our shared regional commitments to safety and security, system preservation and fiscal responsibility were at the top of the list there, followed up by uh access, economic development, and affordability.

Uh, transportation system provides.

This is with TAC again.

Uh big thing was connectivity.

The second thing was uh well-maintained infrastructure and then safety uh followed by access.

The community advisory panel.

This is a group of 12 community members from multiple different organizations and uh individuals in the community.

They added in here that they were they want a transportation system provide connectivity between neighborhoods.

They talked specifically more about neighborhoods, human-centered design, how using multiple modes of transportation, and there was discussion around it being convenient and comfortable, easy to use.

So getting so that was on the goal side of things, refining down a little bit more on TTAC.

Future projects and programs will address our needs for the big thing that they were looking at there was coordinated land use with transportation and then filling in network gaps and adaptable and resilient infrastructure.

So there's a big things from T TAC, and then the LRTB will prioritize mobility investments again from T TAC.

That's really a theme that's coming up quite a bit.

Delay and expanding both complete streets and capacity.

Think some of those may be connected.

And then collision reduction and safety really sort of the big themes that came up on drilling down more.

As we drilled in more, you can see some of the stuff here about high level.

They talked about transit-oriented development, uh, having connectivity and mobility that cups back on motor vehicles.

So here's some survey results from the serve one from the online survey that we did the webinar.

Uh access, safety, environmental sustainability, and fiscal responsibility are the big things that they're top four.

I can go back if you're interested.

Um, well-maintained infrastructure safety and access were the top three once we drove down a little bit more on those survey results.

And so going through all of this, the uh project team has developed a vision statement to try to take all that stuff we heard and put it into a big sort of value statement, if you will.

Um, this is where we'll start to get into the workshop a little bit.

Uh so here is the draft vision statement.

T TAC did not have any changes to it, but uh in 2050, Gallatin Valley's transportation system provides safe, reliable, and multimodal connectivity that supports people, goods, and communities as the region grows.

It's a system that's well maintained, fiscally sustainable and designed to strengthen human-centered connections.

If there are any comments on this, we can go back to it.

I do want to move along.

This is the main portion of it.

This is the workshop where I hope to have some discussion, this to be interactive between us.

Um the five different goals that we really boiled down to here are safe and secure travel across all modes, ensuring reliable, resilient and well-maintained transportation system, mobility choices to better connect destinations, enhancing health and quality of life while protecting the character of the region, coordinating transportation land use.

On that first one here, um, this is where we will start.

Uh we'll solicit the feedback after this.

So safe and secure travel.

First thing we have is eliminate reducing eliminating traffic related fatalities and serious injuries.

Uh, asterisk is there because one of the policy questions we have is about whether that should be per capita or um or just in general as we grow.

Um, it would be more conservative to take per capita, more aggressive to um just say reduce and eliminate period, even as the growth is happening.

Umasured and perceived safety for people walking, bicycling, and using our non-motorized transportation, safe performance and high injury corridors and intersections, uh, accessibility and safety by reducing facility gaps and ADA deficiencies, reducing conflicts and behaviors.

This was another interesting thing that was added.

So that undermines safety, comfort and security, and maintaining safe and secure connections for transit riders and operators.

So, with that, I would like to open it up for discussion on this one.

If anybody has any changes that they would like to see, if everybody's okay with these minor sort of wordsmithing tweaks again, these are sort of policy within the long-range transportation plan, not the MPO as a whole, but it will impact the types of projects that come out, which is why we brought it to you.

So any comments are welcome.

But if you are particularly interested, um the one area where we had discussion was on reduce and eliminate traffic related fatalities or reduce and eliminate per capita traffic related fatalities.

So with that, I will open it up for discussion.

I have a few questions or comments, Jeff.

And this comes back probably more from my my experience as a traffic engineer and just trying to work through some of the wording on here, specifically on number two, where we talk about um perceive safety.

And number five, we talk about sense of security.

And I understand the purpose of that.

I mean, we want people to be comfortable to walk, to bike, to take transit and to take multiple modes.

But um obviously one of the things that we say is that word perceived means it's not really there, or maybe it does maybe it is there.

It says perceived that it's safe versus unsafe.

And I I would I would maybe think that maybe the outcome that we're trying to get to is we obviously want to improve measured safety, but we also want to reduce barriers, um, safety barriers for people to use these types of facilities.

So it's not just as improving safety while also removing safety barriers for people as opposed to changing the perception of safety because perception is not actually safety.

And so I think that goes along with number on number five of this.

We talk about sense of security, you know, reducing conflicts and behavior to undermine safety, comfort and um, you know, barriers and maybe reduce barriers or safety barriers for system users because that's to me what we're trying to do.

We're not trying to change their sense, we're trying to actually remove those barriers, which is a different thing.

Um, I think.

So I don't know what others think about that, but I just think that it's a it's a meaningful change of what the outcomes are and kind of how you're focusing on that.

So yeah, great.

Thank you.

I'll just maybe step in for just a second to let you know where TTAC was at on adding perceived.

That was something that they that TTAC had added for flexibility, I think on the land use side and um when there's new developments coming in.

Uh sometimes I'm I'm not gonna get too far down down that rabbit hole because I don't know everything, but yeah, good comment, yeah, number two.

Any any discussions on those two items.

Yeah, because I'll jump in here.

Uh I would just say in terms of perceived uh perceived safety.

You know, we're thinking about um walking and bicycling in particular.

Um I think there's kind of a common planning thought that uh an individual's decision to bike or not in some cases is dictated by whether or not they perceive themselves as being safe, right?

Regardless of the kind of substantive safety.

But Jim, I think that you know, rewarding that to talk about removing safety barriers, like if folks don't feel safe, regardless of the like substantive safety of a facility, that's a barrier.

So I I would support rephrasing that to uh talk about removing safety barriers.

Um a little bit uh more broadly on the goal.

Um, you know, it feels a little bit wordy to me.

I feel like we could just say like safe travel across all modes might convey the same thing in fewer words.

And uh for our strategy number one there, I would just say we should eliminate traffic-related serious injuries and fatalities.

Like let's let's not talk about them per capita basis, like zero traffic related fatalities and in serious injuries.

Like that's what we should be working towards.

Great.

Thank you.

Any discussion, any or discussion.

Mark, I like the comments you had about across all modes to reduce the wordiness and make it consistent, maybe throughout.

I did notice as we look through the other goal.

We sometimes talk about biking and transit and pedestrian, and then other times we don't, and maybe we just say all modes and we just simplify it a little bit so that it's consistent throughout and simplifies the wordiness.

And um, I like your the thought about the rewording for number one to simplify that around just zero go towards zero or something along those lines that's um so I I support that um Edit as well.

And then um one thought I'm having I'm not sure if this is more of a you know strategy or tactic that belongs under the goals of you know reducing fatality, but something we've been struggling with in Bozeman is having a number of streets that um are actually you know their their speed limits are controlled by the Montana Department of Transportation, and so we can't kind of adjust those, even though they're going through pretty um you know residential or um you know center of town areas, and it's just really difficult to change those those speed limits.

Um so I guess I'm curious if there's some um nod to like our need to work with the state throughout our transportation district to kind of adjust our our speed limits or you know uses of roads that are um to more fit with what's actually on the ground versus you know what was designed at the time that the the state laid these roads.

Great, thank you.

We can incorporate something.

Um it sounds like that maybe its own sort of number on here, if I'm understanding correctly.

Perhaps we can include something about partnerships.

Um appreciate that.

Great.

Yeah, if it's just like a a strategy to um achieve the goal of reducing traffic fatalities, um, no need to kind of get that captured here.

But if there is a place that it makes sense to be a goal in itself, um, I'd support that.

Well uh and I wonder on that one, does that fit?

I mean, is there something that would fit with under goal number five when we're trying to link land transportation and land use planning, um, something around contact sensitive management of the roadways or operation of the roadways that would align with that that would essentially be the place to say, hey, this road going through a neighborhood, it shouldn't be 40 miles an hour, it should be 25 or whatever it happens to be.

I mean, we have like, I mean, I think that would be the maybe there's a place in there to to think about it.

Yeah, I agree.

I think specifically calling out speeds, maybe doing that in objective number five or reduce complex speed.

Yeah, unsafe operating speeds.

Yeah, and saying the speeds around the context of the neighborhood of the land use and the things around it, which ties back exactly to what we're trying to say.

So that sounds great.

Perfect.

We we will um work that in to these for the next review that you have.

Uh yeah, work to incorporate both of those.

Any other comments or discussion on this one?

Should I move on to the next?

We can come back to it.

Um I will move on to the next to keep keep things moving.

We have quite a bit here.

So uh ensure a reliable, resilient, and well-maintained transportation system.

So maintain state of good repair, maintain reliable travel times, maintain an enhanced system design for efficiency, maintain a transportation system to accommodate emerging technologies, uh, improve pedestrian connections to and within pre-1980s neighborhoods, activity centers and transit.

Uh improve multimodal continuity and comfort by filling gaps, improve long-term system performance through preservation, improve transportation resilience to extreme events and chronic stressors.

So this one, um, there was nothing particular that TTEC uh was stuck on.

They did have quite a few changes, but um I'd like to open it up for your uh consideration.

One, I guess one area that TTAC did mention we had some discussion that pre-1980s we went off a lot of words, you know, with two and within the downtowns, two and within historic neighborhoods, and seems that 1980s was really the issue where there are sidewalks in some neighborhoods building for them where there's issues with them.

But with that, we'll open it up for any um suggestions or conversation.

Um I had two two questions.

One was about that.

So we'll start there since you already talked about it.

Um I mean, this is a regional plan.

Um and I'm wondering, I mean, is there a reason why we wouldn't want to improve pedestrian connections to and within neighborhoods, just in general, activity centers and transit stops.

I mean, it's not it's not precluding pre-1980s um areas, but there are certainly some that could be post-1980s that don't have good connectivity either.

Um, and I understand that I understand the intent that there's certainly are some gaps in older community and older parts of um our communities, but um I'm just wondering if there's a if I've seen some newer parts that also don't have great connections.

So I guess I'm trying to I don't I'm not sure why that's a that qualifier is there.

Um if there's a strong, I'd like to, I mean, and just understanding it if there's a really strong reason for it versus eliminating that.

This was a long discussion in TTAC as well.

And within TTEC, the there was a desire to specifically call out older areas because they may not have this same level of um it's a complicated issue with the sidewalks in particular in the maintenance in the sidewalks within those historic areas, and uh how are we going to accomplish that?

And Belgrade has some very serious deficiencies out near four corners.

Um that could also be an area where you'd want to have increased pathways as an activity center.

And then in downtown Bozeman, uh the sidewalks and downtown Bozeman are in need of maintenance repairs, and there's a lot of tourists that come there.

And so that was that was why number six was added on here in filling in the gaps of existing networks.

And so the idea is that number five will give some focus to let's look at these historic areas.

And you know, and then number six was that sort of well, every employer needs work, and we don't want to preclude anywhere.

So that was TTAX approach.

Okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm okay with it.

I just is I was kind of curious, it just seemed a little bit odd to be very specific about that.

So um I have this goal.

Well, there's there's three good goals here.

Um reliability, resilience, and uh uh state of good repair.

But there are three there are three separate goals that are kind of getting shooting or in here together.

And then there's other strategies here that I think speak more to like expanding mobility choices and safety.

Um, you know, like the strategies that you're implementing like what do you want to maintain a state of good repair?

Well, like keep on top of your your payment maintenance.

And if you want to improve reliability, then you need to improve incident response time and synchronize your traffic lights and try and do something about peak hour traffic congestion.

And if you want to improve the resilience of your system, you need to identify your critical facilities that are exposed to hazards and direct resources that direction.

They're putting these three things together where there's going to be different strategies, and in reality, like improving resilience is going to come at the cost of investing in uh in asset preservation activities.

Um doesn't it doesn't make sense to combine those, I don't think.

I would say that breaking out like reliability, um resilience and state of good repair into three separate goals would be uh a more coherent approach.

Okay, yeah, I think the thinking behind combined them is there was sort of multiple that had sort of one or two objectives behind it, and so that's why they were combined.

But I would be interested in having uh other thoughts on that.

I I mean I can go either way on it.

I think I think I can understand how they group together because I've seen that done a lot in transportation plans, unfortunately.

The uh, but I think I do I understand how they are related to each other, but I can also see the the point mark that you're making that you know, well-maintained is um I mean I could probably make a pretty strong, you could put you could make a strong argument.

I guess um I'm I'm trying to be double advocated here.

I can make a strong argument that a well-maintained system is more reliable and more resilient than a um, you know, a um a less well-maintained system.

We have better, you know, for talking sidewalks, there it's a more reliable surface to walk on.

If you're talking about a bridge or a culvert, you know, it's it's less likely to wash out during a storm and um things like that.

So um I guess with the set for the sense of like maybe not having so many tons of goals, like keeping it down to five or six goals, it makes sense maybe to combine them, but it does seem like that, even within this, that maybe we need to better clarify um maybe maybe maybe there's a way, Mark, to to better hone these specific um these these um objectives within the goal down to something that's a little more clear or simpler um that kind of gets to those points like here's what we're trying to do, and here's the outcome we're trying to achieve.

Um maybe, maybe maybe there's a way, Mark, to better hone these specific um these these um objectives within the goal down to something that's a little more clear or simpler um that kind of gets to those points like here's what we're trying to do, and here's the outcome we're trying to achieve.

Um I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I'm trying to try and think of how how you could take these and get to what you're trying to say is we hit those specific points without um kind of going off in a scatter.

Um that does that make sense to you, Mark.

I don't know if I'm yeah, I certainly agree that that maintaining a state of good repair uh supports uh a reliable and resilient transportation system.

Just think about this from a standpoint of you know, it's like or local agencies, they have well, we have multiple competing goals, right?

It's like safety is one goal.

We could spend all the available resources we have on improving safety, and at the same time, you know, like our our assets could um you know, or our pavement could crumble and our bridges fall down.

Um so when we have like I think it's good to have kind of orthogonal goals, like goals that are distinct.

Um, and then we can recognize the fact that like we have a lot of different goals that we're trying to achieve and a finite amount of resources, and then we can have a coherent conversation around around how we allocate resources between supporting different goals.

Um, but if you combine different goals together, like that's kind of muddies the muddies the waters, um, at least in in my from the experience of my planning practice.

Yeah.

So maybe there's a balance then between maybe that maybe you could break this out into two goals or something that would be able so we don't get you know, we don't get 20 goals or 10 goals on the other thing on the LRTP because that becomes almost unmanageable.

Um, but then we could break it out into a few goals that would be or two goals or something like that that would simplify this and maybe get to the points a little more clearly.

Um I I guess I would also ask that as we're thinking about this as we think about some of the wording in here, like we we go back to what we're looking at again, reliable, resilient, and well-maintained.

I looked at like number three, and we're talking about the efficient movement of people goods.

I guess that's that's an outcome, but I I would almost think that that should be almost like reliable movement of people and goods is what we're trying to get at.

Um they're slightly different, but that's an important difference, I think.

Um yeah, that's that's an easy change, could certainly change efficient to reliable.

As I'm listening to your conversation here, I'm wondering if we want to have more discussion around resiliency itself.

Maybe that's where the stumbling block is on here because it seems as though reliable and well-maintained.

Um those go hand in hand pretty well with one another.

If we're trying to find the middle ground there, maybe we pull out a little bit more on resiliency and um come back next month with more developed under resiliency.

Would that thread the thread the needle?

Yeah, I I would suggest maybe separating out the the asset preservation goal into its own goal.

And then if we do want to combine robot reliability and resilience, like some of those strategies will be similar, like having redundancy in the network supports both a reliable and a resilient uh transportation system.

Um yeah, I think like putting the the system preservation goal into its own category.

I think we'll just make it easier to have a coherent conversation when we have these competing goals and we have to figure out where to allocate resources.

I like that approach.

I think that's really good.

So re sound preservation as its own goal, add a sixth goal of system preservation.

And uh make sure that that is sort of separated on the uh maintenance side of things and put everything under there when it comes to preservation.

That's that's my suggestion.

I think that would be in keeping with with many other plans that I've seen, where like system preservation, it's it's always a goal.

Um it's usually standalone.

Okay, great.

Yeah, can do that.

Uh we will take it to T TAC, we'll take it to T TAC, and then it'll come back next month for final review of any other discussion on these.

One thing that's kind of um sticking out to me is the point number four about accommodating emerging technologies.

I I maybe just need a little bit more context on what kind of emerging technologies we have in mind here.

But I'm just trying to figure out how this fits under reliability, resiliency, and a well-maintained system.

It just feels a little bit incongruous with the overall goal.

And maybe when we separate it out and make more sense.

But I I almost wonder if it could be like combined with number three.

Maintain an enhanced system design and efficient movement of people and goods.

Like accommodating emerging technology sounds like an enhancement to me.

And I don't know that that's an important reliability or resiliency goal, but um I might be just a little lost in the thoughts here.

Yeah, I appreciate thank you for um raising that.

Where this had come from was a discussion um around with a community member and and others, but uh not knowing what the future holds.

And so design in a flexible system that could accommodate an unknown future.

So that's how to fit in, but I can certainly see you raise a very good point on the I do agree with Commissioner Bouti.

I think that that strategy would fit better under the under goal three expanding mobility choices.

Um that could include mobility choices like you know, micromobility, electric scooters or mobility choices like autonomous vehicles or autonomous microtransit or what have you.

Yeah, I do though think it could tie in with an asset sort of management piece.

And I mean, I do see some reliable pieces in there as well.

Like you have water sensors or bridge sensors that are automated now that can actually track um what's happening with the structure or infrastructure so that it can enable better monitoring of equipment and um the infrastructure to understand if there's something that needs to be mitigated and to look at life cycle um, you know, sort of like the maintenance lifecycle cost for them.

Um I actually do work on a platform that does reliability that identifies incidents nine minutes faster than an incident would be detected by like someone calling into 911.

And um, and that shares that's a reliable thing.

So you get people out there to respond to an incident faster, um, which clears up congestion faster, reduces lifeline to secondary crashes and things like that.

So I I recognize that there are probably things beyond um I think that I think that maybe um like it's it's almost like an overarching goal to any of these items, to be honest with you.

It doesn't matter which goal it's in.

It's it's kind of an overarching theme that we should be open to um emerging technologies as parts of solutions.

I don't know that it's like necessarily an individual goal.

It's something we should just make sure is kept in mind.

And I don't know if that becomes how to fit that in, Jeff.

I don't know if I don't know if it becomes a goal as part of it or not, but I think that it does.

I could see in any of these items, you know.

I've done I've done work with pedestrian crossings using emerging technology that's an infrastructure and um uh automated vehicles and connected vehicles and and all those, I mean there's a lot of different things that are out there um uh that could help with that, but I don't know that it fits um if it fits in this goal or just maybe some overarching space within the in the LRTP um part of the vision.

So um by itself, I think that it's a hard goal because um well, I don't know if it's if it fits within a goal for a lot of like I I think of these items as things we should be working on, like as we look to allocate money and we look to consider when doing the things and it's it's just something that should be on the back of our mind, but it shouldn't be the reason to do it.

I guess that's maybe so maybe it needs to maybe it shouldn't be in here.

So we shouldn't be doing we shouldn't be just trying to promote emerging technology as part of an outcome, but we should consider emerging technology when considering the outcomes, which is sort of different.

Okay, we will go back and revisit um review and see what we can do then.

Yeah, uh we can go back if there's more.

We have about 40 minutes left in the meeting, and we have three more to get through.

So quickly, I apologize.

I have to get off at two, but uh go ahead and continue, just letting you know.

Did you have anything that you wanted to comment on in particular in reviewing these before you leave?

Uh no, nothing that uh isn't being discussed already.

Okay.

Jeff, I also apologize.

I also have uh uh inescapable obligation out uh too.

Okay, last couple comments I'll leave with the the group.

Um I think this goal could just be rephrased as expand mobility choices, just a little bit shorter.

Um, I think that the next goal related to enhancing health and quality of life uh could be accomplished through the other goals that we've identified.

I would suggest maybe we don't need this goal standalone.

Um, and the last goal I would rephrase to be around like enhancing coordination and transportation and land use planning.

Um, I think that that's super important.

Okay, great.

Uh yeah, I will um yeah, we'll revisit that.

I'm not sure.

Um, we'll have to discuss these different goals.

Um, but thank you for your comment, Mark.

Um moving along here to mobility choices, uh better connect destinations, uh, improve access between schools, jobs, and services, improve street network and pathway connectivity, increased share of trips, uh other than driving alone, improve access, comfort and safety to and at transit stops, reduce household transportation costs by expanding access to everyday affordable options, any discussion items on these three or any um feedback where we did call out the very specific areas that was in response to uh T TAC um feedback on we'll just say what you want and walk, bike, take transit, those types of things.

So open it up for discussion and any sort of um comments that you may have on the goal up above, the big goal, and then those four those five objectives below on that strategy or that how we obtain and go after that goal.

This seems like a place we could implement Mark's previous suggestion of kind of replacing walking, biking transit with like multimodal options, or I forget the exact phrase he said.

Rephrase number three from walking and bicycling to to what?

I'm sorry.

Um, Mark or Jim, maybe you can help me remember the phrasing there, but I think the suggestion was kind of throughout to um replace naming each thing of walking, bicycling, or taking transit to like multimodal option.

Is that the word we use?

I think that works.

Um increase the share of multimodal trips made, non-motorized trips.

I think multimodal is probably reasonable, and and maybe if there's a place to define it in the in the LRTP, like we usually have a uh definitions at the beginning of a document that could define what multimodal is and can list what those would mean so that then um it's this consistent use without throughout the document.

So we're not distinguishing um and leaving one off or having a really really long list.

Um I mean, skateboarding could be a multimodal option, but we're not listing it here.

So yeah, we probably should, or one wheel, you know, type of thing.

I mean, so this that might work that we're incorporating um this multimodal as general.

Yeah, that's great.

And the other thing to think about at the policy level is the outcomes that these are going to lead to.

And so I know um there's wordsmithing, but also you know, we think about that big policy, where we want to go.

Is there anything missing on here?

Or um I didn't have any on this one, any policy type of things that looked the concept was good.

Uh the pieces are there.

Any others have comments on these?

Move along to goal four.

Okay, we can come back.

Goal four, uh enhance health and quality of life while protecting character, the region, improve access, walking, bicycling, and multimodal facilities, improve access to parks, trails, recreation, reduce wildlife conflicts, reduce transportation related impacts and environmentally sensitive areas.

This is one where we did have a discussion.

We saw conflicts with other goals, and uh our discussion just led to a one um sort of taking it on case by case basis.

Number five here, reduce per capita air emissions.

This was one that thought per capita would make more sense on from TTAC.

Improve coordination, cooperation and preparedness between partners and emergency response.

So there was quite a bit of discussion on this one right here.

And this is not talking about actually doing the emergency preparedness nor the emergency response, but within the transportation function of an emergency repairedness called ESF one.

Um having our transportation partners be better coordinated and prepared for emergencies, anything from uh just think water, fire, wind um mostly.

So with that open it up for any conversations.

Um I like what you just said at the very end there.

I just want I I didn't get that when I read that.

So I don't know if there's a way to convey that, but I think that's really important.

I thought that was really good.

Um the one thing on number one on here, one thing that I I like this goal, but one of the things I sometimes struggle with, and I know that we often think about um we also can often classify walking, biking, and things like that as active transportation, which is really good, but it almost implies a choice.

Um that people have a choice to be have active transportation versus not active transportation.

And I would I would encourage us that in this in this um one, we also make an odd people who have no choice but to walk or to bike um to be that we're making sure that we're um it's not just to support physical activity and healthy travel, but travel options.

Um, I mean, that's probably the the first thing that we're providing that travel option to people so they have the ability to travel and get to where they need to go.

Um, and secondarily that it's supporting the physical activity and healthy travel, because I think um I think this that's that that gets sounds lost in there.

And I know that's kind of goal three, but I think there's just important that's the first piece of that.

So yeah.

Okay, that's okay.

Sounds sounds good.

Uh Commissioner Bodie, did you have anything or did others have anything that you want to add?

Um, I think that looks really good.

And I I don't have any substantive feedback here.

Okay, great.

Um, we'll move along then to uh the final goal, uh coordinate transportation and land use.

So aligned transportation system and network decisions with adopted growth plans, align system design to support walkable, human-centered and well-connected places, uh, improve adaptability and flexibility of the transportation system to respond to changing needs in future conditions.

Um, so a little bit of this discussion was around like downtown Bozeman, for example.

There's eight-lane of travel through downtown Bozeman.

Um if it was a highway moving that amount of if it was one highway that was moving one just one quarter moving all that traffic, it would be an eight-lane highway.

But those that eight-lane highway is spread out in downtown, and they didn't know that when it was built.

And so trying to be responsible that way, some of the discussion that we've had.

Um support placemaking, economic fertility, and mobility in key activity centers, uh, through context appropriate solutions, and then balance seasonal and tourism-related demands with year-round needs to avoid permanent overbuilding.

This was one that there was some conversation on.

Uh, it was originally accommodate the tourism.

Curious about any any discussion we'd have here.

I think where we're trying to get to is just um not overbuilding for two months out of the year.

Um, sort of T TAC got to.

So open it up for any comments or discussion, potential revisions or anything that you may all may think.

On number two, I I a comment I had noted by when I looked at it was here again, walkable, you know, we think about transit and things like that.

That I can see why walkable could be different than multimodal, but I think that multimodal might fit better here because it still aligns with we're talking about system design so that you can access things like transit and bikes and stuff.

So maybe support multimodal, human-centered, and well-connected places might be a good change there.

Um I I like this in general.

I think the one thing that keep going into my head is on number one, like um, I know we're talking transportation, but I think that goes both ways with transportation and land use and adopted growth plans.

Like we need to make sure that those that we're not just aligning the transportation system with those plans, but those plans are considering.

Um I don't know how to I know that maybe we have to be placed for the LRTP, but how do we get make this both ways, right?

That they're considering what the adopted transportation plans are as well, because um obviously you can have a growth plan that doesn't consider um the adoptive transportation plan.

So it's how do we make sure that those are like you know, they're working collaboratively to to make decisions versus hey, we're developing a growth plan and now the transportation plan needs to accommodate that growth, which is probably not what we want to be doing.

Um thinking, yeah, both ways.

I don't know how to change that.

I don't know if the wording says that enough, but I think that that it comes to my mind.

Um I feel like maybe a line is right, but it's just if there's a better way to phrase that to show the importance of that would be good.

And one thing to keep in mind is that the individual jurisdictions will continue to produce their own transportation plans.

Yeah.

As well.

Right.

Yeah, that's that's a good point though.

I mean, hopefully, this this leads to funding and how we're funding improvements that are coming from making funding choices.

So those funding choices are based off of obviously the land use plans and the growth plans, but at the same time, funding is gonna be allocated to places to federal funding is gonna be allocated to locations that they are that we're needing to do it.

And so that we should be aware of those, so we're not building new developments in areas that don't have federal funding or funding for improvement of transportation infrastructure, then now we have to respond to differently, right?

Then you're changing what's happening.

So I guess that's yeah.

And so, you know, I guess over the next month or so, that that's really a policy level sort of discussion.

Um with with this board and then the local elected boards as well.

Um very good discussion to have.

Uh any other any other comments on on this.

Um I just want to look up again my my thought about coordinating with the state on on speed limits.

I I wonder if it fits in here under um point three, like improving the adaptability and flexibility of the transportation system.

Like one barrier to flexibility as we grow is you know, having these kind of firm speed limits that we can't adjust or change as neighborhoods grow around um major thoroughfares.

And uh similarly with um our streamline bus service, we have a lot more rigorous uh procedures we have to go through to get like a covered bus stop.

Um if it's on uh a state highway.

Um and you know, can't plow it to make sure that the snow plow doesn't put a huge berm in front of the bus stop.

And so um yeah, I I don't know if it makes more sense to have a separate like partnership section or kind of like name it in a few of these places, but I can imagine naming it here.

Okay, great.

I will um we will get together and and and workshop your comment and see how to adapt it and then take it to TTAC, have discussion there, and then bring it back next month for your review.

Great.

Great comments.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Any other discussion or comments on on any of the goals that we've seen this this set or anything else we've seen today.

Okay, great.

And so um with that, that's the last of that we have.

Go ahead with the here's it looks like Gino has his hand up, that's hand raised.

Oh, I can't see you, Gino.

We don't have a chair.

Go ahead.

I'm just curious if if everybody knows how the speed limits at MDT, if they know how that works.

As we talk about coordination.

I mean, I I do generally.

I haven't done that in uh a little while, but I know that I don't know if you're but I uh understand how speed limits work.

Yeah, so you have serious Dina.

All right, so the speed limits that are under under MDT on our routes.

We as the department we we don't set those speed limits, and we don't have the ability to change them.

So if we have a request for a uh speed study, the speed study can look at those speeds that speed study is then sent to the highway commission.

So our our five commissioners, they'll vote based on that study result, and then if there is a recommended change, then we put that in.

So we as MDT cannot change a speed limit without the involvement of the commission.

Well and I think maybe just to add to that, Gino.

I I mean just as a for context for every for folks, usually that's based off of actually prevailing speed of traffic and things that people are doing on the road, plus crashes, plus other safety uh geometric considerations.

Um there's some land use and things, but but it is you know generally found that just reducing a speed limit on a really wide road doesn't slow this traffic down, and then there's a bigger disparity, which actually creates more crashes.

So I think that's part of the part of the the recommendation that goes in there that usually there's other factors that go in um to that.

But I think that um, you know, with that said, I think that the looking at context-based solutions on those roadways and maybe working with MDT and seeing if there are options for making that more contextual for the area so that people do slow down or that we have um or it makes sense to do that would be worthwhile.

But it is I think that putting it as a goal makes sense, but it it is it may not be to you can't just go and say, hey, we want to change it.

That yeah, that's what I just want people to understand that you can't say, but we want this at 25 and we can go sign it.

We yeah, that's beyond our ability.

Yeah, that's really helpful.

Context, you know, and maybe we just need to name this commission as well as MDT.

But um, yeah, I I appreciate that.

Yep, thank you.

Okay, a lot there in that last discussion in particular, and um we'll come up with some take your feedback that you've all uh provided today and uh incorporate those changes.

It will be reviewed by TTAC.

They will then um make a recommendation when it's ready for to come back to this committee, and then um you'll have your final review moving forward.

Next steps will be alternatives analysis, so projected conditions and then the alternatives analysis, uh, which is where it gets fun, and that's where one tends to kind of think about it.

So that's it that I have for that portion of the presentation.

Um getting back to our agenda here.

There is public comment after the end of the item.

Is there any members of the public who would like to comment on item E1?

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay, thank you, Marcy.

And we'll give one more opportunity for folks if they would like to.

Are there any members of the public wishing to comment?

Still showing no requests.

Okay, great.

Um thank you very much, Marcy.

Thank you, everybody.

Appreciate your time today.

This is the end of the agenda, and so um we will get these back to you uh uh future meeting, remaining for the next one.

Um, and then we'd like to we will be seeking approval on these, and these will be used for our um uh project identification and rankings.

So with that, um it's I suppose it's now time to adjourn.

So thank you everybody for your time.

I will adjourn the meeting.

Thanks, everyone.

Thanks, Chuck.

Thanks everyone.