Okay, great everybody.

Um, thank you and welcome to the March Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee.

Um, in our January meeting, uh, the committee decided that staff will chair uh this uh meeting until we get a new chair, and so I'll be stepping in to help guide everybody along.

We have new members today, and so um that is exciting.

Welcome to all of the new members that we have.

I will pull up our agenda and uh we can get going through it.

And so uh call this meeting to order.

And uh Marcy, can you please take a roll call?

Mayor Morrison.

Commissioner Bodie.

Neil Cardwell.

Here Commissioner Brown here.

Do you know Leva?

Here Mark Eggie.

Present, and I do see Commissioner Bodie in the participant list of the panelist list and Jim Hanson.

Here then we have five out of seven.

Uh great Marcy, did you hear Mark Eggie's comment?

Uh Commissioner Bodie is present.

Yep, I saw that, so we have five out of seven.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Marcy.

Just wanted to make sure on that.

Um and so now it looks like Mayor Morrison is joined as well.

Sorry, sorry, I'm a few minutes late.

Mayor Morrison and Commissioner Bodie, we have seven out of seven.

Great.

Thank you, Marcy.

Appreciate that.

Next, we will move down to public comments.

This is a time um for any item that is not on the agenda.

Um for a matter that's falling within the scope of the MPO.

Uh, there's also going to be time within conjunction of each item if you want members of the public would like to speak specifically about that individual item.

And so now I will open it up for public comment.

Marcy, are we seeing any requests for public comment?

I'm showing no requests for public comment.

Okay, great.

Um, one more call.

Any any requests for public comment?

Still showing no requests.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay, and so now moving on to the agenda.

The first item on the agenda is nomination or selection of a chair.

The chair um runs uh the meetings and they keep everything in uh in order as we are going through the meeting.

They may also sort of act as a representative of TPCC between meetings.

Staff can reach out to them.

So we are, and then the vice chair uh serves as the chair in the chair's absence.

And so in this agenda item, we are asking for a chair who will take over running the meeting uh after they are nominated, and a vice chair to serve in the absence of the chair.

Do we have any nominations for chair and vice chair?

Mr.

Butz, I nominate Mayor Morrison as chair of the committee.

I would second that.

Okay, we have a first and a second.

Um any comments, any um discussion.

Um I'm happy to take that nomination and and serve if that uh is the will of this body.

Great, thank you, Mayor Morrison.

Appreciate that.

Uh with that, let's take a vote.

Mayor Morrison.

Hi.

Looks like Commissioner Bodhi may have disconnected.

Was certainly here a moment ago.

Neil Cardwell.

Hi.

Commissioner Brown.

Hi.

You know Leva?

Hi.

Passes six out of seven.

Okay, great.

Congratulations, Mayor Morrison, on being nominated for the chair.

Would you like to take over in the selection of a vice chair to serve in your absence, or would you like staff to continue that and then you can take over the next one?

Um sorry to clarify it to take continued facilitation for the rest of this meeting, or plus is the vice chair item still pending on this one.

Yes, that's that's right.

Would you like to take over after this item is complete?

Um, or would you like to continue with the outstanding vice chair nomination right now?

I think uh for simplicity, you can come finish this item and I'll I'm happy to take over a D2.

Thank you, appreciate it.

It's our first time um changing chairs and so uh appreciate that.

Now we are going to be requesting the nomination of a vice chair.

Again, the vice chair serves as the facilitator of this meeting and keeps things moving in the absence of the chair.

If there is uh need for staff to reach out to somebody between meetings and the chair is unavailable, the vice chair would serve in their absence.

Is there a nomination or uh yeah, for the vice chair?

I'd be happy to serve in that if the body would like that.

Okay.

City manage city manager Cardwell uh is nominated.

Is there a second?

I would second that.

Okay, there's a second, and uh let's take a vote.

Mayor Morrison.

Hi.

Commissioner Bodie, she's back on Neil Cardwell.

Hi.

Commissioner Brown.

Hi.

R.

Geggy.

Hi.

Jim Hansen.

Aye.

Vote passes six out of seven.

Great.

Uh thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody.

Um, congratulations to the chair and vice chair um for your nomination.

And now we will move on to the next agenda item, and I will pass it over to our new chair.

Great.

Um, thank you.

Uh thanks, Jeff, and thanks everyone for the the grace.

And I know we had to reschedule this because a few of us weren't going to be available.

Um, but grateful to be here now.

Um, just as uh Commissioner Bodhi is back on now.

Are you are you here and able to participate?

I got a text uh that she was having some audio issues.

Um I'm on my phone now, and I can both hear and hopefully you all can hear me.

Sorry about that technical dispute.

We sure can.

Okay, great.

Glad that you're here.

Okay.

Um well, Jeff, I'm about to turn it back over to you as we go on to our second action item, an overview of the Galton Valley MPO and regional transportation planning process.

Um, so I'll hand it over to you for this presentation.

Uh great.

Uh thank you very much, Mayor.

Uh, we do have multiple new members of the committee.

It is our first time turning over.

And so uh staff has prepared a presentation that gives just a brief overview of the metropolitan planning organization and some into our process.

So I will um share that here in just a second, as soon as I okay.

Um get back in here and hopefully it is now up.

Am I showing the correct screen or is it the presenter?

Okay, correct one.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And so I um Jeff Pletts, I'm the MPO manager, I think.

Sorry, just to clarify, are you wanting us to be able to see the next slide?

Because if so, we might be seeing the presenter mode.

Okay.

I can certainly switch.

Is this better?

There we go.

That looks great.

Okay, wonderful.

So this is not an action item.

This is just for information only to sort of orient some of the new members.

Um provide an overview.

So just as a reminder for everyone, uh, I am the manager of the MPO, day-to-day operations, and um the the Metropolitan Planning Organization looks at multiple different factors as we plan the transportation network.

We oftentimes just think about uh congestion and speed, but uh these are the planning factors that we look at.

So at the top, and then going around clockwise.

We start with um economic resiliency and vitality, and then safety, security, travel time, reliability, uh, mental factors, connectivity efficiency, uh, state of good repair, resiliency, and tourism.

So those are the different factors that the MPO looks at, and those come from the federal government.

The Metropolitan Planning Organization is a federally required organization to do regional transportation planning.

Uh, once a uh urbanized area crosses the population threshold of 50,000 people.

And so um within the Bozeman population, you can see uh see it here on the screen in 2020.

Uh the city of Bozeman passed that magic 50,000 person mark, which uh meant that to continue receiving federal funding, the MPO needed to be formed.

And uh this on screen shows that MPO boundary.

Uh so it includes the city of Bozeman, uh the city of Belgrade, and uh Gallatin County out to Fort Corns.

And so this is our planning area that we are looking at, can be a little bit different than your um existing jurisdictions.

We are um we were created through the signing of what we refer to as a three C's agreement, and so the agreement formed TPCC, and it also lined out the continuing comprehensive and cooperative agreement, saying that you know we're gonna do this planning in that three C's fashion.

The uh members that you see on the screen here have all signed.

We have additional members who um aren't on voting.

This uh agreement set up our governance structure, and so we have two different committees.

We have TAC, which is the uh transportation technical advisory committee.

This has a director level and chief level staff on here.

So senior level staff, uh they provide any sort of technical guidance to TPCC, the 10th, the policy coordinating committee, transportation policy and coordinate committee.

Uh this has an elected officials and representatives of the organizations, and um you can see everybody here on screen.

We are required to do four different planning projects.

So every single year we put together a budget and a work plan in our UPWP unified planning work program that will be coming to you all in May for your first review.

We plan to have that finalized in June this year.

We have a public participation plan, which was adopted last year.

We're currently working on the long-range transportation plan, uh, which I will talk a little bit more about, and then the long-range transportation plan, or as we refer to it, LRTP.

That leads to a fiscally constrained list that is then programmed in the transportation improvement program, which actually programs the federal funding.

Just to give you all a brief overview of where we are at in the long-range transportation plan process.

We have completed the existing conditions to date.

We've completed a um transit strategic plan early on in the process that was funded by Streamline UTD, the um urban transportation district.

Um we are moving into a lot of the public engagement and the alternatives.

So we're looking for different types of projects and different ways to move forward.

This once we gather the input we have today, we will then uh analyze the alternatives and then look at which one is going to best meet those needs, and then incorporate that into a plan.

I will talk a little bit more about this uh in the next presentation.

Ultimately, that plan will be um adopted by this group.

You guys are the ultimate decision making body on this.

We are federally required to have the plan adopted by December 26th of 2026, and we have um public engagement um uh a review window at the end.

So we're really hoping to get this done in October.

And beyond the long-range transportation plan, the MPO does some of the traffic counts around town, the tubes that go across the roads.

We're required to handle demographic data.

We're also doing some continuous count stations and then area studies.

And then we also administer the transportation alternatives program, the selection of those projects within the Bozeman urbanized area for a portion of the funding.

That goes to walking bicycling.

And so with that, um, that's the overview that I had, and happy to take any questions that you all may have or entertain any discussion.

So thank you.

Great.

Thank you for that presentation.

Um I can't see everybody at once, so I think folks should just chime in if they've got a question.

Sorry if I interrupted someone about to do that.

So any any questions for our presenter.

Okay, one last request for questions.

Um, understanding there's no action item action required of us here.

Um with that, I guess we will close this item and move on to our one action item for our time together today.

Which is our so open it up for um Mr.

Butts, it's you're up again for um our item of adoption of our um long-range transportation plan vision goals and objectives.

Yeah, great.

Well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate this mayor.

Um we are working our way through the long-range transportation plan, and over the past fall, we did get some engagement over the um vision goals and objectives.

And this committee has seen uh the draft version in our January meeting.

And I think I need to switch again.

Okay, is everything right for the presenter view?

Seeing thumbs up, thank you very much.

And so uh this committee saw this at the January meeting.

Uh, there were quite a few revisions.

Staff incorporated those revisions, took it back to TAC.

T TAC has made a recommendation now to adopt these uh as as they are written.

And so I'll give a brief overview.

Today we are asking for an action.

Um, we're asking this board to consider um moving to adopt the long-range transportation plan, vision goals, and objectives.

Um, just a quick reminder.

We already talked about this a little on the last presentation, but uh, this is our planning area that we are looking at.

These are our four different products that we have to do.

Uh so today we're talking about the long-range transportation plan.

Within that long-range transportation plan, we have to meet those federal planning factors.

Um, so there's national performance goals and national planning factors.

We have to meet those, and then we have the state performance targets that we have to meet.

And so we have um national and state uh objectives that we need to meet.

Looking at the timeline here, uh, we started this in May of last year.

We've worked our way through a lot of the existing and baseline conditions.

We're now working on the projected conditions and alternatives analysis.

And so um after the alternatives analysis, we'll then get into refinement and then bring it back to this committee for a year review um prior to adoption at the end of this year.

Our engagement to date, um, we have done quite a bit, and so we've had some surveys go around.

We also did some tabling at different events, we've had some um online public meetings, we've the TTEC has been really involved.

We've the TTEC has been really involved.

We've done plan reviews.

Key themes that came up.

You can see here on the screen.

Really, everyone's talking about maintaining a reliable system.

You know, that's one of the things that people said that they wanted the public and the staff was just keeping things in a state of good repair, first of all.

And then safety, of course, uh walking and bicycling, uh, transit expansion.

A lot of discussion around transit from the community.

Uh, and then looking at how we're going to implement this.

We have to have the goals and objectives, make sure that we have the compliance.

So the goals and objectives they will need to address current and future needs.

Um, mentioned the compliance already, connectivity is a big issue.

Make sure that we're doing that, and then growth and safety again.

This has went to TAC in January.

This committee saw it in January.

We then paused our February meeting.

T TAC did see this in February.

It is now back for your review here today in consideration of adoption.

So some of the themes that we heard from TPCC last time that we were here was separating the goals into preservation and resilience.

And so we've done that.

Um, some of the safety, uh, there was discussion around um no fatalities, zero fatalities.

And so uh we've adopted that vision zero framework.

There's some been some minor wording changes.

You'll see some of the goals and object the objectives are under some different goals now.

That was a suggestion of the committee.

They've all been shortened, and uh there are some new objectives from things that we have heard um that we heard last time.

Vision statement, just real quickly, that the transportation system provides safe, reliable, multimodal connectivity, it supports people, goods, communities as the region grows, well-maintained, fiscally sustainable, and fosters uh human-centered connections.

Our goals last time, we had five.

You can see them up there.

Um, we've now changed that to six.

They're now a little bit shorter, we have more of them.

We added the resiliency goal as goal number six and move some stuff around there.

And so uh goal number one support safe travel across all modes.

I'm gonna go through all of these fit and then we can come back to them at the end here.

So last time we had six.

This time we have seven.

Um, you can see it in number one there.

Objective number one, uh eliminate all traffic related fatalities.

And so that's that vision zero framework that we had discussed the last time.

Um, some other minor changes in here, and then we added on there was discussion around MDT routes when they come into the city and through neighborhoods.

And so um I've interpreted that as partnerships with the state to support consistent speed and vision zero goals, and so that's how that was incorporated.

Um the next one here.

There were eight on ensure reliable, resilient, and well-maintained transportation system.

There are now four.

It's just now ensure a well-maintained transportation system.

Uh state of good repair, uh, I think a lot of the stuff uh we didn't have a lot of discussion on last time.

Uh pre-1980s neighborhoods was one of them.

Um, but the other ones have really been moved into that other area and some other stuff has moved there too.

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

There were five.

It has now been reduced down to expand mobility choices throughout the region.

There are six.

Um, and so uh a couple of these that really were tweaked.

Um the um uh access safety and comfort to net transit stops.

Number five here, the everyday non-driving traveling options.

Last time we had walk and bike and a lot of stuff, and so just non-driving travel options, and then um continuity and comfort and the missing gaps in pedestrian networks.

So some of those may have been moved around.

Uh four enhanced quality of life.

There were six.

Um the slightly reduced title there.

Um, those have been reduced to five from six.

One of those is moved over.

And so um, I think improved access to non-motorized facilities.

That was an area where we incorporated the non-motorized aspect to it.

And then on goal number five here.

So coordinate transportation and land use.

This was one where we did kind of go back a little bit on TTAC.

On goal number or objective three here, aligned system designed to support walkable, human centered and well connected places.

So making sure that we have all facility types present.

And T TAC recommended the word walkable as an emergent outcome.

So if we get transportation and land use correct in the design details, then the area will be walkable.

And so they suggested using the word walkable.

And then there's been a few changes to some of the wording and then added number six on here.

And then resiliency.

So improved transportation system resilience.

That is one that is new.

And so we move some stuff over here and tightened up some of the language.

And so again, this is the motion on the table.

And certainly gonna open it up for any comments or suggestions that you may have, and I'm happy to go back.

So thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Any questions for for Mr.

Butts.

Jeff, can you go back up to goal three?

I think it differs from what was in the agenda packet.

I just wanted to reread those again.

Okay, I think with a different number I had on here, but on number three on goal three.

I had a question when I was reading through the agenda item.

Um I guess that when I read this the first time, and I still see it on number three.

We say I understand the intent of it.

Um expand transportation infrastructure as Fort Trist by by not driving alone.

Well, that could include hiring a TNC, like an Uber or Lyft to drive you.

So that's not driving alone.

Um, and I don't think that's the intent.

So I just think that from a policy standpoint, there may be um I understand the intent of what there's trying to be said, but that's not that's not what it says.

It says, Well, I mean, I can go, I can go get an Uber and they could drive an extra trip out to the airport or something to pick me up and drive me back, and I'm not driving alone anymore.

Um, so that's that's something I think that we just maybe need to revise that statement a little bit so it's clear what the intent of that is because um someone could I mean that that is an interpretation that I think is feasible.

So um from a policy perspective.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Last time we had all of the different modes uh laid out and lost bike, and it was long and it is a challenge because we are also talking about like van potentially.

I mean, um maybe somebody expand transportation infrastructure to encourage non-single occupant uh motorized trips, but I mean I guess that's tricky too, because like a motorcycle could be a better choice than a car.

But I'm trying to think of a way to say it that would be a that would that would not be.

I mean, obviously, a bus, that's great.

So we have a buses going around, that's one thing, but we don't want like having people drive around or just drive someone.

Um, so I'm just trying to think if there's a way to clarify that in there.

It is complicated.

Uh, staff came on that same issue, and uh this was the best compromise uh that we were able to work through.

Um there are of course small gaps, um, but I think there's trade-offs between spelling everything out and extending it and keeping it concise, but you know, not as precise.

Yeah.

Happy to take suggestions that you may have.

Yeah, I know I I didn't have any off the top of my head.

That's why I figured I'd throw it out there.

Any any suggestions on it, or if it if they felt that that was just okay as it was, but that was that stuck out to me.

So yeah, I I think there is something to that, and and maybe um once we get through questions for for Jeff, we can try to wordsmith that, or someone wants to propose some language, we can we can start chewing on that together.

Um do we have any more questions on the presentation so far.

Yeah, Jeff, um, I really appreciate you and your staff kind of reconfiguring a lot of these.

I know we had a lot of um kind of nitpicky wordsmithing comments the last time we talked, and I do think it's improved by um moving things down to that resiliency bucket.

I'm just wondering kind of conceptually, which of these goals you think is going to be the biggest challenge for um this body.

Uh thank you.

Uh what a what a great question.

I think um there are just multiple challenges in different ways.

And so some of them I would say are structural challenges.

And so if we're looking at uh enhancing transportation land use, there you have two different systems that operate aside, and so additional communication.

There could be some communication challenges there.

Uh, you know, some of these could be building partnerships.

So when we talk about content sensitivity and speed related stuff, that's could take some partnerships.

And so um they will be different challenges in different ways.

All of these are designed mostly for when we are looking at projects or we're looking at any sort of program, we have a framework to really um evaluate that by and a and a direction to go through.

It doesn't necessarily mean that some of these goals are not aspirational, and so some of it can be a bit aspirational.

Um especially, you know, zero fatalities.

That's something that everybody wants and everybody is working towards, but um that will take some time to achieve within the planning area.

So there's just a wide variety of goals from a different or a wide variety of um challenges from from different perspectives, if if that um helps.

Yeah, that's that's super helpful.

And I um I know that was kind of a broad question.

I have one more broad question.

When you look at these goals compared to um other kind of comparable MPOs.

I'm just curious how these stack up.

Like, are we being really ambitious with these goals, or is this kind of comparable um to what similar communities are are laying out?

Yeah, great.

Thank you for the question.

Um really there are two components to the MPO.

There's the constrained program that we have talked about, which are those four program elements, and then there's the unconstrained portion.

Uh some MPOs get very large, and so some of their goals get very um it's it's hard to really say that there's a one-size-fits-all for every community within the MPOs within MPOs.

These structure fits um the structure of other MPOs and the federal requirements of having goals and objectives.

It also fits within what we heard from the community that they want.

Um, for example, expanded transit access.

That was one of the things that people talked a lot about.

And so we have gone through the process of listening to the community of getting the surveys, um, listening to technical staff, and this reflects um pretty well what we have heard from everybody, and so the intent is that it reflects um what we have for the community and technical and political advisors say that they would like to see.

And so um the vision zero goal, I think is the one that is the uh maybe most ambitious of these, and there are two different framings when it comes to that.

There is vision zero, which says that we are going to achieve uh zero fatalities, and then there is towards zero deaths.

Um this is taking the more ambitious of those two on saying zero fatalities, and so uh when it comes to safety, uh we're definitely on that on that front edge with the language that we are using here.

But other than that, the goals just uh and objectives we're hoping that they reflect the community and technical and political will.

We're hoping that they reflect the community technical and political will.

Great.

Thanks for that.

Any more questions for for Jeff.

Another request for questions, and then if seeing none, we'll bring it up here for um motion and discussion, any proposed amendments.

Jim, I don't know if you've been cooking on any language, um, but we can uh start with this.

I I'm fine with Jeff's explanation.

I think that we're good.

I mean, it's a very hard one to get around to, but it was just one that jumped out at me.

It was just a little bit uh um, but I'm I'm fine with it.

I think that it addresses what we what we're trying to achieve.

And um good.

Thanks for asking.

Okay.

Um yes.

So um Mr.

Egggy, are you are you helping us out with the motion here?

Uh sure.

I'll question uh I had some proposed discussion, but it's useful to have a motion on the table uh to anchor that in.

So uh I move to adopt the long-range transportation plan vision goals and objectives.

Great.

It has been moved.

Do we have a second?

I will second.

Great.

It's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Eggie, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Morrison.

Um first, I apologize.

I do have to drop at the top of the hour to catch a flight.

Um, but second, I want to say just appreciate seeing things reworked.

Definitely think this is uh an improvement over the last uh last list that we looked at.

Um I think just a couple comments that I wanted to rattle through here quickly, and we'll see if anyone else wants to pick up on them and go go a little bit deeper with uh with goal number one, the safety goal.

Um strategy number seven describes uh um speed limits.

Uh but I think really you know the outcome that we want is safe speeds, um, speed limits can help.

Uh I would suggest rewording this to uh excuse me, like strike the partnerships to uh uh achieve or support safe operating speeds and vision zero goals.

Um moving on to uh to goal three, uh mobility choices goal.

Um I think we might be able to consolidate a little bit.

I think uh and Mr.

Butts, if you wouldn't mind moving along to goal three there.

I think strategies three and five basically are saying the same thing around improving options for you know blocking and biking, transect, carpooling, like all the other modes that aren't driving alone.

Um, so we might be able to consolidate those.

I would note that you know, like carpooling isn't really like an infrastructure thing.

Uh but uh and then two and six also seem very similar.

They both seem to address connectivity.

Uh I appreciate that uh six specifically calls out pedestrian, uh the test frame network connectivity there.

Uh but I think on the bicycle side of things, uh, I'd love to see something that's a little bit more specific and directive.

Uh, because it's pretty well known that the way that you increase participation in cycling is to um build facilities that are triple A facilities appropriate for all ages and abilities and connect those to kind of key destinations.

And so if we did consolidate that list down, it's just uh an additional strategy around establishing a regional network of triple A bicycle facilities connecting pre-destinations.

Um sorry, got a bunch of problems here, but almost done.

Uh I think goal five you know speaks to the alignment between uh transportation planning, testation control, and use would suggest that I'm not sure if uh Jeff would or maybe it's uh some yes.

Jeff, could you try muting while you're not talking?

I think I'm getting some feedback.

Maybe maybe that's just on my end, but I was hearing I was hearing mark multiple marks coming through.

It's my my bad for telling McCollin from the uh airport snows.

Yeah, let me let me maybe pause Sarah a couple comments and five and sets, but there's it's fun to talk about it.

And and sorry, Mark, just to clarify, are these um are you wanting to propose changes or just throwing ideas out there to see if there's um bites from anybody else?

Uh I think at this point looking to see if these comments resonate and I just see anything else.

Um I guess continuing here on goal five.

Uh I I think kind of speaking to kind of the co-emergence of high frequency transit and high density housing and commercial areas, like we could be a little bit more specific about that.

I don't know if we would specifically call out like transit oriented development.

Um, but I think that's kind of the the concept that's embedded in the goal heading that I don't see in the strategies.

And then lastly on goal six.

Um, I don't know that any of the strategies under the bull heading really speaks specifically to resilience.

Um perhaps like a creative resilience improvement plan strategy or something like that, or like assess you know, assess the hazards and criticality and vulnerability of our transportation assets, uh, some sort of strategy around that that kind of specifics specifically speaks to um identifying the uh the brittle parts of our transportation system and planning to improve their resilience.

And that's that's the end.

Thank you.

And so the the ones I think I saw um goal three, objective three, and objective five being quite similar.

Um goal three, objective two, objective six being similar, some clarity, wanting to clarify or or amend perhaps um in goal one, um, objective seven, and then perhaps some pieces around on on goal five generally are those the on codifying transit oriented development explicitly or or something to that effect.

Did I miss another one in there?

Yes, Mayor, and then I'm goal three something speaking specifically to um rather and build in bicycle facilities that are appropriate for all ages and abilities that connect to key destinations.

Okay, thanks.

Um yeah, Zach, what do you got?

I just wanted to say that the speed limit one, I can't remember, I think it's goal one, the last one jumped out to me as well.

Um, and I'm I'm the new guy, so I have very little context about how all this came to be and also what this means functionally for all of us, but um my impression as a city of Bozeman resident, uh, and I've it's just top of mind because I was talking with reporters about speed limits and speed studies today.

Um my impression is that the city of Bozeman has sort of gotten I I guess gotten more willing to set political speed limits.

Um I'm not sure the extent to which that's true.

So that's one blind spot, but in particular around school zones, um, like 24-7, 365, 15 mile an hour school zones.

Um I wondered if that type of a decision making process fits in this goal.

In other words, is the MPO trying to um aspire to all of our jurisdictions having generally consistent speed limit setting methodology?

Um because if so, we probably have a like that would just be a really interesting conversation for us to have so we understand where the rest of your jurisdictions are with those methodologies.

And of course, we have back and forth all the time with Genos folks at MDT.

Um, but almost no conversation that I'm aware of with the cities.

Um but we receive speed limit study requests and um all the time, and it's just a big part of our public communication, and I'm sure it is with all of you as well.

So I was just that one jumped out to me.

And since Mark mentioned it, I wanted to just jump in with that question and um yeah.

Yeah, I I appreciate that.

And then I I think I'll I'll open it up if uh if Jeff, you had an answer or any any reactions to that as well.

But I I think from the city, we're wanting to start interrogating some of those more as well.

That knowing that you can slap the best looking speed limit on us on a on a sign, but it, you know, if we're not building the infrastructure um and all of the other mechanisms to calm the speed to that anyway, then we're just putting up sort of a sign that makes us feel good um that sets that as the expectation, but nothing setting up the success of that um that road or that street.

Um so I that's an ongoing conversation that that we're having.

But I don't know if uh if Jeff, you wanted to speak to sort of the ambitions of whether of how this translates or how what the vision of these documents translating into city city jurisdictional policies.

And you're muted, Jeff.

Uh I'll just share that uh each jurisdiction is separate, and there has been discussion to date of keeping a lot of those decisions.

Um, local control.

And there has been no discussion at all around Bozeman's uh school speed limits extending beyond the city of Bozeman.

Where this came from was in talking about MDT routes in particular, those cross through multiple jurisdictions, and when they go through the jurisdictions um making sure that they um I guess you know, this the safe operating speeds or the consistent speed limits, however you want to say that.

That was that was more of the intent.

Uh if there is other um motivations that this policy board would like to pursue, uh that's within the prerogative.

But um for this today, what we have been talking about has been mostly those the state, those state routes.

Thanks for that clarification.

If I can just jump in here, something that really comes to mind for me is um the the work our commission did to reduce the speed limit on just a section of oak, like essentially, you know, if if the speed limit is 25 in one section, but then it goes up to 40 or 45 in another, people are just gonna speed through that lower speed limit area because they're used to going 45, and they know it'll get to 45 again.

Um I I don't think I was on this body at the time that this particular goal was crafted, but I can just imagine that being like in people's minds.

Um I I wonder if we could clarify the language to say not consistent speed limits like across communities, but more like consistent speed limits along a route.

Um or like within neighborhoods or um yeah, I I I can already see how maybe that will also be confusing, but just to kind of distinguish ourselves from saying all school districts in the MPO will have the same speed limits, et cetera, more like as you're driving up Routh, you're gonna have the same speed limit the entire time that you're in the MPO or something like that.

No, that was helpful, Commissioner.

Just to say I the consistency that I was kind of getting at is speed limit setting methodology.

Is are we trying to get consistent there?

Um in other words, are we gonna defer to engineering standards in speed that informed speed studies or uh are is everyone gonna go their own way with um responding to constituent concerns or some middle ground.

So yeah.

Yeah, thanks for that.

Some more context on that.

Um yeah, Neil.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um my comment is well, twofold.

The speed conversation is very interesting, and our jurisdictions all do things slightly differently as you know, we've been we've been talking through this.

Uh, for example, Belgrade's policy when it comes to setting speed limits is it's removed it from the being a council discussion and moved it to staff for engineering analysis, and ultimately it all stays in that because we wanted to get away from the uh put up a stop sign here because it makes people feel good situations, and then we have to go back later and remove stop signs that really probably shouldn't have been there.

And same thing with speed limits.

Anyway, um my comment is more of this is a lot to process uh that everybody's putting out as far as comments and ideas and suggestions.

And I know that overall we as a body need to move this forward in order to stay on some of the timelines that just been bringing up to us the last couple of sessions.

So one, I think it'd be for me at least, it would be great if we almost just went through this goal by goal by goal, sort of back and forth and maybe coalesced around that if we needed to, or at the same time, asking ourselves like are these comments or these concerns reaching a level that we can't do what we want to do within the currently presented framework.

Um because far too often we find ourselves, especially in these plan high-level thinking documents, we can really get into the weeds when in reality this is just the guiding framework that Jeff and his team needs to be able to work through all of this with us and the nuance of everything that we're trying to do.

Can we still achieve that in the current uh current writing?

So putting that out there as uh some thoughts and suggestions.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Um I I think I would almost um rather than going item by item um goal by goal is just if there are any specific proposed amendments, because I I think if we're just sort of swirling in reactions to um fairly specific language, I think we can sit here and we can um wordsmith for hours.

Um, but I I think it's if if there feels like there's such a significant deficiency that anyone sees that needs to be cured with amended language, um I think that probably makes more sense for us to see here.

So I don't know if if Mark um if you had any specific uh line edits that you'd want to see in this that we could then discuss in in specifics.

Thanks there.

I just don't have uh specific language off the top of my head, but I it's with goal three unless um like to make uh recommendation to consolidate strategies three and five and consolidate strategies two and six and to add a new strategy that speaks specifically to a regional network codes, high quality bicycle facilities.

Okay.

Um I'll I'll entertain that as a motion.

Um do we have a second?

Um I'd second that motion.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

So my understanding of what um Jeff, could you take us to to goal three again so we can look at those in real time?

Is to consolidate three and five and two and six.

So to is the is your vision to cut one of those and add what would be, I guess, uh in that case, goal five around um like facility infrastructure.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, for this for the sake of simplicity, or is your are you proposing just between three between goal objective three and objective fives to cut five and two and six to just cut six?

Or did you have a sorry, I don't yeah, I don't know, I don't have specific language, but I think I think that would that would be fine.

Um, or we could also just give that as a general like general direction to uh manager butts to implement.

Um I'll just jump in here real quickly.

We are asking for approval of these, and so staff would certainly um entertain language to to fit within the motion that way when we carry this forward.

Um it's been adopted.

A little concerned with writing language ourselves, but that's up to you all.

Okay, yes, then I I would if I may provide my notion, I would move to uh to to strikes strike goals five and six, uh acknowledging that they the same concepts are uh represented in strategies two and three, and to add an additional strategies to establish a regional network of uh bicycle facilities appropriate for all ages and abilities connecting to destinations.

Okay, great.

That was felt very clear.

Um, do we have a second for that motion?

Yeah, I'll second that.

Great.

Um, any discussion on this motion?

I think especially if there's anyone who's feeling uh hesitant or or leaning towards not approving that would be great to hear.

Yeah, Neil.

I'm leaning towards uh not approving that because I specifically think that the nuance of the language in each one of those is meeting other goals, like specifically in five options that lower household costs, those are other goals and things that our entities are working on.

And so um I see the point in consolidation, but I also think that the way that they're written right now gives us a little bit more flexibility, and I like them the way that they are.

Great.

Thank you.

Any any more discussion on this proposed amendment?

I I tend to agree with um with Neil.

I think I think that that's I I think that aligns with other items like missing like comfort and things like that are need to make sure that they're included because that's an important part of what we're trying to achieve.

So I think that unless we were to really rewrite the whole things.

Um with that said, I do think the addition of the bicycle piece, um, maybe not consolidating these, but the addition of the bicycle element um would be as beneficial.

So it does add a unique um I think I think something that's important.

So yeah.

And if I may, I don't I don't have any strong feelings about the consolidation or not, and if uh other committee members don't feel like seven is too many strategies.

Um I think the I I do think that this would uh be improved by a strategy specifically addressing high quality bicycle facilities.

Uh but I I do agree that you know addressing things around uh household costs and comfort and that sort of stuff is five.

Yeah.

Do I understand that you're uh are are you willing here to withdraw the consolidation proposals and just keep um the bike facility amendment?

Uh I I would with the agreement of my of the with my second yeah that's fine on okay.

So the uh proposed amendment as it stands is as the language that uh um Mr.

Eggie read of uh bike facility infrastructure.

Any more discussion on this proposed amendment?

I think we would like to I'm trying to help Jeff out here as somebody who gets nervous when we start uh adding words on the dais in these things.

Uh uh, do we have a specific sentence that we can give staff that we would like to add?

Because I know uh throwing it to them and saying, yeah, we approve what you write can make that be nerve-wracking.

Yeah, I mean, uh Mr.

Eggie read a clear sentence I in the record, but I don't know if you have it in writing to be able to share with us or if you could put it in the chat for everyone to look at in real time.

But Jeff, I'll I'll open it to you if there's if you have any reactions to what you'd heard.

What I have written down, um this could be a starting point you might want to work off of it, is establish a regional bicycle network that it's or establish a regional bicycle network for all ages and abilities.

I think there was a little bit more in there.

Yeah, get connecting key destinations a regional bicycle network connecting key destinations for all ages and abilities.

Great.

Um, any further discussion on this proposed amendment before we put it to a vote.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll um poll the board.

I commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Neil Cardwell.

Aye.

Commissioner Brown.

I.

Great.

Um, thank you for that.

Is there still a sticking point?

I know um Commissioner Brown and um Mr.

Egggy had some concerts around um goal one objective seven.

Um, and in what that translated to is that feeling is there is there language being proposed?

Does it feel sufficient?

Uming that we still just have the main motion on the the table right now.

I just uh my qu I don't have a proposed um alternative, but I I just still am kind of unclear what what is that saying and to whom is it really an M, is it targeting MDT routes that cross multiple jurisdictions?

Is that the point of that language?

I I think I interpret it to oh Jeff, go ahead.

No, please, Mary.

I I think I interpreted that to largely read that yes, all the jurisdictions that have authorities over various roadways to be on the same page on a strategy for the speed limits themselves and how to get compliance of the the posted speed.

Um that's that's how I would interpret that.

Um, especially that there's a number of our roads that you know they they go from a county road to a city road to an MDT road and and vice versa.

But um that's that was my my read.

Um Jeff, did you have another clarification to that before I kick it over to Neil?

I was just gonna say that it was added after discussion around the MDT routes, but it could apply broader.

Um okay, thanks.

Neil so my suggestion is why don't we just remove the to support consistent speed limits language and just say strengthen partnerships to support reaching vision zero goals because to vision zero goals would include the speed limits components of this, and it also removes that potential like who's doing what and how are we doing it with a specific thing regarding speed limits.

That so that's my suggestion on the floor of strengthened partnerships to support reaching vision zero goals.

I'd consider it a motion, Mark.

Okay.

So uh it has been moved, it's been seconded.

So the proposal is to um strike uh consistent speed limits so that it would read strength partnerships to achieve to to support Vision Zero goals.

Um I saw our our MDT folks hopped off mute, so I wanted to open it up to see if you had any reactions to that.

Uh no, I'm I'm okay with that.

I like that language, Neil.

Thank you.

Jim, did you have anything you wanted to add?

No, it's all good.

I just think I mean I think that the initial just in the discussion, the initial comment.

I think that local agencies in Montana can generally lower speed limits, and MDT can't.

And it has this more strict on the roadways.

And so when you get roads like that go through place like Bozeman, I think that was the intent, but I don't know.

I mean, that's a state law, so it's not like it's uh I mean, so it's probably a different thing, so I'm okay with uh recommendation.

Okay, great.

Um any further discussion on this before we put it to a vote.

Okay, seeing none, I think we can poll the board.

Mayor Morrison.

Hi.

Commissioner Body?

Hi.

Neil Cardwell.

Aye.

Commissioner Brown?

All right.

Mark Eggie.

Hi.

Jim Hanson.

Hi.

GoPass 77.

Excellent.

Um so from my tracking items that were coming up in discussion, those are the last ones, unless there are any further amendments to be proposed.

Um we'll look to discussion on the main motion.

Um Mayor, I I think Mark Egggy had one other um suggestion about adding something to the um resilience goal.

I think it's our our final one, goal six, something specifically about IDing like brittle places in the network.

Mark, do you do you want to speak to that again?

Sure.

Thanks so much, Rodi.

Uh so when it comes to resilience planning, it's typically you identify uh identify hazards like things that could imperil or disruptor transportation networks, and then you identify the criticality of the different pieces and uh maybe you also look at the uh adaptive capacity.

It's like is you know how how quickly can you uh recover from uh from disruption?

And then you combine those pieces together and use that to identify areas of your transportation network that are particularly plain to disruption.

Uh, for example, interstate 90 between 19th Avenue and Belgrade.

Like if there's a craft on that road, it gets shut down.

Like that's a major artery.

Uh it keeps a lot of people from getting getting home at uh five o'clock on a Friday night.

So I would suggest that we add an additional strategy here around uh development of uh like a resilience improvement plan or identifying opportunities to uh improve the the resilience and redundancy of our transportation systems.

So that's and so just to kind of hearken back to where we were before is is that I don't want to put Jeff in a position of having to try to discern what our what the language is.

Um do you do you want to take a second and try to come up with a really specific line item that you'd want to see in there?

You have a focused face like you're writing something actively.

I would recommend it.

I mean, just as a as a comment, I I would think it's probably better to send a general goal as opposed to like saying a specific approach.

So like developing a plan is a specific approach, but I think develop having a goal that is about that resilient is probably better than that way it allows flexibility in what the ultimate decisions are, reverses saying we're gonna develop a plan because that's a very specific outcome or what a specific action.

So I think that this is a comment.

I would more supportive of that.

Okay, thanks, Jim.

Perhaps we could simply add the word resilience to the first strategy there to improve the adaptability, flexibility, and resilience of the regional transportation network.

If that's a motion, I second that one, Mark.

Great.

Okay.

Look at that elegant government in action here.

Any discussion on that proposed amendment.

Okay.

Um I guess we will pull the board.

Mayor Morrison?

Aye.

Commissioner Bowdy.

Aye.

Neil Hardwell.

Aye.

Zach Brown, or sorry, Commissioner Brown.

Hi.

Mark Gigi.

Aye.

Jim Hansen.

Hi.

Great.

Appreciative of that.

I do think that was an elegant way to um reiterate resilience to be built into those goals as well.

Um further discussion or amendments on our main motion.

One final request, and just to clarify where we're going next, it'll just be a vote on the main motion.

So speak now or forever hold your peace.

Okay.

Thank you to staff's hard work on this.

Yeah.

Thank you again.

Um, it's clear that there's been a lot coming into this, and and apologies again for um delaying this by another month, but appreciate the grace.

Um, okay, seeing no further discussion, I guess we'll just pull the board.

Mayor Morse.

Mayor Morrison.

Commissioner Bowden.

Aye.

Neil Cardwell.

Hi.

Commissioner Brown.

Hi.

Hi.

Great.

Thank you, everyone, and and um thank you to our wonderful MPO manager um for all the work that's come into this so far.

Um I'm trying to pull up the agenda again.

My understanding was that was our last item, but I know that there's often discussion as an item at the end.

I'm not sure the patterns of this board if there's if if that's typically entertained, but um we could open it up here if there's any FYI or discussion from members of the board before we adjourn.

Yeah, we did miss public comment on that item.

Um for the sake of uh feedback despite an action already being taken.

Um, can we open it up or do we have anyone trying to chime in for public comment?

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

Um any further discussion from any members of the board.

Okay, seeing none.

And just to clarify, I can because I'm I'm my phone is struggling to bring up the agenda.

There is nothing, there's no further items, correct?

Okay, great.

I'm seeing nods.

Okay, seeing no further discussion or business to come before this board, we will adjourn this meeting.

Thank you, everyone.