That so let's get the meeting started and the first year. Can I, can I say something? Sure, Jeff, go for it. Yeah, I just want the board to know that I am both representing the town outside the village this evening. And I am also as an alternate representing the village of S extension. So you're wearing two hats. Yep. Okay. They both look good on you, Jeff. It's been 13 months. Sharon, I'm not careful changes to the agenda. Let me ask right now as we start Jeff brought it up and Charlie and I spoke about this briefly consent agenda there are two items on there. Does anyone wish to pull either one off the consent agenda for discussion. I thought about it but I decided not to. Okay. So no changes to the agenda. We'll move on to public comment. This is an opportunity from folks from the public to comment on any issue not on tonight's agenda. And Charlie, you're going to have to help me out if there's anyone from the public that wants to speak. I don't see anyone. They'll see one. Okay. Then we'll move on to item three, which is the consent agenda looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. I moved. Barbara second by Jeff. All those in favor of the motion and approving the consent agenda, please say. Hi. Hi. Anyone opposed. Anyone wish to abstain. Okay. Motion passes. This is minutes of the January 20th, 2021 meeting. Looking for a motion with Catherine's. I'll second you with Catherine's. Catherine. Don't let us down. It's a little technical one, but on line 38 page four. Although 526 K is listed in the sentence before the following sentence only list $526. The K probably is very important at addition there. Details. They're only zeros. I also have one proposed addition. Line 38 and page six. I, my memory is that I expressed interest in the. Following the rail plan, but I think I also stated why, and I think that's important to be in there. And that's because, because of the ongoing storage of hazardous material on rail sightings in Charlotte. I wanted to. There. Any other comments or corrections hearing none all in favor of the motion please say or signal I. Any opposed. Any abstentions hearing none the motion passes. Next we have comments on draft clean water service provider rule Charlie. Yeah, so in the packet you have a proposed letter for us to send to the state on the clean water service provider draft rule. This was reviewed with the clean water advisory committee. And the executive committee also took a look at it, and we have a couple minor changes, but this is for you to either edit or approve. If you'd like, we can talk in more detail about the different sections. Your pleasure, Mr chair. I'll leave it up to folks since we reviewed this once at the executive committee meetings is folks want Charlie to go through section by section. Well, I'll move that we accept it so we can have discussion. I'll second. Okay. One through section by section but I do have some questions and potential comments. Go for it, Jim. Okay, let me make sure I've gotten the right spot here. And I'm not sure of this but I think we have to check it to verify in section 39 dash 306. These are fine except for solicitation of quotes sent to at least and if you're talking about develop and design. I believe we are, we're supposed to be going for qualifications and not quotes. When you're dealing with things like that government regulations say that you don't base it on dollars you base it on qualifications and proposals. So the word quotes might need to be different and I know that was taken from the original, but I wasn't a question that the original as well. I think we need to check and verify whether we can use the word quotes or not because quotes involves implies dollars. Yeah. I think we should say for qualifications or quotes. Yeah, that would that would be because I was thinking qualifications but qualifications and quotes, I think, could do it as well then. Yeah. Yeah. And because the closest there because there is an implementation aspect of construction there. Right. Yeah. Because we added the develop and design in there. Yeah, that kind of changes things. I think that was it. Good detail that it thank you. Jeff. I just want to ask Charlie and our staff. Are there any deal killers if they don't accept our suggestions. I think we hope not. You know, there's a little bit of concern that you can see expressed here about forms and conflicts of interest. They're taking a very strict line in on two things one being able to add a member. Which from discussions with our peers, you know, that are also looking to take this endeavor on. There's a concern there may be a group, whether it's a watershed group or whoever might be that whether it might be a good reason to add one person to the council. And right now the rule would prohibit that without adding one of every other kind of entity. And the second issue is just a very narrow or I should say overly broad conflict language that might result in the people that know the most being excluded from decision making. And so we think it will hopefully still work, but we this is not a new concern would be expressed to them. I'm not sure it's a deal killer. It just may make it a little more challenging. And if I can follow up Mr Chair, I'm assuming that even if they don't accept our thing we could come back to them with something else that would make it more palatable. Yeah, and that kind of thing because we signed up for this. Okay, I think it would be a credit to us if we were able to pull it off. I don't know about the other members or commissioners. But my feeling is is that I'm comfortable with leaving it in the hands of our capable staff and executive director to, you know, come back to us if there's something in there where you know we can do it. Yeah, and two points I'll make one that the actual contract for this you know is definitely some months away. And I have been very open. We have been very open and including Dan and this with DC staff that we may want to go to the legislature for to add a sentence to get some clarifying direction here about the base and council and the conflict issue. They clearly wanted these people to be on here because they had knowledge. It doesn't make sense of it that they need to exclude themselves from decision making all the time. So yeah, thank you for that. Yeah. Well, my cynical view is anything we can do to spread overhead during a pandemic. I'm in favor of Garrett. Mark down the date I agree with Jeff. And I think they're very good points and but I also agree that the conflict of interest interest language is very important. They're just not just in reality, although in reality it's important by public perception is huge on that one. When the pandemic's over you and I have to have a dope average together to celebrate any other comments. If not, I guess we'll take a vote on the motion, all those in favor of the motion. So let me let me back up for a second. The motion was to accept this report. Is that right? Thank you. What's that? Accept the comments. Accept the comments with them, right? And then right. Do we need to do it? And we have a sense of the board that our staff and our executive director can help make changes to make this palatable. We have issues. I'm good with that. And I'm also very good with the one edit already suggested. Okay. And Jeff, I think you were the secondary you're fine with that.  Just making sure just making sure. So all those in favor of the motion, please say or signify I. Anyone opposed? Anyone wish to abstain? Is that an Amy? Is this RPC business or MPO business? RPC. Okay, so then I just don't vote. I'm a no vote. Okay. Okay. So that motion that passes. So we'll move on to the next item, which is the I89 2050 study presentation. John's got his hand up. Before you do that, Mr. Chair, unless I fell asleep for a moment, which in my age is entirely possible. Did we ever vote on the consent agenda? You asked if anybody wanted to remove things. And the answer to that was no, but I think then you just moved on. And given that there's a many millions of dollars in that. I think it would be important to make sure we actually voted. Yeah, I don't think we voted on it though. Just to keep the record clear. I just want to make sure. Okay. This is MPO business. This is MPO business as well. So I am PO members vote on this. Okay. And I remember you guys did vote on it. We did. Yep. All right. Well, maybe I, maybe I did just not off. I apologize. I just wanted to make sure we didn't miss something. We didn't miss anything. I just wanted to make sure. I just wanted to make sure that we voted on it though. Just to keep the record clear. I just want to make sure. Okay. So I remember not voting. This is MPO business. This is MPO business as well. So I am PO members. Okay. And I remember you guys did vote on it. We didn't miss something we should have done. Sorry. That's okay. Amy. You have a record of the vote. Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. That's all right. Nope. That's all right, John, because I've been known to mess up more than once. So be careful, John. Good that you're watching out for me. So I 89. 2050 study presentation. Charlie, do you want to intro this? Do you want me to run the presentation? It's up to you, Charlie. You can, I can, you can give me like controls and I can do it from here or you can run it. It doesn't really matter to me. That's fine. I've got it up here. I'll be ready to go. So this is, we are in a phase right now where we're seeking some feedback on the metrics and things evaluating the interchanges. But I'll let a lady get more into the presentation. It's a little long. So be prepared. And I, I'm really, truly sorry for all the homework we sent you and all the. Wonderful reports. So. Here we are again, we're going to, you know, do an update on where we are with the ID nine. I'm just going to touch briefly about the project background and the overview. You have seen this before, but we decided to add this because this is kind of a presentation that we're also going to. Other groups with, and it's kind of nice to give that background. Why are we doing this study? I give you a very brief overview where we are. And then just go into the interest, interchanged concepts, which you, you saw this before we sent you a memo last month. And nothing really substantially. And I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to go back to the slide. And I'm going to go into the last month. And nothing really substantially change since then. And then dive into the interchange evaluation. And as Charlie said today, tonight and, and, you know, throughout this month and next month, we're seeking input on metrics. And the scoring methodology to me, the scoring methodology is the most important thing. And we'll talk a little bit about this in, in a little bit. We're going to talk about, you know, which interchange improvements we're going to move forward with to evaluate. It doesn't mean that those interchange investments and improvements will happen. We just need to do further evaluation. Into the corridor bundles. Number four, which going to be introducing those concepts tonight. And we're seeking input on those two. And then I'm just going to finish with next steps. Just to remind everybody that, you know, I think the, you know, I think our next steps that we're going to take into account. Again, the data from the APP are based on the demographic forecast that we developed back in 2017, that the board approved. And a lot of our modeling is based on that. So we have 14% and the future year is 2050. So between the 2015 base to 2050, we see a 14% increase in population, 35%, 35% increase in employment, population growth that we see and the household is 25%. I'm sure you all remember these numbers, but just to remind everybody, moving on. So some of our, you know, just remind everybody of some of our MTP priorities. So just 70% of the funding that we're gonna get between now and 2050, it's gonna go to system preservation. And, you know, the plan also has a long use element and component and we are basically wanna concentrate growth because that is good for our transportation and our, you know, like our investments in bike and pet and transit. So we wanna concentrate growth in our villages and downtowns and we are adding 90% of household growth to areas planned for growth. And I don't remember the exact, you know, percent Charlie, maybe you do, but I think we're now at 86 or 87%, something like that. Yeah, which is pretty close to our goal, which is very exciting. We also included a lot of improvements for high crash locations, safety improvements, ITS is intelligent transportation systems. And those are our technology investments for signals, for variable message signs and stuff like that for TDM programs also, we had investments which is transportation demand management or how to manage our demand or highways, especially during the peak hours.  And capacity expansion only when needed. We also did major improvements for transit. As you can see, we added 15 minute headways for all trans routes.  And this is a substantial increase from what's happening right now and what the transit service is right now. And even with all of these improvements in the non-automodes, we still found that there is a need for expansion between exits 14 and 15 on I-89 due to capacity issues. So basically by 2050, the V-over-C, that segment of 89 is over one. So we needed to basically, you know, to investigate it further as well as some kind of interchange improvements. So that's the reason why we're doing the I-89 2050 study. Some of the MTP outcomes that basically there, these outcomes help us meet our transportation goals but also our climate and energy goals is that with all the MTP investments we are decreasing our VMT by 2.4. We are increasing our VHT, its vehicle hours of travel. We are increasing our non-automobile mode share by 4%, which is a good increase. But then we also, in order to meet our energy, the climate goals, the state's climate goals to be 90% renewables by 2050, we also basically have 90% fleet electrification by 2050. And that means all vehicles, personal vehicles as well as light trucks are electrified, 90% of those are electrified. And we have 77% reduction in fuel consumption because of the electrification of the fleet. I'm gonna skip this one, Charlie. I think I talked about it. So let's move on to, you all know that the I-99 study is looking at the entire interchange engine and counted 37 miles, seven interchanges. Even though we're looking at the entire interchange, we are focusing a lot of our mobility and our safety and a lot of the issues are around the exit 14 in the urban core of the county. And that's gonna be kind of shown in the metrics that we're using a little bit further. We are now, you've seen this slide before, we are still in task four, interchange evaluation. We've been in this task for, I think a year now, maybe a little less. And we are doing a very thorough job so we can provide our stakeholders around decision makers all the information they need to make the right decision, which is a big decision of which interchange improvement is to move forward into the next stage. So that's where we are now. And then the next stage is to take whatever comes out of task four into task five, which is actually start to create these bundles for improvements, which includes interchanges plus a lot of other stuff, which I'm gonna talk about in a little bit and for the entire I-99. And then we're gonna develop the implementation plan and we'll talk a little bit more about the implementation plan and the trigger approach in a little bit and then the final report. And hopefully if everything goes well, we'll be done, I don't know, winter of 2022, I'm hopeful. We added this slide because there was a little bit of confusion of what this study is or isn't. So basically, we wanna make sure that people understand that this is a planning study and there are three kind of, I like great types of recommendations that they come out of this study. The first one is the minor capital investments, which can be like improvements to share your past, site was crosswalks, something that can be done in the shorter medium term by the V-transor municipality. The second one is operational improvements. Again, those can be short, medium term, agrees to transit services, TDM, and other things that can be done in the next five to 10 years. And then we have the major capital investments. These are major interchange improvements or improvements on the main line, the IG-9 main line. And these, of course, they're gonna be federally funded. They need to go through a very rigorous NEPA process and they will require an EIS. And this is not short-term. This is a long-term investment. And I wanna point that last couple of sentences there that basically talks about this concept of monitoring and triggering. So this is something we talked with you before. And I think we had some good discussions about it is that due to the really major uncertainties of through COVID and what's gonna happen with the travel patterns once after the pandemic is over, hopefully soon, and also with land use changes, we decided that the way to move forward is to develop, we monitor the conditions, especially the traffic. And then we develop triggers that is gonna just basically inform us when an improvement is necessary. So we basically invest in the improvements that we need and not something that we decided on past data that is not valid anymore. So that's kind of an important concept. And that's gonna happen in task when we develop the implementation plan. I believe that's task six. You have seen the vision and goals before. We have six goals. We develop objectives under each goal and we develop metrics under each goal that we're gonna be discussing. And I wanna again point out the last paragraph there that we added it to acknowledge this uncertainty. Whether we're gonna have long-lasting changes in where people are gonna live and how they're gonna travel in the future. And that brings us to the idea of the monitoring and triggering that I talked about it before. So we have done two rounds of interchange evaluation or we are in the second round of interchange evaluation. We finished the first round. We started with eight interchanges and we ended up with through rigorous evaluation and results, the advisory committee moved 12B13 and 14 forward for further evaluation. And now the interchange concepts. We have five concepts for the three locations, 14, 12B and 13. And I'll go, we'll starting with 13, oh no, 12B, 12B. And I think nothing changed on this one since the last time you saw it. This is a different concept than the scoping study concept that happened like 10, 12 years ago. And that is because we are trying to avoid structures that they have been developed these last 10 years in the, you know, like the Northwest quadrant. So now all the northbound ramps and I don't know if, can you see my cursor? Not quite sure if you can see it or not. Thank you. Yes. All the northbound ramps are basically just they get access through Tilly Drive. And then we have four and just I'm gonna just say this for all the interchanges we try to accommodate safe and continuous kind of bike and pet facilities. So the new bridge over the interstate on 116, it's gonna be a four lane and it's gonna have sidewalks and a multi-use path on one side. And what else can I say about this one? The southbound ramps, the southbound ramps. I mean, Charlie is showing the southbound ramps now and we have the loop for the on and off southbound ramps. And that's about it. Did I miss anything, Charlie? No. Okay, moving on to 13 now, the first concept that we looked at is the hybrid which is kind of the simplest one of the concepts that we're looking at. And it's basically, it's the U-turn on 189 that basically allows for full movements, at this location right now, as well as two additional ramps. The one is the new northbound ramp from Kennedy Drive onto 89 and the new northbound off ramp that allows movements from northbound to eastbound and the other direction. This concept also includes a bike and pet facility which is basically a bridge over the interstate to access the, to connect the Kennedy Drive south path to the spear speed path. I think that's it for this one. And now we're getting into a much more exciting concepts. This is the single point diamond interchange as PDI. And so this slide basically shows 189. One of the major concepts of this one is that the eastbound parallel of 189, it's gonna be removed and it's gonna be moved closer to the westbound barrel. And that will necessitate as well as, the fact that we're putting a signal on 89, it will necessitate the downgrade of I 189 from an interstate to an arterial. So I'm afraid we're not gonna have the shortest interstate in the country anymore if we do that. But I think it's gonna be, it's gonna be like a wonderful thing to do. It's gonna be like an arterial, something like maybe a Kennedy Drive might be something to compare it to or a boulevard. If you zoom in closer to this one, it's basically what we're doing, we're bringing all the movements, all the rams into one giant intersection with the signal. One of the really exciting things about this concept is that it removes a lot of existing structures and culverts.  And that actually is a major benefit. And we're gonna talk about it when we look at the costs, the asset management costs. We also have a shared use path here that connects the Kennedy Drive shared use path with the path that goes along 189 right now. I think I cover everything. And now we're moving to exit 14. And we have two concepts here, the DDI. It's the diverging diamond interchange. And that is the same concept as in exit 16 right now. So if you haven't seen the video of the DDI at exit 16, I encourage you to do that. It's pretty cool. So this interchange basically decreases the capacity, the vehicle capacity slightly. And I don't remember the exact percent, but I think it's close to 10%. So it decreases the interchange capacity slightly, but we're hopeful that if other improvements happen when we look at the entire transportation network, that's gonna be okay, if we're gonna decrease the traffic on this interchange. The DDI is really improving bike and pedestrian safety by having two, the two, just a 10 foot shared use path on both sides of route two. And then what it does is it brings the crossings that signalize the two signalized intersections, which allows the people to cross safely into the middle of the interchange, which has a very wide shared use path to accommodate the traffic from both sides. And then it provides the ability of people to go from the one side of route two, north or south easily and safely. We are also adding, let's see. Also this interchange moves the eastern intersection away from Dorset Street, which is gonna basically provide a lot of efficiency because one of the major issues right now, it's closely spaced intersections on route two that create a lot of delays. Enhance cloverleaf. This looks very close to what we have right now. It is a cloverleaf, but with some changes. One of the major changes is that we are reducing the radii when the ramps come into route two. And we're doing that mainly for safety reasons because by doing that, we are reducing the speed of vehicles. And basically it's a safer way for pedestrians to cross those ramps if the vehicle speeds are reduced. We also, by doing that also, we are moving, again the whole interchange and the whole conflict from the Dorset Street a little bit to the west and that helps. We are adding a second northbound on ramp lane to accommodate mainly, I believe, PNP Gower travel. And one of the major concepts here is the collector distributor lane is the collector distributor lane on the interstate. So one of the major safety issues that we have on exit 14 is the weaving problems that we have as people exiting the ramp or entering the ramp. We have speed differentials and we have the weaving situation that creates a lot of safety issues and we have a lot of crashes. So we are adding this new lane under route two on the interstate to actually, thank you, Charlie, that's much better, to actually help us with those and the safety issue because then all those weaving situations are gonna be happening at slower speeds and it's gonna allow people to do it more safely. We also have a 10-foot shared use paths on both sides on that. So we are accommodating a bike and pedestrians and hopefully the reduced-radi I will be something that is gonna be a safety improvement for bike and pedestrians. So now moving into the interchange evaluation and I think what I did mention before that we developed metrics for the second round of evaluation of under every goal and I'm not gonna go through this but we have six goals. We have numerous metrics under each goal. Happy to answer any questions on that but maybe we can move to, yep, so the draft evaluation scoring process. So basically, so we identify metrics, we evaluated metrics, we develop a matrix that you have in your packet that is the numeric metric as well as the scoring metric. And what we want from you is that your feedback and input or are there any metrics that should be changed or did we miss anything? Do we need to add something? So that's one thing. And then the other thing is like how we did the scoring, how do we do the scoring matters? So the way we decided to do it, it's mostly based on math and there is a beauty in math and that it's very objective but it's also creates some issues because at this point, our results are based on a range of zero to four with zero being the lowest, four being the highest and then basically each result gets a score based on where it is in that quantile, where does it fell in there? So what that does is that it creates, it exaggerates differences and those differences might not be significant. So I think what we are, I know that thing, what we are asking you is that, if this is the right approach, is this, do we need to actually start thinking about scored on a different, the metrics need to be scored on a different basis? Again, we are very comfortable with the numeric like results of our metrics. It's just how we translate the numeric results to the scoring that we have further discussions even though we presented the metrics that has the scores, we're still discussing this and this is kind of the slide and you have this in your packet and I'm happy to go over it now or if you really have a lot of comments, please reach out to Charlie and me and we can set up a different time to go over it and talk about diving to all this. So these slides basically break the different goals and the metrics of each goal, the numeric and the scores. I don't plan to go through this unless you have a specific question that we can answer. Again, either now or later and again, very happy to meet with you online to go over this and then I'll wait until Charlie gets... For this group, do you want to talk a little bit about the cost metrics? Because you guys might find that interesting. Or Jeff, you have a question? Yeah, I can't see anybody if they have any questions. So please speak up. Anybody has a question? This is Jeff. I just was wondering if there was going to be a kind of a little technical memo that explains the scoring system and how everything by goes through that. That we would be made available to us. So those of us that enjoy that kind of reading could do it. We have, there's a technical memo that addresses I think two of the metrics, the secondary growth consistency with the regional plan and also the cost. But we didn't do that. I guess we could probably add a little bit to that to just talk about how this... I don't want to make work. I just was assuming that the consulting team would give you at least a summary overview and the way that the calculations went and what was weighted how and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, so Jeff... I'm interested in just getting one level below. I don't have to just if it was available. Yeah, so what I can do if you're interested, I can just, so we did... Well, let me just start by saying we did not weight anything right now. I mean, we are presenting the results the way they came out to be. So again, the way that we did the scoring is like the lowest number we put a zero, the highest number is four and then we divided it. And then wherever they fell in that spectrum, they got a score. But I do have a spreadsheet that I'm happy to share with you if that's going to be helpful. That implies that everything's equal weighted and I'm not sure that that's how we're going to come out. So I'm just interested in if there's anything that's available that you don't feel uncomfortable sharing, I would love to, you know, some night when I'm having trouble sleeping, read it. All right, we'll see what we can do, Jeff, to give you that. I can help you with your insomnia and bar. Do you have a question? Yeah, it's a similar, this is by a follow-up question similar to Jeff's, you know, I think this is the nut right here, which is how does the scoring work? Land, how do the rankings work? And, you know, the intervals are not all of equal value I would observe, you know. So I'm actually interested in diving more into the methodology and how the scoring and rankings then work. And I'm not sure whether it's better in a memo to fall asleep to or, you know, maybe an online, you know, walk through with Q&A kind of thing. I'm sort of inclined to the second part. But, you know. Jeff, would you be interested in a meeting like that to actually go through? Yeah, I don't want to make work, okay. The only thing about a meeting or a Zoom meeting is if I'm having trouble making something add up on the spot, I can go back and re-study it. And that's the only reason for wondering if our consultants gave us at least some of the description of how it went. So, you know, I mean, so the other commissioners know where I'm coming from, okay. I believe this study is crucially important that we can't just have Charlie and the staff defending it. Some of the commissioners have to be able to defend this thing and take on some of the comments that we've had at previous meetings. So the only way to do that is for some of us who are interested in it to dive into some of the things and just, you know, my inclination for writing is more I'm that kind of a person, I'm less visual. But I would, and if you're going to do a presentation, that kind of sounds to me like we're going to make work for the staff that I don't want to do. I just want to piggyback on anything that is available that can help us to understand how you get to, you know, a certain number in a certain box because, you know, this is a car centric analysis and we're going to get killed if we don't understand it. I agree with Jeff on that because it's going to be just like the CERC. And we better be up to speed. We better have a handle on the numbers because folks are going to challenge those numbers. Yeah. And we welcome your input. Any time I see NEPA, I have visions of this. Yeah. And we're obviously not doing the NEPA process, right? But we are trying to do a good job to prepare for... Well, just like the CERC, it's going to come after it. And the other thing, we are, I think, intentionally trying to slow down the process right now and give people some time to look at the metrics and how we score it so that we don't rush to a conclusion that's not well grounded and well vetted. So we are happy to take the time and Jeff, do not be worried about taking our time. I think the next couple of months, we're going to devote some significant time to having conversations and trying to help increase understanding of the scores or the metrics and the scoring system. So this is a great time to have the conversation. We don't have to do it tonight, but I think we'll do both. We'll provide something in writing and maybe even a spreadsheet so you can see how the numbers came to be. And then also, I think we'll maybe schedule some workshop meeting or something for... And I'm going to guess that most of you had day job, so we probably need to do that for the evening. Yeah, happy to do that. And I think that the spreadsheet will provide a lot of the information that you're looking for, Jeff. But also, I think it would be really very important to talk about, because we're very comfortable with the numbers, it's just how you translate those numbers to scores, right? So that's how you're going to just basically rank your concepts. So we have those discussions internally right now that because we provided those scores to you, but we are still kind of thinking that some of these scores need to change and be looked at differently so we can discuss those specifics at the meeting and can provide the spreadsheet and then we can discuss how we feel things might change. So we'll do that in the next few weeks. Yeah, that's good. My suggestion was going to be considering everybody's getting cabin fever, we should do this and we're going to do it in the evening before the weather breaks. Okay. Question, if I could? Yes, of course. A couple of things. In the option for exit 13, where we lose our status as the shortest interstate in the nation, if you're going to turn that into a boulevard is the plan to make it a limited access piece or is there a greater plan to maybe allow access because you might have some other improvements that can be made and not dump all the traffic into route seven. I don't, I live there, but I don't really pay much attention to what the ground looks like around there because it's an interstate. And I never thought about access, but if you're going to turn it into a boulevard, is there a potentially, is there a greater look at that and what it does or is it just to change it into a boulevard? You know, so John, the answer is I don't know right now. We haven't really looked at it. I really think that it's probably going to stay limited access to some degree because also, you know, don't forget that basically, you know, now we're building the Champlain Parkway that basically is going to be taking the traffic, you know, like off route seven when it's built. So, and also that land and that area there, it's federal land. So we haven't, you know, gave it a lot of thought, but we will by the end of this study. Okay, my second question is in the designs there where on exit 14, we lose 10 odd percent of capacity, but it can be made up by, you know, all the other improvements around. Is that dependent on 12B existing? Is that where a lot of the traffic goes to make that 10% reduction? So one really can't happen without the other? So that's a good question. The 10, when they model the 14, the DDI, and, you know, are you looking for it, Charlie, the VMT, they didn't look at it with any of the other interchanges. That is going to happen. And I'm going to go through the bundles in a second, John, and you're going to see how it's kind of an additive created those bundles. But so that 10% is basically if right now you just, so right now it's a cloverleaf interchange, which is the maximum capacity interchange. If you change that to anything else, it's going to be less capacity. So that 10% of the traffic is still there. It's just using other routes to go where they need to go. So we see an increase in traffic on Lime Kiln Road. We're increasing traffic on Colchester Avenue and through Winooski up Main Street to go to exit 16. So the model basically what it does, it distributes the traffic somewhere else. And if you want a little bit more modeling information, I think that Jason can actually talk a lot more about this. But basically when we run it, we run these improvements individually because we want to know like, if we do this improvement, what's going to happen? And then we're going to start adding things in it because we are looking into the just interchanges now. Yeah, no, I want to be careful with this because I can see down the line changes to the designs, which becomes a local construction project, but not necessarily something that could be overly controversial because it's just a change in what we have already to make it more efficient other than the money being spent. And what happens if 12B, which probably would be the most controversial in some circles because it doesn't exist now, that we know what happens to the others should 12B not happen and what happens if 12B does happen so that we can make that explanation to people very clearly and easily. If we don't understand how they all connect, I think we're setting ourselves up for problems. So Charlie, you want to move to the bundles, maybe? Well, I just want to pause one moment. I think look at some of the metrics that we have here right now. There is one metric here on interchange trips which really talks about the impact to exit 14. And so you can see two different dynamics, right? The exit 14 interchanges, as Laney pointed out, reduced capacity a little bit so it reduces traffic through exit 14. However, the 12B and 13 also attract traffic away from 14 and reduce a similar amount. In the next stage, yeah, and that's why Laney's trying to take me to the bundles, we'll look at how those interact. Like he did 13. I just wanted to make sure we were aware of that in the background. And my last question is when it comes to scoring, I've been involved in a number of these exercises in my career. Just to use the example of what happened with us, with the train down in Burlington, we need to be careful when we get to the end line. The score alone, if the scores are very close, do not necessarily dictate what the prime directive is. Because if their scores are close, which means they're negligible, whichever one is lower or higher, depending on how you matrices these things is not necessarily the one that should be chosen. There are a lot of other factors that go into that. If everything is within a reasonable proximity of each other when it comes to the scores. So let's take the lesson learned and understand that when we get to the end zone here. Yep, definitely. That's why we're pausing before we get to the end zone, John. Let's take a moment to look at the metrics and the scoring where we try to get to the final line. That's all I just wanted to say that out loud because I think it's worthwhile to have out. Thank you. So now we're- I'm sorry, Jim Donovan had a question. Oh, hey, Jim. Excuse me, I'm actually back to the metrics. Just you had asked about it, whether we had any thoughts on that quickly. The only one I didn't see, and I don't think it plays very important to some, but I think you have to make sure that you say you do it as cultural impacts. And when you're talking about your environmental and wetlands and so on and so forth, but we don't talk at all about cultural impacts. Like- When you say cultural impacts, you're talking about historic and archaeology. Historic, archaeology, things like that. Just make sure we've got it on the list even if it says there no in all of them because I want to make sure that we consider that stuff. Okay. I think that this is part of it. I think that's a really good question before we get into the values of the metrics. Are there any metrics that we missed? Right. Yes, that's definitely one of the questions. When I was looking at the visuals, I was thinking, I have no idea if this is a value, but the more condensed installations seem to be appealing to me because they leave more land outside of the confines of the interchanges. But I don't know if there's a value to that or if that's actually a reasonable thing or not, that's just the first impression. Okay. Thank you for all that. Anything else on the metrics before we talk about the next phase? Could you go back to them really quickly? Is that easy? There's one for our thinking, but I think you covered it, but I'm not positive. Which one? Which one, Jim? Water quality. Are you not able to see that on the screen right now? It's under environmental stewardship. So we have wetland impacts. There isn't a specific water quality record, Jim. Okay, I'm thinking stormwater impacts and how much more stormwater we're generating. Yeah. So additional. So impervious surface. Impervious surface. Right. Yeah. No, that's a good point. Thank you. You want to move to the bundles. So this is kind of our initial thought here. This is very draft. We are very open to basically changes, but the way we think of proceeding after we finish with the interchange evaluation and we have some clarity of what we are moving forward into the corridor analysis is that we're going to have a bundle one, which is kind of our base bundle, our base scenario that we're going to figure out if there are any non-auto kind of improvements that we can do above and beyond the MTP. I mean, when we went through the MTP improvements at the beginning of this presentation and now we're going to be looking at to see is there more things that we can do for transit, bike and pet and, you know, TDM, ITS and a couple of kind of minor improvements. One improvement that we think it's necessary if we don't do anything else at exit 14 is the second lane on the northbound on ramp. So that's something that we're proposing to be in bundle one and then probably reducing the ramp ready-eye where, you know, so we can actually improve safety for bike and pets. So that's our bundle one. And then this is kind of the additive, you know, nature of these bundles that we talked about. So bundle number two is like we are adding either 12B or one of the, you know, the 13 concepts, either the hybrid or the single point diamond interchange. And that is one major decision point that we need from, you know, the community, whoever that community is. So that is one decision thing. So that's going to be in bundle two. In bundle three, once we do that, some of the traffic from exit 14 will basically be decreased because of the new interchange. But at some point, the bridge over the interstate on route two, they will need reconstruction. And that's probably, it's far away, probably 20, 25 years down the road, but it's going to happen and we need to be ready to say once that happens, what is the concept that we want to move forward with? And that's another decision point that we need to make. And that is whether it's DDI or the enhanced flow relief. And that's another decision we need to make. So this is our initial thinking and we are very happy to hear your thoughts, your feedback. We are starting the discussion on the bundles. We are still kind of finishing up task fours, but we started thinking about the corridor analysis, which is in many ways much more exciting. So when you look at the entire system, it's much more exciting. So. Alain, you mentioned that community, obviously all three of these interchanges are in South Burlington. Thank you, Chris. And we are spending. Looking forward to it. We were at South Burlington City Council last night. Actually, this is virtually the same presentation they saw, I think it is the same presentation they saw last night. And we expect a bunch more meetings, not just with their city council, but different city committees and folks interested in South Burlington. Because obviously these changes, they have the most impact, they have the impact on the interstate, which a lot of people use, but they also have an impact locally on what happens in South Burlington. So we're trying to make sure we take our time to allow that conversation to happen. Yep, Jeff. Alain, I mean, at least I hope you're having fun doing this because you're spending so much time. Oh, I do. I am. What is the home run versus, well, okay, at least we're gonna improve things, versus now that would be a disaster type of outcome on this. On the study, you mean? Yeah. Well, I think it's gonna be, I think that this is a crucial decision point that we have to make now with the interchanges. If we don't come to an agreement, which interchange improvements are gonna move forward into the quarter bundles, that will be very problematic for the study and the outcome. Did I? The bad thing is the status quo. Okay. Yes. The home run is what versus, well, okay, we were successful, but we might have missed an opportunity. And when you say we were successful, we're successful in kind of like presenting a solution to the community or we're successful in, 25 or 30 years from now, what is it gonna look like in Chris's neck of the woods? Yeah. And how do we define success versus an acceptable outcome versus we don't wanna do this? Yeah. So I would take you back to the six goals and the metrics that are trying to define success for each of those goals. So really in a simplistic way, the higher something scores or an alternative scores, presumably the better we're doing at meeting all of those goals. But I do think to John's earlier point about, yeah, there may be some things that are not in here or Bard made this point too. And Jim too, right? There's a couple metrics that aren't in here yet. We wanna spend a little bit of time on the scoring to make sure the scoring does the best job we can at getting us to a place where we can all feel confident in saying, hey, this alternative really is doing the best job at meeting the variety of goals we have. So that's a kind of a process.  My strong belief is if we don't articulate the vision and not roll back to while we hit 75 on criterion one, we hit 62 on criterion two, nobody is gonna know what the heck we're talking about. We have to have a vision for how we are going to expect this one of the most significant pieces of over the ground infrastructure that we have and blend that with where we think the transportation modes are going. Yeah. Yes, yes, for sure. So that there's something in it for the transit folks? Yes. There's something in it for the bike and ped folks? Yes.  So you're absolutely right, Jeff. And I think that our vision actually articulates what we want from 89, right? We want a safety, increase safety for all modes, not just vehicles. We have a lot of crashes, but bike and pet through exit 14 is problematic. We also talk about efficiency. We also talk and we have those goals that Charlie talked about very specifically for transit, for bike and pet. So we need to, as you said, we need to articulate it a little bit more and bring it to the forefront when we are making these decisions. Because we spend a lot of time on developing this vision and goals statement. Big picture that can communicate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between this motor and that mode. We will lose the argument if we don't do that. That was, as a member of the CERC community, that was a big part of the reason why we lost the argument. We couldn't articulate to people why we thought this was gonna be a good thing for the community, for all of our communities. And all we did was have a word picture about how bad it was gonna be if we didn't. I resonate, that resonates with me, Jeff, when you said like, what does success look like? I think that's what we start with. What does the future success look like? Which is more subjective before, sort of the forest before you get into the trees. What does the forest look like? And what's a healthy forest look like? I realize it's a challenge to go from all the metrics and the minutia to the big picture, but I think that is part of the challenge. Now we did start off with a big picture. That was a vision and goals state page. We skipped over pretty quickly, but it's there, we'll work on that, Jim. Yep, thank you. Hope you're muted. The hardest part about this, though, is tying back into those triggers because you have that whole other sector that says we shouldn't be doing this at all because we don't know what's gonna happen, et cetera, et cetera. So you've really gotta make sure you balance and make sure those triggers are in there in your big vision too. See, you can't do those triggers. No, we will. I mean, we promise that we will and we will do that because it's the right thing to do because there's definitely uncertainties. We have no idea how travel is gonna bounce back or not. So we'll have that. I did have two questions on the bundles if you wanted them now or later. Now is fine. Okay, the first one is I wasn't sure I was understanding the first red, either exit 12B, exit 13 hybrid, or exit 13 single point. Why I'm reading that is you do one of those. And then you get to 14. So in other words, you're never doing all three of those intersections. Is that what you're intending? Yes, that's right. So you're only doing two out of the three. Okay, and it's clear that it is clear. Yeah. We didn't say that, but yes, we're trying to get from five down to two. The two, okay. The second one is just a question of, you know, from my background, I'm 100% for reducing the radius and therefore used us too. My only question is, can that be done without changing the capacity if you don't change the roadway because it will slow traffic down and that due to traffic. And it will change the capacity, Jim. Okay. We cannot do anything about that, you know. It's basically the speeds will be reduced. Sorry, Charlie, go ahead. Yeah, we're reducing capacity, which is why Jim, you see 12 or 13 in the bundle before we add on reducing capacity at 14. Okay. And so that's one of the reasons why it's being reduced is that narrow radius. Cause I thought you might be able to widen at some point when you redo the bridge to make up for that. You mean for when, you know, if we choose the... Exit 14. Yeah, right. Yeah. Yeah. When we talk about reducing the capacity at 14, we're not talking about route two capacity or necessarily the mainline. We're talking about all of the movements in that interchange. And so that's a kind of a total number of trips going through that interchange on every movement. So it's not as simple nor would we, I think want to widen it in a way that probably puts more pressure on the ramps, right? Right. If the ramps can't handle the traffic on the mainline, we're not accomplishing anything. So, and sorry, so Jim, did that help? Yeah, I just, again, yes, it does. I'm definitely for the reducing the radius. Yeah, and go ahead, Andy.  I just have another question. No, no, no, that's all right. I was just going to reiterate something, but no need. Go ahead, please. So I think it's at exit 14 going. When you're trying to go, I forget which direction it would be, but Burlington to South Burlington, you go past the interchanges. One of the big problems there is not so much the interchanges, but it's the, I call it the double set of lights that cause huge backups along, trying to get onto the interchange. And I suppose getting off it as well. It creates a real mess. Would doing this enhancement at 14 improve that at all? Because that would be a very big issue. It would improve that either the enhanced clover lift or the DDI will improve that because they're moving the signalized intersection or for the enhanced clover lift, the ramps away from Dorset. So that kind of, and the ramps now are just going to be slower. It's going to be, especially the DDI improves that situation tremendously. Because right now, I think the real bottleneck is the two lights that are there that don't let traffic pass by. You have one light that's red and the other is green and then it flips where one is green and the other is red. And they only allow, often when there's a lot of traffic only allow a few cars to pass by. There's a shorter term traffic signal improvement happening there to any that should help that situation in the near term. And again, this is a long term look that we're looking at here that will more fully address that. Garrett, I saw you had a comment question. Yeah, actually, back to the reduced radii. One of the big safety issues I see on interstates all over is cars, number one, cars not having enough space to get up to speed, to merge properly into traffic so that you have, well, in this case, 35 miles an hour and 55 except we all know people are actually going 65. So you've got a big difference there that causes safety issues and stuff there. The other one is by reducing the radii, you are decreasing the difference the space between people getting on the highway and the ones that have to duck over and get off, which is already fraught with peril at route two. By making that even smaller, it strikes me as decreasing safety, increasing accidents, however you want to put it there. And I'm just very concerned about that. So, Garrett, the enhanced cloverleaf, and maybe if we can go back to that, so we are decreasing the radii at route two, right? So that's where the bike and pet crossings are. But I totally agree with you that the weaving and the speed differential of people kind of trying to accelerate to get on the interstate and decelerate to get into a ramp is very, it creates crashes. That's why we have the new collector distributor lane on the interstate. Is that what you were talking about? Because that's where the weaving happens when you get to the interstate. So, the new lane will help. The radii, sorry. I was saying the new lane will probably help, but you still have that crossover happening of, that's the drawback to any cloverleaf is you have crossing traffic. They look pretty from space, I guess. But functionally, a cloverleaf is a really horrible design. Yeah, the idea here is to separate that weave so that traffic doesn't, you can't weave into the main line of traffic. With this design on the interstate. I'm talking the weave of the intersection of people getting on versus people getting off. So, the people on the interstate going over to the right and the people getting on the interstate going to the left and having to do this routine. And we're talking about the same thing. We are talking about the same thing, yeah. Those collector lanes though, I think, Garrett, Mrs. Jeff, look like they're being at least doubled if not tripled from what they are right now as a typical practitioner of this cloverleaf. You've got like about five cartel lengths to get over before you end up running the risk of overshooting. And I'm assuming this is drawn to scale. It looks like we're at least doubling them. Aren't we, Eleni? We are adding, you know, so we are adding a lane. So just imagine the I-89 under the bridge on Route 2, right? So we are adding a lane on the northbound direction and we are adding a lane on the southbound direction. So when you are getting, and I can't really, I'm pointing to my screen, but you guys don't see it. Yeah, I wish I could blow this up a little bit more, but yeah, you've got two lanes where you only have one now for that merge. Right. Right. And that's not associated at all with the reduced radius. They're two- No, it's not. The reduced, the reduced radii, it's where the ramps meet Route 2, right? Because right now we have this very wide radii that basically allows for people to actually pick up speed and just get on Route 2. And that is where we have crashes with the bikes and the pedestrians. So if we tighten the radii, then you create, you know, the speeds are not that high. Yeah, I don't know who else to explain. I'm coming over to Garrett. If you don't like them, those lanes, as well as give you another lane, it's gonna be tough. Yeah, I think the merge lane does get bigger longer on 89 and you have more space for the merge on 89. And thus the sharper turn and the cloverleaf, just when you get off of 89, looks like the turn is sharper there too. It is. It is. So when you get some lengthening, but Garrett's right, even if you have two lanes, you'll just have more elaborate crashes. On Route 2 is where we're talking about reducing the radii, so that people have to slow down when they're getting on and off Route 2, right? So to have that intersection at the traffic lights, that's where we want people to slow down. Oh, the cloverleafs themselves look like they're sharper turns. They are. I mean, I think it is slightly more tight, Jeff, you're right. I mean, it's not like they are right now that they, you know, you can actually see the old ones if you can just... I can accelerate the cloverleafs now when I'm turning. Yeah, it's not that different. It's very slight. The difference is slight over, I mean, you know, because I'm trying to see where the actual ramps are now. Yeah, I don't think there's much difference. I think they're very much in the same location. So we'll take a look at that further. We will definitely take a look at it. Yeah, we don't need to dwell on it, but I just wanted to bring that merging, you know, the classic cloverleaf issue.  That was a joke for those who... That was a rhetorical comment. Oh, we got it. Jim? I just wanted to go back and verify one thing again with the bundles. You don't necessarily have to go back to them, but I just wanted to verify that your thinking is that you only need the new interchange or the work on 13B, and either one of those will help that overall situation, but you don't need to do both of them. That's right. That's correct. Yes. And right, this is a decades-long conversation in South Burlington, right? They've had both exchanges in their plan, and we're trying to get to what the best option might be.  I don't think it's the other one will never happen. It's more about trying to prioritize what's the best investment to make as we step along. So if we can turn... So I think here are the final questions, or Eleni, did you want to jump in? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And this is basically a summary of what we've been talking about. We would like feedback on the additional, if we... And we received some additional metrics today, which is great, and also the scoring, we will send you some more information on how we got to the scoring in the next few weeks, and we will set up a meeting to talk about it and dive into it for whoever wants to participate in that meeting. So stay tuned on that. And these are all the next steps, a lot of meetings in February and March. I'm not gonna go through them, but I am looking towards the future. So I'm hoping for that by at least May, we're gonna be able to just have our decisions on the interchanges and move forward with the bundles, the corridor bundles. And then we're definitely gonna be coming to you on a regular basis to give you updates of how that goes. And hopefully we'll be able to finish this project by winter of 2022, which is gonna position us really well as we, and I know I can, as we start our MTP again in next spring. So I didn't wanna think about starting the MTP process again, but this is what we have to do next spring. So, and that would be great if we can finish this study so we can just move forward with bringing those improvements into our MTP. And thank you so much. You're always vaccinated by July. I hope so, Jeff, really, I do. Or April. Thanks, Eleni. Garrett, you've got your hand raised there. One more quick thing. I do, and I don't wanna drag this on, but I just, I know the answer is long, but maybe somebody can give a short answer. Has there, I haven't seen the new draft rail plan, and I know rail is a four letter word in Vermont, but well, actually most of the English speaking world now that I think about it. But I was wondering if there has been any consideration of the intersection between rail improvements and how they might affect what needs to be done highway wise. Yeah, I think that is something that, I think we're open and hoping to get into the bundles, is that something that should be considered? And I don't know that it's as much of a four letter word as much as, is there something that can make, can work? And so, yeah, I think that's fair game for the conversation for the bundles. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Eleni and Charlie. So we'll move on to all hazards mitigation plan update committee appointment. Charlie, I guess we're going to appoint Sharon or try to. So after your last meeting, she volunteered. So congratulations, yeah. Oh, how could I not? It's so exciting. Perfect. So you need a motion then to appoint Sharon to this position. It looks like Garrett's waving in excitement to make the motion, Jim seconds that. Is there any further discussion? Anything you want to say, Sharon? No, I'm happy to volunteer. I've had some experience working at the local, regional and state level and this stuff. I am kind of interested in seeing how the process is going to work and how I can best represent the commission in it, but I guess we'll all find out. OK, any other comments? Well, vote for you, Sharon, as long as you don't mad at me if it doesn't work out, OK? So all those in favor of appointing Sharon to this position, raise your hand or say aye. Aye, aye, aye, aye. Anyone opposed and Sharon, you can't vote. You can't say no. Any abstentions? OK, congratulations, Sharon. Oh, thank you very much. OK, next we have racial equity update. So this is just a real quick update to let you know that we did have some more conversation with Creative Discourse. Discussed at the executive committee. If you look at those minutes, you can see a little bit more conversation there. And we're kind of just in the final step of negotiating a contract with them. And I wouldn't expect don't expect anything real drastic real quick. The first phase is a little bit more internal work looking at our documents and policies and procedures. And so I think it'll be a little slow ramp up to heavier work in the fall. So and hopefully we can actually get together in person for some of that. So that's the quick update there. Any questions? OK, we move on to executive director report, Charlie. So the first item there, just as Garrett just mentioned, the draft state rail plan is out there for public review. We are working on some comments that will be looked at by the TAC at their next meeting the first week of March. So I think we'll have time for this to be on your agenda in March if we want to provide any formal comments. So I'm not sure of exactly the nature of the comments yet, but just heads up and please, if you're interested, you obviously take a look yourself and they're open to comments from anyone. So and Jim, you raise your hand. Yes, I would I will take a review of it and I might make a suggestion at some point of what we might I would like the commission to potentially say on behalf of the communities and do you know when it closes that the comment period closes? I think it's late March. It is. It's March. OK. Jim, we are working on staff comments in the next week in preparation for the TAC meeting, which is March 3rd. So we'll be sending our packet a week from today or so. If you're able to provide us some comments that we can get them in at the front end. OK, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Where is the draft plan available? Do you have a link or anything? Alain, are you able to share that in the chat, maybe? Or try to do that, yes. Yeah, we're great. Thank you. Right here. And I think if you just Google Vermont State Railplan, you probably get to the page pretty quickly. Legislative update the Legislature's in full swing remotely and making it work. There are a few bills of kind of RPC interest. I'll mention a couple of them. Project based TIF is a bill that is getting some good hearing now. Some of our towns are particularly interested in that. Westford has been the subject of a lot of that conversation as they're trying to get community wastewater to their village. The transportation bill has some more interesting things in it. As it did, it started last year a little bit more this year. I think trying to connect the nexus of transportation and our climate and energy goals. So there's some more interesting things happen there. I've also been asked to testify this week on the 89 study in Senate transportation, so just FYI on that. The House Energy and Technology Committee is working on a broadband bill. They may be pretty close to voting that out, I think. RPCs around the state are fairly involved with helping some of those communication union districts stand up. We do not have one of those in Chittenden County, but we are trying to see what we can do to help our existing broadband providers fill in some gaps in Chittenden County. Housing is perennial. Senator Sorokin is working on that in particular. There's also a rental housing registry bill that would take some responsibility off town health officers and have the, I think it's the state fire marshal's office kind of expand their staff to take on more inspections of rental housing with a 30, I think it's a proposed $35 registration fee for every rental unit if you have one. That might be something you might be interested in. And then the final thing I'll mention is that we are talking with the House Commerce Committee at this point and asking them to support an increase in the base RPC funding, which hasn't been increased in quite a number of years. And we are seem to be getting asked to participate in a lot of different issues. So hoping while the property transfer tax revenue is up so significantly, they might consider that. And that's also the things on my mind. I don't know if anybody has anything else that you think I should be paying attention to, Jim. Not that you should be paying attention to, but I think you should be following the the rental registry, looking at that and checking on what the impacts that will have on affordable rentals. Right now, I've been doing a little bit of checking into this. And there are so many regulations for rentals, then fees and inspections that are mandated by the state that it makes it very difficult to create affordable housing in a rental situation. And so this would be just one more thing on top of that. So there's some good points to it, but there's also a lot of impacts that I think we need to make sure are considered at the same time. Yeah, thanks. And then a final note on my report is just we're working on a because annual report. You know, normally we have, you know, almost the 12 month lag on the data we're reporting when we put that out. We are trying to shrink that up and really make it much more timely so that it's more of a 2020 report. So hopefully that's coming. I would say hopefully by your next meeting, you'll have gotten kind of looking at Regina to see if she agrees with that. OK. It's very generous. Hopefully it's much sooner than that. Yeah, yeah, definitely by your next meeting. Yeah. And that's all I have, Mr. Charlottes, there's any questions for me. Any questions for Charlie? OK, hearing none, we'll move the next item, which is committee liaison activities and reports. The reports are available to you online or wherever you can pick them up. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, move on to future agenda topics. Is that the bottom of the agenda? Charlie, you want to go through this or? Like Jared has a suggestion. Oh, I do. Talking about I-89 and therefore vehicles. With General Motors stopping production of internal combustion engine cars by 2030, that's nine years away. We need some really serious planning on the infrastructure needed for electric vehicles. Sure, we got some plugs here and there, but you look at the charts for available charging places, superchargers and the like, Vermont's kind of hurting. Obviously, Chittenden County has more traffic than most of the rest of the state. So I would like to suggest that we look at what kind of planning we need to do for electric vehicles, both charging the fact that most of them are smaller. You know, to get more range, you reduce the size of the vehicle. The vehicle size is finally maybe going to be shrinking. We need to look at that. The other piece that comes into it, and it may not be our purview so much, but looking at all the funding on the I-89 study, well, that all comes from fuel taxes, all the federal money. If we're 90 percent electric, then that's a huge reduction in what we have available for spending. How do we alternately fund that? What can we do about that? Because I don't know if the feds are looking at it or if the state is, Amy may be able to speak better to that than I could, but we need to think about it. And then one other piece that goes, well, actually one other piece on this, and that is e-bikes, electric bikes. Lots of people who might not ride a bicycle, e-bike prices are coming down and somebody who is say older and possibly not fit enough to ride 10 miles on a bicycle could ride 10 miles on an e-bike. How do we deal with that?  Are they in bike lanes? Are they in the roadway, et cetera, et cetera? Definitions on e-bikes.  This is only supposed to be five minutes, Gary. The impact of changes and more people working from home. I know that the pandemic has brought about a huge increase in working from home. I personally believe that in my experiences, even companies who were really against it have started going, hey, you know, this works pretty well. And I think that's going to have dramatic impacts not just on highways, but also on the internet infrastructure.  Thanks, Garrett. Just to correct the record, in case anybody reads the minutes and gets in there and they get excited about GM going in nine years, their target date is actually 2035. Oh, sorry. I appreciate Garrett's. And actually, I agree with him and we need to prepare for that. But they're in planning and all there's a big difference between 14 years instead of nine. Thank you. That's all I did have that wrong. OK, I meant to what Garrett has to say because the I see talked about the the EVs and that's what they're asking money for in the UPWP. But they also talked about fast chargers and how that's changing. The the the the technology is changing so fast that that, you know, how much money do you put into that? So maybe it'd be worthwhile to have the the EIC come and talk to the group then about that. OK, Sharon, I just wanted to mention there's also legislation introduced in the Senate to regulate e-bikes. I'm not sure where it's going or, you know, what the status is. But there is a bill for that. And it would basically require that they be regulated like bicycles and not motorcycles, but it would give municipalities the ability to regulate their use on like multi use rec paths and things. So that might be something worth taking a look at. OK. Anything else on future agenda items? So so in March, we have to warn a public hearing for the 20 FY 22 UPWP and budget for the May meeting. Board Development Committee has to develop a slate of officers. Now that committee is that Catherine, are you chair of that? I think Andy's chair. Andy is. Andy is. OK. And you have a full complement of committee members, Andy. Charlie, do we? I believe so. I'll refresh the list. And if we need to get to the keeps on giving, Andy. Yes, Andy, Catherine and Jeff is. I think that's it. I think we've had that for a little while. Yeah, exactly. Doing a bang up job. Let me see. What else we have? Initial review of potential trends. Yeah, so there's a new thing. This is I think a heads up. We've mentioned a couple of times that VTrans is updating their prioritization and project selection process. This is the first time we're going to get a. I think what VTrans staff is calling a hundred and fifty percent list of filling the capital program in the future years, if they have whatever X dollars, they're giving us X plus 50 percent of projects in that particular program to rank. So that's a very different model. And also allows some input from the RPC in terms of new projects coming into the capital program, you know, in the out years, not in the first year. But so that's really a heads up. I think we'll give you an introduction then. And then that'll be a May agenda item for action. So that'll go through a couple months of TAC review and then come back to you in May. Just don't sneak it on the consent engine. If it's really simple. OK, and then you get a list of upcoming meetings down there. So next, we have members items, other businesses. Are any other business or members items? I move we adjourn. OK. And Jim seconds that before we vote. Thank you, everyone, for coming tonight. So all in favor of the motion to adjourn. I I anyone opposed. I guess not. So we're adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Good night, all tonight. Thank you.


Glad you guys tried to press the machine for this morning. Love you, mate. Love you, mate.