attendees hanging out, but okay. We are a quorum, so we can, as engaging as talking about air traffic control around New York City is. We're going to start. So pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law chapter 30a section 18. This meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee is being conducted by remote participation and judging by how vaccines are being to roll out more and more and more, maybe it won't be remote for much longer, he said, hopefully. This meeting is being recorded to the web and could be shown on Amherst media and broadcast the town of Amherst, the YouTube channel. Anybody dialing in by phone can press star nine to raise their hand and be recognized. Both video can click the raise hand button, although we're trying to watch for real hands to see how things are going. Alrighty. Thank you all very much. Oh, hi, Kim. So, sorry about interrupting your dinner. I don't have any announcements. I don't know if anybody has something they might want to share as well. And I see no public. Wow. So right there. And I just, hi, Tracy. Hi. Um, well, I had just heard about that new grant, the the Mass DOT grant that Amherst just received for the, for like the bangs area. If anybody wants to just mention that, because that seems pretty awesome. Oh, yes, please. Great. You want me to talk about it? Yes, thank you. So the planning department applied for it and it's a Mass DOT shared streets grant shared winter streets, but they allowed us to go off the street to apply for money to build a ramp that was initially designed by Rob Mora to go from the upper level of the parking garage at Boltwood Walk down to the entry to the Musanti Health Center. So it goes down that hill where that steep set of stairs is and it would allow people, you know, who can't really navigate the stairs or who use a wheelchair or walker to go down there. And it's, I think it's going to be really great. So there's that and that involves a little plaza sort of in the middle of the ramp where there's going to be some seating and I think it's got some trees and shrubs. And the grant also will pay for some site furniture in that plaza that's already part of the Boltwood garage, which is that upper level where you never see anybody sitting. But I think in the fall, Guilford put some picnic tables out there and some other kinds of tables and people did sit there. They took out food from, you know, Bueno and places and they were able to eat outside there. So we want to do the same kind of thing, but a little bit nicer. So we're going to get some special chairs and some of them are going to be like bar stool chairs and tables, which is going to be nice because some people want to stand up while they're eating and others can sit down. And there's going to be screening to screen out the wind and yeah. Oh, and we're also going to redo the crosswalk from that goes adjacent to the Douglas funeral home. When it gets to the point where it crosses over that driveway that goes into the bank center parking lot, it's hard for cars to see people coming down that sidewalk. So there's going to be a stop signs going to be moved and there's going to be a more visible crosswalk put there. And I think it's going to have, you know, a tactile things for people who are blind so that they can feel that they're getting out into the crosswalk. I think that's it. Maybe there's a light that's part of the ramp. I think there might be a light at the turn in the ramp too. But anyway, it's a really nice project to provide more accessibility and more outdoor dining opportunities in that bank center area. An area light, you mean sort of area lighting? I think that might be an acorn light, but it depends. Ben is going to be talking to Guilford about whether Guilford has any lights lying around the DPW there or whether we have to buy a new one. So anyway. Do acorn lights come in a version that's compliant with Dark Skies? I think so. There's a little reflector on the top. Yeah, I think they come shielded, but that's to be worked out. We had help from Stantec in putting this application together and that help was paid for by the Solomon Foundation, I believe. Solomon Foundation funds. No, it was a Solomon. It was some other foundation. But anyway, some foundation funds Stantec to help cities and towns to apply for these mass DOT grants. Was it a Stanton Foundation? No, it wasn't Stanton because that's dog parks. No. So Chris, at a previous meeting, you had mentioned that you were applying for a grant. I guess it was CDBG money, maybe like on Kellogg, right? To connect from Ann Whalen to North Pleasant. But that's something different. That's not something different. And we didn't get that grant. That was an MOD grant, mass office of disabilities. We didn't get that this year, but we got it last year. So we still have I think $44,000 to for Guilford's people or for Guilford to hire some people to put in some crosswalks or better crosswalks in the Kellogg Ab North Pleasant Street area. Thanks. Great. Cool. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you, Chris. Yeah, lots of lots happening indeed. So I've put this parking thing that's been rumbling along for a while. It seems to me like we can get a long way and maybe even get finished with a recommendation that we might offer to the TSO as a supplement to the letter that was included in our packet this week and the information that Guilford has put together. I don't know. Guilford, I didn't talk with you about how we might present this, but I'm wondering if you might give us a quick primer on the history and the provenance of this, of your letter and the two charts that came with it since we're going to be maybe modifying them. So the current iteration of this process came about with the residents of Lincoln Avenue complaining about parking again and then the council was asked to do something about it and there were some offers thrown out there, but then people were like, well, we need to kind of have a way to deal with parking throughout the town. So there was a quick discussion of some things and what you have in your packet is what came out of that and was presented to the town manager, which was going to go to, I believe he was going to send it to the TSO, which is where the two counselors who are the one counselor who had the issue was kind of talking about this issue. So that's basically what this is. And it's really kind of a simple concept, you know, if the road's not wide enough, you don't put parking in. But it also addresses the issues of what do you do for main streets? Like we have people parking on South Pleasant Street by the DPW, but they're parking in the shoulder, that's for buses and bicycles, but they're parking their vehicles in it. So it also addresses those roads as well as being no parking or restricting parking because we want to use it for other things, not for parking. That's kind of where this came from. So it takes three things into account what type of road it is, what your payment width is, and the traffic flow through that neighborhood or on the street. There was also, I don't know that it was broken out as a separate category, but you had a fourth thing, which is no parking on the round part of a cul-de-sac. So road form is also... Well, it's actually, yes, it's road form. It's also with, when you start going in a circle, the fire trucks can't make the turn in the cul-de-sac, which is a problem, and we can't make the turn in the cul-de-sac during a snowstorm if they're parked there. So I had a, as I was looking at this, I was thinking, is this what's been applied to Lincoln Avenue now, which I notice is mostly no parking over the whole width, the whole length? No, what's been applied to Lincoln Avenue up to now has been a hodgepodge of which area is complaining about what's, which area complains about the parking, and as people move over the time I've been here, that area has moved left and right, north, south, east, west. Right, so now basically it's no parking all the way down to past Fearing, right? It's no parking, the end, the very end, which is from Fearing to Campus, is no parking on both sides, and the middle section from Amity to Fearing, that section, is no parking on one side, and then there's a couple of areas and there was no parking, actually no, right now it's just no parking on one side. Yeah, so what I want to do is use this as an armature to offer, you know, the TAC's recommendations on, well, this, like I say, is a start. And so what do you think, Kim? So, so I, I like to your letter a lot and it seemed very clear on many instances, but, right, I think you, what was, what was Lincoln classified as? It was a weird, like, category in your ranking, wasn't it? It actually is sort of a minor yeah, I think it's a collector. Yeah, because it's really an interesting case because, because it's, you know, because, well, one thing is it has those speed humps in it, which I don't know how that changes anything on, because you said, well, you know, for certain features and roads, right, like cul-de-sacs, well, what about speed bumps or whatever those things are. And it also has a sidewalk on it, right, because you mentioned, I read it over and I was just, I read over everything that you wrote. And then I was thinking about, does this add a lot of clarity to the parking issue? It doesn't really for that particular issue. It adds a lot of clarity for guidelines for the rest of town for, you know, main roads and things like that. But I was like, but it still doesn't say anything in particular. And maybe that's what you wanted to do. I don't know. But I, yeah. Lincoln is, Lincoln is the probably, well, there's actually another road too. I think it's probably North and South, South Whitney or the other two roads. Those three roads just serve mainly as collectors. And I think the volume is what is going to drive where we put parking on those roads more. I didn't notice that you had had like an out with the volume. Like that's what your letter kind of like seemed to indicate. Like, well, yes, for all these things, but we also have to take into consideration the volume, which I think applies to, to Lincoln for sure, at least, at the very least, yeah. I mean, Lincoln is the road that goes in the campus. Yeah. North and South, North and South Whitney are the cut-throughs to get around downtown. Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Because yeah, I just, I just feel like the parking issue there is especially for cyclists. I mean, it seemed like, like what your letter was suggesting was like, well, if there's a sidewalk, that sidewalks are like, I don't know, this is the feeling I got from your letter. It's sidewalks are kind of like bike paths, but they're, do you agree or not agree? It's a place. Amber, just, just, can you let Myra in? Thank you. I kind of, it's kind of like that's an accommodation that can be used and can not, it doesn't have to be used. It's kind of what the sidewalk is for. Okay. Yeah. But it definitely gives a place for pedestrians. So pedestrians aren't walking in the road. Certainly that's the case, but then there's bikes. So, so I still, you know, even if there's parking, if there's parking on that street, and despite the fact that there's a sidewalk, it's, it's cyclists that really still are kind of, it's dangerous for cyclists still. So then you would apply the lane widths. So yeah, if you, if you want to have bike pedestrians and you want to give a lane for bicyclists either on one side or both sides, then you can, then you shrink down the pavement and then you're like saying, okay, now it's too narrow for parking. Yeah. Right. Well, so maybe that's what town council can decide. And maybe that's what we can offer up because, because I feel like that's one clear, you know, if there's, if there's large amounts of vehicular traffic, it also means in all likelihood, there's also lots of, you know, that sidewalk gets used a lot. And there are a lot of people cycling back and forth to work just like there are lots of cars going back and forth to work there. So, you know, maybe that's, that maybe that's a recommendation then that we can forward about this particular circumstance, you know, this particular issue. So I think I tried to outline what I think the issues are with, you know, the regulations that were very clearly, you clearly stated, Guilford, and kind of like, I think what we should be advocating for as for the tech is that just, you know, this is the exception because this road is highly traveled particularly. So maybe those are the kinds of things that we can just, you know, put as the tack. So that's, that's, that's, that's an interesting thought and sort of my, my parallel thought of that is that there are some streets on this list here that are arterial just because something happened after they were built that drove traffic there, that they really are that they really are residential that somehow now are becoming collectors. I'm sorry collectors. Can you give an example, Erin? Sorry. Well Lincoln Avenue, so Lincoln Avenue until the university built their parking lot and on that south side of campus there, that was the residential street. And then now that it's got to connect to the university, it becomes a collector for that traffic all going on down there. And that's, you know, I think we're going to see that happening. I don't know if something similar happened up in Heather's Stone, which is, you know, that was probably envisioned as being residential, but because it went in between two major commuter routes, it becomes a collector and actually it is a collector in any event, but it becomes almost arterial. So it's interesting that, you know, it is so what I'm wondering, Kilford and well, whether lane width is the right criterion for determining whether it's an arterial or a collector or something else and really whether it is how it's being used because Lincoln is, is Lincoln 10 feet wide? Is the travel lane 10 feet wide? They're about, they're around 11, that's what they are. So they make it. Okay. But if there's a bike lane is included, then it doesn't make it, you know. Right. And if, and if we hold to, we want to have a firm width for parking and you say you want 78 feet for parking, then you don't have enough room period in there. So then that's, that's where you can kind of say you don't want parking. Yeah. Because, because also as even, even as a, you know, I occasionally drive a car on that road because it leads to my home. And if there are cars parked, you know, it effectively, if there's cars parked on one side, it effectively becomes a one way road. And that would be fine if it was just serving a residential not not a collector for a large university. I mean, is there a reason why we can't make it one way? Yes. But you know that, I mean, that's, that's the other thought process you can, we should think about is, okay, it doesn't, it hits these criteria, but if we want parking and we want to have traffic on, it's going to be this type of road. Yes. Maybe we should think about making it one way. So that does, this does kind of trigger those types of thoughts to come through, come through. Because there are parallel roadways that could go one way the other way, right? Yes. So we could have one way versus the other if they want parking or if they don't want parking. But then, but sometimes when you have one way streets like that, it speeds up the traffic.  So and that that becomes that sort of a level of for dealing with the problem that we really haven't got to. And that's to consider a number of roads together as part of the network. So if you make it one way someplace else, you have to make something the other way, just to maintain the circulation. And now you've got, you're thinking about two roads and before, and then plus the, on the ends, you know, so it's a, which is something I think that we do. But I don't know, now that we're brought it up, I don't know how to put that into this discussion. Well, I think that the other, you know, as, and now I'm speaking as someone who lives in these neighborhoods, right? You know, no one, I am certain that that would also not please the, the neighborhood to make those streets one way because, because in the end, you know, parking, there's no reason. I mean, there's really not not a lot of reason why people are parking there other than using it as a secondary, as avoiding using the UMass parking as parking. That's really that, that becomes, that's the real issue, you know, in the end. So I mean, there's a lot of people that say that they, you know, that's the case, but then is a lot of that, is it just, I should say, are there cases where it is local residents just parking on the street because their driveway is too full? Yeah, sometimes when people have parties, but that's in the evening, you know, it's after commuter. Yeah, but I mean, it doesn't really matter what time of day it is. It's like, is this happening? Yes, and it does happen. And, you know, what happens in lots of neighborhoods, right? Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I know. But I'm just, I mean, because the easiest thing would be to say absolutely, you know, parking and then people get annoyed when people get towed because it's late at night and they're parking on the street because they decided to have a few friends over. Yeah. And also other parking includes contractors, people that are working for, you know, homeowner. At a place, yeah.  Yeah, I mean, I think I feel a little bit like we could focus right on that. Yes, you are. That we could just thinking strictly about the parking right now and not about turning stuff into one way. Right. Because that's like a totally different can of, I mean, it's related, but I think that those can be, I mean, those can be like bigger discussions about what cases should roadways become one way roadway. And I do think, I mean, seriously, there can be unintended impacts of those changes, both for the people who live in a neighborhood, but then also in terms of the traveling speeds, that traveling speeds can definitely be much higher in run on one way situations. Well, your point is that it's a different level of analysis that begin to link together streets into the one way stuff. Bruce, I was just wondering if some of this would also hinge on the, the amount of space to allow a lane for a bike lane, because if we really feel that's important on some of these roads and that would then preclude parking, that might solve that issue right away. Well, so that's, that's an interesting question.  So we have, we sort of deal with traffic in road form and the size of the lane, but not, you know, does parking then precluded from being a complete street? That's a really good point, Erin. Well, and I think, I mean, I, I like the way Guilford outlines like the kind of main criteria in terms of to consider with parking. But if we look at the last page, right, his next steps, like there, I definitely feel like there's some other factors that we'd want to be consider that should be considered in terms of where parking is allowed. And in terms of this issue, I mean, it sounds like we are agreeing about the cul-de-sac, so maybe that could even be like moved up in turn into something that's like approved or like that we agree with. And also like the number four restrict parking on Ontario roadways to designated areas only. I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, I think the issue, you know, if I'm, if we're thinking about parking in specific neighbourhoods, like the issue of the sight lines is a really big one in terms of the safety for the people in the neighbourhood, the pedestrians, the cyclists, you know, the people pulling out of their driveways, it's big. And so I don't know if, I mean, we could have these general guidelines. I mean, I've done a lot of research on, you know, and looking at situations where people are most at risk for getting hit or for cars, like in terms of unseen hazards for cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, and so on. And the sight line issue is huge. I mean, I mean, the driving simulator lab I worked at, we had all kinds of scenarios based on Amherst examples like Lincoln and Amity and things like that. I mean, just where, if you can't see stuff, if you don't have full views, there's a lot more risk. So, I mean, maybe we don't know the details to incorporate that, but I think that that could definitely be some criteria too. Like in terms of you have road slopes, and then you also just have like the density and other related factors. Right. And that, that part of that, like at least the driveway piece, I saw that Guilford tried to incorporate that as exceptions in his and he's, he talked about it as next steps. But I know like from the people from Lincoln who and Sunset maybe to who've come to the TAC meetings, right? They're always really concerned about the safety of pulling out of their driveways. Yeah, that makes sense. And so. So at Guilford. For Bruce's suggestion, actually, I didn't even think about it. We could actually, and then when we start talking about pavement widths, we could look at each type of roadway and actually put another column in there for bike accommodations. So we have lane width, two-way traffic parking. We could add bike lane. Oh yeah. I think that's good. We can have like four to five for arterials and collectors and then four to shared roadway for locals. And that would be kind of how I'd lay it out. Yeah. I think that's good. Good idea. And is there some way of incorporating the consideration for the complete streets? In effect, we've just done that by adding another column. It's it's completed anyway. But, but not to be flip, Bruce. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be flipped, but complete streets includes a number of other things like bus stops and I was thinking and also enough space on each side or at least one side for a sidewalk. Yes. In the right of way within the public way. Right. Right. Yes. Well, then also the consideration in streets with outside walks, like do we treat the parking on street parking differently on those streets than on streets with sidewalks? Well, that's true too. That would be true. Heather Stone, which, you know, as our subcommittee walked there and the residents were asking for even a painted lane on the street to indicate to drivers that people might be walking on this lane. So that that would relate to something like that. Yeah. I wonder if we couldn't also maybe in our suggestion also include, you know, something about adherence to the complete streets, like, you know. Me too. Yeah. I mean, the question it's not now sort of interesting question is how and adding adding maybe yet another column saying completeness. So now see. Complete street compliance or something. Yeah. And that's that's that's kind of wonderfully nuanced because a complete street doesn't necessarily have a separate piece for all of the four things. You know, in a neighborhood, it's probably fine to have the bike. The bikes share the road. So, yeah, the cul-de-sac pedestrians on the cul-de-sac, you know, walking the street, that's fine too. I mean, right, walking by because yeah, cul-de-sac and that's that's, you know, I don't know if there's a neighborhood. Well, if any neighborhood road we could we could sort of allow that to be. Okay. Oh, good. Thank you. That's that's good. I'm hoping that's even helpful. So, Guilford, I was on a different subject going back to the sight lines. I was a little surprised that there weren't like absolute limits on distance from an intersection and how you define an intersection. It's interesting that you can park how close to an intersection you can park.  It doesn't matter if the intersection is a big road or a little road. And then it does matter if it's a driveway or not, maybe. Now, I mean, don't the current restrictions on Lincoln have some of those? Like when I looked at the maps, right, they have some. On Lincoln they do, but there's not a general no, of course, guideline that says you're not going to no parking within 25 feet. And now maybe enforcement requires painting a stripe there so that because not everybody cares a tape measure in their car and knows that they're going to park more or less close, but you're talking a lot of paint. I don't think it's realistic to paint all over town. I'm just thinking about the the town in New Jersey where we spend time. They've got every driveway has a yellow box around it and every intersection has a yellow line that indicates where you can and can't park and every bike path has a bike lane is bright green color except you're in an intersection, the color changes when you come to them. I mean, they've gotten out a lot of, they don't have a lot of work to do other than paint. And also, I mean, at least I'm surprised there's no there's no drive distance to park near a stop sign. I thought that was at least down the south that was the case. You couldn't park within so many feet of the stop sign. And that's why they paint everywhere or put a sign that wouldn't necessarily need to be paint. Well, there are parking signs on Lincoln, for example, where it intersects with Amity and with whatever the other one on the other side is. Yeah. I haven't gone to check other neighborhoods, but on Blue Hills and Dana, do they also, do they have those signs? Some do, some don't. But I mean, they're not necessarily related to the intersection that much. I mean, Northampton, this is kind of a local thing in Massachusetts, like Northampton has one. It says no parking within 30 feet of an intersection. The question is though, how do you measure that? We interpreted it one way and we just kept interpreting it that way and it worked. But I mean, some people think the intersection begins at the edge of the pavement where the edge of the pavement starts to transition to the next road. So you measure back 30 feet. And that's what we used. And that works as a good journal guideline, but it doesn't work everywhere. Yeah. Well, this is a guideline. Yeah, I mean, as a guideline, it could just be included. And of course, there's always exceptions to everything. So I mean, for example, if you had if you had something with steep slope or something, you wouldn't, you would have a different map distance. Yeah, that's a good point. So Guilford, I want to kind of wrap this up and get on to our next thing because some of us have to leave a little bit quickly and I want to get started on the map as well. Do you want to build that new column and figure out how to incorporate the complete streets into these criteria? I mean, we could do that, I'm sure, would take us a lot longer, though, than you. The column's already in. Everything's over here. Look at that. Done already. Yeah, thank you. The complete streets thing I think is going to be harder, even for me to incorporate it in because the goal is not to redo everything on the street, but to look at what's there. Yeah. Like if we were doing a whole new project and we're tearing up the road, yes, putting complete streets in is easier. But since we're really just not trying to tear up the road, we're just trying to put everything in the space. Let me think about that. Yeah, I mean, really, a starting point would be to say that that needs to be considered. Complete streets needs to be part of the parking consideration. It's not explicitly in the policy, but it does affect how the policy is applied to a space. And that would be the starting point. Then, as you say, then the decisions could be made about how we do it in this spot. Yeah. I mean, I think you could just include a sentence in your letter, Guilford, that might just, just like you kind of put an asterisk for volume of traffic, you should also put an asterisk for complete streets. Or I mean, I think there can also be just a list of other considerations or something. Like, for example, I think about like adjacent land uses, like, for example, like what if it was like near a school or something? Or I mean, there's just, there's always going to be some other types of factors that, you know, if whoever is making these decisions has any discretion, those are things that they could consider. Because every street is a little different. So let me play around with that. Thank you. Thank you. I like the bike lane is too. Yeah. So Garcia, sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry, Guilford.  You also want to add the third thing being, you guys, you really want to recommend a minimum of 30 feet back from intersections. I'm going to, I like that as a general rule. I would agree with that. Yeah. I mean, it's just safe. That's safety. And that's clearly, you know, where the 30 feet is measured from and whether it ends up being 25 feet where the sign gets put or the line gets painted. That really is a local judgment. I think that's acceptable. There's a local judgment on that.  What is the form that of this, like I say as a starting point, this letter would be most useful to the TSO when they're doing their work regarding these things? I think it's probably more of a question for the sponsors who are George, Dorothy and George. Although Dorothy just left TSO, so I'm not sure exactly what that means. She's probably still wants to sponsor this, but. But still in our neighborhood. Yeah. Yes. This sounds fantastic what you're discussing tonight. And I just really appreciate all the input from this committee and and Guilford's work on this. It seems like really cool. And I think that the once you finalize what you're doing, Guilford, I know TSO would like to to, you know, have a presentation. I mean, this is going to be going through George and Dorothy, but but I you know, I think this is just this is going to be very interesting to TSO. And I guess TAC will be able to give their expertise to and make a recommendation if it comes to. I'm assuming that George is, you know, he's moving toward to helping the town finalize some kind of policy on this. Well, we'll see how it goes.  You're welcome to bring it to TSO, but I would say go through George because he's the George and Dorothy, they're the sponsors. So should I reach out to them or Guilford to get that final sort of idea about what the form is and, for instance, what the presentation might be as well. I think that I think that George has is directly communicating with Guilford through Paul, which is the way we do things. And so I think it's in process. But, you know, it would be good if you were all copied on everything, you know, so that everybody knows what's going on. That would be nice. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good. Well, so I'd like to go on to the before we lose some folks to begin to continue our work on the map, which Guilford had queued up earlier. So I can actually make it a little yeah, you can zoom in so we can see the next the next band that we're looking at. Which is where do you want to go next? Just the next section, next piece south, sort of enter our way down. So now have any changes been made to the underlying map yet? I mean to the map yet? No. Do you have your intern back? He does. He's busy doing lead lines. Do we have many of those? No. That's another topic. I mean, one is too many, I understand, but I'm just just, I was curiosity. Can Guilford remind us of what the colors mean here? Or maybe Kim? So the colors are down at the very bottom. So the blue line is a biking network, a red line is a walking network, and the ones that look kind of purplish have a blue line and a red line. And are these proposed or are these existing? These, I believe, are I would say they're both, I think. I think they're both in existing. And they include existing, yes. They're saying that these are the major corridors and then some of them have facilities already and some don't. So we would have to go to another map to figure out what actually exists, right? It's in the report. I see. Well, and actually, so Chris, if you look like up towards the top of the map, the part we edited first, like there's a bunch of thing networks that are getting removed because they don't actually reflect like key parts of the biking walking. Yeah, well, we're considering biking more pedestrian. Like if you look at this stuff up near Leverett, like some of those are like footpaths that aren't networked, per se. That reminded me. I have a question for you, Guilford. What happened to the Armco on Pine Street? Or the Wyre Strands? Are we expecting people to be caught by the trees or the guardrails? The guardrails. We're kind of hoping that we can set some Guinness World Records there. It's in the process of having someone come in and replace them. It's just a budget thing and it's farther down the budget line. Yeah. The trees aren't as big as they used to be since they've all fallen down. So I don't know if they're going to catch the cars like you're hoping. There was a lot of work going on there this afternoon, I noticed. Pine Street? Yeah. I didn't get close enough to see what it was. We had some big trees fall in that area. Yeah. So to recap on this, the walking trails up there around Pover's Pond and heading up to Leverett, those won't be here anymore because they're not part of the pedestrian getting from point A to point B network. They're recreational. I think we got down, did we get down to Pine Street? Yeah. Yeah. I'll enlarge. I think one other thing we decided was that, yeah, what is it? The Cushman, there's a currently, yeah, that needs to be a purple line. I think that's where we decided. It's currently has a sidewalk or really sidewalk, but it should be a purple line because it connects to major kind of roadways. And I think we were headed down more into the neighborhoods next. So, Guilford, I'm sorry, but I don't really know the names of these streets. So could you amplify it a little more? Is it possible? There is no street names. Oh, I thought there were. Actually, yeah, there is. Yeah, there are. I just can't. Okay. Good. And so could we go, yeah, here, I think we had finished with the North Amherst, where is the, that red dot is what that says North Amherst. And I think we concurred that that purple line should remain a purple line. I was just curious actually in reviewing this, why that purple line doesn't extend through because that's still Amherst, right? It is. Actually, there's a bike shoulder. There's shoulders for bike lanes all the way to the intersection. Well, that should be purple, then, right? Yes. Maybe not all the way to the intersection, but certainly to the, to the, to Brandywine Drive there. Well, we talked about last time about putting the footpath all the way out to the thing. Yeah, I take that back. It should be all the way out. It should be all. It's on, it's on my notes. Okay. I think we, oh, so the, so this intersection is the, what is that street? This one? Yeah. That goes north, south. That's the one, that's 116. No, I'm sorry. To the, oh, to the right, that is North Pleasant Street. North Pleasant. Yes. So why is that not purple? They don't think the shoulder is wide enough. I mean, it's wide enough in here to about this point and then it narrows down and it's pretty tight until you get back towards campus and then it widens out around campus. So it's too, it's really too narrow for the bike. Would that be the case with the plan that you guys have put together? When the plan we're working on now doesn't add a bike lane on North Pleasant, because that requires a lot, a lot more work. But it includes a multi-use path though, right? That's what I used to buy. Well, actually, sorry. The blue, the blue is Vikings. They're saying this is a biking network now. They left out the red for the sidewalk. Right. And, and, but I mean, it is a major corridor, like with all the dense housing and everything. Really almost, it should be pedestrian all the way to the university. Yeah. It should be purple all the way to town, really. And then to town, right? Yeah, I mean. It is once you get past the university. Yeah. But there are existing cookpubs there today. But also, I mean, in terms of, you know, having a network, it's a critical part of the network. I concur. So purple. It should be purple the whole way. It's purple all the way. This is Bass Ave. Right. And then it continues to be, right? Yeah. Yep. Because could it be like a purple slash line in cases in which it will in the future be fully operational with the bike lanes in the sidewalk, but right now, you know, with the multi-purpose path, but right now, we haven't yet achieved that. Yes. That might be a level of detail that's not for this map. Okay. I mean, yes, it should be effectively. You're absolutely right. It should be. And isn't that what this map is? What? Well, but so to put a purple and a blue line or a red and a blue line together, I think that's, that serves the purpose of this map of saying it needs to be there. It needs to be. It does need to be. Yeah. And then the detail how it ends up is that's the next step. So I would agree.  What we do, I would agree. This is our road. This is our town road. Right. Yep. So, so let's, let's connect the purple all the way up. Yeah, I agree. North Amherst. And when we get back there also to Summer Street, I think straight out down to North Amherst. And then go over to the east a little bit. Yes. So let's, let's focus on the, I don't know what pleasant this is. What pleasant are we on now? That's East pleasant. Thank you. And ideally, certainly that should also be purple. I'm very curious as to why the route through the neighborhoods is both. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Oh, that's a good point. There actually is no sidewalk.  That would be, as Eve is not here to set us straight, but I think it was right that that is a shared, that that is a neighborhood road. Yeah, even here, even here. But that is a beautiful road. But unfortunately, that piece through, I can also see where it's bisecting the town center line below that to the south. That is, that's just a path through the UMass essentially. So that should go away. Did you guys, did you guys not get the map that I sent out because I had corrected it on the map that I sent out? Well, this is the map that we're trying to alter. Oh, because do you remember two, two times ago when we met and we were doing this, I was taking all the detailed notes on the map and I sent that one with all my detailed notes out to all of you. That's funny. I don't think I got that. I remember that, but let me, um, that was around there. There were two, he did send out a map with some corrections on it. With your notes and stuff. That's not the one that we're using. Yeah, well, we should. So, yes. So we're, we're disconnecting Ridgecrest from Hobart. No, I'm sorry, from presidential. Uh, yeah, definitely. For both bicycling and pedestrianing. Wait, wait, wait. This presidential, what's presidential? Presidential. Yeah. That's definitely in the woods. Can I weigh in on this? Hope so. Yeah, because this is my neighborhood. So, um, first of all, the geography of this map is a little bit wrong, this path. Um, so, um, let's see where, um, do you see on Rolling Ridge where the curve goes furthest south? That's where the path connects to Carlo Drive. No, you're too far to the west. Go to the, go further east there, there. At that point, that's where it connects to Carlo Drive. Right. And town meeting accepted that as a, as a roadway, didn't they? Or something? It's owned, it's owned by the town. And so that should absolutely be put in there as a walking path. And not recreational. It's not recreational. It's pedestrian. Is it tarmac? Or is it? It's not tarmac. It's just wood chips. Does that make it recreational? It's not. It's a walking path that everybody uses, and it's owned by the town. Yeah, I'm just thinking like, can we count it as being a walking, a proper walking path? Because it could potentially be, you know, access issues for people with wheelchairs and stuff. Yeah. So, so Marcus, what's more of a question of whether we want it to be? Right, right. Yeah, that's true. It becomes one. Exactly. And it would have to be made accessible. Yeah. Because, because as far as I can tell, all this is, is like, uh, you know, informal walking, biking paths, right? Yeah. And so it doesn't really belong on the network map. Well, the reason the network map, um, matters even if it's not currently accessible is because the network map is going to be used to, um, prioritize what projects happen in the future. So this is a network map of what we want to build toward, not just what we have now. Yes, that's exactly what we're discussing, but this will never really be, I mean, there will never really be a road through UMass, right? I mean, that will not happen. I want to interrupt here just for a second. This is a great discussion. I want to finish it, but I know some of us are leaving right now. And I just wanted to say that, uh, the next thing that we're doing on the, uh, the agenda, uh, briefly after this, uh, what I've called Outline in the Intersection Decision Guide, but that's what, what, what you're missing. Whoever's leaving now is going to be missing is basically trying to outline how we're going to take our decision on, um, on the, the Pomeroy Project, uh, Pomeroy Village Project, uh, next time. Um, I just just wanted to tee it up so that we have, um, a running start for that. Otherwise, other stuff is pretty mundane. Yes, Darcy. Yeah, I just wanted to, if some people are leaving, I just wanted to make sure everybody knows that the, the public forums on Pomeroy are going to be at the TSO meeting on the 25th, the second hour of it is going to be a public forum, um, at six o'clock that day. And then on Saturday, the 27th from 2 to 4 p.m. And we don't, we haven't quite figured out the format of it yet. I'm going to talk to Paul about it tomorrow, but, um, I know that there's a desire to have it be more than just, you know, a presentation and then just public comment without any give and take. So I think there's going to be question and answer type format and, but just restricted to the issue of roundabout versus, uh, signalized intersection. Right. And so what I was hoping is that, uh, the TAC on our meeting right before that, which is what the 18th, um, that we'd have a chance to, uh, put something together that we could bring to that, that meeting. Um, and that's, and I wanted to outline that, you know, a little bit later today so that we can get some good work on that because you're going to be some more detail in the design available. Um, what ifs I don't think so, uh, uh, but that's a question for Guilford, I think. The current conditions. So Guilford and I are working on that. We're working with Dave Zomek and, um, I think the format is going to be a little different than we initially expected. Um, although Paul may, I'm not sure what he'll say to Darcy tomorrow, but what we talked about today was having these forums be more, um, information gathering from the public, like what do you think is wrong with the intersection? What are the problems here? Um, what do you think might be good solutions to some of the problems? And so it's really eliciting, um, information and comments from the public rather than presenting them with choices. Is that my understanding of the direction that we're going with these formats or these forums? Yeah, that, that makes, that makes some sense because you do want to, one, once you want to come up with a design that meets the most criteria and offers the best solution. So yeah, if you could, and I would again suggest that, there'd be some kind of meeting, uh, at that intersection. So that people have a chance to really experience it. Um, though that's it, because I'm the, I'm the person who has to leave. So I'll say, say good night and thank you to everybody. Thank you, Bernie. Hi, Bernie. Bye, Bernie. Thank you. All right, Kim. Yes, I interrupted you. No, no, no, it's okay. Back to this issue of that, um, current, like, foot, footpath, um, that, that goes from, essentially from UMass, back to, um, Eve's neighborhood, Van Meter. Um, I don't think that, I, I don't think that belongs on this, um, map. I agree. Um, nor should it also be on, um, the residential streets through, through the neighborhood back there. You mean the one between Rolling Ridge and Harlow? Yeah. And there's also, because, well, because we're talking about networking, um, you know, through town, that's all that this map is. Right. And that, that's, it seems to me, and, and, and this would be the way I would phrase the question is that there's a desire. There's a, there's a strong place that people are coming from and going to, going to the university, coming from that, that neighborhood, um, that is served very nicely by this, um, in a non-automotive way. Um, and that might be a, a piece of the network that we would want to aspire to. And I know it's not, it's not right now. It's not, you know, it's not a bicycle path. It's not paved. It's not, it's supported in any way. But it is a town road, or a town way. It's a town way. It's not a road. It's not a town. Yeah. It's a town way.  I would agree with that too. Yeah. I mean, this map is what you might call aspirational, right? I mean, it's what we hope for. A good word, Bruce. Right. That's exactly right. Yeah. I think it'd be appropriate to include it. Hilfer, can you move up the, the map down a little bit so we can get a better view of van meter and comfort and all that stuff? It, I don't know if you're able, but I just emailed everyone the map that we put together a couple weeks ago. Oh, good. Thank you. I was looking for it. Great. Um, well, I mean, the, the, yeah. So, so in the end, I mean, it's a night, it's nice, but I feel like it doesn't necessarily along on the final map. And this might be something that people who came to the looking sessions, you know, agreed with. But I'm not sure it's, you know, in our interest to like make that particular path a, a way on this map, because really what we're trying to do right is connect is, you know, integrate the streets with biking and pedestrian ways. Isn't that what the purpose is of this? That's certainly one of the things that we would aspire to do. Yes. And it's interesting. You're right. This is a different category of, of, uh, we would have to do something different here to create the network that we would in any other place that we've talked about so far. Right. That's, that's true. Yeah. I mean, I had thought it would be good to put it in for a pedestrian path, but not as a biking path. And as someone who lives in this neighborhood, I'm opinionated about which things could get put on here and which should not. Like, um, and Rob Custer incidentally, um, uh, sent me comments on this and he thinks that it should be on there. There should also be a cut through that the town owns between pine that kind of goes through the farm. Oh yeah. And he also thinks we should have the connection between Rolling Ridge and Hobart on our, our, our network map. And personally, as someone who lives in the neighborhood, I would say, do not put the Rolling Ridge to Hobart Lane connection on the network map. Um, and I would say don't put these routes as bikeable, um, because they're not all bikeable, but I think they're legitimate as walking paths. Let's put that as a, as just a blue line then. I mean, I, I, that's what I was actually, I mean, to me, the thing that I was having the most issue with was on that particular path was thinking like it's not, it's, it will never be, I mean, I can bike on it, but I'm not sure everyone can bike on it and it will never be that way. Yeah. You know, I agree. So it's a red line, I think in this, this map. Is it red? I thought it, yeah. Walking is red. Yeah. Oh right, red. So just red. So that would be great. Okay. So I think we've decided on that and let's go to, um, and obviously we, we all agree that East, the, the remainder of East, is it East Pleasant? I always get these. East Pleasant. Should continue as purple. Yes. North Pleasant. That's North Pleasant over there. No, this one. No, both of them should be red.  The, um, North Pleasant should be purple all the way through, but I'm talking about East Pleasant, the one on the right. Yep. That's, that's great. And can we just go to the right a little more, please? Okay. And so Henry Street is, um, also, um, labeled as a blue. I mean, the, the, the issue is here, you know, it's a great connector. Um, but it, there are very few, um, houses on it. And so, pedestrian wise, I also, I concur with the blue-ness through most of this. So, and is that all? Can we, is there anything more to, right? I think we're done, right? That's good. Yep. Wait, so what, wait, so with Henry Street though? So, I mean, it is, if cyclists are going in that direction though, like what are we proposing if you're going from North Amherst, like over to, like the Fort River area? I mean, Henry is like your only choice. Yes. But this is blue as bike. Blue as bike. Okay. Yeah. So yeah, there is no proposal as well. And I mean, if, and if we're on North East street, right? North East street is not pedestrian friendly. I mean, that's where the pedestrian was killed and there's no right now. That would be unrealistic to say you could walk along there safely. Well, and also, I mean, you can just look at the density of housing there. I mean, I feel like it's not very, it's, you know, amenable to, I mean, I guess one question would be whether to make a connection, if we keep going south on Northeast street towards the intersection, like whether to make the part, whether to make any of this part walkable, like for example, if you were going to Wildwood from over. Well, strong strong demand certainly should be read as well on. Yeah, I would concur with that. I would think strong demand. Yes, I agree. But there is already a footpath from Northeast Terrace down to Pellum Road. Does it go that far? I'd, yeah. No, there isn't. There isn't. There is. There's a footpath. Does it make it all the way there? Further further south. Maybe not. No, it's like basically where that red line is, is where that footpath stops. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Before you guys go on, just to go back to Henry for a sec, I just wanted to make sure when we had our conversation before we said that Henry and that triangle between Cushman and what's it called, bridge, the death of a pedestrian. We added it. But it currently is. It currently is a pedestrian way. Great. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it actually has a sidewalk on it. That's what I mean. Really small. Yes. It's very small. So we're making Maine to strong purple. Yeah. Okay. And so we're also making, yeah, from Maine to strong purple. And then I'm curious why the rest of Redgate, where Redgate goes to North Whitney, why that is also not continued as purple. That is a pedestrian. Well, there's no sidewalks. But why wouldn't we also aspire to have bikes on that street as well? I would agree with that. So yeah. And that clearly connects the areas that are important to connect. I'm wondering if it would be too wild to propose that the red not come down on North Whitney, but came down on High Street instead. Do you think that has some things? Yeah, that's a good point because it's also the schools. But I don't, I don't know about if they're currently sidewalks and I don't remember. Yeah, there are. There may not be. But as far as Redgate and Network, that that's where the sidewalks or the provision might go is along High Street to take what would otherwise be the North Whitney Street traffic. Just an idea. I mean, it's, we're putting lots of biking and pedestrian things together. And this looks like a place where they might consider having them apart. North Whitney might be better just because of the potential pedestrian traffic to the High School, right? Well, this High Street is very, it's good for that too. Yeah. I'm sorry, High Street. Yeah. So I mean, if we identify if we're making this from like strong, like all the way down to Maine on North Whitney and things that we're making it part of the biking network, I guess I'm a little concerned that, I mean, in terms of like corridors to different parts of town, like I do think that that is a big walking path, right? And they use it on the the different like 5Ks and things like that. But if we identify too many things as purple, then I'm afraid that like we'll lose like what we think is like the most important in terms of the corridors for the biking and walking network.  There's nothing special about red gate like this from the, from the village center bubble, like up to strong, I might not even name that specifically as like a bike route. Oh, just leave a pedestrian. I mean just, those are hugely important pedestrian corridors, but it doesn't seem as significant as a bike. I agree. You're right. That's, that's, that's, yeah. I think that's a good point. I would agree with that too. Take the blue out completely and just make it all red. Yes. Yeah. Yes. And then let bikes be part of the automotive traffic. Is that for the entire length of red gate? Yeah. Well, and red gate actually goes to the right. I don't know what that that street that connects to strong is. I don't know what that one is, but red gate is goes, is that white one? The hitching post. Yes. This is, this is Hills. Yeah. Yeah, that's Hills and that's right. But we, I mean, Eve, do you think that that's important to keep it as a biking route? I mean, I would be inclined to keep it as a biking route, but keep in mind that in the prioritization scheme as we've set up the level of service, right? If the traffic isn't going very fast that we wouldn't have to actually do any improvements to make it a bike route. Does that make sense? Yeah. Right. Certainly the way that that street doesn't have really high volume traffic. The one reason I could imagine keeping it as a biking route is because certainly kids from that neighborhood ride their bikes to school. And it would be through, you know, right where that purple line is through that neighborhood. Well, that that bicyclist though might reasonably be expected to share the way with pedestrians. But where regional is, isn't there, there is a cut through, right? Right where regional. No, is it down that far down here? I think there's an informal one under the regional down the hill. They come down the hill there. I was going to say that actually thinking of this inexperienced in children bicyclists is another reason to keep it on the map because that's have implications for what kind of sidewalk we want. It's going to mean we want a six foot sidewalk that can they can have bikes and pads. And that might, you know, I think that is the reason why this is purple just for that short segment, you know, because that's the reasonable getting to the elementary school. Okay. Yeah. And so maybe it's red further to the south instead of blue. Yes, correct. So it should be red, I think. Well, you know what what what we were talking about before also was having three different categories, right, the strong bicyclists, the inexperienced bicyclists and the pedestrians. So what I'm hearing is that you don't really care about the strong bicyclists here, they can deal with themselves. But you want to make sure it's for inexperienced bicyclists or small bicyclists and also pedestrians. Yes, I think that's right. Yeah. So, okay, so I think we keep that that strip as purple, I think that's what we just convinced ourselves of. And it's not going to extend further south. Further south actually should be red and not blue. Yeah, and it currently is. Okay, so so that's good. So let's we need to go west more west and just a bit. Yeah, let's center us on triangle there. Yeah, perfect. So the triangle I think should be like red and blue. Clearly. So I'm going to I'm going to maybe stop us here because there's one more thing I want to do before before we go and in 10 minutes. I think 10 minutes is enough time, but this is going well. Just one thing. I think we all agree that where those two small blue things are right now on triangle that one closer to the university and the one that connects to Main Street, those should really be purple. Purple. Yeah. It should be purple. It's in town. Yes. A whole thing should be purple. And there are connects to that light down on Main Street. Right. That should be purple. And I guess yeah. I mean that's clear. It's just a clear gap and not. Fearing is a walking route, but I don't I guess we're not. It goes right. We'll stop there. Okay. Thank you. All right. And the red paths to the cemetery, of course, wouldn't be on this map. Yes. Good. Thank you. So and we'll we'll we'll do this again next time. I promise. I just just I just did want to touch oh Darcy. Yeah, I just have a quick question about the mapping because I haven't been involved in the previous conversations and I just wondered like what what is what is the end goal or what is the product or what is happening with that plan? Yeah. And so this is our our aspirational bike and pedestrian network in town. So the the idea is to have a map to go to when we need when we have funding and we want to continue to connect the networks that we currently have the current structure that we have in town to have it have have a map to go back to and say yes, we need to have a pad at a walking sidewalk and a and a bypass here when we redo this road. This is part of our bicycle and pedestrian network plan that the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission worked with us on starting I think in 2018 and they finished the written part of the plan, but they never finished the maps. So this group is finishing the maps. We're connecting all of the networks and we're making networks in town that connect to all the town centers and the schools. The conclusion and then recommendations that we're tagging on to the at the end of this report that that Christine did for us. So that's and we intend to use it to you know when we make recommendations that it's going to be based on that. I mean as Christine mentioned when it's done it would be nice if you could you know share it with TSO or you know absolutely that's that we're trying to get it to the point where it's it's we feel it's suitable for that it's it's not quite ready for that now. Well and also to have the council adopt the plan right and sort of endorse the ideas in the plan and then the network could be the basis for some of like the prioritization and so on. Yeah I mean that would be because we've identified those places as like part of the network. I mean it is it can be a little confusing to what Chris said earlier is that like some of what's in we're identifying as a red and blue in the network are places that are already strong for pedestrians and bicyclists of all levels and some are not but we are identifying that they are critical parts of the bike in the pet network. Yeah so what what we aren't seeing is the other 50 pages of the report that that you know enumerate where places are good where they're bad and when something is missing what it might look like when it gets connected so that that's that's all in there this is just the the the conclusion basically that we're trying to put a picture to. So all right well thank you. So what I wanted to just just do and really as far as getting it's for getting ready for our next session when I'm hoping that we can have we can spend a lot of time on thinking about what we might recommend for the Pomeroy Village Center project. I just wanted to start thinking about what the criteria with the form and what the criteria might be that we will want to be thinking about as we put together our suggestion. Last time I can't remember who mentioned it somebody came up with the idea which I think is very good of rather than saying we want it to be around about or we want it to be a rectangular intersection here is what needs to be considered in making that recommendation here's why this is better and why that might be better and let that let that be the basis of what we suggest. So I wanted to put that out there to see if that that first of all is makes sense and what we would want to do. I would allow that at the end of that conversation we might say huh when we've taken that looked at all of this the decision is obvious that's going to be round we might want to include that but that wouldn't be the necessarily the object. Well that makes sense and and yes Tracy. Well I mean so I mean you know similar to what's been discussed for the format of the public forum on the plan I mean I think just hearing from us just like from the public about what are the key issues there now and I felt like I mean there's some good bullet points in the presentation that the town has put together and given in terms of if we have this design it will enhance these things and if we have this design it will enhance these things like we'll address those different issues so I feel like we could put some of our comments around those and then also just about what we think is also missing or is not being addressed in those lists. And so what will happen I you know I think I think you're exactly right Tracy so what what might happen is that a specific issue that we've heard about that we know relates to this intersection we'll get on to the proven con list of our you know our analysis of the comparison between the two types of intersections so Darcy. Yeah I just would say that since you all are the experts on transportation and you know the district five residents are are not and you know we we had a district five meeting where I did you attend that one Erin where we brought up the issue and you know I think there may have been two and I went to that did go to one. Well the first one there was just a lot of residents just expressing yeah just surprised you know or like why would we have a roundabout so I think to the extent that you know a lot about roundabouts and of course Guilford does too it makes sense to me to really help people understand why they're being used now you know like and you know just an intersection of two streets why because people need to hear that they need to understand why why it's good you know what are the what are the pros because because people don't understand it. Yeah and I would hope that in doing that that we we could connect with we know what the concerns are we know what the expectations are and that we might we might be able to connect those two sensibly and that would be that would be I think that's that's what I hope will happen. So Eve. Tracy I have a feeling that you have read or studied a fair bit or heard a bit fair a bit about like why roundabouts are advantageous could you make a bulleted list that's like a user-friendly list for us to sort of look at and. Yeah likes an upsize a month worth of classes into what page. Yeah I mean there are number of studies that talk about the benefits and I mean I think even Evan Ross like mentioned at one council meeting that he had done research on how they can reduce emissions right if they cut down on traffic congestion. So yeah I mean one thing I would like us I mean because it's come up in the council meetings and other forums as well is you know what one thing I heard when I was listening on the council discussions about this project is people who were concerned including Myra who's here in the audience about the safety at the triangle street roundabout and I think that's one reason I brought that up last time and so if we can talk about some of the challenges that exist the way it is now then maybe those are things that could be an area just to put people's mind at ease if about what would be different if there were to be around about. Yeah I mean the reason I wanted to have this discussion today to sort of is to so that we we now know how we want to set the table in two weeks and so definitely the triangle street considerations the bullet lists I'm hopeful that that you can put together as Eve is suggesting and all those other things that we've all been thinking about along the way that we can begin to build that into a decision matrix or whatever we want to call it. Eve. So I haven't seen what has been put together I think from the the consultant at least not if there's anything updated but do we have any kind of streetscape image of zero. I think we really need a streetscape image of what each option would look like like so not just engineering you know top down view but a streetscape image. So that that would be that might be one of the recommendations that we make and to solve some of the issues that we uncover next time. I guess that's. Gilbert was trying to get a word and edge wise there. I just want to get back to what Chris says I think the discussion we had today and I think that's going to be passed on to the TSO tomorrow is that the goal should be more to listen to the people in the neighborhood talk about what they think their problems are and what they do in the intersection do people want to cross the intersection do people go here do people go there you cross at the intersection or do you need to cross other places.  Those are the I think that's kind of what the discussion might start with because we're just jumping in saying these are the two solutions when we really don't know what people want or think they have a problem with. Yeah so I think what that's very important you're right Gilbert and that there's not two answers here each each version has a number of things that can be done to it that make it different. So I just got bumped by zoom but I have a question. Yes I just see your traffic control but okay yeah well you don't want to see me right now I've got like a big old head wrap thing on I've got I'm having a a skin graft on my head next week so but I mean are there have there been an actual measurable has there been an actual measurable increase in the number of road traffic accidents or you know pedestrian accidents at the triangle intersection the roundabout have we seen an increase in that number or have we is it just a an appearance of such an event. Jason had Jason did a rundown and there has not been an increase and there really haven't been very many accidents at all when you see Jason's chart of what's happened there you go like oh it doesn't look like much of but I guess if you read some of the literature right one argument would be for why there's no accidents like crashes or injuries there is that also that people are avoiding the intersection right so sometimes like conditions are so unfavorable that people won't go there like I know Myra had mentioned that the person that she's spoken with from the trainer from the mass commission for the blind who does travel training you know and walking with people about like routes that they can safely take that he does not advise if anybody go through that intersection as a pedestrian so that's interesting that that's a it's a compromised intersection as well the slip lane and there's some things that are very awkward about it because of the angle so yes and so Marcus I think the answer is yes that there are data that we might want to collect that's one there are other intersections in town that have been converted to roundabouts that we might be able to suggest or maybe get some some before and after I mean yeah well in the triangle street when it's complicated just because it's like at those angles and stuff yeah right so I see you if we're going to get to your eve sorry um so I'm confused because I thought Guilford I totally appreciated what you're just saying we need to collect um you know a sense of what's going on I would add that we need to not only think about what's happening now but what we want it to be um but I thought you had said that or Darcy had said or someone had said that that the only thing we're going to really weigh in on is whether it's going to be a roundabout or a traffic light intersection that's going to be the first decision did I mishear that that's just the decision that that TSO has to recommend to the council because it seems to be what maybe what we're hearing from this conversation is that we're actually that's not the first decision you know the first the earlier decisions are like what is this intersection going to be for you know who does it going to who's it's going to serve what problems is it going to solve what kind of you know is it going to be how many bicyclists and pedestrians we know there aren't that many using it now how many do we want to bring and it's only when we have those kinds of decisions do we then you know know how to judge well that that's what we're going to explore is is is I mean that I think that's the intention that's what I had intended for next time is to understand how we get to that fundamental principle decision once that's taken of course there's a whole mother's set of design that has to happen but I think that yes I think you heard correctly that and Darcy says yes it's it's the question is a rounder square and and I'm I want us the TAC to you know provide input into that decision and like I said we might take the decision we may be able to say it's obvious one way or the other but that wouldn't be the goal the goal would be to understand how to help get to that point so Myra you've been very patient there and that I'm hopefully haven't gone away out of out of disgust for being so sorry uh first thank you Erin for letting me speak this is a public comment and I really appreciate it um I guess one thing I think what Eve just said is really important for you to think about one thing she said at the last meeting I think was really good which is what's the community feel what does each kind of intersection do to the sense of community in a village center so I think that's something really to think about I thought was a great comment the one thing that I want to say and I know it's um I just want to make sure that it's on the table is that a week ago a little more than a week ago I was on a zoom call as a part of the American Council for the Blind Legislative Forum and I got my hand up in time to get called on to ask the executive director of the uh access board the united states access board a question about the access of you know the rules for accessibility of roundabouts and he asked me to send him an email which I did and he wrote back to me and sent me some information which is that currently there are no requirements for there to be any kind of pedestrian uh audible pedestrian activated signals but that there soon will be um and that the reason there aren't is that uh over in the trump administration every new regulation had to be supplanted by the removal of two regulations so they really didn't do any kind of new regulation but they're very aware and they have recommendations for the recommendations that they would like to put in for the safety of roundabouts which are becoming a big issue and became an issue before they really grappled with that in advance so I just want you to know that there will be not in time for this project so the town would be well within its legal rights not to deal with this but uh I would hope that the town will consider dealing with the fact that uh even if you choose a roundabout because of all the reasons that you're interested for you know for the community feel for the traffic flow for whatever you want that you include pedestrian activated audible signals wayfinding whatever is going to be in the regulations and obviously the recommendations are subject to change but there will be recommendations I sent them to Erin I sent them to Maureen Pollock who's the DAAC liaison she told me that she sent them to Chris and to uh and to Dave Zomek I guess and I think I also sent them to Darcy so I know there are people who have the regulations I don't know if anybody has been able maybe I sent them to Tracy too I don't know um I don't know I don't know if people have had a chance to look at them and I don't know if you care to look at them because they're not going to be in force for this project in the time that you're going to do it but I certainly hope that you will look at it because there is definite awareness that roundabouts have major safety issues for visually impaired people for blind people for people who cross slowly uh for any reason and that if and when you when you just rely upon the judgment of your eyes to cross the street it works for a lot of people and it doesn't work for other people that's you know I mean anybody who wants to see the regulations Erin you have them right I I I you did send me something and I'm and actually I'm quickly looking through my why yes I do I think this is it yes would you send this to us Erin I will and and certainly it will be it was intended to be part of our discussion next time as we think about the pros and cons of all that so thank thank you Myra all right well thanks for letting me speak I know it was not the appropriate time so no no not at all we're pretty casual we let the chair I gotta talk to the chair about that at some point any event so so so thank you very much um Bruce uh are we all concluded for the evening so no because Tracy has to get awarded yes Tracy no sorry I just had a question about like some it seems like it's some of our meetings like we're we're losing things that we work on and we're not finishing them so like at the last two meetings right we've talked about that letter about route nine and Hadley I mean so when we have these like to do items can we keep them on the agenda and just make sure that we wrap them up or or doesn't need a member to like draft a letter or something I just you know it's like we have those really great discussions I just don't want to lose those items yep we can do that I I've been working on those and um well I'll put on the agenda for next time definitely both so do we I mean is there all right so a letter is going to be sent so is that the letter is good then and I was going to send a copy of its body around there to all of you so that you can see it um I've been trying to figure out where it should go um and I think I got to the bottom of that today basically the same place that the letter would have gone to from Hadley so oh but you're we're sending it right to DOT right yes yeah okay thank you oh and um and I was just wondering too I mean just it had come up earlier as well and I think it was one of Darcy's recommendations um that like you know because the TSO wants to know what tax doing and sometimes the council says hey what's tax doing and we had talked about giving TSO and the council some information about tax like both that prioritization that priorities list of projects and like some other details or maybe like writing a quick memo or something um that's something that I'm happy to help work on if we want to do that but just periodically it seems like just to check in and say hey but yeah Eve so I wanted to make some suggestion that because Tracy is such an amazing detail person that you on the agenda with her each week before you finalize it okay okay I will I will I will take that into the council um so uh okay thank you Tracy Bruce I move to adjourn thank you everybody bye we'll see you next time thanks thank you thank you thanks Gilbert and Amber thank you