And, um, hold on. Okay. So. All right. So this is the September 2nd. 2021 meeting of the transportation advisory committee. And I'm going to read the quick statement. And my computer is slow. Does Darcy still come to the meetings? Um, she hasn't been, um, since she's been on leave from the TSO. Um, I did reach out to her today to see if she was going to attend. All right. So, uh, so here's the statement I read. Uh, pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting is being conducted via remote means members of the public. You wish to access the meeting can do so. In the following manner, like through zoom, no in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted and public participation. Um, in any public hearing conducted from this meeting is by remote means only. Okay. Tracy, there are three participants. It's Eve Holden and someone else. Do you want to promote? Yeah, that's, yeah, that's, that's fine. All right. It's only two people. I think just even holding. Oh, all right. Yeah. One person left. Okay. I will, I'll promote them. Thank you. Is Holden a member of the tack or is he a potential member of the. He's a potential member. He's applied to the tack. I don't know. A bunch of us have reached out to people to try to encourage them to apply to the tack. I don't know. How many applications have been received. If somebody from town hall knows that, that would be awesome to find out, but hold Holden has started attending our meetings for the last few meetings. Okay. That's good. Hi, Eve. So, um, Holden. Hi, everyone. Okay. So hi. All right. So, um, Okay. So I did want to just send around. Um, we had taken a number. Just as a housekeeping thing, we had taken a number of votes at the last meeting. Regarding, um, the project at Kendrick park. So, um, I just, just because we haven't met in, um, Um, I'll just, I meant to email that before the meeting. I can email it now and we can also go through it. Or we can just go through it on my screen. And then, um, I can email it after the meeting, whatever makes sense to people. The votes are in the minutes. Oh, the votes are in the August 12th minutes. Great. Yeah. They are in the minutes. Excellent. Okay. I haven't reviewed them minutes from August 12th yet, but. We can pull those up. You too. Bye-bye. Oh, Amber, just send them to us. Sorry. Tracy, I have these printed. Do you want me to read them? Um, yeah, I think it is helpful too. If we can, um, see them on the screen. Okay. Bruce, but, um, thank you for offering that. That is really helpful. Yeah, I just, um, I know you, it's very, it's always very nice when you offer to do that. So we have the minutes from. Uh, July 22nd and the minutes from April. I mean, sorry, August 12th. So I can just pull up the meeting, the minutes from July 22nd. That were sent out by Amber. And, um, did anybody, when they read these over, did anybody have any changes to these? Do you want to wait to approve these until Kim joins us? Um, we can. I mean, I think if it's just like housekeeping with the minutes, I don't think that's too necessary. I'll propose them that we go ahead and approve these minutes. Unless other people have any changes. Yeah, let me, um, I'll just pull them up. Um, so they're just one minute, one page minutes. And, um, just so people can take a quick look at them before we approve them. And I will. I read them before the meeting. So I'm all set. I mean, did anybody else want to look at them before we vote? I read them quickly before the meeting. Um, but nothing. Okay. Actually. In the car. So. Oh, okay. Thanks for calling in from the car. Well, it's a house. I'm not at home because each lever of roads still closed. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I guess I just had one, I mean, there is like one small type with the minutes that. My word pointed out, hold on, let me just, um, I'll just pull them up. Just to share the screen on them. So I'm just sharing the screen with the minutes. Um, So here. It's not letting me highlight anything, but anyway, so here with my math, right? It says that there was like a small typo. And, um, so it does say that, uh, the TSO had originally asked for our input by August 26, but then they changed that until they wanted our input by, uh, I believe it is September 21st, which is something that we're on track to do. Um, and so I think the minutes, the minutes are great. Um, the way they are. I mean, it would be helpful sometime. I don't know if Amber's still here. Or maybe she left after she launched the meeting. I don't know if Amber's still here. Um, I just sometimes, you know, if we're trying to recap our. Just, it is, I think it can be helpful to have a little bit more discussion about, um, a little bit more summary in the minutes about what we talked about. Um, So just like as a feature comment, I mean, how do other members feel about that? Well, as a person who used to take minutes and, uh, Chris will remember this for the, um, zoning subcommittee is a lot of work to try to summarize what people have said. Oh, I mean, I agree. I'm somebody who's taken minutes too. And, and I don't like it. So no, I'm for sure. Um, but I guess at the same time, right, that the minutes are like the official record of what happened at the meeting. And so it can be a little challenging. Like to people if they haven't participated in the meeting to like, to understand what happened after the meeting. Um, if they just see the minutes. Now we are fortunate in that meetings are currently, um, being recorded on zoom.  Uh, but at the same time, I believe that, um, you know, under the law that the minutes are still the official record. Yeah, they, they are. The zoom meeting is the zoom meeting, but minutes are the official right. Exactly. And the other meeting law suggests that you add some detail to it around votes. Okay. There's some context. Absolutely. I mean, a simple vote to approve the minutes or something like that is not. Um, but if the committee goes on for a while, if the committee goes on for 45 minutes of a discussion, there should be some substance there. And there should be some substance around each of the votes. That makes sense. Thank you. And I mean, I agree that minutes can be painful. And I'm really grateful that we have Amber to take the minutes because. When I was on the transportation, whatever the public transportation and bicycle committee, I was in charge of minutes. And I did not get. And it gets really, it can be hard. Um, all right. So I'm just also going to pull up the. The minutes from the last meeting. So I'm sorry. So I guess, do we have to take a roll call vote on those then? No, just a voice voter, you know, we've all checked in. So yeah, we've all checked in. That's fine. Okay. Um, All right. So. And then, um, I'll just pull up the next one. Did. We did we vote? Oh, okay. All right. Let's vote. Okay. All right. So all in favor of approving our minutes. Hi. Hi. Okay. So we have. Four people. Marcus, did you vote too? Yes, I did. Okay. All right. The four to zero approved.  All right. I'm sorry to hear you. No, no, thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Fine. And Marcus is in the car. So all of the members that we currently have are here. Great. Which is five of us. Um, and we were just going over the minutes and we just had a brief discussion about. Maybe adding some detail, particularly like around boats. Yes. Good. Okay. Um, and we're, I was just going to pull up. I don't know if you had a chance to look at them yet. The minutes from the last meeting, the. And if we want to vote on those or if we want to wait and. Oh, but I guess we could just recap them just because they were. They, they do include our votes for the. Right. Do you want me to go over that? Yeah, sure. Um, I had actually put together a word document to that, like summarizes our votes, but. Great. But why don't we, we can pull it up from the minutes too. Okay. Yeah. And I have that. Yeah. I have the agenda up. Okay. Sure. I have them. I have the minutes. Okay. All right. So these are the minutes. Oh, let me share them. Yeah. Okay. So, um, Right. So this is TSO. Just to recap. Um, So I think we mainly want to focus on the Kendrick part part. Yeah, I think, yeah, we do. And I would like to, um, and I can pull up my document that just summarizes our votes. The way I was planning to put them in the memo. So for our minutes, did anybody have any changes to the minutes? I think I would just clarify here under one a that the project doesn't run into the UMass campus. It runs like from, I would indicate where it runs. It runs from Eastman lane to pine street personally and, um, Just to clarify, because into the UMass campus, I guess I usually think about that is coming from, from town into the UMass campus. Um, and now Gilford, are you still planning to present the project to the TSO on the 30th? That's still yes. Okay. Um, And that we, we did talk about doing a site visit on the 23rd. We can talk about that later during the meeting. Um, yes, I had spoken to the safe routes coordinator just as a follow-up to her presentation with the, um, with the committee earlier. And, um, and I did see actually, I did see an update. I meant to send it around about the transit link with Worcester with the PBT, but I think there's some issues with staffing. Um, and then we took the following votes. Which is true. So I can, um, I mean, the minutes look fine to me. I would just make a couple minor tweaks. Do people want to go ahead and we can approve the minutes. Sounds good to me. Okay. Um, yeah. So if, uh, uh, let's do, um, uh, vocal, uh, although any, um, any, um, not approval, any abstentions? No, I think we're all here. Great. Yep. We're all here. Okay. Great. Okay. And. All right. So, um, all right. So then we're back to, I'll stop my screen share. We're back to our continuing item.  That had, um, Was summarizing the recommendations. And then, so what I wanted to do just because we hadn't met in three weeks is I'll just revisit what we voted on. I did visit the site. You know, and think about. Some of our recommendations a little. What I think it might be helpful to have like some clarifying discussion about a few of them. And then also to cover the parts that we didn't cover earlier. So I will pull that up. Um, for sharing. Now, as I was just saying. Um, As I was saying, can everybody see that? It's okay. It's a little small. Can you just do it? Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm trying to do. Let's see. Okay. Yeah. I'm always making my screen. Yeah. I'm trying to do, let's see. Okay. Yeah. I'm always making my screen bigger and bigger. Is that better? Maybe a little more. No, I'm always getting the right hand corner. There's a. No, I see that. I see the slider. All right. Um, so the first vote. I mean, this is how I had recorded them. Please let me know if we need to make corrections. Um, I think that the attack recommends changing north pleasant street from McClellan street to triangle street from a two-way street to one-way street going northbound. If traffic calming measures are added to slow traffic. So do we have any changes to that? Seems good. And so, um, as we talked about at the meeting and I am working on some narrative to go along with these bullet points. Um, I would like to see both of those implemented if possible. And so that was going to be in my comments. And then. So then the second one, the town recommends the town place. Angle parking along the east side of north pleasant street from Halig. Um, raised improved crosswalk at McClellan and north pleasant street. And then also at the meeting, we had talked about adding an additional crosswalk north of that. Um, so. I would like to see, I would like to see both of those crosswalks that we have already. Um, So we have talked about that. I would like to see both of those crosswalks. Um, I would like to see both of those crosswalks on the east side of north pleasant street from how its triangles appropriate. And removes the parallel parking on the west side of the section of north pleasant street. Right. So we talked about that because. Um, with the driveways there, and I measured it, I think there's nine driveways along that section of street from McClellan to. Triangle. There's also some shared driveways. Um, the sidewalk and the street they're shared. It just seems like there's a lot of potential conflicts. And I thought it was really promising that. By moving it all, moving all the parking to the park side of the street that we actually, it doesn't decrease the number of spaces, but it also seems like it could be much safer. Yeah. And then also.  It was full today. I'm sure. Well, what time, what time were you going to work? You know, at eight 45. Okay. And it's also the visibility is really poor coming, you know, Oh, absolutely. I absolutely. Or people coming out of those driveways, if that parking is there as well. When also you talked about delivery vehicles and like other types of things too. That's the kind of thing I think we might. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, I've been working on the narrative. I'm sorry. It was just a little too rough to share at this meeting. Then. So then the next thing we, right. So I guess one question I had about the angled parking. And maybe it would be helpful if Guilford could pull up the map, but as you're approaching triangle, like there, you know, it is pretty steep. Like the park. The park side is a bit steep.  I measured it a few different places. It doesn't really seem like it's more narrow, but it sort of feels more narrow and maybe two because of the construction. And just the trees and the hill and stuff. But I guess. How far close to North pleasant. I mean, to triangle street. Do we think that the parking would be. Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure why I would believe it. It's not a good thing. I mean, I'm not. It's not a good thing. I mean, it's not a good thing. So I guess that's just a good thing. Guilford, if you want to pull that up. Can I hear you Guilford? Or do you want us to pull that up? Guilford? Did you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. All right, so this is the. This is kind of the concept, but it's got the parallel parking. We haven't switched over to angle parking. And we're thinking somewhere in this area. We stop the. Parking. Okay. Closer towards. It's not all the way up to Triangle Street. It'll be back some. Well, yeah. So I mean, you can kind of see there from your picture, right? That there's the vegetation to the right of your hands. And that does seem like a pretty kind of steep area there. It is. The sidewalk remembers going to be in the road. Okay. All right. So did you say that you're going to have angled parking there? That's what the recommendation from the attack is that the all angle parking on the park side. Right. I mean, that the parking moves farther into the park. No, we do away with. We do away with this tree belt and this parking on the west side. And there's enough room then to fit angle parking in there. Yes. With one way traffic. That's what we were talking about. Yeah.  Right. Right. Okay. All right. Okay. So. So give her to be stopped sharing, I guess I can go back to the bullets. All right. Thanks. Okay. Okay. So one. So back to our angle parking discussion is we didn't decide when we were discussing about it on August 12th. Whether we wanted to recommend back in parking or front in parking. I don't know if we do want to take a vote on that. But I think that we discussed like the pros and cons of both of them. I mean, we could, we could say something about, you know, depending on what the town decides with some of the other back in parking that it's trying. Right. So I think Marcus, you raised a good point that. If you have back in parking. That if you have like a minivan or something with your kids, right? And then you're opening the doors that then the kids. The door side is like the park side. Like when they exit the vehicle. That seems like a good safety feature. I mean, I, I did mean to check on at look park because they have their circle, their driveway that goes through the park and they have front and angle parking to see like if they had had issues with it or so on. I mean, hopefully the traffic in this area won't be so high that it would make a big difference with the back. Like that people would be really challenged with back in and with it. I mean, I think that's something that we should be able to, you know, talk about. Pausing and interfering with traffic. Like interfering with cars, which is Mike and stone about some of the other. Back in parking, such as the proposed. Approved parking for main street. But. I mean, do we want to recommend one of the other? Or do we want to sort of defer to the town? What do people think? I thought we last time we decided to defer to the town. Okay. I think that's what that's what we came out with was the suggestion, but we didn't, you know, Right. And I think we could just, you know, we could mention like some pros and cons of both. Yeah. You know, as we present it.   But with front end parking, when you're coming out. You're really kind of doing it kind of blind on that street. And if they're also cyclists coming by, you know, that could be really. Right. It's actually interesting. So in North Hampton, when North Hampton tried back in parking. And they were originally going to do it, I think, for like 60 or 90 days, and they suspended it earlier. But one of the issues was that a cyclist had almost been hit with the back end parking. Oh, really? So, yeah. And I mean, there were some other complaints. Yeah. I mean, it's very, it's very different there. Yeah. So, but I mean, what we're, we keep talking about, you know, if this street has traffic calming and it's a one way street and stuff, it becomes like more and more of a neighbor neighborhood street and less of a cut through and things like that. So. It might be, it might work fine. And then. So our next vote was about just deferring to. The city council meeting. And then I was asked to see regarding like where the handicap parking is placed. I did attend the last DC meeting and they discussed the project. Actually, it was a little bit unfortunate because I raised my hand towards the beginning of the meeting. And nobody really noticed me. And then they were discussing. They were discussing the original memo, including the parallel parking and not having much angled parking. And I, so I did. They, somebody finally did see me and I commented, but. They said, you should have told us sooner. Like, what did, what the tack had done? And I said, I tried. I raised my hands. So such as the challenges of zoom, I guess. Yeah. And being noticed.  Accessible parking, like in parking lots and so on. And I think they were saying that the standard is one accessible space per 50 spaces. Which I don't believe it applies on street though. Some have said that it should apply on street. And so they are going to revisit this a little bit. I think at the next meeting and. I'm going to talk a little bit more about. Moreen who supports the, from the planning department, who supports the DAC is like writing up their recommendations. And they didn't seem to have a strong preference for. Back in or front end parking. They talked about both how you have, you know, people who have. Handicap placards who just need to be close to their destination.  Because you don't have to be close to the parking. You don't have to be close to the parking. For the ramps or. The lifts or whatever. And typically those are on the. Passengers side, not the driver side. So. I was really excited. Guilford, you should know this to see that there was. A woman who was in a wheelchair. Who was using their little, like, kind of picnic benches, like metal benches in that park right now. You know, the, the, the sidewalk that goes through, she was at the near the McClellan intersection. And it had a space where she could pull her wheelchair right under on the, on the table. And it was so cool. I was like, Oh my gosh, she was eight. You know, there was a, there was a student in a, in a wheelchair studying in the middle of the park. And I was so proud of that actually. So. There you go. You should think planning. They came up with that table. Yeah. Well, there's, there's some other tables like that. Right. There's some at the downtown at like the. Chris, Chris. Yeah. It's great. But I did, I did tact as like Dave Zomek. And I asked him if he could have a few more garbage cans. In Kendrick park, because there are almost none.   I saw a bunch of bikes park there the other day too. Well, there you go. And the playground surface is pretty nice. It's like pretty spongy. Yeah. Great. Okay. So. So then the last main vote we took was about the green space on the west side of removing it. On the west side of North pleasant street. In order both to incur, to support the angled parking, but also if we were going to do potential future bike lanes or paths or anything. And we all supported that. So when I walked on that after, when I walked along the street after the vote, I mean, I do support the general recommendation about creating the space we need in order to have the on street parking, as well as bike facilities. But at the same time, it is a pretty big green space. Like it was larger than I realized it's about like five or six feet wide. And we did talk about how the tree warden had mentioned you can never really grow trees there or anything, right? That there's a gas line. So it isn't, you know, super, super high quality green space. And people have talked about how there's trash and stuff, but it is green space a little bit. So I, one thing I did wonder is if, if all of that space is removed, how is the snow removal handled? Like, because currently I'm sure that that area fills with snow. From, for the plows and stuff. So go for it. Where would the snow go? We would put it in the parking lot and then pick it out of the parking lot at a later date. So go all, push it all into the spaces and then pile it up there and then pick it out. But like what parking lot? The parking spaces on the next to the park. Oh, I see. Okay. So even the one like across the street, it would all go over to the Kendrick Park side. Yeah.  And that wouldn't be a win row. It'd be a pile. But at one end. But those would be, but those would be, so they would be in like the angled parking spaces though, right? Right. But that would be fine. Right. And so, and with the sidewalk, like still be the sidewalk on the park side, then it would still be cleared and everything, right? There'd still be space. Okay.  But, um, Okay. I mean, so I mean, when I walked along and I noticed when I walk along from that section, North Pleasant and then North Pleasant street through. Um, towards UMass, like through the UMass campus, like they do have this wide space too, like the five to six feet green space. So I don't know whether it would work at all to have like a very small green space just to like break up all the pavement or whether that doesn't really have any utility. Like a few. We break up the pavement. We break up the pavement immediately on the other side, right? With everybody's.  So there is, there is no need. Oh, of the sidewalk you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Road sidewalk yard. We're not like, we don't have a 20 foot sidewalk. So I think. I don't think we need like. Okay. All right. That sounds good. And then, um, let me see. I'll go to the next page and then. If I can. Oops. Sorry. Oh, it is. Okay. So then the, the thing we didn't wrote on was about the parking permit issues. So that was something that the TSO had asked us about. And I didn't recall voting on this. I think we decided because the town finance director. And other people are looking at it. Um, that we are just going to. We weren't going to vote on it per se because that process is overlapping with our, this process. Um, and so that was my recollection that we didn't vote, but we did have some comments that we wanted to share. So does that sound right to people? Yeah. Um, And so, I mean, when I went back and looked at it, so the permit parking program, including the maps of where the permit parking is located. I mean, it doesn't look like any of it has been changed since 2005. I think the only thing that might have changed is perhaps the. That's a sign. Cause I know that it used to be like $10 a year and it went up to 25. At some point, I don't recall when that was. Gilford, do you know when that was? No. Or Chris just Chris. No. Um, okay. How much is your map is parking? Hundreds, hundreds of dollars. And even, and this is a thing too. So even the spaces like in the boltwood, the boltwood garage at the lower level, those are a thousand dollars a year spaces. So 25 is not much.  Oh, is that. I can start making some money. Well, in my neighborhood, lots of students are already parking on the grass. So there you go. Just like off for your whole yard. Oh yeah. Yeah. By the inch. Yeah.  Um, So, um, I mean, these were the sort of the main points that we had talked about. Um, so I put them down just, um, then, you know, they're God that they're revisiting it.  Since was the residents. Have the parking behind the street, which is something Kim has mentioned. And it's, you know, it's completely true. And there's just a few residents. I think they're trying to go that have less. There's like one resident. Okay. There is just one residence. Um, At the very end of, that's right. On the North end. North end. And so they didn't actually have, um, any parking behind them at all. I think it's all right. No, I know. That's, that's the one that I really worried about. That didn't have any. That's the one actually that even before the UMass students came back. Right. That there was always a couple of people parts at the permit area. Um, I don't know who lives there. I've never seen anyone. I do live in that house. So the person, the person who used the wheelchair passed away. Oh, okay. Wow. This is a small town we live in. Okay. Yes. Um, And then, and just the idea too, that if your Gisa number of permits, basis on this street, then we're also increasing the number of, um, Spaces available to the general public, right? So that can help address the parking demand. Um, And I am interested in this option about, um, the spaces that can be designated for both permit parking and metered. And I don't know, are there any other places besides like, uh, in front of the Lord, Jeff, that has that in Amherst? Only spring streets, the only section that has meters with parking permit on top of them. Oh, is it not bullet? It's spring street. Is that right? Yes. Spring. Okay. I know it's the bullet. Okay. Oh, the in a bullet. Okay. I was trying to remember what to call it. The hotel previously known as a large. Um, so I noticed that that's something that happened. I've seen that done also in North Hampton. Um, like in some of the areas near the residential areas near Smith college where they have both permit parking. That's also metered. So I'm assuming the way it works is that. And somebody can correct me. Um, if I'm wrong with that, um, people who have permits are allowed to park there and people who don't have permits have to use the meters. Is that how that works? Yes. And then also then the people, if you don't have a permit, then you're subjected to whatever the time limit is on the meters. Yes. And if you have a, if you have a parking. If you have a permit, you're also supposedly subjected to some type of parking. Limit that's supposedly, but I don't understand how that works. Like part. Oh. Not like the winter parking thing. Bams. No. Okay. Something other than that. Okay. Okay. And then, so if you have a permit, then you can just park in them at any time. And don't, you don't have to pay anything or anything. But you don't really have preference though. No. I mean, it's a little, it is a little. Strange, I think to like be competing like with the, that the permit, the people with the permit spaces are competing with the meters, like particularly if there's really busy times. So I don't know, maybe we don't want to suggest that, but. But it does seem that. There can be times when there's really not that many conflicts. Right. Because a lot of people for residential permits, people need them at night, like when they park near their homes. And that the meters aren't done anyway or something. Yeah. And there's also going to be a lot of times, I mean, both times of day, but then also times of year where it's not going to be that busy at the park, I think. I mean, it's busy now that playgrounds new and things, but it's going to be a lot of times. But it's not that busy. It's cold and as a students aren't there. You know, it's possible to have the permit parking in this situation. Be only at night. From 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. For the parking. The parking ends at like five and six, the permit parks. Yeah. The program is it runs September to May nine, nine to five. There are two. There's one for employees. Isn't there one for employees and one for residents. Two different kinds of stickers. Yeah. Yeah. For the residents. Parking. Do they have to be within a certain distance. That parking spot. No, you just be like, I can get a residence one. Put North Amherst and Park downtown. Yeah. Oh, sweet. Really? There's no restrictions on the residential parking. You have to qualify in the area of residential parking. So if you live outside an area that has no residential parking, you can get one. So what you need to do is get residential parking in your neighborhood. And then you get the sticker. Then when you go downtown, then you can park in the residential space. But are there any. Neighborhoods outside of downtown that have the residential parking permit program. I don't think so yet. And then I had seen something. The grabby had written something up and he said there were 356 spaces with the permit program. But are those, does anybody know if those are just the. Employee spaces or including the residential. I mean, the residential doesn't have very many. Like I think on the map. Oh, the spaces are both. Okay. Like, but to Chris's point about how there's the downtown, like downtown center parking, but that I don't, is that limited only to employees or as an employees and residents. And then there's also resident. If you live in the downtown, you can get a downtown permit. You work downtown, you can get a downtown permit. Got it. But then there are certain streets that have residential. Permits like cause we have in places like that, right? But the map is really limited of those. I, that's my impression. Like when I looked at them, the map of them. Anyway, I mean, maybe we're getting two into weeks, but it just seemed, it seemed like there really aren't. There's a map. Hold on. Let me just see if I can pull it. There's a map of where they are. It's only on McLean street. Yeah. It didn't seem like there's many. Is the only residential. Okay. That's what, that was my impression. I don't go through you basing that on the map. Yeah, I'm looking at it. You want to see it? Yeah, sure. That was my impression as well. You see it. Yeah. So the yellows, yellows are the town center permits. The reds are the residents. Okay. And then the small blue section is the resident. Is on. Town center and meet me. That's the section. Got it. So we don't have any, oh, but then you have these green, the green areas too, like up. I'm off of triangle street. On spring, that housing there is just that much college, right? Oh, but it's town center. Yeah. Yeah. Also isn't spring street where they're having the new apartment building that's not done yet. Right. The one that was leased, they were leasing for the fall. It doesn't look quite ready. Okay. Yeah. So that was my impression too that there's only a few blocks that have these residential permits. So. How we can add one. Well, and so, I mean, on North Pleasant street, I mean the ones near Kendrick park, right? It doesn't, it just normally doesn't seem like too many people are parking there. But as Eve said, now the students are back. It's a lot busier. Well, I also think it's because of the UMass parking issue. Yeah, for sure. I mean, you, UMass has UMass asked the town for 341 parking spaces that help them. Wow. They had told them to pound sound. So I wonder if, if. Um, I think we might make the north end, the north end of Kendrick park. Um, where that residential house is actually some. Of that red parking. But they live there. They can get a downtown permit. Because they live in that downtown area. And they do. That is covered with students every day. Um, I think in terms of when they're reviewing, when Sean McGonough and others are reviewing the parking program, just how the number of permits that are issued compared to the number of spaces and where the demand is like, even the parking study that was done. By Nelson and I guard, right? It can't, it was completed before some of the residential without much parking was completed. So. I mean, I think we're going to continue to see, I think we're going to see the number of parking permits that are available for every parking permits for every space. And you really have to like fight for those spaces. And I don't know. Like when, if and when we would get to that sort of situation, but it seems like that could be growing in downtown. Um, Eve, do you have a comment? I was just going to say, I might, I was thinking that what was implying was that these people might be able to have a space, but if they have to walk two blocks from the only available space to their home, and at least we have to walk four blocks from the only available space to their home. And so I think that means some spaces, you know, that are right. Close by might be still important, even if the total number of spaces is adequate. But Eve.  So we had been suggesting that they could continue to park on North Pleasant Street in front of their house. But North Pleasant Street is what we're talking about. You mean a different part of North Pleasant Street. Oh, that they're they're currently using. So even in the summer there's people parked at a few of the parking spaces on the north end of that stretch section of North Pleasant Street. But are you seeing him then that these spaces these permit spaces are getting completely taken over by students. Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Is that because they're not it's not enforced. I have no idea actually, I don't know. But, but I, but I think, go ahead, Kim, I'm sorry, it's not it's not occupied there. There's no one on that street when you mass it's not I mean hardly anyone on the street when you mass it's not in session.  Like the waiting lists are very long. And the fact that the town center permit parking program and look at all this yellow right you could live in a student. You could be a student who lives pretty far away. Like on South Prospect Street or Spring Street or all the way over near Dickinson or something right and you could park. I mean you could drive over and like park closer to campus. And then by the time you're Kendrick Parker like right on the edge of campus. Right so for a long time to you mass people are using the seat the lot behind CVS. Remember when I was first on the public transportation and bike committee, you could park in the town portion of the CVS parking lot for 10 hours. It was a limit of up to 10 hours and it costs 10 cents an hour. So for $1 you could park at the CVS lot for the whole day. And then you could take the bus or however you wanted to get to you mass. I mean it was very inexpensive and parking at you mass is. It's much more expensive. I'd like to suggest we just leave it as it is. That's fine. The number of spaces that are permanently reduced and then let some other authority that maybe investigates this more and decide how many spaces that should be. No thank you Bruce that's good. So okay. So the other decision points that we had left to talk about with the park was. We had the sidewalk was one question and then also if we want to talk about bike facilities. And did we have anything else. No, I guess we didn't have anything else we want to say about parking. So. Okay, so on this on the sidewalk so you have a comment. Yeah, so I was going to share a few pictures of a bike lane and then just a couple articles I found that talked about safety. So I'm going to go first on the sidewalks first. Well, it's okay, but one of the suggestions is what Gilbert said last time or the time before which is that it might be better to put the bike lane on the level of the sidewalk. So it might have implications for the side. Oh, I didn't hear Gilbert say that. I think that was something that I had been thinking about just in terms of safety and I'll go for did you say that. Oh, okay. So, all right. So we can talk about it in that context so. I was thinking about I was thinking about a shared path like if we took some of the on the west side of North Pleasant Street and Gilbert can you pull up the map just so we have like a visual. I mean so I've been thinking that I am concerned about a counterflow lane like at the street level. Even if we don't have parking on that side, which, which I'm glad we don't because it would be completely unsafe and it wouldn't even be feasible to have a counterflow lane. Just for the drivers who are exiting the driveways, you know from the nine plus driveways that are along that section of North Pleasant Street. And I'm seeking from somebody who works a lot with drivers driver safety or driver training. So I'm right I'm a licensed driving instructor I know how and when crashes happen a lot. But what happens is that so a driver it's, you know the sidewalk. If the street is one way the drivers will mainly be looking to the right for the traffic so that they can merge into the one way traffic. So they can get them. I mean maybe if we even if we have signs or something to encourage them to look at the sidewalk to the left hand side so that they can see if there's pedestrians. But then if you. So if you have a combined path like something similar to university drive and the, to me the fact that the green belt is the five or six feet wide I think it could be possible plus the sidewalk there is pretty white to so it could be feasible to have a shared path. But if you put it on the street level right the drivers who are going to be exiting and going to the north like they need to look left at the sidewalk and then they, they drive up the five six feet and then they need to look left again to like check for cyclists. So I just wasn't sure that I don't think it's really checking all that. No, there's no feasibility to have a counterflow lane on the road because if a car needs to, you know if there's a car moving out of a space and another car coming along needs to move out of the way. The only place they've got to go is into the, you know, to the side which would put anybody on the counterflow in direct competition so I just don't think there is a viable choice to put a counterflow on the roadway. No, but so what Marcus it would be on the roadway on the west side. Yeah, I know I know somebody's coming out of a space but it's not going to have any parking. I understand that coming out of any space out of a space and somebody else needs to take evasive action the only place they have to go is to the west side of the road. Right. So you're putting into a direct competition between the bike and the car and the bike's going to lose. So I think that for the safety's sake, maintaining the flow in the same direction on the roadway would be the way to go. Also what what is the width of the street behind the parking because if the width is wide enough I don't I don't think that the car would necessarily go into the bike lane. I mean is it a standard with the street. Well the streets going to be pretty wide, I think right. I mean go for it can you speak to that a little but if it's a one way street how wide is the main traveling of the street going to be. The travel lanes will be at least 12 feet because we got a comedy people making left turns and right turns out of the or left turns into the housing and right out. So we just got to make sure they have enough room to make that turning movement so so it'll probably be 12 feet all the way down and to tell the truth. I'm not sure how much space extra space they'll be for a bike and dedicated bike lane. It might, it might come out that we either have to split the sidewalk or we put a shared lane a share on the travel lane. So I can you explain what you mean about putting a share on the traveling and what that would mean with the cyclists. I just marked the we just marked the left side of the travel lane that it's for bicycle to share with bicycles so cars and bicycles would share it. Oh, but you're talking about you're talking about the park side of the traveling right. No I'm talking about the west side, the counter flowing. No, it's going to go the same direction as traffic. If you go, if you're riding a bicycle you're not going to want to drive opposite traffic in the travel lane, you're not going to want to go around, you're going to go down to the roundabout and go around this way. Tracy, can I share the pictures I wanted to share. Sure. So, is it possible for me to share my screen. Yep. All right, so I just wanted to show you guys an example of a road with a counterflow bike lane that I used to use all the time at University of Oregon that works really well, but I'm also going to show you a little bit of research about pros and cons. So in this case it's a two way travel lane, but it wouldn't have to be right so it could be that the people going this way would share the lane, just with Cheryl's the way bill for just said, I'm sorry about my loud dog. And people going this way would have a separate lane with a buffer. So, I'm sorry. So, it's a completely viable way to do it and then, and then to have the people here. So I did just a little bit of looking up and notice that there are parked cars on the right so it's it's very similar to what you might imagine being able to do here. Right. So it did do just to look up a couple things and it was pretty interesting that if they have they say if you have two way bike lanes, it does produce more injuries. And although if you're talking about what Gilbert said where you've got the shadows for the folks going north and you've only got one counterflow lane, it might not be quite as the same. But at the same time, it actually increases ridership significantly. So it makes there are several suggestions that come out and one of them is basically what you guys were saying which is you would put that counterflow lane up on the level of the sidewalk that that makes a big difference so you could have the northbound bikes share the path and the southbound bikes on a, I wouldn't, I wouldn't personally make it a multi use path I would actually separate out the bikes and the pedestrians because the traffic might be pretty high at sometimes coming between UMass and downtown. That would be my take. All right, I'm done. No, thank you. I think, I think that fit. How much width would you need for that Eve to have a sidewalk and and what you what did you call it a counterflow lane. Give me just a minute and I'll look it up. I mean, I see it. Go ahead, Eve. I can speak while you're looking it up but I mean I see Chris sort of comparable to like a university drive, right that the university drive path it has both pedestrian and bike traffic in two directions. And that's actually not even that wide a path like I think it's some sections of it are like seven or eight feet. I mean, Guilford could would know the measurements better but it seems like currently the sidewalk is at least four or five feet and the green spaces I was saying is five or six feet so it's potential that if a lot of that green space could be used for something like that, that it would provide sufficient room. It to me does seem safer than the counterflow lane on the street. But then also if you do have a counterflow lane, you would need to also have a good size buffer. You know just because to the to Marcus's point and so on but visually for safety and so on. You're talking about a multi you're talking about a multi use path on the west side then multi use path on the west side right. Yeah, I think we ruled out a counterflow lane in the roadway. I mean do we all agree on that kind of no counterflow lane in the roadway. So even if you have something you want to show. And it's not great actually I mean I can show it, but it's not great because it's really about a city. So I mean so I did talk to Jeff McCullough from the PVPA. So this is what it suggests for a city for for a lane where you've actually got those two lanes so the buffers where I've read the buffers need to be at least a foot and a half as the minimum bike lane needs to be five feet at a minimum. So I don't know what you'd need for a curb but it would be on the order of seven feet minimum to add that. You're not going to have all that. Between the two, between the two bike lanes and the buffer you're talking about 1516 feet. No, because we just said we wouldn't add one of the bike lanes right one of the bike lanes we wouldn't add it would be a shared path you just need to add one bike line, and then the buffer could be as little as a foot and a half. The buffer right because you'd be going with traffic you could have a share as As we were talking about earlier. I mean so one question I had about that, you know, looking at this space and comparing it to something like University Drive is how because you do need to have the curb cuts for the driveways. Right coming from the sidewalk level down to the street level. You know, Guilford how how much of a setback would you need to have if you're going to have a path like that to have it be level for the for the pedestrians and the cyclists, and including some kind of curb cut down to the street for the vehicle for the motor vehicles that are exiting and entering on the driveways. What do you think is around two feet. Okay, so we only have eight feet for the sidewalk and whatever is left over on the west side. We have eight to eight to 10 feet. And that's if we move the sidewalk over. Right every so the the sidewalk on the, the west side of the park is how big five feet. You keep talking I'll figure it out again. I mean so I would, I would want it if it's going to be like two way by traffic and potentially the pedestrians as well, and it is a major pedestrian corridor. I would just want to make sure that that shared use path is sufficiently wide that there aren't going to be a lot of conflicts and that it could also be have pavement markings and so I just sort of encourage like separation of the flow. We have to be 42 feet we have to work with here. And then we have a five foot sidewalk against the park and where the street is now, like takes us down to 37. If we have 20 feet for the parking. That's 17. And if we do a 12 foot travel lane. That's five feet for the sidewalk on the west side. So that's where you're using the, the green space right because the green space is like about five to six feet. Yeah, use. Yeah, use the whole. Everything's going to be everything's going to be paved. Oh, go ahead. I'm just going to say, what would you think of having a conventional sidewalk with the curb. And then the bike lane painted green as you showed in your photo Eve, but the bike lane would be in the road. Would that fit better. Guilford. No, because you, I think you need to have more of a buffer if you have a counterflow bike lane you need to have more of a buffer with the traffic and also to Marcus's point. You know, if people are pulling out and there's also traffic and I mean maybe we don't need a 12 foot traveling so much. You're going to have to, you got people turning in and out.  And we're agreeing that we'd like it to be on the, on the sidewalk level. Gilbert, do you think that that would work better. Yeah, I mean, we can talk. Yes. I interrupted hold on hold on. Did you have a fight. I just wanted to clarify. I think that the map shows parallel parking but I think that it's been talked about like angled parking. Yes, it is. I guess I didn't, I didn't remember the reason that angled parking was being used and the, the width difference between those two. I don't know how much of a difference that would make. And then we, we decided that angled parking, there can be more spaces. Correct me more spaces and it's safer, and we didn't think it was safe to have parallel parking on both sides of the street, particularly like with the high volume of pedestrians and kids, and also with the poor sight lines at the nine plus driveways that are on the west side of the road. So we thought that if we can have exact, you know, the same number of parking spaces on the east side of the road, and just have like less conflict and so on like that. Better. Because the proposal, the proposal like in the map that was presented to the town council would have had parallel parking on both sides of the street. So parallel parking both sides of the street would not be that different than the angle of parking on one side of the street. Okay, so you don't necessarily have a difference because you're saving room on having parallel parking on one side. Yeah, and at least is parallel parking on a single side is that that does that take up too many spots and or the safety concerns. Part of the goal to us to increase the number of spaces in the vicinity of the park. Thanks. Thanks. Okay, so do we want to take some kind of vote related to the bikes. If we can. So we would frame it as we would recommend it possible a bike lane, but it would be above the curb. It would be a multi purpose path that would include the sidewalk, correct. Yeah. I don't think you make it a multi purpose path I think you have a separated bike lane and a separated sidewalk but they're both at the sidewalk level so they're, they're separated with some kind of marking. So I would recommend the proposal to, to reflect that. Right. Okay. Sorry, but, but is the, is that bike lane. Is that just for counterflow, or is that. Yeah, because, because, yeah, okay. Great, because then it would be take the street, it would be shared part shared with bicycles that entire street. Right. Northbound traffic. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, with the traffic and some traffic by bikes would be in this special lane. I mean the way one cyclist described to me and I think this is a great way to think about it is to not pay like to not have pavement markings for a bike lane. It would be adjacent to the angle of parking. Yes, particularly, because one, if you have them right next to the angle of parking maybe that's not so safe, but also if that street does not have a high volume of car traffic, then really the cyclist should be able to choose like where they feel the safest going northbound. Probably if it's not going to be as, you know, a busy cut through street and so on a lot of times I'll just feel safe like being in the middle of the lane and things and they'll be far away from the angle of parking. I think that Guilford didn't give us enough room to do what you're talking about. I think that Guilford gave us five feet on the west side for a sidewalk and didn't give us enough room for a sidewalk and a bike lane elevated on the west side. Is that right, Guilford? I think you need to say if we can fit this thing in we can. I mean, I thought there was more space than what you just did to the math of Guilford. I thought one of the ideas was take away the sidewalk on the parkside for at least part of that. I thought that we were actually saving some width by putting angled in parking rather than two sides of parallel parking. So, and then we're talking about removing that buffer. Right now there's already a sidewalk and a buffer. So, I don't know, I just seemed like the math might actually be more than what we're taking away from the roadway with the footpath on the east side. Is there a footpath all the way up and down? We haven't voted on that yet. I mean, originally, yeah. Two meetings ago, the proposal said no sidewalk on the east side. But what Eve is talking about now is something that's probably 10 feet wide on the west side, right, Eve? Five feet for a sidewalk and five feet for a bike lane? Yeah. That's not gonna, I don't think that. I think we're gonna have to like get smaller, but I think we can do it. And then, I mean, I guess to if with the sidewalk and, okay, so do we want to take a vote just on the whole bike path idea or the kind of what Bruce was saying? I just worked on the language of that. I think one thing that we're, we might be a little forgetting a bit about is that I think most of the people who are going to be proceeding maybe by bike through that street from North Pleasant. Okay. Throwing counterflow. They're really, I can tell you because I do this with frequency and while I might appreciate a counterflow lane, that street does not feel, I would net, I usually ride on the sidewalk and you all know that I feel like a very confident cyclist as it is. And if I ever choose to do that piece and I cut through into McClellan to get home, it's currently very dangerous, right, to, because of the parking situation on that street. And I feel really safe on the sidewalk because I feel like I can see everyone and, and there really aren't, I don't really see that many people cutting through because now there's that beautiful sidewalk. It's very wide that I choose to go on to the sidewalk if I, if I'm going downtown, instead of home, I would go on that sidewalk is really wide. And it feels really safe to me, as opposed to being in the street through that intersectional sometime that I go through the roundabout there. So I don't think I think that at least in my experience there aren't that many people that would ride their bikes in the counterflow, what we're, we're calling the counterflow position, even with a two way street right now. I just, I just think we're trying to build a robust network where people are going to feel safe and invited to bike more and this is precisely the kind of place and way to make that happen. Well, and Eve had brought up earlier, right, if you improve that corner, the triangle north pleasant corner to make it safer. Like where there's like increase the width right Eve for like more cyclists. Yeah, I mean I bike that way when I go to downtown. Yeah. And the other thing, what was I was going to say, it seems like one thing you guys might have to choose. If, if the space issue is really that tight what Gilbert is saying, you may have to, or you might want to say which is a priority, getting that five foot counterflow by clean on to the sidewalk on the west side, or getting a five foot sidewalk on the east side. If you choose between those two things, which one would attack recommend. Yeah, I think I think it's a really good way to actually, and I guess one question I have. I mean if we want to talk about the sidewalk one question I have is. Well I was somebody who was originally opposed to having a sidewalk all the way along the west side of the park because it seemed a little bit redundant to me, because you have a sidewalk on the west side and north pleasant street there and then also if we have these improved crosswalk crossings like both the McClellan but then also if we have one north of the park what I sort of saw is if people are walking or even biking, you know on the sidewalk, towards the park from like the UMass campus, and then they turn on to north pleasant streets and they could cross at the race crosswalk that we want to have north and McClellan, and then like enter the park that way, and that that north corner of the park that north west corner of the park it is really steep over there. And so you wouldn't really, I mean I even sort of wonder even the idea about, you know if we have the angle of parking go too far north and then you have the sidewalk right next to it like people aren't actually going to get to the park that way very much. Like because it's much steep, you know, as I walk it it seemed pretty steep in that but if you have the, if you have a race crosswalk, you know north McClellan that people could cross there and then there could be like a flatter path like into sort of the key element to the park. If you have a, if you have parking on the east side of the road though, you're going to want people to get out of their cars and get onto a sidewalk. You're not going to want people to walk in the street to get into the park. So I think you need the sidewalk on the west side of the park, at least for some distance wherever you have parking. Right, yeah. Well, we also talked about how some of that, some of that parking like on the north end of the angle, the north end of the ankle parking could be like permit parking. That would serve the residents so those people would actually be crossing the street to go back to their cars. Yeah, and not using it for the park. We can't force them to go straight across. We need them to go to a safe place that we need and the only way they can get to that is on the path. It's a safety issue that we provide a footpath when we provide parking. I mean it's pure and simple. It isn't going to be as much of a safety issue if the traffic is one way traffic on the neighborhood street. We're moving pedestrians into a street two way, one way. I mean, if you put them into a street and they're parallel parking, you're still putting them into a one way section of the street. And we don't do that. We don't want them to do that, right? We want them to get them away from any traffic onto a safe space on the footpath. And then direct them to a place that we want them to cross over. However, we want them to cross over, but not from the car running across the street to get to somewhere. I mean, that's just not happening. But that is what we have currently on that street. Right, but we have an opportunity to fix it. Yeah, I think that makes sense to me, Marcus, what you're saying, especially when you think so many of those pedestrians are going to be only three feet tall, you know. Right now, of course. I agree with that also because with the new activities in the park, it's going to be a busier area than it is right now. So, so, so on that like north end of the park. So, I mean, we talked about right having the whole five foot sidewalk be in the street and none of it on the park side like not losing any park. Is there any flexibility to north to protect the trees is there any flexibility to make it like four feet into the road and one foot on the side, except for the north end that's, I mean, I'm not on the north end where it's so steep. And then northwest corner of the park I wasn't even sure if you have to even go out further to like make sure that. It sounds like Gilford is saying they can go and review all the measurements and you know you guys can make a recommendation that if it's possible. You know, they have a counterflow bike lane at the sidewalk. Yeah, it sounds like you know the discussion from Marcus at all is that getting that sidewalk on the east side, five foot sidewalk, but on the west side if you can get in that counterflow. Real, I mean, I was just looking at that this morning and I mean there's there are tons of trees and power lines on that side right there like really quite flush with the park with the street right there. What you're talking on the right at the park at the parkside. Yeah, so I mean are you saying that there would be issues within the sidewalk there or that they're right well I mean there is this there it's both steep like you say that's what I'm saying yeah there also are a ton of trees and the power lines right there right so isn't that what Gilbert said to put the sidewalk in the street. Yeah, yes. Right. So, Gilbert is putting the sidewalk in the street is that sufficient to. I mean would you still need to have some kind of like retaining wall or anything. I don't think there's going to be any more parts of it because it would be. No, I mean the slope is already stabilized it's already an established slope. As long as we're not cutting into that slope, we don't need to stabilize it any other way. Okay. So, has the committees considered putting the angled parking on the west side of the street. Instead and that way. Okay, that's been talked about for. Yeah, I mean the issue is just with that is just that there's too many ingress and places with all those those nine driveways, the nine plus driveways between McClellan and triangle. That doesn't seem that we can show it again but that's just not compatible with angled parking. Also, then you have the issue of people parking and then having to cross the street to get to the park. That's true too. Yeah, being on the same side as the park. So go for it if you zoom into that part. So hold in those all those, all those, those are huge rentals and they all have lots of parking in the back. There's plenty of parking that behind those rentals but there is a lot of traffic in and out of those places, especially, you know during morning evening commuting times. So it really wouldn't be sufficient for angle, it would be a mess, basically. And I think, I mean there are good points about having the parking adjacent to the park for safety to for like everybody not having to cross the street. Even with the sidewalks and so on. Okay. Thanks. Hey go for an ask a random question. How often it seems like that the polls the electric utility polls just are repeatedly constrained on putting various pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure where we'd really like to put it. How often do those things get replaced and, and is it possible to have a long term plan for as they get replaced to move them five feet over. Now, they get they don't get replaced very often, unless they're hit by cars and getting them to move over more than 18 inches. Legally requires them to go before the town council and have another poll hearing and set the poll farther back. So it's the rule that's, it's archaic system but it's, it doesn't work well in our favor. That sounds like a good thing for somebody to try to change. Yeah. Okay, so do we want to vote and put these issues all under one vote of. We're recommending a sidewalk bordering the park with the head in parking. And then if there is enough room on the other side of the street that there would be a bike lane in addition to the side of the existing sidewalk. I mean, I guess. Yeah, I like the idea of doing those is two separate votes. Right. So sort of what we did before. Okay. And that we could say that we support, you know, we support a sidewalk on the, on the west side of the street. I mean the east side of the street on the park side of the street. Bruce, Bruce, you said angle and parking. You want back in right. Well, I think we were leaving it up to the town. Okay, so angle parking. Just angle parking. Okay. Great. So we do that vote first. Yeah. So. So I'm sorry. So there's no possibility of having it be less than five feet, like for any of it, right? We couldn't take like a foot or. The sidewalk. Yeah with this. No, not the side. If we want the side of three five feet, can any of it go into the park by like a foot or something. Oh, yeah, I mean, there's all sorts of little, yeah, I mean, don't, this is only the concept. Tell us the things you'd like and we'll try to fit them into the. I mean, I guess do we feel okay as a committee if it goes into the park a little if it also helps me. We just need to say we want the cycle on this side and let the videos decide where it is. Right. Up to five feet into the street if needed for the trees. Right. I don't think we need to say any. Yeah, I wouldn't get too prescriptive. Okay. Ultimately, Tracy, you can, we can write that in our. No, of course. So we recommend having a five foot sidewalk. On the west side of the street. Right on the west side of the park. I second that motion. All those in favor. Unanimous. Okay. So that's five. And so that the second motion. That we, if there is room that we would like to see a bike lane on the west side. Counterflow bike lane. Yes. On the same, at the same level. I think, I mean, we could even just talk about widening it, you know, to the extent possible to accommodate people who might want a bike. Could we say something like that? I mean, we need to get that flowery. Well, but I mean, I'm just saying it doesn't. I mean, I think that's a second choice. Right. That's creating a multi use path. Yeah. And that's a second choice. That's a second choice. I mean, I'm just saying if there isn't sufficient with for a counterfeit. Right. We can say that we can, we can have that be our, our. But then we can. Discuss other options. Right. Right. I mean, I would suggest that we say that we, we ask for a footpath on the west side of North pleasant that is wide enough to accommodate. Right. So, that's not a second choice. It's not. It's not a second choice. It's not a second choice. And pedestrians because it doesn't have to necessarily be dedicated, but it could be if it's wide enough. But at the same time, there's no law that says you can't cycle on a footpath. Right. So that's, but that's Marcus, what Eve was just saying is that that would be like a second choice. So we, I mean, Yeah. Right. So we set out the language that we are trying to get it as far as we can. We're trying to get it as far as we can. We're trying to get it as far as we can. We're trying to get it as far as we can. We're trying to get it as far as we can. We're trying to get it as far as we can. So I mean, we could say that the tack recommends widening the sidewalk on the west side of the street. Right. To accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle lists. Like going in the counterflow direction. Yes. Yes. I so move. Okay. I second. All those in favor. I would say that the, the. The main path would be officially designated as a shared. Bike. So it might even have share O's or signage on it. To say, my share and bike way. I think we would be. Bicyclists. Yeah. I mean, I think we could just clarify. I don't know if we need to have a vote on that, but we would just want to clarify that. For bicyclists traveling northbound that we. Um, anticipate that they would be best. Um, the best facility for them is to bike in the lane, like in the main lane. And, and, but we should, we should suggest all that's fine. Yeah. That's needed. Um, like, you know, sharing the road right there in the street. Yeah. Okay. So we could just say that the attack recommends that for cyclists. Yeah. Yeah.  Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. I start to think about that. Yeah. Yeah. And there could be some kind of marking or signage. Yeah. To encourage that. Yep. Yep.  Right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's important too, because technically downtown sidewalks are not supposed to have any bicyclists on them. So I don't know if this area counts as that, that part of downtown. We also are saying it shared you. We're, we're suggesting shared used. Right. Well, we could, we could say that we want it to be that the sidewalk could accommodate like, you know, lower. Level cyclists. I know that we need to. But I would, I mean, downtown starts with a cow, right? Where does downtown start? I don't know. Doesn't start. You're not. I can't hear you. No, not now. It starts basically this intersection. Yeah. That's what I was going to say. Yeah. The business improvement district actually goes towards campus a little bit. And then it goes down triangle street back all the way down to. Main street. And that's kind of the edge of the downtown. But I think if little kids bicycle on the sidewalk in this area, nobody's going to do anything about it. It's only where, you know, there's a lot of heavy pedestrian traffic up by the Unitarian Church and the post office in that area. They don't want people bicycling on the site. Right, right, right. Oh, and what I saw the other day, I've seen them zipping around is like electric scooters. They're very fast. I saw them downtown. They're coming. They're, they're really. I mean, it was all like 10, 12 year olds riding them. No helmets and going fast. Okay. Apparently we don't have sidewalks sufficient for that. So. Well, all right. So do we want to just take a vote on the last one too that it's so fine, you know, okay. Yep. Okay. All in favor. Oh, do we want the language? Yeah. All right. Oh. Okay. So the tack recommends that for cyclists traveling north on North Pleasant Street, there should be pavement marking shadows and that the bike list should be in the main traveling. Should we say that there's dedicated bicycle? I mean, cycling markings in the road, not necessarily say there is shadows because if there's sufficient width, we could actually get away with a dedicated bike lane. And we would, but we are saying that that wouldn't actually be desirable. We would never do that. We would never do that. You would never do that. That's the only thing that would happen is from a safety standpoint, because then you're indicating, like for example, if we put the bike lane adjacent to the angle parking, then we would never do that. To be there. You wouldn't put, you put the dedicated bike lane away from the parking on the other side, but you don't want to, I don't think that I think cyclists want to stay on. Yeah. I think we leave it alone. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I was thinking you might just make it a little more general We can have signage and. Some kind of. Some kind of markings. Markings and signage, right? Start wrapping this up. So. Okay. Actual. Something to vote on some. You guys are awesome. I have to run and take my dog. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So do you want to repeat that motion? So. So I just said the tack recommends that first bicyclist traveling north on Ness Pleasant street. There'll be. Paving marking signage. You know, indicating that they can. Travel in the main traveling. Great. Second. Thanks Marcus. All those in favor. Hey, great unanimous as well. Great. And we're not going to say anything about the little kid cyclists on the sidewalk right now. Right. Okay. Great. Do we need to talk about the schedule? Did that happen already for the upcoming meetings? We didn't. So at the last meeting, we had talked about that we're not meeting. We didn't want to meet. We didn't want to meet. We didn't want to talk about the schedule. So at the last meeting, we had talked about that we're not meeting. We didn't want to meet on the third, um, Thursday, because that is young before, but that we could meet on the fourth Thursday, which is a 23rd. And maybe having a site visit at on north pleasant street, um, to look at the pedestrian improvements that are planned from East mid lane, like up to pine street. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. I think we can work on the rest of the schedule later since we're running and we can work on the rest of the schedule later. I think the reason I wanted to, um, So I think right if that's an official attack meeting that's a site visit, we would still need to notice it. And post it as a meeting. Um, so do we have a meeting place where we want to say that we're going to start. The spoke. Not the spoke. Well, we're starting East mid lane.  I don't think you want to go there right now. Well, they have an outdoor patio. In the middle of COVID, they have the people, whatever. That's the densest bar around. OK. Well, you're talking about meeting down by the roundabout. Can we meet at the roundabout? Yeah. Yeah, the roundabout of the university. Right. On the north end of campus, yeah. Right. OK. OK. What time and what day? We're staying on the 23rd. But what time? And I thought we had talked about earlier. Do we want to move it up? That would be fine. Do we want to move it to 430? Let me see. Yeah, I don't know what time. It would be dark by that time of the month. It's going to get dark probably around five-ish. Well, no, that's before the day of like saving. It's September. So I'd be happy if people are available to meet earlier at, say, 430 or so. 430 is fine with me. OK. And then, so then we could park on the, like where the pool, like on the north, yeah, the lot, the lot that's adjusting to the roundabout, do people know which lot? I mean, or we could ride bikes or whatever you want to get there. I'm going to bring my electric car and charge it on the chargers over there. OK. Gilford, will you be attending? Oh, yeah. Great. OK, great. Would you bring any sort of diagrams or drawings or maps or anything? Because I think there could be members of the public at this meeting if they know that we're going to be doing this. And people might want to see what this is going to look like. So if you post it as a site visit, you can't take public comment, really, or you can't respond to public comment. Right. But I think it's considered to be a public meeting. Site visits are actually exempt from open meeting law, unless you want the public to be there. So you actually don't have to post it if it's just a site visit. No, you're going to have to post it because otherwise, we can't talk about it. Right. If you want to talk about it, you have to post it. We're allowed to have site visits with COVID and everything. There's no rules about site visits. No, we've been having site visits. Alicia Brewer is going to eat us alive if we don't post it. So we need to post it. We don't post planning board site visits. And we're not aware to. We're not going to mention that. And then I know that the TSO, they had asked us, so Gilbert is presenting this project on September 30th, or you're supposed to be presenting it September 30th to TSO. And then they were going to give us the talking points. And then they actually wanted to hear from us, I think by like the 18th or the 19th of October. So I think when we get back, when we have meeting in October, the first and the third, first and third Thursday. So on the 7th, I guess we're just going to have to decide what we want to recommend to the TSO. Now, the TSO did say that if we hadn't prepared a full memo, we could at least give them at least some feedback about our feedback. But we've all reviewed this before. Yeah, I think we should be able to do this. Yeah. So just, yeah, so that's on. So we're going to plan to meet on the 23rd at 4.30 at that parking lot and then go walk north, right? Just see it. OK. Great. OK. So just a quick, just a little housekeeping before we go. So the TSO had asked for our memo on the North Pleasant Street changes near Kendrick Park by, I think, September 21st or so, or 20th. But I just want to get it to them. I mean, we've already discussed all the items. And we took all the key votes on all the elements of the project that we're going to make recommendations on. I can write up what we've talked about along with a little bit of the narrative that we mentioned about the other things we're thinking about. Are people comfortable doing what we've done in the past where I could circulate that and then somebody, somebody not me, can collect comments maybe back. And then are you OK with that, Kim? And then we can just submit it to TSO. Yep. That sounds good to me. So I'm sure TSO would. I think TSO now is meeting almost every Thursday. I'm sure they'd love to have it early. So OK. So I'm going to try to pull that together a little bit after Labor Day, if not before. So look for it early next week, and then we will get it off our plate and onto somebody else's. Thank you. No other meeting after the site visit. No, no meeting.  There's TSO, so yeah. So I think we'll plan on the site visit being about an hour or so an hour. I mean, how long? Gilbert, how long distance? It'll take a long time. Are we going to go all the way to Pine? Maybe we don't walk all the way to Pine. That project goes all the way to Pine. Right. So Pine, that's the center of North Amherst, right? Is that right? At HOT, yeah. How long distance is that? Dinner at HOT. That's true. Site visit dinner. So this project is not on a strict timeline, right? Guilford, the North Pleasant Street project. Well, TSO was trying to push it along. But you don't have money for it, right? We don't have money for most of everything we talk about. Right. But I guess my point is, could you stretch it out and have two site visits? You could. Because I don't think you'll be able to cover this in the night. I go up to Simple Gifts for the first one, maybe. Yeah. Sure. Well, can we go up to, so Guilford, so part of it when I see in the plans, right, is that you have the main path on one side of the street and then because of wetlands and things, and it switches to the other side? I mean, could we maybe break it up that way? We could. So if you started Eastman and go up to, yeah, to graduate housing, family housing at UMass. OK. The North Village Housing, North Village, which is now, yeah. I mean, should we meet at North Village and look at it that way or not at Eastman? What do you guys think? I think we should start at the roundabout at Eastman. OK. All right. This also involves lighting, too. Right, yeah. We've talked about lighting, yeah. I mean, we didn't make any recommendations for lighting at Kendrick Park, but I mean, that's something we could think about for future meeting, I guess. I think we should wrap this up. OK. Sound good, people? So we're going to meet on the 23rd at 4.30, and we're going to start at Eastman. Yep. OK. Great. I'll move to adjourn. Second. All right. Second. Thank you. All right, thank you guys. Bye. Enjoy the long weekend. Thanks, Holden. Thanks, Holden.


This is the music of a mobile society, a graceful symphony of motion and movement, power and productivity. America's transportation system has helped move the country through a century of progress and expansion, but now it is straining under the weight of its own success. The music is fading. Today, congestion and inefficiency threaten the social and economic prosperity of our communities. That's why improving our transportation system is now one of America's highest priorities. If you think about what's important in the city, whether it's employment, whether it's being able to participate in cultural activities, whether it's education, whether it's family activities, transportation goes into every last one of those functions. Transportation is linked directly to the issues that most concern our citizens. How we keep our streets and neighborhoods safe, improve the air we breathe, sustain a healthy, satisfying life, and maintain a strong, vibrant economy. Every encounter that we have in economic development is somewhere or another. We have to deal with how we are managing transportation and I'm convinced that the jurisdictions who are not able to show good traffic management are probably going to be at a competitive disadvantage. I think increasingly everybody in transportation realizes that we cannot continue to build more and more miles of roadway and that we need to find ways to get more out of our system. So I think they're coming online and realizing that we need to draw on technology. Local governments are drawing on technology to stretch their limited resources. Now they're learning to apply advanced information technologies to transportation. These intelligent transportation systems enable them to respond quickly to emergencies, manage traffic and transit, electronically collect toll and fare payments, and inform travelers of transportation options. While many communities already have these systems in place, the full potential of these technologies will not be realized until they are interconnected. This integrated approach is known as the Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure, also called ITI. It's an electronic network for surface transportation. It's about sharing information and it's done by integrating technologies locally, across agencies and regionally throughout neighboring jurisdictions. Today we'll look at the smart moves made by three of America's forward-thinking local governments as they move forward with the process of building the intelligent transportation infrastructure. The City of Phoenix has a strong tradition of applying technology to transportation. Now they're leading the way with a new program to help employees of local companies make better use of public transit. Buscard Plus is an interesting program because it's a program that started small and grew to be even better. Initially we were looking for a way for employers to help to pay for transit rides to encourage more employees to ride the bus. So we created our own credit card that could be swiped inside of the bus and at the end of the month the City could bill employers for the rides that their employees took on our bus system and it worked great. The employees loved it, the business loved it, so then we asked ourselves could we make it even better. So today in our buses we've expanded the system so that you can take your visa card out of your pocket, walk on to a city bus, swipe your visa card by it and you'll be billed for your bus ride at the end of the month. It's a simple thing, it's these kinds of small things sometimes that makes ITI so important. Technology moves awfully fast and that's the key and one of the things we must stay focused on in terms of building this infrastructure is that we build it in a fashion that provides for future flexibility. The City is trying to make sure that when systems are developed by various departments they will use the same standards so that they can be interconnected, share information and share common database. Chicago's new state-of-the-art 911 system is an excellent example of that philosophy. Here the City has developed a massive database that identifies more than 40,000 street segments and alleys, the locations of fire hydrants and footprints of almost a million buildings. Our 911 system is part of the ITI infrastructure because it's important that that automobile or that ambulance or that fire truck is able to get from its location to where it's needed as quickly as possible. Chicago's 911 system is proof that this infrastructure transcends the traditional boundaries of traffic and transit and it will pay big dividends for public safety as the City moves to integrate it with transportation. By using that technology we can hopefully keep those routes open. We can pre-empt signals. We can change our traffic signal system to allow traffic to move out of the way of that emergency vehicle. So potentially it's a tremendous tool to move traffic and to respond to emergency conditions as they occur in the City. Montgomery County, Maryland is a large suburban community adjacent to Washington DC. Here we can see the infrastructure taking shape as the County moves forward with the integration of their intelligent transportation systems. This is the location in Montgomery County where we keep track of what's happening on the road network throughout the county using a variety of surveillance methods. We have about 750 intersections where we have centrally controlled signals out of this center and about 30 of those now and we have actual video so we can bring back live video of what's happening there. We also have 250 buses out on the system or in the process of loading them up with GPS equipment but they already have radios. They can feed back information on conditions on a system. And then probably the most significant breakthrough that we've made is now we're taking that information, packaging it in a way that our citizens can use to make travel decisions. And we in fact broadcast those video pictures from the intersections live on our cable channel for the county. Additionally we have that information on the internet. You can dial us up on the internet, plug into a particular intersection that you want to travel through and determine what conditions are there. So really we're involved in three things here. One is management and the provision of information to citizens. Success depends on the ability to share information with neighboring jurisdictions. A goal that requires a high level of cooperation between local, regional and state governments. Cooperation is tough. I think what it takes is leadership at the top both regionally and locally. So it means that mayors have to send the message to their staffs that this sort of cooperation is necessary and that needs to be sent at the state level and at the federal level. And it means targeting dollars and using dollars wisely by having regions, cities, metropolitan areas cooperate to make the best use of the dollars that are available. With that cooperation communities will realize the full benefits of the intelligent transportation infrastructure, reduce congestion, better choices, faster emergency response, cleaner air, stronger economies and an improved quality of life. These are smart moves and proof that by planning smart and buying smart governments can stretch their resources and better serve their citizens.


All right guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new man is Bobby guys today We have a fascinating video the strangest proof that the Koran is from Allah by a Rebek 101 this is of course the main claim of Islam that the Koran is God's word in Christianity Jesus is the word so therefore he becomes God's word in Islam It is different the Koran is eternal the Koran is the word of God The Koran is the miracle that anybody can read so therefore this should be an absolutely amazing watch for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, let's have a look every single book in the world must have an author The noble Quran is therefore no exception. It is a book. So it must have an author All Muslims believe that Allah is the one who revealed the Quran to Prophet Muhammad Peace and blessings be upon him, but those who do not believe so they think otherwise But who do they think wrote the Koran then? I mean if they don't believe that the Koran is from there many different theories some people believe that Muhammad write it some people believe that many different people wrote it and some people believe as well that Muhammad Copied it from the Bible and other religious books and therefore compiled the Quran. Those are the theories In a nutshell, who is it from then? Because there aren't really many options since Prophet Muhammad Was the one who dictated the words to his companions the writers of Wahi to write it down You wouldn't believe what kind of theories are out there some people even believe that Muhammad didn't even exist So if they don't think it's from Allah, then it should be one of these four options Simply because there isn't any other possibility So it should either be that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him Authored the Quran himself. Yeah, the second possibility Would be that he used the previous books like the Bible or the Torah to write the Quran Third a Christian or a Jewish person had helped Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to write the Quran True or for it was Satan who had helped the Prophet to write the Quran and tell him about the news Of former nations that he hadn't witnessed absolutely. I forgot about that theory Some people think that Muhammad channeled the devil himself So these four are the only possibilities there are if the Quran was not from Allah There are no other options as to where the Quran came from Roughly as I said there was another option as well that multiple people actually compiled the Quran If we can disprove or refute these four possibilities Then we left with the only remaining possibility, which is that it is from Allah So let's look at these possibilities one by one and see how they stack up sure first Prophet Muhammad was the one who authored the Quran himself And if you do think so then how can you explain the following problems? The first problem is the style of writing We do know how the Prophet talked and what his style looked like How we do indeed have thousands of a hadith Which are the quotations and sayings of the Prophet So we know it's the most definitely agree that the hadith and the Quran reads very very different Exactly what the style of these sayings look like and it doesn't take an expert to realize the big difference Between the style of the hadith of the Prophet peace be upon him and the style of the Quran It clearly shows two distinct styles of writing The second problem Blaming the Prophet peace be upon him in the Quran The Quran contains several blaming verses or an Arabic Where the Prophet peace be upon him is blamed for certain actions like Or Or in this example Or There are many other examples Belonging to the same category So if it was the Prophet himself who wrote the Quran Why would he blame himself in front of his companions? It is just simply not logical The third problem is the prophecies The Quran contains many prophecies about many events Some of which actually came true in the time of the Prophet Like the one in Surat Ar-Rum Or The prophecy about the liberation of Mecca or In Surat Al-Fath Or If the Prophet wrote the Quran himself How could he have known things that were going to happen in the future? Wouldn't it be a big gamble losing your status among your companions? If he predicted that something would happen and it didn't happen The prophetic aspect however could be blamed on the devil as the video itself set in the beginning One option would be that Muhammad received the Quran from the devil So if that is true then of course the devil could have given Muhammad prophecies That are accurate about the future The fourth problem is the delay of revelations In certain incidents the wahi or the revelation was delayed Like when a Jewish man came to the Prophet asking him about the people of the cave But the Prophet said that he would answer him tomorrow Expecting the wahi But without saying inshallah And so the wahi was delayed Also when his own wife was falsely accused in her honor The wahi was delayed as well Which was a very difficult time for the Prophet peace be upon him If he was the one making the Quran wouldn't it have been more convenient for him to just come up with an answer in These situations and clear his name and his wives among his companions These were not the only two incidents But there are other situations in which the Prophet couldn't give it a direct answer Because he had to wait for the wahi Problem number five the challenge The Quran contains many verses that challenge anyone who doesn't believe it The challenge was to produce anything like it The Quran even challenges humans and the jinn for that If the Prophet a human had made the Quran himself Why would he risk embarrassing himself needlessly by challenging all humans and jinn to produce something like it? Problem number six the personal information of the Prophet The Quran contains no personal information about the Prophet Not his life his children or his wives His name was mentioned in the entire Quran only four times Which is much fewer than the mention of other prophets like Moses who was mentioned 134 times and his story came in 34 surahs of the Quran Jesus was also mentioned dozens of times Abraham Noah Joseph and other prophets So if he was the one who had made the Quran himself Wouldn't he have given himself more credit or at least talked about his struggles more often So as we can see here this may be maybe it could have been of course a strategy as well I'm just playing devil's advocate here that the Prophet came up with the Quran himself Is actually illogical and full of problems and questions for which there are no answers Conclusion it is impossible that the Prophet could have written the Quran himself But could it be that he used the help of others? Well, then let's look at possibility number two The Prophet used previous books like the Bible or the Torah to write the Quran and This possibility could easily be refuted because the Prophet was illiterate Which means that he could not read or write and even if we assume that he was not illiterate Where would he have got hold of the Bible or the Torah in Arabic? Did you know that the first Arabic translation of the Bible? So from what I've read in the biography of Prophet Muhammad is that he traveled to Syria with his uncle Abu Talib and Even as a young child he already was in contact with Christians that of course then could lead to the assumption that those Christians taught Muhammad the Bible was made in the 9th century Which is a hundred years after the death of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him Then how could yes as a compiled book that is correct, but nevertheless you still had early Christians. He have read it added to that and until around the 18th century the church was Essentially hiding the Bible from common people and forbade its translation So the Bible was not just readily available Let alone a translation thereof This leads us with no other conclusion Then that the Prophet could not have used the previous books to write the Quran This possibility is off the table Moving yes, the direct books with that I agree But as I said he could have learned from Christians to possibility number three If the Prophet didn't write the Quran himself. He didn't read previous books Was it then a Jew or a Christian that helped the Prophet write the Quran? Yeah, for example if we sift through all the authenticated hadith you will only find a single hadith about the encounter between the Prophet and someone called Waraqa Ibn Naufal a Christian However, the Prophet met Waraqa Ibn Naufal After the Wahi or the revelation came to him not before But that would be the second Christian as I said as a child you already met Christians Based on authenticated hadith Waraqa even testified that Muhammad peace be upon him was the Prophet So how could he have been the one who would help him to write the Quran? And even if it wasn't Waraqa and it was some other Christian or Jew who would help the Prophet to write the Quran How could they allow him to write verses like these? Or a verse like this How can it make sense that a Jew or a Christian would help the Prophet write something like that? This problem leaves us no choice But to say that it is important The explanation for this would be that we are talking about the Prophet and he would write something like that This problem leaves us no choice But to say that it is important The explanation for this would be that we are talking about the Gnostic Christians The early Christians some of them that didn't believe in Jesus as God And therefore would of course subscribe to such an idea They would go against the Trinitarian Christians It's possible for anyone to have help the Prophet write the Quran Now moving to the final possibility Since the Prophet was able to tell prophecies and knew things a human could not have known Then it must be Satan who would help him write the Quran And this is indeed one of the most illogical possibilities Since we as Muslims are taught to seek refuge from Satan before starting to recite the Quran Yes, absolutely correct Yes, absolutely man And this is what happened to me when I read the Quran for the first time And I read the passage that I seek refuge in God from Satan I'm seeking refuge from God to get protected from Satan So obviously when you're seeking refuge in God away from Satan This is how you start the book It cannot possibly be a devil's book It doesn't make any sense whatsoever Especially if you look at satanic rituals when they try to summon demons When they try to summon Satan They have to of course seek refuge in Satan They of course have to call out his name and not God's name It doesn't make any sense Verses in the Quran declaring Satan as the mortal foe of the human Yes So how could it be possible that Satan helped the Prophet to write verses cursing Satan himself And declaring him as the enemy Yeah, of course Christian evangelicals will say that this is the devil's trick You will curse Satan but ultimately you will do his deed But if we look at how the Quran transformed the Arabian Peninsula We of course see the exact opposite It doesn't make any sense The book calls you to pray to fast to worship God Plan to tempt humans and expose himself like that Therefore it is impossible for Satan to have helped the Prophet Write the Quran And now that all four possibilities out there are off the table We're left with the only possibility That it is from the one with unlimited omniscient knowledge That the Quran is from Allah And what better way to end this video Than with Allah's words addressing those who deny the Quran All right guys and this is it for today's video long enough as it is Absolutely interestingly compiled However as I said during the video already I am not 1000% convinced in the method that this person used here To convey the legitimacy of the Quran I believe that he only scratched the surface And some of his arguments were self-refuting This however not to downplay the legitimacy of the Quran This is simply a critique of this particular video I urge everyone to read the Quran by themselves Because if we assume that it is the word of God Then it should be powerful enough to do the transformation within us Ultimately the Quran states as well that Allah guides who he wills And therefore no amount of proof will be sufficient For somebody that will not believe All right guys but this is it for today's video If you liked it leave it a thumbs up If you haven't subscribed already guys please do so And if you want to support this channel All the links in the description box Patreon links and grass-fed organ meets All in the description box for you to check out And to support this channel that way Thank you very much As always may God bless you all Much love and peace