 Participate. Thank you. And so our first order of business today. Is. The minute, the minutes. Well, and we don't have minutes. Doesn't look like we have public here. Don't have any public app. So I can pull up. I was very happy when I actually opened the minutes to see how short. They are. They are. Yes. So hopefully. Sorry guys. I cannot seem to keep my video on. It's fine. Is it fine? It is fine, right? I think it's fine as long as we know that you're connected. Yeah, as long as we can. Yeah. So here, I'm just going to share like the minutes. Share. Right. So you can see my minutes now. Yeah. These are the minutes that we had TSO. And we just had a discussion. So, right. Yeah. And now that that's pretty long ago. So. December 15th and January 5th. Right. Christine was there. I was there. Tracy was there. Yeah. Like. Tate. Was not even, I don't think you were part of our committee at Tate. No. So I think we can, we can approve those, right? Yeah. Yeah. So we'll, we'll approve. Both December 15th and January 5th. That was, oh, I see one typo. It's January 5th, 2023, not 2022. Okay. I haven't pulled that one up. Hold on. Let me pull that one up too. Yes, you are correct. Let's fix that date. Yep. I'll just, I'll just tell him Amber to fix the date. Yes. Yes. But I. Move that we approve the meeting minutes, all those, any further discussion? Well, and I guess one thing, right? Is that. I would point out. Right. Wasn't it? No, I guess not. Nevermind. It was actually at the next meeting, the. The meeting. I think it was just Meg. Yeah. So all those in favor. Raise hand. Hi. Okay. The three of us and you'll abstain. Kate, because you weren't there yet. Either one. Yeah. Stop sharing. Great. So we approve both of those minutes. And to get on to our next meeting. So the proposed light policy, which Tracy, it will, I think, lead that. Yeah, I can lead that discussion. Um, so. So the reason I put this back on the agenda is I know that we, when we were talking with the street light proposal sponsors. At the last meeting, you know, what they told us is that. Based on the feedback they've gotten. That they were going to significantly revise their proposal. And probably go back to the current street lights policy, which is 2001. And, um, and start from there. And I mean, one of their focuses was on the lighting fixtures themselves. And trying to decrease. Um, light pollution from fixtures. Um, And they were thinking of putting that information into an appendix. And then on the question of, um, The location of where they would be or where you would have street lights, where you wouldn't have street lights, because the original proposal that they. Gave to the council in the summer. Significantly looked at, like. They, it looked at basing. How many street lights there are based on the zoning districts that things were in. And in certain parts of town, they were going to. It seemed like they were going to turn off a lot of the street lights and residential areas. Including an orchard, valley and echo Hill and Amherst woods and things. Um, that they were going to focus the street lights on the main streets. Um, so I really appreciate that. They came to talk to us right on a Devlin, got there, came and talked to us twice and that. Mandy, Henneke and Anna came back. The last meeting. Um, And so I do want to see what they're going to be proposing, but I did also attend the disability access advisory committee meeting. Um, and I noticed that the. The DAC that they decided to take a vote. Just to say that they. They. They don't have any concerns about changing the lighting fixtures and so on and decreasing light pollution, but they did have some other concerns. Including that they would like to see. Lights, for example, at bus stops or something. And so. And also. One of the things that many Joe Henneke said at that DAC meeting, she said, well, Tackett asked for us to maybe look at making more revisions. Um, from the 2001 street light policy. At this time, but they thought that they would mainly use that policy. And then look at making more revisions later. Um, But I will say if I let, I'm just going to pull it up. But there were some, I do have some concerns about the 2001 street lights policy. And actually. Um, it's actually dates back from 1991, according to Guilford. Where 19, the early 1990s was when the town decided to turn off a numbers. A good number of street lights in. Amherst as a budget saving method. And so I'm going to go back to that. Um, so let me just pull that up. So the reason I put it on the agenda was just to see if we wanted to have any. Um, if we, if we just like DAC. It was a good number of street lights in Amherst as a budget saving measure. And so they developed the street lights policy then and then they tweaked it 10 years later. And it got approved. But basically the policy dates back now 30 years. Um, so let me just pull that up. And let's see if we wanted to make any written statement or public statement to TSO and to the council, just about where we, where we stand with it. Um, and we don't know exactly what the timeframe will be for the counselors to bring back their. Policy. Let's hear. So I'm going to just. Just to be clear, you're saying where we stand with. Um, I'm not saying that they're backing away from it. They are saying that. Um, But I guess if we just wanted to. Well, we don't know exactly what that will look like. Right. I wouldn't want to comment in detail. Like I object to section three point, you know, section. Part three, two. Or, I mean, until we actually see what they do. But maybe just like DAC, they just took a very simple vote. And said, you know, we don't have any objections to changing the lighting fixtures and decreasing light pollution, but we do have concerns about safety. And. And they gave a few ideas. I mean, we could just leave it at that just to be on the record. That's what we think. I am just going to pull up. I'm just going to share my screen. And pull up the street lights policy, the old policy, which was included as indented them to their proposal. I'm so, I mean, this original policy, the 2001 policy, right? It says that you'll provide street lights and intersections, the dead ends. When the road conditions are hazardous on downtown streets. And on other streets with heavy pedestrian traffic. Um, I'm just going to share my screen and pull up the street lights policy, and I'm just going to pull up the street lights. Um, And so, I mean, right as a committee, we talked about what does heavy pedestrian traffic mean. I mean, I do think there are some questions about that. Um, And so maybe we just, one of the things I don't like personally about that original policy, and I raise those concerns. When we were discussing it at the tech. Meetings previously, it's just this language here about. That the street lights will not be provided by the town. You know, for private property, that seems fine. But then for pedestrians or residential neighborhoods, Leslie is one of the above criteria is met. Or the select board otherwise deems the situation to require a streetlight because such lighting could be requested virtually everywhere in town. And to me, that seems very like anti pedestrian. And I mean, a lot of people are pedestrian some of the time. And we want to be environmental friendly. And I encourage people to walk and bike, including at night and to not have to get in their cars. And I don't really see why we have to have that language. In the policy, because it does say above, like where you're going to have the street lights. So I would, my personal preference would be to just remove that language. I don't know if anybody else on the tack agrees with me. But it is very, the language is very general. And it does seem like, you know, at the time what they were worried about, right, was that everyone in their brother was going to request a streetlight and it doesn't, it seems like people are more annoyed by street lighting. And, you know, particularly in residential neighborhoods than was before. So I don't think the purpose of, you know, I think that's why that situation. That ambiguous wording was there. Don't you agree? Well, I think, and I think they also introduced it, right? Because they originally came up with the policy in response to the street lights being turned off. And so they want to say, like, we're not just going to have street lights everywhere. But to me, if you're kind, if you align above like criteria for these, these are places where we're going to be focusing on street lights. I mean, it has to be in some of these residential areas, like Orchard Valley and things. I mean, a lot of the street lights are at the intersections already of the residential streets. It's not like there are a lot of other street lights. And so my preference would just be not to have language just saying we won't have street lights in residential areas. Yeah. And I agree with that. I agree with you, Tracy. Christina. Tate, what do you guys think? I don't, I don't feel that it's necessary to strike it, but I see what you're saying. And I guess I don't, I don't disagree with removing it. So I think it's fine. To just removal. To suggest removal. Yeah. Yeah, I would agree. I mean, I think that it's true. The language is a little vague to, which is what I had written in my comments to Tracy. When we initially went. When I went through the, the new proposal. Or, you know, the most recent proposal from this year. And. Use up. Anyway, so that's my. That's just my concern is like, you know, my concern lies more in like, A lot of this language is like, okay, heavy pedestrian traffic. Are we sending someone out to count that? Are we just saying, oh, well, nobody ever walks here, but there's actually 20 people every night that happened to walk. Like. So, you know, my concern lies more in like. There's no real quantitative. Measures or data in here. So it could be interpreted differently based on. You know, who's looking at it and what their goals and objectives are, which I'm not sure is the best, but, you know, so that's my comment. Is there guidance, you know, elsewhere? I don't know. At the state level or even federally around. You know, when it comes to pedestrian. I mean, I mean, I mean, there are guidance documents about that type of stuff. And I mean, right. I mean, and the statistics still show and in the fed, federal government, federal highway administration and the. NITSA, which is a national highway safety administration that they're both pretty committed to addressing the issues of traffic fatalities at night, including pedestrian fatalities. I mean, two of the statistics I see the most are that one. That 75% of pedestrian traffic fatalities happen after dark. Which is a pretty high number. And then also just generally with traffic fatalities that even though. Like, you know, people driving and things that it's only. Typically nighttime only accounts for say a quarter of all vehicle miles traveled, but half of traffic fatalities generally speaking occur at night. So, I mean, those are pretty powerful statistics about how we can make our roads safer. There are. There are factors contributing to that, including the fact like with pedestrian fatalities. I mean, there is a lot of times there is. You know, drunk drivers or drunk pedestrians or. Thing. I mean, there are factors contributing. But, um, in fact, the statistics I had seen said that 30% of. I'm pedestrian fatalities involve the pedestrian. Having like being over the legal limit for alcohol. Right. But at the same time, I do feel like we want to hopefully protect pedestrians in those situations. And I'd be grateful that they're not driving. But, um, so. But maybe I could just. I have to say what was good about the dark skies proposal is that they were just being very crystal clear. About what it is they wanted and. You know, policy to reflect that, which was to remove light pollution. Right. Whereas this policy, it's not crystal clear to me. You know, kind of what the prime. You know, one, two, three or four, whatever. Overarching goals of the policy are. Except, you know, as you noted. It's saying we just want to be thrifty and not spend a lot of money. But, you know, it's just hard to get a grasp of. You know, what the. Is safety the concern? And if so, you'd think that it would be. Or the overarching concern, it would just be written differently, but. I guess that's what I don't like about the one policy. Is just. But the, you know, the proposal, the updated policy does not, in my opinion, does not focus on transportation safety either. Like it focuses on. Right. I mean, from the very beginning, when they brought it up, right, they had consulted with like a dark skies expert. Right. And the PowerPoint presentation, the whole presentation is on the adverse impacts of human health of darkness. I mean, of having like light pollution. I'm sorry. So. I'm a. It's pretty clear what it is that they wanted. Right. Now it's true. Read the one policy and anything. Right. It's not actually clear what the priority is. And I understand what you're saying. Safety. And. And light reduction. You know, the dark skies are at odds with one another and there could be a, but you know. Our goal, then you write a policy that, you know, sometimes one is over the other, but I guess I'm just. Yeah. It's hard. I mean there are, there are, you know, communities like for example, Flagstaff, Arizona. Which was one of the first dark skies community. for stars and stuff and they're very committed to dark skies, but they also have a street lights policy that reflects the safety as well, like they recognize the balance in it. I mean right so this policy this policy does say that street lights provide a degree of safety for vehicles and pedestrians but they come with costs so they're talking a little bit about. But there are some, I mean since you know in the last 20, 30 years you know there have been a number of places that have developed policies that talk about it better than our 2001 policies so I don't disagree with updating the policy. I just having concerns since the beginning that what they originally proposed just had very little consideration of the state. Right, right, and I, and I totally know that critique. So this one also just doesn't seem, you know, all that concern with safety either. So it's just sort of like letting mediocrity rule the day true. So to clarify Tracy this one is this currently in effect this yes this is currently in effect. So they're going back to the policy that's currently in effect, and just making some. Now they're looking to just make some smaller tweaks to the existing policy as opposed to coming up. I mean that's what they've talked about doing. Because they're proposed new policy at the two sections one on the actual lighting quality lighting fixtures and so on and then the second part was focused on locations of lighting so I mean. I mean this I have I mean here's the copy of the original. Oh no this is the policy as of like February that they were proposing right where they had expanded it. I mean I'm not saying that I do think that 2001 policies should be updated for sure. But I guess I guess what maybe it sounds like we're saying is that is that there may be instances where, you know, having, you know, the current current policy or even the older policy is very restrictive on where lighting should be and I guess we don't want to be as restrictive because while we agree with like the down lighting and types of bulbs and all that kind of stuff like that's one, one, one thing that it feels like the policy that they're promoting is too restrictive on lighting. So street lighting which, you know, is important to promote pedestrian walking and safety of people so I guess it's one thing that we want that that's really what we want one and I appreciate. I mean I think too about like driver safety and things to like older drivers and other people who really do want to have more street lighting at night to like I know even myself I don't see as well at night. In dark neighborhoods if I'm driving. Yeah. So I think I mean my question the reason I brought it up is, you know, do we want to have a motion similar to what the disability access advisory committee did just to be on record and say, you know, we support the goal of reducing light pollution, you know, through improved fixtures and so on. Yeah, but fighting, but we're still in the type of lighting but we're still like concerned about the safety. Yeah, and we, and we do appreciate to right at the, at the last meeting I think they said that they wanted to get more input from stakeholders about locations of lighting so. Right. So that we're available to help them with that. We want to have a motion like that. Yes, I think I feel like that that gets more to the crux of, and it gets to also I mean honestly, I mean, that's what we're promoting I mean that's why I think they came to us right. Right. Obviously, we all everyone I can't, I don't think there can be any arguments against, you know, changing the wavelength of light that's used or where it's being projected right. We all want that. Oh, and we share concerns I mean I have concerns about the ever source poles that are so tall now. Yeah, and the light fixtures are tall to right and Guilford explained that when you build the taller poles. You can fixtures go up to because you've got all those other uses on the poles and you don't want the wires overlapping right. Yeah, I mean I would love it if we could still bring those street lights down. And not if you have a 60 foot pole the street lights don't have to be 50 feet high. So, I don't think there's a way of changing that and Jason do you have any recommendations on that. So, that gets really tricky when you get across electricity over table and own yeah. We get we get our section of pole and that's just below electric and just above horizon and that's just above Comcast and they're very specific about where we're allowed to live on the pole. And yeah so when the pole goes higher higher the lights due to the only and at that point the only thing we can control is the the fixture and the lens. Lenses can go a fair way towards focusing the light, but there's still always going to be spread you go higher. Yeah, of course right. I don't know if the poles could be in a change the order of things or something to like put the lower somewhat set in stone. No, okay. My biggest nightmare is trying to get a pole move. It's getting the five different companies that are on that pole. Right, right. Every source comes they move they set a new pole they move their stuff over they cut the first five feet of pole off, and you wait for Comcast and you wait for Verizon and there's five college fiber there's another fiber company it's gets. It's insane. Yeah. The other options are like installed street lights which like freestanding like that might be downtown or other places which are different and obviously more expensive and yeah and it works in like village centers or right right in an intersection and that that's a great option. One of the things on that is that the 2001, the bullet points they didn't once mentioned crosswalks. No, they didn't lighting a crosswalks I would like, I would like lighting a crosswalks to. Well, one thing to, like one little point of reference there is that we obviously prefer crosswalks at intersections is that's where they're expected. So yes, but we've been overruled and we have some mid block crosswalks. Well like the one on pine street right yeah. Yeah. Yeah, there's one you really need to. And I don't think people understand to the dangers of just putting in a mid block crosswalk like if you're going to. Even some council members have asked me, you know, can you just put in a crosswalk it's like you actually have to make it safe. It's a mid block crosswalk you have to have signage you have to like change the. You have to narrow. Yeah. Because otherwise it's dangerous and people will say oh it's a crosswalk it must be safe and it isn't necessarily. In the same motion can we offer some of the speed back on the current 2001. Right. I mean so the disability access advisory committee they said that they would like to see street lights at bus stops for example. And so I guess we could also say we'd like to see street lights at crosswalks. Yeah, that seems completely reasonable. So. So we could just say. I'm trying to word Smith on the fly but so the tack. Recommends. Yeah, I mean, I guess we could just say that we, you know, appreciate that they're. That they've asked for our input and that they're not focused on the location right now. This is going to do a long mass. Right. I didn't hear you sorry. Oh sorry I'm actually excited to see what you mass is going to do on. Yeah it's Massachusetts. Right. They've done a lot of projects. They're planning these. Not necessarily. Well they are pedestrian activated but they're involuntary. What is it automatically triggered by trigger movement. Right. Oh, like the ones in front of the new, the new buildings, the new apartments. They're going to be, they're going to have the RRFBs, the rapid flashers. Yeah. Also going to have, I guess, and I'm not a hundred percent sure I've only heard them. Jason Venditti explained it to me. He works at UMass. And they're actually going to have projected light out onto the crosswalk. So that it lights up the entire crosswalk. Right. And it's not pedestrian activated. There's no button to push. So the pedestrian walks by a motion sensor. Motion sensor triggers flashing lights. Plus. Like this. And they've narrowed and they've narrowed the. Those crosswalks. So my building at UMass, like I work on the building that's just across from Southwest. And they've done. A number of enhancements at that particular crosswalk. That is a crosswalk that somebody was hit at. I believe that wasn't the place where the person got killed. But, but yeah, but they have been working to improve a bunch of that already. And I can see that there's new things going up there. Yeah. No, that's some good stuff. I mean, there's so, there's a lot of great practices. I mean, federal highway has done a lot of great things. I mean, there's so, there's a lot of great practices. I mean, federal highway has done, you know, webinars and multi day conferences about darkness and safety and best practices with crosswalks and. I mean, to the counselor's point, though, I mean, there's a. UMass is never dark. Oh, right. I mean, it's so bright. You can see it from everywhere in the valley. You know, Well, that's the thing too, right? That's the problem doesn't look at UMass. And I think they said, well, we're just going to, you know, UMass is a different animal. We're just going to focus on what we can control, but. Right. But I mean, I mean, there's definitely a trade off there. It is so bright there all the time. So. I understand the. Including in the middle of night, you know, yeah, no, no. I mean, I see it for my bedroom. Right, right. For sure. Well, you know, like the Cape Cod bike paths and stuff, they do the same thing. It's like activated by cyclists. Some of the crosswalks. It is some of them are the crossroads. Because, you know, a lot of the bike rail trails, they always. Make the bikes like the secondary users. And so they want, you know, if you're. You know, especially with the long bike trail like that, they want people to stop the bicyclists to stop at every intersection, but. It's good to see when they don't do that. Okay. All right. I mean, I, I'm trying, I was just trying to write. You muted. Yeah, I can't hear you. Well, I was, I was just trying to write up a quick motion. But if anybody else wanted to. I mean, I think the other option could be that we. I mean, we could just take a vote that we. You know, we support the, I mean, similar to DAC. We support the idea. Of. Of, you know, reducing light. Reducing light. We support. Or we can say, We support the idea of. Dating to the latest technology to. You know. Be dark sky. Compliant or whatever. I mean. Yeah. But not at the expense of industry and safety. So yeah, I was muting because I was typing and thinking and. Yeah. Including. Where do you live? And where is that? Where is the neighborhood you are in? Yes, well. Or where were you living before Tate? Yes. Up on Northeast street. So. A little bit north of the like main street intersection. Yeah, I'm just curious, just like what your, you know, your worldview is there. I mean, your. Your worldview is yes. And what you see all the time. I mean, when, when I've walked. Back. To my apartment. In the evening. It's not particularly safe. Oh, really? Yeah. Down there. Near the corner. You know, a pedestrian was killed on Northeast street. Oh, really? Before you were a grad student. Late at night. They were walking with another student and they were hit. And in the area that has no sidewalks and no. Lighting so much. Yeah. By his farm. Yeah. That doesn't. Honestly, that doesn't surprise me because I also. Ride mine. I have an electric bike. Ride quite free. Also not great for biking. Right. Yeah. Cars come very close to you. You know, right. Yeah. So the sidewalk stops like right before the, that big condo complex, right? The Northeast terrace condos. Yep. Yeah. And so the sidewalk goes to that point, although I can't recall. I'm just thinking that I don't think that the street lights are very good on that sidewalk. No. Yeah. And the sidewalk is like. Overgrown and sort of in the, in the summer, you know, it's totally. You can barely get to it. So. Most. A few pedestrians. Just walk usually on the shoulder because. Just don't even bother with the sidewalk. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. The woods and crosses a stream on private property. It's very odd. I'm not sure how it ever. Exactly got approved that way. Yeah. I've been over there. It's pretty. I like the stream. But it takes you over a weird little wooden bridge into a. Yeah. Sort of forest and there's no lighting. And the wooden bridge gets really slippery with like. Rain or snow. Yeah. Basically very pedestrian unfriendly. And there isn't much lighting at all, which doesn't. Yeah. Right. So, so I just, so I made a little quick motion. I mean, I can turn it into like a short memo or something. But if we hear, I'll pull it up. I'm sorry. I need to share screen. Okay. I don't, I don't write very quickly. Okay. Let me make it a little bigger too. No. Okay. I'm assuming I guess I can do my. Just so we could see it. So, all right. So. I was just like, here's my draft motion. So it says tax supports the idea. Of reducing light pollution. And using the latest technology to do so, but we have concerns about the traffic safety impacts. Including for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. If street lights are removed or something. Right. Are removed. If the counselor is proposing the new strategy policy, you're going to go back to the 2001 policy. And no one revised from there revised. Crafts a new policy from there craft. Yeah. Oh, I guess we could just say if the, if the counselors proposing these are going to. Craft their new policy from the 2001 policy. We encourage them to add crosswalks and bus stops as locations where street lights are provided. And to remove the language in the 2001 policy, the street lights will not be providing residential areas. How's that sounds. And I would actually, I would just quote that language. I just didn't want to pull it up right now. Do you think that that is good. This gets to what, yeah. And tax supports. You could just put to do so period. And. And the first sentence. So. Period. And then. That's true. However. Are we have concerns or whatever. Or however we have concerns, right? About the potential of traffic safety impacts. I mean, I think. I think we just say there are traffic safety. Including. For pedestrians. Yes. Right. Okay. That sounds good. And I'll, I mean, I'll write it into like a little short one page memo that I could then just say. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That sounds good. I mean, I'll write it into like a little short one page memo that I could then just say. So I'll say that we took a vote on this and. I'll just write it up briefly. So do we want to vote on. What do we want to vote on? I think we want to vote on the motion. A motion to. Send this statement to the council. Just one suggestion. The last. The last part of this. That said, you know, About the language. Right. Can we quote the language? Because. I do want to quote, I do want to quote the language. Okay. Put that in quotes for now, like the language quotes. So we know that's where we're voting on. No, I know. I just want to make sure because it doesn't exactly say that. No, I know. And it's a little complicated, right? Because the way it's written is it says we won't provide lights in commercial areas. I mean, I've cited it so many times. I could probably pull it up directly. I just. Okay. I mean, I think for now we can just say that. If you want to do that later, that's fine. Yeah. I mean, I. Right. I'm thinking about, but I feel like we need to. I mean, it would be nice if we. Sent it around. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I've cited it so many times. I could probably pull it up directly. I just. It's okay. I mean, I think for now we can just say that. If you want to do that later, that's fine. I mean, I think for now, I think for now we can just send it around to all of our members. Including. Sure. Yeah. Today and just get a vote on it up or down and then send it. Okay. So we can say that our members who were, I mean, we could email the members who were here. Yeah. And then ask them to respond. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can't. The reason we wouldn't take the vote right now is because you don't have. The final language. No, no, no, I can give you the final language, but I would just take the vote. We could just say who is here. Okay. And then we could also, and we can also circulate the memo. And if people who weren't, weren't present want to add like Kim, if you want, if I want to draft a memo and send it and send it and send this to the members. So I mean, anybody who wasn't present wants to make an additional separate statement. So the motion could be like, you know, To send this memo along. Pending any, you know, minor revisions. By. Members. Yeah. I mean I would, I personally, I mean, I would craft it into like a few paragraphs, but I would say that this was the motion that we did. I can add the language. We can approve the motion now, and then you can include that in a longer memo that gets circulated to the entire committee. Longer, but short. And Kim, you're okay. So we can ask the members who aren't present to vote. No, but we can just ask them if they have any feedback. So that's great. Okay. Okay. So all those in favor. All those in favor. Okay. It's unanimous. So all four of us present. Okay, good. That's good. Thank you. I mean, I don't know when this is going to come back. Is that called like an opinion of the, is it called like a statement of the council? Like, what is it that we just did? It's just like expressing our opinion. It's an emotion. We're an advisory committee, right? So we can't actually. We don't make any policy. Yeah, we don't make any policy. So we could just. Just curious what it was that we just did because. Providing advice. Yeah, it's a motion advisory motion. How about that advisory motion, right? Because that's basically, I guess, all we do, right? Yes, that's all we can do. Right. Okay. Thank you. I feel good about us at least saying something. So. No, and I, and I feel like, I feel like we kind of distilled the issue. So, so. Yes, also what, what are areas. Okay, Andy has his hand raised. Yes, Andy. Yeah, just real quick, real quickly, I wanted to thank you. I was listening to the entire discussion. I thought that it was really a very informed and helpful discussion. And it was encapsulated well in the motion. So as an individual counselor, I just want to thank you. Oh, all right. Thank you. You're welcome. Well, thank you as a counselor for all that you do. Okay. All right. So our next item. Well, so I didn't actually, I'd actually like to just go over. The, the act to reduce traffic fatalities because I had gone to the webinar last week. I don't feel like, I mean, we can discuss the TAC priority projects, but I wish we had more of us here. And I wish it was also available. And we've already talked about a lot of the priorities with Jason. And we know that most of the projects are advancing. One priority I do want to talk about briefly. So, so I'll take that back. But just this idea about that we do want to finish the bicycle and pedestrian priority networks maps that are part of the plan. They come up, they've come up a number of times and I know the planning board has said, well, do you have bigger map of the priority networks? And even on a Devlin got there said, well, they were basing some of their recommendations for, you know, the quote heavy pedestrian traffic on where the, where the plan says those heavy pedestrian traffic areas and corridors are. So it's been over two years since we marked up the old maps. So I do really want to get that done. And I guess what I would suggest is we know that we discussed it at four, I believe four or five different TAC meetings back in 2001. And I have the dates of those. And I would suggest that we have like a subcommittee to just go through those and review them and re-come up with the notes because we haven't been able to get them from DPW. And so it seems like we're really stalled at that point. And I don't think if we did it as a subcommittee that it would take all that long. How did people feel about that? I agree with that 100 and 0%. So I think that's exactly the right thing in terms of like coalescing and reintroducing the TAC feedback. Yes. But then the other piece that seems stalled is, getting Jason and Guilford or maybe Guilford to take on the person and make the project happen. So Jason, one of the things that's been discussed is just how the GIS layers needed to have edits to them, the layers that came from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, including some of the underlying road layer, which was kind of funky. But we've been stalled one because there were notes taken at all those meetings and Guilford was a primary note taker, but we don't have those available. And they were sort of spread out. But then also the issue about getting personnel to spend the time with the GIS layers to make those edits. But so if you have any ideas on that, but I think for the first step that we need to just have are the like good clean notes that whoever is gonna do this GIS work. And I mean, last summer, there was a grad student in GIS who would offer to help or things like that, that I feel as a committee, the first thing we can do is have our subcommittee and spend that little bit of time, like one each of the subcommittee members go through and document it again. And then we can work with DPW or whatever. But it's been stalled for so long. I just want to offer my, it just, the definition of crazy is just, what is the quote from Einstein? Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result and Tracy, I mean, essentially you're essentially saying the time, obviously the tack did all this prior to joining, but already did this once and the notes were sort of lost to posterity and it never gets staffed up to then get incorporated in. Then you're suggesting like literally doing the entire thing over again. Well, it's looking over what was done. Because we have the video and we can just record what we did as a committee. I have no problem with- No, I hear what you're saying. It's just we, it's sort of, the original version is not accessible to us. I mean, we do have one marked up map for North Amherst. And I just feel like at this point, if we want this to move forward. Yeah, we have to do it. If we can have this subcommittee. And as I said, if there's just like these four or five meetings, which I don't even think we spent, some of those meetings, we didn't spend the whole meeting going over. Maybe we spent half the meeting. So we just have to recreate it, which it is painful to be revisiting what we've done. Right, because what we're saying, essentially, Gopert has, doesn't have something. Or we're not sure like where they are in the universe. Okay. But then also just, you know, I don't know if something from you guys, Jason, saying that if we bother to go back and recreate our own thing, that there'd be some sort of response at the deep view to that incredible stuff. And I know I'm, maybe I'm overstepping my role into advocacy here, but it does feel redundant if the work has already been done. But then. Well, now Jason, I mean, sometimes I know Gopert, originally Gopert had wanted to have an, a DPW intern do it, I think. And then like an intern fell through and then something else didn't work out. And then they have, there's a number of computers. They have to be. We've even tried to add like a full or part-time staffer to be the GIS manager. Oh, in DPW? Yeah, because we no longer have one. Right. And possibly someone with some transportation knowledge, you know, a transportation background, but like that keeps falling on deaf ears. Oh, okay, got it. Falling flat. So I think that's probably Gilford's frustration with it. No, for sure, yeah. And we tried to get a permanent staffer or even an intern, but I don't see why we couldn't work with just an intern type level person, at least, you know, to get something completed. But I, and I hope to, I mean, Chris, I know that it is frustrating, but then I also think if we go through this exercise as the subcommittee and we get, you know, you put together this list that we can, I mean, the fact that we've done it more than once and we're really working, like TAC is doing whatever we can to help it happen, that I'm hoping that that can be persuasive and getting other people to advocate for getting it done. I'm just not, I'm just not that interested in wasting time. Oh, absolutely. We're going to have a subcommittee go back and recreate a whole bunch of stuff that should be already on the record somewhere and is not, in order to then trigger the, a human, then being able to kind of interact with the GIS, I just don't see how recreating is the trigger unless we make it so. So then it only has to be that, like once we redo it, then we have to do another advisory motion and you've got to go meet with Paul and then, you know, we go meet with other people and say, give Gilford the damn intern or Jason who I don't even know who would oversee the person but like, let's just make this happen. It's the second time that we've done it. Right. And we know that other policy and other decisions in town seem to be relying on it but we can't actually make it official. It's just like the dumbest, most frustrated and we know that we can do it with a sophomore. Yeah, well, yeah. I hear you. And the right mentor to oversee the person. Yeah, I just want to like move on and try to do it. I guess, I'm just saying that we do it if it's not, if it's going to be stuck in the same. I think we can avoid that in the future. Because of why? Because we are actually taking the notes ourselves. Well, also I feel like even if we don't have a GIS version if we have a functional version which at the time the technology was such that I could not do that myself. Like if I had my iPad now in the role that I can edit and draw and do all kinds of things on any kind of PDF I would have done that then. And that would be sufficient to give to any of our counselors because they would be able to see it because a red line would mean we, this is the bike network. And all the whole map is there, right? I feel like it's very easy to create something that any person can understand now where it wasn't. And also it's like if we have the list like I was talking to Eve Ogo about it because she has some students who she thought could help too. But if we have the documented list of like these are the streets and the links in our network if we write out like just even without the GIS if we write out the list, this is the these are the pedestrian, the priorities for pedestrians. These are priorities for bicyclists. Like anybody, even without GIS they can look at that list and they can say, oh, those are your priorities. But it's also incredibly easy now to draw directly on a PDF, have a map of the whole thing. And all I have to do is go and cause the way we did this is we went through we went through north to south. Now we just methodically went through and we drew where our network was. And that is something that I can easily do on my iPad now. But I also think for any intern or anybody who might help us in the future that having the written list of like street by street is helpful in addition to any marked up map because like we might have an intern who's not that familiar too. I mean, I just, I feel like the list version you could, so we could go and like check, you know street by street and like check off each link to make sure that they did it. And it would be very, very viable. Yeah, no, I feel like, so to get to your question, Christine I mean, or your comment, which I feel is incredibly valid. The fact is we don't even, I feel like at this point we don't even need a GIS person. We can just mark up a map and give it to our counselors cause that's what they're really looking for. Well, just out of, just maybe I'm not understanding something, but couldn't you have done that on a piece of paper before? It was massive. The problem was it's massive. It's huge document. It's physically like the document was like. Well, right. So it's wide and feet long. Do we have a physical document? We were doing the map like on Zoom. So that's part of the issue, right? We weren't just there where we had a huge map and we're all sitting around the table, make this pedestrian node, make this basically node. We did several, like earlier, like 2018, we did that. We had the massive maps and we all went around and we worked on them. But the problem was in 20, during the pandemic all we could do was tiny sections on our tiny laptops at a time. That was the problem and we didn't have the technology. And so we did it with the Zoom meetings. Yeah. And not all, most of those weren't marked up like on. It was verbal. It was mostly verbal stuff that we just don't quite buy that if we just do it on a map, suddenly all the problems go away. No, I want it as well. It don't go away. Right. But it's because it needs to be, priorities need to be officially determined, which we are not in a capacity. Right. So we need to be officially implemented, which we're also not in a capacity. Well, we need to have the commitment from somebody somewhere. We need to have the updated. Wait, let me ask people to approve. No, I understand. So. I just, again, to me, it's a waste unless there will be open reception to it. And what we said prior, when we did the work, there was no open reception. So then it feels like it's died on the vine. The notes weren't taken very well. And now none of us can even really remember. So we do it again. It's just the same. There's not even a loop because you just do the work and it goes into a vacuum. And so unless there's maybe initial conversation with Paul, that if we bother to make the subcommittee and do the whole thing and recreate it, then it will actually contribute in moving us toward where we need to be with the mapping project. Otherwise, I just don't see. It just feels like a colossal waste of time. So since I'm relatively new to the committee, could someone fill me in on the history of this a little bit more? Yeah. I mean, I guess I can because I'm the oldest member here. So what was it in response to? We were out. So it's the 2019 Bicycle and Polite Pedestrian Networks Plan that was developed by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission with stakeholders, including TACC. And that plan was completed around 2019. And one of the products of that plan was a map that shows the key bicycling networks and the key pedestrian networks that are prioritized. And so it took us a while when I first joined the committee. It took us a while to get the GIS layer from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. But then we received it. There were some issues with some of the underlying layers as well as we didn't think that the networks were very well represented for what our priorities were. So we did. And unfortunately, this was done on Zoom and not just on a big paper map that would be hard to lose. But so we went, as Kim said, we went section by section and just reviewed what those GIS maps look like. And we wrote down edits. I mean, edits were written down. For the most part, it wasn't mapped, marked up on our screen visually. And the main notes were being taken by the DPW, by Guilford at the time who was in attendance at those meetings. But since then, so we do want to have a final. I mean, our goal here is we want to have an updated version of the map. And the longer we wait to, the more likely it is that the map can get out of date because we'll have new housing development and new other types of development. So this is time sensitive. So we do want to, but what we want to do is we want to have a clean version of the map. And we are an advisory committee. So we have to have a clean version or at least a list of, I mean, this is where we don't even necessarily need the GIS where we could just have a list of these are the pedestrian priority links and these are the bicycling priorities. The Pioneer Valley Commission, like ultimately they need the updated list or who needs it. We need it. They did that work for us. The town needs it. And so what we want is we want a clean version that we can then give to the council and say, please adopt this and indicate that you support these priorities. And then that document can be used for future decision making in terms of transportation facilities, priorities to help inform planning. Okay, so then you're saying, right, right, right. I understand. So you're saying we're going to use a different process to get the map in use, which is rather than just ask Gilford to get a person and get it all to translate our notes, we're going to redo it ourselves, make the map ourselves and just go straight to the council and get them to adopt it. That's, it's actually not that hard to do. I didn't say it was hard. I'm just saying it's a separate route. I mean, that's one route we could go. That's a separate route than what we had tried previously. Yeah, I mean, I do have some other, I do have some other ideas that we could go and not wait for the DP. I'm sold as long as there's a separate route. You don't necessarily need to wait for the DPW staff person or in turn to do it, but. I'm good, I vote for it. Okay. Yes, thank you for the background. That's very helpful. And it's convoluted and it is frustrating, but I'm happy to be on the subcommittee and I, and Eve had offered to help though. I know Eve is busy too, but. Have you guys seen our online GIS? There's a markup section. No. You could go to the town map here. Let me, you guys mind if I. No, please go ahead and chair, but. How do I share? Where'd it go? Sorry, I don't run too many zoom meetings. No, it's on the bottom of the screen. It says share screen. And then you have to choose which window you want. Your screen up there. So here, share this. So here's our, just our generic online GIS viewer, map of the town, zoom in, zoom out, whatever. You go down here on the left, you can all see it. Okay. Yes, yeah. You go to this markup section. You put your name in, you know, whatever it is. Start a new markup group. You can pick a category. I don't know, I guess there's not many categories. You can do public comments, whatever. And you title it, a bike network. Right here. Oh, I didn't let you enter there. Oh, new. Then you can add a title, bikes, you know, and then, what's the next step? I haven't done this in a while either, I'm sorry. Well, I guess that's an option that we can look at too. So yeah, and then you can draw lines, you can put in text, you can put in highlights, you can change your color. Well, we would have to make sure we had a separate category. Right. Or else it would just get- I mean, I've talked to the GIS person about it. Mike Warner, who's a GIS director for the town. And so- Well, he's the applications manager. He's the applications manager. We lost our GIS director. Okay. That's one of the things that makes- That's one of the challenges. Slightly problematic. But thank you for that, Jason. So I think, but does anybody want to commit to the subcommittee? But I just want to, yeah. Okay. So Jason, we're just going to close out of that. Okay. Great. Thank you. So I think the right, the next step would just be the subcommittee can meet and it has to just, right, it can't be a majority of our committee, but they're happy to be on it. So, okay. It's important, but I'm trying to be otherwise committed. Oh, sure. Well, since I should have been the note taker, I will be on the subcommittee. All right, Kim. So I'll follow up with you. And I know, again, that Eve was interested too. And we can see if we can recruit another person too. And I need to go in five, just open up. Great. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So one thing, all right. So let's go over now. I did, I did, I mean, if people are interested in this, I did want to review this act to reduce traffic fatalities. Well, as soon as Christine leaves, we, the committee will be done. So is there, are there any other items that we need? Well, so I guess the thing is, do we want to, so one thing is once Christine leaves and we don't have a quorum. Okay. Yeah, I guess then we're done. Yeah. Could we, could we start it while I'm here? Sure. With you, we can start it. And even if we're not taking any action on it. Right. Exactly. So are there any other things we need to get? So the main thing we need to do then is to pick our next meeting. So I am trying to avoid having conflicts with TSO, which they are in April, they're meeting tonight after our meeting. And then they are only scheduled to meet once in April, I believe, which is April 20th. So, so I guess one question for us is, do we want to meet, so the first Thursday in April would be the 6th. And maybe we meet on the 6th. And then we could perhaps meet, uh-huh. If we don't need that date, we can. Yeah, I've got a funky schedule that week. I wouldn't be able to make it, but it's fine. Well, I just have, I mean, we could meet, the thing is like, I think it would be challenging to meet April break, right? That gets a little tricky. I mean, we could hold off and not meet for a whole, if TSO is meeting on the 20th, then we could meet on the 27th, for example, and not meet until the 27th. What do we think of that? I mean, we're not going to be getting anything referred to us. If, um- It definitely gives TSO a little bit of time. Well, that would give the subcommittee time to report back. Well, that's the thing we could also meet as a subcommittee. That's true. Yeah. So. Ooh, the 27th, yeah. Is that not good either? Oh no, I just have a big, the Amherst Invitational is happening. Oh, right. The ultimate frisbee, my family's hugely involved in that. Oh. Not weak, but that's fine. Well, a school vacation week better? No, no, no, no, no. This is fine. I mean, it's hard. The 27th is fine. That's fine, that works. All right. Okay. I mean, should we schedule it tentatively for the 6th? And then- Why don't we, we could, yeah, I could tentatively say the 6th, but we could also have a subcommittee. Yeah, because I will, we really do need to move the whole subcommittee thing along. Yes, I agree. But I think if it's, if we're meeting as a subcommittee, we may be our council member could tell us, and there's less the majority of the members. I'm not sure we need to. Oh yeah. But it, but we all know that we have time free on that night. So, you know, a good day for everyone. And hopefully we could also pull in like the members who aren't here tonight. Yeah. Or any of the other members who aren't here, part of the prior conversation, like- Marcus might have been. He was here first. Yes, he was on the committee then. He got appointed when I got appointed to the committee. Yeah. So he would be a good one too to have. Yeah. Okay. Great. All right. So- So the next meeting is maybe the 6th, but definitely- No, April, April 6th. April 6th, or the, definitely the 27th. Oh, I said maybe, not May. Sorry. Right. Oh, okay. Yes. Correct. I think we could have a short meeting on the 6th. Yeah. Okay. So, because Tate had mentioned that he might have a conflict, but- Yeah, I might. So it's just helpful to know ahead of time. No, sure. And if you have a conflict, I mean, I guess we can- Then we can go to the 27th. We can always- If we don't have a quorum for a full meeting, we can go to the 27th. Yeah, so. Okay. All right. So I know- Motion to adjourn. Okay. I'm motion to adjourn. All right. So I guess I'll talk. I mean, I do want to tell people about this act to reduce traffic fatalities, but I can tell you next time. Yes. And I did read it. Bye. Thank you, Jason. All right. Thank you. Bye. Oh, Jason. So I have a quick question, but can we just turn off the video? Oh, yeah. So we're at the stop recording. Meeting is adjourned. Stop recording yet.