called the meeting of the tab to order. Here it is 12:34 >> on the 18th of February, 2026 >> and um let's see what we've got here. Um yeah, we've got an agenda uh to approve. Is there anybody that has any changes or additions to the agenda? We'll entertain approval of the agenda. >> I'll move the agenda, Mr. Chair. >> Second. >> Second. We got a motion. Second, Commissioner Jeepson to approve the agenda for the meeting on uh this date, February 18. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the agenda as published say I. >> Opposed? Carried. We've got an agenda to work from. Um, is there anyone in the uh audience who wishes to address the tab on a matter of concern to them? It's not on the agenda. We're scheduled for a hearing. Frank's coming in now. That's good. Um, all right. Let's go to let's go to reports. So, I've got a few things to cover with all of you today. Uh we had a an exact committee meeting beforehand and um we uh I think we just have to appoint. Do we want to have the tab vote on these? >> No, that you it's just appointed. >> Just appointed. So we just I'm just going to report out on the appointments for the first and second vice chairs for 2026. Commissioner Jeepson has agreed to serve as the first vice chair for the uh TAB exec committee for 2026 and Mayor Taylor Hubard has agreed to serve as the second vice chair for 2026. We thank them for their service. And then we also appointed the TAB leazison person Peter Dugan has agreed to again serve in 2026 as he did in 2025. So that was good. Um we did talk about some of the things on the agenda today. We're going to take those up in due course. uh including the acknowledgement that occupies front and center location at the beginning of the agenda. Want to make sure people are aware of that. We're going to have a conversation about uh how to make the proper level of uh of acknowledgement uh and um talk about some of the commitments that the council is is making uh in written form and for the work that they do and see how that affects how we want to approach our work as well related to um uh native peoples. So, we'll talk about that uh in due course. And then uh Steve Peterson asked me to report out on the um regional solicitation public comment period which closed yesterday. The the public comment period closed with 22 comments received. Uh the meeting was held the public meeting was held on February 10th. No comments were received at the public meeting. There was also a budget survey tool that was used and completed by more than 80 people. They're in the process of uh absorbing all this information, distilling it, and coming back to us at a subsequent meeting with more detail around some of those comments. And then they're going to also approach the attack and funding and programming committee about uh recommendations they might have about incorporating some of those comments uh into the uh solicitation and talking to us about it as well as the full tab. Uh the targeted outreach completed was in all seven counties where people asked to complete the budget survey tool. So, we got everything covered there from seven county standpoint. Um, and as I mentioned, the regional solicitation application will go back to TAC funding and programming on the 26th of February to consider any changes from the public comment period and then back to the full tab in March. Uh, and in March, uh, your chair and first vice chair will not be here, but your second vice chair will be chairing the meeting in March. So, we thank her for that in advance. Um, also, uh, Steve Peterson wanted us to know, uh, that, uh, the Met Council has submitted a discretionary grant request to the federal US DOT, uh, for a planning grant application for what they call the acronym is build, and it would be for a prioritization study already listed in the 2050 TPP and UPWP called the existing interchange modernization study. As Steve points out, we've got over 350 interchanges in the metropolitan area uh that need modernization. And uh as an example, one that's underway, a project underway, it's right outside city hall uh in Dina on Highway 100 and Vernon Avenue where we're adding uh pedestrian capabilities, bike lane capabilities, and trying to clean up that little mini spaghetti junction we had there. >> Yeah. >> So, it's uh that project would be completed in June. It would have been completed by now except we had two bridge projects really. We had the one over highway 100 at Vernon and then the county had hen county had what they said was one of their more deficient bridges in Henipin County over the railroad tracks right to the west of that intersection I just described uh by Dean's in a holiday station there if you know that area and so that bridge is being replaced and we got slowed down there because it's a CP rail line and anytime you're working with a rail it's a slow process and then CP Rail discovered that Excel Energy had some conduit in there right away that led to all kinds of fingerpointing and delay and everything. So, we're not going to be done with the whole thing until June, but it is going to be a pretty remarkable transformation. And the land that been recaptured uh owned by Mindot on the east side on the city hall side is pretty remarkable. So, uh I think that's that's it for me. I'm going to report also out for um I could do that now. I guess I could report out for uh the MAC. Uh Bridget Reef couldn't be with us today and they haven't appointed somebody yet to serve as the rep to the TAB. Um Brian Ricks, the CEO of uh the MAC, would like to extend his thanks to the full council Deb uh for the warm reception in January for his MAC presentation. And then here's some passenger numbers for 2025. They were down uh by 2.95% with a total of 36.1 million passengers. They did however hit an all-time record for international destinations in 2025 and international travels travelers accounted for 3 uh 6 million passenger passengers total also a record. Um MSP operations in 2025 total approximately 343,000 which is up slightly from 2024. The Mac lever airport operations were also up by about 4% is what's reported. And then of course, as we've seen in the newspaper, Delta announced a non-stop service to Maui starting December 19th through April 27th, and they're anticipating about 170 passengers a day on that Minneapolis to Maui flight. So, that was it for the presentation from uh those folks. And again, uh I think three out of the past four years, they've been ranked number one under JD Powers for customer satisfaction in in mega airports, which would include places like Atlanta and Chicago. Um, I was in a meeting last weekend with the leadership team for the US Conference of Mayors and those two mayors kind of got into it about who had the best airport. So, well, customer satisfaction is a pretty big deal. I mean, you might have more passengers and more flights, but we got the happiest people. So, um, anyway, uh, I think that's it for me. I'm going to turn now to um, our agency reports and I'm going to go first to Connie Seahedium for reporting out on MDOT activities. Connie, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um we uh as always uh safety related you quickly you remember last year we were 100 fatalities less than the year before. This year as of yesterday we've had statewide we've had 27 fatalities compared to the last year 37. So we're 10 less. So I'm hoping this trend will continue. It's a it's a big thing if that's if if if that truly is the case, but uh we'll see. Summertime speeds are going to pick up and it's going to be more. Um since I I'm looking at snow out there, just let you know, we've had our our district one up in Duth. They're getting between 24 and 40 in, which is a big range. and we sent some of our snow fighters up there uh yesterday to help to help them out because we're not going to get um get as much. So far this year we've had 28 in of snow which is equal to last two last two years it's been the same and average snowfall is about 50 in a year in in Minnesota. So, we have time to catch up with the with the average, but it's been u uh it's it's it's about well, it's a lot more than last year and the year before. Obviously, the problem has been those 28 in. We only had like one or two big storms. The rest of them were one in storms one after the other, which is exhausting to the to the crews. And um so, I want to thank uh our snowfighters publicly for working around the clock to do that. Um uh legislature as you know started started yesterday. There is a um the bonding level and you all know it's around a billion dollars. governor had 900 million and uh and we've had from what I know between the locals and the state there's around round it up a little bit 7 billion worth of requests to do bonding but there'll probably be only about a um a billion um to do that. So big big as always big need for infrastructure. One interesting dynamic that we have, I found out yesterday that the locals have asked for uh would like $5 billion worth of work on the trunk highway. This is our local partners, mainly counties and I suppose cities too. But that adds up to when we did our menship. That's a number that we've got $5 billion worth of work that the locals would like to do on the trunk highway system. We already do some of that and it changes how we deliver projects and I it's a great way of partnering but it's interesting. We're two different entities looking at a system different ways for different needs. economic development I'm assuming for the for the counties and for us maybe some of that but maybe system and operation and other safety and other reasons. So um so that's uh that's still uh that's coming. Uh speaking of public comments, Mr. Chair, we have we have our rethinking I94 project between the two downtowns that's out for public comment started in January 6th through mid-March sometime is where it's going to continue. Please uh encourage your u communities and folks who are interested in looking at it and are impacted by it. Not just those who live there, but those who go through it through there. there's four alternatives that's uh going to be put forward as far as uh going into a federal process on EIS. Um and uh last one, the last thing I wanted to talk about is about some road closures that we have some significant ones this weekend. We will close westbound 394 until June. So, Sunday night they'll start. So, Monday morning, uh, going westbound out of downtown or if you're coming westbound on 94, all of that traffic will go on the reversible lanes, which is two lanes. And so, they can work on all the bridges on the westbound side, and that will go till June, like I said, and then June through November, eastbound going into downtown from from the west, that all will be closed. the general purpose lanes, all of that traffic will be on the reversible lanes. If you remember, reversible lanes were fixed last last uh uh summer. Um and trust me on this, we've we've over we've been overcommunicating. I call it overcommunicating. I've personally have met with big businesses in downtown with their VPs encouraging reverse not reverse flexible hours and uh because it's going going to be difficult if everybody wants to leave downtown Minneapolis at 5:00. It's going to take him a while to get out or go out the other way uh look look for options. So, and then we work with the cities and and the neighborhoods such as Binmar and other neighborhoods we we connect with in the in the in the area. Kind of related to that traffic impacts. I had a while back I promised uh member Martinsson surprised you haven't brought it up. >> I just hadn't raised my hand yet. I had planned to. you plan to so that we when we if you remember on I94 the Dartmouth bridge when we narrowed it down to two lanes last last summer it created a lot of um congestion and we did a many study you can say seeing what the impact of that was to different modes different streets and different entities so we have we have one but I think um I'm told maybe the best time to present that is in in the April if if there if there's time to do that. I don't think March was one that um based on what Molly tells me. So, we will promise that to cast that in stone and and have a have a presentation on that and we're going to do the same thing on 394 that over this over this year. So, with that, I'm done. I had I was flanked by two county engineers that were going to keep me on time. So, I think I >> You did. Okay. I I >> Anybody has any questions? >> All right. >> He's running out of time. >> All right. Uh MPCA Frank Coash, member Kash, thanks for being here. >> Great. Uh thank you. Good afternoon again. Frank Kash, assistant commissioner for air and climate policy with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I'll just go quickly over four items today. First start off that with the the good news that last week we released from the climate change subc cabinet at the state level the 2026 climate action framework. It includes seven chapters. One of them focused on transportation reducing emissions from transportation. Also includes significant input from local governments and tribal governments, tribal nations in the direction that Minnesota needs to go. The high high level parts that we focus on within that framework are reducing emissions to meet our statutory goals which is a 50% reduction by 2030 and then net zero by 2050. Also ensuring that resiliency is built into all of our systems to protect people, landscapes, infrastructure and businesses. And then uh equity focus ensuring that all motans have an opportunity to participate in the process and receive benefits from climate action in Minnesota moving forward. Uh we also included a forecasting and workforce analysis and a health impact analysis from reducing greenhouse gas emissions and I will provide a link to Elaine and and you can you can find that the short link is mn.gov/climate and then it's under the framework. I think that's the the the good news here. Uh we also at the pollution control agency have grants open under our climate pollution reduction grant uh for food systems. Uh, two of those are focused on the organic waste and waste management, solid waste management side of the equation, making sure that we keep organics from going into landfills and where they produce methane. So, those are open. And then another grant that is open for uh electrifying particular diesel and gasoline engines that are used to transport goods in the climate smart food system pro operation or or part of our economy. So, those grants are open to make those replacements. And then I also want to uh call call out that the Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority has a a call for applicants open right now for the finance authority. These are loans that are given to businesses or uh governments typically used with payback from tax credits or or other energy savings. uh they do focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing costs and increasing reliability for um for energy for motans and then bringing innovation that uh that will spur economic development in Minnesota. So that is on the MINCA Minnesota climate innovation finance authorities website. And then the final item was just uh today in the Federal Register EPA published their repeal of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases from transportation sources in the United States. uh that is a reversal of a 2009 decision in which EPA now says that uh the greenhouse gases emitted from the cars and trucks on the roads in in the United States are not endangering health and welfare uh of the United States and that uh removes all the uh regulatory authorities that EPA would claim to have under the Clean Air Act. And then it also repeals the vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases going back from 2012 to uh 2027 and beyond. So a pretty major uh impact on the regulatory side. Fully expected. It was a matter of time of when they were going to announce that. They announced that last week and it was published in the Federal Register today. And for that action now it will become effective April 20th of this year and the battle the fight now will go into the courts. uh will that will be challenged and defended uh by multiple parties. That's what I have for my report today. >> All right. Thank you, member Klesh. Any questions for Frank? >> All right. Thank you. Um yeah, quite interesting information. Uh Met Council member Barber. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple things tonight. Uh first is um our annual wrership. We will be reporting that out in March. So, we don't have that quite yet today. I just want to kind of put it on your radar as we're using somewhat different methodology. I cannot explain it all, so don't ask questions yet. Um, but we were actually underounting numbers on Metro Transit and so we're trying to uh rebuild all of that. We're waiting for some approvals from FTA. So, hopefully we'll have those annual um numbers for you all in uh March. And then also it is the legislative session which means we have a number of of legislativelymandated reports that we are required to give. And so uh just to so you're aware the first one is actually being presented in about seven minutes um is the high subsidy transit route analysis. And we also have reports coming up on the um premium ondemand pilot expansion, a mindbot review of metroomobility um uh the me metroomobility forecast evaluation also from Metroit cleaning and repair standards reports and uh updates on transit safety and wrership. So keep an eye out for some of those. They usually provide a lot of great great um great information and a good overview of things that are happening and will be being reported to the legislature over the next month. And then finally um uh Metro Transit added a new leadership position leading a consolidated planning and project delivery group. Tab is familiar with Katie Roth as the arterial um BRT director. Katie began a new role this week at the Metro Transit as as the Metroit assistant general manager of planning and project delivery. This is a new position for Metro Transit that will lead the strategic planning vision and the direction and management of service development, arterial BRT, transit oriented development and facilities planning uh facilities planning department. So very excited for her. So she'll likely still see her coming here but with slightly different role and that's all I have today. >> Good. Any questions for member Barbara? >> All right, let's move on to Gary Hansen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. report >> uh Maple Grove Transit and Plymouth Metro Inc. uh reported slightly steady to slightly increasing writership. In January, Southwest Transit reported a nearly 10% overall increase in ridership. They also commented on uh demonstrations uh in uh Minneapolis causing delays or temporary adjustments on some routes, and that was also noted by Minnesota Valley Transit. So they're trying to deal with that. Um hopefully that's over. Um MVTA's express wrership to St. Paul increased 19% in January and connect microransit ridership was up 22%. and MBTA uh has received a couple of uh uh what I think are noteworthy uh funding awards from counties uh including a Dakota County communities were uh all award to support disability awareness training for bus operators. The program invests in uh initiatives that advance equity, inclusion, and access across Dakota County communities. Uh and they also received a Scott County statewide health improvement partnership award to promote active transportation in Scott County. The program supports local strategies that improve health outcomes by making it easier for people to incorporate active transportation into their daily lives. uh that award may be applied toward uh installation of bike lockers uh at a park and ride or perhaps wayfinding signage connecting riders to nearby parks and trails. So uh a good use of funds uh active transportation of course something that we've talked a lot about. Any tab members have questions for member Hansen on his report? Okay, very good. Uh chairman first, anything you report out on from the attack? Yeah. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. Nothing to nothing to report on outside of the business items before us today. >> Okay. Stand by. We'll have you back up momentarily. I don't see Doug Anderson here today, so we can't uh spontaneously move the minutes. Does someone care to move the minutes in Doug's uh absence? Mayor minutes. >> Yeah, Mayor Bailey moves. Got a second. >> Second. >> Morris. >> All right. We had a motion and a second on the minutes uh for no uh January 21, 2026. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the minutes of January 21, 2026 with the transportation advisory board say I. >> I opposed. Carried. Those minutes are approved. Uh we've got some consent agenda items. Two items there in that category 2026 15 and 16. And Chair McFersonen's going to walk us through those. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah, thank you. So, the first one here, 2026-15, Mindot's requesting an amendment to the 2026 TIP to add a National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Project uh to the list. So, it was originally, this project was originally programmed for 2025. Um, however, it didn't get completed then, so we're adding it to the 2026 TIP. And this relates to a vehicle charging station associated with the Nevi program at the Lake Elmo exit on I94. So, the cool thing with that is uh Connie has sponsored I think the first six people get free cups of coffee. Is that how that works? >> While you're waiting for your card to charge. Maybe not. Maybe I heard that somewhere else. >> Donuts. >> But donuts. >> Donuts. >> Yeah, donuts. There we go. >> So, with that, uh there was uh full unanimous support from the TAC on this item. >> Question for the chair on that matter. >> All right. >> All right. I'll move into the second one here. The next one is 2026-16 and this is a scope change request to uh amend the 2026 TIP to address some added scope with the traffic management system and some additional costs associated with lighting on Mindot's Minnesota 77 bridge rehabilitation project. So, another pretty uh streamlined tip amendment here, but open it up to any questions >> and adding lighting in the traffic management system. I think >> correct >> the key elements of that. Okay. Uh somebody have questions on 2026-16. Otherwise entertain a motion to adopt 2026 15 and 16 in a single motion. >> So move second. >> All right. We got a motion. Is it was it member Morass moved >> that corner? >> All right. >> We're on it. >> Mayor Stephenson moved. Commissioner Jang seconded uh the uh adoption of the 20 2026 15 and 16 in a single motion. Any further discussion? Those in favor of adoption of those items in a single motion on the consent agenda say I. I. >> Opposed. Carried. Those items are approved. Uh we've got one item uh here in the non-consent portion of the agenda, which is the regular business item uh 2026-14. And uh Chair McFersonen did a good job of explaining this at the exec committee meeting. It is it may get complicated as we have this conversation and there may be some uh opinions that we need to really vet through here as we decide what we're going to do with respect to this request. So chairman Fson go ahead and lead us off. >> Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair and I appreciate the staff pulling this map up. This will help kind of walk us through the requested uh change here. So, uh, the city of Minneapolis has requested a scope change to remove some pedestrian improvements at two intersections on Park and Portland avenues in the Elliot Park neighborhood and then add some improvements along 11th Street there. So, or 11th Avenue South in the same neighborhood. So, on the screen before you, uh, for those that are following along, the two dark blue or purple dots that you see on the left, those would be the elements that are being requested be removed from this project. And I'll get into the reason why in a little bit. And then the lighter blue associated with that red line, those are the existing intersections that were in that original application that are remaining, but there were some revisions to the scope since the time of application. And then the red line that you see on the screen there, that is added work associated with the improvements at those two light blue intersections and the associated intersection improvements. So now I'll try and walk through what the request is here. So, uh, in 2022, the city had requested funding under the pedestrian facilities category. They were awarded $2 million for these projects. And again, those are the four dots that you see. That was the original application. Since that time, Henipin County came in and they did a Millan overlay project on Park and Portland there, which incorporated some ADA improvements and other associated improvements at the two darker blue dots that you see on the screen there. So recognizing that some of the improvements that were included in that original pedestrian application were completed with that project, not all of them, but a majority of them. Um they're they're also looking at a future project in 2033 in Henipin County's um I call it your 10-year plan. So you have a 5-year capital improvement program, then you have a 10-year plan which you start scoping out to start leading into that five-year plan. um since the 2024 work was completed and a majority of the improvements were included in that project. They're requesting that those projects be pulled from the application. So there's a associated reduction as you'll see further here associated with removing those two intersection improvements from the project. And then the light blue um in addition to the originally scoped work that they were planning to do there, there were some additional changes since that time. uh feedback as they went through design. They are taking the existing uh bike lanes that are painted on the roadway and they're converting that from a bike lane on each side of the road that runs parallel with the uh lanes of traffic. They're going to move that to the west or north side of 11th Avenue and it'll be head-to-head bike traffic on its own separated facility uh behind a um a barrier, a curved barrier. So with that, there was some additional scope changes that needed to take place at the light blue intersections to accommodate that change. And then with that, since you're relocating those two bike lanes on opposite sides of the road to the same side of the road, the the intent would be to carry that design element all the way through along 11th Avenue South to the termini you see on the the upper portion of the screen there. That's a little description of what's going on there. There were kind of three options that were considered by the funding and programming committee as well as the TAC committee. The first one would be the request is the removing the two dark blue or purple elements. So there would be a requested reduction which is option one on page three of your info packet there if you're following along. So, they would retain $912,000 of the original $2 million that they had requested, which um recognizes the reduction in cost from those two intersections being removed. The section second option would be that however some money would be given back to address some of the scope changes that took place at the two light blue intersections uh to accommodate that facility change with the two-way bike lane there or bike facility. Then the third option would be all of what I just said. So removal of the two dark blue ones, the additional scope of the light blue ones, and then adding a new element which would be that extension of that two-way head-to-head bike facility all the way up 11th Avenue as you see on the screen there. Uh the original project and uh application request only talked about the intersection improvements. So that is an added scope item to this request. So those were the three items we're looking at. There's also a fourth item which is denying the request, but we're focusing on these three here. So funding and programming took a look at this. They had a a long healthy conversation about it. They looked at what the policy is for scope changes. And so typically what we've seen in the past is if a scope change like this comes forward, two intersections are removed, but they're programmed under another project in the near future, let's say in the next year or two, then in those cases, uh the funding that was applied to those intersections, as long as all the scoped work and intended work is being completed under that other project, they could maintain those dollars. In this case, as I mentioned earlier, those two darker blue or purple dots there in 2024, the county had completed uh a majority of the improvements that were originally scoped, but not everything. And so with that, um they're also planning a project at those two intersections, but it is not currently programmed in their 5-year CIP. So again, a little difference there is you have your 5year CIP, which a lot of us know, you've guys seen those come across your desk. Those have funding tied to them. They're programmed out for five years so that you can get a a basis of what your program looks like for your transportation system. In this case, it's included in Henipin County's 10-year plan. So, their uh program plan just to get geared up with their local partners to start moving forward. So, as as of what we heard at the TAC meeting, there's no funding applied to those projects yet. So, it is out in the future. So, that is one difference based on what you've seen in the past. So, uh, with that funding and programming, uh, also discussed the the improved, uh, scope or the, um, updated scope of the two light blue intersections that you see there associated with those bike facility improvements. And so, they agreed that due to the changes that they're proposing there, the feedback they've received since the time of application, it's warranted. So, they were supportive of seeing the uh, additional scope. So that would be in line with what you see there. Number two. So number two is you remove the funding because like I said, they're not going to build those improvements in the near future. It' be something future programmed. So we remove the funding for the two dark blue or purple. There's added scope. Um so that's what is in line with number two. TAC approved that. Their support of that. Prior to that, the funding and programming committee also looked at the red line, which is that pedestrian facility improvement. Wasn't originally included in the application, but it's something that correlates with the work they're doing at those two light blue intersections. So, because of that, they put a request in to include that in the project. And so, funding and programming uh looked at that. They had a long discussion and initially they approved that on a 16 to4 vote. the uh four that voted against it stated that that's that's outside of the scope change policy where if you have a new element added to a project, you can't use federal funds to fund that new element in a project. You can still have the scope change. You can still approve the scope change, but you can't use federal dollars to um pay for the added scope that's put into the project. And we've seen that time and time again as they come across this this uh committee here. So funding and programming again picked option three. TAC took another look at it. After having a further discussion and following in line with the policy, they uh approved option two uh with basically unanimous vote. The one no vote we had was the funding and programming chair just upholding the uh the effort that the funding and programming committee put forward. After further conversation with Jim Classucher, who's the chair, he said they also support option two there. So, we do have unanimous support right now for option two, which again is removing the federal funding for the dark blue purple and approving the additional scope funds for the two blue intersections, light blue intersections, but not the red line. And so, if you followed all that, um, it's a lot of detail. I'm happy to answer any questions on that. Otherwise, we do have a representative from the city who is here to answer any questions as well. >> Yeah, good. I'm glad you got somebody here from the city. All right. Thanks. Yeah, thanks for that detailed explanation. Um, I think as some of our TAB members looked at this project, uh, particularly I I think, uh, member Johnson, uh, thought about this, uh, situation where the proposal was to eliminate those intersection improvements at 15th Street in Portland Avenue and 14th and Park. Sent in some photographs of some accidents from, I think, 2020 forward. And um I think it'd be important in this conversation to have uh some input on all the different options that uh we talked about at the exec committee meeting, but of course you weren't there, but we would like your input at this point in time. >> Yes. And and thank you, chair. Uh again, if you didn't see the email, I live on this map and I'm very near one of these intersections being removed and uh sort of the ongoing neighborhood. I can't say it's a fun activity, but you meet your neighbors when there's a crash on this corner and they happen frequently. Uh so unfortunately I have many pictures of crashes uh at these corners and so I just want to send that over as context for you know our decisions here do have impacts on these projects getting built or not. I do want to just state up front I do want to support the scope change here. I mean I want the existing project we can do on 11th Avenue to happen. I just want to be very clear about that. There should be no question it follows our policies. It's just a matter of is it option two or three I think is really the the conversation we should be having. But one thing I did want to flag and it's come up uh certainly on our meeting on Monday with the appointed member uh info session is this is sort of a stress test of our new scope change policy. It's sort of asking you know if you add an element what does that actually mean? You know I think that came up in I think at least FNP if not at the TAC meeting. I think that's an important thing for you know us potentially to give some feedback to the technical staff to think about and and talk a little bit more about. Uh but fundamentally I just want to point out that some of this comes down to jurisdictional challenges. You know, Park in Portland, our county roads, Minneapolis stepped up in 2022 and said, "We want to do something about this intersection that intersects with city streets." Again, they identified dangerous intersections and tried to address them. But because of federal policy about payback if it a project gets ripped up when it's fedally funded in a certain timeline, the county not having solidified its timeline yet for when they were going to be doing this project. You know, all these things are sort of I'm going to use the word conspire, but it's all just unintentional. You know, all these things happened behind the scenes that got us to the point of two dangerous intersections having improvements being put off for an additional 8 years. You know, that's a concern and I just wanted to make sure I brought that up today. And I appreciate the city of Minneapolis sending a representative. You know, I've I've watched this uh presentation come through in many different places that I represent. So, it's interesting seeing it here. TAB's only place that's televised in this way. Uh I think this is deserving of conversation and and I really want to talk about just the impacts and how this applies to our our policy. But most importantly, I just like I said before, I want to make this clear that these really do have real impacts on people living in these areas. And you know, I was really hoping I was sort of darkly joking before this meeting. I I look through my my phone for everything that happened after these uh resurfacing improvements, which are significant. I don't want to deny that they were significant. They're really significant to take away one of the three vehicle lanes going through here in both directions. That calms traffic. It absolutely does. But I was really hoping I could look through my phone and not see a picture of a flipped car on this intersection. And yet I did. And that's not me monitoring this going out every day. It's just when I hear a crash. So, dangerous intersections need attention. I want to figure out how TAB can do better with that. And this is just one example where our scope policy change, federal requirements, all these things are coming together to create a a difficult situation. But I just want to reiterate, I definitely support the scope change. I just I want to make that very clear. >> Thanks for those thoughts. Um maybe it would be helpful to have the city person here, the city of Minneapolis >> representative to talk a little bit about I'm sure you looked at accident data at the at the two intersections you wanted to eliminate from the scope for the present time. I maybe also speak to I think what member Johnson's concerns are and many on the tab exec committee as well was that this is it's kind of doing the redoing those two intersections kind of beyond the capital improvement plan forecasted for now at least but maybe you have some different thoughts on that but we sure want you to share those with the tab >> sure chair hland members of the committee my name is Katie White I'm a senior transportation planner with city of Minneapolis public works I'm not the planner assigned to this project but I am involved in our capital programming decisions. Um, you're absolutely right. Um, also Joe McFersonson is correct and Glenn Johnson is also correct. Um, with all the summary that's been given on this project to date, city of Minneapolis recognizes the safety improvements that are needed at Park and Portland intersections. When the city of Minneapolis applied for this grant at these four locations, we did not know that Henipin County was planning on coming through with their own project. And so as a result, we wanted to be proactive and address these safety concerns. And we're very happy to hear that Henipin County is interested. You know, they um actually when we applied for the grant, we didn't know that there were going to be a mill overlay project with interim safety conditions applied with the lane reduction. So we're very supportive of all the work that Henipin County has done on these streets and does plan to do in the future. Also, from a capital programming perspective, Henipin County has a 5-year CIP that um does not currently include Park in Portland. But in our conversations with Henipin County, we're very comfortable with what they've said with the work plan, with the idea that Park and Portland is next up, that these are the projects in Q to move into their 5-year CIP. So, from a capital programming perspective, the city of Minneapolis is supportive and understanding of where Park in Portland lie for a future project. I'll say that Glenn Johnson was absolutely correct about federal payback rules. Um also if we if the city of Minneapolis came through to do intersection improvements at these locations now um we not only would we have to pay back some of that money but also the work would just be torn up. Henipin County is talking about future street reconstruction which involves regrading the subsurface and maybe you know whatever we built on those dark blue dots would have to be completely torn out in order to match the grades of the new street that's about to be built. And so it's just financially inefficient um unsupportable. Um, it's really kind of wasteful to build something with concrete elements that are incredibly expensive, time consuming, take a lot of coordination to build only to have them torn up in a few years after that. Um, I'd say that that is the bigger priority, not just our payback responsibilities, but just from an efficiency standpoint and being a good steward of taxpayer dollars. And so, um, we recognize that there are safety needs on Park and Portland. We have a lot of very productive conversations about the safety needs across the city, across Henipin County, with the county. Um, we're comfortable with the decision that the county has made. Um, and we're also comfortable with option two as recommended by the TAC. >> Okay, that's where I was I was going to ask you that and if you didn't address it, so thanks for doing that. Anybody have members have questions for Miss White? >> Okay, Commissioner. I and I don't know lack of a Henipin County person to put you on the spot, but I I'm just kind of gobsmacked that there would have been some coordination. In other words, I don't know how far out your mill and overlays are and stuff, but I mean we at our in Dakota County, we have stuff programmed years out. >> Yeah, we do too. >> So, how why in two 2022 you didn't know about a project in 20 >> it's scheduled out we share with >> 24 I'm not and and then it begs the question in future applications if they involve an intersection of a city and county road should we see a joint application or a letter of support from the non applying entity that they're all in on the coordination of this actually happening I >> sure Chair Hlin, members of the committee, I do believe we have letter support from Henipin County and our application for this project as it's currently scoped. U we do a lot of capital programming coordination with Henipin County. Yeah, I I think I I I wasn't part of those conversations in 2022 as we led up to those applications. I would say from my current experience um some things change some things move around and the decisions that made sense you know four years ago sometimes you know we are always getting new information and it's important to update our plans >> I mean it's definitely a miss but yeah >> I mean we're going to set a precedent here today right I mean whether this is approved or not and I mean the the two intersections aren't even on the same road they're I mean it's But we're going to set a precedent. I think people need to recognize that. >> That's whatever we do here. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Member Marino. Yeah, I just I I agree with what you're saying on the fact that like I would want to see more coordination on the sense of like maybe not even just like a letter of support but just saying hey you know that since Henipin County has some autonomy on this road we are not planning on ripping this up within 10 years and so that this doesn't have to become a conversation because I'm sure there's been engagement and stuff that's been part of this process and you know some of that can go forward in eight years but some of that will probably need new conversations on you know what are the things that's changed on the ground maybe that there's different design standards that they want to bring forward in that time and that's extra work for staff and so um yeah if there's that situation I would really like to see that you know there there is a little bit more conversation for that in the future maybe that can be baked into some of our process in the application maybe I'm not sure how that would work though >> all right thanks member Marino Elaine >> yeah I can actually respond to that we do ask that the applicants contact other entities with their if there's that if someone else owns the property and providing a letter of support so if Henipin County did that and they something was missed then of reviewing that project versus their own project. I know with the MDOT we do require we specifically require if it's on a Mindot roadway the MDOT provides a letter but we do ask that others are contacted but if there was a letter then that that would have shown that they did so somewhat must have been some miscommunication but maybe that going forward it's that you know it's going further we're doing this project do you also have a subsequent project might be a way for them to ask in the TAB exec committee meeting. Uh, member Coleman, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you were the person that raised the issue of, well, what if we did nothing? You know, what if we just said you you got a project approved in 2022, either get that project built in 2027 or, you know, turn the money back. And I think that was you touched on that briefly as one of the options, chair, and maybe you could maybe you could discuss that in a little bit more detail. >> Yeah. So, Mr. Sure. That's kind of hidden. Option four, that's not included in here. Uh that would be if if if the TAB did not approve the scope change request, then what would happen is essentially the project reverts back to what the original scope was in their application and then the agency would have to decide are they going to move forward with the originally planned improvements or in some cases do they turn the federal funds back or come back with a revised scope change. So it would change the course of the project. >> Yep. And they they have not requested a a extension yet, >> Mr. Chair. Not at this time. >> We usually grant one extension request, but they have not done that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. All right. So, this is kind of the framework for this conversation took place at exec committee, and you can see it has some elements to it that are pretty fascinating. Member Martinsson. >> Thank you, Chair. So I so I this is a helpful question that was just raised about whether if so if we were to deny the request it's going to delay the project. They're going to have to come back because the county has done some of the work on those two intersections. And I don't from from what we've seen I don't think we want to delay I don't think we want to slow down any of the safety improvements on any four of those intersections. And so uh I was one of the people that raised the question about whether we could deny the request altogether at exec. And at this point, I think that would not be a good that would not be I would not support that move. Let me put it that way. >> So, would you mind telling us what you would be supportive of? >> I I support I'm supportive of option I could be persuaded to go with option one quite honestly, but I'm supportive of option two. And it sounds like that's where there's been consensus on FNP and ATAC and um and and we've also heard that the city is is accepting of that option as well. It feels to me like that's reasonable because we're not adding elements, right? We're not we're not allowing them to use federal money to add elements that weren't in the original. The bike lane had nothing to do with the original grant that was made in 2022. >> There's already separated bike lanes painted on lane. Um, it's a low enough local traffic street. I bike it and it's the painted bike lanes are not horrendous. They're not terrible. So, um, so, so I, so I guess mostly I'm supportive of option two is what I would say. >> All right. Thanks. Thanks for those thoughts. Uh, Commissioner Gatell and Commissioner Jeepson. >> Well, I was going to move, uh, option two. >> Second. >> All right. That's good. Good way to foster more discussion. All right. We got a motion and a second with respect to adoption of option two. Uh now further discussion. Commissioner Jeepson. >> Did you do it? >> Okay. Um no, I I appreciate the explanation and the understanding as to what um what you're wanting to do, what the purpose is. And I think anytime a local government agency volunteers to give back dollars says a lot that it's not needed. you don't want to do that project anymore because I also think it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to do a major project and then with the possibility of having it ripped up um or short time later that's also not something that we want to do. So I was going to make the motion to approve number two but Commissioner Gel beat me to it. So >> yeah. All right. Well, we got uh further discussion >> anyone? Yes. >> Um Mr. Chair, just the clarity uh what's option two again? >> You just square up your microphone a little bit. May you just clarify what option two is again? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I can run through that again if you'd like. Go ahead. >> So, option two would be the removal of funding that was associated with the dark blue or purple circles that you see on the screen and then adding a little money back for the additional scope associated with the design measures that have taken place since the time of application at the light blue circles that you see on the screen. but it does not include any of the work associated with the red line which is that head-to-head bicycle trail kind of that uh separated trail system. So it's it falls in line with the policy we have. >> Okay. >> So the uh they would retain a million247719 and return 752,281. >> Thank you. >> Plus do the work that was described by the chair. >> Okay. >> And Mr. Chair, >> yes. Just to clarify because the red line was not in the original application. Correct. >> So it avoids setting the precedent of putting in a new element. >> That's right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion to adopt option number two with respect to um 2026-14 say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Carried. Well, that was a shorter conversation than I expected. Good job, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Um, >> so that takes care of the uh of the work, you know, the voting portion of the agenda, the non-consent portion of the agenda. Uh, we've got a few things to talk about in theformational portion of the agenda. And we'll take on first the um TDM matter. And I think uh Jonathan Erlick is going to introduce a topic and then we've got uh a guest from the University of Minnesota I think with us to talk a little bit about some of their work in this area. >> Mr. Earl, welcome. >> Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. I'm here to um talk a little bit about um the applied research and transportation program and to introduce our guest speaker. Um so the applied research and transportation program is a pilot program that our partners at the center for transportation studies and mindot um formed a couple of years ago. Initially to focus on sustainability but then broadened to um focus on um really any research topic that uh that we need a relatively quick answer to. Uh we joined this last year. We spend about we spend $50,000 um annually of our of our annual UPW funding um on it and and uh and each year uh develop internally um and collaboratively with CTS staff a small research pro project that addresses a specific need or process um and that allows us to procure a research uh project um identify researchers and get uh and get answers and data from the university uh relatively in a relatively quick manner. And so uh we've been the project that you're in to see is the first one that uh we funded last year um in 2025. Mindot has also uh uh funded a couple of projects both last year and this year. One on the distribution of ebike rebate and data collection um for analysis of travel behavior impact. another on uh modeling household vehicle miles traveled uh using a uh accessibility model and there's a project underway uh that Mandot's funding on um on induced on modeling induced demand in rural areas. Um so it's there's a wide variety of projects that both MDOT and the council have the ability to do. Um the project you're about to see is both something that we that we generated internally and in collaboration with CTS and turned out to opportunistically lead into a much larger consultant study on uh integration of travel demand transport travel demand management uh for highway projects that's going to occur in this year. So that's just a brief overview of the of the uh of the process and partnership with CTS um that leads to this project. We are um looking forward to bringing uh our partners at CTS to talk more about their wider program and our wider collaboration later this year. But now I want to uh introduce to you the um this project on the integration of transportation demand management for highway projects and introduce um Caitlyn Denton uh to you. Uh she is a researcher from Humphrey Schools Institute of Urban and Regional Infrastructure Finance whose research focuses focuses on transportation finance and the evaluation of impacts of transportation projects and programs. She earned her master of urban and regional planning from the Humphre School at the University of Minnesota and uh and we'll let her uh speak about this research. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Lake. Miss Denton, welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. Um so, my name is Caitlyn Denton. I'm here to talk with you about the TDM study. So, this is a study that originally was identified through the um travel demand management study action plan in October of 2023. When we talk about travel demand management, we abbreviate it TDM. Um, it's also referred to as transportation demand management. And this is the use of strategies that maximize the efficiency of our transportation system. So these are things like MOChift, transit um, and other options. So this study provides a general roadmap for how TDM can be used specifically in the context of highway projects. And this is supporting the upcoming work that the council is doing. So for this project specifically, we focused on a nationwide scan of projects from 2000 to October of 2025. This was limited to projects in the United States. And we looked at both academic literature and um other roadway projects that included some component of TDM. And then the second part of this is a best practices um portion which really summarized those practices that we found across multiple projects in the scan. So for our findings from the national scan we focused on four different buckets. So we looked at policies for the incorporation of TDM strategies in roadaway projects. We looked at um the incorporation of TDM during the planning or construction phase of projects. We looked at transportation projects that enhance mode choice in some way and incorporate TDM. And then we also looked at the incorporation of TDM plans to manage travel demand in highway corridors. So when we looked at policies for the incorporation of TDM strategies in roadway projects, um we found a number of states that included um or required the incorporation of some level of TDM strategies into their roadway projects at a statewide policy level. So this looks like um Colorado's policy directive601 and the Minnesota greenhouse gas emissions impact assessment. We also found that some require the incorporation of TDM strategies into traffic demand man um travel traffic management plans or TMPS. So this um example was California's deputy directive 60-R2 and New Jerseyy's traffic mitigation guidelines. So when we looked at the um incorporation of TDM during the planning or construction phase, we primarily found that these TDM strategies are incorporated as part of either the um national environmental policy act process or the NEPA process during the planning phase of the project or as a traffic mitigation strategy during the construction of the project. So one example of that NEPA process is the I405 corridor program in Washington where they used um TDM as a major element of proposed alternatives in the EIS, the environmental impact statement. And in traffic mitigation, the reconstruction of Highway 101 in central California, they the city developed TDM strategies to enhance um mobility during and after the reconstruction period. And TDM is currently being incorporated into the um construction phase of the I494 project which is underway. and that information from that effort will be available to study the lessons learned from that. We also looked at um these transportation projects that enhance mode choice and incorporate TDM. So this looks like roadway projects who construct elements that enhance modal choice and therefore support demand management. This is seen with a number of multimmodal enhancements built in addition to that roadway project. So, the transportation expansion or T-Rex project in Denver, Colorado, built 17 miles of light rail transit alongside their highway reconstruction project. And the transform 66 outside the beltway project in Virginia and Maryland included managed lanes similar to easy pass lanes that offer free access for transit and high occupancy vehicles that include three or more individuals. We also found the incorporation of TDM plans to manage this travel demand. So some partners have adopted plans um to manage travel demand in certain corridors. Examples of this are the North Coast TDM plan in California where they capture current and future TDM needs to then inform those future roadway projects that they're planning. in the I70 east corridor multimodal TDM plan where they considered corridorwide TDM strategy implementations in response to the policy directive that I identified earlier policy directive601. So there are a number of common factors that we identified in this incorporation of TDM strategies and roadway projects. First and foremost, a number of these projects um had identified and knew their community to understand their travel patterns because it's important to know who you are designing for and what different strategies may be most helpful for that community before you can then decide what needs to be done. Um they also had a high level of coordination between these involved transit agencies. So DOS's um counties, city transportation management organizations and they had a high level of involvement in those transportation management organizations or transportation management associations in this implementation of TDM strategies. They offer different strategies for different types of travelers. They established a definition of success regarding TDM approaches. So they knew what success would look like in order to measure it. And then they identified those TDM target measures to actually see what that success would look like entail and how they get there and measure it. So out of this were a number of best practices. Um, first and foremost again is knowing your community and their travel patterns as this helps inform those TDM strategies. Um, also incorporating TDM into policies and practices of highway project development ahead of time instead of trying to do it retroactively. A number of these set smart goals, so specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound for TDM strategies. and then they selected these strategies that work handinhand with each other. Um we also found that they established flexible strategies from planning to post construction as you know the beginning of a construction project may have different needs to move folks through the corridor then towards the end of the project. They ensured that there's a number of sufficient and sustaining funding sources for these TDM strategies and then they monitored and documented progress. >> So in conclusion, TDM integration and highway projects should generally increase as states respond to sustainability goals, increasingly expensive highway expansion projects, and unreliable travel through the corridor. these effective TDM implementations could even reduce the need or delay um those costly infrastructure projects. And the foundation of this work is feeding into um future work that the council is doing to integrate TDM into highway expansions. And with that, I can stand for questions. >> Denton, thank you. Uh questions for Miss Denton. Yeah, member Coleman. >> Thank you. Thank you so much for this presentation. Do you mind going back two slides? Um I'm curious about the second bullet point here and how you assessed or quantified the coordination between the involved transportation agencies. Um yeah, would love to know more about that. >> Mr. Chair, committee members, we generally looked at how they were um how they were joining efforts per se. So a lot of this looked at how they were communicating and using very specific skill sets and resources that they had available. So for instance, a DOT may have more overarching statewide resources whereas a TMO really knows the area that they're serving very specifically. So being able to do like business engagement and um very specific engagement for um employees that go through this corridor but don't go through it all the time or have the flexibility to move is really how we looked at that. Thank you. >> Is could you advance one slide please? I wanted to ask you is and maybe Jonathan Erin can help in this too. Is there these best practices that you found relative to TDM as you looked around the country? Did you compare them to what we're doing here with respect to TDM to see if we were capturing all of these best practices that you found were important to be thinking about? >> Chair and members, uh my name is Bethany Brandt and I am the current project manager of the upcoming integrating TDM uh study. part of this best practices work that they identified, we're going to continue building on as well as that TDM action plan from 2023 and we're going to be working with our mind partners and a lot of county partners and city agencies to help us identify those and then make recommendations for tools and practices and guidance um specific to the region. So, we're really looking to bring those best practices to our work. And there are a lot of agencies doing this, but we're looking to pull it all together in a regional approach. >> This may have been a Minnesota bias or a TAP bias, but I always thought we were the standard for best practices, but uh we can always get better at what we do, I guess, is what you're saying. >> Yes. And we can be uh more coordinated and maybe more consistent in our approaches. >> Okay. That prompt other questions. >> Yeah. remember >> we are I think we are an example of best practices some of those we've done for like going back like a managed lane one we started that in 2005 we went to Europe learned from the Europeans how you take excess capacity like a shoulder during the day when there's no traffic it's a safety shoulder safety feature when the road uh when the congestion starts, you open that up to relieve traffic. And some places it's free, sometimes it's told. And when we brought it, maybe Miss Venovitz remembers, you know, we talked about that and we did um we did se several of those actually. And I'm a big advocate of that where instead of adding and expanding the freeway, using that capacity and optimizing our system and adding capacity with what we have because we cannot build ourselves out of uh congestion. That's that's a given. And uh so anyway, I just wanted to say yeah, I think some some of those things some maybe we haven't, but some we for sure have done for 20 plus years or at least thought about it back then. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Well, maybe this is a comment on best practices. The Colorado T-Rex light rail finished 22 months early under budget. >> How's that compare with us? All right. Thanks for that sobering moment. >> Anybody else? >> All right. Thanks for being here. Oh, yeah. Commissioner, go ahead. >> Um, thank you. Um, when you're doing the travel demand strategies and looking at this, have you also considered land use too? How it intersects with that? >> Mr. Mr. Chair, committee members, we did not specifically look at land use for this. We were more looking just overall nationally generally what's being done. So, we did not get specifically into land uses. >> Mhm. Okay. Um and then my my next question is um you know uh where where you think or for future work where you're s it's also kind of suggesting that the TDM strategies uh will help to reduce capital highway expansion needs. Um h have you seen uh some of those examples in other places or where that's being done where they are actually saving from capital projects? M >> Briggs, >> thank you chair and members. Um I'm not aware of any that have explicitly avoided in the long term, but they've been used to um mitigate or manage congestion as they are pursuing the funding. Um but obviously we know that traffic patterns change and as projects get longer to implement um you might see that those TDM strategies are effective. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Well, thanks everybody. Thanks, Miss Den for being here. Thanks for the work. I'm sure we'll see you again on some other projects that you're working on, >> transportation related. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> We've got Kyle Burls with us today, too, to talk about some of the arterial BRT planning that's going on and uh talking about next steps, I think, for uh this ABRT system that is now through A through E. >> That's correct. Uh good afternoon, chair, uh committee members. Thank you for having me here today. Uh my name is Kylo Donald Burroughs. I'm the planning manager for Arterial BRT uh here at Metro Transit and I am here to share as an information item uh the recommendations that Metroit is bringing forward to the Metropolitan Council um for the outcomes of the arterial BRT plan update where we've identified a Jine and a Kline for consideration. Um, so we've uh been to TAB a couple of times before throughout major milestones um uh over the course of the year, but what I'll do today is recap a little bit of the process we've been taking to get to this point as well as then sharing sharing uh our recommendations following the fourth step of our process which we've recently uh completed the prioritization step where we were sort of building from the evaluation results and ultimately selecting the next lines uh for recommendation from that. And then finally, I'll talk a little bit about our next steps um over the course of of this year and specific to our plan update. Um first, we've seen this slide before, but just grounding us a little bit on uh the purpose and sort of role of arterial BRT within Metro Transit's overall bus network. Uh so as as folks know, Metrotransit has a variety of tools available to us um sort of that we apply uh corresponding to the specific transit and transportation need uh that we are trying to meet. Uh those tools really sort of align on a sort of coverage to ridership spectrum where uh res or tools on the coverage side of things are really about trying to make sure that there is a basic level of transit and transportation access for a particular geographic area. So run a a core example of that is our demand responsive style services Metro Micro. Other providers do something similar as well where there is a sort of a geographic service area and we're trying to provide a basic level of service uh uh sort of in that area. Uh on the farther end of that spectrum the the ridership oriented side of the spectrum is arterial BRT where the goal here is to provide um uh as many rides on transit as possible. Uh and so we typically do that in sort of uh denser walkable um higher population, higher job areas uh and try to make you know do that with high frequency high ridership uh services that kind of support transit being as convenient as possible and generating as much wrership as possible. Um our regional guidance sort of aligns with those different uh purposes with respect to each of these uh different tools where um uh arterial BRT is expected to to provide uh 25 passengers or more per inservice hour. This is the highest productivity um guideline um of any bus style transit service uh that we oper that we offer in our region. So it's really geared towards trying to get as many people on and off the bus as possible. And consequently, we're directed to kind of focus this style of investment uh in uh market areas one and two where we expect the sort of highest uh transit demand potential uh in our region based on uh land use characteristics, population, demographics, these types of things. So the core question faced before us with the arterial BRT plan update is really where should the next lines go? So we've identified we are operating A through E as as the chair identified we have identified um three lines beyond that the FG and H lines uh to be opened by 2030 and our core question here was what about the next set between 2030 and 2035. So we took a four-step process to get to this point where we really started at the beginning of this year with a wide set of candidate corridors. So we identified uh 17 candidate corridors to begin with and sort of worked our way through this process narrowing down up until we got to this point where we have today are have identified um the next recommended lines. So through that process we took a a screening step where we narrowed down to the most promising corridors. Uh those most promising corridors were evaluated against a set of detailed technical evaluation criteria and ranked on that score. And then from that we've we've sort of taken that score as the basis of sort of how well are each of those corridors meeting arterial BRT and overall regional goals and selected those based on um readiness criteria and sort of other considerations. So casting us back to the spring, our first step really was to identify those candidate corridors. These are really drawn from a wide pool of different route types and route purposes within our region. highfrequency existing and planned services uh partner priorities corridors identified in the transportation polic in the 2040 transportation policy plan already. We narrowed down to these 11 candidate corridors over this over this summer and you can see those corridors overlaid with um the transit market areas and so you can see how they relate to transit market areas one two and three and sort of those areas of expected high transit demand. Uh finally this fall we completed that technical evaluation uh of of each of these corridors sort of in-depth technical evaluation. Those evaluation criteria were really centered around four goals that we uh that we have for this program and sort of tie back to the to the transportation policy plan really around wrership equity cost and sustainable growth and then connecting supportive uh uh land uses. Each of those goals uh could score up to 25 points per corridor uh for a 100 total points possible for each corridor. And you can see those corridor um those results uh shown here. Uh and again we've we've seen this before, but um really top three corridors emerging from that process were the Nicollet corridor, Franklin Grand Third Street corridor, and the West 7th Street corridor. and then following down from there in sort of approximately equal point distributions uh sort of sort of down the line from there. So we started then that prioritization step which is that fourth step where we're really sort of reviewing each of these corridors starting from that technical evaluation results uh and sort of working our way down from highest to lowest lowest and saying you know is this corridor ready to go or is there maybe some reason that we need to you know pause let some things develop uh sort of assess the situation before committing to our BRT in this corridor. And so we really used the rider and community feedback we received throughout the process that we undertook this past year as well as kind of thinking about readiness with our and and kind of partner coordination um to sort of help us assess and identify what those potential questions might be and then kind of reviewed each of those corridors based on those uh and then ultimately prepared our recommendations following that. So those readiness questions really thinking about three questions we have here. First is how compatible is the current and future roadway conditions uh with arterial WRT infrastructure and service. So we have a certain footprint that our WRT stations kind of need to fit within within the right of way. Some roadways work better than others. uh in those contexts uh we want to make sure before we're committing any to anything that the arterial BRT platform and station design actually fits within that roadway. How well does each uh corridor sort of fit within the existing and planned transit network? So here we're really thinking about yes individual corridors score particularly well but how well does it fit within the overall planned uh metro network? And finally, are there other major unanswered questions about the corridor alignment or potential termini? Is the line on the map effectively the line that we ultimately uh would want to be implementing or are there some questions that we still need to answer about those? The other element of this consideration is really timing. And so thinking about um those those technical evaluation criteria, you know, how well does each corridor advance our goals? pairing those with readiness, thinking about, okay, is there a reason to kind of hold on this corridor? Then bringing into timing and so making sure that we're able to align with um planned uh or programmed roadway projects in a corridor that's identified as a good candidate for arterial BRT. So that helps us kind of identify, you know, when should each corridor be implemented? Should it be the J line? Should it be the Kline? That type of thing. We want to avoid kind of doing uh you know multiple uh construction projects in a single corridor separated only by a few years and really try to efficiently deliver both roadway improvements and transit improvements sort of in a single cohesive experience for our communities. So taking a look at these recommendations at a glance there's a lot to look at here. I'm going to focus today on the recommendations for the J line and the Kline. We also have some dispensations for the rest of these corridors and additional work to do on these other corridors. Um but the recommendation we shared um to the Met Council and committee the whole in January uh and then we'll be bringing forward to um council later this month and in March is to identify the West 7th Street corridor as the J line um and the Nicollet corridor as the Kline. And at this point, we are holding off on right now identifying an LLine um while we do some additional study on that Franklin Grand Third Street corridor, which is the other sort of top three scoring corridor. Um that, you know, is a is a good candidate for art. Uh but there are some pretty significant questions that we want to make sure that we're turning over and answering uh before committing to that corridor or one of the other Line corridors. So that's those recommendations here uh on on the map. Um so you can see um the J line as West 7th Street, Kline as Nicollet. Um additional work we want to be doing. So that that corridor study I mentioned of the Franklin Grand Third ST uh third street corridor. Um then following that corridor study uh we'll be coming back to recommend an Line from one of those three candidate corridors. Uh finally, and on a separate path, we're also going to be completing a a feasibility study of the sea line. Um looking at both north north and south ends of the sealine that'll capture some of the corridors uh or parts of corridors that we had already considered. So the 63rd and Zay corridor in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center and then the Bloomington portion of the Bloomington Lindale corridor. And this slide just kind of shows our current local ridership by corridor uh paired with kind of that recommendation for what that corridor looks like. So this is looking at 2024 average daily ridership on the local routes within this corridor. And you can kind of see um you know the corridors that are either recommended uh for advancement as the Jine or the Kline or some additional study and future uh consideration are the corridors that you know tend to be higher ridership. um uh existing corridors and then looking towards the future here as well looking at kind of our future productivity. So remember that uh um the the 2050 transportation policy plan guides arterial BRT to uh achieve 25 passengers per mo per inservice hour or more. And you can kind of see this graph showing where that where each of those corridors land um with respect to that guideline. So uh we have a number of corridors that are expected to sort of generate more passengers per in service hour than that guideline. Several that are sort of right at that margin and then a few that we looked at that are not at this point um expected to to achieve that at this point um you know pending future development in these corridors. So our timeline for next steps um you know our next um our next uh step here will be to we'll be at uh the council transportation committee next week and then um the full council the first week uh second week of March uh with the business item recommending the JK line for council adoption. Uh later this spring, um we'll be pending council action, we'll be um submitting the Jine for consideration for the 2026 regional solicitation process and then working uh with our MTS and council partners uh to begin the transportation policy plan amendment process to include the Jine and the Kine. We'll also be initiating that Franklin Grand Third Street corridor study. Uh and then later in 2026 um following the completion of that work recommending uh an outline corridor. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll stand for questions. >> Yeah, thank you for that. I think there will be some um questions for Mr. Burrow's comments. >> Yeah, Commissioner, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um thanks for the update. Um the J line I believe as that goes into downtown St. Paul it uses the same stations as the goal line. I don't know if it's all of them or if there's a couple that are unique to the Jin or >> Mr. Chair uh committee members. Yeah, through the portion of the alignment where they are shared in downtown St. Paul, they would use the same uh station. >> Yeah. What I've noticed and what I like is there's enough arterial bus rapid or in future BRTs that we're starting to use the same stations. So there's a significant savings when you're not rebuilding stations and duping up uh duplicating the use of them or even uh actually there's many more lines at a station than just two usually. It's nice to see that happening. Um, also I think in the case of the goal line being just really a year old, not even quite a year old, 11 months, this will be a great way to get out West 7th Street. Um, I'm a St. Paulite at heart, so I I ventured to both Henipin and uh uh Ramsey counties, and this gets people around much better. So, I really like the connection we're starting to make with some of these bus lines. I think it's going to make it if hopefully it'll make it if it's in writership. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Excuse me. Member Coleman, >> thanks so much for this presentation. Um, my question is about the Franklin Grand third Corridor study. Um, it seems like numerically everything that was quantified, it looks like a great option. I know there are lots of folks who are very, very, very excited about that possibility. Could you share a little bit more about what you'll be looking at in the study and what the current concerns are? Mr. Chair, uh members, yeah, it's a great question. Really, it boils down to a couple of things. So, uh Franklin Avenue in Henman County and Minneapolis, both as it uh segments of it that exist today as well as kind of future plan segments actually to be under construction, uh this year, um are a little bit tight. Uh, so the the the right of way there, there's a lot trying to happen on Franklin Avenue and we just need to be really really thoughtful about how and whether stations can fit on Franklin Avenue on Arterial BRT. Um, and then the other there's kind of two other elements to that sort of uh having to do with the alignment itself. One is really how does that corridor get across uh the Mississippi River? Um, does it, as it's currently defined, kind of go up through the University of Minnesota or does it continue across, excuse me, the Franklin Avenue Bridge? Um, this is kind of a combination of two existing local routes, the route 63 in St. Paul and then the route two uh in Minneapolis and kind of serving the University of Minnesota area. Uh and so the best way to kind of do that is still something that we really want to be thoughtful about before committing to art on this corridor on the eastern portion of this corridor. Uh the Franklin Grand Third Street corridor is obviously operating on third street uh which is pretty close to the to the gold line. Uh there's some opportunity for obviously complimentary services and corridors that are close together. Um, but we want to really make sure that we're sharpening our pencils and kind of taking a look and making sure is that segment the right spot for arterial BRT or uh, you know, the other kind of primary consideration is Seventh Street in that area. Um, is that a better balance between the upcoming bronze line and the existing Metro Gold line to serve uh, transit demand in that area? >> Thanks. >> Very good. Member Lindig. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. My question was the same as council member Coleman's uh but I'll just follow up with I was curious about how uh Selby Avenue on the beline is affecting service for the ABRT that's running there. It seems a similar width as to Franklin. Uh is that right? >> Marino wasn't here. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Chair, committee members, uh the trouble with Franklin is the um is the um how it works with the um the bikeway and the right the right of way behind the sidewalk, not not between not not between the roadways. Can we actually fit the the station infrastructure back behind the curb? It's a lot narrower there on on that part than it is on on Selby Avenue. >> Sure. I was impressed with the Eline stations in the university area that have managed that uh bicycle pedestrian interaction pretty well, although it's still winter and so you're not seeing the kind of traffic that you're going to see right >> uh in about a month over there. So, thanks for the comprehensive answer. >> Yeah, thanks for that. Um member Marino. Yeah. Um I would just say I appreciate that the E7th corridor is being considered um just from the fact that it is also known as the intertribal cultural corridor on the east side. It is better route spacing from the Hline and the gold line and the bronze line. Um and also especially in the eastern portion there's a lot of ample opportunity for much needed transit oriented development over there especially in housing. Um there's vacant lots and abandoned buildings and areas that need a little TLC and um I really want to see that be considered and I would love to be a part in helping to facilitate some conversations on the east side. Um also the other question I would have is I understand that the most of these artillery bus rapid transit corridors are trying to stay within transit market 2 or one like you said. Um, the one thing that I noticed though is Nicollet Avenue south of that into Bloomington. The majority of that would be in transit market 2 could potentially connect with the 98th Street Orange Line station. as I know a few people who lived in Bloomington and rely on transit in that area and you know are quite frustrated and wanted me to kind of bring that up into here is why that you know if maybe except for a few blocks that are outside of the transit market too why are we not looking at expanding that into connection with an existing metro line >> uh Mr. Chair Commissioner, this is a great question. So, the scope of of this uh study that we were doing here, the arterial BRT plan update really stayed within the corridors kind of as they had been defined initially. Nothing that we're doing right now would like preclude a potential consideration of an extension of that. Um so, you know, that's not to say that that's something that wouldn't happen in the future. We do look for sort of logical termini and sort of major um you know kind of either terminal points spaces that have you know good layover location. That's partially why the American Boulevard terminal uh was identified in addition to kind of sort of stepdowns from kind of transit demand and ridership there. Uh but you are correct to identify that you know throughout our engagement process some questions certainly have been raised about uh both the terminal of the Nicollet Avenue corridor as well as some of the other corridors and we're definitely carrying that feedback forward through into the um corridor planning the specific corridor planning processes that we'll be doing having now recommended these corridors as the specific lettered lines. >> Thank you. >> Any further member Marino? Okay, member Gustoson. >> Um, yeah. So, one of the questions as I was looking at this map and reflecting on my own experience living on the 54, um, is it desirable that all of these routes essentially start and stop in downtown as opposed to running through downtown and connecting them up? When I look at, uh, transit maps in other cities, this is a very common thing that I see that they don't necessarily start and stop at the central location. they kind of go through that central location, even connect many many important stations up along that central location. And so when I think of my own use of say the 54, um I use it for many different reasons. Going to the airport on business trips as one example versus going to the barber shop on West 7th versus coming here all have different purposes. But to have to change seats seems like it may be a big barrier for a lot of people. And I already know that if I had to change seats for a business trip when it's just easier for me to carry my roll onto the bus and then carry the roll on into the airport, I would I would take an Uber just that's I don't want to do that, but that just straight up would be the most practical for me. So, >> have we thought a little bit more about kind of continuing these lines through instead of just that downtown point? >> U Mr. chair committee members. Yeah, that's definitely something that is balanced um on sort of a corridor by corridor but also sort of a a network basis, right? So, one of the things one of the advantages of what let me take there's no unfortunately no single line that can obvious that can connect every single destination, right? So, we do have to kind of rely on a a trans on a transit network to meet the trip purposes of of our broader community. And so there is sort of that balance between, you know, running like a through line or extending the line even farther versus ending it at a terminal location like specific to West 7th Street like Union Depot where we have a lot of that infrastructure that exists already and can kind of support a terminal. Um, one of the advantages about the level of frequency that we provide and the infrastructure that we provide on these style of services is we try to though we do have to rely on transfers and connections minimize the impact of that. So if you're going from one high frequency uh style service to another high frequency style service at a shelter with light and heat and real-time arrival time information. Our goal is to try to though we do have to occasionally rely on transfers to complete all those connections, make those as painless and seamless as possible. >> Yeah, I I understand that. I just I think of my own use >> and need needing to travel across various parts of the city and downtown isn't necessarily the only stop of mine. >> Uh member Barber. >> Um thank you um Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Um just want to um well thank definitely Kyle and team and all of them for all this hard work. Um I also want to thank the legislature because um of some of the sales tax money we can do this good planning. This planning is the building of the things is very very important. The planning of them really frees us up to really be sort of the state-of-the-art ABRT system in the country and this is just another step um in that direction. Um, and definitely want to thank TAPS for their commitment to helping these lines going forward. It is it is a huge asset not only to be able to say we believe in this type of thing, but then even when we go to the legislature, it's like to talk say look we're doing something here and we, you know, need some help and it's really makes a big difference in those conversations. Um, also want to thank um the team for swiftly building in West 7. So West 7th had it was Riverview corridor then it was going to be its own standalone project and then there were a bunch of things happened and then that all sort of fell apart. We all knew West 7th and uh needed some attention and uh because of their very very quick action we were able to move that into this project and I and to make it what will be the Jine. I think that is such a huge important line for our region and have fought that for a very long time. So, I'm just just really appreciative of all the work and um and also the taking the time to do the initial analysis on the outline um in spending uh regional dollars and things like that. We want to make sure we're making the right investments and I would rather study it, make sure we're doing the right thing and then come back to it later. So, just thank you all. >> Yeah. Thank you, member Barber. Yeah. Any other one? Oh, yeah. Commissioner, go ahead. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you, Member Barber. I want to echo those uh same comments, too, about staff being able to pivot and um work on this together, especially when, you know, as a county for Ramsey County, we had been trying to advance BRT projects. Um, and unfortunately, we weren't just able to get the municipal consent and support of of all those who were impacted. And so, that's why we had to uh pivot, but then have always been at the table to discuss this. So, I'm very pleased that we have all the partners coming together to um work on this and u move it forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Member Johnson. >> Uh thank you, Chair Hland. Uh I remember I believe it was the first info item about the JKL selection. There was that little bit on there about potential extensions and then they kind of disappeared and now it's back and it's about the sea line. Clearly the one that makes the most sense. Um, I think building on member Gustoson's comments, I mean, the sea line goes to downtown, but not through downtown. So, it'd be really nice if it extended further. Um, so I just had some questions about, you know, they're not on the timeline here, but, you know, again, we sort of know the regional solicitation is where we go for the JKO. We have the years kind of set up now. You know, was it really the timeline, for the logistics, for the financing? You know, just about that sealine extension specifically, like what's what's going on there? >> Mr. chair, committee members, uh part of the uh the feasibility study that we want to be completing this year is to help us answer those questions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean, that's a short answer. I will for more on that. Um I think again that was something that uh it was such an opportunity. It was, you know, again, I'm glad it came back on the radar and now we're we're looking at it. So, I'll look for that report when it comes out. Thank you. >> Thank you, member Johnson Spur, thanks for being with us. appreciate those updates and uh and the analysis that goes into expanding the system that we found it works very well. >> Thank you. Uh just a couple other quick things to cover here. I want you to be thinking about this. We've had a some conversation about it uh together as a group and we talked about it at the exec committee today is the um acknowledgement that we have on the front of our our document. you know, acknowledging uh where we are and who's who was here first and uh whose land this originally was and and and thinking about that acknowledgement uh wanting it to be something more than just something that we routinely read uh that loses its meaning over time. Um, so we should be thinking about, you know, other than having it on the agenda uh for every meeting, are there times of the year that we should be thinking about reading this acknowledgement? Are there special occasions or special uh meetings that we're having that have more significance than others where we should be thinking about uh recognizing uh the people that were here first and and the land that we tread on here uh that we travel on. And then also if you look at the um in conjunction with the acknowledgement, we had the conversation with this at the TAB exec committee meeting as well. If you look at the uhformational item covering this topic uh that was the last one in your packet on page four, you'll see something that uh says transportation policy and there's five elements there and uh member Barber tells us that these commitments are being built into everything that the Met Council is doing and and so it caused us to think as a group about uh how should the TAB be a good partner on that and be thinking about these elements of transportation policy that we should have in front of us on a on a regular basis and how do we do that? You know, so it's not a day where we have to make a decision. We can't make a decision today. It's not on the agenda as an action item. But I just want you to start thinking about how we sort of recognize through the acknowledgement and through these commitments that are reflected in the transportation policy on page four. uh the things that we need to be mindful of as we're doing our work. I don't know, Chair Barber, if you have any other thoughts you want to add quickly before we move on to one other topic. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not uh not a ton, but I think it is important to look at this and make a decision of how we as a body do want to um put this information out and how we want to um recognize our commitments um our land, water and people um commitments that we are made to the region and we did this in a combined effort with a group that we kind of assembled. That's one of the things we do is you know get people in a room together which was the American Indian Indian advisory committee the commitments are what they came up with and then we are linking them to the imagine 2050 plan so it's really what are we going to do um there are a lot of places that have acknowledgement statements that just get read at every meeting and then it becomes just words and uh rather than be just words we were looking more towards the commitments so it would be actions and that is kind of the direction we're trying to take um we say it at every council meeting, but each committee has been doing taking a different approach to it. At transportation, we move locations throughout the year. So, when we move a location, we say the um the uh the full statement, but every meeting, we say um as we introduce the meeting, we acknowledge that, you know, in the on the top of the agenda is the Dakota land, water, and people acknowledgement. So, it's a it's a hybrid. I think the group can decide what you're comfortable with, what makes the most sense. I think it's really important to really tie it to more of the actions than just always reading the statement. >> Yeah. Good. Thank you, Chair Barber. Um, all right. So, give that some thought, Elaine. >> Well, yeah. If we could have some discussion um when we were preparing this for an action item because that's what tab executive had recommended last October and then Jim and I met last week to go through the action item and then we didn't know what to put down for a motion. So, we changed it into an information item. So it would be nice if there was some discussion what you would like us I mean I could bring back next month an action but having an idea of what you would like to put as the emo motion. I mean it could be further discussed if there was changes but just having giving us some feedback on that. >> Member Bradley >> I think she Mr. chair. Um I just I I was just thinking about this too because we had some time to think about it when we saw in the executive office and I just think you know in the beginning of the year we change some board seats and everything here and everything like this. It might be really good because we would introduce it then to some of our other board members who might be new and then remind ourselves. So for sure I would think we'd want to do it maybe at one of the first meetings of the year. So I'm sure there might be other thoughts. >> Bradley. >> Yes. Um, that's kind of like what I was going to state or echo. At least doing like if you're not going to read it at every meeting, then at least doing it at the first meeting of the year and maybe the last meeting um of the year and then maybe in between that time just mentioning you know when you're starting the agenda there's a Dakota land water and people acknowledgement you know please look you know read it over at your leisure or something like that. U member Coen, then I'm going to pose a question. >> I was just I've been thinking about um Member Barber's comments since executive committee earlier today. And I really think I so strongly agree that the acknowledgement is important, but what's really important is the commitments. And I almost wonder if even by having it labeled on here as an acknowledgement, it causes people to say, "Oh, well, I've heard a land acknowledgement. I I know where we sit. I know whose land we sit on. Um and maybe even like skimming over it." And I just I you know from something as small as strange to get into like land acknowledgement and commitments but also really emphasizing the commitments and in the executive committee today reading through those and having that space rather than just reading the paragraph that's written here. I really I I think that that is at the heart of all of this and it really is what should be guiding our work. So I don't know how that translates into an action but I just I I really want to underscore that. I thought it was a really well taken point and and I think thinking about how we're using this in decision-making moments rather than as something that is a ceremonial part of a meeting that to me is where the value lies. >> Chair Barber, did you have your hand back up again? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I think council member Coen or member Cohen uh covered it, but I think we're going to try putting the commitments on the tab agendas because like this group isn't as connected to all that, but it that every month you can see those things and then kind of tie some of our work to seeing those. >> Yeah. Commission on that are transportation. >> Thank you that for that member Barber. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I um I also wanted to um say that those are definitely sentiments I agree with about um making sure that it's meaningful um and also grounding us. Um in addition to those points and times for decisions, I also think uh equally important is the um planning process of creating uh or even uh creating rules or programs or policies. Um, and usually that may happen uh in subcommittees or uh whatnot, such as for example our active transportation work group. Um that I suggest that you know even just having that at as a start of the meeting would be very grounding. >> Thanks for that thought. >> I'm okay. >> Um Commissioner Jeepson, go ahead and member Marino. >> Um yeah, no, I really appreciate your comments. Um, member Barber, I think it's very um, you know, having autonomy in making this decision um, as a collective group depending upon the voices in the room. Um, greatly appreciate that and I think that's very important. So, I really appreciate hearing that directly from you. Um, I also think I know it was mentioned in the executive committee and I apologize I can't remember who said it, but before we're making a a fairly heavy vote on an important subject again grounding us in what our decisions are impact others. Um, and so just being aware of that as well. >> Yeah, good thought. That's right. That that did come up in the executive committee meeting. So like the when we're approving a regional solicitation, uh, member Marino and then member Yeah, let's see. We had Brian next. >> I would also just say to um using the opportunity to not just acknowledge but also be able to give power to indigenous organizations, especially in our community considerations process that we were discussing. Um, and then on top of that, um, doing more proactive outreach to indigenous land rights groups, um, to, you know, let them know that we exist as a board and tab at what we do. um and to see if any of those people would want to apply or potentially create an opening on our on our board for somebody from that community to be able to represent those interests. >> Right. That's good thought too. Member Martinsson. Yeah, I that's exactly what I was going to say is the most concrete way that we have to implement this is through the community considerations process that's been built very thoughtfully over the last couple years because it provides a direct mechanism that can be used for exactly the purposes of addressing the commitments. So >> good. Thank you. U member Barber >> very quickly, Mr. Sure. Um, as Commissioner Jeffson was talking, um, I think we we did talk about when there's going to be a big vote, but it's hard to know what's that thing is at different points and perhaps the motion involves something at the direction or at the discretion of the executive committee or discretion of the chair for determining when those things are. >> I define like we'll do January then there are because those things happen at different points and I think it's >> I don't know we're not going to know until we're kind of going through it. Mhm. I think there's some predictability on some of the things and staff can help us on some of that, but nonetheless, yeah, point well taken. Um, Commissioner, >> um, good conversation. Um, there was a woman that presented. I thought she was a Native American. >> Yeah, Ellison. But if we could rely on whether we take a meeting or two to decide I like the beginning of the year ideal quarterly but quarterly and then there's some unique meeting along the way seems appropriate. Um, but I thought uh a Native American woman came here three months ago and if we could consult with her recommendation or the leadership in the Native American community to give us some guidance on what they think would be appropriate for >> she she couldn't be here with us today because of some surgery her mother was having I think but member Barber >> that is the our u Metropolitan Council tribal layers and um she's gonna going to tell you to kind of what I had said by and large that uh commitments are the most important thing and that how and where we use the full land acknowledgement statement should be is really up to us is is yeah I spoke with her so that's okay the message >> Elaine >> yeah I was I met with Allison last week too and she wasn't able to make it but she will be here in March um so before then if there's any questions or more information you would like before the March time frame I will be meeting with her again. So if you have any questions that you have right now that I could pass on and there is a staff person Jillian here too that if there is any questions that anyone has that she could respond to. >> You know I was think just thinking about Commissioner Carowski's comment. Uh it could be that do you think staff could get something worked up from a rough draft standpoint for a motion? Elaine within a couple weeks within but within a couple weeks so that people have a couple weeks to think about it and and maybe make any suggested edits. send them back into Elaine >> and then uh maybe we'll be able to do something at the March meeting. >> So, >> um Mr. Chair, thank well I know March is going to be a unique month for April. >> And I just wanted to comment um >> Elaine, are you going to send out an email asking for people's attendance ability in March? >> I would do that too. >> Yeah. Wonderful. So I just depending on that I don't know if we want to for sure put this on the agenda for March and just play it by ear a little bit maybe >> I think keep it off is it people comfortable holding it till April. >> Yes spring break week and we're you know now we're thinking well maybe we'll have a quorum issue and I think >> yeah right now too >> JSON is reminding us that uh >> there's not just two people here that maybe you're going to spring break somewhere. >> Well there might be a few more who knows. Okay. So, let's take this up in April, but I think Elaine, as soon as you you're comfortable with staff, make get some rough draft out of a potential motion and we'll we'll start editing it as members and send it send your comments back into Elaine and we'll take it up again in March and then deal with it in April. Meino. >> Yeah, I just wanted to bring up that another month has passed where we are under reppresented with transit reps on this board. Um, and you know, in our meeting on Monday, I asked Charles, you know, that or Charles mentioned that former TAB members are able to serve in their roles until someone new is appointed. I asked, has there been outreach to those former members? There has not been outreach to those former members. >> We're going to talk to Yeah, we're going to talk to member Vaughn about that because he's he's supposed to serve until his replacement comes or that per you know, anybody. So, we're going to see if he can come back until we find somebody and they've got a couple of >> Yeah. and I've been in contact with him, but he's been asking who's his replacement was. He did not reapply because he had some time commitments where he was not able to make the meetings. So, that was why he stepped down. >> But we'll see if he can step in on an interim basis to the point you're making. >> Yeah. I was just wondering what is like like I haven't seen any outreach from Met Council on this particular like in the emails on this and I'm just kind of wondering what outreach has been taken in order to try to find members for the transit repres representative. >> Commissioner, can you hold on for just a second? And I want one other topic to cover. Yeah. So, we'll finish your thought there. I got it. >> Yeah. I just wanted to see like has there been like what outreach has been done by Met Council members on this and you know like what Yeah. Like because like it hasn't been in any of the Met Council emails for example. >> Yeah. Okay. Can we deal with that offline because I'm losing we're losing people right and left here. I got one other topic that's important. So um uh I think some of you know not all of you but uh because of the economy changing back during co uh the US conference of mayors no national league of cities AMPO there's six local organizations nationwide that have been working on uh what I'll call a localism bills. It's called back to basics. We finally got bipartisan support for this bill that would direct money directly to NPOS's to use specifically for county units of government and city units of government. So instead of going through the traditional process of having things go to the state DOT down to the region and then down eventually to organizations because of the impact on on local roads and transportation infrastructure systems. We're trying to get some uh money directly to cities and counties and so the it's it's embodied in HR 7437. So you want to get a hold of Betty >> and everybody else in the Congress that you know and as to support HR 7437 which is the back to basics bill. >> Thanks commissioner for hanging on for a minute. HR 7437. It just got introduced last Monday. And the first go around will be some of the excess money left over over from uh uh from the Biden administration. And then uh when the reauthorization comes, we're going to try to get some direct appropriation. But we're we're making progress because we got we got bipartisan support now on on that idea. This idea is resonating with people. They're seeing it locally. They're seeing their roads all torn up by the by the big distribution centers and their trucks going out one after another, you know. So, okay, that's all I had. Remember, Marino, if you want to have a sidebar over here with staff, we they can let you know where they are. >> And we stand a journey. >> Thank you. Thanks for sticking around. >> All right.