Scarborough Transportation Committee Reviews Portland West Study Options

[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): Kind of close sneak down, you are. That's great. What's it called, like stuff? [0:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, I sent them in the email, okay. [0:19] Chair/presiding officer: You're alive, live, right? Yeah. [0:26] Speaker B (unidentified): It was wonderful. I wanted to get home later. Yeah, my whole family is watching. [0:46] Chair/presiding officer: She was watching a rerun, even, of planning for a meeting, and I don't know what I said because it was now, like, way after the fact, but she asked a question, and I was like, are you watching it? Yeah, but yeah, I fold my laundry and I watch the meeting. That's how it works. What is that? I'm sorry, Bosley. Multitasker. Yeah. In case you're wondering or watching, they're out there. Okay. Anyway, on that note, sorry. We will call this meeting to order. This is the late September meeting. Are we calling it an October meeting? [1:22] Speaker B (unidentified): It's our September meeting. Okay. [1:23] Chair/presiding officer: Okay, did not lead to the week as the group September meeting of the start of our transportation committee. And I will take this, Roger is not here. That's what I was talking about, Roger. Okay, Porsche here, Craig here, Peter is not going to join us tonight. See, Roger Stars is here and no [2:04] Speaker D (unidentified): John? Yeah, he's in candidates. [2:10] Chair/presiding officer: It's just me here. [2:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah. And introduce those that are not familiar with Aaron. Our reality is our deputy planning director and is going to help facilitate and probably see her at future meetings late switching back and forth with Autumn. They're trying to do a lot lately without a man, so of course juggling a little bit. Yes, sorry, so we were fortunate to get Aaron tonight, so hopefully he can help facilitate and keep us moving on a pretty [2:54] Chair/presiding officer: big hefty topic, so I just wanted to introduce her. Great, thanks, welcome, thanks. Okay, the next item is the meeting minutes from the August 25th meeting. Anyone have any comments, any thoughts? Any other thoughts? Do approve. Okay. All in favor? Second. Now all in favor? [3:32] Speaker D (unidentified): I abstain. I wasn't here. Okay. [3:41] Chair/presiding officer: And our next item is a review of Portland West Balanced Mobility Improvement Study, otherwise known as the Portland West Project that ADOT is initiating to take a look at the core connector 2.0, 11.8. Yeah. [4:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Anything else? I guess I'm gonna hand it over to Erin, but I did want to, I guess, I appreciate that this group actually had quite a few attendance on like in the GORM, in person, talk to Roger, Craig, Stannis, were able to make it. I was online. I did the online. Oh, you did the Thursday. So did Jen, did Thursday as well. So that's really great that you guys put that extra time in too, and so hopefully a better conversation tonight. And I have gone back and forth with DOT and letting them know that we were going to be going through this group and that coming up with kind of any questions, comments, clarity, additional data, all kinds of things that we might come out of this group and see if in the past they had said they were willing to come back and talk with us. So that might be a good opportunity to treat that. And so I think DOT staff is willing to come out [5:23] Speaker A (unidentified): to the group. So we [7:44] Speaker B (unidentified): went off though. Yeah. Denise, can you give us a head, like a thumbs up if you can hear us still? Sorry, we're having some technical. [8:00] Speaker D (unidentified): I can hear you now, but I had to log out and log back in. [8:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Are you able to hear us? I. [8:12] Chair/presiding officer: I can hear you now. [8:54] Speaker B (unidentified): Hey, we're working for the case. [9:00] Speaker D (unidentified): Maybe the yeah, can't have a file bandwidth. Recording that progress. All right. [9:17] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah. Stay comes to stay for most. Yeah, [9:28] Speaker B (unidentified): I think we're good. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, essentially, main duty has come up with several scenarios. Scenarios this was my general takeaway to try and kind of simplify what each one is signifying. The first is the no build 40 20 45, sorry I'm rushing today, which essentially is that the no build scenario still includes some projects that are already planned. It might be projects that are included in a community CIP for essentially the next 20 years. So it's not that there's no change, it's just that there's no added changes from what's already planned. The targeted upgrades to me seem to be mostly focused on key safety improvements at identified high crash locations. So not necessarily prioritizing traffic flow and circulation or mitigating any kind of congestion, but is an improvement to the safety standards. The substantial upgrades kind of build on those safety improvements and also help to improve traffic flow. And then the two lanes and the four lane are a new road. Road the four lane is the traditional Gorham connector as it was, you know, prolifically discussed and voted down, and then the tooling is a smaller portion where I'm not sure that they've come up with every scenario for the two lane as far as which Crossings would be elevated and separated versus some would still be upgrade. So I think that's the overview of the different scenarios as we go through tonight. I definitely want to talk about the regional transit system as it is different in all four Scenarios, and then we're just going to look at some of the intersections that are either within or abutting Scarborough, not necessarily every single port part and intersection that's included on the website of the Portland West, because this is the Scarborough of Transportation Committee, and we're only supposed to be here until 8:30 when Ben needs to catch her microchip, so 7:30 is a stop gap, right, yeah, 7:30. thank you thank you let's do it so in that regard we're not going to discuss the no bill because those are things that are already on the books essentially i would like to say one thing okay yes but i mean i did go back I have some questions, and about it's planned slash committed. So things like, that might be on there, like related to shoulders or whatever on one 14 or 22 is in, DOT's work plan for engineering only. So they consider that plant. Land, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily funded through DOT or the town, so those are things that we might want to have to circle back as we kind of go through to see if it's something locally we need to start looking at. They also had in the no build quite a few things that look like their plant that are actually completed by the downs just this summer, because we started this process with DOT and we kind of made a list of here's, you know, what's happening in the base, the general area, the study. Area, and so I've talked to DOT about updating that map or plan to say, you know, these are done, maybe there's some that are maybe just design or pending, and there's some that are a little more teeth to them, and kind of putting those in buckets that way so that we can plan a little bit better. I just don't want expectations that those are like done deals, and it might just mean we need to do locally support there, that means quite sure, just to speak to. [13:36] Speaker A (unidentified): The shoulder on 114, 22, that's such a key section that makes it virtually impossible to bike a walk and walk that corridor, and looking back in some of the past studies, some major, you know, 1997 study that listed that as the most urgent thing to do was to get those two key sections of put shoulders on them, and then the conversation with the OT, they said, oh well, we wanted to wait to do that until after the Gorham connector, and then they said that it was supposed to be the engineering was supposed. To finish by now and to move forward to build, but they were delaying that again until they figured out with this study what was going to happen. And so it's just a little frustrating that, well, it keeps getting delayed like, but that scenario might be [14:33] Speaker B (unidentified): an off or something else, right, and something else. So to, but true point and shoulders, a two foot shoulder is not a bad idea anymore. That's what they would typically do, and if we want to enhance that to five or something else, it would be, it would be helpful to know whether a lot of group would be installing like a multi-use path or something, so the engineering is for a five foot [14:58] Speaker A (unidentified): but shoulder, okay, and at that standard when they do reconstruction of a major route was to [15:03] Speaker B (unidentified): do five weeks, so there's a little nuance there because we've had conversations and packs around that specifically when I asked lots of questions around 114. I don't think that's said, so that's where I think it would be advocating from Scarborough or even locally see CIP to kind of get there possibly, that's a possibility. So I just want to make sure we kind of have it on our radar, to your point, if it's like this is a, you know, a number one priority for Scarborough, if that's what comes out of this, then it might be something that we need to look at in our CIPs also, so [15:39] Speaker A (unidentified): I guess just to clarify, I don't want to spend too much time, yes, I apologize, but for a state route that's not in there, even compact, isn't that typically state funded for improvements [15:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, but yes and no, we do a lot on state roads that are, yeah, that should be dot's, they just don't have enough money, so it falls, sometimes the municipality do that, we 've done quite a few that fall in that category, they just can't get to every road in the state [16:14] Speaker D (unidentified): This is just a high priority to keep on the table, but yeah, those shoulders ought to be done [16:19] Speaker B (unidentified): That's bringing that because I just want to keep us being advocates for it and whether and how that happens, just figure it out, and so we don't, to your point, it just doesn't get forgotten or dropped off because it can't get funded this way, there might be other opportunities to fund it [16:35] Speaker D (unidentified): That kind of thing, even to do one side with anything, but yeah [16:45] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, so we are going to go through with the transit and then followed by those intersections around Scarborough. It's essentially comparing the targeted versus substantial improvement. So that's the safety versus safety plus improved traffic flow. And then try to brainstorm questions for so that we can send them a potential list of questions ahead of time that they would be able to respond to either. there's either a head of time or to come prepared for the next time. Okay. So this is the targeted improvement scenario for the transit in the area. [17:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Let me ask one question. Just worry about during Thursday didn't come up directly. But something I wrote down is now we're on the hook for transit in Scarborough. Who's on the hook for this one? [17:39] Speaker B (unidentified): the funding is not set for anything okay so and it's dot is was I think pretty clear and was the meetings I've attended with them that the funding mechanisms are something once we figure out and prioritize or figure out what we're going to do they start talking about funding possibly but at this point just trying to find the right alternatives yeah I would imagine [18:06] Speaker D (unidentified): imagine after our transit conversation that they're going to be some folks who are going to [18:12] Speaker A (unidentified): resist well it's it's interesting I had a conversation with Mike Tremblay at the meeting the in-person meeting about this event I asked him like is this group would you consider like if the state isn't putting dedicated funding in for this route specifically is this considered like a priority for you so not really like we our priority right now is to get our existing routes faster and more frequent and to go after a half hour turn around turn around yeah thanks so that does kind of beg the question like if as we kind of do all this planning I don't quite understand how NKOT wants it to be funding agnostic, because I feel like that is a really crucial part in the equation. [19:10] Chair/presiding officer: Certainly. Plus, because if the preferred alternative was also the most expensive one, you're potentially looking at double the timeframe before you know, you know before you could secure funding to even do that versus picking a low you know a lower cost lower impactful lower you know potentially less beneficial solution but one that you could implement more quickly or maybe it has a path to funding i thought that was an interesting stance by them too i mean i understand it like you can't they don't have All that at your out, that's why they're saying in you have to, you have to move forward from one of them, but it's [19:54] Speaker D (unidentified): One of them initially, but I guess something you really have to have some, I mean, the other thing [19:59] Chair/presiding officer: I would just add to the cost piece of it is that there he is [20:11] Speaker E (unidentified): Just checking the traffic around [20:17] Chair/presiding officer: The cost to, like, it's worth someone, I don't know the answers to this, but it's worth someone comparing, like, what would it cost to implement transit here versus to build, to acquire property and fully build out sort of like the high-end treatment. I don't, they don't, we don't have numbers on that, so we don't really know, but like my understanding is it would work similar [20:45] Speaker B (unidentified): To kind of any study we do, but as soon as you write a price upon a project that we do with the transportation study, it's outdated. So we do it in like dollar signs, is it one dollar sign, is it five dollar signs, and what are those ranges, all ten dollars, right. So the quit, my understanding is that it's kind of would work as a la carte at the end, right, but that there would be at least some magnitude to your point is to be like, are we doing all these one dollar signs, are we doing these couple big Chunks of the apple here and then these little ones. So that was my take on it is more like this is a study, so it would be similar to that, yes, that they'd have kind of a [21:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Range of, you know, I assume that the, yeah, rationality here is if you can get people on the bus on 114, you're reducing the amount of traffic theoretically, and therefore it is a [21:43] Speaker B (unidentified): Lower cost, and I guess, yeah, back to the original comment that my trembling metro is, there is no bus line that does not is not supported with funding from the state or federal government, is that's not possible. I mean, so yes, you would have to kind of cobble together other funding, just like ours right now we're starting up has state money in there too, and things like that. So I know they also are probably prioritizing the, bus line that goes to called rapid, the husky, well the one that they Proposed to go, yeah, according to the it. Which I know Westbrook is kind of, again, as far as dedicating a lane of Williams-Clark Drive to it, a non-starter for them. [22:37] Chair/presiding officer: That was one question I had, because that didn't come up at all during their presentation that I caught. Like, there's a whole other regional study that's already looking at transit connections from Gorham to Portland, which is kind of like what they're mapping out here. But to my knowledge, unless I missed it in their presentation or in the material, they did not factor that in at all. And that's well underway. That study is well underway. [23:08] Speaker D (unidentified): So I thought that was... I just didn't know whether this would be considered a boardroom box or what impact. [23:18] Speaker A (unidentified): So I don't know how far that will go or... [23:21] Chair/presiding officer: Plus it goes to the mall, it might be the subway metro though. Well, I just think like in terms of alternatives, it's kind of strange to talk about all these new transit routes here when, you know, well, I think that isn't that one of the no-build algonans maybe, because they didn't talk about it like they're not, yeah, they're not leaning on it as an option I guess, and like it or don't. [23:44] Speaker A (unidentified): They're in addition, right? My own thoughts is that a BRT Portland along that, you know, 25 corridor is probably going to be more impactful in terms of relieving congestion even on 114. [Speaker F (unidentified): I] I don't know, I think there's a lot of really good reasons for to have an increased chance of course, I don't know that it's going to have a profound impact on traffic congestion, but there's plenty of other reasons for it, of course, to get it in the no bills. I've looked a bit confused why they wanted to go down McClellan and down Soccer and not do the overlap, I believe that's where the larger development was going in. [24:32] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, of course, I think they'll have the density there, it's fine, okay, yes, I think it's it's worth pointing out that these routes that are showing right now are also lining up with later on the roadway configurations that we'll look at, so it's kind of keeping in mind the regional map and traffic flow and looking at and we'll we'll kind of zoom in on these different areas, so it's looking at multimodal for the same pathway kind of, yeah, the story map that's on DMT's website I feel is a little Confusing because it kind of goes through all of the targeted and then it starts at the beginning, it goes through all of the substantial. So I broke it out separately so it's look at one intersection at a time and kind of go through those three. So this is just the first transit, this is targeted. Come on, let's go, or next slide. There we go, this is the substantial. So it kind of builds a little bit more when you get to the two lane. Now we are moving traffic off of Gorham Road and 114 because this is That new road that is proposed there, which is the same as the four lane road [25:52] Speaker E (unidentified): Whichever one of these they end up selecting, are they going to prioritize the particular, say, more sensitive issues or immediate issues, say, like roundabouts, intersections, instead of widening the roads, take care of the intersections first, or are they going to try and do everything at one time? [26:18] Speaker A (unidentified): I brought that up in the remote meeting, actually, she asked that specifically, you know, timing and priorities. [26:24] Chair/presiding officer: Yeah, they've got some options that you could probably face. You could do the targeted safety improvement now or in the short term to improve current safety conditions, I mean, while you also program out a longer term [26:46] Speaker E (unidentified): Fix. Yeah, when I looked at the enhanced target one, I think that's what's called the enhanced substantial. Yeah, okay, that's the one that has roundabouts. Yeah, yes, and they talked, We talked about four lane roundabouts, I think. All right. Now around here we have- [27:06] Speaker B (unidentified): Wait, can I just stop you for a second? Do you guys think we're done talking about transit? Should we move on to what Roger's talking about? Or did you guys have, before we lose transit, [27:16] Speaker A (unidentified): I just wanna make sure. There might be some more talk about it with the targeted before we move on to the substantial, but I think that it's okay to have a kind of a flowing conversation if you're kind of tying both together. [27:28] Speaker E (unidentified): I was just going to use as an example with the roundabouts, okay? We have roundabouts west of here where they're basically just a single lane roundabout. Yeah. Warren has quite a few. Yeah. Yeah. And to me, that might be a better option initially due to cost because that's going to require some taking of land from what I read, okay? Okay. And then once that lands is available and maybe the need is greater, then they could, you know, reconstruct that roundabout and make it into a, that's an example of what I'm talking about. [28:08] Speaker B (unidentified): So I guess maybe we'll talk about it when you get there, because I think there's some cases you can't do that just because of the sheer volume. You can't start with a one-lane route. [28:16] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, you, yeah, I did the calculations and the existing conditions, you can't have a, it's in between LSP and LSE for each intersection when you run the numbers. I think if they're looking at future conditions, they have, you know, bring in higher volumes, that might be why. But I actually, one of my major issues with the study is, one, like the lack of options, and two, that right now, none of them seems like they could, like having four scenarios broke out like this, none of them would be viable. The target one doesn't do anything to improve traffic flow. It's great for safety, but... [29:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Can I just clarify, are you talking transit, or are you talking... No, in general. [29:08] Speaker A (unidentified): I mean, mostly roadway improvements, but yeah, the targeted one, there's no flow improvements, no improvements to traffic flow, really, that I could see. And the whole purpose of the study, I mean, it's really good that they're looking at other components. They're looking at safety, they're looking at transit, other things, but the purpose of the study is because of rush hour congestion this area isn't less safe than anywhere else it's not you know what's striking about it the reason for the study is that particularly when 14 gets pretty backed up that rush hour so in order for a scenario to be viable i would think they would have to at least you know in main dot's mind address that somewhat so i would have like to see the targeted scenario in order to be viable, really love to see how you can keep some of those safety improvements while also doing traffic through a little bit better, and one of those ways would be a single lane roundabout, which maybe it doesn't meet their 50-year future conditions in 30 years, but it would be a dramatic improvement to the existing conditions [Speaker D (unidentified): And safety.] And safety, yeah. You lose a lot of safety benefits from a roundabout in making it two lanes. So when it's one lane, you have all those safety benefits. [30:38] Speaker B (unidentified): I know Orem has 3,000 units just over the line that have the first two phases have gone through planning board already. So they're going to start briefing the ground on that. So I'm kind of curious how quickly we will see. [30:51] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, what's interesting is on every single route, the traffic right now, the traffic numbers from 2025 are still either flat or lower than they were 20 years ago. And there's been substantial growth in all of those Western communities over the past [31:10] Speaker B (unidentified): two decades. So actually, this is a good point. So going back to our questions for DOT, I know Jen kind of brought it up too to begin with. [31:19] Chair/presiding officer: They didn't cover any of their existing conditions in all of this. [31:25] Speaker B (unidentified): And I think that's what you're jumping to, Stannis. It's like, I haven't seen the numbers. [31:29] Chair/presiding officer: You have answers, but they haven't explained to us what the problem is in a data sense. [31:36] Speaker A (unidentified): They did all the counts for 2025. They did counts for every single major intersection here. year they did two different counts for most of the major traffic stations. And if you're comparing to 2005, 20 years ago, 22 and 25 are down substantially. 114 is flat from where it was back then. [32:03] Speaker B (unidentified): I know they reached out to all the municipalities in the study area. So we gave them all of kind of the planning board kind of pending or approved projects in the greater area. So that's where I think that gets calculated in but to your point if I guess I'm going back to what would be our question then to dot just be able to see those numbers and what that looks like I'd like to know [32:25] Speaker A (unidentified): I don't know why, what some sort of thinking and explanation around why traffic hasn't [32:32] Speaker B (unidentified): gotten worse. Well, I think that's the least question. [32:38] Speaker A (unidentified): There's got to be some, there's got to be some like insight into that. [32:44] Chair/presiding officer: A summary publicly on that analysis. us tell like we knew what you were the last time we heard from them they came right before right when they had brought their consultant team on board I think and so they were telling them we're going to do all of these yes okay we know that but like tell us what you did and what you found so a high level you know we shouldn't be it's wonderful that we have some of us to compare those numbers for us but I would kind of like to hear that from dot yeah so we're thinking like a summary of the data summary what did you recount what did you rerun what did you find and how does that compare to data from 5 10 20 years ago or more and if the answer is it's the same or it's nominally higher or it's lower why are we looking at it 's interesting looking back at [33:44] Speaker A (unidentified): Those past studies from like 2001 and 1997, because they did future conditions, and they're mapping future conditions for 2025 with their no build and the future conditions that they had predicted back then, in some cases are double what they currently are. So it's, I feel like there has to be some, as they're building out this new model for the future and trying to make their improvements match the volumes they're predicting for the future, some reflection back as to why things were so significantly missed in the past. I think it's also a difference between [34:24] Speaker D (unidentified): perception and fact, because the perception in Scarborough is we've got a real traffic problem, [34:30] Chair/presiding officer: but the traffic problem is rush hour and no one, no one, that's true, you know, or actually, but like the population or the percentage of people driving now that we're also driving and like commuting to work 30 years ago is different, right? So like we just don't have that kind of train up, we don't have that continuity of memory, and so we don't have it, we don't have personal experiences to compare that to in a relative sense, I think. So we have to rely on the data. [35:01] Speaker D (unidentified): In some ways, it's the perception that's driving this on two levels. One, the perception, we've got a congestion problem. And number two is we don't like the four-lane business because of whatever. And I think what DOT is trying to do is say, okay, we've got a public issue here. We need to really get into public. Most of the public are not going to look through traffic data necessarily. But a bottom line, this is what we studied, and this is where we came out of. [35:29] Speaker B (unidentified): Right at the bottom of that I would give it right and I guess I don't see DOT coming up with a huge work plan And funding for something that's just a perceived problem. That's your point It's like looking at they're gonna sit down and they need to show that Yeah, and show that summary and I think that's all I'm sure they have [35:49] Chair/presiding officer: So it's there it's part of the story yes [35:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, that we're missing right now. [35:57] Chair/presiding officer: Because when we're talking about, you know, we're commoners here, you know, and they've put a lot of experts on this exercise, but we're able to determine that some of these treatments are really only addressing safety and not addressing congestion, but like, well, tell us what the congestion problem is, and maybe that's enough. I don't know. We don't know. [36:23] Speaker B (unidentified): They haven't told us. and that's why i said in the targeted or the first yeah is my question to them in the stakeholder meeting was it looks like that's safety and that could have actually a negative reaction to congestion and they had said that the goal was that it was not this flat but they also were saying that 's what they heard hearing from the public was safety so that's what they're trying to react to and having maybe specifically that is about safety and the substantial is more about congestion and then Maybe there's a to your point you're kind of looking at you're doing this piece and that piece of like an a la carte right you're kind of cobbling it together to try to achieve a little of our balance. Like this is what we always talk about in this group is moving flow of traffic but also balancing that with safety and that's tricky we [37:16] Speaker A (unidentified): Have to deal with it whatever solution comes forward has to be a balance. And so that's my agreement is that targeted scenario should also work to have safety as a major component [37:28] Speaker B (unidentified): Of course but do something to improve traffic I don't know necessarily is like we have to do I don't think it's intended to we're doing everything in the targeted bucket or doing everything is substantial. I think the intent is that you kind of pick and choose around [37:41] Speaker A (unidentified): out that would be a relief that is how they look that 's how it's been described to me [37:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Is they're not prioritizing so you can kind of that would be a good question [37:50] Speaker A (unidentified): But are they then going to model out each individual component so you can kind of compare and contrast that way or is it just going to be a target model substantial model okay and the substantial what actually is helping and what isn't it just giving us numbers for [38:05] Speaker B (unidentified): That has been my understanding because that's what they were kind of looking at is they're not even within those buckets they're not prioritizing it's more about what's the [38:15] Speaker D (unidentified): Combination that works well like in the substantial they had A and B for the two different Rotary systems you know one would just use the existing roads and just direct the traffic in a certain way another one we put the Rotaries in so and what they're looking for [38:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Right now is a lot of public feedback, yeah, that their next step is doing the kind of the modeling just show, okay, what happens to capacity when you do kind of some of these scenarios or you do this, and they don't want to waste their time with modeling and going through that sign kind of effort or engineering if there's some that the public is just outcry that this is not an option, like whatever that is, they don't want to waste their time kind of studying it if it's not even going to move forward. You know what I mean, that's what we have heard. [39:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Like going through a smiling panel or smiling, I just want to say this has been around [39:10] Speaker A (unidentified): for probably 60 or 70 years. Well, thank you. All right, I can send you guys a full history of, like, I'm telling you, it's Roger's straight, right on, man, it's been, it's, it's the history repeats itself. Well, in 1988 you had this major, you know, effort to put in a turnpike. [39:32] Speaker E (unidentified): It goes back further than that. It goes back to the West Westbrook arterial going from Portland right into which is the arterial. Yeah. Okay. I first became aware of this in the late 90s when I was on the Closing Services Committee, and I don't know what state, whether it was DOT or MTA, but they had a route all lined up crossing following Running Hill Road, I think we told you this, Running Hill Road, crossing Running Hill Road, going behind which would be west of O'Donnell's and coming up where 114, yeah, okay, and if you go out there now you'll see that there's like a service station and everything out there. I think the guy who bought the property envisioned that this, that's going to be the crossroads at one time, yeah, and the other, so it's been, and at that time, it was strictly vehicle traffic. It wasn't talk about trails or sidewalks or any of this stuff. It was terrible. And I actually worked during the 90s. Part of my job was to go out west into the suburbs, all right, and visit people in the evenings. I never went out that way between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock at night because I could wait to quarter past six and get out there on the same time, it was just terrible, and when I look at this now I'm going to tell you there's so many interest groups on this thing here, you're not going to satisfy everybody, it's really, I don't know, I'll never see this done, and everybody's going to have their pet thing they want, and the biggest problem is vehicle congestion, it's like you said very early in meetings. It's the intersections, you know, and that's where I think the roundabouts would solve that immediate problem. I [41:29] Speaker B (unidentified): hear what you're saying. I'm just hoping that even if we come through and it's a study, except there's no funding source, there's no, that we at least have a plan that Scarborough can kind of look at to stance this point. If we prioritizing shoulders have to happen, then council can decide that, and it's a CIP. If a roundabout has to go at Running Hill and Gorm Road, that can be prioritized through our capital improvement plan, you know what I mean? So at least there's some like, well, does it work? Does it not work? What are the numbers? What does it do to congestion? Warrant relief congestion? This study hopefully will help kind of guide us a little bit that it's not a waste. Even if D.O.T. doesn't come in with a big bag of money and says we're fixing this, it at least gives us some opportunities. I [42:18] Speaker D (unidentified): think it's like a comprehensive plan for the area, yeah, that says this is ultimately kind of what we [42:25] Speaker B (unidentified): think is going to happen, and I'm just talking, speaking doom and gloom, worst case scenario, [42:29] Speaker E (unidentified): scenario. That's where I see worst case scenario. I mean, I don't recall 30 years ago anybody talked about, you know, public transportation going out there, because they were talking about getting out to Buxton and Spanish and places like that, you know? They weren't talking necessarily to USM over and go, they were talking about relieving the traffic, the heavy traffic on 114, on 22, and around 25, and it's still there. It's what, and I had an, I got to tell you, I had an eye-opening experience today. I picked up my grandson after at the school at the library. He goes to middle school. You're talking about congestion and everything, what a disaster. After that should be a, that should be an extra high question location right now. [43:24] Speaker B (unidentified): All right, so I could jump into some intersections. I don't want to get into it, the first one that [43:32] Chair/presiding officer: I pulled out, yeah, pull these up. What do you, this is an overview of what they're proposing closing at the intersections, or you are we looking for sort of like a, we're doing like a compare and [43:46] Speaker B (unidentified): contrast between the targeted and the substantial. Yeah, like I'm hearing Santa say that he wishes to target it had more traffic flow, but that is the substantial. So essentially we'll be looking at the differences between the targeted and the substantial. We're going to jump around to a couple intersections. I don't know what the, I don't think they're going to build out a scenario where we pick out the targeted and substantial for each different and figure out if it improves traffic flow or not, but I don't know, we could have questions for D.O.T. that the goal for tonight is to come up with specific questions for D.O.T. for them to give us more specific feedback in addition to, yes, we want all their data, but I did know like our general website the analysis that we need at the beginning looking at their towns giving us the data where we comparison and then making sure we're confirming with them that it's not all one bucket or this bucket, it's can be a combination of all of the above and that we can kind of pick and choose throughout. So this is the intersection at Portland Road, Broadsville Road, Old County Road, and along the Plains of Road there at the kind of western Scarborough terminus, I guess I would say. The comparison of just kind of, this is a safety improvement, you know, so they're trying to, this is to slow down traffic in order to make it safer for pedestrians, I guess bicyclists. There's no added bike lane or sidewalks in this scenario compared to a roundabout in the same intersection section, which I think still does not include any sidewalks, of course, this path intersection just [45:28] Speaker F (unidentified): seems like less car head-on collisions. I would go through there a decent amount of times and people eat like versus before my stuff. Yeah, before we stop, not everyone's stopping. Yeah. [45:41] Speaker E (unidentified): I saw a school bus close to a red light, they don't tell today the same scenario. But you know they were talking about around about like this. Yes, remember this. Jen, when you were talking in the planning board about the church there. [46:02] Speaker B (unidentified): I asked you about that, and it keeps coming on and off their kind of word plan, and they told me they would get me an answer. Or where it is at, whether that it's, it's on their current three-year work plan is [46:18] Speaker A (unidentified): congressionally funded, I think crowded out there, so I'm a little bit confused, I just don't think [46:23] Speaker B (unidentified): they've confirmed they're actually gonna do it or not. Okay, maybe this is part of it, but it's been kind of in limbo questioning for like, to Rob's point, I mean, that was a long time ago. Yeah. [46:36] Speaker E (unidentified): That's when Nick saw it. That's when Nick was the chair. [46:44] Chair/presiding officer: But also, like, if you flip back a slide, they could go do that. [46:51] Speaker B (unidentified): We could do this tomorrow with the paint, right? This is the warm-up dinner session. Yeah, okay, that's our channel. Why not just do it? Why is this even the target? Yeah, I don't know. Okay, so yeah, so that's, I mean, I don't know really what the current scenario is here with how traffic moves to that intersection, if it gets terribly backed up right now, but we can go to next one. So this one would be a change because it is, again, you can't see my house, it's so weird, getting rid of that flip plane to the right to slow down, to slow down traffic for pedestrian and cyclist safety as well as Actually closing off the driveway, driver safety, right? Oh, this is a high crash location, I think. Yes, yeah, see that blue ledge, that's where that guy, well, that's also Gorham's, I think, growth area, so they're encouraging commercial growth in that corridor, so the scenario improves safety but not traffic flow compared to the substantial version, which is again another roundabout, so [48:17] Speaker A (unidentified): I guess you could find, if you wanted to have viable options to actually compare with each other, I get that the upgraded, you know, they're the, they call it the substantial, is aimed more towards, you know, that traffic flow, but it would be nice to see what, you know, traditional intersection improvements could be done here, mostly within the existing right-of-way, and how would that compare traffic flow wise to a double-lane roundabout. How would a single-lane roundabout compare to that double-lane roundabout? Like, you could extend some of these turning lanes to add traffic flow to that intersection. [49:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Like a dual, right? [49:02] Speaker A (unidentified): Staying within the, I drew it out here, if you guys are interested, but like, you could put a second, you guys can see, this is kind of a draft that I had. You could have two lanes from 22 headed east that are going straight that do the alternate merge on the other side. And in doing that, you could have a, you could, if you added a lane kind of on the bottom of that. You could then have a medium that could be a pedestrian refuge that would be helpful for crossing there like this. And then your alternating merge, for example, could be up there, read a little bit more. That could allow traffic to get through that intersection a little bit easier and a little bit quicker. The slip lane, removing it, I know that there are safety benefits, but it does have a very important traffic flow component to it. And is there a way to realize some safety benefits while keeping that slip lane? For example, you could have that slip lane go further up South Street and then do an alternate merge way up further along so it's not just this sudden kind of yield and immediate kind of dangerous turn like it is right now. Now you can have it, you can have that simply the stoplight control so that only when left turning traffic is going through from County Road which you have something stopped completely but then otherwise you have it running with a clean light. So what was the improvements [50:48] Speaker B (unidentified): for pedestrians in that scenario? I missed that you said they're here. Okay, so what you can do [50:56] Speaker A (unidentified): to add some capacity to this intersection, you could have, you have two left-hand turns coming down from South Street. You could really extend those a bit so you could get more traffic through the intersection at every light cycle. We could also put a second lane here that's going through that's having an alternating merge eventually and if you did that so is [51:18] Speaker B (unidentified): there what they're showing that alternating merge? It has the merge but not the error so [51:22] Speaker A (unidentified): so if you had a second lane like that coming through your two, your two lanes here would now be down below like this to keep them aligned like that and that would allow you to then make this lane into a into a pedestrian refuge or media. But then you're taking a pedestrian across [51:40] Speaker B (unidentified): two trap lanes plus a slip lane. I imagine you have your crosswalk over here before that [51:48] Speaker A (unidentified): slip lane, you know, connects there, but instead of now having to cross four lanes of traffic, yeah, do two lanes medium and then two lanes and then over here it's just a way to like maintain your, it's an example of how you can maintain some of the safety benefits in the targeted approach but also working to see how can we get more traffic through each length cycle by using longer and maybe [52:16] Speaker E (unidentified): the additional, you know, just like a question, do we do we want to be engineering this thing [52:21] Speaker A (unidentified): this meeting by just going up? Sorry, that's that's getting into the next thing. Well I mean [52:28] Speaker B (unidentified): So maybe we look at it as if there are ways to add lanes or widening or expanding intersections essentially to get capacity through, yeah. And then how do you then balance that with how you go pedestrian or bicycle through, right? So that's their, that question to kind of really bend to solve. Okay, go back and fix the seat like, yeah, or show us how you would [52:58] Chair/presiding officer: better accommodate safer pedestrian movements and increase some throughput through the signal. [53:05] Speaker A (unidentified): Just like what would that look like? For me personally, targeted the targeted scenario is going to be the lowest cost scenario. It's going to be the scenario that probably had the greatest, you know, safety benefits and can allow, you know, funding to go or spread, you know, other virgin priorities. But it's never going to be viable as a as an alternative, particularly in Main Dot's eyes, if it doesn't also do something to improve traffic flow. And I don't like right now that they've basically created a scenario that they want us to evaluate that doesn't seem viable example unless they put in some components that are improving that the rush hour traffic. [53:43] Speaker B (unidentified): But I could see this also having the multi-use path that you've seen substantial, like you can take pieces too, right? Because to your point, if we're gonna spend, which is you're adding dollar signs when you start trying to figure out medians and getting people across, because I think you are going to have to have more enhanced when you're talking about widening intersections, it gets more dangerous. So you're probably, which again, it's probably might be still cheaper, so that might be still a viable option, but keeping in mind of like maybe taking pieces to that point is you're getting that, but then we need the multi-use path that you see in the substantial, which also which [54:24] Speaker A (unidentified): makes no sense for the overlap to put in a multi-use pad, because that's our kind of dense kind of village area that should have sidewalks and, you know, slower traffic and, you know, nice shoulder for biking. But the putting in a multi-use path through there is like taking actual homes and like it's like if you're like running it right through people's homes and it just doesn't, I don't understand why that would be. It's a multi-step be great for your faster, you know, traffic, they're more kind of rural areas of 114 where it's like 45 50 miles per hour, but the overlap seems like, you know, going back to our cc study, like the exact match for this area should have no sidewalks and bike lanes. [55:22] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, but if this gets bogged down because you want sidewalks, and personally, I don't see any viable reason why there needs to be any kind of pedestrian, so it's right here. I mean, people are not going to be walking around this area right there. [55:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I think going to the point of the whole study, it's the reason for the study is traffic flow, and all the other things are extras, but good, and I'm glad you're [55:51] Speaker E (unidentified): This is an example of why things don't get done in this country because everybody wants something else. Right. [55:57] Speaker B (unidentified): And that's what DOT is hearing is from the bikes and how you get bikes and pets through. [56:03] Speaker E (unidentified): This is California's high-speed rail, okay, right here. [56:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah. And how you connect a bike through from Orem to Portland. [56:13] Speaker A (unidentified): My point, Roger, was that doing the sidewalk and lane and shoulder would actually be a lot cheaper and more feasible than a multi-use path going through people's homes [56:23] Speaker E (unidentified): for this set well maybe they should be satisfied with a four or five foot apron a multi-purpose pal you know so people can ride a bike if they want to feel safe okay because there actually is a place that's not safe but a sidewalk is financially it's not [56:43] Speaker A (unidentified): not cost-effective out there a sidewalk would only likely work if Gorham is going to continue [56:52] Speaker B (unidentified): to pursue developing this area patterns yeah you know family homes over you know a couple mile [57:03] Speaker E (unidentified): distance you're right so in this scenario why don't we deal with what we're dealing with we have to deal with at the present time not worry about what's going to happen because I think it [57:11] Chair/presiding officer: these types of projects take so long to implement and even just to fund that you have to you have to project it into the future a bit and so yes it's worth this is the whole land use component too but i don't really i'm not sure they touched on that i mean it wasn't a seven hour meeting so certainly there are things they're not gonna cover but you know the like understanding what they're factoring in terms of future development patterns and not just those that are on the books but like what are we zoning this area for are we zoning it for a village center where we're going to ask for you know three stories multi-use developments where it makes sense to have a sidewalk frontage well then okay we should probably figure out a way to take a sidewalk through there but if it's if that's not what it's going to be and not what it's zoned for and not what we think you know the area is going to look like then you know a complete streets treatment here would it be it wouldn't be for that it wouldn't call [58:23] Speaker B (unidentified): for a sidewalk because everybody, appropriately so, I guess that could be another kind of, I guess, a question for internally is do we want to look internally in Scarborough at the zoning? I know, so, like you said, it's a concentrated, sort of, definite growth area for Aurora, which is just over the line, but it's also, our town-village zoning is the North Scarborough Triangle. Looking at you, because I, yeah, that is one of [Speaker D (unidentified): long-range planning. Yeah.] Which is that, what that wants to look like, then that's an internal question for Scarborough. I don't think we can kind of control what happens on the other side of the line, but you can't control that right now. I mean, that's the same, it's not the same zoning that town, the village right now, actually this is all TBC rural over in this area [59:13] Speaker E (unidentified): in 50 years this intersection in the Saco Street Young County Road intersection section that may be all one, that may be like Pain Road in 50 years, right? But it's not 50 years right now and we're dealing with congestion right now, you know, and for you younger people, you'll still [59:39] Speaker D (unidentified): be dealing with this for 50 years and that's not, it ours will be fine by then [59:48] Speaker B (unidentified): All right, we can go to another intersection. This is very minimal targeted improvement at the Saco Street St Route 22 to essentially adding a turn. One of these could be [1:00:03] Chair/presiding officer: it didn't, yeah, downgraded but like a very quick build, like a next year DOT work plan kind of thing, and I'm not sure I understand, aside from me, but there is cost associated with minimal, very minimal compared to what we're talking about, but like, why wouldn't we do this? Why wouldn't we implement [1:00:25] Speaker B (unidentified): then some of these? Why not do it now and then we're, as we're working on the funding for the [1:00:29] Chair/presiding officer: potential, that's, yeah, they're, this looks very interesting, yeah, having like absences, other big projects, we should be looking at these treatments here anyway, kind of sketchy left [1:00:41] Speaker F (unidentified): As is currently, yeah, people like to pull into that like kind of cross line there, yeah. People, if they're just failing, there's not enough really room to, yeah, because I mean, I do that almost [1:00:55] Speaker A (unidentified): every day you bear a little bit no i think in the left brain there i don't think there's a ton of traffic people left but if you don't have a left turn lane there whatever traffic is trying to go left there's a lot of things all the traffic yeah i mean it's not very long Yeah, there's enough room there. Also that intersection recently got redone, so it does seem like a no-brainer, just do [1:01:21] Speaker B (unidentified): it. So the only... Here, the no-brainer, but it's also, it's a give and take. So adding that left turn means your signal efficiency goes down, and so the through traffic will diminish because you have another phase to that cycle. [1:01:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Oh, I don't know that you need to necessarily phase your cycle to it. It's just a way for electronic traffic to get out of the main every till they have, yeah, but [1:01:48] Speaker B (unidentified): it doesn't exist right now, so they are looking at a flashing yellow, the flashing yellows on each of those approaches, right. So we did try that on Pain Road, we ended up switching it back with DOT's permission. What do you mean the flashy gun? So you have the flash, like you'd have the through track of it, and then you can't, you can go if there's a break. They haven't been around it all over the state now, but they find that it's safer, yeah, and that's what I'm told, which I, yes, it's a fan, but it moves more traffic because you can, while someone coming at you with a green light, you can, you can get in between and you move more traffic that way, but you have to be conscious. [1:02:35] Speaker F (unidentified): They have that at the intersection of Socco Street and 114. They're the left, they do, yeah. [1:02:40] Speaker E (unidentified): The left arrow working arrow, they're flashing, yeah. Isn't one of the scenarios making Soccer [1:02:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Street one way, yeah, don't go ahead and you're on, yeah. Like I said, we had them out on Pain Road, the flashing yellow, we ended up actually, that's at the Downs and Pain Road intersection section, so there's probably a lot of things that play there, but that became a very high crush location and we actually petitioned for DOT let us put that back and eliminate that because that was becoming a part one of the factors. So just throwing that up there, but I think we do as a group, we, our community needs to Start getting used to it because that is where DOT is heading with all the signals it can make sense. A lot of people take their time and are cautious, and that's the caveat there, right? Yeah, paying attention. Yeah, people fun. Yes, same intersection with around about two planes they're proposing. Yeah, two lane roundabout, you know, this multi-use path staff that's going to apparently take over all of the gas station there, so that doesn't seem like it would be funded in my mind, but yes, like where's the in between, right? You know, like where's [1:04:08] Speaker A (unidentified): the single agent about, where's the like, you know, intersection, you know, improvements with traditional intersection improvements that bring like allow more traffic to flow without kind of going quite this far, which I would like to see more options than just the site asked the people at the meeting why, like what work they've done to determine that this was the best substantial improvement, and they said, oh, we haven't done any modeling yet, we just heard that people wanted roundabouts, and like it just seems so funny to like put all your eggs in this one basket and then maybe get to, you know, the end of the study and it people be like, no, we don't really want a doubling roundabout there, but now we can't consider anything else. Yeah, I think you [1:05:06] Chair/presiding officer: know, you had mentioned earlier or earlier on, I think one of you, that what we're looking at here is probably not a out of cart like intersection by intersection treatment that they would then go with model, because that would, did you say that? Or is that, but I like, I think we get to all of [1:05:32] Speaker B (unidentified): how are the ideas of, yeah, which ones are targeted versus substantial, but I don't know that they're going to run the model for each one on off, yeah, to know which how the traffic flow is affected by [1:05:43] Chair/presiding officer: each turning one off, so I think, you know, like this AI, this is maybe a good example of like, there's a big jump here, this is a great jump between what you showed and what you're proposing, and so, you know, we probably don't need a whole lot of modeling to look at the footprint of that dueling roundabout and understand this is probably dead on arrival, but what is the, what's the, what's this step down from here, what's two steps down from here, and I do think it very well likely might have to be an Intersection by intersection conversation, and I realize the iterations of that two times the communities that are involved, that's a big effort. I get it, but the alternative is you put up, you know, you vote on this, the whole slate of options, which is like, okay, Scarborough, do you want the substantial treatments? We're gonna say no because we don't want that thing. So, you know, I don't know, I think like a little bit of, I will say we [1:06:47] Speaker B (unidentified): just did some upgrades to your point. We kind of did some grading through there, not a whole lot because we're out of right away. So anything we do in this intersection is going to be taking even what we did, the little bit we did. If I go back to the last, you go back to the last slide, those red lines here, right away there's, those are not accurate. What, like that, the through right is actually on their property. Like that's not exactly accurate. I would not, that's our gas layer [1:07:23] Speaker A (unidentified): You have 66 feet of right away there, and then like on the roadway itself, and as you get to the intersection, it's 96 feet, which if you're using 11 foot lanes, you can fit five lanes in 55 feet and still have no shoulder, and you can fit, you can do quite a lot to this intersection within the existing right of way. I don't, I don't quite understand that the thinking that [1:07:51] Speaker B (unidentified): we can't go more than three lanes, and I think we're still taking land just in looking at, I mean, we have the survey out there and what we can do in the right away. I think we are definitely having a conversation no matter whether it's only a foot or something that's different, but we [1:08:14] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, it's, it's definitely 66 feet like with just with it, like if you added another lane there, that's like a turning lane on which on any leg, but I, yeah, like I don't understand the map that says that we, with a 66 foot right away, well I don't think it's centered necessarily [1:08:33] Speaker B (unidentified): either, I mean, okay, so yeah, it might require some, yeah, realignment and you're gonna have a lot of [1:08:38] Speaker E (unidentified): utility relocation too. I wonder if that house on the screen realizes the road is right then [1:08:45] Speaker B (unidentified): they, it was for sale, I don't know if someone bought that or not, that yellow house is that [1:08:51] Speaker A (unidentified): fine, I think it's a teardown, unfortunately. Oh, unfortunately, isn't this, I mean, yeah, it's probably, I shouldn't be unfortunate, it should probably get torn down, but I always hate to see things point down, but it's commercial, it's QVC, it's commercially seven, I assume that and that's [1:09:16] Speaker B (unidentified): what I do in between, like it is a big jump and so we need to talk about kind of [1:09:25] Speaker D (unidentified): a stuffed approach and kind of what we do through there. Well, safety considerations, have we had crashes there, have we had incidences? If, I mean, I think that has to go into the play too. [1:09:38] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't believe it's a high crash location. This stretches Soccer Road by Roma Joe's for the first [1:09:44] Speaker A (unidentified): time ever after Roma Joe's opened became a high crash like that, like which is undoubtedly [1:09:56] Speaker B (unidentified): I mean, that's a consideration. Okay, yeah, so that's where I'd like you for an email. Yeah, okay, thank you. I was not remembering, I'm like, yeah, it's all, it's all right. I hate this term right here. Okay, so this intersection has a number of different iterations, either removing the slip lane or keeping the slip lane and making the other portion of Gorham Road one direction. [1:10:35] Chair/presiding officer: I don't know what this one is. [1:10:36] Speaker D (unidentified): Yes, excuse me for something. [1:10:39] Speaker E (unidentified): So I sent Soccer Street one way again, in case my house. [1:10:44] Speaker B (unidentified): So, and this is the second is a version two. So this one keeps the slip lane, but it doesn't allow southbound traffic to use Wharram Road. You have to use the slip lane. I mean, there's no laughs coming off County versus like, you know, like the existing conditions where you're merging. Merging well this is yeah, if you were to keep, if you were to keep slip lane right now they're merging encore abroad, so I don't have any comments on that honestly. And then we get to the first substantial improvement option, which is the roundabout, two-lane roundabout with multi-use paths and getting rid of that slip lane so [1:11:37] Speaker A (unidentified): the other thing about single-lane roundabouts is it could be that having a single-lane roundabout with a slip lane would be a lot cheaper and still safer than going to a double-lane roundabout. So this is a good example of you could actually probably get by with single-lane roundabout and, you know, the slip lane including the sun as an option. Yeah, okay, but you could, you could model it with existing conditions pretty easily without, it sounds like they were more concerned about they had to build a future conditions model or they could do any study stuff when that's my like was just a lot of work. Yeah, okay, I think I'll just say I think having this look like there is probably the better option and remembering that 's about, yeah, that's probably the better option for traffic flow and keeping it safe. Yeah, but you, but [1:12:49] Speaker B (unidentified): but you're actually suggesting we keep the slip lane and include a single A roundabout and see what that would be like with us. [1:12:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah. Yeah. For the for the substantial, but there's somewhere in between this targeted substantial. But for the different targeted options, this one, this scenario of the target options preserves the slip lane that gets rid of the extra southbound like their southbound receding lane, and that actually would be a it seems like a great safety benefit and would preserve the traffic flow through there so that's it's like pretty easy, but getting rid of the slip lane would certainly with a not this one but with a targeted one [1:13:40] Speaker B (unidentified): would impact traffic flow. I think it works through there. Yeah, I am curious why they mop it like this where it includes taking land on the northern side of the street versus just putting around about in the island up to something right. Yeah, I'm sure it's trying it's [1:13:59] Chair/presiding officer: tricky. It's easier to lay it out this way. Okay, the property impacts are bigger obviously, but there is you do get to a point like you can kind of only shift them so much before you and in this case this might actually be it might be worth the exercise, but you know if you have a fourth leg you can you can the angle of approach from that floor becomes a challenge. Yeah, so if that's a heavy fourth leg or there's a problem with additional impacts that's one thing. In this case my guess is bleeding silverway is pretty low quality and entering that and if he [1:14:42] Speaker B (unidentified): he could accommodate him you know some geometric changes. Yeah, but it's more of the Gorham coming in, but they're trying to make sure that 's not a hair. Exactly. Yes. Okay. [1:14:56] Chair/presiding officer: Right, so you're also trying to like arrange the geometry so that it's not super straight on like the alignment of County Road with this. That's why you often have bigger roundabouts houses so that you the intention is to differ like linearly divert someone so that you can't just fell straight through it, and sometimes that a lot of times that geo geometry changes requires additional land effects too, so that's kind of what you see that like. Yeah, the gorm [1:15:32] Speaker D (unidentified): agreement tickle. Well I know long range planning area Erin we talked about this area being a potential village area too that we would identify for commercial or like commercial growth, so this [1:15:46] Chair/presiding officer: begins to address some of that as well because you know i mean i think you know i think it's worth thinking about that you can have a roundabout in a village center right you probably don't [1:15:58] Speaker D (unidentified): Want it to be too late? No, but it would allow more traffic to get around it, but also allow traffic to get to it, which right now it's hard, it's hard. Yeah, so yeah, another zoning [1:16:10] Speaker B (unidentified): question I guess. Yeah, as I confirm that's TVC too. Yeah, but we're resigning here [1:16:21] Speaker E (unidentified): The other thing that's interesting when you look at this, we still have, you know, even though it's going to require maybe some taking from land, we can do that. I mean, it's available to do it. You've got some places like right banks and soccer, you can't do anything, right? That's a real mess down there. And then so at least there's an opportunity to get some land here, you know, to do some of these things, make these improvements, right? I think that's the benefit to planning ahead [1:16:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, we're trying to do it now before it gets pulled out, so that means we're using, you know, [1:16:58] Speaker A (unidentified): make-believe teacher numbers. So another example though that if you did do a single event that it would have very minimal impact on those properties, the doubling that now is compromising the building on the south side of the feeding with the asians on the icr and then And then just a double-lane roundabout costs so much more than a single-lane roundabout. So there's like kind of what Roger was saying, there is some leeway for phasing, get that single-lane roundabout in, if it's really not working, then add the second lane. [1:17:42] Chair/presiding officer: Because we know they haven't done any modeling, do we know why they chose double-lane roundabouts in some places and singles in others? My guess is it's just based on volume, but like that might not really be an accurate indication. [1:17:54] Speaker A (unidentified): I think they did doubling gravity. I don't think they're any single line. [1:17:58] Speaker E (unidentified): There's a single lane over there in 237. [1:18:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that's yeah, and by your point it looks like maybe some of the volume. So some of the ones that aren't on the main lines. Smush, wait, let me close because they're not right. I was trying to keep us separate. Yeah, it's fine, we're getting there. Yeah, I don't know that we might talk about this one [1:18:30] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, this is that future problem, right? Oh, I can't see this one ever getting, oh my god, [1:18:37] Speaker E (unidentified): getting through because it's just, it's a mess. No one would understand it and you couldn't put [1:18:46] Speaker A (unidentified): enough signs up to make people understand it. Also it does what we don't want to do, which is whip [1:18:50] Speaker D (unidentified): traffic through with wide, you know, again we begin to look at this as a village area that services the surrounding area, this totally subverts that. Yes, yeah, and it's interesting that Portland right [1:19:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Now is really trying to remedy their past decisions to put in one-way thoroughfares. [1:19:12] Chair/presiding officer: Right. And slip lanes. And this option is like doubling down on both of those. [1:19:18] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, for a neighborhood, it definitely changes the neighborhood character when you start putting in one-way thoroughfares. It's too late. So it's something that I'd be... [1:19:33] Speaker B (unidentified): The thumbs down on this. Yeah, what's, what's our questions? What do we want to know about if they [1:19:39] Speaker A (unidentified): ask for things that like probably have no chance of getting through, like local, you know, getting local support. This is probably an example point that, and I might be wrong, like I'm only one person. [1:19:53] Chair/presiding officer: During the virtual meeting too caught the point that like in a lot of these other alternatives is they were highlighting sort of the benefit of removing slip lanes in different intersections because of safety benefits or what have you. Here you've got one full intersection that is just like all slip lanes, yeah, and this other one to the north is like the mother. [1:20:24] Speaker A (unidentified): There are Valsa planes. So it just... It's like the speed. You'd have to take a couple houses to do that. [1:20:32] Chair/presiding officer: The speeds that this would encourage people to travel at alone should just be like, no,. [1:20:40] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, traffic is an issue like 3.30 to 5.30 or 6 or whatever, like the other 21 and a half hours a day. [1:20:48] Chair/presiding officer: When it's not, when it's not congested and have geometry like this, you will absolutely have speed [1:20:54] Speaker B (unidentified): problems. So in a future scenario where the zoning is different and this is a new little village center, traffic's going to be worse. It's going to be slower because that's the whole point. We want people to slow down and visit those businesses, right? So this doesn't, this doesn't support that. This definitely doesn't. No, but I like looking at the, this area at this scale because we looked at each of these intersections individually and then it's, it's interesting to think about. That's a good point, like looking at it like what we're hearing from is the businesses in the area and trying to get in and out of these are impossible and dangerous. And so to that point, it's like when we start looking at maybe through what you guys are doing in long range reboot planning is kind of tackling that with how you kind of envision this village center being, because I mean, we're doing that with Dunstan when we have the new like bank from then or something like that. It's dangerous to get in and out of it or can You get in and out of it, right type of things, so you kind of need to address that kind of holistically with the zoning, I think. [1:21:58] Speaker D (unidentified): yeah and access and access management yeah great be an interesting exercise in fact is go back with an overlay on our on our proposals and see where some of this I was working on that this [1:22:12] Speaker B (unidentified): afternoon trying to piece all of our maps together oh god it's all coming together guys all right we'll end with an easy one i think this will make santa sadly so this is laramie farm on gorham road is essentially the targeted if laramie farm were to be built out in the future or have either of these directions have more homes most likely built out so they propose suppose a turning signal and with a single lane roundabout there we go fits right in there so they know how to make them at least you know they 've got them up the [1:22:55] Speaker E (unidentified): is there a slip lane on that on that lane on corn road right now heading this way no so that's the problem because cars heading into the sky get hung up because somebody wants to take a left. [1:23:12] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, right,. Left onto Running Hill? There is a left. You can take a left. [1:23:16] Speaker B (unidentified): There is a left right now onto Running Hill from Durham. OK. And then I think, you know, going into Laramie, which there is going to be a trailhead down here. So we might see some cars coming. People are stacking on that. [1:23:28] Speaker F (unidentified): The only issue is like at night when people are coming down Running Hill, trying to take a right. right people just treat it as a zipper merge you know one at a time I don't know what the technical rule would be because you know like the people on 114 still have the right-of-way but yeah how it works is yeah I mean so the people turning left on Running Hill coming from Gorham kind of take that left the same time the Running Hill people are taking a right onto Gorham and they just kind [1:23:55] Speaker D (unidentified): of five o'clock everybody's kind of doing one of these numbers I can't remember if I mentioned it [1:24:01] Speaker B (unidentified): here or not our clerk had mentioned she saw an article that his designate is the friendliest intersection in maine because your point is how people kind of take turns yeah because [1:24:15] Speaker F (unidentified): that is such a heavy right it's very rare to see like two go at the same time [1:24:22] Speaker A (unidentified): yeah but i imagine that having it signalized or having around about there would allow it to flow better just going back to this yeah there's kind of a question for jen if you were to actually put a roundabout there could you do it in a way that maybe grooved it a little bit you can to the left so that you're not going to talk that house yeah you can like is there [1:24:43] Chair/presiding officer: You can shift them a little bit, particularly with a, with like 90, you know, to 90. Yeah. [1:24:55] Speaker A (unidentified): Out a little bit and then come in and just have that roundabout a little bit further left. Yeah. [1:25:05] Chair/presiding officer: And you don't have to move the center point of that circle very far before you start to see some appreciable differences on some of the approach angles. And so if you're trying to avoid or limit, you could see that the parcel here in the upper right hand corner, where it's just like what's laid out here just next to the corner of that property, you could probably scoot this enough to avoid an impact of doing like [1:25:39] Speaker B (unidentified): All the impact on one property. It's contextual, like it [1:25:44] Chair/presiding officer: Depends on what, you know, what the property is, are people amenable to talking about that? Maybe you have some other good [1:25:53] Speaker B (unidentified): The good news is we are on the Laramie Roadside, so that's good. [1:25:57] Chair/presiding officer: That'd be good. Sound a little better. I don't know. Yeah, I think... [1:26:02] Speaker A (unidentified): Just some like human touches or natural design that could, like that, because there's so much open land, you know, further to the left, you could really help that one house on the corner that you just moved at like a few feet, you know, further, off their yard. [1:26:16] Chair/presiding officer: You know, what you'd be up against geometrically is that you don't want to scoot that so much that the, that someone coming on Running Hill Road approaching the roundabout is already [1:26:29] Speaker B (unidentified): In like the slip lane formation and probably what the Running Hill you'd have to [1:26:37] Speaker A (unidentified): Basically rebuild a little bit to less so it comes in and more of a right, yes, a little [1:26:42] Speaker E (unidentified): Jog, yeah, it'll, you know, that's where the, there's some junkyards or scrap yards or something up, well that's someone's house on that corner on the left, on the left, on Running Hill Road. No, I think that is nice. Oh, it's, it's further. Yeah. [1:27:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Do you want to see a fun roundabout? Look up magic roundabout bumping on the Internet. Because you don't want to help with that. Okay. It looks crazy. Did you say this is awesome? [1:27:21] Chair/presiding officer: Yeah. It's a no. We've been through that a couple times. [1:27:24] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, it's just about the. Right. Yeah. [1:27:30] Chair/presiding officer: Oh, I haven't. Okay. Go ahead. Are we all done? Well, I guess. We're all done with that for now. Just grab. [1:27:38] Speaker B (unidentified): What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go through what I. No, it's. Okay. [1:27:42] Chair/presiding officer: Good time. No, you're not allowed to. If you have any other questions after this meeting, or you're a member of the public and you have questions after this meeting that you would like answered by DOT or some other municipal body, email Angela, yes, babe, lamp job, extravergine.org. Great, perfect, and that concludes item number three. So we'll move on very quickly to and four, which is updates on a couple of projects ongoing in town, one of which, the first one of which, is a metro, the metro connect expansion services program, which I know what that update is, but I'm gonna let you keep the update. However, we determined during this meeting that on this Friday, October 1st, at 9:00 a.m., will be October 2nd, sorry, October 2nd, so close, I knew it was October, okay, it's not September 30th, third Friday at 9:00 a.m. will be the ribbon cutting ceremony for the launch of metro's new route 25, which is the fixed route bus service for Scarborough, and that is different from metro [1:29:06] Speaker B (unidentified): connect, and where will that be, which is here, I believe it's right here at town hall right now. [1:29:14] Speaker E (unidentified): Yep, look for the blue dot, yeah, or maybe a big button. This is going to be called the Redstone. [1:29:19] Speaker B (unidentified): That is in a couple weeks, but yes, our microtransit will be there, and I guess that's what I wanted to say was I'm not sure, we didn't have that information for our, I'll buy my transportation up there, but that's all I have. Okay, I will say we're continuing to try to find ways to help with the Taylor Vale, and I think we are getting close, and so I don't, we're not giving up, yes, and it might be, yeah, looking at how we expand that service, us to finish them, so again, with them getting started, I think there's possibilities, and metro is working hard with us too. I think that's one, I know this group heard from those ladies and just wanted to make sure you guys understood that's falling off the radar at all. That's great, and then safety audit, we were notified that quorum at Sawyer, which the last meeting this group decided to put in application, we were selected, so that safety audit will begin next spring. So spring of 2027. And at the same time I have the town has a request DOT to look at the speed limit through this intersection through that road because we have always been told by DOT that speed limit is really you got to do the hard infrastructure first and then they come back and they will redo the speed study and see if they can drop the speed. We spent millions of dollars on Quorum Road. And so we've been trying to get them back. We did exactly what we have been told to do by adding traffic calming in that corridor. And so my understanding is they have a priority. They have their list, and we're we're getting slowly higher on that. This is like the oaks to the schools that section from maple to the schools is the section to like quick. [1:31:46] Speaker E (unidentified): It's the section. And they could move that down to or what? [1:31:50] Speaker B (unidentified): But just let less than like 5. Yeah, it might be a reduction that's what I'm hoping, because we did put in kind of we put our money where our mouth was right? Right we're like this is an issue so we're gonna do traffic calming and see if that pays off are we requesting a certain level like that's not how it works they do an independent review they tell us what the speed limit is correct isn't this also some to reach somewhere [1:32:20] Speaker E (unidentified): About possibly signalizing the road with a landing. Is that Quentin Road? [1:32:27] Speaker B (unidentified): Well, that was in front of the planning board. Oh, is that? [1:32:30] Speaker D (unidentified): That was the schools. That's where I saw that, huh? That's where you saw that. I'll leave an overlap. [1:32:35] Speaker B (unidentified): They're getting, they're required to get a traffic movement permit at the schools in the expansion of the middle school in Wentworth. And that was one of the questions that was asked by- I can see. Planning board is but also by our peer reviewers when you look at it the numbers are increasing traffic on the canvas through Clinton Drive and so the question is are we where are we at the [1:33:03] Speaker E (unidentified): Signal warrant and the other one is on Sawyer Road is that direct that doesn't no is that the one that goes from the high school down to soya with memorial park yeah is that Duran oh that's Yeah, right here. You talking about that one? Yeah. What about it? Well, I came, when I was picking my grandson up today at the library, I was, I was stuck in here. So I decided to come up for Sawyer Road to get there. Yeah. And there's a stream of cars going down this road here, down to Sawyer Road. Yeah. Yeah. It's a high school. Yeah. And it's just, and Sawyer Road's only a little dinky little two lane road right there, but I mean, I didn't realize there was so many guys coming out of that come around here at 2 30 in the afternoon. [1:33:50] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, I can't leave my office at 2 30. Yeah, let's go ready sites. Yeah, there's a lot of traffic anticipated area. I mean it was my risk network stuff so that was that Jen had brought up in the planning board meeting was that Quinton on Gorham Road the high risk for the way that we're not the way [1:34:24] Chair/presiding officer: that they have the road broken up like the segment oh yeah the network is not likely approach to the I don't know, but yeah, it's not far like there's a high risk segment that's not it's adjacent to that. [1:34:41] Speaker B (unidentified): But I will say it came up in planning morning because they had no information on traffic. So I kind of got to that. They will be having a public forum or a public meeting of some sort. The schools will in October. I have not seen any date, but I'm told we were told that planning board that it sometimes. time in october and that would give the public opportunity to talk about traffic on all six school projects so that's our year that's the only opportunity i guess i see coming forward but that's just noting that for this group too if you have concerns an eye out for that and maybe i'll if i see that public meeting i'll try to forward it to this group if that's helpful and then lastly today is actually the last day for the safe streets for all grants post install survey that's a survey monkey that surveyed that she'd be caught it's done I don't root one at the Hanover intersection for the temporary installs which will be being removed before plowing operations start so the addition of the [1:35:54] Speaker D (unidentified): the Bollards and the signage the ratchet it up about 90 because I've seen people drive over those homes yeah and until the Bollards and the signage went up people were kind of doing all kinds of strange things around them but the signage really helped and said you know do not go straight right everyone yeah so I think the learning is I mean signage it's like when we had the zipper stuff and people didn't understand it took the signs going out for people to understand going in a [1:36:26] Speaker E (unidentified): demonstration like this needs to have signage you know i haven't noticed any difference there [1:36:32] Chair/presiding officer: Have you walked across that as a pedestrian? Why would I take my life? Well, because you said you haven't, under you haven't, you haven't experienced anything. So as a driver, as a driver to anyone, oh, you want me to die. But that's the point, like the, if you've ever crossed that intersection, oh, I agree [1:36:53] Speaker F (unidentified): with you, but I thought, are you saying you've had no negative impacts on the driver? Right, yeah [1:36:57] Speaker B (unidentified): The real question what they're actually laughing about around is was the motorist going slower were now because of those. Yeah, we'll find out. Yeah, so we'll see the data and see the before and during and be able to look at those. Now there was a poor woman but certainly they didn't [1:37:26] Speaker D (unidentified): affect Roger so he's going, yeah, standing in the grass with an umbrella being blown away, who was trying to figure out how she could cross to get over there, and she was standing there watching the traffic like this, and I just felt so sorry for, I mean, in that wet grass, hi, the umbrella that was being blown around. I almost wanted to stop and say, I'll stop right here if you want to stop. [1:37:49] Speaker A (unidentified): So that's something we're going to have best stops along Route 1. [1:37:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, that'll be the next one. [1:37:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, it makes it even more important to have good pedestrian infrastructure. It's safe to go from one side of the street to the other if you want to catch a bus. [1:38:05] Chair/presiding officer: You know, another common thing that I think a lot of times we talk about these projects or improvements or how we want to classify them as being very pedestrian centered and i fully appreciate that 's a really difficult concept for people to grasp when they don't see people there walking crossing using those things but like you none of us want to go into an environment that is unfriendly or feels unsafe so if you don't just because you don't see people there doesn't mean there isn't a safety problem for them, and part two is that slowing vehicles down, particularly when they're turning, is literally safer for everybody. There is no downside from doing that. You can't, you can't process an appreciable more, you know, vehicles through that intersection in a way that doesn't come out on top for every, for everybody. And so if whether they're slowing down because they're a little bit confused about what their homes are, or because they don't, you know, because when we, when we bring those barriers in a little bit, that's just inherently what people do. You just don't take it that fast. You really don't need to, you don't need to, don't need to. I guess it's back to Porsche's comment too, it's [1:39:24] Speaker B (unidentified): About educating life, I heard with the Hanniford intersection that the bumps that were having at that corner, to Jen's point, you can drive over them. It's for trucks, take that like that, a vehicle can drive over those. You drive over slower because you got bumps, or you take more of a sharp corner to go around them. Either way, you're going slower around that corner. To your point, it's just that people are like, oh, we saw people going over it, so it failed, right? But how [1:39:55] Speaker D (unidentified): how fast were they going? Well, one of the things I saw something and I don't know what perspective it was, but it's, but it described and it explained why that bump out was important. It was from like National Safety or something, and I published it in the neighborhood, and people said, oh, that's what you're doing. I mean, it really, education is important. Yes, and you know what is it we're hoping to accomplish? I think we need to be very upfront with people before we do a demonstration, say this is what we're doing and this is why we're doing it and this is, you know, how it works. And again, I go back to the zipper thing. Until people began to understand, and you did that article, oh, okay, that's how it works. Otherwise people are, what are they doing here, smushing us all into one lane? Yeah, that's all right. Here next month we have, anybody, we do have a member of the public. Really good on, I don't know if Denise, do you have any [1:41:08] Speaker B (unidentified): comments you want to, you like no [1:41:16] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm good, except that you had some video in that function. Can you hear me here? Do you have the ears on? Okay. Move to adjourn. That was good. Good job, [1:41:48] Speaker A (unidentified): guys. Angela, did you want to get snubbed in on Scott of Oak? [1:42:06] Speaker B (unidentified): tomorrow? Yes, you want an update or just, I guess should we be there last workshop? All right, am I still recording? I don't know, do you need to? Okay, yeah, but we are doing a council workshop tomorrow. There's not really any new information. It's putting it back in council because we really need a decision made, and we'll be showing kind of a timeline, because we are only able to, there are three options, we're only able to do two of them. Well, any of them, we're not allowed to work in the stream unless You're from November till April 1st, and so with each window kind of we have these deadlines, our hard deadlines, be able to we need a decision made on which design we're going with so that we can sign an impermanent within say the next construction window, and so we'll be showing that deadline is coming up the first of November in order to hit our next construction window, so as that kind of moves out if we're waiting for Grant application we're We're waiting for our grant to see what if we're awarded a grant for replacement. Right now we already have secured a grant for removal of the culvert. The Council has not accepted that grant yet. And so we have told the agency that issued that we are paused on that until we find out whether or not we get a culvert replacement grant, which we apply for. for so that Council had all the options to kind of weigh unfortunately that Grant got delayed and so we might find ourselves in a position where we have to make a decision if it is critical to reopen Scotto Hill Road we might need to make the decision sooner than the grant comes through I'm not sure or it's just out another year every what's the cost they're doing on our own We do have a current Cip in place for this current fiscal year to do design, so I can start that independently of the grant, which is helpful. But I again need a direction from Council to know what i'm designing and you'll see there was some activity out on the study. We have done survey and geotech work which will benefit from any design we do. And then we also have our Cip in place to do a resilient culvert, which is the most expensive culvert without a grant. So we kind of put in place kind of worst case scenarios that again it doesn't limit Council from picking any of the 3 options. us so that's already budgeted we don't have to spend it so that's where it goes back to council to see what they want to do but there is funding in place denise hamilton so i guess i was curious if she oh we couldn't hear her oh sure so she did try to speak sorry about that anyways but that was yeah tomorrow night the council workshop six and my i'm hoping we make a little bit of headway in the discussion but it might be that i'm back from brenda council november 4th for a decision hopefully i have a brand by then who knows house that's the goal is that they have all brands that you know on the table all options on the table what do you guys want to do that's really what we've been waiting for so decision [1:46:13] Speaker A (unidentified): November 4th would still make it so that the next construction window could, yeah, November 27th. [1:46:22] Speaker B (unidentified): November of 2027 would be through April 1st, yeah, it would allow us to keep on that window, yeah, the window would be next spring and summer, no, November of 27. Oh yeah, central, oh, so [1:46:43] Speaker A (unidentified): I guess I heard you wrong, so you can't work on it in the summer, but you can work it up on it [1:46:48] Speaker B (unidentified): of the winter, right, you can be in the stream during from November to March, last day of March, [1:46:57] Speaker A (unidentified): April 1st we need to be out, and there's no chance this winter of doing anything, so you know I don't [1:47:04] Speaker B (unidentified): have a, I don't know what they want us to do, so I don't have a path to design right now, but we need [1:47:11] Speaker A (unidentified): to make a decision in the next couple months for fall next winter, November of 2027 to start. [1:47:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Wow, okay, so that's where I'm saying, is it if it starts backing up say to December or January, we'd be into a next rep, the next window, no, yeah, which would be 2028, that's yeah, that's that's Annette Haworth, Yes, so it's that's where just getting the Council to under to lay it out the facts. Here's here's and I'm going to show the timeline, but to kind of lay that out to [1:47:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Annette Haworth, to understand, [1:47:49] Speaker B (unidentified): Annette Haworth, you know what non-decision is still a decision in some respects, or it's just maybe allowing more options. If we get other grant opportunities, or we wait for the grant. It's less local funding, right? So [1:48:04] Speaker D (unidentified): So I'm assuming they'll be public comment. Yes, typically, if there is not room and time during the workshop, [1:48:12] Speaker B (unidentified): Council invites people to stay in the beginning of the Council meeting when it's general public comment. And a lot of people do tend to comment on the workshop topic. [1:48:23] Speaker A (unidentified): So that is definitely a problem. Would it be helpful for us or any interest for us to be involved or to make a recommendation there? Are we? No, thank you. No, I mean, as a committee. Oh, there's not much. [1:48:43] Speaker E (unidentified): The people who live in that area has a major concern, and then they have to persuade the council to either do one thing or another. Not [1:48:56] Chair/presiding officer: sure. I guess just thinking about it broadly, like we've talked on this committee a number of times about the benefits of connectivity. You know, that's a strong theme we've tried to pursue in other parts of our network. work but also I could certainly appreciate the physical impacts of this and so it's a trade-off [1:49:26] Speaker A (unidentified): yeah exactly to this it's for doing you don't have to do something else exactly the last thing [1:49:32] Speaker E (unidentified): I heard was all the people who live on Road, right? So some people are going to probably heard anything unless you have for many of those people, but if the decision is to, you know, direct traffic up on 2 Rod Road, all of a sudden, you know, we'll be certainly going to hear from those people up. [1:49:51] Speaker B (unidentified): There, well, I will say, I mean, I thought it was being closed for quite some time, so the traffic is there, but proactively Council did also fund a CIP to do some traffic calming, and it was kind of focused on, well, traffic calming that could be really anyway, but what I heard from Council was trying to look at, say, this detour route so that what I had for October is that we have concepts for traffic coming at the intersection of Pain and Two Rod, which is a high crash location, and then along Two Rod and. Even at the intersection with Scott of Bell Road, we had a consultant kind of go through their new concepts, but if I could get through this group to kind of look at that, I think regardless, but whether it opens or not, that was a high crash location, and that could look at advancing that into design if that's the next step. We have a public meeting from out that here to talk about, and but I'm ready at this point we could progress at least the design if that's what we want to do, so I kind of want to. Put it in front of you guys sooner rather than later that you guys are looking at that, and it's it's essentially So essentially the design and the next step is funded through this currency IP in this fiscal year. [1:51:11] Speaker D (unidentified): So Council was kind of proactive with that, I think that's it. [1:51:24] Chair/presiding officer: All right, Christmas, thank you, thank you all. [1:51:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, thank you.