Revived Transportation Advisory Committee Re-envisions Its Responsibilities and Priorities

For its last two meetings, the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) has been in the process of re-writing its own Charge. This is not simply a bureaucratic exercise; there are significant discussions about what should be the TAC’s responsibilities. The discussion will continue at its next meeting, on November 19. This is after reconvening for the first time in six months. The TAC is prioritizing creating a new Charge before it dives into its backload of work.

October 15 Meeting
 At the TAC’s October 15 meeting, Chair Aaron Hayden led the committee in considering how to change the TAC’s Charge. This followed Hayden’s discussion with the Council’s Town Service & Outreach Committee (TSO) the previous week. Hayden said his report to the TSO on the TAC had been well received, but that TSO members were concerned that the current TAC Charge did not describe well what its role should be relative to the Town Council. Simply replacing references in the current charge to the “Select Board with the “Town Council” seemed inadequate.  Hayden said he took this to mean that the TAC’s homework should be to rework the Charge as a proposal to the Town Manager and Town Council.

Hayden started the TAC on this task by reviewing the recommendations from a 2015 consultants’ report on best practices for transportation advisory committees. In particular, he suggested, that report’s list of four primary roles for the TAC should be the core of the TAC’s new Charge (p. 7 of the report):

1. Maintain a “Work Program” of costs, timeframes, and responsible parties for each and every transportation policy and project within Amherst;

2. Review, summarize, and then funnel transportation-related requests generated by committees, Boards, Town staff, and the public “upwards” to the Select Board with a recommendation for action;

3. Receive transportation-related directives and requests “downwards” from the Select Board, then review, summarize, and assign responsible party(s) – including Town staff, other Boards, committees, or ad hoc working groups/subcommittees – for detailed review, analysis, or implementation; and

4. Internally generate transportation-related requests of subcommittees, other committees, the Select Board, and/or Town staff as necessary to progress the Work Program and the Transportation Plan.

With these four items on the shared zoom screen, others in the meeting weighed in.

Superintendent of Public Works Guilford Mooring suggested that, reading these suggested roles and the current Charge, the TAC might consider getting rid of all the bullets in the current TAC Charge and just putting in these four things. The detail was simply unnecessary, and makes the current Charge very long.

TAC members Tracy Zafian, Marcus Smith and Kimberly Tremblay, and former TAC member Eve Vogel, all spoke in different ways about a key thing this list seemed to be missing that has been a major activity for the TAC over the past several years: the TAC’s crucial role in thinking about big-picture and long-term transportation needs, and developing plans and systems to meet these. The TAC has worked on a complete streets policy, a pedestrian and bicycle plan, and a prioritization system, for example. Smith suggested that this could be a priority number 5 for the new Charge. Others seemed to concur.

Zafian pointed out that the points #1 and #2 seemed to suggest a level of day-to-day oversight and functional management of a works program that is beyond the capacity of the volunteer members of the TAC. This is more a staff functionality. TAC member Bruce Carson agreed with Zafian that this seems beyond the TAC’s ability.

Vogel noted that the current Charge says “the intent of creation of the TAC is to enable the Town to address all transportation matters in a comprehensive and holistic manner… develop comprehensive, clear and consistent procedures for residents to request transportation improvements or regulatory changes [that] … establish a single point of communication between residents and the Town relating to all transportation matters, and to establish a single process by which requests are evaluated and prioritized.”

TAC members Smith and Bernard Kubiak said that they did not think the TAC should be the ongoing contact for issues of maintenance; that really falls to the DPW (Department of Public Works). The TAC should not be “a single point of communication” for all transportation issues.

Kubiak also noted that as an advisory committee, the TAC should clarify what kinds of input the TAC wants from other boards and committees.

There seemed to be general agreement among members that work plans and individual projects should be evaluated and prioritized on the basis of the TAC’s larger-scale and longer-term planning, priorities, and systems of evaluation, but the TAC should not be involved in the day-to-day detail of individual complaints, requests, and projects.

Vogel suggested that the TAC members go through the existing Charge p. 2 and make sure there are no bullets that they feel are important, that are not represented in the four (or five) priorities. (One of those had come up at the previous meeting, for example, when Mooring said the TAC had no responsibility to weigh in on development proposals, and Vogel read one of the bullets, “The TAC will…Review plans for subdivisions or development of land as they affect the transportation system of the Town.”)

In addition to the discussion of the Charge, the TAC agreed to appoint Aaron Hayden Chair for another year, and Kimberly Tremblay Vice Chair. New position rotations will happen once a year, on the first TAC meeting in May.

Additionally, the TAC agreed the subcommittee would continue, which in the past worked on the complete streets plan and the prioritization plan before recommendation from the full TAC. The subcommittee will include Zafian, Vogel, and Carson, and if possible, other new members who can provide additional expertise.

November 5 Meeting
In preparation for the November 5 meeting, Hayden prepared a draft of a proposed new Charge, and circulated it among TAC members, the Town Manager, the Superintendent of Public Works, and the TAC’;s Council liaison Darcy Dumont. After introductory agenda items, Hayden had DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring share his screen showing the draft. It began with a letter to the Town Council and Town Manager, which was framed around the four primary roles for the TAC suggested by the Best Practices Report. Pages 2 and 3 had the draft Charge.

Town Council member Darcy Dumont was in attendance at the first part of the meeting. Former TAC member Eve Vogel asked her why the Council and TSO had asked for the Charge to be revised. Dumont said the Council had asked all committees to consider this. However, it was not necessary for it to be a major project, or for it to happen before the TAC returned to other work.

TAC member Marcus Smith noted that the fifth role TAC members had suggested at the last meeting did not seem to be represented (the TAC’s crucial role in thinking about big-picture and long-term transportation needs, and developing plans and systems to meet these). Member Tracy Zafian also noted that last time, they had decided that the first two points in the four tasks list were overly broad. Hayden responded that he wanted to keep the list as it was, because it was a direct quote.

When the committee turned to consider the language of the draft Charge, Vogel asked Mooring to show the new draft charge next to the old one. Mooring did this on the shared zoom screen. Vogel then asked Hayden about differences in the language. For example, the current Charge says:

The TAC will serve as an advisory committee to the Town Manager and the Select Board on all transportation matters. The intent of creation of the TAC is to enable the Town to address all transportation matters in a comprehensive and holistic manner. The TAC will advise the Select Board and the Town Manager on current and proposed transportation regulations, policies, initiatives, and improvement projects.

The draft Charge read:

The TAC will address transportation matters brought to it and offer advice to town officials based on a comprehensive and holistic look at current and proposed transportation regulations and policies.

In other words, the current Charge suggests the TAC deals with all transportation matters, whereas the new draft suggests it will deal with only those matters brought to it.

Hayden explained that he believed the new Council and TSO want to have more control over the TAC’s activities and subject matter, and so he was trying to make that clear. Vogel suggested to Hayden as well as other current TAC members that they might be better off drafting a Charge that keeps their full range of activities and responsibilities that they believe to be appropriate; then, when it goes to the Council, the Council can reduce it if they so desire. TAC members Tremblay and Smith spoke in agreement with this approach.

Vogel asked the committee members to consider several of the bullets on p. 2 of the current Charge, and asked them if they thought they should still fall under the TAC’s responsibilities. The bullets Vogel pointed to were the following:

• Evaluate based on recommendations by the Superintendent of Public Works, the Town Engineer, the Planning Director, the Chief of Police, and such other sources as they find appropriate, the Town’s road, sidewalk, drainage, traffic circulation systems, public transportation, and bicycle facilities, and to recommend priorities for their maintenance, repair, extension and reconstruction;
• Advise the Select Board and the Town’s representative to the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority on matters related to public transportation;
• Recommend the designation and development of commuter and recreational routes and facilities for users of public transportation, bicyclists and pedestrians;
• Review plans for subdivisions or development of land as they affect the transportation system of the Town;  
• Review Town bylaws and other local regulations and requirements that affect public transit, bicycling and walking and making recommendations regarding these bylaws, regulations or requirements and their enforcement;  
• Foster public awareness of the rules for safe use of public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and advocate and promote the use of these activities;

Tremblay, Smith and Zafian all responded in the affirmative. Mooring turned his video on in the zoom window and said that if these bullets were added back in, the Charge would be just as long as before.

Discussion continued with a sense of uncertainty about how to proceed.

Near the end of the meeting, Hayden asked for a volunteer to do a next round of revision of the Charge. No TAC members offered their time. Vogel said she’s no longer a member, and didn’t get it the last round, so could take a go at it this round. Smith said he supported this idea. Hayden consented, providing Vogel send her draft to him, and he then can circulate with TAC members before the next meeting.