A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to clarifying the TPC’s authority over public way closures and the extent of its decision-making power. The consensus leaned toward maintaining the council’s final say on changes, with the TPC handling recommendations and public hearings.

The council’s deliberation on traffic control measures, particularly regarding crosswalks and public way requests, emphasized the need for clearer processes and greater public involvement. Members expressed frustration with the existing system, where requests could be made through various channels without a structured prioritization process. It was suggested that the TPC should handle and prioritize these requests to foster a more organized approach. The potential for holding public hearings before the TPC was also discussed, though legal uncertainties about delegating such authority were noted.

Further discussions addressed the role of the TPC in handling requests for traffic calming measures, including the installation of rectangular flashing beacons and other initiatives. There was general support for granting the TPC authority to filter these requests before they reached the Joint Capital Planning Committee (JCPC), thereby streamlining the process and preventing an overload of individual requests. However, financial constraints were acknowledged as a potential barrier to implementing TPC recommendations, necessitating budgetary oversight by the town manager or council.

The formation of a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) was a focal point, with debates on its composition and operational structure. The proposed committee would consist of seven members, including representatives from various departments and the public. A notable discussion point was whether members from the Disability Commission should have voting rights or serve as liaisons. Members compared Amherst’s approach with that of Northampton, which does not grant voting rights to disability commission representatives, and debated the necessity of such inclusion in Amherst’s TAC.

Council members also considered whether to include council representation on the TAC. Some members argued that council oversight was essential for decisions with immediate impacts, while others were open to a primarily advisory committee if certain decisions remained with the council. The idea of rotating leadership within the TAC was suggested, allowing different members to guide the committee at various times.

The meeting touched upon the procedural aspects of how public requests would be submitted and processed by the committee. Members discussed mirroring the capital request process, where submissions are managed through online forms and processed by designated staff. Suggestions were made regarding the involvement of the communications department in managing public submissions.

As the meeting drew to a close, the council addressed the status of the waste hauler request for proposals (RFP), expressing interest in updates on the project’s progress and any potential delays. The session concluded with a brief discussion on future agenda items, including revisiting the Heather Stone Road configuration and addressing a referral concerning public urination.