but he gets settled we'll formally start
the meeting I believe
okay we're just waiting for Stacy
don't knock on the glass
yes please
thank you
yeah yeah
okay so let's go ahead and get started
uh welcome to the committee the whole
meeting for today Monday July 14th we
have two items on the agenda first is
um round two second inning second
quarter first follow-up from uh our
previous meeting where we discussed
concurrency and so our resident experts
we are doing the IPC zone for us okay
I'm sorry I got the I got the agenda
mixed up
they changed they changed the agenda no
thanks for keeping me you're welcome
I mean you guys were sitting up here all
ready to go and I thought we were ready
to go so the ipz
so Bob you want to do an introduction
um so
with us today we have Jen Davis who's
our economic development manager and
um Hayes isn't it John Davis Hayes
attend David Hayes who's our economic
development manager and we have a guest
with us too
this is Doug lean and he is with the
city of Auburn for their economic
development but he's also the
administrator for their ipz there and
the state chair for the IPC
administrators Association at the
correct term yep
yep thank you and so Jen is going to
walk us through a brief presentation and
question and answer session on
Innovation Innovative part ipzs and
we'll just go with the acronym and
um as you may remember these application
opportunities come along every odd year
so 2015 is the next one we've
um done some uh work already and she's
got a brief kind of outline on some of
the work that we've done there's just
some additional work that has to be done
in order to get us lined up to submit an
application uh in 2015. and so we'll
walk through that and then if there's
some additional questions or help that I
might be able to provide support to Jen
we'll do that perfect thank you Bob and
so we're lucky enough to have Doug be
nearby in town uh tonight and so he
thought he'd join us because he knows a
lot about ipzs and we are as you know
are just going down that road and so did
people receive an email the actual two
sided uh you know about ipzs and you're
somewhat familiar with them so basically
they are Innovative partnership zones
and there are dex's Nation by the state
of Washington uh the Department of
Commerce and they're an economic
development tool basically to help you
work with a business sector and work on
uh with partners of research Workforce
Development and private sector to really
grow that sector and to grow jobs and
continue to do well with the economy so
one of the things that we look at doing
is applying for an IPC in 2015 and that
would not only allow us to
to help to Define what what is going to
be doing but to increase our
Partnerships with potentially Bellevue
College looking at maybe potentially UW
or WSU and our businesses here within
the city that we're not working as
closely with to help support them to
grow and to recruit additional
businesses so it's a really great tool
to use and it will also help to set the
stage for other for other business
looking within to Issaquah about what we
are really focused on so for instance we
had Cobalt development Who develops
hospitals first smaller size hospitals
for veterans rehab that came here
several times in the last month looking
at locations and if they saw that we
were a veterans health care or
Healthcare Focus they might have really
considered you know wow this is the
place I need to be because I see that we
have the network and the support and so
we're hoping that again this tool will
be really powerful to recruit businesses
and to show them that we really we want
them here so the process basically is
that next May there'll be a letter of
intent released by the Department of
Commerce with the information that will
be due in mid-june mid-july sorry and
then a business plan is due in all in
August with a presentation in September
and then uh uh designation happens
October 1st so it's a very quick
timeline and we're really trying to run
hard and get to that meet those
timelines so the application process
probably isn't that difficult I look at
Doug when I say that of course there's
probably a lot of work and we're doing
some you know information or some work
now to gather some data but I believe
one of the hardest part is figuring out
where your sector where your ipz should
be because as you know we are still
trying to Define what our sectors and
what our where our we know Microsoft and
Costco and Swedish are great companies
here but there's a lot of smaller
companies and mid-size companies that
can provide
um that are are providing jobs and job
growth here that we are not as in tune
with in touch with yet so that's the the
challenge we're looking facing to apply
for an IPC at this time and so we did
move forward and apply for our started
doing an economic data profile for the
city looking at a high level of Industry
what's here in the Workforce Development
and our next step is to take those
sectors that that we identified and go
and test the market so we think we're
great at X well going out and looking
using a consultant to go out and talk to
the industry specialist and look at
locations and does it makes does it
really make sense for us to say we want
to be a sports medicine you know
location or we want to be a high-tech
location I mean we all want those big
companies when Boeing talks about moving
here and when bookings.com talks about
moving here but really what's a great
fit for this community and can play upon
the talents and the Workforce
Development resources that we have and
Partnerships we have here
so that's why the sector analysis is a
really important piece of figuring out
these are the sectors that you're strong
in Issaquah or that there's growth in
the region and in the country and you
have the the factors that will help them
be successful here so I'm going to stop
talking and I don't know if Doug wants
to jump in about talking a little bit
more details about ipzs
um in general I mean he he could
probably talk for days about ipzs
because he's really entrenched in them
mayor and Council I think I think having
me and I
have offered in the past with Jim to
reach out and help as she said I'm the
economic development manager over in
Auburn and the uh our administrator for
ripz which is the urban center for
Innovative Partnerships is the name of
it we have four clusters that we
identified in Auburn so ours was a
little bit of a hybrid what happened to
us as we began to go through the due
diligence that you're embarking on right
now we ran across something we didn't
expect and that was multiple clusters
that had been there for a number of
years and it was you know how do you how
do you vet out which one's more
important than the other one so we had a
very difficult time so as we went
through our certification process with
Commerce it got to be a little bit and
I'll use the term squirrely because
that's exactly what it was with Commerce
so it took us a little bit longer but
what we ultimately ended up doing then
is had to go deep dig a little bit
deeper in which cluster was most
advanced what we could work on first
where could we you know be most
effective with our process I'm going to
hand out a handout that I brought for
you all this was a presentation that I
did
for sound cities Association back in
December sound cities started doing
workshops on ideas for economic
development and they asked me to come in
with our mayor Nancy Backus back in
December when she was mayor elect and
give a case study on our ipz
it's a phenomenal process and trail to
go down it will identify what you have
what you can be and what to you know
what building blocks you have to work
with and I think Jen's done a wonderful
job she and I've spent quite a bit of
time on the phone one of the things and
I'll stop right there for a second
the ipcs there's 18 of them in the state
of Washington they've never been
organized Commerce basically I think
does this divide and conquer routine
because if they keep you apart you don't
have to give you any money and it's
basically the process with them right
now and everything the state is going to
have to figure out a whole bunch of
stuff on education Transportation I
think before they ever get any
meaningful funding at this point for
economic development in any form or
fashion but we keep hoping and keep
working down at Olympia so the 18 of us
that are current administrators for the
ipcs around the state we did organize
about a year a little over a year ago a
year and a half ago and I am as she said
the state chair for that ipz it's not an
association it's just the committee
basically and commerce has really
embraced this because now we're
basically working under one voice one
group and we are seeing seeming to have
some traction down to Olympia especially
with the elected officials down there
because basically if they spend a dollar
on the program they're affecting 18
regions in the state and they like that
kind of a state of economy I guess
sensible economy
um
and the other unique thing about ipzs is
that the front third of the night of all
the ipcs are absolutely identical your
clones because everybody went through
the same process went through the same
vetting the same certification process
that you proved up that you should be
one or you have the right blocks in
place the neat thing about ipzs is that
the reason why they were certified is
they're all unique to themselves
and so what we have found is a group of
18 ipcs around the state is that there's
really no competition I placed a company
over in Port Angeles a few months ago it
was a Composites company that I
recruited that uh actually came to us
because of our IPC there's 300 Aerospace
jobs but they I was after that piece of
the puzzle because that's what we're
known for over there but they had a
Marine Division that was going to be an
r d with marine and water and those
types of areas and composite studies
they didn't belong in Auburn but not in
the least they belonged out on the coast
where they could get and get close to
the water and get to the the area where
there needed to be and there is an ipz
for marine Composites in Port Angeles so
basically I placed them over there and
worked with the administrator there I've
worked with you know Spokane Richland
it's it's a unique Core group of folks
around the state and we are you know
beginning to do some good things
you're embarking on probably the most
interesting process right now it's
identifying what you have now we do I
wasn't lucky enough to have any budget
money to work with so we did it all with
shoe leather and it's very very
difficult uh it took us six months and
we interviewed over 700 companies by
walking in the front door and going
through a interview process to
understand who they were what they were
and and what their Core Business you
know value was I kind of got a twofer
out of it because I've only I've been in
Auburn about three and a half years now
so about the time I got there I
understood learned about ipz so I was
doing the typical Economic Development
101 understanding what I had to work
with from a business retention expansion
programming that we needed to develop
and a business plan and it really was a
very similar Trail so we were able to do
two things out of one
um
the basic process of an ipz and if you
look through that case study and and I
can email you the Powerpoint is once you
identify what you have you look at what
you have for clusters do you have a
synergizio synergism around any one
particular sector
industry silo
that is already there somewhat beginning
to function that is producing products
of of like type or in general like type
the second phase of that is is there a
research facility University National
Lab something that's there that's you
have locally that is interested in that
industry type that can work with them or
is there WSU or UW or someone with it
you know within the general area can be
a remote scenario they do not have to be
that was a change that took place two
years ago it used to be that the
research University had to be within
your jurisdiction and that was changed
because that was very difficult the way
UW WSU are set up
um and developing that relationship
under an mou contract with the research
partner to agree to be there to actively
work with your companies the idea of it
is is that you develop Partnerships
between white companies or companies
that maybe make strange bedfellows but a
lot of times that makes the most
interesting types of ideas coming out of
something new and that the university is
there you develop a plan that that's
going to hopefully do micro startups new
companies spin-offs and you're going to
home grow jobs because those are jobs
that will stick they're not going to
pick up when somebody waves the tax
incentive at them or whatever that
they're going to be gone on you so that
that's the hope and then a
commercialization plan of how are you
going to work with those companies or
that industry startup to help them sell
their product There's an actual
requirement to develop a
commercialization plan so as you go
through the application process and and
you do understand what you have for core
Industries working with your whichever
University you think or research lab
that you want to you're going to
approach and then just developing the
business plan
feasibility study the commercialization
plan you know it's definitely some
writing involved in it but I think Jan's
got a good start on what she's working
on we have a mentor committee from our
administrators committee that will work
with new new areas that are looking to
to develop so other administrators it
might be the one from Spokane or
Richland or Tina from Seattle or
something that will work with ipzs and
obviously I'm the closest one to you so
I've told Jen I will be here to help
support her
um
I'm fortunate if our mayor Backus and
our Council has been very supportive of
it we're finding it to be a great
Economic Development tool it's not for
every company and ipcs aren't for every
Community but if you do it right and you
have what it takes it can be a wonderful
tool and can really help generate
homegrown jobs
so
that's good
here
so I have a comment or a question really
or actually a comment thanks so much for
offering your help I really appreciate
you being here uh and and uh you know I
know your development's quite a
Brotherhood you know it is oh yeah you
know there's a special handshake and
everything oh yeah well thank you for
that for that offer and that commitment
of help going forward I appreciate that
very much
Nina
I know you can hear me
uh thank you also for coming and
providing some more information and I'm
excited about this I have a couple
questions because it sounds like there's
a
um like the organization that you've
developed with the other groups that
have ipcs is a very valuable group it
sounds like the process is valuable but
then it seems to get to a well what then
after you've gone through all this
application with the state
so I'm I'm just questioning and asking
myself
at what point does this process not
return you know you go through all the
things that you need to do for
development there's this great group of
people they're not the Department of
Commerce and and what value is it in
actually doing the the formal
application with the Department
in the prime you lost me on part of that
question towards the end what's the
value in applying oh
no you know we all ask ourselves that
question almost on a daily basis because
we're all there's 18 of us right now
living the dream out there that get no
support from the state
and but we all keep doing it because we
see the value to what it can be for our
local community
the process of going through the
certification process is no different
than 20 years after you've graduated
from school really what good was that
diploma it's the it's the value it's the
um sense of
safety when you're talking to a
prospective company that you know you're
inside of this process that's been
certified by the state there is an
intrinsic value to that out there and um
we've been into it long enough now and
I've actually been able to test drive
being able to say to a company oh and by
the way you're with inside of our IPC
boundary and this is what it's you know
can offer you and it means something to
some of those companies
um after the during the downturn
companies became very lean in Maine and
very self-centered and I don't blame
them because they had to to survive to
eat and so what we found is that if you
can create an environment where
companies know they can come up quick
and get some help
to where they can make a buck from it
and go back down in their Hall that's
exactly what they will do so what we as
administrators have began to do and one
of the things that we did do I did get
one small Grant from Commerce last year
and what we did with it is we actually
developed through one of our corporate
partners with CenturyLink we have
developed an iCloud platform for the ipz
program now that's it's basically a
one-touch One-Stop shop for Innovation
research and connecting to
the supply chain and it's operational
right now and we've been I was in
Olympia twice in March stumping for
funding to operate that system and I met
with Senate leadership last week and had
gotten commitments now for funding bill
to be sponsored out of both the Ed
committees both in the house and the
Senate so we're we're trying to get
funding to bring additional tools
because that's what it takes and it on a
local basis I'll tell you what it takes
to make it work it takes boots on the
ground
right now 90 of our ipz is myself and
anybody in Auburn that's connected with
with economic development it's knowing
that ABC Corp is here and XYZ over here
and they're looking for their number B B
widget that's the connectability to an
ipz locally within the supply chain it
keeps dollars being spent locally rather
than purchasing a product from
Pittsburgh and being shipped in
um
it's
creating an environment where a local
company if they're looking to solve a
problem within their manufacturing
process that they can access research
documents patents
staff at WSU or UW that can get involved
with them on a research project for
example or maybe there's a patent
already there that can be licensed very
quickly
both UW and WSU are land grant
universities they don't care if they
make a dime off for the research
statement it's fact WSU which is our
research partner they've got millions of
dollars worth of patents sitting on the
shelf in tin cans they've never sold one
dime off of because they don't really
care for state funded their job is to
teach people to do research to make
money from the research so
um it's how do you get that technology
out of the street and license it we have
two companies in Auburn now that are
connected with WSU doing as part of the
80 million dollar research for biofuels
now for aviation fuel and the list goes
on and storm water
filters made out of a bio product for
treatment of storm Urban storm water you
collected you have before you can
release it back into the water streams
and so there's all kinds of different
things going on with nanofiber and some
composite work so it can be a really
good tool but right now the beginnings
of the program is is really as making it
part of your economic development
program and your business assistance
program and connecting you know I I I'm
sure Jan burns up as many or Jen burns
up as many shoes as pairs of shoes as I
do you know and that's what economic
development is it's out on the street
and knowing the companies they begin to
trust you and you connect them up and
that's how you create you know more of a
connectability and a solid development
in micro startups and job growth
but it's a concentrated way of doing
and I think as he was mentioning to talk
about connecting the universities I mean
if if Bellevue College happened to have
a connection with whatever we land on
that's a great opportunity to get them
more involved in our community and get
more entrenched and you know our longer
term goal of having that campus be built
might come a little sooner because of
that so not that that's our plan to do
that but you know you can see the
Partnerships that could grow from that
and really then help other goals that we
have as a city
thank you I I should have said this
right at the very beginning so um
the consideration of of applying or
becoming and adding an ipz to our area
is actually as a council goal it's a
past Council goal
and one of the elements of that a
decision part of as we heard at the
beginning here is that really is having
that when you said you talked to 700
companies in just a matter of months and
uh we it's been brought in front of our
Council before about potentially funding
a sector analysis it's been asked for by
the economic development commission and
so that's the link between this subject
uh and it's really why it's it's a past
goal that we haven't abandoned uh and
and part of the process of getting there
would be I think the administration is
going to be coming forward with an ask
to fund a sector analysis uh via an
agenda bill this year so that's why it's
on the agenda this evening
now that makes sense sorry for not uh
bringing that up earlier a little bit of
context we just discussed it in
leadership last Wednesday
does anybody have any other questions
I think
well
if that's it then thank you Jen thank
you and I'm here to like I said to help
and hopefully you're successful I
appreciate that very much thanks for
coming up
okay next on our agenda
so next on our agenda is we're back to
concurrency
and so Torsten is up at the
the podium ready to speak it's all yours
go ahead yes yeah
we always have a policy memo another one
in your packet number of attachments in
there
attachment a wants to cover Randy's
Thunder here attachment a covers where
we are we added one check mark to it but
we're moving our way through the process
here of the the initial timeline we laid
out and we are back tonight to share
with you the next two model runs that
we've done the final two model runs uh
under torson's contract so with that
I'll turn it over to torsin to explain
what we did and why we did it and what
it means okay thank you very much
okay so tonight I will just ever so
briefly um hopefully in five minutes or
less just remind everybody of what we
talked about at the June Workshop
I will go through the two model runs
that you have not yet seen and that I'll
be presenting tonight both from uh
assumptions so what went into the model
runs and then the results of the model
runs and then lastly we've got the
policy decisions that we sort of start
started the conversation last time on
and we'd like to continue that
conversation both on level of service
and mode split
so at the June Workshop we talked about
what is transportation concurrency it's
a state
um requirement for growth management
but the state the state does allow
cities to develop their own concurrency
system their own levels of service and
so it can become very
specific to to uh to to each City and
they can develop their own thing
um and then we talked a little bit about
level of service uh specifically
intersection level service the grade
from a to F A being good F not being so
good
um and then lastly I introduced three
model runs the first being the existing
conditions model run reflecting our 2013
existing traffic counts and land use and
transportation Network and then we use
that model run we calibrate it really
well to existing conditions and then we
use that model to build into the future
and so then we we I had talked about two
other Future model runs in 2030 one
being no action which means not no land
use action in fact we assumed all the
planned growth in the city but what we
did assume in terms of no action was
Transportation improvements so how bad
would it get if we just stuck with the
transportation system that we have today
and then lastly the third model run that
I talked about was an action model run
where we included Transportation
improvements and I'm going to run
through some of those assumptions uh in
the in the in the presentation later on
but for right now I just wanted to ask
if there are any questions or things
that you don't remember about the last
uh Workshop that I could
we're good
so I'm going to dive right into the all
the model runs that we did in the
assumptions created a table so that you
could do a quick and easy side-by-side
sort of comparison of what went into
each model run
the first variable is the year of
analysis and this one's pretty simple
for existing conditions it's the
existing year which was 2013. and then
for all the other model runs the no
action and then each of the three action
model runs the year that we projected
out to was 2030.
in terms of land use
all of the model runs assume existing
growth in the city
and I already found the first error the
existing model does not include vested
growth but all the other the four the no
action the run one run two and run three
all include vested growth which is
development that's come in for an
application has has been approved and is
moving forward with development but has
not yet been built okay those are all
vested development is all included in
the 2030 model runs no action and runs
one through three
and then lastly there is an amount of
growth that the city is planning for but
has not yet come in the door okay so
that's planned growth and the exact same
planned growth has been assumed for all
four model runs so really land use is
not a variable that we played with with
any of these model runs we assume the
same growth for all for 20 30 model runs
however one thing did come up at the
last meeting so I'm going to sidebar
just a little bit on land use we talked
a little bit about
whether or not the modeling that I do
and the land use that I assume in my
modeling is consistent with a land use
that's been documented elsewhere in the
city in various planning documents and
so we did over the last month take a
little sidebar and did some comparisons
just uh so that we could present that to
you and show you that we are indeed very
close in our assumptions they will not
be exact only because my data sources
have to be different than the ones than
this that the city has been using only
because I do it to a very fine
um sort of I almost need to do it at the
parcel level and we don't have that kind
of information at the city so um so I I
have to use some other data sources in
order to get my information
needless to say
um the it turned out very close which is
a good thing residential units in terms
of existing uh residential units the
city is showing about just over 14 000
I've got just over 15 000 residential
units in in my modeling area
projected out to 2030 which is really
the more important number is we're
within a hundred units or so so very
very close there
in terms of business square footage this
one was a little bit tougher only
because I don't use square footage in my
modeling I use employees
but we were able to do some conversions
and comparisons city does most of their
planning based on square footage and I I
have to use employees but irregardless
we did do some comparisons there again
in 2013 we are close not exactly right
the city has about 7.6 million square
feet of commercial space in my modeling
effort I've got about 8.1 million square
feet but again what's most important is
what we're projecting in the future and
we're both Square there so 15.3 versus
15.4 million square feet
we're calling that pretty pretty close
for for the uh effort that we're moving
forward with are there any questions
about the the growth and the consistency
amongst plans and the modeling effort
great
okay uh Transportation Network this is a
variable that we played a lot with
um for the for the three action model
runs
uh all of the model runs existing no
action runs one two and three all
include of course the existing
Transportation Network that that's out
there today
in addition uh the next level up would
be developments that have been approved
in the city some of them have had to do
some mitigation in order to be approved
so they've committed to do some
Transportation improvements some of
those improvements have not yet been
seen in the field so we've we've got a
list of those and those were all
included in the 2030 Future model runs
including the no action model run
because we've got the land use for those
developments included in the no action
beyond that though run one which was the
action model run that I shared with you
last time
we started that model run with well what
does the city have in place today and
that is your current 2014-2019 tip so we
took that list that became the future
Transportation Network for a run model
run one
for runs two and three
um we heard a lot of the discussion we
took it to heart and we had a discussion
about what it is that we wanted to to do
with runs model two and three based on
the feedback that we got from you plus
our own knowledge and uh and and
recommendations and so what we did here
is we took a hard look at the existing
tip and determined whether or not some
of those existing tip projects could be
modified either removed completely
because they're not showing a real need
anymore given the land use patterns and
everything that we're projecting for for
Issaquah
um or because
um or we altered a transportation
Improvement because we didn't feel like
it was doing enough so maybe we added
some additional
capacity to some of those improvements
so we did modify some of the tip
projects for runs two and three and then
lastly
we took the stance on run two that we
wanted to maintain the city's level
service D standard we had the discussion
the policy discussion about level of
service we thought one run has to
reflect what if we stuck to level
service D what what um what would be the
the list of Transportation improvements
that would be required in order to meet
that standard and then lastly so that's
run two and then run three we took a
step back and said well what if we
allowed some level of service e and some
level of service F intersections at
locations where we think it's probably
not physically feasible
to do those some of those Transportation
improvements that we identified and run
to
or because it just isn't politically
feasible to do some of those
Transportation improvements
yes
no so I'm going to go into some of the
differences in that in a sec
okay so modified tip
what were the differences between run
one and I'm between two and three
first for both runs two and three we
removed three tip projects
uh one being a Newport Way widening west
of sr900 the tip project right now calls
for a three-lane widening of that that
stretch of Newport Way
what we saw is that at most of the at
most of the intersections along that
portion of Newport way there are already
three lanes and so widening in between
those intersections to three lanes
really doesn't buy you anything
so um so what we decided was that was
probably a capacity project that's not
needed there is a component of that
project that does some non-motorized
improvements we're not suggesting
getting rid of those we're really just
talking about the capacity improvements
as part of that project
uh t27 is a new connection up to the
plateau from East Lake up to Issaquah
Pine Lake Road
and from run one we saw that that
Improvement saw very very little traffic
and so it did little to relieve
Issaquah Fall City Road and so we
decided at the great expense that that
project would be it's not worth the
city's money to invest in that in that
project so we removed that project as
well
and then lastly there's a project Mall
Street Extension
that was primarily intended to be a
mostly pedestrian type Corridor as part
of the CIP project there was a request
to go ahead and include two lanes on
that as well
and what we found was the two lanes did
carry some traffic but again at the
expense that that project would cost to
build those two lanes
we did not see that it was a good
benefit cost in investment so we still
believed in the non-motorized portion
should move forward but the two lanes of
traffic are probably not a good
investment
yes sir
um so on the the three projects that
were removed specifically on the Newport
Way one
um
one of the the planned but not yet
vested projects would be on the mole
property for a rather large development
and you know there are certainly aspects
of t21 that probably are unnecessary
even with that development as you
mentioned many of the intersections it's
already pretty wide but
um that specific portion of the corridor
with a very large planned development by
eliminating the project completely was
there any consideration given to the
fact that you would have a huge influx
of traffic near Oakcrest and 54th at
that end of the corridor yeah so
um we do know that there's something
planned for that for that property and
we've built into the land use that's in
all four 20 30 model runs the um at
least what we've seen as uh you know
what folks are coming in the door with
we've had several applicants on that
particular property so over the years we
we have accounted for in this model run
in all four model rides in fact land use
that we think is probably realistic for
what's going to come in the door on that
particular project and so we've
accounted for the traffic associated
with that
remember that when that development
comes in wherever there is a driveway or
wherever they plan access there will
have to be a transportation study for
that and so if there's a signal
associated with their driveway and turn
Lanes associated with the driveway that
will be required as part of siba yep
but beyond that we've taken into account
the capacity of the road plus the
traffic
great for run two project T15 in your
current tip is is widening Newport Way
from Maple to Sunset
roughly in in portions of it it's three
lanes two lanes in One Direction one in
the other direction and then in other
locations it includes some turn Lanes
but it also includes three roundabouts
along that Corridor as well so a pretty
significant capacity Improvement for run
two if you recall we had a number of
level service I'm sorry for run one we
had a number of level service failures
along Front Street
we all know that probably widening Front
Street is not an option what we did
think would be an option is widening
Newport Way as sort of a and I hate to
use the word bypass of Front Street we
thought that was probably the most
logical place where we could maybe
get people off of Front Street and using
a different corridor
and so with model Run 2 what we decided
to do in order to fix Front Street is
widen Newport way to five Lanes in that
section so that's a modification of an
existing tip project for run two
for round three we did not assume that
widening we went back to the original
description for for Newport Way in that
section so still the three-lane two to
three lane scenario with the roundabouts
for run three the modifications that we
took were at Dogwood and Front Street
now that we don't have the bypass on
Newport Way in run three we did look at
a small channelization fix which we
think can occur within the existing
pavement and right away and it would be
simply adding a southbound right turn
sort of pocket to separate you know that
right turn movement
at dogwind in front and then lastly
project T30
if any of you are familiar with the big
one which is the overcrossing the 12th
Avenue overcrossing of um
I-90 the tip project describes a
five-lane Crossing with direct access
ramps connecting to I-90
um we went back to what was actually
assumed in the central Issaquah plan
um analysis which was a three-lane
Crossing with no connection to I-90
and so that's what we assumed in run
three so that will be a reduction in
both cost and capacity of that Crossing
of I-90 at 12th Avenue
okay for there were a number of reasons
why we went back to the original
assumption and we can talk about those
maybe later when we have some more time
but
yeah we can build it by the way
um in in any alternative
to the width uh that we ultimately want
it to be so if we ultimately want it to
be five Lanes with direct access ramps
we could certainly build it at least as
a first phase that wide but only use the
three lanes and the rest of the pavement
or structure could be used for
non-motorized facilities or Parks or
whatever it is that you'd like to use it
for
any questions about those
okay so those are the modifications I
have a question yes just want to make
sure I understood that last point so
what we have in our tip versus what we
did the analysis for the CIP for the
overcrossing were two different things
yes
the reason for that I'll just go ahead
and talk about it is um the I-90
Corridor study which I think probably a
number of you are familiar with which
was done by the state looked at you know
a long stretch of I-90 including
Issaquah and there is a recommendation
for the 12th 12th Avenue over Crossing
but there are actually two Alternatives
presented in the corridor study one is
the three-lane version without direct
access ramps the other is the five Lane
version with direct access ramps
the thought was to include in the tip
the most expensive version to be
conservative
and then just the plan for long term
thank you
providing any funding to a Crossing that
doesn't include direct access to benefit
I-90 is far Slimmer than the state gets
a benefit by having direct access ramps
so you know the three travel Lane option
and no direct access may be cheaper for
us but it may actually be more expensive
for us because we may not get the
outside funding that we need for a
project that would include direct access
ramps so just a thought there
um
I guess it's my first opportunity to
stir the pot a little on this because I
think it can be even more complex
torson made the remark that you could
build it
for five but not use it for five
right isn't that going to cost most of
the money that it would have cost to
build five and if we're going to build
it for five and use it for three is the
state going to participate in the
funding so I don't think tonight we're
in any position to answer that what we
wanted to show you essentially is what
happens to the level of service in the
network as a whole and at individual
intersections if we make a series of
different assumptions about that very
expensive project one of which is
definitely less expensive but probably
doesn't get any state funding and we
want you to see what that does to the
level of service
how did the Mercer Island
how much did it cost and how and have it
I realized that behind you is I mean
it's part of the decision to run to be
able to run 90 across the island but how
much did it cost them how much in Mercer
Island tickets I honestly don't know in
Mercer you're talking about I-90 itself
Mercer Island didn't pay one
yeah
largest to
Mercer Island didn't want I-90 so
they didn't pay a penny
no that's a that's a state I mean it's a
Federal Highway so I can yeah one of the
the over Crossing is not a Federal
Highway one of the things that we talked
about with the state when the draft
study was still uh under consideration
was the impact the overcrossing would
have on sr900 and so even though it may
not have direct connection to the
freeway if there was a significant
enough benefit where it was cheaper for
them to build the overcrossing rather
than making improvements to 900 that
there may be an opportunity for more or
for opportunity for funding so they
really have to do kind of the cost
benefit analysis and determine
whether it would be more beneficial to
build the overcrossing just to handle
the local traffic and get it off at 900.
yes one
one higher level question I guess than
just specific streets but one of the
issues I'm having conceptually with all
these different changes in the model
runs and so forth is all of these model
runs each of them one two three they all
assume a certain amount of growth but
you've changed the transportation
Network in each of the model runs
so what I'm having a hard time with
conceptually and I'll try to put it into
words is the idea that over the next
16 years
um you know we're not going to have all
of these projects they're not all going
to get built
a very refraction of them might get
built realistically speaking even if we
had impact fees through the roof so
if we're not going to have all these
improvements built but you're still
assuming all
100 percent build out growth
I'm having a hard time matching that up
in terms of understanding which of these
models is the most reliable for matching
up to the growth projections because
there seems to be no change on this side
of the Ledger but you're changing all
these variables on the other side of the
Ledger and you know it I I guess I'm I'm
not clear on yes we're basing our growth
projections on our various studies and
our plans and that sort of thing but
we're never going to have all the
projects within that time frame either
so it's not like the growth can all of a
sudden go whoop and just appear in the
next 16 years it's going to be slow and
eventual and in various parts of the
city where some of these improvements in
some parts of the city may have a much
more significant impact on the level of
service and so if you if the mole
property develops you're going to want
Transportation improvements on the west
end of the city to deal with that and
all these other issues are not you know
on on towards the highlands are not
going to be a significant Converse if
you have major build out of the
Microsoft polygon property you're going
to want to have potentially improvements
closer to that in the West End do you
see what I'm getting at is your model
assumes all this development is just
going to go whoop no so so
um it first of all it doesn't all happen
overnight it's a 16-year plan but before
I make a further comment let me ask you
why do you think that we wouldn't see
these projects done in the 16-year
period all of these
um
the
the timeline of 16 years given the
amount of projects that have been
accomplished over a similar timeline
it seems very difficult with the
financial picture that is being
presented understand completely okay
we're not basing the future on the past
we can't
if we're going to take a look at
ourselves in the mirror and say well
we've just never been able to build more
than five or ten million dollars worth
of projects over a five or ten year
period we shouldn't be having this
conversation at all we can't have
simplified concurrency unless we have
these projects we have to be motivated
to do the projects we have to have the
funding and you've engaged me and Diane
to come back to you and talk about the
funding about the piece that the impact
fees don't pay for and if at the end of
this we presented a package to you that
is believable and fundable and there are
enough engineers and Contracting firms
to build them and if the amounts that
you're asked to charge different parts
of the economy for their share are
things you're willing to do then the
past is a very poor predictor as they
say in the stock market of what the
future will be like
but if we can't present that package to
you if you say well it's brilliant we
need all those projects but we can't
afford to pay for them we won't ever
generate that kind of money
believe me Diane and I are not going to
be suggesting to you that this is going
to be funded 50 from Grants the grants
aren't there for that so we're going to
have some hard conversations about it so
that's why I asked you know how come we
feel that way because I I agree we have
felt that way about our past but right
now we need to set that aside for a
little while and experiment with what
the future could look like if we could
put all the pieces together and this is
an important piece a very large project
list
possibly more expensive than the current
tip
and the missing pieces are how high do
the fees go and what other money can we
produce to pay for that and we'll be
talking in depth about that at both the
September and October work sessions
today we just want you to
talk to us just about the projects are
they good projects are they projects
that make sense to you are the levels of
service the outcomes that you want you
know what kind of modes split are we
doing because we're not asking you to
prove this whole thing today we're just
focused on this one question
thank you
okay
okay so
um then there was so that was modifying
existing projects that were in the tip
in addition to that for both runs two
and three we had to assume some
additional projects in order to um get
rid of some of those level service enf
intersections uh uh and and in case of
run two try and get rid of almost all of
them if we could
so um there are a list of intersections
here I will quickly go through them you
have a a very detailed description of
them in your packets
and so I don't want to go through the
minutia of of each of these but I'll
quickly go through the list on the map
so
um a project a is at um
Sunset and second it's simply a
signalized intersection at that location
okay Project B is over on sr900
and clearly not on sr900 as it should be
but it is a widening of sr900 in Run 2
to 3 Lanes in each Direction in run
three we did not assume that widening
three lanes in each Direction
okay project e is basically
an intersection widening
at the I-90 off-ramp at sr900 in Run 2
we assumed a significant intersection
widening at that at that intersection so
much so that we'd have to rebuild the
sr-900 bridge itself to include an
additional Lane on that on that bridge
for run three we did not assume that
significant Improvement in fact all we
assumed was one additional turn lane
on the ramp itself
project C is a widening or really A
continuing HOV lane
or conversion I believe of an HOV lane
on sr900
for PRI for a run two
because now we'd have the direct access
ramps at the 12th Street overcrossing
and so we didn't see the need to
continue an HOV facility on sr900 yes
well you're eligible to go ask for money
from the state
practice oh sure I mean the a big
portion of the widening on sr900 was a
state a state project you know
right there was a development at the
same time that was coming in they had
some mitigation so there was some City
in you know involvement as well but yes
it was mostly a state-led project
okay
Project D is a widening of Sammamish 56
to three lanes in each Direction
um yeah I already talked about EF is
um
and by the way D is assumed in both both
Alternatives both run two and three
project f is a
widening of Issaquah Falls City Road
from the existing two lanes in each
Direction two three lanes in each
Direction
um in that on that section
Project G is a widening of black Nugget
Road to two lanes in each Direction
uh project H is down here front and
second it's
um some turn lane improvements at that
location
oh yes sorry G one of the G projects in
run two is widening the entire stretch
and that's for run two for run three
it's a significantly smaller project and
really just a turn lane and additional
left turn lane at that location
thank you Randy
h
yes
yes and it's a letter D that inspires me
to ask this question about the north
Issaquah Street Improvement plans is
this assuming that those are all going
to be done you know because I'm thinking
about the yes it does assume yes
tourist and H is just a light
each second and sunset uh it's some turn
turn lane capacity improvements
the h i is up at 51st and East Lake
Sammamish Parkway it's an additional
turn lane at that intersection and then
lastly Jay is in the highlands and
really it's just a re-timing of the
signal so the ones that don't have a one
or a two next to it are assumed in both
model runs the ones with a one or two
differ by model run where one the bigger
project is always run to and the smaller
project is always run three yes we had
it to do over we probably have labeled
them two and three to go with the two
models maybe and torson's already made
the remark but if you want to refresh
your memory during the rest of our
conversation or after this meeting your
append your attachment e had the whole
list and then the pages behind it had
the detailed descriptions he's just
summarized
okay
yes
thank you go back one slide yes
okay yeah that's not working
previous there you go thank you so the
re-timing
in Highlands yes it's just simply a
retiming is there is that something we
can just do do we need to have that on
the
tip really doesn't need to be on the tip
list I just wanted to disclose
everything okay
so can we do that
it doesn't need to be done right now at
some point between now and 2030. okay
thank you you would need to be done
yes
they're really they're really I don't
think there was
um would you mind really quickly just
looking at project uh
was a j the last one signal phasing
Improvement yeah so I don't think we
need to do any restarting
okay
okay the other variable that we did play
with so again Josh pointed out we did
not change land use we did change the
transportation network from one run to
the next and the other variable that we
did change and play with is the mode
share okay so in run one if you recall
we assumed a five percent change
in um in mode share
um by 2030.
for that set of Transportation
improvements and network we only assume
that within the CIP so the 900 acre sort
of urban core we did not assume any kind
of change in mode share outside of that
area
what we did here loud and clear at the
last meeting and from the discussion
about mode share is there was a faction
that said wow we're being too aggressive
and there was a faction that said we're
not being aggressive enough so with run
two we put in the the assumptions that
we were being too aggressive with the
run one
uh assumption and so we assumed a simple
one percent change in growth the one
percent if you believe psrc's existing
um uh mode shift numbers for Issaquah
would bring you to that magic 17 that
we've all heard about from the CIP okay
so that's why we came that's why we use
the one percent
again we and we only assume that within
the central Issaquah District outside of
that we assumed no change in um in mode
shift
and then for run three we took the other
side of the coin and said let's be a
little bit more aggressive let's go with
what was originally intended by the CIP
with all the planning that was done for
that and assume that 10 shift that was
assumed from the CIP inside the urban
core
outside the urban core let's look to
psrc what does psrc think is going to be
accomplished outside the core that
number was three percent and so that's
the number we assumed for run three
okay I'm going to talk a little bit more
about mode share in a sec but before I
go to the next slide
we pointed out before there are a
different set of intersections that
we're analyzing from run to run that's
all dependent on what the transportation
network is
so from existing where there are 67
intersections that we monitor today
in 2030 there would be 74 based on the
tip
if we did nothing and then for runs one
two and three the additional projects
that we've assumed with each of those
they vary between 80 and 83
intersections
okay
all right mode share let's go back to
that you asked us to do some homework on
that as well from the last meeting so
I'm going to talk a little bit about
that
we shared with you last time that psrc
did a household activity survey and you
wanted to know some more information
about it so we did what we could to get
some information about that
first of all this this the survey was
done in 2006. and 4 700 households were
were sampled
in the Four County region okay there is
no way to know how many of those 4 700
were in Issaquah they're just aren't
records on that and it's not documented
in the report
so unfortunately that was one of the
questions you asked it's one of the
questions I can't answer I'm very sorry
about that however they did the sample
size was selected such that they felt
like they were getting a statistically
significant number of data points for
each of the jurisdictions within their
Four County region so so what I would
say is
there was there probably aren't you know
you you were probably hoping for
hundreds and hundreds of data points
that's probably not that but there are
enough that they felt like they were
getting a statistically significant uh
representation for Issaquah okay
So based on that um and what they could
get from that survey what you do is they
are they're collecting demographics but
they're also collecting travel patterns
and it's usually over the course of a
week
and you record every single trip that
you made over that week and what time
you did it and and all of that and all
of that's used
to calibrate their existing conditions
model just like we calibrated the
existing Issaquah model they have a
model for mode share a separate model
for mode share and they had to calibrate
that to existing conditions and that's
what they use the survey information for
based on that what they found and what's
built into their 2010
existing conditions model
for Issaquah within the central district
they're showing about a 15.8 percent
mode shift today okay and then outside
of the Central District they're showing
about 21.3 percent
now you're probably all scratching your
heads
why would it be that way
and the answer is where are your
residential trips today
and where does a Transit trip start
it starts at your home
because if you're already at work and
you drove to work you're probably not
going to change your mind and take
transit home right so
the transit decision which is a big
piece of that percent but not all of it
is usually made in the morning when
you're headed to work are you going to
take transit that day or are you going
to drive your car so so that's
it's it's focused on where the
residential trips are and your
residential trips are outside that
orange area today
in the future they're going to be mostly
in that orange area okay
was there a question
okay great
okay so we went we tried to find a
second data point for you so that maybe
you'd have a little bit more trust in
the psrc data
there we did find a second data point
um but it has some limitations so I'm
going to go through those uh the Census
Bureau does a three-year study every
three years it's called the American
Community survey it's also sort of a
travel survey as well
um the the limitation to this data set
however is that when it reports out
information for Issaquah it will only
include data on residents in Issaquah so
if you are someone who lives in Bellevue
but works in Issaquah you're not part of
this data set okay so criteria one you
have to be a resident of this squad for
them to even put you in the data set
criteria two is that they only look at
work trips and there are a lot of other
trips out there to the grocery store to
the daycare to the movies to the service
center you name it lots of other trips
now in the PMP hour a lot of the trips
are work trips and that's what we're
worried about
um but still not all of them so when you
take into account the first two
restrictions we're really the data set
is really only considering about
one-third of the total PMP hour trips
okay
nevertheless of those one-third of the
trips what they found is that in 2012
the mode share is about almost 30
percent okay so significantly High
the other two-thirds of the trips that
they are not collecting data on remember
is not zero it is something it's just
they don't collect information on it now
whether it would make the 30 go up or
whether it may come down my guess is it
would make it come down but it's not
going to you know be zero so just
remember that this it's another data
point it's not perfect but um but it
does show
hey we're we're a lot higher than the
seven percent that everybody's got in
their mind that we've been saying for
the last I don't know 18 years that I've
been working for Issaquah so 18 years
have passed
um and seven percent has grown
and we're probably in that 15 to 20
range somewhere in there today
okay any questions about that
in the psrc data
could you just page up one more time
yeah page up
do they do they with their data do they
include um
you know plus or minus you know here's
what we're calculating but the range of
error is
you they might have that information
somewhere the 15 point in the 21.3 are
numbers that we pulled out of the model
we didn't pull it out of the survey data
if you will because again I couldn't
isolate Issaquah data points out of the
survey data
so what we what we can do though is they
provided us the psrc model we can
isolate Issaquah we can isolate the sub
area and then we can determine what the
mode share is within that within that
within those zones
what's built into the model for existing
conditions so so that's how I obtain
this so I I can't give you a plus or
minus but would it be would it be
uh
accurate or worthy of our
assessment of this information to think
okay but it could be
three percent lower or three percent
higher it could be so I'm going to go to
my my next slide and we're going to talk
a little bit about that
so
regardless of what you believe
some of you might believe yeah we're at
that 15 to 20 percent some of you might
believe no we haven't even met the seven
percent yet okay
honestly whatever you believe doesn't
affect my modeling at all
because I don't use those numbers I
don't I don't I don't take my model and
and somehow adjust it to reflect an
existing mode share I do take my model
to adjust a future mode share
which is the Delta Okay so
I have my my existing model remember we
calibrated to an existing model which
was based on 2013 counts built into
those 2013 counts is whatever the mode
share is okay if it's 20 it's built into
those counts if it's seven percent it's
built into those counts whatever the
number is and whatever you believe it to
be
it is part of my existing model okay
something that wasn't clear to me when I
first started learning the about this
from Torsten is that what he's talking
about in counts is not counts of all
trips the model doesn't have account of
a number of pedestrian trips another
account of a number of Transit trips
another counter of a number of work at
home non-trips
the model is counting vehicles
and so if we have the current accurate
count of the existing vehicles
then we know that whatever number of
people are not in vehicles is the
Baseline and all we need to know is
whether there's going to be more of them
in vehicles or fewer of them in vehicles
in the future that's how the model makes
the adaptation so where Torsten is going
with this is because he's counting
Vehicles he just needs to know when he
projects a future number of vehicles
should he protect project a little bit
fewer because we think we're going to be
better with pedestrians and bike
or should he leave it alone or should he
project a little bit more in vehicles
because we don't think we can sustain
the vehicles in The Pedestrian and bikes
that's now I'm hoping torson's nodding
behind me and saying yeah that's
approximately how it works that's what
he's taught me so far that is it
thank you Randy
so what I do use psrc for is as as a
guide or the psrd data is a guide what
does PRC psrc predict would be the
change from existing to the Future
and what we've found from psrc is they
predict very little change for Issaquah
I think it was two percent in the
Central and three percent outside of
that
um those numbers seem small right
um one thing I I told you last time I'm
going to reiterate today is psrc does
not have your central Issaquah plan
built into their model so they have no
idea that you're planning in urban core
in urban center sort of District now
they do know that now but it wasn't in
their modeling assumptions at the time
that they were building that model that
we're using right now
so um so I have that as a data point I
have that as a guide I have that to
share with you that they they're
predicting somewhere between a two and
three percent change okay in in mode
share for Issaquah
and so that's what I use and what's
important to me is the Delta what is it
that I'm going to assume for the future
as the change in in mochair okay so
really all of you can walk away with in
your mind today is seven percent we're
going to do a 10 change so it's 17 one
person might walk away with that someone
else can say 20 it's 20 today and we're
going to do a 10 change is going to be
30 regardless it's the Delta that
matters in my modeling and that's all
that really you guys should be worried
about is that's what you're trying to
achieve is that Delta okay
all right
so I am done talking about what went
into the models before I move into the
results are there any questions concerns
issues
yes sir were any of the the minor type
traffic improvements included that we
talked about last time just
small type things uh why no signal
timing you know with the highlands we
talked about but were those included in
either one two or three yes thank you
Josh for bringing that up yes we um I
don't list them only because like that
project J I believe it was which is the
signal timing up at the Highlands those
types of projects typically don't show
up in a in a tip
um so I didn't list those but we do Josh
that every for every model run that we
do we assume we re-time every single
intersection so that it takes into
account whatever shifts in traffic occur
or whatever so we optimize all the
signals so yes we did take that into
account
good
okay so all of you so now I'm going into
the results how did how did we fare with
these model runs
all of you have I think it's a two-page
summary of levels of service at 80 some
intersections
very small writing it looks kind of like
what's up on the screen except this has
been truncated I'm not going to go
through that whole list but you have all
the details in your packets
um what I am going to do is a very brief
summary of what's on that list
what are the first three columns you saw
at our June meeting no data changes it
is what it is there was the existing and
then there was the growth with no new
transportation and then there was model
run number one so now what's being added
here is the results and the summary
slide will tell you the outcome of doing
the two additional model runs
I'm not gonna I don't want to confuse it
but existing and run one did not change
no action did change from the last time
that we talked
based on some things that we did with
run two and three and some changes that
we made they're very minor changes so
don't don't get too hung up on those
okay
um
so the results of each alternative So
today
we're looking at about 78 of your
intersections operating at level service
a through C
a small portion 16 is that level service
D and the rest three percent
um at e or F
if we built if we if all the land use
came by 2030 and we did absolutely
nothing to the transportation system
Network except mitigation that was
required by development
we're looking at you know going from 78
to 42 percent of those intersections a
through c
um and then another almost 20 percent at
level service D this is the big kicker
though like 38 of your intersections are
are at e or F Okay so
expected right and of course you're not
going to do nothing right but we need a
baseline to compare everything to Okay
so
so run one which we presented to you
last time is um is basically your tip
what you have on the books today with
the growth that you've anticipated
and uh if we ran with that we're looking
at about 19 to 20 percent of your
intersections
um
operating at level service erf at our
June meeting we the vocabulary was there
are 17 failing intersections okay there
were 27 in the no action there were
still 17 in the model run number one so
that's what that percentage is is those
17.
run two
we tried to fix everything we could okay
we could not fix everything
we tried to be reasonable there are
projects trust me that we included in
Run 2 that I probably still don't think
are really reasonable
but they could be built there are
probably to get the last remaining
I believe is four intersections from
Level service e to D
would require some improvements that I
don't think are feasible so
I couldn't get it all the way there but
we got pretty close and I would say the
transportation improvements that were
assumed in run to
in your briefing memo would be a fairly
significant increase in cost on your tip
okay
fairly significant is 50 percent
300 million to about 450 or higher okay
run three
um
is really comparable to run to in terms
of the number of intersections we we
instead of four level service e we've
got six intersections that are at e or F
three at e three at f
um but in general you've got almost the
same amount of level service D
intersections or a through D sorry
um so very comparable but the level of
improvements that I've assumed in level
in run three are significantly less than
run two
so much so that I think it would be
fairly comparable to your current tip
with us having reduced some of the tip
projects and then adding some of the
additional I think there's probably a
chance of another maybe 20 percent
increase or less on your current tip
with that run
okay we don't have hard numbers for you
but we wanted to give you some idea of
what the cost implications are
yes Josh so I'm trying to understand
between one and three specifically I get
what you're doing on two so maybe you
could explain just really succinctly the
difference between one and three because
I noticed that three overall seems to be
I'll use the word better
um you know in terms of uh the the V
over c
um and but there's just a couple
intersections that are actually worse
than one and the V over C increases
slightly although it doesn't change the
loss in a number of other ones so you
would sort of assume well three is
better because when you look at the
summary it's got far fewer F
intersections but then there's certain
places in the city where that doesn't
hold true is there is is it because you
made one tweak here so it caused a
domino there or
there are uh well I mean for the most
part run one improvements most all of
them are in run three so there are
additional improvements in run three
there are the three that I talked about
that we removed but those had very
little
um traffic on them
so I don't think it's if I understand
your question I don't think it's a
matter of we we neglected to do an
improvement in uh in run three somewhere
and therefore we shifted traffic
somewhere else I don't think there's a
lot of that going on
there may not be a
bleton back to this is my cheat sheet
okay there were some key projects in the
existing tip that we took out in run to
and then we took out a different list in
run three and I think that may be
contributing to a piece of that it won't
explain all of them
the the big one would be the 12th Avenue
over Crossing remember in run one is the
five Lane with direct access ramps in
run three we have the three lane over
Crossing okay no direct access reps
okay
all right looking at it a little bit
differently now these are the numbers
that um Randy was was pointing out
instead of percentages which I like to
use because of the changing number of
intersections from one alternative to
the other this is the Hardcore number so
um run three had the six the three and
three level service e and three level
service F intersections run two had four
level service e run one had the 17 that
you remember from last time
eight e and nine F intersections
okay
so where are those failures so for run
two the four level of service e
intersections are at front
that's it
then over on sr900 at Newport Way
and sr900 then two are up on the plateau
on it's Fall City Road both at black
nugget and at Issaquah Pine Lake Road
okay
and remember that at 12 and 13 I
included a three-lane widening
already at those two intersections and
that only got it to level service e
okay
for uh alternative three or run three
the six locations are again at
sunset in front
um
the two up on the plateau that we talked
about before but now they're level
surface F instead of level service e
a new one that pops up is at Talus and
sr900
uh and that one is is
um has nothing to do with Telus itself
it has to do with it through traffic on
sr900
um the intersection at sr900 and the
eastbound off-ramp
then 56th Sammamish 12th there's I think
four different Road names that come into
that intersection intersection four is
level service e
okay one two three four five six I think
I covered them all
okay
yes
uh Randy did you say that the increase
in cost was 50 percent for
um number two and as they're as simple a
comparison and cost for number three
twenty percent or less okay
and it's 50 or more and these are rough
rough guesses because we haven't wanted
to take the time and spend the time and
budget getting more refined until we had
a sense of whether for example you have
an appetite for any enf intersections or
not and that's what today's conversation
is about it's kind of the policy level
and depending on where you send us then
before we come back to you in September
we will get more specific about these
estimates with the caveat just like you
see them in your tip they'll be General
planning level estimates this is not 30
engineering level stuff where it's real
precise but it'll be good enough for you
to understand the approximate bill and
the amount that you have to raise and
the amount that development will pay
okay
question around
um so forgive me it's a little bit
broader question but it gets around the
existing conditions
delay is average delay at Peak time
PMP hour is
p.m peak hour okay
so what do you do about
what do we do
if we had a meeting in this room that
was starting at 6 pm and I left
Walgreens at 5 26.
and at
6.09 which is almost 45 minutes later I
was still approaching Gilman on uh East
Lake Sam so I gave up and and went
around and got over to Newport and it
only took me an hour to get here and
it's 1.2 miles and it's supposed to take
four minutes five minutes in traffic and
it took me almost an hour and I don't
actually normally other than Council
meetings I'm not normally home before
like seven or eight o'clock so I don't
get to see this very much so I believe
that the average delays are what you're
saying here but it also it took me an
hour to get a mile and a quarter so how
do we clearly there are one sigmas or
two sigmas uh outliers that that are
wildly higher than what we've got here
as as delays and how do we how do we
think about that because it's I would
not characterize that as level of
service C or D or even f is
yeah well Rainier was closed
um
that plus it was last Tuesday where the
regional traffic was a nightmare because
there were like a Elena nine Danny was
closed was everywhere yeah
yeah and oh there was a and there was a
huge
no that was that the accident was the
next night so it is an outlier but it's
an extreme
some horrific accident or there'll be a
power outage or there'll be and there
was nothing it just yeah
so totally lost two different oh go
ahead I don't think we're gonna plan for
those outliers but I'm wondering I mean
you're talking about a regular outlier
yeah well what's that what's the my
question is really how do you deal with
what's the what I think was the one
sigmas and the two sigmas there's
average and then how how much is what
does a one sigma look like and it's a
one Sigma way out there and it just so
happens that there's lots of days that
there's nothing and then every fifth day
or sixth day or eight days is a huge
Whammy
um
so a couple of things there there are
definitely two different questions that
were asked and um you answered one of
them we don't plan for events so if
there's an accident if there's
um you know salmon days whatever you
know those kinds of things we don't
typically plan for I mean certainly you
can if you want to but um but in general
we don't
um so that that's number one number two
so your your other half of the question
is okay I'm not talking about those
kinds of days
um so
again when I'm showing a level service D
let's say at an intersection it could
very well be that a particular movement
is level service F at that intersection
but the rest of them are Level Service A
or B or C or whatever and so the
weighted average of that intersection is
D okay could very well be that you hit
every single level service F movement
going from point A to point B and
certainly if you took Front Street which
is what I heard you take that is I mean
does anybody here do most of you avoid
Front Street unless you're trying to go
to front somewhere on Front Street I
mean Front Street is definitely one of
those that you just you know it is
definitely the outlier I just add up
these delays and it adds up to like four
or five minutes through to the route
that I was looking at it right
and that's because you're doing the
average at each one of those
intersections and that's what I'm doing
when I do averages here but yes you
certainly could have been at the peak
movement or the worst movement at every
one of those intersections or at least
most of them did I mention at the June
meeting my definition of average I used
this for the first time back in the 70s
or 80s and
Seminole County Florida trying to
explain about these delays and you know
I was just nobody was getting it and I
just blurted out and got quoted in the
newspaper for it well you know about
averages if I stick my head in the
refrigerator and my feet in the oven on
the average I'm comfortable
piggyback on on tollis comment because
there are and I know that that tolo's
also even talked about the amp in
certain locations and there are certain
places around the city that I don't
think we we accommodate for in terms of
traffic patterns and so you know I'll
give you an anecdotal example which is
if you're taking 900 Northbound and it's
a weekend
I mean it's it's Carmageddon you can't
get from Newport to the state park uh
you know at 12th Avenue I mean yeah it's
it's ridiculous I mean we we ended up
taking a ride on mall and going all the
way up Gilman just to get to exit uh you
know 17 to avoid getting to I-90 because
it was 20 minutes from Talus drive to
Gilman so you know that that's not a PM
Peak it's not a Monday through Friday
and you know I think as part of this
analysis when we talk about planning for
capacity and so forth there are other
times and other places that don't fall
within the PM Peak Monday through Friday
commute and anyone who sits on 900
Northbound on a Saturday or Sunday can
tell you something needs to be done to
help fix that situation whether it's
signal timing or turn lane capacity or
something there none of this accounts
for those situations so is it an outlier
I don't know if it's an outlier because
it seems to happen every weekend
um you know but it's certainly not PM
Peak Monday through Friday so right
there's there's a corollary to I think
what toll is saying with his one-off
experience versus something that doesn't
fit within this modeling
okay so
um
love let's start with am peak hour we do
we don't you know we don't analyze amp
car we don't analyze the weekend
um amp coward though we um although I
don't have a model for it in in every
recommendation that I do I think about
the am Peak
and in particular roadways that have
that huge directional split where the PM
It's All in One Direction in the am it's
the other direction
so
um so there are some improvements that I
recommended on the list that are not
needed for the PMP hour I anticipate
they're needed for the amp hour okay
even though I don't have a model to tell
me that but I'm using my engineering
judgment so so I've taken into account
that now the weekend
um it that is a policy decision if the
city wants to plan and build for
another Peak period besides PMP cower we
can certainly do that
realize it's a big expense to do that
from a planning standpoint but it will
probably also be
a tip expense there will be additional
projects that needed to be added to the
tip so
um so certainly it's I I get it
I've heard I've heard it you know over
the last 15 years always the question's
about am and the other Peaks and and
what do we do
um the answer is if you want to plan for
those we can do it
but to date we haven't made the policy
decision to do that
and and
we don't have the counts outside of the
PM Peak that's the data you're working
with because we that was our policy and
directed you correctly I wouldn't have
collected counts unless it was a policy
decision to do those yeah
around whether we want to capture AFP
because it's been an issue of interest
to me because it's it affects the
parents a lot uh particularly like
around IMS and Northbound is Hobart Road
right where you get the combination of
all those all those folks coming in from
the south and you've got all the parents
trying to bring their kids into IMS
um and I I think I think we went so far
as to look at the price tag for it at
some point Didn't we Bob
um
I think we did
I just don't remember what the price tag
is
but I think you're right I mean we've
decided to stay primarily at the PMP
just because that's been kind of the
base model and policy we've had for a
long time if I might
um
I work with just with public agencies
cities counties and districts and I've
been doing it for almost 45 years
um so I'm going to just step outside of
Transportation just for a minute to
remind you as council members that you
have to make these same tough trade-off
decisions about every service that you
provide your constituents and so the
questions you're asking are great and
the technical team could run with and do
amp we could do weekends we might need
counts to do it there's a bunch of
issues with it but in your
strong desire to both personally be able
to move around town and on behalf of the
people that elected you let them move
around town at all hours of the day and
all the destinations
you're stuck with that other trade-off
about how much things cost and so I'll
just put it in a different context in
transportation
pick one for me parks police fire
nothing that you can do as a council you
can't put a fire truck at every
intersection you can't have enough
Patrol
officers in the police department to
make sure there's never an accident and
never a burglary and when we talk about
having level of service D or better
24 7 every day of the week in all
directions that's beginning to sound
like a zero crime rate and a zero fire
loss to me but that's not what we're
talking about we're talking about not
having an hour delay to go a month
everywhere I don't think anybody said
anything like that okay and I didn't say
a I hope I didn't I thought I said D
which is the goal that you've set for
yourself and I agree completely that
there are going to be ugly anomalies
whether there was an accident or not
maybe I was more focused on Josh's point
that at specific alternates to the time
that we're analyzing there are known
problems that affect you and your
constituents and we have the ability to
solve it but what will happen is we'll
come back and say this isn't 50 more
than the tip it's a hundred and twenty
percent more than the tip and we're
going to be back to hard priority
decisions they're not pushing back here
I'm reminding that the hardest thing you
do is counsel is try and figure out
where to make those best trade-offs and
as technicians our job is to help give
you the most choices the most
understandable and sort of the the most
efficient outcome that we know how to
help you craft
but we're willing to go back to it but
Paul I absolutely wasn't speaking to the
stuck in traffic for an hour and 45 or
an hour whatever it was when it should
have been a five minute trip that is
different
um a question Torsten and
um I'm looking at right now I'm sort of
looking at sunset in front and I'm
looking at what's going on on SR 900 by
Talus and so my thought question is is
is can we take
one intersection and make a change to it
so I'm looking at 18 which is sunset in
front and looking at that as a business
district
and if that's at level E failure is this
going to impact potential businesses in
downtown Issaquah which affect sales tax
which affects our prosperity
and can you change just that and work on
that to improve that to a d or something
without working on your entire model
yes you can just do an intersection
Improvement we there is already a tip
project in place at that intersection
that we've assumed
which takes away parking
so we'd have to do more than that and
that would probably take away sidewalks
and or buildings in order to get that
intersection to go to D so
difficult difficult yes okay
if possible but possible
I just follow up on that one Eileen
I think last time when we were meeting I
had expressed a great concern to improve
traffic in Old Town
but then when I went home and thought
about it are you improving traffic for
people who drive within the city for Old
Town is a destination or would you just
be making it easier to get through town
for the computers and so I think at some
level we're going to have to discuss
where it is okay for us to have the
slowdowns and why it would be okay to
have it in certain areas so afterwards I
emailed the planning team and said I
actually
think that should not be improved well
the the improvements on Newport
hopefully will correct be there I'm all
for that but then the Old Town one I was
thinking if you go and improve that
you're going to make
pass-through traffic easier and that may
not be the best well but if we make
Newport Easier by putting that's perfect
then they hopefully will be taking that
more often and frequently because
they'll they'll literally be able to
pass through so when you when you
reference Newport you mean the West
Bypass
and then
that was your words you use the word
bypass
I'm sorry before your question just to
address we did when we looked at what
additional improvements we should assume
in that final model run that were
realistic but still allowing some enf we
we took into consideration what we heard
one of the things we heard was
periphery might be an okay
place to look at ease and F's because
that's where we've got probably a lot of
regional traffic
so if you look at what's on the map I
think for the most part four of those
six
would probably be considered periphery
type intersections
the other thing that we did consider is
the down the sunset in front just we did
not want to
ruin the character of The Front Street
Corridor by building some sort of large
Improvement there
so sorry
I appreciate this level of discussion
and your inspiration of it Josh because
we can talk about all these numbers but
we're it's only now that we're talking
about objectives and that is to serve
Economic Development or
or tourism you know the weekend travel
or whatever it is and serving individual
constituents and how long it takes them
to get from one place to another is is
another thing but the um identifying
that number 18 is in a commercial
district and number
um G2 or 35 or
the ones up in the corner are
residential
Transportation issues are are so
qualitatively different
that the PM peak hour we could say well
we want more models but we still only
have some kind of metric that requires a
lot more evaluation when it comes down
to the what you really do because of an
objective oriented plan which goes to
Paul and Stacy's Master Transportation
plan which is strategic
objective it needs to come come into my
mind while I'm looking at these things
yes have we I don't understand have we
analyzed but what what would it take to
analyze specific areas that are you
could call them outliers you could call
them
non-data Point intersections or
corridors that don't fit within this
Monday through Friday PMP I mean in
other words if we were to take a look at
five six seven places around the city
where your reverse commute Direction at
certain
times of the week is horrible like the
900 Northbound on a weekend or
um I mean that's just the one I know the
best but I'm sure there's got to be
plenty of others where it's it is the
opposite of what you would normally see
in a PM Peak so you've got the the going
in you know on on Newport past Ive or
something that is going to be you know
pretty congested in the AM
I mean do we know what the cost is of
just assessing are there five or six
places where these improvements could be
made and is it therefore worth including
those improvements as well for the sake
of those five or six corridors because I
don't think it's everywhere in the city
I don't think we have an amp congestion
problem in Issaquah the same way we do
in the PM Peak just driving around I
think any of us could see it's really
specific areas at specific times so is
there a way to look at remedying those
areas and times however limited they may
be
so you know that's an interesting
Prospect
um by your own experience Northbound 900
what time is that
weekend what time is that uh
ten to two somewhere in the am it's it's
morning it's morning late morning it's
lunch time it's it's basically the
opposite of what we're modeling
so I I'm just pointing that out as one
area where there's a specific problem at
a specific time that's not PM Peak
Monday through Friday and I would bet
there's probably four or five other
types of situations like that
if you were to analyze it throughout the
city where improvements could or should
be made for the sakes of those
particular times in corridors and so I'm
just sort of wondering what it would
take to do that analysis to identify
what are and I'm saying four or five it
may be two or three it may be six or
seven but what would it take to analyze
where those problems are that don't fall
within this
modeling scenario such that we can make
those policy decisions about where we
want to make improvements and for whose
benefit and when
I have a question so
is it can you can you really pick
four or five areas
but don't you have to gather data in the
entire system during that period of time
no I mean I I can collect data at
specific locations existing counts the
challenge is going to be how do I
project growth at those locations
I mean I could I could use the PM peak
hour model to help me figure out a
growth rate but again the growth rate
that's in RPM peak hour model is for PMP
power so
if it's already a problem
and we don't have a growth overlay then
growth won't participate at all in its
costs so it would be 100 City funded I
mean that may not be a bad thing it's
just an outcome of how we would have to
do our work
that's where our dominoes fall in a
course to need certain data to get to
certain piece so that I can get you to
another piece if you're willing to have
the city fund those kinds of
um
specific problems
without knowing whether there's a growth
component we could do that but I'm not
going to say easily and casually we
haven't neither one of us have answered
I'm going to make you answer
um
you know how long that would take and
how much how much money it would take I
think Josh is asking for that right
you're asking what would it take to do
that
comment earlier I forget which one you
made the comment about well it would
cost X percent above your tip to account
for these other scenarios but we don't
really know that we don't really know
what the true cost of improving other
intersections at non Monday through
Friday PM peak times would be because we
don't Aid know exactly what those
corridors and intersections are
currently other than anecdotal evidence
and we don't know what the cost would be
of gathering that information to assess
that
but you know it seems like we've
identified certain aspects whether it's
the school children whether it's you
know just weekend commuters or tourism
or whatever the what's causing the
problem but there are places that are
clearly congested at non-week day you
know non-week day PMP times and so how
do we how do we look at fixing those is
the way to gather that info and I'm not
trying to be argumentative Josh but
being Devil's Advocate if if sr900 is
the is is a corridor that you're you're
using as an example
I mean the only thing that could be done
there is to widen it it's already three
four lanes even five Lanes in some
sections by Direction so
um is that I mean I know that was
clearly not a vision of the CIP was to
widen sr900 any more than it already is
becomes very pedestrian non-friendly
uncrossable you know at those kind of
widths so I guess the question is
ultimately if what you're asking is
give me an improvement that fixes my
weekend traffic on sr900 I'm going to
tell you you need more Lanes do you
really want that
I don't think that's true though I guess
as a Counterpoint because if you add
additional network capacity whether it's
near the mall Street Corridor 12th
Avenue over Crossing other means of
getting people away from that Corridor
you don't necessarily need widening
we've done that with this grid Network
right
three or four new corridors for people
to use outside of sr900 so will that
solve the weekend it may I mean maybe it
may be a problem I think that's what you
what you can't answer definitively is
yes or no but I think if you look at
that on an anecdotal and an analytical
basis you would say mating you know
making that connection between the
Pickering Barn you know the Pickering
area and 62nd Street well hell rosting
over that crossing the over across
Avenue will help those areas because
you're going to find alternative means
because right now but you know on the
other side of 90. you've only got
three ways uh to get over there adding
those additional areas and enhancing the
capacity on the North side will help
significantly
um so it seems like there's two
questions there's knowing where there's
problems and then there's the public
policy of what do you want to do when
you know how is it that Google knows
Google is telling you right now that
southbound Newport Way at Sunset is red
and Northbound Newport Way at Sunset is
yellow well well how about how is it
it's it's measuring a movement at that
intersection it's not averaging all the
movements at that intersection
all the movements technologies that are
available to us by having cameras around
the city that would allow us to gather
data
in a way different than
an emergency
the ubiquity of webcams over the last
five years yes I don't think the city's
cameras are sophisticated enough to
collect counts but I mean they're they
are out there but
what I'm saying is there there is data
that's feeding that but realize it's not
the same as doing an intersection
Capacity Analysis
so it's it's showing you a corridor
that's red right that's one movement
it's a through movement on a particular
corridor
the left turn the right turn on that
same movement and then the other three
legs that hit that intersection are not
being considered in that red
and it also doesn't know where the
traffic came from which we have to know
in order to know who to charge
but your point was about data collection
there may be other means to collect more
data well just we've been talking about
this outside of EMP
right understanding do we have problems
another time
seems to me that if
I'm saying Google's the authority on any
of this but if if they can go take ham
data and turn it into predictors of
traffic it seems like we might be able
to look at that same data and and very
inexpensively parse where if we have
persistent problems outside PMP
commitments yeah they're probably using
their customers on their
smartphones running Google Maps just
tracking how fast they're moving
so um
yeah yeah yeah totally that's how you
know
we do OD studies based on
picking up was the cell phone signal
so yeah so I'm I'm kind of struggling
with chain with
changing
um going Beyond PM Peak
um I understand
what you're saying but
um
I mean I I can't connect that we could
I've seen in your example I've worked on
900
you know that's
that's got quite a bit of traffic
most of the time
so
you know that there could be another
outcome just because we analyzed another
period I'm having a hard time
um accepting that Stacy
it's an interesting question and I think
part of it goes the part of the response
on my thought process goes back to what
Randy said about its uh this policy
decision that you make with all your
services and so we've made a policy
decision that we are gonna
attack traffic
you know within the PM Peak numbers
um that so said I am
you know somewhat intrigued by you know
thinking outside the box not somewhat a
lot intrigued about thinking outside the
box and considering ways that we can
deal with problems that we know that we
have
um not sure that not sure that it's
within this process that we're
involved in tonight and over the you
know this year and the reason I say that
is because
um I love those flashing yellow arrows
and that came totally outside of you
know any transportation planning that we
did and it was something that came part
of the as part of the goal process and
so I don't want the comments and
questions and inquiries to get lost you
know may they may not fit specifically
Within
the project that we have going on right
now but I think they're
very very important and because there
may be some solutions that we can think
of to relieve some of those areas
traffic in non-pmp times I think I
couldn't agree more I I want to remind
that at our end of our last meeting Paul
was talking about but we've got experts
here let's look to the experts the
experts need to hear from you not just
because you represent the policy but
some of the best ideas we wind up
developing come out of casual
conversations like this I've got a lot
of things that I offer cities now that I
picked up from a city council member or
a mayor or city administrator I thought
tolles point was exactly the right
question whether or not he had the exact
right technology you know we need to
continue to look at that part of our
seeking from you this commitment to do
this every two or three years is so that
we not only have updated data and we do
all the technical stuff but we can buy
into the new and better technology or
the different hours of the day or
whatever it is we need to do so please
don't take our answers today as
resistance it's just our limits today
before we go any further how many more
slides do you have tourists
okay probably six okay six seven
somewhere in there okay all right just
want to get a sense of how much more we
had to do
that is yeah great dialogue
so I have one more uh so by the you know
we're on this dialogue we're going to
come up with a recommendation so you may
go through all this at the end of the
day you're going to say okay based on
all this it's twenty thousand dollars a
trip
and and you're gonna say there's no way
we're gonna do 20 000 hours a trip so
the question is does the additional
analysis get us to a point that's going
to impact the final
objective which is whatever the cost per
trip is on a concurrency rate so we can
we could spend a lot of time doing over
analysis at the end of the day you're
going to end up influencing what the tip
is which is going to end up influencing
what the final number is which is still
a political and policy decision that the
council is going to have to make anyway
in terms of people's ability to pay
so so willingness exactly so what we're
asking is should we build the twenty
thousand dollar trip or fifty thousand
dollars a trip or two dollars a trip
based on your today's understanding of
the general benefits and disadvantages
of run one two or three and we're going
to go and work with that
but we won't come back and go well you
said on the 14th of July it was run
number three you're stuck with it okay
you don't you're not stuck with anything
until you see the whole picture it's
just that we can't give you all the
possibilities tonight without having a
much bigger budget and you know a crazy
supercomputer whatever brand names they
are now
um it's probably not cray anymore
um so yeah exactly right and what we do
have with our three different models is
three important variations on the tip
project list if we come back to you and
the number is eight thousand dollars and
we've got six intersections we didn't
fix we could raise the fee and plug in
those projects and conversely if it's oh
my goodness it's thirty thousand dollars
so you will point to us the projects
that we think would be the most
beneficial to take off the list or the
least effective and then we'll
recalculate
so I I think Stacy's analysis of what we
were just talking about was spot on
because I wasn't suggesting that we
change this process or that we go
through more model runs to look at
outlying you know possibilities or
anything like that I'm bringing it up
because through this conversation we're
not only talking in essence we're
talking about concurrency but we're also
focusing on our transportation
management and you know they're related
and so my Hope was through this
conversation that we focus on things
that may not fit within this modeling
but that we as policy makers know our
problems for our constituents which in
turn may have an impact on our tip
because if we do identify whatever
number of problem areas there are that
are non-pm Peak Monday through Friday
Corridor problems in the city there may
be tip projects that come out of that
just as with the bike ped plan all of a
sudden we identified a whole host of tip
projects that did not exist two or three
years ago so there may maybe the
potential for other tip projects which
does change that number I'm not
suggesting we need to do that now in
this iteration of the process but I want
to plant that seed so that we can begin
thinking about how do we collect the
data as Tola asked how do we look at
non-pmp corridors to help our residents
so that was my purpose and I agree with
what Stacy said about
keeping those comments in in the parking
lot in closing Fridays at Friday's
Retreat we did the parking we'll put
them in the parking lot that Northbound
SR 500 on a Saturday is that the parking
lot
um I I would remind all council members
that in addition to this conversation
which is greatly valuable to us because
you're all talking to each other each of
you will have at least one more chance
to talk with us
through the various committees that
you're on some of you will actually have
to suffer with us twice because of your
committee assignments but you'll get at
least one of us because we're going to
see infrastructure services and safety
in Landon Shore
all right
okay uh last time in June I introduced
the idea of averaging the uh the
intersections in the city together
and seeing on a you know
a city-wide level what um what is the
level of service a and how much delay on
average would we be expected to see at
each of the intersections
it's just sort of a way of sort of
comparing Alternatives from one to the
next so
so that's what this graph does I've
weight averaged the intersections so in
other words the level of service a
intersection that only has 100 cars at
it is not going to be treated equally as
a level service e intersection with 3
000 cars at it okay you'd think simply
averaging those two together I should
get a level service C right but no when
I by weight averaging them it's probably
going to come out to either an e or a
very bad d
um so that's what this is
um run uh well the no action uh has 73
and uh 73 seconds of delay basically on
average
um I've drawn the the horizontal lines
on the graph to show where that falls in
terms of level service it's about upper
mid range of level service e
so by doing some improvements that run
one which represents the tip alternative
is uh Falls sort of right smack dab in
the middle of level service d
we did run two and tried to improve
everything as best we could we'd be just
below level service D in the level
service C range
and then run three is just slightly uh
worse than run two but right above level
service D on average okay so it's just
another way of looking at how the system
operates as a whole
um what does that represent in terms of
improvement for run one when you compare
it to the no action it's a 35
Improvement runs two and three are
comparable somewhere between uh 48 55
improvement over the no action
last time I also introduced the concept
of going from point A to point B I
picked three different corridors that
are about 15 intersections
and using that sort of average travel
time as an example so same same concept
but now including runs two and three in
there if you recall last time I told you
and then something new I think it was
Josh that had asked for us to include
the existing condition in that
assessment so so that's something new in
this in this graph that you did not see
before run one which you did see last
time is that six minute Improvement in
travel time okay over a 15 intersection
corridor
compared to existing condition that is a
five percent
worsening I hate to use that word it's
five more minutes of travel time than
what you would experience today along
that same 15 intersection corridor
okay so it's going to be five minutes
worse but it's six minutes better than
it could be then it could be if we did
nothing
okay
all right so run two
again run two being the one we try to
fix everything we possibly could
um it's about 1.5 minutes longer than
existing
but at 10 I'm sorry a 10 minute
Improvement in travel time compared to
doing nothing
and then lastly run three again pretty
comparable but at significantly less
cost is a nine minute improvement over
the no action 2030 alternative
in about a two and a half minute
increase over what you would experience
today
okay for that stretch
it's worse to have a question yes is
could you could you throw two more
routes in that in that kind of analysis
again yeah I mean again I I the
Northbound 900 on a Saturday and
Walgreens to city can't do it on
Saturday
I can't do am
yeah during salmon days
all right
three slides left guys and then and then
we'll yeah I don't know I I I was
texting her I have I have the evidence
what
are there any questions about the
results that I presented
any other questions any other questions
sorry yes there were there were plenty
along the way go ahead
okay
um I'm going to
um make our recommendation
um and then we're going to open it up
for you guys to
critique discuss
whatever you want to do so our
recommendation and the whole intent of
framing run three was to make it the run
that we felt would have the strongest
possibility of moving forward so we are
recommending run three for the
concurrency model uh update and then the
subsequent impact fee calculations
it is a significantly lower investment
than run two it does not accomplish
level service D everywhere okay but it
it took into account sort of a
systematic thinking or analysis of where
would we allow level of service E and F
and where does it make sense to do that
yes can you remind me the price the the
price tags on scenarios one two and
three so scenario one is the existing
tip it's about 300 million dollars
we have not costed out again the
projects for runs two and three that are
added to that okay but in my assessment
of what they are I have estimated
that run two would be at least a 50
increase over your existing tip
or more
okay and run two I've assessed to be
about a twenty percent or less increase
so it's still higher than your current
tip but not
wait run three is twenty percent there
run three yeah did I say two I'm sorry
run three yes
it's to help you that's a million years
soon enough you're talking about real
money tips
yeah
we're smaller yeah all right run three
does maintain 94 of the intersections
are at level service D we've got those
six outliers
um I did in your briefing paper I I did
point out and I'll point out now that
it's not um it's no stranger to Issaquah
to allow failures
um the concurrency system when I first
came to Issaquah allowed I think it was
four failures over time we were up to 17
failures that were permitted
in the concurrency system so
um so it's it's not unheard of it's not
something that you haven't done before
and so think about it in that frame
um
the there's a minimal increase if you
looked at yes sorry I just wanted
a misting but significant improvement
over no action I realized what's taken
into account in these is a lot of growth
but I think that also emphasizes if it
looks like
um some of what we're doing is just kind
of keeping up and maybe making things a
little better I think that emphasizes
the point that Josh Ansel were trying to
make about other ways that we can find
to
manage traffic that's not the
traditional yeah million and I mean I
don't want to speak for Sheldon but I
know his group is always thinking of
innovative new ways to sort of on the
cheap
improve traffic you know better than it
is today with you know small
improvements that don't require a huge
investment and those are again typically
projects that aren't going to show up on
your tip
they're just everyday sort of
Maintenance and managing of traffic
okay
yeah so the next bullet was the minimal
increase so yes
um I think it was a two and a half
minute increase but
um but you know overall it shows a
pretty significant uh Improvement if
over doing nothing
and then lastly run three
um as I pointed out does have the more
aggressive mode mode share so I want to
make sure that if if we all agree that
run three is the one to move forward
with that you understand that that is
part of that component
and part of that component and the
reason why we included it in run three
is because
um you know we went through a five or
six year process on the central Issaquah
plan it was the vision of the central
Issaquah plan to create an urban center
to create a mix of land uses to create a
transportation system that would
encourage
uh you know that mode share and what we
felt was realistic at the time was a 10
increase
and I guess what we're proposing tonight
is
is there a reason for us to doubt what
we adopted a year and a half ago and so
therefore we are recommending to stick
with that policy decision that we think
we can get and we want to get a 10 shift
in the CIP and three percent elsewhere
and three percent elsewhere
okay and so that is our recommendation
and now it's
open for discussion can I frame your
discussion in terms of the policy
questions
um
on your last slide
um we asked these same two questions at
the June meeting and now we're here at
the July meeting and we're proposing to
go off and do a whole bunch more work to
get ready for September and October with
numbers and costs and impact fees and
proposed funding strategies and in order
to do that we have to use something as a
Baseline and you now have our
recommendation which is number number
three
if you think that we're making some
sense with number three given there's a
lot of trade-offs but it seems of the
choice is the best of the three
then it takes you in a direction on
these two policy questions it doesn't
leave these into open-ended like oh yeah
do number three but here's what I think
about mode split no number three has
built into it
answers to these two
to the first question the answer is and
it's in the policy memo no we're not
going to do D everywhere we're going to
do d as much as possible and
specifically we've set out a program
that achieves a 94 D or better but it
would specifically authorize for example
up to six intersections to be erf and
the policy briefing paper even talks a
little bit about how that could look in
wording
similarly on the mode split we would be
saying having had the conversation back
and forth where did we get the data what
does psrc say is it the number is it the
Delta we'd be saying it's the Delta it's
how much it's going to improve over the
Baseline where we're not worried about
where PSA RC's got itself its data but
we would say as torson just said very
eloquently
as a city you've made a commitment to
the central Issaquah plan which has
inherent in it as a fundamental article
of success a 10 Improvement in mode
split and for the rest of the city we
think three percent is reasonable so if
you give us a thumbs up on run number
three
as a group we're not asking for motions
and parliamentary procedures and seconds
and stuff like this was a formal council
meeting but we're looking for that
consensus and if the general direction
is run three sounds good to us then
you've answered these two questions if
you don't like those answers then you
don't want run three and you need to
tell us what other direction to take
great Nina
a procedural question kind of showing a
little naivete here just make sure I
understand correctly so we we have this
conversation going around about the tip
and these models and if we choose number
three
does that automatically go back and
change our tip or does it just influence
the rate of concurrency
well
it will it will change your tip for
future years so
on your next tip update we would likely
include the missing projects
and and we would likely recommend
deleting the ones that we deleted
because we don't see the point at least
we would recommend that from a
concurrency and capacity Viewpoint now
if you had another reason to keep it and
you had a way to pay for it
um you're welcome to leave it on there
but from our Viewpoint it would go
so I have a question
what other what else has to happen that
the mode split this is this is
addressing those factors that we can
control but what other perhaps Regional
entities or issues or happenings
is there anything else that also needs
to happen to help us achieve those
numbers
so far so
you know Metro buses running through
town
routes
high capacity Transit what else
is needed is there so there are other
things that can help you achieve the 10
and that are not under your
purview to to influence or to fund but
but they're not required to get you to
the 10 percent
um
so if you look at the two and three
percent that psrc was predicting as an
increase those were primarily due to two
things
um a small increase in transit
improvements so perhaps an HCT type
service it would be rubber tire not
light rail
over that period of time
the other thing was
um a charging to use I-90 there's a hot
Lane Improvement proposed on I-90 and
that will inherently have an impact on
on mode share that the city did nothing
or invested nothing to get that mode
share
but those trips that are traveling
through will you'll get the benefit
of that mode share so so mode share is
everything other than single occupations
yes that is correct
includes multiple occupancy Vehicles HOV
it includes working from home
if traffic is so bad that you decide to
work at home two days a week
okay
so I have an I have another question as
well so I'm
thinking about Randy something you said
is that when we're back to that
conversation about Northbound 900 on
Saturdays is that due to growth
and because part of what we're
going to hear more about from you is
you know as as
Bob put earlier
um he has a 20 000 per trip but that's
all growth that is those are
improvements there's impacts to the
transportation Network due to growth and
this is the impact we're going to charge
you know for for that growth but not all
of the
less than
satisfactory
Transportation experiences yeah it's you
know you know traveling north on 900 on
Saturday that they're not
is that accountable to growth the way we
measure growth now
so in other words let's say we went off
and looked at something like that
example
I mean would that actually could you
would it play into the fact your factor
of uh concurrency per trip cost
driven by growth
we have the ability to do the
calculation I can't answer the question
about Northbound 900 on Saturdays from
10 to 2 today because I don't have the
data in front of me but if I know what
the current volumes are or the current
delay times and then the model tells me
what the future volumes are going to be
and the future delay times I'm allowed
to assume that those differences are
attributable to grow that if we didn't
have growth it would all be due to the
existing problem
I have to do an additional calculation
which is if we are going to make an
improvement what percentage of that
Improvement solves the level of surface
problem for the current population and
that has to be paid for by City dollars
and only the increment that's
attributable to the growth can be
charged to grow so I really got multiple
calculations going so that's so that's
and you may not have answer here maybe
I'm way off base but I'm going to just
type theorize that Saturday Northbound
900
isn't just due to growth but it's
perhaps an influx of people entering
town to get to retail services or other
services in the area conflicting with
people passing through and residents
going out on their Saturday trip so the
actual experience of a bad trip isn't
just because of the growth that we've
had right and you didn't mean bad trip
in the sense that they mentioned in the
70s or the 80s
never mind I was in the present 2014 all
the way
um
what you've said is is not only true but
leaves out another important component
and that is after we figure out the
growth share
then there's the growth that the portion
of that growth that we can capture a
mitigation fee from compared to the
portion of the growth real growth on our
streets that we can't charge the
mitigation fee because that's the
regional traffic
and unless we enter into complex
intergovernmental relations with them
and that will be part of our funding
strategies conversation with you later
those people we have to pay for
I think we'd also have to make a a
policy change that we are measuring
level service D in other periods besides
the PMP Tower if we were to do the sr900
on Saturdays 10 to 2 yeah
because right now minor change but still
it'd have to be on the books somewhere
absolutely yeah okay thank you who else
any questions or comments
Josh
um so on the on the losd on the first
question
um we've talked about other cities that
have different levels or zones of
service and I still maintain that this
can be used as a development tool as
well as a planning tool for
transportation because if we're trying
to incentivize growth in the central
area one of the ways in which we can do
that is to change the infrastructure in
that area to make it easier harder
however we want to structure the
infrastructure in the in the central
area to encourage the growth and the
density to be there and so with that
increased growth and density that we're
targeting I think the public expects a
reduced worse whatever term you want to
use level of service in certain areas
and so yes you've got these Fringe
intersections as I think you called them
where you've got Regional traffic and so
we're okay with leaving them worse
because
it's regional traffic but at the same
time then you've also got the nucleus as
well which with a higher density I think
an Los D or F
or E I guess you know whatever shifting
towards f
um is going to be expected with that
density and then you're sort of
targeting where your growth occurs so I
think that's one consideration to look
at is you could take it as a city-wide
sort of holistic average of everything
where you could actually use this in a
way that Bellevue does where it's
downtown core has a different Los than
the rest of the city
um so that's one thing all throughout
there and and I may ultimately advocate
for that that position you know in terms
of mode split my take on it is there's a
lot of external factors that will
influence our ability to achieve the
mode split that we want to see I mean
just within the last year with the
transit cuts you know that's not
something that when the Central Area
plan process started
you know six years ago that could have
been anticipated at that time there were
certain expectations about how much
Transit service there would be
um you know what options would be out
there and now we're faced with a new
reality so who knows in the next 14 to
16 years what external factors will
impede or assist our ability to achieve
the mode split we want to see so that
one to me is is a little more difficult
and Squishy to come up with a strong
policy perspective on because I don't
think that we have complete control over
our ability to reach those Target
numbers the loss on the other hand I
think is something that we control our
destiny with
so it's not an answer but just maybe
some more food for thought
the uh may I please of course on um
on the ability to influence let's say
increased Transit what you do have the
ability to do is look at your land use
which you've done and
um and for an urban center in order to
encourage
more Transit you've done that with the
CIP so you've created a mix of land uses
that would encourage the use of Transit
a Transit Agency is going to look at
places where there is the ability to get
people and therefore money
over a location where there is not
people and an urban center in an urban
core so consider that a in your thinking
that that yes historically today is the
squad downtown core is probably not an
attractive place for Transit and King
County probably isn't really thinking
about his Squad as a place to or Sound
Transit as a place to expand their
Transit service but with your CIP and
with the vision that you had it is a
more attractive place for transit to
come
secondly Transit if you look over time
the investment in transit is up and down
all the time
I mean I lived here for 18 years and I
remember when you know when there was no
investment in transit or it looked Bleak
and then all of a sudden we've got a
monorail we've got a you know Light Rail
coming Sound Transit all that stuff you
know an investment now some of that's
gone away
it's it's up and down so please don't
use the past I think you know Randy has
talked about that tonight too with
regard to something else but please
don't use what's happened in the last
three years
to think about the long term
investment
because my point is is that's why it's
it's too Squishy in my mind for lack of
a better term because there are too many
external factors that we can't control
or foresee the last thing I'll say on
that is I'm not sure I could get behind
run three if it means the three-lane no
direct access ramp over Crossing because
my take on looking at the future is what
is the maximum amount of capacity that
we can build and that we need to
accommodate our future growth and I
don't want to see ourselves sell
ourselves short and say let's plan for a
three-lane overcrossing or a three-lane
Newport between Maple and sunset when we
should plan for the bigger and the
better you know that extra capacity is
going to be needed we don't want to
build a three-lean maple to Sunset and
then 10 years later realize you know gee
we should have done a five Lane because
we really needed that five laid once
you've like you see on Front Street once
you got it two lanes there's buildings
on either side there's nowhere else to
go so I'd rather see us go for the the
bigger package
thank you Josh
I'll have to think about there anybody
else have final comments or questions
I I guess I'm I'm also
I like generally the methodology that
came up with this uh option three but
like Joshua I still want to understand
the overcrossing
access to I-90 or not access to I-90
there's a whole bunch of high level
reasons to have there be access to I-90
and that revolve around promotion of of
carpooling and uh you know the decision
on whether to do that or not seems like
uh
I I just I have to guess that it's it's
a larger question than just our chunk of
what what we might project that would
cost there's there's sort of our
regional Partners I think would want to
be involved in that and the state would
want to be involved in that and it just
seems like something that I don't know
if we want to close the door yet on the
council's intention on that particular
facet because I always to me there's so
much more value if you have an HOV on an
off ramp uh there than if you don't and
I think about that in terms of for
instance residents on squawk Mountain
Right For Whom the the challenges at
Highway 900 represent a significant
impediment to getting onto westbound uh
westbound I-90 but if you had a HOV
on-ramp the the morning Prospect looks a
lot different just as to pick one
example
thank you
anybody else
Stacy
so I think generally we're
headed in the right direction I guess I
would agree with these comments that
Josh and ptolema except I also heard you
say earlier that you may have
information about why it might make
sense to build
the overpass without the connections at
first
well I think you can consider any
project I guess in phases we're looking
at 2030 and a 16-year period and
it was it was my recommendation to staff
that the this particular project be at
least in this for this impact fee
calculation
to be the three-lane version I don't
think that you need five lanes and I
don't think you need the direct access
ramps we're not even sure that there
would be hot Lanes or HOV lanes to
connect to
in that vicinity by 2030 anyway
so
um
what my point was though is that you
could certainly
think of the project in two phases but
if ultimately you do want to plan for a
five Lane and a direct access connection
that you do the best you can in building
and designing the three-lane version so
that it can accommodate the five Lane
and and direct access ramps
if that means building it to
five Lanes right away but only striping
for three that's one option another
option is to have two separate
structures
that cross but that allow for the
connection you know once you build the
other two lanes across that you know
across the facility
so that they can tie together so there's
lots of engineering's answers there
what I was trying to accomplish was
reducing your
overall investment
in the 16-year window
um
but still accomplishing your level
service D standard
thank you
please
policy decisions now but we're going to
take a look at this again in two to
three years if we were further down the
process of planning for the 12th Avenue
Crossing we could adjust and change up
to a five plane yeah and you know
definitely we should point out that when
you go to look at you know one of your
projects your TAP projects is to rebuild
the Front Street interchange
um and when you're looking at that the
state will require that you also look at
the 12th Street overcrossing
um
so you're going to be looking at the
whole sort of from 900 to Sunset as part
of the study that's required by the feds
and required by the state for doing any
change over I-90
so in that study there will be lots of
Alternatives and options that are
required to be looked at
and I guarantee you that you'll be
looking at the three-lane you'll be
looking at a five Lane with direct
access ramps at 12th you'll be looking
at other alternatives to Front Street
than what we've priced out
for the for the tip
why do you have to why do you have to
have five Lanes to do direct access
because like 142nd at Eastgate is just
two lanes right
the demand for those HOV direct access
ramps exceeds one lane of capacity so
um another reason why I did not
recommend it is because by building
those direct access ramps you increase
the regional
sort of through trips through Issaquah
because you've created another way to
get in and through Issaquah so you've
maybe relieved sr900 and created another
way to get to I-90
but the Gap that you've created will be
filled by people that can't get off it
the Bellevue interchange or anywhere
else The Front Street interchange the
sunset interchange they'll come back to
sr900
it's the old adage you build it they
will come right so
um so
it's another way of thinking about it
you know you you create a better and
another opportunity to get in and out of
Issaquah and someone will fill up the
Gap that you created somewhere else
okay I'm sorry I still don't see why you
have to go with a lot of lanes because
142nd it's not like it's jammed up it it
tends to get busy at the Bellevue
College and at at class time there's an
ad it's a fine yeah there's a demand for
the three-lane crossing just to get from
one side of Issaquah to the other
that demand does not go away when the
access ramps are added and when the
access ramps are added there are two
more Lanes of traffic
one that's leaving Issaquah and one
that's coming into Issaquah that also
have to use that bridge now
so you've created the need for another
Lane in each direction to serve those
folks as well
does that make sense
okay Nina go ahead please
I've already gone once
in this final round
go ahead
uh
especially dear to me when we talk about
what you've just
so clearly
characterized is what is our objective
and especially if the central is a quad
plan I thought our objective was to
complete a create a complete City one
where people work here and and if we
continue to serve a commuting
Community will certainly need access
onto the ramp and all sorts of things
that'll send people out of the community
but we wanted Economic Development here
we wanted people to work here so I'm
thinking about those kinds of quality
objectives in looking at with the
strategy of what our traffic mitigations
serve and appreciate what you just said
because that's something that's
important to me personally
thank you
two things first of all thank you for
your recommendation I don't think that
was easy to make and I think it's bold
and I understand it and so I I thank you
for that and then we're talking about
the overcross one this discussion we
just have so that's exactly what we were
asking for and that's what I was looking
for secondly you know prior to this
meeting you know we had a joint meeting
with Sammamish and you know some of
these are Regional issues and we have
intersections here that we have a city
to the north of us that might maybe we
should talk
with about
oh I'm serious
we're isolated here but but I don't you
know I'm looking on page 21 of 31 the
map and I'm looking at you know
intersections 12 and 13. oh my gosh
those are the Issaquah falsity Road
and and
um you know you know
perhaps through a partnership additional
resources could be made
could be made available to improve this
for both parties I'll send Sammamish and
we can still
who knows what possibilities exist but
I'd be very interested in exploring that
type of regional cooperation on those
issues
okay last call
as soon as oh
okay this is your last token and you're
out yeah it's short I'm just in response
to the to the question but I I totally
agree I mean I Workforce housing and
living wage jobs have been my biggest
priority for five years so I totally
agree we should be our own uh we should
be a a complete Community as much as
possible having said that the CIP we
already bring in you know 6 000
employees an hour for two hours in in
the morning on I-90 and if you look at
where the CIP goes to unfortunately we
don't close that Gap over the next 20
years we don't create enough housing to
make up for all the jobs that are going
to get created even though we we really
chose the CIP to as much as possible get
that balance so there will be
um people coming in and leaving on I-90
as much as we want to get that balance
so I continue to to really feel that
there's a lot of value to the to the
potential uh High occupancy access
because we're just never gonna We this
city fortunately is an engine of of job
creation and has been a long time and
will continue to be and and housing we
just can't keep up with that
okay
gentlemen you're you're taking all your
notes for this evening it's going to be
recorded and it'll be available online
to watch again
um I saw in the schedule so we have it
coming up right away you've already
mentioned infrastructure I think it's
this week it's this Thursday could you
and then services and safety in August
and then Transportation excuse me Landon
Shore also in August is that meeting
still on in August absolutely
Landing chart does not rest
hey Tola give yourself an extra hour to
get there
it will not be coming from Walgreens or
I'll be coming from Bel Red it's much
easier to get here from Belgrade I was
going to suggest ride a bike you can go
around all that stuff
bicycle
um so so real quick
um what's going to be different in these
committee meetings
we're going to start introducing you
pointed to Randy so right because I I'm
not attending anything we are we are not
we are not intending new materials and
new presentations at any committee
meetings
um
we wanted to have all of you have time
to kind of go away from this and then
come back and you may decide at a
particular committee meeting you only
need five minutes with us it's quick you
had one quick question we're out of
there another committee or another
individual member of a committee might
go ah woke up in the middle of the night
with this question am I glad you guys
are here so this is opportunities but
not new material you've got everything
that we have to share now it's time for
you basically Charlie and I are going to
sit down and go uh where are we
infrastructure Josh right your chair
okay Mr chairman
you and your members have any questions
we're here at your pleasure okay great
and I would then ask everybody to think
about the two policy questions that are
up there because that's what we were
asked to tonight it's difficult to I
think we need to you know our heads are
going to need to spend at least one
night on a pillow to think most more
clearly about any of these
and and also clarification sure there's
a lot of talk tonight about not
necessarily agreeing with
um the list of projects that were in the
different scenarios is that not a policy
question too about is the 12th Avenue
overpass three lanes or five I mean how
do they go ahead if we don't
provide input on that
um
we're trying to cast this as a
level of service discussion with us as
your experts making what we think are
the most informed choices about which
project
but
um
I would never say to a council you can't
touch our project list
and so we would expect that if enough of
you had some really strong concerns or
pushback whether it's the five Lane
three lane of I-90 overcrossing or
something else we better be listening or
we're going to pay the price when we
come to you with the final and you're
going I'm not going there so
we would like some feedback what I would
really hope that you don't feel the need
to do is to go through all the projects
one at a time you know re-characterize
them figure out the right-of-way costs
and the exact alignments oh and
prioritize them so that we know which
ones to do first which ones to do last
you're welcome to do that but our
ability to deliver on that is really
Limited in the end we're going to have a
list
and if you agree with that list and if
the list reflects your strongest
concerns we should be approximately on
the same page remember we're back every
two to three years so if we've all been
schooled on this boy that was a bad
choice you know we didn't need that
project or somebody mentioned and nobody
listened to the person who said we
really need this project we have a
chance to fix that right so as a
reminder then all the different project
tip project lists for runs one two and
three are in the handout for today so
you can take a look at those
and yeah so that's really another one
you say it's a policy question too but I
think you said earlier like this also
assumes the tip changes uh as well
correct so we should be familiar with
those okay if Josh I I can't remember at
the moment if you're coming to see us
this Thursday yes yes so I I think we
should be prepared to address these
questions in committee and you know for
me personally the the losd question in
terms of zones uh is certainly an issue
in my mind that we should debate the
merits or lack of merits of and
um you know any information that you
have from other jurisdictions the
benefit of doing that or not doing that
sure um you know would be very helpful
to us and then same thing on the mode
split you know
um again because I I just can't get my
head around understanding how we can
really control that Destiny any
information you can give us in committee
this Thursday I think will be very
helpful on these issues that reminded me
of a question so I think that's the way
you think about the our ability to
control Destiny on modes split I I get
that that was kind of the reason for my
same my question earlier what other
factors or forces exist I think but I'm
at the same time
um I think I view what we're being asked
by based upon their recommendation is is
but do you support doing what we can to
get a 10 growth
the Delta remember that the ti did it
yeah and remember that the tip list that
I've given you is all
Road capacity projects there's a whole
bunch of other non-motorized projects
that will be part of the fee calculation
that are required and needed in order to
make that 10 percent
um
mode share so the the city is making an
investment in that that that's how the
city is making an investment to get to
that 10 percent so those Pro the bike
pad tip projects
are not anywhere in any of this they're
just they're not in any models I mean I
don't I can't code that stuff in a mod
in our model but you would need them we
think to get to that 10 Delta
and so when I gave you last September
the nineteen thousand dollar per trip
cost estimate there was nearly nearly 40
million dollars worth of estimated
guesstimated bike ped projects in there
even before you started on your bike red
list so we're we're we're listening
we're anticipating
um you may decide later
yeah there are ways to to improve your
performance but the cost is too much
um or you may say we've got to have
those so we have to charge for that
all right
thank you everyone good evening
thank you
okay so we are adjourned