All right, recording has started.
>> Okay, welcome. I'd like to call the
February 25th,
26 transportation advisory board
meeting. We're at 6:01 p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.
Transportation advisory board is in
person. Uh but uh staff or members of
the public may be meeting any virtual
meeting in person. Uh
you may have a member joining virtually
meeting.
>> Uh vice chair we do. Um Carlos will be
excused tonight. Um Ellie Morton will be
a regular member. Um and then we have
Derek Sue online and I believe Erica
will be joining uh later.
Okay. Uh the first order of business is
to take action to approve the minutes of
the January 28th and 26.
Uh are there any corrections to the
draft meeting minutes about any packet?
Hearing none.
Uh any discussion?
Uh do I hear any objections to that?
We will consider the approved by
unanimous consent.
Uh next item of business is public
comment.
Staff is signed up for public comment.
>> Uh vice chair, nobody has signed up for
public comment in the room and there's
also no virtual uh attendees signing up.
Uh
>> I mean I do like
>> I left my glasses in the car. I need to
run out.
[laughter]
>> Okay, we got to do some juggling.
>> We We still do have if you want to
continue. Yeah.
>> Um Okay, so I I think you mentioned that
Andrew is going to give a brief update
on our meeting last night.
He's thinking about it now or
>> uh vice chair. We can do that maybe
under reports unless is this.
>> Yeah, we can. I was thinking at the end
of city reports if that's all right.
>> Reports.
>> Thank you.
>> Very good.
>> Okay. So, regular business tonight. Uh
we have a climate action plan update.
Uh so we have uh
three items of regular business tonight.
First and the
right thing.
Uh chair, it's just uh yeah, sorry, you
might be looking. Yeah, wrong here.
>> Stacy McKinstream
Stacy, sustainability manager, will be
presenting tonight. Uh Stacy, please go.
>> Great. Well, thank you very much um for
having me back again after meeting with
you all back in the fall. I'm Stacy Vin
McKinstry. I'm the sustainability
manager with the city and here tonight
to continue the conversation around the
climate action plan update.
Um, tonight we are I'm planning to
provide a brief update on our progress
on the IAP update and then also talk
through the proposed revision to
transportation policies. I'll emphasize
this again later, but um, tonight we
were brief just the policies. There are
a number of other transportation related
um actions that relate to planning or
that are pro more programmatic um that
we're planning to include in the plan,
but we wanted to really these this even
tonight. We're looking for your input on
those policies and whether you have
those revisions to what we're um
bringing forward tonight or have
preferred um uh prefer one or the other
options that are presenting where
there's some alternatives.
Just as a very quick uh refresher, um
the climate action plan is the city's
main uh guide for our climate action in
the city. It was adopted in 2021 after
about a nine-month process that really
engaged the community and various focus
groups to identify the priorities for
climate action in the state. Um, in this
five-year update, we're really focused
on revising um sections of the plan that
were completed over the last few years.
Uh, strengthening a number of our
actions to really help us make progress
towards the greenhouse gas emission
reduction goals. And there's a couple
areas of the plan um not related to
transportation though where we are
proposing some updates to targets
because they are disconnected um to uh
the work that is underway.
So what are we trying to achieve with
our transportation related actions? Um,
[clears throat] the plan speaks to
targets around increasing our driveable
boat share and decreasing how many miles
we're actually traveling in vehicles.
The plan talks about doing this through
decreasing auto reliance through uh
improved land use planning, reducing
overall auto use, through um folks
choosing alternative transportation
modes and then also through substitution
of electric vehicles and [clears throat]
reducing emissions.
As a reminder of the progress that we um
have been going through, um we met last
summer, some of you, Adam um and I
believe there was another member from
TAD that participated in a committee
process where we really dug into land
use and transportation actions, got that
initial input. We then brought that
feedback to various boards and
commissions including TAB. We took your
input from the fall and uh presented
that to the environmental board to
further refine our actions. And then
most recently uh we met with one of our
council committees a few weeks ago. They
have asked us to bring forward big bold
[cough]
to the needle on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. [clears throat] Um, and so
you'll see some of that reflected in the
proposed policies we're bringing
tonight.
As a reminder of some of the feedback
that you provided last fall, um, there
was a lot of discussion at that meeting
around ensuring that we have strong
metrics. Um, Adam's participating in a
metrics committee uh, to look at how
we're going to be measuring progress on
the IAP. Um, so that's a big overall
focus. We talked about um improving
safety requirements for biking and
multimodal networks.
We discussed um needing more
opportunities within multif family for
ebike and e scooter storage as well as
charging access.
Um we did discuss parking minimums uh
removing parking minimums. Um and we'll
be discussing more about that tonight.
Um and then we talked a lot about trying
to increase the biking culture in Isiqua
and really making sure that it's a safe
list of bike and that folks are
um and then some of the other policies
we'll be discussing tonight we also
reviewed back in fall.
Um so that's the background. I'm going
to jump right into the uh proposed
policies for your feedback next, but
wanted to pause there, see if there's
any questions about the process that's
underway for updating the climate plan
or anything else um that folks want to
[clears throat] reflect on from our
previous discussion.
>> Just a quick note, I I biked here
tonight, so I appreciate an increase in
biking culture here. However, if there's
something you could do about the weather
like warming up,
[laughter]
>> yeah, we have less bikers. It may just
warm up anyway. [laughter]
>> Pedal faster.
>> Maybe more classes around biking in the
rain and poor weather.
>> Okay. So, um the first policy we want to
talk to you about is a big one. Uh this
is one that we discussed a bit back in
the fall. Um and this is the idea of
what we discussed back in the fall was
the idea of removing parking minimums in
multifamily buildings if they were
within a certain distance of transit. Um
there was a question around frequent.
We've added the word frequent here based
on feedback from planning team. Meaning
we want um to only
remove these parking mans if there's
transit that is regular, dependable, um
not just a once in a while bus that pops
by. This is a term used I believe at the
state and regional level of freeway.
Um the alternative that we're putting
forward kind of inspired by that
challenge from our council committee to
go big is that we would include a policy
recommendation to remove parking
minimums for all new development or
redevelopment. Of course within the IAP
anything related to policy we will
include the caveat or the language
around evaluating the feasibility and
any impact from um moving that policy
forward. So this is not committing the
city to doing that but at least
committing us to a study to see if
that's feasible to do in our community
and what the the costs and benefits
might be.
So really looking for you all's input on
are you interested in seeing a policy in
the IAAP around reducing or removing
parking minimums and if so would you
want to have any um restrictions around
where that may or may not apply. It has
to be near transit or um if we kind of
leave it open. Um I will just mention a
couple things and then look to your
feedback. Um, we've heard some concerns
around parking spillover if we remove
parking minimums, um, spillovers to
businesses or into neighborhoods. Um,
and then the other anecdote I wanted to
provide that came from one of our
council members was uh for a new
multifamily building that is going in,
the parking minimums were relaxed and
the developer actually is choosing to
build above the required parking because
in order to rent the apartments, uh,
they know that the renters will parking
space. So, in some ways, this may just
be driven by the market and demand. So
just one
little
welcome feedback on this idea parking
I'm in favor of the all
demand shift however it's fine but I
think the city should be doing
everything possible to buy cars frankly
um and yeah developers could choose to
add parking I suppose but that
>> [cough]
>> I'll jump in here. The the thing that
I've seen my my knowledge of this is
fairly anecdotal. uh but uh parking
requirements are often used to sort of
reduce density and I'm not sure if
sort of added parking requirements
explicitly to reduce density but that
that often ends up being a side effect.
So I think letting the market decide
where you know more density is
appropriate based on other restrictions
that are existing seems reasonable to
me. Um I know I've looked at feasibility
of one or two buildings and on various
lots and they said well parking was
actually something they just needed not
um and [clears throat]
the land's perspective
so I do think this could be impactful
even if you know there are developers
choose to go above parking
as for the policy where the alternative
Um there it does seem like we need to
have some kind of perspective about
transportation in general because this
goes hand in hand with if we can't
provide through transit everywhere in
the future. So parking is probably going
to be sometimes but I don't know whether
you know it's necessary to have it with
I should note you can also say these do
not belong in the IAP. We don't want to
touch these policies this year. Maybe
when the uh mobility action plans
updated we'd look at it. But you can
also say you don't like these. We don't
have to choose between one or the other.
Make sure that's clear. So
>> what's the cost of the study?
>> I don't we don't know. Yeah, these are
just very concept
>> whether we really want to do it depend
on the cost of development. Yeah,
>> we just slow enough.
>> Yeah, we'll be pursuing um a we have a
commerce allocation that we can use to
help cover some studies for these
policies in the next year.
I think it is really prides itself on
being so climate. This is something that
a lot especially midsize towns are doing
away with already.
Yeah, I I think it would be more
progressive to
definitely include them and to relax
them as much as possible because that's
I feel like something I've been thinking
about for 10 years now. um a couple of
place
in that area.
Are there any plans on the books to
um regulate the sorts of parking
structures that are allowed to increase
density or is it just getting rid of
requirements that's on the books right
now?
Um, this one would just be removing
requirements for developers to put in a
[clears throat] set of parking, but
yeah, open.
>> There's just a thought. Well, I don't
think that putting in like strict
parking is necessarily something we want
to be doing. I think at least
considering the possibility of since you
were saying that some developers are
putting in more parking is required by
the city. At least consider it if there
are regulatory options to encourage
developers to choose more dense
development options instead of parking
lots, parking garages or whatever the
option is to incentivize
the kinds of parking options that maybe
that increase the density rather than
filling the entire town with parking.
He's
a really cool found
development with no problem whatsoever
and it's all welcome. It's basically
exploring alternatives. What can you do
if you don't dedicate so much in mind to
arcane
and drive behavior?
It seems like it would need to have
those alternatives. available if people
wanted to
impact that on the [clears throat]
externalities of that on the rest of the
area be bad enough to for us to
>> um I guess to answer the question I
think that alternative policy one would
be I would am in favor of and I also am
just wondering I know we're not crafting
the scope of study, but why wouldn't you
have alternative policy one that was a
superset of the previous policy so that
you're really looking at both and then
even kind of to Mar's point um what
about a heavier hand of certain even
certain areas in the city with access to
transit where others a ceiling I don't
know if that's something the city is
willing to do but it's just a study Um,
and I don't think I think that's a great
place to start that conversation.
>> So, I would be in favor of
really pushing the boundary or the study
>> and consider I was hearing too
considering there may be different
requirements depending on the
neighborhood or planned access to
transit.
Well, and what I was saying specifically
is would we even go so far as to have a
maximum within certain areas? I don't be
very very difficult to pull that off if
you don't have access to transit.
>> Um,
>> but
that's yeah, I would think that
in certain areas we might want to
explore max.
>> Okay.
One of the things that strikes me
between policy one and alternative
policy one is uh policy one is almost
using it as a tool to focus.
So China seem to have the push for
presumably more efficient implementation
of trend to sort of higher development.
It's possible without
something that is something considered.
Uh yeah, the only thing I was going to
say is I think we should make sure to
consider the future development of
transit when doing this sort of a study,
maybe this is just for parking right
now. But I think if we're going to be
doing the fit study already, it's
probably more efficient to plan in. We
know that light rail is coming to Isqua
eventually. Well, we hope. We don't know
yet. They we're hoping that light rail
comes with Isiqua. We can probably get
some information from Sound Transit on
like what the planned drought increases
are or like what it would look like if
got a higher population and if it's at
all possible planning those things in to
like when while we're doing this study
also do like a future projection of what
parking and development could look like
for ISO that might be more efficient.
It's it's just an idea.
>> Yeah,
sure.
Great. Yeah, great feedback and hearing
general support for this concept of a
policy. Probably a study that would
really incorporate kind of both the
options that are here, but really look
at whether we want to remove um parking
minimums solely or consider the study
would look at whether we consider
proximity to transit and looking at it
future transit as well as parking
maximums and certain.
>> Great. Thank you.
All right. Um the next one
[clears throat] is um another
bigger policy. Uh this would be
evaluating whether the city would want
to go above and beyond multifamily
charging requirements above and beyond
current state requirements. Um, right
now the 2024 code, state code mandates
10% of parking spaces in multifamily are
fully functional charging and 25% EB
ready. Um, what we're proposing here is
to assess if we would want to increase
to some certain point or at least do a
study to see whether we want to go above
and beyond that or if we would want to
jump right to a requirement for 100% EB
ready. Um, I think I mentioned at the
last meeting that Redmond did put um the
100% EB ready requirement in place this
summer in their multifamily buildings.
They um did consult with developers and
did not hear concerns. So that has gone
into effect in Redmond. At the last
meeting, we did talk about potential
concerns going kind of above and beyond
state code and whether that might push
development of communities. So
interested on any additional reflection
on this policy um and either the options
or an alternative.
>> I would say
if Redmond did not have any particular
problems for developers over having the
requirement to be ready,
I don't see a reason to
have a study to evaluate. I think that
it would be more efficient to just go
straight to EV ready if there are proven
examples in this area
at least working initially in the I mean
we haven't seen it pan out yet but I'm
sure that they also did a study and
maybe we could just partner with them to
learn a little bit of what they've uh
figured out because personally I don't
see it being super different depending
community because we're all trying to
build the same kind of buildings here.
>> Thank you. Sorry about earlier. Um I had
joined but my camera wasn't totally
functioning and I'm not sure if my mic
was on or not on but um I will echo what
um I think Lamir was saying. It's a
little hard to hear um who exactly is
talking um virtually, but um my I do
have a question if we know anything
about when Redmond um was looking into
doing this before they did it. Was there
any concerns about um any kind of like,
you know, stress on the grid, right? If
you're putting in more AV readiness
um
if that came up at all. I I'm not
particularly concerned. I just want to
kind of see what we would be
anticipating if that is something that
arose out of Redmond's process.
>> Yeah, that's an excellent question. Um,
the EV ready includes installing the
conduit wiring and a panel. You're not
actually putting the physical charger
in. Um, and so I I don't know if they
completed that study. They have been
looking at a larger grid capacity study.
So, I can definitely follow up with
them. That's a great great question. Um,
we know that we've heard from several
condos and t town homes that have had
some issues putting in EV charging. So,
it would be a great um question to look
into.
So um
so I work with an organization called
life enrichment options that is
currently uh participating in building
the trail head condos. Um and some of
the requirements for that group is that
we have backup.
So uh backup power won't be owned
without without it being kind of a
building wide thing is challenge. Uh one
of the things we we kind of briefly
entertain is looking at the uh the uh
what is it the vehicle to charge um
which from a physical implementation
perspective is pretty similar to I
believe with the the wiring or the
charging in general because there's a
couple other components of it but this
might be something to look at as well
>> and I think it it would be we look at it
from the perspective uh just improved
support for
uh heads with uh emergency readiness.
So that would necessarily transportation
board.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah,
I'm hearing um some question maybe
understanding a little bit more Redmond
study impact on grid
um maybe expanding the benefits that
could come from this but I've heard some
support for looking at 100% EV ready. I
think we'd want to understand what
Redmond went through and
>> I have a question. So when you talk
about 100%
>> Yeah.
>> Uh you provide the infrastructure. Is
that what it is?
>> Yeah. The developers, it's so much less
to install the EV. Um the it's the
conduit and the wiring is installed. The
charger actually isn't in place yet. Um,
but it's so much less expensive for the
developer to do it at the time of
development versus going in and
retrofitting the parking spaces.
>> My understanding that the technology for
those like the EV charger themselves,
it's like fastpaced that they keep
having new generations.
>> So having like this infrastructure, does
it fit for all or is it something that
gets needs to be updated every now and
then?
>> Yeah, that's a great question. And I can
look back at how Redmond
addressed that, but I don't think that
they were thinking of a particular
charging provider if they were putting
in universal
readiness, but it's a great that's a
great question. They can
>> My understanding is that it's a standard
T20
something like that that needs
[snorts]
level charger,
maybe level one, whatever it is. It's
not the fast DC charger that's very
difficult and the
the technology for the chargers is
essentially just a switch. There's not
really there's any change in that
charging technology other than what's
built into the car itself.
>> The other thing is
this circuitry that they're planning on
installing is essentially just wires.
And while the gauge of wires does matter
if like suddenly the voltage that we're
charging cars at increases, it doesn't
matter if people are using like a
different brand or type of charger
because the part as I understand from
the city what they're planning on doing
the EV readiness, it's just basically
putting in the copper wire to make sure
that you can get electricity to the char
to the parking spot in order to install
whatever brand or type of charger you
want. Although the voltage is the main
concern like so if we do at some point
decide to charge EVs at a significantly
higher voltage we could become outdated
but otherwise I think it'll be
>> it would require a big change to the
grid because we're talking about
>> Yeah. Exactly. [laughter]
>> where that type of charging most likely
isn't needed with someone parking
overnight.
>> Absolutely.
>> But it also get rid of all these days.
They may only need to make 10 spots
ready. [laughter]
>> Yeah, I think
the developers want to build and
ready
and uh above and beyond. You're not
asking
and just have it easily accessible.
We're going to build
>> I actually have a question.
>> Yeah,
>> this this probably varies on a case by
case basis, but would people typically
be able to like install their own
charger at the
>> parking at the at the unit where they
have their at like the parking spot?
Yeah, that's a good question. I I don't
know how all that works. I'm assuming
that's up to the developer and whether
folks are renting or purchasing a space.
I know condos oftent times the um owners
of the condos are putting in their own
chargers. So, I don't know. I'm guessing
probably the owner of the development is
going to be the one installing at some
point as the demand increases, but I'm
not sure how that ownership works.
>> Yeah. I'm just I'd be curious is like
whether this provision allows
in a situation where you have individual
owners condo complex allows individual
condo owners to choose to install their
own charger in their parking spot.
>> I don't like if that's possible better.
>> Yeah, I would think
>> I don't know if that's something to say.
>> Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah, I
would um think that at a condo, a town
home development, that would be the
intent that then the owner could, but it
um an apartment complex that's probably
on the property manager.
>> Yeah, it's a good question.
>> Yeah,
>> if I may add to that, this is for a like
brand new build or like a redevelopment
where like it's almost like gutting the
whole building and like redoing it. So
like a very substantial kind of thing.
Um yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, this that is an assumption with
the development that um you know if
we're thinking about this as you know
smaller marginal costs if some
redevelopments don't you know parking
lot that assumption might hold so you
want to you know be careful
[clears throat] crafting this.
[snorts]
>> Okay.
Okay. Third one, um we discussed this
one also back in the fall. We have a
current action in the plan that speaks
to requirements in our codes for um
storage for bikes and scooters, but what
had been identified as a gap was
charging access. Um and so what the
proposal here is to make a minor
modification to that minor modification
to the language. The implication is
larger. um but to require some type of
storage and charging access for electric
bikes and scooters. Um I believe this
group talked about and we've heard some
concerns around safety and fires um
regarding the batteries. Um
but want to open it up to the group on
any feedback that they have on creating
the charging access into this action.
I don't know if this is getting too at
the Louise, but is it appropriate to
specify
um covered and secured?
>> Seems like that would be a game changer
if you were using that to commute
[snorts] all year long
>> instead of a car.
I'm curious. Is this It says
developments. Is this just for housing
or also for businesses?
>> Um, that's a great question. I'll need
to I think the intent was around
multifamily and housing, but I'll need
to look back at the original language. I
didn't bring that document with me. So,
that's a great question. Do you have
feedback on which it should be? There
might be a benefit to also having a
requirement for employers to have some
leveling of structure for that because
it doesn't help very much if it doesn't
have support on both ends.
>> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't think you necessarily need
charging at the employer if you've got
charging in the houses. I don't know
what the requirement looks like, but at
least looking at some kind of a policy
to make sure that you've got end to end
support for charging bikes for storing
bikes and stuff. And I want to second
Cynthia's comment on secure [snorts]
because ebike theft is a really big
problem. So, I mean, I have a friend who
his bike was inside of a garage and it
still got stolen. So, if this charging
is outside, nobody is going to use it.
>> Yeah.
[snorts]
I have a little trouble wrapping my head
around exactly what is going to happen
with this one. You know, there's a lot
of feels like who's paying for the
charging is just a socket that you plug
them into, right?
>> Is it requiring some kind of specialized
charging for a device or
are people going to use it? Are they
just take a battery to their house and
charge it anyway. What is really the
impact?
You know, we can assume it's going to
increase adoption, but to me, it sounds
like there's still going out of it.
>> Okay.
We want to at least get some exact, you
know, how much how much does this cost
impact the developers in North
do we increase the adoption?
>> My gut is yeah probably do but uh
a lot of uncertainty. Okay, that's a
great point and the language we don't
have in here because it was an existing
action we are modifying is around that
feasibility
assessment and impact. So we could add
some question.
>> Yeah, I think marginal change though
could be cost, there could be complexity
as
has anybody done this before?
>> Yeah. Okay.
[clears throat] I would say I've already
this but I just think to clarify I think
honestly for me
I think storage options like secure
storage is more of a priority than
charging spaces because as Adam said
>> a lot unlike an electric car you can
pick up the battery off of or the bike
in some cases off and uh charge it
externally often
>> and the main conflict I've seen a lot of
people have is that it is
like you store your bike inside your
house. Like if you don't if you're in a
multi family unit, you probably don't
have your own garage. So like
>> having a place to put it is a bigger
barrier that I see for a lot of people
because not everybody wants to have like
living time and that is the option that
most people are having to do right now.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
Well, I was going to say the exact same
thing and I guess maybe I was going to
ask the question a little differently
and that's obviously I could distill
this down to bring it to this board, but
was there
um was that evaluated with the storage?
Because that's kind of when I was
reading it and rereading it doesn't even
say anything about storage in here.
We've just added that. Is that something
that was considered and then is that
already in there or
>> Yes, that's um we do have some
requirements around storage in our code
and I think it's also called out in the
mobility action plan. So that was why we
were adjusting this one. But I think
going back and making sure it is that
lose that because I I it's a pretty
common feature. Um
>> it it especially and I don't own any
electric vehicle, you know. um bikes or
anything like that, but it sounds like
people can remove the battery. And so it
seems like the barrier might the storage
barrier might be a bigger priority than
the charging. I don't know. And and it's
not only secure, but covered also. It's
kind of nice if you leave your helmet
down there and just your stuff, you
know. Um so covered, I think,
too. So I just don't want to lose that.
Sounds like it was it's addressed
somewhere else, but I want to make sure
we don't
>> Yeah, we'll double check that. And I
like that language covered and secured.
And then also this end to end that kind
of looking at housing and places of
employment. Make sure that's both
covered um by hearing possibly less of a
need for the charging access um but that
there may be some feasibility and
impact.
>> Thanks. Um yeah, so I can talk to the
the parking code. Um so it's section
18604
in our land use code. Uh we have two
parts. We have like a short-term parking
requirement um for different like
commercial uses um I think some uh
related to like uh just like adjacent
sort of uh like retirement home type
pieces where there's employees that
would use it. Uh, then we have like
long-term parking for like people that
park for longer than eight hours. Um,
and so I think they're they're both like
I think we added them two years ago and
they're kind of like in their infancy.
Uh, we didn't want to like overprescribe
how much parking we require um because
we want to kind of like meet the demand
where it's at. So um it does exist um
currently but yeah these are kind of
like add-ons to uh sort of support the
other part which is you have so many
hills and valleys electric uh bikes are
like a pretty practical way to get
around. So just adding on top of that,
>> right?
>> Anybody shedding?
literally blockchain. It's it's the idea
that you know you're building a big
building and you end up arguably
distracting from a major thing that you
accomplish. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Be careful.
>> Yeah. [snorts]
>> Right. Um, this next one is a new
concept uh coming out kind of through
the council committee asking for
inspirational aspirational policies. Um,
and this one was a policy that Vancouver
BC was going to implement. They have now
backed off. Um but it require it was
going to require electric vehicle
charging to be installed at fueling
stations and there would be an increased
um business tax um applied to those
fueling stations if they did not install
the EV charging. So it was really to
make sure there was widespread access to
EV charging across the city of
Vancouver. Again, they've pulled back on
that. They cited um concerns about
equipment availability and the ability
to be able to install enough chargers um
for the fueling stations to meet.
But we're [snorts] throwing out the big
ideas. Wanted to see if Tab had feedback
on this concept and any variation of a a
concept.
>> I love this idea in theory. Um,
I'm thinking about like when you pull in
to get gas and how it takes like less
than 10 minutes. Are people like going
to be at the gas station long enough to
get enough like juice from this charging
thing? It would have to be quite a fast
charger, which I think are usually
put in. Um, yeah, I really love this
idea in theory, but like land use spots
for them at gas stations and um just I
guess how utilized they would be. I
would have questions about,
but I like it in theory.
>> Okay.
I'm curious actually along those same
lines is the plan to have like highspeed
chargers at gas station because I don't
think the triple chargers useful. Yeah,
that's I think Vancouver was looking at
DC fast chargers which is a
>> 20 to 40 minute charge depending on
>> restaurants not gas station
>> they have the fast chargers outside
Starbucks those are very well used and
Target
>> yeah I am close to this one as an EV
owner uh I have never thought about
taking my EV to a gas station or some
equivalent to the gas station.
Um the thing that potentially we would
be addressing here would be people that
do not have chargers
and I think we're making a big push
towards EV charging uh accessibility at
multif family homes which I think is
really the right direction to push. The
other place you need chargers is
[clears throat] road trip and trying to
support road trips to through
that's great but gas station is so
restaurant
would be much better at that and maybe
get rid of all the gas stations instead.
>> Yeah, it just it doesn't seem to fit.
They actually use chargers.
>> It occurs to me that a policy of
requiring EV charging at gas stations
use road trips would be a great policy
for a statewide or nationwide policy
because that would enable people to
travel long distance more easily.
However, it seems like
it maybe especially since there are
other we we already have highspeed
chargers in Isiqua. Isqua is not a very
big city and I
>> the gas stations that I know we have are
only like a couple blocks from where
there already are chargers available.
So, I'm also not really seeing the
benefit of this very much.
>> Collect taxes. Well, yeah, that that
would help.
>> Yeah, you could just raise taxes on gas
stations without chargers.
>> I'll be very surprised if those fuel
stations.
how would they operate or partner with
that concept because I see that as a for
them that's a concept of like
>> they're promoting something else which
is fuel which is very very different
than yeah I'll be surprised if they
right but yeah
>> I think that some of the gas stations in
school already have the chargers
>> I swear I saw the gas stations
>> I've seen some in um central Washington
like in Ellensburg
Sounds like I was ever run out of
electric power [laughter]
and it's definitely happened to me
twice.
>> Yeah,
>> I've had to call people like someone
bring me a battery.
>> I I ran William and my dad ran out of
like when he first got his sleep. We ran
out of power.
>> Trying to get back to the dealership.
>> In all fairness, that wasn't an intra
supply trip. So I see that I was it
would not be traveling that I would say
>> we have some recur
[laughter]
back anymore.
>> We do I'll just note we do have some
other actions around looking at private
partner public um partnerships and um
looking at incentives around EV
charging. So I those weren't necessarily
policy related. So read those for today,
but we have some other tips and advice.
>> I just want to echo um kind of plus one
on that just does it feels like maybe a
lot of pushing a boulder uphill to not
very receptive
type of business or not a huge benefit.
It just doesn't feel like the great
place to spend energy.
Is this something this my this idea that
I have is a little bit more of I think
like probably land use related instead.
But is there a
it feels like almost a happy medium of
if say a gas station goes out of
business in town instead of another gas
station taking it over. you know, as EVs
become more and more um [clears throat]
the population of cars is probably a
better way to phrase that. Um it just
makes sense to instead of putting
another gas station in there, putting
charging stations in there. And I know
I'm sure that's I don't even know how
feasible that is just land use wise,
right? There's probably gas tanks that
you have to dig up and but I guess is
this a
um that way instead of adding charging
stations to gas stations? I don't know
how often gas stations go out of
business in town, but having that policy
kind of in the city's back pocket of,
hey, if this happens in the future, um,
we can effectively convert a gas station
to Navy charging station.
>> Yeah, that's interesting. Any kind of
like incentive for a developer to put in
a charging hub or like Yeah.
Like what about maybe like just
[laughter]
put chargers in and then you could go
shopping.
On that note, I think that maybe putting
in more requirements for like
retailers and stuff like that to have
charging stations might be more
applicable. I think that somebody else
said something like that earlier about
like restaurants having charging
stations. I just think that like maybe
having a requirement for like the strip
malls owners to put in charging
stations. There already are in some of
the strip malls inquad. I think that
like we know that that works and
requiring it everywhere might be a
better or even like the city offering to
install and operate
uh or putting incentives for that. I
know you already talked about
incentives. I just want to put my
support for that. Like having them in
places where people are going to be
staying there for an hour anyway, three
minutes um is a good place to focus
instead of this policy.
>> Um and PSSE does have programs where
they'll put in um EV chargers. We've
shared that information now, but maybe
there's a more active role that the city
does and going out meeting with
retailers, meeting with sharing these
opportunities that really won't cost
them anything, but might help drive
business to their stores for 40 [snorts]
minutes. [cough]
Okay. Then the last one is very
conceptual um when looking around for
kind of
big policies. Um we found Berkeley has
this transit first or we were saying
maybe it could be a transit priority or
even a multi-modal
um priority policy that really
encourages
their leadership to think about trans
think through every city project through
a transit lens. um and really prioritize
those projects that help improve um
access to transit. Um again, this would
look more like a multimodal or take
whatever shape we thought was
appropriate for Isiqua. Um so we don't
know exactly what this would look like,
but wanted to at least put the concept
forward. um something that's a little
more progressive that we've seen in
terms of really um promoting transit in
some other communities.
>> I think one of the challenges that I see
here is that uh our decisions on where
to put transit are not the city's
decisions but they're in conjunction
with Metro Transit. Um we might be able
to think about bridging the gap here
though like uh a lot of what we what we
do as a city is you know kind of define
where the growth will eventually beh
for transit. Um and there's a bit of a
chicken and egg there because you know
the growth we want depends on the
transit and the transit depends on road.
Uh
to bridge the gap we might think about
some of the microtransit options. uh
that the city is looking into and kind
of focusing those around the corridors
where we want the additional growth with
the assumption that that would spur the
development that you know justify to
sound transit
metro to put in the train
just I'm not sure that that would be
something
I know this fairly conceptual but need
each other.
>> I I do feel like the essence of this is
sort of, you know, sort of the DNA of
that. Um,
and as long as you're rattling off some
specifics in this, although it is pretty
broad, but
you know, signal priority for transit, I
think we've talked about that, isn't
that? And you know, so there's pieces of
this throughout. So it um I guess
there's something about the way it's
written. Evaluate feasibility and impact
of a transit first transit priority
policy.
I feel like we've been talking about
this for 10 years. I mean, or longer
probably, but we've been talking about
as long as the uh tab has existed. So it
it feels a little
just as a written policy at this thing.
It just feels a little coming out of
left field as opposed to like
evaluating
whether it's adequate. Is it strong
enough? Is what we have strong enough is
a more interesting question to me than
having some sort of like I don't know
the way this is worded. Maybe maybe I
down so long and like feel like
you know we've been yeah this we've been
working on you know so um I think it's a
valid question to say is it enough you
know are we doing a good enough job but
this sort of feels like
I haven't even thought of this
>> right thinking about this for a while so
>> and specifically around the map is the
map strong enough in terms of its
transit as a priority multimodal is that
I guess Yeah,
>> because it's just it's it's through it's
woven throughout.
>> Absolutely. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Related to Cynthia's comment, I'm
curious how this is different from what
Paul's already doing.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's um the way they have it was
really uh their council leadership
filtering
their city projects through does this
benefit access to transit, more reliable
transit, increase transit. um and that
they were really, the way I was reading
it, they're really prioritizing those
projects over other um transportation or
projects that might benefit
[clears throat] um vehicle table
vehicles. Mhm.
>> Um I think it could take a different
shape, but I I like Cynthia's point that
this is is kind of more the essence of
the map and maybe it's just of
evaluating are there opportunities for
strengthening that to make sure it
really promotes that transit
priority.
>> I think if the goal is to improve is to
increase the priority of transit that
makes sense. school. The way it's worded
right now, I just did not get that from
it. I was like I the way it's worded, I
had no idea what it meant.
>> Yeah. So, I think wording it in a way
where it's like more clear that the goal
is to increase the priority of transit
because we already have a transit
policy. So, it's like
>> we don't need to implement an entirely
new transit policy because we already
have an entire moility action plan
[laughter] to elevate the
>> Yeah. So just maybe decreasing the
priority of the action plan is what I
don't know exactly but like
>> it is I don't know the way it's worded
is
>> okay great feedback
all you made it through. Those are the
five policies. Um really appreciate all
that feedback. What I'll be doing is
taking your input. will be um actually
presenting some of these will go to PPC
tomorrow and then we'll be presenting to
the council committee in a few weeks
with a list of the major policies that
are being considered for the IAP and
then that will all be going to the
environmental board in March and then
review. Um, we're still waiting on the
process council wants to go through for
finalizing the ICAP, but um, I don't
anticipate another touch point with CAP,
but we'll let you know if there's um,
any policies that they want to kick back
reflection to you all.
>> Stacey, appreciate you keeping us
informed and it's so open is trying to
do it's distributed throughout all the
city.
>> It's a tough job. Thank you for all the
>> Okay, next item on the agenda is
reports.
So,
uh Thomas,
>> yeah, so I have uh three things I'd like
to mention, then I'll give the floor to
Andrea. Um the first thing we are doing
recruiting for TAB. Um, so there will be
uh some interviews that um Cynthia and
Julian will be joining me on. Um, so
that'll be on the 12th and I super
appreciate you making time for that. Um,
yeah, so we have two regular positions
and two alternates. So yeah, looking
forward to that. Um, next, uh, Chair
Boyd and I will be going on the 16th,
which is a Monday. Um, be taking the TAB
work plan to council, um, for adoption.
So, that'll be pretty straightforward.
Um, yeah. So, I'm looking forward to
that.
Uh, let's see. Next is, uh, so I wanted
to provide just a brief update on the
TIP, the transportation improvement
program. Um, so that's going to come to
the next meeting in March. Uh, so you'll
see the tip project list and then we'll
welcome any feedback that you have. Um,
so the tip project list is updated every
year. Um, talked about this at the last
meeting, but um, so you'll see some new
projects. Uh, some projects will fall
off because we've completed them and
then other projects will be uh, sort of
like shifted in terms of like u what
things cost, like how how much revenue
we're expecting to support it, all these
things. So, all those little details
will be uh provided in March, so we're
looking forward to your feedback.
>> Okay, thank you, Thomas. Uh, hi
everybody. I'm Andrea Leonard. You've
seen me a couple times. I'm the deputy
city administrator. Last night, many of
you were there. We had a community
meeting on the light rail coming to
Isiqua. How many of you were able to
attend?
Okay,
>> great. So, I just wanted to take a few
moments out of today's meeting. Thank
you for coming. It was a very packed
house.
>> We had confirmed over 115 people. Uh,
and so there may have been some folks
who couldn't fit in because we were
pretty packed to the gills. Um, so, uh,
I want to take a few moments today just
to ask those who attended, um, what did
you think? Were you left with other
questions? What are your impressions?
Are there things that you wanted to make
sure the other TAB members understood
from the meeting?
>> I was very impressed with the plan and
the cooperation that's happening across
this entire area of the east side. Um, I
wasn't expecting like the mayors of half
the teen county to be there, but they
were. [laughter]
[gasps]
>> And uh,
I
the plan that the city has laid out to
kind of court the continuation of light
rail service here was extremely
impressive. the I was a particularly
something of particular note is I
believe and I'm quoting some I'm I'm
trying to remember from when the meeting
was happening but what the mayor said is
we were planning to cooperate with other
towns nearby to hopefully set up a
situation by which if light rail comes
here it would expand net metro service
not just to Isqua but also to all of the
surrounding towns through the form of
potentially having like more transit
centers there that could bus into
Isakiqua and then provide access to the
greater Seattle transit network. And I
thought that was an incredibly good
plan. I don't know if that was already
part of it, but I think at the very
least highlighting that as part of the
plan going forward was something I was
very interested in because I think
mistake that so many cities make is just
covering the entire area near their
transit center with parking garages.
something like that. I'm glad I'm not
doing that.
>> Thank you. That was not part of the
original plan. That was an idea Mayor
Mullet had um after he was elected and
he's getting, as you saw, support from
Maple Valley, Stone Call Me, and those
other cities. Our hope is that those
parking garages or or parking
facilities, whether they're garages or
not, parking facilities, um in Maple
Valley, for example, then we have a good
uh transit shuttle to the light rail
system that should alleviate some of the
congestion and give people a real option
to um to transit from those communities.
And so, Isiqua would also see some
benefits from that in terms of reducing
congestion on Front Street, Iscoart
Road. So, um, so yeah, we're working
with those communities to see how much
traction we can get on that idea. Thank
you.
>> You guys did a great job. Really
appreciative. I went home and then like
summarized it for all my friends who
could not come. Did a great job leading
people with very specific action items.
I think it's really important as well.
And
really make it a point to tell them like
this next [clears throat] three to four
month timeline and like why it's such a
priority to speak out now and do
something now because I do think people
are like well that's 20 years from now.
Um so straight up telling a room of 120
people that like the [clears throat]
decision is going to be made in the next
three four months. you need to do
something now I think was really
beneficial and you told them explicitly
like what to start doing and to do it
too but um that made it really easy I
just to summarize and like hey you can't
make a public online comment you need to
email and it was [clears throat] really
>> I appreciate
>> thank you for sharing that too with your
friends that's great thank you
>> so I think there are a few very
interesting parts the discussion last
night. One of them was on representation
and so I you know
volunteering to [clears throat]
represent
very similar representation
opportunities elsewhere but there's I
think the point made last night is that
there's not a lot of you know kind of
local representation on transit board uh
and so that might be leading to not
giving enough uh attention
one end a lot of people here paying a
lot of taxes and
should be represented better. Uh so
certainly anything can do to be more
effective getting representation.
I think we typically leave that to city
council
to pursue some specific.
>> Let's let's talk about that because
there are a lot of questions about that.
Um, Sound Transit board members are
appointed and so, uh, Mayor Mullet has
been talking with, uh, members of the
Sound Transit board, uh, to try to get
appointed on the board, um, and talking
with Dao Constantine, who's um, CEO of
Sound Transit and has another meeting
with DAO tomorrow morning. Um, so he's
definitely trying. Uh I think it would
be great uh if as you were writing into
Sound Transit Board and providing
comment to say we want representation.
This is a major uh major
uh piece of infrastructure for us in
Isiqua and we want to be represented. So
you know um a point point Mayor Mark
Mullet. Um I think that would be a a
great addition to the message and
something we might be focusing on in the
next couple of months as well. Um
because you're absolutely right with uh
former mayor Fred Butler on the board,
that's um how we got light rail planned
for Isiqua in the first place and we're
doing what we can to influence that. But
I think if um people spoke up and said
we want representation, I think that
could also go a long way.
>> Yeah, I think the the second big subject
was uh kind of the discussion of
fairness. So focused throughout
[clears throat]
pay taxes and kind of expect what is the
local uh requirement to spend money
locally. Is that called
>> sub area equity?
>> Sub area. Yeah. So that was discussed
and
>> but it's not a requirement to spend
money locally. Right.
>> Well, it's that the sub area benefits
>> and so how sound transit defines how
isqua benefits you know that has been
watered down over time and so while the
gentleman from I think snowquali who
said well it would be very hard for them
to cut um that's not my understanding my
understanding is um they could say well
isqua benefits from a downtown transit
tunnel. Um, Isiqua
could benefit from the line going to
Kirkland
um, but doesn't need to come to Isiqua.
>> So, so there's there's and they could
say Isiqua could benefit from instead of
light rail giving you BRT, which just
this is this is my view. Uh before ST3
was passed 10 years ago and up until the
pandemic, we had um 10 minute 12minute
headways on the 554
um that went along the I90 corridor, one
seat ride to downtown Seattle. And um
that was at capacity. You couldn't
always get one of those buses. You had
to stand in line, wait for the next bus.
Not room for your bike on those buses.
And that was before isans were taxed
extra to pay for these benefits. And so
our position is that BRT is not uh a
benefit worthy of the tax dollars that
Isqua has been paying in because we had
that before we started paying extra
taxes.
>> Um so so but Sound Transit Board could
decide that it is and say well we've
satisfied that criteria for sub area
equity because look now you have BRT.
It's just like the 554, but it has a
fancy wrapping. And uh you have a two
seat ride into Seattle from now on.
>> Yeah. So, this is one of the specific
areas could be vocal about it.
>> Yes. And I think more abstractly there's
a fairness concept that most of you know
audience and I think the presenters last
night as well um you know thought that
what could possibly happen would not
really be fair based on you know what we
convey yet and what we expect. Um
which I think brings us to the third
point which is efficiency and cost. Uh
so one of the subjects that was brought
up was I guess the back of the envelope
math to do a significantly less
expensive route to isqual. Um I think a
lot of what Sound Transit is eventually
going to make decisions based on
costbenefit analysis and so digging into
those numbers of like what is it that
makes transit more expensive such as
quiring rights away uh
changes to the plan you know at some
point
I think multiple surgery we're going to
do what we can to keep those costs down
I would personally look to see more
details of like where do those costs
come from and how do we cost down how do
we minimize how to get the benefit that
justifies the cost of building the grid
because I think the numbers are more
than that and there's a lot of writing
way that already exists potentially
building a very inexpensive at least
relatively expensive road to
>> yes I I think the numbers do work for
us. I think that um the politics may not
um just because Seattle has a very loud
voice and so that's the reason why we're
really trying to galvanize support in
Isiqua and make sure we also have a loud
voice. Um it it the costs of um
connecting Isiqua to Belleview are a
drop in the bucket compared to the West
Seattle to Ballard uh line. uh they have
to tunnel in West Seattle. I mean maybe
um there's other comments about this,
but no tunneling required. Um there will
be some overpasses required. Um we you
know I think so so looking at the um
connection to Bellev, that's what we're
focused on. There's also the leg going
from Belleview to Kirkland. Um but we're
really focused on completing the I90
corridor connections. Um and so and so
we're we're hoping that there's some
savings and that the city can use our
bonding capacity. We can talk about um
scoping of the project and ways with
Sound Transit to provide some ideas from
our community about how we can save um
on cost. We will need to work with Sound
Transit staff to get a more detailed
cost estimate. So, I know you asked for
um more information, but we um we we
will need to work with Sound Transit
staff more to get good numbers.
>> Yeah, I want to get to that.
>> Yes.
[snorts]
One thing that I wasn't clear about from
that town hall was
I guess I haven't been following closely
enough, but why is Isaqua not hitting
it? Because I as so what I understand
there's currently a train being put
across the
across the lake to Mercer Island. Is
that where that train is going to end? I
thought it was coming all the way out
the I9.
It's it's going to Belleview but before
Eastgate. So it turns like around
Belleview way and heads up north. Okay.
>> Through Belleview and then connects on
to Reg.
>> So that's the current ST2 project. And
so that cross Lake connection will be
open
April I think. Is that March?
>> March. That's right. It is. It's March.
Yeah,
a convenient transit ride from here. Uh,
which is annoying because it's a very
close drive. So, that kind of like
tradeoff always frustrates me, you know,
like I can drive here 15 minutes and
take me like 35 minutes on a bus. But I
thought trying to
escape
>> and Sound Transit avoided that because
of concerns with the Mercer Slooh. The
Mercer Slooh has and I90 itself and the
Mercer Slooh. It's rough. It's um you
know it's very unstable soils there that
make it hard and costly to engineer
through. And so we're still curious.
Well, but
how what does that look like if we
wanted to do that? Can we provide
savings in other parts of a project that
can be something we can achieve? Is is
wash dot in a different place than they
were um 10 years ago when we were
planning this out? They have, you know,
is there partnerships that we can
consider to make that connection
possible? Um because connecting East
Lake uh to East Lake and completing that
I90 corridor connection I think just
makes sense given the travel patterns of
the region.
>> East Gate.
>> Yeah, East Gate. What did I say?
>> East Lake.
>> East Lake. Oh my goodness. Eastgate.
Thank you for correcting me.
>> I don't know. When I lived in Scout, I
hated driving all day. Nature kind
Yeah. Other
questions about light rail? Um, so let
me give some some update. Maybe that
will help. Uh, so this so for Mayor
Mullet, this is his number one priority
is making sure that we get light rail
inqua. And so we're spending a lot of
time and effort, Thomas and I and a few
others on this. But we need everybody's
help. And that's what the meeting last
night was really about is making sure
that Isiqua residents were educated and
understood was going on. I had a number
of people approach me um who didn't even
know that light rail was planned for
Isiqua. I know Thomas has made a lot of
contacts with people who didn't even
know. And so um sharing the word with uh
your friends and neighbors, especially
Isiqua residents, is super helpful
because a lot of folks just don't know.
Um, we have a board Sound Transit board
meeting tomorrow at 1:30 to 4 o'clock
that we're trying to uh get as many
people to come and provide public
comment or just to show up at the board
meeting. We have some matching purple
t-shirts for folks to wear and be
visible. Um, purple is the color of the
line uh on the maps on the Sound Transit
map. So, that's why we chose purple. Um
and uh so we want to galvanize support.
We have um a shuttle that we're taking
folks there tomorrow. We've got 10
people signed up for that shuttle and I
think a few more are providing public
comment. So we encourage you you can
email the board. Um you can sign up for
virtual public comment starting at 8
a.m. The sign up starts at 8 a.m.
tomorrow. Um, and uh, there's going to
be a series of meetings between now and
uh, June when the board is going to be
making these decisions and I think
probably likely beyond June. Um, one of
those meetings is a board retreat
happening on March 18th. That's going to
be happening in Tacoma. We'll also be
providing a shuttle service to Tacoma.
Um, and that'll be a big field trip.
We'll have to bring lots of snacks and
have a good uh, get our mixtape going.
Um, but uh, so the idea is, you know, we
want to be part of the conversation. We
want to make sure that Seattle isn't
left out or that isqua isn't left out
because other communities are louder
and that's the general idea. You had a
question.
>> I think the last meeting mentioned that
like Kirkland might not put up a fight
anymore for it. Has that is that still
>> Great question. Yeah. Uh we have you
know over the years heard kind of mixed
things from Kirkland. I think um they
haven't been as vocal or as organized as
Isiqua has about light rail. We're
pretty bullish on making sure that our
light rail station is built. I think
Kirkland is maybe a little bit later uh
to the effort, but they did um they did
contact us earlier this week saying they
were interested in partnering with us
and um there's an article in the
urbanist that or perhaps it's on uh the
urbanist blue sky. I'm not sure, but
there's a reference to it um that
Kirkland wants to be included in these
efforts for light rail. So, I know the
city of Belleview is also a big player
in this. A lot of that ski link goes
through Belleview and um they're also
interested in connecting Eastgate from
the conversations we've had so far. The
Belleview City Council is going to have
a meeting on it on March 17th
and um where they will discuss and uh be
able to kind of make official what their
position is. Um, and so, uh, we're
looking forward to engaging our partners
in Belleview and in Kirkland to really
come together on what are those cost
savings ideas and and then engage with
Sound Transit staff and see what we can
do together to um, make sure that we are
building light rail on the east side and
that we can do it in the most
cost-effective way and in a way that
does serve the needs of our communities.
So,
this isn't completely related to light
rail, but it is related to some transit.
It is my impression that they're
currently planning to cut the 554.
I know we tried to make a stink about
that earlier and I'm not sure if that
actually moved the needle at all, but I
do think that it might be a worthwhile
talking point to talk about the fact
they are already
significantly like they say it's going
to take the same amount of time. There's
a big big very big difference between a
one seat ride and a two seat ride to
Seattle. The fact that they're already
giving us a two seat ride to Seattle and
then they're planning to not give us
light rail is maybe a good talking point
because they technically are required to
have that sub area equity and like being
like well if you were removing our
transit service multiple times in a
short period of time that looks really
bad for you. Like I think that maybe
talking about the fact that there's kind
of like continuous slits to this area of
the region is something we could focus
on. Yeah, I I think that's a great
point. We are, you know, we are
continuing to advocate now through June
and probably beyond June. There's going
to be a lot of messages that we want to
roll out and I think this is this is one
and I think it's a really good one
because what we've seen is the 554
again pre- pandemic was one of the most
popular routes in Sound Transit system
and now we've had reductions after
reductions. Meanwhile, more offices are
returning to the office, more workplaces
are requiring our employees to return to
the office. So, we're going to see that
demand um come back and increase. But
our service has not uh has not returned
and with the crossplate connection that
one seat he rides going to go away. And
my conversations with Sound Transit
staff is not that the the time to
Seattle is going to be the same. They
acknowledge that it's going to take
longer. um they they uh have said, you
know, we don't we hope it's not going to
be too longer because frequent headways
um will make sure that transfers
nobody's waiting for a really long time
um to hop on the light rail, but we know
it's going to take a little bit longer.
And I guess, you know, with this decline
in overall service to Isiqua, I agree
with you. This is a really good point to
raise with the community and make sure
people are aware. And I think I think
Sound Transit board um needs to be aware
of that as well. What the is writer
experiences
>> because my concern is that as they cut
service to Squad, they can show that
they can be like, well, people in Isqua
aren't using service. It's like, well,
the service here sucks, so of course
we're not using it. And then that's an
excuse to continue cutting service,
>> right? Especially if like they don't
want to build lighter. It could be a
great excuse if they like I don't I'm
not saying they're sabotaging our bus
service on purpose, but I do think that
at the very least it could have that
effect of if the bus service here is
really bad, then it looks like there
aren't any transit writers here because
I'm not I I ride the bus every day. I'm
not sure
that I would choose that if I had to
take three different transit options
just to get to my final location. That's
what we're not talking about a two ride.
Most places in Seattle that would be
three which is a significantly larger
burden because most people aren't trying
to go to the stadium or Udub. I mean a
lot of people are you know they're
trying to go there but like you know
people are I need to get to Queen Anne
every day. [laughter]
[snorts]
Yep.
>> So I think that calling it a three three
seat ride is probably more accurate.
Maybe that's the terminology we should
be using even if they're using a
two-seat ride because realistically for
a lot of people it is including myself
be a three seat ride and I think maybe
that would be a good talking point to
hold.
>> That's a good point. Thank you.
>> Any other questions or thoughts about
light rail?
>> Thanks for the update. absolutely urge
everybody to write the transit board
as well as a web page where we can find
all the information and contact
>> is squawwah.govlight
lightrail.
>> Thank you. [snorts]
>> All right. Anything else in the back
report today?
>> Nothing for me. Erica, do you know the
chair?
>> Hi, folks. Um, I I do a little bit. Um,
I just wanted to thank everyone who did
go to the light rail meeting last night.
I'm uh here down south in Olympia, so I
wasn't able to attend in person. So,
it's really great to hear these reports
and I'm so glad that our great board had
uh good representation [clears throat]
there. So, um I would echo uh uh Vice
Chair Adams uh encouragement to um send
in your your letters of support or sign
up for comment. Um, and I guess I wanted
to just mention that the um, uh, Senate
and House budgets, uh, our roll out was
earlier this week. And so if any of you
all are interested in checking out, um,
the transportation budget in particular,
um, you can go to fiscal.wah.gov.
Um, that's got where all the budget
budgets are housed. Um, so thought I'd
just put a plug in there. And that's all
from me. I will see you all in person
next month.
>> Gonna take over the chair duties again
and leave me to my vices. [laughter]
>> Thank you for wielding the invisible
gavvel while I'm gone. [laughter]
>> I was promised a physical gavl. It never
showed up.
>> You have to bring your own.
>> Okay. Any other board members or staff
have anything to share?
Well, thanks again for a lovely meeting.
Uh, meeting adjourned.
>> Thank you guys. [snorts]