the April 22nd Transportation Advisory
Board meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
transportation advisory board is in
person, but staff members or other
members public may be attending
virtually or in person.
For the record, do we have oral?
>> Yes, we do have a record. Absent excused
is Cynthia Crass. Um, we also, uh, know
that Lamir is going to be late because
he's has some schedule conflicts.
>> Uh, very good.
>> Uh, do you have alternates acting
serving as regular members?
>> Uh, we do not, not today.
>> Okay.
Uh
so uh first order of business uh this I
would like to announce for those of you
that have not heard Erica Boyd is no
longer a member of TAB. So she cannot
sit at the table kick ass
because she's now a council member due
to receiving an appointment on Monday.
Congratulations Eric.
So, we'll talk a little bit about that
later on, what it means for chair, vice
chair.
Save that for the end of the meeting,
too. Um, so first item of business to
approve minutes from the March 25th,
2026 TA meeting. Uh, does anybody have
any corrections
to draft meeting?
>> Quick correction. Uh last name I think
is misspelled. Um yeah just uh switching
L and I.
>> Yes. Great. We'll do. Thank you.
>> That's all.
>> Okay.
Any other corrections?
Okay. Do we have a
uh any any opposed to approving minutes?
So we will take it as unanimous consent
that the minutes of March 2
approved.
All right. Next item of business is
public comment.
Staff, has anyone signed up to make
public comment?
>> I don't believe so. And there's nobody
online.
>> Confirmed.
>> Confirmed. Thank you.
Unless unless Erica would like to make
her comment.
>> The acting chair
just I don't know if I'm going to be
here for the whole time. Uh thank you
guys uh for uh it's been a honor and
blessing to be on the tab. I'm very sad
to be leaving you and I'm very excited
for the new tab era of Joe and the
incoming people you'll have next meeting
do credit Julian
last meeting.
>> So um and please stay in contact. I'll
have those city emails soon. Uh and um I
can't wait to see what police up and
talking
I
want to the best of my ability and
I make it better place to move out the
city.
Thank you for letting me
>> thanks Erica. Uh I think it would be
exciting for us to have a member on the
council because it's always nice to get
to report and
feedback on how we can serve the
council.
So I appreciate that.
Um it was interesting I I also threw my
hand you know and there were many tab or
related to tab
historically or possible teachers who
participated in that process. So it's
just really great to see all
participation.
Okay, that's
so
end of the public comment and uh we'll
move on to regular business.
Um let's see. I think I'm going to come
over a little bit. Uh so as as Erica
mentioned and as Julian mentioned in
previous meeting, this is actually
Julian's last tab meeting. Uh so we will
miss Julian and be jealous of him
missing a city with amazing
transportation.
We do have a certificate
with
um I guess I'll make a comment now. It's
fine to make it at the end, but um well,
it's been amazing to work with TAB for
five years at this point. Uh Star is an
alternate member back in 2021. I think
that inspired
greater involvement in the civic life of
um the city and also the the region and
the state. Um you know and so and place
me from there with the regular member
vice chair for a couple of times and
then was chair uh and so it's been it's
been amazing to you know work with
everyone that work through all the
different cycles of tabs since 21
see how various plans and all that
involved. I think I've always tried to
push for more choice uh in in transit
options as much as I could. Um so really
looking forward to uh going somewhere
where there is a lot of my colleagues
already. Um I'm going to in Netherlands
um for uh masters of public policy um at
Masik University and United Nations
University. So, um, really excited about
that and I'll be moving in August. So,
yeah, feel free to stay in touch with
it. Yeah, I'll I'll miss the policy
engagement with transportation here, but
my next steps.
>> Thanks, Julian. It's been a lot of fun
and we appreciate your service. Yeah.
Okay. Uh, regular business. We'll move
on to the one item we have tonight is
the adapted signal visibility study.
Marina will be presenting.
So,
All right. Thank you. Um, good evening
everyone. My name is Marita Bondela, the
senior transportation engineer at the
city. And then I'm joined here by John,
transportation engineering manager and
Chris with our consultant team here in
Pierce.
So today we're going to be talking about
the performance metrics and measures for
the adaptive signal feasibility study.
So objectives for this meeting, we're
going to recap our overall study goals
and objectives. Uh have an overview of
previous tab input received in the
January meeting. And then we're going to
spend the majority of the time
presenting and discussing the study's
draft performance and met metrics and
measures uh for feedback.
Um so I'm going to do a quick overview
of the study uh to start off here. So
most of the existing signals in the city
use detector technology mostly radar
detection to detect when traffic is at a
signal and that dictates the signal
timing. there is adaptive signal
technology which is more adaptive to on
the ground conditions. So that's what
we're looking at here. Uh for this
project we're looking at various
arterial corridors in the city. So you
can see here there's um SR917th.
We've got Northwest Seamish Road and 56,
Northwest Gilman Boulevard and East Lake
Seamish Parkway Street and then East
Sunset Way and 9inth Avenue and
Highlands Drive.
So, the goal of the study is to
objectively evaluate the feasibility of
adaptive signal control technology on
those corridors we just went over. Um,
while also keeping an open mind that
adaptive technology might not be the
best solution for congestion along those
corridors. There might be something else
like time of day plans that would work
better for specific situations.
So phase one of the study, which is the
phase we're in right now, is really um
establishing a baseline of existing
conditions and infrastructure we have at
the city. Um and also get it gathering
input from TAB and from later from the
mobility and infrastructure committee
with the final deliverable of a highle
screening assessment for adaptive signal
control technology compatibility
and that assessment would be based on
the performance metrics and measures
that we're going to discuss today.
Phase two of the study will be getting
more into the details and building off
of phase one results. So that's really
getting into quantifying costbenefit
analysis of implementing that technology
or other solutions
and um yeah getting more into the weeds.
I'm going to do a quick recap of what we
discussed at from a high level last
time. So uh last tab meeting in January
uh we went corridor by corridor and
gathered feedback about the existing
conditions from you guys. So a lot of
what we heard was that there's some
regional spillback and congestion on
city arterials that's impacting local
traffic. There's a lot of recurring
delays on key corridors. And there's
also signal operation concerns
specifically at Front Street in Dogwood
Sunset in Second and SR900 and the Isqua
Transit Center.
We also talked about priorities for each
corridor um at that meeting. So some
things we heard were to prioritize local
traffic. Um and that tends to be some of
the east west traffic. Um we want to
manage predictable congestion from
schools and Swedish hospital.
There also was interest in protecting
and improving pedestrian and bicycle a
access especially at trail crossings at
busy roads. Um, we also discussed
supporting transit speed and reliability
and setting corridor specific priorities
based on existing signal function and
goals.
And now I'm going to pass it off to
Chris to get into the details of our
draft performance metrics and measures.
>> And this is going to be pretty meaty
compared to what we kind of talked about
last time. So, especially up front, um,
I think we go to the next slide. There's
two types of performance metrics. And
I'm going to go through these. The first
three or four are going to be very
technical, but I want you all to get an
idea of what it is, how we are going to
think about feasibility from that
technical aspect. And then on the second
half, we're going to think more about
what the outcomes of the signals could
be. And that's going to reflect more of
what we heard last time from all of you.
And I'm really looking for feedback. And
if you have feedback on any of the
metrics, absolutely. You know, I'll stop
after each one to kind of let you guys
know. So at the beginning it's technical
inputs into the equation and then the
next half of the outputs. All right.
So these slides all look a lot like a
whiteboard that I had in my team. Um
Tino and Nicola couldn't be here tonight
as well as Jim Peters who was on the
phone during the last call as well. We
all got together in a room and I just
started sketching things and writing
things up on the whiteboard and this is
sort of what we came up with. So the
first thing is how are we measuring the
existing ability to adjust signal
timing. That's what adaptive signal is
going to do. Right? It is adjusting your
signal timing over time. So if your
timing is for example really constrained
because of how many pedestrian calls you
have or how often you can switch back
and forth. I'll take the example of
front street and sunset, right? Because
you have what we call a split phase
signal. you're giving a very little bit
of time to each of those legs and you
can't have them all running at the same
time. Adaptive signal adapt adaptive
signal control technology can't do a lot
for something like that and you have to
do something geometric, right? So there
are solutions but ASCT is not
necessarily one of them. So, we'll be
looking at the ability to sort of uh run
if there are already or run uh
additional time of day plans. Meaning,
if you guys remember the cartoon that we
watched at the beginning of the last
time I was here, um meaning the traffic
engineer John will create a time of day
plan and then go and install it on the
controller and that means at a certain
time of day the signal will operate to
allow people to go a certain direction,
not the other. Well, if there's more of
those plans that are needed or if they
are already pretty restrained like we
have time of day plans for everything,
it's not as adjustable. It's already
set. It's fixed. Um, if there are a
bunch of coordination, so if each signal
has to run independently because
everything is um very, you know, uh,
segmented up and down the quarter, it's
not super adjustable. we want to be able
to adjust it in systems to be able to
get that kind of flow up and down
corridors that sits on the more
adjustable side of this spectrum. Um,
and then of course there's this there's
a range of cycle length and that simply
means how much green time we give in
total. So when we're sitting on a signal
and there's a full green time all around
the clock, maybe it takes you one minute
to serve every leg. If it's two minutes,
it serves every leg. That's your cycle
length. How long it takes you to serve
everything before it gets back to that
same spot. So if you stand on the
corner, watch for a green light and you
start a green like a stop timer when the
green turns and then the next time that
light turns green again, you stop it.
That is your cycle length. Um if those
are super constrained, meaning that they
can only be within a certain like tiny
range, that's going to constrain the
adaptability of the signal as well. an
adaptive system will be able to extend
that longer or cut it down. And there
are things like pedestrian calls, um
vehicle uh sizes and lengths of
intersections and things like that that
will restrain how much cycle length we
can take away or is that great. Like I
said, this is super technical. So yeah,
>> can we make it an hour?
>> You don't want to.
>> Yeah. I mean, so like
>> rule of thumb, we say like 160 seconds,
but if you think about it, if you're
sitting there on the side street for 5
minutes, even if there's 300 cars
rolling by you the whole time, you ain't
happy, right? So like you don't want
that. So it we really try to keep it I
think 160 is probably the longest I've
seen and I don't recommend that. 120 is
pretty good. Do you have a rule that you
like to go with in the city right now
or?
Not that I know of.
>> Right. And I don't think you have
anything over 160 in the city. We've got
all the signal timings. I think they're
all sitting at a maximum of like 120 to
140. So that's not unheard of. That's
pretty standard across this region.
>> So lower end like minimum that a
pedestrian takes to cross six lanes of
traffic.
>> That is exactly the control.
>> Upper would be people don't want to wait
longer. And I'm happy you brought that
up, Ben, because the the fact that the
pedestrians are often crossing the
busier street, right? So those six lanes
of traffic, that takes them longer, but
that's where all the traffic is. So
you're often giving a lot of time to the
side street with two lanes because it
takes so long for the pedestrian to
cross that major street. That is what's
going to constrain your signal timing
because you're forced to give that minor
street so much time because your walks
time has to be so long for that
pedestrian to get all the way across.
>> Well, so you're talking about number of
those, right? So that means if it is a
frequently crossed street, you know, or
cross and there's people
>> Yeah. and then it's called on a lot. And
that's where the number of signals
connected in a row comes in. Because if
you're not serving that walk phase every
time, but you are trying to coordinate
in a long system, one PET call now means
that you're going to throw your system
out of coordination because you're not
going to be able to coordinate. If that
one signal is now meaning, it's going to
have to serve that side street for half
of its cycle length and it's just once
every so often that's going to throw it
all out as compared to a signal that's
going to serve the walk, you know, uh
the walk phase every single time that's
repeatable and we plan for it and then
it doesn't throw it out of coordination.
So, it's the combination of all of these
things that ends up pushing us either
very fixed or very adjustable. and
adaptive signals are going to work
better if it's very adjustable. So, this
is just it's kind of a quantitative of
we're going to go through we have all
this data, but you got the last one
there, the number of pet calls was the
last one. Um, and that is whether or not
it's become super fixed or or
adjustable. We just kind of give it a
thumbs up, thumbs down rating and then
rate it as adjustable or fixed and see
how well it can work. This is the high
level phase two. We're going to do much
more analysis to get the like minutes
and seconds of delay we think we might
be able to save by doing this and
quantify it and cost it out as compared
to what it would cost to build the
system.
>> So, so this is sorry, let's get it out.
Yeah,
>> this would be an interesting place where
you could look for potential
interventions where you know there's
just this one thing that makes the
adjustability
uh constrained and maybe we could adjust
that by paint adjust it by pedestrian or
you know yeah I mean we were already
talking earlier today about projects
that are already on the city books to do
that could change this. We're looking at
those already. They're just things that
we want to do to improve. So, so
adjustability might be sort of a
spectrum of if we do nothing there's
just some adjustability but I think a
little bit maybe
is phase one or phase two those sorts of
things.
>> So it's going to be a combination. I
think right now it's more qualitative of
like okay it's not very adjustable right
now we're planning on a project which
will make it more adjustable in the
future. We would assume that as a
baseline in our analysis when we get
into the quantitative of like modeling
it and that would be okay here's here's
what it's going to look like in five
years if we do that and adaptive what
are we going to say because I when it's
already in like the tip basically the
city has said we're going to we're going
to do this we're going to pay for it
we're going to build it we're going to
find the money and it's going to happen
the adaptive hasn't gotten to that point
yet so we want to see how much better
indeed.
>> Yeah. I'm sort of thinking of the
adaptive evaluation might identify
properties onto the Yeah. And I'm
thinking of like building
that's a long pedestrian that we would
add a project that comes out of this
work
allows.
I think that one of the very possible
outcomes is that we could find corridors
where adaptive is feasible and we come
up with a road map to use the pun to
come up to say here's how you get to
adaptive signal operations and we get a
number of of corridors where it's not
feasible but we identify a bunch of
steps along that feasibility. Remember
the ice cream cone, right? Just getting
more timing plans, better detection and
more communication. What if we were to
do those things to improve the signals
in general but not go fully adaptive and
we get most of the benefits anyway right
so yes I think it's exactly the point is
that at the end of this we'll probably
get a road map of either adaptive or
along the way of adaptive
to figure out how to best manage
you said that upstream and downstream
signals are not coordinated but that
signal and it's adjustable. So they go
um the metro out of sync in terms of
maintaining a green wave kind of thing,
>> right? We want to see that there are a
like a number of signals that we can put
in phase together to get that
adjustability that we're not because if
you just turn this the knobs at one,
you're not really getting it benefit.
You want to be able to turn the knobs on
the system altogether. And that's again
because adaptive is based on like what
the communication between signals. You
want to be able to have a good chunk of
them together. Now let's say washd dot
owns a number of signals right in the
middle of a really important corridor
like I don't know Front Street.
That's going to interrupt the ability
for those to connect, right? So that
could slide us to the fixed side.
Make sense?
>> Great.
I'm ready if you guys are. All right.
So, this is all about the systems uh the
signal system and equipment and how
compatible it is with adaptive signals.
So, as John uh think you had said it, we
have a lot of um radar detection right
now in Isqua and that's mostly because
of the fog blocks a lot of cameras and
videos, but a lot of adaptive systems
require us to use videos. So there's a
compatibility issue. There's also
compatibility in the kind of uh
basically the PC, the controller type.
Some adaptive works with certain
controllers but not with others. And
it's basically like owning a Mac versus
a PC. The kind of software you can run
on it, right? So we have to make sure
that the types of adaptive programs that
are out there are going to work on the
signal controllers. So basically what
we're saying is that either it is a
significant constraint meaning we'd have
to replace every controller and all the
detection in the city that would be a
huge undergoing for the city to do as
compared to you know moderate to minor
upgrades. I think if we're looking at
just putting up more cameras to
supplement the radar, maybe that's
doable, but there's a cost that we would
evaluate in phase two, right? So,
there's a there's a range here to get us
to qualitative. Um, some of the things
that we're looking at again that
existing detection coverage and
functionality.
Is it all radar? Are there video
available? Are they on all legs? Is it
upstream and downstream? because
adaptive wants to know if I give it a
green, does the car have a place to go?
Um,
is there reliable communication? Is
there radar or radio communication or
fiber optic or phone line communication
between them? Where does that go? Do you
have a question, Julia? I'll ask. Okay.
Um, let's see what else there is. Yeah.
So, I already kind of went over like
software compatibility. Um, and then
there's all like the transit signal
priority, emergency preeemptions and
cloud services. All these different
things that the city wants to do or is
doing with its partners like King County
Metro and Sound Transit. We want to make
sure that whatever we're doing is going
to work with the future of Sound Transit
and King County Metro's signal
priorities and all of that and that
we're not short changing those modes as
well. Um, yeah. And then I just have
like an other constraints. Um so
maintenance issues for example you know
again there are signals within the city
that are owned by washd that aren't as
maintained as the city staff would like
for sure but city staff takes better
care of their own stuff obviously than
washd has been here they have a lot to
do. Um so there are maintenance issues
that may need to be addressed in order
for adaptive to work as well and that's
still a funding cost. from someone from
somewhere and how we approach that. So
again, we're now measuring this between
minor upgrades to significant um
constraints and obviously something with
minor upgrades is a plus. So that's
highly feasible for adapted versus
something that needs significant
constraints or significant upgrades is a
little more feasibility.
Any other questions on this slide before
I go to the next one? I mean I guess I
had the question of like what's the
delta between each of these like minor
moderate and significance um you know
how much would it cost
I think the to you know bring the
detection coverage or like reliable
communications up a tier um rather down
the tier um
I don't have like a set dollar that I
would say oh well $5 is minor for me
that would be but like
>> not exact dollars obviously but just
like how much of a barrier is it between
the
>> I think at this point we would keep that
extremely general and think
>> more in the way of it is a lot of work
to do all of these the number of signals
that need that type of upgrade and the
type and the amount of upgrades that
they would need and again I'm thinking
things like citywide controller upgrades
the city
taking over wash dot signals in order
for this to work and the maintenance
that that would need. Those are huge
costs as compared to installing new
fiber or radio interconnect or you know
something that it's on the gauge of more
of like 15 to$20,000 a signal. The city
could take that on piece after piece
after piece and kind of roll that out in
a reasonable time frame. Whereas a
citywide controller upgrade or
purchasing is in the millions and
millions of dollars.
>> It's helpful to understand like the
different costs.
>> Yeah.
>> Between like fiber versus
>> Yeah. And and fiber can be expensive
especially in like super urban
environments. So like that would
probably fall in between, right? Because
once I start digging in the ground all
bets are off. You never know what you're
going to find. So, so I think to to
Julian's point here once we've sort of
discretized this into the categories
minor, moderate, significant, I mean
it's subjected sort of started out with
something that's a little more objective
which is monetary cost, right? It's
ongoing one time cost but you know why
not have a metric that is sent to cost
because we're going to do that in phase
two. One of the specific things in phase
two is for us to do a benefit and cost
analysis. Yeah. So, we are going to need
to detail the costs that would go into
each of these. And that's just
significantly more work. At this point,
it it's a better use of the city's
resources for us to say like this is a
lot of work on this corridor.
This is a little bit of work, but it's
doable.
This one's probably in feasible. Let's
dig more into the cost on this one and
see.
>> Seems like you could get a ballpark cost
estimate and be a linear metric even if
it is one
as subjective. It's just
I only think that matters when you're
comparing many different metrics and
trying to
>> right things down based on that which
maybe you're not doing in phase one but
>> so this would be more of a highle
screening because if all the other
metrics say corridor A would be terrible
for adaptive let's not spend money
looking at the cost. So that's why we're
saving that for phase two.
That's a good point.
>> All right. Um the next one is just
traffic volume and patterns variability.
So this is sort of what I was getting at
with the the I think you had asked a
little bit about the data that we may be
able to get from street light. We're
trying to get that data now be able to
understand what is the variability
throughout the city. So, let's say
there's a corridor that serves a Costco
on the weekends. It's got school in the
weekdays. There's a big trail head with
a bunch of pedestrians at um on sunny
days. And then, you know, during
weekdays in the AM and PM peak hours,
there's a bunch of commuters, right? So,
that is something where it's serving a
bunch of different uses and a bunch of
different um destinations and there's a
bunch of varied demand over time. We'll
see that in the data once once we get it
all up and down throughout the day. Very
very quickly we'll see that that's a
really highly variable volume in demand.
It's really hard then for us as traffic
engineers to set a time of day plan that
works every day during those during the
time period. If it's something as vital
as the weather causes a bunch of people
to go out and use the trail head or um
there's an event at the school or
whatever the case may be, more people
are crossing.
>> Yeah, exactly. They're trying to get out
there. Exactly. So, if there is a bunch
of variability, that does mean that
adaptive would have something to do. It
could sense all that demand, sense those
changes in real time. there's not people
running around the office trying to
figure out how do I what what plan
should I go through? Should I throw more
green time down on this instead? So,
there's some ability for that to
automatically get built in with the
adaptive signal um that builds some
feasibility into it. Um, okay. So, I
just put some different measures in
there. The way we're thinking about
that, just the straight up variability
throughout the day. Um we did say we
added on I um the day by months by uh by
weeks as well. So if there's like just
months of the year where things are
really higher like during the summer
months when there's a bunch of summer uh
a bunch of hikers or pedestrians out and
about in those sunny days as compared to
the winter time when there's maybe not
as much. We can look at that variability
throughout the year peak versus off
peak. Um then there's just daytoday
within the week. So weekday versus like
the Friday or the Saturday. We can
easily see that we can identify
corridors that carry a bunch of traffic
when there's incidents on the freeways
either SR18 or I90 um that end up coming
through the city at that point. That's
something adaptive can automatically
adjust signals to incorporate. So that
would make you know it more feasible on
that corridor. um or corridors that
serve special events. Thinking things
like the theater uh you know on Front
Street or um markets, the farmers
markets or creator markets or whatever
the case may be that that happen. Um so
again, we're looking are things highly
variable? Are they very consistent?
Meaning, I can tell you that there's
always going to be a hundred cars in
this left turn movement every weekday,
no matter what. I can just do a time of
day plan. That's not feasible. Highly
variable. Boy, it changes a lot.
Go ahead.
>> Oh, I sorry. I should let you choose
people to ask questions first. Julia.
>> Um I guess my question here is like uh
when it comes to traffic volume pattern
variability, why is non vehicular
traffic not itemized as part of this
category?
>> Very good question. Um
mostly because
adaptives are not going to do much for
that. So it can it's going to look at
your the amount of pedestrian calls will
lengthen the amount of time you have to
give the side street but it's not really
saying the variability from day to day.
Um
specifically
adaptive is serving the vehicle mode on
the thrift street. So, but you're
getting to a really strong point which I
think when we get to the outcomes
metrics, we try to address by saying it
improves pedestrian and bicycle
experiences and I will get to that.
I was just wondering what are sort of
the the variables that go into making
adaptive sort of effective like what
what are the things that it takes into
account to like change the light signal?
So
I mean these are some of it. I think
that it basically what adaptive is going
to do is look at the traffic in real
time and adjust the amount of time it
can give any leg. Right now signals are
able to do that up to a point. We
basically say okay you have a maximum of
this amount of time. Let's say 30
seconds on this leg. If you don't sense
a car, stop giving green to that leg.
Then we have detectors in the street and
as vehicles approach that leg, it says,
"Oh, there's a car. Let's give it three
more seconds. Let's give it three more
seconds. Let's give it three more
seconds." At 30 seconds, it says,
"That's enough. Let's give it to the
other leg now." Until we hit that cycle
length and it's gone all the way around
and it starts over again. So, it could
be a little bit less, but there's
usually a minimum to a maximum. What
adaptive is going to do is it's going to
let that minimum and maximum be fluid
because what we do in in the office is
take all the volumes, put it in a model,
hit optimize and run and it calculates
all these statistics and tells me, okay,
this is, you know, the best signal
timing for this intersection, this time
of day. And we can run it for a corridor
and say this is how you move the most
vehicles through the corridor given that
it gives me a whole time of plan time of
day plan for a corridor. But again,
that's going to be effective for the
traffic that I have counted during one
hour of one day. And that's been at
great cost because now I've got people
out there counting those cars, going
back to the office, doing the signal
timing, going back out to the signal,
typing it in, checking if it works, if
it doesn't, counting the cars, going
back to the signal is doing that itself,
right? So that's where the variability
helps.
>> Yep.
Good. Okay.
All right. So Billy and Mrs. gets right
to your point. These are the outcomes
and this is more based on what I heard
from back in January which is what do we
think we want out of adaptive signals.
So this is going to help us sort of
evaluate do we think that it's going to
actually help or hinder this overall.
And again, remember we're talking about
signal timings. And at its core, signal
timings are based around the vehicular
experience. So there's more in our
public space than vehicles. And traffic
engineers like myself have been very
slow to come to that table on that one.
I want to say like I understand I am a
biker and a walker. I
this is very important to me as well.
um
can it improve the pen and bike
experience? So, we want to evaluate
whether or not the signal timing, the
adaptive signal timing can actually
improve the pedestrian experience. I
think Seattle's an example where they
heard on Mercer when they went through
and they did their adaptive that it
stopped serving the pedestrians and
people were standing trying to cross,
you know, five lanes of Mercer and it
never got it. So they ended up just
turning it off and that was awful and it
got a lot of bad press. They got some
solutions now and they've got it up and
running not as well as they wanted it to
be but they got something. So we want to
make sure that whatever we do isn't
going to go down that road.
So how are we going to look at that?
We're going to measure or estimate at
least the potential to uh reduce
pedestrian crossing times by shortening
cycle lines. So maybe adaptive signals
can use a shorter cycle length
especially in those times when we know
that there's higher pedestrian activity.
So we can specifically use detection
passive detection the cameras or
microwave or radars to detect pedestrian
activity and adjust signal times. So we
have to make sure though that there are
vendors out there who have the software
that's going to do that and actually
prioritize pedestrian activity and
experience over vehicle.
Um
we want to try to forecast that
pedestrian and bicycle demand um when
they're close to and we just we said
that we would do this by looking for
basically pedestrian and bicycle
generators. Um they are corridors that
serve schools, parks, transit centers,
and commercial areas where we know
people are walking, trying to visit
storefronts. We want to encourage that
environment. Um corridors with multi-use
trail crossings, keep talking about
seven feet, we might as well hit that
again. And then you know tier one
corridors. These are specifically things
in the mobility action plan where we've
already identified these are the
pedestrians and bicycles are a priority
mode that we want to uh design for in
the future. Um
>> so and then core. So one of the major
activity owners could also be like um
housing developments and particularly
you know larger mortgage or uh apartment
units and and condo units um and so is
that part of this major activity
generator designation as well?
>> You know I don't we did not list it I
don't think it was listed but I agree it
should be. So yeah thanks for the
comment.
Um, so I wanted to ask about
everything we're doing with with
signaling is a complex and active system
and captures to adapt. And so one of the
things we put up our bicycle experience
is
that route that signals would choose
today. It might change somewhere else if
we improve the experience in a different
route. uh is that the sort of thing that
we'd be looking at this country as well
like are you only looking at the routes
that are currently traveled or are we
looking at what routes what better
routes might exist? That is what we're
trying to accommodate with the tier one
corridors in the mobility action plan.
So rather than revisit and try to
refigure out where where bicycles could
end up in the future, we're looking at
what the city's plans have already
identified of those desired bicycle
routes that we want to pour investment
in and make better and say that okay,
that is a pedestrian corridor as well
for adaptive. Think about that. So I
don't want to reinvent the city's
planning.
Yeah, I'm thinking on uh on Front
Street. Uh there's, you know, front suns
says terrible light to try to walk
across. There's a a
crosswalk signal not far away.
Walk across that window. So they might
make a different choice if
so that um that's not really a change of
course
but it might be a change of
>> yeah and I agree and there are context
>> right yeah there are timing there there
are timing things that you can do for
that I think
the city is looking at projects I think
right now the I think it's the mayor
pushed the project right about Sunset
and and Front Street as well. So there
are things that are going on in the
background and again when we get to our
qualitative
I got that right quantitative when I get
to the one where we actually produce
numbers and measures of benefits to
measure against costs. Thank you.
um we will
be considering all of those planned
improvements as sort of any background.
We are going to invest in this anyway.
What is this going to to do? So
there are ways that it can maybe help
and I also want to make sure it's not
going to be harmful to those
investments. That's sort of where this
measurement is pointing towards.
>> Yeah. And I think there's a future
metric that also goes over future, you
know, compatibility with the future
plans too.
>> Yes.
>> I guess I had a question about the
overall frame of analysis that you're
doing when it comes to costbenefit
analysis and particularly for some
corridors that I know CPA is a huge, you
know, that's usually what you do for
policy um here in the states anyways. Um
but um have you thought about like
applying like precautionaries sometimes
uh to some of these
>> applying like the precautionary
principle like if if you can project
from the from early stages that there
might be greater harm to a particular
area you will just not pursue it any
longer basically.
Well that's
We can talk about
>> No, I
>> Yeah, it's
Yeah,
>> I think the harm that you'd be referring
to when you're talking to talking about
adaptive signal signalization
improvements overall is induced demand.
>> Right? So I think the danger and the
harm when we're thinking about whether
or not adaptive is feasible is if we add
a bunch of capacity by just let's just
say we were going to change all the
signals green southbound on Front Street
so that everyone can get all the way
down to Tiger Mountain and they can go
as fast as they want.
We're not I'm not saying we're going to
do that, but that is a that would induce
a lot of traffic to go down that way. it
would induce a lot of kinetic energy and
that would have a lot of harm on the
pedestrian and bicycle environment
overall. So I think there's probably a
pretty big delta between what we're
looking at and that amount of harm, but
the induced demand and induced kinetic
energy is not lost on on me. And that's
definitely I think trying to be captured
with within and between the measures
that are on the screen here so that we
do get something that we can actually
report back to. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. Yeah. And anyways, I think CBA
makes more sense for this. Anyways, uh
for
environmental stuff.
>> Good. All right.
The next thing is improve driver
experience. So,
Well, that sure
I think when we're talking about
adaptive, this is again it's sort of the
core functionality is to improve
traffic, right? Improve congestion,
reduce congestion. Um, and what does
that mean overall? Um, we just talked
about like induced demand. So there are
corridors in the city where you do have
traffic passing through that you want to
manage that demand. You want to manage
that flow. You want to accommodate some
of it. It means that there's economy in
the city. There's people stopping for
gas, going to dinner, people within the
city traveling around. So there is some
value and also it's part of our world
right now. Um, so what we want to do is
just estimate the ability that the ASCT
is going to improve corridor efficiency
and progression overall.
And we want to look at that by managing
arterial delay. All the corridors that
we're looking at are arterials. So
that's sort of repetitive, but delay and
reducing cues, right? Or managing cues.
So, not necessarily saying that we're
going to get rid of the cues, but we're
managing them so that they're not maybe
affecting side streets and everyone else
is trying to pick up their kids and get
around town. Um, the am we're want to
measure the amount or the percent of
vehicles that just travel through
intersections and through the streets
without stopping. Um, and then reduce
the amount of sight street delay and
cues. So thinking about how many people
have to just sit and stop in traffic
every time. If there's a a way to sort
of reduce those amounts, we keep people
maybe moving at a decent low speed
throughout the city without having to
stop as many times. That could be a
benefit. Um and that's something that
adaptive signals can do. And there are,
this is also what most of our tools as
traffic engineers are built to measure.
So when we're looking at benefits, this
is probably the one where we have the
most equipment that we can forecast the
benefits for. Um, so there's a good
reason to keep this in the list. Um,
again,
the experience either it improves or it
worsens.
If adaptive signal control worsens the
driver experience, that's pretty much in
feasible death sentence for it right
there. Um, if it improves it, it's
something to consider. Overall, it does
mean it's more feasible, right?
And we will weight all of these. And I
think we're we talked about this whether
or not to weight them across the entire
city equally or whether or not to go
arterial by arterial and give each
different metric a different weight um
on the outcomes. And I think what we're
going to do more of the latter which is
look at each one and say maybe SR900
and Front Street the metrics are not
weighted the same to those two
corridors.
So
this is one where
you know we're sort of comparing
existing condition to predicted future
condition and there's another
like point to measure which will be
theoretical optimal
>> and I'm I'm wondering if
if it's reasonable to
you know have that as sort of a waiting
for the metric as well where you know in
theory if you We completely optimize
travel for a particular corridor we
might get to the plot which is
throughput some number of cars per hour
wait and see you know dependent on that
through that and that's going to give us
a different number and comparing to that
maybe gives us a versus comparing to the
existing
slow slow down you thought about that is
that crazy no it's Not crazy. The the
best thing that I could think about the
way that we would measure this is we we
look at percent of free flow speeds.
>> And that's sort of also the like
percentage of vehicles that travels
through without stopping,
>> right? Because in a perfect world, once
you get off the highway, maybe you go 25
miles an hour, but you make it all the
way through. If you're going all the way
through, you make it all the way through
without having to stop and you're happy,
but you're going 20 or 25 miles before,
right? Then we look at the percent of
free flow, meaning that if there was no
one else on the road, the fastest you
should be going is 35. Just making up a
number. It's going to be different for
each corridor, but maybe you're going 15
or five zero. You know, your average is
like three miles out or something during
the peak. But you know the optimal maybe
is we decide what that percent of free
flow would be and maybe for front street
we say the optimal would be 15 miles an
hour. We think that that's the optimal
amount we want to keep every we'd have
to define that and that would be
something that yeah that's the that's
sort of that metric and
>> we don't use it as much for what we call
interrupted flow which is signals
basically they interrupt the flow. It's
like a highway metric, but it's
something I've I think we used it in our
previous front street study way way back
when I first started at fair like 10
years ago. So, the data is out there and
yeah, we can kind of get some of that.
>> Yeah, I kind of think that ties pretty
closely to driver experience, right? If
the driver is thinking about I'm not
doing a good job getting through dental,
they're kind of thinking about the
experience, I think. So, so probably uh
if we're looking at averages,
we got one number. If we're looking at
distribution, the the 99th percentile
comparing that
flow is going to be where it gets maybe.
>> Yeah. Just taking down some of the
extremes
of the distributions. Yeah.
>> Drive our experience up.
So I my one request would be that that
type of analysis does take quite a bit
more effort and time and numbers.
>> So I think that would definitely be in
the phase two metrics which again part
of our task here is one phase one is the
screen but develop what the metrics are
going to be in phase two. So I think
let's
keep that alive and keep it as part of
our phase two.
Great. All right. So transit rider
experience um improved transit rider
experience. we heard last time about,
you know, um having being on the bus and
waiting a long time for it to be able to
get out of the um transit center. Um so
sort of
inspired this metric, but also it just
seems
good to have all modes as one of these.
So uh we are looking at how to how to
better if ASCT can better improve the
transit rider experience. Um that is
looking at if the forecasted transit
travel times are less or equal to
existing conditions. Sounds like similar
what we were just talking about for
cars. Um and if there's existing
compatibility. Again, this is kind of an
overlap with the other input with the
compatibility with the uh uh hardware
that's on the buses that can change the
signals. Let's make sure that whatever
they're using or want to use in the
future, this is also going to be um
compatible with so that it can continue
to get its calls and its priority
signals um and and just make sure that
the adaptive signal is going to do that.
So we can get some good measurements on
whether or not we think it's going to
improve or not. There's some improve
just if you move general traffic along,
but then there's other things as far as
the, you know, its ability to recognize
and adjust signal timings when there are
buses as compared to when there's not.
So if it can improve that experience,
it's more feasible. If it looks like
it's going to worsen that experience,
it's less feasible.
>> Um
symbolically, um so when it comes to
improves, the preserves seems to be in
the same category with improves and then
neutral is no material change to
transport. So why is preserves
in the improves category?
So
you're right. I think that that first
measure is forecast travel times are
less than or equal to the existing
condition that sounds like improves or
preserves which is the equal like
neutral. And I do I agree that that's
there's a difference. So I think there
should maybe be a comma rather than an
or it
travel times are less than or are equal
to or are greater than and that's where
you get that worms neutral or improves.
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. It's just like I don't see why we
would give something an improved score
if it just keeps staying the same for
transits.
>> Right. Yeah. And I'm not saying that we
would. I'm saying it would fall in the
neutral. So wouldn't give it a I
wouldn't give it a point for that if we
were keeping score.
>> Yeah, I think I read it.
>> And I I think that's my bad. It's the
wording on the slide. I didn't pay close
enough attention to the way that I I got
that at the end. But I agree completely
with those comments and that it was my
intent. Anything
else?
>> Anything else?
>> Okay. I wanted to ask about our ability
to attract the transit that we want
since doesn't get to choose which bus
lines we get. For example,
uh Batman, there are decisions that are
made which and I I don't understand, but
I think they
might tell us they're not doing us a bus
because the bus will just be stop track
for example, right? I choose not to do a
route because they wouldn't have
reliable service to
um the metrics that we're choosing with
transit experience are those the same
ones that
Metro
Transit to serve industries. So that
first bullet is really the forecasted
travel times. That is what King County
Metro would look at when they were doing
a speed and reliability study, which
would be very similar to what you're
talking about, but some of what you were
asking is also on the last metric, which
is that forecasted. So, when you're
looking at attracting new transit, new
options, there's all these different
things that we want to look at whether
or not we're going to be able to get
enough people to stations and make that
viable, right? So I think that's I try
to cover that in the last one problem as
well.
>> Yeah. And I I suppose also existing
transit route experience you know might
also supplemented by the types of
transit routes that we want to attract
measure those
is that experience include as well.
>> Can you say that one more time?
>> Yeah. So if we if it was a particular
bus route that we wanted to see in this
we might include that in the metric. say
yes to say we also want that rout to
improve that track to track.
>> So one of the things
>> and I might have to discuss this with
Marina on the side too. The mobility
action plan does also have corridors for
transit is listed as a mobile priority
and that could be an additional measure
that gets added here that if it's
already there whether or not it has
transit identified then that's like a a
point towards it could improve it. I
think that's an easy way to add it is
yeah go back to the mobility action plan
and where we've already identified are
those routes we can make that more
quantitative that way
>> it's a great great idea
>> and I'll just add in the street
standards and this is for central squad
doesn't really apply outside of central
Esqua but I think that's also where we'd
be looking at transit most likely
because of the density we have it broken
out between core streets
which are meant for pedestrians,
bicycles and transit. We have parkways
which are meant for vehicles and
transit. And then we have slow streets
which are meant for pedestrians. And so
that's a lens that we can take a look at
it as thinking about how the street grid
in central will be developed over the
next 20 or so years.
Identif knowing which streets are poor
streets, which ones are parkways, which
ones
Yeah.
the different typologies and use that to
inform that evaluation.
And I will also add when you're
mentioning bicycles, that's another
place to look for because the course
rates are really where we want the
bicycle facilities. There's one other
place to look, but that's a a good way
to identify those corridors.
Any
>> comments from street six? Right.
All right. So, this is a big bucket
of stuff. Um it's whether or not it
helps you be future ready which again
that is a lot of things in the future
for
as well as policy alignment which is
talking about your mobility action plan
your street standards all of those
things that does this work along with
all the other planning documents that
all the transportation planners that
have helped you in the past help you
come up with right so all the work all
the input that you've done we want to
make sure that we're not going to come
through and do drop a single priming
technology that's going to sidipe all of
that, right? Okay. So,
looking at the measures here, we're
talking about we want to look at how
many signals are planned along these
corridors. If you're installing a bunch
of new signals along the corridors,
they're going to need a lot more timing
and they could be coordinated. I I feel
like this is one that say like, oh,
being future ready would mean let's get
some of these signals that are out there
today often ready to be undapted so that
as we bring new ones online and we can
bring people in and out that increases
your feasibility. um the likelihood of
serving light rail and this is a very
specific couple of corridors within the
city. But again, if we're able to have a
transit center or a light rail center,
you end up getting a lot of pedestrians.
You get a lot of uh bicyclist, you get
other vehicles driving to it as well as
the transit vehicles because of people
being dropped off or picked up or you
know your last mile and things like
that, right? So, you want to make sure
that this is this is going to help um
get people to and from those transit
hubs that are planned in the future,
however likely they might be. Um, and
again, if there's
a good likelihood of it, adaptive
signals are more feasible, I would say,
because they would allow you to be more
flexible in the future when it comes to
signal priming without having to
constantly go and update your plans and
update your plans and update your plans.
Um, okay. And then identify areas with
planned redevelopment or redevelopment
potential. The city's growing a lot. you
made a bunch of I think uh maybe it was
you Adam that mentioned all the housing
for pedestrian generators and things um
or Julian. Okay, great.
Um
there's a lot of that being developed
around and there's a lot of potential
for that development to happen in the
future. Right. So, Exactly. And we want
this to be supportive of that as you're
moving people in and out so that they
can get to work here, people can live
here and get to work in other cities,
however that case may be. Um,
so we want to identify if these are
areas that are going to redevelop or
could redevelop again that has
flexibility built into it. That could
mean new signals in the future, new
traffic patterns that we need to account
for. seems like that's higher in
phasibility. Um, and then of course
there's just the identified designated
uh routes for emergency evacuation. So
there are a couple of very limited I
would say routes out of Isiqua if there
was say a forest fire or a volcanic
eruption or an earthquake or whatever
the case may be. I would say those
routes have a higher ability for or
feasibility for um adaptive because it
can sense that oh everyone's leaving
let's just give green and there's no
side streets so let's just give green.
Um there's other ways of doing that too
but I feel like that's just a point we
can put into it and it's something to
consider.
I'm looking at this now and I feel like
we've got them through a number of other
plans as far as whether or not it's
consistent with the street standards and
and things, but I feel like that is
probably given the comments I've already
heard a missed bullet. So, I'm just
going to verbally add it and say that
I'm going to go back and and do that.
And but with that, I'll questions on the
phone.
on the fire evacuations that we look at
the types of adaptive planning that
other cities use for that. Do we see
anything that goes beyond the sort of or
aspect of increasing the cycle times or
increasing?
It's such a new
>> Does it fit into that that space of
things that we would do to support that
or or would be looking for other
emergency controls?
>> So what I hear so I work a lot with
Claimus County and in 2020 Placus County
which is just south of Portland huge
county the entire county was under an
evacuation order because of the forest
fires in Oregon. And what I heard from
them was their signal timing. They could
change their signals. So the traffic
engineer stayed behind and was changing
signal timings from his computer to get
people out of town faster. But it was
when they ran into other jurisdictions
where they couldn't control that. That's
where it was hard. So again, I think
there's some identifying that system
compatibility and who owns what signal
and what. There's some feasibility
issues that are going to be maybe
conflicting with that, but I would love
to think that an adaptive signal system
could do that without having to sit here
in city hall and do it. That would be
great.
I I do want to add one thing though.
Evacuation center, an emergency. There's
yeah the example that Chris was talking
about where it's everyone has to go but
a likely scenario is okay everyone has
to leave by this time and then what you
end up having happen happening is some
people are going immediately some people
are going to their homes and yeah so
it's not a simple
thing
>> yeah so I think the the core question
was is the
mechanism, the adaptive mechanism
sufficient to cover the species as well.
>> Not alone. And and I think it's just a
new it's a new area that not a lot of
agencies have
experience or preparations for. It's
something that the
industry in my field is learning and
working on right now. And we've learned
a lot from California, especially last
summer.
um virus
and we're adapting um right now and this
is one to that we have sort of pointed
to as this is this is great. The other
tool is flexibility and infrastructure.
Um, when we talk about pedestrian spaces
in Seattle, we talk about them as also
like emergency
centers so that if you need a place to
deploy so that you can hand out water or
you can put up like field tents for
people who need bre, you know, breathing
treatments during a volcanic eruption.
you could do that in your people's
streets without interrupting a bunch of
other emergency travel in and out during
that time, right? So, there's some
flexibility built into the system.
That's been the other big part. But I
feel like that's maybe getting a little
off the single topic and I love to talk
about it, but
>> yeah, it's certainly a big topic for
this.
>> We did do an evacuation study as part of
the emergency management.
So, I see if I can find a link to send
that way people can have a good time
falling asleep reading it.
>> That was a really good conversation.
Um well I guess I more situational
question about the policy and like where
imagine that like when it comes to this
policy we're and I think it goes to like
the citywide and you know particular
when it comes to weighing of this like
do we particular on case by case or
citywide it's um
because we are trying to you know as
this you know seventh metric is like
saying we're trying to make this future
uh you know feasibility uh you know
policy and so um
because it is we are trying to make it
forward facing should we think about
actually I was originally think you know
we would we should make this a
you know corridor by corridor that's
what I thought was a pretty good idea at
first but now I'm thinking like should
we make a citywide weighing to kind of
dictate you know what we'd like to see
in the future across across the entire,
you know, particularly for the central
area in the valley and and all the
arterials here. Um because in the
future, we would like to see this
amount, you know, this weighing is is
what we're trying to say as a policy
statement. We want
it this area to be more uh you know have
more amenities for or more amutable to
transit riders and um pedestrians bikes.
And so that's my
situational question about this policy
or this this you know operational
outcomes weighing um and and the overall
alignment with metric 7. Right. So, I'm
going to argue with myself and then
throw the question back at you and see
if I can I I would like to actually get
you all you all of your opinion on that.
If you think that we should go quarter
by quarter, just do these citywide, I'm
open. So, one way to look at this
citywide is is metric 7 a past fail. If
adaptive signal control is just not
future ready or within the policy
alignment, fail.
Not, let's not do it. The other thing to
think about though is that are every
single corridor that we're evaluating
these on an evacu an evacuation
arterial. They're not. Not every single
one of these is an evacuation arterial.
So, we don't necessarily want to apply
every single one of sort of the sub
measures under the metric car blanc.
But either of those approaches, I think,
is a reasonable approach to the analysis
and defendable. So what would you all
like to see
>> or are we are talking more about like
the met all of the outcomes?
>> This is my last metric.
>> Yeah,
>> I was going to hand it back off, but
this is also like I would love to have
the conversation with you all and what
you think.
>> So I I think this is kind of where we
talk about investment,
right? So as we the next five years
improve our investment by just
improvements to maybe not spending as
much time on traffic or something like
that then our horizon is kind of five
years
future stuff beyond that yeah maybe it's
not perfectly aligned but we've already
investment so it was a good investment
that's kind of the way that I think
about it
so I think a lot of that can be done
corridor by corridor
If we find that it's difficult to
justify the investment maybe then we
probably
look at
what's the potential to do beyond the
corridor
decomposition problem.
>> When you say the investment you mean the
cost bearing to get to that?
>> Yeah. Assume for a minute that we can
bring this down to a dollar cost.
It's a little more complex because as
time involved alternatives.
>> So,
>> so incorporating this, how does that get
incorporated into a city municipal code
and becomes like
a requirement and then you can
get future developers to adapt to that.
>> So, there's a couple of things. Um,
first of all, the
if we were to go on adaptive, I think
the city would probably adopt an
adaptive signal plan, saying these
corridors are adaptive. And then
something John and I have talked about
are just putting together standards for
what signals are required to have and if
it is on that adaptive signal planning,
then you would have to build to that
standard. So when a new development
comes in, they're required if they are
going to be required to do sort of
off-site improvements, they would have
to build them to that city standard. Um
I think city of this what has an impact
fee program and also looking at this
when you update that again if you if we
find this is feasible look at all those
costs of what it's going to be and that
would get that would end up getting
wrapped into the impact fee program so
that it has developed they would be
paying into the fund that would then
deploy those improvements into the
future including new signals that are in
the plan today that would now need to be
adaptive and the additional costs for
that reducing that barrier to that
invest ment with that problem and you
push it on the other party to stick to
that standard.
>> It's a yes and no.
>> So I think this would be a very much a a
council
policy decision because the council on
one hand is saying let's make it easier
for housing developments to happen
because we need more housing in this
fund. So then if we were to then put
extra costs on development and say, "Oh,
if you want to build this 400 unit
apartment complex, you need to spend an
extra $200,000 on signal equipment and
competing goals." So it's
it's a lot to unwrap.
>> Kind of look at it a slightly different
way, which is that a lot of what we're
trying to do here is to make the network
more efficient. So get more out of
network for particular cost. Um there's
a discretization of that like we have to
make chunks of investment to do it but
ultimately we talk about increasing
throughput which is necessary to for new
development to come in and build
what we're doing with this ought to
reduce the costs of increasing through
because it's a better technology.
So if we do it right, make the the right
choices here, it automate
the impact the developers,
but that's maybe easier said than done
in the sense that uh
we we need to really calculate that
future news as a potential metric.
I think that the piece that's almost
impossible to quantify as well is you're
the whole reason why I'm here, why we
ask a question is to see if we can make
this an even more desirable location for
people to want to own a business,
operate a business, to have a home and
travel to and from, right? So, can
adaptive signals and so this is now I'm
like at 30,000 ft. Can the adaptive
signal control technology make Isqua a
more desirable place overall? Even
though maybe developers have to pay more
to develop here, they have to pay a lot
to develop in Seattle. They have to pay
a lot to develop in Belleview, but all
the cities in this region are investing
in themselves in order to make them more
desirable for that development and for
the people who live there now. Right?
So, that's a bigger question overall.
And I think I mean I'm trying to get at
some of those things with these metrics,
but that's a really esoteric thing to
measure and I'm just an engineer.
Um I mean I guess um you know I guess
like the big thing that you'd be that
we're going to be considering in the
future and I think it's most relevant
for us is just like thinking about this
idea of weighing you know metric four
five and six seven um and I feel like
I'm not sure I understand quite yet like
what the trade-offs are when it comes
to, you know,
uh,
evaluating these on a case by case
versus a citywide. Like if we were to do
we were to weigh it more transit rider
experience and pedestrian bicycle
experience um, and you know reduce the
weighing for driver experience. What
does that mean in terms of versus the
other option option option two of
overweighing private experience at the
cost of the other two? Um and so like
what does that what do we lose? What do
we gain from those two things? And and I
guess does improve transit rider
experience and improve pedestrian
bicycle experience weighing those above
the driver experiences that mean more
precautionary overall for adapting
adaptive signalology.
The the more you talk about it, the more
I'm sort of realizing that what we're
just talking about is fidelity, right?
So, if we didn't weigh these citywide
and we weigh them all corridor specific,
that just means that we could go through
every corridor and literally decide
corridor by corridor the weight on every
metric is the same and end up with the
citywide being the default. What I think
is going to happen is that we're going
to go through there, we're going to see
some minute differences, but not a lot.
Um, and
it's already 7:30. I say we can I I
it might be worth us, you know, at least
getting back to the tab with sort of
those weights and seeing where we fall
on that um in the future. And I think
that there was a a plan to come back
with the sort of pre-final methods and
assumptions document and things before
we went to our next I think it's the
next meetings to council, but maybe
that's in the next steps that you'll
cover too, right? Um
>> so yeah, originally we were going to um
after this meeting go to mobility
structure next in June. Um, but I mean
it seems like it might be worth coming
here again to talk about waiting more
specifically. It seems like that's a
worthwhile discussion. So
>> now we'll be here next.
>> It depends on what you guys are
thinking.
>> I was just going to say that um I would
say doing it by corridor makes more
sense to me just because of the unique
layout of Isqua. I'm not sure it's
common in every cities of just you know
creeks and lakes and hills and you know
all of the things all of the variables.
So because of that I would lean towards
order.
>> One thing I add to that is it makes more
sense for first almost I would say six
metrics to do a quarter by quarter just
because how specific they are. But I do
agree that the seventh metrics more in
particular to be like if you're looking
at future policies, it makes more sense
for that to be in line with the citywide
policy on what what that future looks
like. But I would say for the first six
metrics, at least in my mind, it makes a
lot more sense to look at that basis.
>> So in terms of scoring exercise, I think
last last meeting talked about
improvement
and
basically going through a score exercise
and I personally am absolutely in favor
of even if it's it's you know a
simplified fictitious version of it
getting down to the point of of like we
can workshop a scoring exercise with you
and that makes things really concrete
you can get better feedback from the tab
doing something like that
so I'm I'm in favor
exercise
if it's useful to
>> I'd love to do it. Yeah. So it it comes
down to well I think there's a couple
questions. One looking at schedule for
this team in this project and also for
the tab work plan and I don't have those
in front of me. So yeah I don't want to
promise
>> until I look at those
talk to the appropriate people.
Worst case scenario, I will send some
information through that Marina can
share so you guys can see and do some
homework and send your comments directly
to me that way.
But I like being here so if there's time
be terrible.
So
>> I guess like um
like I guess you'll talk about um the
next steps but you know what you got
from us today and
anything else.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. So I mean um yeah you can see our
next steps on the agenda here on the
presentation. So we this is our second
meeting going over the goals and metrics
and measures for the study for phase
one. Uh the plan was after this is to
take the comments we received here and
then um present those metrics and goals
to the mobility infrastructure committee
if comment as well um and have some
discussion on waiting with them too. So,
um, that's kind of our plan at the
moment and I think we're going to talk
internally too to see if they meet again
before that mobility structure.
And then that would conclude um the end
of phase one will be the high high level
screening for the corridors and then we
would move into then phase two which
would be getting into more of the
details um and and like we've talked
about today a little bit
of each corridor and the feasibility of
adaptive or other technologies too.
All right. Thanks, Marina and Chris.
Appreciate the presentation. You have
everything you need from us for the time
being.
>> That's great.
>> Okay. Well, then we'll move on to the
next item on the agenda, which is
reports.
So,
we have things covered.
And do you have a report?
>> Uh, just super quick. Um
the uh the last time we met we talked
about the TI the transportation
improvement plan that went to the
environmental board. They provided a bit
more feedback mostly around uh bike ped
improvements and had a lot of questions
about that. Making sure that the tip
included a lot of uh a good mix of
projects to address bicycle and
pedestrian needs. And that goes to
mobility infrastructure committee next
month.
Um, and that's about it. I would say
stay tuned for more work on Sound
Transit. We're getting a better idea of
what the plan is going to be for future
light rail in Isiqua. Um, I'm going to
be sending out an email uh next week.
Uh, we're going to be having a rally. I
need to officially book the rally, so
stay tuned for the dates. um once we get
more information. May 7th is the exec uh
committee meeting for the Sound Transit
Board and they're going to be coming out
with the ST3 plan update at that May 7th
meeting. And so that's when we'll find
out um what the Sound Transit proposal
is for is light rail as part of ST3. And
um we would uh likely like to get a lot
of people there for public comment just
to support light rail and Isiqua. And um
we're going to be having a little uh
meeting, public meeting as soon as we
hear more from Sound Transit, their
official word. So likely the week of the
board meeting because the packet will be
out and published at that time. and then
we can make sure the community is
educated on what Sound Transit is
proposing and help involve folks in
shaping the future of transit and so
that's kind of the plan for Sound
Transit and light rail. Um so stay tuned
that first week of May. Uh like I said
May 7th is the exact board meeting and
we'll be having a meeting um potentially
the Tuesday before that. I need to check
out venues and solidified times, but it
would likely be May Cinco de Mayo. Um,
so stay tuned. I'll send out an email uh
to everybody inviting you. But that's
what we have happening for Sound Transit
and Light Rail. And that's it for me.
>> Brick some margaritas.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Tacos. Taco Tuesday.
>> Yeah. White rail is in my opinion so
important the future development
supplies to be able to efficient
transportation infrastructure and build
the homes that so many people are
underneath.
So looking forward to that.
Um
so on the the chair report we got a
couple items of business. One is I
wanted to quickly summarize I had a
meeting with John Wilson to talk about
uh basically follow up from the uh
Newport extra lane. We talked about that
the kind of trade-off between
environmental costs and
friendliness to nonvehicle
uh versus
you know maintaining our requirements
for level of service for various
intersections around. So, we dug into
the details. John's friendly enough to
to prepare some good uh drawings and
show me some of the tools for
simulation. So, I really appreciated
that. I still have pretty big gap in my
knowledge of how all these things match.
Uh but we're going to continue to follow
up on that. Um I think you know
potentially this is one of the places
where
the metrics that we're using and the
discretization to levels of service
might uh might make it a little more
difficult to do that trade uh
discussion. So, I want to continue to
dig a little bit
Johnson to me stealing a bit more of his
time on that and then hopefully we can
make sure council has all all the right
information decisions.
Um, so the other item of business is as
as we mentioned earlier, Erica is no
longer chair of advisory board. uh which
leaves us without a a chair current. I'm
certainly willing to act as acting
chair. Um but first of all, it would be
nice to have uh two people chair and
vice chair just for handling
any any gaps and availability
speaking of which I will not be
available for the July meeting. We will
be without a chair and a vice chair
unless we have a special election. So
what I'd like to discuss is whether you
agree to reasonable for us election for
an interim chair and vice chair at the
next meeting. Uh so people would
nominate and then elect at the next
meeting for a chair and vice chair uh to
cover the interim between
uh basically now and the September
schedule of election the chair.
We scheduled the election in September
because uh we want new members who are
going to show up at the next meeting to
get to know other members of
so they can make an informed decision on
electing a new chair next chair. Uh so
that's why we propose that it's just an
interim election rather rescheduled
September election.
So we'll throw that out for discussion.
Any thoughts?
>> Thumbs up
in favor.
>> So if we're happy with that then
essentially at the next meeting the
election. If you're interested, it need
chair vice chair after the interim just
for the interim period. No commitment to
do it after that. So we need to continue
chair question.
Um
make it known I think to Andrea that be
interested in that
make sure the nominations reflect that.
Okay.
So, I think that's all we have to say
about that.
Someone's plan on holding the inter
collection at the next meeting.
Uh, all right. So, next on the agenda,
other business and announcements. Do we
have any other business announcements?
>> Okay. Uh well
that we will turn the meeting at 7:34.
Thanks everybody for participation
today.
Great discussion as usual.
I didn't realize
>> although my notes were not as detailed
as they normally would have taken
detailed but just a summary of what
you've heard. I have somebody who said I
think maybe
>> you can compile I can put the
>> thank you
because you know you know write it down
I'm always distracted if I try to write
things right
>> I will go home and take and what I heard
>> okay
>> it was actually one where normally I
would have taken way more notes, but I
was just listening and not
>> and I think some of it it'll be easier
to just watch the video and it's
>> because there are a lot of a lot of uh
answers
but just I have some kind of feedback
but I just want to make sure that I'm
including
>> there are a few specific feedback points
that like oh I need to add these plans
into this.
>> Those things in particular, that's what
I
don't mean all of the conversation, just
the the changes and the major points of
feedback.
>> Thanks.
>> Yeah. Thank you. You
on the third
time our system for whatever
I'm not a friend
priority.