Transportation Advisory Board meeting to
order at 6:01 p.m. Uh, let's see.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
Transportation Advisory Board is in
person, but staff are members of the
public may be attending virtually or in
person. Uh, John Mortonson will be
filling in as staff liaison tonight. Um,
staff, do we have a quorum? Yes,
>> almost certainly with all haven't seen
this many people at an advisory board
meeting in a while. All right. Uh so our
first item of business uh is to take
action to approve the minutes for the
April 22nd tab meeting. Uh are there any
corrections?
>> I wasn't there and I'm listed as being
there and not being there.
>> Okay,
>> that's all.
Uh any other corrections to the minutes?
No. Okay. Uh
so I
if there are no objections, I will
proceed to consider the minutes as
amended.
So the next item of business is public
comment. Uh staff, has anyone signed up
to make public comments?
No, I'm John. Sorry. I did want to make
one.
>> Oh, yes. Yeah. So, my name is Mario
Cole. I'm a new uh alternate member of
the TAB.
>> Welcome.
>> But yeah, I did have one comment that I
did want to make to the TAB. Uh that
inspired me to join, which is near
parks. There's typically a lot of
congestion in some of the project
corridors we're actually looking at. get
backed up. Especially Front Street when
it narrows down to one lane, diverting
traffic off onto, you know, Collectors
or side streets. Um, one in particular
I'm concerned about is Reneer Street
near um, Confluence Park. There's a lot
of traffic that gets steered off of
Front Street due to that oneway turn
that you're forced down and people tend
to skip around all the back back up on
Front Street. Uh, and there's a lot of
families and parks. There's also the
East Lake Trail running by, a lot of
pedestrian traffic. So, I just wanted to
encourage any sort of projects that
might help calm traffic on streets like
that that neighbor parks or experience a
lot of I guess shortcut traffic around
traffic jams. So, that was the one thing
I had to mention though. Yeah,
appreciate any help.
>> Thanks, Mar. Just just as a point of
order, the uh in every meeting from for
board member van alternates, you're
welcome to make uh comments at the
meeting as well. will have a section
dedicated towards that. So certainly we
welcome your
>> yeah input.
>> Um also I think for all the new members
we're going to have lots of training
lots of uh bringing up to speed on what
the various uh sort of annual and
bannual processes that we go through
are. Some of those are looking at things
like the um the trip transportation
improvement project,
the tip and the the capital improvement.
>> Yeah.
>> And so those are regular processes that
we look at and make comments on as well.
>> Uh so hopefully you'll find that there
are some additional opportunities.
>> That was my plan regardless of getting
on the board. So
make that comment. I don't know. But
yeah, it's um I'm happy to be here. Sure
is concerned. Yeah.
>> All right. So, with that, let's move on
to regular business. Uh so,
excitement of regular business is
welcoming new members.
So, we've we've had a little bit of a
shuffle here, but that's Let me see if I
can keep up with it. Uh so, we have a
number of new members tonight. Uh
Mario's joining as an alternate. Uh
we've also got uh Tessa Harvey joining
as a regular member. Uh we've got Dave
Wilkinson who's joining as a regular
member I believe.
>> Fairly
surprised right now.
>> Uh we got Masalunis who is joining as an
alternate
and Alli Morton was uh promoted from
Paper.
Congratulations everybody. Um I want to
first say regardless of whether you're
an alternate or regular member,
everybody's opinion on the board is
valued here. Uh so certainly feel free
to participate. U there's there are
procedural things like when we take a
vote, it's the regular members that
vote. Generally, if there's not a
regular member, if a regular member is
absent, we'll promote an alternate uh to
regular member for that meeting. uh but
these are really procedural things in my
opinion the important stuff is that
people come and participate and so
that's where all the the interesting
information comes from and I believe
that's what council values as well
discussions with them. Uh so welcome
everybody. I'm I'm really pleased to see
uh so many volunteers come and help out
with this. Uh what I'd like to do is is
go around the table and uh have
everybody introduce themselves so that
we can get to know the new members and
the new members can get to know the old
members and the old members can get to
know each other again.
Yeah. Um so maybe we'll start with
Lamir.
>> Hello.
>> My name is Laamir. Uh I have been on the
board a couple years now. Um I am a
engineering student. I will be
graduating very soon, like a week from
now and starting
>> and uh starting right after graduation
working in uh construction at a
engineering firm.
>> Um so I'm excited about that. Um and I
am a big transit transit advocate. I
have ridden the bus to school my entire
five years from Isiqua to Seattle.
Ally
>> I'm Ally. um was an alternate last year
and now promoted
um and I work in the human resources
industry and what else did we want to
share?
>> Is that good?
>> I don't think that's
>> Victoria.
>> Uh I'm Victoria. I've been on the board
since last year. I'm a walkability
enthusiast.
Maybe you guys can also say like what
part of is
>> sure mountain
squawk mountain
>> old town.
>> Okay. Uh I'm Hanni Mlad. Uh I've been on
the board since 23 and I live in Isqua
Highlands and I'm a commercial director
in Sound Transit.
>> Hi everyone. I'm Mario Cole. I'm a new
alternate member for the PAB. I've been
in Nisqua for about two and a half years
and I live right next to Gilman village.
I'm a huge advocate for all the
improvement projects being made around
there and everything. So excited to be a
part of the board and share that. But
yeah, I work for Amazon outside this.
So,
>> hey, my name is Dave Wilson. I've been
in Isqua now since 2015. Although it's
the excerpts, I'm actually outside city
limits on my uh having dealt with the
Swahob Bart road mean times aware of
some of the transportation issues ran
into my job is as a transportation
engineer for wash. So that's my
perspective green, but I'm here with
resident to lend my insight about what
I've experienced.
>> I'm Connie Masalunis. Um I've been in
Isiqua for 26 years now. retired from
Boeing um procurement and I live on the
far far west end of uh of Isiqua. I'm
like borderline borderline Belleview and
uh yeah very interested the same way in
uh and trying to see some you know just
better traffic flow, better pedestrian
safety, bike safety.
I'm Adam Fuch vice chair. Uh I first
came to Isqua about 28 years ago but
then left for a long time. Work on the
east coast and come back about 10 years
ago. I live in Oldtown. Uh I I guess I'm
a bit of transportation nerd but mostly
my experience is in other types of
networks, computer networks. Um, so I
often get the terminology wrong,
maybe even translate sometimes. Tessa,
>> I'm Tessa. I uh live in Oldtown off
Front Street right now, but moving to a
different part of Oldtown actually in a
month because we're buying a place and
only been in Isqua like a year now, but
grew up kind of on the Belleview is
border, so was really moving back, but I
work for King County.
My name is Cynthia Crass and since it
started in 2017, I think it was the end
of 2017 and I been the vice chair and
the chair for a while. Um
I live um it's right it's the border of
Oldtown and Central is I think um right
by Conf Park lived there for 10 years
but for 20 years I lived next door in
Seamish. So in fact when we moved to
Samish it was unincorporated Isiqua and
then it was Samish and then moved to
Isiqua and I studied
urban planning with an emphasis on land
use transportation infrastructure but I
never worked in transportation worked
more on the land use resource management
side and now I am retired.
All right. U so that's the the board
members. Uh the other folks will
introduce themselves later as uh as
their business becomes.
Okay. So uh let's move on. Uh the second
item of business is chair and vice chair
elections.
Uh so uh we had um we had a member leave
the the board for good reasons. She's
now a city council member. Uh so uh that
opened up uh her chairmanship. Uh and so
for the next uh four meetings after this
one uh before the fourth one where we
have our regular schedule election,
we're going to uh nominate and elect
some interim chair and vice chair uh to
make sure we have the positions filled.
Uh so that's what we're doing tonight.
Uh at our last meeting we asked for
nominations and anyone interested in the
positions of chair and vice chair to let
us know. Uh
so uh
the results of the election tonight will
be effective starting in June uh and run
until the next election in September and
through the end of that meeting. Uh so
at this point I would like to open up
the floor for nominations for chair.
I'd like to nominate Adam.
>> Thank you. I will accept the nomination.
Give a a quick caveat which is I will
not be here for the July meeting. Um but
I might be able to work with the vice
chair to make sure that it's covered.
Any other nominations for chair?
Okay. Uh this point I'll close the
nominations.
Uh would anybody like to
speak about the candidates?
>> Okay, hearing. Oh, Cynthia,
>> I just want to say I appreciate you
taking the reigns and doing that. I
think you do a really good job and uh
you're very engaged and you're very good
at tracking and um I really appreciate
just want to say thank you.
>> Thank you. I cannot I cannot accept most
of that praise, but I'm working on it.
>> Okay. So, uh with that, uh let's call
for a vote. Uh so, we have one member
nominated,
Adam Fuch. Uh
all in favor of electing Adam chair.
>> I'm not sure if we've been sworn.
Regular members would vote in your rank.
Great.
>> I am officially
>> any opposed.
>> Okay. I believe the vote passes
unanimously.
Uh so I will be chair through the
September meeting. Uh now we'll do the
same thing for vice chair.
Uh so do we have any nominations for
vice chair?
I'll nominate
I'd like to nominate Lumir Maggas
vice chair.
>> I'll accept the nomination.
>> Do we have any other nominations for
vice chair?
Okay. Would anybody like to speak about
the candidate?
I've just been super impressed with his
like light rail enthusiasm and advocacy
and I think he's great.
>> Thank you, Victoria.
Uh, okay. So,
having do we have any other nominations?
No other nominations. Uh, spoken about
candidate. Uh, so at this point, I'll
call for a vote. Uh, all in favor of
Lamir Magus for vice chair
transportation advisory board. Any
opposed?
Any abstaining?
Okay. Vote passes unanimously. Mayor
Magnus will serve as vice chair for the
next four meetings through September. Uh
congratulations candidates.
Okay. Uh quick and easy. Uh so third
item of business, adaptive signal
control study.
uh Marina Bondla, senior transportation
engineer, will be presenting tonight
again on the adaptive signal control
study. Uh tonight we'll look at the W
weighing options or the weighing scores,
the weights, weights for performance
metrics.
Uh Marina, please go ahead.
All right. Well, thank you um everyone
and welcome new members. Appreciate your
time. I'm Marina Bond, senior
transportation engineer with the city.
I'm joined by John Mortonson,
transportation engineering manager. And
then we've got two Chris's here with our
consultant team. Um, Aaron Pierce and
then with Iverson Mobility. So today
we're going to be talking about
performance metrics waiting for the
adaptive signal feasibility study.
So goals for this meeting are we're
going to recap um the study's goals and
objectives. We're going to do a quick
overview of the previous tab input and
feedback we received in the January and
April meetings where we first discussed
this topic. And then we're going to mo
spend most of our time um going over
waiting of the various performance
metrics which will help us determine the
feasibility of adaptive signals in the
city.
So direction needed tonight is um we
want to know if the board supports our
proposed waiting of the performance
metrics by roadway corridor as we
present them.
Um so you guys all have this handout. Um
this is just for reference as well. I'm
going to go over a little background
before we get into the details. So right
now um in the city our signals work with
radar technology for detection for the
most part. So what that means is when a
vehicle is detected at a signal um that
basically um tells the signal to update
its signal timing and that's based on
the detection technology. Um there are
other options like adaptive signal
technology that are more um that respond
to on the ground uh conditions more uh
fluidly than that. So that's what this
study is looking at. Uh we're looking at
specific corridors in the city and you
see them here. So, the ones we're
looking at are 17th Avenue, SR900,
Northwest Seamish Road, 56th Street,
Northwest Gilman Boulevard, and then
we've got East Lake Samish Parkway. It
becomes Front Street North and Front
Street South. Sunset Way, Highlands
Drive, and 9inth Avenue. And then we've
added one more corridor um which is
Northeast Park Drive. The reason we
added that is because its operations tie
in very directly with 9inth and
Highlands. So we thought it would be
important to include it in the study as
well.
So the goals of this uh study are to
objectively evaluate the feasibility of
adaptive signal control technology on
the city's corridors um that are shown
in the map there. So the study is split
into two phases. We're currently in
phase one which is uh the goals of which
are to establish baseline of existing
conditions, look at our existing traffic
patterns, signal equipment and
infrastructure and also get input from
the board and from council mobility and
infrastructure committee. And the final
deliverable for phase one is really a
high level screening assessment for
adaptive signal control technology
compatibility that's based on the
performance metrics and measures and the
waiting that we're going to discuss
later today.
Uh phase one is going to build into
phase two which is a much more detailed
look at each corridor um where we're
going to actually do costbenefit
analysis
um and look at implementation
considerations for adaptive signal
control technology and also potentially
other methods for to help with
congestion like um time of day signal
plans that might be more cost effective.
So, I'm going to go over what we talked
about in each TAB meeting. Um, in
January, we introduced adaptive signal
control technology and we got input from
TAB about each of the roadway corridors
and the issues and concerns they had
with with each corridor. So, some input
we heard about current conditions is
there's a lot of regional spillback and
congestion on the arterials. There's
recurring delay on key corridors and
some operational concerns at specific
intersections.
Noted priorities were to prioritize
local traffic which tends to be east
west traffic. Uh manage predictable
congestion from schools and uh Swedish
hospital. Protect and improve pedestrian
and bike access and safety especially at
multi-use trail crossings across uh busy
corridors. support transit speed and
reliability and set corridor specific
priorities based on function and goals.
So for our second TAB meeting in April
um we presented and discussed the
proposed performance metrics and their
measures and at the end of the meeting
uh the board requested that we have a
follow-up meeting to discuss the waiting
of these metrics by roadway corridor. So
that's why we're meeting again today. Um
the performance metrics were divided
into two types. So we have inputs um
inputs to assess corridor suitability
for adaptive technology and um desired
operational outcomes. So the inputs that
we went over were signal adjustability,
signal system and equipment
compatibility, traffic volumes
variability, and then the desired
operational outcomes that we discussed
were improved bike and ped experience,
improved transit experience, improved
driver experience, and then future ready
and plan alignment.
So each performance metric is going to
be weighted by a roadway corridor and
that's going to provide an overall score
for suitability for adaptive signal
control technology.
So the inputs um are going to be
weighted against each other and the
outputs are going to be weighted against
each other because it's a little
difficult to weight them all together
since they're pretty different from each
other. Um the waiting of the inputs is
going to be determined by the consultant
and city staff. Um, and it's going to be
guided by the review of existing traffic
cons uh traffic conditions and system
infrastructure.
And what we're going to focus mostly
today on are the desired operational
outcomes metrics
um and how we'll weight those per
roadway corridor. So I'm going to give a
brief overview of what those are um and
the aims of each of those metrics before
we go into more discussion.
So for improved bike and pet experience
um the aim of that metric is to estimate
the adaptive um adaptive feasibility
uh sorry adaptive signals ability to
improve comfort efficiency and
accessibility for peds and bikes.
Improved transit experience metric is um
aiming to estimate the ability to
improve corridor efficiency progression
and reliability for local traffic while
managing regional demand.
improve driver experience aims to
identify the ability to enhance tra
transit travel time, reliability, and
priority along signalized corridors. And
the future ready and plan alignment
metric um aims to ensure signal
investments remain effective and aligned
with long-term land use, transportation,
and emergency planning goals.
>> Can I interrupt you for just a second?
>> Yeah,
>> I you probably um all noticed, but I
think I switched the text. The driver
experience is improving reliability.
That's on me. I didn't notice it when I
reviewed the slide, but
>> thanks for
>> Yeah, sorry about that.
>> You just like, oh, perfect. Right. Yeah.
Okay.
>> Yeah. Sorry. So, transit and driver
switched. Wonder I was going to ask
about that. I was very confused. I
thought we were talking about bus
drivers.
>> No, this is this was my meer. I
apologize.
>> Thanks. I should have noticed that, too.
All right. So now I'm gonna pass it off
to Chris and he's gonna go over the
weight.
>> Before we do that, can we go back real
quick? I just had a quick question about
this.
>> Yep.
>> Um, so so we look at these sorts of
metrics, we can think about like metrics
to track individuals experience and then
metrics to track kind of the
macroeconomics of the system. And these
seem to be oriented towards like
individual experience. The two are
definitely coupled. Uh but as a a
planning a long-term planning thing, we
might also want to look at something
like a throughput metric. Uh is that
something that would show up as as
something especially I'd say for uh
driver and possibly transit as well for
throughput.
So I would say that when you're looking
at throughput, we we did look at um
vehicle throughput when we were doing
the analysis of like the front street
interchange when you know that was that
was something the wash dot lead and it
seemed like nothing that we were putting
out there was improving level of service
which was super confusing to folks until
we realized oh but we're serving another
100 cars in the PM peak hour or
whatever. So that was a an important
metric.
>> Yeah.
>> For that. Um that I think is a much more
qualitative and it's a much more intense
analysis. I don't know that
the outcome of adding
like I don't think it's a desired
outcome per se for us to just push more
traffic through is I don't know that
adaptive is going to have much of an
impact on that. So I don't know that I
would maybe recommend going in that
route to study it in in a lot of detail.
>> So So one of the I don't know if you
guys had to drive was it yesterday when
uh Highway 18 was closed. Several people
>> certainly experience a lot more
throughput than normal.
>> Uh or a lot more demand than normal.
Maybe not more throughput.
>> Uh maybe less throughput than normal.
>> Yes, that happens when there's more
demand. Yeah. And so you so you get sort
of uh the unusual experience of suddenly
there's a demand peak. Does the system
catch up with it? And that's where like
the the importance of having the
additional throughput really comes in in
my opinion. And so uh that's just slight
issue with with the notion that the
throughput is less of a
>> I think metric to look at here.
>> That's sort of the failure. you get to
the more
>> qualitative or sorry yeah
>> I always get confused with these two
quantitative thank you quantitative
analysis the the real modeling and
computation side of it we can definitely
take that into an account and I'll I'll
make that in the notes that that is
something that that is interested in
hearing about um again that is and
actually this is kind of a good example
of why we want to do this high level
first because that will allow us the
more corridors we can screen out the
deeper the analysis we can do. Um
there's also a lot of questions about
how much we can actually forecast
adaptives ability to do any of those
things. Um but we can walk you into
those and help and and yeah that is one
of the technical outcomes of this is the
consultants are going to take all of
this and we're going to say okay how are
we actually going to do these tests
measure these metrics and come up with
these answers for that phase two because
right now we're not incredibly sure how
be depending on which corridors we look
at how deep of analysis we're able to do
and which vendors we even are able to
look at that analysis can change wildly,
right? So,
>> so I might suggest that just as as a
qualitative aspect that tries to capture
throughput, you might look at potential
for improvement or corridors that are
notorious for uh operating underneath
the theoretical throughput of the
intersections or lanes involved.
>> Right? I I would encourage you right now
if you're thinking about this, consider
that as the driver's experience because
I think that will be one of the
crunchier metrics that we can get into
when we're considering drivers
experience and that is going to be at
odds with things like pedestrian bike
experience at times
>> and it may become at odds with transit
experience although sometimes those can
go hand in hand.
>> Yep.
>> Right. They can also complement.
>> All right, let's go to Laamir.
>> I had two. Oh, just as just as a point,
what we're doing is we're flipping
>> our hands up. Who might stand up?
>> So, we'll go to the mirror first and
we'll come to
>> So, sounds like you might not 100% sure.
No but
uh a lot of these metrics I think it
matters to our discussion of weight like
what like how exactly they're going to
be um
how they are going to be measured
because that will determine how much
variance there is on them and that
determines how much we want to wait
them, right? like the amount of like
noise that will get in these signals.
Like if something is going to be
determined by a survey, maybe that gets
tweed a little bit less because it's not
as reliable as something that's like a
numeric analysis. So like I guess I it
doesn't sound like you have a lot of
that information right now, but like if
you could just give us a broad overview
of like what kinds of methods you're
going to be using to measure these in a
brief, I think that would be helpful to
our decision. I I do want to put a big
I'll say a yellow flag on the field
about that too just because the biggest
tool that we really have as traffic
engineers is modeling traffic modeling
and itself all of the research that
really has been done for the last 60
like since the 1960s so much more than
60 years at this point has really been
focused on those vehicle metrics. So, we
have a lot of strong tools for vehicle
metrics. Um, and they do always tend to
say, "Oh, you should build more lanes."
Um, so it will, I think, underestimate
some of the impacts or, you know, maybe
make it look like there's not as bad an
impact to other modes like transit and
and um heads. So, those are really hard
for us to get quantitative numbers,
decimal points to really see. And I
would question thoroughly the model
outputs for vehicles and if we're
actually going to get to see that
because as Adam was pointing out, you
get you if you have a static amount and
then you try to add more capacity, it
gets filled. You may have more
throughput, but it doesn't actually
improve maybe the east west and things
like that. So right now the way we are
looking at this is we are going to grade
them basically on a one to five of five
likely to improve, one likely is the
opposite like makes worse.
>> Yeah.
>> And three is maybe could go either way.
And that is so we're going to look at it
in sort of that spectrum as we're going
through each of them. Then that if I
hope that kind of answered your question
of how we're going to use the metrics
immediately to
get down to the corridors where we want
to focus on daily analysis on.
>> Yeah, that's helpful.
>> All right, let's go to Mario. So, I know
17th Avenue already has signal
prioritization for transit.
Would this adaptive signaling lead to
more of that for transit like across
different corridors like Gilman? because
I know there are transit routes that go
down Gilman. I don't think we have
signal priorization on those corridors
today.
>> I will have to double check again. I
don't think that Gilman has it. But and
I and I think that it's not tied to
adaptive.
>> Yeah.
>> Um
>> it's a different signal.
>> It is a completely different system. The
question that we would be asking is and
I think we got to this question before
as you know the transit routes are
decided by the transit agency. The city
has a desire for where they would like
them to be. You have planning documents
for where you want them to be. And there
are things that we can do with the
adaptive signal to make sure that a
transit agency is able to have things
like TSP and extra space for pullouts or
not have pull outs if that's going to
improve their, you know, speed and
reliability. There are things that we
can do and that is what we're trying to
capture underneath that transit
experience. So making sure that yeah
whatever we do here it is not going to
make it so that we can't have TSP or
that ESP isn't going to work as well
because of the adaptive system. So that
is and those are hard things to forecast
and they're very different depending on
which vendor you use.
>> That that kind of leads to my second
question too with the future ready plan
alignment. I know Sound Transit and
other like King County Metro realign
their routes occasionally. Is this
future readiness aligned with those
plans or are these being in considered
and like we talked about how we can
adapt these signals to like when these
routes do change is that part of when
these get recalibrated I don't know what
the right word would be.
So signal timing
should get recalibrated on a pretty
steady basis. I know that it is a big
it's a lot of staff time to do that
right regularly. Um and I think the city
also found like during the pandemic that
the time of day plans they were running
weren't serving
>> the city in that time point. So I think
there is still some corridors. I know
through sort of downtown area there are
signal timing plans that are working for
time of day and I think others are maybe
right now running more free and just
trying to see if maybe this system can
do that and take that off of the
>> that's one one area in particular I see
as a
>> possible pain point in the future is
someone who rides the 556 when it gets
realigned to go down Gilman through
Front Street
>> yes
>> will be able to move uh through that
corridor and stay on track for its
schedule because I know a lot of people
did depend on that even up into the
highlands, right? So, that was one thing
I also didn't notice with the transit
metrics is they tied to just general
vehicle movement, not necessarily like a
pure transit experience metric. So, I
don't know if there's other metrics that
could consider those like specific
experiences, but that might be
something.
>> Yeah, I mean we we are putting out the
and again remember the tri the headings
are wrong there makes it really
confusing. transit driver experience,
>> right? Transit experience is enhancing
your transit travel time and uh
specifically it's reliability. So when
you're saying people depend on it to get
to the highlands, being reliable means
that you can depend that it's going to
be there at the same time every time and
that it's going to take you the same
amount of time each time to get there,
right?
>> Um and then yeah, making sure that you
can have those signal priorities.
>> You have all the corridors already
highlighted for you. Right. I think it
uh it's uh appreciated though the study
and everything, but thank you.
>> Uh just a quick question. I'm assuming
this is kind of falling underneath the
future ready and plan alignment, but
interoperability with other systems that
are pre-existing.
>> Yes.
>> That you have two single systems that
are probably within limited access and
then processing and how that integrates
and talks with your system. presumably
that's going to be incorporated as phase
two parts.
I we are taking that on now at some
level and I'll just because I'm in a
room full of transportation nerds we've
got able to get all the washed out folks
we needed it to get down on a call and
we're going to talk it out this like
upcoming week I think it's very exciting
um it can be hard to get all those folks
in a room but we are that is going to be
on more of the technical side where
we're talking about the inputs because
it's very much what is the technology in
the cabinet how long has it you know
what is the maintenance status of it,
how much more upgrades does it need, how
do they talk to each other? I don't
expect this group to be able to give
meaningful feedback on something like
that. But that's why we're getting like
a room full of wash dot technicians and
I have Chris Iverson and Jim Peters and
the city staff to really help us inform
that decision and see what that would
take for those systems to talk and
you're and there's also some other
metrics on the inputs of if we didn't
include those systems how much benefit
could we get right
>> okay so for all tab members that want to
actually go watch the meetings they're
all on YouTube January or or April one.
There's a lot of interesting info
especially on like how adaptive works
with like transit signal priority and
all that kind of stuff. So we've covered
a lot of that in the past. Certainly
welcome questions about it. Um welcome
new members again. Chris, good luck.
Thanks.
Um okay so I think we can go on the net
flight. Not sure that I'm going to give
you guys a background of how we did this
as I'm kind of showing you the first
corridor. And I have this in an Excel
spreadsheet on my computer. So if there
are disagreements on here, we can change
it. We had taken a very long time to go
through the metrics in the last meeting.
So I'm hoping to not take your entire
evening to get through this. We went
through and graded this as a consultant
team and then went through with city
staff to see if we agreed. found some
errors, moved some things around, and
this is what we ended up coming up with.
This is a uh a paired comparison test.
Basically, what you're doing is you're
grading a column versus the row. So,
where I have an R, the row is more
important. Where I have a C, the column
is more important. So, in the very first
one, we're looking at bed, ped bike
experience, and pet bike experience.
That's the S. They are the same. going
over I'm saying that the ped and bike
experience is rated more important on
Front Street North than the driver
experience. Right? So this is the part
right in front of the theater and
through your old town. Um lots of folks
walking and biking. That's what we rated
the row higher. So we can walk through
each and every one of these. Um and
these will all assign a score. And at
the very bottom there's some math that's
getting done in the background and we're
doing some rounding to the nearest 5%
otherwise it looks funky that we have
like 40.3% or something. Um you can see
what the actual weights will be. I
wouldn't get caught too much up on the
numbers but if it feels like okay if I
had $100 to spend I would spend it you
know this way or I'd grade them this way
that it feels right for that corridor
then we probably got it somewhere close.
Um, but if there's changes to the
letters, we can do that and I can tell
you what the difference would be in the
in the bottom. So, going through these
really quick, looking down this uh pet
bike experience,
saying that the pet bike experience is
more important than driver and transit.
And then we are actually saying that
policy plan alignment is the more
important is more important than the ped
bike experience. That is just a pretty
common thing that we you guys are going
to see is that we've pretty much rated
policy and plan alignment as king. You
guys put a lot of work, a lot of
comments, a lot of time into those. So
we rated those high kind of across the
board. Um driver experience again we're
saying that the p bike experience is
more important um the transit experience
is more important and policy alignment
is more important any comments on that
changes
can I add some nuance really quick kind
of for a visual the three categories on
the left ped bike driver transit can
kind of think about it in a way of how
the experience is day-to-day.
And again, to Chris's point, as you
think about policy alignment, what you
want to think about is that long-term
vision. Um, that's really kind of where
that that's why our team weights the
policy so heavily. So, it's taking that
long-term perspective because we're
talking about large potentially large
investments into traffic signal
infrastructure that will ultimately
create a different environment from a
traffic perspective. So, I just wanted
to kind of put that out there for
context setting.
>> Thanks. So, so another way to to
visualize this would be essentially what
we have is a partial ordering actually a
complete ordering of all of these things
where in this particular case policy
alignment is top then bike experience
and then
>> uh transit experience then driver
experience.
>> Correct.
>> So that's what the what all
>> that's how it that that's how these
Yeah. So each of these you could do as
just you know what is the order of the
four things
>> you could simpler visualization
>> uh possibly I I mean I think that this
has a little I think this has some merit
because you'll end up getting I think a
little bit more fine grained but I do
think that that is a really good
>> like rule of thumb if we're putting the
biggest number under policy it's the
highest
>> does that make sense for this corridor
then ped bike, then transit, then
driver. Does that make sense for this
corridor?
>> It is possible to get like a rock paper
scissors thing with this type of
relationship, but you don't have any of
those in
>> there are some where it's just across
the board. There's no there's no
priority. Everything's important. We'll
get to them. It it
>> it's interesting that literally that's
how the math came out and we all kind of
just shook our head and like actually
that makes sense.
So we'll see if you guys agree or not.
But
should we move on or I know we have a
>> Oh, we have a question for
>> one brief thing. This is and the policy
alignment is like with the policies of
the city. So like the transport transit
transportation improvement plan and that
stuff right?
>> Yes.
>> But I wanted to mention in that case
especially for the new members that all
of these things like transit experience
and pent bike experience are included in
that plan. So that if that's the highest
priority, you're also prioritizing these
other things because that's part of the
city's long-term plan. A lot of the
people on the table have already seen
that plan many times, but there's some
new people here. So I wanted to make
that clear.
>> And I wanted I'll add on to that too
that there's more than just the
transportation master plan. There land
use planning. So when you're thinking of
policy alignment, plan alignment, future
ready, it has a lot of things happening.
light rail hopefully in the future. You
new um zoning.
We want this system to work
forever if hopefully at least 20 years
or more. So that's again future, not
just what the corridor looks like today,
but what it's going to look like in the
future.
Okay. Um,
I don't necessarily feel like I should
step through each and every one of these
columns. Does anybody have a comment on
any of the columns or else we can move
to the next slide?
Sounds like we got some pretty good
agreement on this. Great. The rest of
this should go pretty quick until we get
to maybe we want to get into some deep
discussion about row versus column, who
wins and who doesn't. So, front street
south.
Again, this is sort of south of
downtown. We do start to get some more
vehicle movement. We have access to
schools and things in this area. Um,
we said the pet experience is still more
important than the driver experience.
It's still more important than the
transit experience, but the policy
alignment, future readiness is still
more important, the most important for
driver experience. We said that that
was, and I'm just going to read off the
yellow because they're going to be
repeated in the green. The driver
experience is more important than
transit experience on this part of Front
Street. And the policy alignment is
still the most important. And I heard
some some hoping to get some comments
there. And then again, we said that the
transit experience is less important
than the policy alignment.
Dave, this is your neck of the woods.
>> Yeah, but just kind of a point of
clarification actually. Uh, when you say
transit experience, does that
incorporate bus school? Does it in or is
that part of the driver experience
>> school buses compared to like
>> compared to just transit such as metro,
shuttle,
>> trail access?
>> It's that is an interesting question. I
had not envisioned it including school
buses. That could be something that we
consider though. Um
>> All right, let's bring it back for one
conversation. Okay.
>> Um
>> would that change the waiting?
>> Good.
So, let's just say I'm I'm making a note
that transit experience should include
school bus trips. Um,
I do think that those count differently
than driving trips. Still, they act
different than a personal vehicle. Um,
if we are considering transit
experience, including school buses,
the one that we had the
for was driver experience. Would that
then change the transit to be more
important than driver?
>> Yeah, I would argue yes.
>> I would.
>> I agree on that.
>> I was going to say like the time of day
example that you gave it might make
sense during certain period of the day
where school's getting out or school's
letting in
>> but maybe not the entire duration
because I don't think there's any like
Sound Transit or King County routes that
go that far south.
>> Yeah. They don't go down there.
>> Right. which is why we rated the driver
higher. Yeah,
>> I would argue that like uh if school
buses are part of the transit experience
that making that more reliable reduces
the amount of like single driver drop
off situations because that might like I
think prioritizing that could have a
positive effect overall on driver
experience as well. Making school buses
more reliable would would reduce the
parent drop off volume.
>> Yes.
>> Also, high schoolers driving to the
school by themselves.
>> Yes.
>> I've been hearing high schoolers driving
to school by themselves.
>> Yeah. Stuff like that.
>> I mean, there's so many forces um making
people drop their kids off from school
or teenagers wanting to drive to school.
But I tend to agree that this could be
fairly including school because there's
three schools right there just clogging
up that area big time. It's hard to get
those kids to not want to drive their
car, you know, it take a lot more than
that, but it's I mean, if we're talking
a 20-year plan, it's aspirational.
>> Seems pretty important.
>> And the school bus depot is right there.
>> That's also the depot. Yeah.
>> So, it's like all the buses there.
>> It's a good point.
So you can see the numbers there. If I
change that one input
um basically switching the winner of
transit versus driver to transit, it
moves the 20% under transit experience
and the driver experience drops down to
five.
>> So there's an abstract form of the
school bus question which is if we had
transit on this route, would we have
scored things differently? Mhm. So
really the question of for prioritizing
driver versus transit is does transit
exist on that route or not? Which is
also a bit of a chicken and egg question
because maybe the real question is do we
want transit on each of these routes
where driver experience is prioritized?
And I don't know I don't know what the
answer to that is but I think that might
be the question.
>> Tessa. Oh, I was just thinking I know
there's not regular bus routes on there,
but also they do have trail direct. I
don't know if they're doing it to poop
point this year because there's
construction on that trail, but to me
that's even though it's a small route,
that's very important that we prioritize
that little bus because of how bad the
poo pointing is. And now it's been
overflowing into a little parking lot
near where I live and they're parking
everywhere near us. So any way to reduce
the hiker parking too along that route I
think is really important.
>> Thanks. Dave, do you want transit? Uh I
do want transit. Uh however this also
kind of folds back into policy alignment
and future proofing because there have
been concepts put forward that if light
rail were to hub that is transit systems
would feed into a place such as valley
but the maple one in particular would
likely use
>> put a note on on our side to take a look
at some of the the regional transit
plans as well.
>> So I have went ahead and made the change
for transit experience to outweigh
driver experience. Um I'm going to ask a
question. Do you guys feel similarly
about the ped bike experience and
transit experience or is the ped bike
active user still going to outweigh the
transit rider?
Yes.
>> Going to say yes because it's also
safety too like everything like that. I
think yes.
>> So
>> yeah.
>> All right.
>> So this might come up where we have um
driver experience prioritized above ped
bike experience like for east like
Samish Parkway. Uh so maybe we reserve
some of that discussion until then.
>> Okay.
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Uh we'll then move forward to Sunset
Way. Um
again, just going really quick through
what we rated. We put pet bike higher
than drivers, ped bike higher than
transit. Um and then policy alignment is
still king everywhere. Um the driver
experience is less exper less important
than the transit experience. Transit's
more important and yeah politic for both
of the last two. Any comments on sunset
and how that was rated
looks pretty similar to the front
streets.
>> Yeah.
>> All right
for Gilman. I think it is the exact
same.
So some of the difference I think the
discussion that we had in some of the
consultant discussions and with the city
is that there is a lot of development
potential along Gilman. There's plans
for more signals and things like that
that's going to be kind of incorporated
I think into some of the inputs. But
when you're thinking of that policy
that's your future, right? And like how
are these signal timings going to work?
>> Okay. I did have a comment
>> on like the maximum that we use is 45%
for policy. In corridors where there's a
lot of planned activity long term, would
it make sense to increase that above 45%
or is there like a reason we cap it at
45% waiting?
>> It's just a math thing. Yeah, I think
there may be Let me look.
>> Let me just look at the
>> Yeah, it is capped at it. It I think
just because there's 5% for the cars. I
mean, look, we can always overwrite it.
and say driver experience zero
put it all in policy or I mean we can we
can change like I'm not married to the
paired comparison method if pad thinks
that they want to up something we can
change the number of the screen I don't
care
>> I think for the math you got to take it
away from something else
>> you do want to at least put some weight
on all of these concerns and all of
these corers so it's a little tricky
>> I I do want to point out that that much.
>> The the traffic that goes down Gilman's
not entirely consistent either. It's a
bit diverse depending on what part
you're at. So like there's the East Lake
Trail. There's a lot of bike traffic and
pedestrian traffic. I don't know if that
would come into play with making this
more complicated to model, but that's
one of the things I see that are
difficult with it is like
how would you prioritize different
sections of Gilman differently? Uh or
should they all use the same meeting?
That's I think getting a little
>> Yeah, I would say that you probably are
not going to have adaptive on a part of
Gilman and not on a another part of
Gilman. So, you want to rate it all the
same, but then keeping in mind there are
pieces where pad bike performance is
really important and then there's pieces
where people really want to get out of
the target and turn left, right? Like
there's there are
this is this is the traffic engineer's
dilemma, right? Is you have all these
conflicts that you're trying to manage
in space and time.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you for answer. Thank you.
>> All right. Sounds like we have agreement
on Gilman. Oh, we're already moving
along. Perfect. He's like Seamish here.
We said, all right, I'm just going to
brace myself that driver experience is
more important than the pet bike
experience. Um, I'm going to come back.
I'm going to listen to the discussion. I
can explain to you why the consulting
team decided that, but we're not married
to any of these values. Um, then transit
experience uh is less less important
than pet experience. And then policy
alignment's king all the way down. Um
and then driver experience is more ex
more important than transit
experience.
So
we are getting drivers as one of the
more
uh prioritized mode. This is one of the
biggest commute corridors in the city.
You see a lot of vehicle traffic. there
are
trail heads and pedestrian crossings
that exist on it. So, don't want to
completely ignore that, but I'm curious
to hear what you all have to say.
Uh can you so just to shed a little more
light on on what you're thinking in
terms of uh specifically pet bike versus
driver uh can you come up with like a
specific tradeoff like an intersection
where you'd be looking at specific
conflictive so I mean the go-to one Adam
is going to be what if adaptive
always gives more green time for the
major through movement now you're
sitting at a trail head and instead of
waiting for 30 seconds, you're waiting
for a minute and a half. Or maybe it
just thinks there's so much traffic,
it's going to skip the PD phase for a
couple of cycles and you're waiting even
longer, right? Like there I don't maybe
scoops would do that, but I don't know
that like there's differences in each of
the systems and how they do that, but
that is sort of the trade-off. You're
literally giving time to cars, not
pedestrians. and the pedestrian has to
wait but the cars get to go.
>> I can I can elaborate a little bit of an
example. So I had I I was the city of
Belleview uh traffic engineering group
for uh in my previous role and Belleview
runs a fully adaptive signal system
called Scats. Um Scats is very
interesting because it actually because
of the way that the street grid lines up
in Belleview, you know, it's kind of
it's more like a like a honeycomb grid
than is you had corridors that
essentially talk to each other. So, it's
a very cool technology. Um, but because
they talk to each other, they're able to
sense how loaded the traffic is in any
direction. So, you may have noticed, for
example, if you're in Belleview driving
on 148th up and down, you know, you
might get a big green flow
um during certain times of the day. What
in the background adaptive does is that
it essentially is tracking in real time
that flow. And so the way that SCATS
specifically is built, the technology is
built, prioritizes that type of
vehicular movement,
which means that if you are trying to
cross over 148th during those high rush
periods as a pedestrian, you will have
to wait longer because the system
prioritizes vehicle movement. It's not
to say that you could tweak it, but
that's just the way that Bellev
approaches it. So when you're thinking
about adaptive potentially in Isiqua,
you could come up with a similar type of
uh scenario where you have large traffic
volumes maybe in the afternoon and an
adaptive, you know, with a higher weight
to drivers, you'd be able to, you know,
move the traffic in a more efficient
way, move the vehicular traffic, but
that would also potentially be the
detriment of pedestrian activity. Mhm.
So that is that's a very common
trade-off that you'd see in adaptive
systems in general.
>> It's good kind.
>> So the only concern with that and it
makes sense when we're trying to
get traffic flowing, but the longer a
pedestrian or a bicyclist needs to wait,
the more temptation there is on their
part to try and dodge it and just go
ahead and cross. And so I'd be concerned
about the safety issues associated with
with that um on on and it anywhere
really but on East Lake Samish as you
were saying there's a lot of
corporations down there and there's a
lot of that traffic. So is there a way
to kind of balance that or limit that to
a certain extent because that's what I
would be afraid of. I mean let's face it
we all see people just going against the
cross sign. I mean, you know, it's going
to happen.
>> And I'm pretty sure that most of the
vendors that we're looking at will have
a knob that we can turn. It's not but,
you know, like programming that we can
put in place that blocks it from going
too far in the, you know, giving more
time to to cars. The more you do that,
the less feasible it is. We have an
input sort of metric where we're looking
at the ability for adaptive to move
signal times, screen times within those
windows. The more variability, the more
you allow it to turn knobs, the better
it's going to do, but it's you're going
to have more of these unexpected
results. And just for example, the city
of Seattle turned theirs off because
they were having issues with pedestrians
on Mercer,
>> right? Like as one of the issues that
they
Yeah, I think it's Cynthia's next.
>> So, I'm a little confused and this is
very specific to this corridor, but
because there is
um a trail a pedestri quite extensive
facility,
the conflict is going to be with the
other routes because they're going to be
going the same direction. So if it's
green
when you're on the trail, you're
parallel to this segment of the corridor
that we're studying. So in the end,
they're going to be
>> there is a crossing on a trail uh close
to I90 for the trail that goes up.
>> That one there's there is the one.
>> Yeah. So, and I also I want to point out
that you're absolutely right and the big
crossing is going to be across like 56th
um northwest Samish.
>> Yeah.
>> But that's at the intersection actually
is at the signal. Um so the signal is
>> they're interrelated, right? You can't
really decouple then completely the
corridors because they do cross. So
there's a big crossing right there for
that trail system. And also as you have
that trail that's running parallel, it
creates pedestrian demand. So if you're
work, you know, on that trail and you're
going to use it to go, you know,
shopping at Best Buy or something, then
you do have to cross at some point to
get up there or you're going to
breakfast or, you know, I think there's
a McDonald's on that side. I don't
remember exactly.
>> I just don't think that's going to be
the dominant the onlybody walking
to that. I mean, they're walking because
they have to. They're not I mean
pleasure walk. Yeah.
>> Pardon?
>> It's not a pleasure walk.
>> Yeah. Um but I do see the main one being
the I90 crossing. That would really be
the only time this is a real question.
Otherwise, you're just you're going with
the flow.
>> So, I I've got a couple thoughts on it.
So, you're absolutely right. The at the
I90 ramps, that's one of them. And then
the next one I would say is at 56th even
though it is technically crossing 56th
right now. It does impact East Lakes
Mammish Parkway cuz right now when the
walk sign is on there is a no ride on
red
>> light that comes up. And then when you
go up to 51st, then there's another if
you get there and you're on your bike
and you push the button and you have to
wait for what feels like forever and
you'll see a lot of bikes still crossing
because right now it prioritizes the
left turn movements.
>> That's true.
>> So it still went
>> Yeah, that's true.
>> Yeah. Wanted to point out those ones.
>> It's a good point.
>> And those are awesome specific examples
that we should dive into and talk about.
you know, what do we want as a
prioritization? Because I think that's
kind of what we're getting at tonight.
>> But I want to go to Victoria next.
>> I just had a quick question. I meant to
look up and I didn't. Is this transit is
low because there's no transit.
>> That's the Yeah.
>> Not much, but there's some.
>> So, we're calling that like a huge
commuter corridor, but we don't want to
like encourage more transit.
>> I I don't know. transit just seems
really low for a commuter corridor.
>> It's I think it's less so about
encouraging and more so about the
existing Yeah. What's there now? And
again, kind of going back to the policy.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, the pol that's why policy is
so heavy on
>> for the long-term vision.
But I guess since we were getting into
the weeds with the pedestrian stuff, is
this new signal prioritization uh
program, is that compatible with like
having buttons to tell whether or not
there's a pedestrian there and then
change the priority depending on whether
or not a pedestrian is actually standing
there? Because I know in Seattle they
don't have those buttons at all at most
of the crosswalks. But
>> so yeah, I you're saying the always
serve versus I'm pretty sure there are
pedestrian buttons at all these
crossings.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't think that the system is not
independent, but what you're asking
basically is Seattle in some locations
always serves a walk sign regardless of
if there's a call. you the button is
just the way the signal is hearing or
you know seeing a pedestrian. It's
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I guess that was just that's kind
of relevant because like
if you are expecting I I guess maybe it
isn't but I guess that was just my
question because that kind of solves
some of the conflict between whether or
not we're prioritizing pedestrians
because that means if we are doing those
systems there then you're only
prioritizing pedestrians if there's
actually pedestrians there. No,
>> he's saying you could miss this whole
you could
>> you can hit the button and wait for
>> wait extra cycles. Oh, I guess my my
point is I'm guessing that with signal
priority, you can
as one of your factors consider the fact
that like you don't need to prioritize
cars that much higher than pedestrians
if there's already not very many
pedestrians there. I don't know if that
makes any sense.
>> One shows up every 15 minutes or so.
Yeah,
>> there's already been enough headroom so
that you were able to move 500 foot
>> on smash and then the pedestrian doesn't
have to wait because that interruption
is only every approximately 15 minutes.
And I guess maybe that's part of the
adaptive side of things. As you get more
data, you can adjust the model and
>> it can be tweaked and changed over time.
Similar with policy alignment.
>> Yeah. And different vendors, different
algorithms are going to be better or
worse at doing that. Um
yeah, then I would say in the extreme
side of things there are and I've not
seen this in in it's timing, but I have
seen cities where basically if you have
coordination, if there's a PD call, it
throws the entire system out because
they're not really planning for any
pedestrian calls and the pedestrians
need a lot longer to cross. So all of a
sudden now your whole corridor is no
longer time. It takes it a few minutes,
5 to 10 minutes just to get back into
coordination and then if there's another
pet call and that time we're on another
streak, then you're off for another and
you know before long you've eaten up
your whole peak hour. So like
so can we boil this down to actual
questions about prioritization.
Uh I want to start out with uh East
Lakes SM Parkway 56 the lakes trail east
lakes trail there that's a heavily used
bike and pedestrian path. Uh so I think
the prioritization question would be do
we want to increase the crossing time
for bikes or pedestrians there in order
to
increase or decrease the trend the
corridor wait and see
>> for vehicles
>> for vehicles
>> the
maybe not increase the time but that
they have to cross because I think they
have enough time to cross from what I've
seen but expected They spend crossing.
>> Yeah. The weight time to cross.
>> Yeah.
>> Which is that essentially intersection
level of service? Is it the same metric
that we use for other things?
>> There is not a great There is something,
but there's not a great intersection
level service for pedestrians.
>> Okay.
>> The highway capacity manual tries its
best.
Um, but it's kind of laughable. Um,
>> I would just think about it in the if I
wait, am I would I be willing to wait 30
seconds, 1 minute, a minute and a half,
how long until, as Connie pointed out,
I'm just like, I'm never going to get a
walk signal and I just go, right? Like,
I've done that. Sure. Um,
and I do want to just also say I I love
that we're pointing out specific parts
on this corridor that are of importance.
I also want to just make sure like we do
want to keep this at a corridor level,
not at an intersection level, because we
can't just break out pieces of them and
say, "Well, at this intersection, we
don't want to have we we don't care
about vehicles. We really care about
pedestrians.
And at this intersection, we really care
about vehicles and not pedestrians
because we have to apply this technology
to the corridor in order to get an any
results that matter.
>> Right? And I think when we say we're
going to apply this prioritization to
the corridor, what it means effectively
is, you know, this intersection and
probably the uh Preston is Preston Trail
crossing, you know, where East Lex
becomes Front Street. Those are like the
major
>> drivers. and any
>> not not exceptions that those are the
ones that are going to feel the brunt of
the prioritization decision with the
mandatory right
>> and the
to consider just again how these are
going to be used
we are still going to say okay there's a
chance that if we do adaptive we are
going to increase pedestrian weight
times and we're still going to have a
score for that and the way it is right
now that's 20% of the overall
feasibility score for the outputs now if
we say there's a chance that we're going
to see improved driver experience, that
we're going to actually see less delay
or more throughput, something that we
can measure to show that driver
experience will be better. That is also
going to be graded and it's at 30% of
this overall score. So, we're not
necessarily getting to the point where
we're going to say, oh, 2 seconds of
extra delay is, you know, not enough
savings for a vehicle to delay a
pedestrian by 10 extra seconds or
something. It's not we're not going to
get to that level of of analysis at this
point, but just thinking of does this
seem right as far as the waiting
overall.
>> Yeah. So, when I look at again that
specific intersection, sorry. Uh,
one of the things that this invokes is
thought about what's the future of like
the bike network in the region and this
is a pretty major connection between
like is Redmond
uh which I think a lot of people already
use that as a commute and we would like
to see a lot more of that because it
really you know takes the pressure off
the rest of the system and satisfies a
lot of our goals for environmental uh
improvement reduction greenhouse gases
although I'm not sure we're measuring
greenhouse gases coming from humans
anyway u
so so I think for those reasons I would
I would be wary of of downrating the pen
and bike experience on the corridor.
>> I agree. I would switch
the driver and bike on that. I did just
switch the driver and bike and literally
all it does is it switches the 30 and 20
and
>> so the driver experience becomes 30% of
the or sorry 20% of the overall score
and the pet pad bike experience becomes
30.
I don't
>> I think one thing to mention too is like
the transportation improvement plans
could also drive an improved pedestrian
experience. So having the policy
alignment weighted highly could account
for a lot of the protected rideway for
um the East Lake Trail because I don't
think it's so much of a signal issue. is
just like when people are trying to turn
right and someone's trying to cross.
Like I've almost been hit there myself
and I go to the dentist right where that
old Costco crossing is and you have to
wait there forever. But it's like if if
people are trying to hit their fastest
straw time, they're not going to stop at
those lights crossing. But I would argue
again it's more like no turn turning on
reds type thing, not signal.
>> Yeah. And people have been hit there in
the past. That's why they have the turn
on.
>> I've been inches from getting hit
>> from a protected device. Yeah, it
certainly has.
>> So, as a followup to that, are we
comfortable with the transit experience
column?
Any changes there? So, just the only
change that I've made now is swapping
the ped and driver experience
with that. The It sounds like more
supportive. So again, if we had transit
on the route, would we have scored it
different?
>> Yeah.
>> To put transit on that route. I mean,
>> okay.
>> It's not in the future.
>> Yeah.
>> There's a reason. There's a land use.
>> It's not going to change anytime soon.
return.
>> And I could see looking at the policy
alignment considering, okay, in the
future there's going to be a light rail
station somewhere in Isqua and there's
going to be a lot of riders in Seamish
who are probably hopefully going to be
taking the bus to the light rail
station. So I think they can still
consider transit for the long run
instead of the short run.
>> Yeah. And that's part of like you can
change the priorities over time. That's
one of the advantages of this this
technology is it's mostly software. It's
very easy to change software or
relatively easy compared to
infrastructure.
>> I just generally hate to see transit
rated at the bottom for anything like
that does not feel good. But I
understand the reasons.
>> Well, wait till you see the next slide.
>> Yeah.
>> Sorry guys. Um, okay. So, again, and we
can change these and we can see the
numbers change in real time. Um, this is
northwest Samish Road 56. Part of the um
thought here is that there weren't a lot
of um generators or destinations on the
north side that were creating a lot of
that crossing. A lot of those crossings
are happening at East Lake Samish to get
to the trail system. Um
and again this is a pretty heavily
vehicled route even on weekends to go
shopping at
>> people don't walk to Costco right
>> I' I've biked to Costco
I was very tired
>> get a hot dog
>> region bakery there has amazing custard
buns
>> there you go
>> anyway so uh before I jump into
questions and things I just kind of
wanted to run through the there is a a
lot of weekday commute traffic and it's
very directional in this area as well.
We've talked quite a bit about uh that
with signal staff at the um city as
well. Um and then again we've got you
know even transit experience outweighing
pad bike experience on this. Um and then
policy is still king.
I was going to mention the same thing
you pointed out which is there's not a
lot of crossings and where there are
crossings I would argue we have the
fully separated like crossing at big
ring bar and there's a lot of places
that already are protected pretty well
any improvements would be like policy
improvements essentially to make the
pedestrian experience any better.
>> Thanks for bringing that. Yeah, I have
forgotten to mention the dread
separated. So, I appreciate that.
>> Okay.
>> How much transit is there along that
corridor?
>> There is a
>> I think there's a new realignment that
203.
>> 203.
>> Okay.
>> It's like King County.
>> It's like a circulator
>> Costco route.
So, how do we feel about ped bike
experience being the 5% in this?
>> Yeah.
>> Mhm.
>> Seems right. And then transit is the 30.
So,
it basically is just left to right on
the side in priority.
>> Okay.
>> Good. Okay. I I expected there to be
more more feedback on that. That that
went a lot better than
>> that grid separation.
>> It helped, right? Yeah.
>> If you go under the bridge there,
>> okay, now we're on to 17th Avenue, also
SR900.
Um it's a state corridor. There's quite
a bit of transit on um SR900. This is
one of This is the access for the park
and ride. Um
there's some trails across to boardwalks
and things. Um we Yeah. So we did
>> walk through this. Um it's also a really
big commuter corridor north and south
through the city. Um so driver
experience we have rated higher than the
ped bike experience as far as uh waiting
goes. And then we rate rated transit
experience more important than
everything except for policy alignment
and future readiness.
So again, future readiness is king.
That's what we we rated higher across
the board. Any objections, questions,
comments on the way we waited
the priorities here?
Yeah. So, I think last time we talked
about that uh pedestrian crossing at
Gilman 17th.
>> Yes.
>> Where they're crossing six lanes, seven,
eight lanes.
>> Eight lanes.
>> It's a lot.
>> A lot. Yeah.
>> And yeah, it's a very long crossing and
you know on a nice day there are lots of
people that hit the button. Um,
so I think the result of this would be
basically we're saying we're going to
avoid allowing as as frequent crossing
as there is now or potentially reduce
the rate at which pedestrians are going
to slow down that.
>> We're going to rate that as a less
important outcome. Yeah. like being able
to reduce the time that folks are
waiting across that where that's going
to be a less important outcome than
improving the throughput down SR900.
That is that is what this is saying.
Yeah, this one almost feels like we need
more not not for adaptive signal but
other investment,
>> you know, supporting the pedestrian and
bike experience across the
>> um so I kind of wonder about the
secondary effects of whatever we do in
this corridor with adaptive signaling in
terms of investing in you know
alternatives like bridges or whatever.
This also might be a given for this
group. We all seem to know your stuff,
but the crossing time will still be long
enough to allow a
>> Yeah,
>> it's it's important to it's important to
clarify that
>> pedestrians runners only.
>> But I've, you know, I've I've had
conversations with folks where, you
know, simil similar types of projects
where they're saying, "Well, does this
mean I won't have enough time to cross?"
So, I just want to make that clear. I
guess there would still be enough time
to cross.
>> We only cross this street on a bike.
>> Yeah, scooters only.
>> So, how does that take into
consideration if they're going to be
like traffic improvement projects given
the link when it comes? We don't want to
invest two times like giving that
priority to the pedestrian and bike.
Yeah, I think the
this is going to be in your future
readiness of how well this is going to
be able to work with that change in the
future, right? This is likely going to
be the main access point in and out of
the light rail station for vehicles who
are maybe picking up people, buses who
are transferring and things like that as
well. And yeah, people walking to and
from. So I would I would put that
underneath your policy alignment, your
planning alignment more so than specific
modal priorities of just saying that is
the most important. Um
>> yeah, I think that does that answer your
question?
>> So once maybe you do some of those
traffic improvements and you get the
pedestrian bike lane sort of protected,
that changes the whole equation, right?
Like what we had on
which which street I think a couple of
slides before that
>> east
yeah exactly but I don't know if the
link is going to even reach there in
terms of improvement project
>> another way to look at that would be
talking about what's the investment
horizon for this particular project 20
years
>> I mean if you can get 20 years of signal
timing out of it I think that's
>> pretty good
>> so most of that's going to come I mean
it's going to likely I mean if we do it
right and we choose the right corridors
hopefully it just stays on well beyond
that but
>> yeah agree
>> there's opportunity to do further
investment certainly in the next 20
years though so we don't necessarily
need to consider all that
>> right
>> I I just kind of have a question but
this is you know the intersection of two
main corridors right Gilman and and 17th
um and I I don't recall I'd have to go
back and see what the scoring was um and
how that correlates. But like that
particular So there it says pedex biking
ped pet bike experience is 30%. What is
it 5% on n on 90 900?
>> Yes.
>> So how do those two things interact?
Like right now that like you say that
crossing that ped crossing
um I think they I think the light gives
it like 30 seconds maybe a little bit
more for pedestrian crossing. When it
does that typically depending on the
time of day it shortens the amount of
time that you have to make a left turn
from Gilman y
>> onto 900. So it it it just seems to me
we have some competing
um you know issues here and I you know
it's maybe getting into the into the
weeds but you know how do we how do we
reconcile that
>> these are the the traffic engineering
she needs. Yeah, this is this is why I
say traffic engineer to time lords
because we are managing space and time,
numbers of seconds, how much space you
actually have in the intersection and
all the competing modes that want that
space, right? So yes, absolutely you
will. If you are choosing the driver
experience over the pedestrian
experience, the outcome is that that
left turn may not wait as long,
>> right? But the pedestrian waiting to
cross might wait an extra cycle or
whatever to get that walk and signal.
>> That that answers it. Thank you.
>> I just feel my country says priority is
always for pet and bike from a safety
the most vulnerable.
>> Yeah, exactly.
I guess I was
I was wondering um along with along that
question's lines when we do have an
intersection
how like because a couple of these cross
each other which corridor is going to be
considered when two corridors cross
because sometimes the crossing ones have
different priorities and obviously that
matters a lot.
Think of it as the the corridor in
question as the through because if we go
through we may find Gilman isn't
feasible and then the SR900
you know system would overlap would take
over. Sorry. There are considerations
when we're looking at which system to
use and which technology
and the feasibility of the corridors
when they cross. Some systems are great
when you have a bunch of intersecting
roadways. Some of them are really only
good when you have long corridors.
Um, so that that is taken into account
on the input side more than the output
side. Um,
>> yeah, makes sense. Thank you. So, I did
a little test on my computer here, and I
will say that if we were just to rate
the driver experience to be less
important than the pet experience, it
moves that 20 over to the ped bike and
driver experience becomes the five.
We could also rate them to be the same
and then they would literally be 1515.
H
>> I like that.
>> The same on this.
>> Yeah, I like that better.
>> All right.
>> I was going to I was going to mirror
that sentiment where there are even
though not a lot of head crossings,
there are a lot of people that live on
the other side of the highway trying to
get to the transit center. Even though a
lot of the traffic might go parallel,
there is an increased demand across the
road
>> as development comes. So,
>> I think I think fairly balancing driver
and pedestrian makes sense in regard.
>> Perfect. I love that. That's very well
said, Maria. Thank you.
>> All right. With that, it looks like we
have some agreement on 17.
All right. Highlands part. I said it
existed. here got basically no priority
except for the future.
>> Um so again a little bit more why we we
did Park Drive. It feels a little
different than the 9inth and um
Highlands as far as maybe priorities go
because it's a little bit different land
use out there. It feels like it's a
different corridor,
but the signal timings and the cabinets
are very uh connected to the couplet. So
if whatever we do on the couplet, we're
going to need to also expand up to park.
So try to keep that in order to get that
interoperability to work. Um think about
that as you're as you're looking at
these. Um okay, so here we said under
petted bike um is less experience or
less important than driver experience.
This is a a pretty big corridor for
drivers with the couplet. The transit
experience is less important than the
ped bike experience
and policy is king down the line. Um and
then we're saying driver experience is
more important than transit experience.
So we end up with all three modes being
equally weighted. this the way that
we've done that.
>> So, I do live there and I think putting
those in one group
may not serve the purpose because
Highlands Drive is different than
Northeast Park Drive given the number of
kids in the school area and the lack of
patience when it comes to crossing those
walkways. So I think we need to
Highland's drive is there's a lot of
transit there but I think when you go on
the northeast part drive there's no
transit there.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. This rock paper scissors thing is
is kind of weird.
>> Yeah.
>> We don't we don't actually have a
ordering among things. And I think it's
because
this says driver experience is more
important than pedestrian
which
I don't agree with in this core. I think
it's similar to like sunset uh where a
lot of people are walking a lot of
people are out
local things
>> using alternative forms.
I was going to say make that much sense
to me why why is the driver experience
more
>> I think in the discussion there's a lot
of north south throughput on these
corridors given the couplet right now
also the hospital was a lot of
discussion and sort of the queueing that
happens there in and out of the hospital
and sort of that variability in the well
variability but also predictable
variability in the um in and outs with
the shifts um it's also major emergency
route to and from the hospital. These
were some of the the discussion points
that we came up when we were waiting
them on the on the team. It doesn't mean
that any of these opinions were right.
>> Let's see. It does feel like this is
three different
>> study areas. It is really hard.
>> Hospital, north of the hospital, and
park, they all feel like three different
Yeah. So, I don't know what to say.
Maybe that's how you end up with the
rock, paper, scissors because
>> Yeah. And it's and it's simply a product
of
>> Yes. It's they're different land uses
and there's different services, but the
signal timings are so interrelated that
we can't really break them.
>> So then is there really you really going
to get anywhere? I mean, is this maybe
not the best area for
>> Don't jump to the end. One what job will
I have?
You just saved us some money. There you
go.
>> Yeah, I was gonna say I think the
couplet there's a wide variety of mixed
traffic, but when it comes to Ninth
Park, I do think pedestrian traffic
would make a lot more sense to
prioritize just given the amount of
walking people do down that avenue.
There's a lot of shopping centers.
>> Things like that might make sense to
separate these.
>> I have a question. So, in this area,
there's going to be a lot of development
with the I always call it shelter. I I'm
not sure what it's called now, but up
there. And then the lakeside
development. I think it's going to
happen pretty soon. So, knowing that
there's along that corridor that there's
going to be a lot more residential, does
that change how anyone would think about
the couplet part of it?
I kind of think u that a lot of the
places that we would be prioritizing
driver experience are where we have a
lot of traffic going through rather than
from
so like development in that area would
actually make me want to prioritize the
bike experience more just to get kind of
more of the smart growth aspects
>> okay on my computer so maybe I'll just
jump in and share.
This is like the last corridor. So, I'm
just going to jump in because I feel
like I've just copied the um
So, I've copied the slide and I am deep
into Excel. So, Highland Park
and Highland 9inth and Park are now the
number two is just Park Drive. You can
see I've got it up in the top. So this
one, if we wanted to change,
if we were just saying like the couplets
and highland, would we still say that
driver is more more important than
pedestrian if we broke park out?
>> No, I'm seeing a no.
>> I don't think so.
>> I don't think so.
>> Okay, so if we change that to R,
does that feel better? So now we're
saying ped bike experience is more
important than drivers and transit.
>> Could you zoom in a little bit?
>> Oh, sure.
>> Control plus
>> on a Yes, thank you for the shortcut.
>> Of course it's not going to work
right.
>> No,
>> is it?
>> All right. Um,
>> there you go. Thank you.
>> And you guys don't have the screen at
the bottom, so that's perfect.
Does that feel more close to the right
waiting?
>> Sorry, I thought we were on park. That's
Highlands.
>> This is Highlands. And um, this is the
couplet. Park is next. I'm just looking
at this one. So on Highland, on the
couplet itself,
it sounded like we still wanted to rate
heads higher than
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> I I think it's fair to make this. I also
want to point out any improvements you
make to transit given the waiting that
we put on the inputs also benefit
throughput for drivers because they're
all going past that transit center
anyways, right? So
>> yeah. And so here we've got transit is
more important than driver experience.
>> Yeah. Just the Highlands being like an
urban village model just makes no sense
not to prioritize ped bikes.
>> Guess we're
>> Yeah.
>> So and maybe this I'm going to I'm going
to do the thing where I don't try to
zoom on my touchpad. Um, if I do that
same change, are there other changes we
would like to see for park drive?
>> I guess transit you could swap with
driver because there I don't think
there's any transit.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Unless transit has the school bus.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> There's slightly less school buses going
up that way, right? or no what else is
up there besides Grand Ridge Elementary?
I don't even know.
>> Just just the one elementary school,
right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I just play devil's advocate real quick
of I don't think we've prioritized
driver in any of them and I just wanted
to like throw that out there and make
that known. But I'm also
mostly at drivers.
uh sadly um with small children. So I
just I don't know. I I feel like that we
could have a lot of angry residents as
well if none of the streets have driver.
So maybe there's more of a balanced
approach on some of these. But that's
just my single opinion.
I think this I don't live in the
highlands but I think this particular
corridor does not have very much transit
and does so at very least I think that
driver could be prioritized over transit
if she gain
because that's like the one this is the
one where I would say pedestrian because
there's so many kids and so many
families and this is one I would
definitely They had bike over
>> there. Three others over here and then
over transit.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think we said we said Seamish
Road and 56 was
>> driver at the top of the car.
>> Yeah, that's true.
>> The Costco
one had uh
>> that's transit. It's
>> I think that one had transit at the top.
>> Driver.
>> Transit then driver then. Yeah.
>> Well, it's not saying we're not
prioritizing them at all. just has a
lowerity.
>> Yeah. And I we're not this is not a
modal priority decision from like a
transportation planning, right? We are
trying to weight the effectiveness of
adaptive in their ability to improve or
not
>> the different modes.
>> Yeah.
Does that sort of improvement apply only
to the traffic signals or also the
pedestrian crossings that have beacon
flashes?
You that's an interesting point and
again I think this is getting more onto
the inputs on what kind of systems are
out there and how well they work. those
flashers. Some of them I think the uh Oh
my gosh, I just forgot the name of the
road. The
>> sun
>> tiger. No, the what is this? The angled
one with the beacon crossing on Front
Street.
>> Oh,
>> is that dogwood?
>> Dogwood.
>> I was like, I have an animal, but for
some reason I'm getting tiger and it's
not
>> Yeah. Near the real crossing.
>> Yeah. Like that one I That one could
possibly get timed if we were able to do
progression on Front Street. back. I get
timed in. But the RFBs where you hit the
button and it just starts flashing.
Those aren't you can't time those. And
that does make timing for vehicle
progression on something like Front
Street where you have a lot of RFBS
more difficult because you're going to
stop between the signals more often to
allow this. We hope you're going to stop
more often to allow those pedestrian.
>> Yeah. Now, what I was trying to get at
is especially when it comes to the
darker days and the sunset times, we
have especially on the Northeast Park
Drive a lot of misses miss like
accidents like
>> near misses that drivers do not see kids
and
I'm looking at improving that whole, you
know, system if we're going to use that
approach. But
>> yeah, again for safety.
>> Yeah. And I would
warn you against expecting too much for
safety improvements when you talk about
adaptive signals.
>> Yeah.
>> It's an it's a piece of our analysis and
so far surprise guys, I haven't really
sent this to you yet. Um, we've done
some research into all the different
studies and they're basically all they
come to whatever conclusion they seem to
have set out to prove and they're all
over the map. So, we're just saying
regardless of the type of crash there
is, we're not confident adaptive signals
can do anything to prevent them.
>> Okay,
>> good to know.
>> Or make them worse. So,
all right. So with this park change now
we are at pet bike then driver then
transit policy still important.
So we let me see if we ended up we did
end up a little bit different. We have
transit more important on highland.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. And we'll have to figure that out
on our side of how we split that
analysis up. It may just be if it
doesn't work on park then it doesn't
also work on highlands and ninth. So
>> I did want to make one comment. I see
the transit center that we have going
towards on 17th the Isquaw one like I
see the same thing being something we
could try to build due to policy
improvements long term for highlands
like making signal prioritizations like
that for transit and other transit
options but I think those go towards
other improvements not necessarily
signal changes.
Yeah, and I do want to add since you're
new to the tab, we actually last year
went through a big process where we
revamped the comprehensive plan to
um go towards having transit signal
priority and right now we just don't
have corridors that have the volume of
buses to actually meet the guidelines
for it, but it's something that we're
watching and planning for.
>> Yeah, that's good to hear.
>> But I think that kind of goes towards a
lot of the alignment being towards
policy. makes a lot of sense in that
regard. There's a lot of improvements
that we're talking about that would
actually be covered not under improving
the adaptive signaling for pedestrians,
but by improving policy on that area.
Right.
>> Great. I have a little summary slide.
This will update. It's not going to have
park um separate, but this is where we
ended up. It looks like for front sunset
Gilman pretty much the same. A little
bit of a change where we put driver
experience ahead of transit experience
on East Lake Samamesh.
And then
Northwest Seamish 56
transit then driver then ped. It's a
little bit different.
Then we have 17th Avenue where we are
sharing the ped bike as an even with
driver and transit. And then again the
Highlands and 9inth we're saying
ped bike is still the most important
driver experience is
less and then transit with future plans
being
objections.
Would we like this? Do you want to add
something? We just need to make sure we
add the row for park separating.
>> Oh yeah, we we will. It's over here.
It's just on a different sheet and I
haven't
>> for the
the Highlands route. We uh Does anybody
think that we could do an even waiting
for transit and driver since there is
the hospital traffic there?
I'm wondering with your point earlier
Mario about
driver benefiting from transit
experience especially on that coupled
you're going to get throughput for
transit there's no dedicated lane as far
as I'm aware of Ford bus or other
transit forms so I'm guessing
they're going to kind of work in
aggregate
>> if they're both weighted towards
regional transit through the highlands
like they would both benefit from it I
think that was kind of the comment I was
making earlier on though is like we
don't have a true like transit exclusive
>> way to measure how that's improving.
>> Yep.
>> So,
>> if we do change that, I mean it just
shares the points evenly between the
two. Is that a change that the tab wants
to make? Sounds like
anybody have major objections to doing
that change?
>> I don't strong
>> obviously I don't feel strongly about
that.
there's potential to say that we want to
sort of encourage transit ridership over
driving especially in areas where we
expect with hospital traffic being uh
getting us to saturation on the network
there. So that will be my only objection
but I don't actually see this waiting
effectively
changing what we're going to do anyways.
No, I don't I don't assume that it will
because the adaptive signal is not going
to rule out whether or not you would be
able to do like other transit
improvements like that. I was also going
to mention too again just reiterating
the importance of the policy alignment
on these as well when you're talking
about future future goals and transit
movements and everything the the heavier
weight let's just say for the sake of
argument you know I don't have the the
the map pulled up but um
if for example highlands 9th had a
really strong plan of emphasis there's
policy language there was lines on the
map and they said this is going to be
king that means that when as we were
assessing this that waiting goes into
the entire scoring.
>> Yeah.
>> So, you know, we are accounting for that
future change as well through the policy
bucket.
>> It's additive.
>> Yeah. It's exactly it's additive.
>> Cool. Great.
And I just wanted to say thank you. It's
been like a pleasure to present to TAB
um three times and I think uh it was it
was I can't remember who the suggestion
came from but I know that you guys
really strongly suggested us coming back
and going over these waitings with you
saying that there were changes and that
and that we should rate every one of the
corridors separately. You definitely had
a very big impact on the outcome and the
methods of the project. So thanks a lot.
I appreciate it.
>> Yeah. Thanks Chris. I really appreciate
you going to you know making this stuff
sort of as objective as possible. A lot
of times that the side effect is you
just really get to the point of thinking
about what really matters you know
comparing things that you otherwise
wouldn't have compared
>> making tough choices.
>> Sounds like that a useful exercise for
you.
>> Thanks. Appreciate it.
>> It's great for us too. Thanks. Uh
Marina, do you have everything you need?
>> Yeah, I just um one last slide. I just
want to let you guys know our next step
is to go to the mobility and
infrastructure committee. So we'll take
the feedback and the waiting um feedback
that we got from TAB and we'll use that
to help um develop our final deliverable
for the phase one which is the highle
screening assessment for adaptive signal
control technology and that's what we'll
present for the mobility and
infrastructure committee coming up. So
thank you all for your input.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you K. I have everything I need
to.
>> All right. Uh so that concludes our
regular business. The uh next section is
reports.
Uh so staff report. John, do you have a
report today?
>> I'll give a report. The transportation
advisory board. You guys provided a lot
of input for the transportation
improvement program. And so that went to
mobility and infrastructure committee.
And the next step is on Monday, June
1st, it will be going to the full
council for a public hearing.
>> Awesome.
>> Uh Andrew is not here today to tell us
about light rail, but do you have any
Was there news from today? Has anybody
heard how the
>> I have not been able to check my phone
>> Sound Transit board meeting.
Yeah, I heard briefly that we've been
asked to look at the delivery methods
and how would they affect also in the
cost. So yeah, so we'll get more
exercise
>> saga continue.
>> Okay.
>> Well, it'll be interesting to hear what
happens. I'm sure Andrew will send us an
email somewhere as well. There's
>> a community meeting about it right on
Monday, I think, at the depot.
I think so.
>> I think that's right. So, thank you for
>> It's on my calendar.
>> The June 1st at the depot is a light
rail community update meeting.
>> Excellent.
>> Okay. Um,
>> as a a chair report, I'll I'll say uh
John Mortonson and I did dig a little
bit deeper into the uh Newport corridor
that I keep harassing him about whether
we need an extra lane there. Uh, and
thanks Chris for confirming that all of
the planning tools always say we need an
extra lane.
>> Sorry, am I spoiling things? Am I
getting out of turn? Uh so so I really
appreciate the time John has spent
taking me through the details on that.
Uh it's been an educational process for
me and I think some of the interesting
stuff that comes out of it is uh just
understanding how coupled all of the
different projects that we have on on
the potential docket for the future are
such as the additional I90 crossing and
how that relates to expected traffic in
2050 on that route. Um, so it'll be
interesting to see if we can um maybe
digest some of that information about
how everything is coupled and you know
what the logical connections between
whether we do project A or not and how
that affects you know decisions we might
make on project B. Uh so hopefully we'll
see more of that in the future.
Okay. Uh any other business or
announcements? This is where you might
uh bring up your oh in future meetings.
Uh, any other board members?
Okay. Uh, well, with that, I think we
will call our meeting adjourned at 7:50
p.m. Thanks everybody for the great
energy, great discussion.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thanks. Thank you so much.