City Council Special Meeting · Monday, February 9, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Administration's Transportation Priorities

45 min · Mayor Mullet Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.3–43

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Discuss the Administration's transportation priorities and approach for 2026 and beyond, including: 1. Capital Projects, TIP update, and TBD funds 2. Light Rail 3. Pavement Management 4. MetroFlex/microtransit

Pavement Management Program Update ID 1949

30 min · Bennett Ashbaugh, Streets Manager · packet pp.45–59

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this update is to provide City Council with an overview of the Pavement Management Program (PMP), which is identified in the Capital Improvement Plan as project TR 030. This memo will support a February 9th Special Meeting presentation.

MetroFlex/Micro Transit Performance Expectations ID 1951

45 min · Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.61–96

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.61 ↗

Staff report:

For many years, the City of Issaquah had searched for a solution to helping residents in steep hillside neighborhoods without transit service (e.g. Talus and Squak) access the Issaquah Transit Center and other valley floor destinations while also reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. In 2021, the Transportation Advisory Board discussed goals for the service and examined options. Goals discussed included: • Not only provide transit service to Talus and Squak, but extend this service to all of Issaquah if possible,

3541 segments .txt ↗

0:42 ↗ We are going to call

0:44 ↗ this February 9th special meeting of

0:46 ↗ this city council to order at 6:30 p.m.

0:50 ↗ And there is a remote aspect to our

0:52 ↗ meeting and our council president Barb.

0:55 ↗ Michelle is attending virtually tonight

0:57 ↗ and we are first going to start with

1:00 ↗ public comments and we're going to ask

1:02 ↗ you if you have public comment please

1:04 ↗ raise your hand. If you want to raise

1:06 ↗ your hand virtually you can do that as

1:07 ↗ well. Not seeing any public comment we

1:11 ↗ will now close public comments and you

1:13 ↗ can always submit comments to us via

1:15 ↗ email and that is city council

1:17 ↗ atisqua.gov up. And we will now go into

1:21 ↗ the main portion of today's meeting,

1:24 ↗ which is the special council meeting on

1:27 ↗ transportation. And we're going to go to

1:29 ↗ Andrea Ler.

1:35 ↗ >> Good evening. Just one moment while I

1:38 ↗ pull up the presentation.

2:06 ↗ Council member Joe has found a song we

2:08 ↗ can play during times like this.

2:24 ↗ We have to find out if the rights the

2:25 ↗ song can be purchased for 112's aqua

2:27 ↗ beanie.

2:34 ↗ I will see the musician tomorrow. I'll

2:37 ↗ negotiate on behalf of the city for you.

3:19 ↗ Looks like we have liftoff.

3:22 ↗ We do. All right. The system has caught

3:24 ↗ up with us. It now allows me to share

3:26 ↗ the

3:28 ↗ information. Let's get back to the top

3:30 ↗ here.

3:32 ↗ All right,

3:34 ↗ sorry for that delay. Good evening

3:37 ↗ everyone. I'm Andrea Leonard, deputy

3:39 ↗ city administrator, and we're here to

3:42 ↗ talk about various uh topics related to

3:44 ↗ transportation and what the

3:47 ↗ administration's priorities are

3:49 ↗ regarding transportation. So, um we have

3:52 ↗ a few

3:54 ↗ presentations kind of backtoback planned

3:56 ↗ for you this evening. The first to kick

3:58 ↗ us off, Mayor Mullet will be discussing

4:00 ↗ his transportation priorities and the

4:02 ↗ administration's transportation

4:04 ↗ priorities and approach for 2026 and

4:06 ↗ beyond. Uh including capital projects,

4:10 ↗ TIP update and which is the

4:12 ↗ transportation improvement program

4:13 ↗ update and the transportation benefit

4:15 ↗ district funds. Also, city priorities in

4:18 ↗ regards to light rail and our upcoming

4:19 ↗ light rail station. Then we'll have

4:21 ↗ Bennett Ashbar, streets manager, uh

4:24 ↗ discuss pavement management. And then

4:26 ↗ I'll be back to talk about Metroflex and

4:28 ↗ microtransit options. And we have a

4:31 ↗ bunch of questions for council and

4:33 ↗ direction needed tonight, all related to

4:34 ↗ each of those projects, including

4:38 ↗ feedback from you this evening on the

4:40 ↗ administration's capital priorities and

4:43 ↗ how they will inform the upcoming tip

4:46 ↗ update. As a reminder, that

4:47 ↗ transportation improvement program is

4:49 ↗ going to come back to council in June uh

4:52 ↗ because it needs to be adopted by July

4:54 ↗ 1st per state law. Then we have a

4:59 ↗ question related to light rail and our

5:01 ↗ approach to light rail. How does council

5:03 ↗ want to be kept informed and engaged on

5:05 ↗ light rail work with sound transit? More

5:07 ↗ information coming in the mayor's

5:08 ↗ presentation. And pavement management

5:11 ↗ techniques. Should the city continue to

5:13 ↗ prioritize cost effectiveness in the

5:15 ↗ treatments we use on our roads or does

5:17 ↗ council want to set a higher aesthetic

5:19 ↗ standard for the roads and have that be

5:22 ↗ the guiding priority? And then finally,

5:25 ↗ Metrflex or Microtransit goals. This is

5:27 ↗ a return from last fall when council

5:30 ↗ said we need to come back and talk about

5:31 ↗ what's the definition of success for our

5:33 ↗ microransit program and for metrlex and

5:36 ↗ we can also discuss a few other options

5:38 ↗ at that time and get your feedback on

5:40 ↗ those. And so as we begin here,

5:45 ↗ uh, Mayor Mullet.

5:57 ↗ Okay, here we go. My official tech skill

6:00 ↗ challenge. Oh, look at that. That's like

6:04 ↗ a low enough bar I can jump over it in

6:06 ↗ the IT world. I appreciate that. Uh so I

6:10 ↗ think we're going to start off with and

6:12 ↗ this comes back from the council retreat

6:14 ↗ that we just had last month and kind of

6:18 ↗ highlighting that in the 2728

6:21 ↗ uh banium budget from the

6:22 ↗ administration. you will see a large

6:24 ↗ priority placed on maintaining the

6:26 ↗ infrastructure that we currently have

6:29 ↗ and the payment management program which

6:31 ↗ you're going to hear about from Bennett

6:32 ↗ tonight is is kind of the core of that

6:35 ↗ of how you choose to make sure you have

6:37 ↗ capital budget resources so that program

6:39 ↗ can continue and be effective and you

6:42 ↗ won't slip behind.

6:44 ↗ So here's the chart that shows historic

6:47 ↗ funding from the city of Isiqua when it

6:49 ↗ comes to pavement management or street

6:51 ↗ overlay, whatever you want to call it.

6:53 ↗ But you can see that there were several

6:55 ↗ years where we were under a million

6:56 ↗ dollars in terms of money that was put

6:58 ↗ into the program. We did have one point

7:01 ↗ where it dipped down. We then did use

7:03 ↗ ARPA dollars to have it go back up. The

7:06 ↗ last couple years, it's kind of been

7:07 ↗ around that $ 1.4 to$ 1.5 million mark.

7:10 ↗ And the plan from the current

7:12 ↗ administration is to actually fund it

7:14 ↗ back at the line where we're saying we

7:16 ↗ need to be funding this so we're not

7:17 ↗ falling behind in terms of maintaining

7:19 ↗ our infrastructure which would be in

7:22 ↗ that $2.7 million range which would

7:24 ↗ actually be record investments for the

7:25 ↗ city of Isiqua in terms of street

7:28 ↗ overlay. And you will see a much more

7:31 ↗ in-depth presentation later on from

7:33 ↗ Bennett in terms of how you can smartly

7:36 ↗ spend those dollars and and try to get

7:39 ↗ as much life out of your streets as

7:41 ↗ possible before you actually have to do

7:42 ↗ the full street overlay. And that'll be

7:44 ↗ the council discussion. So that's the

7:47 ↗ main priority. The second thing we want

7:50 ↗ to be really clear with our community

7:51 ↗ about is we are going to finish the

7:55 ↗ trail that comes in from the South Lake

7:57 ↗ Samish communities into town. Uh these

8:00 ↗ communities were annexed in Isiqua 20

8:02 ↗ years ago now and so this has been a

8:04 ↗ priority for these communities since

8:05 ↗ annexation. Obviously the cost of this

8:08 ↗ project is not getting any cheaper. It

8:11 ↗ also happens to currently overlap with

8:14 ↗ all the covert work happening via a

8:16 ↗ washd right now, which basically means

8:18 ↗ we can't the soonest we can start work

8:21 ↗ on this project is the summer of 2028.

8:24 ↗ But we also want to be very clear with

8:26 ↗ these communities that we will start

8:28 ↗ work on this trail in the summer of

8:30 ↗ 2028. And we're making this public

8:32 ↗ promise that it will happen, it will be

8:34 ↗ done, and it will finally be complete.

8:36 ↗ And we think it has a variety of

8:37 ↗ benefits. We don't know yet how we're

8:39 ↗ going to score in terms of grant funding

8:41 ↗ on this proposal, but if it has to be,

8:44 ↗ we're committed to pay the entire thing,

8:46 ↗ but it also we're going to be as

8:48 ↗ aggressive as we can in the next couple

8:49 ↗ years are trying to secure grants for

8:51 ↗ this project as we move forward. And if

8:54 ↗ people have questions, my I encourage

8:58 ↗ folks to ask them as we go. You not need

9:00 ↗ to wait till the end. I find it much

9:02 ↗ more helpful to have it as you go

9:04 ↗ through each slide.

9:09 ↗ Yes, council member Joe.

9:12 ↗ >> Um, quick question. So, you mentioned

9:14 ↗ the council manic bonds repaid by uh

9:16 ↗ transportation benefit district

9:18 ↗ revenues. Do you have a sense of what's

9:19 ↗ the total like what's the maximum amount

9:22 ↗ of bonds we could get in terms of

9:24 ↗ capital funding?

9:25 ↗ >> Yes. And it is roughly $30 million from

9:28 ↗ bonding the TBD money. And we also have

9:32 ↗ $4 to5 million in traffic impact fee

9:35 ↗ funds that we also will have access to.

9:37 ↗ But finishing the portion of the trail

9:39 ↗ that we currently haven't paid for

9:41 ↗ through design funding is basically half

9:44 ↗ of that. It's roughly $19 million. For

9:46 ↗ us to finish this trail coming in from

9:47 ↗ the South Lakes manage communities will

9:49 ↗ eat up literally over half of those

9:52 ↗ dollars. But you will be left with a

9:55 ↗ portion of I think the whole proposal

9:57 ↗ you're hearing tonight is that the money

9:59 ↗ that is left over from that we want to

10:01 ↗ try to figure out the smartest way to

10:03 ↗ invest those dollars in our community.

10:06 ↗ Take advantage of the fact that we can't

10:07 ↗ start that project till 2028. So how do

10:09 ↗ we make the best use of projects coming

10:12 ↗ up in 2027 that we can invest in?

10:16 ↗ >> Council member Nicholas. Yeah, I' I'd

10:18 ↗ like to just double click and question

10:21 ↗ the premise that we can't start until

10:22 ↗ 2028. Uh I I know that's that's the

10:26 ↗ commonly stated belief. Um and I

10:29 ↗ understand it's around the culvert. I

10:31 ↗ understand why we can't complete the

10:33 ↗ this I I asked a question a few meetings

10:36 ↗ back of how how long is this culvert

10:37 ↗ area? It looked on the map like it's a

10:39 ↗ few hundred feet, something like that

10:41 ↗ max. Um, this is a long road that's

10:44 ↗ significantly longer than that that

10:46 ↗ culvert section alone. Um, why couldn't

10:49 ↗ we do everything but that? Um, it will

10:52 ↗ obviously not be completed at the

10:53 ↗ culvert, but I would think the final

10:55 ↗ date could be pushed sooner if we were

10:56 ↗ to start the parts that we could do

10:57 ↗ sooner sooner. Um, and in any situation,

11:01 ↗ there will be a a less than optimal

11:03 ↗ diversion around that culvert during

11:05 ↗ construction. So, it's it's no worse off

11:07 ↗ than it would be not having that that

11:11 ↗ complete. and the rest of it will be

11:12 ↗ better sooner.

11:13 ↗ >> So, I'm going to give you a

11:15 ↗ like former life state construction

11:18 ↗ chair example, but then I'm going to

11:20 ↗ phone a friend to have Emily Moan come

11:22 ↗ up to address this question. But I think

11:24 ↗ the challenge I found funding state

11:26 ↗ capital projects was people want to bid

11:29 ↗ like they mobilize and get their

11:31 ↗ workforce there and if they have to

11:33 ↗ leave and come back, it tends to be not

11:36 ↗ very efficient from a cost perspective.

11:37 ↗ So you normally wait to start the

11:39 ↗ projects when once everyone's on site,

11:41 ↗ they remain on site until the project is

11:43 ↗ done. You don't end up having leg

11:45 ↗ periods where people move on to a

11:47 ↗ different project and then have to come

11:48 ↗ back. But that's my guess. But Emily, do

11:52 ↗ you want to come on up to address that

11:53 ↗ question?

11:58 ↗ >> Good evening, Emily Moon, public works

12:00 ↗ director. I think there are a variety of

12:02 ↗ reasons why um we have this sequence the

12:05 ↗ way that it is. First uh WAT has a lot

12:09 ↗ of disruptive work. It's not just in the

12:11 ↗ vicinity of the of the covert. So first

12:14 ↗ phase includes uh utility relocation

12:17 ↗ that runs the whole length of the road,

12:20 ↗ not just at where the covert is being

12:22 ↗ installed.

12:24 ↗ Um it's not just the culvert. They're

12:26 ↗ building a whole bridge. So I would

12:28 ↗ argue our project is going to be

12:30 ↗ underway. Earlier we're building the

12:33 ↗ bridge first. Washd is building that for

12:36 ↗ us. So, there's that. There's, as the

12:40 ↗ mayor had said, uh, mobilization,

12:42 ↗ demobilization, having multiple

12:44 ↗ contractors with multiple different

12:46 ↗ project owners and oversight all in the

12:50 ↗ same area at the same time would mean it

12:53 ↗ would be very complex to make sure we

12:56 ↗ have the level of accountability and

12:58 ↗ oversight. If those contractors are

13:01 ↗ getting in each other's way, undoing

13:03 ↗ each other's work, making it more

13:04 ↗ difficult to get the project done, I

13:06 ↗ think ultimately it may take just as

13:08 ↗ long or longer if you have those sorts

13:10 ↗ of conflicts. So that's just some of the

13:12 ↗ reasons why.

13:16 ↗ >> And I think Council Member Nichols, we

13:18 ↗ all share your kind of sense of urgency

13:21 ↗ on this project. We know this community

13:22 ↗ has waited a long time. I think our hope

13:26 ↗ tonight is to make a very public

13:28 ↗ statement to the residents in South Lake

13:30 ↗ Samish that it is a priority. We are

13:32 ↗ going to do it. We're committing to

13:34 ↗ doing it even if we don't have any

13:35 ↗ success in securing outside grants to

13:37 ↗ help fund the project. This is going to

13:39 ↗ be paid for entirely by city of his

13:40 ↗ squad dollars if that's what it takes to

13:43 ↗ get it done. But it's a priority and it

13:45 ↗ will be done. And yes, it would be nice

13:47 ↗ if we could do it quicker. Uh and if we

13:50 ↗ find ways to speed it up, I think we'll

13:52 ↗ pursue those options. But I think right

13:54 ↗ now that's roughly the plan.

13:58 ↗ Oh, Council Member Marsh,

14:00 ↗ >> thank you. Um,

14:04 ↗ this has been going on for a while and

14:06 ↗ those residents really need the ability

14:10 ↗ to have that safe transportation. Have

14:13 ↗ we considered or is there an option to

14:16 ↗ utilize something in a temporary way to

14:19 ↗ provide um a protected bike and walk

14:22 ↗ lane? um that would allow a little bit

14:25 ↗ less exposure to vehicles on that very

14:28 ↗ tight roadway.

14:30 ↗ >> I would suggest something like a plastic

14:31 ↗ baller.

14:32 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. I think we're open to those

14:34 ↗ conversations. And so I will admit at

14:36 ↗ this point I don't have any cost

14:37 ↗ estimates of what those would look like.

14:39 ↗ But if there are things we need to do on

14:41 ↗ a temporary basis to help make it easier

14:43 ↗ to travel that route for the next 2 or 3

14:45 ↗ years while the project's waiting to

14:47 ↗ start and even after it starts, we still

14:49 ↗ have a construction window obviously.

14:51 ↗ Okay. So, I think those are all being

14:52 ↗ considered, but standing here right now,

14:54 ↗ I can't give you any good cost estimates

14:56 ↗ of what those would be.

15:00 ↗ Okay.

15:02 ↗ So, oh, Council Member Nichols,

15:05 ↗ >> this is a quick followup for the the

15:07 ↗ bridge that Wash is building. Does that

15:09 ↗ have the same um

15:12 ↗ I forget what this is called exactly,

15:13 ↗ but the number of lanes and widths for

15:15 ↗ pedestrian and uh bike uh access as the

15:18 ↗ the rest of the planned?

15:20 ↗ >> Yes, the answer it will accommodate

15:22 ↗ that. So, there won't be a narrowing

15:25 ↗ there. Uh okay, the next update now

15:29 ↗ these are a list of projects that are

15:32 ↗ almost entirely except for a couple

15:34 ↗ exceptions design funded projects. Not

15:37 ↗ these are not going to be in

15:38 ↗ construction in 2026. Uh so front and

15:41 ↗ sunset and when we talk about front and

15:43 ↗ sunset it's the sunset portion. We're

15:46 ↗ trying to make it easier to have better

15:47 ↗ flow whether you're coming from the east

15:49 ↗ or the west on sunset approaching that

15:52 ↗ intersection. Black Nugget wall is

15:54 ↗ something council member Martz and I

15:56 ↗ were dealing with when I was on the

15:57 ↗ council 15 years ago in terms of how we

16:00 ↗ stabilize that is just existing

16:02 ↗ retaining wall is staying we're building

16:04 ↗ a second wall outside of that wall and

16:07 ↗ that's how we're going to provide the

16:08 ↗ structural integrity but once again this

16:09 ↗ is design work northwest Gilman bridge

16:12 ↗ uh once again these are design work

16:14 ↗ projects where grants are coming in the

16:17 ↗ IT is an actual project that we do want

16:19 ↗ to get done in 2026 and the the main

16:22 ↗ focus because of our IT investment in

16:24 ↗ terms of intelligent transportation

16:26 ↗ system and this is trying to line up

16:27 ↗ your signals the best you can is kind of

16:30 ↗ focusing from front and sunset all the

16:32 ↗ way down towards Gilman and then Fourth

16:34 ↗ Avenue and that's where the focus is

16:36 ↗ going to be. Uh the other

16:39 ↗ yeah this so the rest of these it is a

16:42 ↗ it's a substantial amount of money a

16:44 ↗ large majority of this money is coming

16:46 ↗ from outside resources not directly from

16:48 ↗ city of squad dollars but we are

16:50 ↗ spending the design money so those

16:52 ↗ projects will be ready to go into

16:53 ↗ construction next year in 2027.

16:57 ↗ So, this brings us I think to Oh,

17:00 ↗ council member, deputy president,

17:01 ↗ >> I have a question about that list and

17:03 ↗ you're going to tell me that you you've

17:05 ↗ already told this. I'm just maybe having

17:07 ↗ a senior moment, but remind me the the

17:10 ↗ pedestrian walkway along 900. That's our

17:12 ↗ responsibility, right? Where does that

17:14 ↗ fit in all this?

17:15 ↗ >> Well, it is now done. We did it. So,

17:18 ↗ it's it opened last Thursday. I think

17:21 ↗ Council Member Nichols rode his bike

17:23 ↗ through there. We made it unceremonial

17:24 ↗ ribbon cutting of

17:28 ↗ So, I think the message, the moral of

17:30 ↗ that story is a squeaky wheel does get

17:31 ↗ the grease and our staff did a good job

17:33 ↗ of being the squeaky wheel with Wash Dot

17:35 ↗ and they got it done last week.

17:37 ↗ >> Well, that happened a lot faster than

17:39 ↗ Hillside Park, I just have to say. But,

17:41 ↗ all right. Thank you.

17:44 ↗ Okay. Okay. So, this I think gets into

17:45 ↗ council member Jeng's kind of question

17:47 ↗ of what do we have in terms of excess

17:50 ↗ revenue after we finish this trail

17:52 ↗ coming in from the south lake Samish

17:54 ↗ communities and there's one project on

17:57 ↗ this list that we just saw the front and

17:59 ↗ sunset where it was already part of our

18:01 ↗ you know transportation improvement plan

18:03 ↗ we have design all ready to go on that

18:05 ↗ so that is one project we are committing

18:07 ↗ to doing next year once the design is

18:10 ↗ done we would like to get that project

18:12 ↗ wrapped up and done and you're talking a

18:14 ↗ project that's roughly $2.4 million if

18:16 ↗ you were to put a rough estimate on the

18:18 ↗ total value design and construction.

18:21 ↗ The other projects, I'm going to be

18:23 ↗ honest with you right now, we don't

18:25 ↗ know. We don't have enough information

18:26 ↗ to say which ones make the most sense.

18:29 ↗ And so I think this is where we're

18:31 ↗ looking for council feedback tonight

18:32 ↗ because this is just a sample list of

18:35 ↗ potential project ideas. Uh, one's an

18:38 ↗ extra leftbound left turn lane when you

18:40 ↗ get off exit fe 15 as you're heading

18:43 ↗ west towards Seattle. Another one is a

18:45 ↗ roundabout where second avenue hits

18:47 ↗ Front Street just south of the high

18:49 ↗ school. Uh, we also talked about

18:52 ↗ extending the right turn lane into Talis

18:54 ↗ further down towards where Squawk

18:55 ↗ Mountain Nursery begins. So, you could

18:57 ↗ kind of double the length of that right

18:58 ↗ turn lane to make it easier for Talis

19:01 ↗ residents to exit evening afternoon

19:02 ↗ traffic congestion. But, this is just a

19:05 ↗ sample list. And at this point in time

19:07 ↗ today, we don't have enough modeling or

19:09 ↗ enough cost estimates to even be able to

19:11 ↗ weigh in on which one of these would

19:13 ↗ make the most sense. And this list is

19:15 ↗ not I mean, this is where we're really

19:17 ↗ looking for ideas. And so ideas from

19:20 ↗ people on the council. I've actually

19:22 ↗ made an open ask to Isqua staff members

19:24 ↗ who spend a lot of time driving around

19:25 ↗ our city like in the public works

19:27 ↗ department. We're looking for

19:28 ↗ suggestions of place where we can make

19:31 ↗ smart investments to provide congestion

19:33 ↗ relief. Oh, Council Member Walsh.

19:36 ↗ Yeah. Uh, I guess I was going to ask, we

19:39 ↗ have a whole list of tip projects that

19:42 ↗ do not have funding associated to them.

19:46 ↗ So, how do you propose balancing out the

19:49 ↗ idea of adding new projects compared to

19:53 ↗ things that we've had on the list that

19:54 ↗ we haven't been able to fund? things

19:56 ↗ like the IT project which would provide

19:59 ↗ smart traffic signals which a lot of

20:01 ↗ people have asked for or um the Squawk

20:04 ↗ Mountain multimodal project which would

20:07 ↗ provide bike and walk um pathways to a

20:10 ↗ neighborhood that's been in the area

20:12 ↗ without any um for a while. So I guess

20:14 ↗ I'm trying to understand you're coming

20:17 ↗ in here new. We have this whole list of

20:20 ↗ projects. Um how do those ideas compare?

20:24 ↗ I mean, I think it's

20:27 ↗ I don't think there's one silver bullet

20:29 ↗ that solves the traffic challenges

20:30 ↗ facing our community. So, it we'll see

20:33 ↗ in a further slide, is one of the things

20:36 ↗ we do plan to fund immediately with

20:38 ↗ these dollars. And I think it's actually

20:40 ↗ a legitimate use of transportation

20:42 ↗ bonding dollars to actually complete

20:44 ↗ specifically like we mentioned earlier,

20:46 ↗ the front and sunset down to Gilman over

20:49 ↗ to fourth as kind of the priority

20:51 ↗ corridor. We want to make sure the IT

20:53 ↗ investments are focused on making that

20:55 ↗ part of the city move more efficiently.

20:57 ↗ In terms of multimodal, like those

20:59 ↗ projects are all on the list. Like just

21:01 ↗ because they're not listed up here as

21:04 ↗ potential example ones, like they're all

21:07 ↗ things we're willing to look at as

21:09 ↗ potential things moving forward and and

21:10 ↗ how you balance. I think the challenge

21:13 ↗ with the current list of projects is we

21:15 ↗ have a lot of projects that are

21:16 ↗ extremely expensive. And as we talked

21:18 ↗ about earlier, we're really talking

21:20 ↗ about investing 10 to$15 million as

21:23 ↗ efficiently as we can between now and

21:26 ↗ the summer of 2028 because we know the

21:28 ↗ the trail projects can eat up majority

21:30 ↗ of our capacity. And we have a lot of

21:32 ↗ projects on that list that exceed that

21:35 ↗ by a factor of five, if not six or

21:37 ↗ seven. And so this is our challenge is

21:40 ↗ those projects will still be on the

21:41 ↗ list, but we're trying to figure out

21:43 ↗ what can we do in the meantime to

21:45 ↗ provide congestion relief rather than

21:47 ↗ just doing nothing because we have no

21:49 ↗ money falling out of the sky to pay for

21:51 ↗ a lot of those projects right now.

21:54 ↗ But everything you come up with, please,

21:57 ↗ we want to hear about it and and those

21:58 ↗ are the ideas we're looking for in the

22:00 ↗ months ahead. In terms of the other

22:03 ↗ safety examples, I think having the

22:06 ↗ crosswalk by the Village Theater and the

22:08 ↗ one on Black Nugget as you kind of go

22:10 ↗ from the Fred Meyer complex over, you

22:12 ↗ know, towards a 24-hour fitness complex,

22:15 ↗ uh, traffic calming around schools,

22:17 ↗ sidewalk extensions, these are all

22:19 ↗ things that we think as we try to

22:21 ↗ identify good projects we could get done

22:23 ↗ in 2027. But this is where we want to

22:25 ↗ work with the council to figure out what

22:28 ↗ what list makes the most sense.

22:31 ↗ Council member Jen.

22:33 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean looking at the

22:34 ↗ transportation improvement plan, I do

22:36 ↗ think there's a lot of items on there

22:37 ↗ that are very very large and there is

22:39 ↗ one in there called strategic small

22:41 ↗ capital projects. So I think identifying

22:43 ↗ which projects might fall into that

22:45 ↗ bucket is probably good. Um I think the

22:48 ↗ Squawk Mountain sidewalk in my view

22:50 ↗ would be a big priority. Similar, you

22:52 ↗ know, somewhat similar to the um

22:55 ↗ Northwest Seamish uh road improvements

22:57 ↗ projects where it's something we've

22:58 ↗ talked about for a long time. We

22:59 ↗ approved the it, you know, last year we

23:01 ↗ approved the study but with no funding

23:03 ↗ source. So it would be ideal if I and

23:06 ↗ the cost is not that much. It's like one

23:08 ↗ or two million maybe. So definitely

23:10 ↗ seems like a priority. One other thing I

23:12 ↗ would flag that is not in our

23:14 ↗ transportation improvement project is um

23:16 ↗ so basically once you get past the

23:18 ↗ highlands like um on Isiqua once you

23:21 ↗ cross isqua Fall City Road and go north

23:23 ↗ from there there are some neighborhoods

23:25 ↗ where there's like no safe route to get

23:27 ↗ from there to the highlands. So, you

23:29 ↗ know, when we were doorbelling there um

23:31 ↗ in the fall, the parents there were

23:34 ↗ like, you know, my kid rides their bike.

23:37 ↗ It's very scary. Would be great if you

23:39 ↗ could do a sidewalk there. There's one

23:40 ↗ section of it where there's like new

23:42 ↗ development. So, they put in the

23:43 ↗ sidewalk, but there's no sidewalk before

23:44 ↗ or after that. So, would be a good

23:47 ↗ opportunity to kind of, you know, fill

23:48 ↗ in those gaps. But those are the perfect

23:51 ↗ examples of why we're doing this

23:53 ↗ outreach now is we want to be able to

23:55 ↗ look at the list of projects, try to do

23:57 ↗ our best cost estimates of what they

23:59 ↗ are, and then you try to make smart

24:02 ↗ investments from there. And yes, the

24:04 ↗ projects that come in that$1 to2 million

24:06 ↗ price range are very appealing. When you

24:08 ↗ only have 10 or $15 million to spend,

24:10 ↗ we're trying to avoid doing one $12

24:12 ↗ million project that maybe just helps

24:14 ↗ one part of Isiqua, but doesn't actually

24:16 ↗ help the entire community. who were

24:18 ↗ really trying to figure out how do we

24:20 ↗ strategically invest dollars throughout

24:22 ↗ the Esqua community in a way where no

24:24 ↗ matter what part of town you live in,

24:25 ↗ you feel like some improvements were

24:27 ↗ made. We'll go to Council Member Nichols

24:28 ↗ and then Deputy Council President Marts.

24:32 ↗ >> Um on the same uh theme as Council

24:35 ↗ Member Jang brought up, the uh so all I

24:38 ↗ think all of the projects up there are

24:39 ↗ at least on this list, which I

24:41 ↗ understand is not intended to be

24:42 ↗ comprehensive, but just to to make the

24:44 ↗ point, um they're all focused on car

24:46 ↗ improvements. Um we there's lots of

24:49 ↗ places we need to improve our safety and

24:52 ↗ throughput for vehicle for motor

24:53 ↗ vehicles to to your goal of spending

24:56 ↗ some of this lower dollar more

24:58 ↗ efficiently. So, there's likely some

25:00 ↗ pedestrian and uh other mo and cycle

25:03 ↗ mobility options out there that might be

25:06 ↗ smaller projects that could have a

25:07 ↗ significant impact and I would encourage

25:08 ↗ us to think through those carefully and

25:11 ↗ look at them and see if those could be

25:13 ↗ um

25:13 ↗ >> and and I I know we have two members of

25:15 ↗ our council who are very use or have a

25:18 ↗ lot of knowledge about the various bike

25:20 ↗ choke points in our city. So that's is

25:23 ↗ we want to hear the feedback like we are

25:25 ↗ looking for really specific concrete

25:27 ↗ examples of projects like you're talking

25:29 ↗ about council member Nichols so we can

25:30 ↗ try to get cost estimates of those

25:32 ↗ projects and that is the entire point of

25:35 ↗ our exercise here tonight is to say we

25:37 ↗ want to we have we're trying to label

25:40 ↗ for the council the rough amount of

25:42 ↗ money we have to try to invest and we're

25:43 ↗ trying to figure out what's the best way

25:45 ↗ we can get the most out of those

25:47 ↗ investments and it means all modes of

25:49 ↗ transportation. So yes, I think the very

25:51 ↗ bottom example here on this list you can

25:53 ↗ see is not anything to do with car

25:55 ↗ movement, but uh yes, the ones in the

25:57 ↗ middle, we just use car examples. Deputy

26:00 ↗ President Marks, thank you. At the risk

26:03 ↗ of going back to cars, uh how do we get

26:06 ↗ our arms around the potential um traffic

26:09 ↗ improvements on I mean in my in my gold

26:13 ↗ standard would be that like you'd have a

26:15 ↗ before and after from Torstston on like

26:17 ↗ every every little thing, right?

26:19 ↗ Obviously, we're not going to run 50

26:21 ↗ major traffic studies. Do we have an

26:23 ↗ ability to understand the potential

26:26 ↗ traffic uh ramifications of of some of

26:29 ↗ the some of these small to midsize uh

26:32 ↗ improvements?

26:33 ↗ >> Yes, is the answer. So, that's what we

26:35 ↗ have to determine what that list of

26:37 ↗ projects we want to run through that is.

26:39 ↗ But yes, we feel like if we know what

26:41 ↗ we're looking at, we can for one, you

26:44 ↗ can just do some actual, you know, where

26:46 ↗ you lay down the little chords people

26:48 ↗ run over to kind of give you data

26:49 ↗ counts. Uh, sure,

26:50 ↗ >> but we also can go to traffic modeling.

26:52 ↗ So, I think the plan is to

26:55 ↗ >> to figure out the list and then try to

26:57 ↗ figure out what the models say, which

26:58 ↗ ones will be the most helpful, and then

27:00 ↗ figure out how much they cost.

27:02 ↗ >> So, my new favorite verb is t-shirting.

27:04 ↗ So, do we have the ability to t-shirt

27:06 ↗ these and say small, medium, large, uh,

27:08 ↗ impact or maybe small, slightly less

27:11 ↗ small, medium?

27:12 ↗ >> I we will by the time we've looked at

27:15 ↗ them. I think we'll have a very good

27:16 ↗ sense. I think what we can't say right

27:19 ↗ now is

27:20 ↗ projects that are in that like $2 to $6

27:23 ↗ million price range. We can't tell you

27:25 ↗ which one we think provides the most

27:27 ↗ improvements in terms of flow through

27:29 ↗ our city. So, that's sort of what we

27:31 ↗ have to figure out. But the ones that we

27:32 ↗ suspect might, we're going to put some

27:34 ↗ some more computational horsepower

27:36 ↗ behind it because Yeah, because traffic

27:37 ↗ is really weirdly nonlinear, right? So

27:40 ↗ it could turn out that there's like one

27:41 ↗ crazy little intersection where if you,

27:43 ↗ >> you know,

27:44 ↗ >> Yes.

27:45 ↗ >> make an improvement there at all.

27:46 ↗ >> Some would say the intersection could be

27:47 ↗ front and sunset.

27:51 ↗ >> Okay. Uh, so this just talks about

27:56 ↗ Oh, Council President D. Michelle,

27:59 ↗ sorry.

28:01 ↗ Go ahead. Oh, you got bigger on my

28:02 ↗ screen just now.

28:04 ↗ Oh, I think you're on mute, though.

28:09 ↗ >> Now, can you hear me?

28:10 ↗ >> Yes.

28:13 ↗ >> All right. Well, I just wanted to follow

28:15 ↗ up on Council Member Nichols comments.

28:18 ↗ Um, King County uh just released their

28:21 ↗ draft traffic safety action plan, and

28:24 ↗ there's a great emphasis in that plan on

28:27 ↗ pedestrian safety. Um Washington state

28:30 ↗ is is experiencing

28:33 ↗ uh the most traffic pedestrian traffic

28:36 ↗ deaths um in its history in the last few

28:39 ↗ years. And so from that standpoint,

28:43 ↗ looking at that uh crosswalk at the

28:45 ↗ village theater, I think would be an

28:48 ↗ excellent uh focus for us because it's

28:51 ↗ really dark there. We have crowds coming

28:52 ↗ out of that theater almost every night

28:55 ↗ during the season and um getting people

28:59 ↗ I've seen people kind of cruise across

29:01 ↗ that street during the daytime um

29:04 ↗ because it's so frustrating to walk all

29:06 ↗ the way down to the next light to cross.

29:09 ↗ So I think that's a project that we

29:11 ↗ might want to think about. But I I like

29:13 ↗ the idea of looking at more than just

29:15 ↗ car safety. We need to be looking at

29:18 ↗ pedestrian safety as well. Thanks.

29:21 ↗ Yes, excellent point. And I think

29:24 ↗ specifically, we have this one on the

29:25 ↗ list. And so, like right now, I'll be

29:28 ↗ honest with the council, we're trying to

29:29 ↗ figure out like, do the lights, can they

29:31 ↗ be solar powered as opposed to wired?

29:33 ↗ We're trying to figure out how to drive

29:34 ↗ down the cost of doing these projects.

29:36 ↗ And so, uh, in this case, I think we

29:39 ↗ hope to come back to you with cost

29:41 ↗ numbers that are lower than what our

29:42 ↗ traditional projects would cost because

29:45 ↗ we're trying to be creative. And I think

29:47 ↗ with things that involve lights, if you

29:49 ↗ can use solar to make them operate, it

29:51 ↗ obviously will substantially reduce

29:53 ↗ installation costs. And I think for the

29:54 ↗ village theater, that's our big question

29:56 ↗ we're trying to answer right now.

29:59 ↗ Okay. So the next slide really talks

30:01 ↗ about the importance of securing grants

30:03 ↗ from outside sources. And I'll go back

30:06 ↗ to my previous career in the capital

30:09 ↗ budget. I thought from a state

30:11 ↗ perspective, our goal was to draw down

30:13 ↗ federal dollars into our state of

30:15 ↗ Washington. And I think from a city

30:17 ↗ perspective, we're in the same camp

30:19 ↗ except we have more things to choose

30:21 ↗ from. So we can choose from county

30:22 ↗ dollars, we can choose from state

30:24 ↗ dollars, we can also choose from federal

30:25 ↗ dollars. And I think our focus

30:27 ↗ throughout this entire process is we

30:30 ↗ want to attract outside dollars into our

30:32 ↗ community to help us meet the challenges

30:34 ↗ when it comes to transportation and

30:36 ↗ mobility and and we're going to be

30:38 ↗ aggressive on that. And I think uh you

30:41 ↗ know we had a conversation I think on

30:43 ↗ one of these projects the council

30:44 ↗ meeting last week and you know we've

30:46 ↗ done a deep dive tried to understand

30:48 ↗ with the Newport project of how federal

30:50 ↗ money plays into that project and and I

30:52 ↗ think this is going to be the stuff

30:54 ↗ we're really trying to get our head

30:56 ↗ around as we go forward for the next

30:57 ↗ couple years. I think once you commit

31:00 ↗ that you're going to put your money on

31:01 ↗ the table I think you do have a big

31:02 ↗ advantage in going after a lot of these

31:04 ↗ grants. And so our hope is that we

31:06 ↗ commit to putting our money on the table

31:07 ↗ and we think it will give us an edge as

31:10 ↗ we go into these grant cycles in the

31:12 ↗ next one or two years ahead is our hope.

31:17 ↗ Okay. And there's any other questions on

31:20 ↗ that we are going to shift in this qual

31:23 ↗ light rail update.

31:28 ↗ Okay. We are making the shift. Uh

31:32 ↗ obviously I think we're all familiar

31:34 ↗ that originally we were on the ST3 map

31:36 ↗ at 2041 when they hit their first bump

31:39 ↗ in the road. We got bumped back towards

31:41 ↗ 2044

31:43 ↗ and there are big decisions. I'll repeat

31:45 ↗ that. Big decisions being made on light

31:48 ↗ rail and Puget Sound. They're all going

31:50 ↗ to happen in the next one to four

31:52 ↗ months. So, we expect by June 30th, if

31:55 ↗ you want to be on the ST3 map, you're

31:58 ↗ going to have to do a lot of work

31:59 ↗ between now and the end of June to make

32:01 ↗ sure if you're on the map that you stay

32:03 ↗ on the map. And so, this is our focus, I

32:05 ↗ think, as the administration is to make

32:08 ↗ our case of why we deserve to stay on

32:11 ↗ the map and how we want to be a good

32:12 ↗ partner with Sound Transit of actually

32:14 ↗ getting this line built.

32:20 ↗ I think before we go into this specific

32:22 ↗ details, I think the council did see the

32:25 ↗ letter that was sent by the CEO of

32:27 ↗ Costco today to the Sound Transit. Uh

32:30 ↗ similar letters are coming from, you

32:32 ↗ know, the president of Belleview College

32:34 ↗ and you know, elected leaders along with

32:37 ↗ other you know important businesses in

32:40 ↗ this region and we're having a meeting

32:42 ↗ with Swami Tribe on Friday to discuss

32:44 ↗ their support. Uh I think we have rough

32:47 ↗ commitments from the mayors of both

32:49 ↗ Maple Valley, Snowquami, Northbend,

32:51 ↗ incarnation that they would consider,

32:53 ↗ you know, signing on in support of the

32:54 ↗ importance of this line. I I think our

32:58 ↗ our argument to Sound Transit is if you

33:00 ↗ look at the light rail map, the cheapest

33:02 ↗ line to build on that map that is

33:04 ↗ currently not built is the Isiquata

33:06 ↗ Belleview connection. And so it's

33:08 ↗ already the cheapest. And I think we're

33:10 ↗ making an argument as we met with Julie

33:12 ↗ Meredith, the head at Wash Dot, that you

33:14 ↗ could run a line basically using almost

33:17 ↗ exclusively the the wash dot ride ofway.

33:20 ↗ And so that would involve a station that

33:22 ↗ would you'd have to figure out where it

33:24 ↗ ends. But if you're going to end on

33:26 ↗ washout rightway, it's very likely in

33:27 ↗ the middle of I90 with some sort of

33:29 ↗ pedestrian overpass. And then you would

33:31 ↗ have a stop at Eastgate and then you

33:34 ↗ could connect to Belleview at what is

33:36 ↗ the most costefficient connection point

33:38 ↗ which we think would be South Belleview

33:40 ↗ most likely. But I think in meeting with

33:43 ↗ elected leaders in Bellev they seem to

33:45 ↗ be open-minded to figuring out the most

33:48 ↗ cost-effective way to build this line.

33:50 ↗ And there currently is a station at

33:51 ↗ Richard's Road and we're trying to

33:53 ↗ figure out if that station is necessary

33:55 ↗ or if you could reduce costs by not

33:57 ↗ having the Richard's Road station. And

33:58 ↗ so I think the message we're making to

34:01 ↗ the Sound Transit board members right

34:03 ↗ now is we're looking at this in a way to

34:05 ↗ try to be a good financial partner of

34:07 ↗ how you could do this line at a better

34:09 ↗ price point than what's currently on

34:10 ↗ their Excel spreadsheet. And we don't

34:13 ↗ know and this is we're trying to be

34:16 ↗ different than some of the communities

34:18 ↗ right now that are going through who are

34:20 ↗ currently further ahead of us on the

34:21 ↗ list but are actually doing the

34:23 ↗ opposite. They're demanding more

34:24 ↗ stations. They're demanding alignments

34:26 ↗ that involve a lot more rightaway

34:27 ↗ acquisition and we're trying to do the

34:30 ↗ opposite on both fronts and but it's not

34:32 ↗ going to be easy and I think the the

34:36 ↗ goal is the meeting on February 24th uh

34:39 ↗ save as quas light rail I think is is a

34:42 ↗ chance to have important leaders in the

34:44 ↗ transit space come and talk about why

34:46 ↗ this is a time-sensitive topic and that

34:48 ↗ takes a little explaining for a line

34:50 ↗ that's currently scheduled to come to

34:51 ↗ our community in 2044. So, I think we're

34:54 ↗ trying to make that argument. And I want

34:56 ↗ to be clear like our goal in this whole

34:58 ↗ process is to say this line is one you

35:02 ↗ can build under budget and ahead of

35:04 ↗ schedule. And we're trying to figure out

35:05 ↗ if there's any way we can actually move

35:07 ↗ ahead of schedule. And I don't think

35:09 ↗ that means, you know, you're going to

35:11 ↗ have light rail here in two years. But

35:14 ↗ once you start and commit to a light

35:16 ↗ rail line, you can be open in 10 years.

35:18 ↗ And so I think our goal is it'd be nice

35:20 ↗ if we could open in the late 2030s as

35:22 ↗ opposed to going into the 2040s. And

35:24 ↗ this is our challenge in the next couple

35:26 ↗ years is to really make our case about

35:29 ↗ what will we're willing to do as a

35:30 ↗ community in this project and and the

35:33 ↗ advantage that we would have for Sound

35:34 ↗ Transit to actually have a line get done

35:36 ↗ had a schedule and under budget. Uh

35:40 ↗ are there questions

35:42 ↗ on some transit?

35:48 ↗ Yes, I do like this save light rail. If

35:51 ↗ anybody else has a catchier phrase, feel

35:53 ↗ free to share it with us. But right now,

35:55 ↗ that one seems to be the one that's

35:56 ↗ standing out. And and I think as we talk

36:00 ↗ about the specific ideas, it's around

36:01 ↗ rightway minimizing that uh minimizing

36:04 ↗ parking garages right here in the Esqua

36:06 ↗ Valley floor saying we already have two

36:09 ↗ Sound Transit garages that are already

36:10 ↗ built off SR900 up in the Highlands. Uh,

36:14 ↗ and we're really focused on how you can

36:15 ↗ connect to Belleview at the the most

36:17 ↗ efficient price point. So, those are the

36:19 ↗ big three I think that we're bringing to

36:21 ↗ the table that other other communities

36:23 ↗ are are doing the opposite when it comes

36:25 ↗ to light rail right now.

36:30 ↗ And I think this communication one is we

36:33 ↗ just

36:35 ↗ we're trying to share as we submit

36:36 ↗ comments to Sound Transit, we're trying

36:38 ↗ to share them with the council from

36:39 ↗ these letters of community support. Uh

36:42 ↗ but I think we are tonight open to

36:44 ↗ feedback in terms of the level of kind

36:47 ↗ of updates you want and uh and it could

36:49 ↗ be there's more updates between now in

36:52 ↗ June just because this is when

36:53 ↗ everything's really timesensitive. But

36:55 ↗ for for folks who know people that are

36:57 ↗ passionate about transit like now is a

37:01 ↗ time to let your friends know that this

37:03 ↗ is the time to weigh in. And I plan to

37:05 ↗ personally attend the Sound Transit

37:06 ↗ Board meeting on February 24th uh to

37:08 ↗ share my comments. But, you know, other

37:11 ↗ folks can start weighing in because the

37:13 ↗ time is now. There's going to be a

37:14 ↗ retreat for Sound Transit in March where

37:16 ↗ I think some of the big decisions will

37:18 ↗ start to get discussed. And so, this is

37:20 ↗ why there is a sense of urgency of of

37:23 ↗ making sure we make the case for this

37:25 ↗ community around why these light rail

37:27 ↗ investments are really important.

37:31 ↗ Oh, Council President D. Michelle.

37:34 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Mullen. Uh I will

37:36 ↗ let you know I am thrilled with this

37:38 ↗ approach. So um uh I think there's been

37:42 ↗ uh in my opinion there's been a little

37:44 ↗ bit of mixed messaging coming from its

37:47 ↗ and I think that uh making a forceful

37:51 ↗ statement in that we are here to uh

37:55 ↗ support this link light rail station is

37:57 ↗ really really important right now. So, I

37:59 ↗ really appreciate your approach to this.

38:01 ↗ Um, and I would personally be quite

38:04 ↗ willing to uh participate in advocacy

38:07 ↗ with the South Transit Board or to round

38:10 ↗ up interested people in the community to

38:13 ↗ testify on behalf of of our link light

38:16 ↗ rail station. Um, I just I think the

38:20 ↗ stronger our message, the more important

38:21 ↗ it is right now. So, thank you very much

38:24 ↗ for your um strong advocacy on this.

38:27 ↗ Thank you. No, thanks for saying that. I

38:29 ↗ think this goes back to the council

38:30 ↗ retreat where we were saying we're all

38:31 ↗ in a we're all in a canoe together. The

38:33 ↗ the if we're all willing to row in the

38:35 ↗ same direction, I think we'll go a lot

38:36 ↗ faster and be a lot more effective. And

38:39 ↗ I think to council president D.

38:40 ↗ Michelle's point, the mixed message is

38:42 ↗ you have heard people talk about bus

38:45 ↗ rapid transit. And I will say my

38:47 ↗ experience for my 5 years living in

38:48 ↗ London, my 5 years working in New York

38:50 ↗ City is you see investments around light

38:53 ↗ rail investments in the community around

38:56 ↗ those stations in a completely different

38:58 ↗ way than you do with bus rapid transit.

39:00 ↗ Completely different way. They have the

39:02 ↗ ability to positively transform

39:04 ↗ communities. Whereas bus rapid transit,

39:06 ↗ because those lines can move on a whim,

39:08 ↗ you don't see the kind of follow-up

39:10 ↗ investment to create the really vibrant

39:12 ↗ walkable village communities that we

39:14 ↗ think would work right here both north

39:16 ↗ and south of I90. Uh, okay. We are now

39:21 ↗ Oh, council member.

39:23 ↗ >> Uh, yeah, I did want to echo the same

39:25 ↗ thing. I really do appreciate your

39:26 ↗ aggressive approach and really moving

39:29 ↗ quickly on this. I guess my question is

39:30 ↗ really goes to the idea of, you know,

39:32 ↗ you mentioned this is the time to act.

39:34 ↗ this is the time to do stuff and what

39:37 ↗ does what exactly specifically help can

39:40 ↗ we andor the community do to help this

39:42 ↗ is that you want crowds of people at

39:43 ↗ these meetings what yes what are they

39:45 ↗ what's the concrete action that we can

39:47 ↗ take place now until then to get things

39:49 ↗ moving

39:50 ↗ >> I think every sound transit board

39:52 ↗ meeting that happens this year if we

39:53 ↗ have people from our community showing

39:54 ↗ up to talk about the importance of this

39:56 ↗ line that will help and and so the next

39:59 ↗ one is February 24th there's then a

40:01 ↗ retreat in March And Andrea, you want to

40:04 ↗ come up?

40:07 ↗ I

40:07 ↗ >> I'm sorry. The board meeting is on

40:08 ↗ February 26th. We can send out I'm so

40:11 ↗ sorry.

40:12 ↗ >> We can send out that information to city

40:13 ↗ council. We'll also be um publishing a

40:16 ↗ web page tomorrow that's going to have a

40:18 ↗ lot more specific actions. We'd love to

40:19 ↗ share that with city council so that you

40:21 ↗ can share it within your networks. Um,

40:23 ↗ and of course we're having our own

40:26 ↗ community meeting on this topic on

40:28 ↗ February 24th from 5:30 to 6:30 in this

40:31 ↗ very room. And so we're going to

40:33 ↗ encourage as many people to come as

40:35 ↗ possible to learn more about what they

40:37 ↗ can do and learn more about the current

40:39 ↗ status of of light rail. So we hope that

40:42 ↗ you can help us getting people to that

40:44 ↗ meeting too. Thank you,

40:47 ↗ >> Council Jen. Um, one other thing I would

40:50 ↗ add, so Sound Transit also has a system

40:52 ↗ expansion committee which

40:54 ↗ >> chaired by Angela Bernie.

40:55 ↗ >> Yeah. So they meet um their next meeting

40:57 ↗ is this Thursday at 1:30. So if anyone

41:01 ↗ that I think system expansion committee

41:03 ↗ is really where they're going to be

41:04 ↗ making the decisions on which light rail

41:06 ↗ uh lines to prioritize or not. So in

41:08 ↗ terms of having people show up to

41:09 ↗ meetings, I think that one would be a

41:10 ↗ good one in addition to the regular full

41:12 ↗ board meeting.

41:13 ↗ >> I completely agree. We did invite Mayor

41:16 ↗ Bernie to our community meeting on the

41:18 ↗ 24th, but that is the night of a Redmond

41:20 ↗ city council meeting, so she is not able

41:23 ↗ to attend. And okay, now you're going to

41:26 ↗ get Bennett's infectious energy for

41:30 ↗ street overlay.

41:38 ↗ >> Deputy President Mart. Yeah, I I I want

41:41 ↗ to plus one your comment about the

41:43 ↗ transformative effect of of transit. You

41:46 ↗ know, Minneapolis had a really hard time

41:48 ↗ getting going with with uh uh light

41:51 ↗ rail. And it actually took, bizarrely

41:53 ↗ enough, a former professional wrestler

41:56 ↗ uh to be governor to just say, "We're

41:57 ↗ going to do it."

41:58 ↗ >> That Jesse Vera's baby.

41:59 ↗ >> That's That's right. And and it has a it

42:02 ↗ has had a profound impact on Minneapolis

42:05 ↗ uh in a way in a way that's seen as very

42:07 ↗ positive in Minneapolis. And so, you

42:10 ↗ know,

42:12 ↗ it it is easy to to talk about those

42:15 ↗ things um when talking to uh the Sound

42:19 ↗ Transit Board and and to to do all that.

42:22 ↗ Um there's also the element of um you

42:27 ↗ know, we we live in an era five years

42:29 ↗ ago, I talked about a lot about how um

42:32 ↗ some states were big net contributors to

42:34 ↗ the federal government and um didn't

42:36 ↗ necessarily get a lot back. that that

42:38 ↗ conversation and that metric has become

42:40 ↗ really pronounced in the last few years.

42:43 ↗ Um it's true regionally as well, right?

42:45 ↗ And nobody wants um a rich community

42:48 ↗ saying boohooh who, you know, we don't

42:50 ↗ get all the services, but you know, we

42:53 ↗ ask a lot of the voters, right? And um

42:56 ↗ and we like to think that um there is

43:00 ↗ some equity around contributions that

43:02 ↗ are made into regional funds um coming

43:05 ↗ back into the communities. Right? We

43:08 ↗ supported ST3, right? This community,

43:11 ↗ there were a lot of people that said the

43:12 ↗ east side wouldn't support ST3, but we

43:14 ↗ did it. We took a leap of faith. We

43:16 ↗ supported it. I pay huge tabs every year

43:19 ↗ on my cars. I'm sure a lot of other

43:21 ↗ folks do, too. Um, you know, again, I we

43:25 ↗ can't say boohoo because, you know, we

43:27 ↗ we don't have some of the needs that

43:28 ↗ some of the other communities have, but

43:30 ↗ we do have needs. And to get so little

43:32 ↗ back for so long, if it if it were to

43:35 ↗ turn out to not uh that ST3 wouldn't

43:38 ↗ fund this, um it would be a real loss

43:40 ↗ regionally. And I think it would make it

43:42 ↗ a lot harder to make regional arguments

43:45 ↗ um when other large ticket items come

43:47 ↗ along if if we if this huge investment

43:49 ↗ we made 15 years ago or 12 years ago,

43:51 ↗ whatever it was, doesn't pan out at all.

43:54 ↗ Thanks.

43:54 ↗ >> I 100% agree. I think we are advocating

43:57 ↗ on behalf of Isqua taxpayers to get what

43:59 ↗ they were promised when we asked them to

44:01 ↗ vote for this back in 2016 and I was one

44:04 ↗ of the people that asked them to vote

44:06 ↗ for it. So, it's very personal to me.

44:09 ↗ Okay, Bennett. It's all yours.

44:24 ↗ All right. Well, thank you for having

44:27 ↗ me, Council and Mayor Mullet. Um, my

44:30 ↗ name is Bennett Ashba. I'm the streets

44:32 ↗ uh manager for public works and I'm also

44:35 ↗ responsible for the pavement management

44:37 ↗ program uh TR30.

44:40 ↗ Uh so tonight I'm going to talk about uh

44:43 ↗ pavement. Really exciting, really fun

44:44 ↗ stuff. Um there's a lot of nuances to

44:47 ↗ it. Um as as simple as it looks out

44:50 ↗ there. Um so we're going to go through

44:52 ↗ that. I also provided a memo um pretty

44:55 ↗ extensive memo on this to get through

44:58 ↗ the technical jargon and whatnot uh for

45:00 ↗ this uh presentation. So

45:04 ↗ all right

45:06 ↗ um so the direction needed tonight um

45:10 ↗ should the city should the city continue

45:12 ↗ to prioritize cost effectiveness or does

45:14 ↗ council want to set a higher aesthetic

45:16 ↗ standard? Uh today I got a question from

45:19 ↗ council member Adair and uh just to

45:23 ↗ reiterate what we're looking for. Um

45:25 ↗ this is when we talk about the aesthetic

45:29 ↗ higher aesthetic standard we're talking

45:31 ↗ about the appearance and uniformity of

45:32 ↗ the surface after a maintenance

45:34 ↗ treatment. Um so ultimately that that is

45:37 ↗ what the question surrounds right.

45:42 ↗ Um, and this decision can really

45:44 ↗ influence, you know, the different types

45:45 ↗ of treatment budgets, um, the whole nine

45:48 ↗ yards in terms outcomes when trying to

45:51 ↗ maximize the pavement life, the useful

45:53 ↗ pavement life.

45:55 ↗ So, to get started, we're going to go

45:57 ↗ over the standard uh, deterioration

45:59 ↗ curve of asphalt roadways. This is

46:01 ↗ really important and intricral to this

46:03 ↗ discussion. Um

46:06 ↗ in when you're looking at this graph,

46:08 ↗ the black line represents the standard

46:10 ↗ deterioration curve of asphalt roadway

46:12 ↗ without maintenance performed. So you

46:14 ↗ can see it starts at 100. In theory, um

46:18 ↗ in the first four or five years, it

46:20 ↗ drops pretty drastically down to that

46:22 ↗ 85. At 85, it plateaus in that good

46:25 ↗ condition. You might get a small crack

46:27 ↗ here, a small crack there, um in that 85

46:30 ↗ range. And then once you get once you

46:32 ↗ get through that plateau, um you get to

46:35 ↗ a point where it's starting to go down

46:38 ↗ that curve and you can see it it goes

46:40 ↗ down that curve faster and faster and

46:42 ↗ faster. That's when you get a pothole uh

46:44 ↗ that turns into a larger patch that

46:46 ↗ turns into a crack that turns into

46:48 ↗ something else. Um so our goal with PMP

46:51 ↗ is to take a citywide systematic

46:54 ↗ approach and looking at the whole system

46:57 ↗ um and decide what treatments apply to

47:01 ↗ the what road at the right time. So

47:03 ↗ there are some roads as we know as you

47:05 ↗ guys know driving around that you see

47:07 ↗ and you're man this is bad condition.

47:09 ↗ Some of those roads have reached a point

47:11 ↗ where they have to get a higher cost um

47:15 ↗ I'm calling it reactive treatment um

47:17 ↗ which is removing the top surface um

47:20 ↗ coming back and placing a brand new top

47:22 ↗ surface.

47:24 ↗ The goal in a perfect world is going to

47:26 ↗ be that we we perform maintenance

47:29 ↗ treatments, lowerc cost maintenance

47:31 ↗ treatments in the good or the top of the

47:33 ↗ fair range. And that will again re bring

47:37 ↗ our PCI number or pavement condition

47:39 ↗ index numbers a grade that we provide

47:42 ↗ the roadways u which I'll get into in a

47:44 ↗ little bit and it brings it back up and

47:46 ↗ it starts that deterioration curve

47:48 ↗ again. Um so that's the goal of of PMP

47:52 ↗ um the pavement management program. How

47:54 ↗ do we extend the life of these roadways

47:56 ↗ to the maximum extent possible?

48:01 ↗ Um so our our level of service goal for

48:05 ↗ the city is to maintain an average PCI

48:08 ↗ of index pavement condition index PCI of

48:11 ↗ 73 to 80 in a range. um performance

48:16 ↗ measures. Uh we're aiming to treat 8.1

48:19 ↗ lane miles annually using preventative

48:21 ↗ and reactive methods. Um and then we

48:25 ↗ also get an updated PCI uh through a

48:28 ↗ third-party analysis every three years.

48:30 ↗ That's the industry standard. Um and

48:33 ↗ then additionally, we've invested in our

48:35 ↗ in-house crews and some equipment and

48:37 ↗ we're using our in-house crews to do

48:38 ↗ spot repairs um to slow that

48:42 ↗ deterioration. And when you get that

48:43 ↗ first pothole, we're going to be there

48:44 ↗ to do a patch. So, if we don't have it,

48:46 ↗ keep going.

48:50 ↗ Now, I talked about the pavement

48:51 ↗ condition index. Um, as you can see on

48:54 ↗ this on this uh slide here, the PCI

48:58 ↗ rating is on the

49:00 ↗ left side, the left side uh here. So, it

49:04 ↗ goes from 100 down to zero. And it

49:06 ↗ basically acts acts like a grade in

49:09 ↗ school, right? So 100 is excellent. 15

49:12 ↗ points below that good, fair, poor, very

49:14 ↗ poor, failed. In that 100 to 85, the

49:18 ↗ excellent to good range, that's when we

49:20 ↗ want to be doing the preventative

49:21 ↗ maintenance uh treatments, which is

49:23 ↗ going to be crack seal, surface seals,

49:26 ↗ and patching. These preventative

49:28 ↗ treatment maintenance techniques cost

49:31 ↗ between$1 and $8 per square yard. Um

49:34 ↗ they can extend the life of the pavement

49:36 ↗ between three and 10 years. Um then you

49:39 ↗ get down into the fair and poor

49:41 ↗ category.

49:43 ↗ This is where you're looking more at

49:44 ↗ reactive maintenance. Um the fair

49:47 ↗ category you'll see in later slides I

49:49 ↗ highlight on both the preventative and

49:51 ↗ reactive because there's other variables

49:53 ↗ that come into play there. They might

49:54 ↗ have just two really bad spots on that

49:58 ↗ street segment that we can patch and

49:59 ↗ make good. Um or it's already gotten

50:03 ↗ past that point and we need to do a full

50:05 ↗ reactive treatment.

50:08 ↗ Uh the one thing I want to highlight

50:10 ↗ here on this fair to pour category is

50:13 ↗ the cost difference um as well as what

50:16 ↗ it triggers. So if we do a surface

50:20 ↗ removal and overlay removing the top two

50:22 ↗ three inches of asphalt and replacing

50:24 ↗ it, we're looking at $35 to $45 a square

50:27 ↗ yard. And that difference there is

50:29 ↗ between residential and arterial and

50:31 ↗ collectors are kind of in the middle. Um

50:34 ↗ but not included in that price is it

50:37 ↗ triggers regulatory ADA upgrades. So we

50:39 ↗ have to federally mandated we have to

50:43 ↗ repair and replace all uh pedestrian

50:46 ↗ access ramps. Um those can range between

50:51 ↗ uh about 7,000 to 12,000 depending on

50:55 ↗ you know are there utilities in the

50:56 ↗ ramp? Are we relocating wire? Are we

50:58 ↗ doing this or is it a standard

51:00 ↗ residential ramp that has nothing in

51:02 ↗ there?

51:03 ↗ Um so it does trigger that as well. Um

51:07 ↗ council in 2022

51:10 ↗ uh uh we created the TR054 which is the

51:14 ↗ concrete maintenance program and that

51:16 ↗ program actually works with PMP and they

51:19 ↗ replace the ramps on those roadways that

51:21 ↗ we need to do that work on. Um so that

51:23 ↗ these regulatory upgrades are not coming

51:25 ↗ out of the PMP the TR30 fund but the

51:28 ↗ >> one second Benny Deputy President Mart

51:30 ↗ has a question.

51:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So, you know, I'm a math nerd,

51:33 ↗ right? So, it um I'm I'm struggling with

51:36 ↗ the one to eight dollars per square yard

51:37 ↗ because it's such a huge difference.

51:39 ↗ Yeah. And and you get some actual

51:41 ↗ overlap

51:42 ↗ >> um because of those ranges and the

51:44 ↗ ranges on the added life. You actually

51:46 ↗ get some overlap between the

51:47 ↗ preventative maintenance and the

51:48 ↗ reactive maintenance in the dollars per

51:50 ↗ yard per year.

51:51 ↗ >> Um because of that huge spread. Can you

51:54 ↗ talk a little bit about that? That seems

51:56 ↗ like 1 to8 seems like a huge spread.

51:59 ↗ >> Yes, it is. And I'm not exactly sure

52:01 ↗ where my slide is, but in a few slides

52:03 ↗ I'll have pictures of each treatment and

52:04 ↗ I can show you like crack seal is a

52:06 ↗ dollar. It's we're just chasing cracks

52:09 ↗ around. So it averages about a dollar a

52:11 ↗ square yard. A surface seal can get up

52:13 ↗ to $8. Uh

52:16 ↗ >> and so there's I'm combining them all as

52:18 ↗ preventative treatments, but that that

52:20 ↗ is a large spread. Um so but crack seal,

52:23 ↗ for example, only lasts three years

52:24 ↗ before you have to do it again. A

52:25 ↗ surface seal goes up to eight to 10

52:27 ↗ years. So that's why that spread is so

52:30 ↗ wide there.

52:31 ↗ >> So but well no that helps. So the $1 is

52:33 ↗ closer to the three years and the $8 is

52:36 ↗ closer to the 10 years because if you

52:38 ↗ the you you know if you were selling

52:40 ↗ reactive maintenance technologies,

52:42 ↗ right? You would say, "Oh, $8 per square

52:44 ↗ yard and it only lasts you three years,

52:45 ↗ right? And then the and then the

52:47 ↗ reactive maintenance looks better." But

52:48 ↗ what what you're telling me is that they

52:51 ↗ >> they're proportional. The the the cost

52:53 ↗ and the life has some proportionality.

52:56 ↗ Okay. that makes it maybe less.

52:58 ↗ >> I appreciate your question though

52:59 ↗ because that that does help.

53:00 ↗ >> Thank you.

53:01 ↗ >> Um

53:03 ↗ yes. So

53:05 ↗ we've gone through excellent to good.

53:06 ↗ We've gone through fair to poor. Very

53:08 ↗ poor to failed. Um in the council uh

53:12 ↗ memo that was put out. There were some

53:14 ↗ pictures to kind of show the difference

53:15 ↗ between those treatments. But very poor

53:18 ↗ to fail is where you're talking

53:20 ↗ reconstruction. reconstruction is taking

53:23 ↗ it down all the way to base, subbase,

53:25 ↗ repairing any structural issues, the

53:27 ↗ whole nine yards there. Um, and that's

53:30 ↗ why you have the 85 plus per square yard

53:33 ↗ in that category because you're not

53:34 ↗ quite sure what you're going to get into

53:35 ↗ when you open up a road that's failed

53:37 ↗ and where the failures are in the base,

53:40 ↗ what type of fabric you might need to

53:41 ↗ use is all it's kind of all happens once

53:44 ↗ you start opening the road up. Um, but

53:47 ↗ that if we get into that point, those

53:51 ↗ roadways, if we do a reconstruct,

53:53 ↗ there's also federal required uh

53:55 ↗ federalmandated

53:57 ↗ uh storm water upgrades that have to

53:59 ↗ occur if you disturb so much square

54:01 ↗ footage of a road. And typically, when

54:03 ↗ you're doing a reconstruction, you're

54:05 ↗ going to be meeting that threshold. So

54:07 ↗ then you have to upgrade all the storm

54:09 ↗ and do all the ADA. So our philosophy is

54:11 ↗ to try to stay out of that um out of the

54:15 ↗ subbase as much as we can utilizing all

54:17 ↗ these different types of treatments. And

54:20 ↗ you can see here the net gain on added

54:22 ↗ life. It's not huge with a reconstruct

54:25 ↗ because you're still talking about that

54:27 ↗ top surface that that's exposed to all

54:29 ↗ the elements and traffic.

54:34 ↗ >> Any questions? Yeah. I'm not sure. Um, I

54:37 ↗ mean, I know it's on this slide, but I

54:38 ↗ was curious like do do we have roads

54:41 ↗ that are approaching that bottom level?

54:44 ↗ >> We have sections of roadways that are um

54:47 ↗ >> I don't One of one of the worst roadways

54:50 ↗ right now is Gilman. Um, there's there's

54:52 ↗ a lot of areas with concrete panels

54:54 ↗ underneath the roads from old highways

54:57 ↗ that they just caked uh asphalt on top

55:00 ↗ of. And as those roadways as those

55:02 ↗ panels have failed underneath the road,

55:05 ↗ it brings the asphalt down, breaks it

55:07 ↗ up. So we we have some plans on how

55:09 ↗ we're going to hopefully repair some of

55:11 ↗ those. But additionally, some of those

55:13 ↗ projects are already identified um such

55:16 ↗ as Newport uh Maple to Sunset is a big

55:19 ↗ project that's been talked about, I

55:22 ↗ believe, everywhere. Um so that is

55:25 ↗ that's one of them. So, a lot of the

55:26 ↗ failed sections are actually in areas

55:28 ↗ that have been identified for other

55:29 ↗ projects as well.

55:31 ↗ >> And I will say the the Gilman fix did

55:34 ↗ not fall in the 2 to4 million price

55:37 ↗ range unfortunately. And I think the

55:39 ↗ other thing that came up with that is

55:41 ↗ obviously the light rail discussion is

55:44 ↗ so what hap we're kind of waiting to get

55:46 ↗ some clarity of what's going to happen

55:47 ↗ there because I think we want to put a

55:49 ↗ bike lane on Gilman. We want to have we

55:51 ↗ want to do the overlay, but we also want

55:53 ↗ to do it when we know kind of what the

55:55 ↗ full vision is going to look like, which

55:58 ↗ right now in I don't think there's any

56:00 ↗ way we'll know this year exactly what's

56:03 ↗ happening. Council member Jen, did you

56:05 ↗ have a question?

56:06 ↗ >> Yeah, I guess I mean one of the roads

56:08 ↗ that I go on that to me seems to be one

56:10 ↗ of the worst is the Newport Maple to

56:12 ↗ Sunset. And so my and um is basically

56:15 ↗ the concept that we're not really going

56:18 ↗ to do the full roadway repair until we

56:19 ↗ can do everything in that one project

56:21 ↗ all at once.

56:23 ↗ >> It's a great great segue uh into kind of

56:27 ↗ talking about how we go how we make our

56:29 ↗ plan for PMP. So we've known Newport is

56:32 ↗ a roadway that we needed to treat for

56:36 ↗ since we at least since we did our first

56:37 ↗ scan to create our benchmark in 2019.

56:40 ↗ um probably before that before I was

56:43 ↗ here. Uh however,

56:46 ↗ as we go through these projects, we

56:48 ↗ coordinate with everybody um all the

56:50 ↗ different utilities, all the different

56:52 ↗ capital projects. Our goal is to build a

56:54 ↗ roadway, to maintain a roadway, and to

56:57 ↗ have nobody touch it for at least a few

56:59 ↗ years and not throw away that investment

57:02 ↗ basically by having having to mill it

57:04 ↗ out. So, in the case of Newport, it's

57:06 ↗ actually on our work plan this year.

57:08 ↗ We're probably going to be doing a lane

57:10 ↗ width patch over that bad section off

57:13 ↗ the side of the road. And that's

57:14 ↗ actually right on the edge of a concrete

57:15 ↗ panel that's failing. Um, so we'll do

57:18 ↗ small patches and try to hold the road

57:21 ↗ together as long as we can. But there

57:23 ↗ are times where we've had to pave the

57:24 ↗ road knowing that there's upcoming

57:26 ↗ projects coming down the pipeline. It's

57:28 ↗ just a balance of what's what's how can

57:30 ↗ we provide that safe, reliable surface

57:33 ↗ for everyone and maximize our dollars.

57:36 ↗ Um, but we utilize our in-house crews a

57:38 ↗ lot more for those types of projects.

57:43 ↗ >> Okay. And one more question. I'm curious

57:45 ↗ if we, you know, I feel like with

57:47 ↗ budgeting for the PMP, we typically do

57:49 ↗ it in the bianial budgets, but do we

57:51 ↗ have a sense of like, you know, over the

57:53 ↗ next 10 years, like what's the ideal

57:55 ↗ amount of maintenance that we should be

57:57 ↗ doing? like if we don't, you know, like

58:00 ↗ if we fall behind, what's that going to

58:02 ↗ mean for

58:03 ↗ >> We do um

58:04 ↗ >> Okay, great.

58:05 ↗ >> The pavement condition scan is occurring

58:08 ↗ right now. Um we don't have the final

58:10 ↗ numbers yet. Um they still haven't

58:12 ↗ scanned the road. Uh so we're trying to

58:15 ↗ find a good weather window to scan the

58:16 ↗ road. And then part of the summary

58:18 ↗ that's going to be uh provided at the

58:20 ↗ end of that project, it has all of the

58:23 ↗ different scenarios of do nothing, you

58:25 ↗ know, don't fund PMP and this is how

58:27 ↗ your roads will deteriorate as a network

58:30 ↗ to fund at this level, fund at this

58:32 ↗ level, and we we provide them with those

58:34 ↗ numbers of, hey, can you can you give us

58:36 ↗ one where we're minimal funding and

58:38 ↗ we're only doing surface seals? Can you

58:40 ↗ give us some when we're fully funded? um

58:43 ↗ which was on that that graph that Mayor

58:45 ↗ Mullet showed and that we'll show again.

58:47 ↗ Um so yes, we do have we will have all

58:49 ↗ those scenarios. Um I didn't present

58:52 ↗ those now because those are 2022 numbers

58:54 ↗ and we've had a lot going on in the city

58:56 ↗ in terms of new roads and and

58:58 ↗ construction. So

59:01 ↗ >> great. Thank you,

59:04 ↗ >> Council Member Walsh.

59:05 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, can I make a request

59:09 ↗ that given we have uh some newer members

59:13 ↗ of council, I think when we get those

59:16 ↗ new numbers, it would be a really great

59:18 ↗ opportunity to take us on a little bit

59:21 ↗ of a tour.

59:22 ↗ >> Love it.

59:22 ↗ >> Um, just to be able to, you know, we

59:25 ↗ haven't done a good bus tour in a little

59:27 ↗ while and all y'all need to really pack

59:30 ↗ into that van a little bit with us. So,

59:32 ↗ I think that would be a great way to

59:34 ↗ really demonstrate the difference in

59:36 ↗ pavement quality.

59:37 ↗ >> Absolutely. Um,

59:38 ↗ >> Bennett drove me around town. He's a

59:39 ↗ much better driver than Penelopey, so I

59:41 ↗ can say uh it was my 15-year-old, but he

59:44 ↗ he was very safe. I felt very secure.

59:46 ↗ >> I only missed my three times as I was

59:48 ↗ talking. Um, but otherwise, yeah, I'd be

59:51 ↗ happy to.

59:53 ↗ >> Council President D. Michelle.

59:54 ↗ >> Oh, yeah.

59:55 ↗ >> Hi. Thanks. Uh, Bennett, could you talk

59:58 ↗ about what what is entailed by higher

1:00:01 ↗ aesthetic standards?

1:00:04 ↗ >> Yeah. So, well, if you if you wouldn't

1:00:07 ↗ mind, if I can get to those treatments,

1:00:09 ↗ I think you'd have I'd be a lot easier

1:00:11 ↗ to explain while I have the pictures

1:00:13 ↗ pulled up. Um, so in about two or three

1:00:15 ↗ slides, I'll I'll address that. Is that

1:00:17 ↗ all right?

1:00:18 ↗ >> Okay. Yep, that works.

1:00:20 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:00:21 ↗ Um,

1:00:23 ↗ so this is the overall citywide PCI map.

1:00:26 ↗ Um, and then what I did here is I took

1:00:30 ↗ out all the failed, very poor, and poor.

1:00:34 ↗ Again, as I talked about, I left the

1:00:35 ↗ yellow in there because those are hit or

1:00:38 ↗ miss whether or not they're reactive or

1:00:40 ↗ preventative maintenance. But overall,

1:00:42 ↗ our net, this is 83% of our network is

1:00:44 ↗ in this category that could potentially

1:00:46 ↗ receive uh the preventative maintenance

1:00:49 ↗ treatments. Um, and that's a great

1:00:51 ↗ number to have. Um, and those

1:00:54 ↗ preventative maintenance treatments

1:00:57 ↗ are here. So, here here we go with the

1:01:00 ↗ with what we were talking about. So,

1:01:02 ↗ crack seal, $1 a square yard. We're this

1:01:05 ↗ is we're following the cracks around.

1:01:07 ↗ We're basically sealing them like you'd

1:01:08 ↗ seal the cracks on your house to prevent

1:01:11 ↗ water from getting in. Uh, potholes. I

1:01:14 ↗ think we all understand that piece. Um,

1:01:17 ↗ spot specific patching. Yes, this can

1:01:20 ↗ get expensive if you're doing it on a

1:01:21 ↗ square yard basis, but the impact is

1:01:23 ↗ small. Um, so we're we're potentially,

1:01:27 ↗ this is a lane width patch. Um, in this

1:01:30 ↗ picture here, that's our crews

1:01:31 ↗ performing that lane width patch. That's

1:01:34 ↗ really helping out the overall ride and

1:01:36 ↗ safety and reliability of the roadway.

1:01:38 ↗ Um, but it can be cheap at the 25. It

1:01:42 ↗ can be more expensive if you're

1:01:43 ↗ including all traffic control and all of

1:01:45 ↗ those other aspects that come into uh

1:01:48 ↗ you know arterial type uh patching.

1:01:52 ↗ Uh and then on the bottom you have the

1:01:54 ↗ surface seal. Um so this these pictures

1:01:58 ↗ are of slurry sealed streets. Uh the one

1:02:01 ↗ on the right

1:02:04 ↗ um forgot which street that is. It's in

1:02:06 ↗ the woods. Um and this is the product.

1:02:10 ↗ So, slurry seal on average costs about

1:02:13 ↗ $4.50 a square yard or 12% uh the price

1:02:17 ↗ of an overlay. Um you can see here,

1:02:21 ↗ council member DM Michelle, uh the

1:02:24 ↗ surface on the slur on the slurry seal

1:02:26 ↗ on the right side is doesn't have that

1:02:30 ↗ compacted smooth like super smooth

1:02:33 ↗ finish. And that's what we're talking

1:02:35 ↗ about with the aesthetic piece of it.

1:02:37 ↗ Um, so similar with the the crack seal,

1:02:42 ↗ you know, you have these lines all over

1:02:43 ↗ the street. That's not very

1:02:44 ↗ aesthetically pleasing, some might say.

1:02:47 ↗ Uh, you have you have a road and you

1:02:49 ↗ have four patches on the road segment.

1:02:51 ↗ That's a different color and a

1:02:53 ↗ different, you know, different material.

1:02:56 ↗ Some might say that's not aesthetically

1:02:58 ↗ pleasing. Um, is it the right treatment

1:03:00 ↗ for those roadways in terms of PMP and

1:03:04 ↗ and maintaining your system? Yes, 100%.

1:03:07 ↗ Um, so that's that's kind of where that

1:03:10 ↗ that question is is coming from. Um, so

1:03:14 ↗ in this case, you have the slurry sealed

1:03:16 ↗ $450

1:03:18 ↗ 50 cents a square yard. Its life

1:03:20 ↗ expectancy is around 5 to eight years

1:03:22 ↗ and then you come back and you do a

1:03:23 ↗ crack seal treatment or something like

1:03:25 ↗ that. Um, so that's that's the slurry

1:03:28 ↗ seal side of things.

1:03:31 ↗ Bennett's side hustle is going to create

1:03:32 ↗ a dating app for street overlay and

1:03:35 ↗ everyone's going to choose the one they

1:03:36 ↗ like the best.

1:03:36 ↗ >> Exactly.

1:03:38 ↗ >> Uh yeah.

1:03:39 ↗ >> Oh, Council Member Walsh.

1:03:42 ↗ >> Thank you. Um I know we approved slurry

1:03:45 ↗ seal several years ago as a way to

1:03:47 ↗ really stretch out our pavement

1:03:49 ↗ management program dollars and allow us

1:03:51 ↗ to pave or retreat more miles of

1:03:55 ↗ roadway. Um, some of those neighborhoods

1:03:57 ↗ have had a pretty negative reaction um

1:04:02 ↗ to that immediately after. I know some

1:04:04 ↗ of that was due to um poor management of

1:04:09 ↗ the particular um contractor that did

1:04:12 ↗ it. Um but

1:04:15 ↗ have we looked at different ways to

1:04:18 ↗ message that the treatment gets better

1:04:21 ↗ and smoother over time? And can you kind

1:04:23 ↗ of talk through what your approach is to

1:04:27 ↗ slurry seal in the future? What how you

1:04:31 ↗ would do it differently?

1:04:33 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so you are correct. In 2021 we

1:04:37 ↗ uh it was actually a cape seal which is

1:04:40 ↗ a different surface seal treatment. Um I

1:04:42 ↗ just didn't highlight it in this. Uh but

1:04:46 ↗ yes, the cape seal happened. Uh it was

1:04:48 ↗ supposed to dry quickly. It did not dry.

1:04:50 ↗ Um, and that's enough to make many

1:04:52 ↗ people upset um that there was a

1:04:55 ↗ mechanical equipment error on all of

1:04:57 ↗ that. But we have talked as a group um

1:05:01 ↗ as a pavement management team and with

1:05:03 ↗ with uh Emily Moon and we are coming up

1:05:07 ↗ with a much more robust outreach when we

1:05:10 ↗ do surface seals again. We are not

1:05:12 ↗ slated currently to do them in 2026

1:05:14 ↗ because we have some overlays we need to

1:05:16 ↗ get done. That's been on the plan for a

1:05:17 ↗ while. Um, but coming into 2027, should

1:05:21 ↗ this conversation uh support that

1:05:24 ↗ treatment, we're definitely going to

1:05:25 ↗ have a lot more outreach. We're going to

1:05:27 ↗ have videos and messages of what what it

1:05:30 ↗ should look like month one or week one,

1:05:33 ↗ month one, month two um uh and all and

1:05:38 ↗ all of that. So, we definitely going to

1:05:40 ↗ have much more robust um public outreach

1:05:43 ↗ and maybe even meeting with the

1:05:46 ↗ neighborhood specifically like, "Hey,

1:05:48 ↗ I'll be out there at 3:30 on this day if

1:05:50 ↗ you want to talk about what's coming."

1:05:52 ↗ Stuff like that.

1:05:53 ↗ >> Councilor Nichols, you have a question.

1:05:56 ↗ >> Thank you. So, there I see a lot of

1:05:58 ↗ different options. Um they have you're

1:06:00 ↗ you're pointing out some aesthetic

1:06:02 ↗ differences, but also um cost and life

1:06:04 ↗ expectancy differences. Um, how much of

1:06:06 ↗ the life expectancy for these is is

1:06:08 ↗ related to the amount of vehicle traffic

1:06:12 ↗ that hits these uh repairs effectively

1:06:15 ↗ and the types of vehicles that are

1:06:17 ↗ driving on them?

1:06:19 ↗ Uh, very good question. Um, so when it

1:06:23 ↗ comes to surface seals right now in the

1:06:27 ↗ industry, those are not typically

1:06:28 ↗ applied to arterial streets. Um,

1:06:31 ↗ arterial streets have a ton of weight.

1:06:33 ↗ Sometimes they're truck routes. They

1:06:35 ↗ have a ton of turning movements. They

1:06:37 ↗ have a ton of stop and go. All the

1:06:39 ↗ things that that make it really hard on

1:06:41 ↗ the top top surface of uh arterials. So

1:06:45 ↗ most arterials are getting overlays

1:06:47 ↗ pretty much move at this moment in the

1:06:50 ↗ industry there. That that technology is

1:06:52 ↗ not quite there yet. Um when it comes to

1:06:56 ↗ residentials,

1:06:58 ↗ the biggest contributor is trash trucks.

1:07:01 ↗ Um, and the damage that they do just

1:07:03 ↗ being on the on the far as they go

1:07:05 ↗ around the street to pick them up, their

1:07:07 ↗ tires are right on that interface

1:07:08 ↗ between the concrete and the asphalt and

1:07:10 ↗ that's your weak point in the system

1:07:12 ↗ anyway. I don't think we're getting away

1:07:14 ↗ from waste management. So, uh, what we

1:07:16 ↗ do is we try to build that up a little

1:07:18 ↗ bit better. Um, so ultimately

1:07:23 ↗ all of it all of it has an impact. all

1:07:25 ↗ of those data points and how how many

1:07:27 ↗ how much vehicle traffic ADTS is

1:07:29 ↗ happening on a daily basis is all

1:07:31 ↗ contributing factors to these treatsmen

1:07:34 ↗ success. Um yeah.

1:07:37 ↗ >> Okay. So as a followup to that, have we

1:07:39 ↗ looked at for any of those roads any of

1:07:41 ↗ those road classes all the way up

1:07:43 ↗ whether reducing vehicle miles traveled

1:07:46 ↗ by either pedestrianizing or partially

1:07:48 ↗ pedestrianizing, blocking off

1:07:49 ↗ neighborhood access, etc. to only

1:07:51 ↗ residents. Whether any of those things

1:07:53 ↗ could add lifetime to these in a way

1:07:56 ↗ that might creatively decrease the cost

1:07:59 ↗ of these improvements and help us bend

1:08:00 ↗ that curve down towards a place where we

1:08:02 ↗ want it.

1:08:04 ↗ I have personally not really gone down

1:08:06 ↗ that route that that road um in terms of

1:08:09 ↗ you know road diets and whatnot and how

1:08:11 ↗ that might impact the the longevity of

1:08:13 ↗ the pavement. But there are other

1:08:15 ↗ factors that we can't really help and

1:08:17 ↗ one of the biggest ones is the sun. um

1:08:19 ↗ the sun oxidizes that material on the

1:08:22 ↗ surface and it eventually is going to

1:08:23 ↗ crack and become brittle and that oil

1:08:26 ↗ get leaves the top surface and that's

1:08:28 ↗ that's one of the biggest failures is

1:08:29 ↗ the sun

1:08:32 ↗ and then snow and ice. Um so we've had a

1:08:35 ↗ very mild winter, but as soon as any

1:08:38 ↗ water gets in a crack and it freezes

1:08:40 ↗ that night, it's popping that crack

1:08:42 ↗ wider and bigger. And so some of those

1:08:45 ↗ things we can control, some of those

1:08:46 ↗ things we wouldn't be able to control.

1:08:48 ↗ Yeah. So, last follow up on that. So,

1:08:50 ↗ yeah, I understand that the none of

1:08:52 ↗ these roads will last forever and uh

1:08:54 ↗ eventually entropy will will will win

1:08:56 ↗ the day. Um it would be interesting to

1:08:58 ↗ know though if there are any even even

1:09:00 ↗ if they're partial pedestrian

1:09:01 ↗ pedestrianizing efforts uh temporary,

1:09:04 ↗ etc. Are there any places where we could

1:09:06 ↗ in effect save money by uh converting

1:09:10 ↗ some of our streets into those in in

1:09:13 ↗ somewhere areas and uh

1:09:16 ↗ >> per perhaps making some win-wins there.

1:09:18 ↗ >> It's definitely something we can look

1:09:20 ↗ into and get back to you on.

1:09:21 ↗ >> Council member Dair, do you have a

1:09:22 ↗ question?

1:09:23 ↗ >> Uh yeah, I'm I'm just having trouble

1:09:25 ↗ quantifying what the aesthetically

1:09:27 ↗ pleasing option is in terms of it's like

1:09:30 ↗ does that mean like we won't do crack

1:09:32 ↗ seals that are a dollar anymore? will

1:09:34 ↗ only do these slurry seals or like like

1:09:37 ↗ dollar-wise, what does the aesthetically

1:09:39 ↗ pleasing option look like?

1:09:42 ↗ >> Aesthetically pleasing option is the

1:09:43 ↗ full overlay, the removal of the

1:09:45 ↗ surface, the overlay, that 35 to 45

1:09:49 ↗ maybe $50 um treatment. Uh because

1:09:53 ↗ that's what

1:09:55 ↗ that that provides the smoothest

1:09:57 ↗ surface, you know, it's just the most

1:10:00 ↗ uniform smooth surface that you can

1:10:02 ↗ provide. But that is a higher dollar

1:10:05 ↗ treatment. And the other side of that is

1:10:07 ↗ we're not going to perform that on a

1:10:09 ↗ good road. That doesn't make uh

1:10:11 ↗ financial sense. So we're that PCI value

1:10:14 ↗ that we have is going to be dropping

1:10:16 ↗ drastically. Like we're not going to do

1:10:17 ↗ it until it gets to that fair to poor

1:10:21 ↗ category. So our overall network PCI is

1:10:24 ↗ we're going to have potholes. We're

1:10:25 ↗ going to have patches. We're never going

1:10:27 ↗ to get away from patches and potholes.

1:10:29 ↗ Some communities don't do crack seal and

1:10:32 ↗ surface seals are starting to become

1:10:34 ↗ more prevalent. Reton's doing them.

1:10:36 ↗ Kirkland's doing them. Belleview piloted

1:10:38 ↗ them. Um Belle's going to put together a

1:10:41 ↗ crack seal uh contract this year. So the

1:10:45 ↗ lowerc cost maintenance treatments are

1:10:47 ↗ definitely starting to get more of a

1:10:48 ↗ rise in this area in general.

1:10:51 ↗ >> Council member Jen,

1:10:53 ↗ >> um sorry I didn't ask this question

1:10:54 ↗ earlier, but very basic question. How

1:10:55 ↗ many miles of roads are there in the

1:10:58 ↗ city of Isiqua?

1:10:59 ↗ >> Great question. So, we have uh 285

1:11:03 ↗ lane miles is how I use I calculate

1:11:07 ↗ that. Um so, a lane mile is 12t wide by

1:11:11 ↗ 5280 or 7,040 square yards. Um so,

1:11:16 ↗ that's how that's how I use them.

1:11:20 ↗ >> Okay. So, we have 280 lane miles and

1:11:22 ↗ we're treating about eight miles per

1:11:24 ↗ year. So just mathing that that means

1:11:26 ↗ that the average lane mile is getting

1:11:28 ↗ treated once in every 35 years.

1:11:31 ↗ >> You stole my thunder. Yes.

1:11:33 ↗ >> And the length of most of these I mean

1:11:36 ↗ especially with these preventative

1:11:38 ↗ maintenance things you know the if the

1:11:40 ↗ lifetime's like 3 to 10 years it seems

1:11:42 ↗ like probably over time we're probably

1:11:44 ↗ falling more and more behind. Is would

1:11:46 ↗ that be accurate or

1:11:48 ↗ >> it would be accurate if we are going to

1:11:51 ↗ pursue only overlays. Um, if we pursue

1:11:54 ↗ only overlays to maintain the same PCI

1:11:57 ↗ that we're in now, we have to reduce

1:11:58 ↗ that down to about a 20-year maintenance

1:12:01 ↗ cycle to keep up, which then increases

1:12:03 ↗ our budget, you know, four to five

1:12:06 ↗ million a year, maybe needed going

1:12:08 ↗ forward instead of where we're at now on

1:12:10 ↗ the trajectory we're on. So,

1:12:14 ↗ with the use of maintenance treatments,

1:12:17 ↗ you know, PMP is not the only one that's

1:12:19 ↗ doing overlays throughout the city,

1:12:20 ↗ right? We have these major utility

1:12:22 ↗ projects, uh, private utilities, PSSE,

1:12:25 ↗ they have requirements in our standards

1:12:27 ↗ that we've made pretty tight that they

1:12:29 ↗ are required to repair the road andor do

1:12:32 ↗ a full width overlay. Um, so the PMP

1:12:35 ↗ goal on that 8.1 lay miles is is uh the

1:12:39 ↗ 35-year maintenance cycle. And you can

1:12:42 ↗ see in further uh slides that when we

1:12:45 ↗ use the surface treatments, we're

1:12:46 ↗ gaining that 11 10 and a half. We're

1:12:49 ↗ gaining a lot more uh treated lane miles

1:12:53 ↗ than we are when we're doing just

1:12:54 ↗ overlays.

1:12:56 ↗ >> Um that makes sense. Do you have a sense

1:12:58 ↗ of how many miles of pavement are

1:13:00 ↗ treated through other programs that are

1:13:02 ↗ not PMP?

1:13:04 ↗ >> Well, we have a lot of good

1:13:05 ↗ opportunities like the NHS grants that

1:13:07 ↗ we've been able to utilize um in 23

1:13:11 ↗ and I think we got approved or we got

1:13:14 ↗ approved for two more I think it was in

1:13:15 ↗ 24 that are upcoming. Um, so I don't

1:13:19 ↗ have a perfect clear sense. Um, and I

1:13:23 ↗ not sure I should throw a number out

1:13:24 ↗ that I'm not quite sure about, but we

1:13:26 ↗ can get it.

1:13:28 ↗ Yeah, it really is up and down. It's

1:13:30 ↗ totally dependent on what projects are

1:13:31 ↗ coming in and and and what we're funding

1:13:34 ↗ ourselves to do on the utility and water

1:13:35 ↗ treatment, I mean, water line

1:13:37 ↗ replacements and whatnot. And the NHS

1:13:39 ↗ grants for the national highway safety

1:13:41 ↗ grants like PSRC and that'll like the

1:13:43 ↗ last one was I think on East Lake Samish

1:13:45 ↗ like the main roads is where we score

1:13:47 ↗ really well on those grant projects but

1:13:50 ↗ yeah very true.

1:13:52 ↗ >> Cool. Thank you.

1:13:53 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:13:55 ↗ Um

1:13:59 ↗ cool. All right. So in this slide I took

1:14:02 ↗ away the good and excellent. You can see

1:14:05 ↗ the network uh the red's highlighted a

1:14:07 ↗ little bit more. So you can see those.

1:14:10 ↗ Um, and this accounts for only 17% of

1:14:12 ↗ our network. Um, so that's that's still

1:14:15 ↗ a great number because many of these are

1:14:16 ↗ arterials. And I mentioned we can't do

1:14:18 ↗ some of the surface seal type treatment,

1:14:21 ↗ but we can do the crack seal and the

1:14:22 ↗ patching. Those are very important for

1:14:25 ↗ um the to keep the arterial roads in the

1:14:27 ↗ shape that they're in.

1:14:30 ↗ And these are the reactive maintenance

1:14:31 ↗ techniques that we've talked about

1:14:32 ↗ already. So on the left you see the

1:14:34 ↗ surface removal and overlay. on the

1:14:36 ↗ right is the reconstruction and honestly

1:14:38 ↗ I don't have a picture of doing that in

1:14:40 ↗ Isiqua because I'm really trying to

1:14:41 ↗ avoid it as much as I can. So um but

1:14:45 ↗ that this shows you know the top surface

1:14:47 ↗ course is what you see every day and

1:14:48 ↗ that's about six to eight inches thick

1:14:51 ↗ and we'd have to go and replace that the

1:14:53 ↗ base course and the subbase depending on

1:14:55 ↗ the failures and whatnot

1:14:57 ↗ and it triggers those regulatory ADA

1:15:00 ↗ upgrades.

1:15:02 ↗ So what's our PCI at the moment? Um

1:15:06 ↗ I uh have upgraded some of the roadways

1:15:10 ↗ that have been paved since 2022 and some

1:15:12 ↗ of the treatments that's been done and

1:15:14 ↗ my estimate currently is the weighted

1:15:17 ↗ average is a 76 um based on those

1:15:20 ↗ numbers. Um I some of the roadways

1:15:24 ↗ uh I went through all the math, all the

1:15:25 ↗ data, it's hard to even describe just

1:15:27 ↗ stuck there looking at all the data. Um,

1:15:30 ↗ but right now we're at a 76 in my

1:15:32 ↗ opinion and we'll have new numbers.

1:15:36 ↗ Uh, this is a shows the lane miles

1:15:39 ↗ treated annually like we were talking

1:15:40 ↗ about. Um, basically in 2019 we had a

1:15:45 ↗ presentation here and the council chose

1:15:47 ↗ at that point to, you know, this is

1:15:50 ↗ serious. Let's invest. We were on a 75

1:15:52 ↗ year maintenance cycle at that point.

1:15:54 ↗ Um, which that's gravel by the end of

1:15:57 ↗ that, right?

1:15:58 ↗ um if we're lucky. So with that uh we

1:16:02 ↗ put in um we started planning and did a

1:16:05 ↗ great job and then the COVID 19 came and

1:16:08 ↗ we wanted to reserve those funds for

1:16:11 ↗ potential outcomes of what what that

1:16:13 ↗ would be. So we held off that year on

1:16:15 ↗ PMP and then making it through that we

1:16:19 ↗ really heavily invested in 2021 for a

1:16:22 ↗ record investment and we were able to

1:16:25 ↗ treat 8.6 six lane miles of surface

1:16:27 ↗ seals as well during that year and that

1:16:30 ↗ brings us at 10.9 well above our 8.1

1:16:33 ↗ lane mile average

1:16:35 ↗ or goal. Um in 2022 we made the concrete

1:16:40 ↗ maintenance program that drastically

1:16:43 ↗ helped by we weren't diluting the

1:16:45 ↗ pavement treatments with needed concrete

1:16:48 ↗ repairs. Um so effectively we g gained

1:16:51 ↗ more funding by creating that program

1:16:53 ↗ for the PMP.

1:16:55 ↗ Um

1:16:57 ↗ again in 2025 this last year we treated

1:17:02 ↗ another 8.2 lane miles with the surface

1:17:04 ↗ seal again getting above that 8.1

1:17:06 ↗ average. So every year that we've

1:17:08 ↗ employed these different uh strategies

1:17:10 ↗ we have gotten above our our level of

1:17:13 ↗ service average.

1:17:15 ↗ Um in 2026

1:17:17 ↗ uh right now we're estimating about 6.8

1:17:20 ↗ um 6.8 eight lane miles to be paved

1:17:23 ↗ based on our draft project list that you

1:17:26 ↗ guys got. It's still a draft. Um, but

1:17:29 ↗ that's where we're projected right now.

1:17:31 ↗ And you can see in 27 and 28, we're not

1:17:33 ↗ sure because we're still coordinating on

1:17:35 ↗ projects. We're still coordinating

1:17:36 ↗ heavily with different utilities and

1:17:38 ↗ different projects to make sure we're

1:17:40 ↗ not paving something that they're going

1:17:41 ↗ to tear up right after.

1:17:44 ↗ Uh, back to Mayor Mullet's slide he

1:17:46 ↗ shared earlier. This is the actual

1:17:48 ↗ funding sources um that we've had and

1:17:51 ↗ shows the investment that we're that we

1:17:53 ↗ have had and where we're at and where

1:17:55 ↗ we're aiming to be in the next few

1:17:57 ↗ years. Um it pretty much correlates with

1:18:01 ↗ the other lane miles paved. Uh

1:18:04 ↗ >> council member Walsh.

1:18:06 ↗ >> Oh, Council Member Nichols.

1:18:09 ↗ >> Look at the look at the honesty from our

1:18:11 ↗ council. Nobody's jumping the queue.

1:18:13 ↗ >> I'm not used to the

1:18:14 ↗ >> like a British council.

1:18:15 ↗ >> I think she'll get to go too. So, um,

1:18:18 ↗ okay. Um,

1:18:21 ↗ I have a bunch of questions about this

1:18:22 ↗ graph. Um, I want to start by saying

1:18:25 ↗ linear projections kind of scare me a

1:18:26 ↗ little bit. Um, you've got a bunch of

1:18:28 ↗ nonlinear things at play here. We have,

1:18:31 ↗ um, just kind of thinking through how

1:18:32 ↗ these this I think you're describing how

1:18:34 ↗ the system works.

1:18:36 ↗ If we when things are kept in relatively

1:18:38 ↗ good repair, um, it's easier to keep

1:18:42 ↗ them in good repair longer for less

1:18:44 ↗ money, put simply. And then once you

1:18:46 ↗ start if you fall off a cliff you're

1:18:49 ↗ talk eventually you talk about

1:18:50 ↗ additional ADA requirements that have to

1:18:52 ↗ be built in there etc. The going back to

1:18:54 ↗ different um more expensive

1:18:57 ↗ uh remediations things you said you

1:19:00 ↗ would like to avoid for example. Um, how

1:19:05 ↗ does this graph put us on a path towards

1:19:08 ↗ the goals that you set out at the

1:19:09 ↗ beginning of this presentation, which

1:19:11 ↗ were to keep a I think it was a med

1:19:12 ↗ either mean or median um PCI of 73 to

1:19:16 ↗ 80. Um, you've got this green line here.

1:19:19 ↗ Is that the green line that keeps us

1:19:22 ↗ there on that? And if so, for how long?

1:19:24 ↗ It's only going out two years. And I

1:19:26 ↗ could imagine since we have these all

1:19:29 ↗ these nonlinear effects in here, is it

1:19:34 ↗ what happens if we start dipping below

1:19:35 ↗ some critical threshold, can you model

1:19:37 ↗ that in some way that might be

1:19:38 ↗ informative for us to help us spend

1:19:40 ↗ money now more wisely? um or is this a

1:19:43 ↗ path that you think is going to be fine

1:19:44 ↗ and that we will be able to at this rate

1:19:48 ↗ and continuing at approximately this

1:19:50 ↗ rate keep our pavement PCI at a level

1:19:54 ↗ that's acceptable without having these

1:19:56 ↗ kind of doom loop effects.

1:19:58 ↗ >> Yeah. So let me let me try to summarize

1:20:01 ↗ and capture everything you asked right

1:20:02 ↗ there. So you're asking basically this

1:20:05 ↗ green line there's a lot of different

1:20:06 ↗ variables that could come into play to

1:20:08 ↗ maintain the the pavement in general,

1:20:10 ↗ right? And this is a linear line that

1:20:13 ↗ we're that we're going off of. So in

1:20:15 ↗ 2019, the industry standard at that time

1:20:17 ↗ was about $1 a square yard for a healthy

1:20:20 ↗ pavement management program. So that was

1:20:22 ↗ our benchmark when we started really

1:20:24 ↗ investing into the pavement management

1:20:26 ↗ program. The line represents a 4%

1:20:30 ↗ uh annual inflation rate because cost of

1:20:33 ↗ oil is going up and down, up and down,

1:20:34 ↗ and we're we're tied to that as well. So

1:20:37 ↗ that's that's what the green line

1:20:38 ↗ represents is that 4% inflation rate.

1:20:41 ↗ What we can show with this graph is if

1:20:45 ↗ you look back at the other one, it's not

1:20:47 ↗ necessarily linear. It doesn't match

1:20:50 ↗ exactly the budgets in terms of we were

1:20:53 ↗ able to do a lot of lane miles and pave

1:20:56 ↗ a lot of lane miles with lower budgets

1:20:58 ↗ as well. Um, so the pavement management

1:21:00 ↗ program would be pretty flexible if we

1:21:02 ↗ have this array of maintenance options

1:21:04 ↗ available to help hold it together. If

1:21:07 ↗ we were to

1:21:09 ↗ not, you know, have a low less than

1:21:11 ↗ adequate funding for 5 10 years, we've

1:21:14 ↗ been really having a hard conversation.

1:21:17 ↗ But in this in this scenario, over the

1:21:20 ↗ last three years, we've dipped below

1:21:22 ↗ that line because we've needed to

1:21:23 ↗ allocate that money to other priorities

1:21:25 ↗ within the city. We've still managed to

1:21:28 ↗ perform these surface seals, get above

1:21:30 ↗ our level of service goal for one of the

1:21:32 ↗ years. Um, we're projecting that we can

1:21:37 ↗ get the funding back up to a level where

1:21:39 ↗ we can we can do more um more different

1:21:43 ↗ treatments and different surface seals

1:21:45 ↗ and all of that. So, I guess what I'm

1:21:47 ↗ trying to say is we can be flexible. We

1:21:49 ↗ can do a ton of crack sealing and

1:21:51 ↗ maintain those roads to a certain point.

1:21:53 ↗ we can do a ton of surface seals and

1:21:55 ↗ make keep the good roads good and then

1:21:57 ↗ and then wait until we have the funding

1:21:58 ↗ to do the surface overlay hopefully

1:22:02 ↗ before it gets to a reconstruct phase.

1:22:04 ↗ So, it's all a balance, but every year

1:22:06 ↗ is a balance in terms and trying to be

1:22:08 ↗ flexible and adapt to the needs of the

1:22:10 ↗ city and what funding allocation we can

1:22:12 ↗ have uh for PMP. It's another reason why

1:22:15 ↗ I don't really project 27 and 28's lane

1:22:19 ↗ mile that I'm going to be able to

1:22:20 ↗ achieve.

1:22:22 ↗ But I think council member I mean the

1:22:24 ↗ main theme I think of administration

1:22:25 ↗ tonight is yes we're looking at roughly

1:22:27 ↗ doubling the amount of money we've been

1:22:29 ↗ spending in this program compared to the

1:22:31 ↗ last previous two years and uh I think

1:22:34 ↗ part of that goes back to the very first

1:22:35 ↗ slide of length of time is you know 15

1:22:39 ↗ to 25 years you think about our

1:22:40 ↗ community like 25 years ago you had two

1:22:44 ↗ very large hillside communities

1:22:45 ↗ developed in Talis and the highlands and

1:22:47 ↗ so I think we're trying to get in front

1:22:49 ↗ of what we think is us approaching that

1:22:51 ↗ curve by us having a commitment to

1:22:54 ↗ larger investments in the space. Uh,

1:22:56 ↗ Council Walsh,

1:22:59 ↗ >> thank you. Um, can you go back to the

1:23:01 ↗ Lane Miles, the one previous?

1:23:05 ↗ >> So, I think the goal of 8.1 if we had

1:23:09 ↗ been doing that for a long time makes

1:23:13 ↗ sense. But

1:23:15 ↗ how do we address, you know, if I add

1:23:18 ↗ all of those negatives up for the number

1:23:21 ↗ of lane miles that we didn't treat in

1:23:25 ↗ previous years, that's like 30 35

1:23:30 ↗ lane miles that

1:23:33 ↗ are we behind at that point? And if so,

1:23:36 ↗ how do we work on not just maintaining

1:23:41 ↗ the 8.1 mile lane miles per year, but

1:23:45 ↗ catching up?

1:23:47 ↗ >> Great question. Uh, I guess what I would

1:23:50 ↗ say is in 2019 when we did that scan, we

1:23:53 ↗ got our benchmark number of our pavement

1:23:55 ↗ condition index and that's a networkwide

1:23:57 ↗ number. So regardless of what happened

1:24:00 ↗ in the past before that, we used that as

1:24:03 ↗ administration and everybody as our

1:24:06 ↗ benchmark moving forward. And since that

1:24:09 ↗ time

1:24:10 ↗ without talking about 20 2020, uh we're

1:24:14 ↗ averaging about 8.8 lane miles a year

1:24:16 ↗ getting treated. So, we are meeting that

1:24:18 ↗ goal that we set out and the new PCI uh

1:24:24 ↗ numbers that come in in that report will

1:24:26 ↗ show what levels of investment will do

1:24:29 ↗ to our overall pavement health

1:24:33 ↗ networkwide.

1:24:34 ↗ Um, and then it's our job to take that

1:24:36 ↗ and go down, you know, we go down into

1:24:38 ↗ every single road segment and we can

1:24:41 ↗ even go into 100 foot sections with

1:24:44 ↗ PCIs. Um, so that's

1:24:47 ↗ That's kind of how we have started and

1:24:51 ↗ developed our our program moving forward

1:24:53 ↗ from 2019.

1:24:56 ↗ >> Yes sir.

1:24:57 ↗ >> Deputy president Marks.

1:24:58 ↗ >> Can I ask maybe a related question? It

1:25:01 ↗ looks like we took a big leap in

1:25:04 ↗ efficiency between 2019 and 2021. If you

1:25:08 ↗ look at the expenditures

1:25:10 ↗ um you know in 2019 we were spending

1:25:13 ↗ almost a million dollars and only and

1:25:16 ↗ only covered 1.8 miles. And then just

1:25:21 ↗ two years later, we did go up to $2.3

1:25:24 ↗ million, but holy moly, we got almost 11

1:25:28 ↗ miles.

1:25:29 ↗ >> Yeah. So, can we do more of that?

1:25:33 ↗ >> Yes, we sure can. And that is our

1:25:36 ↗ surface sealed program is when that

1:25:38 ↗ kicked in.

1:25:38 ↗ >> Okay. So, that's specifically the

1:25:40 ↗ surface seal.

1:25:40 ↗ >> Yeah. So, we Oops.

1:25:43 ↗ So in 2021, we did that at 8.6 lane

1:25:48 ↗ miles of surface seal. You know,

1:25:50 ↗ additionally, some of these years, if

1:25:53 ↗ we're low, we could be paving a really

1:25:55 ↗ wide street like uh Highlands Drive

1:25:58 ↗ where we have really wide wide street

1:26:01 ↗ with big quantities that give us a lower

1:26:03 ↗ price, but we're not, you know, we're

1:26:06 ↗ trying to get to that level. It's all

1:26:08 ↗ it's it's just a balance of trying to do

1:26:10 ↗ the right thing um in the right year.

1:26:18 ↗ Okay.

1:26:23 ↗ All right. So, in conclusion, basically

1:26:26 ↗ u our goal maintain 73 to 80 PCI. We're

1:26:30 ↗ at a 76. Perform annual maintenance

1:26:33 ↗ treatments on 8.1 lane miles. We're at

1:26:35 ↗ 8.8 eight over the last five years.

1:26:38 ↗ Important fact. Um,

1:26:41 ↗ and overall we're able to do this by

1:26:43 ↗ utilizing both preventative and reactive

1:26:45 ↗ treatments. Now, I want to make clear in

1:26:48 ↗ the memo I mentioned that you can't

1:26:51 ↗ solve all the roads and maintain all the

1:26:53 ↗ roads with only one type of treatment,

1:26:55 ↗ right? So, we can do two maybe three

1:26:59 ↗ preventative treatments and then we have

1:27:00 ↗ the high dollar overlay. uh and then we

1:27:03 ↗ go back and then we can go back to those

1:27:05 ↗ maintenance treatments pending any base

1:27:08 ↗ and structural issues. So our goal is

1:27:11 ↗ 75% preventative, 25% reactive

1:27:14 ↗ maintenance on a road. That's our

1:27:16 ↗ ultimate goal and right now I think

1:27:19 ↗ we're on our way to achieving that. So

1:27:22 ↗ that's that's where we're at right now.

1:27:26 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Bennett. Uh I think

1:27:29 ↗ you guys have been asking the questions.

1:27:32 ↗ Oh, Council Member Walsh.

1:27:34 ↗ >> Yeah, I asked a lot of questions. Now I

1:27:35 ↗ want to give my opinion.

1:27:36 ↗ >> That's all right.

1:27:37 ↗ >> Um, you know, I'm a huge, huge fan of

1:27:41 ↗ fully funding our pavement management

1:27:43 ↗ program. I think, uh, coming in in 2019

1:27:47 ↗ and seeing the difference that we could

1:27:49 ↗ do when

1:27:51 ↗ >> you came in and said, "Hey, there's all

1:27:53 ↗ these other techniques that we could

1:27:54 ↗ do." I really want to applaud that. Um,

1:27:59 ↗ whenever I am running around the city,

1:28:01 ↗ you know, my husband calls me a a city

1:28:05 ↗ nerd um in the fact that I look at those

1:28:09 ↗ um crack seals and I'm like, "Yay, that

1:28:12 ↗ means we are being cost-effective with

1:28:14 ↗ taxpayer dollars and it means we are

1:28:18 ↗ actively

1:28:19 ↗ doing preventative maintenance." And so

1:28:21 ↗ I see that as a benefit. Um, I also

1:28:26 ↗ really like the use of creative and um,

1:28:30 ↗ testing different methods for um, slurry

1:28:33 ↗ seals and other things that we can use

1:28:35 ↗ for our neighborhood streets. So, I

1:28:38 ↗ definitely applaud that and I think the

1:28:39 ↗ more that we can do to stretch our

1:28:41 ↗ dollars, the better. That being said, I

1:28:43 ↗ think we need to um look at what some

1:28:46 ↗ other cities have done as far as

1:28:47 ↗ messaging to let residents know that,

1:28:51 ↗ you know, this um pavement style will

1:28:53 ↗ improve over time um and make sure that

1:28:56 ↗ we have our um

1:28:59 ↗ um street cleaners um through there

1:29:01 ↗ pretty effectively during that period. I

1:29:04 ↗ think we can respond to the um concerns

1:29:07 ↗ of the community and effectively still

1:29:10 ↗ keep these cost-effective measures. Um

1:29:15 ↗ looking at our overall program, um so as

1:29:18 ↗ far as the do we want to set a higher

1:29:20 ↗ aesthetic standard, I would say no. Um,

1:29:23 ↗ I think we are doing an effective job

1:29:25 ↗ and that um, if the community really

1:29:29 ↗ understood the cost difference of of

1:29:31 ↗ those, they would absolutely support

1:29:33 ↗ that. Um, from a planning perspective, I

1:29:38 ↗ would really like to dig into once we

1:29:40 ↗ get the new PCI stuff, um, what portions

1:29:44 ↗ of our lane miles are in that poor, very

1:29:48 ↗ poor, and failed. And I understand some

1:29:51 ↗ of those like Northwest Seamamesh Road,

1:29:53 ↗ we're not going to repave right now. And

1:29:56 ↗ so getting a better understanding of

1:29:57 ↗ which ones are delayed due to future

1:29:59 ↗ projects versus which um we just don't

1:30:04 ↗ have the funding for would be really

1:30:06 ↗ important to me. And then I'd also like

1:30:08 ↗ us to really start talking about the

1:30:10 ↗ difference between arterials and

1:30:13 ↗ collectors and neighborhood streets.

1:30:16 ↗ because if we're really planning out and

1:30:19 ↗ looking at um some failures or some poor

1:30:24 ↗ roadway conditions on something like an

1:30:26 ↗ archer like uh Gilman, then we're not

1:30:29 ↗ going to use, as you said, a slurry seal

1:30:32 ↗ or something like that there. And so

1:30:34 ↗ really understanding that we have a

1:30:37 ↗ commitment to both sets of roadways and

1:30:40 ↗ the tools that we would use for them are

1:30:43 ↗ different and the needs um for our

1:30:47 ↗ particular roadways once we know the

1:30:50 ↗ pavement condiction index are going to

1:30:52 ↗ be different. And so I'd really like

1:30:54 ↗ much like we split out pavement

1:30:56 ↗ management and concrete management, I

1:30:58 ↗ think there is a different pathway and

1:31:01 ↗ budgetary need for the arterial and

1:31:04 ↗ collectors versus the neighborhood

1:31:06 ↗ streets. And so I would be interested in

1:31:10 ↗ better understanding that because the

1:31:13 ↗ effective cost per lane mile on an

1:31:15 ↗ arterial is going to be much higher. But

1:31:19 ↗ there's much more need and much more

1:31:20 ↗ community awareness of some of those.

1:31:23 ↗ And so I would be willing to better

1:31:25 ↗ understand

1:31:27 ↗ not stretching the dollar on some of

1:31:30 ↗ those. Um the city administrator will

1:31:32 ↗ know that when we tried to do some of

1:31:34 ↗ the crack seals on Highlands Drive, I

1:31:37 ↗ complained quite a bit because the sun

1:31:40 ↗ reflected off of them because there was

1:31:41 ↗ just too much of it. So I think dealing

1:31:45 ↗ with and having to understand that

1:31:47 ↗ overlays are really necessary on some of

1:31:49 ↗ those larger arterials is important. So

1:31:53 ↗ that would be my feedback there.

1:31:55 ↗ >> Council member Jane

1:31:58 ↗ there

1:31:59 ↗ >> I think to answer the question obviously

1:32:01 ↗ I agree with Council Member Walsh. Um I

1:32:03 ↗ think we should continue to prioritize

1:32:04 ↗ cost effectiveness. I think the higher

1:32:07 ↗ aesthetic standard. I think the question

1:32:09 ↗ for me is basically like if we went out

1:32:11 ↗ to voters and said, "Are you willing to

1:32:13 ↗ pay $3 million more dollars per year in

1:32:16 ↗ taxes so that the roads look slightly

1:32:18 ↗ better and more aesthetic?" I don't

1:32:20 ↗ really think that would pass. And so,

1:32:23 ↗ you know, then if we want to hold

1:32:24 ↗ ourselves to that higher aesthetic

1:32:25 ↗ standard, what else are we going to cut

1:32:27 ↗ million dollars from? I don't think

1:32:28 ↗ there's anything that would be worth

1:32:30 ↗ that trade-off in this community. Um,

1:32:34 ↗ and I also want to echo some of the

1:32:36 ↗ points that have been made on, you know,

1:32:38 ↗ wanting to understand some of the like

1:32:40 ↗ with these roads that are in very poor

1:32:42 ↗ or failed condition, kind of what's

1:32:44 ↗ what's the long-term plan for them,

1:32:46 ↗ right? Like we don't I think most of the

1:32:49 ↗ roads in Isiqua seem to be pretty good,

1:32:50 ↗ but then the ones that like people will

1:32:53 ↗ notice when they start getting really

1:32:54 ↗ problematic and you know, making sure

1:32:56 ↗ that we're actually taking care of those

1:32:57 ↗ like Gilman or Newport Way um or you

1:33:00 ↗ know, Northwest Seamish. Obviously, some

1:33:02 ↗ of them have reasons that they're

1:33:04 ↗ delayed. Um, but we want to make sure

1:33:06 ↗ that we're also, you know, accounting

1:33:07 ↗ for those, budgeting for those, and um,

1:33:11 ↗ making sure that, you know, we kind of

1:33:14 ↗ keep the maintenance up because I think

1:33:15 ↗ a lot of these, you know, bigger

1:33:18 ↗ projects like full repaving um, is

1:33:21 ↗ probably going to fall outside of the

1:33:23 ↗ scope of the pavement management

1:33:24 ↗ program. Um, so we just want to like

1:33:27 ↗ understand what that's going to look

1:33:28 ↗ like.

1:33:31 ↗ C council member.

1:33:33 ↗ >> Uh yes, also I'm going to echo the same

1:33:35 ↗ as someone who actually just did a

1:33:36 ↗ budget meeting today. Cost effectiveness

1:33:39 ↗ obviously all the way especially in

1:33:40 ↗ these times where budget is tight. I did

1:33:42 ↗ want to add though a slight not wrinkle

1:33:44 ↗ but just comment to the higher aesthetic

1:33:47 ↗ standard and okay it's gonna go back to

1:33:49 ↗ like a story but so I grew up in Texas

1:33:51 ↗ and not that Texas is a model for most

1:33:54 ↗ things but there was this in Texas there

1:33:56 ↗ was often this like pride in their

1:33:57 ↗ highways type thing and something that

1:33:59 ↗ they did which I don't think necessarily

1:34:01 ↗ think all the highways were great but

1:34:03 ↗ they put a lot of effort into the

1:34:05 ↗ highways right at state lines in that as

1:34:08 ↗ you would be driving from like New

1:34:10 ↗ Mexico and come into the state it'd be

1:34:11 ↗ bumpy a bumpy road and then as soon as

1:34:13 ↗ you cross a state line, it is smooth and

1:34:15 ↗ pleasant and just like the best road

1:34:17 ↗ you've ever been on. But it created this

1:34:19 ↗ mental sense that the roads here are

1:34:21 ↗ great because whenever you did that, you

1:34:23 ↗ just you felt it. And arguably there

1:34:26 ↗ could be, you know, an effort to certain

1:34:29 ↗ high visibility roads get a higher

1:34:31 ↗ aesthetic standard to create that sense

1:34:34 ↗ that the roads here are better than

1:34:36 ↗ maybe all of them are. But it is

1:34:38 ↗ something that I just wanted to note as

1:34:40 ↗ something that I experienced that it did

1:34:41 ↗ you felt it. You you had a certain

1:34:44 ↗ thought that these all the roads here

1:34:45 ↗ are great because you had that transfer.

1:34:47 ↗ So it's just something I wanted to bring

1:34:48 ↗ up as a thought that you could identify

1:34:50 ↗ specific ones to maybe get a higher

1:34:52 ↗ standard than others

1:34:54 ↗ >> without actually tearing up Belleview

1:34:55 ↗ roads. We'll just make our roads better.

1:34:58 ↗ Okay. Council President D. Michelle.

1:35:03 ↗ >> Uh thank you Mayor Mullet. Um, just

1:35:06 ↗ grab. So, I want to echo what uh council

1:35:09 ↗ member um Wash said. I'm a big uh fan of

1:35:13 ↗ the pavement management program and

1:35:15 ↗ really pleased with the results of our

1:35:17 ↗ investment that we made back in 2019. Um

1:35:21 ↗ my concern is um

1:35:25 ↗ I would like to look at this at this

1:35:27 ↗ request what appears to be a budget

1:35:30 ↗ request to me uh in the context of the

1:35:33 ↗ entire budget that we put together for

1:35:34 ↗ 27 and 28. Um if we fully fund uh the

1:35:40 ↗ pavement management program, what are we

1:35:42 ↗ giving up? Um I think that council

1:35:44 ↗ member Jen also referred to that. Uh I'd

1:35:47 ↗ like to know what the tradeoffs are. uh

1:35:50 ↗ in terms of the overall budget before I

1:35:53 ↗ can support uh committing to fully

1:35:55 ↗ funding. Uh it looks I I have to say

1:35:58 ↗ that I'm a big fan of the uh work that

1:36:01 ↗ was done uh I think a year ago on Sunset

1:36:04 ↗ Way. That is a beautiful job that was

1:36:07 ↗ done by uh our city uh with the new

1:36:11 ↗ crosswalk near the hatchery and that

1:36:13 ↗ street is just beautiful there. So, um

1:36:17 ↗ it certainly does make a difference in

1:36:19 ↗ our community to have beautiful uh

1:36:22 ↗ well-maintained roads, but uh we have to

1:36:25 ↗ think what else are we giving up when we

1:36:28 ↗ uh fully fund this program. And so, um I

1:36:32 ↗ would like to just hold off and wait

1:36:34 ↗ till we get into the thick of our budget

1:36:37 ↗ deliberations

1:36:38 ↗ um before I commit to uh really

1:36:42 ↗ supporting the full funding of the

1:36:43 ↗ program. Thank you.

1:36:45 ↗ Oh, that's excellent. And I can speak I

1:36:48 ↗ think administration's perspective. I

1:36:50 ↗ think we're saying we're not proposing

1:36:52 ↗ to add like a new department to the city

1:36:54 ↗ of Isqua. We're basically proposing what

1:36:56 ↗ sounds kind of boring, but just

1:36:58 ↗ investing a lot more money as our next

1:37:00 ↗ kind of thing that we're going to focus

1:37:02 ↗ on of just the mundane, you know,

1:37:05 ↗ support of our infrastructure. And so I

1:37:08 ↗ don't think our plan is to cut something

1:37:10 ↗ to do this. I think but our we are

1:37:12 ↗ saying we're not necessarily going to be

1:37:13 ↗ proposing other new programs. We're

1:37:16 ↗ going to be trying to make this a

1:37:17 ↗ priority. Council member Nichols.

1:37:20 ↗ >> So getting at the the core question I

1:37:22 ↗ think you're asking at least on the on

1:37:24 ↗ the slide which is prioritize cost

1:37:26 ↗ effectiveness or aesthetics. It's it's

1:37:29 ↗ still it's hard for me to answer which

1:37:31 ↗ actually does that in part because of

1:37:34 ↗ what I was trying to get at when I was

1:37:36 ↗ picking on the graph. uh I won't go back

1:37:39 ↗ to it, but you know the one I'm talking

1:37:40 ↗ about that only goes out a year or so.

1:37:42 ↗ Um

1:37:44 ↗ this li we have a difference in costs

1:37:47 ↗ that are stated in terms of dollars per

1:37:49 ↗ square yard. Um I think to really make

1:37:51 ↗ this argument well you would need to add

1:37:53 ↗ per square yard year or some unit of

1:37:55 ↗ time in there to understand where these

1:37:57 ↗ do the do these cross over at a point

1:38:00 ↗ where if we have for example like let's

1:38:02 ↗ say we're sealing our cracks every year.

1:38:04 ↗ Um just as to to put something note

1:38:06 ↗ there as a one book end. Um but we only

1:38:09 ↗ have to surface seal every 10 years. Um

1:38:12 ↗ if we look at the full lifetime cost of

1:38:14 ↗ this payment management plan over 35

1:38:17 ↗ years um the more aesthetic one is

1:38:20 ↗ actually the less expensive in that

1:38:22 ↗ case. um potentially and I I would like

1:38:24 ↗ to understand if that's where those are

1:38:26 ↗ the cases and making sure that we're not

1:38:28 ↗ um

1:38:30 ↗ only modeling for a single year and not

1:38:32 ↗ taking into account longer term costs

1:38:35 ↗ could actually be lower.

1:38:37 ↗ >> Okay, I I can definitely do that. Um I

1:38:41 ↗ think one to clarify that a little bit

1:38:44 ↗ is we wouldn't crack seal the same road.

1:38:46 ↗ I mean, the crack seal, the way a road

1:38:49 ↗ would be treated, um, if we were going

1:38:51 ↗ to utilize all the preventive

1:38:53 ↗ maintenance techniques and reactive

1:38:54 ↗ would be potentially you go in and you

1:38:57 ↗ crack seal when the cracks start showing

1:38:58 ↗ up. Three years later, the cracks might

1:39:01 ↗ be opening up a little bit. They might

1:39:03 ↗ be longer. We might crack seal it again

1:39:05 ↗ and just touch up those pieces and buy

1:39:07 ↗ us another three years. And then we'd

1:39:09 ↗ come in and we do a surface seal if it's

1:39:11 ↗ not an arterial roadway. um with

1:39:14 ↗ patches, patching and then a surface

1:39:15 ↗ seal. Um so at that point we're almost

1:39:19 ↗ gaining that 15 years of life with two

1:39:23 ↗ $1 treatments and one $8 treatment and

1:39:27 ↗ then or a4 $50 treatment. Um if we were

1:39:31 ↗ to do that overlay, we're looking at

1:39:33 ↗ that $35

1:39:36 ↗ um 35 to 45 and that gets you the 15

1:39:39 ↗ years. So, if we're able to use both

1:39:43 ↗ uh on a consistent basis, we're we're

1:39:45 ↗ actually going to be a lot cheaper in

1:39:47 ↗ the long run um by maintaining by using

1:39:51 ↗ both preventative and reactive

1:39:52 ↗ techniques on that same road. Um so, I

1:39:55 ↗ think I might need to drill down a

1:39:57 ↗ little bit further with you on on

1:39:59 ↗ exactly what what you're getting at with

1:40:00 ↗ that, but that's where that's where I'm

1:40:04 ↗ at right now.

1:40:05 ↗ >> I think it's like eventually every

1:40:06 ↗ street will get an overlay. Yeah. Yeah,

1:40:08 ↗ >> just a question of can you buy yourself

1:40:10 ↗ an extra 10 or 15 years before you have

1:40:12 ↗ to pay the full cost. Council member

1:40:14 ↗ Joe,

1:40:17 ↗ >> thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:40:20 ↗ Um, first off, uh, I want to thank you

1:40:24 ↗ for this analysis. You've put in time.

1:40:27 ↗ You've brought in complicated math. Um,

1:40:30 ↗ I was, uh, trying to tell my

1:40:31 ↗ 15-year-old, 16-year-old to, uh, study

1:40:35 ↗ their math. They said, "I'm never going

1:40:36 ↗ to use math. I'm going to be an

1:40:37 ↗ engineer. I had to go into a

1:40:40 ↗ conversation a little bit about that.

1:40:42 ↗ But you can tell that the amount of math

1:40:44 ↗ that you put into this analysis, the

1:40:46 ↗ amount of um time you put in to figure

1:40:48 ↗ out what's going to work best for us, uh

1:40:51 ↗ is something that the citizens don't

1:40:53 ↗ see, but should definitely appreciate.

1:40:55 ↗ >> In that same regard, uh the streets, as

1:40:58 ↗ the mayor points out, are a little bit

1:41:00 ↗ mundane. You know, they don't the

1:41:02 ↗ citizens don't think about them. They

1:41:04 ↗ might see that there's a a flower pot on

1:41:07 ↗ the side of the street and think that's

1:41:08 ↗ nice, but the underlying function of the

1:41:10 ↗ street itself, you know, is is mundane

1:41:13 ↗ and something that they just expect. Um,

1:41:16 ↗ and I just want to compliment you that

1:41:18 ↗ you're doing a great job meeting that

1:41:20 ↗ expectation by making sure that our

1:41:22 ↗ roads are improved in places like Sunset

1:41:24 ↗ that Council President pointed out, but

1:41:27 ↗ also maintaining that road for the the

1:41:31 ↗ maximum life that you can using those

1:41:33 ↗ small fixes along the way and then using

1:41:35 ↗ the reactive when it's needed. Um, I I

1:41:39 ↗ would encourage you to continue on the

1:41:41 ↗ path you're on. Um, the one concern I

1:41:45 ↗ have about going to a higher

1:41:48 ↗ uh aesthetic standard um would just be a

1:41:51 ↗ a a little bit of a an equity uh um

1:41:57 ↗ potential problem in the sense that I I

1:41:59 ↗ sat down with a council member up north

1:42:01 ↗ in Snomish County and he was uh

1:42:04 ↗ concerned that his streets weren't

1:42:05 ↗ maintained very well in his poorer

1:42:07 ↗ district and his park wasn't maintained

1:42:09 ↗ very well in his his district because it

1:42:11 ↗ wasn't going to be fixed. until 2028.

1:42:14 ↗ Whereas some other areas in town because

1:42:17 ↗ of um either

1:42:22 ↗ the squeaky wheel syndrome or just

1:42:24 ↗ better advocates for their uh citizens

1:42:27 ↗ had newer parks and better better

1:42:29 ↗ streets. So that's just a long way of

1:42:32 ↗ saying that if we do go to a higher

1:42:34 ↗ aesthetic standard that we make sure

1:42:36 ↗ that the higher standard streets are um

1:42:41 ↗ distributed in a way so that

1:42:42 ↗ neighborhoods do not feel left out.

1:42:44 ↗ Neighborhoods do not feel that um uh one

1:42:47 ↗ area of the city is being treated

1:42:49 ↗ differently because of x y or z factors

1:42:51 ↗ along the way. And we just hope that you

1:42:53 ↗ keep that in consideration as you're

1:42:55 ↗ moving forward with the project. Thank

1:42:56 ↗ you.

1:42:57 ↗ >> Thank you. that that is a north star for

1:42:59 ↗ the pavement management program in

1:43:01 ↗ general. Um, you know, there are

1:43:03 ↗ roadways where we did a surface seal

1:43:04 ↗ last year, for example, in the Woods

1:43:06 ↗ neighborhood and there are still roads

1:43:08 ↗ in there that need the overlay. So,

1:43:10 ↗ they're going to their neighbors might

1:43:11 ↗ have an overlay and they have a surface

1:43:12 ↗ seal. Um, ultimately I'm just looking at

1:43:16 ↗ the network as a whole and what needs to

1:43:17 ↗ be done. Um, and that's definitely I

1:43:22 ↗ feel that in my heart and that's how I

1:43:24 ↗ that's how we proceed in that PMP.

1:43:27 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you very much,

1:43:28 ↗ Bennett. I appreciate all your time and

1:43:30 ↗ uh I think we did hear a request for a

1:43:32 ↗ bus tour somewhere in this whole thing.

1:43:35 ↗ And okay,

1:43:37 ↗ >> Andrea Leonard,

1:43:39 ↗ >> thank you. Okay, last on the agenda for

1:43:42 ↗ this evening is a conversation about

1:43:44 ↗ Metrlex and the city of Isiqua's

1:43:46 ↗ microtransit program.

1:43:49 ↗ As uh you recall in the fall uh council

1:43:53 ↗ wanted us to come back to talk about

1:43:55 ↗ what are those performance expectations

1:43:57 ↗ and so that's why we're back here today.

1:43:59 ↗ Um some of the specific direction needed

1:44:03 ↗ for this evening is uh whether city

1:44:05 ↗ council has any changes

1:44:08 ↗ uh to the goals for an isiqua

1:44:10 ↗ microtransit program.

1:44:13 ↗ And given the goals and the performance

1:44:15 ↗ data the city collects from Metro, how

1:44:18 ↗ does the city council define success for

1:44:20 ↗ this program?

1:44:22 ↗ And then finally, uh we do have some

1:44:24 ↗ comparisons of other options for you

1:44:27 ↗ this evening. So which alternative does

1:44:29 ↗ council prefer to explore further? Um we

1:44:33 ↗ categorize these options really as

1:44:35 ↗ changes to the existing metrlex service

1:44:38 ↗ to increase wrership or perhaps a

1:44:40 ↗ different service option.

1:44:47 ↗ Um, in terms of background, uh, for

1:44:52 ↗ those who are not as familiar with

1:44:53 ↗ Metrolex, microransit is technology

1:44:57 ↗ enabled on demand public transportation

1:44:59 ↗ service that uses smaller vehicles.

1:45:01 ↗ That's where the micro comes from. So,

1:45:03 ↗ more flexible vans or shuttles that are

1:45:05 ↗ able to go into parts of the city that

1:45:07 ↗ are not built for those big buses. and

1:45:09 ↗ it provides for more flex flexible

1:45:11 ↗ scheduling and routing because it is on

1:45:14 ↗ demand.

1:45:16 ↗ Metroflex is King County's microtransit

1:45:19 ↗ program that we have been piloting for

1:45:21 ↗ the past two years and we're now in the

1:45:23 ↗ third year of operation. Isiqua chose

1:45:26 ↗ Metroflex after evaluating a bunch of

1:45:29 ↗ other options. Those options are

1:45:31 ↗ reflected in the memo uh in your packet

1:45:33 ↗ today.

1:45:35 ↗ And as I said before, in the fall of

1:45:37 ↗ 2025, council had raised concerns about

1:45:40 ↗ the cost effectiveness of Metroflex and

1:45:43 ↗ directed the administration to return to

1:45:45 ↗ define success and to examine

1:45:47 ↗ alternatives.

1:45:48 ↗ And that's why we're here today.

1:45:53 ↗ So, as I said, in 2022, the

1:45:55 ↗ transportation advisory board and the

1:45:57 ↗ city council provided a few program

1:45:59 ↗ goals for this service. Uh, initially

1:46:02 ↗ council was very focused on connecting

1:46:04 ↗ Talis and Squawk to the valley floor um

1:46:08 ↗ and to the transit center as those

1:46:09 ↗ neighborhoods were very underserved by

1:46:12 ↗ transit.

1:46:14 ↗ And uh, TAB provided a little extra

1:46:16 ↗ guidance in terms of a goal and they

1:46:18 ↗ wanted to extend the service to all of

1:46:20 ↗ Isiqua if possible and not just those

1:46:23 ↗ two neighborhoods.

1:46:24 ↗ Also, part of the original program goals

1:46:27 ↗ were to reduce single occupant vehicle

1:46:29 ↗ trips and greenhouse gases by

1:46:32 ↗ encouraging shared rides and connecting

1:46:33 ↗ to transit. This is where the microp

1:46:36 ↗ program goals differ a little bit from

1:46:37 ↗ what you would consider like a typical

1:46:39 ↗ Uber or Lyft service where it's usually

1:46:42 ↗ um one person is getting a ride and

1:46:45 ↗ generating that ride. And so this

1:46:47 ↗ encourages more shared rides.

1:46:50 ↗ Also, another goal was to address equity

1:46:52 ↗ concerns for accessibility of those with

1:46:55 ↗ low incomes and with limited mobility

1:46:57 ↗ options. And finally, provide a service

1:47:00 ↗ that's compatible with existing city

1:47:03 ↗ resources. So, not a service that would

1:47:06 ↗ require us to hire additional staff or

1:47:10 ↗ to try to um that would be very

1:47:12 ↗ expensive for the city to

1:47:15 ↗ um provide.

1:47:18 ↗ And so this is performance data that we

1:47:20 ↗ collect from Metro on a regular basis.

1:47:24 ↗ This is data that um most of you have

1:47:26 ↗ seen before in terms of average weekday

1:47:29 ↗ rides, rides uh per vehicle hour per

1:47:33 ↗ van.

1:47:35 ↗ King County cost per ride is uh a little

1:47:39 ↗ over $20 and so is the city of Isiqua

1:47:42 ↗ cost per ride. together. That means that

1:47:44 ↗ the total cost per ride is over $40. And

1:47:47 ↗ that's the number that city council um

1:47:50 ↗ was really concerned about with last

1:47:52 ↗ fall. And so I wanted to break those

1:47:55 ↗ apart here and really show you um how

1:47:57 ↗ that cost is split. Isqua pays for the

1:48:00 ↗ cost of one van and uh just really the

1:48:04 ↗ driver for that van and King County pays

1:48:06 ↗ for the other infrastructure related to

1:48:08 ↗ that. And at certain times when demand

1:48:11 ↗ is high, we get more than one van. And

1:48:13 ↗ so King County provides for that extra

1:48:14 ↗ service.

1:48:16 ↗ The percent of shared trips is 55%. This

1:48:19 ↗ is where we're trying to measure towards

1:48:20 ↗ those program goals of shared trips and

1:48:23 ↗ reducing SOV trips and GHG uh GS GHGs.

1:48:28 ↗ And then percentage of trips in EPA.

1:48:30 ↗ These are equity priority areas as

1:48:32 ↗ defined by King County. Um,

1:48:33 ↗ unfortunately we're not able to get

1:48:35 ↗ specific data from King County on who

1:48:38 ↗ uses the service, how many have a

1:48:40 ↗ reduced ride fair permit, etc. But they

1:48:42 ↗ do collect data on trips to or from

1:48:45 ↗ areas that they determine to be equity

1:48:47 ↗ priority areas. Those areas are defined

1:48:49 ↗ by King County with a couple of criteria

1:48:51 ↗ including low income

1:48:54 ↗ uh and a number of other factors.

1:48:57 ↗ And then the average wait time is uh

1:49:00 ↗ typically about 23 minutes though of

1:49:02 ↗ course that changes depending on demand

1:49:07 ↗ um and available vehicles.

1:49:11 ↗ And so as we shift to what are some

1:49:13 ↗ other options to metrlex and we looked

1:49:16 ↗ at a couple of um a couple of other

1:49:19 ↗ options as the administration we spoke

1:49:22 ↗ with um Uber as well. They're not on

1:49:26 ↗ this list because we didn't get a

1:49:27 ↗ proposal back from them in time for this

1:49:29 ↗ presentation. And so we're just

1:49:31 ↗ comparing a city-run circulator that's

1:49:34 ↗ more like a typical shuttle kind of

1:49:36 ↗ similar to the route 200 if you're

1:49:38 ↗ familiar with that um that the city used

1:49:40 ↗ to have uh several years ago. Uh we

1:49:43 ↗ heard from council that that was

1:49:44 ↗ something that was interesting they

1:49:45 ↗ wanted us to explore. So um that is an

1:49:48 ↗ option here. And metrlex is kind of that

1:49:51 ↗ base comparison. And then Circuit.

1:49:54 ↗ Circuit is a private provider. So

1:49:56 ↗ Metrlex is um operated through King

1:50:00 ↗ County by a provider known as VIA. We

1:50:02 ↗ did talk to them directly as well, but

1:50:04 ↗ they're not willing to provide services

1:50:06 ↗ to us outside of the King County

1:50:07 ↗ contract. Circuit is a competitor of VIA

1:50:10 ↗ and they provide services uh all across

1:50:13 ↗ the United States, including recently in

1:50:15 ↗ Belleview and also in Redmond. They um

1:50:18 ↗ provide services for the bellhop in in

1:50:22 ↗ uh Belleview and they're just getting

1:50:23 ↗ started in Redmond. And so we talked to

1:50:25 ↗ each of these uh uh we looked at we

1:50:28 ↗ looked into each of these options to

1:50:30 ↗ provide some costs so you can see what

1:50:32 ↗ the annual cost estimate is. Um there's

1:50:34 ↗ a lot in terms of costs that are to be

1:50:37 ↗ determined as you see and that's really

1:50:39 ↗ because we would need to look more into

1:50:41 ↗ these options and negotiate a contract

1:50:44 ↗ and get a lot more detail. So this was

1:50:46 ↗ just kind of first blush. How might

1:50:48 ↗ these options compare?

1:50:53 ↗ In terms of goals, we compared the

1:50:56 ↗ options to the original goals as stated.

1:50:59 ↗ So as you can see um for uh most of

1:51:03 ↗ these options, they fit the goals

1:51:05 ↗ because microtransit is more and more on

1:51:07 ↗ this ondemand

1:51:09 ↗ um model. uh the cityrun circulator

1:51:13 ↗ would not be in as on demand uh because

1:51:16 ↗ it would have a it would have a fixed

1:51:18 ↗ route. So it would only serve a portion

1:51:20 ↗ of the city not in the way that circuit

1:51:23 ↗ or metrlex would just be able to be

1:51:25 ↗ hailed like an Uber or a lift pretty

1:51:28 ↗ much to the point of wherever you are in

1:51:30 ↗ the city. There's a few exceptions with

1:51:32 ↗ Metrolex. Um few parts of the cities

1:51:34 ↗ that are not served. Um like Talis for

1:51:37 ↗ example, that was changed with the 2025

1:51:40 ↗ 2026 contract. I'm sorry, the 2026 2027

1:51:44 ↗ contract. Forget what year you were in.

1:51:46 ↗ Um so, uh

1:51:51 ↗ next,

1:51:51 ↗ >> Council Member Nichols.

1:51:53 ↗ >> So, quick question on uh the greenhouse

1:51:56 ↗ gas comparison between the options. Are

1:51:59 ↗ are we sure Metroflux reduces greenhouse

1:52:01 ↗ gases? It's I mean it's a large vehicle

1:52:04 ↗ that has to go both ways and most of the

1:52:06 ↗ time it's single occupancy, right?

1:52:09 ↗ >> Well, 55% of the trips are shared with

1:52:11 ↗ other passengers and so um

1:52:14 ↗ >> so half the time.

1:52:15 ↗ >> So a little over half the time versus we

1:52:19 ↗ compare that to the option of people

1:52:21 ↗ just driving themselves in their car.

1:52:26 ↗ >> Council member J. Um, just to note to

1:52:30 ↗ council member Nichols point, me uh,

1:52:32 ↗ Metroflex's own data says the ratio of

1:52:34 ↗ passenger miles traveled to vehicle

1:52:36 ↗ miles traveled in all Metrolex, not just

1:52:37 ↗ Isquin. Isqua, my understanding is like

1:52:40 ↗ in the lower performing half. There's

1:52:42 ↗ 1.5 vehicle miles traveled per passenger

1:52:45 ↗ mile traveled because they have to drive

1:52:47 ↗ between the different rides. And

1:52:48 ↗ especially because the region is so big,

1:52:50 ↗ you know, you could have someone getting

1:52:51 ↗ a ride in Isqua, then the vehicle has to

1:52:53 ↗ like drive to Smamish. And a lot of

1:52:55 ↗ these folks maybe aren't folks that have

1:52:57 ↗ access to a vehicle. So like there's

1:52:59 ↗ that equity aspect, but I don't think

1:53:02 ↗ the reducing greenhouse gases is uh I

1:53:06 ↗ mean like 55% of rides being shared

1:53:08 ↗ doesn't necessarily mean that greenhouse

1:53:09 ↗ gases are being reduced.

1:53:12 ↗ Um

1:53:13 ↗ >> I think in the circuit model it is an EV

1:53:16 ↗ fleet. So that was one difference

1:53:18 ↗ between circuit and and metrlex. But I

1:53:21 ↗ did have an actual question which was um

1:53:23 ↗ so I saw in the previous slide the cost

1:53:25 ↗ of the cityrun circulator shuttle was

1:53:27 ↗ 206,000 whereas when we had looked I

1:53:30 ↗ mean the previous version that was like

1:53:31 ↗ from 2022 or whatever said the cost of a

1:53:34 ↗ cityr run circulator shuttle was 400 to

1:53:36 ↗ 800,000. So what changed because I mean

1:53:39 ↗ then the cityrun circulator shuttle is

1:53:41 ↗ very competitive with metroflex in terms

1:53:42 ↗ of cost.

1:53:44 ↗ In terms of cost, it is um I was not

1:53:48 ↗ involved in the cost estimate for the

1:53:49 ↗ original shuttle. Uh so I did provide a

1:53:53 ↗ breakdown of that cost estimate in the

1:53:54 ↗ memo uh in the packet for this evening.

1:53:56 ↗ So you can kind of check my math and see

1:53:58 ↗ what assumptions were used there.

1:54:00 ↗ Unfortunately, I wasn't able to dig up

1:54:02 ↗ the assumptions from um the previous

1:54:04 ↗ time that we evaluated those options.

1:54:06 ↗ >> And I would say circuit said they were

1:54:08 ↗ indifferent. They're basically like

1:54:10 ↗ you're buying 60 hours a week from us

1:54:12 ↗ and if you want to have a fixed route

1:54:13 ↗ with your 60 hours, you can do a fixed

1:54:14 ↗ route. Like they're like we're just

1:54:16 ↗ going to charge you the amount of hours

1:54:18 ↗ and we don't care how you use them. It

1:54:19 ↗ can be pointtooint or fix. Council

1:54:21 ↗ member Adair.

1:54:23 ↗ >> Yeah. On the cityrun circulator shuttle

1:54:25 ↗ cost estimate. Were there actual routes

1:54:28 ↗ that are considered in that or is

1:54:32 ↗ >> Yeah, I wasn't sure that I saw like what

1:54:34 ↗ the actual route

1:54:35 ↗ >> there was no route. We would need to

1:54:37 ↗ again we would need to dig deeper into

1:54:40 ↗ each of these options if we wanted to

1:54:41 ↗ pursue them. That's part of the question

1:54:43 ↗ for council tonight um is whether we

1:54:45 ↗ should pursue any of these alternatives

1:54:47 ↗ and which is the preferred alternative

1:54:50 ↗ that we should pursue further.

1:54:51 ↗ >> So we just did an estimate for number of

1:54:54 ↗ miles for a circulator around the city.

1:54:56 ↗ So we would need to again refine it. It

1:54:58 ↗ was just an estimate to try to provide

1:55:00 ↗ some comparisons for tonight.

1:55:01 ↗ >> Would you have a higher cost if the

1:55:03 ↗ routes were somehow different or

1:55:05 ↗ something like that? Yeah, absolutely.

1:55:06 ↗ Yeah, I think the assumption I'm

1:55:08 ↗ forgetting what exactly the memo said,

1:55:10 ↗ but I think it was a seven mile route is

1:55:12 ↗ what the um estimate was based off of.

1:55:19 ↗ >> Deputy President,

1:55:21 ↗ >> um just a a sanity check question, and I

1:55:23 ↗ know we've had this number in the past.

1:55:25 ↗ I just don't see it here right now. How

1:55:27 ↗ does uh a Metro bus or a Sound Transit

1:55:32 ↗ bus compare if we're if we're saying

1:55:33 ↗ it's 40

1:55:36 ↗ 50 per trip to do Metrolex. How how does

1:55:39 ↗ it how does a bus operating cost

1:55:42 ↗ compare?

1:55:43 ↗ >> I am not sure. I can ask Metro if they

1:55:45 ↗ have a if they have a cost for their

1:55:49 ↗ buses.

1:55:49 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I I I like

1:55:53 ↗ I said, I think in previous years we've

1:55:55 ↗ had that information. We just don't have

1:55:57 ↗ it this evening. Thanks,

1:56:00 ↗ >> Council Member Jen. I can read your

1:56:02 ↗ mind. I know you want to ask something.

1:56:03 ↗ Oh, I was I was going to say Metro has

1:56:05 ↗ this um number available and I believe

1:56:08 ↗ across all Metro buses like $10 per

1:56:10 ↗ ride. I think like somewhere in the

1:56:12 ↗ range of 10 to 15

1:56:13 ↗ >> and that's the total burden cost.

1:56:15 ↗ >> Um I believe so, but that includes I

1:56:19 ↗ mean you know like across all like the

1:56:24 ↗ you know Bellev to Seattle buses would

1:56:26 ↗ be included in that as well.

1:56:27 ↗ >> Got it. Thank you, Council Member

1:56:29 ↗ Nichols.

1:56:31 ↗ >> Okay. Sorry, going back a slide. um to

1:56:33 ↗ the uh wait time.

1:56:36 ↗ How is the wait time for this cityrun

1:56:38 ↗ circulator shuttle calculated?

1:56:41 ↗ >> Is that is it wait time or headway

1:56:43 ↗ between the shuttles

1:56:45 ↗ >> for the cityrun circulator?

1:56:48 ↗ I don't have a I'm sorry I don't think I

1:56:51 ↗ understand there's for the do you mean

1:56:53 ↗ for metroflex

1:56:53 ↗ >> where you put less than 45 minutes I

1:56:55 ↗ think.

1:56:56 ↗ >> Yeah, there's a there's a row called

1:56:57 ↗ city run circulator shuttle and the

1:56:59 ↗ column is wait time.

1:56:59 ↗ >> Right. Okay. Thank you. Uh so that was

1:57:03 ↗ uh based off of um thinking about it

1:57:07 ↗ being a fixed route and what the

1:57:08 ↗ farthest point of that route may be. Um

1:57:11 ↗ if we were to have a circulator that's

1:57:13 ↗ similar to what the route 200 was. Um

1:57:16 ↗ the route 200 basically hugged along the

1:57:19 ↗ I90 corridor up into the island to serve

1:57:21 ↗ Swedish down to the high school and then

1:57:24 ↗ along kind of along the I90 corridor

1:57:26 ↗ from there to make a loop towards

1:57:28 ↗ Costco. And so looking at that, it will

1:57:31 ↗ depend on runtime. So I used assumptions

1:57:35 ↗ um with uh Google directions to try to

1:57:39 ↗ figure out how long such a route may

1:57:40 ↗ take at different times. And so um

1:57:43 ↗ that's where that wait time came from.

1:57:45 ↗ Okay? Because you might be have just,

1:57:47 ↗ you know, missed the bus. How long might

1:57:48 ↗ you wait for it to come back around and

1:57:50 ↗ get you?

1:57:50 ↗ >> So it's really it's probably just to

1:57:52 ↗ make sure that we're comparing these

1:57:53 ↗ fairly though. It's probably the maximum

1:57:54 ↗ weight time as opposed to the average

1:57:56 ↗ weight time which is what the metrlex

1:57:58 ↗ and circuit are probably would be.

1:58:00 ↗ >> Yes, that's true. Yes.

1:58:01 ↗ >> Council Jane.

1:58:03 ↗ >> Um so just so the cityrun circulator

1:58:06 ↗ shuttle the cost would be for one

1:58:08 ↗ vehicle doing 3,700 hours per year.

1:58:12 ↗ >> Correct.

1:58:13 ↗ Okay. Um Okay. Thank you.

1:58:22 ↗ I think that was your This is our last

1:58:24 ↗ slide, right? I think we're just in the

1:58:25 ↗ wrap-up slide after this.

1:58:26 ↗ >> Okay. I didn't know if Council Member

1:58:27 ↗ Adair had a question. All right. Okay.

1:58:29 ↗ Sometimes it's hard to tell with the

1:58:30 ↗ mics. All right. So, options uh that we

1:58:33 ↗ wanted some feedback on tonight. There's

1:58:36 ↗ one that you didn't see in those charts,

1:58:38 ↗ which is to continue to work with

1:58:40 ↗ Metrolex to try to change some of the

1:58:42 ↗ service options within the contract.

1:58:44 ↗ already um because of council feedback,

1:58:47 ↗ we have changed the service area for our

1:58:50 ↗ new contract. So, we took out service to

1:58:54 ↗ the Squawk neighborhood in favor of

1:58:56 ↗ adding service to the Isqua Highlands um

1:58:59 ↗ based on the feedback that you know we

1:59:01 ↗ weren't having a lot of ridership for

1:59:02 ↗ Squawk uh the Squawk neighborhood, but

1:59:04 ↗ we could possibly pick up more riders in

1:59:06 ↗ the Isiqua Highlands and also reduce the

1:59:09 ↗ cost per trip if that was the most

1:59:11 ↗ important success marker to council. Um

1:59:14 ↗ there's the possibility of us also

1:59:16 ↗ looking at the hours for Metrolex. So um

1:59:19 ↗ we could extend uh or could change

1:59:22 ↗ rather the hours to cover more nights

1:59:25 ↗ for Friday night and Saturday night.

1:59:27 ↗ That might pick up more riders in that

1:59:30 ↗ way instead of just looking at the

1:59:31 ↗ daytime for Saturday, for example. And

1:59:34 ↗ so we would need to go back to Metro and

1:59:37 ↗ negotiate this and possibly need some of

1:59:39 ↗ Seamish's buyin since they have um we

1:59:42 ↗ have an overlapping service area with

1:59:44 ↗ the city of Seamish. So there's some

1:59:46 ↗ options within our uh current services

1:59:48 ↗ with Metrolex that we could try out and

1:59:52 ↗ examine um or we could evaluate another

1:59:54 ↗ service or vendor as were depicted in

1:59:56 ↗ the charts we just saw.

1:59:58 ↗ >> Council member Walsh,

2:00:00 ↗ >> thank you. During our last conversations

2:00:02 ↗ about this, we were told that any

2:00:05 ↗ additional hours, including evenings or

2:00:07 ↗ weekends, would require an additional

2:00:11 ↗ van, which would basically double the

2:00:13 ↗ cost. Are you suggesting there is

2:00:16 ↗ another option? I'm suggesting we could

2:00:19 ↗ investigate shifting the hours. So, not

2:00:22 ↗ increasing the hours, but instead of

2:00:24 ↗ 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, we

2:00:28 ↗ could instead perhaps make that window

2:00:31 ↗ later. So, it could be, you know, 11 to

2:00:34 ↗ 7 or noon to 9 or something like that.

2:00:38 ↗ >> I would say the circuit people, their

2:00:40 ↗ suggestion was to have Monday through

2:00:43 ↗ Thursday hours and maybe Friday through

2:00:44 ↗ Sunday hours. It's like Friday through

2:00:46 ↗ Sunday being you start later and end

2:00:48 ↗ later, but Monday through Thursday is

2:00:50 ↗ more daytime. But we don't know, you

2:00:53 ↗ know, we have to think or we're trying

2:00:55 ↗ to get guidance if that's an avenue we

2:00:57 ↗ want to pursue. We'd have to find out

2:00:58 ↗ from Samish if they're interested in

2:01:00 ↗ that since we share cars.

2:01:04 ↗ Council member Joe.

2:01:06 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, curiosity

2:01:08 ↗ question. Uh, you mentioned that either

2:01:11 ↗ Lyft or Uber hadn't gotten a proposal

2:01:14 ↗ back to you. Um, do you think that uh

2:01:17 ↗ with additional

2:01:19 ↗ um phone calls and pressing from the

2:01:22 ↗ city they would be able to get something

2:01:23 ↗ back to us or is that just not in the

2:01:26 ↗ cards?

2:01:27 ↗ >> Uh well uh not to call out our friends

2:01:30 ↗ uh at Uber, but I have reminded them a

2:01:32 ↗ couple of times and it's been a couple

2:01:34 ↗ of weeks and I haven't heard anything.

2:01:35 ↗ So, I would like to think that if we

2:01:38 ↗ pressed them enough, we could get

2:01:39 ↗ something, but so far um my repeated

2:01:42 ↗ requests have fallen on deaf ears.

2:01:46 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um

2:01:48 ↗ would like to have that information if

2:01:50 ↗ it's available before we uh look at this

2:01:53 ↗ again. Thank you.

2:01:57 ↗ >> Are there other questions for Andrea?

2:02:01 ↗ >> Oh, Council President D. Michelle.

2:02:05 ↗ Yes, thank you. Um, I'm very sorry to

2:02:07 ↗ keep repeating this, but under options,

2:02:10 ↗ I would really like to see if we could

2:02:13 ↗ do a much more aggressive communications

2:02:16 ↗ around Met Metrlex. And I believe the

2:02:19 ↗ last time that Metro uh was with was in

2:02:22 ↗ front of us when we were discussing the

2:02:24 ↗ contract that they said that the that

2:02:27 ↗ the contract for this coming year would

2:02:29 ↗ include um Metro's um participation in

2:02:35 ↗ better outreach to our community and

2:02:38 ↗ which might include mailings and social

2:02:40 ↗ media and so forth. Um, I thought we did

2:02:44 ↗ a really good job when we rolled out

2:02:45 ↗ Metro Metrlex a couple of years ago or

2:02:48 ↗ three years ago, but uh that

2:02:51 ↗ communications has tapered off and I

2:02:55 ↗ think that we need to keep uh reminding

2:02:57 ↗ people that this is an option. Um, so I

2:03:01 ↗ would hope that we would under options

2:03:03 ↗ we would think about a really aggressive

2:03:06 ↗ communications program around um around

2:03:10 ↗ Metrlex.

2:03:14 ↗ >> Oh, Council Member Rder. Oh, and then

2:03:17 ↗ we'll follow up with Deputy President

2:03:18 ↗ Mart.

2:03:19 ↗ >> Um, to the, you know, to the question of

2:03:21 ↗ what you do, I'm kind of torn. I'm still

2:03:23 ↗ kind of all options seem viable to me.

2:03:26 ↗ Um, you know, the cityrun shuttle seems

2:03:28 ↗ actually a little bit less in cost. Um,

2:03:30 ↗ Circuit is interesting, but obviously

2:03:32 ↗ their number, you know, they have this

2:03:33 ↗ average cost per passenger of $17 and

2:03:36 ↗ all this additional usage, but we don't

2:03:38 ↗ really know where they're coming getting

2:03:40 ↗ those numbers from. So, I'm curious to

2:03:42 ↗ know, is that true? Could it for some

2:03:44 ↗ reason using them have all this higher

2:03:46 ↗ usage? So at the moment for me all these

2:03:49 ↗ options seem like a viable path and I

2:03:52 ↗ can't say I have a direction because all

2:03:54 ↗ of them depend on so many other

2:03:55 ↗ variables that we're waiting to find out

2:03:58 ↗ what what this route would look like on

2:03:59 ↗ a cityrun circulator what these circuit

2:04:01 ↗ numbers really mean. So at the moment I

2:04:04 ↗ don't have like a direction to go

2:04:06 ↗ because all all three seem potential.

2:04:09 ↗ >> Yeah, I think it's that's very valid. I

2:04:12 ↗ also think because we just changed the

2:04:14 ↗ metroflex service area, it's kind of

2:04:15 ↗ challenging because we're kind of we'll

2:04:17 ↗ we'll have more data I think at the end

2:04:19 ↗ of June or earlier. It's we're going to

2:04:23 ↗ have more data on what that geographic

2:04:26 ↗ change did in terms of utilization, but

2:04:28 ↗ right now today like you say, council

2:04:30 ↗ member deer, we don't have that

2:04:32 ↗ information. Uh, Deputy President Marks,

2:04:36 ↗ >> I want I want to gently push back on the

2:04:39 ↗ idea that there's anything wrong with

2:04:40 ↗ Metroflex. So, um, being an engineer, I

2:04:44 ↗ just like orders of magnitude. King

2:04:46 ↗ County uh, uh, Metro spends about $2

2:04:49 ↗ billion a year for about 90 million

2:04:52 ↗ rides. That's 22 bucks a ride. And you

2:04:56 ↗ know, when you have um smaller vehicles

2:04:59 ↗ and with with with fewer passengers on

2:05:02 ↗ them, you're going to be less efficient.

2:05:04 ↗ So $40 a ride for a for a, you know,

2:05:08 ↗ ondemand system that has smaller numbers

2:05:10 ↗ of riders doesn't seem like necessarily

2:05:12 ↗ a problem to me. So I I want to make

2:05:14 ↗ sure that we're just coming at this from

2:05:16 ↗ the right perspective. Right. I think

2:05:18 ↗ people have gagged a little on that $40

2:05:20 ↗ number, but I I don't think I transit is

2:05:23 ↗ expensive. I I come back to I mentioned

2:05:25 ↗ Minnesota's wrestler governor um earlier

2:05:28 ↗ in the evening, right? Um he just said

2:05:30 ↗ it's all expensive, right? Transit is

2:05:33 ↗ transportation is expensive, cars are

2:05:34 ↗ expensive, freeways are expensive, buses

2:05:36 ↗ are expensive. You just have to do it at

2:05:38 ↗ some point because it's something that

2:05:39 ↗ you want to have as a community. And he

2:05:41 ↗ just said, "We're going to do it in

2:05:42 ↗ Minnesota." And so they did. So I just I

2:05:45 ↗ want us to be careful, right? I'm not

2:05:46 ↗ sure there's anything wrong with

2:05:47 ↗ Metroflex at all. And so, um, if it

2:05:51 ↗ works and we like it, um, I'm not sure

2:05:53 ↗ $40, uh, a passenger is a bad marker at

2:05:57 ↗ all compared to any other transit

2:05:59 ↗ options that we have out there. Thank

2:06:00 ↗ you.

2:06:01 ↗ >> I want to be clear and we're not

2:06:02 ↗ suggesting I mean, I think one of our

2:06:05 ↗ main alternatives is continue to use

2:06:06 ↗ Metrflex and just see if we can get

2:06:08 ↗ better utilization, but yeah,

2:06:10 ↗ >> but I think it was presented I mean, it

2:06:11 ↗ has always been presented that it's so

2:06:13 ↗ much more expensive than anything else.

2:06:14 ↗ And I don't I don't think that's

2:06:15 ↗ necessarily true.

2:06:17 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

2:06:19 ↗ Thank you. Um I think similar to deputy

2:06:23 ↗ council president uh Martz, I am really

2:06:27 ↗ comfortable with the idea of continuing

2:06:28 ↗ Metroflex and providing the service to

2:06:31 ↗ our community. I've loved seeing the

2:06:33 ↗ wrership with some of our seniors and

2:06:36 ↗ students and people that are unable to

2:06:39 ↗ drive. And so from my perspective,

2:06:41 ↗ that's the top priority. So I think one

2:06:44 ↗ of the things you asked was feedback on

2:06:47 ↗ some of the goals. So I would say I'm

2:06:50 ↗ not as

2:06:53 ↗ thrilled with the goals that we

2:06:55 ↗ originally created around greenhouse gas

2:06:58 ↗ reduction single occupancy vehicle. I

2:07:01 ↗ think those are nice to haves but the

2:07:03 ↗ important things for me are um equity

2:07:06 ↗ and usage by people who are unable to

2:07:09 ↗ drive. I think um providing

2:07:13 ↗ um last mile transit to our most dense

2:07:16 ↗ neighborhoods and connection to the core

2:07:18 ↗ areas is important to me. Uh connection

2:07:21 ↗ to transit um is really important. So if

2:07:26 ↗ we are looking at circuit their ability

2:07:28 ↗ to uh get somebody to the transit

2:07:32 ↗ centers um and access for those is

2:07:35 ↗ really important. um weight times is

2:07:38 ↗ really important for me. And so I think

2:07:42 ↗ one of my disappointments um with the

2:07:46 ↗ Metrolex program is if there is only one

2:07:50 ↗ vehicle um sometimes the wait times for

2:07:52 ↗ those could be so long that someone just

2:07:55 ↗ couldn't utilize it and then that makes

2:07:57 ↗ their next potential usage of that um

2:08:00 ↗ more of a risky option for them. So that

2:08:03 ↗ is a more important metric to me. And

2:08:05 ↗ then the other thing that um has been a

2:08:08 ↗ little bit of a limiting factor on

2:08:10 ↗ Metrolex is evenings and weekends. Um my

2:08:13 ↗ kids have had several times when they

2:08:15 ↗ wanted to take it to an event at uh five

2:08:18 ↗ or six o'clock but then knew they

2:08:20 ↗ couldn't get back um utilizing that. And

2:08:23 ↗ so that is an important thing for me. Um

2:08:28 ↗ I don't think that transit uh the

2:08:32 ↗ ability to have microransit into um

2:08:36 ↗ seamish is important to me. So the idea

2:08:40 ↗ of a um connecting piece the fact that

2:08:45 ↗ we have that with metrlex right now is a

2:08:47 ↗ nice to have but not something that I

2:08:49 ↗ would necessarily negate a program such

2:08:52 ↗ as circuit um against. And so I would

2:08:55 ↗ say I'm interested in investigating uh

2:08:58 ↗ circuit because uh I think they have

2:09:02 ↗ more of an incentive to communicate to

2:09:05 ↗ our residents and uh promote the project

2:09:10 ↗ um and our residents ability to use it

2:09:12 ↗ because they have to maintain a certain

2:09:15 ↗ level of service whereas King County

2:09:18 ↗ Metro is like hey take it or leave it.

2:09:20 ↗ This is what we're going to be able to

2:09:21 ↗ do. So, um I think they have a potential

2:09:25 ↗ for getting a higher writership. I like

2:09:27 ↗ that we could potentially do uh later

2:09:30 ↗ hours um modeled after what the

2:09:33 ↗ Belleview program um does. And then I

2:09:36 ↗ also really like uh potentially their

2:09:39 ↗ ability to work with uh corporate

2:09:41 ↗ sponsorships or other ways that might

2:09:43 ↗ lower um the cost either to individual

2:09:47 ↗ users um or for our city's costs. And so

2:09:50 ↗ I like some of those variabilities in

2:09:53 ↗ there. Um, so I think it's worth our

2:09:56 ↗ time to investigate those. Um, maybe

2:10:00 ↗ it's worth our time to go back to Metro

2:10:02 ↗ Flex, but I don't think

2:10:06 ↗ starting later and going into evening

2:10:10 ↗ hours would satisfy

2:10:14 ↗ my desires there. I think the morning

2:10:16 ↗ times are also important. Um, so I just

2:10:20 ↗ don't know that we can get out of

2:10:22 ↗ Metrolex those additional hours that I

2:10:24 ↗ think would make the program um, a

2:10:26 ↗ little bit more effective.

2:10:29 ↗ >> Excellent. And Council Member Nichols.

2:10:34 ↗ >> So, I want to start out by saying um I I

2:10:37 ↗ agree with Deputy Council President

2:10:38 ↗ Marts that Metrolex itself doesn't

2:10:41 ↗ necessarily seem so expensive to me. I

2:10:42 ↗ think um it is it's a number that can

2:10:45 ↗ seem kind of eye popping when you look

2:10:46 ↗ at it out of context but in the context

2:10:49 ↗ of

2:10:50 ↗ all transport has inherent expenses to

2:10:53 ↗ it um whether as was brought up that's a

2:10:55 ↗ highway or another type of bus. So I

2:10:58 ↗ think we should really be looking at it

2:10:59 ↗ in that context and not just be

2:11:00 ↗ optimizing solely for things like

2:11:02 ↗ dollars per passenger. That seems like a

2:11:04 ↗ a potentially pernicious one for me to

2:11:06 ↗ optimize based on because a lot of a lot

2:11:09 ↗ of the premise here is we're trying to

2:11:12 ↗ connect areas that are are transit

2:11:14 ↗ deserts. Um they may not necessarily

2:11:17 ↗ have the highest volume. So I would be

2:11:19 ↗ concerned about you know it's some it's

2:11:21 ↗ there's an extreme where I don't know

2:11:23 ↗ we're connecting two ends of the Costco

2:11:24 ↗ parking lot and they have the highest

2:11:26 ↗ volume or something but that's not

2:11:27 ↗ that's not what we want, right? Um, so

2:11:31 ↗ just being concerned about what metrics

2:11:33 ↗ we're actually trying to optimize for.

2:11:35 ↗ Um, I will uh disagree a bit on whether

2:11:40 ↗ we should keep greenhouse gases in

2:11:42 ↗ there. I think we should keep them in

2:11:43 ↗ there as a goal. Uh, not keeping sorry,

2:11:46 ↗ not keep not keep greenhouse gases in

2:11:48 ↗ there as a goal, keep reduction of

2:11:49 ↗ greenhouse gases in there as a goal. um

2:11:52 ↗ and uh not have it override per se, but

2:11:55 ↗ like let's keep it in in part because at

2:11:57 ↗ the moment um at least with what we have

2:11:59 ↗ on circuit there I mean I'm I'm

2:12:01 ↗ skeptical here because it seems like

2:12:02 ↗ there's a bit of a have your cake and

2:12:03 ↗ eat it too uh side to their presentation

2:12:06 ↗ it seems possibly less expensive,

2:12:09 ↗ greener, uh longer, more like there's a

2:12:11 ↗ bunch of things that seem great. Is that

2:12:13 ↗ real? Um, and to that end, I think it

2:12:15 ↗ would be nice, and I'm not sure if we've

2:12:16 ↗ gotten a chance yet, to see if we've to

2:12:18 ↗ to speak to our friends in Belleview,

2:12:20 ↗ um, who are already contracting with

2:12:22 ↗ them and see what their experiences with

2:12:23 ↗ them has been in a bit more detail. Um,

2:12:26 ↗ how did their predictions compared to

2:12:27 ↗ their actuals? Like, were they did they

2:12:30 ↗ get what they thought they were going to

2:12:31 ↗ get? Um, how has, you know, how have

2:12:33 ↗ their transit customers felt about that

2:12:35 ↗ service? Um, I think it's a really

2:12:37 ↗ interesting option to look at and uh

2:12:39 ↗ based on what it it um has been

2:12:42 ↗ presented, but to council member's

2:12:44 ↗ point, there's not enough information

2:12:45 ↗ for me at least to make any real

2:12:47 ↗ decision per se on what my preference

2:12:50 ↗ would be. Uh, I think beyond to the

2:12:52 ↗ point of the question that you're asking

2:12:53 ↗ and should uh other options and

2:12:57 ↗ evaluations be continued, I would say

2:12:59 ↗ yes, definitely. I think we need more

2:13:01 ↗ information here.

2:13:01 ↗ >> Yeah, that's helpful. Uh, Council Member

2:13:03 ↗ Jen, and I will say the Belleview

2:13:05 ↗ example was hard to compare apples to

2:13:07 ↗ apples because it's a really it's super

2:13:09 ↗ utilized, but it's in that downtown

2:13:11 ↗ Belleview core. So, they love it, but we

2:13:13 ↗ don't have a very similar core to

2:13:16 ↗ compare to what they're offering. So,

2:13:18 ↗ they're getting crazy high frequency

2:13:20 ↗ usage, but we just don't know if that

2:13:22 ↗ translate into this environment.

2:13:26 ↗ Um, I mean, I feel I I kind of have a

2:13:29 ↗ pre-existing bias going into this, which

2:13:31 ↗ is that I I just fundamentally disagree

2:13:34 ↗ with the use of the word microransit to

2:13:37 ↗ essentially describe Uberpool. I like

2:13:39 ↗ that to me is not transit. And I think

2:13:43 ↗ one of the things that's really

2:13:44 ↗ concerning to me in the way that it's

2:13:45 ↗ currently the metrics that we currently

2:13:47 ↗ have is a 23m minute wait time. you

2:13:50 ↗ know, and the 23 minute wait time is a

2:13:54 ↗ function of there being rides that then,

2:13:56 ↗ you know, someone has to complete a ride

2:13:57 ↗ and then you go to the next ride. And so

2:13:59 ↗ we're essentially it seems like the

2:14:01 ↗ system that we already have is pretty

2:14:04 ↗ well utilized if the wait time is 23

2:14:06 ↗ minutes. If the vans are just sitting

2:14:07 ↗ around, the wait time would not be 23

2:14:09 ↗ minutes. And so I'm very skeptical about

2:14:10 ↗ this idea that advertising it more and

2:14:12 ↗ getting more rides will somehow get

2:14:14 ↗ better utilization because it seems

2:14:16 ↗ already pretty well utilized. And that's

2:14:17 ↗ what we've heard from the folks at Metro

2:14:19 ↗ as well. Um, you know, there's no

2:14:21 ↗ economies of scale. If there's another

2:14:22 ↗ rider with with a normal bus, if you

2:14:24 ↗ have more riders, then you know, the

2:14:26 ↗ marginal cost of serving them is

2:14:27 ↗ basically zero until you have so many

2:14:29 ↗ riders that then you need to get a

2:14:30 ↗ bigger bus, but then that's great. You

2:14:32 ↗ can have more buses, more service,

2:14:34 ↗ that's better for everyone. Um, I would

2:14:37 ↗ echo uh Mayor Mullet's point that

2:14:38 ↗ Belleview's circuit, I mean, the service

2:14:40 ↗ area is tiny. you know, it's like one

2:14:42 ↗ square mile and so all the rides the

2:14:44 ↗ rides are like three minutes and the

2:14:47 ↗ distance between rides is also really

2:14:49 ↗ short. So then the wait time is a lot

2:14:51 ↗ less. Um

2:14:54 ↗ I think in terms of the access piece, I

2:14:56 ↗ do think that's something that is

2:14:58 ↗ important, but also just going back to

2:15:02 ↗ the cost piece, I don't think we

2:15:03 ↗ necessarily have to optimize for like

2:15:04 ↗ getting the absolute lowest rock bottom

2:15:06 ↗ cost. But when we have a situation where

2:15:09 ↗ we are paying more for the service per

2:15:11 ↗ ride than literally just like giving

2:15:13 ↗ people vouchers for an Uber, I think

2:15:16 ↗ that's where it makes me think maybe we

2:15:18 ↗ should reevaluate. And um

2:15:22 ↗ uh Metro does share data on the transit

2:15:25 ↗ operating cost per boarding. So the cost

2:15:27 ↗ that we're paying is not fully loaded

2:15:29 ↗ because it doesn't include Andrea's

2:15:30 ↗ time. It doesn't include the staff time

2:15:31 ↗ of folks at Metro. It's $10.36

2:15:34 ↗ per boarding including dart service

2:15:36 ↗ which is like the dialer ride transit in

2:15:38 ↗ rural areas where they can go out of the

2:15:40 ↗ way to pick you up. So $40 operating

2:15:42 ↗ cost per ride. I mean that's kind of

2:15:44 ↗ high. Um I've being a nerd, you know,

2:15:49 ↗ I've kind of mapped out what are some of

2:15:50 ↗ the different ways that we could have

2:15:52 ↗ different shuttles serving the areas

2:15:54 ↗ that we think are like highest need. For

2:15:55 ↗ example, you know, one of the big areas

2:15:57 ↗ is Rose Crest Italalis, which um you

2:16:01 ↗ know, we could question the land use

2:16:03 ↗ decisions to build uh subsidized

2:16:04 ↗ affordable housing in an area that's a

2:16:06 ↗ transit desert, but it's there. And I

2:16:08 ↗ think to me, that's probably one of the

2:16:10 ↗ areas that should be a very high

2:16:11 ↗ priority. Um, and you know, connecting

2:16:15 ↗ that with the transit center with some

2:16:16 ↗ other areas like the, you know, Target

2:16:18 ↗ shopping center, post office, you know,

2:16:21 ↗ Oldtown, even going partway up Squawk,

2:16:23 ↗ like it's doable. And I think that could

2:16:26 ↗ also get a lot more wrership. Um, this

2:16:29 ↗ summer I talked to someone who lives up

2:16:31 ↗ in Talis but has no car. And so I talked

2:16:34 ↗ to her a bit about Metroflex. I was

2:16:36 ↗ like, first of all, I was impressed that

2:16:38 ↗ someone would choose to live carfree in

2:16:39 ↗ Talis, which is a transit desert. Um,

2:16:41 ↗ but she said she uses Metrflex

2:16:42 ↗ sometimes, but it's not that great

2:16:43 ↗ because it doesn't it's completely

2:16:45 ↗ unpredictable. Like, you don't know when

2:16:47 ↗ it's going to come until you order the

2:16:48 ↗ thing. So, you can't plan around it

2:16:50 ↗ versus, you know, even if the headway is

2:16:52 ↗ 45 minutes, at least, you know, and I

2:16:54 ↗ think if we're going to do this shuttle,

2:16:56 ↗ I would hope that Circuit has some

2:16:57 ↗ really good, you know, way to track

2:17:00 ↗ where their vehicles are. So, just

2:17:01 ↗ because the the wait time or headways

2:17:03 ↗ isn't as much of an issue as

2:17:05 ↗ predictability. And I think

2:17:06 ↗ fundamentally with Metroflex because it

2:17:08 ↗ just goes wherever people call it,

2:17:09 ↗ there's just never going to be any

2:17:11 ↗ predictability unless you get so many

2:17:12 ↗ vehicles that then you know you can just

2:17:14 ↗ have them all on demand which is then

2:17:15 ↗ also going to be just prohibitively

2:17:17 ↗ expensive. So um my strong preference is

2:17:22 ↗ to um explore this circulator shuttle

2:17:25 ↗ option in more detail. I think some of

2:17:28 ↗ the other options is basically like you

2:17:30 ↗ know with the on like microransit

2:17:33 ↗ service it's just like what are the

2:17:35 ↗ different costs and things like that and

2:17:36 ↗ service areas. I think with circulator

2:17:38 ↗ shuttles, there's so many different

2:17:40 ↗ options of like where you could have the

2:17:42 ↗ route go that we should start looking

2:17:44 ↗ into what those could be, whether some

2:17:46 ↗ of them could be more like a dart type

2:17:48 ↗ thing where you can go a little bit out

2:17:50 ↗ of the way to help kind of serve some of

2:17:52 ↗ that. Um, you know, like if someone's

2:17:55 ↗ like a little bit out of the way of

2:17:56 ↗ where it goes, could we be able to

2:17:58 ↗ provide that service as well? But just

2:17:59 ↗ fundamentally I think if you can have a

2:18:01 ↗ route that's like somewhat more

2:18:03 ↗ predictable then you can then you know

2:18:05 ↗ if you can have four people that are all

2:18:07 ↗ going in the same direction at the same

2:18:09 ↗ time then the cost per rider is going to

2:18:11 ↗ it's just we can get so much more

2:18:14 ↗ mobility for people in our community for

2:18:15 ↗ the same cost.

2:18:20 ↗ >> Excellent.

2:18:21 ↗ I think that this is that's our last

2:18:25 ↗ slide right Andrea? Uh yes for for yeah

2:18:29 ↗ for the Metroflex or microtransit item.

2:18:32 ↗ So overall for the all of the items we

2:18:35 ↗ discussed tonight just some next steps

2:18:36 ↗ to wrap us up for the evening. Um work

2:18:39 ↗ with Sound Transit uh and regionally to

2:18:42 ↗ save Isiqua light rail. That's where a

2:18:44 ↗ lot of our focus is going to be over the

2:18:47 ↗ next six months as Mayor Mullet said

2:18:48 ↗ earlier this evening. uh also in our

2:18:51 ↗ next steps that we have our

2:18:52 ↗ transportation improvement program

2:18:54 ↗ update that will return to council in

2:18:57 ↗ June. First stop though is going to be

2:18:59 ↗ with the transportation advisory board

2:19:01 ↗ and also with the mobility and

2:19:02 ↗ infrastructure committee. So those

2:19:04 ↗ meetings are forthcoming and uh as Mayor

2:19:08 ↗ Mullet said, we're looking for a focus

2:19:10 ↗ on congestion relief. We've also heard a

2:19:12 ↗ lot of feedback tonight um for bike and

2:19:14 ↗ pet and safety improvements as well. So,

2:19:16 ↗ we'll be looking into those um and using

2:19:18 ↗ the bonding capacity of our

2:19:20 ↗ transportation benefit district funds.

2:19:22 ↗ Also, um look at ongoing implementation

2:19:25 ↗ of capital and maintenance plans. And we

2:19:26 ↗ just got a lot of feedback for you um

2:19:29 ↗ for more work needed on Metroflex and

2:19:31 ↗ microtransit in the city. So, we'll have

2:19:34 ↗ to return um for more discussion of that

2:19:38 ↗ later this year.

2:19:41 ↗ Are there any other questions before we

2:19:44 ↗ wrap up and adjourn? I mean, I think

2:19:46 ↗ that

2:19:48 ↗ going back, I think, to council

2:19:50 ↗ president D. Michelle's like concern,

2:19:52 ↗ which I heard, which is I'm worried

2:19:55 ↗ about committing these investments, not

2:19:56 ↗ knowing what it's could be taking away.

2:19:58 ↗ And I think the goal in this process is

2:20:01 ↗ normally budgets grow. Like when Deputy

2:20:04 ↗ President Mart and I were on this

2:20:05 ↗ council together, it was a $34 million

2:20:07 ↗ budget. Now it's a $68 million budget.

2:20:09 ↗ We know budgets grow. We also know that

2:20:13 ↗ we we pay our staff cost of living

2:20:15 ↗ adjustments. So you don't have that much

2:20:17 ↗ extra money. But I think the goal here

2:20:19 ↗ is whatever extra money we do have, we

2:20:22 ↗ want the priority to be maintaining our

2:20:24 ↗ infrastructure, specifically this

2:20:26 ↗ pavement management program, knowing

2:20:28 ↗ that Talison Islands are coming up at

2:20:30 ↗ points in their life where we think if

2:20:32 ↗ we don't start making some investments,

2:20:34 ↗ they could fall behind the curves. We

2:20:35 ↗ don't want them to fall behind. And and

2:20:37 ↗ that's kind of a fundamental principle I

2:20:39 ↗ think we're laying out here tonight in

2:20:41 ↗ combination with making an aggressive

2:20:43 ↗ push on light rail regionally and

2:20:46 ↗ everyone in this room can make can help

2:20:48 ↗ with that push. And I think we've heard

2:20:51 ↗ loud and clear that we can't make at

2:20:53 ↗ this time. It's very clear that we need

2:20:56 ↗ to get more information on terms of, you

2:20:58 ↗ know, what we're doing with the transit

2:21:00 ↗ space and the options to this community

2:21:02 ↗ and and so we will continue to get that

2:21:04 ↗ information and come back with more

2:21:06 ↗ numbers and yes, we can bug Uber for

2:21:09 ↗ more information. And I think we can

2:21:11 ↗ also look at what fixed route things and

2:21:14 ↗ compare and and whether we have options

2:21:17 ↗ to change metrlex hours without driving

2:21:19 ↗ up cost and and so these are all things

2:21:21 ↗ we will continue to get and bring back

2:21:23 ↗ to the council. But with that, this

2:21:27 ↗ special meeting on transportation is

2:21:30 ↗ officially adjourned at 8:51.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Paul Adair

Barbara de Michele (Attended Virtually)

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Kevin Nichols

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator, Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator, Rachel Bender Turpin, City Attorney

Cassidy Mueller, Deputy City Clerk