Transportation Advisory Board · Monday, July 22, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Board Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Transportation Advisory Board About Created in 2017, this board — yet to be Staff Liaison initiated — will provide additional expertise and Stephen Padua, advice on the City’s transportation system and Senior Transportation Manager goals. Email Membership Regular Members The Transportation Advisory Board will be 2020 – Cynthia Krass comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2020 – Kyle Ochs three alternates. Initial terms will be staggered. 2021 – Tom McDonald All members are appointed by the Mayor and 2021 – Nina Milligan subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms 2021 – Kobi Sunday* expire April 30 of the year listed. For more 2022 – Sujata Goel information, see IMC 2.92. 2022 – Stephanie Salemann 2023 – AJ McGauley 2023 – Marisol Visser

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 24, 2019

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 0:43 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-24-19 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Eagle Room June 24, 2019 MINUTES 130 E. Sunset Way

4. AGENDA ITEMS

New Chairs Nominations, (D) [5 min.]

Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

▶ Watch from 1:07

Special Presentation from King County [20 min.] Public Health on the benefits of Multi- modal transportation, (I)

Richard Gelb, Environmental Health Planner

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 6:07

Mobility Master Plan Schedule Update, [5 min.]

Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 11:07

MMP Next Phase Outreach, (I) [5 min.]

Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

▶ Watch from 16:07

MMP Modal Networks and Guidelines, [50 min.]

Sarah Peters, Fehr and Peers Project Manager Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

▶ Watch from 21:07

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is currently pending a scheduling update

3146 segments .txt ↗

0:22 ↗ want me to come over there I know I'm

0:26 ↗ fitter evening like an island right now

0:27 ↗ my name is 9m Milligan and the vice

0:29 ↗ chair of the transportation advisory

0:31 ↗ board and I'm calling this month's

0:32 ↗ meeting to order on Monday July 22nd at

0:35 ↗ 6:04 p.m. we don't have a quorum yet so

0:39 ↗ the first item on the agenda for action

0:43 ↗ is the approval of minutes I'm going to

0:45 ↗ hold them until later in the meeting if

0:47 ↗ we get enough people will call for a

0:49 ↗ motion to approve or to get comments on

0:51 ↗ it and if not a little table it to the

0:52 ↗ next meeting the next item on the agenda

0:56 ↗ is public comments and I'm going to

0:59 ↗ invite anyone who'd like to speak now

1:01 ↗ because it's on the agenda at this time

1:03 ↗ or if they would prefer I'm also going

1:05 ↗ to invite public comments after each

1:07 ↗ topic on the agenda items is there

1:12 ↗ anyone who would like to speak now in

1:14 ↗ the public comment section Naim Irish

1:17 ↗ please do and please introduce yourself

1:21 ↗ in your relation to the city

1:27 ↗ Connie Marsh and my relationship to the

1:30 ↗ city I suppose is pain in the ass you're

1:35 ↗ the only one who laughs cuz she's the

1:36 ↗ only one who knows me so I looked at the

1:42 ↗ agenda last meeting and I looked at the

1:44 ↗ agenda this meeting and there's not

1:47 ↗ enough for a community member to

1:49 ↗ understand whether they should come

1:53 ↗ whether they want to come or what their

1:54 ↗ comments should be in advance I see that

1:56 ↗ you have something in paper but that

2:00 ↗ doesn't give a person any time to read

2:03 ↗ it understand it ask questions and then

2:06 ↗ make good public comment so I would ask

2:09 ↗ as is the standard in the city that

2:12 ↗ while the agendas are supposed to come

2:14 ↗ out five days in advance of the meeting

2:15 ↗ so are the links to any information that

2:18 ↗ is going to be on those agendas and if

2:21 ↗ it's of an urgent nature then you can do

2:24 ↗ it but if it is just a matter of

2:25 ↗ business then it can be postponed to the

2:29 ↗ next meeting because the whole idea is

2:30 ↗ for the community to to be brought along

2:34 ↗ with you all so

2:36 ↗ as I have been talking to Future Council

2:39 ↗ members

2:41 ↗ it is fascinating because at least one

2:44 ↗ of them says we can solve congestion and

2:46 ↗ that they think the solution to

2:49 ↗ congestion is widening roads so I don't

2:52 ↗ feel because you all are going on the

2:56 ↗ multimodal pathway that you actually

3:02 ↗ understand that at least 1/3 maybe half

3:06 ↗ of this community still thinks that you

3:08 ↗ can widen roads and that auto capacity

3:12 ↗ and that will solve traffic congestion

3:15 ↗ so no matter what you say or do or plan

3:20 ↗ if you're gonna ask for money for this

3:22 ↗ you're gonna have a heck of a time

3:24 ↗ getting the votes because they think

3:27 ↗ that you are solving it the wrong way so

3:30 ↗ I don't know how you're gonna start this

3:33 ↗ community conversation earlier so that

3:36 ↗ you don't have to stop backtrack teach

3:39 ↗ all of your community members what's

3:41 ↗ going on because I think that's where

3:43 ↗ you're headed I've said it over and over

3:45 ↗ so I'm so bored with hearing myself say

3:48 ↗ it in a variety of venues and Sheldon is

3:50 ↗ looking confused but Sheldon is actually

3:54 ↗ only recently come on board with the

3:57 ↗ idea that you can't solve congestion the

3:59 ↗ rest of the city has been working very

4:01 ↗ diligently to widen roads and add turn

4:03 ↗ lanes for many many years so you I don't

4:10 ↗ know if I can do that going out to your

4:13 ↗ community gathering places and bringing

4:17 ↗ the people along with you and saying

4:19 ↗ what you're doing and absorbing the

4:21 ↗ community feedback for what they're

4:23 ↗ thinking not just y'all I think is

4:25 ↗ imperative at this point in time so I'm

4:33 ↗ gonna add like three exclamation points

4:35 ↗ to that but not repeat thank you Thank

4:40 ↗ You Connie you are welcome to stay and

4:43 ↗ comment later as we go through the topic

4:46 ↗ items

4:47 ↗ to anybody else who wishes to speak

4:51 ↗ under the public comments section of the

4:53 ↗ meeting seeing then I will move on to

4:58 ↗ our agenda items number four of which

5:01 ↗ there are one two three four five

5:03 ↗ subheadings I'm going to turn over the

5:06 ↗ new chair nominations to see Steven

5:09 ↗ Padua for an explanation and a and some

5:14 ↗ help with us in a discussion item so for

5:17 ↗ this item chair

5:20 ↗ Magali Ajay is moving with his wife to

5:25 ↗ the Midwest I am where oh hi Ohio so he

5:31 ↗ has resigned his position as chair which

5:33 ↗ is what's why this is on the agenda and

5:35 ↗ so we are gonna be opening this up to

5:39 ↗ the this agenda item for nominations for

5:41 ↗ elections at the next meeting and

5:45 ↗ because we don't have it in our bylaws

5:49 ↗ that the vice chair would take over we

5:50 ↗ still need to have election for the

5:53 ↗ chair and at Nina is elected as vice

5:56 ↗ chair to become chair then we now then

5:58 ↗ need to elect a vice chair so that'll be

6:01 ↗ the proceeding so I'll be taking on the

6:02 ↗ next meeting and we'll be kind of

6:04 ↗ opening up to nominations now and then

6:06 ↗ prior to the next meeting next month may

6:10 ↗ I ask a question yes last time we did

6:12 ↗ this we had nominations at the meeting

6:14 ↗ and then in the interim you also

6:15 ↗ solicited statements of interest and

6:17 ↗ shared them with the board so that then

6:21 ↗ we when we came to the next meeting we

6:23 ↗ were better prepared to vote is that

6:25 ↗ gonna be the same thing yep we can do it

6:26 ↗ that way as well everybody remember that

6:28 ↗ okay okay oh good okay I think I can

6:33 ↗ open up nominations for the position of

6:36 ↗ chairman for the transportation advisory

6:38 ↗ board do I have any nominations

6:41 ↗ yes um I nominate Nina for a chair thank

6:49 ↗ you yeah any other nominations for chair

6:54 ↗ no nominate the same person I'm

6:57 ↗ I mean I know for sure it's just well

7:00 ↗ nominated now okay so we have a

7:04 ↗ nomination for the sheriff is there

7:06 ↗ anyone else that we might that you would

7:08 ↗ like to nominate the nomination doesn't

7:10 ↗ have to be accepted this evening so if

7:12 ↗ you nominated somebody who is not

7:14 ↗ present

7:15 ↗ Stephen can pass on that nomination and

7:17 ↗ act ask for their acceptance so I'm just

7:19 ↗ one more no and the nominations for

7:24 ↗ chair are closed with that because I am

7:30 ↗ the vice-chair I will not open up

7:32 ↗ nominations for Vice Chair and again it

7:35 ↗ can be somebody who's here or somebody

7:37 ↗ who's not here because they can take

7:39 ↗ this idea home and Stephen will follow

7:42 ↗ up with you and see if you would like to

7:44 ↗ accept the nomination

7:45 ↗ are there any nominations for Vice Chair

7:50 ↗ I'd like to nominate Cynthia are there

7:58 ↗ any other nominations for Vice Chair I

8:01 ↗ mean I was going to nominate Cynthia too

8:04 ↗ but I think you beat me to it are there

8:10 ↗ any other nominations for Vice Chair no

8:15 ↗ no those are the nominations Stephen

8:17 ↗ will process this these nominations and

8:20 ↗ then we'll come to the next meeting with

8:22 ↗ a packet these people are why they

8:26 ↗ should serve in this capacity and then

8:28 ↗ we will vote nominations are closed now

8:31 ↗ right nominations are now closed ready

8:37 ↗ okay with that you go too fast

8:45 ↗ can we keep the nominations open

8:49 ↗ excellent Oh nominations are still open

8:55 ↗ nominations are still open Stephen will

8:57 ↗ help us in the meantime to collect the

8:59 ↗ nominees for consideration at the next

9:02 ↗ meeting that that's more accurate right

9:05 ↗ okay hold on we were just taking

9:10 ↗ nominations for the Chairman and the

9:13 ↗ vice-chair the Chairman's resignation

9:17 ↗ was announced by Stephen because he's

9:19 ↗ moved to the Midwest and had to resign

9:21 ↗ his post he moved today as I recall and

9:25 ↗ I was nominated for chair and that's the

9:29 ↗ only nomination so far for chair and

9:31 ↗ Cynthia was nominated as vice chair and

9:34 ↗ that's the only nomination so far for

9:36 ↗ Vice Chair but the nominations are still

9:38 ↗ open that you can catch up by email or

9:41 ↗ telephone with Stephen and then we'll

9:42 ↗ have a packet ready for the next meeting

9:44 ↗ for voting thank you hey yeah I'm moving

9:51 ↗ on to the next agenda item B special

9:53 ↗ presentation from King County Public

9:55 ↗ Health and the benefits of multimodal

9:57 ↗ transportation Stephen would you

9:58 ↗ introduce our guest please yes this is

10:01 ↗ Richard gal-pal he'll let him introduce

10:03 ↗ his vision with public health but he's

10:06 ↗ here to help talk about some of project

10:12 ↗ selection criteria and performance

10:13 ↗ metrics as we develop them I'm so sorry

10:22 ↗ I have to confine you to a microphone

10:24 ↗ for our video audience okay dutifully

10:28 ↗ turn myself to the mic then thank you

10:31 ↗ sir hi thanks I'm Richard Galvan with

10:34 ↗ Public Health Seattle King County and

10:36 ↗ the environmental health division

10:37 ↗ planner trying to get out there and

10:41 ↗ drive health considerations into the

10:44 ↗ array of plans that are underway at the

10:46 ↗ local county wide regional level so

10:50 ↗ thank you all very much for including

10:53 ↗ this topic in your meeting today I'm

10:57 ↗ going to just kind of help you

11:00 ↗ understand kind of what's going on with

11:02 ↗ health inequities around the area and

11:04 ↗ then speak to how transportation master

11:08 ↗ plans and mobility plans can have a

11:11 ↗ constructive bearing on those health

11:14 ↗ outcomes so I hope by the end of my 20

11:20 ↗ minutes with you you will begin to see

11:22 ↗ yourself as a health advocate as having

11:26 ↗ the opportunity to improve the

11:28 ↗ conditions in the area that you serve so

11:33 ↗ that health outcomes improve and

11:36 ↗ specifically those whose health outcomes

11:38 ↗ are most challenged have the opportunity

11:41 ↗ to improve and therefore we we can make

11:45 ↗ progress on health inequities so I'm

11:51 ↗ going to talk a little bit about

11:52 ↗ inequities what that means how

11:55 ↗ transportation plans and the projects

11:59 ↗ that are bundled up in a plan can having

12:01 ↗ have a bearing on those health

12:02 ↗ inequities and then just share some

12:05 ↗ additional resources you all might want

12:06 ↗ to follow up on down the road I do have

12:10 ↗ handouts that I can leave behind that

12:13 ↗ are kind of the standard King County

12:16 ↗ infographics on inequities in the area

12:19 ↗ I'm going to kind of hone in on the

12:21 ↗ health-related inequities so that you

12:24 ↗ have a sense of how that's playing out

12:26 ↗ and starting off here with life

12:30 ↗ expectancy at birth so by race in place

12:35 ↗ and we tend to break down the

12:37 ↗ information on community conditions by

12:40 ↗ race in place basically to make sure you

12:43 ↗ start to get a sense of how those relate

12:45 ↗ in King County so how the distribution

12:49 ↗ of conditions life expectancy at birth

12:53 ↗ in this case are distributed breaking

12:56 ↗ those that variability down both by the

12:59 ↗ racial composition of our residents

13:01 ↗ which is on the left

13:03 ↗ there where life expectancy at birth is

13:07 ↗ presented for each racial category and

13:09 ↗ then by place over here on the right

13:13 ↗ side where in this case it's broken down

13:16 ↗ by the zip codes that have the longest

13:19 ↗ life expectancy with the green dots and

13:21 ↗ the grey dots representing the zip codes

13:24 ↗ where the life expectancy of residents

13:27 ↗ today are the shortest and then and you

13:32 ↗ can see that you know there's about

13:34 ↗ eleven years difference by by in

13:37 ↗ aggregating by race and you can see that

13:40 ↗ there's a little bit less when we bundle

13:43 ↗ everyone up into these big zip codes but

13:45 ↗ my main point here is that when we zero

13:49 ↗ in on specific neighborhoods that

13:51 ↗ difference gets much greater and in fact

13:54 ↗ in keene County we have some of the most

13:57 ↗ pronounced disparities in life

13:59 ↗ expectancy at birth of any major

14:01 ↗ metropolitan area and when you zero in

14:04 ↗ on the smaller neighborhood differences

14:08 ↗ the classic case that was just kind of

14:12 ↗ surfaced in a recent UW study is

14:14 ↗ basically the kind of North SeaTac East

14:18 ↗ Aquila community is a male born today

14:26 ↗ will live more than 18 years less than a

14:29 ↗ male born today in South Mercer Island

14:32 ↗ so what goes into that it's all the

14:36 ↗ things that lead to a full life being

14:41 ↗ cut short based on exposure to motor

14:45 ↗ vehicle accidents or violence and

14:50 ↗ medically related things disease

14:53 ↗ prevalence rates morbidity associated

14:57 ↗ with chronic disease like you know

15:01 ↗ metabolic diseases heart disease stroke

15:04 ↗ etc so that's just the predicament we're

15:08 ↗ in and there's a lot of factors that go

15:10 ↗ into this

15:11 ↗ everything from the condition of the

15:13 ↗ built environment to economic factors

15:17 ↗ associated with access to health care

15:21 ↗ and conditions associated with

15:25 ↗ occupational hazards metabolic disease

15:29 ↗ also is pretty differing across our

15:33 ↗ landscapes so classic metabolic diseases

15:37 ↗ obesity diabetes and this is just one

15:41 ↗ example of how that differs based on the

15:44 ↗ race and places across our County and

15:48 ↗ those disease rates are shown by race on

15:53 ↗ the left and by place same kind of a

15:55 ↗ thing where the zip codes with the

15:58 ↗ lowest percentages of this metabolic

15:59 ↗ disease are in the green and the ZIP

16:01 ↗ codes with the highest percentages of

16:03 ↗ this particular metabolic disease are in

16:06 ↗ the gray Datsun it's about a 20%

16:10 ↗ difference in that condition another

16:16 ↗ disease that is affected by our built

16:19 ↗ environment is asthma and this is just a

16:22 ↗ depiction of where asthma

16:25 ↗ hospitalizations are the homes where

16:29 ↗ those hospitalizations are generated

16:31 ↗ from and you can see the general pattern

16:34 ↗ where there is a trend here if you look

16:40 ↗ at where those conditions where we have

16:42 ↗ the most pronounced and elevated rates

16:44 ↗ of asthma kind of resembles where we

16:47 ↗ have other conditions in and you guys

16:52 ↗ here in Issaquah don't have obviously a

16:56 ↗ lot of the built environment conditions

16:59 ↗ and economic conditions that would yield

17:01 ↗ disparities that are show up on a

17:03 ↗ countywide basis but my point here and

17:07 ↗ just kind of introducing the notion of

17:09 ↗ health disparities is that as you zoom

17:11 ↗ into a community of even you know less

17:15 ↗ than a hundred thousand or what-have-you

17:16 ↗ there is quite a bit of variation within

17:20 ↗ a community like this and opportunities

17:23 ↗ you all have to if

17:24 ↗ fact transportation master plan elements

17:26 ↗ and the quality and characteristic of

17:29 ↗ the built environment can have a bearing

17:32 ↗ this is kind of a summary just kind of

17:35 ↗ wrapping up and putting a exclamation

17:39 ↗ point on health disparities this is a

17:43 ↗ image that links together multiple built

17:47 ↗ environment affected hospitalization

17:51 ↗ rates so this is bundling together

17:54 ↗ asthma diabetes and heart disease and

17:57 ↗ showing where the geographies from which

18:00 ↗ residents come to health care facilities

18:03 ↗ for treatment for those environmentally

18:06 ↗ related diseases any questions on any of

18:11 ↗ this stuff yes Tom come on the map

18:14 ↗ that's currently up there right now

18:15 ↗ underneath the legend where there's a

18:17 ↗ large swath of blue that looks like it

18:18 ↗ just starts just a little bit south and

18:20 ↗ east of Lake Sammamish and then the rest

18:22 ↗ of King County I'm not sure if that is

18:25 ↗ moderate by color or if that's the very

18:27 ↗ low or why that would be moderate if it

18:29 ↗ is moderate for the rest of King County

18:31 ↗ yeah sorry that's cutoff and it doesn't

18:34 ↗ show it very well I'm assuming you're

18:38 ↗ right that it is moderate and that may

18:40 ↗ be a function and part of the shape of

18:43 ↗ that census tract and it may be kind of

18:45 ↗ grabbing some areas outside of Issaquah

18:48 ↗ so my apologies that I don't have its a

18:51 ↗ qua specific information on this but

18:53 ↗ something I could get and follow up and

18:57 ↗ kind of allow you to see where your city

19:01 ↗ stands I know where our city stands

19:03 ↗ right at the bottom of Lake Sammamish so

19:05 ↗ I'm okay with that I was just curious

19:06 ↗ why there was such a large group that

19:08 ↗ was all coming out in the country

19:11 ↗ that's all moderate and they would

19:14 ↗ probably have just a minimal effect on

19:16 ↗ this card just because they're on the

19:17 ↗ tail end probably up to High Point yeah

19:19 ↗ that's yeah I agree that I'm agreeing

19:22 ↗ with you that this that it's probably

19:24 ↗ the shape of the of the census tracts

19:26 ↗ that are captured in that yeah

19:32 ↗ any other questions okay I'm just gonna

19:36 ↗ extend a little bit into this notion of

19:39 ↗ how transportation plans bear on those

19:43 ↗ whose needs are greatest and this comes

19:47 ↗ from the Puget Sound Regional Council's

19:49 ↗ recent travel behavior survey just a

19:54 ↗ couple of bar charts here that are

19:56 ↗ showing folks response to the question

20:01 ↗ how often do you go for a walk longer

20:04 ↗ than 15 minutes and the folks that are

20:07 ↗ have a high percent of weekly walks

20:13 ↗ those whose income household incomes are

20:16 ↗ lowest and so this is really moving us

20:21 ↗ toward the rationale for why should you

20:23 ↗ care about built environment conditions

20:26 ↗ that you may have that you may be

20:30 ↗ steering resources toward in your plan

20:33 ↗ it's because the folks that are going to

20:36 ↗ be using the non vehicle non car

20:42 ↗ transportation elements are and to be

20:48 ↗ they tend to be used more by your lower

20:51 ↗ income residents this chart here is

20:55 ↗ taking the same information about

20:57 ↗ walking frequency and showing that the

21:01 ↗ very top bar are those households that

21:05 ↗ have four or more cars and and you can

21:08 ↗ see that the the percent of those with

21:13 ↗ high walking frequency is the lowest and

21:16 ↗ as you move to three cars you have 15%

21:19 ↗ of the folks going for a walk longer

21:22 ↗ than 15 minutes a day and as you move to

21:25 ↗ two cars you have 25% and then 31 and

21:29 ↗ and folks who have zero cars have the

21:34 ↗ most walking trips so this is just

21:37 ↗ trying to share with you why focusing on

21:42 ↗ those non motorized

21:43 ↗ elements are going to lift up the

21:46 ↗ conditions for those whose needs are

21:47 ↗ greatest alright this is a heck of a

21:54 ↗ busy slide and you don't really need to

21:57 ↗ understand all of it but it is here to

22:00 ↗ let you know that we are not winning on

22:03 ↗ a national level and on a state level we

22:06 ↗ don't have all this information at a

22:07 ↗ local level but I did look at the recent

22:11 ↗ state report and our numbers here in the

22:14 ↗ state represent these national numbers

22:16 ↗ we are experiencing increased pedestrian

22:20 ↗ deaths nationally statewide and this is

22:25 ↗ a function of a lot of things it is a

22:27 ↗ function of the size of vehicles and you

22:32 ↗ know a lot of other factors but we are

22:38 ↗ not heading in the right direction and

22:40 ↗ so transportation master plans that

22:43 ↗ emphasize pedestrian safety are going to

22:45 ↗ be your opportunity to bend the curve on

22:49 ↗ this also nationally and locally where

22:52 ↗ VMT is going up we do have on the

22:56 ↗ national level a slight increase in

22:58 ↗ walking trips and vehicle occupant

23:03 ↗ deaths are declining and I just grabbed

23:08 ↗ a little pull quote here you know older

23:12 ↗ adults people of color people walking in

23:15 ↗ low-income communities bear the highest

23:17 ↗ share of the harm caused by vehicle

23:20 ↗ collisions so why is multimodal

23:28 ↗ transportation good for health some of

23:33 ↗ this is obvious right those who are

23:36 ↗ getting out and getting themselves from

23:39 ↗ point A to point B in a non vehicle

23:42 ↗ supported way are going to have more

23:46 ↗ physical activity and physical

23:48 ↗ inactivity currently is the fourth

23:50 ↗ leading mortality risk factor so the

23:54 ↗ residents in your community who are

23:56 ↗ physically inactive

23:57 ↗ are facing higher risk of death and

24:01 ↗ disease because of the lack of physical

24:04 ↗ activity in their lives physical

24:08 ↗ activity and auto dependency increased

24:10 ↗ together I've got a slide coming up that

24:13 ↗ kind of shows the history of how this is

24:15 ↗ evolved in our communities

24:17 ↗ but it's something that we have to

24:19 ↗ recognize is a is a phenomena that has

24:25 ↗ been building for generations and you

24:29 ↗ know as your public Testament shared its

24:35 ↗ kind of on us to go from the vicious

24:37 ↗ cycle of Auto dependence and increased

24:40 ↗ in activity to the virtuous cycle of

24:44 ↗ increased ped bike facilities and

24:47 ↗ stimulating that way of getting around

24:51 ↗ that leads to better health outcomes

24:54 ↗ there's also a lot of very high-quality

24:58 ↗ studies that have now completely

25:00 ↗ validated that investment in bicycle and

25:03 ↗ pedestrian facilities are good for

25:07 ↗ everyone including those operating

25:09 ↗ vehicles so death rates in all

25:11 ↗ communities you know in no matter

25:15 ↗ whether you're looking by country by

25:17 ↗ state by city by city we'll just keep it

25:22 ↗ on the city level cities that have

25:24 ↗ invested in greater bicycle and ped

25:26 ↗ facilities have lower death rates for

25:30 ↗ all residents associated with

25:32 ↗ transportation even those only in cars

25:34 ↗ and obviously air quality improves as

25:37 ↗ vehicle use declines active

25:40 ↗ transportation fosters community

25:42 ↗ cohesion yes Richard thank you it seems

25:49 ↗ like it's a little more complicated too

25:51 ↗ though however as I look at the second

25:54 ↗ bullet point physical inactivity in our

25:56 ↗ do auto dependency increases together

25:58 ↗ with the asterisks saying adults living

26:00 ↗ in sprawling counties have a higher body

26:03 ↗ mass indices both more likely to be

26:06 ↗ obese however your map

26:08 ↗ I don't believe showed that bys

26:10 ↗ code I thought the higher obesity rates

26:12 ↗ were in the city and those sprawling

26:16 ↗ suburban areas had green dots so this is

26:20 ↗ a simple way of looking at it right yeah

26:23 ↗ what that other slide didn't correct for

26:27 ↗ that this analysis does that that I'm

26:30 ↗ footnoting here is is the socioeconomic

26:33 ↗ factors yeah so that's why we can say

26:38 ↗ that this is true even though in King

26:40 ↗ County not corrected for economic

26:42 ↗ factors we have higher obesity rates in

26:46 ↗ areas some of which are not sprawled in

26:51 ↗ terms of land-use patterns good point

26:53 ↗ any other questions Cynthia I'm

26:57 ↗ certainly the last bullet point about

27:00 ↗ fostering communities it could be

27:06 ↗ considered obvious but I'm curious if

27:07 ↗ there's data and what metrics because

27:09 ↗ I've seen this material before but I

27:13 ↗ hadn't seen anything that really I mean

27:15 ↗ I've seen people talk about how it could

27:17 ↗ be yeah I haven't seen any actual is

27:19 ↗ there actual data and what metrics are

27:21 ↗ they using yeah there's there's quite a

27:23 ↗ bit of data on this and it has to do

27:25 ↗ with basically the human interactions

27:28 ↗ that occur in buses and it in at bus

27:32 ↗ stops and in in bike lanes and in

27:36 ↗ traffic and where people can be

27:39 ↗ physically see each other face to face

27:43 ↗ and it fosters a sense of community and

27:47 ↗ so where this comes from is those cities

27:51 ↗ with higher bike ped and and transit use

27:56 ↗ there are measures of social cohesion

27:59 ↗ and they come out higher in those

28:01 ↗ communities and the measure of social

28:04 ↗ cohesion is is typically done on a

28:07 ↗ willingness to intervene on behalf of

28:10 ↗ and so they ask residents for example if

28:13 ↗ you saw somebody spray-painting your

28:15 ↗ neighbor's garage what would you do kind

28:18 ↗ of questions and they find that people

28:19 ↗ will intervene and call and do stuff

28:23 ↗ more red

28:24 ↗ where social cohesion is higher where

28:26 ↗ social cohesion is lower it's more you

28:29 ↗ know I'm just gonna close the shutters

28:31 ↗ and pretend they don't see it so that's

28:34 ↗ what's going on is that the human

28:36 ↗ interactions are fostering an increased

28:38 ↗ sense of trust and an increased sense of

28:41 ↗ willingness to do something to enhance

28:44 ↗ the well-being of the logic behind it

28:47 ↗ makes sense I just hadn't ever seen any

28:49 ↗ metrics around that yeah real good place

28:52 ↗ for metrics on this is the Victoria

28:55 ↗ transportation Policy Institute and

28:58 ↗ they've done some studies on this and

29:00 ↗ then another one on on active

29:07 ↗ transportation and happiness that I may

29:09 ↗ be mentioned on another slide is end of

29:13 ↗ trip studies where major employers in

29:16 ↗ this area also asked folks how they got

29:19 ↗ to work part of the commute trip

29:21 ↗ reduction act that is going on in the

29:24 ↗ state and and their level of

29:27 ↗ satisfaction with their commute and car

29:31 ↗ drivers have the lowest level of

29:33 ↗ satisfaction and bicyclists and those

29:37 ↗ who walk to work report being the

29:40 ↗ happiest and enjoying their commute the

29:42 ↗ most and I think that may feed into

29:45 ↗ cohesion although that was a little bit

29:47 ↗ of a different angle yeah any other

29:51 ↗ questions right now okay

29:54 ↗ thanks for tree okay so you know in

30:00 ↗ terms of why you all want to

30:02 ↗ increasingly be advocates for multimodal

30:05 ↗ transportation and active transportation

30:08 ↗ amenities in your communities so that

30:11 ↗ you can ensure your community is

30:14 ↗ equitable inclusive especially serving

30:18 ↗ those under 8 or over 80 and ensuring

30:24 ↗ that a full range of users are able to

30:26 ↗ take advantage of the transportation

30:28 ↗ infrastructure investments that y'all

30:30 ↗ will be lifting up as part of this

30:33 ↗ planning process affordable

30:36 ↗ lower costs for system users and there's

30:38 ↗ a variety of ways of measuring each trip

30:41 ↗ and you know for every car trip the

30:46 ↗ amount of emphasis is gone into that is

30:49 ↗ is pretty staggering when you look at

30:53 ↗ you know there's about six parking spots

30:57 ↗ for every car in a typical city and

30:59 ↗ that's a lot of space and a lot of cost

31:04 ↗ so on a per trip basis all of those non

31:08 ↗ motorized trips are going to be your

31:10 ↗ lowest cost per trip and so you're

31:12 ↗ affording people mobility with the lower

31:16 ↗ you know community investment in those

31:20 ↗ trips healthier both in terms of the

31:23 ↗ physical activity the community cohesion

31:25 ↗ and trust safer I mentioned that high

31:30 ↗ bicycle motor cities are safer for

31:32 ↗ bicyclists and all road users greener we

31:37 ↗ got the air GHG noise and then the kind

31:42 ↗ of the amount of land required for some

31:46 ↗ modes is very different than others

31:48 ↗ resource efficient and the economic

31:52 ↗ development and tourism as well as

31:55 ↗ productivity benefits of those cities

31:57 ↗ that are less car dependent sorry this

32:03 ↗ image isn't very good but this is 60

32:06 ↗ people if they all had their cars if

32:09 ↗ they were all in one bus or if they came

32:12 ↗ by bicycle and so you know vehicle

32:16 ↗ dependent transportation master plans

32:19 ↗ gobble up a lot of space and that space

32:22 ↗ then is not available for other uses be

32:25 ↗ it green space affordable housing

32:27 ↗ engaging retail etc so the ingredients

32:35 ↗ what should you all be prioritizing in

32:37 ↗ your plan if you want to see a mode

32:40 ↗ shift toward healthier options for your

32:42 ↗ residents clearly good biking and

32:47 ↗ walking conditions all these things

32:49 ↗ you would suspect the transit service

32:53 ↗ has a strong bearing people obviously

32:56 ↗ like to be able to use bicycle or

33:02 ↗ walking to get to a transit stop to get

33:04 ↗ to their ultimate destination and I know

33:07 ↗ that you guys don't have a huge amount

33:08 ↗ of control over the transit piece of

33:12 ↗ this but you certainly have control over

33:14 ↗ the things that make transit work well

33:16 ↗ like transit prioritization and lanes

33:19 ↗ prioritizing signalization and all those

33:22 ↗ things good connectivity so isolated

33:27 ↗ transit service and bits and pieces of

33:30 ↗ bike and ped stuff that doesn't connect

33:33 ↗ in it doesn't lace together and a nice

33:36 ↗ multimodal network is not as good

33:38 ↗ obviously infrastructure for car share

33:41 ↗ bike share riding Hale this is obviously

33:44 ↗ increasingly important including safe

33:46 ↗ pickup drop-off zones for ride hail is

33:49 ↗ very important for pedestrian bicycle

33:52 ↗ safety reducing those the door zones etc

33:57 ↗ infrastructure like the you know I don't

34:02 ↗ know what y'all are doing on on scooters

34:04 ↗ and bikes but should they arrive they

34:07 ↗ probably need to have designated zones

34:09 ↗ for being left and increasingly as the

34:13 ↗ chitter-chatter before the meeting you

34:16 ↗ know the geofencing technologies are

34:19 ↗ really increasing and the more

34:21 ↗ progressive cities that are allowing the

34:23 ↗ scooter bike rental programs are upping

34:28 ↗ their game on the requirements for the

34:30 ↗ geofencing and you can even have bikes

34:33 ↗ not returnable in a downtown area unless

34:37 ↗ they're in a bike state Corral area is

34:41 ↗ increasingly what's going on here to

34:43 ↗ allow those modes to be feathered into

34:46 ↗ the city environment without the

34:49 ↗ potential problems with folks that are

34:53 ↗ mobility impaired Universal Design

34:56 ↗ this is you know speaking to how

34:59 ↗ frequently we even able-bodied people

35:01 ↗ probably all use curb cuts and other

35:04 ↗ amenities that our Universal Design

35:07 ↗ convenient user information and the

35:10 ↗ social marketing these are the

35:12 ↗ non-physical stuff that correlate to

35:14 ↗ high non-motorized dependent communities

35:19 ↗ so the understanding how to use some of

35:24 ↗ the other modes and then the promotion

35:26 ↗ of those has been shown to be important

35:28 ↗ and could be feathered into a

35:31 ↗ transportation master plan okay I

35:35 ↗ mentioned earlier about how did we get

35:37 ↗ here so that you know we face such a

35:42 ↗ gobbling up of the landscape of our city

35:44 ↗ for vehicle dependent uses you know it

35:47 ↗ all started back here when we did some

35:50 ↗ planning that was Auto oriented and then

35:52 ↗ that led to some reduced travel options

35:54 ↗ as those lanes expanded and squeezed out

35:57 ↗ space that might have been used for

35:58 ↗ other purposes and there might have been

36:01 ↗ some stigmatization of those who were

36:03 ↗ using alternative modes and we may have

36:07 ↗ had you know chopping up of land and

36:10 ↗ pushing up of single-family uses in

36:14 ↗ remote areas that caused us to be car

36:17 ↗ dependent that planning that parking

36:20 ↗ supply the diverse pattern led to the

36:24 ↗ car ownership all the car ownership led

36:27 ↗ to the demand for auto dependent

36:30 ↗ rights-of-way etc so this is just kind

36:34 ↗ of a little summary on the negative

36:37 ↗ feedback loop that has led to the car

36:39 ↗ dependent cultures we mostly live in and

36:41 ↗ I just kind of took a quick swing at

36:44 ↗ okay well what is the virtuous cycle of

36:47 ↗ healthy mobility so expanding and

36:51 ↗ improving conditions for white bike

36:53 ↗ riding and walking frequent useful

36:57 ↗ public transportation we densities and

37:00 ↗ connectivity supporting infrastructure

37:02 ↗ informed incentivized residents so I

37:06 ↗ think that

37:08 ↗ is what we hope to stimulate happening

37:13 ↗ is creating them the alternate modes and

37:17 ↗ then supporting folks and accessing them

37:19 ↗ safely and so you know seeing folks out

37:24 ↗ in alternate modes is the prime way that

37:27 ↗ others consider doing it alright I'm

37:31 ↗ going to close up with a few planning

37:33 ↗ principles and some additional resources

37:37 ↗ y'all might want to pursue planning

37:39 ↗ principles these are things that are

37:42 ↗ baked into the plan itself if you want

37:45 ↗ to advance non-auto dependent mobility

37:50 ↗ recognizing all travel demands there are

37:54 ↗ folks that got here on a bicycle will be

37:57 ↗ leaving another business in a wheelchair

37:59 ↗ or a walker and if we are considering

38:03 ↗ all those travel demands in the context

38:06 ↗ of this planning process it will yield

38:09 ↗ better outcomes for those most

38:11 ↗ vulnerable and whose mobility needs are

38:13 ↗ most acute counting every trip is

38:17 ↗ important because if you have a way of

38:20 ↗ quantifying your your what is produced

38:24 ↗ by all the transportation infrastructure

38:26 ↗ and services and that way of counting

38:29 ↗ what is produced in terms of trips is

38:31 ↗ blind to those small trips that may be

38:34 ↗ from this door to the 7-eleven then we

38:38 ↗ will continue to leave out those

38:42 ↗ granular trips that really are vital

38:46 ↗ transportation for the residents that

38:49 ↗ have chosen to go go that way so if

38:52 ↗ we're only counting car trips we will be

38:55 ↗ blind to the degree that different

38:57 ↗ interventions yield more active mobility

39:01 ↗ and more active transportation

39:04 ↗ disaggregating measurement is is not

39:07 ↗ just looking at mode split for the

39:09 ↗ entire city and calling that a target

39:12 ↗ but recognizing that you know there's a

39:14 ↗ lot of variability based on where folks

39:18 ↗ are or what their circumstances are

39:22 ↗ and if we break down measurement

39:24 ↗ disaggregate we'll be able to see how

39:27 ↗ different approaches have varying

39:30 ↗ ability to improve conditions and this

39:33 ↗ is the under 8 and over 80 this may be

39:36 ↗ by income might be a bi ability it might

39:39 ↗ be by land use type those in certain

39:43 ↗ geographies might have expectations for

39:47 ↗ mode splits that are different from

39:48 ↗ those in other parts of the city itself

39:52 ↗ reducing or eliminating parking space

39:55 ↗ requirements both on the business side

39:58 ↗ and the residential side is one of those

40:00 ↗ ways that we get out of that vicious

40:04 ↗ circle of over building the space we

40:07 ↗ limited space we have for vehicles and

40:10 ↗ managing transportation demand which is

40:14 ↗ a lot of kind of interventions that

40:18 ↗ promote getting more out of whatever

40:22 ↗ transportation we do whatever

40:24 ↗ infrastructure is invested in for just

40:29 ↗ money yeah questions I just have one for

40:36 ↗ our staff we've brought up a few times

40:37 ↗ that integrating transportation and land

40:40 ↗ use planning we have recognized as being

40:43 ↗ an important thing or at least i-i've

40:45 ↗ said so on I think I've heard it from

40:46 ↗ other board members and we're doing the

40:50 ↗ master a mobility plan and it's trying

40:53 ↗ to separate those things but it seems

40:56 ↗ very difficult to do yeah how does a

41:00 ↗ transportation plan do land-use planning

41:04 ↗ well there's a variety of potential

41:08 ↗ touch points and I don't know if there

41:10 ↗ is a land use committee like yours but

41:13 ↗ the possibility that y'all had a joint

41:15 ↗ session and and and looked at those

41:17 ↗ interfaces and came to understand how

41:20 ↗ zoning and what's being required in the

41:23 ↗ land use plan in terms of everything

41:25 ↗ from you know required parking

41:31 ↗ evie charging

41:33 ↗ right Hales drop-off pickup points

41:37 ↗ end of ride facilities you know do major

41:41 ↗ employers are they required to have a

41:43 ↗ locker room for those arriving by

41:45 ↗ bicycle that's a land use building

41:49 ↗ consideration that has a direct bearing

41:51 ↗ on the degree people are going to ride

41:53 ↗ their bicycles to that employment center

41:55 ↗ so those are your opportunities to say

41:58 ↗ from a transportation side these are the

42:01 ↗ land use characteristics that would

42:02 ↗ optimize our goal of active

42:05 ↗ transportation and and they may have

42:08 ↗ some requests back to the transportation

42:11 ↗ plan that might foster the kind of land

42:13 ↗ use is that they're seeking in terms of

42:16 ↗ densities and lower you know car to

42:20 ↗ fewer car dependent families in certain

42:22 ↗ areas and then that may be a signal to

42:25 ↗ y'all to be thinking about prioritizing

42:26 ↗ for the infrastructure to get to those

42:29 ↗ communities that are anticipated to be

42:31 ↗ more affordable lower car ownership

42:35 ↗ households okay I'm just gonna close

42:42 ↗ here just I don't know if your

42:43 ↗ transportation this plan is going to

42:45 ↗ have targets for things like mode share

42:49 ↗ but you know it gets back to a point I

42:54 ↗ made earlier about hopefully those mode

42:58 ↗ share targets will not be an aggregated

43:00 ↗ target but they will be disaggregated

43:02 ↗ and you will consider what's realistic

43:05 ↗ in different land use types or in

43:07 ↗ different geographies within the city of

43:12 ↗ Issaquah so you know your mode sure the

43:16 ↗ optimal mode share is going to depend on

43:19 ↗ the density the conditions your policy

43:21 ↗ intent but you know you're more affluent

43:24 ↗ suburban areas you're gonna have higher

43:28 ↗ automobile mode share and as you move

43:30 ↗ from those geographies that are more

43:34 ↗ suburban and move into where whoo sorry

43:39 ↗ about that

43:43 ↗ as you move into denser areas you would

43:46 ↗ expect and I would assume would be

43:48 ↗ seeking to have a higher percent of the

43:51 ↗ trips achieved out not using a car does

43:55 ↗ that make sense or any questions about

43:59 ↗ argot setting alright I'll leave you

44:04 ↗ with some resources that speak to least

44:08 ↗ cost integrative planning this gets to

44:11 ↗ the notion of showing how those non

44:15 ↗ motorized vehicle trips can be fostered

44:17 ↗ with a fraction of the investment of

44:19 ↗ those investments in car based travel

44:22 ↗ fairness and include inclusivity

44:26 ↗ multimodal ISM and GHG emissions in case

44:29 ↗ you're trying to reconcile to a climate

44:31 ↗ plan and you want to kind of calibrate

44:33 ↗ your mode shift and your vehicle

44:36 ↗ utilization levels to what is realistic

44:39 ↗ within your climate targets mode

44:43 ↗ diversity in public health and health

44:45 ↗ impact assessment resources are here for

44:49 ↗ you yes tom is there a way that we will

44:54 ↗ be able to get a copy of these resources

44:56 ↗ to look at them yeah Steven I'll send

44:58 ↗ that around

45:04 ↗ following up on that Steven this wasn't

45:07 ↗ in our packet so I know that you can get

45:10 ↗ these slide deck to us but how does the

45:13 ↗ public get an opportunity to have access

45:18 ↗ to this to the presentation I'll get

45:21 ↗ included with the minutes with this

45:26 ↗ meeting okay and we don't have time for

45:30 ↗ it now but just so you know I did

45:32 ↗ capture some of the most progressive

45:34 ↗ mode shared targets from other cities so

45:37 ↗ you have a sense of what is pop you know

45:40 ↗ what ambitions other geographies have

45:45 ↗ there are some basic steps to looking

45:48 ↗ deeper at mobility health equity and

45:53 ↗ [Music]

45:55 ↗ I'll leave it at that right more

45:59 ↗ questions thank you so much Richard

46:00 ↗ really appreciate you coming in tonight

46:04 ↗ thank you and thank you Steven for

46:09 ↗ making this information available to us

46:10 ↗ in the public do you have anything else

46:13 ↗ to say on this are you ready to

46:14 ↗ introduce the next section I'll go ahead

46:16 ↗ and introduce the next section I'm gonna

46:19 ↗ combine the next two agenda items just

46:21 ↗ enjoy it so the next two are the

46:23 ↗ mobility master plan schedule update and

46:25 ↗ the mobility master plan next phase

46:27 ↗ outreach both have done by you yes so

46:31 ↗ just a quick reminder the mobility

46:34 ↗ master plan is going to be our

46:36 ↗ long-range planning document it's going

46:37 ↗ to define new policy for transportation

46:40 ↗ and eventually replace the translation

46:42 ↗ element in our comprehensive plan as we

46:44 ↗ look at a more multimodal transportation

46:47 ↗ system as you've seen before we've we've

46:52 ↗ gone to develop guiding principles

46:55 ↗ that'll help guide the development of

46:57 ↗ this master plan as we go through each

46:59 ↗ section from the performance metrics to

47:02 ↗ project selection criteria to even the

47:05 ↗ type of projects that we start or

47:07 ↗ project lists that we start to develop

47:08 ↗ through this process is gonna be fired

47:10 ↗ following these principles

47:14 ↗ and where we are today in terms of like

47:17 ↗ the project schedule we're just about in

47:19 ↗ the middle where we're in that next

47:22 ↗ phase where we are starting to divide

47:24 ↗ enta fie the the policies programs and

47:27 ↗ projects and and Sarah is going to talk

47:29 ↗ a little bit about kind of the how we're

47:31 ↗ starting that process with the modal

47:32 ↗ networks and for the the board this is

47:39 ↗ kind of going to be your schedule each

47:41 ↗ month through the summer and fall of

47:42 ↗ going through each of these topics as we

47:44 ↗ kind of move into the draft planning

47:47 ↗ process later this year this is all

47:51 ↗ information that I'm just kind of

47:52 ↗ reiterating from the previous meeting

47:57 ↗ what is new is that for the next phase

48:00 ↗ of engagement what we're gonna do is

48:02 ↗ we're gonna actually go to each of the

48:03 ↗ boards and commissions with the same

48:05 ↗ information that you're going to be

48:06 ↗ presented with tonight and get their

48:08 ↗ perspective on how the model of networks

48:11 ↗ overlap with the work that they do but

48:14 ↗ also on how transportation can benefit a

48:17 ↗ lot of the work that they're working on

48:19 ↗ from the scope of what Human Services

48:22 ↗ looks at or from the policy planning and

48:24 ↗ even the business perspective of how

48:26 ↗ transportation is connecting customers

48:29 ↗ as well as getting freight goods to a

48:32 ↗ lot of the businesses and then for a lot

48:35 ↗ of the other community groups that we

48:36 ↗ previously spoke with and had

48:39 ↗ conversations with us we're going to

48:40 ↗ develop a meeting in the box which is

48:43 ↗ basically a method of facilitation where

48:46 ↗ we give them a package of materials

48:48 ↗ where each of the individual individual

48:51 ↗ groups will be able to ask the very

48:53 ↗ similar conference questions and have

48:55 ↗ similar conversations that we're gonna

48:57 ↗ be having but we'll be able to do it a

48:59 ↗ lot more broad without having to require

49:03 ↗ as much staff resources and that is your

49:09 ↗ update are there any questions

49:13 ↗ a lot of his reiteration of what we

49:15 ↗ discussed before so I I just wanted a

49:17 ↗ combination of CND yes I have a question

49:22 ↗ about what's the time frame for when we

49:24 ↗ go to those other Commission's

49:26 ↗ it'll be August and September Oh going

49:29 ↗ to their board and Commission meetings

49:31 ↗ and then based on that bar chart of the

49:33 ↗ schedule that means the feedback we get

49:38 ↗ that feedback will help us in our draft

49:41 ↗ planning and draft

49:43 ↗ yep any other questions and if there

49:48 ↗ aren't any other questions I forgot to

49:50 ↗ ask if there's any public comment about

49:52 ↗ each of these two sections the King

49:55 ↗ County presentation and public health

49:56 ↗ and this are there any public comments

49:59 ↗ about the things that we've covered so

50:01 ↗ far I see an audience member one please

50:06 ↗ come to the lectern and we're just now

50:10 ↗ getting additional public comments on

50:12 ↗ the right things that we've discussed so

50:15 ↗ far so Connie Marsh again and I do live

50:18 ↗ up on squawk Mountain so you all's role

50:23 ↗ is specifically not to interface with

50:26 ↗ land-use and particularly our supposed

50:31 ↗ to be the sort of the policy carriers

50:33 ↗ but that still leaves this gap for when

50:37 ↗ you take private development and public

50:40 ↗ projects through sort of an unknown

50:44 ↗ process there is nothing it's a void so

50:49 ↗ some of the streets they go out to these

50:51 ↗ big public meetings but there's no sort

50:54 ↗ of guiding committee when you take a

50:57 ↗ private development through development

50:59 ↗ Commission they say the transportation

51:02 ↗ is out of your purview and that is up to

51:05 ↗ the engineers in town and so the

51:09 ↗ community and the Commission does not

51:11 ↗ get to comment on how they would

51:13 ↗ interface with those intersection

51:16 ↗ changes or the transportation that is

51:19 ↗ happening with that development and to

51:22 ↗ me this is a big black hole that you all

51:26 ↗ are not

51:26 ↗ filling because they created you

51:29 ↗ specifically exempting that from what

51:31 ↗ you can do so I don't know how you get

51:34 ↗ that in the conversation except for to

51:37 ↗ attempt to create policies that would

51:41 ↗ make something to fill in that tissue so

51:45 ↗ I think it's super important look at

51:48 ↗ Newport Way and our issues with private

51:51 ↗ and public development all along the

51:53 ↗ corridors it's just been a mess so thank

51:55 ↗ you okay

51:57 ↗ is there anybody else who wishes to

51:58 ↗ speak about these first topic items a B

52:01 ↗ C or D nope

52:05 ↗ Steven I think we can move on to a

52:07 ↗ letter e the mobility and master plan

52:11 ↗ modal networks and guidelines if you

52:13 ↗ would introduce our guest presenter that

52:16 ↗ would be great yes

52:17 ↗ this is Sarah Peters she is the project

52:20 ↗ manager with our consultant fair and

52:22 ↗ piers mean we work very closely together

52:26 ↗ on each of these steps and all the items

52:28 ↗ that you've been receiving on the

52:30 ↗ mobility master plan and tonight she's

52:32 ↗ gonna start talking about the draft

52:34 ↗ modal networks and guidelines which is

52:36 ↗ that starting point to developing

52:37 ↗ policies programs and projects and I'll

52:41 ↗ let her come introduce herself as well

52:46 ↗ Thank You Steven thank you to the board

52:48 ↗ tonight I'm going to be talking

52:50 ↗ specifically about how we fill the gaps

52:53 ↗ in the networks the mobility master plan

52:57 ↗ is building on quite a number of plans

53:01 ↗ that the city has already developed but

53:03 ↗ when we put all those together we need

53:05 ↗ to understand from the community's point

53:07 ↗ of view and that's why you're here

53:08 ↗ tonight how do we prioritize finding

53:13 ↗ projects that fill in the spaces that

53:15 ↗ haven't already been identified in your

53:16 ↗ existing plans so Steven already

53:21 ↗ introduced me and with fair and peers

53:23 ↗ and this is just a quick overview of the

53:25 ↗ plan process so currently there are two

53:28 ↗ parallel processes working together

53:30 ↗ you'll see the four arrows on the the

53:32 ↗ left of the screen in green assessing

53:35 ↗ the planning context and future needs

53:37 ↗ we've submitted a

53:39 ↗ planning context report in a graph

53:41 ↗ future needs report to the city for

53:43 ↗ review for staff to review and then

53:47 ↗ coming out of that we'll be developing a

53:49 ↗ project list building on your adopted

53:52 ↗ plans and also the network gaps and

53:54 ↗ we'll be discussing those network gaps

53:55 ↗ tonight in the meantime and this is

53:58 ↗ something that you've had quite a bit of

53:59 ↗ input on we've also been developing

54:01 ↗ guiding principles for the mobility

54:03 ↗ master plan that's something that the

54:06 ↗ transportation advisory board and City

54:08 ↗ Council have had input on it's also been

54:09 ↗ vetted in the first phase of Public

54:12 ↗ Engagement for this plan and next and

54:16 ↗ you've already had some input on this

54:17 ↗ they're being revised right now to

54:19 ↗ reflect that that input developing

54:22 ↗ project evaluation criteria and

54:24 ↗ performance metrics so once all these

54:26 ↗ projects come together how do you

54:28 ↗ prioritize between them and and get the

54:31 ↗ ones that are most important to the top

54:34 ↗ of the list and the other ones towards

54:36 ↗ the bottom of the list and the reason

54:38 ↗ why that's so critical of course is that

54:40 ↗ a funding is limited and we know that

54:41 ↗ there are going to be more projects than

54:43 ↗ the city can ever afford to build so we

54:45 ↗ need to know what are the most important

54:47 ↗ projects and then combining those to the

54:50 ↗ projects list in the project evaluation

54:52 ↗ criteria there will be a prioritized

54:54 ↗ project list and then with those

54:56 ↗ performance metrics after the plan is

54:58 ↗ implemented the community can continue

55:01 ↗ to evaluate how well it's being

55:02 ↗ implemented and whether it's achieving

55:04 ↗ its goals so this is where we are right

55:10 ↗ now and tonight we'll be talking

55:14 ↗ specifically about how our how we should

55:17 ↗ approach filling in gaps in your project

55:20 ↗ list so we'll dive into this there's a

55:23 ↗ memorandum that you've all received it's

55:25 ↗ very short and I'll be walking you

55:27 ↗ through all of it but we'll talk about

55:29 ↗ draft modal guidelines and modal

55:33 ↗ networks so the modal networks and there

55:36 ↗ are maps in the packet and also in this

55:38 ↗ PowerPoint that show our approach to

55:41 ↗ those networks that looks at where to

55:43 ↗ invest the modal guidelines say say how

55:46 ↗ to invest so what are the standards that

55:48 ↗ we're trying to achieve

55:49 ↗ just as we define these projects right

55:51 ↗ so the

55:52 ↗ helps me say okay I know where the city

55:55 ↗ needs a sidewalk but then what's the

55:57 ↗ standard doesn't need to be what is that

55:59 ↗ standard what is that side what we need

56:00 ↗ to look like and the sources for these

56:03 ↗ we're building off of plans that the

56:05 ↗ city has already adopted and also the

56:08 ↗ guiding principles that were defined for

56:10 ↗ the mobility master plan so as we work

56:14 ↗ through these what I would really like

56:16 ↗ to hear from you in addition to any

56:18 ↗ other comments you have are what is

56:21 ↗ missing from the proposed guidelines and

56:22 ↗ networks and then is there anything that

56:24 ↗ isn't needed that's included but isn't

56:27 ↗ really important for a moment sorry we

56:31 ↗ just got this this evening right and how

56:34 ↗ many of you have had a chance to read it

56:36 ↗ are you should we take a moment to read

56:39 ↗ this are you expecting some productive

56:41 ↗ or is this going to come back to us

56:43 ↗ later because none of us have had it

56:44 ↗ she's actually gonna walk through all of

56:46 ↗ it right now these are just primarily

56:47 ↗ the questions she wants you to consider

56:49 ↗ as she's walking through it okay great

56:52 ↗ so then on the draft modal guidelines

56:54 ↗ you will talk us through what's on that

56:56 ↗ page we are going to walk through all of

56:58 ↗ that thank you for your questions and

57:01 ↗ and I do want to reiterate this is just

57:03 ↗ the beginning of the process so you'll

57:04 ↗ have the opportunity along with all of

57:06 ↗ the boards and commissions that Stephen

57:08 ↗ walked through mentioned just now to

57:11 ↗ weigh in on on the modal guidelines for

57:16 ↗ and networks for identifying the gaps in

57:18 ↗ the projects and then when we have a

57:19 ↗ final project list or a draft project

57:21 ↗ list you'll have an opportunity to weigh

57:23 ↗ in on that later in the process so

57:25 ↗ tonight really what we want to get is a

57:28 ↗ sense of are we on the right track are

57:30 ↗ we looking at the right things or are we

57:33 ↗ leaving things out or on the other hand

57:34 ↗ are is there maybe too much on the list

57:37 ↗ that it doesn't make sense to include

57:41 ↗ and feel free as you're looking through

57:43 ↗ to mark up the maps we can collect your

57:45 ↗ notes at the end of the evening or and

57:48 ↗ to stop me and make any comments that

57:51 ↗ that come to mind

57:57 ↗ so the first first focus area is walking

58:02 ↗ so there's really three ways that we're

58:04 ↗ looking at the walking networks

58:06 ↗ sidewalks crosswalks and connectivity

58:09 ↗ and these are building on the pedestrian

58:12 ↗ facilities from the SQL comprehensive

58:14 ↗ plan the walk and roll action strategy

58:16 ↗ and the guiding principles so first

58:19 ↗ looking at sidewalks we took a look at

58:21 ↗ the sidewalk gaps in the city and

58:24 ↗ thinking about where sidewalks are

58:29 ↗ needed as you know there are a number of

58:31 ↗ gaps in the sidewalks in the city and in

58:33 ↗ some places that may be ok taking as our

58:39 ↗ guidelines first that arterials and

58:42 ↗ collectors so your major streets with a

58:43 ↗ lot of traffic should have sidewalks on

58:45 ↗ both sides of the street where there are

58:47 ↗ sidewalks on no sides of the street are

58:49 ↗ just one you see that in red on on the

58:52 ↗ map local streets where speed limits are

58:55 ↗ over 25 miles per hour these draft

58:59 ↗ guidelines are saying there should be

59:00 ↗ sidewalks on at least one side of the

59:02 ↗ street so that where people don't have

59:05 ↗ to walk in the same Lane as higher speed

59:07 ↗ traffic that's shown in yellow on the

59:10 ↗ map so our questions again are is this

59:15 ↗ the right standard to have should every

59:17 ↗ sidewalk or should every local street

59:19 ↗ have sidewalks on both sides or on one

59:21 ↗ side of the street or should it just be

59:24 ↗ in places with higher speeds should

59:27 ↗ arterials and collectors all have

59:29 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the street or

59:30 ↗ are there places where it it's not

59:31 ↗ necessary are you opening that up for

59:36 ↗ our discussion I am absolutely opening

59:38 ↗ that up for your discussion anybody want

59:41 ↗ me to try a other thing here can I ask

59:43 ↗ you a question about this of course give

59:45 ↗ you guys a second to think about it this

59:47 ↗ is making an assumption or it seems like

59:49 ↗ it's making an assumption that walking

59:50 ↗ is only done on sidewalks and you know

59:52 ↗ I'm thinking about some of the multi-use

59:55 ↗ paths say in Bellevue that aren't

59:59 ↗ sidewalks but they they allow for

1:00:02 ↗ multiple use right how does that play

1:00:05 ↗ into this so that plays into this not so

1:00:07 ↗ much in this area

1:00:08 ↗ but later and we didn't necessarily

1:00:11 ↗ create a map for it but in terms of

1:00:13 ↗ connectivity we're looking at sidewalks

1:00:15 ↗ and trails as a single connected network

1:00:18 ↗ with the understanding that if you're

1:00:22 ↗ looking at a major destination trail

1:00:24 ↗ shouldn't be the only way to get there

1:00:25 ↗ because sometimes it's late at night or

1:00:28 ↗ people are using a mobility device and

1:00:30 ↗ it's not convenient or safe for them to

1:00:31 ↗ use a trail but that said we are looking

1:00:34 ↗ at connectivity including it's a closed

1:00:36 ↗ green necklace as one of the factors to

1:00:38 ↗ include in in the networks and then I

1:00:43 ↗ have another question about the map

1:00:45 ↗ where you have these red squiggly lines

1:00:48 ↗ uh-huh I say let's look at squawk

1:00:51 ↗ Mountain for example that's talking

1:00:56 ↗ about an arterial missing it it's hard

1:00:59 ↗ to tell what's the rest of the arterial

1:01:00 ↗ there because it's not marked it's just

1:01:05 ↗ the part that has the doesn't have the

1:01:08 ↗ sidewalk is not just the part that

1:01:12 ↗ doesn't have the sidewalk is marked so

1:01:14 ↗ you would assume that 12th going up from

1:01:15 ↗ Tibbets house sidewalk on both sides

1:01:18 ↗ until you get to that point where you do

1:01:20 ↗ the red squiggly they get shipped at the

1:01:22 ↗ top of the hill see what I mean

1:01:25 ↗ and then where do I go from there you

1:01:27 ↗ know I'm going down by the cemetery I

1:01:29 ↗ think but it's really kind of hard to

1:01:30 ↗ read that part of the map that part has

1:01:35 ↗ sidewalks on both sides correct so would

1:01:38 ↗ it be helpful if we brought out those

1:01:40 ↗ those streets more in the map so it's

1:01:42 ↗ easier to read I don't know maybe it's

1:01:44 ↗ an overlay of what are the arterioles

1:01:46 ↗ and then among the arterioles which are

1:01:49 ↗ the ones that have where are the missing

1:01:51 ↗ gaps yeah I think what's missing from

1:01:54 ↗ this is what are they tie into because I

1:01:56 ↗ think because I know up on top of Bach

1:02:00 ↗ where they have been doing some

1:02:01 ↗ sidewalks up along there and the other

1:02:03 ↗ one down towards the bottom I know

1:02:04 ↗ that's on that's wild what end of that

1:02:06 ↗ road where I live on that it goes up to

1:02:09 ↗ a certain point and then there's no

1:02:10 ↗ sidewalks to go up so I know that's

1:02:13 ↗ continuing but I when it gets up to the

1:02:15 ↗ top of the hill which is to the left

1:02:17 ↗ side of the

1:02:18 ↗ most line has the V drop I don't know

1:02:22 ↗ what it ties into there something nice

1:02:24 ↗ too if this had some sort of I don't

1:02:27 ↗ know if you have it but if this could

1:02:28 ↗ show where it ties into an existing

1:02:30 ↗ sidewalk so you see the whole

1:02:31 ↗ connectivity part of it right so I think

1:02:36 ↗ one thing that we can we can definitely

1:02:38 ↗ change the way that the map is displayed

1:02:39 ↗ to make that clearer so that it's easier

1:02:42 ↗ to get some contacts there what's the

1:02:44 ↗ objective of this map then for us today

1:02:47 ↗ besides discussing the criteria criteria

1:02:49 ↗ so what this map is showing is where

1:02:54 ↗ projects would be included in your

1:02:57 ↗ mobility master plan so if we move

1:03:00 ↗ forward with this approach to saying

1:03:03 ↗ here's where gaps are all of these would

1:03:05 ↗ be included in your mobility master plan

1:03:07 ↗ as a place where sidewalks need to be at

1:03:09 ↗ it if these are the criteria yeah if

1:03:11 ↗ these are the criteria so I have a quite

1:03:13 ↗ a quick question about the day yeah

1:03:14 ↗ because like looking at Newport way

1:03:16 ↗ right theoretically since it's not

1:03:18 ↗ colored either yellow or red it would

1:03:21 ↗ assume being an arterial that it has

1:03:27 ↗ sidewalks at Newport way not have a box

1:03:32 ↗ it has sex of the path sidewalk on both

1:03:35 ↗ sides you have the nice drainage ditch

1:03:37 ↗ they won't pay for and put into pipe but

1:03:40 ↗ they have the basically the road the

1:03:42 ↗ ditch and then there's basically a cross

1:03:44 ↗ or sidewalk on both sides all the way

1:03:46 ↗ down to almost to where the elementary

1:03:49 ↗ school and then there's one that just

1:03:51 ↗ continues on the north side that goes

1:03:52 ↗ all the way through the King County

1:03:55 ↗ library into the whole or good shopping

1:03:59 ↗ area it's not both sides it's kind of a

1:04:03 ↗ age that's fall paths on the side it's

1:04:05 ↗ not like what you would think is a

1:04:07 ↗ perfectly smooth concrete sidewalk it's

1:04:08 ↗ kind of more of a path sidewalk on the

1:04:10 ↗ side of it I'm just thinking about like

1:04:13 ↗ with my neighborhood where the zoo is

1:04:14 ↗ then I mean I know there's a ton of

1:04:16 ↗ development coming in so theoretically

1:04:17 ↗ those developers point will all make it

1:04:20 ↗ nice front edge and then it will be

1:04:24 ↗ but I I think I have to I'm clearly I

1:04:28 ↗ need to pay more attention to the

1:04:29 ↗ sidewalks on that very good thank you I

1:04:32 ↗ guess another question is the definition

1:04:34 ↗ of like how do we define sidewalk and

1:04:37 ↗ how wide is our sidewalks and do we care

1:04:39 ↗ how wide they are is it just as long as

1:04:42 ↗ they're separation of grade or you know

1:04:46 ↗ is there a certain width where there's

1:04:48 ↗ passing comfortable I mean like I'm not

1:04:51 ↗ curious to know what the definition of

1:04:54 ↗ sidewalk is yeah and I'd like to come

1:04:56 ↗ back to your point like looking at

1:04:57 ↗ Newport mm-hmm I know this can be

1:04:59 ↗ planned Street changes there so what I

1:05:04 ↗ can't tell by this is it going to be

1:05:07 ↗ assuming that that's going to have

1:05:08 ↗ sidewalks on both sides it's done or

1:05:12 ↗ this just shows missing gaps of existing

1:05:15 ↗ it's a little bit ours

1:05:17 ↗ shows the whole network of sidewalks

1:05:20 ↗ within I think this shows gaps in the

1:05:23 ↗ existing network and I think Stephen can

1:05:27 ↗ speak more to the the Complete Streets

1:05:31 ↗ guidelines that are in policy that are

1:05:33 ↗ being developed but that can be used to

1:05:36 ↗ address the specific standards that are

1:05:39 ↗ used for these sidewalks oh okay I think

1:05:42 ↗ I think that's an important thing for

1:05:43 ↗ for us to know though is that it's

1:05:46 ↗ important to define the standards as

1:05:48 ↗ these projects are defined Stephen I

1:05:51 ↗ know if you want to have for the

1:05:53 ↗ definition of sidewalks it is typically

1:05:54 ↗ just a great separated walkway pretty

1:05:57 ↗ much yeah okay so an extruded curb would

1:05:59 ↗ cow okay okay then yes Newports way at

1:06:02 ↗ sidewalk so quote yeah because there's

1:06:04 ↗ that extruded curb okay

1:06:13 ↗ alright are there any additional

1:06:15 ↗ comments on just continue on well sound

1:06:20 ↗ there we go

1:06:22 ↗ so then looking at crosswalks again this

1:06:26 ↗ is not the location of all the

1:06:29 ↗ crosswalks we would be proposing but

1:06:31 ↗ these are areas this is helping us to

1:06:33 ↗ define where we would want to look for

1:06:36 ↗ crosswalks to include in the mobility

1:06:39 ↗ master plan so what you see here and

1:06:43 ↗ it's a little bit easier to see in your

1:06:44 ↗ packet then then in on the screen here

1:06:48 ↗ we've identified key destinations so

1:06:51 ↗ these are schools parks community

1:06:55 ↗ facilities there are also community

1:06:57 ↗ destinations defined in your walk and

1:06:59 ↗ roll action strategy in 2015 so that

1:07:01 ↗ does include employers and shopping

1:07:03 ↗ centers as well as police hospitals and

1:07:07 ↗ fire stations those are shown as grey

1:07:09 ↗ dots with a gray ring around them so

1:07:11 ↗ that 600-foot ring also pedestrian

1:07:15 ↗ collisions are shown here in red and red

1:07:19 ↗ dots and bicyclist collisions are shown

1:07:21 ↗ here in yellow diamonds these are the

1:07:23 ↗ areas we would focus on to identify

1:07:26 ↗ crossing improvements and so those

1:07:27 ↗ crossing improvements would be just like

1:07:29 ↗ that could be just like that enhanced

1:07:31 ↗ crossing just just in the neighborhood

1:07:34 ↗ where there's a pedestrian beacon high

1:07:37 ↗ visibility crosswalk and some pedestrian

1:07:38 ↗ crossing signs in some cases you may not

1:07:41 ↗ need all of that infrastructure but

1:07:42 ↗ you'd want to put high visibility

1:07:45 ↗ striping maybe a sign so these and that

1:07:49 ↗ the standards for those are going to be

1:07:51 ↗ defined in the ongoing pedestrian

1:07:54 ↗ crossing guidelines project that that

1:07:56 ↗ you have and you've heard about here so

1:07:59 ↗ our focus area is really where has there

1:08:01 ↗ been collisions that involve pedestrians

1:08:04 ↗ where have there been collisions that

1:08:06 ↗ involve bicyclists and then where are

1:08:09 ↗ people trying to go

1:08:11 ↗ to school to a shopping center to City

1:08:15 ↗ Hall or to another community destination

1:08:26 ↗ and so our question for you again is are

1:08:29 ↗ we on the right track by thinking about

1:08:32 ↗ where the community has already said

1:08:34 ↗ this is a place we'd like to go and

1:08:35 ↗ where we've seen collisions or are there

1:08:37 ↗ other things we should think about as we

1:08:39 ↗ look for places to add crosswalks to the

1:08:41 ↗ system don't see really relation between

1:08:52 ↗ a bicycle collision and a crosswalk in

1:08:56 ↗ some cases that's that's a good question

1:08:58 ↗ so in some cases in actually many cases

1:09:01 ↗ bicyclists use pedestrian facilities to

1:09:04 ↗ cross so when I'm riding my bicycle

1:09:07 ↗ through an intersection I will use the

1:09:10 ↗ pedestrian signal to know if I can

1:09:12 ↗ actually get through safely a lot of

1:09:14 ↗ bicyclist will do that in a lot of other

1:09:16 ↗ cases you'll see collisions at a

1:09:18 ↗ location where a bicyclist might be

1:09:20 ↗ trying to cross the street now we

1:09:23 ↗ haven't done a deep dive into all of

1:09:25 ↗ these collisions to see what was the

1:09:27 ↗ bicyclist or the pedestrian trying to

1:09:28 ↗ cross the street or was there something

1:09:29 ↗ else going on but in a number of cases

1:09:32 ↗ people will be trying to get across the

1:09:35 ↗ street at a location where whether

1:09:38 ↗ they're on a bicycle or or whether

1:09:40 ↗ they're walking it's often the same

1:09:41 ↗ location but if you think it's not

1:09:44 ↗ important we can cut that out and just

1:09:46 ↗ look at the pedestrian collisions Thanks

1:09:52 ↗ a question about reading the map yes as

1:09:55 ↗ I'm looking at it I can recognize it

1:09:59 ↗ seems places where there were collisions

1:10:00 ↗ so as you're kind of pointing my

1:10:02 ↗ attention there but I already know that

1:10:03 ↗ there's an enhanced crosswalk there

1:10:05 ↗ right so this isn't like the other a

1:10:07 ↗ suggested project list yes this is just

1:10:11 ↗ where we're looking to add crosswalks

1:10:12 ↗ where they may not already exist or have

1:10:14 ↗ not already been identified in your

1:10:16 ↗ plans so this doesn't show us the ones

1:10:19 ↗ that are yet to be identified because

1:10:24 ↗ right our question is really are we

1:10:26 ↗ looking in the right places are you

1:10:28 ↗ looking at because you're using the 600

1:10:31 ↗ feet it's 600 feet of common distance

1:10:36 ↗ for other mobility plan plans the 600

1:10:40 ↗ feet from destination how do we come to

1:10:42 ↗ that number it's a number that we've

1:10:44 ↗ we've used in other mobility plans it's

1:10:46 ↗ it's within a few minutes of walk of

1:10:49 ↗ walking time so what we try to do is not

1:10:51 ↗ put and it's also a little bit longer

1:10:54 ↗ than the minimum distance that you would

1:10:56 ↗ recommend for intersections so basically

1:10:59 ↗ we want to make sure that people are not

1:11:00 ↗ going too far out of their way so you

1:11:03 ↗ know a quarter mile out of their way to

1:11:05 ↗ cross the street especially oh go ahead

1:11:08 ↗ they won't do that right and that's one

1:11:11 ↗ of the reasons why we see pedestrian

1:11:13 ↗ collisions for example at a bus stop

1:11:16 ↗ across the street from a destination

1:11:18 ↗ right so people won't go out of their

1:11:20 ↗ way yeah one thing that is when when

1:11:23 ↗ communities put these master plans

1:11:25 ↗ together and they and the community says

1:11:26 ↗ we want convenient access typically 600

1:11:30 ↗ feet is actually that level of distance

1:11:33 ↗ where it's actually a convenient

1:11:34 ↗ distance and then another comment or

1:11:39 ↗ observation I have really have any solid

1:11:41 ↗ thought about it but the it sounds like

1:11:45 ↗ enhanced crosswalk which is not in

1:11:48 ↗ quotes or capitalized or anything is

1:11:50 ↗ quite a wide range of of options so my

1:11:55 ↗ thought was is that find enough to help

1:12:00 ↗ provide direction yeah I don't know

1:12:04 ↗ there are national standards our current

1:12:07 ↗ crossing guidelines do not define it

1:12:11 ↗ well which is why it's getting updated

1:12:13 ↗ right now it's that we do we do very

1:12:17 ↗ good just to add to Stephens comment and

1:12:21 ↗ those national standards are based on

1:12:23 ↗ resource by the Federal Highway

1:12:25 ↗ Administration the specific intervention

1:12:29 ↗ that you might use is based on research

1:12:31 ↗ on whether drivers stop

1:12:34 ↗ given the speeds and the width and and

1:12:37 ↗ how fast and how easily they can see

1:12:39 ↗ okay any other questions or observations

1:12:44 ↗ thank you

1:12:47 ↗ so next and this touches on your

1:12:49 ↗ question about trails so just to note

1:12:52 ↗ that improvements to the sidewalk and

1:12:56 ↗ trail network should prioritize

1:12:57 ↗ connections to residential and

1:12:58 ↗ employment centers major destinations

1:13:00 ↗ and the regional growth center in

1:13:01 ↗ central Issaquah this is really just

1:13:03 ↗ will be just taking a look at the trail

1:13:06 ↗ systems the cities recently updated its

1:13:09 ↗ Park strategic plans so there's a very

1:13:11 ↗ complete and well-defined trails Network

1:13:13 ↗ but we want to make sure that we're

1:13:14 ↗ capturing that in this plan so work

1:13:16 ↗ calling it out here moving on to

1:13:20 ↗ bicycling so I'm sorry I was just

1:13:25 ↗ curious why you didn't include the green

1:13:27 ↗ necklace in there I mean the

1:13:28 ↗ connectivity part cause it seems like

1:13:30 ↗ the perfect spot to include it okay I'm

1:13:34 ↗ just a thought yeah we will make sure to

1:13:37 ↗ call out the green necklace specifically

1:13:38 ↗ as we revised this moving forward it's

1:13:43 ↗ considered in in the connectivity

1:13:45 ↗ criteria just wasn't spelled out here

1:13:53 ↗ alright ok so moving on to bicycling so

1:13:59 ↗ we're looking at the bicycling priority

1:14:01 ↗ network that was developed in the walk

1:14:03 ↗ and roll action strategy and then

1:14:05 ↗ incorporated into this comprehensive

1:14:07 ↗ plan and we're looking at bicycle

1:14:11 ↗ facility standards thinking about them

1:14:14 ↗ in a relationship to who's writing and

1:14:16 ↗ who's willing to ride so you may be

1:14:18 ↗ familiar with the concept of level of

1:14:19 ↗ traffic stress it's a basically a rating

1:14:22 ↗ scale for bicycle facilities level of

1:14:24 ↗ traffic stress one is good it's low

1:14:26 ↗ stress it's limited exposure to traffic

1:14:29 ↗ so very low traffic speeds very low

1:14:31 ↗ traffic volumes often a trail the place

1:14:34 ↗ these are streets and trails and paths

1:14:37 ↗ where children might feel comfortable

1:14:40 ↗ riding where I would feel comfortable

1:14:41 ↗ taking my mom who rarely bikes I'd feel

1:14:44 ↗ comfortable taking around that as you go

1:14:47 ↗ up the level of traffic stress ladder

1:14:50 ↗ level of traffic stress too is

1:14:52 ↗ interested but concerned adults are

1:14:54 ↗ willing to write it it's um there's some

1:14:56 ↗ traffic exposure but not a whole lot

1:14:58 ↗ think a comfortable neighborhood street

1:15:00 ↗ maybe one slightly hairy intersection

1:15:02 ↗ but not bad level of traffic stress 3 is

1:15:05 ↗ a typical adult bicycle commuter as you

1:15:07 ↗ know not that many people ride their

1:15:09 ↗ bikes to work so that's not a whole lot

1:15:12 ↗ of the population who's willing to write

1:15:14 ↗ under these conditions but this is

1:15:15 ↗ actually typical of many bike lanes that

1:15:18 ↗ you see in Issaquah around the region

1:15:21 ↗ level of traffic stress for Stephen said

1:15:25 ↗ I could say this spandex warrior so you

1:15:27 ↗ know those people who will bike anywhere

1:15:29 ↗ in any condition they're very brave

1:15:31 ↗ they're much braver than I am I'm a bike

1:15:33 ↗ commuter they're braver than me but

1:15:35 ↗ there aren't very many of them and so if

1:15:37 ↗ you're trying to build a system that is

1:15:39 ↗ actually useful for your whole

1:15:41 ↗ population you can't design it for the

1:15:43 ↗ people who are comfortable in any

1:15:45 ↗ condition you have to design it for for

1:15:47 ↗ the folks at the other end of the

1:15:48 ↗ spectrum so with that those concept in

1:15:51 ↗ mind we took a look at the network that

1:15:55 ↗ was identified in the walk-n-roll

1:15:57 ↗ strategic action strategy and so that's

1:16:01 ↗ what you see in in yellow lines in the

1:16:03 ↗ background that's what's called out on

1:16:05 ↗ the map

1:16:06 ↗ and then on top of that we looked at the

1:16:08 ↗ existing level of traffic stress so

1:16:12 ↗ based on that we figured level of

1:16:15 ↗ traffic stress 1 or 2 it's pretty good

1:16:17 ↗ right most people are going to be

1:16:19 ↗ willing to write it level of traffic

1:16:21 ↗ stress 3 & 4 which you see here in

1:16:25 ↗ orange and red those need to be improved

1:16:28 ↗ so many of the projects that are going

1:16:31 ↗ to be pulled into this we're already

1:16:33 ↗ identified in the wall control action

1:16:34 ↗ strategy but we want to make sure that

1:16:37 ↗ we are making recommendations that will

1:16:39 ↗ bring those projects to a lower level of

1:16:42 ↗ traffic stress and also identifying any

1:16:44 ↗ any parts that might be missing so as

1:16:46 ↗ you look at this network do you see any

1:16:48 ↗ gaps do you see any connections that

1:16:51 ↗ need to be made question yes just to

1:16:55 ↗ clarify what data I'm looking at so this

1:16:58 ↗ figure 2 shows what the current

1:17:02 ↗ condition of the bike lanes are and then

1:17:05 ↗ the idea would be the recommendation

1:17:11 ↗ would be that we take the areas that are

1:17:13 ↗ level 3 or 4 and we improve those up to

1:17:19 ↗ a level 1 or 2 that's correct

1:17:21 ↗ okay thank you yes and so some of those

1:17:24 ↗ projects are identified in the wok and

1:17:26 ↗ roll action strategy many others may not

1:17:29 ↗ be or may not be at a level of traffic

1:17:32 ↗ stress that would actually be

1:17:33 ↗ comfortable for most riders

1:17:37 ↗ I would like to comment that I'd really

1:17:43 ↗ like to spend some time with this

1:17:44 ↗ because this is an important part of my

1:17:45 ↗ life yes and I know all these droughts

1:17:48 ↗ and and roots I wouldn't be able to give

1:17:51 ↗ you a okay not really solid work right

1:17:55 ↗ now as I'm looking at this but another

1:17:57 ↗ question arises in my mind and that say

1:18:00 ↗ we're looking at a it's like a Gillman

1:18:06 ↗ huh when when we're talking about

1:18:09 ↗ Gillman and improving it's LTS score in

1:18:17 ↗ this tool would we be identifying how we

1:18:20 ↗ would be improving it by perhaps taking

1:18:23 ↗ the bike facility off the road or

1:18:25 ↗ extending the bike lane or you know what

1:18:28 ↗ to what what are we saying about I want

1:18:30 ↗ to lower the stress right so there are a

1:18:34 ↗ lot of ways to identity lower traffic

1:18:36 ↗ stress and as part of the project

1:18:39 ↗ definition that's what we'll be doing so

1:18:41 ↗ where the project hasn't been

1:18:42 ↗ specifically defined by previous plans

1:18:46 ↗ or where there's a gap in those previous

1:18:47 ↗ plans but you say this is an important

1:18:49 ↗ place to put a bike way we'd be defining

1:18:51 ↗ it and saying okay based on what we know

1:18:54 ↗ right now you could improve your bike

1:18:57 ↗ lane that's already there maybe add some

1:19:01 ↗ vertical separation right so it's so

1:19:02 ↗ people are actually farther away and

1:19:04 ↗ improve some intersection treatments and

1:19:06 ↗ that could get you to a better level of

1:19:07 ↗ traffic stress or maybe you there needs

1:19:10 ↗ to be a little bit more planning so that

1:19:12 ↗ you can see can we actually physically

1:19:13 ↗ separate the facility on Gilman to make

1:19:18 ↗ it comfortable for more people right to

1:19:20 ↗ ride just one more clarifying question

1:19:25 ↗ maybe I just didn't say it so how did

1:19:29 ↗ these LTS scores where did they come

1:19:34 ↗ from how did you find them right so we

1:19:38 ↗ conducted an analysis using mapping

1:19:42 ↗ software of all of the streets in the

1:19:44 ↗ city to evaluate the level of traffic

1:19:47 ↗ stress on on all of the streets in the

1:19:48 ↗ city

1:19:49 ↗ and ideally you could perhaps prepare

1:19:52 ↗ you could ideally in an ideal world you

1:19:55 ↗ could reduce level traffic stress on all

1:19:57 ↗ of those streets but that's not

1:19:59 ↗ realistic given the fact that people

1:20:01 ↗ need to drive places and you have a need

1:20:02 ↗ for for high-capacity streets and so we

1:20:06 ↗ took that analysis and layered it on top

1:20:08 ↗ of the corridors that were identified as

1:20:10 ↗ important in the previous plans that

1:20:12 ↗ have been adopted so it's the traffic

1:20:14 ↗ stress and an impression that the

1:20:16 ↗ bicyclist is having or that anybody

1:20:17 ↗ using that corridor is having so so the

1:20:19 ↗ actual score that's the score is based

1:20:22 ↗ on the bicyclist exposure to traffic and

1:20:26 ↗ it's a combination of their physical

1:20:28 ↗ separation from traffic and the speeds

1:20:31 ↗ of traffic and the number of lanes on

1:20:33 ↗ the roadway so kind of taking those all

1:20:35 ↗ together is a way of assessing how

1:20:37 ↗ comfortable a bicyclist is likely to

1:20:39 ↗ feel that's all a mathematical formula

1:20:42 ↗ based on exactly it's based on

1:20:46 ↗ topography speed volume the built

1:20:49 ↗ environment around it it takes into a

1:20:51 ↗ lot of different variables that it

1:20:53 ↗ contributes to a bicyclist stress level

1:20:56 ↗ on the street yeah would part of this be

1:20:58 ↗ part of our goal to recommend where

1:21:00 ↗ there should be bike lanes Cheryl's

1:21:03 ↗ cycle tracks so we'll be coming back to

1:21:08 ↗ you with a project list and that'll be

1:21:10 ↗ more specific about this types of

1:21:12 ↗ facilities that would be recommended but

1:21:14 ↗ tonight we really want to get your sense

1:21:16 ↗ of are we looking at the right things to

1:21:19 ↗ identify those projects or not so are

1:21:22 ↗ they so that like basically the big

1:21:24 ↗ sorry but basically the big categories

1:21:29 ↗ so here where they're accidents so is

1:21:31 ↗ this where we should do crosswalks

1:21:33 ↗ here's what you know a bike network

1:21:35 ↗ could look like based on other planning

1:21:37 ↗ processes the city's done is this

1:21:39 ↗ correct one of the other things I'm

1:21:41 ↗ wondering about just sorry to jump ahead

1:21:43 ↗ is is there's gonna be as the I know we

1:21:48 ↗ don't do zoning but as far as like where

1:21:50 ↗ density you know potential new transit

1:21:53 ↗ facilities are that's going to be one of

1:21:56 ↗ the pieces that determines what a

1:21:59 ↗ prioritization of list

1:22:01 ↗ would assume is like maybe where there's

1:22:03 ↗ the potential for a lot more bodies to

1:22:05 ↗ be moving in is that where we try to

1:22:07 ↗ create you know mobility options first

1:22:10 ↗ so that culture is sort of set as the

1:22:15 ↗ you know as the communities are

1:22:17 ↗ developing or I don't know yes but so

1:22:19 ↗ the context of the built environment I

1:22:22 ↗ think is what you're getting to is will

1:22:23 ↗ be incorporated as part of

1:22:24 ↗ prioritization of where we decide on

1:22:27 ↗ projects but also into the facility

1:22:29 ↗ types as well okay thank you I'm not

1:22:36 ↗ sure if it's a question or comment

1:22:39 ↗ this has looked at most of the arterials

1:22:42 ↗ we're just team bikes right now but

1:22:45 ↗ they're also example when I write I know

1:22:48 ↗ all the back roads and back streets so

1:22:49 ↗ if you go down the backside of the

1:22:53 ↗ library parking garage continue straight

1:22:55 ↗ and you go through the city maintenance

1:22:57 ↗ area and then you get over to another

1:22:59 ↗ parking lot for another building and

1:23:00 ↗ then you cut into near Avenue to try and

1:23:02 ↗ boy traffic is this looking at isn't all

1:23:05 ↗ these different alternate routes

1:23:09 ↗ necessarily not necessarily on an

1:23:11 ↗ arterial but that could be developed

1:23:13 ↗ those could be developed more for bike

1:23:15 ↗ to keep them away from the main roads

1:23:16 ↗ we're getting from one place to another

1:23:18 ↗ place right so it sounds like one thing

1:23:22 ↗ that would be useful for people biking

1:23:24 ↗ in this town would be to have a

1:23:25 ↗ well-defined network of neighborhood

1:23:27 ↗ streets that they can use to get around

1:23:30 ↗ did I understand that correctly or you

1:23:35 ↗ clearly know all those streets so you

1:23:37 ↗ don't need it defined but maybe that's

1:23:39 ↗ something that other people would would

1:23:41 ↗ want to have defined for them yeah I

1:23:43 ↗ think you know that that would be the

1:23:44 ↗ plan that be signed or there would be a

1:23:45 ↗ bike path or a bike route so that people

1:23:47 ↗ would know about it and they could use

1:23:49 ↗ those other ways to keep off the

1:23:52 ↗ mainland's that's that's not shown on

1:23:57 ↗ the map I think it's a great idea for a

1:23:58 ↗ project definition Stephen yeah that's

1:24:01 ↗ that's actually a policy question for

1:24:02 ↗ the tab of should we who should we be

1:24:04 ↗ showing that network as as part of this

1:24:06 ↗ as well

1:24:08 ↗ because that would be you know City

1:24:10 ↗ Seattle does seattle greenways on for

1:24:13 ↗ local neighborhood streets that actually

1:24:15 ↗ qualify as level stress one in most

1:24:18 ↗ cases that would be shown on this

1:24:21 ↗ network as family-friendly network

1:24:22 ↗ connections through the neighborhoods

1:24:24 ↗ but also to all the major destinations

1:24:26 ↗ is that what we want to consider for

1:24:29 ↗ this network as well okay great so what

1:24:37 ↗ based on that feedback we'll take a look

1:24:41 ↗ at this map and revise it to include

1:24:43 ↗ level of traffic stress one facilities

1:24:45 ↗ that are already there that are your

1:24:47 ↗ local streets and one thing that could

1:24:49 ↗ be really useful by doing that is

1:24:52 ↗ actually to identify where there's a gap

1:24:55 ↗ between those two so often and this is

1:24:57 ↗ something we've definitely seen it as

1:24:58 ↗ well you have a very comfortable local

1:25:00 ↗ streets and then in one neighborhood and

1:25:02 ↗ getting across an arterial to the other

1:25:05 ↗ neighborhood where it's comfortable to

1:25:06 ↗ ride your bike is very difficult and

1:25:08 ↗ uncomfortable okay thank you I'd like to

1:25:12 ↗ follow up on that Tom thank you for

1:25:13 ↗ bringing that up as a example in the

1:25:17 ↗ East sunset area if I recall correctly

1:25:21 ↗ or as a bike route that's off sunset and

1:25:24 ↗ then you'd go through the neighborhood

1:25:26 ↗ streets

1:25:26 ↗ nobody wants to do that because they

1:25:29 ↗ want to get where they're going right

1:25:30 ↗ myself included and and so to identify

1:25:33 ↗ that the fact that this criteria

1:25:37 ↗ identifies East Sunset where does a

1:25:39 ↗ place that needs to reduce its traffic

1:25:41 ↗ stress right it seems correct to me yeah

1:25:45 ↗ that's one of them you know like I said

1:25:47 ↗ it would be hard for me to evaluate this

1:25:48 ↗ completely but because that was on

1:25:50 ↗ target it seems like you're in the rut

1:25:53 ↗ going in the right direction

1:25:54 ↗ one thing that's confusing me so anyway

1:25:57 ↗ that at that point people do want to

1:26:00 ↗ travel directly in the shortest route

1:26:01 ↗ when they're on a bike especially if

1:26:03 ↗ they're commuters and they're using it

1:26:04 ↗ for transportation rather than just for

1:26:05 ↗ recreation then just to comment back

1:26:10 ↗ when you're looking at the map and you

1:26:14 ↗ have the low stress route going up to

1:26:18 ↗ Issaquah Highlands

1:26:19 ↗ from Eve sunset the line that is

1:26:22 ↗ identified there is pylons drive which

1:26:25 ↗ is I know means a low stress route on a

1:26:28 ↗ bike but if you take the trail which is

1:26:31 ↗ not on the road this map doesn't

1:26:33 ↗ distinguish that you'd be on the trail

1:26:35 ↗ which is a different little different

1:26:38 ↗ path and maybe too high a level of

1:26:41 ↗ detail but confuse me no thank you for

1:26:45 ↗ for calling that out because that is

1:26:46 ↗ that it's showing the trail segments

1:26:48 ↗ there and so I think it I think we can

1:26:51 ↗ distinguish between those two to make it

1:26:54 ↗ clear that that is a trail especially

1:26:56 ↗ because there are some cases where

1:26:58 ↗ people may not want to use the trail on

1:26:59 ↗ a bicycle maybe it's late at night and

1:27:02 ↗ they don't feel comfortable on a trail

1:27:04 ↗ you know then you got just a big dang

1:27:06 ↗ gap there because you can't get you

1:27:09 ↗ can't right on that road I mean if you

1:27:11 ↗ don't want to take the trail at night

1:27:12 ↗ then you just can't get to violence that

1:27:13 ↗ way actually a connection that you know

1:27:16 ↗ going up to the highlands on that far

1:27:18 ↗ far right and Ringling that I actually I

1:27:22 ↗ walked up that hill just day before

1:27:24 ↗ yesterday and it's a heck of a push on a

1:27:27 ↗ bike through a forest this is a just a

1:27:30 ↗ forest trail that's why I thought it was

1:27:32 ↗ just a forest trail on the right hand

1:27:33 ↗ side right yeah I'm biking mountain

1:27:36 ↗ biking when do it don't cram much low

1:27:38 ↗ traffic stress though is this um does

1:27:47 ↗ anybody else have anything else to

1:27:48 ↗ contribute now I am a little confused

1:27:52 ↗ and it could just be me but so some kind

1:27:55 ↗ of little things and big things so I'm

1:27:58 ↗ not entirely sure all the factors that

1:28:01 ↗ go into how these scores come out I know

1:28:04 ↗ you touched on some of them but I'd be

1:28:05 ↗ really interested and so for example

1:28:07 ↗ like front street like I don't have ever

1:28:09 ↗ ridden a bike on Front Street but I

1:28:10 ↗ don't Fenster it's a terrible place to

1:28:12 ↗ ride a bike and so but there is a trail

1:28:15 ↗ along the side and I ride it several

1:28:17 ↗ times a week so that just makes me

1:28:21 ↗ wonder like what I'm actually looking at

1:28:23 ↗ just below

1:28:24 ↗ the trail well no with just well two

1:28:27 ↗ things one is the trails not there so

1:28:28 ↗ that confuses me and then the fact that

1:28:29 ↗ front streets rated as green is also

1:28:31 ↗ super confusing it's a terrible place to

1:28:33 ↗ ride a bike so I'm just a little

1:28:34 ↗ confused as like the algorithms are

1:28:37 ↗ going here and then the other question I

1:28:39 ↗ have is a little more a bigger question

1:28:40 ↗ and I don't think we're here yeah I

1:28:42 ↗ guess I'm a little confused about

1:28:44 ↗ exactly what kind of feedback works is

1:28:46 ↗ me giving right now but the thing that

1:28:47 ↗ I'm kind of wondering is are we gonna be

1:28:51 ↗ when do we talk about the iton of what

1:28:53 ↗ the strategy is are we going to take

1:28:55 ↗ some of these things they're just not

1:28:56 ↗ great places to ride a bicycle and they

1:28:58 ↗ probably never will be and so how do we

1:29:03 ↗ everything just because it's red doesn't

1:29:05 ↗ mean it needs to be brought up to green

1:29:07 ↗ so how do we decide that I guess I'm

1:29:11 ↗ just a little confused about that like

1:29:13 ↗ the idea of and then and then one

1:29:16 ↗ particular factor that I think would

1:29:17 ↗ sway whether I think we should be

1:29:19 ↗ investing more heavily is is topography

1:29:21 ↗ right so topography and then land use or

1:29:26 ↗ land use projections of course so so

1:29:30 ↗ that would lead you to like you might

1:29:32 ↗ conclude it's really important to make

1:29:35 ↗ sure Gilman is much better place to ride

1:29:36 ↗ a bike because there's obviously a

1:29:39 ↗ developing population center so I guess

1:29:42 ↗ I'm just I'm not quite sure where we are

1:29:43 ↗ in the process in terms of like the

1:29:45 ↗ feedback the other one were you define

1:29:47 ↗ the stress I I think I'm coming to

1:29:52 ↗ though when my kids younger I had never

1:29:57 ↗ heard only write on bypass where you'd

1:29:59 ↗ never write on the street because I

1:30:01 ↗ think having stress level trying to

1:30:03 ↗ bring it up to a place where I write a

1:30:04 ↗ kid I don't think I'd buy my games on

1:30:06 ↗ any of these streets no I commute a lot

1:30:09 ↗ and I write for fun and I'd like to be

1:30:12 ↗ where there's no other cars or traffic

1:30:14 ↗ and I don't feel like gonna be my car

1:30:17 ↗ door opening or have a conflict I look

1:30:19 ↗ at all the back roads as I can doesn't

1:30:21 ↗ commute into Bellevue so if I look at

1:30:23 ↗ this as far as I think I'm really

1:30:26 ↗ confused as far as

1:30:30 ↗ are we approving what we need to come

1:30:34 ↗ for those are really going to be

1:30:35 ↗ fighting on the road and then it's

1:30:38 ↗ probably more the commuter people

1:30:40 ↗ they're going to be riding down the

1:30:41 ↗ roads right I think I'm where I'm going

1:30:47 ↗ with that but I'm trying to think of you

1:30:49 ↗ look away from s quad from point A to

1:30:52 ↗ point B and what roads would they be

1:30:53 ↗ taking and those are the road should be

1:30:56 ↗ improved or noted as I like path if I

1:31:02 ↗ found you mouth main roads they're

1:31:05 ↗ supposed to just thinking about stress

1:31:06 ↗ level ours what are the roads are really

1:31:10 ↗ going to be used for commuter which are

1:31:11 ↗ great connecting or this distance from

1:31:15 ↗ one point to another or it could be a

1:31:17 ↗ little bit longer but if they're off the

1:31:19 ↗ beaten track of try of traffic to

1:31:22 ↗ probably be used more for a bike

1:31:23 ↗ actually going someplace okay so I heard

1:31:28 ↗ to close it does make sense thank you

1:31:29 ↗ and so I heard two questions from from

1:31:32 ↗ Cynthia and Tom the first was what level

1:31:34 ↗ of input is being asked for and and this

1:31:37 ↗ is the level of input that's being asked

1:31:38 ↗ for are we looking at the right places

1:31:40 ↗ by identifying these direct routes that

1:31:42 ↗ have have already been called out in the

1:31:44 ↗ walk and roll action strategy or are

1:31:45 ↗ there other things that we should be

1:31:47 ↗ looking at for example these

1:31:48 ↗ neighborhood streets where more people

1:31:50 ↗ are likely to feel comfortable biking

1:31:52 ↗ and then there there's a second question

1:31:55 ↗ which which is very directly do we look

1:31:58 ↗ at these arterioles and Main streets and

1:32:01 ↗ collectors or do we look at neighborhood

1:32:04 ↗ streets as the place to invest to make

1:32:07 ↗ biking more attractive to more people

1:32:10 ↗ and that's a question for for you which

1:32:13 ↗ is what do you think are your priorities

1:32:15 ↗ and what do you think the community

1:32:17 ↗ would respond to and I've heard both of

1:32:20 ↗ those sides argue that it should be more

1:32:22 ↗ direct and that there should also be a

1:32:23 ↗ neighborhood streets network that's

1:32:26 ↗ quieter that's a process question as

1:32:29 ↗ Steven

1:32:31 ↗ in past and I'm sorry to spring this on

1:32:33 ↗ you because I'm not going to have quite

1:32:34 ↗ sure where this is going by one to make

1:32:37 ↗ sure we had plenty of time to talk about

1:32:38 ↗ the other things too

1:32:39 ↗ and you've said in the past that some

1:32:40 ↗ things might spin off into some

1:32:42 ↗ subgroups to work on things and a finer

1:32:44 ↗ detail and I know that several of us

1:32:47 ↗ have identified ourselves as bicyclists

1:32:48 ↗ and this is a priority it's just one of

1:32:50 ↗ those things you're looking for what how

1:32:53 ↗ could we how could we complete this

1:32:55 ↗ conversation when we have time to think

1:32:57 ↗ about it and be better prepared it's

1:33:00 ↗ exactly that if there is a topic or a

1:33:03 ↗ subject matter that you think that you

1:33:05 ↗ need more time and more more time to

1:33:09 ↗ process and then there's a great example

1:33:11 ↗ of a subcommittee to form and discuss

1:33:14 ↗ that and make a recommendation to the

1:33:15 ↗ full board yes I do do you have anything

1:33:19 ↗ else right now well this is outside the

1:33:21 ↗ scope of this but my commuters are

1:33:24 ↗ pretty willing to show up to a meeting

1:33:26 ↗ to get their opinion there's a lot of

1:33:30 ↗ bike shops in town there's a lot of

1:33:31 ↗ cycling groups in town I don't know if

1:33:33 ↗ it's appropriated within the scope but

1:33:34 ↗ it just seems like it would be really

1:33:36 ↗ easy to pull together 60 to 80 people to

1:33:40 ↗ come in and draw on maps about where

1:33:42 ↗ they ride and that sort of thing if that

1:33:43 ↗ work hasn't already been in but honestly

1:33:45 ↗ maybe some of the questions that I have

1:33:47 ↗ I just because I I don't have the wok

1:33:49 ↗ and roll plan I mean I've looked at it

1:33:50 ↗ but I wasn't I certainly don't have the

1:33:53 ↗ ideas so maybe a lot of that works

1:33:54 ↗ already been done but this just seems

1:33:56 ↗ like a really and we all want more

1:33:59 ↗ engagement out of the community and I

1:34:01 ↗ feel like that's an easy sell to get

1:34:03 ↗ someone to show up to I'm hitting and

1:34:05 ↗ draw maps about where they ride and what

1:34:06 ↗ it's like maybe working through the

1:34:08 ↗ Cascade bike club yeah there's so many

1:34:10 ↗ different ways you network yeah we're

1:34:12 ↗ biking in the area and what they would

1:34:13 ↗ like you know that's Stevens q I'm sorry

1:34:18 ↗ the Cascade Bicycle Club request here

1:34:20 ↗ from Tom yes

1:34:21 ↗ so it's pending confirmation but I'm

1:34:23 ↗ hopefully having a cascade rack come out

1:34:25 ↗ to talk to the tab similar to how we had

1:34:28 ↗ Richard come out and talk from the

1:34:30 ↗ perspective of public health on the

1:34:32 ↗ development of master plan and major

1:34:34 ↗ considerations as you developed a master

1:34:36 ↗ plan in response to Cynthia's comment on

1:34:40 ↗ the wok and roll plan or

1:34:43 ↗ going a little more in depth that's

1:34:45 ↗ think that's exactly what they did with

1:34:46 ↗ the wok and roll plan it was just done

1:34:48 ↗ in 2015 so it's already four years old

1:34:51 ↗ so there's gonna be gaps in the data

1:34:53 ↗ from the wok and roll to what we see

1:34:55 ↗ today and that's something that we can

1:34:57 ↗ definitely try to take on an effort like

1:34:59 ↗ that it'll just we'll have to figure out

1:35:02 ↗ how to squeeze that into the schedule

1:35:04 ↗ the cafe by club does theirs do the

1:35:07 ↗ traffic counts I think in the they do

1:35:12 ↗ annual accounts around the region but

1:35:14 ↗ they're their data is fairly limited for

1:35:16 ↗ it so while I already looked at what

1:35:17 ↗ they have I was thinking you could use

1:35:19 ↗ them for outreach do they have them put

1:35:21 ↗ something bake it but something else

1:35:22 ↗ saying City FS cause having open house

1:35:27 ↗ or something

1:35:28 ↗ if you bike in the area plan to attend

1:35:30 ↗ that way they quickly choose in the

1:35:31 ↗ broadcast information to get people out

1:35:33 ↗ yeah oh I'm just thinking about

1:35:36 ↗ continuing on because we have some more

1:35:38 ↗ things to talk about can and we just say

1:35:43 ↗ and not that don't say that you can

1:35:45 ↗ still contribute to this conversation

1:35:47 ↗ but how could we feel comfortable that

1:35:50 ↗ we're going to come back to this and

1:35:51 ↗ when would we come back to this for

1:35:53 ↗ those of us who want to think about it a

1:35:55 ↗ little bit more and yeah and get back to

1:35:57 ↗ the wok and roll plan and analyze this

1:35:59 ↗ map what would be the next step for us

1:36:01 ↗ to come back to this conversation so are

1:36:03 ↗ you wanting to form a subcommittee since

1:36:05 ↗ we have a question you want to ask it

1:36:08 ↗ even to help us with that and see if we

1:36:10 ↗ could set aside some time to work

1:36:12 ↗ together on this topic I'd say yes

1:36:14 ↗ because this is kind of a playroom I

1:36:16 ↗ think so I mean if we're gonna really

1:36:18 ↗ increase multimodal activity in the city

1:36:21 ↗ bikes like mobility connectivity yeah I

1:36:24 ↗ think all of these topics where we are

1:36:26 ↗ we're feeling like we're we'd like more

1:36:29 ↗ time with it but this one is definitely

1:36:31 ↗ striking a chord that will need some

1:36:33 ↗ help from you to may put together a

1:36:35 ↗ committee okay and was the topic

1:36:37 ↗ specifically on bicycling or an alt

1:36:39 ↗ immortal networks thinking about bikes

1:36:42 ↗ sickling that is I mean you I'll be

1:36:45 ↗ being able to speak to this more

1:36:47 ↗ finnaly but um it's any time you're

1:36:50 ↗ trying to either I used to think about

1:36:51 ↗ marketing to specific groups when you

1:36:54 ↗ can identify them and communicate with

1:36:56 ↗ them then they make it easier to market

1:36:58 ↗ to them and I feel like cyclists

1:36:59 ↗ identify a cyclist they you know there's

1:37:02 ↗ just like I guess I think it's an easy

1:37:06 ↗ an easy way to get public more input

1:37:11 ↗ from the community just they're easy to

1:37:12 ↗ find they're really active they're you

1:37:15 ↗ know they really care a lot and so I

1:37:17 ↗ guess we're talk about two different

1:37:19 ↗ things one is the subcommittee of this

1:37:20 ↗ group the is it a subcommittee or could

1:37:23 ↗ it be a committee with off board members

1:37:27 ↗ as well like an ad-hoc committee that

1:37:30 ↗ had board chaired by the board and then

1:37:34 ↗ other I mean I I don't know I guess I'm

1:37:35 ↗ not true entirely so sure what we're

1:37:36 ↗ solving for so I'm just sort of throwing

1:37:39 ↗ out ideas but I think the answer the

1:37:42 ↗ question is yeah the subcommittee seems

1:37:43 ↗ to be interested in bicycling bicycling

1:37:45 ↗ we can't we want to represent those who

1:37:48 ↗ haven't started bicycling yet for those

1:37:51 ↗ people who do bicycle they know a lot as

1:37:54 ↗ well and they are easy to find and talk

1:37:56 ↗ to and get their opinion okay so yeah

1:37:59 ↗ well we'll follow up with you and

1:38:02 ↗ forming a subcommittee for that and then

1:38:05 ↗ we'll talk about how to incorporate more

1:38:07 ↗ community members in that conversation

1:38:09 ↗ in other ways at the very high level for

1:38:11 ↗ me those four bullets as far as things

1:38:15 ↗ that we would want to connect a network

1:38:17 ↗ to those four bullets make 100% sense to

1:38:21 ↗ me that that would be some criteria that

1:38:23 ↗ we would scream hi Dexter

1:38:25 ↗ thank you any other destinations that

1:38:30 ↗ should be connected besides that's

1:38:32 ↗ what's listed here I know major

1:38:33 ↗ destinations is kind of a catch-all but

1:38:35 ↗ it includes it doesn't really this is

1:38:40 ↗ this is good for making our long list

1:38:42 ↗ but then when it when it comes to

1:38:43 ↗ prioritizing I'd rather be successful in

1:38:46 ↗ areas that we're gonna really prioritize

1:38:48 ↗ the areas we're more likely to be

1:38:50 ↗ successful I just worry about areas I

1:38:52 ↗ want to make sure we're prioritizing I

1:38:54 ↗ don't know if that's part of the plan is

1:38:55 ↗ prioritizing yes Steven I know that

1:39:00 ↗ you've had input from many if not all of

1:39:03 ↗ the team members on the initial project

1:39:05 ↗ prioritization criteria and those do

1:39:08 ↗ take into account about land use yes so

1:39:12 ↗ the the yeah the prioritization that we

1:39:14 ↗ had talked about the the project

1:39:16 ↗ selection criteria that we had talked

1:39:18 ↗ about does taking to account land use

1:39:22 ↗ there's answer the question and then a

1:39:29 ↗ question for me is regional trails are

1:39:34 ↗ those in that list no but they will be

1:39:38 ↗ now just get to one I take it we do have

1:39:50 ↗ some data briefs lakes manage travel the

1:39:53 ↗ actual data you know trip counter is on

1:39:55 ↗ the I think the permanent counter is

1:39:57 ↗ further up north though it is slightly

1:39:59 ↗ further up north yeah but it kind of

1:40:02 ↗ gets you some senses yeah use though

1:40:06 ↗ knowing that we're going to continue to

1:40:08 ↗ work on this I think we'll move along to

1:40:12 ↗ our next topic okay

1:40:15 ↗ okay so the this the topic yeah the

1:40:18 ↗ transit yes yeah next topic

1:40:19 ↗ so the next topic is transit and one

1:40:21 ↗ thing I want to add a little context

1:40:23 ↗ here is that when we talk about transit

1:40:25 ↗ it's often working in in tandem with

1:40:27 ↗ Auto improvements because they're using

1:40:30 ↗ the same streets in the since currently

1:40:34 ↗ the transit that's provided in Issaquah

1:40:35 ↗ is bus transit this isn't quite touching

1:40:38 ↗ on the light rail extension that is

1:40:40 ↗ going to be coming and that this plan

1:40:41 ↗ does does include because that's kind of

1:40:45 ↗ a separate process and we know that's

1:40:46 ↗ happening it's it's budgeted for but

1:40:49 ↗ this is looking at how its oquawka can

1:40:52 ↗ be a better host to transit and what you

1:40:54 ↗ can do as a city to make sure that the

1:40:58 ↗ buses that people in Issaquah

1:41:00 ↗ using our reliable and move at a

1:41:04 ↗ reasonable speed and so the criteria we

1:41:06 ↗ look at and this is a little bit wonky

1:41:08 ↗ but we looked at how does King County

1:41:11 ↗ Metro evaluate its transit lines where

1:41:14 ↗ are the streets where transit lines are

1:41:16 ↗ actually falling below those those

1:41:19 ↗ standards of service so when buses get

1:41:21 ↗ late they get unreliable and that means

1:41:23 ↗ that people miss appointments they're

1:41:25 ↗ late to work they lose a job or they're

1:41:27 ↗ late to school none of that is okay so

1:41:29 ↗ we want to ensure that streets are our

1:41:32 ↗ good hosts to transit and so looking at

1:41:35 ↗ this we looked at where those transit

1:41:38 ↗ lines are and there's a number of

1:41:40 ↗ transit lines here but where are those

1:41:41 ↗ transit lines and on what streets are

1:41:44 ↗ they traveling where transit is falling

1:41:47 ↗ below Kent County Metro standards and so

1:41:51 ↗ when we look at these streets we're

1:41:53 ↗ thinking about them as locations for

1:41:55 ↗ potential improvements and what about

1:41:57 ↗ what does that mean when we say

1:41:58 ↗ improvements for transit so that means

1:42:02 ↗ specific improvements like transit

1:42:05 ↗ signal priority at some of these signals

1:42:07 ↗ so that transit vehicles can can go

1:42:10 ↗ through the signal and extend the green

1:42:11 ↗ phase and not get stuck behind a red

1:42:13 ↗ light in some cases capacity improvement

1:42:16 ↗ some of those are already identified in

1:42:18 ↗ your concurrency planning which is your

1:42:19 ↗ long-range planning to add capacity for

1:42:21 ↗ growth in other cases there may be

1:42:24 ↗ things like a cue jump lane where a bus

1:42:26 ↗ can pull ahead of a queue of traffic or

1:42:29 ↗ a right turn lane that also prioritizes

1:42:31 ↗ transit there's a number of different

1:42:34 ↗ strategies that you can employ to make

1:42:37 ↗ streets more attractive for transit and

1:42:39 ↗ I also wanted to add that your strategic

1:42:42 ↗ plan is identifying a transit plan as a

1:42:45 ↗ next step within the next five years for

1:42:51 ↗ the city to go into depth on so this

1:42:53 ↗ this will be looked at in greater depth

1:42:54 ↗ there but we wanted to make sure to

1:42:56 ↗ identify locations where transit could

1:42:59 ↗ be improved at this point and so we

1:43:02 ↗ wanted to ask you is this the right

1:43:05 ↗ location should we be looking at where

1:43:06 ↗ buses are running late or are there

1:43:08 ↗ other things that we should be keeping

1:43:10 ↗ in mind as we start to look for

1:43:12 ↗ potential transit

1:43:14 ↗ provements yeah so I had a question is

1:43:18 ↗ there a reason why school buses for a

1:43:21 ↗ for example like I miss quad high school

1:43:24 ↗ school buses weren't included on this

1:43:28 ↗ because it's talking about the lateness

1:43:32 ↗ for just in County Metro right I know

1:43:36 ↗ for example like there's bus lines for

1:43:39 ↗ HS that consistently run late so I was

1:43:42 ↗ wondering why that would not be included

1:43:44 ↗ school buses are typically ran by the

1:43:46 ↗ school districts which is usually not

1:43:50 ↗ part of the city planning process but

1:43:51 ↗ that is actually an important point that

1:43:53 ↗ the school buses are being impacted by

1:43:55 ↗ the same congestion company brings up an

1:43:58 ↗ interesting point if you made a right

1:43:59 ↗ turn lane that prioritized only buses

1:44:02 ↗ would that include school buses that's

1:44:04 ↗ it could it that's a good question I I

1:44:07 ↗ believe that it could but I'm not

1:44:09 ↗ familiar of any place where it does

1:44:11 ↗ that's that just you know I'm not an

1:44:15 ↗ expert on on bus and school bus

1:44:17 ↗ integration so that's something we can

1:44:19 ↗ definitely look into a little

1:44:20 ↗ interesting point yeah absolutely I

1:44:26 ↗ think there's a strategic thing we needs

1:44:31 ↗ are the next generations computer

1:44:32 ↗ commuters right the next generations

1:44:34 ↗ workforce and if we're making it I mean

1:44:37 ↗ I my kids went to high school they hated

1:44:39 ↗ taking the bus but if the bus is faster

1:44:41 ↗ than the alternatives I mean what do I

1:44:43 ↗ think it's an investment that we

1:44:46 ↗ consider even if it's not necessarily in

1:44:48 ↗ our jurisdiction there's still things we

1:44:50 ↗ could do to encourage that if we decide

1:44:51 ↗ that's important and then the other

1:44:53 ↗ thing I was just going to add is I think

1:44:56 ↗ kind of thinking strategically anytime

1:44:58 ↗ you can make a bus more competitive than

1:45:00 ↗ a car right everybody wins

1:45:02 ↗ everybody wins and so I think that even

1:45:05 ↗ though we don't control I mean it's a

1:45:06 ↗ really interesting head and thought

1:45:07 ↗ about the fact even though we don't

1:45:08 ↗ control King County Metro we can make it

1:45:09 ↗ more transit friendly make it easier and

1:45:11 ↗ I think anything we can do to make

1:45:13 ↗ you're sitting in your car and a bus

1:45:15 ↗ goes fine because they get to go and you

1:45:17 ↗ don't I mean we're just trying to

1:45:19 ↗ compete some extent so

1:45:23 ↗ one thing I'd like that is that

1:45:25 ↗ typically when city planning process

1:45:28 ↗ considers improvements to access to

1:45:29 ↗ schools they actually move in the form

1:45:31 ↗ of actually redefining the bus routes to

1:45:35 ↗ connect directly to the school so that

1:45:37 ↗ you have more bus routes going to the

1:45:38 ↗ schools so the schools rely less on

1:45:40 ↗ their own bus system versus building the

1:45:44 ↗ improvements directly for bus service

1:45:45 ↗ are those school buses so that's just

1:45:48 ↗ one thing to consider I guess I just

1:45:50 ↗ mainly I think it's the strategic

1:45:52 ↗ objective to make that a positive

1:45:53 ↗ experience by whatever mode yeah and

1:45:56 ↗ Curran recognized that's an investment

1:45:58 ↗ in the next generation of workforce

1:46:02 ↗ especially because buses are on their

1:46:04 ↗ own it's the exact same time we're all

1:46:06 ↗ its trying to get to work interesting

1:46:09 ↗ thinking about that fundamental changes

1:46:11 ↗ of having school buses since they're

1:46:13 ↗ just used in the morning used in the

1:46:15 ↗ afternoon is the King County Metro buses

1:46:17 ↗ for school buses so you know maintain

1:46:19 ↗ two completely separately wait those

1:46:21 ↗ buses mmm

1:46:22 ↗ and they've had a parity built into it

1:46:23 ↗ the technology built into it already

1:46:25 ↗ they could be used as school buses for

1:46:28 ↗ the run to morning runs and then go back

1:46:30 ↗ to the yeah to the other bus routes and

1:46:34 ↗ the key Canty does offer a school pool

1:46:37 ↗ program and actually has active projects

1:46:40 ↗ in Issaquah working with the school

1:46:42 ↗ district to get more connections

1:46:44 ↗ alternative connections to the schools

1:46:45 ↗ but not to the full extent of running a

1:46:48 ↗ whole nother bus route ran by metro to

1:46:50 ↗ get students to the schools sure if like

1:46:52 ↗ in Seattle that the have a bus car that

1:46:55 ↗ the students can use the Metro buses for

1:46:57 ↗ getting to school I believe last year

1:47:03 ↗ the year before City Seattle's put it in

1:47:06 ↗ their budget to actually start giving

1:47:08 ↗ high school students or capacités so am

1:47:13 ↗ i hearing some interest in having an

1:47:15 ↗ additional criteria under number three

1:47:18 ↗ transit besides improving reliability on

1:47:21 ↗ corridors where the lateness threshold

1:47:24 ↗ is high it's something that prioritizes

1:47:27 ↗ school transportation

1:47:29 ↗ school mass transportation

1:47:32 ↗ language about that we start identifying

1:47:37 ↗ it yeah whether it is seeking

1:47:40 ↗ opportunities to expand King County

1:47:44 ↗ Metro service to serve the school's

1:47:46 ↗ better or to include schools in

1:47:49 ↗ prioritization access whatever it is but

1:47:53 ↗ to call out schools in that number three

1:47:55 ↗ seeing they're here in that nodding

1:47:58 ↗ something maybe you guys could figure

1:47:59 ↗ out how to raise something like that

1:48:01 ↗ yeah well put our heads together and I

1:48:06 ↗ have one more thing about the map go

1:48:09 ↗ ahead I was just gonna say I don't know

1:48:12 ↗ if others agree but I also just think

1:48:13 ↗ this idea it was all about just making

1:48:16 ↗ it more competitive that just

1:48:18 ↗ specifically trying to make it more

1:48:20 ↗ competitive so the streets that so this

1:48:22 ↗ we're adding to this list make

1:48:24 ↗ investments to improve reliability and

1:48:26 ↗ maybe that's the same thing it's just

1:48:28 ↗ making a better experience but for

1:48:31 ↗ whether it's school or not school to

1:48:33 ↗ think about the experience and having to

1:48:35 ↗ compete and maybe that's all captured

1:48:37 ↗ and then language you already have in

1:48:39 ↗ but we just we talked about maybe we

1:48:42 ↗ defined best can be any I'm not I'm at

1:48:44 ↗ the school thing I'm talking about the

1:48:47 ↗ idea of making buses have a better

1:48:49 ↗ priority on the streets you're talking

1:48:52 ↗ about the user experience more so than

1:48:54 ↗ just speed reliability is that what

1:48:57 ↗ you're saying I guess I'm wondering is

1:48:59 ↗ is reliability see to me if it takes 50

1:49:02 ↗ minutes but it always takes 50 minutes

1:49:03 ↗ that's reliable if I can get it to take

1:49:06 ↗ 42 minutes then it's competing with a

1:49:09 ↗ car so those I see those as two separate

1:49:11 ↗ things

1:49:11 ↗ efficiency more than reliability maybe

1:49:14 ↗ reliability and making it trying to make

1:49:16 ↗ it more reliability is a big thing for

1:49:19 ↗ example when I take the bus to Bellevue

1:49:20 ↗ it's always

1:49:21 ↗ because I'm only the second stop from

1:49:23 ↗ the Scott ran Center for coming home it

1:49:24 ↗ comes from North Gate and it's never on

1:49:26 ↗ time oh it's the point where it's just

1:49:28 ↗ unreliable I don't know if this can be

1:49:30 ↗ five minutes late or 30 minutes late so

1:49:32 ↗ I would be the reliability I'm not

1:49:34 ↗ saying reliability is not important I'm

1:49:36 ↗ saying there's a different goal besides

1:49:37 ↗ reliability and that's to actually make

1:49:39 ↗ it faster so people are gonna maybe be

1:49:42 ↗ more motivated to do it are you saying

1:49:44 ↗ to increase the standard perhaps not

1:49:47 ↗ that the lateness standard that the

1:49:49 ↗ lateness standard is perhaps not enough

1:49:51 ↗ it's not good enough to be reliable it

1:49:55 ↗ has to be faster is that what you're

1:49:57 ↗ saying I agree with that I think that's

1:49:59 ↗ what I'm trying to say my merits or

1:50:00 ↗ anything big here about what we want

1:50:02 ↗ this plan to include and I think if we

1:50:03 ↗ can make if there's anything that's in

1:50:05 ↗ the power of the city of Issaquah to

1:50:07 ↗ make transit faster and more competitive

1:50:10 ↗ with alternative with driving alone and

1:50:14 ↗ you just mentioned at the beginning of

1:50:15 ↗ this there are things you can do that I

1:50:17 ↗ hadn't thought of to make them give the

1:50:19 ↗ gift buses a priority as you're moving

1:50:21 ↗ through the city I would be supportive

1:50:23 ↗ of that and I'm wondering if if there's

1:50:25 ↗ nods then I guess we would be it mm-hmm

1:50:27 ↗ I think asking you to add that unless

1:50:29 ↗ you're telling me it's already captured

1:50:30 ↗ in a but a is about reliability it is

1:50:34 ↗ more about speed and reliability more so

1:50:35 ↗ than convenience which is how Metro kind

1:50:37 ↗ of defines that time factor of again

1:50:40 ↗ convenience so first part you said

1:50:43 ↗ reliability to you means what the speed

1:50:46 ↗ reliability is what's captured in the

1:50:48 ↗ language now is captured with dissonant

1:50:51 ↗ speed is but but it it's Metro looks at

1:50:55 ↗ it different from convenience so is it

1:50:58 ↗ shorter than the auto trip factor the

1:51:03 ↗ speed is is it able to maintain its own

1:51:05 ↗ speed not necessarily making the trip

1:51:06 ↗ faster than the auto

1:51:14 ↗ so present actionable to try to make it

1:51:19 ↗ more competitive with driving alone is

1:51:21 ↗ that a policy that could be that we

1:51:23 ↗ should consider or is that just it is a

1:51:25 ↗ policy we can consider it is it's just

1:51:31 ↗ the question of feasibility as we look

1:51:33 ↗ through the project let's layer on that

1:51:34 ↗ that will be under further consideration

1:51:36 ↗ yeah I have one more question I have two

1:51:45 ↗ questions sorry in biking we identified

1:51:48 ↗ these criteria of priorities of major

1:51:54 ↗ destination transit hubs when it comes

1:51:58 ↗ to transit it's only transit hubs so for

1:52:00 ↗ instance serving major employment

1:52:03 ↗ locations his centers is not considered

1:52:06 ↗ a priority for transit that seems like a

1:52:10 ↗ missing opportunity there especially

1:52:13 ↗ when we have such a huge employer and

1:52:15 ↗ growing even more in what would be a

1:52:18 ↗ desert on the north side of i90 right

1:52:21 ↗ there with no increase in transit

1:52:26 ↗ service so should we include making

1:52:32 ↗ investments in order to serve transit

1:52:36 ↗ that gets you to employment centers as

1:52:39 ↗ well as transit hubs and schools and

1:52:42 ↗ schools that would be part of the

1:52:44 ↗ school's one good idea okay yeah

1:52:48 ↗ employment centers to schools in some

1:52:50 ↗ way as another destination priority for

1:52:53 ↗ transit yeah some Depot Costco all that

1:53:00 ↗ yeah and we have no transit service to

1:53:03 ↗ like some interstate park or

1:53:05 ↗ improvements to that maybe we it's

1:53:06 ↗ adequate already okay and then my last

1:53:09 ↗ question had to do with the the way the

1:53:11 ↗ map was written it says future a light

1:53:13 ↗ rail station area I don't know if I've

1:53:16 ↗ ever seen it this way before

1:53:17 ↗ is it really already defined and should

1:53:20 ↗ we include it and tell this before it is

1:53:22 ↗ defined that's a good question

1:53:25 ↗ we wanted to include it just for your

1:53:27 ↗ reference because

1:53:28 ↗ that's where it's been discussed as as

1:53:30 ↗ being located but we can remove it if

1:53:31 ↗ that's going it's currently where some

1:53:33 ↗ Transit has their dot yeah we could also

1:53:42 ↗ note that that's as defined by San

1:53:44 ↗ transit yeah okay important to keep it

1:53:47 ↗ there you could how well what I was

1:53:48 ↗ going to suggest as an alternative that

1:53:51 ↗ the regional growth center okay is the

1:53:54 ↗ qualifying feature right so couldn't we

1:53:57 ↗ use the regional growth center

1:53:59 ↗ boundaries to say that that that's the

1:54:02 ↗ destination or the location or light

1:54:08 ↗ rail station is somewhere in the

1:54:10 ↗ regional center because that's what's

1:54:11 ↗ qualifying for the light okay yeah well

1:54:15 ↗ did that be fair because this just is

1:54:17 ↗ too limiting right here the creative

1:54:20 ↗ thoughts I've heard ultimately the the

1:54:22 ↗ conversation on what are the transit

1:54:25 ↗ plan what our full citywide network is

1:54:27 ↗ going to look like it's gonna be

1:54:28 ↗ parallel to a conversation of where

1:54:30 ↗ should light rail go

1:54:32 ↗ so they'll complement each other when we

1:54:34 ↗ go through that process so I think it's

1:54:35 ↗ fair to kind of go that's what to do

1:54:37 ↗ that change excellent thank you and that

1:54:39 ↗ was all I had anybody else have any

1:54:41 ↗ other thoughts before we move on to the

1:54:42 ↗ next topic we are I mean the routes here

1:54:50 ↗ these are all regional we're going to

1:54:51 ↗ someplace else they don't show the key

1:54:55 ↗ browsers that are within this because

1:54:56 ↗ there was a bust about that goes west

1:54:57 ↗ Lake Sammamish Road and we're just way

1:54:59 ↗ out the back way to this

1:55:02 ↗ so when will revise this map to show all

1:55:05 ↗ of the routes not just the ones that are

1:55:07 ↗ currently run late right yeah right

1:55:11 ↗ thank you okay great thanks you guys

1:55:15 ↗ that was very productive the last

1:55:16 ↗ section and we are a little behind

1:55:19 ↗ schedule but do you think that we can

1:55:20 ↗ finish this in five or ten minutes okay

1:55:26 ↗ hanging out for another ten finishing

1:55:28 ↗ the next section which is autos Sara

1:55:30 ↗ Sears again all right thank you so we

1:55:33 ↗ looked for autos at three focus areas

1:55:35 ↗ connectivity improved traffic flow and

1:55:38 ↗ safety I just want to point out

1:55:40 ↗ connectivity and improve traffic flow

1:55:41 ↗ are things that the city has already

1:55:43 ↗ taken pretty in-depth looks at and so

1:55:45 ↗ we're gonna kind of breeze through those

1:55:47 ↗ and show you maps from existing and

1:55:49 ↗ adopted plants and then we'll focus in

1:55:51 ↗ on safety so this builds of course on

1:55:55 ↗ the level of service standard adopted in

1:55:57 ↗ the SQL comprehensive plan the

1:56:00 ↗ concurrency planning that you've been

1:56:01 ↗ doing the planning for the central

1:56:03 ↗ Issaquah regional growth center and then

1:56:06 ↗ the guiding principles for the mobility

1:56:07 ↗ master plan which mentioned safety

1:56:09 ↗ specifically first looking at

1:56:12 ↗ connectivity this goal is to build a

1:56:15 ↗ connected street grid that prioritizes

1:56:17 ↗ the movement of people and goods

1:56:18 ↗ including building out the proposed

1:56:19 ↗ street grid in the central Issaquah plan

1:56:21 ↗ in tandem with new development so as

1:56:23 ↗ that new development comes in it pays

1:56:25 ↗ its fair share of building out the

1:56:28 ↗ street grid and that's what you see here

1:56:30 ↗ in purple dashed lines that's the street

1:56:34 ↗ grid in the central Issaquah plan and

1:56:37 ↗ then supporting new i-90 crossings where

1:56:40 ↗ feasible so again our question here is

1:56:45 ↗ are these the right priorities that we

1:56:47 ↗ should think about when it comes to

1:56:48 ↗ connectivity are there other priorities

1:56:50 ↗ that we should think about

1:56:55 ↗ the comments me can you help me I'm

1:57:02 ↗ trying to see a good definition of in

1:57:04 ↗ tandem it says strong enough language

1:57:07 ↗ for really what people are trying to it

1:57:11 ↗ done so that the infrastructure is built

1:57:14 ↗ with the development is in tandem

1:57:16 ↗ concurrent I mean not concurrency not

1:57:19 ↗ the six year thing but the right

1:57:23 ↗ alternatives to in tandem synonyms I

1:57:27 ↗ mean is that sorry is that what you

1:57:30 ↗ would you could you say must precede the

1:57:34 ↗ completion of new development would that

1:57:37 ↗ be another I don't know you know people

1:57:40 ↗ are looking for some real security here

1:57:43 ↗ and that infrastructure will be done

1:57:45 ↗ when the development new development is

1:57:47 ↗ being used

1:57:50 ↗ I mean if it's required as part of their

1:57:52 ↗ belt like if they don't get occupancy

1:57:55 ↗ until they built the street that they

1:57:57 ↗ promise to build then that's the

1:58:00 ↗ assurance but I don't know that's why

1:58:05 ↗ you're here Sheldon what do you want to

1:58:06 ↗ say about that

1:58:16 ↗ no no I think this is above my pay grade

1:58:18 ↗ but I just feel it experience them isn't

1:58:22 ↗ like wasn't so I can't really and that

1:58:27 ↗ percentage I'm feeling just a little bit

1:58:29 ↗ too cliche as far as movement of people

1:58:31 ↗ and goods for building the street

1:58:32 ↗ network is for us did he around

1:58:35 ↗ nonetheless over half Goods and delivery

1:58:37 ↗ trucks finding the back streets I

1:58:39 ↗ think's gonna be put on the main roads

1:58:42 ↗ right so then would you work us for

1:58:47 ↗ connectivity within the city okay

1:58:51 ↗ so then would you would you take out the

1:58:53 ↗ language prioritizes the movement of

1:58:55 ↗ people and goods and just say connected

1:59:00 ↗ Street now connect to the street grid

1:59:02 ↗ period I would say bill to connect a

1:59:06 ↗ street grid that allows okay and then

1:59:17 ↗ another language strength crossings

1:59:21 ↗ where feasible well but that were

1:59:24 ↗ feasible because nobody wants to pay for

1:59:25 ↗ it you know it's when is it feasible I

1:59:28 ↗ mean how would we ever get these things

1:59:29 ↗ if we just said whenever it was feasible

1:59:31 ↗ it weren't either

1:59:32 ↗ yeah I don't know something stronger so

1:59:45 ↗ feasibility you could have some

1:59:47 ↗ conditions that would render a project

1:59:50 ↗ alignment in a condition such that you

1:59:53 ↗ could not permit it while you may be

1:59:56 ↗ able to find the millions to build it

1:59:58 ↗ you may never get permits for it

2:00:00 ↗ so feasibility is probably more subject

2:00:03 ↗ to financing as well as can you get it

2:00:08 ↗ permitted okay yeah yeah I mean feasible

2:00:12 ↗ so feasible feasible maybe

2:00:16 ↗ I don't think I have an answer for these

2:00:21 ↗ questions I'm just bringing them up okay

2:00:24 ↗ darn permits so I have a couple things

2:00:33 ↗ and I think maybe it gets at Sheldon's

2:00:36 ↗ point like Billa connected Street grid

2:00:37 ↗ like we're gonna go build a street grid

2:00:39 ↗ like what do you mean except for

2:00:40 ↗ under-eye 90 crossings or greenfield

2:00:42 ↗ development I'm not understanding how

2:00:46 ↗ this is really gonna happen like we're

2:00:48 ↗ actually talking about putting news I

2:00:50 ↗ mean I think this grid system is way

2:00:54 ↗ better than the old you know curvilinear

2:00:57 ↗ dead inside you know cul-de-sac type of

2:01:00 ↗ thing so if we're saying we want to

2:01:01 ↗ promote more of a grid where there is

2:01:03 ↗ greenfield develop a lot of greenfield

2:01:05 ↗ development I guess I'm just wondering

2:01:06 ↗ what we really mean about where we're

2:01:08 ↗ gonna build a connected street grid

2:01:12 ↗ right so so just to add some context so

2:01:19 ↗ so this is what has been adopted in the

2:01:21 ↗ cities the central Issaquah planned for

2:01:23 ↗ for this central in supply so I'll

2:01:25 ↗ repeat that again and so what you see

2:01:29 ↗ here is the connected street grid in

2:01:30 ↗ central disco which is not greenfield

2:01:32 ↗ development but build developed it is

2:01:34 ↗ not yet built so those are they're just

2:01:36 ↗ showing roads that are concept's that

2:01:39 ↗ don't exist and we're talking about

2:01:40 ↗ building out yes exactly and are these

2:01:42 ↗ the roads that are proposed based on

2:01:46 ↗ where we think development is like so

2:01:48 ↗ you know yes a developer X wants to

2:01:51 ↗ build twenty new houses here so as part

2:01:53 ↗ of their impact fees there or whatever

2:01:56 ↗ they're gonna be required to build this

2:01:58 ↗ stretch of road is that what that means

2:02:03 ↗ what this is this is a in adopted plan

2:02:08 ↗ by the City Council and the purple lines

2:02:11 ↗ they are all new roads and the intent

2:02:14 ↗ and the plan was to demonstrate or to

2:02:17 ↗ show where improvements to the grid

2:02:20 ↗ could be made to support the growth

2:02:21 ↗ within the central Issaquah when a

2:02:25 ↗ property redevelops you're correct

2:02:28 ↗ there's no green fields there's only

2:02:29 ↗ brown fields left the the property

2:02:35 ↗ however much overlaps with that new

2:02:39 ↗ Street alignment would be responsible

2:02:42 ↗ for dedicating and possibly building

2:02:45 ↗ that road it depends upon the density

2:02:46 ↗ that they're going to be building but

2:02:49 ↗ you know there's a number of things in

2:02:50 ↗ there but the idea is that at that time

2:02:52 ↗ when the development occurs the road

2:02:55 ↗ would get built okay so I wanted to

2:02:58 ↗ finish the common I was gonna say first

2:03:00 ↗ of all thank you I was just really

2:03:01 ↗ looking down at the page and I just

2:03:03 ↗ thinking generally and I wasn't paying

2:03:04 ↗ attention to your slide so now it makes

2:03:06 ↗ a lot of sense and I'm all for it

2:03:07 ↗ because I think that is it wise I think

2:03:10 ↗ yeah so sorry it's a lot of catching up

2:03:13 ↗ but I I don't you're gonna have an

2:03:15 ↗ equally compelling specific slide for B

2:03:17 ↗ but that sounds like hey if you want to

2:03:19 ↗ get rich get a million dollars like find

2:03:21 ↗ solutions that improve vehicle flow I

2:03:23 ↗ mean it just seems so broad I'm not sure

2:03:25 ↗ if we that's not a policy to me that's a

2:03:28 ↗ wish I guess we all want vehicle flow to

2:03:35 ↗ be and we want to preserve JA I mean

2:03:37 ↗ that's what we're doing all this right

2:03:39 ↗ it just seems so I don't know that I

2:03:42 ↗ wrote like do with that that just feels

2:03:43 ↗ like yeah I just didn't know what to do

2:03:50 ↗ with that one okay

2:03:53 ↗ would it help for me to advance to the

2:03:55 ↗ next slide so we can put that in context

2:03:57 ↗ yeah it's got the answer

2:03:59 ↗ city already has an answer so what you

2:04:02 ↗ see here and this is not a great

2:04:04 ↗ representation not on the big screen but

2:04:06 ↗ these this is where the city has

2:04:08 ↗ identified projects for its 20-year

2:04:11 ↗ concurrency plan so what that plan does

2:04:14 ↗ is it identifies the projects that are

2:04:17 ↗ needed and this is in your comprehensive

2:04:18 ↗ plan the projects that are needed to

2:04:20 ↗ maintain an adequate level of service

2:04:23 ↗ defined as minimizing delay at

2:04:26 ↗ intersections for autos passing through

2:04:28 ↗ those intersections these are the

2:04:31 ↗ projects that are needed to maintain the

2:04:32 ↗ city's current adopted standard so these

2:04:35 ↗ projects have already been defined by

2:04:36 ↗ the city they're broadly in order to

2:04:39 ↗ improve vehicle flow on arterial streets

2:04:42 ↗ that experience congestion so that

2:04:43 ↗ people can get to to jobs and businesses

2:04:46 ↗ should be unde or implement the

2:04:50 ↗ solutions because it sounded like yes

2:04:53 ↗ that work hadn't been done yet and now

2:04:54 ↗ it sounds like there's a lot of great

2:04:55 ↗ work that's been done okay that feels

2:05:00 ↗ more like yeah this new experience of

2:05:03 ↗ the previous slide is like it on words

2:05:05 ↗ seemed too big but now I see this

2:05:07 ↗ graphic so I kind of get more what

2:05:09 ↗ you're saying it seems more specific

2:05:11 ↗ okay it doesn't say what the solution is

2:05:14 ↗ that the solutions the visual on the

2:05:16 ↗ right those are the locations those

2:05:18 ↗ aren't the solutions are they there's no

2:05:20 ↗ places that need improvement the yeah

2:05:22 ↗ and the specific improvements have been

2:05:24 ↗ identical yeah so they're certainly like

2:05:26 ↗ left turn lanes are roundabouts aresome

2:05:28 ↗ yeah right and we can send you the

2:05:35 ↗ latest CIP that was adopted by council

2:05:38 ↗ that tells you exactly what the

2:05:40 ↗ improvements are for each of these

2:05:41 ↗ it wouldn't be Bank solutions would it

2:05:44 ↗ it wasn't just me implement solutions

2:05:46 ↗ right we've already found this that's

2:05:49 ↗ kind of what I was confused

2:05:50 ↗ studying the memo

2:05:52 ↗ and then I look up and there's this

2:05:53 ↗ graphic and so now I'm just trying to

2:05:54 ↗ reconcile the wards maybe there in front

2:05:57 ↗ of this page and that yeah so a and B I

2:06:02 ↗ had the same reaction to these like this

2:06:03 ↗ broad thing and then without that it's

2:06:06 ↗ actually much more defined you're a lot

2:06:07 ↗ further along at the the when it comes

2:06:10 ↗ to traffic flow and if it's the

2:06:13 ↗ intersections that we are the most ahead

2:06:14 ↗ on that than anything else because

2:06:17 ↗ that's all the city is really focused on

2:06:19 ↗ when it came to concurrency level

2:06:21 ↗ servers and major project improvements

2:06:23 ↗ the walk and roll plan was the first

2:06:24 ↗ plan that developed more major

2:06:26 ↗ non-motorized projects which is why we

2:06:29 ↗ have that list of projects but it's

2:06:30 ↗ still as you saw not as extensively as

2:06:33 ↗ we'd like it to be so there's a lot more

2:06:36 ↗ work that needs to go into a lot of it

2:06:38 ↗ still but this is where a lot more years

2:06:41 ↗ of work has gone into this yeah maybe if

2:06:44 ↗ we just change the language to

2:06:45 ↗ straighten up the language on a and B

2:06:47 ↗ and so cuz fine feels like you don't

2:06:50 ↗ know what you're supposed to do so

2:06:51 ↗ there's a buddy work out sounds like we

2:06:53 ↗ already have like over here put it

2:06:56 ↗ around about over here put in a proof

2:06:59 ↗ sight distance whatever I'm good okay

2:07:02 ↗ thank you then we go to C right so as

2:07:08 ↗ you've just discussed there are quite a

2:07:11 ↗ number of there's quite a lot of work

2:07:13 ↗ that's already gone into looking at

2:07:14 ↗ making new Street connections and

2:07:16 ↗ improving traffic flow one area where

2:07:20 ↗ projects haven't been fully identified

2:07:21 ↗ is where safety improvements might be

2:07:24 ↗ needed and so we looked at that at the

2:07:27 ↗ crosswalk section where we identified

2:07:29 ↗ collisions that involve pedestrians and

2:07:31 ↗ bicyclists but here on the map in green

2:07:35 ↗ and orange and red that heat map is

2:07:39 ↗ showing the density of of all collisions

2:07:42 ↗ of all crashes that occur and then in

2:07:45 ↗ the orange dots you see severe injury

2:07:48 ↗ collision so a severe injury resulted

2:07:50 ↗ from that collision though the black

2:07:53 ↗ dots with the white X's were fatalities

2:07:55 ↗ that resulted from an auto collision so

2:07:58 ↗ these are the locations where we're

2:08:01 ↗ seeing the most

2:08:04 ↗ severe collisions where someone is

2:08:07 ↗ seriously injured or someone dies and so

2:08:10 ↗ we wanted to ask are those the locations

2:08:14 ↗ where we should be focusing additional

2:08:18 ↗ improvements so should we go back to

2:08:20 ↗ those and say okay are any safety

2:08:22 ↗ improvements already planned here if not

2:08:24 ↗ what safety improvements could be

2:08:25 ↗ planned here or instead should we look

2:08:29 ↗ at the locations where there's a greater

2:08:33 ↗ density of collisions rather than the

2:08:37 ↗ most fatal or severe collisions seem to

2:08:41 ↗ meet the severe in the preliminary

2:08:42 ↗ things to look at before we actually

2:08:43 ↗ identify on the other side but all the

2:08:45 ↗ provements are going to be right the

2:08:52 ↗ other thoughts

2:08:55 ↗ one thing that comes to my mind here is

2:08:58 ↗ a cry for why does somebody have to get

2:09:04 ↗ hurt or killed before I can fix the

2:09:06 ↗ safety of an intersection I wish there

2:09:09 ↗ was it seems like a lot of smart people

2:09:11 ↗ in the room how come we can't identify

2:09:13 ↗ an unsafe intersection before somebody

2:09:16 ↗ gets hurt or killed

2:09:18 ↗ well yes Stephen we don't have the

2:09:22 ↗ technology to do it yet that is still a

2:09:26 ↗ research Bellevue is actually

2:09:27 ↗ experimenting right now where the camera

2:09:29 ↗ system is evaluating specific

2:09:32 ↗ infrastructure and situations where

2:09:34 ↗ there's conflicts between pedestrians

2:09:36 ↗ bikes and cars and their the the model

2:09:40 ↗ that they're using is actually gauging

2:09:42 ↗ the level of risk to the users and that

2:09:45 ↗ has actually proactively identifying

2:09:47 ↗ high-risk locations based off near

2:09:49 ↗ misses complaint system and then just

2:09:54 ↗ known infrastructure risks that that has

2:09:56 ↗ just been researched by at the federal

2:09:59 ↗ level and the state level in in some

2:10:01 ↗ cases the local level that is probably

2:10:05 ↗ the closest system out there to do it

2:10:08 ↗ and it's still under research well we

2:10:11 ↗ already have a complaint system here of

2:10:13 ↗ varying degrees of sophistication or

2:10:19 ↗ quantifying and is there a way that we

2:10:23 ↗ could add to leave it just with this

2:10:27 ↗ isn't it just feels so unsatisfying to

2:10:30 ↗ me it would be since we are

2:10:32 ↗ forward-thinking how could how could we

2:10:34 ↗ incorporate something like that whether

2:10:39 ↗ it's a complaint system and you know and

2:10:42 ↗ or and and going deep into the the

2:10:47 ↗ spectrum here Cynthia brought something

2:10:48 ↗ up a few weeks ago and correct me if I'm

2:10:50 ↗ wrong that even the the sense of not

2:10:53 ↗ being safe inhibits people from using

2:10:55 ↗ other modes of transportation and so to

2:10:58 ↗ disregard the the ability to identify by

2:11:03 ↗ my senses that something is not say

2:11:06 ↗ I don't have to go out and get killed to

2:11:09 ↗ tell you that that's not safe so how can

2:11:11 ↗ we how can we bring in some other system

2:11:15 ↗ to identify these things before

2:11:21 ↗ complaints report of concern I don't

2:11:23 ↗ know I saw a lot of what this is the

2:11:26 ↗ city does now is actually incorporates a

2:11:28 ↗ lot of complaint based data into this

2:11:31 ↗ safety analysis for projects now it's

2:11:34 ↗ not reflected here but that is something

2:11:36 ↗ that is already done it's not on here

2:11:39 ↗ the one thing to keep in mind is the

2:11:41 ↗ when you look at it in equity lens the

2:11:44 ↗ very small percentage of the population

2:11:46 ↗ actually uses the complaint based system

2:11:48 ↗ so there's a disproportionate amount of

2:11:51 ↗ complaints based on either certain areas

2:11:53 ↗ or certain issues and specific

2:11:57 ↗ neighborhoods so that's that's one thing

2:11:59 ↗ that kind of consider when you look at

2:12:00 ↗ complaint basis and which is why there

2:12:03 ↗ is more research to figure out more

2:12:04 ↗ proactive ways to look at safety

2:12:06 ↗ improvements okay so I guess I'm gonna

2:12:10 ↗ push just a little bit and say don't

2:12:12 ↗ just say no see if we find a way for us

2:12:17 ↗ to get something in here that's before a

2:12:20 ↗ serious severe injury or fatality so

2:12:24 ↗ that we can identify unsafe

2:12:26 ↗ intersections you know I know there's

2:12:27 ↗ got to be a way sure it's not ready yet

2:12:30 ↗ but there's something we surveys for all

2:12:34 ↗ sorts of things you know if you want to

2:12:35 ↗ be more have a more robust outreach to

2:12:38 ↗ get more opinions about the complaint

2:12:40 ↗ things I don't know what it is I just

2:12:42 ↗ know that there has to be a means for

2:12:45 ↗ people to communicate about this we

2:12:48 ↗ can't wait until Bellevue does all their

2:12:50 ↗ science or something I just got to do it

2:12:52 ↗ yeah we'll take a look at the options

2:12:53 ↗ and see what we can bring forward that'd

2:12:55 ↗ be great thank you anything else okay I

2:13:00 ↗ always said all we have about autos

2:13:03 ↗ that's all dumps yeah just moving on to

2:13:06 ↗ next steps so through July the rest of

2:13:10 ↗ July in August we'll be taking your

2:13:13 ↗ feedback from tonight and using it to

2:13:15 ↗ develop policies approach programs

2:13:19 ↗ policies in August and September will be

2:13:23 ↗ prioritizing those with the revised

2:13:26 ↗ project selection criteria that are

2:13:29 ↗ being revised right now based on your

2:13:31 ↗ feedback and then September and October

2:13:34 ↗ will be completing a financial analysis

2:13:36 ↗ to understand the total bucket of funds

2:13:40 ↗ that is available and then how the cost

2:13:42 ↗ of these projects compared to those

2:13:43 ↗ funds so of the the project list how far

2:13:47 ↗ down can you get with the funding that's

2:13:49 ↗ available and then from September to

2:13:52 ↗ February there will be a draft plan

2:13:54 ↗ review first by staff and then by the

2:13:56 ↗ transportation Advisory Board and then

2:13:59 ↗ by the City Council as well as the

2:14:00 ↗ community for approval in February so

2:14:03 ↗ from now we'll be soliciting more of

2:14:08 ↗ these questions to get feedback as we go

2:14:10 ↗ through this development every step of

2:14:11 ↗ the way I hope we do that I'd like my

2:14:14 ↗ combo would be to make sure we have this

2:14:16 ↗ week ahead of time and exactly what

2:14:18 ↗ we're gonna be looking at so we can come

2:14:24 ↗ and so I guess the question is so in

2:14:26 ↗ August so our next meeting is end of

2:14:28 ↗ August and so it that means is are we

2:14:32 ↗ gonna get the list or the week before

2:14:34 ↗ that meeting are we gonna get the list

2:14:36 ↗ of projects to be prioritizing or are we

2:14:40 ↗ going to get the refine list of policies

2:14:43 ↗ based on today's feedback I think we

2:14:46 ↗ were talking about maybe trying to get

2:14:47 ↗ more in depth on the data as he would

2:14:50 ↗ like stuff so does that happen before

2:14:55 ↗ the August meeting or we so the plan for

2:14:59 ↗ August was to get that preliminary list

2:15:01 ↗ not prioritized yet not just not quite

2:15:04 ↗ vetted it's it's going from this modal

2:15:07 ↗ network and identifying all the major

2:15:09 ↗ gaps with the subcommittee and

2:15:12 ↗ consideration of looking more closely at

2:15:15 ↗ the bicycling data that can just get

2:15:17 ↗ added in as we go through the process it

2:15:18 ↗ doesn't need to be done by our August

2:15:20 ↗ meeting so because we have until October

2:15:21 ↗ to kind of collect all this okay okay

2:15:29 ↗ anything else about the schedule I do

2:15:34 ↗ want to take a moment to ask for public

2:15:37 ↗ comment but I also want to say that I'm

2:15:40 ↗ so sorry we're behind schedule I agree

2:15:42 ↗ with the other board members that I

2:15:44 ↗ think we would have handled this more

2:15:46 ↗ quickly and had we had this information

2:15:49 ↗ in advance on Friday with our packets so

2:15:51 ↗ that we could have studied ahead and we

2:15:53 ↗ would have come with our questions been

2:15:55 ↗ ready to go the next time I know we'll

2:15:59 ↗ have these in advance and then that way

2:16:00 ↗ the public can have it too so what I'd

2:16:02 ↗ like to ask for public comment on this

2:16:04 ↗ last very large section is there any

2:16:07 ↗ public comment

2:16:16 ↗ so it's impossible to comment on this

2:16:19 ↗ breadth of information effectively I'm

2:16:23 ↗ going to go back and say river and

2:16:24 ↗ streams board actually needs to be

2:16:26 ↗ included in your list because one of the

2:16:28 ↗ big conflicts in this town is our roads

2:16:30 ↗ tend to cut down our trees and right now

2:16:33 ↗ we have that example of West Newport way

2:16:36 ↗ and a sidewalk that would cut down trees

2:16:39 ↗ on the new Bergsma property that the

2:16:41 ↗ city just got just is purchasing or

2:16:45 ↗ purchased and so we need to have some

2:16:48 ↗ criteria to understand when we need

2:16:50 ↗ sidewalks on both sides or is it

2:16:53 ↗ possible to have say an option like a

2:16:56 ↗ forester trail on one side and a

2:16:58 ↗ multi-modal

2:16:59 ↗ on the other side and that instead would

2:17:02 ↗ fulfill the need as compared to saying

2:17:06 ↗ we need a sidewalk on both sides what we

2:17:09 ↗ actually have is we have a need for

2:17:11 ↗ people to be able to move down both

2:17:13 ↗ sides of the road or to move effectively

2:17:15 ↗ in a corridor right because that's

2:17:17 ↗ really the problem the problem isn't the

2:17:19 ↗ sidewalk itself so when you talk about a

2:17:22 ↗ sidewalk many of our sidewalks exist but

2:17:25 ↗ they're horrifying and I don't want to

2:17:27 ↗ walk on them because it's a Gilman it's

2:17:30 ↗ gritty it's nasty it's loud a year by

2:17:33 ↗ the freeway and you really people are

2:17:37 ↗ never going to use that even as a

2:17:40 ↗ commuter corridor because it is so bad

2:17:42 ↗ so is it not better to have a safe

2:17:48 ↗ connected corridor for walking not

2:17:51 ↗ necessarily on streets that people will

2:17:54 ↗ actually be able to use effectively this

2:17:57 ↗ is the conversation that I would like to

2:17:59 ↗ have not we're making a street and we're

2:18:01 ↗ gonna go bang bang we're gonna have our

2:18:03 ↗ things on either side and why aren't

2:18:04 ↗ people using it well they aren't using

2:18:06 ↗ it because it's hellish to use right so

2:18:08 ↗ you need quality so pedestrian

2:18:13 ↗ convenience is is core somebody talked

2:18:16 ↗ about the grade changes which is huge in

2:18:18 ↗ our town so when you talk about getting

2:18:22 ↗ people out of their vehicles for example

2:18:25 ↗ we need to plan places at the bottoms of

2:18:28 ↗ hills for people to be able to

2:18:29 ↗ pick them up they can walk her right on

2:18:31 ↗ the valley floor they could even park

2:18:33 ↗ bikes in a locker but getting their

2:18:35 ↗ bikes up a hill for a normal person it's

2:18:37 ↗ not going to happen most people don't

2:18:39 ↗ walk up squak mountain with their

2:18:40 ↗ groceries so the question is how do you

2:18:43 ↗ keep your auto transportation off of

2:18:46 ↗ your congested corridors so I didn't

2:18:51 ↗ understand why we're only looking at

2:18:53 ↗ enhanced crosswalks every 600 feet when

2:18:57 ↗ our central Issaquah plan mandates

2:18:59 ↗ intersections every 250 to 300 feet I

2:19:03 ↗ think looking at every 600 feet without

2:19:06 ↗ that grid that you saw on her slide what

2:19:09 ↗ do those crosswalks how do those overlay

2:19:12 ↗ onto that grid system and then you would

2:19:15 ↗ have a conversation sorry I'm walking

2:19:17 ↗ I'm talking so fast it's just it's a lot

2:19:19 ↗ do you have a stress test for

2:19:21 ↗ pedestrians you have a stress test for

2:19:23 ↗ bikes but I get stressed out as a

2:19:25 ↗ pedestrian because the sidewalks and the

2:19:28 ↗ sidewalks begin it's ugly you can't

2:19:29 ↗ cross you're there for a flip in half an

2:19:31 ↗ hour on nine hundred trying to get

2:19:33 ↗ across the road and it's all stressful

2:19:35 ↗ with the left-hand turns front street I

2:19:37 ↗ just want to beat the living bejesus out

2:19:39 ↗ of the signals because I can never get

2:19:41 ↗ across the street I find that stressful

2:19:43 ↗ Sheldon you're squinting at me again

2:19:45 ↗ okay wayfinding most people who come to

2:19:49 ↗ this town because we have tourists we

2:19:51 ↗ have people who are not from here and

2:19:52 ↗ the wayfinding is non-existent in this

2:19:56 ↗ town and that's they can somehow find a

2:19:58 ↗ map over at a hotel there just looks

2:20:02 ↗ like oh I'm here they're using their

2:20:03 ↗ phone but your phone doesn't really tell

2:20:05 ↗ you if you're seeing something good so

2:20:07 ↗ how do we create a system where you can

2:20:10 ↗ find the pleasant trails you can find

2:20:12 ↗ the places to look at and be for

2:20:15 ↗ everyone and I didn't see wayfinding

2:20:17 ↗ anywhere in this transportation effort

2:20:20 ↗ transit you only have this very I

2:20:23 ↗ consider strange

2:20:25 ↗ well the buses are late well I Drive by

2:20:28 ↗ and people are in the rain without a

2:20:30 ↗ shelter trying to wait for a bus people

2:20:32 ↗ are in the powering sunshine trying to

2:20:35 ↗ wait for a bus you wait for a bus

2:20:37 ↗ there's not even a thing saying when the

2:20:39 ↗ heck a bus might be coming or if it

2:20:41 ↗ comes if it's every half hour

2:20:42 ↗ and so it's an ungainly system so we are

2:20:46 ↗ looking at trying to make an easy-to-use

2:20:49 ↗ consistent functional transit system it

2:20:52 ↗ is our job to create the physical

2:20:54 ↗ construct and then lobby Metro and Sound

2:20:58 ↗ Transit to get the service that we need

2:21:00 ↗ and potentially fund extra service for

2:21:03 ↗ transit as compared to creating auto

2:21:06 ↗ capacity so now parking capacity at

2:21:09 ↗ Transit Park and rides is one of these

2:21:10 ↗ single factors for people not taking the

2:21:12 ↗ bus because the parking is full at 7

2:21:15 ↗ o'clock in the morning and in nowhere

2:21:17 ↗ here do I see any capacity projects for

2:21:19 ↗ transit parking then one last bit on

2:21:23 ↗ your traffic modeling saying that those

2:21:26 ↗ projects are going to solve traffic is

2:21:29 ↗ so erroneous it makes me just want to go

2:21:31 ↗ but half of our most congested

2:21:33 ↗ intersections are exempt from

2:21:36 ↗ concurrency we do not have projects that

2:21:38 ↗ address their congestion because it

2:21:41 ↗ would be too expensive and so Council

2:21:44 ↗ has exempted them and so when you say

2:21:46 ↗ we're trying to improve traffic we are

2:21:48 ↗ not even looking at our most congested

2:21:50 ↗ intersections by policy okay so that

2:21:56 ↗ it's what I can fit in 10 minutes thank

2:21:59 ↗ you thank you Connie

2:22:01 ↗ very much again sorry we're late

2:22:06 ↗ I think we have one more topic and that

2:22:08 ↗ is our meeting schedule which may be

2:22:11 ↗ let's say under staff report and then we

2:22:14 ↗ could adjourn so if you can hang on just

2:22:15 ↗ for one more minutes we are waiting on

2:22:18 ↗ confirmation from the City Clerk's

2:22:20 ↗ office on the City Council is changing

2:22:23 ↗ their work session meetings so they're

2:22:26 ↗ going to be meeting every Monday or

2:22:27 ↗ they're meeting the first second and

2:22:29 ↗ third Monday's of each month and they're

2:22:31 ↗ trying to decide on that fourth week on

2:22:33 ↗ whether they meet Monday or Tuesday

2:22:34 ↗ we're waiting on that final confirmation

2:22:36 ↗ on and if that impacts us so our August

2:22:40 ↗ meeting yes August meeting is still on

2:22:43 ↗ and council chambers at same time same

2:22:46 ↗ place

2:22:47 ↗ and I'm gonna look at data so I can say

2:22:50 ↗ it to everybody this that date yeah

2:22:54 ↗ is that the 26th August 26 Monday August

2:22:57 ↗ 26 it's all right Steve oh yes I guess

2:23:00 ↗ 26 6:00 p.m. here in Council Chambers

2:23:03 ↗ September our meeting date might change

2:23:08 ↗ between a Monday or Tuesday late in the

2:23:10 ↗ month and we will know as soon as

2:23:13 ↗ possible yes not waiting until the

2:23:15 ↗ August meeting to make that enough yes

2:23:17 ↗ okay okay with that

2:23:20 ↗ it's are there any any other reports any

2:23:23 ↗ a student report no any other staff

2:23:27 ↗ report that you're in this meeting great

2:23:31 ↗ we're gonna turn this meeting at 8:27

2:23:34 ↗ thank you everybody thank you Sarah that

2:23:37 ↗ was good material lots of material

2:23:42 ↗ you

2:23:47 ↗ you

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.