Transportation Advisory Board · Monday, August 26, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission 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 2:49 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

Minute of July 22, 2019

packet pp.7–8

▶ Watch from 2:50 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 07-22-19 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Council Chambers July 22, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

4. AGENDA ITEMS

New Chair Elections

Action · 10 min · Kurt Seeman, Transportation Manager Kendra Breiland, Consultant - Fehr & Peers · packet pp.9–11

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works Engineering 1775 – 12th Ave NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3400 issaquahwa.gov

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2748 segments .txt ↗

1:20 ↗ good evening my name is 9/2 Milligan and

1:23 ↗ I'm calling to order the transportation

1:25 ↗ advisory board meeting for Monday August

1:28 ↗ 26th we have quite a few businesses

1:33 ↗ things of business to take care of first

1:35 ↗ I'm going to ask for approval of the

1:39 ↗ minutes we had meeting the last time we

1:43 ↗ had meeting we didn't approve the

1:44 ↗ meeting minutes prior to that which

1:46 ↗ would be June 24th has everybody had an

1:49 ↗ opportunity to review the minutes of the

1:51 ↗ meeting dated June 24th yes are there

1:54 ↗ any additions Corrections or comments if

1:59 ↗ I could have a motion to approve those

2:00 ↗ minutes in a second that would be great

2:04 ↗ second make the motion okay Sujata moves

2:08 ↗ and did you second second did it all in

2:12 ↗ favor say aye opposed that passes the

2:17 ↗ second set of minutes in our packet are

2:20 ↗ those of July 22nd has everybody had a

2:23 ↗ chance to review those are there any

2:26 ↗ additions Corrections or comments and I

2:30 ↗ have a motion to approve those minutes

2:32 ↗ make the motion second and stephenie

2:36 ↗ seconds all in favor yeah

2:39 ↗ aye opposed no I said I just didn't hear

2:45 ↗ me thank you okay with that we move on

2:49 ↗ from approval of the minutes to the

2:51 ↗ public comments public comment period is

2:54 ↗ at the beginning of each of our meetings

2:55 ↗ as is in our bylaws and is standard to

2:59 ↗ other boards and commissions in Issaquah

3:00 ↗ I have a few comments about how those

3:02 ↗ are handled and then we'll move into

3:04 ↗ that direct comments that you have to

3:07 ↗ the entire board don't name anybody

3:09 ↗ individually and please remember that

3:12 ↗ this isn't a question and answer period

3:14 ↗ it would contact you in the future to

3:17 ↗ follow up if we need to and please

3:19 ↗ refrain from using personal tax obscene

3:22 ↗ language derogatory remarks

3:24 ↗ disruptive behavior of any kind will not

3:26 ↗ be permitted when recognized we'll

3:29 ↗ invite you to the lectern which is over

3:31 ↗ here and please speak into the

3:33 ↗ microphone and state your name and your

3:36 ↗ address or your relationship to the city

3:39 ↗ and limit your comments to three minutes

3:41 ↗ please submit any written comments to

3:43 ↗ the city staff that's it

3:45 ↗ seated to my left those who have signed

3:50 ↗ up will be called first and then if you

3:52 ↗ haven't signed up I'll call you anyway

3:53 ↗ has anybody signed up speak let's just

3:59 ↗ go to the audience who would like to

4:01 ↗ speak first

4:02 ↗ thank you David thank you turn David

4:05 ↗ Kapler vice president for advocacy is

4:08 ↗ the co-op's trails Club a comment on the

4:11 ↗ walking section on the draft modal

4:15 ↗ guidelines the we've been very involved

4:20 ↗ with the safe cooker group with the

4:24 ↗ forward progress on acquisition of the

4:27 ↗ Bergsma property as a park land and very

4:32 ↗ concerned about proposal to put try and

4:35 ↗ put a sidewalk on the brig's myth side

4:38 ↗ of Newport there we're re extra trees

4:42 ↗ would have to come down extra retaining

4:43 ↗ walls and it would still end up being a

4:46 ↗ narrow sidewalk complicated by possibly

4:48 ↗ street lights and fire hydrants whereas

4:51 ↗ in the other side of the street

4:53 ↗ the Tibbets Creek side we have already a

4:57 ↗ wider trail which could become maybe

5:00 ↗ wider because it's identified as part of

5:03 ↗ the mountain of Sound Greenway Trail

5:04 ↗ from Seattle to Snoqualmie Pass or

5:09 ↗ beyond this is a case where those trail

5:15 ↗ sidewalk dollars rather would be better

5:18 ↗ invested on improving widening and

5:21 ↗ enhancing the nice trail that overlooks

5:24 ↗ west Tibbets creativity Creek in that

5:27 ↗ case and not to put that money into

5:31 ↗ retaining walls and a narrow sidewalk

5:34 ↗ that would be fairly close to the main

5:36 ↗ track

5:37 ↗ let's make that Greenway Trail really

5:40 ↗ nice and there's no reason to have a

5:43 ↗ trail on the most and most of that area

5:46 ↗ anyway our sidewalk rather on the

5:48 ↗ Bergsma side because the anticipated

5:51 ↗ entry points for trails on Bergsma are

5:54 ↗ at the nine hundred closer to 900 or

5:59 ↗ actually not even from the Bergsma

6:01 ↗ property but from the adjoining King

6:03 ↗ County property at a big tree Ridge

6:05 ↗ trailhead there's a long area over a

6:08 ↗ thousand feet where we do not anticipate

6:10 ↗ any access points into the Bergsma

6:14 ↗ because of the steep slopes on that side

6:16 ↗ so save the trees save the money put it

6:19 ↗ in the right place you're going in

6:21 ↗ looking at asking the their tax payers

6:26 ↗ to increase by 20 percent the share of

6:30 ↗ their their sales tax that goes to the

6:34 ↗ city it's not a big it's only look small

6:37 ↗ when you look at 10 percent just going

6:39 ↗ ten point two but it is a 20 percent

6:40 ↗ increase in what the city would have

6:42 ↗ from sales tax let's make sure that

6:44 ↗ money that loved that that passes the

6:48 ↗ community because they believe you're

6:50 ↗ doing the best in they're the best and

6:52 ↗ brightest with that money and get good

6:56 ↗ support thank you you could do it in

7:00 ↗ anybody else who would like to speak

7:04 ↗ this Dave's phone just somebody's phone

7:08 ↗ okay

7:09 ↗ the last phone syndrome everybody panics

7:12 ↗ so my name is Connie marsh and I live up

7:14 ↗ on squawk so I'm gonna translate Dave's

7:17 ↗ comment into looking at the priorities

7:21 ↗ that you're supposed to be guiding it

7:26 ↗ says we should have sidewalks on both

7:30 ↗ sides of the road so what this is

7:34 ↗ unclear as to what criteria is should

7:38 ↗ right in this situation we don't want

7:42 ↗ sidewalks on that side of the road it'd

7:44 ↗ be better to have a mountain trail

7:46 ↗ through the woods but how would you get

7:48 ↗ there using

7:50 ↗ the guidance that you're creating so

7:53 ↗ this leads me to my topic of

7:55 ↗ conversation which is I feel that the

7:57 ↗ story is lost in these choices that

8:01 ↗ they're giving you because I don't know

8:03 ↗ what success is because I don't know

8:07 ↗ what problem you're trying to solve for

8:09 ↗ example 20 mile an hour speed limit on

8:12 ↗ the teeny tiny wee roads

8:14 ↗ well what problem that we have is that

8:18 ↗ solving and is that a focus is that what

8:23 ↗ we want to do I have no idea because I

8:26 ↗ don't know what the problem is I see the

8:29 ↗ problem in pass through traffic going

8:31 ↗ through town on the collectors and

8:33 ↗ arterioles and I think we need to slow

8:36 ↗ those down and see if we can make it

8:39 ↗ always slow so fewer of them take our

8:42 ↗ streets and we could remove them from

8:44 ↗ our system so for me and my definition

8:47 ↗ of what the problem is lowering the

8:50 ↗ streets to 20 on the wee baby streets

8:52 ↗ has no effect whatsoever except for to

8:54 ↗ like make everybody cranky so I went

8:58 ↗ through the the series of questions and

9:01 ↗ I found myself with that feeling on all

9:04 ↗ of them yes we want safety do we want

9:06 ↗ safety for everybody do we want safety

9:09 ↗ for all modes and to what extent and how

9:11 ↗ do you decide so we don't even know what

9:13 ↗ success is for safety do or do we need

9:16 ↗ our pedestrians to be safest and our bus

9:20 ↗ riders to be less safe I don't know

9:23 ↗ because I don't think the story has been

9:25 ↗ told what is our transportation problem

9:31 ↗ what's the problem we're trying to solve

9:32 ↗ and then what is a potential solution

9:38 ↗ how do we get there and those that would

9:41 ↗ be those choices and then in the end you

9:43 ↗ would be looking at like this guy over

9:46 ↗ here because well I'm not even supposed

9:47 ↗ to say that I guess the next

9:49 ↗ presentation in your agenda which would

9:51 ↗ be how then do you measure whether you

9:54 ↗ are gaining those successes which is

9:57 ↗ what you're aiming for so if you could

9:59 ↗ draw me a chart with that flow in it

10:03 ↗ that would make me much more at ease

10:06 ↗ right now I'm chafing because I just

10:08 ↗ don't get it thank you Thank You Connie

10:15 ↗ is there anybody else who wishes to

10:17 ↗ speak last Gong no one else I'm going to

10:24 ↗ close the public comments for this

10:26 ↗ evenings meeting next on the agenda is

10:29 ↗ the new chair elections and for this I

10:31 ↗ turn it over to Curt seaman the

10:33 ↗ transportation manager at the city of

10:35 ↗ Issaquah Thank You 9 so this is the time

10:40 ↗ when I think you're still in charge of

10:44 ↗ running this part of the meeting

10:45 ↗ technomage but I think I'm gonna defer

10:51 ↗ to you and you still are the chair at

10:54 ↗ this point you would take nominations

10:55 ↗ for a chair and and vice chair and then

11:00 ↗ and describe why you think you should be

11:03 ↗ the chair or vice chair and then and

11:05 ↗ then vote for those musicians yes okay

11:07 ↗ very good thanks great okay as you all

11:10 ↗ remember our Chairman AJ McCauley moved

11:12 ↗ out of town and I was the vice chair so

11:15 ↗ now I'm an acting chair and at our last

11:18 ↗ meeting we had nominations and there

11:21 ↗ were two people nominated for the two

11:23 ↗ positions I was nominated for the

11:24 ↗ chairman position and Cynthia was

11:26 ↗ nominated for the vice chair position

11:28 ↗ and in the interim we both wrote

11:31 ↗ statements about why we wanted to do

11:33 ↗ that which was shared in the packet and

11:36 ↗ you all got that right mm-hmm

11:38 ↗ so I think that because the nominations

11:40 ↗ are fairly finalized what I think for a

11:44 ↗ formal sake why don't I just say are

11:46 ↗ there any further nominations because we

11:48 ↗ left them open when we left last time as

11:51 ↗ I recall so are there any further

11:52 ↗ nominations for chair the transportation

11:55 ↗ advisory board I'll say seeing none then

12:00 ↗ the nominations for chairman will be

12:02 ↗ closed and are there any nominations for

12:05 ↗ Vice Chair in addition to Cynthia no

12:10 ↗ nominations are

12:11 ↗ officially closed then I think that step

12:14 ↗ finalizes that part let's go ahead and

12:17 ↗ take a vote all in favor of nine

12:21 ↗ Milligan as signify by saying aye vote

12:28 ↗ for myself any opposed that passes

12:31 ↗ unanimously is there let's take a vote

12:34 ↗ for our Vice Chair

12:37 ↗ Cynthia crass messing your name right

12:39 ↗ you sure are thank you thank you ma'am

12:41 ↗ okay Tom's here in time to vote for you

12:46 ↗ I'm gonna include you in the vote come

12:49 ↗ on up and then you can sit down and get

12:52 ↗ something to drink

12:55 ↗ we're voting on vice chair there's one

12:58 ↗ person nominated and as he moves into

13:02 ↗ his seat all in favor of Cynthia as vice

13:06 ↗ chair signify by saying aye aye

13:10 ↗ including Tom and me any opposed

13:13 ↗ no that passes unanimously as well let's

13:17 ↗ give a hand to our you do you have

13:23 ↗ anything that you'd like to say now that

13:25 ↗ you're in this new role no just that I

13:29 ↗ was surprised and too stunned to reject

13:33 ↗ to the nomination and then I slept on it

13:36 ↗ and realized that if the staff meetings

13:38 ↗ could accommodate my schedule then I

13:40 ↗ would be delighted to serve so all the

13:43 ↗ reasons I mentioned the little memo

13:46 ↗ great thank you oh thank you for

13:49 ↗ nominating

13:50 ↗ we're accepting it I my only statement

13:54 ↗ would be how I look forward to working

13:56 ↗ with you it was great to have AJ here

13:58 ↗ but and I was disappointed when he said

14:00 ↗ that he was leaving but now that we have

14:02 ↗ you for me to partner with I am I am

14:05 ↗ beyond relieved I'm delighted thank you

14:08 ↗ for stepping up is there anything else

14:11 ↗ you'd like us to do I guess if I could I

14:13 ↗ like what you both said in your

14:15 ↗ statement so maybe just for the folks at

14:17 ↗ home if you could briefly summarize what

14:20 ↗ you said there are reasons that you

14:22 ↗ wanted to be chair and vice chair I

14:24 ↗ thought you both had some really good

14:26 ↗ information thank you very eloquent and

14:30 ↗ we talked about that so and if you don't

14:32 ↗ remember the exact words just sort of

14:34 ↗ the idea of it would be I think great if

14:37 ↗ you feel like sharing that would be

14:39 ↗ great yeah to start sure I'll start just

14:43 ↗ say that so I've only lived innocent rot

14:46 ↗ for coming up on four years but I lived

14:47 ↗ in neighboring Sammamish for 20 years

14:49 ↗ before that so um actually when I moved

14:51 ↗ to Sammamish it was unincorporated I

14:53 ↗ said well we considered it it's a cross

14:54 ↗ although not in the city limits and I

14:57 ↗ raised my family here

14:59 ↗ I expect to spend the rest of my life in

15:01 ↗ Issaquah we love living in downtown

15:03 ↗ Issaquah have a master of urban planning

15:05 ↗ and I do participate in a lot of

15:07 ↗ advisory type committee work in my job I

15:11 ↗ work in natural resource planning and I

15:15 ↗ served in the Sammamish Planning

15:16 ↗ Commission I went to the University of

15:18 ↗ Washington to get a degree in urban

15:20 ↗ planning as a second career and I just

15:24 ↗ find that I like not only the substance

15:27 ↗ of the work but I really enjoy that

15:29 ↗ process and I don't have a particular

15:31 ↗ agenda I think that the process is very

15:36 ↗ interesting to me and so I think it's a

15:39 ↗ it's important to contribute to our

15:41 ↗ community and I think it's great to find

15:44 ↗ things that you like and you know that

15:45 ↗ you can sink your teeth into so I really

15:47 ↗ grateful for this opportunity to serve

15:49 ↗ my community and I feel like I have no

15:50 ↗ particular objective except to serve and

15:53 ↗ so I have a lot of objectivity and that

15:55 ↗ makes me excited to to contribute

15:58 ↗ excellent thank you that was that was

16:01 ↗ even better than your singing I can't

16:03 ↗ remember my statement either it's not

16:04 ↗ printed so I will summarize by saying

16:06 ↗ that my husband and I moved to Issaquah

16:09 ↗ in 2004 and lived here for 12 years then

16:13 ↗ when we sold our house we were gone for

16:15 ↗ three years where we lived just a little

16:18 ↗ out of town but I've been working in

16:20 ↗ Issaquah Highlands and still do have for

16:22 ↗ almost eight years and so when we looked

16:25 ↗ for a place to buy after that we bought

16:27 ↗ in Issaquah Islands again and so I'm

16:29 ↗ back and in fact I live right across the

16:31 ↗ street from my job so what do I need I

16:33 ↗ just need a good pair of walking shoes

16:35 ↗ to get across the street

16:36 ↗ anyway I'm delighted to work on this

16:39 ↗ advisory board I served for eight years

16:42 ↗ on the urban village development

16:43 ↗ commission which is a different kind of

16:45 ↗ thing of approving applications based on

16:49 ↗ their compliance to the code and the

16:51 ↗ plan and the strategy and after that I

16:54 ↗ applied and served on the City Council

16:56 ↗ with the motivation that gee I'd like to

17:00 ↗ be more behind the scenes and see how we

17:02 ↗ tee these things up so that commissions

17:04 ↗ that match with our hopes and dreams so

17:07 ↗ this is an opportunity to do that kind

17:10 ↗ of legwork for the City Council to work

17:12 ↗ on those strategies and hopes and dreams

17:13 ↗ and try to put them into documents so

17:15 ↗ that people can use them in the future

17:16 ↗ to make decisions where outcomes come in

17:21 ↗ a predictable way so I'm glad to be here

17:24 ↗ I like serving as the chair cuz like

17:26 ↗ Cynthia I love the process I love

17:28 ↗ serving on a board getting people

17:30 ↗ together who come in with their

17:31 ↗ individual things and when

17:33 ↗ well-functioning come up with a better

17:35 ↗ product than any individual could have

17:37 ↗ it's just the cat's meow I love that

17:41 ↗ that's me

17:42 ↗ yes ma'am my dad I just also want to see

17:45 ↗ that it makes it a lot more satisfying

17:47 ↗ to serve on a board when the staff has

17:49 ↗ really got their act together so I like

17:50 ↗ living in a town where we're willing to

17:52 ↗ invest in our local government and I

17:55 ↗ feel like this stuff the city of miss

17:57 ↗ squads top notch and that makes this

18:00 ↗ kind of work a lot more satisfying so

18:02 ↗ thank you guys

18:03 ↗ something well said I was a plus-one on

18:06 ↗ that no I'll turn well thank you her

18:08 ↗ Barry we feel likewise very lucky to

18:12 ↗ have all of you volunteers here spending

18:15 ↗ your evenings helping us figure out the

18:18 ↗ challenge the transportation so thanks

18:20 ↗ once again so and speaking of the

18:22 ↗ challenges of transportation we have a

18:25 ↗ pretty sizable agenda tonight two items

18:31 ↗ that are going to be the bulk of the

18:33 ↗ discussion one is draft modal policies

18:38 ↗ and the second is performance metrics so

18:41 ↗ I think and we have Kenna Breeland from

18:44 ↗ fair and peers here who's going to I

18:47 ↗ think make the bulk of the presentation

18:49 ↗ we're certainly going to I think

18:53 ↗ probably jump in and either interrupt

18:56 ↗ you or comment as you're making the

18:58 ↗ presentation if that doesn't throw you

19:00 ↗ off too much we do need to be respectful

19:04 ↗ the time we've got about as it shows on

19:06 ↗ the agenda about an hour for the first

19:08 ↗ part of this in about 15 minutes for the

19:11 ↗ second so but I think because they're

19:15 ↗ Canada I've been work through these

19:18 ↗ presentations and quite a bit of detail

19:20 ↗ I think rather than save up all your

19:22 ↗ questions for the end it may make sense

19:24 ↗ to pause as we're going through

19:26 ↗ especially on the more I don't know

19:29 ↗ challenging or technical or

19:31 ↗ controversial part so if that makes

19:35 ↗ sense to the board so I think with that

19:39 ↗ we'll get started and again Kenna

19:41 ↗ breeland's are you your principal or

19:44 ↗ your I'm whatever you want me to be

19:49 ↗ Kendra Brito has been apparent peers for

19:51 ↗ a long time she's very experienced in

19:53 ↗ transportation planning and she has a

19:55 ↗ lot to share with us tonight all right

19:57 ↗ thank you very much and good evening

20:00 ↗ advisory board members and I guess I

20:02 ↗ would also thank you for your voluntary

20:04 ↗ service I've thought about doing this in

20:07 ↗ my own community and I have to say every

20:09 ↗ time I think about it like Oh with it's

20:10 ↗ a lot of nights and that's a lot of work

20:12 ↗ so I appreciate your hard work on this

20:15 ↗ so kind of continuing the discussion

20:18 ↗ they started last month at the end of

20:20 ↗ July started this discussion on kind of

20:23 ↗ draft modal networks and policies review

20:25 ↗ so you're gonna see a lot of slides that

20:27 ↗ actually you saw in the previous

20:29 ↗ presentation by my colleague Sarah

20:31 ↗ Peters but we've kind of regrouped with

20:34 ↗ staff talked about kind of how to kind

20:36 ↗ of recreating some of the feedback we

20:39 ↗ received at the previous meeting and I'm

20:42 ↗ hoping that tonight we've got kind of a

20:45 ↗ robust but digestible set of policies

20:49 ↗ and we can get some really good input

20:50 ↗ from this group so I think we've already

20:53 ↗ introduced ourselves meeting purpose

20:55 ↗ tonight first of all we wanted to

20:58 ↗ establish multimodal policies that will

21:00 ↗ form the basis for the MMP so these are

21:02 ↗ really important these aren't just

21:04 ↗ things that we say and we write in a

21:06 ↗ document but these policies are really

21:08 ↗ kind of how the city is going to be

21:10 ↗ measuring success of the transportation

21:12 ↗ network we're going to be comparing what

21:14 ↗ we say we want to do in these policies

21:16 ↗ to what is on the ground today to

21:18 ↗ identify gaps and needed projects and

21:21 ↗ these policies that we talked about

21:24 ↗ today are really gonna guide us as a

21:26 ↗ team as we start thinking about the

21:28 ↗ prioritized project list which we're

21:30 ↗ going to come back to this group and

21:32 ↗ City Council I understand in October so

21:35 ↗ kind of this tonight's discussions

21:37 ↗ really kind of setting the stage for a

21:39 ↗ lot of good stuff so I always like to

21:42 ↗ show kind of a flowchart of how these

21:43 ↗ things all kind of work together so

21:46 ↗ first of all you have an existing system

21:49 ↗ as a team we've worked together with

21:51 ↗ city staff to really get a good handle

21:52 ↗ of your existing transportation network

21:55 ↗ the streets the trails that you have how

21:57 ↗ how your system operates today transit

22:00 ↗ also an important component of that and

22:02 ↗ so what we're going to talk about

22:04 ↗ tonight is really thinking about each of

22:07 ↗ the modes what are the policies we want

22:09 ↗ to set so what defines success for

22:11 ↗ walking what defines success for

22:14 ↗ bikeability or traffic operations so

22:18 ↗ we're going to develop kind of those

22:20 ↗ policy is this evening and then as I

22:23 ↗ mentioned we're going to do kind of a

22:24 ↗ gap evaluation

22:26 ↗ so looking at the time kind of up until

22:28 ↗ today we've worked on the existing

22:30 ↗ system tonight we're gonna be talking

22:33 ↗ about those multimodal networks and

22:36 ↗ modal policies and that's going to kind

22:38 ↗ of set the stage for the work we're

22:40 ↗ going to do over the next month to do

22:41 ↗ kind of a gap evaluation and to come

22:44 ↗ back to you in October so reminder

22:46 ↗ that's kind of where we are tonight I

22:49 ↗ wanted to start by defining some terms

22:53 ↗ so first of all modal networks and I

22:57 ↗ think you know the important term here

22:59 ↗ is this is where do we want to set

23:01 ↗ standards and expectations for each mode

23:03 ↗ so we're probably not looking at every

23:06 ↗ single street in the city when we think

23:09 ↗ about what is that priority network for

23:11 ↗ Freight or for autos or for pedestrians

23:14 ↗ or bikes we actually do need to give

23:16 ↗ ourselves some focus so we look at what

23:18 ↗ are those those key streets so this is

23:19 ↗ cities not going to set a level of

23:21 ↗ service standard that that blanket

23:23 ↗ covers every facility we want to be

23:25 ↗ targeted so first of all we'll want to

23:28 ↗ get your feedback on the areas where

23:32 ↗ we're looking where we're expecting to

23:34 ↗ have those standards are those the right

23:37 ↗ places to be looking the second piece

23:39 ↗ we're going to look for your input on is

23:40 ↗ the modal policies so what expectations

23:43 ↗ and standards should we have for these

23:45 ↗ locations so after we've at defined

23:47 ↗ where we're gonna look we're gonna talk

23:48 ↗ about what what should we expect and

23:51 ↗ we've looked at we've had lots of

23:53 ↗ sources and I think on most of my slides

23:55 ↗ I'm going to have kind of source

23:57 ↗ documents more than happy to go through

23:59 ↗ those probably for in the interest of

24:01 ↗ time I'm not going to be reading those

24:02 ↗ but do know that we've been looking at

24:03 ↗ all of kind of your adopted plans as

24:07 ↗ well as industry best practices to kind

24:09 ↗ of come up with our recommendations and

24:12 ↗ again as Kurt said please jump in if you

24:14 ↗ have questions so just again these key

24:19 ↗ questions for tonight first of all do

24:21 ↗ you agree with the networks that we've

24:23 ↗ come up with in terms of the lake

24:24 ↗ locations to focus on and we want to

24:26 ↗ hear from you for missing locations we

24:28 ↗ also want to hear from you if we have

24:29 ↗ extraneous locations so you think it's a

24:31 ↗ waste of city resources that we're

24:33 ↗ looking in these places do you agree

24:35 ↗ with the policy direction being provided

24:40 ↗ then do you agree with how we're

24:42 ↗ measuring user accommodation and so I'm

24:44 ↗ going to go by mode by mode so we'll

24:47 ↗ talk about the vehicle mode we'll talk

24:49 ↗ about the pedestrian mode we'll talk

24:51 ↗ about the bike mode we'll talk about the

24:52 ↗ transit mode separately and we we do

24:55 ↗ need to kind of set those standards kind

24:57 ↗ of an isolation but we're gonna pull all

25:00 ↗ this together when we're doing kind of

25:02 ↗ our gaps analysis and coming back to you

25:04 ↗ with a multi modal project list in about

25:06 ↗ a month's time so first of all just to

25:12 ↗ talk about what the city has on the

25:13 ↗ books today and curt also feel free to

25:15 ↗ jump in whenever you'd like

25:18 ↗ Auto level of service the city has Auto

25:21 ↗ level of service standard today it's

25:23 ↗ based on intersection performance at 84

25:27 ↗ intersections of the city measures and

25:29 ↗ we do that under something called a

25:31 ↗ state law called concurrency and

25:33 ↗ generally your level of service standard

25:35 ↗ is based on level service d so it's

25:39 ↗ about 55 seconds of delay is that your

25:41 ↗ typical signalized intersection it says

25:44 ↗ that the average driver shouldn't wait

25:45 ↗ more than that amount of time current

25:48 ↗ policy has some areas of flexibility

25:51 ↗ there's six intersections around the

25:52 ↗ city where you can operate beyond L OSD

25:57 ↗ where we accept higher level of

25:58 ↗ congestion because those are locations

26:00 ↗ where the city is kind of decided this

26:02 ↗ is not going to be practical to build

26:05 ↗ those intersections to a standard where

26:07 ↗ lower delay is allowed but that level of

26:10 ↗ service standard essentially says that

26:11 ↗ on the whole for to take every

26:13 ↗ intersection in the city they still need

26:15 ↗ to meet that overall average of D Kurt

26:18 ↗ did you want to jump in before I leave

26:21 ↗ that point maybe just for a second

26:23 ↗ that's so there's we've just thrown

26:26 ↗ around a lot of term Kendra's thrown a

26:28 ↗ lot of terms around there so I just

26:30 ↗ wanted to pause and make sure that you

26:33 ↗ all understand what word is so this all

26:35 ↗ makes sense in the world of

26:37 ↗ transportation planning and engineering

26:38 ↗ but it may be a little bit foreign to

26:41 ↗ some of you so it's it's it's pretty

26:43 ↗ important it's pretty key to

26:45 ↗ understanding our current policies and

26:50 ↗ level service as we get into these

26:52 ↗ various moe

26:53 ↗ so we started with one that is hopefully

26:57 ↗ not too overwhelming but if you have any

27:00 ↗ questions or does that don't make total

27:02 ↗ sense I don't want to I don't want to

27:04 ↗ waste anyone's time if everyone's on

27:06 ↗ board with that and understands what

27:07 ↗ we're talking about then we can move on

27:09 ↗ but I just wanted to pause there for a

27:12 ↗ moment and make sure that we're all on

27:14 ↗ the same page it's okay to be say I

27:19 ↗ don't have a clue what you're talking

27:20 ↗ about that's okay too

27:22 ↗ looks like we're okay to proceed okay

27:25 ↗ doesn't mean the questions well know

27:27 ↗ that you dive into each of these and

27:29 ↗ more you have a chance to discuss later

27:31 ↗ maybe the questions will come out there

27:33 ↗ absolutely so when we look away from so

27:37 ↗ the city has a pretty detailed as you

27:38 ↗ can see from that level of service

27:40 ↗ policy around intersections but when we

27:42 ↗ look to other modes what the city has on

27:45 ↗ the books today is not near so detailed

27:47 ↗ so from the perspective of what is level

27:51 ↗ of service for walking and biking so

27:53 ↗ again what do we define to be acceptable

27:56 ↗ conditions for walking and biking when

27:58 ↗ you look at the city's comprehensive

27:59 ↗ plan and the standards that's there

28:01 ↗ it essentially points to this kind of

28:03 ↗ bike and ped network of mitigation

28:05 ↗ projects that were identified for kind

28:09 ↗ of construction between 2015 and 2030

28:11 ↗ and so these are a discrete set of

28:14 ↗ projects I don't have the map somewhere

28:17 ↗ in this but we could certainly pull that

28:19 ↗ out if we wanted to but it doesn't it's

28:21 ↗ not very holistic it just looks at those

28:24 ↗ projects that write down if I didn't

28:25 ↗ says are we progressing towards meaning

28:27 ↗ or building those and that's that's

28:30 ↗ what's on the books today so if a

28:32 ↗ facility if a roadway doesn't overlap

28:34 ↗ with one of those projects the standard

28:36 ↗ really doesn't speak to it so that's

28:38 ↗ what we have on the books for walking

28:40 ↗ and biking and then from a transit

28:42 ↗ perspective the policy probably

28:46 ↗ necessarily gets a little squishier

28:49 ↗ as you know it's a quad does not run its

28:51 ↗ own transit service that's run through

28:53 ↗ Sound Transit in King County Metro

28:56 ↗ so really the city's policy is to

28:59 ↗ partner with transit agencies to provide

29:01 ↗ stop amenities and service frequency and

29:03 ↗ so we'll talk in more detail later in

29:05 ↗ the presentation in terms of what that

29:07 ↗ means but that's kind of what we've got

29:11 ↗ today when I look at these policies we

29:15 ↗ did have some specific critiques that we

29:17 ↗ wanted to kind of bring to the forefront

29:18 ↗ in this conversation from the auto

29:20 ↗ perspective again remember we're talking

29:23 ↗ about these 84 intersections our Auto

29:26 ↗ level of service is focused narrowly on

29:28 ↗ delayed intersections some of the

29:31 ↗ questions that you might ask is ta be

29:33 ↗ members are these the right 84

29:35 ↗ intersections which perhaps she'll say

29:37 ↗ you know what we trust city staff and

29:40 ↗ previous consultants and previous

29:41 ↗ previous planning efforts have really

29:43 ↗ identified these over the years they're

29:44 ↗ probably fine but in your packet of

29:47 ↗ materials we do have a mapped where they

29:49 ↗ are and you know we'd certainly welcome

29:50 ↗ that input if there are intersections

29:52 ↗ you don't think we should be measuring

29:54 ↗ or you think there are intersections

29:55 ↗ that we should that's that stuff that

29:58 ↗ we're ready to hear level of service D

30:01 ↗ means on average less than a minute of

30:04 ↗ delay at a kind of major concurrency

30:07 ↗ intersection as kind of our standard is

30:09 ↗ that the right level of delay and when

30:11 ↗ we start thinking about that's just from

30:13 ↗ a vehicle perspective maybe when we

30:15 ↗ start looking at well what projects is

30:17 ↗ this leading us to have to construct

30:19 ↗ over the life of this plan

30:20 ↗ do we want to rethink that a little bit

30:23 ↗ and we don't have to have answers to

30:24 ↗ that tonight but we'd certainly like to

30:26 ↗ get your input in terms of know now we

30:28 ↗ really hold true to this 55 second

30:30 ↗ versus you know we we think that's a

30:33 ↗ nice standard but to the extent that it

30:35 ↗ needs to be loosened a bit when we're

30:39 ↗ looking at kind of other priorities for

30:41 ↗ example walkability of an intersection

30:43 ↗ safety etc those those are things that

30:45 ↗ we definitely look to you to see what

30:47 ↗ kind of what level of flexibility do we

30:49 ↗ have your current level of service

30:51 ↗ policy so we talk about the intersection

30:53 ↗ experience doesn't really say anything

30:55 ↗ about connectivity and safety so we're

30:57 ↗ going to talk about kind of some

30:59 ↗ enhancements to that policy tonight that

31:01 ↗ would kind of bring in

31:02 ↗ considerations from the perspective of

31:05 ↗ walking and biking it focus exclusively

31:07 ↗ on those facilities identified in your

31:10 ↗ bike and pedestrian mitigation projects

31:12 ↗ map it does not explicitly consider user

31:15 ↗ experience or crossing treatments and

31:18 ↗ again as I mentioned it doesn't look

31:19 ↗ anywhere that's not on that map and then

31:22 ↗ from the perspective of transit level of

31:25 ↗ service I think it's generally okay what

31:27 ↗ you have but the MMP will provide us the

31:30 ↗ opportunity to really rethink how is the

31:32 ↗ qua prioritizes transit on key roadways

31:35 ↗ so it's just big opportunity to kind of

31:38 ↗ start that dialogue as a part of the MMP

31:40 ↗ a process question so right now you're

31:45 ↗ organizing this material around level of

31:49 ↗ service and then in our packet we have a

31:52 ↗ section about autos we have a section

31:53 ↗ about connectivity roadway walking

31:56 ↗ biking are we going to be talking about

31:59 ↗ walking and biking now or when we get to

32:02 ↗ the walking and biking sequence of

32:05 ↗ policy draft that's in here how are we

32:09 ↗ how are we going to go forward because

32:11 ↗ this wasn't the way that was organized

32:12 ↗ in her material to do I had intended I

32:18 ↗ kind of my philosophy is if there's a

32:20 ↗ burning question that you have my

32:23 ↗ feeling is once there's a burning

32:24 ↗ question I'd rather address it kind of

32:26 ↗ on the spot so they're wise folks are

32:29 ↗ gonna be thinking about those burning

32:30 ↗ questions my intention is to bring kind

32:34 ↗ of a policy recommendation and then get

32:36 ↗ feedback on that but if you have a

32:38 ↗ question to start with I would rather go

32:40 ↗ there first it was just a process will

32:42 ↗ we be asking ourselves the questions as

32:44 ↗ they were presented in the packet

32:46 ↗ tonight I unfortunately did not see the

32:50 ↗ packet is that do you know what I'm

32:51 ↗ talking about I don't I just so first in

32:58 ↗ our packet the topic was not level of

33:02 ↗ service over all modes it was about

33:06 ↗ automobiles and level of service was the

33:09 ↗ mechanism by which we would be

33:13 ↗ evaluating that when we go to

33:14 ↗ connectivity roadway safety walking

33:17 ↗ biking level of service isn't the advice

33:22 ↗ by which we were evaluating those just

33:26 ↗ as a for instance I think there's so the

33:31 ↗ presentation is not the PAC at first of

33:33 ↗ all you're you're correct

33:34 ↗ I think this will I think if we can get

33:38 ↗ into this a little bit further well it

33:40 ↗ will all make sense it will all come

33:42 ↗ together so I don't know if that

33:47 ↗ specifically answers your question I I

33:50 ↗ will say that when we're talking as an

33:53 ↗ introduction here when we're talking

33:54 ↗ about level service the thing that's a

33:59 ↗ little challenging and will be a

34:02 ↗ challenge for all of you is when we're

34:05 ↗ looking at level service for automobiles

34:07 ↗ it's an easily measurable thing by

34:09 ↗ measuring delay at intersections as

34:11 ↗ we've talked about here it gets more

34:13 ↗ difficult to measure level of service

34:16 ↗ when we talk about pedestrian and

34:19 ↗ bicycles and transit so that's going to

34:22 ↗ be our challenge all of your challenge

34:24 ↗ our challenge as we develop the master

34:27 ↗ plan is to understand what we so we have

34:31 ↗ a pretty good idea of what we're talking

34:32 ↗ about when we talk about automobile

34:34 ↗ level service we have less of a good

34:36 ↗ idea when we're talking about other

34:37 ↗ modes so that's why we're starting here

34:40 ↗ I guess my further question would be

34:44 ↗ when would you like to have us discuss

34:47 ↗ the automobile level of service question

34:50 ↗ is this are you posing it here because

34:53 ↗ you're gonna tee it up to us later or do

34:55 ↗ you want us to talk about that now and

34:56 ↗ and to follow on with that question to

34:58 ↗ is is if the presentation are we gonna

35:01 ↗ make decisions on this presentation

35:04 ↗ items tonight or go through there's a

35:07 ↗ presentation gonna cover each one of

35:08 ↗ these items guess I'm not sure what

35:12 ↗ the presentation is actually intended to

35:16 ↗ cover each of these and I think to your

35:17 ↗ question sorry sometimes it takes me a

35:19 ↗ little bit to catch up actually Auto

35:22 ↗ level of service is going to be kind of

35:23 ↗ and how we measure

35:25 ↗ I'd like it to call auto performance and

35:28 ↗ what our policy is for auto performance

35:30 ↗ that's actually a first topic so I think

35:32 ↗ we're gonna get there right away these

35:34 ↗ questions that I've kind of laid out are

35:35 ↗ the big-picture themes that kind of that

35:38 ↗ kind of weave throughout the

35:39 ↗ presentation so this was more

35:41 ↗ introductory round and then you're going

35:44 ↗ to get into some organization of these

35:47 ↗ topics in a way that makes a package

35:50 ↗ that we'll talk about and then we'll

35:51 ↗ move to the next one and we'll talk

35:53 ↗ about correct okay correct

35:55 ↗ Elden I feel here that's the time are

35:57 ↗ you still yeah are you done with your

35:59 ↗ comment yes I am okay

36:01 ↗ so sorry what Kendra's dialing up is

36:05 ↗ probably one of the more important

36:08 ↗ policy conversations that the tab is

36:10 ↗ going to have it is not just about the

36:14 ↗ auto l OS but it is about the auto LS

36:19 ↗ and the biking and walking because those

36:22 ↗ three can be in conflict and so you know

36:27 ↗ as the community grows and the paradigm

36:29 ↗ shift goes from more suburban to urban

36:32 ↗ there's going to be more and more desire

36:35 ↗ to have people walking and biking then

36:37 ↗ using their cars and so one of the major

36:41 ↗ policy issues is how do you address you

36:45 ↗ know providing maybe more priority

36:48 ↗ towards the pads and bikes and

36:50 ↗ sacrificing the automobile movements I

36:54 ↗ think miss Marsh was mentioning earlier

36:56 ↗ slowdown regional traffic get him out of

36:59 ↗ here

36:59 ↗ so you know these are major policy

37:01 ↗ issues and this I think is one of the

37:05 ↗ core issues of the whole mobility master

37:07 ↗ plan because how are how are you guys

37:09 ↗ going to help the city move the

37:11 ↗ community to where it needs to be in

37:13 ↗ balancing all the modes of

37:15 ↗ transportation and even the transit LS

37:19 ↗ comes into play as the mobility master

37:22 ↗ plan is going to go

37:23 ↗ that suggested level of service so that

37:28 ↗ when the transit plan is updated and

37:31 ↗ done I believe that's on the work

37:33 ↗ program for either twenty twenty or

37:35 ↗ twenty twenty-one you know input from

37:38 ↗ the policies of this conversation can be

37:41 ↗ placed into that that also may and

37:44 ↗ likely will affect levels of service at

37:47 ↗ some of the signalized intersections

37:49 ↗ because you may want to provide cue

37:51 ↗ jumps or the transit which is going to

37:54 ↗ hold back the cars which may also hold

37:56 ↗ back the pedestrians and so this is a

37:59 ↗ real tussle of a community and I think

38:02 ↗ that's what Kendra's really dialing up

38:04 ↗ is that conversation and so I'm going to

38:08 ↗ be quiet now and let Kendra continue but

38:10 ↗ this is a real important policy

38:12 ↗ conversation I want you guys to be aware

38:14 ↗ of okay and I think I'm gonna actually

38:16 ↗ now be kind of following the packet I

38:19 ↗ was just peeking through and I think

38:20 ↗ it's the memo which I did review I was a

38:22 ↗ little i was a little confused there was

38:24 ↗ something else in there policy

38:26 ↗ recommendations and again these are

38:28 ↗ recommendations and we definitely

38:29 ↗ welcome your input and I want to say I

38:32 ↗ don't take it personally if you don't

38:34 ↗ like the recommendations in fact we want

38:36 ↗ to hear you say that so please don't

38:37 ↗ mince words we're here to get your input

38:40 ↗ today that's that's priority number one

38:42 ↗ so I'm going to start with auto policies

38:45 ↗ and we just said why did we decide to

38:48 ↗ start with auto policies not that this

38:49 ↗ is the most important thing to the city

38:51 ↗ it's where city existing policy guidance

38:54 ↗ is probably the most defined and so we

38:57 ↗ thought this was the best place to start

38:59 ↗ and then we'll branch out from there so

39:02 ↗ when we talk about auto policies our

39:04 ↗ recommendation is to have three focus

39:06 ↗ areas instead of the one focus area you

39:09 ↗ have today today it's all about traffic

39:11 ↗ flow and delay in intersections we don't

39:14 ↗ think that's something that necessarily

39:15 ↗ should be completely overlooked and

39:17 ↗ forgotten but we think that needs to be

39:19 ↗ balanced among connectivity and safety

39:22 ↗ so we've got kind of three kind of

39:25 ↗ pieces of policy consideration that we

39:29 ↗ wanted to share with you and get your

39:31 ↗ input on so first of all go back to

39:33 ↗ traffic flow that's what we have today

39:35 ↗ what we have on the books today

39:37 ↗ is the 84 concurrency intersections this

39:40 ↗ is decided to find your current comp

39:42 ↗ plan I've already talked about level of

39:45 ↗ service D standard with that 55 seconds

39:48 ↗ of delay allowed during the p.m. peak

39:50 ↗ hour and that you provide some

39:52 ↗ additional flexibility for six

39:54 ↗ intersections and you can see kind of

39:57 ↗ what those six intersections are the

39:59 ↗ yellow dots on your map so when we look

40:04 ↗ at that policy and we compare it to what

40:06 ↗ how your system is performing today and

40:09 ↗ this actually includes development that

40:12 ↗ we expect kind of over the next six or

40:14 ↗ so years because this is a concurrency

40:16 ↗ assessment here this level of service

40:19 ↗ policy is actually leading to a fair

40:21 ↗ number of projects so these are all of

40:23 ↗ the projects that have been identified

40:26 ↗ through your concurrency process so you

40:28 ↗ can see the dots there's a fair number

40:30 ↗ of intersections that would be getting

40:32 ↗ attention there's a fair number of

40:34 ↗ street segments that would be improved

40:36 ↗ so your current policy that you have on

40:39 ↗ the books this is kind of the the number

40:41 ↗ of projects that what its resulting in

40:44 ↗ and so the first questions that we have

40:48 ↗ for the tab are one should we be

40:51 ↗ focusing on these 84 intersections and

40:55 ↗ are there other intersections or traffic

40:58 ↗ flow as a concern and then the other

41:00 ↗ question is this level of service D the

41:03 ↗ right level to accept and if you don't

41:05 ↗ have an answer tonight that's fine

41:07 ↗ but we wanted to start there by asking

41:11 ↗ ok now we have a question very good is

41:15 ↗ there anyone who would like to comment

41:16 ↗ on this particular topic to start Tom

41:19 ↗ you go back to the map sorry about the

41:26 ↗ other one I think if you look at that

41:31 ↗ intersection in that intersection you're

41:33 ↗ gonna have to add those two because if

41:35 ↗ you get more flow coming down the hill

41:37 ↗ and feed into that that's gonna feed

41:39 ↗ into the ramp on day 90

41:42 ↗ if you can get rid of that one

41:44 ↗ intersection that's in between so I want

41:51 ↗ to make sure I understand it one there

41:53 ↗ potentially more leniency if I'm

41:55 ↗ understanding heading down the hill - I

41:58 ↗ 90 there right so you come down the hill

42:00 ↗ if you crease improvement in the flow of

42:03 ↗ them coming down off the hill they're

42:04 ↗ gonna hit the intersection right at the

42:07 ↗ base of the hill then that's gonna flood

42:10 ↗ over into the ramp onto i-90 of those

42:16 ↗ three intersections and the middle one

42:17 ↗ between Bergkamp down the hill and the

42:19 ↗ one at the ramp nice if that one could

42:21 ↗ go away I'd like to add to your

42:27 ↗ conversation when you're in it can I

42:31 ↗ exchange with you I'm remembering back

42:33 ↗ to when these six interceptions were

42:35 ↗ identified and earlier I think under you

42:37 ↗ said that it wasn't practical for us to

42:39 ↗ improve that but more more accurately I

42:44 ↗ recall that it was not that it was it

42:46 ↗ was the reason it was not practical is

42:49 ↗ that we had no control the outside our

42:50 ↗ city borders and so we were picking

42:52 ↗ intersections that were near the city

42:54 ↗ borders that were influenced by outside

42:56 ↗ in impacts such as the growth and

43:00 ↗ Sammamish for instance how can we

43:02 ↗ control the intersection that is a cloth

43:04 ↗ fall City Road and Hounds Drive when we

43:07 ↗ aren't the ones putting different land

43:10 ↗ uses on the other side of that

43:11 ↗ intersection so that's why these that I

43:17 ↗ recall these were chosen sheldon am I

43:19 ↗ saying that right that was one of the

43:24 ↗ major factors yeah so then it would be

43:28 ↗ changing the policy the concurrency

43:31 ↗ policy at the time to say that you

43:33 ↗ wanted to increase the performance on

43:35 ↗ the one up the hill we couldn't that

43:39 ↗ would be opposite and what they had

43:42 ↗ previously said not that you can't say

43:43 ↗ that you certainly can it's just that

43:47 ↗ was the thought process behind those

43:49 ↗ yeah

43:51 ↗ take control of the intersection at

43:53 ↗ front and sunset because of south Hobart

43:58 ↗ havoc for instance if I read this

44:01 ↗ correctly then may miss some students so

44:04 ↗ it's okay to have the ease at those

44:06 ↗ intersections those intersections were

44:07 ↗ okay because what can we do about it

44:09 ↗ anyway what's kind of a thing and to put

44:11 ↗ and and I recall the desire to put in

44:15 ↗ investments in places that we could

44:17 ↗ control anybody else have some thoughts

44:24 ↗ about this or maybe a question I have a

44:30 ↗ follow-up question for the TA if I may

44:32 ↗ and it was really just kind of let me

44:35 ↗ get it back over there just policy

44:37 ↗ options so again I'm not here to

44:39 ↗ advocate one way or the other that's not

44:41 ↗ my role my role is really to facilitate

44:43 ↗ a dialogue here one thing by having 78

44:48 ↗ of your intersections have a level of

44:50 ↗ service D standard that means is the

44:53 ↗ second that delay goes above that

44:55 ↗ standard your and it might only be for a

44:59 ↗ little bit during the four to five

45:00 ↗ o'clock hour you're suddenly in a

45:04 ↗ scenario where you need to fix it you

45:06 ↗ need to find funding within a in a six

45:10 ↗ year period that's kind of what state

45:12 ↗ concurrency law requires I did want to

45:16 ↗ put out there kind of a policy option

45:18 ↗ and again not advocating just asking to

45:22 ↗ potentially be more lenient at other

45:26 ↗ isolated intersections and I don't know

45:28 ↗ that we need to define which ones they

45:29 ↗ are but so long as your overall average

45:32 ↗ remains at D we could also look at it in

45:36 ↗ more of a sub area standard such that

45:38 ↗ hey you know within this area of the

45:40 ↗ city we want to remain at D but we're

45:42 ↗ allowing some for some more flexibility

45:44 ↗ at isolated intersections I guess is

45:47 ↗ there a focus on the isolated

45:50 ↗ intersection or do we want to focus on

45:53 ↗ more of a maybe a corridor a sub area or

45:56 ↗ even citywide kind of average of course

45:59 ↗ a driver when they get in the car they

46:01 ↗ go through

46:02 ↗ many intersections typically they're not

46:04 ↗ just going through one and so I guess

46:07 ↗ we're looking at how strongly do we want

46:09 ↗ this standard to drive capital

46:11 ↗ investment excuse the pun on that so I

46:17 ↗ just want to ask a clarifying question

46:19 ↗ so what you're saying is if the city

46:21 ↗ states that our level of service is D

46:24 ↗ that means if at the peak rush hour at

46:27 ↗ you know 8 a.m. if we hit a level of

46:31 ↗ service

46:32 ↗ that's delayed because it's rush hour

46:34 ↗ that means we're no longer in compliance

46:37 ↗ and we need to identify a way as a city

46:40 ↗ to improve that intersection is that is

46:44 ↗ that what I'm hearing you so that's

46:45 ↗ generally correct Curt it is and in that

46:48 ↗ I can't remember fam its are you sore

46:50 ↗ does it I mean I'm just trying to figure

46:51 ↗ out if it's just is if it's you know if

46:54 ↗ level of service is defined at the rush

46:56 ↗ and our peak a.m. p.m. or do we throw

46:58 ↗ rush hour out of the equation because

47:00 ↗ it's rush hour and level of service is

47:03 ↗ defined as like a Saturday when you're

47:04 ↗ trying to do your errands at Costco

47:07 ↗ currently it's the rush hour and the

47:09 ↗ p.m. which said L OS was evaluated

47:12 ↗ against ok and so if you don't meet the

47:15 ↗ l OS prescribed by policy then an

47:17 ↗ improvement needs to be identified and

47:20 ↗ put into the capital plan to bring the

47:22 ↗ level service back up ok now I'm going

47:27 ↗ to throw in some more policy ranges

47:29 ↗ apologize in the conversation that

47:34 ↗ Kendra was dialing up with the policy

47:36 ↗ option to be more lenient certain

47:38 ↗ intersections or whatever if you recall

47:41 ↗ earlier I spoke about how the different

47:44 ↗ mobility alternatives compete for that l

47:47 ↗ OS this is an opportunity to have

47:51 ↗ conversations over corridors sub areas

47:55 ↗ as Kendra was mentioning and saying well

47:57 ↗ is it worth allowing the hello s to drop

48:01 ↗ in the PM peak at XYZ intersection or

48:05 ↗ intersections in return for increased

48:10 ↗ mobility through those intersections for

48:12 ↗ pedestrians

48:15 ↗ or in the future of queue jumps for

48:18 ↗ transit you know it's you can start to

48:21 ↗ connect the dots here to start to take

48:24 ↗ the community where the community wants

48:28 ↗ to go okay so I'm just

48:29 ↗ unfortunately I'm probably making things

48:31 ↗ more complex but I think this is a great

48:33 ↗ opportunity to have that conversation

48:35 ↗ well in just a long along those lines -

48:38 ↗ I think that of course what you in

48:41 ↗ anything what you measures what you see

48:43 ↗ right and so if you're measuring

48:44 ↗ intersection level service and looking

48:47 ↗ at delayed intersections that's what

48:49 ↗ you're focused on

48:50 ↗ and as Kendra talked about briefly I

48:52 ↗ think there's and Sheldon just mentioned

48:54 ↗ there's other ways potentially think

48:58 ↗ about how roads and Road corridors and

49:00 ↗ safety and how those things factor into

49:02 ↗ what traffic flow and how automobiles

49:08 ↗ should function Issaquah so I just to

49:10 ↗ challenge you and it's this is a bigger

49:13 ↗ conversation that we're gonna have time

49:14 ↗ to get into great detail tonight

49:16 ↗ obviously but but just suffice to say we

49:21 ↗ measure level of service it's a it's one

49:23 ↗ indicator of traffic flow

49:25 ↗ it certainly is it's a it's a relatively

49:27 ↗ easy thing to measure you can go out it

49:31 ↗ to each intersection and actually fairly

49:33 ↗ easily measure the level of service at

49:36 ↗ intersection so that's what we use it's

49:38 ↗ a pretty pretty commonly used

49:41 ↗ measurement for traffic flow but it's

49:45 ↗ just it's not the I guess just again to

49:48 ↗ challenge you all it's not the only way

49:50 ↗ to think about transportation system or

49:54 ↗ even a vehicle part of a transportation

49:57 ↗ system so I do I guess so

50:05 ↗ it's hard for me I don't have enough

50:07 ↗ hands-on experience to say whether these

50:09 ↗ are the right levels in 55 seconds and

50:11 ↗ 84 intersections and I appreciate that

50:13 ↗ those are important things but I think

50:16 ↗ to John to this point I think the real

50:19 ↗ we can take a step back and have a

50:22 ↗ discussion about the values

50:24 ↗ and I'm just if if we have something

50:28 ↗ that's not lenient enough that then puts

50:31 ↗ us in an investment into an old way of

50:34 ↗ doing things that I don't think is a

50:37 ↗ vision for Issaquah in the next

50:39 ↗ generation and I guess I would just

50:41 ↗ encourage us to all of us hate traffic

50:44 ↗ who doesn't hate traffic

50:45 ↗ everyone hates traffic traffic is

50:47 ↗ terrible but solving traffic singular

50:51 ↗ occupancy drivers is it's not really

50:54 ↗ about you know it's really easy to get

50:56 ↗ caught up in like talking about changing

50:58 ↗ people's behavior or not it's not what

51:00 ↗ it's about it's about to me it's about

51:03 ↗ investment and it's about do we really

51:06 ↗ keep chasing something that we know we

51:08 ↗ know we can't build our way out of

51:10 ↗ congestion we learned that in the last

51:12 ↗ 40 years of transportation planning

51:14 ↗ right I think the the council and the

51:18 ↗ staff is looking to an advisory

51:20 ↗ committee to say be bold I don't want to

51:23 ↗ keep investing in 50 seconds of delay I

51:27 ↗ want to invest in a sustainable

51:30 ↗ transportation network for the next

51:33 ↗ generation and so I look to the experts

51:37 ↗ to translate that I don't know if that's

51:39 ↗ lenient enough I don't know if it's too

51:40 ↗ lenient I don't know if it's too strict

51:42 ↗ because that's not my field so I can't

51:44 ↗ make sense of these numbers and I I

51:45 ↗ understand what that they're referring

51:48 ↗ to but I have nothing to compare it to

51:50 ↗ all I know is that people aren't gonna

51:52 ↗ change their behavior because they

51:55 ↗ suddenly become environmentalists I mean

51:57 ↗ you know you go to New York City they're

51:59 ↗ not taking the subway because they're

52:00 ↗ environmentalists because driving a car

52:02 ↗ is ridiculous it's just a non-starter

52:05 ↗ right and I'm not saying we are ever

52:07 ↗ gonna get to that level but people will

52:09 ↗ get out of their cars because there are

52:11 ↗ options that are better they're cheaper

52:14 ↗ they're faster they're more certain

52:17 ↗ they're more reliable and so I just want

52:20 ↗ to make sure that when we're looking at

52:21 ↗ number of intersections and if it's E or

52:24 ↗ F that we're keeping in mind like where

52:28 ↗ are we going and what is our value

52:30 ↗ system everyone hates traffic but I

52:33 ↗ think if all we do is make traffic

52:35 ↗ better

52:35 ↗ we will have shortchanged the next

52:38 ↗ generation of squat residents there's my

52:41 ↗ soapbox thank you you know where you're

52:46 ↗ leaving with that as if the intersection

52:47 ↗ is at D and it's gonna say D

52:50 ↗ but that comedy's just vehicles how do

52:52 ↗ we then to say okay that's what it's

52:54 ↗ going to be but if we have certain

52:56 ↗ amount of payment we can accommodate

52:57 ↗ safe bike option along that Street that

53:01 ↗ bikes can then use that the D will still

53:03 ↗ remain a D but then you have the option

53:04 ↗ for bikes or something else going

53:06 ↗ through there and that's where the money

53:07 ↗ should go or if it's a transit route

53:09 ↗ bill to put in a bypass or a Q jump in

53:12 ↗ there in addition to whatever the D is

53:15 ↗ for the regular cars I think that's

53:17 ↗ where we want to go is that what I'm

53:21 ↗ hearing I really appreciate I'll chime

53:24 ↗ in to the I appreciate what you said

53:27 ↗ Sheldon about Army was great you know I

53:29 ↗ can't remember sorry I'll give credit

53:31 ↗ whoever said about areas or regions sub

53:33 ↗ areas and because the right now we're

53:40 ↗ planning for a lot of growth in a place

53:43 ↗ where the expectation of driving through

53:46 ↗ it at least at a level D is is

53:49 ↗ reasonable but to drive through central

53:51 ↗ Issaquah at full build-out would be

53:54 ↗ quite different you'll be have a grid of

53:56 ↗ city streets where you will be stopping

53:58 ↗ frequently and in moving on and and how

54:00 ↗ that translates into performance I don't

54:02 ↗ know when we get more street lights when

54:05 ↗ we get more as the other diagram the

54:09 ↗ central Issaquah grid system when people

54:10 ↗ get more options to take a left here or

54:12 ↗ right there will that facilitate flow of

54:17 ↗ traffic because now we've filled in the

54:20 ↗ grid

54:21 ↗ I was wondering how we might look at

54:24 ↗ this if we wrote a policy today that

54:27 ↗ said we're gonna allow performance to

54:30 ↗ drop on more intersections when there

54:34 ↗ isn't a trigger that's demanding it and

54:37 ↗ how would you how would you how would

54:40 ↗ you city that up so that when it's

54:42 ↗ appropriate level of service will drop

54:45 ↗ in certain areas it's not going to drop

54:47 ↗ too

54:47 ↗ but it will when you put in thousand new

54:50 ↗ apartments down on Wall Street well I

54:55 ↗ think a little bit its first of all

54:58 ↗ these are very complicated questions and

55:00 ↗ and I applaud your tackling them because

55:03 ↗ and as I mentioned it's it's more than

55:05 ↗ we have time for tonight but we can

55:07 ↗ certainly continue these conversations a

55:12 ↗ part of it is is kind of a Cynthia with

55:15 ↗ it a little bit what kind of a community

55:17 ↗ do we want to build for the future and

55:20 ↗ where does automobile level service fit

55:24 ↗ into all that and because we know that

55:27 ↗ intersection improvements are are

55:30 ↗ typically very expensive improvements

55:32 ↗ with the widening widening the streets

55:34 ↗ additional right away environmental

55:36 ↗ issues all those kinds of things add

55:38 ↗ greatly to cost so we we know that we

55:42 ↗ know that we also know that as we wide

55:44 ↗ intersections it sort of works against

55:46 ↗ some of the other modes it's more

55:49 ↗ difficult it's less friendly to for it

55:52 ↗ to be a pedestrian and larger

55:53 ↗ intersection or to be on a bike or about

55:58 ↗ transit so much but so it's it's a

56:00 ↗ balance and it's a it's a it's a balance

56:03 ↗ against a funding challenge as well and

56:07 ↗ so you know what where does the

56:11 ↗ importance of delay and level service

56:14 ↗ fit into the overall transportation plan

56:17 ↗ that's the that's the work that you all

56:20 ↗ need to help us with you know you're not

56:23 ↗ alone on this you've got staff you've

56:25 ↗ got the mayor and the council in the

56:27 ↗ community but I we're trying to throw

56:32 ↗ some ideas out there and see what

56:34 ↗ resonates began word and what I'm

56:36 ↗ telling you or what we're sharing with

56:38 ↗ you is some ideas well it's what we're

56:40 ↗ currently doing now and these are the

56:42 ↗ ideas that many communities are

56:45 ↗ currently doing to be honest but also a

56:48 ↗ lot of communities are questioning this

56:50 ↗ this level of service intersection

56:54 ↗ automobile focused way of measuring a

56:57 ↗ transportation system so we can get into

57:00 ↗ other ways Kendra I'm sure can talk and

57:04 ↗ great length about other ways of

57:05 ↗ measuring how well your transportation

57:08 ↗ system is working and I don't want us to

57:11 ↗ get because we have a bunch of great

57:13 ↗ information here to share with you

57:15 ↗ tonight I'd kind of like to suggest that

57:17 ↗ you hold this thought I think you have

57:20 ↗ it seems like you have a pretty good

57:21 ↗ understanding of what intersection auto

57:24 ↗ base level service is about and I think

57:28 ↗ it will be worthwhile looking at these

57:31 ↗ other modes and you'll start to see how

57:33 ↗ all of this fits together or doesn't fit

57:36 ↗ and conflicts with each other and if

57:40 ↗ this work was easy anybody could do it

57:42 ↗ so we're again we're very happy to have

57:44 ↗ you working with us and challenging some

57:47 ↗ of the assumptions we we've worked on

57:50 ↗ here for many many years it sounds good

57:54 ↗ so how do you guys feel about getting a

57:56 ↗ little deeper into the other modes and

57:58 ↗ then I'm having them weave into this

58:00 ↗ conversation I'm good I've gotten some

58:03 ↗ good input I mean just the input and the

58:07 ↗ guidance you provided already is for

58:10 ↗ more it's a thoughtful approach that

58:13 ↗ considers considers delay but it

58:16 ↗ considers it visa Vee other things so

58:20 ↗ thank you Nina for significant reducing

58:24 ↗ the next topic which is connectivity and

58:26 ↗ you can see here kind of the policy that

58:28 ↗ we've recommended is to build a

58:30 ↗ connected Street network that

58:32 ↗ prioritizes the movement of people and

58:36 ↗ goods and essentially that's kind of the

58:39 ↗ network and the policy you can see here

58:41 ↗ these are the connections that you have

58:43 ↗ in your central Issaquah plan and so

58:45 ↗ with this kind of policy it really is

58:47 ↗ advancing that Street grid that was

58:51 ↗ brought forth in the central is qwop

58:53 ↗ plan so the question that we have for

58:56 ↗ the ta be is do we agree with adopting

59:00 ↗ the roadway connections in the central

59:02 ↗ Issaquah plan as a part of the MMP and

59:06 ↗ just that plan talks about one area of

59:09 ↗ the city I think the question we have

59:11 ↗ and we don't need to go through and

59:13 ↗ identify road connections tonight but is

59:15 ↗ that is that the area we want to focus

59:17 ↗ on or should we be looking at

59:20 ↗ connectivity in other parts of the city

59:22 ↗ as well that's a question we can answer

59:29 ↗ don't work guess we look at connectivity

59:33 ↗ with Maple Street is some opportunities

59:37 ↗ does it recommend the maple street be

59:39 ↗ connected all the way over to Newport

59:41 ↗ and that kind of helps open up the other

59:43 ↗ side of 900 as far as in your in the

59:46 ↗ central disc area on to the outside and

59:49 ↗ 900 as opposed to just kind of being a

59:50 ↗ dead he's run that side of the freeway

59:54 ↗ so essentially a across i-90

59:57 ↗ connectivity is another fine 9900 yes

1:00:01 ↗ goes across the 900 and continues on and

1:00:03 ↗ connects up with the new Parkway okay

1:00:05 ↗ okay which I think was a plan at one

1:00:08 ↗ point it was a plan at one point due to

1:00:13 ↗ environmental constraints and other

1:00:14 ↗ issues it's extremely difficult if not

1:00:17 ↗ impossible to permit that's why it has

1:00:21 ↗ fallen off but it's a good idea still

1:00:25 ↗ I'm not gonna deny that in candor can

1:00:27 ↗ you put the map back up for a moment

1:00:29 ↗ please

1:00:29 ↗ I just want to point out Kendra you

1:00:33 ↗ mentioned and i-90 crossing and

1:00:35 ↗ unfortunately the map has missed putting

1:00:38 ↗ that on there that is in the central

1:00:39 ↗ Issaquah and it's roughly in the

1:00:42 ↗ neighborhood between 10th and 12th and

1:00:44 ↗ it does cross over and make connection

1:00:45 ↗ to the north side of i-90 this one here

1:00:48 ↗ yes it should have been on the map okay

1:00:52 ↗ because it's in the plan

1:00:54 ↗ and I'm sorry to guessing that the maple

1:00:57 ↗ street crossing for i-90 is not in the

1:00:59 ↗ plan any more than it is in the plan

1:01:01 ↗ it's not showing oversight in the map

1:01:05 ↗ did not show the project maple now

1:01:11 ↗ oh no the Maple Street extension that

1:01:12 ↗ goes across 900 to Newport way no I'm

1:01:17 ↗ talking about in the right-hand side of

1:01:19 ↗ the map that goes over to the Costco

1:01:20 ↗ area where maple comes out of design nd

1:01:26 ↗ crossing is inadvertently not shown on

1:01:29 ↗ this map it is in the plan the one

1:01:32 ↗ that's shown to the right of that is

1:01:33 ↗ that the that's a pedestrian crossing

1:01:36 ↗ that's that's a pedestrian over crossing

1:01:38 ↗ okay thank you that's what I know okay

1:01:42 ↗ it's separate from the road crossing

1:01:43 ↗ over that is separate and in addition to

1:01:46 ↗ [Music]

1:01:49 ↗ so I think our primary questions are one

1:01:53 ↗ do we agree with connectivity is one of

1:01:55 ↗ our policies okay and then second part

1:02:00 ↗ of it should we be focused mostly on

1:02:04 ↗ central is quo or should we be thinking

1:02:06 ↗ about connectivity more broadly I have a

1:02:10 ↗ question about that

1:02:11 ↗ when we talk about connection in other

1:02:12 ↗ parts of the city and maybe we're

1:02:13 ↗ talking about old town or behind Gilman

1:02:17 ↗ any of those places we have

1:02:19 ↗ environmental constraints and you're

1:02:22 ↗ talking about Auto connectivity here but

1:02:25 ↗ we're built building filling out a grid

1:02:26 ↗ where would we say that yes we want

1:02:29 ↗ connectivity but in some cases it would

1:02:31 ↗ just be bike ped yeah finishing the grid

1:02:35 ↗ because there's a creek or something

1:02:38 ↗ where would we say that that was that

1:02:41 ↗ what's of interest to me because you

1:02:42 ↗ still want all that flexibility of using

1:02:45 ↗ a grid system but you don't I don't

1:02:47 ↗ think that we necessarily in the tight

1:02:52 ↗ neighborhoods like gold town need it to

1:02:54 ↗ be for automobile okay so including

1:02:58 ↗ maybe connectivity policies within the

1:03:00 ↗ plan that gives the city something it

1:03:01 ↗ can point to to really kind of reinforce

1:03:03 ↗ that desire for more bike ped

1:03:06 ↗ actions as properties develop a few of a

1:03:09 ↗ large thought property that is part of

1:03:11 ↗ the grid though and you know it and I'm

1:03:13 ↗ in my mind is popping up how I use

1:03:15 ↗ Seattle when I'm there I can go anywhere

1:03:18 ↗ in Seattle because usually at the end of

1:03:19 ↗ the road if you can't drive up that hill

1:03:21 ↗ you walk a flight of stairs and so the

1:03:24 ↗ pedestrian can get there that sort of

1:03:27 ↗ thing so I know I have to apologize I

1:03:32 ↗ made a mistake on that map the crossing

1:03:34 ↗ is shown at the right location by ninety

1:03:38 ↗ there is but it's not part of the road

1:03:41 ↗ network oh there is a pedestrian

1:03:43 ↗ crossing further east of i-90 but it's

1:03:46 ↗ not part of the road network connections

1:03:48 ↗ my mistake

1:03:49 ↗ okay Maps correct let's see which one

1:03:51 ↗ that's the new port that comes around

1:03:53 ↗ and Canaan

1:03:54 ↗ that's correct my eyes had it shifted a

1:03:56 ↗ little bit more to the west

1:03:59 ↗ any other comments about grid

1:04:02 ↗ connectivity especially for the out oh I

1:04:05 ↗ would make one comment as far as the

1:04:07 ↗ connectivity to the other areas of the

1:04:09 ↗ city and this is something we talked a

1:04:11 ↗ little bit about in our subgroup as far

1:04:14 ↗ as the non motorized mobility is if

1:04:16 ↗ we're looking at a 20 year time horizon

1:04:18 ↗ and we're looking at how much it costs

1:04:21 ↗ to build projects I would say that I

1:04:26 ↗ think that as a city it would make sense

1:04:29 ↗ to prioritize sort of the it would make

1:04:33 ↗ sense to prioritize the central Issaquah

1:04:36 ↗ portion of the city because that's where

1:04:38 ↗ we're gonna see a lot of growth

1:04:39 ↗ happening that's where we see our

1:04:41 ↗ commercial you know the heart of our

1:04:43 ↗ commercial city are the heart of our

1:04:44 ↗ cultural city etc and so personally I

1:04:48 ↗ think it makes the most sense to invest

1:04:50 ↗ there especially because we don't have

1:04:53 ↗ unlimited dollars if we wound up at the

1:04:55 ↗ end of time realizing we had an extra

1:04:58 ↗ five million bucks to spend then we

1:05:00 ↗ could maybe start looking at some of the

1:05:02 ↗ outer parts of that but personally I

1:05:05 ↗ think as much as we can investing in the

1:05:07 ↗ center part of our in the heart of our

1:05:09 ↗ city makes the most sense to me and I do

1:05:12 ↗ not live in the heart of the city so

1:05:13 ↗ that's I'm just telling you I'm not

1:05:15 ↗ being biased

1:05:16 ↗ that's not where I live I just think

1:05:18 ↗ that makes my sense to just since we're

1:05:25 ↗ talking about connectivity since we're

1:05:29 ↗ talking about connectivity I'm wondering

1:05:31 ↗ if there's a way that we can write in

1:05:33 ↗ that part of these Road gate roadway

1:05:36 ↗ connections need to be accounting for

1:05:39 ↗ ped and bicycle I mean we're we're

1:05:43 ↗ planning that we're a student we're not

1:05:45 ↗ assuming everyone it's gonna stop driver

1:05:47 ↗ in their car but we do need to have that

1:05:48 ↗ in written somewhere in this

1:05:52 ↗ connectivity part with autos we want to

1:05:55 ↗ make sure that it's open to maybe

1:05:58 ↗ putting it on the grid you know planning

1:06:00 ↗ in somewhere else I'm just not sure if

1:06:01 ↗ it would fit here or somewhere else

1:06:04 ↗ connectivity is a kind of a cross modal

1:06:07 ↗ concept but I like your idea that we

1:06:09 ↗ should make sure that these are multi

1:06:11 ↗ truly multi modal connections so I think

1:06:13 ↗ that's the thing we could certainly add

1:06:14 ↗ in okay I think that's baked into the

1:06:18 ↗ movement of people and goods and I think

1:06:20 ↗ that's a good way to describe the end

1:06:24 ↗ goal it really would capture both all

1:06:29 ↗ modes I guess I just I did one other

1:06:32 ↗ question about this and that's um I'm

1:06:34 ↗ just struggling a little bit maybe I

1:06:36 ↗ missed something but I'm I'm having

1:06:38 ↗ trouble with the idea of connectivity

1:06:40 ↗ for investments in this westernmost part

1:06:43 ↗ on the map when the most the the Transit

1:06:49 ↗ Center is so it's not seems like kind of

1:06:52 ↗ an island of connectivity which is like

1:06:54 ↗ almost like an oxymoron so I don't know

1:06:58 ↗ maybe this isn't the place where this

1:07:00 ↗ gets addressed but I am having a little

1:07:01 ↗ trouble with this island out here and

1:07:04 ↗ that's not connected then to the primary

1:07:08 ↗ transportation the Transit Center which

1:07:11 ↗ and I guess do we know the alignment of

1:07:14 ↗ them are you talking about west of 900

1:07:16 ↗ is that where you're yeah that Island

1:07:19 ↗ out was just of connectivity snooze

1:07:24 ↗ and I think we're gonna get to a trance

1:07:27 ↗ Oh - Sheldon and curds point that we are

1:07:30 ↗ gonna get to talking about transit and

1:07:32 ↗ do the transit routes that we've

1:07:34 ↗ historically focused on in this

1:07:35 ↗ community do they make sense visa vie

1:07:38 ↗ some of the growth that we're expecting

1:07:39 ↗ as a part of the central Issaquah plan

1:07:41 ↗ so I can't speak exactly to the

1:07:44 ↗ construction of why those roadways I

1:07:46 ↗ assume that was planted out as a part of

1:07:48 ↗ kind of your zoning and the envisioned

1:07:50 ↗ development in the area but I think if

1:07:54 ↗ your concern is that it's not connected

1:07:56 ↗ with transit there's a couple of ways to

1:07:58 ↗ look at it one is why isn't transit

1:08:00 ↗ serving it well and should it are you

1:08:02 ↗ talking about between connecting 19 that

1:08:05 ↗ Street it goes up and then over to the

1:08:07 ↗ grid that's kind of isolated up on this

1:08:09 ↗ I'm just talking conceptually about the

1:08:12 ↗ island on the northwest side and it's

1:08:16 ↗ weird that it's not connected to where

1:08:18 ↗ all the transit action is the major like

1:08:21 ↗ I am assuming there's I don't I can add

1:08:25 ↗ to that in between bat and 900 is the

1:08:28 ↗ rally development agreement so it's not

1:08:31 ↗ part of the central Islam plan however

1:08:34 ↗ that property to the west of 900 that

1:08:38 ↗ will be very densely developed and

1:08:41 ↗ should have its own grid system that's

1:08:44 ↗ part of the development agreement not

1:08:46 ↗ part of central is a co-op plan and that

1:08:48 ↗ I don't know why the other parts south

1:08:52 ↗ are excuse me east of 900 that are in

1:08:55 ↗ the rally development agreement and they

1:08:57 ↗ show up on here but that part doesn't

1:09:00 ↗ are you talking about the area of

1:09:02 ↗ between that's 900 and that and the

1:09:05 ↗ little patch the island yeah between us

1:09:08 ↗ are 900 and the island of grid the

1:09:11 ↗ Cynthia have pointed out will have it's

1:09:15 ↗ designed in a development agreement

1:09:17 ↗ rather than in central as co-op plan

1:09:19 ↗ that's what I'm saying there's connected

1:09:22 ↗ that says basically it'll be a giant not

1:09:25 ↗ really an island yeah it's not an island

1:09:27 ↗ you're right

1:09:28 ↗ an island of England anybody else about

1:09:35 ↗ connectivity and the automobile and the

1:09:38 ↗ grid and where it should be

1:09:42 ↗ that's something it seems like in

1:09:44 ↗ conveying the points what I've heard is

1:09:46 ↗ that we should make sure that the

1:09:48 ↗ graphics ultimately they get in the plan

1:09:50 ↗ to make it understandable to the public

1:09:52 ↗ we need to show that full picture so do

1:09:56 ↗ you like red for developer blue

1:09:57 ↗ absolutely yes those are absolutely

1:09:59 ↗ points that we can bring it so the idea

1:10:01 ↗ of that grid would be to provide whether

1:10:04 ↗ it's car or bike all sorts of access

1:10:06 ↗ within those correct lines okay I'm

1:10:10 ↗ gonna go to the next the last component

1:10:12 ↗ of auto and fortunately our other modes

1:10:15 ↗ we don't have like three flavors of each

1:10:16 ↗ so that'll go a little faster safety as

1:10:20 ↗ we mentioned earlier your level of

1:10:22 ↗ service policy today for autos focuses

1:10:24 ↗ just on delay it doesn't focus on safety

1:10:26 ↗ and so in our recommendation and again

1:10:29 ↗ this is just a recommendation on the

1:10:31 ↗ table looking for your input looking at

1:10:34 ↗ all roadway say facilities and I know we

1:10:37 ↗ even had some comments of well is that

1:10:39 ↗ that necessarily the right network to be

1:10:41 ↗ looking at with the policy to implement

1:10:43 ↗ safety improvements at locations with a

1:10:46 ↗ history of severe and fatal collisions

1:10:49 ↗ so you can see on this map here they

1:10:53 ↗ actually tried to show where we've had

1:10:56 ↗ fatal and severe collisions the fail

1:10:58 ↗ being the blacks the the severe being

1:11:00 ↗ the orange diamonds so does the city use

1:11:05 ↗ collision history to prioritize projects

1:11:09 ↗ is there a policy that the city will

1:11:11 ↗ start addressing these these areas so

1:11:16 ↗ I'll pause there and ask if that's you

1:11:18 ↗ know the right kind of way to look at

1:11:21 ↗ this or if there's another way that the

1:11:23 ↗ TA bee would like to think about

1:11:25 ↗ addressing safety I was gonna just gonna

1:11:28 ↗ say that like a different meeting I

1:11:30 ↗ remember who said it but someone said it

1:11:32 ↗ does there have to be someone who's

1:11:33 ↗ killed or seriously injured for us to

1:11:35 ↗ fix a problem like is there any other

1:11:37 ↗ way for us to

1:11:39 ↗ address potential safety concerns before

1:11:41 ↗ they actually like injure or hurt

1:11:44 ↗ someone so she's enough questioning

1:11:45 ↗ that's a really good question so a lot

1:11:48 ↗ of communities you might have heard of

1:11:49 ↗ the vision zero or the target zero

1:11:51 ↗ initiative in the state which is really

1:11:53 ↗ kind of a focus on having essentially

1:11:55 ↗ zero transportation related fatalities I

1:11:59 ↗ can't remember the time horizon won't

1:12:01 ↗ say twenty years out under a policy like

1:12:04 ↗ that communities are not just looking at

1:12:06 ↗ where there's a history but they

1:12:08 ↗ actually look at something called

1:12:10 ↗ systemic safety assessments where they

1:12:12 ↗ look at the characteristics of the

1:12:14 ↗ roadway and the land uses around the

1:12:17 ↗ roadway to kind of predict those

1:12:18 ↗ locations that are correlated with

1:12:20 ↗ unsafe behaviors so if you were

1:12:24 ↗ interested in that it would be that the

1:12:27 ↗ safety the city would be kind of

1:12:29 ↗ monitoring in predicting the safety of

1:12:32 ↗ its facilities and addressing those

1:12:34 ↗ locations that are most affiliated with

1:12:37 ↗ high collision factors so it's another

1:12:40 ↗ construction I think for sure we should

1:12:47 ↗ consider where there have been injuries

1:12:50 ↗ or fatalities but we should also look at

1:12:51 ↗ those other parts that dictate what

1:12:56 ↗ roads are safe and which aren't and then

1:12:58 ↗ focus on that as well but else I'm

1:13:04 ↗ saving mine tell you guys all chime in

1:13:07 ↗ anybody okay I want to +1 and elaborate

1:13:14 ↗ on Kobe's comment the I wrote in my

1:13:17 ↗ notes in review in the packet that I

1:13:19 ↗ wanted to express my desire to look at

1:13:27 ↗ adopting a vision zero approach I saw

1:13:30 ↗ that both the cities of Bellevue and

1:13:32 ↗ Kirkland use a vision zero in their

1:13:35 ↗ transportation elements the City of

1:13:38 ↗ Seattle does but Bellevue Kirkland Rakow

1:13:41 ↗ sir to us if they can do it why can't we

1:13:47 ↗ there have been a lot of people in our

1:13:48 ↗ community clamoring for this especially

1:13:51 ↗ after sadly after somebody gets hurt

1:13:54 ↗ they're saying why do we do it backwards

1:13:57 ↗ like this and then the other thing I

1:13:59 ↗ wanted to add to that consideration is

1:14:02 ↗ we're doing work on West Lake Sammamish

1:14:05 ↗ Parkway because we know it's not safe

1:14:08 ↗ because people say it's not safe it

1:14:11 ↗ doesn't have doesn't have a little

1:14:14 ↗ diamond on it though it says it's

1:14:15 ↗ somebody who is killed or injured but we

1:14:17 ↗ know that we have to work on that so

1:14:20 ↗ intuitively we're already heading this

1:14:23 ↗ direction why don't we formalize it with

1:14:24 ↗ the policy that might imitate something

1:14:27 ↗ like belvira Kirkland who says that we

1:14:29 ↗ adopt the vision zero it's good input

1:14:33 ↗ yeah okay super so I'm gonna keep going

1:14:37 ↗ to walking policies finally there so two

1:14:41 ↗ focus areas for walking one is on

1:14:44 ↗ sidewalks and one is on crosswalks so

1:14:46 ↗ you can see that there's a lot of stuff

1:14:48 ↗ this is building on and then in terms of

1:14:52 ↗ the guiding principles it's really kind

1:14:55 ↗ of thinking about those connections and

1:14:57 ↗ formal walking policies perspective we

1:14:59 ↗ are really thinking about you know what

1:15:01 ↗ is what are the land use is what are

1:15:03 ↗ those pedestrian generators so I'm gonna

1:15:06 ↗ go to a slide this this here is showing

1:15:09 ↗ kind of where we would propose just as

1:15:12 ↗ it as a start thinking about making sure

1:15:16 ↗ that we have sidewalks and so this is

1:15:20 ↗ the the pink lines here are the networks

1:15:22 ↗ and these are arterials and collectors

1:15:24 ↗ as the primary components of our

1:15:27 ↗ networks where we think about sidewalks

1:15:29 ↗ you can see this 20 is plenty here so

1:15:33 ↗ it's recognizing that for local streets

1:15:35 ↗ maybe we're not focusing as much on

1:15:38 ↗ providing sidewalks in local streets but

1:15:42 ↗ focusing our attentions on those

1:15:43 ↗ arterials and collectors and thinking

1:15:46 ↗ about for those local streets looking at

1:15:49 ↗ a lower speed limit such as a kind of a

1:15:52 ↗ 20 as plenty kind of policy so under

1:15:56 ↗ this type of policy just defaults as

1:15:59 ↗ we've constructed it

1:16:00 ↗ arterials and collectors should have

1:16:01 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the street

1:16:03 ↗ and you notice this is a essentially

1:16:06 ↗ constructed as it should not a shell so

1:16:08 ↗ recognizing they're going to be

1:16:09 ↗ locations where and we can talk about

1:16:12 ↗ kind of what some of those adjustments

1:16:14 ↗ those context-sensitive adjustments

1:16:16 ↗ might be and then the speed limit on all

1:16:20 ↗ local streets shall be 20 miles an hour

1:16:23 ↗ so this is this is the the shell

1:16:25 ↗ construction so this would be kind of a

1:16:28 ↗ major kind of citywide policy change and

1:16:32 ↗ the focus here is that if we're not if

1:16:34 ↗ we recognize we've only got a limited

1:16:35 ↗ amount of dollars for providing

1:16:37 ↗ pedestrian amenities around the city

1:16:39 ↗ trying to think about well how can we

1:16:42 ↗ spread that and focus those investment

1:16:45 ↗ dollars in the locations where the the

1:16:48 ↗ environment for pedestrians needs to be

1:16:50 ↗ provided via a dedicated facility

1:16:52 ↗ reducing speed limits on local streets

1:16:55 ↗ those tend to be low speed low volume

1:16:57 ↗ streets enforcement of this type of

1:16:59 ↗ policy would make them even more so so

1:17:04 ↗ we did a gaps analysis of your arterials

1:17:08 ↗ and collectors looked at locations where

1:17:10 ↗ we don't have sidewalks on both sides of

1:17:11 ↗ the street in red here is shown just

1:17:15 ↗ kind of our initial findings of our gaps

1:17:17 ↗ analysis so this would be the potential

1:17:20 ↗ projects that would be identified again

1:17:23 ↗ for the local streets that could be

1:17:25 ↗ dealt with through signage or just

1:17:27 ↗ through city code even advertisement and

1:17:32 ↗ promotion for a lower speed limit on

1:17:35 ↗ local streets and so our questions for

1:17:38 ↗ the ta B are are we comfortable with

1:17:41 ↗ focusing sidewalk investments

1:17:43 ↗ exclusively on arterials and collectors

1:17:46 ↗ that's a question and then should our

1:17:49 ↗ policies go beyond just requiring that

1:17:53 ↗ sidewalks be present to include elements

1:17:55 ↗ that make walking more comfortable so

1:17:57 ↗ that could include a variety of things a

1:18:02 ↗ five-foot sidewalk it's very different

1:18:04 ↗ than a 10-foot sidewalk sidewalk with an

1:18:06 ↗ amenity zone is very different than a

1:18:08 ↗ sidewalk without an amenity zone

1:18:11 ↗ trails I think I heard a good comment

1:18:14 ↗ was you know that some locations were

1:18:16 ↗ your proximate to a trail do you need a

1:18:17 ↗ sidewalk on that Street and that's a

1:18:20 ↗ reasonable conversation as well so is it

1:18:27 ↗ required anywhere within the city

1:18:30 ↗ statutes I guess that there has to be a

1:18:32 ↗ sidewalk on both sides of the street or

1:18:34 ↗ our two girls and collectors it's just

1:18:37 ↗ easier because it's it looks better so

1:18:41 ↗ we're currently that's a great question

1:18:44 ↗ we're currently updating and we what we

1:18:47 ↗ writing our Complete Streets ordinance

1:18:50 ↗ and if you're familiar with those the

1:18:53 ↗ Complete Streets ordinance idea is that

1:18:57 ↗ all streets have amenities for all modes

1:19:02 ↗ of travel so that's that's where we're

1:19:06 ↗ headed and as Dave talked earlier about

1:19:10 ↗ specific streets there may be some

1:19:13 ↗ debate on whether you want to do that on

1:19:15 ↗ every single Street in this COIs but but

1:19:17 ↗ the but the Complete Streets idea comes

1:19:20 ↗ from past history of over the last 50

1:19:27 ↗ years of building a lot of streets and

1:19:29 ↗ highways with very few pedestrian or

1:19:33 ↗ bicycle without with very little support

1:19:38 ↗ for pedestrians or bikes so so that is a

1:19:42 ↗ direction with our with our with the

1:19:45 ↗ update of our Complete Streets ordinance

1:19:47 ↗ that's the direction we're headed is to

1:19:49 ↗ formalize that policy so so that's where

1:19:56 ↗ that's where the city is headed and I

1:19:58 ↗ you know it's with good for you all to

1:20:02 ↗ weigh in on the do we want to do that

1:20:04 ↗ where it gets a little more difficult

1:20:06 ↗ when we talk about all streets is we

1:20:08 ↗ have a lot of older neighborhoods

1:20:12 ↗ especially on the south south end of

1:20:16 ↗ town up in squawk Mountain up for

1:20:19 ↗ example

1:20:21 ↗ smaller kind of talked a little bit

1:20:24 ↗ about that where we smaller streets and

1:20:26 ↗ older neighborhoods that don't have

1:20:28 ↗ sidewalks is that a is that a place

1:20:30 ↗ where we want to focus our money in

1:20:33 ↗ building sidewalks or those

1:20:34 ↗ neighborhoods okay because they're older

1:20:37 ↗ neighborhoods where people generally

1:20:38 ↗ drive slow and and it's maybe we should

1:20:42 ↗ focus our pedestrian money in other more

1:20:46 ↗ needy parts of the city but at this

1:20:49 ↗ point there's nothing that says we have

1:20:51 ↗ to have two sidewalks on the on the side

1:20:54 ↗ of an arterial or a collector within the

1:20:56 ↗ central Issaquah plan in that area that

1:21:00 ↗ nine hundred plus acres yes they adopted

1:21:03 ↗ street cross-section show sidewalk on

1:21:06 ↗ both sides of all the streets if the

1:21:08 ↗ expectation is that the urban densities

1:21:10 ↗ and the development that happens along

1:21:12 ↗ the street the sidewalks would be needed

1:21:15 ↗ on both sides of the road elsewhere

1:21:17 ↗ within the city I think you're right

1:21:19 ↗ it's it's a bit more flexible the street

1:21:22 ↗ standards provide for how to build it on

1:21:24 ↗ both sides but the decision to build it

1:21:26 ↗ on both sides is on a case-by-case basis

1:21:29 ↗ depending on what the land uses are that

1:21:31 ↗ are already existing or planned and I

1:21:35 ↗ think it might be worth it to look at

1:21:36 ↗ saying there should be one sidewalk you

1:21:40 ↗ know one side of the street has to have

1:21:42 ↗ sidewalk regardless of the age of your

1:21:44 ↗ community or maybe not real small side

1:21:49 ↗ streets but you know I'm not sure if I

1:21:53 ↗ should use arterial or collector but

1:21:55 ↗ like if you're going up the hill up the

1:21:56 ↗ mountain one side of the street I think

1:21:58 ↗ you should be able to walk up or down I

1:22:00 ↗ don't think it's necessary on both

1:22:01 ↗ because it is an older community and

1:22:03 ↗ it's just not a safe road not

1:22:04 ↗ everybody's gonna want to walk up and

1:22:06 ↗ down that so I don't know if that would

1:22:08 ↗ go here or how we would state that but I

1:22:10 ↗ think we should look at it's completely

1:22:13 ↗ fine in some areas to just have one

1:22:15 ↗ sidewalk builds and available but to is

1:22:18 ↗ not a necessity

1:22:19 ↗ yeah for example on the map it shows

1:22:22 ↗ Wildwood going up and instead one is up

1:22:25 ↗ at the top post like round that that

1:22:27 ↗ needs a sidewalk and that's

1:22:28 ↗ that's good because there's no other way

1:22:30 ↗ - you're just walking on the street

1:22:32 ↗ going up wild but up to the top I think

1:22:34 ↗ also that focused them I was thinking it

1:22:37 ↗ should be more people are gonna gather

1:22:39 ↗ and do things and go choppy in the

1:22:42 ↗ downtown area should have sighted walks

1:22:44 ↗ first if I'm looking at six years just

1:22:46 ↗ those sidewalks done then look at

1:22:48 ↗ elsewhere the neighborhoods but I think

1:22:50 ↗ what's on here I think has to be

1:22:52 ↗ included in that for example the main

1:22:53 ↗ round sicko of Clark Mountain and along

1:22:59 ↗ was it West Lake Sammamish Parkway on

1:23:02 ↗ the north side of the freeway where

1:23:06 ↗ there is nothing now and there's a lot

1:23:07 ↗ of both pedestrian walking biking

1:23:09 ↗ traffic on on those streets so let me

1:23:13 ↗ let me see if I've heard you correctly

1:23:15 ↗ there are very dense areas within the

1:23:20 ↗ city or where we anticipate high

1:23:23 ↗ densities like Central Issaquah where

1:23:25 ↗ two sides is probably appropriate but

1:23:28 ↗ outside of those designated areas along

1:23:32 ↗ arterials and collectors one side may be

1:23:34 ↗ okay you know it's not that we don't

1:23:37 ↗ aspire to provide sidewalks on both

1:23:39 ↗ sides but we might consider that okay

1:23:41 ↗ from the perspective of prioritized

1:23:44 ↗ projects I think it's a better way to

1:23:47 ↗ spend money if you're looking very

1:23:49 ↗ long-term

1:23:50 ↗ then let's get Metro fixed first and

1:23:54 ↗ then as you work out of the most dense

1:23:57 ↗ areas of city then at least we have one

1:23:59 ↗ very safe way to get up and down the

1:24:01 ↗ street but not necessarily forcing both

1:24:03 ↗ sides to be spend because I think that's

1:24:04 ↗ a waste of money right now like swag

1:24:06 ↗ Mountain is all residential so it would

1:24:08 ↗ be fine with sidewalk on one side of the

1:24:10 ↗ road but where their businesses and

1:24:11 ↗ other things and probably on both sides

1:24:14 ↗ okay there and there's also a concept

1:24:19 ↗ here that we haven't talked about it it

1:24:21 ↗ has to do with a hierarchy of sidewalks

1:24:23 ↗ and so it's kind of what you what you're

1:24:25 ↗ talking about it's like maybe the at

1:24:28 ↗ that well at the very lowest level there

1:24:31 ↗ would be areas where they would never

1:24:32 ↗ consider sidewalk so that would be for

1:24:34 ↗ example like a freeway so that's just

1:24:37 ↗ you don't want any pedestrians there

1:24:38 ↗ that's pretty obvious and then

1:24:40 ↗ next the next step up might be where you

1:24:43 ↗ would just have limited sidewalks maybe

1:24:45 ↗ it's one side of the street kind of what

1:24:47 ↗ you're talking about and then there's

1:24:48 ↗ the next level up is where you'd have

1:24:50 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the street

1:24:52 ↗ and then the next level up from that I

1:24:53 ↗ think you mentioned this Thomas maybe

1:24:56 ↗ you have Podesta high density high

1:25:00 ↗ levels of pedestrian use where you want

1:25:02 ↗ more than just sidewalks on both sides

1:25:04 ↗ of the street you really want to have

1:25:06 ↗ wider sidewalks maybe that's in in

1:25:08 ↗ downtown maybe that's on Sunset in front

1:25:12 ↗ in that area and that's where you really

1:25:14 ↗ that becomes more of a pedestrian place

1:25:17 ↗ so you don't necessarily talk about

1:25:21 ↗ sidewalks the same way they have it like

1:25:24 ↗ I said a hierarchy yeah a level of

1:25:29 ↗ sidewalks that's appropriate to where

1:25:32 ↗ they should belong in the city and so we

1:25:34 ↗ can we can work on that if that idea has

1:25:39 ↗ any traction makes any sense to you to

1:25:43 ↗ you folks yeah I think that idea makes

1:25:45 ↗ sense and then the other thing I'd

1:25:47 ↗ suggest is it's a bet so there's the

1:25:50 ↗ word sidewalk and sidewalk sort of you

1:25:52 ↗ know concrete curbing blah blah blah but

1:25:54 ↗ there's also this idea I think mentioned

1:25:57 ↗ in public comment earlier by Dave is is

1:26:00 ↗ this part of a bike network is it part

1:26:02 ↗ of a non-motorized you know beautiful

1:26:05 ↗ you know

1:26:06 ↗ stroll through the woods etc etc so if

1:26:09 ↗ there's if you're creating a safe and

1:26:12 ↗ accessible

1:26:13 ↗ well accessible is also a hard word but

1:26:15 ↗ if you're creating a safe pedestrian

1:26:16 ↗ environment then you know it may not

1:26:21 ↗ look like your standard sidewalk but

1:26:24 ↗ that connectivity is there and people

1:26:26 ↗ feel like I can go on it I could send my

1:26:28 ↗ child on it

1:26:30 ↗ it's create you know what I mean it's

1:26:32 ↗ creating that kind of ambience and I

1:26:34 ↗ think that's something we should also

1:26:36 ↗ consider as part of the vibe around

1:26:38 ↗ connectivity

1:26:40 ↗ there's nothing less rewarding than

1:26:42 ↗ building sidewalks

1:26:43 ↗ some standard that no one ever ever uses

1:26:46 ↗ it's kind of what you're going

1:26:50 ↗ okay what else

1:26:52 ↗ hey anybody else just had a couple

1:26:56 ↗ things I want to agree with you Sujata

1:26:58 ↗ that why does it have to be a sidewalk

1:27:00 ↗ and a public comment earlier a forest

1:27:04 ↗ path there's a great one on Mercer

1:27:05 ↗ Island near the Luther Burbank or to

1:27:08 ↗ where you get off the street it's just a

1:27:11 ↗ 25 mile an hour straight but it's

1:27:12 ↗ straight so a lot of people drive fast

1:27:14 ↗ you just walk behind the trees along the

1:27:16 ↗ beautiful path you can even ride a bike

1:27:18 ↗ on it

1:27:19 ↗ and it serves our use to get through

1:27:21 ↗ there and then the other was that while

1:27:28 ↗ I was looking at this I wanted to bring

1:27:31 ↗ up for a future discussion our road

1:27:36 ↗ definition in the in the transportation

1:27:39 ↗ element has all these arterioles and

1:27:42 ↗ then just one kind of local street and

1:27:45 ↗ that seems very unsatisfying to solve

1:27:47 ↗ this issue about which local street

1:27:49 ↗ would have sidewalks in which wouldn't I

1:27:50 ↗ can't imagine this the neighborhood

1:27:52 ↗ streets in Issaquah Highlands not having

1:27:54 ↗ sidewalks on either side those those

1:27:56 ↗ however are local streets and we would

1:27:59 ↗ have not done sidewalks on on those so

1:28:03 ↗ anyway I think I'm expanding on the

1:28:06 ↗ different types of local streets would

1:28:07 ↗ allow some for some more flexibility and

1:28:09 ↗ then the last thing I want to say about

1:28:10 ↗ this because I think that where it goes

1:28:11 ↗ is that in Issaquah past a lot of these

1:28:17 ↗ roads were arterioles because they were

1:28:18 ↗ intended for us to get from one place to

1:28:20 ↗ another and so we call them arterials

1:28:22 ↗ and collectors and all these kinds of

1:28:23 ↗ things but I hope that many of these

1:28:25 ↗ arterioles will become local streets

1:28:28 ↗ because they're now going to be in a

1:28:31 ↗ dense part of town rather than just a

1:28:34 ↗ mechanism to get from one place to

1:28:35 ↗ another for a future consideration

1:28:38 ↗ that's really and then the next thing to

1:28:41 ↗ consider is our timing we are at 7:30

1:28:44 ↗ which we were going to be at the

1:28:46 ↗ mobility master plan performance metrics

1:28:48 ↗ is that right so help us get through

1:28:51 ↗ this so my recommendation to this group

1:28:55 ↗ is that and I think we can make it

1:28:56 ↗ through this presentation the

1:28:59 ↗ performance metrics and we knew there

1:29:00 ↗ was the

1:29:01 ↗ risk that we wouldn't get there I think

1:29:03 ↗ we can bring that at the next meeting so

1:29:06 ↗ I think if we can make it through this

1:29:09 ↗ and I'm actually fairly confident we can

1:29:11 ↗ that's that would be my recommendation

1:29:14 ↗ your sense stay the course and table the

1:29:18 ↗ master mobility master plan performance

1:29:20 ↗ metrics to the next meeting if necessary

1:29:22 ↗ correct we won't forget performance

1:29:24 ↗ metrics but I think it's yes there's

1:29:26 ↗ value to finishing what we've started

1:29:29 ↗ here tonight okay well this is really

1:29:33 ↗ helpful and again I've gotten what I

1:29:35 ↗ needed and actually this next one we're

1:29:37 ↗ gonna and just here we were gonna talk

1:29:39 ↗ about this I'm not going to go into

1:29:40 ↗ detail already to the point that Kurt

1:29:42 ↗ brought up is thinking through different

1:29:45 ↗ hierarchies of streets and thinking

1:29:46 ↗ about not just sidewalk but you know

1:29:49 ↗ what is that what is that quality of

1:29:51 ↗ sidewalk one side versus the both

1:29:53 ↗ amenity thinking about other pedestrian

1:29:55 ↗ facilities so we've got that I wanted to

1:29:58 ↗ say crosswalks so this body will

1:29:59 ↗ actually be addressing crosswalks

1:30:01 ↗ through kind of a slightly parallel path

1:30:04 ↗ the city is updating its crossing

1:30:06 ↗ guidelines and so and that's going to

1:30:08 ↗ come through the TA B as well that work

1:30:12 ↗ has got kind of its own kind of

1:30:14 ↗ technical nuance city staff just had a

1:30:17 ↗ workshop I think it was last week to

1:30:20 ↗ kind of go through kind of what what

1:30:21 ↗ makes sense to consider as a part of

1:30:23 ↗ crosswalk guidance so we would actually

1:30:27 ↗ for identifying where we need crossings

1:30:31 ↗ in the city and where they should be

1:30:32 ↗ provided look to that guidance the city

1:30:36 ↗ has some some guidance today you can see

1:30:39 ↗ it on this flowchart here yeah it's it's

1:30:42 ↗ it's it's kind of crazy I hear some

1:30:45 ↗ casting for that but it's actually

1:30:46 ↗ really helpful it kind of looks at a

1:30:49 ↗ location and thinks about what are what

1:30:51 ↗ is the demand to cross and then what are

1:30:54 ↗ the street characteristics and what is

1:30:57 ↗ the type of crossing treatment that's

1:30:59 ↗ safe to provide the actually the

1:31:02 ↗ structure of the city's policy is not

1:31:04 ↗ bad at all what it lacks is some of the

1:31:07 ↗ most up-to-date

1:31:10 ↗ kind of treatments it doesn't have the

1:31:12 ↗ some of the most modern treatments that

1:31:14 ↗ have been identified since and developed

1:31:15 ↗ since the city identified its policy so

1:31:19 ↗ I just wanted to make sure that the TA

1:31:20 ↗ bee was comfortable with that generally

1:31:23 ↗ being addressed through this separate

1:31:24 ↗ process and that we'll be folding it

1:31:26 ↗ into the MMP so I see nodding and let me

1:31:32 ↗ just assure you ta BL be brought into

1:31:34 ↗ that process as well so you'll have your

1:31:36 ↗ opportunity to provide some input there

1:31:41 ↗ Viking policies so just as you know kind

1:31:46 ↗ of in terms of like the the biggest

1:31:48 ↗ thing that is caught has from a biking

1:31:50 ↗ perspective is the walk and roll

1:31:52 ↗ strategy that was developed in 2015 and

1:31:56 ↗ walk and roll strategy as we've talked

1:31:59 ↗ with staff it was it was a very good

1:32:00 ↗ planning effort I don't know if anybody

1:32:02 ↗ on this Dyess here was involved in that

1:32:04 ↗ it's got a lot of really great aspects

1:32:06 ↗ to it but it was very aspirational so it

1:32:09 ↗ identified a lot of facilities all over

1:32:12 ↗ the a lot of facilities all over the

1:32:14 ↗ city and what we're finding is that

1:32:15 ↗ while it had a lot of really great ideas

1:32:18 ↗ it's not giving us the focus that we

1:32:21 ↗ need to really identify those facilities

1:32:23 ↗ that are the most critical so in looking

1:32:26 ↗ to kind of stay to the practice guidance

1:32:30 ↗ we we think that level of traffic stress

1:32:33 ↗ provides a really good framework to

1:32:36 ↗ consider and this actually the images

1:32:40 ↗ here actually comes from the city of

1:32:41 ↗ Bell views multimodal level of service

1:32:44 ↗ policy so they're using level of traffic

1:32:45 ↗ stress and essentially they're using it

1:32:49 ↗ to say all right we want to think about

1:32:51 ↗ rather than thinking about is it a bike

1:32:53 ↗ bike lane is it a is it a parallel

1:32:57 ↗ running trail is it a share o or shared

1:33:00 ↗ facility what they think about is who

1:33:03 ↗ are we trying to cater to so we've got

1:33:07 ↗ when we think about cyclists we've got

1:33:09 ↗ it in kind of these four general

1:33:11 ↗ categories the most beginner level is

1:33:14 ↗ your what we call interested and

1:33:16 ↗ concerned but really what you need to

1:33:18 ↗ think about when you think about this

1:33:19 ↗ this is me cycling with my six-year-old

1:33:23 ↗ and what am i comfortable bringing my

1:33:25 ↗ six-year-old on and you know really I

1:33:28 ↗ need something that's very protected

1:33:30 ↗ it's I'm not willing to mingle with

1:33:32 ↗ traffic I want to be as far away from

1:33:34 ↗ that as possible it has to be the most

1:33:36 ↗ all ages all abilities friendly facility

1:33:38 ↗ you can consider as you move through

1:33:41 ↗ your levels when I'm not with my

1:33:43 ↗ six-year-old I'm still a fairly timid

1:33:45 ↗ cyclist and so I'm kind of an LTS - it's

1:33:48 ↗ kind of like I'll be in the bike lane

1:33:49 ↗ but only if it's on kind of a quieter

1:33:51 ↗ Street if it's a busier Street I really

1:33:55 ↗ need some level of major buffering to

1:33:58 ↗ make me comfortable using it

1:34:01 ↗ LTS three is you're more experienced

1:34:04 ↗ enthusiastic kind of writers if you have

1:34:06 ↗ a typical bike commuter that's not

1:34:09 ↗ completely kamikaze crazy but pretty

1:34:12 ↗ comfortable with writing on your more

1:34:14 ↗ your busier streets as long as there's

1:34:17 ↗ reasonable protection that's that's kind

1:34:20 ↗ of that group and then we get our strong

1:34:22 ↗ and fearless and we don't tend to plan

1:34:24 ↗ for this group as well because they bike

1:34:26 ↗ on the freeway if we'd let them so these

1:34:29 ↗ tend to be your guys and gals that are

1:34:31 ↗ wearing spandex they're comfortable

1:34:33 ↗ biking in January out in the rain more

1:34:35 ↗ power to them but that represents

1:34:38 ↗ roughly one to three percent of our

1:34:40 ↗ population so what is really powerful

1:34:44 ↗ about level of traffic stress you're

1:34:50 ↗ gonna have to stay by the microphone for

1:34:53 ↗ our TV viewers sorry about that I will I

1:34:56 ↗ will just point I'll try to use my arrow

1:35:00 ↗ so what we take into consideration is

1:35:03 ↗ kind of three characteristics one is the

1:35:05 ↗ the speed limit of the roadway and you

1:35:07 ↗ can see here on this on this graphic

1:35:10 ↗ here that we've got essentially roads

1:35:12 ↗ that are less than 25 miles an hour all

1:35:15 ↗ the way up to roads that are more than

1:35:17 ↗ 40 that are 40 or more miles per hour

1:35:19 ↗ it also takes into account the arterial

1:35:23 ↗ traffic volume so not only how faster

1:35:26 ↗ cars going but how many of them are

1:35:27 ↗ there and this level of traffic stress

1:35:30 ↗ guidance really gives us some

1:35:33 ↗ clear guidance on the types of

1:35:34 ↗ facilities that we would need to provide

1:35:38 ↗ to accommodate each user type so if you

1:35:42 ↗ want to provide a facility that's

1:35:44 ↗ comfortable for your interest and

1:35:46 ↗ concern it generally needs to be on your

1:35:48 ↗ lower speed roadways unless you're

1:35:51 ↗ willing to provide a physically

1:35:52 ↗ separated facility like our Mountain to

1:35:55 ↗ sound trail if we're planning for more

1:35:59 ↗ that interested in concern group so me

1:36:02 ↗ there are other kinds of treatments that

1:36:05 ↗ you'd need to put in place based on the

1:36:07 ↗ speed and the volume of this through the

1:36:09 ↗ roadway and you can see kind of other

1:36:11 ↗ user types and what they require so the

1:36:16 ↗ the end result here is thinking about

1:36:19 ↗ your roadway network and using this type

1:36:23 ↗ of framework for identifying facility

1:36:27 ↗ needs so going into kind of the policy

1:36:30 ↗ and the network as we've thought about

1:36:31 ↗ it so first of all this here you can see

1:36:35 ↗ the policy is to create low stress LTS

1:36:39 ↗ one or two bike network that connects

1:36:42 ↗ kind of major destinations transit hubs

1:36:45 ↗ residential and employment centers

1:36:47 ↗ throughout your rgc and we used the walk

1:36:51 ↗ and roll action strategy network so

1:36:54 ↗ again we didn't use necessarily the

1:36:56 ↗ recommendations of the walk and roll

1:36:58 ↗ plan but we use kind of the roadways

1:37:00 ↗ that they identified as the place that

1:37:03 ↗ we looked then what we did was we

1:37:05 ↗ actually looked at your current system

1:37:08 ↗ and we looked at kind of what type of

1:37:11 ↗ level of traffic stress are they

1:37:13 ↗ providing today and so as you can see

1:37:15 ↗ here I know there's a lot of colors on

1:37:17 ↗ this map essentially all the areas that

1:37:20 ↗ are red and orange provide LTS three or

1:37:24 ↗ four so they're kind of only friendly

1:37:26 ↗ and comfortable to those most

1:37:28 ↗ experienced cyclists so if we were gonna

1:37:33 ↗ go with the policy that we just brought

1:37:36 ↗ up that we're trying to provide LTS one

1:37:38 ↗ or two facilities throughout this

1:37:39 ↗ network anywhere that's red and orange

1:37:42 ↗ on this we'd be looking to provide bike

1:37:44 ↗ whay investments and so the questions

1:37:47 ↗ that we have for ta B are several one is

1:37:51 ↗ a wok and roll action strategy Network

1:37:54 ↗ the right network to is LTS the right

1:37:58 ↗ goal or one and two the right goal or is

1:38:00 ↗ this maybe a bit lofty and aspirational

1:38:03 ↗ ie too costly and then generally do we

1:38:08 ↗ feel like this LTS assessment is is kind

1:38:13 ↗ of capturing the right things I will say

1:38:15 ↗ it doesn't yet consider grade and I know

1:38:19 ↗ that's something that we might want to

1:38:20 ↗ think about in Issaquah so wanted to

1:38:22 ↗ just kind of get some guidance in this

1:38:24 ↗ area I'll say that we had a few of us

1:38:30 ↗ talked about bicycling the other day and

1:38:32 ↗ maybe Tom or Sujata would like to say

1:38:35 ↗ something now about the things that you

1:38:38 ↗ thought about in this regard yeah no I'm

1:38:49 ↗ just just providing some of your

1:38:51 ↗ feedback in this context so that the

1:38:53 ↗ Andrew could delete it I think on some

1:39:00 ↗ of the major so part of what we were

1:39:04 ↗ talking about the other day was having

1:39:06 ↗ in the central part of the central is

1:39:12 ↗ called the new area about being able to

1:39:14 ↗ like there as a destination and being

1:39:17 ↗ able to move around on a bike and not

1:39:18 ↗ having to have a car how to get people

1:39:20 ↗ out of car like around that area and

1:39:23 ↗ being able to feel for looking down the

1:39:26 ↗ road that what a great place to be

1:39:28 ↗ because you could actually bike use your

1:39:30 ↗ bike to get around that central area in

1:39:33 ↗ that area for example LTS - might be

1:39:38 ↗ more desirable on place like given

1:39:42 ↗ Boulevard if you're commuting maybe that

1:39:44 ↗ would be an LTS 3 so I think

1:39:46 ↗ certain treats might be in LTS 3 versus

1:39:48 ↗ others would be a 102 and one of the

1:39:55 ↗ things we were thinking about with the

1:39:57 ↗ action priority network was this idea

1:39:59 ↗ where if you have sort of these back to

1:40:02 ↗ that idea of connectivity so if you have

1:40:04 ↗ long stretches of sort of the level 1 &

1:40:09 ↗ 2 and then all of a sudden there's a

1:40:10 ↗ segment of this red that's sort of

1:40:14 ↗ essentially blocking your way into

1:40:16 ↗ central Issaquah is there a way to

1:40:19 ↗ prioritize resources to get that entire

1:40:23 ↗ line to go green so people a missing

1:40:26 ↗ link

1:40:26 ↗ yeah essentially you know kind of that

1:40:28 ↗ level of stress 1 & 2 missing link that

1:40:31 ↗ could create really nice connectivity

1:40:33 ↗ for users to get all the way into

1:40:35 ↗ central Issaquah and then one of the

1:40:38 ↗ things Emmet

1:40:39 ↗ I don't know if you want to talk about

1:40:40 ↗ the safety that you had mentioned I

1:40:43 ↗ [Music]

1:40:44 ↗ think I have mentioned it earlier before

1:40:46 ↗ to just like keeping in mind the level

1:40:51 ↗ of traffic and the level of congestion

1:40:53 ↗ also affects like the safety of these

1:40:56 ↗ roads and so focusing on the roads that

1:40:58 ↗ have had collisions and have had more

1:41:02 ↗ complaints also along with the elf Wars

1:41:08 ↗ I think also looking at the connectivity

1:41:14 ↗ between this area then the newer area of

1:41:17 ↗ this law thoroughly development outside

1:41:19 ↗ of how they get back and forth a bike or

1:41:21 ↗ walking in a comfortable way and having

1:41:27 ↗ the connectivity going through

1:41:30 ↗ and to this I I would add that we're

1:41:35 ↗ talking about things we want to make

1:41:37 ↗ sure we prioritize and then on the other

1:41:38 ↗ hand the things that we might not have

1:41:40 ↗ to prioritize something occurs to me and

1:41:43 ↗ I'd appreciate time thinking with me as

1:41:45 ↗ I say this on the wok and roll already

1:41:50 ↗ corridors and then the LTS bike priority

1:41:54 ↗ corridors we have these red lines

1:41:56 ↗ running out a Hobart Road to the edge of

1:41:59 ↗ the city limits we have them running out

1:42:02 ↗ SR 900 passed talus to the edge of city

1:42:06 ↗ limits as two examples of roads that

1:42:09 ↗ aren't connecting us to a destination

1:42:11 ↗ they're just taking you out to the edge

1:42:14 ↗ and I know that if I were going on SR

1:42:18 ↗ 900 and I had a bike facility out there

1:42:20 ↗ I would just turn around at the end of

1:42:22 ↗ the city limits and go back yeah now is

1:42:24 ↗ that worth our investment because it is

1:42:26 ↗ a very dangerous road we have no control

1:42:27 ↗ be beyond that same going for Hobart if

1:42:32 ↗ there was a way to identify what those

1:42:34 ↗ are the policy says to connect centers

1:42:39 ↗ of employment or residential so if you

1:42:41 ↗ connected to talas but maybe not beyond

1:42:44 ↗ if it's not planned to have density out

1:42:47 ↗ there which we aren't that's a single

1:42:49 ↗ family estates and very low-density

1:42:51 ↗ planned after that no comment I rode 900

1:42:57 ↗ morning I'll never read it again there

1:43:01 ↗ are quite a few commuters ago from the

1:43:04 ↗ Transit Center of Newport and now let's

1:43:06 ↗ call Harper Road all the way up to Tiger

1:43:09 ↗ Mountain Road yeah and then if we

1:43:12 ↗ couldn't have a connection to a safe

1:43:14 ↗ ride there rather than us being the only

1:43:17 ↗ one maybe if you have to make choices

1:43:19 ↗ that's all I'm saying you have to make

1:43:21 ↗ choices what else yes

1:43:26 ↗ or any of these bike raids like ways

1:43:32 ↗ usable for pedestrians are they shared

1:43:34 ↗ or is it all just bike lanes is that do

1:43:37 ↗ we have that written out as of right now

1:43:39 ↗ we were looking at it just through the

1:43:41 ↗ lens of biking now when we bring all

1:43:43 ↗ these modes together I think that's

1:43:44 ↗ where there are some opportunities so an

1:43:46 ↗ example a physically separated bike way

1:43:50 ↗ or a trail that's a great facility for a

1:43:53 ↗ pedestrian or a bike and so to the

1:43:55 ↗ extent that we're trying to connect and

1:43:57 ↗ provide really great LTS one or two

1:43:59 ↗ facilities I think to the extent we can

1:44:01 ↗ be creative and you said space and

1:44:03 ↗ multi-purpose I think that's a that's a

1:44:05 ↗ great way to think about it

1:44:07 ↗ so I've heard like a lot of our context

1:44:11 ↗ focus on connecting centers making sure

1:44:14 ↗ yeah I've heard a lot of desire for

1:44:16 ↗ being really thoughtful about your

1:44:19 ↗ investments in prioritizing gap-fill

1:44:21 ↗ first and then context sensitivity again

1:44:25 ↗ blanket one to may not be right but

1:44:27 ↗ blanket one to in those higher density

1:44:29 ↗ areas may be right so okay I'm gonna get

1:44:32 ↗ into our last mode and I think this will

1:44:35 ↗ go fairly quick mostly current today as

1:44:40 ↗ I mentioned earlier is quad does not you

1:44:45 ↗ know provide transit service in the city

1:44:47 ↗ it's cause role the things that is cause

1:44:50 ↗ responsible for is one transit vehicle

1:44:53 ↗ throughput within the city so thinking

1:44:54 ↗ about the intersections and how quickly

1:44:57 ↗ a bus can make it through an

1:44:59 ↗ intersection that is something that's

1:45:00 ↗ within the city's control city provides

1:45:04 ↗ a bike in pedestrian network so bike and

1:45:06 ↗ ped access to transit facilities that's

1:45:08 ↗ also within the city's control and then

1:45:11 ↗ land used to support planned transit so

1:45:14 ↗ thinking about are we densifying in the

1:45:16 ↗ right places these are the transit and I

1:45:18 ↗ think you guys are all really thinking

1:45:19 ↗ about these already your comp plan

1:45:23 ↗ includes kind of this this graphic right

1:45:25 ↗ here that just it kind of expresses that

1:45:30 ↗ you want to partner with your transit

1:45:32 ↗ agencies to provide transit stop

1:45:35 ↗ amenities and safe access at major

1:45:37 ↗ transit stops and so I think

1:45:39 ↗ just really providing kind of those

1:45:42 ↗ goals and so at the highest level the

1:45:44 ↗ comp plan says you want to provide

1:45:46 ↗ sidewalks and mark crossings serving

1:45:49 ↗ stops and that you want high-level stop

1:45:53 ↗ amenities it doesn't define what those

1:45:55 ↗ are and that you know in an ideal world

1:45:58 ↗ along your transit routes you've got all

1:46:00 ↗ day

1:46:01 ↗ peak service it's it's quick it's got

1:46:03 ↗ short headways and then it just kind of

1:46:06 ↗ goes down from there this isn't a

1:46:07 ↗ concurrency standard this is just the

1:46:10 ↗ city's kind of thought about what what

1:46:12 ↗ it what is good transit service look

1:46:15 ↗ like so I want to provide a little bit

1:46:17 ↗ more here

1:46:18 ↗ other current policy one more is just to

1:46:21 ↗ use transit service within the city's

1:46:24 ↗ boundary to connect to major commercial

1:46:26 ↗ centers neighborhoods regional

1:46:29 ↗ transportation facilities and that all

1:46:31 ↗ makes sense so again just a little

1:46:35 ↗ graphic here just kind of already went

1:46:37 ↗ through this but just to think about how

1:46:39 ↗ transit agencies and city policies work

1:46:42 ↗ together again the transit agency is

1:46:45 ↗ what is providing the transit routes and

1:46:48 ↗ stops and generally many of the stop

1:46:52 ↗ amenities it's its transit agency

1:46:54 ↗ guidelines city policies are again

1:46:57 ↗ providing that access to transit in the

1:46:59 ↗ roadway intersection operations and

1:47:01 ↗ together those things are really what

1:47:03 ↗ lead to route performance and speed and

1:47:05 ↗ reliability at least within is quo of

1:47:07 ↗ course you don't have control of what

1:47:09 ↗ happens outside of your boundaries but

1:47:11 ↗ that's how these two kind of policies

1:47:13 ↗ work together just looking at where

1:47:17 ↗ transit services today kind of map that

1:47:20 ↗ out got your locations of your your

1:47:23 ↗ services and your Park and Ride

1:47:25 ↗ locations where it's expected to be in

1:47:27 ↗ the future of course we can see some of

1:47:30 ↗ the metro connect says you can look

1:47:31 ↗ between these you can see greatly

1:47:33 ↗ expanded routes with in Issaquah and

1:47:35 ↗ heading out to Sammamish and neighboring

1:47:37 ↗ cities you can also see the light rail

1:47:40 ↗ coming in by kind of 2041 and I I think

1:47:46 ↗ as a part of the transit or as a part of

1:47:50 ↗ the mmm he

1:47:51 ↗ we're really setting the stage the MMP

1:47:54 ↗ is not going to answer all the questions

1:47:55 ↗ as it relates to kind of transit but

1:47:59 ↗ what the MMP gives us the opportunity to

1:48:01 ↗ do is to really kind of start writing

1:48:03 ↗ down what are our priorities for transit

1:48:05 ↗ what are our aspirations the city plans

1:48:08 ↗ to follow up and do a kind of a transit

1:48:10 ↗ master plan to really get into kind of

1:48:12 ↗ the fine-grained details but as a part

1:48:15 ↗ of the MMP we're really gonna start

1:48:19 ↗ looking at potential improvements for

1:48:21 ↗ speed and reliability potential concepts

1:48:25 ↗ for transit stop amenities and access to

1:48:28 ↗ transit so mostly just kind of laying

1:48:31 ↗ out that these are these are the the

1:48:33 ↗ broad areas that we think of from the

1:48:35 ↗ perspective of transit and our questions

1:48:37 ↗ for you tonight are one you know as the

1:48:41 ↗ MMP will frame the issues for transit

1:48:44 ↗ master plan are there issues you think

1:48:46 ↗ we should frame so I shared kind of the

1:48:48 ↗ ones that are on our minds is there

1:48:50 ↗ something else we should be thinking

1:48:52 ↗ about and then just generally how should

1:48:56 ↗ transit be balanced with other modes and

1:48:59 ↗ are there places for example in

1:49:01 ↗ intersection operations where transit

1:49:03 ↗ should take priority so I think on this

1:49:08 ↗ this is the last kind of modal specific

1:49:10 ↗ slide we have before we kind of wrap up

1:49:14 ↗ yeah are you looking at me cuz you're

1:49:17 ↗ ready to speak new and I'm gonna ask a

1:49:24 ↗ question then won't you think about it

1:49:26 ↗ for a moment why isn't the transit

1:49:30 ↗ master it's just it's it's it's just

1:49:46 ↗ time and time mostly and when you get a

1:49:49 ↗ start on the master plan now we know

1:49:51 ↗ that the transit element of the more

1:49:55 ↗ detailed transit element of the master

1:49:57 ↗ plan is very important so it's one of

1:50:00 ↗ the things that we're going to go to

1:50:01 ↗ work on

1:50:02 ↗ with all of your help immediately after

1:50:06 ↗ we get the bones the structure of the

1:50:09 ↗ mobility master plan completed and

1:50:12 ↗ adopted so I think our and it's it's

1:50:15 ↗ time and money to be to be honest and so

1:50:19 ↗ we have the time and money to complete

1:50:22 ↗ this work now in the master plan and we

1:50:25 ↗ know that there's additional work that

1:50:26 ↗ needs to get done in the future on more

1:50:31 ↗ detailed work on transit so that's why

1:50:34 ↗ we've set it up this way so you know

1:50:36 ↗ it's not like we've forgotten about it's

1:50:37 ↗ not like we don't think it's important

1:50:39 ↗ it's not like we're ignoring it it's

1:50:41 ↗ just I think this at this part in the

1:50:45 ↗ master plan what we need to do with your

1:50:49 ↗ help is is to find what our focus on

1:50:54 ↗ transit should be and where transit fits

1:50:57 ↗ into the overall transportation getting

1:51:02 ↗ around in Issaquah and then I have

1:51:05 ↗ another question about packet material

1:51:06 ↗ and that is the future transit network

1:51:09 ↗ 2040 and these very specific routes even

1:51:12 ↗ with route numbers it looks like where

1:51:15 ↗ did this come from Metro connects so and

1:51:18 ↗ that's how they've referred to them we

1:51:19 ↗ probably don't need to I mean these

1:51:21 ↗ four-digit numbers that's kind of what

1:51:23 ↗ they're internally looked at as a part

1:51:25 ↗ of Metro connects Metro connects a big

1:51:29 ↗ piece of it is expanding out its rapid

1:51:32 ↗ ride network these have different

1:51:34 ↗ characteristics but just to give you a

1:51:35 ↗ sense of this is where they're

1:51:37 ↗ contemplating connecting to I wonder if

1:51:41 ↗ we need to look at transit as third and

1:51:44 ↗ importance only because we're focusing

1:51:47 ↗ on trying to get people out of Issaquah

1:51:48 ↗ and then back into Issaquah and not

1:51:51 ↗ necessarily moving them around all day I

1:51:53 ↗ mean yes we are moving them around all

1:51:55 ↗ day but when I think transit I'm

1:51:57 ↗ thinking people that are trying to get

1:51:59 ↗ out of town but don't want to drive

1:52:01 ↗ their vehicle so I wonder as far as the

1:52:03 ↗ city is concerned if it needs to be

1:52:05 ↗ third on the list of moving people

1:52:06 ↗ around because we really want to focus

1:52:08 ↗ on getting the people that are

1:52:09 ↗ physically in town moved around first

1:52:12 ↗ and people that are taking transit I'm

1:52:14 ↗ hope

1:52:15 ↗ or maybe walking a little bit to their

1:52:16 ↗ car and then again trying to get around

1:52:19 ↗ in town after he traffic or maybe the

1:52:22 ↗ tail end of it but I'm wondering if

1:52:24 ↗ that's a priority that we need to state

1:52:26 ↗ somewhere anybody else know me I have no

1:52:36 ↗ idea this is feasible a probable at all

1:52:37 ↗ but is there a way to incorporate its

1:52:41 ↗ cost school districts busing as well

1:52:42 ↗ into this that's a really good question

1:52:47 ↗ it was in fact a lot yes absolutely

1:52:55 ↗ they put its Crosse school district I

1:52:59 ↗ know puts millions of miles on its buses

1:53:03 ↗ per year not individual buses but

1:53:05 ↗ collectively the fleet is driving a lot

1:53:09 ↗ that's a good question is to think about

1:53:12 ↗ so let me just table that for right now

1:53:14 ↗ but I think you're when you think of

1:53:16 ↗ transit performance and who were

1:53:19 ↗ prioritizing you're generally thinking

1:53:21 ↗ about high occupant vehicles which

1:53:25 ↗ you're not as concerned about who's

1:53:27 ↗ operating that high occupant vehicle

1:53:30 ↗ whether it's the transit agency or the

1:53:32 ↗ school district I guess the other

1:53:37 ↗ question is is the area develops as if

1:53:41 ↗ there be local at least one local

1:53:43 ↗ circulator bus would be just a local

1:53:45 ↗ less quadboss as opposed to every a

1:53:46 ↗ commuter bus that's going I'm here a

1:53:48 ↗ develop with you to Seattle to Northgate

1:53:51 ↗ bigness in the plan and I think that's

1:53:56 ↗ another there's another one good one I

1:53:58 ↗ think is so I think to Kurt's point you

1:54:02 ↗ know we recognize we probably can't get

1:54:04 ↗ into this level of detail and to be

1:54:07 ↗ quite frank with you most communities

1:54:09 ↗ that do transit master plans do follow

1:54:11 ↗ them up after their mmm he equivalent so

1:54:14 ↗ Kirkland took that approach ever it took

1:54:17 ↗ that approach and they said let's figure

1:54:18 ↗ out our kind of our basic network let's

1:54:21 ↗ commit to where we want to grow and then

1:54:24 ↗ let's then advocate to the transit

1:54:26 ↗ agency this is you know the types

1:54:28 ↗ investments we want and how we're

1:54:29 ↗ willing to reinforce that and I think as

1:54:31 ↗ a part of that I think the interesting

1:54:33 ↗ dynamic here I think the school district

1:54:35 ↗ is an interesting Avenue I think your

1:54:37 ↗ idea of a circulator is the thing Mister

1:54:39 ↗ Donut finds out five years for their

1:54:40 ↗ surface plan because things change so

1:54:42 ↗ much so they kind of modify it or change

1:54:44 ↗ it over five-year outlook we can see

1:54:49 ↗ them not having a five-year playing yet

1:54:50 ↗ until this is really developed until

1:54:52 ↗ they figure out what could happen but

1:54:56 ↗ the thing I always advocate to

1:54:57 ↗ communities is Metro I actually

1:55:02 ↗ complement them as an agency I think

1:55:04 ↗ they do a lot I mean they're one of the

1:55:06 ↗ biggest busing agencies in the country

1:55:08 ↗ one of the more successful ones but the

1:55:11 ↗ staff that work at Metro they they're

1:55:13 ↗ looking countywide it's really hard to

1:55:16 ↗ kind of dial down on issues so they

1:55:17 ↗ really do look to communities to provide

1:55:19 ↗ that input so I have just a couple

1:55:23 ↗ things to enforce what you guys are

1:55:24 ↗ saying and I actually would like to push

1:55:26 ↗ it just a little further and that is

1:55:28 ↗ that what you were saying Stephanie in

1:55:31 ↗ our transit we think of it as the thing

1:55:33 ↗ that gets people from here to Seattle or

1:55:36 ↗ Bellevue and and that is so entirely

1:55:39 ↗ unsatisfying to me

1:55:41 ↗ that it's it's a frustration that we

1:55:43 ↗ can't have because of this this odd

1:55:46 ↗ relationship that just wants to move our

1:55:48 ↗ people from here to a job somewhere else

1:55:50 ↗ when what we want is people to be able

1:55:52 ↗ to get to their jobs here in Issaquah

1:55:54 ↗ get to school here in Issaquah get

1:55:56 ↗ around as a quote we have a local

1:55:58 ↗ circulator bus that only runs from like

1:56:00 ↗ 10:00 in the morning till 4:00 in the

1:56:02 ↗ afternoon and it goes one direction and

1:56:04 ↗ who could ever use it it's it's

1:56:05 ↗ ridiculous if we're going to get people

1:56:07 ↗ off the roads we have to have local bus

1:56:10 ↗ transit and and then how could we table

1:56:14 ↗ it too much and still be able to

1:56:18 ↗ challenge that need to get around in a

1:56:21 ↗ vehicle if we're gonna say you're not

1:56:24 ↗ going to get around a single occupant

1:56:25 ↗ vehicle we better be ready to say you

1:56:27 ↗ can you're going to get around in a bus

1:56:30 ↗ or a transit vehicle and I like that

1:56:32 ↗ what I'm not just doing with the smaller

1:56:34 ↗ vehicle on demand services and I hope

1:56:39 ↗ that they'll bring them here

1:56:40 ↗ yeah and again I wanted to emphasize

1:56:42 ↗ somewhere in our policy that we want to

1:56:45 ↗ better serve schools because of the

1:56:48 ↗ school buses don't serve all the needs

1:56:50 ↗ of all students students stay after

1:56:51 ↗ students are ambitious students have

1:56:53 ↗ sports or clubs and things and they need

1:56:56 ↗ other options and then our local

1:56:58 ↗ employers we have large employers here

1:57:00 ↗ why can't I take a bus from my home to

1:57:02 ↗ Costco how come I can't do that so I

1:57:06 ↗ think something we can do as a part of

1:57:08 ↗ this MMP is establish policy framework

1:57:10 ↗ for transit I don't think we're gonna

1:57:13 ↗ get to the place where we have discrete

1:57:14 ↗ project lists prioritize like the other

1:57:17 ↗ modes but I think if we work with you to

1:57:19 ↗ develop policy framework and I've got a

1:57:22 ↗ jotted down a number of things I think

1:57:23 ↗ what we can do

1:57:24 ↗ spring backs it's not going to inform as

1:57:27 ↗ much our project list which is the

1:57:28 ↗ critical path piece item but have an

1:57:31 ↗ additional conversation with you guys

1:57:32 ↗ about transit policy and I really like

1:57:35 ↗ the idea of transit thinking about

1:57:37 ↗ transit and having different policies

1:57:39 ↗ for how we interact with transit transit

1:57:41 ↗ that's getting people out of the city

1:57:43 ↗ transit that's within the city school

1:57:46 ↗ transit the other that we didn't talk

1:57:48 ↗ about is kind of first last mile

1:57:50 ↗ connections how does that work with uber

1:57:54 ↗ lyft ride-hailing those pieces that are

1:57:57 ↗ complementary so I think those are

1:57:59 ↗ topics we can keep working on and I

1:58:01 ↗ think as a part of this what we're

1:58:02 ↗ hoping to get out of it the TA B is

1:58:05 ↗ policy guidance for this larger kind of

1:58:08 ↗ transit master plan which is something

1:58:09 ↗ that we'll follow so I feel like we've

1:58:13 ↗ got an incredible input from you guys

1:58:15 ↗ tonight moving forward again this is

1:58:18 ↗ where we are so I feel like we'll be

1:58:20 ↗ working with staff to kind of summarize

1:58:22 ↗ what we heard tonight but I think we've

1:58:25 ↗ gotten a lot of good guidance on

1:58:27 ↗ policies plan to come back to you

1:58:30 ↗ specifically on the project angle in

1:58:33 ↗ October based on kind of what we heard

1:58:35 ↗ I'll work with Kurt and Sheldon to find

1:58:38 ↗ out how we kind of address more the

1:58:40 ↗ evaluation criteria and performance

1:58:42 ↗ metrics that is a little bit of a side

1:58:44 ↗ topic but how we want to address that

1:58:46 ↗ but again you know we're looking forward

1:58:49 ↗ to continuing to work with you on that

1:58:51 ↗ and and here's our kind of future topic

1:58:54 ↗ just as a preview so here's our here's

1:58:58 ↗ our schedule we're gonna be kind of

1:59:00 ↗ taking what we've heard tonight kind of

1:59:02 ↗ start looking through comments some

1:59:04 ↗ investments and coming back that's all

1:59:08 ↗ like that Thank You Kendra and so we are

1:59:13 ↗ out of time but we already talked about

1:59:15 ↗ postponing the mobility master plan

1:59:17 ↗ performance metrics to our Knicks would

1:59:19 ↗ that be the September meeting yes okay

1:59:22 ↗ that'll be postponed and then let me ask

1:59:26 ↗ if the staff has any report tonight for

1:59:29 ↗ any additional and that's for us I don't

1:59:32 ↗ but I did want to just take 30 more

1:59:36 ↗ seconds of your time to sort of as a

1:59:38 ↗ preview to the projects and the further

1:59:42 ↗ discussion about the different modes and

1:59:45 ↗ the projects that might be associated

1:59:46 ↗ with them it's hate to say it but it at

1:59:50 ↗ the end of the day it comes down to

1:59:51 ↗ money and all these all these projects

1:59:53 ↗ that we'll be talking about are

1:59:54 ↗ expensive and it's great to talk about

1:59:58 ↗ the various modes and automobiles and

2:00:02 ↗ bikes and pets and transit and I think

2:00:05 ↗ where the hard work is going to come I'm

2:00:08 ↗ sure it's already crossed some of your

2:00:09 ↗ minds is how we're going to balance all

2:00:12 ↗ of these needs appropriately and you

2:00:15 ↗ know put our put our money where our

2:00:17 ↗ mouth is so to speak and invest in those

2:00:20 ↗ projects that create the community that

2:00:23 ↗ we want to have and that's that is the

2:00:26 ↗ hard work coming up so I encourage you

2:00:27 ↗ to start thinking about this in the

2:00:29 ↗ context of the various modes and where

2:00:33 ↗ if you had one dollar where would you

2:00:35 ↗ spend it and because you can't spend it

2:00:38 ↗ every we can't spin it on all of these

2:00:40 ↗ things equally or maybe you can as

2:00:43 ↗ that's but that's the challenge to think

2:00:45 ↗ about going forward and again I just

2:00:49 ↗ wanted to thank you all for you this is

2:00:51 ↗ hard stuff this is complicated things to

2:00:54 ↗ think about and there is not no easy

2:00:56 ↗ right answer but we'll get there

2:01:01 ↗ thank you everything from you Sheldon no

2:01:06 ↗ not this evening the chair report from

2:01:11 ↗ me is that I am NOT here for the

2:01:14 ↗ September meeting Cynthia you've got an

2:01:16 ↗ instant promotion and that's on

2:01:19 ↗ September 23rd okay okay and that the

2:01:24 ↗ bike ad-hoc committee will continue to

2:01:27 ↗ work with Stephen to gather information

2:01:29 ↗ hopefully for more people in the public

2:01:31 ↗ about bicycle priorities help our

2:01:33 ↗ conversation about that and then is

2:01:36 ↗ there a youth report Kobe perform us

2:01:39 ↗ okay thank you

2:01:42 ↗ announcements so one item the rules and

2:01:46 ↗ regulations that the board has adopted I

2:01:48 ↗ have the document here that for each of

2:01:50 ↗ you to sign on the back of for the rules

2:01:54 ↗ and regulations so I'll pass that around

2:01:55 ↗ so before you leave it be appreciate it

2:01:57 ↗ if you could sign the back yeah well do

2:02:00 ↗ that else and then I will adjourn this

2:02:07 ↗ meeting at 8:03 and we have our next

2:02:11 ↗ meeting scheduled for Monday September

2:02:13 ↗ 23rd at 6:00 p.m. I'm going to assume

2:02:16 ↗ it's here at council chambers unless you

2:02:18 ↗ hear otherwise thank you

2:02:31 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF