Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, March 18, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Staff Liaison Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner About Email Stephen Padua Created in 2017, the board provides additional expertise and advice on the City's Regular Members transportation system and goals. 2021* - Cynthia Krass 2021* - Janie Walzer Membership 2021 - Tom McDonald The Transportation Advisory Board is 2021 - Erika Boyd comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2021 - Joseph Zhang** three alternates. All members are appointed 2022 - Sujata Goel by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by 2022 - Micah Zeitz-Chua the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the 2023 - Kristi Tripple year listed. For more information, 2023 - Dave Waggoner see IMC 2.92. Alternate Members 2021 - Alec Yildirim** 2022 - Jeri Bernstein 2022 - David Holzberg

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Feb 24, 2021

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 0:25 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-04-21 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page 1 CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting February 24, 2021 MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Streetscape 2021 Improvements Update (I)

10 min · Stephen, Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.9–18

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Streetscape Plan Overview MARCH 18, 2021 | TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD

Complete Streets Policy Update

Information · 20 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.19–35

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

REGULAR BUSINESS b) JOHN MORTENSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING MANAGER

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is scheduled for April 13

▶ Watch from 2:00:41

3183 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ something we're discussing just so it

0:01 ↗ makes it easier for us and the chairs to

0:04 ↗ um figure out the order of when to

0:06 ↗ select people

0:09 ↗ okay it's uh 602

0:12 ↗ and i'm cynthia cross i'm the chair of

0:14 ↗ the support transportation advisory

0:16 ↗ board and i'm going to call this meeting

0:18 ↗ to order on march 18th

0:21 ↗ our first order of business is

0:25 ↗ approval of the minutes did everyone

0:27 ↗ have a chance to review the minutes for

0:30 ↗ the february 24th board meeting

0:35 ↗ i will entertain a motion to approve the

0:37 ↗ minutes

0:40 ↗ so moved second

0:46 ↗ all those in favor say aye aye

0:50 ↗ aye all right you want to post

0:54 ↗ all right well that makes it easy um

0:58 ↗ stephen i'm not seeing any um that i

1:01 ↗ don't recognize so i'm assuming we don't

1:02 ↗ have anyone signed up for public comment

1:04 ↗ okay um if we get anybody to jump on and

1:07 ↗ we're doing well

1:08 ↗ uh if it's okay with you i may fight

1:11 ↗ that individual

1:13 ↗ okay so that takes us right to item for

1:16 ↗ an agenda oh and by the way i meant to

1:18 ↗ say thank you for to

1:20 ↗ uh for jumping in at the last minute um

1:23 ↗ family

1:25 ↗ was not able to be avoided and um

1:28 ↗ redundancy is good we have a chair

1:30 ↗ device here and it worked the way it did

1:32 ↗ so i really appreciate that

1:33 ↗ uh okay so i think we're going right

1:35 ↗ into item 4a

1:37 ↗ the streetscape improvements

1:43 ↗ yes thank you so tonight

1:47 ↗ i'm going to briefly summarize what the

1:49 ↗ downtown streetscape plan

1:51 ↗ is the work that's been done so far and

1:54 ↗ what's next for

1:55 ↗ implementing the plan and what it means

1:57 ↗ for our downtown

1:59 ↗ many of you may not know what the

2:00 ↗ downtown streetscape plan is so i'll

2:02 ↗ start with

2:03 ↗ just a brief summary on the history of

2:05 ↗ the plan it's

2:06 ↗ the result of a visioning process that

2:09 ↗ started in 2016 and ended in 2017 with

2:12 ↗ the

2:13 ↗ intention of establishing a new vision

2:14 ↗ and redesign for the downtown

2:16 ↗ um in old town during a time of

2:19 ↗ rapid change to the city and the process

2:22 ↗ to develop the plan included several

2:24 ↗ community outreach events

2:26 ↗ board and commissioned discussions

2:27 ↗ council discussions and ultimately uh

2:30 ↗ it was a partnership between the city

2:33 ↗ the downtown isquad association

2:35 ↗ all the downtown businesses and the

2:38 ↗ reason i'm giving you an update on this

2:39 ↗ plan

2:39 ↗ and and our work on is because it fits

2:42 ↗ actually in

2:43 ↗ with the vision of the mobility master

2:45 ↗ plan which will

2:46 ↗ lead us into more of a multimodal based

2:49 ↗ community

2:50 ↗ and transportation system where people

2:52 ↗ feel a lot more safe and comfortable to

2:53 ↗ get around

2:54 ↗ without having to drive their car and

2:56 ↗ creating more public spaces

2:58 ↗ for people to get around and really

3:00 ↗ enjoy the community

3:03 ↗ and so as part of this process um like

3:05 ↗ the guiding principles for our master

3:07 ↗ plan

3:08 ↗ several major goals were established to

3:10 ↗ guide the redesign and the first was

3:13 ↗ uh embracing the outdoor areas as public

3:15 ↗ spaces with the community with community

3:17 ↗ values

3:18 ↗ second is the preservation of

3:20 ↗ neighborhood values and design and

3:21 ↗ function of the downtown

3:24 ↗ next is the establishment of an

3:26 ↗ environment that made it easier

3:27 ↗ for people to access the businesses

3:30 ↗ something that

3:32 ↗ people had complained about before and

3:34 ↗ the fourth was to create a more of a

3:36 ↗ walk

3:36 ↗ friendly environment and last is that

3:39 ↗ to ensure that improvements included

3:42 ↗ parking access

3:43 ↗ as you know use of cars is still kind of

3:46 ↗ the primary uh method of people getting

3:49 ↗ around and accessing some of the

3:50 ↗ businesses downtown

3:54 ↗ and this led to a redesign with wider

3:57 ↗ sidewalks

3:59 ↗ more trees and plantings the

4:01 ↗ establishment of a festival street to

4:03 ↗ support

4:03 ↗ more frequent outdoor events and outdoor

4:06 ↗ furniture to make

4:07 ↗ the downtown a little more welcoming for

4:09 ↗ people who visit and as you imagine this

4:11 ↗ resulted in a fairly large project and

4:14 ↗ it was so we had to split it into

4:16 ↗ multiple phases

4:17 ↗ to make it easier to and more feasible

4:20 ↗ to implement

4:21 ↗ and this also uh by breaking it up it

4:24 ↗ also minimized the impact on the

4:26 ↗ downtown businesses

4:27 ↗ it's fairly difficult to support our

4:29 ↗ downtown businesses when the entire

4:31 ↗ corridor is closed because it's under

4:32 ↗ construction

4:35 ↗ so the work that's been done so far

4:38 ↗ and since 2017 we started work in

4:42 ↗ late 2018 going in 2019

4:45 ↗ the city completed the first phase on

4:47 ↗ the southern end of downtown on front

4:49 ↗ street

4:50 ↗ between sunset way and alder and this

4:53 ↗ included wider sidewalks

4:55 ↗ new plantings new furniture bike racks

4:57 ↗ and

4:58 ↗ new trash receptacles if you

5:01 ↗ hadn't had a chance to go downtown yet

5:04 ↗ i'd suggest

5:05 ↗ kind of walk through so you can kind of

5:08 ↗ see the difference

5:09 ↗ you can really see a significant change

5:11 ↗ in the feel of downtown one

5:14 ↗ um south of alder and north of alder

5:16 ↗ just how

5:17 ↗ uh the older downtown look and then how

5:20 ↗ the newer downtown just kind of changes

5:21 ↗ the feel for

5:23 ↗ that visiting downtown and enjoying the

5:27 ↗ the space so this year we're getting

5:30 ↗ started on the next phase which is

5:32 ↗ to build out uh the festival street on

5:35 ↗ alder

5:36 ↗ and the purpose of this festival street

5:38 ↗ is to provide a public space

5:40 ↗ where people could comfortably walk or

5:42 ↗ rest to enjoy the downtown area

5:45 ↗ unfortunately we don't have all the

5:47 ↗ funds which

5:48 ↗ calls for about one and a half million

5:51 ↗ to fully complete

5:52 ↗ the second page so we're we're getting

5:54 ↗ started on phase 2.1

5:56 ↗ which includes the installation of

5:58 ↗ overhead catenary lighting very similar

6:00 ↗ to the picture that you see on the

6:02 ↗ screen uh where you have the overhead

6:04 ↗ lights and and posts

6:06 ↗ um and it includes murals walkway murals

6:09 ↗ wall murals

6:10 ↗ um to add a little bit of art to the

6:12 ↗ festival street

6:14 ↗ planner boxes to help kind of separate

6:16 ↗ the space between where

6:17 ↗ vehicles go and where people are kind of

6:19 ↗ walking and if the budget allows we're

6:21 ↗ going to be purchasing additional street

6:23 ↗ furniture

6:24 ↗ to make it more of a more welcoming

6:26 ↗ space

6:28 ↗ and we've been in the process of

6:30 ↗ finalizing the design and now we're

6:32 ↗ moving on to hiring a contractor which

6:34 ↗ is the purchasing of materials so we can

6:36 ↗ start the construction in late spring

6:38 ↗ early summer this year

6:39 ↗ and when we have the budget finalize

6:43 ↗ or when we have the available budget

6:46 ↗ we'll finish

6:46 ↗ phase two which includes resurfacing the

6:49 ↗ entire roadway

6:50 ↗ which likely won't be will be pavement

6:53 ↗ it'll

6:54 ↗ it might be brick it might be some type

6:56 ↗ of more aesthetically pleasing surface

6:59 ↗ with a cleaner look and it'll include

7:00 ↗ street level sidewalks so everything

7:02 ↗ will actually all be

7:04 ↗ one level um to make it a lot more

7:06 ↗ comfortable

7:07 ↗ for everyone and again this was more of

7:11 ↗ an informational update

7:12 ↗ um from our project team and we wanted

7:14 ↗ to make sure that we

7:16 ↗ shared this information as we start

7:17 ↗ implementing more of the project

7:19 ↗ are there any questions on anything

7:22 ↗ about the project

7:24 ↗ hi this is tom and i have one question

7:26 ↗ about

7:27 ↗ if you could go back to the slide that

7:29 ↗ showed the

7:30 ↗ the cross section of the street just to

7:32 ↗ see the difference

7:33 ↗ in the strip side

7:41 ↗ good so you can see the at level

7:43 ↗ connection with the street

7:44 ↗ sidewalk part okay thanks and and this

7:47 ↗ cross section even though one side is

7:48 ↗ higher than the other this is actually

7:50 ↗ because of

7:51 ↗ the section in front of vinobella and

7:54 ↗ monolchinos because of

7:58 ↗ elevation change where that access to

8:00 ↗ the businesses

8:01 ↗ we had to have um an elevated sidewalk

8:05 ↗ but we

8:06 ↗ took advantage of the design and we're

8:08 ↗ looking to implement a seating wall

8:10 ↗ at the edge of this sidewalk so that

8:12 ↗ it's more of a

8:13 ↗ kind of the pedestrian friendly area

8:19 ↗ any other questions erica has a question

8:24 ↗ and so does micah erica and then micah

8:30 ↗ um what um accessibility measures were

8:35 ↗ taken into account for uh this festival

8:38 ↗ street

8:40 ↗ sure in terms of ada access or access to

8:44 ↗ the businesses themselves

8:46 ↗ ada access yeah but i guess i'm

8:48 ↗ interested in both now

8:50 ↗ okay so when you actually

8:53 ↗ make everything one level you are

8:55 ↗ actually making it much more

8:56 ↗ ada accessible than if you were to have

8:58 ↗ elevated sidewalks and curb ramps

9:00 ↗ because you're not having to deal with

9:02 ↗ elevation change

9:04 ↗ and ramps to be able to change across

9:06 ↗ the street

9:07 ↗ to access any of the businesses we'll

9:10 ↗ have to have

9:12 ↗ in front of monogino's curb ramps that

9:15 ↗ get you to this higher sidewalk and

9:17 ↗ seating wall area

9:18 ↗ but for the rest of the street it'll all

9:20 ↗ be one area and so

9:22 ↗ there will be openings between plannings

9:24 ↗ and and

9:25 ↗ uh landscaping that would allow people

9:27 ↗ to cross the street easily

9:28 ↗ much more easier than before

9:33 ↗ and then for access to the businesses a

9:35 ↗ lot of it is really just going to be

9:36 ↗ maintained of how it looks now and

9:38 ↗ making it easier

9:39 ↗ for people to get find the entrances for

9:41 ↗ the for the businesses

9:44 ↗ thank you

9:48 ↗ so it looks like from the picture that

9:50 ↗ the travel

9:51 ↗ lane there's there's no car traffic

9:53 ↗ which i think is great for this

9:55 ↗ uh is that 24 7 and

9:58 ↗ if so what was the the feedback or the

10:01 ↗ planning

10:02 ↗ feedback from businesses are planning on

10:04 ↗ um you know how else they're going to do

10:06 ↗ parking

10:06 ↗ i do like that they're doing this but i

10:09 ↗ also

10:10 ↗ you know want to make sure that we're

10:11 ↗ still able to get people to that area

10:13 ↗ and then just a note on the the sidewalk

10:16 ↗ being flat uh i think that's absolutely

10:19 ↗ fantastic i forget the name of it but

10:21 ↗ there's a

10:22 ↗ there's a name for design where instead

10:24 ↗ of making something

10:26 ↗ ada accessible and it's like a separate

10:28 ↗ entrance it's a separate way to access

10:30 ↗ something

10:31 ↗ it's the same way for everyone and so

10:33 ↗ like flat

10:34 ↗ sidewalk there is no i have to go use

10:37 ↗ the curb

10:38 ↗ cut everyone's going on that together

10:42 ↗ um i don't know if it's the time you're

10:44 ↗ thinking about lunarf

10:46 ↗ is is a term that typically refers to

10:49 ↗ the style of

10:50 ↗ street design and that's w-o-o-n-e-r-f

10:56 ↗ we're pronounced with a v at the

10:57 ↗ beginning

10:59 ↗ and then in terms of your comment on the

11:00 ↗ travel lanes

11:02 ↗ the original idea for this design was to

11:05 ↗ to create a space that would be easily

11:06 ↗ closed

11:07 ↗ for outdoor festivals um which is why

11:10 ↗ you're seeing people

11:11 ↗ standing in the travel lanes and not

11:12 ↗ cars but when there's not an outdoor

11:14 ↗ festival it would allow

11:16 ↗ access but the conversation

11:19 ↗ actually following last year's streetery

11:21 ↗ is kind of changing

11:23 ↗ what the desire for this festival stream

11:25 ↗ might be and so

11:26 ↗ once we've constructed the festival

11:28 ↗ street we'll probably have that

11:30 ↗ conversation of

11:31 ↗ do we actually need to have vehicle

11:33 ↗ access through here or do we want to

11:35 ↗ just permanently close it off

11:36 ↗ and so um that's a conversation we'll

11:39 ↗ have later on

11:40 ↗ we're not having that yet but that is

11:42 ↗ something that would be

11:44 ↗ of interest i think for the board

11:48 ↗ and then one small question it looks

11:50 ↗ like from the drawing

11:52 ↗ there's trees i'm assuming there's other

11:55 ↗ obstacles to prevent a vehicle from

11:58 ↗ accidentally

11:59 ↗ traveling into the sidewalk when that

12:01 ↗ street is open

12:03 ↗ actually for when you have um

12:06 ↗ sidewalk or street level sidewalks the

12:10 ↗ the original design is that you actually

12:13 ↗ don't have very many obstacles at all

12:15 ↗ it's it's typically landscaping not much

12:17 ↗ signage

12:18 ↗ and the reason for that is they've found

12:20 ↗ when you do that

12:23 ↗ cars go slower cars don't go very fast

12:26 ↗ and um they go slower than even the

12:28 ↗ posted speed limit in a lot of areas

12:30 ↗ and this has been proven in some cities

12:32 ↗ in the us but in a lot of

12:34 ↗ prominent areas in the in europe where

12:36 ↗ they've been

12:37 ↗ implementing this design for a long time

12:39 ↗ and

12:40 ↗ but you'll find um not everybody has

12:43 ↗ really embraced that so

12:45 ↗ one good example of that is park wayne

12:47 ↗ in downtown kirkland

12:49 ↗ it they implemented street level

12:52 ↗ sidewalks

12:54 ↗ but they lined the entire roadway with

12:57 ↗ bollards on both sides

12:58 ↗ there's pretty much a bollard every six

13:01 ↗ to eight feet down the whole way

13:03 ↗ eventually the intention is to take it

13:05 ↗ out and close off the street in the

13:07 ↗ future when the businesses are

13:08 ↗ comfortable with it

13:09 ↗ so they're more of taking a more phased

13:12 ↗ approach towards

13:13 ↗ closing the street down and creating

13:14 ↗ more of this uh promenade of

13:16 ↗ where people are walking down the entire

13:19 ↗ width of the roadway

13:25 ↗ any other questions or comments david

13:27 ↗ had a question he put in the chat about

13:29 ↗ alder officially closing

13:34 ↗ alder officially closing david why don't

13:36 ↗ you uh just say your question

13:43 ↗ do we lose him david are you on mute

13:46 ↗ let's see

13:49 ↗ sorry um what i

13:53 ↗ met stephen was older west

13:56 ↗ is closed right now and i don't know

14:00 ↗ that it's officially closed i think it's

14:02 ↗ just closed

14:03 ↗ and then you gave the dates that

14:06 ↗ in fact construction was going to start

14:09 ↗ so it

14:10 ↗ looks to me like after talking to

14:13 ↗ christina from

14:14 ↗ downtown association yesterday that

14:18 ↗ all is probably going to be closed for

14:20 ↗ quite a while

14:23 ↗ maybe not permanently as you indicated

14:26 ↗ but

14:26 ↗ still i'm just wondering when that

14:29 ↗ official date was that

14:31 ↗ it it closed alder street west because

14:35 ↗ all the street east is still open i see

14:37 ↗ that

14:38 ↗ correct correct um and a lot of the

14:41 ↗ reason for keeping all their

14:42 ↗ older street on the east side where

14:45 ↗ dominoes and subway

14:46 ↗ are is to allow um those businesses

14:50 ↗ access

14:50 ↗ to you know for because a lot of them

14:52 ↗ are delivery and pickup based businesses

14:55 ↗ and we want to make sure we

14:56 ↗ are able to maintain a lot of that

14:57 ↗ access on the west side where

14:59 ↗ vinobel and modelchino is that is closed

15:02 ↗ to kind of support the outdoor seating

15:04 ↗ areas

15:05 ↗ particularly as part of the kova 19

15:07 ↗ recovery strategies

15:11 ↗ and uh your question was on the date i

15:13 ↗ believe they're extending that closure

15:15 ↗ until about may

15:16 ↗ i don't know how that line that's gonna

15:18 ↗ line up with our construction quite yet

15:19 ↗ we'll know in the next few weeks on

15:21 ↗ timing

15:22 ↗ um so there may be it may open back up

15:25 ↗ before we

15:26 ↗ actually start construction and closing

15:27 ↗ it again

15:30 ↗ and there might be another question

15:35 ↗ so i'm pretty confident this is already

15:37 ↗ happening but

15:39 ↗ you know as you mentioned uh subway

15:40 ↗ dominoes there i'm hoping that

15:44 ↗ when that decision or if that decision

15:46 ↗ is made to permanently close it that

15:48 ↗ there's consultation with the businesses

15:50 ↗ for their leases because there's

15:51 ↗ the possibility some will want to move

15:54 ↗ to to a location that

15:55 ↗ does have uh regular car access direct

15:58 ↗ to them

15:59 ↗ yes yeah the conversation on on closing

16:02 ↗ alder street primarily hasn't started um

16:05 ↗ but when we do have that conversation

16:06 ↗ it'll likely be like

16:08 ↗ a year or two process and that'll

16:10 ↗ include all the downtown businesses

16:14 ↗ so i appreciate you bringing that up and

16:16 ↗ i do know that streetery

16:18 ↗ is coming back under a new name and i

16:21 ↗ believe

16:21 ↗ christina told me last night that

16:23 ↗ streetwear is going to start on the

16:25 ↗ weekends again

16:26 ↗ at the end of april i'm almost positive

16:29 ↗ that's what she said

16:30 ↗ um through october 1st

16:34 ↗ so i get it that uh

16:37 ↗ that's gonna probably uh be close

16:41 ↗ for sure on the weekends all through the

16:42 ↗ summer

16:45 ↗ potentially if that's what they're gonna

16:46 ↗ be proposing so this year

16:49 ↗ just to let the board know the streetery

16:53 ↗ is last year the streeter was kind of a

16:56 ↗ partnership between the city

16:58 ↗ and downtown association of the downtown

16:59 ↗ businesses and so the city

17:01 ↗ invested in the road closure and getting

17:05 ↗ barricades for the businesses to set up

17:06 ↗ outdoor seating

17:08 ↗ this year the city is is handing that

17:10 ↗ off

17:11 ↗ to the downtown association to manage

17:14 ↗ and so they'll be proposing kind of what

17:16 ↗ the street will look like this year

17:18 ↗ potentially start and the dates on when

17:21 ↗ it'll happen

17:26 ↗ any other questions on the streetscape

17:28 ↗ plan

17:30 ↗ i was just going to make a comment um

17:32 ↗ stephen and just say uh before we move

17:34 ↗ on that

17:35 ↗ i really appreciate just the update and

17:38 ↗ it's also

17:39 ↗ really nice to know what things are just

17:41 ↗ updates and what you know

17:43 ↗ keeping along this theme of what kind of

17:45 ↗ feedback you're looking for being clear

17:46 ↗ this is just you know

17:48 ↗ an update but i think it's a really

17:49 ↗ really good idea because i do think that

17:51 ↗ um the board in addition to only giving

17:54 ↗ advice is

17:54 ↗ also going back the other direction and

17:57 ↗ you know

17:58 ↗ communicating with our neighbors and

18:00 ↗ friends and other issaquah folks and so

18:02 ↗ it's just always nice to be in the know

18:04 ↗ so i think it's i think it's great and i

18:07 ↗ also think it's super cool

18:08 ↗ and i love the seating wall

18:13 ↗ hey thank you sounds like with that is

18:16 ↗ it time to move on to

18:17 ↗ 4b complete streets policy update

18:20 ↗ yes i'll i'm going to hand that off to

18:23 ↗ john

18:26 ↗ all right well thank you very much i'm

18:28 ↗ going to get my presentation loaded for

18:30 ↗ everyone

18:36 ↗ and to fill everybody in on this next

18:39 ↗ presentation which is informational it's

18:40 ↗ it's kind of follow up on

18:42 ↗ questions staff received from the board

18:44 ↗ at our last meeting

18:45 ↗ which was to

18:49 ↗ get a little more information about what

18:50 ↗ complete streets is

18:52 ↗ even though the work is kind of near

18:54 ↗ completion in terms of amending

18:56 ↗ the city's policy and we have enough

18:59 ↗ new members on the board we wanted to

19:01 ↗ make sure that we everybody still

19:02 ↗ understood the work that's going on

19:06 ↗ and i'll hand it off to john all right

19:08 ↗ thanks for the introduction stephen

19:10 ↗ i'm john morton the transportation

19:12 ↗ engineering manager and

19:13 ↗ tonight i'm here to talk about complete

19:16 ↗ streets and provide an overview

19:19 ↗ as i mentioned the goal of the

19:21 ↗ presentation will be to provide an

19:23 ↗ overview and that'll be the majority of

19:26 ↗ the presentation

19:27 ↗ and then also head a little bit on how

19:29 ↗ we use

19:30 ↗ complete streets policy and

19:34 ↗ what the city is proposing for our

19:36 ↗ complete streets policy

19:38 ↗ and talk about what comes next

19:44 ↗ the streets of our cities and towns are

19:47 ↗ important parts of our community

19:49 ↗ they allow our children to get to school

19:52 ↗ and parents to get to work they bring

19:54 ↗ together neighbors

19:56 ↗ and draw visitors to neighborhood stores

19:59 ↗ these streets are designed for everyone

20:01 ↗ whether young or old

20:02 ↗ on foot or bicycle in the car or in the

20:05 ↗ bus

20:06 ↗ but too often they are only designed for

20:08 ↗ speeding cars

20:09 ↗ or creeping traffic jams now um

20:12 ↗ in communities across the country a

20:15 ↗ movement

20:17 ↗ is growing the complete streets states

20:20 ↗ cities and towns are asking their

20:22 ↗ planners and engineers

20:24 ↗ to build roads that are safer more

20:26 ↗ accessible and easier for everyone

20:29 ↗ in the process they're creating better

20:32 ↗ communities to live

20:34 ↗ work play and shop

20:40 ↗ to answer the question what are complete

20:42 ↗ streets they're for everyone

20:44 ↗ they are designed and operated to enable

20:48 ↗ safe access for all users pedestrians

20:51 ↗ bicycles

20:52 ↗ motorists public transit users of all

20:55 ↗ ages

20:55 ↗ and abilities are able to move safely

20:58 ↗ across

20:59 ↗ a complete street streets

21:02 ↗ make it easy to cross the street walk to

21:05 ↗ the shop

21:06 ↗ bicycle to work they allow buses to run

21:08 ↗ on time

21:09 ↗ and make it safer for people to walk to

21:11 ↗ and from train stations

21:16 ↗ most americans feel providing more

21:20 ↗ transportation options will reduce

21:22 ↗ congestion

21:24 ↗ and not by not build so we won't have to

21:27 ↗ build and expand roads

21:29 ↗ and i i think that's really important

21:31 ↗ because if you look at what we've done

21:33 ↗ as

21:34 ↗ transportation officials over and over

21:36 ↗ again

21:37 ↗ uh road will get congested we'll widen

21:40 ↗ it

21:40 ↗ if you look at the freeways like 405 or

21:43 ↗ i-90

21:44 ↗ as soon as we add more capacity and more

21:47 ↗ lanes

21:48 ↗ those lanes get filled up with cars and

21:51 ↗ so

21:51 ↗ we have a tremendous opportunity to

21:53 ↗ convert short trips

21:56 ↗ from driving to walking or bicycling

21:59 ↗ in fact even though walking

22:02 ↗ is almost 11 of all trips

22:06 ↗ a full third of americans report that

22:08 ↗ they haven't taken a walking trip

22:10 ↗ in the last week and studies show

22:13 ↗ how unsafe people feel on the roads in

22:16 ↗ our communities

22:17 ↗ the lack of sidewalks poor lighting and

22:20 ↗ crosswalks

22:24 ↗ these problems with the belt environment

22:27 ↗ keep people from walking and biking and

22:30 ↗ getting

22:30 ↗ to transit and likewise

22:34 ↗ for many low-income communities these

22:36 ↗ are the

22:37 ↗ only way for residents

22:40 ↗ to get physical activity

22:45 ↗ between 2001 and 2009

22:49 ↗ the average number of miles driven by

22:51 ↗ people between the ages of 16 and 34

22:54 ↗ dropped by 23 percent compared to older

22:57 ↗ americans

22:58 ↗ millennials take fewer fewer and shorter

23:01 ↗ trips

23:03 ↗ and take a larger share of trips by

23:05 ↗ walking bicycling

23:07 ↗ and other modes the high number of high

23:10 ↗ school seniors

23:12 ↗ or the number of high school seniors

23:14 ↗ with a driver's license

23:16 ↗ has significantly dropped by 12 from

23:19 ↗ 1996

23:20 ↗ to 2010 and four out of five millennials

23:24 ↗ say they want to live in a place

23:26 ↗ where they have a variety of options to

23:27 ↗ get to their jobs

23:29 ↗ school or daily needs and more than half

23:32 ↗ would

23:33 ↗ have said that they would consider

23:34 ↗ moving to a another city

23:37 ↗ if it had better and more options for

23:39 ↗ getting around

23:43 ↗ incomplete streets are unsafe

23:47 ↗ between 2003 and 2012

23:50 ↗ there were over 45 000 pedestrian

23:53 ↗ fatalities

23:54 ↗ and over half of them occurred on

23:56 ↗ arterial roadways

23:59 ↗ which are typically designed to be wide

24:01 ↗ and fast

24:02 ↗ and move a lot of cars over 60 percent

24:05 ↗ of the fatalities were on roads with a

24:07 ↗ speed limit

24:09 ↗ of 40 miles per hour or higher

24:13 ↗ these roads are just meant for cars not

24:16 ↗ for pedestrians or bicycles

24:22 ↗ many communities currently have

24:24 ↗ overworked street networks

24:26 ↗ that force neighborhood traffic onto

24:29 ↗ larger arterials

24:30 ↗ this creates unnecessary traffic

24:32 ↗ congestion

24:33 ↗ and can be dangerous for drivers

24:38 ↗ in san francisco the metropolitan

24:40 ↗ transportation authority estimates

24:43 ↗ that the city's downtown will be

24:46 ↗ gridlocked with auto congestion energy

24:48 ↗ within a generation

24:51 ↗ new to population growth in order to

24:53 ↗ keep the busy street network

24:56 ↗ or the busy networks in growing areas

24:58 ↗ operating more smoothly

25:01 ↗ they need to be designed built

25:03 ↗ maintained and operated for

25:05 ↗ all users whether driving bicycle

25:08 ↗ walking or taking transit

25:12 ↗ a key part of why we're looking at

25:14 ↗ complete streets is

25:16 ↗ the inequity for latinos and african

25:20 ↗ americans

25:21 ↗ have a higher rates of pedestrian

25:24 ↗ fatalities

25:25 ↗ than non-hispanic whites

25:31 ↗ the rate of pedestrian fatalities

25:35 ↗ for african americans and blacks

25:39 ↗ was higher than it was for

25:43 ↗ non-hispanic white americans

25:46 ↗ by 43 percent and for hispanics it was

25:50 ↗ higher by 60 percent

25:54 ↗ low income census tracts also see higher

25:57 ↗ numbers of deaths from

25:59 ↗ of pedestrians than middle and high

26:02 ↗ income census tracts

26:09 ↗ a design policy ensures

26:13 ↗ or that the entire right-of-way is

26:16 ↗ planned

26:16 ↗ designed constructed operated and

26:18 ↗ maintained

26:20 ↗ to provide safe access for all users

26:23 ↗ creating complete

26:24 ↗ streets means transportation agencies

26:27 ↗ must change their approach to community

26:29 ↗ roads

26:30 ↗ by adopting complete streets policy

26:32 ↗ similar to

26:34 ↗ what stephen's been working on for the

26:37 ↗ city of issaquah

26:38 ↗ communities direct the

26:42 ↗ future of the transportation system to

26:46 ↗ be designed and built and everything for

26:50 ↗ all users and this makes our

26:53 ↗ community a better place to live

26:59 ↗ a complete streets policy is not a

27:01 ↗ special project

27:02 ↗ it's not a it's more of a it's a flaw a

27:06 ↗ policy

27:06 ↗ i i kind of view it more like a

27:08 ↗ philosophy of

27:10 ↗ how you go about designing and building

27:13 ↗ your roads

27:16 ↗ and it's not about special treatment or

27:18 ↗ implement

27:19 ↗ implementation of complete streets is

27:21 ↗ meant to be flexible and

27:22 ↗ context-sensitive and

27:24 ↗ as the presentation continues i'll show

27:26 ↗ some examples of

27:27 ↗ different uses of complete streets for

27:30 ↗ different

27:31 ↗ environments and by adopting a policy

27:35 ↗ like the one that

27:36 ↗ the city is considering adopting

27:39 ↗ that doesn't mean that all the roads and

27:41 ↗ streets have to change at once

27:43 ↗ this will happen a little bit at a time

27:45 ↗ it could be

27:46 ↗ when we're repaving a road and we look

27:48 ↗ for an opportunity to

27:50 ↗ expand a bike lane or it could also be a

27:54 ↗ bigger project but

27:56 ↗ it's a way of how we'll go about

28:00 ↗ managing our transportation system and

28:03 ↗ a complete streets policy won't address

28:06 ↗ all concerns

28:08 ↗ which still need attention complete

28:10 ↗ streets policies

28:11 ↗ are an important piece of the puzzle to

28:13 ↗ ensure that our

28:15 ↗ communities are fiscally and physically

28:18 ↗ healthy

28:21 ↗ complete streets can be applied to both

28:23 ↗ rural and

28:25 ↗ urban environments this example is a

28:28 ↗ two-lane rural

28:30 ↗ highway or county road and

28:33 ↗ to accommodate other modes of

28:36 ↗ transportation it has a shared use path

28:39 ↗ on the side of the road for bicyclists

28:41 ↗ and pedestrians to use

28:45 ↗ this example of a complete street is in

28:48 ↗ a local neighborhood where

28:50 ↗ this street's narrow to encourage

28:53 ↗ traffic to drive slowly it's got

28:55 ↗ sidewalk and uh

28:57 ↗ landscaping area and

29:01 ↗ with the besides the slowing down the

29:04 ↗ cars with the skinnier

29:05 ↗ streets it's easier for pedestrians to

29:08 ↗ cross the street

29:12 ↗ main streets in urban areas can also be

29:15 ↗ designed for

29:16 ↗ all users in this example we've got bike

29:20 ↗ lanes and

29:21 ↗ bulb outs for pedestrian crossings so

29:23 ↗ once again the crossing is not so long

29:26 ↗ sidewalks and landscaping and an

29:28 ↗ illumination system to

29:30 ↗ light up for the users of the street

29:37 ↗ a complete street in a high density

29:39 ↗ commercial area

29:41 ↗ is this example where it allows

29:45 ↗ people to walk and access businesses

29:51 ↗ and this last example of a

29:54 ↗ complete street is another urban area

29:57 ↗ where

29:59 ↗ a by our bus lane was added in order to

30:02 ↗ accommodate transit and by doing that

30:04 ↗ we're able to move more people

30:06 ↗ than if that lane was solely for the use

30:09 ↗ of cars

30:14 ↗ the net the slide has a few links that

30:17 ↗ way if you want to learn some more

30:19 ↗ the smart growth of america website is

30:22 ↗ home to many resources including

30:24 ↗ policy tracking and examples information

30:27 ↗ on

30:27 ↗ changing policy from advocacy to

30:30 ↗ implementation

30:32 ↗ links to research and publications

30:35 ↗ they also have a blog with newsletter

30:37 ↗ and if you have twitter you can

30:39 ↗ follow their twitter account which is a

30:42 ↗ great way to

30:44 ↗ stay up to date on complete streets and

30:46 ↗ transportation issues in general

30:49 ↗ now i i did say i was going to talk a

30:51 ↗ little bit about the

30:52 ↗ complete streets policy that stephen had

30:55 ↗ been working on and

30:57 ↗ we i believe we presented it to the tab

31:00 ↗ and

31:01 ↗ so it's going to be going to the city

31:03 ↗ council pretty soon we're making sure

31:05 ↗ that

31:06 ↗ we've met the cepa requirements which we

31:08 ↗ believe so but we're just double

31:10 ↗ checking

31:11 ↗ and then once this policy is enacted

31:15 ↗ it'll expand on the city's

31:19 ↗ it'll be a more complete version of a

31:20 ↗ complete streets policy that'll

31:23 ↗ continue the direction that began with

31:24 ↗ the mobility master plan

31:27 ↗ for ensuring that our transportation

31:29 ↗ network is

31:31 ↗ designed and built and planned for

31:33 ↗ operated and maintained for all users

31:36 ↗ and thank you and is anyone have any

31:44 ↗ questions

31:49 ↗ christy go ahead

31:57 ↗ sorry about that it took me a minute i'm

31:59 ↗ mute

32:00 ↗ good question so with the policy going

32:02 ↗ forward to the council

32:03 ↗ for approval i'm curious is there

32:07 ↗ flexibility measures within that policy

32:10 ↗ if there's a street that perhaps

32:12 ↗ can't meet all of the objectives of the

32:14 ↗ complete streets

32:17 ↗ yes so the complete streets policy is

32:20 ↗ very much context sensitive to the

32:24 ↗ unique setting and so for an example

32:27 ↗ i'll just compare if we're looking at a

32:30 ↗ street

32:31 ↗ up on top of squawk where it's

32:35 ↗ mountainous and many of the streets

32:38 ↗ don't have sidewalks

32:40 ↗ that is looking at incorporating

32:42 ↗ complete streets

32:43 ↗ with the context sensitivity of squawk

32:46 ↗ the solution

32:47 ↗ would be a lot different than if we're

32:49 ↗ in the on the valley floor

32:51 ↗ especially in the regional growth center

32:53 ↗ where we're going to have a lot more

32:55 ↗ density

32:56 ↗ and so it does give us the flexibility

33:00 ↗ to

33:01 ↗ apply the appropriate treatment

33:04 ↗ depending on the environment

33:17 ↗ question from joseph uh yeah

33:21 ↗ um it's the complete streets approach

33:24 ↗ something that's implemented in the

33:27 ↗ master mobility plan transportation

33:29 ↗ improvement plan or

33:30 ↗ is it like a separate initiative for

33:32 ↗ policy

33:36 ↗ i would describe it as a child at the

33:38 ↗ mobility master plan so

33:40 ↗ the city has a current complete streets

33:43 ↗ policy

33:44 ↗ but as part of the mobility master plan

33:47 ↗ called for updating it to meet the

33:51 ↗ current guidelines and to incorporate a

33:53 ↗ lot of the best practices for

33:55 ↗ complete streets

33:59 ↗ hey i'm going to jump in for a second

34:01 ↗ this is cynthia to say that when i was

34:03 ↗ reading through

34:05 ↗ uh the materials and just getting ready

34:06 ↗ for this meeting i referred back to the

34:08 ↗ mobility master plan and i came across a

34:10 ↗ diagram that i thought was super helpful

34:12 ↗ that i thought it was worth calling out

34:14 ↗ and that's

34:14 ↗ about the mmp it's in the executive

34:16 ↗ summary and it basically just talks

34:18 ↗ about um

34:21 ↗ the difference between plans and um and

34:24 ↗ then

34:25 ↗ in its relationship to other plans and

34:28 ↗ it basically says that the mmp

34:30 ↗ informs it says it says identifies

34:33 ↗ policy

34:34 ↗ changes and i thought that was really

34:35 ↗ helpful because

34:37 ↗ the mmp is a plan um and like you said

34:40 ↗ it's a

34:41 ↗ completionist policy is a child of that

34:43 ↗ but it's a different kind of child than

34:44 ↗ a project

34:46 ↗ and um i thought that that diagram was

34:48 ↗ really useful and it

34:50 ↗ kind of helped me sort these different

34:53 ↗ plans

34:53 ↗ and wrap my head around their

34:55 ↗ relationship so i just thought i would

34:57 ↗ throw that out there and then i see that

34:58 ↗ um david wagner has a comment

35:02 ↗ your question yeah

35:18 ↗ and then new uh parts of issaquah like

35:22 ↗ talus

35:23 ↗ and uh the highlands

35:26 ↗ what we what is the goal what's the

35:30 ↗ big picture for complete streets

35:33 ↗ which means how many of those streets do

35:36 ↗ we see

35:37 ↗ and what what i would also say is

35:41 ↗ complete streets for some of our streets

35:44 ↗ are like

35:45 ↗ i live on dogwood right now so dogwood

35:47 ↗ west

35:48 ↗ the way i see it is a complete street

35:50 ↗ would you agree

35:52 ↗ dogwood west is a complete streak

36:00 ↗ i'd have to confess

36:04 ↗ that due to the pandemic i have not

36:06 ↗ driven in issaquah in a long time and

36:08 ↗ come on come on down here give

36:16 ↗ is there's got to be a big picture of

36:18 ↗ how many streets

36:20 ↗ we have in issaquah as i said

36:24 ↗ talus downtown south

36:28 ↗ well not so much south cove but um

36:32 ↗ what's the big picture for the number of

36:35 ↗ streets that we will have to work on to

36:37 ↗ make complete streets

36:41 ↗ well i would characterize it not

36:43 ↗ necessarily as

36:44 ↗ what do we have to work on more as

36:48 ↗ as we work on a street we

36:52 ↗ look at it with a context sensitive

36:55 ↗ approach

36:56 ↗ and so for a street that already has

37:00 ↗ facilities for

37:00 ↗ all users that also meets all the

37:04 ↗ ada requirements for that one

37:11 ↗ yeah like like this one i i think so

37:13 ↗ this is

37:14 ↗ northwest dogwood and this does look

37:16 ↗ like a complete street for the correct

37:18 ↗ correct situation where you have

37:21 ↗ sidewalk

37:22 ↗ you have the travel lanes aren't too

37:25 ↗ wide

37:26 ↗ and you have planter strip and

37:29 ↗ on this one you as you look at it you

37:32 ↗ would

37:32 ↗ consider it a pretty good street

37:36 ↗ i just tell you out of a historical

37:39 ↗ perspective

37:40 ↗ uh if you go back to the 1950s and 60s

37:46 ↗ what a complete street was then and what

37:49 ↗ it is now

37:50 ↗ is totally different all right but

37:52 ↗ that's just a comment

37:54 ↗ well the interstate system was born in

37:56 ↗ the 1950s and

37:58 ↗ so that was a time period with

38:02 ↗ fast food restaurants taking off and

38:04 ↗ interstate travel

38:05 ↗ where for transportation that was

38:09 ↗ the direction the country was traveling

38:12 ↗ at full speed

38:13 ↗ correct so now when they

38:17 ↗ now when you build talus

38:20 ↗ isn't it a requirement that uh

38:24 ↗ those who are building out talus have to

38:27 ↗ have those

38:28 ↗ streets as complete streets uh

38:31 ↗ and that's in their budget correct

38:36 ↗ right and i would say for both telus and

38:38 ↗ the highlands that

38:41 ↗ being planned communities that began i

38:44 ↗ believe in the late 90s that

38:46 ↗ a lot of the things that we would be

38:48 ↗ looking for those neighborhoods and

38:49 ↗ communities do have

38:54 ↗ so there's there's a there's got to be a

38:56 ↗ balance there

38:57 ↗ especially of old town of all the

39:00 ↗ streets

39:01 ↗ that we have how many more

39:06 ↗ i guess i'm not stating it clearly

39:08 ↗ forgive me for that

39:10 ↗ i think you get the drift of what i'm

39:12 ↗ trying to say

39:13 ↗ there's got to be a balance of how many

39:16 ↗ more streets

39:18 ↗ in old town and anywhere else in the

39:20 ↗ city that we need

39:23 ↗ to work on to to make complete streets

39:30 ↗ it definitely is a balance and it

39:34 ↗ is very neighborhood to neighborhood

39:36 ↗ specific and

39:38 ↗ without completely thinking of

39:39 ↗ everything for old town i would think

39:41 ↗ one of the

39:42 ↗ biggest priorities to making old town a

39:44 ↗ complete street at least once you get

39:46 ↗ off the arterials would be to

39:49 ↗ a lot of the sidewalk gaps in old town

39:50 ↗ would

39:52 ↗ be a huge step to making that

39:53 ↗ neighborhood have complete streets

39:56 ↗ correct i was on a long time ago

40:00 ↗ when i worked for his aqua school

40:01 ↗ district we

40:03 ↗ uh dealt with the sidewalk issue because

40:07 ↗ it wasn't safe for students

40:10 ↗ to walk to and from example issaquah

40:12 ↗ valley

40:14 ↗ this little path that's on

40:17 ↗ newport doesn't make it a complete

40:20 ↗ street because it's not

40:22 ↗ that safe for students to walk to and

40:25 ↗ from school

40:26 ↗ hence that requires school buses to have

40:30 ↗ to transport students

40:32 ↗ due to the state law to make make them

40:34 ↗ make those

40:36 ↗ streets safe um truthfully

40:39 ↗ i guess newport way is not a complete

40:42 ↗ street

40:44 ↗ or rightly uh and there's a lot of work

40:48 ↗ that has to be done

40:50 ↗ to include the roundabouts but i'm i'm

40:53 ↗ sorry and i'm not trying to take too

40:54 ↗ much time but i'm trying to make a

40:56 ↗ really valid point

40:58 ↗ and that is do we know

41:01 ↗ as is aquasits today in its development

41:04 ↗ how many streets are out there that have

41:07 ↗ to be

41:08 ↗ done that

41:12 ↗ probably doesn't even give us a total uh

41:15 ↗ estimated value of what what it's going

41:18 ↗ to cost to get those all complete

41:20 ↗ streets and we can't do it all overnight

41:23 ↗ i get that

41:26 ↗ if i can jump in john one thing that

41:30 ↗ can help kind of identify or at least

41:32 ↗ address your question

41:34 ↗ dave is in the mobility master plan we

41:36 ↗ identified all the gaps where

41:38 ↗ all where there's missing bike

41:39 ↗ facilities we're missing walking

41:41 ↗ facilities

41:42 ↗ and that really gets at a lot of that

41:43 ↗ complete streets question of how many

41:45 ↗ roads we didn't really add it up like

41:46 ↗ the total number of roads or

41:48 ↗ is missing everything but we have

41:50 ↗ identified streets where

41:52 ↗ there's only a walkway on one side when

41:54 ↗ the policy is calling for two

41:56 ↗ or there's no walkway at all or there's

41:58 ↗ no bike facility

42:00 ↗ one thing that we still need to work on

42:01 ↗ is the identification of transit

42:03 ↗ accommodation on on roadways

42:05 ↗ but we haven't really identified

42:08 ↗ what we want our transit network to look

42:10 ↗ like we i mean we have

42:12 ↗ kind of the foundation that metro and

42:14 ↗ sound transit has created for us today

42:16 ↗ but we we haven't really created that

42:18 ↗ for ourselves in terms of identifying

42:20 ↗ you know this section of newport should

42:22 ↗ accommodate this type of transit service

42:24 ↗ and so this

42:25 ↗ this is what's missing and so that's

42:27 ↗ something that want me to work on the

42:28 ↗ future but in terms of like

42:30 ↗ non-motorized access we've we've done a

42:33 ↗ pretty good job of identifying a lot of

42:35 ↗ those gaps

42:41 ↗ does that help answer your question

42:50 ↗ thank you stephen

43:06 ↗ back to you cynthia

43:11 ↗ you're on me right now

43:14 ↗ it keeps telling me i can press the

43:15 ↗ space bar to unmute temporarily but it

43:18 ↗ never seems to work

43:19 ↗ um anyway uh john did you have anything

43:22 ↗ else to add or you does that conclude

43:23 ↗ your presentation

43:25 ↗ that concludes everything for me great

43:27 ↗ thank you um so we're doing pretty well

43:29 ↗ on time

43:29 ↗ i think we're just just uh pretty close

43:32 ↗ to tracking

43:33 ↗ according to the agenda maybe a couple

43:34 ↗ minutes ahead which is great

43:36 ↗ um and um steven you're going to talk

43:38 ↗ about the pedestrian crossing

43:40 ↗ guidelines which is going to be the main

43:43 ↗ theme looks like judging by the

43:45 ↗ dedication

43:47 ↗ and time jerry has a question too before

43:49 ↗ we move on

43:50 ↗ thanks miss that jerry go ahead i

43:54 ↗ entered it a little bit late but um the

43:57 ↗ question is

43:57 ↗ really simple as far as the definition

44:00 ↗ of complete streets

44:02 ↗ but not every street is going to be

44:04 ↗ built out

44:05 ↗ completely so not every street in the

44:08 ↗ network is going to need a bike lane

44:11 ↗ correct so you're not going to look at

44:13 ↗ um

44:16 ↗ not dogwood what's the name of that ash

44:19 ↗ street or something you know ones that

44:23 ↗ don't have a lot of volume

44:24 ↗ aren't going to need the bike lanes

44:27 ↗ right

44:27 ↗ and and each street has a different

44:30 ↗ definition of what a complete street

44:32 ↗ would be

44:33 ↗ correct absolutely and so like during

44:36 ↗ the presentation when

44:37 ↗ we saw the different examples where

44:40 ↗ there's the

44:41 ↗ what fit for a two-lane rural road

44:44 ↗ versus

44:45 ↗ a dense commercial center versus

44:48 ↗ a main street and that's just

44:52 ↗ not even scratching the surface of

44:55 ↗ all the different types of streets and

44:57 ↗ each one's unique and

44:59 ↗ that the solution needs to be right for

45:01 ↗ the street and the neighborhood and

45:04 ↗ the environment yes okay thanks

45:09 ↗ yeah just to add on to john's response

45:12 ↗ you can

45:13 ↗ you can kind of think of complete

45:14 ↗ streets as an approach or a lens you

45:18 ↗ apply when you're looking at streets of

45:20 ↗ asking the question how how are we

45:22 ↗ accommodating people to walk or how are

45:24 ↗ we accommodating people to bike

45:26 ↗ it doesn't necessarily mean we need to

45:28 ↗ have a sidewalk or a bike lane on every

45:30 ↗ road

45:31 ↗ it's more of just answering those

45:32 ↗ questions how are those modes of

45:34 ↗ transportation are those

45:35 ↗ those options for people to get around

45:37 ↗ being accommodated

45:38 ↗ and not every street will have

45:41 ↗ much at all other than like a

45:44 ↗ residential street where there's not

45:45 ↗ much

45:46 ↗ volume or anything like that could just

45:48 ↗ be

45:50 ↗ established as a shared street where you

45:52 ↗ have

45:53 ↗ low volume low speeds and everybody's

45:55 ↗ actually just comfortable sharing the

45:56 ↗ street

45:58 ↗ there's designs to put in to make

46:00 ↗ everyone feel

46:01 ↗ more comfortable with that but it's it's

46:03 ↗ not necessarily we need to put a bike

46:05 ↗ lane and sidewalk

46:06 ↗ on every street

46:11 ↗ all right stephen you want to take it

46:13 ↗ away and move on to 4c

46:36 ↗ stephen you're muted

46:40 ↗ thank you um for this discussion i'll

46:43 ↗ provide an overview of the the crossing

46:45 ↗ guidelines

46:46 ↗ how the guidelines are used and the

46:49 ↗ purpose

46:49 ↗ of why we're making changes to the

46:53 ↗ crossing guidelines

46:55 ↗ and this is more of a discussion so

46:56 ↗ we're hoping to get feedback from the

46:58 ↗ board

46:58 ↗ um these are the questions we're posing

47:01 ↗ to the board and i'll i'll bring them

47:02 ↗ back later when we when we

47:04 ↗ have the opportunity for a discussion

47:06 ↗ and we're looking for

47:07 ↗ general preservations about the changes

47:10 ↗ whether it's enough to meet the goals of

47:12 ↗ the mobility master plan

47:14 ↗ and if we're missing anything first i'm

47:17 ↗ going to explain some details about

47:19 ↗ the guidelines and then i'll focus on

47:20 ↗ the major changes which is

47:22 ↗ when we'll have that more focused

47:24 ↗ discussion on these questions

47:28 ↗ so the pedestrian crossing guidelines is

47:30 ↗ more of a collection of city policies

47:32 ↗ and standards

47:34 ↗ as they relate to roadway crossings it

47:36 ↗ helps us tell the story on why we

47:39 ↗ establish

47:40 ↗ certain policies and standards and

47:42 ↗ provides guidance on how we use those

47:44 ↗ policies and standards and it was

47:46 ↗ originally

47:46 ↗ put together back in 2008 to help staff

47:49 ↗ and developers

47:50 ↗ build out safe crossings and a rapidly

47:53 ↗ growing and developing walk-in network

47:55 ↗ throughout the city

47:57 ↗ the guidelines also provide a link

47:59 ↗ between national best practice

48:02 ↗ between what we want to do to keep

48:04 ↗ people safe in this community and and

48:06 ↗ what's recommended at the national level

48:08 ↗ and the manual for uniform traffic

48:10 ↗ control devices

48:11 ↗ is one of those primary federal

48:12 ↗ documents we we have to stay consistent

48:14 ↗ with

48:15 ↗ as we continue to build out our system

48:17 ↗ and it's not really important to

48:18 ↗ remember

48:18 ↗ what this document is or what's in it

48:21 ↗ unless you're an engineer or planner

48:22 ↗ it's more relevant to know that we have

48:24 ↗ to be consistent with documents like

48:26 ↗ this

48:27 ↗ so we have legal support for what we put

48:29 ↗ on the roadway

48:31 ↗ and if something is isn't approved in

48:33 ↗ documents like this

48:34 ↗ then we can't use it or we have to apply

48:36 ↗ for experimental status to try something

48:38 ↗ new

48:40 ↗ that way we do have that kind of legal

48:42 ↗ support to

48:43 ↗ put something on the roadway

48:46 ↗ and there's a couple ways we use the

48:48 ↗ guidelines we

48:50 ↗ but we should note this is is not a

48:52 ↗ formalized document

48:53 ↗ that needs to be adopted by council or

48:55 ↗ the board it's it you can think of it

48:57 ↗ more like

48:57 ↗ a research paper that explains what our

49:00 ↗ policies and standards are and ensures

49:02 ↗ we're consistent with

49:04 ↗ consistent throughout all our projects

49:06 ↗ and to help explain some of the things

49:07 ↗ we're looking at in the guidelines i'll

49:09 ↗ go over some of the terms

49:11 ↗ to give some context of what we're doing

49:14 ↗ because

49:14 ↗ the main thing is we're establishing

49:16 ↗ policies

49:18 ↗ that define how standards are used

49:21 ↗ and gives guidance on how to use those

49:24 ↗ policies

49:24 ↗ and standards so the first term i want

49:28 ↗ to introduce is

49:29 ↗ uncontrolled crossings and these are

49:31 ↗ locations where sidewalks and designated

49:33 ↗ walkways cross a roadway

49:35 ↗ but no traffic control is actually

49:37 ↗ installed at this location

49:38 ↗ this means there's no signage or signals

49:42 ↗ or lights

49:42 ↗ to control drivers or people crossing

49:45 ↗ the roadway

49:46 ↗ at that crossing you typically see this

49:49 ↗ in residential

49:51 ↗ uh neighborhoods or just general

49:52 ↗ location where there's not a lot of

49:54 ↗ vehicle traffic or not a lot of people

49:56 ↗ crossing the street

49:59 ↗ the next term i want to introduce is

50:01 ↗ controlled crossings which

50:02 ↗ are the opposite of the other one where

50:04 ↗ there are signs and signals to control

50:06 ↗ drivers

50:07 ↗ and control people crossing the roadway

50:09 ↗ and technically what determines when

50:11 ↗ it's con

50:12 ↗ control or control is based on our

50:14 ↗ policy but

50:15 ↗ it's mostly based on the location

50:17 ↗ characteristics

50:19 ↗ for example how many people use the

50:21 ↗ crossing regularly

50:22 ↗ what's the land use surrounding the

50:24 ↗ location how how many vehicles

50:26 ↗ uh regularly travel down this roadway

50:28 ↗ that intersects with the crossing

50:30 ↗ you'll find controlled crossings at

50:31 ↗ locations where there are a higher

50:33 ↗ volume of vehicles traveling on the

50:35 ↗ roadway and a larger

50:36 ↗ and larger amount of people crossing the

50:39 ↗ road

50:41 ↗ and the last thing i want to introduce

50:42 ↗ is special treatment so

50:45 ↗ there are the additional measures that

50:46 ↗ we add on to just a standard crosswalk

50:49 ↗ is what we consider special treatments

50:51 ↗ and we use these to enhance the

50:53 ↗ usability

50:54 ↗ and the safety of crossings and so

50:56 ↗ things like flashing lights

50:59 ↗ special paint decorations or designs

51:02 ↗ physical barriers are considered special

51:03 ↗ treatments and they're used

51:05 ↗ so that we can tailor pressing to

51:07 ↗ specific locations and you'll find

51:09 ↗ various treatments and package solutions

51:11 ↗ in these proposed guidelines

51:13 ↗ which we'll discuss in a little bit

51:18 ↗ now there's a few reasons why we want to

51:20 ↗ change the crossing guidelines but the

51:22 ↗ biggest

51:23 ↗ reason is because we're implementing the

51:25 ↗ mobility master plan which calls for

51:28 ↗ significantly enhanced safety measures

51:31 ↗ to keep people safe in the community and

51:33 ↗ and using and you how we use the roadway

51:35 ↗ and

51:36 ↗ as part of this implementation process

51:38 ↗ we're updating the street standards and

51:40 ↗ associated policies

51:41 ↗ so it's necessary to update the crossing

51:43 ↗ guidelines as well which is what's

51:45 ↗ telling the story of how to use those

51:47 ↗ additionally we update this update also

51:50 ↗ improves our ability to compete for

51:52 ↗ grant funding for projects

51:54 ↗ by improving the tools we use to make

51:55 ↗ safety improvements

51:58 ↗ we could just update the policies and

52:00 ↗ standards themselves but

52:02 ↗ if they're not as usable or easier to

52:03 ↗ read

52:05 ↗ we they don't necessarily make it as

52:08 ↗ effective and so

52:09 ↗ an update to the crossing guidelines

52:11 ↗ help with this

52:14 ↗ and a lot of this work started back in

52:16 ↗ 2019

52:18 ↗ we initially spoke with the board and

52:21 ↗ got

52:21 ↗ feedback from the board which helped

52:23 ↗ guide a lot of the work from a project

52:25 ↗ team which was made up of staff from

52:26 ↗ multiple departments

52:28 ↗ and a consultant who to walk us through

52:30 ↗ the update process and now we're in that

52:32 ↗ final phase of

52:34 ↗ reviewing the proposed changes with the

52:35 ↗ board and eventually with city council

52:38 ↗ one number i want to add here is that

52:40 ↗ the consultant that we selected to

52:42 ↗ develop the mobility master plan was

52:44 ↗ also the same consult that we used to

52:46 ↗ conduct this update so

52:48 ↗ the purpose of that was to ensure that

52:50 ↗ we were using consistent language

52:52 ↗ and policies between the master plan and

52:54 ↗ these guideline updates

52:59 ↗ and when we spoke with the board back in

53:01 ↗ 2019 we received

53:03 ↗ the following feedback about the the

53:07 ↗ guidelines update and the first was to

53:09 ↗ keep people

53:10 ↗ keep safety of people walking and biking

53:12 ↗ the highest priority

53:14 ↗ and to make sure it's consistent with

53:15 ↗ the master plan as it continues

53:17 ↗ to get developed to keep it simple so

53:20 ↗ people are able to read and understand

53:22 ↗ it

53:22 ↗ and but also ensure equity is considered

53:25 ↗ in the implementation of the guidelines

53:28 ↗ we did a lot of work to think through

53:30 ↗ the equity component it's not as

53:32 ↗ apparent

53:32 ↗ in the guidelines only because the

53:35 ↗ implementation

53:36 ↗ of the guides in the development of

53:39 ↗ programs and projects

53:40 ↗ is where you really see the the equity

53:43 ↗ component really shine

53:48 ↗ and now that we've gone through the

53:50 ↗ development process with the project

53:52 ↗ team we're now reviewing the limitation

53:54 ↗ or at least the finalization of the

53:56 ↗ guidelines and as i say before this

53:58 ↗ this document doesn't need adoption or

54:00 ↗ approval by council or the board

54:03 ↗ um but we also don't want to move

54:04 ↗ forward on any of the updates unless the

54:06 ↗ board is comfortable with what's being

54:08 ↗ proposed

54:09 ↗ so we'll take any edits from the board

54:12 ↗ tonight and bring it back

54:13 ↗ for final review in may if that's if

54:15 ↗ that's deemed necessary

54:17 ↗ before we bring it to council

54:18 ↗ potentially in june

54:21 ↗ before i move to the major changes are

54:24 ↗ there any

54:26 ↗ questions or comments

54:33 ↗ i have a question about um in the board

54:36 ↗ feedback from 2019

54:38 ↗ uh one of the concerns was equity and is

54:40 ↗ that in

54:41 ↗ equity in like the geographic location

54:44 ↗ of

54:45 ↗ different crosswalks or of like the who

54:48 ↗ is using it or both

54:53 ↗ now the discussion with the board was

54:56 ↗ ensuring that safety was being

54:57 ↗ implemented equitably throughout the

54:59 ↗ city but also making sure that

55:01 ↗ neighborhoods were being looked at

55:02 ↗ consistently for the safety measures as

55:04 ↗ well

55:13 ↗ cynthia i can't see the chat so are

55:15 ↗ there any other questions

55:17 ↗ i'm not saying anymore okay thank you

55:23 ↗ so while the guidelines look completely

55:26 ↗ different

55:27 ↗ um compared when comparing the original

55:29 ↗ to what's being proposed now the

55:31 ↗ major changes we're proposing fall into

55:34 ↗ four different categories and you can

55:36 ↗ look at it as

55:38 ↗ we made a change to the crosswalk policy

55:40 ↗ which is where we want to establish

55:42 ↗ crossings

55:42 ↗ on the roadway we changed our policy on

55:45 ↗ where we want to install rectangular

55:48 ↗ rapid flashing beacons which are

55:50 ↗ those crossing with the flashing lights

55:52 ↗ you press a button and just flash

55:54 ↗ yellow and yellow and orange lights

55:57 ↗ and then the third is we we put together

56:01 ↗ package solutions for how we want to

56:04 ↗ make improvements for

56:05 ↗ or apply those special treatments for

56:07 ↗ crossings and uh

56:08 ↗ explain a little bit more of of what

56:10 ↗ that means and

56:11 ↗ the last was the establishment of a

56:14 ↗ crosswalk removal policy

56:16 ↗ that's one thing that was never really

56:17 ↗ clear before was if a crosswalk is

56:20 ↗ installed

56:21 ↗ what do we do if it actually isn't

56:23 ↗ warranted or if it's not needed at a

56:24 ↗ location or

56:25 ↗ potentially that it doesn't make it as

56:28 ↗ safe having the crosswalk actually

56:30 ↗ at a location now with this section of

56:33 ↗ the presentation i'd like to have a

56:34 ↗ discussion about the board

56:36 ↗ so i'm gonna go through um the questions

56:38 ↗ again and then i'm gonna go through each

56:40 ↗ major change and we'll just go through

56:43 ↗ each one

56:44 ↗ and have a discussion if that's okay

56:46 ↗ okay

56:49 ↗ so again the questions is focusing on

56:52 ↗ those

56:53 ↗ four major policy changes with these

56:55 ↗ questions

56:56 ↗ are these changes adequate do they match

56:59 ↗ what we intended for the master plan

57:01 ↗ and are we missing anything

57:05 ↗ for the first change the first major

57:07 ↗ change was the establishment of

57:09 ↗ a more robust processing policy to

57:12 ↗ determine where and when we want to have

57:13 ↗ crossings

57:14 ↗ um in the system and the previous policy

57:17 ↗ was fairly simple but didn't really

57:18 ↗ provide enough

57:19 ↗ detail and guidance for us to be

57:21 ↗ consistent in the build out of the

57:23 ↗ system or the continued build out of the

57:25 ↗ system

57:26 ↗ so by being more consistent with how we

57:28 ↗ install crossings and enhancements

57:30 ↗ we actually make the system safer it's

57:33 ↗ not the existence

57:34 ↗ of crossings that make an environment

57:36 ↗ safe it's how you use them to actually

57:38 ↗ make them safe

57:40 ↗ and so let's imagine for a second that

57:42 ↗ we installed the crosswalk at every

57:44 ↗ intersection in your neighborhood

57:46 ↗ let's let's all just kind of imagine

57:47 ↗ that for a second for each of you

57:50 ↗ now how do you tell the difference when

57:53 ↗ a crossing is at a park or a school

57:56 ↗ or a shopping center you can't

58:00 ↗ because all the crossings look the same

58:02 ↗ unless people are there

58:03 ↗ most drivers can't tell the difference a

58:05 ↗ massive perspective we have to take into

58:07 ↗ account when

58:08 ↗ looking at a lot of the crossings and

58:10 ↗ evaluating

58:11 ↗ for crossing installations because

58:13 ↗ driver complacency the more times the

58:15 ↗ driver goes down the roadway

58:17 ↗ and experiences the same thing when they

58:19 ↗ see that there's no one using a

58:21 ↗ crosswalk

58:22 ↗ they assume that for every crosswalk

58:24 ↗ they see

58:25 ↗ on that roadway and so

58:28 ↗ when someone actually does cross the

58:30 ↗ roadway it's more of a surprise for

58:32 ↗ drivers

58:32 ↗ than if we were a little more specific

58:35 ↗ on where we installed

58:36 ↗ the crosswalks themselves now

58:40 ↗ this is where i'd like to kind of have

58:41 ↗ that discussion with the board of

58:43 ↗ what does the what do members think of

58:46 ↗ the establishment of

58:48 ↗ more specifics on where we want to

58:50 ↗ install crossings

58:57 ↗ well this is cynthia i'll start um

59:00 ↗ and i also want to just give you guys a

59:02 ↗ heads up that

59:04 ↗ by the time we're finished i'll make

59:05 ↗ sure everybody has

59:07 ↗ been called on it if you haven't chimed

59:09 ↗ in on your own because

59:11 ↗ i like to make sure we hear from

59:12 ↗ everybody but um

59:14 ↗ uh i mean generally i thought that was

59:16 ↗ really really useful

59:18 ↗ in reading through the memo just this

59:20 ↗ idea of being a little bit more

59:21 ↗ analytical

59:22 ↗ about crosswalk policy um

59:25 ↗ i wanted to make sure i understand what

59:26 ↗ you're saying now were you saying

59:28 ↗ basically that

59:30 ↗ one of the downsides of having too many

59:32 ↗ or having them be too similar is that

59:34 ↗ um drivers are desensitized so it's not

59:37 ↗ just the cost

59:38 ↗ of installing them it's actually how

59:42 ↗ it could be interpreted by drivers and

59:44 ↗ they get desensitized and then they

59:46 ↗ they're all less safe is that kind of

59:49 ↗ what you're saying

59:51 ↗ nope that's exactly what i was saying

59:53 ↗ yes there is a cost component

59:56 ↗ in all this and and there is a principle

59:58 ↗ in the master plan where we need to

1:00:00 ↗ invest wisely

1:00:01 ↗ um with money that we have and

1:00:04 ↗ uh installing our crosswalk

1:00:08 ↗ seems fairly inexpensive but if you look

1:00:10 ↗ at it

1:00:11 ↗ one crosswalk is about five hundred

1:00:13 ↗ dollars just roughly

1:00:15 ↗ so an entire intersection where you have

1:00:17 ↗ four crossings is about two thousand

1:00:19 ↗ dollars

1:00:20 ↗ that's for install or repaint so if you

1:00:24 ↗ were to do that with every

1:00:26 ↗ intersection in your neighborhood you're

1:00:28 ↗ already looking at a hundred thousand

1:00:29 ↗ dollars just for your neighborhood alone

1:00:31 ↗ and crosswalks have to be maintained

1:00:33 ↗ fairly regularly

1:00:34 ↗ um depending on the volumes of the

1:00:36 ↗ street and so

1:00:38 ↗ it it can be financially irresponsible

1:00:42 ↗ of us to actually

1:00:43 ↗ want to install everywhere but to the

1:00:46 ↗ point i was originally making

1:00:48 ↗ installing too many crosswalks does make

1:00:50 ↗ it less safe

1:00:51 ↗ because you are setting a different

1:00:53 ↗ expectation for drivers

1:00:55 ↗ when no one's using the crosswalks

1:00:57 ↗ except for one

1:00:59 ↗ um drivers really don't know what expect

1:01:01 ↗ to get to those crosswalks

1:01:03 ↗ yeah this is tom well onto that there's

1:01:05 ↗ a term called driver expectation

1:01:07 ↗ and it's uh it's something that's

1:01:09 ↗ ingrained in drivers

1:01:10 ↗ the though it becomes a habit if they

1:01:12 ↗ expect one thing they expect it at

1:01:14 ↗ others everything from uh for example to

1:01:17 ↗ get off at a freeway they expect there's

1:01:19 ↗ been on-ramp to get back on if they made

1:01:20 ↗ a mistake

1:01:22 ↗ um and got off at the wrong ramp so

1:01:24 ↗ they're driving through the road

1:01:26 ↗ they see certain certain ways they get

1:01:28 ↗ used to it being that same way

1:01:29 ↗ so if something changes or something

1:01:32 ↗ wouldn't

1:01:34 ↗ so they used to be in it that way so for

1:01:35 ↗ example they drive through a crosswalk

1:01:37 ↗ and no one's ever there then they just

1:01:38 ↗ assume it's ingrained in their habitual

1:01:42 ↗ third driver expectation part because

1:01:44 ↗ that no one's there and they

1:01:45 ↗ change their driving habits to ignore

1:01:47 ↗ them

1:01:50 ↗ i think that's important to understand

1:01:51 ↗ it looks like jerry has a comment and

1:01:53 ↗ then after that sujata has a question

1:01:57 ↗ yes um thanks my comment was uh

1:02:02 ↗ for the new policy you do um stephen you

1:02:05 ↗ have listed location

1:02:08 ↗ but wasn't wouldn't location be defined

1:02:11 ↗ by

1:02:12 ↗ um how many cars are using

1:02:16 ↗ that roadway perhaps

1:02:20 ↗ um when you say location i i would think

1:02:24 ↗ you're you're going to be um putting

1:02:26 ↗ more crossov

1:02:27 ↗ walks where there are more cars driving

1:02:30 ↗ on that particular road

1:02:34 ↗ it's about the vehicle volume is part of

1:02:37 ↗ it

1:02:38 ↗ but it's it's primarily around the

1:02:40 ↗ number of people actually using the

1:02:41 ↗ crossing as well

1:02:43 ↗ um so getting pedestrian counts at a

1:02:45 ↗ location

1:02:46 ↗ but the location was listed on here as

1:02:48 ↗ part of the new policy

1:02:49 ↗ because you treat a mid-block crossing

1:02:52 ↗ different from an actual intersection

1:02:54 ↗ and you look at it differently because

1:02:55 ↗ there's different uh site distance

1:02:57 ↗ requirements you have to consider

1:02:58 ↗ and so that's why i listed location kind

1:03:01 ↗ of at the top of the list

1:03:03 ↗ right but i i i was thinking that

1:03:07 ↗ um for the safety of the pedestrians the

1:03:10 ↗ busier

1:03:11 ↗ the roadway the more likely you would

1:03:14 ↗ want to crosswalk there

1:03:17 ↗ the the traffic volume the busier the

1:03:20 ↗ traffic volume

1:03:23 ↗ yes there are when you get

1:03:26 ↗ to and i'll get to this one in the

1:03:28 ↗ package solutions when you get to higher

1:03:30 ↗ volume roads

1:03:32 ↗ then yes you do want to have a crossing

1:03:36 ↗ but you also want to be strategic on

1:03:37 ↗ where you have the crossings as well

1:03:39 ↗ because if you have a crossing that's

1:03:42 ↗ closer to let's say a

1:03:44 ↗ a commercial areas entrance is

1:03:47 ↗ you have a crossing and then 200 feet

1:03:49 ↗ away you have another crossing

1:03:51 ↗ um that leads doesn't necess that's not

1:03:54 ↗ as close to that entrance to the

1:03:56 ↗ shopping area

1:03:57 ↗ the secondary crossing isn't necessarily

1:04:00 ↗ isn't as necessary as that first one

1:04:02 ↗ because you are more likely to get

1:04:04 ↗ people across that first one the second

1:04:06 ↗ one so

1:04:07 ↗ the second one is actually deemed

1:04:09 ↗ unwarranted

1:04:11 ↗ so is this crosswalk policy for

1:04:14 ↗ low volume roads i i might have missed

1:04:16 ↗ that

1:04:18 ↗ so and then you have another one for

1:04:20 ↗ higher volume roads is that what you're

1:04:22 ↗ saying

1:04:23 ↗ uh yes so first is the determination of

1:04:26 ↗ whether or not we

1:04:27 ↗ want to install a crossing um the policy

1:04:30 ↗ is

1:04:30 ↗ to be for residential as well as

1:04:32 ↗ arterial roadways

1:04:36 ↗ it's the same policy yes

1:04:40 ↗ all right okay all right yeah that's

1:04:43 ↗ good

1:04:43 ↗ thanks so sujata and then micah

1:04:48 ↗ okay so i guess steven mike says

1:04:51 ↗ i'm sorry this was like the dumbest

1:04:53 ↗ question but is the

1:04:54 ↗ policy so that document that's attached

1:04:58 ↗ in our agenda

1:04:59 ↗ that's the policy right so

1:05:03 ↗ or the proposed is that the proposed

1:05:05 ↗ policy

1:05:06 ↗ so like all the diagrams and which all

1:05:09 ↗ the figures

1:05:10 ↗ all the flowchart as a process person

1:05:13 ↗ i love this policy so if this so i guess

1:05:17 ↗ i the question is is this

1:05:20 ↗ attached document what we

1:05:24 ↗ what you're calling the policy or is

1:05:28 ↗ this attached

1:05:29 ↗ document the process flow

1:05:32 ↗ and the decision criteria and the

1:05:36 ↗ detailed information that you would use

1:05:40 ↗ um to get to

1:05:43 ↗ you know what treatment to be used but

1:05:46 ↗ the policy is different or is this like

1:05:50 ↗ i'm sorry is this the policy

1:05:53 ↗ no it's it's it's it is very confusing

1:05:56 ↗ so i think this is actually a really

1:05:58 ↗ good

1:05:58 ↗ question um the document itself what was

1:06:01 ↗ attached

1:06:02 ↗ as part of the this meeting of materials

1:06:04 ↗ is

1:06:06 ↗ it's a culmination of multiple policies

1:06:08 ↗ and standards

1:06:10 ↗ so okay um it's more it is more of that

1:06:12 ↗ process flow to determine what crossing

1:06:14 ↗ you put in place

1:06:15 ↗ but it's it is more multiple policies

1:06:18 ↗ and status not just one

1:06:20 ↗ okay yeah because at some level you

1:06:22 ↗ start getting to that vibe of complete

1:06:24 ↗ streets as you're going through this you

1:06:26 ↗ start getting

1:06:27 ↗ um to all of that so

1:06:31 ↗ i i was i stopped reading actually

1:06:34 ↗ after this document so i don't know if

1:06:36 ↗ like the actual policy is attached or

1:06:40 ↗ maybe i should scroll down a little more

1:06:41 ↗ so i apologize for not being totally

1:06:43 ↗ prepared but

1:06:45 ↗ no we didn't we didn't separate separate

1:06:47 ↗ out the policy because we thought

1:06:48 ↗ actually they would make it more

1:06:49 ↗ confusing if we just kind of repeated

1:06:51 ↗ the information

1:06:52 ↗ and separated them out so we just kept

1:06:55 ↗ it at the document itself which

1:06:56 ↗ contained all the policies

1:06:58 ↗ um as part of a consistent story just so

1:07:00 ↗ you can tell

1:07:01 ↗ what you're reading okay so so i

1:07:04 ↗ i would say you know with the questions

1:07:06 ↗ you're asking like i would say that

1:07:09 ↗ in the polit like if this document is

1:07:12 ↗ sort of the document that's

1:07:14 ↗ guiding the development of the policy

1:07:16 ↗ and those

1:07:18 ↗ criteria or those you know aspects

1:07:20 ↗ location accounts etc etc are in it

1:07:23 ↗ in my mind that makes sense and that's

1:07:26 ↗ consistent

1:07:27 ↗ with what we had described

1:07:30 ↗ in our master plan like these are the

1:07:32 ↗ kinds of things we would want

1:07:35 ↗ the city to be considering as they're

1:07:38 ↗ determining

1:07:39 ↗ how to implement a crosswalk

1:07:45 ↗ so yeah like if the policy was we should

1:07:47 ↗ think about these things when we

1:07:48 ↗ implement a crosswalk then yes

1:07:51 ↗ you should think about these things when

1:07:52 ↗ you in crosswalk and like if somebody

1:07:54 ↗ who lives in a super you know in like a

1:07:57 ↗ cul-de-sac neighborhood i would not want

1:07:59 ↗ a bunch of crosswalks in my neighborhood

1:08:01 ↗ because it would take me longer to cross

1:08:02 ↗ the street

1:08:03 ↗ while i waited for the signal to change

1:08:04 ↗ than it does right now

1:08:06 ↗ so yeah so i think that these things are

1:08:09 ↗ good

1:08:10 ↗ things to consider in a policy

1:08:23 ↗ is micah so for the sight distance

1:08:27 ↗ uh is that just um

1:08:30 ↗ merely a dis visibility to the crosswalk

1:08:34 ↗ itself

1:08:35 ↗ or to the people that might be soon to

1:08:37 ↗ enter the crosswalk

1:08:39 ↗ like i think of the cross rocks on front

1:08:41 ↗ street which i think are particularly

1:08:43 ↗ dangerous in my opinion

1:08:45 ↗ because there's parking street parking

1:08:48 ↗ right in front of where people will

1:08:50 ↗ wait to cross and i'm always much more

1:08:53 ↗ concerned about

1:08:54 ↗ dark and rainy nights than i am you know

1:08:56 ↗ sunny afternoon

1:08:57 ↗ for pedestrian safety so sight distance

1:09:00 ↗ i almost wonder whether visibility is a

1:09:04 ↗ an additional term or another way to say

1:09:07 ↗ that that really describes it's about

1:09:09 ↗ visibility of the pedestrians prior to

1:09:11 ↗ entering the crosswalk

1:09:13 ↗ that's that's important um and then then

1:09:16 ↗ i just had a question on

1:09:18 ↗ uh some of the different uh you know

1:09:21 ↗ light up crosswalks um cost for those so

1:09:24 ↗ there's the ones that have the things

1:09:26 ↗ built into the road

1:09:27 ↗ and then there's just the flashing signs

1:09:29 ↗ i'm assuming the flashing signs are

1:09:30 ↗ going to be cheaper

1:09:31 ↗ i don't know whether there are ones they

1:09:34 ↗ all require power to be run or

1:09:35 ↗ can some of them even with our are

1:09:38 ↗ reduced sunny days here can they be

1:09:40 ↗ powered by solar and therefore cheaper

1:09:42 ↗ to install

1:09:47 ↗ sure i think that's that's a good

1:09:48 ↗ question the visibility portion

1:09:51 ↗ in the in the guidelines you'll find

1:09:54 ↗ actually

1:09:54 ↗ uh graphics and tables that explains

1:09:56 ↗ exactly

1:09:58 ↗ a theorem that we use for determining

1:10:00 ↗ the visibility

1:10:01 ↗ and it is looking at um there there is a

1:10:05 ↗ an area just before someone enters a

1:10:07 ↗ crosswalk that's kind of

1:10:09 ↗ determined as the uh entrance zone for a

1:10:12 ↗ crosswalk

1:10:13 ↗ that that's where we're looked at the

1:10:15 ↗ visibility or that line of sight

1:10:18 ↗ where a driver is able to see when

1:10:20 ↗ someone's entering the crosswalk

1:10:22 ↗ and it is based on driver perspective

1:10:25 ↗ to pedestrians into the roadway not

1:10:27 ↗ necessarily

1:10:29 ↗ um a different perspective so

1:10:32 ↗ we are looking at how far can a driver

1:10:35 ↗ see where

1:10:35 ↗ someone is entering our crosswalk and

1:10:37 ↗ there is a threshold where we

1:10:39 ↗ determine that the like either parking

1:10:41 ↗ needs to be taken out to increase that

1:10:43 ↗ visibility

1:10:44 ↗ or landscaping needs to be changed to

1:10:46 ↗ increase that visibility but there is a

1:10:48 ↗ certain threshold we try to meet for

1:10:50 ↗ line of sight for crossings

1:10:52 ↗ and then to your second question on the

1:10:54 ↗ light of crosswalk

1:10:55 ↗ costs we no longer do

1:10:59 ↗ install the in-road lights where you

1:11:01 ↗ have the lights

1:11:03 ↗ installed at each of the painted lines

1:11:05 ↗ for crosswalks anymore

1:11:07 ↗ because they're extremely expensive to

1:11:09 ↗ maintain

1:11:10 ↗ because they break fairly easily and to

1:11:13 ↗ fix them

1:11:13 ↗ you have to dig back into the road to

1:11:17 ↗ fix it and so even though they're a

1:11:19 ↗ little

1:11:20 ↗ less expensive to install than a lot of

1:11:22 ↗ the big bigger flashing lights

1:11:25 ↗ they over time become extremely

1:11:28 ↗ more expensive uh over the long term

1:11:30 ↗ over the long run

1:11:31 ↗ for the flashing lights so the rapid

1:11:34 ↗ flashing beacons that you see now

1:11:36 ↗ they're typically around 20 000

1:11:39 ↗ but can range up to about 50 000 per

1:11:42 ↗ installation

1:11:43 ↗ and that's for two solar power and

1:11:46 ↗ that's

1:11:47 ↗ you can hardwire

1:11:51 ↗ those lights or you can

1:11:54 ↗ install solar but our policy is actually

1:11:57 ↗ to hardwire them

1:11:59 ↗ because of our issues with solar

1:12:02 ↗ not necessarily because we don't get as

1:12:04 ↗ much uh uv light you'll be surprised

1:12:06 ↗ that we actually get a significant

1:12:08 ↗ amount that's enough to power

1:12:10 ↗ those lights it's more of that we have a

1:12:12 ↗ lot of trees

1:12:13 ↗ that cover up a lot of the signs and so

1:12:16 ↗ pine needles and leaves and dirt all

1:12:19 ↗ build up

1:12:20 ↗ on the solar panels which require

1:12:22 ↗ regular

1:12:23 ↗ maintenance either of the landscaping of

1:12:25 ↗ the trees

1:12:26 ↗ or of the solar panels themselves and so

1:12:29 ↗ unless

1:12:29 ↗ it's more expensive to hardwire the

1:12:33 ↗ lighting system itself solar is the

1:12:35 ↗ preference

1:12:36 ↗ kind of on the outside areas of the city

1:12:38 ↗ and hardwire is the preference on

1:12:40 ↗ kind of the inner areas where we already

1:12:42 ↗ have utility lines installed

1:12:48 ↗ uh tom and then christy

1:12:55 ↗ uh oops

1:12:58 ↗ i have uh two comments in the question

1:13:01 ↗ really uh

1:13:02 ↗ comments on the crosswalks for example

1:13:04 ↗ going down

1:13:05 ↗ front street if i'm a driver and i'm

1:13:08 ↗ going down

1:13:08 ↗ and there's a car is coming in the

1:13:10 ↗ opposite direction say i'm down by

1:13:13 ↗ the south of uh los margaritas and

1:13:17 ↗ i can't see if there's a pedestrian

1:13:18 ↗ coming across the walk

1:13:20 ↗ from the behind the car that's right in

1:13:22 ↗ front of the

1:13:24 ↗ crosswalk so basically slow down just in

1:13:26 ↗ case there is a pedestrian that's coming

1:13:28 ↗ across there that can't see

1:13:31 ↗ so without the pen buttons on the side

1:13:32 ↗ you don't know if there's a pedestrian

1:13:34 ↗ crossing the crosswalk but the other

1:13:36 ↗ thing an option would be and i'd ask

1:13:38 ↗ questions is

1:13:39 ↗ at nighttime it's hard to see people in

1:13:40 ↗ crosswalks but if you could put an

1:13:42 ↗ overhead

1:13:43 ↗ string up by a canary line and overhead

1:13:45 ↗ light to light up the actual cross block

1:13:47 ↗ so someone's in

1:13:48 ↗ this button that lights up the crosswalk

1:13:50 ↗ from the light above then you can

1:13:51 ↗ actually see the crosswalk it's a little

1:13:53 ↗ bit more illuminated with light

1:13:55 ↗ and you can see the person and that may

1:13:57 ↗ be one way to address it

1:13:58 ↗ i've seen that done um

1:14:00 ↗ [Music]

1:14:02 ↗ another location so that's one option

1:14:05 ↗ and then on the

1:14:07 ↗ so i understand the new policy versus

1:14:08 ↗ the 19 2008 policy is

1:14:11 ↗ still looking at location by location

1:14:13 ↗ but we're gonna have this other criteria

1:14:15 ↗ with the pedestrian count

1:14:16 ↗ sight distance local destinations and

1:14:19 ↗ proximity to others

1:14:21 ↗ as more specific ways to evaluate

1:14:23 ↗ whether the crosswalk stays or goes

1:14:25 ↗ because it's the same criteria whether

1:14:27 ↗ you remove it or install it

1:14:29 ↗ and modify it so

1:14:33 ↗ i guess that's part of my question is

1:14:35 ↗ that's what we're being more specific

1:14:37 ↗ with the new policy

1:14:38 ↗ by looking at those items and and

1:14:40 ↗ someone to traffic house and it's

1:14:42 ↗ probably not a bad idea

1:14:43 ↗ to have proper accounts in there because

1:14:45 ↗ that may be

1:14:47 ↗ not necessary you won't put the

1:14:48 ↗ crosswalk there but it may be a

1:14:49 ↗ different way to treat the crosswalk

1:14:50 ↗ based on the traffic volume i think

1:14:53 ↗ probably the

1:14:54 ↗ pedestrian counts is probably going to

1:14:55 ↗ be the primary thing because that's

1:14:57 ↗ who you plan to be addressing at that

1:14:59 ↗ specific location

1:15:05 ↗ yeah so later in a couple slides i'll

1:15:08 ↗ show what the package solutions

1:15:10 ↗ are and part of what's being considered

1:15:12 ↗ for the package solutions is looking at

1:15:14 ↗ traffic volumes as well as traffic

1:15:17 ↗ speeds and so

1:15:18 ↗ in a little bit i'll talk a little bit

1:15:19 ↗ more about that

1:15:26 ↗ question stephen

1:15:34 ↗ go ahead david and then christy after

1:15:36 ↗ david

1:15:38 ↗ so i'm looking at the federal guidance

1:15:41 ↗ thinking about the uh crossing in

1:15:45 ↗ what you talked about for the flashing

1:15:49 ↗ lights

1:15:49 ↗ rather than those in the street

1:15:53 ↗ under federal guidance because i know

1:15:55 ↗ what kirkland has

1:15:57 ↗ and they have the opposite of that which

1:16:00 ↗ i totally agree uh

1:16:03 ↗ those in-street flashing

1:16:07 ↗ is going to be a lot more um

1:16:10 ↗ expensive especially when we go through

1:16:13 ↗ a snow season where the

1:16:15 ↗ roads are plowed and they just dig those

1:16:17 ↗ things up

1:16:20 ↗ so according to federal guidance their

1:16:22 ↗ given federal guidance then

1:16:24 ↗ gives leeway you can either have the

1:16:26 ↗ style that we have

1:16:28 ↗ in the city or you can have the end so

1:16:30 ↗ they're not saying

1:16:32 ↗ which is better or worse correct

1:16:35 ↗ so so there is no

1:16:39 ↗ definitive guidance from the federal

1:16:42 ↗ they're just saying

1:16:43 ↗ have something that lights up that

1:16:46 ↗ so the other street other one on tom's

1:16:49 ↗ comment

1:16:50 ↗ i have seen those tom and i agree

1:16:53 ↗ you can see the people especially at

1:16:55 ↗ night later but i

1:16:57 ↗ think that that almost moves it to a

1:17:00 ↗ cost

1:17:01 ↗ and effective basis because

1:17:04 ↗ you're not only lighting up the crossing

1:17:08 ↗ which shows the shows the person but

1:17:11 ↗ um that that's another overhead light

1:17:14 ↗ and i

1:17:16 ↗ i don't know that uh the bang for the

1:17:19 ↗ buck is there

1:17:21 ↗ those are just a couple questions and

1:17:23 ↗ comments that i have

1:17:27 ↗ sure so your your first question dave on

1:17:30 ↗ on federal guidance

1:17:32 ↗ so the manual that i

1:17:35 ↗ spoke about earlier it it doesn't say

1:17:39 ↗ which option to choose it's that manual

1:17:42 ↗ is more specific to say

1:17:44 ↗ what options are approved by

1:17:47 ↗ federal guidance or the feds on what we

1:17:50 ↗ can use and that have the legal backing

1:17:52 ↗ there are studies that have examined the

1:17:55 ↗ different options and showed which ones

1:17:57 ↗ have statistically proven more safe

1:18:00 ↗ and so that's a lot of the data that

1:18:01 ↗ we're using to kind of in the

1:18:03 ↗ development of the

1:18:04 ↗ the guidelines update is

1:18:08 ↗ using a lot of the newer studies to kind

1:18:11 ↗ of support our decisions for

1:18:13 ↗ which tools we actually want to use

1:18:16 ↗ and then on your last comment on in

1:18:17 ↗ terms of street lights

1:18:19 ↗ um we have street lights as actually

1:18:22 ↗ part of the package

1:18:23 ↗ solutions to be considered and a lot of

1:18:25 ↗ the decision making process will

1:18:28 ↗ really be site location dependent um

1:18:31 ↗ if a light would be warranted um

1:18:33 ↗ sometimes they are cost effective if you

1:18:35 ↗ have the utilities

1:18:36 ↗ and the space to install they're they're

1:18:38 ↗ fairly inexpensive

1:18:40 ↗ but if you don't have the utility lines

1:18:42 ↗ and you don't have the space

1:18:43 ↗ then it really ramps up the cost and so

1:18:46 ↗ it really just depends on

1:18:47 ↗ where you want to make improvements but

1:18:50 ↗ i think those are all valid

1:18:52 ↗ points

1:18:57 ↗ christine and erica thank you

1:19:00 ↗ so i have a comment and then a question

1:19:02 ↗ um first comment is

1:19:04 ↗ i like the context of the new policy

1:19:08 ↗ i think there's a lot of good

1:19:10 ↗ considerations in there that have been

1:19:12 ↗ missing previously

1:19:14 ↗ um especially when you put it in the

1:19:15 ↗ context in the conversation

1:19:17 ↗ of front street in the time that i've

1:19:20 ↗ been working here in issaquah twice

1:19:22 ↗ i've met with the downtown issaquah

1:19:24 ↗ association

1:19:25 ↗ directors to identify and and look at

1:19:29 ↗ the crossings

1:19:30 ↗ and my concern around the safety of

1:19:33 ↗ folks crossing the road when there's

1:19:35 ↗ events and such and so

1:19:37 ↗ um to have that top of mind i think is

1:19:40 ↗ important

1:19:41 ↗ and then um so this is exciting

1:19:45 ↗ and then the second piece is i know

1:19:48 ↗ we're discussing policy but

1:19:50 ↗ i also like to think about it in terms

1:19:53 ↗ of

1:19:53 ↗ implementation once the policy is

1:19:55 ↗ adopted

1:19:56 ↗ and so i was just looking my question

1:19:59 ↗ is you know in looking at the

1:20:03 ↗ appendix for the mmp

1:20:06 ↗ the collisions involving bicyclists or

1:20:09 ↗ pedestrians there's a pretty high volume

1:20:11 ↗ along

1:20:12 ↗ gilman and as an example right now

1:20:14 ↗ gilman boulevard

1:20:15 ↗ the redesign's been placed on hold

1:20:20 ↗ if you look at the block widths

1:20:23 ↗ several of those are 500 feet

1:20:26 ↗ maybe more and we have in a need

1:20:30 ↗ now for crossings just looking at

1:20:34 ↗ you know having more multi-family now on

1:20:36 ↗ the valley floor

1:20:37 ↗ and as we get transit and so my question

1:20:40 ↗ is

1:20:41 ↗ typically i'm used to new development or

1:20:44 ↗ redevelopment

1:20:45 ↗ triggering those types of projects i

1:20:48 ↗ don't

1:20:48 ↗ foresee for some of those block links

1:20:52 ↗ changing very quickly you know maybe 10

1:20:54 ↗ 20 years

1:20:56 ↗ where they get shortened up and so how

1:20:58 ↗ in the interim with this policy so

1:21:01 ↗ the question is how in the interim with

1:21:03 ↗ this policy help impact

1:21:04 ↗ crossings that are needed on the street

1:21:07 ↗ now

1:21:11 ↗ so you can think of in terms of process

1:21:13 ↗ flow so thinking back to our discussion

1:21:15 ↗ on the tip so we had talked about having

1:21:18 ↗ a budget

1:21:19 ↗ and filling gaps in our system in those

1:21:23 ↗ in implementation of that so when we

1:21:25 ↗ move forward

1:21:26 ↗ let's assume that tap gets adopted with

1:21:28 ↗ that proposal uh

1:21:29 ↗ in mind where we now have a certain

1:21:31 ↗ amount of our budget going towards

1:21:33 ↗ filling those gaps

1:21:34 ↗ some of those gaps are going to include

1:21:36 ↗ having to install crossings and so

1:21:38 ↗ we would then move from implementing the

1:21:40 ↗ tip and getting those projects on the

1:21:42 ↗ ground

1:21:43 ↗ to now designing what those gaps and

1:21:46 ↗ crossings should look like and we'll use

1:21:48 ↗ the guidelines for that

1:21:49 ↗ and on the other side of things private

1:21:51 ↗ developers when they are now developing

1:21:53 ↗ new areas of the city

1:21:54 ↗ they're also going to be using the

1:21:56 ↗ guidelines to

1:21:58 ↗ create the crossings for those new areas

1:22:00 ↗ so we'll be using the crossings to redo

1:22:03 ↗ areas as part of our tip

1:22:05 ↗ and filling the gaps and developers will

1:22:07 ↗ fill kind of the need on the newer side

1:22:09 ↗ of things

1:22:20 ↗ do we want to go to erica and then i'm

1:22:21 ↗ also just starting to get mindful of the

1:22:23 ↗ time because if i understood correctly

1:22:24 ↗ stephen you wanna yeah

1:22:26 ↗ kind of for these sub discussions is

1:22:28 ↗ that right

1:22:29 ↗ so um i wanna make sure everybody gets a

1:22:31 ↗ chance to

1:22:33 ↗ say what they wanna say and ask their

1:22:34 ↗ questions but let's just try to be a

1:22:36 ↗ little bit mindful of the time um erica

1:22:38 ↗ go ahead um i noticed that

1:22:42 ↗ um in neither in like the 2008 policy

1:22:45 ↗ um or like the direction that we're

1:22:48 ↗ headed now um

1:22:49 ↗ cost isn't looking like it's a component

1:22:52 ↗ um

1:22:53 ↗ i don't know if i'm wrong on that or if

1:22:55 ↗ um

1:22:56 ↗ that i mean obviously with like our

1:22:58 ↗ primary focus here is safety

1:23:00 ↗ over cost so i don't know if that just

1:23:01 ↗ factored into that if you could clarify

1:23:03 ↗ that for me

1:23:04 ↗ and um i i'm interested in um

1:23:09 ↗ up here in the highlands we have a

1:23:10 ↗ couple different crosswalks that have um

1:23:13 ↗ holders for like the little flags that

1:23:15 ↗ you can use i know it's like um

1:23:16 ↗ especially around

1:23:17 ↗ like schools and things like where does

1:23:19 ↗ um that come along into this

1:23:26 ↗ good questions um cost so yes because

1:23:29 ↗ we're considering safety this

1:23:31 ↗ is more of a technical document to say

1:23:33 ↗ if this

1:23:34 ↗ you do this costs are considered more

1:23:37 ↗ on how much budget we need to get and

1:23:39 ↗ the timing so if we don't have enough

1:23:41 ↗ budget now then

1:23:42 ↗ we'll need to budget more into either

1:23:44 ↗ the next budget cycle or

1:23:46 ↗ or get grant funding to install whatever

1:23:48 ↗ the solutions are

1:23:49 ↗ but there's there's some flexibility in

1:23:51 ↗ those package solutions

1:23:53 ↗ just to say that um if you don't have

1:23:55 ↗ the cost now you can always

1:23:57 ↗ add on to the solution later on when you

1:23:59 ↗ do have

1:24:00 ↗ the funds to be able to do the full kind

1:24:02 ↗ of solution that you come up with

1:24:04 ↗ so it's not necessarily that nothing

1:24:06 ↗ will go in it's more of a timing thing

1:24:09 ↗ when it comes to cost when it comes to

1:24:11 ↗ the flags

1:24:12 ↗ flags are considered as part of

1:24:14 ↗ solutions and one of those options you

1:24:16 ↗ can considered in the package solutions

1:24:18 ↗ but only in specific locations or or

1:24:22 ↗ situations you don't necessarily want to

1:24:24 ↗ use flags

1:24:25 ↗ on a big roadway where it's five lanes

1:24:29 ↗ wide and cars are going 50 miles an hour

1:24:32 ↗ they're not as useful there and people

1:24:36 ↗ likely won't feel comfortable using them

1:24:38 ↗ they're more comfortable using them in

1:24:40 ↗ areas

1:24:40 ↗ like front street where you have a

1:24:42 ↗ two-lane road

1:24:44 ↗ um probably probably

1:24:47 ↗ more when there's traffic congestion

1:24:49 ↗ volumes are going a little bit slower

1:24:51 ↗ that's when flags are probably a little

1:24:53 ↗ more useful when two-lane road

1:24:56 ↗ volumes are a little bit slow or volumes

1:24:57 ↗ are low and so

1:24:59 ↗ um having lights or any other

1:25:03 ↗ any other measure really isn't

1:25:05 ↗ financially feasible

1:25:10 ↗ thank you

1:25:15 ↗ steven that's all the questions i'm

1:25:16 ↗ seeing from folks for this

1:25:18 ↗ section great thank you everyone um i'll

1:25:21 ↗ move on to the next policy change which

1:25:23 ↗ is

1:25:24 ↗ focused on the the rectangular

1:25:27 ↗ rapid flashing beacons and that is the

1:25:29 ↗ the lighting sys

1:25:31 ↗ lighting systems that you see now where

1:25:33 ↗ when you want to cross the roadway you

1:25:34 ↗ hit the button and then it just flashes

1:25:36 ↗ yellow

1:25:36 ↗ to let drivers know that you are

1:25:39 ↗ crossing

1:25:40 ↗ um we we didn't have a very definitive

1:25:43 ↗ policy for this before and um

1:25:47 ↗ the original policy didn't really

1:25:48 ↗ provide guidance and was

1:25:50 ↗ more determined by on a case-by-case

1:25:52 ↗ basis which and we didn't

1:25:54 ↗ we weren't really consistent in a lot of

1:25:56 ↗ the installations we installed

1:25:57 ↗ and so the new policy is providing

1:25:59 ↗ limits so that when you see these

1:26:01 ↗ enhancement you know it's

1:26:03 ↗ at a location where there's a school or

1:26:05 ↗ regular used trail

1:26:07 ↗ or or shopping center where people are

1:26:09 ↗ crossing the road fairly regularly

1:26:12 ↗ so that is visible to drivers so that

1:26:13 ↗ the expectation for drivers

1:26:15 ↗ is the same at all the locations that

1:26:17 ↗ these are installed

1:26:18 ↗ and part of the new policy um

1:26:22 ↗ a part of implementing this new policy

1:26:23 ↗ is we want to limit these installations

1:26:25 ↗ as well

1:26:26 ↗ to primarily two lane roadways in a lot

1:26:29 ↗ of situations

1:26:30 ↗ because what we found is that the

1:26:32 ↗ studies that we looked into

1:26:34 ↗ these flashing beacons is that they're

1:26:35 ↗ less visible

1:26:37 ↗ on two-lane roads than they are on

1:26:38 ↗ three-lane roads where you can have

1:26:40 ↗ a light in the middle of the roadway and

1:26:42 ↗ you have three lights kind of crossing

1:26:45 ↗ just because you get that

1:26:50 ↗ you can think of it as driver blindness

1:26:52 ↗ you're not necessarily

1:26:54 ↗ looking at what's at the side of the

1:26:56 ↗ road you're looking at what's in front

1:26:57 ↗ of you

1:26:57 ↗ and when you have those three lights as

1:27:00 ↗ part of the crossing for these rapid

1:27:02 ↗ flashing beacons

1:27:03 ↗ it's actually a significantly a lot more

1:27:05 ↗ visible to the drivers than

1:27:07 ↗ if it was a two-lane road and you just

1:27:08 ↗ have a light on both sides

1:27:11 ↗ it's not to say that we won't install on

1:27:14 ↗ two-lane roadways there's situations

1:27:16 ↗ where i think it makes sense

1:27:18 ↗ it's more of it's not necessarily where

1:27:21 ↗ you're going to be finding a lot of

1:27:23 ↗ those lighting

1:27:24 ↗ enhancements

1:27:28 ↗ so does that change in policy

1:27:32 ↗ makes sense and does that fit in kind of

1:27:34 ↗ the criteria of

1:27:35 ↗ we you know with the vision zero

1:27:40 ↗ policy that came out of the master plan

1:27:42 ↗ does that fit in

1:27:43 ↗ you know increasing the level of safety

1:27:45 ↗ for the crossings that we're trying to

1:27:47 ↗ install

1:27:54 ↗ cynthia can you just repeat i want to

1:27:57 ↗ make sure i fully understood you said

1:27:59 ↗ that

1:27:59 ↗ it's more useful on three when there's

1:28:02 ↗ three lanes versus

1:28:03 ↗ two and it's just harder to see i'm just

1:28:06 ↗ trying to i'm trying to wrap my head

1:28:07 ↗ around why that might be so if i

1:28:08 ↗ understood correctly

1:28:10 ↗ yeah so the federal studies that looked

1:28:12 ↗ at the

1:28:13 ↗ the use of these rapid flashing beacons

1:28:15 ↗ is that

1:28:16 ↗ you drivers were

1:28:20 ↗ they were more prominent to break

1:28:22 ↗ earlier when it came to seeing the

1:28:24 ↗ flashing beacons on three lane roads

1:28:26 ↗ where you had three lights

1:28:27 ↗ versus where it was two lane loads where

1:28:29 ↗ you had two lights on just the outside

1:28:32 ↗ um and so they found it safer when you

1:28:35 ↗ had

1:28:36 ↗ a three-lane road with three lights

1:28:38 ↗ flashing

1:28:40 ↗ and now that's kind of the reasoning

1:28:41 ↗ behind the policy that's it as it stands

1:28:43 ↗ now

1:28:46 ↗ it's not to say that it's not safe on a

1:28:48 ↗ two-lane road

1:28:49 ↗ it's just the the primary use there's

1:28:52 ↗ only

1:28:52 ↗ certain situations on the two-lane road

1:28:54 ↗ where it makes sense where there's high

1:28:56 ↗ visibility

1:28:57 ↗ and the lighting is

1:29:00 ↗ a a little more prominent for drivers to

1:29:03 ↗ see

1:29:06 ↗ a question

1:29:11 ↗ on the three-lane road where the three

1:29:13 ↗ lights was one in

1:29:14 ↗ in the median then okay

1:29:18 ↗ i'm searching online and i'm trying to

1:29:20 ↗ yeah i'm googling it right now and i'm

1:29:22 ↗ trying to figure that out so so there's

1:29:24 ↗ a

1:29:24 ↗ like a refuge in the middle usually yes

1:29:27 ↗ yeah so

1:29:28 ↗ usually there would be like a for a

1:29:29 ↗ three-lane road there'd be a crossing

1:29:31 ↗ island

1:29:32 ↗ and in that island there or a refuge

1:29:35 ↗ you would have that light installed on

1:29:36 ↗ that so it's more tied to whether

1:29:39 ↗ there's something in them sorry tom

1:29:41 ↗ correct correct

1:29:44 ↗ okay usually for a three lane road that

1:29:46 ↗ center that

1:29:47 ↗ middle lane is kind of that turning lane

1:29:49 ↗ and so you'll

1:29:50 ↗ have an island um where there's a

1:29:53 ↗ crosswalk

1:29:55 ↗ i'll give you can i give you an example

1:29:58 ↗ of his report

1:29:59 ↗ david david hold on i just want to make

1:30:01 ↗ sure tom cause i interrupted tom and i

1:30:02 ↗ wanted to make sure tom that you

1:30:03 ↗ finished

1:30:05 ↗ no that's good you answered my question

1:30:06 ↗ as far as the definition of the

1:30:08 ↗ three-lane road in this case was a

1:30:09 ↗ two-way left-turn lane with an iron in

1:30:11 ↗ the middle at the pedestrian crossing

1:30:13 ↗ point

1:30:14 ↗ okay uh so we'll go uh david and then uh

1:30:18 ↗ jerry

1:30:21 ↗ go ahead go ahead david sorry about it

1:30:23 ↗ just i was just saying that there

1:30:25 ↗ is an example of what stephen just

1:30:27 ↗ talked about

1:30:28 ↗ in issaquah if you're on front street

1:30:31 ↗ south

1:30:32 ↗ uh just before um

1:30:35 ↗ right by the swimming pool there as

1:30:37 ↗ front street south there is an island in

1:30:39 ↗ the middle of the road

1:30:40 ↗ so that would be a perfect example of

1:30:43 ↗ what he was talking about

1:30:49 ↗ thanks jerry you got a comment

1:30:55 ↗ yes i i really don't want to take up too

1:30:57 ↗ much time

1:30:58 ↗ but i think with my logical

1:31:01 ↗ i mean we we had a policy for a standard

1:31:04 ↗ crosswalk on the previous slide then we

1:31:06 ↗ have this

1:31:07 ↗ beacon on this slide and

1:31:11 ↗ and i yes i agree

1:31:14 ↗ yes perhaps traffic volume and traffic

1:31:17 ↗ speed is more important

1:31:19 ↗ for the beacon than it is on the

1:31:21 ↗ previous slide but

1:31:22 ↗ wouldn't you want to list the same

1:31:26 ↗ criteria for both or am i making this

1:31:29 ↗ more difficult so um

1:31:34 ↗ that that was my perspective thanks

1:31:38 ↗ to to respond um jerry the next slide

1:31:41 ↗ actually better explains

1:31:43 ↗ how this will be used this is more about

1:31:46 ↗ if and when we install one and then the

1:31:49 ↗ other slide will show

1:31:50 ↗ where when and where we will actually

1:31:52 ↗ use it

1:32:02 ↗ looks like we got a question from joseph

1:32:07 ↗ uh yeah i have a like really quick

1:32:09 ↗ question then just like a follow-up

1:32:10 ↗ question

1:32:11 ↗ if i remember you said correct or if i

1:32:14 ↗ heard you correctly i think you said

1:32:15 ↗ that

1:32:16 ↗ um rectangular flashing beacons that are

1:32:20 ↗ like solar powered or have solar panels

1:32:22 ↗ to power them

1:32:23 ↗ um they're more used in like uh rural

1:32:26 ↗ areas

1:32:27 ↗ than urban areas is that correct

1:32:33 ↗ yes um though you'll still signs find

1:32:35 ↗ some in in

1:32:37 ↗ you know downtowns or urban areas

1:32:38 ↗ because when we first

1:32:40 ↗ when they first started to get installed

1:32:41 ↗ in cities everybody was

1:32:43 ↗ fond of the idea of getting

1:32:44 ↗ solar-powered until they realized how

1:32:47 ↗ much maintenance was required to

1:32:49 ↗ actually

1:32:49 ↗ maintain those and so when comparing the

1:32:52 ↗ hardwired ones versus solar powered

1:32:56 ↗ hardware came out at a significantly

1:32:58 ↗ lower cost

1:33:02 ↗ yeah i just had a really quick follow-up

1:33:03 ↗ question for that

1:33:05 ↗ um in terms of the maintenance costs

1:33:07 ↗ because like i feel like since it's

1:33:09 ↗ like urban areas technically or

1:33:13 ↗ typically like don't have as much like

1:33:16 ↗ forestry

1:33:17 ↗ um like

1:33:22 ↗ is there is it like significantly more

1:33:26 ↗ expensive like the maintenance cost

1:33:28 ↗ like i guess for those solar

1:33:31 ↗ powered um rectangular flashing beacons

1:33:34 ↗ or is it like negligible in a way

1:33:38 ↗ i'm sort of just curious

1:33:42 ↗ it mostly depends on locations but even

1:33:44 ↗ in

1:33:45 ↗ a lot of our urban areas we have street

1:33:48 ↗ trees

1:33:49 ↗ installed and so that tends to compete

1:33:51 ↗ with

1:33:52 ↗ kind of the air space for a lot of these

1:33:54 ↗ signs

1:33:58 ↗ okay thank you

1:34:07 ↗ i'm not seeing anything else in the chat

1:34:17 ↗ okay i can move on to the next policy

1:34:18 ↗ change

1:34:22 ↗ and this one will probably better

1:34:23 ↗ explain how a lot of this will use

1:34:29 ↗ in the development of the package

1:34:31 ↗ solutions they're they're based on

1:34:33 ↗ location characteristics it's not

1:34:35 ↗ important necessarily what each package

1:34:37 ↗ is it's it's which is why we don't want

1:34:40 ↗ to provide or why i didn't provide the

1:34:41 ↗ table of what all the acronyms mean

1:34:43 ↗ it's more of a giving the point of we

1:34:46 ↗ want to use location characteristics

1:34:48 ↗ to determine the type of devices we want

1:34:50 ↗ to use so the volumes the speeds

1:34:53 ↗ the number of lanes on the roadway

1:34:55 ↗ because there's studies to support

1:34:57 ↗ certain certain devices to be used in

1:35:00 ↗ certain

1:35:01 ↗ situations and the use of these packages

1:35:04 ↗ actually supports our vision zero goal

1:35:05 ↗ to minimize

1:35:06 ↗ the risk of people using the roadway

1:35:09 ↗ every one of these factors are based on

1:35:11 ↗ federal studies and so that minimizes

1:35:13 ↗ that risk and maximizes

1:35:14 ↗ the level of safety we want to employ on

1:35:16 ↗ our roadways

1:35:17 ↗ so what's been realized over time is

1:35:19 ↗ that a a simple template

1:35:21 ↗ and judgment doesn't necessarily provide

1:35:24 ↗ enough guidance for us to be

1:35:26 ↗ consistent and tailor those solutions so

1:35:29 ↗ we're proposing

1:35:30 ↗ these package solutions that fit

1:35:33 ↗ certain roadway characteristics and

1:35:36 ↗ we've incorporated modern best practices

1:35:38 ↗ on

1:35:38 ↗ to determine what's going to be safe and

1:35:40 ↗ comfortable for crossings at certain

1:35:42 ↗ locations

1:35:44 ↗ and so one of the things one of the

1:35:46 ↗ acronyms you'll see is rfb2

1:35:50 ↗ or ms4 in these packages

1:35:53 ↗ you'll see that certain situations might

1:35:55 ↗ call for more signage

1:35:57 ↗ to support installation of lighting or

1:36:00 ↗ certain lighting to be installed

1:36:02 ↗ or you are looking at flags

1:36:05 ↗ or you are looking at locations where

1:36:08 ↗ maybe it's a controlled signal so that's

1:36:10 ↗ that's what signal is is that's actually

1:36:13 ↗ a a pedestrian signal

1:36:15 ↗ where a signal basically it's like a

1:36:18 ↗ signalized intersection where

1:36:20 ↗ the light turns red to stop traffic

1:36:23 ↗ that's a complete control

1:36:25 ↗ of traffic and that's where that's

1:36:27 ↗ warranted

1:36:29 ↗ the rectangular flashing beacons

1:36:33 ↗ they're a little bit different from the

1:36:34 ↗ signal because they're flashing yellow

1:36:36 ↗ lights

1:36:37 ↗ they actually don't require a driver to

1:36:39 ↗ stop

1:36:40 ↗ they are advising a driver that someone

1:36:42 ↗ is using the crosswalk

1:36:44 ↗ now lost state law requires you to stop

1:36:47 ↗ for a pedestrian but the

1:36:49 ↗ light itself doesn't so that's kind of

1:36:51 ↗ the difference between the flashing

1:36:53 ↗ beacons

1:36:54 ↗ and a signal is there any thoughts

1:36:57 ↗ on the use of the different kind of

1:36:59 ↗ roadway characteristics

1:37:10 ↗ i have some thoughts but i want to make

1:37:11 ↗ sure other people have a chance to jump

1:37:13 ↗ in

1:37:15 ↗ um i got a little lost on what a package

1:37:19 ↗ solution is and nothing like a

1:37:23 ↗ 12x4 grid table with a bunch of colors

1:37:26 ↗ to

1:37:27 ↗ make that even more complicated um so

1:37:30 ↗ are you saying it's like a

1:37:31 ↗ series i just i just wasn't sure what

1:37:34 ↗ i'm not exactly sure what a package

1:37:36 ↗ solution is and maybe

1:37:37 ↗ you could explain by uh suggesting an

1:37:39 ↗ example

1:37:40 ↗ but i do understand and i do uh i mean i

1:37:43 ↗ think my overall comment and then

1:37:45 ↗ this is a general comment that i'd like

1:37:47 ↗ to hear from everybody is that

1:37:49 ↗ it seems like the theme here is that

1:37:52 ↗ you're using data driven

1:37:54 ↗ best practices

1:37:57 ↗ as opposed to subjectivity which leads

1:38:00 ↗ to inconsistency

1:38:02 ↗ and doesn't necessarily lead to the

1:38:03 ↗ results and so i definitely

1:38:05 ↗ applaud the uh i mean always always

1:38:08 ↗ keeping context sensitivity in mind

1:38:10 ↗ so that you know you can use your best

1:38:12 ↗ judgment and you know common sense

1:38:14 ↗ you know because context is everything

1:38:16 ↗ but also

1:38:17 ↗ um bringing all this objectivity and

1:38:20 ↗ analysis

1:38:21 ↗ um to remove subjectivity i think

1:38:24 ↗ i'm really all for and you know

1:38:28 ↗ one small community you know any um

1:38:31 ↗ any fatality any um coalition in

1:38:34 ↗ you know incident is a is a a tragedy

1:38:38 ↗ and luckily we don't have so many of

1:38:40 ↗ them that we have tons and tons of data

1:38:42 ↗ so

1:38:42 ↗ i like the fact that you know you've

1:38:44 ↗ cited it several times just you know

1:38:46 ↗ you're referring to

1:38:47 ↗ much larger sample sizes that we can

1:38:49 ↗ really learn from so i definitely do

1:38:50 ↗ appreciate that

1:38:51 ↗ but i don't under uh i like erica's

1:38:54 ↗ comment

1:38:54 ↗ um i don't need to use the time to speak

1:38:57 ↗ on this it looks like the periodic table

1:38:59 ↗ yeah i mean maybe now's not the time to

1:39:01 ↗ go through this but maybe just

1:39:03 ↗ conceptually what do you mean by package

1:39:04 ↗ solutions

1:39:06 ↗ sure i'll i'll give an example so

1:39:09 ↗ let's say we have a two-lane roadway

1:39:13 ↗ let's say front street where the

1:39:16 ↗ speed limit is actually

1:39:19 ↗ we'll say it's less than 30 miles an

1:39:21 ↗ hour

1:39:22 ↗ and that the vehicle volume like daily

1:39:26 ↗ uh average daily traffic volume is less

1:39:29 ↗ than 9000 vehicles

1:39:31 ↗ per day so in that situation we would

1:39:35 ↗ look at this package

1:39:36 ↗ ms at ms2 um which was

1:39:42 ↗ a crosswalk some signage and

1:39:45 ↗ potentially flags depending on the

1:39:47 ↗ situation

1:39:48 ↗ and so going through this list let's say

1:39:51 ↗ it's a situation where the speed limit

1:39:52 ↗ is 35 miles an hour

1:39:54 ↗ or um or the the vehicle speeds are 35

1:39:57 ↗ miles per hour

1:39:58 ↗ then you would look at it a similar

1:40:00 ↗ package where

1:40:01 ↗ you are you're looking a little more on

1:40:04 ↗ removing parking or

1:40:06 ↗ adding maybe a street light to increase

1:40:08 ↗ the visibility

1:40:10 ↗ and so as you go through this table from

1:40:13 ↗ left to right

1:40:14 ↗ you're looking at where there's higher

1:40:16 ↗ volumes moving to higher speeds

1:40:19 ↗ and then as you go down it's more about

1:40:21 ↗ the number of lanes and so that kind of

1:40:23 ↗ different

1:40:23 ↗ differentiates the type of solution you

1:40:26 ↗ might we would

1:40:26 ↗ want to consider in those particular

1:40:29 ↗ situations and so

1:40:30 ↗ each of these has their own level of

1:40:32 ↗ flexibility

1:40:34 ↗ but it's a lot more specific than what

1:40:36 ↗ we had before

1:40:37 ↗ in terms of what kind of solutions

1:40:39 ↗ should we be considering

1:40:41 ↗ for a two two lane road or three lane

1:40:43 ↗ room

1:40:44 ↗ so what you're saying is that um you're

1:40:47 ↗ going to find your situation

1:40:48 ↗ on this chart it's going to say rrfb2

1:40:51 ↗ and you're going to have some other

1:40:52 ↗ document that shows you that rrfb2

1:40:55 ↗ is a b and c treatment slash

1:40:58 ↗ feature slash facility and that is a

1:41:01 ↗ predefined sort of package

1:41:03 ↗ and you would um you would find yourself

1:41:06 ↗ on this chart

1:41:07 ↗ or refine that that intersection on this

1:41:09 ↗ chart and then it would correspond to

1:41:12 ↗ some kind of pre-determined package

1:41:17 ↗ that is already has a list of things

1:41:20 ↗ correct that we just do we have that

1:41:22 ↗ somewhere

1:41:23 ↗ i mean you just didn't want to get into

1:41:24 ↗ that level of detail yeah i didn't want

1:41:26 ↗ to get into that level detail because

1:41:27 ↗ it's more about

1:41:29 ↗ the policy of using this in the

1:41:31 ↗ guidelines than what each of these

1:41:33 ↗ really say

1:41:34 ↗ you're free to it's in the guidelines

1:41:36 ↗ the explanation of all this

1:41:37 ↗ for table three um i believe it's

1:41:41 ↗ i i'm not sure on which page it is but i

1:41:43 ↗ can i can let you all know um after the

1:41:45 ↗ meeting

1:41:46 ↗ where you can find this in the

1:41:47 ↗ guidelines i think you're right i think

1:41:48 ↗ we would be confused if you gave us too

1:41:50 ↗ much but sometimes just having an

1:41:51 ↗ example

1:41:52 ↗ just kind of um helps clarify what it is

1:41:55 ↗ that you're suggesting anyway i'm

1:41:56 ↗ satisfied uh

1:41:58 ↗ i think erica's comment was just um

1:42:01 ↗ the clever one which i agree with

1:42:03 ↗ periodic table the traffic elements i'm

1:42:04 ↗ not seeing any

1:42:05 ↗ other comments um do you guys feel like

1:42:09 ↗ this direction of being a lot more data

1:42:11 ↗ driven

1:42:12 ↗ and less subjective i mean i i think

1:42:15 ↗ it seems obvious but i think it'd be

1:42:17 ↗ good to hear from people

1:42:23 ↗ tom says if used as a policy guide

1:42:25 ↗ that's good there will be individual

1:42:26 ↗ situations here and there

1:42:30 ↗ micah says agreed

1:42:33 ↗ christie says agreed

1:42:37 ↗ is there anybody that just has any

1:42:39 ↗ nuance they want to add or any concern

1:42:42 ↗ um suggestive says agreed

1:42:45 ↗ yeah i think we're pretty pretty clear

1:42:47 ↗ that you know we're liking this

1:42:48 ↗ direction

1:42:50 ↗ and um erica reminds us that it's always

1:42:53 ↗ about people

1:42:54 ↗ and that we need to not need to make

1:42:57 ↗ sure we're telling a story incorporating

1:42:58 ↗ the

1:42:59 ↗ story of tied to these are real people

1:43:05 ↗ okay i can move on to the the last

1:43:06 ↗ policy change

1:43:09 ↗ sounds good and um tom actually spoke to

1:43:12 ↗ this a little bit earlier in terms of

1:43:14 ↗ when you're establishing kind of

1:43:16 ↗ uh criteria for when you install your

1:43:19 ↗ that same criteria is actually what you

1:43:20 ↗ would use to

1:43:21 ↗ determine if a crosswalk should be

1:43:23 ↗ removed and um

1:43:25 ↗ i highlight this because we didn't

1:43:28 ↗ really have a definitive policy before

1:43:30 ↗ and so

1:43:30 ↗ when we're creating this new policy and

1:43:33 ↗ adding more definition to it

1:43:35 ↗ we are an instance also creating the

1:43:36 ↗ same policy for removal of crosswalks

1:43:39 ↗ because we want to be

1:43:40 ↗ consistent uh with what we want to do

1:43:44 ↗ and so i i wanted to bring this for

1:43:47 ↗ discussion

1:43:48 ↗ um on the board because when we move

1:43:50 ↗ forward

1:43:51 ↗ with implementation of the new policies

1:43:54 ↗ and standards

1:43:55 ↗ that means we're going to have to look

1:43:56 ↗ at all the existing crossings

1:43:58 ↗ and what's in place to determine if

1:44:01 ↗ what's there

1:44:02 ↗ actually should be there and potentially

1:44:05 ↗ make changes

1:44:06 ↗ and so i want to get the board's

1:44:07 ↗ thoughts on that

1:44:15 ↗ this is tom and i'd agree with the

1:44:17 ↗ thought process you're talking about

1:44:22 ↗ whether it functions there or if it's

1:44:23 ↗ not the best place for it

1:44:25 ↗ and then how to remove it then

1:44:30 ↗ yeah so jerry says good idea um we

1:44:32 ↗ haven't heard from alec

1:44:33 ↗ so i'm just gonna give you a heads up

1:44:34 ↗ i'm hoping to hear from you before we

1:44:36 ↗ wrap um sujata also says i agree

1:44:38 ↗ and i just was gonna make a comment that

1:44:41 ↗ um

1:44:42 ↗ it seems counterintuitive that

1:44:46 ↗ crosswalks you know if you have too many

1:44:48 ↗ they can make him less safe i

1:44:50 ↗ totally believe you and i think the

1:44:52 ↗ logic is sound that's why we have

1:44:54 ↗ engineers

1:44:55 ↗ um but i think it's important for us all

1:44:58 ↗ to understand if i'm understanding

1:45:02 ↗ correctly that

1:45:04 ↗ removing them would be because

1:45:07 ↗ of the what was it what did you call it

1:45:09 ↗ a driver expectations and just this

1:45:10 ↗ whole concept of too many

1:45:12 ↗ ultimately contributing to a less safe

1:45:15 ↗ environment

1:45:16 ↗ and just i just want to sort of say that

1:45:18 ↗ out loud and make sure i'm understanding

1:45:20 ↗ it correctly so that we can all

1:45:22 ↗ kind of internalize that concept

1:45:26 ↗ because i think it's pretty important

1:45:29 ↗ because it seems to me counterintuitive

1:45:30 ↗ it seems like you know if one crossover

1:45:32 ↗ will save one life then

1:45:33 ↗ why would you take it out but um

1:45:37 ↗ i i think that the case you make it

1:45:41 ↗ doesn't

1:45:41 ↗ it makes perfect sense to me when you

1:45:42 ↗ think about it the way uh stephen

1:45:44 ↗ and then tom's help describe that so is

1:45:48 ↗ that the primary reason you would remove

1:45:51 ↗ a crosswalk um and erica has a question

1:45:54 ↗ so stephen maybe you can answer my

1:45:56 ↗ question and then erica go ahead and ask

1:45:57 ↗ your question

1:45:59 ↗ yes yeah to answer your question the

1:46:01 ↗ primary reason we would want to remove a

1:46:03 ↗ crosswalk is because we

1:46:04 ↗ believe it would be making the situation

1:46:07 ↗ less safe

1:46:08 ↗ um we only want to have the crosswalks

1:46:10 ↗ in locations where it's actually

1:46:11 ↗ enhancing the environment and

1:46:13 ↗ and making people feel comfortable even

1:46:15 ↗ though naturally crosswalks

1:46:18 ↗ tend to have people feel comfortable one

1:46:20 ↗ thing

1:46:22 ↗ not everybody looks at state collision

1:46:25 ↗ data but if you look

1:46:26 ↗ at it you'll look at close to 50 of a

1:46:28 ↗ lot of the collisions when it comes to

1:46:30 ↗ pedestrians and cars

1:46:31 ↗ are actually in crosswalks and so

1:46:34 ↗ thinking about that

1:46:36 ↗ it's important to know that we really

1:46:38 ↗ want to make sure we're very strategic

1:46:40 ↗ and specific on where we installed

1:46:42 ↗ crosswalks and or and or enhancements

1:46:49 ↗ erica and then uh jerry go ahead and

1:46:51 ↗ make your comment after eric is done

1:46:54 ↗ um is there a any kind of public

1:46:58 ↗ notice when the city is looking at

1:47:01 ↗ removing a crosswalk somewhere

1:47:07 ↗ we uh when we would go in for a

1:47:09 ↗ crosswalk removal we would actually talk

1:47:11 ↗ to the neighborhood we wouldn't just go

1:47:12 ↗ in and decide we would talk to the

1:47:13 ↗ neighborhood first

1:47:21 ↗ and then jerry you had a comment and um

1:47:24 ↗ stephen you can correct me if i'm wrong

1:47:25 ↗ but

1:47:26 ↗ um i like to read the content of the

1:47:28 ↗ chat because the chat doesn't get

1:47:30 ↗ recorded

1:47:30 ↗ in uh made a part of the record and

1:47:34 ↗ uh there's certainly not as accessible

1:47:36 ↗ on the video so

1:47:38 ↗ it's good to let um chair or the staff

1:47:42 ↗ know that you have a question or you

1:47:43 ↗ have a comment

1:47:44 ↗ um but i do think it's important

1:47:48 ↗ to read those into the record uh stephen

1:47:51 ↗ do you agree with that and

1:47:54 ↗ yes yeah the chat does not get recorded

1:47:56 ↗ into the video so

1:47:57 ↗ um please if you have a question uh just

1:48:00 ↗ kind of speak it or

1:48:02 ↗ let us know that you have a question or

1:48:03 ↗ comment and then speak it's on the video

1:48:05 ↗ yeah and i i've been monitoring it so

1:48:07 ↗ anytime someone said

1:48:08 ↗ said something like they agree or said

1:48:10 ↗ something substantive i've repeated it

1:48:11 ↗ but um or invited the person to repeat

1:48:13 ↗ it so with that uh in mind uh jerry you

1:48:15 ↗ made an interesting comment and

1:48:17 ↗ i think you should just mention it okay

1:48:20 ↗ i

1:48:20 ↗ i was just trying to be brief but

1:48:24 ↗ it's just another reason for the removal

1:48:27 ↗ is if a new more modern crosswalk is

1:48:30 ↗ installed close by

1:48:32 ↗ and for instance the juniper street

1:48:35 ↗ gilman

1:48:37 ↗ they're putting in a new signal there

1:48:39 ↗ and then there used to be

1:48:42 ↗ there is right now a crosswalk a little

1:48:44 ↗ bit further to the

1:48:46 ↗ i guess it's west and so i'm thinking

1:48:49 ↗ that you guys are going to remove that

1:48:51 ↗ that's a specific instance

1:48:53 ↗ and so i'm thinking part of this removal

1:48:56 ↗ policy would take that into account too

1:48:58 ↗ right

1:49:00 ↗ yes yes they're they're in the policy we

1:49:03 ↗ there's kind of a proximity to the next

1:49:06 ↗ um crossing that we do take into account

1:49:08 ↗ at the same time even if

1:49:11 ↗ the the policy right now says about 200

1:49:14 ↗ feet

1:49:15 ↗ in urban areas which would what it would

1:49:17 ↗ be

1:49:18 ↗ on gilman or at the location that you

1:49:20 ↗ were speaking about

1:49:21 ↗ but if that location crossing location

1:49:24 ↗ were

1:49:26 ↗ close to the entrance to the shopping

1:49:28 ↗ center that's right there and so

1:49:29 ↗ it warrants people crossing at that

1:49:32 ↗ location

1:49:33 ↗ um then we might actually keep it um

1:49:36 ↗ but it really kind of depends on the

1:49:38 ↗ situation that the new crossing that you

1:49:40 ↗ are speaking of is more specific to the

1:49:42 ↗ trail

1:49:42 ↗ um and that and i believe the other one

1:49:45 ↗ is getting taken out but if

1:49:47 ↗ if for some reason you know there is a

1:49:49 ↗ shopping center entrance over

1:49:50 ↗ closer to the other one that might

1:49:52 ↗ actually be considered to be kept down

1:49:54 ↗ so it's

1:49:55 ↗ we we do kind of take the context into

1:49:57 ↗ the decision-making process but

1:49:59 ↗ we're making sure that at least the the

1:50:01 ↗ selection of the solutions have

1:50:02 ↗ are a little more data-driven

1:50:05 ↗ i just want to editorialize and say i'm

1:50:07 ↗ super psyched about that new crossing

1:50:10 ↗ i crossed that all the time and

1:50:13 ↗ so empty it's so tempting just to go to

1:50:16 ↗ follow the con

1:50:16 ↗ the trail and you don't want to go

1:50:19 ↗ around and go to that crosswalk but i've

1:50:21 ↗ played chicken across the gilman so many

1:50:23 ↗ times and

1:50:25 ↗ i'm so psyched that that's going in

1:50:29 ↗ does anybody know when it'll be be um

1:50:33 ↗ started you know maybe not

1:50:36 ↗ uh when it will be implemented will be

1:50:38 ↗ opened that new signal

1:50:41 ↗ you know i'm not sure of the timing of

1:50:43 ↗ it but i can i can get back to the board

1:50:44 ↗ about

1:50:45 ↗ um that project

1:50:49 ↗ yeah it's getting close not available

1:51:07 ↗ stephen are you getting what you were

1:51:08 ↗ hoping to get

1:51:11 ↗ yes yeah this is this is great um if

1:51:13 ↗ there's any if there's no more

1:51:15 ↗ final comments or questions i can move

1:51:17 ↗ on i think i'm done

1:51:22 ↗ i only had one other question and that's

1:51:24 ↗ um you did include the crossing

1:51:26 ↗ guidelines draft

1:51:27 ↗ and i did spend some time with them i

1:51:30 ↗ always get nervous when we get documents

1:51:32 ↗ like that because

1:51:33 ↗ i wonder if we're being expected to

1:51:36 ↗ review them in detail

1:51:38 ↗ was it more for context or would you

1:51:39 ↗ like feedback specifically on that draft

1:51:43 ↗ it was more for context um you you

1:51:45 ↗ everyone's

1:51:46 ↗ feel free to read through it just to see

1:51:48 ↗ kind of the work that was put

1:51:50 ↗ together but it is more of a technical

1:51:52 ↗ document um

1:51:53 ↗ that that which is why we were kind of

1:51:56 ↗ part of this because we were moving in

1:51:57 ↗ the more data-driven

1:51:58 ↗ approach but it's more of these policy

1:52:01 ↗ changes that i was really looking for

1:52:03 ↗ feedback on

1:52:04 ↗ because we'll have these similar

1:52:05 ↗ discussions with the city council

1:52:08 ↗ okay

1:52:13 ↗ well does that wrap item 4c

1:52:17 ↗ yes i'm good if the board is good to

1:52:20 ↗ move forward

1:52:21 ↗ anyone else have any other comments

1:52:28 ↗ okay uh hearing none we'll go to item

1:52:30 ↗ five

1:52:31 ↗ um we'll start with the board work plan

1:52:34 ↗ stephen eisen that's you

1:52:39 ↗ yes i can i can take that really quick

1:52:41 ↗ um

1:52:43 ↗ for the board work plan we'll be looking

1:52:45 ↗ at april 13th

1:52:47 ↗ for our the racial equity training um

1:52:50 ↗ which will be take up our whole meeting

1:52:52 ↗ for next month and then our

1:52:55 ↗ next meeting will be in may which

1:52:58 ↗ um one thing that is may be changing as

1:53:01 ↗ part of our work plan which isn't

1:53:02 ↗ reflected on the work plan that you'll

1:53:04 ↗ see now is that i think we may be

1:53:08 ↗ moving in the direction of having

1:53:10 ↗ multiple smaller discussions follow-up

1:53:12 ↗ discussions

1:53:13 ↗ on transportation and equity because

1:53:16 ↗ after discussion after i talked it over

1:53:19 ↗ with the cities consultant

1:53:21 ↗ it made more sense for us to

1:53:24 ↗ actually stopped showing my screen um it

1:53:27 ↗ makes more sense for us to

1:53:29 ↗ have um multiple group discussions to

1:53:32 ↗ talk through it

1:53:33 ↗ versus trying to cram it all into two to

1:53:36 ↗ three meetings because that would

1:53:38 ↗ it takes up a lot of time but it's

1:53:40 ↗ better for everybody to kind of have a

1:53:42 ↗ chance to think about the information

1:53:44 ↗ and process it and then kind of come

1:53:46 ↗ back to the group for a more robust

1:53:48 ↗ conversation and so

1:53:49 ↗ um i'll talk it over with the chairs

1:53:53 ↗ and uh we'll kind of determine what how

1:53:55 ↗ that might change

1:53:56 ↗ um the work plan itself for the rest of

1:53:58 ↗ the year

1:54:02 ↗ i said uh april 13th so you may have

1:54:06 ↗ told us this already and i'd already

1:54:07 ↗ forgotten but that's a tuesday and we

1:54:09 ↗ normally meet the third thursday

1:54:10 ↗ we switch right okay yes it will be a

1:54:14 ↗ special meeting in april

1:54:15 ↗ um to accommodate the consultant's

1:54:17 ↗ schedule so it will be that tuesday that

1:54:19 ↗ week

1:54:20 ↗ and we will not have one on that

1:54:21 ↗ thursday right this this will be in

1:54:24 ↗ place of our regular

1:54:25 ↗ monthly meeting okay unless you want to

1:54:29 ↗ meet again on that thursday

1:54:31 ↗ that's fine i just wanted to make sure

1:54:35 ↗ and then is that your staff reporter

1:54:37 ↗ davis do you have a staff report also

1:54:40 ↗ both of them i have a

1:54:43 ↗ little additional information unless

1:54:45 ↗ there are questions about the

1:54:46 ↗ sorry it sounded like tom had something

1:54:48 ↗ he was trying to say or asking

1:54:50 ↗ i was just saying the 12th is monday the

1:54:52 ↗ 13th is a tuesday

1:54:56 ↗ tuesday the 13th okay

1:55:00 ↗ and um i'll be sending out a schedule

1:55:03 ↗ schedule later this month but we're

1:55:05 ↗ changing

1:55:06 ↗ the format for our meeting so it'll be a

1:55:09 ↗ very

1:55:10 ↗ similar invite but it'll be kind of a

1:55:11 ↗ different format for the meeting itself

1:55:16 ↗ and then i can move on to the staff

1:55:18 ↗ report if there are no other questions

1:55:20 ↗ okay for our staff report

1:55:24 ↗ so to follow up on the the tip

1:55:27 ↗ discussions for the board we submitted

1:55:29 ↗ the tap to the administration

1:55:32 ↗ the council will get a presentation on

1:55:34 ↗ april 19th

1:55:36 ↗ and for that meeting bor members from

1:55:39 ↗ all the boards and commissions will be

1:55:41 ↗ invited to provide comments

1:55:43 ↗ uh on the proposed program

1:55:46 ↗ this could be a lot of you or just a few

1:55:49 ↗ of you we can we can

1:55:50 ↗ decide later i can have a discussion

1:55:52 ↗ with the chair

1:55:54 ↗ about how to kind of coordinate that

1:55:57 ↗ tuesday that's on that same week that

1:55:59 ↗ tuesday april 20th

1:56:01 ↗ staff is going to hold a community

1:56:02 ↗ meeting on the entire

1:56:04 ↗ cap cip the capital improvement

1:56:07 ↗ program or plan to extend kind of the

1:56:10 ↗ public outreach process as part of that

1:56:13 ↗ the development of the cip and then the

1:56:14 ↗ public hearing for the whole cip will be

1:56:17 ↗ on may 3rd

1:56:19 ↗ and may 17th and and may 17th is the

1:56:22 ↗ planned adoption date for

1:56:24 ↗ council that concludes my staff report

1:56:30 ↗ can you repeat the two may dates yes

1:56:33 ↗ it's may 3rd

1:56:37 ↗ and may 17th may 3rd was the public

1:56:39 ↗ hearing

1:56:41 ↗ may 17th was the council meeting for

1:56:44 ↗ planned adoption

1:56:46 ↗ got it

1:56:51 ↗ okay uh i don't have a chair report

1:56:56 ↗ um i just want to say that vaccines are

1:56:59 ↗ rolling out and i hope that the

1:57:01 ↗ day that we can all resume meeting in

1:57:02 ↗ person is not too far away

1:57:04 ↗ i admit i do like being able to roll

1:57:08 ↗ into another room without a lot of um

1:57:12 ↗ physical preparation like traveling or

1:57:14 ↗ putting on regular clothes but

1:57:16 ↗ uh i just it's not the same and um

1:57:19 ↗ i'm looking forward to us being in the

1:57:22 ↗ same room

1:57:25 ↗ and all the little side conversations

1:57:27 ↗ that happen before and after

1:57:28 ↗ so i don't but i don't have a report

1:57:31 ↗ besides that

1:57:32 ↗ do we have a youth report really quick

1:57:35 ↗ kristy did you have a question on the

1:57:37 ↗ staff report

1:57:40 ↗ i was just going to ask um we received a

1:57:42 ↗ couple of public comments

1:57:44 ↗ to the tab about the newport project and

1:57:47 ↗ i just wanted to inquire if

1:57:50 ↗ those individuals be

1:57:53 ↗ publicly speak during or to speak during

1:57:56 ↗ the

1:57:57 ↗ during the public period for the capital

1:57:59 ↗ improvement tip

1:58:06 ↗ christy i have a question are you

1:58:08 ↗ talking about

1:58:09 ↗ the letter about the crossing for the

1:58:12 ↗ king county trail head

1:58:14 ↗ so for that one there is a we've been

1:58:17 ↗ working with the communications team to

1:58:20 ↗ respond to the resident and

1:58:23 ↗ the resident reached out to the city in

1:58:26 ↗ various ways

1:58:27 ↗ and so i'll make sure that the response

1:58:29 ↗ gets back to the tab since you guys

1:58:31 ↗ went to it or received the communication

1:58:34 ↗ in the first place

1:58:36 ↗ thanks sean appreciate that

1:58:39 ↗ uh christy sorry i didn't um notice that

1:58:41 ↗ in the chat so thanks somebody else for

1:58:43 ↗ noticing it um

1:58:44 ↗ i i guess i just want to maybe ask

1:58:45 ↗ steven and to share with the group

1:58:48 ↗ um i usually review anything that comes

1:58:50 ↗ into the tab but

1:58:52 ↗ i assume that um it's not really

1:58:54 ↗ appropriate for us to engage

1:58:57 ↗ in by email on those kinds of

1:59:02 ↗ typically in in those situations where

1:59:04 ↗ someone um emails

1:59:06 ↗ the entire board the chairs will kind of

1:59:08 ↗ decide how to respond

1:59:10 ↗ if they want to respond usually in

1:59:11 ↗ coordination with staff um

1:59:13 ↗ with that situation where the particular

1:59:16 ↗ community member was

1:59:18 ↗ already in contact with the city staff

1:59:20 ↗ we we just kind of reiterated a lot of

1:59:22 ↗ the response that we had already

1:59:23 ↗ provided

1:59:24 ↗ but as john said we'll make sure that

1:59:26 ↗ the board received

1:59:29 ↗ the response that we had sent out thanks

1:59:33 ↗ thanks christy for bringing that up i'd

1:59:34 ↗ forgotten about that already

1:59:37 ↗ uh do we have a youth report

1:59:41 ↗ uh yeah i guess i can make this this

1:59:43 ↗ isn't exactly youth report i'll just

1:59:45 ↗ make this really quick though

1:59:46 ↗ sorry um so based off of the

1:59:49 ↗ survey feedback that i received from

1:59:51 ↗ like the um

1:59:52 ↗ i guess youth board i'm pretty much

1:59:55 ↗ planning to figure out

1:59:57 ↗ a city proposal that will help address

2:00:00 ↗ um

2:00:01 ↗ like concerns or interests that these um

2:00:04 ↗ saw in the sort of transportation

2:00:07 ↗ infrastructure that

2:00:08 ↗ they want to see implemented so yeah

2:00:11 ↗ that's pretty much my youtube work

2:00:16 ↗ thank you i think next time if we get

2:00:19 ↗ done early we can do

2:00:21 ↗ for the good of the order but uh it is

2:00:23 ↗ already just after eight

2:00:24 ↗ and so i i'm pretty committed to

2:00:27 ↗ spending on time

2:00:28 ↗ if that's okay with everyone um you can

2:00:31 ↗ always send me comments

2:00:33 ↗ um about how things are going with

2:00:36 ↗ running the meetings and so forth um

2:00:39 ↗ but with that it looks like uh is there

2:00:41 ↗ any other business or

2:00:42 ↗ announcement besides the fact that april

2:00:46 ↗ 13th okay um do we need to make we don't

2:00:49 ↗ i don't we don't need to make a motion

2:00:51 ↗ to adjourn we just get to adjourn okay

2:00:52 ↗ all right well with that i will adjourn

2:00:54 ↗ the meeting and wish you all a good

2:00:56 ↗ evening

2:00:57 ↗ and i look forward i'm really looking

2:00:59 ↗ forward to our equity training

2:01:01 ↗ uh next month and thank you all for

2:01:02 ↗ being here

2:01:04 ↗ all right thank you thank you bye

2:01:07 ↗ everyone

2:01:08 ↗ good night thanks

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Cynthia Krass

Sujata Goel

Tom McDonald

Erika Boyd

Micah Zeitz-Chua

Kristi Tripple

Dave Waggoner

Joseph Zhang

Jeri Bernstein

David Holzberg

Staff (5)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager

Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

Isabel Diaz, Senior Transportation Engineer

Janie Walzer

Alec Yildirim*

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of February 24, 2021 were unanimously approved with no edits.