Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, September 22, 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. The board is 2022 – Sujata Goel also the lead advisory group on the 2022 – Micah Zeitz-Chua implementation and management of the City’s 2023 – Kristi Tripple Master Mobility Plan (MMP). 2023 – Dave Waggoner 2023 – Joseph Zhang* Membership 2024 – Cynthia Krass The Transportation Advisory Board is 2024 – Janie Walzer comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2025 – Erika Boyd three alternates. All members are appointed 2025 – Tom McDonald by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the Alternate Members year listed. For more information, 2022 – Jeri Bernstein see IMC 2.92 and Rules & Regulations. 2022…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 19, 2021

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 0:33 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-19-21 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting August 19, 2021 MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Transit System Update

Information · 30 min · Isabel Diaz, Senior Transportation Planner John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.9–24

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:26 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Flexible Transit Services

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.49

Open packet at p.49 ↗

Staff report:

• Discuss transit system 1/21/21 • Transportation Improvement Program update introduction FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/4/21 • TIP / Mobility Master Plan project 8/19/21 • Transportation Improvement Program prioritization

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Oct. 21, 2021

▶ Watch from 1:55:43

3070 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ uh we will open the meeting now call the

0:02 ↗ meeting to order at 602 my name is

0:04 ↗ cynthia cross i'm the currently the

0:07 ↗ chair of the transportation advisory

0:09 ↗ board this is a special meeting of the

0:11 ↗ tab

0:12 ↗ and a special meeting is just anytime

0:15 ↗ you're meeting outside your normal

0:17 ↗ posted um i think we're the third

0:19 ↗ thursday of every month so uh last week

0:22 ↗ was a jewish holiday and i was grateful

0:24 ↗ that um that was brought to our

0:26 ↗ attention and we moved it to this week

0:28 ↗ so great um so the first order of

0:31 ↗ business is to

0:33 ↗ uh approve the minutes did everyone have

0:36 ↗ an opportunity to review the minutes

0:39 ↗ i'll entertain a motion

0:41 ↗ to approve them

0:44 ↗ i believe that we accept a minute says

0:47 ↗ written

0:49 ↗ and this is christiel second

0:51 ↗ thank you david

0:53 ↗ all in favor

0:57 ↗ not seeing any opposed the minutes are

0:59 ↗ approved

1:00 ↗ um

1:01 ↗ do we have any public comment today

1:06 ↗ i have not seen any public comments

1:20 ↗ all right well hearing none i'll move

1:21 ↗ along to the first um substantive item

1:24 ↗ on the agenda

1:26 ↗ so we have a regular business

1:28 ↗ a couple of items and i will say that um

1:33 ↗ when the chair and vice chair meet with

1:35 ↗ staff we try to give them feedback as

1:37 ↗ best we can to represent what we think

1:39 ↗ people need to understand and i'll just

1:42 ↗ you probably already realize this but

1:43 ↗ it's worth repeating you'll notice that

1:46 ↗ on the agenda items there are

1:49 ↗ letters i d etc we want to make sure

1:52 ↗ that it's really clear what's expected

1:54 ↗ uh to happen in the meeting and so

1:56 ↗ we have um

1:58 ↗ try to make it really clear so this

2:00 ↗ first one is an informational update

2:03 ↗ there's nothing going to be brought

2:05 ↗ before the board anytime soon on that

2:07 ↗ topic if i understand correctly and then

2:10 ↗ the next item is a discussion and we'll

2:14 ↗ be giving feedback

2:15 ↗ to them um and that if you guys are um

2:19 ↗ if there's any comments about how that

2:21 ↗ kind of

2:22 ↗ information is being presented is

2:24 ↗ anything else we can be doing

2:25 ↗ differently it's probably best to just

2:27 ↗ reach out to me

2:29 ↗ and then you can um

2:31 ↗ i can you know we can consolidate that

2:33 ↗ just if there's any

2:35 ↗ feedback uh that you think would be

2:37 ↗ helpful to make this material

2:39 ↗ um make it clear what's being

2:42 ↗ what's expected of us and what we need

2:43 ↗ to focus on just let us know uh with

2:46 ↗ that i'll turn it over to stephen give

2:47 ↗ the transit system update

2:50 ↗ great thank you just give me one moment

2:52 ↗ so i can share my screen

3:05 ↗ hi jerry you want to do a sound check

3:06 ↗ real quick

3:08 ↗ um do you hear my voice

3:10 ↗ yes and i think what about joseph did we

3:12 ↗ get a sound check

3:14 ↗ don't worry for stephen uh can you hear

3:16 ↗ me all right yep yep and then micah

3:21 ↗ hi

3:22 ↗ hi

3:23 ↗ i don't know julian oh you snuck in

3:25 ↗ there too

3:26 ↗ sound checked maybe for julian

3:28 ↗ we got a full house um i believe just

3:31 ↗ wanted to do a sound check before oh

3:34 ↗ zero 555 so

3:36 ↗ i appreciate that sorry i don't know if

3:38 ↗ i just i

3:39 ↗ sorry i didn't notice anyway carry on

3:42 ↗ thanks

3:46 ↗ stephen are you good with sharing

3:48 ↗ your screen it's not letting me share

3:57 ↗ second

3:59 ↗ thanks everyone as we work through uh

4:01 ↗ technical difficulties

4:07 ↗ do you need me to send my 14 year old

4:08 ↗ over

4:10 ↗ you know it wouldn't hurt

4:15 ↗ and i think i did it i right clicked on

4:18 ↗ your name and

4:20 ↗ changed the privileges to share

4:22 ↗ documents is that

4:28 ↗ let's try

4:32 ↗ are you able to access the file visible

4:37 ↗ i can

4:39 ↗ try to find it really quick

4:57 ↗ can you

5:00 ↗ either sin

5:03 ↗ send it to me really quickers because

5:06 ↗ i'm logged off from the our vpn okay

5:11 ↗ and

5:11 ↗ i can access it through website but it's

5:14 ↗ not the same

5:45 ↗ anybody know any good jokes

5:48 ↗ bonus for transportation related jokes

5:57 ↗ do jokes involving chickens crossing

5:59 ↗ roads count as transportation

6:02 ↗ i like it

6:08 ↗ so are you able to see

6:10 ↗ the presentation

6:13 ↗ okay

6:15 ↗ all right so

6:17 ↗ thank you everyone for having me here

6:20 ↗ tonight to talk about transit

6:23 ↗ as cynthia said we're not looking for

6:24 ↗ specific feedback it's an informational

6:26 ↗ update this is kind of a follow-up from

6:30 ↗ previous discussions that we had

6:32 ↗ from the mobility master plan and

6:37 ↗ wanting to

6:39 ↗ talk a little bit more about transit

6:42 ↗ specifically because when we developed

6:44 ↗ the mobility master plan we weren't able

6:46 ↗ to

6:47 ↗ dig a little bit deeper into transit and

6:49 ↗ have

6:51 ↗ more robust conversations on what we

6:53 ↗ want out of the transit system in

6:55 ↗ issaquah and particularly as we access

6:58 ↗ and build out and

7:00 ↗ try to access more areas of the region

7:03 ↗ are you able to see the second page of

7:05 ↗ the presentation i just want to make

7:06 ↗ sure

7:08 ↗ still on the first page

7:12 ↗ okay

7:15 ↗ still on the first page

7:25 ↗ all right isabel i might actually have

7:26 ↗ to have you

7:29 ↗ i'm able to click through the

7:30 ↗ presentation for myself oh you're able

7:33 ↗ to oh so i'm not even able to control it

7:36 ↗ really have to click through it and

7:37 ↗ follow along

7:41 ↗ this is so weird i wonder why it's not

7:42 ↗ letting me

7:45 ↗ share anything

8:11 ↗ i'll try to find it to see if i can

8:32 ↗ okay

8:34 ↗ um

8:36 ↗ yeah isabel won't you try to get it open

8:39 ↗ um i'm looking for it to open it

8:42 ↗ just give me just just a few seconds

8:45 ↗ um

8:50 ↗ all right so what we'll do is

8:56 ↗ so as i'm saying is this is kind of a

8:57 ↗ follow-up from the development of the

8:58 ↗ mobility master plan so we could talk a

9:00 ↗ little bit more about transit and

9:03 ↗ with the pandemic

9:05 ↗ there's a lot to update the board on

9:07 ↗ because the previous conversations we

9:09 ↗ had around transit

9:10 ↗ aren't necessarily the same and and

9:13 ↗ their how people are

9:16 ↗ accessing transit how people are getting

9:17 ↗ around is completely different

9:20 ↗ and it's going to be changing

9:22 ↗ a lot of major employers are switching

9:24 ↗ to hybrid models

9:26 ↗ which means that not

9:28 ↗ all of their workforce is going into

9:30 ↗ work uh you have major employers like

9:32 ↗ rei who are

9:34 ↗ actually going the model of putting

9:37 ↗ satellite facilities throughout the

9:39 ↗ region

9:41 ↗ go ahead and go to the next page

9:43 ↗ so

9:44 ↗ prior to the pandemic the city of

9:46 ↗ had 12 transit routes in operation

9:49 ↗ within or through isabel

9:51 ↗ there was

9:52 ↗ a rough estimate of number of people who

9:53 ↗ was close to about 2 000 boardings a day

9:56 ↗ next slide please

9:59 ↗ and as a region we saw just over 500 000

10:02 ↗ daily boardings which was served by 125

10:06 ↗ different bus routes as well as 13

10:09 ↗ flexible services which were

10:10 ↗ partnerships of

10:12 ↗ shuttle services partnerships with bike

10:15 ↗ share or scooter share

10:16 ↗ and on-demand shuttles

10:18 ↗ there was also additionally carpool

10:20 ↗ partnerships and even community vehicles

10:23 ↗ operated by community members

10:26 ↗ to build in some type of

10:28 ↗ private public

10:30 ↗ ride rideshare uh

10:32 ↗ programs

10:34 ↗ next slide please

10:35 ↗ so when the pandemic lap hit last year

10:38 ↗ it resulted in significant suspensions

10:40 ↗ of services

10:42 ↗ and full cancellations of a lot of the

10:44 ↗ flexible services that were being

10:46 ↗ invested in in multiple communities

10:48 ↗ and this resulted in reduction to you

10:51 ↗ know from that 500 000 daily boardings

10:53 ↗ to 150 000 daily boardings

10:57 ↗ and just about half of the bus routes

10:59 ↗ were suspended

11:00 ↗ with the majority of the routes that

11:02 ↗ were cut

11:03 ↗ they were mostly commuter based services

11:05 ↗ and underused local routes

11:08 ↗ which

11:09 ↗ had underutilized

11:11 ↗ stops and ridership so the majority of

11:13 ↗ services that were left

11:14 ↗ were all-day regional and local services

11:17 ↗ that were

11:18 ↗ primarily used by essential workers

11:21 ↗ most of which were located in the south

11:23 ↗ and northern areas of the county

11:26 ↗ additionally metro

11:30 ↗ they also included major improvements to

11:31 ↗ ensure the safe environment for for the

11:34 ↗ essential workers

11:36 ↗ uh to use the bus so they added

11:40 ↗ uh uh it's installation of shields for

11:43 ↗ drivers and for riders um as well as

11:45 ↗ reducing the number of riders that could

11:47 ↗ be allowed on each of the buses and

11:49 ↗ and uh all all operating buses were

11:52 ↗ added um added sanitation equipment for

11:55 ↗ ridership

11:57 ↗ next slide please

11:59 ↗ so for the city isquad that the impact

12:01 ↗ of the pandemic left three services in

12:04 ↗ fuller partial operation

12:06 ↗ this has been going on since march of

12:08 ↗ last year and the majority of the routes

12:10 ↗ were

12:11 ↗ fully suspended until about this past

12:13 ↗ spring when a few more routes were

12:14 ↗ actually put back in partial operation

12:17 ↗ but what's confirmed is that the

12:19 ↗ dial-a-ride or the flexible service

12:22 ↗ route 628 that ran between highlands and

12:24 ↗ north bend was actually cancelled and

12:26 ↗ that that's the surface that won't be

12:28 ↗ coming back

12:29 ↗ next slide

12:30 ↗ so what we'll be seeing upcoming is a

12:33 ↗ creation of a lot of unanswered

12:35 ↗ questions from pandemic particularly

12:37 ↗ around how everyone's behavior is going

12:39 ↗ to be impacting

12:40 ↗ the the ridership that's coming back

12:43 ↗ king county

12:45 ↗ in their latest but in their last budget

12:47 ↗ they promised to bring back all the

12:49 ↗ suspended services

12:51 ↗ well with the changes in behavior

12:53 ↗ they're going to be taking a look at how

12:55 ↗ they might restructure transit service

12:58 ↗ throughout the region to accommodate or

13:00 ↗ or kind of adapt to changes in the

13:03 ↗ regional travel behavior next slide

13:05 ↗ please

13:07 ↗ so for the fall 2021 service change

13:09 ↗ which actually starts next week

13:12 ↗ we can expect the majority of fiscal

13:14 ↗ services to actually come back online

13:16 ↗ the routes with asterisks on the left or

13:18 ↗ the routes that will only be partial

13:21 ↗ service and some services have already

13:24 ↗ started up but by next week this full

13:26 ↗ list will be in full effect

13:29 ↗ two routes will remain suspended until

13:31 ↗ next year when metro will propose to

13:33 ↗ either bring them back or change as part

13:35 ↗ of peace league east link regional

13:38 ↗ restructure which is when

13:40 ↗ link light rail will come online on the

13:41 ↗ east side

13:43 ↗ two services are confirmed to be

13:45 ↗ cancelled the first one i mentioned was

13:47 ↗ the route 628 and and the other one was

13:51 ↗ a pilot project that was

13:53 ↗ actually underway that we never got past

13:55 ↗ the planning stage

13:57 ↗ next slide please

14:00 ↗ so for metro um

14:02 ↗ there's a couple big updates the first

14:04 ↗ being that metro has been working with

14:07 ↗ regional staff and elected officials to

14:09 ↗ update their policies and planning

14:11 ↗ documents on how they manage and add and

14:13 ↗ remove services that

14:15 ↗ um

14:16 ↗ and the three major ones are receiving

14:19 ↗ an update uh the first part of this

14:22 ↗ update is incorporating stronger

14:24 ↗ language around equity and how metro

14:26 ↗ prioritizes its investments

14:28 ↗ as well as where routes are going to be

14:32 ↗ placed throughout the region

14:34 ↗ additionally they're going to be

14:35 ↗ updating the capital project data to

14:37 ↗ better align

14:39 ↗ all the plans language as well as update

14:42 ↗ with the newer priorities around where

14:45 ↗ they want to invest more

14:48 ↗ as well as the type of investments that

14:49 ↗ they're they're going to be placing

14:51 ↗ throughout the region

14:53 ↗ the other part of

14:54 ↗ of

14:55 ↗ this update on metro is that as part of

14:57 ↗ the pandemic recovery the fall and

14:59 ↗ spring service change are only kind of

15:02 ↗ the beginning of what we might see for

15:04 ↗ future changes

15:06 ↗ you know the suspended services were

15:08 ↗ really to accommodate their budget but

15:10 ↗ starting next week with north lake north

15:12 ↗ gate link coming online

15:15 ↗ um you're going to see a lot of changes

15:17 ↗ throughout the region north seattle and

15:18 ↗ shoreline are going to see major changes

15:21 ↗ and with eastlink coming on in the next

15:22 ↗ few years after that will be seen

15:25 ↗ a lot of major changes on the east side

15:28 ↗ and so bellevue redmond

15:30 ↗ is

15:31 ↗ they're going to be engaging with king

15:33 ↗ county metro services and

15:36 ↗ there's actually

15:38 ↗ a link that was sent out via our social

15:40 ↗ media as well as uh the city email

15:43 ↗ um

15:44 ↗ connecting everybody to the metro's

15:46 ↗ second gauge of in in uh second game

15:50 ↗ second phase of engagement

15:52 ↗ on the eastlink restructure process so

15:54 ↗ if

15:56 ↗ if you haven't accessed that already

15:58 ↗ please look for that because they're

15:59 ↗ looking for eastside feedback on how we

16:03 ↗ want to restructure

16:04 ↗ our transit services

16:07 ↗ as east link comes on online in 2023 and

16:10 ↗ 2024. that's next slide please

16:14 ↗ in terms of sound transit the which is

16:16 ↗ our regional transit agency

16:18 ↗ they recently adopted what's called the

16:21 ↗ realignment plan or

16:23 ↗ basically it's an update to the sd3

16:25 ↗ package

16:26 ↗ in reaction to the pandemic and the

16:28 ↗ financial outfall that was projected

16:30 ↗ from the pandemic

16:32 ↗ there's a few notable updates

16:35 ↗ important for us which is the

16:37 ↗ light rail um is being delayed from 2041

16:41 ↗ to 2044.

16:43 ↗ so it's still an approved project for

16:45 ↗ his spa so it's but it's a delayed just

16:47 ↗ a few years

16:48 ↗ lastly i-405 bus rapid transit is is

16:52 ↗ technically on time

16:54 ↗ but soundtrans is actually working

16:56 ↗ through some budget issues to make sure

16:57 ↗ that it still happens by 2026.

17:01 ↗ and similar to metro services recovery

17:04 ↗ any or all services that

17:06 ↗ were suspended will be returning next

17:08 ↗ week or early early

17:10 ↗ next spring

17:12 ↗ next slide please stephen can you pause

17:14 ↗ for questions

17:16 ↗ yeah

17:18 ↗ i think christy had a question

17:22 ↗ actually i was just going to comment on

17:24 ↗ the sound transit survey and some of our

17:26 ↗ findings post stephen's presentation if

17:29 ↗ that's okay

17:31 ↗ i don't want to interrupt this flow

17:34 ↗ great

17:36 ↗ yeah and i'm i'm happy to help answer

17:38 ↗ any questions and or take comments at

17:40 ↗ the end even though this is

17:42 ↗ informational um you know any

17:44 ↗ information we get from the border is

17:45 ↗ always helpful

17:49 ↗ so

17:49 ↗ next slide please

17:54 ↗ so before i jump into

17:57 ↗ talking about what the city is going to

17:59 ↗ be doing next i want to provide a little

18:00 ↗ bit of context of what's been done

18:02 ↗ because we we haven't really been able

18:04 ↗ to cover that with mobility master plan

18:06 ↗ and we'll talk more about it in the in

18:09 ↗ the development of the transit study

18:10 ↗ next year but i just want to

18:12 ↗ give a little context right now to help

18:16 ↗ kind of fill the gaps on this update so

18:18 ↗ that the city actually started a lot of

18:20 ↗ transit work back in 2002

18:22 ↗ when it developed a transit study which

18:24 ↗ informed how the city's network should

18:26 ↗ get molded

18:27 ↗ with the city's booming growth at the

18:28 ↗ time

18:30 ↗ because at that time highlands was still

18:33 ↗ being developed and the growth in

18:35 ↗ central isquad was still

18:37 ↗ growing into telus and and squat

18:40 ↗ mountain so

18:42 ↗ they actually used that transit study to

18:44 ↗ inform the network at that time to

18:45 ↗ develop and support those areas but also

18:47 ↗ to finalize

18:49 ↗ the final locations for the highlands

18:50 ↗ and esquad transit centers and after

18:53 ↗ that work was completed the next major

18:55 ↗ work was metro's

18:57 ↗ development of their long-range plan

18:59 ↗ called metro connects

19:01 ↗ which was in 2015.

19:04 ↗ i didn't add it on the screen but around

19:05 ↗ that same time was actually the

19:07 ↗ development of the sound transit 3

19:09 ↗ package of when we were identified to

19:12 ↗ get light rail

19:13 ↗ to go to issaquah

19:16 ↗ we then continued discussions on transit

19:18 ↗ and light rail as part of the citywide

19:19 ↗ strategic plan a few years ago and then

19:21 ↗ more recently we

19:23 ↗ finalized the vision and policy

19:24 ↗ framework for the transportation system

19:27 ↗ in the mobility master plan next slide

19:28 ↗ please

19:30 ↗ and i bring this all up because there's

19:32 ↗ there's been some confusion about the

19:33 ↗ city's efforts on initiating a local

19:36 ↗ shuttle service

19:37 ↗ which isn't really a new idea it

19:39 ↗ actually originated before the 2002

19:42 ↗ transit study it was it just wasn't

19:44 ↗ formalized until then

19:46 ↗ discussions have always continued on

19:48 ↗ with metro on how to initiate some type

19:50 ↗ of shuttle service or or flexible

19:52 ↗ transit service in this class

19:54 ↗ neighborhoods and

19:56 ↗ since then since 2002

19:58 ↗ we were able to get the route 200 which

20:00 ↗ kind of acted as a local shuttle

20:02 ↗ service

20:04 ↗ loop throughout its upon and it also

20:07 ↗ started the service in north bend in

20:08 ↗ 2015 that dart service

20:12 ↗ and more recently the city was part of a

20:14 ↗ partnership

20:15 ↗ with metro develop a metro funded

20:17 ↗ flexible service in towson squawk

20:19 ↗ mountain

20:20 ↗ unfortunately that project was

20:22 ↗ ultimately cancelled due to changing

20:23 ↗ priorities at metro but

20:26 ↗ the city has now

20:27 ↗ given staff

20:29 ↗ direction to to pursue a new partnership

20:31 ↗ which includes city investments on some

20:33 ↗ type of flexible service either in 2022

20:35 ↗ or 23.

20:38 ↗ extra next slide piece

20:42 ↗ so in terms of today

20:45 ↗ what i wanted what we need to do to

20:46 ↗ advance the transit system we need to go

20:48 ↗ through the exercise to re-examine the

20:50 ↗ city's goals for transit

20:52 ↗ what we weren't able to do with the

20:53 ↗ mobility master plan

20:55 ↗ what we have is great in terms of

20:57 ↗ providing high-level goals and vision

20:58 ↗ but we need better guidance to help us

21:01 ↗ prioritize our investments but also

21:03 ↗ identify what those investments are so

21:05 ↗ that we can better guide development

21:07 ↗ throughout the city but one of the next

21:10 ↗ items is going to be the identification

21:12 ↗ of the transit priority network that's

21:15 ↗ just like walking and biking networks we

21:17 ↗ we need to identify

21:20 ↗ in the master plan what we want our

21:22 ↗ transit system to look like

21:25 ↗ and what the corridor should be

21:27 ↗ in

21:28 ↗ in coordination with the growth that's

21:30 ↗ going to be happening in central asia

21:32 ↗ and the surrounding neighborhoods

21:34 ↗ because it can take decades to ensure

21:36 ↗ that the intended investments

21:39 ↗ actually match up with the identified

21:41 ↗ network and so the sooner we can get

21:43 ↗ this

21:44 ↗ figured out

21:45 ↗ the better place we'll be in terms of

21:47 ↗ being prepared for light rail

21:50 ↗ once we have these other items in place

21:51 ↗ we'll be ready to identify

21:53 ↗ specific transit projects that will get

21:56 ↗ added to the tap and our budget over the

21:59 ↗ next 20 years

22:00 ↗ that that last piece

22:03 ↗ is important because

22:06 ↗ what we identify in the tip we can

22:08 ↗ partner with metro on

22:10 ↗ to

22:11 ↗ to go for external grants that the city

22:13 ↗ typically doesn't have access to

22:15 ↗ and we save metro that step of trying to

22:18 ↗ identify the project but also going

22:20 ↗ through the community process to make

22:22 ↗ sure that project is a priority

22:25 ↗ so that

22:26 ↗ external transit federal transit

22:29 ↗ grants are easily much more easily

22:31 ↗ accessible

22:32 ↗ and being able to do all that speeds up

22:35 ↗ our ability to

22:36 ↗ prepare for

22:38 ↗ discussions with sound transit

22:41 ↗ when they want to initiate their process

22:42 ↗ for light rail

22:44 ↗ which won't happen before 2028

22:48 ↗ so

22:48 ↗ while it seems like we have you know

22:51 ↗ seven years to repair

22:53 ↗ those seven years go by pretty quick

22:55 ↗ when it comes to development and the

22:57 ↗ build out of our infrastructure so

22:59 ↗ we we have a few years to kind of work

23:03 ↗ through some of these details and get

23:05 ↗ prepared for those conversations

23:07 ↗ next slide please

23:10 ↗ so when it comes to the transit study

23:12 ↗ i wanted to break down a bit because

23:14 ↗ there's been some questions

23:16 ↗ about what's going to be going into it

23:18 ↗ it it fits the place of well we've been

23:21 ↗ calling a transit plan

23:23 ↗ but instead of

23:26 ↗ basically separating our plan we thought

23:28 ↗ it was a better idea to actually update

23:29 ↗ the mobility master plan

23:31 ↗ and just add to the tip

23:34 ↗ that way we're staying consistent what

23:36 ↗ we said we would do with multi mesh plan

23:38 ↗ which was to keep that as our master

23:40 ↗ plan for the transportation system

23:42 ↗ so

23:43 ↗ one of the biggest things we need to

23:44 ↗ identify first is

23:46 ↗ the spine of the system the frequent

23:48 ↗ routes as it connects to

23:50 ↗ our

23:52 ↗ community but also as it runs through

23:53 ↗ the regional growth center because we

23:55 ↗ are trying to make that

23:56 ↗ one of the

23:58 ↗ major points for connections for the

24:00 ↗ region but also for our local

24:02 ↗ community and you go next

24:06 ↗ and then

24:07 ↗ after we identify the spine we have to

24:09 ↗ identify the local routes which are

24:11 ↗ probably less frequent services but they

24:13 ↗ connect to more areas of the city so

24:15 ↗ that it either connects to the regional

24:17 ↗ center at work

24:18 ↗ barrier connects to the frequent

24:20 ↗ regional services okay go next

24:24 ↗ and then as part of the transit study we

24:26 ↗ want to look at how to fill the gaps and

24:28 ↗ that's going to be looking at flexible

24:29 ↗ transit services

24:31 ↗ which

24:32 ↗ for some of you that are interested

24:34 ↗ that's going to include ride share

24:35 ↗ that's going to include bike share or

24:36 ↗ scooter share or any other type of

24:39 ↗ partnership we can come up with to make

24:41 ↗ it much easier to access either the

24:42 ↗ regional growth center and

24:44 ↗ any community

24:46 ↗ amenities or the transit service to go

24:49 ↗ to other areas of the region

24:52 ↗ next slide please

24:55 ↗ so with the transit study after we go

24:57 ↗ through the process of developing that

24:59 ↗ network and

25:00 ↗ the priorities and the projects

25:02 ↗ we're going to take the results and and

25:04 ↗ update the mobility master plan and and

25:06 ↗ the tip

25:08 ↗ because with those two we are able to

25:10 ↗ move forward with identifying for the

25:12 ↗ projects that we want to invest in and

25:14 ↗ prioritize

25:16 ↗ but it also helps us identify a more

25:18 ↗ cohesive vision around our

25:20 ↗ transportation system

25:22 ↗ because a lot of work has already been

25:23 ↗ done around walking and biking the

25:25 ↗ transit piece is really kind of the

25:27 ↗ biggest gap in in our mobility system

25:30 ↗ that we really haven't spent the time to

25:32 ↗ identify

25:33 ↗ more details about

25:37 ↗ next slide please

25:40 ↗ and that concludes

25:42 ↗ my informational update are there any

25:44 ↗ questions

25:51 ↗ on the partial updates for the transit

25:53 ↗ service i said earlier there was like 4

25:56 ↗ 000 boardings in this aqua

25:58 ↗ about 2 000 boardings uh could be

26:00 ↗ pandemic

26:01 ↗ pretty pandemic and do we know what the

26:03 ↗ boardings are

26:05 ↗ uh

26:05 ↗ during current pandemic

26:08 ↗ um it's fluctuated a lot um

26:12 ↗ i know that

26:14 ↗ with the additional services our our

26:16 ↗ ridership is back up to maybe half of

26:19 ↗ what it was before but

26:20 ↗ because of the fluctuations from the

26:23 ↗ pandemic it's it's hard to really say

26:24 ↗ what an average is so it we really won't

26:27 ↗ have

26:28 ↗ a good idea of what change in behavior

26:30 ↗ will be for probably another six months

26:34 ↗ at least

26:36 ↗ i've added to it occasionally so um

26:39 ↗ and the other part is you know we've got

26:40 ↗ the pandemic that may go on for another

26:42 ↗ year two three years but as we think

26:45 ↗ down the road still for still thinking

26:46 ↗ of sound transit light rail 4044

26:50 ↗ is i don't want to lose track of

26:52 ↗ this is uh immediate impact over the

26:54 ↗ next couple years but but still what do

26:55 ↗ we want to be

26:57 ↗ five ten years down the road with

26:59 ↗ transit

27:02 ↗ visible can you

27:03 ↗ stop sharing your scene so unless

27:06 ↗ actually you all want to keep seeing the

27:08 ↗ presentation

27:11 ↗ do you want the presentation back i want

27:13 ↗ to go back to the second to last slide

27:15 ↗ because that's where my question is

27:18 ↗ i think thank you as well

27:21 ↗ uh study try to study purposes

27:24 ↗ give me just one second

27:26 ↗ oh it was just the next steps

27:29 ↗ are are you seeing anything or not

27:33 ↗ we we just see the first page right now

27:35 ↗ oh okay

27:36 ↗ that's so i

27:38 ↗ can yes i can send out the html link

27:40 ↗ that's what i'm looking at too people

27:42 ↗ don't have that

27:48 ↗ are you seeing it moving

27:50 ↗ it's going

27:51 ↗ uh it went back to

27:54 ↗ well i don't need this oh

27:58 ↗ go ahead with your questions there we go

28:00 ↗ oh

28:00 ↗ which one is it teasing me go forward

28:02 ↗ one more oh okay

28:05 ↗ it's gonna be it's gonna be it's gonna

28:06 ↗ be uh

28:08 ↗ two more the initial transit strategies

28:12 ↗ of the steps okay

28:14 ↗ uh i know that christy had something she

28:16 ↗ wanted to say but um i'll just say real

28:19 ↗ quick um

28:21 ↗ what would you assign the years for the

28:24 ↗ um the mobility master plan update

28:27 ↗ that's something i haven't really i'm

28:30 ↗ not really uh wrapping my head around

28:31 ↗ that is there an update would that just

28:33 ↗ be with the transit study or is there

28:35 ↗ is it more on the comp plan

28:38 ↗ cycle like what

28:39 ↗ i just was reacting to the

28:42 ↗ mmp update and

28:44 ↗ so wondering whether those are many

28:46 ↗ years out or

28:49 ↗ so for 2022 um we're not actually

28:51 ↗ planning to do i don't believe we're

28:53 ↗ planning to do a comp plan update

28:54 ↗ because we're actually going to look to

28:56 ↗ do a big comp plan overhaul in 2023.

29:00 ↗ okay so i think that's when this will

29:02 ↗ get updated with the transit study

29:05 ↗ that makes sense

29:06 ↗ we can still update the mobility

29:09 ↗ the tip prior to that with what comes

29:12 ↗ out of the transit study

29:13 ↗ am i right to think we wouldn't end um

29:16 ↗ uh update the mmp outside of the comp

29:18 ↗ plan schedule

29:20 ↗ we want to keep those updated the same

29:22 ↗ so that we don't have any differences in

29:24 ↗ policies adopted by council

29:27 ↗ okay

29:28 ↗ if there's an opportunity i think to

29:30 ↗ update the comp plan and mmp next year

29:33 ↗ we might

29:34 ↗ try to go for it but i think because the

29:35 ↗ timing will be aiming for end of 2023

29:38 ↗ that makes a lot of sense to me i just

29:40 ↗ wanted to make sure i understood

29:42 ↗ sort of the bigger picture about how

29:43 ↗ those things get

29:45 ↗ uh updated

29:46 ↗ uh and then i know christy had some

29:48 ↗ comments

29:52 ↗ thank you steven thank you for the great

29:53 ↗ update really appreciate it um important

29:56 ↗ information

29:58 ↗ um

29:59 ↗ just a few things to comment on um

30:03 ↗ first of all super disappointed to hear

30:06 ↗ that sound transit delayed the schedule

30:08 ↗ for light rail by another

30:10 ↗ three to four years

30:12 ↗ hopefully

30:13 ↗ as a city we can hold the line i was

30:15 ↗ hoping the board would be able to

30:17 ↗ implement some cost efficiencies and

30:21 ↗ to sort that schedule out so we kept

30:23 ↗ things on schedule as a region

30:27 ↗ the other thing is you're right seven

30:30 ↗ years goes really fast

30:33 ↗ along with the the community transit

30:35 ↗ discussion that happens there also needs

30:37 ↗ to be

30:38 ↗ land use review and zoning decisions so

30:41 ↗ that we can be prepared once the review

30:43 ↗ for

30:44 ↗ the eis of the light rail and looking at

30:47 ↗ potential sighting of locations so

30:50 ↗ it will be here before we know it

30:54 ↗ and then the other thing i wanted to

30:56 ↗ share

30:57 ↗ again appreciate the transit updates

30:59 ↗ i hope as citizens and you'll all take

31:03 ↗ the survey that the mayor's office and

31:06 ↗ city shared around the sound transit

31:08 ↗ survey and the upcoming

31:10 ↗ open house but also to share it with all

31:12 ↗ of your peers and your co-workers i

31:14 ↗ think the more that we have our

31:17 ↗ constituents input to that the stronger

31:20 ↗ the information service that we'll have

31:23 ↗ um

31:24 ↗ both our ceo and i took the survey today

31:29 ↗ she actually rides the bus on occasion

31:32 ↗ because she feels like it's really

31:33 ↗ important to really understand the

31:35 ↗ service and

31:37 ↗ what kinds of things our citizens and

31:41 ↗ businesses alike can expect from that

31:44 ↗ and in looking at what sound transit is

31:47 ↗ proposing

31:48 ↗ um

31:49 ↗ initially we were really kind of

31:51 ↗ concerned with the east link coming on

31:53 ↗ about losing service or having slower

31:56 ↗ service for our residents and

31:59 ↗ what we've garnered today and things

32:02 ↗ change but um

32:05 ↗ it looks like the st express 554 is

32:08 ↗ going to be five minutes more efficient

32:10 ↗ with having about four to five buses per

32:13 ↗ hour which is a huge improvement for

32:15 ↗ that route for us as a community

32:17 ↗ so

32:18 ↗ that's pretty good news and then the

32:21 ↗ routes 202 and 203 between bellevue and

32:24 ↗ issaquah that replaced the 271

32:29 ↗ those are going to be faster but also

32:31 ↗ help us

32:33 ↗ meet citizens needs on the north and the

32:35 ↗ south side of i-90 and

32:39 ↗ the 203 will actually have access to

32:42 ↗ factorious so

32:44 ↗ it's really nice to see that we're going

32:46 ↗ to get some more robust

32:49 ↗ service and hopefully we'll see that

32:51 ↗ continue especially post pandemic

32:54 ↗ because it's impacted us all but

32:56 ↗ i also think we've seen um hopefully all

32:59 ↗ of us have seen although not our

33:00 ↗ favorite more traffic congestion as

33:03 ↗ things began

33:04 ↗ to change with people going back to work

33:06 ↗ and the hybrid schedule is so

33:08 ↗ important to be looking to the future so

33:11 ↗ again stephen thank you so much

33:14 ↗ thank you chrissy one thing i want to

33:16 ↗ just respond really quick to

33:18 ↗ a couple of things he said so with the

33:20 ↗ sound the sound transit 3 realignment

33:23 ↗ yes they approved the plan to delay the

33:26 ↗ light rail to 2044 but

33:29 ↗ they also adopted it with the caveat

33:31 ↗ that sound transit staff is going to be

33:33 ↗ working to get additional funding

33:35 ↗ sources so that they could try to get

33:37 ↗ things back on track because it really

33:39 ↗ is

33:40 ↗ a spending issue which is why they're

33:42 ↗ pushing out several

33:44 ↗ projects several years

33:45 ↗ one thing you'll notice with the

33:46 ↗ realignment is a lot of the parking

33:49 ↗ projects that were promised as part of a

33:51 ↗ lot of the major light rail um

33:54 ↗ stations around the region

33:55 ↗ are actually getting delayed to last as

33:57 ↗ part of this realignment plan so even

33:59 ↗ though something might come in

34:01 ↗ 2030

34:02 ↗ it prop the parking likely won't come

34:04 ↗ until later

34:06 ↗ as part of this new realignment plan but

34:09 ↗ with that caveat that they're looking

34:10 ↗ for external additional funding sources

34:13 ↗ they are trying to make things come or

34:15 ↗ at least get delivered on time

34:19 ↗ with the metro survey

34:21 ↗ if you all take a look at it

34:23 ↗ the proposals that metro is putting out

34:25 ↗ is just their first draft this so this

34:28 ↗ is their second wave of engagement on

34:31 ↗ what they think a new service should

34:33 ↗ look like this isn't the final

34:35 ↗ city staff is still in discussions with

34:37 ↗ metro about several of what's being

34:39 ↗ proposed

34:40 ↗ particularly on gilman and trying to get

34:43 ↗ more frequent services in central isoqua

34:45 ↗ so it's

34:46 ↗ uh just keep that in mind when you're

34:49 ↗ commenting and that there will be

34:50 ↗ another phase of engagement where we'll

34:52 ↗ be able to comment on kind of a final

34:55 ↗ final alignment that metro's gonna be

34:57 ↗ proposing

35:04 ↗ any other questions or comments

35:10 ↗ dave i know you have comments on transit

35:18 ↗ one of the comments that i would make

35:20 ↗ stephen is

35:22 ↗ i've done this since 2011

35:27 ↗ through the senior center i actually

35:30 ↗ teach a class for the seniors called

35:32 ↗ metro with dave

35:34 ↗ we take the seniors out and let them

35:36 ↗ ride the buses

35:38 ↗ with us once a month

35:42 ↗ and so they can learn their different

35:44 ↗ routes

35:45 ↗ you'll be happy to know

35:47 ↗ that uh in the middle uh third wednesday

35:51 ↗ in

35:52 ↗ october

35:53 ↗ we are going to do the north link route

35:56 ↗ so we're going to ride the 554 into

35:59 ↗ seattle we're going to get on the north

36:01 ↗ link and go all the way to

36:03 ↗ north gate and then when we come back

36:06 ↗ we're going to get off the uh dub

36:08 ↗ station

36:09 ↗ and take the

36:11 ↗ revised

36:12 ↗ 556 back out to issaquah so it's an

36:15 ↗ opportunity for everybody if you're not

36:18 ↗ riding transit i gotta tell you

36:20 ↗ our transportation board you're not

36:22 ↗ gonna like to hear me say this

36:25 ↗ but you should be trying out

36:28 ↗ uh bus transportation in and out of

36:31 ↗ issaquah

36:32 ↗ because then you know what we have and

36:34 ↗ what we do it's like riding a bike along

36:36 ↗ east lake sammamish

36:38 ↗ and the amish trail

36:40 ↗ you'll know what transit does and

36:43 ↗ uh so that would be the only comment i

36:45 ↗ would make

36:46 ↗ uh get out there and ride the buses

36:48 ↗ because then you have no questions about

36:50 ↗ where they go and what they do

36:53 ↗ and they ended

36:55 ↗ and there are there is ridership coming

36:58 ↗ back

36:59 ↗ we've been riding the buses now

37:01 ↗ about four months and ridership is

37:04 ↗ coming back slowly but surely thanks for

37:07 ↗ the comments

37:09 ↗ dave one one uh response i i have when

37:12 ↗ we take on the transit study next year

37:14 ↗ um

37:15 ↗ we plan to do some

37:18 ↗ transit audits of a lot of it and we'll

37:20 ↗ have homework for the board members

37:23 ↗ to ride some of these routes and and get

37:25 ↗ some feedback from you on on how some of

37:27 ↗ these

37:28 ↗ routes operate because it's important to

37:30 ↗ get your feedback not just staffs

37:32 ↗ feedback

37:33 ↗ on

37:34 ↗ all these all these routes can be

37:36 ↗ improved because

37:38 ↗ i don't know if any of you have written

37:40 ↗ the 271 but it's hard to to not get

37:43 ↗ motion sickness on that route just

37:45 ↗ getting inspired to bellevue let alone

37:47 ↗ to get to uw so it's the milk run to the

37:50 ↗ university of washington it stops

37:53 ↗ everywhere

37:54 ↗ that one is the milk run it makes every

37:56 ↗ stop it takes uh almost

37:59 ↗ four minutes just to get from here to

38:00 ↗ bellevue on that one so exactly so it's

38:03 ↗ just knowing those small details when

38:05 ↗ we're going through the transit study

38:06 ↗ that'll be immensely helpful as we're

38:08 ↗ having those discussions with metro and

38:09 ↗ how to make improvements to the routes

38:11 ↗ so one one other one that wasn't listed

38:14 ↗ and you haven't talked about and it's

38:16 ↗ only seasonal and that's the trail

38:19 ↗ uh bus that the metro operates uh from

38:23 ↗ all the way

38:24 ↗ you're going to love this from the mount

38:26 ↗ baker station all the way out to

38:28 ↗ issaquah and then does a loop to do

38:31 ↗ service all the trails it's a great

38:33 ↗ service and believe it or not

38:35 ↗ that little thing is more full

38:38 ↗ than a 554 going into seattle

38:41 ↗ so yeah so

38:43 ↗ uh

38:44 ↗ very interesting i'm excited to see

38:47 ↗ all this growth and all this change but

38:49 ↗ i'm also really excited to ride that new

38:52 ↗ north link and uh see where it goes

38:56 ↗ it's uh northland is pretty cool i was

38:57 ↗ the resident engineer on the track park

38:59 ↗ for it so it's cool pretty exciting and

39:01 ↗ then uh the other thing is city visible

39:03 ↗ can put a push for the double decker

39:04 ↗ buses as opposed to the articulated

39:07 ↗ things to come to this squad right now

39:08 ↗ they have them riding north

39:10 ↗ south they're a lot more efficient and

39:11 ↗ quieter

39:13 ↗ smaller and they're not as

39:15 ↗ cranky knicky as the articulator buses

39:17 ↗ are but they have a couple of tree

39:19 ↗ trimming areas that they have to look at

39:20 ↗ for the height of the double decker bus

39:22 ↗ but if you put a push for them

39:25 ↗ we can get them sooner or later

39:27 ↗ but where they go downtown i i don't

39:29 ↗ think there's going to be any trouble

39:31 ↗ problem with the height of the double

39:33 ↗ deckers

39:34 ↗ let's say if a double decker replaced

39:36 ↗ the 214 instead of a

39:38 ↗ 60-foot bus it'd be a decker it would be

39:41 ↗ uh it would be ideal but

39:44 ↗ um

39:45 ↗ yeah i know i mean they do run downtown

39:47 ↗ up to snohomish county and some are

39:48 ↗ going down south uh it's the i-90

39:50 ↗ corridor that's there

39:52 ↗ that's another thing the board should do

39:54 ↗ ride in upstairs in the front seat of

39:57 ↗ that double decker so you can really get

40:00 ↗ a thrill

40:01 ↗ so

40:02 ↗ don't do this a couple of times

40:04 ↗ all right this is lots of fun but my uh

40:08 ↗ chair roll is starting to my my right

40:11 ↗ let's keep moving i did see julian

40:12 ↗ raising hand and i'll just uh remind you

40:14 ↗ guys that um

40:16 ↗ it's easier to put not content but just

40:19 ↗ if you have a question or comment into

40:21 ↗ the chat it's easier to keep track of um

40:23 ↗ in the real meetings often we'll turn

40:25 ↗ our

40:26 ↗ name tag up or something just something

40:28 ↗ to give some sense of order uh so i know

40:31 ↗ i don't forget people and can see

40:34 ↗ um you know the order in which people

40:36 ↗ have requested to make a comment or ask

40:38 ↗ a question julian i saw you

40:40 ↗ raising your hand did you have something

40:42 ↗ yeah i just wanted to say i completely

40:44 ↗ concur with david's comments about

40:47 ↗ uh really living with transit and biking

40:50 ↗ i mean it's the best way to figure out

40:52 ↗ what needs to be improved you know as

40:54 ↗ part of my part-time job i

40:57 ↗ i go by by route 208 out to snoqualmie

41:00 ↗ and north bend

41:02 ↗ and that connection is just

41:04 ↗ not good um so i'm really excited for

41:06 ↗ the route 215 that's being proposed from

41:09 ↗ mercer island to north bend

41:11 ↗ that will

41:12 ↗ that might make a stop in the school

41:14 ↗ house i think we should push for a stop

41:15 ↗ at these guys

41:17 ↗ but

41:18 ↗ i think it's just really important to

41:20 ↗ get an idea of where these routes go

41:25 ↗ sure did you have something

41:28 ↗ okay

41:30 ↗ all right um

41:32 ↗ that was a really helpful update um

41:35 ↗ stephen did you have anything else on

41:37 ↗ the

41:38 ↗ item okay

41:39 ↗ nothing else for me um i'll be back to

41:41 ↗ talk more transit as we approach

41:44 ↗ next year and getting discussion started

41:46 ↗ on kind of the development of the

41:48 ↗ transit transit study

41:52 ↗ all right

41:53 ↗ well good well good news is we're right

41:55 ↗ on schedule but i wanted to make sure

41:56 ↗ that we protected the time

41:58 ↗ for the tip discussion and maybe there

42:01 ↗ won't be a lot of deep discussion but

42:03 ↗ maybe there will um we've had some good

42:05 ↗ discussions in the past so i think we'll

42:07 ↗ move on to 4b unless there's any reason

42:11 ↗ not to you ready for that stephen or

42:14 ↗ john i think john and isabel are going

42:15 ↗ to pronounce uh present on that

42:18 ↗ yes thank you cynthia and i will be

42:20 ↗ sharing my screen again

42:31 ↗ let me know if you can see uh the

42:33 ↗ presentation well

42:35 ↗ okay so also if i my voice is a little

42:38 ↗ bit

42:39 ↗ just low let me know you can just

42:41 ↗ interrupt me as well so tonight we will

42:44 ↗ be uh continuing our discussion of the

42:47 ↗ tip project review um i just like we did

42:51 ↗ on our last meeting i will be leading

42:54 ↗ the conversation and we will have uh

42:57 ↗ john martinson our transportation

42:59 ↗ engineering manager as a support uh if

43:02 ↗ any questions arise

43:07 ↗ so we will be

43:09 ↗ providing an overview

43:11 ↗ of the

43:12 ↗ the tip review timeline just like we did

43:15 ↗ the last time uh it

43:17 ↗ hasn't changed much but we will still

43:19 ↗ remind that about that uh tip review

43:23 ↗ we will provide a

43:25 ↗ review also of the proposed future

43:28 ↗ projects that we are including or the

43:31 ↗ remaining of the of our list where we

43:34 ↗ will go through the description

43:37 ↗ our goals their costs or proposed costs

43:41 ↗ and proposed changes

43:44 ↗ with the

43:46 ↗ feedback that we will be re

43:48 ↗ receiving from the board

43:51 ↗ will go around mainly these two

43:54 ↗ questions as a reminder

43:56 ↗ are the project goals being accomplished

43:58 ↗ with the proposed improvements

44:00 ↗ and what could we change

44:03 ↗ to make sure we accomplish these goals

44:05 ↗ or to better accomplish these goals and

44:08 ↗ of course we also welcome the board to

44:10 ↗ provide suggestions and project scope

44:12 ↗ changes as well

44:17 ↗ back in june we discussed the projects

44:20 ↗ underway in july we talked about

44:23 ↗ mandated and annual projects where we

44:25 ↗ discussed stress strategic small capital

44:28 ↗ improvement projects

44:30 ↗ tonight we will continue the discussion

44:33 ↗ of future projects

44:35 ↗ that we have started in our last meeting

44:37 ↗ and we had on our schedule for next

44:41 ↗ month

44:42 ↗ to hold for a final discussion but uh if

44:45 ↗ we feel like we have provided enough

44:47 ↗ feedback on this meeting we will

44:50 ↗ have our final discussion tonight and

44:53 ↗ because we have

44:54 ↗ a few items on the on our

44:58 ↗ work plan for next month's meeting

45:05 ↗ during our last meeting we received

45:07 ↗ feedback

45:09 ↗ on the first nine of these projects uh

45:13 ↗ we received the feedback on juniper

45:15 ↗ street improvements on three trails

45:18 ↗ crossing

45:19 ↗ on 56

45:21 ↗ bike lane

45:22 ↗ on tier one sidewalks

45:26 ↗ on gilman and third avenue shared use

45:29 ↗ path

45:32 ↗ 220th bike lanes on tier 2 sidewall gaps

45:40 ↗ sunset way multimodal improvements and

45:43 ↗ also on the re-striping of black nugget

45:47 ↗ here

45:48 ↗ so tonight we will be talking about

45:52 ↗ improvements

45:53 ↗ on the east side of

45:56 ↗ church and here

45:58 ↗ of 2nd avenue um sidewalk

46:02 ↗ we will talk about squawk quack mountain

46:06 ↗ uphill bike lane isa and sidewalk

46:09 ↗ we'll also discuss the front

46:12 ↗ street and douglas street improvements

46:14 ↗ project

46:17 ↗ we will talk about the west lakes and

46:19 ↗ amish parkway corridor improvements

46:21 ↗ project that run from 180 to 186

46:25 ↗ and

46:26 ↗ at the end we will bring back

46:30 ↗ juniper street improvements project for

46:32 ↗ discussion we will talk a little bit

46:34 ↗ more about why are we bringing it back

46:37 ↗ to the discussion

46:43 ↗ so first project that we will be

46:45 ↗ discussing is second avenue

46:48 ↗ second avenue sidewalk the goal for this

46:50 ↗ project is to create ada compliant

46:53 ↗ pedestrian routes to

46:55 ↗ issaquah high school and issaquah middle

46:57 ↗ school to complete

46:59 ↗ a sidewall gap creating continuous

47:02 ↗ sidewalk along the east side of the

47:04 ↗ roadway

47:06 ↗ it would include curb and gutter

47:08 ↗ landscaping and store improvements

47:11 ↗ and it would also eliminate the park

47:13 ↗ vehicles on pedestrian

47:15 ↗ on the pedestrian

47:16 ↗ path improving the visibility

47:19 ↗ on the crossings

47:21 ↗ this project will create a safe route to

47:23 ↗ school

47:25 ↗ the estimated cost is around three

47:27 ↗ hundred thousand dollars and for this

47:30 ↗ project we are not proposing

47:32 ↗ any changes

47:36 ↗ so if we

47:38 ↗ think about our goal

47:41 ↗ for this project to create

47:43 ↗ ada compliant pedestrian route to

47:46 ↗ issaquah high school and issaquah middle

47:48 ↗ school

47:50 ↗ do

47:51 ↗ does the board feel like we are

47:53 ↗ accomplishing our goal with this project

47:58 ↗ we i will open up for um

48:01 ↗ discussion and feedback from the board

48:19 ↗ or if there are any changes that we can

48:22 ↗ propose this is cynthia and i was just

48:23 ↗ gonna say that i'm wondering if this one

48:25 ↗ just feels like

48:27 ↗ um

48:28 ↗ pretty straightforward does everyone

48:30 ↗ we're not hearing a lot of discussion

48:31 ↗ i'm not seeing anything light up in the

48:33 ↗ chat um maybe just sort of some nods

48:37 ↗ if you think basically it just looks

48:39 ↗ good project it i'm looking right here

48:41 ↗ at the guiding principles

48:43 ↗ i mean it looks to me to be pretty

48:44 ↗ straightforward yeah

48:51 ↗ it feels like there's a clear

48:52 ↗ understanding

48:53 ↗ pretty often and that's uh it'd be good

48:55 ↗ to have that completed between the

48:56 ↗ sidewalk just before the ballpark the

48:59 ↗ high school ball field

49:00 ↗ but they did the improvements from the

49:02 ↗ building and connected back to the water

49:04 ↗ treatment plant

49:05 ↗ or the pump station that's just right by

49:07 ↗ the sidewalk there

49:09 ↗ that's good

49:11 ↗ could i add something um

49:14 ↗ when i was biking to the high school um

49:17 ↗ last year

49:19 ↗ i

49:20 ↗ i usually went on 2nd avenue but

49:23 ↗ i know that expenses but have there have

49:25 ↗ been thoughts to add

49:26 ↗ actual bike lanes along this

49:28 ↗ width of the

49:30 ↗ second avenue

49:32 ↗ not with this project what uh those the

49:35 ↗ main goal is to provide that ada

49:37 ↗ compliant and pedestrian route and not

49:40 ↗ bike lanes um to complete those

49:42 ↗ sidewalks

49:44 ↗ instead of having those those paths

49:49 ↗ yeah just

49:50 ↗ just for the future projects

49:58 ↗ is everybody comfortable moving on to

50:00 ↗ the next one

50:05 ↗ can i ask a quick question

50:09 ↗ um so this

50:11 ↗ sidewalk would be

50:13 ↗ uh as i see it

50:15 ↗ this sidewalk long second is all all

50:19 ↗ complete

50:20 ↗ to the issaquah

50:24 ↗ right there by the quahog ballpark so

50:26 ↗ this takes the sidewalk all the way down

50:29 ↗ to

50:30 ↗ front street

50:34 ↗ don't we well we can go back to the map

50:39 ↗ oh no i am not providing the map for

50:41 ↗ this one sorry about that um

50:44 ↗ but it would be like the limit would be

50:48 ↗ further a little bit further south than

50:53 ↗ uh was it france front street the the

50:56 ↗ road i think it's sunset because the

50:58 ↗ sunset

50:59 ↗ i think i know what you're talking about

51:00 ↗ david where the

51:02 ↗ the

51:04 ↗ little drainage strip and the sidewalk

51:06 ↗ that ends just by the high school ball

51:07 ↗ field yep

51:09 ↗ picks it up from there and takes it

51:10 ↗ south towards the pump station right to

51:13 ↗ the pump station okay which is front

51:15 ↗ street yeah okay got it

51:18 ↗ thank you

51:19 ↗ i

51:20 ↗ i would concur with the

51:23 ↗ completing that i think

51:24 ↗ that that um actually um

51:27 ↗ would uh bring us in line with our

51:31 ↗ transfer transportation improvement plan

51:34 ↗ uh

51:35 ↗ for that street

51:38 ↗ however

51:39 ↗ i know that on the other side of that

51:41 ↗ street by the bus garage there is no

51:43 ↗ sidewalk

51:44 ↗ the

51:46 ↗ sidewalk i think

51:47 ↗ only goes

51:49 ↗ uh and i know it's not part of this

51:52 ↗ but i i would concur

51:54 ↗ that that

51:55 ↗ sidewalk would uh complete the plan

52:00 ↗ yeah i think by the best part on the

52:02 ↗ opposite side of that pitcher

52:04 ↗ i'm looking at the left sidewalk that is

52:06 ↗ a continuous sidewalk where it goes up

52:08 ↗ and all the way up through

52:11 ↗ to

52:12 ↗ sunset street

52:14 ↗ they have the new path that goes down

52:15 ↗ from just on the other side of the bus

52:17 ↗ bar and the path that goes down to the

52:18 ↗ pathway

52:20 ↗ we think there's a gap in that sidewalk

52:24 ↗ yes you're you're correct thank you

52:27 ↗ [Music]

52:30 ↗ i think jerry also had a comment yeah

52:32 ↗ jerry

52:38 ↗ yes i just wanted to say on the west

52:40 ↗ side that there is that renier

52:42 ↗ trail

52:44 ↗ that takes you

52:45 ↗ to the high school and that goes from

52:47 ↗ the

52:48 ↗ um

52:49 ↗ the community

52:51 ↗ building

52:52 ↗ um

52:53 ↗ and so that's another access on the west

52:56 ↗ side so and i don't know as far as

52:59 ↗ transportation

53:01 ↗ improvements you consider the location

53:04 ↗ of trails so perhaps the east side

53:06 ↗ having the sidewalk makes sense

53:08 ↗ but the west side you do have that

53:11 ↗ rainier trail

53:13 ↗ so

53:15 ↗ that's that's my comment

53:21 ↗ is there any more questions or comments

53:27 ↗ and we can move on to the next one

53:32 ↗ so squat mountain uphill bike lane and

53:35 ↗ sidewalk so the goal for this project is

53:38 ↗ to improve multi-modal connectivity

53:41 ↗ safety and efficiency for all

53:43 ↗ users

53:45 ↗ this project would construct a 5-foot

53:48 ↗ bike lane

53:49 ↗ as described on the tip

53:54 ↗ along olympus olympus drive between

53:56 ↗ markham and south of fearwood or at six

53:59 ↗ feet sidewalks or

54:02 ↗ paved shoulder

54:04 ↗ the cost or the estimated cost for this

54:07 ↗ project ranges from 4

54:09 ↗ million to six million dollars

54:12 ↗ and the length of this project is

54:14 ↗ approximately four thousand feet

54:20 ↗ the

54:21 ↗ changes that we are proposing for this

54:23 ↗ project is that it would only include

54:26 ↗ or limit the widening to just five foot

54:30 ↗ width uh whitening

54:32 ↗ and the reason for that is because uh

54:35 ↗ it is a

54:36 ↗ very hilly road and to minimize the

54:39 ↗ impact

54:40 ↗ to the driveways that are on this area

54:43 ↗ and also to reduce the

54:46 ↗ to to try to keep the project costs

54:49 ↗ low

54:51 ↗ and maybe the way that we can accomplish

54:54 ↗ this is

54:55 ↗ just uh choosing but just providing the

54:59 ↗ wide shoulder or sidewalk instead of a

55:01 ↗ bike length

55:04 ↗ so that's the the

55:06 ↗ the change that we are proposing for

55:08 ↗ this project

55:09 ↗ um

55:10 ↗ but with this change that we are

55:13 ↗ proposing would we accomplish our goal

55:16 ↗ to support the board

55:17 ↗ feels like we are still accomplishing

55:19 ↗ our goal to improve multi-modal

55:21 ↗ connectivity

55:23 ↗ safety and efficiency of our root users

55:25 ↗ if we were

55:26 ↗ instead having a

55:29 ↗ a

55:30 ↗ shoulder

55:32 ↗ or sidewalk on this area

55:40 ↗ i could go ahead

55:42 ↗ yeah so do you have

55:45 ↗ any data on like

55:47 ↗ many people you would expect to use this

55:49 ↗ in these different scenarios

55:52 ↗ that's that's a lot of money from

55:56 ↗ i don't know i don't drive this road a

55:58 ↗ lot at all right

55:59 ↗ but from what i have i'm remembering it

56:02 ↗ correctly

56:04 ↗ not a ton of people i would be expecting

56:07 ↗ walking up and down and so

56:10 ↗ i i don't i i'd certainly favor the

56:13 ↗ proposal of having

56:14 ↗ a really good protected

56:17 ↗ shoulder

56:19 ↗ um but i i don't know like

56:22 ↗ who the potential users are how many

56:24 ↗ people will be using it i think it can

56:26 ↗ be more you know

56:28 ↗ predominantly people biking or walking

56:33 ↗ and then if there are any accessibility

56:36 ↗ issues

56:37 ↗ uh

56:38 ↗ if you do one versus the other

56:42 ↗ that is a very good comment micah and i

56:46 ↗ am not sure if studies have been done as

56:49 ↗ to the the the amount of users this will

56:53 ↗ this will be benefiting uh john do you

56:55 ↗ have an idea if that was that story was

56:58 ↗ done earlier no

57:00 ↗ yeah we don't have a study

57:02 ↗ what i can tell you is the anecdotal

57:05 ↗ evidence that

57:07 ↗ collected just talking to residents who

57:09 ↗ live up there in their frustrations with

57:11 ↗ not having a

57:13 ↗ a safe place to walk with their stroller

57:16 ↗ or

57:17 ↗ during coveted times just walk in their

57:19 ↗ neighborhood and when we updated the

57:22 ↗ transportation improvement program

57:24 ↗ last spring and this was uh

57:27 ↗ something that the council was very

57:29 ↗ interested in and trying to provide some

57:32 ↗ sort of non-motorized facility

57:34 ↗ for squawk and

57:37 ↗ i think it's from them hearing from

57:39 ↗ residents up there living up there

57:42 ↗ that this is a high priority

57:44 ↗ for

57:45 ↗ residents up there and it's

57:47 ↗ not necessarily trying to make big

57:50 ↗ connections it's more of being able to

57:52 ↗ walk to the neighborhood park walk to

57:54 ↗ your neighbor's house

57:56 ↗ that's where the interest lies from what

57:58 ↗ i can tell

58:02 ↗ thank you john

58:04 ↗ can you clarify what the limits of the

58:06 ↗ project organ

58:09 ↗ yeah they go from markham and

58:13 ↗ the

58:16 ↗ olympus

58:17 ↗ um sorry between markham and south of

58:20 ↗ fearwood

58:22 ↗ and i and we can go back to them for

58:25 ↗ this one we can go back to the map it's

58:29 ↗ along this

58:31 ↗ red line here

58:37 ↗ okay

58:38 ↗ i think the most crucial

58:40 ↗ aspect of

58:42 ↗ mount olympus

58:43 ↗ if the most uh the most focused of of

58:46 ↗ investments is definitely

58:49 ↗ the curve

58:50 ↗ uh at the end

58:52 ↗ you know forces begin up

58:54 ↗ towards the intersection of west sides

58:56 ↗ away in mount olympus there's that

58:58 ↗ invisible curve

59:00 ↗ which can really be quite dangerous or

59:03 ↗ both bikes

59:05 ↗ and

59:07 ↗ people

59:08 ↗ so

59:09 ↗ because the cars are just going right

59:10 ↗ there

59:11 ↗ so

59:13 ↗ i would

59:19 ↗ thank you julian

59:30 ↗ are there any

59:31 ↗ questions or comments feedback

59:34 ↗ yeah i guess i have another um

59:37 ↗ one so

59:39 ↗ is it like if we looked at several

59:41 ↗ options leaving it how it is having a

59:44 ↗ sidewalk and a bike lane having a

59:48 ↗ protected shoulder like with the

59:50 ↗ you know like a concrete you know give

59:53 ↗ you the end of a parking spot or those

59:54 ↗ concrete barriers

59:57 ↗ with if you only have one i'm assuming

59:59 ↗ people that are

1:00:01 ↗ biking

1:00:03 ↗ might share that

1:00:05 ↗ and going you know up and down hill with

1:00:07 ↗ that

1:00:08 ↗ uh and people walking there too

1:00:11 ↗ is that actually even safer than just

1:00:13 ↗ having a narrow median and people

1:00:16 ↗ thinking to be more aware

1:00:19 ↗ does it actually achieve any sort of a

1:00:21 ↗ safety objective

1:00:23 ↗ or does it really have to be a separate

1:00:25 ↗ sidewalk and bike lane for it to be

1:00:27 ↗ meaningfully safer than

1:00:29 ↗ the current

1:00:31 ↗ road

1:00:35 ↗ so you were asking if it would be a wide

1:00:37 ↗ shoulder or sidewalk would be uh

1:00:39 ↗ shoulder would be safer than the

1:00:41 ↗ sidewalk considering it's a

1:00:44 ↗ hill

1:00:46 ↗ yes and that's

1:00:47 ↗ basically the reason why we are

1:00:49 ↗ including it uphill because then

1:00:52 ↗ downhill uh the speeds of the

1:00:55 ↗ bicycles would be

1:00:57 ↗ they could go

1:00:58 ↗ better

1:00:59 ↗ with the travel lanes

1:01:01 ↗ but if we are

1:01:04 ↗ um

1:01:04 ↗ [Music]

1:01:06 ↗ considering the wide shoulder we will

1:01:08 ↗ also include some

1:01:11 ↗ type of

1:01:12 ↗ devices that would protect the

1:01:15 ↗ the bicycle lanes might not be as the

1:01:18 ↗ same as

1:01:20 ↗ having a sidewalk but we

1:01:22 ↗ are

1:01:23 ↗ we have been thinking about maybe

1:01:25 ↗ providing uh some extruded curves or

1:01:28 ↗ delineators that would

1:01:31 ↗ provide this uh protection

1:01:33 ↗ level of protection to to

1:01:36 ↗ the bicyclists and for pedestrians

1:01:39 ↗ okay i think i do like that that option

1:01:41 ↗ then

1:01:48 ↗ we don't have any more

1:01:50 ↗ comments

1:01:53 ↗ uh it looks like after me jerry um i

1:01:55 ↗ just wanted to say that i think that

1:01:58 ↗ um

1:02:00 ↗ having a

1:02:01 ↗ an uphill

1:02:03 ↗ i like the idea of trying to turn the

1:02:05 ↗ costs

1:02:07 ↗ um kind of for the reasons that mica was

1:02:09 ↗ suggesting

1:02:11 ↗ but i also like the idea of focusing on

1:02:13 ↗ an uphill bike lane

1:02:15 ↗ and

1:02:16 ↗ people are getting more and more

1:02:17 ↗ e-assist bikes so it's not it wouldn't

1:02:20 ↗ be um

1:02:22 ↗ surprising to see more people attempting

1:02:25 ↗ to

1:02:26 ↗ ride this and if i'm not mistaken it

1:02:28 ↗ does come up from

1:02:30 ↗ would that be 12th so it's not really

1:02:32 ↗ that far from the major transit center

1:02:35 ↗ and so that's conceivable to me that

1:02:36 ↗ this could be increased demand and this

1:02:39 ↗ might even stimulate use

1:02:41 ↗ um and then when people are descending

1:02:43 ↗ typically if you're willing to descend a

1:02:44 ↗ hill like this you're going to be going

1:02:46 ↗ in the lane of traffic and you don't

1:02:48 ↗ need

1:02:49 ↗ um

1:02:50 ↗ the lane going the other way so i'm in

1:02:52 ↗ favor of what i'm seeing on my screen

1:02:54 ↗ here conceptually and i just wanted to

1:02:56 ↗ share that

1:02:57 ↗ and uh jerry's next thanks

1:03:04 ↗ okay uh i wasn't thinking about e-bikes

1:03:07 ↗ at all but

1:03:09 ↗ i i was thinking about what the use is

1:03:12 ↗ because i done hikes in that area

1:03:14 ↗ especially during covet i've walked up

1:03:17 ↗ the hill i have never attempted it with

1:03:19 ↗ my bike

1:03:20 ↗ i did once and it

1:03:22 ↗ didn't work out very well

1:03:24 ↗ but what i was thinking about was this

1:03:28 ↗ it's kind of nice for pedestrians to

1:03:31 ↗ have that pedestal uh that protect

1:03:33 ↗ protected

1:03:35 ↗ walkway with the curb

1:03:37 ↗ on both sides

1:03:39 ↗ and so

1:03:40 ↗ my thought was is

1:03:43 ↗ why not have you know that six foot

1:03:46 ↗ sidewalk on both sides and not

1:03:50 ↗ have the bike lane and if

1:03:53 ↗ bicyclists are uncomfortable

1:03:57 ↗ with being in the road

1:03:59 ↗ couldn't they ride on the sidewalk

1:04:03 ↗ um

1:04:04 ↗ that was my thought and then if they

1:04:06 ↗ were comfortable on the road especially

1:04:08 ↗ like what cynthia was saying going

1:04:10 ↗ downhill they could definitely

1:04:13 ↗ be in the car lane but going uphill

1:04:17 ↗ you know

1:04:18 ↗ um recognizing that bicyclists have to

1:04:20 ↗ be respectful of the pedestrians

1:04:23 ↗ and be be careful but

1:04:26 ↗ for me as a bicyclist sometimes just

1:04:29 ↗ riding on the sidewalk is pretty safe

1:04:32 ↗ going uphill

1:04:33 ↗ and i'm comfortable doing that

1:04:35 ↗ especially when there aren't too many

1:04:36 ↗ people up there anyway

1:04:38 ↗ and so even if you install the sidewalk

1:04:42 ↗ um i don't think it's going to have

1:04:45 ↗ a crowded use like you would in downtown

1:04:48 ↗ seattle so

1:04:50 ↗ like even uh walking around on the

1:04:52 ↗ juniper trail

1:04:54 ↗ um there's

1:04:56 ↗ there's some pedestrians and so if you

1:04:59 ↗ ride your bike along it's very easy to

1:05:01 ↗ be careful so

1:05:03 ↗ i'm just wondering why people don't

1:05:05 ↗ think about just putting in the

1:05:07 ↗ sidewalks

1:05:08 ↗ on both sides and then if the bicyclist

1:05:11 ↗ wants to use it six feet is certainly

1:05:14 ↗ wide enough that they could

1:05:16 ↗ but maybe that's not per standard and

1:05:19 ↗ so that was just a thought

1:05:24 ↗ yes five five feet would allow us to

1:05:27 ↗ provide a facility in one direction of

1:05:30 ↗ the road if we were um including on both

1:05:33 ↗ directions of the road then we would

1:05:35 ↗ have to certainly increase the widening

1:05:45 ↗ what i was saying is not have a bike

1:05:46 ↗ lane at all just have the

1:05:48 ↗ sidewalks that's what i was trying to

1:05:50 ↗ say did i not say that

1:05:53 ↗ no yes but uh yeah i thought i thought

1:05:55 ↗ the uh it was the two directions on two

1:05:57 ↗ directions on the two directions of the

1:05:59 ↗ road

1:06:02 ↗ one thing i do want to sidewalks on both

1:06:04 ↗ directions no bike

1:06:10 ↗ one thing i do want to add to clarify is

1:06:12 ↗ that four to six million dollar cost

1:06:15 ↗ estimate was only to widen on one side

1:06:18 ↗ it didn't include widening on the other

1:06:20 ↗ side and so it's

1:06:23 ↗ four to six million dollars buys us

1:06:25 ↗ five feet

1:06:27 ↗ on the uphill side

1:06:28 ↗ but it doesn't buy us anything on the

1:06:30 ↗ downhill side

1:06:37 ↗ is

1:06:39 ↗ how much is any of that four million

1:06:41 ↗ dollars purchasing

1:06:43 ↗ property

1:06:46 ↗ like purchasing parts people pro

1:06:48 ↗ people's property to widen the road

1:06:50 ↗ i don't think so i'd have to go back and

1:06:53 ↗ look at this man we had it done

1:06:55 ↗ about a year ago

1:06:58 ↗ but i don't think it included right away

1:07:00 ↗ which because i think if i remember

1:07:02 ↗ right we do have plenty of right-of-way

1:07:04 ↗ but

1:07:05 ↗ it's just a matter of we're more

1:07:07 ↗ constrained by the topography

1:07:12 ↗ who comment uh i used to live off that

1:07:14 ↗ street and so i used to train on the

1:07:17 ↗ street for riding the ramrod right

1:07:19 ↗ around we're near one day so

1:07:21 ↗ when you're riding up a hill you're

1:07:22 ↗ going very slow

1:07:24 ↗ and to me it's unsafe to be on a

1:07:26 ↗ sidewalk because a little bit wobbly and

1:07:28 ↗ then you go off the curve and then

1:07:29 ↗ you're toast into lane so

1:07:31 ↗ it's nicer to have and i feel safer to

1:07:34 ↗ have a bike lane going uphill

1:07:37 ↗ downhill you're going a lot faster

1:07:38 ↗ you're more observant you're looking

1:07:39 ↗ around or uphill you're just kind of

1:07:41 ↗ looking at the front tire occasionally

1:07:43 ↗ up

1:07:44 ↗ um

1:07:45 ↗ and from tibbetts ball field i don't

1:07:46 ↗ know if there's a bike lane that goes up

1:07:49 ↗ there's the sidewalk that's on the

1:07:51 ↗ west side as you go up from the tips

1:07:52 ↗ ball field up to where the apartments

1:07:53 ↗ are just past the foothills of this

1:07:55 ↗ squad and then there's nothing from

1:07:57 ↗ where this would pick up

1:07:59 ↗ so i would think you would continue the

1:08:01 ↗ sidewalk on the west side as you go up

1:08:03 ↗ to the top

1:08:04 ↗ and then once you get to the top would

1:08:06 ↗ you transfer the sidewalk to the other

1:08:07 ↗ side because that's a continuous

1:08:08 ↗ movement to the right where this would

1:08:10 ↗ continue

1:08:12 ↗ but i think if you have a sidewalk on

1:08:13 ↗ one side and the uphill bike lane

1:08:16 ↗ whether on the same side or opposite

1:08:18 ↗ sides

1:08:18 ↗ but i think you'd need a uphill bike

1:08:20 ↗ lane all the way and then probably one

1:08:22 ↗ sidewalk on the other side would

1:08:25 ↗ probably work but you do have that

1:08:26 ↗ transition point where you're going up

1:08:28 ↗ where it transitions from the

1:08:31 ↗ initial street from tibbetts up to the

1:08:34 ↗ really really steep piece before the

1:08:36 ↗ road continues to the right and then

1:08:37 ↗ continues up towards mountain view drive

1:08:41 ↗ and so with this project would that also

1:08:44 ↗ add a

1:08:45 ↗ bike striped bike lane from

1:08:48 ↗ tibbetts ball field up to where it would

1:08:50 ↗ connect on the upper

1:08:56 ↗ on the upper side

1:09:00 ↗ right now what we're just talking about

1:09:02 ↗ is

1:09:05 ↗ whether it's a

1:09:07 ↗ sidewalk or

1:09:08 ↗ like a curb protected sidewalk bike area

1:09:12 ↗ just

1:09:13 ↗ five feet from where the sidewalk ends

1:09:15 ↗ with it

1:09:17 ↗ and i guess we could talk about it the

1:09:19 ↗ priority is to widen it more than in

1:09:22 ↗ order to include about cycling

1:09:24 ↗ which is not what we originally

1:09:27 ↗ were looking at with the four to six

1:09:29 ↗ million but then we also get into a lot

1:09:31 ↗ of the challenges with trying to tie

1:09:32 ↗ into the driveways

1:09:34 ↗ and

1:09:35 ↗ costs start skyrocketing and

1:09:38 ↗ this is really just more of a

1:09:41 ↗ it's not the ideal solution for the

1:09:43 ↗ non-motorized but it's taking in account

1:09:46 ↗ that

1:09:47 ↗ from what we've heard the residents of

1:09:49 ↗ they really would like some sort of way

1:09:51 ↗ to get places without having to drive

1:09:53 ↗ their cars

1:10:00 ↗ don't you are muted i think julian had a

1:10:03 ↗ comment

1:10:04 ↗ and then maybe

1:10:06 ↗ my last this will tie into the existing

1:10:08 ↗ sidebar that's already up on top that

1:10:10 ↗ comes around they've been building over

1:10:11 ↗ the last couple years right okay

1:10:15 ↗ i wanted to concur with the top

1:10:18 ↗ with the need for the bike lane uphill

1:10:20 ↗ bike lane

1:10:21 ↗ especially

1:10:23 ↗ around that bend right before the west

1:10:25 ↗ sunset uh intersection

1:10:28 ↗ because

1:10:29 ↗ and i think there needs to be some

1:10:30 ↗ visibility improvements there as well

1:10:32 ↗ because i tend to

1:10:34 ↗ go to the middle of the road just to

1:10:36 ↗ make sure

1:10:37 ↗ uh you know the car can see me as

1:10:39 ↗ they're making that bend um

1:10:42 ↗ so there definitely needs to be some

1:10:44 ↗ visibility improvements there and a lot

1:10:46 ↗ of focus should happen at that bend

1:10:48 ↗ of both pedestrian safety and bike

1:10:51 ↗ safety that's all i have to say

1:10:56 ↗ so having her name from janie sujata

1:10:59 ↗ joseph what do you say

1:11:02 ↗ or david

1:11:04 ↗ you guys have any comments about this or

1:11:05 ↗ any questions i'm not sure we're all

1:11:07 ↗ totally clear on

1:11:09 ↗ the relationship between the budget and

1:11:11 ↗ this picture we're seeing on our screen

1:11:18 ↗ i don't know if i'm speaking for anyone

1:11:21 ↗ maybe i should just say that's i'm i'm a

1:11:22 ↗ little confused i'm not sure if anyone

1:11:23 ↗ else is but i'd also like to hear from

1:11:25 ↗ some people we haven't heard from

1:11:28 ↗ yeah thanks um cynthia yeah um well one

1:11:31 ↗ i don't know the area enough to really

1:11:32 ↗ comment on the design but

1:11:34 ↗ um from a yeah from a budget to

1:11:37 ↗ improvement perspective i think i i

1:11:39 ↗ agree with cynthia i'm a little

1:11:42 ↗ uncertain about

1:11:44 ↗ um

1:11:45 ↗ you know is it like we're pushing out

1:11:46 ↗ the road and adding asphalt and then

1:11:50 ↗ creating the sidewalk design or i guess

1:11:52 ↗ i'm just a little confused about um what

1:11:54 ↗ the

1:11:55 ↗ end point would look like um

1:11:58 ↗ so

1:12:00 ↗ um some clarity around that maybe it

1:12:02 ↗ would have been helpful yes it

1:12:04 ↗ originally was to include a full bike

1:12:06 ↗ lane um and sidewalk but then with our

1:12:11 ↗ without the changes that we are

1:12:12 ↗ proposing to try to keep the wide range

1:12:16 ↗ smaller

1:12:17 ↗ then we are that's when we are proposing

1:12:20 ↗ like a combination of shoulder

1:12:23 ↗ and

1:12:24 ↗ path

1:12:25 ↗ or just the sidewalk so that

1:12:27 ↗ both

1:12:29 ↗ the bicyclists and pedestrians can share

1:12:31 ↗ the facility instead of having the

1:12:34 ↗ separate bike lanes and sidewalk

1:12:43 ↗ joseph had a comment but i just want to

1:12:45 ↗ make sure to

1:12:46 ↗ real quick on what you're saying isabel

1:12:48 ↗ but it is both sides the four to six

1:12:50 ↗ million dollars is

1:12:52 ↗ is both the sidewalk on one side and the

1:12:53 ↗ bike lane on the other no no sorry uh

1:12:56 ↗ the i think i think the confusion comes

1:12:58 ↗ because the cross section is showing

1:13:00 ↗ both uh

1:13:02 ↗ on both sides but it it's still one side

1:13:05 ↗ of the road

1:13:07 ↗ um it

1:13:08 ↗ the original was a bike lane and a

1:13:10 ↗ sidewalk on only the

1:13:12 ↗ uphill side of the road

1:13:15 ↗ and the changes to reduce that by uh

1:13:18 ↗ having a

1:13:20 ↗ shared path or sidewalk

1:13:24 ↗ only on the uphill side yes

1:13:26 ↗ okay i think it is confusing because

1:13:29 ↗ we're showing

1:13:30 ↗ i thought four to six million dollars

1:13:32 ↗ bought us something in the concept of

1:13:34 ↗ what's on the screen

1:13:36 ↗ did anyone else think that

1:13:44 ↗ anything against cynthia

1:13:47 ↗ so

1:13:49 ↗ uh i

1:13:51 ↗ am saying that the four to six million

1:13:53 ↗ dollars

1:13:55 ↗ i thought bought us

1:13:57 ↗ what is conceptually on the screen on

1:14:00 ↗ the powerpoint on the lower right hand

1:14:03 ↗ side

1:14:04 ↗ the cross section as she mentioned

1:14:06 ↗ which would have a facility on both

1:14:08 ↗ sides

1:14:09 ↗ but i thought the reduction

1:14:12 ↗ was to just go from five to six feet

1:14:15 ↗ i didn't know it was going from two

1:14:17 ↗ sides to one side

1:14:20 ↗ so maybe we can get clarification from

1:14:22 ↗ israel i think that's what you just said

1:14:24 ↗ it is not actually to go

1:14:26 ↗ the one we're looking at on the screen

1:14:28 ↗ is what it was and now you're proposing

1:14:30 ↗ that it be just one side and just a

1:14:33 ↗ paved surface no sidewalk and only on

1:14:35 ↗ one side

1:14:38 ↗ yes and about two figures it looks like

1:14:40 ↗ they're dropping a total of 11 feet so

1:14:42 ↗ one bike lane and one sidewalk from one

1:14:44 ↗ side so that we just have one bike plane

1:14:47 ↗ and one sidewalk total as opposed to two

1:14:48 ↗ bike lanes and two sidewalks between the

1:14:50 ↗ previous slide

1:14:57 ↗ cynthia i understood it to be

1:14:59 ↗ just what tom just said sidewalk on one

1:15:01 ↗ side the bike lane on the other side

1:15:04 ↗ uh two

1:15:05 ↗ ten foot lanes

1:15:07 ↗ uh that would be what the four to six

1:15:10 ↗ million dollars would purchase

1:15:12 ↗ and about the cost i will have john

1:15:15 ↗ confirmed that if

1:15:17 ↗ that because this is my understanding

1:15:19 ↗ that the cost would include the both the

1:15:22 ↗ bike lane and the sidewalk or was it

1:15:24 ↗ just including the the one

1:15:27 ↗ um

1:15:28 ↗ shoulder combination shoulder

1:15:31 ↗ and pass cost was just to widen on one

1:15:33 ↗ side and

1:15:36 ↗ five feet

1:15:37 ↗ and so what happened is about a year ago

1:15:39 ↗ we hired a consultant to update some of

1:15:42 ↗ our cost estimates

1:15:44 ↗ based on the descriptions that we had in

1:15:46 ↗ the tip

1:15:48 ↗ and this is one of them and

1:15:50 ↗ they first started out by doing site

1:15:52 ↗ visits and they went and drove this

1:15:54 ↗ project and they looked at it

1:15:56 ↗ and before they went penciled out what

1:15:59 ↗ was in the tip which included

1:16:01 ↗ bike lane and sidewalk

1:16:04 ↗ they

1:16:05 ↗ basically said it would be really

1:16:06 ↗ infeasible with the

1:16:08 ↗ topography and the costs

1:16:10 ↗ and so we priced it out with it just

1:16:13 ↗ widening five feet on one side in order

1:16:16 ↗ to try and provide a little bit of

1:16:18 ↗ non-motorized space and that's where we

1:16:20 ↗ came up with the four to six million and

1:16:22 ↗ apologize for any misc

1:16:24 ↗ communication on that one

1:16:31 ↗ yeah so

1:16:32 ↗ he's like not having this uh sidewalk at

1:16:35 ↗ all if we would keep uh this uphill

1:16:38 ↗ thinking this is the uphill direction uh

1:16:41 ↗ as a bike lane or path

1:16:47 ↗ so i do want to respect that joseph has

1:16:49 ↗ uh put a comment in a couple minutes ago

1:16:50 ↗ that he has a comment um

1:16:53 ↗ but i am going to suggest

1:16:55 ↗ that maybe we i don't know what we're

1:16:57 ↗ going to do for october if we're going

1:16:58 ↗ to get through everything else but i do

1:17:00 ↗ feel like we need to see

1:17:03 ↗ what

1:17:04 ↗ we need a better representation

1:17:06 ↗ of what you're proposing to do with the

1:17:08 ↗ four to six because this is really

1:17:09 ↗ confusing

1:17:12 ↗ from what john's just saying to what i'm

1:17:14 ↗ looking at don't sound like the same

1:17:16 ↗ thing

1:17:21 ↗ um

1:17:28 ↗ yes and i i was confused as to what side

1:17:30 ↗ the bike lane was on too so i must have

1:17:34 ↗ missed that it was on the uphill side

1:17:39 ↗ all right let's go to joseph and then

1:17:40 ↗ let's go back to staff and then maybe

1:17:42 ↗ you can clarify

1:17:45 ↗ uh yeah um i guess i have a really quick

1:17:48 ↗ like comment but like i guess like sort

1:17:51 ↗ of similar to what sujata said like i

1:17:53 ↗ guess i don't like know a lot about this

1:17:56 ↗ particular area to comment but based on

1:17:58 ↗ like what i'm saying

1:18:00 ↗ i think that it's a good proposal but

1:18:03 ↗ maybe i guess

1:18:05 ↗ it could be a good idea to um

1:18:08 ↗ make it a protected bike lane since like

1:18:11 ↗ it's sort of based on this picture seems

1:18:13 ↗ like

1:18:14 ↗ a sort of windy road but if that doesn't

1:18:16 ↗ fit the budget then i guess it's fine

1:18:28 ↗ now

1:18:29 ↗ i was looking at it a little bit more

1:18:31 ↗ and

1:18:32 ↗ i know we've got a busy october but

1:18:34 ↗ maybe we can

1:18:35 ↗ briefly revisit this project because i

1:18:37 ↗ was looking at it on street view

1:18:39 ↗ our budget includes widening it by five

1:18:42 ↗ five feet there is some existing

1:18:44 ↗ shoulder and what we could do is look

1:18:47 ↗ into

1:18:48 ↗ is it feasible to

1:18:50 ↗ widen the road by five feet and then

1:18:53 ↗ with re-striping the channelization

1:18:56 ↗ put in

1:18:57 ↗ a bike lane and have that be as the

1:19:01 ↗ the final product but i want to make

1:19:03 ↗ sure that we can do that

1:19:05 ↗ because it sounds like the tabs

1:19:06 ↗ preference would be to have a sidewalk

1:19:09 ↗ and a bike lane if we can fit it in

1:19:11 ↗ there and we can look a little bit more

1:19:13 ↗ carefully and come back to you

1:19:16 ↗ john i think that maybe a good place to

1:19:17 ↗ start is to make sure it's crystal clear

1:19:19 ↗ what you originally were recommending

1:19:21 ↗ because

1:19:22 ↗ what i'm hearing that you're

1:19:24 ↗ recommending is not the same as what is

1:19:26 ↗ showing on this slide

1:19:27 ↗ so you may or may not need to revisit it

1:19:30 ↗ you may just need to re-present it but

1:19:32 ↗ let's at least start with presenting

1:19:33 ↗ what you had in mind

1:19:35 ↗ unless correct me if i'm wrong we

1:19:37 ↗ wouldn't be putting a sidewalk and a

1:19:39 ↗ bike lane that's 11 feet

1:19:42 ↗ and so i don't know why this picture is

1:19:43 ↗ here

1:19:46 ↗ and i uh i mean you guys are work really

1:19:48 ↗ hard and you're very busy and uh and i

1:19:50 ↗ understand i'm not trying to criticize

1:19:52 ↗ but i just think that's confusing unless

1:19:54 ↗ i'm confused

1:19:56 ↗ it sounds like

1:19:58 ↗ you don't have in the budget to widen 11

1:20:01 ↗ feet but that's what you're showing in

1:20:02 ↗ the picture so maybe just get a little

1:20:03 ↗ bit better

1:20:05 ↗ clarity on what you originally

1:20:07 ↗ recommended

1:20:09 ↗ and we can react to that because i think

1:20:11 ↗ we're

1:20:11 ↗ we're doing two things at once which is

1:20:13 ↗ trying to understand what you mean

1:20:15 ↗ and then also trying to tell you what we

1:20:16 ↗ think and those are getting muddled

1:20:20 ↗ sounds good

1:20:22 ↗ so question if you go to the slide

1:20:23 ↗ previously does it show

1:20:25 ↗ with the original one because on the web

1:20:27 ↗ page it has the

1:20:29 ↗ uh both bikes and pedestrians but the

1:20:32 ↗ second page has the same graphic as

1:20:33 ↗ opposed to this as the different graphic

1:20:35 ↗ with uh no i think it has yeah the same

1:20:38 ↗ section and the section is mis

1:20:40 ↗ representing the

1:20:41 ↗ the

1:20:43 ↗ the

1:20:44 ↗ the original concept and we apologize

1:20:46 ↗ for that

1:20:50 ↗ so we don't have a picture of what was

1:20:52 ↗ being proposed with the change i'm not

1:20:55 ↗ sure that we

1:20:57 ↗ i think

1:20:58 ↗ if we know it's actually being proposed

1:21:00 ↗ we know a little bit more about what the

1:21:01 ↗ intersect about the road looks like and

1:21:03 ↗ to your point john there may be a middle

1:21:05 ↗ ground but i think we we just are a

1:21:07 ↗ little in the dark because we don't have

1:21:09 ↗ a

1:21:10 ↗ conceptual just drawing of what you're

1:21:12 ↗ proposing i don't think

1:21:17 ↗ okay

1:21:17 ↗ yeah we'll come back

1:21:19 ↗ and clean it up a little bit

1:21:22 ↗ yes we'll bring back the um

1:21:26 ↗ the corrected section for this project

1:21:29 ↗ we're very literal you stick a drawing

1:21:31 ↗ in front of us we're gonna think that's

1:21:32 ↗ what you mean

1:21:34 ↗ like that that makes sense that makes uh

1:21:38 ↗ a lot of sense cynthia

1:21:40 ↗ yeah and based on the feedback that we

1:21:42 ↗ got when we updated the tip i think it's

1:21:45 ↗ worthwhile taking a little bit of extra

1:21:47 ↗ time on this one because

1:21:49 ↗ i

1:21:50 ↗ the sense i got is that the squawk

1:21:52 ↗ neighborhood really values trying to get

1:21:55 ↗ some non-motorized improvements up

1:22:04 ↗ do we have any more comments or

1:22:06 ↗ questions on this before

1:22:09 ↗ we move to the next

1:22:14 ↗ i i have a lot of comments to make on

1:22:16 ↗ this but i'm not going to use it tonight

1:22:19 ↗ i drove school bus

1:22:21 ↗ on that very section of road for

1:22:25 ↗ two years

1:22:26 ↗ uh with kids out as a qua valley so i

1:22:28 ↗ have a lot of comments to make

1:22:31 ↗ and

1:22:32 ↗ i can tell you right off the top i'm all

1:22:34 ↗ in favor of a sidewalk being in there

1:22:43 ↗ thank you david

1:22:48 ↗ so i'm gonna move on to the next project

1:22:54 ↗ so front street and dogwood intersection

1:22:58 ↗ the goal for this project is to improve

1:23:00 ↗ railway safety what we are

1:23:03 ↗ proposing for this project is to design

1:23:06 ↗ and construct intersection realignment

1:23:09 ↗ improvements and we will be

1:23:12 ↗ also including resurfacing the street

1:23:14 ↗ urban gutter sidewalk drainage utility

1:23:18 ↗ adjustments

1:23:20 ↗ new street light and traffic signal and

1:23:23 ↗ this project would also include a

1:23:25 ↗ southbound right term pocket

1:23:28 ↗ the co the project cost is estimated in

1:23:31 ↗ four

1:23:32 ↗ million dollars

1:23:34 ↗ and

1:23:35 ↗ the change the

1:23:36 ↗ first i would go

1:23:38 ↗ to the original uh what we are proposing

1:23:41 ↗ we were proposing is

1:23:43 ↗ the changes that

1:23:45 ↗ to change the description to include the

1:23:47 ↗ evaluation of a pedestrian scramble

1:23:50 ↗ crosswalk like the one that was recently

1:23:53 ↗ installed in gilman and juniper

1:23:56 ↗ and this is

1:23:57 ↗ the change that we

1:23:59 ↗ were proposing

1:24:01 ↗ um but

1:24:02 ↗ but now we

1:24:04 ↗ we are asking that

1:24:07 ↗ the the board

1:24:09 ↗ if

1:24:10 ↗ this type of project would be worth

1:24:13 ↗ redefining as a planning project instead

1:24:16 ↗ with the transportation concurrency

1:24:19 ↗ being updated and the

1:24:21 ↗ turning lane that we are adding it seems

1:24:24 ↗ like this project would turn into a

1:24:26 ↗ capacity project and

1:24:28 ↗ maybe um evaluating doing more uh

1:24:33 ↗ evaluation of the impacts of this

1:24:36 ↗ pedestrian

1:24:37 ↗ scrum idea of having the pedestrian

1:24:40 ↗ scramble at this intersection

1:24:43 ↗ we

1:24:45 ↗ are proposing to evaluate these

1:24:48 ↗ changes

1:24:50 ↗ better or planning better for these

1:24:53 ↗ changes before

1:24:56 ↗ proposing to construct them

1:25:02 ↗ kind of

1:25:03 ↗ oh i'm sorry

1:25:04 ↗ um i was just going to say also with our

1:25:08 ↗ knowledge of our lessons learned with

1:25:10 ↗ the other pedestrian scramble that we

1:25:12 ↗ have done at juniper or three trails

1:25:15 ↗ crossing

1:25:20 ↗ so my comment is

1:25:21 ↗ um

1:25:22 ↗ at the other one that's on gilman

1:25:23 ↗ boulevard a lot of the crossing is

1:25:26 ↗ major traffic is this way and the

1:25:28 ↗ crossing is going

1:25:30 ↗ this way

1:25:31 ↗ for a continuation of the trail

1:25:33 ↗ on this one the majority of people are

1:25:35 ↗ walking up and down

1:25:36 ↗ front street and occasionally you get a

1:25:38 ↗ crossing uh so i think

1:25:41 ↗ the majority of the pedestrian crossings

1:25:44 ↗ should be synced with the lights

1:25:46 ↗ um i think you have all weight crossing

1:25:49 ↗ it's too much downtime from the traffic

1:25:52 ↗ side

1:25:53 ↗ for not that many people are going to be

1:25:54 ↗ crossing most of them will be crossing

1:25:56 ↗ with the flow of the light

1:25:59 ↗ and then the other thing is

1:26:00 ↗ rather than having yet another signal in

1:26:02 ↗ town because we put a roundabout there

1:26:04 ↗ i all five streets into a roundabout i

1:26:07 ↗ threw it up but i can't seem to paste it

1:26:08 ↗ into the chat so

1:26:11 ↗ build it fit something in there or

1:26:14 ↗ just so we don't have another light but

1:26:16 ↗ as far as the

1:26:17 ↗ the pedestrians and the lights they

1:26:18 ↗ should be synced in the pattern of the

1:26:20 ↗ traffic flow i think rather than a

1:26:22 ↗ scramble

1:26:24 ↗ yeah those are things that we could

1:26:25 ↗ evaluate if we uh

1:26:28 ↗ uh

1:26:29 ↗ like really find this project uh

1:26:32 ↗ kind of plan

1:26:34 ↗ it a little bit more and

1:26:37 ↗ doing some

1:26:38 ↗ studies on an intersection control that

1:26:41 ↗ would evaluate intersection control as

1:26:43 ↗ well

1:26:48 ↗ david

1:26:50 ↗ thanks uh

1:26:52 ↗ three quick comments one is

1:26:55 ↗ this is a huge

1:26:58 ↗ um

1:26:59 ↗ traffic issue for downtown issaquah

1:27:03 ↗ not so much in the morning on the

1:27:04 ↗ commute but the afternoon commute it's

1:27:07 ↗ terrible

1:27:08 ↗ uh i really like the idea of the

1:27:11 ↗ scramble

1:27:12 ↗ with uh one light going

1:27:15 ↗ when you come off that rainier trail and

1:27:18 ↗ they cross the street to dogwood

1:27:23 ↗ it's

1:27:25 ↗ really

1:27:27 ↗ dangerous for anybody who's going

1:27:30 ↗ eastbound on dogwood

1:27:32 ↗ trying to make a left or a right onto

1:27:35 ↗ front street

1:27:40 ↗ mostly during the

1:27:43 ↗ commute hours

1:27:45 ↗ you barely can't do it yeah you almost

1:27:48 ↗ can't do it the only way you can make a

1:27:51 ↗ left and or right is if they push that

1:27:55 ↗ um

1:27:57 ↗ pedestrian cross uh that that shuts the

1:28:01 ↗ traffic going north and south on front

1:28:04 ↗ street

1:28:06 ↗ so you you can

1:28:08 ↗ gather 11. so if they can put a light in

1:28:11 ↗ there and the scramble crosswalk i can

1:28:14 ↗ tell you i think it's going to be a

1:28:16 ↗ wonderful addition it's not going to be

1:28:19 ↗ popular for the folks going north and

1:28:21 ↗ south on front street

1:28:23 ↗ but it's going to save

1:28:25 ↗ any future

1:28:26 ↗ [Music]

1:28:27 ↗ accidents

1:28:28 ↗ for those left turners and those

1:28:30 ↗ right-turners

1:28:31 ↗ coming out of dogwood

1:28:33 ↗ trying to turn north or south

1:28:38 ↗ thanks david christie

1:28:42 ↗ thanks cynthia um like tom i agree i

1:28:46 ↗ wondered about a walk around about and

1:28:49 ↗ um like david i also agreed that the

1:28:53 ↗ intersection is a bit sketch

1:28:55 ↗ i would

1:28:56 ↗ really like to see this evaluated

1:28:59 ↗ further and included in the

1:29:00 ↗ transportation concurrency because i

1:29:02 ↗ think there are a lot of competing

1:29:05 ↗ priorities for this intersection so be

1:29:07 ↗ good to kind of understand all the

1:29:09 ↗ nuances of that

1:29:11 ↗ from the city's perspective

1:29:19 ↗ thanks christie i'll just say real quick

1:29:20 ↗ i uh concur the thing about us uh maybe

1:29:23 ↗ like a modified scramble the trick is

1:29:25 ↗ when you're going east to west

1:29:27 ↗ um you get caught up in rainier if

1:29:29 ↗ you're coming off the trail trying to

1:29:31 ↗ get across front then you've got to deal

1:29:33 ↗ with rainier there's no easy way and

1:29:34 ↗ there's a lot of bicycle traffic there

1:29:36 ↗ as well so um maybe like a modified

1:29:38 ↗ scramble that just

1:29:40 ↗ when you're going east west and i'm not

1:29:42 ↗ saying that's the answer but um it would

1:29:44 ↗ be good if we're going to do a study to

1:29:46 ↗ make sure the scope of the study

1:29:48 ↗ includes

1:29:49 ↗ evaluating ways to take the best of what

1:29:52 ↗ a scramble can offer but then um

1:29:56 ↗ just i guess really just make sure that

1:29:58 ↗ this any kind of crossing

1:30:00 ↗ is looked at holistically with rainier

1:30:02 ↗ because you get across front street with

1:30:04 ↗ the light but then you've gotta take

1:30:06 ↗ your life in your hands when you've

1:30:08 ↗ gotta finish to get all the way across

1:30:10 ↗ to rainier so

1:30:11 ↗ um

1:30:12 ↗ yeah

1:30:13 ↗ it looks like tom has a comment again

1:30:15 ↗ and then i definitely um wanna hear from

1:30:17 ↗ some people that we haven't heard from

1:30:19 ↗ thanks yeah a comment again uh i think

1:30:22 ↗ it'd be

1:30:24 ↗ i don't in this graphic i don't know

1:30:26 ↗ what how the street alignment's gonna be

1:30:27 ↗ if they're going to curve dogwood

1:30:30 ↗ from both east and west into each other

1:30:32 ↗ so they're gonna right now they're like

1:30:34 ↗ this so they're gonna

1:30:35 ↗ curve to tie in so that you have a

1:30:36 ↗ single point intersection between front

1:30:39 ↗ street and the two dogwood lights coming

1:30:41 ↗ in

1:30:45 ↗ i believe the way the project is is

1:30:49 ↗ counting those as as a single um uh

1:30:52 ↗ cross intersection the word the the two

1:30:55 ↗ sides of the wood

1:30:59 ↗ and john would correct me if i'm wrong

1:31:00 ↗ but yeah this is the way they are they

1:31:03 ↗ are

1:31:05 ↗ considered in this project the way it is

1:31:07 ↗ now

1:31:15 ↗ so they would remain

1:31:17 ↗ separated like that or would they be no

1:31:18 ↗ they they are they would be

1:31:20 ↗ okay together okay what is not including

1:31:24 ↗ though is what cynthia was just

1:31:26 ↗ mentioning about rainier

1:31:28 ↗ uh the the interaction with rainier and

1:31:31 ↗ that's

1:31:32 ↗ why we thought that that's one of the

1:31:34 ↗ reasons why we thought that these

1:31:36 ↗ this one would need a better planning

1:31:39 ↗ before implementing this project

1:31:42 ↗ if you do that could you then make

1:31:43 ↗ rainier just a right turn only

1:31:46 ↗ so you remove that conflict of people

1:31:48 ↗ trying to take a left

1:31:49 ↗ onto well that's right

1:31:52 ↗ that's something we can evaluate um if

1:31:54 ↗ we

1:31:55 ↗ um

1:31:56 ↗ study this a little bit better

1:32:05 ↗ thanks tom maybe just to

1:32:07 ↗ our i think this is one like i think

1:32:09 ↗ christie put it while the competing

1:32:11 ↗ priorities really call for some better

1:32:13 ↗ planning and um

1:32:15 ↗ maybe some nods i'm just going to scroll

1:32:17 ↗ through my video here and just see i'm

1:32:18 ↗ seeing sujata nod just do you it feels

1:32:21 ↗ like this one needs some more planning

1:32:23 ↗ and um i see christy i think am i seeing

1:32:26 ↗ other people nod

1:32:28 ↗ i think that was one of the options and

1:32:29 ↗ i think that's the option i'm seeing

1:32:31 ↗ nods from and if anybody disagrees maybe

1:32:34 ↗ pop it into the chat but yeah

1:32:37 ↗ lots of competing

1:32:38 ↗ priorities high volume area

1:32:45 ↗ when the kids were young would help them

1:32:46 ↗ jump out of the car in the car and go

1:32:48 ↗ push the uh i do that all the time

1:32:52 ↗ push the button cynthia i totally agree

1:32:55 ↗ this needs more planning i i totally

1:32:58 ↗ agree

1:32:58 ↗ well don't credit me it was isabella i

1:33:00 ↗ took this project i like that option

1:33:02 ↗ isabel

1:33:03 ↗ talked about that

1:33:06 ↗ well thank you so then are we good

1:33:08 ↗ moving with the next

1:33:10 ↗ uh project

1:33:12 ↗ good

1:33:14 ↗ next project wesley samamish parkway

1:33:16 ↗ corridor improvements

1:33:19 ↗ the goal for this project is to complete

1:33:20 ↗ non-motorized improvements to bellevue

1:33:24 ↗ it would provide a corridor concept with

1:33:26 ↗ focus on safety and mobility from 180 to

1:33:31 ↗ 186.

1:33:33 ↗ for this project

1:33:35 ↗ the cross-section will be determined

1:33:37 ↗ after the city goes through a planning

1:33:39 ↗ phase with a robust public engagement

1:33:43 ↗ except

1:33:44 ↗ we anticipate that we will be

1:33:47 ↗ identifying external funding mechanisms

1:33:49 ↗ and prepare grant applications during

1:33:52 ↗ the preliminary design

1:33:54 ↗ the cost

1:33:56 ↗ because

1:33:57 ↗ the cost of this project is estimated in

1:34:00 ↗ 80 million dollars

1:34:02 ↗ and this could significant uh the so the

1:34:06 ↗ change that we are proposing

1:34:08 ↗ is

1:34:09 ↗ to uh provide focus a project to provide

1:34:13 ↗ sidewalk on one side of the road as a

1:34:15 ↗ minimum

1:34:16 ↗ uh because we think that the cost of the

1:34:19 ↗ project can be reduced significantly if

1:34:22 ↗ we

1:34:24 ↗ focus on the no more motorized mobility

1:34:27 ↗ instead of the whole section of the

1:34:29 ↗ roadway

1:34:31 ↗ if

1:34:33 ↗ we think about our goal of completing

1:34:35 ↗ non-motorized improvements to bellevue

1:34:38 ↗ is the change that we are proposing to

1:34:41 ↗ focus only on the non-motorized portion

1:34:44 ↗ and provide

1:34:45 ↗ motorized facilities on one side of the

1:34:47 ↗ road would be

1:34:49 ↗ would be good enough to complete our

1:34:53 ↗ goal

1:35:15 ↗ come on guys you must have something to

1:35:17 ↗ say about this

1:35:19 ↗ this is 80 million dollars okay

1:35:23 ↗ joseph go ahead

1:35:25 ↗ oh yeah um

1:35:26 ↗ actually this west lake smash parkway is

1:35:29 ↗ the um route that i used to take to

1:35:31 ↗ school um

1:35:33 ↗ and ice my bus actually used to go on

1:35:35 ↗ this route a lot so i know a lot about

1:35:37 ↗ it and i think that it's a really

1:35:39 ↗ dangerous route i've actually seen a lot

1:35:41 ↗ of car accidents on here because the

1:35:43 ↗ road is like

1:35:44 ↗ extremely narrow and there's no

1:35:47 ↗ sidewalk on the side of it

1:35:48 ↗ and i think that it's really important

1:35:50 ↗ like especially for pedestrian safety

1:35:52 ↗ that

1:35:53 ↗ there is a sidewalk like proposed um

1:35:57 ↗ i think 80 million dollars is a lot but

1:36:00 ↗ this is a road i think hasn't been fixed

1:36:04 ↗ and it really should be like addressed

1:36:14 ↗ hi tom

1:36:16 ↗ so is this

1:36:18 ↗ uh i'm not sure exactly

1:36:21 ↗ is this the west lakes mammoth parkway

1:36:24 ↗ uh

1:36:25 ↗ as it ties into the second roundabout

1:36:27 ↗ that's by the elementary school

1:36:30 ↗ yes

1:36:31 ↗ okay from that point moving yes to the

1:36:34 ↗ east okay

1:36:35 ↗ yeah i just don't know

1:36:37 ↗ why it's so expensive for

1:36:39 ↗ adding the sidewalk

1:36:41 ↗ or bike lane in that area

1:36:44 ↗ i believe it should be because it

1:36:46 ↗ completes the the the the full section

1:36:49 ↗ of the road would include drainage

1:36:51 ↗ lighting

1:36:52 ↗ um

1:36:52 ↗ [Music]

1:36:54 ↗ i'm not sure if right of way

1:36:57 ↗ but

1:36:58 ↗ yeah there's

1:37:00 ↗ there's quite a bit of components that

1:37:02 ↗ wouldn't it's pretty much a complete

1:37:03 ↗ rebuild so he added

1:37:05 ↗ the drainage pipes sidewalk kerbin on

1:37:07 ↗ that's

1:37:08 ↗ redoing the

1:37:09 ↗ entire section yep

1:37:15 ↗ still alone

1:37:19 ↗ micah

1:37:22 ↗ yeah is there a

1:37:24 ↗ map that shows exactly

1:37:27 ↗ where on west likes to manage

1:37:29 ↗ your yes i'll bring back the

1:37:35 ↗ it's from the road the roundabout all

1:37:38 ↗ the way to 180 second this

1:37:41 ↗ area here

1:37:44 ↗ okay do you have a

1:37:45 ↗ is there a breakdown of what that 80

1:37:47 ↗ million is covering i mean assuming it's

1:37:49 ↗ way more than just the sidewalk just

1:37:52 ↗ because if the proposal is this is just

1:37:54 ↗ on the sidewalk on one side what's the

1:37:55 ↗ alternative and what's actually the cost

1:37:57 ↗ difference because i mean

1:38:00 ↗ he's

1:38:01 ↗ dollars definitely buzz more than side

1:38:03 ↗ watches for that

1:38:04 ↗ you almost could could do a broken curb

1:38:06 ↗ separation and have a paid side as

1:38:08 ↗ opposed to building the sidewalk and not

1:38:09 ↗ have to do the drainage

1:38:12 ↗ other ways to do it achieve the same in

1:38:15 ↗ that area i'm not sure if the costs the

1:38:17 ↗ benefit it's just

1:38:18 ↗ it's a big difference there soon

1:38:22 ↗ for that john do you have uh like the

1:38:25 ↗ background of the estimate of the

1:38:27 ↗ project cost for

1:38:29 ↗ west lake summit parkway section

1:38:36 ↗ he might be offline

1:38:39 ↗ i can add a little bit of

1:38:41 ↗ it's not a very refined estimate i think

1:38:44 ↗ it was more of

1:38:46 ↗ if we're reconstructing this section of

1:38:48 ↗ road

1:38:49 ↗ looking at what our estimates were for

1:38:51 ↗ the newport whey projects

1:38:53 ↗ and

1:38:54 ↗ just approximating it's not like anyone

1:38:56 ↗ actually looked at it and said okay we'd

1:38:59 ↗ be adding this much sidewalk at this

1:39:02 ↗ much it

1:39:03 ↗ it's a very

1:39:05 ↗ much a guess is what that 80 million was

1:39:08 ↗ but it was for a full

1:39:10 ↗ reconstruction of the road like what

1:39:12 ↗ we're talking about on the newport way

1:39:14 ↗ projects

1:39:15 ↗ like a high level order magnitude type

1:39:18 ↗ right

1:39:24 ↗ i think julian was next and then zujata

1:39:28 ↗ um

1:39:28 ↗ for this 80 million dollars can we get a

1:39:31 ↗ good idea of

1:39:32 ↗ what what might we be going towards bike

1:39:34 ↗ facilities or what kinds of bike

1:39:36 ↗ facilities

1:39:37 ↗ um

1:39:38 ↗ or how would you improve

1:39:40 ↗ especially the uphill areas

1:39:46 ↗ that would include the buy facilities i

1:39:49 ↗ would uh because since we are including

1:39:51 ↗ um

1:39:53 ↗ like like it was a guesstimate based on

1:39:56 ↗ including everything or redoing the

1:39:58 ↗ whole section that would include uh bike

1:40:00 ↗ facilities on the area

1:40:03 ↗ i'm more asking like which types or

1:40:06 ↗ do you want do we want a protected

1:40:09 ↗ uh lame

1:40:10 ↗ no idea uphill errors i don't think we

1:40:12 ↗ have that detail at this moment and

1:40:15 ↗ that's the the reason why we would be

1:40:17 ↗ considering public engagement to

1:40:19 ↗ determine what the cro the

1:40:22 ↗ the cross section for this road would be

1:40:25 ↗ um right

1:40:27 ↗ yeah little history on the

1:40:30 ↗ the project was really just identified

1:40:32 ↗ knowing that it is an important corridor

1:40:34 ↗ in the city and that eventually

1:40:37 ↗ something needs to be done for it

1:40:40 ↗ but very little thoughts gone into what

1:40:42 ↗ specifically

1:40:44 ↗ would go

1:40:45 ↗ be built for this

1:40:46 ↗ 81 million dollars and that's why we're

1:40:49 ↗ proposing the public engagement process

1:40:52 ↗ that way we can

1:40:54 ↗ take it into kind of like what we talked

1:40:57 ↗ about at that the previous project

1:40:59 ↗ number 12 the

1:41:00 ↗ intersection at front and

1:41:02 ↗ dogwood where it's it's more complicated

1:41:06 ↗ and

1:41:07 ↗ planning study and community engagement

1:41:09 ↗ to come up with what we would envision

1:41:12 ↗ for the corridor and that way we can

1:41:15 ↗ then plan out a financial plan for it

1:41:17 ↗ and come up with something that we can

1:41:19 ↗ actually build

1:41:21 ↗ and like i said that 81 million dollars

1:41:23 ↗ is very high level just saying

1:41:26 ↗ it's about this long and

1:41:29 ↗ if we were to improve it this is what we

1:41:30 ↗ thought it would cost

1:41:33 ↗ and that was also a full rebuild

1:41:40 ↗ david had a comment

1:41:42 ↗ just uh two quick comments so john

1:41:45 ↗ that's um

1:41:46 ↗ that's a transit corridor that

1:41:49 ↗ and a school bus corridor because there

1:41:52 ↗ are some school bus stops there on

1:41:55 ↗ lakes of amish parkway as well as

1:41:57 ↗ major bus stop for uh 271 which runs up

1:42:02 ↗ there and

1:42:04 ↗ uh i've ridden my bike off from eastgate

1:42:07 ↗ down that wonderful bike trail that they

1:42:10 ↗ have that comes

1:42:11 ↗ and it comes out right there by um

1:42:16 ↗ that's not

1:42:17 ↗ that's sunset elementary

1:42:19 ↗ that bike trail comes out right there

1:42:21 ↗ and then there's no more bike trail to

1:42:23 ↗ get on so

1:42:25 ↗ that would be uh

1:42:26 ↗ also a major

1:42:28 ↗ bike corridor uh

1:42:30 ↗ so those improvements whatever they are

1:42:33 ↗ uh i'd be in favor of but it looks to me

1:42:36 ↗ like this one's gonna be a lot more

1:42:38 ↗ study

1:42:51 ↗ does anyone else have anything about

1:42:53 ↗ this

1:42:54 ↗ but yeah cynthia i had a question as

1:42:57 ↗ well

1:42:58 ↗ um

1:42:59 ↗ so just uh

1:43:00 ↗ i guess and then maybe this is something

1:43:02 ↗ i i agree i think a additional or more

1:43:05 ↗ robust public engagement process on this

1:43:07 ↗ one would be a good idea

1:43:09 ↗ and then i guess my only other um

1:43:12 ↗ question was and i was trying to look at

1:43:14 ↗ an aerial map to get

1:43:15 ↗ an understanding of current conditions

1:43:17 ↗ is

1:43:18 ↗ um you know when we're because this is

1:43:20 ↗ this you know a segment of the road and

1:43:22 ↗ so

1:43:23 ↗ trying to understand what

1:43:26 ↗ what the infrastructure looks like on

1:43:28 ↗ both ends and you know would be

1:43:31 ↗ because i know parts of westlake sam and

1:43:33 ↗ the bellevue portion they put a sidewalk

1:43:35 ↗ on one side

1:43:36 ↗ so with the idea be that this would

1:43:38 ↗ connect all the way to that kind of

1:43:40 ↗ bellevue sidewalk and we'd create sort

1:43:42 ↗ of that consistent look and feel or

1:43:45 ↗ yeah i guess that's part of the question

1:43:47 ↗ too is the segment that we would build

1:43:49 ↗ out how would it kind of fit into

1:43:53 ↗ what's happening on both ends of the

1:43:55 ↗ of the segment

1:44:01 ↗ and i think that would be part of what

1:44:02 ↗ we will be uh

1:44:05 ↗ gathering from

1:44:06 ↗ the public engagement process

1:44:11 ↗ thank you

1:44:12 ↗ thank you

1:44:24 ↗ are we ready to move on

1:44:29 ↗ and and we can get these ones started

1:44:32 ↗ cynthia but if you want to interrupt me

1:44:35 ↗ at any time for timing uh just let me

1:44:38 ↗ know

1:44:40 ↗ um

1:44:41 ↗ you recall we discussed

1:44:44 ↗ juniper street improvements last

1:44:46 ↗ on during our last meeting

1:44:49 ↗ just to briefly go we talked about its

1:44:52 ↗ goal to improve vehicular and pedestrian

1:44:54 ↗ safety

1:44:55 ↗ um provide non-motorized connection

1:44:57 ↗ between newport weight and existing

1:44:59 ↗ trail but then

1:45:00 ↗ after our we had some discussions with

1:45:03 ↗ with parks with the parks department and

1:45:06 ↗ uh

1:45:07 ↗ after a discussion that we had with them

1:45:09 ↗ we

1:45:10 ↗ realized that there is already existing

1:45:13 ↗ an existing connection through the trail

1:45:14 ↗ because the trail does go on seventh

1:45:18 ↗ avenue it does go north and then

1:45:20 ↗ uh goes to the west connecting uh

1:45:24 ↗ newport so after that discussion seems

1:45:27 ↗ like

1:45:28 ↗ providing this

1:45:30 ↗ connection through or connection through

1:45:33 ↗ juniper

1:45:34 ↗ all the way to newport way is not

1:45:36 ↗ necessarily a priority for for packs and

1:45:40 ↗ for parks in terms of uh of providing

1:45:42 ↗ connection but then we talked about

1:45:45 ↗ maybe the

1:45:48 ↗ scope or goal of this project would

1:45:51 ↗ could be changed uh to fill gaps in

1:45:54 ↗ instead of

1:45:55 ↗ is to feel up

1:45:57 ↗ sidewall gaps instead of

1:45:59 ↗ trail connection since this is not

1:46:02 ↗ uh any longer a trail priority

1:46:05 ↗ connection

1:46:06 ↗ and

1:46:08 ↗ um

1:46:09 ↗ the the

1:46:11 ↗ uh

1:46:12 ↗ on our latest

1:46:14 ↗ last meeting we

1:46:17 ↗ said that our change that we will be

1:46:19 ↗ proposing would be to specifically

1:46:21 ↗ include portions that are not completed

1:46:23 ↗ the segment between newborn and seventh

1:46:25 ↗ and along the parking lot furnish but

1:46:28 ↗ now the questions or the feedback that

1:46:31 ↗ we would

1:46:32 ↗ like to get from the board is that

1:46:36 ↗ after the discussion with parks we are

1:46:39 ↗ recommending to remove this project from

1:46:42 ↗ the tip since there is already a road

1:46:44 ↗ connection that goes

1:46:46 ↗ north along 7th avenue and west after

1:46:48 ↗ local street to newport

1:46:50 ↗ and

1:46:51 ↗ this would not

1:46:53 ↗ connect any sidewalk at newport uh right

1:46:56 ↗ at this moment uh it would be filling up

1:46:59 ↗ sidewalk gas but then when you go to

1:47:01 ↗ newport there's no

1:47:03 ↗ sidewalk that they would connect to so

1:47:05 ↗ what

1:47:06 ↗ what is the

1:47:08 ↗ what are the thoughts from the

1:47:10 ↗ board on our recommendation to remove

1:47:13 ↗ this project at this moment

1:47:16 ↗ from the tip

1:47:22 ↗ janey

1:47:25 ↗ hey sorry i've realized i've been um

1:47:27 ↗ putting comment in but to the wrong

1:47:30 ↗ person so you haven't been saying it

1:47:33 ↗ um

1:47:34 ↗ okay so my my comment here is i think

1:47:37 ↗ like postponing this

1:47:39 ↗ improvement until um

1:47:41 ↗ the roundabout or whatever is gonna

1:47:42 ↗ happen at the intersection of juniper in

1:47:44 ↗ newport

1:47:46 ↗ would be

1:47:47 ↗ um a good idea

1:47:49 ↗ just because um

1:47:50 ↗ right here on juniper just from what

1:47:53 ↗ i've seen living literally right here

1:47:55 ↗ like whoever took this picture standing

1:47:57 ↗ outside of my house

1:47:58 ↗ um

1:47:59 ↗ there really isn't

1:48:01 ↗ you know the pedestrians kind of don't

1:48:03 ↗ walk down that way and there's a there's

1:48:05 ↗ a sidewalk that goes past the

1:48:07 ↗ storage unit so um sidewalks connections

1:48:10 ↗ there aren't really high priority i

1:48:12 ↗ think what we have right now is good

1:48:14 ↗ um

1:48:15 ↗ and bicyclists like

1:48:17 ↗ seem to have no problem speeding down

1:48:19 ↗ this road either so i think the

1:48:20 ↗ improvement could be delayed especially

1:48:23 ↗ in priority of other places that that do

1:48:25 ↗ need those improvements

1:48:26 ↗ you know sooner or

1:48:30 ↗ my two later

1:48:35 ↗ jerry and then tom

1:48:41 ↗ i don't think i have a lot more to add

1:48:44 ↗ than

1:48:44 ↗ what janie

1:48:46 ↗ said

1:48:47 ↗ but i guess i wanted to be sure i

1:48:49 ↗ understood what

1:48:51 ↗ isabelle was saying

1:48:53 ↗ that um for now

1:48:56 ↗ she was saying that

1:48:57 ↗ this entire project would be

1:49:01 ↗ not

1:49:02 ↗ considered

1:49:03 ↗ at all

1:49:04 ↗ because of the

1:49:06 ↗ the juniper trail on 7th avenue

1:49:09 ↗ and

1:49:10 ↗ going behind the king county

1:49:12 ↗ library administration building up to

1:49:17 ↗ newport way

1:49:19 ↗ so

1:49:21 ↗ i guess that's correct so where you see

1:49:23 ↗ that red

1:49:25 ↗ barrier

1:49:27 ↗ on this drawing heading um south towards

1:49:29 ↗ newport way

1:49:31 ↗ that would just remain until

1:49:33 ↗ um there was more development on newport

1:49:36 ↗ way

1:49:37 ↗ is that what you're saying

1:49:38 ↗ i just wanted to be sure i understood

1:49:42 ↗ yes because the original goal of this

1:49:44 ↗ project was to connect the the trail um

1:49:47 ↗ and then we after talking to parks we uh

1:49:51 ↗ realized that there is already a

1:49:53 ↗ connection a true connection to newport

1:49:55 ↗ way and right now

1:49:58 ↗ if we do this project now on newport way

1:50:00 ↗ there aren't any

1:50:02 ↗ sidewalk facilities so if we would

1:50:04 ↗ extend

1:50:06 ↗ that red

1:50:09 ↗ barrier further

1:50:11 ↗ to newport then it wouldn't there there

1:50:13 ↗ wouldn't be any other sidewalks that we

1:50:16 ↗ would be connecting to so

1:50:19 ↗ uh the

1:50:21 ↗ description of this project would be

1:50:23 ↗ more to fill the sidewall gaps but not

1:50:26 ↗ necessarily

1:50:27 ↗ providing connections

1:50:30 ↗ okay but now you're not gonna do

1:50:32 ↗ anything and so um um i'm agreeing with

1:50:35 ↗ jamie it's fine to wait janie it's fine

1:50:38 ↗ to wait

1:50:41 ↗ thank you

1:50:46 ↗ i have uh two questions in a comment one

1:50:48 ↗ is

1:50:50 ↗ if you did extend the sidewalk you could

1:50:51 ↗ tie into the existing sidewalk this

1:50:53 ↗ really nice

1:50:54 ↗ paved area that's separated from the

1:50:56 ↗ road which is really nice

1:50:58 ↗ and new parts so you could make that

1:50:59 ↗ connection

1:51:00 ↗ it sounds like you don't want to make

1:51:01 ↗ this connection until

1:51:03 ↗ you really build out new part way with

1:51:06 ↗ real sidewalks as opposed to then i

1:51:07 ↗ separated with a ditch i'd walk and then

1:51:10 ↗ make that connection to this one

1:51:12 ↗ if that's the case and probably should

1:51:14 ↗ be some signage for folks who are

1:51:15 ↗ walking along the sidewalk

1:51:17 ↗ know where to go and turn as opposed to

1:51:19 ↗ coming up to the barrier and not knowing

1:51:20 ↗ then just jumping in the street walking

1:51:22 ↗ some way finding signs to show them

1:51:24 ↗ where to go in the interim then probably

1:51:29 ↗ will we be happy to hear about our board

1:51:32 ↗ um

1:51:34 ↗ work plan that we

1:51:36 ↗ we will have we will talk about that

1:51:38 ↗ later but it does include wave finding

1:51:40 ↗ signings

1:51:43 ↗ thanks

1:51:49 ↗ i think it's cool that we

1:51:51 ↗ examined these and then took something

1:51:53 ↗ off the unfunded because there's a lot

1:51:55 ↗ of unfunded projects

1:51:57 ↗ um

1:51:59 ↗ so that's the last person i saw in the

1:52:00 ↗ chat we are at 7 54. i do have a chair

1:52:03 ↗ report stephen has a brief sorry i have

1:52:06 ↗ a quick follow-up question yes when when

1:52:08 ↗ you say take it off it's not going to go

1:52:10 ↗ away completely it's not going to be

1:52:12 ↗ funded for this yeah but it'll still be

1:52:14 ↗ on the books yeah

1:52:26 ↗ isabel and john john and i had a

1:52:27 ↗ conversation about this to prepare for

1:52:29 ↗ this meeting at john if you're still

1:52:31 ↗ with us

1:52:32 ↗ it would be reduced to the specific

1:52:34 ↗ improvements and

1:52:36 ↗ um

1:52:37 ↗ well john go ahead

1:52:39 ↗ my thought is to remove it from the tip

1:52:43 ↗ it would still be

1:52:44 ↗ something where

1:52:46 ↗ as we look at our sidewalk gap

1:52:48 ↗ that we're trying to do we can still

1:52:50 ↗ fill in the sidewalk gap but in terms of

1:52:52 ↗ trying to prioritize a shared use path

1:52:55 ↗ between 7th and newport we would no

1:52:57 ↗ longer prioritize that just because of

1:53:00 ↗ all the other priorities that we're

1:53:02 ↗ trying to get to

1:53:03 ↗ and our capacity

1:53:06 ↗ and one other thing is the park

1:53:08 ↗ strategic plan has a shared use path

1:53:10 ↗ going on holly with crossing over the

1:53:13 ↗ creek so we've got the jennifer trail

1:53:17 ↗ that goes to the south and to the west

1:53:19 ↗ of here we also have holly i mean sorry

1:53:22 ↗ juniper's to the north

1:53:25 ↗ and paulie to the south and so

1:53:29 ↗ what we're saying is we'd remove it from

1:53:31 ↗ the tip because there's

1:53:32 ↗ other trails in the vicinity and it'll

1:53:35 ↗ allow us to focus on other improvements

1:53:43 ↗ adam chair a small point of order could

1:53:46 ↗ we just vote on that tonight and uh then

1:53:49 ↗ move it

1:53:52 ↗ that's a great question i'd love to have

1:53:54 ↗ us vote on something

1:53:57 ↗ so i think that's a great idea um i

1:54:00 ↗ moved that uh

1:54:01 ↗ that this uh

1:54:03 ↗ project be um

1:54:05 ↗ [Music]

1:54:06 ↗ moved off the tip and into

1:54:10 ↗ a holding pattern so when we deal with

1:54:13 ↗ complete sidewalks we can deal with it

1:54:15 ↗ again

1:54:16 ↗ i'll second that motion

1:54:22 ↗ i think this is where we say any

1:54:23 ↗ discussion

1:54:31 ↗ okay hearing none um all those in favor

1:54:34 ↗ we haven't done a lot of voting um

1:54:36 ↗ raise your thumb

1:54:38 ↗ or somebody for appropriate body parts

1:54:41 ↗ okay

1:54:42 ↗ um

1:54:43 ↗ anybody opposed and i'm having to cycle

1:54:46 ↗ through here and for efficiency we're

1:54:47 ↗ just doing video

1:54:49 ↗ i am not seeing anyone opposed

1:54:53 ↗ unmute yourself and call me out if i'm

1:54:55 ↗ wrong

1:54:56 ↗ sounds like that passes

1:54:58 ↗ we made a motion and we made a motion to

1:55:00 ↗ rake a recommendation

1:55:02 ↗ um that this come off and it sounds like

1:55:04 ↗ it's ten to zero unanimous

1:55:07 ↗ recommendation to take this off

1:55:09 ↗ and i'm hoping i know we got this

1:55:10 ↗ recorded so the exact language

1:55:13 ↗ that was proposed would be the motion

1:55:16 ↗ look at us

1:55:23 ↗ isabelle do you have anything else on

1:55:25 ↗ this was this helpful

1:55:26 ↗ you're right cynthia

1:55:28 ↗ moving this through

1:55:32 ↗ yes and that was the last project so we

1:55:34 ↗ can uh

1:55:36 ↗ move on to the rest of the agenda

1:55:40 ↗ okey dokey uh we have um do we have any

1:55:43 ↗ other business or announcements

1:55:52 ↗ going once going twice

1:55:54 ↗ no business or announcements um oh sorry

1:55:57 ↗ i'm sorry i reversed five and six

1:55:59 ↗ i thought that sounded weird um steven

1:56:02 ↗ uh do you wanna talk about the board

1:56:03 ↗ work plan

1:56:07 ↗ i can

1:56:08 ↗ i can go to

1:56:11 ↗ or stephen unless you want to

1:56:13 ↗ we can do that

1:56:15 ↗ there's just one quick update for the

1:56:17 ↗ boardwork plan and we added

1:56:19 ↗ an item

1:56:21 ↗ for the board to actually take a look at

1:56:23 ↗ some title 18

1:56:25 ↗ items

1:56:26 ↗ which will be circulation and parking um

1:56:29 ↗ which will either be having discussions

1:56:32 ↗ in october or likely november

1:56:35 ↗ in preparation for

1:56:37 ↗ the city making updates to title 18 the

1:56:39 ↗ land use code

1:56:45 ↗ that's it for the work plan cool we get

1:56:47 ↗ to dig in the land use code

1:56:51 ↗ okay staff report

1:56:55 ↗ for the staff report we have a few items

1:56:58 ↗ um the parklet pilot project will be

1:57:00 ↗ postponed to the next year

1:57:02 ↗ at the time that it was ready to deploy

1:57:04 ↗ it would uh

1:57:06 ↗ determine it would it would be

1:57:07 ↗ operational for only four days so the

1:57:10 ↗ decision was to allow it to be

1:57:13 ↗ operational for longer for a longer

1:57:15 ↗ period when we move it for next year um

1:57:19 ↗ other

1:57:20 ↗ the other item that also will be

1:57:22 ↗ postponed will be the festival street

1:57:25 ↗ and

1:57:26 ↗ um i have another one so

1:57:30 ↗ steven's position will be moved to the

1:57:34 ↗ community planning and development

1:57:37 ↗ department

1:57:38 ↗ so that means that he won't be directly

1:57:41 ↗ managing the board

1:57:43 ↗ but he

1:57:44 ↗ or we

1:57:46 ↗ we will make sure that he keeps coming

1:57:48 ↗ back to provide

1:57:50 ↗ planning updates

1:57:55 ↗ um

1:57:56 ↗ so the our the proposed budget is out

1:57:59 ↗ um which this will include a new program

1:58:02 ↗ coordination next year

1:58:04 ↗ next next year so that would

1:58:08 ↗ this new program coordination will also

1:58:11 ↗ be

1:58:11 ↗ um

1:58:16 ↗ involved with our

1:58:19 ↗ board meetings

1:58:21 ↗ the other item is that council also

1:58:24 ↗ approved the restoring of the traffic

1:58:26 ↗ signal engineering position so that's

1:58:30 ↗ good news for our department

1:58:32 ↗ and

1:58:33 ↗ um the other i'll actually have steven

1:58:36 ↗ do the other announcement of the fleet

1:58:43 ↗ so

1:58:44 ↗ so we're working with our parts

1:58:45 ↗ department to actually acquire an

1:58:47 ↗ electric bike to add to the city fleet

1:58:50 ↗ and what this is going to do is it

1:58:52 ↗ allows us to access

1:58:53 ↗ remote areas of the city particularly

1:58:55 ↗ trails in the winter and fall time

1:58:57 ↗ where we get frequent tree fallings and

1:59:01 ↗ allows our staff to actually

1:59:03 ↗ maintain those

1:59:04 ↗ areas uh much faster than we've been

1:59:06 ↗ able to before but it's also expanding

1:59:09 ↗ the city's ability to meet our climate

1:59:11 ↗ action

1:59:12 ↗ items and and kind of start that process

1:59:14 ↗ of diversifying kind of the fleet

1:59:17 ↗ options for our staff to

1:59:19 ↗ you know go attend meetings and

1:59:21 ↗ do field checks around the city but

1:59:24 ↗ really open staffs eyes around what we

1:59:27 ↗ can do with different vehicles

1:59:36 ↗ that's super exciting

1:59:39 ↗ um anything else on the staff report

1:59:42 ↗ that's so light that's all we have

1:59:44 ↗ dropped a whole bunch of big items in a

1:59:47 ↗ two-minute span

1:59:49 ↗ fascinating

1:59:50 ↗ uh okay another big item real quick i do

1:59:52 ↗ have a chair report this time i promise

1:59:54 ↗ to make it lightning fast and that is

1:59:56 ↗ that um

1:59:58 ↗ some of you may know that mayor paulie

2:00:00 ↗ has asked for a

2:00:02 ↗ capital um

2:00:04 ↗ let's see capital finance

2:00:06 ↗ community task force

2:00:09 ↗ and um

2:00:10 ↗ she asked so every board and commission

2:00:15 ↗ the chair was asked to participate on

2:00:17 ↗ that plus three council members

2:00:19 ↗ um and then she asked me to chair that

2:00:23 ↗ uh task force so um it's just

2:00:26 ↗ it'll be propped up

2:00:28 ↗ uh four months ad hoc and then

2:00:31 ↗ we'll provide a recommendation to the

2:00:33 ↗ mayor about capital finance the problem

2:00:37 ↗ statement is that the

2:00:38 ↗ cip um

2:00:40 ↗ you know which is the tip but plus

2:00:42 ↗ everything else rolled up far exceeds

2:00:44 ↗ our ability to pay for it so one

2:00:46 ↗ question for this group is to prioritize

2:00:48 ↗ and the next question is what are some

2:00:50 ↗ of our funding options um

2:00:52 ↗ so that's a big exercise and i will make

2:00:55 ↗ sure that i'm bringing back substantive

2:00:57 ↗ material i think we've done most of that

2:00:59 ↗ work from the transportation perspective

2:01:01 ↗ in terms of

2:01:02 ↗ our um prioritization and prior um

2:01:05 ↗ evaluations and so forth but i will keep

2:01:08 ↗ you up to date on that

2:01:10 ↗ um

2:01:12 ↗ uh and that is

2:01:14 ↗ uh the brief version of that that's all

2:01:16 ↗ i have for the staff report it's 803.

2:01:20 ↗ um do we have anything else

2:01:24 ↗ all right this is a good meeting thanks

2:01:26 ↗ you guys um

2:01:27 ↗ thanks for your time it's well attended

2:01:29 ↗ everybody came uh prepared and um

2:01:32 ↗ it's really good so i hope everybody

2:01:35 ↗ felt like they got a lot out of it and

2:01:37 ↗ um steven you better not stop coming to

2:01:40 ↗ these meetings because

2:01:42 ↗ transportation planning

2:01:44 ↗ is what we do here so

2:01:48 ↗ don't worry i'll i'll still be involved

2:01:50 ↗ in pretty much most of your meetings

2:01:53 ↗ hey and i also just want to say one

2:01:54 ↗ thing before uh we were kind of um hard

2:01:57 ↗ on you a little bit about the confusion

2:01:59 ↗ on that one project but you know don't

2:02:01 ↗ be discouraged you guys are awesome you

2:02:03 ↗ guys do really really good work you're

2:02:05 ↗ easy to work with everyone likes working

2:02:07 ↗ with you also don't be discouraged if we

2:02:09 ↗ beat up on you a little bit it just

2:02:10 ↗ means we're paying attention

2:02:12 ↗ um and uh you know we just want really

2:02:14 ↗ good materials so that we can give

2:02:16 ↗ really good feedback

2:02:18 ↗ thank you and we appreciate it

2:02:20 ↗ a second run at it

2:02:24 ↗ right everybody

2:02:26 ↗ thank you goodbye good night everyone

2:02:32 ↗ you

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.