Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, November 10, 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…

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Newport Way Maple to Sunset

Discussion · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.5–21

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Discuss the Newport Way – Maple to Sunset Project concept considering the Mobility Master Plan and the Green Necklace to inform a joint letter that will be endorsed by both boards stating their preferred concept.

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on November 18, 2021

2175 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ good evening thank you everyone on the

0:05 ↗ transportation advisory board in the

0:07 ↗ parks board for giving up your

0:10 ↗ wednesday evening to talk about the

0:12 ↗ newport whey maple to sunset project and

0:14 ↗ the green necklace

0:16 ↗ i'm john wardenson the transportation

0:18 ↗ engineering manager with the city of

0:19 ↗ issaquah

0:21 ↗ for tonight we're going to start off by

0:24 ↗ introducing the people who are on the

0:27 ↗ the city staff at the meeting so that

0:29 ↗ way those of you who aren't on the

0:31 ↗ different boards can

0:33 ↗ know who we are and also the consultant

0:36 ↗ that's our

0:38 ↗ design team

0:39 ↗ i'll start off by

0:41 ↗ having isabelle introduce yourself

0:45 ↗ i am isabel diaz i'm a senior

0:48 ↗ transportation engineer with the city

0:52 ↗ go to jennifer

0:56 ↗ hi i'm jennifer fink park planner and

0:58 ↗ project administrator in the parks

1:00 ↗ department

1:02 ↗ and stephen

1:05 ↗ hi everyone uh stephen padua senior

1:07 ↗ transportation planner

1:10 ↗ brienne

1:12 ↗ hi everyone brianne ross i am with petit

1:16 ↗ we're the

1:17 ↗ design firm that the city has hired to

1:19 ↗ design newport way and i'm the project

1:21 ↗ manager

1:22 ↗ and gina

1:24 ↗ hi everybody i'm gina parento and i'm

1:27 ↗ also with petit working with brianne

1:30 ↗ and on the project i'm the principal in

1:33 ↗ charge

1:34 ↗ that works on the design of the newport

1:36 ↗ way

1:38 ↗ okay project for the roll call for

1:41 ↗ attendance i'm going to have

1:43 ↗ brienne share her screen and go through

1:45 ↗ the list and like what i would like for

1:48 ↗ everyone when it gets to your turn to

1:50 ↗ say your name i believe the list is an

1:53 ↗ order i think it's parks board first

1:55 ↗ then

1:56 ↗ transportation advisor oh no it's it's

1:58 ↗ the transportation advisory board first

2:00 ↗ but as we go through say your name and

2:02 ↗ that way everyone can put a name to the

2:04 ↗ face and we'll put a check on the

2:06 ↗ participant list

2:10 ↗ hi everyone my name is sujata goyal and

2:12 ↗ i'm with the transportation advisory

2:14 ↗ board

2:18 ↗ hi my name is micah zaitzchua i'm also

2:20 ↗ with the transportation advisory board

2:24 ↗ i am christy triple with the

2:26 ↗ transportation advisory board

2:42 ↗ uh i'm not sure if dave's here but i'm

2:45 ↗ joseph sung and i'm on the

2:46 ↗ transportation advisory board

2:53 ↗ i was just gonna say i don't see dave on

2:55 ↗ the list of participants just as a note

2:58 ↗ so

3:01 ↗ hi i'm cynthia cross i'm with the

3:03 ↗ transportation advisory board

3:13 ↗ not sure if janie is here so i'm erica

3:15 ↗ boyd and i'm on the transportation

3:16 ↗ advisory board

3:19 ↗ hi i'm tom mcdonald and on the

3:21 ↗ transportation advisory board

3:27 ↗ good evening i'm jerry bernstein and i'm

3:30 ↗ an alternate on the transportation

3:34 ↗ advisory board

3:37 ↗ hi my name is julian i'm with the

3:39 ↗ transportation advisory board

3:43 ↗ hello i'm brad book i'm with the parks

3:45 ↗ board

4:02 ↗ hi i'm jonathan merchants from parksport

4:06 ↗ hi i'm linda whitworth with the parks

4:08 ↗ board

4:11 ↗ i'm ruben yet i'm with the park

4:20 ↗ actually i think reuben is above

4:21 ↗ jonathan there there you go

4:36 ↗ actually i feel here

4:38 ↗ yes i'm back

4:47 ↗ zach spoke up but he was really quiet i

4:50 ↗ think right

5:13 ↗ i don't see marlene or

5:16 ↗ jeremy

5:17 ↗ on the list of participants i don't

5:20 ↗ think

5:21 ↗ yeah i do see brenda yeah

5:23 ↗ yes i'm here i didn't have it myself

5:25 ↗ unmuted i am here brenda spears

5:27 ↗ alternate with the parks board

5:30 ↗ and i would also like to add park sport

5:33 ↗ has an additional member our isquad

5:34 ↗ youth advisory board member ryan raimi

5:37 ↗ has also joined us

5:58 ↗ well thanks again for attending everyone

6:01 ↗ the next part of the meeting is public

6:03 ↗ comments are there any members of the

6:05 ↗ public here tonight who wish to make

6:06 ↗ comments

6:12 ↗ being done we will go ahead and

6:14 ↗ begin the presentation

6:45 ↗ quick question is everyone seeing the

6:48 ↗ presentation slide and not the notes

6:50 ↗ page

6:53 ↗ yes wonderful i always fear that i'm

6:55 ↗ going to

6:56 ↗ give the wrong one

6:59 ↗ tonight we're here to talk about newport

7:01 ↗ way between maple and sunset

7:04 ↗ and

7:05 ↗ also talk about the city of issaquah's

7:08 ↗ green necklace that the parks and

7:10 ↗ recreation department

7:13 ↗ put together

7:19 ↗ the purpose of tonight's meeting is to

7:22 ↗ discuss newport wave maple to sunset the

7:25 ↗ project

7:27 ↗ concept considering the mobility master

7:29 ↗ plan and the green neck list to inform a

7:31 ↗ joint letter that will be endorsed by

7:34 ↗ both boards stating their preferred

7:35 ↗ concept

7:38 ↗ ideally both boards would reach a

7:40 ↗ consensus and

7:41 ↗ endorse one alternative

7:44 ↗ it's really important tonight to make

7:45 ↗ sure that everyone is heard

7:47 ↗ and

7:48 ↗ it is

7:49 ↗ okay if

7:51 ↗ the parks board endorses a different

7:53 ↗ concept than the transportation advisory

7:56 ↗ board and that the letter would state

8:00 ↗ which board endorsed which option

8:02 ↗ concept and why and that's what we

8:05 ↗ really want to get out of everyone

8:06 ↗ tonight is

8:09 ↗ the reasons why

8:11 ↗ people have their priorities and

8:13 ↗ like i said ideally it'll be the same

8:15 ↗ alternative or same concept but it's not

8:17 ↗ the end of the world if

8:21 ↗ there's not an agreement

8:27 ↗ background on this project this and

8:30 ↗ this is a project that the city's been

8:32 ↗ working on for quite a long time

8:35 ↗ off and on

8:36 ↗ and

8:38 ↗ the city council adopted a concept for

8:40 ↗ the project in january 2011. the project

8:43 ↗ limits are

8:45 ↗ maple on the

8:47 ↗ north end and sunset on the southern end

8:51 ↗ and so basically it goes from target to

8:55 ↗ sunset way

8:56 ↗ it is one of three north south court

8:59 ↗ major corridors in the city of issaquah

9:02 ↗ it is the one that is best suited for

9:04 ↗ additional non-motorized transportation

9:07 ↗ because the other two main north-south

9:08 ↗ corridors are front street which is

9:12 ↗ confined with lots of businesses on each

9:14 ↗ side and sr 900 or 17th which functions

9:19 ↗ more like a state

9:21 ↗ the concept from

9:23 ↗ 2011 that's been carried forward

9:26 ↗ includes two southbound lanes that go

9:28 ↗ from maple to 900 feet south of hawley

9:32 ↗ and roundabouts at the intersections of

9:35 ↗ juniper

9:36 ↗ hawley and dogwood

9:39 ↗ in addition to the

9:41 ↗ corridor project that the public works

9:43 ↗ department has been working on the parks

9:45 ↗ department as part of the strategic plan

9:48 ↗ and then the planning for the green

9:49 ↗ necklace

9:50 ↗ identified newport way and hawley for

9:53 ↗ the green for the mountains to sound

9:55 ↗ greenway corridor

9:57 ↗ and

9:58 ↗ so as we're working on this project we

10:00 ↗ really want to try and incorporate the

10:02 ↗ vision that the parks department has for

10:04 ↗ the mountains to sound greenway

10:05 ↗ corridor and the green necklace along

10:08 ↗ with the vision that the

10:10 ↗ this project has the

10:13 ↗ guiding principles from the mobility

10:15 ↗ master plan and this project is also

10:17 ↗ one-third located within central

10:19 ↗ issaquah and the central issaquah

10:22 ↗ circulation standards

10:27 ↗ continuing the background there are a

10:29 ↗ couple features that cannot be

10:32 ↗ eliminated that

10:34 ↗ we as the project team looked at

10:36 ↗ and said that we can't and the first one

10:39 ↗ are

10:40 ↗ the features that are related to the

10:41 ↗ transportation concurrency

10:43 ↗ the transportation concurrency is how

10:46 ↗ the city has decided to

10:49 ↗ prepare the transportation system for

10:51 ↗ future growth and the city has a level

10:53 ↗ of service that's calculated at

10:55 ↗ intersections

10:57 ↗ and in order to meet those requirements

11:00 ↗ in the future we need to make the

11:01 ↗ roundabout improvements at the three

11:03 ↗ intersections juniper hawley and dogwood

11:06 ↗ and we need to add the second southbound

11:08 ↗ lane from maple through hawley and so

11:11 ↗ those are features that when

11:13 ↗ we were looking at ways to reduce costs

11:15 ↗ for this project that we were not able

11:17 ↗ to

11:18 ↗ they were not on the table to be reused

11:21 ↗ the other one that we cannot eliminate

11:24 ↗ is the planner strip

11:26 ↗ i'm going to go into a little bit more

11:28 ↗ detail on that one

11:30 ↗ the central is because the project

11:33 ↗ is located within central esquire at

11:35 ↗ least the between maple and hawley

11:38 ↗ it follows under the

11:39 ↗ design standards of the central squad

11:42 ↗ circulation standards

11:43 ↗ and there are two things in the central

11:46 ↗ squad

11:47 ↗ circulation standards that require the

11:49 ↗ planner strip and those are

11:52 ↗ in the

11:53 ↗ circulation standards there's a section

11:56 ↗ for the priorities

11:57 ↗ and in the priorities it ranks

12:01 ↗ as you're making decisions on what to

12:03 ↗ build and not build

12:05 ↗ for a project

12:06 ↗ you go through the priority and we work

12:08 ↗ with the community planning and

12:09 ↗ development

12:12 ↗ team as we went through and

12:14 ↗ narrowed up our footprint but the second

12:17 ↗ highest priority in the central esqui

12:19 ↗ standards

12:20 ↗ are

12:22 ↗ the elements that contribute to a

12:24 ↗ pedestrian friendly environment like

12:27 ↗ retaining planting strips and so it's

12:29 ↗ already the second highest priority that

12:31 ↗ we can't get rid of because it creates a

12:33 ↗ friendly environment for the pedestrians

12:36 ↗ by having that planner strip to separate

12:38 ↗ them from the cars

12:39 ↗ when you get down a little further

12:42 ↗ in the

12:43 ↗ central squash standards for the

12:45 ↗ priorities it it allows a

12:49 ↗ designed team to narrow the planter

12:51 ↗ strip and it can be narrowed to

12:54 ↗ four feet from face of curb to the edge

12:57 ↗ of the pedestrian facility or from the

12:59 ↗ back of curb to the pedestrian facility

13:02 ↗ three and a half feet for landscaping

13:05 ↗ the design team did evaluate whether we

13:07 ↗ wanted to do that or not and decided not

13:11 ↗ to consider narrowing the planner strip

13:13 ↗ to the minimum and the reasons for that

13:16 ↗ are

13:17 ↗ two the the first one is that this is a

13:21 ↗ corridor with metro buses

13:23 ↗ and in centralist squad the street

13:25 ↗ lights are

13:26 ↗ limited to 15 feet tall which means the

13:29 ↗ street lights need to be placed in the

13:31 ↗ planner strip and having that narrow of

13:33 ↗ a planner strip felt like that was too

13:35 ↗ close to the bus's mirrors

13:38 ↗ and the second one is

13:42 ↗ whenever you have a planter strip that

13:44 ↗ is that narrow and you're wanting to put

13:46 ↗ trees in it

13:47 ↗ the trees

13:49 ↗ cause the sidewalk joints to have

13:51 ↗ vertical discontinued

13:54 ↗ vertical lips and we don't want that for

13:56 ↗ two reasons and the first one is from a

13:59 ↗ liability point of view if you have

14:01 ↗ vertical lips like that if someone's

14:03 ↗ walking or running along the

14:07 ↗ sidewalk or the shared use path that

14:09 ↗ they could trip on it and that's not

14:12 ↗ safe because the city could get sued for

14:14 ↗ that the other one is this corridor is a

14:17 ↗ corridor that we want to be

14:19 ↗ all for all ages and abilities and when

14:22 ↗ we start having those vertical lips

14:24 ↗ and the concrete it makes it dangerous

14:27 ↗ or it makes it impassable for

14:30 ↗ pedestrians with mobility disabilities

14:32 ↗ that it's a barrier

14:33 ↗ and we want to make sure that we have

14:35 ↗ this as a corridor that people with

14:37 ↗ disabilities can use

14:43 ↗ at the previous tab and parks board

14:45 ↗ meeting i talked about the different

14:47 ↗ values that went into the project

14:50 ↗ they came from the central isoqua

14:52 ↗ circulation standards the intent

14:54 ↗ the

14:55 ↗ guiding principles from the mobility

14:57 ↗ master plan

14:58 ↗ and the

15:00 ↗ values from

15:02 ↗ the

15:03 ↗ park strategic plan

15:05 ↗ and the

15:07 ↗ green necklace planning document and now

15:09 ↗ those we came up with there's several

15:12 ↗ common values the first one safety and

15:15 ↗ for this one we're really thinking of

15:17 ↗ how the bicycles and pedestrians

15:19 ↗ interact and we're not considering the

15:21 ↗ crossings yet but that's something that

15:25 ↗ is when it comes to safety probably the

15:27 ↗ most important thing but we're going to

15:29 ↗ engineer and design those very

15:31 ↗ specifically to standards and right now

15:34 ↗ we're just talking about concepts and

15:37 ↗ regardless when we get to the crossings

15:40 ↗ that those will be engineered

15:42 ↗ the

15:43 ↗ the next common value is connections and

15:46 ↗ it's really important and

15:48 ↗ this came across in all documents but

15:50 ↗ really strongly in the park strategic

15:52 ↗ plan and the green necklace is to have

15:54 ↗ intuitive connections to the city region

15:57 ↗ major parks schools commercial and

16:00 ↗ retail centers and the new neighborhoods

16:02 ↗ that are going to be built in the

16:04 ↗ central esquire area

16:07 ↗ the third common value is non-motorized

16:09 ↗ transportation

16:11 ↗ and

16:12 ↗ for that one all of these

16:15 ↗ concepts that we are considering

16:17 ↗ really prioritize

16:19 ↗ non-motorized transportation there's not

16:21 ↗ really a whole lot of difference

16:23 ↗ between them

16:25 ↗ the fourth value is all ages and

16:27 ↗ abilities and that includes

16:31 ↗ young people old people people aged in

16:34 ↗ between the young and old people with

16:36 ↗ disabilities people without disabilities

16:39 ↗ everyone you can think of who would be

16:41 ↗ using the corridor as a

16:44 ↗ pedestrian or a bicyclist

16:48 ↗ the next common value is character and

16:50 ↗ experience

16:52 ↗ for character and experience

16:57 ↗ we're really thinking of the feeling

16:58 ↗ that the user experiences is walking or

17:01 ↗ bicycling along the corridor

17:03 ↗ is it comfortable and pleasant to use

17:07 ↗ the next

17:09 ↗ common goal or common value that

17:12 ↗ all the different planning documents

17:14 ↗ have is environmentally sustainable and

17:16 ↗ because these all these concepts all

17:19 ↗ have the same footprint this is one that

17:22 ↗ really

17:23 ↗ it's

17:24 ↗ the same for all of them

17:26 ↗ and then

17:28 ↗ the final common value is to prepare for

17:30 ↗ growth and issaquah is going to be more

17:33 ↗ densely populated it's going to have a

17:36 ↗ light rail station in the future

17:38 ↗ technology changes

17:40 ↗ we're already seeing a lot more e-bikes

17:43 ↗ there's electronics electrical scooters

17:48 ↗ and

17:49 ↗ but there's going to be changes

17:52 ↗ both in issaquah in terms of

17:54 ↗ the population and the density from the

17:57 ↗ growth and the

18:01 ↗ changes in ways to

18:03 ↗ have non-motorized transportation

18:14 ↗ at this part of the

18:15 ↗ meeting we're going to do

18:18 ↗ an interactive poll and it's

18:20 ↗ if you can either on your computer or

18:22 ↗ smartphone

18:24 ↗ go to the website

18:26 ↗ menti.com

18:29 ↗ and when you go there

18:31 ↗ and i'm going to stop sharing my screen

18:37 ↗ that way brienne is going to be doing

18:39 ↗ the poll can do it

18:40 ↗ we're going to do at this point we're

18:42 ↗ going to do two

18:44 ↗ polls the first one is going to be just

18:46 ↗ a fun one to make sure everyone is

18:48 ↗ working

18:49 ↗ and understands how to use the minty

18:52 ↗ and

18:54 ↗ that question is if you go to the

18:57 ↗ website minty.com and enter the code

18:59 ↗ 81633869

19:04 ↗ and what we want to know is what is your

19:06 ↗ favorite issaquah alp

19:08 ↗ and the choices are tiger mountain

19:10 ↗ cougar mountain and spock mountain

19:34 ↗ is anyone having trouble getting to the

19:35 ↗ poll

19:45 ↗ i think you were muted reuben

19:54 ↗ mute um there you go

19:57 ↗ okay i need to hear the instructions

19:59 ↗ again how to get there

20:01 ↗ go to

20:03 ↗ the website m e n t i dot com minty.com

20:09 ↗ and use the

20:11 ↗ code eight one

20:13 ↗ six three

20:15 ↗ three eight six nine

20:17 ↗ and i think it's for me it's shown in

20:19 ↗ the presentation

20:20 ↗ of the screen it's up on the left side

20:22 ↗ too

20:26 ↗ okay minty meter okay

20:43 ↗ meter

20:54 ↗ are the results live from the voting

20:57 ↗ no so that's one thing i did want to

20:59 ↗ mention

21:00 ↗ um i still can't find it it just brings

21:04 ↗ them up in this order so you'll see when

21:06 ↗ i when i

21:07 ↗ put in the results

21:09 ↗ after i think i've got everyone you'll

21:11 ↗ see what that looks like so

21:13 ↗ for the next one just keep that in mind

21:15 ↗ that this is just the order that i

21:17 ↗ entered to them

21:20 ↗ eight one six three eight six nine

21:24 ↗ we used to call tiger mountain ticker

21:25 ↗ mountain and the kids are young

21:29 ↗ i think we had um

21:33 ↗ so i think we had um

21:36 ↗ 16

21:38 ↗ people

21:39 ↗ yeah i'm not i can't get into it all

21:42 ↗ right reuben um

21:44 ↗ what i'm gonna do is i'm gonna copy this

21:46 ↗ link and put it in the chat

21:48 ↗ and

21:48 ↗ [Music]

21:50 ↗ then maybe that might help

22:15 ↗ so reuben if you clicked on the link

22:18 ↗ did it take you directly to the voting

22:22 ↗ the link being up here in the right

22:23 ↗ corner

22:24 ↗ um no on your bottom right

22:26 ↗ click

22:27 ↗ the little circle that says chat on your

22:29 ↗ screen of our of our presentation right

22:33 ↗ now

22:34 ↗ boy i can't see anything i can't see

22:36 ↗ where chad is i think the chat has been

22:38 ↗ disabled for this meeting somehow i

22:40 ↗ don't see it no it's the chat's on there

22:42 ↗ your screen might be below the bottom

22:44 ↗ then if you well i can't yeah i can't

22:46 ↗ seem to move the picture up or down so

22:49 ↗ my whole bottom screen thing is missing

22:51 ↗ here so i'll have to just listen

22:53 ↗ [Music]

22:56 ↗ yeah i've got problems too because i my

22:58 ↗ computer's not updated it's asking me to

23:01 ↗ download uh edge uh or chrome and i

23:04 ↗ don't have either one of them in my

23:06 ↗ system and i don't want to go through it

23:07 ↗ right now can you can people do this on

23:10 ↗ their phones brienne

23:12 ↗ yes

23:13 ↗ reuben and brad would you be able to do

23:15 ↗ that with the phones that you have well

23:18 ↗ when i hit vote nothing happens

23:20 ↗ i don't have a smartphone so that's not

23:22 ↗ going to work

23:23 ↗ okay so i've got 15. i've got so maybe

23:26 ↗ i've got everyone except for brad then i

23:28 ↗ think reuben maybe we did get you did

23:30 ↗ you i know i didn't eat the votes i

23:31 ↗ don't know

23:34 ↗ nothing happens oh well

23:37 ↗ um

23:39 ↗ show your results

23:40 ↗ there we go did you hit the boat at the

23:42 ↗ bottom there you go

23:43 ↗ there you go okay so i got 15 people

23:46 ↗ this is this shows that we've got 15

23:48 ↗ votes oh a picker one

23:50 ↗ tiger one

23:52 ↗ okay

23:56 ↗ okay

23:58 ↗ well glad we got that out of the way

24:00 ↗ since there's a few glitches that's why

24:02 ↗ we put in the fun poll although

24:05 ↗ i think jennifer pointed out that we

24:07 ↗ left off grand ridge but i i still think

24:10 ↗ tiger would have won it was a good

24:11 ↗ choice by everyone keeping hikers over

24:13 ↗ there and keeps thicker cougar and

24:14 ↗ squawk less populated for hiking

24:20 ↗ now the next poll that we're going to do

24:23 ↗ is

24:26 ↗ we're going to have people rank the top

24:31 ↗ um of the

24:33 ↗ common values and

24:35 ↗ i wanted to see since i think everyone

24:38 ↗ got it figured out but brad

24:41 ↗ i have an idea if brad's isn't working

24:44 ↗ he could message me his vote and i could

24:46 ↗ vote on his behalf since i you know

24:48 ↗ since we're not voting

24:50 ↗ would that be a short

24:52 ↗ quick way to do it

24:58 ↗ that's what i was thinking would be

25:01 ↗ and what do you are you okay with that

25:03 ↗ brad

25:07 ↗ you may have to promote brad to a

25:10 ↗ panelist you're muted brad

25:12 ↗ you may have to promote brad to a

25:14 ↗ panelist in order for him to access the

25:16 ↗ chat

25:17 ↗ to do that

25:19 ↗ oh i've already got the chat up so i

25:21 ↗ just put direct to you tina gina right

25:23 ↗ yep you just pick me and then you can

25:25 ↗ send me your vote and i'll get on the

25:27 ↗ menti meter for you okay i can do that

25:29 ↗ great

25:30 ↗ okay and before we start the polling for

25:33 ↗ this one

25:35 ↗ two of the common values because they

25:37 ↗ were the same for everyone that is the

25:40 ↗ environmentally sustainable and the

25:43 ↗ non-motorized transportation those are

25:45 ↗ not going to be in the poll and the

25:47 ↗ reason why is we wanted to really focus

25:49 ↗ on the differences between the three

25:52 ↗ concepts

25:57 ↗ and brienne when you're ready you can

26:00 ↗ share the poll

26:08 ↗ need another minute just a second

26:36 ↗ john can you say one more time which

26:37 ↗ ones we're not ranking on

26:40 ↗ we are not ranking on

26:42 ↗ the non-motorized transportation

26:45 ↗ and the environmentally sustainable

26:52 ↗ thank you

27:22 ↗ oh

27:24 ↗ oh that's okay

27:25 ↗ sorry

27:34 ↗ and

27:34 ↗ brad if you want to type the order

27:37 ↗ preference for yours to me and let me

27:39 ↗ know when you've sent it so i can make

27:41 ↗ sure i see it

27:43 ↗ i i didn't miss it

27:48 ↗ okay i don't know if anyone else is

27:50 ↗ having this but for some reason

27:53 ↗ on the on this

27:54 ↗ do we have to re-log into mendy because

27:57 ↗ i have a different i have a

27:58 ↗ pre-discussion concept slide there

28:01 ↗ if you submit

28:02 ↗ your oh just submit okay

28:06 ↗ and then it should go to the next one

28:08 ↗ and says rank your values yes okay

28:11 ↗ perfect thank you

28:13 ↗ i'm kind of following to test it out too

28:21 ↗ so should we be on the next one talking

28:23 ↗ about connection safety character or

28:25 ↗ that's one we just voted on okay

28:33 ↗ you should yeah you should only be

28:35 ↗ voting on ranking the values

28:44 ↗ looks like we're looking for a couple

28:46 ↗ more

29:09 ↗ two more

29:16 ↗ okay i've got brads i just need to get

29:18 ↗ them entered on my part here too so

29:49 ↗ okay i submitted brads

30:16 ↗ i think we're looking for one more

30:18 ↗ it's me i can't i still can't figure

30:20 ↗ this out

30:22 ↗ oh i'm sorry

30:24 ↗ um

30:25 ↗ every time he voted he asked me to sign

30:27 ↗ up for something

30:29 ↗ if you directly message me i'll vote for

30:31 ↗ you who's that

30:33 ↗ well i can't even find how to get a

30:35 ↗ message because the whole bottom

30:37 ↗ this slide has to get up my whole screen

30:39 ↗ i can't see anything

30:43 ↗ and when i did it i've tried to minimize

30:45 ↗ it it won't get any smaller

30:47 ↗ reuben if you feel comfortable and if

30:49 ↗ you don't that's fine but you could just

30:52 ↗ say it out loud and then brienne could

30:53 ↗ vote for you

30:55 ↗ connections

31:00 ↗ okay

31:18 ↗ so your connections is your first choice

31:21 ↗ second choice

31:27 ↗ i'm starting with your second choice

31:30 ↗ for your for the next one oh it's

31:33 ↗ okay

31:34 ↗ right i thought we're just picking one

31:36 ↗ oh nope we're gonna put them in order

31:39 ↗ oh okay then number two

31:41 ↗ okay it'd be two

31:43 ↗ one

31:45 ↗ five

31:46 ↗ four three

31:50 ↗ two one

31:57 ↗ two

31:58 ↗ one five four

32:01 ↗ four three

32:04 ↗ thank you

32:10 ↗ okay

32:24 ↗ all right

32:26 ↗ i'm gonna jot these down which will help

32:28 ↗ as we talk about the alternative safety

32:32 ↗ connections

32:36 ↗ character and experience

32:43 ↗ and all ages and abilities

32:49 ↗ and prepare for growth

32:58 ↗ and we'll go back to the presentation

33:10 ↗ does everyone see my screen

33:13 ↗ yes yeah okay

33:18 ↗ [Music]

33:22 ↗ okay

33:23 ↗ this is concept a

33:26 ↗ and for concept a what we did for the

33:28 ↗ non-motorized facilities is instead of

33:31 ↗ having one

33:33 ↗ side be

33:34 ↗ the shardiest path like what you may

33:37 ↗ have traditionally seen

33:39 ↗ it's the path is really split

33:42 ↗ on both sides of the road with

33:45 ↗ six feet for pedestrians

33:48 ↗ in a more typical sidewalk setting

33:51 ↗ and then on the inside a six foot wide

33:54 ↗ protected bike lane and so we'd have the

33:56 ↗ 12 feet of space for the

33:58 ↗ non-motorized users on each side but the

34:05 ↗ users would be separated so that way the

34:08 ↗ pedestrians are not mixing with the

34:10 ↗ bicycles and vice versa

34:12 ↗ from a safety point of view

34:17 ↗ this really focuses on the separation

34:19 ↗ between the bicyclists and the

34:21 ↗ pedestrians

34:26 ↗ compared to the other two alternatives b

34:28 ↗ and c

34:29 ↗ typically less incidences between

34:32 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists because they

34:34 ↗ have their own space

34:36 ↗ it may give the perception that this is

34:38 ↗ a commuter lane and experienced riders

34:41 ↗ may be

34:42 ↗ less cautious of recreational riders

34:46 ↗ the six feet of bicycle space does allow

34:49 ↗ for

34:50 ↗ passing of bikes

34:53 ↗ the pedestrians will

34:55 ↗ feel safer because the bicycle bicycle

34:57 ↗ traffic is defined and more predictable

35:02 ↗ and when we get to driveways it might be

35:05 ↗ easier for drivers

35:07 ↗ knowing that for the bicycles who travel

35:09 ↗ at much higher speeds

35:11 ↗ than the pedestrians that they're going

35:14 ↗ to be coming from one direction instead

35:17 ↗ of both directions

35:18 ↗ and

35:19 ↗ then the final one with safety is

35:23 ↗ the

35:24 ↗ some of the national guidance for these

35:26 ↗ type of non-motorized facilities a lot

35:29 ↗ of times we go to natto does recommend

35:32 ↗ to separate bicycles and pedestrians on

35:34 ↗ a street with like newport way with the

35:37 ↗ volume

35:39 ↗ and the speed limit

35:42 ↗ for this concept when we look at the

35:45 ↗ some of the differences between

35:47 ↗ it and the other two alternatives

35:50 ↗ when it comes to connections

35:54 ↗ which

35:56 ↗ because it's not may not be perceived as

35:59 ↗ a trail

36:04 ↗ the design would need to really take

36:06 ↗ into account that and

36:08 ↗ do the wayfinding so that way as people

36:10 ↗ are passing through the mountains to

36:12 ↗ sound greenway trail that they would be

36:14 ↗ able to follow the way site finding and

36:16 ↗ to know which way the path goes

36:20 ↗ and

36:22 ↗ it does not

36:23 ↗ suggest a recreational trail

36:25 ↗ but more of a

36:26 ↗ commuter facility

36:29 ↗ separates the direction of bike traffic

36:35 ↗ and then the next one is character and

36:38 ↗ experience and

36:41 ↗ feeling a user as they're walking or

36:43 ↗ biking on the corridor is really what

36:45 ↗ we're looking at here

36:46 ↗ and

36:48 ↗ it may be more comfortable for some

36:50 ↗ users as

36:52 ↗ there are separate facilities for

36:54 ↗ there's a separation between the bikes

36:56 ↗ and the pedestrians but that really

36:57 ↗ depends on the person or the user

37:09 ↗ and

37:10 ↗ i would say for this alternative i'm not

37:12 ↗ going to go into as much for all

37:14 ↗ user all

37:17 ↗ ages and abilities but because there is

37:19 ↗ room for passing that

37:21 ↗ we do feel that it is a facility that

37:23 ↗ meets the needs of

37:26 ↗ all ages and abilities

37:28 ↗ this is concept b and for concept b what

37:31 ↗ we decided is

37:33 ↗ on the

37:35 ↗ squawk mountain side of

37:38 ↗ newport way

37:39 ↗ would be a 12 foot wide shared use path

37:43 ↗ and that would be dedicated as the

37:45 ↗ mountains to sound greenway trail in the

37:47 ↗ section that goes between maple and

37:49 ↗ hawley the path would continue all the

37:51 ↗ way to sunset

37:53 ↗ and for this one

37:57 ↗ it has the same footprint but it would

37:59 ↗ have a whole but wide sidewalk on the

38:01 ↗ other side and the reason why that was

38:03 ↗ kept the same

38:05 ↗ is because there's an elementary school

38:07 ↗ so there's still going to be a lot of

38:08 ↗ people walking and riding their bikes to

38:10 ↗ school and we did want to provide that

38:12 ↗ extra additional facility

38:15 ↗ for the

38:16 ↗ safety

38:18 ↗ the differences between this one and

38:21 ↗ concept a

38:23 ↗ is

38:29 ↗ commuters

38:30 ↗ might be

38:34 ↗ a little

38:36 ↗ might be more likely to

38:38 ↗ ride in the street just because

38:41 ↗ it might have it

38:42 ↗ has more of a recreational feel

38:45 ↗ and i think it would depend on how many

38:46 ↗ people were out and using it

38:49 ↗ but some commuters may

38:52 ↗ ride in the street and commuters would

38:54 ↗ have to be more cautious in areas with

38:56 ↗ high congestion as

38:58 ↗ the city

39:00 ↗ becomes more dense and has more

39:02 ↗ non-motorized users

39:06 ↗ yes

39:07 ↗ uh on this one with the 12 foot with the

39:10 ↗ bikes

39:12 ↗ on the right side would that continue

39:14 ↗ eventually all the way down to sunset

39:17 ↗ and so that the cycle track will be all

39:18 ↗ the way on one side of the sunset and

39:20 ↗ then there's have to go back to the

39:21 ↗ other sides of the road from there

39:27 ↗ let me make sure i understood the

39:29 ↗ 12-foot path

39:30 ↗ are you asking if it would go from maple

39:32 ↗ to sunset

39:35 ↗ or continue past sunset

39:38 ↗ right i was asking if it would uh

39:40 ↗ this would go all the way up to sunset

39:42 ↗ and then at sunset that would go back to

39:45 ↗ bikes on either side of the road

39:48 ↗ correct yeah there'd be no there's no

39:50 ↗ changes to sunset at this time

39:53 ↗ that's not to say that there won't be

39:55 ↗ any sunset yes okay right

39:58 ↗ yep

39:59 ↗ okay

40:05 ↗ for the connections

40:07 ↗ the the difference is that

40:11 ↗ on this one

40:13 ↗ by having it on

40:17 ↗ this side of this

40:21 ↗ it would be more of a traditional shared

40:22 ↗ use path

40:24 ↗ and

40:26 ↗ it would match what's currently being

40:27 ↗ designed and built for newport way

40:29 ↗ between sr 954th

40:33 ↗ for the character and experience

40:37 ↗ value

40:40 ↗ the difference between this one and

40:41 ↗ concept a

40:43 ↗ is that it may be more comfortable for

40:45 ↗ more users

40:47 ↗ as they

40:51 ↗ may feel like it's more of the the

40:53 ↗ traditional shared use path and like i

40:56 ↗ said these things

40:58 ↗ all vary from user to user and so when

41:01 ↗ we get to the discussion that's i think

41:03 ↗ where a lot of the great input from you

41:05 ↗ guys can be

41:08 ↗ and

41:09 ↗ for concept c on this one what we did is

41:14 ↗ the shared use path is on

41:17 ↗ the

41:18 ↗ escuavelli elementary school side but

41:21 ↗ instead of doing a 12 foot wide shared

41:23 ↗ used path we went with the 14 foot wide

41:25 ↗ path and to give it extra width for even

41:29 ↗ more non-motorized space

41:31 ↗ the sidewalk on the squat mountain side

41:35 ↗ was reduced to eight feet and we have

41:37 ↗ even a bigger buffer of seven and a half

41:40 ↗ feet between

41:41 ↗ the path and the street and this would

41:44 ↗ be

41:45 ↗ when it comes to

41:46 ↗ safety a lot of the same things as

41:49 ↗ concept b

41:50 ↗ and that

41:51 ↗ some commuters may decide to cycle in

41:53 ↗ the road as opposed to on a shared use

41:56 ↗ path

41:56 ↗ and the wider trail does give for

41:59 ↗ additional room for

42:02 ↗ the additional volume of

42:04 ↗ school children using the facilities the

42:07 ↗ facility

42:09 ↗ and for connections it's pretty similar

42:12 ↗ to concept b that it gives the

42:15 ↗ traditional shared use path experience

42:18 ↗ and

42:19 ↗ that if someone were looking at it as

42:21 ↗ they're trying to follow through it's

42:22 ↗ quite the mountains to sound greenway

42:23 ↗ trail it would look and feel

42:26 ↗ very much like the traditional shared

42:28 ↗ use path whether it's the mountains to

42:30 ↗ sound greenway trail or the brook gilman

42:32 ↗ trail or

42:34 ↗ the trail between redmond and this

42:37 ↗ supply

42:43 ↗ and at this point i'm going to stop

42:44 ↗ sharing my screen because

42:46 ↗ in order to kick off the

42:49 ↗ conversation we're going to do a

42:51 ↗ preliminary poll

42:53 ↗ where

42:54 ↗ what we're going the question we're

42:56 ↗ going to ask is which concept best meets

42:58 ↗ the highest priority common values and

43:01 ↗ so when we looked at the common values

43:04 ↗ safety came up to the top connections

43:06 ↗ was the second highest

43:09 ↗ character and experience was the third

43:11 ↗ and then all ages and abilities and

43:14 ↗ prepare for growth

43:16 ↗ were came in at fourth and fifth so

43:17 ↗ really focusing mostly on i'd say the

43:20 ↗ top three safety connections and

43:22 ↗ character and experience

43:24 ↗ and

43:25 ↗ think about which of the three best

43:27 ↗ meets those values and i'm going to hand

43:29 ↗ it off to brienne who's going to do the

43:31 ↗ poll and then for those of you who

43:35 ↗ i think what we'll do

43:37 ↗ on this one is

43:39 ↗ brad if you can tell

43:41 ↗ gina in the chat and then ruben at the

43:43 ↗ end

43:44 ↗ if you feel comfortable just sharing it

43:46 ↗ then we can get your vote in too

43:48 ↗ i want to make sure we get everyone to

43:50 ↗ vote and so go to mentee.com

43:53 ↗ and it's the

43:55 ↗ code eight one six three

43:57 ↗ three eight six nine

43:59 ↗ and it should just already like on mine

44:01 ↗ it's already popped up on the same

44:02 ↗ screen i had open

44:04 ↗ yep

44:08 ↗ okay

44:17 ↗ so i see a question in the chat what was

44:19 ↗ the second common value

44:22 ↗ connections

44:24 ↗ from the votes

44:26 ↗ the second one was connections

44:35 ↗ and i see your vote thank you brad

44:49 ↗ okay

44:50 ↗ so that's 16. reuben were you able to

44:54 ↗ to vote

44:55 ↗ no

44:57 ↗ you're muted reuben sorry

45:00 ↗ did i get in

45:01 ↗ i thought we only had 16 folks asking me

45:04 ↗ for a password um

45:08 ↗ i would say concept a meets the value of

45:10 ↗ safety

45:11 ↗ okay

45:13 ↗ um

45:19 ↗ it means we're getting seven voters by

45:21 ↗ the way john i mean 17.

45:24 ↗ um

45:30 ↗ okay

45:33 ↗ okay oh x um

45:36 ↗ good

45:37 ↗ so

45:38 ↗ the the preliminary and this is really

45:41 ↗ to help focus the the discussion and

45:45 ↗ because what we're going to do at the

45:46 ↗ next part of this meeting is to go into

45:49 ↗ breakout rooms to have the discussions

45:51 ↗ and one of the reasons for that is we

45:53 ↗ really want to make sure that everyone

45:56 ↗ is heard

45:57 ↗ and has a chance to talk and so what

45:59 ↗ we're going to do

46:03 ↗ is we're going to have four breakout

46:05 ↗ rooms and in the four breakout rooms i

46:07 ↗ guess brienne is that right we've got

46:08 ↗ four

46:10 ↗ yeah and inside the four breakout rooms

46:13 ↗ each one is going to have

46:15 ↗ either a chair or a vice chair

46:18 ↗ from

46:19 ↗ each of the

46:23 ↗ advisory boards and

46:26 ↗ they will be summarizing the comments

46:29 ↗ and

46:30 ↗ would and then we'll have staff in the

46:32 ↗ there to facilitate the conversation

46:36 ↗ and

46:37 ↗ to talk about the different

46:40 ↗ how these concepts are with the values

46:42 ↗ based on the preliminary vote i think we

46:45 ↗ should focus more on concepts a and b

46:48 ↗ but if someone really feels strongly

46:50 ↗ about c please be speak up

46:52 ↗ and

46:54 ↗ with that are we ready for breakout

46:56 ↗ rooms isabel

46:58 ↗ okay welcome back

47:00 ↗ at the next this next stage in the

47:03 ↗ meeting what we are going to do is have

47:05 ↗ the

47:07 ↗ four

47:08 ↗ or the two chairs and the two vice

47:10 ↗ chairs

47:11 ↗ summarize the

47:13 ↗ conversations in their groups

47:15 ↗ and i will go ahead and

47:19 ↗ choose on

47:21 ↗ brad to go first

47:26 ↗ hey john let's do it

47:29 ↗ so we were a bit mixed i don't know that

47:30 ↗ we really read

47:32 ↗ we really found any consensus in it i

47:34 ↗ don't know that that was really intense

47:36 ↗ anyway but we had a lot of discussion

47:38 ↗ and

47:39 ↗ really some further clarification

47:41 ↗ because i don't i i wasn't nor was

47:44 ↗ thomas and maybe some others uh real

47:46 ↗ clear that that that the path was

47:48 ↗ actually a shared use

47:51 ↗ half because the graphic looks as if

47:54 ↗ it was just bikes on one side and heads

47:56 ↗ on the other

47:58 ↗ which to some extent

48:00 ↗ i felt to be the safest which is why i

48:04 ↗ selected

48:05 ↗ alternative b is the best

48:08 ↗ once you actually start seeing that

48:10 ↗ that's a shared use path that kind of

48:12 ↗ changes things a little bit

48:15 ↗ essentially i think some of the

48:18 ↗ elements that we talked about really

48:21 ↗ focused enough more on anything with

48:23 ↗ safety

48:24 ↗ and

48:25 ↗ that there's a distinctional difference

48:27 ↗ between safety

48:29 ↗ for

48:30 ↗ interaction with vehicles and safety and

48:32 ↗ interaction with pedestrians

48:35 ↗ and

48:37 ↗ and so

48:38 ↗ to some extent each one of these options

48:40 ↗ treats those a little bit differently in

48:43 ↗ in the sense that

48:45 ↗ alternative a may have some safety

48:47 ↗ features

48:49 ↗ in terms of interaction with vehicles

48:51 ↗ because you have bikes going

48:53 ↗ one way

48:55 ↗ which people on the road can predict

48:57 ↗ what you know better in that respect

49:00 ↗ but you also have them um interacting

49:03 ↗ with pedestrians

49:05 ↗ uh you know six foot apart

49:07 ↗ on each

49:09 ↗ pedestrian lane and a bike lane so

49:12 ↗ um

49:14 ↗ so anyway i think you know a couple

49:16 ↗ things that we wanted to see a little

49:18 ↗ bit

49:19 ↗ further is in terms of how the

49:22 ↗ how these um

49:24 ↗ trails and paths would

49:27 ↗ flow through the roundabouts

49:30 ↗ and it would be good to get a better

49:32 ↗ idea of that

49:36 ↗ and

49:38 ↗ it would be

49:39 ↗ julian had mentioned one of the big

49:41 ↗ focuses that we want to talk about is

49:43 ↗ the utility feature for transportation

49:46 ↗ purposes in terms of bikes

49:49 ↗ uh we really want to focus on what's the

49:51 ↗ you know what is a good strategy for

49:53 ↗ bikes in flowing through newport

49:57 ↗ um

50:00 ↗ so i don't know

50:01 ↗ to some extent i kind of think that

50:03 ↗ there's potential that people might have

50:05 ↗ actually selected alternatives

50:07 ↗ differently after discussion

50:10 ↗ um

50:11 ↗ and

50:12 ↗ you know so i don't know whether that

50:13 ↗ would change or not but you know i think

50:16 ↗ some things became clearer through

50:18 ↗ discussion in terms of what

50:20 ↗ uh the graphics represented and what

50:22 ↗ this overall um proposal was looking

50:24 ↗ like you know for instance concept c

50:29 ↗ from my perspective

50:31 ↗ was not

50:32 ↗ high on the list but when you start

50:33 ↗ adding a shared use path

50:37 ↗ having that wider path to 14 feet

50:41 ↗ might make that a little safer in terms

50:42 ↗ of interaction between bikes and

50:44 ↗ pedestrians

50:46 ↗ um

50:48 ↗ you know there was discussion in terms

50:50 ↗ of at least having you know different

50:52 ↗ surfaces

50:53 ↗ you know

50:54 ↗ being the thing that may actually keep

50:57 ↗ people uh safer i suppose where bikes

51:00 ↗ are going to stay more on a

51:02 ↗ traditional

51:04 ↗ paved path versus pedestrians might

51:07 ↗ stick more to sidewalks um

51:10 ↗ i just don't know you know the reality

51:12 ↗ of that

51:13 ↗ you know i i think there's going to be

51:15 ↗ more a matter of

51:17 ↗ space what space is available if you've

51:19 ↗ got bikes coming down they're going to

51:20 ↗ go off probably off that path and onto

51:23 ↗ the sidewalk if that's appropriate

51:25 ↗ to do so

51:29 ↗ i think that that's

51:31 ↗ kind of a bit of a summation

51:34 ↗ okay uh great

51:36 ↗ i'll have sujata go next

51:39 ↗ for her group

51:41 ↗ thanks john um so in our group we had

51:43 ↗ ryan and christy and myself

51:46 ↗ and the three of us um were actually

51:49 ↗ of like mind and all three of us felt

51:52 ↗ that alternative a

51:54 ↗ um spoke closest to the values that we

51:57 ↗ discussed in the priority order that we

51:59 ↗ discussed them so really we were all

52:02 ↗ very safety focused um and one of the

52:05 ↗ big things you know ryan mentioned was

52:07 ↗ that the separation of walking and

52:09 ↗ biking

52:10 ↗ um and um

52:12 ↗ that separation it was nice to have that

52:14 ↗ separation on both sides of the road

52:17 ↗ even though later it was clarified that

52:19 ↗ um

52:20 ↗ you know people could walk or bike on

52:22 ↗ both sides of the road um in the other

52:24 ↗ designs but we like the idea that people

52:27 ↗ could bike or walk on both sides of the

52:28 ↗ road and remain as separate modes um

52:32 ↗ that was something that felt

52:34 ↗ uh we felt was much safer especially as

52:37 ↗ christie mentioned that this is

52:39 ↗ um one a high volume arterial but two

52:42 ↗ that it's also

52:43 ↗ a lot of school kids would be using this

52:46 ↗ shared use facility and so it was nice

52:49 ↗ to be able to have that separation for

52:50 ↗ the kids as well

52:52 ↗ um between the bikes and the pedestrians

52:56 ↗ um

52:57 ↗ one of the other things that ryan

52:58 ↗ mentioned was that it's a good way to

53:00 ↗ the separation between bike and ped also

53:03 ↗ meant

53:04 ↗ that we were we had a better opportunity

53:06 ↗ to prep for growth

53:08 ↗ um because as you know e-bikes or

53:10 ↗ scooters or all of those kind of

53:13 ↗ different alternative wheels start

53:14 ↗ coming you know into the market um

53:18 ↗ it'll be nice to again keep them

53:20 ↗ separated from the pedestrians um in

53:23 ↗ sort of their own

53:24 ↗ um space and you know one of the things

53:27 ↗ i mentioned is i know we have a lot of

53:28 ↗ shared use path trails all over the

53:30 ↗ region and people are used to bikes and

53:32 ↗ peds sharing these trails

53:35 ↗ sharing the space but one of the biggest

53:36 ↗ differences

53:38 ↗ that we felt for this particular

53:40 ↗ corridor is that it's in a road right of

53:42 ↗ way versus you know some of our trails

53:45 ↗ which are you know either railroads or

53:47 ↗ parks

53:48 ↗ um this is inside of a road right-of-way

53:50 ↗ and so maybe cyclists would feel that um

53:53 ↗ that 15-mile speed limit is maybe um

53:57 ↗ a softer suggestion and that they can

54:00 ↗ you know speed up a little bit more

54:02 ↗ because it is a road right of way so

54:04 ↗ again

54:05 ↗ with the eye to safety we wanted to keep

54:06 ↗ it separate um

54:08 ↗ and then um it was nice that um jennifer

54:11 ↗ was on the call for a bit because she

54:13 ↗ was able to clarify that this design

54:16 ↗ design alternative a could also um does

54:19 ↗ also sort of meet the values of the

54:21 ↗ emerald necklace so

54:23 ↗ you know it meets the values of sort of

54:25 ↗ transportation infrastructure but it

54:26 ↗ also um

54:28 ↗ does with the tree-lined streets it can

54:30 ↗ meet the values of um

54:32 ↗ of the emerald necklace so it's kind of

54:34 ↗ that shared value between the two groups

54:38 ↗ so that's kind of our summary thank you

54:40 ↗ thank you sejada

54:42 ↗ i'll have to go zach go next

54:46 ↗ okay um

54:48 ↗ our group was kind of split between

54:51 ↗ concept a and b

54:54 ↗ essentially

54:56 ↗ in favor of the

54:59 ↗ concept

55:00 ↗ b was

55:01 ↗ basically that the cyclist

55:04 ↗ and the pedestrians would be split on

55:06 ↗ either side of the road

55:07 ↗ which would um

55:09 ↗ sort of eliminate that issue of cyclists

55:13 ↗ going too quickly past pedestrians um

55:16 ↗ also i believe uh that with the um

55:20 ↗ uh cyclists being on the squawk side

55:23 ↗ pedestrians um

55:25 ↗ being on the um

55:28 ↗ the school side then that would allow

55:30 ↗ some separation between the uh kids and

55:33 ↗ cyclists

55:35 ↗ and in terms of uh concept a um

55:39 ↗ i've liked the fact that there was

55:42 ↗ a the cyclists and the pedestrians were

55:44 ↗ able to

55:45 ↗ share the same

55:47 ↗ the same size of the streets without

55:51 ↗ having conflict between the two there so

55:54 ↗ definitely the discussion was very

55:56 ↗ safety focused with regards to

55:59 ↗ separating pedestrians from cyclists um

56:03 ↗ on both sides kind of thinking similarly

56:06 ↗ uh just for different reasons as to why

56:09 ↗ would be one would be safer than the

56:11 ↗ other um

56:12 ↗ i think the since both of them being

56:14 ↗ shared use the concern was that on the

56:17 ↗ cyclist side um it would also have some

56:20 ↗ pedestrian use so being able to

56:22 ↗ delineate between the two would be uh

56:24 ↗ useful having them on both sides

56:27 ↗ um also spoke a little bit about cost

56:31 ↗ the cost for each being the same with

56:34 ↗ the same footprint of that 68 feet

56:37 ↗ there was some concern about the

56:39 ↗ direction of riding and

56:42 ↗ safety with the

56:44 ↗ motorist as well

56:47 ↗ and

56:50 ↗ we i don't believe we found any glaring

56:53 ↗ issues of it

56:56 ↗ not meeting the needs uh with regards to

57:00 ↗ the mountains to sound greenway or the

57:02 ↗ transportation needs

57:04 ↗ um

57:06 ↗ and i believe that kind of summarizes

57:08 ↗ what we

57:09 ↗ spoke of

57:13 ↗ thanks zach

57:14 ↗ and next i'll have cynthia talk about

57:17 ↗ what your group talked about

57:20 ↗ okay um let's see well the

57:23 ↗ i thought it was interesting that we

57:25 ↗ went into the breakout sessions where uh

57:27 ↗ three people had voted for a as number

57:29 ↗ one and then two people had voted

57:31 ↗ otherwise and forget which was which um

57:34 ↗ and then throughout the discussion it

57:35 ↗ the

57:36 ↗ it softened to uh one person feeling

57:39 ↗ strongly about a

57:40 ↗ and the others um being kind of more

57:42 ↗ tied or softened on their position um we

57:46 ↗ didn't actually revoke

57:47 ↗ um but nobody came over to a um and i

57:50 ↗ also think that everybody

57:52 ↗ was it was implicit we didn't we weren't

57:54 ↗ explicit about a safety being first but

57:56 ↗ i think the main differences were just

57:59 ↗ an interpretation of what is the safest

58:01 ↗ um and so

58:03 ↗ we we work and i'm still honestly

58:05 ↗ listening to any summaries still a

58:07 ↗ little confused

58:08 ↗ with b and c

58:10 ↗ um and i think we are it was our

58:12 ↗ assumption that

58:14 ↗ there was a predominant direction for

58:17 ↗ a predominant side of the road for

58:18 ↗ pedestrians and cyclists being separate

58:21 ↗ which means that um

58:24 ↗ in both uh b and c

58:26 ↗ and that um

58:28 ↗ cyclists will be going

58:30 ↗ opposite directions on one side of the

58:32 ↗ street so that's and then i kind of the

58:34 ↗ beginning of this herd you say no that's

58:35 ↗ not really true that both sides are a

58:38 ↗ shared use path so i'm still a little

58:40 ↗ confused about what the design is there

58:43 ↗ um

58:45 ↗ so

58:46 ↗ yeah let me

58:48 ↗ let me go ahead and share my screen and

58:50 ↗ i want to talk about b

58:52 ↗ to

58:54 ↗ clarify it a little bit

59:10 ↗ okay this is

59:12 ↗ slide or concept b

59:15 ↗ and what it is is on this we can't we

59:18 ↗ can't see it yet i'm not seeing your

59:19 ↗ screen but i have

59:21 ↗ a lot of us have it up on a different

59:22 ↗ screen hold on hold on i i need it to

59:25 ↗ hit there we go

59:27 ↗ okay here we go

59:30 ↗ did you make it bigger john

59:32 ↗ is it bigger now

59:33 ↗ yep yep great thanks okay perfect all

59:36 ↗ right so on the squawk mountain side

59:38 ↗ this is a shared use path

59:41 ↗ which means that both pedestrians and

59:44 ↗ cyclists could use this facility

59:47 ↗ and on this side it is technically a 12

59:50 ↗ foot wide sidewalk and a lot of ways

59:52 ↗ it's a second shared use path

59:55 ↗ the

59:56 ↗ difference is this one we intend to make

59:58 ↗ out of

59:59 ↗ asphalt pavement which is

1:00:02 ↗ if you are

1:00:04 ↗ a lot of users who are runners or

1:00:06 ↗ bicyclists prefer the asphalt pavement

1:00:09 ↗ to the concrete sidewalk

1:00:11 ↗ the

1:00:12 ↗ just a little bit easier when you're

1:00:14 ↗ running and then especially if you're

1:00:15 ↗ biking you don't have the joints because

1:00:17 ↗ if you have a sidewalk you've got the

1:00:20 ↗ the joints

1:00:21 ↗ that you feel

1:00:22 ↗ on your tires as you're riding it and so

1:00:24 ↗ the this sidewalk or the concrete

1:00:27 ↗ sureties path that would be on the

1:00:28 ↗ school side

1:00:30 ↗ kind of the thinking on this is so bikes

1:00:33 ↗ would be

1:00:34 ↗ perfectly allowed on both there's

1:00:36 ↗ nothing inside city code that that

1:00:38 ↗ prohibits bikes from riding on the

1:00:40 ↗ sidewalk and

1:00:43 ↗ hoping

1:00:44 ↗ that with this with the concrete side

1:00:47 ↗ being the side with the school but that

1:00:49 ↗ side would have

1:00:51 ↗ more of the

1:00:52 ↗ walkers and

1:00:55 ↗ the slower bicyclist so if you're riding

1:00:57 ↗ your bike to school you're going to be

1:00:59 ↗ riding on the side of the street with

1:01:01 ↗ the schools

1:01:03 ↗ especially because there's a lot more

1:01:05 ↗ housing

1:01:06 ↗ on the school side

1:01:08 ↗ than there is on this the mountain side

1:01:10 ↗ but

1:01:12 ↗ john

1:01:13 ↗ right with the right side that is the

1:01:15 ↗ asphalt would that also be signed

1:01:19 ↗ as the trail

1:01:21 ↗ connection yeah

1:01:22 ↗ yeah so one of the key things to the

1:01:24 ↗ mountains to sound greenway

1:01:26 ↗ corridor that we've found from talking

1:01:28 ↗ to them is

1:01:31 ↗ they really want to make sure that the

1:01:33 ↗ signing and the logos are there so that

1:01:35 ↗ way people can follow it along so the

1:01:38 ↗ the mountainside would be signed

1:01:41 ↗ for the mountains to sound greenway

1:01:43 ↗ trail and the concrete side would not

1:01:48 ↗ did that help answer any questions on

1:01:49 ↗ concept b

1:01:51 ↗ so

1:01:52 ↗ yeah is it fair to say that

1:01:54 ↗ rather than being prohibited

1:01:56 ↗ they would be encouraged

1:01:59 ↗ through design to use one side for both

1:02:01 ↗ directions okay

1:02:03 ↗ okay so

1:02:06 ↗ so without being said i i think i can

1:02:08 ↗ probably summarize finish summarizing

1:02:10 ↗ our group so

1:02:11 ↗ um

1:02:13 ↗ uh

1:02:14 ↗ there was concern

1:02:16 ↗ that

1:02:17 ↗ um

1:02:18 ↗ that even though the

1:02:20 ↗ um

1:02:21 ↗ the separation would be on the pavement

1:02:24 ↗ with you know visually separated that

1:02:27 ↗ that

1:02:28 ↗ i think kind of the bottom line was that

1:02:29 ↗ people were fearing that there wasn't

1:02:31 ↗ enough room and people wouldn't adhere

1:02:32 ↗ to it so you'd have bicyclists mixing

1:02:35 ↗ with pedestrians and maybe that not

1:02:37 ↗ being expected i guess um so there was

1:02:40 ↗ concern about that

1:02:42 ↗ and then option a right for option a i'm

1:02:45 ↗ sorry yes so so the folks that were not

1:02:47 ↗ in favor of option a were concerned that

1:02:50 ↗ it didn't give either enough room and um

1:02:52 ↗ and they wouldn't be adhered to you

1:02:54 ↗ couldn't trust the cyclists to stay and

1:02:56 ↗ um in the six feet

1:02:58 ↗ um

1:02:59 ↗ those there was also um

1:03:02 ↗ a concern

1:03:04 ↗ it was favor

1:03:06 ↗ it would be favorable to move everyone

1:03:07 ↗ over to the school side of the road for

1:03:10 ↗ the reason you just said

1:03:12 ↗ um less fewer driveways so that might be

1:03:15 ↗ useful to have cyclists encouraged to be

1:03:17 ↗ over there because there'd be less

1:03:20 ↗ interface with traffic

1:03:22 ↗ um

1:03:22 ↗ and i'm trying to be a good um

1:03:26 ↗ report out person and not but

1:03:29 ↗ my own strong opinion which wasn't

1:03:31 ↗ necessarily shared was um

1:03:35 ↗ the

1:03:36 ↗ um

1:03:38 ↗ just anytime you mix them it's more

1:03:40 ↗ dangerous and so concept a separates

1:03:43 ↗ them and then if you're trying to

1:03:44 ↗ encourage people to

1:03:46 ↗ cycle on both sides of the road i'm

1:03:49 ↗ sorry cycle on one side of the road in

1:03:51 ↗ both directions with a 0.7 mile stretch

1:03:55 ↗ if you're going 15 miles an hour you're

1:03:57 ↗ gonna do that in about three minutes and

1:03:59 ↗ so you're not gonna go across the road

1:04:02 ↗ when you're traveling the opposite

1:04:04 ↗ direction you know that would be with

1:04:06 ↗ traffic you're not gonna cross the road

1:04:08 ↗ and three minutes later across the road

1:04:09 ↗ again so so if you're being encouraged

1:04:11 ↗ to use

1:04:13 ↗ one side for both directions

1:04:15 ↗ you're probably not going to do that

1:04:17 ↗ because you're not going to switch sides

1:04:18 ↗ for 0.7 miles and there be then there's

1:04:20 ↗ lots and lots of as you as sujata

1:04:23 ↗ mentioned being

1:04:25 ↗ a kind of a commuter route and within

1:04:27 ↗ the right-of-way it's um you know you

1:04:29 ↗ have lots and lots of people cycling

1:04:31 ↗ through there at 17 to 22 miles an hour

1:04:33 ↗ and so

1:04:34 ↗ um

1:04:36 ↗ they're not going to want to jump over

1:04:37 ↗ to the opposite side um and i also was

1:04:41 ↗ worried that i would be a little biased

1:04:42 ↗ and so i asked jonathan to just um

1:04:45 ↗ maybe say anything that i might have

1:04:47 ↗ missed

1:04:48 ↗ um since i was the only one that felt as

1:04:51 ↗ strongly as i did i was the one asked to

1:04:53 ↗ report out i didn't want to

1:04:54 ↗ abuse that power so jonathan do you do

1:04:57 ↗ you want to share anything else that i

1:04:58 ↗ might have missed um yeah i think that

1:05:00 ↗ encapsulated i think the only

1:05:02 ↗ clarification i would have is just for

1:05:03 ↗ for concept b when we were discussing um

1:05:06 ↗ that would be on the southwest side so

1:05:08 ↗ the the thinking there being that

1:05:11 ↗ because there is less kind of mid-out

1:05:12 ↗ traffic because there are fewer

1:05:14 ↗ businesses and residences located on

1:05:15 ↗ that side of the road then it may

1:05:18 ↗ um provide some safety benefit and that

1:05:21 ↗ there's less opportunity for

1:05:23 ↗ cyclists crossing in front of

1:05:25 ↗ intersections where cars are coming in

1:05:27 ↗ out as opposed to the other side where

1:05:28 ↗ you have poly street you have people

1:05:30 ↗ going the back way to target

1:05:32 ↗ the school is right there

1:05:40 ↗ okay oh great i what i think we should

1:05:43 ↗ do next is i want to

1:05:45 ↗ do a deep dive on to concept a just like

1:05:48 ↗ what we did

1:05:49 ↗ i

1:05:53 ↗ and just and then do a quick

1:05:56 ↗ recap of each of the three concepts and

1:05:58 ↗ then do the poll again and see

1:06:00 ↗ where everyone's at as a group

1:06:03 ↗ and so i'm going to go ahead and start

1:06:05 ↗ um

1:06:06 ↗ sorry did we miss hearing from one group

1:06:08 ↗ or did we hear from everyone

1:06:10 ↗ i think we hear from everyone sorry

1:06:24 ↗ is everyone seeing my screen

1:06:27 ↗ all right this is concept a

1:06:31 ↗ where this is the school side

1:06:33 ↗ over here is the squawk mountain side

1:06:36 ↗ there is a six foot wide sidewalk

1:06:40 ↗ which is what we have for

1:06:42 ↗ most of the sidewalks

1:06:44 ↗ a few areas where it's a little bit

1:06:46 ↗ wider but it's a pretty

1:06:48 ↗ standard width for our sidewalk

1:06:51 ↗ then we have a six foot wide

1:06:53 ↗ bike facility just for reference when

1:06:56 ↗ you see the on-street painted bike lanes

1:06:58 ↗ usually those are five feet this a

1:07:00 ↗ little bit wider

1:07:02 ↗ which we're talking about the

1:07:04 ↗ additional room for passing and it's

1:07:06 ↗ just really symmetrical between both

1:07:08 ↗ sides

1:07:11 ↗ on

1:07:12 ↗ concept b i'm just going to we already

1:07:14 ↗ talked in

1:07:15 ↗ depth but i'll just

1:07:17 ↗ refresh it just to hit it one more time

1:07:20 ↗ asphalt pavement on the squawk mountain

1:07:23 ↗ side

1:07:23 ↗ concrete on the other side

1:07:26 ↗ cyan the asphalt side for the mountains

1:07:29 ↗ to sound greenway trail

1:07:31 ↗ and concept

1:07:33 ↗ c

1:07:34 ↗ is on the school side have an extra wide

1:07:36 ↗ 14 foot wide path

1:07:38 ↗ and on the

1:07:40 ↗ spock mountain side and eight foot

1:07:43 ↗ sidewalk and i'm going to stop

1:07:45 ↗ does anyone need to see them one more

1:07:47 ↗ time before we do another poll

1:07:49 ↗ or any one from the team want to add

1:07:51 ↗ something i missed

1:07:53 ↗ hey john on concept c the 14 foot path

1:07:56 ↗ that would be mountain to sound greenway

1:07:59 ↗ correct okay

1:08:03 ↗ i thought that was school site

1:08:06 ↗ well on concept c it would be both the

1:08:08 ↗ school and the mountains to sound

1:08:10 ↗ greenway trail

1:08:11 ↗ oh so you put the bikers doing the trail

1:08:14 ↗ and the children all together

1:08:16 ↗ correct

1:08:24 ↗ brienne are you able to get up another

1:08:25 ↗ poll

1:08:30 ↗ sure can yes

1:08:39 ↗ and brad i'll watch for your vote

1:08:51 ↗ people are beating me to it

1:09:03 ↗ okay

1:09:09 ↗ similar instructions go to the website

1:09:11 ↗ minty and the code is eight one six

1:09:14 ↗ three

1:09:15 ↗ three eight six

1:09:18 ↗ nine brad i got your vote thank you

1:09:26 ↗ and zach asked a question can the code

1:09:28 ↗ be added again

1:09:33 ↗ um like the link

1:09:34 ↗ that i copied last time

1:09:37 ↗ no sorry i was just using a different

1:09:39 ↗ device my question was answered already

1:09:42 ↗ the code was provided again thank you

1:09:44 ↗ okay

1:10:15 ↗ brienne this is jennifer we may be short

1:10:18 ↗ one vote um i think linda dropped off

1:10:22 ↗ and then

1:10:23 ↗ does ruben want to give his vote

1:10:26 ↗ i was i still stayed with b

1:10:29 ↗ okay i'll put you in

1:10:42 ↗ so then um you said someone dropped off

1:10:45 ↗ so that i think we've got everybody

1:10:49 ↗ big reveal

1:10:59 ↗ okay uh the

1:11:01 ↗ 50 voted for concept a 38 for concept b

1:11:06 ↗ and 13 for concept c

1:11:10 ↗ and with that

1:11:12 ↗ brianne can you stop sharing your screen

1:11:16 ↗ perfect thanks

1:11:17 ↗ what i'd like to do is ask that because

1:11:20 ↗ concept c came in fairly low

1:11:23 ↗ the people who voted for concept c

1:11:26 ↗ between concepts a and b do you have a

1:11:29 ↗ preference

1:11:34 ↗ or i can also

1:11:36 ↗ do it one more time if you want

1:11:38 ↗ let's do another poll and that way

1:11:42 ↗ especially since we're getting near the

1:11:43 ↗ end of our meeting let's just look at

1:11:45 ↗ concepts a and b and c

1:11:47 ↗ where the voting is

1:11:50 ↗ oh i just did that

1:11:57 ↗ uh

1:12:09 ↗ and brienne can when you have it yeah

1:12:11 ↗ share your screen perfect

1:12:34 ↗ and then reuben if you want i'm happy to

1:12:36 ↗ vote for you again

1:12:38 ↗ yeah still be

1:12:40 ↗ okay

1:12:56 ↗ got it thank you brad

1:13:11 ↗ i think we're waiting on one more

1:13:16 ↗ okay

1:13:23 ↗ [Music]

1:13:26 ↗ okay

1:13:29 ↗ with that right now it is concept a was

1:13:32 ↗ 50 58 or 56 percent and concept b

1:13:37 ↗ was

1:13:38 ↗ is at 44

1:13:44 ↗ almost a time

1:14:11 ↗ i guess the

1:14:13 ↗ trying to probe a little bit

1:14:17 ↗ more from people

1:14:20 ↗ between the two and i'll i'll first ask

1:14:22 ↗ the park's board members this

1:14:26 ↗ to

1:14:29 ↗ does either a

1:14:31 ↗ or b

1:14:32 ↗ not meet the division of the

1:14:35 ↗ mountains to sound greenway trail and

1:14:38 ↗ the green necklace

1:14:40 ↗ if i guess if anyone feels like it does

1:14:42 ↗ not

1:14:43 ↗ can you add your contribution of why you

1:14:46 ↗ feel it does not

1:14:54 ↗ asking the park folks first

1:14:56 ↗ yeah so does do either of the

1:14:59 ↗ alternatives not meet the visions the

1:15:02 ↗ vision of the green necklace or the

1:15:03 ↗ mountains to sound

1:15:05 ↗ greenway corridor

1:15:08 ↗ or do both of them meet the vision

1:15:12 ↗ yeah

1:15:13 ↗ i had a question for for our group

1:15:16 ↗ regarding the kind of the designation

1:15:18 ↗ and the requirements for mountain to

1:15:19 ↗ sound and it sounded like regardless of

1:15:22 ↗ either option that they could still be

1:15:24 ↗ labeled as such that you wouldn't need

1:15:28 ↗ the the

1:15:28 ↗ full 12 foot on one side just to ensure

1:15:31 ↗ that it still had the mountain's descent

1:15:32 ↗ designation

1:15:34 ↗ right

1:15:35 ↗ their biggest priority is

1:15:37 ↗ two things one when

1:15:39 ↗ getting the facility built that way

1:15:41 ↗ non-motorized users can

1:15:43 ↗ have the connections that they're trying

1:15:45 ↗ to

1:15:46 ↗ get agencies to build so they they're

1:15:48 ↗ really coordinating and advocating for

1:15:51 ↗ agencies to build this and work together

1:15:55 ↗ and to put their logo on it those are

1:15:57 ↗ the two big things

1:16:00 ↗ and for the oh any anything else before

1:16:03 ↗ i ask the next question

1:16:05 ↗ so does mount i'm not familiar with

1:16:07 ↗ mountain to sounds uh

1:16:09 ↗ expectations here is 12 foot their

1:16:13 ↗ expectation

1:16:15 ↗ no they i jennifer and i talked to them

1:16:18 ↗ and

1:16:19 ↗ other than 12 feet is for a shardiest

1:16:22 ↗ path the standard design width that most

1:16:25 ↗ people go with but really they feel that

1:16:29 ↗ an agency a city who builds a portion of

1:16:32 ↗ the mountains to sound greenway trail

1:16:34 ↗ but they need to build something that

1:16:35 ↗ fits right to that city and that meets

1:16:38 ↗ the needs of the city and they just

1:16:40 ↗ would like it marked in the way finding

1:16:42 ↗ that way users can

1:16:44 ↗ go on it so they

1:16:45 ↗ they're not sitting there saying okay it

1:16:48 ↗ needs to be 12 feet wide with two feet

1:16:50 ↗ of clear area

1:16:53 ↗ they're much more flexible

1:16:55 ↗ i just i'll just piggyback real quick

1:16:57 ↗ the mountains of sound greenway trail is

1:16:59 ↗ really a connection from through the

1:17:02 ↗ entire mountains to ground sound

1:17:05 ↗ national heritage area a

1:17:07 ↗ shared use route that goes from

1:17:10 ↗ puget sound all the way

1:17:12 ↗ through the

1:17:14 ↗ national heritage corridor area and

1:17:16 ↗ we'll continue with other regional

1:17:18 ↗ trails and take you all the way to

1:17:19 ↗ spokane to the other side of the street

1:17:21 ↗ um state

1:17:23 ↗ so um

1:17:25 ↗ the trail is actually going to be a city

1:17:27 ↗ trail

1:17:28 ↗ that as john mentioned will be marked as

1:17:31 ↗ the mountains of sound route so peop as

1:17:33 ↗ part of that continual signage but this

1:17:36 ↗ is a city trail um they have recently

1:17:40 ↗ bellevue city of bellevue has

1:17:41 ↗ constructed uh new trails right near the

1:17:44 ↗ eastgate center

1:17:46 ↗ right next to the freeway nice wide

1:17:49 ↗ shared use path where you can bike and

1:17:51 ↗ or walk on it

1:17:53 ↗ so if you've not experienced one i would

1:17:55 ↗ recommend

1:17:56 ↗ taking a look out there but

1:17:58 ↗ those are the functionality features of

1:18:00 ↗ the mountains to sound trails we want

1:18:02 ↗ people to be able whether you're walking

1:18:04 ↗ hiking biking to be able to connect

1:18:08 ↗ through

1:18:09 ↗ a city from one regional trail at one

1:18:11 ↗ end and get to the other regional trails

1:18:13 ↗ at the other end and know you're on the

1:18:15 ↗ same path

1:18:16 ↗ there's multiple surgery sprouts within

1:18:19 ↗ the city already so um

1:18:22 ↗ that have this multi-function so just

1:18:24 ↗ wanted to add that for a little bit of

1:18:26 ↗ clarification

1:18:30 ↗ so it looks like a orbeez either one

1:18:31 ↗ would comply with mountain sound

1:18:33 ↗ greenway expectations

1:18:36 ↗ correct yep

1:18:40 ↗ and i got a couple other oh brad did you

1:18:42 ↗ have more or not i was only going to ask

1:18:44 ↗ jennifer i haven't actually visited what

1:18:46 ↗ they've done there at factoria area i

1:18:49 ↗ mean is that

1:18:50 ↗ separated in terms of like what's being

1:18:52 ↗ suggested here in terms of part sidewalk

1:18:54 ↗ and part paved in terms of the um

1:18:59 ↗ multi-use

1:19:00 ↗ no or is it all it's all paid it's all

1:19:02 ↗ asphalt

1:19:06 ↗ i guess that would be the only thing

1:19:08 ↗ you know to to try and have if there's

1:19:10 ↗ some element of consistency throughout

1:19:12 ↗ the mountain of sound corridor is to

1:19:16 ↗ because because a is kind of it's split

1:19:18 ↗ between concrete and and pavement right

1:19:21 ↗ on both sides right

1:19:28 ↗ whereas b has full pavement on one side

1:19:36 ↗ i will say for consistency there is a

1:19:38 ↗ portion of the trail that has been built

1:19:40 ↗ on newport way at the riva town homes

1:19:43 ↗ and the gateway or the anthology i'm not

1:19:46 ↗ sure the giant apartment complex the

1:19:48 ↗ trail on newport way between sr 954

1:19:52 ↗ is made out of concrete the that's been

1:19:54 ↗ built and in design

1:19:57 ↗ and so between 54th and sr 900 it will

1:20:00 ↗ be concrete

1:20:05 ↗ but that's also where signage really

1:20:07 ↗ comes into play directing people that

1:20:09 ↗ hey you're on the right route um even

1:20:12 ↗ though there's a change in surfacing um

1:20:14 ↗ but for this segment i think you know

1:20:16 ↗ given the functionality through town

1:20:19 ↗ and the new growth and

1:20:21 ↗ you know this is a different

1:20:22 ↗ consideration here

1:20:25 ↗ okay

1:20:27 ↗ all right we're getting near the end of

1:20:28 ↗ the meeting uh i want a few more

1:20:30 ↗ questions to help

1:20:32 ↗ me put together the letters that will go

1:20:35 ↗ between each boards um

1:20:38 ↗ and so i asked the tab question the

1:20:40 ↗ similar

1:20:42 ↗ the same question that i asked the parks

1:20:44 ↗ board but

1:20:45 ↗ in particular to what the table oversees

1:20:48 ↗ do either the two options a or b

1:20:51 ↗ not meet the

1:20:53 ↗ guiding principles of the mobility

1:20:54 ↗ master plan

1:20:57 ↗ uh this is time i'll chime in um

1:21:00 ↗ i would say that the option they oops

1:21:10 ↗ option a is just more

1:21:12 ↗ even though it may be signed it's just a

1:21:13 ↗ more generic

1:21:15 ↗ uh

1:21:17 ↗ bike lane path on either side

1:21:19 ↗ where option b is more visionary as far

1:21:22 ↗ as

1:21:23 ↗ actually trying to create something that

1:21:25 ↗ has a little bit more of a path feel

1:21:27 ↗ or for whether it becomes bikes

1:21:30 ↗ predominantly after six months because

1:21:31 ↗ people realize there are more bikes on

1:21:32 ↗ that side than pedestrians on the

1:21:34 ↗ outside

1:21:35 ↗ but i think it has a little bit more of

1:21:36 ↗ a

1:21:40 ↗ i guess

1:21:41 ↗ like better term more it's more

1:21:42 ↗ visionary and it has a more of a feel of

1:21:44 ↗ a trail

1:21:45 ↗ on that side than just uh

1:21:47 ↗ the bike and pads uh split on either

1:21:50 ↗ side

1:21:51 ↗ and that's why everything to me be

1:21:54 ↗ you want to have something that has a

1:21:55 ↗ more field a path that these gonna show

1:21:57 ↗ that much more than they would

1:22:02 ↗ following up on cynthia's comments about

1:22:04 ↗ the path um

1:22:06 ↗ path of design

1:22:08 ↗ newport way is really only 0.7 miles

1:22:11 ↗ um so i'm not sure if that's

1:22:13 ↗ particularly a

1:22:14 ↗ nice place to have an actual visionary

1:22:17 ↗ path

1:22:18 ↗ as such to say um i think it's much more

1:22:20 ↗ useful to have it as be as a

1:22:22 ↗ transportation corridor

1:22:25 ↗ for

1:22:25 ↗ bikes and especially for the utility of

1:22:29 ↗ bike commuting

1:22:30 ↗ so i think having that separation there

1:22:32 ↗ is useful in that case

1:22:35 ↗ to minimize any conflicts that might

1:22:37 ↗ happen the roundabouts or uh with the

1:22:39 ↗ cars or with pedestrians

1:22:44 ↗ i would agree with that i'm

1:22:45 ↗ from the park board's perspective um

1:22:48 ↗ i don't know that

1:22:50 ↗ that the um

1:22:53 ↗ that the design is inconsistent with the

1:22:56 ↗ green necklace concept but the green the

1:22:58 ↗ necklace concept from my recollection

1:23:00 ↗ when when we went through that design

1:23:02 ↗ process was really

1:23:03 ↗ a lot about like kind of wide

1:23:07 ↗ areas either surrounded by um either

1:23:10 ↗ surrounded by nature kind of or

1:23:13 ↗ or like plaza type area so not this

1:23:16 ↗ feels to me like more like a

1:23:18 ↗ transportation like we're moving people

1:23:20 ↗ on bikes through a

1:23:22 ↗ you know an existing road um

1:23:26 ↗ if i was to design something

1:23:29 ↗ with the green necklace in mind it

1:23:31 ↗ wouldn't be this but i don't think that

1:23:32 ↗ this is inconsistent with um that

1:23:35 ↗ concept because one of the one of the

1:23:37 ↗ goals of the green necklace is is

1:23:39 ↗ connectivity so you're accomplishing

1:23:41 ↗ that but i don't think it's necessarily

1:23:43 ↗ how we would do it in an ideal world

1:23:46 ↗ hopefully that makes sense

1:23:49 ↗ it does

1:23:52 ↗ this is cynthia i think i made my point

1:23:54 ↗ about the shared but i just want to add

1:23:56 ↗ a little

1:23:57 ↗ emphasis to that and that's that

1:23:59 ↗ the goals and policies of the

1:24:01 ↗ mmp

1:24:03 ↗ safety is you know

1:24:05 ↗ very very very very high and i actually

1:24:07 ↗ have serious safety concerns

1:24:09 ↗ with um

1:24:12 ↗ if you if you have a shared use path

1:24:14 ↗ cyclists are going to just choose to be

1:24:16 ↗ in the road

1:24:17 ↗ and so

1:24:18 ↗ it's a lot of a lot of cyclists don't

1:24:21 ↗ feel safe on shared use paths

1:24:24 ↗ and so they'll probably just opt for the

1:24:27 ↗ road which i have safety concerns about

1:24:29 ↗ that um and i also think that even

1:24:32 ↗ though it's a nice facility

1:24:34 ↗ um it is

1:24:36 ↗ part of a transportation corridor

1:24:39 ↗ and it is not like a separated path like

1:24:41 ↗ sujata was saying you know we have

1:24:43 ↗ railroad rails to trails paths and so

1:24:45 ↗ forth it's it's basically right in the

1:24:48 ↗ middle of a pretty

1:24:51 ↗ major you know way to get around so i

1:24:53 ↗ have serious safety concerns with b

1:24:58 ↗ i also added one more thing is that

1:25:01 ↗ this just talked about the section road

1:25:03 ↗ but you know on the visionary part i

1:25:05 ↗ would think that this would continue

1:25:08 ↗ uh you know years down the road wherever

1:25:09 ↗ that was going to connect whether it's

1:25:10 ↗ going to stay on newport

1:25:12 ↗ we'll go out to sunset tesco road or if

1:25:15 ↗ it's kind of safe through newport all

1:25:16 ↗ the way up through the sunset

1:25:17 ↗ interchange

1:25:19 ↗ and tying with the bike path but then

1:25:21 ↗ goes up i-90

1:25:23 ↗ this is just a piece of going all the

1:25:25 ↗ way through the city with

1:25:27 ↗ what my thought was behind the visionary

1:25:28 ↗ part as far as having something that's

1:25:30 ↗ separated in trail besides being a

1:25:32 ↗ transportation

1:25:37 ↗ hey

1:25:38 ↗ uh brenda have you uh asked your

1:25:41 ↗ question or comment and then i've got

1:25:43 ↗ something for the group afterwards

1:25:47 ↗ you're on mute

1:25:50 ↗ i was going back to safety and that this

1:25:53 ↗ is along a school and the

1:25:55 ↗ having the children and the bikes mixed

1:25:57 ↗ together is quite concerning and the

1:26:00 ↗ children do dart out in front of the

1:26:01 ↗ bikes and having

1:26:03 ↗ even though it's it's not designated

1:26:05 ↗ either or because you can use both sides

1:26:08 ↗ if the bikes would learn eventually that

1:26:10 ↗ is more comfortable on the one side

1:26:12 ↗ because it's smoother and the kids are

1:26:15 ↗ on the school side anyway because that's

1:26:16 ↗ where they're going to school and i

1:26:18 ↗ really like keeping them separated

1:26:21 ↗ i i just yeah i know you've done it

1:26:23 ↗ something i just want to agree with what

1:26:25 ↗ brenda's saying

1:26:26 ↗ i think you know you have a crowd of

1:26:28 ↗ kids in front of school bicyclists are

1:26:29 ↗ going to actually go to the other side

1:26:31 ↗ anyways and then you're going to have

1:26:32 ↗ this you know you have a one-lane

1:26:34 ↗ one-way bicycle path

1:26:37 ↗ the on on the other side that's all of a

1:26:39 ↗ sudden you're gonna have bicyclists

1:26:41 ↗ going both ways because you are

1:26:43 ↗ throughout you know a couple times a day

1:26:45 ↗ you're gonna have

1:26:46 ↗ crowds of people in front of the school

1:26:52 ↗ okay

1:26:53 ↗ at this point because the

1:26:55 ↗ the goal of this meeting is to be able

1:26:57 ↗ to draft a joint letter

1:26:59 ↗ that will say

1:27:04 ↗ um

1:27:06 ↗ what each board

1:27:07 ↗ advises

1:27:08 ↗ but that the action would actually be

1:27:10 ↗ taken separately at a regular meeting

1:27:13 ↗ and i've got to get that letter drafted

1:27:15 ↗ on friday so what we're going to do is

1:27:17 ↗ do a poll and we're going to ask each

1:27:19 ↗ board starting with the tab

1:27:22 ↗ to vote for either

1:27:23 ↗ concept a or concept b

1:27:26 ↗ and then for the parks board do the same

1:27:29 ↗ thing and then what i'm going to do is

1:27:30 ↗ draft up a letter

1:27:32 ↗ and then the action at the meeting

1:27:35 ↗ the

1:27:37 ↗ would be an actual vote the parks board

1:27:39 ↗ or the tab

1:27:41 ↗ could vote to

1:27:43 ↗ accept the letter as written or to make

1:27:46 ↗ changes if

1:27:48 ↗ after thinking about it people change

1:27:50 ↗ their mind but i do want to at least get

1:27:52 ↗ something written

1:27:53 ↗ to have as an item that could be voted

1:27:56 ↗ on at the next regular meeting and so

1:27:58 ↗ i'm going to have brienne first pull the

1:28:01 ↗ tab

1:28:02 ↗ and then the park sport

1:28:04 ↗ and to be clear i have no way of

1:28:06 ↗ preventing one group from voting from

1:28:08 ↗ the other group

1:28:10 ↗ so just on your honor system

1:28:14 ↗ oh sorry i've got type

1:28:16 ↗ on your honor system

1:28:18 ↗ uh

1:28:19 ↗ only the tab members please vote

1:28:26 ↗ i believe we are looking for

1:28:29 ↗ nine votes unless

1:28:32 ↗ which group is voting tab

1:28:34 ↗ transportation advisory board

1:28:37 ↗ only

1:28:39 ↗ are we only talking a and b or are you

1:28:40 ↗ also including c in this vote as well

1:28:44 ↗ i want to only include a oh yeah i only

1:28:47 ↗ want if possible i'd like to only

1:28:49 ↗ include a and b just because i think

1:28:51 ↗ when we have c in there some of the

1:28:53 ↗ people who voted for c

1:28:55 ↗ would have voted for b

1:28:57 ↗ or maybe they would have voted for a2

1:28:59 ↗ but i do

1:29:01 ↗ feel like c was at a lower value and

1:29:05 ↗ i feel that if we have c in their

1:29:08 ↗ we might not get how people would really

1:29:10 ↗ feel when

1:29:11 ↗ the letter gets drafted

1:29:14 ↗ brian i counted nine also

1:29:17 ↗ okay

1:29:22 ↗ thank you for confirming it looks like

1:29:25 ↗ we're looking for one more vote

1:29:29 ↗ potentially

1:29:30 ↗ you have eight i think i think there are

1:29:32 ↗ eight

1:29:34 ↗ from the tab

1:29:36 ↗ i counted nine oh nine

1:29:43 ↗ it was the person who dropped off wasn't

1:29:45 ↗ on the tab is that correct

1:29:49 ↗ yeah i was from the park board okay

1:29:52 ↗ so jerry joseph julian tsujata tom micah

1:29:56 ↗ christie erica cynthia that's nine

1:30:01 ↗ anyone having any issues that we can

1:30:03 ↗ help out with

1:30:06 ↗ it could be me it says you have already

1:30:08 ↗ voted on this question i'm not sure if

1:30:09 ↗ my vibration got counted i chose a

1:30:17 ↗ do you want me to just go ahead and log

1:30:19 ↗ his vote

1:30:20 ↗ from mine

1:30:24 ↗ but we

1:30:26 ↗ know if

1:30:28 ↗ we don't know for sure if that's him

1:30:29 ↗ case or not

1:30:35 ↗ is it allowing you to vote at all julian

1:30:39 ↗ i selected a but it would respond to

1:30:41 ↗ this you already voted on this question

1:30:42 ↗ so

1:30:43 ↗ so i think maybe that

1:30:48 ↗ does that mean that you already logged

1:30:49 ↗ your vote

1:30:50 ↗ did ever what else did did other people

1:30:52 ↗ get that same message how's that for a

1:30:54 ↗ question

1:30:56 ↗ i had an issue with that a little bit

1:30:58 ↗ earlier um in a previous vote um earlier

1:31:02 ↗ in the in the meeting and i had to

1:31:04 ↗ refresh my screen and it allowed me to

1:31:06 ↗ vote again i believe

1:31:08 ↗ um you were waiting for like a 16th and

1:31:10 ↗ i think it was because it told me that

1:31:11 ↗ i'd already voted i refreshed it i voted

1:31:14 ↗ again and then it it's i don't know work

1:31:17 ↗ for you

1:31:18 ↗ thanks

1:31:30 ↗ well this seems to be fairly important

1:31:32 ↗ so um don't we just list and just

1:31:35 ↗ figure out who's missing

1:31:37 ↗ i can't see who has voted unfortunately

1:31:39 ↗ so just if you could call out and you

1:31:41 ↗ could just this person could respond

1:31:42 ↗ that might take a couple a minute but at

1:31:44 ↗ least i'm done with it absolutely

1:31:47 ↗ uh jerry did you vote

1:31:56 ↗ i can't see everyone i don't know if

1:31:58 ↗ jerry's nodding or she's on mute uh

1:32:00 ↗ jerry did you vote

1:32:02 ↗ maybe maybe jerry had a step away um

1:32:05 ↗ joseph did you vote

1:32:08 ↗ yeah i voted

1:32:09 ↗ julian

1:32:11 ↗ we don't know

1:32:15 ↗ sujata voted i voted tom

1:32:20 ↗ yep yes

1:32:21 ↗ micah

1:32:23 ↗ yes

1:32:24 ↗ christy yes yes erica

1:32:28 ↗ i voted

1:32:29 ↗ and i voted so i think maybe i didn't

1:32:31 ↗ hear when when i called that out i think

1:32:32 ↗ i didn't see jerry did we lose jerry

1:32:37 ↗ well jerry's showing on the participants

1:32:42 ↗ but her video's not on

1:32:44 ↗ and you're muted right now jerry if you

1:32:46 ↗ can hear us

1:32:49 ↗ okay

1:32:51 ↗ so i'm

1:32:54 ↗ i think we could go ahead and show the

1:32:56 ↗ results uh just since we're we're pretty

1:32:58 ↗ we're on extra time and i know go to the

1:33:01 ↗ parks

1:33:02 ↗ we don't

1:33:06 ↗ okay

1:33:07 ↗ next

1:33:10 ↗ again

1:33:12 ↗ i can't control who votes

1:33:14 ↗ so park sport your turn

1:33:19 ↗ oh let me hide

1:33:26 ↗ i'll do b

1:33:30 ↗ that's for you brianne

1:33:32 ↗ okay and then i'll do brad when he

1:33:34 ↗ trusts me i see yours brad thank you

1:33:38 ↗ can somebody record me it's danielle for

1:33:41 ↗ a

1:33:49 ↗ this is brenda i'm not sure if i got

1:33:51 ↗ recorded for b

1:33:53 ↗ okay so i i i voted for um for reuben

1:33:58 ↗ that's been done we have six votes in

1:34:05 ↗ give me a moment

1:34:16 ↗ we only have six of us still here so if

1:34:18 ↗ you have six votes that should be

1:34:19 ↗ everybody

1:34:41 ↗ jen were you able to vote for danielle

1:34:42 ↗ though

1:34:44 ↗ i have not yet

1:34:45 ↗ okay do you have all the votes

1:34:47 ↗ i think someone might have

1:34:49 ↗ who just dropped off micah

1:34:53 ↗ what groups micah in

1:34:55 ↗ yeah micah voted in transportation oh

1:34:59 ↗ yeah linda dropped off in parks

1:35:03 ↗ so we have uh six of us here

1:35:05 ↗ so i think well i think

1:35:07 ↗ i think you have seven we had seven when

1:35:09 ↗ linda was here but linda dropped off

1:35:12 ↗ but then danielle joined

1:35:15 ↗ yeah i've got danielle here

1:35:17 ↗ brad jonathan reuben brenda zach linda

1:35:20 ↗ danielle that was several brad i voted

1:35:23 ↗ ryan

1:35:24 ↗ is here

1:35:25 ↗ oh ryan i'm sorry ryan yeah so then i

1:35:28 ↗ think as soon as we i think as soon as

1:35:30 ↗ we get

1:35:32 ↗ jen's vote in

1:35:35 ↗ i mean danielle's and which one did you

1:35:38 ↗ want danielle and we're good

1:35:40 ↗ i would like a please and then i have to

1:35:42 ↗ drop off i'm sorry

1:35:44 ↗ no worries i voted for you thank you

1:35:46 ↗ appreciate it

1:35:50 ↗ you did did you push submit

1:35:58 ↗ jen did you

1:35:59 ↗ hang on let me try it okay just checking

1:36:02 ↗ sorry

1:36:04 ↗ now i kicked me out hold on

1:36:06 ↗ i waited too long

1:36:08 ↗ time down

1:36:20 ↗ thank you

1:36:26 ↗ there you go

1:36:31 ↗ all right well thanks everyone that was

1:36:34 ↗ the parks board prefers concept b

1:36:36 ↗ 57-43

1:36:39 ↗ and so i'm going to take the information

1:36:42 ↗ from tonight from the discussion draft

1:36:45 ↗ up

1:36:46 ↗ to a letter it would be a joint letter

1:36:49 ↗ and

1:36:51 ↗ the first draft will at least say that

1:36:53 ↗ the tab

1:36:55 ↗ advises for concept a

1:36:58 ↗ and i'll list the reasons and

1:37:00 ↗ the parks board advises for concept b

1:37:03 ↗ and i'll list the reasons and then

1:37:05 ↗ when we get to the meeting

1:37:08 ↗ we can deliberate on them or you can

1:37:09 ↗ deliberate on them and actually vote to

1:37:13 ↗ endorse the letter or make changes to it

1:37:15 ↗ and because we're out of time i don't

1:37:17 ↗ have anything else is there anything

1:37:19 ↗ else before we adjourn

1:37:23 ↗ and i

1:37:24 ↗ i will say thank you everyone so much

1:37:26 ↗ for

1:37:27 ↗ spending

1:37:28 ↗ two plus hours on a wednesday night

1:37:31 ↗ have a good evening and a happy veterans

1:37:34 ↗ day to anyone

1:37:35 ↗ good night

1:37:36 ↗ have a good evening everyone take care

1:37:38 ↗ thank 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.