Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, August 4, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Transit Shuttle Options for Squak & Talus Neighborhoods (A)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.3–14

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 1:28 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Currently, the infrastructure and topography of Squak and Talus Neighborhoods cause many issues with walking, bicycling, and using other forms of active transportation. Talus lies just off busy SR 900 a mile from the Valley Transit Center, and both neighborhoods are defined by the hills they sit on. These natural and man-made barriers make access to transit and Central Issaquah from these neighborhoods difficult at most and impossible for others. Six of the seven goals in Issaquah’s Mobility Master Plan (Proactive Safety, Quality of Life, Multimodal Balance Network, Walking, Bicycling, and Transit) remain unaddressed in these two neighborhoods and infrastructure limitations makes any meaningful change unlikely in the short term. To address this, the Administration is pursuing the expansion of a multimodal, balanced transportation system (Goal 3, MMP) in these neighborhoods through the…

4. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.15

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Update Equity Update Transit Study Intro Update Update Performance Metrics Intro ADA Transition Plan Intro Concurrency Update ITS Study Intro Parks Projects Metro Parks Wayfinding 2023 Comprehensive Plan Update Mobility Master Plan (MMP) Review 2023 Board Work Plan Review Open Public Meetings & Public Records Act Training Transit Shuttle Options for Squak & Talus Intro Update Mobility & Infrastrcutrue Joint Meeting Meeting

Staff Report

Chair Report

3324 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ good evening and welcome to the special

0:03 ↗ meeting of the transportation advisory

0:06 ↗ board my name is cynthia press i'm

0:07 ↗ currently serving as chair of this board

0:10 ↗ uh i would like to start by

0:14 ↗ recognizing that we

0:16 ↗ have an alternate who's promoted to a

0:18 ↗ regular member jerry this evening

0:21 ↗ um

0:22 ↗ and the other thing to mention is that

0:24 ↗ this is a special meeting because it's

0:25 ↗ not a normal time slot and then we won't

0:28 ↗ have

0:28 ↗ an august meeting at the regular third

0:31 ↗ week

0:32 ↗ thurs third thursday rather

0:34 ↗ um

0:35 ↗ and i don't have any other oh i also

0:37 ↗ just wanted to say that thank you to the

0:38 ↗ staff um for getting this together and

0:41 ↗ it was a first turnaround and thank you

0:43 ↗ to all the tab members for

0:46 ↗ carving out this thursday evening which

0:48 ↗ is not our normal time so i think it was

0:49 ↗ a productive meeting last time and i

0:51 ↗ appreciate you guys

0:53 ↗ the flexibility that everybody

0:55 ↗ had to

0:56 ↗ provide to make this happen so thank you

0:59 ↗ um

1:00 ↗ and with that i will just ask if there

1:02 ↗ are any public comments

1:03 ↗ do you know is anybody here

1:06 ↗ i do not see anyone but i will ask that

1:10 ↗ if you would like to make a public

1:12 ↗ comment use the phone number because the

1:14 ↗ link is not currently working right now

1:18 ↗ so if we have

1:21 ↗ anybody come on that we can go ahead and

1:23 ↗ reopen public comment but hearing no

1:25 ↗ public comments this time we'll go ahead

1:26 ↗ and close that and we'll move on to

1:28 ↗ regular business we just have one

1:31 ↗ item on the agenda this evening and it

1:33 ↗ is back to our shuttle i guess one yeah

1:36 ↗ one regular item

1:38 ↗ uh item of regular business and before

1:41 ↗ we do that i was just going to

1:43 ↗ share a little bit about how i was

1:45 ↗ planning for this meeting to how julie

1:47 ↗ knight and steph talked a little bit how

1:49 ↗ this will go so this is one item on the

1:52 ↗ agenda but to subdivide that there'll be

1:54 ↗ a presentation

1:55 ↗ um and i'm hoping you can really dive

1:57 ↗ into the updates so we all really

1:59 ↗ understand the significance of the

2:00 ↗ updates um and then

2:03 ↗ what we didn't do last time which we had

2:06 ↗ all decided

2:07 ↗ would be really helpful is to have a

2:08 ↗ discussion about the criteria so we want

2:11 ↗ to make sure after the presentation

2:14 ↗ um we're going to talk about first if

2:16 ↗ there are any missing criteria i

2:18 ↗ personally have one that i wanted to to

2:20 ↗ float and we can have a discussion about

2:22 ↗ whether we think there's any whether we

2:24 ↗ as a group think there should be

2:25 ↗ criteria added and then we'd like to do

2:27 ↗ an exercise and have a discussion about

2:29 ↗ the importance of the criteria whether

2:31 ↗ there's any waiting or ranking that we

2:33 ↗ think is um important and we're not

2:35 ↗ gonna have time to develop like a robust

2:38 ↗ qualitative

2:40 ↗ you know weighted ranking but just a um

2:44 ↗ general feeling about what we think is

2:45 ↗ the most important and i'm gonna ask us

2:48 ↗ to

2:49 ↗ do some scribbling of your notes um

2:52 ↗ during that time because i think it

2:54 ↗ encourages people to remember what they

2:56 ↗ thought before they start hearing what

2:57 ↗ other people think and i just

2:59 ↗ one of the goals is to really you know

3:01 ↗ we want to hear what each and every one

3:03 ↗ of you has to say and then how

3:05 ↗ also what you might have to say after

3:07 ↗ hearing what someone else has to say and

3:08 ↗ so to

3:10 ↗ help with that we'll have an exercise

3:12 ↗ for that ranking where we actually write

3:14 ↗ that down

3:15 ↗ and then hopefully um we can

3:18 ↗ spend the last 20 minutes or so like

3:20 ↗ actually formulating a recommendation

3:22 ↗ and if we don't have to figure it out

3:24 ↗ word for word we just you know hopefully

3:26 ↗ if we have consensus great we don't have

3:28 ↗ consensus that we want to capture

3:30 ↗ you know the discussion and the essence

3:32 ↗ of where we might agree or disagree um

3:34 ↗ and i want to say one more thing about

3:36 ↗ the presentation um we do even though we

3:39 ↗ only have one item tonight we do have a

3:41 ↗ lot to get through so go ahead and ask

3:43 ↗ questions as you go but let's try to

3:46 ↗ stay

3:47 ↗ on the topic as much as possible i think

3:49 ↗ we were all super interested in the

3:50 ↗ routes last time and it was a good it

3:53 ↗ was important but it definitely took

3:55 ↗ some more time and got us a little bit

3:56 ↗ off the main point although i think it's

4:00 ↗ hard to stop talking about remember

4:02 ↗ about measurements but uh with that i'm

4:04 ↗ going to turn it over to john was there

4:06 ↗ any other opening comment that you

4:07 ↗ wanted to make

4:09 ↗ did i just say things about no okay

4:17 ↗ great

4:18 ↗ thank you

4:20 ↗ cynthia that was great

4:22 ↗ uh so yeah let's talk about shuttles

4:24 ↗ again part two

4:26 ↗ i'm john larson friend i'm the

4:27 ↗ transportation program coordinator and

4:30 ↗ we'll be talking about the transit

4:31 ↗ shuttle options for spock and palace and

4:33 ↗ continuing on that conversation

4:38 ↗ uh our purpose is the same as last time

4:41 ↗ to present the most viable options for a

4:43 ↗ shuttle service for the spot in taos

4:44 ↗ neighborhoods to connect to the transit

4:46 ↗ center and other major locations

4:51 ↗ but we have updates

4:53 ↗ that should be pretty exciting so

4:55 ↗ um the direction needed has changed a

4:58 ↗ little bit

4:59 ↗ um i was able to meet with metro last

5:01 ↗ week and there are a few

5:04 ↗ updates for that so

5:06 ↗ i would love uh if you all would

5:09 ↗ evaluate the effects of those new metro

5:11 ↗ updates

5:12 ↗ um and then

5:14 ↗ any uh changes to the evaluation

5:15 ↗ criteria like we did last time but

5:18 ↗ didn't get to so we'll be going through

5:19 ↗ that criteria phase

5:21 ↗ and then uh hopefully make a collective

5:23 ↗ or mostly collective recommendation as

5:26 ↗ to which option or options to pursue

5:30 ↗ so i'm going to park it

5:32 ↗ unattended

5:33 ↗ on this

5:35 ↗ on this slide to provide those updates

5:39 ↗ um

5:40 ↗ so first of all uh you all asked for

5:43 ↗ some specific data points and i was able

5:45 ↗ to get

5:46 ↗ some of them i think yeah at least some

5:48 ↗ of them um so first you asked so you

5:51 ↗ asked for the number of households in

5:53 ↗ the two neighborhoods the density

5:55 ↗ numbers

5:56 ↗ uh demographics and household values

5:59 ↗ so we don't have much neighborhood

6:01 ↗ specific data unfortunately our gis

6:03 ↗ mapping department supplied me with a

6:05 ↗ few neighborhood specific data points

6:07 ↗ from 2018 so it is outdated by four

6:10 ↗ years

6:11 ↗ uh including the number of housing units

6:13 ↗ and density but beyond that i had to use

6:15 ↗ census block data which

6:17 ↗ it isn't specific by neighborhood some

6:20 ↗ of these census blocks go way out

6:22 ↗ outside of town and kind of go all over

6:24 ↗ the place so just keep that in mind but

6:26 ↗ it'll get us kind of in the ballpark of

6:30 ↗ the numbers that we need

6:31 ↗ so

6:33 ↗ first of all the number of households um

6:36 ↗ we don't have actual households but we

6:38 ↗ have to do that number of units so we'll

6:40 ↗ go with that so with squawk and this is

6:42 ↗ 2018 numbers there were

6:45 ↗ 1608 housing units and the talus there

6:48 ↗ were

6:49 ↗ 1578 housing units

6:52 ↗ by the way i'm gonna be throwing a bunch

6:53 ↗ of numbers at you feel free to write

6:55 ↗ them down and i can also supply them

6:57 ↗ afterwards

6:59 ↗ um

7:00 ↗ that is those are 2018 numbers and i've

7:03 ↗ been assured by our gis folks that

7:05 ↗ there are more but not that much more so

7:07 ↗ it's it's probably statistically

7:10 ↗ somewhat insignificant

7:12 ↗ um

7:13 ↗ again

7:14 ↗ oh yeah of course uh 1

7:16 ↗ 608 housing units in squawk

7:19 ↗ and 1578

7:22 ↗ in palace

7:24 ↗ uh

7:26 ↗ for density spock has a density of

7:30 ↗ 4.14 people per acre so that is

7:33 ↗ very very low so not dense whatsoever

7:37 ↗ talus has

7:38 ↗ 13.92 people per acre which is moderate

7:42 ↗ especially for a smaller city

7:46 ↗ so getting into the demographic side of

7:49 ↗ things

7:50 ↗ i was able to pull some census data i

7:52 ↗ used the 2020 census data again the

7:55 ↗ block groups don't follow the

7:57 ↗ neighborhoods exactly but i kind of

7:58 ↗ cobbled it together so these are very

8:00 ↗ rough numbers they do not specifically

8:03 ↗ reflect the neighborhoods but they'll

8:04 ↗ give us kind of a ballpark

8:06 ↗ so for squawk here's some more numbers

8:09 ↗ uh 92

8:10 ↗ white

8:12 ↗ one percent black one percent native

8:14 ↗ american

8:15 ↗ ten percent asian

8:17 ↗ two percent other

8:19 ↗ uh eleven percent two or more races and

8:21 ↗ these are of course self uh self

8:23 ↗ reported through the census

8:26 ↗ talus much more diverse 58 white 2 black

8:31 ↗ 0 native american 26 asian

8:35 ↗ 2 percent other and 11

8:38 ↗ uh two races or more

8:44 ↗ for household value

8:46 ↗ so we don't have the income

8:48 ↗ data we don't have it more specifically

8:50 ↗ than the census trax level and census

8:53 ↗ track are even

8:55 ↗ worse than the black level because they

8:59 ↗ i think part of old town is a part of

9:01 ↗ the squawk mountain it's kind of all

9:02 ↗ over the place

9:04 ↗ we do know that the poverty level

9:06 ↗ in the squawk neighborhood is between

9:09 ↗ 12.5 and 14.2 which is rather high

9:14 ↗ and then the

9:16 ↗ talus poverty level is roughly two

9:18 ↗ percent so pretty low

9:20 ↗ yeah

9:23 ↗ um and then i did ask for housing

9:26 ↗ uh value but

9:28 ↗ the gis folks

9:30 ↗ at the city said housing value is really

9:32 ↗ unreliable as a metric

9:34 ↗ for example

9:35 ↗ a couple may have bought a house decades

9:37 ↗ ago for like 20 000 but now they're on a

9:39 ↗ fixed income and they don't really know

9:42 ↗ like even though their house is worth

9:43 ↗ more that doesn't actually reflect their

9:45 ↗ economic situation

9:48 ↗ any questions on that before i move on

9:55 ↗ um

9:56 ↗ and then i went back to the recording to

9:58 ↗ and i captured all of your questions

10:00 ↗ that i wasn't able to provide an answer

10:02 ↗ to so i i was able to go and find all of

10:05 ↗ those

10:06 ↗ uh touching on the buses

10:08 ↗ because i know there were a lot of

10:09 ↗ questions about that uh there were

10:10 ↗ specifically questions about route 214

10:12 ↗ and 271 so i just went through the new

10:15 ↗ system and made a list um so there were

10:19 ↗ eight routes

10:20 ↗ and are currently well i guess two

10:22 ↗ others out there so seven but originally

10:24 ↗ there are eight routes running

10:26 ↗ throughout issaquah

10:27 ↗ that's been consolidated down to five

10:31 ↗ with uh with

10:32 ↗ asterisks i can't say that

10:35 ↗ uh so the new routes are the 203 that

10:38 ↗ was that orange line that i showed you

10:40 ↗ that will kind of act like the metro uh

10:43 ↗ the new link light rail ish

10:45 ↗ there's the 215 which will be mercer

10:48 ↗ island to north bend so it'll run right

10:49 ↗ through uh through the transit centers

10:53 ↗ uh continuing on there will be the 554

10:55 ↗ that'll be adjusted to bellevue

10:57 ↗ highlands and then on peak it'll also

10:59 ↗ run up to redmond so keep that in mind

11:02 ↗ uh 218 is mercer the highlands and that

11:05 ↗ will be peak only and that's a change i

11:07 ↗ believe it was all the time before

11:10 ↗ and 269 which is mercer the highlands

11:13 ↗ and that's kind of via the downtown and

11:15 ↗ then redmond on peak hours as well

11:18 ↗ so that means

11:19 ↗ 200 208 214 216 217

11:23 ↗ 219 271-255 we're all good to go yeah

11:28 ↗ and that's uh that kind of comes back to

11:30 ↗ what we were talking about before

11:32 ↗ you know frequency over um coverage but

11:36 ↗ really consolidating down into those

11:38 ↗ specific routes to create express lines

11:40 ↗ throughout this problem

11:43 ↗ there's also a question about the types

11:45 ↗ of buses

11:46 ↗ um so all buses across the county will

11:49 ↗ be 35 feet foot articulated or longer so

11:53 ↗ all those 30 foot coaches so the ones

11:54 ↗ that uh that used to run 200 those are

11:57 ↗ no longer going to be a part of this

11:58 ↗ league whatsoever 20 quarters

12:01 ↗ yeah oh 20 yes um

12:03 ↗ everything's gonna be 35 feet or longer

12:05 ↗ which does affect where the buses can go

12:08 ↗ from place to

12:10 ↗ that's come up in other works that i've

12:11 ↗ been doing

12:13 ↗ um

12:15 ↗ another question does the city fund bus

12:17 ↗ routes not currently but there there was

12:21 ↗ uh route 200 was funded by the city

12:24 ↗ uh in that we paid for

12:26 ↗ the fares basically of the fare box

12:30 ↗ and that effectively made rough 200 free

12:33 ↗ and that and we roughly spent around 45

12:37 ↗ 000 a year uh we're not

12:39 ↗ quite sure on that number we're still

12:41 ↗ looking for it it's kind of buried in

12:43 ↗ documents so uh

12:45 ↗ so we're still looking for that did you

12:46 ↗ say 45 000 45 000.

12:51 ↗ i'm uh looking at it was over 400 000 a

12:54 ↗ year okay to run the 200.

12:57 ↗ yes all year long was over 400 000

13:01 ↗ the city

13:02 ↗ had to

13:03 ↗ do the input okay yeah oh from the city

13:07 ↗ from the city the city paid down 400 000

13:10 ↗ a year

13:11 ↗ for several years until

13:14 ↗ the 208 replaced the 200.

13:19 ↗ kind of the same route in downtown

13:21 ↗ isequah but then they

13:24 ↗ since the 215 dropped off the 208 then

13:27 ↗ serviced

13:28 ↗ uh

13:29 ↗ tie point

13:31 ↗ and then went up to snow quality ridge

13:34 ↗ and back down into the snow quality okay

13:36 ↗ okay

13:37 ↗ to the outlet mall in north bend yeah

13:40 ↗ but the 200 was the workhorse okay

13:45 ↗ i intend to keep looking for that

13:47 ↗ specific

13:48 ↗ number excuse me it was for it trust me

13:51 ↗ it was over 400 000 because i was in

13:54 ↗ several meetings where that figure came

13:56 ↗ up okay uh we might talk

13:59 ↗ but i want to be able to find that

14:02 ↗ someone also asked at one point what the

14:04 ↗ city's expectations of return on

14:06 ↗ investors is and

14:08 ↗ so as

14:10 ↗ as a staff we've decided

14:13 ↗ the pilot project that provides first

14:15 ↗ mile last mile service to the spot and

14:17 ↗ the talus neighborhoods which may turn

14:20 ↗ into a permanent service in the future

14:21 ↗ that is the return on investment that

14:23 ↗ we're looking for it may turn into what

14:25 ↗ i did here that may turn into a

14:26 ↗ permanent service so to do a pilot

14:33 ↗ uh and then there's also the question of

14:36 ↗ can you talk to metro about subsidizing

14:37 ↗ a service to to expedite a partnership

14:40 ↗ with them i'm going to address that now

14:42 ↗ with the metropolitan because that does

14:44 ↗ come into it

14:47 ↗ so

14:48 ↗ uh looking at metro

14:50 ↗ i was able to meet with metro last week

14:52 ↗ i was expecting it to be a purely

14:54 ↗ informational chat

14:55 ↗ it turned out to be a little bit more

14:58 ↗ and they might be interested in talking

14:59 ↗ sooner than we think

15:01 ↗ i was able to talk to metro on demand so

15:03 ↗ they run those on-demand shuttles

15:05 ↗ throughout the area so the metro on

15:08 ↗ demand has recently entered a request

15:11 ↗ for proposal rfp phase

15:14 ↗ uh basically consolidate all of their

15:16 ↗ on-demand services under one provider so

15:18 ↗ they are in the midst of

15:20 ↗ putting out the call to providers to

15:22 ↗ basically bring in all these systems

15:23 ↗ into

15:25 ↗ one under one umbrella

15:27 ↗ um so

15:29 ↗ right now us asking these questions is

15:31 ↗ perfect because they're at least open to

15:34 ↗ talking to us again about well what

15:36 ↗ could that look like what are you

15:38 ↗ proposing as the city

15:40 ↗ is that feasible for us is it economical

15:42 ↗ for us

15:45 ↗ so moving on to that next slide

15:49 ↗ so the one thing that i updated on this

15:51 ↗ slide was before i said that the project

15:54 ↗ was finalized that is not true

15:56 ↗ uh so during the study phase in 2019

15:59 ↗ they found that even though talus had

16:01 ↗ density uh the streets proved an issue

16:03 ↗ for the vehicles that they wanted to run

16:06 ↗ and squawk's lack of density was a big

16:08 ↗ question uh and both locations brought

16:11 ↗ up questions about whether the vehicles

16:13 ↗ would add

16:14 ↗ uh add to and not alleviate traffic

16:16 ↗ issues

16:18 ↗ so there yeah

16:19 ↗ um so based on those findings at the red

16:23 ↗ point here uh metro was hesitant to move

16:25 ↗ forward and we they were about to

16:27 ↗ reevaluate the whole thing or they told

16:30 ↗ them go back to the drawing board

16:32 ↗ conduct more testing and analysis to see

16:34 ↗ if this is this could be a thing and

16:36 ↗ then hope it hit and the budgeting stuff

16:38 ↗ happened and they they kind of got rid

16:40 ↗ of it all

16:43 ↗ anybody any questions on that history

16:47 ↗ and

16:53 ↗ what do you mean by the the buses

16:54 ↗ couldn't go on the streets where the bus

16:57 ↗ is going to be too long

16:59 ↗ yeah it was like the way the way things

17:01 ↗ are shaped in the

17:02 ↗ corners and stuff

17:04 ↗ so more screens out there we're not

17:06 ↗ designed correct incorrect yeah there's

17:08 ↗ something for guardians trucks

17:10 ↗ so if you take a 60-footer

17:12 ↗ perfect example is the traffic circle

17:15 ↗ over by target yeah roundabout

17:18 ↗ just watch it

17:20 ↗ stand back and stand there and watch it

17:22 ↗ and you'll see it go up and over that

17:24 ↗ traffic circle whenever it makes that

17:26 ↗ turn you can't

17:28 ↗ you cannot do that with a 60-footer you

17:31 ↗ can barely do that with a 40-footer or

17:35 ↗ 30-footer yeah so that's a given and

17:38 ↗ that's why they built that traffic

17:39 ↗ circle that way so that

17:42 ↗ they didn't have to worry about and

17:44 ↗ metro's not the only one because you get

17:46 ↗ that with

17:47 ↗ uh

17:48 ↗ 53 footers

17:50 ↗ big trucks that go through there all the

17:52 ↗ time yeah

17:53 ↗ it would it would a 60-footer would tear

17:56 ↗ up a neighborhood like tennis it would

17:59 ↗ not be able to do the corners which

18:01 ↗ means it's going to ride the curb

18:03 ↗ which does damage to tires and it also

18:07 ↗ does damage those curves

18:09 ↗ and anything else that gets in its way

18:11 ↗ but how do they do garbage up there

18:14 ↗ that's all that's a smaller truck that's

18:18 ↗ that's a 28 footer to a 40

18:21 ↗ footer

18:23 ↗ garbage trucks i don't think they're

18:24 ↗ that long and if they were to pursue a

18:26 ↗ shuttle theoretically it could be

18:28 ↗ shorter but they they still express like

18:31 ↗ uh we don't know exactly what we're

18:33 ↗ doing so please go back and re-evaluate

18:35 ↗ to see exactly what would

18:37 ↗ work and more importantly was the

18:39 ↗ density issue

18:41 ↗ is this even worth

18:42 ↗ running so

18:46 ↗ less palace more squawk but alice is

18:49 ↗ okay

18:52 ↗ okay

18:56 ↗ uh

18:57 ↗ let me move on to the next slide here oh

19:00 ↗ so of course we have our options that

19:02 ↗ we're looking at same as last time uh

19:04 ↗ waiting for metro to relaunch their

19:05 ↗ pilot programs to pursue and pursue a

19:08 ↗ king county run shuttle create and

19:09 ↗ implement a city-funded third-party run

19:11 ↗ shuttle and partner with uber and or

19:13 ↗ lyft on a subsidized rideshare service

19:15 ↗ so just

19:16 ↗ just so you remember

19:18 ↗ and then we have some updates here as

19:20 ↗ well

19:21 ↗ um

19:23 ↗ as you can see i've updated a couple of

19:26 ↗ pieces here and i'll run through those

19:28 ↗ real quickly

19:29 ↗ so

19:30 ↗ uh

19:31 ↗ i know i said that uh the the cost of

19:34 ↗ the city per year is zero for the for a

19:37 ↗ metro uh option that's not necessarily

19:40 ↗ true

19:41 ↗ and now we know so the uh

19:44 ↗ right now local on-demand services

19:46 ↗ throughout the county are funded in a

19:48 ↗ variety of ways uh including there are

19:51 ↗ fully metro funded uh on demand

19:54 ↗ uh there are grants there are fully city

19:57 ↗ funded uh

19:59 ↗ on demand and there's also city

20:00 ↗ subsidized options so they kind of just

20:02 ↗ said

20:03 ↗ here there are a whole bunch of ways you

20:05 ↗ could do this not and it won't

20:06 ↗ necessarily be zero so just to take that

20:09 ↗ into account

20:10 ↗ uh so metro is running their program

20:13 ↗ between 45 and 88 per hour

20:16 ↗ yeah so speaking of grants we had this

20:20 ↗ conversation a year ago a while ago

20:23 ↗ about

20:23 ↗ how the city approaches grants and one

20:26 ↗ of the things that was said was

20:27 ↗ basically

20:29 ↗ that they do something periodically

20:32 ↗ see what's available

20:35 ↗ is there are there things that we should

20:36 ↗ be looking at as a way to

20:39 ↗ get a higher return on our investment

20:41 ↗ i would say the answer to that is we can

20:44 ↗ always look for more ways

20:46 ↗ to get money for stuff like this um

20:48 ↗ we are we have entered an interesting

20:50 ↗ time federally but now there's a little

20:52 ↗ bit more federal dollars it's obviously

20:55 ↗ it's every city in the united states you

20:57 ↗ know buying billion dollars

20:59 ↗ um

21:00 ↗ but yeah that is something that we

21:03 ↗ we as staff are always looking for more

21:05 ↗ ways to find more families because

21:08 ↗ the existing national obviously is not

21:10 ↗ sufficient to

21:11 ↗ to do every project the way we want them

21:13 ↗ to do

21:14 ↗ um

21:16 ↗ so that that's another reason why uh

21:20 ↗ same same on the county level they also

21:22 ↗ don't have unlimited funds to do

21:23 ↗ everything so

21:25 ↗ um great question

21:28 ↗ uh

21:28 ↗ okay so um metro is running their

21:31 ↗ programs between 45.88

21:33 ↗ per hour which if you remember from last

21:35 ↗ time is substantially lower than the

21:38 ↗ private shuttles that we were looking at

21:40 ↗ and that is because they place such a

21:43 ↗ high value on ridership and density so

21:46 ↗ that does play into it

21:48 ↗ um

21:50 ↗ so the more riders the less overall cost

21:52 ↗ so they're trying to recapture some of

21:54 ↗ the costs and that's what brings down

21:56 ↗ that

21:58 ↗ and you probably don't know what

22:00 ↗ limit of density they're looking at not

22:03 ↗ at the moment yes

22:04 ↗ yeah

22:05 ↗ it kind of gave me a general rule and i

22:07 ↗ i all include some of the slides they

22:09 ↗ they showed me but i don't have any

22:11 ↗ specific numbers that are you know what

22:14 ↗ they're looking at

22:15 ↗ i know they're concerned

22:18 ↗ yeah i don't know and that's why they

22:20 ↗ went back to the drawing board before

22:22 ↗ do you know what the density of like the

22:24 ↗ downtown central business district did i

22:27 ↗ actually get to look at that no

22:31 ↗ um

22:32 ↗ that's a great question

22:37 ↗ okay

22:38 ↗ the other the other thing that has

22:40 ↗ changed is the timeline as you can see

22:43 ↗ it's now 2023 not 2026.

22:46 ↗ uh so

22:49 ↗ so metro has an ideal slash the thresher

22:52 ↗ aggressive timeline for switching their

22:54 ↗ system to the one provider

22:57 ↗ as early as 2023. they know it's

22:59 ↗ aggressive who knows if it'll actually

23:00 ↗ happen that quickly

23:02 ↗ but that means that metro deems our

23:04 ↗ proposed project as viable the timeline

23:06 ↗ could hypothetically move up to late

23:09 ↗ 2023 early 2024 hypothetically grain of

23:13 ↗ salt all of the metaphor is all the same

23:15 ↗ perfect

23:16 ↗ perfect world exactly but we must be

23:19 ↗ viable

23:20 ↗ yes so it all goes back to that

23:22 ↗ um

23:23 ↗ and then the other so the final thing is

23:26 ↗ uh talking about criteria some of the

23:27 ↗ criteria metroid uses are different than

23:29 ↗ the ones we proposed which i think is

23:31 ↗ very important if we're going to be

23:32 ↗ evaluating this we should probably take

23:34 ↗ their criteria into account as well

23:36 ↗ since

23:37 ↗ they would be the ones that would make

23:38 ↗ the ultimate decision on that first

23:40 ↗ option which you all expressed interest

23:42 ↗ in last time

23:44 ↗ and i will expand on that

23:47 ↗ in the next slides here

23:48 ↗ so i screenshotted a couple of their

23:50 ↗ slides

23:51 ↗ for you so that we can take a look at it

23:54 ↗ um so this is there this is the way that

23:56 ↗ they analyze their uh their on-demand

24:01 ↗ programs so going into a potential

24:04 ↗ program is the evaluation process they

24:07 ↗ look at productivity efficiency and

24:10 ↗ equity

24:11 ↗ and then prioritization is kind of their

24:13 ↗ ongoing analysis during the pilot

24:16 ↗ programs that they run so they look at

24:18 ↗ equity serving those who need you know

24:20 ↗ is it serving those who need to access

24:22 ↗ the most

24:23 ↗ uh partnership

24:25 ↗ are there local opportunities is there

24:27 ↗ local funding is there

24:29 ↗ all of those different uh different

24:31 ↗ opportunities to leverage those

24:33 ↗ resources

24:34 ↗ access does the new service provide

24:38 ↗ you know does it help people reach their

24:39 ↗ jobs and community access which is the

24:42 ↗ goal of ours so that's good

24:44 ↗ and then the big one here density

24:47 ↗ uh so does it serve areas with adequate

24:49 ↗ ridership and without high quality and

24:52 ↗ without high quality fixed route service

24:54 ↗ which we

24:55 ↗ we do

24:56 ↗ uh

24:57 ↗ not have the high quality fixed drop

24:59 ↗ service to the neighborhoods but the

25:00 ↗ density thing might

25:02 ↗ prove an issue

25:08 ↗ and then i also wanted to show show you

25:10 ↗ all this it's a little small up there i

25:12 ↗ apologize uh but this is the

25:14 ↗ uh this is their evaluation and decision

25:17 ↗ making tree

25:19 ↗ um

25:21 ↗ so they you know they go through the

25:22 ↗ identification identify the new broad

25:24 ↗ project develop pilot service prevent

25:27 ↗ pilot pilot area decision and they did

25:29 ↗ let me know that all of their pilots

25:31 ↗ that they are running all their systems

25:33 ↗ technically are sort of where's my mouse

25:35 ↗ sort of in this area right now

25:38 ↗ they haven't none of their pilots have

25:40 ↗ actually reached the are we going to

25:42 ↗ keep this stage yet so just to note that

25:47 ↗ so then um

25:49 ↗ some notes on what they told me about

25:51 ↗ kind of moving forward

25:52 ↗ so metro will conduct an analysis of

25:55 ↗ spock mountain and towels this month

25:57 ↗ to measure how feasible a program might

25:59 ↗ be

26:01 ↗ so

26:02 ↗ these will take

26:04 ↗ the criteria that they have and use

26:06 ↗ updated analysis technology to do some

26:07 ↗ high level analysis so

26:11 ↗ in the last in the last few years these

26:13 ↗ sorts of technologies to analyze service

26:16 ↗ areas has

26:18 ↗ it's increased so much

26:20 ↗ so they are able to go in and kind of do

26:22 ↗ an initial analysis it's not on the

26:24 ↗ ground necessarily but they are able to

26:26 ↗ go in and kind of

26:28 ↗ pop things in and see what the

26:29 ↗ feasibility

26:31 ↗ using their various different factors

26:33 ↗ uh

26:34 ↗ would to kind of analyze what it might

26:37 ↗ look like

26:39 ↗ and this is this is important so they

26:41 ↗ stress that metro's openness to talking

26:43 ↗ about an on-demand program does not mean

26:45 ↗ it's a sure thing in any way but they

26:47 ↗ are willing to put in some time the next

26:49 ↗ month to do some initial

26:51 ↗ uh feasibility analysis so that's kind

26:53 ↗ of what they've committed to is just

26:55 ↗ let's talk basically

26:57 ↗ um

27:00 ↗ so we

27:01 ↗ as as the expert in the room i i want to

27:03 ↗ give you my opinion on this after the

27:06 ↗ chat

27:07 ↗ so

27:08 ↗ a metro service might be a long shot um

27:11 ↗ and i think it'll be kind of an uphill

27:12 ↗ battle to convince them that's that's my

27:15 ↗ opinion

27:16 ↗ since density is a metric they use and

27:18 ↗ squawk has such a low density uh if

27:21 ↗ you're aware there's a good chance that

27:22 ↗ metro says no

27:24 ↗ um

27:25 ↗ so

27:26 ↗ i think from from my end of things uh

27:29 ↗ i hope that tonight we can kind of make

27:31 ↗ sure to have a plan b um so what if

27:35 ↗ metro yeah like metro great what if that

27:37 ↗ like let's partner with them that would

27:39 ↗ be wonderful

27:40 ↗ but if metro becomes not an option what

27:42 ↗ should we do

27:43 ↗ and that's kind of uh that's kind of

27:45 ↗ where i'll leave it i think at this

27:47 ↗ point and we can start having having

27:49 ↗ that discussion about

27:52 ↗ all these changes i think they're very

27:53 ↗ exciting i think there's a lot of

27:54 ↗ opportunity but

27:56 ↗ i do want to keep the realistic

27:58 ↗ expectations on the table as well so

28:00 ↗ any questions

28:03 ↗ so a few questions okay

28:06 ↗ um

28:07 ↗ probably some that can't be answered

28:08 ↗ tonight but i would love to see

28:11 ↗ a visual map

28:13 ↗ of the distance

28:15 ↗ of you know people within

28:18 ↗ the city from the nearest public transit

28:22 ↗ okay and so like

28:24 ↗ you know

28:27 ↗ people in the far end of squawk mountain

28:29 ↗ are obviously going to be a lot further

28:31 ↗ but i don't actually know do some parts

28:32 ↗ of the business district have

28:35 ↗ is there a route that actually goes

28:36 ↗ right by it or they're going to be zones

28:38 ↗ that we're going to see in there just be

28:40 ↗ interesting to see what that actual

28:42 ↗ difference

28:42 ↗ is

28:44 ↗ you're talking about like a heat maps

28:45 ↗ where yeah yeah do you have one bus away

28:48 ↗ like that

28:51 ↗ this is an awkward time

28:53 ↗ talking about my use of bus out

28:56 ↗ that's

29:10 ↗ so

29:13 ↗ you know you said earlier the return on

29:16 ↗ investment is

29:17 ↗ the service right that's the return

29:20 ↗ right it's not a we're trying to

29:22 ↗ get a zero achieve a zero customer so i

29:25 ↗ get that

29:26 ↗ but there is a bit of a question of

29:30 ↗ yeah

29:31 ↗ if metro thinks it's not a good idea

29:35 ↗ why do we think it is a good idea

29:38 ↗ likewise if metro thinks it's not a good

29:41 ↗ idea

29:43 ↗ is providing that service is is there

29:45 ↗ some other option with metro to say you

29:47 ↗ know what we're just gonna pay you to do

29:49 ↗ it

29:50 ↗ because

29:51 ↗ i would

29:52 ↗ i'd be a little surprised that

29:54 ↗ there's a cheaper option then they

29:56 ↗ already manage everything than to just

29:59 ↗ expand what they do they may go well the

30:01 ↗ return doesn't make sense for us because

30:03 ↗ we have a total budget but we're saying

30:04 ↗ hey we want to spend money anyway you

30:07 ↗ want to do it anyways

30:08 ↗ we should take this check to go do it

30:11 ↗ well i think it's uh more local

30:14 ↗ they're more regional agencies so

30:16 ↗ what they're looking at is regional and

30:17 ↗ safe we're thinking

30:20 ↗ local look at this then that's what

30:22 ↗ we're going to be talking about uh

30:24 ↗ trying to

30:26 ↗ get at with that

30:27 ↗ if that if we do pursue that option

30:32 ↗ that makes sense yes but it seems like

30:35 ↗ then we're sort of creating this city of

30:39 ↗ bus service

30:41 ↗ does that already exist and i don't know

30:42 ↗ about it

30:44 ↗ because

30:45 ↗ metro is meant to cover

30:48 ↗ the localities not just the

30:50 ↗ unincorporated

30:56 ↗ so there there's a couple things

30:59 ↗ bellevue

31:00 ↗ tried this

31:02 ↗ with uh several different routes that

31:05 ↗ they threw in

31:07 ↗ and let me

31:09 ↗ let me use the turn here so you

31:11 ↗ understand half of those buses that you

31:14 ↗ read

31:15 ↗ the other half for a trip 214 is a trip

31:18 ↗ two 15s are triggered

31:20 ↗ by triple they run in the morning they

31:22 ↗ run in the afternoon

31:24 ↗ [Music]

31:27 ↗ so half of those are triplers to take

31:29 ↗ the commuters in so

31:31 ↗ what are we looking at as far as

31:34 ↗ equity

31:35 ↗ for

31:35 ↗ those runs you're you're basically

31:39 ↗ running

31:40 ↗ commuters

31:41 ↗ to and from

31:45 ↗ sure seattle

31:46 ↗ for the most part transit center 214

31:49 ↗ dead they're wonderful bucks i drove

31:52 ↗ go straight into seattle there's no

31:54 ↗ stops straight out to israel no stops

31:59 ↗ people love that

32:02 ↗ what are we looking as far as equity for

32:04 ↗ those buses and what they serve because

32:07 ↗ when you talk about density

32:10 ↗ uh

32:11 ↗ the only density they're going to have

32:13 ↗ is freeway

32:14 ↗ and

32:16 ↗ downtown seattle streets and

32:20 ↗ our transit center

32:22 ↗ very little here

32:25 ↗ if we're

32:26 ↗ adding equity

32:28 ↗ we're trying to get those who cannot

32:33 ↗ afford or have transportation to make it

32:36 ↗ so that they can get to and from

32:39 ↗ work

32:40 ↗ considering that sincerely correct

32:45 ↗ i kind of agree with micah in that

32:50 ↗ it seems to me we're trying to create

32:54 ↗ to offer that equity and offer that

32:56 ↗ inclusion to everybody in the city of

32:59 ↗ israel

33:01 ↗ it's going to be very expensive to the

33:03 ↗ city you can't make it expensive to the

33:06 ↗ right

33:08 ↗ because the writer isn't going to want

33:10 ↗ to pay for another

33:12 ↗ system especially if they know

33:15 ↗ that eventually metro's going to take

33:17 ↗ care of that gap

33:20 ↗ if they do

33:25 ↗ yeah i think that if no one else has any

33:28 ↗ questions i think that's actually a

33:30 ↗ natural i was just gonna yeah you spread

33:32 ↗ my mind so um yeah do we before we

33:37 ↗ move along to the next step because i

33:39 ↗ think we'll kind of get at some of this

33:40 ↗ i just want to make sure you don't have

33:42 ↗ is anybody having more questions for you

33:43 ↗ about the material

33:44 ↗ you just have to ask it i'm pretty sure

33:47 ↗ i know the answer is but there's no

33:49 ↗ option of because

33:51 ↗ has more density than squawk

33:54 ↗ and that's not an option

33:56 ↗ from the city or what the city is

33:58 ↗ wanting to peel off the name like say i

34:00 ↗ would probably say

34:02 ↗ we'll just search house that's a good

34:04 ↗ question is is that a valid because i

34:07 ↗ was just wondering if this if we might

34:10 ↗ come to that same i'm wondering if that

34:12 ↗ is more

34:14 ↗ ethnically diverse and it's just more

34:15 ↗ dense

34:16 ↗ it's an interesting i'm sorry

34:18 ↗ yeah the poverty level right that's

34:20 ↗ right

34:21 ↗ it's higher yeah

34:23 ↗ and it's because older people probably

34:26 ↗ live there with fixed incomes

34:29 ↗ i would say at this point

34:31 ↗ uh

34:32 ↗ what we're looking at is a grouped

34:36 ↗ uh talus and squawk only because that is

34:38 ↗ what the council direction city council

34:41 ↗ direction was to get us to this point

34:44 ↗ could that change down the line possibly

34:47 ↗ could that be something we come to you

34:49 ↗ all come to a conclusion on and add to

34:51 ↗ your recommendation

34:53 ↗ possibly um but at this point

34:56 ↗ let's just safely say it's grouped and

34:58 ↗ evaluated

35:04 ↗ for the places that have done the uber

35:07 ↗ in this partnership

35:09 ↗ uh

35:10 ↗ do we have more information on like

35:13 ↗ people that took it

35:14 ↗ did they take it and they

35:16 ↗ they used to take a bus and they just

35:18 ↗ were like well i'd rather take an uber

35:20 ↗ and they literally were just

35:22 ↗ substituting a bus for an uber for a bus

35:26 ↗ or you know is it people that had a car

35:28 ↗ and just

35:29 ↗ wanted to be able to i don't know get a

35:32 ↗ drink

35:33 ↗ before they came home from work

35:35 ↗ or

35:35 ↗ was it actually

35:37 ↗ solving a transportation gap yeah

35:40 ↗ i think that's

35:42 ↗ a really hard thing to measure um if you

35:44 ↗ if we asked i think that same question

35:47 ↗ and did you like we don't know but did

35:49 ↗ you ask that to mention we asked it to

35:52 ↗ uber uber

35:54 ↗ i can tell you who's going to have the

35:55 ↗ figures because i know who ran there was

35:58 ↗ right hopefully

36:00 ↗ okay

36:01 ↗ paid for those

36:03 ↗ small vans to run those different

36:06 ↗ shuttles and basically what they were is

36:09 ↗ very close to on-demand where you pick

36:12 ↗ up the phone

36:13 ↗ come to the house pick them up they'd

36:15 ↗ have two or three they'd get two or

36:17 ↗ three in the neighborhood

36:19 ↗ down to the transit center drop

36:22 ↗ same thing going home they were off

36:24 ↗ they were basically you can't call them

36:27 ↗ anything but on demand it wasn't a

36:29 ↗ scheduled route it was they went to the

36:32 ↗ houses to pick them up

36:34 ↗ and uh

36:37 ↗ there were at least three of those

36:44 ↗ metro did not furnish the drivers

36:47 ↗ they did not furnish the vans

36:49 ↗ hopefully did

36:52 ↗ and they were ramp they ran just like

36:54 ↗ dart

36:55 ↗ and they lasted

36:58 ↗ i don't even think six months each one

37:01 ↗ of them

37:02 ↗ and

37:03 ↗ they were away

37:04 ↗ they went away because there wasn't

37:06 ↗ enough there wasn't

37:10 ↗ and it was trust me

37:12 ↗ they did enough

37:14 ↗ advertising to get the information out

37:16 ↗ there there just wasn't that demand

37:20 ↗ to take care of so they had that

37:23 ↗ and

37:24 ↗ they could use their orca cards

37:28 ↗ so that was a real advantage

37:31 ↗ but hopefully

37:32 ↗ has that data stacey haber

37:36 ↗ knows that i know that hope link has

37:38 ↗ that data so you could get that data and

37:42 ↗ how long it lasted in what they covered

37:45 ↗ that one area that i'm familiar with

37:48 ↗ probably would equate to towns

37:53 ↗ because of the phallus is probably

37:54 ↗ smaller than that area that they were

37:56 ↗ providing yet

37:58 ↗ okay

37:59 ↗ yeah this is the second time in 24 hours

38:01 ↗ that hope link has come across my radar

38:09 ↗ to go back to your original question

38:12 ↗ about uh uber lyft and their their kind

38:15 ↗ of service um i believe the the service

38:19 ↗ that they had in arizona which i think i

38:21 ↗ described last time that had the

38:23 ↗ [Music]

38:25 ↗ transit to anywhere in the city and back

38:27 ↗ for

38:28 ↗ for you know two dollars or zero

38:31 ↗ that replaced a shuttle service that

38:33 ↗ they were running

38:34 ↗ for cost

38:36 ↗ so that

38:37 ↗ that doesn't quite answer the question

38:39 ↗ but it did

38:40 ↗ in that instance

38:42 ↗ take over a an actual service

38:45 ↗ um i don't know exactly how it works but

38:48 ↗ yes kind of the question is a little bit

38:50 ↗ more

38:51 ↗ and i

38:52 ↗ almost certainly we won't know

38:55 ↗ um

38:57 ↗ but

38:58 ↗ whether

38:59 ↗ the people that

39:00 ↗ took uber

39:01 ↗ previously were taking the shuttle

39:05 ↗ are you

39:07 ↗ just serving a completely different

39:10 ↗ population

39:13 ↗ yeah

39:14 ↗ yeah short of uh

39:17 ↗ serving surveying every person who ever

39:19 ↗ took

39:20 ↗ every

39:21 ↗ mode and switch in to see if they

39:23 ↗ switched it's a really hard thing to

39:25 ↗ know

39:27 ↗ yeah it comes up in translation planning

39:28 ↗ all the time

39:30 ↗ we wish we had that information

39:35 ↗ so

39:36 ↗ can we change your criteria

39:38 ↗ are you guys ready for that um i think

39:41 ↗ the first thing i'd like to know is does

39:43 ↗ anybody think there's so yeah if you

39:44 ↗ leave that slide up there because that's

39:46 ↗ the criteria um

39:49 ↗ uh is there anything missing

39:51 ↗ i know this the staff spent a lot of

39:53 ↗ time with this before i ever came to the

39:54 ↗ town um and so i think they're pretty

39:57 ↗ comfortable with it but i wanted to know

39:59 ↗ um the first thing i wanted to find out

40:01 ↗ was anybody think there's anything

40:02 ↗ missing and i know that question was put

40:04 ↗ forth

40:05 ↗ uh last time but we didn't get to the

40:06 ↗ answer we can get a chance to answer it

40:08 ↗ erica you look like you have something

40:09 ↗ to say yeah be just too micro of a

40:12 ↗ project but i don't think like any

40:14 ↗ question is too small but since it is

40:16 ↗ also in the mobility master plan should

40:19 ↗ we add sustainability to this or is that

40:21 ↗ just a given that no matter what we do

40:23 ↗ they're all going to have the same

40:25 ↗ baseline of

40:27 ↗ echo friendliness

40:36 ↗ sustainability

40:50 ↗ yeah yeah so i guess in general

40:54 ↗ this

40:55 ↗ project itself

40:57 ↗ is get because yeah it's to get single

40:59 ↗ drivers off the road

41:01 ↗ but

41:02 ↗ is each individual option has more

41:06 ↗ more or less sustainability to it

41:09 ↗ i feel like all the factors put together

41:12 ↗ once we rank them up

41:14 ↗ whichever one

41:15 ↗ allows more

41:17 ↗ single occupancy vehicles

41:29 ↗ is very

41:30 ↗ the per

41:32 ↗ passenger friendliness is very dependent

41:34 ↗ on

41:35 ↗ the ridership so

41:38 ↗ because we don't know that

41:40 ↗ you know it could be that if the

41:41 ↗ friendship is really low

41:43 ↗ uber lyft is gonna be the best

41:45 ↗ because you're not having and driving an

41:46 ↗ empty bus around whether it's electric

41:48 ↗ or not

41:50 ↗ but if it's high then that would be the

41:52 ↗ worst option so i think without knowing

41:54 ↗ that i don't know how we could evaluate

41:56 ↗ it

42:00 ↗ okay oh

42:15 ↗ without

42:17 ↗ without um

42:18 ↗ knowing

42:19 ↗ per ride

42:24 ↗ just provided a bus

42:26 ↗ taking ten people's one

42:28 ↗ is it do you mean rider like if the bus

42:31 ↗ takes 10 people do you mean the cost per

42:32 ↗ person on that house who should be

42:34 ↗ writer

42:36 ↗ maybe

42:37 ↗ hospitalized

42:42 ↗ so it's cost per city

42:46 ↗ per year per writer

42:48 ↗ okay

42:54 ↗ per year

42:56 ↗ for costa city i don't know i feel like

42:59 ↗ the ridership question

43:00 ↗ is a little bit vague because again if

43:03 ↗ all of these are put together are

43:04 ↗ successfully

43:06 ↗ mixed then

43:08 ↗ the right ship is going to be

43:10 ↗ high so i'm not sure

43:13 ↗ the ridership just seems a little bit

43:14 ↗ big and too catchy

43:17 ↗ is it possible

43:18 ↗ i think that that

43:20 ↗ i think it's an interesting question but

43:22 ↗ i think it doesn't we don't have any

43:23 ↗ information so we can't use it as a

43:25 ↗ criteria

43:26 ↗ an evaluation criteria but what i am

43:28 ↗ wondering is

43:29 ↗ something that maybe we're getting at a

43:31 ↗ little bit not with the sustainable well

43:32 ↗ in some ways it seems

43:35 ↗ like like our

43:37 ↗ judgment of likelihood of

43:39 ↗ like like uptake like whether people

43:41 ↗ would use it like it seems to me that

43:43 ↗ people will be

43:44 ↗ a subset of the population would be very

43:47 ↗ likely to use uber lyft

43:50 ↗ and

43:51 ↗ so

43:52 ↗ i mean we'd have to

43:54 ↗ without having the answer

43:56 ↗ having an evaluation criteria is not

43:59 ↗ useful but

44:00 ↗ do are we are we wondering if there's a

44:03 ↗ criteria that says likelihood of

44:05 ↗ of use

44:07 ↗ is that already captured

44:09 ↗ no it's not it's a field that they

44:12 ↗ dreams that

44:13 ↗ if you killed it will they come and and

44:15 ↗ which and it's maybe subjective we don't

44:17 ↗ have data but like do we think these are

44:19 ↗ all equal on that front well

44:22 ↗ and if the

44:24 ↗ shuttle the metro option is well that's

44:26 ↗ just a pilot like even if we get this

44:29 ↗ pilot that pilot would go away unless

44:32 ↗ like somehow we

44:34 ↗ just are like the bus is packed with the

44:36 ↗ kills and everyone was really stoked

44:37 ↗ like to have the struggle i don't know

44:41 ↗ like is it worse to have a pilot and it

44:43 ↗ goes away

44:45 ↗ i don't think so but i think that's

44:46 ↗ captured a scale

44:50 ↗ maybe

44:53 ↗ i mean i'm not trying to help you no

44:54 ↗ that makes sense i don't know it's like

44:56 ↗ a scalability also man like can you

44:58 ↗ build it

44:59 ↗ expand or uh

45:01 ↗ but i guess that would be expanding it's

45:03 ↗ just making it pertinent but yeah i

45:05 ↗ guess so yes time both time has been

45:07 ↗ speaking

45:09 ↗ if the pilot goes away i mean that's

45:12 ↗ sort of an answer to that question i had

45:14 ↗ earlier which is

45:16 ↗ are you creating a service there's

45:18 ↗ actually demand for and why are we

45:21 ↗ better judges than that than

45:23 ↗ metro

45:25 ↗ and the pilot that was approved before

45:29 ↗ was the 200

45:31 ↗ was gonna go up and do

45:33 ↗ towels

45:34 ↗ that was a puddle and they even

45:38 ↗ considered doing squat

45:40 ↗ the 200 was free

45:42 ↗ just to see if they could get the

45:45 ↗ ridership because

45:46 ↗ for me

45:47 ↗ ridership is density

45:50 ↗ if you get the ridership which is the

45:52 ↗ density

45:53 ↗ to support

45:55 ↗ the operation

45:58 ↗ if they'll continue the operation

46:02 ↗ it would have cost the city more

46:05 ↗ not the writer because the 200 was free

46:09 ↗ and then

46:10 ↗ a pandemic can't you know went away and

46:13 ↗ that's

46:14 ↗ so the pilot was never tested

46:18 ↗ you know i don't even think we need to

46:21 ↗ develop the criteria anymore because

46:23 ↗ it's

46:24 ↗ we know metro is rolled out they know

46:27 ↗ that the shuttle third party is awfully

46:30 ↗ expensive so really the only alternative

46:33 ↗ is that uber lift

46:35 ↗ that that's

46:36 ↗ the way i see it

46:38 ↗ so

46:39 ↗ uh i

46:40 ↗ so i think the only thing left to do is

46:43 ↗ to pull the resonance of

46:45 ↗ talus and squat to see who would use it

46:50 ↗ so

46:52 ↗ i've already made up my mind and that's

46:55 ↗ the way i see it especially since metro

46:58 ↗ was

46:59 ↗ is just you know

47:01 ↗ um

47:02 ↗ you know they've kind of already said

47:04 ↗ that we're not dense enough and it's

47:07 ↗ it's pretty highly not likely that they

47:10 ↗ would pursue it which i'm honored

47:12 ↗ because 200 carried a lot of people

47:15 ↗ it carried that's where you got your

47:17 ↗ activity was with the 200 because you

47:19 ↗ got people who could not afford to carry

47:22 ↗ take the bus

47:23 ↗ to include students in desawah high

47:25 ↗ school because that was specifically put

47:28 ↗ in there so that those kids could get to

47:31 ↗ and from

47:32 ↗ school that lived around and couldn't

47:34 ↗ take the schools

47:37 ↗ you'll get your density there

47:39 ↗ but

47:41 ↗ again it costs the city 400 000 dollars

47:44 ↗ 400 000 plus to operate that service

47:48 ↗ here around two buses

47:51 ↗ morning and then an afternoon and it was

47:54 ↗ straight through

47:56 ↗ one room one bus believed the other it

47:58 ↗ was a van

48:00 ↗ it wasn't

48:03 ↗ but that's how and i'm beginning to

48:06 ↗ think the same the same thing

48:11 ↗ what are we getting if we go with uber

48:14 ↗ lyft

48:15 ↗ what what are you getting

48:17 ↗ and will you even have

48:21 ↗ the drivers out here to do that's a huge

48:24 ↗ question will you have them

48:26 ↗ i can tell you right now

48:29 ↗ they're uh

48:30 ↗ they're doing everything they can to

48:32 ↗ break even in seattle let alone come to

48:35 ↗ a suburb and uh do this

48:39 ↗ all right i'm kind of stubborn i'm gonna

48:40 ↗ say just just humor me for a minute

48:42 ↗ let's stick with the plan

48:44 ↗ and we can we'll go through it quickly

48:46 ↗ i'm not hearing anything that is new we

48:49 ↗ kind of bounced around some ideas staff

48:51 ↗ spent a lot of time with the criteria

48:53 ↗ are we more or less

48:55 ↗ do you have a pretty here's something i

48:56 ↗ want to share that is new it's not on

48:58 ↗ the criteria

49:00 ↗ you can tell me no i don't know what it

49:02 ↗ is so i don't know

49:04 ↗ so

49:05 ↗ i i have

49:07 ↗ very serious concerns about going down

49:09 ↗ the uber lyft partnership option

49:13 ↗ and i think that's quite

49:17 ↗ it will help us understand because i i

49:19 ↗ feel like

49:20 ↗ i feel like without talking about the

49:22 ↗ criteria we don't have an understanding

49:24 ↗ of why people think what they think and

49:25 ↗ i know you're going to tell us why you

49:26 ↗ think what you think but i feel like we

49:28 ↗ should talk about the criteria that we

49:30 ↗ think is most important

49:32 ↗ um

49:34 ↗ but i can't stand not hearing what you

49:36 ↗ have to say so go ahead and say it i'm

49:38 ↗ serious i'm happy to hold it for later

49:40 ↗ unless you think it is super

49:43 ↗ i think it's more relevant to the

49:44 ↗ criteria but it's not directly criteria

49:48 ↗ okay so

49:50 ↗ talk about surveys you know if you

49:52 ↗ survey people and you ask them people

49:54 ↗ that are going to respond to the survey

49:55 ↗ especially if you ask them would you

49:58 ↗ like a near free or free tuber option

50:02 ↗ who's going to say no

50:05 ↗ so

50:06 ↗ they're going to say yes and then

50:08 ↗ if you implement it

50:10 ↗ because they're not comparable

50:12 ↗ you're going to create a situation where

50:14 ↗ every everyone else in this robot is

50:16 ↗ going to go

50:17 ↗ i

50:19 ↗ demand an uber and lift service why does

50:22 ↗ why does spock

50:24 ↗ mountain get we were left to go to hear

50:26 ↗ them from their home

50:28 ↗ and then the whole city does it because

50:29 ↗ we have no other option or we cancel it

50:31 ↗ and then we do this and then all of a

50:33 ↗ sudden the whole city is just

50:34 ↗ subsidizing a private company but that

50:37 ↗ might be council's problem

50:39 ↗ okay i i yeah

50:41 ↗ i would agree but they're asking our

50:43 ↗ recommendation and so

50:45 ↗ i mean our recommendation is

50:48 ↗ my recommendation

50:50 ↗ would be

50:51 ↗ that's not an option

50:53 ↗ i would not recommend we go down the

50:55 ↗ path of implementing kubernetes

50:59 ↗ because of that and tying it into

51:01 ↗ the criteria

51:02 ↗ this is where i just don't think that

51:04 ↗ these are comparable options because

51:07 ↗ they're providing such different

51:08 ↗ services

51:09 ↗ and that's not really in the criteria

51:12 ↗ but

51:13 ↗ it's sort of more description than

51:14 ↗ something you can just

51:15 ↗ quantify the criteria

51:19 ↗ yeah i don't disagree with you so um i

51:21 ↗ think that what we should do and if we

51:24 ↗ use our time wisely we can capture some

51:26 ↗ of this and that can get transmitted to

51:27 ↗ council and that is that we have serious

51:29 ↗ concerns about that and i actually

51:31 ↗ thought that i had a criteria to add and

51:33 ↗ i realized it's not really a criteria to

51:35 ↗ compare them it's a criteria that gets

51:37 ↗ it that is this um

51:40 ↗ fair you know is this and the one thing

51:43 ↗ that

51:44 ↗ i think is important i actually

51:47 ↗ i'm gonna stick to the rules here we'll

51:48 ↗ talk about the criteria but

51:50 ↗ i do think this density thing is a huge

51:52 ↗ issue and um i think that uh

51:56 ↗ one thing i mean there's what releases

51:58 ↗ all over is a quad that have four people

52:00 ↗ per acre

52:01 ↗ um and then there's probably other newer

52:03 ↗ neighborhoods that have 15 people per

52:05 ↗ acre and so i think that may be

52:08 ↗ those those are two different things the

52:10 ↗ other thing i think is not entirely

52:11 ↗ clear to me i know you're talking about

52:13 ↗ the first last smile but in this whole

52:15 ↗ discussion

52:16 ↗ when it was introduced it wasn't always

52:18 ↗ first and last miles also

52:20 ↗ um just getting to downtown and i think

52:23 ↗ that those are two very different

52:25 ↗ objectives and i think that if we

52:27 ↗ narrowed the objective it might be a

52:29 ↗ little easier to

52:30 ↗ and

52:31 ↗ so i think

52:33 ↗ to me um

52:36 ↗ the idea of first and last mile is an

52:38 ↗ entirely different discussion than if

52:40 ↗ you were just trying to get people to

52:41 ↗ circulate through issaquah and i think

52:43 ↗ there are a lot of other benefits that

52:45 ↗ could help get at your question because

52:48 ↗ if you get more people off the road

52:49 ↗ everybody benefits and if you're talking

52:51 ↗ about first and last smile and people

52:53 ↗ are no longer driving their car all the

52:55 ↗ way to seattle because they don't want

52:56 ↗ to get on you know they they can't do

52:58 ↗ that first and last mile then that is

53:00 ↗ something that might seem

53:02 ↗ unfair and yet if you're getting people

53:04 ↗ if if you're actually successful you get

53:06 ↗ people out of your cars everybody

53:07 ↗ benefits when there's fewer cars on the

53:10 ↗ road

53:12 ↗ that's that's the nature of

53:14 ↗ public benefit but

53:16 ↗ there are definitely concerns with

53:18 ↗ left slash uber is just

53:22 ↗ in fact with the public benefit you it's

53:24 ↗ time to distribute it unevenly against

53:27 ↗ all this do benefit

53:28 ↗ eventually so but i wonder if maybe when

53:31 ↗ we talk about equity so i don't know

53:33 ↗ what the staff means when these equity

53:34 ↗ concerns i don't know if we read it and

53:36 ↗ it was in the memo and i forgot it but i

53:38 ↗ do think there's sort of equity

53:40 ↗ like the idea of some people not knowing

53:42 ↗ how to use the the apps

53:45 ↗ and also um

53:47 ↗ this notion of like everyone else is

53:49 ↗ applause so maybe we could talk about

53:52 ↗ i'm gonna go ahead and say it's not like

53:53 ↗ we don't have any additional criteria

53:55 ↗ but i think we should maybe take a

53:57 ↗ moment

53:58 ↗ um

53:59 ↗ and and i i had hoped and maybe maybe

54:02 ↗ i'm wrong but i had hope that having a

54:03 ↗ discussion about which criteria were

54:05 ↗ most important that some of this

54:07 ↗ would take more form and be a little bit

54:10 ↗ more substantive when we pass our

54:12 ↗ recommendation on even if it's to say no

54:14 ↗ it's for these reasons and um or

54:18 ↗ go ahead so you mentioned first last

54:20 ↗ mile

54:22 ↗ the you know cars off the road because

54:25 ↗ of that

54:26 ↗ um because they don't have to drive into

54:28 ↗ seattle whatever but if they

54:29 ↗ [Music]

54:31 ↗ have a car then they could also

54:33 ↗ theoretically just drive the

54:35 ↗ first mound the last mile in park and so

54:37 ↗ that kind of brings up a question of

54:39 ↗ what it is

54:40 ↗ yeah yeah yeah which is maybe another

54:43 ↗ whole different topic

54:45 ↗ but it brings up a question of

54:50 ↗ if this is first of all and i think

54:51 ↗ that's that's great to narrow it down on

54:54 ↗ okay this is actually what we're talking

54:56 ↗ about service or personalized smile

54:58 ↗ how are people currently getting there

55:02 ↗ are there people that are not able to

55:04 ↗ take public transit because of first and

55:07 ↗ last mile limitations how are they

55:09 ↗ otherwise getting somewhere

55:11 ↗ and i try and address that if if the

55:13 ↗ question is first mine

55:16 ↗ well the question about first last mile

55:19 ↗ is like

55:20 ↗ there's someone on squawk mountain um

55:23 ↗ who might have a kid and who might want

55:25 ↗ to go to

55:27 ↗ go to bellevue or

55:28 ↗ scout

55:30 ↗ but they're just not able to because

55:32 ↗ they don't have a car of course and they

55:34 ↗ they can't be taken

55:36 ↗ to the trans center i mean i experienced

55:38 ↗ this a lot

55:39 ↗ and so having that shelter as a second

55:41 ↗ option

55:42 ↗ to do that

55:44 ↗ would enable

55:46 ↗ that kind of

55:52 ↗ so there's a whole bunch of situations i

55:53 ↗ think

55:54 ↗ where someone can't

55:56 ↗ take a car or doesn't care

56:00 ↗ a lot seniors

56:16 ↗ so is the question on the table still do

56:20 ↗ we

56:21 ↗ have a recommendation option to pursue

56:24 ↗ and do we have enough

56:28 ↗ i'm i'm not convinced that having a

56:30 ↗ discussion with the creature is not

56:31 ↗ going to get us closer to that

56:33 ↗ um

56:35 ↗ uh

56:36 ↗ so

56:39 ↗ maybe we could take a couple minutes and

56:41 ↗ just indulge me and we can talk about

56:42 ↗ the criteria so how about if we take

56:45 ↗ everyone just take a minute and put your

56:47 ↗ um

56:50 ↗ top

56:51 ↗ three

56:52 ↗ criteria

56:54 ↗ and then we share those top three

56:56 ↗ criteria of their credibility

56:58 ↗ yes because i don't think the my problem

56:59 ↗ from the get-go has been that they're

57:01 ↗ not

57:02 ↗ um that they're all presented as if

57:04 ↗ they're all equal

57:06 ↗ and i don't think that's true i think

57:07 ↗ some of those are more hot buttons so

57:09 ↗ there's um

57:11 ↗ i don't know if you did that for me

57:12 ↗ because i said i wanted to have people

57:13 ↗ scribble but there are um sticky boxes

57:15 ↗ maybe i'd like to add expectations oh

57:17 ↗ well that's one yeah you can we can

57:19 ↗ reopen that

57:21 ↗ yeah that was a great question to make

57:22 ↗ me think of what criteria is missing so

57:24 ↗ i appreciate the question

57:26 ↗ um

57:28 ↗ creating a new service an entirely new

57:30 ↗ administrative administrative state

57:33 ↗ that's needed to manage it

57:36 ↗ do you not think city admin

57:39 ↗ that that's

57:41 ↗ i was looking at it as as more of a

57:44 ↗ cost as opposed to a almost a more

57:46 ↗ binary like

57:49 ↗ once because we're setting expectations

57:51 ↗ or because of the actual just like hard

57:54 ↗ and soft costs of starting something new

57:57 ↗ i guess i i maybe don't really believe

58:00 ↗ that the difference is as small as low

58:02 ↗ and moderate

58:03 ↗ ah

58:05 ↗ you will stop sharing just for a second

58:21 ↗ what

58:22 ↗ happened

58:24 ↗ he's changing his screen and i don't

58:25 ↗ know why there we go

58:27 ↗ definitions

58:28 ↗ oh

58:34 ↗ great oh i see

58:39 ↗ participation

58:42 ↗ would you say like startup in your like

58:46 ↗ inertia

58:54 ↗ you're creating a whole nother thing to

58:55 ↗ manage

58:57 ↗ and a whole new service

58:59 ↗ and all the unknowns that come with that

59:01 ↗ and once we

59:02 ↗ once the city sets forth on that

59:04 ↗ endeavor

59:05 ↗ when things come up they'll go deal with

59:07 ↗ them because people don't

59:09 ↗ build the sun cost fallacy people follow

59:12 ↗ it

59:13 ↗ and

59:14 ↗ i i think that it's going to be much

59:16 ↗ higher

59:17 ↗ and

59:18 ↗ you know we're gonna come across you

59:20 ↗ know through contact negotiation though

59:22 ↗ we're already down there we decided

59:23 ↗ let's let's go and do it

59:25 ↗ and so i

59:27 ↗ to me that's a

59:29 ↗ worn

59:37 ↗ i'm open to that and uh i'm wondering if

59:40 ↗ i think you're on to something but i i'm

59:42 ↗ still a little vague in my mind

59:51 ↗ okay

59:52 ↗ i feel like city administration

59:55 ↗ covers that

59:57 ↗ why don't we decide it covers that why

59:58 ↗ don't we say what we mean by city

59:59 ↗ administration is

1:00:01 ↗ the hassle of starting something new and

1:00:03 ↗ the foul see i love what you just said

1:00:05 ↗ the sun costs fallacy

1:00:09 ↗ yeah yeah this is i think it's it's more

1:00:12 ↗ than just startup it's just

1:00:16 ↗ everything once you make a decision

1:00:18 ↗ they're gonna proceed with it

1:00:21 ↗ even when things come up

1:00:22 ↗ elon things are more expensive than

1:00:24 ↗ expected

1:00:25 ↗ and and also all of the other things and

1:00:28 ↗ that's why it's not just a cost element

1:00:29 ↗ it's all of the other things that come

1:00:31 ↗ with having another service

1:00:33 ↗ and the whole

1:00:36 ↗ providing a unique service to two parts

1:00:38 ↗ of the city

1:00:40 ↗ arena providing a unique service which

1:00:42 ↗ is not equivalent and that's what gets

1:00:44 ↗ back that i keep harping on this are

1:00:46 ↗ these actually equivalent to

1:00:48 ↗ the

1:00:49 ↗ the metro option

1:00:51 ↗ so

1:00:54 ↗ okay

1:00:55 ↗ sorry i don't mean to be a two-way

1:00:56 ↗ conversation there's seven people on

1:00:58 ↗ this

1:01:00 ↗ um

1:01:01 ↗ i think that you're also getting at the

1:01:03 ↗ thing that's

1:01:04 ↗ in in a way it's um

1:01:08 ↗ it's the equity question because it's

1:01:10 ↗ like

1:01:10 ↗ it ties in very heavily with that and i

1:01:13 ↗ think there are a lot of unknowns that

1:01:16 ↗ are certainly unknown to me about the

1:01:17 ↗ difference between

1:01:18 ↗ palace and spock mountain and everywhere

1:01:20 ↗ else in this law and

1:01:23 ↗ you know like who actually

1:01:26 ↗ who who needs the service

1:01:29 ↗ who would benefit from the service

1:01:31 ↗ i don't think those are the same

1:01:34 ↗ on each of these options yeah and i

1:01:36 ↗ think that that's the gap we're serious

1:01:38 ↗ about equity that's the gap we should be

1:01:40 ↗ trying to close

1:01:43 ↗ who needs it

1:01:46 ↗ sorry

1:01:46 ↗ when it comes to demand then when it

1:01:48 ↗ comes to who's using it i feel like with

1:01:52 ↗ transit service you're really just when

1:01:54 ↗ you listen to it you're creating demand

1:01:56 ↗ just like you're interested in yeah yeah

1:01:59 ↗ so you never know who actually is going

1:02:01 ↗ to be using it so

1:02:02 ↗ you're creating a good service perhaps

1:02:04 ↗ hopefully we are playing good service

1:02:06 ↗ with this um

1:02:08 ↗ then you'll be inducing people to take

1:02:10 ↗ it so

1:02:11 ↗ just like anything like transportation

1:02:13 ↗ related issues

1:02:15 ↗ if you add lane people are going to be

1:02:16 ↗ using it it's going to go back to how it

1:02:18 ↗ was if you have the bus line people are

1:02:21 ↗ they're going to start using it

1:02:23 ↗ and so i i don't know i should be here

1:02:26 ↗ saying that necessarily i think we

1:02:27 ↗ should

1:02:28 ↗ try to

1:02:30 ↗ see

1:02:31 ↗ see how it works

1:02:33 ↗ and that makes perfect sense like that

1:02:35 ↗ of that methodology but again you know

1:02:38 ↗ when you look at the equity and the

1:02:39 ↗ scalability we're only talking about two

1:02:42 ↗ neighborhoods versus you know if we

1:02:45 ↗ as a city offer to those two

1:02:47 ↗ neighborhoods we're still not

1:02:50 ↗ meeting the gap of weeds

1:02:52 ↗ elsewhere in the city

1:02:53 ↗ and so i completely

1:02:55 ↗ agree with you that

1:02:57 ↗ that you know there's a new service will

1:03:00 ↗ create demand

1:03:02 ↗ but

1:03:04 ↗ what if we create demand

1:03:06 ↗ and

1:03:07 ↗ we're not actually addressing the

1:03:09 ↗ current need we created

1:03:11 ↗ a

1:03:12 ↗ new new need effectively that we didn't

1:03:14 ↗ have to keep keep satisfying and maybe

1:03:16 ↗ that need or people that

1:03:18 ↗ otherwise

1:03:19 ↗ maybe had a car and so we're replacing a

1:03:22 ↗ car with uber and maybe that's better

1:03:24 ↗ maybe it's not

1:03:25 ↗ but then we have we actually addressed

1:03:27 ↗ what's the the current need we've done

1:03:29 ↗ nothing for that

1:03:31 ↗ so

1:03:32 ↗ i agree with you i think there's also

1:03:34 ↗ though it's it's more than just saying

1:03:37 ↗ that

1:03:38 ↗ new service is will create demand i mean

1:03:41 ↗ that's that's true with

1:03:42 ↗ any uh public service and

1:03:46 ↗ you know he could

1:03:47 ↗ we had infinite money we'd just keep

1:03:50 ↗ we'd

1:03:51 ↗ be great to have uber like service to

1:03:53 ↗ everywhere right everywhere on demand

1:03:57 ↗ so that's where it's like yeah

1:03:59 ↗ rating and service will create demand

1:04:01 ↗ but

1:04:02 ↗ we are limited in what we can do so i i

1:04:05 ↗ guess i would my preference would be to

1:04:08 ↗ figure out what's the current need going

1:04:10 ↗ to try and address that first

1:04:12 ↗ before we look at

1:04:14 ↗ a new service that addresses that

1:04:16 ↗ creates demand and therefore creates a

1:04:18 ↗ new need and address that need

1:04:22 ↗ can i can i add some maybe some insight

1:04:25 ↗ um so i s during the process of kind of

1:04:27 ↗ gathering this information up i sent uh

1:04:29 ↗ stephen frua senior transportation

1:04:31 ↗ planner a formal list of questions which

1:04:33 ↗ most of them i went through in the

1:04:35 ↗ presentation

1:04:36 ↗ one of them that i didn't include

1:04:38 ↗ was should we be considering this goes

1:04:40 ↗ back to all the other neighborhoods

1:04:42 ↗ getting jealous uh

1:04:44 ↗ like should we be considering

1:04:47 ↗ the potential of other neighborhoods

1:04:49 ↗ asking i want that too

1:04:51 ↗ and his response was basically right now

1:04:55 ↗ we're looking at spock and talus that's

1:04:57 ↗ the direction from council

1:04:59 ↗ as a part of the transit study

1:05:02 ↗ the hope is they will include that

1:05:03 ↗ question

1:05:05 ↗ as they are engaging the different

1:05:07 ↗ neighborhoods so

1:05:09 ↗ i don't know if that helps i don't know

1:05:10 ↗ if it makes it more complicated but that

1:05:12 ↗ is the response that i got

1:05:15 ↗ and it couldn't right

1:05:16 ↗ if i lived in the highlands first thing

1:05:19 ↗ i'd say is

1:05:20 ↗ why

1:05:21 ↗ why is squat so special why is telus so

1:05:24 ↗ special why aren't we getting a service

1:05:27 ↗ to the data because truthfully if you

1:05:29 ↗ look at the service that's up there now

1:05:32 ↗ it just passed through services

1:05:45 ↗ yeah why can't i get uber down to that

1:05:47 ↗ uh

1:05:49 ↗ to them well they would go to a transit

1:05:51 ↗ stop or to the hospital or something or

1:05:55 ↗ the

1:05:56 ↗ transits uh

1:05:59 ↗ parking right up

1:06:00 ↗ in the highlands

1:06:02 ↗ so it sounds like we

1:06:05 ↗ i like the idea of us addressing the

1:06:08 ↗ criteria and prioritizing it so that we

1:06:10 ↗ can make a recommendation to counselors

1:06:12 ↗ so i don't lose my mind

1:06:16 ↗ but because they're they're ultimately

1:06:18 ↗ responsible for creating the policy

1:06:21 ↗ we're giving a recommendation around the

1:06:23 ↗ table that you know hopefully that we

1:06:25 ↗ have consensus we may not but i think we

1:06:27 ↗ should pose that question to council you

1:06:30 ↗ know

1:06:30 ↗ you've asked us to look at a very

1:06:32 ↗ specific task which we've done we

1:06:35 ↗ struggled with as you can you know as

1:06:37 ↗ evidence around the

1:06:39 ↗ table but what a great conversation to

1:06:41 ↗ have right and

1:06:42 ↗ now cancel we're passing this on to you

1:06:44 ↗ with this question

1:06:46 ↗ for you to look at for all constituents

1:06:48 ↗ or as you're making your policies

1:06:51 ↗ i'm just going to say that i think two

1:06:53 ↗ themes that need to be embedded in our

1:06:55 ↗ recommendation is we you know whatever

1:06:58 ↗ we hopefully can come away with in the

1:07:00 ↗ next 40 minutes but also we have these

1:07:03 ↗ concerns we have this concern about do

1:07:05 ↗ we really understand the need

1:07:07 ↗ and we have this concern about what's

1:07:10 ↗ how about the other neighborhoods um

1:07:12 ↗ so let's finish the discussion about

1:07:14 ↗ criteria

1:07:16 ↗ isn't that equity well that's what i was

1:07:18 ↗ kind of got equity for the other days

1:07:20 ↗ it's it's there's sort of two kinds of

1:07:22 ↗ equities there's equity in and outside

1:07:24 ↗ and yeah

1:07:26 ↗ um

1:07:27 ↗ so uh

1:07:28 ↗ how about if we

1:07:30 ↗ go ahead and just

1:07:32 ↗ uh do informally then i want to hear

1:07:34 ↗ dave your your uh three characters your

1:07:36 ↗ staff put this up right and i'm not

1:07:38 ↗ picking that staff okay but

1:07:40 ↗ i've been in transportation business for

1:07:43 ↗ 53 years

1:07:45 ↗ i i don't agree with the coloring

1:07:49 ↗ and the color code

1:07:50 ↗ because i think it's different

1:07:53 ↗ on the

1:07:54 ↗ shuttle investment you got cost to user

1:07:57 ↗ per ride green like that it's low

1:08:01 ↗ i don't see that at all

1:08:03 ↗ that's an additional fare

1:08:06 ↗ perfect example if you compare the

1:08:08 ↗ transit

1:08:10 ↗ low to 75 right

1:08:13 ↗ perfect

1:08:14 ↗ but

1:08:15 ↗ that's using an orca card and the

1:08:18 ↗ transfer is built right in there's no

1:08:20 ↗ transfer there so i see that as not

1:08:23 ↗ being low i see that as being an

1:08:26 ↗ additional because they're going to have

1:08:28 ↗ to pull out the orca card to pay for

1:08:31 ↗ that next form of i don't see that as

1:08:33 ↗ being

1:08:35 ↗ i see that as being

1:08:37 ↗ yellow or gold whatever you

1:08:39 ↗ convenience is the same thing

1:08:42 ↗ i'm not sure

1:08:44 ↗ it will

1:08:46 ↗ you'd have to do day one to show that

1:08:49 ↗ you can be really convenient and i don't

1:08:52 ↗ see that

1:08:53 ↗ i i don't i'm sorry

1:08:56 ↗ but you're asking for honest opinions

1:08:58 ↗ here

1:08:59 ↗ i don't see that the same thing with

1:09:02 ↗ the equity concerns

1:09:06 ↗ if the equity concern to me would be

1:09:09 ↗ just the fair

1:09:11 ↗ because they're jacking it up for people

1:09:14 ↗ who really can't afford that fair and

1:09:17 ↗ it's an additional fair same thing with

1:09:21 ↗ uber and lyft

1:09:24 ↗ even if the city was to subsidize

1:09:27 ↗ i got to tell you my belief is red on

1:09:30 ↗ the shuttle and read on the alternative

1:09:32 ↗ for cost of the city

1:09:35 ↗ the city's going to have to subsidize

1:09:36 ↗ that

1:09:38 ↗ uber lift

1:09:40 ↗ and i can

1:09:41 ↗ sit here and almost tell you verbatim

1:09:44 ↗ for what i know

1:09:46 ↗ that will never be in 2022.

1:09:50 ↗ i don't believe that

1:09:52 ↗ i don't believe that in

1:09:55 ↗ this is always right

1:09:56 ↗ i don't believe that

1:09:58 ↗ and i think if we make that

1:10:00 ↗ recommendation to this council they're

1:10:02 ↗ going to laugh at us

1:10:04 ↗ because it's never going to happen and

1:10:07 ↗ barbara d michelle

1:10:09 ↗ barb and i work together at king county

1:10:11 ↗ metro so

1:10:14 ↗ she's

1:10:15 ↗ she she knows

1:10:20 ↗ okay

1:10:22 ↗ i'm gonna shut up

1:10:23 ↗ we wanna hear what you have to say no we

1:10:25 ↗ we really appreciate it obviously um

1:10:28 ↗ dude my age and experience like i am new

1:10:31 ↗ to all this within the last

1:10:33 ↗ four five years

1:10:35 ↗ and i really appreciate i appreciate all

1:10:37 ↗ the insight that and i'll

1:10:40 ↗ send this to everybody all of your

1:10:41 ↗ insights so and especially yours i

1:10:43 ↗ really appreciate it

1:10:45 ↗ so feel free to share it

1:10:47 ↗ i guess what i've i see big picture

1:10:49 ↗ jerry yes

1:10:52 ↗ i'd really like to see us get the pilots

1:10:54 ↗ back where we're not having a city to

1:10:58 ↗ have to invest huge amounts of money

1:11:01 ↗ and still keep that cost to user low

1:11:04 ↗ that's also going to help us with equity

1:11:07 ↗ for folks who can't

1:11:09 ↗ as far as the valley floor i think the

1:11:12 ↗ service is pretty damn good

1:11:15 ↗ because i

1:11:16 ↗ i don't know if i i think i told cynthia

1:11:19 ↗ i do a program at the senior center

1:11:20 ↗ called metro with dave okay and i teach

1:11:23 ↗ the seniors how to ride the bus

1:11:26 ↗ because a lot of we can't drive anymore

1:11:29 ↗ and they don't want to drive in seattle

1:11:32 ↗ that's equity

1:11:34 ↗ we've got other people who can't afford

1:11:36 ↗ those

1:11:37 ↗ those bus trips

1:11:40 ↗ that's equity that's what we have to

1:11:42 ↗ make

1:11:43 ↗ as our goal

1:11:47 ↗ i told you from pasco that night

1:11:51 ↗ i am pretty well

1:11:52 ↗ locked on to what i believe i can

1:11:56 ↗ tell the council

1:11:58 ↗ and

1:11:59 ↗ it will mean

1:12:02 ↗ but the beauty is haven't we

1:12:04 ↗ looked into

1:12:06 ↗ uh

1:12:07 ↗ all the alternatives

1:12:09 ↗ we've looked at

1:12:13 ↗ are we are we there yet do we take a

1:12:16 ↗ vote at eight o'clock you know what do

1:12:19 ↗ we do

1:12:20 ↗ uh to get there i'm i'm pretty well

1:12:24 ↗ convinced

1:12:25 ↗ but i heard that from my partner over

1:12:27 ↗ here

1:12:28 ↗ i'm pretty well convinced that i know

1:12:30 ↗ what i think the recommendation to the

1:12:33 ↗ city is gonna be this

1:12:35 ↗ that

1:12:36 ↗ cost to the city is going to be a huge

1:12:39 ↗ factor

1:12:41 ↗ so i think that benefit of just bear

1:12:43 ↗ with me we can get through this is that

1:12:45 ↗ not only if they're interested in what

1:12:47 ↗ we think but why we think it as a group

1:12:49 ↗ and the why we think it is what this

1:12:51 ↗ criteria discussion is about so

1:12:53 ↗ um

1:12:54 ↗ will you share your criteria entry

1:12:56 ↗ criteria

1:12:58 ↗ were we writing them down i'm sorry that

1:12:59 ↗ was a whole oh

1:13:04 ↗ [Music]

1:13:08 ↗ [Applause]

1:13:14 ↗ okay um only because i'm thinking uber i

1:13:17 ↗ think the reliability would be a strong

1:13:20 ↗ criteria plus you know the cost to say

1:13:23 ↗ per year and that cost to you

1:13:25 ↗ okay reliability and costs and what

1:13:28 ↗ about you micah

1:13:30 ↗ so number one is city admin but as i

1:13:32 ↗ just stated i don't think it's low

1:13:35 ↗ moderate moderate

1:13:39 ↗ um cost of the city per writer

1:13:43 ↗ uh not cost to the user

1:13:46 ↗ per ride

1:13:48 ↗ the third one is equity which is as dave

1:13:52 ↗ pointed out far better than i ever have

1:13:55 ↗ that

1:13:56 ↗ you know that zero to two dollars is in

1:13:59 ↗ addition to what they because if we're

1:14:01 ↗ talking to get to transit and therefore

1:14:03 ↗ equity is really the better way to

1:14:04 ↗ describe that and i'd almost rather that

1:14:06 ↗ the money part of it you look at it to

1:14:08 ↗ the cost to the city because that way

1:14:11 ↗ we're looking at the cost and benefit a

1:14:13 ↗ little bit

1:14:15 ↗ more

1:14:22 ↗ uh cost of city per year only because

1:14:24 ↗ i'm also thinking about

1:14:26 ↗ equity for other neighbors yes for other

1:14:29 ↗ numbers

1:14:30 ↗ and then reliability and cost to user

1:14:33 ↗ per ride

1:14:36 ↗ what i'm looking at is convenience

1:14:39 ↗ cost to user just in general so for a

1:14:42 ↗ ride

1:14:43 ↗ and transferability issues as well

1:14:47 ↗ and reliability

1:14:50 ↗ just

1:14:51 ↗ in general i think just maximizing

1:14:53 ↗ ridership

1:14:54 ↗ making it a convenient service good good

1:14:57 ↗ frequency turnarounds um making sure

1:15:00 ↗ it's not too expensive or

1:15:03 ↗ too difficult to transfer the fare um

1:15:06 ↗ there's

1:15:07 ↗ been some equity concerns that you guys

1:15:09 ↗ have been talking about

1:15:10 ↗ when it comes to orcid cards but

1:15:13 ↗ i feel like you know the new changes

1:15:14 ↗ that they've made they've reduced the

1:15:16 ↗ price of an

1:15:18 ↗ and the merchants are

1:15:20 ↗ more widespread now throughout the

1:15:22 ↗ region and so i'm not

1:15:25 ↗ really convinced that

1:15:27 ↗ work cards are a huge

1:15:28 ↗ like burden on people so i think

1:15:31 ↗ just

1:15:32 ↗ being able to tap once and then work on

1:15:34 ↗ the metro down to the valley and

1:15:37 ↗ happening again to go into bellevue or

1:15:39 ↗ seattle

1:15:40 ↗ i don't think that's a huge burden so

1:15:43 ↗ cost user and transferability issues

1:15:46 ↗ i think that

1:15:48 ↗ drives my decision to which one of these

1:15:51 ↗ elections i prefer

1:15:53 ↗ and reliability just making sure the

1:15:55 ↗ headways are

1:15:57 ↗ reliable and

1:15:59 ↗ aren't likely to awake

1:16:03 ↗ do you think it's a burden to also have

1:16:06 ↗ to use your phone order an uber pay two

1:16:08 ↗ dollars

1:16:09 ↗ and then go use your work

1:16:12 ↗ or just yourself well

1:16:14 ↗ the transferability issue is kind of

1:16:16 ↗ what informs my

1:16:18 ↗ before my preferred alternative here uh

1:16:21 ↗ which is which is the metro option

1:16:25 ↗ yeah i just want to yeah i want to make

1:16:27 ↗ sure i was understanding them the same

1:16:28 ↗ way you were yeah because yeah i kind of

1:16:31 ↗ said question is i thought

1:16:33 ↗ that um

1:16:35 ↗ it's not the issue that you needed or if

1:16:37 ↗ it's the issue is that you have to be

1:16:38 ↗ too different

1:16:41 ↗ but that you don't have to because

1:16:44 ↗ if you have a workout card and so that's

1:17:01 ↗ so i think he was saying that the issue

1:17:03 ↗ that makes it difficult a barrier wasn't

1:17:06 ↗ owning an

1:17:07 ↗ issue was two payments i don't think he

1:17:09 ↗ was saying that or an order card is a

1:17:11 ↗ barrier

1:17:12 ↗ i think he's saying and there's there's

1:17:13 ↗ something that's

1:17:15 ↗ rrfp

1:17:18 ↗ regional reduced paraplegia

1:17:21 ↗ guess what the kids in seattle now

1:17:24 ↗ up to 18 years of age

1:17:26 ↗ right for free but they will

1:17:32 ↗ they write for free

1:17:34 ↗ that means they would ride for free out

1:17:36 ↗ here which is something else that needs

1:17:39 ↗ to be built in there they're going to

1:17:41 ↗ write for free in the county in the

1:17:43 ↗ country

1:17:48 ↗ like the county council voted on it

1:17:51 ↗ recently there'd be some transit

1:17:54 ↗ some transit didn't board them they're

1:17:55 ↗ just metroid

1:17:57 ↗ and

1:17:59 ↗ that that's going to be

1:18:00 ↗ that's good

1:18:01 ↗ [Music]

1:18:03 ↗ got to watch

1:18:04 ↗ it metro voted on it

1:18:07 ↗ not some tragic okay so if you're under

1:18:10 ↗ 18 you paid for something

1:18:12 ↗ right

1:18:14 ↗ i can't remember i think the

1:18:17 ↗ fare on sound transit for

1:18:20 ↗ anybody under 18

1:18:22 ↗ visit 25. that's

1:18:25 ↗ sticks in my mind but i could be wrong

1:18:27 ↗ um

1:18:31 ↗ but i i have a problem with the colors

1:18:33 ↗ here because i think

1:18:35 ↗ they're different if dave wagoner was

1:18:37 ↗ doing this they they would be different

1:18:40 ↗ um

1:18:41 ↗ my

1:18:42 ↗ concern my criteria

1:18:45 ↗ my criteria is

1:18:47 ↗ number one cost to use it okay

1:18:50 ↗ second would be cost of the city

1:18:52 ↗ third would be reliability

1:18:55 ↗ there's a lot of things that impact that

1:18:57 ↗ reliability

1:18:59 ↗ like i said

1:19:01 ↗ uber lyft here in 2022

1:19:05 ↗ [Laughter]

1:19:16 ↗ the other reliability thing you have to

1:19:18 ↗ understand i have a really good grasp

1:19:21 ↗ off and that is

1:19:22 ↗ drivers

1:19:24 ↗ it's of course school districts trying

1:19:26 ↗ to get drivers offering two thousand

1:19:29 ↗ dollars sign on bonus

1:19:34 ↗ metro's trying to get drivers

1:19:36 ↗ this shuttle could be trying to get

1:19:39 ↗ drivers and

1:19:41 ↗ they would have to start at the wage

1:19:43 ↗ level

1:19:46 ↗ metro's 37 bucks an hour okay 37 and

1:19:51 ↗ they're even willing to pay a thousand

1:19:54 ↗ sign on bonus but you got to work for 90

1:19:57 ↗ days to get that signing

1:19:59 ↗ well that's right

1:20:00 ↗ that

1:20:02 ↗ all of those things have an impact on

1:20:05 ↗ reliability reliability because there

1:20:08 ↗ are so many runs a day

1:20:10 ↗ that metro runs they can't film

1:20:13 ↗ they don't have the drivers

1:20:15 ↗ they cancel the runs that's reliability

1:20:18 ↗ you're standing up waiting for a van to

1:20:21 ↗ come up and tell us

1:20:24 ↗ what do you mean it's not going to be

1:20:25 ↗ here

1:20:26 ↗ you know

1:20:29 ↗ anyway that's

1:20:30 ↗ a quite systemic issue

1:20:33 ↗ across the board for everything

1:20:37 ↗ it's across the board for everything so

1:20:40 ↗ and even truck drivers so

1:20:44 ↗ you're gonna say it but i i was saying

1:20:46 ↗ that it's systemic yeah i'm not sure

1:20:48 ↗ how much it rules out or how much it

1:20:51 ↗ should negatively impact what we're

1:20:53 ↗ considering right now because it is so

1:20:55 ↗ systemic

1:20:56 ↗ i see you're saying that it's just like

1:20:58 ↗ i'm not sure how it varies from how it

1:21:01 ↗ varies from one locality to others so i

1:21:03 ↗ guess so you've met with metro and they

1:21:05 ↗ didn't automatically shut down this idea

1:21:08 ↗ because like to me like well why would

1:21:10 ↗ they be offering pilot programs

1:21:13 ↗ if i mean like

1:21:14 ↗ yes like they're

1:21:15 ↗ like hemorrhaging folks they're trying

1:21:17 ↗ to hire and scale up and stuff but yet

1:21:18 ↗ they are still offering they didn't just

1:21:21 ↗ cancel all pilots yet like because of

1:21:23 ↗ that

1:21:24 ↗ so

1:21:25 ↗ that makes me like

1:21:26 ↗ reasonably yeah encouraged yeah i would

1:21:28 ↗ say like confident but encouraged that

1:21:30 ↗ like

1:21:31 ↗ if they don't think it's as much of an

1:21:33 ↗ issue as we are currently discussing

1:21:35 ↗ then

1:21:36 ↗ they just wait just like this

1:21:40 ↗ yes okay

1:21:41 ↗ i would have a tendency to believe the

1:21:44 ↗ timeline for metro i don't think it

1:21:46 ↗ would be 2023 but i i think it will be

1:21:50 ↗ 2024 or 2025. remember

1:21:54 ↗ the huge thing that's going to happen to

1:21:56 ↗ our city because right now from the plat

1:22:00 ↗ uh highlands

1:22:01 ↗ to seattle

1:22:03 ↗ 554

1:22:05 ↗ 214 for musical

1:22:07 ↗ fill them up and they go in 554 is next

1:22:11 ↗ but as soon as they open that link to

1:22:13 ↗ south belgium portland right 554 stops

1:22:17 ↗ and you're going to hear people say

1:22:20 ↗ man i just want to take one vehicle to

1:22:23 ↗ get it even though there's no cost

1:22:26 ↗ because you could tap

1:22:28 ↗ however the link is

1:22:30 ↗ for seniors is about 50

1:22:33 ↗ but the link about that 554 into seattle

1:22:38 ↗ and then you don't even have that option

1:22:40 ↗ anymore it's gone right

1:22:43 ↗ okay erica go ahead uh cost user equity

1:22:47 ↗ and reliability

1:22:50 ↗ yeah i feel like constant user inequity

1:22:52 ↗ or

1:22:53 ↗ yeah i was just trying to say to me

1:22:54 ↗ they're very intertwined because if you

1:22:57 ↗ can't afford to use the service for

1:22:59 ↗ providing

1:23:00 ↗ what it looks like then

1:23:03 ↗ what that that is going to counter that

1:23:05 ↗ if you will that they will come back

1:23:08 ↗ so i didn't share mine so my number one

1:23:10 ↗ was equity and it's both equity with

1:23:13 ↗ regard to the fair to the user the two

1:23:16 ↗ two payments two different payments as

1:23:19 ↗ well as the equity that we've talked

1:23:21 ↗ about about the other city and then also

1:23:23 ↗ that um

1:23:24 ↗ equity with regard to like

1:23:27 ↗ the people might need this the most

1:23:28 ↗ might not have a smartphone or the right

1:23:30 ↗ kind of phone

1:23:32 ↗ the reason that i set cost of the city

1:23:34 ↗ per writer

1:23:36 ↗ and equity and when i think of equity as

1:23:38 ↗ it seems like most people are thinking

1:23:40 ↗ because the user is part of that the

1:23:42 ↗ reason that those are

1:23:44 ↗ i i think should be the actual ones not

1:23:47 ↗ what they are now is because

1:23:49 ↗ you could

1:23:50 ↗ go up or down on the city cost per

1:23:52 ↗ writer right to change that number you

1:23:54 ↗ could give people five dollars

1:23:58 ↗ does that and you could say for the

1:23:59 ↗ metro option i'm gonna give people five

1:24:00 ↗ dollars so is that one then negative and

1:24:03 ↗ then the other ones are positive for the

1:24:04 ↗ uber one you know what we're gonna give

1:24:06 ↗ them twenty dollars and and taking an

1:24:08 ↗ uber they get money in their their

1:24:09 ↗ account using another ride all of a

1:24:11 ↗ sudden that's the best one for that

1:24:13 ↗ that's what those are

1:24:14 ↗ those are permanently linked

1:24:16 ↗ that there's no way to look at the cost

1:24:18 ↗ to the user without looking at the cost

1:24:20 ↗ to the city

1:24:21 ↗ because that's how that's making that

1:24:23 ↗ happen with the possible exception to

1:24:25 ↗ metro because if the city does nothing

1:24:27 ↗ it's a set we've resigned

1:24:33 ↗ so um

1:24:36 ↗ we i think that everyone is thank you

1:24:39 ↗ for indulging in that i i hope that it's

1:24:41 ↗ useful

1:24:42 ↗ um

1:24:43 ↗ i i'm i'm wondering about getting us

1:24:45 ↗ towards a recommendation and one of the

1:24:47 ↗ things i'm worried i'm wondering about

1:24:49 ↗ is is there

1:24:50 ↗ are are we still

1:24:52 ↗ recommending

1:24:54 ↗ like we did like a straw poll last time

1:24:56 ↗ and i think michael you pointed out

1:24:58 ↗ that it's

1:25:00 ↗ sort of a false like choice because

1:25:03 ↗ ultimately

1:25:05 ↗ why wouldn't we if metro was a

1:25:07 ↗ possibility even if it wasn't sooner

1:25:08 ↗ rather than you know and so

1:25:11 ↗ i guess maybe i could start with the

1:25:12 ↗ easy one is there do we all agree that

1:25:15 ↗ aggressively pursuing metro until the

1:25:18 ↗ words no come out of their mouth never

1:25:21 ↗ ever

1:25:22 ↗ do we want to pursue that and and is

1:25:25 ↗ that our strong recommendation and is it

1:25:27 ↗ even i'm gonna go out on a limb and

1:25:29 ↗ suggest that

1:25:30 ↗ even if to sell it to metro

1:25:33 ↗ it has to be split because one has much

1:25:35 ↗ more density than the other

1:25:38 ↗ um and so i'm seeing some nodding

1:25:43 ↗ we can take those one at a time um but

1:25:46 ↗ yeah

1:25:47 ↗ you know oh no you you you think we

1:25:49 ↗ should

1:25:54 ↗ you could always

1:25:55 ↗ say

1:25:56 ↗ that um

1:25:58 ↗ we would if metro

1:26:01 ↗ you know wanted to run a program

1:26:04 ↗ for

1:26:04 ↗ the city of isabella or squawk and

1:26:06 ↗ palace flying

1:26:09 ↗ but i guess i'm a pessimist there

1:26:12 ↗ i don't see it happening

1:26:15 ↗ so that's why i was going to the uber

1:26:18 ↗ alternative because that seems to be the

1:26:20 ↗ better alternative

1:26:22 ↗ so that that's that's where i

1:26:25 ↗ stood

1:26:26 ↗ and

1:26:28 ↗ yes

1:26:29 ↗ so that that's where i really stand

1:26:32 ↗ because that's what john was saying in

1:26:35 ↗ his presentation

1:26:37 ↗ tonight that oh yeah

1:26:39 ↗ um

1:26:40 ↗ metro is looking into this but

1:26:44 ↗ the chance of that happening the way i

1:26:46 ↗ interpreted what he said is because of

1:26:48 ↗ the density and the issues they had

1:26:51 ↗ like three or four years ago they were

1:26:54 ↗ still exploring it there were so many

1:26:56 ↗ problems with it

1:26:57 ↗ i i just was coming to the conclusion it

1:27:00 ↗ wasn't really going to happen but yes

1:27:03 ↗ you know if metro did say oh let's try a

1:27:06 ↗ pilot program

1:27:08 ↗ then

1:27:09 ↗ yeah

1:27:10 ↗ so maybe

1:27:11 ↗ maybe to be more precise about it is our

1:27:13 ↗ recommendation to council that they

1:27:15 ↗ direct staff to continue to aggressively

1:27:17 ↗ pursue that to its logical conclusion or

1:27:20 ↗ are you of the opinion i know i want to

1:27:22 ↗ be

1:27:23 ↗ make sure you're being heard or you have

1:27:25 ↗ the opinion that it's not worth

1:27:27 ↗ staff's time to pursue that aggressively

1:27:29 ↗ until the logical end you think it's

1:27:31 ↗ been pursued

1:27:32 ↗ i don't have words in your out i just

1:27:33 ↗ want to make sure that your

1:27:35 ↗ comments are heard wow i guess

1:27:40 ↗ we can definitely pursue metro see what

1:27:43 ↗ they come up with

1:27:45 ↗ but i felt like at the same time

1:27:48 ↗ you know council

1:27:49 ↗ could we could recommend this second

1:27:52 ↗ alternative at this time even if metra

1:27:57 ↗ does come up with something that isn't

1:27:58 ↗ going to work for us okay but then

1:28:00 ↗ there's all those issues with using uber

1:28:04 ↗ you know right reliability so let's

1:28:06 ↗ examine that for one second because i

1:28:07 ↗ think we might disagree on that is there

1:28:09 ↗ anyone that doesn't think the council

1:28:10 ↗ should direct staff to a business would

1:28:12 ↗ pursue the king county pilot to this

1:28:13 ↗ logical conclusion i would actually put

1:28:15 ↗ it in a step further than that

1:28:18 ↗ i would say that count counselors

1:28:21 ↗ direct staff

1:28:22 ↗ look at

1:28:23 ↗ are there other levers they can pull

1:28:27 ↗ or push in terms of money because if the

1:28:29 ↗ alternatives are

1:28:31 ↗ as davey pointed out probably much

1:28:33 ↗ higher than 50 to 100k of an uber option

1:28:35 ↗ but certainly high for the shuttle one

1:28:38 ↗ is there any way right it's not just

1:28:40 ↗ staff pushing on on metro it's a metro

1:28:43 ↗ comes back and says no okay what about

1:28:46 ↗ this

1:28:46 ↗ we shouldn't just say these are the only

1:28:48 ↗ three options

1:28:51 ↗ because there is the there are always

1:28:53 ↗ more options and another option is to

1:28:54 ↗ say

1:28:55 ↗ make that cost

1:28:57 ↗ higher

1:28:58 ↗ to the city

1:29:00 ↗ to achieve that that outcome and i stand

1:29:03 ↗ by what i said earlier

1:29:05 ↗ if metro does if we can give insulator

1:29:07 ↗ to a pilot they do a pilot and they're

1:29:09 ↗ like we're using it

1:29:10 ↗ then

1:29:11 ↗ i don't want to spend money and i don't

1:29:13 ↗ i don't want the city to spend money on

1:29:15 ↗ uber

1:29:16 ↗ if metro does a pilot and it's not being

1:29:18 ↗ used

1:29:20 ↗ but

1:29:20 ↗ that's just my idea okay so it seems

1:29:23 ↗ like we're disagreeing on whether uber

1:29:25 ↗ should be pursued as a stop gap or in

1:29:27 ↗ the meantime i'm not hearing anybody

1:29:29 ↗ disagree that we should be

1:29:32 ↗ so it sounds like

1:29:34 ↗ is this helpful this is what we're

1:29:35 ↗ trying to get yeah yeah um

1:29:38 ↗ okay so i want to make sure everybody

1:29:41 ↗ gets hurt though and i don't want to

1:29:42 ↗ have um

1:29:44 ↗ i don't

1:29:45 ↗ re-voting i mean i i guess maybe i would

1:29:48 ↗ go ahead no way my brain works uh with

1:29:51 ↗ like a lot of things in life is i am

1:29:53 ↗ better honestly at like saying what i

1:29:54 ↗ don't want and so they're like maybe

1:29:56 ↗ explicitly what i do and so is it more

1:29:58 ↗ helpful for anyone if we like eliminate

1:30:00 ↗ because we really haven't talked about

1:30:01 ↗ the like city owned shuttle or whatever

1:30:04 ↗ like that route like it hasn't come out

1:30:07 ↗ much it doesn't seem very popular the

1:30:08 ↗ cost is pretty high we don't have the

1:30:10 ↗ middle option the middle option i think

1:30:11 ↗ we in our straw poll like everything was

1:30:14 ↗ just unknown it was a big okay

1:30:16 ↗ i agree yeah would it be helpful to like

1:30:19 ↗ at least confirm that to counsel and say

1:30:22 ↗ like this was off the table for us as a

1:30:24 ↗ group

1:30:25 ↗ and then the other two

1:30:26 ↗ we'll keep talking about that right now

1:30:28 ↗ but that's just

1:30:30 ↗ for like my like process of elimination

1:30:32 ↗ is like

1:30:34 ↗ so let's try something let's try

1:30:36 ↗ actually um

1:30:38 ↗ is this too cumbersome to actually take

1:30:40 ↗ uh

1:30:42 ↗ i would i would entertain a motion to

1:30:44 ↗ take the middle one off the table

1:30:46 ↗ for our recommendation second that i'm

1:30:48 ↗ entertaining

1:30:50 ↗ if somebody made that motion

1:30:54 ↗ well you have to clarify it so that they

1:30:56 ↗ can capture it so let's go ahead and

1:30:58 ↗ make that i mostly take the middle

1:31:00 ↗ option of shuttle invest in a

1:31:02 ↗ third-party system

1:31:03 ↗ off the table

1:31:05 ↗ sorry

1:31:07 ↗ all in favor

1:31:12 ↗ okay and nobody's supposed to miss

1:31:13 ↗ anybody okay great there we made a

1:31:15 ↗ formal recommendation okay um i would

1:31:18 ↗ entertain emotion record we're

1:31:19 ↗ recommending against it we're not taking

1:31:21 ↗ it off

1:31:22 ↗ of course we don't have the power to

1:31:24 ↗ take it up but we're recommending

1:31:25 ↗ against pursuing it at all

1:31:28 ↗ i guess i was wondering that um i just

1:31:30 ↗ didn't want to correct you because yeah

1:31:32 ↗ i mean if i don't know something weird

1:31:34 ↗ happens in the next six months and we

1:31:36 ↗ have to revisit it i'm not gonna

1:31:38 ↗ like i yeah that's fine no i think he

1:31:40 ↗ just meant it i mean for record purposes

1:31:43 ↗ we really should

1:31:46 ↗ maybe a stickler but we really should

1:31:47 ↗ actually be a little more clear we're

1:31:50 ↗ not taking it off the table

1:31:52 ↗ we're recommending against it and maybe

1:31:55 ↗ we should even state a few reasons why

1:31:57 ↗ if we're going to be formal about it and

1:31:59 ↗ vote so i don't know if you want to make

1:32:00 ↗ a new motion

1:32:02 ↗ i still think we're getting the hang of

1:32:03 ↗ this so i think that that's a really

1:32:05 ↗ good idea i think we should do that i

1:32:07 ↗ think you should i think i should do it

1:32:08 ↗ because you sounded like you had it all

1:32:10 ↗ together so i just

1:32:13 ↗ spent too much time

1:32:15 ↗ with robert's resort and government

1:32:17 ↗ documents and stuff

1:32:20 ↗ i think you're right and i think we

1:32:21 ↗ could all get better and so make sure we

1:32:23 ↗ should do that robert school of war

1:32:24 ↗ would say then we need to remove

1:32:28 ↗ that vote

1:32:30 ↗ and revoke on the proper language

1:32:33 ↗ but who gets to decide that we remove it

1:32:35 ↗ do we have to make a motion to raise it

1:32:37 ↗ you can motion to strike it

1:32:50 ↗ i motioned to strength the

1:32:52 ↗ prior motion

1:32:54 ↗ from

1:32:55 ↗ the record or from uh i guess we're not

1:32:58 ↗ striking from the record a motion to

1:32:59 ↗ strike the fire motion

1:33:01 ↗ from

1:33:03 ↗ as as our

1:33:04 ↗ decision

1:33:09 ↗ all in favor

1:33:12 ↗ okay new one okay now we have a new

1:33:14 ↗ motion more more um

1:33:16 ↗ more clear

1:33:18 ↗ and i'm entertaining i'm going to

1:33:19 ↗ entertain that

1:33:41 ↗ i would say that on that scale

1:33:44 ↗ looking at

1:33:46 ↗ the colors are wrong i would say that

1:33:49 ↗ the costly use should be the gold color

1:33:53 ↗ because it's moderate

1:33:55 ↗ definitely high

1:33:57 ↗ it's going to be moderate convenience

1:34:00 ↗ even

1:34:02 ↗ moves to moderate because you don't have

1:34:05 ↗ the convenience with

1:34:07 ↗ a

1:34:08 ↗ separate shuttle and for sure

1:34:11 ↗ equity is not low it's going to be high

1:34:15 ↗ because it's going to be an additional

1:34:17 ↗ cost

1:34:19 ↗ for those people who can afford it the

1:34:21 ↗ least

1:34:27 ↗ be fair i think that's what we were

1:34:29 ↗ having

1:34:30 ↗ across the board we think it scores

1:34:33 ↗ poorly

1:34:36 ↗ on all the criteria

1:34:37 ↗ and we think the ones in the chart

1:34:40 ↗ don't capture how complicated it is and

1:34:42 ↗ how difficult it is

1:34:45 ↗ the biggest thing that i have with this

1:34:46 ↗ second option is

1:34:48 ↗ because it is a

1:34:49 ↗ third party it's a separate service it

1:34:51 ↗ won't be tied in with the regional

1:34:54 ↗ network and so

1:34:56 ↗ that's just like my main concern

1:34:58 ↗ i'm not

1:35:03 ↗ you know two bucks

1:35:05 ↗ at the low end i guess two bucks and

1:35:07 ↗ then another two bucks

1:35:08 ↗ at the transcend um

1:35:11 ↗ that cost just adds up so yeah

1:35:15 ↗ that's like another

1:35:17 ↗ huge factor for me is the major cost of

1:35:19 ↗ the city

1:35:21 ↗ right the highest cost

1:35:24 ↗ of all three options will be the highest

1:35:26 ↗ cost highest cost least performance

1:35:28 ↗ across the board

1:35:30 ↗ all right somebody want to make a new

1:35:31 ↗ motion

1:35:34 ↗ i

1:35:35 ↗ motion to

1:35:39 ↗ recommend to

1:35:40 ↗ recommend against

1:35:42 ↗ the middle option of the

1:35:45 ↗ shuttle invest in third party system

1:35:48 ↗ due to

1:35:49 ↗ uh

1:35:51 ↗ costs to both the city and user we have

1:35:54 ↗ equity concerns the lack of

1:35:56 ↗ transferability

1:35:57 ↗ and creating a whole brand new service

1:36:01 ↗ let's show you

1:36:02 ↗ all here

1:36:04 ↗ all right good for us yay i think this

1:36:06 ↗ is important we have been a little bit

1:36:08 ↗ or a little out of practice and this is

1:36:10 ↗ great okay so um

1:36:13 ↗ we have not

1:36:15 ↗ do we want to try to make a motion that

1:36:18 ↗ we want to try to get clear on

1:36:21 ↗ the first

1:36:22 ↗ option what we think

1:36:25 ↗ that the city should do i i personally

1:36:28 ↗ support we already made that

1:36:29 ↗ recommendation last

1:36:31 ↗ time we met

1:36:33 ↗ oh each one of us did

1:36:36 ↗ we

1:36:47 ↗ but did we

1:36:48 ↗ didn't we still think that we should

1:36:51 ↗ pursue the other one in the meantime

1:36:54 ↗ while we're waiting that's what we said

1:36:59 ↗ last session was why we were meeting

1:37:00 ↗ today right

1:37:02 ↗ well we yeah we didn't get that far and

1:37:04 ↗ that's where we kind of started to break

1:37:05 ↗ down so if if somebody thinks that we

1:37:08 ↗ don't need to go back and revisit maybe

1:37:10 ↗ we we could take emotions if we well we

1:37:12 ↗ don't even have to make motion we could

1:37:13 ↗ just agree that we have a similar

1:37:15 ↗ position

1:37:16 ↗ even more so

1:37:17 ↗ i'm wondering if the council's going to

1:37:19 ↗ ask us to do the same thing

1:37:21 ↗ that we did with the middle option and

1:37:24 ↗ say

1:37:25 ↗ why

1:37:26 ↗ that bottom option

1:37:28 ↗ isn't

1:37:29 ↗ appealing to us i think we should reuse

1:37:31 ↗ the remaining of our time to come to

1:37:33 ↗ some consensus about the third option

1:37:35 ↗ because that's where we disagree and we

1:37:36 ↗ should just rely on our previous

1:37:38 ↗ information a previous discussion for

1:37:40 ↗ the first option we we can also

1:37:42 ↗ depending on the outcome third one

1:37:44 ↗ makeup final motion as our final

1:37:46 ↗ recommendation

1:37:48 ↗ so um

1:37:49 ↗ let's talk about the third one and just

1:37:51 ↗ as a straw poll not a motion or a vote

1:37:53 ↗ just um

1:37:55 ↗ who thinks it should be pursued in the

1:37:58 ↗ meantime on a parallel path with metro

1:38:04 ↗ no sorry that's not the way you were

1:38:06 ↗ what do you tell me what you

1:38:08 ↗ well

1:38:12 ↗ well

1:38:14 ↗ originally it was like a 2026 timeline

1:38:18 ↗ right

1:38:19 ↗ and so it did make sense to

1:38:22 ↗ pursue uber

1:38:24 ↗ but if we

1:38:25 ↗ but if metro is working on this now

1:38:30 ↗ right

1:38:31 ↗ um

1:38:33 ↗ so

1:38:35 ↗ we would

1:38:36 ↗ like to hear the results from metro even

1:38:40 ↗ though john said it wasn't really likely

1:38:43 ↗ something was going to come of it

1:38:46 ↗ i do want to clarify it's not that i

1:38:48 ↗ don't think it will i just wanted to

1:38:51 ↗ make sure that you all realized

1:38:53 ↗ that

1:38:54 ↗ we don't know like it's very like maybe

1:39:06 ↗ should the metro option not work out and

1:39:09 ↗ so

1:39:10 ↗ well i disagree with that with pursuing

1:39:13 ↗ uber should that should the outcome of

1:39:15 ↗ the group be willing to pursue uber

1:39:18 ↗ because that will take time if we just

1:39:20 ↗ wait then

1:39:22 ↗ and then they say no in 2024

1:39:25 ↗ we're starting in 2024 so i think it's

1:39:28 ↗ still worthwhile for us to discuss

1:39:31 ↗ um

1:39:32 ↗ whether

1:39:34 ↗ we would also recommend that they

1:39:37 ↗ start working down the hill

1:39:39 ↗ at the same time

1:39:44 ↗ i think that's well put yes and i'm

1:39:46 ↗ curious what you are we're still

1:39:47 ↗ discussing we're not yes this isn't

1:39:49 ↗ we're not

1:39:50 ↗ thinking emotionally as a neutral

1:39:54 ↗ i would want more details on that and

1:39:56 ↗ how that would look like uh as an

1:39:58 ↗ interim option though

1:40:00 ↗ but we don't want stuff to spend just

1:40:01 ↗ kind of details if you're not supportive

1:40:03 ↗ of it so i think we this is the point

1:40:05 ↗ where we i can't be supportive

1:40:11 ↗ but staff could

1:40:14 ↗ pursue

1:40:15 ↗ even though micah was saying it wouldn't

1:40:18 ↗ be that helpful but i would like to know

1:40:22 ↗ who

1:40:24 ↗ is really interested in this

1:40:27 ↗ you know what residents are interested

1:40:29 ↗ in this on slack

1:40:31 ↗ and on palace than even i was like why

1:40:34 ↗ is it limited to those two right

1:40:37 ↗ why can't they the uber option what

1:40:39 ↗ can't they

1:40:41 ↗ do yeah why can't they uh solicit

1:40:45 ↗ all of those communities and even if you

1:40:48 ↗ add the highlands in then the cost of

1:40:50 ↗ the city is going to go up

1:40:53 ↗ even from

1:40:54 ↗ stockholm

1:40:57 ↗ so i want to know why

1:41:00 ↗ you have

1:41:02 ↗ so you're you don't and even south coast

1:41:05 ↗ you know right can you tell us more

1:41:06 ↗ about why sorry well i live in south

1:41:08 ↗ coast i think i'd like to have that

1:41:10 ↗ option to be able to get an uber to the

1:41:12 ↗ transit center

1:41:15 ↗ well

1:41:16 ↗ so especially if the city's giving me

1:41:18 ↗ five bucks to do it no no

1:41:21 ↗ well really

1:41:22 ↗ and i'm not interested in that

1:41:26 ↗ so i am strongly opposed for several

1:41:28 ↗ reasons um

1:41:30 ↗ one is if we are being asked for just

1:41:33 ↗ these two neighborhoods

1:41:35 ↗ do we recommend it

1:41:37 ↗ i get that

1:41:39 ↗ you know some people think we're being

1:41:40 ↗ asked

1:41:41 ↗ and we shouldn't think about the rest of

1:41:43 ↗ it but i disagree i think that the point

1:41:46 ↗ of having this board is to think about

1:41:48 ↗ things like that

1:41:49 ↗ and when i think about where that's

1:41:51 ↗ going to lead

1:41:52 ↗ i think that's going to lead to you

1:41:54 ↗ either have to do it for

1:41:56 ↗ the entire city

1:41:58 ↗ or

1:41:59 ↗ you're going to have to shut it down and

1:42:02 ↗ neither of those achieve the objective

1:42:04 ↗ if they want to do it for the entire

1:42:05 ↗ city

1:42:07 ↗ well they should ask the whole city if

1:42:08 ↗ the whole city wants to pay for everyone

1:42:10 ↗ to get subsidized tuber service i can

1:42:12 ↗ tell you how that's going to end up um

1:42:14 ↗ can't predict the future i can't predict

1:42:16 ↗ that one though

1:42:17 ↗ uh

1:42:18 ↗ so that's that's one big part of it is i

1:42:20 ↗ think that we do have the obligation or

1:42:23 ↗ the right or the responsibility to think

1:42:25 ↗ about some of the bigger picture the the

1:42:27 ↗ next steps with this and so i have that

1:42:30 ↗ concern

1:42:31 ↗ um i also

1:42:33 ↗ do not

1:42:34 ↗ believe i i agree with you dave about

1:42:36 ↗ the the cost i think it's way higher

1:42:39 ↗ than is is listed here and i think it

1:42:41 ↗ will spiral out of control and once it's

1:42:43 ↗ started it's going to go there

1:42:45 ↗ i have serious concerns about a

1:42:47 ↗ partnership with a specific company i am

1:42:51 ↗ certainly a very much a capitalist but

1:42:54 ↗ this is the city right and that should

1:42:57 ↗ be separate

1:42:58 ↗ and so i i have i have those those

1:43:01 ↗ concerns with that and then i have a

1:43:02 ↗ huge amount of concern about

1:43:05 ↗ the the whole you know the equity cost

1:43:07 ↗ per user cost provider all that mixed

1:43:09 ↗ together

1:43:10 ↗ are we actually addressing the current

1:43:13 ↗ need are we just creating a new service

1:43:15 ↗ an entirely new service and my

1:43:17 ↗ understanding was there the city council

1:43:20 ↗ has a belief that there is a current

1:43:22 ↗ need

1:43:23 ↗ that a current gap that needs to be

1:43:24 ↗ addressed are we actually addressing

1:43:26 ↗ that i don't think we are i think we're

1:43:28 ↗ just creating that we just created a new

1:43:30 ↗ service

1:43:31 ↗ with new demand and we haven't solved we

1:43:33 ↗ want to solve and we created back to

1:43:35 ↗ that first point

1:43:38 ↗ you got to do the whole city you got to

1:43:39 ↗ do nothing

1:43:42 ↗ and i would echo everything you said

1:43:44 ↗ except i believe reliability for uber is

1:43:47 ↗ going to be red because i don't think

1:43:49 ↗ they have the people or the drivers

1:43:53 ↗ out here to give us rewards

1:43:55 ↗ [Music]

1:43:56 ↗ into scalability in another sense i'm

1:43:59 ↗ not sure if i'm using the same

1:44:00 ↗ definition of scalability here but

1:44:04 ↗ as you were mentioning um

1:44:06 ↗ sobs you know single occupancy vehicles

1:44:09 ↗ they don't scale well at all

1:44:12 ↗ and so um

1:44:14 ↗ you know shuttles are just

1:44:16 ↗ they're just better at providing more

1:44:17 ↗ service to more people particularly to a

1:44:20 ↗ denser neighborhood like telus

1:44:23 ↗ and so

1:44:24 ↗ yeah i mean if your people

1:44:27 ↗ you have a bunch of people taking ubers

1:44:30 ↗ you know that cost is going to go

1:44:42 ↗ are you

1:44:43 ↗ moving on your position or do you even

1:44:45 ↗ maintain your position because we want

1:44:46 ↗ to capture that if that's

1:44:49 ↗ i'm not sure

1:44:51 ↗ well i i i don't think we

1:44:54 ↗ know about about enough

1:44:57 ↗ not about the uber or

1:45:00 ↗ or lyft service right

1:45:02 ↗ so

1:45:03 ↗ it wouldn't hurt for you know the the

1:45:06 ↗ city

1:45:07 ↗ to

1:45:08 ↗ to look at it a little bit more

1:45:11 ↗ and to learn what

1:45:13 ↗ to to learn about how it operates um to

1:45:18 ↗ determine

1:45:19 ↗ super dodgy when you talk to them like

1:45:21 ↗ they just wouldn't give them a lot of

1:45:23 ↗ the data that we wanted so

1:45:26 ↗ unless

1:45:27 ↗ unless we signed an mou with him but

1:45:29 ↗ that was an mlu for the pilot right

1:45:32 ↗ faith as the city talks to the arizona

1:45:34 ↗ city of transportation

1:45:38 ↗ so i would recommend

1:45:41 ↗ that

1:45:42 ↗ if we do anything more with uber i would

1:45:44 ↗ recommend that that would be the the

1:45:46 ↗ next step uber

1:45:48 ↗ and other cities try and reach out to

1:45:50 ↗ them

1:45:54 ↗ so would the recommendation then

1:45:56 ↗ be to have the staff

1:46:00 ↗ research that some more

1:46:03 ↗ i think we're divided on this and i

1:46:05 ↗ think that's that we should capture that

1:46:07 ↗ go ahead

1:46:08 ↗ well yeah we are denied on this and i

1:46:11 ↗ was just saying no

1:46:12 ↗ i don't know if

1:46:14 ↗ it's possible to divert the focus or if

1:46:17 ↗ if metro

1:46:19 ↗ would need its full

1:46:20 ↗ full staff time um

1:46:23 ↗ so try to accelerate that timeline um

1:46:26 ↗ not sure how

1:46:28 ↗ the staff could manage both of those

1:46:30 ↗ things without the length measure a

1:46:32 ↗ little bit more but

1:46:34 ↗ just some concern there so it depends on

1:46:36 ↗ how long you know we're spending that's

1:46:38 ↗ something that hasn't been brought up is

1:46:39 ↗ that if we use like do you recommend

1:46:41 ↗ like hey can you pursue both uh like

1:46:44 ↗ uber that doesn't stop down in case

1:46:46 ↗ metro falls through is that even like

1:46:47 ↗ feasible for

1:46:48 ↗ time

1:46:50 ↗ or

1:46:50 ↗ will they all like not

1:47:07 ↗ you should be

1:47:09 ↗ well that was sort of

1:47:11 ↗ again a city admin yeah so so we have

1:47:13 ↗ two

1:47:14 ↗ two sounds like we have

1:47:16 ↗ where you have shades of grey on the

1:47:18 ↗ whether or not what to do with the uber

1:47:20 ↗ question at this moment micah has stated

1:47:23 ↗ some reasons and i want to get back to

1:47:25 ↗ you but i just want to capture what i'm

1:47:26 ↗ hearing i personally am

1:47:28 ↗ becoming fairly convinced and i would

1:47:32 ↗ i would be in favor i would be in the

1:47:34 ↗ camp that says we don't put any

1:47:36 ↗ resources because we don't need to hear

1:47:37 ↗ from uber or lyft

1:47:39 ↗ about the things that he's bringing up

1:47:40 ↗ and i think he's bringing up some really

1:47:42 ↗ good points that i'm becoming convinced

1:47:43 ↗ about so

1:47:45 ↗ there may be a camp i'm not sure how

1:47:46 ↗ many people

1:47:47 ↗ uh are ring micah's general position

1:47:51 ↗ which is that it's it's not something we

1:47:52 ↗ should be pursuing at this time for some

1:47:55 ↗ policy in larger reasons the

1:47:58 ↗ other

1:48:00 ↗ the other

1:48:01 ↗ there may be some people that they can't

1:48:03 ↗ hurt to just learn more information

1:48:06 ↗ and so i guess i'd like to know hear

1:48:08 ↗ from christy and um maybe dave where you

1:48:11 ↗ fall is there any any other

1:48:14 ↗ sentiments besides what the two i just

1:48:16 ↗ said i want to make a motion but i think

1:48:19 ↗ we'll capture

1:48:21 ↗ item i think we'll capture

1:48:23 ↗ at least i don't know 80

1:48:26 ↗ so

1:48:27 ↗ let me just state it first and i'll

1:48:29 ↗ actually make the motion so when i do

1:48:31 ↗ make the motion it will be basically

1:48:33 ↗ that we recommend

1:48:35 ↗ staff

1:48:36 ↗ we recommend this to

1:48:37 ↗ the city council that

1:48:39 ↗ staff pursue the shuttle option

1:48:42 ↗ including looking at what other levers

1:48:44 ↗ we can play to make that happen

1:48:47 ↗ and i would ask that staff

1:48:51 ↗ sometime doesn't have to be next time we

1:48:53 ↗ meet a couple couple times from now

1:48:56 ↗ come back to us after having reached out

1:48:59 ↗ to

1:49:00 ↗ um

1:49:01 ↗ another city that's done this so that we

1:49:04 ↗ as a transportation board can learn that

1:49:06 ↗ at this time we are not recommending it

1:49:09 ↗ but we are at least curious and it's

1:49:11 ↗ something that it would be beneficial

1:49:13 ↗ for us and we can also that information

1:49:15 ↗ could be shared with

1:49:16 ↗ the city council as well

1:49:21 ↗ i'm going to make that

1:49:23 ↗ motion now

1:49:25 ↗ um so i motion that we recommend to city

1:49:29 ↗ council

1:49:31 ↗ to pursue

1:49:33 ↗ the shuttle option as the option

1:49:37 ↗ and look at

1:49:38 ↗ any

1:49:40 ↗ ways to to achieve that

1:49:42 ↗ including uh possibly uh

1:49:46 ↗ more

1:49:47 ↗ funding towards that option

1:49:50 ↗ we believe that that is

1:49:54 ↗ the most equitable option

1:49:56 ↗ and

1:49:57 ↗ you know has the the best reliability

1:50:00 ↗ the best high-end with the other systems

1:50:02 ↗ that are out there

1:50:03 ↗ the lowest actual cost to the user

1:50:08 ↗ um we

1:50:10 ↗ i guess i can make that as a separate

1:50:12 ↗ motion another part of it

1:50:13 ↗ point of order sorry michael

1:50:16 ↗ i thought we already dealt with the

1:50:18 ↗ shuttle auction

1:50:20 ↗ so i i

1:50:22 ↗ oh yeah third party shuttle because i'm

1:50:24 ↗ not metro

1:50:25 ↗ oh sorry thank you

1:50:27 ↗ to be clear

1:50:29 ↗ wait for metro but i mean

1:50:32 ↗ i was just going to recommend that you

1:50:34 ↗ would be clear about uh

1:50:37 ↗ [Music]

1:50:41 ↗ the metro option the first option the

1:50:44 ↗ metro option

1:50:46 ↗ as as the option

1:50:48 ↗ and so

1:50:50 ↗ that's the end of my motion before i

1:50:51 ↗ hear a second or not i i'm going to make

1:50:54 ↗ that other thing as a separate motion

1:50:56 ↗ because i just want to be clear that

1:50:57 ↗ that is

1:50:58 ↗ this is the recommendation we're

1:50:59 ↗ providing to the council

1:51:02 ↗ separately i'd want to say i don't want

1:51:04 ↗ that in

1:51:05 ↗ the recommendation because it kind of

1:51:06 ↗ muddies it

1:51:08 ↗ makes it not clear what we're

1:51:09 ↗ recommending

1:51:10 ↗ i'm sorry

1:51:12 ↗ i'm gonna

1:51:13 ↗ uh

1:51:33 ↗ it's just like the best

1:51:35 ↗ the best approach for now um

1:51:37 ↗ and while i think

1:51:39 ↗ going to the lyft routes it's a

1:51:42 ↗ pretty idea to explore

1:51:45 ↗ not sure

1:51:46 ↗ [Music]

1:51:47 ↗ it would need

1:51:49 ↗ if we should be dedicating staff

1:51:50 ↗ resources to that

1:51:52 ↗ or we otherwise could be

1:51:54 ↗ trying to

1:51:55 ↗ work harder at trent against this

1:51:58 ↗ in case of quad

1:51:59 ↗ so

1:52:01 ↗ yeah that's the reason i'll support that

1:52:03 ↗ all right there's a motion the motion is

1:52:05 ↗ seconded

1:52:06 ↗ um

1:52:07 ↗ wait is there any length of time where

1:52:10 ↗ we wait to here for our response from

1:52:12 ↗ metro could we give them a time let's

1:52:14 ↗ keep that can down the road we're just

1:52:15 ↗ an adult volunteer advisory board and i

1:52:18 ↗ think we probably if it's okay i think

1:52:21 ↗ we should

1:52:23 ↗ we've probably done enough yeah okay

1:52:26 ↗ um

1:52:27 ↗ is there any

1:52:28 ↗ discussion that hasn't already happened

1:52:30 ↗ okay so all in favor of that

1:52:33 ↗ promotion that michael mentioned

1:52:38 ↗ did you do that yes okay okay it sounds

1:52:39 ↗ like we're all in agreement

1:52:41 ↗ some took longer

1:52:44 ↗ um that's great yeah motion carries okay

1:52:46 ↗ so point of order then

1:52:48 ↗ so

1:52:49 ↗ once we make this recommendation

1:52:52 ↗ i'm working on

1:52:54 ↗ that stamping calendar

1:52:57 ↗ if we wanted to come back to

1:53:00 ↗ relook what staff may have found out

1:53:03 ↗ one would be

1:53:06 ↗ a time an update time

1:53:08 ↗ to come back to

1:53:10 ↗ us yeah um

1:53:13 ↗ i actually have that question myself

1:53:14 ↗ because we are technically scheduled to

1:53:17 ↗ go to mobility and infrastructure

1:53:19 ↗ and so that's what i want to make that's

1:53:20 ↗ why we made that just one motion yeah

1:53:28 ↗ and i was actually thinking about that i

1:53:29 ↗ don't need that we don't need a motion

1:53:32 ↗ to ask

1:53:33 ↗ you to go

1:53:35 ↗ you know help us with some information

1:53:37 ↗ right so we can just

1:53:39 ↗ ask and that's why i made that clearly

1:53:41 ↗ separate we have our recommendation our

1:53:43 ↗ recommendation is

1:53:45 ↗ the metro option

1:53:47 ↗ we as a

1:53:49 ↗ board can be interested in learning

1:53:51 ↗ more

1:53:52 ↗ i think we should i think we should make

1:53:54 ↗ sure it gets transmitted to council that

1:53:56 ↗ we have concerns and questions about

1:53:59 ↗ uber lyft and are not and and

1:54:03 ↗ and

1:54:05 ↗ how do i want to say we are concerned

1:54:07 ↗ about spending even resources pursuing

1:54:10 ↗ it but we are curious

1:54:12 ↗ so i think they should know that

1:54:14 ↗ i agree with that and i don't know that

1:54:16 ↗ it has to be captured in emotion but i

1:54:18 ↗ think that you you guys have heard this

1:54:20 ↗ i think we're all coming to

1:54:22 ↗ a position you're shaking your head i

1:54:24 ↗ don't know why um

1:54:26 ↗ it's just that

1:54:29 ↗ the big issue for the city is

1:54:32 ↗ and

1:54:33 ↗ this is only for

1:54:37 ↗ talos and

1:54:38 ↗ squawk

1:54:39 ↗ and the minute that gets out there that

1:54:41 ↗ that's even an option

1:54:44 ↗ it's going to really

1:54:47 ↗ be a whole different thing for that

1:54:50 ↗ council

1:54:51 ↗ to have to deal with because

1:54:54 ↗ i don't believe south cove and highlands

1:54:57 ↗ is going to sit still and be

1:55:00 ↗ okay

1:55:05 ↗ i'm like halfway joking but halfway like

1:55:07 ↗ they did come to us and say like we want

1:55:09 ↗ you to look at this neighborhood

1:55:10 ↗ specifically and if there's somehow like

1:55:12 ↗ this conversation we're having and the

1:55:14 ↗ recommendation you give suddenly

1:55:15 ↗ explodes issaquah and people show up to

1:55:17 ↗ the council with tourists and fish forks

1:55:20 ↗ that's not us yeah i think

1:55:22 ↗ you know

1:55:24 ↗ not us it's definitely council but i do

1:55:26 ↗ think if we have a concern we can make a

1:55:28 ↗ recommendation

1:55:29 ↗ and share that with them for their their

1:55:32 ↗ consideration i'm going to turn to staff

1:55:33 ↗ now and say do you feel like you have

1:55:34 ↗ enough of you've heard that enough you

1:55:36 ↗ could include it in your transmittal

1:55:38 ↗ that we have concerns about that yes and

1:55:41 ↗ about that if we can talk about how we

1:55:44 ↗ are going to review

1:55:46 ↗ um

1:55:48 ↗ i was um going to say that in the chair

1:55:51 ↗ reporter i'm sorry no we can talk about

1:55:52 ↗ it now um

1:55:54 ↗ the

1:55:56 ↗ well i just don't want to take us off so

1:55:58 ↗ i feel like we've landed somewhere

1:55:59 ↗ pretty good

1:56:00 ↗ and i don't feel the need to make a

1:56:01 ↗ motion on the uber lift and any of these

1:56:04 ↗ motions

1:56:05 ↗ they all get captured in the transmittal

1:56:07 ↗ which we want to talk about

1:56:09 ↗ in um

1:56:10 ↗ next if we're ready to do that and we

1:56:12 ↗ are running a little bit over time and

1:56:13 ↗ i'm very happy for about finishing time

1:56:15 ↗ but if we could just i think we could

1:56:16 ↗ wrap up pretty quickly um one of the

1:56:19 ↗ things that i julian and i talked about

1:56:21 ↗ with and with andrea steiner deputy

1:56:24 ↗ minister and bruce steiner was that

1:56:25 ↗ sometimes um and julian's much better

1:56:27 ↗ about this than i am tracking like what

1:56:29 ↗ materials are going to cancel but

1:56:32 ↗ i wasn't even aware that our

1:56:35 ↗ information

1:56:36 ↗ our feedback is getting into their memos

1:56:39 ↗ as they bring stuff to council and i've

1:56:41 ↗ never even seen what that looks like and

1:56:44 ↗ so

1:56:45 ↗ um

1:56:46 ↗ is this what you're talking about

1:56:47 ↗ today yeah and so one thing that we

1:56:49 ↗ could do is at minimum i think we should

1:56:51 ↗ be copied on those and yes of course

1:56:53 ↗ it's public material and we can go and

1:56:55 ↗ dig for it but i think it should be the

1:56:57 ↗ tab should be copied whenever those

1:56:58 ↗ things go out but i also wanted to know

1:57:01 ↗ if you guys

1:57:02 ↗ were open to the idea of chair and vice

1:57:04 ↗ chair getting a chance to review it

1:57:06 ↗ and maybe we i envision like a 48-hour

1:57:10 ↗ turnaround if they don't hear back from

1:57:11 ↗ us it gets shipped because i don't think

1:57:13 ↗ we can hold them up because they have

1:57:15 ↗ their deadlines but um and i didn't we

1:57:18 ↗ didn't even have a chance to talk about

1:57:19 ↗ it after the meeting we had this morning

1:57:20 ↗ but this idea that we get to look at it

1:57:22 ↗ and make sure it captures what we've all

1:57:25 ↗ thought and um

1:57:27 ↗ but it can't really be the whole tab

1:57:29 ↗ because then you're starting another

1:57:30 ↗ meeting yeah right but if you guys are

1:57:32 ↗ comfortable we could so really the only

1:57:34 ↗ two options are we continue doing the

1:57:36 ↗ way we've been doing it

1:57:38 ↗ um but we just get copied on it or we

1:57:41 ↗ ask the chair and vice chair to have a

1:57:43 ↗ look at it before it goes out that's

1:57:45 ↗ fine

1:57:47 ↗ that's fine

1:57:50 ↗ yeah i think it's definitely worth

1:57:52 ↗ trying out and seeing how it works

1:57:54 ↗ because

1:57:55 ↗ we're kind of stepping into a new model

1:57:56 ↗ of how we're working together

1:57:58 ↗ and you know

1:58:01 ↗ better terms still kind of making

1:58:02 ↗ sausages while working our way through

1:58:05 ↗ versus before we were getting a lot of

1:58:07 ↗ updates and my life

1:58:12 ↗ so you guys are comfortable with that

1:58:15 ↗ and can we make a request that you send

1:58:17 ↗ us when you do send the memos copy tab

1:58:20 ↗ when you send him off to counsel that

1:58:22 ↗ you copy tab are you allowed to do that

1:58:23 ↗ yeah and that way that's a check and

1:58:26 ↗ balance for this entire board as things

1:58:29 ↗ get transmitted to council it also gives

1:58:31 ↗ you the heads up that it's going to go

1:58:32 ↗ to councils if you feel like attending

1:58:34 ↗ and also

1:58:35 ↗ if we are reviewing it

1:58:38 ↗ you can come

1:58:39 ↗ to us and say i don't think you're doing

1:58:41 ↗ that a good enough job you missed this

1:58:43 ↗ you missed that or you can say you know

1:58:46 ↗ you get to

1:58:47 ↗ you get to check our work basically just

1:58:49 ↗ that process has to be after the fact

1:58:51 ↗ because of the opma issues

1:58:55 ↗ okay

1:58:56 ↗ awesome um well i mean i i think we did

1:59:00 ↗ it i think um you asked a question about

1:59:03 ↗ the work plan and could we look at it

1:59:04 ↗ again and i think that um

1:59:07 ↗ we have to let them figure out when they

1:59:09 ↗ want to bring it back and i think maybe

1:59:11 ↗ after

1:59:14 ↗ after council after the council we can

1:59:16 ↗ maybe get an update um

1:59:19 ↗ but we don't set

1:59:20 ↗ the work plan

1:59:22 ↗ the staff has to tell us what they need

1:59:23 ↗ advice on so i didn't want that to

1:59:26 ↗ necessarily

1:59:27 ↗ us but yeah we'll definitely want to

1:59:30 ↗ [Music]

1:59:33 ↗ great well okay you guys we

1:59:36 ↗ just slide through it very patiently um

1:59:38 ↗ i will say i was starting to get um i

1:59:40 ↗ wanted a robust discussion that's what

1:59:42 ↗ we really wanted to get to but it was

1:59:43 ↗ starting to get a little unruly and if

1:59:45 ↗ it continues like that i'm a little

1:59:47 ↗ uncomfortable so i've like in the past

1:59:49 ↗ weeks since like you know you want to

1:59:51 ↗ say something you turn your thing so i

1:59:52 ↗ might kind of we'll see how it goes i

1:59:55 ↗ really like the organic

1:59:56 ↗ banter but at some point you get only

1:59:59 ↗ the loudest person you know gets to talk

2:00:02 ↗ and people like wait their turn and they

2:00:03 ↗ wait they're turning definitely so we

2:00:05 ↗ i'm just heads up we may

2:00:07 ↗ need to start going to something a

2:00:08 ↗ little more you know just organize the

2:00:10 ↗ discussion we just turn it upside down

2:00:12 ↗ that means we're out of it no

2:00:15 ↗ that means you're in stress

2:00:20 ↗ but that was good

2:00:22 ↗ um yeah so i think we're ready to i

2:00:24 ↗ don't know if you have anything to say

2:00:25 ↗ about that what's going on

2:00:28 ↗ no yeah it's basically because uh we did

2:00:31 ↗ submit a uh

2:00:33 ↗ work plan but it is

2:00:36 ↗ changing as we go um

2:00:39 ↗ and also we had mentioned um

2:00:42 ↗ i know in the last meeting we have

2:00:44 ↗ mentioned the possibility of a joint

2:00:45 ↗ meeting with the

2:00:47 ↗ um

2:00:50 ↗ mobility mobility and infrastructure

2:00:52 ↗ committee

2:00:52 ↗ but

2:00:53 ↗ there has been discussions with council

2:00:56 ↗ and they are trying to define how the

2:00:58 ↗ interaction between city council

2:01:00 ↗ committees and force inclinations are

2:01:02 ↗ going to apply so that that might

2:01:05 ↗ most likely

2:01:07 ↗ will not be ready for september meaning

2:01:09 ↗ to do that

2:01:10 ↗ but we will

2:01:12 ↗ look at the work at the boardwalk

2:01:15 ↗ and you will be seen

2:01:17 ↗ for

2:01:18 ↗ 14 next week

2:01:24 ↗ during the stock report

2:01:26 ↗ yes i'll try pretty quickly uh last week

2:01:29 ↗ we opened dates for newport pedestrian

2:01:32 ↗ creation race intersection

2:01:35 ↗ and

2:01:36 ↗ the

2:01:37 ↗ beats were weekly

2:01:39 ↗ after

2:01:40 ↗ the bid opening we

2:01:42 ↗ presented to come to on monday

2:01:45 ↗ because with a budget request because

2:01:48 ↗ there was a

2:01:50 ↗ huge amount of weather we're asking for

2:01:53 ↗ council to be able to

2:01:56 ↗ accept that

2:01:57 ↗ and

2:01:58 ↗ we are glad and happy that city council

2:02:01 ↗ did asset

2:02:03 ↗ our budget request and so we are

2:02:05 ↗ building that project so that's

2:02:08 ↗ really

2:02:09 ↗ great things

2:02:10 ↗ also i just sent

2:02:12 ↗ an email about a few hours ago about the

2:02:15 ↗ ada transition

2:02:17 ↗ survey that's included in there so

2:02:20 ↗ please

2:02:22 ↗ submit your feedback on that survey

2:02:25 ↗ when you can

2:02:27 ↗ i did

2:02:28 ↗ speak last week about the its survey but

2:02:31 ↗ then when i

2:02:32 ↗ realized that it was closed so i could

2:02:34 ↗ not submit the uh send the email that's

2:02:37 ↗ why

2:02:38 ↗ you didn't see an email for the ics

2:02:40 ↗ results

2:02:41 ↗ for the idea survey

2:02:43 ↗ and lastly

2:02:47 ↗ next tuesday we will be also presenting

2:02:50 ↗ to council about our

2:02:53 ↗ results from the

2:02:55 ↗ open house virtual open house that

2:02:58 ↗ went for newport way

2:03:00 ↗ but forever for the project from maple

2:03:02 ↗ to sunset

2:03:04 ↗ and we will be uh presenting sure one

2:03:07 ↗ actually will be presenting to council

2:03:10 ↗ about the results from that survey

2:03:12 ↗ for that open house and

2:03:15 ↗ presenting

2:03:17 ↗ hopefully getting into a design concept

2:03:21 ↗ [Music]

2:03:23 ↗ that was too good

2:03:25 ↗ i was just going to say thank you

2:03:26 ↗ i feel really lucky and honored to be

2:03:29 ↗ the first in-person

2:03:31 ↗ process and uh yeah i love all the

2:03:35 ↗ suggestions

2:03:36 ↗ discussion and i feel like we have a

2:03:39 ↗ really we'll be able to

2:03:40 ↗ put together a really good

2:03:42 ↗ presentation for

2:03:44 ↗ instructional counsel so thank you thank

2:03:46 ↗ you to each of you for participating in

2:03:48 ↗ being here

2:03:50 ↗ thank you both for all your work

2:03:52 ↗ mm-hmm definitely

2:03:57 ↗ uh

2:03:58 ↗ i don't have a chair report i was just

2:03:59 ↗ going to bring up that um transmittal

2:04:01 ↗ question that we already covered i don't

2:04:03 ↗ have another chairport did you leave

2:04:04 ↗ questions

2:04:06 ↗ i don't really do but i guess just make

2:04:08 ↗ sure i didn't miss anything um and then

2:04:10 ↗ does anybody have any other business or

2:04:11 ↗ announcement

2:04:13 ↗ we will not be meeting later this month

2:04:15 ↗ we

2:04:16 ↗ might not end up meeting in september

2:04:18 ↗ since it was going to be the joint

2:04:20 ↗ session we're not sure yeah yes we will

2:04:22 ↗ discuss that during our advice

2:04:25 ↗ our chair checking okay is there a

2:04:28 ↗ possibility of that

2:04:30 ↗ be like if we begin september it will be

2:04:31 ↗ our regularly scheduled third thursday

2:04:33 ↗ whatever we're on or it wouldn't be a

2:04:35 ↗ special meeting it is still on the

2:04:36 ↗ calendar

2:04:37 ↗ only

2:04:39 ↗ unless for a reasonably

2:04:41 ↗ for

2:04:42 ↗ attendance reason maybe we need to

2:04:44 ↗ reschedule uh then we will call it

2:04:48 ↗ but

2:04:49 ↗ he's still on the camera on our normal

2:04:54 ↗ i should have my hearing back because i

2:04:56 ↗ don't want to make you all jealous

2:04:58 ↗ but tomorrow saturday and sunday i will

2:05:00 ↗ be working at the museum of flight with

2:05:02 ↗ the blue angels

2:05:04 ↗ those new f-18s that are really really

2:05:07 ↗ nice and it'll be fun and probably get

2:05:10 ↗ some sunburn

2:05:12 ↗ seafarer don't you wonder

2:05:14 ↗ yeah

2:05:16 ↗ all right well that i think uh we're

2:05:18 ↗ injured okay thank you everybody thank

2:05:22 ↗ you so much

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Cynthia Krass

Julian Mydlil

Micah Zeitz-Chua

Kristi Tripple

Dave Waggoner

Erika Boyd

Jeri Bernstein, Alternate (promoted to regular member for quorum)

Staff (4)

Isabel Diaz, Senior Transportation Engineer

John Mortenson, Senior Transportation Manager (remotely)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator Absence

Tom McDonald

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The TAB recommended to pursue the Option #1 (On-Demand Shuttle – Partnership with King County Metro) and explore ways to achieve it including adding more funding towards Option #3 (Alternative to Shuttle – Uber/Lyft…
TAB requested to get copied on written recommendations to City Council and committees moving forward.