Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, December 15, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 17, 2022

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-17-22 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1]

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Public Works Street Standards Update: Street Typologies (A)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.7–84

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 4:35 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration will provide an update to the Public Works Street Standards (Street Standards) project and seeks feedback on the proposed citywide street typologies.

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.85

Open packet at p.85 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works 670 – 1st Ave NE | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3470 issaquahwa.gov

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2628 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ yeah okay great uh I'd like to welcome

0:03 ↗ everyone to the regular monthly meeting

0:04 ↗ at the transportation Advisory Board you

0:06 ↗ can just send the address I'm currently

0:07 ↗ serving as chair and we will start off

0:11 ↗ by

0:12 ↗ um

0:13 ↗ approving the minutes I'm seeking

0:15 ↗ approval of the moment November minutes

0:16 ↗ by unanimous consent as presented

0:21 ↗ not hearing any objections

0:24 ↗ minutes are approved as presented that

0:27 ↗ brings us right to public comment we

0:29 ↗ have uh I want to see at least one

0:32 ↗ person on the line do we have any I see

0:34 ↗ Connie has

0:35 ↗ of a comment uh go ahead right

0:39 ↗ you need to upgrade her or anything

0:42 ↗ I am muted her okay

0:46 ↗ I am I am unmuted hi I'm Connie Marsh

0:49 ↗ and I sent you an email but I learned

0:52 ↗ from last time that life goes fast and

0:55 ↗ the emails are hard to get under the

0:57 ↗ belt so I'm going to do a little

0:59 ↗ Refresher and uh read the packet again

1:02 ↗ appreciate the

1:05 ↗ um decreasing impervious surface

1:08 ↗ but I am uh still concerned about

1:13 ↗ changes from the central Issaquah plan

1:16 ↗ standards that actually show that street

1:18 ↗ parking is optional in some of their

1:22 ↗ street typologies but they are being

1:24 ↗ presented in this as if they are

1:27 ↗ sort of mandated with the caveat right

1:31 ↗ um I am a little concerned with the

1:33 ↗ chart that talks about how these Street

1:36 ↗ typologies are

1:38 ↗ um aligning themselves with City goals

1:41 ↗ where I see there's a bunch of City

1:44 ↗ perspectives that are missing in that

1:48 ↗ and that would be like the climate

1:49 ↗ action plan environmental

1:53 ↗ um

1:54 ↗ Etc right so I I think that this needs

1:57 ↗ to be broadened out to consider those

2:00 ↗ perspectives because frankly the

2:03 ↗ environment is a big deal especially the

2:05 ↗ trees so my example was that the new

2:08 ↗ title 18 code is actually allowing

2:10 ↗ right-of-way projects to reach into

2:13 ↗ Parkland and take down Park trees with

2:18 ↗ no um stated notice to parks and I don't

2:22 ↗ think that this is the correct way to go

2:24 ↗ about uh such things and I think that

2:27 ↗ there needs to be Community comment

2:30 ↗ on items that will impact the the

2:33 ↗ quality of life in the community which

2:35 ↗ brings me to my next long-term situation

2:39 ↗ which we have these Street typologies

2:42 ↗ and then we change them and so without

2:45 ↗ understanding how and when these can be

2:48 ↗ changed what the criteria are and what

2:51 ↗ the process public process is so that

2:54 ↗ everyone understands how and when these

2:57 ↗ can be changed

2:58 ↗ and what can and cannot be value

3:01 ↗ engineered out then you don't really

3:04 ↗ understand when you're going to be able

3:07 ↗ to get these Road typologies and so I

3:11 ↗ realize you have to at least lay out the

3:13 ↗ typologies but I think before you

3:15 ↗ approve such a thing you also need to

3:17 ↗ understand how and when they then can be

3:21 ↗ changed I believe you do have a notice

3:22 ↗ in there saying and this is subject to

3:25 ↗ how it fits in to the environment right

3:28 ↗ and so then I saw papers being handed

3:32 ↗ out which always makes me nervous

3:33 ↗ because that always seems like new

3:35 ↗ information that I wouldn't have seen so

3:38 ↗ I can't comment on it so if you wouldn't

3:40 ↗ mind saying what the papers were if

3:43 ↗ their new information that was put out

3:45 ↗ and it wasn't something that was

3:46 ↗ reflected in the agenda thank you

3:51 ↗ thank you Connie I'll just say real

3:54 ↗ quick um this is Cynthia and that is

3:55 ↗ that uh they are just printouts of some

3:58 ↗ of the packet and that was at our

4:00 ↗ request because we're trying not to

4:02 ↗ bring our computers now that we're

4:03 ↗ meeting in person again and bring the

4:04 ↗ focus

4:05 ↗ back to talking to people face to face

4:08 ↗ and so we were feeling like we were

4:09 ↗ lacking some of those reference

4:10 ↗ materials that came from the packet so

4:12 ↗ it's just the same stuff

4:15 ↗ but I appreciate the comment and we will

4:18 ↗ try to make sure that anything that does

4:19 ↗ get passed out as we're getting into

4:21 ↗ used to this hybrid world if there were

4:23 ↗ to be anything that was new to make sure

4:25 ↗ that that's as transparent as possible

4:28 ↗ and all that so thank you

4:31 ↗ uh let's see that brings us to

4:35 ↗ um regular business I believe there's no

4:37 ↗ one else on the line ready to make

4:39 ↗ comments

4:44 ↗ so uh with that I turn it over to Thomas

4:47 ↗ is going to give a presentation and I'll

4:50 ↗ just say real quick before uh I do want

4:52 ↗ to thank you for your patience I think

4:55 ↗ this I'm looking forward to the

4:56 ↗ discussion tonight I think we are

5:00 ↗ have the presentation and the materials

5:02 ↗ presented a way that I think we can dive

5:04 ↗ right into the substantive material so

5:07 ↗ I'm happy about that so I just wanted to

5:09 ↗ start by saying that so thank you for

5:11 ↗ your patience and your diligence on that

5:13 ↗ I think we'll see how it all does today

5:15 ↗ but I think it will definitely pay

5:18 ↗ off so with that I turn it over to you

5:20 ↗ Thomas

5:28 ↗ can you hear me

5:30 ↗ yes great I am trying to figure out my

5:33 ↗ camera

5:35 ↗ give me one second

5:40 ↗ all right

5:46 ↗ [Music]

5:48 ↗ all right I will begin oh yeah okay I'll

5:52 ↗ begin here um

5:54 ↗ yeah my name is Thomas faldrez I'm the

5:56 ↗ city's uh senior Transportation planner

5:58 ↗ and if you have not noticed my voice is

6:02 ↗ a little hoarse from something that I

6:04 ↗ picked up this past week so um

6:07 ↗ I gotta do my best to get through this

6:09 ↗ presentation

6:10 ↗ um definitely feel free to stop me if

6:13 ↗ you can't understand what I'm saying uh

6:15 ↗ but I might take some breaks to take a

6:18 ↗ sip of water as I go through this

6:22 ↗ so yeah thanks in advance for for your

6:25 ↗ consideration and tonight I'll be going

6:27 ↗ through the administration's proposal to

6:30 ↗ introduce a set of city-wide Street

6:32 ↗ typologies and then I'll ask for the

6:34 ↗ board's feedback as I go through

6:37 ↗ um often end my presentation with a

6:40 ↗ preview of what's coming next

6:43 ↗ so before we begin I just wanted to

6:45 ↗ pause here and

6:47 ↗ share with you the one the one question

6:49 ↗ the primary question that we're hoping

6:50 ↗ to get

6:51 ↗ um feedback on from the board

6:54 ↗ so that question is which of the three

6:57 ↗ typology Alternatives does the board

6:59 ↗ recommend

7:00 ↗ and I'll just be asking why that is so

7:03 ↗ as I as I go through this um just keep

7:05 ↗ that in mind

7:07 ↗ um

7:08 ↗ it's much clearer

7:11 ↗ so at the November tab meeting uh I had

7:16 ↗ mentioned that the goal of uh this

7:19 ↗ update was to essentially clean up

7:22 ↗ existing requirements and create

7:24 ↗ cohesion between several planning

7:27 ↗ documents that have been sort of bolted

7:29 ↗ on over the last decade or so so as as

7:33 ↗ you put them all together these planning

7:34 ↗ documents as described in attachment B

7:38 ↗ um they they all can contain

7:39 ↗ inconsistencies lots of vague

7:42 ↗ requirements and when it actually gets

7:45 ↗ down to it it actually causes a lot of

7:47 ↗ confusion in practice

7:50 ↗ so when trying to figure out um you know

7:52 ↗ what what is actually required on the

7:54 ↗ street we really wanted to make it

7:55 ↗ clearer make sure that all the

7:58 ↗ inconsistencies were taken care of and

8:01 ↗ just really trying to clean up a lot of

8:03 ↗ the issues from

8:04 ↗ uh about a decade of planning documents

8:09 ↗ so again the aim here is to ensure that

8:12 ↗ our multimodal goals are incorporated

8:15 ↗ into how streets are designed and to

8:18 ↗ make sure that

8:19 ↗ um it's really clear what is required

8:21 ↗ from developers when the city is making

8:24 ↗ improvements what is required what we

8:26 ↗ should be doing

8:28 ↗ um and so when a street needs to be

8:29 ↗ built or redesigned we also want to

8:32 ↗ provide some flexibility because we we

8:34 ↗ can't tell uh all all conditions of of

8:37 ↗ what a street will look like so we're

8:40 ↗ really providing a framework

8:42 ↗ um based on local context

8:48 ↗ so one of the questions that the tab

8:50 ↗ head asked at the last meeting

8:52 ↗ was when are these improvements actually

8:54 ↗ being made and so

8:57 ↗ again the goal of Designing these

8:59 ↗ typologies is to make it clear you know

9:02 ↗ how streets should be designed relative

9:04 ↗ to our Mobility goals

9:05 ↗ and uh you know with this literal

9:08 ↗ roadmap that we're creating

9:11 ↗ um we're gonna you know show how streets

9:13 ↗ should look and feel

9:16 ↗ your development when it comes in the

9:17 ↗ community will be asked to chip in for

9:19 ↗ these improvements

9:21 ↗ um and these improvements would be made

9:22 ↗ to just streets that are adjacent to

9:24 ↗ property that's being developed

9:26 ↗ so you know in practice uh

9:31 ↗ these improvements typically mean things

9:33 ↗ like sidewalk Street trees

9:35 ↗ sometimes it can mean dedicating uh land

9:38 ↗ to the the public right-of-way to create

9:40 ↗ a future Street

9:42 ↗ sort of some examples of improvements

9:45 ↗ that could be required with development

9:48 ↗ um and you know these improvements

9:50 ↗ really come in a piecemeal way so you

9:52 ↗ know we can't tell the future when when

9:54 ↗ development comes but uh you know as it

9:58 ↗ does come we will have a a road map that

10:01 ↗ describes how we want things built so

10:03 ↗ that when development does come our way

10:05 ↗ or when the city does Capital

10:07 ↗ Improvement projects things will be

10:10 ↗ designed for that spec

10:16 ↗ so with that background I'll just begin

10:19 ↗ diving into the typologies which I uh

10:21 ↗ introduced in November

10:25 ↗ and so here we have three

10:27 ↗ context-specific Street designs

10:30 ↗ that were developed as part of this

10:32 ↗ project

10:33 ↗ the core Street

10:35 ↗ yeah core streets are applicable to

10:37 ↗ medium and high density mixed-use

10:40 ↗ commercial areas

10:42 ↗ Parkways are applicable and that's that

10:44 ↗ green one Parkways are applicable to

10:47 ↗ roadways that are intended to serve

10:49 ↗ connections

10:50 ↗ management communities and interstates

10:53 ↗ or freeways

10:55 ↗ and the streets are applicable to

10:58 ↗ residential and quiet business districts

11:01 ↗ and a detailed description of all these

11:03 ↗ can be found in attachment e which is

11:06 ↗ printed out

11:10 ↗ so this map visualizes the extent of the

11:13 ↗ street designs that would be applicable

11:15 ↗ to each of the streets

11:16 ↗ again this is an attachment E I believe

11:19 ↗ it's on page three of your packet

11:23 ↗ all these streets are

11:26 ↗ all the other units that are not

11:28 ↗ designed with the typology would be

11:30 ↗ represented in the other groups

11:32 ↗ um so these would be the quarter

11:34 ↗ specific streets which are shown in

11:36 ↗ purple

11:37 ↗ and these streets are where pre-existing

11:40 ↗ corridor-specific plans have been

11:42 ↗ developed over the years

11:46 ↗ and just for for a little bit of

11:48 ↗ background this this sort of encapsulate

11:50 ↗ encapsulates a lot of the

11:51 ↗ Central Issaquah Parkways that were in

11:55 ↗ attachment a

11:58 ↗ a functional classification streets

12:00 ↗ these these sort of represent uh the the

12:03 ↗ default Street design for for all

12:05 ↗ streets that are not assigned a typology

12:08 ↗ uh nor or

12:10 ↗ um

12:10 ↗ within our specific Street type

12:14 ↗ that's just a little bit of background

12:16 ↗ as to what this map is showing

12:18 ↗ obviously our question over here yeah

12:20 ↗ great

12:21 ↗ I have two questions one uh West Lake

12:25 ↗ Spanish Parkway it goes from Corridor

12:28 ↗ specific to core street but the street I

12:30 ↗ mean it's the same street

12:32 ↗ if you're traveling on the purple

12:34 ↗ portion you're also going to be

12:36 ↗ traveling on a blue portion

12:38 ↗ so other than you know slowing traffic

12:40 ↗ down is there is there some other reason

12:43 ↗ to do a transition when like if you're

12:45 ↗ if you're on that road you're going on

12:46 ↗ that road the whole way there are very

12:48 ↗ very little stuff you'd be turning off

12:51 ↗ to get into or get to around that area

12:56 ↗ yeah the the root of that is really um

12:59 ↗ that the land use does change in that

13:00 ↗ area so as it transitions to Blue it

13:04 ↗ becomes more of a commercial

13:06 ↗ uh at least on the south side of the

13:08 ↗ street and so that that really does that

13:11 ↗ make sense

13:12 ↗ okay I mean I guess that makes sense I

13:15 ↗ I'm just thinking about

13:17 ↗ why that

13:19 ↗ transition doesn't happen where the

13:22 ↗ majority of traffic starts diverting to

13:26 ↗ different

13:28 ↗ different paths right most traffic there

13:31 ↗ goes left or right a little bit straight

13:34 ↗ there's very little traffic to the to

13:37 ↗ the gas station the hotel and a

13:40 ↗ or like an IHOP or something there's

13:44 ↗ very little traffic that goes in and out

13:45 ↗ of there so it just seems like an odd

13:46 ↗ place to have a transition but I don't I

13:49 ↗ guess I I heard your answer so I'm not

13:51 ↗ gonna

13:53 ↗ um go on more on that point I did have a

13:56 ↗ question though just like for a

13:58 ↗ reference is there something that that

14:00 ↗ specifies you say functional

14:01 ↗ classification you said instead of fall

14:03 ↗ is there something that specifies what

14:05 ↗ would be the comparative information for

14:07 ↗ the default like if we're looking at

14:09 ↗ Parkways what's that relative to the

14:12 ↗ default

14:13 ↗ yeah so that would be found within the

14:16 ↗ um

14:18 ↗ the Public Works Street standards that

14:20 ↗ that is what defines each of the uh

14:23 ↗ functional classifications

14:25 ↗ you say that again please yeah I'm sorry

14:28 ↗ so I'll provide a little bit more

14:31 ↗ information so the functional

14:33 ↗ classification is something that is uh

14:35 ↗ the city works with with uh you know

14:38 ↗ Washington State so Washington State and

14:41 ↗ the City have

14:43 ↗ uh all these roads that are defined as

14:46 ↗ different classifications

14:48 ↗ and the actual uh design like the the

14:52 ↗ cross-section sort of like what we have

14:54 ↗ here uh

14:56 ↗ with the um other Street typologies

14:58 ↗ where we show like the actual widths of

15:00 ↗ each of the you know facilities like

15:03 ↗ the with the the drive aisle the width

15:05 ↗ of the sidewalk all those like little

15:07 ↗ details those are all within the Public

15:09 ↗ Works Street standards which is

15:13 ↗ um the document that this street

15:15 ↗ typologies will jump into

15:18 ↗ here

15:29 ↗ on this layered map

15:32 ↗ and we have

15:33 ↗ you know we're looking at options for

15:35 ↗ three of those

15:37 ↗ so I was just wondering just for my for

15:39 ↗ my reference and you know it's

15:41 ↗ beneficial for others to see like as

15:43 ↗ we're looking at

15:45 ↗ since this is actually the minority of

15:47 ↗ it looks like minority of overall

15:49 ↗ streams

15:50 ↗ when we're looking at these three

15:51 ↗ different options for the Parkways how

15:53 ↗ does that compare to the functional

15:55 ↗ classification roads or the corridor

15:58 ↗ specific plan

16:00 ↗ mostly as a point of reference since

16:02 ↗ we're not looking at changes to that it

16:04 ↗ could be helpful to understand

16:06 ↗ these changes relative to that

16:11 ↗ yeah my intention was to try to not

16:13 ↗ overload with too much information but

16:16 ↗ yeah I can say that that the the

16:18 ↗ information that you're asking for is it

16:21 ↗ is found in the public uh history

16:24 ↗ standards

16:25 ↗ and all of these uh proposals we have in

16:30 ↗ front of you

16:31 ↗ um

16:32 ↗ and I believe there's a map and

16:34 ↗ attachment e that sort of talks about

16:35 ↗ the differences and the right of way

16:37 ↗ askings

16:39 ↗ um they for the most part they all fit

16:41 ↗ with what is

16:42 ↗ what is given

16:50 ↗ did they answer your question

16:51 ↗ yes thank you

16:56 ↗ okay

16:59 ↗ I'm sure is it okay if I continue

17:01 ↗ please sorry Grace thank you

17:07 ↗ all right so

17:18 ↗ great so yeah since since the tabs last

17:21 ↗ meeting the Administration has developed

17:24 ↗ three alternatives for the attempt to

17:25 ↗ consider and so those again attachment

17:28 ↗ are so sorry those alternatives are

17:31 ↗ again provided as attachment e

17:34 ↗ so these Alternatives show typical

17:36 ↗ sections of a roadway that are meant to

17:39 ↗ provide flexibility in design so the

17:42 ↗ first

17:44 ↗ alternative that I'll briefly describe

17:46 ↗ is the central isqua standard

17:49 ↗ um and so this represents the least

17:51 ↗ amount of change in design and so under

17:53 ↗ this scenario the central isqua

17:56 ↗ standards would remain with only Minor

17:58 ↗ Adjustments that would be made to again

18:01 ↗ add Clarity consistency and cohesion

18:05 ↗ and the second alternative represents

18:08 ↗ a uh an incremental change on top of

18:12 ↗ what's already required under the first

18:14 ↗ alternative

18:16 ↗ second alternative we've re-examined how

18:20 ↗ the right-of-way

18:22 ↗ design has has been developed over the

18:26 ↗ last 10 years

18:27 ↗ we reconsider how we can promote our

18:32 ↗ existing multimodal goals and both now

18:35 ↗ and then moving forward so this sort of

18:38 ↗ represents

18:39 ↗ um just a mixing around of the existing

18:42 ↗ right-of-way width uh under alternative

18:44 ↗ one

18:46 ↗ overall this alternative provides More

18:50 ↗ Design emphasis on sustainable

18:52 ↗ Transportation modes such as walking

18:54 ↗ biking and Transit

18:57 ↗ within the central Issaquah area

18:59 ↗ specifically

19:00 ↗ and then without requiring any sort of

19:03 ↗ additional right-of-way width that would

19:05 ↗ lead to reductions in developable

19:08 ↗ developable private land

19:12 ↗ uh so and then the last one is the the

19:15 ↗ third and final alternative which we're

19:18 ↗ hoping to get your feedback on

19:20 ↗ um so this is essentially the widening

19:23 ↗ alternative and it would represent a

19:26 ↗ incremental addition uh to the second

19:28 ↗ alternative

19:32 ↗ seeks to strategically add additional

19:34 ↗ right-of-way in order to achieve a more

19:37 ↗ multimetal uh Street Network than what

19:39 ↗ we currently have today

19:42 ↗ so all these Alternatives differ from

19:45 ↗ each other

19:46 ↗ um and so I'll now walk you through one

19:49 ↗ by one beginning with the core streets

19:56 ↗ so again this is the core Street one of

19:58 ↗ the things that the tab had asked for

20:00 ↗ previously was some you know concrete

20:02 ↗ examples so

20:03 ↗ uh here I have for you

20:06 ↗ an example of what a future core Street

20:09 ↗ looks like now

20:11 ↗ Northwest Maple Street between Gilman

20:14 ↗ and Newport Way

20:16 ↗ foreign

20:17 ↗ so on the right here we see Target and

20:20 ↗ the iso Issaquah Commons shopping center

20:24 ↗ So currently the road has landscaping

20:27 ↗ and I'll use my cursor here

20:29 ↗ um so it has landscaping and other

20:31 ↗ amenities to the right of the sidewalk

20:35 ↗ there's actually you know there's no no

20:37 ↗ bike lane currently the travel Lanes we

20:41 ↗ measured are about 12 feet wide which is

20:43 ↗ pretty wide

20:45 ↗ um it's actually much more than a

20:47 ↗ passenger vehicle actually needs as you

20:49 ↗ can see here

20:51 ↗ um and so in the event that Issaquah

20:53 ↗ Commons shopping center came to the city

20:56 ↗ and wanted to develop this this parcel

20:59 ↗ over here the city could then ask them

21:01 ↗ to chip in for improvements on uh

21:04 ↗ Northwest Maple Street based on the core

21:06 ↗ Street design

21:07 ↗ and this is just an example design here

21:11 ↗ so the Fourth Street would again provide

21:14 ↗ a more comfortable cyclist experience

21:17 ↗ you know providing a bike lane would

21:21 ↗ also support better access to Transit

21:24 ↗ and then other just general amenities

21:27 ↗ here

21:31 ↗ so I will just quickly walk through the

21:35 ↗ three alternatives for the core Street

21:37 ↗ and I'll ask for your feedback shortly

21:40 ↗ after that

21:41 ↗ first alternative again is the uh this

21:46 ↗ carries forward the Central issquad

21:47 ↗ Street design standards

21:50 ↗ we've just redid what um the central

21:53 ↗ Esquire design look like using this

21:56 ↗ software

21:59 ↗ and so this design provides wide

22:01 ↗ sidewalks and Landscaping

22:09 ↗ escaping between parked Vehicles which

22:12 ↗ are which are here on either side

22:16 ↗ um cyclists have provided a bike lane

22:17 ↗ located between parked cars and the

22:20 ↗ travel Lane

22:22 ↗ so

22:23 ↗ in general as a general note well

22:26 ↗ there's a lot of good features to this

22:28 ↗ design the negatives are that

22:30 ↗ essentially it's pretty uncomfortable

22:33 ↗ for cyclists to be between a parked car

22:36 ↗ we kind of call this the door Zone if

22:38 ↗ somebody's opening uh their door you

22:41 ↗ could potentially hit a cyclist

22:43 ↗ um

22:46 ↗ the bike lane itself is is an adequate

22:48 ↗ width but again it's sort of an

22:50 ↗ uncomfortable situation that potentially

22:53 ↗ could deter many would-be cyclists from

22:57 ↗ you know writing on this road

23:01 ↗ and the width of the the drywall is is

23:05 ↗ adequate for for vehicles

23:07 ↗ um you know like a typical passenger

23:09 ↗ vehicle but a 10 foot wide travel Lane

23:12 ↗ might be a little small for a larger

23:15 ↗ vehicle such as a bus so that's sort of

23:17 ↗ one of the trade-offs is it might be a

23:20 ↗ little difficult to get a bus in there

23:23 ↗ okay

23:26 ↗ this is my contrast uh alternative to

23:30 ↗ seeks to improve on the central issquare

23:33 ↗ plan

23:34 ↗ by addressing the deficiencies that I

23:36 ↗ just mentioned

23:37 ↗ so in this design we again are providing

23:40 ↗ wide sidewalks but uh we're moving the

23:44 ↗ bike Lanes in this alternative

23:47 ↗ um

23:48 ↗ to the sidewalks and between a buffered

23:52 ↗ landscape area

23:55 ↗ so the bike lane would be great

23:57 ↗ separated meaning that the bike lane is

23:59 ↗ actually going to be lower than the

24:00 ↗ sidewalk so there's some good separation

24:03 ↗ there between pedestrians and cyclists

24:07 ↗ landscaping and other amenities are

24:09 ↗ provided again

24:11 ↗ uh to the root you know to the the left

24:13 ↗ of the of the cyclist

24:16 ↗ so one of the key issues and the first

24:19 ↗ alternative was that wider Vehicles may

24:22 ↗ not be able to navigate through a

24:25 ↗ 10-foot Wide Travel Lane and so to get

24:27 ↗ around this

24:28 ↗ um

24:29 ↗ you know one of the issues with widening

24:31 ↗ a road is that you actually

24:33 ↗ um

24:35 ↗ by winding the road you incentivize you

24:38 ↗ know going faster it actually becomes

24:39 ↗ more comfortable to drive your car

24:41 ↗ uh faster you know in a wider Lane

24:45 ↗ and so without reducing without

24:46 ↗ increasing the actual width of the road

24:49 ↗ we're proposing a painted median which

24:52 ↗ would then accommodate larger Vehicles

24:55 ↗ such as buses to get through here so if

24:58 ↗ a bus can't make it in that 10 foot area

25:00 ↗ they could just slightly hug the median

25:03 ↗ which is uh you know it really balances

25:06 ↗ out the street and it also provides a

25:09 ↗ good amount of space between parked

25:10 ↗ vehicles and the traveling car

25:12 ↗ so again it's it's more comfortable for

25:15 ↗ those who are parking it's more

25:17 ↗ comfortable for larger Vehicles such as

25:19 ↗ buses without actually increasing the

25:23 ↗ design speed of the road so

25:25 ↗ uh we feel that this is a

25:28 ↗ an improvement on the first alternative

25:32 ↗ um

25:33 ↗ these sort of again makes it more

25:36 ↗ accommodating for all Redway users which

25:39 ↗ is one of the the goals of the mobility

25:41 ↗ master plan is to have a very complete

25:43 ↗ Street

25:45 ↗ so in summary alternative two is the

25:49 ↗ preferred alternative by the

25:51 ↗ administration

25:53 ↗ and this third option which which is

25:56 ↗ essentially the widening option again

25:59 ↗ um this would widen the roadway by about

26:02 ↗ four feet

26:03 ↗ all right

26:04 ↗ the white thing is really to provide

26:08 ↗ more space

26:09 ↗ and really ample space for all users but

26:12 ↗ again the the net result is that it

26:14 ↗ reduces development potential

26:16 ↗ potentially on private properties

26:24 ↗ last thing I will just say uh

26:28 ↗ widen the roadway so like this 11 foot

26:30 ↗ Lane right here

26:32 ↗ um

26:33 ↗ it would potentially again increase the

26:35 ↗ design speed of the road especially when

26:38 ↗ buses are not present

26:42 ↗ so I will now pause here

26:45 ↗ um I'll take additional questions I see

26:46 ↗ a couple

26:48 ↗ um and then I'll ask for tabs feedback

26:51 ↗ on the preferred alternative

26:53 ↗ uh

27:02 ↗ this is Tom McDonald and a couple of

27:04 ↗ comments I have is on the

27:07 ↗ Tempest Lanes not so much on 11 foot

27:10 ↗ Lane but the intersections may have to

27:12 ↗ be larger

27:13 ↗ uh primarily for the training radius of

27:16 ↗ tracking of tractor trailer trucks to

27:18 ↗ build a turn from one to 90 degrees the

27:21 ↗ other turret turning from one street 90

27:23 ↗ degrees onto the other Street to be able

27:25 ↗ to have the tracking of the back tires

27:26 ↗ of the trailer to be able to fit into

27:28 ↗ such a narrow Lane on the other side I

27:31 ↗ think that's probably more of an issue

27:32 ↗ with a ten foot Lane than with an 11

27:34 ↗ foot length hold it up much

27:37 ↗ um so it's one concerns lets you sit

27:39 ↗ wide in the intersections you can have

27:40 ↗ longer third times still

27:43 ↗ adds a little bit more

27:46 ↗ potential overall delay at the

27:47 ↗ intersection

27:49 ↗ um then also the

27:52 ↗ overall width seems to be quite large

27:56 ↗ at 74 feet over right away from one

27:59 ↗ building to the other building

28:03 ↗ um

28:04 ↗ the

28:05 ↗ historically usually 60 foot right away

28:07 ↗ and bought a lot of

28:10 ↗ streets when they were

28:12 ↗ to put in so it seems like there would

28:15 ↗ be interpreted right away there would be

28:16 ↗ purchase

28:20 ↗ that's a marriage unless that's what we

28:21 ↗ have the developer dedicate some of that

28:23 ↗ land in front of the political

28:25 ↗ development might be the developing

28:27 ↗ that's along that stretch of road for uh

28:30 ↗ basically donating the complete street

28:33 ↗ with

28:39 ↗ and then also assume that the

28:40 ↗ intersections for example in these

28:42 ↗ diagrams where there's no Senator Lane

28:44 ↗ that's at the parking Lane within and

28:46 ↗ you'd then take that space because right

28:48 ↗ now the two-lane throw them out so you

28:50 ↗ can create a lecture and

28:52 ↗ following

28:57 ↗ is that a question

29:00 ↗ uh I guess it's the question yes

29:03 ↗ that is by such incorrect is that you

29:05 ↗ would basically have to end the parking

29:08 ↗ anywhere from 100 feet to 300 feet from

29:10 ↗ an intersection so that you would be

29:11 ↗ able to have enough

29:13 ↗ uh space to go off the lanes and create

29:15 ↗ a left turn

29:16 ↗ ing Lane

29:22 ↗ so I yeah I think I might have to rely

29:25 ↗ on on John Mortensen here but just as a

29:29 ↗ as a general statement um

29:32 ↗ design here that I'm showing this

29:34 ↗ represents sort of like

29:36 ↗ the mid the middle of a um of an

29:40 ↗ intersection so uh this would be like

29:42 ↗ this straight away if you will

29:44 ↗ um so yeah any sort of like additional

29:47 ↗ uh features of the road that are you

29:50 ↗ know one would be designing for

29:54 ↗ um they wouldn't necessarily be

29:56 ↗ encapsulated in this little

29:58 ↗ um

30:02 ↗ [Music]

30:07 ↗ you would actually have a little more

30:09 ↗ receiving Lane for a truck turning

30:11 ↗ movement into it before you narrow the

30:13 ↗ back down to a template

30:15 ↗ yeah I would say that the intersections

30:18 ↗ would have to be specifically designed

30:21 ↗ and where to stop the department where

30:22 ↗ to add the term Lane and that would be

30:25 ↗ outside of what we're trying to do with

30:27 ↗ the typologies but something that we

30:28 ↗ would consider

30:31 ↗ they also kind of comes into play the

30:33 ↗ classification for the cross streets too

30:35 ↗ and whether or not it hits more

30:37 ↗ principle versus Ontario Street but our

30:41 ↗ needs that wide open but you're correct

30:42 ↗ on terms of to attend the parking a

30:45 ↗ certain distance from the intersection

30:46 ↗ and you would get that wider space or

30:50 ↗ consideration of movement of contractors

30:52 ↗ or larger vehicles

30:54 ↗ I think bouncing that balancing that

30:57 ↗ could be I'm not sure if the plan is

30:58 ↗ also when you get to the intersection we

31:00 ↗ try and have both out so that you have a

31:02 ↗ shorter Crossing distance for

31:03 ↗ pedestrians yeah and then those are

31:06 ↗ typically designed so that you can get

31:07 ↗ the shorter Crossing distances but it's

31:09 ↗ still accommodating The Wider vehicle

31:10 ↗ turning movements

31:12 ↗ so I want to um come back to this when

31:15 ↗ we get into our discussion

31:17 ↗ um but I do think that even though it's

31:19 ↗ outside the scope I do I would like to

31:21 ↗ see captured some of the concerns that

31:23 ↗ we might have

31:25 ↗ uh that's selecting one alternative or

31:28 ↗ recommending one alternative another

31:29 ↗ might then develop at intersections I

31:32 ↗ think that would be nice to capture the

31:34 ↗ concerns of it because I have a concern

31:36 ↗ about another one of the alternatives on

31:37 ↗ that too so let me get to that

31:38 ↗ discussion even though it's outside the

31:40 ↗ scope I think it would be good to

31:42 ↗ capture any concern that we'd want to be

31:44 ↗ considered then at the intersections

31:46 ↗ have that documented not for future

31:49 ↗ um might be even a question yeah I have

31:52 ↗ a couple of questions one I noticed for

31:54 ↗ core streets the widening option is a

31:57 ↗ six foot bike lane

31:58 ↗ for all of the parkway options that have

32:01 ↗ the street level bike lane including the

32:04 ↗ widening option they have a five foot

32:07 ↗ and I guess I'm a little surprised that

32:09 ↗ granted I am not uh I do not like the

32:12 ↗ community so I don't know I'm asking

32:15 ↗ this as a question I'm a little

32:16 ↗ surprised that on a core Street which is

32:19 ↗ a lower speed there's an um an option

32:23 ↗ for a wider bike lane than any of the

32:25 ↗ Parkways

32:27 ↗ uh it just seemed a little odd

32:31 ↗ um and then I also noticed I assume you

32:34 ↗ know certainly for us humans we're going

32:37 ↗ to see red as that's a bad thing as a

32:40 ↗ con I assume that's what's meant here

32:43 ↗ I find it a little interesting that

32:46 ↗ Otto is a higher Street design travel

32:48 ↗ speed is listed solely as a con I think

32:51 ↗ that there are certainly Pros to that

32:53 ↗ they also

32:55 ↗ I do have some concerns about narrow

32:57 ↗ streets even if we say universally it is

33:00 ↗ a pro and I I wouldn't I personally

33:03 ↗ would not say this but if it is a thing

33:05 ↗ that universally it's better to have

33:07 ↗ slower streets

33:09 ↗ there is a

33:11 ↗ pretty big psychological impact or

33:13 ↗ stress from driving on a narrow Street

33:18 ↗ um

33:18 ↗ I know a lot of people don't feel

33:20 ↗ comfortable on narrow streets

33:22 ↗ so I do have

33:25 ↗ concerns with any level of uh you know

33:27 ↗ Narrow Street being

33:29 ↗ listed as only a pro and uh wide Street

33:33 ↗ as only a con

33:36 ↗ um also just looking between the option

33:39 ↗ two and option three it seems like if we

33:42 ↗ said well you know the bike lane with

33:44 ↗ five feet seems fine for all of the

33:46 ↗ parkway options where it's at street

33:48 ↗ level then really what we're doing is

33:50 ↗ we're saying well it's a six foot

33:53 ↗ Landscaping instead of five and then

33:56 ↗ we're painting a foot of the street

33:58 ↗ instead of having it be open

34:00 ↗ so there's there's it's a pretty

34:02 ↗ actually uh minor

34:04 ↗ difference

34:06 ↗ I think when it comes down to it

34:08 ↗ so I'm I'm kind of mostly interested

34:10 ↗ then in

34:12 ↗ when those uh painted you know one foot

34:15 ↗ when that's used

34:18 ↗ does it does it work well I mean does it

34:20 ↗ do people

34:22 ↗ is it effective in its purpose or do

34:25 ↗ people treat it as just a wider Street

34:28 ↗ I can answer that so the painting of

34:31 ↗ buffer Lane is a um

34:33 ↗ it's a national best practice it's

34:35 ↗ something that we pulled from uh it's

34:38 ↗ called nacto green book

34:40 ↗ um so it is it is the well-established

34:43 ↗ method for handling these types of

34:46 ↗ situations so we think that this is a

34:48 ↗ really good application

34:50 ↗ um it's something that you see like in a

34:52 ↗ in a textbook as being like a really

34:54 ↗ good option

34:55 ↗ um but like it's really cool to see it

34:57 ↗ like this could actually work really

34:59 ↗ well for this type of situation

35:02 ↗ are

35:09 ↗ Richard go ahead I had a comment to make

35:15 ↗ I'm sorry

35:21 ↗ there's one feelings about the options

35:22 ↗ together

35:24 ↗ um I want to start that discussion just

35:25 ↗ a moment let's get our questions to

35:28 ↗ staff out of the way and then let's turn

35:30 ↗ our attention to having the discussion

35:32 ↗ about what we think is that we want to

35:34 ↗ recommend so

35:35 ↗ um just to clarify from Michael for

35:38 ↗ those three questions or two comments in

35:40 ↗ a question ask for all questions okay

35:42 ↗ okay

35:44 ↗ sure did you have a question for staff

35:45 ↗ yes uh I was curious as to why not have

35:50 ↗ a four-foot Landscaping strip and what's

35:54 ↗ you know and why not always have just a

35:57 ↗ five-foot Landscaping strip

36:00 ↗ because you know all the uh you know one

36:03 ↗ of the big differences between option

36:04 ↗ three and option two is the Landscaping

36:08 ↗ strip which is only

36:10 ↗ you know a one foot difference and it's

36:12 ↗ kind of like the same thing with the

36:14 ↗ bike lane also I mean

36:16 ↗ wire

36:17 ↗ you know if a five foot bike lane is

36:20 ↗ safe enough why aren't we going with a

36:23 ↗ five-foot bike lane kind of a five foot

36:26 ↗ Landscaping strip is good enough why not

36:29 ↗ just always go with the five foot

36:31 ↗ Landscaping strip and I'm just wondering

36:33 ↗ where those Dimensions came from

36:37 ↗ yeah that's a great question

36:39 ↗ um so

36:40 ↗ five foot is really the

36:42 ↗ that is the uh recommended with

36:47 ↗ uh for our maintenance like Landscaping

36:51 ↗ folks um a tree really needs a lot of

36:54 ↗ space so five foot is really like the

36:56 ↗ recommended uh width for a tree

36:59 ↗ go lower but it wouldn't really

37:02 ↗ accommodate a a tree which is sort of

37:05 ↗ like what we typically would be

37:07 ↗ installing on this type of area

37:11 ↗ okay did I didn't answer your your

37:13 ↗ entire question Jerry

37:15 ↗ well that was the landscape and then the

37:16 ↗ bike lane right and again yeah so a five

37:20 ↗ foot uh bike lane is is the the

37:23 ↗ recommended minimum uh that we have

37:25 ↗ throughout the city

37:27 ↗ um so six foot is more comfortable

37:30 ↗ um but five foot is really

37:32 ↗ um sort of a standalone five foot is the

37:35 ↗ the minimum recommended

37:39 ↗ okay

37:42 ↗ real quick

37:43 ↗ uh and that was about the trees and

37:47 ↗ visibility when trees are planted so

37:51 ↗ maybe they're just not planted in

37:53 ↗ intersections but

37:54 ↗ no no they wouldn't be

37:57 ↗ yeah yeah well I one thing I didn't want

37:59 ↗ to add for the trees is when we do

38:02 ↗ narrow it up the trees start causing

38:05 ↗ damage to the whether sidewalk or a bike

38:07 ↗ lane or the curve and that's the concern

38:10 ↗ with narrowing the landscape strip and

38:12 ↗ trying to put trees there is

38:15 ↗ not going to work but right but would

38:18 ↗ but it depends upon what they plant too

38:20 ↗ yes right because historically in this

38:22 ↗ phone we've had four foot weight strips

38:25 ↗ with trees these trees don't last long

38:27 ↗ or they

38:28 ↗ fall over or there's a higher risk of

38:30 ↗ them getting pulled out in this form or

38:32 ↗ something like that so the recommended

38:34 ↗ with minimum width is five feet

38:37 ↗ and there's some questions over here but

38:39 ↗ I want to make sure Jerry finishes it

38:41 ↗ and it sounds like you have something

38:42 ↗ directly related to this yeah

38:44 ↗ Jerry and then Micah go ahead and finish

38:47 ↗ up and then we'll come back over here

38:48 ↗ yeah that's fine but so

38:51 ↗ I didn't know that issaquah's standard

38:54 ↗ for the planting strip for treats so

38:56 ↗ that it's because you could have lower

38:58 ↗ things planted too they don't

39:01 ↗ necessarily trees right and then

39:04 ↗ but is that a is a quest standard good

39:08 ↗ so yeah I guess the the idea is that

39:10 ↗ like on this on this snapshot

39:13 ↗ um there are trees here that are

39:14 ↗ requiring of of a five foot with

39:17 ↗ um it's not to say that we always

39:19 ↗ install trees but uh if we have our

39:22 ↗ preference and this is sort of the

39:25 ↗ design that uh we're carrying forward

39:28 ↗ through Central Issaquah is we have a

39:31 ↗ five foot

39:32 ↗ area that is for landscaping

39:36 ↗ um and and trees are sort of

39:39 ↗ what we love in this city we love trees

39:41 ↗ so that that is that is what we're

39:42 ↗ proposing yeah

39:45 ↗ so to follow up with a tree with

39:48 ↗ question is there a cost difference a

39:51 ↗ meaningful cost difference in

39:52 ↗ maintenance for a five foot or six foot

39:56 ↗ like you know I presume there could be

39:59 ↗ issues with roots disrupting the

40:02 ↗ um concrete and like so is there a

40:05 ↗ meaningful difference that we're we

40:07 ↗ should actually be considering as well

40:10 ↗ between five feet and six feet six feet

40:12 ↗ it's always going to create a healthier

40:13 ↗ tree but we do have new requirements for

40:16 ↗ tree installations that prevent lifting

40:18 ↗ sidewalks now that's something that we

40:20 ↗ didn't previously so cost wise for

40:22 ↗ maintenance we shouldn't cost-wise it

40:24 ↗ doesn't really make a difference

40:26 ↗ um

40:27 ↗ the the biggest difference is really

40:28 ↗ just the amount of concrete going into

40:30 ↗ the wider roadways when you're

40:32 ↗ considering the water

40:33 ↗ about it and so then just one really

40:35 ↗ quick thing you didn't mentioned more

40:38 ↗ comfortable experience for bikes more

40:41 ↗ comfortable experience for Transit

40:43 ↗ but yet narrower is better for cars when

40:48 ↗ almost everyone drives a car it seems

40:50 ↗ like Comfort should at least be

40:51 ↗ considered a positive well it's also a

40:53 ↗ confirmation of safety too when you're

40:55 ↗ going with the narrow whisper cars when

40:58 ↗ you get the narrow width yes it makes

40:59 ↗ all the drivers uncomfortable but it

41:01 ↗ also creates a statistically a safer

41:03 ↗ space you get a lower instance of

41:06 ↗ collisions lower instance of people

41:07 ↗ going higher speeds first and that

41:10 ↗ creates a a more comfortable space for

41:12 ↗ everybody else and so that's kind of the

41:14 ↗ give and take with these conversations

41:16 ↗ but we want to complete streets in the

41:18 ↗ tab wanted to push for more comfortable

41:20 ↗ spaces for everybody there is a give and

41:22 ↗ take in terms of like not everybody's

41:24 ↗ going to become

41:25 ↗ so that's kind of the consideration with

41:27 ↗ going away when we get to the discussion

41:29 ↗ I have a something to say about that too

41:32 ↗ um just some back and forth about that

41:35 ↗ um did you guys have questions for staff

41:37 ↗ I saw some arms up here

41:40 ↗ um I think this got clarified I did not

41:42 ↗ when I was looking at this I was not

41:44 ↗ even think about intersections so

41:48 ↗ that easily factoring into the decision

41:51 ↗ really

41:53 ↗ that's correct because whether you're

41:54 ↗ whether despite the options you choose

41:57 ↗ the intersections will get designed

41:59 ↗ around that that's something that'll

42:00 ↗ become after this project it's just kind

42:02 ↗ of outside the scope right now we're

42:04 ↗ just trying to update what is the

42:06 ↗ typology

42:10 ↗ so I'm curious this is where it sort of

42:12 ↗ intersects with Urban Design the core

42:15 ↗ streets are going to be the areas where

42:18 ↗ there's mixed use nice density and

42:22 ↗ I think several of the ground floor

42:24 ↗ retail restaurant environments would

42:27 ↗ want to have on

42:28 ↗ store I mean on her seating areas where

42:32 ↗ they're

42:34 ↗ out in the right of way how is how does

42:36 ↗ that factor into these

42:38 ↗ or recommendations

42:42 ↗ we're looking at a complete Street here

42:44 ↗ and then there's a great separation

42:47 ↗ between the bikes and pets which I like

42:50 ↗ but then what happens often development

42:53 ↗ side in terms of interacting in space

42:56 ↗ for people

42:58 ↗ the typologies didn't really take into

43:00 ↗ account

43:01 ↗ um and that was even in the

43:02 ↗ consideration when Central as well plan

43:04 ↗ was developed it didn't take into

43:05 ↗ account the sidewalk cafes or those

43:08 ↗ spaces that was going to be another

43:09 ↗ consideration when uh the land use

43:12 ↗ finally gets developed

43:14 ↗ this is more considering the

43:16 ↗ thoroughfares for walking biking and

43:18 ↗ driving and taking advantage or how are

43:21 ↗ everybody's getting around and the

43:22 ↗ interactions with the Lancers but for

43:26 ↗ taking into account Sidewalk Cafe is

43:29 ↗ usually that is part of specific areas

43:32 ↗ for the city too it's not just every

43:33 ↗ street that goes in so there will be

43:35 ↗ specific areas of the city that is can

43:37 ↗ be wanting wider sidewalks to allow

43:40 ↗ sidewalk campaigns

43:43 ↗ plan was done and I don't know if this

43:46 ↗ was

43:47 ↗ introduced or addressed in the title

43:49 ↗ entertainment's being updated but a big

43:52 ↗ focus on the centralist population

43:54 ↗ environments was the social public well

43:57 ↗ right and so if we haven't addressed

44:00 ↗ that yet I think that's a good thing

44:02 ↗ separate from what we're discussing

44:05 ↗ tonight but it would be good to have

44:06 ↗ some clarity so there isn't Temptations

44:09 ↗ folks go through as well

44:12 ↗ thank you

44:17 ↗ does anybody have any questions of Staff

44:18 ↗ okay

44:19 ↗ um one more question in the sense to

44:21 ↗ relate to streets and from a long-term

44:23 ↗ maintenance point of view is it's crazy

44:25 ↗ to grow forever so the outside trees are

44:28 ↗ wonderful the bombs had trees the roots

44:30 ↗ that destroying sidewalk streets and

44:33 ↗ everything and so

44:34 ↗ we have to have trades

44:36 ↗ I love for you but do we have to have

44:38 ↗ trees off streets as opposed to having

44:40 ↗ the narrow

44:41 ↗ landscape area with a bush that might be

44:43 ↗ four to five feet high might take a

44:46 ↗ little bit more maintenance launcher but

44:48 ↗ at least you won't have the root

44:49 ↗ structure that's kind of

44:51 ↗ you know 20 30 years down the road

44:53 ↗ because we built he's created a lot of

44:55 ↗ more maintenance

44:57 ↗ issues and so I guess my question is

44:59 ↗ does it have to be trees and if we can

45:01 ↗ do bushes instead of trees can be

45:03 ↗ narrowed the landscaping area of the

45:05 ↗ station right away and still prevent or

45:07 ↗ still have some sort of Greenscape along

45:09 ↗ the street for visual

45:11 ↗ and a great buffer

45:14 ↗ I think if you if you do

45:17 ↗ switch from Street cheese to the smaller

45:19 ↗ vegetation yeah you can make everything

45:21 ↗ a little smaller with but the city does

45:24 ↗ have Street tree requirements in certain

45:26 ↗ areas of the city and so that's one

45:28 ↗ thing that we're balancing with some of

45:29 ↗ these is we want to make sure that we're

45:30 ↗ considering that full with with the

45:32 ↗ Technologies and then it when the there

45:36 ↗ isn't a requirement for the strategies

45:37 ↗ then everything can kind of get narrowed

45:39 ↗ down so you're not having to build a

45:40 ↗ wider footprint

45:43 ↗ the park so what

45:45 ↗ what uh

45:47 ↗ what type of um streets require trees is

45:52 ↗ it the Parkway off the top of my head or

45:55 ↗ maybe it is the core streets and the

45:58 ↗ parkway

45:59 ↗ I guess

46:01 ↗ we're streaming John or Thomas do you

46:04 ↗ remember which streets or corridors

46:06 ↗ there are but the the one thing I do

46:08 ↗ remember is

46:10 ↗ I guess this wasn't for free for trees

46:13 ↗ but there's always planner required in

46:15 ↗ central but um

46:19 ↗ don't but I do know that the Landscaping

46:21 ↗ part of the city code is in the land use

46:24 ↗ code and so whatever we have for Street

46:26 ↗ standards does need to comply with the

46:30 ↗ Landscaping

46:31 ↗ part of the city code and so

46:35 ↗ without getting into a whole different

46:37 ↗ can of worms we gotta stay within it

46:40 ↗ that lane

46:44 ↗ okay so um what I would like to know it

46:47 ↗ sounds like people have had their

46:49 ↗ questions had a chance to ask their

46:51 ↗ questions and they've been

46:52 ↗ addressed at least even if not fully

46:55 ↗ satisfied what I would like to know is I

46:58 ↗ would like to know what you all think

46:59 ↗ and before I ask

47:01 ↗ I'd actually like to go around and ask

47:03 ↗ you what you think and why but I also

47:06 ↗ want to ask staff before we do that

47:10 ↗ um I mean because to me it would be

47:12 ↗ effective as an advisor if we if we did

47:15 ↗ come to an agreement and then you could

47:17 ↗ share that agreement what do we think

47:18 ↗ and why and pass that on to your

47:20 ↗ Administration and to the mobility

47:22 ↗ infrastructure committee if we can't

47:23 ↗ come to an agreement then that's also

47:25 ↗ interesting and that's sort of why it

47:27 ↗ becomes interesting so I do want to get

47:28 ↗ to that discussion

47:30 ↗ um and I think it might take a couple

47:31 ↗ minutes luckily it's our only thing on

47:32 ↗ the agenda

47:33 ↗ um so I want to take the time to do this

47:35 ↗ but

47:36 ↗ we do have three of them but I I um yes

47:41 ↗ and I

47:42 ↗ at the time here but what I want to know

47:45 ↗ is

47:47 ↗ um does are these really the I know you

47:49 ↗ provided Alternatives some of them have

47:52 ↗ more than one variable between

47:55 ↗ the first and second one for example

47:57 ↗ between the first and second one you're

47:58 ↗ not only swapping but you're also

48:00 ↗ changing

48:02 ↗ the planet right

48:04 ↗ um so you're making two changes between

48:06 ↗ one and two is it

48:10 ↗ fair game I mean should should this

48:12 ↗ should our assignment be you need to

48:15 ↗ pick from these three and only these

48:17 ↗ three as presented and then if you can't

48:20 ↗ then whatever your reservations are or

48:22 ↗ is it on the table to say well it makes

48:24 ↗ you really like this feature and because

48:28 ↗ it's not really clear to us whether

48:29 ↗ they're our viable Alternatives that

48:32 ↗ aren't on here because obviously you're

48:34 ↗ not gonna have every single combination

48:35 ↗ but that's I guess one of the questions

48:37 ↗ before I ask each of us to say what we

48:40 ↗ think and why I would like to know if

48:42 ↗ there's a reason we need to stay two

48:44 ↗ weeks in in the way they're presented

48:48 ↗ yeah great question chair

48:50 ↗ um so I would say that

48:54 ↗ in everything

48:55 ↗ yes okay yeah so I will say that there

48:58 ↗ you know there's

49:00 ↗ infinite iterate like you could you

49:02 ↗ could iterate over this so many

49:03 ↗ different ways um

49:06 ↗ so for Simplicity there are three

49:08 ↗ options before you

49:11 ↗ um

49:12 ↗ but you know

49:15 ↗ looking at where we have added you know

49:17 ↗ there you could make value judgments for

49:20 ↗ plus or minus any of these

49:23 ↗ um you know different inputs so

49:26 ↗ the administration is really excited

49:28 ↗ about alternative number two

49:30 ↗ um but that's not to say that there

49:32 ↗ could be other Alternatives that come

49:34 ↗ out of it

49:35 ↗ um we would just want to make sure that

49:37 ↗ we're respecting the minimum

49:39 ↗ requirements for each and then playing

49:41 ↗ around with the the inputs but

49:44 ↗ um so I guess I hope that answers your

49:47 ↗ question there's there's many there's

49:49 ↗ there's things we could change

49:52 ↗ um we feel pretty excited about number

49:54 ↗ two what I'm hearing is is pick one

49:58 ↗ one of the three but we could also add a

50:01 ↗ few comments recommendations along with

50:04 ↗ that selection

50:06 ↗ yeah that sounds great

50:10 ↗ for now if it helps with the the board's

50:13 ↗ discussion focus on

50:15 ↗ is option two good enough if not why

50:19 ↗ does it need the wider

50:22 ↗ wider space or wider right away if so

50:25 ↗ why if two is adequate do we want to

50:29 ↗ stick with the internal components of

50:31 ↗ what was designed from the central as

50:32 ↗ well plan or do we want to go the staff

50:36 ↗ proposed approach of more complete

50:38 ↗ streets uh with option two just kind of

50:41 ↗ to help with your comparing the two

50:43 ↗ because like John like like uh Thomas

50:45 ↗ said we could talk about all kinds of

50:48 ↗ different options from the foliage to

50:52 ↗ the type of surface treatment for yeah

50:58 ↗ right yeah so at the higher level that's

51:02 ↗ that's helped the course discussion

51:04 ↗ comparing in terms of like giving staff

51:05 ↗ what we're looking for

51:07 ↗ um I think I got the answer to my

51:09 ↗ question okay so the higher levels I

51:12 ↗ mean do you want the bike on the street

51:13 ↗ around like on the other Landscaping and

51:16 ↗ that would be the high level and we can

51:17 ↗ talk about what we like with that with

51:18 ↗ that right so so let's let's do this

51:20 ↗ let's um I'm hoping that someone's going

51:22 ↗ to Volunteers in a moment I'm going to

51:24 ↗ start asking you guys to to go around

51:26 ↗ and say everything but I think we should

51:27 ↗ start

51:28 ↗ um let's start and assume that it's

51:30 ↗ let's keep it simple to start with

51:32 ↗ um and maybe it will be simple uh maybe

51:34 ↗ we'll all be of similar minds and it

51:36 ↗ won't

51:37 ↗ but let's start if you could just say go

51:41 ↗ around and say which option you prefer

51:43 ↗ which is the closest and then

51:45 ↗ um and then why and then we'll see where

51:48 ↗ we net out with that as you kind of what

51:51 ↗ people are thinking

51:52 ↗ um I'm going to pick on Erica

51:54 ↗ yeah

52:02 ↗ okay

52:03 ↗ so so it's just what Thomas said that

52:07 ↗ two to me seems like the best option

52:10 ↗ because we we don't want to

52:13 ↗ Force developers to donate more right

52:16 ↗ away and you'd have to go do that with

52:19 ↗ option three and then option two is much

52:23 ↗ safer for the cyclists so and and that

52:28 ↗ might be my bent so I'm saying option

52:30 ↗ two

52:33 ↗ so

52:37 ↗ um

52:39 ↗ Connie pointed out the impervious

52:43 ↗ surface concern and I would say I share

52:47 ↗ that with

52:49 ↗ um narrowing the landscaping and I sort

52:52 ↗ of Wonder are there alternatives for the

52:55 ↗ bike lane or the sidewalk

52:57 ↗ I I mean maybe too expensive to look at

53:02 ↗ but has included including as a

53:05 ↗ recommendation to trying to leverage

53:07 ↗ those as

53:10 ↗ the previous surface surface

53:14 ↗ um

53:15 ↗ you know I think uh that could

53:17 ↗ potentially even help some drainage just

53:20 ↗ on the street but also

53:22 ↗ address an important concern that was

53:25 ↗ was brought up

53:27 ↗ um I think for safety's sake I certainly

53:31 ↗ like the bike lane separated

53:34 ↗ um considering almost every option is by

53:36 ↗ feet it seems like that's actually all

53:38 ↗ that's necessary so I wouldn't propose

53:41 ↗ widening the bike lane to six feet

53:45 ↗ um you know it does

53:46 ↗ I'm always curious you know how much uh

53:50 ↗ roadway were

53:52 ↗ providing to a given portion of our

53:56 ↗ roadway users

53:58 ↗ and so I have a little bit of some

54:00 ↗ concerns there but I'm not knowledgeable

54:03 ↗ on on what that data is so I'm nothing

54:06 ↗ else on that I certainly don't want to

54:09 ↗ narrow the road at all but since this

54:12 ↗ I'm talking to the car roadway but since

54:15 ↗ this is the same width and actually adds

54:17 ↗ that little buffer area that I think

54:20 ↗ will add in some comfort because they're

54:23 ↗ not right up against the parked cars I

54:25 ↗ think with that being said option two is

54:28 ↗ right Top Choice

54:31 ↗ awesome okay

54:33 ↗ um Okay so

54:35 ↗ I'll go ahead and go next and I like the

54:37 ↗ option two the best

54:40 ↗ um I really like the buffer idea and um

54:44 ↗ I think that there's a lot of bang for

54:46 ↗ the buck with space on the buffer

54:49 ↗ um I don't necessarily

54:53 ↗ uh yeah I am concerned about two things

54:57 ↗ one is just

54:59 ↗ um

55:00 ↗ it sounds like

55:02 ↗ I just did some looking it sounds like

55:05 ↗ even though there's no change in the

55:07 ↗ width from the central Issaquah

55:09 ↗ plant is still greater width than what

55:11 ↗ they have now so there would be an

55:13 ↗ increased Road right way at the time of

55:16 ↗ the application so

55:18 ↗ I'm not entirely clear on why the

55:21 ↗ sidewalks need to be as wide

55:24 ↗ um my one main really really strong

55:27 ↗ concern and I hear you that

55:30 ↗ intersections are not part of the scope

55:32 ↗ of this assignment but I have great

55:35 ↗ concerns I've ridden my bike in this

55:38 ↗ area for 25 years and I've seen many

55:41 ↗ many situations where bicycles are

55:44 ↗ separated but then they're shot out at

55:46 ↗ really dangerous ways at intersections

55:49 ↗ that I've seen that over and over again

55:51 ↗ and so

55:53 ↗ um I have

55:55 ↗ I personally am fine with option one as

55:58 ↗ a as a cyclist but I understand that

56:00 ↗ there's other people and especially with

56:02 ↗ the introduction of more UI treatment

56:04 ↗ you have more people that have less

56:06 ↗ experience biking and they may have the

56:08 ↗ speed but want but that's all the more

56:09 ↗ reason for that entrance into the

56:11 ↗ intersection absolutely has to be

56:13 ↗ designed because the further you

56:15 ↗ separate I'd much rather line up right

56:16 ↗ next to the car at an intersection so

56:18 ↗ that they see me and if they're going to

56:20 ↗ be making a right-hand turn I'm right

56:21 ↗ next to them and they see me but if I'm

56:24 ↗ 10 feet away

56:26 ↗ oh no a parked car at 14 feet away they

56:30 ↗ might not see me and I'm going to shoot

56:31 ↗ into that intersection at an unexpected

56:33 ↗ place so I don't know what the industry

56:35 ↗ or the profession is saying about how to

56:37 ↗ do that but I just I can't go with

56:39 ↗ option two without making that super

56:41 ↗ super like that's a big concern of mine

56:44 ↗ so I'll have to just assume and I don't

56:46 ↗ know if it's paint I don't know if it's

56:48 ↗ strike lights

56:54 ↗ the box in the lane is usually not

56:56 ↗ recognized the ones I've seen is right

56:58 ↗ next to the Lane of traffic though this

56:59 ↗ is what 14 feet away or something so

57:02 ↗ you're out of sight out of mind oh yeah

57:05 ↗ but it has to be painted or something

57:06 ↗ that's really yeah so that separation

57:09 ↗ makes the cars forget about you and they

57:11 ↗ don't expect to see you shoot out into

57:13 ↗ the intersection so I guess so I mean

57:15 ↗ with this with one and two one also does

57:19 ↗ that mean that your turn lane would be

57:21 ↗ right if you're on the right side of

57:24 ↗ this picture there's turning for the

57:26 ↗ cars you'll be on the right side of the

57:27 ↗ bikes going straight on this side the

57:29 ↗ turn lane would be on the left I feel

57:31 ↗ like the engineers of this world have

57:32 ↗ died have figured out how to address my

57:34 ↗ concern when they when I see option one

57:37 ↗ that's I do that that's kind of I'm not

57:40 ↗ worried about that there's other reasons

57:42 ↗ that option two is a good idea but as we

57:44 ↗ switch to this separated thing I'm just

57:47 ↗ saying that I I just really want to make

57:50 ↗ sure that that is addressed at the

57:52 ↗ intersection of the stage which I know

57:53 ↗ is out of the scope of this assignment

57:55 ↗ but I can't help it yeah but I'll just

57:57 ↗ add the one of the things that I've been

57:59 ↗ looking at in my group as

58:01 ↗ and it actually started with the Newport

58:03 ↗ way I'm able to Sunset project is the

58:06 ↗ Massachusetts D.O.T has a really great

58:09 ↗ manual for Designing intersections for

58:12 ↗ pedestrians and bicycles and we're

58:14 ↗ really starting to get some stuff from

58:16 ↗ that and so that's a whole other

58:17 ↗ conversation but it's a really exciting

58:20 ↗ one

58:21 ↗ I I believe it can be solved I just

58:24 ↗ um have seen it missed so many times and

58:27 ↗ um

58:28 ↗ and I just wanted to I wanted to

58:30 ↗ uh highlight the problem and

58:34 ↗ um and that's all I have to say about

58:35 ↗ this

58:36 ↗ um did you have you wanna

58:39 ↗ just keep going you're getting some

58:41 ↗ parameters to come here and I'm trying

58:43 ↗ to be patient okay but I already have

58:46 ↗ some

58:47 ↗ hand grenades that I'm gonna throw in

58:49 ↗ because of what it hurts so I can throw

58:52 ↗ them in now or throw them in like just

58:54 ↗ keep a door I'm Gonna Keep It In order

58:55 ↗ go ahead I can go really quick

58:58 ↗ um I like option two that has been

59:00 ↗ presented to us I like the brave

59:03 ↗ separation between clients and Depends

59:06 ↗ um I share the concerned about

59:07 ↗ intersection but that's not according to

59:09 ↗ our conversation tonight and

59:12 ↗ um the one concern I do have about

59:14 ↗ option number two are the Parkways

59:18 ↗ what are the lanes down to 10 feet wide

59:21 ↗ I feel like we need even though I I have

59:25 ↗ I understand are we just talk about core

59:27 ↗ streets right now you said well I

59:28 ↗ thought we were going to do all of them

59:30 ↗ at once sorry I thought you were just

59:33 ↗ [Music]

59:34 ↗ of course

59:36 ↗ I have very smart opinions about

59:37 ↗ Parkways I think we should try to

59:39 ↗ prepare this I think we can do it it's

59:41 ↗ only 7 10. foreign

59:43 ↗ [Laughter]

1:00:10 ↗ bikes and there's agree with what you

1:00:13 ↗ were saying as far as there's ways to

1:00:15 ↗ design the bike coming out on the street

1:00:16 ↗ to merge signing painting otherwise

1:00:19 ↗ awareness uh coming up to the

1:00:22 ↗ intersection so and that's included I

1:00:24 ↗ think the option two is the better

1:00:26 ↗ options

1:00:27 ↗ the bike separated from breath

1:00:30 ↗ or Amsterdam condition

1:00:34 ↗ okay see that wasn't that long four

1:00:37 ↗ three four three

1:00:39 ↗ but let me throw a little hamburger next

1:00:40 ↗ year I think I'm the only Dave writer

1:00:45 ↗ um I think I'm the only board member

1:00:48 ↗ that drives both commercial

1:00:51 ↗ buses trucks cars and I'm bike races as

1:00:56 ↗ you're welcome so a couple of questions

1:01:00 ↗ when you look at the changes for

1:01:04 ↗ yeah

1:01:06 ↗ two and three

1:01:08 ↗ you notice that there are everything's

1:01:10 ↗ lower the bike lanes are lowered correct

1:01:14 ↗ well you've got a lot of people seniors

1:01:17 ↗ especially that are going to come from

1:01:19 ↗ That Sidewalk over to that

1:01:23 ↗ um

1:01:24 ↗ area to catch Transit transit's only

1:01:27 ↗ going to be able to get to uh those

1:01:31 ↗ built out areas

1:01:33 ↗ so that we can pick up people that's

1:01:36 ↗ going to pose a problem with that lower

1:01:39 ↗ area

1:01:41 ↗ those bikes will have to come up and

1:01:43 ↗ then go back down you cannot have uneven

1:01:46 ↗ pavement there especially for seniors in

1:01:49 ↗ the 88 people

1:01:51 ↗ the buses will

1:01:53 ↗ think of a bus as 96 inches wide That's

1:01:57 ↗ Not Mirror to mirror that's just the

1:01:59 ↗ body 96 inches think of the bus as 60

1:02:04 ↗ feet

1:02:05 ↗ even now building the electric buses

1:02:07 ↗ that are trying to get away from 40 feet

1:02:09 ↗ and build articulated buses that are 60

1:02:12 ↗ feet wide because they hold more people

1:02:16 ↗ there are more and you get more bang for

1:02:19 ↗ the buck only if we're going to have

1:02:22 ↗ buses here on either

1:02:24 ↗ uh I like them because they're safe you

1:02:28 ↗ get rid of the bicyclists right next to

1:02:31 ↗ the bus or the truck and

1:02:34 ↗ um it will be easier for the drivers to

1:02:38 ↗ pick up people off of two or three then

1:02:41 ↗ it will be

1:02:43 ↗ um

1:02:44 ↗ all for one

1:02:45 ↗ so

1:02:47 ↗ I think it's safer I like it

1:02:51 ↗ but

1:02:52 ↗ turns right turns and left turns

1:02:55 ↗ especially for your commercial vehicles

1:02:58 ↗ definitely going to have to be reworked

1:03:00 ↗ example I use as an example of

1:03:06 ↗ Thomas right right Thomas had

1:03:09 ↗ with uh

1:03:12 ↗ Pony well no it wasn't probably yet I'm

1:03:15 ↗ sorry it was Juniper equals Maple sorry

1:03:17 ↗ maybe

1:03:18 ↗ I'm thinking Target because that's the

1:03:21 ↗ street

1:03:22 ↗ you think of that and you think of the

1:03:25 ↗ right turn but when you get down to

1:03:27 ↗ where Target is you got the roundabout a

1:03:29 ↗ 60-foot bus a 60-foot truck cannot make

1:03:33 ↗ that corner it has to run its duels up

1:03:37 ↗ and over the top that's why they made it

1:03:40 ↗ the way they made some of the old

1:03:42 ↗ roundabouts had Planters in the middle

1:03:45 ↗ and all you did was you had damage to

1:03:48 ↗ pick those people around the corner so

1:03:52 ↗ but that's for another discussion what

1:03:54 ↗ do we feel with our corners

1:03:57 ↗ two or three I'm okay

1:04:02 ↗ I prefer three but that also is four

1:04:05 ↗ more feet

1:04:08 ↗ could you say why you prefer well yeah I

1:04:11 ↗ think it's going to be a safer design

1:04:13 ↗ especially for bicyclists and for

1:04:16 ↗ pedestrians not too worried about the

1:04:19 ↗ parking you get those bicycles away from

1:04:23 ↗ the moving traffic it's going to be much

1:04:25 ↗ safer than that

1:04:28 ↗ but that's Theory because I know in

1:04:31 ↗ reality they'll be helpful one thing I

1:04:33 ↗ did want to correct yes they paint them

1:04:36 ↗ yes they paint nice red Lanes in the

1:04:40 ↗ downtown Seattle it says Brussels until

1:04:43 ↗ you're in a bus and you pull up beside

1:04:45 ↗ somebody and they say I'm just going to

1:04:48 ↗ be parked for men my wife is coming out

1:04:51 ↗ to get in the car you don't know how

1:04:54 ↗ many times

1:05:00 ↗ around that person when it's painted red

1:05:04 ↗ and it's a bustling yeah that's a pet

1:05:07 ↗ peeve but two or three I propose three

1:05:10 ↗ okay

1:05:11 ↗ but it's four more things right

1:05:16 ↗ so it's oh go ahead it's going to

1:05:19 ↗ propose a motion it seems like there's a

1:05:23 ↗ clear

1:05:25 ↗ um

1:05:26 ↗ acceptable choice

1:05:28 ↗ at least for everyone of two

1:05:31 ↗ there is there's also shared concerns

1:05:34 ↗ about intersections and especially

1:05:37 ↗ around bikes merging

1:05:40 ↗ um but it seemed like at least as far as

1:05:42 ↗ the feedback you're looking for I heard

1:05:43 ↗ everyone was at least okay with or in

1:05:46 ↗ favor of it too

1:05:48 ↗ I think it's useful

1:05:49 ↗ um if we um

1:05:51 ↗ I'm kind of wondering it sounds like

1:05:52 ↗ you're comfortable you can live it too

1:05:54 ↗ so we could we could unanimate I mean

1:05:58 ↗ yeah sure I would entertain a motion I

1:06:00 ↗ would encourage us to keep it simple and

1:06:02 ↗ have them that goes to the committee to

1:06:06 ↗ have some a little more depth on the Y's

1:06:08 ↗ both from obviously Administration will

1:06:10 ↗ do that but from the tax feedback I just

1:06:13 ↗ think that Parkway is going to drive

1:06:14 ↗ actually more discussion I I know that

1:06:17 ↗ um

1:06:18 ↗ is coming here she's still off so I

1:06:21 ↗ addressed Tony's point in that one email

1:06:25 ↗ also there is no reason buses can't have

1:06:28 ↗ routes on two lane roads absolutely

1:06:30 ↗ there's no reason you couldn't handle

1:06:32 ↗ them except

1:06:35 ↗ Nevermore

1:06:38 ↗ you've got a real safety concern with

1:06:40 ↗ pedestrians

1:06:43 ↗ um

1:06:44 ↗ parked cars and bicycles so I think that

1:06:48 ↗ addresses her Point uh with option two

1:06:55 ↗ somebody wants to uh if we can do it

1:06:58 ↗ quickly I think that we can

1:07:02 ↗ it would be stronger in Academia

1:07:06 ↗ or do we think that um

1:07:08 ↗ I'm actually inclined I think the fact

1:07:11 ↗ that

1:07:12 ↗ we have all set options here probably

1:07:14 ↗ obvious uh so we're looking for it makes

1:07:17 ↗ it so we don't really need to

1:07:19 ↗ necessarily take our motion

1:07:21 ↗ um it might save time okay let's let's

1:07:24 ↗ uh let's move along

1:07:27 ↗ um and get to the next part of your

1:07:30 ↗ presentation

1:07:31 ↗ um

1:07:33 ↗ I think that you guys all had a lot of

1:07:36 ↗ great

1:07:38 ↗ reasons and I think that's super helpful

1:07:40 ↗ and they weren't in Conflict so I would

1:07:42 ↗ say they were um

1:07:45 ↗ I think they can just Harvest all of

1:07:47 ↗ that the staff when they're writing our

1:07:49 ↗ summary of our

1:07:54 ↗ you can look at the

1:07:56 ↗ end of the meeting and capture all that

1:07:58 ↗ and then and then we should move on so

1:08:01 ↗ why don't we turn it back over to

1:08:02 ↗ walk to the parkway discussion and let's

1:08:05 ↗ see let's make sure we focus our

1:08:07 ↗ questions to staff

1:08:09 ↗ um

1:08:09 ↗ really pointed and let's see

1:08:12 ↗ um let's challenge ourselves to get

1:08:13 ↗ everything we want to say in their

1:08:15 ↗ church

1:08:16 ↗ let me ask our questions and we get our

1:08:19 ↗ answers great yeah thanks uh very good

1:08:22 ↗ feedback

1:08:23 ↗ um we really appreciate it

1:08:27 ↗ awesome so next we have the Parkways and

1:08:31 ↗ again this is another example

1:08:33 ↗ um

1:08:34 ↗ this is East Lake samage Parkway uh

1:08:38 ↗ Southeast 51st to 56th

1:08:42 ↗ and uh just to provide a little bit of

1:08:45 ↗ description here as you can see

1:08:47 ↗ um so it's mostly a five Lane wide Road

1:08:50 ↗ and there's currently a multi-use path

1:08:53 ↗ on the west side of the road so you can

1:08:55 ↗ see

1:08:56 ↗ breakfast right here

1:08:58 ↗ and so this path obviously is used by

1:09:01 ↗ cyclists and pedestrians there's also a

1:09:04 ↗ sidewalk on the east side of the street

1:09:06 ↗ it's also provided

1:09:09 ↗ there's currently no dedicated bus

1:09:12 ↗ sweding area or bus shelter So currently

1:09:15 ↗ uh you know Transit Transit users would

1:09:18 ↗ have to essentially wait uh in the

1:09:22 ↗ sidewalk without weather protection

1:09:23 ↗ which

1:09:25 ↗ doesn't sound very fun

1:09:27 ↗ um

1:09:27 ↗ and there's really just no dedicated

1:09:30 ↗ area to weight so you're essentially

1:09:31 ↗ clogging up the sidewalk as you wait for

1:09:34 ↗ your bus

1:09:36 ↗ so in the existing design travel lanes

1:09:41 ↗ are about 12 12 foot wide and so you

1:09:45 ↗ know this is a great width for a bus but

1:09:49 ↗ again a 12 foot wide Road it really

1:09:51 ↗ would encourage drivers to speed

1:09:54 ↗ possibly faster than the uh the posted

1:09:57 ↗ speed limit

1:09:59 ↗ so with this new Parkway design there

1:10:02 ↗ would be more focus on providing a

1:10:04 ↗ better experience for pedestrians

1:10:06 ↗ cyclists and Transit users while

1:10:09 ↗ maintaining a comparable quality of

1:10:11 ↗ Driving Experience for cars

1:10:16 ↗ so again I'll just walk through the

1:10:19 ↗ Alternatives here for Parkways

1:10:22 ↗ so the first alternative is again the

1:10:25 ↗ central Issaquah design

1:10:27 ↗ this design provides wide sidewalks and

1:10:30 ↗ Landscaping as well as other amenities

1:10:33 ↗ uh that's provided between the sidewalk

1:10:36 ↗ and the bike lane

1:10:38 ↗ a cyclists are provided a bike lane

1:10:40 ↗ which is located next to the number two

1:10:42 ↗ or the outside Lane

1:10:46 ↗ there's also a wide median which

1:10:48 ↗ functions as both a left turn pocket

1:10:50 ↗ intersections as well as Landscaping

1:10:54 ↗ this road is designed to carry high

1:10:57 ↗ amounts of traffic so the speed limit is

1:10:59 ↗ meant to be around 35 miles per hour

1:11:02 ↗ and again

1:11:04 ↗ um

1:11:04 ↗ and there's a lot of good features about

1:11:06 ↗ this design some of the negative

1:11:08 ↗ features that that we have noticed here

1:11:11 ↗ is that the design again might be

1:11:14 ↗ uncomfortable for many would-be cyclists

1:11:17 ↗ this is because you know essentially the

1:11:20 ↗ the road is the speed limit is you know

1:11:23 ↗ 35 miles an hour

1:11:24 ↗ you're riding next to fast-moving

1:11:28 ↗ vehicles

1:11:30 ↗ as a cyclist it could potentially be

1:11:33 ↗ uncomfortable for for many who might be

1:11:35 ↗ interested in in writing but may find it

1:11:39 ↗ a little bit more uncomfortable

1:11:43 ↗ this road is also designed to have less

1:11:46 ↗ access points these are longer roads

1:11:49 ↗ that the stretches are

1:11:51 ↗ significantly longer than say the core

1:11:53 ↗ street so

1:11:55 ↗ again as a as a Transit user folks who

1:11:58 ↗ might be wanting to access Transit would

1:12:01 ↗ need to walk further to get there or or

1:12:05 ↗ potentially a cyclist who wants to

1:12:06 ↗ access Transit I would need to ride ride

1:12:10 ↗ further so that is that is one of the

1:12:13 ↗ the downsides of this

1:12:15 ↗ on the current configuration uh

1:12:17 ↗ I mean I also provide Transit shelters

1:12:21 ↗ um there just really isn't the space for

1:12:23 ↗ it to adequately provide

1:12:25 ↗ um you know a walking area as well as a

1:12:28 ↗ Transit shelter

1:12:31 ↗ and then other considerations are that

1:12:34 ↗ uh you know an 11 foot travel way is is

1:12:38 ↗ you know pretty significant excuse me

1:12:40 ↗ for you significant

1:12:42 ↗ um uh for for a passenger vehicle um you

1:12:46 ↗ could potentially reduce that

1:12:49 ↗ um

1:12:49 ↗ as well as uh you know again the The

1:12:52 ↗ Wider Lane could potentially mean faster

1:12:54 ↗ moving vehicles

1:13:00 ↗ contrast alternative number two uh seeks

1:13:03 ↗ to again improve on the central is quad

1:13:05 ↗ design

1:13:06 ↗ to address the deficiencies that I just

1:13:08 ↗ mentioned

1:13:09 ↗ and so option two represents the

1:13:12 ↗ preferred alternative again similar with

1:13:15 ↗ the core Street

1:13:16 ↗ and so with this design uh again we

1:13:20 ↗ would be providing a a wide sidewalk on

1:13:24 ↗ one side of the street

1:13:25 ↗ and the other side would have a

1:13:28 ↗ mixed-use path on the other and this is

1:13:30 ↗ actually what is you know currently out

1:13:32 ↗ there

1:13:33 ↗ um for for many

1:13:34 ↗ many streets

1:13:36 ↗ uh so this would again provide a

1:13:39 ↗ comfortable accommodation for both

1:13:41 ↗ cyclists and pedestrians

1:13:43 ↗ this is the mixed use path this would be

1:13:46 ↗ a flexible area that could be used for

1:13:49 ↗ various amenities so in this cross

1:13:52 ↗ section here we we show

1:13:54 ↗ area that is you know being used by

1:13:58 ↗ transit stop and this nine foot minimum

1:14:01 ↗ uh for a Transit stop that is sort of

1:14:04 ↗ the the recognized minimum that was

1:14:07 ↗ required to provide both access around

1:14:10 ↗ the shelter as well as

1:14:14 ↗ you know the shelter itself

1:14:18 ↗ uh and so other other uses for this nine

1:14:21 ↗ foot could be you know uh

1:14:24 ↗ this could be Landscaping this could be

1:14:27 ↗ other amenities it could be like you

1:14:29 ↗ know just a bench

1:14:31 ↗ um it could be additional

1:14:33 ↗ sidewalk

1:14:35 ↗ um so it's it's sort of a more flexible

1:14:37 ↗ use of this area

1:14:42 ↗ within the travel Lane number two we

1:14:44 ↗ would uh continue to have it at 11 feet

1:14:47 ↗ so no change there we like this because

1:14:50 ↗ it provides a comfortable width for

1:14:52 ↗ larger vehicles that would be using this

1:14:55 ↗ this road some of those larger Vehicles

1:14:57 ↗ include buses it could be other uses but

1:15:01 ↗ again an 11 foot wide width is is going

1:15:05 ↗ to be accommodating for for various

1:15:07 ↗ types of users on this road

1:15:09 ↗ and the first Lane which is primarily

1:15:11 ↗ used by passenger vehicles would also

1:15:14 ↗ provide inadequate space but would be

1:15:16 ↗ reduced to 10 feet in this case

1:15:19 ↗ in the median we we don't really need a

1:15:22 ↗ 12 foot wide median so we're proposing

1:15:24 ↗ just reducing that by one foot and then

1:15:27 ↗ we we pass that to the other

1:15:29 ↗ um

1:15:30 ↗ the other users an 11 foot wide medium

1:15:33 ↗ median is perfectly adequate for left

1:15:36 ↗ turning Vehicles it's also a good space

1:15:39 ↗ for any sort of landscaping that would

1:15:41 ↗ be in the median so we find that overall

1:15:44 ↗ this the net result is that we are

1:15:47 ↗ trimming in the right spots we're adding

1:15:49 ↗ where we should and again we're sort of

1:15:52 ↗ adjusting the road to be more

1:15:54 ↗ accommodating for for more types of

1:15:56 ↗ users

1:16:01 ↗ and alternative number three uh this is

1:16:05 ↗ again the widening option so this

1:16:07 ↗ alternative would widen the the total

1:16:09 ↗ roadway by about five feet

1:16:12 ↗ um this would be to essentially provide

1:16:15 ↗ that uh that bike lane option on both

1:16:19 ↗ sides of the street and would make the

1:16:21 ↗ number one travel Lanes a little bit

1:16:22 ↗ wider

1:16:25 ↗ this alternative provides ample space

1:16:27 ↗ for all users but again the net result

1:16:30 ↗ is that we're increasing the minimum

1:16:32 ↗ right-of-way width which could

1:16:34 ↗ potentially reduce development potential

1:16:36 ↗ on private property

1:16:41 ↗ okay so I'll pause here again

1:16:44 ↗ um and I'll take some more questions

1:16:49 ↗ so you mentioned

1:16:51 ↗ um our quiz is 12 feet when you're

1:16:53 ↗ talking about East Lake Sammamish and

1:16:55 ↗ then it says for the option one it's

1:16:58 ↗ um the current

1:17:00 ↗ it's 11 feet for the travel lanes and so

1:17:03 ↗ I just wanted to clarify

1:17:05 ↗ um

1:17:05 ↗ is it 11 feet is that like if we were

1:17:08 ↗ like the things that are highlighted as

1:17:10 ↗ Parkways is that what they are right now

1:17:12 ↗ 11 feet or a lot of them actually wider

1:17:15 ↗ than that

1:17:17 ↗ I I don't know specifically on the top

1:17:19 ↗ of my head of all of them but I know

1:17:21 ↗ that specifically for that example uh we

1:17:23 ↗ did measure it it was 12 feet wide

1:17:25 ↗ okay so 10 feet is potentially a

1:17:29 ↗ pretty significant you know two foot

1:17:31 ↗ it's down from from 12 and at least one

1:17:34 ↗ case

1:17:35 ↗ it is significant but it is well within

1:17:38 ↗ a reasonable width

1:17:47 ↗ which one are you talking about can you

1:17:49 ↗ clarify I heard the answer but I well so

1:17:52 ↗ the the example that he gave with E6

1:17:54 ↗ Spanish was 12 feet of what of oh the

1:17:57 ↗ traveling for cars yeah

1:18:00 ↗ any other questions

1:18:02 ↗ I have a question

1:18:04 ↗ do you know how one Essex marriage Trail

1:18:06 ↗ is

1:18:07 ↗ on average

1:18:09 ↗ yeah

1:18:12 ↗ okay thank you

1:18:14 ↗ um

1:18:15 ↗ do we not have any other questions for

1:18:17 ↗ them because I'd love to have building

1:18:18 ↗ the same exercise I know there were

1:18:19 ↗ people had lots of thoughts about

1:18:22 ↗ maybe it's just a

1:18:25 ↗ comment

1:18:26 ↗ but um

1:18:28 ↗ so the

1:18:29 ↗ for option two you have a seven foot

1:18:31 ↗ pedestrian walkway and the six foot

1:18:35 ↗ bicycle and that you were saying that's

1:18:38 ↗ kind of like that makes use and so

1:18:42 ↗ couldn't we be reducing that a little

1:18:45 ↗ bit and adding extra width perhaps in

1:18:49 ↗ the lanes

1:18:51 ↗ yeah Jerry that's a that's a great

1:18:53 ↗ comment um so this

1:18:56 ↗ this program that we're using it's kind

1:18:59 ↗ of hard to like show

1:19:01 ↗ both stylists and pedestrians um on the

1:19:04 ↗ same facility so there is a line here

1:19:07 ↗ you know I'll use my cursor to show that

1:19:10 ↗ yeah this line here that you're talking

1:19:12 ↗ about this would in you know in practice

1:19:13 ↗ would be you know it'd be one facility

1:19:18 ↗ um it would be about 13 foot wide

1:19:21 ↗ exactly yeah

1:19:30 ↗ yeah it'd be it'd be roughly equivalent

1:19:33 ↗ um

1:19:34 ↗ in that yeah

1:19:36 ↗ is that 13 feet is or 11 or 12 feet

1:19:40 ↗ uh so in this in this scenario it'd be

1:19:43 ↗ about 13 feet

1:19:44 ↗ and I believe what you're I think I

1:19:47 ↗ think what we're saying is that the

1:19:49 ↗ East Lake Salem Trail is is about 12

1:19:52 ↗ foot um I'm sure it varies in in

1:19:53 ↗ different areas but this would um

1:19:55 ↗ encapsulate that that area

1:19:58 ↗ we could save a foot there

1:20:01 ↗ yes that's not much okay

1:20:04 ↗ right so now the widths are just meeting

1:20:07 ↗ the full width of the proposed right

1:20:09 ↗ away so it's just it could be 12 feet

1:20:12 ↗ that's your question

1:20:15 ↗ um

1:20:17 ↗ the median

1:20:19 ↗ with a treaty

1:20:22 ↗ does this have to be it's 11 feet or 12

1:20:25 ↗ feet it's awesome

1:20:28 ↗ oh yeah yeah it changes

1:20:31 ↗ it's not just the media

1:20:35 ↗ because you don't want the road to go

1:20:37 ↗ narrow go away go narrow every time the

1:20:40 ↗ wind changes

1:20:47 ↗ so

1:20:48 ↗ um let's start here and then go there

1:20:51 ↗ and then come back around over here

1:20:52 ↗ because I know you have a lot to say

1:20:53 ↗ about this and I

1:20:54 ↗ guess oh it's okay I actually don't have

1:20:56 ↗ it

1:20:57 ↗ I have a say I'm

1:20:59 ↗ fine

1:21:00 ↗ I love the Z foot taken out of the next

1:21:04 ↗ two's path area and give it back to

1:21:07 ↗ driving like two

1:21:08 ↗ I feel like that's really important for

1:21:10 ↗ Transit deliveries that's a lot of cars

1:21:13 ↗ to use that Parkway not

1:21:15 ↗ and so I think the more that we can

1:21:18 ↗ facilitate things and safety the better

1:21:23 ↗ um

1:21:29 ↗ although now I'm wondering if the middle

1:21:33 ↗ West is trees and then can turn into a

1:21:36 ↗ turn lane if you just addressed that 10

1:21:39 ↗ feet is kind of technical so I guess is

1:21:43 ↗ that another option where we could take

1:21:45 ↗ a grab a foot from if we needed to

1:21:49 ↗ because the larger people sometimes use

1:21:51 ↗ the training links we want the Turning

1:21:54 ↗ length of you that requirements

1:22:00 ↗ okay someone else

1:22:03 ↗ I think I would like to also

1:22:07 ↗ like Alternatives they're um what time I

1:22:11 ↗ still have to like Crossover at

1:22:12 ↗ intersection

1:22:14 ↗ but I'd also like to see uh put taken

1:22:16 ↗ from the media and taking some of them

1:22:19 ↗ great Titans

1:22:21 ↗ um instead of the Timberwolves

1:22:26 ↗ could you repeat that I'm wondering if

1:22:28 ↗ we

1:22:28 ↗ um you you would want to just repeat

1:22:31 ↗ yeah yeah part 22 and I would like to

1:22:36 ↗ see a book from the median and a book

1:22:38 ↗ from the nine foot landscape take him to

1:22:41 ↗ provide a lot of foot Lanes

1:22:43 ↗ on the inside so all nine through them

1:22:47 ↗ can I go back and ask where you want a

1:22:50 ↗ Direction but to go save your place same

1:22:52 ↗ place

1:22:53 ↗ two proposals on where to get it from

1:22:55 ↗ but they both are going to the same spot

1:22:58 ↗ it's that thing okay as long as Lane 2

1:23:01 ↗ is 11 feet I'm hoping over to where it

1:23:04 ↗ comes from what options okay so we have

1:23:06 ↗ several suggestions and where it can

1:23:08 ↗ come from we've got two people that

1:23:09 ↗ think it

1:23:10 ↗ okay that's super helpful okay

1:23:14 ↗ did you catch that all Thomas that

1:23:16 ↗ seemed pretty good I did thank you

1:23:19 ↗ yes okay Dave what about you

1:23:21 ↗ [Music]

1:23:21 ↗ um

1:23:23 ↗ demonstrated with two or three I prefer

1:23:25 ↗ three and uh if I'm going to buy often

1:23:28 ↗ what they just said was that one foot

1:23:31 ↗ change I do like the fact that those uh

1:23:33 ↗ outside Lanes be 11 feet especially for

1:23:37 ↗ your commercial vehicles it gives more

1:23:40 ↗ foreign

1:23:42 ↗ a wider birth for that inside rain to be

1:23:46 ↗ able to get around the outside Main

1:23:50 ↗ especially if you're going to throw bus

1:23:52 ↗ stops you think of

1:23:53 ↗ [Music]

1:23:55 ↗ Lake Sammamish park where you think

1:23:57 ↗ Spanish Parkway uh that really works

1:24:00 ↗ well keeps that pedestrian and bicycle

1:24:04 ↗ the traffic away from the street much

1:24:07 ↗ safer so

1:24:09 ↗ um

1:24:10 ↗ from the traffic circle to

1:24:14 ↗ 56th Street that's sometimes known as

1:24:18 ↗ Darth Vader Parkway or the Indianapolis

1:24:21 ↗ 500 because

1:24:24 ↗ people don't pay that 40 mile an hour

1:24:26 ↗ speed limit and that's really difficult

1:24:28 ↗ especially if you throw away on some bus

1:24:31 ↗ stops which will never happen because

1:24:33 ↗ nobody gets off alone there

1:24:36 ↗ um yeah

1:24:37 ↗ I'm good with two or three I prefer

1:24:40 ↗ three

1:24:41 ↗ if you don't mind me asking what do you

1:24:43 ↗ like about these three

1:24:45 ↗ what do I like about three yes I like uh

1:24:47 ↗ I like how you completely remove the

1:24:50 ↗ pedestrians and the bikes off to the

1:24:53 ↗ side there's that's a really really safe

1:24:57 ↗ situation and I like the fact that

1:25:00 ↗ you're giving a commercial

1:25:02 ↗ transportation state of the right

1:25:05 ↗ um one more foot that makes a huge

1:25:07 ↗ difference for buses yeah

1:25:13 ↗ okay yeah so if we go with the

1:25:14 ↗ suggestion that Christine Tom had in

1:25:16 ↗ terms of trying to pull out particular

1:25:19 ↗ Landscaping if you predict that one foot

1:25:21 ↗ from that the inside length I'm not

1:25:23 ↗ unhappy about that because most buses

1:25:26 ↗ realize that because they've got people

1:25:28 ↗ on the right side they're not going to

1:25:30 ↗ go over to the inside Lane and have to

1:25:33 ↗ cut rack to pick up people so

1:25:36 ↗ I really like that I like I really like

1:25:39 ↗ option three because it's got the

1:25:41 ↗ warrior streets but you could take that

1:25:43 ↗ photo away from the inside line graph

1:25:46 ↗ and I'm not unhappy with that

1:25:48 ↗ thank you

1:25:50 ↗ I have nothing more to add options

1:25:57 ↗ well

1:26:00 ↗ I have some serious concerns about

1:26:02 ↗ option two

1:26:03 ↗ um hearing about East Lake samish

1:26:05 ↗ Parkway I'm wondering about the other

1:26:07 ↗ roads this would currently apply to are

1:26:09 ↗ we

1:26:11 ↗ are we you know we're saying oh 11 feet

1:26:13 ↗ it's the same but it could be it's not

1:26:15 ↗ really the same it could be we're

1:26:17 ↗ actually talking about a significant

1:26:19 ↗ reduction

1:26:21 ↗ in the street width across our Parkways

1:26:24 ↗ and I think another important thing that

1:26:26 ↗ to know notice about the option one is

1:26:29 ↗ because you have that bike lane on the

1:26:31 ↗ same surface

1:26:32 ↗ you have actually a wider Road when

1:26:36 ↗ needed

1:26:37 ↗ not not saying a car should drive in the

1:26:40 ↗ bike lane but if you need to get around

1:26:41 ↗ someone or something whatever that may

1:26:43 ↗ be there's an object in the road you

1:26:46 ↗ have more width total on the same

1:26:49 ↗ surface that the car can drive on so in

1:26:52 ↗ effect option one actually has

1:26:54 ↗ when it's needed mode the significantly

1:26:58 ↗ wider Lanes than either of these other

1:27:00 ↗ options you have a curve on either side

1:27:02 ↗ for option two and three but that's a

1:27:05 ↗ hard limit so I had some concerns about

1:27:07 ↗ reducing from if it really is 12 feet if

1:27:10 ↗ that's what it is I have concerns about

1:27:12 ↗ reducing that down at a minimum uh

1:27:16 ↗ certainly 10 feet seems way too small uh

1:27:20 ↗ you know if you have a bus that's

1:27:21 ↗ stopped you know another bus that needs

1:27:22 ↗ to be around it you know you're in a

1:27:24 ↗ situation where that could be too narrow

1:27:26 ↗ and you block up traffic

1:27:28 ↗ it also seems like you're not going to

1:27:30 ↗ have bus stops covered bus stops that

1:27:32 ↗ often so you could potentially take even

1:27:34 ↗ more out of the sidewalk because it's

1:27:37 ↗ probably fine to have a four foot

1:27:39 ↗ sidewalk you know just a few places you

1:27:42 ↗ have to walk around the bus stop right

1:27:44 ↗ so if you say you narrow that to

1:27:48 ↗ um I don't know

1:27:50 ↗ you leave that as nine feet but you

1:27:52 ↗ narrow the sidewalk to four feet you

1:27:56 ↗ really you really have a 13 foot

1:27:58 ↗ sidewalk except for where there is a bus

1:28:01 ↗ and I understand it was Landscaping but

1:28:03 ↗ you get the Landscaping take up less

1:28:04 ↗ than nine feet so I think there's

1:28:06 ↗ there's an opportunity to remove

1:28:09 ↗ um more without having an actual effect

1:28:12 ↗ on the apparent width of the sidewalk

1:28:14 ↗ except

1:28:16 ↗ just where there's a bus stop that

1:28:18 ↗ sticks out

1:28:19 ↗ um and so I think you could actually

1:28:21 ↗ probably even pull more than just

1:28:23 ↗ two feet back in uh to get to 11 and 11.

1:28:29 ↗ I would say in general whatever the

1:28:31 ↗ current width is I'm not in favor of

1:28:34 ↗ reducing that so if East Lake samish is

1:28:37 ↗ an exception and most of them are really

1:28:39 ↗ 11 feet okay but if that's really the

1:28:42 ↗ norm then I'm not comfortable with what

1:28:44 ↗ I've heard so far being convinced that

1:28:46 ↗ reducing those Lane widths is actually a

1:28:49 ↗ good idea

1:28:51 ↗ so I guess which option

1:28:53 ↗ um none I would say sort of a

1:28:57 ↗ variation uh that's kind of Beyond just

1:29:00 ↗ making

1:29:02 ↗ I appreciate that what I want to know is

1:29:04 ↗ um oh I see a couple of hands up but

1:29:06 ↗ what I want to know is does anybody want

1:29:08 ↗ to change their answer based on what you

1:29:11 ↗ had to say

1:29:12 ↗ um or does anybody want to try to

1:29:14 ↗ recognize

1:29:15 ↗ I mean the delivery go ahead sure turned

1:29:18 ↗ on uh Parkway as a bike rider

1:29:20 ↗ interracial out here I'm sorry say it

1:29:23 ↗ again I'm sorry as a bike rider and the

1:29:27 ↗ brains here a lot so there's always rain

1:29:29 ↗ in the road you have two lanes of two

1:29:31 ↗ percent cross slope so you have all the

1:29:33 ↗ water coming over in the gutter land of

1:29:34 ↗ course where the bikes are always but so

1:29:38 ↗ to me it's a lot more risk to the bike

1:29:40 ↗ rider that's riding on the street

1:29:43 ↗ the rain water as those being separated

1:29:45 ↗ on the second panel

1:29:49 ↗ I do take the extra width is good but I

1:29:52 ↗ don't think

1:29:55 ↗ an occasional occurrence for a bus or

1:29:57 ↗ truck bike need to turn around as

1:29:58 ↗ opposed to having a full-time safe on

1:30:00 ↗ those separated

1:30:01 ↗ that's totally my concerned

1:30:05 ↗ right

1:30:06 ↗ with option so I studied basically with

1:30:08 ↗ options

1:30:09 ↗ oh good question

1:30:11 ↗ is I-90 are the the lanes with the

1:30:16 ↗ reconfiguration of I-90 through are they

1:30:19 ↗ 11 feet

1:30:20 ↗ or 12. I thought they were reduced to

1:30:23 ↗ 11. just to kind of give it a frame of

1:30:26 ↗ reference on Interstate 90 yeah the

1:30:30 ↗ lanes are about 15 feet

1:30:39 ↗ but otherwise

1:30:45 ↗ I think they're 12 feet

1:30:52 ↗ and I believe that East Lake Sam stopped

1:30:55 ↗ the 56th has 11 foot wide lengths

1:30:58 ↗ that north of 56th which used to be on

1:31:01 ↗ Incorporated King County that's where we

1:31:03 ↗ get into the wider Lanes but in the

1:31:05 ↗ section that we rebuilt back in 2016.

1:31:08 ↗ those are 11 feet but so good job here

1:31:21 ↗ but

1:31:23 ↗ Dave was saying that you know um

1:31:27 ↗ uh these Lake Sammamish Road and

1:31:30 ↗ Issaquah was moving very fast because of

1:31:33 ↗ the 12-foot lanes and then everyone

1:31:35 ↗ seems to be saying I agree the narrower

1:31:38 ↗ the lanes the slower the drivers

1:31:41 ↗ and so that would be a reason to be

1:31:44 ↗ content with the 11 foot lengths

1:31:48 ↗ support which you would hope

1:31:51 ↗ but it's not the case because

1:31:54 ↗ at any given day you put a police

1:31:57 ↗ officer down over the radar gun you're

1:31:59 ↗ going to have people doing 50 miles an

1:32:02 ↗ hour at least that's a 40 miles an hour

1:32:04 ↗ Zone but there is documentation that

1:32:06 ↗ when you narrowly Road the traffic

1:32:08 ↗ bill so that is it yeah so I don't think

1:32:12 ↗ I went I'm actually kind of struggling a

1:32:14 ↗ little bit I thought you made some

1:32:15 ↗ really compelling points I think one

1:32:17 ↗ thing that we're hearing from all of us

1:32:19 ↗ is that

1:32:20 ↗ it sounds like 11 feet we don't want any

1:32:22 ↗ we're not recommending any 10 foot so it

1:32:26 ↗ sounds like um option two but with the

1:32:28 ↗ modification of of increasing to 11 feet

1:32:31 ↗ so nothing is less than 11 feet

1:32:34 ↗ um I would just say with regard to

1:32:36 ↗ narrowing and making it less

1:32:39 ↗ efficient four cart I think it needs to

1:32:41 ↗ be smooth but I don't think it always

1:32:43 ↗ needs to be fast

1:32:44 ↗ I think that traffic flowing is

1:32:47 ↗ important but I don't necessarily think

1:32:50 ↗ I think the absolute speed around you

1:32:52 ↗ see people go 35 to 45. I think my my

1:32:56 ↗ point is more so that

1:32:59 ↗ this is the no change is is 11 feet

1:33:03 ↗ the change is shown as as 10 or 11 feet

1:33:07 ↗ we're talking 11. as if there's actually

1:33:10 ↗ no change so if it is in fact 11 feet is

1:33:14 ↗ common then I'm okay with 11. if 12 feet

1:33:16 ↗ is actually common and I just don't know

1:33:19 ↗ then I'm concerned that we are sort of

1:33:21 ↗ overlooking what could be a pretty

1:33:24 ↗ substantial change for for the actual

1:33:27 ↗ you know real world use of the road so

1:33:30 ↗ it's it's more of a concern because the

1:33:32 ↗ at least the example given was called

1:33:34 ↗ feet I don't know how representative

1:33:35 ↗ that is of everything I would go back to

1:33:38 ↗ just the fact that I think that there is

1:33:40 ↗ a difference between when you have a 22

1:33:44 ↗ foot curve to curb versus a 27 foot

1:33:48 ↗ curve to curve

1:33:50 ↗ just I I don't really I guess I don't

1:33:54 ↗ really know exactly what that would end

1:33:57 ↗ up meaning but

1:34:00 ↗ what's up what's these flights from

1:34:03 ↗ average part for now I think it's 12

1:34:05 ↗ foot each lane is 12 foot in front of

1:34:07 ↗ the stick yeah so North the 56th we have

1:34:11 ↗ 12 foot wide Lanes so now we have 11 on

1:34:14 ↗ the new section that's what I thought it

1:34:16 ↗ was on a new section after you get past

1:34:18 ↗ 56th at Miracles right

1:34:21 ↗ there's a sold the traffic but

1:34:23 ↗ apparently it doesn't work

1:34:25 ↗ so just to be clear I

1:34:31 ↗ I the problem that I have

1:34:32 ↗ I have is I just always rather see the

1:34:34 ↗ bike separate from the Peds but um

1:34:37 ↗ so I actually kind of like three like

1:34:40 ↗ you do so

1:34:42 ↗ um I think what I'm hearing is that most

1:34:44 ↗ people in the room are in favor of

1:34:46 ↗ option two

1:34:48 ↗ um but not quite as

1:34:50 ↗ um

1:34:50 ↗ with a lot more reservations than we

1:34:52 ↗ were with the with the core streets and

1:34:55 ↗ the reservations I think you could

1:34:57 ↗ probably summarize it I'm not going to

1:34:58 ↗ try to summarize them but um

1:35:01 ↗ I'm wondering if there's any new

1:35:03 ↗ discussion I don't think we necessarily

1:35:06 ↗ need to um make a motion and do an

1:35:08 ↗ agreement but I do want to make sure

1:35:09 ↗ that everything that we have to say is

1:35:11 ↗ kind of summarized and that nothing is

1:35:13 ↗ gone unsaid go ahead just a

1:35:15 ↗ clarification to maybe bring us back so

1:35:18 ↗ we're now trying to do is set

1:35:22 ↗ the type the typology of the rule

1:35:25 ↗ correct that's what we're trying to do

1:35:27 ↗ not what's out there now we're not

1:35:29 ↗ trying to say this should be the scheme

1:35:33 ↗ so correct it's it's that 20-year vision

1:35:35 ↗ of what we want these corridors to be

1:35:37 ↗ correct

1:35:39 ↗ some roads would have to be widened some

1:35:42 ↗ roads wouldn't have to be narrowed right

1:35:45 ↗ um oh that's what that other so I yeah

1:35:48 ↗ that's I I looked at the three of the

1:35:52 ↗ alternatives on these Maps

1:35:55 ↗ um

1:35:56 ↗ but it's basically what's going to be

1:36:00 ↗ our plan from now on correct so

1:36:04 ↗ um

1:36:05 ↗ with that in mind my vote again would be

1:36:09 ↗ three over two but I can live with

1:36:12 ↗ either

1:36:13 ↗ anybody you would be fine with two if if

1:36:15 ↗ we're that kind of takes a look at

1:36:17 ↗ widening those travel links correctly

1:36:20 ↗ yeah

1:36:22 ↗ my vote would be for three but I could

1:36:24 ↗ live with two

1:36:25 ↗ and my vote is for free but I can live

1:36:28 ↗ with two in my

1:36:29 ↗ read has I will always vote to separate

1:36:31 ↗ bikes and pets

1:36:35 ↗ and I just never liked it when they get

1:36:37 ↗ put together but

1:36:38 ↗ but he's like Savannah schwarks okay I

1:36:40 ↗ mean that part that trail works okay so

1:36:44 ↗ but there's just a lot more on and off

1:36:47 ↗ like you said and so if you're going to

1:36:49 ↗ the business across the street

1:36:51 ↗ you're gonna have to go

1:36:52 ↗ the wrong way for a while anyway so

1:36:55 ↗ that's my concern but I could live with

1:36:56 ↗ that but have we said all that is to be

1:36:58 ↗ said about this I feel like we

1:37:01 ↗ kind of summarize the

1:37:03 ↗ um I feel good about

1:37:05 ↗ I'm hoping Utah does not feel like oh

1:37:07 ↗ I'm sorry I was starting to wrap up slow

1:37:09 ↗ streets is a lot fewer things

1:37:12 ↗ um

1:37:14 ↗ uh are we ready to move on to slow

1:37:16 ↗ streets

1:37:18 ↗ the time check

1:37:20 ↗ yep

1:37:22 ↗ both streets

1:37:24 ↗ yeah I think we're actually good on time

1:37:27 ↗ uh because

1:37:29 ↗ the next alternative uh there's really

1:37:32 ↗ just

1:37:36 ↗ um do we have have we given them the

1:37:39 ↗ vote that they are looking for tonight

1:37:42 ↗ on Parkways on purpose yes have we given

1:37:47 ↗ them on of course streets yeah we didn't

1:37:50 ↗ make a formal motion but we were clear

1:37:53 ↗ enough I believe to that we 've still

1:37:56 ↗ filled our duty to provide advice as an

1:37:58 ↗ Advisory Board I feel like

1:38:00 ↗ that's that's satisfies yeah I've been

1:38:04 ↗ taking notes I I think I've encapsulated

1:38:07 ↗ what was said verification of the chair

1:38:11 ↗ we did start about 15 minutes late so do

1:38:13 ↗ you or uh late do are we wanting to end

1:38:17 ↗ that nine I'm I would love to end at

1:38:19 ↗ eight or eight sorry

1:38:23 ↗ eight o'clock yeah and I think we can do

1:38:25 ↗ it it feels that way more because it's

1:38:28 ↗ not a matter of how long we sit here in

1:38:30 ↗ the meeting it's more about what you're

1:38:32 ↗ talking about

1:38:34 ↗ um but let's just see let's see where we

1:38:36 ↗ go

1:38:36 ↗ yeah I feel I feel good about eight I

1:38:39 ↗ think we can do it

1:38:41 ↗ um and so here's an example of the slow

1:38:44 ↗ Street uh what it looks like today

1:38:47 ↗ so this example is Rainier Boulevard

1:38:49 ↗ North Northwest Holly Street to Dogwood

1:38:53 ↗ foreign

1:38:54 ↗ so this road has sidewalks on both sides

1:38:57 ↗ of the street and plenty of landscaping

1:39:00 ↗ travel lanes are kept to reasonable

1:39:02 ↗ width to accommodate light light amounts

1:39:04 ↗ of traffic

1:39:06 ↗ there's also some parking on street as

1:39:08 ↗ you can see here

1:39:10 ↗ and there's some traffic calming

1:39:13 ↗ measures that are sort of outside of the

1:39:15 ↗ frame here but you can see there's some

1:39:17 ↗ little uh I believe these are like

1:39:19 ↗ chicanes or bull bouts here so it kind

1:39:21 ↗ of Narrows down the road

1:39:23 ↗ um

1:39:25 ↗ so it's it's a it's a calm Street uh

1:39:28 ↗ very very pleasant to walk on

1:39:31 ↗ um because the lane widths are narrowed

1:39:34 ↗ um and the the traffic has been calmed

1:39:36 ↗ cyclists are able to take the lane and

1:39:39 ↗ just sort of uh ride their bike down

1:39:41 ↗ here pretty comfortably if they wish

1:39:45 ↗ it's not calm at rush hour

1:39:51 ↗ 50 miles an hour when I'm coming along

1:39:53 ↗ that way to kind of block all the cars

1:39:55 ↗ I'm trying to cheat take that and bypass

1:39:57 ↗ Front Street and so on here a little bit

1:39:59 ↗ of the personal traffic

1:40:02 ↗ I love personal traffic

1:40:07 ↗ yeah so okay so moving on here

1:40:10 ↗ um so with the slow streets the

1:40:12 ↗ administration uh really just has the

1:40:15 ↗ status quo that we're uh proposing so

1:40:19 ↗ um we really like the design flexibility

1:40:21 ↗ that's provided within the central

1:40:22 ↗ Issaquah standards so we're proposing to

1:40:25 ↗ actually keep it as is but for

1:40:27 ↗ Simplicity he was just a mock-up

1:40:31 ↗ it better describes what the require

1:40:34 ↗ what the requirements are

1:40:37 ↗ um so

1:40:38 ↗ your volume just dropped oh can you hear

1:40:42 ↗ me now sorry

1:40:44 ↗ okay

1:40:46 ↗ so yeah again uh we're we're proposing

1:40:48 ↗ to keep the central isqua standards as

1:40:50 ↗ is

1:40:51 ↗ um we we really liked how they uh

1:40:53 ↗ provided for the street and I'll just

1:40:55 ↗ sort of walk through what the um

1:40:58 ↗ existing requirements are and

1:41:01 ↗ in a little bit more detail so

1:41:03 ↗ as you can see the the sidewalks are are

1:41:07 ↗ you know wide they're they're buffered

1:41:08 ↗ from the street by Landscaping

1:41:11 ↗ um we really like that there's good

1:41:13 ↗ flexibility in design here so option A

1:41:17 ↗ is uh one is one way and it's basically

1:41:20 ↗ like the no parking option

1:41:23 ↗ um so and option b has parking so in

1:41:26 ↗ this uh standard uh parking is optional

1:41:29 ↗ so B represents the optional parking and

1:41:32 ↗ a represents a street that has no

1:41:35 ↗ on-street parking

1:41:37 ↗ um so again no change in this uh we we

1:41:40 ↗ really like the flexibility this road

1:41:42 ↗ provides traffic calming

1:41:44 ↗ um the speed limit is reduced to be

1:41:48 ↗ around 20 to 25 miles an hour this slow

1:41:52 ↗ speed allows for cyclists to comfortably

1:41:54 ↗ take the lane and um run through the

1:41:57 ↗ street

1:41:58 ↗ don't worry

1:42:00 ↗ yeah

1:42:02 ↗ so yeah I guess um that's sort of ends

1:42:06 ↗ the typologies uh but I will ask for if

1:42:10 ↗ you have any feedback on this

1:42:13 ↗ um

1:42:14 ↗ does anybody have any concerns about uh

1:42:18 ↗ the slow streets I think it's a oh go

1:42:22 ↗ ahead so the question is if it's

1:42:25 ↗ situational or you could do either one a

1:42:27 ↗ or 1B but not all going to be one a or

1:42:30 ↗ the marriage when he works in the other

1:42:33 ↗ areas which Concepts there's really a

1:42:36 ↗ gun situational design anyway based on

1:42:39 ↗ okay

1:42:41 ↗ actually Rainier Avenue is

1:42:45 ↗ both wanted to have 1V

1:42:48 ↗ if you look at it and that's the that's

1:42:50 ↗ the situational aspect technique

1:42:56 ↗ this one's going to be easy

1:42:59 ↗ how'd you start uh I think uh they'll

1:43:03 ↗ change in one a and one B because of

1:43:05 ↗ that they'll they'll they are working

1:43:07 ↗ now or we live on one that works I lived

1:43:11 ↗ on that street before it got changed to

1:43:14 ↗ be a wanna be and it didn't work now

1:43:17 ↗ it's working with the exception

1:43:19 ↗ you still get the Speeders on Dogwood as

1:43:22 ↗ you well know

1:43:24 ↗ how to drive out there

1:43:27 ↗ and bicycling is fairly safe for me on

1:43:31 ↗ 1B I feel safe except that damn corner

1:43:35 ↗ on Dogwood and Newport

1:43:57 ↗ the minimum for the planters

1:44:00 ↗ okay

1:44:04 ↗ I mean yeah I'm not gonna change it I

1:44:06 ↗ just

1:44:08 ↗ I just think it's better for the

1:44:10 ↗ Landscaping eight years over time it's

1:44:13 ↗ just dependent on the width of the toll

1:44:15 ↗ right away in terms of the way okay and

1:44:18 ↗ not everywhere is going to have a street

1:44:19 ↗ tree so some of those of us are going to

1:44:21 ↗ change a smaller vegetation it's safe to

1:44:24 ↗ walk down and getting used to be safe

1:44:29 ↗ good

1:44:38 ↗ um so I was wrong we did it I know

1:44:41 ↗ we do have a couple of uh of

1:44:44 ↗ announcements so

1:44:45 ↗ um so does that uh with that are we um

1:44:50 ↗ ready to conclude the street

1:44:51 ↗ Technologies

1:44:53 ↗ yeah I'll just conclude real quick if

1:44:55 ↗ you give me 30 seconds I just wanted to

1:44:56 ↗ tell you what's coming up next uh so

1:44:59 ↗ we'll be providing your feedback to the

1:45:01 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee uh

1:45:03 ↗ in Winter uh 2023

1:45:06 ↗ um so after the new year we'll then just

1:45:10 ↗ incorporate this into the final version

1:45:12 ↗ of the street typologies which will be

1:45:14 ↗ updated uh with the public works Street

1:45:17 ↗ standards in spring or summer 2023.

1:45:20 ↗ that's it for me

1:45:21 ↗ can you make sure to email me

1:45:30 ↗ one of us if possible to attend

1:45:34 ↗ will do thank you

1:45:36 ↗ thank you

1:45:38 ↗ okay uh let's see I closed my agenda um

1:45:41 ↗ I know we have a staff report I have a

1:45:45 ↗ very brief chair report 755 we're doing

1:45:47 ↗ good since we have the agenda open what

1:45:49 ↗ reports am I missing your work plan

1:45:51 ↗ first oh board work plan first thank you

1:45:54 ↗ let's go uh

1:45:55 ↗ is that part of the staff report

1:45:58 ↗ that bounces out of the items okay

1:46:00 ↗ um

1:46:02 ↗ just somebody gonna be making a um

1:46:04 ↗ comment about the meeting I know um

1:46:08 ↗ somebody else tag teaming for her I'll

1:46:10 ↗ do my best and so I don't have the exact

1:46:13 ↗ plan but and we've got a lot of stuff

1:46:16 ↗ coming in the first quarter that's very

1:46:19 ↗ timely because we're trying to give you

1:46:20 ↗ two things one the city's going to be

1:46:23 ↗ updating the six years Capital

1:46:24 ↗ Improvement plan and so we're wanting to

1:46:27 ↗ get the its projects and the transit

1:46:30 ↗ projects into the six-year

1:46:32 ↗ Transportation Improvement plan and so

1:46:35 ↗ we're going to be working on that and we

1:46:37 ↗ also need to talk about the Northwest

1:46:39 ↗ Sammamish Road not motorized project and

1:46:43 ↗ so it looks like we'll most likely have

1:46:45 ↗ two meetings in January and I'd schedule

1:46:48 ↗ a special meeting

1:46:50 ↗ and I had a lot of discussion with

1:46:51 ↗ Isabel today about the date of that and

1:46:53 ↗ the only date that works is either

1:46:56 ↗ January 30th or 31st I can't make the

1:46:59 ↗ 30th but if everyone

1:47:01 ↗ is 31st and that's right back to back

1:47:03 ↗ like six days after this regular day

1:47:05 ↗ there wasn't a lot of choice

1:47:08 ↗ um

1:47:09 ↗ and so uh I guess you don't have to

1:47:12 ↗ answer right now but

1:47:14 ↗ um we're hoping that people will be

1:47:16 ↗ willing to have an extra meeting in

1:47:18 ↗ January so that we can get through a

1:47:20 ↗ little more material

1:47:21 ↗ show up a regular meeting would be

1:47:24 ↗ January 25th correct fourth Wednesday so

1:47:27 ↗ now we're going to add the additional

1:47:29 ↗ meeting the 30th or 34th that's what

1:47:32 ↗ we're proposing

1:47:33 ↗ if people are willing and able

1:47:41 ↗ I think it's the first time people are

1:47:43 ↗ hearing about it so I'm not really

1:47:44 ↗ expecting an answer

1:47:46 ↗ um but we can't wait till the 25th to

1:47:47 ↗ find their answer so you'll get an email

1:47:50 ↗ presumably from Isabel uh seeing if that

1:47:53 ↗ date works

1:47:54 ↗ I can do either day

1:47:58 ↗ um

1:48:00 ↗ I I don't have anything for the staff

1:48:02 ↗ report

1:48:04 ↗ an objectives

1:48:09 ↗ um I think that was just for our

1:48:10 ↗ confirmation it's my understanding

1:48:13 ↗ um I do have a really brief care report

1:48:15 ↗ and was there sorry uh we didn't have

1:48:18 ↗ agendas printed and I didn't bring that

1:48:19 ↗ it's yeah yeah okay I just wanted to say

1:48:22 ↗ that

1:48:24 ↗ um one of advice that we did just adopt

1:48:25 ↗ new rules and regulations Section Five

1:48:28 ↗ um for our chap regarding virtual

1:48:30 ↗ attendance and while it is allowed

1:48:32 ↗ um the Quorum in person is required

1:48:36 ↗ Virtual Tennis is allowed a form in

1:48:39 ↗ person is required with some exception

1:48:41 ↗ to Erica's going to be an Olympia during

1:48:43 ↗ the entire legislative sessions which

1:48:44 ↗ means the rest of us is making a special

1:48:46 ↗ effort to attend in person and we value

1:48:49 ↗ everyone's contributions and I'm hoping

1:48:52 ↗ that you'll agree that we need to kind

1:48:53 ↗ of lean in and support each other when

1:48:55 ↗ we can of course we're volunteers but we

1:48:59 ↗ need to kind of hold each other

1:49:00 ↗ accountable and you know make an extra

1:49:03 ↗ effort to be here even the virtual you

1:49:05 ↗ know we're in this kind of in between

1:49:06 ↗ World

1:49:07 ↗ um also there is uh it says a

1:49:10 ↗ requirement I'm not sure how that gets

1:49:13 ↗ implemented or a course but that you um

1:49:16 ↗ mentioned it to I guess staff or Dyson

1:49:19 ↗ mentioned to me but Steph I guess yeah a

1:49:23 ↗ five days in advance if you need to be

1:49:25 ↗ attending virtually

1:49:27 ↗ um and then yeah so I just wanted to

1:49:29 ↗ kind of remind us about that and um just

1:49:31 ↗ try to like help each other out by

1:49:34 ↗ not trying to be the one that gets to be

1:49:36 ↗ virtual when we have one of our value

1:49:38 ↗ members that has to be you know

1:49:40 ↗ so

1:49:42 ↗ um yes I'm hoping that we'll have a high

1:49:43 ↗ compliance rate with this new section

1:49:45 ↗ and that's all I have to say about the

1:49:46 ↗ chair report

1:49:47 ↗ foreign

1:49:53 ↗ she had to leave early this evening um

1:49:56 ↗ meet before

1:49:58 ↗ I'm sorry it's a youth performance right

1:50:01 ↗ right okay yeah don't forget everybody

1:50:04 ↗ um

1:50:04 ↗ can think of people that would be good

1:50:05 ↗ on our Board of

1:50:09 ↗ imagining me now

1:50:12 ↗ uh usually they come out probably around

1:50:14 ↗ the end of January birth February due

1:50:18 ↗ date

1:50:19 ↗ I don't think they're due in February I

1:50:22 ↗ usually do a little bit later because

1:50:24 ↗ the terms don't start till May I know I

1:50:26 ↗ thought they were doing February and

1:50:27 ↗ that date but maybe I'm

1:50:29 ↗ anyway it's coming up and it'll come up

1:50:31 ↗ fast

1:50:33 ↗ that you know full-time yeah

1:50:36 ↗ I've just been trying to get us to work

1:50:38 ↗ in advance to really fill those succeed

1:50:41 ↗ s when I was on the cemetery board we

1:50:43 ↗ used to have the date that we would by

1:50:46 ↗ our names that we would drop off folks

1:50:48 ↗ what what our end date was

1:50:50 ↗ dark and that possibly be something that

1:50:53 ↗ we could add to the transportation board

1:50:56 ↗ that

1:50:58 ↗ example I think I fall off on 2024. it's

1:51:02 ↗ on there it's on the website or is it

1:51:04 ↗ yeah yeah you're 2023. oh so you're

1:51:07 ↗ going to rehab just disregard what the

1:51:10 ↗ Alzheimer's guy said

1:51:14 ↗ yeah it looks like

1:51:16 ↗ um the vacant position in your position

1:51:17 ↗ come up in 20

1:51:19 ↗ yeah 20 22 3.

1:51:22 ↗ so

1:51:24 ↗ we're hoping that you'll submit an

1:51:26 ↗ application to serve again okay

1:51:32 ↗ um

1:51:33 ↗ was that I think that we're adjourned

1:51:35 ↗ look at us

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF