← Back to City Council Digest

Transportation Advisory Board Auto captions

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

6:00 PM · 1h 46m
Topics tracked across meetings:
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program AB 8352 1/3
Mobility Master Plan (MMP) Update ID 1507 21/22
Section
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of June 26, 2024
packet pp.3–4
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-26-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Steelhead Room, 235 1st Ave. June 26, 2024 MINUTES SE, Issaquah WA 98027
4. REGULAR BUSINESS
4a
2024 TAB Work Plan Update
Action · John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.5–6
Staff report:
APPROVED: 3/27/2024 REVISED: [Date]
4b
Mobility Master Plan (MMP) Introduction (I)
Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.7–68
Topics: Transportation
Staff report:
The Administration will provide an introduction to the City’s Mobility Master Plan (MMP). This introduction is meant to provide background information to the Board in preparation for the Board’s next regular meeting, where the Administration will be requesting Board feedback on the Administration’s proposed updates to the MMP to better align the plan to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element.
4c
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Policy (D)
John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.69–96
Topics: Transportation
Staff report:
In 2003, Issaquah adopted its first Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The program established neighborhood traffic calming program objectives and criteria where needed to sustain the health and safety of residential neighborhoods. The program was designed to retain the positive attributes and quality of life associated with livable neighborhoods.
5. REPORTS
5a
Board Work Plan
5b
Staff Report
5c
Chair Report
5d
Youth Report
0:02 July 24th I'm calling The transp
0:04 Advisory board meeting uh to order at
0:08 6:04 p.m um what we'll do first is
0:13 approval of the June 26 minutes and if
0:18 there are any comments um or any
0:22 suggested revisions um please uh let me
0:25 know
0:30 any comments or suggestions or revisions
0:33 oh my name is
0:35 spelled uh in the last the last sence
0:40 okay it's okay now
0:42 just um so check me if you were reading
0:45 right
0:46 exactly great okay so if we can make
0:49 that adjustment um before we do that but
0:54 um since that's the only adjustment um
0:59 if per that adjustment uh by un consent
1:03 uh will adopt these minutes um June
1:08 26 um and now we go on to public
1:10 comments do we have public comments
1:14 online no it's on okay I have a small
1:17 announcement to
1:19 say I'm officially now a part of Sound
1:22 Transit
1:23 Agency construction team so I just want
1:26 to say that for transparency
1:33 yeah can't wait to see you over
1:37 here
1:39 yeah um and now we'll go to regular
1:42 business um and we'll start with the tab
1:46 work plan
1:48 update
1:50 John yes good evening everybody sorry I
1:52 couldn't be there person I've been a
1:54 little under the weather this week uh
1:57 but wonders of technology I can still
1:59 present so um Erica sorry about misspell
2:03 Andy congratulations on on Transit
2:06 that's awesome thank
2:09 you all right bring up the work plan
2:12 here uh this shouldn't take very long um
2:17 so the as the year has gone I've made
2:20 the changes as things have shuffled
2:22 around um and now we're here in July and
2:27 we get to approve basically the second
2:28 half uh of the Year update for the work
2:32 plan um so uh today we have have traffic
2:37 calming and uh I should have added
2:40 Mobility master plan here I can make
2:43 that update um and then next month uh we
2:47 have Thomas will come back for Mobility
2:49 Master Plan update uh for the full
2:51 discussion that we're going to have
2:53 today's going to be just an update from
2:55 Thomas or a informational kind of update
2:58 and then uh in September we have the I90
3:03 Crossing
3:04 coming and then in October will'll be
3:07 light rail visioning as you can see
3:11 there's still a couple of yellow spots
3:12 here um so concurrency and Signal timing
3:18 are intertwined and we are still waiting
3:21 on a yay or nay if they're going to make
3:24 it to tab this year um so we're going to
3:27 leave them open for the last
3:33 quarter and then as far as
3:35 administrative items we're doing the
3:37 discussion and adoption today uh I'm
3:40 still talking to um the HR team about
3:43 the equity training hopefully we'll be
3:45 able to have get that to happen in
3:47 September and then uh we're
3:49 still uh going forward with the plan to
3:52 do some sort of annual report uh in
3:55 October don't know exactly what that's
3:57 going to look like yet but uh Julian and
3:59 Tom and I will uh work through that
4:01 probably at our next
4:03 meeting uh and then uh the other thing
4:06 is the squawk Mountain nonmotorized
4:08 Improvement project which we presented
4:11 previously uh we were going to come back
4:13 in this this
4:15 fallish um but due to some uh timelines
4:21 being pushed out uh we'll come back at
4:23 the beginning of
4:25 2025 um so at this point I'll give it
4:29 back to Julian to uh do comment and you
4:34 know adoption
4:37 process we have any questions about this
4:41 work plan uh I just want to say that I
4:44 won't be here in the the August meeting
4:46 even online and so
4:49 um I will just I want to look at that
4:52 Mobility master plan and I'm sure we'll
4:55 set see the minutes or the materials in
4:57 advance but I'll set those to maybe the
5:00 chair and the um
5:07 staff any other comments or
5:13 questions great well in that case uh we
5:17 can do another un consent if everyone's
5:19 okay with that um so if there's no
5:22 objection by un consent will adopt this
5:26 uh work plan for 2024
5:30 um and now we'll move on to Mobility
5:32 master plan uh introduction uh with
5:38 Thomas
5:39 sorry let me Jo this meeting
6:08 you can turn
6:23 off all righty um yeah thanks everybody
6:26 for having me today my name is Thomas
6:28 FES I'm the City Senior Transportation
6:32 planner uh today I'll just be doing a
6:34 brief introduction on the mobility
6:36 master plan uh this is basically to help
6:40 us with a future discussion hopefully
6:42 next month with the tab I just wanting
6:45 to prepare you all for that teacher
6:49 discussion uh so I came to this group in
6:52 October uh last year I there's a couple
6:55 uh new faces but basically uh wanted to
6:58 give some introduction that I I hope
7:01 will provide some context for uh our our
7:03 next
7:04 meeting so just to provide some brief uh
7:08 refresher so in 1990 we have the growth
7:11 management act uh that tells the city to
7:15 create a local comprehensive plan um and
7:19 like I mentioned October there's lots of
7:21 areas that the comprehensive plan covers
7:24 um but as we all are here today in the
7:26 transportation Advisory Board we are
7:28 focused on that um so the comprehensive
7:30 plan uh really is meant to uh coordinate
7:35 Transportation on the regional level um
7:38 with the county the region and then the
7:40 state so this is sort of uh the context
7:43 for for why we have a comprehensive plan
7:46 and specifically a transportation
7:48 element of the comprehensive
7:51 plan um so these are again the areas
7:54 that I had mentioned in October um so
7:56 there's I believe 10 areas we're focused
7:58 on Mobility
8:00 um in October I had uh offered up uh the
8:04 ability to comment on the goals and
8:07 policies of the transportation element
8:10 um and this will be adopted alongside
8:13 the mobility master plan in December of
8:16 this
8:18 year um so just to sort of provide more
8:21 context for what the mobility master
8:23 plan is it is the functional plan that
8:28 uh sort of carries forward the vision
8:30 goals and policies of the transportation
8:33 element uh which was brought to in uh
8:38 October um we are now looking at the
8:41 strategies actions and resources that
8:43 will sort of
8:45 implement the transportation
8:49 element in particular we're interested
8:51 in getting your feedback on the actions
8:53 this is going to be sort of where the
8:55 rubber meets the road these are things
8:57 that we're going to be thinking about uh
9:00 I would say primarily in the next five
9:02 years um as we think about uh
9:05 implementing the transportation element
9:08 and then as we did uh like four years
9:11 ago when we first created the mobility
9:13 master plan um we're going to do another
9:15 course correction uh so we'll every so
9:18 every so often uh take a look at the
9:21 strategies and the actions make sure
9:23 that that still fits with what we're
9:25 hoping to achieve with the broader
9:28 picture uh you know Transportation
9:30 element goals and policies and then
9:31 we'll be looking for ways to um create
9:36 projects and actions that we want to
9:41 implement any questions so
9:45 far great um so the what we're hoping to
9:49 do with the mobility master plan is
9:51 really just uh Get Back to Basics we
9:54 want to make sure that our existing
9:57 conditions analysis and our future uh
10:00 you know forecasted analysis is still
10:02 correct um we want to make sure that uh
10:05 we're staying aligned with the
10:07 transportation element um a lot of the
10:09 references in the mobility master plan
10:11 come directly from the Transportation
10:13 element so we just need to update that
10:15 accordingly there's also going to be
10:18 some actions that we are going to
10:20 propose to you all and going to want to
10:22 get your feedback on that as well um and
10:24 yeah just generally some housekeeping uh
10:26 if there's any updates that we think uh
10:30 would be helpful just to better
10:32 implement the transportation element
10:34 we'd like to hear that as
10:38 well um so here's the general timeline
10:40 we're hoping to have um so again uh
10:44 August it's the goal to take um this
10:47 item to the tab we'll then take it to
10:50 the mobility and infrastructure Council
10:53 committee uh sometime in Q3 potentially
10:57 in October and then going to council uh
11:00 in Q4 potentially
11:07 December that's all I got uh if there's
11:10 any questions you can let me know now um
11:14 or you'll free to email me you have any
11:16 introductory questions you had um just
11:20 wanted to Prime me for what's coming um
11:23 it's going to be a big lift next meeting
11:27 so any have any questions
11:30 CIA okay uh given that there's a lot of
11:33 material to cover on the master Mobility
11:35 plan um are we trying to gram that all
11:38 into the meting or can we do pre-work
11:40 and as in materials that PR to read yeah
11:43 so we'll be focused primarily on the
11:46 actions um there's a lot of minutia and
11:50 lots of details that sort of leads up to
11:52 the actions um and much of it was
11:55 covered in the transportation element um
11:57 so I think we will be able to cover it
11:59 in one meeting um it'll just basically
12:04 be uh what this board has already seen
12:07 um with the goals and policies and then
12:10 we'll just be talking about some new
12:13 actions that we're proposing uh we did a
12:17 last update in 2021 so there's not a
12:20 whole lot of like new updates for the
12:23 actions but a lot of it has to do with
12:25 the updates from the Transportation
12:26 element which is primarily based on uh
12:30 Transit and um connections to
12:33 Transit so hoping that a lot of the
12:36 actions that we have currently still
12:39 ring true if they don't we can talk
12:41 about that um we have just a handful of
12:44 actions that we're hoping to show you um
12:48 but we do want to give you the whole uh
12:51 the whole list of actions and if if
12:54 there's anything that you think would
12:56 better align uh where we're trying to go
12:59 with the transportation element um I'd
13:01 really like to hear that at that time
13:03 too okay so maybe a slightly more
13:05 specific question when will the
13:07 materials be ready ahead of time it'll
13:09 be ready when we' published which I
13:11 believe is two weeks out before right
13:14 so one week one
13:18 week well I would suggest I would
13:20 obviously suggest reading through the
13:22 mobility master plan again um and kind
13:25 of taking a look at the actions before
13:28 that
13:30 yeah so kind of a process would be
13:32 review the existing Mobility plan and
13:34 then look at these materials ahead of
13:35 time is what we're asking so we can come
13:38 to the next meeting prepared with
13:40 Mobility master and the actions change
13:43 correct yeah and I I'll do my best to
13:44 have everything in track changes so
13:46 you'll see exactly what
13:48 happened so hopefully that will make it
13:50 easier to to see the
13:55 differences question yeah I just um this
13:58 is kind of a broad question and
14:01 um I really spent a lot of time in the
14:03 materials I can really answer my own
14:04 question but could you helps out a
14:06 little and talk a little bit about some
14:08 of the themes and specifically one of
14:10 things um that I noticed right after the
14:13 master Mobility plan was adopted we like
14:17 any body of work you start to realize
14:19 things that are missing from it and one
14:21 of the big things that came out was a
14:23 lot around equity and and equity and
14:25 transportation and so I'm my of two
14:29 questions one is the broader question is
14:31 can you just give us a hint at some of
14:32 the themes that the transportation
14:35 element maybe is driving so you know
14:37 what are the themes in that that are
14:38 driving some of the actions we should be
14:39 on the lookout for so I'm asking to do a
14:41 little of homework for us help us out a
14:43 little and then the other is
14:45 specifically with that top of mind and
14:49 yeah sure um so the transportation
14:52 element uh a lot of the updates
14:56 were um related to the transit study uh
15:01 so a lot of what we learned from the
15:02 transit study um you know it's
15:07 basically uh you know next year there's
15:09 going to be updates with Eastlink
15:12 connections uh you know Light Rail
15:14 opened up in
15:15 Belleview uh you know to Redmond and
15:19 eventually it will connect all the way
15:21 to Seattle um and once that does happen
15:25 we think in
15:26 2025 that's G to change how bus service
15:31 connects to it um so that's sort of some
15:34 of the new information that we have that
15:35 we didn't have in
15:37 2021 um we're also thinking about equity
15:40 and I I do have some proposals uh that I
15:43 will be sharing at the next meeting
15:46 um but there are there are a couple like
15:48 minor updates as they relate to equity
15:52 uh that I think uh you know will make a
15:55 decent impact uh with this with be
15:59 interested to hear there's any
16:01 additional actions that you know might
16:03 improve that outcome um and I was just
16:06 going to say specifically the way I
16:08 remembered is that the u a lot of the
16:11 scoring and the um principles they they
16:15 didn't articulate everything that we
16:17 really began to realize that we kind of
16:19 missed a little bit and and there was't
16:22 specific actions but it was more like it
16:26 it kind of um I felt like was more
16:28 revealed in in the scoring criteria and
16:31 then we had to like you know we spent a
16:33 lot of time for the c um for the tip
16:36 kind of honing or scoring which sort of
16:39 comes from those MMP principles and
16:42 guiding and the sub points which turn
16:45 into you know a rubric and so it wasn't
16:49 specific projects it more about
16:50 evaluating projects and the lens that we
16:53 put the projects through if I remember
16:54 correctly so yeah you make a good point
16:57 and the tip
17:00 uh scoring criteria that was developed
17:03 uh March I think thereabouts February um
17:08 that has been rolled into to the MMP so
17:11 just as you saw last time all the scored
17:15 projects are now scored based on the new
17:17 criteria that you all have commented on
17:20 um so that that is up we'll see that day
17:23 you'll see in the new MMP as the project
17:25 list has been updated yeah
17:31 any other
17:34 questions
17:36 yeah does when the NP was
17:40 first drafted buil the first generation
17:44 tab we didn't have an board I don't
17:47 believe now we do is there do they
17:50 review this at all I don't know
17:52 if they will yeah um trying to
17:56 remember the timing for this
17:59 uh I think I'm taking this it's a joint
18:02 equity and Human
18:04 Services board meeting and I believe
18:06 it's in
18:10 September so it kind of aligns with the
18:12 mobility
18:14 infrastructure yeah it
18:17 does know most of us don't need to go a
18:19 lot more meetings but I'd love to be
18:22 notified when that meeting
18:25 happens kind of interesting to hear at
18:27 real time
18:29 watch
18:30 the rather go
18:35 video I know I just think it's really
18:37 interesting to see our work come through
18:39 these
18:41 other yeah I think um John are some
18:44 friends um that we can have that sent
18:48 out um just as a reminder of hey this is
18:51 happening yeah feel like listening yeah
18:56 um would you like to
18:58 be notified of the other committee uh
19:03 meetings or just specifically that one I
19:05 don't want to spend too much time on
19:06 this story but I will say that the last
19:08 time when the environmental board
19:09 reviewed our criteria I thought we had a
19:11 lot of really rich discussion and we you
19:14 know we modified some things and
19:15 rejected other things and so um that
19:18 made that's why that that discussion is
19:20 what's kind of driving my interest in
19:22 seeing it real time seeing it develop
19:24 and getting a better Insight so the
19:26 answer is anything you think where
19:28 they're going to go deep on it sure yeah
19:33 okay yeah I think it would be useful to
19:35 have that no vacation um of that meeting
19:38 and maybe even of the minutes afterwards
19:40 if they are any in any way detailed um
19:43 so that people can read through it you
19:46 know going to the meeting if they don't
19:47 have time and then also um we should
19:51 maybe set up the opportunity for one of
19:54 our members to join that m& committee
19:58 and and listen to that discussion um and
20:01 report back how it
20:06 went any other questions yeah so I'd
20:09 like to make a request when you present
20:12 this material one of the challenges that
20:13 I get in reading through it is
20:17 specifically how the interaction in some
20:19 of city government in terms of
20:21 specifically growth and environmental I
20:24 think those are kind of two big things
20:26 that interact a lot with Transportation
20:29 and
20:30 so just in terms of process and City
20:33 process like you know what's the cause
20:35 and effect what comes first what's the
20:36 driver right is transportation going to
20:39 drive growth this growth
20:45 Transportation yeah the egg yeah so
20:48 anything that you can add to like
20:49 clarify that or improve that in plan
20:52 that would be really helpful okay
20:59 John um is really good about this but uh
21:03 anytime you can have live links back to
21:05 other documents that drive policies it
21:08 makes our job so much easier and it's
21:11 really useful see it in its original
21:14 text and you're so good about that that
21:17 student knows everything's ever been
21:18 published just to clarify are you
21:20 looking for hyperlinks
21:22 yes so like if you say like this was in
21:24 the blah blah blah plan like so we just
21:27 bounce right there you don't have to
21:28 wonder if you're talking about the same
21:35 thing another questions like uh
21:39 any okay cool well thank
21:43 you and we'll see you next month and
21:48 discuss yeah
21:50 John uh before we move on um I just
21:54 wanted to give you the option to we have
21:57 a member of the public who yes public
22:00 comment period if you want to open up
22:03 for them to talk you you have that
22:05 ability yeah um I actually I was I took
22:09 a note about that and so yeah um we can
22:12 open up the public comments period um if
22:15 anyone um I believe that's Connie Marsh
22:18 If Connie Mar wants to talk she
22:27 may okay I'm watering in the garden so
22:31 there you go um I thought it was
22:33 starting at 6:30 so I apologize for
22:35 being late but two of the things left
22:37 over from the last Master Mobility plan
22:40 was the lack of interface with the parks
22:43 plan and they are now doing uh what is
22:46 it called Creeks to Peak but they use a
22:50 large portion of the Ci's uh Mobility
22:54 infrastructure sidewalks Etc in their
22:58 plan
22:59 and you all interface with the parks
23:03 plan last time there was not an
23:06 interface between the two plans so each
23:09 of the
23:10 plans um was only showing partial
23:14 connections and this time I would really
23:17 like to see all the connections on top
23:21 of each other so we get an accurate
23:23 picture of the varying ways that you can
23:27 move through the city of isqua either
23:30 Trails sidewalks some of both um so that
23:35 we can make decisions that make sense
23:38 and then the next thing is where is
23:41 concurrency because we are supposed to
23:43 be having new measurements for mobility
23:48 within our concurrency plan I think but
23:51 it's been years in the making so I
23:55 didn't see a mention of concurrency and
23:58 how it interfaces with the master
23:59 Mobility plan okay thank
24:03 you thanks
24:05 Connie um I will note that we do have
24:09 concurrency yeah um we do have
24:11 concurrency coming up um on our work
24:14 plan so it is finally on the agenda
24:18 um okay with that um we'll see you next
24:22 month Thomas thank you um and now we'll
24:25 move on to uh neighborhood traffic
24:27 calming program policy John
24:31 watch we are flying through this evening
24:37 great get myself situated
24:41 here okay should be good to go uh good
24:45 evening I I am John Larsson BR I am the
24:48 transportation program coordinator and
24:51 uh I am here to talk about the
24:53 neighborhood traffic calming program
24:56 policy update
25:02 uh the purpose of this evening is to
25:05 seek feedback on the neighborhood
25:07 traffic calming program policy and for
25:10 tab to form a recommendation for city
25:14 council uh the direction that we're
25:16 asking for uh this evening is uh we're
25:20 requesting tab feedback on the following
25:22 questions there's two of them uh one do
25:24 the changes to the structure cover the
25:26 concerns raised during the previous tab
25:29 meeting and two uh does the neighborhood
25:32 traffic calming program policy align
25:34 with the goals of the
25:39 MMP so for this first section A lot of
25:42 you have already seen this in the past
25:44 but we have uh new members this year so
25:46 I will uh run through kind of the
25:49 existing traffic calming policy and what
25:51 it is and what it looks like uh So
25:53 currently we have a traffic caling
25:56 policy called the neighborhood traffic
25:57 calming program it was adopted in 2003
26:01 like 21 years ago um it specifically
26:05 addresses local access streets uh local
26:08 access streets are defined as all
26:10 roadways that are not principal
26:12 arterials minor arterials or collectors
26:14 so all that really remains of that are
26:17 the residential
26:21 streets so uh just to run very quickly
26:25 through the current policy process um
26:28 it's it's in two phases but it's a
26:30 different type of two phases than the
26:33 new policy that I'm
26:35 proposing um so phase one of the process
26:39 is really kind of that first application
26:42 through I would say a re you know
26:45 traffic review process um it's
26:49 non-physical it it it's kind of
26:51 beginning in time and process uh the
26:56 traffic cing policy says that there's a
26:58 citizen action request form that people
27:00 would go into City Hall and ask for it
27:02 be a physical piece of paper uh and
27:04 people would give that to to the
27:08 requeste uh and then they would be given
27:11 brochure and then uh the project would
27:14 be handed over to whoever is handling
27:16 the traffic calming program whether
27:18 that's engineering or someone like
27:19 myself uh to do traffic analysis and
27:22 field
27:23 review um and that's largely based on
27:26 the 85th percentile uh we've gone over
27:28 what the 85th percentile is in the past
27:31 but basically it is the speed at which
27:35 85% of cars are going at or
27:39 below um and then there's also mention
27:43 of a neighborhood speedwat program uh we
27:46 don't we don't administer this program
27:48 because it it involves giving residents
27:51 speed guns and it just there's a lot of
27:54 equity issues with that and safety
27:56 issues so we we don't uh we don't to
27:58 participate in that part of the
28:00 process um phase two is uh the physical
28:04 traffic calming device analysis it's the
28:06 analysis that goes on to determine which
28:10 what kind of uh traffic calming device
28:11 is necessary uh the traffic cing policy
28:14 only includes eight traffic calming
28:18 devices um and per the per the policy it
28:22 doesn't really give any room to expand
28:25 that uh that toolbox per se
28:28 there's a mailed survey that goes out to
28:30 the
28:31 neighborhood uh with you know a certain
28:33 amount of return uh to say yes or no and
28:37 then there's the the installation
28:39 process and then a one-year
28:47 evaluation so what how do we do this
28:49 today so uh today uh we only do virtual
28:53 reporting through C click fix uh and
28:55 there's no brochure that goes out um
28:58 there's a lack of resources for Speed
29:00 trailer deployment which is something
29:01 that we've leaned heavily upon as kind
29:03 of a first line of defense uh in and
29:06 figuring out if there's really a traffic
29:09 calming uh need in an area um and then
29:14 uh frankly we've never made it to that
29:16 second phase um the 85th percentile rule
29:19 at this point um basically requires uh a
29:24 10 m hour over the uh posted speed limit
29:29 so most streets in this Aqua are 25
29:31 miles an hour or more and that requires
29:35 the 85th percentile to be 35 miles an
29:38 hour or more which is a very high
29:40 threshold and because of that we've
29:42 never made it to that second phase we've
29:45 had some streets come out at 34.5 miles
29:48 an hour but we've never quite made it to
29:50 that 35 miles an hour um at least since
29:53 I took over two two three years ago
30:00 does anyone have any questions about the
30:03 past
30:04 policy I can't see who's raising their
30:06 hand so this is m i I think that we had
30:10 asked Bart for some of the data on the
30:16 whole like what was the 85th percentile
30:20 in terms of miles an hour were the speed
30:22 limit we had there was some discussion
30:25 on like is this is this matter of like
30:28 if it was nine it would be a completely
30:30 different story if it was 10 right is is
30:33 it common that people are going oh
30:35 Michigan boy going 10 over I'll go nine
30:37 over
30:38 right before we if there's any major
30:41 adjustments made on that not like
30:43 overcorrecting if it's really just a
30:45 small amount that needs to be
30:48 corrected yeah um and in in doing the
30:51 research of really just like looking at
30:54 other traffic cing policies in on the
30:57 east side specifically
30:58 um I think every other program in the
31:01 area uses 5 miles hour over the 85th
31:03 percentile as one of those metrics um so
31:07 that would be the the speed at which we
31:10 would incorporate into the um the
31:12 administrative document which I'll cover
31:14 in a few
31:15 minutes guess I would still like to see
31:19 maybe five miles an hour is like 90% of
31:23 roads are five miles an hour and then we
31:25 go well that doesn't seem quite right so
31:28 I would like to see and it's we don't
31:29 necessarily need to discuss it here but
31:31 if it's possible for to email out the
31:33 findings just what was the distribution
31:36 over the
31:37 speed okay yeah we can we can track all
31:41 that down so Mich John can email out
31:45 some data in the years that I've been
31:47 looking at the speed data for traffic
31:49 coming almost every single time the 85%
31:53 speed is really close to 25 that we'll
31:55 get a traffic coming request we'll go
31:58 set everything up collect the data and
32:00 it's like 26 miles
32:02 now it's rare that we get one that gets
32:05 into the
32:06 30s so then in some ways is that sort of
32:10 fundamentally calling the
32:12 question speed
32:14 limit and like okay so people are
32:18 driving excluding people who are driving
32:21 like the top percent of people who are
32:24 always going to drive fast no matter
32:26 what you do
32:28 what does that say if 85% 85% all speed
32:31 is already at the speed limit what does
32:34 that say does it say the speed limits is
32:36 that a thing that gu tried first like
32:37 just lower the speed limit if that's the
32:40 it's considered that's the
32:42 issue well I guess I would
32:44 say so lowering speed limits
32:48 is its whole own process according to
32:51 state law
32:53 um I think usually what it is is if
32:57 you're out on a sidewalk hopefully
32:59 there's a sidewalk and someone's driving
33:01 by the speed feels faster like people
33:05 aren't good at
33:07 estimating usually what I've noticed
33:10 what we're wanting to do with the
33:12 traffic common policy and John hopefully
33:14 I'm not getting too far ahead of what
33:16 you're planning to say is to really base
33:18 it off of evidence of okay what speeds
33:22 are pedestrians most vulnerable and give
33:25 ourselves the flexibility to adjust as
33:28 new research shows that it's that's
33:31 really how we're wanting to set the
33:33 speed for the traffic T policy okay it
33:36 just seems to me
33:39 if if the people are actually driving
33:43 the speed says 25 they'll drive 25 8%
33:47 that's what you found that's basically
33:49 same for the most part people drive the
33:50 speed Li and then we're going to try and
33:52 calm traffic to below the speed Lim to
33:55 me that says the speed Lim is wrong and
33:57 the effort should be going towards
33:59 updating the speed limit even if it's
34:01 more of a fight with the state I see
34:04 what you're so I guess I want to just
34:06 first start by I don't want to go any
34:07 further on my point I want to just see
34:10 love to see some of that data yeah we
34:12 can do that and what we're proposing is
34:14 not to lower the speed if they're going
34:19 25 and a 25 but but but then if if what
34:23 you found is that 8 the 85th percentile
34:25 is already 25
34:28 is the intent of the traffic calming
34:29 program to calm 85% of traffic or do you
34:32 only care about this top 15% oh in that
34:35 case we probably do nothing
34:38 Street um
34:40 but let's say that there's a street
34:43 where the
34:44 85% speed is 33 miles an hour currently
34:47 we would do nothing but under the new
34:50 policy then we would be yeah I just
34:53 thought that you had said that you for
34:55 the most part you found the 8% speed was
34:58 25 and so that's why I just want to see
35:00 the the data to kind of better
35:03 understand okay sounds
35:11 good okay go ahead
35:14 okay
35:16 great uh moving on to the so I'm going
35:19 to give a timeline of what the
35:21 development of the new traffic cing
35:23 policy has looked at look like um so
35:26 before I came aboard
35:28 uh the city um basically this whole
35:31 thing started back in
35:33 2019 uh when the MMP was uh adopted um
35:38 as a part of the MMP process uh they the
35:41 city also wanted to uh they wanted to do
35:44 traffic cming update complete streets
35:46 policy update and pedestrian Crossing
35:48 guidelines update uh the those latter
35:51 two uh were
35:53 completed
35:55 um but the the traffic cing obviously
35:58 was not um so in October of 2019
36:04 basically uh City came to tab said hey
36:06 we're working with the consultant we're
36:07 going to continue work into
36:09 2020 uh at the beginning of 2020 in
36:12 January uh there was another Tab update
36:15 touch point that said hey we're going to
36:16 adopt this in summer 2020 and then
36:20 pandemic uh put everything off so that
36:23 meant uh in there was another touch
36:26 point in September 2020 uh that
36:29 basically said we're going to push this
36:31 2021 and then toward the end of 2021 in
36:34 October uh basically gave a pres
36:36 presentation on what the consultant had
36:38 been working on there was a report um
36:42 and tab gave uh feedback on that albeit
36:46 because it was all virtual there wasn't
36:48 a lot of
36:49 feedback mostly like cool that's kind of
36:52 how I
36:55 interpreted now since I came aboard
36:58 um I took over the traffic caling
37:00 program in the fall of
37:01 2022 um and based on uh my own
37:06 experience with the traffic caling
37:07 program I went to John and I said hey I
37:10 would like to work on this please um so
37:12 I started working that on that at the
37:14 beginning of
37:15 2023 uh December came to tab
37:18 reintroduced the topic uh April I came
37:21 back to you all and uh presented a new
37:25 type of kind of General structure which
37:27 which you all gave excellent feedback on
37:30 U we'll get to that in a
37:32 second uh spent May drafting traffic
37:35 caling policy and then spent July
37:38 talking to um stakeholders uh so that I
37:41 talked to um multiple different
37:44 departments uh I talked to the school
37:46 district I tried to talk to fire they
37:49 didn't get back to me in time um but uh
37:53 really continuing to build upon those
37:55 relationships with uh with those
37:57 different stakeholders to bring them
37:58 into the
38:01 process so going back to that tab uh
38:04 feedback in April so you all provided uh
38:08 feedback on the Pres structure that I
38:10 presented um some of your notes included
38:13 uh concerns over Equity with the initial
38:15 petition process so in the original
38:17 draft for I think Adam is the only I
38:21 don't think I saw them here um person
38:23 new persons um basically there was a
38:25 petition process at the beginning
38:27 involved getting signatures from
38:28 Neighbors in order to even start this
38:30 process uh there were concerns about
38:32 equity and so we have taken that out um
38:37 next what is the threshold of what
38:39 enough consensus is U which I think is
38:41 an excellent question and we tried to
38:43 address that um how should off ramps be
38:46 built in and you know looking at the
38:49 balance between what is enough public
38:51 engagement and what is enough uh you
38:54 know sufficient staff resources
38:58 are there any other pieces of feedback
39:02 that anyone remembers and don't see
39:06 reflected here I would love to to hear
39:09 that if if there if there's any memory
39:11 of that that you feel is really
39:15 important I don't think another aspect
39:19 feedback we gave back in
39:24 April I guess it covered it pretty well
39:28 yes that's the goal
39:30 great okay so let's let's dive into the
39:33 actual traffic cing policy um I'm going
39:36 to quickly share
39:40 the policy um my next question is is did
39:43 everyone get a chance to at least review
39:46 and go through this
39:53 policy hopefully
39:55 yes okay so I'll go quickly since
39:57 everyone seems to have gone through it
40:00 um so basic structure here uh executive
40:03 summary um kind of just giving an
40:06 overview a plan alignment this is how it
40:09 aligns with uh Mobility master plan and
40:12 comprehensive plan and what
40:14 not program goals and objectives which
40:16 I'll get to in a second for
40:20 feedback and then we have our basically
40:22 our implementation strategies which is
40:25 um kind of an overview of what we want
40:28 from
40:30 this a a kind of a look at those
40:34 different traffic calming levels that I
40:36 hope aren't too confusing within the
40:38 document um I'll go over exactly what
40:41 those mean um and then of course the
40:44 process guidance document which I'll
40:45 also go
40:46 over and then it gets into the
40:48 implementation process which is split
40:50 into four uh different phases um for the
40:54 actual administration of the traffic
40:57 coming
41:00 program any um any glaring questions at
41:04 this moment before we dive into some
41:06 more of the
41:09 details maybe a silly question here um
41:12 ballards and versus something like a
41:16 curb change like what's what are what's
41:19 what are we doing with
41:21 ballards uh so usually ballards are um
41:25 kind of an addition to additional paint
41:27 um so ballards uh so for example here I
41:30 I I'm now in W West Seattle on my uh
41:34 Corner out here um the city of Seattle
41:38 put basically at a at the corner uh did
41:41 paint and then ballards lining the paint
41:44 to kind of give uh additional parking or
41:48 sorry additional site distance so that
41:51 people pulling out around the corner can
41:53 see around all the cars that are parking
41:55 and also uh just creates more room for
41:58 pedestrians to kind of you know Edge out
42:00 into the road so they can cross as well
42:02 there are other uses for it but that's
42:04 the one that kind of comes to mind as an
42:05 example so when I think of Bard it's a
42:08 you know physical you know like a post
42:10 that's stoping that's what you're
42:11 talking about here or correct correct
42:20 yes we're
42:22 clear okay I'll go back to my PowerPoint
42:30 wherever it is there we
42:37 okay so getting into the policy more
42:40 specifically so this is our uh this is
42:42 the program goal and objectives that uh
42:44 we came up with uh so the goal is
42:47 support the livability of neighborhoods
42:49 through promoting the safety and comfort
42:51 of all Road users while improving the
42:53 overall Street environment that's the
42:55 goal and then our objectives uh to
42:59 hopefully bring that goal into fruition
43:02 uh is community collaboration and
43:04 streets for all users so uh that first
43:07 one prioritize resident voices by
43:09 providing an equitable excuse me an
43:12 accessible traffic calming requests
43:13 process and two enhance the feel of the
43:17 street environment by considering
43:19 Aesthetics visual cues and preferences
43:20 of the residents along the streets and
43:22 near the
43:25 intersections any immediate feedback on
43:37 this
43:39 good
43:43 so it's it's good that there
43:49 is streets for all
43:53 users considering Aesthetics visual cues
43:56 purposes of along the streets in near
44:01 intersections group that's potentially
44:03 missing from that the people that need
44:06 that street to commune and may not live
44:10 along it or near the
44:12 intersection but they're still a
44:15 user
44:18 so seems like that's potentially a
44:21 missing
44:23 group it would say all users but really
44:26 doesn't read like all
44:28 users reads like the people that live
44:31 near it are the only users
44:36 that yeah I think I think we I think we
44:40 touched on this last time if I'm not
44:42 mistaken um and I so the goal of the
44:46 traffic caling program is predominantly
44:49 for those who live and and play and
44:53 maybe work uh on that street um
44:58 is is your question so assuming that
45:00 that's our definition um would you feel
45:04 more comfortable if we toned down the
45:10 comfort of all Road users and used more
45:13 specific language should say all users
45:14 if you don't really intend all users if
45:16 the intent of the program is
45:18 specifically for the people that live
45:19 along the street I think that's fing I
45:21 think it's fine in the program for that
45:22 but it just seems disingenuous to say
45:25 streets for all users but it's not
45:27 really all users of the street because
45:29 you get have a street where 80% of
45:31 people like I bet almost every street
45:33 most cars are not residents that live on
45:36 the street except for the absolute most
45:39 like dead end streets right and so
45:43 that's the predominant users of the
45:45 street and there it's not really theend
45:48 R again it's fine it's just I don't
45:51 think I should save all
45:53 us I get oh go ahead a question as far
45:58 as what do you think about all us are
46:00 Street all people are using the street
46:01 but they're trying to reduce the
46:04 traffic speed and safety of that street
46:06 for the people who live on the street
46:08 the street is still used by anybody
46:10 which I we consider all users of the
46:13 street whether they live there or not
46:15 think a lot of streets might have I go
46:17 here might
46:18 have just making numbers up for an
46:21 example 20 30% of the people who live
46:24 there use the street but the other
46:26 percent are people that driving to
46:28 work but you're trying to create the
46:30 street for them to drive that's safer a
46:33 little bit slower for the people will
46:35 physically live and are doing things on
46:37 that
46:38 street so to me that's what I take as
46:40 all users if that's what you're thinking
46:43 John or that's kind of what you're M
46:46 well look so this the preferences the
46:47 residents along the street near the
46:50 intersection not the preferences of the
46:52 residents all the streets that near
46:54 intersections and the preferences of
46:56 [Music]
46:59 yes my point is not that you can't have
47:02 it that way my point is that this says a
47:04 very different thing than it's for all
47:07 users if I bought a house that was there
47:11 was like very clearly one main road that
47:13 people were taking to get there and then
47:16 the city comes in for something that's
47:20 I'm just outside of residents that live
47:22 along that and they're like well we
47:23 gotta go call the traffic here and they
47:25 make a bunch of changes and it's much
47:27 harder to get to my house I'd be pretty
47:29 upset right because I would feel like
47:31 I'm a user of this why did I not get to
47:34 considered
47:37 so I don't think my comment needs to be
47:39 we need to go rewrite everything I'm
47:41 just trying to voice what I see as I I
47:45 think that streets for all users is
47:48 different than what it actually says in
47:51 that number
47:54 two um oh I'll jump in um how so I mean
48:00 I guess the the challenge I think we
48:02 discussed this also last time the
48:03 challenges especially they pass through
48:07 folks it's challenging to measure what
48:09 their preference is because they are
48:11 just driving down that direction and
48:13 luse just everyday thing and so they
48:15 don't really um they might not really
48:18 pay attention to what's happening like
48:20 on that street as term in terms of
48:23 planning um but like in terms of
48:27 how would you think would be like the
48:29 good measurable for that I don't think
48:31 he's saying that it should be I think
48:33 he's saying that there's a conflict in
48:35 the statement and I agree with you
48:38 there's a conflict in the statement and
48:39 it seems to me the whole program is
48:42 about the per of the residents which I
48:44 don't have a problem
48:46 with and I think that's what you're
48:47 saying and I'm I'm G to say I agree with
48:49 you and so I think just tightening up
48:52 the language so if that is in fact I
48:55 think maybe we need a clear
48:57 that yeah I'm now I may have a separate
49:01 opinion about whether people that ride
49:03 on the Str should be considered but I'm
49:05 setting that aside and just commenting
49:07 on the fact that the language is not
49:12 consistent I think there's a there's a
49:14 core assumption here which is that
49:16 really this is limited to local access
49:19 streets so these are not arterials minor
49:22 arterials collectors and so if we think
49:25 about that if we elimidate local access
49:28 streets and say all all traffic that's
49:31 going through an area doesn't go on
49:33 local access streets does that
49:34 significantly change throughput or the
49:36 latency of the transportation
49:38 network uh and if that's not the case
49:41 maybe we potentially are closy streets
49:43 as local streets or we have't proper
49:46 Transportation Network so that you know
49:50 we can handle all the traffic without
49:51 people going on
49:54 streets or maybe we want to include this
49:58 bias towards people that with on the
49:59 streets when they're classified as local
50:01 streets because we prefer that you know
50:04 sort of quality of life over increasing
50:07 the the throughput our Laten or
50:09 decreasing the latency of the
50:11 network I think that's kind of the core
50:13 assumption talking about right so I
50:16 think what we're getting at is kind of
50:17 like there's a obviously there's a
50:20 discrepancy of like within the goal all
50:23 residents versus in the objectives
50:25 there's kind of more tailored towards
50:27 residents do we think there needs to be
50:29 an adjustment in the language or just
50:32 make it explicit that these are local
50:35 access streets and we're biasing towards
50:37 the residents of
50:39 streets just
50:42 clarify I agree with what M saying
50:47 that I it doesn't necessarily feel like
50:50 we need all users of the street and
50:52 that's okay um so then yeah
50:58 clear so based on experience the
51:02 residents along the street they're going
51:05 to ask for Speed
51:07 boms and just like you have in a parking
51:10 lot and we always tell them no we don't
51:13 do speed bumps we do speed pumps which
51:16 are much more forgiving for cars so well
51:21 it's quite an
51:23 interesting take of Are We considering
51:26 all
51:28 users and I do see the conflict in the
51:31 objectives but when we actually
51:33 implement it we do consider the cars
51:36 because the neighborhood wants the speed
51:39 bumps and we're not going to put the
51:40 speed bumps because they're not good for
51:42 the cars so um that is little Nuance
51:47 detail of how we actually do consider
51:49 the cars when we do the traffic
51:53 Comm you should say
51:56 preferences to the residence along the
51:59 streets in your intersections and the
52:01 effects on traffic flow through those
52:06 streets because it just I I just have a
52:09 problem with saying streets for all
52:10 users but then actually they talking
52:13 because I think that's a great example
52:14 right if if I you know lived on that
52:17 street I might say I been group sure
52:20 five miles an hour front of my house
52:22 it's all you can do because I'm I'm not
52:24 affected by that I'll drive five miles
52:26 an hour
52:27 100 fet later speed up and so it
52:31 just yeah
52:34 I so I don't know if we'd want to say
52:36 flow because putting
52:38 a narrowing the road in the spot or
52:42 speed hump I don't think it's going to
52:45 really impact the flow because there's
52:47 so few cars on the streets that we're
52:49 looking at but there's still might be a
52:51 way to words Smith it to get the intent
52:53 of what you're talking about yeah and I
52:55 think my point I didn't mean to turn
52:57 into a big discussion it was just I
52:59 think that the language could be aligned
53:02 a little bit better between streets for
53:03 all users and what that actually
53:06 says that's all I think another
53:09 perspective on this could be that the
53:12 road users is not necessarily mentioning
53:14 not specifically referencing like the
53:17 sources of where people are coming from
53:20 so like it's not distinguishing passive
53:23 traffic versus especially like Direct
53:26 local it's also referencing just the
53:28 modes of modes of travel so cars bikes
53:34 walking and then that objectives is
53:37 talking about just the local traffic and
53:40 emphasizing that we're focusing on
53:43 improving the experience of of local
53:45 residents and so there might be some
53:50 language
53:52 um like communication barrier there
53:55 terms like that actually means in terms
53:57 is it mode or is it Source
53:59 versus and whatnot that's a very good
54:02 point I think as far as all users being
54:05 the mod uses versus traving from point A
54:08 to point B
54:11 uses a pedestrian who's walking along
54:15 that street is a user right it doesn't
54:18 have to be a
54:20 resident yeah
54:22 so maybe changing the word residence
54:25 collecting
54:27 users instead of stating just residents
54:35 so almost worry that goes too far talk
54:39 down my own point because I I understand
54:42 the intent of the program is first and
54:45 foremost they people that live along
54:47 that street I personally think that
54:50 everyone that uses that street should be
54:52 considered sounds like you do actually
54:54 consider that it's
54:56 you say all users then you don't say
54:59 that's that's far as I
55:05 meant no
55:07 I I think it's a very good point and I
55:09 think it should be tight and I think it
55:11 should be explicit like you said Adam
55:13 that it's not um without regard for all
55:17 the other users but it is prioritizing
55:20 people who live this whole point of the
55:22 problem it's called the neighborhood
55:24 traffic coming and I think
55:27 I think your point is well taken and I
55:29 think I
55:31 think
55:34 should you think about maybe adding some
55:36 examples here
55:38 of this is a plan this is just a slide
55:41 this is just a slide a plan I was going
55:44 to mention that this is just the intent
55:46 of the program and the goals and
55:49 objectives and so we can do a little bit
55:51 of words smithing to this but It
55:53 ultimately won't impact
55:56 the full structure of it that's coming
55:58 up so I think we should reserve the bulk
56:01 of our time to discuss the updates um
56:06 and have we can do a little work
56:08 smithing with this later on but I think
56:10 this would be helpful to go on to if
56:14 anyone doesn't have any
56:17 objection I just wanted to say I um I I
56:20 have arrived I'm sorry I'm late I'm out
56:22 of town right now um just wanted to let
56:24 everybody know that I am now in
56:27 it thank you
56:32 welcome okay no good good discussion I'm
56:36 I'm glad for it
56:39 um okay let's move on to I guess the
56:43 more specifics um so wanted to touch on
56:47 what the traffic hming program guidance
56:50 document is which is it's quoted in the
56:52 plan um so the intent of this document
56:56 so I'll read the slide first additional
56:57 administrative document to be created
56:59 and adopted administratively to guide
57:01 the engineering phases of the program
57:04 can be updated as best practices change
57:06 over time um this will include uh
57:10 internal Engineering Process guidance
57:12 request uh analysis criteria how we
57:15 analyze the data gather the data uh and
57:17 then that toolbox of traffic cing
57:19 measures um so the intent is so under
57:23 the 2003 policy um it was one policy
57:27 gave it to city council they approved it
57:29 it included everything within the
57:33 policy um what we wanted to do was kind
57:36 of break two pieces the two pieces apart
57:40 so there's the document that I have
57:42 given you today which is kind of the
57:45 it's the process of
57:47 how person a can request a thing and
57:50 hopefully by the end of the process
57:53 there is something there that um
57:56 successfully has been
57:57 installed um the how which is we what
58:00 we're trying to separate is uh what the
58:03 process guidance document is um so we
58:09 wanted to create we want to create
58:11 something uh which is in progress we had
58:13 we don't have a full draft of it yet um
58:17 that will basically guide uh whoever's
58:19 in charge you know uh the you know the
58:23 the traffic cming manager or you know
58:25 engineer
58:27 uh to guide them through the process um
58:30 in kind of a consistent manner um but in
58:34 a way that provides flexibility over
58:36 time so we know that in 2003 the traffic
58:40 calming devices that were uh generally
58:42 accepted are different than the ones
58:44 that are generally accepted today um a
58:47 good example of that is they only
58:49 included eight traffic caling devices in
58:51 the original policy um we want to create
58:55 a an internally uh adopted uh toolbox
59:00 that can evolve over time um so over
59:04 time hopefully uh there's some great new
59:07 innovation and traffic calming that can
59:09 be added but we wouldn't have to go all
59:11 the way back to City Council in order to
59:13 add it to the policy instead it would be
59:15 an internal decision and formally
59:18 adopted that way um that also applies to
59:22 you know what kind of data we collect um
59:24 if in the future there's some other type
59:26 of data measurement that we don't know
59:29 about today or technology advances
59:32 further so that we um we just have more
59:35 advanced technology we can add that to
59:38 this internal document instead of having
59:40 to go all the way through the process to
59:42 get to City
59:43 Council does that make
59:48 sense are there any restrictions on that
59:50 such as like um automated speed cameras
59:54 right there are other things that
59:54 restrict that but if you wrote this
59:57 generically you might get into things
1:00:00 that were a little more
1:00:02 contentious it will not be generic um we
1:00:05 it'll be very specific my plan is to go
1:00:08 to include
1:00:10 every potential device um of course in
1:00:13 collaboration with engineering and other
1:00:16 departments that want to be a part of
1:00:18 the process um to very explicitly say
1:00:21 okay so this is the section that
1:00:23 outlines traffic circles this is the SE
1:00:26 that outlines um speed cameras and
1:00:30 hopefully uh the plan is to also include
1:00:33 hey in these types of scenarios these
1:00:36 type of traffic caling devices are the
1:00:38 most appropriate in our opinion and then
1:00:41 if that changes over time we can change
1:00:43 that over time does that answer your
1:00:46 question yeah I think
1:00:50 so any other questions okay Ahad
1:00:57 okay so let's uh let's go
1:00:59 into the the different levels so these
1:01:03 are different levels than I described
1:01:04 earlier with the old document the old
1:01:06 document was very much part it's almost
1:01:08 like a part one part
1:01:09 two this document is much more uh
1:01:12 related to the actual types of devices
1:01:16 that we move forward with so for level
1:01:19 one we it's basic intervention it's
1:01:21 traffic calming measures that affect the
1:01:22 physical Street environment less and
1:01:25 would be implement M at lower costs so U
1:01:28 this includes targeted speed enforcement
1:01:31 there's a special addendum in the plan
1:01:33 that basically puts that in phase two in
1:01:35 its own special category um but then
1:01:38 there's speed trailers striping ballards
1:01:41 uh RAR speed signs additional signage
1:01:43 it's very non-invasive for lack of a
1:01:46 better term
1:01:51 um and so for that process uh would be
1:01:56 basically aart process a three phase
1:02:00 process so we can dive into all this so
1:02:02 this is similar to the structure that I
1:02:04 that I showed you in April uh but uh I
1:02:08 to I tried to take all of your
1:02:09 suggestions tried to pair it down tried
1:02:11 to make it easier to understand less
1:02:13 arrows everywhere um you'll notice that
1:02:16 uh I don't have specific off ramps
1:02:18 because I want to give the those going
1:02:21 through this process the flexibility to
1:02:25 uh to basically if it's deemed we should
1:02:28 not go forward with this they have the
1:02:30 right to at most any time so first uh is
1:02:35 the plan initiation and that is uh
1:02:37 resident request we're going to keep it
1:02:39 the same way we have it now um we're
1:02:41 going to be a lot more specific with the
1:02:43 categories and see click fix but we're
1:02:45 going to use that portal still uh so
1:02:48 basically anyone can submit a request
1:02:50 through that portal uh staff will review
1:02:52 the the request and we'll create
1:02:55 parameters using the internal traffic
1:02:57 cing form this is a form that I uh have
1:03:01 drafted um and it will basically outline
1:03:03 It'll ask specific questions about it
1:03:05 it'll ask to give a description um ask
1:03:08 to include a map with the specific
1:03:10 residences that the engineer or the
1:03:14 person in charge of or putting this into
1:03:16 the um traffic calming form uh feels are
1:03:20 affected by a potential change to the
1:03:23 street and then uh it'll be placed in a
1:03:27 que of neighborhood requests first come
1:03:29 first serve um but a project may be
1:03:32 moved up uh at the direction of the
1:03:34 transportation engineering manager so
1:03:36 basically oh this this is really
1:03:37 important we've actually seen X Y and Z
1:03:40 happen and we don't want that to happen
1:03:42 we're going to make it a priority so
1:03:44 giving more flexibility on that front as
1:03:47 well um so then it moves into plan
1:03:50 development uh this is that data
1:03:52 Gathering drafting phase of the plan um
1:03:56 so it starts out with that data
1:03:57 collection uh it'll be guided by the
1:03:59 process guidance document um it you know
1:04:03 this is where we do the you know do the
1:04:06 data collection we do the field work to
1:04:09 see what is really going on in the
1:04:13 environment uh a draft plan is created
1:04:15 using the traffic cing plan template I
1:04:17 will create a template that basically
1:04:19 all plans will go through and be
1:04:21 implemented or you know put
1:04:23 into and then uh will go through and
1:04:27 solicit input from local service
1:04:28 providers so that includes uh internal
1:04:32 so water sewer uh this is all outlined
1:04:35 in the plan water sewer fire police uh
1:04:39 Transit agencies if they're affected um
1:04:42 and really we want to solidify this as
1:04:44 the process we don't uh I think in the
1:04:47 past it's been sort of like I think I'll
1:04:48 reach out to this person I think they're
1:04:50 affected we're just going to we're just
1:04:52 going to touch base with the school
1:04:53 district every time that type of thing
1:04:56 and then uh there will be a final draft
1:04:58 of the plan and then because it's the uh
1:05:02 the low impact uh level one basic
1:05:05 interventions it will skip three we'll
1:05:08 come back to that in the next section
1:05:09 and it'll go right to plan
1:05:11 implementation U plan plan
1:05:13 implementation is basically the same
1:05:15 process that all of our tip projects go
1:05:17 through um the Engineering Process U
1:05:20 public notice instruction um this is
1:05:23 where temporary devices uh can be
1:05:26 installed um and then you know if
1:05:29 they're successful they can be fully
1:05:31 implemented uh there's device monitoring
1:05:34 after six months um and then uh the next
1:05:38 steps are you know if it's effective
1:05:40 complete if not you know go back to play
1:05:42 and development so that's basic
1:05:45 intervention I'm going to hold questions
1:05:47 until we get through level two because I
1:05:49 think it'll be uh better
1:05:52 though level two full intervention is uh
1:05:56 these are the those uh more heavily
1:05:59 affect that it's the measures that more
1:06:01 heavily affect the built environment and
1:06:03 will be implemented at much higher costs
1:06:05 um so those are the curb extensions the
1:06:07 speed humps the raise intersections the
1:06:10 traffic circles medium chicanes like
1:06:12 really changing the built environment to
1:06:14 start actually affecting speeds um I
1:06:18 think this could come back to that the
1:06:20 the conversation about goal um the the
1:06:25 way that psychology works and the reason
1:06:27 TR why traffic calming programs exist is
1:06:30 people are treating this neighborhood
1:06:32 street a certain way uh means that
1:06:35 people are psychologically thinking I
1:06:37 can go fast here so what are the ways
1:06:39 that we can
1:06:40 physically uh you know restrict the
1:06:44 lanes or you know change the environment
1:06:46 to psychologically change uh how people
1:06:49 think about driving and oh they're going
1:06:51 slower and they don't even realize
1:06:54 it so the process for this is the same
1:06:58 uh except when uh they get once the
1:07:02 final draft is created then and uh of
1:07:06 course is determined to be a level two
1:07:08 intervention immediately it would go to
1:07:10 plan support this is the major
1:07:12 difference in this um for these big
1:07:15 changes to the streetscape we want to
1:07:17 have public engagement on this um we
1:07:20 want uh we want neighborhood support um
1:07:23 because there's been more more more
1:07:25 times than we can count that you know uh
1:07:28 traffic calming is implemented and it's
1:07:29 taken out 5 years later because people
1:07:31 hate it um so this phase will involve a
1:07:35 neighborhood
1:07:37 survey so basically distribute the
1:07:39 survey uh to the residences outlined at
1:07:42 the beginning where I you know include a
1:07:45 map with the residences who exactly are
1:07:47 affected by this um and uh the city will
1:07:52 specifically reach out to those
1:07:54 residences um
1:07:56 right now we have the survey remaining
1:07:57 open for one
1:07:59 month uh then we have you know the
1:08:01 neighborhood support we played with
1:08:02 these numbers this is one of the things
1:08:04 that you had feedback about what is
1:08:06 sufficient you know
1:08:08 approval um and so what we settled upon
1:08:12 is a response rate of 30% uh we feel
1:08:16 that that's kind of a reasonable number
1:08:19 uh and then an approval rate of 60% or
1:08:23 higher um this number was is uh I
1:08:27 believe suggested by Emily Moon um as
1:08:30 sort of like the industry standard of of
1:08:33 approval and then uh moves into the
1:08:36 budget and approval process it's added
1:08:38 to the tip or small projects based on
1:08:40 size we haven't determined what that
1:08:43 threshold would be to go into uh what
1:08:46 category um we're still working on we're
1:08:49 working through budget things uh still
1:08:51 at this moment with uh with a new bium
1:08:54 coming up so this is a question that we
1:08:56 have yet to answer um so we left it kind
1:09:00 of un unanswered in the the current
1:09:04 draft and then of course it would go to
1:09:05 city council for approval like any other
1:09:07 tip or small
1:09:10 project and then it would go to again
1:09:13 plan implementation engineering
1:09:14 construction device monitoring and next
1:09:18 steps
1:09:21 um yeah okay any questions about
1:09:28 that how easy is it
1:09:32 to can you repeat sorry how easy is it
1:09:36 to remove and so the reason I'm asking
1:09:39 is it seemed like for level one all of
1:09:43 were fairly easy to
1:09:46 undo with the potential exception of the
1:09:49 B and I assume you put rebar in and
1:09:53 somehow anchor it into their ground not
1:09:56 just set at freestanding and so I'm just
1:09:59 wondering whether there is sort of
1:10:01 general like level if you're skipping
1:10:04 part of the process for one which I
1:10:06 think is a good thing so you can move
1:10:08 more quickly do you also want to put in
1:10:11 something about it needs to be
1:10:14 reversible you know maybe it's like like
1:10:17 striping right you can paint over is
1:10:19 probably more reversible I don't know
1:10:20 whether bll fits in that category and I
1:10:22 know these are examples I'm just
1:10:24 wondering whether Maybe LEL one does
1:10:26 need some sort of reversible language as
1:10:29 a way to to help say yep it makes sense
1:10:31 to skip this you can always go back um
1:10:34 and then the other thing was I I think I
1:10:37 like the input thing I think though
1:10:40 that's definitely going to be one of
1:10:41 those where you're gonna have to
1:10:43 just have the authority to make a
1:10:46 decision that that threshold is too high
1:10:49 right because maybe there's some
1:10:51 language in there that's needed you know
1:10:53 at the discretion of traffic manager
1:10:55 whatever that that can be because if you
1:10:58 have all all single family homes on a
1:11:01 street first all apartments there could
1:11:02 be vastly different response rates that
1:11:04 are typical based on that alone and so
1:11:09 like if you have thresholds that don't
1:11:13 have some way to say we can make a
1:11:15 judgment
1:11:18 call I don't know just that was one
1:11:21 other
1:11:22 point yeah that's that's a very good
1:11:24 point so to answer your first
1:11:27 question I don't think there's rebar or
1:11:30 anything super super invasive with
1:11:32 ballards correct me if I'm wrong John I
1:11:35 I feel like they're
1:11:36 just packed onto the street yeah I I
1:11:40 kind of lean towards bards being a level
1:11:44 two I think it would be harder to remove
1:11:48 sure cool we can do that um and then uh
1:11:53 the second piece about the response rate
1:11:56 yeah that that's a very good point um I
1:11:59 think we should add some draft language
1:12:00 in that because um each Street
1:12:03 inherently is going to be very different
1:12:05 it's going to be different cultures it's
1:12:07 going to be different um response Styles
1:12:10 resp you know the we want this to be
1:12:12 nimble and if 30% is more than enough
1:12:15 for one area but not enough for another
1:12:17 we do need to take that in consideration
1:12:19 so I think that that's completely
1:12:21 reasonable we also have a provision in
1:12:23 it about multipan where it counts
1:12:26 towards the approval rate but not
1:12:29 towards the response rate knowing that
1:12:31 it can hard reach
1:12:34 out yes any particular attention to the
1:12:39 so it says survey open month but that
1:12:42 month is like August lots of people are
1:12:44 out of town or it's uh back to school
1:12:47 families are scly busy cember who a
1:12:49 holidays in I don't know if that's also
1:12:52 just another mitigating Factor that's
1:12:54 PID ATT to like if the threshold isn't
1:12:56 met but it's because you sent it out
1:12:58 during bus of the year I meaning SP that
1:13:02 any time of
1:13:04 year yeah one of the one of the pieces
1:13:07 of feedback I think I got some I don't
1:13:09 remember who it was but it was someone
1:13:10 at the city um asking if uh even if you
1:13:14 don't get the response rate within a
1:13:16 month like how like how long do you keep
1:13:20 hypothetically you know accepting those
1:13:22 like could it be two years later that's
1:13:25 you finally get enough uh you know
1:13:28 response I I don't know the the answer
1:13:30 to that um but it is something that
1:13:32 we're we probably should consider as
1:13:34 well is one month too short should it be
1:13:37 a whole
1:13:38 quarter um it's a very good
1:13:43 point and maybe that's discretionary as
1:13:49 well um so there's there's this
1:13:51 dichotomy between level one where you're
1:13:53 optimizing for I think speed of
1:13:56 implementation or into end latency of
1:13:59 getting the public concern addressed and
1:14:02 level two we're trying to reduce costs
1:14:04 essentially of getting it wrong right if
1:14:07 the intervention needed is more
1:14:10 expensive so I I have questions on both
1:14:13 sides um have we achieved that with the
1:14:16 level one where
1:14:20 um do are we identifying in this process
1:14:24 early enough that level one versus level
1:14:26 level two is the appropriate
1:14:28 intervention and in doing so I haven't
1:14:31 saved the
1:14:35 time I yeah yeah yeah uh I believe the
1:14:39 answer is yes because I I wanted to
1:14:42 design this as much as possible um
1:14:46 to defer
1:14:48 to Transportation Engineers as much as
1:14:51 possible because from my experience
1:14:52 working with them very closely
1:14:54 especially at city of isqua um they know
1:14:59 what they're talking about so getting
1:15:00 that you know having that expertise to
1:15:03 um to make that determination of this
1:15:05 this situation feels like you know
1:15:07 striping I think is going to be enough
1:15:10 versus this thing this topic has come up
1:15:12 again and again and we've tried other
1:15:15 things or um you know we've tried other
1:15:17 things in other areas similar to it we
1:15:20 know that striping just striping won't
1:15:22 work etc um yeah having that uh ability
1:15:27 to be nimble and make that judgment call
1:15:30 because it really is a judgment call um
1:15:34 yes you might you might augment the plan
1:15:37 with some information about expected
1:15:38 latencies for making it through these
1:15:40 various uh phases and so like there are
1:15:43 some long polls here like Gathering data
1:15:45 and And discussing affected agencies
1:15:49 that are in both sides even if we're
1:15:50 trying to minimize lency and maybe maybe
1:15:52 we forgo that if these things are easy
1:15:54 enough reverse and you know not likely
1:15:57 to be contentious so maybe you could
1:16:00 reduce even further in the first case
1:16:03 yeah and then on the flip side
1:16:07 um we have this this phase three
1:16:10 developing plan
1:16:12 support supposedly because we want to
1:16:15 reduce the likelihood that we're
1:16:16 reversing the plan in the future uh and
1:16:19 so why do we think that this the
1:16:21 neighborhood survey and and you know the
1:16:25 the input is going to lead to that
1:16:29 outcome do have any evidence of
1:16:33 that psychological thing like since
1:16:36 people are participating now are they
1:16:38 less likely to complain with I think
1:16:41 it's a feedback loop because if I'm
1:16:43 thinking about a street that needs some
1:16:47 sort of traffic cing and I'm coming up
1:16:49 with my engineering Solutions and I'm
1:16:51 like gosh we could just get rid of the
1:16:53 parking we could put a plan here we
1:16:56 could have some flexible guide posts and
1:17:00 we could really get things going slow
1:17:02 and then go out and do it and then the
1:17:05 community is like oh my gosh what you do
1:17:07 at our street um whereas if we present
1:17:11 it and get the feedback
1:17:15 from the
1:17:16 neighborhood then that really helps
1:17:21 because if it's just me coming up with
1:17:23 stuff or one of my Engineers um we might
1:17:27 not have the direct pulse of the
1:17:28 neighborhood and we might do something
1:17:30 that they wouldn't like I think this
1:17:32 also goes back to this is this paragraph
1:17:35 though they slightly
1:17:37 disagree I understand the purpose to be
1:17:40 is like there's other programs that are
1:17:43 the city says we need to make this
1:17:45 change on the street the purpose of this
1:17:47 program is to hear what the residents
1:17:52 want and listen to that and take action
1:17:54 BAS based on that but using you know
1:17:56 formed decision making so in order for
1:18:00 that to be the case then you need to
1:18:02 hear from the residents because this
1:18:05 this is that program it is specifically
1:18:07 for that there's other programs to save
1:18:09 more life we don't need resident
1:18:12 feedback because you know the city
1:18:15 engineer assessed it well so I think
1:18:18 I've heard two different things here one
1:18:19 is we have this you know final draft of
1:18:22 the plan at the end of phase two here
1:18:25 we're asking the residents is it okay
1:18:27 can we proceed with it and then the
1:18:30 other thing I heard is we want feedback
1:18:33 where maybe the residents are going to
1:18:35 contribute things that might affect the
1:18:37 design and I don't think we're doing
1:18:39 both of those with this
1:18:41 so think can having the public input
1:18:44 before you have the final
1:18:45 plan I all I'm saying at this point is
1:18:48 that there's a little bit of conflict
1:18:50 between those goals and
1:18:52 uh probably we want to result that
1:18:55 before we put this in
1:18:58 place yeah that is a good
1:19:01 point I have another question is on step
1:19:04 four D for both of them when it says if
1:19:08 the results is not satisfactory we
1:19:09 return to plan development so on level
1:19:13 one level two also but level two be more
1:19:16 a physical construction P but you remove
1:19:19 it and then go back to Land Development
1:19:23 to leave it up while you say you go back
1:19:25 to plan development to come up with
1:19:26 another
1:19:29 plan you did cover that
1:19:32 scenario when you drafted the
1:19:36 plan sorry I'm you're cutting out it's
1:19:39 probably on my end can you repeat the
1:19:40 question please sure on level one and
1:19:44 level two on item four
1:19:47 D talks about if the result is not
1:19:49 satisfactory return to plan development
1:19:52 so my question is to leave whatever you
1:19:55 did up in place till you come through to
1:19:57 another plan if it's not working would
1:19:59 you remove it back to its natural state
1:20:02 then go back to plan development and go
1:20:04 through
1:20:06 again I would think on level one it'd be
1:20:08 easier but a simple thing that's put up
1:20:10 two if you actually construct something
1:20:12 that's a little bit more
1:20:14 substantial that may be harder to remove
1:20:16 until you come back to plan development
1:20:18 and we go through the process
1:20:21 again I would think at least on level
1:20:23 one you if it's not working
1:20:25 you'd want to remove it go back to plan
1:20:28 development
1:20:29 again yeah I I I didn't want to
1:20:35 explicitly address that because I wanted
1:20:37 I for that specific thing I think it's
1:20:39 better to leave it up to discretion so
1:20:43 if it's posing a safety hazard yes let's
1:20:45 pull it out if it's not doing any like
1:20:49 if it's just like not doing anything uh
1:20:52 weighing the costs of doing we remove it
1:20:55 now and then install something later
1:20:57 versus do we just do do we do at the
1:21:00 same time you know what are the costs
1:21:02 versus benefits um of of those
1:21:10 situations um I had a clarifying
1:21:13 question um in terms
1:21:15 of you know level one versus level two
1:21:19 level two has budget um embedded in
1:21:23 there and then level one does not have
1:21:24 the budget embedded in there is it
1:21:26 already kind of like a fund for level
1:21:29 one type style
1:21:32 projects the answer is sort of um there
1:21:37 currently uh we use
1:21:41 the the money from the I think the
1:21:43 school speed camera if I'm not mistaken
1:21:46 I can't remember the name of that fund
1:21:48 um but that money is split amongst
1:21:52 other projects as well
1:21:55 um so at this point there at this very
1:21:59 moment there is not a fund for either of
1:22:02 them that would be robust enough to to
1:22:04 Really address these projects um which
1:22:08 is a part of the uh the process that we
1:22:11 will be going through going forward uh
1:22:14 especially as we prepare for the new
1:22:17 budget season you know determining what
1:22:20 should we be asking Council can we ask
1:22:22 Council what are alternatives if
1:22:25 we can't you know stuff some stuff like
1:22:30 that yeah I would say for level
1:22:33 one we do have certain things in our
1:22:36 budget where we
1:22:38 could utilize existing budget for level
1:22:41 one now that might not always be the
1:22:44 case depending on what else is going on
1:22:46 with the budget and so it still could be
1:22:48 level one that would involve a budget
1:22:50 request but that's kind of diving into
1:22:53 the weeks
1:22:56 Erica out of curiosity has this is I
1:23:00 ever dealt with any kind of like
1:23:02 neighborhood um like gorilla traffic
1:23:06 coming like I'm thinking of in Seattle
1:23:08 uh you see like neighborhoods just kind
1:23:10 of take things in their own hands and
1:23:12 put up like Planters on the street that
1:23:15 are like not sanctioned or like I think
1:23:17 there was something that like painted
1:23:18 their own cross like has that ever been
1:23:20 an issue um with an Isa or so much
1:23:26 uh like neighborhoods will just instead
1:23:29 of going through the process or maybe
1:23:30 the C doesn't have funds like take
1:23:32 things in their own hand and they'll
1:23:33 like paint their own class or like put
1:23:35 on Planters to like kind of section off
1:23:38 to like make the street calmer as like
1:23:40 an improvise median
1:23:42 or that way as well things like that too
1:23:45 yeah yeah so I'm not aware of
1:23:48 byy sorry like that kind of I'm just
1:23:50 curious like as this coming up and we're
1:23:52 talking about funds like
1:23:54 this ends up we can't this because just
1:23:58 L you know would that ever sorry
1:24:05 okay do you have any
1:24:10 questions I think I've been following
1:24:12 along fine
1:24:17 this no I I don't have any questions I
1:24:20 think it's all been clear so far I think
1:24:22 when we get to like the comments section
1:24:24 I'll have some input to have
1:24:27 though
1:24:29 great okay I think we can go for okay so
1:24:35 we're into the direction needed
1:24:37 section um as I mentioned before uh
1:24:40 asking two questions this evening uh one
1:24:43 did the changes structure cover the
1:24:45 concerns raised during the previous
1:24:47 meeting and two uh does the traffic
1:24:50 calming program align with the goals of
1:24:53 the MMP
1:24:55 uh so I'll let I'll let jul Julian take
1:24:58 the conversation from here great um so I
1:25:02 guess we can Encompass both these
1:25:04 question um and go around and have give
1:25:08 our own initial
1:25:09 responses tities so who wants to jump in
1:25:12 first
1:25:19 can believe it does
1:25:23 um made a few comments a few suggestions
1:25:26 but other than those I do believe this
1:25:28 covers the concerns
1:25:38 raised I have a small comment when it
1:25:41 comes to the first Comer Ser is a budget
1:25:45 partake that 14 procedure like would you
1:25:50 start
1:25:51 on a request
1:25:55 uh budget is going to whether it's going
1:25:58 to cost a high or a low cost then
1:26:00 deciding where it goes in that
1:26:04 que I I believe the budgets um factors
1:26:09 in towards the end of the the program or
1:26:14 the process here um but yeah so first
1:26:16 come first serve for the next step which
1:26:18 would be data
1:26:20 collection so if if you work on a one of
1:26:24 those requests and then you find out
1:26:26 that the cost will be not
1:26:30 within that budget allocated would you
1:26:34 switch to another request isn't
1:26:38 it I'll say maybe there so many
1:26:41 variables
1:26:45 because what's the need um the one that
1:26:48 has the high budget might have high need
1:26:51 there might be one with low budget with
1:26:53 low need um the other way right and so
1:26:57 it's a judgment call but the main thing
1:27:00 with the first come first serve unless
1:27:03 um there's a reason to change it is just
1:27:06 to get it into the queue to start
1:27:08 collecting the data to work through it
1:27:11 um so we wouldn't even know how much it
1:27:14 would cost until we kind of work through
1:27:16 the plan
1:27:19 development to follow up on that and
1:27:21 once see uh the project may be moved at
1:27:23 the direction of the transportation
1:27:25 engineer could it be direction or
1:27:26 discretion of the transportation
1:27:28 engineer so that's something may appear
1:27:30 to be more important that could be moved
1:27:37 yes so you tell your
1:27:41 suggesting I'm going to P change the
1:27:43 direction to
1:27:49 discretion and that could be based on a
1:27:52 couple p
1:27:59 yeah overall
1:28:02 thoughts questions uh I think I'm good
1:28:06 with these I think the one thing would
1:28:09 be and I think you you start doing the
1:28:11 data collection you're probably going to
1:28:12 have some sort of input from the public
1:28:15 but my concern is think on that too
1:28:18 that's some s of public in before we get
1:28:20 to a final draft on
1:28:22 on primarily on
1:28:28 to so some kind of public
1:28:32 input before the final
1:28:36 gra yeah so we talked a little about the
1:28:40 issues with what are we optimizing with
1:28:42 the two different levels um I think that
1:28:44 could we could probably go through an
1:28:45 iteration on that and and really improve
1:28:49 the results that we get out of this
1:28:51 process um in addition to that I there's
1:28:54 some elements of visibility by the
1:28:56 public in particular when people put in
1:28:58 a request they want to know you know
1:29:00 where is it is it going to be impacted
1:29:01 on how long would it be um and it's not
1:29:05 clear from this I'm sure that you we'll
1:29:07 do a good job but it could be you know
1:29:10 in the process here where we see here's
1:29:12 the list of things that have been
1:29:13 proposed so people can be you know
1:29:16 jumping in
1:29:17 ahead getting ahead of things and
1:29:20 knowing what they need to uh comment on
1:29:25 the project is is formally proposed and
1:29:27 track it after that know what the
1:29:29 budgetary concerns are in terms of
1:29:31 getting their projects actually
1:29:33 implemented so I think there are a few
1:29:35 of those that that could really be
1:29:37 improved here um I think we talk a
1:29:40 little bit of queuing here in step one
1:29:43 at the end of this which is first come
1:29:44 first serve unless you know we decide to
1:29:46 change
1:29:48 it orless John decides to change it I
1:29:51 guess there's queuing later on as well
1:29:53 right there's queuing because we don't
1:29:55 have enough money to implement something
1:29:57 yet queuing because we're waiting on
1:30:01 resources to collect data or you know
1:30:04 whatever the resources so some of those
1:30:06 cues are absent from this and that's
1:30:09 again with keeping the public engaged
1:30:11 and aware of what's going on that
1:30:13 couldn't really be included in this
1:30:15 process
1:30:17 so I think I'll be B at
1:30:20 that overall do you would you think that
1:30:24 the policy aligns with the goal MP I
1:30:28 overall yeah I think I think it's an
1:30:30 improvement
1:30:32 uh and I think there's chance to improve
1:30:35 things a little bit
1:30:37 right yeah uh yes I do think that the
1:30:43 previous concerns for the most part are
1:30:46 addressed I do think that aligns goals
1:30:49 of the MMP and I think just to get a
1:30:52 little tighter uh
1:30:54 I'm a little confused so one thing I
1:30:56 really like about this it seems like
1:30:58 there's a lot more
1:31:00 discretion than the previous plan for
1:31:03 that so that the Professionals in the
1:31:06 department can figure out what the right
1:31:08 thing to do is which I think was kind of
1:31:10 hamstrung in the last if I understand
1:31:12 correctly and so I think that that's a
1:31:14 huge Improvement and being more
1:31:15 efficient and responsive is you know
1:31:18 baked into everything we're trying to do
1:31:20 I'm a little just a little confused
1:31:22 about the off ramps and aot lot of
1:31:24 things refer to the um to the uh process
1:31:28 guidance document which will be
1:31:30 developed right um and so just the
1:31:35 language that's in the plan right now
1:31:38 doesn't really
1:31:40 describe what to do with something's
1:31:43 kind of not a
1:31:45 very valid plausible or a viable request
1:31:50 it just there's not really just kind of
1:31:52 looking through here to see if I missed
1:31:53 it but
1:31:54 um it says that you'll do all these
1:31:57 things but there's nothing in the
1:32:00 material that we've seen so far that
1:32:02 says some kind of threshold that
1:32:06 says I think this is one request that
1:32:09 it's not really worth us going through
1:32:12 all the Ms and I don't know if that's
1:32:13 just at the discretion but it just
1:32:15 didn't seem like as I was looking
1:32:17 through the document that's clear and I
1:32:21 just wouldn't want you to be bound if in
1:32:24 init if in the
1:32:26 initial review of the
1:32:30 request you think it's not really worthy
1:32:35 and there's something in here that says
1:32:38 what that offer looks like that I
1:32:41 saw oh sorry chance to contact whoever
1:32:44 submitted and said hey like can you go
1:32:47 back can you clarify this this and this
1:32:50 resubmit like or justly but I guess
1:32:54 that's what I would like well I wouldn't
1:32:57 want to offramp any until we got through
1:33:00 data collection unless we already had
1:33:03 data because it doesn't take a lot of
1:33:06 effort to go out and collect the data
1:33:09 and if I'm a resident and I feel like
1:33:12 traffic is going way too fast on my
1:33:14 street if I submit a traffic cing
1:33:17 request and it gets denied before it
1:33:20 gets to the data collection I'm going to
1:33:22 be curious whereas it's a different
1:33:25 conversation if you can say we collected
1:33:28 the data speed limits 25 most of the
1:33:31 cars are going 23 miles an hour and then
1:33:34 it ends
1:33:37 um but I think data collection after
1:33:42 that is suppose if we're not getting so
1:33:44 many requests that you can't bring them
1:33:46 to the data collection and this is just
1:33:48 a hypothetical academic discussion and
1:33:51 probably not worth considering so other
1:33:54 than that I think it's great so far
1:33:56 we've been able to keep up on the
1:34:00 data yeah
1:34:03 definitely Eric is there I guess
1:34:09 in if this is implemented and we have a
1:34:12 better more streamlined cost process
1:34:13 it's more accessible
1:34:16 to languages and neighborhoods and we
1:34:19 get an uptick and request and suddenly
1:34:21 what you just describe changes the now
1:34:24 kind of struggling is there flexibility
1:34:28 built within this to like address that
1:34:31 or is that that's just a problem fut T
1:34:33 well I think that first come first serve
1:34:36 or at the discretion of the
1:34:38 transportation engineering manager that
1:34:41 um it's fairly easy to look at a street
1:34:47 go yeah this one is probably going to
1:34:50 have a pretty low speed or yeah we
1:34:53 really should take be careful look at
1:34:54 this one um now we've done enough of
1:34:58 data collection on streets in the seven
1:35:02 plus years that I've been with the city
1:35:04 that you start to really get a sense of
1:35:07 okay A Street like 188 then s like
1:35:11 samamish this wide and straight you're
1:35:14 going to have some pretty high speeds
1:35:16 but then if you're looking at a really
1:35:20 short Dead End Street
1:35:23 we've gotten some requests on those type
1:35:29 streets 99 out of 100
1:35:32 times the 85% speed is going to
1:35:35 be really close if not below the posted
1:35:38 speed limit and so if we got there then
1:35:41 we'd start
1:35:42 prioritizing based on
1:35:47 characteristics submit this submit
1:35:51 request they can see where they are
1:35:57 library book so we're GNA do it with C
1:36:00 click
1:36:01 fix um I'm not as familiar with the user
1:36:05 perspective to see if you can see all
1:36:07 the neighborhood traffic concerns or I
1:36:10 guess we probably reclassify it
1:36:14 um that's a good question I John do you
1:36:17 happen to know what the resident can
1:36:19 see I I have an idea of it it's it's B
1:36:23 basically just a list of everything
1:36:26 that's open I think uh at the city the
1:36:29 other thing is uh and this is just like
1:36:32 internal inside baseball I guess for
1:36:34 lack of better term um is uh we're
1:36:37 always trying we have goals for you know
1:36:40 how fast to close certain requests and
1:36:42 whatnot so that's something we would
1:36:44 have to look at would we want to keep it
1:36:45 open for the entire duration of the uh
1:36:50 the process is there a point where okay
1:36:53 we've made it
1:36:54 to uh the end of phase two okay now we
1:36:58 can close this request because we know
1:36:59 we're headed into the public engagement
1:37:01 phase like what what is the answer to
1:37:03 that and that is a question I hadn't
1:37:05 considered before this
1:37:08 moment yeah and in terms of oh sorry ER
1:37:12 in terms of community engagement one of
1:37:15 the things that we have found is the
1:37:17 community's expectation for
1:37:19 communication when we do traffic calming
1:37:24 probably the highest of anything we do
1:37:27 and so um while we might not have it in
1:37:32 the plan itself just in terms of meeting
1:37:35 the expectation of the community that
1:37:38 there would be lots of Engagement there
1:37:40 would be a website Communications would
1:37:44 be sending things out we really getting
1:37:48 into looking at
1:37:50 a developing a plan and meet more the
1:37:53 community um the community will be
1:37:56 filling up the project manager inbox
1:37:59 with emails um and
1:38:02 so I guess for any concerns about
1:38:05 communication during the process the
1:38:08 community has let us know and we've
1:38:10 heard that communication communication
1:38:13 and communication is what we must
1:38:18 do I would also mention to um a factor
1:38:23 with this is uh especially for these
1:38:26 bigger projects that might come in and
1:38:28 if we wanted to go forward if the data
1:38:29 shows that we need to rec completely
1:38:31 reform a section of Street will do it uh
1:38:35 those types of uh projects are
1:38:37 inherently going to be a lot larger and
1:38:39 depending on the threshold we set for
1:38:42 this hypothetical fund that we want to
1:38:44 ask for um there's there's a decent
1:38:48 chance it might become its own tip
1:38:50 project which then that goes into
1:38:52 through the tip process which is very
1:38:54 public and there's always updates and
1:38:57 some of them have their own you know web
1:38:59 pages and stuff like that so that's also
1:39:01 something to
1:39:06 consider uh L do you have
1:39:12 anything all
1:39:14 right to me nothing here seems
1:39:17 particularly controversial I think a lot
1:39:18 of it's being covered I think it's
1:39:22 um defitely good to prioritize traffic
1:39:25 calming and I I just I think this looks
1:39:27 like a good idea and so I don't really
1:39:31 anything to say as far as like things
1:39:34 that I would
1:39:35 change um just I do think that the
1:39:38 concerns that were brought up earlier by
1:39:40 other people about like um at some point
1:39:44 there may be a problem with like a
1:39:47 volume of requests that would have to be
1:39:50 dealt with here but that seems like
1:39:54 something that is kind of like you know
1:39:56 if there's a high volume of requests
1:39:57 then that could be a discussion that's
1:39:58 made later about how to deal with that
1:40:01 and for now I think being as responsive
1:40:03 as possible to the community is probably
1:40:05 the best
1:40:06 plan um because if people are explicitly
1:40:10 requesting traffic caling measures then
1:40:13 I mean I think if if it's bad enough
1:40:15 that people are going out of their way
1:40:16 to do that it's probably pretty bad and
1:40:20 the very least that you can do is
1:40:22 measure it right
1:40:31 um I guess I'll jump into my own
1:40:34 thoughts um I think the changes to this
1:40:38 structure cover the concerns perfectly
1:40:41 um or at least almost perfectly uh
1:40:45 compared to last meeting especially like
1:40:47 the how the neighborhood support was
1:40:50 adjusted in terms of um that response
1:40:53 rate and the approval rates um you know
1:40:56 because I think the previous response
1:40:59 minimum response rate was a little bit
1:41:01 optimistic um given other factors and so
1:41:07 I think that's the one of the examples
1:41:09 of change that were implemented um and
1:41:13 other than that I
1:41:15 think I think
1:41:17 the this program policy does line up the
1:41:20 goals of
1:41:22 MMP well so I think it's a good program
1:41:26 um but I guess one thing that we want we
1:41:30 want to discuss see Tom was the idea of
1:41:35 the plan support some kind of plan
1:41:37 support coming up for the final
1:41:40 draft um do we want to discuss that a
1:41:43 little bit and share our different
1:41:45 thoughts about
1:41:49 that yeah on I'm not sure how that
1:41:57 um affected agency input that it would
1:42:00 be the same time that we would
1:42:01 have uh go back to requester community
1:42:06 as far as input this is what we're
1:42:08 thinking of to see if that's in line
1:42:09 with what they were
1:42:13 thinking anyone else have thoughts on
1:42:16 that whether it's just going to that one
1:42:19 person or going to know larger group of
1:42:23 people within the
1:42:32 community it depend I just think it's so
1:42:35 context
1:42:36 sensitive just
1:42:42 ESS yeah there's no
1:42:44 other
1:42:47 stra so if there's no
1:42:50 other thoughts on this I guess in that
1:42:54 I'm also happy with plan support being
1:42:56 in there as it is just
1:42:59 because we kind of want to make sure
1:43:01 that it is going through you know
1:43:04 expeditiously and that we're not
1:43:07 constantly pounding Community with like
1:43:11 hey respond to this respond to this
1:43:12 respond to this just need to have one
1:43:14 kind of finality situation so I think
1:43:18 that's appropriate um but no one else is
1:43:23 any other thoughts I think did you get
1:43:26 what you wanted
1:43:30 John I did I think I have one more SL
1:43:33 yep just next steps um thank you
1:43:36 everybody I really appreciate your
1:43:37 conversation this evening it's been
1:43:39 great as as usual um and thank you John
1:43:44 Mortenson
1:43:46 for for stepping with your engineering
1:43:49 Acumen and experience I always
1:43:50 appreciate that um so next steps uh
1:43:54 basically through December I'm going to
1:43:56 be working on all these documents and
1:43:59 folding it up together into a nice
1:44:01 package um and then I am scheduled to go
1:44:03 to Mobility infrastructure in September
1:44:06 and City Council in October um hoping we
1:44:10 can get this get this adopted by the end
1:44:12 of the year is the
1:44:14 goal one more uh Tom here is on 4B you
1:44:18 have temporary devices maybe maybe
1:44:21 installed just maybe
1:44:26 inst at engineering staff discretion
1:44:31 yes um I guess we didn't we didn't talk
1:44:33 about temporary
1:44:35 devices
1:44:39 may can you repeat that
1:44:41 sorry it's maybe it was repeated twice
1:44:46 inor maybe or maybe still you know in
1:44:50 design doesn't have uh grammar
1:44:52 Corrections so uh that's why I'll fix
1:45:00 there okay well in this C in that case
1:45:04 we can move on to the ports um and start
1:45:09 with the well we just covered the board
1:45:11 work plan um so we'll go to the
1:45:16 staffs I don't think I have anything
1:45:20 specific this month um then a work plan
1:45:24 Thomas is coming back next month oh I
1:45:27 guess that is kind of part of the work
1:45:28 part of the staff report so I think I
1:45:31 mentioned last meeting we weren't sure
1:45:32 about an August meeting so as you saw in
1:45:34 the work plan we are going to move
1:45:36 forward with an August meeting uh
1:45:39 assuming we can make a quorum um I I
1:45:43 think we have enough people now that
1:45:44 that will be more likely but um so yeah
1:45:46 so we're going to be moving forward with
1:45:48 uh an August stab meeting I don't think
1:45:50 I have anything else beyond that
1:45:53 okay great thank you um chair report I
1:45:58 don't have anything to report um and
1:46:01 there's no Youth and so any other
1:46:05 business or
1:46:08 announcements
1:46:14 yeah I have anything
1:46:21 I good um and then other business and
1:46:29 announcements and well in that case we
1:46:31 will adjourn at 750 yes yeah