Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, August 28, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 24, 2024

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:20 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-24-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. July 24, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Mobility Master Plan (MMP) Update

Discussion · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.5–431

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:36 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration is requesting Board feedback on proposed updates to the Mobility Master Plan (MMP) to better align the plan to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element. The Administration has the following questions for the Board to consider:

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2357 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ good evening everyone uh this is julan

0:08 ↗ mid this is the transportation advisery

0:10 ↗ board meeting for August 28th we're

0:13 ↗ going to started at 6:05

0:16 ↗ pm. and we will kick off with an

0:20 ↗ approval of the minutes um of the July

0:24 ↗ minut there any comments or suggested

0:28 ↗ revisions um

0:30 ↗ let me

0:33 ↗ know there's

0:37 ↗ none in that case we will

0:41 ↗ unanimously pass these minutes by

0:45 ↗ consent okay and now we will move on to

0:49 ↗ public comments um I'll note we can

0:53 ↗ start with this email that we received a

0:56 ↗ couple days ago from Connie Marsh she

0:59 ↗ I'm just highlighting a couple of the

1:01 ↗ topics she uh wrote about in there um

1:04 ↗ terms of synthesizing the parts of

1:06 ↗ Mobility plans together um you know walk

1:10 ↗ on experience you discussed walking

1:12 ↗ experience and destination

1:15 ↗ walking that into um our clients so we

1:19 ↗ encourage everyone to read that if they

1:22 ↗ haven't

1:24 ↗ already but

1:26 ↗ now online there's new online online

1:31 ↗ okay there's no one in here so at that

1:34 ↗ point we will get started with the

1:36 ↗ regular business um and item there is

1:39 ↗ mobility Master Plan

1:41 ↗ update get started

1:55 ↗ that thank you chair um hello everyone

1:59 ↗ my name is Thomas shz I think I've met

2:01 ↗ most of you by now um but I'm the senior

2:04 ↗ planner at isqua and I will be talking

2:07 ↗ about the mobility Master Plan

2:10 ↗ update so I here to get your feedback on

2:14 ↗ the proposed updates to the mobility

2:15 ↗ master plan and I have a couple

2:18 ↗ questions first just wanting to get your

2:21 ↗ feedback on if the proposed changes to

2:23 ↗ the implementation actions um are

2:26 ↗ agreeable to the board this is part of

2:29 ↗ the pack as attachment Fe and second

2:32 ↗ question is are there any additional

2:34 ↗ changes that theard would like to

2:38 ↗ see just to

2:41 ↗ summarize uh at a very high level the

2:44 ↗ first thing you'll notice is that the

2:46 ↗ proposed uh document we're proposing a

2:49 ↗ change the DAT this is related to many

2:52 ↗ discussions that we've had internally um

2:55 ↗ as isqua staff but also it's been

2:57 ↗ brought up by the equity board um making

2:59 ↗ sure that that we are uh using words

3:02 ↗ correctly um that we're not uh sort of

3:06 ↗ uh using words that have other meanings

3:09 ↗ and might uh be considered uh that form

3:13 ↗ uh so the name itself we're proposing to

3:16 ↗ update um and this is just sort of

3:17 ↗ aligned with best practices being

3:19 ↗ inclusive in this squa um second we're

3:22 ↗ hoping to just do some minor updates to

3:25 ↗ housekeeping uh items um you know the

3:28 ↗ the document was last updated a couple

3:29 ↗ years ago so imagine there's just been

3:31 ↗ some little changes that we need to to

3:34 ↗ meet make to to tweak the document um

3:37 ↗ we've updated our existing and future

3:40 ↗ conditions analysis a lot of this was

3:42 ↗ related to the transit study um and sort

3:44 ↗ of uh knowing more about what Transit is

3:47 ↗ going to look like in the near term in

3:48 ↗ the future um and sort of access to

3:51 ↗ Transit there's also revisions uh mostly

3:55 ↗ related to the implementation actions as

3:57 ↗ part of attachment B these are related

4:00 ↗ to Transit and Equity sustainability and

4:04 ↗ climate resiliency these are all topics

4:06 ↗ that we brought to the board in October

4:09 ↗ um as part of the transportation element

4:11 ↗ discussions so these are sort of flowing

4:13 ↗ um from from the Transportation element

4:16 ↗ and then are actions that we're hoping

4:19 ↗ to

4:21 ↗ propose there's new updates to the

4:23 ↗ transportation element goals and

4:24 ↗ policies that we uh you know mentioned

4:27 ↗ back in October this board had that

4:29 ↗ opport to provide feedback on um so we

4:32 ↗ we're literally just like referencing

4:34 ↗ that document um which is this document

4:37 ↗ implements the

4:39 ↗ lad excuse

4:46 ↗ me then finally um amendments to the

4:50 ↗ actions just to better Implement that

4:52 ↗ transation

4:54 ↗ element so jumping right in um I think

4:58 ↗ I'm going to defer to the chair on this

4:59 ↗ one but my my goal here is just to go

5:02 ↗ Slide by

5:03 ↗ slide um and really go through each of

5:07 ↗ these actions and then I'll pause and I

5:09 ↗ think if the chair is avable to that we

5:11 ↗ can just stop there and then we'll get

5:13 ↗ uh board feedback so okay so just right

5:18 ↗ off the bat the title um the intention

5:22 ↗ of changing the name of the document is

5:24 ↗ just to reduce unintentional harm the

5:27 ↗ word Master is has negative con ations

5:30 ↗ uh to many folks so we're just trying to

5:33 ↗ use more inclusive language here um

5:36 ↗ implementation uh really does say what

5:39 ↗ the document adds uh so we feel that the

5:42 ↗ title change uh just implementation

5:45 ↗ instead of master um sort of speaks for

5:48 ↗ itself and um just reduces uh words that

5:52 ↗ have double meanings and negative

5:54 ↗ connotations yeah I have a question

5:56 ↗ about both that one and stakeholders as

5:59 ↗ far as

6:00 ↗ um data supporting that and what it's

6:03 ↗ changing as opposed to master time and

6:07 ↗ master tram those are all from an

6:09 ↗ engineering standpoint you know kind of

6:11 ↗ a the lead one and so I

6:16 ↗ feel

6:18 ↗ um I just get conern we change some much

6:21 ↗ language of certain words

6:24 ↗ without and maybe I'm picking on one

6:26 ↗ that's simple but just changing words

6:29 ↗ because someone might think it is as

6:30 ↗ opposed to might be more database as far

6:33 ↗ as

6:36 ↗ what yeah and it is really hard like um

6:39 ↗ in the project management field which is

6:42 ↗ a whole field in its own like that word

6:44 ↗ stakeholder is just that is everywhere

6:46 ↗ um and it's something that I am trying

6:49 ↗ to unlearn myself uh

6:51 ↗ but uh these words to certain uh people

6:55 ↗ that live in the community really do uh

6:59 ↗ it creates like a negative feeling and

7:02 ↗ in many ways it just like it's one of

7:04 ↗ it's one of many little microaggressions

7:06 ↗ that prevents someone from like actually

7:08 ↗ engaging with the community or like the

7:10 ↗ government that is supposed to serve

7:12 ↗ them so uh yeah there's a couple

7:15 ↗ instances that I've highlighted

7:16 ↗ throughout the document and I'm glad

7:17 ↗ that you caught that because that was

7:18 ↗ probably in page 400 or something um but

7:21 ↗ yeah like the these words uh there

7:23 ↗ there's a couple instances where we did

7:25 ↗ catch that um and we've done a lot lot

7:29 ↗ of work uh in the equity space and we're

7:31 ↗ just trying to like really Implement

7:33 ↗ that starting in the document level and

7:36 ↗ then hopefully like these words will

7:38 ↗ like transform into actions that we take

7:40 ↗ later so um yeah we're just trying to be

7:43 ↗ choice we're trying to use our words

7:45 ↗ carefully um and that really just starts

7:47 ↗ with like the documents that are sort of

7:49 ↗ finding what we're doing but I do

7:51 ↗ acknowledge that yeah that word that

7:54 ↗ word is like it is useful in many ways

7:56 ↗ but we can find other words to say the

7:58 ↗ same thing

8:10 ↗ yeah that's a good question

8:13 ↗ um yeah there's I want to say that

8:17 ↗ Seattle does this um I think King County

8:19 ↗ does this as well um I am very much a

8:23 ↗ transportation planner and like I do my

8:26 ↗ best to like keep up to date in this but

8:28 ↗ uh this is like I'm just trying to

8:30 ↗ implement it in my own way um so I know

8:33 ↗ that we have an equity board so maybe I

8:34 ↗ can bring that to them next week when I

8:36 ↗ talk to them and like sort of see who

8:38 ↗ else is doing this um but it is a best

8:40 ↗ practice and my understanding is that

8:42 ↗ we're all doing our best to like be more

8:45 ↗ inclusive

8:48 ↗ yeah uh was did this come did this

8:51 ↗ request for Equity board from out in the

8:55 ↗ community or like inter sta yeah so

9:00 ↗ I think I think the way I would answer

9:02 ↗ that is uh so staff internally we have

9:05 ↗ an equity team which I'm a part of uh

9:10 ↗ and part of the team created a glossery

9:13 ↗ of words that are considered harmful um

9:17 ↗ that was brought to the equity board I

9:19 ↗ believe in like April or May or

9:20 ↗ something so they've had that

9:22 ↗ opportunity to like comment on it um I

9:25 ↗ think it's

9:26 ↗ nearly uh approved or maybe it is

9:28 ↗ approved at this Point um but this is

9:30 ↗ really like the first document that

9:33 ↗ we're like sort of using the glossery in

9:37 ↗ so I expect this to flow into other

9:40 ↗ documents but this I guess this is

9:41 ↗ probably the first one that we're

9:44 ↗ doing so I consider myself pretty

9:47 ↗ sensitive to the language I use and I

9:49 ↗ try and be very thoughtful and I'm open

9:52 ↗ to hearing things something came out

9:54 ↗ work probably two years ago about not to

9:57 ↗ talk about something as a final solution

9:59 ↗ right

9:59 ↗ I'm Jewish I'm not bothered by that at

10:02 ↗ all I recognize some people may be some

10:03 ↗ people are not but the the people that

10:05 ↗ were doing this they're not Jewish

10:08 ↗ they're not they're just like oh we read

10:10 ↗ on something this is not a good thing to

10:12 ↗ use and it's

10:15 ↗ like in every other connotation it means

10:20 ↗ you know you've worked on a bunch of

10:21 ↗ solutions this is the final one you're

10:22 ↗ going right uh and so

10:27 ↗ I'm I consider myself I go out of my way

10:31 ↗ to be thoughtful about the language I

10:32 ↗ use but I I also recognize sometimes

10:35 ↗ you're just looking for problems and I'm

10:38 ↗ honestly kind of disturbed that our city

10:40 ↗ spent so long even talking about it it's

10:42 ↗ like change the word okay like okay

10:45 ↗ whatever like it doesn't it doesn't

10:47 ↗ matter it's the title I can't believe

10:48 ↗ we've been talking about it now and I'm

10:49 ↗ talking about it it's like I disagree

10:52 ↗ that that that's not even the the

10:55 ↗ history of the word I just looked it up

10:57 ↗ it's teaching is actually history of it

11:00 ↗ but if it's more welcoming to people use

11:02 ↗ different word fine I just don't think

11:05 ↗ there needs to be discussion just like

11:07 ↗ okay implementation good let's talk

11:10 ↗ about the content which is what

11:14 ↗ actually secondo to move on yeah yeah I

11:18 ↗ mean I think we can move

11:21 ↗ on discussion of this you I think there

11:24 ↗ is totally you know negative connotation

11:27 ↗ um about master I mean it l does Come

11:32 ↗ From Slavery it's

11:34 ↗ not I

11:36 ↗ me it's can be ConEd with that lots of

11:41 ↗ things can be ConEd with a lot of things

11:43 ↗ but I think implementation is is

11:45 ↗ something that's you know more neutral

11:47 ↗ obviously and actually is what we're

11:49 ↗ trying to do with this plan which is

11:52 ↗ actionable master plan justes off this

11:55 ↗ okay this is

11:57 ↗ just overline plan

12:00 ↗ and but implementation is something that

12:02 ↗ actually has an actionable word with it

12:04 ↗ and I think it's just a better word to

12:07 ↗ use that and so that uh and stakeholder

12:11 ↗ I was surprised about stakeholder for

12:13 ↗ example but I think all this just

12:17 ↗ evolving process for

12:20 ↗ learning unlearning as well just one

12:22 ↗ last comment I think implementation is

12:24 ↗ good I just think the reason for master

12:26 ↗ might be connotated bad like we start

12:28 ↗ piing words right left has a bad meaning

12:31 ↗ stakeholders is kind of overused term

12:33 ↗ but it really means who has a state as

12:35 ↗ parties doesn't have that same so the

12:38 ↗ reason for doing it I think that could

12:40 ↗ be a discussion but the reason for doing

12:43 ↗ that is concerned as far

12:45 ↗ as people might think word means when

12:48 ↗ 90% of the other people it's the basic

12:51 ↗ conation something so that's

12:53 ↗ implementation implementation I think is

12:55 ↗ good as far

12:57 ↗ as just the reason we got to it always

12:59 ↗ amazes me when someone uses the word for

13:02 ↗ a really long time and all of a sudden

13:04 ↗ it's like oh I actually had a

13:06 ↗ problem to me that says they didn't have

13:09 ↗ a problem up there they're just trying

13:11 ↗ to follow what someone else has problem

13:17 ↗ so I think we

13:23 ↗ can0

13:25 ↗ about but we can I think it safe to well

13:29 ↗ okay sounds great um so first action uh

13:34 ↗ 1.1 uh this is basically making it a a

13:39 ↗ more actionable uh action so you know

13:44 ↗ previously we didn't talk about when

13:46 ↗ evaluations would be done we're just

13:47 ↗ saying annually we should look at

13:49 ↗ evaluations so pretty straightforward um

13:53 ↗ just trying to make sure that we can

13:54 ↗ sort of track these things in the future

13:57 ↗ and we know when we're going to be doing

13:59 ↗ them when it's expected to be done um

14:03 ↗ the second one is just adding a word

14:06 ↗ Improvement um so just making it clear

14:08 ↗ this is related to Transportation

14:10 ↗ Improvement

14:12 ↗ projects

14:14 ↗ 1.1.3 is related uh to a new action

14:18 ↗ which is a annual Collision monitoring

14:20 ↗ monitoring report um so a new action but

14:23 ↗ again just to support um tracking and

14:26 ↗ implementation um making sure that we're

14:27 ↗ being transparent when uh with data um

14:30 ↗ and just better supporting how we're

14:33 ↗ thinking about um collisions that happen

14:35 ↗ throughout the

14:37 ↗ city about that

14:40 ↗ one the

14:48 ↗ traffic yeah they're they're they're

14:51 ↗ related in a sort of adjacent way um so

14:55 ↗ collisions would sort of support uh a

15:00 ↗ traffic calming program um that's that

15:02 ↗ someone from the community is asking for

15:04 ↗ so if uh you know someone from the

15:06 ↗ community says hey I'd really like

15:08 ↗ something to be done here um collisions

15:10 ↗ would be part of that like um uh

15:14 ↗ analysis of you know thinking about what

15:16 ↗ what to do so if there's a if there's a

15:18 ↗ collision here and the primary factor

15:21 ↗ for that Collision was like speeding

15:23 ↗ that would be another consideration

15:25 ↗ versus like if it was something else so

15:27 ↗ yeah

15:31 ↗ and then the the next three are related

15:33 ↗ to Vision zero uh these are really minor

15:36 ↗ updates and it's uh mostly just to

15:39 ↗ improve uh how it reads reducing some

15:43 ↗ redundancies um and the last part is

15:46 ↗ about a banal U report so that's just

15:50 ↗ sort

15:52 ↗ of more clear what the intention is with

15:55 ↗ that so um there's an inter between the

16:00 ↗ one3 theion Monitor and the vision zero

16:04 ↗ yeah where in order to be effective in

16:08 ↗ reducing the the

16:10 ↗ casualties injuries we need to know

16:13 ↗ causes we need to know whether these

16:16 ↗ things are going going to be impacted by

16:18 ↗ any actions that we take should that be

16:21 ↗ more explicit weing those together where

16:23 ↗ the report is going to tell us enough

16:26 ↗ information so that we can make

16:28 ↗ effective

16:31 ↗ actions yeah so like you're saying uh

16:34 ↗ you know what do we do with the data

16:35 ↗ once we have it yeah so as I read

16:37 ↗ through the VIS zero aspects there's a

16:39 ↗ lot of that that is somebody has an

16:41 ↗ accident kind of doesn't matter if

16:43 ↗ they're you know drunk night or you know

16:46 ↗ there's a really dangerous slick road

16:49 ↗ that people die on one AR rigns and

16:52 ↗ those are VAR different causes that are

16:53 ↗ going to be impacted differently by

16:55 ↗ actions that we take right so

16:59 ↗ those things together maybe the feeding

17:01 ↗ met into the actions that we take for

17:03 ↗ visioner yeah we can do that yeah yeah

17:16 ↗ okay any other comments for this

17:23 ↗ slide moving on

17:26 ↗ 1.3.1 um so this is related to the

17:30 ↗ traffic calming program uh this is just

17:34 ↗ pretty minor update um just making clear

17:36 ↗ that uh reporting would be by anual

17:42 ↗ um and sort of the the result of that

17:46 ↗ would be part of the transportation

17:48 ↗ Improvement program um which we do every

17:52 ↗ year um after that we have a new action

17:57 ↗ this is related to speed limit setting

17:59 ↗ um so

18:01 ↗ um just sort of thinking about you know

18:04 ↗ traffic calming and like sort of

18:07 ↗ establishing safer vehicle speeds uh one

18:10 ↗ action could be that we take a look at

18:13 ↗ the speed limits that we do have and

18:15 ↗ sort of think about the context and and

18:18 ↗ sort of what the overall priorities of

18:20 ↗ the street are relative to um how

18:24 ↗ streets function throughout the city so

18:27 ↗ yes you could finish your say that's

18:30 ↗ that's raason sure yeah so um you know

18:33 ↗ just I I drove over here from City Hall

18:36 ↗ and one thing that I noticed as I was

18:37 ↗ sort of thinking about my presentation

18:40 ↗ um was Newport how there's like a school

18:42 ↗ zone right um and so During certain

18:44 ↗ times a day you're supposed to drive

18:46 ↗ slower because there's children present

18:48 ↗ and that's sort of an example of like

18:49 ↗ how the context and the speed limit are

18:52 ↗ sort of related um

18:54 ↗ so that that is like a pretty

18:56 ↗ wellestablished thing that the state

18:58 ↗ requires is like the the school zone um

19:01 ↗ but that's just sort of an example of

19:03 ↗ like ways we can think about how the

19:05 ↗ speed limits are set throughout the city

19:07 ↗ um if we want to prioritize uh you know

19:11 ↗ access to uh you know a facility like

19:15 ↗ near someone's home or we want to really

19:17 ↗ prioritize like uh throughput and like

19:20 ↗ you know getting goods from here to

19:22 ↗ there so just another sort of thing that

19:26 ↗ we could look at is like how speed

19:29 ↗ limits are set and if they're aligned

19:30 ↗ with our greater

19:33 ↗ goals so my question was when I read

19:35 ↗ this it almost makes it sound like our

19:37 ↗ current speed limit setting policies

19:39 ↗ don't prioritize the C to people I'm

19:42 ↗ just curious like do we not do that

19:45 ↗ already yeah I would say that speed

19:47 ↗ limits um so they're set I think this

19:51 ↗ was mentioned maybe at the last meeting

19:52 ↗ like we looked the 85th percentile speed

19:55 ↗ and like that sort of dictates uh you

19:57 ↗ know there's reduction factors you can

19:59 ↗ add to that but like it's really sort of

20:03 ↗ hard and fast like this is how people

20:05 ↗ are driving right now and then you can

20:08 ↗ reduce it based on the context but maybe

20:11 ↗ um there's like better ways to look at

20:14 ↗ it and other cities have started to do

20:16 ↗ this in the area where like they they

20:19 ↗ have reduced uh for instance uh the

20:21 ↗ speed limits in certain areas based on

20:23 ↗ like the the needs of the area and like

20:26 ↗ what we're trying to achieve in that

20:28 ↗ area so um

20:31 ↗ yes can the city change their own speed

20:33 ↗ limits or do they have to have state

20:35 ↗ approval a great question the city

20:39 ↗ council can approve it now in order to

20:43 ↗ do it it takes traffic study or there

20:46 ↗ are certain types of streets where if

20:49 ↗ the city had a policy we could Implement

20:53 ↗ um but it all has to begin with the city

20:56 ↗ council it's the city council's policy

20:58 ↗ that we need well

21:01 ↗ it I'm going off memory because it's

21:03 ↗ been six plus months since I've read

21:05 ↗ this part but I believe if we wanted to

21:08 ↗ set the speed to 20 mil an hour on

21:12 ↗ certain residential streets that the

21:14 ↗ city council could adopt a policy for

21:18 ↗ how to go about doing that rather than

21:20 ↗ take each of those to council but if we

21:23 ↗ wanted to

21:26 ↗ isolate I just say Northwest Gilman we

21:29 ↗ wanted to change the speed limit to

21:31 ↗ whatever we'd have to do a speed study

21:34 ↗ and then have the council adopt the new

21:37 ↗ speed

21:44 ↗ limit you said like streets as example

21:48 ↗ was just Googling is basically where do

21:50 ↗ traffic

21:55 ↗ fatalities AI response is not very good

21:58 ↗ so

21:59 ↗ I'm

22:00 ↗ trusted I um is that is that like his

22:02 ↗ neighborhood streets where that's

22:05 ↗ because I guess I would have assumed it

22:06 ↗ actually wouldn't be in the neighborhood

22:08 ↗ street maybe bad assumption but I would

22:10 ↗ have assumed it would

22:12 ↗ be places where people

22:15 ↗ are be Crossing more to get to a store

22:20 ↗ or rather than just like I'm picturing

22:22 ↗ like a BAC type neighborhood street um

22:29 ↗ I guess I'm surprised that that would be

22:31 ↗ where you would have the most impact to

22:33 ↗ spe so i' expected it to be

22:36 ↗ currently higher speed streets that were

22:39 ↗ fatalities happen and therefore where a

22:41 ↗ policy would

22:44 ↗ happen yeah um to be honest there's not

22:47 ↗ too many collisions that happen

22:49 ↗ throughout the city but we do have some

22:51 ↗ um I don't know that we have enough to

22:53 ↗ like really create like a cause and

22:55 ↗ effect kind of situation um but each one

22:58 ↗ is an individual incident um and I guess

23:02 ↗ that's just part of the the thinking of

23:04 ↗ like speed limit setting is um you know

23:07 ↗ that that could make the street uh more

23:10 ↗ comfortable for biking for instance like

23:14 ↗ this is a just an example that I thought

23:16 ↗ of in the moment but if the speed limit

23:18 ↗ is 35 miles an hour and we want to have

23:24 ↗ cyclists use the facility maybe it makes

23:27 ↗ sense to reduce the speed limit because

23:31 ↗ if you're riding your bike on a 35 m per

23:33 ↗ hour Street maybe that's not super

23:34 ↗ comfortable um so there's there's other

23:37 ↗ sort of things to think about but I

23:39 ↗ think it relates to our over option

23:42 ↗ goals um for like the streets that we

23:45 ↗ have um relative to like the

23:48 ↗ transportation element um but also

23:50 ↗ within the parameters of what's possible

23:53 ↗ because speed limits are set through

23:54 ↗ like traffic engineering

24:04 ↗ um I'll just keep moving on

24:06 ↗ um the commute Tri production plan uh

24:11 ↗ 2.1.1 um this is

24:14 ↗ uh basically summarizing previously

24:17 ↗ stated items that were in the mobility

24:19 ↗ master plan um there were just a couple

24:22 ↗ here in there but uh we're currently

24:24 ↗ working on an action an action plan

24:27 ↗ specific to the commuter ction plan um

24:30 ↗ this is like a state requirement and it

24:32 ↗ has specific things that we do so this

24:34 ↗ is just pointing rather than being

24:36 ↗ redundant with our actions just say okay

24:38 ↗ look at that plan and then implement it

24:40 ↗ as it

24:43 ↗ says in case other folks don't know

24:46 ↗ particulars you go through a little bit

24:48 ↗ about CTR sure um yes so the commute

24:52 ↗ trip production plan is for employers

24:54 ↗ that have over 100 employees and

24:58 ↗ basically says if you have this many

24:59 ↗ employees you should think about ways to

25:02 ↗ reduce um like commuters on the road uh

25:05 ↗ so examples of things that a CTR program

25:08 ↗ could have is like uh you know remote

25:11 ↗ work for employees or maybe instead of

25:14 ↗ having your employees show up uh like in

25:18 ↗ a world where like a business is right

25:19 ↗ next to a school you wouldn't really

25:22 ↗ want your employees to also be in that

25:24 ↗ school traffic it would just be like

25:26 ↗ crazy for for an intersection so you

25:27 ↗ could say

25:28 ↗ okay we're going to start um you know

25:30 ↗ employees will come to work like 30

25:33 ↗ minutes or a half hour or like an hour

25:35 ↗ um after school uh is is let out so

25:38 ↗ these are just like all these um ways

25:41 ↗ that we can ensure that intersections

25:44 ↗ and like the roads are functioning

25:46 ↗ properly um if you can imagine if 100

25:48 ↗ pyes all came in at once that'd be like

25:51 ↗ depending on the context that would be

25:53 ↗ really crazy uh so

25:56 ↗ UMES yeah yeah so yeah in some cities

26:00 ↗ where you know there's larger employers

26:02 ↗ uh you know they provide shuttles like

26:04 ↗ we've seen the Microsoft connector

26:06 ↗ that's a CTR program type thing um where

26:09 ↗ it picks up people that live in

26:12 ↗ different

26:13 ↗ areas so we have a CTR program

26:17 ↗ throughout the city um and we implement

26:19 ↗ it and the actions that we do would be

26:22 ↗ part of that

26:23 ↗ plan so since there's so much uh traffic

26:28 ↗ impact in

26:30 ↗ CTR is that something we're reviewing on

26:32 ↗ this board the CTR

26:35 ↗ plan and is it in scope for this

26:38 ↗ discussion like the details of the CTR

26:39 ↗ plan yes that is my plan yeah because

26:43 ↗ I'm I'm the CTR foring um so I uh I'm

26:47 ↗ actually in the midst of uh writing a

26:49 ↗ four-year plan which the state has never

26:51 ↗ mandated before so we're starting

26:53 ↗ scratch um and I will be I'm in the

26:57 ↗ midst of figuring out exactly what

26:58 ↗ public engagement I need to be doing

27:00 ↗ because there's some legally required

27:02 ↗ public engagement so tab is on list of

27:06 ↗ stops so so we pull a few elements of

27:08 ↗ CTR just the organization of it

27:11 ↗ into this master implementation PL sorry

27:14 ↗ not master

27:16 ↗ Mobility I'll learn one of

27:19 ↗ these do do we want to dig into more of

27:22 ↗ those details like do we want to pull

27:24 ↗ out things like uh reducing length of

27:27 ↗ commute by studying the impacts and

27:29 ↗ proposing changes to things like zoning

27:33 ↗ or things that impact so that sort of

27:36 ↗ spans beyond the reach of what the plan

27:39 ↗ is for it's it's really like we don't

27:41 ↗ want

27:42 ↗ to we don't want to prevent someone from

27:44 ↗ doing business here but we do want to

27:47 ↗ say within reason like these are some

27:50 ↗ legitimate things that you can do for

27:53 ↗ your business that also have the mutual

27:55 ↗ benefit of like reducing traffic so we

27:57 ↗ don't want to say like

27:58 ↗ okay like you can't come and do business

28:01 ↗ here because like we don't like the way

28:03 ↗ that you are doing your business but it

28:06 ↗ could just be um well your employees

28:09 ↗ need a way to get to work and like uh

28:12 ↗ the state requires you to think about

28:15 ↗ this and you have a menu of options that

28:17 ↗ you can choose from so like pick pick

28:19 ↗ the one that best fits your needs and

28:22 ↗ your employees

28:24 ↗ needs trip production is also secures

28:28 ↗ like we provided

28:29 ↗ showers we build showers in our building

28:31 ↗ so people could buy the bikes bike area

28:33 ↗ and shower so they could actually buy

28:34 ↗ the so get

28:37 ↗ people alternate modes whether it's the

28:39 ↗ timing of the

28:42 ↗ day and I think it' be hard to I mean

28:45 ↗ interesting com I how you can take traic

28:49 ↗ I mean

28:50 ↗ versus ride a bike and take them off the

28:53 ↗ road get

28:55 ↗ alled yeah I was thinking about like the

28:59 ↗ U smart growth aspects where you know if

29:01 ↗ you're combining the the zoning

29:04 ↗ residential commercial you're going to

29:07 ↗ naturally reduce some of commute tax

29:09 ↗ from that commute distances and so if

29:11 ↗ those aspects should show up in this

29:13 ↗ plan or not I didn't really see them in

29:16 ↗ there but it seems like that can be

29:18 ↗ relevant that's uh that's also beyond

29:21 ↗ the scope of CTR so the way the

29:24 ↗ CTR law works is uh the term is good

29:28 ↗ Faith efforts we have to work with these

29:29 ↗ companies these work sites that have

29:31 ↗ over 100 employees and we have to make

29:33 ↗ contact with them they're required to

29:35 ↗ survey their employees every two years

29:37 ↗ we're required to get a program report

29:38 ↗ from them and that's about it there's uh

29:42 ↗ there's no actual like threshold you

29:44 ↗ must reduce X by every two years it's

29:48 ↗ more just the uh the tracking and

29:51 ↗ working with me to see what kind of uh

29:56 ↗ things they can do but if they if they

29:58 ↗ choose not to we can't go after them per

30:02 ↗ se but we can talk to them which you

30:06 ↗ know for better for worse how successful

30:08 ↗ does that me it's pretty it's it's

30:11 ↗ relatively successful um even just

30:13 ↗ raising wareness uh goes a long way um

30:17 ↗ so yeah I have I have good working

30:19 ↗ relationships with those companies

30:21 ↗ there's there's some motivation built in

30:22 ↗ for employees there they employees want

30:26 ↗ shorter communs more

30:29 ↗ efficient this is one way to achieve it

30:31 ↗ how many work sites in have more we have

30:35 ↗ eight at the moment yeah our largest is

30:38 ↗ Costco with 1,700

30:41 ↗ employees and they have a really high in

30:43 ↗ office requirement so traffic you see is

30:48 ↗ a large part of

30:50 ↗ them parking Interruption so

30:53 ↗ anyway oh we don't want to interrupt

30:56 ↗ their economic activity because them are

30:59 ↗ going to hurt the city far far more than

31:01 ↗ making someone happy because they got

31:03 ↗ extra so I think it's I think it's good

31:06 ↗ I think encouraging them finding

31:09 ↗ guidance meing them I think those are

31:10 ↗ all really

31:13 ↗ positive yeah we just as an anote then

31:15 ↗ I'll keep moving um we did a bike to

31:18 ↗ work day event at Costco two years ago

31:20 ↗ uh so we bring it to them and like we

31:23 ↗ we're doing what we can um and but again

31:27 ↗ like Costco

31:28 ↗ uh the way that they've structured their

31:30 ↗ business it just doesn't work the same

31:33 ↗ way that like we might think we we could

31:37 ↗ have a mutual benefit but like we're

31:39 ↗ just continuing those conversations and

31:40 ↗ we certainly don't want to like have

31:42 ↗ them stop what they're doing so yeah

31:46 ↗ um uh so this is yeah just going back to

31:49 ↗ what we're talking about um CTR program

31:51 ↗ uh we have an action plan that uh we're

31:54 ↗ developing

31:56 ↗ um and then

31:58 ↗ the second one is related to

32:01 ↗ transportation management plans these

32:03 ↗ are for private development

32:06 ↗ um sometimes a development comes in

32:09 ↗ and for instance they might bring a lot

32:13 ↗ of trips so let's take for example an

32:15 ↗ apartment building that has 200 units um

32:20 ↗ if that if that comes into Central isqua

32:23 ↗ it might trigger um some improvements

32:26 ↗ that might be needed so one way to

32:30 ↗ reduce the burden of a Development

32:32 ↗ coming in is to say okay well you can

32:35 ↗ reduce how many people are likely going

32:38 ↗ to pass through an intersection by um

32:41 ↗ managing it in these ways and there's a

32:45 ↗ we we currently do this so it's not

32:46 ↗ really a new thing but um I just have

32:48 ↗ relocated it here um and it's yeah it's

32:52 ↗ just something that is very successful

32:54 ↗ in making sure that the transportation

32:57 ↗ Network continues used to operate um

32:59 ↗ efficiently as an example did wasn't

33:01 ↗ that done with Costco corporate like

33:03 ↗ when they moved their headquarters

33:04 ↗ wasn't there a bunch of like renovation

33:07 ↗ and uh like making the that area more

33:12 ↗ robust Transportation wise yeah that's

33:14 ↗ related so they um there's development

33:16 ↗ agreements which is basically you have

33:18 ↗ the you have the area that you're going

33:19 ↗ to develop and as a condition of getting

33:23 ↗ uh the ability to build it uh we say

33:26 ↗ okay well you actually need road because

33:29 ↗ uh there's going to be a lot of trips

33:31 ↗ coming here lots lots of people getting

33:33 ↗ to work so we need a new road uh to help

33:36 ↗ you um but also to make sure that the

33:38 ↗ other roads that are existing aren't

33:40 ↗ like completely congested and not useful

33:46 ↗ anymore um cool so continuing

33:53 ↗ on mature production uh so there's two

33:57 ↗ new actions related to commun production

34:00 ↗ and uh trans Transportation demand

34:03 ↗ management

34:04 ↗ um these are just uh they're really

34:08 ↗ inclusive of previously listed actions

34:10 ↗ um but so the first one is ensuring that

34:13 ↗ the program is compliant with state

34:15 ↗ requirements that's sort of uh that's

34:18 ↗ sort of the reason why we have the CTR

34:20 ↗ program and then the other one is Mak

34:22 ↗ sure to collaborate and like sort of

34:24 ↗ sharing learnings and um you know

34:26 ↗ acknowledging that other C cities have

34:28 ↗ uh commute your production plans and if

34:31 ↗ there's ways to improve efficiencies and

34:33 ↗ Effectiveness

34:35 ↗ um super minor but looks like TDM that's

34:39 ↗ the first time you Ed that acronym so

34:41 ↗ okay yeah

34:55 ↗ sure and then

34:58 ↗ 2.3.1 uh incorporating climate

35:01 ↗ considerations into infrastructure

35:03 ↗ evaluation and

35:04 ↗ prioritization this is something that uh

35:08 ↗ I believe the tab looked at in the

35:10 ↗ previous Transportation Improvement and

35:12 ↗ process um is just uh you know

35:15 ↗ incorporating climate

35:18 ↗ into how we plan and like build projects

35:22 ↗ do you want to call out then the CIP

35:24 ↗ instead of just saying climate

35:28 ↗ I don't I don't know it seems like

35:30 ↗ climate might just be like a depending

35:33 ↗ on how much you're going to use this

35:34 ↗ document to be like it says this I must

35:38 ↗ now do this I you know want you have a

35:42 ↗ plan for how to address climate so

35:45 ↗ yeah yeah we could do that so you're

35:48 ↗ saying like within that phrase uh

35:50 ↗ Capital

35:52 ↗ Improvement plan instead of just saying

35:55 ↗ infrastructure generally oh no I

35:59 ↗ climate sorry sorry

36:03 ↗ wrong yeah just call calling out city

36:07 ↗ has that

36:08 ↗ so what else think that's yeah I was

36:12 ↗ gonna say that it's it does seem a

36:14 ↗ little bit vague like incorporating

36:17 ↗ climate considerations is yeah very very

36:20 ↗ vague that doesn't actually tell me

36:21 ↗ anything about what is going to happen

36:23 ↗ and having a reference of like we don't

36:25 ↗ have space for that in this document

36:27 ↗ there's another that says what we're

36:28 ↗ going to do that is very good okay

36:32 ↗ yeah um and then yeah the last one on

36:35 ↗ this slide is evaluating critical needs

36:38 ↗ for alternative transportation Network

36:40 ↗ projects um so this is a requirement

36:43 ↗ that we have but we have a comprehensive

36:45 ↗ emergency management plan um and so one

36:48 ↗ of the things that we're doing currently

36:50 ↗ is we're considering if there's a

36:52 ↗ wildfire in the city like sort of what

36:56 ↗ how that might play out and things we

36:58 ↗ can do to like better plan for that um

37:00 ↗ so this is that's sort of related to

37:02 ↗ this is um looking to see if there's

37:06 ↗ other Transportation Network projects

37:08 ↗ that could um support

37:12 ↗ evacuation quicker in like yeah like

37:15 ↗ alternative transportation doesn't mean

37:17 ↗ like bus and stuff like that it could be

37:19 ↗ yeah yeah it could be that um it could

37:21 ↗ be like if there's a

37:24 ↗ um you know if he lives in the mountains

37:27 ↗ uh

37:28 ↗ if if there was like a fire access road

37:30 ↗ that could be opened up like if if oh

37:33 ↗ for like firefighting right so if if

37:35 ↗ that could be opened up and potentially

37:37 ↗ used as for anybody if if you lived on

37:40 ↗ the top of the mountain and you could

37:41 ↗ use that to get out that would be like a

37:43 ↗ quicker so alternative H can mean many

37:47 ↗ things but it could be like coordinating

37:49 ↗ with King County Metro like to get buses

37:52 ↗ like rushed over here or you know just

37:54 ↗ all these all these other ways yeah um

37:58 ↗ is this to point oh I guess it'll be on

38:01 ↗ next slide for the emergency

38:04 ↗ transportation fire work yes yeah yeah

38:08 ↗ so just to sort of stop here um I think

38:11 ↗ I received a couple comments here but

38:12 ↗ any other

38:14 ↗ lasts for

38:21 ↗ this are right like it's very real

38:24 ↗ reality that as like dry fire um and I

38:28 ↗ know that this has been I'm just seen it

38:30 ↗ like you know Highland Facebook group

38:33 ↗ things like that like like big concerns

38:35 ↗ about there the higher up you go the

38:37 ↗ hill on the islands that like kind of

38:39 ↗ the more limited your like exit route

38:43 ↗ is yeah very very important very timely

38:46 ↗ right

38:49 ↗ um there's already plant for other sorts

38:52 ↗ of disasters like I think probably

38:56 ↗ Wildfire is the most likely we also live

38:58 ↗ in an earthquake so yeah yeah the the

39:02 ↗ document the comprehensive emergency

39:03 ↗ management plan um it talks about

39:05 ↗ generally the things that we would do

39:07 ↗ the actions that we would take um but

39:10 ↗ actively we are looking specifically at

39:13 ↗ a wildfire event

39:16 ↗ um I I don't really work in the space of

39:19 ↗ like Emergency Management but I I do

39:21 ↗ know that like there is there is a

39:23 ↗ desire to just prepare generally and

39:25 ↗ like yes fires are like the most likely

39:28 ↗ this

39:36 ↗ area

39:47 ↗ house

39:49 ↗ okay um so moving on

39:52 ↗ 2.3.3 uh this is a emergency

39:54 ↗ transportation provider Network um this

39:57 ↗ something that we don't currently do but

39:59 ↗ uh we are planning on uh joining it's

40:03 ↗ basically like a mutual Aid situation

40:05 ↗ with uh

40:07 ↗ Transportation uh providers um and this

40:10 ↗ would just yeah be like coordinating

40:12 ↗ buses or like um if there's you know

40:16 ↗ vans that are available this could be

40:19 ↗ just like other cities helping the city

40:22 ↗ that's currently affected by something

40:25 ↗ um so kind of scared to think about but

40:27 ↗ like we do need to be thinking about uh

40:31 ↗ you know how we support uh others in a

40:35 ↗ like extreme weather event or an

40:37 ↗ emergency so this is

40:39 ↗ um not something that I typically dwell

40:42 ↗ on too much but we do need to be

40:43 ↗ thinking about this and there's a plan

40:46 ↗ that we update every five years it's

40:47 ↗ sort of related to

40:49 ↗ that natural to the

40:52 ↗ rescue you know it it unfortunately it

40:55 ↗ could happen so

41:04 ↗ yeah great so this next set of four

41:08 ↗ these are all brand new

41:10 ↗ um the first one is about collecting

41:15 ↗ data and then the second one's about

41:17 ↗ using that data for

41:19 ↗ maps and then partnering with uh federal

41:23 ↗ agencies um state and local emergency

41:26 ↗ management teams and then um that fourth

41:29 ↗ one is related to that study I was

41:31 ↗ talking about

41:32 ↗ so this is specific to wildfires

41:37 ↗ um but yeah we certainly want to be

41:39 ↗ thinking about ways that we can

41:41 ↗ adequately evacuate um in the in the

41:44 ↗ event that there's a hazardous event um

41:48 ↗ we want to be thinking about ways that

41:49 ↗ we can uh take care of that and like

41:53 ↗ have good strategy for that that's all

41:57 ↗ good

41:58 ↗ good um

42:00 ↗ we similar to the other ones um for the

42:05 ↗ 2.4 four would it be helpful for us to

42:09 ↗ specify like

42:11 ↗ a timing for these exercises um instead

42:16 ↗ of just saying we we exercise them some

42:19 ↗ TT it would be helpful

42:22 ↗ to do like you know we we'll do like a

42:25 ↗ mock exercise like every year or every

42:28 ↗ other

42:29 ↗ year of these

42:32 ↗ situations yeah that's a great question

42:36 ↗ um I'm not sure when this will occur I I

42:40 ↗ just don't work in this world so um you

42:43 ↗ can I I can forward the feedback but I

42:47 ↗ yeah if if you want to let me know what

42:50 ↗ you think about that and like uh sort of

42:54 ↗ um how to make you want your saying like

42:57 ↗ how do I make this more actionable and

42:59 ↗ like yeah I mean just like similar to

43:02 ↗ the other ones right say you know adding

43:05 ↗ the clarifications how often you do the

43:08 ↗ reporting and all that stuff those sort

43:11 ↗ of situations when it comes to you know

43:15 ↗ doing tactics

43:18 ↗ ofation how often should we do it it's

43:21 ↗ like every other

43:22 ↗ year Regional practice simulation yeah

43:26 ↗ this is how we

43:29 ↗ the buses all that to one area back have

43:32 ↗ one out so I'll make a note to look into

43:37 ↗ like how often this should realistically

43:39 ↗ be done does that is that

43:46 ↗ fair for

43:47 ↗ 2.4.1 and two what Maps exactly is it

43:51 ↗ referencing so these are uh requirements

43:55 ↗ that we have um that so that the map is

43:58 ↗ related to critical areas and U mapping

44:02 ↗ where like sea level rises and like

44:05 ↗ flood risk and uh there's uh there's

44:10 ↗ like environmental maps that show like

44:11 ↗ where certain areas of the city are more

44:15 ↗ likely to be affected by certain

44:20 ↗ things shows everything from G

44:24 ↗ to right yeah um my comment is kind of

44:29 ↗ tiing on what Julian was saying as far

44:31 ↗ as uh to be at some point uh base

44:35 ↗ simulation or modeling of an evacuation

44:38 ↗ to some point and then updated every

44:41 ↗ whether it's every couple years or every

44:42 ↗ time any major new development happens

44:46 ↗ oration to though like five years down

44:49 ↗ the road simulated again but that same

44:52 ↗ evacuation around option

44:57 ↗ and I'll jump in there just a little bit

45:00 ↗ which is even if you don't put you know

45:02 ↗ have to do it every two years in this

45:04 ↗ plan you can phrase it differently it's

45:06 ↗ phrased as in do it once and if this is

45:09 ↗ a 20-y year plan that's like once in 20

45:10 ↗ years but you know conduct an evacuation

45:14 ↗ time estimate or could be maintain time

45:17 ↗ estimates for

45:19 ↗ evacuation maintain accurate time

45:22 ↗ instead of update Maps could be maintain

45:25 ↗ Maps right

45:28 ↗ supporting a map of regional hazards

45:30 ↗ support mapping Regional

45:33 ↗ hazards so a little bit different phras

45:36 ↗ sure and for the specific time frame to

45:40 ↗ whatever documents prog makes sense so

45:43 ↗ so I almost think that that might be

45:45 ↗ best cross all of the ones that there

45:48 ↗ are some time frame called out my

45:50 ↗ question was really going to be although

45:53 ↗ after hearing that I think that's the

45:54 ↗ best way to handle it my pression is

45:55 ↗ going to be

45:57 ↗ you know writing annually does that

45:59 ↗ create some future budgetary commitment

46:02 ↗ or is this just a guiding policy

46:04 ↗ document

46:06 ↗ us it doesn't right because what I don't

46:08 ↗ want to do is us just for discussion and

46:12 ↗ then it's half million dollars right

46:14 ↗ it's like oh don't do that right so one

46:18 ↗ does does this actually create a

46:21 ↗ commitment if you know we suggest

46:23 ↗ language and then someone doesn't read

46:24 ↗ that exact cell and doesn't check the

46:26 ↗ budget for and then improves it and two

46:30 ↗ is it possible to just have some

46:33 ↗ language that doesn't nail down exactly

46:35 ↗ the frequency so that it doesn't put us

46:38 ↗ in that position regardless of how much

46:40 ↗ it's comp yeah these are uh these are

46:43 ↗ actions so they there will be you know

46:45 ↗ assuming that Council approves this uh

46:47 ↗ this will be sort of things that we need

46:50 ↗ to do every year if that's what it says

46:52 ↗ or every two years um so yeah it it is a

46:56 ↗ it is a

46:57 ↗ well I'm going to say to answer the

46:59 ↗ question directly it is not a budget

47:01 ↗ commitment because only Council can do

47:03 ↗ that through the budgeting process and

47:06 ↗ so we may tell now this is not what we

47:09 ↗ want to do but we could tell the

47:11 ↗ community we're going to report this

47:13 ↗ every year but then Council doesn't

47:16 ↗ authorize funds in the budget then we

47:18 ↗ just can't do it so then they could look

47:21 ↗ at and go you said by any but what we

47:24 ↗ got is can't afford it this year do next

47:27 ↗ year that'll be fun right

47:36 ↗ okay um yeah so moving on to

47:40 ↗ 2.5 uh just some minor revisions for the

47:43 ↗ first yes so why do we say people with

47:46 ↗ and then folks

47:49 ↗ with shouldn't it be either folks with

47:52 ↗ for both or people with for both sure

47:55 ↗ yeah I don't

47:57 ↗ you talk about words that possible I've

47:59 ↗ heard people claim folk does so um

48:02 ↗ people maybe just sa okay yeah sound

48:08 ↗ good actually thought users would be a

48:11 ↗ reasonable term there but maybe that's

48:13 ↗ because I'm too much a

48:16 ↗ geek yeah you know I as as word smithing

48:19 ↗ happens there's everybody has an opinion

48:22 ↗ on it which I appreciate so I'm happy to

48:24 ↗ hear all these opinions um we also heard

48:27 ↗ comments that uh there's not enough

48:29 ↗ emphasis on the people uh so users might

48:33 ↗ remove the human aspect so yeah all

48:35 ↗ these things I'm happy to hear all that

48:38 ↗ and just sort of dogs could use the

48:40 ↗ trails

48:42 ↗ too

48:45 ↗ people I preer people versus folks folks

48:47 ↗ sounds like

48:51 ↗ too I feel like people sounds sounds

48:54 ↗ more professional

48:56 ↗ yeah

48:58 ↗ okay yeah and I'll look for uh you know

49:02 ↗ any any reference to folks and I'll swap

49:05 ↗ it with people

49:09 ↗ um so that's that first two uh the next

49:12 ↗ One is updating the 88 transition plan

49:16 ↗ um so this was brought to the board I

49:20 ↗ think

49:22 ↗ in was it

49:24 ↗ March um yeah so the city has a

49:29 ↗ Americans with Disability Act which I

49:31 ↗ believe was 1990 um transition plan and

49:35 ↗ that basically says um you know any any

49:38 ↗ City facilities um and this is inclusive

49:41 ↗ of like crosswalks with curb ramps uh we

49:44 ↗ need to you know acknowledging that

49:47 ↗ there's a lot of things out here that

49:48 ↗ are not uh accessible to uh people with

49:52 ↗ limited Mobility we need to plan to swap

49:56 ↗ that out like uh show that we have a way

50:00 ↗ to take care of these over time um so

50:03 ↗ this is a state requirement um actually

50:06 ↗ it's a f requirement and we are required

50:09 ↗ to do it every five years so this is

50:10 ↗ just sort of

50:12 ↗ saying we should do

50:14 ↗ this um next we have Park systems so the

50:19 ↗ first one is just some

50:20 ↗ minor uh revisions to improve sentence

50:24 ↗ flow the second one is a new policy

50:29 ↗ um the city has trail design standards

50:33 ↗ that

50:35 ↗ um we should update we haven't updated

50:38 ↗ them in a long time uh so this is just

50:40 ↗ saying we should do that to promote um

50:45 ↗ different pavement types and uh sort of

50:48 ↗ help uh with water quality impact and

50:51 ↗ maintenance so that there there are

50:54 ↗ um there are like economic Reas reasons

50:57 ↗ why you would want to do it because it

50:59 ↗ can it's easier to clean up and it like

51:01 ↗ is more permeable but it also helps with

51:04 ↗ like water quality and like the water

51:05 ↗ table and like just cleaning up uh from

51:08 ↗ runoff so there's different pavement

51:10 ↗ types that can help with that we can

51:12 ↗ just update the trail standards to

51:15 ↗ reflect the newest like technology um

51:18 ↗ like I really like this I almost wonder

51:21 ↗ whether water quality is not B enough we

51:23 ↗ want to impact the environment or some

51:26 ↗ to is there more than just water I'm

51:28 ↗ fine with it as is so I'm not like we

51:31 ↗ really need to update it

51:34 ↗ but there's more than just water we

51:37 ↗ want I think things Beyond water would

51:41 ↗ be covered by other regulations I'm here

51:43 ↗ with I think it's great

51:48 ↗ okay the next

51:50 ↗ two just minor

51:52 ↗ revisions um just to improve sentence

52:04 ↗ one um have come taking out the we're

52:08 ↗ not calling out the GRE necklace

52:09 ↗ specifically that change name to yeah

52:12 ↗ great question um so the name has

52:15 ↗ changed or it will change as part of the

52:18 ↗ parks uh plan um so we're now calling it

52:21 ↗ Creeks to Peaks

52:24 ↗ um yeah so

52:27 ↗ um I think there's a draft online it's

52:29 ↗ not like I'm saying anything out of turn

52:31 ↗ but

52:32 ↗ um that is the latest so green necklace

52:36 ↗ out Creeks to peaks in Yeahs to Peaks

52:40 ↗ yeah so this this whole strike out it's

52:42 ↗ really just like making sure that that

52:45 ↗ pointer the reference to that document

52:46 ↗ is

52:53 ↗ consistent okay so now we're on

52:57 ↗ 2.6.4 uh another minor revision

53:01 ↗ um just ining sentence flow adding some

53:05 ↗ clarity

53:09 ↗ um any other comments for this

53:18 ↗ slide for this whole

53:21 ↗ section one of the ways document is

53:23 ↗ Factor over that got these elements

53:27 ↗ creating access to things like Trail

53:30 ↗ ands and then we've got things

53:32 ↗ like we've got sections on modes of

53:36 ↗ transportation so non motorized Transit

53:39 ↗ Etc and those are sort of the separate

53:42 ↗ sections here but we pull a lot of that

53:44 ↗ into explicitly this section

53:48 ↗ on

53:50 ↗ 2.6 uh which I think is fine but we we

53:53 ↗ also kind of leave out emphasis on

53:55 ↗ transit kind of there's a little bit of

53:57 ↗ dis sentence here for me where um you

54:00 ↗ know we explicitly call out the

54:01 ↗ non-motorized access we don't explicitly

54:03 ↗ call out Transit here as access to

54:07 ↗ it is there a reason for that are we

54:09 ↗ missing something so just so I

54:12 ↗ understand so in policy 2.6 that area

54:17 ↗ you're wondering um how we can

54:19 ↗ incorporate like access to Transit via

54:23 ↗ Trails yeah for the same reasons that we

54:25 ↗ call out specifically we add creating

54:27 ↗ and activating on M connections for yeah

54:30 ↗ should be in the same Spirit call

54:33 ↗ breathing Transit connection students

54:36 ↗ yeah I I do think that's it's covered

54:38 ↗ elsewhere in the document but I can see

54:40 ↗ if there's a logical way to like fit

54:42 ↗ that in to this

54:51 ↗ yeah just looking at

54:54 ↗ the King County shuttle program Trails

54:59 ↗ yeah yeah related to the um the trail

55:03 ↗ head direct kind of thing yeah okay seen

55:06 ↗ it now okay

55:10 ↗ cool especially since they implemented

55:12 ↗ it took it away and then gave it back to

55:14 ↗ us this year

55:17 ↗ again it is such a seasonal offering

55:20 ↗ that sometimes we forget about it so

55:22 ↗ yeah that was good comments okay but you

55:25 ↗ know I think that this mendous service

55:28 ↗ especially since overing a trail has is

55:31 ↗ a serious

55:33 ↗ issue there are many possible others

55:35 ↗ right that's not the only potential

55:40 ↗ they great

55:45 ↗ okay thought here okay so I think we

55:47 ↗ were done with this section right and

55:49 ↗ then we're on to

55:52 ↗ okay so

55:54 ↗ 3.1.1 uh minor updates uh just updating

55:58 ↗ the figures uh say if you read that far

56:01 ↗ through the uh Mobility master plan

56:04 ↗ you'll see that some of the figure

56:06 ↗ numbers were changed and the pendencies

56:08 ↗ were updated

56:11 ↗ um

56:13 ↗ 31.2 is a new

56:16 ↗ action uh this is related to um a future

56:21 ↗ discussion we're going to have with this

56:23 ↗ board uh related to transportation conc

56:26 ↗ currency um so this is related to a

56:29 ↗ multimodal concurrency action um in

56:32 ↗ which we would uh

56:34 ↗ develop sort of performance metrics for

56:38 ↗ um the phrase all ages and abilities

56:41 ↗ facilities which is also related to U

56:44 ↗ complete streets so uh this is basically

56:46 ↗ saying as we do concurrency um take a

56:49 ↗ look at this which we we plan to do

56:54 ↗ um this year and next

57:00 ↗ um three is just some minor updates uh

57:04 ↗ this is really just showing like uh we

57:08 ↗ do this action via the neighborhood

57:10 ↗ planning process it's just specifying

57:12 ↗ how this is uh

57:15 ↗ implemented the fifth

57:18 ↗ One is updating the street standards uh

57:22 ↗ and the so this is a new action this is

57:24 ↗ something that we currently do is

57:25 ↗ updating Street standards um we updated

57:28 ↗ our just for context the street

57:31 ↗ standards is the engineering and design

57:34 ↗ guidance for how we build roads um and

57:37 ↗ so the not only is this a new action for

57:40 ↗ the mobility ma master plan but we're

57:43 ↗ Mobility implementation plan uh we're

57:45 ↗ specifically saying every three years um

57:48 ↗ at a minimum we should be updating it

57:50 ↗ I'm just so that we're keeping it fresh

57:52 ↗ making sure that the latest engineering

57:55 ↗ guidance is we build

58:03 ↗ ours that not connected to a specific

58:07 ↗ process is that time is that

58:16 ↗ every putting the Cadence in there sure

58:19 ↗ so specifically we're talking about

58:21 ↗ 3.1.3 which is the neighborhood planning

58:24 ↗ process one is that yeah

58:27 ↗ so yeah we're starting that off I

58:30 ↗ believe next year uh and the goal is to

58:34 ↗ do a a neighborhood every year um okay

58:38 ↗ that's just sort

58:40 ↗ of yeah so it is yeah it is like time

58:44 ↗ bound but it's not specified so

58:48 ↗ um the the sorts of projects they in

58:51 ↗ order to do it right it could like span

58:54 ↗ more than a year so it's kind of hard to

58:55 ↗ like put it time stamp on it because

58:57 ↗ yeah so

59:02 ↗ um what what's the relationship between

59:05 ↗ Street standards and complete

59:08 ↗ streets yeah so complete streets is a

59:10 ↗ policy that we have which says um design

59:13 ↗ your roads to accommodate all users and

59:18 ↗ abilities um the street standards is

59:20 ↗ like the uh it is like the engineering

59:24 ↗ details there's uh

59:27 ↗ a snapshot of a typical Road and sort of

59:30 ↗ what that should look like um so they

59:33 ↗ are related but the street standards is

59:36 ↗ like literally like the guidance that an

59:39 ↗ engineer would hand off to the next

59:40 ↗ engineer whereas the policy of complete

59:43 ↗ streets is more of a it's a framework of

59:46 ↗ thinking um which then feeds into how we

59:49 ↗ design the

59:50 ↗ roads okay just complete streets feed

59:53 ↗ into other things like how we design

59:55 ↗ networks of Roads more than just a it

59:58 ↗ does and yeah so the way that the

1:00:00 ↗ mobility master plan is laid out is we

1:00:02 ↗ have a layered Network approach where we

1:00:05 ↗ say um buses will go on this road we

1:00:10 ↗ don't want a bus going through a

1:00:11 ↗ neighborhood but we have it over here

1:00:14 ↗ because that makes sense for like the

1:00:15 ↗ way that the road was designed um we

1:00:18 ↗ have a bike route that goes over here um

1:00:21 ↗ so uh you're not having a bus and like

1:00:25 ↗ large cars going through certain streets

1:00:28 ↗ um but you accommodate those on other

1:00:30 ↗ streets that are adjacent to it so um

1:00:33 ↗ you're able to get East you know east

1:00:36 ↗ west north north south um using

1:00:39 ↗ different roads in the network they just

1:00:41 ↗ may not be on that same

1:00:44 ↗ road okay so for uh

1:00:47 ↗ 315 Street standards updates one of the

1:00:50 ↗ things I think might be missing here

1:00:52 ↗ potentially we can talk about this is uh

1:00:54 ↗ climate impact so given that the paving

1:00:58 ↗ of the city the percentage of the city

1:01:00 ↗ that's paved is a huge impact on a lot

1:01:03 ↗ of the the climate initiatives should we

1:01:05 ↗ call that out explicitly

1:01:09 ↗ here we call out M multimodal goals we

1:01:12 ↗ don't have climate action plan

1:01:16 ↗ goals so yeah so Street standards would

1:01:20 ↗ be things like how wide do we make a

1:01:22 ↗ street you make a street wider and

1:01:23 ↗ Paving more of this in all right there's

1:01:26 ↗ a direct relationship between the stream

1:01:27 ↗ standards that we pick so yeah just to

1:01:31 ↗ clarify so you're you're saying like

1:01:32 ↗ look at the materials that we use

1:01:36 ↗ to build roads or like I guess that

1:01:39 ↗ complete streets ties into that street

1:01:42 ↗ let say you don't need necessar 24 foot

1:01:44 ↗ Black Street you could do two 11 foot

1:01:47 ↗ lanes that would play as far as make it

1:01:50 ↗ a little more friendly for less streight

1:01:52 ↗ more sidewalk so you have less p

1:01:56 ↗ yeah I think I think in terms of like

1:01:57 ↗ Street standards that would include

1:02:00 ↗ things potentially like leaving room for

1:02:02 ↗ trees preserving existing

1:02:04 ↗ trees yeah hold those industry standards

1:02:08 ↗ and those are direct me so yeah I say

1:02:11 ↗ that is in the street standards so I

1:02:14 ↗ don't know but we're also going to have

1:02:16 ↗ a conversation about it um coming up as

1:02:19 ↗ future tab

1:02:21 ↗ item I would lean towards not going down

1:02:25 ↗ that r hole with this update of the

1:02:28 ↗ mobility implementation

1:02:35 ↗ plan but I just feel like if we were to

1:02:37 ↗ go down that rabbit

1:02:40 ↗ hole that would take up more time than

1:02:43 ↗ we have for the

1:02:45 ↗ MIP and we do have an upcoming

1:02:48 ↗ discussion on my dad with streets in the

1:02:52 ↗ past still working with very

1:02:54 ↗ systemat just think of vision the design

1:02:57 ↗ Manual of how you're going to build

1:03:02 ↗ it the vision from street is really

1:03:06 ↗ taken from Health secret design in the

1:03:07 ↗ 50s 60s just like massive Rose to move

1:03:12 ↗ like 20 foot long by 10 foot wide cars

1:03:15 ↗ to now like totally screwed up the

1:03:17 ↗ community side back and and have like

1:03:21 ↗ pedestrians and bikes and everything in

1:03:23 ↗ that street just

1:03:26 ↗ the pleas read is kind of how to have

1:03:27 ↗ that Vision left

1:03:30 ↗ section and

1:03:34 ↗ then support the weight ofu yeah so the

1:03:37 ↗ street

1:03:42 ↗ stand so you

1:03:45 ↗ were Clos on so you were thinking about

1:03:50 ↗ the yeah

1:03:52 ↗ 3.1.5 and you want to add climate goals

1:03:57 ↗ as well mul yeah in alignment with the

1:03:59 ↗ city's multier goals and action plan

1:04:03 ↗ goals I think something generic like

1:04:05 ↗ that would work I didn't want to get

1:04:07 ↗ into details of right things that we

1:04:11 ↗ have discussions

1:04:12 ↗ about okay

1:04:18 ↗ great

1:04:20 ↗ so

1:04:23 ↗ 33.2 including equity in the Val Val

1:04:25 ↗ ation of needs and priorities of new and

1:04:28 ↗ existing infrastructure um so this is

1:04:32 ↗ something that we currently do as part

1:04:33 ↗ of the transportation Improvement plan

1:04:36 ↗ program

1:04:38 ↗ um tab has looked at so we sort of

1:04:41 ↗ include that as to um our project list

1:04:45 ↗ that is brought forth um so this just

1:04:48 ↗ sort of memorializing uh that and then

1:04:51 ↗ just sort of promotes our Equity goals

1:04:53 ↗ uh throughout the city

1:04:56 ↗ uh complete streets is the next one so

1:04:59 ↗ just a really minor update changing the

1:05:01 ↗ name uh from MMP to

1:05:05 ↗ MP and then

1:05:07 ↗ 3.4.1 is uh something that I brought to

1:05:11 ↗ this tab

1:05:13 ↗ like so long ago a year and a half ago

1:05:16 ↗ um it's so this is just a a new action

1:05:19 ↗ this was developed as part of the

1:05:21 ↗ transit study so this is

1:05:23 ↗ um continuing that convers

1:05:26 ↗ on bike and scooter share programs and

1:05:29 ↗ developing one that's tailored to the

1:05:31 ↗ needs of the

1:05:34 ↗ community forward to the city spending

1:05:36 ↗ millions of dollars on replacing bikes

1:05:38 ↗ they get stolen and we don't police it

1:05:40 ↗ scattered all over the side of the road

1:05:43 ↗ it's there's different ways to um

1:05:47 ↗ develop the program where the city uh

1:05:50 ↗ has more or less skin in the game so

1:05:51 ↗ that that'll be part of that

1:05:52 ↗ conversation as well um

1:05:56 ↗ it's worth having then there should be a

1:05:59 ↗ business willing to fund it it shouldn't

1:06:02 ↗ City so studying it

1:06:14 ↗ I'm so moving on

1:06:19 ↗ 3.4.2 uh this was mentioned uh as part

1:06:22 ↗ of the transit study uh process uh so I

1:06:27 ↗ believe this was brought up by a member

1:06:29 ↗ of the council um this was one example

1:06:33 ↗ of another sort of um transportation

1:06:36 ↗ alternative is looking at electric

1:06:39 ↗ bicycle library programs um and so just

1:06:43 ↗ looking into this and seeing if this is

1:06:45 ↗ an option that the city would like to

1:06:47 ↗ pursue um similar wording as like the

1:06:50 ↗ bike and scooter share program just

1:06:51 ↗ looking into it so could you elaborate

1:06:53 ↗ go the electric bicycle

1:06:56 ↗ Library yeah so it could be that

1:07:02 ↗ um an entity purchases ebikes and then

1:07:06 ↗ it's to promote ebike usage it could be

1:07:09 ↗ like use this for a week and if you like

1:07:12 ↗ it then like okay give it back but you

1:07:14 ↗ should think about getting an ebike

1:07:16 ↗ because it was useful to you um so it's

1:07:19 ↗ just like a way to promote um

1:07:21 ↗ alternative modes and I know like on a

1:07:24 ↗ in many of our your neighborhoods having

1:07:26 ↗ an ebike would be really successful um

1:07:30 ↗ uh mostly for getting up that'd be it's

1:07:32 ↗ it's difficult to write just a typical

1:07:34 ↗ bike up the road so like an E Bike could

1:07:35 ↗ help with that so the like Library thing

1:07:38 ↗ is isn't like a line bike kind of thing

1:07:41 ↗ you like scan it on your phone and it no

1:07:43 ↗ yeah so that that would be the first one

1:07:45 ↗ which is like the scooter share program

1:07:47 ↗ but it's similar in that um it's you

1:07:51 ↗ know whatever the terms of the program

1:07:52 ↗ could be it could be like you can use

1:07:55 ↗ this for like the week um but then like

1:07:59 ↗ yeah so this would it's kind of hard to

1:08:01 ↗ say like what it would entail because we

1:08:03 ↗ haven't uh dug into it but it could be

1:08:06 ↗ that the city um you know owns three

1:08:10 ↗ bicycles that we lend out and the

1:08:12 ↗ expectation is that you give it back um

1:08:14 ↗ but it's like on a trial basis so that

1:08:18 ↗ um you can see what it was like to own

1:08:20 ↗ an ebike for a week so then in doing

1:08:23 ↗ this would they like study doing Bike

1:08:25 ↗ Share program and then study doing the

1:08:28 ↗ bicycle Library program and then decide

1:08:30 ↗ which they want to do or could be yeah

1:08:34 ↗ or they could be separate um

1:08:37 ↗ yeah okay

1:08:43 ↗ sense have to on

1:08:45 ↗ W these are all details that yeah

1:09:01 ↗ so moving on 3

1:09:05 ↗ point4 um this was another thing that

1:09:08 ↗ was brought up so the city currently has

1:09:11 ↗ ebikes as part of our Municipal Fleet um

1:09:13 ↗ so this is sort of uh saying we will

1:09:17 ↗ continue doing that um ebikes have been

1:09:19 ↗ really successful specifically with the

1:09:21 ↗ park staff um there's lots of trails

1:09:23 ↗ that they can write it on um

1:09:26 ↗ they've also been used for like other

1:09:28 ↗ visits that you need to do so

1:09:30 ↗ inspections could be done on a bike if

1:09:32 ↗ it's like nearby um you don't need to

1:09:35 ↗ like bring a bunch of gear so there's

1:09:37 ↗ ways that you can uh use other uh

1:09:42 ↗ vehicles that are like less um

1:09:45 ↗ maintenance heavy um it's just like a

1:09:47 ↗ better use of like City funds and they

1:09:49 ↗ could be they could be used uh in a

1:09:52 ↗ pretty good manner so um this is just

1:09:54 ↗ saying continue doing that um it's been

1:09:57 ↗ successful that probably would have been

1:09:59 ↗ nice to get here from City Hall

1:10:03 ↗ today yeah we only have a couple I yeah

1:10:07 ↗ we could we could probably

1:10:10 ↗ more again going back to like the

1:10:14 ↗ actionable timeline issue obviously this

1:10:16 ↗ is not commitment test

1:10:20 ↗ but includ some language fut Council

1:10:26 ↗ or someone interpreting St future might

1:10:29 ↗ think great not very strong so perhaps

1:10:37 ↗ instrumentals not just as a little tiny

1:10:41 ↗ two bike part something where staff are

1:10:44 ↗ able to consistently where there's a

1:10:46 ↗ bike available staff to

1:10:50 ↗ use another thing with that that you

1:10:52 ↗ could do is like partner with like local

1:10:55 ↗ bike and stuff to see if you could get

1:10:57 ↗ good discounts for Stacks puras their

1:11:00 ↗ own ebikes that could work well

1:11:03 ↗ too I'm gonna push back on that one

1:11:06 ↗ because uh well I would love that um as

1:11:09 ↗ a Public Employee I can't do that

1:11:13 ↗ oh that'd be great um but I can't like

1:11:16 ↗ we can't be getting benefits from

1:11:21 ↗ our the city wanted to do something like

1:11:23 ↗ that the city could provide to city

1:11:26 ↗ employees to cre a credit to buying

1:11:30 ↗ a yeah I like that idea sounds great um

1:11:35 ↗ yeah so and that that's really like in

1:11:37 ↗ that in that like instance for example

1:11:40 ↗ that that could be like a CTR program

1:11:42 ↗ thing because the city itself is a large

1:11:44 ↗ employer so maybe the way that it

1:11:46 ↗ reduces its like traffic load is that

1:11:50 ↗ they provide like ebike credits or

1:11:54 ↗ something so that you know all these

1:11:55 ↗ things feed into it but um yeah it's

1:11:59 ↗ good thought though yeah yeah so just

1:12:01 ↗ com back to the language of I think

1:12:04 ↗ investing I think that's great I think

1:12:07 ↗ that the city should look at the the use

1:12:11 ↗ cases and invest for the use cases I

1:12:13 ↗ don't think we should describe as an

1:12:14 ↗ instrumental part of the fleet or

1:12:16 ↗ anything like that because that's

1:12:17 ↗ defining the the vehicles they have

1:12:21 ↗ based on the vehicles you want them to

1:12:23 ↗ have not based on the use cases if it's

1:12:25 ↗ like there's more use cases for them

1:12:26 ↗ great like I think they're more cost

1:12:28 ↗ effective than cars for for the city so

1:12:31 ↗ go get more but if they're not use cases

1:12:33 ↗ so we shouldn't Define a fleet size we

1:12:35 ↗ should say you know heading in that

1:12:39 ↗ investing I think the language is good

1:12:43 ↗ okay is there a way to

1:12:48 ↗ combine c b

1:12:51 ↗ like with the like

1:13:00 ↗ liary yeah I like that thought though

1:13:02 ↗ like um it's almost related

1:13:05 ↗ to policies we have about like um

1:13:09 ↗ electric vehicle charging facilities and

1:13:12 ↗ like sort of if other people can use it

1:13:15 ↗ when it's not being used so

1:13:17 ↗ yeah that's that's a policy question

1:13:20 ↗ that will probably be addressed as we go

1:13:22 ↗ into that eik program but yeah that's

1:13:25 ↗ these are good thoughts

1:13:27 ↗ yeah anyone else have any thoughts about

1:13:30 ↗ the language in terms of instrumental

1:13:32 ↗ vers leing it out or

1:13:38 ↗ high I would like to nudge more

1:13:42 ↗ but don't want to prescribe a specific

1:13:48 ↗ set or we could put it in there

1:13:50 ↗ reminding that it's always rephrased

1:13:53 ↗ like a use case

1:13:57 ↗ I mean I guess what what does that do

1:13:59 ↗ with what does that do more that say

1:14:00 ↗ invest

1:14:01 ↗ in I think what I would suggest uh is if

1:14:05 ↗ you were going to add any kind of extra

1:14:07 ↗ emphasis you say something like order

1:14:10 ↗ to um in order to make Transportation

1:14:15 ↗ I'm trying to say like say something

1:14:18 ↗ about like how it affects the cost

1:14:20 ↗ Effectiveness slash like carbon

1:14:22 ↗ emissions of the city like like in order

1:14:25 ↗ to reduce carbon emissions or reduce the

1:14:27 ↗ cost of transer

1:14:29 ↗ transporting emplo like you could put a

1:14:31 ↗ reason if I don't know if that's

1:14:33 ↗ appropriate document

1:14:35 ↗ but yeah we can throw the intent there

1:14:37 ↗ yeah throw an intent like this there's

1:14:39 ↗ these specific things we're trying to

1:14:40 ↗ achieve with the SC to make it clear to

1:14:42 ↗ people why right yeah it sounds good the

1:14:46 ↗ overall section is know basically about

1:14:49 ↗ researching these options so it's pretty

1:14:52 ↗ clear that

1:14:58 ↗ seems like Clos is just us is with

1:15:03 ↗ adding

1:15:05 ↗ some motivations for that you're happy

1:15:08 ↗ with

1:15:10 ↗ that okay that's good

1:15:13 ↗ 3.5.1 um this is pointing to the light

1:15:16 ↗ rail planning guide that the city um

1:15:19 ↗ adopted in March and there's a whole

1:15:22 ↗ list of actions that the city will be

1:15:24 ↗ taking as we plan for light light rail

1:15:27 ↗ so rather than uh copying and pasting it

1:15:30 ↗ just makes more sense to just point to

1:15:32 ↗ that guide um this document is something

1:15:34 ↗ that we're going to update every year

1:15:36 ↗ over the next three years just to make

1:15:37 ↗ sure that our assumptions are correct um

1:15:40 ↗ so it'll sort of live elsewhere um but

1:15:44 ↗ this is pointing to that

1:15:49 ↗ um the next one is just yeah reviewing

1:15:54 ↗ maintaining it regularly updating it um

1:15:56 ↗ this is uh we don't have a specific time

1:16:00 ↗ frame in here but internally it is a

1:16:03 ↗ annual thing um and then beyond that uh

1:16:07 ↗ once we've talked to Sound

1:16:10 ↗ Transit uh like every two years once

1:16:13 ↗ things are really moving

1:16:16 ↗ but

1:16:18 ↗ that's those

1:16:21 ↗ two the only comment I have is regular

1:16:23 ↗ updating I kind of get what you mean as

1:16:26 ↗ far as want to make sense to upd but I

1:16:28 ↗ don't

1:16:32 ↗ exp yeah to to phrase it correctly would

1:16:37 ↗ be every year between now and when Sound

1:16:41 ↗ Transit approaches us and then every two

1:16:42 ↗ years after and that doesn't really flow

1:16:44 ↗ very well but I'll try to figure out a a

1:16:47 ↗ way um it's like two sentences to say

1:16:50 ↗ that

1:16:56 ↗ in yeah yeah I I'll find out a way to do

1:17:00 ↗ this in a way that makes sense

1:17:08 ↗ um the other the other issue is like

1:17:12 ↗ yeah it really is about the Cadence

1:17:14 ↗ right yeah so okay

1:17:31 ↗ I'm missing something in the slide deck

1:17:34 ↗ um there's

1:17:36 ↗ also 3.6.1 so that's unfortunately not

1:17:40 ↗ in this list but I'll just say this um

1:17:43 ↗ it was relocated from a previous MMP

1:17:47 ↗ 6.1 so this is developing safe and

1:17:50 ↗ comfortable walking like facilities in

1:17:52 ↗ the Central Supply area um and

1:17:56 ↗ supporting 90 Crossing so this is just

1:17:59 ↗ it's not new but it's just uh was

1:18:02 ↗ relocated from one spot to another is

1:18:04 ↗ the light R supposed to

1:18:07 ↗ be we don't know yet

1:18:10 ↗ yeah you're gonna start paying taxes

1:18:15 ↗ on um so we know that it's going to be

1:18:17 ↗ in central isqua which is uh just a

1:18:20 ↗ neighborhood that's basically like uh

1:18:24 ↗ you know

1:18:25 ↗ the state park to the North and then

1:18:28 ↗ Newport to the South um and then it's

1:18:31 ↗ basically it's a little bit more west of

1:18:34 ↗ I90 or sr900 um so near here

1:18:40 ↗ or so it'll be north of here but yes

1:18:43 ↗ roughly yeah so like around where the

1:18:46 ↗ existing Transit Center is it could be

1:18:49 ↗ that it could be further north it could

1:18:51 ↗ be East or West yeah um I have a map

1:18:56 ↗ that I showed in the previous on Tab

1:18:58 ↗ meeting but there's like a green BL

1:19:01 ↗ that's that's all we know at this point

1:19:03 ↗ somewhere east of 90 just east of FR

1:19:06 ↗ Street

1:19:08 ↗ oh yeah so

1:19:10 ↗ next next year we're going to start uh

1:19:13 ↗ looking into potential options for like

1:19:16 ↗ where the station could go um and we're

1:19:19 ↗ going to come up with our best best

1:19:22 ↗ approach for like what the community

1:19:24 ↗ wants

1:19:25 ↗ um and then we're going to give that to

1:19:27 ↗ sound transit and they're going to do

1:19:29 ↗ their own study but we're gonna we're

1:19:31 ↗ going to look at a bunch of options and

1:19:33 ↗ then we're going to hopefully come

1:19:35 ↗ together and agree upon one

1:19:37 ↗ location that's going to be our

1:19:39 ↗ preferred location that they

1:19:47 ↗ yeah pay for limited busets all the

1:19:57 ↗ all right uh

1:20:00 ↗ 4.1.3 think the number

1:20:02 ↗ got

1:20:07 ↗ okay like an office thing where

1:20:10 ↗ continues the numbering Asad of

1:20:11 ↗ restarting yeah at least because when I

1:20:13 ↗ go to page nine it goes 3 four and then

1:20:16 ↗ 5 six and the next

1:20:19 ↗ one I think just yeah it's just

1:20:22 ↗ a classic yeah

1:20:28 ↗ Chang it you type something and then it

1:20:30 ↗ changes it back for you yeah

1:20:33 ↗ okay

1:20:34 ↗ that um okay so

1:20:41 ↗ 4.1.3 yeah unfortunately just

1:20:45 ↗ unavoidable so this one is a new action

1:20:48 ↗ determining critical needs for The

1:20:49 ↗ Pedestrian Network um to

1:20:52 ↗ support uh multim access to different

1:20:56 ↗ locations

1:20:59 ↗ um what that doesn't make sense why

1:21:03 ↗ would you determine critical needs of

1:21:04 ↗ The Pedestrian Network to support

1:21:06 ↗ multimodal access so pedestrian network

1:21:09 ↗ isn't

1:21:11 ↗ pedestrian it is but it's also you know

1:21:14 ↗ access to bus or it's access to

1:21:18 ↗ um where you're parked where you're you

1:21:20 ↗ know yeah

1:21:26 ↗ fourth one is implementing small scale

1:21:28 ↗ capital projects so this would just be

1:21:30 ↗ spot treatments so like for instance if

1:21:33 ↗ there's a break in the sidewalk and we

1:21:36 ↗ could easily connect it very small

1:21:39 ↗ projects um typically how this would be

1:21:42 ↗ handled is we lump a bunch of small

1:21:44 ↗ projects and we put that up to bid and

1:21:46 ↗ then have one big project of five small

1:21:50 ↗ projects so this this would just be

1:21:52 ↗ implemented VI the trans

1:21:55 ↗ Improvement

1:21:57 ↗ program it work similar to a bunch of

1:22:01 ↗ the sidewalk we were seeing the some

1:22:04 ↗ right yeah

1:22:08 ↗ exactly cool so moving on

1:22:11 ↗ to bicycles um so

1:22:15 ↗ 51 five uh this is just the uh you know

1:22:22 ↗ it's related to the the transation

1:22:24 ↗ network is just for bicycle so

1:22:26 ↗ determining the critical needs of the

1:22:27 ↗ bike Network to support uh access to

1:22:31 ↗ Transit so this is something that was

1:22:32 ↗ brought up through the transit study um

1:22:34 ↗ it's just making sure that the bike

1:22:36 ↗ network is connecting to where uh

1:22:39 ↗ Transit stations

1:22:41 ↗ are next one is a project that we have

1:22:44 ↗ in the capital Improvement project um

1:22:48 ↗ reducing and resolving conflicts between

1:22:51 ↗ buses and bike Lanes um this is

1:22:54 ↗ something that we realized as we're

1:22:56 ↗ studying Transit that um buses are

1:22:59 ↗ currently parked in bike Lanes to pick

1:23:02 ↗ up people um so making sure that we can

1:23:06 ↗ resolve those we have some projects that

1:23:08 ↗ are in the Cal Improvement uh program

1:23:11 ↗ and it's just make sure that the the

1:23:14 ↗ bike lane is no longer like part of

1:23:17 ↗ where the bus is picking up hope we're

1:23:19 ↗ being thoughtful about that I've seen

1:23:21 ↗ some other cities do sometimes they to

1:23:25 ↗ like cease all traffic flow and they

1:23:28 ↗ like we Sal it you see the bus no longer

1:23:30 ↗ stops and that because they stop in the

1:23:33 ↗ middle of

1:23:35 ↗ traffic and then the bike lane is just a

1:23:40 ↗ sad yeah the the projects that I'm

1:23:45 ↗ thinking of are on um major roads where

1:23:47 ↗ there's multiple lanes that other people

1:23:49 ↗ could use so there's there's room for

1:23:51 ↗ that and uh we have a spef specific

1:23:54 ↗ design I think it's called a bus

1:23:56 ↗ boarding Island for some of the options

1:23:58 ↗ where it like raises uh pedestrians out

1:24:02 ↗ of the bike lane and then there's also

1:24:04 ↗ like an option for uh bikes to get

1:24:06 ↗ through so it it accomplishes many goals

1:24:09 ↗ and there's also a way to like drive

1:24:11 ↗ around

1:24:12 ↗ it you know Seattle yeah there's some

1:24:16 ↗ examples in Seattle yeah cap

1:24:20 ↗ Broadway yeah next to the Roosevelt

1:24:22 ↗ Station as well there's yeah

1:24:26 ↗ one of the things that come up in in

1:24:28 ↗ this board in the past has been safety

1:24:31 ↗ of ebikes so ebikes are pretty new we're

1:24:33 ↗ still kind of figuring out how they fit

1:24:35 ↗ with every um they're mostly gording off

1:24:38 ↗ into the section of bicycling uh terms

1:24:40 ↗ of how the city thinks about them but in

1:24:43 ↗ terms of you know speeds and all that

1:24:46 ↗ some of that is State

1:24:48 ↗ regulated it might make sense for us to

1:24:50 ↗ think about you know how do we think

1:24:52 ↗ about safety bikes

1:24:54 ↗ on the bike Network specifically yeah

1:24:58 ↗ this topic has been brought up a couple

1:24:59 ↗ times

1:25:01 ↗ um like about a year ago is about

1:25:05 ↗ like uh is it a bike or is it like

1:25:09 ↗ motorcycle yeah yeah yeah I was about to

1:25:13 ↗ say because I know there's there's this

1:25:14 ↗ thing called sirons I don't know if you

1:25:16 ↗ heard of them they're basically like

1:25:18 ↗ electric dirt bikes and then everyone

1:25:19 ↗ says they're they're mountain bikes even

1:25:21 ↗ though they're really not at least like

1:25:24 ↗ perspective so I don't know like there's

1:25:26 ↗ probably a similar problem with ebikes

1:25:28 ↗ or there's like know different like but

1:25:31 ↗ there's class one which just pedal

1:25:32 ↗ assist class two and three we have

1:25:34 ↗ throttles right so I wonder something

1:25:37 ↗ like defining of what is an ebike that's

1:25:40 ↗ okay to use on the bicycle Network could

1:25:42 ↗ be

1:25:43 ↗ useful that might be more State issue

1:25:45 ↗ though yeah State issue with their

1:25:48 ↗ elements of

1:25:52 ↗ enforcement just generally

1:25:58 ↗ I would I would throw another

1:26:00 ↗ consideration like balancing

1:26:02 ↗ conversation it's like um there's

1:26:06 ↗ also a approach which goes a little bit

1:26:09 ↗ too far in this um so looking at 9 for

1:26:13 ↗ example which is really overa use of

1:26:17 ↗ ebikes within their orders um so just

1:26:24 ↗ think about that

1:26:26 ↗ balance what are they doing what they're

1:26:29 ↗ doing that

1:26:30 ↗ over they've I I believe that they

1:26:34 ↗ have they

1:26:36 ↗ have and that is a very popular you one

1:26:40 ↗ that one road

1:26:42 ↗ to is a very popular route you know

1:26:46 ↗ going across the 520

1:26:50 ↗ Trail I think one of the one of the

1:26:53 ↗ reasons people get that when they decide

1:26:55 ↗ to ban e bikes is because there's it's

1:26:57 ↗ sort of wild west and you get people on

1:26:59 ↗ start bikes think 40 miles an hour if

1:27:02 ↗ that's totally unregulated then you get

1:27:04 ↗ kind of the pendulum swing so finding

1:27:06 ↗ the the good compromise is pretty

1:27:08 ↗ important think there are sub Trails of

1:27:10 ↗ isquad that have speed limits on the

1:27:13 ↗ bike um I'm thinking of the one that

1:27:15 ↗ puts a along L of Amish out

1:27:18 ↗ to that one I believe that there's

1:27:20 ↗ always speed like a speed limit that

1:27:24 ↗ yeah so that is one resolve that issue I

1:27:28 ↗ think that that could especially if

1:27:29 ↗ that's becoming an issue setting a speed

1:27:31 ↗ limit on the trail than expecting people

1:27:32 ↗ to follow it if people aren't you do

1:27:34 ↗ traffic coming as you would anywhere

1:27:36 ↗ else right yeah so I think specifically

1:27:38 ↗ because we have more ebikes and because

1:27:40 ↗ there new situations where people might

1:27:42 ↗ be exceeding this spe that's never been

1:27:44 ↗ enforced before yeah I think yeah it's

1:27:47 ↗ definitely a consideration calling

1:27:49 ↗ that a separate sub under bicycl makes

1:27:53 ↗ sense

1:27:55 ↗ could you frame it as inorder

1:27:59 ↗ toing

1:28:03 ↗ away

1:28:07 ↗ enaging traffic uh CLS while also

1:28:11 ↗ maintaining the sa encouraging the safe

1:28:15 ↗ use of ebikes on on the bike Network

1:28:20 ↗ right studying new concerns that pop up

1:28:23 ↗ Point City

1:28:25 ↗ while

1:28:26 ↗ encouraging I'm gonna I'm going to chew

1:28:28 ↗ on this idea a little bit because this

1:28:30 ↗ is an action plan so I want to make sure

1:28:32 ↗ that we're like we can measure how we

1:28:35 ↗ would take care of this and it is like a

1:28:37 ↗ broader issue it could be like a state

1:28:39 ↗ issue um so I'm gonna I'm gonna make a

1:28:42 ↗ note of this but I'm gonna think about

1:28:44 ↗ like realistic ways that we could tackle

1:28:47 ↗ this

1:28:51 ↗ and saying was classifications

1:28:54 ↗ eike started off with uing something

1:28:58 ↗ pedal the bike You' be able to go to

1:28:59 ↗ speed and now it's was like some really

1:29:01 ↗ cool things with and that one youve got

1:29:03 ↗ some bikes and so uh her regul one

1:29:06 ↗ that's really assisted some to use the

1:29:08 ↗ bicycle like a bicycle somewhere

1:29:12 ↗ versus

1:29:15 ↗ using because there's a guy that lives

1:29:17 ↗ down there there's a trail by air house

1:29:18 ↗ and comes by going like 20 miles hour on

1:29:21 ↗ his on the gravel Trail or

1:29:24 ↗ dogs

1:29:28 ↗ Ander I would be hesitant to put

1:29:31 ↗ anything in here that talks about

1:29:34 ↗ specific ebike limitations because we

1:29:36 ↗ don't know how it's going to develop

1:29:38 ↗ like on our Trails not not just the plan

1:29:42 ↗ but how you deal with that is the speed

1:29:44 ↗ limit on the trail right it's like at

1:29:46 ↗ some point you're going 30 miles on a

1:29:50 ↗ bik probably shouldn't be on the same

1:29:52 ↗ Trail as someone walking

1:29:55 ↗ go to the vro um but it was so a little

1:29:59 ↗ bit I did find di it seemed like they

1:30:02 ↗ were I think some of the parks you're

1:30:04 ↗ thinking of are not actually city parks

1:30:06 ↗ they're one by the state so it wouldn't

1:30:08 ↗ have anything with in place um but they

1:30:11 ↗ want them off their Trails their dirt

1:30:13 ↗ trails because they're getting they're

1:30:15 ↗ so much heavier getting damage on

1:30:22 ↗ them I'm just goingon to be cognizant of

1:30:25 ↗ much time we have together so um these

1:30:27 ↗ are all good thoughts I'm GNA look into

1:30:29 ↗ this a little bit more but I think for

1:30:30 ↗ the sake of time I'm just gonna keep

1:30:32 ↗ cruising

1:30:35 ↗ through think we finished this slide

1:30:38 ↗ deck

1:30:40 ↗ right

1:30:43 ↗ good oh sorry last one uh proactively

1:30:47 ↗ resolve yeah conflict between buses and

1:30:49 ↗ bik LS y about that okay

1:30:54 ↗ um so moving on to

1:30:56 ↗ 6.1 uh we have a new these are all

1:30:59 ↗ related to the transit study that we did

1:31:02 ↗ um engaging with uh discussions with s

1:31:06 ↗ with the PJ Regional Council um and

1:31:10 ↗ other public transit providers to ensure

1:31:12 ↗ that there's forward compatibility with

1:31:15 ↗ future uh high high capacity Transit um

1:31:19 ↗ expansion so this is just saying you

1:31:21 ↗ know take a take a leadership role um in

1:31:24 ↗ Regional public transit

1:31:30 ↗ planning or there something or is there

1:31:33 ↗ something more specific that's already

1:31:34 ↗ happen

1:31:36 ↗ to

1:31:38 ↗ specifically yeah so the city staff we

1:31:41 ↗ we go to lots of these um sort of

1:31:44 ↗ meetings that that Transit agencies and

1:31:48 ↗ P Regional Council are at so this is

1:31:51 ↗ something that we just like are

1:31:53 ↗ constantly are doing um but again the

1:31:56 ↗ light rail uh planning guide does talk

1:31:59 ↗ about like when we need to ramp up sort

1:32:01 ↗ of that effort so um it's sort of it's

1:32:05 ↗ sort of saying continue as we are

1:32:07 ↗ currently doing um but then like another

1:32:10 ↗ action will also flow into that and say

1:32:14 ↗ you should

1:32:15 ↗ start uh developing those relationships

1:32:18 ↗ and making sure that you're more

1:32:19 ↗ involved as we approach those

1:32:22 ↗ discussions FL yeah

1:32:24 ↗ just to comment the the bus in picture

1:32:26 ↗ Transit Express bus that bay that's

1:32:28 ↗ Metro bus

1:32:33 ↗ that's is figure number figure

1:32:41 ↗ number it's on page

1:32:47 ↗ uh sorry I don't I don't think I caught

1:32:50 ↗ what what was mentioned yeah

1:32:54 ↗ uh 46 of

1:32:57 ↗ 394 could you mention again oh yeah

1:33:00 ↗ there's a picture of a metro bus at a

1:33:03 ↗ bus stop and the caption below says

1:33:04 ↗ Sound Transit at bus 556 at bay6 okay

1:33:08 ↗ Sor

1:33:11 ↗ right there actually is a picture of

1:33:13 ↗ that up above so there's two pictures

1:33:16 ↗ there it's the opposite it might be true

1:33:19 ↗ oh

1:33:22 ↗ interesting Transit bus could actually

1:33:24 ↗ be a Metro

1:33:26 ↗ Bus it could have been so this document

1:33:28 ↗ is in track changes so I think what

1:33:30 ↗ probably happen is that like the actual

1:33:31 ↗ version is correct but maybe that photo

1:33:35 ↗ was yeah yeah a photo above a sound

1:33:37 ↗ Trans Bus and then a metro bus and yeah

1:33:40 ↗ yeah I'll fix that yeah thanks for

1:33:42 ↗ flagging that

1:33:48 ↗ though um Okay so 6.1.1

1:33:54 ↗ talked about that uh next is partnering

1:33:56 ↗ with local with other jurisdictions in

1:33:58 ↗ King County to coordinate Regional

1:34:00 ↗ Transit improvements um this is

1:34:02 ↗ something that we already do uh really

1:34:05 ↗ but yes it's again taking that

1:34:06 ↗ leadership role with public transit

1:34:09 ↗ planning

1:34:13 ↗ 6.21 investing in capital Improvement

1:34:16 ↗ projects that develop appropriate Street

1:34:18 ↗ Crossings complete bike and pedestrian

1:34:21 ↗ Network gaps and traffic common to

1:34:24 ↗ promote Equitable and sustainable access

1:34:26 ↗ to Transit service um so these are all

1:34:29 ↗ reflected in uh the capital Improvement

1:34:32 ↗ and transportation Improvement project

1:34:34 ↗ development these projects go through

1:34:36 ↗ tab

1:34:39 ↗ um

1:34:42 ↗ 6.41 uh supporting yes so I think that

1:34:45 ↗ should be

1:34:46 ↗ 63

1:34:50 ↗ 6.4 6.2 6.4

1:34:54 ↗ these are only or we just you could be

1:34:57 ↗ right um but this uh this document is

1:35:00 ↗ just reflecting things that have changed

1:35:02 ↗ so so the other thing is um I don't

1:35:07 ↗ think we should call out Metro Flex

1:35:09 ↗ specifically we don't know could be that

1:35:13 ↗ King County King County Metro comes out

1:35:15 ↗ with a new program that's better and

1:35:17 ↗ they roll all Metro Flex into it and

1:35:19 ↗ we're like oh wait our PL say we got to

1:35:20 ↗ support this okay I think the first m l

1:35:23 ↗ well solution

1:35:24 ↗ covers the intent and doesn't Vision

1:35:28 ↗ hole us into something that could just

1:35:30 ↗ change for the better and we're missing

1:35:31 ↗ out on it because described a specific

1:35:34 ↗ program so I like the intent of it I

1:35:37 ↗ just don't want to name a specific

1:35:40 ↗ thing we want to sustain the rest of

1:35:44 ↗ just like the entire sentence and

1:35:47 ↗ Metroplex say

1:35:50 ↗ m I have a question relevant to that is

1:35:54 ↗ you familiar with the bellhop program

1:35:56 ↗ yeah like would this give us enough

1:35:58 ↗ flexibility to run program s

1:36:04 ↗ that uh interesting is that

1:36:08 ↗ look I'm not sure who operates bhop

1:36:11 ↗ specifically I I we've all seen how that

1:36:14 ↗ looks um yeah I'm not sure I I would

1:36:18 ↗ imagine that as written that would not

1:36:20 ↗ bhop bhop is the on demand service is

1:36:23 ↗ there's like a little electric cart that

1:36:25 ↗ goes around Val you oh basically

1:36:30 ↗ golf big golf carts it's meant as like a

1:36:33 ↗ Last Mile solution right so it kind of

1:36:35 ↗ fits into space but it's it's on demand

1:36:38 ↗ somewh Flex I heard a great joke about

1:36:41 ↗ this we would have to call it

1:36:45 ↗ IHOP have to repeat that anyways

1:36:48 ↗ um good advertising

1:36:54 ↗ anyways yeah so as written I can change

1:36:56 ↗ it to generally microtransit in case the

1:36:59 ↗ name changes but yeah I think the intent

1:37:01 ↗ is just to support uh the program yeah

1:37:05 ↗ so I think we could have continued

1:37:07 ↗ partnership with Kang Metro and

1:37:09 ↗ sustaining microtransit or first

1:37:12 ↗ Solutions I just we named something

1:37:15 ↗ specific we said at on a name of a

1:37:19 ↗ program metlex currently as is is like a

1:37:24 ↗ new

1:37:27 ↗ name we had to change their company name

1:37:29 ↗ to oh I didn't okay oh at least our

1:37:33 ↗ website says that I will note

1:37:36 ↗ that system it's very popular like it is

1:37:39 ↗ expanded to other places

1:37:42 ↗ ining so yeah I'll say um right they

1:37:48 ↗ might change the name again it's easier

1:37:50 ↗ if you don't have to

1:37:51 ↗ change so we'll say um sustaining

1:37:54 ↗ microtransit such as Metroflex or you

1:37:57 ↗ know just whatever uh they call

1:38:00 ↗ it

1:38:02 ↗ okay um

1:38:05 ↗ 642 encouraging Sound Transit in King

1:38:08 ↗ County Metro to purs to pursue uh travel

1:38:11 ↗ demand management strategies at their

1:38:13 ↗ park and ride facilities so this this

1:38:15 ↗ came about through the transit study

1:38:17 ↗ it's basically saying like we don't have

1:38:19 ↗ any control over their parking ride Lots

1:38:21 ↗ but um if they

1:38:24 ↗ promote uh other uses um so like one

1:38:28 ↗ example classic example is like uh if

1:38:32 ↗ Microsoft buses could use that facility

1:38:35 ↗ too and like currently not but maybe in

1:38:38 ↗ the future um they do that in many other

1:38:42 ↗ cities but

1:38:44 ↗ like they don't do that around here

1:38:47 ↗ sometimes so there's there's like

1:38:48 ↗ operational issues that occur so maybe

1:38:50 ↗ like working through some of those

1:38:51 ↗ issues um other trans comption demand

1:38:54 ↗ management things could just be like U

1:38:56 ↗ you know better monitoring their

1:38:57 ↗ facilities and like

1:38:59 ↗ helping better use them so this is just

1:39:02 ↗ an encouragement action um it's not

1:39:04 ↗ something we have direct control over

1:39:06 ↗ but it would certainly help the network

1:39:08 ↗ if they did

1:39:09 ↗ that is that a CTR thing or specifically

1:39:13 ↗ the Microsoft thing would be potentially

1:39:15 ↗ C that could be yeah yeah Transportation

1:39:18 ↗ demand management is like Beyond CTR

1:39:20 ↗ they're they're related but this this

1:39:21 ↗ would just be any Beyond like not just

1:39:24 ↗ commutes

1:39:28 ↗ yeah and then lastly on this slide

1:39:32 ↗ 651 uh yeah working with Metro to ensure

1:39:35 ↗ bus stops are located at Key

1:39:36 ↗ destinations this is something that we

1:39:38 ↗ currently do um one thing that we'll see

1:39:41 ↗ next year uh when light rail connects

1:39:44 ↗ all the way to Seattle um there's going

1:39:46 ↗ to be changes to bus service and how

1:39:49 ↗ that's delivered um that's something

1:39:51 ↗ that we've worked with Metro on so uh

1:39:53 ↗ we're constantly thinking about how uh

1:39:57 ↗ Services provided and if there's any

1:39:59 ↗ ways that we can like ask Metro politely

1:40:02 ↗ to adjust things um to better serve our

1:40:08 ↗ needs next one

1:40:11 ↗ 652 uh working with Metro to ensure that

1:40:15 ↗ bust off amenities are provided um so

1:40:18 ↗ this was mentioned during the transit

1:40:19 ↗ study um you know one example is that uh

1:40:23 ↗ there's a 554 bus stop that does not

1:40:26 ↗ have a shelter um so that's something

1:40:28 ↗ that we've actively been working on

1:40:30 ↗ job's been working on that um to see if

1:40:32 ↗ we can get like a a shelter so that you

1:40:35 ↗ don't have to wait out in the brain so

1:40:37 ↗ uh bus off amenities are really related

1:40:39 ↗ to like how Services provided and if it

1:40:41 ↗ feels right to like take the bus or not

1:40:42 ↗ so um things we can do to like make that

1:40:46 ↗ a little bit better for Transit Riders

1:40:48 ↗ is helpful that's one city yes coming y

1:40:53 ↗ it's

1:40:55 ↗ coming um okay moving on to auto travel

1:41:00 ↗ 711 um I yeah we we removed the number

1:41:04 ↗ of concurrency intersections just to

1:41:06 ↗ keep it compatible in case there's more

1:41:08 ↗ or less in the

1:41:11 ↗ future

1:41:13 ↗ uh

1:41:16 ↗ 731

1:41:18 ↗ is revising it in existing action but

1:41:21 ↗ it's making it related to the park study

1:41:24 ↗ um so the previous one was just talking

1:41:26 ↗ about evaluating parking demand using

1:41:28 ↗ methods as part of this older study um

1:41:33 ↗ and this one is specifically looking at

1:41:35 ↗ a parking policy uh making sure that

1:41:38 ↗ parking is Right sized as a condition of

1:41:40 ↗ development so it's it's more actionable

1:41:42 ↗ and it gets really to the same ends um

1:41:45 ↗ it's something that we will be

1:41:47 ↗ developing this year and it will end by

1:41:50 ↗ the end of next

1:41:52 ↗ year this another place

1:41:54 ↗ where we're talking about 731 here uh

1:41:58 ↗ yes this another place where it

1:42:00 ↗ basically says us stud

1:42:02 ↗ once versus update

1:42:05 ↗ stud yeah it's it's a good point yeah um

1:42:09 ↗ these These are regulations that will be

1:42:12 ↗ updated uh regularly um but yeah we can

1:42:16 ↗ we can add some like time uh time to

1:42:19 ↗ that

1:42:23 ↗ we do annual updates of our code so

1:42:26 ↗ um yeah

1:42:31 ↗ okay

1:42:34 ↗ 732 is updating development requirements

1:42:37 ↗ based on recommendations from that part

1:42:39 ↗ study so it's do the study and then

1:42:42 ↗ change the development requirements

1:42:44 ↗ based on

1:42:46 ↗ that 741 is developing a curb Space

1:42:51 ↗ Management plan um

1:42:54 ↗ and this would look at the different

1:42:56 ↗ needs that

1:42:57 ↗ they parking on the

1:43:00 ↗ street would have such as loading zones

1:43:03 ↗ um on street parking uh like if there's

1:43:06 ↗ bike lanes for example um if there's

1:43:09 ↗ storm water facilities so uh this would

1:43:12 ↗ be context specific and this really came

1:43:15 ↗ about through the transit study because

1:43:16 ↗ as we know like as Central isquat grows

1:43:19 ↗ there's going to be more competing needs

1:43:21 ↗ for that limited on street parking so

1:43:23 ↗ it's thinking about like in specific

1:43:25 ↗ context not the whole city but just like

1:43:27 ↗ where it matters like if we can improve

1:43:29 ↗ efficiency of how things are used

1:43:33 ↗ um this is kind of thinking on of B

1:43:37 ↗ Because B just recently couple year ago

1:43:41 ↗ they adopted something they did yeah

1:43:44 ↗ they did

1:43:47 ↗ yeah this one struck me as being like OB

1:43:50 ↗ placed in the

1:43:51 ↗ document but I'm sure it was hard find

1:43:53 ↗ the right place with that it's it's

1:43:55 ↗ related in that it's for auto

1:43:57 ↗ travel yeah non liiz use of space I

1:44:02 ↗ acknowledge that yeah suggestion yeah

1:44:06 ↗ bit

1:44:11 ↗ Yeah thoughts this

1:44:15 ↗ slide no um well at this point I guess

1:44:19 ↗ it would be

1:44:20 ↗ helpful to read if here like what you

1:44:24 ↗ heard sure

1:44:30 ↗ not to

1:44:32 ↗ make

1:44:38 ↗ easier must sure

1:44:43 ↗ um I also have more about things I took

1:44:46 ↗ out did you want to cover that first or

1:44:49 ↗ have to do with redundancies but if you

1:44:51 ↗ want to cover like stuff that didn't

1:44:53 ↗ have to do with redundance

1:45:01 ↗ necessarily yeah lot is just redundant

1:45:04 ↗ right it's redundancies and then things

1:45:05 ↗ we've already

1:45:07 ↗ done um okay so going through uh we're

1:45:10 ↗ good with the name change

1:45:16 ↗ uh we talked about tying things in with

1:45:20 ↗ uh actions so like for instance one

1:45:23 ↗ 13 um BR that into the next steps with

1:45:28 ↗ uh Vision

1:45:34 ↗ zero spelling out

1:45:37 ↗ acronyms uh tying things to The Climate

1:45:40 ↗ action

1:45:43 ↗ plan yeah just adding lots of time

1:45:46 ↗ aspects to many of these policies

1:45:48 ↗ changing the words folks to people

1:46:00 ↗ in respect to ebikes we heard some

1:46:03 ↗ things about uh making sure that we have

1:46:05 ↗ the intent behind the M the municipal

1:46:08 ↗ Fleet um adding a time frame with light

1:46:11 ↗ Ro planning

1:46:15 ↗ guide we talked about ebike safety and

1:46:19 ↗ encouraging that

1:46:24 ↗ there's a comment about a photo that was

1:46:26 ↗ the caption was

1:46:27 ↗ wrong um changing Metroflex to be more

1:46:32 ↗ generic uh potentially stating Metroflex

1:46:35 ↗ but specifically the microtransit is

1:46:38 ↗ provided by

1:46:40 ↗ Pro yeah just add Tim timing stamps

1:46:44 ↗ associated with

1:46:48 ↗ different

1:46:51 ↗ um overall

1:46:59 ↗ thoughts I did yeah I got got lots of

1:47:03 ↗ great feedback appreciate it um so just

1:47:05 ↗ so this board is in the know next week

1:47:08 ↗ I'm taking this to equity board so the

1:47:10 ↗ 4th next Wednesday um then it's going to

1:47:13 ↗ mobility and infrastructure Council

1:47:15 ↗ committee and then to council um

1:47:18 ↗ alongside with the transportation

1:47:19 ↗ element

1:47:23 ↗ page

1:47:24 ↗ 394 of the the plan here there's a

1:47:28 ↗ definition of trans Advisory board that

1:47:31 ↗ includes a transportation Improvement

1:47:34 ↗ board segment there and it's some typos

1:47:37 ↗ in it okay yeah take a look at

1:47:39 ↗ that that's as far as I

1:47:44 ↗ got

1:47:47 ↗ else make it

1:47:53 ↗ well in that case I think we've covered

1:47:57 ↗ our discussion

1:48:02 ↗ and okay um now we'll move on to reports

1:48:07 ↗ with board work

1:48:08 ↗ plan yes uh nothing too surprising other

1:48:13 ↗ than uh next month we have I9 Crossing

1:48:16 ↗ Greg will be coming in chat about that

1:48:19 ↗ and then we also are proceeding with the

1:48:22 ↗ equity training is requested um I will

1:48:24 ↗ be giving that

1:48:27 ↗ training after a lot of deliberation

1:48:30 ↗ with uh HR and all these different

1:48:33 ↗ parties so

1:48:36 ↗ yeah in terms of the things that came up

1:48:39 ↗ to say CTR be great to get that on

1:48:42 ↗ schedule at some point yes uh CTR is uh

1:48:47 ↗ let me think about this so the CTR plan

1:48:50 ↗ is softly do to

1:48:54 ↗ psrc late

1:48:56 ↗ September so I need to decide if I'm

1:48:59 ↗ going to bring it to you next month or

1:49:02 ↗ just tell psrc by the way we're getting

1:49:04 ↗ some more feedback in October or

1:49:06 ↗ something like that um but yes I do

1:49:08 ↗ intend to to bring it the other thing

1:49:10 ↗ that I think might be interesting to

1:49:12 ↗ cover with vision

1:49:13 ↗ zero that you know pretty pretty big

1:49:17 ↗ showing in this document so yeah and

1:49:20 ↗ there's there's a lot of different

1:49:21 ↗ opinions among City staff too so you

1:49:23 ↗ good to look at

1:49:26 ↗ that thank

1:49:29 ↗ you yeah well definitely talking about

1:49:32 ↗ the time after all these our pre

1:49:34 ↗ meetings

1:49:36 ↗ so add to that since emergency things

1:49:40 ↗ were covered uh in the Mi and I don't

1:49:45 ↗ know how much we talked about that as

1:49:47 ↗ board before so need to Happ I'm curious

1:49:50 ↗ what

1:49:53 ↗ that's something we could look

1:49:55 ↗ at yeah I did some emergency management

1:49:58 ↗ stuff in grad school so I'd love to talk

1:50:00 ↗ about but yeah we we could ask to see if

1:50:03 ↗ anyone has anything to talk about

1:50:05 ↗ there's City that c there's like a

1:50:07 ↗ department of Staff but

1:50:10 ↗ not I don't know I know we are doing a

1:50:14 ↗ evacuation study and I don't know if it

1:50:18 ↗ I don't think it'd be one where there'd

1:50:19 ↗ be a policy discussion but if the tab is

1:50:22 ↗ interested it might be something that we

1:50:24 ↗ could present we we down from

1:50:30 ↗ it

1:50:34 ↗ yeah yeah the tradition is that we like

1:50:37 ↗ to get things that actually

1:50:40 ↗ discuss so and maybe

1:50:43 ↗ it an email or memo to the tab about

1:50:48 ↗ it that way you guys can get information

1:50:50 ↗ and still utilize your meeting time

1:50:53 ↗ most efficient

1:50:59 ↗ possible St report St

1:51:03 ↗ staff uh I only have one thing which is

1:51:05 ↗ a correction from my presentation on

1:51:08 ↗ traffic cing last month um I

1:51:11 ↗ realized two three weeks ago that uh I

1:51:14 ↗ was conflating some some terms which led

1:51:17 ↗ to some different opinions on the on the

1:51:19 ↗ board so I use the term ballards when I

1:51:22 ↗ met plastic delineators uh for me this

1:51:25 ↗ goes back to grad school we use ballards

1:51:28 ↗ for everything um so I didn't realize

1:51:30 ↗ you were you all meant the concrete

1:51:33 ↗ metal things that you not with the

1:51:35 ↗ plastic on so um as such John and I have

1:51:39 ↗ decided to keep those in level one since

1:51:41 ↗ they're very intrusive yeah ballards

1:51:44 ↗ themselves I wasn't even

1:51:48 ↗ considering delineators are the things

1:51:50 ↗ that like you can smack into kind of

1:51:52 ↗ hurt but like they'll just flop over

1:51:55 ↗ just like AR breeding

1:51:58 ↗ great

1:52:01 ↗ wedging they actually just my impression

1:52:03 ↗ is it's just like tar around the bottom

1:52:06 ↗ it can be a combo it's like things on

1:52:07 ↗ Newport right at the ones of squ

1:52:10 ↗ mountain I know it's just tar because

1:52:11 ↗ some of them have already been knocked

1:52:13 ↗ off of the road and I looked at the

1:52:15 ↗ bottom of it it was just tar there's

1:52:16 ↗ different

1:52:18 ↗ ways depends on how

1:52:22 ↗ yes so that's my that's my only

1:52:25 ↗ correction s

1:52:28 ↗ report I don't have a chair

1:52:31 ↗ rep uh I just want to say that like

1:52:33 ↗ school starts tomorrow so yeah just

1:52:37 ↗ every day from you know like

1:52:41 ↗ 7:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and then from

1:52:45 ↗ like 2:30 to 3:45 p.m. expect a lot of

1:52:49 ↗ traffic in downtown is SP

1:52:52 ↗ does this mean we can give you

1:52:59 ↗ homework what you already get homework

1:53:01 ↗ from the top right there's all those

1:53:02 ↗ emails

1:53:08 ↗ yeah and are there any other business

1:53:12 ↗ announcements the business I was I was

1:53:15 ↗ just going to mention the equity board

1:53:17 ↗ um 94 but

1:53:31 ↗ everybody

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Julian Mydlil

Tom McDonald

Erika Boyd

Lamir Magus

Avi Mattikali

Micah Zeitz-Chua

Adam Fuchs - Alternate

Hany Maklad

Cynthia Krass

Staff (2)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator

John Mortenson, Senior Transportation Manager

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of July 24, 2024 There being no proposed changes, the Minutes of July 24, 2024 were approved by unanimous consent.
The discussion then moved to traffic calming measures and Vision Zero initiatives.