Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, May 28, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 23, 2025

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-23-25 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. April 23, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Multimodal Transportation Concurrency Policy: Proposed Updates (D)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.5–71

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

▪ Review of Issaquah Documents ▪ Action Items

Wildfire Evacuation Time Estimate Study (D)

Jared Schneider, Emergency Manager · packet pp.73–98

Open packet at p.73 ↗

Staff report:

Share information on the planning process, results, and plans for implementation. Identify future evacuation scenarios to deepen our understanding of challenges and future mitigation strategies.

Chair and Vice-Chair Nominations & Elections (A)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

3034 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ Great. Welcome everybody to the May 28

0:14 ↗ meeting. I'm glad everyone's here. This

0:17 ↗ wonderful nice uh evening. Um I will

0:22 ↗ call meeting at 601. Um and first

0:26 ↗ business is uh moving the minutes for

0:30 ↗ April 23rd. Um so please take any

0:33 ↗ comments or you have on April 23rd

0:38 ↗ meeting

0:40 ↗ minutes. Any other corrections? No. Um

0:44 ↗ well we will approve this

0:46 ↗ by if um there's

0:49 ↗ no objections.

0:55 ↗ Um, our next item is public comments.

0:58 ↗ But first, I will invite Council J.

1:04 ↗ I'll

1:11 ↗ have everyone, my name is Kelly Jen. I'm

1:14 ↗ the newest ISPA city council member. I'm

1:16 ↗ here today on behalf of the whole Isqua

1:17 ↗ city council member just to express our

1:20 ↗ appreciation and gratitude for you all

1:22 ↗ for volunteering your time to serve on

1:24 ↗ uh the transportation advisory board for

1:25 ↗ Isiqua. You know, we know that this is

1:27 ↗ volunteer time. There's lots of better

1:28 ↗ things you could be doing today,

1:30 ↗ especially specifically today when it's

1:32 ↗ sunny and beautiful. Um but we

1:34 ↗ appreciate that you're here to help

1:35 ↗ shape the future of transportation here

1:37 ↗ in Isqua. Um, especially, you know, with

1:39 ↗ planning for the future of light rail,

1:41 ↗ with the I90 multimotal crossing, which

1:43 ↗ I know that you all have been speaking a

1:45 ↗ lot about. There's a lot of exciting

1:46 ↗ stuff happening with transportation,

1:47 ↗ which is really going to help shape the

1:49 ↗ future of the city. So, we really

1:51 ↗ appreciate you, you know, spending the

1:52 ↗ time effort and asking tough questions

1:54 ↗ and making sure that, you know, by the

1:56 ↗ time it gets to us, we're like, oh, you

1:58 ↗ know, transportation advisor work has

1:59 ↗ already reviewed it. they've really

2:00 ↗ taken a critical eye to this and that,

2:03 ↗ you know, helps us make our decisions a

2:05 ↗ lot more evenly knowing that there's all

2:07 ↗ of you um having looked over that. So,

2:10 ↗ uh, thank you all for, uh, all the work

2:12 ↗ that you do and also thanks to all the

2:14 ↗ amazing staff, um, including, uh, Jared

2:17 ↗ and Emily back there, um, for all the

2:19 ↗ work that they do because I know that,

2:21 ↗ you know, there's there's a lot to do,

2:24 ↗ um, and lots of tough projects,

2:25 ↗ especially, you know, in the current

2:27 ↗ budgetary situation. It's really

2:29 ↗ challenging, but, you know, we can still

2:31 ↗ get some good work done here in Isqua

2:32 ↗ and that, you know, we can work towards

2:36 ↗ a city that's even better. So, thank you

2:38 ↗ all.

2:41 ↗ So

2:47 ↗ much public comments.

3:00 ↗ We do not have any folks

3:03 ↗ with indicated interest in public

3:06 ↗ comment on the hearing

3:10 ↗ and

3:11 ↗ [Music]

3:13 ↗ see. Um then our first item of regular

3:17 ↗ business will

3:19 ↗ be around.

3:27 ↗ Give me just a second. I'll get my my

3:29 ↗ screen share up here.

3:42 ↗ Thanks. You can film for

3:50 ↗ me. All

4:11 ↗ right.

4:13 ↗ Yeah, that's mostly true.

4:39 ↗ Okay, can you see the airplane on your

4:41 ↗ end? I can. And can you hear me? We can

4:44 ↗ hear you live here. I think we're ready

4:45 ↗ to ready to start.

4:50 ↗ Perfect. Um, can we go to the next

4:55 ↗ slide? Great. Well, good evening

4:57 ↗ everybody. Thank you for having uh

4:59 ↗ Kendra and I um here tonight to discuss

5:02 ↗ the multimmodal concurrency policy

5:05 ↗ project. Kendra and I will be tag

5:07 ↗ teaming the presentation. Um so we'll be

5:09 ↗ going back and forth. Um but as we go

5:12 ↗ through, please let us know if there's

5:14 ↗ anything that we say that needs

5:17 ↗ clarification. Um I'll start by

5:19 ↗ providing a bit of background on how we

5:21 ↗ got to uh the set of recommendations

5:23 ↗ that we're going to be presenting to you

5:24 ↗ tonight. uh before we drive into the

5:27 ↗ discussion of uh action items for tab

5:32 ↗ consideration. Um next slide and then

5:35 ↗ next

5:38 ↗ slide. Great. Thank you.

5:42 ↗ Um the purpose of this project was to

5:44 ↗ assess the city's uh current

5:46 ↗ transportation concurrency system and

5:49 ↗ then make recommendations to ensure that

5:51 ↗ the city's concurrency system complies

5:53 ↗ with the state's requirements for

5:55 ↗ multimmodal

5:57 ↗ considerations. Um I've personally had

5:59 ↗ the responsibility of maintaining and

6:01 ↗ updating the city's concurrency system

6:03 ↗ since

6:04 ↗ 1994 when the first concurrency system

6:07 ↗ was implemented. And for those doing the

6:09 ↗ math, that's 30 years. And I did not

6:12 ↗ have all of this gray hair 30 years

6:15 ↗ ago. Um, the city had three different

6:18 ↗ concurrency methodologies over those 30

6:21 ↗ years. Tonight's recommendations

6:23 ↗ ultimately

6:25 ↗ uh could result in a fourth iteration of

6:27 ↗ concurrency.

6:28 ↗ But interestingly, all of them, every

6:31 ↗ single one of them had some kind of

6:34 ↗ multimodal component long before it was

6:36 ↗ required by the state. Nevertheless,

6:40 ↗ with this project, we had the advantage

6:41 ↗ of the guiding principles as outlined in

6:44 ↗ the city's recently adopted mobility

6:47 ↗ action plan. And for all of the

6:50 ↗ recommendations that Kendra and I are

6:51 ↗ presenting tonight, we made sure that

6:53 ↗ these guiding principles that are on the

6:55 ↗ screen in front of you were embodied in

6:58 ↗ the solutions that we came up

7:00 ↗ with. Uh, next slide,

7:07 ↗ please. Uh, additionally, we had to make

7:10 ↗ sure that our recommendations satisfied

7:12 ↗ state requirements for transportation

7:14 ↗ concurrency. Uh this slide summarize

7:17 ↗ summarizes the recent various state

7:19 ↗ mandates uh that regulate concurrency.

7:23 ↗ In the interest of time I won't go

7:25 ↗ through each one. Uh but I will say that

7:27 ↗ first um the general gist is to ensure

7:30 ↗ that concurrency that the concurrency

7:33 ↗ system takes into account other modes

7:35 ↗ besides just

7:37 ↗ automobile. And then secondly that all

7:40 ↗ of the recommendations that we're

7:41 ↗ presenting tonight ensure the state's

7:43 ↗ requirements are met. Next slide,

7:47 ↗ please. Finally, as part of the

7:50 ↗ preparation for assessing assessing the

7:52 ↗ city's current current system, we

7:55 ↗ reviewed all relevant documents and code

7:57 ↗ pertaining to the transportation

7:59 ↗ concurrency. And as part of that review

8:01 ↗ effort, we identified conflicting

8:03 ↗ information between documents. We

8:06 ↗ identified policies that already support

8:08 ↗ the state

8:09 ↗ requirements and we recommended changes

8:12 ↗ where needed to meet the state

8:13 ↗ requirements.

8:16 ↗ Uh, next slide,

8:19 ↗ please. The review of existing documents

8:22 ↗ basically led to a list of action items

8:25 ↗ for Kendra and I and city staff to

8:28 ↗ follow up on, as illustrated on this

8:30 ↗ slide. Each of the items identified on

8:33 ↗ this slide will be discussed in greater

8:35 ↗ detail on the slides that follow.

8:37 ↗ And as you can see, the action items

8:39 ↗ span all modes of travel, specifically

8:42 ↗ walking biking transit and

8:45 ↗ automobile. The remaining presentation

8:47 ↗ is organized to discuss each of these

8:49 ↗ modes separately. And with that, I'm

8:51 ↗ going to turn it over to Kendra, who's

8:52 ↗ going to talk about the walking mode

8:54 ↗ first.

8:57 ↗ All right. Well, thank you. Well, good

8:59 ↗ evening, TAD members. Um, so as Dorston

9:03 ↗ said, we're going to kind of walk mode

9:05 ↗ through mode. Um, and at the beginning

9:07 ↗ of each mode, we'll kind of pose the

9:10 ↗ question for you to kind of keep in

9:11 ↗ mind. And then I think the intent is to

9:13 ↗ kind of pause at the end of each mode

9:15 ↗ and kind of get your thoughts before we

9:16 ↗ proceed to the next one. And we really

9:19 ↗ look at this as an interactive session.

9:21 ↗ We're really excited that all of you are

9:22 ↗ here. Your perspectives are absolutely

9:25 ↗ welcomed and desired tonight. Um, so

9:28 ↗ first one, walking mode. Um, so your uh

9:33 ↗ mobility action plan, that's your map.

9:35 ↗ um has contains policy 4.1 which

9:39 ↗ establishes a four tier system for

9:41 ↗ providing pedestrian facilities. Um so a

9:45 ↗ series of following slides we're going

9:46 ↗ to show kind of what those tiered

9:49 ↗ facilities what each of those four tiers

9:51 ↗ are um and also identify an existing

9:54 ↗ level of compliance with each of those

9:56 ↗ tiers. Um, so before we show those maps,

9:58 ↗ I want to just kind of preview the

10:00 ↗ question that we have for you guys. And

10:02 ↗ it's really whether you agree with the

10:04 ↗ staff recommendation to include all of

10:07 ↗ Central on tier 1 and to include

10:10 ↗ sidewalks in tier 4. We'll get into that

10:13 ↗ a little bit more, but we are looking at

10:15 ↗ some substantive changes to tiers one

10:17 ↗ and four. So step into those now. Um, so

10:22 ↗ this first map here actually shows

10:26 ↗ clearly all of the Aqua streets. Um, and

10:30 ↗ first of all, I'm just going to orient

10:31 ↗ you a little bit to the colors that we

10:33 ↗ have. And I realize it's kind of hard to

10:34 ↗ see on the screen here, but um, we have,

10:37 ↗ as we mentioned, four tiers. Um, we

10:40 ↗ actually have five colors if you look at

10:41 ↗ this. Um, and the bottom is these gray

10:44 ↗ streets. Those are private streets,

10:45 ↗ which the city really doesn't have any

10:47 ↗ control over, so we're not speaking to

10:49 ↗ those. The four the four tiers are

10:52 ↗ public streets within Isiqua and it's

10:54 ↗ really kind of helping us to think about

10:56 ↗ well what kinds of accommodations do we

10:58 ↗ need based on where these streets are.

11:01 ↗ So just quick overview of the tiers.

11:04 ↗ Tier one um is really you know within

11:08 ↗ central Isiqua Oldtown isqua highlands

11:12 ↗ um looking at those most major streets.

11:15 ↗ Uh, tier 2 is, and we'll talk about this

11:17 ↗ a little bit more when we get to that

11:19 ↗ slide, but it's looking more at kind of

11:22 ↗ local streets within those neighborhoods

11:25 ↗ and also in the vicinity of things like

11:28 ↗ transit, stops, and parks. Um, tier

11:31 ↗ three is looking at arterials and

11:34 ↗ collectors kind of outside of those

11:36 ↗ neighborhoods. And then tier four is

11:38 ↗ really a focus on kind of those citywide

11:40 ↗ local streets and what to do with those.

11:42 ↗ So with that we'll go on to our

11:44 ↗ discussion in tier one. Um so as uh I

11:49 ↗ mentioned in the previous slide. So

11:51 ↗ let's just read first what your what the

11:53 ↗ proposed policy is for tier one.

11:56 ↗ Enhanced sidewalks on both sides of the

11:59 ↗ street on arterials and collectors in

12:01 ↗ the three neighborhoods of central

12:03 ↗ Isiqua, Old Town and Isqua Highlands. So

12:08 ↗ what we've shown on this map here is

12:10 ↗ we've actually mapped out what those

12:12 ↗ streets are that are contained here. So

12:14 ↗ that's where you can see kind of the

12:16 ↗ colored streets. Those are the ones that

12:18 ↗ are contained within tier one. And what

12:21 ↗ we've also tried to capture on this

12:23 ↗ slide is the existing kind of condition

12:27 ↗ of those streets. So you can see in

12:29 ↗ orange we've got some of the streets

12:31 ↗ that don't have any sidewalk at all. Um,

12:34 ↗ you can see other colors where we might

12:36 ↗ have a sidewalk on one side of the

12:38 ↗ street but not on the other. We might

12:40 ↗ have a standard sidewalk and then where

12:42 ↗ you can see those double green lines

12:44 ↗ which there aren't a lot. Those are the

12:45 ↗ streets where we're fully complying with

12:48 ↗ the standard here. And so in looking at

12:50 ↗ this map also, and you I think you have

12:52 ↗ it in your packet, you can look at the

12:54 ↗ mileage. Um, so you can see that we

12:57 ↗ actually do have 4.7 miles of street

13:00 ↗ that include this enhanced sidewalk on

13:03 ↗ both sides of the street. But as we've

13:05 ↗ gone through our analysis, there are

13:06 ↗ many, many miles of of streets that are

13:10 ↗ contained within tier one that have

13:12 ↗ sidewalks that don't quite meet the

13:13 ↗ standard or missing sidewalks on one

13:15 ↗ side or the other. So with that, we'll

13:18 ↗ go to the next tier. Um, so this this

13:20 ↗ tier because it expands beyond those

13:22 ↗ three neighborhoods, um, you'll probably

13:25 ↗ notice the the um the zoom level of the

13:28 ↗ map is really kind of gone out because

13:29 ↗ we're looking at more of a city-wide

13:31 ↗ scale. So, tier 2 uh states that we

13:35 ↗ would want to have standard sidewalks on

13:37 ↗ both sides of local streets in those

13:39 ↗ three neighborhoods mentioned in tier

13:42 ↗ one. um as well as on all streets within

13:47 ↗ a quarter mile radius around sensitive

13:50 ↗ locations. And we define those to be

13:51 ↗ schools, senior centers, public

13:54 ↗ community amenities such as hospitals,

13:56 ↗ transit stops, and civic facilities. Um

13:59 ↗ so again, like the previous slide, we've

14:01 ↗ gone through the effort of mapping

14:04 ↗ existing conditions. Uh you can see that

14:06 ↗ we've actually because we're only

14:09 ↗ requiring kind of a more standard basic

14:11 ↗ sidewalk here. So that's, you know, kind

14:13 ↗ of a five or six foot sidewalk. Um, not

14:16 ↗ super wide. Um, simpler. We we've got

14:19 ↗ pretty good compliance around the city.

14:21 ↗ We've got, uh, 30.6 miles of facilities

14:25 ↗ that actually do meet that standard

14:27 ↗ within this tier. Um, but then when we

14:29 ↗ look around tier 2, we still have 7.7

14:32 ↗ miles of streets that only have sidewalk

14:35 ↗ on one side, and we have 16.4 four miles

14:38 ↗ of streets that have sidewalks on no

14:41 ↗ sides of the street. So, that's that

14:43 ↗ tier. Um, we'll move on to tier three.

14:46 ↗ So, tier three is a little bit more

14:48 ↗ limited in scale. You can see there's

14:50 ↗ not near as many mileage um of streets

14:53 ↗ that fall into this category. Um and

14:55 ↗ this states that standard sidewalks on

14:58 ↗ one side um standard sidewalks on one

15:00 ↗ side of artials or collectors outside of

15:03 ↗ tier one neighborhoods of central Esqua,

15:06 ↗ Oldtown, and NISPA highlights. So again,

15:09 ↗ we're looking at your arterials and

15:11 ↗ collectors that are not within those

15:13 ↗ neighborhoods. Um but looking to provide

15:16 ↗ sidewalks on at least one side of the

15:18 ↗ street. So, you can see on the map here

15:20 ↗ that we've got 4.9 miles of streets um

15:25 ↗ that include sidewalk on at least one

15:28 ↗ side. Um and then we have three miles of

15:31 ↗ street of these streets that have no

15:33 ↗ sidewalks. Um and then lastly, go to

15:36 ↗ tier four. Um which again, this is kind

15:40 ↗ of more that local street standard. Um,

15:43 ↗ and the proposed standard is that we

15:46 ↗ would either have lower speed limits, 20

15:49 ↗ m an hour or less, um, or provide a

15:53 ↗ sidewalk on one side of all local

15:56 ↗ streets outside of those neighborhoods.

15:58 ↗ So, that recognition is that you

16:00 ↗ probably can't maybe afford to provide a

16:02 ↗ sidewalk everywhere, but can't have a

16:05 ↗ sidewalk looking at lower speeds. And

16:08 ↗ this is something that actually stems

16:10 ↗ back to your uh 2020 mobility master

16:13 ↗ plan. Um so again, as we look at kind of

16:18 ↗ uh kind of facility conditions, uh

16:22 ↗ you'll see that we've really only got 14

16:25 ↗ miles of streets that are meeting that

16:27 ↗ standard. We've got 12.6 miles of

16:29 ↗ streets that are not meeting that

16:30 ↗ standard, either through speed limit or

16:32 ↗ sidewalk provision. Um and the whole

16:35 ↗ reason just to kind of provide some

16:37 ↗ context for why we did this. Um this is

16:41 ↗ what we were doing here is we were

16:42 ↗ mapping out and evaluating kind of how

16:44 ↗ is streets perform relative to the

16:47 ↗ standard. But this would ultimately feed

16:50 ↗ into a city capital list of sidewalks to

16:53 ↗ construct and ultimately a level of

16:56 ↗ prioritization. So with that I think

16:59 ↗ that's the end of this slide. I think

17:00 ↗ we'll get back to that question.

17:03 ↗ All right. I think we're going to do

17:04 ↗ questions a little bit differently than

17:06 ↗ maybe we've done them in the past. So, I

17:08 ↗ think first if you have any clarifying

17:10 ↗ questions, we'll we'll address those

17:11 ↗ first in each se in each section. But

17:14 ↗ then we'd like folks to sorry, I'll

17:16 ↗ explain and then clarifying questions.

17:18 ↗ Does that sound good? Okay. Um then we'd

17:20 ↗ like folks to basically indicate on the

17:23 ↗ piece of paper, however works to you, if

17:25 ↗ you on initial kind of uh impression of

17:28 ↗ the staff recommendation, if you would

17:30 ↗ agree, disagree, you're unsure or

17:33 ↗ something else. And we want to get a

17:35 ↗ sense of the group. The reason we're

17:36 ↗ doing this is we have five policy

17:38 ↗ questions for you all. Um and we only

17:40 ↗ have an hour with all of you and this

17:42 ↗ material can be complex. So we want to

17:44 ↗ make sure that all of you understand it

17:46 ↗ and we can move quickly through areas

17:47 ↗ where there is agreement. but spend time

17:50 ↗ where we need to where there is some

17:52 ↗ discussion to be had. So with that,

17:54 ↗ let's talk clarifying questions first

17:56 ↗ and then I'll preview the staff

17:57 ↗ recommendation again. Um we'll talk

17:59 ↗ about that. So those sidewalks in tier 4

18:03 ↗ is it include the sidewalks

18:06 ↗ uh with the stipulation that it's either

18:08 ↗ sidewalk or 20 miles per hour or is it

18:10 ↗ that's the 20 m per hour. Is it matter a

18:13 ↗ lot to sidewalks? It's an or but the

18:16 ↗ addition is is bringing in both parts of

18:19 ↗ correct and quote.

18:25 ↗ Any other clarifying

18:27 ↗ questions? Okay. The what staff is

18:29 ↗ recommending here is to uh expand from

18:32 ↗ just the central Isaflab uh regional

18:34 ↗ growth center um which there is a map

18:36 ↗ included in the packet of that um in

18:38 ↗ tier one and to include sidewalks uh in

18:41 ↗ tier 4 as noted. So, I'll give you all a

18:44 ↗ minute to to kind of consider this. Um,

18:46 ↗ and then I'll maybe ask for those in

18:48 ↗ agreement to to raise their like little

18:50 ↗ their little name badges so we can kind

18:51 ↗ of see where the group's

19:13 ↗ at. All right. Uh, anyone in agreement?

19:16 ↗ If you'd want to raise your name, I

19:18 ↗ think that'll give us an indication of

19:19 ↗ where where the group is

19:24 ↗ at.

19:26 ↗ Okay. So, most folks in agreement. Um,

19:29 ↗ for those not in agreement or unsure,

19:31 ↗ can I can I hear from you briefly

19:34 ↗ on on why? Sure, I'll jump in. Yeah. Um,

19:37 ↗ so so a couple things on the uh central

19:39 ↗ squad tier one. I think I'm generally in

19:42 ↗ agreement with that. Um, one of the

19:44 ↗ questions that I would have on that

19:45 ↗ would be if we look at the future where

19:48 ↗ some of those private roads might become

19:50 ↗ part of the grid, um, what happens

19:52 ↗ there? If we impose something like a

19:54 ↗ super block concept on the area, what

19:57 ↗ happens? I think it's compatible, but

19:59 ↗ I'm just not entirely sure on that.

20:02 ↗ However, the with the sidewalks on tier

20:04 ↗ 4, um, I have a lot more questions. Uh,

20:08 ↗ so this seems to be dominated by a

20:11 ↗ couple of neighborhoods. one Squawk

20:13 ↗ Mountain kind of as you get off of the

20:17 ↗ arterials and collectors up in Squawk

20:20 ↗ Mountain. And

20:22 ↗ so who chooses between 20 miles an hour

20:25 ↗ and sidewalk? What do we expect the

20:27 ↗ benefit to be of building the sidewalk?

20:29 ↗ What do the residents want? Um, just

20:32 ↗ personally, if I had a place up there, I

20:34 ↗ would I would prefer probably not to

20:36 ↗ build a sidewalk because I have the

20:38 ↗ flexibility of the land use and I don't

20:40 ↗ think I'd gain that much out of

20:43 ↗ walkability from having a sidewalk

20:45 ↗ there. But I I don't know the exact

20:47 ↗ conditions. So, I would kind of defer

20:49 ↗ that to people that

20:53 ↗ neighborhood. I can provide a little bit

20:55 ↗ of context. So the reason the original

20:59 ↗ mobility master plan before the mobility

21:01 ↗ action plan only had the 20 m an hour

21:06 ↗ for tier 4. And so what we thought about

21:09 ↗ the reason why we recommended also if we

21:11 ↗ had sidewalk is if we have a tier 4

21:15 ↗ location and it already has sidewalk, do

21:20 ↗ we really need to go to the extra step

21:22 ↗ of evaluating the speed limit? and we

21:25 ↗ still could, but uh to evaluate lowering

21:28 ↗ the speed limit when there's already a

21:30 ↗ pedestrian facility. And as we

21:33 ↗ prioritize, I wouldn't anticipate that

21:35 ↗ building tier 4 sidewalk would be a

21:38 ↗ priority at this time while we still

21:41 ↗ have the first three tiers to get

21:44 ↗ through. So, so to to clarify that, the

21:47 ↗ change would be it currently says we're

21:49 ↗ going to drop it all to 20 miles an

21:50 ↗ hour, right? And now we're going to say

21:52 ↗ we might not drop it to 20 m hour if we

21:54 ↗ build a sidewalk or if there is a

21:56 ↗ sidewalk because there's there is a

21:58 ↗ sidewalk. Yeah. Yeah. Or it could be or

22:01 ↗ we build sidewalk. Um I will say for

22:03 ↗ squawk it would be very difficult to

22:05 ↗ build sidewalk on most of the airport

22:08 ↗ location. Yeah. I don't think that

22:11 ↗ nuance came out of the discussion

22:12 ↗ earlier. So uh that probably indicates

22:14 ↗ that somebody taking this further and

22:16 ↗ for example creating a list of sidewalks

22:18 ↗ to build might also not understand that

22:21 ↗ nuance. So we might try to clarify that.

22:24 ↗ Yeah.

22:26 ↗ So your response just then contradictory

22:30 ↗ I thought I understood the addition

22:34 ↗ being the addition of both sides of the

22:36 ↗ order. But you're saying that right now

22:39 ↗ tier four is required to go to 20 also.

22:44 ↗ I would say that is the policy. Yeah. So

22:47 ↗ you're literally just adding an option

22:50 ↗ instead of lowering it. You would you

22:53 ↗ could have a correct.

22:56 ↗ Okay. So that different I say I largely

22:59 ↗ agree with

23:00 ↗ that but I would echo what Adam said

23:03 ↗ about if you're like in squawk. It's

23:06 ↗ squat mountain should be the ones that

23:08 ↗ are providing it above the right

23:10 ↗ solution for that because it's like

23:12 ↗ that's like a you know thorough prayer

23:15 ↗ or whatever you're not going through

23:17 ↗ there to go somewhere else. So

23:20 ↗ yeah I think in that case I'd probably

23:21 ↗ lean towards a creed uh like

23:24 ↗ centralistic tier one makes largely

23:26 ↗ makes sense but it's like as defined

23:29 ↗ today or is this that you know in

23:31 ↗ perpetuity whatever is defined as

23:33 ↗ central.

23:34 ↗ Well, I guess going to the question of

23:37 ↗ the future street grid in central

23:38 ↗ Esquad, the future street grid includes

23:41 ↗ sidewalk on both sides. So, there's a

23:43 ↗ private street right now that or a

23:46 ↗ street that does not exist and it gets

23:48 ↗ built as part of development. It would

23:50 ↗ have sidewalks on both sides.

23:58 ↗ Um, let me know if this is out of turn,

24:00 ↗ but um, since it's my first meeting, but

24:04 ↗ so I do have a biased opinion. I live on

24:06 ↗ the top of Walk Mountain, so I'll state

24:08 ↗ that for the record. Um, but there are

24:11 ↗ indeed many areas where sidewalk would

24:13 ↗ not likely be possible, but there are

24:16 ↗ quite a few where I think there could

24:18 ↗ be, especially leading all the way up to

24:20 ↗ the top, which I go many times a day.

24:22 ↗ Um, and just the number of kids and

24:24 ↗ families and actual, you know, it's a

24:26 ↗ very active community, walkers, hikers.

24:29 ↗ I think it would be really valuable if a

24:31 ↗ sidewalks are an option. So, just from

24:33 ↗ my point of view, I would take those

24:35 ↗ things into consideration.

24:38 ↗ Thank you.

24:42 ↗ Any other points

24:49 ↗ agreements? Any comments?

24:54 ↗ the talking about one thought that

24:56 ↗ didn't occur in my head about the

24:59 ↗ lowering to 20 versus two sides on both

25:02 ↗ sides was the topography

25:09 ↗ swing on climbing a hill I guess

25:14 ↗ or my art going a little

25:20 ↗ yes But I feel like you might not be

25:22 ↗ going slower. And Spock has some of the

25:25 ↗ steep winding roads. Like we fireplace

25:28 ↗ trail a lot and like people will come

25:30 ↗ around there really fast and there's no

25:33 ↗ visibility. Um so yeah, assuming you're

25:36 ↗ a safe driver, I feel like that's true.

25:42 ↗ All right. I'm hearing general agreement

25:45 ↗ um with the caveat that we need to

25:47 ↗ delineate what exactly it means for the

25:49 ↗ future of central Isiqua and how that's

25:50 ↗ already been laid out and planned with

25:52 ↗ sidewalks on both sides for any future

25:54 ↗ development and to include clearer

25:56 ↗ instruction and what it means

25:59 ↗ um what exactly the taring out means for

26:01 ↗ that tier for an existing sidewalk

26:05 ↗ usage. Does that seem

26:08 ↗ reasonable?

26:10 ↗ Yeah. Okay. I think we're good to move

26:12 ↗ on to the next section now.

26:15 ↗ Great. Okay. Bike mode. Um so, uh policy

26:21 ↗ 5.1 in your map includes bike level of

26:26 ↗ traffic stress scoring system for all

26:28 ↗ street cities or for all bike facilities

26:31 ↗ in the in the city. And I will just put

26:34 ↗ it out there. I will be defining what

26:36 ↗ bike level of traffic stress means

26:37 ↗ because that may not be a common term

26:39 ↗ for everyone. But it is a a I would say

26:43 ↗ a concept of growing prominence in the

26:45 ↗ transportation planning profession. Um

26:48 ↗ so kind of some of the data that we're

26:50 ↗ going to be showing uh first we'll show

26:53 ↗ um just where existing bike

26:54 ↗ infrastructure is in ISPA today. Um and

26:57 ↗ then we'll talk about the concept of

27:00 ↗ bike level traffic stress. Um and then

27:03 ↗ um we'll talk about some policy updates

27:06 ↗ that essentially enhance this concept to

27:09 ↗ consider topography and slope as we know

27:12 ↗ that's a big issue here in Esqua. So

27:14 ↗ next slide.

27:17 ↗ Um, so and the question that we're going

27:19 ↗ to have for all of you is whether you

27:22 ↗ agree with the staff recommendation that

27:24 ↗ slope be included is a factor in um

27:29 ↗ measuring bike level of traffic stress.

27:32 ↗ So we'll get there to that question at

27:34 ↗ the end. Um so first of all just some

27:36 ↗ terms definitions here.

27:39 ↗ Um in terms of thinking about you know

27:43 ↗ how how do we feel comfortable as

27:45 ↗ cyclists? I think everybody around the

27:47 ↗ table probably has varying levels of

27:50 ↗ comfort as a cyclist. Uh we probably

27:53 ↗ have folks here that bike routinely.

27:56 ↗ Maybe you bike fast. Maybe you bike

27:58 ↗ recreationally over um you know kind of

28:01 ↗ in your free time. Maybe you bike

28:03 ↗ everywhere. You might be one of the

28:04 ↗ folks that have spandex and fancy bikes.

28:07 ↗ Um, that's one side of the spectrum. The

28:10 ↗ other side of the spectrum are probably

28:12 ↗ people that don't bike that often. Maybe

28:14 ↗ you have little kids that you're biking

28:16 ↗ with. So, you're you're very sensitive

28:18 ↗ to nearby traffic. And I would say that

28:22 ↗ our communities that we're planning for

28:25 ↗ fall all along that spectrum. So, it's

28:27 ↗ really important as we're planning for

28:30 ↗ bicycle facilities that we're thinking

28:31 ↗ about all those different types of

28:33 ↗ users. And when we think about those

28:36 ↗ different types of users, um, you know,

28:38 ↗ again, you know, they they fall in all

28:41 ↗ of the spectrum, but when we look at it,

28:43 ↗ the vast majority of people, so kind of

28:47 ↗ over half, 50 50 to 56%, we put them in

28:51 ↗ kind of that interested and concerned

28:53 ↗ category. So, they're probably going to

28:55 ↗ be more comfortable in fully separated

28:58 ↗ facilities like trails or at least buff

29:02 ↗ offered bike lanes, physically separated

29:04 ↗ facilities that really give them a fair

29:06 ↗ amount of protection. Um, we only have a

29:09 ↗ small portion of our population that's

29:12 ↗ really going to be comfortable on those

29:14 ↗ faster streets where you're a lot closer

29:16 ↗ to cars. So, it's really important that

29:18 ↗ we're thinking about what those um

29:21 ↗ different kind of typologies are of

29:24 ↗ cyclists if we really want to move the

29:26 ↗ needle and get people who are

29:27 ↗ comfortable in using their bike to get

29:29 ↗ places. Um so, just last kind of terms

29:33 ↗ definition here. Um so, we really do try

29:37 ↗ to kind of categorize cyclists in kind

29:39 ↗ of these four categories. LTS1 are you

29:43 ↗ know generally it's it's both what we

29:45 ↗ call the facilities that they're

29:46 ↗ comfortable to users that are really not

29:49 ↗ going to be comfortable with high stress

29:51 ↗ levels. Um LTS2 it's a little bit higher

29:55 ↗ stress level. Um LTS3 is even a little

29:58 ↗ bit more beyond that. And then level of

30:00 ↗ stress traffic stress 4 um are really

30:03 ↗ those very high stress facilities that

30:05 ↗ only a small subset of kind of our

30:08 ↗ population are going to be comfortable

30:09 ↗ using. So with that um wanted to just

30:12 ↗ quickly present. So this is not the LTS

30:15 ↗ concept here. This is just a quick map

30:18 ↗ of the facilities that you have in your

30:20 ↗ city today. Um so we have bike lanes.

30:24 ↗ There's actually 27 miles of bike lanes.

30:28 ↗ Um so you can see mapped where those are

30:31 ↗ in the uh city today. And then we have

30:35 ↗ uh kind of shared use paths and lanes.

30:38 ↗ Um so a lot of those are kind of trails

30:40 ↗ that are fully separated from the

30:42 ↗ roadway um shown in purple on this map.

30:46 ↗ And so next slide here um is just a

30:51 ↗ classic measurement of level of traffic

30:53 ↗ stress using some very standard measures

30:56 ↗ um I think grounded in not only guidance

30:59 ↗ kind of um from the Manetta Institute.

31:02 ↗ They've been around for a long time um

31:04 ↗ but they've also been adopted by

31:06 ↗ WASHDOT. So, we've taken a look at your

31:09 ↗ transportation system. Um, and so you

31:12 ↗ can see LTS1 facilities. So, we've got

31:15 ↗ about 23 miles. That's your trails.

31:18 ↗ That's your shared use paths that are

31:20 ↗ providing kind of that really um kind of

31:24 ↗ low level of traffic stress, very

31:26 ↗ inclusive facilities. Um, and then you

31:29 ↗ can see other types of facilities. the

31:31 ↗ LTS2 often considered to be fairly

31:34 ↗ inclusive, fairly comfortable to most

31:37 ↗ riders that that 50 to 56% of riders are

31:41 ↗ typically comfortable on these

31:43 ↗ facilities. So you can see those in kind

31:45 ↗ of the orange. Um and then you move into

31:47 ↗ your higher stress facilities based on

31:51 ↗ again this is based on traffic speeds

31:53 ↗ and exposure to vehicles that are in the

31:56 ↗ red and the mar there. Um, so that's,

32:00 ↗ you know, a snapshot of your bike

32:02 ↗ network today. Um, but then what we've

32:06 ↗ inserted into here is a recognition of

32:10 ↗ what does topography do to stress

32:12 ↗ levels? Um, so on one hand, things that

32:16 ↗ can make biking more difficult of course

32:18 ↗ is exposure to vehicles, the prevailing

32:21 ↗ speeds, traffic volume levels, the level

32:24 ↗ of separation. But the other piece that

32:28 ↗ we've pulled in here now using a

32:31 ↗ regional PSRC tool um is considering the

32:36 ↗ impact of slopes and so when it's Yes.

32:42 ↗ members can explain Thank you. Yes. Yes.

32:47 ↗ Um that's the Puget Sound Regional

32:49 ↗ Council. Um, so they are the regional

32:53 ↗ government agency that provides guidance

32:56 ↗ throughout our 5count region. So I don't

33:00 ↗ know if you had any more definition you

33:02 ↗ want to provide.

33:04 ↗ Okay, great. Thank you for the question.

33:07 ↗ Um, so we've we've brought that in and I

33:10 ↗ think the big finding here is that while

33:13 ↗ the city I think has done a pretty good

33:15 ↗ job building out its trails network, the

33:18 ↗ really difficult thing to navigate is

33:21 ↗ topography. And so pulling that into our

33:25 ↗ analysis, I think gives us a more

33:26 ↗ realistic depiction of how comfortable

33:29 ↗ folks are likely to be biking in Iska.

33:32 ↗ On the other hand, um, topography is a

33:34 ↗ really difficult thing to navigate. So

33:37 ↗ that's kind of the mapping and I'll pass

33:40 ↗ it over to Julian. I think just like

33:42 ↗ last time, any clarifying questions on

33:44 ↗ this one? Yeah, I know we've talked

33:46 ↗ about this before, but I still think I'm

33:48 ↗ forgive me if we've been through this

33:50 ↗ cover this ground already, but what are

33:53 ↗ you saying about it as a factor? Because

33:55 ↗ I think there's all kinds of tricky

33:57 ↗ things when you include topography and

34:00 ↗ when you it's slow and could actually

34:04 ↗ make

34:05 ↗ it inadvertently less safe. You're

34:08 ↗ chugging people on sidewalks on a

34:10 ↗ downhill and they're running into, you

34:11 ↗ know, intersections because they're

34:13 ↗ coming at intersections instead of at

34:15 ↗ seven or eight miles an hour, they're

34:16 ↗ coming in at 25 miles an hour and

34:18 ↗ they're, you know, so it's like what are

34:19 ↗ you saying including as a factor? Can

34:21 ↗ you elaborate on what the action it

34:24 ↗ would take or like how that would change

34:25 ↗ what gets built or what would be

34:29 ↗ required? Yeah. And I do bike a lot. You

34:32 ↗ go uphill and you go uphill, you have a

34:34 ↗ different, you know, the delta between

34:35 ↗ cars, you know, and when you go

34:37 ↗ downhill, you're often with the car. So,

34:40 ↗ um I'm just curious what that if you

34:42 ↗ could elaborate on what exactly you mean

34:44 ↗ because it seems it seems wise to make

34:46 ↗ it a factor, but I I need to help me get

34:49 ↗ to the next step of like what would that

34:52 ↗ do with that information? It's a factor.

34:55 ↗ I'll take an attempt at it. Anyone else

34:58 ↗ wants to add anything? So, let's say for

35:00 ↗ example that the city standard is LTS2

35:04 ↗ or better and we have a street that

35:07 ↗ we're wanting to improve that's got a

35:09 ↗ lot of slope. Then the design team would

35:12 ↗ have to say, okay, in order to

35:15 ↗ meet this level of traffic stress, we

35:19 ↗ would need to plan the design to meet

35:24 ↗ that level knowing that the slope would

35:27 ↗ be there. And

35:31 ↗ so it could

35:34 ↗ mean well I would think one I probably

35:38 ↗ would want to keep the bic on the

35:40 ↗ downhill end keep the bicycles and the

35:42 ↗ pedestrians separated that we wouldn't

35:43 ↗ want a shared use path

35:47 ↗ because a shared use path is it's one

35:50 ↗ thing when you're flat and you've got

35:52 ↗ some pedestrians walking you've got a

35:54 ↗ bike zipping by at 15 miles an hour but

35:57 ↗ It's another when you add the slope and

35:59 ↗ then all of a sudden that bike instead

36:00 ↗ of going 15, it's going 30 miles an

36:03 ↗ hour. So, um the designer would have to

36:07 ↗ take that into account and choose the or

36:10 ↗ when we planned the project, we want to

36:12 ↗ make sure that we planned an appropriate

36:15 ↗ facility for this topography.

36:20 ↗ If I may, I I want to chime in a little

36:22 ↗ bit. Like there's we don't have a silver

36:24 ↗ bullet for you. I'm going to be honest

36:26 ↗ about that. But there's kind of, you

36:28 ↗ know, three primary advantages I can see

36:30 ↗ to including this sort of data. One,

36:33 ↗ it's just it's truth and lending, truth

36:35 ↗ and you know, kind of depiction of what

36:37 ↗ are we actually achieving. So it's data

36:41 ↗ and again thinking through those

36:42 ↗ categories of cyclists. If we're going

36:45 ↗ to invest in building a shared use path

36:48 ↗ or a trail, um, now by pulling in slope

36:53 ↗ as a factor, we can understand what kind

36:55 ↗ of rough like portion of the population

36:59 ↗ is even likely to benefit from this.

37:02 ↗ It's a really slope and steep place.

37:04 ↗ What we finally got and this has been

37:06 ↗ something that's been fairly elusive in

37:08 ↗ our profession for a long time is to

37:11 ↗ really understand well what like how

37:13 ↗ much does slow factor in I know

37:15 ↗ intuitively as a cyclist that it adds a

37:18 ↗ lot into my journey but we've now got

37:21 ↗ some percentages from some peer

37:23 ↗ researched um journals to kind of really

37:26 ↗ help us understand that we're talking

37:29 ↗ about 2%

37:31 ↗ um grade. How much more difficult is

37:34 ↗ that making the ride over kind of a

37:37 ↗ period of time? If we're talking about

37:38 ↗ something that's that's six or 10%, how

37:41 ↗ much even more difficult is that? So,

37:43 ↗ one, it's it's data. Two, it's helping

37:45 ↗ us understand

37:47 ↗ um what is the likely reach and

37:49 ↗ effectiveness of our transportation

37:51 ↗ system. And then thirdly, it's

37:54 ↗ potentially helpful as a decision-making

37:56 ↗ tool for the city and ultimately city

38:00 ↗ council and and this body here to think

38:03 ↗ about if I have two alternative

38:05 ↗ facilities that I could build um which

38:08 ↗ one is potentially more beneficial. So

38:10 ↗ we use it as we think about it as maybe

38:12 ↗ a a data point again filtering into both

38:14 ↗ your design process and your project

38:16 ↗ prioritization

38:18 ↗ process. Okay. Sorry, I just asked a

38:21 ↗ follow on question real quick. And

38:22 ↗ that's just um I mean there are some

38:25 ↗ hills that are so steep that an LTS

38:28 ↗ rider one or two

38:30 ↗ point got to go down black speed like

38:34 ↗ there's not going to do that. So like

38:36 ↗ does that all that give you the

38:38 ↗ flexibility to just say like we don't

38:40 ↗ need to build this facility aren't going

38:42 ↗ to do this anyway? us to understand that

38:45 ↗ it's it's we're probably never going to

38:47 ↗ achieve that that writer type. If you're

38:49 ↗ using standard methodologies, it might

38:51 ↗ say, "Hey, you've got LTS one or two."

38:53 ↗ So, it's helping to provide a more

38:55 ↗ accurate depiction.

38:59 ↗ I I'm I don't bike. Uh so if you're

39:05 ↗ trying to mitigate the traffic stress on

39:07 ↗ a biker and maybe it's like less

39:10 ↗ stressful on a shared path instead of on

39:13 ↗ the

39:14 ↗ road, would mitigating that for the

39:17 ↗ biker make it more dangerous like for

39:19 ↗ pedestrians then? Because like I I guess

39:22 ↗ Yeah. Like if it's still a shared path,

39:25 ↗ isn't that going to be

39:28 ↗ I don't know. Is it like going to be a

39:31 ↗ shared path? What would that I don't I

39:33 ↗ guess I don't understand what life

39:35 ↗ facilities like look like. So, so it

39:37 ↗ could be a shared use path, which is

39:40 ↗ historically what a lot of facilities

39:44 ↗ have been, but there's also a lot of

39:45 ↗ guidance about when a shared use path is

39:48 ↗ appropriate versus when a separated or

39:51 ↗ protected bike lane versus a painted

39:53 ↗ bike lane versus having the bicyclist

39:55 ↗ just in traffic. Yes. And so there's

39:59 ↗ professional guidance on when it's

40:00 ↗ appropriate and a lot more information

40:03 ↗ on considering how it also impacts the

40:07 ↗ pedestrian law.

40:12 ↗ So, is this going to result in looking

40:16 ↗ at maybe a steep road not not travel

40:21 ↗ much where we're going well you know

40:23 ↗ what in order to actually provide

40:26 ↗ facilities that people are going to use

40:28 ↗ we would need based on this now elevated

40:31 ↗ bubble stress we need a dedicated

40:34 ↗ separated space and therefore we

40:37 ↗ shouldn't spend money on that because

40:39 ↗ there's just not the return compared to

40:41 ↗ other things we can do or is it going to

40:44 ↗ lead us to go well we have a requirement

40:47 ↗ to add bike facilities because this is

40:50 ↗ steeper and we're assessing it that way

40:53 ↗ um now we got to go spend more money to

40:57 ↗ go build this separate thing. So, is it

40:59 ↗ is it going to be more allowing us to

41:02 ↗ make a smart decision or putting us in a

41:05 ↗ position where we're spending more

41:08 ↗ because we now have a slope? I mean, no,

41:12 ↗ everywhere sloped, right? I mean, this

41:14 ↗ that would dramatically change fact in a

41:17 ↗ lot of areas kind of

41:19 ↗ stress the first.

41:21 ↗ So, we're not going to be stuck

41:24 ↗ spending.

41:25 ↗ We don't have the money to spend.

41:28 ↗ Agree with that. But it's not like we're

41:31 ↗ gonna have some future thing where it's

41:32 ↗ like, well, we must every new road

41:34 ↗ that's built this level of address. I

41:38 ↗ think if you go back to comments, it's

41:40 ↗ it's more true to the form. So, if we're

41:44 ↗ more accurate in our assessment of this,

41:45 ↗ we're going to make a better decision.

41:46 ↗ And that's kind of I think what it comes

41:48 ↗ down to in is to help make better

41:51 ↗ decisions. And yes,

41:53 ↗ the painting a broad brush and saying

41:56 ↗ okay this street and this part of the

41:58 ↗ town needs to be designed to this

42:01 ↗ standard and but then when you get into

42:03 ↗ the specifics

42:05 ↗ like fall city road well that's a steep

42:08 ↗ road and there's not a lot of room and

42:11 ↗ there's a lot of traffic and so it it

42:16 ↗ would not be a priority to say okay we

42:18 ↗ must build the goldplated

42:22 ↗ bicycle facility going up here in order

42:24 ↗ to meet that level of traffic stress.

42:26 ↗ It'd be more of okay that's that project

42:29 ↗ would cost 80 million versus we can

42:32 ↗ spend 5 million

42:34 ↗ and add twice as much

42:37 ↗ Yeah.

42:45 ↗ We've had a lot of discussion questions

42:47 ↗ here, but I'm still gonna go for a round

42:48 ↗ of discussion questions up here.

42:52 ↗ Yeah, I think maybe we're ready to to

42:54 ↗ see where you all are

42:56 ↗ at. So, if you're in agreement, same as

42:58 ↗ last time, you can flip your little name

43:00 ↗ tag

43:01 ↗ up. If you're not, we'll

43:04 ↗ ch Okay.

43:06 ↗ Um so

43:08 ↗ I in general, I'm I'm in agreement that

43:12 ↗ we should use slow. However, when I look

43:13 ↗ at the way that this is, uh, done here

43:17 ↗ in terms of the before and after,

43:20 ↗ uh, the actual way that sloped is

43:23 ↗ incorporated into level of traffic

43:25 ↗ stress does not seem accurate to me. Uh,

43:28 ↗ in particular, there's a bunch of paths

43:30 ↗ here that are railroad grade. You know,

43:34 ↗ it doesn't get a lot flatter than that,

43:35 ↗ and yet they're still bumped up

43:37 ↗ significantly in level of stress. And

43:39 ↗ so, there's something that's gone wrong

43:41 ↗ there. I don't know if it's a the

43:42 ↗ implementation pulling in the GIS data

43:44 ↗ to it. But um

43:47 ↗ yeah, so we will do a QC check on things

43:52 ↗ like that. I actually noticed it during

43:54 ↗ the presentation and just like oh made a

43:56 ↗ mental note to go back. But yeah, I

44:00 ↗ think the reindeer trail I I saw and I

44:02 ↗ was like that's fly. Um, and to be fair,

44:08 ↗ the team that put this together, they're

44:11 ↗ using GIS data that they got and doing

44:14 ↗ the best. Uh, and in a situation like

44:18 ↗ that, it might not show up that the

44:20 ↗ railroad grade is flat because the

44:22 ↗ topography is round not be flat. But

44:25 ↗ yeah, we can do some clean up before it

44:27 ↗ gets finalized.

44:33 ↗ Um,

44:41 ↗ in terms of comments.

44:44 ↗ Yeah.

45:01 ↗ I I watched last meeting in my opinion.

45:03 ↗ I can't remember. I couldn't tell if I

45:05 ↗ was talking, but this is like research

45:08 ↗ based, right? Like this is research.

45:11 ↗ Yeah.

45:19 ↗ think if you guys

45:23 ↗ want that last

45:28 ↗ um I think what we should do is just zip

45:32 ↗ through everything see if we can get to

45:33 ↗ the end and then if we have time we can

45:36 ↗ get to some rationale which I think a

45:37 ↗ lot of times the rationale is just as

45:40 ↗ important as the outcome but if

45:42 ↗ everyone's in general agreement I think

45:44 ↗ for the sake of time, let's just keep

45:45 ↗ March and P.

45:49 ↗ Okay. Lode three, transit. So, go to the

45:53 ↗ policy slide here. Um, so in your map,

45:59 ↗ um, you currently have a goal to advance

46:02 ↗ the transit system to connect uh to the

46:05 ↗ region and improve access to transit for

46:08 ↗ all community members. Um, and the way

46:12 ↗ that your current policy works is it's

46:16 ↗ really just looking at um the quality of

46:20 ↗ amenities at bus stops. So um

46:24 ↗ essentially looking at bus stops in his

46:26 ↗ spa and assigning points to those bus

46:30 ↗ stops based on uh various amenities

46:34 ↗ would be there. whether there's a bench,

46:36 ↗ whether there's a shelter, real time

46:39 ↗ information display, whether there's um

46:41 ↗ sidewalk access, landing strip, all of

46:44 ↗ that. Um and um that policy isn't

46:48 ↗ currently in your currency policy, but

46:51 ↗ it's okay. So, we go to the next slide,

46:52 ↗ which just shows kind of a map of

46:54 ↗ performance. Um so using that policy,

46:57 ↗ we've looked at the stops throughout the

46:59 ↗ city. Um and provided um kind of a score

47:04 ↗ on kind of how they perform based on

47:06 ↗ those amenities. Um so generally the um

47:10 ↗ stops that are marked in green there,

47:12 ↗ those are those are high amenity

47:15 ↗ locations. Um the ones in orange and red

47:19 ↗ um lower levels of amenity. And the way

47:21 ↗ that your map would work is to look at

47:24 ↗ those and you know a real goal of seeing

47:26 ↗ how you could enhance um amenities at

47:30 ↗ stops that aren't currently breeding. So

47:32 ↗ if we go to the next slide um kind of

47:35 ↗ the question that we have for this body

47:38 ↗ is whether you would agree with the

47:40 ↗ recommendation that transit LOS should

47:43 ↗ include more than just uh the amenities

47:46 ↗ at transit stops. And I'll talk about

47:48 ↗ this in the next slide, but to include

47:52 ↗ considerations related to access to

47:56 ↗ transit stops, um, place and mobility.

48:00 ↗ And I'll I'll talk more about those

48:01 ↗ points on the next slide and to hear

48:03 ↗ whether there are additional metrics

48:05 ↗ that you would recommend we include. So

48:08 ↗ um, in terms of updates to the city's

48:11 ↗ policy, here's the three types of

48:13 ↗ factors that we would recommend be built

48:16 ↗ into your policy. One is access. So, how

48:20 ↗ people are getting to the transit

48:21 ↗ system. And this is largely dealt with

48:23 ↗ through the sidewalk and the bike um

48:26 ↗ kind of level of service standards that

48:28 ↗ we've just talked about um over the last

48:30 ↗ half an hour or so. But really kind of

48:33 ↗ pulling that in, recognizing that um big

48:36 ↗ piece of a transit system is how

48:39 ↗ accessible that transit system is to the

48:41 ↗ people that live here um and work here.

48:44 ↗ Um second is place. So this is very much

48:48 ↗ tied into kind of our current policy

48:50 ↗ which is transit stop and station

48:53 ↗ amenities and we would be looking at

48:56 ↗ enhancing the current level of service

48:58 ↗ policies using King County Metro access

49:00 ↗ standards. So they have a good set of

49:03 ↗ regional access standards. We were

49:04 ↗ looking at just updating the city's

49:06 ↗ policies to match with those. And then

49:10 ↗ lastly um is mobility. So that's speed

49:13 ↗ and reliability. So once you get on a

49:15 ↗ bus, can it go somewhere? So really

49:18 ↗ thinking about um how can the city be a

49:22 ↗ partner in

49:24 ↗ facilitating transit that moves quickly.

49:27 ↗ It's on time. Obviously, we're not as a

49:30 ↗ city providing the buses. We're not

49:31 ↗ providing the service. Uh but we can

49:33 ↗ certainly think about the streets that

49:35 ↗ transit routes are on and think about

49:38 ↗ how level of service is provided, how

49:40 ↗ how quickly buses can get through,

49:42 ↗ transit stops, etc. Um and we know that

49:45 ↗ there are other cities in our region

49:46 ↗ that do do that. Uh Redmond and

49:48 ↗ Belleview being

49:50 ↗ key. So with that, back to the question

49:54 ↗ of whether you agree with enhancing kind

49:57 ↗ of the current level of service standard

49:59 ↗ to include access, place mobility.

50:01 ↗ Sorry, Jillian. I totally stolen your

50:04 ↗ You're good. All right. I think we're

50:07 ↗ first on clarifying questions.

50:16 ↗ Is there any power stationation that

50:19 ↗ stops or is it all stops and then the

50:23 ↗ one level? That's a really good

50:25 ↗ question. We don't currently have that

50:26 ↗ in there, but I think that's that is a

50:28 ↗ very good recommendation. That's another

50:30 ↗ consideration that we could include.

50:38 ↗ Uh not a requirement. Suddenly we're

50:41 ↗ spending a bunch of money on a stop that

50:42 ↗ you know has one minor le or something.

50:46 ↗ I don't know. I feel like going have a

50:51 ↗ similar one but maybe not usage base but

50:55 ↗ like residential and office density.

50:59 ↗ um you know around the the stock. And so

51:03 ↗ kind of like what what would it mean if

51:05 ↗ we do that as a measure of um will it

51:09 ↗ mean like you know maybe some of these

51:13 ↗ yellow red and then some of the red ones

51:16 ↗ yellow

51:18 ↗ um that's it. So that affects

51:23 ↗ it's certainly another and I think it's

51:24 ↗ a good proxy. So I like both of your

51:26 ↗ ideas. On one hand you're saying how

51:29 ↗ many people you know are accessing that

51:31 ↗ stop using it

51:34 ↗ potential. Yes. Exactly. So would you

51:37 ↗ say that? Yeah. For sure. For sure. So I

51:41 ↗ think those are two really good thoughts

51:43 ↗ to kind of pull together. Yeah. just

51:45 ↗ going up. She said I I when reading

51:48 ↗ through would like to see usage compared

51:51 ↗ to the amenity rubric because I I don't

51:56 ↗ know

51:56 ↗ that I guess like I've seen really well

52:00 ↗ stops without a shelter that I see who

52:02 ↗ need one versus like some built out

52:05 ↗ stops that I've never seen people

52:07 ↗ waiting

52:08 ↗ at correlation between those tiers and

52:11 ↗ the red, green, yellow with usage. We

52:14 ↗ have usage data. We do. We do have

52:17 ↗ alignment. And I think the the question

52:20 ↗ is whether we want to look at actual

52:22 ↗ usage or potential usage. And I think

52:24 ↗ those are two really both very

52:26 ↗ interesting pieces of data.

52:29 ↗ I have a question. Um, I don't know if

52:31 ↗ this board has power over it, but like

52:33 ↗ the first thing that came to my mind was

52:35 ↗ affordability because when you talk

52:37 ↗ about accessibility, I mean, at least

52:38 ↗ for me, a lot of limiters on what I

52:41 ↗ choose to do or not to do is obviously

52:44 ↗ money. And so I wonder if part of this

52:46 ↗ accessibility problem isn't necessarily

52:49 ↗ amenities but more of the cost of public

52:52 ↗ transit and whether that's a large

52:55 ↗ factor in this consideration of how

52:58 ↗ these transit systems are actually being

53:00 ↗ used. And then the second question I had

53:02 ↗ about um kind of what the other people

53:04 ↗ were talking about but was is there a

53:07 ↗ direct not just correlation but a

53:09 ↗ causation of increased amenities to

53:12 ↗ hypothetical usage because I mean I

53:15 ↗ think it's good to consider putting in

53:16 ↗ more park benches or shelters but would

53:19 ↗ that actually help any of the systems

53:22 ↗ especially when we have a map showing

53:23 ↗ these higher points is that directly

53:26 ↗ correlates or cause higher usage of

53:29 ↗ those transit systems.

53:33 ↗ If I can say to the first card about the

53:36 ↗ cost of transit, the city doesn't have

53:39 ↗ any control over that. That's done by

53:41 ↗ King County Metro and Sound Transit. Um,

53:44 ↗ so unfortunately we we can't influence

53:45 ↗ that much. So we're trying to think of

53:47 ↗ the ones we can. I Good question about

53:50 ↗ amenities and usage. Um, Andrea, do you

53:54 ↗ know anything? I think there is some

53:56 ↗ research that we can look at and and

53:58 ↗ pull that. So that's that's data we can

54:00 ↗ look into.

54:02 ↗ Um yeah, I don't have any like on the

54:05 ↗ top of my head, but I I believe there is

54:07 ↗ some research to that. I can add two

54:10 ↗ thoughts to this conversation. Um so

54:13 ↗ currently youth uh can ride for free. If

54:16 ↗ you're under 18, 18 or under, um you can

54:20 ↗ ride for free. So that sort of helps

54:21 ↗ with the cost. Um there's also reduced

54:24 ↗ fair options for seniors and folks of

54:27 ↗ low income. So, there's a couple more

54:29 ↗ options for that. Um, I can help point

54:32 ↗ people to that direction if anybody's

54:34 ↗ interested. Um, in terms of like, uh,

54:38 ↗ you know, shelters and benches, there's

54:40 ↗ been some studies out there that show

54:42 ↗ anecdotal, you know, relationships. Um,

54:45 ↗ but ultimately like the bus has to be

54:48 ↗ reliable. It has to be, you know, it has

54:50 ↗ to get you where you're going. There's

54:52 ↗ there's all these other factors

54:53 ↗ involved. So, it's it's kind of hard to

54:54 ↗ like parse out like what is the true

54:57 ↗ cause of like how people find riding the

55:00 ↗ bus like a good solution for them. Um

55:04 ↗ there's lots of ways to think about it,

55:06 ↗ but like if you are waiting for the bus,

55:08 ↗ especially out here, um we do get a lot

55:10 ↗ of rain, so it would be nice to like not

55:12 ↗ have to, you know, wait out in the rain.

55:14 ↗ Um that for a lot of people would just

55:17 ↗ be a no-go. Also, if you uh you know

55:21 ↗ need a place to sit and there's no place

55:23 ↗ to sit, um that's another go. So, it

55:25 ↗ does open the door for any folks that

55:27 ↗ are mobility challenged or just don't

55:30 ↗ want to wait.

55:32 ↗ This is

55:35 ↗ really discussing

55:39 ↗ um to be honest my questions but uh one

55:42 ↗ of the things on there and I know or as

55:44 ↗ a board uh like trash facilities and

55:49 ↗ I've like there's one complaint that's

55:50 ↗ coming to mind you there's others but

55:52 ↗ there's just zip ties across the uh

55:55 ↗ trash can that's next to the 556 stop

55:58 ↗ like kind of near the hospital going

56:00 ↗ down the hill

56:01 ↗ And so it technically checks the box,

56:04 ↗ right? There is a trash can, but no

56:06 ↗ one's servicing it. No one. So I guess

56:10 ↗ like it's been brought up before. It's

56:13 ↗ the

56:14 ↗ um just because it exists doesn't mean

56:17 ↗ that it can be used that people will use

56:19 ↗ it. I guess same thing for Iowa like

56:22 ↗ updated like a screen that has the time

56:24 ↗ to like buses on its way, but if that

56:25 ↗ screen's broken, that's not helpful at

56:28 ↗ all. So, I don't know how we put that

56:31 ↗ aster in there or if that's like at all,

56:35 ↗ but that's just

56:37 ↗ something a year at least. But

56:43 ↗ fix Yeah, that's true. We had we had

56:46 ↗ issues one Yeah. So, we had some issues

56:50 ↗ with the one near city hall overfilling

56:53 ↗ and I I put it as quick fix and they

56:55 ↗ actually routed it and they got a second

56:57 ↗ trash can there. So, like it's all

56:59 ↗ connected. Yeah, it is city.

57:04 ↗ No, that's good. I definitely couldn't

57:07 ↗ be in

57:11 ↗ the city.

57:12 ↗ We do not.

57:15 ↗ But they know how

57:16 ↗ to put it. Yes. Sorry, could you just

57:20 ↗ like call the people who are inter?

57:22 ↗ Yeah, we would uh be the conduit for the

57:26 ↗ person that mentioned it.

57:31 ↗ Another factor maybe to add is just

57:34 ↗ safety. Whether that's um availability

57:38 ↗ or quick assistance or you know by KFC

57:42 ↗ you know they ask for help or something

57:44 ↗ like that factor to

57:46 ↗ consider. Would you include like

57:49 ↗ lighting?

57:51 ↗ Absolutely.

57:56 ↗ So, since we're beyond the clarifying

57:58 ↗ questions,

58:00 ↗ first of all, the starting off with the

58:01 ↗ goal here, advance the transit system to

58:04 ↗ connect the region and improve access to

58:06 ↗ transit for all members. Awesome. We'll

58:08 ↗ start out with the goal there. I really

58:10 ↗ appreciate that. And as Derek mentioned,

58:13 ↗ we kind of lost some of the causality

58:15 ↗ like what's will these changes actually

58:17 ↗ improve that or not. They seem to be

58:19 ↗ somewhat correlated just in my

58:21 ↗ estimation. Um but causality is a little

58:23 ↗ bit harder.

58:25 ↗ Um let's see the if we just look at the

58:29 ↗ current level of service like there are

58:30 ↗ a couple on the map there that are green

58:33 ↗ but they're kind of in the middle of

58:34 ↗ nowhere and so they don't seem to be

58:36 ↗ correlated to the goal. And then others,

58:38 ↗ you know, like there's some on Front

58:40 ↗ Street next to Chicago pastrami there

58:42 ↗ that's

58:43 ↗ yellow. Uh if it had a shelter, maybe it

58:46 ↗ would be green, but there's so much

58:48 ↗ shelter around there that it doesn't

58:49 ↗ need it. And it's it's like centrally

58:51 ↗ located. So I think a lot of these

58:54 ↗ uh additional factors are going to be

58:57 ↗ really helpful. Um, one of the things I

59:00 ↗ kind of struggle with though is that we

59:02 ↗ it's almost inverted in the sense that,

59:05 ↗ you know, we build a new transit stop.

59:08 ↗ Um, we may choose to put that anywhere

59:11 ↗ and maybe it's going to connect people,

59:12 ↗ but maybe it's also right next to

59:13 ↗ another one that also connects those

59:15 ↗ same people. And yet, we've left a a

59:18 ↗ section of population off because we're

59:20 ↗ not asking about it in terms of place of

59:23 ↗ residence level of service or place of

59:25 ↗ business level of service. Could we um

59:29 ↗ you know I guess we are going pretty off

59:31 ↗ track. We are going ahead of ourselves

59:33 ↗ in terms of the um these initial

59:36 ↗ questions. Could we go and ask about

59:39 ↗ this agreement level agreement or

59:42 ↗ recommendation first and I have a

59:44 ↗ conversation

59:57 ↗ that I guess we're all in agreement. So

1:00:00 ↗ I guess the the main point conversation

1:00:03 ↗ is just what

1:00:04 ↗ other you know metrics do you think you

1:00:08 ↗ need to be measuring? Um so I think we

1:00:10 ↗ care about there's like this one

1:00:13 ↗ discussion point like we want to be a

1:00:16 ↗ potential correct potential for people

1:00:18 ↗ who are going to stop versus you know

1:00:22 ↗ existing

1:00:23 ↗ um existing right existing usage. Uh

1:00:27 ↗ then there's some other factors like

1:00:28 ↗ lighting um other things but it really

1:00:32 ↗ seems like this is maybe a broader

1:00:35 ↗ discussion.

1:00:36 ↗ Well, yes, these should be added, but

1:00:39 ↗ there's maybe some broader discussion

1:00:41 ↗ about is this something you assess

1:00:44 ↗ before you try and influence where going

1:00:46 ↗ to be? Is this an after thing you're

1:00:49 ↗ doing? Considering we have two more to

1:00:51 ↗ go through and the rest of the agenda

1:00:54 ↗ should we ask maybe that's come back on

1:00:57 ↗ the follow topic.

1:01:01 ↗ certainly could go deeper here. I do

1:01:03 ↗ want to finish my thought on this. Good.

1:01:06 ↗ Um, so the the width is looked at now as

1:01:09 ↗ kind of on a per stop basis. The goal is

1:01:14 ↗ connect everybody. Perhaps what we want

1:01:17 ↗ to be looking at is sort of a delta. If

1:01:18 ↗ we put a new stop here, what is it going

1:01:20 ↗ to change for everybody's access? that's

1:01:22 ↗ kind of related to mobility, but it also

1:01:26 ↗ there's a potential equity concern if a

1:01:29 ↗ segment of the population because it's

1:01:30 ↗ just not priority.

1:01:33 ↗ So equity and access essentially.

1:01:37 ↗ Yeah. And and some of that just comes

1:01:39 ↗ from looking at and from the perspective

1:01:41 ↗ of all of the people that want transit

1:01:43 ↗ versus all of the places that we've

1:01:46 ↗ decided to

1:01:50 ↗ put. Okay.

1:01:52 ↗ Sorry, just to just to summarize. So,

1:01:54 ↗ I'm hearing a general yes, desire to

1:01:57 ↗ come

1:01:58 ↗ back with with maybe a more detailed

1:02:00 ↗ discussion on what this exactly means

1:02:02 ↗ because it is a little bit less detailed

1:02:03 ↗ than some of the other things that we're

1:02:05 ↗ asking of you uh today. So I think when

1:02:09 ↗ when we revisit this it would be helpful

1:02:12 ↗ to more specialized conversation on

1:02:15 ↗ focus you know the first bill being you

1:02:18 ↗ know focus on just residential office

1:02:23 ↗ and retail density and park density as

1:02:27 ↗ well I guess

1:02:29 ↗ um or existing and then other factors

1:02:34 ↗ like lighting safety etc.

1:02:37 ↗ Um I guess that's kind of like maybe

1:02:40 ↗ some literature and research on that as

1:02:43 ↗ well to see like what kind of

1:02:45 ↗ factors or you know increase comfort.

1:02:52 ↗ I also have a list of about a dozen

1:02:54 ↗ factors that I don't think we have time

1:02:55 ↗ to go to. But if we want to come back to

1:02:58 ↗ this topic sometime

1:03:08 ↗ uh back to me next slide,

1:03:14 ↗ please. All right. Great. Just like uh

1:03:16 ↗ Kendra was doing um I'm showing um two

1:03:20 ↗ policies related to automobiles um from

1:03:23 ↗ the mobility action plan. Um the first

1:03:28 ↗ is uh policy 7.1 which really relates to

1:03:32 ↗ how we measure the level of service of

1:03:35 ↗ vehicular traffic in the city. Um I'm

1:03:39 ↗ going to assume everybody understands

1:03:42 ↗ level of service. Um, but I'll just do a

1:03:44 ↗ really quick. It's a measure um like a

1:03:48 ↗ kids report card from A to um F. A being

1:03:52 ↗ good, F being bad. Um, and what those

1:03:56 ↗ grade levels measure is delay at

1:03:59 ↗ intersections uh in the city. And

1:04:02 ↗ there's um you know a a um gradation of

1:04:07 ↗ of delay from 0 seconds up to 80

1:04:10 ↗ seconds. at 80 seconds we basically of

1:04:13 ↗ delay we um have a level service F

1:04:17 ↗ condition. The city's policy is level

1:04:21 ↗ service D. Um but there are up to six

1:04:25 ↗ intersections that are permitted to

1:04:27 ↗ operate outside of level service D for

1:04:30 ↗ various reasons. The last time the

1:04:32 ↗ city's uh system was updated was 2023.

1:04:36 ↗ And the city's uh update then resulted

1:04:40 ↗ in uh all of the city's level of service

1:04:44 ↗ standards for vehicular traffic uh are

1:04:47 ↗ met and they also satisfy the state

1:04:50 ↗ requirements for vehicular level of

1:04:52 ↗ service. So tonight actually we're not

1:04:55 ↗ going to make any recommendations uh or

1:04:58 ↗ changes or recommending changes to uh

1:05:01 ↗ the level of service for vehicular

1:05:03 ↗ traffic. What I want to focus on is the

1:05:06 ↗ map policy 7.2 two, which affects the

1:05:10 ↗ level of service of vehicular traffic,

1:05:13 ↗ but is actually we're looking at other

1:05:16 ↗ modes of traffic uh other modes of

1:05:19 ↗ travel um that uh get impacted at

1:05:24 ↗ intersections, but that could improve

1:05:27 ↗ uh the safety or the experience of uh

1:05:31 ↗ pedestrians and of transit uh riders.

1:05:35 ↗ So those two things are Yeah, thank you.

1:05:38 ↗ We can move move forward. Those two

1:05:40 ↗ things are the leading pedestrian

1:05:42 ↗ interval is the one I'm going to go

1:05:43 ↗ through

1:05:45 ↗ first and you can switch. Yeah, thank

1:05:48 ↗ you. So the question just like Kendra

1:05:50 ↗ was doing before that we want you to

1:05:52 ↗ consider as I go through the

1:05:53 ↗ presentation

1:05:54 ↗ is do you agree with the recommendation

1:05:57 ↗ to add LPI or leading pedestrian

1:06:00 ↗ interval to all tier one pedestrian

1:06:03 ↗ corridors that Kendra had previously

1:06:05 ↗ defined taking into account the impact

1:06:08 ↗ that has on automobile level of

1:06:13 ↗ service. Okay. So with that first let me

1:06:16 ↗ define what um leading pedestrian

1:06:19 ↗ interval is. So uh what it does is we

1:06:24 ↗ um provide a like an advanced

1:06:30 ↗ um time for pedestrians to cross the to

1:06:34 ↗ cross uh an intersection or a roadway

1:06:37 ↗ ahead of the vehicles getting a green

1:06:40 ↗ light. Um, and that what that does is it

1:06:45 ↗ allows pedestrians to establish a

1:06:47 ↗ presence in the

1:06:48 ↗ crosswalk before vehicles are allowed to

1:06:51 ↗ turn so that they actually see the

1:06:53 ↗ pedestrians there in the crosswalk

1:06:56 ↗ before they start to turn. It enhances

1:06:58 ↗ the pedestrians visibility and it

1:07:01 ↗ reinforces the pedestrians right of way

1:07:04 ↗ because they do have the right of way

1:07:06 ↗ before the vehicle can turn uh at an

1:07:09 ↗ intersection. Thank you. Uh you can go

1:07:12 ↗ to the next

1:07:13 ↗ slide. All right. So in order to assess

1:07:18 ↗ um the impact that LPI has on

1:07:23 ↗ intersections, uh we had to follow a

1:07:25 ↗ process. And so I just want to quickly

1:07:27 ↗ go through that. First of all, we did

1:07:29 ↗ use the latest

1:07:31 ↗ um concurrency model that was updated in

1:07:33 ↗ 2023. It projects out to 2050 and we are

1:07:37 ↗ looking at just the PMP hour. Oh, we

1:07:41 ↗ implemented LPI at all tier 1 pedestrian

1:07:46 ↗ streets. What that means is of the 86

1:07:49 ↗ signalized intersections in the city

1:07:51 ↗ right now, 77 of them are on tier 1

1:07:55 ↗ pedestrian roadways. So 77 of the 86

1:07:58 ↗ signalized intersections were analyzed

1:08:02 ↗ uh with LPI. And what we did was we gave

1:08:06 ↗ basically the pedestrians a 4 second uh

1:08:09 ↗ lead time. So they were able to get out

1:08:11 ↗ into the crosswalk 4 seconds ahead of

1:08:14 ↗ any vehicles being permitted to turn uh

1:08:17 ↗ into that pedestrian

1:08:20 ↗ crossing. And then we reoptimize the

1:08:22 ↗ signal timings um with that new 4se

1:08:25 ↗ secondond. Basically it's like a all red

1:08:27 ↗ phase. Um, so every every inter every

1:08:31 ↗ car is seeing a red, you know, ball. Um,

1:08:34 ↗ and they can't enter the intersection

1:08:36 ↗ for those 4

1:08:37 ↗ seconds. All right. Next. Are there any

1:08:40 ↗ questions before I move

1:08:43 ↗ on?

1:08:45 ↗ Great. Okay. So, um, I think all of you

1:08:48 ↗ have this graphic and it's very busy.

1:08:51 ↗ Um, it has a lot of information. I'm

1:08:53 ↗ going to quickly explain it. Um, it's

1:08:56 ↗ sort of like a heat map. um that uh

1:09:00 ↗ illustrates the change in delay that's

1:09:03 ↗ experienced at each of those 77

1:09:06 ↗ intersections. Um in the circle at each

1:09:09 ↗ intersection is a numerical number is a

1:09:12 ↗ number um and that's showing the change

1:09:14 ↗ in delay. Um so if it's a positive

1:09:17 ↗ number that means the delay increased.

1:09:19 ↗ If it's a negative number that means the

1:09:21 ↗ delay decreased. The color indicates the

1:09:24 ↗ severity of the change. So the darker

1:09:26 ↗ the red, the worse uh the or the more

1:09:30 ↗ impact there is at that intersection as

1:09:32 ↗ a result of implementing

1:09:34 ↗ LPI. And then of course green would

1:09:37 ↗ would indicate there's um no impact or

1:09:40 ↗ better actually better uh delay at the

1:09:45 ↗ intersection. Um so it's a lot of

1:09:47 ↗ information on this. So I'm going to

1:09:49 ↗ summarize just some bullets real quick

1:09:51 ↗ uh to help you digest this. So, of the

1:09:53 ↗ 77

1:09:55 ↗ intersections, 72 of them already

1:09:57 ↗ operate at level service D or better.

1:10:00 ↗ So, that meets the city's standard. Uh,

1:10:03 ↗ only half of those 72 intersections

1:10:05 ↗ actually experienced a measurable

1:10:08 ↗ increase in delay. So, the other half

1:10:10 ↗ was virtually no change in delay after

1:10:12 ↗ LPI or it actually got better. Of the 36

1:10:16 ↗ though that did get worse, the average

1:10:20 ↗ increase was only 1.3 seconds. So, it

1:10:23 ↗ wasn't a really marked uh increase in

1:10:27 ↗ delay. Three of the intersections

1:10:30 ↗ actually changed level of service. One

1:10:32 ↗ of them got better, so it went from

1:10:35 ↗ level service B to level service A. And

1:10:38 ↗ two of them got worse, but they went

1:10:40 ↗ from level service A to B and from B to

1:10:43 ↗ C. Of the two that degraded, the

1:10:46 ↗ increase was 6.8 seconds and 5.6

1:10:50 ↗ seconds. And the highest increase was

1:10:52 ↗ 7.1

1:10:54 ↗ seconds. Now, there were five

1:10:56 ↗ intersections that are already operating

1:10:58 ↗ at level service E in the city. None of

1:11:02 ↗ those level service E intersections got

1:11:05 ↗ worse uh level service. In other words,

1:11:07 ↗ they didn't go to a level service F.

1:11:10 ↗ And um of

1:11:13 ↗ those there was no more than a 1.1

1:11:16 ↗ second uh increase in average delay. So

1:11:19 ↗ it was it was actually quite minimal in

1:11:22 ↗ terms of um uh degradation in in

1:11:26 ↗ delay. So with that we're going to go to

1:11:29 ↗ the next slide which is the question um

1:11:32 ↗ for consideration. Do you agree with the

1:11:36 ↗ recommendation to add LPI to tier 1

1:11:38 ↗ pedestrian corridors taking into account

1:11:41 ↗ the impact that it has on automobile

1:11:44 ↗ level of service?

1:11:46 ↗ any clarifying questions first just to

1:11:50 ↗ make sure I understand this well the 1.3

1:11:53 ↗ sec when you're saying the like second

1:11:56 ↗ delay that's like

1:12:00 ↗ before it's like not car it's just

1:12:06 ↗ before

1:12:08 ↗ it's average delay it's just the average

1:12:11 ↗ delay for the person traveling in the

1:12:13 ↗ car yes

1:12:16 ↗ Thank you.

1:12:19 ↗ I think this is a clarifying question,

1:12:21 ↗ but stop me if it gets into content

1:12:23 ↗ here. Um, two questions that might be

1:12:26 ↗ the same. One is why would any of these

1:12:29 ↗ delays

1:12:30 ↗ decrease? And the other one is, are any

1:12:33 ↗ of these changes outside of or in are

1:12:37 ↗ statistically significant?

1:12:40 ↗ All right. So, the first question, why

1:12:42 ↗ would any of them decrease? um that is a

1:12:45 ↗ it's a um it doesn't make sense and so I

1:12:49 ↗ understand the question why any of them

1:12:51 ↗ would decrease just if you think about

1:12:53 ↗ hey we're we're we're taking away some

1:12:56 ↗ green time from vehicles in order to

1:12:58 ↗ allow pedestrians to cross. So in

1:13:01 ↗ actuality

1:13:03 ↗ um when we do that we are allowing other

1:13:07 ↗ movements to turn right on red um that

1:13:10 ↗ wouldn't normally be doing that or would

1:13:12 ↗ have they would have four additional

1:13:14 ↗ seconds to do that movement uh during a

1:13:18 ↗ red light that wouldn't happen uh

1:13:20 ↗ previous. And so many of the

1:13:22 ↗ intersections where you're seeing uh an

1:13:25 ↗ improvement, it's actually locations

1:13:28 ↗ where uh there's a probably a high right

1:13:30 ↗ turn volume that is able to turn on the

1:13:32 ↗ red. Um so that's I know it doesn't make

1:13:35 ↗ sense, but that is why that's there. And

1:13:38 ↗ I see a hand up.

1:13:41 ↗ So if that's the case, that would imply

1:13:44 ↗ that those intersections often have the

1:13:46 ↗ leading pedestrian indicator turn on

1:13:48 ↗ when there's no pedestrian there.

1:13:51 ↗ hear it and turn right. So that would

1:13:53 ↗ imply that the leading pedestrian

1:13:55 ↗ indicator is on by

1:13:58 ↗ default. It's not triggered by someone

1:14:02 ↗ actually pressing crosswalk button. It

1:14:05 ↗ can be triggered. So there's a number of

1:14:07 ↗ ways that it can be implemented. I don't

1:14:09 ↗ know that we want to go into the details

1:14:10 ↗ of that tonight, but yes, um it could be

1:14:15 ↗ that it's just automatically part of the

1:14:18 ↗ process and it will always turn

1:14:20 ↗ on. More likely what will happen is the

1:14:23 ↗ city will will um you know code the the

1:14:27 ↗ intersections so that they will the LPI

1:14:29 ↗ will only turn on when the pedestrian

1:14:32 ↗ button is actuated. So we're we're not

1:14:35 ↗ havingation tonight. So,

1:14:44 ↗ I'm sorry. I don't know if that question

1:14:46 ↗ was to me, but I did not hear it.

1:14:48 ↗ Verifying.

1:14:50 ↗ So, my grandparents live in Seattle. It

1:14:53 ↗ was pretty often there's an intersection

1:14:55 ↗ there

1:14:56 ↗ that every time the main pedestrian

1:15:00 ↗ indicator goes off and there's no one

1:15:01 ↗ there. Every time I go through, 100% of

1:15:04 ↗ the time, there's no one there. you're

1:15:05 ↗ just waiting just for fun, I guess.

1:15:09 ↗ Right. So, I I'm I I the clarifying

1:15:13 ↗ question

1:15:14 ↗ is is this a any commitment on how

1:15:18 ↗ that's going to be implemented or just

1:15:21 ↗ that we would have some level of it, but

1:15:25 ↗ we could take into account the fact that

1:15:27 ↗ there's no point in having it run when

1:15:29 ↗ there really are not pedestrians. Yeah,

1:15:32 ↗ I think this is a difference in how it

1:15:33 ↗ was modeled. So, we could show you what

1:15:35 ↗ the impact is versus how we will

1:15:37 ↗ actually implement it. How we will

1:15:39 ↗ implement it will be subject to the

1:15:40 ↗ administration's discretion, but it will

1:15:42 ↗ likely be that there are some

1:15:44 ↗ intersections where it's always going to

1:15:46 ↗ be safest for for pedestrians to have

1:15:48 ↗ LPI there. But most intersections will

1:15:51 ↗ be a will be that like pedestrian

1:15:53 ↗ initiated uh LPI, but we aren't going to

1:15:57 ↗ commit to certain intersections being

1:15:59 ↗ one or the other because those

1:16:01 ↗ conditions might change.

1:16:02 ↗ One small additional question. What's

1:16:05 ↗ the cost to add LTI? Uh I think that

1:16:09 ↗ it's very little. Yeah, it's very

1:16:11 ↗ little. Yeah, that's one of the reasons

1:16:13 ↗ why we're proposing it. It's a way to

1:16:15 ↗ increase pedestrian safety and it really

1:16:18 ↗ costs hardly anything. It's the time it

1:16:21 ↗ takes the signal tech to make a few

1:16:24 ↗ modifications to rettime the

1:16:25 ↗ intersection. That's right. Um I think

1:16:28 ↗ this is partially a clarifying question.

1:16:30 ↗ You don't have to go into the

1:16:31 ↗ implementation, but this the heat map

1:16:34 ↗ that's all assuming a 4 second LPI,

1:16:37 ↗ right? Yes. But it might make sense to

1:16:41 ↗ extend it or if there's like a larger

1:16:43 ↗ street to cross like that makes sense or

1:16:47 ↗ would it just like 4 seconds is enough

1:16:49 ↗ because if that's the first typically

1:16:51 ↗ it's typically 3 to 4 seconds for LPI.

1:16:55 ↗ That amount of time is not the amount of

1:16:57 ↗ time that it takes to cross the

1:16:59 ↗ intersection. Just to make yourself

1:17:01 ↗ known. It's just to make yourself known.

1:17:03 ↗ That's exactly right. So even if it is a

1:17:05 ↗ seven lane roadway, it the intent is to

1:17:09 ↗ have those four seconds get somebody out

1:17:12 ↗ into the the crosswalk so that it's so

1:17:14 ↗ that they're visible before vehicles can

1:17:17 ↗ start turning.

1:17:22 ↗ Well, I guess probably more for like

1:17:24 ↗ city staff of do we does the city have

1:17:26 ↗ the capability to uh one intersection

1:17:30 ↗ it's 4 second time another intersection

1:17:32 ↗ it's only two like is that or implement

1:17:35 ↗ it has to be the same amount across all

1:17:38 ↗ the intersections it's I think is like

1:17:41 ↗ areas where they're seniors they might

1:17:43 ↗ need longer or whatever like

1:17:46 ↗ well let me just let me just clarify the

1:17:49 ↗ time that it takes takes to cross the

1:17:51 ↗ the intersection is totally separate

1:17:54 ↗ from the LPI timing. So there the green

1:17:58 ↗ the amount of pedestrian time to cross

1:18:02 ↗ will always be more than 4 seconds. It

1:18:05 ↗ will be whatever the calculation is to

1:18:07 ↗ cross the number of lanes for a slow

1:18:11 ↗ pedestrian uh to get across the number

1:18:14 ↗ of lanes uh on that street. So that

1:18:18 ↗ varies from intersection to intersection

1:18:20 ↗ to intersection. Uh I guess what we're

1:18:22 ↗ suggesting is the so uh the LPI amount

1:18:27 ↗ though the 3 to 4 seconds of advanced

1:18:30 ↗ notification will probably always be 3

1:18:32 ↗ to 4 seconds because that is the

1:18:34 ↗ industry standard for implementing

1:18:39 ↗ LPI. But the pedestrian will always have

1:18:42 ↗ more than those 4 seconds to get all the

1:18:44 ↗ way across.

1:18:48 ↗ Thank you. Uh I think we can throw in

1:18:51 ↗ the questions and other

1:18:56 ↗ people agree with that.

1:19:05 ↗ Does it need?

1:19:08 ↗ So there's a lot of policy debate and

1:19:11 ↗ like the first two questions you ask do

1:19:13 ↗ a policy like is there really a problem?

1:19:16 ↗ So I mean how many accidents actually

1:19:18 ↗ happen because right turns like because

1:19:20 ↗ pedestrians don't have enough time to

1:19:21 ↗ make themselves visible on a right turn

1:19:24 ↗ or on a left turn, excuse me. Like how

1:19:26 ↗ often does this actually happen? And

1:19:27 ↗ then the second question behind that is

1:19:29 ↗ how much does LPI actually help that

1:19:31 ↗ problem go away?

1:19:34 ↗ So the first one it does not happen

1:19:37 ↗ often but when it does it is uh has very

1:19:41 ↗ bad consequences for the pedestrian and

1:19:44 ↗ I can say that the city's insurance

1:19:47 ↗ provider and they have

1:19:50 ↗ said leading pedestrian interval is one

1:19:52 ↗ of the best things that the city can do

1:19:55 ↗ in terms of reducing liability to the

1:19:58 ↗ city thinking of it just from a risk

1:20:01 ↗ perspective and then I can find

1:20:05 ↗ the amount

1:20:07 ↗ [Music]

1:20:08 ↗ uh accident reduction. Give me just a

1:20:11 ↗ minute. 15%. Yeah. Perfect. Yeah. So, in

1:20:15 ↗ the exhibit for the clarifying questions

1:20:17 ↗ that we asked in April, there's some

1:20:19 ↗ discussion of this that links to a study

1:20:21 ↗ uh that went into some depth in a bunch

1:20:23 ↗ of different cities. It was in 2018 and

1:20:25 ↗ it showed basically across the board a

1:20:27 ↗ 13% reduction in both the uh vehicle

1:20:31 ↗ pedestrian uh accidents as well as

1:20:34 ↗ vehicle vehicle

1:20:36 ↗ crashes. So benefits were good and

1:20:41 ↗ um pretty standard across in a bunch of

1:20:45 ↗ different scenarios.

1:20:47 ↗ And again it's a very low investment on

1:20:50 ↗ the city's part.

1:20:54 ↗ I think we need to move on to the next

1:20:56 ↗ one.

1:21:02 ↗ All right, great.

1:21:06 ↗ Um, can we go to the next

1:21:11 ↗ slide? Okay, so the next uh subject is

1:21:15 ↗ transit signal priority. And the

1:21:17 ↗ question that we want you to think about

1:21:18 ↗ as I go through this presentation is do

1:21:20 ↗ you agree with the recommendation to add

1:21:23 ↗ TSP to transit corridors only taking

1:21:27 ↗ into account auto level of service and

1:21:29 ↗ bus service

1:21:31 ↗ frequency. Right. Next slide

1:21:34 ↗ please. So what is transit transit

1:21:36 ↗ signal priority?

1:21:40 ↗ Basically, what it is is when a bus um

1:21:44 ↗ approaches an intersection, if it's if

1:21:46 ↗ it's already seeing a green light, then

1:21:49 ↗ there's really no change to the signal

1:21:51 ↗ timing at all. It will go through the

1:21:53 ↗ intersection with that green light.

1:21:55 ↗ However, if the if a bus is approaching

1:21:57 ↗ an intersection and the signal is about

1:22:00 ↗ to turn yellow and then red, um what it

1:22:05 ↗ will do what the signal will do is it

1:22:07 ↗ has the intelligence to detect the bus A

1:22:10 ↗ and then secondly extend the green time

1:22:13 ↗ so that the bus can clear the

1:22:15 ↗ intersection

1:22:16 ↗ uh before it turns red. And what that

1:22:20 ↗ does is it reduces the amount of delay

1:22:23 ↗ that a bus is experiencing on that

1:22:26 ↗ corridor by extending that green

1:22:32 ↗ time. Uh thank you.

1:22:36 ↗ So in order to analyze the impact that

1:22:39 ↗ transit signal priority has uh on

1:22:42 ↗ intersections in the city uh again we

1:22:45 ↗ use the latest um concurrency model um

1:22:50 ↗ but different from LPI

1:22:53 ↗ we the models that we use don't have the

1:22:56 ↗ ability for us to um implement TSP

1:23:00 ↗ sometimes but not all the time um at an

1:23:03 ↗ intersection and that is the reality

1:23:05 ↗ there won't be a bus at every single

1:23:07 ↗ change of cycle and even if there were

1:23:11 ↗ some of those cycles the bus would be

1:23:13 ↗ hitting it at a green light and so there

1:23:15 ↗ would be no need to change signal

1:23:17 ↗ timing. So what we had to do was create

1:23:19 ↗ two models. One where the signal

1:23:22 ↗ priority was the transit signal priority

1:23:25 ↗ was implemented every single cycle and

1:23:28 ↗ one where it was not. And then what we

1:23:31 ↗ did was take those two the results of

1:23:33 ↗ those two models, the delay calculated

1:23:36 ↗ at every intersection from those two

1:23:38 ↗ models and weighted them based on the

1:23:42 ↗ number of cycles that are affected by a

1:23:45 ↗ transit trip. And of course, every route

1:23:48 ↗ in in the city has a different number of

1:23:51 ↗ transit trips going through them. So it

1:23:54 ↗ was a fairly complicated process, but we

1:23:56 ↗ did obviously we were able to do it. um

1:23:59 ↗ 41 out of the 86 signalized

1:24:01 ↗ intersections uh in the city uh are

1:24:04 ↗ affected or have some some amount of of

1:24:07 ↗ uh transit vehic vehicles going through

1:24:09 ↗ the intersection at some point during

1:24:12 ↗ the PM peak hour. Um and so the the

1:24:17 ↗ resultant map that I that we'll be

1:24:18 ↗ showing in a second have those 41

1:24:21 ↗ intersections. Um and then again at um

1:24:25 ↗ at all of those 41 intersections, we

1:24:28 ↗ assumed 30% of the buses that are going

1:24:31 ↗ through that intersection would hit the

1:24:34 ↗ signal um on a green phase and so there

1:24:37 ↗ would be no change. So it's the other

1:24:38 ↗ 70% of the buses going through the

1:24:41 ↗ intersection would actually activate the

1:24:44 ↗ TSP.

1:24:46 ↗ We also assumed no physical

1:24:48 ↗ improvements, so no additional bus lanes

1:24:51 ↗ and no Q jumps um for buses for this TSP

1:24:55 ↗ analysis. So in other words, it'd be

1:24:58 ↗ basically a worstc case scenario in

1:25:01 ↗ terms of impact to automobile delay

1:25:05 ↗ um uh if that makes sense. All right, so

1:25:08 ↗ next slide.

1:25:10 ↗ So again, similar to the map that we did

1:25:12 ↗ before, this is a heat map showing the

1:25:16 ↗ increase or decrease in delay at all of

1:25:18 ↗ the 41 intersections. Again, red is um

1:25:22 ↗ increases in delay associated with

1:25:24 ↗ implementing

1:25:25 ↗ TSP and green would would show decreases

1:25:29 ↗ in delay.

1:25:32 ↗ Um and and then the yellow basically is

1:25:35 ↗ virtually no change uh at all.

1:25:41 ↗ Okay. So, uh again, lots of information

1:25:43 ↗ on this graphic. So, I'm going to

1:25:44 ↗ summarize some of the information that's

1:25:46 ↗ shown on here. Of the 41 intersections

1:25:49 ↗ affected by TSP, only 11 intersections

1:25:53 ↗ actually experienced a measurable

1:25:55 ↗ increase in delay. And again, you're

1:25:58 ↗ probably saying intuitively that doesn't

1:26:00 ↗ make sense. We're changing the signal

1:26:01 ↗ timing. Why wouldn't all of them get

1:26:03 ↗ worse? Well, because the other 30

1:26:07 ↗ intersections when the TSP is activated,

1:26:10 ↗ it is likely on a movement that has the

1:26:13 ↗ highest volume. So, in other words,

1:26:15 ↗ let's look at

1:26:17 ↗ SR900. Um, you know, the the main

1:26:20 ↗ movement on SR900 would be on SR900, not

1:26:24 ↗ on the side streets. And so where there

1:26:27 ↗ are um when the TSP is activated, there

1:26:31 ↗ are additional vehicles getting through

1:26:33 ↗ the intersection, not just the bus um on

1:26:37 ↗ SR900 through that green light at the

1:26:40 ↗ expense of the side streets experiencing

1:26:43 ↗ additional delay where there are fewer

1:26:45 ↗ vehicles. Um, and so that's why you're

1:26:48 ↗ going to see actually an uh a lot of

1:26:51 ↗ intersections improving, even though

1:26:53 ↗ intuitively that doesn't make

1:26:57 ↗ sense. Um, of those 11 intersections

1:27:00 ↗ where there was actually an increase in

1:27:03 ↗ delay, the average was 21 seconds. So,

1:27:06 ↗ we're talking a lot higher a lot uh

1:27:10 ↗ higher increase in delay than, for

1:27:12 ↗ instance, we were looking at with LPI.

1:27:14 ↗ So TSP does have a a more significant

1:27:17 ↗ impact on automobile level of service

1:27:20 ↗ than the LPI uh impact

1:27:24 ↗ had. Uh there are 17 intersections whose

1:27:28 ↗ level of service changed from one grade

1:27:30 ↗ to another, but 12 of those actually

1:27:32 ↗ resulted in an improved level of

1:27:36 ↗ service. And then there are eight

1:27:38 ↗ intersections that are operating at

1:27:41 ↗ level service E or F after TSP is uh

1:27:46 ↗ implemented. And uh three of those

1:27:48 ↗ intersections were all were operating at

1:27:50 ↗ level service C or D before and now have

1:27:53 ↗ degraded to level service E after the

1:27:57 ↗ TSP implementation.

1:28:00 ↗ Two were operating at level service E

1:28:02 ↗ before and degraded to level service F

1:28:05 ↗ after. And the increase in delay, the

1:28:08 ↗ average increase in delay at these five

1:28:10 ↗ intersections was 48

1:28:13 ↗ seconds. Um, so again, as I'd mentioned,

1:28:17 ↗ TSP has a greater impact on level of

1:28:20 ↗ service than LPI did. However, city

1:28:23 ↗ staff have the flexibility to implement

1:28:25 ↗ TSP where it makes the most sense, has

1:28:28 ↗ the biggest positive impact to transit

1:28:31 ↗ while minimizing the overall increase in

1:28:33 ↗ delay based on engineering judgment. We

1:28:36 ↗ also could look at some physical

1:28:39 ↗ improvements that would reduce the the

1:28:43 ↗ levels the uh increase in delay if that

1:28:46 ↗ was something that we wanted to consider

1:28:48 ↗ and add to the city's uh

1:28:51 ↗ tip. All right. So with that, next slide

1:28:55 ↗ is I think getting back to the question,

1:28:57 ↗ do you agree with the recommendation to

1:28:59 ↗ add TSP to transit corridors taking into

1:29:03 ↗ account the impact on level of service

1:29:05 ↗ and the number of buses that are going

1:29:08 ↗ through the intersection?

1:29:11 ↗ So if there's any guiding questions,

1:29:13 ↗ they'll like strictly have to be about

1:29:15 ↗ this chart and some chart because we

1:29:19 ↗ don't have time to do other questions.

1:29:22 ↗ How should we

1:29:24 ↗ see or assumptions?

1:29:28 ↗ Uh question about that 30% would hit

1:29:31 ↗ green. Uh is that just that's an

1:29:33 ↗ industry standard thing? That's like a

1:29:35 ↗ measurable like that's just how traffic

1:29:37 ↗ works thing. Curious where that number

1:29:40 ↗ come. uh it was an assumption that we

1:29:42 ↗ made and we chose to make it a low

1:29:45 ↗ assumption so that you would see sort of

1:29:49 ↗ the worst case impact um for this an

1:29:53 ↗ analysis. Um but yeah, if it were

1:29:56 ↗ actually implemented, we would use the

1:29:58 ↗ you know the reality um in terms of the

1:30:01 ↗ percentage

1:30:04 ↗ in in if I can just in most cases the

1:30:07 ↗ bus is going to be going along your

1:30:09 ↗ busier road that's going to have more

1:30:10 ↗ green time. So actually 30% it's

1:30:12 ↗ incredibly conservative. So D is trying

1:30:15 ↗ to make you see like this is the worst

1:30:17 ↗ it could possibly be. It's likely going

1:30:19 ↗ to be much less detrimental than what

1:30:22 ↗ he's presenting.

1:30:23 ↗ Thank you, Andrew.

1:30:32 ↗ Yep.

1:30:39 ↗ Anyone want a really quick sentence

1:30:47 ↗ about I I think I'm sort of

1:30:50 ↗ a seems like it's

1:30:56 ↗ a if you're really implying this well

1:30:59 ↗ there are some intersections it makes

1:31:00 ↗ sense

1:31:01 ↗ for but is very much not

1:31:04 ↗ a overall

1:31:07 ↗ recommendation. Uh and I think I would I

1:31:09 ↗ would if I disagree with the overall you

1:31:12 ↗ just do it period. You add it to the

1:31:14 ↗ transit order. It's like you know I

1:31:16 ↗ would have it you never you never go to

1:31:19 ↗ an F, right? You never move something

1:31:21 ↗ that's not an F to an F because of this.

1:31:23 ↗ So it's would I say we blank it? Yes.

1:31:27 ↗ No, I wouldn't as a recommendation even

1:31:29 ↗ even take into account level service.

1:31:32 ↗ But do I believe that there are cases

1:31:33 ↗ where it makes

1:31:34 ↗ sense? Um I I also like just the the

1:31:38 ↗ modeling there's some things that

1:31:41 ↗ sound assumptions I could get that maybe

1:31:44 ↗ had to do. Um but I was almost expecting

1:31:46 ↗ in some ways you could universally have

1:31:49 ↗ a decrease in uh average delay because

1:31:54 ↗ you're not waiting for a bus to get

1:31:56 ↗ moving. You're, you know, sitting at red

1:31:58 ↗ light. you're waiting for that bus to

1:31:59 ↗ slowly pick up speed versus you're

1:32:02 ↗ behind someone that gets the idea and

1:32:03 ↗ the greens go and you know you wait less

1:32:08 ↗ because I don't know how to think about

1:32:10 ↗ the assumptions that

1:32:13 ↗ um and just you know for myself I mean I

1:32:16 ↗ agree but um I think you maximizing

1:32:19 ↗ staff discretion ideal allowing staff to

1:32:23 ↗ make the choice of you know guided along

1:32:25 ↗ the lines of um you know trans transit

1:32:29 ↗ lights the 554 definitely without

1:32:32 ↗ transit signal priority um you know 271

1:32:36 ↗ should also transit so so things like

1:32:38 ↗ that um just you know guidance based on

1:32:41 ↗ these highly used transit lines or

1:32:48 ↗ yeah so I think potentially this is a

1:32:50 ↗ great tool could use it based on the

1:32:52 ↗ modeling that I see here it's not

1:32:54 ↗ rigorous enough and it actually shows

1:32:55 ↗ some some potentially bad cases that I

1:32:59 ↗ would say no, we don't want to put it in

1:33:01 ↗ place there. Um, but I I think it's just

1:33:03 ↗ that the modeling's, you know, worst

1:33:05 ↗ case, not rigorous. Uh, we'd have to

1:33:07 ↗ just dig a bit deeper into that. Uh, and

1:33:10 ↗ there was much much like what

1:33:14 ↗ LPI, unless you dig into the material,

1:33:17 ↗ you don't see the benefit of this. That

1:33:19 ↗ was never covered. And I don't think

1:33:20 ↗ that was any in any of the supporting

1:33:22 ↗ material either. So I kind of can't do a

1:33:26 ↗ costbenefit analysis on this. Just not

1:33:29 ↗ enough information.

1:33:33 ↗ I just want to say that I don't think

1:33:34 ↗ it's really been said that I the reason

1:33:36 ↗ I agree with this is a little bit of a

1:33:38 ↗ higher level point and that's that we

1:33:40 ↗ have to be investing in transit because

1:33:43 ↗ we can't keep building wider roads. So

1:33:45 ↗ if you look at the 10 and 20 year

1:33:47 ↗ horizon, we just have to

1:33:49 ↗ commit even if there's some hit. I'm not

1:33:52 ↗ saying at all costs in every case, but

1:33:54 ↗ I'm just saying we have to push through

1:33:57 ↗ this because we're not going to be able

1:33:58 ↗ to move people through the region,

1:34:00 ↗ through the city in 20 years from now if

1:34:02 ↗ we just keep on keep on keep on

1:34:05 ↗ protecting, you know, vehicular traffic

1:34:08 ↗ above other priorities. And I think you

1:34:10 ↗ have to make it more attractive to ride

1:34:13 ↗ the bus in whatever way you can and for

1:34:16 ↗ the future a decade, two decades from

1:34:19 ↗ now. So I just wanted to say that

1:34:23 ↗ I think the the open question is like

1:34:24 ↗ does this

1:34:26 ↗ man we're going pretty far on say it

1:34:28 ↗ does based on what you missing here. So

1:34:31 ↗ back when we're talking about transit

1:34:33 ↗ LOS one of the things that I heard was

1:34:37 ↗ reliability and speed of the transit

1:34:41 ↗ absolutely is more important than the

1:34:43 ↗ actual bus stop. And so that's what

1:34:45 ↗ we're trying to

1:34:46 ↗ do on us for not articulating it as well

1:34:49 ↗ as we did. I think for us it's just so

1:34:51 ↗ obvious that we're blind to it. Um but

1:34:54 ↗ that is what we're trying to do. And I

1:34:56 ↗ would also add in terms of

1:34:58 ↗ implementation

1:35:00 ↗ that assuming that this policy moves

1:35:02 ↗ forward when we get to intersections

1:35:05 ↗ like Gilman up front where you can see

1:35:08 ↗ it just blows up. I think that's the the

1:35:11 ↗ location where you say okay what can we

1:35:13 ↗ do? Do we add a Q jump lane or at East

1:35:18 ↗ Lake salmon 56? I I think those are

1:35:20 ↗ locations where it would make sense to

1:35:23 ↗ start looking at how to have a project

1:35:26 ↗ to do something like that and identify

1:35:28 ↗ locations because we have Gilman has a

1:35:31 ↗ transit corridor and it's got TSP but

1:35:34 ↗ then you get to front and then all of a

1:35:37 ↗ sudden if you have a way to help the bus

1:35:39 ↗ beyond just the TSP it at least that's

1:35:43 ↗ how I envisioned implementing it when I

1:35:45 ↗ saw it to head

1:35:49 ↗ The idea is to make it so that way the

1:35:51 ↗ buses are more reliable. So that way

1:35:53 ↗ when someone's planning their trip, they

1:35:55 ↗ can say, "Okay, I can drive or I know

1:35:58 ↗ that the bus will get me there on time."

1:36:03 ↗ Agree due to the fact that my assumption

1:36:06 ↗ was that we can do this. It's not a

1:36:09 ↗ blanket, all right, we're going to do

1:36:11 ↗ this on all of the intersections even

1:36:13 ↗ downgrading them. is that city expert

1:36:15 ↗ and city staff can they can choose where

1:36:17 ↗ to that's why

1:36:21 ↗ okay I think

1:36:23 ↗ that this question next slide

1:36:31 ↗ yeah so this is next going we'll we'll

1:36:35 ↗ bring the nuance of what we heard today

1:36:37 ↗ to to PPC um likely through the comp

1:36:40 ↗ plan amendment process that's going

1:36:41 ↗ through right now Um and then it'll go

1:36:44 ↗ to mobility and infrastructure uh in

1:36:47 ↗ September and then to the full city

1:36:50 ↗ council for a decision on each of these

1:36:53 ↗ um kind of main areas bike ped and auto

1:36:56 ↗ LPI and TSP um in October. We think that

1:37:01 ↗ there are probably some things that this

1:37:02 ↗ this discussion or this project alone

1:37:05 ↗ sparks, which is a a review of our back

1:37:08 ↗ and pedestrian mitigation fee and street

1:37:09 ↗ impact fee and the projects that are

1:37:12 ↗ funded out of those to make sure that

1:37:13 ↗ they're appropriately spread through all

1:37:15 ↗ the modes of our our transportation

1:37:18 ↗ system. So, those are that's all we've

1:37:20 ↗ got for you tonight.

1:37:22 ↗ Thank you.

1:37:28 ↗ Next item is going to be the wildfire

1:37:31 ↗ vacation

1:37:34 ↗ time

1:37:40 ↗ discussion and I guess in terms of

1:37:42 ↗ planning

1:37:44 ↗ day dream.

1:37:55 ↗ Well, hopefully I

1:37:59 ↗ will actually higher

1:38:02 ↗ evacuation topic of the night. Maybe I

1:38:05 ↗ was

1:38:06 ↗ wrong. It's great stuff. I actually

1:38:08 ↗ learned a lot. So, um, okay.

1:38:14 ↗ It's coming up. Okay. All right. Um, so,

1:38:17 ↗ hi everybody. If you don't know me, I I

1:38:19 ↗ don't think I've actually come to the

1:38:20 ↗ transit advisory board before. Um, but

1:38:23 ↗ it's really nice to meet you. My name is

1:38:25 ↗ Jared Schneider. I'm the emergency

1:38:27 ↗ manager spa. I've been here for about

1:38:29 ↗ two years. I heard that I was King

1:38:31 ↗ County's office of emergency

1:38:33 ↗ management the Red Cross for some time.

1:38:36 ↗ But, um, you may also be asking

1:38:37 ↗ yourself, what is an emergency manager?

1:38:40 ↗ And that's a really fair question. Uh

1:38:42 ↗ effectively what I do is I try to

1:38:44 ↗ prepare the city for um a disaster for

1:38:47 ↗ for disasters during a disaster. I help

1:38:50 ↗ coordinate our response to make sure

1:38:51 ↗ that we as a city have more unified

1:38:54 ↗ mission and objective um for for uh

1:38:56 ↗ whatever it is whatever the emergency of

1:38:58 ↗ the day is. And then finally I um I help

1:39:01 ↗ us recover from disaster. So that's kind

1:39:04 ↗ of what emergency management does in a

1:39:06 ↗ nutshell. And one of the topics that

1:39:08 ↗ we've been really thinking about lately

1:39:10 ↗ is is wildfire, right? It's our climate

1:39:13 ↗ is changing, things are heating up, you

1:39:14 ↗ know, and it's it's time to take a hard

1:39:17 ↗ look at those. So with that, a few

1:39:21 ↗ things that I wanted to do today was one

1:39:23 ↗ share information on this wildfire

1:39:26 ↗ evacuation time estimate site we have

1:39:28 ↗ completed very recently. um to talk

1:39:31 ↗ about just the planning process itself,

1:39:33 ↗ its results, and uh share some of our

1:39:35 ↗ future plans for how we hope to

1:39:37 ↗ implement it. And then two, identify

1:39:39 ↗ future evacuation scenarios to deepen

1:39:41 ↗ our understanding of challenges and

1:39:43 ↗ figure mitigation strategies. And if

1:39:45 ↗ that's really directly right now, don't

1:39:47 ↗ worry, we'll get into that and it'll

1:39:48 ↗ make more sense a little bit. But um to

1:39:52 ↗ start things off, um I wanted to talk

1:39:54 ↗ about Western Washington wildfire,

1:39:56 ↗ right? to just kind of ground us in what

1:39:59 ↗ we're up against here. Uh specifically

1:40:01 ↗ for uh us as a west of Cascades

1:40:04 ↗ community now um 30 to 40% of wildfire

1:40:08 ↗ starts are actually happening already

1:40:09 ↗ here on the west side which it could be

1:40:13 ↗ maybe more than what you expected or

1:40:14 ↗ certainly not what I expected when I

1:40:17 ↗ read that number. Um, so it's a now,

1:40:20 ↗ right? I was talking about things are

1:40:21 ↗ getting worse, you know, but it still is

1:40:22 ↗ a now. Our highest risk here in Visipa

1:40:25 ↗ is actually late September, early

1:40:28 ↗ October. And that's just because while,

1:40:30 ↗ you know, our risk is increasing, we

1:40:32 ↗ still are relatively wet as a region

1:40:35 ↗ compared to the rest of the west. So in

1:40:38 ↗ that late September, early October,

1:40:39 ↗ that's really when our fuels have the

1:40:41 ↗ most time to to dry. So that is kind of

1:40:45 ↗ what we that's when we have a heightened

1:40:48 ↗ risk. That's when we're most worried

1:40:49 ↗ about it. In terms of wildfire for that

1:40:52 ↗ reason, we kind of have two different

1:40:53 ↗ flavors. One is a low severity wildfire

1:40:57 ↗ and that can kind of happen even outside

1:40:58 ↗ of that high-risisk September October

1:41:00 ↗ time. And that's just when you know

1:41:01 ↗ things are a little bit more moist,

1:41:03 ↗ right? There's better snowpack still. Um

1:41:05 ↗ and fires can kind of smolder, take a

1:41:08 ↗ little bit of time to develop and move.

1:41:10 ↗ And and really the key there is it's

1:41:11 ↗ it's lower weight. low is

1:41:14 ↗ really small wildfires and it's a big

1:41:17 ↗ characteristic

1:41:18 ↗ um and a big difference in high fires

1:41:20 ↗ which is our next type of wildfire and

1:41:22 ↗ this is our quoteunquote mega fire that

1:41:25 ↗ you can get on the west of the Cascades

1:41:27 ↗ and and that's just because you know our

1:41:29 ↗ forests have a ton of fuel right there's

1:41:32 ↗ so much in them you know that when big

1:41:34 ↗ wildfires happen here they're they tend

1:41:36 ↗ to be larger than those on the east side

1:41:39 ↗ where forests are a little bit more

1:41:41 ↗ sparse not as dense our ecology period.

1:41:44 ↗ And really those types of wildfires,

1:41:46 ↗ what we call them are like high wind

1:41:48 ↗ events that happen to have a fire going

1:41:50 ↗ at the same time, right? So wind is

1:41:52 ↗ really what kicks off something like

1:41:55 ↗ this mega fire, if you will. Speaking of

1:41:58 ↗ our own forest ectopology, um I have a

1:42:01 ↗ graphic up here. Um we have western

1:42:03 ↗ Washington forest on the left and then

1:42:05 ↗ eastern Washington forest on the right.

1:42:07 ↗ Now, you may have heard too, right, that

1:42:09 ↗ like our rain wildfire risk is kind of

1:42:11 ↗ our own doing in a way, right? Like like

1:42:14 ↗ historical firefighting practices led to

1:42:16 ↗ overcrowded and death forests. Now,

1:42:18 ↗ that's true on the east of Cascades. For

1:42:21 ↗ us here on the west cascades, our horse

1:42:22 ↗ are some of the most productive in the

1:42:24 ↗ world. They actually look kind of the

1:42:25 ↗ way that they're supposed to look. So, I

1:42:27 ↗ wanted to ground us in that too to be

1:42:29 ↗ like to to start with. You know, trees

1:42:31 ↗ are not the enemy. You know, our forest

1:42:33 ↗ isn't really our enemy. This just

1:42:34 ↗ happens to be, you know, the natural

1:42:36 ↗ ecology of where we live, right? Have

1:42:38 ↗ these big more intense wildfires are

1:42:40 ↗ typically what we're up against here,

1:42:42 ↗ but much more subtle than on the east

1:42:44 ↗ side where low inensity burns the

1:42:47 ↗ native. So that is our wildfires. And I

1:42:51 ↗ just wanted to ground us there so we

1:42:52 ↗ have an understanding. So when it comes

1:42:55 ↗ to ISA, right, um, one of the first

1:42:57 ↗ things that I really wanted to do when I

1:42:59 ↗ got here too and and the council and

1:43:00 ↗ many others agreed, right, was to get a

1:43:02 ↗ better understanding of what we're up

1:43:04 ↗ against when it comes to evacuation, you

1:43:06 ↗ know, and in a very large wildfire,

1:43:08 ↗ right? In some cases, you know,

1:43:10 ↗ evacuation is really the only answer.

1:43:12 ↗ Doesn't matter how much space you have

1:43:14 ↗ at your home, right? We need to get

1:43:16 ↗ people out of here. And so that is an

1:43:18 ↗ operational question and challenge that

1:43:21 ↗ we're looking to understand more. So,

1:43:23 ↗ one of the ways that you can do that is

1:43:25 ↗ understanding how long it will take your

1:43:27 ↗ community to to evacuate in a wildfire,

1:43:29 ↗ right? And so, a wildfire evacuation

1:43:32 ↗ time estimate study is made up of three

1:43:34 ↗ major components. The first is the time

1:43:36 ↗ that it takes people to start their

1:43:38 ↗ evacuation trip. The second is to

1:43:40 ↗ estimate the amount of traffic that's

1:43:42 ↗ going to be on the road. And then

1:43:43 ↗ finally, to take a look at the um at the

1:43:46 ↗ infrastructure itself, right? like how

1:43:47 ↗ to do some busy infrastructure to allow

1:43:49 ↗ in the movement of people of which you

1:43:51 ↗ all are very aware of in a local

1:43:53 ↗ situation here. So all that makes up an

1:43:55 ↗ evacuation time listing instead. Um I'm

1:43:58 ↗ going to jump ahead to this one real

1:44:00 ↗ quick. So to talk about how we make up

1:44:02 ↗ those three major components, the first

1:44:04 ↗ thing that we did back in spring 2024

1:44:06 ↗ was we kicked off the study and it um

1:44:10 ↗ and the K we had a contact and do the

1:44:13 ↗ study for us. They're called KD

1:44:14 ↗ Engineering. They actually like cut

1:44:16 ↗ their teeth on a modeling nuclear evacu

1:44:19 ↗ nuclear reactor evacuation at the by

1:44:21 ↗ mile incident. Uh every nuclear reactor

1:44:24 ↗ has to have an evacuation study. So now

1:44:27 ↗ um emergency management professionals,

1:44:29 ↗ firefighters and likes were were

1:44:30 ↗ catching on to use this uh technology

1:44:32 ↗ for wildfires. So they did a road

1:44:35 ↗ survey. They drove around every single

1:44:37 ↗ road noted um traffic signal timings um

1:44:41 ↗ every stop sign that was in there and

1:44:44 ↗ did a whole bunch of uh just analysis on

1:44:46 ↗ our own local infrastructure. Then we

1:44:49 ↗ followed that up with a community

1:44:50 ↗ survey. Maybe some of you in this room

1:44:52 ↗ actually took it. Um, but it was a 300

1:44:54 ↗ uh 300 people responded to the survey

1:44:56 ↗ and it was asking things like, you know,

1:44:58 ↗ how many vehicles would you evacuate,

1:45:01 ↗ would you go pick up your kids from

1:45:03 ↗ school before, you know, you choose to

1:45:05 ↗ to pack to get ready? How long do you

1:45:06 ↗ think it'll take you to to prepare to

1:45:08 ↗ leave your home? Kind of questions like

1:45:10 ↗ that, right? And I'll show you in a

1:45:12 ↗ little bit of how that plays in uh to

1:45:14 ↗ the final results. In fall 2024, we've

1:45:18 ↗ uh we're hunting down data um

1:45:20 ↗ specifically for things like assisted

1:45:22 ↗ living facility, right? Like how many

1:45:24 ↗ people live in assisted living facility?

1:45:26 ↗ What's their transportation plan, right?

1:45:28 ↗ Do they have on-site buses that can move

1:45:30 ↗ people? Are they relying on a contractor

1:45:32 ↗ or an outside, you know, IC to help

1:45:34 ↗ provide transportation? Things like

1:45:36 ↗ that. Digging into the schools data,

1:45:38 ↗ right? Understand their bus routes, how

1:45:40 ↗ many buses that they use and and their

1:45:43 ↗ populations. uh kind of things like

1:45:45 ↗ that, you know, is the information that

1:45:47 ↗ we were really seeking out um during

1:45:49 ↗ that stage. Then we're here spring 2025.

1:45:53 ↗ We have our draft plan. It's not

1:45:55 ↗ completely finalized yet. And I'll talk

1:45:57 ↗ about the last piece at the end. Um but

1:46:00 ↗ we're hoping to finalize it by some. So

1:46:04 ↗ a couple phase of this plan isn't.

1:46:06 ↗ Right? So the evacuation time estimate

1:46:08 ↗ itself is a measure of the time that it

1:46:10 ↗ takes people to evacuate a squad. It's

1:46:13 ↗ not for people to get to a final

1:46:14 ↗ destination of a shelter that we would,

1:46:16 ↗ you know, identify in Belleview or

1:46:18 ↗ Seattle or even East Gable the

1:46:21 ↗ situation, right? It's it's talking

1:46:23 ↗ about getting outside jurisdiction

1:46:25 ↗ without um two accounts for the number

1:46:27 ↗ of buses that you just heard, right? So,

1:46:29 ↗ transit needs for neighborhoods, schools

1:46:32 ↗ living, the homeless community, etc.

1:46:34 ↗ Right? So, we did factor in that

1:46:35 ↗ population for this program. I should

1:46:38 ↗ say too, this is strictly vehicular

1:46:40 ↗ evacuation. Right? So this doesn't

1:46:42 ↗ account for people walking or taking

1:46:44 ↗ bices just the the technology itself

1:46:47 ↗ could model that. But you know that's

1:46:49 ↗ something too later that we're going to

1:46:50 ↗ consider a little bit and try to

1:46:52 ↗ understand that a little bit more. The

1:46:54 ↗ last thing is it also estimates a 13%

1:46:56 ↗ shadow evacuation for areas not at risk.

1:46:59 ↗ So shadow evacuations is also yeah if

1:47:01 ↗ the wildfires here in this spot right

1:47:04 ↗ people in this spot or sorry people in

1:47:06 ↗ Spanish worry about right and choose to

1:47:08 ↗ leave themselves and so um we estimate

1:47:10 ↗ 30% people will do that for this study.

1:47:14 ↗ Okay, so here's the study area right in

1:47:18 ↗ our evacuation routes. I know it's a

1:47:19 ↗ little hard to see, you know, from back

1:47:21 ↗ here, but um really there's no surprises

1:47:23 ↗ there. Our primary evacuation routes are

1:47:26 ↗ the major routes in and outside of the

1:47:28 ↗ city as they stand. Secondary evacuation

1:47:31 ↗ routes are some more major or or more

1:47:33 ↗ major roads, right? But obviously not

1:47:35 ↗ the not the big um ones that lead out.

1:47:37 ↗ So you can see you can see it there. But

1:47:39 ↗ um again, no surprises. Uh typically

1:47:42 ↗ roads don't get invented, you know,

1:47:44 ↗ during a wildfire evacuation. We do have

1:47:47 ↗ some service gates um that we do will or

1:47:50 ↗ will open up in the case of emergency.

1:47:53 ↗ There's one in Talis, there's a couple

1:47:54 ↗ in Highlands, and there's one in

1:47:56 ↗ Sycamore. And so that's an operational

1:47:58 ↗ thing too that we are um that we're

1:48:00 ↗ working on ourselves, right, to make

1:48:01 ↗ sure that those gates get open quickly

1:48:03 ↗ after emergency. So just know that those

1:48:06 ↗ are factored into this as well.

1:48:09 ↗ Okay, without further ado, here is the

1:48:12 ↗ results of of evacuating 90% of

1:48:15 ↗ individuals out of our area here. And

1:48:18 ↗ this this uh this little table here,

1:48:21 ↗ I'll explain it. I'll break it down. So,

1:48:23 ↗ regions are just groupings of

1:48:25 ↗ neighborhoods, if you will. So, um

1:48:27 ↗ there's a key that explains fully, you

1:48:29 ↗ know, which one makes up or which

1:48:31 ↗ neighborhoods make up which uh which

1:48:33 ↗ region. I don't want to get into that

1:48:35 ↗ right now, but you kind of get a good

1:48:36 ↗ sense from just a geographical

1:48:38 ↗ description of the scenarios. Right.

1:48:41 ↗ Next, um we have a summer uh three sets

1:48:45 ↗ of summer scenarios and then a fall one.

1:48:47 ↗ And really the difference there is like

1:48:48 ↗ are people at work or are they at home?

1:48:51 ↗ Are people, you know, out and about

1:48:53 ↗ vacationing or is there people or

1:48:55 ↗ tourists here? Um that's something that

1:48:56 ↗ the study also considered was the

1:48:58 ↗ capacity of our parks. And then the fall

1:49:01 ↗ um scenarios that you see is really to

1:49:02 ↗ account for for school right is if

1:49:04 ↗ school is in session um with that uh oh

1:49:08 ↗ yeah to dive into two the reason why we

1:49:10 ↗ think about 90% and not 100% is um as I

1:49:13 ↗ mentioned we did the we did a survey

1:49:15 ↗ right through our community to

1:49:16 ↗ understand how long it would take people

1:49:17 ↗ to get ready to evacuate and there's uh

1:49:20 ↗ many outliers in in that data right so

1:49:23 ↗ uh I think our highest number was four

1:49:25 ↗ hours right five minutes that someone

1:49:27 ↗ estimated that it would take them to

1:49:29 ↗ start their evacuation trip, right? So,

1:49:31 ↗ so we plan for the 90% u just because

1:49:33 ↗ that gives us a little bit more of a

1:49:34 ↗ realistic um look at what it will take

1:49:37 ↗ the most of the people who will live in

1:49:39 ↗ this spot to get out of the

1:49:41 ↗ area. So, with that, I just want to

1:49:43 ↗ highlight um that our hardest uh to

1:49:46 ↗ evacuate neighborhood is the squats. It

1:49:49 ↗ might not be a surprise to to those here

1:49:51 ↗ in the room. It's 2 hours and 15 minutes

1:49:53 ↗ to evacuate 90% of folks. And so, you

1:49:56 ↗ know, it's our most dense, one of our

1:49:58 ↗ most dense neighborhoods paired with

1:50:00 ↗ already some uh just relatively few ways

1:50:02 ↗ in the neighborhood. So, again, you

1:50:06 ↗ know, not a surprise, but honestly, 2

1:50:08 ↗ hours and 15 minutes is um that's a

1:50:11 ↗ number that we can work with. We'll talk

1:50:13 ↗ a second. Um you know, standard is about

1:50:17 ↗ two hours, a little over two hours in

1:50:19 ↗ the

1:50:19 ↗ cases. Uh the final scenarios that you

1:50:22 ↗ see there at the bottom are actually

1:50:23 ↗ like phase evacuations. That's just if

1:50:25 ↗ we choose to evacuate like neighborhoods

1:50:28 ↗ that are closest to the fire first and

1:50:29 ↗ then delay, you know, neighborhoods

1:50:31 ↗ further back by 45 minutes. So that's

1:50:33 ↗ why you see those times a little bit

1:50:34 ↗ higher in those in those particular

1:50:37 ↗ scenarios. But just know that's a good

1:50:39 ↗ tactic that we tend to use if there was

1:50:41 ↗ a wildfire. Get the people who are at

1:50:43 ↗ most danger first. So those are the

1:50:47 ↗ results there. I I wanted to highlight

1:50:49 ↗ really what congestion looks like as we

1:50:51 ↗ move through um this wildfire

1:50:54 ↗ evacuation. So at 15 minutes, this is

1:50:56 ↗ kind of a standard traffic load that you

1:50:58 ↗ see in this aquat. So um it was great to

1:51:01 ↗ see in the last presentation to bring up

1:51:03 ↗ loss um because that's also part of of

1:51:06 ↗ this study. So same type of scoring and

1:51:09 ↗ grading, right? Eph is bad and red is

1:51:11 ↗ bad. So um that's what we have at 15

1:51:14 ↗ minutes after the evacuation. pretty

1:51:17 ↗ much no one's ready to leave. At 15

1:51:19 ↗ minutes, you know, this is again just

1:51:20 ↗ the regular traffic. At 30 is when we

1:51:23 ↗ start to load a little bit more with

1:51:25 ↗ people who are the most prepared uh

1:51:27 ↗ ready to go. And so you'll see kind of

1:51:29 ↗ our downtown corridor, you know,

1:51:31 ↗ starting to starting to clog up a little

1:51:32 ↗ bit and already, you know, um kind of by

1:51:35 ↗ high school, middle school starting to

1:51:36 ↗ slow down up there and a little bit up

1:51:38 ↗ in the

1:51:39 ↗ highlands at one hour. you know, we have

1:51:42 ↗ a it's this is pretty much when it's

1:51:44 ↗ worse, honestly, or the worst in terms

1:51:47 ↗ of a scenario here in the supply. So,

1:51:49 ↗ this is when most of our major affairs

1:51:52 ↗ are heavily congested. I should note

1:51:54 ↗ too, Costco is

1:51:55 ↗ another jam for two and a half hours as

1:51:59 ↗ employees try to leave that parking

1:52:02 ↗ garage. Hour 30. Um, things in central

1:52:05 ↗ will actually start to clear up a little

1:52:07 ↗ bit, which is good news. Um, Highlands

1:52:09 ↗ is still very very

1:52:12 ↗ congested. Two hours a little bit more

1:52:14 ↗ of the same story. Highlands again is

1:52:16 ↗ still stuck a little bit. 2 hours 30

1:52:19 ↗ minutes. You know, most of the rest of

1:52:21 ↗ the city is looking pretty good for the

1:52:23 ↗ most part. You know, of

1:52:24 ↗ course it um and then finally at 3 hours

1:52:29 ↗ rights up for the most part. So that is

1:52:32 ↗ what we anticipate um this you know our

1:52:35 ↗ evacuation situation to look like. And I

1:52:38 ↗ should note that this is, you know,

1:52:39 ↗ pretty much our our best case scenario

1:52:43 ↗ or good case scenario if you will,

1:52:45 ↗ right? Of course, in any wildfire,

1:52:47 ↗ there's variation. There can be routes

1:52:49 ↗ that are no, you know, that should be

1:52:51 ↗ able to use or evacuate across, you

1:52:53 ↗ know, due to evacuee safety, right? So,

1:52:55 ↗ you saw in those graphics, right, we

1:52:57 ↗ send people through Tiger and Uber, you

1:52:58 ↗ know, that could be areas that we close,

1:53:01 ↗ you know, for wildfire risk, for

1:53:03 ↗ wildfire originated there.

1:53:06 ↗ Um some of the key findings, no

1:53:08 ↗ surprise, I90 quickly becomes congested.

1:53:11 ↗ Um we have Newport Way northwest, West

1:53:14 ↗ Lake Parkway southeast, East Lake

1:53:18 ↗ Parkway, Southeast Southeast City Road.

1:53:21 ↗ Um they all have roundabouts at the end

1:53:23 ↗ of them, right? And that actually really

1:53:25 ↗ uh slows down um an evacuation because

1:53:27 ↗ there's a minimum speed that it can take

1:53:29 ↗ for people to safely navigate uh the

1:53:32 ↗ roundabout. So that was something

1:53:33 ↗ honestly that was a little bit of a

1:53:35 ↗ surprise for me. Um you know because

1:53:36 ↗ they're kind of a traffic congestion

1:53:38 ↗ control method already right you think

1:53:40 ↗ that would help but I guess in this

1:53:42 ↗ situation the uh that's a major area for

1:53:44 ↗ our model next here locally. Um and then

1:53:47 ↗ again as we kind of did right front

1:53:49 ↗ street soar road and SR 900 are our two

1:53:52 ↗ rapid evacuation routes is what they

1:53:55 ↗ call them. So these these uh routes have

1:53:57 ↗ the ability to move people quickly based

1:53:59 ↗ on signal timings and intersection

1:54:01 ↗ management. Uh, but they go through wild

1:54:03 ↗ fireproof areas. So, it's a little bit

1:54:05 ↗ of a question too if you'll be able to

1:54:07 ↗ use

1:54:08 ↗ them. Um, to highlight just some of the

1:54:11 ↗ there's so much in the study. Um, we're

1:54:13 ↗ just going to pull out some of the

1:54:15 ↗ things that I think may be interesting

1:54:16 ↗ to you all. Um, but this is the total

1:54:19 ↗ amount of uh buses, hair transit vans,

1:54:22 ↗ wheelchair buses, and amounts is

1:54:23 ↗ required that uh to vacuum effectively,

1:54:27 ↗ right? So we're sitting at 69 buses, uh

1:54:30 ↗ 32 pair transit vans, contin buses, and

1:54:34 ↗ 107 ambulances. So that's a tricky

1:54:37 ↗ number right there, you know. So that's

1:54:39 ↗ that's not that we're working on it in

1:54:41 ↗ particular, but um just share that in

1:54:44 ↗ terms of travel modes work. This is the

1:54:46 ↗ findings from our survey itself. 8% of

1:54:48 ↗ people drive alone. You know, not a

1:54:50 ↗ surprise, but 10% bus, 3.2 to walk

1:54:54 ↗ bicycle and then

1:54:56 ↗ 6% in terms of evacuated vehicles per

1:54:59 ↗ household. Um 66% just taking one

1:55:01 ↗ vehicle two or 27.9 and then you know

1:55:04 ↗ you can see the small numbers but 1.6 is

1:55:08 ↗ our number that are evacuating by buses

1:55:10 ↗ or or other types of vehicles

1:55:12 ↗ there. Okay. So bottom line it's

1:55:15 ↗ primarily capacity issue right that's

1:55:17 ↗ that's something that probably you all

1:55:19 ↗ know being uh transit you know or

1:55:22 ↗ transportation experts really in this

1:55:24 ↗ room right it's that's a big challenge

1:55:26 ↗ in this right like we went through a lot

1:55:29 ↗ of discussions talking about signal

1:55:30 ↗ timings about you know placing like

1:55:32 ↗ police officers at certain structures

1:55:34 ↗ and stuff we're currently exploring

1:55:36 ↗ those you know but we know the biggest

1:55:38 ↗ issue for risk salt is just the amount

1:55:40 ↗ of you know ways to get out specifically

1:55:43 ↗ some of those our neighborhoods. So, um

1:55:47 ↗ let's talk about what we can do about it

1:55:48 ↗ now, right? So, the last part of the

1:55:50 ↗ study, so this is why it's still in

1:55:52 ↗ draft, is um part of our contract with

1:55:55 ↗ this engineering firm is we get to

1:55:57 ↗ develop what they're called what they

1:55:59 ↗ call scenarios, right? To help either

1:56:01 ↗ change the way they run this. And so, we

1:56:04 ↗ can do two types of things really. we

1:56:07 ↗ can um build new roads or change things

1:56:10 ↗ about our transportation infrastructure

1:56:11 ↗ and measure how that impacts you know

1:56:14 ↗ our evacuation time estimates or two we

1:56:16 ↗ can kind of break things right so we can

1:56:18 ↗ say okay let's close down a certain

1:56:20 ↗ night let's see how long it takes now

1:56:22 ↗ right so those are the two major flavors

1:56:24 ↗ there's quite a lot of different

1:56:25 ↗ variation that you can things like all

1:56:27 ↗ right what if we you know recommend

1:56:29 ↗ people just uh like leave early you know

1:56:32 ↗ even before there's a wildfire and these

1:56:34 ↗ really high critical times you see 70 m

1:56:36 ↗ environment, right? We we can play with

1:56:38 ↗ things like that. Um, but what we

1:56:41 ↗ decided would really probably be best

1:56:43 ↗ for our, you know, effort right now is

1:56:46 ↗ to understand these long-term projects

1:56:48 ↗ that we can permanently reduce risk,

1:56:50 ↗ right? So, this is kind of our first way

1:56:52 ↗ as part of our contracting scenarios

1:56:54 ↗ that we're hoping to do. And um, it

1:56:56 ↗ might not come as a surprise, right? But

1:56:57 ↗ we're looking at adding additional

1:56:58 ↗ egress wraps out of this plans. And so

1:57:01 ↗ we're primarily interested in lowering

1:57:04 ↗ that 3 hour and 5 minute, you know, time

1:57:06 ↗ time uh time frame down because that's

1:57:08 ↗ our hardest state neighborhood. So we're

1:57:10 ↗ looking at um routes in a few different

1:57:12 ↗ places there. One is actually connecting

1:57:14 ↗ Grand Ridge, if you're familiar with

1:57:16 ↗ that neighborhood, to um Southeast 272nd

1:57:20 ↗ Street, which probably most people don't

1:57:21 ↗ know, and I didn't even know about it,

1:57:23 ↗ but that road that is like least the

1:57:25 ↗ high point exit on I90. So kind of

1:57:28 ↗ creating another way down there to to

1:57:30 ↗ get people to IMD a little quicker. So

1:57:34 ↗ that's one Sarah that we're looking at.

1:57:36 ↗ Um another is to beef up a PSD uh uh

1:57:40 ↗ road that already kind of connects or

1:57:42 ↗ could connect close to southeast uh to

1:57:45 ↗ old Black Mega Road South Black Mega

1:57:48 ↗ Road to provide another way on the

1:57:49 ↗ highlands there. And then really our

1:57:51 ↗ high in the sky joint too is just even

1:57:53 ↗ trying to understand like what it what

1:57:55 ↗ the impacts would be if we had like a

1:57:57 ↗ spanning the north fork into squat creek

1:57:59 ↗ up there right like if we built a bridge

1:58:01 ↗ or something like that you know how

1:58:03 ↗ would that know that's probably our

1:58:04 ↗ least likely you know costbenefit

1:58:08 ↗ um analysis type project but you know

1:58:10 ↗ something that we want to consider right

1:58:11 ↗ because this is obviously a life safety

1:58:13 ↗ issue. Uh the next is adding an

1:58:16 ↗ additional route from force ring. So

1:58:18 ↗ force rim is our only other uh

1:58:20 ↗ neighborhood that only has one way and

1:58:22 ↗ one way in and one way out. So we want

1:58:23 ↗ to quantify um the impacts of that to

1:58:26 ↗ make sure that there is uh future like

1:58:28 ↗ funding you know opportunities and the

1:58:29 ↗ way grants or otherwise that we can

1:58:32 ↗ point at that and say hey this is why

1:58:34 ↗ important. So that's our first wave of

1:58:36 ↗ scenarios. Um and in a second in our

1:58:40 ↗ discussion we'll talk about I would love

1:58:41 ↗ to hear from you all about if you have

1:58:43 ↗ other ideas in this topic. So, um, in

1:58:47 ↗ timing, in terms of timing, next step.

1:58:49 ↗ So, we are finishing up our evacuation

1:58:51 ↗ study. Uh, we're doing some community

1:58:53 ↗ education around it. Uh, you may have

1:58:55 ↗ heard us traveling back before the the

1:58:57 ↗ meeting started. We recently did like a

1:58:59 ↗ wildfire trivia night. Um, actually just

1:59:01 ↗ yesterday at Gas Land. Um, and, you

1:59:04 ↗ know, we featured some evacuation

1:59:05 ↗ questions in there just as a fun way to,

1:59:07 ↗ you know, bring this topic or engage

1:59:09 ↗ the, you know, the community with this

1:59:11 ↗ topic. But we got many more planned you

1:59:13 ↗ know not just the trivia nights but many

1:59:15 ↗ other methods because you know this

1:59:16 ↗ information right we really want to make

1:59:18 ↗ sure it's in people so they can know

1:59:21 ↗ that hey you know the more you can be

1:59:23 ↗ prepared to leave your home right you

1:59:26 ↗ can see the traffic right the quicker

1:59:28 ↗ you're ready much you'll be much more

1:59:30 ↗ better off right and so it's a really

1:59:32 ↗ powerful education tool and it's

1:59:34 ↗ something that you know it's key for

1:59:35 ↗ life safety right um we'll also be going

1:59:38 ↗ to uh counsel with this uh in a few

1:59:41 ↗ weeks weeks in a couple of weeks. So

1:59:42 ↗ yeah, you all are getting the insights

1:59:45 ↗ first. Um in fall 2025, you know, we're

1:59:48 ↗ going to uh develop these additional

1:59:51 ↗ scenarios that you know we can go off

1:59:53 ↗ and generate here and then beyond we're

1:59:55 ↗ really implementing right this plan

1:59:56 ↗ itself. So we're going to be um

1:59:59 ↗ exercising our own evacuation

2:00:01 ↗ procedures, right? finding them make

2:00:03 ↗ sure that we know u all the challenges

2:00:06 ↗ and the best way that we can help

2:00:08 ↗ support the community to get out of that

2:00:10 ↗ emergency. So um that is really what I

2:00:14 ↗ have but now I'm going to turn it to you

2:00:16 ↗ all right um for really any questions

2:00:18 ↗ and if there's other scenarios that you

2:00:21 ↗ think that we should look into right us

2:00:23 ↗ as a city and what we did when we are go

2:00:25 ↗ and uh work with our consultant more

2:00:28 ↗ right if there's things that you think

2:00:29 ↗ we should understand I would love to

2:00:30 ↗ hear your ideas love to hear your

2:00:32 ↗ feedback just on what I'm presenting

2:00:34 ↗ here today so yeah so you showed that

2:00:37 ↗ you make this 13% assumption about uh

2:00:41 ↗ other communities evacuate at the same

2:00:44 ↗ time. Do we do do neighboring

2:00:47 ↗ communities have they done the same

2:00:49 ↗ analysis? Have we then sat down and

2:00:51 ↗ looked at like what other routes we're

2:00:52 ↗ using or they're using? Are they really

2:00:54 ↗ just feeding into each other? And then

2:00:57 ↗ how much do we apply a like where we

2:01:01 ↗ expect

2:01:02 ↗ uh wildfires most likely to come from? I

2:01:06 ↗ get that it could be there's there a lot

2:01:08 ↗ of variability there, but we we try and

2:01:11 ↗ figure it that way and like when you you

2:01:13 ↗ go through these uh the scenarios

2:01:17 ↗ adjustments, do you really look at like

2:01:18 ↗ well it's most likely to come from this

2:01:21 ↗ area and so yeah, great question. Yeah.

2:01:23 ↗ So to answer your first question, so

2:01:25 ↗ Seamish is the only other community uh

2:01:28 ↗ that I'm aware of that's also done a

2:01:30 ↗ wildfire acquisition test and say we

2:01:32 ↗ actually use the same consultant. So our

2:01:34 ↗ you know our data and so does play well

2:01:35 ↗ with each other. You know what's planned

2:01:37 ↗ though is a to your point. It's not a

2:01:39 ↗ you know mega fire you know snow quality

2:01:42 ↗ northb right ourselves unappropriate

2:01:44 ↗ county but it's all evacuating at the

2:01:46 ↗ same time. You know unfortunately that

2:01:48 ↗ was just like bigger than the scope

2:01:49 ↗ obviously that we could allow. But King

2:01:51 ↗ County um does have hopes of one day

2:01:54 ↗ doing that type of modeling. Um you know

2:01:56 ↗ they took a lot of interest in our study

2:01:59 ↗ just to just for that reason. Um so to

2:02:02 ↗ answer your question I mean get empty

2:02:05 ↗ out of a lot of our same roads right and

2:02:07 ↗ incorporated manage some areas too like

2:02:10 ↗ it is a reality right now we haven't

2:02:13 ↗ modeled what that both of those cities

2:02:16 ↗ evacuating at the same time would look

2:02:17 ↗ like but that is a future area that we

2:02:19 ↗ want to increase our understanding of um

2:02:22 ↗ for your second question as in terms of

2:02:25 ↗ our areas with highest wildfire risk

2:02:27 ↗ there is a another planning effort going

2:02:30 ↗ on currently and it's called our

2:02:31 ↗ community architecture plan and that uh

2:02:35 ↗ really takes a deeper dive into

2:02:37 ↗ individual areas of risk using um a

2:02:39 ↗ whole another slew of scientific

2:02:41 ↗ modeling and um and best practices to

2:02:44 ↗ understand you know our highest areas

2:02:45 ↗ for risk and um that certainly could be

2:02:48 ↗ a consideration in the future right for

2:02:50 ↗ for how we evaluate and prioritize um

2:02:53 ↗ these these permanent changes to our

2:02:55 ↗ community.

2:02:59 ↗ Yeah. Um, so it seems like there are the

2:03:03 ↗ scenario that we looked at here is kind

2:03:04 ↗ of like there's a wildfire somewhere, so

2:03:06 ↗ we got to evacuate everything. Probably

2:03:08 ↗ you're looking at like maybe more

2:03:10 ↗ realistic scenarios or more specific

2:03:12 ↗ scenarios of like fire starts on Tiger

2:03:14 ↗ Mountain, something like that. uh when

2:03:17 ↗ you do those more specific scenarios,

2:03:19 ↗ are you planning on building uh run

2:03:22 ↗ books that essentially have a written

2:03:24 ↗ down

2:03:26 ↗ plan? And does does that then tie to the

2:03:29 ↗ specific modeling that you want to do?

2:03:31 ↗ Yeah, so that's a that's a great

2:03:32 ↗ question. Yeah, and you're right, you

2:03:33 ↗ know, there's there is a four scenarios

2:03:35 ↗ that we are pretty confident, you know,

2:03:37 ↗ could happen in terms of like major

2:03:38 ↗ wildfire spurts, you know, and so uh

2:03:41 ↗ you're right. Yeah, we um you can go

2:03:43 ↗ down the rabbit hole really far as well

2:03:45 ↗ too, right? On that pushing media book

2:03:47 ↗ can start on like median on I90 or

2:03:50 ↗ something like that, right? But the more

2:03:51 ↗ the major ones that are predictable,

2:03:53 ↗ right, like a closure on SR900, spot the

2:03:56 ↗ likes. Yeah, that is something that

2:03:58 ↗ we're working into our plans themselves.

2:04:00 ↗ And so um yeah, so what was your second

2:04:03 ↗ part of the question? Well, when you do

2:04:04 ↗ those specific scenarios, then it seems

2:04:06 ↗ like with the modeling do is you know

2:04:09 ↗ when that scenario happens, right? I

2:04:11 ↗ planned out here are all the evacuation

2:04:13 ↗ routes for it. What does that mean in

2:04:15 ↗ terms of time? Exactly. Where are the

2:04:17 ↗ bad parts that I need to focus more on?

2:04:19 ↗ Exactly. Roads or Exactly. And that and

2:04:22 ↗ like a good example of that too, right?

2:04:24 ↗ Is like that information is helpful for

2:04:25 ↗ us to like understand where we maybe

2:04:26 ↗ want to put like a police officer riot

2:04:28 ↗ or some kind of traffic method, you

2:04:31 ↗ know, temporary one in place. So no,

2:04:33 ↗ absolutely. So a related question for

2:04:35 ↗ this model was

2:04:37 ↗ it were any of the throughput of for

2:04:40 ↗ example bottlenecks in the highlands

2:04:43 ↗ assumed that we'd have a traffic cop

2:04:45 ↗ doing not in not in the data that we

2:04:48 ↗ presented there that we saw. So that is

2:04:50 ↗ something that could be a future

2:04:52 ↗ scenario that that we could model.

2:04:54 ↗ Effectively what it would look like is

2:04:56 ↗ if a intersection inside had a like a

2:04:58 ↗ traffic light really that's really what

2:05:00 ↗ like if we you know put a transit

2:05:01 ↗ officer there right that's effectively

2:05:03 ↗ what it creates you know so that is

2:05:05 ↗ something that we could have considered

2:05:06 ↗ in the future part of like the problem

2:05:09 ↗ of what or part of what our conclusion

2:05:10 ↗ came to a little bit though is like with

2:05:12 ↗ the capacity being the major issue you

2:05:15 ↗ know on the roads themselves it kind of

2:05:17 ↗ came into question a little bit was like

2:05:18 ↗ how you know how effective would it be

2:05:21 ↗ really in terms of like expediting

2:05:24 ↗ things and that's why we kind of ended

2:05:25 ↗ up with this first order of scenarios

2:05:27 ↗ trying to understand like the permanent

2:05:29 ↗ fixtures but it is something worth

2:05:30 ↗ studying. So a lot of times when you do

2:05:32 ↗ that model you want to kind of do a

2:05:33 ↗ bottom up and a top down simultaneously

2:05:35 ↗ and see where you end up in the middle.

2:05:37 ↗ So if the bottom up is sort of like hey

2:05:39 ↗ what is the current signal going through

2:05:41 ↗ putting all of that for getting all this

2:05:43 ↗ traffic through top down might be now

2:05:46 ↗ what if I just say I got to move this

2:05:47 ↗ many cars from here to here how many

2:05:50 ↗ lanes do I have you know what are those

2:05:52 ↗ approximations

2:05:53 ↗ for how much time do I totally optimize

2:05:56 ↗ throughput based on the lanes that exist

2:05:58 ↗ and so that leads to things

2:06:00 ↗ like if if I want to flip a lane around

2:06:04 ↗ so I have two lanes going in one

2:06:05 ↗ direction can I do that sort of thing

2:06:07 ↗ and and get closer to the targets.

2:06:10 ↗ Totally. Yeah. I I will add from because

2:06:13 ↗ as I was in the mud of the meetings

2:06:15 ↗ leading up to this, you you have two

2:06:17 ↗ things going on though. You've got

2:06:18 ↗ people coming home to gather their stuff

2:06:20 ↗ or other family members and you'd have

2:06:23 ↗ people leaving. So, it's not like you

2:06:24 ↗ can just say, "Okay, we're going to make

2:06:27 ↗ it so everyone's leaving the Highlands

2:06:29 ↗ because a significant number of people

2:06:30 ↗ are going to be going back to the

2:06:32 ↗ Highlands." And that's why they modeled

2:06:34 ↗ it the way they did is taking that.

2:06:37 ↗ Yeah. But but it's also that's very

2:06:39 ↗ different than day-to-day traffic. And

2:06:42 ↗ so the optimization signaling that we

2:06:44 ↗ have right now might not be what we put

2:06:46 ↗ in place. And so you wouldn't just get

2:06:47 ↗ an idea of like what's the maximum we

2:06:50 ↗ can get if we optimize. Although we

2:06:51 ↗ wouldn't have time. So fire starts. We

2:06:54 ↗ wouldn't have time to reprogram all the

2:06:56 ↗ signals with the emergency fire. But if

2:06:58 ↗ you had a runbook that said, "Hey, we

2:06:59 ↗ need to do this, this, and this." and

2:07:01 ↗ you send the cops out and they wait

2:07:02 ↗ through and

2:07:05 ↗ yeah I guess like we don't have much

2:07:09 ↗ time to discuss further but like I guess

2:07:10 ↗ one one of the you know subjects

2:07:14 ↗ that it's like we should be relying more

2:07:17 ↗ on mass transportation methods

2:07:21 ↗ and obviously it's not a big thing here

2:07:24 ↗ in America but like we should be trying

2:07:27 ↗ to take buses of these

2:07:33 ↗ higher density and narrow street areas,

2:07:36 ↗ right? Because otherwise you're just

2:07:38 ↗ talking about the transportation system.

2:07:41 ↗ Um so yeah, I mean I know how big they

2:07:45 ↗ think

2:07:46 ↗ here.

2:07:48 ↗ Yeah. Transportation options

2:07:55 ↗ like 30% of people said they were going

2:07:57 ↗ to take two cars. Yeah. Yeah. like

2:08:01 ↗ that and so that's well it's going to

2:08:04 ↗ happen

2:08:08 ↗ right but that's just kind of like the

2:08:09 ↗ education piece right so and even and

2:08:11 ↗ even like encourage our pulling right

2:08:13 ↗ like that's another thing you know leave

2:08:15 ↗ with your neighbor if you can right

2:08:17 ↗ things like that so it is hard you know

2:08:20 ↗ like obviously we can't control people

2:08:22 ↗ you know but we try to educate you know

2:08:24 ↗ individuals and talk about system

2:08:26 ↗ impacts that come from choices like that

2:08:28 ↗ right But um it's a very valid point.

2:08:31 ↗ Don't trust people to like abandon their

2:08:35 ↗ property or car, right? And even if yes,

2:08:40 ↗ think for the community as a whole. I

2:08:42 ↗ just don't believe that mindset has

2:08:46 ↗ permated as much as it should for a

2:08:50 ↗ scenario like this. I hope she I when

2:08:54 ↗ you're planning, you want to plan for

2:08:55 ↗ the behavior that people are actually

2:08:56 ↗ going to have rather than what you'd

2:08:57 ↗ like them to have. And so if we get

2:09:00 ↗ through the plan and we end up with

2:09:02 ↗ scenario there, we're in much better

2:09:05 ↗ shape. Can I ask

2:09:08 ↗ about the general? I just I'm sorry. I

2:09:12 ↗ just No, no, it's just that's just like

2:09:14 ↗ a

2:09:21 ↗ standard evacuation I think. Yeah. And

2:09:26 ↗ like exactly like just working through

2:09:28 ↗ fires. That's about how much they see

2:09:30 ↗ evacuated.

2:09:33 ↗ Well, I just want to say thank you.

2:09:35 ↗ That's a great presentation.

2:09:37 ↗ Yeah, it feels great.

2:09:45 ↗ If uh so if you do open if uh the weight

2:09:49 ↗ time gets lower or the evacuation time

2:09:51 ↗ gets lower for the highs, does that like

2:09:54 ↗ do the other surrounding neighborhoods

2:09:56 ↗ and like that those will go down a

2:09:59 ↗ little bit lower? So the city will tell

2:10:00 ↗ us exactly that too which would be nice,

2:10:02 ↗ you know. So my guess probably you know

2:10:04 ↗ there'll be a little bit like you know

2:10:07 ↗ obviously

2:10:13 ↗ thank

2:10:17 ↗ you I think

2:10:21 ↗ definitely definitely reach out

2:10:26 ↗ email me whatever yeah for any idea so

2:10:29 ↗ I'll figure it out together one more

2:10:31 ↗ item one more item

2:10:33 ↗ Um, but this will be cool because I

2:10:35 ↗ don't think there's going to be much

2:10:36 ↗ competition for this, but it's going to

2:10:38 ↗ be the chair and vice chair and so this

2:10:40 ↗ will

2:10:41 ↗ be gets elect I'll leave this process

2:10:44 ↗ but get elect will be chair right after

2:10:48 ↗ both the chair and vice chair elected um

2:10:51 ↗ and that'll be basically right after so

2:10:55 ↗ um

2:10:57 ↗ so chair

2:11:00 ↗ um start with by any nominations which

2:11:03 ↗ are self nominations or nomination

2:11:07 ↗ nominate

2:11:09 ↗ Erica second um and any other

2:11:15 ↗ nominations nominations.

2:11:18 ↗ Okay, that that means

2:11:21 ↗ Erica chair after this um and then move

2:11:26 ↗ to the vice chair. Are there any

2:11:28 ↗ nominations for this chair?

2:11:34 ↗ Any other nominations? Second.

2:11:38 ↗ Nominations.

2:11:39 ↗ Nominations. Okay. Great. Well, there's

2:11:42 ↗ nominations. I don't want to be vice

2:11:45 ↗ chair. No longer.

2:11:50 ↗ So, uh, first I would like to thank our

2:11:54 ↗ outgoing chairs and vice chair. Um

2:11:57 ↗ Julian, thank you for your leadership.

2:11:59 ↗ Um and uh chair board Julian Crack. Um

2:12:04 ↗ [Music]

2:12:07 ↗ um thank you all.

2:12:09 ↗ Um I uh go to uh accessible and I have

2:12:14 ↗ my phone number and my email. Um if you

2:12:16 ↗ don't have those information already,

2:12:18 ↗ but I'll give you um whatever questions.

2:12:21 ↗ Uh my goal is to be a facilitator and

2:12:24 ↗ stick to the letter of the chair

2:12:26 ↗ students are

2:12:30 ↗ um we have to get

2:12:32 ↗ through so staff report. Yeah. Very

2:12:36 ↗ quickly uh we should have done this in

2:12:38 ↗ the beginning but welcome new members.

2:12:41 ↗ Thank you for being here. We really

2:12:42 ↗ appreciate it. Um couldn't be here

2:12:45 ↗ without you. So thanks very much. Um

2:12:47 ↗ this meeting was very dense, lots of

2:12:49 ↗ information. Um, so thanks for sticking

2:12:51 ↗ with us. Next meeting will be some

2:12:55 ↗ training um on just what it means to be

2:12:58 ↗ in the tab. Uh, the new members saw this

2:13:01 ↗ uh couple weeks ago, but there'll be

2:13:03 ↗ refresher for the existing members too.

2:13:06 ↗ Um, and yeah, just congrats to the vice

2:13:09 ↗ chair and chair. And uh that's all I got

2:13:12 ↗ to do. I will be gone next meeting.

2:13:17 ↗ And Cynthia will be gone next meeting.

2:13:22 ↗ Yep.

2:13:23 ↗ like three times

2:13:34 ↗ brand new so

2:13:38 ↗ I so any other

2:13:43 ↗ business okay then we are adjourned at 8

2:13:53 ↗ [Music]

2:13:55 ↗ We had new members.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF