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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Julian Mydlil

Erika Boyd

Adam Fuchs

Cynthia Krass

Victoria Monroe

Allie Morton

Derek Su; Youth

Micah Zeitz-Chua

Staff (7)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager

Emily Moon, Public Works Director

Gillian Straub, Management Analyst

Jared Schneider, Emergency Manager

Torsten Lienau, Jacobs

Kendra Breiland, Fehr & Peers

Excused

Carlos Besana

Lamir Magus

Hany Maklad

Audience commenters (1)

Councilmember Jiang

Recommendations & actions (4)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of April 23, 2025 The Board unanimously approved the meeting minutes from the April 23, 2025 Transportation Advisory Board meeting.
Transit Level of Service The Board requested that staff return to the TAB at a future meeting to have a more detailed discussion.
The Board recommended that thorough reviews be conducted prior to any implementations to ensure that installation makes sense, and to consider where TSP may also require additional mitigations / enhancements to be…
The Board nominated and unanimously voted to elect Adam Fuchs as the new Vice Chair.