Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, July 23, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 25, 2025

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:38 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-25-25 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. June 25, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Multimodal Transportation Concurrency: Transit Level of Service Policy (A)

30 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager Kendra Breiland, Consultant, Fehr & Peers Gillian Straub, Management Analyst · packet pp.5–29

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:30 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Receive TAB feedback on the proposed transit level of service (LOS).

Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) Workplan: Mid-Year Review

15 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner · packet pp.31–46

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 41:44 Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

Mid-year review of the TAB workplan

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

1496 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ I would now like to call in the uh TAB

0:03 ↗ board meeting for July 23rd

0:07 ↗ at 60

0:09 ↗ one.

0:11 ↗ Um today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.

0:13 ↗ Uh the transportation advisory board is

0:15 ↗ in person. Staff or member of the public

0:18 ↗ may be attending virtually or in person.

0:21 ↗ Staff, do we have a quorum?

0:23 ↗ >> We do have a quorum tonight. Uh also

0:26 ↗ Ally and Carlos will be serving as

0:28 ↗ payment members.

0:35 ↗ >> First item of business is to take action

0:38 ↗ to approve the minutes for June 25th,

0:41 ↗ 2025 meeting. Are there any corrections

0:44 ↗ to the draft meeting minutes provided in

0:46 ↗ the agenda?

0:57 ↗ Seeing none, uh, consider the minutes

1:00 ↗ approved as presented.

1:04 ↗ >> Our next item of business is public

1:06 ↗ comment. Staff, has anyone signed up?

1:10 ↗ >> Uh, chair, no one has sign it to make

1:12 ↗ public comment.

1:16 ↗ >> There's also no online.

1:18 ↗ Thank you.

1:22 ↗ Is there anyone else who would like to

1:25 ↗ speak?

1:28 ↗ Okay. Um hearing none, we will move to

1:30 ↗ item number four, regular business.

1:35 ↗ First presentation is multimodal

1:37 ↗ transportation currency transit level

1:40 ↗ service policy.

1:44 ↗ We have two items under um

1:48 ↗ regular business.

1:50 ↗ The one I just mentioned um

1:54 ↗ we'll start with that. Uh the presenter

1:57 ↗ will be Kendra Brillet.

2:00 ↗ Um, and then she's the administration's

2:02 ↗ consultant. And

2:03 ↗ >> did I take your

2:08 ↗ >> consultant

2:10 ↗ and pierce

2:13 ↗ German?

2:17 ↗ >> Oh, great. Actually, this came up

2:20 ↗ quicker than I thought, but glad for

2:23 ↗ that. Um, so good evening. Um, and

2:25 ↗ actually I think Jillian, you were going

2:27 ↗ to start your presentation, right? Yeah,

2:28 ↗ I'll just kick us off briefly if that's

2:30 ↗ okay. So, hi everyone. We're back today

2:32 ↗ to talk about transportation concurrency

2:34 ↗ and specifically the transit level of

2:36 ↗ service policy that we introduced in

2:38 ↗ May. With us today, we have John

2:40 ↗ Mortstones and obviously Kim as well and

2:44 ↗ she'll be taking the bulk of the

2:45 ↗ presentation when we get to the

2:48 ↗ administration's proposal for the

2:49 ↗ transit.

2:53 ↗ So, in May, we introduced a really high

2:55 ↗ level version of the of the some of the

2:57 ↗ changes we might propose to the transit

2:59 ↗ LOS. Um, and we're back today to make

3:01 ↗ that a little bit more concrete. And the

3:03 ↗ question we'll be seeking your feedback

3:05 ↗ on is up on the screen. Do you agree

3:07 ↗ with the recommendation to include

3:09 ↗ mobility, place, and access

3:11 ↗ consideration for tiers of transit

3:13 ↗ service based on frequency and wrership?

3:18 ↗ Sorry.

3:21 ↗ Okay. So, we wanted to give you a little

3:23 ↗ bit of an update on where this project

3:26 ↗ is kind of in its uh evolution and

3:28 ↗ timeline um and where it's going to be.

3:30 ↗ So, this is our last big policy touch

3:32 ↗ point with TAB. The last time we're

3:33 ↗ asking your feedback on a proposed

3:35 ↗ policy. Next time we come to you in

3:37 ↗ August, we'll be coming to you with the

3:39 ↗ red lines or the the draft changes to

3:41 ↗ the mobility action plan and the

3:44 ↗ transportation element plan that reflect

3:47 ↗ all of your discussion and feedback on

3:49 ↗ those policy changes. So, this is kind

3:52 ↗ of the last big policy touch point.

3:53 ↗ It'll then go to the planning and policy

3:56 ↗ commission um and several council

3:58 ↗ committees where both the kind of

4:00 ↗ document changes and the the policy

4:02 ↗ proposals will be discussed um at

4:04 ↗ varying points throughout this fall. And

4:07 ↗ then we're shooting for a November

4:08 ↗ adoption at city council with the rest

4:10 ↗ of the comprehensive plan changes that

4:12 ↗ are proposed. So, that's where we're

4:14 ↗ going. And I think I just want to

4:16 ↗ highlight this is our our last big

4:17 ↗ policy touch with this with this group.

4:22 ↗ Okay. So, our current transit level of

4:24 ↗ service um like we discussed last time

4:26 ↗ is really or in May um is really based

4:30 ↗ on what it looks like when you arrive at

4:32 ↗ a bus stop. What amenities are there? Um

4:35 ↗ and how many amenities are there? Um and

4:37 ↗ we score each bus stop based on the the

4:40 ↗ rubric that you see on the screen. Um

4:43 ↗ and bus stops that have in general a

4:45 ↗ higher number of points receive a higher

4:47 ↗ score on our level of service. This

4:49 ↗ isn't tied to our concurrency policy or

4:53 ↗ isn't tied to concurrency in that

4:55 ↗ developments don't pass or fail

4:57 ↗ concurrency on the basis um of how a bus

5:00 ↗ stop near them scores.

5:04 ↗ Okay. So this map on the screen which I

5:07 ↗ know is a little bit small um maps our

5:09 ↗ current bus stops and where they're at

5:11 ↗ with our current level of service

5:13 ↗ mapping. So, anything that's green um

5:15 ↗ has 10 or more points um based on

5:18 ↗ transit level of service policy and the

5:20 ↗ amenities that are present there.

5:22 ↗ Anything that's yellow or red has fewer

5:24 ↗ amenities. Um so, you can see that this

5:26 ↗ really only takes into account what's

5:28 ↗ physically present at the bus stop, not

5:30 ↗ how people get to that bus stop, not

5:32 ↗ what wrership is like.

5:34 ↗ So with that,

5:39 ↗ so when we were examining concurrency as

5:41 ↗ a whole through part of this project, we

5:43 ↗ recognized the opportunity to um address

5:45 ↗ our transit LOS to better account for

5:48 ↗ some of those um access frequency um and

5:51 ↗ and wrership considerations. So there's

5:54 ↗ a goal in the MIP and I will just take a

5:56 ↗ moment to read it because I think it'll

5:57 ↗ kind of ground why we're pursuing this

5:59 ↗ change. Um, the goal is to advance the

6:02 ↗ transit system to connect the region and

6:04 ↗ improve access to transit for all

6:06 ↗ community members. Our current LOS

6:08 ↗ system does part of this. It tells you

6:10 ↗ what your experience like at the bus

6:12 ↗ stop, but it doesn't do everything that

6:13 ↗ it could. Um, I think it's also

6:16 ↗ important to note that the city is

6:18 ↗ constrained by the fact that we don't

6:19 ↗ operate our transit. Um, King County

6:21 ↗ Metro and Sound Transit are the

6:24 ↗ operators. Um, so Kendra, uh, in just a

6:28 ↗ moment we'll be talking about where we

6:30 ↗ want to go with transit level of

6:31 ↗ service, but we do have some constraints

6:33 ↗ based on the fact that we don't operate

6:34 ↗ our system.

6:36 ↗ So that was a pretty quick overview of

6:38 ↗ what we've covered to date. Um, and now

6:40 ↗ I'll hand it over or actually I can

6:42 ↗ cover the the feedback um, as well. So

6:45 ↗ last time we brought these highlevel

6:47 ↗ considerations to you. Um, we we kind of

6:50 ↗ grouped the feedback into these larger

6:52 ↗ categories. We heard that you all were

6:54 ↗ interested in uh including potential bus

6:57 ↗ stop or route usage as part of the LOS

6:59 ↗ policy. Because of the way our planning

7:01 ↗ data breaks down geographically, we

7:04 ↗ don't get to a to a low enough level um

7:06 ↗ to actually break out certain bus stops

7:08 ↗ or routes um by potential or future

7:11 ↗ planned writership. So we aren't able to

7:13 ↗ incorporate that into our policy, but

7:15 ↗ you will see actual writership uh

7:17 ↗ incorporated into the policy which is a

7:19 ↗ which is a change. Um, second, there

7:21 ↗ were questions about actual bus stop

7:23 ↗ usage. You'll see this incorporated um

7:25 ↗ into the the place considerations in the

7:27 ↗ policy that Kendra is about to talk

7:29 ↗ about. Um, there were also questions

7:31 ↗ about how usable the amenities were uh

7:34 ↗ at each bus stop. The reality is that

7:37 ↗ Sound Transit and Metro own those those

7:39 ↗ bus stops and the amenities. Um, and it

7:42 ↗ isn't within the city's ability to

7:43 ↗ operate and maintain them or to change

7:46 ↗ kind of that uh that service. Um so we

7:51 ↗ are able to to track the the usability

7:53 ↗ of those amenities. So you won't see

7:54 ↗ that incorporated. Uh you will see

7:56 ↗ safety and lighting uh incorporated

7:58 ↗ under that that police um kind of

8:01 ↗ category. So that was a quick run

8:03 ↗ through it to to

8:08 ↗ well thank you and good evening. So, as

8:11 ↗ Jillian noted, we're here to really um

8:15 ↗ look for ways to kind of upgrade your

8:17 ↗ transit level of service policy really

8:19 ↗ to kind of project kind of the city's

8:22 ↗ desires for transit. I think it's really

8:24 ↗ important um to note that transit level

8:27 ↗ of service policies um that what we're

8:30 ↗ putting together here um these are

8:34 ↗ projecting and telegraphing city

8:36 ↗ desires. Um but you know something that

8:39 ↗ we need to recognize is the city of

8:41 ↗ Esqua cannot guarantee the service

8:43 ↗ levels. City of Esqua is not a transit

8:46 ↗ service provider. Um actual transit

8:50 ↗ service is going to largely be

8:51 ↗ determined by transit agency budgets and

8:54 ↗ funding decisions. Um, but as somebody

8:57 ↗ who practices all over the region, works

8:59 ↗ with a lot of cities that are advocating

9:02 ↗ for increased transit service, you're

9:04 ↗ much more likely to get it when you're

9:06 ↗ actively taking actions to advocate for

9:09 ↗ it. So, that's why we've crafted um this

9:12 ↗ very robust um transit local service

9:15 ↗ policy and in in large part based on

9:17 ↗ very good feedback we received um from

9:19 ↗ this group back in May and and

9:21 ↗ continuing to work directly with city

9:22 ↗ staff over the past couple of months. Um

9:25 ↗ so you know before I kind of present

9:27 ↗ this I just want to state that you know

9:28 ↗ this transit level service policy

9:30 ↗ doesn't provide concurrency but it is

9:33 ↗ very useful in establishing planning

9:35 ↗ intent and also guiding city advocacy

9:38 ↗ with transit agencies. So again if you

9:41 ↗ don't ask you're almost guaranteed not

9:43 ↗ to get what you want. So let's start by

9:45 ↗ at least telling the transit agencies

9:47 ↗ what we want. Um and I just you know

9:50 ↗ just maybe to to remove the current

9:51 ↗ level to come county metro or sound

9:53 ↗ transit because sound like sound like

9:55 ↗ these big agencies honestly they're

9:58 ↗ people they're trying their best

10:00 ↗ allocate service around the region and

10:01 ↗ they really rely on local agencies to

10:04 ↗ telegraph for them what they want. So

10:05 ↗ that's what we're trying to set on the

10:08 ↗ strong foundation here. So, um, as we're

10:11 ↗ going to go in and everyone in front of

10:13 ↗ you, you have this handy dandy, um,

10:16 ↗ tables, um, which describe, you know, in

10:20 ↗ a lot of detail the strength level

10:21 ↗ service policy. It also, um, provides,

10:26 ↗ um, some maps. We'll talk about those in

10:27 ↗ a minute, but just, you know, just as a

10:30 ↗ reminder, what is this? What do these

10:31 ↗ trans level service policies speak to?

10:33 ↗ First, um, there's three service types.

10:36 ↗ Um, frequent service. So you think about

10:39 ↗ that is you know kind of um a transit

10:42 ↗ technology I want to be agnostic between

10:45 ↗ whether it's a train or a bus um that's

10:48 ↗ showing up you know at 15minute

10:50 ↗ frequencies it's reliable it's provided

10:53 ↗ you know this type of service is

10:55 ↗ provided most the hours of the day

10:56 ↗ whether 16 to 24 hours and generally

11:00 ↗ seven days a week. So, you know, these

11:02 ↗ are, you know, you know, high speed and

11:04 ↗ high reliable reliability, high

11:07 ↗ frequency um types of transit service.

11:11 ↗ You know, just to kind of spell any

11:13 ↗ myths, we don't actually have that disc

11:15 ↗ today. Um, but we want it and we want to

11:18 ↗ provide kind of guidance on what that

11:20 ↗ looks like and where we'd like to see a

11:22 ↗ disc. Secondly, we're talking about a

11:24 ↗ second strand of the service uh type

11:26 ↗ regular bus service citizen fixed route

11:28 ↗ service. Um, ideally it's it's arriving,

11:32 ↗ you know, every half an hour or so. Um,

11:34 ↗ during most the hours of the day, again,

11:36 ↗ 12 to 18 hours a day, most days of the

11:38 ↗ week. We'd love to see it seven days.

11:40 ↗ Um, sometimes it's it's more like five

11:43 ↗ days, but um, this is, you know, just

11:46 ↗ your most traditional typical fixed

11:48 ↗ route transit service. Um, it's, you

11:51 ↗ know, really kind of the the bread and

11:53 ↗ butter of what transit service

11:54 ↗ providers. So, we want to definitely

11:57 ↗ speak to that. is definitely a piece of

11:59 ↗ the puzzle in ESPA. And then the third

12:02 ↗ service type that we want to talk about

12:04 ↗ is going to be haunted service. Um, and

12:07 ↗ that's recognizing that there are parts

12:09 ↗ of the city that it's probably going to

12:11 ↗ fall for fixed route service to service,

12:15 ↗ whether it's that your densities are

12:16 ↗ low, whether there's, you know, a street

12:19 ↗ network that isn't connected enough. Um,

12:22 ↗ but there are always going to be parts,

12:24 ↗ particularly in a beautiful hilly

12:26 ↗ natural city like Esqua. There are going

12:28 ↗ to be pieces of that. But we recognize

12:31 ↗ that we have members of our community

12:33 ↗ that transit is really important. They

12:36 ↗ can't drive themselves. They don't have

12:38 ↗ regular access to a car for whatever

12:40 ↗ reason. And so we definitely want to

12:42 ↗ advocate for mobility for those folks as

12:45 ↗ well. So, those are kind of the three

12:47 ↗ transit service types um that our local

12:50 ↗ service policies speak to. And then for

12:52 ↗ those transit service types, and we'll

12:54 ↗ go into more details in a minute, what's

12:56 ↗ in this um but it's it's really kind of

12:59 ↗ thinking through these kind of three

13:00 ↗ buckets again. Um Jillian presented

13:03 ↗ mobility. So, thinking about speed and

13:04 ↗ reliability of that transit service, um

13:07 ↗ access, so how are people getting to it?

13:10 ↗ Specifically, thinking about pedestrian

13:12 ↗ and bike access to those services. And

13:14 ↗ the cool thing about this multi mode

13:16 ↗ concurrency is we're speaking a lot to

13:18 ↗ bike and pedestrian local service. We're

13:20 ↗ think about how we tie that in thinking

13:22 ↗ about access and then place um and

13:24 ↗ that's building from your current uh

13:26 ↗ transit local service policy. You're

13:28 ↗ already talking about stop and station

13:30 ↗ amenities. We do feel that a piece that

13:32 ↗ is appropriate is provided um some

13:34 ↗ guidance here. So um we're already on

13:37 ↗ the slide here which is great. um

13:40 ↗ talking through the specifics of these

13:42 ↗ service types um just to you know make

13:44 ↗ you walk through them in a little bit

13:46 ↗ more detail um from the perspective of

13:49 ↗ frequent um service from a mobility

13:52 ↗ standpoint um the kinds of of measures

13:54 ↗ that we're looking at here we have we

13:56 ↗ have issues with this table um we um

14:00 ↗ talk about kind of the policy aspect we

14:03 ↗ talk about performance measures that

14:04 ↗ we're thinking about and then actions

14:06 ↗ that the city can take and I think it's

14:08 ↗ important really highlight that caveat

14:10 ↗ where practical reasons. You know, this

14:12 ↗ isn't one sizefits-all. Um, so really

14:15 ↗ again that this level of service policy

14:18 ↗ is not concurrency driven, but we'd like

14:21 ↗ this, you know, kind of policy guidance

14:23 ↗ to be really prominent for decision

14:25 ↗ makers and as the city of Isqua is doing

14:28 ↗ projects, we want this to be front of

14:29 ↗ mind so that this can be incorporated

14:31 ↗ into your your border studies or any

14:33 ↗ infrastructure projects that anybody's

14:35 ↗ doing. also front of mind for decision

14:38 ↗ makers, you know, should they be an ETP

14:40 ↗ or other forums around the region and

14:42 ↗ they can be really kind of um speaking

14:45 ↗ to a consistent goal for the city of

14:48 ↗ Isa. So, um for frequent service, what

14:50 ↗ are we thinking about? We're thinking

14:51 ↗ about transit uh travel times that are

14:54 ↗ competitive with auto travel. So

14:56 ↗ thinking about what can the city do in

14:57 ↗ terms of actions could be transit signal

15:00 ↗ priority um regrating your roads to

15:03 ↗ really think about ways that you're

15:04 ↗ really making uh transit vehicles move

15:08 ↗ in a reliable way. um advocating for

15:12 ↗ again um that sub 15minute frequencies

15:16 ↗ um or headways I should say um for

15:19 ↗ transit like really advocating that we

15:21 ↗ are getting true high frequency service

15:23 ↗ in as seven days a week most of the days

15:26 ↗ uh per week. Um, from the perspective of

15:29 ↗ place, um, we added some additional

15:31 ↗ detail to, um, your current level of

15:34 ↗ service policy to really speak to

15:35 ↗ amenities we'd like to see at bus stops

15:38 ↗ where you have more than 25 daily

15:40 ↗ boardings. Um, so we look through the

15:42 ↗ King County Metro guidelines for stops

15:45 ↗ and added some details about things like

15:47 ↗ leaning rails and lighting and signage

15:49 ↗ to trash cans, a little bit more detail

15:51 ↗ than you had before. And then um in

15:54 ↗ terms of expanding fire access um this

15:57 ↗ is really kind of tied to the level

15:59 ↗ service policy that reestablished for

16:01 ↗ pedestrians. So really um constructing

16:05 ↗ sidewalks and trails that are connecting

16:07 ↗ to um transit stops, implementing

16:11 ↗ enhanced street crossings, um

16:13 ↗ prioritizing low stress bicycle or

16:16 ↗ bicycle facilities within 3/4 mile um of

16:20 ↗ transit stops. Um, and also just

16:22 ↗ thinking about transit access, we're

16:24 ↗ concerned curb management. So that's for

16:26 ↗ high frequency transit what we put

16:28 ↗ there. Um, for regular service, and I'm

16:30 ↗ not going to read every word here, I

16:32 ↗ promise, but from a mobility standpoint,

16:35 ↗ just really advocating for um consistent

16:38 ↗ service, hopefully at 30 minute

16:40 ↗ frequencies. Um, again, most days of the

16:43 ↗ week, most hours of the day. Um again

16:47 ↗ specifying the types of um stop and

16:50 ↗ station amenities we'd like to see when

16:51 ↗ there are more than 25 riders per day.

16:54 ↗ And then um at at a given uh bus stop

16:58 ↗ and then also um tying again to our

17:01 ↗ pedestrian service policy um just making

17:04 ↗ sure that we're thinking about

17:05 ↗ pedestrian access transit stops for um

17:09 ↗ tier three ondemand services. Um this is

17:13 ↗ really what we'd be again advocating for

17:15 ↗ and you know to stress this is a King

17:18 ↗ County mentor program. The city is

17:19 ↗ certainly a partner. Um but really

17:22 ↗ advocating for um uh flexible services

17:26 ↗ that folks can access. Um so how can we

17:31 ↗ help in publicizing it? um how can we

17:34 ↗ really think about ways that we're

17:35 ↗ essentially filling in those gaps for

17:37 ↗ folks that don't have access to easy

17:40 ↗ access to uh uh fixed route transit. And

17:44 ↗ Jillian, if you can just go to the next

17:45 ↗ few slides, I just want to show a map.

17:47 ↗ So the table kind of projects what we'd

17:49 ↗ expect for each of these service types.

17:51 ↗ And then these maps um in your packet

17:55 ↗ and kind of on the slides here show what

17:58 ↗ we have today and then what we'd like to

18:00 ↗ see in the future. So to speak to what

18:01 ↗ we have today, um again we don't have

18:05 ↗ high frequency service in this class. So

18:08 ↗ tier one does not exist currently. Um

18:11 ↗ it's really tier 2 service and on demand

18:14 ↗ service. So what we've shown here is

18:15 ↗ we've mapped out where your bus routes

18:17 ↗ are, where those stops are, and also

18:20 ↗ where um the ondemand flexible service

18:23 ↗ area is. Again, that's kind of that

18:25 ↗ Kinghouse Metro program. Um and then if

18:28 ↗ you can go to the next slide, Jillian, I

18:30 ↗ just want to show kind of our know

18:32 ↗ vision what we're trying to to state

18:35 ↗ here. Um first of all, um we've

18:38 ↗ highlighted in kind of the dark blue uh

18:40 ↗ lines that we'd like to see um you know

18:44 ↗ kind of like to see high frequency

18:47 ↗ service rather than just regular

18:49 ↗ service. So, uh, upgrade frequencies.

18:53 ↗ Also, um, looking at the slide here, um,

18:56 ↗ you can see kind of the yellow where

18:58 ↗ we're filling it. We'd love to see, um,

19:01 ↗ on demand service provided everywhere in

19:03 ↗ the city, not just in that area,

19:06 ↗ covering is highlands, covering some of

19:08 ↗ those areas of the city that are

19:10 ↗ currently not included. So, that's

19:12 ↗ something the city can advocate for.

19:13 ↗ Again, this is not a promise that will

19:15 ↗ occur, but again, rejecting that

19:19 ↗ desire. So, I think that's and I think

19:22 ↗ I've got one more kind of slide here

19:24 ↗ before we open up the conversation. Um,

19:27 ↗ the other thing that we really want to

19:29 ↗ do um is um to really be thinking about

19:33 ↗ how much of in terms of households and

19:38 ↗ employees can access um transit service.

19:42 ↗ So really what we've done is we've

19:44 ↗ mapped out um how many jobs

19:46 ↗ possibilities within this spa are within

19:50 ↗ uh a half or quarter mile walkshed or a

19:52 ↗ 3/4 mile uh bike shed of bus stops. So

19:57 ↗ fortunately um particularly from the

20:00 ↗ perspective of employment

20:02 ↗ um you know most most are um from a from

20:08 ↗ a household perspective uh not as much

20:11 ↗ being within that quarter mile walkshed.

20:13 ↗ So that's just something that we want

20:15 ↗ the city to kind of track over time and

20:17 ↗ the aspiration here would be for those

20:19 ↗ percentages to go up over time and that

20:22 ↗ could be done through densification and

20:24 ↗ developing an areas through transit that

20:26 ↗ can be done through advocacy for more

20:28 ↗ transit surface that can also be

20:31 ↗ achieved through transportation that

20:33 ↗ reduce that.

20:41 ↗ All right, I think we're ready to hear

20:42 ↗ from all of you. Um, so we have the

20:45 ↗ question up on the slide here, but there

20:47 ↗ are any clarifying questions that we've

20:48 ↗ discussed this in the past where we can

20:50 ↗ ask those first then get into a little

20:51 ↗ bit more of of discussion

20:58 ↗ question.

21:01 ↗ Yes, one clarifying question. Uh on the

21:03 ↗ bike facilities within 3/4 mile, can I

21:06 ↗ assume that means like building out a

21:08 ↗ network of bike lanes or bike paths to

21:11 ↗ access transit?

21:14 ↗ >> Yes.

21:14 ↗ >> Not such not like you know build a build

21:17 ↗ a bike rack 34 mile away from

21:20 ↗ >> No. No. I mean I your your point is very

21:24 ↗ very very good. I mean just in our

21:26 ↗ measure it's fairly simplistic. So yes,

21:30 ↗ you could take it to you're constructing

21:32 ↗ anything, but I think it it is thought

21:34 ↗ in terms of accessing transit. Um we did

21:36 ↗ the bike service like that was something

21:39 ↗ certainly as we're looking at those

21:40 ↗ desired load low stress bike sheds. Um

21:44 ↗ definitely there is a strong emphasis

21:46 ↗ towards

21:48 ↗ >> there might be an opportunity to word

21:49 ↗ that more clearly. I

21:51 ↗ >> appreciate that.

21:55 ↗ Well, mine's somewhere between

21:57 ↗ clarifying and discussion

21:59 ↗ clarifying.

22:03 ↗ >> So in that um schedule means that 25% of

22:08 ↗ the city do not

22:11 ↗ have proximity

22:13 ↗ less than 3/4 of a mile to

22:17 ↗ buses. That what it means

22:20 ↗ between the 76% and the 100%.

22:25 ↗ So yes, thank you. So just to or sorry,

22:28 ↗ I should have oriented you to what we're

22:30 ↗ looking at in this table. Um so

22:35 ↗ this table essentially presents

22:38 ↗ um both households and jobs and it

22:43 ↗ present um and population and it

22:45 ↗ presents the population that's within a

22:48 ↗ quarter mile walkshed of bus stops. So

22:51 ↗ you got 36% of your population that's

22:54 ↗ within a quarter mile walkshed. You've

22:56 ↗ got 41% of your households that's within

22:59 ↗ um the quarter mile walkshed and 70% of

23:03 ↗ your jobs that are within the quarter

23:05 ↗ mile box shed. Um within the bike shed

23:08 ↗ we've got three4ers of your population,

23:12 ↗ 80% your households and 95% of your jobs

23:16 ↗ that are within. So we haven't stated a

23:19 ↗ goal could state the goal is well I

23:22 ↗ don't know that it would be 100% because

23:23 ↗ you've got existing households so

23:25 ↗ probably but the goal is for those

23:28 ↗ percentages to go

23:31 ↗ to increase access

23:33 ↗ >> that's like understanding that's 25% of

23:36 ↗ the population do not have that

23:40 ↗ >> that are not within what I would say is

23:42 ↗ they're not within that easy access

23:44 ↗ >> yeah okay

23:46 ↗ >> and this is just a depiction of existing

23:48 ↗ conditions.

24:00 ↗ >> I guess the overall I don't know I'll

24:03 ↗ lose track of the fact that generally um

24:06 ↗ the answer to this question is yes. Um,

24:10 ↗ I just had a couple of

24:12 ↗ maybe comments for consideration about

24:15 ↗ how to maybe fine-tune some of the

24:18 ↗ language to capture any more precisely

24:21 ↗ what we're looking for. And I don't know

24:24 ↗ what form this gets in when it goes to

24:26 ↗ the next stage. But a couple things um

24:29 ↗ the I'm kind of focused on the low

24:32 ↗ stress bike facility. So I had a couple

24:33 ↗ things to say about that. one is we have

24:36 ↗ LTS 1 2 3 4 wouldn't we want to just use

24:40 ↗ that language uh say LTS one or two or

24:44 ↗ something to that just to make sure

24:46 ↗ we're mapping to other

24:49 ↗ >> the other thing is um not all miles on a

24:53 ↗ bike are created equal and I don't know

24:56 ↗ if this is over complicating things but

24:58 ↗ I do believe in reality it is highly

25:02 ↗ relevant a 3/4 mile bike ride on flat

25:07 ↗ terrain with a facility is very

25:09 ↗ different from a 3/4 mile ride from you

25:12 ↗ know the hospital in the highlands down

25:14 ↗ to sunset in front. So without getting

25:18 ↗ things extra complicated there's some

25:20 ↗ way to capture not just distance but

25:23 ↗ um some other form of some other way to

25:26 ↗ describe accessibility.

25:29 ↗ Um

25:29 ↗ >> that is a really good and as you will

25:32 ↗ recall our analysis is looking at both

25:34 ↗ topography and stress getting

25:38 ↗ >> so it feels like you're you're saying

25:40 ↗ this this this map here is too

25:43 ↗ simplistic a little blunt

25:44 ↗ >> for the bike and I do appreciate that

25:48 ↗ and and so because this is a benchmark

25:50 ↗ that we may or may not look if it's not

25:52 ↗ set in stone yet as a benchmark it would

25:55 ↗ be I would think it would be

25:58 ↗ useful

25:59 ↗ to

26:00 ↗ if if it's not too terribly complex,

26:03 ↗ there's an easy way to capture

26:06 ↗ some of the the difficulty of, you know,

26:10 ↗ I mean, we just we have a flat valley

26:11 ↗ and very steep walls. So,

26:14 ↗ >> threequarters of a mile just is not the

26:17 ↗ most precise way to describe access on a

26:19 ↗ bike in my opinion.

26:20 ↗ >> Yep.

26:21 ↗ >> Although it for practical reasons and we

26:23 ↗ may have to live with that. I just

26:24 ↗ wanted to bring that up to see if there

26:26 ↗ was some easy way to capture some of the

26:29 ↗ accessibility say there's a thoughtful

26:31 ↗ way and we could definitely tie in. So I

26:33 ↗ appreciate that feedback. We'll we'll

26:34 ↗ look into what we do that

26:39 ↗ was my Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. And I had

26:41 ↗ one more thing about that and that's the

26:43 ↗ other thing about 3/4 of a mile. It may

26:45 ↗ be that and and you may have already

26:49 ↗ done this, but if it's

26:52 ↗ 7/8 of a mile, but it captures a um a

26:57 ↗ high density multi- uh uh multif family

27:02 ↗ development

27:03 ↗ >> just seems like um I would hate for that

27:06 ↗ score to just be like right next to a

27:09 ↗ whole um

27:12 ↗ I mean look at the apartment complex on

27:13 ↗ Dogwood Street. There's a lot of people

27:15 ↗ that rely on transit, I'm sure, within

27:16 ↗ that um pretty big complex. And I don't

27:20 ↗ know, it's not a good example because

27:22 ↗ it's within the threequarters of at

27:23 ↗ least several bus stops. But I'm just

27:26 ↗ thinking then is there any way to

27:27 ↗ capture also not just absolute distance,

27:30 ↗ but just to make sure that we're not

27:32 ↗ missing something that's just a mile

27:35 ↗ away, but maybe

27:37 ↗ high density and maybe it's already in

27:40 ↗ there.

27:42 ↗ I think you were the previous comment

27:44 ↗ maybe gets at that and I would say so

27:47 ↗ let's let's play out your example for a

27:49 ↗ moment. You have a major apartment

27:51 ↗ complex that's not within that some

27:54 ↗ response and we show it's like oh gosh

27:56 ↗ you've got a lot of your you got this

27:58 ↗ high density area that would really

27:59 ↗ benefit from access to transit. It would

28:02 ↗ be pretty nice if we had a figure that

28:05 ↗ kind of shows that like hey they're not

28:06 ↗ within that. So that gives us some

28:08 ↗ policy

28:08 ↗ >> maybe the reverse or interesting how

28:10 ↗ many um higher density areas are outside

28:15 ↗ these defined areas. That would be

28:17 ↗ something I'd want to

28:22 ↗ Yeah. Thanks.

28:25 ↗ >> Okay. um kind of round robin this but I

28:31 ↗ guess we can start with

28:34 ↗ >> I I just had a response to that which is

28:37 ↗ I feel like that information is is

28:39 ↗ somewhat

28:41 ↗ captured in the difference between the

28:43 ↗ population percent and the household

28:45 ↗ percent. kind of see density here

28:48 ↗ because if presumably because there's

28:52 ↗ more households than population in the

28:54 ↗ area, a lot of the households that are

28:56 ↗ in the area are less dense. Right.

28:59 ↗ >> I'm not talking about density per

29:00 ↗ household. We're talking about household

29:02 ↗ per acre.

29:06 ↗ Not sure we're talking about the same.

29:09 ↗ The difference between population and

29:10 ↗ household would tell you how many people

29:11 ↗ are in each household

29:13 ↗ >> within the area versus outside of the

29:15 ↗ area which tells you whether the area is

29:18 ↗ covering more dense housing which I

29:20 ↗ thought was was your question.

29:21 ↗ >> Don't think that's true

29:24 ↗ if you're losing track.

29:26 ↗ You can have single family housing with

29:30 ↗ five kids

29:32 ↗ and your population will be high.

29:34 ↗ Housing density will be low. If you have

29:37 ↗ a big one acre parcel with a house

29:40 ↗ that's five people, I don't want to get

29:42 ↗ too lost in this, but I think you still

29:46 ↗ get you still get some of it. I think

29:49 ↗ >> I'm talking about households. I'm

29:51 ↗ talking about multif family

29:52 ↗ developments. In other words,

29:55 ↗ apartments, more dense units

29:58 ↗ per

30:00 ↗ >> units per Yes. as opposed to people

30:03 ↗ living in

30:07 ↗ But you may be right. The first point,

30:09 ↗ you may be right. It may already be

30:10 ↗ captured in some other way. I just

30:11 ↗ wanted to bring it up because I was sort

30:13 ↗ of envisioning. I just want to make sure

30:14 ↗ we don't lose track of multif family

30:18 ↗ housing that doesn't have access to

30:20 ↗ transit. That's really what my Yes. Were

30:27 ↗ you saying in response to that that like

30:30 ↗ might be true? Like you want to say we

30:33 ↗ need to increase transit because we're

30:35 ↗ not capturing that that might be like 78

30:38 ↗ away.

30:39 ↗ >> I think that if we if we and I I really

30:43 ↗ like that idea looking at these dollars

30:45 ↗ and thinking about you know kind of the

30:47 ↗ photography and some of that. So I I

30:48 ↗ want to say but with that number

30:50 ↗ wherever it is I I think what it what it

30:53 ↗ tells us is that we have some areas that

30:56 ↗ aren't being served. They're not within

30:58 ↗ a reasonable

30:59 ↗ um walking or biking distance of

31:01 ↗ transit. And so the types of policy

31:04 ↗ responses talk to King County Metro have

31:07 ↗ them redirect their route. Maybe maybe

31:09 ↗ they can you know add some service maybe

31:12 ↗ they can you know divert the route a

31:14 ↗ little bit to get closer to that. So

31:15 ↗ maybe to say

31:22 ↗ I think just information it's helpful to

31:25 ↗ you

31:32 ↗ start you have any general thoughts

31:38 ↗ question that you want to

31:42 ↗ answer here.

31:46 ↗ >> Let's go back to the

31:48 ↗ >> Yeah, we can go back

31:51 ↗ discussion.

31:52 ↗ >> Yeah, the three aspects mobility, place,

31:55 ↗ and access. Um

31:59 ↗ yes.

32:03 ↗ Um

32:06 ↗ >> yeah. So um I I think I want to start.

32:09 ↗ Kendra, I really appreciate your

32:11 ↗ perspective on this when she said a lot

32:13 ↗ of what we're doing is advocating for

32:15 ↗ what we want and step one is setting a

32:18 ↗ vision for what we want. I think that's

32:19 ↗ great. And I see that so many of the

32:21 ↗ actions on our chart are advocate for

32:24 ↗ what we want. Uh so that's a good step.

32:28 ↗ There's a question about how we're going

32:30 ↗ to be effective in advocating for what

32:33 ↗ we want. And it seems to me that that's

32:35 ↗ going to align with how is uh King

32:39 ↗ County Metro and Sound Transit and

32:41 ↗ whoever else we're relying on to do the

32:44 ↗ work or to take the action uh to set up

32:48 ↗ our vision or to to establish it. Uh

32:51 ↗ what is their prioritization? What is

32:52 ↗ their process? and how do we take action

32:56 ↗ that best sets us up for being effective

32:59 ↗ in our advocacy? So, I might ask, what

33:02 ↗ are the top three actions that that we

33:04 ↗ would take that set us up for that? Uh,

33:07 ↗ and then do those align with the actions

33:10 ↗ that are on this list? Uh, you know, are

33:13 ↗ those going to set us up for success in

33:15 ↗ that advocacy?

33:18 ↗ >> Start with

33:18 ↗ >> Yeah, I can maybe take a stab here. Um

33:21 ↗ so I think the first step is really this

33:23 ↗ transit level of service policy. Um and

33:26 ↗ we can sort of elaborate this more in

33:28 ↗ the transportation element and the

33:30 ↗ mobility action plan that will be

33:31 ↗ forthcoming through all this. Um but

33:34 ↗ yeah we are relying on like Metro's

33:37 ↗ service. They do have guidelines. So

33:40 ↗ this is kind of the first step. We are

33:42 ↗ we are saying that we are in we are in

33:45 ↗ alignment with their own guidelines. uh

33:48 ↗ we're like formalizing this from the

33:50 ↗ city um and we're going to like sort of

33:53 ↗ apply the pressure formally but then

33:55 ↗ also um twice a year Metro will do

33:59 ↗ service adjustments. So this is those

34:01 ↗ are good check-in points with them to

34:04 ↗ say, "Okay, here's our guidelines. I

34:06 ↗ know you like chat with us two times a

34:08 ↗ year." Um, so like we can make we can

34:11 ↗ advocate for adjustments then. That's

34:13 ↗ sort of the time that they're willing to

34:15 ↗ make small adjustments. Um, and then

34:18 ↗ also uh as evidenced by the city, um,

34:22 ↗ you know, we currently are putting some

34:24 ↗ funds into Metrolex. So we are we have

34:28 ↗ skin in the game. So we are we are

34:30 ↗ saying you know here's our standards uh

34:33 ↗ here's the time that we are going to

34:34 ↗ like chat with you twice a year. Um,

34:36 ↗ also we have skin in the game and in

34:39 ↗ that mobility action plan we talk about

34:41 ↗ ways that um, we can sort of work with

34:43 ↗ Metro in instances where like we do have

34:46 ↗ the ability to support um, not to say

34:49 ↗ that we're going to like heavily support

34:51 ↗ because they're the ones that provide

34:53 ↗ service um, but we have done uh, certain

34:56 ↗ things just to make sure that we can

34:58 ↗ sort of make those um, betterments that

35:01 ↗ would benefit the community.

35:03 ↗ >> Okay. So if our our transit level of

35:05 ↗ service is sort of that upper level

35:06 ↗ vision setting, should it have an action

35:08 ↗ in there that says, you know, make sure

35:10 ↗ we're on top of exactly the schedule

35:12 ↗ that King County Metro is advocating,

35:16 ↗ right? And then, you know, the the

35:19 ↗ planning sort of follows from Sure. And

35:22 ↗ maybe that's sort of outside of the

35:23 ↗ concurrency discussion, but maybe that's

35:25 ↗ an action that is added to the mobility

35:27 ↗ action plan that says, you know, work

35:29 ↗ with Metro during service adjustment

35:31 ↗ periods to sort of make adjustments.

35:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

35:36 ↗ >> Yeah. And related to that, uh, since

35:39 ↗ they have the processes and we're sort

35:41 ↗ of setting up a set of actions here, we

35:43 ↗ duplicating it. We're doing anything

35:45 ↗ that's basically we're doing it because

35:47 ↗ it's a best practice that they have and

35:48 ↗ maybe if they change it be maybe out of

35:50 ↗ step with them

35:53 ↗ something to think of.

36:06 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm good with that. Um I don't

36:09 ↗ know from previous experience in other

36:11 ↗ cities and other projects would

36:15 ↗ safety be added when you're talking

36:17 ↗ about access and stuff like that a

36:20 ↗ factor that can be added. Um in some

36:24 ↗ projects in other cities

36:26 ↗ uh people were concerned about

36:29 ↗ access and the pathway

36:32 ↗ along certain time in the day when it

36:36 ↗ comes to safety. That's something that

36:38 ↗ can be considered

36:42 ↗ mine.

36:51 ↗ I and I started by answering I mean it

36:54 ↗ was my perception that we kind of have

36:56 ↗ covered it both in the south amenities

36:59 ↗ lighting being one of those things um

37:01 ↗ and then in providing sidewalk and low

37:05 ↗ stress or lying

37:07 ↗ one two um type um you know connections

37:12 ↗ that that might lead to safety I don't

37:14 ↗ know if there is something else you were

37:16 ↗ hoping to see

37:18 ↗ if yeah I expect that

37:21 ↗ Yeah. Okay.

37:26 ↗ >> I have I have one question which was I

37:29 ↗ another comment but I had one question

37:32 ↗ which was which of these things can the

37:35 ↗ city take direct action on

37:38 ↗ like related to this.

37:45 ↗ I think the direct action comes with

37:48 ↗ mostly advocacy given that we don't

37:50 ↗ provide the service ourselves. Um on

37:53 ↗ demand service we are supporting

37:56 ↗ currently. Um so I guess in that way

38:00 ↗ that is the most direct access uh direct

38:03 ↗ uh support that the city's providing but

38:06 ↗ the city's also providing like staff

38:08 ↗ support

38:10 ↗ you know during during the times we do

38:12 ↗ chat with with metro um twice a year. So

38:16 ↗ yeah I guess

38:18 ↗ >> in that is is there no way for the city

38:20 ↗ to provide like bus stop amenities or at

38:22 ↗ least amenities near to where bus stops

38:24 ↗ are? That seems like the sort of thing

38:26 ↗ that would be possible considering that

38:29 ↗ the city has a domain in those areas

38:31 ↗ often times.

38:32 ↗ >> Yeah, that the challenge here is that um

38:35 ↗ you know Metro owns and operates all the

38:39 ↗ things that are sort of supported around

38:41 ↗ the stop. So, um

38:45 ↗ there are not many cities that actually

38:47 ↗ like purchase equipment and then give it

38:50 ↗ to Metro. That's not really like

38:51 ↗ something that cities um traditionally

38:53 ↗ do. one, it sort of sets precedent that

38:56 ↗ we're going to do that and then Metro

38:57 ↗ sort of says, "Oh, like we don't have to

38:59 ↗ do that anymore." So, like, cool. Um, so

39:03 ↗ it it is it is an added cost to the city

39:06 ↗ in an area that Metro should be doing.

39:10 ↗ >> I think I'd also point you to the access

39:12 ↗ portion of the the transit LOS. Thinking

39:15 ↗ about how people walk and bike to these

39:17 ↗ facilities is within the city's control

39:19 ↗ a lot of the times, and we're addressing

39:21 ↗ that now. We have

39:24 ↗ And the only other one I would add is

39:26 ↗ like and I know it's kind of a

39:28 ↗ partnership but if you wanted transit

39:30 ↗ priority Q jump type you know city owns

39:33 ↗ and operates streets city owns and

39:36 ↗ operates you know its sidewalks and

39:37 ↗ inspired facilities. So I would say as

39:41 ↗ those are some of the things that are in

39:42 ↗ our control but you know how many buses

39:45 ↗ are thrown down or sent down those

39:47 ↗ streets by metro and how frequently

39:50 ↗ those buses arrive. Unfortunately,

39:52 ↗ that's within the city's control. But

39:55 ↗ things that we can do to really get

39:57 ↗ Metro to want to serve us is to site as

40:00 ↗ many people nearby those transit stops

40:03 ↗ as possible. But those those are things

40:06 ↗ that generate.

40:08 ↗ >> I think we're constantly looking for

40:09 ↗ ways to have win-win solutions. So like

40:12 ↗ overall that is the goal. Um but we

40:14 ↗ aren't necessarily trying to sort of

40:17 ↗ assume all the role that Metro is doing.

40:20 ↗ we we want to come at it from like a

40:21 ↗ partnership. So, um a lot of this is

40:24 ↗ negotiation. Um and we're constantly

40:27 ↗ like having conversations with Metro. Uh

40:30 ↗ many of our elected like regional

40:32 ↗ transit committees, they meet monthly.

40:35 ↗ There's there's constant conversations

40:37 ↗ about um sort of adjustments that could

40:39 ↗ be made. Um so, yeah, amenities at at

40:42 ↗ bus stops are certainly things that like

40:44 ↗ we we can partner on, especially like

40:46 ↗ we, for example, are improving access.

40:49 ↗ where a sidewalk if the pavement is

40:52 ↗ still wet and we've coordinated they can

40:55 ↗ come in and like put the like shelter

40:56 ↗ there. That's like a great thing that

40:58 ↗ we're like trying to like do moving

41:00 ↗ forward. So

41:03 ↗ >> I don't want to take too much time. Can

41:04 ↗ I say

41:06 ↗ >> okay?

41:06 ↗ >> I was the other thing is I was wondering

41:08 ↗ because I was looking at this analysis

41:10 ↗ and people were maybe talking about the

41:13 ↗ like the prospect of moving bus stops.

41:15 ↗ Has there been an analysis done like

41:16 ↗ this where you try multiple different

41:18 ↗ lands and try to see if there were other

41:20 ↗ possible layouts of stops that would

41:23 ↗ maximize the people within that is that

41:26 ↗ something that they've done?

41:27 ↗ >> Yeah, that's something that Metro does.

41:29 ↗ They have a service uh team. Uh John and

41:33 ↗ I were actually just talking like a

41:35 ↗ couple weeks ago. Um a lot of it has to

41:38 ↗ do with um more than just like serving

41:40 ↗ people. It also has like safety

41:42 ↗ components like the the roadway geometry

41:45 ↗ if if you're creating a blind spot and

41:47 ↗ like you know thinking about how people

41:49 ↗ are going to access the stop. Um if

41:51 ↗ there's a blind spot like and people are

41:54 ↗ oh like my bus is coming I need to like

41:56 ↗ get there like I see it all the time

41:57 ↗ where I live um people like run across

41:59 ↗ the street to like try to get to their

42:01 ↗ bus. Um so thinking about like all the

42:03 ↗ access ways um that somebody like would

42:06 ↗ try to access the bus. It's also about

42:08 ↗ like physically connecting people. Um,

42:11 ↗ Metro has uh, you know, different

42:14 ↗ thresholds for like bus stop spacing

42:17 ↗ depending on the like I guess for lack

42:19 ↗ of a better term like the tier of bus

42:21 ↗ service. Um, so yeah, all these things

42:24 ↗ are considered. Um, there's not really

42:27 ↗ like a perfect formula for it, but Metro

42:31 ↗ does their best to think about like the

42:34 ↗ location of all their other buses and

42:36 ↗ then who might be accessing and the

42:38 ↗ safety is pretty big.

42:42 ↗ I agree with the

42:50 ↗ >> I do too. I am hearing a lot of is the

42:53 ↗ concerns that I'm hearing are about like

42:57 ↗ the how behind advocating and it feels

43:01 ↗ like you want to do that reflected in

43:06 ↗ the loss and I I guess I don't know if

43:12 ↗ my question is if that's the I mean I

43:14 ↗ guess it it it does serve the purpose of

43:16 ↗ advocating but um like building that in

43:19 ↗ there's a dis

43:21 ↗ to like to me I think activism is one

43:23 ↗ thing and this is um standards but I

43:29 ↗ it's not like I'm wrestling with it

43:31 ↗ that's maybe my feedback in that way I'm

43:34 ↗ also very

43:36 ↗ talked about it in the last meeting

43:37 ↗ about how that is one of the ways that

43:39 ↗ the city advocates is if there's already

43:43 ↗ city construction happening near stop

43:44 ↗ whatever you all the city staff are like

43:47 ↗ I metro hey we're doing this this be

43:49 ↗ opportunity for you to that's maybe a

43:52 ↗ way to even kind of say jump the line of

43:55 ↗ the cube but um just they have their

43:58 ↗ list of what they can get to given here.

44:03 ↗ >> Yeah, I think like at a minimum we can

44:05 ↗ just add additional language. Um

44:09 ↗ you know this will ultimately live uh in

44:11 ↗ the transportation and mobility action

44:13 ↗ plan. we could add more language to sort

44:16 ↗ of describe like the processes that the

44:18 ↗ city does to advocate. Um you know

44:20 ↗ ultimately we're all trying to be like

44:21 ↗ shepherds of like public funds. So um

44:25 ↗ we're constantly chatting with Metro and

44:28 ↗ other agencies to see like where we can

44:31 ↗ um you know coordinate when we're

44:33 ↗ working together on projects. So we can

44:35 ↗ sort of talk more on that. Um ultimately

44:38 ↗ a lot of it is just like sort of

44:39 ↗ operational based but we can give a high

44:41 ↗ level on like some of the strategies

44:42 ↗ that we use um to do that

44:46 ↗ >> in in doing this and like cementing it

44:50 ↗ having this for the first time that is a

44:52 ↗ way that we

44:55 ↗ met

45:01 ↗ a couple

45:04 ↗ >> Sure. Um, sorry. I I just uh I do was

45:07 ↗ thinking about H's comment and I as I

45:09 ↗ think about the way this makes its way

45:11 ↗ into the transportation element and so

45:15 ↗ forth and the the narrative that comes I

45:17 ↗ do think that it would be nice if safety

45:20 ↗ is spelled out because I do think your

45:22 ↗ point agree with your point. I think it

45:24 ↗ does safety but the word safety

45:26 ↗ definitely I always think about like the

45:28 ↗ people that go after us and like you

45:31 ↗ know it just we just want to make that

45:32 ↗ crystal clear. is or component of the

45:35 ↗ element itself in terms of policies or

45:38 ↗ whatever. Um the other one is um there's

45:41 ↗ always a conversation about what's not

45:43 ↗ in our control and even when we're asked

45:45 ↗ about it said there's not much in our

45:47 ↗ control but there is actually quite a

45:48 ↗ bit in our control and so I do think the

45:51 ↗ language as it makes its way into the

45:53 ↗ narrative form should call out and then

45:56 ↗ that's going to help remind decision

45:59 ↗ makers council you know like there are

46:02 ↗ things that are in our control so I

46:04 ↗ would love to make love to see the

46:06 ↗ language reflecting an acknowledgement

46:08 ↗ of what is Not. But also don't forget

46:10 ↗ there are a bunch of things that you're

46:12 ↗ kind of in our control

46:14 ↗ and it would just be nice that

46:17 ↗ that's

46:19 ↗ because it's really easy to be like,

46:20 ↗ well, we can't do much about it. It's

46:21 ↗ not our

46:23 ↗ go to the next level. It just be kind of

46:26 ↗ nice to have it expressed that way.

46:27 ↗ Things are all things are done.

46:29 ↗ >> Sure. And one thing I will just add on

46:31 ↗ the topic of safety. Um, King County met

46:35 ↗ I think it was two weeks ago um to have

46:37 ↗ a safety summit specifically for

46:41 ↗ transit. Um, that's been a huge topic

46:43 ↗ this year. There's been a lot of like

46:45 ↗ um, you know, high high visibility

46:48 ↗ things that have happened in the region.

46:50 ↗ Um, so a lot of that has, you know, just

46:53 ↗ sort of to address a lot of these

46:54 ↗ concerns.

46:57 ↗ uh you know countywide there's been a

46:58 ↗ lot of coordination both in terms of

47:00 ↗ like policing and like

47:04 ↗ non nonsworn officers uh metro is doing

47:07 ↗ a lot more in this field

47:10 ↗ I think I heard that most of the bus

47:12 ↗ stops if not all of them are are now

47:14 ↗ getting like a level three clean which

47:16 ↗ means like they're going out and like

47:18 ↗ actually like power washing and like

47:21 ↗ really cleaning. So like beyond just

47:23 ↗ safety, there's like the cleanliness and

47:25 ↗ like the security portion. So um at

47:29 ↗ least like right now that's just a huge

47:31 ↗ topic. Uh there is currently like just a

47:36 ↗ lot of emphasis on it. Um King County uh

47:39 ↗ is looking to like sort of raise funds

47:42 ↗ to do that and really prioritize like um

47:46 ↗ making sure that the experience of being

47:48 ↗ on a bus is like much better than it has

47:50 ↗ been. So, um, I'm happy to like add some

47:54 ↗ additional language that's in there. So,

47:55 ↗ when the grant application, the grant

47:58 ↗ evaluator is like, how many times do

47:59 ↗ they see safety in this application?

48:01 ↗ >> I'm happy to add more language to the

48:04 ↗ mobility action plan, the transportation

48:05 ↗ element to sort of reflect that

48:08 ↗ additional sort of layer of

48:11 ↗ preference and goal that we have that

48:13 ↗ also aligns with King County. So

48:16 ↗ >> it sounds like there's like a moment

48:18 ↗ happening for safety and this is just a

48:20 ↗ good tap.

48:25 ↗ >> Yeah. So a couple of things came up in

48:27 ↗ discussion. Uh let's see. First Cynthia,

48:30 ↗ I think when you were talking about

48:34 ↗ uh the the density of neighborhoods that

48:37 ↗ uh are accessible, it seems to me

48:39 ↗ there's a there's room to maybe put an

48:41 ↗ optimization statement in here. Um, we

48:43 ↗ have the performance measure under

48:45 ↗ expanding rider access uh to for the

48:49 ↗ number of households and jobs that can

48:51 ↗ access stops. There's another element of

48:53 ↗ that cost of doing so and I can imagine

48:56 ↗ that county is looking at prioritiz

48:59 ↗ prioritizing based on something like

49:01 ↗ return on investment at how many

49:03 ↗ additional people can I can I get by the

49:06 ↗ next bus stop. And so having a

49:08 ↗ prioritized list or some other method of

49:11 ↗ prioritizing our increase in transit

49:14 ↗ that aligns with you know what the

49:16 ↗ agencies are actually going to build

49:18 ↗ that would be potentially really helpful

49:20 ↗ to happen in here as an action on this

49:23 ↗ measure.

49:24 ↗ Um the other thing that popped up was uh

49:26 ↗ in in Leamir's discussion you talked

49:28 ↗ about a little bit about citing new

49:32 ↗ development close to transit which is

49:34 ↗ sort of

49:36 ↗ uh flipping the script a little bit. I

49:38 ↗ think typically in a lot of city

49:40 ↗ documents there's an implicit

49:41 ↗ relationship where we decide where the

49:44 ↗ the development is going to go and then

49:46 ↗ figure out how transit happens there.

49:48 ↗ But in practice, we kind of do both at

49:50 ↗ the same time. And there might be room

49:51 ↗ for adding some actions and some

49:53 ↗ prioritization here uh in basically

49:57 ↗ advocating for the uh planning and

50:01 ↗ zoning that the city does to align with

50:03 ↗ our future vision of transit to kind of

50:07 ↗ make all the problems easier to solve.

50:08 ↗ At the same time,

50:15 ↗ >> I was mostly going to second what

50:18 ↗ Cynthia said about um prior like putting

50:22 ↗ stress on the things the city can

50:23 ↗ control rather rather than things that

50:25 ↗ the city just have to advocate for

50:27 ↗ because I'm sure that

50:29 ↗ like there are I'm sure that there is a

50:31 ↗ headway to be made about advocating but

50:33 ↗ I think that the city should in the

50:35 ↗ absence of that focus on the things that

50:37 ↗ the city can to to increase the transit

50:41 ↗ access that I think that's very

50:44 ↗ important to do. I also wanted to second

50:46 ↗ what Alex said about putting in kind of

50:50 ↗ more language about aligning the zoning

50:53 ↗ with this plan especially if we have a

50:55 ↗ specific plan to try to get higher

50:56 ↗ service in this area. I think it'd be

50:58 ↗ very that plan would be more likely to

51:01 ↗ be accepted by the regional agencies if

51:03 ↗ we had in place like there's going to be

51:06 ↗ high density development because they

51:08 ↗ are

51:10 ↗ agreeing

51:35 ↗ what you need to do out of this

51:36 ↗ discussion. Yeah, thank you all for your

51:38 ↗ for your feedback. So, we'll return in

51:40 ↗ August with those um the changes to the

51:44 ↗ mobility action plan and the

51:45 ↗ transportation element of the

51:46 ↗ comprehensive plan. Um I think you'll

51:49 ↗ see some changes to the transit level of

51:51 ↗ service um around some of those um the

51:55 ↗ the bike uh LTS items that were

51:57 ↗ mentioned at the top and you'll see some

52:00 ↗ more information about advocacy how we

52:02 ↗ would do that and the differentiation of

52:04 ↗ what's in our control versus not in some

52:06 ↗ of that language. Um and I took copious

52:09 ↗ notes about everything else as well. So

52:10 ↗ we'll be considering that.

52:13 ↗ So thank you

52:19 ↗ Next item on the agenda is to receive

52:23 ↗ presentation

52:25 ↗ work

52:27 ↗ on

52:33 ↗ >> great. Thank you chair. Um this

52:35 ↗ presentation should be pretty quick. I'm

52:37 ↗ just sort of reviewing what we have next

52:41 ↗ happening this year. Um so we have done

52:44 ↗ a whole lot. We are now at the midyear

52:46 ↗ which is pretty amazing. Um

52:52 ↗ so first thing we'll notice under

52:55 ↗ administrative items in September we

52:58 ↗ have election of officers. Uh you may

53:00 ↗ recall that we just elected officers,

53:03 ↗ but we uh made a couple adjustments uh

53:05 ↗ when our city clerk uh came and he sort

53:09 ↗ of walked through the the reasons why it

53:11 ↗ might be better to um begin electing

53:14 ↗ officers uh after uh a couple months

53:19 ↗ where there's new members. So in

53:21 ↗ September, we will be doing that. Um,

53:24 ↗ under general items, we have some more

53:27 ↗ things that we're working on. Um, so

53:30 ↗ first thing is going to be the mobility

53:32 ↗ action plan and transportation element

53:34 ↗ updates. And this will be at the August

53:36 ↗ meeting. And this is essentially another

53:39 ↗ continuation of this uh conversation.

53:41 ↗ Uh, you'll see sort of the red line

53:43 ↗ version of all the text that will be

53:45 ↗ going uh is proposed in the mobility

53:49 ↗ action plan.

53:51 ↗ element. So, a lot of it has to do with

53:53 ↗ concurrency. Um, but we did sort of

53:57 ↗ publish our previous mobility action

54:00 ↗ plan and transportation element about a

54:01 ↗ year ago. So, there's going to be a

54:03 ↗ couple just like sort of uh

54:05 ↗ administrative things also like we've

54:07 ↗ done a lot of good work. So, we're just

54:08 ↗ removing things from the list that we've

54:10 ↗ already done. So

54:15 ↗ after that I'm excited to say I will

54:17 ↗ come back um and I will bring the

54:22 ↗ central Esqua station alignment study

54:24 ↗ introduction. Um so this will be the

54:27 ↗ sixth board and commission that I have

54:30 ↗ done my presentation to. I'm really

54:33 ↗ hoping to get a ton of feedback. Um this

54:36 ↗ study is going to take place uh between

54:38 ↗ now and the end of 2026.

54:41 ↗ um it's going to have multiple phases

54:43 ↗ and yeah I'm just excited to introduce

54:45 ↗ this study and sort of talk about the

54:47 ↗ touch points that the tab will have.

54:51 ↗ I'm also happy like to give uh just one

54:56 ↗ ones if anybody wants to talk live rail

54:58 ↗ which is something that I'm really

54:59 ↗ excited about. So but yeah just know in

55:02 ↗ August there will be that conversation.

55:06 ↗ In September I'll bring a report card.

55:10 ↗ So hoping to translate the uh mobility

55:13 ↗ action plan into um a spreadsheet form

55:17 ↗ and just sort of talk about what

55:19 ↗ progress we've made uh what progress we

55:22 ↗ need to make and sort of like how things

55:24 ↗ are going.

55:26 ↗ Ultimately the goal is to have this

55:28 ↗ published on a web page for the city.

55:31 ↗ We're using PowerBI as like a data

55:33 ↗ visualization. Um that's just sort of

55:35 ↗ the the standard thing that uh the city

55:37 ↗ has been using. So, um, yeah, just we'll

55:41 ↗ see what form this takes by the time

55:42 ↗ that TAB sees it, but ultimately that

55:45 ↗ will be sort of the end result via

55:46 ↗ PowerBI

55:49 ↗ page.

55:52 ↗ In October, we will have a joint meeting

55:55 ↗ with the equity board. So, that should

55:57 ↗ be really good meeting talking about the

55:59 ↗ IAP update. We have a couple members

56:02 ↗ from TAB who are on the working group.

56:04 ↗ Um, so maybe they can uh tag in and sort

56:08 ↗ of talk about uh the presentation a

56:11 ↗ little bit on sort of the work that has

56:13 ↗ been going on over the last like six

56:15 ↗ months or so.

56:18 ↗ And then the other topic will be looking

56:21 ↗ at equity data and how that's used in

56:24 ↗ the transportation improvement program.

56:28 ↗ So both those topics are going to be

56:30 ↗ pretty heavy lifts. So I expect the

56:32 ↗ October meeting um will probably run

56:35 ↗ exactly on time if not uh a little bit

56:38 ↗ over. So um should be a very lively

56:41 ↗ discussion of both of those.

56:46 ↗ In December uh we will have uh more

56:50 ↗ progress done on the light rail study.

56:52 ↗ We should have the initial evaluation

56:55 ↗ criteria. Um I'll talk about this a

56:57 ↗ little bit more um at our our August

57:00 ↗ meeting, but the goal of the light rail

57:02 ↗ study is to think about all of the uh

57:06 ↗ conditions that would be necessary from

57:08 ↗ like an operational perspective

57:11 ↗ and then uh evaluation criteria will be

57:14 ↗ used to evaluate some concepts that will

57:17 ↗ that we will be giving to uh Sound

57:19 ↗ Transit eventually we expect 2027. So

57:23 ↗ hoping to have the criteria developed

57:26 ↗ and then we'll dig into like up to six

57:28 ↗ locations that could be a good spot for

57:31 ↗ light rail and then at the end of 2026

57:34 ↗ we'll have that community preferred

57:36 ↗ location.

57:40 ↗ Yeah.

57:50 ↗ So we don't have uh not a place for

57:53 ↗ questions for that, but

57:55 ↗ >> yeah, I'm happy to ask Yeah. answer

57:57 ↗ questions um yet

58:05 ↗ request.

58:05 ↗ >> Yeah.

58:06 ↗ >> If we think we're going to go over, can

58:07 ↗ we schedule that to begin with so that

58:09 ↗ we don't forget like have to run out?

58:13 ↗ >> Yeah, that sounds great. Yeah, I'll I'll

58:15 ↗ work with the the chairs. We can can

58:17 ↗ look over like sort of all the questions

58:20 ↗ being asked. Um at this point we don't

58:22 ↗ have all the questions um or like the

58:25 ↗ the IAP work has not really been you

58:29 ↗ know completed um form yet. So I can I

58:33 ↗ can verify with the the the other group

58:36 ↗ to to make sure that we will be able to

58:38 ↗ sign

58:39 ↗ >> or just extend it.

58:41 ↗ >> Yeah. I just I think it's really a

58:44 ↗ problem when some people have to leave

58:45 ↗ the disc have to leave at 8 and then

58:48 ↗ some people are then left out at the

58:49 ↗ last time of the discussion. But if the

58:51 ↗ meeting is planned for everyone then

58:54 ↗ people can

58:56 ↗ >> Yeah, that's totally fair.

58:59 ↗ >> Yeah.

59:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so yeah thank you chair. Um I

59:13 ↗ don't have much to say other than uh in

59:16 ↗ September there will be an event called

59:21 ↗ week without driving. Um so many of you

59:25 ↗ may know about this but it's uh it was

59:28 ↗ started by an an advocacy group in

59:32 ↗ Washington state. Um when I was actually

59:34 ↗ in grad school I learned about it and

59:36 ↗ it's now become a national thing. So,

59:39 ↗ it's something that is near and dear to

59:41 ↗ me. It's also very challenging because

59:43 ↗ the whole goal is to not drive that and

59:48 ↗ you put yourself in the shoes of folks

59:50 ↗ that are not able to drive or don't have

59:52 ↗ access to a vehicle. Um, and it really

59:55 ↗ just sort of highlights the challenges

59:57 ↗ that other folks um might have uh or

1:00:01 ↗ there are some people that just choose

1:00:02 ↗ to not drive and that's um another

1:00:05 ↗ thing. So, it's really just an awareness

1:00:08 ↗ um campaign

1:00:10 ↗ that highlights how challenging it is uh

1:00:12 ↗ to get around and uh sort of points to

1:00:16 ↗ the picture that like transit service is

1:00:18 ↗ really great especially if you can't

1:00:20 ↗ drive. Um so it is the week of September

1:00:23 ↗ 29th through Sunday um October 5th. If

1:00:27 ↗ anybody chooses to participate um I

1:00:30 ↗ would I would support you in that. Uh it

1:00:33 ↗ is also very challenging uh to do uh

1:00:36 ↗ probably one of the more challenging

1:00:38 ↗ things one might do in a week. So just

1:00:41 ↗ wanted to throw that out there.

1:00:42 ↗ September 29th through October 5th is

1:00:52 ↗ >> it'll be the week before.

1:00:55 ↗ >> Yeah, I was kind of having a similar

1:00:56 ↗ thought. What would it be like if it was

1:00:59 ↗ tab week?

1:01:02 ↗ We could hold a special meeting.

1:01:06 ↗ >> I can walk here. So,

1:01:08 ↗ >> okay.

1:01:11 ↗ >> Um did a chair report

1:01:15 ↗ few things. Um

1:01:18 ↗ I um gave Micah just a quick email

1:01:22 ↗ thanking him his years of service on the

1:01:25 ↗ board and wished him the best. I know

1:01:27 ↗ that we all wish him the best. Um,

1:01:31 ↗ Adam and I, uh, my chair approved all

1:01:34 ↗ the changes that we made in the last

1:01:36 ↗ meeting. It's been docu signed and sent

1:01:39 ↗ on to Tisha and um, the vote by uh,

1:01:45 ↗ August 5th able to vote should be in the

1:01:48 ↗ mail.

1:01:50 ↗ And uh, next is other business and

1:01:55 ↗ business. Yes, I wanted to to give a

1:01:57 ↗ quick update for the group. Um, so last

1:01:59 ↗ week we had a training event for chairs

1:02:01 ↗ and vice chairs. Um, so it was Mayor

1:02:04 ↗ Mary Lui, uh, city clerk Tisha Gizer,

1:02:08 ↗ who you may recognize from our training,

1:02:11 ↗ uh, is that last month? Yeah, just

1:02:13 ↗ recently. So the the, uh, chair and vice

1:02:16 ↗ chair training covered a lot of

1:02:18 ↗ parliamentary procedure stuff. So it was

1:02:19 ↗ it was kind of looking at, you know,

1:02:21 ↗ what is the chair's role, what is the

1:02:22 ↗ vice chair's role when acting as the

1:02:24 ↗ chair. um in uh that part of the policy

1:02:29 ↗ parliamentary procedure. So same stuff

1:02:32 ↗ that we covered there. Um we also

1:02:34 ↗ covered you know how can the the board

1:02:37 ↗ be effective in communicating our

1:02:39 ↗ messages. Uh so when we want to

1:02:43 ↗ have our ideas make it to council, how

1:02:46 ↗ can we do that? Uh so we talk more about

1:02:49 ↗ you know holds and votes and in doing so

1:02:52 ↗ try to clarify the language so that

1:02:54 ↗ staff can accurately represent our

1:02:56 ↗ position uh when presenting that to

1:02:58 ↗ council.

1:03:00 ↗ Um the third thing that we talked about

1:03:02 ↗ was a little bit about

1:03:05 ↗ setting a work ethic for the board. Uh

1:03:07 ↗ so part of the chairs and vice chair's

1:03:09 ↗ role is to try to you know set a

1:03:12 ↗ benchmark and a lot of it has to do with

1:03:14 ↗ uh coming prepared. So reading the

1:03:16 ↗ material ahead of time uh and maybe

1:03:18 ↗ talking with with members or at least

1:03:20 ↗ being open to talk with members uh who

1:03:23 ↗ have questions about how they can can be

1:03:25 ↗ more effective members of the board. Uh

1:03:28 ↗ so we had a little bit of discussion

1:03:29 ↗ about that. Um that also you know comes

1:03:34 ↗ to staff's position on this. So, if

1:03:36 ↗ you're reading ahead of time and you

1:03:38 ↗ have questions about things like

1:03:39 ↗ runover, for example, that simply just

1:03:42 ↗ mentioned, um, that would be a great

1:03:45 ↗ thing to bring up ahead of time. Thomas

1:03:47 ↗ is pretty good about getting us

1:03:48 ↗ materials about a week in advance. Uh,

1:03:52 ↗ and I'm I'm sure you're open to getting

1:03:53 ↗ emails uh from folks with any questions.

1:03:57 ↗ We certainly don't want to put

1:03:58 ↗ presenters on the spot with, you know,

1:04:02 ↗ some huge question that they're not

1:04:03 ↗ prepared to deal with because that

1:04:04 ↗ usually means that we have to go revisit

1:04:06 ↗ the topic again. There's an opportunity

1:04:09 ↗ when reading through the material is if

1:04:10 ↗ there's a big gap or, you know,

1:04:12 ↗ something that needs clarification

1:04:14 ↗ uh that the presenter might not be

1:04:16 ↗ naturally preparing for, that's a great

1:04:18 ↗ time to bring that up with staff. Send

1:04:21 ↗ an email to Thomas. Um I promised you

1:04:24 ↗ had anything about how to communicate

1:04:25 ↗ with you or

1:04:27 ↗ >> Yeah, oftentimes I'm not the primary

1:04:29 ↗ presenter so happy to be the conduit if

1:04:31 ↗ there's any like talk.

1:04:34 ↗ >> Um

1:04:35 ↗ then you have no further business

1:04:38 ↗ going over that. I unfortunately missed

1:04:40 ↗ the training.

1:04:43 ↗ But

1:04:45 ↗ it was very useful

1:04:48 ↗ lesson that really well

1:04:52 ↗ said that it was like also a lot of it a

1:04:54 ↗ lot of overlap with kind of the

1:04:56 ↗ statement she gave

1:05:02 ↗ business. Um

1:05:05 ↗ adjourned.

1:05:09 ↗ >> Okay. Sweet.

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)

Erika Boyd

Adam Fuchs

Hany Maklad

Victoria Monroe

Cynthia Krass

Lamir Magus

Allie Morton

Carlos Besana

Staff (6)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager

Gillian Straub, Management Analyst

Emily Moon, Public Works Director

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Kendra Breiland, Consultant, Fehr & Peers

Excused

Julian Mydlil

Derek Su

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 June 25, 2025 There being no corrections or comments, the Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
The Board also recommended clarifications in the policy as well as the Mobility Action Plan (MAP) to enhance understanding and specificity to improve outcomes.
Members expressed interest in having relevant topics brought to the TAB for discussion and requested that meeting durations be tailored to the agenda’s needs.
Chair Boyd also noted that the TAB Chair and Vice Chair approved the changes to the TAB Rules & Regulations per the previous TAB discussion with Tisha at the June TAB meeting.