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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF