Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, April 22, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 25, 2026

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-25-26 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. March 25, 2026 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Adaptive Signal Feasibility Study Performance Metrics & Measures Discussion (D)

Marina Bandla, Senior Transportation Engineer Chris, Grgich, Fehr & Peers · packet pp.7–28

Topics: Transportation

Previously discussed: Transportation Advisory Board · Jan 28, 2026

▶ Watch from 4:37 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration seeks to review draft performance metrics and their measures which will be used to determine the feasibility of using adaptive signal technology in the City.

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

2153 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ the April 22nd Transportation Advisory

0:05 ↗ Board meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

0:09 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:11 ↗ transportation advisory board is in

0:12 ↗ person, but staff members or other

0:14 ↗ members public may be attending

0:16 ↗ virtually or in person.

0:20 ↗ For the record, do we have oral?

0:22 ↗ >> Yes, we do have a record. Absent excused

0:26 ↗ is Cynthia Crass. Um, we also, uh, know

0:30 ↗ that Lamir is going to be late because

0:32 ↗ he's has some schedule conflicts.

0:34 ↗ >> Uh, very good.

0:36 ↗ >> Uh, do you have alternates acting

0:38 ↗ serving as regular members?

0:40 ↗ >> Uh, we do not, not today.

0:42 ↗ >> Okay.

0:43 ↗ Uh

0:47 ↗ so uh first order of business uh this I

0:51 ↗ would like to announce for those of you

0:53 ↗ that have not heard Erica Boyd is no

0:57 ↗ longer a member of TAB. So she cannot

0:58 ↗ sit at the table kick ass

1:02 ↗ because she's now a council member due

1:05 ↗ to receiving an appointment on Monday.

1:07 ↗ Congratulations Eric.

1:14 ↗ So, we'll talk a little bit about that

1:16 ↗ later on, what it means for chair, vice

1:18 ↗ chair.

1:19 ↗ Save that for the end of the meeting,

1:21 ↗ too. Um, so first item of business to

1:26 ↗ approve minutes from the March 25th,

1:29 ↗ 2026 TA meeting. Uh, does anybody have

1:33 ↗ any corrections

1:35 ↗ to draft meeting?

1:36 ↗ >> Quick correction. Uh last name I think

1:38 ↗ is misspelled. Um yeah just uh switching

1:44 ↗ L and I.

1:45 ↗ >> Yes. Great. We'll do. Thank you.

1:48 ↗ >> That's all.

1:49 ↗ >> Okay.

1:51 ↗ Any other corrections?

1:56 ↗ Okay. Do we have a

2:01 ↗ uh any any opposed to approving minutes?

2:06 ↗ So we will take it as unanimous consent

2:08 ↗ that the minutes of March 2

2:12 ↗ approved.

2:15 ↗ All right. Next item of business is

2:17 ↗ public comment.

2:19 ↗ Staff, has anyone signed up to make

2:20 ↗ public comment?

2:23 ↗ >> I don't believe so. And there's nobody

2:24 ↗ online.

2:30 ↗ >> Confirmed.

2:31 ↗ >> Confirmed. Thank you.

2:34 ↗ Unless unless Erica would like to make

2:36 ↗ her comment.

2:45 ↗ >> The acting chair

2:49 ↗ just I don't know if I'm going to be

2:50 ↗ here for the whole time. Uh thank you

2:53 ↗ guys uh for uh it's been a honor and

2:58 ↗ blessing to be on the tab. I'm very sad

3:00 ↗ to be leaving you and I'm very excited

3:02 ↗ for the new tab era of Joe and the

3:08 ↗ incoming people you'll have next meeting

3:12 ↗ do credit Julian

3:15 ↗ last meeting.

3:16 ↗ >> So um and please stay in contact. I'll

3:20 ↗ have those city emails soon. Uh and um I

3:24 ↗ can't wait to see what police up and

3:29 ↗ talking

3:31 ↗ I

3:33 ↗ want to the best of my ability and

3:37 ↗ I make it better place to move out the

3:42 ↗ city.

3:44 ↗ Thank you for letting me

3:49 ↗ >> thanks Erica. Uh I think it would be

3:51 ↗ exciting for us to have a member on the

3:55 ↗ council because it's always nice to get

3:58 ↗ to report and

4:01 ↗ feedback on how we can serve the

4:02 ↗ council.

4:04 ↗ So I appreciate that.

4:06 ↗ Um it was interesting I I also threw my

4:08 ↗ hand you know and there were many tab or

4:13 ↗ related to tab

4:16 ↗ historically or possible teachers who

4:19 ↗ participated in that process. So it's

4:21 ↗ just really great to see all

4:22 ↗ participation.

4:26 ↗ Okay, that's

4:30 ↗ so

4:34 ↗ end of the public comment and uh we'll

4:37 ↗ move on to regular business.

4:41 ↗ Um let's see. I think I'm going to come

4:43 ↗ over a little bit. Uh so as as Erica

4:46 ↗ mentioned and as Julian mentioned in

4:49 ↗ previous meeting, this is actually

4:50 ↗ Julian's last tab meeting. Uh so we will

4:55 ↗ miss Julian and be jealous of him

4:56 ↗ missing a city with amazing

4:59 ↗ transportation.

5:01 ↗ We do have a certificate

5:06 ↗ with

5:16 ↗ um I guess I'll make a comment now. It's

5:18 ↗ fine to make it at the end, but um well,

5:21 ↗ it's been amazing to work with TAB for

5:24 ↗ five years at this point. Uh Star is an

5:26 ↗ alternate member back in 2021. I think

5:29 ↗ that inspired

5:31 ↗ greater involvement in the civic life of

5:34 ↗ um the city and also the the region and

5:38 ↗ the state. Um you know and so and place

5:41 ↗ me from there with the regular member

5:43 ↗ vice chair for a couple of times and

5:46 ↗ then was chair uh and so it's been it's

5:49 ↗ been amazing to you know work with

5:51 ↗ everyone that work through all the

5:52 ↗ different cycles of tabs since 21

5:56 ↗ see how various plans and all that

5:58 ↗ involved. I think I've always tried to

6:00 ↗ push for more choice uh in in transit

6:04 ↗ options as much as I could. Um so really

6:08 ↗ looking forward to uh going somewhere

6:11 ↗ where there is a lot of my colleagues

6:13 ↗ already. Um I'm going to in Netherlands

6:17 ↗ um for uh masters of public policy um at

6:21 ↗ Masik University and United Nations

6:23 ↗ University. So, um, really excited about

6:26 ↗ that and I'll be moving in August. So,

6:31 ↗ yeah, feel free to stay in touch with

6:36 ↗ it. Yeah, I'll I'll miss the policy

6:39 ↗ engagement with transportation here, but

6:45 ↗ my next steps.

6:47 ↗ >> Thanks, Julian. It's been a lot of fun

6:49 ↗ and we appreciate your service. Yeah.

6:54 ↗ Okay. Uh, regular business. We'll move

6:57 ↗ on to the one item we have tonight is

7:00 ↗ the adapted signal visibility study.

7:07 ↗ Marina will be presenting.

7:11 ↗ So,

7:32 ↗ All right. Thank you. Um, good evening

7:34 ↗ everyone. My name is Marita Bondela, the

7:36 ↗ senior transportation engineer at the

7:38 ↗ city. And then I'm joined here by John,

7:40 ↗ transportation engineering manager and

7:43 ↗ Chris with our consultant team here in

7:45 ↗ Pierce.

7:46 ↗ So today we're going to be talking about

7:48 ↗ the performance metrics and measures for

7:50 ↗ the adaptive signal feasibility study.

7:56 ↗ So objectives for this meeting, we're

7:58 ↗ going to recap our overall study goals

8:01 ↗ and objectives. Uh have an overview of

8:04 ↗ previous tab input received in the

8:07 ↗ January meeting. And then we're going to

8:09 ↗ spend the majority of the time

8:10 ↗ presenting and discussing the study's

8:13 ↗ draft performance and met metrics and

8:15 ↗ measures uh for feedback.

8:20 ↗ Um so I'm going to do a quick overview

8:22 ↗ of the study uh to start off here. So

8:25 ↗ most of the existing signals in the city

8:28 ↗ use detector technology mostly radar

8:30 ↗ detection to detect when traffic is at a

8:33 ↗ signal and that dictates the signal

8:35 ↗ timing. there is adaptive signal

8:38 ↗ technology which is more adaptive to on

8:40 ↗ the ground conditions. So that's what

8:42 ↗ we're looking at here. Uh for this

8:45 ↗ project we're looking at various

8:47 ↗ arterial corridors in the city. So you

8:50 ↗ can see here there's um SR917th.

8:54 ↗ We've got Northwest Seamish Road and 56,

8:57 ↗ Northwest Gilman Boulevard and East Lake

9:00 ↗ Seamish Parkway Street and then East

9:04 ↗ Sunset Way and 9inth Avenue and

9:07 ↗ Highlands Drive.

9:12 ↗ So, the goal of the study is to

9:14 ↗ objectively evaluate the feasibility of

9:17 ↗ adaptive signal control technology on

9:19 ↗ those corridors we just went over. Um,

9:22 ↗ while also keeping an open mind that

9:24 ↗ adaptive technology might not be the

9:26 ↗ best solution for congestion along those

9:29 ↗ corridors. There might be something else

9:30 ↗ like time of day plans that would work

9:32 ↗ better for specific situations.

9:35 ↗ So phase one of the study, which is the

9:37 ↗ phase we're in right now, is really um

9:40 ↗ establishing a baseline of existing

9:42 ↗ conditions and infrastructure we have at

9:44 ↗ the city. Um and also get it gathering

9:47 ↗ input from TAB and from later from the

9:51 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

9:53 ↗ with the final deliverable of a highle

9:55 ↗ screening assessment for adaptive signal

9:58 ↗ control technology compatibility

10:01 ↗ and that assessment would be based on

10:03 ↗ the performance metrics and measures

10:05 ↗ that we're going to discuss today.

10:08 ↗ Phase two of the study will be getting

10:10 ↗ more into the details and building off

10:12 ↗ of phase one results. So that's really

10:15 ↗ getting into quantifying costbenefit

10:17 ↗ analysis of implementing that technology

10:20 ↗ or other solutions

10:23 ↗ and um yeah getting more into the weeds.

10:28 ↗ I'm going to do a quick recap of what we

10:30 ↗ discussed at from a high level last

10:32 ↗ time. So uh last tab meeting in January

10:36 ↗ uh we went corridor by corridor and

10:39 ↗ gathered feedback about the existing

10:40 ↗ conditions from you guys. So a lot of

10:43 ↗ what we heard was that there's some

10:45 ↗ regional spillback and congestion on

10:47 ↗ city arterials that's impacting local

10:49 ↗ traffic. There's a lot of recurring

10:52 ↗ delays on key corridors. And there's

10:54 ↗ also signal operation concerns

10:56 ↗ specifically at Front Street in Dogwood

10:59 ↗ Sunset in Second and SR900 and the Isqua

11:03 ↗ Transit Center.

11:06 ↗ We also talked about priorities for each

11:08 ↗ corridor um at that meeting. So some

11:12 ↗ things we heard were to prioritize local

11:14 ↗ traffic. Um and that tends to be some of

11:17 ↗ the east west traffic. Um we want to

11:20 ↗ manage predictable congestion from

11:22 ↗ schools and Swedish hospital.

11:25 ↗ There also was interest in protecting

11:27 ↗ and improving pedestrian and bicycle a

11:30 ↗ access especially at trail crossings at

11:32 ↗ busy roads. Um, we also discussed

11:35 ↗ supporting transit speed and reliability

11:37 ↗ and setting corridor specific priorities

11:39 ↗ based on existing signal function and

11:42 ↗ goals.

11:44 ↗ And now I'm going to pass it off to

11:46 ↗ Chris to get into the details of our

11:48 ↗ draft performance metrics and measures.

11:51 ↗ >> And this is going to be pretty meaty

11:53 ↗ compared to what we kind of talked about

11:55 ↗ last time. So, especially up front, um,

11:58 ↗ I think we go to the next slide. There's

12:00 ↗ two types of performance metrics. And

12:02 ↗ I'm going to go through these. The first

12:03 ↗ three or four are going to be very

12:06 ↗ technical, but I want you all to get an

12:08 ↗ idea of what it is, how we are going to

12:11 ↗ think about feasibility from that

12:12 ↗ technical aspect. And then on the second

12:14 ↗ half, we're going to think more about

12:16 ↗ what the outcomes of the signals could

12:19 ↗ be. And that's going to reflect more of

12:21 ↗ what we heard last time from all of you.

12:24 ↗ And I'm really looking for feedback. And

12:26 ↗ if you have feedback on any of the

12:27 ↗ metrics, absolutely. You know, I'll stop

12:29 ↗ after each one to kind of let you guys

12:31 ↗ know. So at the beginning it's technical

12:33 ↗ inputs into the equation and then the

12:35 ↗ next half of the outputs. All right.

12:39 ↗ So these slides all look a lot like a

12:43 ↗ whiteboard that I had in my team. Um

12:46 ↗ Tino and Nicola couldn't be here tonight

12:49 ↗ as well as Jim Peters who was on the

12:50 ↗ phone during the last call as well. We

12:53 ↗ all got together in a room and I just

12:55 ↗ started sketching things and writing

12:56 ↗ things up on the whiteboard and this is

12:58 ↗ sort of what we came up with. So the

13:00 ↗ first thing is how are we measuring the

13:03 ↗ existing ability to adjust signal

13:05 ↗ timing. That's what adaptive signal is

13:07 ↗ going to do. Right? It is adjusting your

13:09 ↗ signal timing over time. So if your

13:10 ↗ timing is for example really constrained

13:14 ↗ because of how many pedestrian calls you

13:16 ↗ have or how often you can switch back

13:19 ↗ and forth. I'll take the example of

13:21 ↗ front street and sunset, right? Because

13:23 ↗ you have what we call a split phase

13:25 ↗ signal. you're giving a very little bit

13:27 ↗ of time to each of those legs and you

13:29 ↗ can't have them all running at the same

13:31 ↗ time. Adaptive signal adapt adaptive

13:34 ↗ signal control technology can't do a lot

13:36 ↗ for something like that and you have to

13:38 ↗ do something geometric, right? So there

13:41 ↗ are solutions but ASCT is not

13:43 ↗ necessarily one of them. So, we'll be

13:46 ↗ looking at the ability to sort of uh run

13:50 ↗ if there are already or run uh

13:53 ↗ additional time of day plans. Meaning,

13:55 ↗ if you guys remember the cartoon that we

13:57 ↗ watched at the beginning of the last

13:59 ↗ time I was here, um meaning the traffic

14:02 ↗ engineer John will create a time of day

14:05 ↗ plan and then go and install it on the

14:07 ↗ controller and that means at a certain

14:09 ↗ time of day the signal will operate to

14:11 ↗ allow people to go a certain direction,

14:13 ↗ not the other. Well, if there's more of

14:15 ↗ those plans that are needed or if they

14:17 ↗ are already pretty restrained like we

14:19 ↗ have time of day plans for everything,

14:20 ↗ it's not as adjustable. It's already

14:22 ↗ set. It's fixed. Um, if there are a

14:26 ↗ bunch of coordination, so if each signal

14:29 ↗ has to run independently because

14:31 ↗ everything is um very, you know, uh,

14:35 ↗ segmented up and down the quarter, it's

14:36 ↗ not super adjustable. we want to be able

14:38 ↗ to adjust it in systems to be able to

14:40 ↗ get that kind of flow up and down

14:42 ↗ corridors that sits on the more

14:45 ↗ adjustable side of this spectrum. Um,

14:49 ↗ and then of course there's this there's

14:51 ↗ a range of cycle length and that simply

14:53 ↗ means how much green time we give in

14:56 ↗ total. So when we're sitting on a signal

14:59 ↗ and there's a full green time all around

15:01 ↗ the clock, maybe it takes you one minute

15:03 ↗ to serve every leg. If it's two minutes,

15:06 ↗ it serves every leg. That's your cycle

15:08 ↗ length. How long it takes you to serve

15:09 ↗ everything before it gets back to that

15:11 ↗ same spot. So if you stand on the

15:12 ↗ corner, watch for a green light and you

15:15 ↗ start a green like a stop timer when the

15:17 ↗ green turns and then the next time that

15:20 ↗ light turns green again, you stop it.

15:21 ↗ That is your cycle length. Um if those

15:24 ↗ are super constrained, meaning that they

15:26 ↗ can only be within a certain like tiny

15:29 ↗ range, that's going to constrain the

15:31 ↗ adaptability of the signal as well. an

15:33 ↗ adaptive system will be able to extend

15:35 ↗ that longer or cut it down. And there

15:38 ↗ are things like pedestrian calls, um

15:41 ↗ vehicle uh sizes and lengths of

15:43 ↗ intersections and things like that that

15:45 ↗ will restrain how much cycle length we

15:48 ↗ can take away or is that great. Like I

15:52 ↗ said, this is super technical. So yeah,

15:56 ↗ >> can we make it an hour?

15:58 ↗ >> You don't want to.

15:59 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, so like

16:02 ↗ >> rule of thumb, we say like 160 seconds,

16:05 ↗ but if you think about it, if you're

16:06 ↗ sitting there on the side street for 5

16:08 ↗ minutes, even if there's 300 cars

16:10 ↗ rolling by you the whole time, you ain't

16:12 ↗ happy, right? So like you don't want

16:15 ↗ that. So it we really try to keep it I

16:18 ↗ think 160 is probably the longest I've

16:20 ↗ seen and I don't recommend that. 120 is

16:23 ↗ pretty good. Do you have a rule that you

16:25 ↗ like to go with in the city right now

16:27 ↗ or?

16:29 ↗ Not that I know of.

16:31 ↗ >> Right. And I don't think you have

16:32 ↗ anything over 160 in the city. We've got

16:35 ↗ all the signal timings. I think they're

16:36 ↗ all sitting at a maximum of like 120 to

16:39 ↗ 140. So that's not unheard of. That's

16:41 ↗ pretty standard across this region.

16:43 ↗ >> So lower end like minimum that a

16:45 ↗ pedestrian takes to cross six lanes of

16:47 ↗ traffic.

16:47 ↗ >> That is exactly the control.

16:49 ↗ >> Upper would be people don't want to wait

16:51 ↗ longer. And I'm happy you brought that

16:53 ↗ up, Ben, because the the fact that the

16:56 ↗ pedestrians are often crossing the

16:58 ↗ busier street, right? So those six lanes

17:01 ↗ of traffic, that takes them longer, but

17:03 ↗ that's where all the traffic is. So

17:06 ↗ you're often giving a lot of time to the

17:08 ↗ side street with two lanes because it

17:11 ↗ takes so long for the pedestrian to

17:12 ↗ cross that major street. That is what's

17:15 ↗ going to constrain your signal timing

17:16 ↗ because you're forced to give that minor

17:19 ↗ street so much time because your walks

17:22 ↗ time has to be so long for that

17:24 ↗ pedestrian to get all the way across.

17:26 ↗ >> Well, so you're talking about number of

17:28 ↗ those, right? So that means if it is a

17:30 ↗ frequently crossed street, you know, or

17:33 ↗ cross and there's people

17:36 ↗ >> Yeah. and then it's called on a lot. And

17:38 ↗ that's where the number of signals

17:40 ↗ connected in a row comes in. Because if

17:42 ↗ you're not serving that walk phase every

17:44 ↗ time, but you are trying to coordinate

17:47 ↗ in a long system, one PET call now means

17:51 ↗ that you're going to throw your system

17:52 ↗ out of coordination because you're not

17:54 ↗ going to be able to coordinate. If that

17:56 ↗ one signal is now meaning, it's going to

17:58 ↗ have to serve that side street for half

18:00 ↗ of its cycle length and it's just once

18:02 ↗ every so often that's going to throw it

18:05 ↗ all out as compared to a signal that's

18:06 ↗ going to serve the walk, you know, uh

18:09 ↗ the walk phase every single time that's

18:11 ↗ repeatable and we plan for it and then

18:14 ↗ it doesn't throw it out of coordination.

18:16 ↗ So, it's the combination of all of these

18:19 ↗ things that ends up pushing us either

18:22 ↗ very fixed or very adjustable. and

18:25 ↗ adaptive signals are going to work

18:27 ↗ better if it's very adjustable. So, this

18:31 ↗ is just it's kind of a quantitative of

18:33 ↗ we're going to go through we have all

18:34 ↗ this data, but you got the last one

18:36 ↗ there, the number of pet calls was the

18:38 ↗ last one. Um, and that is whether or not

18:41 ↗ it's become super fixed or or

18:43 ↗ adjustable. We just kind of give it a

18:45 ↗ thumbs up, thumbs down rating and then

18:48 ↗ rate it as adjustable or fixed and see

18:50 ↗ how well it can work. This is the high

18:52 ↗ level phase two. We're going to do much

18:55 ↗ more analysis to get the like minutes

18:58 ↗ and seconds of delay we think we might

19:00 ↗ be able to save by doing this and

19:02 ↗ quantify it and cost it out as compared

19:04 ↗ to what it would cost to build the

19:05 ↗ system.

19:07 ↗ >> So, so this is sorry, let's get it out.

19:10 ↗ Yeah,

19:10 ↗ >> this would be an interesting place where

19:12 ↗ you could look for potential

19:14 ↗ interventions where you know there's

19:16 ↗ just this one thing that makes the

19:18 ↗ adjustability

19:20 ↗ uh constrained and maybe we could adjust

19:23 ↗ that by paint adjust it by pedestrian or

19:27 ↗ you know yeah I mean we were already

19:29 ↗ talking earlier today about projects

19:30 ↗ that are already on the city books to do

19:33 ↗ that could change this. We're looking at

19:35 ↗ those already. They're just things that

19:36 ↗ we want to do to improve. So, so

19:39 ↗ adjustability might be sort of a

19:41 ↗ spectrum of if we do nothing there's

19:43 ↗ just some adjustability but I think a

19:45 ↗ little bit maybe

19:47 ↗ is phase one or phase two those sorts of

19:50 ↗ things.

19:52 ↗ >> So it's going to be a combination. I

19:53 ↗ think right now it's more qualitative of

19:56 ↗ like okay it's not very adjustable right

19:58 ↗ now we're planning on a project which

20:01 ↗ will make it more adjustable in the

20:04 ↗ future. We would assume that as a

20:06 ↗ baseline in our analysis when we get

20:09 ↗ into the quantitative of like modeling

20:11 ↗ it and that would be okay here's here's

20:13 ↗ what it's going to look like in five

20:15 ↗ years if we do that and adaptive what

20:18 ↗ are we going to say because I when it's

20:21 ↗ already in like the tip basically the

20:23 ↗ city has said we're going to we're going

20:25 ↗ to do this we're going to pay for it

20:27 ↗ we're going to build it we're going to

20:28 ↗ find the money and it's going to happen

20:31 ↗ the adaptive hasn't gotten to that point

20:32 ↗ yet so we want to see how much better

20:35 ↗ indeed.

20:35 ↗ >> Yeah. I'm sort of thinking of the

20:37 ↗ adaptive evaluation might identify

20:40 ↗ properties onto the Yeah. And I'm

20:43 ↗ thinking of like building

20:48 ↗ that's a long pedestrian that we would

20:51 ↗ add a project that comes out of this

20:53 ↗ work

20:55 ↗ allows.

20:57 ↗ I think that one of the very possible

21:00 ↗ outcomes is that we could find corridors

21:03 ↗ where adaptive is feasible and we come

21:05 ↗ up with a road map to use the pun to

21:08 ↗ come up to say here's how you get to

21:10 ↗ adaptive signal operations and we get a

21:13 ↗ number of of corridors where it's not

21:15 ↗ feasible but we identify a bunch of

21:18 ↗ steps along that feasibility. Remember

21:20 ↗ the ice cream cone, right? Just getting

21:21 ↗ more timing plans, better detection and

21:24 ↗ more communication. What if we were to

21:26 ↗ do those things to improve the signals

21:28 ↗ in general but not go fully adaptive and

21:31 ↗ we get most of the benefits anyway right

21:33 ↗ so yes I think it's exactly the point is

21:35 ↗ that at the end of this we'll probably

21:37 ↗ get a road map of either adaptive or

21:40 ↗ along the way of adaptive

21:43 ↗ to figure out how to best manage

21:48 ↗ you said that upstream and downstream

21:50 ↗ signals are not coordinated but that

21:54 ↗ signal and it's adjustable. So they go

21:58 ↗ um the metro out of sync in terms of

22:02 ↗ maintaining a green wave kind of thing,

22:04 ↗ >> right? We want to see that there are a

22:08 ↗ like a number of signals that we can put

22:11 ↗ in phase together to get that

22:13 ↗ adjustability that we're not because if

22:15 ↗ you just turn this the knobs at one,

22:18 ↗ you're not really getting it benefit.

22:20 ↗ You want to be able to turn the knobs on

22:21 ↗ the system altogether. And that's again

22:24 ↗ because adaptive is based on like what

22:26 ↗ the communication between signals. You

22:28 ↗ want to be able to have a good chunk of

22:30 ↗ them together. Now let's say washd dot

22:33 ↗ owns a number of signals right in the

22:35 ↗ middle of a really important corridor

22:36 ↗ like I don't know Front Street.

22:40 ↗ That's going to interrupt the ability

22:41 ↗ for those to connect, right? So that

22:43 ↗ could slide us to the fixed side.

22:48 ↗ Make sense?

22:50 ↗ >> Great.

22:51 ↗ I'm ready if you guys are. All right.

22:54 ↗ So, this is all about the systems uh the

22:58 ↗ signal system and equipment and how

23:00 ↗ compatible it is with adaptive signals.

23:03 ↗ So, as John uh think you had said it, we

23:07 ↗ have a lot of um radar detection right

23:10 ↗ now in Isqua and that's mostly because

23:13 ↗ of the fog blocks a lot of cameras and

23:16 ↗ videos, but a lot of adaptive systems

23:18 ↗ require us to use videos. So there's a

23:22 ↗ compatibility issue. There's also

23:24 ↗ compatibility in the kind of uh

23:27 ↗ basically the PC, the controller type.

23:30 ↗ Some adaptive works with certain

23:32 ↗ controllers but not with others. And

23:34 ↗ it's basically like owning a Mac versus

23:37 ↗ a PC. The kind of software you can run

23:40 ↗ on it, right? So we have to make sure

23:42 ↗ that the types of adaptive programs that

23:45 ↗ are out there are going to work on the

23:47 ↗ signal controllers. So basically what

23:49 ↗ we're saying is that either it is a

23:52 ↗ significant constraint meaning we'd have

23:54 ↗ to replace every controller and all the

23:57 ↗ detection in the city that would be a

23:59 ↗ huge undergoing for the city to do as

24:03 ↗ compared to you know moderate to minor

24:06 ↗ upgrades. I think if we're looking at

24:08 ↗ just putting up more cameras to

24:10 ↗ supplement the radar, maybe that's

24:13 ↗ doable, but there's a cost that we would

24:15 ↗ evaluate in phase two, right? So,

24:17 ↗ there's a there's a range here to get us

24:19 ↗ to qualitative. Um, some of the things

24:21 ↗ that we're looking at again that

24:23 ↗ existing detection coverage and

24:25 ↗ functionality.

24:26 ↗ Is it all radar? Are there video

24:29 ↗ available? Are they on all legs? Is it

24:32 ↗ upstream and downstream? because

24:34 ↗ adaptive wants to know if I give it a

24:36 ↗ green, does the car have a place to go?

24:38 ↗ Um,

24:40 ↗ is there reliable communication? Is

24:42 ↗ there radar or radio communication or

24:45 ↗ fiber optic or phone line communication

24:47 ↗ between them? Where does that go? Do you

24:50 ↗ have a question, Julia? I'll ask. Okay.

24:55 ↗ Um, let's see what else there is. Yeah.

24:58 ↗ So, I already kind of went over like

25:00 ↗ software compatibility. Um, and then

25:03 ↗ there's all like the transit signal

25:05 ↗ priority, emergency preeemptions and

25:07 ↗ cloud services. All these different

25:08 ↗ things that the city wants to do or is

25:11 ↗ doing with its partners like King County

25:13 ↗ Metro and Sound Transit. We want to make

25:14 ↗ sure that whatever we're doing is going

25:16 ↗ to work with the future of Sound Transit

25:18 ↗ and King County Metro's signal

25:20 ↗ priorities and all of that and that

25:22 ↗ we're not short changing those modes as

25:25 ↗ well. Um, yeah. And then I just have

25:28 ↗ like an other constraints. Um so

25:32 ↗ maintenance issues for example you know

25:34 ↗ again there are signals within the city

25:37 ↗ that are owned by washd that aren't as

25:40 ↗ maintained as the city staff would like

25:43 ↗ for sure but city staff takes better

25:45 ↗ care of their own stuff obviously than

25:47 ↗ washd has been here they have a lot to

25:50 ↗ do. Um so there are maintenance issues

25:52 ↗ that may need to be addressed in order

25:54 ↗ for adaptive to work as well and that's

25:57 ↗ still a funding cost. from someone from

25:59 ↗ somewhere and how we approach that. So

26:02 ↗ again, we're now measuring this between

26:05 ↗ minor upgrades to significant um

26:08 ↗ constraints and obviously something with

26:11 ↗ minor upgrades is a plus. So that's

26:13 ↗ highly feasible for adapted versus

26:16 ↗ something that needs significant

26:17 ↗ constraints or significant upgrades is a

26:19 ↗ little more feasibility.

26:22 ↗ Any other questions on this slide before

26:23 ↗ I go to the next one? I mean I guess I

26:25 ↗ had the question of like what's the

26:28 ↗ delta between each of these like minor

26:30 ↗ moderate and significance um you know

26:33 ↗ how much would it cost

26:35 ↗ I think the to you know bring the

26:39 ↗ detection coverage or like reliable

26:41 ↗ communications up a tier um rather down

26:44 ↗ the tier um

26:47 ↗ I don't have like a set dollar that I

26:50 ↗ would say oh well $5 is minor for me

26:54 ↗ that would be but like

26:55 ↗ >> not exact dollars obviously but just

26:57 ↗ like how much of a barrier is it between

27:01 ↗ the

27:01 ↗ >> I think at this point we would keep that

27:04 ↗ extremely general and think

27:07 ↗ >> more in the way of it is a lot of work

27:11 ↗ to do all of these the number of signals

27:14 ↗ that need that type of upgrade and the

27:16 ↗ type and the amount of upgrades that

27:18 ↗ they would need and again I'm thinking

27:20 ↗ things like citywide controller upgrades

27:25 ↗ the city

27:27 ↗ taking over wash dot signals in order

27:29 ↗ for this to work and the maintenance

27:31 ↗ that that would need. Those are huge

27:33 ↗ costs as compared to installing new

27:36 ↗ fiber or radio interconnect or you know

27:39 ↗ something that it's on the gauge of more

27:43 ↗ of like 15 to$20,000 a signal. The city

27:45 ↗ could take that on piece after piece

27:47 ↗ after piece and kind of roll that out in

27:49 ↗ a reasonable time frame. Whereas a

27:51 ↗ citywide controller upgrade or

27:54 ↗ purchasing is in the millions and

27:56 ↗ millions of dollars.

27:58 ↗ >> It's helpful to understand like the

27:59 ↗ different costs.

28:00 ↗ >> Yeah.

28:02 ↗ >> Between like fiber versus

28:04 ↗ >> Yeah. And and fiber can be expensive

28:06 ↗ especially in like super urban

28:08 ↗ environments. So like that would

28:11 ↗ probably fall in between, right? Because

28:14 ↗ once I start digging in the ground all

28:16 ↗ bets are off. You never know what you're

28:19 ↗ going to find. So, so I think to to

28:21 ↗ Julian's point here once we've sort of

28:24 ↗ discretized this into the categories

28:26 ↗ minor, moderate, significant, I mean

28:28 ↗ it's subjected sort of started out with

28:32 ↗ something that's a little more objective

28:33 ↗ which is monetary cost, right? It's

28:36 ↗ ongoing one time cost but you know why

28:40 ↗ not have a metric that is sent to cost

28:43 ↗ because we're going to do that in phase

28:44 ↗ two. One of the specific things in phase

28:47 ↗ two is for us to do a benefit and cost

28:50 ↗ analysis. Yeah. So, we are going to need

28:52 ↗ to detail the costs that would go into

28:55 ↗ each of these. And that's just

28:58 ↗ significantly more work. At this point,

29:02 ↗ it it's a better use of the city's

29:04 ↗ resources for us to say like this is a

29:06 ↗ lot of work on this corridor.

29:08 ↗ This is a little bit of work, but it's

29:10 ↗ doable.

29:12 ↗ This one's probably in feasible. Let's

29:14 ↗ dig more into the cost on this one and

29:16 ↗ see.

29:16 ↗ >> Seems like you could get a ballpark cost

29:18 ↗ estimate and be a linear metric even if

29:21 ↗ it is one

29:23 ↗ as subjective. It's just

29:27 ↗ I only think that matters when you're

29:29 ↗ comparing many different metrics and

29:31 ↗ trying to

29:32 ↗ >> right things down based on that which

29:34 ↗ maybe you're not doing in phase one but

29:38 ↗ >> so this would be more of a highle

29:40 ↗ screening because if all the other

29:42 ↗ metrics say corridor A would be terrible

29:45 ↗ for adaptive let's not spend money

29:48 ↗ looking at the cost. So that's why we're

29:51 ↗ saving that for phase two.

29:53 ↗ That's a good point.

29:59 ↗ >> All right. Um the next one is just

30:01 ↗ traffic volume and patterns variability.

30:05 ↗ So this is sort of what I was getting at

30:08 ↗ with the the I think you had asked a

30:10 ↗ little bit about the data that we may be

30:11 ↗ able to get from street light. We're

30:13 ↗ trying to get that data now be able to

30:15 ↗ understand what is the variability

30:17 ↗ throughout the city. So, let's say

30:20 ↗ there's a corridor that serves a Costco

30:22 ↗ on the weekends. It's got school in the

30:25 ↗ weekdays. There's a big trail head with

30:27 ↗ a bunch of pedestrians at um on sunny

30:30 ↗ days. And then, you know, during

30:33 ↗ weekdays in the AM and PM peak hours,

30:36 ↗ there's a bunch of commuters, right? So,

30:37 ↗ that is something where it's serving a

30:39 ↗ bunch of different uses and a bunch of

30:41 ↗ different um destinations and there's a

30:44 ↗ bunch of varied demand over time. We'll

30:46 ↗ see that in the data once once we get it

30:49 ↗ all up and down throughout the day. Very

30:51 ↗ very quickly we'll see that that's a

30:53 ↗ really highly variable volume in demand.

30:56 ↗ It's really hard then for us as traffic

30:59 ↗ engineers to set a time of day plan that

31:02 ↗ works every day during those during the

31:04 ↗ time period. If it's something as vital

31:06 ↗ as the weather causes a bunch of people

31:08 ↗ to go out and use the trail head or um

31:11 ↗ there's an event at the school or

31:13 ↗ whatever the case may be, more people

31:15 ↗ are crossing.

31:17 ↗ >> Yeah, exactly. They're trying to get out

31:19 ↗ there. Exactly. So, if there is a bunch

31:22 ↗ of variability, that does mean that

31:24 ↗ adaptive would have something to do. It

31:26 ↗ could sense all that demand, sense those

31:28 ↗ changes in real time. there's not people

31:31 ↗ running around the office trying to

31:32 ↗ figure out how do I what what plan

31:35 ↗ should I go through? Should I throw more

31:37 ↗ green time down on this instead? So,

31:40 ↗ there's some ability for that to

31:42 ↗ automatically get built in with the

31:44 ↗ adaptive signal um that builds some

31:46 ↗ feasibility into it. Um, okay. So, I

31:50 ↗ just put some different measures in

31:52 ↗ there. The way we're thinking about

31:53 ↗ that, just the straight up variability

31:56 ↗ throughout the day. Um we did say we

32:00 ↗ added on I um the day by months by uh by

32:06 ↗ weeks as well. So if there's like just

32:08 ↗ months of the year where things are

32:10 ↗ really higher like during the summer

32:12 ↗ months when there's a bunch of summer uh

32:14 ↗ a bunch of hikers or pedestrians out and

32:16 ↗ about in those sunny days as compared to

32:18 ↗ the winter time when there's maybe not

32:19 ↗ as much. We can look at that variability

32:22 ↗ throughout the year peak versus off

32:24 ↗ peak. Um then there's just daytoday

32:27 ↗ within the week. So weekday versus like

32:30 ↗ the Friday or the Saturday. We can

32:32 ↗ easily see that we can identify

32:34 ↗ corridors that carry a bunch of traffic

32:36 ↗ when there's incidents on the freeways

32:39 ↗ either SR18 or I90 um that end up coming

32:43 ↗ through the city at that point. That's

32:44 ↗ something adaptive can automatically

32:46 ↗ adjust signals to incorporate. So that

32:49 ↗ would make you know it more feasible on

32:52 ↗ that corridor. um or corridors that

32:55 ↗ serve special events. Thinking things

32:57 ↗ like the theater uh you know on Front

33:00 ↗ Street or um markets, the farmers

33:03 ↗ markets or creator markets or whatever

33:06 ↗ the case may be that that happen. Um so

33:10 ↗ again, we're looking are things highly

33:13 ↗ variable? Are they very consistent?

33:16 ↗ Meaning, I can tell you that there's

33:17 ↗ always going to be a hundred cars in

33:19 ↗ this left turn movement every weekday,

33:22 ↗ no matter what. I can just do a time of

33:25 ↗ day plan. That's not feasible. Highly

33:27 ↗ variable. Boy, it changes a lot.

33:31 ↗ Go ahead.

33:32 ↗ >> Oh, I sorry. I should let you choose

33:34 ↗ people to ask questions first. Julia.

33:38 ↗ >> Um I guess my question here is like uh

33:44 ↗ when it comes to traffic volume pattern

33:47 ↗ variability, why is non vehicular

33:51 ↗ traffic not itemized as part of this

33:54 ↗ category?

33:55 ↗ >> Very good question. Um

33:58 ↗ mostly because

34:01 ↗ adaptives are not going to do much for

34:02 ↗ that. So it can it's going to look at

34:06 ↗ your the amount of pedestrian calls will

34:10 ↗ lengthen the amount of time you have to

34:12 ↗ give the side street but it's not really

34:14 ↗ saying the variability from day to day.

34:18 ↗ Um

34:20 ↗ specifically

34:21 ↗ adaptive is serving the vehicle mode on

34:24 ↗ the thrift street. So, but you're

34:27 ↗ getting to a really strong point which I

34:29 ↗ think when we get to the outcomes

34:32 ↗ metrics, we try to address by saying it

34:35 ↗ improves pedestrian and bicycle

34:37 ↗ experiences and I will get to that.

34:44 ↗ I was just wondering what are sort of

34:46 ↗ the the variables that go into making

34:48 ↗ adaptive sort of effective like what

34:51 ↗ what are the things that it takes into

34:52 ↗ account to like change the light signal?

34:57 ↗ So

34:58 ↗ I mean these are some of it. I think

35:00 ↗ that it basically what adaptive is going

35:03 ↗ to do is look at the traffic in real

35:05 ↗ time and adjust the amount of time it

35:09 ↗ can give any leg. Right now signals are

35:12 ↗ able to do that up to a point. We

35:14 ↗ basically say okay you have a maximum of

35:17 ↗ this amount of time. Let's say 30

35:20 ↗ seconds on this leg. If you don't sense

35:23 ↗ a car, stop giving green to that leg.

35:26 ↗ Then we have detectors in the street and

35:29 ↗ as vehicles approach that leg, it says,

35:31 ↗ "Oh, there's a car. Let's give it three

35:33 ↗ more seconds. Let's give it three more

35:35 ↗ seconds. Let's give it three more

35:37 ↗ seconds." At 30 seconds, it says,

35:40 ↗ "That's enough. Let's give it to the

35:41 ↗ other leg now." Until we hit that cycle

35:44 ↗ length and it's gone all the way around

35:46 ↗ and it starts over again. So, it could

35:47 ↗ be a little bit less, but there's

35:49 ↗ usually a minimum to a maximum. What

35:51 ↗ adaptive is going to do is it's going to

35:53 ↗ let that minimum and maximum be fluid

35:57 ↗ because what we do in in the office is

36:00 ↗ take all the volumes, put it in a model,

36:03 ↗ hit optimize and run and it calculates

36:06 ↗ all these statistics and tells me, okay,

36:09 ↗ this is, you know, the best signal

36:12 ↗ timing for this intersection, this time

36:14 ↗ of day. And we can run it for a corridor

36:17 ↗ and say this is how you move the most

36:18 ↗ vehicles through the corridor given that

36:21 ↗ it gives me a whole time of plan time of

36:23 ↗ day plan for a corridor. But again,

36:26 ↗ that's going to be effective for the

36:28 ↗ traffic that I have counted during one

36:31 ↗ hour of one day. And that's been at

36:35 ↗ great cost because now I've got people

36:37 ↗ out there counting those cars, going

36:39 ↗ back to the office, doing the signal

36:41 ↗ timing, going back out to the signal,

36:43 ↗ typing it in, checking if it works, if

36:45 ↗ it doesn't, counting the cars, going

36:47 ↗ back to the signal is doing that itself,

36:50 ↗ right? So that's where the variability

36:53 ↗ helps.

36:56 ↗ >> Yep.

36:59 ↗ Good. Okay.

37:02 ↗ All right. So Billy and Mrs. gets right

37:04 ↗ to your point. These are the outcomes

37:07 ↗ and this is more based on what I heard

37:09 ↗ from back in January which is what do we

37:13 ↗ think we want out of adaptive signals.

37:16 ↗ So this is going to help us sort of

37:17 ↗ evaluate do we think that it's going to

37:20 ↗ actually help or hinder this overall.

37:23 ↗ And again, remember we're talking about

37:25 ↗ signal timings. And at its core, signal

37:29 ↗ timings are based around the vehicular

37:32 ↗ experience. So there's more in our

37:36 ↗ public space than vehicles. And traffic

37:39 ↗ engineers like myself have been very

37:41 ↗ slow to come to that table on that one.

37:44 ↗ I want to say like I understand I am a

37:47 ↗ biker and a walker. I

37:50 ↗ this is very important to me as well.

37:53 ↗ um

37:56 ↗ can it improve the pen and bike

37:57 ↗ experience? So, we want to evaluate

38:00 ↗ whether or not the signal timing, the

38:04 ↗ adaptive signal timing can actually

38:05 ↗ improve the pedestrian experience. I

38:08 ↗ think Seattle's an example where they

38:11 ↗ heard on Mercer when they went through

38:14 ↗ and they did their adaptive that it

38:16 ↗ stopped serving the pedestrians and

38:18 ↗ people were standing trying to cross,

38:19 ↗ you know, five lanes of Mercer and it

38:22 ↗ never got it. So they ended up just

38:23 ↗ turning it off and that was awful and it

38:26 ↗ got a lot of bad press. They got some

38:28 ↗ solutions now and they've got it up and

38:30 ↗ running not as well as they wanted it to

38:32 ↗ be but they got something. So we want to

38:35 ↗ make sure that whatever we do isn't

38:37 ↗ going to go down that road.

38:40 ↗ So how are we going to look at that?

38:42 ↗ We're going to measure or estimate at

38:44 ↗ least the potential to uh reduce

38:47 ↗ pedestrian crossing times by shortening

38:50 ↗ cycle lines. So maybe adaptive signals

38:53 ↗ can use a shorter cycle length

38:56 ↗ especially in those times when we know

38:58 ↗ that there's higher pedestrian activity.

39:01 ↗ So we can specifically use detection

39:04 ↗ passive detection the cameras or

39:06 ↗ microwave or radars to detect pedestrian

39:08 ↗ activity and adjust signal times. So we

39:12 ↗ have to make sure though that there are

39:13 ↗ vendors out there who have the software

39:16 ↗ that's going to do that and actually

39:18 ↗ prioritize pedestrian activity and

39:20 ↗ experience over vehicle.

39:23 ↗ Um

39:25 ↗ we want to try to forecast that

39:27 ↗ pedestrian and bicycle demand um when

39:30 ↗ they're close to and we just we said

39:32 ↗ that we would do this by looking for

39:34 ↗ basically pedestrian and bicycle

39:37 ↗ generators. Um they are corridors that

39:40 ↗ serve schools, parks, transit centers,

39:44 ↗ and commercial areas where we know

39:46 ↗ people are walking, trying to visit

39:48 ↗ storefronts. We want to encourage that

39:50 ↗ environment. Um corridors with multi-use

39:54 ↗ trail crossings, keep talking about

39:56 ↗ seven feet, we might as well hit that

39:58 ↗ again. And then you know tier one

40:00 ↗ corridors. These are specifically things

40:02 ↗ in the mobility action plan where we've

40:05 ↗ already identified these are the

40:08 ↗ pedestrians and bicycles are a priority

40:10 ↗ mode that we want to uh design for in

40:15 ↗ the future. Um

40:21 ↗ >> so and then core. So one of the major

40:23 ↗ activity owners could also be like um

40:27 ↗ housing developments and particularly

40:30 ↗ you know larger mortgage or uh apartment

40:34 ↗ units and and condo units um and so is

40:38 ↗ that part of this major activity

40:40 ↗ generator designation as well?

40:42 ↗ >> You know I don't we did not list it I

40:44 ↗ don't think it was listed but I agree it

40:47 ↗ should be. So yeah thanks for the

40:49 ↗ comment.

40:51 ↗ Um, so I wanted to ask about

40:54 ↗ everything we're doing with with

40:56 ↗ signaling is a complex and active system

40:59 ↗ and captures to adapt. And so one of the

41:02 ↗ things we put up our bicycle experience

41:04 ↗ is

41:06 ↗ that route that signals would choose

41:10 ↗ today. It might change somewhere else if

41:13 ↗ we improve the experience in a different

41:16 ↗ route. uh is that the sort of thing that

41:19 ↗ we'd be looking at this country as well

41:21 ↗ like are you only looking at the routes

41:23 ↗ that are currently traveled or are we

41:24 ↗ looking at what routes what better

41:26 ↗ routes might exist? That is what we're

41:28 ↗ trying to accommodate with the tier one

41:30 ↗ corridors in the mobility action plan.

41:33 ↗ So rather than revisit and try to

41:35 ↗ refigure out where where bicycles could

41:37 ↗ end up in the future, we're looking at

41:39 ↗ what the city's plans have already

41:42 ↗ identified of those desired bicycle

41:44 ↗ routes that we want to pour investment

41:46 ↗ in and make better and say that okay,

41:49 ↗ that is a pedestrian corridor as well

41:52 ↗ for adaptive. Think about that. So I

41:54 ↗ don't want to reinvent the city's

41:56 ↗ planning.

41:57 ↗ Yeah, I'm thinking on uh on Front

42:00 ↗ Street. Uh there's, you know, front suns

42:03 ↗ says terrible light to try to walk

42:05 ↗ across. There's a a

42:08 ↗ crosswalk signal not far away.

42:12 ↗ Walk across that window. So they might

42:15 ↗ make a different choice if

42:22 ↗ so that um that's not really a change of

42:25 ↗ course

42:27 ↗ but it might be a change of

42:31 ↗ >> yeah and I agree and there are context

42:34 ↗ >> right yeah there are timing there there

42:36 ↗ are timing things that you can do for

42:38 ↗ that I think

42:40 ↗ the city is looking at projects I think

42:43 ↗ right now the I think it's the mayor

42:46 ↗ pushed the project right about Sunset

42:48 ↗ and and Front Street as well. So there

42:51 ↗ are things that are going on in the

42:52 ↗ background and again when we get to our

42:55 ↗ qualitative

42:57 ↗ I got that right quantitative when I get

42:59 ↗ to the one where we actually produce

43:01 ↗ numbers and measures of benefits to

43:02 ↗ measure against costs. Thank you.

43:06 ↗ um we will

43:09 ↗ be considering all of those planned

43:11 ↗ improvements as sort of any background.

43:13 ↗ We are going to invest in this anyway.

43:16 ↗ What is this going to to do? So

43:19 ↗ there are ways that it can maybe help

43:21 ↗ and I also want to make sure it's not

43:22 ↗ going to be harmful to those

43:25 ↗ investments. That's sort of where this

43:27 ↗ measurement is pointing towards.

43:32 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think there's a future

43:33 ↗ metric that also goes over future, you

43:35 ↗ know, compatibility with the future

43:38 ↗ plans too.

43:39 ↗ >> Yes.

43:42 ↗ >> I guess I had a question about the

43:44 ↗ overall frame of analysis that you're

43:46 ↗ doing when it comes to costbenefit

43:48 ↗ analysis and particularly for some

43:50 ↗ corridors that I know CPA is a huge, you

43:54 ↗ know, that's usually what you do for

43:56 ↗ policy um here in the states anyways. Um

43:59 ↗ but um have you thought about like

44:03 ↗ applying like precautionaries sometimes

44:06 ↗ uh to some of these

44:07 ↗ >> applying like the precautionary

44:09 ↗ principle like if if you can project

44:12 ↗ from the from early stages that there

44:14 ↗ might be greater harm to a particular

44:18 ↗ area you will just not pursue it any

44:22 ↗ longer basically.

44:27 ↗ Well that's

44:29 ↗ We can talk about

44:30 ↗ >> No, I

44:32 ↗ >> Yeah, it's

44:35 ↗ Yeah,

44:36 ↗ >> I think the harm that you'd be referring

44:39 ↗ to when you're talking to talking about

44:42 ↗ adaptive signal signalization

44:44 ↗ improvements overall is induced demand.

44:48 ↗ >> Right? So I think the danger and the

44:49 ↗ harm when we're thinking about whether

44:51 ↗ or not adaptive is feasible is if we add

44:54 ↗ a bunch of capacity by just let's just

44:57 ↗ say we were going to change all the

44:58 ↗ signals green southbound on Front Street

45:01 ↗ so that everyone can get all the way

45:02 ↗ down to Tiger Mountain and they can go

45:05 ↗ as fast as they want.

45:08 ↗ We're not I'm not saying we're going to

45:09 ↗ do that, but that is a that would induce

45:13 ↗ a lot of traffic to go down that way. it

45:15 ↗ would induce a lot of kinetic energy and

45:18 ↗ that would have a lot of harm on the

45:20 ↗ pedestrian and bicycle environment

45:21 ↗ overall. So I think there's probably a

45:24 ↗ pretty big delta between what we're

45:27 ↗ looking at and that amount of harm, but

45:30 ↗ the induced demand and induced kinetic

45:34 ↗ energy is not lost on on me. And that's

45:36 ↗ definitely I think trying to be captured

45:40 ↗ with within and between the measures

45:43 ↗ that are on the screen here so that we

45:46 ↗ do get something that we can actually

45:48 ↗ report back to. Does that make sense?

45:52 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. And anyways, I think CBA

45:55 ↗ makes more sense for this. Anyways, uh

46:04 ↗ for

46:06 ↗ environmental stuff.

46:12 ↗ >> Good. All right.

46:16 ↗ The next thing is improve driver

46:18 ↗ experience. So,

46:22 ↗ Well, that sure

46:25 ↗ I think when we're talking about

46:27 ↗ adaptive, this is again it's sort of the

46:29 ↗ core functionality is to improve

46:31 ↗ traffic, right? Improve congestion,

46:34 ↗ reduce congestion. Um, and what does

46:38 ↗ that mean overall? Um, we just talked

46:41 ↗ about like induced demand. So there are

46:44 ↗ corridors in the city where you do have

46:47 ↗ traffic passing through that you want to

46:49 ↗ manage that demand. You want to manage

46:51 ↗ that flow. You want to accommodate some

46:54 ↗ of it. It means that there's economy in

46:56 ↗ the city. There's people stopping for

46:58 ↗ gas, going to dinner, people within the

47:00 ↗ city traveling around. So there is some

47:02 ↗ value and also it's part of our world

47:05 ↗ right now. Um, so what we want to do is

47:09 ↗ just estimate the ability that the ASCT

47:12 ↗ is going to improve corridor efficiency

47:14 ↗ and progression overall.

47:17 ↗ And we want to look at that by managing

47:20 ↗ arterial delay. All the corridors that

47:22 ↗ we're looking at are arterials. So

47:25 ↗ that's sort of repetitive, but delay and

47:28 ↗ reducing cues, right? Or managing cues.

47:32 ↗ So, not necessarily saying that we're

47:33 ↗ going to get rid of the cues, but we're

47:35 ↗ managing them so that they're not maybe

47:38 ↗ affecting side streets and everyone else

47:40 ↗ is trying to pick up their kids and get

47:42 ↗ around town. Um, the am we're want to

47:46 ↗ measure the amount or the percent of

47:48 ↗ vehicles that just travel through

47:50 ↗ intersections and through the streets

47:52 ↗ without stopping. Um, and then reduce

47:56 ↗ the amount of sight street delay and

47:58 ↗ cues. So thinking about how many people

48:02 ↗ have to just sit and stop in traffic

48:04 ↗ every time. If there's a a way to sort

48:06 ↗ of reduce those amounts, we keep people

48:09 ↗ maybe moving at a decent low speed

48:12 ↗ throughout the city without having to

48:14 ↗ stop as many times. That could be a

48:18 ↗ benefit. Um and that's something that

48:21 ↗ adaptive signals can do. And there are,

48:24 ↗ this is also what most of our tools as

48:28 ↗ traffic engineers are built to measure.

48:31 ↗ So when we're looking at benefits, this

48:33 ↗ is probably the one where we have the

48:35 ↗ most equipment that we can forecast the

48:38 ↗ benefits for. Um, so there's a good

48:41 ↗ reason to keep this in the list. Um,

48:45 ↗ again,

48:46 ↗ the experience either it improves or it

48:50 ↗ worsens.

48:52 ↗ If adaptive signal control worsens the

48:54 ↗ driver experience, that's pretty much in

48:58 ↗ feasible death sentence for it right

49:00 ↗ there. Um, if it improves it, it's

49:03 ↗ something to consider. Overall, it does

49:06 ↗ mean it's more feasible, right?

49:10 ↗ And we will weight all of these. And I

49:12 ↗ think we're we talked about this whether

49:13 ↗ or not to weight them across the entire

49:15 ↗ city equally or whether or not to go

49:17 ↗ arterial by arterial and give each

49:20 ↗ different metric a different weight um

49:22 ↗ on the outcomes. And I think what we're

49:24 ↗ going to do more of the latter which is

49:26 ↗ look at each one and say maybe SR900

49:30 ↗ and Front Street the metrics are not

49:33 ↗ weighted the same to those two

49:34 ↗ corridors.

49:37 ↗ So

49:40 ↗ this is one where

49:42 ↗ you know we're sort of comparing

49:44 ↗ existing condition to predicted future

49:46 ↗ condition and there's another

49:49 ↗ like point to measure which will be

49:52 ↗ theoretical optimal

49:54 ↗ >> and I'm I'm wondering if

49:57 ↗ if it's reasonable to

50:01 ↗ you know have that as sort of a waiting

50:02 ↗ for the metric as well where you know in

50:05 ↗ theory if you We completely optimize

50:08 ↗ travel for a particular corridor we

50:10 ↗ might get to the plot which is

50:14 ↗ throughput some number of cars per hour

50:17 ↗ wait and see you know dependent on that

50:22 ↗ through that and that's going to give us

50:24 ↗ a different number and comparing to that

50:26 ↗ maybe gives us a versus comparing to the

50:30 ↗ existing

50:32 ↗ slow slow down you thought about that is

50:35 ↗ that crazy no it's Not crazy. The the

50:38 ↗ best thing that I could think about the

50:41 ↗ way that we would measure this is we we

50:43 ↗ look at percent of free flow speeds.

50:45 ↗ >> And that's sort of also the like

50:47 ↗ percentage of vehicles that travels

50:49 ↗ through without stopping,

50:50 ↗ >> right? Because in a perfect world, once

50:52 ↗ you get off the highway, maybe you go 25

50:56 ↗ miles an hour, but you make it all the

50:58 ↗ way through. If you're going all the way

50:59 ↗ through, you make it all the way through

51:01 ↗ without having to stop and you're happy,

51:04 ↗ but you're going 20 or 25 miles before,

51:07 ↗ right? Then we look at the percent of

51:09 ↗ free flow, meaning that if there was no

51:11 ↗ one else on the road, the fastest you

51:13 ↗ should be going is 35. Just making up a

51:16 ↗ number. It's going to be different for

51:17 ↗ each corridor, but maybe you're going 15

51:21 ↗ or five zero. You know, your average is

51:24 ↗ like three miles out or something during

51:26 ↗ the peak. But you know the optimal maybe

51:29 ↗ is we decide what that percent of free

51:31 ↗ flow would be and maybe for front street

51:33 ↗ we say the optimal would be 15 miles an

51:36 ↗ hour. We think that that's the optimal

51:38 ↗ amount we want to keep every we'd have

51:41 ↗ to define that and that would be

51:43 ↗ something that yeah that's the that's

51:45 ↗ sort of that metric and

51:47 ↗ >> we don't use it as much for what we call

51:49 ↗ interrupted flow which is signals

51:51 ↗ basically they interrupt the flow. It's

51:53 ↗ like a highway metric, but it's

51:55 ↗ something I've I think we used it in our

51:58 ↗ previous front street study way way back

52:02 ↗ when I first started at fair like 10

52:04 ↗ years ago. So, the data is out there and

52:07 ↗ yeah, we can kind of get some of that.

52:10 ↗ >> Yeah, I kind of think that ties pretty

52:11 ↗ closely to driver experience, right? If

52:14 ↗ the driver is thinking about I'm not

52:16 ↗ doing a good job getting through dental,

52:17 ↗ they're kind of thinking about the

52:20 ↗ experience, I think. So, so probably uh

52:24 ↗ if we're looking at averages,

52:27 ↗ we got one number. If we're looking at

52:29 ↗ distribution, the the 99th percentile

52:33 ↗ comparing that

52:36 ↗ flow is going to be where it gets maybe.

52:40 ↗ >> Yeah. Just taking down some of the

52:42 ↗ extremes

52:45 ↗ of the distributions. Yeah.

52:47 ↗ >> Drive our experience up.

52:49 ↗ So I my one request would be that that

52:54 ↗ type of analysis does take quite a bit

52:57 ↗ more effort and time and numbers.

53:01 ↗ >> So I think that would definitely be in

53:04 ↗ the phase two metrics which again part

53:07 ↗ of our task here is one phase one is the

53:10 ↗ screen but develop what the metrics are

53:12 ↗ going to be in phase two. So I think

53:16 ↗ let's

53:18 ↗ keep that alive and keep it as part of

53:20 ↗ our phase two.

53:29 ↗ Great. All right. So transit rider

53:32 ↗ experience um improved transit rider

53:35 ↗ experience. we heard last time about,

53:38 ↗ you know, um having being on the bus and

53:41 ↗ waiting a long time for it to be able to

53:42 ↗ get out of the um transit center. Um so

53:47 ↗ sort of

53:50 ↗ inspired this metric, but also it just

53:53 ↗ seems

53:54 ↗ good to have all modes as one of these.

53:57 ↗ So uh we are looking at how to how to

54:00 ↗ better if ASCT can better improve the

54:04 ↗ transit rider experience. Um that is

54:07 ↗ looking at if the forecasted transit

54:10 ↗ travel times are less or equal to

54:12 ↗ existing conditions. Sounds like similar

54:14 ↗ what we were just talking about for

54:16 ↗ cars. Um and if there's existing

54:19 ↗ compatibility. Again, this is kind of an

54:21 ↗ overlap with the other input with the

54:23 ↗ compatibility with the uh uh hardware

54:26 ↗ that's on the buses that can change the

54:28 ↗ signals. Let's make sure that whatever

54:30 ↗ they're using or want to use in the

54:32 ↗ future, this is also going to be um

54:35 ↗ compatible with so that it can continue

54:38 ↗ to get its calls and its priority

54:40 ↗ signals um and and just make sure that

54:43 ↗ the adaptive signal is going to do that.

54:46 ↗ So we can get some good measurements on

54:49 ↗ whether or not we think it's going to

54:50 ↗ improve or not. There's some improve

54:53 ↗ just if you move general traffic along,

54:56 ↗ but then there's other things as far as

54:58 ↗ the, you know, its ability to recognize

55:00 ↗ and adjust signal timings when there are

55:02 ↗ buses as compared to when there's not.

55:05 ↗ So if it can improve that experience,

55:07 ↗ it's more feasible. If it looks like

55:10 ↗ it's going to worsen that experience,

55:12 ↗ it's less feasible.

55:15 ↗ >> Um

55:17 ↗ symbolically, um so when it comes to

55:22 ↗ improves, the preserves seems to be in

55:25 ↗ the same category with improves and then

55:27 ↗ neutral is no material change to

55:29 ↗ transport. So why is preserves

55:32 ↗ in the improves category?

55:39 ↗ So

55:41 ↗ you're right. I think that that first

55:43 ↗ measure is forecast travel times are

55:45 ↗ less than or equal to the existing

55:46 ↗ condition that sounds like improves or

55:49 ↗ preserves which is the equal like

55:51 ↗ neutral. And I do I agree that that's

55:54 ↗ there's a difference. So I think there

55:56 ↗ should maybe be a comma rather than an

55:59 ↗ or it

56:02 ↗ travel times are less than or are equal

56:06 ↗ to or are greater than and that's where

56:08 ↗ you get that worms neutral or improves.

56:12 ↗ >> Does that make sense?

56:13 ↗ >> Yeah. It's just like I don't see why we

56:16 ↗ would give something an improved score

56:18 ↗ if it just keeps staying the same for

56:21 ↗ transits.

56:22 ↗ >> Right. Yeah. And I'm not saying that we

56:23 ↗ would. I'm saying it would fall in the

56:24 ↗ neutral. So wouldn't give it a I

56:27 ↗ wouldn't give it a point for that if we

56:29 ↗ were keeping score.

56:30 ↗ >> Yeah, I think I read it.

56:36 ↗ >> And I I think that's my bad. It's the

56:38 ↗ wording on the slide. I didn't pay close

56:40 ↗ enough attention to the way that I I got

56:42 ↗ that at the end. But I agree completely

56:45 ↗ with those comments and that it was my

56:47 ↗ intent. Anything

56:49 ↗ else?

56:50 ↗ >> Anything else?

56:54 ↗ >> Okay. I wanted to ask about our ability

56:57 ↗ to attract the transit that we want

57:01 ↗ since doesn't get to choose which bus

57:04 ↗ lines we get. For example,

57:06 ↗ uh Batman, there are decisions that are

57:09 ↗ made which and I I don't understand, but

57:13 ↗ I think they

57:15 ↗ might tell us they're not doing us a bus

57:17 ↗ because the bus will just be stop track

57:19 ↗ for example, right? I choose not to do a

57:22 ↗ route because they wouldn't have

57:24 ↗ reliable service to

57:28 ↗ um the metrics that we're choosing with

57:31 ↗ transit experience are those the same

57:33 ↗ ones that

57:35 ↗ Metro

57:37 ↗ Transit to serve industries. So that

57:42 ↗ first bullet is really the forecasted

57:45 ↗ travel times. That is what King County

57:48 ↗ Metro would look at when they were doing

57:50 ↗ a speed and reliability study, which

57:53 ↗ would be very similar to what you're

57:55 ↗ talking about, but some of what you were

57:57 ↗ asking is also on the last metric, which

57:59 ↗ is that forecasted. So, when you're

58:02 ↗ looking at attracting new transit, new

58:04 ↗ options, there's all these different

58:06 ↗ things that we want to look at whether

58:09 ↗ or not we're going to be able to get

58:12 ↗ enough people to stations and make that

58:14 ↗ viable, right? So I think that's I try

58:17 ↗ to cover that in the last one problem as

58:19 ↗ well.

58:20 ↗ >> Yeah. And I I suppose also existing

58:23 ↗ transit route experience you know might

58:25 ↗ also supplemented by the types of

58:28 ↗ transit routes that we want to attract

58:30 ↗ measure those

58:32 ↗ is that experience include as well.

58:35 ↗ >> Can you say that one more time?

58:36 ↗ >> Yeah. So if we if it was a particular

58:38 ↗ bus route that we wanted to see in this

58:41 ↗ we might include that in the metric. say

58:44 ↗ yes to say we also want that rout to

58:46 ↗ improve that track to track.

58:51 ↗ >> So one of the things

58:54 ↗ >> and I might have to discuss this with

58:56 ↗ Marina on the side too. The mobility

58:58 ↗ action plan does also have corridors for

59:01 ↗ transit is listed as a mobile priority

59:04 ↗ and that could be an additional measure

59:07 ↗ that gets added here that if it's

59:09 ↗ already there whether or not it has

59:11 ↗ transit identified then that's like a a

59:13 ↗ point towards it could improve it. I

59:15 ↗ think that's an easy way to add it is

59:17 ↗ yeah go back to the mobility action plan

59:20 ↗ and where we've already identified are

59:22 ↗ those routes we can make that more

59:26 ↗ quantitative that way

59:28 ↗ >> it's a great great idea

59:30 ↗ >> and I'll just add in the street

59:31 ↗ standards and this is for central squad

59:34 ↗ doesn't really apply outside of central

59:36 ↗ Esqua but I think that's also where we'd

59:38 ↗ be looking at transit most likely

59:40 ↗ because of the density we have it broken

59:43 ↗ out between core streets

59:46 ↗ which are meant for pedestrians,

59:48 ↗ bicycles and transit. We have parkways

59:50 ↗ which are meant for vehicles and

59:52 ↗ transit. And then we have slow streets

59:54 ↗ which are meant for pedestrians. And so

59:57 ↗ that's a lens that we can take a look at

59:59 ↗ it as thinking about how the street grid

1:00:02 ↗ in central will be developed over the

1:00:04 ↗ next 20 or so years.

1:00:08 ↗ Identif knowing which streets are poor

1:00:10 ↗ streets, which ones are parkways, which

1:00:12 ↗ ones

1:00:13 ↗ Yeah.

1:00:15 ↗ the different typologies and use that to

1:00:18 ↗ inform that evaluation.

1:00:21 ↗ And I will also add when you're

1:00:23 ↗ mentioning bicycles, that's another

1:00:25 ↗ place to look for because the course

1:00:27 ↗ rates are really where we want the

1:00:29 ↗ bicycle facilities. There's one other

1:00:31 ↗ place to look, but that's a a good way

1:00:34 ↗ to identify those corridors.

1:00:41 ↗ Any

1:00:41 ↗ >> comments from street six? Right.

1:00:47 ↗ All right. So, this is a big bucket

1:00:51 ↗ of stuff. Um it's whether or not it

1:00:54 ↗ helps you be future ready which again

1:00:57 ↗ that is a lot of things in the future

1:01:00 ↗ for

1:01:02 ↗ as well as policy alignment which is

1:01:04 ↗ talking about your mobility action plan

1:01:06 ↗ your street standards all of those

1:01:07 ↗ things that does this work along with

1:01:10 ↗ all the other planning documents that

1:01:11 ↗ all the transportation planners that

1:01:13 ↗ have helped you in the past help you

1:01:14 ↗ come up with right so all the work all

1:01:17 ↗ the input that you've done we want to

1:01:18 ↗ make sure that we're not going to come

1:01:20 ↗ through and do drop a single priming

1:01:22 ↗ technology that's going to sidipe all of

1:01:25 ↗ that, right? Okay. So,

1:01:30 ↗ looking at the measures here, we're

1:01:32 ↗ talking about we want to look at how

1:01:34 ↗ many signals are planned along these

1:01:37 ↗ corridors. If you're installing a bunch

1:01:38 ↗ of new signals along the corridors,

1:01:40 ↗ they're going to need a lot more timing

1:01:41 ↗ and they could be coordinated. I I feel

1:01:44 ↗ like this is one that say like, oh,

1:01:46 ↗ being future ready would mean let's get

1:01:49 ↗ some of these signals that are out there

1:01:50 ↗ today often ready to be undapted so that

1:01:53 ↗ as we bring new ones online and we can

1:01:55 ↗ bring people in and out that increases

1:01:58 ↗ your feasibility. um the likelihood of

1:02:02 ↗ serving light rail and this is a very

1:02:04 ↗ specific couple of corridors within the

1:02:07 ↗ city. But again, if we're able to have a

1:02:10 ↗ transit center or a light rail center,

1:02:11 ↗ you end up getting a lot of pedestrians.

1:02:13 ↗ You get a lot of uh bicyclist, you get

1:02:16 ↗ other vehicles driving to it as well as

1:02:18 ↗ the transit vehicles because of people

1:02:20 ↗ being dropped off or picked up or you

1:02:22 ↗ know your last mile and things like

1:02:24 ↗ that, right? So, you want to make sure

1:02:26 ↗ that this is this is going to help um

1:02:30 ↗ get people to and from those transit

1:02:33 ↗ hubs that are planned in the future,

1:02:35 ↗ however likely they might be. Um, and

1:02:38 ↗ again, if there's

1:02:41 ↗ a good likelihood of it, adaptive

1:02:44 ↗ signals are more feasible, I would say,

1:02:45 ↗ because they would allow you to be more

1:02:48 ↗ flexible in the future when it comes to

1:02:50 ↗ signal priming without having to

1:02:51 ↗ constantly go and update your plans and

1:02:54 ↗ update your plans and update your plans.

1:02:56 ↗ Um, okay. And then identify areas with

1:03:00 ↗ planned redevelopment or redevelopment

1:03:02 ↗ potential. The city's growing a lot. you

1:03:05 ↗ made a bunch of I think uh maybe it was

1:03:08 ↗ you Adam that mentioned all the housing

1:03:11 ↗ for pedestrian generators and things um

1:03:14 ↗ or Julian. Okay, great.

1:03:17 ↗ Um

1:03:19 ↗ there's a lot of that being developed

1:03:20 ↗ around and there's a lot of potential

1:03:22 ↗ for that development to happen in the

1:03:24 ↗ future. Right. So, Exactly. And we want

1:03:28 ↗ this to be supportive of that as you're

1:03:31 ↗ moving people in and out so that they

1:03:33 ↗ can get to work here, people can live

1:03:34 ↗ here and get to work in other cities,

1:03:37 ↗ however that case may be. Um,

1:03:41 ↗ so we want to identify if these are

1:03:43 ↗ areas that are going to redevelop or

1:03:45 ↗ could redevelop again that has

1:03:47 ↗ flexibility built into it. That could

1:03:49 ↗ mean new signals in the future, new

1:03:52 ↗ traffic patterns that we need to account

1:03:54 ↗ for. seems like that's higher in

1:03:57 ↗ phasibility. Um, and then of course

1:03:59 ↗ there's just the identified designated

1:04:02 ↗ uh routes for emergency evacuation. So

1:04:06 ↗ there are a couple of very limited I

1:04:08 ↗ would say routes out of Isiqua if there

1:04:11 ↗ was say a forest fire or a volcanic

1:04:14 ↗ eruption or an earthquake or whatever

1:04:16 ↗ the case may be. I would say those

1:04:18 ↗ routes have a higher ability for or

1:04:21 ↗ feasibility for um adaptive because it

1:04:24 ↗ can sense that oh everyone's leaving

1:04:26 ↗ let's just give green and there's no

1:04:28 ↗ side streets so let's just give green.

1:04:31 ↗ Um there's other ways of doing that too

1:04:32 ↗ but I feel like that's just a point we

1:04:34 ↗ can put into it and it's something to

1:04:36 ↗ consider.

1:04:37 ↗ I'm looking at this now and I feel like

1:04:40 ↗ we've got them through a number of other

1:04:42 ↗ plans as far as whether or not it's

1:04:44 ↗ consistent with the street standards and

1:04:46 ↗ and things, but I feel like that is

1:04:48 ↗ probably given the comments I've already

1:04:50 ↗ heard a missed bullet. So, I'm just

1:04:52 ↗ going to verbally add it and say that

1:04:55 ↗ I'm going to go back and and do that.

1:04:56 ↗ And but with that, I'll questions on the

1:05:00 ↗ phone.

1:05:02 ↗ on the fire evacuations that we look at

1:05:06 ↗ the types of adaptive planning that

1:05:10 ↗ other cities use for that. Do we see

1:05:13 ↗ anything that goes beyond the sort of or

1:05:17 ↗ aspect of increasing the cycle times or

1:05:20 ↗ increasing?

1:05:22 ↗ It's such a new

1:05:23 ↗ >> Does it fit into that that space of

1:05:28 ↗ things that we would do to support that

1:05:30 ↗ or or would be looking for other

1:05:32 ↗ emergency controls?

1:05:34 ↗ >> So what I hear so I work a lot with

1:05:37 ↗ Claimus County and in 2020 Placus County

1:05:40 ↗ which is just south of Portland huge

1:05:43 ↗ county the entire county was under an

1:05:45 ↗ evacuation order because of the forest

1:05:47 ↗ fires in Oregon. And what I heard from

1:05:50 ↗ them was their signal timing. They could

1:05:53 ↗ change their signals. So the traffic

1:05:55 ↗ engineer stayed behind and was changing

1:05:58 ↗ signal timings from his computer to get

1:06:00 ↗ people out of town faster. But it was

1:06:02 ↗ when they ran into other jurisdictions

1:06:05 ↗ where they couldn't control that. That's

1:06:08 ↗ where it was hard. So again, I think

1:06:10 ↗ there's some identifying that system

1:06:13 ↗ compatibility and who owns what signal

1:06:15 ↗ and what. There's some feasibility

1:06:17 ↗ issues that are going to be maybe

1:06:18 ↗ conflicting with that, but I would love

1:06:21 ↗ to think that an adaptive signal system

1:06:23 ↗ could do that without having to sit here

1:06:26 ↗ in city hall and do it. That would be

1:06:28 ↗ great.

1:06:31 ↗ I I do want to add one thing though.

1:06:34 ↗ Evacuation center, an emergency. There's

1:06:37 ↗ yeah the example that Chris was talking

1:06:39 ↗ about where it's everyone has to go but

1:06:41 ↗ a likely scenario is okay everyone has

1:06:44 ↗ to leave by this time and then what you

1:06:47 ↗ end up having happen happening is some

1:06:50 ↗ people are going immediately some people

1:06:52 ↗ are going to their homes and yeah so

1:06:55 ↗ it's not a simple

1:06:58 ↗ thing

1:07:01 ↗ >> yeah so I think the the core question

1:07:03 ↗ was is the

1:07:06 ↗ mechanism, the adaptive mechanism

1:07:09 ↗ sufficient to cover the species as well.

1:07:12 ↗ >> Not alone. And and I think it's just a

1:07:15 ↗ new it's a new area that not a lot of

1:07:18 ↗ agencies have

1:07:22 ↗ experience or preparations for. It's

1:07:25 ↗ something that the

1:07:28 ↗ industry in my field is learning and

1:07:31 ↗ working on right now. And we've learned

1:07:33 ↗ a lot from California, especially last

1:07:35 ↗ summer.

1:07:36 ↗ um virus

1:07:40 ↗ and we're adapting um right now and this

1:07:43 ↗ is one to that we have sort of pointed

1:07:46 ↗ to as this is this is great. The other

1:07:48 ↗ tool is flexibility and infrastructure.

1:07:51 ↗ Um, when we talk about pedestrian spaces

1:07:54 ↗ in Seattle, we talk about them as also

1:07:57 ↗ like emergency

1:07:59 ↗ centers so that if you need a place to

1:08:01 ↗ deploy so that you can hand out water or

1:08:04 ↗ you can put up like field tents for

1:08:07 ↗ people who need bre, you know, breathing

1:08:09 ↗ treatments during a volcanic eruption.

1:08:12 ↗ you could do that in your people's

1:08:13 ↗ streets without interrupting a bunch of

1:08:16 ↗ other emergency travel in and out during

1:08:18 ↗ that time, right? So, there's some

1:08:20 ↗ flexibility built into the system.

1:08:22 ↗ That's been the other big part. But I

1:08:24 ↗ feel like that's maybe getting a little

1:08:26 ↗ off the single topic and I love to talk

1:08:29 ↗ about it, but

1:08:31 ↗ >> yeah, it's certainly a big topic for

1:08:32 ↗ this.

1:08:35 ↗ >> We did do an evacuation study as part of

1:08:38 ↗ the emergency management.

1:08:42 ↗ So, I see if I can find a link to send

1:08:46 ↗ that way people can have a good time

1:08:48 ↗ falling asleep reading it.

1:08:54 ↗ >> That was a really good conversation.

1:08:57 ↗ Um well I guess I more situational

1:09:01 ↗ question about the policy and like where

1:09:04 ↗ imagine that like when it comes to this

1:09:06 ↗ policy we're and I think it goes to like

1:09:09 ↗ the citywide and you know particular

1:09:11 ↗ when it comes to weighing of this like

1:09:13 ↗ do we particular on case by case or

1:09:16 ↗ citywide it's um

1:09:19 ↗ because we are trying to you know as

1:09:21 ↗ this you know seventh metric is like

1:09:24 ↗ saying we're trying to make this future

1:09:27 ↗ uh you know feasibility uh you know

1:09:30 ↗ policy and so um

1:09:33 ↗ because it is we are trying to make it

1:09:35 ↗ forward facing should we think about

1:09:38 ↗ actually I was originally think you know

1:09:40 ↗ we would we should make this a

1:09:42 ↗ you know corridor by corridor that's

1:09:44 ↗ what I thought was a pretty good idea at

1:09:46 ↗ first but now I'm thinking like should

1:09:48 ↗ we make a citywide weighing to kind of

1:09:52 ↗ dictate you know what we'd like to see

1:09:54 ↗ in the future across across the entire,

1:09:56 ↗ you know, particularly for the central

1:09:58 ↗ area in the valley and and all the

1:10:01 ↗ arterials here. Um because in the

1:10:03 ↗ future, we would like to see this

1:10:05 ↗ amount, you know, this weighing is is

1:10:10 ↗ what we're trying to say as a policy

1:10:12 ↗ statement. We want

1:10:14 ↗ it this area to be more uh you know have

1:10:18 ↗ more amenities for or more amutable to

1:10:21 ↗ transit riders and um pedestrians bikes.

1:10:25 ↗ And so that's my

1:10:28 ↗ situational question about this policy

1:10:30 ↗ or this this you know operational

1:10:32 ↗ outcomes weighing um and and the overall

1:10:36 ↗ alignment with metric 7. Right. So, I'm

1:10:39 ↗ going to argue with myself and then

1:10:41 ↗ throw the question back at you and see

1:10:42 ↗ if I can I I would like to actually get

1:10:45 ↗ you all you all of your opinion on that.

1:10:47 ↗ If you think that we should go quarter

1:10:49 ↗ by quarter, just do these citywide, I'm

1:10:52 ↗ open. So, one way to look at this

1:10:54 ↗ citywide is is metric 7 a past fail. If

1:10:59 ↗ adaptive signal control is just not

1:11:02 ↗ future ready or within the policy

1:11:04 ↗ alignment, fail.

1:11:06 ↗ Not, let's not do it. The other thing to

1:11:09 ↗ think about though is that are every

1:11:11 ↗ single corridor that we're evaluating

1:11:13 ↗ these on an evacu an evacuation

1:11:15 ↗ arterial. They're not. Not every single

1:11:18 ↗ one of these is an evacuation arterial.

1:11:20 ↗ So, we don't necessarily want to apply

1:11:22 ↗ every single one of sort of the sub

1:11:24 ↗ measures under the metric car blanc.

1:11:28 ↗ But either of those approaches, I think,

1:11:32 ↗ is a reasonable approach to the analysis

1:11:34 ↗ and defendable. So what would you all

1:11:37 ↗ like to see

1:11:41 ↗ >> or are we are talking more about like

1:11:44 ↗ the met all of the outcomes?

1:11:46 ↗ >> This is my last metric.

1:11:48 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:11:48 ↗ >> I was going to hand it back off, but

1:11:50 ↗ this is also like I would love to have

1:11:53 ↗ the conversation with you all and what

1:11:55 ↗ you think.

1:11:57 ↗ >> So I I think this is kind of where we

1:11:59 ↗ talk about investment,

1:12:01 ↗ right? So as we the next five years

1:12:05 ↗ improve our investment by just

1:12:06 ↗ improvements to maybe not spending as

1:12:10 ↗ much time on traffic or something like

1:12:12 ↗ that then our horizon is kind of five

1:12:14 ↗ years

1:12:16 ↗ future stuff beyond that yeah maybe it's

1:12:18 ↗ not perfectly aligned but we've already

1:12:21 ↗ investment so it was a good investment

1:12:24 ↗ that's kind of the way that I think

1:12:25 ↗ about it

1:12:28 ↗ so I think a lot of that can be done

1:12:29 ↗ corridor by corridor

1:12:32 ↗ If we find that it's difficult to

1:12:35 ↗ justify the investment maybe then we

1:12:37 ↗ probably

1:12:38 ↗ look at

1:12:40 ↗ what's the potential to do beyond the

1:12:44 ↗ corridor

1:12:46 ↗ decomposition problem.

1:12:47 ↗ >> When you say the investment you mean the

1:12:50 ↗ cost bearing to get to that?

1:12:54 ↗ >> Yeah. Assume for a minute that we can

1:12:55 ↗ bring this down to a dollar cost.

1:12:58 ↗ It's a little more complex because as

1:13:01 ↗ time involved alternatives.

1:13:04 ↗ >> So,

1:13:05 ↗ >> so incorporating this, how does that get

1:13:08 ↗ incorporated into a city municipal code

1:13:10 ↗ and becomes like

1:13:13 ↗ a requirement and then you can

1:13:16 ↗ get future developers to adapt to that.

1:13:22 ↗ >> So, there's a couple of things. Um,

1:13:26 ↗ first of all, the

1:13:28 ↗ if we were to go on adaptive, I think

1:13:31 ↗ the city would probably adopt an

1:13:33 ↗ adaptive signal plan, saying these

1:13:35 ↗ corridors are adaptive. And then

1:13:38 ↗ something John and I have talked about

1:13:40 ↗ are just putting together standards for

1:13:43 ↗ what signals are required to have and if

1:13:46 ↗ it is on that adaptive signal planning,

1:13:49 ↗ then you would have to build to that

1:13:52 ↗ standard. So when a new development

1:13:54 ↗ comes in, they're required if they are

1:13:57 ↗ going to be required to do sort of

1:13:59 ↗ off-site improvements, they would have

1:14:01 ↗ to build them to that city standard. Um

1:14:04 ↗ I think city of this what has an impact

1:14:06 ↗ fee program and also looking at this

1:14:08 ↗ when you update that again if you if we

1:14:11 ↗ find this is feasible look at all those

1:14:13 ↗ costs of what it's going to be and that

1:14:14 ↗ would get that would end up getting

1:14:15 ↗ wrapped into the impact fee program so

1:14:17 ↗ that it has developed they would be

1:14:19 ↗ paying into the fund that would then

1:14:21 ↗ deploy those improvements into the

1:14:23 ↗ future including new signals that are in

1:14:25 ↗ the plan today that would now need to be

1:14:27 ↗ adaptive and the additional costs for

1:14:29 ↗ that reducing that barrier to that

1:14:32 ↗ invest ment with that problem and you

1:14:35 ↗ push it on the other party to stick to

1:14:39 ↗ that standard.

1:14:40 ↗ >> It's a yes and no.

1:14:43 ↗ >> So I think this would be a very much a a

1:14:46 ↗ council

1:14:48 ↗ policy decision because the council on

1:14:50 ↗ one hand is saying let's make it easier

1:14:53 ↗ for housing developments to happen

1:14:56 ↗ because we need more housing in this

1:14:58 ↗ fund. So then if we were to then put

1:15:00 ↗ extra costs on development and say, "Oh,

1:15:04 ↗ if you want to build this 400 unit

1:15:06 ↗ apartment complex, you need to spend an

1:15:07 ↗ extra $200,000 on signal equipment and

1:15:12 ↗ competing goals." So it's

1:15:14 ↗ it's a lot to unwrap.

1:15:16 ↗ >> Kind of look at it a slightly different

1:15:18 ↗ way, which is that a lot of what we're

1:15:20 ↗ trying to do here is to make the network

1:15:23 ↗ more efficient. So get more out of

1:15:25 ↗ network for particular cost. Um there's

1:15:28 ↗ a discretization of that like we have to

1:15:31 ↗ make chunks of investment to do it but

1:15:34 ↗ ultimately we talk about increasing

1:15:36 ↗ throughput which is necessary to for new

1:15:40 ↗ development to come in and build

1:15:42 ↗ what we're doing with this ought to

1:15:44 ↗ reduce the costs of increasing through

1:15:47 ↗ because it's a better technology.

1:15:50 ↗ So if we do it right, make the the right

1:15:53 ↗ choices here, it automate

1:15:56 ↗ the impact the developers,

1:16:00 ↗ but that's maybe easier said than done

1:16:03 ↗ in the sense that uh

1:16:06 ↗ we we need to really calculate that

1:16:08 ↗ future news as a potential metric.

1:16:12 ↗ I think that the piece that's almost

1:16:14 ↗ impossible to quantify as well is you're

1:16:18 ↗ the whole reason why I'm here, why we

1:16:20 ↗ ask a question is to see if we can make

1:16:23 ↗ this an even more desirable location for

1:16:26 ↗ people to want to own a business,

1:16:28 ↗ operate a business, to have a home and

1:16:32 ↗ travel to and from, right? So, can

1:16:35 ↗ adaptive signals and so this is now I'm

1:16:38 ↗ like at 30,000 ft. Can the adaptive

1:16:41 ↗ signal control technology make Isqua a

1:16:43 ↗ more desirable place overall? Even

1:16:47 ↗ though maybe developers have to pay more

1:16:49 ↗ to develop here, they have to pay a lot

1:16:51 ↗ to develop in Seattle. They have to pay

1:16:52 ↗ a lot to develop in Belleview, but all

1:16:55 ↗ the cities in this region are investing

1:16:57 ↗ in themselves in order to make them more

1:16:59 ↗ desirable for that development and for

1:17:01 ↗ the people who live there now. Right?

1:17:03 ↗ So, that's a bigger question overall.

1:17:06 ↗ And I think I mean I'm trying to get at

1:17:09 ↗ some of those things with these metrics,

1:17:11 ↗ but that's a really esoteric thing to

1:17:13 ↗ measure and I'm just an engineer.

1:17:17 ↗ Um I mean I guess um you know I guess

1:17:21 ↗ like the big thing that you'd be that

1:17:24 ↗ we're going to be considering in the

1:17:26 ↗ future and I think it's most relevant

1:17:27 ↗ for us is just like thinking about this

1:17:30 ↗ idea of weighing you know metric four

1:17:34 ↗ five and six seven um and I feel like

1:17:41 ↗ I'm not sure I understand quite yet like

1:17:43 ↗ what the trade-offs are when it comes

1:17:45 ↗ to, you know,

1:17:48 ↗ uh,

1:17:50 ↗ evaluating these on a case by case

1:17:52 ↗ versus a citywide. Like if we were to do

1:17:55 ↗ we were to weigh it more transit rider

1:17:58 ↗ experience and pedestrian bicycle

1:18:00 ↗ experience um, and you know reduce the

1:18:04 ↗ weighing for driver experience. What

1:18:06 ↗ does that mean in terms of versus the

1:18:10 ↗ other option option option two of

1:18:14 ↗ overweighing private experience at the

1:18:16 ↗ cost of the other two? Um and so like

1:18:19 ↗ what does that what do we lose? What do

1:18:21 ↗ we gain from those two things? And and I

1:18:25 ↗ guess does improve transit rider

1:18:28 ↗ experience and improve pedestrian

1:18:30 ↗ bicycle experience weighing those above

1:18:32 ↗ the driver experiences that mean more

1:18:34 ↗ precautionary overall for adapting

1:18:37 ↗ adaptive signalology.

1:18:40 ↗ The the more you talk about it, the more

1:18:42 ↗ I'm sort of realizing that what we're

1:18:43 ↗ just talking about is fidelity, right?

1:18:45 ↗ So, if we didn't weigh these citywide

1:18:49 ↗ and we weigh them all corridor specific,

1:18:52 ↗ that just means that we could go through

1:18:54 ↗ every corridor and literally decide

1:18:58 ↗ corridor by corridor the weight on every

1:19:00 ↗ metric is the same and end up with the

1:19:03 ↗ citywide being the default. What I think

1:19:05 ↗ is going to happen is that we're going

1:19:06 ↗ to go through there, we're going to see

1:19:08 ↗ some minute differences, but not a lot.

1:19:11 ↗ Um, and

1:19:15 ↗ it's already 7:30. I say we can I I

1:19:20 ↗ it might be worth us, you know, at least

1:19:22 ↗ getting back to the tab with sort of

1:19:24 ↗ those weights and seeing where we fall

1:19:27 ↗ on that um in the future. And I think

1:19:30 ↗ that there was a a plan to come back

1:19:32 ↗ with the sort of pre-final methods and

1:19:36 ↗ assumptions document and things before

1:19:38 ↗ we went to our next I think it's the

1:19:40 ↗ next meetings to council, but maybe

1:19:42 ↗ that's in the next steps that you'll

1:19:44 ↗ cover too, right? Um

1:19:47 ↗ >> so yeah, originally we were going to um

1:19:51 ↗ after this meeting go to mobility

1:19:53 ↗ structure next in June. Um, but I mean

1:19:59 ↗ it seems like it might be worth coming

1:20:01 ↗ here again to talk about waiting more

1:20:03 ↗ specifically. It seems like that's a

1:20:05 ↗ worthwhile discussion. So

1:20:07 ↗ >> now we'll be here next.

1:20:10 ↗ >> It depends on what you guys are

1:20:12 ↗ thinking.

1:20:15 ↗ >> I was just going to say that um I would

1:20:18 ↗ say doing it by corridor makes more

1:20:20 ↗ sense to me just because of the unique

1:20:22 ↗ layout of Isqua. I'm not sure it's

1:20:24 ↗ common in every cities of just you know

1:20:27 ↗ creeks and lakes and hills and you know

1:20:30 ↗ all of the things all of the variables.

1:20:33 ↗ So because of that I would lean towards

1:20:36 ↗ order.

1:20:37 ↗ >> One thing I add to that is it makes more

1:20:39 ↗ sense for first almost I would say six

1:20:42 ↗ metrics to do a quarter by quarter just

1:20:44 ↗ because how specific they are. But I do

1:20:46 ↗ agree that the seventh metrics more in

1:20:48 ↗ particular to be like if you're looking

1:20:50 ↗ at future policies, it makes more sense

1:20:52 ↗ for that to be in line with the citywide

1:20:54 ↗ policy on what what that future looks

1:20:56 ↗ like. But I would say for the first six

1:20:58 ↗ metrics, at least in my mind, it makes a

1:21:01 ↗ lot more sense to look at that basis.

1:21:08 ↗ >> So in terms of scoring exercise, I think

1:21:11 ↗ last last meeting talked about

1:21:15 ↗ improvement

1:21:18 ↗ and

1:21:19 ↗ basically going through a score exercise

1:21:22 ↗ and I personally am absolutely in favor

1:21:25 ↗ of even if it's it's you know a

1:21:28 ↗ simplified fictitious version of it

1:21:30 ↗ getting down to the point of of like we

1:21:32 ↗ can workshop a scoring exercise with you

1:21:34 ↗ and that makes things really concrete

1:21:37 ↗ you can get better feedback from the tab

1:21:40 ↗ doing something like that

1:21:42 ↗ so I'm I'm in favor

1:21:45 ↗ exercise

1:21:47 ↗ if it's useful to

1:21:49 ↗ >> I'd love to do it. Yeah. So it it comes

1:21:51 ↗ down to well I think there's a couple

1:21:54 ↗ questions. One looking at schedule for

1:21:58 ↗ this team in this project and also for

1:22:00 ↗ the tab work plan and I don't have those

1:22:02 ↗ in front of me. So yeah I don't want to

1:22:04 ↗ promise

1:22:06 ↗ >> until I look at those

1:22:08 ↗ talk to the appropriate people.

1:22:14 ↗ Worst case scenario, I will send some

1:22:16 ↗ information through that Marina can

1:22:19 ↗ share so you guys can see and do some

1:22:22 ↗ homework and send your comments directly

1:22:24 ↗ to me that way.

1:22:27 ↗ But I like being here so if there's time

1:22:29 ↗ be terrible.

1:22:31 ↗ So

1:22:34 ↗ >> I guess like um

1:22:39 ↗ like I guess you'll talk about um the

1:22:42 ↗ next steps but you know what you got

1:22:45 ↗ from us today and

1:22:47 ↗ anything else.

1:22:49 ↗ Yeah.

1:22:51 ↗ >> Yeah. So I mean um yeah you can see our

1:22:54 ↗ next steps on the agenda here on the

1:22:57 ↗ presentation. So we this is our second

1:23:00 ↗ meeting going over the goals and metrics

1:23:03 ↗ and measures for the study for phase

1:23:05 ↗ one. Uh the plan was after this is to

1:23:08 ↗ take the comments we received here and

1:23:10 ↗ then um present those metrics and goals

1:23:13 ↗ to the mobility infrastructure committee

1:23:15 ↗ if comment as well um and have some

1:23:18 ↗ discussion on waiting with them too. So,

1:23:22 ↗ um, that's kind of our plan at the

1:23:24 ↗ moment and I think we're going to talk

1:23:27 ↗ internally too to see if they meet again

1:23:31 ↗ before that mobility structure.

1:23:37 ↗ And then that would conclude um the end

1:23:39 ↗ of phase one will be the high high level

1:23:42 ↗ screening for the corridors and then we

1:23:44 ↗ would move into then phase two which

1:23:46 ↗ would be getting into more of the

1:23:48 ↗ details um and and like we've talked

1:23:51 ↗ about today a little bit

1:23:54 ↗ of each corridor and the feasibility of

1:23:56 ↗ adaptive or other technologies too.

1:24:01 ↗ All right. Thanks, Marina and Chris.

1:24:04 ↗ Appreciate the presentation. You have

1:24:06 ↗ everything you need from us for the time

1:24:08 ↗ being.

1:24:10 ↗ >> That's great.

1:24:12 ↗ >> Okay. Well, then we'll move on to the

1:24:14 ↗ next item on the agenda, which is

1:24:15 ↗ reports.

1:24:18 ↗ So,

1:24:21 ↗ we have things covered.

1:24:25 ↗ And do you have a report?

1:24:26 ↗ >> Uh, just super quick. Um

1:24:30 ↗ the uh the last time we met we talked

1:24:34 ↗ about the TI the transportation

1:24:36 ↗ improvement plan that went to the

1:24:39 ↗ environmental board. They provided a bit

1:24:41 ↗ more feedback mostly around uh bike ped

1:24:46 ↗ improvements and had a lot of questions

1:24:47 ↗ about that. Making sure that the tip

1:24:50 ↗ included a lot of uh a good mix of

1:24:53 ↗ projects to address bicycle and

1:24:56 ↗ pedestrian needs. And that goes to

1:24:58 ↗ mobility infrastructure committee next

1:25:00 ↗ month.

1:25:02 ↗ Um, and that's about it. I would say

1:25:06 ↗ stay tuned for more work on Sound

1:25:08 ↗ Transit. We're getting a better idea of

1:25:10 ↗ what the plan is going to be for future

1:25:12 ↗ light rail in Isiqua. Um, I'm going to

1:25:15 ↗ be sending out an email uh next week.

1:25:19 ↗ Uh, we're going to be having a rally. I

1:25:22 ↗ need to officially book the rally, so

1:25:23 ↗ stay tuned for the dates. um once we get

1:25:26 ↗ more information. May 7th is the exec uh

1:25:29 ↗ committee meeting for the Sound Transit

1:25:31 ↗ Board and they're going to be coming out

1:25:33 ↗ with the ST3 plan update at that May 7th

1:25:37 ↗ meeting. And so that's when we'll find

1:25:39 ↗ out um what the Sound Transit proposal

1:25:43 ↗ is for is light rail as part of ST3. And

1:25:48 ↗ um we would uh likely like to get a lot

1:25:51 ↗ of people there for public comment just

1:25:53 ↗ to support light rail and Isiqua. And um

1:25:57 ↗ we're going to be having a little uh

1:25:58 ↗ meeting, public meeting as soon as we

1:26:01 ↗ hear more from Sound Transit, their

1:26:02 ↗ official word. So likely the week of the

1:26:05 ↗ board meeting because the packet will be

1:26:06 ↗ out and published at that time. and then

1:26:09 ↗ we can make sure the community is

1:26:10 ↗ educated on what Sound Transit is

1:26:12 ↗ proposing and help involve folks in

1:26:15 ↗ shaping the future of transit and so

1:26:18 ↗ that's kind of the plan for Sound

1:26:19 ↗ Transit and light rail. Um so stay tuned

1:26:22 ↗ that first week of May. Uh like I said

1:26:24 ↗ May 7th is the exact board meeting and

1:26:27 ↗ we'll be having a meeting um potentially

1:26:29 ↗ the Tuesday before that. I need to check

1:26:32 ↗ out venues and solidified times, but it

1:26:35 ↗ would likely be May Cinco de Mayo. Um,

1:26:40 ↗ so stay tuned. I'll send out an email uh

1:26:42 ↗ to everybody inviting you. But that's

1:26:44 ↗ what we have happening for Sound Transit

1:26:46 ↗ and Light Rail. And that's it for me.

1:26:49 ↗ >> Brick some margaritas.

1:26:51 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Tacos. Taco Tuesday.

1:26:54 ↗ >> Yeah. White rail is in my opinion so

1:26:57 ↗ important the future development

1:26:59 ↗ supplies to be able to efficient

1:27:01 ↗ transportation infrastructure and build

1:27:04 ↗ the homes that so many people are

1:27:06 ↗ underneath.

1:27:09 ↗ So looking forward to that.

1:27:12 ↗ Um

1:27:14 ↗ so on the the chair report we got a

1:27:18 ↗ couple items of business. One is I

1:27:20 ↗ wanted to quickly summarize I had a

1:27:22 ↗ meeting with John Wilson to talk about

1:27:25 ↗ uh basically follow up from the uh

1:27:29 ↗ Newport extra lane. We talked about that

1:27:31 ↗ the kind of trade-off between

1:27:33 ↗ environmental costs and

1:27:36 ↗ friendliness to nonvehicle

1:27:39 ↗ uh versus

1:27:41 ↗ you know maintaining our requirements

1:27:43 ↗ for level of service for various

1:27:45 ↗ intersections around. So, we dug into

1:27:47 ↗ the details. John's friendly enough to

1:27:49 ↗ to prepare some good uh drawings and

1:27:52 ↗ show me some of the tools for

1:27:54 ↗ simulation. So, I really appreciated

1:27:56 ↗ that. I still have pretty big gap in my

1:27:59 ↗ knowledge of how all these things match.

1:28:01 ↗ Uh but we're going to continue to follow

1:28:02 ↗ up on that. Um I think you know

1:28:05 ↗ potentially this is one of the places

1:28:07 ↗ where

1:28:09 ↗ the metrics that we're using and the

1:28:11 ↗ discretization to levels of service

1:28:13 ↗ might uh might make it a little more

1:28:16 ↗ difficult to do that trade uh

1:28:18 ↗ discussion. So, I want to continue to

1:28:19 ↗ dig a little bit

1:28:22 ↗ Johnson to me stealing a bit more of his

1:28:25 ↗ time on that and then hopefully we can

1:28:28 ↗ make sure council has all all the right

1:28:30 ↗ information decisions.

1:28:36 ↗ Um, so the other item of business is as

1:28:40 ↗ as we mentioned earlier, Erica is no

1:28:44 ↗ longer chair of advisory board. uh which

1:28:48 ↗ leaves us without a a chair current. I'm

1:28:51 ↗ certainly willing to act as acting

1:28:53 ↗ chair. Um but first of all, it would be

1:28:57 ↗ nice to have uh two people chair and

1:29:00 ↗ vice chair just for handling

1:29:05 ↗ any any gaps and availability

1:29:07 ↗ speaking of which I will not be

1:29:08 ↗ available for the July meeting. We will

1:29:11 ↗ be without a chair and a vice chair

1:29:14 ↗ unless we have a special election. So

1:29:18 ↗ what I'd like to discuss is whether you

1:29:21 ↗ agree to reasonable for us election for

1:29:25 ↗ an interim chair and vice chair at the

1:29:27 ↗ next meeting. Uh so people would

1:29:31 ↗ nominate and then elect at the next

1:29:34 ↗ meeting for a chair and vice chair uh to

1:29:38 ↗ cover the interim between

1:29:41 ↗ uh basically now and the September

1:29:44 ↗ schedule of election the chair.

1:29:47 ↗ We scheduled the election in September

1:29:49 ↗ because uh we want new members who are

1:29:52 ↗ going to show up at the next meeting to

1:29:54 ↗ get to know other members of

1:29:57 ↗ so they can make an informed decision on

1:30:00 ↗ electing a new chair next chair. Uh so

1:30:03 ↗ that's why we propose that it's just an

1:30:05 ↗ interim election rather rescheduled

1:30:07 ↗ September election.

1:30:10 ↗ So we'll throw that out for discussion.

1:30:12 ↗ Any thoughts?

1:30:16 ↗ >> Thumbs up

1:30:18 ↗ in favor.

1:30:21 ↗ >> So if we're happy with that then

1:30:24 ↗ essentially at the next meeting the

1:30:27 ↗ election. If you're interested, it need

1:30:30 ↗ chair vice chair after the interim just

1:30:32 ↗ for the interim period. No commitment to

1:30:34 ↗ do it after that. So we need to continue

1:30:38 ↗ chair question.

1:30:40 ↗ Um

1:30:42 ↗ make it known I think to Andrea that be

1:30:44 ↗ interested in that

1:30:47 ↗ make sure the nominations reflect that.

1:30:53 ↗ Okay.

1:30:55 ↗ So, I think that's all we have to say

1:30:57 ↗ about that.

1:31:00 ↗ Someone's plan on holding the inter

1:31:02 ↗ collection at the next meeting.

1:31:07 ↗ Uh, all right. So, next on the agenda,

1:31:10 ↗ other business and announcements. Do we

1:31:12 ↗ have any other business announcements?

1:31:19 ↗ >> Okay. Uh well

1:31:23 ↗ that we will turn the meeting at 7:34.

1:31:27 ↗ Thanks everybody for participation

1:31:29 ↗ today.

1:31:31 ↗ Great discussion as usual.

1:31:39 ↗ I didn't realize

1:31:54 ↗ >> although my notes were not as detailed

1:31:57 ↗ as they normally would have taken

1:32:00 ↗ detailed but just a summary of what

1:32:02 ↗ you've heard. I have somebody who said I

1:32:03 ↗ think maybe

1:32:07 ↗ >> you can compile I can put the

1:32:10 ↗ >> thank you

1:32:13 ↗ because you know you know write it down

1:32:15 ↗ I'm always distracted if I try to write

1:32:17 ↗ things right

1:32:19 ↗ >> I will go home and take and what I heard

1:32:24 ↗ >> okay

1:32:31 ↗ >> it was actually one where normally I

1:32:33 ↗ would have taken way more notes, but I

1:32:34 ↗ was just listening and not

1:32:41 ↗ >> and I think some of it it'll be easier

1:32:43 ↗ to just watch the video and it's

1:32:46 ↗ >> because there are a lot of a lot of uh

1:32:50 ↗ answers

1:32:52 ↗ but just I have some kind of feedback

1:32:54 ↗ but I just want to make sure that I'm

1:32:56 ↗ including

1:32:57 ↗ >> there are a few specific feedback points

1:33:00 ↗ that like oh I need to add these plans

1:33:02 ↗ into this.

1:33:04 ↗ >> Those things in particular, that's what

1:33:06 ↗ I

1:33:07 ↗ don't mean all of the conversation, just

1:33:09 ↗ the the changes and the major points of

1:33:12 ↗ feedback.

1:33:14 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:33:21 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you. You

1:33:33 ↗ on the third

1:33:37 ↗ time our system for whatever

1:33:40 ↗ I'm not a friend

1:33:50 ↗ priority.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.