Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, May 28, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 22, 2026

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:34 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Transportation Advisory Board - Special Meeting - May 28 2026 - Html Split-screen / Notes Video AGENDA Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM - Thursday, May 28, 2026 Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. NW, Issaquah Page SPECIAL MEETING This agenda serves as the special meeting notice pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. Join the meeting in-person at the address above, or virtually using the following options: Join by Computer  Microsoft Teams meeting link  Meeting ID: 264 105 134 765 07  Passcode: YU7oA9ag Join by Phone  Call 1-206-485-0299, enter phone conference ID: 599 021 711# If planning to make verbal comments, please email Andrea Lehner at [email protected] . Submit written comments to [email protected] . A recording of the meeting will be posted to the City’s YouTube channel: issaquahwa.gov/youtube . 1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6:05 PM 3 - 4 a) Minutes of April 22,…

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Welcome New Members

Information

▶ Watch from 3:32

Chair and Vice Chair Elections

Action · packet pp.5–32

▶ Watch from 38:37 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Adaptive Signal Control Study

Discussion

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:13:42

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

2722 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board meeting to

0:04 ↗ order at 6:01 p.m. Uh, let's see.

0:08 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:10 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board is in

0:12 ↗ person, but staff are members of the

0:13 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:15 ↗ person. Uh, John Mortonson will be

0:18 ↗ filling in as staff liaison tonight. Um,

0:21 ↗ staff, do we have a quorum? Yes,

0:24 ↗ >> almost certainly with all haven't seen

0:27 ↗ this many people at an advisory board

0:28 ↗ meeting in a while. All right. Uh so our

0:32 ↗ first item of business uh is to take

0:34 ↗ action to approve the minutes for the

0:37 ↗ April 22nd tab meeting. Uh are there any

0:41 ↗ corrections?

0:42 ↗ >> I wasn't there and I'm listed as being

0:45 ↗ there and not being there.

0:47 ↗ >> Okay,

0:47 ↗ >> that's all.

0:51 ↗ Uh any other corrections to the minutes?

0:55 ↗ No. Okay. Uh

0:59 ↗ so I

1:02 ↗ if there are no objections, I will

1:04 ↗ proceed to consider the minutes as

1:07 ↗ amended.

1:12 ↗ So the next item of business is public

1:15 ↗ comment. Uh staff, has anyone signed up

1:17 ↗ to make public comments?

1:22 ↗ No, I'm John. Sorry. I did want to make

1:24 ↗ one.

1:25 ↗ >> Oh, yes. Yeah. So, my name is Mario

1:28 ↗ Cole. I'm a new uh alternate member of

1:30 ↗ the TAB.

1:31 ↗ >> Welcome.

1:32 ↗ >> But yeah, I did have one comment that I

1:34 ↗ did want to make to the TAB. Uh that

1:36 ↗ inspired me to join, which is near

1:38 ↗ parks. There's typically a lot of

1:40 ↗ congestion in some of the project

1:42 ↗ corridors we're actually looking at. get

1:44 ↗ backed up. Especially Front Street when

1:45 ↗ it narrows down to one lane, diverting

1:47 ↗ traffic off onto, you know, Collectors

1:50 ↗ or side streets. Um, one in particular

1:52 ↗ I'm concerned about is Reneer Street

1:54 ↗ near um, Confluence Park. There's a lot

1:58 ↗ of traffic that gets steered off of

2:00 ↗ Front Street due to that oneway turn

2:02 ↗ that you're forced down and people tend

2:04 ↗ to skip around all the back back up on

2:06 ↗ Front Street. Uh, and there's a lot of

2:09 ↗ families and parks. There's also the

2:10 ↗ East Lake Trail running by, a lot of

2:11 ↗ pedestrian traffic. So, I just wanted to

2:13 ↗ encourage any sort of projects that

2:15 ↗ might help calm traffic on streets like

2:17 ↗ that that neighbor parks or experience a

2:20 ↗ lot of I guess shortcut traffic around

2:23 ↗ traffic jams. So, that was the one thing

2:26 ↗ I had to mention though. Yeah,

2:29 ↗ appreciate any help.

2:30 ↗ >> Thanks, Mar. Just just as a point of

2:33 ↗ order, the uh in every meeting from for

2:36 ↗ board member van alternates, you're

2:38 ↗ welcome to make uh comments at the

2:40 ↗ meeting as well. will have a section

2:41 ↗ dedicated towards that. So certainly we

2:44 ↗ welcome your

2:44 ↗ >> yeah input.

2:46 ↗ >> Um also I think for all the new members

2:49 ↗ we're going to have lots of training

2:51 ↗ lots of uh bringing up to speed on what

2:53 ↗ the various uh sort of annual and

2:56 ↗ bannual processes that we go through

2:58 ↗ are. Some of those are looking at things

3:01 ↗ like the um the trip transportation

3:05 ↗ improvement project,

3:07 ↗ the tip and the the capital improvement.

3:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:12 ↗ >> And so those are regular processes that

3:14 ↗ we look at and make comments on as well.

3:16 ↗ >> Uh so hopefully you'll find that there

3:18 ↗ are some additional opportunities.

3:20 ↗ >> That was my plan regardless of getting

3:22 ↗ on the board. So

3:24 ↗ make that comment. I don't know. But

3:26 ↗ yeah, it's um I'm happy to be here. Sure

3:29 ↗ is concerned. Yeah.

3:31 ↗ >> All right. So, with that, let's move on

3:32 ↗ to regular business. Uh so,

3:36 ↗ excitement of regular business is

3:37 ↗ welcoming new members.

3:40 ↗ So, we've we've had a little bit of a

3:42 ↗ shuffle here, but that's Let me see if I

3:43 ↗ can keep up with it. Uh so, we have a

3:45 ↗ number of new members tonight. Uh

3:47 ↗ Mario's joining as an alternate. Uh

3:50 ↗ we've also got uh Tessa Harvey joining

3:53 ↗ as a regular member. Uh we've got Dave

3:56 ↗ Wilkinson who's joining as a regular

3:58 ↗ member I believe.

3:59 ↗ >> Fairly

4:01 ↗ surprised right now.

4:04 ↗ >> Uh we got Masalunis who is joining as an

4:07 ↗ alternate

4:09 ↗ and Alli Morton was uh promoted from

4:14 ↗ Paper.

4:16 ↗ Congratulations everybody. Um I want to

4:20 ↗ first say regardless of whether you're

4:22 ↗ an alternate or regular member,

4:23 ↗ everybody's opinion on the board is

4:26 ↗ valued here. Uh so certainly feel free

4:30 ↗ to participate. U there's there are

4:33 ↗ procedural things like when we take a

4:35 ↗ vote, it's the regular members that

4:36 ↗ vote. Generally, if there's not a

4:38 ↗ regular member, if a regular member is

4:40 ↗ absent, we'll promote an alternate uh to

4:44 ↗ regular member for that meeting. uh but

4:46 ↗ these are really procedural things in my

4:48 ↗ opinion the important stuff is that

4:50 ↗ people come and participate and so

4:52 ↗ that's where all the the interesting

4:54 ↗ information comes from and I believe

4:55 ↗ that's what council values as well

4:58 ↗ discussions with them. Uh so welcome

5:00 ↗ everybody. I'm I'm really pleased to see

5:03 ↗ uh so many volunteers come and help out

5:07 ↗ with this. Uh what I'd like to do is is

5:10 ↗ go around the table and uh have

5:13 ↗ everybody introduce themselves so that

5:15 ↗ we can get to know the new members and

5:16 ↗ the new members can get to know the old

5:18 ↗ members and the old members can get to

5:20 ↗ know each other again.

5:22 ↗ Yeah. Um so maybe we'll start with

5:25 ↗ Lamir.

5:28 ↗ >> Hello.

5:28 ↗ >> My name is Laamir. Uh I have been on the

5:30 ↗ board a couple years now. Um I am a

5:35 ↗ engineering student. I will be

5:36 ↗ graduating very soon, like a week from

5:39 ↗ now and starting

5:41 ↗ >> and uh starting right after graduation

5:44 ↗ working in uh construction at a

5:47 ↗ engineering firm.

5:49 ↗ >> Um so I'm excited about that. Um and I

5:52 ↗ am a big transit transit advocate. I

5:54 ↗ have ridden the bus to school my entire

5:57 ↗ five years from Isiqua to Seattle.

6:02 ↗ Ally

6:03 ↗ >> I'm Ally. um was an alternate last year

6:06 ↗ and now promoted

6:09 ↗ um and I work in the human resources

6:12 ↗ industry and what else did we want to

6:15 ↗ share?

6:15 ↗ >> Is that good?

6:18 ↗ >> I don't think that's

6:19 ↗ >> Victoria.

6:20 ↗ >> Uh I'm Victoria. I've been on the board

6:22 ↗ since last year. I'm a walkability

6:24 ↗ enthusiast.

6:27 ↗ Maybe you guys can also say like what

6:29 ↗ part of is

6:32 ↗ >> sure mountain

6:34 ↗ squawk mountain

6:35 ↗ >> old town.

6:37 ↗ >> Okay. Uh I'm Hanni Mlad. Uh I've been on

6:40 ↗ the board since 23 and I live in Isqua

6:44 ↗ Highlands and I'm a commercial director

6:46 ↗ in Sound Transit.

6:49 ↗ >> Hi everyone. I'm Mario Cole. I'm a new

6:52 ↗ alternate member for the PAB. I've been

6:54 ↗ in Nisqua for about two and a half years

6:56 ↗ and I live right next to Gilman village.

6:58 ↗ I'm a huge advocate for all the

7:01 ↗ improvement projects being made around

7:03 ↗ there and everything. So excited to be a

7:05 ↗ part of the board and share that. But

7:07 ↗ yeah, I work for Amazon outside this.

7:09 ↗ So,

7:11 ↗ >> hey, my name is Dave Wilson. I've been

7:13 ↗ in Isqua now since 2015. Although it's

7:16 ↗ the excerpts, I'm actually outside city

7:17 ↗ limits on my uh having dealt with the

7:21 ↗ Swahob Bart road mean times aware of

7:24 ↗ some of the transportation issues ran

7:26 ↗ into my job is as a transportation

7:28 ↗ engineer for wash. So that's my

7:31 ↗ perspective green, but I'm here with

7:34 ↗ resident to lend my insight about what

7:36 ↗ I've experienced.

7:39 ↗ >> I'm Connie Masalunis. Um I've been in

7:41 ↗ Isiqua for 26 years now. retired from

7:45 ↗ Boeing um procurement and I live on the

7:49 ↗ far far west end of uh of Isiqua. I'm

7:54 ↗ like borderline borderline Belleview and

7:57 ↗ uh yeah very interested the same way in

8:00 ↗ uh and trying to see some you know just

8:03 ↗ better traffic flow, better pedestrian

8:05 ↗ safety, bike safety.

8:10 ↗ I'm Adam Fuch vice chair. Uh I first

8:15 ↗ came to Isqua about 28 years ago but

8:18 ↗ then left for a long time. Work on the

8:19 ↗ east coast and come back about 10 years

8:21 ↗ ago. I live in Oldtown. Uh I I guess I'm

8:25 ↗ a bit of transportation nerd but mostly

8:27 ↗ my experience is in other types of

8:29 ↗ networks, computer networks. Um, so I

8:32 ↗ often get the terminology wrong,

8:35 ↗ maybe even translate sometimes. Tessa,

8:38 ↗ >> I'm Tessa. I uh live in Oldtown off

8:42 ↗ Front Street right now, but moving to a

8:43 ↗ different part of Oldtown actually in a

8:45 ↗ month because we're buying a place and

8:48 ↗ only been in Isqua like a year now, but

8:50 ↗ grew up kind of on the Belleview is

8:52 ↗ border, so was really moving back, but I

8:55 ↗ work for King County.

8:58 ↗ My name is Cynthia Crass and since it

9:02 ↗ started in 2017, I think it was the end

9:05 ↗ of 2017 and I been the vice chair and

9:09 ↗ the chair for a while. Um

9:12 ↗ I live um it's right it's the border of

9:16 ↗ Oldtown and Central is I think um right

9:19 ↗ by Conf Park lived there for 10 years

9:22 ↗ but for 20 years I lived next door in

9:25 ↗ Seamish. So in fact when we moved to

9:28 ↗ Samish it was unincorporated Isiqua and

9:30 ↗ then it was Samish and then moved to

9:32 ↗ Isiqua and I studied

9:35 ↗ urban planning with an emphasis on land

9:37 ↗ use transportation infrastructure but I

9:39 ↗ never worked in transportation worked

9:41 ↗ more on the land use resource management

9:43 ↗ side and now I am retired.

9:47 ↗ All right. U so that's the the board

9:50 ↗ members. Uh the other folks will

9:52 ↗ introduce themselves later as uh as

9:54 ↗ their business becomes.

9:59 ↗ Okay. So uh let's move on. Uh the second

10:03 ↗ item of business is chair and vice chair

10:05 ↗ elections.

10:07 ↗ Uh so uh we had um we had a member leave

10:12 ↗ the the board for good reasons. She's

10:14 ↗ now a city council member. Uh so uh that

10:18 ↗ opened up uh her chairmanship. Uh and so

10:23 ↗ for the next uh four meetings after this

10:26 ↗ one uh before the fourth one where we

10:29 ↗ have our regular schedule election,

10:31 ↗ we're going to uh nominate and elect

10:33 ↗ some interim chair and vice chair uh to

10:36 ↗ make sure we have the positions filled.

10:38 ↗ Uh so that's what we're doing tonight.

10:40 ↗ Uh at our last meeting we asked for

10:42 ↗ nominations and anyone interested in the

10:43 ↗ positions of chair and vice chair to let

10:45 ↗ us know. Uh

10:48 ↗ so uh

10:52 ↗ the results of the election tonight will

10:53 ↗ be effective starting in June uh and run

10:56 ↗ until the next election in September and

10:58 ↗ through the end of that meeting. Uh so

11:01 ↗ at this point I would like to open up

11:03 ↗ the floor for nominations for chair.

11:08 ↗ I'd like to nominate Adam.

11:12 ↗ >> Thank you. I will accept the nomination.

11:16 ↗ Give a a quick caveat which is I will

11:18 ↗ not be here for the July meeting. Um but

11:22 ↗ I might be able to work with the vice

11:23 ↗ chair to make sure that it's covered.

11:27 ↗ Any other nominations for chair?

11:31 ↗ Okay. Uh this point I'll close the

11:33 ↗ nominations.

11:35 ↗ Uh would anybody like to

11:38 ↗ speak about the candidates?

11:45 ↗ >> Okay, hearing. Oh, Cynthia,

11:49 ↗ >> I just want to say I appreciate you

11:51 ↗ taking the reigns and doing that. I

11:52 ↗ think you do a really good job and uh

11:54 ↗ you're very engaged and you're very good

11:56 ↗ at tracking and um I really appreciate

11:59 ↗ just want to say thank you.

12:01 ↗ >> Thank you. I cannot I cannot accept most

12:03 ↗ of that praise, but I'm working on it.

12:07 ↗ >> Okay. So, uh with that, uh let's call

12:10 ↗ for a vote. Uh so, we have one member

12:15 ↗ nominated,

12:16 ↗ Adam Fuch. Uh

12:20 ↗ all in favor of electing Adam chair.

12:26 ↗ >> I'm not sure if we've been sworn.

12:30 ↗ Regular members would vote in your rank.

12:32 ↗ Great.

12:35 ↗ >> I am officially

12:39 ↗ >> any opposed.

12:41 ↗ >> Okay. I believe the vote passes

12:44 ↗ unanimously.

12:46 ↗ Uh so I will be chair through the

12:48 ↗ September meeting. Uh now we'll do the

12:51 ↗ same thing for vice chair.

12:54 ↗ Uh so do we have any nominations for

12:56 ↗ vice chair?

13:00 ↗ I'll nominate

13:04 ↗ I'd like to nominate Lumir Maggas

13:08 ↗ vice chair.

13:08 ↗ >> I'll accept the nomination.

13:11 ↗ >> Do we have any other nominations for

13:13 ↗ vice chair?

13:16 ↗ Okay. Would anybody like to speak about

13:19 ↗ the candidate?

13:23 ↗ I've just been super impressed with his

13:25 ↗ like light rail enthusiasm and advocacy

13:28 ↗ and I think he's great.

13:31 ↗ >> Thank you, Victoria.

13:33 ↗ Uh, okay. So,

13:36 ↗ having do we have any other nominations?

13:38 ↗ No other nominations. Uh, spoken about

13:41 ↗ candidate. Uh, so at this point, I'll

13:43 ↗ call for a vote. Uh, all in favor of

13:45 ↗ Lamir Magus for vice chair

13:48 ↗ transportation advisory board. Any

13:51 ↗ opposed?

13:54 ↗ Any abstaining?

13:59 ↗ Okay. Vote passes unanimously. Mayor

14:02 ↗ Magnus will serve as vice chair for the

14:04 ↗ next four meetings through September. Uh

14:07 ↗ congratulations candidates.

14:13 ↗ Okay. Uh quick and easy. Uh so third

14:15 ↗ item of business, adaptive signal

14:18 ↗ control study.

14:20 ↗ uh Marina Bondla, senior transportation

14:23 ↗ engineer, will be presenting tonight

14:25 ↗ again on the adaptive signal control

14:27 ↗ study. Uh tonight we'll look at the W

14:30 ↗ weighing options or the weighing scores,

14:33 ↗ the weights, weights for performance

14:36 ↗ metrics.

14:38 ↗ Uh Marina, please go ahead.

15:02 ↗ All right. Well, thank you um everyone

15:04 ↗ and welcome new members. Appreciate your

15:06 ↗ time. I'm Marina Bond, senior

15:09 ↗ transportation engineer with the city.

15:11 ↗ I'm joined by John Mortonson,

15:13 ↗ transportation engineering manager. And

15:15 ↗ then we've got two Chris's here with our

15:17 ↗ consultant team. Um, Aaron Pierce and

15:20 ↗ then with Iverson Mobility. So today

15:23 ↗ we're going to be talking about

15:24 ↗ performance metrics waiting for the

15:26 ↗ adaptive signal feasibility study.

15:34 ↗ So goals for this meeting are we're

15:36 ↗ going to recap um the study's goals and

15:38 ↗ objectives. We're going to do a quick

15:41 ↗ overview of the previous tab input and

15:44 ↗ feedback we received in the January and

15:46 ↗ April meetings where we first discussed

15:47 ↗ this topic. And then we're going to mo

15:50 ↗ spend most of our time um going over

15:53 ↗ waiting of the various performance

15:55 ↗ metrics which will help us determine the

15:57 ↗ feasibility of adaptive signals in the

15:59 ↗ city.

16:01 ↗ So direction needed tonight is um we

16:04 ↗ want to know if the board supports our

16:07 ↗ proposed waiting of the performance

16:09 ↗ metrics by roadway corridor as we

16:12 ↗ present them.

16:16 ↗ Um so you guys all have this handout. Um

16:18 ↗ this is just for reference as well. I'm

16:21 ↗ going to go over a little background

16:23 ↗ before we get into the details. So right

16:26 ↗ now um in the city our signals work with

16:29 ↗ radar technology for detection for the

16:32 ↗ most part. So what that means is when a

16:35 ↗ vehicle is detected at a signal um that

16:38 ↗ basically um tells the signal to update

16:40 ↗ its signal timing and that's based on

16:43 ↗ the detection technology. Um there are

16:46 ↗ other options like adaptive signal

16:48 ↗ technology that are more um that respond

16:51 ↗ to on the ground uh conditions more uh

16:54 ↗ fluidly than that. So that's what this

16:57 ↗ study is looking at. Uh we're looking at

17:00 ↗ specific corridors in the city and you

17:03 ↗ see them here. So, the ones we're

17:05 ↗ looking at are 17th Avenue, SR900,

17:09 ↗ Northwest Seamish Road, 56th Street,

17:11 ↗ Northwest Gilman Boulevard, and then

17:14 ↗ we've got East Lake Samish Parkway. It

17:16 ↗ becomes Front Street North and Front

17:18 ↗ Street South. Sunset Way, Highlands

17:21 ↗ Drive, and 9inth Avenue. And then we've

17:23 ↗ added one more corridor um which is

17:26 ↗ Northeast Park Drive. The reason we

17:28 ↗ added that is because its operations tie

17:30 ↗ in very directly with 9inth and

17:32 ↗ Highlands. So we thought it would be

17:34 ↗ important to include it in the study as

17:35 ↗ well.

17:41 ↗ So the goals of this uh study are to

17:43 ↗ objectively evaluate the feasibility of

17:45 ↗ adaptive signal control technology on

17:48 ↗ the city's corridors um that are shown

17:50 ↗ in the map there. So the study is split

17:54 ↗ into two phases. We're currently in

17:55 ↗ phase one which is uh the goals of which

17:58 ↗ are to establish baseline of existing

18:01 ↗ conditions, look at our existing traffic

18:03 ↗ patterns, signal equipment and

18:06 ↗ infrastructure and also get input from

18:08 ↗ the board and from council mobility and

18:11 ↗ infrastructure committee. And the final

18:13 ↗ deliverable for phase one is really a

18:15 ↗ high level screening assessment for

18:17 ↗ adaptive signal control technology

18:19 ↗ compatibility that's based on the

18:21 ↗ performance metrics and measures and the

18:24 ↗ waiting that we're going to discuss

18:25 ↗ later today.

18:27 ↗ Uh phase one is going to build into

18:30 ↗ phase two which is a much more detailed

18:32 ↗ look at each corridor um where we're

18:35 ↗ going to actually do costbenefit

18:37 ↗ analysis

18:38 ↗ um and look at implementation

18:40 ↗ considerations for adaptive signal

18:42 ↗ control technology and also potentially

18:45 ↗ other methods for to help with

18:47 ↗ congestion like um time of day signal

18:50 ↗ plans that might be more cost effective.

18:56 ↗ So, I'm going to go over what we talked

18:58 ↗ about in each TAB meeting. Um, in

19:00 ↗ January, we introduced adaptive signal

19:02 ↗ control technology and we got input from

19:06 ↗ TAB about each of the roadway corridors

19:08 ↗ and the issues and concerns they had

19:10 ↗ with with each corridor. So, some input

19:13 ↗ we heard about current conditions is

19:15 ↗ there's a lot of regional spillback and

19:17 ↗ congestion on the arterials. There's

19:19 ↗ recurring delay on key corridors and

19:22 ↗ some operational concerns at specific

19:24 ↗ intersections.

19:27 ↗ Noted priorities were to prioritize

19:29 ↗ local traffic which tends to be east

19:31 ↗ west traffic. Uh manage predictable

19:34 ↗ congestion from schools and uh Swedish

19:37 ↗ hospital. Protect and improve pedestrian

19:39 ↗ and bike access and safety especially at

19:42 ↗ multi-use trail crossings across uh busy

19:44 ↗ corridors. support transit speed and

19:47 ↗ reliability and set corridor specific

19:49 ↗ priorities based on function and goals.

19:54 ↗ So for our second TAB meeting in April

19:57 ↗ um we presented and discussed the

19:59 ↗ proposed performance metrics and their

20:01 ↗ measures and at the end of the meeting

20:03 ↗ uh the board requested that we have a

20:05 ↗ follow-up meeting to discuss the waiting

20:08 ↗ of these metrics by roadway corridor. So

20:10 ↗ that's why we're meeting again today. Um

20:13 ↗ the performance metrics were divided

20:15 ↗ into two types. So we have inputs um

20:19 ↗ inputs to assess corridor suitability

20:21 ↗ for adaptive technology and um desired

20:24 ↗ operational outcomes. So the inputs that

20:27 ↗ we went over were signal adjustability,

20:30 ↗ signal system and equipment

20:31 ↗ compatibility, traffic volumes

20:33 ↗ variability, and then the desired

20:35 ↗ operational outcomes that we discussed

20:37 ↗ were improved bike and ped experience,

20:40 ↗ improved transit experience, improved

20:42 ↗ driver experience, and then future ready

20:45 ↗ and plan alignment.

20:48 ↗ So each performance metric is going to

20:50 ↗ be weighted by a roadway corridor and

20:53 ↗ that's going to provide an overall score

20:55 ↗ for suitability for adaptive signal

20:58 ↗ control technology.

21:00 ↗ So the inputs um are going to be

21:02 ↗ weighted against each other and the

21:03 ↗ outputs are going to be weighted against

21:05 ↗ each other because it's a little

21:06 ↗ difficult to weight them all together

21:08 ↗ since they're pretty different from each

21:10 ↗ other. Um the waiting of the inputs is

21:13 ↗ going to be determined by the consultant

21:15 ↗ and city staff. Um, and it's going to be

21:17 ↗ guided by the review of existing traffic

21:19 ↗ cons uh traffic conditions and system

21:22 ↗ infrastructure.

21:24 ↗ And what we're going to focus mostly

21:26 ↗ today on are the desired operational

21:29 ↗ outcomes metrics

21:31 ↗ um and how we'll weight those per

21:33 ↗ roadway corridor. So I'm going to give a

21:35 ↗ brief overview of what those are um and

21:38 ↗ the aims of each of those metrics before

21:40 ↗ we go into more discussion.

21:42 ↗ So for improved bike and pet experience

21:45 ↗ um the aim of that metric is to estimate

21:48 ↗ the adaptive um adaptive feasibility

21:52 ↗ uh sorry adaptive signals ability to

21:54 ↗ improve comfort efficiency and

21:55 ↗ accessibility for peds and bikes.

21:58 ↗ Improved transit experience metric is um

22:01 ↗ aiming to estimate the ability to

22:03 ↗ improve corridor efficiency progression

22:06 ↗ and reliability for local traffic while

22:08 ↗ managing regional demand.

22:10 ↗ improve driver experience aims to

22:12 ↗ identify the ability to enhance tra

22:15 ↗ transit travel time, reliability, and

22:17 ↗ priority along signalized corridors. And

22:20 ↗ the future ready and plan alignment

22:22 ↗ metric um aims to ensure signal

22:25 ↗ investments remain effective and aligned

22:27 ↗ with long-term land use, transportation,

22:29 ↗ and emergency planning goals.

22:31 ↗ >> Can I interrupt you for just a second?

22:32 ↗ >> Yeah,

22:33 ↗ >> I you probably um all noticed, but I

22:35 ↗ think I switched the text. The driver

22:38 ↗ experience is improving reliability.

22:40 ↗ That's on me. I didn't notice it when I

22:42 ↗ reviewed the slide, but

22:44 ↗ >> thanks for

22:45 ↗ >> Yeah, sorry about that.

22:45 ↗ >> You just like, oh, perfect. Right. Yeah.

22:48 ↗ Okay.

22:49 ↗ >> Yeah. Sorry. So, transit and driver

22:51 ↗ switched. Wonder I was going to ask

22:53 ↗ about that. I was very confused. I

22:55 ↗ thought we were talking about bus

22:56 ↗ drivers.

22:58 ↗ >> No, this is this was my meer. I

23:01 ↗ apologize.

23:03 ↗ >> Thanks. I should have noticed that, too.

23:07 ↗ All right. So now I'm gonna pass it off

23:09 ↗ to Chris and he's gonna go over the

23:12 ↗ weight.

23:12 ↗ >> Before we do that, can we go back real

23:13 ↗ quick? I just had a quick question about

23:15 ↗ this.

23:15 ↗ >> Yep.

23:16 ↗ >> Um, so so we look at these sorts of

23:19 ↗ metrics, we can think about like metrics

23:21 ↗ to track individuals experience and then

23:23 ↗ metrics to track kind of the

23:24 ↗ macroeconomics of the system. And these

23:26 ↗ seem to be oriented towards like

23:28 ↗ individual experience. The two are

23:29 ↗ definitely coupled. Uh but as a a

23:32 ↗ planning a long-term planning thing, we

23:34 ↗ might also want to look at something

23:35 ↗ like a throughput metric. Uh is that

23:38 ↗ something that would show up as as

23:40 ↗ something especially I'd say for uh

23:43 ↗ driver and possibly transit as well for

23:46 ↗ throughput.

23:49 ↗ So I would say that when you're looking

23:51 ↗ at throughput, we we did look at um

23:53 ↗ vehicle throughput when we were doing

23:56 ↗ the analysis of like the front street

23:58 ↗ interchange when you know that was that

24:01 ↗ was something the wash dot lead and it

24:03 ↗ seemed like nothing that we were putting

24:05 ↗ out there was improving level of service

24:07 ↗ which was super confusing to folks until

24:09 ↗ we realized oh but we're serving another

24:11 ↗ 100 cars in the PM peak hour or

24:13 ↗ whatever. So that was a an important

24:15 ↗ metric.

24:16 ↗ >> Yeah.

24:16 ↗ >> For that. Um that I think is a much more

24:20 ↗ qualitative and it's a much more intense

24:24 ↗ analysis. I don't know that

24:27 ↗ the outcome of adding

24:30 ↗ like I don't think it's a desired

24:31 ↗ outcome per se for us to just push more

24:34 ↗ traffic through is I don't know that

24:37 ↗ adaptive is going to have much of an

24:40 ↗ impact on that. So I don't know that I

24:42 ↗ would maybe recommend going in that

24:45 ↗ route to study it in in a lot of detail.

24:49 ↗ >> So So one of the I don't know if you

24:51 ↗ guys had to drive was it yesterday when

24:54 ↗ uh Highway 18 was closed. Several people

24:58 ↗ >> certainly experience a lot more

25:00 ↗ throughput than normal.

25:01 ↗ >> Uh or a lot more demand than normal.

25:04 ↗ Maybe not more throughput.

25:05 ↗ >> Uh maybe less throughput than normal.

25:08 ↗ >> Yes, that happens when there's more

25:09 ↗ demand. Yeah. And so you so you get sort

25:12 ↗ of uh the unusual experience of suddenly

25:16 ↗ there's a demand peak. Does the system

25:18 ↗ catch up with it? And that's where like

25:20 ↗ the the importance of having the

25:22 ↗ additional throughput really comes in in

25:24 ↗ my opinion. And so uh that's just slight

25:28 ↗ issue with with the notion that the

25:31 ↗ throughput is less of a

25:33 ↗ >> I think metric to look at here.

25:36 ↗ >> That's sort of the failure. you get to

25:37 ↗ the more

25:39 ↗ >> qualitative or sorry yeah

25:41 ↗ >> I always get confused with these two

25:42 ↗ quantitative thank you quantitative

25:44 ↗ analysis the the real modeling and

25:46 ↗ computation side of it we can definitely

25:50 ↗ take that into an account and I'll I'll

25:51 ↗ make that in the notes that that is

25:52 ↗ something that that is interested in

25:54 ↗ hearing about um again that is and

25:58 ↗ actually this is kind of a good example

25:59 ↗ of why we want to do this high level

26:02 ↗ first because that will allow us the

26:05 ↗ more corridors we can screen out the

26:07 ↗ deeper the analysis we can do. Um

26:10 ↗ there's also a lot of questions about

26:12 ↗ how much we can actually forecast

26:14 ↗ adaptives ability to do any of those

26:17 ↗ things. Um but we can walk you into

26:19 ↗ those and help and and yeah that is one

26:22 ↗ of the technical outcomes of this is the

26:24 ↗ consultants are going to take all of

26:26 ↗ this and we're going to say okay how are

26:27 ↗ we actually going to do these tests

26:30 ↗ measure these metrics and come up with

26:33 ↗ these answers for that phase two because

26:35 ↗ right now we're not incredibly sure how

26:39 ↗ be depending on which corridors we look

26:41 ↗ at how deep of analysis we're able to do

26:45 ↗ and which vendors we even are able to

26:48 ↗ look at that analysis can change wildly,

26:51 ↗ right? So,

26:52 ↗ >> so I might suggest that just as as a

26:54 ↗ qualitative aspect that tries to capture

26:57 ↗ throughput, you might look at potential

26:59 ↗ for improvement or corridors that are

27:01 ↗ notorious for uh operating underneath

27:04 ↗ the theoretical throughput of the

27:07 ↗ intersections or lanes involved.

27:09 ↗ >> Right? I I would encourage you right now

27:12 ↗ if you're thinking about this, consider

27:13 ↗ that as the driver's experience because

27:16 ↗ I think that will be one of the

27:18 ↗ crunchier metrics that we can get into

27:20 ↗ when we're considering drivers

27:22 ↗ experience and that is going to be at

27:24 ↗ odds with things like pedestrian bike

27:26 ↗ experience at times

27:28 ↗ >> and it may become at odds with transit

27:30 ↗ experience although sometimes those can

27:32 ↗ go hand in hand.

27:33 ↗ >> Yep.

27:33 ↗ >> Right. They can also complement.

27:34 ↗ >> All right, let's go to Laamir.

27:36 ↗ >> I had two. Oh, just as just as a point,

27:38 ↗ what we're doing is we're flipping

27:40 ↗ >> our hands up. Who might stand up?

27:44 ↗ >> So, we'll go to the mirror first and

27:46 ↗ we'll come to

27:48 ↗ >> So, sounds like you might not 100% sure.

27:51 ↗ No but

27:54 ↗ uh a lot of these metrics I think it

27:58 ↗ matters to our discussion of weight like

28:01 ↗ what like how exactly they're going to

28:03 ↗ be um

28:06 ↗ how they are going to be measured

28:08 ↗ because that will determine how much

28:10 ↗ variance there is on them and that

28:11 ↗ determines how much we want to wait

28:13 ↗ them, right? like the amount of like

28:14 ↗ noise that will get in these signals.

28:16 ↗ Like if something is going to be

28:17 ↗ determined by a survey, maybe that gets

28:19 ↗ tweed a little bit less because it's not

28:21 ↗ as reliable as something that's like a

28:23 ↗ numeric analysis. So like I guess I it

28:25 ↗ doesn't sound like you have a lot of

28:26 ↗ that information right now, but like if

28:28 ↗ you could just give us a broad overview

28:30 ↗ of like what kinds of methods you're

28:32 ↗ going to be using to measure these in a

28:35 ↗ brief, I think that would be helpful to

28:37 ↗ our decision. I I do want to put a big

28:41 ↗ I'll say a yellow flag on the field

28:44 ↗ about that too just because the biggest

28:46 ↗ tool that we really have as traffic

28:48 ↗ engineers is modeling traffic modeling

28:52 ↗ and itself all of the research that

28:55 ↗ really has been done for the last 60

28:58 ↗ like since the 1960s so much more than

29:01 ↗ 60 years at this point has really been

29:03 ↗ focused on those vehicle metrics. So, we

29:05 ↗ have a lot of strong tools for vehicle

29:07 ↗ metrics. Um, and they do always tend to

29:11 ↗ say, "Oh, you should build more lanes."

29:14 ↗ Um, so it will, I think, underestimate

29:18 ↗ some of the impacts or, you know, maybe

29:20 ↗ make it look like there's not as bad an

29:22 ↗ impact to other modes like transit and

29:24 ↗ and um heads. So, those are really hard

29:27 ↗ for us to get quantitative numbers,

29:31 ↗ decimal points to really see. And I

29:34 ↗ would question thoroughly the model

29:37 ↗ outputs for vehicles and if we're

29:39 ↗ actually going to get to see that

29:41 ↗ because as Adam was pointing out, you

29:42 ↗ get you if you have a static amount and

29:45 ↗ then you try to add more capacity, it

29:47 ↗ gets filled. You may have more

29:48 ↗ throughput, but it doesn't actually

29:50 ↗ improve maybe the east west and things

29:52 ↗ like that. So right now the way we are

29:55 ↗ looking at this is we are going to grade

29:56 ↗ them basically on a one to five of five

30:02 ↗ likely to improve, one likely is the

30:06 ↗ opposite like makes worse.

30:08 ↗ >> Yeah.

30:09 ↗ >> And three is maybe could go either way.

30:13 ↗ And that is so we're going to look at it

30:15 ↗ in sort of that spectrum as we're going

30:17 ↗ through each of them. Then that if I

30:20 ↗ hope that kind of answered your question

30:22 ↗ of how we're going to use the metrics

30:24 ↗ immediately to

30:26 ↗ get down to the corridors where we want

30:28 ↗ to focus on daily analysis on.

30:30 ↗ >> Yeah, that's helpful.

30:32 ↗ >> All right, let's go to Mario. So, I know

30:34 ↗ 17th Avenue already has signal

30:36 ↗ prioritization for transit.

30:38 ↗ Would this adaptive signaling lead to

30:41 ↗ more of that for transit like across

30:44 ↗ different corridors like Gilman? because

30:45 ↗ I know there are transit routes that go

30:48 ↗ down Gilman. I don't think we have

30:50 ↗ signal priorization on those corridors

30:52 ↗ today.

30:53 ↗ >> I will have to double check again. I

30:56 ↗ don't think that Gilman has it. But and

30:57 ↗ I and I think that it's not tied to

31:00 ↗ adaptive.

31:01 ↗ >> Yeah.

31:01 ↗ >> Um

31:02 ↗ >> it's a different signal.

31:03 ↗ >> It is a completely different system. The

31:05 ↗ question that we would be asking is and

31:08 ↗ I think we got to this question before

31:09 ↗ as you know the transit routes are

31:11 ↗ decided by the transit agency. The city

31:14 ↗ has a desire for where they would like

31:15 ↗ them to be. You have planning documents

31:17 ↗ for where you want them to be. And there

31:19 ↗ are things that we can do with the

31:21 ↗ adaptive signal to make sure that a

31:22 ↗ transit agency is able to have things

31:25 ↗ like TSP and extra space for pullouts or

31:29 ↗ not have pull outs if that's going to

31:30 ↗ improve their, you know, speed and

31:31 ↗ reliability. There are things that we

31:33 ↗ can do and that is what we're trying to

31:34 ↗ capture underneath that transit

31:36 ↗ experience. So making sure that yeah

31:39 ↗ whatever we do here it is not going to

31:42 ↗ make it so that we can't have TSP or

31:44 ↗ that ESP isn't going to work as well

31:47 ↗ because of the adaptive system. So that

31:49 ↗ is and those are hard things to forecast

31:51 ↗ and they're very different depending on

31:53 ↗ which vendor you use.

31:54 ↗ >> That that kind of leads to my second

31:56 ↗ question too with the future ready plan

31:58 ↗ alignment. I know Sound Transit and

32:00 ↗ other like King County Metro realign

32:02 ↗ their routes occasionally. Is this

32:04 ↗ future readiness aligned with those

32:07 ↗ plans or are these being in considered

32:09 ↗ and like we talked about how we can

32:10 ↗ adapt these signals to like when these

32:13 ↗ routes do change is that part of when

32:14 ↗ these get recalibrated I don't know what

32:16 ↗ the right word would be.

32:20 ↗ So signal timing

32:23 ↗ should get recalibrated on a pretty

32:26 ↗ steady basis. I know that it is a big

32:31 ↗ it's a lot of staff time to do that

32:33 ↗ right regularly. Um and I think the city

32:36 ↗ also found like during the pandemic that

32:38 ↗ the time of day plans they were running

32:40 ↗ weren't serving

32:42 ↗ >> the city in that time point. So I think

32:44 ↗ there is still some corridors. I know

32:47 ↗ through sort of downtown area there are

32:49 ↗ signal timing plans that are working for

32:52 ↗ time of day and I think others are maybe

32:53 ↗ right now running more free and just

32:57 ↗ trying to see if maybe this system can

32:59 ↗ do that and take that off of the

33:02 ↗ >> that's one one area in particular I see

33:04 ↗ as a

33:05 ↗ >> possible pain point in the future is

33:07 ↗ someone who rides the 556 when it gets

33:09 ↗ realigned to go down Gilman through

33:10 ↗ Front Street

33:11 ↗ >> yes

33:12 ↗ >> will be able to move uh through that

33:14 ↗ corridor and stay on track for its

33:16 ↗ schedule because I know a lot of people

33:18 ↗ did depend on that even up into the

33:19 ↗ highlands, right? So, that was one thing

33:21 ↗ I also didn't notice with the transit

33:23 ↗ metrics is they tied to just general

33:24 ↗ vehicle movement, not necessarily like a

33:26 ↗ pure transit experience metric. So, I

33:29 ↗ don't know if there's other metrics that

33:31 ↗ could consider those like specific

33:34 ↗ experiences, but that might be

33:36 ↗ something.

33:36 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean we we are putting out the

33:39 ↗ and again remember the tri the headings

33:40 ↗ are wrong there makes it really

33:43 ↗ confusing. transit driver experience,

33:45 ↗ >> right? Transit experience is enhancing

33:47 ↗ your transit travel time and uh

33:50 ↗ specifically it's reliability. So when

33:52 ↗ you're saying people depend on it to get

33:54 ↗ to the highlands, being reliable means

33:57 ↗ that you can depend that it's going to

33:58 ↗ be there at the same time every time and

34:00 ↗ that it's going to take you the same

34:01 ↗ amount of time each time to get there,

34:03 ↗ right?

34:04 ↗ >> Um and then yeah, making sure that you

34:06 ↗ can have those signal priorities.

34:08 ↗ >> You have all the corridors already

34:10 ↗ highlighted for you. Right. I think it

34:13 ↗ uh it's uh appreciated though the study

34:16 ↗ and everything, but thank you.

34:18 ↗ >> Uh just a quick question. I'm assuming

34:20 ↗ this is kind of falling underneath the

34:21 ↗ future ready and plan alignment, but

34:23 ↗ interoperability with other systems that

34:25 ↗ are pre-existing.

34:28 ↗ >> Yes.

34:29 ↗ >> That you have two single systems that

34:30 ↗ are probably within limited access and

34:32 ↗ then processing and how that integrates

34:35 ↗ and talks with your system. presumably

34:37 ↗ that's going to be incorporated as phase

34:39 ↗ two parts.

34:41 ↗ I we are taking that on now at some

34:45 ↗ level and I'll just because I'm in a

34:47 ↗ room full of transportation nerds we've

34:48 ↗ got able to get all the washed out folks

34:50 ↗ we needed it to get down on a call and

34:52 ↗ we're going to talk it out this like

34:54 ↗ upcoming week I think it's very exciting

34:57 ↗ um it can be hard to get all those folks

34:59 ↗ in a room but we are that is going to be

35:02 ↗ on more of the technical side where

35:04 ↗ we're talking about the inputs because

35:05 ↗ it's very much what is the technology in

35:08 ↗ the cabinet how long has it you know

35:10 ↗ what is the maintenance status of it,

35:12 ↗ how much more upgrades does it need, how

35:14 ↗ do they talk to each other? I don't

35:16 ↗ expect this group to be able to give

35:19 ↗ meaningful feedback on something like

35:21 ↗ that. But that's why we're getting like

35:23 ↗ a room full of wash dot technicians and

35:25 ↗ I have Chris Iverson and Jim Peters and

35:28 ↗ the city staff to really help us inform

35:30 ↗ that decision and see what that would

35:33 ↗ take for those systems to talk and

35:34 ↗ you're and there's also some other

35:36 ↗ metrics on the inputs of if we didn't

35:40 ↗ include those systems how much benefit

35:42 ↗ could we get right

35:46 ↗ >> okay so for all tab members that want to

35:49 ↗ actually go watch the meetings they're

35:51 ↗ all on YouTube January or or April one.

35:53 ↗ There's a lot of interesting info

35:55 ↗ especially on like how adaptive works

35:58 ↗ with like transit signal priority and

36:01 ↗ all that kind of stuff. So we've covered

36:02 ↗ a lot of that in the past. Certainly

36:04 ↗ welcome questions about it. Um welcome

36:06 ↗ new members again. Chris, good luck.

36:10 ↗ Thanks.

36:12 ↗ Um okay so I think we can go on the net

36:16 ↗ flight. Not sure that I'm going to give

36:18 ↗ you guys a background of how we did this

36:20 ↗ as I'm kind of showing you the first

36:22 ↗ corridor. And I have this in an Excel

36:25 ↗ spreadsheet on my computer. So if there

36:28 ↗ are disagreements on here, we can change

36:30 ↗ it. We had taken a very long time to go

36:33 ↗ through the metrics in the last meeting.

36:35 ↗ So I'm hoping to not take your entire

36:37 ↗ evening to get through this. We went

36:39 ↗ through and graded this as a consultant

36:42 ↗ team and then went through with city

36:43 ↗ staff to see if we agreed. found some

36:46 ↗ errors, moved some things around, and

36:48 ↗ this is what we ended up coming up with.

36:49 ↗ This is a uh a paired comparison test.

36:53 ↗ Basically, what you're doing is you're

36:54 ↗ grading a column versus the row. So,

36:59 ↗ where I have an R, the row is more

37:02 ↗ important. Where I have a C, the column

37:05 ↗ is more important. So, in the very first

37:07 ↗ one, we're looking at bed, ped bike

37:10 ↗ experience, and pet bike experience.

37:12 ↗ That's the S. They are the same. going

37:14 ↗ over I'm saying that the ped and bike

37:17 ↗ experience is rated more important on

37:20 ↗ Front Street North than the driver

37:22 ↗ experience. Right? So this is the part

37:25 ↗ right in front of the theater and

37:27 ↗ through your old town. Um lots of folks

37:30 ↗ walking and biking. That's what we rated

37:32 ↗ the row higher. So we can walk through

37:36 ↗ each and every one of these. Um and

37:41 ↗ these will all assign a score. And at

37:43 ↗ the very bottom there's some math that's

37:45 ↗ getting done in the background and we're

37:47 ↗ doing some rounding to the nearest 5%

37:48 ↗ otherwise it looks funky that we have

37:50 ↗ like 40.3% or something. Um you can see

37:54 ↗ what the actual weights will be. I

37:56 ↗ wouldn't get caught too much up on the

37:58 ↗ numbers but if it feels like okay if I

38:01 ↗ had $100 to spend I would spend it you

38:04 ↗ know this way or I'd grade them this way

38:06 ↗ that it feels right for that corridor

38:09 ↗ then we probably got it somewhere close.

38:12 ↗ Um, but if there's changes to the

38:15 ↗ letters, we can do that and I can tell

38:17 ↗ you what the difference would be in the

38:19 ↗ in the bottom. So, going through these

38:22 ↗ really quick, looking down this uh pet

38:25 ↗ bike experience,

38:27 ↗ saying that the pet bike experience is

38:29 ↗ more important than driver and transit.

38:33 ↗ And then we are actually saying that

38:35 ↗ policy plan alignment is the more

38:39 ↗ important is more important than the ped

38:41 ↗ bike experience. That is just a pretty

38:44 ↗ common thing that we you guys are going

38:46 ↗ to see is that we've pretty much rated

38:49 ↗ policy and plan alignment as king. You

38:51 ↗ guys put a lot of work, a lot of

38:53 ↗ comments, a lot of time into those. So

38:55 ↗ we rated those high kind of across the

38:57 ↗ board. Um driver experience again we're

39:02 ↗ saying that the p bike experience is

39:04 ↗ more important um the transit experience

39:08 ↗ is more important and policy alignment

39:10 ↗ is more important any comments on that

39:13 ↗ changes

39:16 ↗ can I add some nuance really quick kind

39:18 ↗ of for a visual the three categories on

39:22 ↗ the left ped bike driver transit can

39:25 ↗ kind of think about it in a way of how

39:26 ↗ the experience is day-to-day.

39:30 ↗ And again, to Chris's point, as you

39:32 ↗ think about policy alignment, what you

39:34 ↗ want to think about is that long-term

39:36 ↗ vision. Um, that's really kind of where

39:39 ↗ that that's why our team weights the

39:42 ↗ policy so heavily. So, it's taking that

39:46 ↗ long-term perspective because we're

39:47 ↗ talking about large potentially large

39:49 ↗ investments into traffic signal

39:50 ↗ infrastructure that will ultimately

39:54 ↗ create a different environment from a

39:56 ↗ traffic perspective. So, I just wanted

39:58 ↗ to kind of put that out there for

40:00 ↗ context setting.

40:03 ↗ >> Thanks. So, so another way to to

40:06 ↗ visualize this would be essentially what

40:08 ↗ we have is a partial ordering actually a

40:10 ↗ complete ordering of all of these things

40:12 ↗ where in this particular case policy

40:15 ↗ alignment is top then bike experience

40:18 ↗ and then

40:19 ↗ >> uh transit experience then driver

40:21 ↗ experience.

40:21 ↗ >> Correct.

40:22 ↗ >> So that's what the what all

40:24 ↗ >> that's how it that that's how these

40:25 ↗ Yeah. So each of these you could do as

40:27 ↗ just you know what is the order of the

40:29 ↗ four things

40:30 ↗ >> you could simpler visualization

40:33 ↗ >> uh possibly I I mean I think that this

40:36 ↗ has a little I think this has some merit

40:39 ↗ because you'll end up getting I think a

40:41 ↗ little bit more fine grained but I do

40:43 ↗ think that that is a really good

40:46 ↗ >> like rule of thumb if we're putting the

40:49 ↗ biggest number under policy it's the

40:51 ↗ highest

40:52 ↗ >> does that make sense for this corridor

40:55 ↗ then ped bike, then transit, then

40:58 ↗ driver. Does that make sense for this

41:00 ↗ corridor?

41:02 ↗ >> It is possible to get like a rock paper

41:03 ↗ scissors thing with this type of

41:05 ↗ relationship, but you don't have any of

41:06 ↗ those in

41:08 ↗ >> there are some where it's just across

41:10 ↗ the board. There's no there's no

41:12 ↗ priority. Everything's important. We'll

41:14 ↗ get to them. It it

41:15 ↗ >> it's interesting that literally that's

41:17 ↗ how the math came out and we all kind of

41:19 ↗ just shook our head and like actually

41:20 ↗ that makes sense.

41:22 ↗ So we'll see if you guys agree or not.

41:25 ↗ But

41:27 ↗ should we move on or I know we have a

41:30 ↗ >> Oh, we have a question for

41:31 ↗ >> one brief thing. This is and the policy

41:33 ↗ alignment is like with the policies of

41:35 ↗ the city. So like the transport transit

41:38 ↗ transportation improvement plan and that

41:39 ↗ stuff right?

41:40 ↗ >> Yes.

41:41 ↗ >> But I wanted to mention in that case

41:42 ↗ especially for the new members that all

41:45 ↗ of these things like transit experience

41:47 ↗ and pent bike experience are included in

41:49 ↗ that plan. So that if that's the highest

41:51 ↗ priority, you're also prioritizing these

41:54 ↗ other things because that's part of the

41:55 ↗ city's long-term plan. A lot of the

41:57 ↗ people on the table have already seen

41:58 ↗ that plan many times, but there's some

42:00 ↗ new people here. So I wanted to make

42:01 ↗ that clear.

42:03 ↗ >> And I wanted I'll add on to that too

42:05 ↗ that there's more than just the

42:07 ↗ transportation master plan. There land

42:09 ↗ use planning. So when you're thinking of

42:10 ↗ policy alignment, plan alignment, future

42:12 ↗ ready, it has a lot of things happening.

42:15 ↗ light rail hopefully in the future. You

42:18 ↗ new um zoning.

42:21 ↗ We want this system to work

42:24 ↗ forever if hopefully at least 20 years

42:27 ↗ or more. So that's again future, not

42:32 ↗ just what the corridor looks like today,

42:33 ↗ but what it's going to look like in the

42:35 ↗ future.

42:40 ↗ Okay. Um,

42:42 ↗ I don't necessarily feel like I should

42:44 ↗ step through each and every one of these

42:46 ↗ columns. Does anybody have a comment on

42:48 ↗ any of the columns or else we can move

42:50 ↗ to the next slide?

42:53 ↗ Sounds like we got some pretty good

42:54 ↗ agreement on this. Great. The rest of

42:57 ↗ this should go pretty quick until we get

42:59 ↗ to maybe we want to get into some deep

43:02 ↗ discussion about row versus column, who

43:04 ↗ wins and who doesn't. So, front street

43:08 ↗ south.

43:09 ↗ Again, this is sort of south of

43:11 ↗ downtown. We do start to get some more

43:13 ↗ vehicle movement. We have access to

43:15 ↗ schools and things in this area. Um,

43:19 ↗ we said the pet experience is still more

43:22 ↗ important than the driver experience.

43:24 ↗ It's still more important than the

43:26 ↗ transit experience, but the policy

43:29 ↗ alignment, future readiness is still

43:32 ↗ more important, the most important for

43:35 ↗ driver experience. We said that that

43:38 ↗ was, and I'm just going to read off the

43:40 ↗ yellow because they're going to be

43:41 ↗ repeated in the green. The driver

43:43 ↗ experience is more important than

43:48 ↗ transit experience on this part of Front

43:51 ↗ Street. And the policy alignment is

43:54 ↗ still the most important. And I heard

43:57 ↗ some some hoping to get some comments

43:59 ↗ there. And then again, we said that the

44:02 ↗ transit experience is less important

44:04 ↗ than the policy alignment.

44:07 ↗ Dave, this is your neck of the woods.

44:08 ↗ >> Yeah, but just kind of a point of

44:10 ↗ clarification actually. Uh, when you say

44:12 ↗ transit experience, does that

44:13 ↗ incorporate bus school? Does it in or is

44:17 ↗ that part of the driver experience

44:23 ↗ >> school buses compared to like

44:25 ↗ >> compared to just transit such as metro,

44:27 ↗ shuttle,

44:29 ↗ >> trail access?

44:30 ↗ >> It's that is an interesting question. I

44:32 ↗ had not envisioned it including school

44:35 ↗ buses. That could be something that we

44:39 ↗ consider though. Um

44:48 ↗ >> All right, let's bring it back for one

44:49 ↗ conversation. Okay.

44:52 ↗ >> Um

44:53 ↗ >> would that change the waiting?

44:57 ↗ >> Good.

44:59 ↗ So, let's just say I'm I'm making a note

45:02 ↗ that transit experience should include

45:03 ↗ school bus trips. Um,

45:07 ↗ I do think that those count differently

45:10 ↗ than driving trips. Still, they act

45:12 ↗ different than a personal vehicle. Um,

45:16 ↗ if we are considering transit

45:18 ↗ experience, including school buses,

45:23 ↗ the one that we had the

45:26 ↗ for was driver experience. Would that

45:29 ↗ then change the transit to be more

45:30 ↗ important than driver?

45:33 ↗ >> Yeah, I would argue yes.

45:35 ↗ >> I would.

45:36 ↗ >> I agree on that.

45:39 ↗ >> I was going to say like the time of day

45:40 ↗ example that you gave it might make

45:42 ↗ sense during certain period of the day

45:45 ↗ where school's getting out or school's

45:46 ↗ letting in

45:48 ↗ >> but maybe not the entire duration

45:49 ↗ because I don't think there's any like

45:52 ↗ Sound Transit or King County routes that

45:54 ↗ go that far south.

45:55 ↗ >> Yeah. They don't go down there.

45:57 ↗ >> Right. which is why we rated the driver

45:59 ↗ higher. Yeah,

46:00 ↗ >> I would argue that like uh if school

46:05 ↗ buses are part of the transit experience

46:06 ↗ that making that more reliable reduces

46:10 ↗ the amount of like single driver drop

46:13 ↗ off situations because that might like I

46:17 ↗ think prioritizing that could have a

46:20 ↗ positive effect overall on driver

46:22 ↗ experience as well. Making school buses

46:25 ↗ more reliable would would reduce the

46:28 ↗ parent drop off volume.

46:29 ↗ >> Yes.

46:32 ↗ >> Also, high schoolers driving to the

46:34 ↗ school by themselves.

46:34 ↗ >> Yes.

46:36 ↗ >> I've been hearing high schoolers driving

46:38 ↗ to school by themselves.

46:39 ↗ >> Yeah. Stuff like that.

46:41 ↗ >> I mean, there's so many forces um making

46:43 ↗ people drop their kids off from school

46:45 ↗ or teenagers wanting to drive to school.

46:47 ↗ But I tend to agree that this could be

46:50 ↗ fairly including school because there's

46:53 ↗ three schools right there just clogging

46:55 ↗ up that area big time. It's hard to get

46:58 ↗ those kids to not want to drive their

47:00 ↗ car, you know, it take a lot more than

47:02 ↗ that, but it's I mean, if we're talking

47:04 ↗ a 20-year plan, it's aspirational.

47:07 ↗ >> Seems pretty important.

47:08 ↗ >> And the school bus depot is right there.

47:11 ↗ >> That's also the depot. Yeah.

47:13 ↗ >> So, it's like all the buses there.

47:16 ↗ >> It's a good point.

47:17 ↗ So you can see the numbers there. If I

47:21 ↗ change that one input

47:23 ↗ um basically switching the winner of

47:26 ↗ transit versus driver to transit, it

47:29 ↗ moves the 20% under transit experience

47:31 ↗ and the driver experience drops down to

47:33 ↗ five.

47:36 ↗ >> So there's an abstract form of the

47:38 ↗ school bus question which is if we had

47:41 ↗ transit on this route, would we have

47:43 ↗ scored things differently? Mhm. So

47:46 ↗ really the question of for prioritizing

47:48 ↗ driver versus transit is does transit

47:50 ↗ exist on that route or not? Which is

47:52 ↗ also a bit of a chicken and egg question

47:54 ↗ because maybe the real question is do we

47:57 ↗ want transit on each of these routes

48:00 ↗ where driver experience is prioritized?

48:04 ↗ And I don't know I don't know what the

48:05 ↗ answer to that is but I think that might

48:07 ↗ be the question.

48:09 ↗ >> Tessa. Oh, I was just thinking I know

48:12 ↗ there's not regular bus routes on there,

48:14 ↗ but also they do have trail direct. I

48:17 ↗ don't know if they're doing it to poop

48:19 ↗ point this year because there's

48:21 ↗ construction on that trail, but to me

48:23 ↗ that's even though it's a small route,

48:25 ↗ that's very important that we prioritize

48:27 ↗ that little bus because of how bad the

48:29 ↗ poo pointing is. And now it's been

48:31 ↗ overflowing into a little parking lot

48:33 ↗ near where I live and they're parking

48:35 ↗ everywhere near us. So any way to reduce

48:39 ↗ the hiker parking too along that route I

48:41 ↗ think is really important.

48:43 ↗ >> Thanks. Dave, do you want transit? Uh I

48:46 ↗ do want transit. Uh however this also

48:48 ↗ kind of folds back into policy alignment

48:51 ↗ and future proofing because there have

48:52 ↗ been concepts put forward that if light

48:55 ↗ rail were to hub that is transit systems

48:58 ↗ would feed into a place such as valley

49:04 ↗ but the maple one in particular would

49:05 ↗ likely use

49:12 ↗ >> put a note on on our side to take a look

49:16 ↗ at some of the the regional transit

49:18 ↗ plans as well.

49:23 ↗ >> So I have went ahead and made the change

49:26 ↗ for transit experience to outweigh

49:28 ↗ driver experience. Um I'm going to ask a

49:32 ↗ question. Do you guys feel similarly

49:34 ↗ about the ped bike experience and

49:36 ↗ transit experience or is the ped bike

49:39 ↗ active user still going to outweigh the

49:43 ↗ transit rider?

49:47 ↗ Yes.

49:49 ↗ >> Going to say yes because it's also

49:51 ↗ safety too like everything like that. I

49:54 ↗ think yes.

49:56 ↗ >> So

49:56 ↗ >> yeah.

49:57 ↗ >> All right.

49:59 ↗ >> So this might come up where we have um

50:03 ↗ driver experience prioritized above ped

50:05 ↗ bike experience like for east like

50:07 ↗ Samish Parkway. Uh so maybe we reserve

50:10 ↗ some of that discussion until then.

50:12 ↗ >> Okay.

50:12 ↗ >> Does that make sense?

50:13 ↗ >> Yeah. I think that makes a lot of sense.

50:16 ↗ Uh we'll then move forward to Sunset

50:20 ↗ Way. Um

50:23 ↗ again, just going really quick through

50:25 ↗ what we rated. We put pet bike higher

50:28 ↗ than drivers, ped bike higher than

50:31 ↗ transit. Um and then policy alignment is

50:35 ↗ still king everywhere. Um the driver

50:40 ↗ experience is less exper less important

50:44 ↗ than the transit experience. Transit's

50:46 ↗ more important and yeah politic for both

50:50 ↗ of the last two. Any comments on sunset

50:54 ↗ and how that was rated

50:56 ↗ looks pretty similar to the front

50:58 ↗ streets.

50:58 ↗ >> Yeah.

51:03 ↗ >> All right

51:06 ↗ for Gilman. I think it is the exact

51:08 ↗ same.

51:12 ↗ So some of the difference I think the

51:13 ↗ discussion that we had in some of the

51:15 ↗ consultant discussions and with the city

51:17 ↗ is that there is a lot of development

51:20 ↗ potential along Gilman. There's plans

51:22 ↗ for more signals and things like that

51:24 ↗ that's going to be kind of incorporated

51:26 ↗ I think into some of the inputs. But

51:27 ↗ when you're thinking of that policy

51:29 ↗ that's your future, right? And like how

51:30 ↗ are these signal timings going to work?

51:33 ↗ >> Okay. I did have a comment

51:35 ↗ >> on like the maximum that we use is 45%

51:37 ↗ for policy. In corridors where there's a

51:39 ↗ lot of planned activity long term, would

51:42 ↗ it make sense to increase that above 45%

51:45 ↗ or is there like a reason we cap it at

51:47 ↗ 45% waiting?

51:48 ↗ >> It's just a math thing. Yeah, I think

51:52 ↗ there may be Let me look.

51:54 ↗ >> Let me just look at the

51:56 ↗ >> Yeah, it is capped at it. It I think

51:58 ↗ just because there's 5% for the cars. I

52:00 ↗ mean, look, we can always overwrite it.

52:03 ↗ and say driver experience zero

52:06 ↗ put it all in policy or I mean we can we

52:09 ↗ can change like I'm not married to the

52:12 ↗ paired comparison method if pad thinks

52:15 ↗ that they want to up something we can

52:18 ↗ change the number of the screen I don't

52:20 ↗ care

52:21 ↗ >> I think for the math you got to take it

52:22 ↗ away from something else

52:24 ↗ >> you do want to at least put some weight

52:27 ↗ on all of these concerns and all of

52:29 ↗ these corers so it's a little tricky

52:31 ↗ >> I I do want to point out that that much.

52:33 ↗ >> The the traffic that goes down Gilman's

52:35 ↗ not entirely consistent either. It's a

52:36 ↗ bit diverse depending on what part

52:38 ↗ you're at. So like there's the East Lake

52:40 ↗ Trail. There's a lot of bike traffic and

52:42 ↗ pedestrian traffic. I don't know if that

52:43 ↗ would come into play with making this

52:45 ↗ more complicated to model, but that's

52:47 ↗ one of the things I see that are

52:48 ↗ difficult with it is like

52:50 ↗ how would you prioritize different

52:52 ↗ sections of Gilman differently? Uh or

52:55 ↗ should they all use the same meeting?

52:57 ↗ That's I think getting a little

53:00 ↗ >> Yeah, I would say that you probably are

53:03 ↗ not going to have adaptive on a part of

53:05 ↗ Gilman and not on a another part of

53:08 ↗ Gilman. So, you want to rate it all the

53:10 ↗ same, but then keeping in mind there are

53:13 ↗ pieces where pad bike performance is

53:16 ↗ really important and then there's pieces

53:18 ↗ where people really want to get out of

53:19 ↗ the target and turn left, right? Like

53:21 ↗ there's there are

53:25 ↗ this is this is the traffic engineer's

53:26 ↗ dilemma, right? Is you have all these

53:28 ↗ conflicts that you're trying to manage

53:29 ↗ in space and time.

53:31 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:32 ↗ >> Thank you for answer. Thank you.

53:36 ↗ >> All right. Sounds like we have agreement

53:39 ↗ on Gilman. Oh, we're already moving

53:41 ↗ along. Perfect. He's like Seamish here.

53:44 ↗ We said, all right, I'm just going to

53:46 ↗ brace myself that driver experience is

53:50 ↗ more important than the pet bike

53:52 ↗ experience. Um, I'm going to come back.

53:55 ↗ I'm going to listen to the discussion. I

53:57 ↗ can explain to you why the consulting

53:58 ↗ team decided that, but we're not married

54:01 ↗ to any of these values. Um, then transit

54:03 ↗ experience uh is less less important

54:08 ↗ than pet experience. And then policy

54:10 ↗ alignment's king all the way down. Um

54:12 ↗ and then driver experience is more ex

54:16 ↗ more important than transit

54:19 ↗ experience.

54:21 ↗ So

54:23 ↗ we are getting drivers as one of the

54:26 ↗ more

54:29 ↗ uh prioritized mode. This is one of the

54:31 ↗ biggest commute corridors in the city.

54:35 ↗ You see a lot of vehicle traffic. there

54:38 ↗ are

54:40 ↗ trail heads and pedestrian crossings

54:43 ↗ that exist on it. So, don't want to

54:45 ↗ completely ignore that, but I'm curious

54:49 ↗ to hear what you all have to say.

54:54 ↗ Uh can you so just to shed a little more

54:58 ↗ light on on what you're thinking in

55:00 ↗ terms of uh specifically pet bike versus

55:03 ↗ driver uh can you come up with like a

55:06 ↗ specific tradeoff like an intersection

55:09 ↗ where you'd be looking at specific

55:11 ↗ conflictive so I mean the go-to one Adam

55:15 ↗ is going to be what if adaptive

55:17 ↗ always gives more green time for the

55:21 ↗ major through movement now you're

55:23 ↗ sitting at a trail head and instead of

55:24 ↗ waiting for 30 seconds, you're waiting

55:26 ↗ for a minute and a half. Or maybe it

55:30 ↗ just thinks there's so much traffic,

55:31 ↗ it's going to skip the PD phase for a

55:33 ↗ couple of cycles and you're waiting even

55:34 ↗ longer, right? Like there I don't maybe

55:38 ↗ scoops would do that, but I don't know

55:40 ↗ that like there's differences in each of

55:43 ↗ the systems and how they do that, but

55:46 ↗ that is sort of the trade-off. You're

55:48 ↗ literally giving time to cars, not

55:51 ↗ pedestrians. and the pedestrian has to

55:52 ↗ wait but the cars get to go.

55:55 ↗ >> I can I can elaborate a little bit of an

55:57 ↗ example. So I had I I was the city of

56:00 ↗ Belleview uh traffic engineering group

56:02 ↗ for uh in my previous role and Belleview

56:05 ↗ runs a fully adaptive signal system

56:07 ↗ called Scats. Um Scats is very

56:10 ↗ interesting because it actually because

56:12 ↗ of the way that the street grid lines up

56:13 ↗ in Belleview, you know, it's kind of

56:15 ↗ it's more like a like a honeycomb grid

56:17 ↗ than is you had corridors that

56:20 ↗ essentially talk to each other. So, it's

56:21 ↗ a very cool technology. Um, but because

56:23 ↗ they talk to each other, they're able to

56:25 ↗ sense how loaded the traffic is in any

56:27 ↗ direction. So, you may have noticed, for

56:29 ↗ example, if you're in Belleview driving

56:30 ↗ on 148th up and down, you know, you

56:33 ↗ might get a big green flow

56:38 ↗ um during certain times of the day. What

56:40 ↗ in the background adaptive does is that

56:43 ↗ it essentially is tracking in real time

56:47 ↗ that flow. And so the way that SCATS

56:50 ↗ specifically is built, the technology is

56:52 ↗ built, prioritizes that type of

56:55 ↗ vehicular movement,

56:57 ↗ which means that if you are trying to

56:59 ↗ cross over 148th during those high rush

57:02 ↗ periods as a pedestrian, you will have

57:05 ↗ to wait longer because the system

57:06 ↗ prioritizes vehicle movement. It's not

57:09 ↗ to say that you could tweak it, but

57:10 ↗ that's just the way that Bellev

57:11 ↗ approaches it. So when you're thinking

57:14 ↗ about adaptive potentially in Isiqua,

57:16 ↗ you could come up with a similar type of

57:19 ↗ uh scenario where you have large traffic

57:22 ↗ volumes maybe in the afternoon and an

57:24 ↗ adaptive, you know, with a higher weight

57:26 ↗ to drivers, you'd be able to, you know,

57:28 ↗ move the traffic in a more efficient

57:31 ↗ way, move the vehicular traffic, but

57:34 ↗ that would also potentially be the

57:35 ↗ detriment of pedestrian activity. Mhm.

57:38 ↗ So that is that's a very common

57:40 ↗ trade-off that you'd see in adaptive

57:42 ↗ systems in general.

57:43 ↗ >> It's good kind.

57:44 ↗ >> So the only concern with that and it

57:47 ↗ makes sense when we're trying to

57:50 ↗ get traffic flowing, but the longer a

57:53 ↗ pedestrian or a bicyclist needs to wait,

57:58 ↗ the more temptation there is on their

58:00 ↗ part to try and dodge it and just go

58:03 ↗ ahead and cross. And so I'd be concerned

58:06 ↗ about the safety issues associated with

58:09 ↗ with that um on on and it anywhere

58:15 ↗ really but on East Lake Samish as you

58:17 ↗ were saying there's a lot of

58:18 ↗ corporations down there and there's a

58:20 ↗ lot of that traffic. So is there a way

58:22 ↗ to kind of balance that or limit that to

58:25 ↗ a certain extent because that's what I

58:27 ↗ would be afraid of. I mean let's face it

58:29 ↗ we all see people just going against the

58:31 ↗ cross sign. I mean, you know, it's going

58:33 ↗ to happen.

58:34 ↗ >> And I'm pretty sure that most of the

58:36 ↗ vendors that we're looking at will have

58:38 ↗ a knob that we can turn. It's not but,

58:42 ↗ you know, like programming that we can

58:44 ↗ put in place that blocks it from going

58:48 ↗ too far in the, you know, giving more

58:51 ↗ time to to cars. The more you do that,

58:53 ↗ the less feasible it is. We have an

58:56 ↗ input sort of metric where we're looking

58:58 ↗ at the ability for adaptive to move

59:03 ↗ signal times, screen times within those

59:06 ↗ windows. The more variability, the more

59:08 ↗ you allow it to turn knobs, the better

59:10 ↗ it's going to do, but it's you're going

59:12 ↗ to have more of these unexpected

59:14 ↗ results. And just for example, the city

59:16 ↗ of Seattle turned theirs off because

59:18 ↗ they were having issues with pedestrians

59:20 ↗ on Mercer,

59:21 ↗ >> right? Like as one of the issues that

59:23 ↗ they

59:26 ↗ Yeah, I think it's Cynthia's next.

59:29 ↗ >> So, I'm a little confused and this is

59:32 ↗ very specific to this corridor, but

59:34 ↗ because there is

59:37 ↗ um a trail a pedestri quite extensive

59:40 ↗ facility,

59:43 ↗ the conflict is going to be with the

59:45 ↗ other routes because they're going to be

59:48 ↗ going the same direction. So if it's

59:51 ↗ green

59:52 ↗ when you're on the trail, you're

59:54 ↗ parallel to this segment of the corridor

59:57 ↗ that we're studying. So in the end,

1:00:01 ↗ they're going to be

1:00:02 ↗ >> there is a crossing on a trail uh close

1:00:05 ↗ to I90 for the trail that goes up.

1:00:07 ↗ >> That one there's there is the one.

1:00:10 ↗ >> Yeah. So, and I also I want to point out

1:00:13 ↗ that you're absolutely right and the big

1:00:16 ↗ crossing is going to be across like 56th

1:00:19 ↗ um northwest Samish.

1:00:21 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:00:21 ↗ >> But that's at the intersection actually

1:00:23 ↗ is at the signal. Um so the signal is

1:00:27 ↗ >> they're interrelated, right? You can't

1:00:29 ↗ really decouple then completely the

1:00:32 ↗ corridors because they do cross. So

1:00:34 ↗ there's a big crossing right there for

1:00:35 ↗ that trail system. And also as you have

1:00:38 ↗ that trail that's running parallel, it

1:00:40 ↗ creates pedestrian demand. So if you're

1:00:43 ↗ work, you know, on that trail and you're

1:00:44 ↗ going to use it to go, you know,

1:00:46 ↗ shopping at Best Buy or something, then

1:00:49 ↗ you do have to cross at some point to

1:00:51 ↗ get up there or you're going to

1:00:52 ↗ breakfast or, you know, I think there's

1:00:55 ↗ a McDonald's on that side. I don't

1:00:56 ↗ remember exactly.

1:00:58 ↗ >> I just don't think that's going to be

1:00:59 ↗ the dominant the onlybody walking

1:01:04 ↗ to that. I mean, they're walking because

1:01:06 ↗ they have to. They're not I mean

1:01:08 ↗ pleasure walk. Yeah.

1:01:09 ↗ >> Pardon?

1:01:10 ↗ >> It's not a pleasure walk.

1:01:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Um but I do see the main one being

1:01:15 ↗ the I90 crossing. That would really be

1:01:17 ↗ the only time this is a real question.

1:01:20 ↗ Otherwise, you're just you're going with

1:01:22 ↗ the flow.

1:01:22 ↗ >> So, I I've got a couple thoughts on it.

1:01:25 ↗ So, you're absolutely right. The at the

1:01:28 ↗ I90 ramps, that's one of them. And then

1:01:31 ↗ the next one I would say is at 56th even

1:01:34 ↗ though it is technically crossing 56th

1:01:38 ↗ right now. It does impact East Lakes

1:01:40 ↗ Mammish Parkway cuz right now when the

1:01:42 ↗ walk sign is on there is a no ride on

1:01:46 ↗ red

1:01:47 ↗ >> light that comes up. And then when you

1:01:49 ↗ go up to 51st, then there's another if

1:01:52 ↗ you get there and you're on your bike

1:01:54 ↗ and you push the button and you have to

1:01:58 ↗ wait for what feels like forever and

1:01:59 ↗ you'll see a lot of bikes still crossing

1:02:02 ↗ because right now it prioritizes the

1:02:05 ↗ left turn movements.

1:02:06 ↗ >> That's true.

1:02:07 ↗ >> So it still went

1:02:09 ↗ >> Yeah, that's true.

1:02:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Wanted to point out those ones.

1:02:12 ↗ >> It's a good point.

1:02:13 ↗ >> And those are awesome specific examples

1:02:15 ↗ that we should dive into and talk about.

1:02:17 ↗ you know, what do we want as a

1:02:18 ↗ prioritization? Because I think that's

1:02:19 ↗ kind of what we're getting at tonight.

1:02:22 ↗ >> But I want to go to Victoria next.

1:02:24 ↗ >> I just had a quick question. I meant to

1:02:25 ↗ look up and I didn't. Is this transit is

1:02:28 ↗ low because there's no transit.

1:02:30 ↗ >> That's the Yeah.

1:02:33 ↗ >> Not much, but there's some.

1:02:34 ↗ >> So, we're calling that like a huge

1:02:36 ↗ commuter corridor, but we don't want to

1:02:38 ↗ like encourage more transit.

1:02:42 ↗ >> I I don't know. transit just seems

1:02:44 ↗ really low for a commuter corridor.

1:02:47 ↗ >> It's I think it's less so about

1:02:49 ↗ encouraging and more so about the

1:02:51 ↗ existing Yeah. What's there now? And

1:02:53 ↗ again, kind of going back to the policy.

1:02:54 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:02:55 ↗ >> You know, the pol that's why policy is

1:02:56 ↗ so heavy on

1:02:58 ↗ >> for the long-term vision.

1:03:03 ↗ But I guess since we were getting into

1:03:06 ↗ the weeds with the pedestrian stuff, is

1:03:10 ↗ this new signal prioritization uh

1:03:12 ↗ program, is that compatible with like

1:03:15 ↗ having buttons to tell whether or not

1:03:17 ↗ there's a pedestrian there and then

1:03:19 ↗ change the priority depending on whether

1:03:20 ↗ or not a pedestrian is actually standing

1:03:22 ↗ there? Because I know in Seattle they

1:03:24 ↗ don't have those buttons at all at most

1:03:25 ↗ of the crosswalks. But

1:03:28 ↗ >> so yeah, I you're saying the always

1:03:31 ↗ serve versus I'm pretty sure there are

1:03:33 ↗ pedestrian buttons at all these

1:03:34 ↗ crossings.

1:03:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:37 ↗ >> I don't think that the system is not

1:03:40 ↗ independent, but what you're asking

1:03:42 ↗ basically is Seattle in some locations

1:03:45 ↗ always serves a walk sign regardless of

1:03:48 ↗ if there's a call. you the button is

1:03:51 ↗ just the way the signal is hearing or

1:03:54 ↗ you know seeing a pedestrian. It's

1:03:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:57 ↗ >> Yeah. I guess that was just that's kind

1:03:59 ↗ of relevant because like

1:04:02 ↗ if you are expecting I I guess maybe it

1:04:05 ↗ isn't but I guess that was just my

1:04:08 ↗ question because that kind of solves

1:04:09 ↗ some of the conflict between whether or

1:04:11 ↗ not we're prioritizing pedestrians

1:04:13 ↗ because that means if we are doing those

1:04:15 ↗ systems there then you're only

1:04:18 ↗ prioritizing pedestrians if there's

1:04:19 ↗ actually pedestrians there. No,

1:04:21 ↗ >> he's saying you could miss this whole

1:04:22 ↗ you could

1:04:23 ↗ >> you can hit the button and wait for

1:04:24 ↗ >> wait extra cycles. Oh, I guess my my

1:04:27 ↗ point is I'm guessing that with signal

1:04:30 ↗ priority, you can

1:04:33 ↗ as one of your factors consider the fact

1:04:35 ↗ that like you don't need to prioritize

1:04:37 ↗ cars that much higher than pedestrians

1:04:39 ↗ if there's already not very many

1:04:40 ↗ pedestrians there. I don't know if that

1:04:42 ↗ makes any sense.

1:04:46 ↗ >> One shows up every 15 minutes or so.

1:04:49 ↗ Yeah,

1:04:49 ↗ >> there's already been enough headroom so

1:04:51 ↗ that you were able to move 500 foot

1:04:54 ↗ >> on smash and then the pedestrian doesn't

1:04:57 ↗ have to wait because that interruption

1:04:59 ↗ is only every approximately 15 minutes.

1:05:02 ↗ And I guess maybe that's part of the

1:05:03 ↗ adaptive side of things. As you get more

1:05:05 ↗ data, you can adjust the model and

1:05:08 ↗ >> it can be tweaked and changed over time.

1:05:10 ↗ Similar with policy alignment.

1:05:11 ↗ >> Yeah. And different vendors, different

1:05:13 ↗ algorithms are going to be better or

1:05:14 ↗ worse at doing that. Um

1:05:18 ↗ yeah, then I would say in the extreme

1:05:21 ↗ side of things there are and I've not

1:05:22 ↗ seen this in in it's timing, but I have

1:05:25 ↗ seen cities where basically if you have

1:05:27 ↗ coordination, if there's a PD call, it

1:05:30 ↗ throws the entire system out because

1:05:31 ↗ they're not really planning for any

1:05:33 ↗ pedestrian calls and the pedestrians

1:05:34 ↗ need a lot longer to cross. So all of a

1:05:37 ↗ sudden now your whole corridor is no

1:05:39 ↗ longer time. It takes it a few minutes,

1:05:41 ↗ 5 to 10 minutes just to get back into

1:05:43 ↗ coordination and then if there's another

1:05:44 ↗ pet call and that time we're on another

1:05:46 ↗ streak, then you're off for another and

1:05:49 ↗ you know before long you've eaten up

1:05:50 ↗ your whole peak hour. So like

1:05:53 ↗ so can we boil this down to actual

1:05:55 ↗ questions about prioritization.

1:05:58 ↗ Uh I want to start out with uh East

1:06:01 ↗ Lakes SM Parkway 56 the lakes trail east

1:06:05 ↗ lakes trail there that's a heavily used

1:06:08 ↗ bike and pedestrian path. Uh so I think

1:06:12 ↗ the prioritization question would be do

1:06:15 ↗ we want to increase the crossing time

1:06:18 ↗ for bikes or pedestrians there in order

1:06:21 ↗ to

1:06:23 ↗ increase or decrease the trend the

1:06:26 ↗ corridor wait and see

1:06:29 ↗ >> for vehicles

1:06:30 ↗ >> for vehicles

1:06:32 ↗ >> the

1:06:33 ↗ maybe not increase the time but that

1:06:36 ↗ they have to cross because I think they

1:06:38 ↗ have enough time to cross from what I've

1:06:40 ↗ seen but expected They spend crossing.

1:06:42 ↗ >> Yeah. The weight time to cross.

1:06:44 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:06:46 ↗ >> Which is that essentially intersection

1:06:48 ↗ level of service? Is it the same metric

1:06:51 ↗ that we use for other things?

1:06:53 ↗ >> There is not a great There is something,

1:06:56 ↗ but there's not a great intersection

1:06:57 ↗ level service for pedestrians.

1:06:59 ↗ >> Okay.

1:06:59 ↗ >> The highway capacity manual tries its

1:07:02 ↗ best.

1:07:03 ↗ Um, but it's kind of laughable. Um,

1:07:08 ↗ >> I would just think about it in the if I

1:07:10 ↗ wait, am I would I be willing to wait 30

1:07:13 ↗ seconds, 1 minute, a minute and a half,

1:07:17 ↗ how long until, as Connie pointed out,

1:07:19 ↗ I'm just like, I'm never going to get a

1:07:20 ↗ walk signal and I just go, right? Like,

1:07:23 ↗ I've done that. Sure. Um,

1:07:29 ↗ and I do want to just also say I I love

1:07:31 ↗ that we're pointing out specific parts

1:07:33 ↗ on this corridor that are of importance.

1:07:37 ↗ I also want to just make sure like we do

1:07:39 ↗ want to keep this at a corridor level,

1:07:42 ↗ not at an intersection level, because we

1:07:43 ↗ can't just break out pieces of them and

1:07:46 ↗ say, "Well, at this intersection, we

1:07:48 ↗ don't want to have we we don't care

1:07:49 ↗ about vehicles. We really care about

1:07:51 ↗ pedestrians.

1:07:53 ↗ And at this intersection, we really care

1:07:55 ↗ about vehicles and not pedestrians

1:07:56 ↗ because we have to apply this technology

1:07:58 ↗ to the corridor in order to get an any

1:08:00 ↗ results that matter.

1:08:01 ↗ >> Right? And I think when we say we're

1:08:04 ↗ going to apply this prioritization to

1:08:06 ↗ the corridor, what it means effectively

1:08:08 ↗ is, you know, this intersection and

1:08:10 ↗ probably the uh Preston is Preston Trail

1:08:13 ↗ crossing, you know, where East Lex

1:08:16 ↗ becomes Front Street. Those are like the

1:08:18 ↗ major

1:08:21 ↗ >> drivers. and any

1:08:22 ↗ >> not not exceptions that those are the

1:08:24 ↗ ones that are going to feel the brunt of

1:08:25 ↗ the prioritization decision with the

1:08:27 ↗ mandatory right

1:08:28 ↗ >> and the

1:08:30 ↗ to consider just again how these are

1:08:32 ↗ going to be used

1:08:34 ↗ we are still going to say okay there's a

1:08:37 ↗ chance that if we do adaptive we are

1:08:39 ↗ going to increase pedestrian weight

1:08:41 ↗ times and we're still going to have a

1:08:43 ↗ score for that and the way it is right

1:08:45 ↗ now that's 20% of the overall

1:08:47 ↗ feasibility score for the outputs now if

1:08:50 ↗ we say there's a chance that we're going

1:08:52 ↗ to see improved driver experience, that

1:08:55 ↗ we're going to actually see less delay

1:08:57 ↗ or more throughput, something that we

1:08:59 ↗ can measure to show that driver

1:09:00 ↗ experience will be better. That is also

1:09:03 ↗ going to be graded and it's at 30% of

1:09:05 ↗ this overall score. So, we're not

1:09:08 ↗ necessarily getting to the point where

1:09:10 ↗ we're going to say, oh, 2 seconds of

1:09:12 ↗ extra delay is, you know, not enough

1:09:15 ↗ savings for a vehicle to delay a

1:09:17 ↗ pedestrian by 10 extra seconds or

1:09:19 ↗ something. It's not we're not going to

1:09:21 ↗ get to that level of of analysis at this

1:09:23 ↗ point, but just thinking of does this

1:09:26 ↗ seem right as far as the waiting

1:09:28 ↗ overall.

1:09:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So, when I look at again that

1:09:33 ↗ specific intersection, sorry. Uh,

1:09:37 ↗ one of the things that this invokes is

1:09:40 ↗ thought about what's the future of like

1:09:42 ↗ the bike network in the region and this

1:09:45 ↗ is a pretty major connection between

1:09:47 ↗ like is Redmond

1:09:49 ↗ uh which I think a lot of people already

1:09:51 ↗ use that as a commute and we would like

1:09:54 ↗ to see a lot more of that because it

1:09:55 ↗ really you know takes the pressure off

1:09:57 ↗ the rest of the system and satisfies a

1:10:00 ↗ lot of our goals for environmental uh

1:10:04 ↗ improvement reduction greenhouse gases

1:10:06 ↗ although I'm not sure we're measuring

1:10:08 ↗ greenhouse gases coming from humans

1:10:10 ↗ anyway u

1:10:14 ↗ so so I think for those reasons I would

1:10:17 ↗ I would be wary of of downrating the pen

1:10:21 ↗ and bike experience on the corridor.

1:10:25 ↗ >> I agree. I would switch

1:10:28 ↗ the driver and bike on that. I did just

1:10:32 ↗ switch the driver and bike and literally

1:10:33 ↗ all it does is it switches the 30 and 20

1:10:35 ↗ and

1:10:37 ↗ >> so the driver experience becomes 30% of

1:10:39 ↗ the or sorry 20% of the overall score

1:10:42 ↗ and the pet pad bike experience becomes

1:10:44 ↗ 30.

1:10:47 ↗ I don't

1:10:48 ↗ >> I think one thing to mention too is like

1:10:50 ↗ the transportation improvement plans

1:10:52 ↗ could also drive an improved pedestrian

1:10:55 ↗ experience. So having the policy

1:10:56 ↗ alignment weighted highly could account

1:10:58 ↗ for a lot of the protected rideway for

1:11:01 ↗ um the East Lake Trail because I don't

1:11:03 ↗ think it's so much of a signal issue. is

1:11:05 ↗ just like when people are trying to turn

1:11:07 ↗ right and someone's trying to cross.

1:11:09 ↗ Like I've almost been hit there myself

1:11:10 ↗ and I go to the dentist right where that

1:11:12 ↗ old Costco crossing is and you have to

1:11:15 ↗ wait there forever. But it's like if if

1:11:18 ↗ people are trying to hit their fastest

1:11:20 ↗ straw time, they're not going to stop at

1:11:22 ↗ those lights crossing. But I would argue

1:11:24 ↗ again it's more like no turn turning on

1:11:28 ↗ reds type thing, not signal.

1:11:30 ↗ >> Yeah. And people have been hit there in

1:11:32 ↗ the past. That's why they have the turn

1:11:34 ↗ on.

1:11:35 ↗ >> I've been inches from getting hit

1:11:37 ↗ >> from a protected device. Yeah, it

1:11:39 ↗ certainly has.

1:11:41 ↗ >> So, as a followup to that, are we

1:11:43 ↗ comfortable with the transit experience

1:11:46 ↗ column?

1:11:48 ↗ Any changes there? So, just the only

1:11:50 ↗ change that I've made now is swapping

1:11:52 ↗ the ped and driver experience

1:11:56 ↗ with that. The It sounds like more

1:11:58 ↗ supportive. So again, if we had transit

1:12:01 ↗ on the route, would we have scored it

1:12:02 ↗ different?

1:12:02 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:12:03 ↗ >> To put transit on that route. I mean,

1:12:06 ↗ >> okay.

1:12:07 ↗ >> It's not in the future.

1:12:09 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:12:11 ↗ >> There's a reason. There's a land use.

1:12:13 ↗ >> It's not going to change anytime soon.

1:12:15 ↗ return.

1:12:17 ↗ >> And I could see looking at the policy

1:12:20 ↗ alignment considering, okay, in the

1:12:22 ↗ future there's going to be a light rail

1:12:24 ↗ station somewhere in Isqua and there's

1:12:26 ↗ going to be a lot of riders in Seamish

1:12:29 ↗ who are probably hopefully going to be

1:12:31 ↗ taking the bus to the light rail

1:12:33 ↗ station. So I think they can still

1:12:36 ↗ consider transit for the long run

1:12:40 ↗ instead of the short run.

1:12:41 ↗ >> Yeah. And that's part of like you can

1:12:44 ↗ change the priorities over time. That's

1:12:46 ↗ one of the advantages of this this

1:12:48 ↗ technology is it's mostly software. It's

1:12:50 ↗ very easy to change software or

1:12:51 ↗ relatively easy compared to

1:12:53 ↗ infrastructure.

1:12:59 ↗ >> I just generally hate to see transit

1:13:01 ↗ rated at the bottom for anything like

1:13:04 ↗ that does not feel good. But I

1:13:05 ↗ understand the reasons.

1:13:07 ↗ >> Well, wait till you see the next slide.

1:13:08 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:13:11 ↗ >> Sorry guys. Um, okay. So, again, and we

1:13:14 ↗ can change these and we can see the

1:13:16 ↗ numbers change in real time. Um, this is

1:13:19 ↗ northwest Samish Road 56. Part of the um

1:13:23 ↗ thought here is that there weren't a lot

1:13:25 ↗ of um generators or destinations on the

1:13:29 ↗ north side that were creating a lot of

1:13:31 ↗ that crossing. A lot of those crossings

1:13:34 ↗ are happening at East Lake Samish to get

1:13:38 ↗ to the trail system. Um

1:13:41 ↗ and again this is a pretty heavily

1:13:44 ↗ vehicled route even on weekends to go

1:13:48 ↗ shopping at

1:13:49 ↗ >> people don't walk to Costco right

1:13:54 ↗ >> I' I've biked to Costco

1:13:57 ↗ I was very tired

1:13:59 ↗ >> get a hot dog

1:14:01 ↗ >> region bakery there has amazing custard

1:14:03 ↗ buns

1:14:04 ↗ >> there you go

1:14:04 ↗ >> anyway so uh before I jump into

1:14:08 ↗ questions and things I just kind of

1:14:09 ↗ wanted to run through the there is a a

1:14:12 ↗ lot of weekday commute traffic and it's

1:14:15 ↗ very directional in this area as well.

1:14:18 ↗ We've talked quite a bit about uh that

1:14:20 ↗ with signal staff at the um city as

1:14:24 ↗ well. Um and then again we've got you

1:14:28 ↗ know even transit experience outweighing

1:14:30 ↗ pad bike experience on this. Um and then

1:14:34 ↗ policy is still king.

1:14:39 ↗ I was going to mention the same thing

1:14:41 ↗ you pointed out which is there's not a

1:14:43 ↗ lot of crossings and where there are

1:14:44 ↗ crossings I would argue we have the

1:14:46 ↗ fully separated like crossing at big

1:14:49 ↗ ring bar and there's a lot of places

1:14:50 ↗ that already are protected pretty well

1:14:52 ↗ any improvements would be like policy

1:14:54 ↗ improvements essentially to make the

1:14:56 ↗ pedestrian experience any better.

1:14:58 ↗ >> Thanks for bringing that. Yeah, I have

1:15:00 ↗ forgotten to mention the dread

1:15:01 ↗ separated. So, I appreciate that.

1:15:04 ↗ >> Okay.

1:15:08 ↗ >> How much transit is there along that

1:15:09 ↗ corridor?

1:15:12 ↗ >> There is a

1:15:13 ↗ >> I think there's a new realignment that

1:15:15 ↗ 203.

1:15:15 ↗ >> 203.

1:15:16 ↗ >> Okay.

1:15:16 ↗ >> It's like King County.

1:15:18 ↗ >> It's like a circulator

1:15:21 ↗ >> Costco route.

1:15:26 ↗ So, how do we feel about ped bike

1:15:28 ↗ experience being the 5% in this?

1:15:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:15:36 ↗ >> Mhm.

1:15:36 ↗ >> Seems right. And then transit is the 30.

1:15:42 ↗ So,

1:15:43 ↗ it basically is just left to right on

1:15:45 ↗ the side in priority.

1:15:49 ↗ >> Okay.

1:15:50 ↗ >> Good. Okay. I I expected there to be

1:15:52 ↗ more more feedback on that. That that

1:15:55 ↗ went a lot better than

1:15:57 ↗ >> that grid separation.

1:15:58 ↗ >> It helped, right? Yeah.

1:16:01 ↗ >> If you go under the bridge there,

1:16:05 ↗ >> okay, now we're on to 17th Avenue, also

1:16:08 ↗ SR900.

1:16:10 ↗ Um it's a state corridor. There's quite

1:16:13 ↗ a bit of transit on um SR900. This is

1:16:16 ↗ one of This is the access for the park

1:16:18 ↗ and ride. Um

1:16:21 ↗ there's some trails across to boardwalks

1:16:25 ↗ and things. Um we Yeah. So we did

1:16:30 ↗ >> walk through this. Um it's also a really

1:16:32 ↗ big commuter corridor north and south

1:16:34 ↗ through the city. Um so driver

1:16:38 ↗ experience we have rated higher than the

1:16:40 ↗ ped bike experience as far as uh waiting

1:16:43 ↗ goes. And then we rate rated transit

1:16:47 ↗ experience more important than

1:16:50 ↗ everything except for policy alignment

1:16:53 ↗ and future readiness.

1:16:55 ↗ So again, future readiness is king.

1:16:58 ↗ That's what we we rated higher across

1:17:00 ↗ the board. Any objections, questions,

1:17:05 ↗ comments on the way we waited

1:17:09 ↗ the priorities here?

1:17:14 ↗ Yeah. So, I think last time we talked

1:17:16 ↗ about that uh pedestrian crossing at

1:17:19 ↗ Gilman 17th.

1:17:21 ↗ >> Yes.

1:17:22 ↗ >> Where they're crossing six lanes, seven,

1:17:25 ↗ eight lanes.

1:17:26 ↗ >> Eight lanes.

1:17:27 ↗ >> It's a lot.

1:17:28 ↗ >> A lot. Yeah.

1:17:29 ↗ >> And yeah, it's a very long crossing and

1:17:32 ↗ you know on a nice day there are lots of

1:17:34 ↗ people that hit the button. Um,

1:17:38 ↗ so I think the result of this would be

1:17:40 ↗ basically we're saying we're going to

1:17:44 ↗ avoid allowing as as frequent crossing

1:17:48 ↗ as there is now or potentially reduce

1:17:51 ↗ the rate at which pedestrians are going

1:17:53 ↗ to slow down that.

1:17:55 ↗ >> We're going to rate that as a less

1:17:58 ↗ important outcome. Yeah. like being able

1:18:01 ↗ to reduce the time that folks are

1:18:03 ↗ waiting across that where that's going

1:18:04 ↗ to be a less important outcome than

1:18:08 ↗ improving the throughput down SR900.

1:18:10 ↗ That is that is what this is saying.

1:18:14 ↗ Yeah, this one almost feels like we need

1:18:16 ↗ more not not for adaptive signal but

1:18:20 ↗ other investment,

1:18:22 ↗ >> you know, supporting the pedestrian and

1:18:25 ↗ bike experience across the

1:18:28 ↗ >> um so I kind of wonder about the

1:18:30 ↗ secondary effects of whatever we do in

1:18:32 ↗ this corridor with adaptive signaling in

1:18:35 ↗ terms of investing in you know

1:18:37 ↗ alternatives like bridges or whatever.

1:18:39 ↗ This also might be a given for this

1:18:42 ↗ group. We all seem to know your stuff,

1:18:44 ↗ but the crossing time will still be long

1:18:48 ↗ enough to allow a

1:18:50 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:18:51 ↗ >> it's it's important to it's important to

1:18:53 ↗ clarify that

1:18:54 ↗ >> pedestrians runners only.

1:18:58 ↗ >> But I've, you know, I've I've had

1:18:59 ↗ conversations with folks where, you

1:19:02 ↗ know, simil similar types of projects

1:19:04 ↗ where they're saying, "Well, does this

1:19:05 ↗ mean I won't have enough time to cross?"

1:19:07 ↗ So, I just want to make that clear. I

1:19:08 ↗ guess there would still be enough time

1:19:10 ↗ to cross.

1:19:10 ↗ >> We only cross this street on a bike.

1:19:14 ↗ >> Yeah, scooters only.

1:19:15 ↗ >> So, how does that take into

1:19:17 ↗ consideration if they're going to be

1:19:18 ↗ like traffic improvement projects given

1:19:21 ↗ the link when it comes? We don't want to

1:19:24 ↗ invest two times like giving that

1:19:27 ↗ priority to the pedestrian and bike.

1:19:31 ↗ Yeah, I think the

1:19:34 ↗ this is going to be in your future

1:19:36 ↗ readiness of how well this is going to

1:19:38 ↗ be able to work with that change in the

1:19:42 ↗ future, right? This is likely going to

1:19:45 ↗ be the main access point in and out of

1:19:49 ↗ the light rail station for vehicles who

1:19:52 ↗ are maybe picking up people, buses who

1:19:54 ↗ are transferring and things like that as

1:19:56 ↗ well. And yeah, people walking to and

1:19:58 ↗ from. So I would I would put that

1:20:00 ↗ underneath your policy alignment, your

1:20:02 ↗ planning alignment more so than specific

1:20:05 ↗ modal priorities of just saying that is

1:20:08 ↗ the most important. Um

1:20:12 ↗ >> yeah, I think that does that answer your

1:20:14 ↗ question?

1:20:15 ↗ >> So once maybe you do some of those

1:20:17 ↗ traffic improvements and you get the

1:20:19 ↗ pedestrian bike lane sort of protected,

1:20:22 ↗ that changes the whole equation, right?

1:20:25 ↗ Like what we had on

1:20:28 ↗ which which street I think a couple of

1:20:30 ↗ slides before that

1:20:32 ↗ >> east

1:20:34 ↗ yeah exactly but I don't know if the

1:20:37 ↗ link is going to even reach there in

1:20:40 ↗ terms of improvement project

1:20:42 ↗ >> another way to look at that would be

1:20:43 ↗ talking about what's the investment

1:20:45 ↗ horizon for this particular project 20

1:20:48 ↗ years

1:20:50 ↗ >> I mean if you can get 20 years of signal

1:20:52 ↗ timing out of it I think that's

1:20:55 ↗ >> pretty good

1:20:56 ↗ >> so most of that's going to come I mean

1:20:57 ↗ it's going to likely I mean if we do it

1:21:01 ↗ right and we choose the right corridors

1:21:04 ↗ hopefully it just stays on well beyond

1:21:06 ↗ that but

1:21:07 ↗ >> yeah agree

1:21:07 ↗ >> there's opportunity to do further

1:21:09 ↗ investment certainly in the next 20

1:21:11 ↗ years though so we don't necessarily

1:21:12 ↗ need to consider all that

1:21:14 ↗ >> right

1:21:16 ↗ >> I I just kind of have a question but

1:21:18 ↗ this is you know the intersection of two

1:21:20 ↗ main corridors right Gilman and and 17th

1:21:24 ↗ um and I I don't recall I'd have to go

1:21:27 ↗ back and see what the scoring was um and

1:21:31 ↗ how that correlates. But like that

1:21:33 ↗ particular So there it says pedex biking

1:21:37 ↗ ped pet bike experience is 30%. What is

1:21:40 ↗ it 5% on n on 90 900?

1:21:44 ↗ >> Yes.

1:21:45 ↗ >> So how do those two things interact?

1:21:48 ↗ Like right now that like you say that

1:21:50 ↗ crossing that ped crossing

1:21:53 ↗ um I think they I think the light gives

1:21:55 ↗ it like 30 seconds maybe a little bit

1:21:58 ↗ more for pedestrian crossing. When it

1:22:02 ↗ does that typically depending on the

1:22:04 ↗ time of day it shortens the amount of

1:22:07 ↗ time that you have to make a left turn

1:22:09 ↗ from Gilman y

1:22:10 ↗ >> onto 900. So it it it just seems to me

1:22:15 ↗ we have some competing

1:22:18 ↗ um you know issues here and I you know

1:22:21 ↗ it's maybe getting into the into the

1:22:23 ↗ weeds but you know how do we how do we

1:22:26 ↗ reconcile that

1:22:27 ↗ >> these are the the traffic engineering

1:22:29 ↗ she needs. Yeah, this is this is why I

1:22:32 ↗ say traffic engineer to time lords

1:22:34 ↗ because we are managing space and time,

1:22:36 ↗ numbers of seconds, how much space you

1:22:38 ↗ actually have in the intersection and

1:22:40 ↗ all the competing modes that want that

1:22:42 ↗ space, right? So yes, absolutely you

1:22:44 ↗ will. If you are choosing the driver

1:22:48 ↗ experience over the pedestrian

1:22:49 ↗ experience, the outcome is that that

1:22:52 ↗ left turn may not wait as long,

1:22:54 ↗ >> right? But the pedestrian waiting to

1:22:56 ↗ cross might wait an extra cycle or

1:22:59 ↗ whatever to get that walk and signal.

1:23:04 ↗ >> That that answers it. Thank you.

1:23:06 ↗ >> I just feel my country says priority is

1:23:09 ↗ always for pet and bike from a safety

1:23:12 ↗ the most vulnerable.

1:23:14 ↗ >> Yeah, exactly.

1:23:18 ↗ I guess I was

1:23:21 ↗ I was wondering um along with along that

1:23:25 ↗ question's lines when we do have an

1:23:27 ↗ intersection

1:23:30 ↗ how like because a couple of these cross

1:23:33 ↗ each other which corridor is going to be

1:23:35 ↗ considered when two corridors cross

1:23:37 ↗ because sometimes the crossing ones have

1:23:38 ↗ different priorities and obviously that

1:23:40 ↗ matters a lot.

1:23:44 ↗ Think of it as the the corridor in

1:23:46 ↗ question as the through because if we go

1:23:49 ↗ through we may find Gilman isn't

1:23:52 ↗ feasible and then the SR900

1:23:55 ↗ you know system would overlap would take

1:23:58 ↗ over. Sorry. There are considerations

1:24:02 ↗ when we're looking at which system to

1:24:04 ↗ use and which technology

1:24:06 ↗ and the feasibility of the corridors

1:24:08 ↗ when they cross. Some systems are great

1:24:10 ↗ when you have a bunch of intersecting

1:24:12 ↗ roadways. Some of them are really only

1:24:14 ↗ good when you have long corridors.

1:24:17 ↗ Um, so that that is taken into account

1:24:21 ↗ on the input side more than the output

1:24:24 ↗ side. Um,

1:24:27 ↗ >> yeah, makes sense. Thank you. So, I did

1:24:30 ↗ a little test on my computer here, and I

1:24:32 ↗ will say that if we were just to rate

1:24:36 ↗ the driver experience to be less

1:24:39 ↗ important than the pet experience, it

1:24:42 ↗ moves that 20 over to the ped bike and

1:24:46 ↗ driver experience becomes the five.

1:24:50 ↗ We could also rate them to be the same

1:24:53 ↗ and then they would literally be 1515.

1:24:58 ↗ H

1:25:00 ↗ >> I like that.

1:25:02 ↗ >> The same on this.

1:25:03 ↗ >> Yeah, I like that better.

1:25:08 ↗ >> All right.

1:25:10 ↗ >> I was going to I was going to mirror

1:25:11 ↗ that sentiment where there are even

1:25:13 ↗ though not a lot of head crossings,

1:25:15 ↗ there are a lot of people that live on

1:25:16 ↗ the other side of the highway trying to

1:25:17 ↗ get to the transit center. Even though a

1:25:19 ↗ lot of the traffic might go parallel,

1:25:21 ↗ there is an increased demand across the

1:25:24 ↗ road

1:25:25 ↗ >> as development comes. So,

1:25:28 ↗ >> I think I think fairly balancing driver

1:25:30 ↗ and pedestrian makes sense in regard.

1:25:34 ↗ >> Perfect. I love that. That's very well

1:25:36 ↗ said, Maria. Thank you.

1:25:42 ↗ >> All right. With that, it looks like we

1:25:44 ↗ have some agreement on 17.

1:25:48 ↗ All right. Highlands part. I said it

1:25:51 ↗ existed. here got basically no priority

1:25:55 ↗ except for the future.

1:25:58 ↗ >> Um so again a little bit more why we we

1:26:02 ↗ did Park Drive. It feels a little

1:26:04 ↗ different than the 9inth and um

1:26:07 ↗ Highlands as far as maybe priorities go

1:26:09 ↗ because it's a little bit different land

1:26:11 ↗ use out there. It feels like it's a

1:26:13 ↗ different corridor,

1:26:15 ↗ but the signal timings and the cabinets

1:26:18 ↗ are very uh connected to the couplet. So

1:26:22 ↗ if whatever we do on the couplet, we're

1:26:25 ↗ going to need to also expand up to park.

1:26:28 ↗ So try to keep that in order to get that

1:26:30 ↗ interoperability to work. Um think about

1:26:34 ↗ that as you're as you're looking at

1:26:36 ↗ these. Um okay, so here we said under

1:26:39 ↗ petted bike um is less experience or

1:26:45 ↗ less important than driver experience.

1:26:47 ↗ This is a a pretty big corridor for

1:26:50 ↗ drivers with the couplet. The transit

1:26:53 ↗ experience is less important than the

1:26:56 ↗ ped bike experience

1:26:59 ↗ and policy is king down the line. Um and

1:27:03 ↗ then we're saying driver experience is

1:27:05 ↗ more important than transit experience.

1:27:09 ↗ So we end up with all three modes being

1:27:12 ↗ equally weighted. this the way that

1:27:15 ↗ we've done that.

1:27:17 ↗ >> So, I do live there and I think putting

1:27:21 ↗ those in one group

1:27:23 ↗ may not serve the purpose because

1:27:25 ↗ Highlands Drive is different than

1:27:27 ↗ Northeast Park Drive given the number of

1:27:31 ↗ kids in the school area and the lack of

1:27:35 ↗ patience when it comes to crossing those

1:27:39 ↗ walkways. So I think we need to

1:27:42 ↗ Highland's drive is there's a lot of

1:27:44 ↗ transit there but I think when you go on

1:27:47 ↗ the northeast part drive there's no

1:27:49 ↗ transit there.

1:27:51 ↗ >> Okay.

1:27:52 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:28:00 ↗ >> Yeah. This rock paper scissors thing is

1:28:01 ↗ is kind of weird.

1:28:03 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:28:04 ↗ >> We don't we don't actually have a

1:28:06 ↗ ordering among things. And I think it's

1:28:08 ↗ because

1:28:09 ↗ this says driver experience is more

1:28:11 ↗ important than pedestrian

1:28:13 ↗ which

1:28:15 ↗ I don't agree with in this core. I think

1:28:17 ↗ it's similar to like sunset uh where a

1:28:21 ↗ lot of people are walking a lot of

1:28:22 ↗ people are out

1:28:25 ↗ local things

1:28:27 ↗ >> using alternative forms.

1:28:31 ↗ I was going to say make that much sense

1:28:33 ↗ to me why why is the driver experience

1:28:37 ↗ more

1:28:37 ↗ >> I think in the discussion there's a lot

1:28:40 ↗ of north south throughput on these

1:28:41 ↗ corridors given the couplet right now

1:28:43 ↗ also the hospital was a lot of

1:28:45 ↗ discussion and sort of the queueing that

1:28:47 ↗ happens there in and out of the hospital

1:28:50 ↗ and sort of that variability in the well

1:28:54 ↗ variability but also predictable

1:28:56 ↗ variability in the um in and outs with

1:28:59 ↗ the shifts um it's also major emergency

1:29:02 ↗ route to and from the hospital. These

1:29:04 ↗ were some of the the discussion points

1:29:06 ↗ that we came up when we were waiting

1:29:07 ↗ them on the on the team. It doesn't mean

1:29:10 ↗ that any of these opinions were right.

1:29:13 ↗ >> Let's see. It does feel like this is

1:29:16 ↗ three different

1:29:19 ↗ >> study areas. It is really hard.

1:29:21 ↗ >> Hospital, north of the hospital, and

1:29:23 ↗ park, they all feel like three different

1:29:25 ↗ Yeah. So, I don't know what to say.

1:29:27 ↗ Maybe that's how you end up with the

1:29:29 ↗ rock, paper, scissors because

1:29:30 ↗ >> Yeah. And it's and it's simply a product

1:29:33 ↗ of

1:29:35 ↗ >> Yes. It's they're different land uses

1:29:37 ↗ and there's different services, but the

1:29:39 ↗ signal timings are so interrelated that

1:29:41 ↗ we can't really break them.

1:29:42 ↗ >> So then is there really you really going

1:29:45 ↗ to get anywhere? I mean, is this maybe

1:29:47 ↗ not the best area for

1:29:50 ↗ >> Don't jump to the end. One what job will

1:29:52 ↗ I have?

1:29:56 ↗ You just saved us some money. There you

1:29:57 ↗ go.

1:30:02 ↗ >> Yeah, I was gonna say I think the

1:30:04 ↗ couplet there's a wide variety of mixed

1:30:06 ↗ traffic, but when it comes to Ninth

1:30:08 ↗ Park, I do think pedestrian traffic

1:30:10 ↗ would make a lot more sense to

1:30:11 ↗ prioritize just given the amount of

1:30:14 ↗ walking people do down that avenue.

1:30:16 ↗ There's a lot of shopping centers.

1:30:19 ↗ >> Things like that might make sense to

1:30:20 ↗ separate these.

1:30:21 ↗ >> I have a question. So, in this area,

1:30:24 ↗ there's going to be a lot of development

1:30:26 ↗ with the I always call it shelter. I I'm

1:30:30 ↗ not sure what it's called now, but up

1:30:32 ↗ there. And then the lakeside

1:30:34 ↗ development. I think it's going to

1:30:36 ↗ happen pretty soon. So, knowing that

1:30:41 ↗ there's along that corridor that there's

1:30:44 ↗ going to be a lot more residential, does

1:30:48 ↗ that change how anyone would think about

1:30:50 ↗ the couplet part of it?

1:30:55 ↗ I kind of think u that a lot of the

1:30:59 ↗ places that we would be prioritizing

1:31:00 ↗ driver experience are where we have a

1:31:02 ↗ lot of traffic going through rather than

1:31:05 ↗ from

1:31:07 ↗ so like development in that area would

1:31:09 ↗ actually make me want to prioritize the

1:31:11 ↗ bike experience more just to get kind of

1:31:14 ↗ more of the smart growth aspects

1:31:18 ↗ >> okay on my computer so maybe I'll just

1:31:21 ↗ jump in and share.

1:31:24 ↗ This is like the last corridor. So, I'm

1:31:26 ↗ just going to jump in because I feel

1:31:28 ↗ like I've just copied the um

1:31:34 ↗ So, I've copied the slide and I am deep

1:31:37 ↗ into Excel. So, Highland Park

1:31:40 ↗ and Highland 9inth and Park are now the

1:31:44 ↗ number two is just Park Drive. You can

1:31:47 ↗ see I've got it up in the top. So this

1:31:49 ↗ one, if we wanted to change,

1:31:53 ↗ if we were just saying like the couplets

1:31:56 ↗ and highland, would we still say that

1:31:59 ↗ driver is more more important than

1:32:01 ↗ pedestrian if we broke park out?

1:32:06 ↗ >> No, I'm seeing a no.

1:32:07 ↗ >> I don't think so.

1:32:08 ↗ >> I don't think so.

1:32:09 ↗ >> Okay, so if we change that to R,

1:32:14 ↗ does that feel better? So now we're

1:32:17 ↗ saying ped bike experience is more

1:32:19 ↗ important than drivers and transit.

1:32:22 ↗ >> Could you zoom in a little bit?

1:32:23 ↗ >> Oh, sure.

1:32:25 ↗ >> Control plus

1:32:27 ↗ >> on a Yes, thank you for the shortcut.

1:32:31 ↗ >> Of course it's not going to work

1:32:34 ↗ right.

1:32:38 ↗ >> No,

1:32:42 ↗ >> is it?

1:32:45 ↗ >> All right. Um,

1:32:51 ↗ >> there you go. Thank you.

1:32:52 ↗ >> And you guys don't have the screen at

1:32:54 ↗ the bottom, so that's perfect.

1:33:00 ↗ Does that feel more close to the right

1:33:04 ↗ waiting?

1:33:07 ↗ >> Sorry, I thought we were on park. That's

1:33:09 ↗ Highlands.

1:33:11 ↗ >> This is Highlands. And um, this is the

1:33:13 ↗ couplet. Park is next. I'm just looking

1:33:16 ↗ at this one. So on Highland, on the

1:33:18 ↗ couplet itself,

1:33:21 ↗ it sounded like we still wanted to rate

1:33:24 ↗ heads higher than

1:33:25 ↗ >> Yes. Yes.

1:33:26 ↗ >> Okay.

1:33:26 ↗ >> I I think it's fair to make this. I also

1:33:29 ↗ want to point out any improvements you

1:33:30 ↗ make to transit given the waiting that

1:33:34 ↗ we put on the inputs also benefit

1:33:36 ↗ throughput for drivers because they're

1:33:38 ↗ all going past that transit center

1:33:40 ↗ anyways, right? So

1:33:41 ↗ >> yeah. And so here we've got transit is

1:33:43 ↗ more important than driver experience.

1:33:48 ↗ >> Yeah. Just the Highlands being like an

1:33:52 ↗ urban village model just makes no sense

1:33:55 ↗ not to prioritize ped bikes.

1:34:00 ↗ >> Guess we're

1:34:01 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:34:03 ↗ >> So and maybe this I'm going to I'm going

1:34:05 ↗ to do the thing where I don't try to

1:34:08 ↗ zoom on my touchpad. Um, if I do that

1:34:12 ↗ same change, are there other changes we

1:34:14 ↗ would like to see for park drive?

1:34:22 ↗ >> I guess transit you could swap with

1:34:24 ↗ driver because there I don't think

1:34:25 ↗ there's any transit.

1:34:27 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:34:29 ↗ >> Unless transit has the school bus.

1:34:33 ↗ >> Oh, yeah.

1:34:35 ↗ >> There's slightly less school buses going

1:34:37 ↗ up that way, right? or no what else is

1:34:39 ↗ up there besides Grand Ridge Elementary?

1:34:41 ↗ I don't even know.

1:34:44 ↗ >> Just just the one elementary school,

1:34:46 ↗ right?

1:34:46 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:34:47 ↗ >> Okay.

1:34:52 ↗ >> I just play devil's advocate real quick

1:34:54 ↗ of I don't think we've prioritized

1:34:56 ↗ driver in any of them and I just wanted

1:34:59 ↗ to like throw that out there and make

1:35:01 ↗ that known. But I'm also

1:35:03 ↗ mostly at drivers.

1:35:06 ↗ uh sadly um with small children. So I

1:35:10 ↗ just I don't know. I I feel like that we

1:35:12 ↗ could have a lot of angry residents as

1:35:15 ↗ well if none of the streets have driver.

1:35:17 ↗ So maybe there's more of a balanced

1:35:20 ↗ approach on some of these. But that's

1:35:22 ↗ just my single opinion.

1:35:27 ↗ I think this I don't live in the

1:35:30 ↗ highlands but I think this particular

1:35:32 ↗ corridor does not have very much transit

1:35:35 ↗ and does so at very least I think that

1:35:38 ↗ driver could be prioritized over transit

1:35:40 ↗ if she gain

1:35:46 ↗ because that's like the one this is the

1:35:47 ↗ one where I would say pedestrian because

1:35:49 ↗ there's so many kids and so many

1:35:52 ↗ families and this is one I would

1:35:54 ↗ definitely They had bike over

1:35:57 ↗ >> there. Three others over here and then

1:36:00 ↗ over transit.

1:36:01 ↗ >> Oh, okay. Yeah.

1:36:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

1:36:02 ↗ >> Yeah. I think we said we said Seamish

1:36:05 ↗ Road and 56 was

1:36:07 ↗ >> driver at the top of the car.

1:36:09 ↗ >> Yeah, that's true.

1:36:10 ↗ >> The Costco

1:36:12 ↗ one had uh

1:36:13 ↗ >> that's transit. It's

1:36:14 ↗ >> I think that one had transit at the top.

1:36:17 ↗ >> Driver.

1:36:17 ↗ >> Transit then driver then. Yeah.

1:36:20 ↗ >> Well, it's not saying we're not

1:36:21 ↗ prioritizing them at all. just has a

1:36:23 ↗ lowerity.

1:36:25 ↗ >> Yeah. And I we're not this is not a

1:36:28 ↗ modal priority decision from like a

1:36:30 ↗ transportation planning, right? We are

1:36:33 ↗ trying to weight the effectiveness of

1:36:35 ↗ adaptive in their ability to improve or

1:36:38 ↗ not

1:36:39 ↗ >> the different modes.

1:36:42 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:36:44 ↗ Does that sort of improvement apply only

1:36:47 ↗ to the traffic signals or also the

1:36:49 ↗ pedestrian crossings that have beacon

1:36:52 ↗ flashes?

1:36:55 ↗ You that's an interesting point and

1:36:57 ↗ again I think this is getting more onto

1:36:59 ↗ the inputs on what kind of systems are

1:37:01 ↗ out there and how well they work. those

1:37:04 ↗ flashers. Some of them I think the uh Oh

1:37:08 ↗ my gosh, I just forgot the name of the

1:37:09 ↗ road. The

1:37:11 ↗ >> sun

1:37:12 ↗ >> tiger. No, the what is this? The angled

1:37:15 ↗ one with the beacon crossing on Front

1:37:18 ↗ Street.

1:37:19 ↗ >> Oh,

1:37:19 ↗ >> is that dogwood?

1:37:20 ↗ >> Dogwood.

1:37:22 ↗ >> I was like, I have an animal, but for

1:37:23 ↗ some reason I'm getting tiger and it's

1:37:24 ↗ not

1:37:25 ↗ >> Yeah. Near the real crossing.

1:37:26 ↗ >> Yeah. Like that one I That one could

1:37:29 ↗ possibly get timed if we were able to do

1:37:31 ↗ progression on Front Street. back. I get

1:37:33 ↗ timed in. But the RFBs where you hit the

1:37:35 ↗ button and it just starts flashing.

1:37:38 ↗ Those aren't you can't time those. And

1:37:40 ↗ that does make timing for vehicle

1:37:43 ↗ progression on something like Front

1:37:44 ↗ Street where you have a lot of RFBS

1:37:47 ↗ more difficult because you're going to

1:37:49 ↗ stop between the signals more often to

1:37:51 ↗ allow this. We hope you're going to stop

1:37:54 ↗ more often to allow those pedestrian.

1:37:56 ↗ >> Yeah. Now, what I was trying to get at

1:37:58 ↗ is especially when it comes to the

1:38:01 ↗ darker days and the sunset times, we

1:38:04 ↗ have especially on the Northeast Park

1:38:06 ↗ Drive a lot of misses miss like

1:38:10 ↗ accidents like

1:38:12 ↗ >> near misses that drivers do not see kids

1:38:16 ↗ and

1:38:18 ↗ I'm looking at improving that whole, you

1:38:21 ↗ know, system if we're going to use that

1:38:23 ↗ approach. But

1:38:25 ↗ >> yeah, again for safety.

1:38:27 ↗ >> Yeah. And I would

1:38:30 ↗ warn you against expecting too much for

1:38:32 ↗ safety improvements when you talk about

1:38:34 ↗ adaptive signals.

1:38:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:38:37 ↗ >> It's an it's a piece of our analysis and

1:38:41 ↗ so far surprise guys, I haven't really

1:38:44 ↗ sent this to you yet. Um, we've done

1:38:46 ↗ some research into all the different

1:38:47 ↗ studies and they're basically all they

1:38:49 ↗ come to whatever conclusion they seem to

1:38:51 ↗ have set out to prove and they're all

1:38:54 ↗ over the map. So, we're just saying

1:38:56 ↗ regardless of the type of crash there

1:38:58 ↗ is, we're not confident adaptive signals

1:39:00 ↗ can do anything to prevent them.

1:39:03 ↗ >> Okay,

1:39:04 ↗ >> good to know.

1:39:06 ↗ >> Or make them worse. So,

1:39:12 ↗ all right. So with this park change now

1:39:16 ↗ we are at pet bike then driver then

1:39:18 ↗ transit policy still important.

1:39:23 ↗ So we let me see if we ended up we did

1:39:25 ↗ end up a little bit different. We have

1:39:27 ↗ transit more important on highland.

1:39:30 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:39:30 ↗ >> Okay. And we'll have to figure that out

1:39:32 ↗ on our side of how we split that

1:39:34 ↗ analysis up. It may just be if it

1:39:36 ↗ doesn't work on park then it doesn't

1:39:39 ↗ also work on highlands and ninth. So

1:39:43 ↗ >> I did want to make one comment. I see

1:39:46 ↗ the transit center that we have going

1:39:48 ↗ towards on 17th the Isquaw one like I

1:39:52 ↗ see the same thing being something we

1:39:54 ↗ could try to build due to policy

1:39:56 ↗ improvements long term for highlands

1:39:58 ↗ like making signal prioritizations like

1:40:01 ↗ that for transit and other transit

1:40:03 ↗ options but I think those go towards

1:40:05 ↗ other improvements not necessarily

1:40:08 ↗ signal changes.

1:40:10 ↗ Yeah, and I do want to add since you're

1:40:13 ↗ new to the tab, we actually last year

1:40:14 ↗ went through a big process where we

1:40:17 ↗ revamped the comprehensive plan to

1:40:20 ↗ um go towards having transit signal

1:40:24 ↗ priority and right now we just don't

1:40:26 ↗ have corridors that have the volume of

1:40:29 ↗ buses to actually meet the guidelines

1:40:31 ↗ for it, but it's something that we're

1:40:33 ↗ watching and planning for.

1:40:34 ↗ >> Yeah, that's good to hear.

1:40:36 ↗ >> But I think that kind of goes towards a

1:40:37 ↗ lot of the alignment being towards

1:40:38 ↗ policy. makes a lot of sense in that

1:40:40 ↗ regard. There's a lot of improvements

1:40:42 ↗ that we're talking about that would

1:40:43 ↗ actually be covered not under improving

1:40:46 ↗ the adaptive signaling for pedestrians,

1:40:47 ↗ but by improving policy on that area.

1:40:51 ↗ Right.

1:40:54 ↗ >> Great. I have a little summary slide.

1:40:57 ↗ This will update. It's not going to have

1:40:58 ↗ park um separate, but this is where we

1:41:03 ↗ ended up. It looks like for front sunset

1:41:07 ↗ Gilman pretty much the same. A little

1:41:10 ↗ bit of a change where we put driver

1:41:12 ↗ experience ahead of transit experience

1:41:14 ↗ on East Lake Samamesh.

1:41:17 ↗ And then

1:41:19 ↗ Northwest Seamish 56

1:41:22 ↗ transit then driver then ped. It's a

1:41:25 ↗ little bit different.

1:41:27 ↗ Then we have 17th Avenue where we are

1:41:30 ↗ sharing the ped bike as an even with

1:41:34 ↗ driver and transit. And then again the

1:41:38 ↗ Highlands and 9inth we're saying

1:41:41 ↗ ped bike is still the most important

1:41:44 ↗ driver experience is

1:41:46 ↗ less and then transit with future plans

1:41:50 ↗ being

1:41:51 ↗ objections.

1:41:53 ↗ Would we like this? Do you want to add

1:41:55 ↗ something? We just need to make sure we

1:41:56 ↗ add the row for park separating.

1:41:58 ↗ >> Oh yeah, we we will. It's over here.

1:42:00 ↗ It's just on a different sheet and I

1:42:02 ↗ haven't

1:42:05 ↗ >> for the

1:42:07 ↗ the Highlands route. We uh Does anybody

1:42:10 ↗ think that we could do an even waiting

1:42:12 ↗ for transit and driver since there is

1:42:15 ↗ the hospital traffic there?

1:42:20 ↗ I'm wondering with your point earlier

1:42:22 ↗ Mario about

1:42:24 ↗ driver benefiting from transit

1:42:26 ↗ experience especially on that coupled

1:42:28 ↗ you're going to get throughput for

1:42:30 ↗ transit there's no dedicated lane as far

1:42:32 ↗ as I'm aware of Ford bus or other

1:42:35 ↗ transit forms so I'm guessing

1:42:38 ↗ they're going to kind of work in

1:42:39 ↗ aggregate

1:42:39 ↗ >> if they're both weighted towards

1:42:40 ↗ regional transit through the highlands

1:42:43 ↗ like they would both benefit from it I

1:42:45 ↗ think that was kind of the comment I was

1:42:47 ↗ making earlier on though is like we

1:42:48 ↗ don't have a true like transit exclusive

1:42:52 ↗ >> way to measure how that's improving.

1:42:54 ↗ >> Yep.

1:42:54 ↗ >> So,

1:42:56 ↗ >> if we do change that, I mean it just

1:42:58 ↗ shares the points evenly between the

1:43:00 ↗ two. Is that a change that the tab wants

1:43:02 ↗ to make? Sounds like

1:43:07 ↗ anybody have major objections to doing

1:43:08 ↗ that change?

1:43:09 ↗ >> I don't strong

1:43:10 ↗ >> obviously I don't feel strongly about

1:43:12 ↗ that.

1:43:13 ↗ there's potential to say that we want to

1:43:16 ↗ sort of encourage transit ridership over

1:43:18 ↗ driving especially in areas where we

1:43:20 ↗ expect with hospital traffic being uh

1:43:24 ↗ getting us to saturation on the network

1:43:26 ↗ there. So that will be my only objection

1:43:32 ↗ but I don't actually see this waiting

1:43:34 ↗ effectively

1:43:36 ↗ changing what we're going to do anyways.

1:43:37 ↗ No, I don't I don't assume that it will

1:43:40 ↗ because the adaptive signal is not going

1:43:42 ↗ to rule out whether or not you would be

1:43:43 ↗ able to do like other transit

1:43:45 ↗ improvements like that. I was also going

1:43:47 ↗ to mention too again just reiterating

1:43:50 ↗ the importance of the policy alignment

1:43:51 ↗ on these as well when you're talking

1:43:53 ↗ about future future goals and transit

1:43:55 ↗ movements and everything the the heavier

1:43:58 ↗ weight let's just say for the sake of

1:43:59 ↗ argument you know I don't have the the

1:44:02 ↗ the map pulled up but um

1:44:05 ↗ if for example highlands 9th had a

1:44:08 ↗ really strong plan of emphasis there's

1:44:10 ↗ policy language there was lines on the

1:44:11 ↗ map and they said this is going to be

1:44:12 ↗ king that means that when as we were

1:44:14 ↗ assessing this that waiting goes into

1:44:18 ↗ the entire scoring.

1:44:19 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:44:20 ↗ >> So, you know, we are accounting for that

1:44:22 ↗ future change as well through the policy

1:44:24 ↗ bucket.

1:44:24 ↗ >> It's additive.

1:44:26 ↗ >> Yeah. It's exactly it's additive.

1:44:30 ↗ >> Cool. Great.

1:44:33 ↗ And I just wanted to say thank you. It's

1:44:35 ↗ been like a pleasure to present to TAB

1:44:38 ↗ um three times and I think uh it was it

1:44:42 ↗ was I can't remember who the suggestion

1:44:44 ↗ came from but I know that you guys

1:44:45 ↗ really strongly suggested us coming back

1:44:46 ↗ and going over these waitings with you

1:44:49 ↗ saying that there were changes and that

1:44:51 ↗ and that we should rate every one of the

1:44:53 ↗ corridors separately. You definitely had

1:44:56 ↗ a very big impact on the outcome and the

1:44:59 ↗ methods of the project. So thanks a lot.

1:45:01 ↗ I appreciate it.

1:45:03 ↗ >> Yeah. Thanks Chris. I really appreciate

1:45:05 ↗ you going to you know making this stuff

1:45:07 ↗ sort of as objective as possible. A lot

1:45:10 ↗ of times that the side effect is you

1:45:12 ↗ just really get to the point of thinking

1:45:14 ↗ about what really matters you know

1:45:17 ↗ comparing things that you otherwise

1:45:18 ↗ wouldn't have compared

1:45:19 ↗ >> making tough choices.

1:45:20 ↗ >> Sounds like that a useful exercise for

1:45:23 ↗ you.

1:45:23 ↗ >> Thanks. Appreciate it.

1:45:25 ↗ >> It's great for us too. Thanks. Uh

1:45:27 ↗ Marina, do you have everything you need?

1:45:29 ↗ >> Yeah, I just um one last slide. I just

1:45:32 ↗ want to let you guys know our next step

1:45:33 ↗ is to go to the mobility and

1:45:35 ↗ infrastructure committee. So we'll take

1:45:37 ↗ the feedback and the waiting um feedback

1:45:40 ↗ that we got from TAB and we'll use that

1:45:42 ↗ to help um develop our final deliverable

1:45:45 ↗ for the phase one which is the highle

1:45:48 ↗ screening assessment for adaptive signal

1:45:50 ↗ control technology and that's what we'll

1:45:53 ↗ present for the mobility and

1:45:54 ↗ infrastructure committee coming up. So

1:45:57 ↗ thank you all for your input.

1:45:59 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:46:00 ↗ >> Thank you K. I have everything I need

1:46:02 ↗ to.

1:46:05 ↗ >> All right. Uh so that concludes our

1:46:08 ↗ regular business. The uh next section is

1:46:11 ↗ reports.

1:46:12 ↗ Uh so staff report. John, do you have a

1:46:15 ↗ report today?

1:46:16 ↗ >> I'll give a report. The transportation

1:46:19 ↗ advisory board. You guys provided a lot

1:46:21 ↗ of input for the transportation

1:46:23 ↗ improvement program. And so that went to

1:46:26 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee.

1:46:28 ↗ And the next step is on Monday, June

1:46:31 ↗ 1st, it will be going to the full

1:46:32 ↗ council for a public hearing.

1:46:35 ↗ >> Awesome.

1:46:36 ↗ >> Uh Andrew is not here today to tell us

1:46:38 ↗ about light rail, but do you have any

1:46:40 ↗ Was there news from today? Has anybody

1:46:42 ↗ heard how the

1:46:43 ↗ >> I have not been able to check my phone

1:46:45 ↗ >> Sound Transit board meeting.

1:46:52 ↗ Yeah, I heard briefly that we've been

1:46:55 ↗ asked to look at the delivery methods

1:46:57 ↗ and how would they affect also in the

1:47:01 ↗ cost. So yeah, so we'll get more

1:47:05 ↗ exercise

1:47:05 ↗ >> saga continue.

1:47:07 ↗ >> Okay.

1:47:08 ↗ >> Well, it'll be interesting to hear what

1:47:10 ↗ happens. I'm sure Andrew will send us an

1:47:12 ↗ email somewhere as well. There's

1:47:15 ↗ >> a community meeting about it right on

1:47:17 ↗ Monday, I think, at the depot.

1:47:22 ↗ I think so.

1:47:23 ↗ >> I think that's right. So, thank you for

1:47:25 ↗ >> It's on my calendar.

1:47:27 ↗ >> The June 1st at the depot is a light

1:47:30 ↗ rail community update meeting.

1:47:33 ↗ >> Excellent.

1:47:36 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

1:47:39 ↗ >> as a a chair report, I'll I'll say uh

1:47:42 ↗ John Mortonson and I did dig a little

1:47:44 ↗ bit deeper into the uh Newport corridor

1:47:47 ↗ that I keep harassing him about whether

1:47:49 ↗ we need an extra lane there. Uh, and

1:47:51 ↗ thanks Chris for confirming that all of

1:47:53 ↗ the planning tools always say we need an

1:47:55 ↗ extra lane.

1:47:57 ↗ >> Sorry, am I spoiling things? Am I

1:48:00 ↗ getting out of turn? Uh so so I really

1:48:03 ↗ appreciate the time John has spent

1:48:05 ↗ taking me through the details on that.

1:48:07 ↗ Uh it's been an educational process for

1:48:09 ↗ me and I think some of the interesting

1:48:11 ↗ stuff that comes out of it is uh just

1:48:13 ↗ understanding how coupled all of the

1:48:14 ↗ different projects that we have on on

1:48:17 ↗ the potential docket for the future are

1:48:19 ↗ such as the additional I90 crossing and

1:48:22 ↗ how that relates to expected traffic in

1:48:24 ↗ 2050 on that route. Um, so it'll be

1:48:27 ↗ interesting to see if we can um maybe

1:48:30 ↗ digest some of that information about

1:48:31 ↗ how everything is coupled and you know

1:48:33 ↗ what the logical connections between

1:48:36 ↗ whether we do project A or not and how

1:48:38 ↗ that affects you know decisions we might

1:48:41 ↗ make on project B. Uh so hopefully we'll

1:48:43 ↗ see more of that in the future.

1:48:46 ↗ Okay. Uh any other business or

1:48:49 ↗ announcements? This is where you might

1:48:51 ↗ uh bring up your oh in future meetings.

1:48:56 ↗ Uh, any other board members?

1:49:00 ↗ Okay. Uh, well, with that, I think we

1:49:03 ↗ will call our meeting adjourned at 7:50

1:49:05 ↗ p.m. Thanks everybody for the great

1:49:07 ↗ energy, great discussion.

1:49:09 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:49:10 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:49:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Thanks. Thank you so much.

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.