Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

There we go. We good? Okay. There's an echo. Welcome to the 01/23/2025 Transportation Commission meeting. This meeting is conducted in hybrid manner with options for public and commissioners to participate either in person or virtually. So the first item is a call to order and roll call. So chair Stash is absent and excused. So I'll just go around and do a roll call. Commissioner Keelman?

Present.

Commissioner Kurtz? Here. Commissioner Rabun?

Here.

Commissioner Ting? Here. Commissioner Marchiante? Here. And I'm, vice chair Miguel is here. Okay. So, second item is to approve the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved. Second?

I'll second.

Okay. Do I have a motion? Okay. So we did that. Right? Any amendments to the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, the agenda is approved. So we are on item three. You guys can see from the agenda tonight, we're mostly gonna be focusing on the study session, but let's go through. Item three is oral and written communications. For written communications, Kevin has for us all the written communications since January 9. I think we had one today. Right? Just one today up until late this afternoon, so nothing additional.

So we'll move right on into oral communications. And just a reminder, according to commission's bylaws, public comments are limited to three minutes per person and a total of thirty minutes. Staff will keep track of time. Remember that comments must be related to the city of Bellevue government business and must also be related to the roles and responsibilities of the transportation commission. Okay, Kevin. Please call on people in order that they signed in. And before you make your comments, please state your name.

The list of oral communication sign ins tonight is a list of one, and that would be Alex. So come on up, Alex. Welcome.

Yep.

My dirty damn Nazi, just stop a fascist, cockroaches. My name, Alex Zimmerman. I'm president of Central America. Support Triumph for many for ten year from beginning, and I'm candidate for Bellevue Council twice. Yep.

I wanna speak about something what is important in transportation is a police department because a huge size of transportation is a police department. So for last three months, I spoke in council chamber about police commissioner. Right now, they're here, and I spoke with captain who boss, who not open to public to public. People cannot present. I come to Seattle commission for many year every month, and you can present and you can speak.

And Seattle Police Commission twelve year under supervision of US Supreme Court. So Bellevue Police is acting like a gestapo, and I have huge experience with them. Yeah. They prosecute right now with two cases. Both policemen make a perjury on the road, and right now, this is under investigation. For one practical year, a little bit more than for one year, I have 15 or 16 ticket. Nobody has this. How they treat people who have different opinion. Jarvis, classic example. You know what this mean?

I call him a a Nazi, Gestapo, fascist, Each time what is I'm speak, he turns and show it to public, I he's us. It make me a shock. You know what this mean? They to me, this look like a pure schmuck. And he react to what is I talking about Bellevue police? No. Well, this is a problem what is we have right now. When we don't have something, for example, commission like you or police commission and people cannot come, you give opinion, it's always will will be. It's always will be totally controlling. This is exactly what has happened.

So I want right now you understand what is I'm talking about because you part of this decision. You can help open police commission what is called meeting right now next door. You know what this mean? And I spoke with captain about this, but captain not guilty. I only want his attention. When you're talking about mayor Robinson, who are pure Nazi. And, you know, what this mean? And I spoke to manager about this three months. I spoke about this. Nothing changed. Guys, you understand? This commission don't have analogy in state Washington. I speak from Tacoma to Everett. Everybody can come to commission. Your commission, police commission, this not matter.

People have right. This exactly what is Trump did. This you know what this mean? Freedom of speech order. View what Trump. View American revolution. Yeah. Stand up. Yeah. Thank you very much. Stop acting like a Nazi idiot.

K. So since there's still some time, if there's anybody in the room I don't see anybody, but if there's anybody in the room that wants to sign or wants to speak or online. So if you have an actual hand in the room or a virtual hand online, please raise it if you wanna speak. Oh, thanks for the warning. Okay. Nobody

just raised their hand.

Okay. Great. So we'll move on to item four, communications from city council boards and commissions.

So welcome council member Newnhams. Thank you, chair. I think we're in addition to the napkins, we're missing a sleeve here as well, it looks like. Just put that on your list, Doug.

I wasn't sure if it

was a new one or it's just missing the the sleeve. I would say it's we're easing into the new year. Happy New Year, everybody, if I haven't been able to say that to you yet. We've had two meetings so far, but they've been fairly light in in in in content. But I just wanted to let let you know about two things that which are are are rather important.

Important. And And one of them is about a code amendment that were that we passed to make it easier for those that own commercial or multiuse property and to convert it to multifamily housing in Bellevue. It'll be interesting to see how this how this takes. There doesn't appear to be a huge demand for this right now just because the cost of converting those buildings are really expensive. But for for those that might wanna take a look at that or might be more intrigued given, some of some of these amendments, can make it, quicker and faster for them to do that, they, can now, start to start to look at that.

The other thing as well is that we also voted as part of the downtown sub area plan to make sure that we keep our status as a regional growth center as well here in the in in the in the city of Bellevue. So, you know, fairly straightforward other than those two things. A lot of proclamations, and we've also had some activity. My my colleague, Jenna Zahn, will be moving to the state house. She was appointed by King County Council on Tuesday to fill to fill that role.

That role was previously held by Tonneson, and she was appointed by governor Ferguson to head the Department of Children's Services, if I have that title correct. So, so, we might be moving into, an appointment process here, pretty quickly. We're we're gonna be reexamining our process on that, so I can't give kind of any time on it, but that's gonna look like, but we're gonna try and fill that that position as quickly as possible as we're we're down to six, and we're we're we're down to chair. So that's what we need to do. So we're we're gonna have a meeting in terms of the process.

We wanna keep it the same way we did it back in 2017 was when the last time we had to that. I think it was, council member Vandana Slatter who was also appointed in that case, and then a gentleman by the name of Ernie Seamus ended up taking that role for, for about nine months only. I think, yeah, he didn't run after that, because Janice actually did, and she got that seat, and then she's held it ever since. So so a lot of, musical chairs happening. We're certainly not the only council that's had to deal with that.

There's been quite a few appointments that have impacted, you know, both county and city city assignments and responsibilities as electeds move up, which happens all the time after after election cycle. So that's my update.

Thank you for the update. Are there any reports from commissioners? Okay. Great. So we will move into staff reports. Kevin?

I have no staff report.

No staff reports. We are flying tonight. It's great. We don't have a public hearing. That's item six, so we're gonna go right into item seven, which are the two study session items tonight, transportation facilities plan, and then we'll get into the mobility implementation plan update. So these are both updates. You guys have the memo. They are information. Well, we'll just dive right in as soon as you are ready, Christie and Mike.

So we're we're here again tonight to advance the update of the city's transportation facilities plan. Again, the focus tonight will be on familiarizing the commission with a number of the candidate projects because, overall, there's a lot of projects. And, you know, there it's it's worth taking a little time to understand what they do and and kinda how they fit together and and why some of them are indeed listed as candidates and and how they got there. So so we'll focus primarily tonight on the bicycle projects. And then at the end, we'll turn to some proposed new projects that staff have suggested be added to the list.

So so we'll get to that in just a moment here once we get our slide deck fired up.

You have slide deck open.

Are you not able to open it?

You have it open. Are you keeping it open?

Well, I it was more of a backup. Either

way. Let's see if this works.

Okay. Go ahead. So I I did distribute a map showing the priority bicycle corridors with it's actually a status map that shows, you know, where we are in building out those corridors. And, really, the idea behind those priority bicycle corridors, those were developed in conjunction with the pedestrian bicycle plan update back in 2009. And the purpose of doing that was really to address the common comment and frankly complaint we got was that, you know, we had some nice facilities around the city, but people couldn't move across the city and that, you know, that they would be on a nice facility and then would just end.

And so the the there was an effort into that in in conjunction with that 2009 head by plan update to identify connected corridors across the city and attempt to prioritize the build out of those corridors. And so we do every year. We we we update a map showing the status of the build out of those corridors. We had some targets around, you know, how much we wanted to complete in terms of having completed connected corridors across the city. We we didn't meet those targets.

And and at this point, they're really not officially part of our kind of evaluation process per se, but but the prod the corridors themselves remain part of our overall framework. And we do, like I say, track the completion status. And so what I've done here is take taken the status at the February 2023. That's the latest map that I had available. Highlighted the two places where additional improvements were constructed in 2024.

That's the green highlights, and we'll touch on those in the slide deck. Here, we can go to the next slide already, Christie. So, yeah, turning to the map again, the two green highlights, there's one on the East Rail, so from 12th Street down to 4th. That opened in in the summer. That's county project. And then we opened a piece of Spring Boulevard between 1 30th And 1 32nd Avenue, and those are that's adjacent to the BellRed Station.

Oh, you ask

me. Oh. K.

By the way, Mike, do you want us to just throw questions out or what's Yeah.

Let's take questions along the way. Okay. We'll we'll see how that works, but I think that's probably most makes more sense. Okay. You know what?

K. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So as I indicated here, overall, there are 27 bicycle projects in in the candidate list. So we'll look at those. We'll look at the new projects. We'll look at the next steps in our process and and where we stand overall. Next slide. So the 27 projects came from several sources.

Some of them were referrals from Bike Bellevue, and you were very involved in in that. So there's were 13 projects that were referred from Bike Bellevue. Four of those projects are advancing to implementation. So that's Northeast 2nd Street, Northeast 12th Street, and then the the corridor along 11 16th, 4th, And 1 20th. And then the little piece on Lake Washington Boulevard just west of downtown connecting over to Maiden Bauer Bay Park.

So so those are in the overall candidate list, but they're not they won't be advancing into the TFP process because they're already, you know, on track to happen. Then one other project in Beck Bike Bellevue on 1 40th Avenue overlaps with an existing TFP project, and we'll look at that one in a minute, be it TFP two forty five. So that's why I've I've distilled it down to really there's just eight projects from Bike Belvieu that we'll need to think about for the TFP process. The other source of projects is the MI, the mobility implementation plan. You'll recall last year, there was an exercise to identify to look at all the gaps in the bicycle network identified in in the the mobility implementation plan.

So that's where we have, you know, the network. We have a target for what level of comfort we want to achieve along those segments of the bicycle corridor. And where we fall below the target, existing conditions fall below the target, that's a gap. Right? And so we have a lot of those around the city.

But where there's a scoring system whereby we were able to identify the higher priority locations, and that's what has now advanced into our candidate list are the 11 higher priority gaps in that MIP analysis. And that was shared with the commission last year and specifically at the September meeting. And then the their projects are carried over from the current TFP. And so they made the cut last time. By default, they're included in the candidate pool for this TFP process.

So in terms of how we implement bicycle projects, it's worth thinking about that a little bit because it it does really relate to, you know, what happens when something gets into the into the TFP. And so one way, of course, is major capital project. And so, you know, there are projects that that need to happen that way. The Mount Sun Greenway, for example. You know, every piece of it's on the South Side Of I 90. Every piece of it is a pretty significant capital cost, and there there's nothing there now. There's just a, you know, ungraded slope along the freeway. So building that out requires a capital project for each increment. And and the same goes for Westlake Sammamish Parkway. I mean, we've been building that out incrementally over over the years.

There are other projects that can be advanced through, guess, could say a more kind of flexible, rapid, lower cost approach. And that's that would be where we can upgrade existing bicycle lanes. For example, if we've got an existing stripe bike lane and we wanna make it buffered, when we do a street overlay, we can look at, hey, can we adjust the, you know, how we allocate the lane space within that road and upgrade the bicycle accommodation along the way? So the, you know, the cheapest way to do that and the best time to do that was when you're doing the street overlay and you're already looking at the striping. Sometimes we we you know, that only happens about every twenty years.

So, you know, sometimes you wanna go in at other times as well. Maybe that's the last little piece in a corridor, and you wanna go in there and, you know, try to try to upgrade it. So so the way we do that is through ongoing programs. And we have a fairly new one called WB eighty five bicycle network facilities. That was started a couple years ago.

It's what funded the original Bike Belvieu effort, and now it's an ongoing program. So the the city budget, the CIP that was recently adopted includes six years of funding, about a million dollars a year for that program. And so that gives us then the resources, and and we'll be staffing that. We'll have staff that will actively manage that program, use those resources to identify where the needs are, where the op what opportunities we have, and can we, you know, use do some design work, look at look at ways that we can fill gaps and and make create connections across. So so some of the projects that are candidates here will be able to be addressed in advance that way.

And and so that's just kind of the the the two ways. So, basically, the the main point here is that not everything is big capital project, and and that's good news. Because if that were the case, we'd be waiting a really long time to create these connected corridors. Yes. I I can take questions along the way. Think that makes more

Okay. So does this TFP then turn into additional TFPs, or is it just always one TFP?

There there's always one TFP. We just update it every three two every three years, potentially.

Okay. Because it doesn't specifically say what the projects are. This is this feels like a general overall program. And so I'm just trying to understand a lot of the other TFPs have specific details as to what the projects are. So can you explain to me the

process a little bit? I I point I I I thank you for clarifying. I I need to clarify, and I so this what do we call it now? Bice bicycle. This was the bicycle network facilities is a program.

It was it appeared as a listed as a separate line item in the last TFP, and that was because it was new, and we didn't understand that it would necessarily continue. And so and also it was, again, kind of exercising transparency of showing people how we were going to implement improvements. But but for this go around, yeah, it still says TFP 300. We we would this is not a project that even though it's appears on your project list, your your list, this will not be an actual project. And so that's probably that's something we should have marked a little bit differently in the project list. So thank you. Does that clarify the quest?

I think so. So, basically, that this TFP will get removed, and then we'll have additional new TFPs as we evaluate new projects for WB 85. Is that how it works?

So WB WB 85 will evaluate opportunities that are already identified in the TFP as well as other opportunities that exist around the city.

Okay. Sorry. So are we keeping TFP 300 on the list, or does it No.

TFP 300 will not be on the list. And that is confusing, and I apologize that yes. Thank you for pointing that out. Yes.

Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. Yes. Commissioner Marziot.

When you do this analysis of the opportunities across the city, are you doing it as well looking at trail connectivity and potential trail investments? Okay. So so if if another connection could be done through a capital investment in a trail, that would be looked at through that.

Yes. Definitely.

Yeah. And just a follow-up question on that one. So when we're

looking at this map so if if it's not meeting the, you know, the the comfort level, it would be shown as red. Right? I'm trying to figure out

the color scale.

Yeah. Not necessarily. What what what's shown here is green is where we have met the facility description that was in the PedBike plan

Okay.

Or done as much as we feasibly could to meet that description. It it it happened prior to the MIP. Some of the green sections would fall short of the LTS that's identified in the TF in the MIP as as desired at this point.

Okay. And I guess I yeah. What the real question was, are we able to tell from here where the gaps are? So we've got I mean, there's gaps. You could define it as a section that doesn't meet Yeah. Requirements that could be considered a gap, or you could just define it as a section that doesn't even exist. Right? So

They're they're both so everything that's red is for sure a gap. Okay. Some of the green could also be a gap still a gap in MIP terms, if that make if if that makes sense.

Just along those lines, that I was thinking that was the case too. But when I'm looking at Lake Hills Connector, you can certainly ride on that. It's not great, but there is a shoulder. There's a it's about the bike lane is about this big. So something is there, but it doesn't meet the specification.

Right. Because what's called for in the Ped bike plan is a separated off street path on the north side.

Okay.

So that's why it's still shown as red. I'm so so there are variable conditions along the red parts.

Okay.

So some of the red, you know, just there's nothing at all, like Spring Boulevard, right, between 1 30th and and 1 24th. Other parts, you know you know, Westlake's Managed Parkway, there's a shoulder on on the West side, so you can ride southbound fairly comfortably sort of. But northbound, not so much. Right? Yeah. Yes. Commissioner Ting.

Yeah. I think it'd be really useful to have an idea of the connectedness and the prioritization. So I know you guys are coming up with a a secondary map. Like, there's gonna be another map. Being able to

look at

the TFT projects and understanding what the scoring is so that we know, like, how are we prioritizing the various projects, which I know is coming up.

Yes.

And then also how do we understand the the connectedness kind of, you know, as these two other commissioners had mentioned, whether a route really is a good experience throughout the entire connected you know, what we see on the map or if there's something missing. So I know that there's different ways of saying whether a route is truly connected and a good experience. But being able to communicate through a map and then let us know how those are being addressed in the prioritization, that would be really helpful, especially when you're looking at a specific mode. So, you know, like, here's the bike view of what the network looks like.

Mhmm.

And, ideally, that correlates with the actual experience of someone biking on the road as opposed to sort of what the math tells us when we do the scoring.

So what what I can say is that everything that's green has a reasonable level of comfort. It may fall in a few cases, it may fall short of the MIP target, but all of them have had some some level of comfort or improvement, you know, existing. Okay. And so that's the whole idea for this is is to show what's connected and and where we have gaps. And so our primary focus, know, as I understand it, would be the gaps, the red parts.

Sure. Yeah. That makes

sense. Yes. Can I share

your question?

We just have a map that's color, you know, color coded at carding to it might be instead of the, like, this old thing that we're not using. That's all I think we need because we would be able to see the level of the gap if you create the degree, right, if you're able to tell us this is this kinda gap, this kinda gap, this kinda gap. So I think we just get rid of this map, and we use the MIP gaps. You can identify which ones were the priority corridors in the map. Right? But this red and green and yellow doesn't mean anything to us anymore after the MIP. So I would recommend we just get rid of this one, and we create a graded scale according to the MIP gaps. Is that

Yeah. And we're working on a map showing all the candidate projects as well. We just don't have that ready

Yeah. No. But even just, like, the gap for the conversations, it's it's even just to start with the gaps, right, before you even bring us the projects just to see where we're at.

Okay. Well okay. I I did assume that that was what we was covered back in September with the MIP gap analysis. That was the

Right. But now that we're talking about the CFU, it'd be good to see it again. Right? Like, I don't think we need this one.

I think

we need

the other one. Okay.

Very understandable.

And I think, Mike, part of the feedback here is to help when you go to the public phase of this. And so that you, you know, you can show a map that, you know, you could use to explain so it's as straightforward as possible. Now these are complex things. But Yeah. So so maybe some maybe some feedback there that you're getting from us will help as you go to the public phase.

Yeah.

By the way, love the love having a map especially a big map.

Yeah. So Yeah. So this is, yeah, what we could do with the time available, but we're working on the better map as as No.

And to to your point, if that's the map we saw a few months ago to the public, there why are there two maps? So what's, the edge? It would just create a lot of confusion. So you have one map. And

Very well. Yeah. Well, this is a map we have for now. So you'll see it a few more times. And I will just point out, if you haven't already figured it out, the the yellow the parts that are yelled out are on track for they're funded, so they'll be built. So they're not ones that we're gonna need. They're they're taken care of in a sense, or they will be, and and they're so they're not part of the candidate process for the for the TFP. Go on. Next slide. So, again, yeah, as I indicate, the the yellow the colors aren't quite working here as well as I'd help.

But so the dark green are what it's already completed. The lighter green or the yellow on your printed map are funded. And then where there's gaps in red, I've we've got, in some cases, candidate projects for the TFP. They come from, as I indicated earlier, three different sources. And so there's they're coded according to the where the candidate project came from, the source. Next slide. So we'll just look at the three different parts of the city three different areas of the city. Yes. Commissioner.

You guys probably already know you know this. There's no. Thank you. And I was gonna say that you guys probably already know this, but for the for the newbie here, the ones that are in red, or is there a map that shows a direct correlation between TFP or project number with LTS?

Not yet. That that will yeah. We'll we'll have that. Well, that's what we were asked for. So we'll be providing that.

Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Do

you have that map that we saw a couple months ago that we could pull up today? Can we see it?

I yes.

But I think it would distract from the conversation

we really wanna have. K.

Got a question real quick. Are we gonna get into a priority, or is that coming down in the conversation? Or

Prioritization is is will be next meeting. Okay. So this is really just understanding what are the candidate projects. And and to some extent, where they came from if if that's of interest. Okay. Yeah.

K. So, yeah, you're really just trying to get us ready for the next meeting. Right? And

because there's a lot of projects.

I think you were also looking for some feedback before you go to the public phase, which I think you're gonna

I'm getting that already. That's good. Yes. Thank you. So so, yeah, we'll look at, you know, sub areas of the city now in terms of where the gaps are and what, you know, where the missing pieces are, the red pieces, and and what candidate projects might address segments of those.

So in the South end of the city, you know, we're we're working on building out the Mount Sun Greenway Trail. The piece from one forty second over to one fiftieth is funded as shown here with the, you know, the the yellow green highlight. So the next piece then beyond that would be from one fiftieth over to Southeast 37th Street. So that's part of TFP two forty three. It also overlaps in part with MIP B 11.

The difference being that MIP B 11 also extends north through the tunnel over to East Gateway on the North Side of I 90. So the concept there is that that sidewalk that's on the east side of the tunnel could be improved and made into a a two way pedestrian bicycle facility.

Just from the feedback from the communication perspective, I don't think it's that important to the public where these come from. I think what's important is what's going to be done

Right.

In what segment. And so it's it is very confusing when you say MIP come overlaps with the MVP. Like, that's not the the people care about what road it is and what is it gonna be done in it. So I think maybe the source is what's causing the most confusion just when you're designing your, like, communication. If you just simply say, this is the existing conditions of where the gaps are Yeah. And here are the projects, once they all have they're gonna all have TFP numbers. Right? When you go to the public, you're not gonna reference NS or something because people don't they're either in the TFP or they're not. Right? So it's a TFP project.

When we go to the public. They won't No. Mean, we go to public. Yet because it's still a candidate list. They get their TFP numbers once we've decided, once you guys have decided on

it right it as a candidate, you know, project that hasn't made it up, you know, just like a separate bucket. But don't I think that all the numbers are very confusing because you're you're sourcing it from the you're using a source study that sure. That's what's gonna inform what the scope is of the new project, but it's either in the TFP or it's a candidate project. I think that would make it simpler. Here's what you have. Here's the gaps, and these are the project lists that overlap of those gaps. Right? Like, I think that, to me, is what's the most confusing of everything. All the different numbering schemes that you have are doesn't mean anything to us, and it just causes a lot of confusion.

K. Okay. So that's the South End. We'll take a look now at the West Side of Bellevue. Next slide. Can I show

a quick question about the the East Rail section?

Yes.

Is that when that say it's says it's funded, to what level of completion would that be funded? Are you still is it gonna be fully paved? Or he's talking about the hard pack.

So, yeah, let's go to the next slide here, and we that's the part that I think we're talking about. So the East Rail parts of it so the green part that you see now is all compacted gravel. The the part that's shown in the in the yellow green highlight will be compacted gravel from 4th Street to Southeast 5th Street. And then at Southeast 5th Street is where you enter the tunnel the trussle, and it'll be paved from that point across 405 over to 1 18th down to the endpoint. So about let's say 60% of that highlight area is gonna be paved, and about 40%, maybe 30% will be the compacted gravel.

And that's King County project.

Yeah. So yeah. Because when they do the trust, they're just gonna pave it. Right? They're not gonna put gravel up there.

Yes. And you'll have

some gaps with gravel, as you said.

Right. The parts of Central Wilburton and then, well, really, all the way north to Kirkland will will is gravel at this point. Yes. And and and there's no funding identified to

Is that outside the scope of the TFP to have that kind type of a conversation? Or

So the city is facilitating, you know, the completion of the East Rail, but it is King County is the lead for that. Yeah. So here on the West Side, you know, we have fairly connected corridor along what we call NS 2. That's, you one zero eight, all you know, working far away from the North in Kirkland 108, 112, and then it jogs over to one fourteenth and continues down south as one eighteenth. There's a piece through downtown that, you know, was identified in the MIP as as below the LTS level.

It's 1 12. So that's a candidate project. And then in the East West direction, obviously, a key candidate project is the missing piece of Spring Boulevard from 1 24th to 1 30th. And that's not just a bike facility, but obviously more than that. And then the other one I wanna like to point out here is TFP 245, and that's 1 40th Avenue.

So the South part from 8th Street southward down to Bellevue College, that's all built out with bike lanes and it's actually, you know, pretty comfortable. At 8th Street is where the dedicated bike facilities end and the opportunity there is to construct a separated path on the East Side from Northeast 8th Street up to Northeast 24th Street. That would include a spur off connection up to the SR 520 Trail on the North Side of 520, and it would be able to utilize this right away or the easements associated with a vestigial horse path that exists along the East Side of 1 40th along much of that segment. Specifically between 8th And Bell Red, if you walk along there, there's you'll you'll see evidence of that. So so that's a, you know, frankly, a fairly, you know, interesting opportunity that I think would allow for that convenient connection to the 520 Trail as well as, you know, high a good LTS for for users.

Nice. That's so we'll move on to the west part unless there are questions.

On the 520 Trail, that's King County maintenance. Correct? Or is

that Bellevue? So it was constructed by Washington State DOT. Bellevue maintains the segment in our jurisdiction.

But, yeah, just on that, the connection to the 520 is already there, right, if I remember right?

There are connections now. The one is. The one to to it's a bit difficult to access in the vicinity of 140. You have to go up, you know, to 136.

Behind the Behind cook store. I mean,

the kitchen

store. Yeah. Okay. That's the that's the connection.

Right? Okay.

But is that part of an improvement, or is that sort of considered the long term solution?

Well, as far as Washington DOT is concerned, that that it's completed.

Okay.

So it would be, you know, up to the city to propose connecting at one fortieth, which would you know, we feel would be beneficial for users, especially if we could do a separated path on the East Side because then it's there's no conflict points or nobody has to cross one fortieth, you know, under the overpasses. Mhmm. Yeah. Yes, Conshrano. Question.

Is every gap in the MIP have a project now on the list? It might not make the cut of the TFP, but do we now have a a project for every gap?

I yes.

The high priority.

For the high priority gaps. Okay. Yeah.

Any more questions about this? No.

Yeah. One more question. Is TFP 270 on this list?

Can you remind me which one that is?

That's the East West 2 route that for Spring

I did not see yet.

Right.

That's what I'm asking. Is it on the list, the the Excel spreadsheet?

TFP 270? Yeah. The Spring Boulevard?

Yeah.

It should be.

Okay. It must oh, you're right. It's in a different order. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Where is it on the list? It's

Yeah. They're grouped. It's

grouped. Page

five. See him.

Yes. Yeah. Well, I I'm sorry. There's so many ways to slice and dice this. So we we we we tried, and we don't always get it just right.

Yeah. So I for the next meeting, I'd I'd love to hear how we think about the prioritization because I know we talked about two TFP two seventy and just understanding how the prioritization process works and then, you know, like, what are the factors that go into

it? Mhmm.

So the last part of the city we wanted to look at on detail or is the East part. So here we have, as I mentioned earlier, the Westex Managed Parkway. So the the south part is funded where it's green. The there leaves two red segments. So, you know, this is an example where we've been working at this one for decades now, building it out bit by bit, and it's it's a slow process and it's expensive.

And so, you know, that's sometimes that's what we need to do, but, you know, where we can do something more quickly and efficiently and and and, you know, then we we like to do that too. The other one I would point out here is E W 3. There's a piece of on 16th Street, Southeast 16th Street between $1.48 and 156 that is funded. So we won't have to consider that specifically in the TFP, but you may hear about it because it's there's been community interest in that one for

for a number years. Is that the one that's a super big hill right there?

EDA EW 3 doesn't have a super big hill.

It's the one that's further south. Okay.

There's there's plenty of hills as you know, but that's not one that

I Oh. Hard to write up.

I think that's Twenties that's the south side of the of the lake.

South. So Phantom Lake. Okay.

Yeah. Got it. Yeah. As you go go west. K.

I think we can move on from here. So I wanted to take a little closer look in the center of the here in the BellRed area. So in Bike Bellevue, we looked at Spring Boulevard extending to the east and then extending north on 136 up to 20th Street. And then there was that piece on 20th from 136 over to 1 40th that I I recall we talked about as as a, you know, the one part of Northeast 20th that particularly, you know, needed some kind of accommodation for bicycles. And that may well be, you know, the the case in order to create the connectivity, but it is a challenging location.

And so what I wanted to also then point out, and I think Kevin may have previously pointed this out, but is the opportunity along this further south, we've got the blue dash line, and and that's a kind of a spur piece of Spring Boulevard. We're calling it Bike Bellevue Quarter 11 add on, but it it really connects it just follows the same alignment, but it's further to the south, you know, or that makes the same connection from Spring Boulevard over to 1 40th. And the value of getting to 1 40th as as you can see is it it's a primary priority North South corridor. So so that's a way that we could create connectivity. And and by doing that, we don't, you know, if you go up to Northeast 23, it's already built out.

There's curves on either side. There's land uses, and and and it's a challenging site as I indicated. Whereas further to the south, there's we have no facilities, no bicycle, no pedal facilities along there. So we would be building out, you know, an improvement where we have nothing existing right now. And and there is more right away available, at least certainly it appears when you're on the ground and when we look at it from our areas.

And that's a pretty calm street as it is right now. It it would hardly get any traffic on that.

It would provide a very comfortable experience for users. Yes.

That that brings me to another one. A little while ago, you said that you're working on LTS for TFBs. Are you gonna have a current LTS? Are we at some point? I know this is aspiration. It's probably very aspirational. But are you working towards this is the current LTS, and this is the target LTS for this TFP project? Is that

That's what I'm I'm hopeful that we can do that.

Yeah. Yeah. Because I think one of the really important parts is now that we're doing this project, how much are we addressing this gap? Right? We've quantified these gaps. It's not just something doing something. Right. So you might go out there and do something, but that might not that might do be half of a gap. That might be and so, really Yeah. It it is now as simple as saying current LTS two, target LTS after project three. And I'm saying target because I understand there's a lot that goes into the design and the construction and things happen, but the target LTS for that particular project, which is currently costed at whatever it is, is to move it from a two to a three. Mhmm. That would be very informational in in this list. So I understand that's

Well well well that that will be our

Just a thought

on that, Mike, as you're doing this, like, in the for the public, I know, you you're diving into certain areas like this, this one right here, which is a great way to do it. And then you could actually put some of that detail on right on this map. Right? Because it wouldn't be too much. You could even just kinda write it in there. So, like, I imagine you might have, like, a big map. Right. And then you're going into different parts of the city.

So Just a thought. Yeah. How we've done it in the past and and we're hopeful we can do it this time, but their our IT department is using a different system now. But in the past, we've been able to have, you know, an online map that shows all the candidate projects. You click on one, pops up. It tells you the details about the project. You can then weigh in. You know, should the city build this project? Yes, no, neutral, and then you can leave comment. And that worked great, but I'm I can't promise that it's gonna be that great this time because we we haven't seen what they what the new system will do. It's new. It's not necessarily better from what we can tell. So we'll see. So but but, yeah, hopefully, we we we will be able to do that. That's certainly our goal.

So that was the key thing I wanted to focus on here was that opportunity to make the connection further south that would, you know, have multiple benefits in our estimation. So next slide. So just to stepping back a bit to on these priority bicycle corridors, you know, they do create connectivity across the city and east, west, and north, south, but it's commonly noted that we don't have a good connection over to east, west, over to crossroads and overlay. I mean, those are big activity centers. And and and so, you know, we we've been aware of that for ever since the beginning.

And it's frankly, it's just that it's it's hard, you know, to know to where how to do that. And and, you know, the obvious place is Bell Red Road. Right? And because that's the flattest, most direct corridor, and that was, you know, discussed in terms of, you know, here at the commission for Bell Bike Belvieu. The commission the direction from our management is that it it should be considered again here in the TFP process. So so we'll look again at the pieces of that that really would get us a connected corridor and and and and as two different two segment projects. Yes?

And to better understand that, so there's a lot of projects that you're coupling together from different places where they've existed to make up these TFP projects. But you're also looking at, like, actually creating projects. Right? That's what you were referencing. You're looking at at this is a gap and scoping them out. Does this do do you guys do that in the like, does your engineering department help you fill a gap as part of the identification of candidates?

We we well, there's limited situations where we would just create create a project. I mean, normally, they're coming to us from another planning process. Okay. Here at the very end, we are gonna talk about several new projects and and where they came from and why why we're suggesting that those be candidates.

So can I ask Kevin a question then? Yeah. What what is the planning process that is going to give us the candidate list to reach our MIP goals, like, that that we've you know, we wanna move from this target to this target. And there's some projects in the history, and we get lucky if they're the same. Right? But how are we gonna perform a planning process by which we have a full list of TFP candidates for consideration that address the gaps in some sort of priority.

Right. That's that's that is the exercise that we did last spring and summer where the MIP identified all of the gaps for for both the ped network and the bike network on the arterioles.

Not the projects?

Just just the gaps. Right. And then we we went through a a process to prioritize those gaps based on the goals of the MIP and other supplemental considerations, like proximity to schools or parks or that's that that they got extra points if if if they were met some other criteria. So each gap got a score. And then with the the help of our consultant team at Farrand Pierce, we looked at at those scores and developed project concepts for the top 10 or 12

Okay.

Of all of the gaps. So we have an inventory of all the gaps in terms of that the gaps are defined in terms of not meeting the level of traffic stress that is that is targeted in the MIP. So we know all the gaps, and we've prioritized the top 10 or 12. Those were referred to the TFP for consideration that you're doing right now.

Okay. So so can I is that a consistent process that you're gonna every every time right ahead of the TFP, you're gonna prioritize the gaps again, and you're gonna look for concepts for the top 10? Hopefully, they exist somewhere else. And if not, there's gonna be developed. Is that is so that we have a match. We have a project for every high priority gap. That's our goal every round.

Eventually, yes. Yes. But we're we're we're dealing with this round of the TIP TFP. Next time, there will be an inventory of gaps that are forwarded to the TFP for consideration.

I just worry that we're missing the planning step. That's what I'm concerned because you you need a planning step to know what a project you have. I'm worried that we know the gaps, but where's the planning step to identify the projects? That's a different thing. And just you know, we'd wanna make sure that we don't that we have that established. That's

Yes. The question so you made the comment about restudying BellRed. So what are we hoping to accomplish with studying BellRed a a second time? How will this study be different, or will it be different at all? But what metrics are we going to be Yeah. Looking at to analyze this once again since we've since we've already done it? I just like to understand that for the commission to understand that. Sure.

Well, I, you know, I I I think part of what we would want to do is look at the parts of Belgrade that you know, which component, which elements what are the conditions along? Belgrade is a long corridor. Right? Sure. And so, you know, some parts of Belgrade have more traffic demand than others.

Some parts of Belgrade are more useful as connection for bicycles than others. And so, you know, that that would be part of it because, you know, the the Bike Bellevue process, they were looking at the whole corridor, and mostly it was considered in terms of an entire corridor, really. Whereas as we'll look in the next couple slides, there's really just the the East parts of Belgrade are the parts that would be most, I guess, essential if you were to create a connected bicycle facility corridor. Right. Okay. So that that's, I think, part of part of my answer, but it looks like Kevin may have some additional Well,

the the the the follow-up is that the entire Bell Red Corridor has a LTS target of three. And and the bike Bellevue proposal was to take a travel lane, of course, and and and to provide dedicated bike facilities, which would have achieved probably a level of traffic stress one or two. So the the the purpose of looking at BellRed again now is to see if there are alternate ways to find a way to provide a l t s three corridor l t s three bike network facility along that corridor. So we we we have direction

acquiring property.

We have direction from council not to repurpose a traveling. So what else can we think about in terms of providing for that connection?

Right. Okay. And and I agree that the East West Corridor to get to crossroads is is is is crucial. Well, with that in mind and a long standing gap in our bicycle network, are we going to study any other possible alternative to BellRed, or is BellRed currently the only East West Corridor that we are studying?

Yeah. I I would think that the language of the candidate project could include alternative corridors. You know, reality is there really are I mean, you know, the Northeast 20th has a big hill and also has a lot of land uses and a lot of traffic demand. So that's and and it's yeah. So there there's there's not really good options. I mean, really any options. Well, twentieth, I guess, is the only one. So

Okay. So the answer is no.

Right.

Right. What's that? Well, so I I I yes. I I would say no, but I I I don't think we can rule out. When we get further into the Overlake area. Mhmm. There are some minor streets.

Yeah.

You know, in one fifty second. I mean, there may be some other ways out there. Okay. It's obvious no. I haven't discerned how exactly that would work yet. I've certainly thought about a little bit. But yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

And I just wanted to, like, clarify. I mean, none of these have been, like, utterly studied for feasibility in it. Like, what you have as concepts for consideration, but I think that's what we're trying to discuss in Belred

Yeah.

For it to be studied. We were considering one rapid implementation under very strict conditions, right, that that you weren't gonna disturb the right the sidewalk or anything else, capital implementation. That one didn't go forward, but it's just like every street always has opportunities to do something on it or other Right. Depending on the constraints that you put on it, the funding, the you know, etcetera. So I just wanna because because you haven't really studied. I just wanna, like you've looked at it and cons and looked, oh, it looks like a straight line, and it's flat. Right? But Yeah. But it hasn't actually been studied for feasibility and what you'd need to do for

Exactly. And to that point, actually, maybe we should just go to the next slide, you know, because this looks at the two two segments of Bell Red Road from one fortieth to one forty eighth as one, you know, element, and then from one forty eighth to 156 is the other element. And, you know, to to your point, commissioner Marciante, mean, on the piece of Bell Red from one forty third over to 1 48th, there's an extra wide sidewalk on the south side. I mean, that was built with the idea that that could serve, you know, as a nonmotorized facility. Now it's only about eight feet.

You it's not nowadays, that wouldn't be what we think of as, you know, kind of adequate facility. But, you know, it it could be the start of an opportunity. Right? And we already know we wanna do some changes at 1 43rd in order to move for that new road connection up between Bell Red Road and 1 in Northeast 20th Street. So, you know, you know, there there is, in broader sense, you know, potential opportunity here. But not the on the street squeeze it. Yeah. Probably not. I mean, unless there's extra lane width that we aren't aware of right now.

And just I just wanted to say this from my perspective in general. I think we're doing ourselves a disservice every time we study something, and we're banned ourselves from looking at taking the traveling. We wanna see the impacts of if you take half if you take half a block, if you take a quarter of a block here or there, what's that gonna do to the traffic? And so I'm just gonna go on record. I profoundly disagree with the practice of just saying we're not gonna do you know, putting a constraint in a certain location because it really hampers the potential solutions and availability that we have to create actual mobility for all nodes. And so that has been well established, but that's unfortunate that that's where we are.

Well, this might be a silly observation. Northeast 8th is the direct spine to all of that. Mhmm. And maybe that's just an untouchable street. Have you ever have you ever looked at what can we do to expand that? Or Yeah.

It's the hills are pretty big. I've I've written that one a few times. So there is existing shoulder. Pretty nice striped shoulder. Probably could be called a bike lane from about one twenty fourth to one fortieth. This is hell. Yeah. Now you get between one fortieth excuse me. You you get actually all the way over to one forty eighth, if I recall correctly. When you get beyond 1 48th further east, then you don't have a shoulder. And, yeah, we'd need to widen out the sidewalk. But I think even whatever you do there, it's I think it's gonna be pretty hilly. You know? That's that's really the challenge. And we have a lot of development happening now up to the north, you know, along the Bell Red Corridor.

And so, you know, a lot of people are gonna wanna be, you know, accessing uses up up in that area too.

So when we're talking about the hilly areas, I mean, obviously, we we live in a hilly area.

Right.

And Bellevue is built on a hill. With so many people, I mean, if if your ability is not to be able to get up to a hill or a hill, I imagine people are probably riding ebikes. I don't see a lot of people dismounting and walking up the hill. So Yeah. I guess when when you you know, when we're so concerned about the hills, I think that's a part of being a cyclist.

Mhmm. Mhmm. So

I would I would agree with commissioner Rabun that when we think about hills, Bellevue is a hilly city. And after I've thought about it for a while, like, I don't think that should be an impediment for us to build bike facilities because of ebikes that are coming up. So I would just really emphasize, let's not constrain ourselves by thinking of hills because technology is going to improve, and people will be able to get up and down those hills.

I totally agree with that. We shouldn't constrain ourselves because there are hills, but it's not we shouldn't say, oh, we're not gonna give the bicycles the best option because and and not allow for the facility that we want. And so it's it's you know, you should definitely keep considering all the options, but we know that there's you're limiting a certain kind of user at a certain point by choosing certain routes versus others, and that has to be understood in the trade offs of what we're talking about and what modes we're prioritizing and why.

So just to your point, you're talking about Bell Road Road, and you were talking about as you go east, you know, as you go East of, like, 1 40th, it really settles down quite a bit. I think one of our issues was West Of 140. But if you accomplish if we accomplish TFP 270, then you've got and the spur that's being suggested, then you've really got a corridor between, you know, essentially between downtown and, you know, getting out to Hundred And 40th, one fortieth. And then the improvements are being made on 1 40th. And and then I think a lot of the concerns that were brought up with Bike Bellevue are less so as you go to the East from that point.

So that kinda gets you through that really congested area where there's gonna be a lot of traffic and a lot of growth in to more in the residential area. But I think maybe you're getting we really wanna be engaged in the BellRed discussion. Right? I I think you saw a lot of energy last time, so we've got a lot of views and ideas on

that.

And I I would, yeah, and I would just add. This is something that the community is very engaged with. Very I I think, and I'm gonna put it out there. I know we're beyond master plans, but but we need a thorough comprehensive consideration of what are the best quarters and why and what are the trade offs. We sit here and talk about this hill or that hill, and and you kinda say, well, that's hilly. I do think we need engineering feasibility analysis of the entire city and the trade offs we're making if we're you know? And to me, it includes traffic. Right? And then you you evaluate. In this facility, you'd have lower utilization because you're doing a hill, but you then don't impact Belgrade traffic.

I it's just we keep talking about this as we all know what's gonna happen. And and until we study it, we have no idea what's actually feasible, what is gonna be most likely. Right? We just kinda go by rule of thumb. Oh, it's a flat thing. It's gonna work. And so I do think that we're at a point that the city requires comprehensive study of bicycle corridors and the trade offs of where to put them, why why to put them, and what are the trade offs against the other modes. Right? Are you impacting transit? Are you impacting pedestrians? It's just we keep dancing around these feelings about these, and we need some data.

Wouldn't we consider Bike Bellevue a comprehensive study of

no. No. The Bike Bellevue was focused on a sub area of the city, and there were boundaries around it. So it was it was where where the highest growth. It was the, you know, PMA one, I think, that we call it.

And it was Yeah. Rapid implementation. Go look at where you can take travel lanes or

at like, it was Low cost.

That that was the context of Bike Bellevue. That's what the city got asked. Go look how you're able to build bike lanes in the infrastructure that we have. That's completely different than how do we build the actual infrastructure that we need comprehensively.

Okay. Well, you know, we're killing Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.

How much what is the investment in in getting a complete visibility, or or what is the investment in that, and where does that come from?

Well, that's the process we're getting right now. Because we'll we'll have a funding forecast in March and, you know, we'll we'll get the December horizon, you know, how much money we expect to have. We know already how much, you know, money is in the current six years CIP. So it'll be the the six out years that we'll have to look at and say, you know, here's how much more money we think will come will come. And then that's our exercise is to prioritize how much we you know, what are what are the priority projects and to what extent can we fund those? And and some projects can be funded at less than full amount because, you know, there there's phases of projects sometimes.

And and just for hypothetical, do you do a budget that includes one that does not include a comprehensive feasibility and then one that does just for budget planning purposes? Like, best case scenario, if we do this test and we have the data, so our decisions are data driven versus feelings driven.

Well, every project is is is scoped and analyzed. I mean, a lot of the the things that are listed as projects here are to really do that analysis. So, you know, that that that would be a a small funding allocation to undertake the analysis, understand, you know, what is you know, maybe you're looking at different corridors, or maybe you're looking at what are the options within a given corridor. And and then what would that then usually, there's a public part of that as well. So so that's that that amount of work goes out in advance before we actually spend money to to implement. Does that make sense to your question?

Or okay.

Because yeah. That'll be before we get to the point of spending money, I mean, know, I've pointed earlier at West Lake Sammamish Parkway and how we're building out incrementally, you know, a a rebuilt roadway with a separated path on the west side of the street. There was a long public process and and engineering analysis that got us to that point as that's the preferred vision for that corridor.

I think I think my main point is to to try to do our best, and I'm sure this is already being done, that that we are using data to drive these decisions so that they don't come off as emotional and have that bias in the decision making process.

Yeah. So

just checking in here as far as time goes, and I know you've got some other parts you wanna you know, like West Bellevue and that kind of thing. What how much more do you have just for

reference purposes? Maybe a couple more slides here. We're pretty near the end. Yeah.

Okay. Did anybody else have any burning questions on BellRed?

Okay. So next slide. So I mentioned at the beginning that we had these additional projects that are at the end of the project list. And so one of them the first one is Newport Way. So we've been working on Newport Way and and multi several iterations.

First, starting at the at the west end near at Victoria Boulevard going up the hill to Somerset. Another phase from Somerset to one fiftieth and then a phase from one fiftieth over to one fifty second. So what's left is Newport Way east of one fifty second. There's no pedestrian facilities. There are no bicycle facilities.

And in some places, there's no shoulder at all. So I expect that we will hear from the public during our process about interest in, you know, improving that segment of the corridor. And so I we suggest as staff that we proactively list that as a project rather than waiting, feeling like we we don't know about it or we hadn't thought about it because we have. And and we want them to be able to see that, and and then they can weigh in. And and we'll throw it in the mix with all those others that we're evaluating.

So that's our our recommendation. And then the other three are intersection locations where the analysis that was conducted for the update of the comprehensive plan. So we looked out at 2044, we looked at the anticipated growth in land use, we looked at the anticipated growth in traffic and we looked at how our intersections perform under those in that future scenario. And there were some that fell below target as as we would expect. There were like 10 altogether.

Most of those locations were either places where we knew we couldn't didn't couldn't or didn't wanna do anything like 1 12th In Northeast 8th Street. I mean, that's kind of is what it is. We really can't or don't wanna do anything more there. And then there are some locations where we already had projects identified in the TFP. But then there were three locations that did not have any projects in the TFP.

And so that's what those are the three locations that are listed here. And the wording is very general, like, you know, what conduct a needs assessment to understand, you know, what the problem is, if there are solutions, ways to address it. It may be end up being a capital project if we were to pursue it, or it could be operational change. We've taken an initial look at some of these, and there's at least one where we think just an operational change would work. But the point is that this would be a way to proactively recognize that we may have a problem at a location and, you know, acknowledge that in our planning process.

And and, again, it doesn't spell out anything, any specific way to address that problem. It just would be, you know, typically, the way we would handle this in the TFP if it made its made the cut in the prioritization process for the TFP is that we would put what we call a placeholder allocation of $300,000 is the number we've used in the past. And that would be just to illustrate that, yes, this is an area we think we are maybe a problem. It may take some resources to analyze and assess, develop alternatives for how we could address that problem. So so that's our recommendation is that we acknowledge that there we have information that's indicates that there may be an issue at these three locations and that we put those into the into the mix for our our our TFP process.

Any comments or questions?

No other comments on that. I do have a question. You didn't talk about 98th and Northeast 8th. I think it was it's on the project list. Right? I know that that's actually so, Kevin, it's already funded. Right? Or were you trying to get funding for Northeast State that just that two block segment to get from a hundredth to ninety eighth?

So that that's a project in in the in the under the bike belt view site section of the project list. I I this discussion today, I was focusing on the priority bicycle corridors. Okay. One hundredth and ninety eighth, they're they're not on the priority bicycle corridors. I mean, there there there's a lot of bike projects. So this was the framework that I used to talk about, the ones that, you know, of course It's a

priority corridor, which is why we looked at it. Right?

It was a bike valky corridor, but it didn't appear on the priority.

But in that priority. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. So I I think that's all I had. We just wanna check-in on what the next steps were, which are to score score rank the projects, the ranking. So we'll be back in three weeks with information in that regard. And then we're prepared we're working on the public engagement process. So that'll kick off in the February, probably the latter toward the end of the month.

Yes. Excuse me. Can you give us a preview on how your thinking is evolving regarding crossbow prioritization?

So there is no science to that. You know, people have tried, but it doesn't really work. So the the the process that we've used in the past and that we anticipate using this time will be to look broadly at so we look at the score score ranking. That's the starting point for the, you know, for the various mode projects. But the thing is some projects, you know, do carry multiple modes.

Right? So that isn't it's already a little bit clouded there, but that's a good thing if a project can address multiple modes. Right? And then we we have a staff prioritization exercise where we could take into other other considerations, you know, into account. So things like how much work has been already how to what extent is the project already undergone some stage of development?

You know, is it ripe? Has the has the public already weighed in on this project? Is there opportunity to tie in with other things that are happening? Because utilities department already gonna need to dig up the street because, you know, they need to replace a water pipe. So, you know, we we we we we bring in a staff from across, you know, different departments and and different functional groups within the transportation department.

And we look at the score ranks, and we we come up with our proposal for a a well, with a combined list, it's our proposal for how to rank the projects. And then we share that with the commission, and we go through an exercise where you can make adjustments. So that's that's how we've done this in in the past. And, you know, usually, the staff and the commission can agree on a on a, you know, combined list.

Okay. Well, I look forward to that process. And then I guess a a quick follow-up on that is how do you sort of balance the cost of a project versus the importance of a project? Is there any that also seems like a very subjective sort of exercise. Do you have any guidance on how that thinking happens?

Well, I I think part of it is community expectations. So, you know, I I think, you know, going back to Westlake Sammamish Parkway, I mean, each piece of that is expensive. And but, you know, the folks out there are have you know, are very interested in seeing that completed and there's benefit not just to them, but to the, you know, broader community. So, you know, it compared to where we could so so, you know, each TFB has another piece of that, you know, you know, shown as funded because that's that's the understanding is that there's I don't if it's commitment, but there's an implied understanding that, you know, we went through a process, let's take it and then that's the solution and then we're gonna work toward that that solution. Now with that $12,000,000 for each piece, would that be, you know, arguably more beneficial, more broadly beneficial somewhere else in the city?

Maybe. But that's you know, so the the it's it's it's hard to weigh these things. It it is. But that in that case, you know, we we we we there's there's you you've started the process and and there's some, I think, reasonable expectation. Unless you had a reason not to continue to do it, you know, then you would wanna continue to build that out.

Okay. I think from the both the commission standpoint and also from the public, having some level of transparency of understanding maybe some of the the reasons or the history

Mhmm.

Behind why certain projects move forward and why others don't. I know that every time that we as commission look at these projects, you sort of get a little snow blind, and you try and pick things out. But having some sort of narrative as to why some projects succeed in terms of getting funded and built out versus others that go back on the list versus others that get cut, I think that would help the public understand what happens if they had a way of looking at the the narrative behind how we made these decisions. So if you guys have that, that would be wonderful. It was somehow a link in the spreadsheet just available to us.

Right. We we will provide that. And when when projects kind of, I guess, get pushed up or pulled down, we document the reason for that.

Alright. Thanks. Yes.

I've been here for how many rounds now of this Yes. Big Yes. So I think and so far, you've done a wonderful job. They track color coded, and they explained to you why this one moved up in the ranking or the scoring. So my experience so far has been a very transparent process where staff takes the original ranking and talks about what things made it above the line and why or what didn't if things were changed.

So so far, that has been very transparent. I think what what I'm hoping, and I won't get to see it, I'm sure, but now that we have the MIP, right, you have more tools to rank. Not all the tools, as you said, right, route continuity. There are some reasons that cannot be quantified, and I completely understand that. But getting to a point where you can say, this project is gonna change this corridor in these metrics in this way, right, which is is is hard, but that is transparent with the TFP.

And so as a bundle, it's gonna approve this. And, eventually, you'll get to model the full TFP. I think we do that at some point, and then we can, like, clearly see, right, where the gaps move forward. I think we do that right before the next TFP maybe. Like, here's what we agreed to, etcetera.

But but we have more tools now than we did before, more quantitative tools we did before. And I know it takes time to align it to the TFP and the history, and we just we're getting I mean, obviously, it shows that you guys have been doing a good qualitative job because all the gaps had projects in there somehow or most of them. So so that's already a good thing, right, a validation that the process that has happened in the past has been good to develop projects, but we now have, like, these better tools, these better numbers that most importantly, they make it easier to communicate. Right? Like, that's the thing.

It you can now easily communicate what the engineering staff is so familiar with because they live live and breathe it every day, but using the MIP, that sort of thing. So so that's just what I wanna say. I'm I I think in the past, it's been very clear to me, everything why you make the decisions. But going forward, you have more data, maybe more work, but it'd be cool to have that story tied in. Won't get to see it. But We're

we're trying to do that. We hope we can do that. Yes. Commissioner Nolan? Oh.

Sorry, Chuck. Sorry. I I can't you're in my

voice spot.

Yeah. Go No. You go ahead.

I just wanted to ask, when when does data expire, and when do you decide to invest in getting new data? I've here are some things that I think are being reconsidered, and I just wonder because I know that decisions were made somewhat recently on on some of these things that we're talking about tonight. So I'm I'm wondering when do you decide to invest to get that data and determine what the ROI is to make to get a different decision, or or can we always have this best practice of this data was recently presented, therefore, x y z conclusion can be made?

So, I mean, I think our projects are informed by, you know, current conditions, if if if that makes sense, or to the extent that oftentimes by, you know, modeling analysis of what we anticipate future conditions will be. So I I'm I'm not sure if I quite understand the question, but I think I mean, you you we we we we recognize we we we kind of know conditions on the ground, I guess, if that's you know, we we do know what what's know, what infrastructure we have on the ground, where we're missing infrastructure, what traffic conditions are like, you know, what sidewalk conditions are like for that matter. So we we we have all that information in terms of the baseline. We and as I indicated earlier, we have, you know, understanding what changes are anticipated in the land in terms of land use and more density coming in certain areas that would imply that we have maybe more need in some locations. We, you know, as I indicated, have, you know, forecast for future traffic conditions.

So I I think we always are working with the best available information and data. I

and, again, I I know I'm the newest one here, but I've I it feels like from the newest numbers perspective Yeah. And this may be a premature conclusion to make, and and I will apologize if I am wrong. And this is by no means to discredit anyone. But if one thing isn't passed under specific nomenclature, do you just rename it under different nomenclature to get it passed?

Is this concerning the

No. Yes. No. No.

No. It's what what you see is what you see.

Right. Right.

So what you see on the list is what is what you will see, a certain amount of these projects. So right now, there's over a 100 something projects on this list. When we do get that financial forecast, we won't be able to fit all of these in. So that's why we've been coming and showing you little chunks of that whole entire thing. Right?

So what will happen is what doesn't make that funding line, all of these projects, no matter, no matter what, they go into the TIP, the transportation improvement program, so that we can keep these living, so to speak. And then the next time that we come back, we will have either evaluated those in the TIP to be able to see, are they candidates again? So they they stay they stay the same unless there is an updated study, or something that has been done about them. We don't try and repurpose it to something else to try and get it up into into the into the list.

Good question. Why don't we just, like, have all of those in a TIP and TIP number? And we used to we used to do that. We used to have the t this is the candidate list. They all had this TIP most of them had a TIP number.

They will be. I'm I I come I come next month.

Okay. TIP is not updated.

So I think that's pretty much it. We're yeah. I think we have one more slide, but it's stuff you've seen before. So we're pretty much on track with our with our timeline. So that's all.

Any comments on this slide? Or

No. Not unless you have any. I mean, if you have any.

Have any comments on the timing of the public interaction? Yeah. This actually actually, maybe what are we trying I just have one, which is what is the date we're trying to get to? So the end date here is So And is that set by the council?

So Not specifically set by council. We do we are aiming to have a completed recommendation from this group in May, potentially April, but but by May. If necessary, June. But May is our target for having a a recommendation to the city council for a new TFT. Okay.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Thanks for, as usual, handling all of our questions.

Of course. Of course. No. They gave me some good input, and then we'll work on.

Okay. So we have the second part of our study session. We're gonna be talking about the MIP update. Just kick that off, introduce that. So, yeah, continuing with the update on the MIP mobility implementation plan, Kevin and Chris will review the primary metrics that determine pedestrian level of traffic stress.

So we've talked about that before. And they will describe how the supplemental components will inform priorities and project concepts. So staff is seeking commission direction to prepare a PLTS matrix and PLTS maps for the arterial network, one map for existing conditions and one map for PLTS TS targets. Welcome, Kevin and Chris.

Thank you, vice chair Miguel. And as Christy mentioned, with the the with the with respect to the TFP and bringing bite sized chunks of information to you

for your

your commented input. We're doing the same sort of procedure with the mobility implementation plan, bringing small bits so we can fully understand what these bits are before we try to put them all together in a in a a final mobility implementation plan document. So today, we're we'll kinda pick up where we left off with pedestrian level of traffic stress from the January 9 meeting. Chris and I have prepared a very short presentation. So if you wouldn't mind that we hold questions to the end, we can always flip back to any slide that you want, but you won't forget that slide because there's not that many of them.

So if if you wouldn't mind if we could run through them, then we can go back to new one you want. K? Now you you guys know Chris. Right? So he he's a he's a a fixture at this table and Yeah. And a really important partner in in this work for me.

Comes at the end of the he has to wait till the end of the

meeting. I

I I

But I got cookies this time, so I'm I'm good.

K. So we have we have a few items for the agenda. The vice chair Gil McGill talked about them. We're gonna do a quick review of of what is the pedestrian level of traffic stress from the last couple of meetings just to just to foundation build that foundation, look at the primary pedestrian level of traffic stress metrics that we saw last time and and discussed, look at those the list of supplemental components and perhaps a different way of categorizing those supplemental components that will make sense as we go forward to prioritize and prioritize project concepts and develop what those are in the context of their situation. And then we'll look at a schematic for a pedestrian level of traffic stress matrix that will not resemble what you know and love as the bike level of traffic stress matrix, but it's the precursor to it.

And we'll we'll talk about how that will transform in the next meeting. So for our outcome tonight, I want to reconfirm the primary metrics and the supplemental components, and I would like to have you give us direction to prepare the the more detailed pedestrian level of traffic stress metrics and develop the existing conditions, PLTS, and the target PLTS maps for the arterial network. K? Thanks, Chris. Next.

So to just to refresh, pedestrian level of traffic stress is a relatively new best practice that's being implemented by various jurisdictions both regionally and locally around this around the country. We define it as a qualitative description of pedestrian safety and comfort. We're restricting this conversation to arterials just because there's so many local streets that it would be overwhelming to talk about them all. So we're just like with the bike network, restricting the conversation to arterials at this time. We use we plan to use pedestrian level of traffic stress in planning, making sure that the concepts are simple, clear, and understandable, and that they help to describe the outcomes, the target performance of the pedestrian network along the arterials.

And we also anticipate using pedestrian level of traffic stress to, again, identify the performance target gaps and determine the project concepts to address those gaps. Those project concepts can be delivered as a CIP project. Maybe it'll it'll rise to a TFP project in the next go around. And and also as conditions of development approval when our development review staff says this is this is the frontage improvement that you'll have to build when you do your project. K?

So the the primary metrics that we introduced to you last time were were simple metrics that describe safety and comfort, have data that's available citywide. And there's lots and lots of data, and then everybody knows that that there's little bits and pieces of data here and there. But we wanted to make sure that since we're doing a citywide analysis, we wanted to have citywide data that's readily available and that that data is sort of identified and presented in a way that's easy for the community, the the professionals, the commissioners, the council, and and the the the layperson in the community to understand what this means. So not to be too complicated. There's tons and tons of variables that could be in embedded, but we just wanna focus on the the highest the the the clear and simple ones that are easy to understand.

And so what we determined those to be, and we were we worked with you on the last meeting about these, is that we would use actual travel speed, and and we we have that data citywide. And we just had a meeting about that today to to determine how exactly we will implement that. The average daily traffic volume on the arterioles, we we have that. It's interesting also that we have, you know, a a long history of of traffic volume, so we can we can track changes by year if we if we if we wanna look back. The width of the sidewalk, pretty simple metric, and the width of the buffer between the moving vehicles and the people walking on the sidewalk.

So easy to understand, simple, available data. Everybody gets it. So that's where we were last time. We had a long conversation about driveways last time, and and the conversation was basically should driveways be considered a primary metric for pedestrian level of traffic stress. Certainly, the presence of driveways, the design of driveways, the volume of vehicles on driveways presents a a point of interface between the vehicle and the pedestrian.

But I don't necessarily characterize it as a point of conflict. It's just a a play it's a sort of a mixing area where pedestrians and drivers sort of merge and and figure out the the best way for each each each mode to move forward. So we took the the conversation to staff, and and we had a staff of about, you know, 15 people or so at the meeting, including our our consultant team at Ferrum Pierce. Developed a number of reasons that we think driveways should not be a primary performance or pedestrian level of traffic stress metric. These were in your in your memo, but I so I won't, you know, belabor them.

But, you know, we driveways are where driveways are because of some legacy decision that was made. So there's not much we can do about that now. And we don't really have widely available, easy to acquire data that could be used as a primary metric. And, you know, each driveway is unique. As you walk along a sideway a sidewalk, you you have some narrow ones, some wide ones, some sloping ones, some ones that you can't see the car coming.

Everyone's different. And so we didn't think that we could characterize a corridor by the the quantity or the volume of driveways. So there's too many variables to have that that be a primary metric. Generally, as as I mentioned, you know, driveways are typically a mixing zone where people negotiate the space, and it's not necessarily unsafe because there's really good eye contact for the most part, and the the the speed is very slow. I I don't know of too many collisions that occur at driveways, but there is some I I do acknowledge that there are some times and places where it could be uncomfortable as you try to negotiate that space with a driver entering or exiting a driveway.

We do have tools to make substandard driveways better, to make new driveways as best as they can be relative to existing standards, and we implement those. Chris is going to to share with you some of the good examples that we're doing. He might show some bad examples of legacy projects too, but we'll get to that in a bit. So so the new driveways, they incorporate in design that includes making sure sight lines are clear and unobstructed. They tend to be narrower than some of the old driveways.

Sometimes there there are driveways that are known to have a high volume that have audibles audible signals that tell a pedestrian that there's a car approaching. Sometimes there's there's actually driveway guards that that sort of help direct traffic and help that that mixing zone flow a little bit better. I I often wish that there was a audible for drivers that said caution pedestrians ahead, but we don't have that yet. So, anyway, our the staff recommendation is to include driveways as a type two supplemental component. The type two supplemental component that we'll get to next is After the After the driveway types, we'll we'll talk about how those supplemental components get used.

Chris? Yeah. So just one note. I think Kevin maybe didn't we had a lively discussion with staff too. You know, this lively discussion here, driveways are complicated, unequivocal.

And I think one of the the takeaways that maybe isn't quite captured here that it was evident from the staff discussion is that a lot of the elements that we would use to improve driveway comfort and just sort of the the ability for just a more sort of calm interaction between vehicles and people at driveways are inherent to what we would be doing to improve the level of traffic stress for pedestrian facilities as a whole. So while driveways are are key areas of mixing and contact between vehicles that when we improve the pedestrian traffic stress with those primary metrics in mind, we are also doing service towards the driveways. And I think some of these examples will give that case in point. So here's an example. Kevin did a a grand walking tour of downtown.

We have lots of examples around the city. I did a a mixed mixed tour of Google and being out in in other parts of the city as well. So lots of examples. But an older older driveway style here, some of the things that we consider that in some respects, there's some sort of key core elements that are pretty good about this. There is no side obstruction with this driveway.

There's not landscaping in the way. Sometimes the landscape strip in itself can be a challenge, and that's sort of handled through maintenance and sort of planting choices under. You'll see a little bit. But it's also the landscaping immediately adjacent to the driveway. Sometimes there's bushes or trees in the way where there's you can only see two feet onto the sidewalk when you're the car is trying to to exit.

This is also a relatively narrow curb cut. So those are some of the benefits. But some of the pieces that if a car is encroaching into that sidewalk as most vehicles do to be able to sort of prepare for their turn, That car is gonna straddle not only the sidewalk, but also get into the the immediate parking space. And you can see that on both sides of this, there's obstructions in the way, especially if you're sure footed. It's hard to get around that vehicle.

You might need to wait or whatnot. From an ADA perspective, the cross slope on that driveway wouldn't be allowed today. That's not not not allowable, but those are grandfathered in. But it's something to consider when we look at project concepts, and the lack of the buffer is really sort of also prevent some ability for people to navigate around a car. This is something that's going to be readdressed or would be addressed with redevelopment of this parcel, and this is the case for really a lot of the legacy driveways that there's not a capital project that would make sense for the city to come in and say, hey.

We got this driveway to to to deal with. It's more likely to occur with redevelopment. The example that's a better case is actually immediately to the north. It's literally the next parcel to the north on the same block. This was a redevelopment.

The old driveway looked pretty much exactly like the one we were just looking at when the city worked with the the developers, sort of a good example of public private partnership to redevelop the the this particular driveway. Again, we have a clear sight line. The landscape buffer is held back. There's some bike parking there to provide some furniture zone protection from the traffic, but that provides clear sight lines so that that buffer does exist. The sidewalk here is 10 feet wide or in about nine feet wide probably rather than the six foot wide sidewalk.

It's level because there's that buffer in place so that if a car is, again, in the driveway space, there's still space around the backside of it to get through. And in this case, the curb cut's still narrow. That's something that the city tries to balance to keep those curb cuts narrow. Sometimes they're not available because we have loading docks or the driveway is of a higher volume, but the the goal is always to keep it narrow. So this was an example of redevelopment looking at if we had a PLTS sort of target, the the development review team was able to get this in place because of the good design standards in downtown.

But we this is part of that whole process of why are we doing this to make sure it's really clear to developers why should you have a a driveway that's better than what was there before from the perspective of site improvements. Another example, maybe one of the more notorious ones that that we look at when we see some challenges. Good a good one good plus. It's narrow. Maybe that's about it.

That retaining wall, clearly, the the the the red car there can't see a pedestrian or vehicles for that matter kind of on their way out. They have to get quite a ways out into the to the driveway to to get around that. Sidewalk's narrow. It's angled. There's no buffer.

And, again, this is something that it's it's a legacy issue. The city could choose to, say, redevelop. There's a Hundred And 10th Street, this piece, but the practice has been to partner with developers to do this to make sure that when, for example, when Mike's going back to ask for city funding, it's like, there's only so many ways to prioritize this. This has historically been a way to do this, but setting clearer guidelines through PLTS is a way that we can ensure better driveways. So the point being that in many cases, these are a bit more narrowly focused, and PLTS can help as a supplemental component, and we'll talk about how where we see this fitting into the overall concept in a moment, to help ensure that the it's really clear to the developers what we're asking for and why.

And if there is a big capital project that touches sidewalks, like, a street's being entirely rebuilt, then the city also knows what the expectations are on its own capital side. So it's sort of it it works in both favors. But this driveway, for example, or the other examples that are challenging aren't necessarily where we see the most productive value for defining what is going to rise as a PLTS issue that needs to be addressed. They will be addressed through the course of either redevelopment or capital projects. And the fundamental basics of narrow sidewalks, lack of buffer are gonna tend to rise to the the issue of triggering a a performance target gap in the first place.

So those are some of those examples and just sort of rolling through. So what are we gonna do about this? Kevin mentioned the idea is here to have these supplemental components. And compared to last time, again, the group the the staff discussion reframed this in a way that we thought was helpful to to to crystallize and bring back to you. So we have defined two types, and they they each serve a different role.

One is type one used for prioritization. So, again, we have the the the primary metrics that we talked about before. So speed, width of the sidewalk, whether there's a buffer, so forth. Those identify the performance target gaps. Supplemental components used to help enable prioritization are heavily aligned with MIP's goals.

So generalized land use. So it's like, what's the adjacent land use that's around the the performance target gap? Has a lot to do with utilization, and that gets to one of the the goals of the the MIC of also supporting growth. So the the performance management areas are a way that we could look at that. Whether or not there's pedestrian destinations, so what are the key points that need some special attention for access?

That's an access target from the MIPs. We've already identified schools, libraries, frequent transit network stops, etcetera. They tend to generate both more more use, but also are areas that more vulnerable users tend to travel, including in PMA 3, the residential parts of the city. So those sort of pick up a little bit of prioritization lens. Accessibility.

This is not an explicit explicit piece of the MIP prioritization framework but very much fits in with equity, and that's whether or not the the facilities are meeting ADA standards. And the ADA standards have this this other acronym, PROWAG, which gets to the right of way access guidance from the US DOT, which actually says very specifically what are the the minimum specifications for new facilities to be built. So where those are not compliant, the city has the guidance from a variety of sources to know whether or not facilities there. This is an important piece of accessibility or prioritization that maybe want to be considered when we're looking at those those gaps. And the last piece, safety, of course.

Everything I think commissioner Ting's done a great job of helping us keep safety top of mind, and the high injury network is another frame to consider from prioritization. So those are those type one supplemental components that we can think of. When we know where there's gaps and we know we have limited resources, where might we be focusing our attention to address those gaps first? And, again, these dovetail, not completely, but pretty tightly with the MIP goals that are also considered already by sort of adoption and prioritization pieces. The type two pieces get into what is what is the project concept need to do.

And so there's driveways are in there as a as a are many other pieces. So we we took driveways in there to look at what are the design elements that can really improve the quality when we get to project concept development, and that can be both through capital projects that the city leads or through development review requirements on the frontage and access for a property. So that's where we see that tucking in, but we wanted to sort of highlight those shift here on how we view these supplemental components and what they mean from your perspective, really, as advising on how to move forward. So those are sort of, like, the the some of the background. And as Kevin mentioned, what we're looking for direction on, we'll talk about you know, just again, we'll talk through the the primary metrics and secondary considerations, but also wanted to say to see at least introduce you to giving us direction to fill out the matrix for PLTS.

What's on the screen is what Kevin and I have lovingly been referring to as the snow cone. This is not what it's gonna look like. This is just to give a broad concept of, like, the bike level of traffic stress with different roadway characteristics and different design elements, there's gonna be this spectrum going from LTS four or high stress all the way to LTS one. The bike or the pet LTS is gonna follow a very similar sense. We have a draft of this that we're gonna be working through with staff soon, but we wanna sort of give that preview and and make sure that the metrics that we're looking at again, these are all the primary metrics rolled into one big matrix.

We once we get sort of your concurrence on that, we're gonna fill this out. And then we're gonna apply that to look at, well, given those characteristics, what does the arterial network look like in the city? We're gonna look at both sides of the street, and then we're defining targets for what we would like to ultimately achieve. And those are gonna be for your review at the next one of the next meetings. So that's where we stand on that. And I think, Kevin, we're now towards this last step.

What's that?

Uh-oh.

I think I did something wrong. Oh, blue green yellow. Yeah. Blue green. Oh, yes. From from that perspective. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Yes.

I know.

First part of the discussion, and, Chris, can you go to the next slide? Yep. So we want we want to next slide. There we go. So any questions, clarifications that we can answer for you this evening?

I wanna get your, you know, concurrence with the primary metrics and how we're using the supplemental components and then get your direction to fill in that PLTS table with actual colors and actual cells. And we'll as Chris mentioned, we'll we'll look at developing a map that shows the existing arterial pedestrian level of traffic stress and what the target level of traffic stress is for those same arterials. So right away, we'll be seeing where there's gaps. And, you you know, eventually, those gaps will come to Mike, and he will have a project concept for the TFP. But we're setting the we're setting the the the framework for an eventual TFP project.

But first, we do the in we do the inventory. We, you know, find out what we have, find out where we need to go, what are those gaps, and what how do we fill those gaps. So so we're we're finished. And and, again, we can go back to any slide, respond to any question you have.

So just quick question. With with all the construction that we have going on, when when a project's underway, how do we handle the pedestrian level of traffic stress? Is there is there, like, a covered walkway that has to happen, or do you have to just cross the street and use the other side? Or how do we is there any rhyme or reason to to that?

Sure. It it that that's a bit of a tangent from what we're trying to accomplish because those are itinerant situations. They come and go where we're trying to deal with the the permanent situations that we know exist. So but with respect to construction and the the the maintenance of traffic. We maintain both we maintain traffic for pedestrians, bicycles, cars, buses in a construction situation where the construction encroaches into the walkway or the bikeway or the the street sometimes. So we have we have staff upstairs that work with the developers to to on maintenance of traffic.

I think yeah. I guess, overall, I think you did a really good job with, you know, very thorough, and I appreciate all the work you did on the the two types of supplementary metrics. I thought it makes sense. Just going back to the the the call the I'm a little like what are you gonna do exactly? Because you got four it's like you have four axes. Right? And so my guess, like, if the arterial traffic volume doesn't correlate with the arterial actual travel speed, then it's like they won't they won't go across. Right? But Yeah. Maybe maybe they correlate enough that you're not worried about that.

It's so, again, fortunately, there's a lot of research on this even from what they call naturalistic studies where people are walking around and say, here's how they feel. So when this comes back to you, it's not gonna be quite as sort of, I think, banded across that diagonal. It's gonna look sort of like a like an equalizer bar on a on a stereo where there's gonna be some spikes and valleys because of just that that that buffer width is fairly influential and will you know, that can sort of pull down the green or push up the yellows and blues. So we're we're working through that, but you'll you'll kinda see the product of that from from at least if we go with these these sets of axes that we have here. Yeah.

It's more like a formula.

It is

a formula.

Yeah. Yeah. Based on volume and speed and and separation, which is that that the the speed and the separation build comfort. And so as both of those change, the the the the quality for the pedestrian changes.

So on this particular slide, I know you're gonna digitize it. You're not gonna leave it as an analog scale. My request would be that we have more than one significant digit here. So this is what I mentioned in the last meeting. So the difference between something that's, you know, like, very, very solidly green versus green about to turn yellow for me is an important distinction. And so one feedback on this slide is if we could capture that I'm not looking for, like, a huge amount of, like, precision here, but just enough so we know whether we're close to, you know, the high edge or the low edge or maybe in the middle, for the for the numbers.

Do you do your clarification? You mean that when we actually evaluate it? You wanna see the result of the actual side. I mean, this is just a a criteria that says, you know, if it's less than five feet and, you know, that's gonna have a number. What do what do you mean

by Yeah. So this is this graph gonna be populated with numbers? Is that what the intent is?

The the the intent is that the cells will be filled in with a PLTS Yes.

Yeah. One or two. So it's like if you have five feet and are less than let's say, in the very corner, just to make sure I don't right. If your sidewalk is larger than 10 feet and is larger than and the buffer is larger than five feet, right, you can say that's an LTS stress one.

Mhmm.

That's like, it's a it's a binary it's a criteria.

I I understand. I'm just asking for more than one significant digit.

Right. Right. So and that's what I'm trying to clarify. So that's that's a criteria. So what you're saying is if the sidewalk is let me just get you a significant digit. 4.5. Right? And the buffer is 10. So it's in between it's in between am I doing this right? Five feet?

Five feet.

Like, five feet is the demarcation. And so you wanna know if that sidewalk in that in the existing sidewalk or the existing buffer, is the existing buffer 4.5, 4.9, 4.2, two feet? Right? Like, you're asking for the actual existing condition. No. Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand.

Yeah. No. All I'm asking for is, like, if you're if you've got the box in the upper right hand corner, that's a solid green. Like, that's very safe because you've got low traffic volumes, low speeds, and a wide sidewalk. That's a really safe area. Mhmm. On the other hand, if you take a look at, let's say, something that's on the verge of turning blue, it's it's green, but it's close to blue, that's not quite as safe. But if you don't if you only have one significant digit, those are both gonna show up as one. So what I'm suggesting is that maybe the one that's really close to blue shows up as, I don't know, 1.7 or something like that.

But you're changing it to a

A 10.6. Yeah.

Of four scale, want 10 or something.

Seven instead of one to four, it's that's

a pretty big change from what we've been talking about.

Yeah.

That is my feedback.

Yeah. No. I think I think I think what we have a couple of we're gonna be exploring sort of are there sort of boundary condition boxes. But I think to Chair Maccianti's point, it might be more applicable given that there's a bigger range of, like there's a ton of dimensionality in buffers and sidewalk widths to sort of say that this is on the border of a of a two and a three when we do the evaluation based on this matrix so that it's like, well, there's other supplemental character or secondary characteristics that could help sort of nudge it one way or the other. I hear what you're saying, and we're gonna be talking about that with staff because we've had some internal discussions about should there be some bounded boxes in here that's like, well, it's right on the line of a two or a three, and it gets down to what is the design choice being made.

But I think there is value in the specific evaluation to potentially also look at for, you know, A Hundred And 16th Avenue, what is that condition? It might be that it's like, well, it's it's not quite a three. And so is that good enough? Do we call that a two? I think there's your point of significant digits could start to put come into play there.

We are in the process of actually pulling all the data to pull those scores together yet. We haven't done it yet, but I think that's we we we acknowledge that there's some of these edge cases both in this matrix, but more probably, relevantly on the actual scoring as to what what do we do about that. Could we if it's close, could we what can we do to make it better?

It's mainly just to know if it's close. So if you're trying to, you know, balance between two projects. And like I said, one of them's you you I think you guys know what I'm saying.

That's why I was thinking. This is a framework. Right? Like, they're gonna say, if it's this is the threshold because we gotta pick a threshold. But when they bring the projects in, that's when I think it's really important to for them to tell us how close was it to the threshold. Right? It's if it's 4.9, like, do we really gonna pick a project? Because it's, like, right at the it's almost five. Right? So I think, like, the really important information is when the project comes in, how close to the threshold that we picked as a framework as the criteria.

That's really important because it's at the boundary between one and two, and we really need to look at it on a project by project basis. Otherwise, you're just asking for more category. You're just saying instead of four, add six or add five which like, that's that's what you're asking. You're just saying, I want a 1.7. So if you want a 1.2, then we're gonna need another color for 1.2. It's a new threshold. So you're just asking for more thresholds at the moment. And and that's just a whole other conversation to see if you want another color that's not green or blue that's in between, that's another bound. Right? Another boundary.

So that's my feedback.

You can We have we have the direction, the feedback. We will come back to you next time, which is coming up quickly, with with the filled in matrix and a discussion about how those edge conditions work. Okay.

I I have a new question. Although Yeah.

It's So

let's go back

to No. Alright.

Yeah. Okay. So my understanding was that in general, the driveways tend to be an issue in terms of safety for cyclists. Like, that's one of the reasons that we try and move curb cuts off the main arterials and onto the side streets. Is that not similarly the case for pedestrians?

The turn the the from the safety data, which we are also reanalyzing since we have kind of a new batch of safety data, the severity of what are called, you know, like, right hook or left left turn collisions, they are notable for for cyclists, certainly. Where we tend to see the turn type of crashes with pedestrians tends to be more at intersections. But it's since that question was raised, we are reassessing that. It's it's a known intersection issue. I don't know that we have the data to speak solidly one way or the other on driveways as opposed to it's it is an issue on on the bicycles just because bicycles move so much faster.

Okay. So I guess my feedback here would be we should think about whether driveways are a safety issue for pedestrians. And if so, figure out perhaps moving them to the type one instead of the type two. I understand you may not have all the data that's available for where all the driveways are, but there is some like, in doing some background research, you know, there are some best practices that indicate that driveways should be taken to account from a PLTS standpoint. And I think that's from a safety perspective, if we believe it's an issue of safety, I think we should try and figure out how to capture that.

So that would be my first piece of feedback. Related to that, whether or not we can actually change it because it's, say, private property, I think is somewhat orthogonal to whether it gets a good or a bad score. So the safety is the safety. It's not, well, how easy is it for us to change? It's what are the conditions? What's the the PLTS for that particular part of the street? So I understand we may not be able to go and make a lot of difference by changing the driveway because we're waiting, say, for redevelopment. But, nonetheless, we should be clear about what the level of safety or stress is for the pedestrian on that segment.

I I yes. I hear that, and I think that's something that we can talk to the staff about. I I do wanna emphasize that safety is a key goal of the MIP. And, for example, we don't factor safety into auto the auto level of service. That is not a factor at all.

It's a factor in the prioritization of where we have investments through the the the high injury network. It's a really important factor. And in the the city has, through the Vision Zero initiative, a whole sort of dedicated set of funding for safety. So we have kept safety as a prioritization frame for the modes, and it's it's inherent in it has it's strongly correlated as we talked about before for pedestrian level of traffic stress, bicycle level of traffic stress. But I think I just wanna point out that I hear you, and we'll we'll dig into that a little bit.

But safety heretofore has been a prioritization lens for the overall performance for all the modes thus thus far. Not and, again, I'll just sort of emphasize what the city has long done sort of on the on the vehicle side. Safety is not the what drives level of service for for vehicles.

I wonder, though delays. Just as we're talking, I'm thinking, what if driveways was a component of type one and type two? You know, it it helps to determine what the priority is, and it helps determine what the project concept is

that addresses the gap. That sounds like a good idea.

K. Well, let's let's let's talk about that with staff next week, and we'll come back to you next time with the And, sorry, I

just wanna see if you guys have any questions, and I have a question too, and it's related to that as well. And it's it's really kind of a question of usability. So if we're using and how we use this metric. So if this metric is using is is helping us prioritize where the corridor should be. If we use it that way, then I think we need to look at some kind of a usability metric.

And what what I mean by that is how are you impacting the transportation system? So if if we build infrastructure in front of driveway that's busy and is everybody from that humongous building, 50 story building is trying to get out and, you know, we're putting our sidewalk infrastructure in front of that driveway, then you're impacting how that flows out, right, as opposed to again, this is where about prioritization when you have to decide between investing in sidewalk a versus sidewalk b. If you have unlimited resources, which we never ever do, then you would you would do them all. But if you have to make a decision, that's where you would look at some kind of a usability matrix or not matrix. Sorry.

Major. And and then you might also look at safety as part of that. Right? Because so I guess I'm just gonna throw that out there for you. I and you've got four measures on here already, so that's a lot of measures.

So maybe we and the path you're talking about going down is to you utilize those other criteria, but make sure that they're not in the background is what I'm saying. Right? So that they are in other words, if you use this matrix and you're like, yeah. We, this is where we need to invest our sidewalk, but you're ignoring some of the other ones as lower you know, it's not having as much influence on the prioritization, then you might end up with a suboptimal result. So it's just more of a comment to throw out there for you.

Go ahead.

I know I've talked a lot, but this is my first question just for the record. So the just and and just to circle back on some of the comments, I just wanted to say I completely agree with commissioner Tangs. Just because it's hard for us to do is not a reason not to do it. And so, like, that's just just don't use it as a reason because it just gives the impression that that's why you it's like, I don't wanna look where where it's a there's a problem. So on that point, I would completely I did not like reading that.

Right? I don't think that's what we're trying to do in the commission. And so to that degree, I don't think it's a good reason not to use it. Having said that, I really do, having thought through all the considerations that you shared in the memo and of the driveway, I do I'm very happy where we landed in the context of the measurement. As you've said, it's complex already, right, and to communicate that, but it has a very you can cleanly communicate to someone why it falls into PLTS one or two or three. Right? Like, that is it's quantifiable. It's measurable. It's got four factors. And the way you describe the driveways, how are you gonna measure and quantify that for a for and communicate the level of risk of that driveway component?

It does seem slimmed a little complex to me. So I think I'm completely bought off in the sense of this is a simple way to explain as a starting point where we look. Right? Because that's just the starting point. Eventually, when you're actually creating projects, then you bring it to us, and we have that conversation of is it at a boundary?

Is it someone does it have driveways? Those sort of thing. And so so that so I just wanted to say that that I'm I'm very comfortable now having thought through all of the implications of where you landed and and what you did on that. And then I just had an, like, an observation that I wanted to ask if this was accurate because this will depend when your standards change, right, in the city. But is it fair to say that any sidewalk that's a certain level of hire is going to meet that ADA standard because that's when it changed?

Right? I I wanna like, I don't think we used to have old, really large sidewalks in most places. I mean, in in mid in the Midwest, you do. But I think here in the city of Bellevue, there weren't large sidewalks that are old and therefore noncompliant. I just wanted to to get a sense if you have if you know that as a fact, if it was most sidewalks that we have of a certain width already have driveways that are like the ones you showed us. Is that is that true? I just wanted to validate that thinking.

I I would say, commissioner Marcionte, that for the large part of the city that hasn't recently been redeveloped or has had a capital investment program project invested there, they don't meet the ADA standards right now. We when we do when we do overlays, for instance, when we do pavement maintenance and that pavement maintenance touches a corner where the curb ramp doesn't meet the standard, our first obligation is to make that corner meet the standard for ADA. Okay?

Yeah.

So we we invest in ADA upgrades as as we go through the city. And as new development occurs, of course, they meet the ADA standard as well. So but but so there is a method a methodology to upgrade to ADA standards some parts of the infrastructure, but not all. Like like, we upgrade the curb ramps

Yeah.

But we don't necessarily upgrade the adjacent sidewalk along that

entire corridor. Was gonna so you're talking about intersections.

Yes.

I think, I mean, there might be a quick easy way to check, but I think it's pretty you are gonna have a correlation. Large sidewalks are gonna be newer than a certain standard. That's what my guess is. Right? We don't have it.

Because that way, that kinda takes care of if you have a large sidewalk, you prob those driveways are probably designed well. If you have a narrow sidewalk as an old sidewalk, then the drivers are gonna be less designed. I'm just talking about correlation probability of what we actually have there in terms of you know, once we know a a driveway is narrow, if there are any driveway sidewalk is narrow, if there are any driveway driveways, they're probably not gonna be to standard because it's an old sidewalk. It hasn't built to the newest standards. That's what I wanted to validate.

There's a concept. I'm sure you have dates, right, every sidewalk that has been built after. And so there might be a correlation in widths and years that might make us feel more comfortable about what we know about driveways in general, that this is a good validate.

I think a lot of it is whether or not there's a buffer. It's the buffer that

provides that biggest

the cross slope and the the what they call the apron that tend to be out of compliance. Because a lot of aprons, when you see them, it's like this rolled curve. Really hard if you're in a wheelchair to get over this little six inch hump Yeah. As opposed to a more grated out piece. So I think you're you're right. There's probably a a pretty quick way to to determine that, at least get most of them, and it's likely whether or not there's a buffer present because a lot of the attached sidewalks don't have that feature.

Anyway, if there's a simp I guess the whole point is if there's a simple way to quantify that doesn't you know, that's if it was built before this year or that year that correlates with the standard as as it existed before or something, that might be a simple way to use in the in in some of these elements. I'm just throwing it out there.

And a lot of capital projects do go through a survey to understand what is the condition out there such that they could pick up that that piece in detail. But I think I the the your point is absolutely correct that there can be an initial screen say these are likely not compliant. Mhmm. And if there is a capital project that, you know, is is prioritizing, they'll also be able to sort of, in a more detailed sense, understand the the the compliance to the accessibility.

Yeah.

Thank you, Victor. Do we have full data on the ADA compliance of the arterial network?

I I don't know of any, like, full datasets because it the the the and I I will say the the rulemaking has not finalized yet. The the the rules change every so often, and the current rule set, I believe, is being adopted either very imminently or just happened. So that would require a full survey of the city. Most cities don't have a a current dataset for

Fair enough.

Did back back probably fifteen years ago. Someone walked We did an inventory of being entire city. Of course, you know, we haven't updated that inventory, so a lot has changed. And and the standards have changed as well, but we we we did a 100% inventory.

Okay. Thank you. Second question is Nine years ago. Two years ago. The data for traffic speed and volume, I understand there's is it ITRIS or ITRIS? Sorry. Iteris? Iteris. Iteris. Thank you. Is the Iteris ClearGuide data available available publicly? Can we look at that?

I know the city

has it. Like that.

You can't answer that. It'd be very interesting to to be able to look that. I assume it has the granularity of, you know, like, time of day, directionality, all that stuff.

It has a lot of granularity. Yes.

Oh, so sorry. My understanding is that there is travel speed information that's collected via cell phone by a third party that's made available.

Yeah.

Yeah. Is it available? Yeah. But for the sit the data that the city is using, is that publicly available, or is that available to the commission? So that's my question there.

I think that's something that could be investigate. I don't I don't know. I can't look at it in general.

Contract.

Yeah. But that doesn't mean that y'all couldn't as commission members.

Yeah. But that that's what I was gonna suggest that it might not be available publicly, but you probably could take a look at it yourself through this in with the city.

Yeah. If it's possible, if you could please let me know.

Alright. Thank you. That's for vehicles. Right?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. That's yeah. Yeah. You have another data.

You know, getting back to the Yeah. To the, yeah. What would be really, really cool is if we could see where people are going, where they're walking. Right? Where are they going? Where are they going coming to and from? Right? We don't have any of that kind of data. That would be somewhat true. Is that viable?

Mhmm. Okay. Other parties, it's the quality of the data can be a little challenging on the the the that sort of very granular level

Mhmm.

Like, where people are walking because they do have to anonymize it.

But K.

There are a variety of data sources.

But it's not in the city?

Not public.

Okay.

And I don't think the city owns any of

that. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. So we've got Are we good with direction to fill out this table and to come back next time with existing conditions and targets for the arterial network?

Or maybe we should say, does anybody object to that? Sure.

Okay. We'll do it. Okay. And so there just a couple quick wrap up slides. I wanted to show you the timeline. You asked about the TFP timeline. We have an MIT timeline. They both sort of terminate about the same time. We're looking for a recommendation from the commission in about June so we can provide that recommendation to the council for their consideration and adoption. And, you know, these are the sort of the monthly milestones as we go through the q one and 2025.

So next time, you will see this timeline with the PLTS matrix colored in as green because we will have done that, and we'll move move through the timeline accordingly. So next slide is our traditional thank you slide, and thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thanks again for answering all of our questions and entertaining our questions.

Thank you.

Okay. So the next item on the agenda is to approve the minutes, but we don't have the minutes. So we'll approve those next time. Right? Generally speaking, I just had that question. Is it is it usually a week and a half or two? Usually, our meetings are a month apart, so it's never an issue.

Yeah. It's it's usually not an issue when our meetings are a month apart. We get the minutes we we got the minutes earlier this week, But but your packet had already been published, so we'll we'll see those in February.

Okay.

We have no unfinished business. We have no new business. And so the the last item for us to review is the commission calendar.

Again, they I've printed the calendar for you. It it is always a work in progress. It's different from the last time, but it does lay out the the agenda as we know it at this time for each of the meetings in q one and q two. So in February, Chris as Christy mentioned, she will be introducing the 2025 update of the transportation improvement program. Chris and I will be back with our matrix, and Michael will be back with some more nuggets of the transportation facilities plan.

Okay. Any questions on the calendar?

Okay. So this was put in place so we could purpose.

Okay. I don't like it.

What? That is it. So we are adjourned. Thank you.

Thanks.