Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Wonderful. Good evening, everybody. Oh, hence the technology dance that commissioner Ting was just referring to. Alright. Welcome, everybody. We are officially at the September meeting. Hard to believe. It's been a couple months, and I do hope that everybody had a good August. I hope you had a good summer, and welcome tonight. We get a little bit more summer left out there. So alright. We are conducting this meeting both in person and virtually. Right now, virtually, we have nobody. We're just we're just okay. I was gonna say we're just right now broadcasting out.

Okay. Chris is is on the on the, on the computer. We'll start with roll call. We've is vice chair McGill here? Here. Commissioner Roppone?

Here.

Commissioner Ting? Here. Commissioner Welcher? Here. And commissioner Williams? Here. Okay. And absent excused is commissioner Kyleman. So we have a quorum and can proceed. So tonight, we have a new commissioner. So we officially welcome Anthony Welsher here. He was recommended by council member Newhouse, not too long ago, and it was a very quick turnaround. It sounds like it's one of the quickest turnarounds from council to attending the first commission meeting. So welcome. How about you talk a little bit about yourself, and then we'll go around the horn and give ourselves a quick introduction.

Thank you, chair. So I've lived in Bellevue for twenty seven years since 1998 coming out of college. So it's a been very blessed to watch Bellevue grow over the last, now, almost thirty years. I have a background both in multifamily commercial real estate as well as having served in several executive government federal government roles with most recently for an obscure federal investment agency that did infrastructure development overseas. So I'm glad to be here and look forward to working with all of you for as long as we get to do this.

Sounds great. Thank you. Alright. And vice chair, you wanna introduce yourself?

I'm, Drew McGilvin. We've met already. I've been on the commission for about three years. Retired from a thirty three year career at Boeing a few years ago, and so I'm really glad to have you on the commission. We now have a full commission. It's great. Thank you.

Commissioner Chang?

Hi. My name is Albert Chang. We've talked earlier, but it's good to see you in person. I've born in Seattle, but I've been in Bellevue for, I wanna say, like, forty plus years. And used to work in software, spending a little bit time off and doing a little bit of exploration and private projects, And I'm very happy to see you here now that commission is full, and we'll have some really good discussions, I I'm sure.

Sounds great. Hi.

I'm Nick Ripoon. Been in Bellevue for, I don't know, a long time, thirty plus years. I'm in residential real estate working for Windermere and been doing that for, like, twenty seven years. So welcome to the commission.

Sounds great.

Hi. And I'm Kay Williams, and I live in the Lakemont area of Bellevue. And I've been in the East Side for thirty five years, commuting and biking and running and walking. And and I my husband and I, like, again, live in the Lakemont area, and I have three adult sons. I've worked at Microsoft for many years and retired a couple of years ago.

Sounds great. And I don't wanna ignore Kevin and Molly at the table. So do you guys wanna give a quick intro?

We have

Okay.

Heard back

back in the interview. We

we did a

We we did a Thank you.

She still

did that.

I told she would do

Told you she would do that. We we had an hour long or so, onboarding yesterday, tour of this room. Alright. And a little bit of coffee and a little bit of background on the commission, the roles and responsibilities, and the upcoming agenda items.

Okay. Excellent. And, Molly, you feel like you've well acquainted already? There at the same time. Perfect. Alright. And I know we met in the interview process, but I'm Karen. Been in Bellevue for twenty two, twenty three years. Retired now. Worked in engineering technology for my career. So yeah. So welcome, Anna. We'll offer that it's an open and friendly commission if you have any questions. There's a lot of acronyms. There's a lot of history. These guys have a ton of history behind them to answer questions, so feel free to reach out. That's why we're here. Alright. Approval of the agenda. You should have all that in front of you. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

I'd actually like to make an emotion to amend the agenda

Go ahead.

To give us the option to when we're through reviewing the MIP to vote to approve the MIP. Give us that option.

K. Is there a second?

Second.

K. Discussion on this. So, again, to approve MIP after we discuss it tonight. Is there any questions on this? No? Okay. Then I if based on no questions, I'm going to assume, let's ask it this way. Is there anybody who is against this motion? Okay. Can I

ask a quick question on that?

Of course.

Is there a reason why we didn't have that action on the agenda?

Yeah. Because I don't think we didn't we didn't quite realize that we'd be ready, I think, for tonight. And then we were, and it's like, let's get it voted on and get it, proposed to this to the it gets the sooner we gets to planning and all of that, just the better that it's out there. But we will have tonight, and we have an unusual agenda. And that tonight, we just have one discussion topic. And normally, we have three, but we have the whole night dedicated to this. So the whole idea is that at the end of the night, we wanna make sure people feel good on that. So Yeah. Okay. So then I'll ask again.

Is there any disagreement with approving the modifying the agenda to modify it to approve MIP tonight if people are ready? No. K. Passes unanimously. And then we really should have, Drew, because there's two things attached to it, a motion to consider to trans for the transmittal law, a letter also to be approved tonight. So you can do it separately. Just make a motion to approve that they're attached.

But Yeah. So so I would I would move that we, revise the agenda to include the approval of the trans, transmittal letter as well.

Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on this? Okay. Is there anybody who is against this change in the agenda? Okay. The record can show that it passed unanimously. Alright. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Oil and written communications were item number three on the agenda. Kevin is really good about forwarding to us all of the, written communications that he gets up until the end of afternoon of the meeting. So we should have we've received nothing for this. I think people are still on summer break.

You know, from from July 10 to this moment, there has been no communication to the Transportation Commission email inbox.

That's amazing. All right. Everybody's still out catching the last rays of the sun. Okay. All right. Oral communications. So according to our bylaws, public comments are allowed up to three minutes per person. Staff will keep track of time like they always do on this. A reminder that in accordance with Washington state law, nobody can use public facilities to support a ballot measure, to support their own candidacy, anything like that. And anybody who does propose that will be asked to leave. All right. So Kevin, we will call on the people in the order of which they've signed in. Remember, if there is anybody who's talking tonight to please state your name at the beginning. Go ahead. Is there anybody?

I would like, the commission to know one person has signed up for public comment. That is Alex Zimmerman.

K. Okay. Alex, you've got your three minutes. You bet.

Mhmm.

My Nazi pig. Yep. Guys, situation right now is so idiotic. I never see like this before for almost forty year, but as I speak in council chamber everywhere, not only here. Yeah. Man Tuesday in council meetings, they make a rules, but it's don't have analogy. You know? In state Washington, maybe don't have analogy over in America. Yeah. It's another Alex Zimmerman rules. Yeah. So there right now, trespass start use trespasses not for 30, sixty day. We'll be use trespasses for six months. It's under eighty days. Yeah.

Exact. New rules come. But this okay, you know what this mean. I have six thousand day of trespasses for a year like in jail. They did something what is very unique, know, have analogies, very interesting. They bring six commission. I include you, you know what this means. So this commission can make trespasses for six months too. Never I see this before and I speak all over around. This very interesting new rules, you know, what is mean.

But as I think in the whole freaking psychopath, you know, what is mean, or schizophrenic. I don't know this. Why commission cover this rule? But this program, what they start from 2012, when they make rules against me, terminating 10 people only can speak. You know what has been cut my rights. So every time I over 10 people, I cannot speak. It's nothing unusual. But the rules about commission, you know what this mean? You don't read this. I read this.

I have copy from these rules on Monday before meeting because I'm I'm I don't have word. You know what this mean for this idiotic situation. But it's okay. No problem. I try understand. This is seven freaking scared, but I come and talking. What's going on? I'm only talking. I have a gun, a machine gun, a dynamite. No. I'm only talking. So this very interesting, guys. You need to understand situation with fascism in country unique. In country number one in only one government, you know, what is even what is in Trump list. We were Trump.

We were new American revolution. Guys, you need to understand situation absolutely idiotic is a problem. Thank you very much. Have a nice day, guys.

Alright, Kevin. Do we have anybody else who has signed up? Nope. And is there anybody online who has not signed up who would like to speak? Okay. Moving on to agenda item four, which is communications from city council boards and commissions. Council member Newn House could not join us tonight, so we do not have an update from him. But is there any report from any of the commissioners here tonight? No? Okay. Staff reports, item number five. Kevin?

Thank you, chair Stash. I have a couple items for the commission tonight. One of which relates to something I mentioned in each of your onboarding sessions, which is the issue of open public meetings and public records. That the city clerk's office has determined that my briefings with you have not been sufficient in that all boards and commission members are required to attend a special training for open public meetings act. It's not just me.

It's all boards and commissions. K. I'm just trying to make it personal. So the the the the city clerk has advised me to mention to you that on the evening of October 16, from 06:30 to 07:30, there will be a remote training for open public meetings act and public records. It will be a live conversation during which you can ask questions and receive answers.

The program will also be recorded. So if you don't if you can't attend in in live video on October 16, the presentation will be recorded, and you can watch it at your leisure at another time. The the only thing is that the the city clerk needs to know that you have watched it at your leisure and so she can make sure that she has verified that you've received the training. Okay. That's one thing.

Excellent. And so I assume an email will come to our box with the details.

You should I I would expect that.

Yeah. And what time is that?

It's 06:30 to 07:30 on the October 16.

Yep. And if I did that just recently when I was onboarding, does that count, or do I will I need

to do not count. Oh. One one other one other one other staff asked that question.

Alright.

I'll do it twice. I'll be well informed.

The the the reason that city clerk explained that that if even if you took the video, we you should attend the virtual is because there's dialogue, and there's questions and answers, and you might get something out of it that you didn't get by just watching the video. K? K. That's what they said. Thank you. K. The next the next training is of is going to be available, but it will be optional. It's not optional for staff to have parliamentary procedure training, but it will be optional for the commissioners to have parliamentary procedure training.

K.

That the information on that will be coming out shortly. It is voluntarily it is volunteer, but I will let you know when that training is available and make sure you have the way to sign up for it.

And it will be recorded as well for

As I presume Asynchronous? Think so. It's going to be in person Yeah. With the consultant facilitating the conversation. So it might be an interesting, you know, scenario playing, like, what happens if

Right.

Sort of thing. So it could it could be interesting.

So Okay.

I'll let you know when that is available. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Agenda item number six, public hearing. There is none tonight, so that is, complete. So let's jump into the study session. So this is, as always, the meat of the meeting. Tonight, we have, as I mentioned before, just one topic, which is I don't think I've ever had one meeting with only one topic before. So it's it's it's a unique, meeting for sure. And I do wanna give a, I think both an acknowledgment of of the work that's gone into the MIP and the years that has gone into updating it. And to say and going through this again in more detail, it is a really nice complete document.

It is a document that does I know we've all talked about the layered effect for transportation system in Bellevue, but it really lays out how the public transport ties into the ped plan, ties into the bike plan, ties into and it's all in one place. And so that is a significant benefit, I think, with this document for all of us. And also, fact that the document lays out the whole soup to nuts process. And I think we've all had jobs enough to know that when you've got a whole plan in front of you, it's much more chance of it having success. So laying out, for example, what are the metrics?

Well, first of all, what are the goals that we're going for? What is the system based off of? What are the metrics that we will use to know success? How will we measure those? What are the targets? And then how will we measure them? And this document's got it all in it. So I know that Kevin and Molly and others have put a lot of time into this, a lot of their summer as well. And you will see tonight as as they spend the the the whole meeting taking us through. You'll see a lot of tables and stuff that we've discussed in previous meetings, so there won't be a lot of surprises on some of those.

So really just kind of, I think, an acknowledgment kudos for this soup to nuts kind of document, coming tonight from the city. So, Kevin and I should recognize Chris as well. Hopefully, you're hearing me, Chris. Thank you, also for all of your work. Chris is with the consultant team, who has done a lot of work on this as well. Alright. So tonight, both Kevin and Chris will review the changes. They were also in our pre meeting notes that you probably went through. We will have adequate time for questions if anybody new things, questions pop up in your mind tonight. And then at the end, based off of our revised agenda, if people feel comfortable on it, we will approve to forward it on to the city council along with the transmittal letter.

So that is our future for the next hour or whatever it takes. And I guess at this point, I will welcome Kevin and Chris. Alright.

Thank you, chair Stash. Hi, Chris. Chris would normally be sitting here with me. He's at an all staff meeting for his firm, Ferran Pierce, this evening, so he's joining us taking a break from his staff meeting. So thanks thanks, Chris. Chris Chris is here. I I'm gonna probably run the show, and Chris will be there to help with technical responses to your questions if if I am not able to respond accordingly to your needs. Okay. So multi mobility implementation plan update. Tonight, three major components of this presentation and discussion.

For the benefit of all commissioners, especially the new ones, I want to do a quick m I p one zero one. What what what is this document that you are amending even if you didn't have any role in getting the first one adopted. And then I'll for I'll go through the content of each chapter, laying out some of the foundational things about each chapter and focusing on the new things that you've already approved within that chapter. So we'll go through chapter by chapter. I'd I'd like to hold off on comments and questions till till the end because I think as we go through, some of the questions may be answered as as part of the part of the presentation.

So Take notes.

So let's take notes. Hang on till till the end of the presentation. Presentation. I promise it won't be too long of a presentation, but I wanna be thorough to make sure that we cover everything that is important in this document. And so the actions tonight, as you've amended the agenda to recommend approval of the MIP to the council, approve the transmittal when we're done, and most important all is to select of the three choices, the cover that you'd like to see on the mobility implementation plan.

K? Though the the you you probably noticed that there are three covers, and then the front of your document at the end of this meeting will have one. Alright. And I wanted to start I usually end with the timeline, but I wanted to start with the timeline today just to refresh everyone as how how many meetings we have spent and the topics we have covered in the update of the mobility implementation plan. Starting last December with kind of the an outline of the scope of work that that you were about to embark on and running through q one and q two of all the substantive changes that you've reviewed and approved for the for the MIP.

So tonight, we're in September. Final review and update final review of the update of the MIP. We have the opportunity to get to council later in the fall. The the council usually likes one study session for review. They direct staff to go back and write an ordinance for adoption at the next meeting.

A couple slides on MIP one zero one. The Transportation Commission spent a couple years on the first MIP, finally recommending to council in early twenty twenty two, and council adopted in April 2022. It was it it's a unique document in in Bellevue in that it, you know, provides a foundation framework for performance of each mode. And, not only does it describe the the metrics that we would use, but the targets that we would use, for the operation of those different modes. And it provides for monitoring of, the progress towards meeting the targets.

And if we are falling short of meeting the targets, it defines a prioritization prioritization for project concepts that can address those those performance target gaps. So as I mentioned, there's there's metrics and targets embedded in this. And one of the features the MIP is to try to align investments in mobility with the vision for land use that's described in the performance management areas. And the ultimate intent is to have a complete connected and accessible transportation network that accomplishes four goals that were set by the council to accommodate growth, to improve safety, consider equity, and improve access and mobility. Our our work has been acknowledged with two awards that this document is achieved in or received in 2022, the governor's smart communities award and the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 award.

So in in the reason we're here now is to update because some circumstances have changed. We've identified some gaps to fill in the original MIP. The the the notion of pedestrian level of traffic stress is new, and bicycle level of traffic stress at intersections is new. And finally and really substantially, the MIP will incorporate the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan. The the PedBike plan is is a a really cool document.

I have four versions here starting in the the nineteen ninety three one, and I'll I'll just pass it around if if you wanna have a look. There we we the the first the first headbike plan was adopted in 1993. It was amended in 1996 with the annexation of the Newport Hills area. It was refreshed in in 1999 and, again, in 2009. So it's it's a it's a little bit old, but it it fundamentally created the Ped and Bike network for the city that the mobility implementation plan embraces today.

There we go. Okay. So more on MIP one zero one. The MIP is not everything. It it addresses mobility along arterials in the city.

There's four different three different types of arterials in the city, major arterials, which are your Bellevue Ways and your Northeast Eighths, etcetera, your minor arterials, which kinda connect the majors and get you between the majors and residential and commercial areas. And then you've got your collector arterials that sort of collect and distribute, traffic, to local streets. All of these arterials also provide not only provide a vehicle mobility function, but also an active transportation function. There is a delay delayed reaction. Okay.

So now I'm gonna start going through the chapters of the mobility implementation plan one by one, and I'll try not to be belabor too much because you've you've seen it, but I wanna highlight the the important components of the MIP. First of all are the goals, to accommodate growth, improve safety, consider equity, and access and mobility. The the first three are are sort of self explanatory. The the last one takes a little bit of of thinking about because it simultaneously considers access, which is how you get between where you want to be and and the land uses you want to get to. It's the it's the complete and connected network.

And the mobility part is what is the quality of that network that you're using? That's where you get to the level of traffic stress for peds and bikes. That's where you get to the performance targets for the vehicle mode along arterials. So there there's four fundamental goals that that drive the the mobility implementation plan. And the cool picture is from a hundred and thirtieth in in Bell Red.

Sort of a an adaptation of the bean sculpture from Chicago is in Bell Red right now. It's very cool. So the MIP recognizes that it takes an integrated approach to mobility to serve land use. It takes all of the modes of transportation operating in tandem and sometimes seamlessly to support land use. And so the the layered network is an approach that the MIP takes to not only identify and document the components of each mode, but to make sure they work together to support the land use.

So with it, it's it's a fundamental concept that the MIP contains. The other fundamental concept is the performance metrics. This is what you measure for each mode. And we have performance metrics for each mode, the pedestrian level of traffic stress, bike level of traffic stress. For the transit mode, we we measure the time it takes to ride a bus between activity centers relative to the time it takes to drive a car between the activity centers.

And there's a there's a target for that, which which we will get to. And the for the vehicle mode, there are two types of metrics. One is how how do the intersections perform, and the other is how do the connections to those intersections perform? What the the the vehicle corridors? What's it like to drive along those vehicle corridors in terms of speed?

So and we spent a lot of time introducing the new concept of pedestrian level of traffic stress, recognizing that there were fundamental components of the arterioles and components of the walking environment that contribute to a level of traffic stress score. So, basically, the the the the faster and more volume on the the arterial, the more infrastructure for the pedestrians that you'll need to embed to make sure that they have a comfortable and safe experience. It's it's represented in this graphic. And the commission spent a lot of time also talking about components beyond just the arterial characteristics, like driveway spacing and things like that. Those are included in the MIP on page 76, and thanks for commissioner Williams for pointing out the need to point that out.

We they they are they are in the the document on page 76. And and for the bicycle network, this this is a a bit of a slight modification to the original bicycle level of traffic stress that was adopted in the MIP. Using instead of using the speed limit, which was in the original MIP, the the the speed limit factor is one that is comparable to the metric we use for the pedestrian level of traffic stress. So it's it's it's more of a a a factor of the actual speed that drivers that the people driving go along the the arterials rather than the posted speed, recognizing that there may be some variability between how fast people go and the speed limit. So, again, you know, the the faster and higher volume of of traffic on the arterial, the more robust infrastructure it takes to provide a safe and comfortable environment for pedest or for bicycles.

New to the MIP is the notion of bicycle level of traffic stress at intersections. We spent one or two meetings talking about the type of bicycle facility that it would take to to to continue the the the comfort level and safety of a bicycle rider along a corridor. So if it's a BLTS one or two corridor, you wanna have the components of the intersection kinda match the level of experience that the bicyclist has riding along the corridor so that the so that the intersections don't become barriers or impediments to people using that corridor on a bike. So the the the MIT includes a description of the types of bicycle facilities and sort a

of graphic

representation of those bicycle facility types. And and, again, the the travel transit travel time is a metric, and the the ratio of a person riding a bus between activity centers to the person driving between activity centers is the transit travel time ratio. And we have a target for that, which I will get to. And and for the vehicle mode, there are two performance metrics. One deals with intersections and is the volume to capacity ratio at each of the system intersections.

Basically, you can call them signalized intersections. So the the the volume of traffic that uses that intersection versus the capacity of that intersection to accommodate the traffic is the v over c ratio. That's one of the metrics. The other metric is the travel speed along primary vehicle corridors. There are more vehicle corridors than primary vehicle corridors in the city.

There there are characteristics that make an arterial a primary vehicle corridor. Primary vehicle corridors have 10,000 or more daily trips per day and are generally greater than half a mile long. And those the the these intersections and the corridors show on the map. K. I mentioned that transportation supports land use.

Not all land use is created equal. So the MIB includes documentation of performance management areas. There's three different types of performance management areas that acknowledge existing and planned land use and existing and planned mobility options. The the orange areas are PMA 1. The the lanche's characteristic is, you know, high density mixed use development.

The mobility characteristic of PMA 1 is that it's served by light rail. PMA 2 is slightly less dense, but still mixed use, not served by light rail at the moment, but served by frequent transit network routes. And then PMA 3 is the rest of the city. It's called residential, but there's really commercial nodes mixed in with the greenfield as well. Think of Kelsey Creek Shopping Center or Lake Hills or the Northtown Shopping Center.

Those are embedded in the field of green, but the the there's they're small nodes within a field of green, so it's all characterized as one type. K. Let's get to performance targets now. We've we've discussed the metrics. We've looked at the land use setting for each mode.

The performance targets describe what you what what what does the city aspire to achieve in terms of the performance of the each mode of of transportation. So we we've looked at the performance targets for the pedestrian, and the PLTS varies a little bit by the performance management area that you're in, recognizing that the pedestrian environment in those high density urban places served by light rail is probably going to be different than the pedestrian environment in the field of green residential areas. So the it the targets acknowledge that. For the bicycle, the the network facilities include targets for bicycle level of traffic stress along corridors and at intersections. And for transit, I mentioned, you know, transit travel time is our metric.

Plus, there there's a metric that looks at the quality of the bus stops along the frequent transit network. What what are the components of the bus stops that make it in a a reasonably comfortable place for for people to wait for their bus. And for the vehicle mode, there's there's three different performance targets based on your performance management area location. With PMA one, our our urban centers having a higher v over c ratio target than the residential area where you have lower density and really fewer mobility choices in those in that field of green. The other part of the performance target equation that I I like to mention is the monitoring of of our progress.

With each update of the mobility implementation plan, we we document how the system performs now. And the the the primary function of that is not to pat us on the back, but to identify where there are gaps and where we need to maybe have an infrastructure investment to fill that gaps to provide that complete and connected transportation network that is one of the goals of the MIP. So for the the performance targets for the pedestrian, it's it's the level of traffic stress that we've mentioned. It varies by performance management area and arterial type. So the the highest standard the highest target for pedestrian level of traffic stress is in PMA one where you expect to have a greater volume of pedestrians and more origins and destinations of land use for those pedestrians to be walking through.

The the different arterial classifications have, also different different targets for the pedestrian level of traffic stress, which, you know, is is shown on the map. One of the things that the MIP acknowledges that I mentioned before within the field of green PMA three, there are pedestrian destinations. There are schools. Are shopping centers. There's libraries.

Those are represented by the dots. And sort of a a a special consideration for those land use locations is is embedded also into the MIP. So you you sort of provide a a little extra component extra components for pedestrians in in those locations where you expect them to be. For the bicycles, we have two levels of of traffic stress, targets. One is for corridors and one is for intersections.

The map shows both with a special consideration on the bicycle level of traffic stress for corridors that are documented as bicycle priority corridors. Those are the, you know, 11 corridors that run north, south, east, west through the city that are your long long haul bike routes. And we wanna make sure that the long haul bike routes reflect that they are prob probably one of the few ways for bicyclists of all ages and abilities to get around the city. So there's special attention to those priority bike corridors. At the intersections, which are shown on the dots as well, you wanna make sure that the intersections aren't a barrier to people riding along any of the bike corridors so that the target is to sort of match the the quality of the intersection with the quality of the corridor.

For transit, as I mentioned, between activity centers, you wanna have a transit time travel time target of two or less, meaning it takes less than twice as long on a bus, figuring that, you know, buses have stops along the way, picking up people and dropping off people, but also recognize that you don't have to walk to your car and find a place to park when you're at your destination. So there's some some advantage there to getting on and off

the

bus. But a travel time of of two or or less is considered a performance target success. We're meeting the performance target during the peak hour. And then I also mentioned the transit stop amenities. They vary by the type of transit stop.

There's the the the local transit stops and frequent transit network stops have sort of different expectations for the components that will serve the transit riders at those locations. So for vehicles, again, two two targets, one for the volume to capacity ratio at intersections, the other for the corridor travel speed. There are variable performance targets depending on your performance management area and variable urban corridor travel speed depending on your performance management area. The corridor travel speed is a function of this posted speed limit, and it's it is documented as 40% of the posted speed limit considering that there's friction along those corridors stopping and going at intersections, etcetera, for pedestrians crossing at those mid block crossings, etcetera. So 40% of the posted speed is the fundamental typical urban travel speed, and then that travel speed also varies by the performance management area that you're in, recognizing that even in even in PMA three where there's fewer items of friction, you're still probably not gonna quite attain that 40% posted speed limit.

So the the target is point nine. And similarly similar rationale in PMA two, there's more friction. PMA one, there's even more friction. So those are the targets in those different performance management areas. And as I mentioned, monitoring is really important because it helps us understand how we're doing and shows us where we need to improve.

There's existing network performance for the pedestrian mode and the bike mode shown on this map. There is there there's a category here that's interesting, which is the blue lines on the map. It's the locations where a facility exists, but the the the quality of the experience doesn't quite meet the performance target. So there's an existing facility there, and you might, but it doesn't meet the it doesn't meet the target, which is a, better situation than if you have a gap, which is the yellow lines, which means there's no facility for that type for that mode at all. So you see some gaps on the pedestrian network and some gaps on the bike network, so we have more work to do.

For the transit mode, the the the amber colors are the the the activity centers where on transit, it takes longer than twice as fast twice as long to get between the activity centers than if you're driving a car. You could see, you know, Downtown Overlake is is pretty good. There is a train that runs between downtown and Overlake, so you're going to be faster than driving along Bell Red Road. For the vehicles, it's a little harder to see, but the green dots meet the performance target. The green lines meet the performance target.

And the yellow dots and the yellow lines indicate locations where the function the the the the function of the arterial or the intersection doesn't meet the target. But just, you know, for the vehicle mode well, let me let stop for a second. For all the modes, last summer, we did an analysis of the performance performance target gaps and recommended project concepts for your consideration that could go into the transportation facilities plan to sort of compete for scarce funds with other types of projects. So that's that's one of the functions of monitoring the performance of the network. Oh, and I have a document that I forgot about this slide.

So we we step one is is we look at the performance, identify the gaps. We prioritize those gaps based on the scoring criteria that are in in in the MIP that are largely based on the the goals of the MIP, but also have supplemental considerations as well. So you roll up all the score. You you prioritize based on the scoring the performance target gaps. And because there's hundreds, like you saw on the map, we we don't develop a project concept for all of them.

Develop a project concept for the the highest scoring, maybe the top 10 or or so of each mode, and then move those for consideration to the transportation facilities plan. K. One of the substantial changes in the pit in the MIP is to incorporate the components of the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan. You've you've seen the hardcovers, the actual documents. These are the covers for all those documents.

It it's amazing how closely the February the the 1993 pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan resembles the 2009 pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan and the corridors documented in in the mobility implementation plan. So the people that did the work in 1993, some of whom may be at the table, did a pretty good job of trying to figure out what the the needs of the the city would be going forward.

See, they finally sprang for the color wanted to be Yeah.

Thank thank you, Franz. He he we got a colored copy in 2009. Yep. We give Franz credit for that. So why is the 2009 pedestrian bicycle transportation plan a little bit obsolete, and why is the MIP moving into that territory?

But the MIP retains all of the corridors that the PedBite plan documented even back in tooth in 1993. The MIP adds value to those corridors by defining the the performance, the bicycle level of traffic stress, and the pedestrian level of traffic stress along those arterioles. The MIP describes the performance and doesn't prescribe a project type for those arterials. And we found that over the years, the project types that were prescribed in the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan did not meet the performance targets that we would like to see today. And I'll I'll give you an example of one of those locations in just a sec.

But the the projects that the MIP would design are are intended to meet the performance targets, and they are not legacy project descriptions that are in the m in the PedBike plan, a lot of which have been there, you know, for years and years. But technology's changed. Best practices has changed. And so the MIP allows for an evolution of the best practices to achieve the performance target that your that the peds and bikes are expecting for the network. One thing that the MIP will do is to incorporate the the trail maps and project descriptions from the pedestrian bicycle transportation plan.

Those are in appendix a, verbatim, cut and paste. And the reason is that this this update of the MIP did not include an evaluation of those trail maps or projects. And so we didn't wanna lose the value of having those in a in a document. So until such time as a opportunity arises to provide input on a trail master plan, the MIT will become the the the trail master plan. Yeah.

And side by side examples of the networks for the pedestrian and bicycle networks, 1993 versus 2025. You'll see some resemblance probably because the arterial network really hasn't changed much in thirty years. The arterial network is what the arterial network is and will always be. So the the the pedestrian and bicycle networks now are pretty much the same as they were in 1993. And real interesting, I don't have a cursor. Maybe I do. Do I have a cursor? So so so take a look at where Spring Boulevard is now, which The sun? Yep. Show so you yeah.

Anyway, where Spring Boulevard is now and has, you know, been implemented and has nice pedestrian bicycle facilities on most of it. In 1993, that same corridor exists even though Bell Red didn't exist in 1993. It was warehouses and light industry. But the the the 1993 plan envisioned something different for that corridor and provided for a connection for pets and bikes that go through it. So it's kinda cool, I think.

And I think stuff like that is cool. So here here's just one example of the prescriptive project descriptions in the MIP that we didn't build today on on Main Street going westbound from 112th on the north side of the road. The PedBike plan called for a five foot wide bike lane. What we got is a protected bike lane because that facility type achieves the bicycle level of traffic stress for that corridor, which is BLTS 1. It's a primary bike corridor.

It's in downtown. It gets the highest level of bike level of traffic stress. And as a side benefit, the pedestrian level of traffic stress also works because you've got separation, from moving vehicles with a a vertical buffer, a separated bike lane, landscape strip, and a wide sidewalk. You get all you get credit for all those things to get you a PLTS one target for that corridor. So that that's sort of the difference between the PedBite plan prescriptive project descriptions and the outcome from using the mobility implementation plan.

It's a better outcome for pets and bikes. The the trails, and off street networks, are cut and pasted into appendix a. Just let me, you know, run through what appendix a has. This is a quadrant map of of of the city down Eastgate, Phantom Lake ish, Lake Hills. Just pointing out a couple projects from the PedBike plan that are adopted into the MIP.

There's each of those callout boxes on the map represents a project, and each project has a number. Each project has each project number has a name. Each project number and name has a to and from dimension, has the the extent of of that project, and then a project description. And it's also assigned a priority. So the the the the staff in the community that want to identify trail projects and what type of trail project to build could look first to appendix a in the MIP and get the legacy documentation of those corridors.

Doesn't mean that's what they would build today, but that's what, you know, that's the legacy information that we didn't wanna lose. And it it could be, you know, it could be modified based on community input and best practices, but we didn't wanna lose lose the information. Oh, k. I get to take a breath. I get I'll invite Chris to if I missed anything or if you'd like to highlight anything. Otherwise, I'll turn it over to the chair to welcome questions.

Chris, do have anything to add?

No. I think Kevin did a great job of rolling through a lot of material that we've been working through for a number of months. But, yeah, happy to to clarify anything, from this point forward.

Okay. Great. Then I will turn it. Thank you, Kevin, very much to the commissioners as a whole for questions, clarifications, etcetera. Go ahead, commissioner.

Just a quick question on the on the, buses. Do we, figure in ridership at all, or where is that as far I mean, it's great if a bus gets from a to b in a time we want it to, but if nobody's on it, then so how do we look at ridership on the buses?

Ridership isn't an MIT metric. We do work with the transit service providers to learn about ridership, and it that that the ridership information helps the transit service providers improve their service. But it does it it does not factor it as a metric in the MIP. It's just a point a to b metric that that we use because we don't run the buses, and we don't want to set us up with a target that we aren't responsible for meeting.

Do we does the city have any kind of goals of ridership within the city that they're trying to achieve? Or

The the city has in in the comprehensive plan, the city has, commute trip reduction targets, basically, reducing the number of single occupant vehicle trips for commute purposes. And if they're not in a single occupant vehicle, they're in some other mode. They're walking, biking, they're taking the bus. And so sort of generic or or or they may not be they may be working from home. That's that's an option.

So we we look sort of in aggregate at commute trip reach, the the the percent of people not driving alone, and and working with employers. We have a we have a a group in in our office that works with employers to help their employees drive less to work.

Other questions?

Right. I have a few. Go ahead.

I have questions and comments. So one, since I, you know, come from a software background and AI is the new entity, so I checked out in AI for best practices for BLTS and PLTS. This is all new to me, but

That's great.

It's like, well, let me see how we how we compare. And it was, like, verbatim what the best practices AI said and what we have in our plan. So congratulations on that. Maybe they actually looked at our plan and said that was the best practice. So, anyway, that was great. The only thing that I noted there and and, Kevin, this is just to explain why I asked one of the questions I did. They talked about complexity of intersections as a potential metric. And I didn't see that exactly, but you go ahead. You you can

I I I totally I I I totally get that, and it it's sort of analogous to the bike level of traffic stress at intersections that we did this year?

I saw that. Yeah.

You know, we we made a huge investment in the MIP to embed pedestrian level of traffic stress on corridors. We assumed that, you know, that that the corridor will have a a pedestrian level of traffic stress that describes the the the the characteristics of the arterial and type of bike of pedestrian facility. We assume that that pedestrian facility goes to the intersection. And and, you know, at the intersection, you might drop the landscape strip for sight line purposes, but you'll keep the dimension. So if if it's a five foot landscape strip and an eight foot sidewalk, you'll proceed to the intersection with still eight feet of pedestrian space.

We didn't so so that that's sort of the corridor part of it. For the pedestrian crossing part, that the city has design standards, and there and it also has signal operation, no things to facilitate crossing by pedestrians. So as time has gone on, the dimensions of the crosswalk have gotten substantially larger. And as you've probably noticed, there is, a signal operation called the leading pedestrian interval at intersections where it gives the pedestrian a head start. So it it it it improves the pedestrian's visibility to cars that may be wanting to turn right.

So

it it it puts them in the intersection first. So we we've got some tools, dimensional tools and operational tools that we can use to ensure that the pedestrian has a safe and comfortable crossing at intersections. We didn't include that in this update at the MIP. If the commission is really interested at the next update of the MIP, we can look at the intersections for peds.

Okay. I'm I'm still new enough. I don't know how important it is, but I'm just reporting back. In my research, I I noticed that that one item. The now just turning to a couple of So, you know, first is, you know, well well done. Nice nice job. And, you know, you had noted to me previously, and we noted previously in the in this meeting that this is an award winning plan. And I think it's really great that that the city of Bellevue has, you know, taken the time to create a great plan and and to do the additional work to make sure that we are acknowledged for it. So that's great. A couple of just additional questions that came up as you were talking, Kevin.

We talked about the peak period for traffic as four to 6PM, and I just was curious why it's not an AM time or why there's not AM and PM. Maybe maybe generally PM is is more is busier. I don't know.

Chris, do want Oh, Chris wants to answer that.

Go ahead, Chris.

Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. No. The city has been monitoring traffic levels for a long time as long as I've been involved with the city.

And, PM is busier than AM, and that has gotten more pronounced since the pandemic, where more flexible work schedules, a little bit more variability when people actually get into work. But that afternoon period when there's this confluence of people leaving work, there's a lot of after school activities, a lot of social recreational period, That has continued to be the the busiest time, and so, there's been no, no reason to change that. It's something that that, the traffic operations group in the city and the modeling group keeps an eye on, but that continues to be the time when that metric is the most relevant.

Okay. Great. That makes sense. Thank you. I noticed in some of the diagrams so we have this interesting thing that happens in the Overlake area, which is that the city of Redmond dips down into that.

And so it makes our where we show that nice kind of red corridor from Bellevue out, there's that, you know, one little triangle piece that kinda dips out. And I'm guessing that we're not seeing the city of Redmond plans here, and I understand why this is Bellevue planning document. But I'm guessing they probably at some level, maybe we we speak with them or at least we have an understanding that, you know, they're they're doing similar things and they're, you know, considering that a high what's the word for it? A high p

Yeah. It'd be the equivalent PMA one for them if they had that.

Right.

Their Overlake area has evolved greatly in twin in the last ten years.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

And and just you know, I I do have colleagues in Redmond, we converse largely about pet and bike stuff. And we have a modeling group that considers the traffic in Redmond as as part of the traffic modeling that we do.

Okay. Alright. Makes sense. Okay. Kevin, one of the things like, I think this was even during the introductory session we had.

You were mentioning or maybe it was Mike that was talking to me about this bicycle East West corridor. And I know there had been some discussion in the past about maybe using Bill Red Road, and there were some it was evaluated and based on community feedback that was decided not to happen. I'll just pass along that in a group of friends that I was talking with, I mentioned my new role. And the first thing they said to me is there's no good way to get from the Overlake area into Bellevue. And but I did say that there had been this previous discussion about using Bell Red Road, and they said, oh, no.

We can't make Bell Red busier. So so I understand the complexity of it, but I thought I would just pass that along.

Thank you. And we we we get it. And when the miss when the gap in Spring Boulevard is filled, that will be an awesome East West corridor. Yep.

Yep. Okay. So for PLTS three, so I was noticing this on page 36. The additional things that we identify where there are those places where we will treat for PLTS three, we'll treat it as, needing to have the BLTS and PLTS level two, I think. We're do we're we're identifying schools, hospitals, community centers, libraries. I didn't see shopping centers there. Is that was there is there some reason we're leaving that out?

Probably not because we talked about it. Oh. What what what page are looking on? Sorry.

36.

36. Let me check quick. I think we even highlight a couple shopping centers, so maybe we can add that to the legend, Chris.

Yeah. We can add that. I think where we've and and that's a good good amendment. It's gonna be more relevant on the the zoning because the definition of a shopping center and whether it's active or not is a little bit open. But back, Kevin, when we were doing the initial MIP, I believe we had a zoning, and I'm now completely escaping my head what it was that we had sort of identified for those types of areas. That's something I could take a look back and we can incorporate.

No. You you recall correctly that we in in the original MIP, we had special consideration for sidewalk width and adjacent to those neighborhood shopping centers and frequent transit network stops and things where you'd expect to have more pedestrians. We we so in the evolution to PLTS, it it may not have been a one to one evolution, but I think if we if we highlight those types of locations on the map, it will capture that legacy facility type in those locations.

Okay. Okay. Great. Alright.

And just one more. And this was on, let's see, page 44 I was noticing. And I'm curious about so I I do understand the sort of back and forth from downtown. I'm thinking about the sort of the typical traffic patterns or the reasons, the causes that you would make trips between some of these places. So from downtown to the Overlake area, you know, there are gonna be residents in downtown that might be working in the Overlake area, for example.

And but it made me curious between Overlake and Crossroads and Eastgate. Are there a few, like, specific uses of those that we that we try to target? Maybe you know, I think of Eastgate as there's the community. There's the college there. So probably there's, you know, maybe residents of Crossroads that are going to and from to the college. Are there do we have any I'm just curious. You know, do we have anywhere that kind of says what the typical traffic patterns are there that we're trying to facilitate?

I I think I think it's more generic between designated activity centers. These are PMA 1

and PMA 2, essentially. It's just they're busy areas, so people are gonna travel.

Where there are more origins and destinations of people who might choose to take a bus between those locations.

And, Kevin, just to perhaps add on to that, there was a question from commissioner Rupun about ridership. Those activity centers do represent the biggest transit ridership nodes in Bellevue. They typically have either a an transit center. So, like, Eastgate Park And Ride is a big transit center where there's a lot of buses that coalesce and exchange riders. Factoria, similarly, there's a lot of bus routes there.

So when you if you were if we were to take a map of where the busiest transit boardings and deboardings are, those activity centers would be the the the location. So that's and it's it's completely aligned with land use, as Kevin pointed out, into the busiest parts of the city. And so the what people are doing is a little bit of a mix, but we do know that that's where people often exchange buses or and or begin a trip.

Okay. That makes sense. So it's just

yeah. The thing in Eastgate is you got a lot of community services. You've got HopeLink there, and you've got Jubilee Reach. So I think there's a lot of people coming in for those services in addition to the transit. Mhmm. So that's another it's not on our map. We don't have really we can't put everything on there, but we don't have all the community services. Right?

Okay. Well, yeah, I under it makes sense that just you know, those are those are connection points. And so Right. Our job is just to facilitate the the connections.

Okay. Great. Great.

The nice thing about those those corridors is they serve everybody in between also. They're not just point a to point b. All people along Northeast State, for instance, have the advantage of rapid ride b to to help them get to crossroads or downtown in in a in a rapid manner. Good service.

Okay. Thank you. That's it for you? Okay. Other comments, questions from other commissioners? Commissioner Ting?

Thank you, chair Stash. So, I had a question, and I'm hoping that you can people here can refresh my memory. When we talked about driveways in terms of the, supplemental components for, looking at the metrics, for either pedestrian or bike facilities. One of the discussion points was that driveways tend to be fairly dangerous because we have a lot of cars that are gonna come in or out and having bicycles in that corridor. They have to really look out for those interactions.

My question is whether driveways were type one or type two in the supplemental prioritization, and I don't actually recall where that landed. So I thought it was actually a type one on page 76. Okay. But, it's listed in type two, and maybe I just maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly. Do you so, vice chair, do you happen to recall?

Had a similar thought. I thought it was in type one. That that we

would That was yes. That's what I was wondering.

The discussion on it.

Well, it it To go back to notes.

Yeah. We we can go back to the notes. Driveways do help inform the design of the projects, but they may also help inform the priorities. We Right. We can take a look. And and if if you provide a recommendation to approve this tonight and we find a technical correction that we need to make, we'll seek your approval to to make those technical corrections.

Okay.

Okay. That would be great to to look back and and just clarify that point. Okay? Okay.

Do you have another one?

I have several, but I

I think we have enough time. I'd say, if that's okay with you, just run through yours, and Okay. I think everybody's gonna get a chance.

I'll do a bunch, and then I'll take a pause. Alright. For the intersections intersections BLTS, we talked about how we moved from an objective table of design standards to a more subjective table. If you remember that discussion, it was around April 4.

Yep.

And I just I was wondering, were we going to try and incorporate that into the MIP? Because there was a specific ask from the commission about having a table with examples so that it would be easier to communicate to the public and, well, to the commission also about how we came about those particular and I believe they were BLTS numbers for BLTS intersections. Is that something that we get incorporated into the MIP?

I think we I think we did. I think there's a there's a there's a table and examples Yeah. Somewhere in here.

Table five, Kevin, on page 26 is the intent to show on the the upper end of the table is where we have more space separation and protection that denotes a lower BLTS. So so more comfortable versus, less space separation and protection. And this was we worked quite a bit with with the engineering team at in the city to try to it's this balancing act of trying to not be prescriptive because saying that a specific design is always and forever the solution is really challenging when we get to intersections where, as it was noted, they can be complex. There's right of way limitations in some instances or needing to balance how many vehicle lanes we have. So the idea was to provide specific examples of things like bite boxes and protected intersections, bicycle signals, greens striping through the intersection to denote where those are likely warranted based on the type of bicycle facility that's entering in or departing from that location.

So that's that's where we landed on that recommendation from the commission.

Great. I see what you're saying. I guess when I looked at this, it didn't it didn't link in my mind that this was directly related to how you would determine a BLTS score for an intersection. But I I can understand the difficulty in trying to create something that has the ability to describe that without being prescriptive.

So Right.

Okay. I I got it. Thank you. That makes sense. Okay. Kind of a high level question. How does the curve management plan and the MIP interact in terms of prioritization and and, of the different modes? And, like, how should we think of that relationship between the two? Because there are two different documents, which kind of a lot of times, they they have similar, statements. But in the cases where they say different things, how do we reconcile which one is correct?

Is that a Kevin or Chris? I

I didn't I I haven't thought of those documents as competing interests or peer documents. I think the performance metrics and the performance targets of the MIT is the governing direction.

I think that makes the most sense. I just it's good to hear and get a clarification on that because the the CMP, I think, is still undergoing revision. You'll see it next month. Yeah. And so when we compare the two, if there is a a a difference of prioritization, we should refer back to the MIP. Is that fair?

Well, the the the the MIP provides the performance targets. The curb management plan describes how to treat the vicinity of the curb relative to the vehicle mode. It it it is I'm having a hard time describing it as I think can tell. Probably this

we can probably cover this later because I think what you said what you stated is sufficient for me is that the MIC is the governing document, and that just removes some ambiguity there.

Say that. But, you know, the the the the curb is a is a a complex location where there's people parking and there's people walking and there's people driving and people loading and unloading. So the the entirety of the function of the street has to be considered. The the the the function of the curb along with the targets for peds and bikes need to be sort of holistically considered before making any changes. True.

Yeah. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Chris.

Yeah. Maybe one one way to look at this is that I think, like, Northeast or excuse me. 108th Avenue is maybe a good example in front of the the new Amazon Tower, at just west of the transit center. It the MIP says we want BLTS one facility in that location, and that is what's been built. The developer, working with the city has sought some ability to have some pedestrian loading zones and whatnot.

They have, in that instance, carved out that space to do so, to provide load zones and sort of how the curb is managed is sort of under the the curb management program. But the fundamental sort of expectation that there's PLTS one and BLTS one provided along that corridor was sort of, I think, the the preeminent consideration. How do you do that, and how do you manage the curve around that? And I think that's where those tend to be most perhaps in play. There are other corridors that might have a deficiency for, in particular, BLTS where there's not a bicycle facility, but there is some sort of curb use, I think that goes back to, if we're what is the what is the action that, you know, you this body, transportation commissioner, city council might take to change what's on the curb, be it parking versus a bicycle facility.

The MIP provides guidance, but there's a broad set of constituents that would need to be weighed in. But in the instance where there's development occurring, MIP absolutely dictates what the expectation is, and Citi working with a developer can identify how what does the curb want to do? How does it how does it manage? But the MIP, in that case, since you can build it, is, I I'd say, kind of the the key thing to keep an eye on.

Okay.

Thank you for including the PedBike information from 2009 in the MIP. That was useful. One of the things that I was looking at is the Westlake Sammamish Parkway, Vassa Park segment, and I I noticed that was a medium priority. And, of course, the the next question in my mind is why was that medium? And I'm just going to reiterate my request. If if there's any way that we can capture some of the institutional knowledge, the background behind why some of these decisions were made, you know, if it said medium and then it just had, like, a few bullet points to indicate why they decided to make it medium, You know? Was there a reason? Otherwise, we're probably gonna have to come to you and say, like, hey. Do you remember why we made this decision? And this, of course, is moving forward as we make more decisions and we do more prioritization.

Being able to capture the reasons behind that in a document that's discoverable would be enormously helpful, I think, for this and future commissions. So I know that's that's a big ask because that requires a lot of extra concise writing, but I I always find it useful to understand the context behind how a decision was made.

I I don't even know if the rationale for the prioritization is embedded in any of those plans. It it It probably isn't, but moving forward,

if we could capture them and and sometimes the decisions are arbitrary, in which case there is no like, there was no specific reason. It's just that that's where it landed, and that's okay too. But it still is nice to have, you know, an understanding of, like, well, how did we get here? Let me see here. So that's more of a comment than than anything else and from moving forward. And at this point, why don't I take a a pause, and I'll see if someone else has. I have a few more bullet points to, like, to get to later, though.

Do you wanna jump in next?

Jump in

and give you a little little bit of a break.

Hey. I wonder if you can just help me understand, and I'm it's gonna sound like well, first of all, wanna back up and say I do love this document. And I think you've added quite a bit of good information by putting the 2,009 bike pet plan in there. It's great to have we have so many different documents

Mhmm.

Flying around out there, and it's great to have Good. This material in here. You can read cover to cover as some of the commissioners have done, and you got the whole plan in there. But I do wanna make sure that I understood it, so I'm gonna ask kind of some detailed questions not to get too far in, but it just will help me understand. So if I look at page 47, which is the primary vehicle corridor performance Mhmm.

And granted it's old data, 2023, if you just look at Bellevue Way, it is not green today. I mean, we know that. Right? Bellevue Way during peak hours is not performing in front of the transit center there. Now this is 2023 data, so I get it. That's before those lights were put in Mhmm. Before we started to get a lot of people going back to work. But, it's shown as green here, so I get that. And I guess so the first question is that data is of the data in the different modes is from different years.

Yes.

And I I'm assuming you're taking the latest that you have.

We we are taking the latest we have. You'll see the the the footnote at the top of the map that says it's preliminary and subject to updates Yeah. Which is the exact same footnote that we had in the previous MIP. So we're we're always refreshing with the latest data. So the the next version one of one of the one of the functions of the MIP is to look at performance. And then if you find a gap, you know, take a look more closely and see what's really going on. So we don't necessarily rely on older data to develop a project concept or a priority. We will look at the most recent data that we have.

So how I'm just thinking 2023. It's 2025 now. So what is the what is the impediment to updating the data? Do you what is keeping you from putting more recent data? I'm just trying to understand, particularly on the vehicle side.

Is

there a data issue? Or I think let's let's

Molly knows more than

I do.

Let me speak about that a little bit. The the information that we used there was from our model run we used for the 2044 comp plan, which was the newest data we had at that time was '20 the 2023.

Mhmm.

We are now proceeding with updating our model with '20 for a 2045 TFP run. We are attempting to use 2024 data for that. Because when I say 2023 data, not all of the data was 2023 because the vehicle volumes had not stabilized at that time. So some of it we used was 2019 data, actually, because it it just wasn't stable.

Pre pandemic.

Right. And so what we're trying to do now is get ourselves to where we're current, but we're just not there yet because of the the whole disruption from the pandemic. And we have we're looking really carefully right now because we have a major employer who went to five days a week in January. And so we're looking really carefully now to see does what we had from the 2024 look like August 2025. So it's such a moving target. This is all a snapshot in time, and it's such a moving target that we just have to keep updating and do the best we can.

Well, that kind of brings another question because if I turn to page 57, which is '20 44, I'm still looking at that chunk of Bellevue Way. And, again, it's that section in front of the you know, where the light rail station is. It's also shown as green. It's really hard to I'm not I'm having a hard time seeing how that could be green in 2044 when today, if you go out there at three, four, five, six, 7PM, it's stopped.

So when we come in with our TFP modeling update, we'll see if it still looks like that. But remember, we have to pick a time to stop and and move on with what we have. And like I said, it's it's just continuously changing. So if a year from now, maybe we would know if green was right or not right. But we just have to kinda keep that in mind, like what Kevin said.

When we look at a project, we we go out and we get brand new data. We look at exactly what's out there right now. There's a lot of issues on Bellevue Way with construction and various other things where it's just just we we look at it, we know it's not right, but we don't quite have the ability to get the right data. Well, actually, looking at those like, in a model.

Yeah. Looking at those two, and then there's not a lot of difference in performance. These are the targets. Right? Maybe I'm maybe I'm confusing targets than an actual performance. If I'm looking at, page 47. K.

That's

right. That's performance. And page 57 is projected performance. Right?

Yeah. Yes. It is.

So much difference between those two, and yet I'm wondering what's going on there because Well, one thing There's very little difference, actually.

In the 2044, it includes assumptions about the transportation network, which means we'll have built some projects between now and then to address some of the performance target gaps. So they're they're not actual projects, but they're embedded in the modeling for to determine the performance of the corridor. For instance, on Bellevue Way South, there's a HOV lane embedded in that analysis for 2044. It doesn't exist on the ground, but that may help turn that section green.

That was in the previous TFP.

Although interestingly, if I could jump in, on 2023, it's green heading south, but on the 2044 projected, it's yellow heading south, and that's post HOV lane. I would expect it to be the opposite.

There's more growth than that than the HOV lane can handle. It doesn't fix the

Even with the h so the addition of the HOV lane, it goes from green to yellow.

HOV is only for a short siphon from the winter's house to the front. Okay. So it doesn't capture north of the y at a hundred and twelfth.

And so y if on the northbound lane, it's yellow last year and then green in the future. I get just updates of lights and

Those kind of details in the modeling are things we really have to pull out all the model. We need to look at all the it's very hard. These these are not intended to give that level of specificity. Yeah. It's an impression.

Yeah. Sorry. Didn't wanna jump in.

I mean, but I it's I'd hate to look at this and say, hey. We're all green on Bellevue Way there. We don't have to do anything when something's gotta be done. Right?

Also, keep in mind what the performance target is. It isn't no congestion. Right. It's congestion that is above a certain level. So it's green doesn't mean Free flow. Free flow.

Okay. There's a lot of

It means acceptable flow Correct. Is a better way maybe of thinking.

The turd. Dense downtown area.

Yes. Yes.

Dig into that one a little bit more. I just wanted to make sure that I had that the right data was in here because it almost looked like there was very little change. And, you know, places like well, with all the development in Wilburton. And you got BellRed there on the 2044 as still shown as green. And I don't know.

Maybe it would just be good to have and it may it might just be me. I'm just gonna sometimes I'll dive down to see if it makes sense down at the ground level of the data and then pop back up to the big picture. But maybe it makes sense to really understand some of the assumptions in there that are affecting that.

So another assumption, there's a light rail that goes to Seattle. That's a big one. So there's a there's a whole bunch of different assumptions that are in there, and this plan is not intended to have to get you down to that level of specifics. It's intended to show you from a system perspective comparatively how does the system look and indicate where we should look further, where we should dive deeper into.

In the appendix, there's there is documentation of all the performance of each intersection and corridor segments. So you you you can look in appendix, whatever it is, appendix h, which is an excerpt from the comprehensive plan FEIS that Molly mentioned. And so it's it's it's the data that we use for that comprehensive plan. It's a place to start diving into the details of what

Does that

Yes. And there's several pages of really fine print for Yes. In Hi. This one. Yeah. That one.

I need a a few follow-up questions.

Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. So I'm looking at the MIP online map, which has all the data on it that you can click through the the, ArcGIS map Mhmm. The story maps that were created here. And so I was just curious in looking at it. It has performance of the vehicular network. But right now, it looks like it is data that is just from 2019. And I assume there's a delay, especially with the pandemic, in trying to wait until things sort of return back to normal. But is there, like, an update interval, when that's gonna get refreshed? I I don't know how long it takes for us to capture new information.

As I said, we're updating it right now for the TFP model.

Okay. So, like, in the next few months? Or

Well, next month when you see the TFP, you'll see some different data. It's not done with the this in the same format with the performance metrics, but you will see some different data. The intersection data, for example, is the update went from 16 intersections to 17 intersections that weren't meeting the performance targets, but they're not the same ones.

Got it.

The different ones.

Well, that makes sense.

Yes.

Things are gonna change. Things are not static. And when we look at so the modeling here in the MIP was based on appendix k of the 2,044 FEIS. Is that correct? Correct.

So how do we track changes that occurs to the planning side, the land use side, that impacts the way the transportation system needs to function? So the 2,044 FEIS is a snapshot of the decision making process that the planning commission and council ultimately decided on. There are, I understand, updates that are going on, especially with milk housing, etcetera. And so when we think about those changes, how does the MIP take into account the fact that the the model has changed in terms of where density is going to be located, the number of housing units that may or may not be available to build out. Can you tell me a little bit about how that process works?

Because, you know, the the MIP updates are fairly infrequent because I know it's a lot of work. But as a commission, how do we actually think about trying to keep up to speed with the changes in land use?

Well, I could say because that's our job and we're doing it. Just this Right.

But how much you should get that information?

Couple things. The, the land use, analysis in the 2044 comp plan included all of the land use, code changes that have happened recently and some that are not there yet, like the Houma, Right. Rail housing, Wilburton. Those were all included in the land use assumptions for the 2044 plan. We have a demographer who works for our community development department who provides us with the land use that we use in the model.

So they're responsible for taking the land use, whatever the projections are, whatever changes have been made. They are responsible for making sure that those are included when they give us our land use update, which we just recently received for the TFP model update.

I see. Do they give this to you? Like, is it every six months or something like that? I'm I'm just curious.

Every six months because we're not updating our model every six months. So they give it to us when we update our model. That way we make sure that we have the most current information that they have

Got it.

When we are doing that update. Okay.

So that happens probably. How often is the model updated?

I'm not sure how this is helping us get through the MIP discussion. So, I mean, can you explain to me what so I can give you a the right answer?

I think one of the things that's important for me is to understand how the MIP reflects what's happening on the the development of land use and, you know, the upcoming land use changes that the planning commission is making, ultimately, council is making. So I'm just curious on how we take this document, and we say we have a bunch of graphs here. We're talking about performance numbers. Right. So when we

do the modeling, we use the land use that we receive from the community development department, which tracks all of the land use changes that are approved by council or planned by to be approved by council.

Okay. Well, we can I can follow-up on on that a little bit later?

But I but I I would say that the MIT monitoring that you see here is I mean, it's information, but it is not the target. The the the the target is reflective of the performance of the of the the mode and the performance management area within that Mhmm. Within the city. So the the PMA's do reflect the existing and planned land use, And the targets reflect the intent for the mobility of of the mode performance for each mode in those performance management areas. So the the the the green or yellow dots on the map are a snapshot in time that is always changing.

You you put it in the map, and it's wrong tomorrow. But the the MIP tells us the intent, what you wanna accomplish, and it tells you the relationship of the mode to the land use that's existing or anticipated. So in Wilburton, Bell Red Sure. Downtown, you you've got the performance targets that are matched with the land use.

Makes sense. And I understand the metrics. The the data changes frequently. Mhmm. I think that one of the key points I'm trying to make here is that we have an understanding of what are the twenty forty four targets, what is the system gonna look like in approximately twenty years, And that is predicated on the current land use understanding. So that's all I'm saying is that we just need to make sure that we have a good way of keeping up to date because if something just if there's a significant change on the land use side, that projection I'm not talking about these current data, but that projection is then, you know, likely going to change.

Exactly. I I say that all the time. You know, the the forecasts are only as good as the assumptions you make, and the assumptions could change tomorrow. So it's it's a snapshot.

Okay. Fair enough. One thing that I'd also like to get, a little bit more crisp on is when thinking about some of the equity components within the MIP, that is one of the pillars for one of the objectives of the MIP. And so we've had this discussion before about what do we think are the the target groups and the outcomes that we're looking at. And so I think we should be very careful to ensure that the actions that we are taking benefit the groups that are in the the equity categories.

So there's a set of actions that we can take, and then there's a set of outcomes that will occur due to those actions. And if we take a look at some of the equity components, for example, I think for me personally, the lower income workers are the that's kinda like an area where I think socioeconomically, should really focus on. I mean, I I agree that we should also take a look at people that have difficulty in using the transportation system. But definitely for people that are lower income workers, I think we need to focus on what are the outcomes in the transportation system that will benefit them the most. And I know that we have those in some of the goals, but I would encourage us to look at what are the actions that we're taking and then what are the actual outcomes.

What how are they actually impacted? So there's no specific action for you right now on this, but I think it is a further discussion point because we've had some data presented to us that indicates the the transportation patterns of lower income workers. And I think it would be good for us to figure out how we help the most people that are in that lower income category. Right? That seems like a fairly straightforward thing. At least we can have that discussion about it. But I will stop there unless someone else has a question about the somewhat cryptic statements I'm making about equity.

Yep. No. I I understood that. Did you have some more items?

Oh, I was just gonna say So we didn't really talk about the equity maps appendix j, and I think we do need to talk about that a little bit more and make sure that we've got the data to, commissioner Ting's point that we really understand the requirements of, those in low wage jobs and, you know, from a transportation standpoint. Some of these, statements, I'm not sure that we've really dug deep. They're sort of broad statements. And so, it's a very important item. And so I would just second that point that, we need to double click on that, and make sure we understand it going forward.

Yep. Okay. I'll jump in with a few here. First of just a statement that it's exciting for me as I as I go around Bellevue and I see an improvement made in the transportation system. Triangle pool on Bellevue Way, those bright, wonderful green bike paths, you know, connecting the 108 within the 108 on the other side, and it's just it jumped it it it jumps out to the drivers that this is a bike path. You know? Whereas before, it just looked like road. Didn't just look like cars, you know, kind of thing. So always happy to see stuff like that. So getting back to the vehicle performance and how you measure when you measure during the peak hour, and I know that it was stated that it was the single biggest hour within that.

Two hours?

Well, it's a four to it's from four to 6PM, but then there's a statement in there somewhere that it's the single biggest hour that is the that's what's counted. Correct?

For the system intersections, it's a peak period, which is two hours. For the corridors, it's the single busiest hour of travel along those corridors. Okay. A slightly different time reference.

Okay. And so then can I assume that that single biggest hour can change from day to day? No. Okay. So I didn't know if maybe if you took the date but if if, like, if you looked at the data and then chose every day based on the data that we know one day, it might be 04:30 to 05:30. The next day, it might be five to six. If it's just okay. So you just do you then for that single hour, do you pick five to six? What do you use?

Let let's defer to Chris on that because he did the data collection and analysis.

Okay.

Chris? So how yeah. That's a a great and very nuanced question. We did select within the afternoon period what is the busiest hour along that segment. And so the that that is different segment to segment when the initial data was collected.

So it's within within a window of the segment we analyze what is the busiest hour. And the reason that that was selected was the the fact that for and why it's one hour versus two hours. The the original background for that numbering, it's slightly kinda wonky here, for the 40% of the posted speed limit is where we then do the threshold for evaluating the performance. That comes from this document called the highway capacity manual. It is the sort of reference manual, if you will, for how to evaluate, traffic flow and delay in congestion.

And it it is based on the highest hour. So we're trying to be by the book, if you will, on that front. And so that's where the the the the busiest hour is selected for those, individual corridors. Almost all of them are about the same, but here and there, one might be off by, you know, a half an hour or something like that. I don't have all the data readily at hand, but that is how we selected those, the evaluation, data for the existing conditions when that was executed.

Okay. Okay. That that answers my question. Kevin, at the end, were talking about the trails, the planning for the trails, and that's in the back in the appendices. Did I understand you correctly that that information was transferred from a previous document, not changed?

Correct.

Okay. And is there any intent if those trails, for example, are paved to be built into a bike network or walking? Or how does that happen with respect to all the information that's been updated?

For for the the MIP, for the bike network, we're looking at arterials. Yeah. That doesn't mean that there aren't other places where bikes do or could ride in the future, and those are the the local streets and the trails. A lot of trails are not designed for bikes, but some many of them are. And but we but those aren't really a metric or a we we don't document the performance of those. They they exist as a as a trail network that is managed by others and that we don't document at the MIP.

Okay. Do you have or is there any desire to have influence about their paved versus non paved status, or is it just an independent

The the project descriptions for those trails describe the surface treatment, the width and the surface treatment. Yeah. That project those project descriptions are sixteen years old. We may do something different today. But it the lines on the map are the intended location for the trail. Some of them are already built, of course, because the maps are old. Right. But for the exist for the future implementation of the trail network, they would start with the maps and the project description and say, would we do that today? Maybe. Maybe not.

So we we wanted to we wanted to document the legacy decisions on those, but not change it at all with this, but we didn't wanna lose it.

K.

If there's some change that would be different today, let's say pretty significantly, would that be built into the TFP, into No. No.

K. The the the the transportation facilities plan, again, largely deals with with with arterials.

Okay. So they're just separate.

And, really, the the the staff and the staff in the parks and community services department and the parks and community services board work on the trail networks.

Okay. Okay. So really quite independent.

Okay. And

what is the latest and greatest on that trouble Spring District? That trouble area, the missing link, the $100,000,000 question.

Yes. So well, that's that's the yes.

That's unfortunately the answer. So is it really just still looking at it at potentially very expensive? And what what I mean, what's the latest?

Sure. It's it's it's I yeah. We don't have any money to build it right now.

When we come back and talk about the TFP again in next month, you will be reminded that there's not a lot of money forecast at this point in time. And so there's we we can't put that in a financially constrained plan now. There just isn't enough money. But we are looking at you know, we update every three years. When there's more money available, you guys can put it at the top of the list when we look at the TFP, and then we can see where we can get on that. Ouch. Yeah. Sorry. Mhmm.

Ouch. Three years. And and to and I know this might be a discussion for next next month, elevating it now, coming being such the East West as you even mentioned amongst your friends. Wanna discuss it next month? Or

Next month.

Yeah.

But, yes, I think I think stating your your preference is part of your obligation when you look at the TFP. It's a good time to have that conversation.

And what is the ballpark cost for that segment? I've heard various numbers that seem crazy to me.

But Currently around 80,000,000. 80? 80. $8.08 0. With 7 zeros.

Yes. Yeah.

Holy

cow.

Mhmm.

It's structure. And there's a train in the way, it's just a really complex project.

We can't go out with our shovels one weekend and Yes. Go ahead, Drew.

Well, I mean, that's for the complete street. Right?

Mhmm.

So we have talked in the past about for some modes of tran transportation, particularly bikes, to your point earlier, that corridor is incomplete and really needs to be completed. So how would we break out the bike mode? Because maybe, and I think we've talked about this a few times, maybe we ought to just have a deep dive on it and really get to the bottom of it and breaking out the bike mode from the vehicle mode. Ideally, you want vehicle, bike, pedestrian, but maybe there's a way to do it for less than 80,000,000 if it's just the the bike corridor.

Right? And we I thought we we I thought we shared our deep dive on that, and it was it was determined that it was about eighteen or twenty million dollars just to do a pet bike connection between January and January. Because, again, you're you're crossing wetlands. You're you there's structures. It has to meet ADA. We don't own all the land so that there's you know, it's it's more complicated than it might seem to create a pet bite connection.

I guess the thing was for the TFP, it was combined. It wasn't broken out into a

different because we determined that we would never break it out because it's too expensive to do a standalone PedBike thing. We'll just do the whole bridge all at once.

Which what makes us so expensive? Okay. Good. Commissioner Ting?

So just final comment on the topic. I understand it's expensive, but I think especially for some of the the two newer commissioners here, if you haven't followed along with the whole discussion around the Spring Boulevard connection here, there's just a segment that's missing. And we, as a commission in the past, have felt that this is a very important connection to help make that a continuous route. And so that's why we're discussing this. We understand it's very expensive, and we wish there was a way we could do, like, a partial solution. But, I mean, we understand it's just difficult, but it's it's a priority, and I hope it continues to be a priority for this commission.

Alright. Other, those are mine. Other thoughts from commissioners. Yes.

Just a follow-up question on a issue that, commissioner Williams brought up.

We, as

a commission, elected to take out the Bell Red Corridor for consideration. However, it was brought back in for studies. Is there where are we with that? Is that still going on? It is not. Oh, is you're not gonna study it now?

It it was not forwarded to the transportation facilities plan for further consideration.

Questions, comments, others? Go ahead,

Yeah. I was just checking to see if anyone else had any comments because this isn't going to be there's no action required for this, but just some thoughts on the MIP. But one is thinking about the cross model prioritization. I know that might land in the TFP discussion, but it's always nice to understand the framework there. And figuring out how the modes can complement each other and create a complete system end to end, I think that would be a great document or a great discussion for us to have.

Second, I do wonder about escooters and thinking about, like, how does an escooter fit in to the new MIP? Because is it just close enough to an ebike that and an ebike's close enough to a regular bike that it just sort of all slides in there? Or at some point, do we think about, hey. There's a multiuse path, and we really have to categorize a pedestrian, a non motorized mobile active mobility, and then a motorized mobility. And do those just take the same path? Do they need to be broken out? How do we actually think about that in the future? So, again, not for today, but, you know, if we have a chance to maybe think about that for the MIP.

Can I interrupt you briefly?

Yeah. Go ahead.

How do we think about that right now? Do we think of those are do do do they get treated like bikes? Do they get treated like peds? Or is

Treated like wheeled users.

Wheeled users?

Sure. So they they

More like pedestrians.

More like bikes.

More like

No distinction between motorized and non. Just those with wheels and those without.

Wheels of all shapes and size. Well, not shapes, but sizes.

Motors and without motors. Okay.

At this point, yes. I I I know that there's been a discussion with this commission, and there will be in the future about scooters and their compatibility with pedestrians and such, but that's not for the MIP.

Right. For right now. You you've answered my question. Thank you.

Yep. Definitely not for the MIP discussion now. I don't know if it if you're saying it shouldn't be in the MIP in the future, or is that just you have not quite decided yet? In any case, just jot it down. It's We can talk about it later. Anyways, that's it for me. Thank you very much for the document. I know it's been a lot of work, and I appreciate the the amount of effort that's been put into it.

Vice chair, looks like you've got some follow on questions.

Just, you know, that whole discussion about ebikes, I'm not sure if that's gonna end up in the safety. When you have safety items, like how fast ebikes should go on a sidewalk or I'm not sure that we see that as being a part of the MIP, but it might I don't know. It's a question. Or it might be part of a safety discussion. How do you how do you look at safety as part of the MIP?

It is irrespective of the mode. It's more about the facility type and the dimensions of the facility type that can accommodate the mode.

Right.

Yes. Go

ahead. I would think of it how it also impacts comfort. And so because there's a comfort aspect to people on the road that it would therefore impact, the LTS system. So, again, something to think about in the future, but, you know, I think trying to incorporate that into the transportation system could be beneficial for later.

Good topic for later. I I I agree that there's many issues with with respect to different modes occupying the same space at the same time.

Did you mention ebikes on the sidewalk? Did I hear you say that correctly?

Yeah. I mean, technically, ebikes can be on sidewalks. They can be on in, of course, in bike lanes. And

Sidewalks when there's not a better alternative is, I believe That was the freezing Okay.

Scooters. Right?

That was for scooters. So what it's not stated for ebikes that way?

We have a rapidly evolving motorized device landscape right now, and so we are just kinda getting into other things we need to do.

And right now, as

far as the MIP is concerned, we just talk about bicycles. We don't talk about scooters. Right. But we do need to further define how these things work so that we can get the right performance charts.

Another

day.

Good news. We have work to do for the

next year. Did you have a follow-up question to that, vice chair? All right. So focusing in on the MIP tonight. Any more discussions, questions? Because our goal, I will be asking here for approval. So this is your chance if you have anything else that's kind of niggling at you.

Okay.

Then will someone make a motion to approve? Let's do the MIP as well as the transmittal letter together here. Make a motion to approve the transmittal letter and the MIP to be given to the council. Do I hear a motion?

I move to approve the MIP and the transmittal letter. Is there a second?

I'll second. Is there any further discussion on this? Okay. Then let's do an actual vote. For all those in favor of that motion, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Alright. And thank you again to answering our 10,000 questions and all the work. And you too, Chris.

You you guys did all the work. It's just it just is puts it all together in one document.

It does.

So appreciate it.

And now we get the fun one, the looking at covers. Oh. So Okay. So, yeah, Chris have time tonight for that. Yeah.

He's got a slide on the screen to look at.

I can spend the meeting now.

So, how would you like to do it? Do want

us just altered? They might be in order of my preference, but that doesn't matter. It's up to you. A a is my my choice.

I like one or two. Three. Yeah. Yeah.

Even though it's an award winning intersection.

Oh, yeah. There's still that side.

There's too much. People going.

Yeah. Down to one or two, a or b.

Two seems to have all the modes. We gotta bust them here.

You're getting a.

Alright then.

I'll just say my vote's two if we're taking votes now.

Yeah. I would say let's I'm happy. So do you have a vote, commissioner Thing?

Vote for b. Line with me.

K. A. A. Okay. Vice chair.

I like I like two because one has old buildings in it.

I like two because it does have bike, walk, and public transit.

Yeah. Okay.

I also like two because it has bike, although I'm sad to miss the push person pushing a stroller. However, I still would go with two.

Yeah? Looks like two is our new cover.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alright. Yeah.

That was easy. Yep. Alright. Do you want a formal motion on picking the sources? No. Okay. Yep. Alright. I was gonna say, you had it in the nose, but I'm like, I don't think we need to do that. Okay. Let's move. Thank you to everybody everybody for reading this and, you know, go home and continue to read it even more. So thank you for the copies here. Alright. Moving on. We are great time here. To agenda item number eight, approval of the minutes. We do that. Mhmm.

Chair Stash, council will receive your recommendation, we believe, on November 25.

Okay. Right before Thanksgiving. Okay.

We'll we'll need a representative of the commission to attend the council meeting to transmit the recommendation. So we'll typically, it's the chair, but I'll wanna check with your schedule to make sure

I'm in I'm here.

Okay. Okay.

Well, I'll confirm with you what the confirmed council date is.

Okay.

Okay. Okay?

Sounds good. And when in the agenda we will be I swear I show up at six. It's four hours later that we K. Alright. Let me just put a really quick note. Okay. Council meeting. Okay. Fantastic. Alright. Good. Alright. Approval of minutes. Do I have a motion to approve minutes from the July 10 meeting?

So

moved. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Alright. Are there any amendments to the meetings minutes? Is there anybody who disagrees with approving the minutes from July 10? K. Proved unanimously. Number nine, unfinished business. Anybody have any unfinished business here? Anybody have any new business? Alright.

Best question. I'm just curious where we are on the mobility,

the scooter issue. Well, if if do you wanna go? Okay. Go ahead.

So after the council passed the updates to the to the scooter code, we are now embarking on request for proposal from shared micromobility companies or company to give us we have to kind of make a financial arrangement and make arrangements for all of the specifics of what the program looks like. And we're trying to get a program stood up by spring, like, by April, May before the World Cup is what the aspirational goal is.

Okay. Good. Alright. Anything else new business from anybody?

No? Okay.

Review commission calendar. Do you wanna lead this, Kevin? Or

Check check your screen. I I did something different this time and put the calendar on the screen. Alright. For our next meeting is October 9. I had, as a backup plan, the MIP to come on October 9, but we don't need to do that now.

So there are two substantial items for October 9, the the update of the curve pricing study. Chris Iverson and Chris Long will be here plus the consultant team to talk about their their findings. And, for the transportation facilities plan update, your preliminary recommendation went to council. Council sent it back to you to develop a final recommendation, and that will be seven b on October 9. Now now we had on the calendar previously the commission retreat on November 13.

I believe we don't have unanimous or or we don't have everybody on the commission available for that November 13 date. It's really important to have everybody at the retreat. So I'm looking at alternate dates, for the retreat. Talking with the chair and the vice chair yesterday, we thought that maybe January 8 would be a good day to have the retreat. So please I I know it's it's far out, but please check your calendars.

If you confirm January 8, we will work to make a retreat retreat happen on that date. In between now and then, I don't have any scheduled, agenda items for you. That doesn't mean there might not be one that comes up, but I don't have anything right now. So your your calendar may be open until January. Let's get that information.

One one one Molly reminds me that it it has been standard practice to not bring informational items to the commission largely because they they take valuable study session away study session time away from items that you need to take action on at some point. If you would like, we can feather in some informational items that other staff are working on. There there's a a speed study that you have a a handout for and a questionnaire q QR code link to. We could have staff come and talk about the the speed study if if if that would be of interest. That's what I know about.

Maybe there's some some Vision Zero action plan things that could be done also. I'm not sure.

So maybe we could leave that as a possibility. And even in by email, ideas could be thrown out. And if there's things you're interested, we could we could hold an informational session Okay. If that works, and we

don't have it.

Okay. Thank you for that idea. Okay. Any other calendar No. Information?

You you can add it all. Oh oh, on October 9

Yes.

Neither the chair nor the vice chair will be present. We'll need to select a facilitator from amongst your peers to run that meeting. We should do it now.

Yes. And do we have do we let's confirm that we're gonna have quorum too. Okay. So do we do of the four can you all make October 9? 01/23.

We have it. Okay.

He's he's confirmed.

Mentioned she could make it.

Okay. So we've got four with Suzanne.

Think we're okay.

Five, I think. I think he's a maybe, but still we've got the four. So at least we at least we've got it. Okay. Okay. Is there anybody who wants to volunteer that's here of the four of you? Or I'm gonna look at the two more longer longer. Alright.

I don't mind

if anybody else wants to. K. Here. You're in.

That'd be great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. And we wish vice chair good luck in his triathlon in Australia. Yes. Okay. Thank you for remembering that, Kevin. That was a good one. Alright. Okay. Any objections if we adjourn this meeting? Hearing none, we're done.

Thank you. Thanks, Chris.

Thanks, Chris. Have a good night. Have a good meeting with your team.

Yes. Thank you all. Thanks for accommodating me. Great discussion.

Alright. Good night. Alrighty. Always thank you guys.