Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Agenda is in front of you guys. Is there a motion to approve the agenda that's on the table?

So moved.

Any amendments? K. We are approved. Now let's go to the oral and written communications. Kevin, as always, has been forwarding to us the written communications that he receives that are sent to the city. So we have those up until this afternoon in our inbox. Oral communications, three minutes a person as usual. People have signed up online as well as here. Kevin, do we have how many people have signed up online? Two. Okay. So we will start that. Just a reminder to the people presenting, please tell us your name before you begin speaking. You have three minutes.

K. First up is Maria Frost.

Welcome, Maria.

Okay. Chair Stash commissioners, my name is Maria Frost. I'm the transportation director at Kemper Development Company. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the micromobility code amendment. With increased use of private e bikes for food delivery in Bellevue, micromobility does demand more attention, and we appreciate staff bringing it forward.

Ensuring that pedestrians are safe on sidewalks where they have the right of way is an important and shared priority. As you think about amending city code to clarify and update regulations for scooters and conducting a pilot later for shared scooters and e bikes, please consider community concerns about all shared and private micro mobility devices and making sure the code amendment updates language regarding class one and two e bikes as well. The code update should apply to all micromobility operations and should be made stronger, especially for operation on sidewalks. We do recognize this is a broader discussion beyond the code amendment and look forward to being a part of that as this conversation moves forward. We did submit a letter that goes into greater detail, but a few of our recommendation, whether they fit under code or policy now or later, would be establishing clear speed limits and reasonable penalties for riders who are caught violating speed limits for failing to yield or signal to pedestrians, creating signage and dismount or slow zones in areas with high levels of foot traffic, requiring identification on micromobility devices, and taking measures to address parking to permit sidewalk clutter and ensuring that pedestrian pathways are unobstructed.

For the pilot, we hope you'll invite feedback from micromobility users and pedestrians and establish a dynamic and publicly accessible program to collect data on accidents, complaints, and pedestrian satisfaction to ensure that micro mobility policy and code meet community needs and address concerns. Again, a balanced policy approach to e scooters and e bikes on sidewalks should primarily aim to protect pedestrians while accommodating micromobility options. And that will require additional enforcement, stakeholder engagement, data aggregation, and the creation of performance metrics that I think should serve as a prerequisite to fleet growth in Bellevue, and of course, much more. We look forward to collaborating with the city and the commission to address all of these important safety and operational elements. And thank you again to staff for starting the conversation and for your consideration today.

Thank you.

Hey. Thank you. Our next person.

Second person is Matthew Rael. Hope I pronounced that correctly. You will help correct me if I didn't. Mhmm.

Welcome. Hi.

I'm I'm doctor Matthew Rill.

And could you Yep.

Hi. I'm I'm doctor Matthew Rill. And a couple weeks ago, I talked to the city council a little bit, and I shared with them some questions to ponder about MMB safety. I have those packages here. And I've also included two recent rare evidence based studies on MMB safety, both nationally and in one city, in New York City.

And I hope those help you when you start thinking about the safety of MMVs. But the specific reason I'm here is I want you to consider that if your goal is truly decreased mortality or injury, or at least that's a substantial part of your goal, and there is going to be mortality with these in the future, then there are two things you need to get a handle on in terms of measuring and understanding. The first one of these is the percent helmet usage of MMB riders. And the second is the enforcement rate of your current and future codes. The first challenge, measuring helmet use, is a nontrivial problem.

How do you really measure the helmet use in an active city for MMVs? Do you do it manually? Do you do it once a month? Where do you do it? Can you use AI to do it? That's a nontrivial question. But I encourage you to start thinking about this this year because without measuring helmet use, you will not know if any of the efforts you're going to do are working. The second one, enforcement rate, that is actually fairly trivial to measure, But it might be difficult to understand. For example, I measured your enforcement rate since 2019. And in fact, you've only actually written one citation for the current codes that you're working on.

So I do think you need to spend some time, preferably with the police offline, and get a sense of culturally what it's going to take to enforce. And then does enforcement work? And does it change helmet usage rate? Anyway, in truth, if you look at the literature out there right now, there is no city in the country that really has a handle on some of these problems right now. But I think there's an opportunity, if you're curious and you think about different questions and really get to the essence of safety, which is usually helmet use, behavior, enforcement rate, Bellevue has a chance to really make a dent in this.

So please enjoy those references, and I hope they give you a little bit of meat when you start thinking about these things. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Is there anybody else or actually, the last person. Is there anybody online who would like to speak? Nobody online. Is there anybody else in the room who has not signed up? Oh, hang on. We see somebody online.

One person I don't recognize online. If you would like to provide a comment, raise your hand, and we'll unmute you. That's not happening.

Okay. Alright. We will switch now to is there anybody else in the room that did not sign up who would like to speak? Okay. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Moving on to agenda item number four, communications from city council boards and commissions. Council member Newn Hoods is not here tonight, so we do not have any updates from the city council. Does anybody here as a commissioner have an update on anything? Go ahead.

Just a general comment. And I just wanna thank Kevin and the staff for, you know, all this work as we're doing two two meetings per month, and much appreciated. And fellow commissioners, it's a it's a lot of time, but we're getting a lot of stuff done. But I did wanna also raise a little bit of a challenge to figure out a way that we could get the minutes before the next meeting. I know that that's we're used to four weeks between meetings, but it's really helpful, especially as we're doing a lot of concurrent work to pick up so I don't have to take notes as much.

I would just put that down as a challenge for the staff, to be able to do that and get them to us at least a couple days before our next meeting. And but also very appreciative of all the work you guys have put into, putting this material together. So those two together. Thank you.

Perfect. Any other input from commissioners? No. Okay. Let's move on to staff reports. Kevin, do we have anything?

Two items for you. At the the last meeting, I mentioned that the city clerk's office was going to be scheduling a board and commission appreciation reception. I have a date and a time. It's April 30 at 06:00 in in this building. The city clerk's office will be providing further details, but sort of a save your save the date announcement right now.

The other announcement I have is that the city clerk's office will be initiating recruitment for our two impending vacancies on the transportation commission that will start on Monday, the thirty first, and will be open for two weeks to close on Monday, April 14. April. The intent is to have commissioners appointed and ready for the June 12 commission meeting.

Okay. Perfect. All right. Moving on to number six, public hearing. So we don't have one tonight, so that's a quick one. And we will jump right into our study sessions. So tonight, we have three different topics. The first two are for information only, but the third one does ask for some concurrence on a couple different topics. It's part concurrence and then part some for our information. We can just jump right in. Christie and Mike are here to present this one. Transportation Facility Plan Update.

Good evening, chairs Dash and members of the commission. So as you've suggested, we're here again to continue conversation about the update of the city's transportation facilities plan. Tonight, we'll focus on the outreach that we did and soliciting public comment on the candidate project list. So we'll share with you what work we did to solicit that in out comments and then what we heard. Most of this is captured in the public outreach report that was included as an attachment to your memo for the meeting tonight.

So we'll go over the highlights of that and try to look a little bit too about kind of the bigger picture. What what does it mean? What do we, you know, what do we hear? And we'll also take a look at, finally, at some other city surveys that have some, arguably, some relevance to what we do here. They're they're not as targeted as might be desirable, but but still we should be aware of of what they are and and what they say.

So we'll we'll cover that part. And we should I think I'll walk through kind of all the the process and and the overview of of the surveys and and and the comments, and then we'll pause and have a question and discussion segment after I've gone through that. So we'll hold that for a little till a little bit later. So let's go to the next slide, Christy. We launched the focused public outreach in last month, on the twenty fourth.

We conducted two in person open house events on the twenty fifth and the twenty sixth. I know I think a couple of you at least came to the one on the twenty sixth. And then we, in at the same time, launched an online portal. We call it online open house. It's it's basically offers the same material that we off we had at the in person open house events and the same opportunity for input.

So, you know, we can consolidate what we heard at those in person events and the online and and into one sort of overall picture of of the comments that we we we heard. The attendance at the in house events was or the in person events was was very low. And sometimes that happens. You know, it it we've done this a number of times, and it I don't know. It's just it's somehow that's that's how it is sometimes.

And I don't have a really recipe for where to go and when in order to get a lot of people. But if we did, we'd we'd certainly do that. So yeah. We did get more engagement online as we we expected we would. So we had 253 unique visitors to the online portal.

And and and then a number quite a few of those folks left left some comments. So that's what we'll look at next. So the public involvement report captures, you know, really everything that we've heard to date through this process, so starting back in September. So, you know, we most recently, in this three week process, you know, received comments through the in person events and the online open house, and we'll look at that. We also have received, you know, and and shared with you letters and and various communications from folks, not a lot, but but some.

And so we included that in the report. And and then there was a component of the online open house that we just conducted that asked people we try to get a sense of who was responding. Right? Who was looking at this? Who who are we getting input from?

And so we'll look at that here in just a minute. And then finally, we'll look at the other city surveys. So in terms of the people that engaged online, when they went to engaging Bellevue and clicked on the transportation facilities plan update section, because there's, you know, bunch of things. The city that's kind of the city's online engagement, you know, portal. But if you click on the transportation facilities plan, there was some information about what the TFP is and and the current, update process.

And then we it was structured to encourage people to first fill out this short survey, and and then we'll go through. It was possible to bypass it, so some people may have chosen to simply bypass it. But but I hopefully, most people or a lot of people anyway did did respond. We had 41 people respond. So we nearly all those people that responded live in Bellevue. And so and they live various places in Bellevue. That's what the pie chart shows. So we have five ZIP codes in Bellevue, and then there's some PO box ZIP codes as well. So that's what's captured in in the pie pie chart there. Next slide.

So we we ask people, you know, how they get around in Bellevue. And and so that's what's summarized in this chart, which is, you know, frankly a little bit hard to read. I'm sorry about that. It came right out of the out of the the tool. But what it really says is that three quarter three quarters of the people that responded report walking in Bellevue on a regular basis. Fewer than half, but almost half, report biking in Bellevue on a regular basis. About half report using transit. Most of them most people reported driving their personal vehicle in Bellevue, and and very few reported vanpool or ride hailing. And and there were no wheelchair users this time. No wheelchair users this time.

Sometimes in the past, we've gotten some folks that live with a handicap. So, yeah, next slide. So this is the so once people completed the survey, then they clicked on another link and they got to the map. And and and that presented all the candidate projects. So very similar to the map that you have in front of you tonight in printed form.

And so people, you know, hopefully, most of you got once you had a chance to go out and look at this, but you you clicked on the candidate project in a pop up game that described the project. And then you could click on another link and and provide input, and that's what you see on the right. And so that's that's the input that we will be summarizing here in in the you know, later in this this discussion. But that's how people gave it to us. So we did receive comments on 46 of the over of the 68 candidate projects.

And then we also received comments on 10 of the 21 fully funded projects, which we included on the map just really for transparency so people knew that, you know, that that project was gonna happen. So and and those projects, of course, are carried into the TFE by default because the city's council's already appropriated money for them. And then we had just opportunity for general comments, and and and we received 29 of those. You know, in sort of the big picture, there really wasn't any big, hot, you know, project that people were fired up about, you know, either for or against. Sometimes we get that, but this this that wasn't the case this time.

And and I think that's reflected in the overall numbers too. You know, these overall numbers, you know, are are are, you know, still significant, but not the level that we've sometimes seen in the past. And, it's just, I think, partly a matter of what's what's in the what's in the under consideration. Yeah. The the the yeah. I think some some energy has already been dissipated there. So and then overall, we mostly saw hurt support for projects. I mean, there wasn't a lot of, you know, we don't like this project. There were some, and and that's what I've summarized here. So the project that had the most input and the most support were those six.

And most of them, well, actually five of those were bike projects, and then was OSX and Managed Parkway is, you know, partly a bike project as well. So so that's where we saw them. In terms of the input we received, those were the ones that had the most positive and and, real frankly, very limited negative comments. The projects that had negative largely negative input were widening intersections downtown or out in Overlake, which is the case of the 1 48th master plan. And then the case of widening or really finishing the last piece of 1 20th Avenue going north toward Northup Way.

So those were the ones. And I think that was probably driven by the cost. It's probably why I think sometimes people were weighing in negatively on the one twentieth project. So, that's kind of the big picture of what we heard, for the projects, in in our work. So what I'll turn to now are the the broader city surveys that we that that are undertaken on a regular basis.

So every two years, the city does a performance measure survey. And the one kind of key piece in that survey, but I'm like, trolled through the whole thing, is is this this chart, and the summary statements on the left. And so, you know, I I've highlighted in here, Bellevue residents respondents continue to feel that getting around Bellevue by car is better than other communities. And and that's how this performance measure survey is framed, comparing Bellevue to other communities, I think, in the region. And so so that's the basis that we're asking people to judge.

And then in the lower left, while still generally rated as better than other cities, opinions are more mixed in terms of ease of walking, availability of public transportation, and ease of bicycling. So, you know, I don't think it surprises any of us. And and, frankly, I'm gonna walk through, like, some of the other surveys that the city does. And and this is really the takeaway, you know, in terms of me me trying to make sense out of what the other ones say. I think this is it.

But we'll we'll look at them just for, you know, for to to be sure that we're thorough. So next slide. So the city does a budget survey every two years, and there's people are asked about their satisfaction with city services for 39 different services. And they're asked to rate it on a scale of zero, highly dissatisfied, to seven, very satisfied. And so out of those 39 services, 10 of them have relate to transportation.

And that's what I've put in the red boxes here. And I'll look we'll talk about it here in a little more detail in the next slide. But really, this is showing that on the left side, those are the ones that are rated positively. And on the right side are the ones that were they're rated negatively. And I I've tried to understand what the scale is on the left, and and I don't know. It didn't explain in any way that I could tell. So I think it's really just relatively. What is the city doing really well at, and what is city doing less well at? Right? So when we look at the transportation related services, the one that rates best, the first one there on the left, is recreational trails.

And, you know, arguably, that's maybe partly or mostly a parks function, but there is an overlap absolutely with with transportation. So that's the one that we're doing the best on. And I'm gonna have to turn to my sheet here because I can't quite read that. I'm sorry. I did I clipped it out of the the report, so it wasn't quite as crisp as I'd hoped.

Yeah. Well, those are that's maintenance. So, yeah, the maintenance, we do pretty well on the maintenance. You know, parks, of course, but also even on this on the streets and sidewalks. Yeah. But in terms of what the TFP is about and what we're dealing with here, I I didn't highlight those because, really, we're talking about the the more capital focused things. But, yeah, the maintenance we do well. That's a very good point and and worth noting. Absolutely. So the next item here is neighborhood improvements.

And the reason why I highlighted that one because these are kind of abbreviations of the actual service. So the language of the question was neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks and crosswalks. So it's pretty related. So, yeah, we're we're you know, that's relatively still pretty good, although a little bit in the negative territory. And then, you know, moving further to the right, we're getting to improvements for bicycle riders.

You know, again, not not so great. System of walkways, which is connecting people to where they want to go through an adequate and accessible system of walkways is the larger actual question that was posed. And then next to that is, system of bikeways connecting people to where they want to go through an adequate system of bikeways. So a little worse on that as you would expect. Neighborhood sidewalks, building additional neighborhood sidewalks, and then sidewalks along major roads, building additional sidewalks along major roads.

They're not. They're yeah. This this is it. This is just people are asked to respond. How well is the city doing? You know, what what's your level of satisfaction with how the city's doing in this service? Mike, can I ask you a question real quick? I'm Yeah. I can't really see this, so I'm wondering.

Are the ones in the red boxes, maybe you said this already, are those the ones that are more transportation related?

Is that

why they're not Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm reading. Yeah. Good. Yeah. I I did I I was hoping that would be more visible, but sorry. So and then moving further to the right, build, widen city streets, which is actually building or widening city streets to help ease traffic congestion. And so that's third from the right. And then neighborhood traffic, which is reducing traffic problems in residential neighborhoods.

And then finally, downtown traffic, which is reducing traffic problems in Downtown Bellevue. So, you know, this survey is what it is. I mean, we don't have I wasn't able to say what I thought the questions should be because, you know, reducing traffic downtown probably isn't gonna happen if you're growing like we are. So it's really probably not the way that I would choose to frame the question. Probably be something more along mobility and, you know, are you satisfied with your accessibility of downtown and whatnot?

But this is how these are the questions. They've asked the same questions for a lot of years so they can track performance over time. So there's some value in this. So, again, you know, I I think it's not really surprising. I mean, we have some traffic congestion. We don't have complete sidewalks everywhere. We don't have complete bikeways everywhere. Kind of going back to what we looked at a couple slides ago in the summary statements. So

What other services are included in this besides transportation? You mentioned parks.

Yeah. There's fire. So that's on the left, it's all about fire and emergency response, life safety, some police, although there's some further to the right too. You know, in terms of misdemeanors, there there's less. But felonies, yeah, it's it's, it's it's mostly on the left, the the those kind of sources. Yeah. There's a little bit more we can do with this survey. Oh, yeah. With this survey. That's yeah. The next slide. Thanks. I I don't. I I've tried to do that in the past. They didn't package it in the same way this time, so I didn't have a good way to show But I think this is kinda useful.

This is a quadrant analysis, and really, it's about this the importance of services versus the satisfaction of services. So the importance is on the is on the x axis and the the excuse me. The yeah. The the is on the x axis. The satisfaction is on the y axis. So what we're supposed to make out of this is the services that are important, but we're not doing well at are in the lower right. So that's what we really need to pay attention to. K? The ones on the in the upper left are the ones that are we're doing well, but they're not that important. Right?

And so the good news for this this is six of those 10 that we just looked at. So the good news for this chart is there's none that are really important that we're not doing well at. So so they're showing the six connecting people services. And this is in this is in your in your

Yeah.

Report. You think

Could you measure importance again to jazz people to rank?

So good question. So in the past, until twenty nineteen twenty two or, excuse me, 2022, they asked people both questions. How well is the city doing, and then how important is the service? Right? And and and there's 39 of them. So it was and it was they they tried to short they try to shorten the survey and the response time. So the way they're now determining importance is through statistical methodology that they explain. I wouldn't even put it. But they're imputing the importance through some alchemy. That's but I I I'm I'm I wanna believe them. So yeah.

Quick question. Maybe you already covered this as well. What was the number of responses to these surveys? Is it

Oh, these are statistically valid. These are this is about 1,300 people. Okay. Yeah.

Good. Yeah. But the first one you did, that was 29 or 35? Or

Yeah. The first one was just TFT one. Was a TFT one. That's whoever just chooses to respond. I mean, there's nothing scientific or, you know, statistically, you know, valid methodologically. Yeah. Whereas these the the citywide surveys, they're they're statistically valid. They're they're used you know, we hire, you know, really professional help.

We have to figure out their tricks then to get more responses to our transportation

stuff. They spend a lot of time and a lot of work doing it. Yeah. Money. Yeah. A lot of money. Yeah.

You've said this before, but these are, like, professionally done every four years. Very, very expensive with, like, professional surveys, but they don't tell us much.

Well, I mean, we're we're trying to get just a little piece of it. I mean, if there's more like, all the services the city does, it probably is helpful.

So but for the for the level of investment that the city makes, like, at a higher level, what are you we actually getting from if we can get this much this little from it in transportation, like, I bet planning gets the same, the little bit. And so I was like, wouldn't it be better to do something if it's gonna be that expensive, something more meaningful, like, of the actual things that we wanna I mean, know that's beyond your like, I'm just making a note of it, but it's it's hard to there's a lot of questions that doesn't totally help us make decisions, just for the record.

Right. I agree.

Just a question. This was for Bellevue residents. Right?

Correct. Yeah. Sent out to And how they recruit people is its own special, you know, process. Visitors. No. Not visit. Absolutely not. No. It's people that yeah. And they have all kinds of ways to figure out that they're getting representative sample from all sorts of people around Bellevue.

So a quick comment on I think I heard someone else mention this that the differences from year to year, I think could be very interesting. Don't remember, someone mentioned that. Because there might be a way of looking at how we change projects, how we change budgets, and how does that actually change the satisfaction of a particular category. And maybe we can discern that a large budget increase in one area actually has very little impact, impact, or maybe it's completely irrelevant because it's based on, you know, some other factor that we have to to research. So has there been any investigation in that?

I can go back and look at this survey. There was a chart that shows movement, different directions. I think it's in there. I didn't choose to put it here because it gets really hard to look at and understand. I mean, the next one is already gonna be hard. So but I I I think it's in there showing the movement from the last survey to this one.

Can we draw any conclusions from the changes year to year?

No. Okay. Go ahead.

I'm just remembering the last survey that I saw. So downtown traffic is always the worst. So, like, that's been a consistent throughout every survey that I've been sitting here for. I just wanted to know, did it get a little better, a little worse? You know? Like, are we direction what direction did it move? I don't know. But it was always the the number one. They

also didn't ask the questions the same way this go around as they had two years before. So it's it's sometimes apples and oranges instead of apples to apples. And so that means we have to piecemeal if we think that's what somebody said because they don't necessarily use the same questions every time. And this was a different methodology for this go round for this last biennium.

Let's go to the next one. So I mentioned this had six. So the other four, I had to go to the big chart with all 39. I'm sorry. They did half a breakout. So here we get to a couple of services that are in the lower right quadrant. Right? And so, specifically, that's build and widen city streets. So that yeah. That's the one you see there. It's the upper right. Yeah. That one. And you see the little pointer arrow that goes down to the dot. Yeah.

Right there. Yep. And then the other one there is reduced neighborhood traffic. So so those are the two that, you know, in the lower right. So, you know, what do you take make of this? If there's some interest and support for widening city streets

But yet the four most negative comments were against widening streets.

And in the past, there was a separate section of this survey that specifically asked, focused on, like, four key questions in transportation. And one of them was about building and winding city streets, and it was very mixed. People so I I think that the real larger takeaway is, yeah, there's you know, traffic congestion is something that people it's real. And building cities you know, building and winding streets is one way you can address that. But it's overall, I I my takeaway from seeing these over the years is it's it's mixed.

Just to I would like the neighborhood traffic enforcement. That is also could be a TFP, like, if you're doing street calming improvements or things like that. So that help not not get traffic to go around into the neighborhood streets. That I know that's one of the elements that people really care about, that people cut through the neighborhoods. And so there could be improvements that for traffic coming in the neighborhood so that it's actually not a shortcut. Right?

That's very good point. Yeah. And to the extent that there's on, you know, arterials, then there is more incentive to cut through neighborhoods. Right? We do have a whole group here in the city that focuses on neighborhood traffic, and they have a a programmatic budget that they they are able to do improvements each year.

Can you flip back to the last side real quick? Sure. Yeah. So okay. This is alright. If we connect to people. So on the next slide, going back to the next slide, does this level of importance sorry. In this go back to the forward, please. Yeah. Let's

The other back?

To the comp yes. Thank you. Does this correlate to the level of importance that people rank transportation issues in the other surveys? Because I'm really curious about this. You know, is it high impact, low impact? It sounds like there's some magic that they use to determine where the people thought the issue was important. Well,

that's the broader context of the survey. They're asking about all the range of services the city does, right? But a lot of it

So in other surveys, I've seen that transportation rates fairly important to people. But looking at this, everything seems kind of in the middle. Yeah. And so that's why I'm trying to understand, is this chart basically saying that transportation issues are kind of like average importance to the Bellevue resident?

That's my takeaway.

And does that correlate with the other surveys where we ask people to rate or rank what the issues are in the city?

So much of it is really how you ask the question, right? So, I mean, here they're asking, I think in a fairly neutral way, like, here are all the things the city does, and trying to gain a sense of the importance. And, you know, responding to fires, police enforcement, mean, transportation. Yeah.

I guess I'm just trying to understand whether the ranking of importance, this algorithm that you described earlier that's sort of magic, whether it matches our perception Yeah. Data from the other surveys.

I would say yes, although I haven't my focus traditionally has been in the transportation realm. You know, what are the priorities within transportation as opposed to the broader city context of all the things the city does. So

Alright. Thank you. Yes.

Regarding the respond to fires, the EMS, the natural disaster preparedness, I'm curious to know, is it within the commissioner staff's purview to solicit the opinion of BPD and Bellevue Fire? Do they would they agree with this assessment? Do they ever do they have a say or do they have a reporting or keep audits of it took us longer than usual or it took us longer than it should have to get from Absolutely. Where we are to where we need to be?

They they monitor all that stuff. There's they're and and they put they're they're pretty good about putting it on their web page too, all the performance metrics. And they track it year to year for sure. Yeah.

Is that a priority for the transportation staff or commission to ensure that their feedback is priority one. Because I feel like for citizens, it's always after the fact. It's a reactive, oh, we should have been on that, or why why wasn't that fixed before versus you can't really plan for that disaster or plan for where exactly the accident's going to happen. But if you look at things from a retrospective with that knowledge, I'm curious to see if that should be prioritized or if it already is.

Well, I I guess maybe partly answering your question, hopefully, is, you know, the emergency response is very definitely a factor in all of our transportation, you know, improvements. So I mentioned a little minute a minute ago the neighborhood traffic, you know, calming and I mean, to the extent that we that that's a big factor that they look at in terms of how they can address cut through traffic. Mean, people have ideas as well. You know, you should put speed bumps or, you know, diverters or whatnot. Well, you know, those have impacts, right, for for emergency response times.

And so that all has to be weighed. So there's very definitely engagement with police and with fire. You know? And I can think of other examples, you know, where we're looking at, you know, how we do transportation infrastructure improvements and what is the impact on on, you know, on response times. So so that's that's, yeah, pretty much part of the factor.

Yeah. Think we can probably move on here. There was a survey, one off survey done for the comprehensive plan. This was not in your in your packet, by the way. This was the one I just came across more recently.

And one of the quest mostly, that that survey was all about housing, what kind of mix of housing and affordable housing, and what kind of mix of businesses and access to businesses and, you know, green space and this sort of thing. But there was one question about street design. And, you know, what what kind of street would you prefer? And and I don't know exactly how they phrased the question and but it you know, there people did, you know, three nearly three quarters indicate a preference for a balance a street design that's that's, you know, optimized. It's not just optimized for car movement, for having a street that is slower speed and and serves, you know, multiple modes and users.

So for what it's worth, this is just in order to be comprehensive. I wanted to share that. And then finally, the last survey is the business survey. This is one the city does every two years. And, again, the frame is how does Bellevue compare to other nearby, you know, communities?

And there are three of the questions posed where that relate to transportation. So, you know, compared to the other cities in the region, the ability to get around safely walking and biking is much better, is is the overall response. Access to public transportation services is perceived to be better. And the extent to which vehicle traffic affects your business is tends to be the same, kind of surprisingly, actually. So, yeah, that's that's the takeaway at a high level from the the business survey.

And this is really all I could find in there that that, you know, really spoke to the transportation side. So those are the the kind of the broader surveys that the city does. And and, again, I think I would just go back to that first slide and say, you know, it's a little easier to get around on it by car pretty well in Bellevue and not quite as easy by other modes. Yeah.

Yeah.

And a lot of housing affordability, but that's different world different topic. So, yeah, any other questions or conversation points around around what we looked at? K. Well, we'll just move on to the to the kind of where we're going next with the TFP then, which is we are working with finance folks

Go to the

next slide. Oh, got it. Okay. It has to to develop a a financial forecast. So, really, this is how much money do we anticipate will be available for that period from 2026 to 2037.

And, yeah, overview is it's not looking good. So we'll we'll get a better number soon then, but that's a quick preview. We're working on project cost estimates, particularly for those projects that that maybe are are strong candidates for full implementation funding because then we need to really know. Projects that are not as fairly developed, we we we would need some increment of initial funding to scope out and understand if we need right away or what the project's gonna look like. But but those that are, you know, more ready for implementation where they want some of that work has already been done, that preliminary work.

Those are the ones we're gonna we're getting updated cost estimates for. And then and then finally so we'll look in next meeting. At the second meeting in April is our hope to have the financial forecast to share with you. We won't be here at the first meeting in April because that won't be ready. And then and then the the cost estimates will feed into the project prioritization work that staff will be continuing to work to proceed.

Right now, we're waiting for the financial forecast to understand, you know, what what how much money there is. And and then we'll share with our our expectations. We can share the initial staff, you know, straw man, I think we'll call it. You know? Really, it's actually more than that. It's it's a staff recommendation or initial prioritization at the May meeting. The May I think it's May 8. And and that'll probably be a longer conversation. I expect it will be. And so we can go to the next slide.

Overall timeline, we are slipping a little from what we had optimistically targeted earlier. I think that's partly really largely driven by, frankly, delay in getting the financial forecast. So that's that's pushed things out by about a month or so. So we'll really get into the meat of the, project list and the prioritization at that first meeting in May 8. Hopefully, we can get through most or all of that at that meeting.

And then and then as necessary, we can continue that discussion at the June meeting and hopefully get to a list that the commission is comfortable endorsing. And from that point, then we would share it with the city council. And there's some work on the on the impact fee program side before we can finalize everything.

Three quick questions or comments here. First off, how do we find out what your feedback is based on the feedback of specific TFP projects? So there's a set of comments, some you which of which you may agree with or disagree with. So it'd be nice to know if you guys have feedback on community feedback. And the second is it would be very useful for me to know and for all probably from the public from a transparency perspective Yeah.

To be able to see all the different types of TFP and other projects that are in flight. Because, again, I I really like this idea of being able to understand the complete network. So you can look at projects in isolation, but I think it makes the most sense when you say, how does the entire network behave once it's fully built out? So for example, I know there's a project on Northeast 8th on Crossroads. We're doing a road reconfiguration.

And being able to see all the projects that the city is ultimately going to do in one place to see what the impact is for someone, you know, that's taking a route somewhere, that would be very useful. So I'd again, I'd sort of put that ask back there. And then the third thing is I would really like to hear ideally in advance of the actual prioritization of how you're planning on doing cross modal prioritization of TIP projects. I mentioned that, I think, every meeting. I just wanna bring it up again because I think it is something that we should figure out, you know, how that's gonna work. So if you were just be able to just give me a quick comment on each of those three points.

Sure. So the the first one, I think the comments that and they're reproduced in the report you got in the in the memo, attachment to the memo, they're thoughtful. I think, you know, I read through all of them, really, and I I think those are worth definitely reviewing and and seeing what people people gave good impact. Now the ones that I might quibble a little bit with were the Spring Boulevard, Gap 1 and the 1 20th Avenue Northeast extension to the north or, you know, build out. I think it was a little unfair the way that they they were put the the commenters were saying we were building massive big roads.

And the Spring Boulevard one is not a massive big road. It's really mostly one lane in each direction and little wider when you get to the intersection, especially at the west end. And likewise, the one twentieth, arguably, it is a massive road, you know, further south, the part we've built. But the part going north will taper down. We we did that analysis. We figured out it doesn't need to be full five lanes all the way going north. So our project descriptions may not adequately convey that. So I'm not you know? So so the perception may be that we would be building another huge huge road in those cases. But so that's the only point I would make in terms of the those comments and and the quibbles.

Okay. I think, basically, there's some community feedback, and we as a commission can take a look at that feedback and try and render an opinion on each of those items, like the underground bike tunnel. But knowing what your perspective is on the feedback where you say like, oh, yeah, that bike tunnel would be great, but it's kind of expensive. Right? I mean, that's something that would be useful for I mean, you looking for us to basically to look each one of those pieces of feedback and say, like, yes, we agree with this or no, we don't agree with this?

I think it's more just broadening the understanding of, you know, what I mean, that that's how we look at it. You know? Is is is we think we I mean, obviously, we live in this world, so we kind of know these projects and we get the public comment. You know? And and I think partly too, it's this was an opportunity to understand. Is there anything out there that the public is very fired up about? Right? You know, positively or negatively. Right? And we didn't see that.

So I guess my feedback here would be there's a bunch of comments. For the ones that you agree with or that you disagree with or you have an opinion on, it would be nice if there was some sort of feedback loop so that, you know, the public and we as a commission, probably as a commission, it would be interesting for us to know whether you think some of that feedback is, you know, good and we should do it, or it's not and we shouldn't. Otherwise, we see the feedback, but, you know, what do we as a commission do with that?

I think you might be able to see a little bit of that when we bring back our prioritization to you as well, because we have been, as staff from many different departments that is in on our prioritization have been giving our opinions on what the projects are too. So we can work to be able to integrate the two together when we bring back the when we bring back our prioritized list, I guess, to you if that Yeah.

And if that kind of This was updated due to community feedback. That would just be a nice way of knowing that, like, oh, okay. That's why this changed.

Yeah. So I'll take your question number two about an inclusive list. So the TIP is the most inclusive list that we have of all the projects that are going you know, that are either in, you know, in our wish list for right now with the exception of our ongoing programs that have their own subset of lists. In the TIP, we do list some and the TFP, we do list some of the ones that are going to build out facilities, but we do not track ongoing programs, lists of things that they might do in the community usually because they're either small one off things or not well vetted out yet because of that. But the the TIP is the is really our all encompassing of everything that we have.

We pulled all of the projects out of the comprehensive transportation project list to be able to have that so we could have that update and change all of those. That's the best that I can think of. So I guess my question to

you is, was there something else that you had in mind? So ideally what I'd like to see is a map, kind of like the TFP map with all the projects on it, that includes all the different projects that the city is very reasonably moving forward with. So, for example, the Northeast eighth project between I forget what the road numbers are, but basically right next to Crossroads Mall. I know there's a project that's happening there. I don't know how I, as a commissioner, or even I, as Joe Public, a I'm able to get an understanding of what does the the cycling network look like, because all of these projects are stored in different places. So you can't actually piece them together and say, oh, in five years, this is where I'm gonna be able to bike.

Well, yeah, the the pipeline projects, those that are actually moving forward are there's an online map, a capital projects map, on on the city's website. It's shows it's not just discrete CIP projects. It's also program projects are being built by programs. So it's online, it shows utilities projects and transportation projects. Perfect.

Thank you. I'll take a look at it. And then my third point, you guys already know. Just let

us know.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions on this one?

Go ahead.

Just also and I've been through the TFP process before, but it would be really good to figure out I mean, you've got so many inputs. How what is the process for consolidating all these inputs? And you listed them out a little bit in here so far. Like, you're gonna take, information from public, council priorities. Back one slide. Council priorities. When are we gonna be able to see that before you actually present the priorities, the completed priorities, or are are we gonna get a chance to kinda see how that process works so we can get a feel for it before we see the results?

You'll see the results, and you'll see the scores, you know, the the score rank the the scores by mode. And you'll see comments as to why projects may have been moved up or down on the list. So we'll document, you know, why why a project why we think a project needs to be above the funding line or below the funding line because that's really the important thing. I mean, it doesn't really matter whether it's at the top of the list or 15 on the list. If the funding line's at 20, that's the bottom that's what matters. Right?

So I guess there's a question of when. What's do we see that first? Do we see kind of the process first? And then in May, because as you mentioned, you're gonna present a prioritized list in May. So

Well, you'll see it in May.

We already showed you the scored rank list last time that we were here, so you have that. And then like we talked to about it last time, that's our that is our starting point. And then we're we will be looking at staff input, obviously, also the public input as we're going through to figure out what our what our ranking is going to be. So you won't see all of the steps in those processes, but you'll see the comments that go along with it. It would tell you whether or not there's gonna be coordination with other projects, with other agencies if we have dollars that are already to it, if it's going to just be placeholder funding, those kinds of things. We would be here a substantially really long time if we brought you every single step, so we kind of truncate that.

And I was kind of questioning specifically about council input. How much of that goes into it, And is that visible in the process?

Well, I mean, it is because, you know, we know, for example I mean, they this council has priorities and and, you know, for example, the Grand Connection is a priority. So we're gonna have to have that above the funding line, right, in our in our plan. Right? So, you know, that that's a kind of the most prominent example perhaps. But, you know, to the extent that there's we are aware of other, you know, priorities of the council, we we would wanna take those into consideration.

So

Go ahead.

So just for for what it's worth, I've I've always felt that these, like, piecemealing so we have three things on the addenda, and we see a first button. And now I'm used to it because I've seen it so many times, but I very much remember feeling like, wait. What is this about? What is happening? And so I feel personally, and I know that other people can think differently, that it would be better to have less and longer, like, spend a whole day on TFP on June 12, and you see the community engagement, this assessment that right when everything is ready rather than, like, keep seeing because then I have to remember what was the last time and try and so, like, the day we have to make a decision, you'd go through the entire thing for entire two hours.

And so I not everybody feels that way, but I thought I would put it out there because it's something that I felt in the beginning that would have been more helpful to me than trying to keep the

thread

of what's going instead of having, like, a deep dive on the thing that I'm we have to analyze all these things and then make the decision. So but it's worth I know it's and it might not be a whole it might have to be two because I know it's a lot of them.

So Yeah.

But, anyway, breaking it down into more bulky elements might be more helpful. Just a thought.

Others questions on this before we move on? Okay. Thank you very much, Thank you, Christie. Alright. Moving on to our second study session, which is the micromobility code amendment. Tonight, we have France Lohenhertz and Akshali Gandhi here with us, and they're gonna take us through this proposed Bellevue City code amendment. And it's specifically to address how motorized foot scooters are used on sidewalks. So no action tonight. We are here to listen, and welcome to you both.

Okay. Yep. Good evening, chair Stash, vice chair McGill, and members of the commission. My name is Akshali Gandhi, and I'm here to speak to you on behalf of the mobility planning and solutions team at the city of Bellevue's transportation department about a about revisiting this topic of a code amendment to update the section on motorized foot scooters within the Bellevue city code. So I will aim to speak for the next about twenty minutes, and then we I would prefer, if if it's possible, to leave questions at the end.

So we are revisiting this topic after a few years now and after five years specifically. And the purpose for coming back to you today is because back in fall in October 2020, city council directed the Transportation Commission to to review this topic and see in the in the light of different micromobility options and scooters coming coming flourishing around the country. Commission was staff commission was told to work with staff to update, as needed the the city code on motorized foot scooters in Bellevue. So today, I'm going to I know it's been a few years. So, and we had a whole pandemic and lots of lots of changes in the last few years.

So today, I'm going to now that we finally have capacity to do this work again, I'll go through the background, the history of work till date, the goals for this code change, what our next steps are, and what work that we have already done, and also give you a little preview of the types of themes that we're looking at to come to you next time in April and what kind of regulations exist both in Bellevue, in the statewide, and then in neighboring jurisdictions. And then, of course, we'll leave lots of time for questions. So I wanted to first clear clear the air and and really describe what we are talking about. In the Bellevue City code, a motorized foot scooter is is defined as a device with two small wheels. And I think this part is really important.

It that with handlebars that can be stood on or sat upon, it has it can have either an internal combustion engine or an electric motor and, basically, that a device that is capable of being propelled with or without human propulsion. So I I bolded a few few key words there, but key elements to take away, handlebars, two small wear wheels, motor with or without human propulsion, and can be sat on or or be standing. This code was written back in 2005 and adopted in 2007, back when this if anyone remembers about almost fifteen, twenty years ago when these gas powered scooters were all the rage, and they were coming coming up on our streets. And so and so this code was this section of the code was really written to address the noise the nuisance that came with that, the noise community safety concerns related to this type of scooter as shown in the picture. However, we've come a long way since then, and e scooters have now or or scooters in general have taken on a completely different form, right, ranging from personal scooters all the way to shared shared scooters.

And what has happened with this current code that we have that was never updated since then is that it has functionally made scooters become not it became become unlawful to ride in most of our streets. And it's also contributed to a patchwork of laws and regulations that are confusing to the public that that differ from state where the state laws, so where the city laws differ from the state laws, and also differ from neighboring jurisdictions around here, like Kirkland, Seattle, Isqua, etcetera. So so and lastly, it you know, people ask why this this lot right now that we have, this code that we have, does preclude a a shared mobility option in the future. And so these these options have been available for years now in neighboring cities and cities around the country. And so right now, these are the goals that are implications that are leading up to this code change.

So I mentioned, the code was first adopted in 2007. But since then, we'll fast forward another ten years. In starting in 2017, 2018, different cities around the country launched shared micro mobility programs with the advent of ebikes shared ebikes and shared e scooters. So Seattle, Redmond, and cities around the country launched these these programs. For the first few years, It was a lot of change.

It was, like, a very dynamic industry. And since then, cities both cities and companies, scooter companies, have learned a lot since then in terms of best practices. Bellevue also did a pilot. We also participated in this phenomenon. We did a one year bike share shared bike share pilot with with Lime, and that lasted about a year, but it was not renewed because of this provision in our code, which, didn't allow for scooters.

So that fleet was only, only about a few 100 bicycles, ebikes, but, Lime actually wanted to expand it to scooters because there was public demand for those scooters. But because our code functionally didn't didn't allow for for riding in many places in Bellevue, they dropped out. And so there that pilot was never extended into a full program. So after looking after studying that program and looking at the results of what happened from that program in 2020, this work was was beginning. The initial work began on with trans with with you all.

Well, I don't know if any of you were on the commission back then, but, but if you remember, work did begin on updating this code, following a council directive. But, unfortunately, due to staff capacity and, you know, lots of things changing, pandemic, it didn't really move forward. And so that work was paused. And now I'm here today to resume that work many years later and now that we have more capacity to do so. The goals of this co code change, I mean, what we're thinking is obviously, I I rec I talked about aligning with state regulations and coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions.

But even above, looking more holistically than that, the number one goal of this is to ensure public safety, to make it clear to to residents and users and visitors where they can ride, who can ride, when they can ride, where they cannot ride, what the rules are, and also on the other side, in terms of enforcement, making it clear to police and enforcement and city how they can address traffic violations and traffic infractions. It's also addressing a community need. It's a real need for mobility for first mile and last mile connections, which I'll speak to a little bit later, but also communications. It this code updating this code is necessary to clear up confusion on where where these devices can be written, when they can written be written by whom and when. And and lastly, yeah, there are gaps within differences between what the Bellevue city code says versus what the state RCW says regarding scooters as well as differences in neighboring jurisdictions like Kirkland, Seattle, and Redmond.

So in case you're not familiar, I wanted to step take a step back. Sorry. I'm not sure why the screen is cut there, but it says the micro mobility landscape is rapidly rapidly evolving. And these are some pictures taken in Bellevue and of different different devices and different micromobility. Today, what we are the focus of today, I really want to emphasize is on scooters, both standing and seated.

But I want to also share and acknowledge that acknowledge that this is part scooters are part of a larger evolving micro mobility landscape, which would include ebikes and newer and newer devices like self balancing hoverboards, or if anybody has seen the one wheel electric unicycles as they're called, robot delivery vehicles. This is depending on how far you wanna go down the line, there are it's all part of the landscape of what's known as emerging mobility. But today, again, we are specifically addressing scooters.

Here's the question. If the, like, robot or device has four wheels, then that wouldn't apply because of that original definition?

Well, the definition is specifically for scooters. I'm just I'm just putting it in context.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. Yeah.

But it just it's anything that has two or less wheels. For scooters? Yes. Yeah.

And I although we don't have a shared mobility option right now, I wanted to really hone in on the fact that e scooters are already in Bellevue. As you can see from these pictures, people have them. They're available for buying in in stores and retail, and people do use them. The scooter use has been increasing since since the pandemic, although we don't have numbers on personal use in Bellevue nearby in Seattle, just in the past year, individual trips and individual riders have increased about 140% in the past year since January 2024, which shows that they're increasing in popularity. And they also and and one reason that they're doing that is because they do serve this first mile, last mile connection.

They do serve a real mobility purpose and need, which exists out there, whether you're riding to and from transit or from a cab or just taking a short trip. The Puget Sound Regional Council did an analysis and found that the majority of the average trip length was about one mile and which is about eight to twelve minutes. So an average, you know, ten minute ride, which, again, supports this real mobility need for for first mile and last mile connections. To, give you a little bit of background on where we are this year, where and where we have been this year, last month, we, we we submitted a management brief to city council, which was attached in your agenda today. So in case anybody had a chance to look at it, it delves much more into detail in much greater detail about current regulations, about my scooters, as well as micromobility devices in general.

And, today, we are here presenting on, to give an overview and introduction to this topic, and I'm going so I gave a background. I hope that you understood the motivation for this code amendment. And then next month, we'll come back to you and to ask for more feedback on the candidate code change themes. So what are the types of things that we actually would like to update within the code? If additional if the commission feels that additional time is needed or additional input or revisions are sought, then we in terms of what themes should be selected, then we have also kept some time on the June calendar as well.

This is in hopes that once the commission has come to a recommendation, it would be that the hope would be that the code change would go towards go for an ordinance adoption to city council. So today, we're not seeking direction per se, but we welcome your questions. And I'm going to give you some next, I'm going to give you a preview of some what some regulations current regulations are across the region. But before that, I also wanted to share that in terms of public outreach, we determined that for this code change phase of things specifically, an informed based approach was deemed was deemed the most appropriate. So in the next week or two, we will be launching a web page as as well as some frequently asked questions to post online too.

Since it's up here, the steps. So the sequence of this, are you looking for the code change first and then the pilot, or is the pilot going to come and inform the code change?

Well, right now, this is just about the code change. Future pilot is one idea or one possibility, but really focused on just the code change right now. And so because right now, what's out on the street are personal scooters. So this is mostly right now dealing with the personal

scooters.

So code change first and then looking at pilot, if I got it right.

Possibly. Yeah. Okay.

K. Here

is a preview of what are some key key thing themes that resonate from the code. Some things you might want to consider when when we look at this next month are who is allowed to ride a scooter, what is the age requirement, are helmets required? We heard some testimony about that earlier. When can scooters be ridden? Can they be ridden anytime?

And if so, with what kind of safety precautions? And most importantly, I think, where they can be ridden. So right now, the whole issue is scooters can only be ridden on local streets of 25 miles an hour or less and in bike lanes. But this is in direct conflict with the state code, which is or just at least differs from the state code in that the state allows scooters

to

be ridden in most areas, in most streets. This is also in alignment with two other jurisdictions. In Redmond and Seattle, scooters are allowed to be ridden in roadways, bike lanes, and trails. But in Kirkland, it's similar to Bellevue, where they can only be ridden on local streets. Another big issue that I foresee us discussing with with you all is the issue of sidewalk riding.

Should right now right now, the code the both the Bellevue City code and the state code state as a default that it's not allowed. However, on this in the state code, sidewalk riding is allowed if there is no other safe alternative. So these are similarly mirrored in neighboring jurisdictions. However, what is the difference between not allowed and not allowed except for no other safe alternatives? So I think that these are the questions we should think about.

And as we speak more with the different stakeholders in the city and and then come to you with candidate code themes code change themes, these are some things to consider. Age, helmets required, not required, when scooters can be ridden as well as where they can be ridden. And with that, again, my name is Akshali, and I hope that this has been informative. And I welcome questions.

Thank you. Other questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Ting. Sorry, I'll come back to you.

All right. Thank you for the presentation. Can you tell me how should we think about the difference between a scooter, an e scooter, and an e bike, given that the definition of an e scooter is standing or sitting, and it really is about the 10 inch wheels. So, functionally, what is the difference between someone sitting on an e scooter with 10 inch wheels versus someone sitting on an e bike with 11 inch wheels? Like, is there a difference in terms of the terrain or the safety? I mean, how do we how do we differentiate the the two modes of transportation?

I would say pedals.

Well, they may or may not have pedals. Right?

An e bike would have.

Oh, I guess you're right. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. E bike would have. So is it primarily the fact that a e scooter does not have pedals is the

Yeah. I mean, I I would say so because the difference between an e bike and a e motorcycle or motorbike is the ability to pedal. Okay. So that, you know, the class one and class two versus class three and and beyond is that ability to pedal.

Yeah. Because ultimately, what I'm trying to understand is how should we think differently about an e scooter versus an e bike? I mean, so pedals is obviously the big difference. Whether you're standing or sitting is you can sit on an e scooter. So is there a difference in terms of safety or where they can go? Or, like, why are they treated differently? You know, just the fact that an e scooter doesn't have pedals, is that the reason why they're different?

They're also smaller in size. They also are slower in speeds. In other jurisdictions around the country, e bikes are permitted at higher speeds than than e scooters. Typically, scooters are capped at around 15 miles an hour. So if you've ever ridden ridden one, the the scooters do go slower than the bikes do.

Okay. So primarily speed, they may be smaller, they may not. I mean, that's not part of the definition, but it's it's really about speed and the lack of pedals.

Yeah. I I I would say so. Our I guess I'm

just trying to understand why would we treat them different than e bikes? Like, what are the characteristics that make them different from e bikes?

Well, the I mean, in terms of the code specifically, e bikes are already covered under the code, and this has a specific a section specific to Yes. To the foot scooters, and that that's why we're

Yeah. I mean, I understand what we're hearing. I'm just trying to figure out, like, should we treat them any different than e bikes, Mig, is the question I'm asking.

Yeah. Yeah. That's that's a good thought.

So, anyways, I'll I know that there are more questions, so I'll stop here. But that's kind of my train of thought is, like, how should we think of them differently? Not just because they're not handled in code, but how are they actually different

Yeah. In the real

Commissioner Kurtz?

I know we're, you know, we're updating the scooter code, but, are we going to expand to talk about these other modes, like the the one wheels and things? This seems like an opportunity to address to address more at the same time. And do the state regulations also only apply to scooters?

The state sec the section on in the in the state code does apply to more things. However, it is pretty it's a little confusing if you ask me because it refers to one, like, ebikes and scooters and what what are called EMPDs, electric mobility device personal devices, all in the same section, and it's I reading it, you can read for yourself, but reading it, I I find it quite confusing. And it doesn't go into enough specificity, I feel like, for each one. So that's why I personally, I think it's better to focus on one. However, knowing that it might perhaps this is perhaps this is the vehicle for adding in updating the code for more items as well more devices as well.

So that's a discussion that we should have. However, I will say that the the council directive from 2020 was specifically for the motorized foot scooter section. So I'm not sure

if that

would Okay.

Require It just seems like it would be, it would be sort of a waste of an opportunity if we didn't add in the OneWheels and the other Yeah. Things at the same time since they're clearly in the same category.

Do we know of the people that ride scooters today in Bellevue, what percentage are on sidewalks?

We don't have a way to

track that test.

Well, they're personal devices.

But still, if we had survey data or observational data or anything, I didn't know if we had that kind of information yet.

We don't yet, but that is really good data to collect.

K.

However, if there is GPS I mean, there one way to do it is through survey data, and the other way to do it is if there in the future, there was ever a shared pilot. As I mentioned, a lot of changes have been happening both on the regulatory side and also in the devices themselves. There some companies have used computer vision and and to to check whether someone is writing in a in a certain area, and you can use geofencing and those kind of tools to determine that.

Okay. Go ahead.

I'm just thinking, you know, that this can get confusing for all of us. And there's a lot of parents out there with kids and buying Christmas presents Yeah. Without, like, knowing if it's 14 or taking them to the park with them. I think whatever we decide to do, there should be a very it should include a an education campaign through the schools in particular, through the school system so that people can better understand the laws, however they get decided, because it is very confusing. My son had a little scooter. He I bought him a scooter when he was eight, and it was electrically propelled. And that was in 2020. Yeah. And I came in, I'm like, oh, they're illegal? Had no idea.

Right? No idea that that was not illegal. So I just wanna say, like, whatever we decide, like, the laws are only as good as the people that understand them and think they're logical and and and fair and good to follow. So I think whatever we come up with should be something that is easy to understand that and and goes with a with a campaign. And that that to me would be also your point because regular people are gonna be like, okay. Wait. This is an ebike, and this is a scooter, and for this, I can use here, and this, I can't. If you make that too confusing, people are not gonna be able to follow our laws. Right? Because if you make laws too confusing.

So spitting it out there that it is important to consider the use overall, how, you know, parents make considerations for minors who and parent who are with their parents on how are you gonna deal with that and educate everyone about it.

Thank you.

Mister Drew?

Yeah. I saw from the management brief that staff was proposing the two actions. And so this gets back to my original question. The change in code and then also the pilot. Why wouldn't you wanna do the pilot first to get some feedback and then figure out how to change the code? Right? Has there been thought about that sequence?

Yeah. Because we would have to make them legal first. Mhmm.

You can't make them preliminarily legal.

I I don't To

try and see to see what kind of problems originate.

I think the pilot is, a commercial activity. Right? So, like Yeah. Like, Lime come in and Mhmm. And rent scooters. That's different from, like, rules about scooters in general, which kinda, like

And if I recall correctly, the we were trying to move fast because Lyme was very interested in doing this in having scooters in Bellevue, and that's disappeared, I think, somehow. So that's probably part of the reason that pressure got reduced, but that was that was back then was the reason was Lyme. We had an ebike pilot with Lyme or something that's going on. They wanted to include scooters. It was illegal to do so, so we're trying to open that avenue. But then the pandemic and the world changed. And Yeah. Thank you for

yeah. That's, I mean, precisely what happened. And regardless if we do go down that path, it would be a pilot, and it would be an evaluation period. And we would see if it works and and before see evaluating whether it should become a permanent program or not. So definitely it would, but there are steps you have to do before that.

Commissioner Ting?

So I would like to amplify Commissioner Kurz's discussion about being able to look at other types of micro mobility vehicles. I understand it might be out of scope, I think having a holistic view of how all of these things on our right of way are going to operate together, and whether they're consistent in their usage and the regulations, I think that would be really beneficial. And if nothing else, think we will have to look at how will e scooters interact with other uses on the right of way. And so we can take a look at how they might interact with other types of micromobility, that's within scope. Whether or not we're able to look at unicycles and other things that might crop up, I understand that might be a little bit more difficult.

But nonetheless, I think it's a great idea for us to have a holistic view, so we can think about what is our long term plan, you know, might be aspirational, but then also pragmatically, how do we do our next steps, and what's actually going to happen on the right of way once we make e scooters legal, if that ends up being the case. The second quick point is, I think, getting back to Chastash's question around data, it would be great if we were able to gather some of this data, and I know there have been efforts in the past with computer vision and things like that to try and gather statistics. So I guess that would just be another request if we can take if we are able to use the the the videos that we get of areas of the street that we're taking and actually be able to process them so that we can answer some of these questions without having to hire some guy to sit down in a chair and tick it off with a notepad. So again, that's out of scope, that's again something that think comes up quite often.

Yeah. Thank you. To

segue off of that, part of the data I think should be to ask pedestrians, if we don't already have it, do pedestrians feel safe in Bellevue, being pedestrians, just with walking? I've seen plenty of times pedestrians I know it's up to the bicyclists' discretion on when to get off and walk their bicycle, but as a cyclist myself, I know it's really hard to stop momentum sometimes when you have it. And I've also seen pedestrians and almost been hit several times when I've been walking on the sidewalk by a cyclist or by someone on a scooter. So to maybe just get some of that feedback from pedestrians on, Hey, you're on a sidewalk. Do you feel safe being on a sidewalk? Even if a scooter's going by at a slow or manageable speed?

Yeah, to get that baseline. I will also say, separate from this, we are doing some other education and safety related campaigns and and starting that work simultaneously as well. And if you would like more information on that, particularly sidewalks and stuff, we have some of that information too.

Go ahead. Yeah. Just gonna vote for the same thing and just to do the intercept surveys. I mean, we just saw how Chris Iverson just did that with the mobility plan, the curb management plan or whatever it's called. And so I think you have a good methodology, a good approach, and a good example, and you could apply that for a lot more. It's much intercept surveys are so much better than this online. Right? Like, I know it it's more work intensive. I understand that. But it's Well, also, when

you're, you know, in public when you're when the survey is about something in public space, what better avenue than when someone is in public space? Exactly.

So Commissioner. So

quick question. So Redmond is currently allowing these. Correct?

Yes. They have their

Kirkland also allows these?

Kirkland well, they allow it in their code, but they don't have a shared

Okay.

Program right now. They never ended up going that route, but they did do all of the code work beforehand.

Do do the city share data at all as far as, hey. This is what's worked for our program. This is these are the challenges that we faced. So that way, we can kinda maybe get ahead of

the curve a little bit

on some of these things.

I think they don't regularly, but I have been in contact with all of the regional program directors, so from Kirkland, Redmond, and and Seattle, and to understand what their process is, what their history has been. So I have established those relationships already.

Alright.

Yeah. Question. So

this is for an upcoming meeting, but I just wanna prime the topic of helmets. And I I hope that we're creating a plan that will require helmets much as we do for bikes. Yeah. And I hope that you're able to work with some of the commercial providers to figure out how that works for shared micromobility because I remember that was an issue with e bikes. You know, how do you hop in an e bike without having your own helmet with you or a shared helmet? I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but I would encourage you

a shared helmet.

And not a shared helmet. Okay. I would encourage you to try and get ahead of that question because I think it's gonna be a hard one to answer.

Yeah.

And I like I said, I hope we do make the helmets a requirement for safety.

It it actually is already a requirement

Perfect then.

In the code. Yeah. Bellevue City code does require helmets. The state does not, but Kirkland and Seattle also require.

But e scooters are currently illegal in Bellevue. But if you're on one, you have to wear a helmet.

Well, they're not illegal, but

they can they're they're very limited in where they can be ridden.

Fair

enough. So they can be ridden on local streets, just not on arterials or really most places.

Okay. Thank you.

I also wanted to ask or wanted to share one thing that came up maybe a follow-up that came up earlier. Back in 2018 when we did do the when Velvi did do the pilot with Lime with Lime bike share, we did survey users, and I believe it was 54. So 54% or just over half users indicated that they did want a scooter option, that they would like a scooter option. So that is some motivation and basis for this as well.

Okay.

Other questions? All right. Bronson is going to take over. Thank you, Akshali.

Yeah. This was really helpful to hear some preliminary input into the process. As Akshali mentioned, our task at hand is to generate some themes for your consideration, would then inform the code change targeting Summer. I know there was a lot of discussion around the differences between the form factors. I think next time we'll come back with a little bit more detail. Just while we were talking, was pulling together some information. There are some unique characteristics about scooters in terms of how well suited they are to ride in street versus not. They're a

lot

less durable. It's a lot more challenging for them to mix with vehicles than, say, an e bike. So I think there are certain considerations at play that we can bring back. We can bring back some other information on options. If the desire is to elongate this process with a lot more consultation, we can certainly do that. But I think our next step in the process is to come to you with themes in the hopes that we can get to clarity on that so that we can move forward with the code changes council directed, so as to stay within the travel lane that was provided to us.

Thank you. Yifanz, that's helpful.

Any other thoughts on this?

I know Franz has mentioned multiple times during our work on this is you can go to Costco and buy one of these, as you mentioned, you know, Christmas presents and stuff. So they're they're quite readily available on the market, even re even without a a shared rental option on in Bellevue right now.

Okay. Thank you very much for asking. Very much. Alright. Moving on to our third topic for tonight. We do have a third. Mobility implementation plan update. So Kevin well, Chris is gonna join by phone. Correct? Remote somewhere.

He is three hours ahead, so we thank him for joining us. But the tonight, we're gonna be they're gonna be reviewing the amendments related to the bicycle network and specifically to the bicycle level of stress at intersections. So this is the topic that staff will want the commission concurrence on, so on these amendments specifically. They secondly will present project concepts for intersections projected that will right now, not to meet the VOversea target. That that second item is for information only. So just know that those two are coming up. So welcome to Kevin. And if Chris is on the phone as well. Alright. Hi, Chris.

Hi, Chris. Chris is in DC.

Thank you for joining us.

Problem. Sad, I'm not there in person.

So so here's our agenda for tonight. That that the the the chair I outlined, we've got three sort of small items seeking your concurrence and then the information item. And, you know, the the the method that we've been employing with the mobility implementation plan is is to bring sort of incremental decisions to you that will eventually add up into a comprehensive and holistic holistic mobility implementation plan. So the these three items are part of that that that incremental approach to building the the MIP. Okay.

There we go. Okay. So so what I always do is is, you know, take a quick look back, at at the last meeting, which is only two weeks ago. The the commission endorsed the the staff recommendation to change the primary metric from a speed to the posted speed limit factor, which is 20% greater than the speed limit, and to act to use the actual travel speed as a prime primary supplemental component type one that helps to inform project priorities. So we we made that decision last time.

And one of the reasons we did is because we we we found out that using cell phone data isn't that accurate in terms of a small segment of a corridor trying to figure out what the travel speed is and the subsequent analysis for pedestrian level of traffic stress. And, you know, I I know that that some of the commissioners, maybe commissioner Miguel in particular, are familiar with the the Strava data. And this is my bike ride home from the night of the transportation commission on the thirteenth. Here's my route. Here's what truck Strava spit Strava said was my speed.

Now I did not have those kind of gyrations in in my speed, but that at the time the cell phone pinged, that's what I was doing. So, that's the the same outcome that we were receiving from vehicle cell phone data. And and so we've determined that, while on average, it makes sense. You know, my average was 13 miles an hour, but I was averaging you know, going sporadically 30 or five. So we're not we're not doing that anymore.

So here's the first ask, and I'm sorry about the I I don't know why it's it's misbehaving tonight in terms of our ability to see. Chris is probably seeing it better than you are, and I'm seeing it better on my screen than is projecting here. But, anyway, we have one we have a series of small asks. It it doesn't it's I've tried everything, Lariano, and it the technology is evading me tonight. Sorry.

But, anyway, we have first of our our micro questions for the commission tonight. One is to sort of make make sure that the bicycle level of traffic stress primary metric matches up with the pedestrian level of traffic stress primary metric that that you've approved, and that's looking at the the speed limit with the 20 mile per hour speed limit factor. The the the thing that changes in the bike, the LTS table is the left column. The left column used to be speed limit, and now it is the speed limit with 20% factor. So just just seeking your concurrence to change speed limit in the bike LTS table to the the speed limit factor.

And I'm I'm pausing here for comments, discussion, and concurrence.

Okay. Mr. Tang?

So I noticed that you said arterial actualestimated, and that just might be a little confusing because you're using actual and estimated in the same box. So how is the audience supposed

to handle It's estimated in that we're using the 20% speed limit factor. That's the estimate. Right.

But you're also saying actual, which for me is

That's the secondary. Chris?

Yeah. Just to I I think the chair got it. It's when we can collect actual speeds in an accurate way per sort of industry best practices. That would be ideal when we've identified a performance target gap and we wanna understand, but we don't always have that level of expense available to collect that data. So we can use the estimated speed, which is that 1.2 factor over the speed limit in as a surrogate for the the actual. If we had actual, we'd use it. Absolutely. Right.

That makes sense. I'm just saying from a wording perspective when I first looked at that. I mean, it said, you know, actual if available, otherwise, use estimated, that's what you're trying to say, but, obviously, that's quite wordy. But as long as it's it's clear somewhere in the in the chart, that's what you're trying to say.

Even just putting or actual or estimated trap, would make it a little clearer than the slash.

I mean, I think we all understand. It's just from a clarity standpoint. That was my only comment about that part. Note.

Yeah. Okay. Go ahead.

Oh, I'm I'm seeking your concurrence with that change.

Okay. So any other questions on this before concurrence? Anybody disagree with this revised change table, specifically that left column? Okay. You have concurrence.

Okay. Great. And and just FYI, on the the right side, the the this used to be physically separated bikeway, and and just the the nomenclature has changed in the four years since we did this, and now it's shared use path. That that's not a substantive change, so I'm not asking for recommendation on that one. K. Okay?

K.

Going to the next table. This is table four in the mobility implementation plan,

and

this table deals with how to treat intersections along bike network corridors. And the table is fairly prescriptive with respect to the components, the types of bike facilities that you would embed in an intersection to make sure that the bicycle level of traffic stress along a corridor is matched by the experience through an intersection. And we you know, we've been working with our staff on this and our our consultant team. And what the the staff recommendation is is to do away with this table, with this prescriptive table, and instead, refer to the, transportation design manual for the the the inventory of bike network facilities and then apply those bike network facilities in the context of each intersection to see what works best to achieve the intended outcome for bicycle level of traffic stress. So that the ask of you tonight is is to concur with the staff recommendation to remove table four from the mobility implementation plan and instead provide some narrative that describes what the intent is and the referral to the transportation design manual for the specific tools and techniques to achieve bike level of traffic stress.

So I agree that table four is prescriptive, and I can see it being very limited when it comes to design. But when you provide the explanation of using best design practices, would you be providing some of these as examples just so that people can see what can be?

Yes. And just for lack of space here, I didn't include those examples, but they were in your agenda memo. So we yes. And and we will include those in the mobility implementation plan as

well.

Perfect. Krishna or Sante?

I just have, like trying to formulate a thought. I think what's getting to me is the level of stress we decided to define it very narrow narrowly. And so how are we how is someone who looks at this going to say, oh, I can reduce the I can reduce the level of stress here by one of these if what we're if my levers are only buffers or or slowing traffic or and, like, I think that's what I'm worried about, that there there's now we've now just reduced it actually, and that the implementation is gonna be more narrowly looked at if you don't have a broader I I'm not saying you need to do that table like that, but to kinda say a broader context of how how does a bike signal improve the level of stress or or reduce or the lack of one. That's not part of our level of stress metric. And so that's what I'm trying to, you know, circle.

I

I I I am not sure I get your point, Commissioner Marcianti, but the intent is to to match the tool with the intent. You know, you wanna achieve bike level traffic stress one along a corridor and maintain that level of traffic stress through an intersection. And every intersection is different. There's there's a different number of lanes. There's different traffic volumes and cross streets and stuff. So you wanna match the tool with the the site, and that's what Yeah.

You know,

the design manual provides the tools and the engineers provide the judgment, and you match those together and and come up with the treatment for the intersection.

Let me just go back to the level of stress for

a second.

Just if you can go back

to that.

And and and maybe the next map will help because the next map shows the intended level of traffic stress on corridors and intersections.

How do we define the level of stress? Because we've defined the the level of stress narrowly. So it's not I'm I'm kinda more at the at the other end.

So back on the previous one?

Just Okay.

Okay. So we have okay. That's what I wanted to remember. So it's related to the bicycle facility component. So that's one thing that you can look at and say, okay. If I add this type of component, this is what it's going to do because this is the arterial characteristic. Sorry. That's what I was trying to work through in my head. So, essentially, the way you implement this is you are it's still pretty specific here. You already identified a lot of things

that Options. Yeah.

That it will if you if you have that's not gonna what I'm trying to say, the arterial characteristics are not likely to change. And so the only things that you can design are these bicycle facility components. That's your only lever to to move within this table. And so I'm just wondering if at some point, and I understand the table is not the the right thing to do, but, you know, you might do a great project from a buffered bike it had a buffered bike lane, but it gets a better buffered bike lane, and you haven't moved at all. I'm just kind of, like, wondering them.

Right? That's that's what I'm trying to to negotiate in my head. I agree that that's very prescriptive. But I would imagine no matter what, that's what I would imagine an engineer would do. You know, I've now I feel that our that our table is very prescriptive as well, and so I'm just struggling with that. Just you've just highlighted something that, you know, it used to be that we define it that way. Well, now we've changed the definition, but we're still using bicycle components.

Right. And I think the difference is that the table this table provides a range you know, like, the the the the the combination of arterial characteristics and bite facility components has a range. And then as you as you duly noted, sometimes maybe a buffered and a vertical is the same outcome. In this this table, we we saw that it was prescriptive. If you wanna if you want BLTS one, you you have to do these things. Those are your op those are your components that you integrate with an intersection. And we wanted to just get away from that and be more contextual and say, what what are you trying to accomplish? What tools do you have available? And Yeah. You know, apply them on

the site. And to be clear, I totally agree with that. I'm just feeling like the other one we had is the same as this one. That's where I, like, got into that challenge. Right? So I just I'm trying to figure out contextually.

Well, is is there a definition of bicycle level of traffics a level of stress for intersections, or is that just

where we we will we will be adding that to the MIP?

So Well So

a later date? Oh, Chris has got that.

Yeah. Well, maybe just I think I think maybe a little bit of what the con confusion is. There's less guidance for and this is commissioner Chris, to your question, there's a lot less guidance from the literature about what exactly to do at an intersection, and the reason is that intersections are really complicated. You cannot always put in protected curbs at an intersection. That's great if you can do so.

But based on the, you know, the skew of the streets or the way that there might be driveways adjacent to it or where a building and a signal pole has to go, that has a big effect on, like, exactly the the specific design of the intersection. And I think what the design manual is trying or what this is attempting to do is to to defer to the tool of the kit of tools in the design manual to say the intended bicycle LTS at the intersection is, let's call it, one. And Kevin's gonna show a map that we've we've gone and actually prescribed those now in a moment. The types of improvements at the intersection are in the design manual that can get you there, but what exactly to do is not as defined as it is with the facilities along the street. For example, we know that along a a very high speed road, having a a shared use path or a very a separated bicycle facility is really the only way to go to a low stress facility.

At an intersection, the guidance documents from AASHTO or NACDOR, these national guides, don't really get into that much detail because they know that it's just there's too many nuances and variants there. So we're trying to basically get this table to more in align with sort of the the best practices from national sources that basically say fit the fit the context, and there's a lot of variability that really can't be articulated very well in a singular table. And I that's really what we the objective of this is just to try to get things with where the current thinking is.

Okay. Yeah. So I I think that actually even clarifies it for me more. So the before is just for a pull corridor, and this table was just really intended to be an intersection. And so when a designer looks at the at the level of stress, there's a series of intersections and segments that they're gonna have to do different things, different kind of things to then create the the that level of stress. Right. I've Different components along the overall corridor instead of very specifically one intersection being a thing component.

Yes. Go ahead.

So are you going to show us a definition of what a BLTS looks like at an intersection? So, you know, what is the definition of a BLTS one? What is the definition of a BLTS two? I understand it's hard to be prescriptive because every intersection is different, But from I mean, otherwise, how do you know whether you're BLTS one

or two? I think we can provide some examples from best practices from the documents that Chris was describing that the National Association of City Traffic Officials has has recently published a document, and we can extract some knowledge from that for the MIP.

Yeah. My my preference would be if we're going to remove this, that we would concurrently add what the definitions of the LTS went into. It may

be more descriptions than the definitions, but I get your point. Yes. Thank you. All right. Yep.

So then I would propose, can we move concurrence to the next meeting on this topic? Because we don't know what's replacing the table. I think it's a fair point.

To bring back the right definitions and descriptions. Yeah. K. We'll we'll we'll not do a green check on this one. But I do wanna show you the next slide, which is gonna be a a kind of a mess because I can't show you it all at the same time.

But what this does, it it it shows the bicycle level of traffic stress on the bicycle network in the city, and you've already determined that there's BLTS one, two, and three on different arterial corridors in the city. So that's what this shows. And then the those are the the different colored lines. The sort of broader lines are the priority bicycle corridors. The dots are the intersections, And, you know, you can probably discern that there's different colors of dots, and those different colors of dots relate to the intended bit of bicycle level of traffic stress at those intersections.

Did you say intended?

Yes.

Like, target the the colors is the target.

The colors are the targets for for the arterioles and the intersections. Yes.

So when you have a two different levels of stress intersect streets coming in together. Mhmm. How did you decide that intersection?

The most Conserved? The least stressful.

Okay.

If if yeah. If one's if one quarter's a two and one's a one, you try to make the intersection a one.

Okay. And did you have any particular problems when you when you looked at that across the whole city and just say, oh, these whatever. These ones downtown are just too hard.

Or Well, I

don't I I don't know what problems we had, but I think the the the the map represents the work of Fare and Pierce. So I'll see if if Chris had encountered any sort of circumstances that made you go, does this work?

There were there were no specific areas that that caused us concern. And in in part because this is the intended goal, the the challenge comes back to when we look at the performance target actually on the ground and get to a project concept, that's when we would need to assess, you know, what's the what are the treatments available and what can we fit. But nothing you can get a a BLTS intersection in a downtown intersection context, that's not impossible to do, but it doesn't it it's not just something that's trivial either. So nothing specifically concerning. One one thing I did wanna just highlight here that you might notice if you're looking at this map is that we I went back and forth about how many dots should we put on here because, theoretically, there's there could be many, many dots.

We went with the dots of the bicycle network intersections, particularly where we had intersecting facilities with different levels of traffic stress to make it very clear that the less stressful route sort of takes precedence at the intersection. In other words, like, if you have a p l t or BLTS one versus a PLTS or BLTS three intersection, intersection as a whole should be a BLTS one. And that was recommendations from our engineers at the city that that's really meeting the intent. For some bicycle corridors, they cross other streets. Like, if you look at Main Street crossing 148th, we initially had laid out all the dots that would be potentially possible.

There were dots all over the place. So that intersection still is important. Obviously, it's a very busy street that Main Street would be crossing. But the intent would be a a BLTS three intersection at that location because there's no LTS target for 148, for example. So it's I just wanted to clarify that.

And and if there's a desire to put dots everywhere, we can, but it gets very dense in certain parts of the city. But where it's it's you know, there are intersections that either are not shown because it's a minor street or it's intersecting with a non bicycle network facility, it's the the the the the same pattern applies, but we just chose to try to simplify the map a little bit based on your earlier input of simpler is better. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you. Any other questions at the moment?

So what is on the screen right now? What is that what does that map?

This this is it's figure 12 from the MIP. What it does is it it it accommodates the previous commission recommendation for bicycle level of traffic stress on the arterial corridors, and it it adds the intersections. That that's what it does.

Ah, figure 12. Okay. I was looking at figure 17. And so

K. Look at figure 12. That's the LTS vision for the bike network. And I think 17 may be existing conditions or or something.

Yeah. Figure 17 is bicycle network performance 2021. Okay. And I was just looking why is that green and this one's yellow. Are we changing what's changing or what I guess, changed?

Some some roadways today exceed the, well, actually, figure 17 shows where we are we have a facility that doesn't, that exists but doesn't meet the target. Apologies on that one.

So the right. Probably the the the legend denotes different things in figure 17. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Right. So seeking concurrence Okay. To the map.

So seeking concurrence for how the intersections have been defined.

Added to the MIP. Is that what

you're saying?

The whole thing is revising the MIP? Okay. Okay.

Disagree with concurrence of this map and the identification of the intersections level of stress.

I just have one objection.

Go ahead.

Like, if we haven't seen the definitions, the of the interest, the one, two, and three, what if we decide to change that? Then the map changes. True. Just concur everything together?

Well, on on the corridor, if you did

The corridor is already

Corridor is defined. So we're trying to match the intersection with the corridor.

Oh, and they're picking the lower number of left. So if a one and a three comes together, they've identified the intersection as one.

But are you still gonna have the intersection okay. So you are definitely gonna have three. I was gonna say, what if you have two types of an intersection? Are you always gonna have three BLTS one, two, three? Just to I don't know what you're gonna do with the

Well, if

BLTS of an intersection. So

if it's a a a BLTS three corridor Yeah. And then as Chris defined, there's a number of intersections along that corridor that that may not connect with other bicycle corridors. We'll maintain BLTS three on those intersections along a BLTS three corridor. Where a BLTS three intersects with a two, the the the the target would be a BLTS two.

What does that mean?

We'll we'll we'll

Lower traffic.

We well, we will come back to you with that one for next time.

Change, but the definition will follow the best

corridor doesn't change. Right. So the the intersection will

always be give you examples for then definitions for next time.

Okay. Got it. Okay.

So with that clarification, is there any disagreement with giving concurrence to the city on this map?

To delay until we have the other concurrence.

I didn't that on. Apologies. Okay.

I personally would prefer to delay just until we have I prefer to do it almost a group concurrence

with the Of the previous concurrence and this one? Correct. I mean, they go together.

The tools go with this map.

Yeah.

The the map won't change. Right. Depending the map won't change. It's just the tools that will be applied, we'll need to define and describe better.

I think we just wanna make sure we see the map next Alright.

Cindy does not have concurrence then. Okay. Next time.

We suspect concurrence. But

We're okay. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. We will make the adjustments and bring it back on April 10.

Okay. Thank you.

Well well, do you want to have a role in approving? Okay. K. The other the other topic is related to a bicycle priority corridor in East Bellevue. This is a staff recommendation to have an alternate an alternate to the bike corridor on 164th to include the East Bellevue Greenway between Northeast 8th and Southeast 16th.

This is this is substantially implemented with, traffic calming and signage, and, an approach would be to add signage so that a bicyclist can make a choice between this l t s two route and an l t s one route. And the reason that it stops at Northeast is because North of Northeast 8th, we've we don't have a parallel local network that that commissioner Ting is always looking for, and it already has bike lanes along it up to its northern end. So we're seeking commission concurrence on providing an alternate priority bike corridor on the the map on figure eight, twelve, and 17.

And it's actually an additional, not an alternate.

It's Right. It's an it's an it's a choice people can make to stay on one sixty fourth or go to one sixty sixth.

But there will be signage and tools provided on the ground to support both networks?

Yes. Way wayfinding tools to support both networks. Okay. The one sixty fourth network, think, is already wayfinded.

K.

So we would do something on 166.

Question

thing? What was the feedback actually from the neighborhood? Did anyone object to it?

It's moving forward from a pilot to a permanent, so I believe that there's neighborhood concurrence. I haven't I haven't really followed it too much. This is a recommendation from staff who's working on the East Bellevue Greenway.

I used to live in that street, 166. It is already a complete street. It's already geo fenced, so that Ubers don't go that way. So you kinda have to tell the Uber to not follow his map. It was one of those closed off streets during the pandemic where cars were restricted. So and it's very wide. I don't know if it has the bicycle markings or

not. Don't think it does.

It doesn't have bicycle markings,

I'm but that's what you can just curious whether there's a neighborhood issue if someone says, hey, there some reason we didn't think about why this is not a good idea.

There's there's it's already a very slow like, very quiet street, but it's very wide, very flat. It also has roundabouts, the city installed roundabouts, because and so so I don't suspect it would be any issue. It's already gets biked through. Kids walk to go to school through that street a lot. So just being it's not my neighborhood anymore.

Moved two years ago, but that used to be my neighborhood, and I wouldn't foresee anyone having an issue with that. Depending on the infrastructure that you're gonna build, right, that might be but but I suspect it's not gonna need a lot because it doesn't have a lot of vehicles on it. So it wouldn't require, like, barriers and things like that, which would wouldn't go with the character of that street, and that might be an issue.

Yeah. I I believe that that staff has the intent to install additional wayfinding, as we mentioned, but maybe some other traffic calming devices along the way. And those would be done in consultation with the neighborhood. The the the the specific implementation tools would be done with neighborhood concurrence. Other questions?

So sorry. Just to be clear here. So there was there was feedback or there wasn't feedback from the neighborhood. And if there was feedback, can you just forward it along? Because I think that would be interesting.

Yeah. I can I can dig out the the the the neighborhood Greenway was was set up as a pilot? So it was it was studied and feedback was attained, and I can get you that.

Okay. But you're saying basically the feedback is fine. People no one has any objections.

Four years ago. Yeah. Okay. They did it.

Alright. You

guys go to the Lake Hills Neighbor's Association or something. You go and present. There's some meetings. It's not an official, like, council or anything, but it's just the association thing.

So Yeah.

Any other questions on this? So any disagreement with giving the city concurrence on providing this green highlighted route as an additional bike route in this part of the neighborhood?

K? You have it. Thank you.

Yep.

So the next part is is the whoops. What? It's going crazy. The next part is the information only part, so that the pressure's off to making decisions or or concurrences. We I I we introduced Chris and I introduced this to you last time.

In the environmental documentation for the comprehensive plan, 16 intersections were found to potentially not meet the the oversee performance target given the assumptions on land use and transportation. We we looked at those 16 intersections. We develop we determined that four of them would sort of be exempt from further project concept development because of environmental constraints, or we don't have the jurisdiction to work in that intersection. So then this this is the table of of the intersections that aren't that are projected to not meet the v over c. They show up as blue dots on the map.

The the the the the red dots and the yellow dots from the previous map don't show here. So these are the these are the candidate intersections. And I'll I'll turn it over to Chris now because he and his team developed project concepts for each of those intersections to see if the the volume to capacity ratio could be improved with infrastructure investments. And and Chris will walk us through what those infrastructure investments might look like at these intersections.

Yes. So, again, as Kevin noted, the scope of what we were looking at was somewhat narrow in terms of what this is maybe a a look back to how the city had been doing sort of concurrency planning previous to the the change brought about by the MIP where if a v over c issue is identified, really, only option was to widen the intersection. So that was effectively the the scope of what we were asked to do is, like, what if you if you wanted to reduce the v over c towards the target, what would you do about it? And so that's what we're gonna be going through sort of just a series of presentations here. So first intersection, we're gonna kinda be moving east to west across the city.

It's a 100 and or one twelfth Northeast, one twelfth at one sixteenth Northeast over by the hospital. So in all of these slides, we have what's existing up on the top left and what would be needed to get to the v over c ratio on the bottom right. And so what would be necessary in this particular instance is a pretty big expansion of the intersection where we would be adding dual left turn lanes on all four approaches. There'd be another left turn lane on all all legs of that intersection, and the, westbound, direction of the intersection would also be widened to one additional lane at that at the intersection, which would have to be carried across towards the, I 405 crossing. Theoretically, we could drop the lane before the bridge, but that would require further engineering study.

But the the the footprint of the intersection would be substantially larger than today, and we show it against an aerial photo just so you could see sort of how it fits in with the with the surrounding land uses. We do wanna recognize that King County Metro and the city of Bellevue along with other Kirkland and other partners are are looking at the k line rapid ride a new rapid ride line in this location, and there's some planned stops that are also being sort of considered for design at this moment. So this is helpful in that consideration, just to think through what's going on at this at this location. Next slide. The next intersection, just moving down the street, we had a v over c issue at Northeast 4th at 116th Avenue Northeast.

There's a few variants of what we could do at this intersection, but the the least impactful change would be to add a second westbound left turn lane, at the at the intersection. As you can see or if you've been to that intersection, that starts to encroach pretty closely to the existing building footings. So that that would probably be pretty difficult to actually implement. Although there may there may be space, but that's just a a note that this is a very tight location. Next slide.

Moving down to 116th at Southeast 1st Street, sort of the the hill that comes down from the Botanic Garden. This one's a a simpler and more straightforward improvement. We can just rechange some of the striping and signal operations to get this intersection to to meet the v overseas target in that 2044 comp plan forecast. Next. The next intersection we're looking at Southeast 8th at 140th.

This is also where Lake Hills Connector and Southeast 8th kinda meet up at the top of the the bluff there. In this instance, to to meet the the oversee targets, the the least impactful way, which is, again, how we always approach this, would be to add a second a dual northbound left turn lane at that location. There's some houses on on both sides, but there may be some right of way or there's not right of way, but there there may be some space there that that could accommodate that without necessarily removing those homes, but that would need further study. This is another k line location where there's bus stops planned at this intersection. Next slide.

Southeast 36th at one forty second. So this is the the the flyover ramp, if you will, that goes to the Eastgate Park And Ride just to the north. This intersection to accommodate the v over c target would require an additional southbound separating what's now a shared lane that you can go left or right out of. It would require a separate southbound right turn lane to allow that intersection to meet the v over c target at that location. Next slide.

Northeast 20th, so moving over to Overlake at 148th Avenue. Not surprisingly, 148th has a lot of regional demand in the future as it as it does today. So we're really sort of watching how does that growth in traffic on 148 affect traffic operations. So at Northeast 20th, I think we we had mentioned last time that we well, a lot of the demand growth is on 148. If we widen that road, it just pulls in more traffic and really doesn't solve the problem.

So you'll note that some of our solutions really are on some of the cross streets. So in this case, that's true. If we add dual left turn lanes at Northeast 20th, that allows a little bit more time to be allocated to 148th when the signal is running because those left turn phases can be shorter. So that would get us to the the v over c target in that location. Next slide.

Just the next intersection down the street, Bell Red at 1 48th. In this location, Bell Red Road's very tight in terms of its dimensions. So the the least impactful approach that we had seen to address the V oversee issue here was to add a second northbound left turn lane at this location that does impact the properties, either the the park property on the the east or the the bank and getting close to those townhomes on the on the east side. Excuse me. So that's but it's a relatively otherwise, the rest of the intersection stays the same.

Next slide. Going down the street, Northeast 8th at 148th. This intersection has a TFP project identified to add dual left turn lanes in all directions. Today, it's just a single left turn lane in in each direction, so this would add a new lane in all directions on all approaches. That would not meet the v over c target in the future.

There's still too much demand at this intersection. We looked at what else you could do at this location. The only way to really meet the v over c target would be to do something pretty drastic, like either moving the left turns to another location or separating grade separating one of the movements. Really impactful at this location. So we really did not find a feasible solution at this.

We we think that the TFP project is still worthwhile of consideration given the concerns of traffic congestion at this location. But trying to meet the v over c target in 2044 right now seems difficult to to look for more capacity solutions, so so noncapacity solutions might might be needed here. Next slide. Main Street at 148th. A a similar story.

The TFP project or the TFP currently has a project to add a westbound right turn lane at this intersection just to allow the the Main Street traffic a little bit more freedom of movement. That does not solve the issue. We also looked at adding well, what if we we added an eastbound right turn lane at Main Street as well? That doesn't that doesn't address the issue. The demand on on Main Street or, excuse me, 148.

This is is very high at this location. So it would require sim something similar to to Northeast States, a a pretty dramatic capital investment. It has a lot of impacts. So we don't think that anything beyond the current TFP project identified should be recommended at this location, and there would be an acknowledgment that the the V oversee at this location during the PMP period would be would be still exceeding standard or exceeding the the target. But fixing it is not really something that's in the range of what a typical TFP project would be. So next.

Can we pause it as this one first? Chris, just a question. Like, that one in particular is when I used to travel a lot because the high school is just down the street, and the kids come over to Starbucks to to so there's a lot of kids that cross the street and walk it all the time. There's also a trail to go to the middle school. Right? So there's a lot of pedestrian traffic. Are you looking at I mean, we the the overseas is gonna get bad. Traffic is gonna get worse. Are we also considering what we're gonna do for pedestrians in 2044 and how we're improving that at the same time. Are we really considering the multimodal challenges of these intersections and how to address them?

Even when we can't mitigate traffic, we need to do something for pedestrian safety. The bicycle lane, that's really narrow on Main Street, and you have kids biking to school with, like, so many cars with more volume of cars. So so I appreciate the analysis that you're doing here in terms of the the the traffic, but what what are do you oversee? But what are we doing to consider the multimodal nature of these intersections?

Well, it's it's a it's a good question. With the pedestrian level of traffic stress performance metrics now defined, and also with bicycle level of of traffic stress previously defined, just as an example, this does not meet the bicycle level of traffic stress performance met target of BLTS three at this location given the the speeds and volumes. And it's I we I haven't looked at the details, but I do not believe this meets the the pedestrian level of traffic stress on stretches of Main Street. Parts of it do. Parts of it don't.

But it's a good point that those are going to be it's already flagged as not meeting the the target for BLTS. It's not meeting the target for v oversee. It may or may not meet the target for PLTS. So it's it's the MIP is identifying that this intersection needs remediation. There's a there's a bit of a fix for v over c.

If the v over c issue is is sort of handled through widening, there's a you might recall that whenever we widen the intersection, there's a provision that, in the MIP that identifies that look to if you're widening the crossing, which degrades the pedestrian experience, for example, in bicycles, if you're having to walk your bicycle cross, you need to look at how do you sort of enhance the crossings, the corners to improve the safety and overall comfort at that location. So I think the answer is yes. This this intersection lights up all over the place, and it's going to need some attention. And the the MIP is calling eyes to this location. And one other just side note, there's a MIP project just to the south here that would provide a new access to the shopping center to take some of the the pressure off of this intersection, and it comes in two flavors.

It provides an additional pedestrian crossing, which is important because that's a desire line, but it also provides a vehicle access point to take some traffic away. It doesn't fix the problems here, but that's a that's an example of a companion TFP project that's also being from a built designed from a multimodal perspective. So the next one, moving south again on 1 48th is Southeast 16th at 1 48th. This one is a quote, unquote, simpler project where if we can add a southbound right turn lane to this location, we can meet the the v oversee target. This is more of the scale of what has been historically been accommodated within the TFP.

So, again, something to consider as time moves forward and this intersection might actually approach. Right now, it's it's meets the v over c target. But, again, we're looking further into the future, and this is just to provide a a a library of potential ideas to consider in the future. Next slide. So in our fun little layout tool that we had for all the other intersections, this one flummoxed the the the tool.

We didn't use a complicated thing like CAD, and this intersection is kinda kinda weird. So it went with my my very sophisticated PowerPoint markup. 1 12th at Bellevue Way. In this instance, to meet the v over c target, we would need an additional southbound lane on Bellevue Way to to accommodate that. This could very well tie into the TFP project to add the HOV lane, and it would it would need to extend back to 108th Street, which was previously contemplated in that that prior TFP project that sort of affirms that maybe if you're gonna do that, you might wanna consider extending that another a little bit further to the north.

And I believe that covers them. Yes.

Chris, there was one conclusion that I missed. At the, Southeast 4th 1 16th Intersection, you said that it was already a constrained intersection, but I missed what was the solution that you were thinking of.

Yeah. So, yeah, Northeast 4th and 1 16th. It's a adding a dual westbound left turn lane at that location. That would need it's not necessarily infeasible off the bat, but it would need some engineering study to see how does that interact with the building frontages, sidewalks, etcetera that are that are there today.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So Other questions? Yeah.

And I'm just have a question about process of how this would work. Right? These are projects that we need to have in place by 2044 so that we can meet the targets of 2044. Right? That's the idea? Is that

It it's it's kind of the idea. Mhmm. The the idea kind of stepping back, If all of the assumptions occur with land use and transportation in 2044, the projection is that these intersections would not meet the V oversee. And this is a concept. These are concepts that you could implement if that projection were actually be implement be be realized. The the nice thing between now and 2044 is that we will have several iterations of the TFP.

Well and wait. But don't don't get that's what I'm trying to just make sure I it's very clear. So we now have this study analysis. Right? We we I'm just trying to make sure I understand how the MIP works. Right? So if we had a gap, now we've created a project concept. Now it goes does it go directly into the TFP list, or does it go into into the the TIP? Or, like, what happens with that project now?

Ne neither of those look. Chris Chris Chris, I think, mentioned it.

It'll go on

the TIP?

It it's it's a sort of a library, and then Christy's t I p may be that library. We hadn't actually talked about where it would live.

That's where all the gaps that we've been looking at right now.

Right. Okay.

So there you go. See it in the

2026 t I p.

This is how a project gets done. I'm kinda doing the school of rock. And then it so it goes into the TIP. It starts to get considered. It starts to get elevated. At some point, it makes it from the TIP to the TFP since it's sometimes nebulous, but that it gets there. Then the TFP prioritizes it, gets funding allocated, and gets to the CIP where it would get built. Right? I'm just, like, trying to track it.

In general.

Yes. Terms. Okay. So the question that I have is when you have an intersection that has multiple potential projects, some of them are pedestrians, some of them bicycle, some of them are intersection level, are we going to treat that as one project, two projects? Are you gonna start to, at some point, maybe phase that because you have an existing project that you're doing? Is it so we have layers of projects on the same geography. Some of them are modal. Some of them are by time. Right? You might be doing an improvement in this CIP and then this prod, then might be another different improvement, set signal timing or something.

Right? So I'm just trying to understand how do we see this set, and how do they then get integrated and evaluated and assessed through that process that we're doing? Because once we kinda bucket it into a project, then it becomes a list. But if it's on top of each other in a geography and it could be phased and it could, like, work together, When when does this start to come together as an intersection project, or does it ever? Or do do they always stay apart?

I think at some point, it would it would have to consider the modes that are involved and the look at the performance targets in the MIP. Remember, the MIP is a layered network, so it has to consider all the modes when you're doing a project.

So When when is that?

I mean, I can say for the TFP, we wouldn't be having parallel projects. Oh, here's a bike project at this location. Here's a vehicle project at this location.

So you gather all

that already. I mean, they may live separately in yeah. Yeah. I don't know. But but for in the when it comes to TFP, we would consider the full set of, you know, units.

So I have confidence. I'm just trying to make sure I understand. So I have confidence that TFP two forty four, right here, whatever it is, I don't know which one it is, incorporates all types of improvements that are gonna happen at that intersection. Then we might not do you have any of like, theoretically, is there any CIP project that layers on top of a TFP project just from timing? Like, you did this in the CIP, and then twelve years from now, you're gonna now add another lane. Right? Like, how do they layer over time? If you're telling me that there's only one project and I don't know if that's, like, accurate because some of them are bicycle, and they kinda do layer on top. But

Normally, if we go into a location, we're gonna try to fix whatever we think we need to do.

Yeah. You you would group them.

There may be scenarios where we would do a phasing where, oh, this is an interim improvement.

A bunch of projects.

I'll think immediately of an example, but I I can imagine there are have been where we understand, oh, we're doing something now because the need is there, and this is what we can afford. And we know that, you know, fifteen years from now, we're gonna need to do more.

Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. There's some like, at some point, also, it comes into talking about the bundling of projects, right, like for other reasons, right, like cost or timing, etcetera. And so how are you assessing that? Maybe that's just something that needs to happen at the CAP. Right? What are we gonna bundle? But I think that and maybe that happens every time you do a CIP, making sure that if you've identified a new need on a on a project that is currently on the CIP, does it fast track it?

Let's not wait till twelve years. Right? Do we are we able to adjust? And sometimes you can't because of the budget. That's the part that has always challenged me about the process that we have, the lists, right, and the ability to conceptualize, like, you're talking about the overall network, right, and how it all comes together.

And the more we do this multimodal effort, the more challenging it's it gets, right, now of of, like, having these multi very comprehensive multimodal solutions stacked upon each other. And so I think that's worth thinking about of how to even modernize the managing of the TIP, the TFP, etcetera, to better to provide better information even to the staff as you move forward and make sure that you're integrating things early enough, cost estimates, etcetera. Right? Like, it's just I mean, I've been here for eight years. It's becoming more complex.

It used to look a lot simpler than this, interestingly enough. So I think I just wanted to, like, bring that together because it is a challenge.

One note, I know we're short on time, but I think where the the MIP is actually really showing its stripes is that, you know, having worked with the the city on a couple of examples of where let's say that TFP project at Main Street comes up at $1.48. Because the MIP defines that the target bicycle level of traffic stress is three, the pedestrian level of traffic stress is two in that location, And there's this TFP project that it's now clear to the design engineers that, oh, we have to consider that full suite of improvements as opposed to, well, it used to have a six foot attached sidewalk. Let's just put that back in kind. Or same for a development project. The the MIP defines what all the modal expectations are at a given location, and then that allows the the designers both at the city and and if there's a private entity to consider, well, how would how do we accommodate all those pieces so that the project becomes truly multimodal where where in the past, that was not as explicit.

The MIP does define exactly what the expectation is. How you engineer it is always up to, you know, a bit of judgment because it's that that's required. But I think that's when those projects come in, I don't we don't need another project because the MIP will will kinda force the issue on on the when you go from project concept to design to to consider those other elements. We're seeing that in practice now. It's which is, I think, a big accomplishment.

And what point is that? Is that are you already in the CIP? What level of design? Like, are are you talking about CIP projects that are getting designed, or are you talking about I just I just don't know how far behind we are, right, in terms of when are we gonna start considering. Projects that are under construction are not considered the MIP because it wasn't designed. Right? So I'm just trying to understand how how long it's gonna take till all the projects that we build really consider the MIP.

Well, from where I've seen it, it's really any project that's in the design phases now that's not at, you know, far along in that process is is considering It's

just fine.

That that the MIP today. So it's even preliminary design phases of things that are now needing to consider those those elements, at least that from what I've seen. I'm not involved in all the Citi's projects. But from the handful that I've seen, it's they're they're very thoughtful about that.

I'm gonna interrupt any disagreement with extending the meeting ten minutes.

Yes. I'm gonna dig out myself.

Okay. We'll still have quorum, but we'll try to even get done before you leave. Okay. I think we're done with this topic.

We're done with that topic. I just just for your reference, here's the the calendar for the MIP. I'll see you in April for pitbills.

We're not done. Oh, we're not done. Alright. Do want well, unless it have him finish his thought at least and then

K.

We're this is the calendar. So we'll we'll keep on our cadence with with meeting on the MIP each commission meeting.

Okay. Alright. And, KrishnaKurtz?

I just had a quick question. On any of these intersections, are roundabouts, like, part of the possibilities? Do they not have enough space?

Or Space. Question for Chris.

Volume. Yeah.

So we in general, there's it is a space constraint. I think it's fair to to weigh that question again. But many of these are very high volume intersections that roundabout would be very challenging to fit in there without effectively taking out the corners on all cases. Roundabouts are great solutions, but they're not always able to fit in the the urban context that we have in the city.

So for the four projects that are not in this deck, who is ultimately responsible for making sure that they're addressed?

Are you talking about the ones that aren't in our jurisdiction or that have environmental constraints that we're Yes. Not dealing with? Yeah. Well, the environmental the one with the environmental constraints is not a project concept moving forward because it's it's it's constrained. Right.

And we it is what it is. It's it's kind of the ultimate build of that location. We we work with the state on their, design. It's it's it's their their their jurisdiction, their projects, but there is staff on the transportation department side that works very closely with the state. And I can give you a for instance, real quick, the the intersection of Northup Way and 124th where the idea is to, like, have on ramps to and from the east on 520.

We work very closely with them to make sure that Northup Way has the the LTS two bike network facilities along it as part of the design concept for their intersection. So that they they will build it, but we tell them what what components need to be part of that project.

Okay. So, ultimately, we're the we're the butt on the line to make sure that We we we take a look at those VRC numbers and make sure the right thing happens. And even if we can't modify an intersection, there might be network effects that we could do to try and mitigate the issues at that particular intersection. So I assume we look at these types of solutions too. Okay. Was there another question before I go real quick?

I we already have him. Yep.

Okay. And then how does this data like, the cost of all of this surely, it some estimate goes into the TIP, what's the process in which this gets sort of put back into the staff machinery? So for example, looking at the planning staff and the planning commission, do they get some sort of update on how the 2,044 FEIS, the preferred alternative, nets out in terms

of transportation infrastructure costs? No. They do not get involved in the decisions that are really with this body and the transportation staff. Moving forward, as projects move forward from MIP prioritization to TFP identification and cost estimates, these these, we we did sort of dollar sign estimates, one to four dollar signs. You know? That it hasn't been engineered specifically enough to know how much they will cost. But as they move through the process that that commissioner Marciante was describing, we'll get more and more precise on cost estimates.

I think so my feedback would be I think it would be great for the the planning side of the house, planning commission, planning staff, to have an understanding of the infrastructure downstream costs from the decisions that they make when they create land use policy. Just so they have an idea of, like, this is kind of what I'm signing up for. Otherwise, I think they're making a set of decisions without having full data. And certainly, if I were in their shoes, I'd like to understand what are the costs and implications and what are the outcomes of the decisions that I'm making. I know that's hard, but I think that would lead to better outcomes.

Oh, okay. I I I do take take that, and I I just will respond real quickly that these performance outcomes are based on assumptions. We we have we we need to kind of monitor land use and and transportation and see how they work together over the years, and and respond with more precise lead designed, and cost estimated project concepts to address the emerging issues. These are forecast hypothetical issues that don't really have a cost estimate associated with them.

I understand. I just wanted to to make the point. I know it's hard.

Okay. I believe we're done with this topic. Yes. Yes. Yes. So we

have to get to the good stuff.