Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

It says recording at the top, so I think we're good. Okay. Let's roll it.

Alright. Well, nice to see everybody. Oh, chair. My microphone's not on.

Oh,

wait. This is me. We get all slide down. Okay. Share. Okay. That's fine. Welcome, everybody. We have a full commission, which is really nice tonight, and we have a loud loud crowd. Welcome to the February 13. Am I echoing too much, or is it okay?

Okay.

Transportation commission meeting. Everybody's here. So tonight, we are not actually hybrid. First thing to do is to call to order. Vice chair Miguel? Here. Commissioner Keilman? Here. Commissioner Kurtz? Here. Commissioner Morseanti? Here. Commissioner Rupun? Here. And commissioner Ting?

Here.

We are all here. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda that's all in front of you?

So moved.

Is there a second? I'll second.

Any disagreements to the current agenda? Alright. We have an agenda. Moving on to item number three, oral and written communications. Kevin has been great about forwarding to us all of the written communications that we've had, recently. Is there any questions on that of what we've we've received?

Go ahead.

I do have a question. And I know that time is limited. And and, Kevin, you do such a great job of trying to respond to all of the emails, but I'm wondering if there's a way to designate maybe the first fifteen or twenty minutes to just make sure that those emails are responded to or at least that they're gonna be addressed in one of the other agenda items.

The the emails that you've received are pertinent to the agenda items that are being discussed tonight, so the the the comments will be will be embedded in the conversation.

Perfect. Okay. Let's move on to oral communications. Sticking with our bylaws, all oral communications have a three minute limit per person. We will go through those that have signed up first and then people in the room as well. So, Kevin, how many people do we have on the list tonight for oral?

I have two people signed up today, starting with with Alex Zimmerman followed by Maria Frost.

Okay. Perfect. So, Alex, come on up. Welcome.

My dirty damn Nazi freaking bandit. Yes. My name, Alex Zimmerman. Guys, he don't have agenda. They will talk me something about 25 transportation. Yeah. I can spoke about transportation everywhere, include consul chamber. But mayor Robinson, always interrupt me. Don't give me a chance to speak. She's acting like I call this stupid, dirty, crazy female dog. She interrupt me in every meeting. No. I understand. It's competition. For position six.

Yep. Two election. Yep. So, guys, you don't have illusions, so you're nice people. You are. Is this not my approval right now? This is approving by Trump and Marx Marx, Alan Marx. These two people approve right now. So all Democrat, and you all Democrat. You all Bandita. You understand? You stealing people money. This not only happen in Washington DC. This happened here because I lived this for forty years in talking about this. So I want what is you understand who you are. Yeah. Because you come here feeling nice. You know what is mean? Care about your personal life. Yeah.

But you all. But, generous consul, he's not only. He's a mafia boss. It's a problem. What is we have? So you need to understand, guys. So you, by definition, criminal. Because in my eyes, you know what this mean? You're stealing a million and million dollars from Bellevue people. Destroy us life. You acting like organized criminal, like a mafia, like Bandito, and I'm very happy. So see, I support Trump from beginning, you know, for ten year in every my election. So right now, it's not matter who you are, Sinking, who you are, good people, bad people, you are denied Bandito. You're stealing money. You need to understand this.

I spoke with you about this many time. I give you example what is Seattle, for example, doing good with the the ticket right now. So poor people pay only 15 percentage like me. You know what is mean here. I have from Bellevue Police Department 18 ticket for one practically year. All judges are proof, so I am guilty. All of it. Like a dozen judges. Pre pro temps. It's not the judges. Human garbage here, like all attorneys. So, guys, you need to understand what's going on right now. So when you are decent people, you want something change, you need to move out from this place. I never seen like this before, so somebody move out from this place because it's good for your personal interest. Or yeah.

I understand. So we were Trump. We have a new American revolution. Guys, you need to understand. You are real bandeeter. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll move on to the next one. So Maria will get you on the speaker here. Okay. You should be good.

Okay. Chair Stash commissioners, my name is Maria Frost. I'm the transportation director at Kemper Development Company. Thank you so much for your continued work on the transportation facilities plan. I realize this evening's conversation is informational, and so mostly look forward to better understanding the MIP scoring system and how it relates to project benefits and the updated TFP list.

As you move forward in the process, please consider prioritizing projects in the TFP that would address the performance gaps identified under the 2044 growth alternative in the comprehensive plan update. Projects that would improve roadway performance gaps may receive a low score under the MIP but would address multiple significant intersection deficiencies that impact all users of our roadway system, including drivers, transit, and freight. These are projects that should be treated with more urgency than their MIP score suggests. We submitted additional comments in writing regarding TFP projects we'd like to see elevated or removed and look forward to learning more during tonight's discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else in the room who would like to speak? Anybody else online? Kevin, do you see anybody? I'm sorry? Yeah. If anybody online would like to speak, please raise your hand. We will look for your hand. No hands. Okay. We're not seeing anything, so thank you, everybody. Let's move on to agenda item number four, please. And this is communication from city council boards and commissions. Tonight, we have council member Newhouse with us, and so he will give us an update first. So welcome.

Thank you. As the Bandita and official mafia boss of the Transportation Commission, it's an honor to say a few words this evening. Just so for the public who, because I'm sure everyone in the commission's aware of that we've got two open houses upcoming. If I understand those are still on the books to happen for the TFP and MIP. Is that correct? Are those still happening? Great. Crossroads Mall Community Table on Tuesday, February 25 at 11AM in here at Bellevue City Hall on Wednesday, February 26 from five to 06:30. So encourage the, public to come down to give us feedback on that. I wanted to update the commission as well on, the rapid ride, k route, which we've been getting updates.

And the last updates we had was, last night. Got a great presentation from staff in King County Metro on the progress there. This is a service plan for 2030. We're looking at the preferred route right now. This is something that is gonna provide fast, reliable, consistent transit from Totem Lake in Kirkland to the Eastgate Park And Ride with stops at some key hubs such as, Bellevue College and Downtown, Bellevue.

So Metro updated us, about the route alignment, the proposed project that'll help improve that speed and that reliability, which is really key for, for this service, and the Metro's goal for the Kalin to reduce travel time by for passengers by 25% compared to local bus routes. We're also looking at, using the the bat lanes, not just for this, k line, but also to have, employer shuttles be able to use it as well to get in and out of the city. Now this is a little bit challenging. Metro's open to it, at least having the conversations, but it's actually we have to change the state law as well. However, we just happen to have someone who's out of the legislature right now and actually dropped a bill today to allow employer shuttles to use, Batlane.

So so that's a good first step. So not something that we even had on our ledge agenda as a council, but we've added it now. And, we're looking for council members on to hopefully get this over the finish line for us. But that's part one. The other part is still working, through Metro as they have some concerns that we need to work through.

But, still, it's a great, it's it's a great, progress as we work towards that. And, personally, I'd love to see both employer shuttles as well as autonomous shuttles that have been tested and currently being used around different parts of the country, but we're not doing it here. But as an innovation hub, I'd love it for for us to start experimenting with that as well. And just a note since it was snowing a little bit as we came into city Hall today, and you're right. It's so great to see all of us here as a commission.

I think it's the first time since I've been the liaison. We've got our our fleet ready to go. We've got all 15, snow, equipment trucks and the and the plow sanders that have all the, adequate sand and, de icer material in stock right now. So they are ready to go if if if needed. They're probably doing some some prep work already just in case, we do get the freezing rain or the snow tonight.

So, they will be staffing that twenty four seven until we've gotten through this next snow period here. So wanted to mention that as well. They've done such a great job as they always do every year, tackling these, these winter, weather conditions. So, hopefully, it'll pass pretty quickly. I think it's gonna warm up this weekend, weekend, so it might be just one evening that and and morning, hopefully, after dealing with this. But, still, we're prepared for it if it does get bad. So, anyways, that's my update. Thank you.

Great.

Yes.

Council member Newnhams reminded me that we're all here and that I'm supposed to take a picture, and we're all here. So if I can interrupt the agenda for just a second.

You wanna take it now?

Yep. Is that alright? Yep.

Do you want us stay where where we are?

Sure.

Okay. You could be in it.

Yourself one.

Ready. Okay. Thank you.

Excellent. Alright. Are there any reports from commissioners tonight? No? Okay. Staff reports. Kevin, do we have anything for us tonight? Nope. Okay. No public hearing tonight, which means we get right into the meat of the meeting, our study sessions.

So you'll notice tonight, we have three study sessions on our agenda. It's pretty full agenda. We will try to keep to thirty minutes to each, but, clearly, if people need clarity, let's, you know, try to get resolved what we can tonight. If we need to, if there's some topic that gets that we really need to kinda get in the weeds on, we can always do a an after this meeting one on one, two on one type meeting. So know that that's a a possibility for clarification.

So of the three topics tonight, the first one in the TIP, we will be asked to work with Christie and to agree to a public hearing date. So that is a a decision for tonight. The second topic, the TFP is a FYI, no action needed topic for tonight. And then the third one, the MIP, there is an action asked for tonight, and that is concurrence with the PLTS matrix and then the map of future state, what level of stress do we want on our Bellevue Streets. It was in the in the meeting agenda, the colored map that you guys saw. So those are our three study sessions for tonight, and we can launch right into the TIP. See Christy is ready to go.

Not quite ready to go.

Almost quite ready to. Alright. Getting close.

I keep missing.

String along. Anybody know

I'm missing Kevin's prompt to be a panelist, so pardon me on that one.

That's alright. That's alright.

I am in now. Yes. Am I am. Since I'm sitting up here with you guys for a while, I need to plug in or we will lose all of our presentation. So

oh, the only thing I didn't bring, think, is my glasses. So perfect.

Oh, wait. We did. Yay. And just a quick side note, our our snow, our streets in signals group started at 04:00 this afternoon to start going around the different parts of the city. That happens to be another one of my roles as emergency management for the department. So I thought I'd just pop that in there.

So what are they actually doing?

So they have they have routes that they have, you know, primary, secondary, tertiary for both arterials and for neighborhoods. And so they'll hit all of the arterials. They'll go to the hills, Maybe you noticed on your way here early this afternoon that it was turning white in the hills already. So they go out and they try and pretreat before things happen so that it makes it easier, but they will stay twenty four seven until we decide to stand down, and we do hope it's not all weekend because I just had a few days off since the last time that they had to that they had to do it. So There's always a pause.

There's always

there's always a pause. I'm like alright.

So for my first thing that I'm here with you this evening to talk about is the update to the Transportation Improvement Program Plan. So another one of fancy acronyms, like to call this one the TIP. So the update this year is for 2026 to 2031. So just for a little bit of background for you, especially Commissioner Keelman, this is your first time through. I believe all the rest of you have been through this multiple times for some of you because this is something that I come here annually to share with you.

This is mandated for an annual update. I'm going to show you how it actually relates to all of the other planning processes that we do. I'll go through the sections of the TIP that were outlined in your memo. We'll be talking about the changes to the current twenty twenty five-two thousand thirty Transportation Improvement Program Plan. Again, that was outlined in your memo.

I am asking for an action tonight to approve a proposed date for a public hearing in April and then we'll move forward with that. So to kind of give you a little bit of background about how the TIP actually works and hopefully this is somewhat of a typical planning process flow chart that you guys are used to seeing, where we start with our comprehensive plan, that long range outlook. We have our long range facility plans, our functional plans that we have that all go down into that mobility implementation plan that you're going hear about again tonight. As you can see there, those projects help prioritize down into the Transportation Facilities Plan, which we're working on right now. That then goes into our Capital Improvement Program, which is now a six year program, to where the projects in that plan get funded for implementation.

What we do with the Transportation Improvement Plan, one of the unique things about it is it is not revenue constrained. When we have all of the dollars situated from both the latest capital improvement program update and from our TFP numbers, you'll see it's billions of dollars. But these are all of the projects that we would like to do, that we know we would want to do if we had the money and resources in the six year period. So we update this every single year. Just for a reminder and for new knowledge, a few years ago we actually took the projects that were in the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive transportation project list.

We pulled them out of the comprehensive plan and put them into the tip specifically into the blue section of the tip because those are projects that have been vetted through other other plans, other studies, other initiatives that give us information from a project description to a cost for them. And that's where they are all housed until they are considered candidates for the Transportation Facilities Plan and then hopefully ultimately into the Capital Improvement Plan. So the other things that you see in that plan: again, other program initiatives. We also include other regional or outside agency led projects which we might want to participate in. So if you look at the purple section, which is section four in the plan, it is all different kinds of regional projects.

It has all of the freeways on there, and housing and transit on there, things like that that we might wish to be a part of. And so we put a dollar amount in there for those as well. So once we get this transportation improvement plan all done, what do we do with it? Well, we actually submit it to both PSRC and WSDOT to be in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and into the state's improvement program plan called the STIP. The reason why is it also allows us to be able to be eligible for grants.

So when we're filling out those grant applications to try and get those dollars to help us build these projects, one of the things that's listed is Is it in your Transportation Improvement Program? We can go ahead and check that good old box that says yes, that we do have that. And again, this is something that we do annually, so that we're continually looking at it, adding things, removing things that are done, or that have been superseded by other things as well. And this is where they get there is a mandated timeline it has to be in to both of these organizations by the June. So that's why we started in February and we try and get it through so that we are all the way done through Council in May and have plenty of time to get all of the formatting done for the final product in June to both Puget Sound Regional Council and to Washtenaw.

So again, these were outlined in your memo so I'm not necessarily as I go through the next slide going to explain everything to you, but they're color coded. So there are four sections to the transportation improvement program plan. Section one includes the projects that are in the adopted capital improvement program. That was a new change from last year. The twenty twenty five-two thousand thirty technically was a capital investment program, so I'll go ahead and give myself a half check for that.

Section two have the projects that are in the current 2022 to 2023 transportation facilities plan. So just the current, not anything that we're talking about right now with the update, but just the adopted plan itself. Section three has all of those unfunded local projects other things are identified including those TFP candidates. Section five four again has those regional and outside agency projects. So as we're going through and making changes to the sections, seeing what we were going to be adding, things we're going to be removing, things that might even transfer sections, this was detailed out in your memo and these are the changes, for the project list.

So in section number one, we did have six new projects. Five of them were brand new capital improvement projects that went into the CIP. One is a brand new sub project for one of the ongoing programs. We have 13 projects that are being removed, including seven of those happen to be from sub projects out of the ongoing programs that were finished. These projects were either finished or had been moved to other sections.

We have three that are transferring sections because portions that had been funded in the capital plan were finished, but there's more to do. So we still need to put those back into other sections. Section two, which is the TFP section, we have two projects that were removed. The reason why they were removed was because they have actually been superseded into a CIP project. Otherwise, any of the ones that we're recommending for removal right now in the TFP process we're doing are still on this list because this is still our adopted plan.

And then we have seven projects in this area that are transferring and they're transferring to the capital plan because they actually were capital projects. And then Section three, you can see that is our big one. We have 34 new projects. The majority of those are transportation facilities plan update candidates. And then we have three projects that are actually transferring sections in that they actually much jumped the queue and went all the way to the Capital Plan.

And we do not have any changes right now at this time for the Regional Section. We checked with our Regional Policy Advisor and she thought that the things that we had listed in there that they still make sense and that it's still quite current. So again, tonight, we're really here to ask if you can approve a public hearing date of April 10 to be able to come back. In between that time, what will be happening is a confirmation of new project descriptions and our capital plan. Also, dollars that went into the capital plan, including any of the grant kind of money that we got and things like that, Along with some of the projects in our Transportation Facilities Plan candidate list that you'll see on your list don't have a cost right now because they happen to be some of our new gaps and we're kind of working on what are those costs going to be that we would bring forward.

Again, a thing to remember about this plan: it's not revenue constrained, so anything and everything can go in as long as it has been vetted at some sort of period of time. So I do have and I did have in the schedule that I potentially could come back in March if you really needed me to come back and explain the list to you or go through things anymore. But if not, if we want to go ahead and jump to April, what we'll bring forward is the complete draft plan. We'll open a public hearing for that, let the public be able to make comments on it, and move from move from there for a recommendation to the city council. So just kind of looking at what the rest of the process of the timeline is, is really just looking at the list as was sent to you.

Again, making any changes before April. I'm happy to come back in March if we need to go through those. Come back in April for that mandated public hearing, be able to finish up the list itself and go on to council and get this submitted by June. So what I'm looking for is a recommendation to be able to have that public hearing. K. Go ahead.

Can you go back to the flowchart? Because now that we have the implementation plan in there, and I've seen it before and with So I think this is the obviously, the tip is really important because it's every concept that we have ever considered a solution and that we think should be a solution. And so it come I was thinking back on our last conversation, where do projects come from? Right? We have the needs that that's the gaps that the mobility implementation plan. In the past, our projects mostly came from studies. Right?

Mhmm.

Either the functional plans or specialized studies when we're trying to do operational at intersections, etcetera. I'm part of a couple of those. And now that we have those gaps, thankfully, when we did our first mobility implementation plan threshold, we had a lot of projects already in the gaps, right, in the in the place that we had. So but I don't see that like, in as we go forward, I don't know if are we supposed to and we've talked about the mobility implementation plan. We don't have to update our functional plans because the mobility implementation plan starts to give us that priority, right, which is one of the things that the functional plans do.

But what if we don't have the project concept? Is that is that gonna come like, it where is where are the projects gonna come from if it's not from updating functional plans?

I can grab it, and then you can pick it up when I drop it. So like, we have the Wilburton, you know, study going on and what we're going to be doing out there. Projects and concepts will come out of that. And so that's really what's going to happen. Or any initiatives that we take in our own department for different things that we would be working on, that's where they would flow in as far as specific projects go. Yes, the functional plans as we knew them aren't. And then we will continue to look at those gaps from the mobility implementation plan because they're numerous and we can only bring a certain number we can only go through and we've been taking the top ones.

Yeah.

Right? Because those are the most likely to have a they have the most need right now. So we'll take those top ones and then we'll be going through and doing this vetting every time we go through this process.

So I feel like I'm missing a box that says gaps of what you just described. Right? A gaps turns into a concept and goes into the tip from there. Right? Like, the mobility implementation plan offers gaps that then produces concepts.

The concepts go in the TFP for consideration.

The top okay. So right away. So right away, the the everything that you consider as a gap would go right away as a candidate. So there immediately goes into both

The the

the TIP and the TFP.

The the top ranking priority Priorities? In the MIP are forwarded on for consideration to the TFP.

And if they don't make it in the t f

Then they

fee, they live in the TFP. So it's the leftover. Okay. So it is

Sorry.

So it does flow directly on the TFP.

I'm sorry.

Okay. No. No. I'm just trying to I think that's a a newer concept. So okay. Okay. Thank you.

Excellent. Other questions. Go ahead.

Thank you. So do all of the transportation projects then live in the TIP? Currently. What transportation projects do not exist in the TIP but exist in other spaces?

At this time, there are none.

Okay. So basically, if we wanted to look at all projects that are in progress, we would look at the TIP. Now the TIP is essentially a superset of the TFP because the TFP is included in the TIP.

Right, so it's not necessarily projects that are in progress True. But yes, all of it really is our catalog. It's kind of almost like being a master plan because it has everything in there. It has the concept. It has a project description and it has an assumed cost estimate that belongs to it.

So, and all of those that have not made it to the transportation facility plan or to the capital improvement program plan all sit in that blue section. So you'll note as time goes on, the blue section is getting bigger and bigger because it's all of the other. So as we go through our process for this year, we're going to have a lot of projects that are candidate projects right now for the twenty twenty six-two thousand and thirty seven Transportation Facilities Plan. When we come back next year, we will hope that that plan has been adopted, that project list has, We will move the ones that actually make it into that up to the orange section as we're moving things around. Last year was probably the easiest transportation improvement program plan I ever did because we were not in the middle of a TFP update and the CIP was being so the only thing that we did was take out projects we'd finished.

We had essentially nothing else. This is a really busy one because a capital plan just was adopted and we're in the middle of vetting these 80 some odd projects for the transportation facilities plan. So you're gonna see a lot of you're gonna see a lot of movement.

Okay. Yeah.

Go ahead. Just to to summarize what we said before, the MIP is really not a it's not like a collection the way the other plans are. It's more like a mechanism or a Right.

Process. Right? Right. Okay. Sure thing. And we will pick up again, like, the Wilburton plan is my best one that I can tell you right now because I know it's something that's going on. We will pick up the projects that are recommended to transportation from any of those initiatives. Anything that is then recommended to transportation, they will come and they will become part of our list because then inevitably they will become part of a candidate list for the transportation facilities plan and then hopefully be funded to be able to be an actual project. Commissioner Hsieh?

Thank you. So for project R219, the Vision Zero safe speeds program

Mhmm.

It

references FSI. Is that the same thing as KSI, or is that is there a subtlety that I'm missing here?

Okay, I'm going to be really so it's fatal and serious injury crashes, so and I'm going to say that the descriptions them the descriptions themselves come from either the program project manager, not from me creating it for this Fair enough. Okay. Got that is I'm just looking at the document itself, and it says that FSI is fatal, serious injury crashes.

Okay. So maybe I'll ask Kevin then. Is is KSI the same thing as FSI, is there a difference there? Or how about this? Is there someone that can follow-up with me and let me know what the difference is? Because I'd love to see what you

Do we have an answer in the in the audience? I'm saying, oh, well, come on up.

Just Akshali. Yeah.

And then introduce yourself, please.

Hi. My name is Akshali. I'm a senior transportation planner in the mobility planning and solutions team. I'll actually be coming to you next month. But, yes, fatal and killed are the same thing.

Okay. I can't see it.

Thank you.

Excellent. Alright. We we got the answer. Yeah.

Yes. So if if you could forward me a contact, I would love to have a discussion to see if there's any analysis of the FSIKSIs that happened in that interval because I I am really curious to see if we can get to the root cause of what what, you know, what causes these these injuries. Is there someone on staff that would be I

think would be following up with you, correct?

Okay. Thank you very much.

All right. Perfect. Well well positioned attendance here tonight. Other questions tonight on this topic?

Never know when I'm gonna put a plant in the audience to answer my questions.

I know. Whoo. Nicely done. Alright. So then it looks like, Christy, you have your two answer or two questions to we will jump to. And any last last call for questions before we go to the ask? Okay. Alright. So at this point, looking to Christy's looking for us to approve the recommended twenty twenty five, twenty thirty one tip project for consideration at the upcoming public hearing of which we'll agree to a date in the next movement. Is there I anyone who make a motion on that request?

So moved.

Second. I'll second. Any more discussion?

I have one discussion item. Yes. Because I forgot before. If there are any this is just a a comment. I know how complicated this is for the public to digest and understand.

If if

there's any feedback on previous people that have said it would be easier if it was shown this way or that way or using digital tools. I, you know, I don't know. Take that into consideration when going into public. I'm sure you guys do, but I just thought I would add

that to that. Make it easier for the

Because it is so hard, right, to to and I know you guys know that, that it's hard to digest, etcetera. So

Yeah. And we probably changed this well, it was a number of years ago now because I have to remember how long I've actually been here. But it used to come to you with a with a project and a name and then a whole bunch of numbers, and it wasn't in any order. It was in, like, a

Yes.

A stip number order that was not so we changed it to sections to try and

Yeah.

Make it be digestible. So but if we get any more feedback yeah. Definitely.

You cleaned up the descriptions from the first time I was here. None of the descriptions were accurate or correct, but now they are. Right? So

thank you

for So all the work done so I know you I know you know, but it's still hard to digest.

I really understand. Thank you.

Okay. Yes. Commissioner Ting?

So I'd like to amplify the comment by commissioner Marciante that being able to present the information to the public, I think, is really important. If there is any way to make this and the TFP available online in a way that shows the details behind the decisions because, you know, you can look at this and it has a lot of information in it, but I'm sure there's a lot of other information or notes or decisions, trade offs that were made that aren't captured on the spreadsheet. So I would again sort of make the ask if it's possible to

try

and present the background online in a way that the public can digest. I know that's hard.

So our Transportation Improvement Program webpage has a lot of that. I will check and make sure that it has enough detail and can add more, if necessary, and then this is this will be out there. So what comes to you after you have taken your vote and what would come to the public hearing will be a cleaned up version of this. So you won't see you won't see the blue. You won't see the red. You won't see the green because it will then just be what the recommended, TIP will

be. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Then let's move to a vote. All those in favor of approving the twenty twenty six, two thousand thirty one TIP project list, please say aye.

Aye. Any

disagreement? K. Passes. Second ask for the public hearing date on this to be April 10. I think this is easy enough. Is there anybody who disagrees with April 10 being the public hearing date? Okay. Christie, you've got what you want, hopefully. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you for answering all of our questions. All right. Well, we've got Christie here, and it looks like Mike will be joining her on the next topic. This is the TFP, and so this is no action requested from us tonight. It's just to help us all get smarter. So take it away.

Very well. Thank thank you, chair Stash. Good evening, members of the commission. So we're here tonight to continue the conversation about the update of the city's transportation facilities plan. So we started back in September.

We've been back nearly every month since then. We've now, at this point, established, to a large extent, the candidate project list, and you've been acquainted with that, you know, over the last few months. So tonight, we're here to share with you the scoring exercise that we did according to the the mobility implementation plan framework. And so those scores were developed according to modes, which is how it's set up in in the mobility implementation plan. So we have tonight, it was included in your packet, score rankings for projects according to their vehicular benefit, their bicycle mode benefit, and their pedestrian mode benefit.

There was, some error in the calculations for the vehicle mode benefit. So I've updated those, and so the hard copies in front of you do reflect the they're revised from what was included in in in the pack. So there were, I think, six projects on the vehicle mode that were incorrectly calculated, but they now have been has been fixed. So we'll we'll look at the corrected scores as we get through the presentation this evening. So let's go to the next slide. Oh, do you wanna say something about

the map?

So we were able to get a draft map. I'm going to ask that you not look at the colors, that were designated to it because because they are not correct at this time. But all of the projects that are on the list, you would be able to see. So at least you have an idea of the location of where our different projects are at, and that literally is why I came walking in here at the eleventh hour, because I was trying to get them off the printer. We've been trying to work with our GIS person.

This is what we'll be using for an online opportunity for the community to be able to give us feedback on these projects. So some of our leader lines and some of those things, not quite where we want them to be, but we wanted to give you guys an idea of what the projects look like when they're on the map. So I'm just gonna go ahead and move on to. Send them both ways.

This is good news. I wasn't sure if this would make it for today. It's literally down to the wire.

Literally hot off the presses.

So so, yeah, so we'll look at the rank scorings, and then we'll look at the public involvement process just a little bit. We've talked about that in the past, as well as where we are in our process. So we can go to the next slide when

you Yep. Thanks.

So I think nearly all of you, maybe everyone except, commissioner Keelman were involved with the development of the mobility implementation plan. And so that plan gives us a means to evaluate, you know, where we have performance gaps is what we call them when we're falling short of our target according to, you know, the various modes. And it also gives us a framework for how to evaluate the seriousness of of the gaps. So where are our most important, you know, gaps? And so there are, as I mentioned earlier, you know, specific scoring met systems for for for each of the modes.

But they have an overall arching kind of framework, and they look at these elements that are here in the box. So it's the you know, the growth goals, of course, are meeting basically where in the city is it located. Is it located in an area where we have expect a lot of growth? So, you know, those are they're basically it corresponds to the PMAs that we set up in the MIP. So, you know, downtown, Bell Red, those are the most intensely developed areas.

We've got Eastgate, Victoria. Those are also, you know, fairly developed, but but somewhat at somewhat less intensity. And then finally, there's the residential areas, are lower density and less intensity. We've got access and mobility. This has to do with what's in those areas that people want to get to and how accessible are they.

And so we have a reference that's provided by the MIP that allows us to evaluate that. The equity score, there was a lot of conversation about that at this group. That applies to the bicycle and the pedestrian metrics. We look at safety, and there's a score that's assigned to that consideration. And then for each of the modes, there's also a supplemental score.

So that's kind of the overarching kind of structure for the this the scoring. And we'll take a quick look because, like, we have to sort of look at some of the details. So we will look at the scoring tables for each of the modes because those are what I used to do the the scoring. I did some of the scoring. Some of it came to us from Farr and Pierce, Chris' Chris' group. So let's go to the next slide and look at the vehicular mode. So, again, here, we're looking at the growth goal scores. This is where in the city is it located. We're looking at the access and mobility goal score. And so that has, there's a reference map that I look at.

I I know a little less about kinda what goes into that map than I probably should, but that tells me, you know, what what score to assign. And and don't read these as rows. They're they're not. So, you know, basically, I'm just looking at my map and saying, is it light purple? Is it dark purple? Is it white? And that really has to do with what's what's in the area or what options people have for moving around in that area. So there's a lot of correspondence to the PMAs, but I don't think it's exactly exactly the same necessarily. Then there's the equity score, which in the case of the the vehicle mode is is not not factored in. There's the safety score.

So for vehicles, we're looking at the high injury network location. So we look at, is the project located on the high injury network? And so that's, again, the what is it? I think 9% of our road segments that have the 80 some percent of of all the the serious and injure injury collisions. Then if it's not on high injury network, it gets a lower score.

And then if the project widens a road, regardless of whether it's on on where regardless of where it is located, it gets a zero. And and this is what tripped me up on some of the scoring. That's why I had to correct it. So, there were the downtown intersections. So we've got we've talked about those in the past, the ones at, Bellevue Way Northeast 8th Street, Bellevue Way Northeast 4th Street. You received communication even today, from Kemper Development about those. And and those projects involve the proposal to add a southbound to westbound right turn lane. So we're widening the road, aren't we? We're widening the north leg in in in that case for each of those. So I somehow overlooked that.

They're they're they are on the high endre network, but I failed to know it. So I had to fix that. Similarly, there's an intersection project downtown at 106 and Northeast State Street. Northeast State Street is on the high injury network, so I'd given it a four. Well, oh, actually, we're widening the west leg of that intersection.

So I I had to fix that one too. So that explains some of the that discrepancy. And then there's a supplemental score, and this gets to what's the level of problem that we have or or or shortfall for vis a vis the target that we see. So, you know, those can occur either of two ways, either in terms of the intersection volume to capacity, falling short of target or the travel speed falling short of target. So for the primary reference in looking for what we for for whether we're we're we're expect to be at target or whether we expect to fall short of target is the environmental analysis that was conducted for the comprehensive plan update.

So that had a 2,044 horizon. It looked at it built in the anticipated land use for 2044. And we look at that and say, 2044, are we going to do we think we're going to have a gap or not at at these locations? And and so that was my reference for for the most part. And and so yeah. So according to the then the extent of the gap, we're assigning, you know, either one to four points. Let's I'd I'd like to hold them, actually. Yeah. Thanks for asking. I should have mentioned.

So we'll we'll we'll walk through the project scoring for the modes. Walk through the highest scoring projects. We just we would touch on it lightly. The high scores highest scoring project for each one. Then we'll stop and and we can have a conversation. I know. And I think maybe I'll on the pedestrian side, again, same same kind of framework. So we're looking at where's where's the the project located, you know, in terms of m p and a to PMA terms. We're looking at access mobility. So, again, I'm looking at my map, but then there's another map I need to look at.

If it's in the PMA three, it's you know, are are there key destinations? Because normally, it wouldn't get as much of a score if it's in PMA three, but if there's, you know, a school or a grocery store, there's it's it's on the map. So if it's on the map, I can give it extra points. If it's not, then I I shouldn't. So oh, and and then we're also looking at the frequent transit network stops, and there's a map for those too. So that that enters into the scoring for that. Equity score, again, you know, look at a map. There's a whole lot of, you know, inputs to that. And then we're looking at, again, is the is the project location on a high injury network or not? And even if it's not on a high injury network, we're giving it some points.

The the premise being that, you know, if we're looking at its location and we're doing something different, we're we're taking serious consideration of of safety. And and and, ultimately, you know, we may end up with a a up to standard current project situation or, you know, improvement that's presumably safer. And then sidewalk missing on both sides, that's a big deal. And so we give it four extra points if if that's the case. And and, actually, our top scoring project in the if I remember correctly on the pedestrian side did have that situation. So, and then on the bicycle mode, again, we're looking at where is it located. We're looking at the access mobility score. We're looking at the equity. We're looking at safety again. Is it on the high injury network or not?

And then the supplemental score is is it on the designated bicycle network? It gets two points. If it's on the priority bicycle corridor, and we looked at those last month, it gets four points. So that's, you know, the framework for for how we do the scoring. So it's, you know, in technical terms, not as much of a it used to be a lot harder, I guess, before we had the MIP.

And so so this is this is a pretty efficient way to way to do it. This is our first time on the staff side doing that work, but I I found it to be pretty logical and straightforward. So on the roadway side and and by the way, so there's you're seeing scoring. So, you know, the roadway scoring, top scoring score is seven. On the I think a pedestrian one, the top one is 16. And on the bicycle one, top one's 18. There's no they they they are each independently scored. You're not it it doesn't matter. They're each in this a separate metro, you know, scheme. So it doesn't it it doesn't matter that, you know, top score and what you can't compare.

Exactly. Yeah. So the top scoring location is Northeast 12th Street on 1 16th. So that's an area where, you know, it's kind of right at the nexus of of the Bell Red and Wilburton and on the edge of downtown for you know, by the hospital there. So we're seeing a lot of I think the well, the critical movement there is left turn, particularly from, you know, westbound to southbound, and people wanting to get on to Floor 05.

So it's it's a area where we we show in the future our forecast show that to be a challenge. So we don't know the solution yet. The project description just reads, he'll look at it, figure out what we can do, but it scored well. So it'll be around about, at the northbound off and on ramps, the southbound off and on ramps, and at the adjacent intersections at 1 20th Avenue going up to Greenwich Crest and at 1 19th Avenue on the on the East side going up to Newport Hills. And the residents, from what I've heard so far, seem to support it too because they have their own challenges getting in and out of those locations, particularly at, I think, Greenwich Crest.

So we don't have a timeline for when the state will build that, but it it's going well. So it's it's interesting to to see that because it's one we've we've felt would be valuable. The Bellevue HOV lane. So this is the idea of adding a southbound HOV lane down approaching the the South Bellevue parking right or I think called South Bellevue Station now. So Sound Transit constructed an HOV lane from the station access road down I 90.

So that was part of their work down in that area. This would extend the the HOV lane further north up to the Winter's House. So we did an evaluation. I mean, I think the long term concept would be that we would extend it further north up to the Y or even yeah. But when we did the evaluation, it showed there was substantial benefit to even to doing it just from the Winter House, and and certainly that's way more affordable. And even now, it may be hard to afford it, but we'll we'll get to that part. That's a, you know, conversation for a month or two from now. But but that does score well. And then these others are ones that we talked about. I think we talked about it in December.

So these were locations that rose to our awareness in conjunction with that environmental analysis for the comprehensive plan, the 2024 horizon 2044 horizon. And they were referencing the communication from Kemper Development today. I think they they weighed in and supportive looking at these locations. So these were flagged as, in that environmental analysis as, gaps in 2044. So, again, we don't know what to do about the gaps or what's feasible.

In in some cases, may be challenging. I mean, one twelfth And tenth, it's not obvious what what we could do. One of the locations was it's just off the chart here, I think, is at 1 16th And Southeast 1st. And I I think as I mentioned at a me previous meeting, there may be operational changes we can do there to to ameliorate improved performance. But these are the top five, and then there's another, you know, beyond that down below that you we can see on your list.

So the list is set up so that it's prioritized first by the vehicular mode. And then the secondary sort is the pedestrian mode. So you'll see a few pedestrian scores, you know, further up. And then the bicycle ones are are the third sorting criteria. So those are a little more scattered.

So on the pedestrian side, the top scoring project is from one sixteenth going up the hill on on Southeast 5th Street up toward the East Rail and toward the Wilburton residential area. This is an area where right. We're we're we're missing a sidewalk. We have a piece of sidewalk on one side, but we don't have a complete sidewalk going up that hill. And so that's partly why it scored as well as it did.

And it's also because it's in a growth area. You know, there's other other factors that entered into it, but that scored that was a top score. The East Rail itself scored well on the pedestrian side. We'll see in a minute it scored well on the bicycle side as well also. Again, that's primarily a King County project, but the city is, you know, coordinating and facilitating that and also constructing access, you know, improvements to to facilitate people getting to it and, you know, onto and off of it.

The Grand Connection, again, a priority for the city and and the community and and city council scored well. And then a multiuse path along the along 114 Avenue. It's the frontage road of 405 from Southeast State Street up to Northeast State Street. So that scored well on the pedestrian side as well as on the bicycle side. Bicycle projects. So Main Street scored well. That was our top scoring one. It's or one of the two one of several, actually. There's a there's a lot of them that scored 18. So I'll just highlight a few of the ones that scored at the top, but there are some others as well.

But the Main Street corridor from, you know, through Old Bellevue from that from the west edge at 1 Hundredth Avenue all the over to one sixteenth Scored well. We do have improvements that we will be constructing, I think I believe either later this year or next year to create a multipurpose path from 108 Just, so this is, a priority bicycle corridor. We have improvements south from Northeast 8th Street southward down, frankly, to Bellevue College. We this project would involve improvements from Northeast 8th Street up to Northeast 24th Street as well as an access onto the SR 520 Trail. And and then the last one is one that we looked at last month, north of way from one thirty sixth place to 1 40th.

So that's, again, that last piece of getting across the Spring Boulevard corridor over to 1 40th. So this is one way you could do it. We looked at another way last month as well along a line that a little to the south. So this is a kind of a taste of those high scoring ones. And and that was as much project detail as as I prepared for tonight. Like, at this point, we can entertain whatever questions you have, either about the scoring framework or about the projects and how they scored or or whatever else is is useful to you at this point. Yes.

Okay. Questions?

Go ahead.

So a quick question on, M I P P 2. I'm just curious as to how the scoring went into that. That, I'm very familiar with that site. That's an area where, 1 48th, we don't have sidewalks on either side of the street. And that would be a major connection between Somerset and then to Southeast 44th, which obviously takes you down 1 48th and and the rest. So that is, in my opinion, a huge missing link in that area, and there's also a lot of children that walk around, getting to bus stops and things in that area. So I'm just curious as to what went into scoring with that and how that just was thought of in the in the process.

Yeah. Yeah. That scenario, we have a gap. How did that one score? I don't so that's down in, on basically, if you're on 1 50th Avenue going south, you cross, Newport Way and keep going up the hill. There's a location a segment where we have no sidewalk on either side. So it's a long standing gap.

Look. There's tons of room on that on that road as well that you're

not you're not having to

cut into Right. Any kind of I mean, there's it's it's just wide open for

a sidewalk. It's gonna be pretty easy just to add one on one side.

Right. At least that. Right. IPP two. Yeah. That scored an 11, which is relatively high. So we do have a new program, in the CIP that's for arterial sidewalk gaps. So that will give us a more systematic way, you know, independent of of the TFP process itself. Because, frankly, you know, these kind of gaps, I mean, they're important, and they have traditionally not scored well in the TFP process because it's, you know, it just it the benefit is constant. You know, a pedestrian project is is benefits concentrate to one area, and they just you know, this is a new measurement system, so it may score a little differently now.

But, historically, these have not these these these types of projects, important as they are, have not, you know, risen as top priorities in in the TFP process. But with this new, arterial sidewalk program that would fill focus on gaps, That gives us a mechanism to, you know, evaluate these locations citywide, prioritize them, and and start to fund it and implement them.

Yeah. Just a final thought on that. I think just think bang for the buck and and the the amount of people that would serve and also the different, obviously, kids going to bus stops and or people walking in general and the fact that it's Yeah. It's got plenty of room to add to the sidewalk without having to do any kind of massive reconstruction. Just seems to me it would be a a fairly high priority.

So I'm gonna go ahead and chime in just really quickly, because I manage the neighborhood sidewalk program. And that gap has been on the neighborhood sidewalk program list for a long time as well coming from community. Lots of the pieces that you see that are built out there were built through NEP process, which we're, you know, doing small little pieces. And so we're trying we have the neighborhood sidewalk program that tries to do more, but the gap that we wanna fill out there is too expensive basically for the program. So why we now have this arterial sidewalk program.

We do have a framework that was actually vetted by you guys of how we go through and look at what we would be what we would be doing to try and and prioritize those. And I know that it is it is high on my list for neighborhood sidewalks, which once that program's funding has the arterial sidewalk program funding has kind of come into fruition because it kinda starts, you know, slow and ramps up, We'll be taking the ones that are on arterials and porting them over to to that and hopefully being able to see, like Mike said, a lot more traction being done on some of those, and that is one. It just happens to be really expensive. It has the space for it. It's just it there's other things that are out there that are that cause the prices, you know, to go up.

But our neighborhood traffic safety services group is really interested in being able to get that you know, get a facility out there and stuff as well. So we have a lot of collaboration. We just don't have full funding to be able to do it right now. So that's why it is a gap from the MIP, and then we'll, you know, we'll be there until we can actually get some money for it.

Is there any factor into how the road bends versus traffic flowing to where people are gonna be walking when there's no sidewalk?

So a visibility type

No. It it's so if you're walking down that road, there's a natural bend Yeah. There's a curve

there's a curve to it.

There's a curve to it, and that's where people would be walking. And the problem is is that cars drift.

Yeah.

And there's no barrier. There's nothing right

there.

So I'm just curious. Does that does that come into account as far as a safety factor that, hey. Maybe we move that higher up in the list because that's a problem.

When the funding becomes available, I would say safety is one of the things that we that we do look at. We we look at we look at crashes. We look at volumes. We're really looking at for for the program, we're looking at the gap that goes from just short of that forty fourth all the way down to Saddleback part because there's different it could be because there's a big gap, you know, there. We have a lot we have had people who have, you know, requested having, you know, sidewalk there. So it definitely has been being evaluated to see where we can, you know, try and get enough funding to do it. It's just it's expensive. It's, you the short and the long of it. Not that that's an excuse. It just is the reality.

Alright. Thank you.

K. Commissioner Chang?

As a follow-up to that, can we actually look at how the scoring worked out for this particular project? I'm not familiar with this particular one, but if it's one that, you know, folks in the commission think is important, I'm curious how the scoring maps to our our perception of what's important. So Are

you able to pull that up Yeah. For discussion

right now? You guys are ready to the to do this now, but if possible, just to look at the actual score and run through it.

Or is that something we could get

Maybe later?

It's something we can

click on. Or or have a separate, you know

Actually, it would be nice to get, you know, several. Three or five or just

Just so we could maybe, like, click on one,

and then we could we could

it would pull up the score because it's all in, like, a spreadsheet. Right?

Mhmm.

And all of the MIP dash projects you you saw earlier in, like, in the spring and summer, and you saw the scoring sheet for each one of those MIP referrals. Mhmm. So we we can't pull it up right this second. But if you go back to one of your, like, maybe the September commission meeting, I think it has all the scores for all the MIP referrals.

Okay. Okay.

Go ahead.

So there's something that has been work trying to work itself out in my head as to how we do the scoring and the outcomes and how things move up on the list. And so if you look at geographically where things are, they tend to be, of course, in our growth areas, which is what our scoring does, right, in our and so what I struggle with in terms of let let's call it geographical equity. Right? Are is the growth in those areas creating just surpassing the need in a way that all of our investments or the majority of our investments are going to those growth areas? And then the other areas where the challenges are maybe more stable because there's not that much growth, but there are problems that have been long standing that haven't gone.

Just you never get there because the growth areas are overpower the needs of the growth areas are overpowering the needs of the system. And it just I struggle with what's fair. Right? What's what's the fair assessment? I understand, like, where the we we constantly invest in downtown and border, District, and and we leave behind long standing sidewalk needs that you're that's not the only one.

Right? You're familiar with that one in particular. You know, I live right by TFP 175, Lake Sammamish. So we all have different experiences on different in all of these neighborhoods that we understand that those are really critical. And you'd know that all of them are all of them are really challenging. And so so, I mean, I know the answer is more money. Right? And and that's not available. But in terms of just at a higher level looking at what is fair geographically, are we spreading the investments fairly? How does that, you know, very rapidly growing need of the growth areas?

Is that just overpowering and will never get long standing problems that we never get to. And it's I I don't know if yet, and this is the first we're trying the MIP. We're trying that you know? And so I'm trying to make sure that as we sit here, we look around the corners about those areas. Are we really thinking fairly You know, are really the scores that are rising to the top?

Is is that really the fairest way to distribute those funds? Thinking just thoroughly about that.

Right. Could there be an unconditional bias Could could built in there.

In there and just is is it making sense to us? Are we leaving behind? And I think it's really important to to do what just what you did with a lot of projects. Right? Wait. Is this really not more important than that one? Like, is this just because it's course 16 doesn't mean it's the but really wrestle with that and see how we feel about those from a programmatic perspective, from a policy perspective to really decide. And you guys can do that. Like, really, what is the most important? Is this scoring system really helping us there? Do we need are we missing something to make it fully component? It's a it's a really difficult challenge. We've we've gone very far from where we started. Right? Do have a lot of data.

We can understand how the scoring is working. We can see the components of these projects. But it's we can't just we can't forget. Like, is it making sense? There it's so small. Right? You see the needs. The the needs are so large in this map, and we get to three or four projects per type type every cycle, every 10. You know? And it's just, like, really how do we are we ever gonna get there?

Right? And I'm reminded just in the news in in Seattle that for them to build all their sidewalks, like, I think it's 2,300 or something. Like, it's hundreds of years based on the current funding schemes. And so really thinking about those transportation problems in a more creative there are more creative ways that we can think about this, which is another subject? Right?

Are the are we are there facilities? Are they interim facilities that we can build that it's not nothing and it's maybe it's not the full facility, but it's something something different in the meantime. And how do we choose where to put that and what where do we take that away from? Anyway, broad challenging conversation, but it just it just speaks to me as to, you know, with the resources are so small. Are we truly, truly think that we're making the most important choices here?

Did you wanna respond before we jump into that, Antas?

I would what I was going to note is that what you're seeing here in, like, the MIP gaps that you're seeing for both pedestrian pedestrians and bicycles are on the arterial networks. Right? So when you look in at this map and see some of these big places, they're actually neighborhoods. Right? So the neighborhood sidewalk program has over a 120 candidate locations where people have been, you know, asking for facilities because as the city has grown, it's not the bedroom community that it started where people were fine without having sidewalks.

It people now with, you know, children and things, they want sidewalks in their neighborhoods. So we've been making progress because of the levy adding to the adding to the neighborhood sidewalk programming, you know, funds to be able to do, you know, more of these in neighborhoods. But there yes. The needs outweigh the ability. But if you were to see a map that has some of my candidates, you would see some spaces in these in these parts that don't have any because because of them being in neighborhoods. And we do do a demographic equity analysis when we're trying to figure out our how are who's gonna really benefit from where we're putting, you know, the money.

Yeah. No. And I understand, by the way, I do understand those gaps in the neighborhoods that the MIP doesn't even look at that. Right? So that's that's beyond what we look. So it's not it's not about that, but it is about TFP one the ones that we see on the map that are we tend to concentrate our investments still. You know?

Did you wanna go ahead.

Yeah. You know, I've been kinda struggling with how on the commission level we interact with this detail. And I was kinda thinking that, you know, our our role here is to make sure it makes sense. Right? It's a numeric process.

And so, this is kind of the first time, my understanding, that we've used this process. And so it seems like we ought to be looking at just kind of what, Nick was suggesting, but we ought to be looking at how the scores work together. Does it make sense? And from that standpoint, it I go go back to the previous discussion of being able to actually see how the score worked out with the details of the components. I really like the idea of not so we go through every single one, but we're really trying to oversee how this process is working.

Right? And maybe make changes to the process if necessary. Maybe not this time around, but to get a good feel for how the scoring is coming out. Not so that we are going to say, hey. This should be a seven. It should be a six instead of a seven. But overall, how is that that thing working out? And that's kinda where I think, the idea of, like, being able to double click, not on every single one, but where we have a question just to just to get that visibility. Just a thought. Do guys think

about I'll go ahead and defer to Eric before I say something.

Yeah. I was gonna

Eric Miller, implementation planning manager working with Christy and Mike on, both the TIP and the TFP. But and I apologize if Mike mentioned this in terms of this phase of the process. The scoring is really kind of the starting point, an element of the prioritization process that we move into in the next phase. And a big part of the prioritization process is input that we get from the public. And we've all seen what that kind of if especially if a neighborhood comes out in in force, all wearing colored T shirts and cheering and saying, this is our priority, telling you, the commission, that telling staff that at the open houses and online or in person coming to city council meetings, that makes a difference.

Mhmm.

You know? Yeah. There's there's lots of projects that aren't on arterials that are important too, but that's kinda beyond what the MIP focus is. And and so, you know, projects like TFP one seventy five, you mentioned, that's on there because public came out repeatedly saying that's priority, and and it's a good scoring project too. But Mhmm. But, yeah, that's that's gonna make a big difference in the next phase of, you know, here's the scores, but there's a lot more to come.

So if you were to, let's just say, take the top five vehicle, top five ped, top five bike, and then you of just the straight up numbers, and then you put these other factors on top of it, how much would those with those 15 projects, would there be three new ones, three would be getting rid gotten rid of? How much change is there when that part of the process happens? About. I know it's a

Yeah. I'm not sure I followed.

Well, I I think I can answer that a little bit. So if a project already has money in the CIP Yeah. That's pretty much gonna make it into the TFP because the council's already decided, hey. We wanna we want we wanna Right. Put money toward So, you know, whereas if it's a project that's in the TFP, but there's no money that's ever gone to it, I mean, can it can drop out of the next TFP. I mean, council's never bought into it. Right? So does that part does that answer your question?

No. It doesn't quite. So if in the process, understanding that these these numerical calculations are the first step Yeah. And kind of a if we just plug in the numbers and we see what comes out, you know, kind of step, then you put on other factors such as community input, letters, orange shirt, you know, whatever. All that kind of goes in. If you were to just say start with, if you were just to kind of put on blinders and say, I'm going to take the top five of each one of these three groups and this is what we're going to do. We have the money or whatever. Then you put on these other factors. How much would that original group, that list of 15 change by? Would would one maybe drop out or unusual or or maybe five?

Can I go by historical? Just historical, what happens is they do the open house, then they bring it to us. K. And then they'll tell us, you know, they this this is the very supportive. And so we took another look, and we compared it. And we think this is more important than this one, and it moved five. So it they they just do it every year according to it. I don't know. They track how much they move, but every year, they will come back to us after the open houses and give us a re prioritized list if it's important. So this is the starting point, let's say, but Mike will come back over and over and over until we are all happy with the the cutoff line and the order order of the list of what made it into that programs.

And then we have we do it again two years later because none of this is funded. It's still you know, the CIP, some of them fast track. You heard a couple of them fast track into the CIP, never make it into the TFP. Right? And so TFP projects never get funded because other so the CIP is the one that's the most important one.

Right.

But I think just that that venue that we have here to hear what's important and to discuss, etcetera, helps to build up understanding for staff, for us, for the city of what where are the important projects, and it sort of builds up to the CIP. Let's say it's a it's a practice run Yeah. Yeah. Is the way I feel it. But it's mean, none of the decisions we're making are really true, but they do they do shift. They'll come back, and they'll if I remember correctly, they'll come back, and you'll say, this project got a lot of community support, and so we looked at the different numbers. And we think that even though it scores higher up for this reason, I think we need to move it here. And they'll they'll walk you through all that

Yep.

From what I recall, and then we agree that we recommend it to to counsel, and then that's the TFP that the commission recommends. So that's, like, the and then we do that again I retell you, then we'd start over right away and do it again.

Okay. Okay.

Alright. Thank you. Another question? Yes.

Yeah. So this year, obviously, it's different because we're using the MIP scoring for the very first time. So it is very interesting to take a look at just the numerical stores that are popping out and how the final list pops out. And I think there's a secondary set of considerations that we're gonna look at. So for example, I was just thinking about it. Cost has been brought up. You know, two equally scoring projects equal in any other way except for cost seems pretty obvious we'd go with the cheaper one. Impact on other modes. So you have, you know, one mode that's doing something. You know, you might have a vehicular mode that's going to create a safety issue for a pedestrian.

Well, that is a consideration, which I think you have to take a look at. And then on the sort of flip side of, like, what are the positive impacts, you know, I I think you've also mentioned what is the community input? How many people are impacted by this project. I think that's something important that we should take a look at. What is the network effect? What is the impact on the surrounding network for that particular mode? You may have, like, a gap. And I know that gaps are included in some of the scoring, but it is something that I think you sort of have to look at to see, wow. Is that really an important gap, is that kind of not an important gap?

Mhmm.

And then, of course, safety. Like, is there a safety consideration as to whether this project makes things safer or not safer? So I'm hoping that when we go through this new MIP process, we're going to include a secondary set of considerations where we take a look at, say, the top scoring projects. And then we put on this, I would say, supplemental, but we've already used the word supplemental in in the in the box in the presentation. So another consideration where we take a look at these factors, we get the data from hopefully you because I don't know about rest of the commission, but I I don't know how to get all this data myself.

But if we have that information, then we can have a discussion. Ideally, you know, you'll have a recommendation saying, like, here's a set of projects. This one, we decided to prioritize because of these reasons of the ones that I've mentioned. And then we as a commission can look at that and say, yeah. That makes sense. Or maybe we say, no. There was so much community input on this that even though it costs more, we think you should do it. Right? Being able to present that level of information to this commission, I think, will help us make a lot better decisions. Otherwise, I think it's just seven people staring at a list and trying to poke at it with questions. Right? So is that something that you guys would be able to do in the upcoming weeks?

And so another thing that's happening at the end of this month, beginning of next month is staff prioritization, where where we have staff not only from transportation, but also from parks and utilities. And we have, like, 20 somewhat different staff members that are subject matter experts for the different things that are on the list, whether they do some of our ITS work, whether they're our traffic engineers, whether they're the people who do landscaping that will be coming that will be coming together to look at this list just like you guys are. We'll have a foundation of the scores, but knowing that the score is just, you know, the top you know, just our It's starting point. Point, like Eric was saying. And we will be sitting and having conversations with them to kind of vet what are their priorities and why how does this help what you're doing with your line of work.

We put that together with the public involvement that we will be starting both with the open houses, but also online for people to give their feedback. And as we continue to come back and visit you, that's what we're going to be bringing forward so that you'll be able to see those things.

And And when to be

to Yeah.

Once we have a a revenue forecast, which we've just kicked off working on that with our with our finance department to build on what's funding what's funding in the CIP, that's the adopted budget, and we extend that out to the twelve year win horizon. That's when it gets tough because then you're drawing a line. And but, yes, we do, in the staff, preliminary recommendation of a priority, we will say, well, we this one scored this, but we moved it up because of these reasons, or we moved this one down because of these reasons. We do try to document that and share those adjustments.

That sounds great. Thank you.

And just to be fair, that's exactly what they've done every year, except this year, we have a lot more data to the score. The score used to be we had a waiting for safety, a waiting for, like, that we chose, and that was the score that was assigned. And and, like, right just now, we have so much more data that we and they can consider that data and bring it to us as well in that context. So I'm really excited to see what what you're doing. But every year, it has been that.

Right? They'll come up and they'll say, the the score was this, but here's all the other stuff that we considered and all the reasons, and here's why we, as a staff, recommend this, and we get an opportunity to agree or or, you know, ask more questions or that sort of thing. So that's been my experience for the eight years I've been here so far. So Yeah.

Go ahead.

One of those one of those factors is always this, like, opportunistic factor, right, where you know about some other state or federal funded project that could make one of these projects much cheaper. And so I really think that's an important factor that that that you guys know. So I definitely think that's a key part of the staff input.

Yep.

Sometimes there's private development that's happening, and we wanna have the pry public investment. We wanna know and be able to tell the private development, oh, you need to build to this line and this alignment. So we need to do some, you know, some some design work up front to to do that. Yeah.

Did you have a go ahead.

Well, so just

a question. And commissioner Marcionti brought up the, the timeline, how these things can take five, ten, fifteen, twenty years or key or forever and keep falling off because they don't make the list.

Do we ever

look at

maybe a stop gap that is not the permanent solution, but something that's gonna make it better for the users until we can get to it? And, something that just kinda comes to mind is is, Newport Way and the Izakwa section, They have the white temporary I don't know if they're temporary, if those are permanent, but at least that is a little bit of a barrier. And so these areas where we have no sidewalk, we have no safety for pedestrians, things like that, and it might be something that we're just can't get to. Is there any kind of temporary solution until you can get to it? Yeah.

I I would say that there is. Whether or not we again, it comes to money. Whether or not we actually have a project to be able to to do that because there are different ways that we can have a pedestrian facility besides it just being a sidewalk with a buffer. And you can do, you know, you can do paint and post. You can do bollards.

You can do, you know, things like that. We've talked about it before, but as we create these different you know, we have these different plans that have the what are we supposed to do on an arterial? Eight foot at a minimum now with the you know, then it's like, well, how do we do that and just put you know, how we do just paint and post out there where we've told people we're gonna be doing this? And then sometimes, you know, how long is it before it actually could just could be a permanent project? It was like, oh, it's working okay right there.

So we have I don't think that we've had, you know, further department discussions about have doing what I would call interim projects like that. I don't think that it's ever off of the table for us. I don't think that we've had a discussion at that, you know, about that. I know that some of the ongoing programs will do some interim things to see if it works or not, and then hope to come back and do a permanent, you know, installation on something. I don't know if on a larger scale for an arterial if we if we've talked about that.

Okay. Other questions. Go ahead.

So I have a quick two quick issues not quick comments. Can we bring up from one of the attachments, the MIP scoring guide? This is off of commissioner Marciante's comment about, like, where are we investing our dollars. And I was just looking at it, and it's interesting that if you look at PMA one, which pretty much overlaps with the access mobility score, if you have a project in PMA one, it's essentially gonna get the highest access and mobility score based on the map. That equals eight.

If you take a look at the highest equity score and being on high injury network, that also equals eight. So, basically, what we're saying is that any project that's, all else being equal, that's in PMA one is pretty much gonna score the same as something that's the most equitable issue plus being on the high entry network. Now I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I'm just saying that it's an interesting thing to think about because we are placing our dollars based on this scoring, and I think we should we should iterate over time. Maybe the next time we do this, we could think, was this the intended outcome? Okay.

So that's one thing on the pedestrian thing that I wanted to mention. Can you go to the vehicular one now, please? So I also found this interesting because if it's on the high injury network Mhmm. It's getting a score of four. And, typically, when you make a vehicular improvement, you are increasing volume. Right? So Mhmm. By increasing capacity, you typically increase volume. Otherwise okay. Maybe that's not the case. But

I mean, probably.

But We're actually doing that, and increasing volume can lead to less safe conditions. So my assumption is that we are doing mitigations so that, you know, if it's on a high injury network and it's a vehicular project, we're actually doing things to make it safer. Otherwise, you might argue, it's on the high injury network. Maybe we shouldn't increase volumes because that might be a bad thing.

That's for the zero.

That's what I'm about to get to. So if you take a look at the zero, that's if we're widening the road. Are there any mitigations that one can do to widen the road and yet not create a less safe scenario? Pardon? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I just found this chart interesting because I think one thing that we should think about is if we are widening the road, is it necessarily less safe? And if you don't do anything, it probably is, right, because of the time it takes to cross the intersection. But if you can do things, then wouldn't we want to do those? And if we are doing that, why would it get a lower score? Any thoughts?

I I think it really comes down to the specifics of the particular, you know And it wouldn't instead.

If it wasn't a gap, if if it wasn't a v over c gap or a a quarter travel speed gap. So it's already defined as a situation that we wanna address. And then of all the situations we want to address, we apply the score to it to see which, you know, in in a transparent manner, are higher scoring than others.

But if we do widen the road, do we typically do safety mitigations to account for the wider road, or do we not? I guess maybe that's another way of asking the question. Why wouldn't we? Is it too expensive? Is it is it impossible? Is it

Well, one of one of the things in developing project concepts is to look a little deeper and to see what's going on at that location. So if it's a safety issue, you'll see, is it a speeding issue? It is a is it a right turn or a left turn issue? Is it people going through red lights? You have to look at the the the the context before you,

you know,

go too far developing a project concept.

But I see.

I and I wanna just go back, but to your original point. If the problem is a capacity problem, Why are we prioritizing capacity problems in the high injury network? What's the logic there? Just just that first point. Not even, like, let's assume you're gonna mitigate everything, but why are we giving

Why Or don't think that's we're not doing that, are we?

Because we're giving we we're giving capacity projects, capacity improvements, so you're increasing that capacity for vehicles. If it's on the high injury network, you're going to increase the capacity of that

That was my question. I think there's mitigation.

Right. So I want to go back to even just that original point of why are we even scoring as safe? Why are we saying that shouldn't it be inverse?

Well, assume there's a mitigation. Like, we're looking to make it safer. I mean, is that

not the case? But that's my question. I mean, all we know is a capacity problem. Why would we prioritize capacity projects on the high injury network, just in general, as a

Because you can make them safer, presumably. Right? You've got a it's on the high injury network. Let's put some dollars there to make it safer.

Not a zero sum game.

Right? Yeah. You don't increase capacity without increasing safety. I assume there are ways you can do that.

Yes.

Our our resident consultant expert has has called to my attention that he may have a a good response.

Oh, well then, come on. I know we talked about this. Come on up. This.

Is not my topic, so I didn't wanna interject. But, the background, of course, was the work that we worked on some years ago. So the I think to to roll this back, it's important to remember what the, vehicle, performance target gap is all about. It is about the performance of the vehicle system from the driver's perspective. It's congestion areas.

So we wanna flag where there are congestion areas because we know that that's a top priority for city residents, visitors, businesses. So what the system does is it, says, do we have a problem? Yes or no. And from that perspective, why why some of those different, elements? The PMA rating gets to there's fewer options in PMA four or PMA PMA three than there are for, getting around the congestion than in PMA one.

So we wanna look at prioritizing PMA three projects a little bit more on the vehicular side. From the safety aspect, it is what commissioner Ting noted that anytime we do a, what tends to be a larger scale capacity or, vehicular project, it gives the opportunity to look at the safety at at the whole. We can implement safety improvements when we are going in and retrofitting intersections or roadways. The the the catch was that if the mode if we're widening the road, that by research, tends to increase speeds of the road. We're we're less we're less concerned with volumes, really, than we are with the speeds and the exposure.

So how wide are people crossing? How fast are the vehicles going? Those tend to end in higher, injury conditions. To the point of commissioner Ting, there's lots of mitigation opportunities. So just because we're widening the road doesn't mean we shouldn't do the project. It means we need to look at what are the mitigations. And if those are difficult to build into a project for whatever reason, then we might wanna reconsider the prioritization of that. So it's not to say that we shouldn't address capacity pieces, which is why we've always kept these modes a little bit we didn't wanna pit them against each other. Know that capacity and growth and increased vehicle trips is something the city needs to consider. It's just that where do we start to look at them first?

It's really kind of the the low hanging fruit. The most cost effective solutions are the ones, that this this framework is trying to put forward first for consideration.

K.

Alright. I'm gonna do just a quick time check. It's, 08:05, so we've spent about forty five, fifty minutes on this topic, but it's a great topic. Don't wanna cut anybody's burning questions off, just for so we know for future. I know tonight was an informational on this topic. We will hear again in next month on this, Christy. We'll be time?

We'll be back the March because we have our public involvement

Okay.

To that we are going to be doing plus some of our staff prioritization. I've switched to the next slide for for next steps just for just for context.

So we'll hear several more times.

Oh, yeah.

K. Okay.

Be like yeah. Yeah.

Alright. So but if anybody does have anything they wanna get answered tonight, please feel free after Christy goes to the next slide.

So I think I think we're on it right now. So yeah. So our next thing is was actually already mentioned. Thank you, council member. We do have two in person open house opportunities. One at Crossroads Mall during the day, and then we're going to be here in the evening on February 26. We will also be having an online open house on engaging Bellevue. So we are still working. I think that in previous sessions with you, Mike has mentioned that we are working through a new online mapping platform so that the community can actually, you know, hover over a project, and it will tell them what that project is type of thing. And then can they can make their comments or let us know, you know, their favorite, you know, yes, no, or impartial to it.

We're still working on that piece of it. So our hope is that by the time we have our in person open houses that we are able to launch that same week. So in basically about a week and a half. So we've got a little bit of work to do to be able to do that. We have all of our question rates really getting this mapping tool that we're not familiar with, but done with our GIS group.

And then, again, we're going to be doing that project prioritization. Right? We're going to be working with staff, as I mentioned before, various departments are going to be coming together. We're going to have two different sessions with them to be able to show them this list, show them these scores, kind of going through almost like what we've done with you guys at a little bit quicker pace to be able to then have conversations with them about the projects. This is where we come up with our staff prioritized list.

We will also take that to our department leadership where it also, you know, can cause some other changes, you know, where where things may fall. But it doesn't mean that whatever the top scored project is, is going to always be that project that we're going to recommend first. So, because some in our other framework, some of the high scoring projects weren't ones that we were actually interested in and we would bump other ones up because they didn't score so well. Same thing could happen. The the project that commissioner reviewing was talking about.

You know, right now, it's at eleven, which actually is pretty good. Again, like what Mike said, as far as the big scheme of the pedestrian projects go. But, you know, there there are people out there that walk in that area that would be really interested in it. Hopefully, a lot of them participate, you know, in our, you know, in our process so that we can show you those kind of results, you know, as well. And go ahead and talk it up and and get them to do that.

So there's no, you know, there's no harm in that. So but we'll be bringing, you know, that prioritization, you know, to you with, you know, how it has kind of morphed and formed through this whole entire thing. We'll be bringing a public involvement report to you so that you can actually see what is it that people were interested in. There has been times where a bunch of projects will get no comments at all, and some will get a whole bunch of projects either in favor or not. So, you know, but that's what they're supposed to do.

That's what we wanna hear from, right, is for them to be able to do that. And then as we were talking, we're working on that financial forecast, trying to work with the budget office. They are you know, they're trying to work on some different schemes for the how long they're doing their financial forecasts out. So since we moved to a six year capital plan, they're trying to figure out how they're going to look at their out years. So we're kind of having to follow, you know, their lead with that and hoping that in March, April, maybe time frame that we can get some idea what our out year dollars will be there outside of the actual funded CIP time.

So we know what do we have to be able to work with in in terms of putting projects in the TFP itself.

K. Perfect. So any last it looks like we've got couple last comments. Go ahead. I think you've raised your hand first.

I was just gonna say also from before, the really important places to look is, like, at the at the margins. Right? Well, I mean, I guess something that's really high, we could go like, that score doesn't make any sense. We can bring it down. But but the the really and you brought this up before in the past where, like, this score 11 and this one score 11.5, and that's where the cut off is drawing. And so we like, that band of projects, right, that is gonna get close to that margin is gonna be really important to look closely at to see, are they in the right order? Right?

So does it make sense? Go ahead.

Yeah. So I I would agree with that. I think since this is our first time through the scoring, I mean, hopefully, we'll be able to go through the entire list just to make sure there weren't any oddities that we missed. But my other comment is I would I would love to hear your feedback later, not today, on the cross modal prioritization. How are you guys gonna think through that? What type of feedback are you looking for from us? Because I don't know how that works, and ultimately, we will have to cross that bridge.

Okay. Any last burning thoughts for tonight? Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for addressing our questions.

You're welcome. And, again, all these things are ever morphing and ever changing. So

Yes.

We do have spreadsheets that have the scores all out. It would have been giving you, like, a 45 page packet. So that's why we condensed it, but we do have that available. If anybody is interested and wants to go through that, Mike and I would be available to be able to do that, with you guys offline. So Yeah.

You Perfect. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Either give us a link or do you wanna do

a If you have a couple of people and we don't have quorum, you could just have one of those and have any questions.

They can give it to you.

You got some interest from this group.

You can can leave me

out. Alright.

I think you guys are off the hook for tonight at least. Let's move on to our last study session. So the mobility implementation plan. So a quick reminder that there is an ask tonight for us to approve the PLTS matrix and the PLTS performance targets and map was in our handout beforehand as well. So that's the ask for tonight, and this is our last big discussion. And so Kevin and Chris, You guys can take it away. Thank you again, Christy. Yes. We know where to find you. You know where to find us. You don't have to. It'll come up every time. When did we decide?

A multiyear process. Think that would be I'm happy to be here.

Goodness.

I I live down the street. It's okay.

Yeah. They're all. It's so true. It is.

Yep. All good.

Thanks for entertaining us again with the mobility plan. We do have a pretty short presentation for tonight, so let's let's get through it. We we we do have a couple asks, though, but I think it'll be pretty pretty apparent, what those asks will be. And and I I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that the MIP will deliver another tool that will help you consider pedestrian network gaps and and will be another tool to add to your Quiver when we are doing evaluation of those gaps.

So Okay.

So

So hold questions to the end?

Questions to the end, if if you wouldn't mind. But it is a pretty short presentation. It's, like, 10 or 12 slides. I'll I'll start, and then Chris can can carry on after I'm finished. So I what I'd like to do is is review the the work that we did on January 23.

We'll introduce to you the the pedestrian level of traffic stress matrix, and then just seek a head nod on the the the the the the matrix document or the matrix table. Then we'll look at performance target gaps or performance targets, rather, looking at assignments for those, performance targets onto the arterial network and then looking how that those assignments play out on arterial maps, and we'll want concurrence on on those things so we can move forward.

K.

So last month, the the commission approved the primary metrics that we would use to identify the the the pedestrian level of traffic stress for arterioles and a couple different types of supplemental components. Type one being those supplemental components that add to the prioritization or help inform the prioritization of the performance target gaps, And, though those are similar to the supplemental components that that Mike showed you, with respect to the TFP scoring. Different type of supplemental components, the type two components, are ones that help inform what kind of projects what the design of the projects would be when you are looking at a high priority performance target gap. What should you do? These are some of the things that would help you decide what to do in the event of a high priority performance target gap that that the MIP then needs to refer for consideration to the TFP.

So you you made you made those decisions on the twenty third, and you also said you also asked us to prepare a specific pedestrian level of traffic stress matrix. We we presented to you the the the the colorful rainbow effect matrix, but you said, you know, take a little bit closer look and and assign a performance target to each of the cells within that matrix using the arterial characteristics of speed and volume and the sidewalk characteristics of the width of the sidewalk and the buffer. You also asked us to apply that metrics that matrix to the to the arterials and and prepare an existing conditions map, and we started that. We found some some errors, so that will not be delivered tonight. We will deliver that coming soon.

Sorry. So so we'll we'll we'll we'll get you the existing conditions map maybe next time. So the the first deliverable we have for you is the specific pedestrian level of traffic stress matrix. And, again, it it is a a a combination of arterial characteristics and sidewalk characteristics that yield a outcome of pedestrian level of traffic stress. Now these are not targets.

These are these are just the outcomes of the of the conditions that you see on the site and the expected pedestrian level of traffic stress when those conditions are encountered. I'll give you a second to digest this, but don't ask any questions yet. We'll we'll get to it at the end. And we can always flip back. There's only a few slides we can easily flip back. So have a look at the pedestrian level of traffic stress specific matrix. Again, it's arterial characteristics of speed and volume related to the sidewalk characteristics of the width the sidewalk and the width of the buffer. That buffer is the physical distance between the moving cars and the walking pedestrians.

K.

So similar to the bicycle level of traffic stress that many of you are familiar with and some of you even participated in the the conversation, so developing the bicycle level of traffic stress, We wanted to apply a similar methodology for identifying the performance targets for pedestrian level of traffic stress on the arterial system in in Bellevue. So, generally, these are these are staff recommendations that have been vetted internally, first time revealed, tonight to the public, including you. We recommend a pedestrian level of traffic stress one be assigned to the Performance Management Area 1 of Downtown Bell Red and Wilburton. Assigning pedestrian level of stress two to PMA 2, which is Crossroads, Escape, and Factorio, with an exception that in those activity centers, that the assignment would be PLTS one along the the major commercial segments of Factorio Boulevard and 156 where you have a lot of pedestrian origins and destinations, a lot of pedestrian traffic. So you wanna have a higher quality of pedestrian experience for those people.

And then the rest of the city in PMA 3, it would be a assignment of p t PLTS two or PLTS three in PMA 3. I'm getting tongue tied with all these acronyms. But in the in the the assignment would be 10 depend on the classification of the arterial and the pedestrian destinations that those sidewalks serve. So the next slide gives you indication of the arterial network and the classification of the arterioles in Bellevue. So in if we had an overlay of the PMAs, you you would be able to see PMA two and PMA one.

We didn't do that yet. We we will do that soon. But this is the arterial network for the whole city. So imagine the the field of green, on the previous map as PMA 3. And so within the field of green, the major arterioles, show up in magenta on this map, would be assigned PLTS three, pedestrian level of traffic stress three, except it's getting complicated, but bear with us.

Except PLTS two where we expect a lot of pedestrians to be walking to and from. On the minor arterials, one is better than three, and two is better than three. So on the minor arterials, which are the light blue, the assignment would be PLTS two. And on the collectors, it would be PLTS two as well. Those are the green lines on the map.

And the next slide kinda gives you an indication of how that plays out in terms of the assignment of pedestrian level of traffic stress to the arterials on the map. So you can see the the description of the pedestrian level of traffic stress from one to three and the assignment of that pedestrian level of traffic stress to the arterials. So you can see the light green ones are PLTS 1. Those are Downtown Bell Red, Wilburton, and some sections of arterials elsewhere. PLTS 2 are the the the collector no.

The minor arterials. Those are the the the teal colored ones, and PLTS three are the the other arterioles in p l in PMA 3. That that's how that's how it would map. Now the the the the thing that we didn't do for this meeting is is look at the performance target gaps. Taking this map that identifies what the performance targets are and then looking at the actual the actual conditions along the arterial, the the the and and to see how how the actual conditions match up with the target.

And if the actual conditions, don't meet the target, then that would be identified as a gap. And then, you know, eventually, those gaps would be prioritized and project concepts would be developed to address those gaps. But we're we're not there yet. That's that's jumping ahead. Just wanted to present to you the the the rationale for assigning performance targets and, the graphic representation of that assignment on the arterioles in the city.

Just one note on this. Part of the the background, There's a lot of staff discussion around this, of course. The, targets here are also in line with the design manual and Complete manual such that if the design manual and Complete Streets manual project or, sort of recommended standard were to be implemented on the given street, we would hit all of these targets or do better. In many cases, we would do better. The one thing that the design manual, excuse me, and the the the sidewalk condition doesn't control is the speed of the vehicles that are traveling along the road.

City's working hard to identify, sort of speed limit changes and other ways to try to influence how people are driving. So there's there's a complementary project that's that's out there to to deal with that. But the idea is that if we could again, gets back to money. If we could open up a huge bag of money falling out of the sky and build city standard sidewalks everywhere, then we would meet these targets or do better than these targets. And that's something that we, we thought about when when selecting these.

So then the next slide sort of builds off of Chris's comments on the the the design manual and the standards that are incorporated within that that the city would need to build or that private sector developers would need to build as conditions of development approval. So as you can see on on all the classifications of arterial, the sidewalk width is is eight feet, and that's a minimum, and the landscape planter width is is five feet. Now in some cases, like along those those corridors near schools or especially near school zones, but other pedestrian destinations, you may want to go beyond the minimum, or you may need to go beyond the minimum to meet the performance target because of the speed and volume of the street that that pedestrian destination is on. So this this tool will not only identify the performance target gaps, but provides information for the the staff who do development review and for the staff who do capital facilities project design to design appropriately to meet the intended pedestrian level of traffic stress near schools. This is a the example on on the photo is is Newport High School example along Factoria Boulevard.

You've got a five or six foot sidewalk immediately back of curb. It functions probably as PLTS three or four probably, and the the intent would be to be PLTS two one or two. So you'd have to have a a wide buffer and then a wider sidewalk to provide the level of comfort and safety for pedestrians in the vicinity of Newport High School. And as our our, safe walks to school, subject matter expert mentioned to us at our staff meeting the other day, kids don't walk in single file Mhmm. Along streets.

They're they're walking in groups. They're talking on their phones, so you need to have a nice wide sidewalk for people to to walk as they are accustomed to walking along these corridors. So as as we build out the system, we want to make sure that we, you know, adequately accommodate the the the, not only the safety of those people walking, but also the comfort in in you know, the the experience that they have while they're walking.

K?

So I I we we are planning public engagement, to get feedback on, some of the components of our mobility implementation plan. We are tag teaming with the transportation facilities plan open houses. I think our times the times that I put on here are the times that I reserved on my calendar, not the exact open times for the community to participate, but those are the approximate times and the exact locations of the open houses. And we're also doing engaging Bellevue online feedback on the local street network for pedestrians and bicycles. What we wanna see in that effort is, you know, the the pedestrian bicycle transportation plan put the lines on the map in 2009.

It's 2025 now. So what's changed, if anything? We wanna confirm or confirm those lines, add to those lines, or maybe people will say, we this is a stupid project. We don't wanna do this project anymore. We wanna get their feedback so that the MIP then can incorporate the local street network into the arterial street network for pets and bikes so we have a complete and connected system shown, on our in our MIP documentation.

And just one, the local network, given how both PLTS and BLTS, we've it's geared towards arterials. The local network's a lot simpler. It's we need a facility to be designated, and a lot of that's context specific to what can fit, within the neighborhood. So in many cases, a sidewalk would be fine on a 25 mile an hour local street versus nothing, or a bicycle, boulevard where there's some sign reconfigurations and wayfinding is completely appropriate to get BLTS one. But the network on the local side, heretofore has not been, it's just been inherited, if you will, from the pet and bike plan.

So this is where we're asking the public to weigh in so that the MIP can sort of bring sort of a refreshed version of that and capture all the streets within the city, for that consideration.

I think that's it for the substantive slides. We want, you know, to opportunity, of course, to have clarifying questions and comments. We wanna seek your concurrence with the performance targets and the map, and I want to I will welcome you to attend the open houses that will be in later in this month.

Okay. Questions? Go ahead, Nick. Could you

go back to the slide by Newport High School? Just have a question about that.

Oops. Sorry. I went way too fast.

So did you say that's a that's currently a five foot sidewalk?

I didn't measure. It's five or six.

Five or six. Okay. To make that in compliance with what we're talking about, we would need to find another eight feet or so to

Need to find more than that.

You need to have a

five foot buffer and an eight foot sidewalk, you'd need 13 more feet back

in the yard.

That's gonna be fun to find.

It's a lot. Yeah.

You have the right of way here?

To be the I we would identify the project concepts first or the priorities first and then figure out what the concept is and address it. You know? Yeah. You know, the ELTS is a target, but the sidewalk dimensions are standards. So we may want to have as a target something more than the sidewalk standard, but it just may not be feasible to achieve that to achieve anything more than the standard.

Mhmm. And even even with the standard, Molly will probably kill me, but she there there's probably some room to negotiate, on the standard if there are immovable objects that don't allow you to build the the standard. I'll see if my phone lights up.

Definition of corridor

artery. Mhmm.

Corridor? Arterial.

Or arterial. Sorry. Sorry. Oh, artery. Sorry. Arterial. Yes. How and how is it different than major?

Oh, well,

oh, major, Ardiria, minor

Am am I using the

wrong Yeah.

We Collector.

Collector. Yes. Collector are the the the the feeder streets, the one that gets you to your neighborhoods, the the ones that have the most connections to the locals the local street network that gets you to your house. They make So

how is that different than major?

Majors are the the cross city workhorses for vehicles of all types, including freight. Yes. Those are your Bell Red Roads, your Bellevue Ways, your your Northeast

States. Collector.

But collector is meant specifically

So your local access streets.

And they're just bigger than minor arteries?

Minors are bigger than collectors, and our majors are bigger than minors.

Ah, okay. Okay. Okay. That answers my question.

Is it a is it a capacity, measure, or is it a volume?

It's it's a functional measure, really. This these the formal word is functional classifications for these streets, and the the the major arterials are functionally important for moving people and goods across the city. They provide connections to the regional system like the freeways. You you'll never see a freeway on ramp at a collect a collector arterial. It's they're all off majors, maybe maybe occasionally off a minor.

But so the the the majors are cross city work forces for all modes. The the miners, which show up on this map in blue, are sort of lard longer connectors, but they don't have the same sort of freight mobility function. They don't have the same regional connectivity function that the majors do. Right. And then the collectors just get you to and from your house.

Okay. And then my other question is, how much are you in discussion with the communities that immediately adjacent to Bellevue? That if we have a PLTS two Street or you'd or or you'd like one in the future, how does that connect to the Redmond Street or the Kirkland Street, and does that matter?

The arterials are collect are are collaborated coordinated with our adjacent neighbors. Okay. We're the only ones that I know of that are doing PLTS, so there's not that kind of collaboration.

Okay.

The the the the standards the the dimensional standards for sidewalk width and landscaping strip are probably compatible between the different alternative neighboring jurisdictions, especially Redmond, because we integrate so closely up in the Northeast part of the city.

Okay. Okay. I know you had a question. Go ahead.

Actually, if you go to slide 10.

Here it is.

Yeah. I'm just wondering, on engaging Bellevue, what's the plan do you have a time frame for when you're gonna open that up for the feedback on the local street network for bikes and peds.

For pretty soon. Yeah. The the the the the final slide shows the timeline, and it it sort of overlaps a little bit with the open houses and and moves into, like, early March so that we can have it open for two or three weeks, download the data, report the data back to you in later March or early April.

So, Bishop Tech.

Thank you. Can you go to the, chart, the multicolor chart with the PLPS? Yeah. The matrix, please. So I won't mention the number of significant digits because I guess that's neither here nor there. My question is why do we have these weird valleys? So, you know, it's there's actually two interesting anomalies. One is we have PLTS one next to PLTS three in some of the some of the areas where there's this jump from one to three, there's no two. And, also, why do we have the valley where, like, you can see the the three valleys of the, PLTS one on the right hand side. And one would somewhat expect to see a, like, a soft graph given that these numbers are, like, continuous over a range.

So the the the rationale behind that is that the research shows that, buffers matter a lot in terms of people's sort of perception of the comfort to walk along a street, and they also have a safety benefit in that the wider the buffer that also tends to offer more, sort of hard hard protection, what we would call, within that buffer. For many jurisdictions, the sort of limit for putting something substantial in a buffer is four feet, like a tree or a hard hard barrier or something like that. Why did we have five feet? Well, that's specifically designed to the city standards that the standard buffer width here is five feet because it provides greater space for particularly landscaping to do to do well, to not die or struggle. So the buffers, the research shows from both the safety and a perception piece add a lot of value.

And you'll note that the it's oftentimes it's the we're buffering a one versus a two. It's the two that kind of peaks up, if you will. The the three kind of trails off down the line, and it's the two that pops up. And if we go back to oops. Wrong direction.

Where is my little the people slide? Here we go. The PLTS one is designed for something that's just designed that if you have a, you know, like, a toddler that's kinda running around in some circles, you're you're a lot less concerned about it than, in, PLTS two, which it's still pretty good environment. But, that extra bit of separation, particularly for, some people who might be a little bit more unpredictable or unsure of themselves, that's where we're trying to def delineate the two. So the valleys are really caused by the the one to two Yeah. So variation.

Thank you. I I should actually unask that question because I just realized those valleys are not an artifact of, like, a discontinuous function. Rather, it's just an artifact of presentation. It's the fact exactly. There's a double axis, so it's not actually an issue. It's actually very logical. However, the second part of my question is still there, which is in the bottom right hand corner, I noticed we jumped from PLTS three to to one. Was that just I'm just kind of curious. I mean, it's not a huge deal, but I was curious what the thinking was there.

And for the for the

I'm sorry. The bottom right. So, basically, you've got for the, yeah. You just wanna point it out. Thank you. Right there. I was curious

Oh, I see. Yeah.

Why that happens.

So for in in that, instance there, so for where we have a larger than 10 foot sidewalk and a larger than five foot buffer. So this is sort of like think of it as, a downtown sidewalk. The buffer width on a high volume road that's approaching, that's above 30 miles an hour. We have within the staff team so if we were to sort of roll this back as to where the the sort of the kind of the raw research, if you will, we presented a little bit on that last time coming from, like, University of, Madison or Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The the three buffer wants to creep up a little bit higher in some of the research.

But when we looked at what do people feel comfortable with in the city, are our standards comfortable in certain situations, We tended to be bumping that down a little bit based on what's what's an expectation that people seem to be satisfied here within the city. So that the buffer is it's a bit of a point of debate. And I think this is where your input can can sort of provide some guidance that the the research would tend to wanna keep it there. So a three against a one is the buffer that big of a of a difference, debatable. But we wanted to have some, reservation for where we were looking for PLTS two or one.

This gets back to, like, the implementation side. The development services team likes to have a reason to say, hey. We we don't wanna compromise on the buffer width because it really helps us get to the PLTS target performance target that we have. Those keeping those buffers there is something that, helps them do their job. So there's as Kevin can note, there was a a little bit debate about, sort of, I think someone said, watering down the snow cone from the the previous the version that we had to push that push that down a little bit. But there was another debate back to say, we need some teeth to be able to get towards the city design standards. So that's where we ended up on that.

Okay. Great. Thank question.

Go ahead.

Just I have two questions. One, why didn't you consider transit routes? Like, was there or was there any consideration of transit?

It it might be lost in the let me see if we got it in. I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah. So for within it's really tiny print.

Oh, it's in the tiny print?

Yeah. That, or maybe I missed it, and it should be in here. The the pedestrian destinations by definition within the MIP include frequent transit network stops, schools, libraries, etcetera. Yeah.

Because I I don't see it there. And I'm also thinking not just the the stops, but if you have a transit route for an arterial, it's very likely that people are gonna be walking that arterial along it. So I just that and I was just curious.

Yeah. So it's and this is again, there's lots of staff discussion about what what is the right buffer for all of these pedestrian destinations. And if we pick a buffer that's too big, then we kind of dilute the purpose of having the the definition called out. But that's we decided that would be identified in the project concept development such that if we have, you know, a really busy rapid ride stop that is there's a connection to a large apartment complex, we wanna make that connection. It should have a better pedestrian level of traffic stress.

What that dimension actually is right now, we would be kind of chasing our tails to try to define that now, but with the intent that those sorts of things be connected.

Okay. And then my second question was related to the schools. So for example, my recollection is you have p, BLTS three unless there's a school. I was looking at, like, the the for example, why is that not a two or this school? So, like, what was the

So our, as Kevin mentioned, our SME, a subject matter expert on safe routes to schools, is going through the the map now and and marking those pieces. We just This didn't have we so we have the this sort of more generic language in this piece, which the development review team also wanted to say that we need to so we're working on that that specifics as well.

K. Other questions? Yeah. Go ahead.

Just one that's kind of moving backwards moving back from the end game of is there are there any two maps that you can literally overlay to each other and say, this is where we have PLTS one. This is where we have LTS one. There's no gaps here. This is how we know that this is working. This is how we know our scoring system is working. This is how we know we're prioritizing the right way.

Working on the map that will tell us tell you exactly that.

Oh, my Oh, sorry.

Sorry. I mean, yeah. We

we intended to provide for that deliverable tonight to to show where the performance meets the expectation and where it doesn't. We're not quite ready there yet. We're doing some some truthing on on the the data that informs the map. So we we're doing that now and making there there were some some outliers there that just didn't make sense to us as we looked at the results. So we wanted to make sure that we were comfortable sharing with you something that we were comfortable with the the data that informed the map. So it's coming in in March. You will see that that deliverable in March. So we'll we'll know where the gaps are.

Sorry. Was that your question, or were you asking

It was more so just to, you know, a compliment to to you guys and the commission. Is there a visual that states our scoring system meets LTS one or minimum level of stress or safety or no fatalities, all of these visionary things that that the city of Bellevue and the commission has. And we have these scoring systems, and we have these LTS measurement systems, I'm just curious to know how can we what are how can we show our KPIs are working? Mhmm.

So I I I to back to again, we're we're working on the data to show where the gaps are. Again, to if we were to implement what the the standards are, which are based on engineering best practices, are driving towards vision zero, we would get this this map here. And so that's the vision. Where we stand today, there's a lot of gaps. There's a lot

gifts.

And we have yes. We have work to do, but that's the the, we we wanted to make sure that what we are the vision is realistic, that it's not so, pie in the sky that it's just the the KPIs would never be there. So that's where we there's some, deliberate, intent behind how these were set.

Yeah. It it would just be there's gotta be some there's probably multiple examples where you can say, look. This is where we got it right on this, and this is where we got it right on this level, and this is where we got on and I I would just be curious to know because then we can use that as a model to copy and paste for other parts of Bellevue for prioritizing to make sure that we're being equitable, etcetera.

That that it's it's an excellent question, and we have our our our Vision Zero program manager coming to the commission, I think, in April. But but, you know, you know, the the location of a gap on a high injury network raises a flag for us. It raises the priority for looking at that location and seeing, first of all, it it becomes a high priority. Second of all, we'd look at the high injury network and see what's happening there and then try to develop a a intervention, whether it's an infrastructure intervention and or an operational intervention or a traffic calming type thing to to address what we have identified as an as a high injury network location. So we'll we're to to you know, there isn't that that magic map that tells us what to do where where where the gaps exist, but there are complementary programs working together to identify the problem and identify a solution that reduces the propensity for people to be injured.

And then it it you know, the each in each, you know, each individual injury situation has a different story behind it. So we wanna look under the hood and see what's going on with those injuries, seeing what's happening to cause them and inter intervene where we can.

And and this is just more of a a suggestion of ways to show that the commission is successful, ways to show that the staff is successful. And it's a collaborative effort, so it's more of a a way to say, look. This is how we evaluated where a gap or this is how we identified a gap. These are the other priority maps that we used, and and this is now one of the safest intersections, you know, that's around a school or etcetera.

Well, the the success would be to have the high entry map not have any lines on it anymore.

Right. Yeah.

So that that's the ultimate success.

37, maybe?

Yeah. Alright. Have a quick Are you tied to this one? Just a quick

can we do some sort of analysis? I know this is gonna take probably a couple of but that would say at the rate of expenditure on our sidewalks, we would get there. We would have the high injury network by 2050. We would have all of it done by 2100. Can is there someone that can do a back of the envelope? Someone?

I bet I probably

not, you know, Noriana. And you you being in the profession, you know that that the the the project concepts are based on assumptions that are real today and maybe not real tomorrow, including costs. So you you don't ever know.

No. But it's an important factor to understand that what we're looking at is not getting funded for decades upon decades upon decades to achieve our vision. I think that's an important concept to understand notionally. Right? So back of the envelope, like, I said Seattle did it, and it was 2338. Right? Like, something like that. So I'm just saying, like, that there are ways that you can back of the envelope. I I know you guys do adjust for inflation and things like that. So you know?

So as a talking point, it it may make a it may make

a point. It's really an interesting understanding because we work really hard at this, right, and to your point, like, how do well, we're gonna be successful in 2100. Right? Like, we're gonna be successful. So I just wanna make sure that we are dimensioning the the the the challenge, the nature of our challenge, especially for counsel. Right? We live it. We breathe it. But do they really understand that the and we you know, the debt we have in there and and and all that kind of stuff. And and it's just an it's notional, but

they're there. Alright. I saw a hand over here.

Oh, yeah. I was just gonna I don't know. I think you said amplify Commissioner Keelman's point, which which was, I think, measuring. So if we do if we accomplish LTS three or two, and we have, in some places, made LTS improvements, Main Street for bikes. It would be very powerful to have data that shows we reduced injuries in that segment.

It for our city, not like some other city. Right? But for our city, in our case, with our drivers, with our terrain, with our weather. Right? So I I just thought that was a really good point, and it would be very powerful, right, for us to be able to do that. And then maybe that helps us raise the awareness to get the additional funds that commissioner Marchiante is perhaps seeking.

Right? Okay. Other thoughts for tonight? Go ahead, commissioner Tang.

Yeah. For the, trying to have a KPI or something, what I would probably look at is if you look at the KSIs, especially in areas that we've improved, we would expect to see them hopefully be zero. So it would be interesting once we understand why there is a KSI at a particular location, whether an increase in the improving the PLTS would have actually made a difference. And then if we did the improvement to the PLTS to see that we don't actually have any more KSIs on that particular segment. So looking at that as sort of an overlay is, you know, something that I would probably do, you know, in the future when stuff is built out.

But my actual question is, is the reason that we have PMA three being a PLTS three target due to volume of people that are on those networks? Because it's interesting that the goal is a PLTS three, whereas in PMA one, the goal is a PLTS one. Right? So can you speak to that a little bit?

Yeah. I can get to that a little bit. And especially since we've done a little bit of a cut of the data, it helps to sort of see where things lie. PLTS three on those again, it gets back to the function. The function of those arterials is to move vehicles sort of across the city to sort of large destinations.

So by design, they move more vehicles and they move them faster. That's just the nature. These are the only roads in the city that have 35 or 40 mile an hour speed limits, and they're carrying a lot of cars. So if you can see on the map or in this chart, at above 35 miles an hour, it's hard to get we don't even have a PLTS one, and that's by the research. Fast moving, high volume streets are less comfortable. And so when we look at what can we design for and implement, we can't get to PLTS one unless we slow down the traffic. But that kind of runs against the function of the road. So how do we balance that? So this was a debate among staff. It's like, why are we shooting for a PLTS three?

That seems uninspiring. But at the same point, PLTS for pedestrians isn't the only thing we've got to consider. There's all the vehicles. There's buses that use those roads. There's other things to consider. So that's where we ended up with the the, sort of we didn't want that all over the city, but we recognize that these really important roads have a function that we wanna provide something that's generally comfortable for walking along busier streets, but you wouldn't necessarily wanna be spending all day out there. We could always try to do better, but that's what we thought is a reasonable place to be.

Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Good. So quick question back to my school question. So so if it's mostly function of the street, it would be PLTS 3, except when there's school, they put the slow Correct. You know, then they've copied in that. And so it should maybe be announced more. But that so when when you slow down the traffic at a school zone, it would become a p l s p PLTS two during those periods of time. And so okay. So the function changes when you change the speed.

Yeah. The speed's a huge deter yeah.

Which is

Yes. Where school zones come into play. And what we didn't want is, like, the excuse of a school zone to allow a skinnier sidewalk, again, coming from our good friends at Development Review

Right.

Which is why we had that Newport High School example of because of the way people walk, we also still need to have wide sidewalks even if the speed limit's down to 20 and people are following it.

Okay. Any last questions? Or

alright. I'm nerdy.

It looks like we've gotta get to our two questions then.

We could do them all at once,

and I'll

make this decision if you want or do them individually.

You probably want them individually, right, I would think. Yeah. Let's do them individually just in case. So there's the the two things we have to decide on are the matrix and then the targets in the map of the future state, what would what would be like. So I guess I'll throw out there, is there anybody who is in disagreement of how the PLTS matrix is indicated here on this graph?

This is a comment. I don't have any, like, disagreements, but it would be helpful to show some examples, like, some concepts of, like Go to because there's I mean, each box of those is a different case. And so it's really hard to imagine what's the difference between that and that in a table. So that that would just be a little bit helpful.

And and I would only add, maybe explain the valleys. I think I think the the the the eye naturally says, something I think that would help. But other than that, that's that's just clarification. So I so am I hearing no disagreement with this matrix as is? Alright. Second question, the PLTS performance targets and map, Is there any disagreement with this as a future state?

Can you put the transit on there?

Yes.

K. And clarification.

Appreciate that.

Any disagreement? Okay. Looks like we've got both for tonight.

Very good. Thank you.

K. Thank you for answering all our questions. Alright. Approval of minutes. We've got from the last two meetings, both in January. The meeting minutes from January 9, do I have a motion to approve them from that night?

I move to approve both sets of minutes.

Both sets. Do we have Second. Are there any amendments to either? Alright. Excellent. Okay. I don't think we have any unfinished business. So anybody else anybody else brings anything up?

And no new business? Looking around

the room.

Alright. Review of commission calendar. We've got it in front

of us.

Yeah. So Go

ahead and take it away, Kevin, for highlights.

Nothing really to comment on. You see the the agenda. We've got back to back meetings in March and April for for ongoing conversations about topics that you've already been talking about, but also introducing more information on the curb management plan and the the pricing. The the the the report on community outreach on the pricing program proposition. Yeah.

You'll you'll get that on March 13. And you will you will also Akshali was here earlier. She will be introducing potential code amendments to allow for escooters to be operating in the city. As you recall, we used to have bike share, and the bike share organization wanted to do scooters. Our code doesn't allow for scooters, so they pulled bike share out also. So we'll we'll see if we can incorporate some code amendments to reinvigorate that interest in providing shared micromobility.