By my colleagues Ryan Knight and Daniel Markham.

Before we get started, I just want to run through a quick bit of housekeeping.

We'll go through a presentation.

I invite you to drop any questions you may have during the presentation into the QA chat function.

Daniel and Ryan will be moderating that and answering when they can during the presentation and also consolidating questions to respond to at the end.

At the end of the presentation, after we've gone through any questions we have received, we'll also open it up for QA.

At that point, we'd ask if you could please raise your hand so that we can see if you have a question.

I'll acknowledge you by the name listed on your Zoom name, and then unmute you so you can ask the question.

So we're going to go ahead and get started since it is a little after seven.

So once again, thank you so much for joining us.

We're excited to give a brief overview of this project, which is a feasibility study for the Beauregard Trail.

So during this presentation, we'll start with a project overview, including the project's goals and alignment with approved city plans and policies.

We'll cover some existing conditions within the study area, go through some project analysis and design ideas, and then wrap up with ways to share your thoughts on the project and next steps.

So the project location is North Beauregard Street, which is located in the western end of the City of Alexandria, starting in the northern end of the roadway at the intersection of Fillmore Avenue and North of Beauregard, and it extends southwesterly for about approximately one and a half miles to the city limits with Fairfax County near Lincolnia Road.

So you can see it highlighted in blue on the screen here.

The project only includes funding for the study and does not include design or construction at this point.

The grant study builds upon recommendations in city plans and policies that have been previously vetted by the community and approved by City Council.

These include the recommendation of protected bicycle facilities and the Alexandria Mobility Plan and the Alex West Small Area Plan, which was recently approved in late 2025.

The extension of a multi-use trail also helps the city meet policy goals, such as providing dedicated spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, provision zero, and supports the city's environmental action plan by increasing access for sustainable modes of transportation.

By building a dedicated trail along North Beauregard Street, the project delivers other city project goals, which are shaped by plans and policies, such as improving the mobility, safety, and access for all roadway users of all ages, abilities, and modes of travel, as identified in the Alexandria Mobility Plan.

The Alex West plan identified increasing pedestrian and bicycle access to the neighborhood as a goal.

And eliminating bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries would be promoted through a dedicated trail space for pedestrians and cyclists, as identified in our Vision Zero goals.

And finally, a trail offers easy to navigate space for bicycling and walking, hopefully increasing access to sustainable modes of transportation, as identified by the city's environmental policy goals.

So, in terms of a timeline, the original vision for the Beauregard Trail can be traced back to 2021 or earlier when the Alexandria Mobility Plan and then the Alex West Small Area Plan in 2025.

For the project design, we started the feasibility study in late 2025 and we'll proceed with identifying feasible concepts through this summer.

Once we have a sense of the feasibility, the final timeline of the design and eventual construction is unknown, as we'll need to integrate the project into the department's work plans and identify potential funding.

So now let's talk about the existing conditions in the corridor and the study area.

Many of you are already familiar with North Beauregard Street as it's a popular vehicle throwfare in the city, and it's designed to move vehicles through the space.

The roadway has four or more vehicle travelings along its length, creating a wide distance that can be difficult to cross.

In addition, there are many steep slopes and hills along the length of the corridor.

The sidewalks along North Beauregard Street are narrow, of approximately four feet in width, and frequently located close to the roadway with vehicles traveling at high speeds.

The primary uses in the study area and reasons people tend to travel through the corridor are a mix of residential, schools, office, some retail, and a number of natural features.

Garden style residential, such as those developed by Morgan Properties, cover much of the western side of the study area closer to Fairfax County, while higher density residential, such as such as Southern Towers is located on the eastern side of the corridor.

Mark Center contains a mix of office users and connections to I-395 brings many daily commuters and vehicle traffic along the corridor.

Academic uses such as John Adams, William Ramsey, and Ferdinand T.

Day Elementary Schools are located within the communities they serve, close to the study area, and encourage students and parents to walk to the schools where possible and generate daily bus traffic during the school year, along with notable pedestrian volumes.

Looking at bus transportation in the study area, many of the routes are focused more on the northeastern end of the corridor, with most of the bus traffic passing near Southern Towers and the Mark Center, while the 35 dash route runs along most of North Beauregard Street.

Of note is the forthcoming West End Transitway, which will travel along Sanger Avenue and turn onto Beauregard Street with several stops within the project area.

So this diagram shows a number of the various bicycle and pedestrian facilities along North Beauregard Street.

These include some off-street trails, such as those in Holmes Run, and shared lane markings on portions of North Beauregard and Sanger Avenue.

I would say the key takeaway from this diagram, though, is the entirety of North Beauregard Street is lacking any dedicated bicycle or newer pedestrian infrastructure to help knit together the surrounding and existing network of options.

We've also pulled information on bicycle and pedestrian crashes within the past five years in the study area.

And this information comes from the city's Vision Zero dashboard.

What you're seeing here on this screen does not include any data on crashes with cars, which had many more incidents within the study area.

Each of the dots on the screen represents a crash.

And while there were a number of them, there were limited similarities between the incidents.

However, we did identify a few commonalities, which included distracted drivers, poor lighting, and high vehicle speeds.

Sadly, many of these crashes did occur within crosswalks where pedestrians should feel safer crossing the street, indicating opportunities to improve the roadway conditions and driver behaviors to create a safer community.

And let's transition briefly to a little bit of traffic analysis within the corridor as well.

So to help shape our understanding of existing roadway capacity and the potential design parameters for our trail, our team conducted a preliminary traffic analysis to understand existing volumes along North Beauregard Street.

Various intersections had different levels of traffic, indicating that drivers are entering and exiting the corridor at different locations.

And we don't typically see vehicles traveling the full length of North Beauregard Street.

This also indicates that different designs or approaches to the trail may be appropriate for different segments of the corridor.

However, overall, the roadway had plenty of capacity for the current volume of vehicles.

Looking a little more closely at many of the intersections along the study area, we can see that the average peak traffic volume by intersection.

So this graph on the right of your screen shows the five intersections in the study area where we collected data.

And the gray bar shows the highest volume of vehicles during the AM and PM peaks.

So think of that as your morning and evening rush hour.

The yellow line shows the designed capacity of the roadway for one vehicle lane.

So if the roadway had one lane, that is the capacity it could support.

Whereas the blue lane, the blue line shows the peak capacity for two vehicle lanes, meaning those lines show the point where the volume of cars continues to flow when it's underneath a line, but would start to slow down and have congestion if the gray bar was above the yellow or blue line.

For each of the intersections, the current volumes show that the number of vehicles going through the intersections are under capacity at two lanes, which that is showing the distance between the blue line and the gray line, and could even function at the same level of service if the lanes were reduced from two lanes to one lane.

And this is evident since the gray bars are underneath the yellow lines.

This indicates an opportunity to reallocate vehicle lanes for other uses if desired without impacting the flow of vehicle traffic.

So we've covered what the corridor is currently like, why people choose to travel through the space, and begin to understand how it's working today.

And now let's move into how it could look and operate into the future.

So before we start, I want to contextualize that the two potential options could look like.

So the images on the screen are illustrative of what a cycle track versus a trail could be.

In a cycle track, you'll see that pedestrians and cyclists each have their own space separate from vehicles, whereas a trail would combine pedestrians and cyclists while keeping them separate from vehicles.

And when we think about the existing conditions on the corridor, a cycle track or trail may not be the best design or the easiest to implement along the corridor in its entirety, especially given how long the study area is, the nature of the surrounding community changes along its length.

And so these are some of the things to think about as we look throughout the corridor.

For instance, on the northern end of the corridor, seminary road and north, northeastern, we already have a length of the corridor with a 10-foot wide trail in front of the spire development.

And it may make sense in that area to continue that particular design until the intersection with Seminary Road.

Then for a portion of the study area in the middle from Sanger Avenue through Mark Center Drive, that's the portion of North Beauregard where we are going to have the future West End Transitway.

So ensuring that the design of both bicycle and pedestrian facilities is compatible with bus traffic is going to be of utmost importance.

And then finally, the portion of North Beauregard Street, which is south of Sanger Avenue, will not have any of the future West End Transit way.

The topography is also quite different in this area with a lot of steep terrain.

And so the final design of a trail in this area may look different.

So all this to say, the options we show may be mixed and matched along the corridor to create a blended design and best meet the constraints of the site.

So in addition to thinking through the nature of the corridor, there are a number of other factors which tend to be considered when evaluating the design timeline and impacts of a trail or cycle track.

I'm going to walk through these considerations before framing them in the context of the subsequent design options.

So the first thing to think about is safety from traffic, and that's a way to evaluate how well do the various designs separate people walking and biking from vehicles.

So thinking about the space between the trail or path users and cars.

Separate spaces is evaluating how well each type of user has space from others, so pedestrians, which are separate from cyclists, and then once again separate from vehicles.

Travel impact looks at potential changes to traffic patterns and timing for vehicles using the current road network.

And consistency along the corridor assigns value to a consistent design.

So from start to finish, is it the same trail or does it vary by segments to respond to surrounding conditions?

Property impacts is another consideration.

Since this would be a city-owned and maintained trail, the city would need to either own or have legal permission to construct and maintain the trail in perpetuity.

Some of the following design options leverage city-owned property, while others may require the city to obtain new space for the trail or path.

Cost is always important, but how expensive would the design be to construct an option relative to the others?

And finally, implementation timeline.

Some options may be faster to construct than others, and how important is that relative to other factors when weighing the different design options.

So in the first concept, we're proposing a shared trail where pedestrians and cyclists would share the space, and we would keep the existing curb in place along North Beauregard Street and widen the trail away from the street.

So some things to note, this design would likely be on the southern side of North Beauregard Street, so the side of the street with mark center and southern towers, and not on both sides of the roadway.

And going back to those considerations, those categories we just covered on the earlier slide, this design presents some advantages and some challenges to implement.

So when we look at safety from traffic, this design has a strong advantage since pedestrians and cyclists are separated from vehicles.

However, it only scores in the moderate category of separate spaces since pedestrians and cyclists are sharing trail space.

Travel impacts, this scores a good performance since there are no changes proposed to the roadway.

In terms of design continuity, this design would present a strong advantage since this concept of an off-road trail is already constructed north of Seminary Road, and this would then continue the design for the remainder of the corridor.

However, in terms of property impacts, cost and implementation, this design creates some significant challenges.

First, since this design proposes to widen the trail away from the road, there are a number of locations where the city would need to work with property owners to try and purchase land or the rights to build a wider trail.

In those instances, that process of acquisition creates additional time and money needed for the project.

In addition, the topography and grade along the corridor does create places where there are either steep drop-offs or hills where a trail would ideally be located.

In those locations, it would require either additional structural design or excavation to install the trail, which further increases the complexity, cost, and time for construction.

The second option, once again, is a shared trail where pedestrians and cyclists share the space, but instead this trail is widened into one of the existing lanes of traffic on North Beauregard Street.

As we covered earlier, the current traffic levels on North Beauregard Street are low enough that removing a lane of traffic will not negatively impact the overall flow of traffic.

And once again, the concept is only looking at reallocating one lane of traffic from vehicles to bikes and pedestrians.

So one lane on the south side of the roadway on the side of the road where Mark Center and Southern Towers is located and not on both sides.

Once again, let's walk through those categories of design considerations in light of this design.

Safety from traffic is still a strong advantage since pedestrians and cyclists are separated from vehicles.

And once again, this design scores in the moderate category of separate spaces since pedestrians and cyclists are sharing trail space.

Travel impacts, this scores a good performance since the category the since the capacity of the roadway is such that reallocating a vehicle travel lane doesn't have a negative impact on overall roadway capacity.

And in terms of design continuity, this option is a strong advantage since this concept is an off-road trail that is already constructed north of Seminary Road, and we continue this design for the remainder of the corridor.

The real change with scoring comes within the property impacts and cost and implementation timeline when compared to the previous option.

Since the trail is proposed to be constructed within the existing roadway, the city already owns and maintains the space needed for the trail, and the property impacts are now considered a strong advantage.

The cost and implementation categories improve slightly from significant challenges to some challenges.

In order to widen the sidewalk into a trail in the roadway, the project would have to shift the existing curb into the travel lane as part of that design.

When we start shifting the curb, the city would then need to have to relocate any impacted utilities and drainage.

And these include things like your sewer openings, lighting, and electrical poles, which can be very expensive and time consuming.

So while the project design is easier to design and construct, it still has some cost implications.

And then this final design concept, an in-street protected with separated bike lanes, the trail design proposes to keep the existing curb lane in place and instead reallocate an existing vehicle travel lane as a protected bicycle lane while maintaining the sidewalk.

To reiterate, again, the current traffic levels on North Beauregard Street are low enough that reallocating a lane of traffic will not negatively impact the overall traffic flow.

And once again, this concept is only proposing to reallocate one lane of traffic from vehicles to bikes.

So one lane, likely on the southern side of the road and not on both sides of North Beauregard Street.

Walking through those categories again for evaluating the design, safety from traffic is still a strong advantage because pedestrians and cyclists are separated from vehicles.

However, in separate spaces, this design scores a strong advantage since it provides fully separated spaces for pedestrians and cyclists from each other.

Travel impacts scores a good performance since the capacity of the roadway is such that reallocating a vehicle travel lane doesn't have a negative impact on capacity.

In terms of design continuity, this design has significant challenges since it is a departure from the established trail along the northern portion of the corridor.

But when we consider the property impacts, this design scores a strong advantage since the city, once again, is utilizing a travel lane that is already owned by the city.

Cost has a good performance since maintaining the location of the existing curb and those utilities really minimizes potential costs when compared to the previous two options.

And finally, a timeline to implement this concept shows a strong advantage since it would be the fastest design to be constructed, especially when compared to the other two options.

On this final slide, we've compared all three design options across the established categories so you can more easily see the comparison and make your own evaluation when assessing the features and considerations that are most important to you.

Is cost the most important consideration, or is the speed at which a trail could be constructed more important?

Is it continuous design the most important feature?

Or other elements that you feel are more significant?

Regardless of your preferences, any of the proposed options would provide a safer option for cyclists and pedestrians than the current design.

So with this comparison in mind, we invite you to provide the city with feedback on the various designs and your experiences within the study area.

We have an online feedback form, which I will open up in a few minutes, where which can be accessed through the project website, and we're seeking input from the community.

This form will be online and open through April 19th.

In terms of next steps for this project, as mentioned, we have the feedback form open until April 19th for public comment.

After the form closes, we'll take some time to review the feedback from the community and integrate information into the concepts.

And then we'll come forward to the traffic and parking board with a presentation of findings this summer.

After the presentation to the board, the city will then work to integrate the findings from the feasibility study into our larger work plan to think about timing and long-term funding for implementation.

So I want to say thank you so much for your time this evening.

If you'd like additional information about the project, please look at the project website at alexandria.gov forward slash go forward slash 7749 for additional information.

And so we'll now open up for a period of questions.

Once again, if you have any questions, please feel free to drop them in the QA.

I've asked my colleagues Brian and Daniel to help moderate.

And we can also open up for questions.

So if you would like to raise your hand, we will start calling on people with their hands raised if they have questions.

So Sarah, I've got a question posed for is ongoing maintenance costs substantially different or similar between options two and three.

That is a great question.

Sure.

And if we could go to options two and three in the uh presentation, that would be helpful as well.

All right.

So this is option two.

So yeah, so with the maintenance of basically is uh the maintenance of the travel lane versus the maintenance of uh the sidewalk.

Uh you know, holistically speaking, the maintenance of the travel lane uh costs more.

Um it's more material and then more um more uh of a heavy lift to maintain the asphalt uh rather than concrete.

Um and then also the sidewalk doesn't um have much of a uh maintenance implications in you don't have to maintain it more as frequent as you would have to do in asphalt.

So with all that being said, uh the um concept that has the more asphalt, which uh seemingly would be alternative three uh would be more uh of a maintenance um cost um through for both of the options.

Thank you so much, Ryan.

And Sarah, at this point, I'm not seeing any more questions in the chat, but uh again, as you mentioned, if folks have questions they want to ask live, feel free to raise your hand.

All right.

Well, I am not seeing any hands raised.

Um so thank you all so much for joining us this evening.

One just popped in, sorry, Sarah.

Um, how much does it cost to replace the bollards?

Uh I think uh an individual bollard, um, I'd we'd have to follow up and get that information on the cost.

Um, I think it also depends on the wear and tear of the overall um corridor, it really could vary given volumes.

Um I think at corners, we've often seen bollards get uh more frequently damaged.

I do see Kevin O'Brien, I'm gonna unmute you or you uh feel free to unmute yourself and ask your question.

All right.

Uh I think I'm coming through.

Um so with the uh with the third concept, alternative three, um, if the city was to utilize you know one of the travel lanes in one direction for uh an in-road bike facility, what would happen on the other side of the median?

Um, the other two travel lanes.

Would the city also be considering uh a road diet or or utilizing um some type of space on the other side as well?

I'm just curious.

Yeah, I think at this point um we are not uh evaluating changes to the other side of the roadway.

Um it does leave options open long term if there are other future needs, but um so far the the studies have just been assessing um using one side of the roadway.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

Well, I'm gonna uh go ahead and end our presentation this evening.

Uh, if you give me just a minute, I will go open up the uh feedback form.

So that'll be live.

Um and feel free to add uh we do a lot of participation.

Sorry, another one just popped in if you have the time.

Yeah.

Um have you studied how current residents bike and travel on scooters?

I would say anecdotally that most often people choose to be off the road.

Um I would say we have seen scooters in the area more than cyclists, and I think that makes uh given some of the hills in that area, it makes sense.

Um we I would say most of the data we have uh just tracks people on mobility devices, so it can be a little more difficult to differentiate between a scooter versus a bicycle.

Um I do know sadly the the one fatality we did have in the corridor um was from uh an individual on a scooter.

So we do know they are being used and they are a vulnerable population on the roadway.

Um I see a question came in.

Um other questions that have popped in.

That was the last one.

Uh of course another one popped in.

This is a fun game.

Is the city considering creating dedicated lanes for the transit way?

It seems like an excess road capacity could be used for that purpose.

Um, so my understanding, and Ryan, please um, or Daniel, correct me if this is incorrect.

Um my understanding is right now in the first phase of the West End Transit way in this portion of the area of of North Beauregard, um, they are not implementing dedicated bus lanes.

Uh that is correct, Sarah.

What is uh the first phase, which is the uh phase that is currently um the phase that is currently funded, uh does not have dedicated bus lanes uh within certain segments of the roadway.

Now there are certain segments along this stretch, either on along Van Dorn or along Beauregard that has uh dedicated bus uh facilities uh, which is or dedicated bus lanes at uh bus stops, uh but um throughout the entire corridor, it would not be continuous.

So um so with all that being said, uh there is a long-term plan uh for dedicated um facilities, um, but that has not been funded, and we have not identified the funding mechanisms for that is uh as of yet.

Um Casey, I see your hand is raised.

So if you are able to unmute yourself and ask your question.

Hi, Sarah, yes.

Uh, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, I have a whole several questions, so I don't know if there's other people waiting to ask questions, but um, so cut me off if I uh get to be uh too uh wordy here.

Can you put up the map that shows kind of the uh corridor of the uh project area?

Absolutely.

Give me a minute to flip there.

Yep.

So uh one of the suggestions I would have here.

So that actually, this is the perfect one.

So you show existing facilities, uh, but I would suggest that uh you kind of modify this map a little bit to at least get down to uh Braddock Road.

Um, and actually, even better would be to get all the way to King Street, because you know, an issue I have raised before is that um Arlington has a bike trail that goes up to the Alexandria City line uh called Lucky Run.

And then for about uh 70 feet, um we have a sidewalk.

Um, and then on the um section of the existing trail uh that runs from King Street to Fillmore, it's on the uh eastern side.

I'm calling it the eastern side where um of the community college.

No, the that I'm considering the western side.

So the eastern side um and you guys I think we're calling it north-south, but that was a little confusing to me because I think of Beauregard kind of running in a north-south um perspective.

But maybe you guys think of it east-west.

So it does add an angle, which always makes it a fun yeah, northeast, southwest.

So anyway, um uh getting from the lucky run to the um uh city's um shared use path on the uh east side uh opposite from the community college, that's gonna be an awkward connection.

That same exact uh uh situation is gonna exist at Seminary Road when uh you are now proposing putting the the trail on the um opposite side from the Mark Center.

Um so what wasn't discussed this evening, and I I would hope can be captured going forward, is those are challenging intersections for a cyclist to have to deal with and are they gonna have to make two maneuvers in order to get you know from one side or the other?

And so I think that will help inform somewhat the cost actually uh on the project.

So I'd like to make sure that happens.

And then why I think it needs the map needs to be expanded a little bit, expanded a little bit, is that this is also an opportunity uh to look at at least identify the um uh Braddock Road that connects from Beauregard to uh Van Dorn.

Um that's a key element to uh a bicycle network.

And even though it this isn't part of that project, it at least should be flagged so that as this thing is starting to develop and you know, time's an issue uh to be looking at how that can would connect uh to this trail because that'll ultimately be a pretty prime connection, uh particularly since the city is already looking at um from Van Dorn to uh Quaker.

Um so uh that's my first comment.

The second is I ride this uh roadway fairly frequently on my bike.

And one thing that you guys didn't mention this evening, uh, and one of the big advantages to uh narrowing the roadway is the speed.

Uh I typically access um uh this in the morning from Braddock Road, and I'm heading towards Shurlington.

And the drivers driving on that section of um uh Beauregard Beauregard to King Street are certainly going much faster than 25 miles an hour always.

Um and I didn't see in kind of you guys looking at this kind of the assessment of uh what speed uh uh what the impact of speed is on this corridor, but I I I think that should be inclusive uh going forward um in terms of talking about this project.

And it it it begins to argue why where you can do the single lane, uh that's gonna dramatically help uh with the speed, particularly that section uh from Seminary Road down to Sanger Avenue.

Drivers can get up to a pretty fast speed going down that, even though there's two schools or three schools uh in that uh area, and I do ride down that, and I'm going 25, and I feel like I'm getting run off the road as the drivers are uh passing me and then getting irritated that I'm only going 25, which is the posted speed limit.

So that that's the uh uh second comment.

Um the third in is kind of speaks to the separated space for people walking and biking.

Um, you know, one of the challenges with a 10 foot wide uh shared use path is at times it can actually be fairly narrow.

There are a lot of people who do walk uh up and down those hills, and then with cyclists, particularly going downhill, and as you guys have identified, there's likely to be some uh conflict.

So I think that should be kind of captured in the when you guys are looking at the idea of shared versus separated space, particularly in the hilly sections.

Uh, and again, I would suggest that that's from um uh uh particularly seminary up to um uh Linconia Road.

And um although if you have to climb the Linconia, you uh on a cycle, a bicep, a regular bicycle, it it's that's quite an effort to climb it.

An e-bike would probably let you go uh much uh quicker.

Um next comment regards the um uh the homes run trail.

Uh so it at Sanger Avenue, it's actually at Morgan Street uh is where you would cross Beauregard um uh potentially uh cross Beauregard to uh pick up the uh trail again uh there at Morgan Street.

And that's particularly true uh late at night or when it there's been a lot of rain, because that section of the homes run trail from uh Beauregard uh to Van Dorn uh is gonna get flooded and uh uh not damaging flood, but just way too wet for people to biking.

So they likely to take Sanger and then have to uh connect.

So you guys should make sure that uh that's included in the design, which is how you're gonna connect to the trail.

Um particularly now that that new bridge is going in there at uh Morgan.

And then I kind of briefly reference this before, but uh just uh reiterated, which is the uh the transition from the east to the west or the west to the east or north to the south, however you guys are describing this at Seminary Road in um uh at King Street and you know, possibly up at uh Linconia Road, uh, how people are going to get from one side of the other to continue their journeys um uh should also get captured uh some somehow as you're looking at that.

And then uh my final comment is the uh is going back to the speed issue, which is um, you know, I I really think that uh where you're able to take advantage of the roadway to put in bike lanes and separate the uh uh pedestrian cyclists, it somehow needs to get uh an extra star because that really is the the safest uh for all users.

Um so that that's all my comments.

Great.

Thank you so much.

And um, I do want to acknowledge I did not um mention this, and I can add a link to this on our the project website.

Um the city is working on constructing um uh additional segment from Fillmore Avenue to believe it's Berkeley Street at the Alex West development.

So that will be a continuation of that 10-foot trail.

Um, and that is hopefully um starting construction towards the end of this year.

So ideally um we would have a continuous uh 10-foot wide trail from Fillmore Avenue up north to the city border with Fairfax County um within the next year or so.

Yeah, thank you, Sarah.

Uh that reminds me, I had one more thing, which is that uh it would really be nice if the city could magically uh design if we go to a shared use path, figure out a way not to put the utilities in uh uh poles back into the shared use path because they're at uh uh Fillmore, uh that section that goes down towards Braddock Road, uh they installed traffic signals to to make it uh kind of a spin around, try to get away from these um holes when there's no pedestrians, when they're pedestrians waiting at the bus stop and bikes are trying to go through there.

That again creates a real uh jam and uh an uncomfortable set situation for all users.

So as you guys think about you know cost and stuff, you really should think very hard about uh how utility poles are going to be uh uh relocated to avoid that conflict and then to try to minimize the number of utility boxes that you put in the shared use path because those are a huge maintenance issue.

Um I have photos of some of the issues like like there at Fillmore Avenue, if you guys would like me to uh share those with you to just sort of think about as you go through the rest of the design and think about what the cost would be to re have to relocate some of those utilities uh to make it more comfortable for the users.

Thank you, and I appreciate that.

Yep.

Uh thanks for letting me comment.

Yeah, no, thank you so much.

And Sarah, we do have um one more comment in the chat.

Please.

Um, in alternative three, would the buffer include more than ballards, such as concrete will stops.

Um I think at uh right now we're still at a very high-level uh kind of preliminary phase of of the concept.

So um typically the city does either flex posts or or some of the zebra uh type um barriers.

That doesn't mean that is what would be permanent.

Um so this is just a preliminary uh designed option.

All right.

I'm not seeing any more questions in the chat.

All right.

Well, thank you all so much for joining this evening.

Um I will open up the feedback form um in just a few moments.

So thank you.

Have a good evening.