Wonderful.

Good evening, everybody.

Oh.

Hence the technology dance that Commissioner Ting was just referring to.

All right.

Welcome everybody.

We are officially at the September meeting.

Hard to believe.

It's been a couple months, and I do hope that everybody had a good August.

I hope you had a good summer.

Um, and welcome tonight.

We get a little bit more summer left out there.

So all right, we are conducting this meeting both in person and virtually.

Uh right now, virtually we have nobody.

We're just we're just okay.

I was gonna say we're just right now broadcasting out.

Okay, Chris is on the on the uh on the computer.

We'll start with roll call.

Um we've is vice chair McGill here.

Here.

Commissioner Rapoon.

Here.

Commissioner Ting.

Here.

Commissioner Welcher.

Here.

And Commissioner Williams here.

Okay, and absent excused is Commissioner Kyleman.

So we have a quorum and can proceed.

So tonight we have a new commissioner.

So we officially welcome Anthony Welsher here.

He was recommended by Councilmember Newenhouse not too long ago.

And it was a very quick turnaround.

It sounds like it's one of the quickest turnarounds from council to attending the first commission meeting.

So welcome.

Um, how about you talk a little bit about yourself and then we'll go around the horn and give ourselves a quick introduction?

Um thank you, Chair.

Uh so I've lived in Bellevue for 27 years since 1998, coming out of college.

So it's a uh uh been very blessed to watch Bellevue grow over the last uh now almost 30 years.

Uh I have a background in both in multifamily commercial real estate as well as having served in several executive government federal government roles uh with a uh most recently uh for an obscure federal investment agency that did infrastructure development overseas.

So I'm glad to be here and look forward to working with all of you uh for as long as we get to do this.

Sounds great.

Thank you.

All right, and Vice Chair, you want to introduce yourself?

I'm uh Drew McGovin.

We've met already.

Uh I've been on the commission for about three years.

Uh retired from a 33 year career Boeing a few years ago.

And so I'm really glad to have you on the commission.

We now have a full commission.

It's great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ting?

Hi, my name is Alder Ting.

Um, we've talked earlier, but it's good to see you in person.

Um, I've uh born in Seattle, but have been in Bellevue for I want to say like 40 plus years.

Um used to work in software, um, spending a little bit of time off and doing a little bit of exploration in private projects.

And um very happy to see you here now that uh commission is full and we'll have some really good discussions.

I'm sure.

Sounds great.

Hi, I'm Nick Rapone.

Um, been in Bellevue for I don't know, a long time, 30 plus years.

Uh I'm in residential real estate working for Windermere uh and been doing that for like 27 years.

So uh welcome to the uh commission.

Sounds great.

Hi, and I'm Kay Williams, and I live in the Lakemont area of Bellevue, and I've been in the East Side for 35 years, commuting and biking and running and walking.

And um, and uh I my husband and I I again live in the Lakeman area and I have three adult sons.

I worked at Microsoft for many years and retired a couple of years ago.

Sounds great.

And yeah, don't want to ignore Kevin and Molly at the table.

So do you guys want to give a quick intro?

Well, we have okay in the interview.

Okay.

We did a thank you.

I told you that.

Told you she would do that.

Um we we had an hour long or so um onboarding yesterday.

Um, tour of this room.

Um and uh a little bit of coffee and a little bit of background on the commission, the roles and responsibilities and the upcoming agenda items.

Okay, excellent.

And Molly, you feel like you've well commented already.

Okay, perfect.

Perfect.

All right, and I know we met in the interview process, but I'm Karen.

Uh been in Bellevue for 22, 23 years, uh, retired now, worked in engineering technology for my career.

So yeah, so welcome.

And I will offer that it's an open and friendly commission if you have any questions.

There's a lot of acronyms, there's a lot of history.

These guys have a ton of history behind them to answer questions, so feel free to reach out.

That's why we're here.

All right.

Approval the agenda.

Uh, you should have all that in front of you.

Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

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

Go ahead.

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

Give us that option.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Discussion on this.

So again, to approve MIP after we discuss it tonight.

So any questions on this.

No.

Okay.

Um then I if it based on no questions, I'm going to assume uh let's ask it this way.

Is there anybody who is against this motion?

Okay.

Can I ask a quick question on that?

Of course.

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

Yeah.

Because I don't think we didn't, we didn't quite realize that we'd be ready, I think, for tonight.

And then we were, and it's like, let's get it voted on and get it um proposed to the gets the sooner we get to planning and all of that, just the better that it's out there.

But we will have tonight, and we have an unusual agenda, and that tonight we just have one discussion topic.

And normally we have three.

Um, but we have the whole night dedicated to this.

So the whole idea is that at the end of the night, we want to make sure people feel good on that.

So yeah.

Okay, so then I'll ask again, is there any disagreement with approving the modifying the agenda to modify it to approve MIP tonight if people are ready?

No.

Okay, passes unanimously.

Um, and then we really should have uh Drew, because there's two things attached to it.

A motion to consider to trans for the transmit a law letter also to be approved tonight.

So you can do it separately, just make a motion table.

They're attached, but yeah.

So um so I would I would move that we uh revise the agenda to include the approval of the trans um transmit all the letter as well.

Is there a second?

Second.

Sir, any discussion on this.

Okay.

Um, is there anybody who is against this change in the agenda?

Okay, the record can show that it passed unanimously.

All right, thank you, everybody.

All right, oil and written communications were item number three on the agenda.

Uh Kevin is really good about forwarding to us all the uh written communications that he gets up until the end of afternoon of the meeting.

So we should have we've received nothing for this.

I think people are still on summer break.

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

That's amazing.

All right, everybody's still out catching the last rays of sun.

Okay.

Umal communications.

So according to our bar laws, uh public comments are allowed, um, up to three minutes per person.

Um staff will keep track of time like they always do on this.

Uh, a reminder that in accordance with Washington state law, nobody can use public facilities to support a ballot measure, to support their own candidacy, anything like that.

Um, and anybody who does propose that will be asked to leave.

Uh all right.

So, Kevin, we will call on the people in the order of which they've signed in.

Member, if there is anybody who's talking tonight to please state your name at the beginning.

Go ahead.

Is there anybody?

Um, I would like uh the commission to know one person has signed up for public comment.

That is Alex Zimmerman.

Okay.

Okay.

Alex, you've got your three minutes.

You bet.

Oh, the high my Nazi speak.

Yeah, guys, uh situation right now, so you do what you can ever still exist before for almost four years, but they say speak in council chamber everywhere, not only here.

Yeah, Tuesday in council meetings, they make a rules that don't have analogy, no in state Washington.

Maybe don't have analogy over in America.

Yeah, it's another Alex Zimmerman rules.

Yeah.

So they right now trespass, uh start uh use trespasses not for 30 days, 60 days.

We'll be used trespasses for six months.

It's under 80 days, yeah.

Exactly new rules come.

But this okay, you know what is mean.

I have 6,000 days of trespasses for any year, like in jail.

They did something about this you're very unique and no have analogy is very interesting.

They bring six commission, I include you, you know what this means.

So this commission can make trespasses for six months, too.

Never I see this before, and I speak all over around this very interesting new rules.

You know what this means.

What is I Sinkins all freaking psychopath?

You know, what does mean or schizophrenic?

I don't know.

So why commission cover this rule?

But this uh program, but start from 2012.

When they make a rules against me, three minutes and ten people only can speak, you know what is being cut.

My right, so every time I over 10 people, I cannot speak.

It's nothing unusual.

But rules about commission, you know what this means.

You don't read this.

Uh uh uh I read this, I have copy from this rules on Monday before meeting because I'm um uh I I don't have word, you know what is meant for this idiotic situation, but it's okay, no problem.

I try understand there's seven freaking degeneratively scared, but I come in talking what's going on, huh?

I only talking.

I have a gun, a machine gun, a dynamite.

No, I only talking.

So that's very interesting, guys.

You need to understand situation with fascism in Kincountry unique.

Can country number one in only one?

Government, you know what is about this in Trump list.

Biva Trump, you've a new American revolution, guys.

You need to understand situation absolutely idiotic is a problem.

Thank you very much.

Have a nice day, guys.

All right, Kevin.

Do we have anybody else who has signed up?

No.

And is there anybody online who has not signed up who would like to speak?

Okay.

Moving on to agenda item four, which is communications from city council boards and commissions.

Uh, Councilmember Newtonhouse could not join us tonight, so we do not have an update from him.

Uh, but is there any report from any of the commissioners here tonight?

No.

Okay.

Staff reports.

Item number five, Kevin.

Thank you, Chair Stash.

I have a couple items for the commission tonight.

Uh, one of which relates to something I mentioned in each of your onboarding sessions, which is the uh issue of open public meetings and public records.

Um that the city clerk's office has determined that my briefings with you uh have not been sufficient.

In that all boards and commission members are required to attend a special training for open public meetings act.

It's not just me, it's all boards and commissions.

Yeah, um, just trying to make it personal.

Um, so the the the city clerk has advised me to mention to you that on the evening of October 16th, from 6:30 to 7.30, there will be a remote training for open public meetings act and um public records.

It will be a live conversation during which you can ask questions and receive answers.

The program will also be recorded.

So if you don't if you can't attend in in live video on October 16th, the presentation will be recorded.

Um, and you can watch it at your leisure at another time.

Uh the the only thing is that the the city clerk needs to know that you have watched it at your leisure, and so she can make sure that uh she has verified that you've received the training.

Okay.

That's one thing.

Excellent.

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

You should, I I would expect that.

Yeah, and what time is that?

It's 6:30 to 7:30 on the 16th of October.

Yeah.

And if I did that just recently when I was on boarding, does that count?

Or do I will I need to do that?

Does not count.

Oh one other another one other staff at that question.

All right.

I'll do it twice.

I'll be well informed.

The reason that city clerk explained that that if even if you took the video, we you should attend the virtual is because there's dialogue and there's questions and answers, and you might get something out of it that you didn't get by just watching the video.

Okay.

That's what they said.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, the next the next training is of is going to be available, but it will be optional.

Um, it's not optional for staff to have parliamentary procedure training, but it will be optional for the commissioners to have um parliamentary procedure training.

That the information on that will be coming out shortly.

It is voluntarily, uh, it is volunteer, but I will let you know when that training is available and make sure you have the way to sign up for it.

And it will be recorded as well, or I presume asynchronous I think so.

It's going to be in person, yeah.

Um, with a consultant facilitating the conversation.

So it might be an interesting, you know, scenario playing, like what happens if sort of thing.

So it could it could be interesting.

So I'll let you know when that is available.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Agenda item number six, public hearing.

There is none tonight.

So that is uh complete.

So let's jump into the study session.

Um, so this is of as always the meat of the meeting.

Umight we have, as I mentioned before, just one topic, which is I don't think I've ever had one meeting with only one topic before.

So it's it's it's a unique uh meeting for sure.

And I do want to give uh um I think both uh an acknowledgement of of the work that's gone into the MIP and the years that has gone into updating it, and to say, and you know, and and in going through this again in more detail, um, it is a really nice complete document.

It is a document that does, I know we've all talked about the layered effect for transportation system in Bellevue, but it really lays out how the public transport ties into the PED plan, ties into the bike plan, ties into the, you know, and it's it's all in one place.

And so that is a significant uh benefit, I think, with this document for all of us.

And also that the fact that the that the document lays out the whole soup to nuts process.

And I think we've all had all had jobs enough to know that when you've got a whole plan in front of you, it's much more chance of it of it having success.

So laying out, for example, you know, what are the metrics?

Well, first of all, what are the goals, you know, that we're going for?

Um, what is the system based off of?

What are the metrics that we will use to know success?

Uh, how will we measure those?

You know, what are the targets and then how we measure them?

And this document's got it all in it.

So I know that Kevin and Molly and others have put a lot of time into this, a lot of their summer as well.

Um, and you will see it tonight as as they spend the the whole meeting taking us through, you'll see a lot of tables and stuff that we've discussed in previous meetings.

So there, but there won't be a lot of surprises on some of those.

Um, so really just kind of I think an acknowledgement, kudos for this soup to nuts kind of document um coming tonight from the city.

So, Kevin, and I should recognize Chris as well.

Uh, hopefully you're hearing me, Chris.

Thank you.

Um, also for all of your work.

Um, Chris who's with the consultant team um who has done a lot of work on this as well.

All right.

So tonight, both Kevin and Chris will review the changes.

Uh, they were also in our pre-meeting notes that you probably went through.

Uh, we will have adequate time for questions if anybody new new things, questions pop up in your mind tonight.

And then at the end, um, based off of our revised agenda if people feel comfortable on it, we will approve to forward it on to the city council along with the transmit a letter.

So that is our future for the next hour or whatever it takes.

Um, and I guess at this point, I will welcome Kevin and Chris.

All right.

Thank Chair Stash.

Hi, Chris.

Um, Chris would normally be sitting here with me.

He's at an all staff meeting for his firm Fair and Pears this evening.

So he's joining us taking a break from his staff meeting.

So thanks.

Thanks, Chris.

Um, Chris Chris is here.

I I'm gonna probably run the show and Chris will be there to help with technical responses to your questions if I am not able to respond accordingly to your needs.

Okay, so multi-mobility implementation plan update tonight.

Um, three major components of this presentation and discussion um for the benefit of all commissioners, especially the new ones.

I wanted to do a quick MIP 101.

What what what is this document that you are amending, even if you didn't have any role in getting the first one adopted.

Um then I'll for I'll go through the content of each chapter um, laying out some of the foundational things about each chapter and focusing on the new things that you've already approved within that chapter.

So we'll go through chapter by chapter.

Um I'd I'd like to hold off on comments and questions till till the end, because I think as we go through some of the questions may be answered as as part of the uh part of the presentation.

Um take notes.

So let's take notes.

Um hang on till till the end of the presentation.

I promise it won't be too long of a presentation, but I want to be thorough to make sure that we cover everything that is important in this document.

And so the actions tonight, um, as you've amended the agenda to recommend approval of the MIP to the council, approve the transmittal when we're done.

And most important all is to select of the three choices the cover that you'd like to see on the mobility implementation plan.

Okay.

You probably noticed that there are three covers and then the front of your document at the end of this meeting.

We'll have one.

All right.

Um, and I wanted to start.

I usually end with the timeline, but I wanted to start with the timeline today, just to refresh everyone uh as how how many meetings we have spent and the topics we have uh covered in the update of the mobility implementation plan.

Starting last December with kind of the an outline of the scope of work uh that that you were about to embark on, and running through um Q1 and Q2 uh of all the substantive changes uh that you've uh reviewed and approved for the for the MIP.

So tonight we're in September, final review and update, final review of the update of the MIP.

Um we have the opportunity to get to council later in the fall.

Um the the council usually likes one study session for review.

They direct staff to go back and write an ordinance for adoption at the next meeting.

So a couple slides on MIP 101.

Um the transportation commission spent a couple of years on the first MIP, uh, finally recommending to council in early 2022, and council adopted in April of 2022.

Um it was it's a unique document in in Bellevue in that it um you know provides um a foundation and a framework for performance of each mode, and uh not only does it describe the the metrics that we would use, but the targets that we would use for the operation of those different modes, and it provides for monitoring of the progress towards meeting the targets.

And if we are falling short of meeting the targets, it defines a prioritization for project concepts that can address those those performance target gaps.

So, as I mentioned, there's there's metrics and targets embedded in this.

And um, one of the features of the MIP is to try to align uh investments in mobility uh with the vision for land use that's described in the performance management areas.

And the ultimate intent is to have uh a complete connected and accessible transportation network that accomplishes four goals that were set by the council to accommodate growth, improve safety, consider equity, and improve access and mobility.

Um our work has been recknowledged with two awards that this document has achieved in or received in 2022, the Governor Smart Communities Award and the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 award.

So in the reason we're here now is to update because some circumstances have changed.

We've identified some gaps to fill in the original MIP.

The notion of pedestrian level of traffic stress is new, and bicycle level of traffic stress at intersections is new.

And finally, and really substantially, uh, the MIP will incorporate the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan.

Um the ped bike plan is is a really cool document.

I have four versions here, starting in the the 1993 one.

And I'll I'll just pass it around if you want to have a look.

Um there we we the the first the first ped bike plan was adopted in 1993.

It was amended in 1996 with the annexation of the Newport Hills area.

It was refreshed in two in 1999 and again in 2009.

So it's it's it's a little bit old, but it it fundamentally created the PED and bike network for the city, the mobility implementation plan um embraces today.

There we go.

Okay.

So more on MIP 101.

Uh the MIP is not everything.

It it addresses mobility um along arterials in the city.

And there's four different three different types of arterials in the city.

Major arterials, which are your Bellevue Ways and your Northeast Eighths, etc.

Um, your minor arterials, which kind of connect the majors and get you between the majors and residential and commercial areas, and then you've got your collector arterials that sort of collect and distribute um traffic to local streets.

All of these arterials also provide not only provide a vehicle mobility function, but also an active transportation function.

There is a delay, delayed reaction.

Okay.

So now I'm going to start going through the chapters of the mobility implementation plan one by one.

And I'll try not to be belabored too much because you've you've seen it, but I want to highlight the the important components of the MIP.

First of all, are the goals to accommodate growth, improve safety, consider equity and access and mobility.

Um the the first three are sort of self-explanatory.

The last one takes a little bit of thinking about because it simultaneously considers access, which is how you get between where you want to be and the land uses you want to get to.

It's a the it's the complete and connected network.

And the mobility part is what is the quality of that network that you're using.

That's where you get to the level of traffic stress for PES and bikes.

That's where you get to the performance targets for the vehicle mode along arterials.

So there's four fundamental goals that drive the mobility implementation plan.

And the cool picture is from 130th in Bell Red, sort of a adaptation of the bean sculpture from Chicago is in Bell Red right now.

It's very cool.

So the MIP recognizes that it takes an integrated approach to mobility to serve land use.

So it's a fundamental concept that the MIP contains.

The other fundamental concept is the performance metrics.

This is what you measure for each mode.

And we have performance metrics for each mode, the pedestrian level of traffic stress, bike level of traffic stress.

For the transit mode, we we measure the time it takes to ride a bus between activity centers relative to the time it takes to drive a car between the activity centers.

And there's a there's a target for that, which which we will get to.

And the uh for the vehicle mode, there are two types of metrics.

One is um how how do the intersections perform, and the other is how do the connections to those intersections perform?

What the the vehicle corridors, what's it like to drive along those vehicle corridors in terms of speed.

So and we spent a lot of time introducing the new concept of pedestrian level of traffic stress, um, recognizing that there were fundamental components of the arterials and components of the walking environment that contribute to a level of traffic stress score.

So basically the the faster and more volume on the arterial, the more infrastructure for the pedestrians that you'll need to embed to make sure that they have a comfortable and safe experience.

So it's it's represented in this graphic.

And the commission spent a lot of time also talking about components beyond just the arterial characteristics like driveway spacing and things like that.

Those are included in the MIP on page 76.

And thanks for Commissioner Williams for pointing out the need to point that out.

We they they are they are in the document on page 76.

And for the bicycle network, um, this is uh uh a bit of a um slight modification to the original bicycle level of traffic stress that was adopted in the MIP.

Um instead of using the speed limit, which um was in the original MIP, the the speed limit factor is one that uh is comparable to the metric we use for the pedestrian level of traffic stress.

So it's it's it's more of a factor of the actual speed that drivers uh that the people driving uh go along the arterials rather than the posted speed, recognizing that there may be some variability between how fast people go and the speed limit.

So again, you know, the the faster and higher volume of of traffic on the arterial, the more robust infrastructure it takes to provide a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians or for bicycles.

New to the MIP is the notion of um bicycle level of traffic stress at intersections.

We spent uh one or two meetings talking about the type of bicycle facility that it would take to continue the the um comfort level and safety of a bicycle rider along a corridor.

So if it's a BLTS one or two corridor, you want to have the components of the intersection kind of match the level of experience that the bicyclist has riding along the corridor so that that so that the intersections don't become barriers or impediments to people using that corridor on a bike.

So the the um the MIP includes a description of the types of bicycle facilities and uh a sort of graphic representation of those um bicycle facility types.

And again, the the travel transit travel time is a metric, um, and the the ratio of person riding a bus uh between activity centers uh to the person driving between activity centers is the uh transit travel time ratio, um and we have a target for that, which I will get to.

And and for the vehicle mode, there are two performance metrics.

One deals with intersections and is the volume to capacity ratio uh at each of the system intersections, basically you can call them signalized intersections.

Um the the volume of traffic that um uses that intersection versus the capacity of that intersection to accommodate the traffic is the V over C ratio.

That's one of the metrics.

The other metric is the travel speed along primary vehicle corridors.

Um there are more vehicle corridors than primary vehicle corridors in the city.

There are um characteristics that make an arterial a primary vehicle corridor.

Primary vehicle corridors have 10,000 or more daily trips per day and are generally greater than half a mile long.

And those that the intersections and the corridors show on the map.

Okay.

Um I mentioned that transportation supports land use.

Not all land use is created equal.

So the MIB includes a documentation of performance management areas.

There's three different types of performance management areas that acknowledge existing and planned land use and existing and planned mobility options.

Um the the orange areas are PMA one.

The land use characteristic is you know, high density uh mixed use development.

The mobility characteristic of uh PMA one is that it's served by light rail.

PMA two is slightly less dense, but still mixed use, not served by light rail at the moment, but um served by frequent transit network routes.

And then PMA3 is the rest of the city.

It's called residential, but there's really commercial nodes mixed in with the green field as well.

Think of Kelsey Creek shopping center or Lake Hills or the Northtown shopping center.

Those are embedded in the field of green, but the the um the there's there's small nodes within a field of green, so it's all characterized as one type.

Okay, let's get to performance targets now.

We've we've discussed the metrics, we've looked at the land use setting for each mode.

Uh, the performance targets describe what you what what what does the city aspire to achieve in terms of the performance of the each mode uh of transportation?

So we we've looked at the performance targets for the pedestrian um and the PLTS varies uh a little bit by the performance management area that you're in, recognizing that um the pedestrian environment in those high density urban places served by light rail is probably going to be different than uh the pedestrian environment in the field of green residential areas.

So the it the targets acknowledge that uh for the bicycle, um the the network facilities include um targets for bicycle level of traffic stress along corridors and at intersections.

And for transit, I mentioned you know, transit travel time is our metric.

Um plus uh there's a metric that looks at the quality of the bus stops along the frequent transit network.

What what are the components of the bus stops that make it in a reasonably comfortable place for for people to wait uh for their bus.

And for the vehicle mode, there's there's three different performance targets based on your performance management area location uh with PMA1 are our urban centers having a higher um V over C ratio target than the residential area where you have lower density and really fewer mobility choices in those in that field of green.

Um the other part of the performance target equation that I like to mention is the monitoring of our with each update of the mobility implementation plan.

We we document how the system performs now.

And the primary function of that is not to pat us on the back, but to identify where there are gaps and where we need to maybe have an infrastructure investment to fill that gaps to provide that complete and connected transportation network that is one of the goals of the MIP.

So for the performance targets for the pedestrian, it's it's the level of traffic stress that we've mentioned.

It varies by performance management area and arterial type.

So the highest standard, the highest target for pedestrian level of traffic stress is in PMA one, where you expect to have a greater volume of pedestrians and more origins and destinations of land use for those pedestrians to be walking through.

So you sort of provide a little extra component extra components for pedestrians in those locations where you expect them to be.

So the target is 0.9.

And similarly, similar rationale in PMA2, there's more friction.

PMA one, there's even more friction.

So those are the targets in those different performance management areas.

And as I mentioned, monitoring is really important because it helps us understand how we're doing and shows us where we need to improve.

There's uh existing network performance for the pedestrian mode and the bike mode shown on this map.

There is a category here that's interesting, um, which is the blue lines on the map.

It's the locations where a facility exists, but the the um the quality of the experience doesn't quite meet the performance target.

So there's an existing facility there, and you might um but it doesn't meet the it doesn't meet the target, which is a better situation than if you have a gap, which is the yellow lines, which means there's no facility for that type uh that for that mode at all.

So you see um some gaps on the pedestrian network and some gaps on the bike network, um, so we have more work to do.

Um for the transit mode, the the the amber colors are the um the activity centers where on transit it takes longer than twice as fast, twice as long to get between the activity centers than if you were driving a car.

You could see um you know downtown over lake is is pretty good.

There is a train that runs between downtown and overlake, so you're going to be faster than driving along Bell Red Road.

Uh, for the vehicles, it's a little harder to see, but the green dots meet the performance target, the green lines meet the performance target, and the yellow dots and the yellow lines indicate locations where the function, the the function of the arterial over the intersections doesn't meet the target.

Um just you know, for the vehicle mode um.

Well, let me let me stop for a second.

For all the modes, uh last summer we did an analysis of the performance targets, performance target gaps and recommended um project concepts for your consideration that could go into the transportation facilities plan to sort of compete for scarce funds with other types of projects.

So that's that's one of the functions of monitoring the performance of the network.

Oh, and I have a document that I forgot about this slide.

Uh so we we step one is is we look at the performance, identify the gaps, we prioritize those gaps based on the scoring criteria that are in in the MIP that are largely based on the goals of the MIP, but also have supplemental considerations as well.

So you roll up all the score, you you uh uh prioritize um based on the storing, the performance target gaps.

And because there's hundreds, like you saw on the map, we we don't develop a project concept for all of them, develop a project concept for the the highest scoring, maybe the top 10 or or so of each mode, and then move those for consideration to uh the transportation facilities plan.

Okay.

Um of the substantial changes uh in the pet in the MIP is to incorporate the components of the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan.

Um you've seen the hard covers, the actual documents, these are the covers for all those documents.

Um it's amazing how closely the 2000 the 1993 pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan resembles the 2009 pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan and the corridors uh documented in in the mobility implementation plan.

So the people that did the work in 1993, some of whom may be at the table, um, did a pretty good job of trying to figure out um what the the needs of the the city would be going forward.

See that you finally sprang for the color one at the end of the year.

Thank you, Franz.

He we got a colored copy in 2009.

Yeah, we'll give Kranz credit for that.

So why is the 2009 pedestrian bicycle transportation plan a little bit obsolete?

And why is the MIP moving in to that territory?

Um but the MIP retains all of the corridors that the Pedbike Plan documented, even back in two in 1993.

The MIP adds value to those corridors by defining the performance, the bicycle level of traffic stress and the pedestrian level of traffic stress along those archerials.

The MIP describes the performance and doesn't prescribe a project type for those arterials.

And we found that over the years, the project types that were prescribed in the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan did not meet the performance targets that we would like to see today.

But technology's changed, best practices has changed.

And so the MIP allows for an evolution of the best practices to achieve the performance targets you're the Peds and Bikes are expecting for the network.

One thing that the MIP will do is to incorporate the trail maps and project descriptions from the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan.

Those are in appendix A.

Verbatim, cut and paste.

So until such time as a opportunity arises to provide input on a trail master plan, the MIP will become the trail master plan.

Because the arterial network really hasn't changed much in 30 years.

The arterial network is what the arterial network is and will always be.

But the 1993 plan envisioned something different for that corridor and provided for a connection for pets and bikes that go through it.

So here's just one example of the prescriptive project descriptions in the MIP that we didn't build today.

It's a primary bike corridor, it's in downtown.

It gets the highest level of bike level of traffic stress.

And as a side benefit, the pedestrian level of traffic stress also works because you've got separation from the moving vehicles with a vertical buffer, a separated bike lane, landscape strip, and a wide sidewalk.

You get all you get credit for all those things to get you a PLTS one target for that corridor.

So that that's sort of the difference between the ped bike plan prescriptive um project descriptions and the outcome from using the mobility implementation plan.

Um it's a better outcome for pets and bikes.

Um the trails um and off-street networks uh are cut and pasted into appendix A.

Just let me you know run through what appendix A has.

Um this is a quadrant map uh of the city down Eastgate, Phantom Lake-ish, Lake Hills.

Um just pointing out a couple projects from the Pedbike Plan that are adopted into the MIP.

There's each of those call-out boxes on the map represents a project.

And each project has a number.

Each project has each project number has a name.

Each project number and name has a to and from dimension, has the extent of that project, and then a project description.

And it's also assigned a priority.

So the the staff in the community that want to identify trail projects and what type of trail project to build could look first to appendix A in the MIP and get the legacy documentation of those corridors.

Doesn't mean that's what they would build today, but that's what you know, that's the legacy uh information that we didn't want to lose.

And um it could be, you know, it could be modified based on community input and best practices, but we didn't want to lose lose the information.

Oh okay, I get to take a breath.

Uh I get I'll invite Chris to if I missed anything or if you'd like to highlight anything.

Um otherwise, I'll turn it over to the chair to um welcome questions.

Chris, do you have anything to add?

No, I think Kevin did a great job of rolling through a lot of material that we've been working through for a number of months.

Um, but yeah, happy to clarify anything from this point forward.

Okay, great.

Then I will turn it, thank you, Kevin, very much, to the commissioners as a whole for questions, clarifications, etc.

Go ahead, Commissioner Rupu.

Just a quick question on the on the uh buses.

Do we uh figure in ridership at all?

Or where is that as far?

I mean, it's great if a bus gets from A to B in a time we want it to, but if nobody's on it, then so how do we look at ridership on the buses?

Um ridership isn't an MIT metric.

We do work with the transit service providers to learn about ridership, and um it that the ridership information helps the transit service providers improve their service, but it does it it does not factor it as a metric in the MIP.

It's just a point A to B metric that we use because we don't run the buses, and we don't want to set us up with a target that we aren't responsible for meeting.

Do we uh as does the city have any kind of goals of ridership within the city that they're trying to achieve or the the city has in in the comprehensive plan, the city has um community trip reduction targets, um basically uh reducing the number of single occupant vehicle trips for commute purposes, and if they're not in a single occupant vehicle, they're in some other mode, they're walking, biking, they're taking the bus.

And so sort of generic or or or they may not be they may be working from home.

That's that's an option.

So we we look sort of in aggregate at community trip ratio, uh the the percent of people not driving alone, um, and and working with employers.

Uh we have a we have a group in in our office that works with employers to help their employees uh drive less to work.

Other questions.

Right, I have a few.

Go ahead.

I have questions and comments.

So um one, since I you know come from a software background and AI is the new it the so I checked out in AI uh for best practices for BLTS and PLTS.

This is all new to me, but uh that's great.

It's like well, let me see how we how we compare.

And uh it was like verbatim what the best practices AI said and what we have in our plan.

So congratulations on that.

Maybe they actually looked at our plan and said that was the best practice.

So um anyway, that was great.

The only thing that I noted there, and Kevin, this is just to explain why I asked one of the questions I did.

Um, they talked about complexity of intersections as a potential metric, and I didn't see that exactly, but you um go ahead.

You can comment on that.

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

I saw that, yeah.

You know, um we we made a uh a huge investment in the MIP to embed pedestrian level of traffic stress on corridors.

We assumed that you know that the corridor will have a pedestrian level of traffic stress that describes the characteristics of the arterial and the type of bike of pedestrian facility.

We assume that that pedestrian facility goes to the intersection.

Um at the intersection, you might drop the landscape strip for sight line purposes, but you'll keep the dimension.

So if if it's a five-foot landscape strip and an eight-foot sidewalk, you'll proceed to the intersection with still eight feet of pedestrian space.

So that that's sort of the corridor part of it.

For the pedestrian crossing part, um that the city has design standards.

And there and it also has signal operational things to facilitate crossing by pedestrians.

So as time has gone on, the dimensions of the crosswalk have gotten substantially larger.

And as you've probably noticed, there is um a signal operation called the leading pedestrian interval at intersections where it gives the pedestrian a head start.

So it improves the pedestrians' visibility to cars that may be wanting to turn right.

So it it puts them in the intersection first.

So we we've got some tools, uh dimensional tools and operational tools that we can use to ensure that the pedestrian has a safe and comfortable crossing at intersections.

So we didn't include that in this update of the MIP.

If the commission is really interested at the next update of the MIT, we can look at intersections for Peds.

Okay.

I'm I'm still new enough.

I don't know how important it is, but I'm just reporting back in my research.

I I noticed that that one item.

Um now just turning to a couple of questions.

So, you know, first is you know, well done.

Nice, nice job.

And you know, you had noted to me previously, and we noted previously in the in this meeting that this is an award-winning plan.

And I think it's really great that that the city of Bellevue has, you know, taken the time to create a great plan and and to do the additional work to make sure that we are acknowledged for it.

So that's great.

Um a couple of just additional questions that came up as you were talking, Kevin.

Um we talked about the peak period for traffic as four to six p.m.

And I just was curious why it's not an AM time or why there's not AM and PM.

Maybe maybe generally PM is is more is busier.

I don't know.

Oh, uh Chris wants to answer that.

Go ahead, Chris.

Sure, absolutely.

Yeah.

No, um the city has been monitoring traffic levels for a long time, as long as I've been involved with the city.

And um PM is busier than AM, and that has gotten more pronounced since the pandemic, um, where more flexible work schedules, a little bit more variability when people actually get into work.

Um, but that afternoon period when there's this confluence of people leaving work, there's a lot of after-school activities, a lot of social recreational period that has continued to be the busiest time.

And so um there's been no uh no reason to change that.

It's something that that uh the traffic operations group in the city and the modeling group keeps an eye on, but that continues to be the time when that uh metric is the most relevant.

Okay, great.

That makes sense, thank you.

Um I noticed in some of the um diagrams.

So we have this interesting thing that happens in the overlake area, which is that um the city of Redmond dips down into that, and so it makes our where we show that nice kind of red corridor from Bellevue out.

There's that you know, one little triangle piece that kind of uh dips out.

And I'm guessing that you we're not seeing the city of Redmond plans here, and I understand why this is Bellevue planning document, but I'm guessing they probably um at some level maybe we we speak with them, or at least we have an understanding that you know they're they're doing similar things and they're um you know, considering that a high um what's the word for it?

Um a high P.

Yeah, it'd be the equivalent of PMA one for them if they had that their overlake area has evolved greatly into one in the last 10 years.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

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

Okay.

All right, makes sense.

Okay.

Um Kevin, one of the things, like I think this was even during the um introductory session we had, you were mentioning, or maybe it was Mike that was talking to me about this bicycle east-west corridor.

And um, I know there had been some discussion in the past about maybe using Bill Red Road, and there was some uh it was evaluated and based on uh community feedback that was decided not to happen.

I'll just pass along that um in a group of friends that I was talking with.

I mentioned my new role, and the first thing they said to me is there's no good way to get from the overlake area into Bellevue.

Um but I did say that there had been this previous discussion uh about using Bill Red Road, and they said, Oh no, we can't make Bill Red busier.

So I understand the complexity of it, but I thought I would just pass that along.

Thank you.

And we we we get it, and when the miss when the gap in Spring Boulevard is filled, that will be an awesome east-west corridor.

Yep.

Yep.

Okay, um, so for PLTS three, um, so I was noticing this on page 36.

Um the additional things that we identify where there are those places where we will treat for PLTS three, we'll treat it as um needing to have the BLTS and PLTS level two, I think.

Um we're identifying schools, hospitals, community centers, libraries.

I didn't see shopping centers there.

Is that was there's is there some reason we're leaving that out?

Probably not because we talked about it.

Well, what page you're looking on, sorry?

36.

Let me check quick.

Uh I think we even highlight a couple shopping centers.

So maybe we can add that to the legend, Chris.

Yeah, we can add that.

I think where we've um, and that's a good good amendment.

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

No, you you you recall correctly that we in in the original MIP, we had special consideration for sidewalk width and adjacent to those neighborhood shopping centers and frequencies and network stops and things where you'd expect to have more pedestrians.

Um we we sort in the evolution to PLTS, um it may not have been a one-to-one evolution, but I think if we if we highlight those types of locations on the map, it will um capture that legacy facility type in those locations.

Okay, okay, great.

All right, and just one more.

Um, and this was on let's see, page 44.

I was noticing.

Um I'm curious about so I I do understand the um sort of back and forth from downtown.

I'm thinking about the sort of the typical traffic patterns or the reasons, the causes that you would make trips between some of these places.

So from downtown to the overlake area, um, you know, they're gonna be uh uh residents in downtown that might be working in the overlake area, for example.

Um, and but it made me curious.

Um, between overlake and crossroads and eastgate, are there a few like specific um uses of those that we that we try to target?

Maybe, you know, I think of Eastgate as there's the community, there's the college there.

So probably there's you know, maybe residents of crossroads that are going to and from um uh to the college.

Are there I don't do we have any I'm just curious, you know, do we have anywhere that kind of says what the typical traffic patterns are there that we're trying to facilitate?

I think I think it it's more generic between designated activity centers.

These are PMA one and PMA two essentially.

It's just they're busy areas, so people are gonna travel.

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

And Kevin, just uh perhaps add on to that, there was a question from Commissioner Rapun about ridership.

Those activity centers do represent um the biggest transit ridership nodes in Bellevue.

They typically have either a an uh a transit center, so like Eastgate Park and Ride is a big transit center where there's a lot of buses that uh coalesce and exchange riders factoria, similarly.

Um, there's a lot of bus routes there.

So when you if you were if we were to take a map of where the busiest transit boardings and deboardings are, those activity centers would be the the location.

So that's and it's it's completely aligned with land use, as Kevin pointed out, the busiest parts of the city.

Um, and so the what people are doing is a little bit of a mix.

Um, but we do know that that's where people often exchange buses or end or begin a trip.

Okay, that makes sense.

So it's just a yeah.

The thing in Eastgate is you've got a lot of community services.

You've got Opelink there, and you've got Jubilee Reach.

So I think there's a lot of people coming in for those services in addition to the transit.

So that's another, it's not on our map.

We don't have really we can't put everything on there, but we don't have all the community services, right?

Okay, well, yeah, I understand it makes sense that just that you know, those are those are connection points.

And so our job is just to facilitate the the connections.

Okay, great.

Great.

Nice thing about those those corridors is they serve everybody in between, also.

They're not just point A to point B.

All the people along Northeast State, for instance, have the advantage of rapid ride B to help them get to crossroads or downtown in in a in a rapid manner.

Good service.

Okay, and you that's it for you.

Okay.

Other comments, questions from other commissioners.

Commissioner Chang.

Uh uh, thank you, Chair Stash.

So um, I had a question, and I'm hoping that you can people here can refresh my memory.

When we talked about driveways in terms of the uh supplemental components for um looking at the metrics uh for either pedestrian or bike facilities.

Um one of the discussion points was that driveways tend to be fairly dangerous because we have a lot of cars that are gonna come in or out and having bicycles in that corridor.

Um, they have to really look out for those uh interactions.

Um my question is whether driveways were type one or type two in the supplemental prioritization.

And I don't actually recall where that landed.

So I thought it was actually a type one on page 76.

Okay, but um it's listed in type two, and maybe I just maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly.

Do you so um uh vice chair?

Do you happen to recall?

That's similar.

Yeah, but that we would that was yes, that's what I was wondering.

I had a discussion on it.

Well, to go back to notes.

Yeah, we we can go back to the notes that um driveways do help inform the design of the projects, but they may also help inform the priorities.

So we can take a look.

And and if you provide a recommendation to approve this tonight and we find a technical correction that we need to make, we'll seek your approval to to make those technical corrections.

Okay.

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

Okay.

Okay.

Do you have another one?

I have several, um, but I I think we have enough time.

I'd say if that's okay with you, just run through yours and okay.

I think everybody's gonna get a chance.

I'll do a bunch and then I'll take a question.

Um for the intersections, um, intersections DLTS.

Uh, we talked about how we moved from an objective table of design standards to a more subjective table.

If we remember that discussion, it was around April 4th.

Yeah.

Uh, and I was wondering, were we going to try and incorporate that into the MIP?

Because there was a specific ask from the commission about having a table with examples so that it would be easier to communicate to the public and well to the commission also about how we came about um those particular, and I believe they were BLTS numbers uh for BLTS intersections.

Uh is that something that we get incorporated into the MIP?

I think we I think we did.

I think there's a there's a table and examples somewhere in here.

Table five, Kevin on page 26 is the intent to show on the the upper end of the table is where we have more space separation and protection that denotes a lower BLTS, so so more comfortable versus uh less space separation and protection.

And this was we worked quite a bit with with the engineering team at in the city to try to it's this balancing act of trying to not be prescriptive because saying that a specific design is always and forever the solution is really challenging when we get to intersections where as it was noted, they can be complex.

There's right of way limitations in some instances, or needing to balance how many vehicle lanes we have.

So the idea was to provide specific examples of things like bike boxes and protected intersections, um, bicycle signals, screens striping through the intersection to denote where those are likely um warranted based on the type of bicycle facility that's entering in or departing from that location.

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

Right.

I see what you're saying.

Uh I guess when I looked at this, it didn't it didn't link in my mind that this was directly related to how you would determine uh a BLTS score for an intersection.

But I I can understand the difficulty in trying to create something that has uh the ability to describe that without being prescriptive.

So okay, I got it.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

Um kind of a high level question.

How does the curb management plan and the MIP interact in terms of prioritization and uh of the different modes and like how should we think of that relationship between the two?

Because there are two different documents, which kind of a lot of times they they have similar um statements, but in the cases where they say different things, how do we reconcile which one is correct?

Is that a Kevin or Chris?

I I didn't, I haven't thought of those documents as competing interests or peer documents.

Uh I think the performance metrics and the performance targets of the MIP is the governing direction.

I think that makes the most sense.

I just it's good to hear and get a clarification on that because um the the CMP, I think is still undergoing revision.

You'll see it next month.

Yeah, and so when we compare the two, if there is um a just a difference of prioritization, we should refer back to the MIP.

Is that fair?

Well, uh the the MIP provides the performance targets.

The curb management plan describes how to treat the vicinity of the curb relative to the vehicle mode.

Um it it is I'm having a hard time describing it as if you can tell.

We can cover this, we can probably cover this later because I think what you said, what you stated is sufficient for me is that the MIP is the governing document.

And that just removes some ambiguity there.

Say that, but you know, the the the curb is a is a complex location where there's people parking and there's people walking and there's people driving and people loading and unloading.

Um, so the the entirety of the function of the street has to be considered.

I think the the function of the curb along with the targets for pits and bikes uh need to be sort of holistically considered before making any changes.

True.

Go ahead.

Yeah, maybe one way to look at this is that I think like Northeast or excuse me, 108th Avenue is maybe a good example in front of the the new Amazon tower um at just west of the transit center.

Um it the MIP says we want a BLTS one facility in that location, and that is what's been built.

The developer um uh working with the city has sought some ability to have some pedestrian loading zones and whatnot.

They have in that instance carved out that space to do so um to provide load zones and sort of how the curb is managed is sort of under the the curb management program, but the fundamental sort of expectation that there's PLTS one and BLTS one provided along that corridor was sort of I think the the preeminent consideration.

Um, how do you do that and how do you manage the curb around that?

And I think that's where those tend to be most perhaps in play.

zones and sort of how the curb is managed is sort of under the the curb management program but the fundamental sort of expectation that there's PLTS one and BLTS one provided along that corridor was sort of I think the the preeminent consideration um how do you do that and how do you manage the curb around that and I think that's where those tend to be most perhaps in play um there are other corridors that might have a deficiency for in particular BLTS where there's not a bicycle facility but there is some sort of curb use I think that goes back to um if we're what is the what is the action that you know you this body transportation commissioner city council might take to change what's on the curb be it parking versus a bicycle facility um the MIP provides guidance but there's a broad set of constituents that would need to be weighed in but in the instance where there's development occurring MIP absolutely detect uh dictates what the expectation is um and city working with a developer can identify how what does the curb want to do how does it how is it managed but the MIP in that case since you can build it is I I'd say kind of the the key thing to keep an eye on okay um uh thank you for including the uh ped bike information uh from 2009 in the MIP that was useful one of the things that I was looking at is um the Westlake Sammamish Parkway uh Vasa Park uh segment and I I noticed that was a medium priority and of course the the next question in my mind is why was that medium and I'm just going to reiterate my request if if there's any way that we can capture some of the institutional knowledge the background behind why some of these decisions were made um you know if it said medium and then it just had like a few bullet points to indicate why they decided to make it medium you know was there a reason otherwise we're probably gonna have to come to you and say like hey do you remember why we made this decision and this of course is moving forward as we make more decisions and we do more prioritization being able to capture the reasons behind that in a document that's discoverable would be enormously helpful I think for this in future commissions so I know that's that's a big ask is that requires a lot of extra concise writing but I I always find it useful to understand the context behind how a decision was made.

I I don't even know if the rationale for the prioritization is embedded in any of those plans it probably isn't but moving forward if we could capture them and and sometimes the decisions are arbitrary in which case there is no like there was no specific reason it's just that's where it landed and that's okay too but it still is nice to have a you know an understanding of like well how do we get here um let me see here.

So that's more of a comment than than anything else and from moving forward.

And at this point why don't I take a a pause and I'll see if someone else has I have a few more bullet points like to get to later though.

Do you want to jump in next ahead and give you a little little bit of a break hey I wonder if you can just help me understand and I'm it's gonna sound like well first of all I want to back up and say uh I do love this document.

And I think you've added quite a bit of good information by putting the um 2009 bike pet plan in here.

It's great to have you we have so many different documents flying around out there and it's great to have good this material in here you can read cover to cover of some of the commissioners have done uh and you got the whole plan in there.

But I did want to make sure that I understood it.

So I'm gonna ask kind of some detailed questions not to get too far in but it just will help me understand.

So if I look at uh page 47 um which is the primary vehicle corridor performance and granted it's old data 2023 if you just look at Bellview way um it is not green today I mean we know that right Bell VA during peak hours is not performing in front of the transit center there.

Now this is 2023 data.

So I get it that's before those lights were put in before we started to get a lot of people going back to work.

But uh it's shown as green here.

So I get that and I guess so the first question is that data is some of the data in the different modes is from different years.

Yes.

And I I'm assuming you're taking the latest that you have we are taking the latest we have you'll see the the the footnote at the top of the map that says it's preliminary and subject to updates.

Yeah.

Which is the exact same footnote that we had in the previous MIP.

So we're always refreshing with the latest data.

So that's the next version one one of the one of the functions of the MIP is to look at performance and then if you find a gap um you know take a look more closely and see what's really going on so we don't necessarily rely on older data to develop a project concept or a priority we will look at the most recent data that we have so how I'm just thinking 2023 it's 2025 now.

So what is the what is the impediment to updating the data?

Do you what is keeping you from putting more recent data?

I'm just trying to understand particularly on the vehicle side.

Well is there a data issue?

Or I think let's let's Molly knows more than I do.

Let me speak about that a little bit.

Um the the information that we used there was from our model run we used for the 2044 comp, which was um the newest data we had at that time was 20 the end of 2023.

Um we are now proceeding with updating our model with 20 for a 2045 TFP run.

We are attempting to use 2024 data for that.

Um, because when I say 2023 data, not all of the data was 2023 because the vehicle volumes had not stabilized at that time.

So some of it we used was 2019 data, actually, because it it just wasn't stable.

Pre-pandemic.

Right.

And so what we're trying to do now is um get ourselves to where we're current, but we're just not there yet because of the the whole disruption from the pandemic.

And we have we're looking really carefully right now because we have a major employer who went to five days a week in January.

And so we're looking really carefully now to see does what we had from the end of 2024 look like August of 2025.

So it's such a moving target.

This is all a snapshot in time, and it's such a moving target that we just have to keep updating and do the best we can.

Well, that kind of brings another question, because if I turn to page 57, which was 2044, I'm still looking at that chunk of Bell V.

And again, it's that section in front of the, you know, where the light rail station is.

Um, it's also shown as green.

It's really hard to, I'm not I'm having a hard time seeing how that could be green in 2044 when today, if you go out there at three, four, five, six, seven p.m.

it's stopped.

So when we come in with our TFP modeling update, we'll see if it still looks like that.

But remember, we have to pick a time to stop and move on with what we have.

And like I said, it's it's just continuously changing.

So um if a year from now, maybe it we would know if a green was right or not right.

Um, but we just have to kind of keep um the in mind, like what Kevin said.

When we look at a project, we we go out and we get brand new data, we look at exactly what's out there right now.

There's a lot of issues on Bellevue Way with construction and various other things where it's just just we we look at it and we know it's not right, but we don't quite have the ability to get the right data.

Well, actually looking at those like in a model, yeah.

Looking at those two, and it there's not a lot of difference in performance.

This is targeted.

Maybe I'm maybe I'm confusing target than actual performance.

If I'm looking at um page 47, performance, right?

That's performance.

And page 57 is projected performance, right?

Yeah, yes, it is not much difference between those two, and yet I'm wondering what's going on there because well, one thing there's very little difference actually.

In the 2044, it includes assumptions about the transportation network, which means we'll have built some projects between now and then to address some of the performance target gaps.

So they're they're not actual projects, but they're embedded in the modeling for to determine the performance of the corridor.

For instance, on Bellevue Way South, there's a HOV lane embedded in that analysis for 2044.

It doesn't exist on the ground, but that may help turn that section green.

That was in the previous TFP.

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

I would expect it to be the opposite.

There's more growth than that than the HOV lien can handle.

It doesn't fix the even with the eight, so the addition of the HOV lean, it goes from green to yellow.

Okay.

Okay.

So it doesn't capture north of the Y at 112.

And so why if on the northbound lane it's yellow last year?

And then green in the future.

Again, just updates of lights.

Those kind of details in the modeling are things we really have to pull out all the model.

We need to look at all the things.

It's very hard.

These are not intended to give that level of specificity.

Yeah.

It's an impression.

Yeah.

Sorry, didn't want to check out.

No, I mean, but I it's I'd hate to look at this and say, hey, we're all green on Bell VA there.

We don't have to do anything when something's got to be done, right?

Also keep in mind what the performance target is.

It isn't no congestion.

Right.

It's congestion that is above a certain level.

So it's green doesn't mean free flow.

Free flow.

Okay.

There's a lot of it means acceptable flow.

Is a better way maybe of thinking dense down air.

Yes.

Yes.

Dig into that one a little bit more.

I just wanted to make sure that I had that the right data was in here because it almost looked like there was very little change.

And um, you know, places like with all the development in Wilberton, and you got Bell Red there on the 2044 as still shown as green.

And I don't know.

Maybe it would just be good to have and it may it might just be me.

I'm just gonna sometimes I'll dive down to see if it makes sense down at the ground level of the data, and then pop back up to the big picture.

But maybe it makes sense to really understand some of the assumptions in there that are affecting that.

So another assumption, there's a light rail that goes to Seattle.

That's a big one.

So there's a there's a whole bunch of different assumptions are in there.

And this plan is not intended to have to get you down to that level of specifics.

It's intended to show you from a system perspective comparatively how does the system look and indicate where we should look further, where we should dive deeper into it.

Yeah, in the appendix, there's there is documentation of all the performance of each intersection and corridor segments.

So you you you can look in appendix, whatever it is, um appendix H, um, which is an excerpt from the comprehensive plan FEIS that Molly mentioned.

And so it's it's it's the data that we use for that comprehensive plan.

Um it's a place to start diving into the details of one.

Did that and there's several pages of really fine print for this one.

Yeah, that one.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh, thank you.

Um, so I'm looking at the MIP online map, which has all the data on it that you can click through the the uh Arc GIS map, uh, the story maps um that created here.

And so I was just curious in looking at it, it has uh performance of the vehicular network.

Um, but right now it looks like it is data that is just from 2019, and I assume there's a delay, especially with the pandemic and trying to wait until things sort of return back to normal.

Um, but is there like uh an update interval um when that's gonna get refreshed?

I I don't know how long it takes for us to capture new information.

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

Okay, so like in the next few months or well, next month when you see the TFP, you'll see some different data.

It's not done with the this in the same format with the performance metrics, but you will see some different data, the intersection data, for example.

Um the update went from 16 intersections to 17 intersections that weren't meeting the performance targets, but they're not the same ones.

Got it, they're different ones well.

That makes sense, yes.

Things are gonna change, things are not static.

And when we look at um, so the modeling here in the MIPU is based on appendix K of the 2044 FEIS, is that correct?

Correct.

So how do we track changes that occurs to the planning side, the land use side that impacts the way the transportation system needs to function?

Um the 2044 FEIS is a snapshot of the decision making process that the planning commission and council ultimately decided on.

There are, I understand updates that are going on, especially with milk housing, et cetera.

And so when we think about those changes, how does the MIP take into account the fact that the model has changed in terms of where density is going to be located, uh, the number of housing units that may or may not be available to build out?

Uh, can you tell me a little bit about how that process works?

Because you know, the the MIP updates are fairly infrequent because I know it's a lot of work.

But as a commission, how do we actually think about trying to keep up to speed with the changes in land use?

Um, well, I could say because that's our job and we're doing it.

Just get that information.

Um couple things.

That um the land use um analysis in the 2044 comp plan included all of the land use uh code changes that have happened recently, and some that are not there yet, like the HOMA, the um housing, Wilburton, those were all included in the land use assumptions for the 2044 comp plan.

We have a demographer who works for a community development department who provides us with the land use that we use in the model.

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

I see.

Do they give this to you?

Like is it every six months or something like that?

I'm just curious.

Every six months could we're not updating our model every six months.

So they give it to us when we update our model.

That way we make sure that we have the most current uh information that they have.

Got it when we are doing that update.

Okay.

So that happens probably how often is the model updated.

I'm not sure how this is helping us get through the MIP discussion.

So I mean, can you explain to me what so I can give you a the right answer?

Uh I think one of the things that's important for me is to understand how the MIP reflects what's happening on the development of land use and you know, the upcoming land use changes that the planning commission is making, ultimately council is making.

So I'm just curious on how we take this document and we say we have a bunch of graphs here.

We're talking about the performance numbers.

Right.

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

Okay.

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

But I I would say that the MIP monitoring that you see here is it's information.

But it is not the target.

So the target is reflective of the performance of the of the mode and the performance management area within that within the city.

So the the PMAs do reflect the existing and planned land use.

And the targets reflect the intent for the mobility of the mode performance for um each mode in those performance management areas.

So the green or yellow dots on the map are a snapshot in time that is always changing.

You you put it in a map and it's wrong tomorrow.

But the the MIP tells us the intent, what you want to accomplish.

And it tells you the relationship of the mode to the land use that's existing or anticipated.

So in Wilberton, Bell Red downtown, um, you you've got the performance targets that are matched with the land use.

Makes sense.

And I understand the metrics, the the data changes frequently.

I think that one of the key points I'm trying to make here is that we have an understanding of what are the 2044 targets, what is the system gonna look like in approximately 20 years?

And that is predicated on the current land use understanding.

So that's all I'm saying is that we just need to make sure that we have a good way of keeping up to date because if something just gets if there's a significant change on the land use side, that projection, not talking about the current data, but that projection is then you know likely going to change.

Exactly.

I I say that all the time, you know, the the forecasts are only as good as the assumptions you make, and the assumptions could change tomorrow.

So it's it's a snapshot.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Um one thing that I'd also like to get um a little bit more crisp on is when thinking about some of the equity components within the MIP.

Uh that is one of the pillars for one of the uh objectives of the MIP.

And so we've had this discussion before about what do we think are the uh the target groups and the outcomes that we're looking at.

And so I think we should be very careful to ensure that the actions that we are taking benefit the groups that are in the um the equity categories.

So there's a set of actions that we can take, and then there's a set of outcomes that will occur due to those actions.

And if we take a look at some of the um equity components, for example, I think for me personally, the lower income workers are the um that's kind of like an area where I think socioeconomically we should really focus on.

I mean, I I agree that we should also take a look at people that have difficulty in using the transportation system, but definitely for people that are lower income workers.

I think we need to focus on what are the outcomes in the transportation system that will benefit them the most.

And I know that we have those in some of the goals, but I would encourage us to look at what are the actions that we're taking, and then what are the actual outcomes?

What how are they actually impacted?

So there's no specific action for you right now on this, but I think it is a further discussion point because we've had some data presented to us that indicates the transportation patterns of lower income workers.

And I think it would be good for us to figure out how we help the most people that are in that lower income category.

Right.

That seems like a fairly straightforward thing.

Um at least we can have that discussion about it.

But I will stop there unless someone else has a question about the somewhat cryptic statements I'm making about equity.

Yeah, no, I understood that.

Um, did you have some more items?

Oh, I was just gonna say also we didn't really talk about the equity maps appendix, J.

And I think we do need to talk about that a little bit more and make sure that we've got the data to uh Commissioner Tang's point that we really understand the requirements of um those in low-wage jobs and you know, from the transportation standpoint.

Some of these uh statements, I'm not sure that we've really dug deep.

They're sort of broad statements.

Uh, and so um it's a very important item.

And so I would just second that point that uh we need to double click on that um and make sure we understand it going forward.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, I'll jump in with the few here.

Uh, first of all, just a statement that it's um exciting for me to say as I go around Bellevue and I see an improvement made in the transportation system.

Um triangle pool on Bellevue A, those bright, wonderful green bike paths, you know, connecting the 108th within the 108th on the other side.

And it's just it jumped, it it jumps out to the drivers that this is a bike path, you know, whereas before it just looked like road, didn't just look like cars, you know, kind of thing.

So always happy to see stuff like that.

So um getting back to the vehicle performance and how you measure when you measure during the peak hour, and I know that it was stated that it was the single biggest hour within that hours.

Well, it's a four to it's from four to six p.m.

But then there's a statement in there somewhere that it's the single biggest hour that is the that's what's counted, correct?

Um for the system intersections, it's a peak period, which is two hours for the corridors, it's the single busiest hour of travel along those corridors.

A slightly different time reference.

Okay, and so then can I assume that that single biggest hour can change from day to day?

No.

Okay.

So I didn't know if maybe if you took the date, but if it's like if you looked at the data and then chose every day based on the data that we know, one day it might be 430 to 5:30, the next day it might be five to six, or if it's just okay.

So you just um do you then for that single hour, do you pick five to six?

What do you use?

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

Okay, Chris.

So how yeah, that's a great and very nuanced question.

We did select within the afternoon period, what is the busiest hour along that segment?

And so the that that is different segment to segment when the initial data was collected.

So um it's within within a window of the segment we analyze what is the busiest hour.

Um, and the reason that that was selected was the the fact that for and why it's one hour versus two hours.

The original background for that numbering gets slightly kind of wonky here.

Uh for the 40% of the posted speed limit is where we then do the threshold for evaluating the performance.

That comes from this document called the highway capacity manual.

It is the sort of reference manual, if you will, for how to evaluate traffic flow and delay and congestion.

And it is based on the highest hour.

So we're trying to be by the book, if you will, on that front.

And so that's where the the busiest hour is selected for those uh individual corridors.

Almost all of them are about the same, but here and there one might be off by you know a half an hour or something like that.

I don't have all the data readily at hand, but that is how we selected those, uh the evaluation uh data for the existing conditions when that was executed.

Okay.

Okay, that's that answers my question.

Um Kevin, at the end you were talking about the trails, uh the planning for the trails, and that's in the back in the appendices.

Did I understand you correctly that that information was transferred from a previous document, not changed?

Correct.

Okay.

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

For for the the MIP uh for the bike network, we're looking at arterials.

Yeah.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other places where bikes do or could ride in the future.

And those are the the local streets and the trails.

Uh a lot of trails are not designed for bikes, but some many of them are.

And but we but those aren't really uh a metric or a we don't document the performance of those.

They they exist as a trail network that is managed by others and that we don't document in the MIP.

Okay.

Do you have or is there any desire to have influence about their paved versus non-paved status?

Or is it just an independent the the project descriptions for those trails describe the surface treatment, the width and the surface treatment?

Yeah.

Um that project description, those project descriptions are 16 years old.

We may do something different today.

But it the lines on the map um are the intended location for the trails.

Some of them are already built, of course, because the maps are old.

Right.

But for the exist for the future implementation of the trail network, they would start with the maps and the project description and say, would we do that today?

Maybe, maybe not.

Um, so um we we wanted to we wanted to document the legacy decisions on those, but not change it at all if with this, but we didn't want to lose it.

Okay.

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

No.

Okay.

The transportation facilities plan um again largely deals with with arterials.

Okay, so there's just separate and really the um this the staff and the staff in the parks and community services department and the parks and community services board work on the trail networks.

Okay.

Okay.

So really quite independent.

Okay.

Um, and what is the latest and greatest on that trouble spring district?

Uh, that trouble area.

The missing link.

The 100 million dollar question.

Yeah.

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

That's unfortunately the answer.

So is it really just still looking at it at potentially very expensive?

And what I mean.

What's the latest?

Sure.

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

When we come back and talk about the TFP again in next month, um you will be um reminded that there's uh not a lot of money forecast at this point in time.

And so there's we we can't put that in a financially constrained plan now.

There just isn't enough money.

Um, but we are looking at, you know, we update every three years when there's more money available.

You guys can put it at the top of the list when we look at the TFP, and then we can see where we can get on that.

Ouch.

Yeah, sorry.

Ouch.

Three years and and two, and I know this might be a discussion for next next month, elevating it now, coming being such the east-west, as you even mentioned amongst your friends.

Coming being such the east-west, as you even mentioned amongst your friends.

Um to discuss it next month or next month.

But um, yes, I think I think stating your um your preference is part of your obligation when you look at the TFPs.

It's a good time to have that conversation.

And what is the ballpark cost for that segment?

I've heard various numbers that seem crazy to me, but currently around 80 million.

80, 80 zero.

Eight zero with seven zeros.

Yes.

Holy cow.

It's structure.

And there's a train in the way.

And it's just a really complex project.

We can't go up with our shovels one weekend then.

Yes, go ahead.

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

So we have talked in the past about for some modes of uh transportation, particularly bikes, uh, to your point earlier.

That corridor is incomplete and really needs to be completed.

So how would we break out the bike mode?

Because maybe, and I think we've talked about this a few times.

Maybe we ought to just have a deep dive on it and really get to the bottom of it of breaking out the bike mode from the vehicle mode.

Ideally, you want vehicle, bike, pedestrian, but maybe there's a way to do it for less than 80 million if it's just the the bike corridor.

Right.

And we I thought we sh we I thought we shared our deep dive on that.

And it was it was determined that it was about 18 or 20 million dollars just to do a ped bike connection between one twenty-fourth and one thirtieth.

Because again, you're you're crossing wetlands, you're cross you is it there's structures, it has to meet ADA.

Uh, we don't own all the land.

So that there's you know it's it's more complicated than it might seem to create a ped bike connection.

I guess the thing was for the TFP, it was combined, it wasn't broken out in different because we determined we would never break it out because it's too expensive to do a standalone ped bike thing.

We'll just do the whole bridge all at once.

Which makes it so expensive.

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Ting.

So just final comment on the topic.

I understand it's expensive, uh, but I think especially for some of the the two newer commissioners here.

Uh, if you haven't followed along with the whole discussion around the Spring Boulevard connection here, there's just a segment that's missing.

And uh we as a commission in the past have felt that this is a very important connection to help make that um a continuous route.

And so that's why we're discussing this.

We understand it's very expensive.

Um, and we wish there was a way we could do like a partial solution, but I mean we understand it's just difficult, but it's it's a priority, and I hope it continues to be a priority for this commission.

Yeah.

All right.

Other uh those are mine.

Other thoughts from commissioners, yes.

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

We as a commission elected to take out the Bell Red corridor for consideration, however, it was brought back in for studies.

Is there where are we with that?

Is that still going on?

It is not.

Oh, is you're not gonna study it now.

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

Questions, comments, others?

Go ahead, Commissioner Ting.

Okay, I was just checking to see if anyone else had any comments because uh this isn't going to be there's no action required for this, but just some thoughts on the MIP.

Um one is uh thinking about the cross-modal prioritization.

I know that might land in the TFP discussion, but it's always nice to understand the framework there and figuring out how the modes can complement each other and create a complete system and um I think that would be a great document or a great discussion for us to have.

Um second, I do wonder about e-scooters and thinking about like how does an e-scooter fit into the new MIP?

Because is it just close enough to an e-bike that and an e-bike's close enough to a regular bike that it just sort of all slides in there?

Or at some point do we think about hey, there's a multi-use path, and we really have to categorize a pedestrian, um, a non-motorized um mobile active mobility and then a motorized uh mobility.

And do those just take the same path?

Do they need to be broken out?

How do we actually think about that in the future?

So again, not for today, but you know, if we if we have a chance to maybe think about that for the MIP.

Can I can I interrupt you briefly?

How do we think about that right now?

Do we think of those are do they get treated like bikes?

Do they get treated like pets?

Or is treated like wheeled users?

Wheeled users.

Sure.

So they feel more like pedestrians.

More like bikes.

No distinction between motorized and non, just those with wheels and those without.

Wheels of all shapes and sizes.

Well, not shapes, but sizes.

Motors and without motors.

Okay.

At this point, yes.

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

Right.

For right now.

You've answered my question.

Thank you.

Yep.

Definitely not for the MIP discussion now.

I don't know if it if you're saying it shouldn't be in the MIP in the future, or is that just you have not quite decided yet?

In any case, just jot it down.

We can talk about it later.

Um anyways, uh, that's it for me.

Thank you very much for the document.

I know it's been a lot of work, and I appreciate um the uh the amount of effort that's been put into it.

Vice Chair, it looks like you've got some follow-on questions.

Just you know, that whole discussion about e-bikes.

Um I'm not sure if that's gonna end up in the safety.

Uh when you have safety items, like how fast e-bikes should go on a sidewalk, or I'm not sure that we see that as being a part of the MIP, but it might I don't know, it's a question, or it might be part of a safety discussion.

How do you how do you look at safety as part of the MIP?

It is irrespective of the mode.

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

Right.

Yes, go ahead.

Um, I would think of it how it also impacts comfort.

And so because there's a comfort aspect to people on the road that it would therefore impact uh the LTS system.

So again, something you think about in the future, but you know, I think trying to incorporate that into the transportation system could be beneficial for later.

Good topic for later.

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

Did you mention uh e-bikes on the sidewalk?

Did I say that correctly?

Yeah, I mean, technically, e-bikes can be on sidewalks, uh, they can be on in of course in bike lanes.

Um sidewalks when there's not a better alternative is I believe uh that was the freezing okay for scooters, right?

That was for scooters.

So what it's not stated for e-bikes that way.

Uh we um have a rapidly evolving motorized device landscape right now, and so we are just kind of getting into are there other things we need to do.

And I know right now, as far as the MIP is concerned, we just talk about bicycles.

We don't talk about scooters, but we do need to further define how these things work so that we can get the right performance targets.

Okay.

Another day.

Good news.

We have work to do for the yeah.

Did you have a follow-up question to that, Vice Chair?

Or okay.

All right, so focusing in on the MIP tonight.

Any more discussions, questions?

Because our goal I will be asking here for approval.

So this is your chance if you have anything else that's kind of niggling at you.

Okay.

Then will someone make a motion to approve?

Let's do the MIP as well as the transmit a letter together here.

Uh, make a motion to approve the transmit a letter and the MIP.

Uh to be given to the council.

Do I hear a motion?

I move to approve the MIP and the transmitted letter.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Is there any further discussion on this?

Okay, then let's do an actual vote for all those in favor of that motion, please say aye.

I aye.

If any opposed okay.

All right, and thank you again to answering our 10,000 questions and all the work and you too, Chris.

You you guys did all the work.

It's just it just is puts it all together in one document.

It does.

So appreciate it.

And now we get the fun one, the looking at covers.

So um, yeah, Chris.

Yeah.

We've got a slide on the screen to look at.

So uh how would you like to do it?

Do you want us to alter?

They might be in order of my preference, but uh that doesn't matter.

It's up to you.

A is my my choice.

I'll like one or two.

Three wouldn't be even though it's an award-winning intersection.

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

Down to one or two, A or B.

Two seems to have all the modes.

We've got a bust about it.

Cool.

You're giving up the week.

All right.

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

Yeah, I would say let's.

I'm happy.

So do you have a vote, Commissioner Ting?

Vote for B.

With me.

Okay.

A.

A.

Okay.

Vice Chair.

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

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

Okay.

Um I also like two because it has bike, although I'm sad to miss the uh push person pushing a stroller.

However, I still would go with two.

Looks like two is our new cover.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

That was easy.

Yep.

All right.

Do you want a formal motion on picking this or is this?

Okay.

All right.

I was gonna say, yeah, I don't know the nose, but I'm like, I don't think we need to do that.

Okay.

Let's move.

Thank you to everybody, everybody for reading this.

And you know, go home and continue to read it even more.

So thank you for the copies here.

All right.

Moving on.

We are great time here.

Uh to agenda item number eight, approval of the minutes.

We do that, Chair Stash.

Um council will receive your recommendation, we believe on November 25th.

Okay, right before Thanksgiving.

Okay.

Well, we'll need a representative of the commission to attend the council meeting to transmit the recommendation.

So we'll typically it's the chair, but uh wanna check with your schedule to make sure I'm in I'm here.

Okay, okay.

We'll I'll cut on the agenda with you what the confirmed council date is.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

Sounds good.

And when in the agenda we will uh be I swear I show up at six, it's four hours later that we all right.

Um we just put a really quick note.

Okay, council meeting.

Okay, fantastic.

All right.

Good.

All right.

Approval of minutes.

Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the July 10th meeting?

So move.

Is there a second?

Oh second.

All right.

Are there any amendments to the meetings?

Minutes.

Anyone who disagrees with approving the minutes from July 10th.

Okay, approved unanimously.

Number nine, unfinished business.

Anybody have any unfinished business here?

Anyone have any new business?

All right.

I'm just guessing where we are on the mobility, the scooter issue.

Well, if if um do you want to go?

Okay, go ahead.

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

Ah okay, good.

All right, anything else?

New business from anybody.

No, okay.

Um review commission calendar.

Um, do you want to lead this, Kevin?

Or check your screen.

I I did something different this time and put the calendar on the screen.

All right.

For our next meeting is October 9th.

I had uh as a backup plan, the MIP to come on October 9th, but we don't need to do that now.

So there are two substantial items for October 9th, the the update of the curb pricing study.

Um, Chris Iverson and Chris Long will be here, plus the consultant team to talk about their their findings and um for the transportation facilities plan update.

Your preliminary recommendation went to council.

Council sent it back to you to develop a final recommendation, and that will be uh 7B on October 9th.

Now we had on the calendar previously the commission retreat on November 13th.

I believe we don't have um unanimous or or um we don't have everybody on the commission available for that November 13th date.

It's really important to have everybody at the retreat.

So I'm looking at alternate dates uh for the retreat.

Um talking with the chair and the vice chair yesterday.

We thought that maybe January 8th would be a good day to have the retreat.

Um please, I I know it's it's far out, but please check your calendars if you confirm January 8th.

We will work to make a retreat happen on that date.

Um, in between now and then, I don't have any scheduled uh agenda items for you.

That doesn't mean there might not be one that comes up, but I don't have anything right now.

So your your calendar may be open until January.

Let's get out of the information.

One one one um one Molly reminds me that it has been standard practice to not bring informational items to the commission, largely because they they take valuable study session away, study session time away from items that you need to take action on at some point.

If you would like, we can feather in some informational items um that other staff are working on.

There, there's a a speed study that you have uh a handout for and a questionnaire Q QR code link to.

We could have staff come and talk about the the speed study if that would be of interest.

Um that's what I know about.

Maybe there's some some vision zero action plan things that could be done also.

I'm not sure.

So maybe we could leave that as a possibility.

And even in by email ideas could be thrown out.

And if there's things or interest to, we could we could hold an informational session.

Okay.

If that works, and we don't have to have it.

Okay, thank you for that idea.

Okay.

Uh any other calendar no information.

You've got it all.

Um, oh, on October 9th.

Yes.

Neither the chair nor the vice chair will be present.

We'll need to select a facilitator from amongst your peers to run that meeting.

We should do it now.

Yes.

And do we have do we can let's confirm that we're gonna have quorum too?

Okay.

So do we do of the four?

Can you all make October 9th?

One, two, three.

Okay.

He's he's confirmed.

She could make it.

Okay, so we've got four with Susanna.

We have a four five, I think.

I think he's uh maybe, but still we've got the four.

So at least we at least we've got it.

Okay.

Um, okay.

Is there anybody who wants to volunteer that's here of the four of you?

Or I'm gonna look at the two more longer, longer.

All right.

I don't mind if everybody else wants to.

Okay, you're in.

That'd be great.

Okay.

Okay.

And we wish Vice Chair good luck on his triathon in Australia.

Yes.

Okay, thank you for remembering that, Kevin.

That was a good one.

All right.

Okay.

Any objections if we adjourn this meeting?

Hearing none, we're done.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chris.

Thanks, Chris.

Have a good night.

Have a good meeting with your team.

Yes, thank you all.

Thanks for accommodating me.

Great discussion.

All right.

Good night.

All righty.