Okay, can you hear us now?

Can you hear us now?

Can the person online hear us?

Okay, fantastic.

Thank you for letting us know.

Okay.

Um approval of agenda.

So it all is in front of you and was in our email earlier.

Uh do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved.

So a second.

Second.

All right.

Are there any amendments or changes proposed?

No.

Okay.

Any objections to what we have.

All right, approved.

All right.

Jumping to oral and written communications.

Uh Kevin's been good as always with forwarding us to us the written communications that he's received since our last meeting, which is all the way back in October.

Ummunications.

I don't know who we have here tonight.

I have two people signed up.

Okay.

The first person who signed up is Robert Armstead.

And I don't see Robert's online, and I don't see him here.

Okay.

So the next person signed up is Vic Bishop, who I also don't see online.

Let me double check.

Vic's there.

Okay.

So I will allow you to talk.

Go ahead, Vic.

You got three minutes.

Welcome, Vic.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vic Bishop.

Uh, I think most of you know who I am.

I'm a uh professional traffic engineer and former member of your commission and chair of your commission about a decade or so ago.

I'm here to talk about speed limits.

Um I just want to caution you to be extremely careful about lowering the speed limits around the city.

The issue of speed limits is a long, well-established traffic engineering issue that is well established in in data.

The 85th percentile concept is absolutely uh uh uh an important issue, and if you attempt to go below much below the 85th percentile of what's actually happening, 85th percentile is based upon a spot speed survey randomly done uh of a hundred vehicles, and if you get more than uh uh i if you attempt to put the speed limit more than five miles an hour before the existing eighty-fifth percentile, you will fail miserably.

And I've proved that I've I spent the decade of the eighties doing traffic safety studies all over the state, including speed limit studies, and I proved in Lynnwood specifically that they had a whole bunch of streets at 25 miles an hour, and I did I did uh 30 or so speed studies all over the city, convinced the council to raise the speed limit from 25 to 30, and in some cases to 35, and then got them to let me uh do the speed studies again, and the speeds were lowered when we raised the speed limit.

You cannot force the public to go slower than they're willing to go.

The parkway is a classic example, and I encourage you to leave the Westlake Sammamish Parkway at the 30 miles an hour and 35 miles an hour that it currently is, and the thought of reducing the entire park away from I-90 to Redmond to 25 miles an hour to me.

Uh if you did that and you recommended that, and I certainly hope that you demand that 85 that spot speed surveys be completed after the speed limits are changed and not just after, but after it settles down a bit and you get the cops out of there, and you let the public do what they're gonna do, and you will find that 25 is going to be too low for a lot of the streets.

Certainly the parkway, I think Bell Red is probably another one that same similar thing.

And I just encourage you to be very cautious and use the traffic engineering information.

Thank you, Vic.

Your sense.

Your time is up.

Sorry to interrupt you.

Thanks for the input.

Uh did the second person online show up?

Okay.

Then is there anybody in the room who would like to speak who did not sign up?

And nobody else online who wants to speak up.

Anybody online that hasn't announced themselves?

There is one person online.

If that person raises their hand, we will acknowledge them and give them three minutes.

Person is not raising their hand.

Okay.

Thank you for checking.

Okay.

Moving right ahead.

Communications from city councils, boards, and commissions.

Um I do not see city council member new in house.

Was he it says he's supposed to be here?

Are we expecting him?

Council members said he might stop by to say hi and thank you.

Um but clearly he's not.

Our new liaison is is not present tonight.

Okay.

And I'm probably everybody here knows who our new liaison is, um, Dave Hamilton.

But those are madam.

Okay.

Are there any reports from commissioners?

All right.

Staff reports.

Kevin, do you have a staff report for anybody?

I do not have a staff report from myself, but we'll invite the deputy or assistant city attorney to provide her report.

And you have intro comments.

Okay.

Welcome.

All right.

So tonight we have assistant city attorney Heather Jones, and she's going to take us through the required amendments to the Transportation Commission bylaws.

Um, we will review these tonight, and we will take action to approve on them on our next meeting.

So our March meeting.

So welcome.

I could do that.

Good evening, Chair Stash, Deputy Chair and Commissioners.

Um, as uh Chair Stash mentioned, I am here to introduce several amendments to the commission's bylaws that will implement changes the city council adopted in September of 2025, um, and then directed the various boards and commissions to implement in their own bylaws.

So there are four um categories of amendments.

The first two address uh the rules of decorum.

Uh the rules of decorum are intended to provide for orderly conduct at meetings, and currently they provide for the presiding officer officer to um eject a person who is disrupting a meeting uh at the meeting, or to exclude a person disrupting uh meeting in exclude them for from future meetings for a period of up to 60 days.

The amendment would amend the 60 days exclusion to extend that to 180 days, up to 180 days.

The other amendment related to the uh rules of decorum would uh clarify the appeals procedure.

So currently the um appeals procedures require the city council to consider the appeal, a timely appeal at the next council meeting.

This doesn't always provide for enough time for the council to consider the materials for the city to gather the materials.

So now this would um include a three-day, it's a timely appeal uh that allows for three days before the next meeting.

If those three days don't exist between the timely appeal and that one, it would go to the next council meeting.

The third item would be a change to the term limits for uh persons serving on boards or commissions.

It would uh limit the terms to two consecutive terms on any border commission, and then that would need to be followed by a two-year uh break before serving on another border commission.

Currently, someone could do two years, two terms at one border commission and then proceed and serve immediately on a different border commission.

So this change is intended to um broaden the opportunities for public participation in service on boards and commissions, and then the fourth category of changes are um non-substantive changes, cleaning up some language, um some typos and adapting the pronouns to modernize language to be more inclusive.

And then the fourth category of changes are non-substantive changes, cleaning up some language, some typos and adapting the pronouns to modernize language to be more inclusive.

Any questions from commissioners?

Go ahead.

On the disruption and ejection, are there clear guidelines as to what constitutes a disruption or what how would that go about?

So the the what would constitute a disruption would be what's outlined in the current bylaws for the the rules of decorum.

Speak, you need to be recognized by the presiding officer, speak to something that's uh pertinent to the border commission.

Um there are rules against uh using obscenities or uh making a true threat of violence or um actually engaging in assault.

So there's numerous examples outlined in the bylaws, and um, in terms of maybe your question is getting at like at what point would an exclusion be warranted?

That's really at the discretion of the presiding officer.

Um, the way that the city council does it is in consultation with the city attorney.

The mayor um discusses the uh type of behavior, the uh number of instances of the behavior, and um the pattern, the level of disruption, those are all things that are considered.

Um, and the exclusion is you know made with a rationale underlying it.

Other questions?

Go ahead.

Can you please um elaborate on the pronouns?

Sure.

Um, so it changed uh where it said his or her, it changed it to their.

And what does this have to do with the transportation?

This was an update that was made across the bylaws because all of the boards and commissions following the city council's action.

Uh, all of us have been updating our um the bylaws for our respective boards and commissions that we advise.

And um, so that change is happening across the board to be more reflective of the city's um goals for inclusion.

Any other questions?

Go ahead.

Just one minor question.

So this is for um boards and commissions.

It's not true for the city council member, though, and like city council or or is it it is they they extended their um they they made these changes and then the changes are flowing down to the boards and commissions.

Okay, but city council members are elected and they can be elected for more than two.

Right, right, right.

Okay.

That's so that that would be fine.

It's just for instance.

So did you have a question?

Yeah, but just wanted to um clarify.

So um two four-year terms and then a two-year break, and then going back to four-year terms.

Okay.

Did you did you get any um do you have any other just since we're talking about it now, we probably won't talk about it again.

Any kind of thoughts behind what what led to that?

Um the only thing that I found was to broaden the opportunities for the community to participate.

Okay.

And serve on boards or commissions.

Okay.

And so I take a this is uh rolling through all of the commission's bylaws.

And that um also applies to the pronouns as well.

And uh okay.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

And when do these go into effect?

Um, well, after you adopt them at your next meeting, um, I am not sure off the top of my head if there is a delay um or how we would proceed if we can do do it on consent.

Could I draft?

We have to take a vote, um, but it would become effective immediately upon the vote.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

And you're right right now actively talking with the other commissions, kind of all in the same time frame.

So um we've coordinated across um the departments that we advise.

So the um, for example, the parks department and utilities, I believe they already um adopted these changes, and I modeled um the proposed changes to the transportation commission bylaws off of what they had already done.

Okay.

So we're being consistent across documents.

Okay.

Other questions from commissioners?

No.

Just real quick.

What is I'm not familiar with the whole pronoun thing they everybody's talking about.

Could you explain that again?

What are we doing with that?

Sure.

Wherever in the bylaws, sometimes it would say um he or she must X, Y, and Z do something, then it's changed to they must do.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right, thanks for coming.

All right.

And any other staff reports?

June?

No?

Okay.

Perfect.

All right.

Number six public hearing we do not have tonight.

So that's a quick one.

We'll jump right into our study session.

So the first one and on the agenda 7A is John Murphy is here to talk with us about planned arterial speed limit reductions.

He's with the neighborhood traffic services.

He is a neighborhood traffic services manager.

Tonight is for information only.

We're not voting on anything.

We are that we're not being asked for any particular directions, but of course we can ask questions.

So welcome to John.

Thank you so much, Chair Stash and the rest of the commissioners.

Happy to be here to talk about speed limits.

Okay.

We're rolling.

So yeah, this effort to evaluate our speed limits on our arterial network is what we're calling safe speeds Bellevue.

As the chair mentioned, tonight's presentation is for your information only.

We'd like to share today a summary of the outreach that we've conducted to date through this initiative.

The results of four corridors where we did initially lower the speed limit and measured the results.

And then really the meat of today's presentation will be about how we're approaching our speed limit setting and show you a draft of our proposed speed limits.

Our agenda will go over the background, the why of the need to evaluate our speed limits in the city, looking at the results of those evaluation corridors, discussing outreach and then pivoting to those proposed lower speed limits, and then an eye toward our continued outreach on this project.

So SafeSpeeds Bellevue launched with our city council in May of 2025.

And the charge was to evaluate all of our posted speed limits in Bellevue that are at 30 miles per hour or higher.

Essentially, speed limit setting in Bellevue has been kind of set it and forget it to a large degree.

So some of these speed limits have been set for 50 years, and we haven't really done a comprehensive evaluation.

So that's really at the heart of this work.

At that May date, council did direct staff to begin outreach and then also on consent come back with the proposal to lower the speed limit on those four evaluation corridors, which we did and provided an update to our council in January of this year.

And we're anticipating going back for a final recommendation for proposed speed limits in June of this year.

I'll have a more concise timeline for you toward the end here.

So the need I articulated about our speed limits have been set, and we haven't really done much evaluation.

But more importantly, setting safe speeds and encouraging people to drive slower is a cornerstone of our city's vision zero effort.

And this is our uh initiative to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities on city streets by 2030.

Um we use the safe systems approach um to vision zero.

There's not a one-size-fits-all uh approach to trying to solve this pandemic of uh traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

So the safe systems approach um kind of divides things up into safe vehicles, safe people, safe streets, and safe speeds, different strategies therein.

So thinking about speed limits, setting appropriate speed limits is really a cornerstone of that safe speeds strategy within our safe systems approach.

And the the need for this work um couldn't be more timely.

Um this is perhaps a chart that you've seen in in other presentations that looks at our fatal and serious injury crashes that are occurring on on city streets.

And the data for 2025, though preliminary, um, is unfortunately showing a high point over the last decade.

So in addition to we haven't done this body of work in uh well ever, um, despite all these major land use population and and modal changes in the city, we really do have a call to action with the number of fatal and serious injury crashes on on our city streets.

So the the focus of this work is on our higher speed streets, our 30 mile per hour or higher streets.

These streets comprise just a quarter of the total street mileage, but nearly 90% of the locations where a person is killed or seriously injured in a crash.

And we're through this effort, we're really trying to approach setting speed limits by recognizing that the faster you go, the more likely you're going to be in a crash, and the more likely that crash is going to be severe.

So when we're looking at our street context and looking at what speed does from a safety outcome, we're really trying to look at our speed limit setting to set it at a level that is inherently safer.

Slower is inherently safer.

Um that's at the core of how we're approaching our speed limit setting here.

Do you want questions now or at the end?

Let's hold off till the end if that's okay.

Um I might answer it as we go along.

Thanks for the prompt.

So, how does this work in practice?

Um, as I mentioned, the council did direct staff to test this concept of lower speeds on our arterials in June.

Uh we identified four corridors across the city that were all posted at 35 miles per hour.

Um, and we uh used our speed limit setting approach, which I'll go into in a slide or two, and arrived at a 25 or 30 mile per hour speed limit on each of these four corridors.

Um these are streets that are near schools that have bike lanes that have sidewalk that don't have sidewalk that are near homes or near businesses.

It's a real mix of street context here.

So city crews lowered the speed limit in July.

Um early, early July is when the work occurred to the speed limits shown on the screen here.

And when whenever we look at uh speed limits and and if we change them and uh we really want to measure the the impact and see if behavior actually changes.

So uh after about two months, uh we wanted traffic to normalize and get adjusted to these lower speed limits.

We went out and and re-measured speeds.

And the key metric that we found um was uh a substantial reduction in high-end speeding.

I shared earlier that as speed increases, so does the severity of the crash.

So when we're looking at kind of metrics to evaluate whether this is effective, seeing and evaluating that high-end speeding, the number of people going 40 miles per hour or higher significantly was reduced on each of these corridors between 19 and 42 percent.

And this is just through changing the speed limit.

We didn't do any other street design changes.

Um we did increase the number of signs.

So there were a few more reminders.

Um, but this is, and there's no additional police enforcement.

This is just through the signage along the beach corridor.

So concurrent to the uh evaluation corridors where we were testing the the lower speed limits, we were really out in the community trying to share information about this effort.

We had two community surveys that yielded almost 500 responses, and um a tenant of our outreach was really trying to be where the people are.

Um and during the summer, we could capitalize on events like Family Fourth, um, the international festival, farmers markets, trying to be where there are already a lot of people congregating and sharing information, so they don't have to come to City Hall and learn about this initiative, um, trying to intercept them.

And then we relied um, like most projects on our robust digital and print communication portfolio that we have available.

Some of the key findings through this outreach, um an overwhelming majority of survey respondents recognize that the speed of cars has a direct uh influence on the safety of people walking, biking, and driving.

Um, there's that understanding of that link between high speeds and and safety outcomes.

There is specific concern around schools and commercial areas, where people are walking and biking and where a fatal serious injury crash has occurred.

There are some people that don't think speed limits alone will do the trick, which spoiler alert, we agree with, and we'll share how we are planning to approach that down the line.

But there's an interest in recognition, hearkening back to that safe systems approach that there isn't a one-size fits all to try to solve this pandemic that we need to couple it with engineering solutions, street design changes, police enforcement as well.

And the majority of folks support reducing speed limits when they're presented with the safety benefit that it can yield.

So getting into how we're actually setting speed limits.

Really trying to set this the speed at the highest speed that the person should drive based on a street's context.

And we're really trying to minimize the risk of a person being seriously injured or killed.

So the key attributes that are feeding how we're identifying the speed limits are that comes down to two attributes, conflicts and activity.

And as the when we look at conflicts, we're thinking about the number of crosswalks along a corridor, the number of driveways, the number of opportunities for how people get around can mix.

So if you're biking in a bike lane and there are a lot of driveways, there are a lot more opportunities for turning vehicles to potentially come in conflict with a person walking on the sidewalk or a bike lane, for example, or if there are a lot of crosswalks along a corridor, there are more opportunities along that corridor for for kind of our all of the modes to mix, which gets us to the second explicit piece of modal mixing, which is really the separation between our modes.

So think of a residential street, for example, that has no bike lanes or sidewalk.

Speeds are relatively low in that type of context.

But as we get onto these 30 mile per hour streets and higher, not having having all of that mixing can be a little more problematic from a safety perspective if you don't have dedicated facilities for people to walk and bike and are mixing with the area where people drive.

So I think our downtown core here is going to be a very different environment from a residential neighborhood in the Somerset neighborhood, for example.

So where there is a high number of uh crossings and people mixing together, and there's a lot of activity, it would be described as having high conflicts and a high activity, and we're suggesting for the most part a 25 mile per hour speed limit.

On the other end of that spectrum, there's relatively few crossing opportunities.

Um pretty good off-street path for someone biking, for example, and it's going through a forest.

Um we're looking at a higher speed limit.

So there's less opportunity and less safety risk based on the street context.

So when we apply this to our city network, this is what we are left with.

On the right is a map of proposed speed limits.

Again, this is just on the speed limits that are currently posted at 30 miles per hour or higher.

At a high level, this results in about 60% of our streets seeing a five mile per hour speed reduction.

Um, about 20% seeing a 10 mile per hour reduction, and about 20% uh not seeing a change.

Um the bottom donut chart is the proposed speed limits by mileage.

So I didn't share this, but you you're probably aware that we do have a few 40 mile per hour roadways.

Um, this proposal would eliminate those 40 mile per hour roadways, and we'd have about 12% of our mileage at 35, um, almost half at a 25 and 40% at 30 miles per hour.

So there are a few additional considerations that we're we're looking at.

As a whole, in our downtown, given the robust activity, we are proposing a 25 mile per hour speed limit with the exception of old Bellevue, where we are proposing a 20 mile per hour speed limit, just given the fairly drastic difference in the character that we have in old Bellevue.

And then additionally, as this moves forward, there's careful consideration with the city of Redmond.

We have some streets that we actually share with the city of Redmond, 148th Avenue Northeast, for example.

They operate the northbound direction and we own the southbound direction.

So coming uh to alignment on a speed limit for both directions is the same is really important.

So we've already initiated discussions with Redmond staff on this, and we'll need to continue that conversation to more make sure that we're synced up with what we're proposing and what Redmond is comfortable with as well.

So connecting, I know the mobility implementation plan is a body of work that is near and dear to this body and just want to recognize the influence of speed limits on the level of traffic stress for pedestrians and bicycles, recognizing that the posted speed limit has a direct link to the LTS for uh bikes and pets.

So where is this going?

Um should council consider approval of these uh speed limits.

We are likely looking at an implementation plan that is phased.

Um we're hoping to increase the number of signs and and the size of the signs on multi-lane roadways to provide that reminder that we that we you know, emulating what we did on those evaluation corridors that yielded those uh strong results in in reductions in high-end speeding.

An example implementation plan might look like focusing on reducing speeds first in our urban core, then branching out to streets that are on our high injury network and then going to the remaining streets.

Um we do actually have some uh outreach that we we just launched yesterday to inquire with the community about kind of that phasing and see if we're on the right track and we'll use that feedback to refine our implementation plan.

So I'm I mentioned the kind of uh what's sometimes described as the Swiss cheese model or uh trying to solve speeding.

Um we can't just change the speed limits.

Um that is the the focus of this initial phase is identifying and setting safer speed limits, uh, but we do recognize that there's likely to be more work needed to uh further reinforce the speed limits.

So looking at tools like speed safety cameras and radar signs, um, lane widths and things like speed cushions and and medians to reinforce the speed limit is really going to be an important uh feature effort for us as we move through Safe Speeds Belleview.

So we're visiting with you um in February, hot on the heels of our council date in January of this year.

We're right in the middle of this process.

Um we are looking to go back to our city council in June and ask for uh their consideration to approve our proposed speed limits.

Um should they approve that that'll be our signal to go begin phasing in these these lower speed limits.

And part and parcel to this work is continued outreach.

Um I just mentioned that we have a survey that opened yesterday uh to share out these speed limits and and get the feedback on the strategy.

Uh through that we'll refine the implementation strategy, make sure that we're answering any questions the community has about lower speed limits, and we're really trying to reproduce the success of the first phase of outreach and trying to be in the community and reaching out to our community network and spreading the messages on our digital and print communications.

So, with that, happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Um anybody want to start with questions?

Okay.

Sure.

Um, and thank you for sharing this.

I I know you're not looking for a recommendation from us, right?

Correct.

Happy to take any ideas there.

However, oh no, I just have a question.

It's kind of a fundamental question about metrics.

I think you stated earlier in your presentation that generally people are willing to take a reduction in speed limit if they see a safety benefit.

So, but then when I was looking at the material, it seemed like the metrics being used were a reduction in speed.

I didn't see a reduction in fatalities or are is that a so it's a question about the metric that's being used to measure success.

Yeah.

Um you're you're dead on.

Uh it's kind of a a yes and proposition when we think about metrics, but the difference is uh the time frame at which we can be confident in the data.

So for example, those four corridors that uh we lowered the speed limit.

What would can we measure immediately?

We can measure the speeds, but the trends in especially fatal and serious injuries, though though a high point in 2025 is still fairly scattered and um there and pocketed across the city.

So to see the the results bear out in fatal and serious injury data is gonna take a little longer to realize.

Um, but if we make network changes, big changes can yield uh results a little faster.

So um if as this gets phased in, the first piece will be looking at the speed metrics, and we know lower speeds is inherently safer, but as time elapses, we'll look at the the number of collisions and especially the severity of those collisions over time.

Okay, so just follow it.

So is the long term before you make changes permanent, would you be looking at safety data, or would you be using the reduction in actual speed as whether to you know the information that you need to decide whether to proceed or not?

Um, generally when we make speed limit changes, they are done with a fairly high degree of confidence that we're not going to whiplash the community with 25 and then 30 and 35.

So we're we're pretty confident with this overall approach.

But if um it's not effective if we're not seeing the the change that we need, that's where we need to go back to.

I'm just gonna flip back to um slide 19.

It's stuck on the screen.

It's it's a call to call to action on doing more.

So the speed limit is the starting point.

Um, and if we're seeing reductions in speed, but we're still not seeing changes in collisions, we're gonna need to approach it from a technology traffic calming crossing approach to okay.

I'll I'll follow up later.

I want to give other people.

Okay.

Other questions?

Okay.

Yep, go ahead.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So it sounds like we're not using data, we're using we're using data in a more of an ambiguous way versus specific.

So if I look at Bell Ride Road, for example, because that's a major arterial road and a good option for a lot of people to take it in lieu of 520.

What I worry about there is the speed reduction as far as where does that traffic now go?

If there's already traffic at the current speed and you've reduced the speed, where does that traffic go?

Will you see it more back in the neighborhoods?

We already see a lot of road rage there.

How is that going to impact road rage?

And what is the existing data that shows that that what's the number of accidents that happens there now?

Um, what's the number of tickets that are given there now for people that are exceeding the current speed limit?

And then and then make a decision based off of that data versus reduce it and then see it seems like the businesses and the neighborhoods there and public input in general for anyone that's commuting through that route would like to have that input, I think first before making a decision.

So looking at what what accidents, what how many accidents?

What are those accidents being caused?

Are those car versus pedestrian really getting into the grains of that?

I know on slide six and slide eight.

You touched on a lot.

Um I'll just quickly respond and say that the diversion into neighborhoods is definitely come up as something that especially in the neighborhoods group, we will definitely be on the look out for.

No, that's that's great.

And just to further that thought, so wouldn't it make sense just in a kind of start at the lowest level and then escalate to maybe focus on enforcement of the current speed limit versus reduction as a first response?

That's already happening for sure, but that's clearly not quite enough to get us to reduce you know the most dangerous of speeding.

So Bell red um I I would imagine is on our enforcement team's radar, so to speak, for enforcement.

Um that'll continue to happen even as we lower the speed limits.

Um it'll be coupled with with enforcement down the line.

And we're we've been coordinating with our police department uh about these proposals too.

Yeah, I think data from the police department that's enforcing that area would be great to have.

Thank you.

And I'll jump in with two questions.

I might not have the the statement correct.

It was something that for those areas greater than 30 miles an hour, they were 25% of the access.

What was that statistic?

No, it was 80 88% was the highest.

When it crashes were built or serious.

So it's about a quarter of our street network and almost 90% of the serious injury and fatal crashes.

And so when it's the network that's the 30 miles an hour above that have this 88%, what percentage is 35 and above?

I don't have that with me.

We could definitely look into that though.

Okay.

Because it because I think that's a big difference.

You know, if we find that most of them are in the 35 and above, then that would say that's where we should be focusing, or if it's, you know.

So I think that would be one comment.

And then the second one is isn't tying in with police data where tickets are given, and first of all, there's the human factor.

A police officer can only pull over where it's safe or where it's shady in the summer.

I mean, there's all these human factors in.

You're only going to get tickets in the logical places for a police officer to be most of the time.

I know I know they can also get them moving, but has that been that bias been built in with the thinking of where the most dangerous areas are um when you're looking at tickets given?

Um I don't know personally, but it's a it's a good observation and um definitely something that I'll take back to our police department folks.

Um I know the areas, you know, think about a Bellevue way or Cole Creek Parkway or Lake Hills Connector, these are 35, 40 mile per hour roadways.

I I do know that those are areas of emphasis for um police when we communicate with with them.

So they they can, but it it's a good point to think about the ability for them to do it safely.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh others go ahead.

Could you go back to the slide that showed the areas where you did the trial uh speed reductions?

I just missed it.

Yep.

So my question uh first is um the data that you pulled, like you you you chose these areas and then you went back and you measured speed.

Is that the only thing that was measured?

Was there any data versus like we've had so many collisions or accidents or what have you versus how it was when you lowered the speed.

Did we track that at all?

Yeah, we we have the number of collisions for each of those corridors.

We pulled that as just to understand what like historically or during the the time that you lowered the speed limit.

Um I guess you would have that historically, but to um Commissioner McGill's earlier question and about the the time frame.

Um, you know, a village park drive, for example, I think over a decade there were this isn't don't quote me on on this.

I probably shouldn't say it as part of a public meeting, but 10 crashes compared to North Way, there was about 10 times that.

So a very different scale.

So we're not gonna see on a village park drive over the course of um a few months a confident change.

So I I think that's where we need to let the data and the time kind of elongate a little before we go back and and revisit that metric.

I think on Northup were eight months or so post-installation, we're getting close to um maybe when we get to a year looking at the number of collisions because there are just more frequent collisions along that corridor.

Okay.

Um another question I had as far as uh the outreach.

Um can you talk a little bit about maybe the number of number of the uh the public that you engage with?

Um did you go out to talk to any groups, any like the rotary or the downtown Bellevue Association, things like that.

Yeah.

Um the we invited conversations with all of our neighborhood uh registered neighborhood associations that we have on on file.

Um our neighborhoods group has a list and uh we we did not get any takers to discuss this project.

Um the in-person events, I mentioned that we are really trying to uh be out in the community in front of where people are already attending.

So through through those events, hundreds, if not thousands of of interactions, maybe not thousands of conversations, but a stop by the booth, pick up a flyer.

Um, and then we did brief the Bellevue network on aging as well through this phase.

So um we are staff are very amenable to to having this conversation, and we're trying to make ourselves as available as we can.

So um trying to continue that moving forward.

And then just my final question would be uh I I know some of the feedback was concern around schools.

Um, but right now schools are when they're in session, right?

They're 20 miles an hour.

So I think there's just inherent recognition that our children are especially vulnerable, and that's I think what what jumped out on the survey, why people selected that if I had to guess.

But most of the our schools are 20 miles per hour, especially during our our um bell times in the morning and the the afternoon.

Are they more concerned with maybe the speeds that are outside of that 20 mile an hour?

That's what I would be maybe thinking about.

Because you had kids walking, biking to school that are outside of that.

So that would probably, you know, when I think about safe school speeds, that's what comes to mind.

Other go ahead.

Thank you so much for this presentation.

I I found it um really helpful.

Um I'm gonna just walk you through a little bit of my progress in thinking about this, which might be similar to what some others have, I'm not sure.

But um when I first was hearing about vision zero, uh I come from an engineering background.

And my my first thought honestly was that's not realistic.

Uh and it's you know, it's not realistic in 2030.

Um and it it's not to I it's not to say it's not you know worthy that we should that that we should reduce, but it just from an engineering background, it's like uh you can't you can't really get to zero unless you're talking about we don't have cars anymore or something, you know.

Um so that was the first thing I thought.

And then and then I read some more about it, and I gave myself some time to you know just get more informed.

And I felt a lot better about um, you know, what all is encompassed with vision zero and the safe systems, and I got a better understanding of of safe speeds.

Um, and those things got me, you know, feeling more like, okay, I'm I'm following this.

Um and then the next thing where I was finding myself hung up, which you definitely have heard from a couple of other people here was well, shouldn't we still be starting with the places where we know there are issues?

So it's the data-driven kind of approach.

Um so that was my next thought.

And then I sent off mail to Kevin and said, do we have information about you know where and some other people were asking this too is you know, where are our biggest issues.

Um so that was my you know, my second thought in thinking about it.

Um and then the third question I had, you know, even once I did once I immersed myself in the sort of the different speed levels and 20 miles an hour is a is kind of the the highest speed at which there can be a collision where um you know someone can survive um a collision, and so then it makes sense to target that.

And and then also the in the concept of the conflict zones.

Um, and if there are fewer conflicts, then speeds can be higher.

If they're more then speeds are lower, and and all of that was uh making a lot of sense to me.

Um and then I just so was thinking about, and this is because this is a because of where I live and one of these impacts me, then I started thinking about that particular street more.

And so maybe I can maybe we can kind of walk through that one and you can you know tell me you know, help me help me think through it.

Um so the particular one I'm thinking of is the Lakemont Boulevard.

Um, and that one is a street where there's a very long, and this is between I 90 and up to kind of just ahead of the village park.

Um and through that whole section there there, there's no intersections um through any of that.

And it's a you know, it's a very long stretch, and part of it, there are two lanes one way and one lane another, and it's on a hill, so people kind of naturally pick up speed as they as they go down through that.

Um there are some pedestrians, not a ton.

Um, and there is a sidewalk and there's some bike by their bike lanes, not a ton of bikers, but uh I bike it.

So, you know, I recognize and I even recognize when I'm biking it, that sometimes it'll feel like both I'm going fast and the cars are going fast, um, especially going downhill.

Um, but all of those things together made me as I was sort of looking at the safe speeds, my thought was, well, maybe this should be more of a 40 mile because it doesn't have as much conflict as opposed to a 35.

Um, and I'm not trying to second guess um, you know, you can the the you know, I just was curious on that particular one.

Um maybe because there's more traffic there is why that one ended up being um yeah, because I know you were doing both traffic and conflict.

Um, so maybe though the conflict is lower, there's high activity there, and that's what brought it to that.

So anyway.

Yeah, um I I think as a general rule and on the slide, I did share that we are not proposing any 40 mile per hour speed limits, just as kind of an overall approach, you reference the 20 mile per hour speed and the much lower likelihood of of death if you got hit walking.

The often cited rate is 10% chance of death at if you get if you're walking and get hit at 20.

At 40, it's 90%.

So even a five mile per hour um difference has a real influence on survivability, which is one of the reasons why um we wanted to really look closely at our 40 mile per hour streets and most of Lakemont, Coal Creek Parkway, um, Bellevue Way, Lake Hills Connector, these are currently 40 that would go to 35, kind of similar context.

They're all a little different, of course.

Um but that's the the general philosophy here.

And 35 rather than 40, just because it's slightly slower and greater survivability.

Okay.

The follow-on question.

Um so I understand you're right.

So for Lakemont, that little blue section goes down the hill.

Um that was 40.

It's current currently 40.

Yeah.

I mean, it currently is 40.

And there's going to be no 40s at all, right?

Is that what I heard you say?

That's in the proposal, correct?

Okay.

So that one was taken down to 35 because it was a 40.

Um just out of like carte blanche.

You can take everything out of 40 and put it to 35 at least, right?

I'm just trying to uh also understand the rationale on that one as well.

Yeah.

Um that so this model is based on uh a lot of success across the nation, and it is a best practice to try to identify the the safest speed at which we want someone to travel.

This we adopted this for the Bellevue context um because the model uh that is the national best practice is is would suggest a lower speed on most of our corridors, and we were trying to be uh a little more responsive to our Bellevue context.

Did that answer your question?

Well, okay, yeah, I think so.

I was sorry, we're we sometimes get into the the detail there, but I was thinking about Lakemont.

Um there is a multi-use path on the west side.

If you're on that multi-use path, feels a lot safer, and you can ride your bike there.

A lot of times I ride my bike on the street going up there, and if it's going you're going up, so you're going slow.

There could be a perceived conflict from that standpoint.

But I I don't think that went into the analysis here.

So that's what I we're I think we're just asking these questions to a understand, and B, hopefully prep you for some of the questions you might get in the community.

Yeah.

Um, I'd have to go back to exactly how we there's unsurprisingly a spreadsheet behind all of these lines on the map that uh do quantify the the conflicts and activity.

I don't have that in front of me.

I'd have to see kind of what what the decision point was, because even within each attribute, there is there's a little wiggle, right?

And we did do a little massaging based on the output to make sure it was the appropriate um speed for the Bellevue context.

So Lakemont in particular, I'd have to dust that off and dig into it a little more.

And I'll I'll add on to that with with my question is as you go forward, it would be nice to understand the definitions, for example, of conflicts.

Is it X number of driveways per mile?

Because the what hits me as a kind of off the cuff is a 25 mile per hour speed limit in downtown, where we know there's a driveway or delivery truck or something every 10 feet, compared to a Bell Red or a Northeast 20th, significantly fewer conflicts per mile.

So, how did those end up in the same bucket?

You know, was one on one extreme end, one was the other.

Just I think as you go forward, I can I think we all would agree that driving through downtown Bellevue has a very different feel than driving on Northeast 20th.

And especially if some of these roads are never gonna have a multimodal.

So if you so if you look at the factors that went into it, if they have fewer conflicts, not a future multimodal, and I'm forgetting what the third piece was.

It it's it's still kind of just like I said, knee jerk is kind of like oh, they don't seem to be in the same bucket.

So, and I know on these models uh there's always a couple on the edge each way, but that's one that definitely hit me.

Yeah, no, and and there is a a range within each um for you know, zero to four, four to eight, for example, eight to twelve.

Um, those aren't the exact ones, but we did there are those buckets and ranges within each of these attributes.

So there probably is a little bit of gradation.

Um, but we also can't have a 27 mile per hour speed limit or a 32 mile per hour speed limit.

I know it gets quantum narrow, but but yeah.

That's uh we we'd have to dig into the data a little more into that.

Okay, yeah.

So that was my thoughts.

Um, I think you had also had follow up question.

So two quick questions.

One um a lot of times when we're looking at projects like this, they talk about other cities that are similar to Bellevue that have instituted this.

Do we know of any that have kind of gone through this process that are similar to our situation and and what the results of that might have been?

Um yes, is the short answer.

Uh the most probably visible uh approach is our neighbor, Seattle.

Um they took a more blunt approach to speed limit setting uh and set most of their arterials at 25.

And that was that was that.

Um they've refined that approach.

Um they they kind of took a sim similar approach to the the sign density though, along a lot of their corridors, increasing the number of signs.

And they did also find reductions in high-end speeding.

So that's the most um proximate uh example.

We didn't care for that one size fits all approach to setting speed limits at 25, which again kind of the national breast practice does indicate.

We wanted to have this type of more granular decision making on our speed limit setting.

Um, but there are countless other examples where uh speeds have gone down as a result of lowering speed limits.

And Seattle has the data on crashes as as well because they implemented their speed limit change in 2016.

So they have that runway to look back at the data um and see co collision rates change over time and they have seen reductions there.

Well, I get a little concerned because Seattle's not to me, Seattle's not I was thinking more like a Kirkland or a Redmond or a city that's more similar to Bellevue.

Seattle's kind of its own little uh you know, it's got the much bigger population, much more stuff going on over there.

Um the other question I had is just escape me.

I'll come back to it if I okay, good.

Just a clarification question.

So I see on Bell Red Road and 148 that there's a camera there, and it says cameras and violation sensors um monitor that specific intersection, but not the intersection that's suggested on Bell Red Road.

Does violation sensors include speeding?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referencing right now.

It's the Bellvla.gov website.

It lists where the red light cameras are or the cameras, it lists specifically cameras and violation sensors monitor for red light locations and at least Bell Red Road and 148.

And I I don't I'm speaking specifically on the Northeast Bell Red Road section that's that's marked green.

So I guess I'm wondering if that area specifically is not covered by the red light or the camera and violation sensors one, would that be a good point of enforcement for that specific section if the violation sensors include speeding?

So if I'm understanding correctly, you're referencing an existing red light camera that we have at Bell Red and 148.

Correct.

Um those four that we have across the city uh have been there for quite a while and they have not been expanded um as part of the speed safety camera work it is looking at additional speed safety cameras.

Um so there could be consideration down the line for other corridors, essentially.

Um let me just offer that um staff would be very happy to go through the details of any specific corridor, any intersection, any decision-making matrix that they've had uh in developing the recommendation, but we should move on.

Okay.

Yes, go ahead.

Absolutely broad question.

Broad question.

Um back to the metrics in um just you know, trying to understand.

So you know that if you reduce speed, and I think to your comment, if you get all the way down to zero, you're not gonna have accidents, right?

That's not practical.

Um, do you when you're looking at this, do you optimize?

How do you optimize it?

So, how do you make that decision in terms of lowering the speed limit's gonna have some adverse effect on something else, like perhaps volume, right?

It might lead to more congestion.

Do you have that balancing view that you're looking at as well?

I mean, how do you um say, okay, here's here's the the benefit is gonna be potentially um more safety.

And of course, you should use I would suggest you use safety data for that, but the cost would be more congestion or something like that.

Do you do you have a balancing mechanism here?

I I think part of our check-in balance here is that we are this may not directly answer your question, but our signal timing um across the city has a pretty large role in metering the the flow and speed of traffic as well.

So as part of this effort, we will be looking at our signal timing to make sure that it is synced up with the speed limits to try to not you know further additional delay that they're kind of speaking in harmony.

So we're getting the reduced speeds on the corridors, but um trying to you know maximize efficiency too at our signal system.

Okay.

Any last burning questions that we want to deal with tonight?

Okay.

Thank you, John, very much.

Thanks for coming.

Appreciate it.

Yep.

All right.

We have a second uh topic for tonight study session, and we have Christy back again here.

Uh she will be introducing to us the 2026 annual update to the TIP, the transportation improvement program.

And she will take us through that, and we all got it in our notes a week ago.

So welcome, Christy.

Good evening, Chair Stash, uh, Vice Chairman Gillen Commissioners.

I'm Christy Ostervian, Capital uh Projects Facility Planning Manager in the Implation Uh Planning Division in transportation here for my annual visit uh with you.

I don't know why there is um never mind.

There was there was just some uh some why where's that zoom one coming from?

Where's that one coming from?

Because the weather just popped up a second echo.

Not that I'm not interested in the weather.

Um I'm here for my annual visit to go through the update of the transportation improvement program plan, uh, better known as one of our lovely acronyms, the TIP.

So this year's update is for 2027 to 2032.

Uh the transportation improvement program plan is a six-year uh plan.

So uh this is uh um for our agenda and I will go through what our purpose of the TIP is, how it kind of fits into that whole big scheme of the different uh other planning initiatives that I come to you, uh share with Mike and do other things with the recommended changes uh that we have from the current uh 2026 to 2031 TIP, which were included in your packet, and the action that I do need you to take tonight so that we can move on with our process.

So this uh graphic should be something that's somewhat familiar uh to you.

We use this to kind of explain what our transportation you know planning process is, where we start with that really large view, that long range uh view of the comprehensive plan and how from the comprehensive plan, we also have our long-range facility plan and other functional plans that go into that.

From that we have our mobility implementation plan, uh, which you are very familiar with and has helped us to be able to prioritize those project concepts that help go into the transportation facilities plan, which was uh something that we worked the last year and a half on uh quite arduously to be able to get adopted at the end of last year.

Projects from that plan go into the capital improvement program plan, so our funded capital plan, uh, which then inevitably lead to projects being able to be implemented.

What goes into the um local transportation improvement program or what we call Belleviews transportation improvement program are all of those, those functional plan projects that are in there, projects from the transportation facilities plan, capital improvement program projects, uh as well as a few others.

My little there we go.

So we also have some uh sec a section that shows us other programs or initiatives that we may want to enter into.

We also have a section that are other regional or outside agency led projects that the city would want to be able to participate in if we had the opportunity.

One of the unique things about the TIP is that it is totally unconstrained funding.

So you could put anything that you would want to.

It is kind of our big wish list.

If we had the resources, the personnel, and the ability to get them done in the next six years.

This would be what our ultimate was if all of a sudden a big swath of money dropped down on us that we would like to do.

The other thing that the TIP helps us with is it helps us to be able to uh apply for grants.

So it's a common question on a grant application is is this in your local TIP?

And we can answer yes when we can see the different projects that are actually in our transportation improvement program.

Once we have actually put the plan together, it goes to two different locations.

We report it to the regional transportation improvement program that is managed by Puget Sound Regional Council known as PSRC.

It also goes to the state for the state's STIP, as they call it, the state's transportation improvement program, which is managed by Washdot.

Before we get into the fourth section, it's another thing about the transportation improvement program plan.

It is mandated to be completed and into both of those agencies by June 30th of every year.

So we start this process with you typically at the beginning of February.

We try to finish it by May because we do have to go after your approval, we go to council for their adoption so that then once we can put the final uh plan together, it then goes to those two agencies.

So for our transportation improvement plan, it is separated into four sections.

So we have uh section one, which are all of the projects that are included in the currently adopted 2025-2030 capital, oops, sorry, that should say improvement program.

I'm still on my old vernacular.

This means that any projects that are in there are in as they read in the Capital Improvement Program Plan.

They are because it is a currently adopted plan.

Section two has the projects that are then uh included in the recently adopted 2026-2045 transportation facilities plan.

So when you're looking at section one, you may see uh projects that have references to the transportation facilities plan because that is inevitably where we want our projects to go.

The remaining projects from the transportation facilities plan are in section two.

Section three has those other unfunded local projects uh that we have identified that we've scoped.

Lots of them have been to you or to previous commissions for discussion, whether it's about the mobility implementation plan or any of the other uh plans or sub-area plans that we have done in the past.

Section four, which is the purple section, are those regional or outside agency-led projects.

So you'll see a lot of the corridors 405, 520, I 90 on that list, as well as some of our transit.

So all of the detail of the changes that are recommended for the TIP from the 2026 version to the 2027 version are detailed and outlined in your packet.

So I'm not going to go through every single one of those details.

I'm just going to share the uh summary here.

So in section one, we had six new projects, and we had one project that was uh that was removed in your packet.

You'll see the detail of exactly what those projects were.

In most cases, those were projects that were that are sub-projects, two other program plans that are going on.

In section two, we had one new project, and we had six projects that were removed.

So we had one project that wasn't one of our other candidates that were in another section when we did our transportation facilities plan process.

We had six that during our process last year were removed from uh the from the plan itself.

You'll see a lot of movement in section three uh because that's where we had housed all of our other uh candidate projects for the transportation facilities plan.

We also have three new projects in there.

You see that 23 were removed, and then there are 19 that are transferring sections, which basically those 19 are going into uh section number two because they um are now a transportation facilities plan project.

And then in section four, uh after some conversations with our uh regional policy manager, uh, there is no change needed in that section at this time.

So I am here for two things this evening.

One is that you approve the recommended list that I have put before you to be able to come back to the public hearing.

At the public hearing, that list will no longer have the red, the green, and the blue colors on them.

It will be an actual list.

Uh it will still include a um, I will have another separate spreadsheet that will show all of the projects that have been removed uh from the transportation improvement program, but it will be basically the final list.

And then I would like if you could approve a public hearing date for May 14th.

Um typically we've tried to come back to you in April, but what we found with the April date is it typically will run during spring break and we end up needing to council because we don't have quorum.

In order to not run into that issue, we're going to go ahead and pivot to the first meeting that you have in May.

That will still give me enough time to be able to get to the city council uh on their consent agenda for them to actually adopt the uh to actually adopt the plan and get it to the state on time.

So to kind of give you just the timeline again.

Um we're here kicking this off, wanting you to look at what that compiled.

This was that was in your packet.

Would like to have your approval for the list itself moving forward, approval for a hearing date.

We'll come back in May with that finalized list.

Take any uh host that public hearing at the beginning of your meeting.

Take any comments that might come from uh any of the community members, ask for you to uh approve and or amend should there be any changes that come forward uh the list and also a recommendation letter.

And then we now have actually a tentative date for our um June council adoption, and that would be on the 9th, which again will give me enough time to be able to get it all finalized and packaged up for that June 30th uh deadline.

So at this time, I am asking for um again approval of the list and of the the date.

And as you can see on this uh slide, these are my next steps, and I'll entertain any questions about the list as well.

Okay, opening up for questions.

Anyone have any I had a few.

Thank you for um addressing mine before the meeting.

Um the only thing I can say I'm I was confused because at the very beginning of the meeting, I I just kind of were casually talking, and I mentioned to Molly, I said, well, it seems like more of the safety vision safety projects have have bubbled up on that that long spreadsheet of the of the tip.

And um, she had said, well, after our meeting, after our retreat in January, that they would just what she wanted to have more transparency with what was going on in other activities, the vision zero specifically.

Right.

That doesn't quite make sense to me because we see the tip all the time.

So the the safety projects from that should have been built in, even if we weren't being getting as much exposed into the day-to-day updates of vision zero, we still should be seeing those projects reflected in the tip.

So her answer almost confused me more than then where I was.

And unfortunately, do you I don't know if you're able to kidding.

So maybe I maybe I misunderstand you understood you, but that's that's what I understood before the meeting.

So I think that there's a couple of things.

Um, the items such as like what John brought to you and some of those other things aren't necessarily haven't necessarily been capital um projects.

They've been operating side um initiatives.

Some of the things that you saw that were added to it this time are um projects that we um feel are really great grant candidates.

So we want to be able to have them stand alone and almost for lack of very showcase themselves on this list so that then the powers that be in the granting world don't have to read the nuances of the descriptions to kind of find out, oh, what was it that you were applying for by having that generic our our capital um improvement program description sometimes can be very generic so that they can include lots of things.

Yeah, we like to try and get down to a little more specificity when we're going to put a grant candidate on the list.

So I'm not sure any more of the nuances of the conversation that you had with Molly, and she's free to I will move my back.

All right, because I know we had a generic one added, safety related, which I mean, which I can understand for for things that come up that would be good to address safety.

And then we had a couple of the uh other more specific ones, which I know said in them also potential grant opportunities.

So okay.

Uh that makes sense.

I have to admit I'm still a little confused on the previous comment, but that was outside the meeting.

So I can follow up with you later.

Okay, other questions on this tip.

No.

Go ahead.

Uh I'd like to make a motion to approve the project list.

Uh, I'd like to make a motion to approve the project list in our packets in the for the 2027 to 2032 TIP project list.

And to approve the recommended um, let's see, the recommended public hearing on May 14th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

I tell you, I am your easiest one that comes.

I appreciate it.

We all studied that spreadsheet for the whole last race.

I like to make sure it's something that you know.

I thank you for thank you for your time.

Uh, when we come back in May, we'll have more of the um dollars also settled, as I had mentioned in the memo.

We're in the middle of that budget process um and things.

So we'll have more of you know the the grant dollars and things like that that we already have had secured as well in that.

So we'll come with that final list to you.

So thank you.

And I will see you in May.

Yeah.

And thank you always for giving us adequate time of keeping us on schedule with the February, the May, the June.

So thank you.

Okay.

Item number eight, approval of minutes.

Amazingly, the last meeting we had was October 9th.

Do I have a motion to approve the meetings from the October 9th meeting?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion.

Oh, if I may, there's one small correction to the minutes.

It's the should be October 9th, not October 10th.

Okay.

Noting that exception, uh, is there any um disagreement with approval of those minutes?

Okay.

You approved your man unanimously.

Thank you, Kevin.

All right.

Is there any unfinished business that's that I don't know about?

Nope.

Any new business.

No?

Don't want to go back to speed limits.

All right.

All right, let's get to the review of the commission calendar.

So Kevin, you're on.

Well, we had some time in March for the TIP, but because the commission and Christy were efficient with that tonight, we do not need to have that topic in March.

Um, we will have um Heather to come back to us to to seek your approval of the changes to the bylaws.

But that's not the only thing that we can do on March 12th, because that wouldn't be uh enough to get a meeting together.

So we're we're offering um based on commissioners' prior requests to have a tour of the traffic management center on the seventh floor.

The staff is available uh on the evening of the 12th.

If you'd like to do that, I will have that part of the major part of our agenda for the 12th.

Okay.

Is there interest in this?

Yeah.

Okay.

Just yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Looks like we're yes.

Got it.

All right.

Okay.

Excellent.

Anything else for calendar you'd like to talk about?

Okay.

Sounds good.

All right.

Any objections to adjourning this meeting?

Seeing none and only happy smiles, we're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.