I'm gonna go ahead and uh call us to order.

This is our January 12th, 2026 City Council work session.

Um the first uh off Monday work session of the year for those uh you know long time caller or what is it, long time listener, first time caller.

Um we talk a lot about a lot of things at the City of Columbia, and council needs a lot of opportunities to engage with staff and ask clarifying questions.

And so this is one of our attempts to do these off Monday work sessions to get more clarification so that hopefully the first and third Mondays don't go until midnight.

So this is our hopes for that.

Uh and so tonight's topic is our street and intersection pedestrian safety study.

I know we have public works director and our consultant here with us.

I believe the plan for tonight is a quick overview of and Shane, you can correct me.

I believe it's a quick overview of the study, what we've heard of feedback so far.

So council tabled this at our November 17th meeting until February 2nd.

Um I think that's correct.

It's February.

Um so this is kind of a touch base on that.

Is that did I follow that?

And then we'll get to discussion from council.

Yeah.

Um Brian with CBB is here tonight.

Um CBB gave a presentation at a work session um a ways back.

In June of 2025.

So I so I kind of asked him to kind of give a reader's digest version of that to kind of refresh everybody's memory, and then we will talk about um some of the things that council asks us to do and the results of that.

Um then, like I said, and then we'll open it up.

So I appreciate that.

DeKarlin, anything else you want to touch base on that?

No, I think so part of the conversation is I know there's some questions that councils may have, or even some suggested changes to the ordinance.

And so this allows for that conversation, and so that we're prepared for February 2nd council meeting if there are changes that need to be made.

Great.

And just a um point of order for Nancy.

Nancy, if um obviously this is a work session, so we will not vote on anything.

But if there are suggested potential amendments, will you help advise us on like what it is we're asking so that we can give staff clear direction?

Sure, sure.

And there are some things that we may want to be taking a look at because uh any kind of ordinance like this has to be narrowly tailored and um has to have some very uh specific parameters.

And so what we have what you have in front of you is the staff recommendation, and as you come up with additional things that you might want to see, we we would want to do some analysis on that as well.

Okay, appreciate that.

All right, so I'll kick it over to you, Shane.

Okay.

Um I will let Brian take the lead here for his portion of the presentation.

Good evening.

My name is Brian Rensing.

I'm the senior transportation engineer at CBB Transportation Engineers and Planners.

Uh we were contracted with the city to do the uh street and intersection pedestrian safety study.

Uh so I'm gonna go over uh briefly uh what that study entailed.

So why do the study uh in the first place?

Well, pedestrian safety is a problem not only in Colombia, but it is in the state as well as nationally.

We looked at safety data, or excuse me, we looked at crash data.

Over the last 10 years, there's been an 11% increase in crashes with pedestrians in the state and the country is much, much higher.

So uh the increase of uh crashes to pedestrians is a safety problem.

So looking at uh the fatal crashes, nearly 32% uh uh of those pedestrian crashes resulted in in somebody dying.

So again, it's real important that we try to minimize that as best we can.

Uh eighty-eight percent of those uh were in in dark conditions.

And again, nearly all of those folks had some sort of injury or fatality.

So if there's a pedestrian crash, there's a good chance somebody's getting hurt or possibly uh gonna die.

Uh we also looked at where those locations are happening.

So nearly 30% of the pedestrian crashes uh are at intersections that have medians.

Um our study looked at uh the top locations there uh and and has a table of of those top locations.

Uh next, the question was are there really people being hit on medians?

The answer is yes.

We found nine loc nine uh occurrences over the last 10 years uh that a pedestrian has been struck in the median.

This is one example here at uh stadium in Worley where a northbound left turn was going to turn on to Warley.

They uh inadvertently took the corner too sharp, uh started to realize that a little bit too late, hit the uh the sign in the median, as well as the pedestrian.

Pedestrian initially said, Oh no, I'm fine.

Uh after a little bit of of uh uh coercion from from those around him that he couldn't stand up, he did go to the hospital and had brain injuries and a broken hip.

So uh these types of crashes do occur, and again, they result in in some injuries.

Uh next, uh distraction and expectancy.

So generally pedestrians are expected to be in certain places, most of those being along the sidewalks, in the crosswalks, uh crossing the road, not necessarily being in the middle of the road.

Uh the science data behind it indicates that you know those distractions are uh an increase for risk for both the pedestrian as well as as the driver.

So does it occur?

Yes, we found a crash where uh somebody on the median uh distracted a driver.

They were at uh college and Broadway here.

They were at the light waiting for it to turn green, it turned green, they started to go.

They noticed the pedestrian on the median doing something erratic.

Uh it scared them, so they jerk the wheel, end up uh spinning somebody out and causing uh a severe injury.

So again, these types of crashes do occur, and this is just one example here.

So uh there's lots of different efforts out there in order to uh improve pedestrian safety.

Uh Missouri has the uh strategic highway safety plan or the show me zero plan.

Uh that has a specific chapter and and items dedicated to vulnerable road users itself.

There's uh several different organizations with pedestrian safety initiatives.

A lot of those come down from the federal level, uh down to the state level, and even locally, there's lots of different organizations and groups that uh are focused on on pedestrian safety.

So uh, you know, there's a there's a uh notion to to change things.

Uh we also do have standards and guidelines, so we have lots of those.

Uh and you know, what those really do is clarify where the pedestrians are supposed to be, and that way the pedestrians know, and then also sets clear expectations for the drivers on where those uh pedestrians should be.

So it's kind of two-way street there where it's both for uh the safety of the pedestrians as well as the motorists.

Uh the City of Columbia, uh, they do a great job of this already.

So they do follow those national uh standards and guidelines, uh such as the MUTCD.

Uh they do require permits for events uh where pedestrians will be in the roadway so that uh you know they can close the road and and people can travel safely in the roadway.

Uh the city also uh is one of the first uh cities for that vision zero, which launched in 2017, and uh more recently reblant rebranded to the Como to Zero.

That's a big program where again focused on uh bringing all uh roadway fatalities and serious injuries down to that number of zero where we want it to be.

We want everybody to go home safely.

Uh they also have the neighborhood management program to help on those uh neighborhood streets.

So all of this being said, some of the foundational recommendations uh is that we want pedestrians to be uh in designated areas, right?

We want pedestrians to know where they need to be.

We want motors to know where they need to be.

Those are primarily the sidewalks and crosswalks, uh can be a multi-use path, uh bike path, etc.

Um there's also temporary traffic control setup that needs to occur if uh people are generally in the street, so uh you know, if the city has to do maintenance on a roadway, they're gonna set up traffic control to warn and advise the motorists that hey, there's somebody in the roadway here.

They also require their employees to have personal uh proper uh PPE, which is uh personal protective equipment.

Uh that'd be like a uh high reflective vest, uh, you know, uh steel show toe boots, um, uh hard hats, etc.

So again, trying to keep uh people safe in the roadway, let people know.

Uh the third one is there are certain locations that are low volume and low speed.

They're designated for shared spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists, uh, as well as as as vehicles that includes you know, some of those bike boulevard locations, again, low volume, low speed, they know they're gonna be there, and there's that uh interaction there between them.

So our study basically came up with a hierarchy of concern for uh these uh that contribute to pedestrian risk, those being traffic speed, traffic volume, and the median width itself.

Uh when we look at the hierarchy of concern for speed, uh this uh graphic on the left there represents um the fatal uh percentage of the possibility of a fatality when a vehicle is going 20 miles per hour, it's at 13 percent.

When that vehicle speed goes up to 40 miles per hour, that percentage of of dying goes way up to 78 percent, so uh or 73 percent.

So that's a big increase for a little bit of increase in your speed.

And not only does speed uh impact the survivability, it also uh impacts how much you can see as you're driving down the road.

The slower you're going, you can see uh a lot more on the side uh of what's going on and see any potential threats as you start going faster, then you kind of get a tunnel vision because you can't see, react, and apply the brake if there is a potential threat.

So uh you get that tunnel vision.

So with all of that information from the speed, we look at basically a 35 miles per hour road speed or higher.

We recommend for consideration for restricting uh pedestrians on medians.

Next, we look at uh traffic volume.

So the more traffic that's on the roadway uh is is equal to exposure.

So more traffic volume, more exposure.

Uh the science and data behind it, look at roadways that have 15,000 vehicles per day or more.

There's a significant increase uh in the number of pedestrian fatalities and crashes.

So we're going with that recommendation with the data, the science and the data behind it of 15,000 vehicles per day or more.

We want to uh limit that that risk.

So we're saying those uh high volume roadways with more than 15,000 should be restricted as well.

Finally, we look at the median width.

Uh when you start getting into the narrow widths, there's concerns with uh you know mirror overhangs with buses or trucks, uh larger vehicles uh generally have that uh which impact uh the ability to be on a median.

Uh most of the the guidelines there recommend a six feet uh width for a median for pedestrian refuge, and really what that uh allows is a person to be on that as well as a um bicycle or uh a stroller or that type of thing.

So our recommendation is that medians six feet and under uh be restricted.

Uh here's a graphical representation uh of all those recommendations with the 35 miles per hour greater, um, the roadways with 15,000 vehicles per day or more, and then the medians uh that have uh uh six feet or less with those uh medians.

We were also asked to look at uh other peer cities and what other peer cities are doing.

So we found uh five uh peer cities, and uh two of those basically have similar criteria where they look at the roadway speed, the volume uh in and median width.

Uh and there was one that just listed specific locations uh that that they were concerned about, and then two of those cities uh just said all the medians in the city are restricted.

So that's a quick summary of our excuse me, our study.

If anybody has any questions, I can address them.

Right?

Questions for Brian before we get into staff providing feedback.

Did you have questions?

Yeah, gallery.

Yeah, I'm interested on slide two.

Um, the very first slide you brought up, basically.

Um you have what appears to be a linear fit for an 11% increase in crashes.

Um how is that fit and how well representative is that from the data?

So is you recall back in 19 and 20, COVID hit?

There was lots of stay-at-home orders.

So there's a dip within those two years, the college, right?

Didn't didn't have students at it.

So there was a shift in culture at that point.

Nobody was out driving, nobody was out walking and that type of thing.

So there's there's definitely a dip in those years because those people weren't out.

Yeah, I'm I guess I'm hoping for a more numerical answer if you have it.

Was that dip included in the data set, or did you accept that data when you fit the 11% increase?

So that's looking uh, you know, over over that 10-year period, the the change between there.

Yeah, yeah, I understand.

So I'm asking how you determined an 11% increase.

Did you do you have an do you have a fit value like an R squared?

Do you like I'm trying to determine how well that fits the data that I'm looking at here because it doesn't appear to be typical fit?

Sure.

So it's it's looking at uh the 32 crashes that happened in 2015, uh and then the 37 crashes in 24.

So it's using two data points.

Yes, and then so every year there's more or less uh, you know, depending on what year it is.

We've got some um unique years in there with COVID where it's down quite a bit.

So yeah, I can see that.

Thanks.

Any other questions for Brian on this?

Yeah, Vera.

Um was there any math applied to other years on this chart, or was it only those two years that were sampled?

Like did we look at a five-year difference?

Did we look at a six or seven-year difference, or was it just 2015 and 2024 that were chosen?

We just looked at the tenure difference there.

Um this is a relatively small data set to really um look at.

So it we we kind of took the beginning in endpoints and said on average, you know, there's a linear progression of of 11% there.

Sorry.

Is this normally how you evaluate this kind of data?

Uh that's also not a linear progression.

It's it's a two-point extrapolation.

You could use the whole set to extrapolate, or you could pull out the other three.

I I'm just not sure.

I I'm not sure that that is representative of the data that I'm looking at right now.

Okay.

So I guess a quick clarification, um, it might be useful then for when we get to our February one in your study, you have a lot more kind of detailed information as opposed to the slide on the crash numbers, and that might be useful to make sure that um kind of council has.

Um, Shane, I imagine that you or police have some of the historical data for some of these.

Um I I know because I looked at our vision zero report from 2016, which did show an increase, an ongoing increase in pedestrian safety or pedestrian crashes.

So it might be useful just to kind of pull some of that historical data to help show you.

Or just and right if it gets bowing.

Well, I understand that.

Um that's a more detailed projection if it uses year to year and all of the data.

Um, and I'm sorry, Vera, I think I interrupted you and you were gonna ask a thing.

Okay, I my question was gonna slightly shift us into a different topic anyway.

Um I was gonna ask, I don't remember what number slide it was, but the slide that shows the median width and the risk of the mirrors on trucks and buses.

Yeah, that's thank you.

Um I'm wondering, and I think I I s I tried to ask this in a in a previous question.

Um I'm wondering why this is more of a danger in the median than it is for a sidewalk where there's not a protected space between the sidewalk and the road.

Um so on this stretch of road that you're showing at business loop and providence.

If you were to flip the camera 180 and look at, I'm terrible at directions, but I think it's the westbound side.

Um you would find that the sidewalk directly abuts the road and there's just like the the curb and the ditch, and then you're immediately next to a car.

Um and so I feel like you would have the same issue with the mirrors there.

So I'm wondering why this is a considered risk with medians and not with sidewalks.

So with the medians, uh you have two-way flow.

So you have that potential on both sides.

So with sidewalks, it's only on one side.

Generally, people uh when they drive, uh and and this location also has a bike lane.

So there's that additional width uh there.

But generally when people drive, they don't like to drive on the far right edge.

They're generally kind of in the center or uh slightly shifted towards uh the center of the road.

So uh the medians have that one and a half feet, you know, kind of each way.

So you're looking at a potential of three foot, one and a half each direction on a median that's in the center of the roadway.

Can I clarify?

Oh, sorry.

On this, um are you still on the same one?

Nope.

Um, can I clarify um is it also I mean public works?

You have a few standards below here, and I apologize I have not clicked on all of your standards uh that we're following.

Um but is it my assumption that um some of these same considerations go into roads abutting sidewalks?

I mean, is that why we usually do a foot and a half?

Because usually we try to do a grassy space between the curb and the sidewalk.

Is that because of this same reason?

It it is.

Our typical sections in most places we've got a grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk.

Where we can't do that, we have a you know, any most places we have a five foot standard sidewalk.

We expand that to six foot in most of those locations, specifically for that to provide some shy distance to give some people some ability to get further away from traffic in those locations where I can't get the grass strip and get them where I'd like to have pedestrians in general.

And and I say this because I think all of us agree there's like a yes and like all of us would like more things put into pedestrian infrastructure.

So that's why I'm trying to clarify some of the things that we do try to put in our standards for other spaces besides this ordinance effecting.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um, did you have more on that and then Val?

Oh, I had more kind of moving into a separate separate part.

So if you're still on median width.

Yeah.

Well, on this, I'm wondering if we've had um reports of issues for bike lane users.

Um honestly specifically on business loop 70, because I I do find those to be narrow bike lanes that are not providing much um protection from the driving lanes with this exact scenario with the um side mirrors being extended.

And this might be more of you if you want to talk a little bit about some of the proposed improvements to the business loop because this has been identified as an area of improvement.

Sure.

Um as we all know, uh business loop is a MODOT-maintained roadway.

And so we've got to work within their typical sections and their design standards.

Um I would tell you that the lane width that you have out there or what MODOT would allow us to do.

And so our abilities um for bike lanes, that's about what you've got.

Um we do have uh uh grant that we received and we've hired a consultant to study the business loop basically from stadium to the um to the bridge there at Eastland Circle to look at um making it more pedestrian friendly, um how to take a road that clearly wasn't built for the the use that it is now and how we can best do that.

We're probably another big grant away from really moving that forward, but kind of step one is to set ourselves up to pursue that.

Um so we we are aware of where business loop and some of these roads are deficient when it comes to bicycle bicyclists or pedestrians.

Um but um that being said, um there's there's several of them and you can only do so much.

So any of the improvements to business loop 70 broaden the medians.

We aren't far enough along for me to be able to tell you that.

Um there's gonna be a certain amount of width dedicated to vehicles.

Um but also um look at how we can best accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists as well.

Um there's also a component there of, you know, currently it's a MODOT roadway, so we've got to work within their parameters unless we pursued um taking that road on.

And I would tell you there's a big road project before I'd recommend that you do that on the order of 20 or 25 million dollars.

But that being said, the study is kind of that first step.

Thanks.

Yeah, Betsy, do you move your microfunding?

Okay.

I mean, I I mean the business loop is as wide as the business loop is, I doubt that we can add more medians without having to get rid of a bike lane.

I hate to do that.

Anyway, it was just a comment.

Because you're right, we're at the beginning of the study, so I should let the experts do their study.

Additional question.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um and then I think it was the slide on your recommendations.

Um the one it the foundational recommendation, I think is what I wrote down.

Yeah.

Um so the last bullet point under the foundational recommendation mentions being able to use the median as a temporary pedestrian refuge.

Um I don't think you spoke on that, so I was wondering if you could talk about um what that looks like, how people are able to use it, how long they can be there.

Sure.

So uh one of the other recommendations is that there are uh medians that can be used for pedestrian refuge when crossing the road.

Uh it can look like many different types.

Uh there's locations that have RRFBs or just the pedestrian uh signage that uh generally are that six feet or more so that those uh pedestrians can get in the island, wait for traffic in the uh opposing direction and then cross.

Uh it's generally acceptable that you know the pedestrian can wait uh as long as they feel comfortable uh within reason.

Uh we at traffic signals we kind of say uh within two cycles is uh you know the general uh accepted time frame.

So uh again, you don't want people uh staying out there being a potential risk or a hazard.

So uh having that uh uh efficient time to to cross is depending on the number of vehicles, time of day, et cetera, et cetera.

So you mentioned um it applying to medians of a certain width.

So if the median is too small, it could still not be used even as temporary refuge.

Right.

We don't recommend those medians that are six feet or under six feet to to be used for that because uh you get you know, somebody that's walking a bike or uh has a stroller, that type of thing.

Uh it's not safe for them to be out there uh in and wait for for traffic to uh in between those traffic lanes.

So what is the recommendation for them to safely cross the road if they cannot get across in one cycle?

So generally where uh there's those two stage gaps.

There's uh pedestrian push buttons uh in the middle of the road uh that have uh sorry, I mean on the on the shorter medians where they would not be able to stop at the median, how would they get across?

Uh again, uh we would recommend that they wait for um a combined gap where there's no traffic in each direction and cross at that time.

Can I can I clarify on that one?

And this might be a shane question, or maybe you Brian, but like I think Virgo, my understanding part of it's kind of like what's the expected time, like how long, you know, is it is it our cycle timing that helps influence that, right?

So that somebody can get across both lanes of traffic if they can't stop.

I guess that's a question, right?

If they can't stop in the middle, does that mean that y'all design the timing to accommodate that for somebody that has a disability?

Or how what do we put into place with your standards?

Why don't you speak in general and then I'll try and do that?

Is that how that would help me understand?

I think I think I can also maybe provide some context on where I'm coming from, but absolutely um absolutely respond to that first, and then I can't.

Sure.

So engineering standards have a 3.5 uh feet per second for the average person.

So that's what the the standards are standards are designed to that looks at the width of the road and takes into account the time that it takes uh uh a normal pedestrian or I guess uh the the design pedestrian to uh transverse the road.

And then it when you push the button, then it comes up with a um walk sign, which is uh kind of that uh uh white person on on the uh on the signal head.

And then it when you push the button, then it comes up with a um walk sign, which is uh kind of that uh uh white person on on the uh on the signal head, and then generally there's a um seven to ten second um walk time and then the flashing don't walk where the hand comes up uh is basically that minimum time you need to get from uh point A to point B for that crossing.

So I my my clarifying in where I'm coming from is I I appreciate that that time is set for the um what you called a normal or a designated pedestrian.

Um I would say that I am not the normal or designated pedestrian.

Um on high pain days, I walk incredibly slow.

Um with the cold out, my neuropathy gets really bad and my legs stop working.

And so just this last week, for those of y'all familiar with downtown Columbia, um I clocked it.

It took me 15 minutes to get from the subway on 9th to the Heidelberg on 9th, because that's how fast I can walk.

Um and I can tell you that at that time there is not a traffic signal that I could cross in one cycle at a road that has a median.

Um whether that is the whether that is Broadway, whether that is business loop, the one we saw on the slide with the bus and the truck, um, the business loop median, um, the business loop in Providence, that median would not be wide enough where I would be allowed to stop there, even though I have stopped there multiple times when I've needed a rest and I can't get through in a traffic cycle.

Um so in that instance where I'm using my walker, um, I cannot get across in one traffic cycle because I am not the normal able-bodied pedestrian.

How do I get across?

So there you push the button, and uh you know the law is vehicles have to yield to you.

So unfortunately, you just you know, you you you tr you traverse the road after pushing the button, you get the the walk signal and you go.

And when it turns the walk signal turns off, the light turns green.

So the car is going my direction in following the traffic signals would run me over.

What am where am I?

How does that um how right because that's a very good idea?

In that intersection, there's no blinking.

There's another not another button.

There's not another there's not a button for me to push as a pedestrian.

And even if there is where there is in Broadway, that button is shorter than the traffic light itself and does not offer any supportive infrastructure there.

Um the light has turned green.

I am in the road.

I'm not allowed to stop at the median.

Do I stop in the lane of traffic?

Do I think I would not recommend it.

I would not recommend stopping in the middle of the case.

So what do you recommend?

I recommend keeping going.

And the cars, how do they know to stop?

Uh they see a person in the roadway.

And the the big cars that sit so high that hunched over my rollator or someone in a wheelchair who is sitting low to the ground, they wouldn't be able to see?

Um well, I believe there's a lot of people.

I mean I'm good, Brian.

I appreciate you you're good.

I think Shane, I would like to hear about more local context.

Brian, just to kind of because in the context of of what our options are.

And then the police department might also have some enforcement pieces to that.

And I think the intent, I'll just just say the intent of this is to identify areas in the ordinance that we have before us, then maybe there are those clarifying questions.

Some of these might be outline, right, specifics, but you want to know your advising.

If I can say for this specific question, and I'm uh not to I'm happy to hear about enforcement.

Enforcement doesn't help when I've already been run over.

So enforcement does not solve the problem there.

So that is, I think, uh a very separate issue.

I think it was more to a question um he said you couldn't be there.

So you're like, why view that I can't be there.

And I'm like, oh, well, I I think you can.

And so well, how do we design this space so that you can be and be in a safe space?

So I think that's where I was kind of going from on that one.

Yes.

Shane, do you want to get to more local?

Sure.

Um there are existing ordinances that cover quite a bit of that.

But we're not talking about a new ordinance.

We've got ordinances that cover quite a bit of that.

And it talks about ride away and crosswalks.

And it says this one says when traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the ride-away, slowing down or stopping if need be, so to yield to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is pawn the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

So there's already ordinances that cover that particular thing.

We time signals based on national standards.

Can there be someone that won't be able to cross the road in that time frame?

Of course there will.

But we've got to pick a time.

And so we're going to use the national standard, because that's the best thing I've got to go off of.

Can I have a clarifying question on the um and I think you gave an example of one of the crosswalks?

Um we do our timing for like when you're when you are pushing a button.

Now I'm getting into the weeds on this, but I did get intrigued by this, because sometimes it does seem faster if I don't push the button.

Like the cycle happens.

So does the button trigger a longer cross time at our signals that we have a pedestrian's button net.

Doesn't it seem like it?

Maybe I'm sorry.

Anecdotal.

Just seems like when I'm crossing college at university, if I push the button, I get a little bit longer of a time than if it's just like a Saturday afternoon.

And maybe that's a oh Lee has a thing.

You your assistant.

Yeah.

Uh theoretically, yes, based on the signal that walk time will allocate the maximum green time there that we have talked about that additional time with the seven seconds for the walk and then the time to cross if you press the button.

If you don't press that button, then that green time can get truncated if you're not on the main thoroughfare line.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

You have more.

Yeah.

Yes.

And I won't I'm uh in an effort not to be a total pester, this is more of a comment, and I don't expect a response.

Um but just to say that when our traffic signals are built for the normal pedestrian, that is putting our most at-risk pedestrians even further at risk.

And when the advice is that if you cannot make it across in the traffic signal, even though the light is green, even though the cars are coming at you, even though countless studies have shown that cars are built so tall now that they cannot see a wheelchair user in front of them, even as they're coming down the road, they cannot see that person in their field of vision.

They will not know to stop.

And the advice is to keep on walking and hope that that person is going to stop.

Um that advice deeply concerns me.

I understand that there would be exceptions made, hopefully, in the enforcement that someone in a dangerous situation would be allowed to stop.

But when that is the exception that concerns me.

Um also hearing that we have ordinances that say even when the light is green, we need to stop if there's a pedestrian.

That is fabulous.

We also have ordinances that say don't hit people in medians.

And we're here talking about this.

So we we understand that even with those things in place, that doesn't mean the person is going to stop their car.

Um and I have, I've I've shared this before in a council meeting.

I have been very lightly bumped, but I have been hit by a car because I could not cross the road quickly enough in my walker.

And I was hunched over and they couldn't see me because they were in a lifted truck.

And I'm fine, but I got bumped.

And so this this is a very real uh this is a very real issue.

And so the the advice being keep on trucking concerns me.

Thank you, Vera.

Do you want to go over some of the feedback that we received?

Uh Did you have kind of a compilation of any of the feedback we received from boards and commissions and be heard, Shane?

Yeah, I can get into staff's presentation if you all are ready for that.

I think so.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

Can I just ask um one other question be as we get started?

So the the ordinance we're talking about says you cannot stop at the median when crossing the street.

Is that correct?

Is that Nancy?

I might be more asking you than anyone else.

So I mean, this ordinance says flat out, you cannot stop on the median.

You cannot wait.

You have to be able to get across an entire road in one signal.

Is that what is that?

Did I miss this?

Well, it provides the presumption that you should be able to get across in two.

In two lights.

In two in two cycles.

It provides it's a presumption in the ordinance.

Now, there would be the ability for someone who does not have the physical capability to get across.

There would be exceptions to that.

And I think you need the police department can talk about enforcement and how that enforcement occurs, but you have to have a standard, and you have to have a definable standard so that so that there is a basis from which enforcement can commence.

But both practically speaking and using common sense, I would not expect people that are moving across the street that are having to stop at the median to get a ticket.

That sounds like what would be an absolute defense if you are physically incapable of crossing the process.

I would never write that ticket.

I would never write that ticket.

Yeah.

I mean, some of it's common sense, I think.

Most of it.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

I just thought maybe I'd missed a page.

Jackie, hold on.

And then stop.

So I just wanted to comment on the enforcement and the timing to Vera's points.

That everybody is going to be different.

My concern with enforcement is that if we do not have a really tight definition of what that is, then it will be up to each officer's discretion to determine whether a ticket should be issued.

And legally, I don't think that is a safe position for the city to be.

And if we have really tight time periods, and that does put our vulnerable population at risk of receiving a ticket.

And it puts our officers in a really difficult position if they don't have something very specific to go on.

So we can talk about wording later, but I just wanted to voice that concern now specifically in regards to ADA.

Because law enforcement officers' discretion is not a reasonable accommodation underneath the ADA.

So just wanted to throw that out there.

Okay.

So just a quick timeline.

December 16th of 2024, we had a report to council that we presented that provided a large amount of information regarding pedestrians and medians.

Then March 17th of 2025, City Council approved a contract with CBB to conduct a street and intersection pedestrian safety study, which is attached to the agenda tonight.

Following some public discussion, council requested staff post the draft ordinance to be heard and request input from the following boards and commissions.

Human rights, public transit, disabilities, and bike and pedestrian.

The PTAC was neutral with no major transit impacts anticipated.

They noted that the ordinance wouldn't affect bus operations or routing.

They suggested that prioritizing infrastructure investments near bus stops and offered to advise on priority locations based on their bus stop evaluation matrix and safety studies.

They were opposed, voted 7-0 against.

Staff's only response to that was that each of these design features can and should be considered on a project-by-project basis, but the actual implementation depends on many factors.

The Commission provided no stance on the distribution content section of the ordinance.

In their opinion, the ordinance violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 and 24.

They indicated that it could increase law enforcement contact with low-income individuals and assumed it to be essentially to function as a ban on panhandling.

In looking at B Herd analysis, we had 154 total comments.

We estimate that at 81 in favor and 66 opposed, and seven, it was a little bit difficult to tell which which one which way they they fell.

As far as themes in favor, safety for all users, that this was a common sense measure.

It reduces distractions and risks, supports community goals, and that action was needed due to near misses.

Some of the themes opposed were that it criminalizes poverty and homelessness, that it was not supported by the data or the study, concerns regarding violation of First Amendment rights, would prefer a better focus on infrastructure, a disproportionate impact on vulnerable people, and a misguided or masked intent.

And so we'll try and talk about each one of those in a little bit more detail.

So first theme was uh criminalizes poverty and homelessness.

Um opinion of staff, the ordinance is about preventing preventable deaths.

Um the ordinance applies universally to all individuals and provides some exceptions for mobility restricted persons, uh, public workers, and permitted events.

Um over 10 years we've had 226 pedestrian crashes in Columbia.

92 percent resulted in injury or fatality, and 29 percent of the intersection related crashes had a median.

Um the the theme of not supported by data or study, um, as Brian talked about the hierarchy of concern, concern which prioritizes speed, volume, and median width as top factors.

Um he talked about how the pedestrian survival rate drops with speed, and um volume is simply the increase in potential conflicts with a pedestrian.

Um in regards to First Amendment rights.

Um we believe the ordinance imposes a reasonable time, place, and manner restricts restrictions which courts have upheld as constitutional when tied to safety.

Um we believe the narrow medians create sufficient additional evidence in a legal case to support a claim of risk if not crossed properly.

And Springfield's had a similar ordinance in place since 2017 without major challenges.

Um in regards to a better focus on infrastructure.

Uh public works has been very successful in recent years in moving our safety initiatives forward using safe streets for all grants, and I've provided some examples here.

Um we have funding for a pedestrian level of comfort map.

We are updating our complete streets policy, but we've had a complete streets policy in place since 2005, and that was used to implement essentially all of the roadways that were in the both the 20 the 2005 and 2015 capital improvement sales tax.

Um we've got um some money to look at high friction surface treatment to do a demo on that on Route B.

Um I mentioned earlier the grant we have to look at business loop 70 and um our current um 2025 capital improvement sales tax.

We use the highway safety manual to analyze um roadways using a safety first focus, and that is almost essentially how we picked all the roadways for this next um this next capital improvement sales tax, and we've got some money to look at some additional roadways that aren't in that capital improvement sales tax to set us up for either the 2035 or maybe um some money we find along the way.

Um we consider this ordinance just another tool in our toolbox, as you've probably heard me say before.

Um the idea of a disproportionate impact on vulnerable road users.

We believe it applies universally to all individuals all individuals.

Um then the misguided or masked intent.

Um in the opinion of public works, the intent is safety focused, and that we believe that to be evidenced by the study's focus on data-driven risks.

Um the rising crashes and national trends support taking some action.

Um again, 29% of um intersection crashes occur with an intersection with a median, and the distraction from unexpected median use aligns with um National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Highway Administration warnings.

Um we had some council questions that we provided to you all um kind of comprehensively, but I kind of wanted to go through those here because that hadn't been in any kind of any kind of public forum.

So first one, what's the actual safety risk of people standing in the median?

Um vehicles hitting pedestrians, uh medions not designed for standing, uh, not ADA accessible, um creates driver distraction and reduces safety for both both pedestrians and drivers.

We were asked how many crashes um involved a pedestrian at a median.

There is a table in the study that talks about that in a little bit different way.

I think we put this in a a little bit easier uh format, maybe to understand.

Um, but this just echoes that the number of crashes with a median with and with no median and breaks it down by year.

Um we were asked, Can I ask on that one while you're on there?

Yep, certainly.

Can you clarify every crash listed on that table involved a pedestrian standing at a median?

Um it says median, no median.

Are we looking at the how many crashes involved a pedestrian at a median?

That's the title of the That's the question I asked.

There's but also in there, there's a percent of like it says there's locations where we had a crash where there was no median, percent of crashes with with no median, and then the ones with a median.

So every every crash listed here involved a pedestrian.

Correct.

And then the second column a pedestrian and does that mean there was a median or the pedestrian was standing in the median?

There was a median.

So we don't know how many of these involve a pedestrian standing at a median.

You would have to go through each one.

Yeah.

And we did not do that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Under I I understand that.

But so we do not have an answer to how many crashes involved a pedestrian at a median.

Standing on a median, no.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, Valerie.

Two follow-up questions.

And yeah.

I had the same question.

Um, and I had trouble locating this.

Can you refer me to the page in the full report where this is located?

Page nine, the top of page nine.

Page nine and it's a bar graph.

It's a it's so this is extracted from a bar graph.

Correct.

Okay.

Do we have a copy of this slide presentation as well?

No.

I just finished it an hour ago.

Thank you.

We have it in the responses to the council questions that they sent along with that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes, that table is in those that those answers.

That's correct.

Can we can you give us the extracted data for this table?

So we have dates of the crashes that filled this, perhaps.

I am looking to pull the information.

Yeah, for this.

Ryan.

So we so we did go back and we looked at the locations that had pedestrian crashes in the medians.

And there were nine instances where a pedestrian was struck on a median.

Nine instances in ten years?

Correct.

And can you give us summary information which crashes maybe police reports from those crashes?

Or dates, and then I can ask Jill if she can help me.

I can give you the dates.

Um that would be helpful, thank you.

I don't know what I'm allowed to give out, um, but you could sunshine request.

If you give me the dates, I can work backwards from that and look at the reports and redact them as needed.

It and and the whole issue is personal identifiable information.

So we have a process to manage Very good.

Manage having it safely shareable to a city council representative.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

Uh question was why is standing on a median more dangerous than on a sidewalk abutting travel lanes?

We talked about that a little bit earlier.

Uh traffic in these locations is coming from at least two different directions.

Um a pedestrian is an unexpected presence in a median that's not ADA accessible.

Um the city's standard typical roadway section includes a grass buffer strip for separation between pedestrians on the sidewalk and the roadway.

That's not present in these locations.

Um question about the definition of a traffic signal cycle, and that's the full duration from the start of one phase, say green, until the signal returns to that same phase.

Um how long are the signals cycles on the affected corridors?

And that's going to vary by intersection.

Uh typically it's one to two minutes.

Um the cycle is based on, but not limited to traffic volume, the intersection width, the time of day, um, and um and coordination needs.

How is a cycle determined if there's no traffic signal?

We took that as how would a police officer handle that?

And so the response that was provided, they would do this based on observation, determining an individual's intent to cross the roadway, having a conversation with the individual, et cetera.

How many of the corridors don't have traffic signals?

There's 115 total segments.

73 segments do not have roundabouts, and 41 do.

There's one segment that has no signals or roundabouts, and then there's 17 segments with a combination of roundabouts and signals.

How many of the corridors with medians less than six feet are not signal regulated?

There's one.

There was previously a signal at Rock Quarry Road and Nyphong Boulevard.

If you remember Nyphong was that that main east-west corridor once upon a time, and then Grindstone Parkway was built.

And so that's that was the reason for the removal of that signal.

In the 2025 capital improvement sales tax, there's an intersection improvements planned at State Farm Parkway in NIFON.

We have an estimated start of construction at 2027 for that, and we're currently interviewing consulting firms, as a matter of fact.

There's also a major maintenance project along State Far State Farm Parkway from Grindstone to Veterans United that will be a part of that all that.

So that's that's that's yet to come.

Sure.

So are you saying because I can't recall medians on NIFON at all?

So are you saying that this is um one of our corridors that meets the other criteria of high traffic above 35 miles per hour and no median?

Or is that on?

Not grindstone knife hong?

Or unless it looked right where I'm sorry, I'm just saying except for right where it hits um State Farm Parkway.

Is that so because it hits State Farm Parkway?

We're counting that as okay, got it.

Yep.

Those watching at home, the the head was nodding.

So that's I was gonna use the pork chop word, but I think that's what we're talking about here.

Okay.

I got raided reviews last time.

Um what are the precise exceptions that will be allowed?

Um ordinance talks about law enforcement on duty, uh rescue or emergency aid, um, public employees on duty, uh permitted permitted work or special events.

That's like a contractor on the roadway or a parade, things like that.

And then uh in passenger loading zones, uh taxis or public transportation.

Uh there were concerns regarding the lack of available sidewalk and someone walking in the road.

There's an existing ordinance 14583, which discusses manner of walking along roadways.

It states that it's unlawful to walk in the road when sidewalk and proper curb cuts and cross slopes are provided.

Um no sidewalk is provided, it it says to walk on the left side of the road or shoulder facing traffic.

And it's unlawful for any pedestrian to obstruct traffic as all in that ordinance.

Um there's also an existing ordinance 578, which discusses leaving the curb suddenly or entering a path of vehicle and states in full no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it's impossible for the driver to yield.

Uh what about when there's not a crosswalk traffic signal or intersection and someone needs to cross the road?

Um existing city ordinance uh 14580 discusses crossing at right angles and states no pedestrian shall cross our roadway at any place other than by a route at right angles to a curb or by the shortest route to the opposite curb, except in a crosswalk.

And then 580 582 discusses prohibited crossing places and includes between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signals and only in a crosswalk within a business district.

So think about that as downtown is the most common example of that.

And then we were asked what's the definition of a mobility restricted to agree that someone is unable to cross safely.

Uh we didn't believe that a definition was required.

Um the phasing for an officer, phrasing for an officer to make a determination.

Um then I think we just put what was actually in the ordinance there.

Are there any other ordinances that require a police officer to determine mobility disability before determining if it was broken?

Uh the failure of a person to leave the median after two consecutive cycles and then an officer are required to use discretion on a regular basis.

What's the definition of obstruction?

And we just said anything that impedes or blocks the flow of traffic.

If the definition is someone must stop fully be stopped stopping the flow of traffic, how is anything happening on the meeting of serenum obstruction?

The vehicle may not obstruct or impede moving traffic in order to engage in distribution contact when a person with a person standing on the sidewalk is what's is what's quoted in the ordinance.

Sorry, can you go back to that?

I think can you go back to the two the last two slides?

Can you show those both again?

This one or the one before.

This one and then the next one.

Let me see.

And that one there?

Yeah.

Okay.

So it seems like this definition is about the vehicle obstructing traffic.

And the question is how is the person on the median obstructing traffic?

Wouldn't that have to do with somebody who's stopping to give someone money?

Yeah.

Who is on the median, thereby not moving forward when the light is green?

I'm guessing that's what the what this quoted part is saying.

Yeah.

But that would be something that the car is doing wrong and not something that the person on the median.

Yeah.

Because they're just asking from the money.

Or it could be someone in the median not asking for but so we're saying that someone in the median is obstructing traffic.

That was where this question came from.

Okay.

Yeah, Jackie.

So this may have to do with one of the questions that I asked about if perhaps somebody is under the influence or altered or sleeping, that they have a limb hanging off of the median into the traffic, the lane of traffic that does that is that considered traffic obstruction or impeding traffic.

So I don't know if that maybe that's where that came from.

I'm not sure.

So that would be an activity they'd be doing on the median.

Yes.

That would impede traffic.

That legal request question?

Yes.

Okay.

That's for you, Nancy.

I think you talked a little bit about it in November.

Right.

So the ordinance does not talk about anyone in the median obstructing traffic.

So I'm I'm not sure what the question is.

I mean, we did talk about whether or not an arm is obstructing traffic, and we said no.

It's when you're actually blocking traffic.

And if you go back to the last slide.

So I'm well, I think a limb would impede the flow of traffic.

Well, it could.

It could, but it depends upon whether or not it gets out into the traveled lane.

And you know, there are a lot of factors that go into it.

So it's very fact-specific.

So there are circumstances where it could impede traffic.

And certainly if somebody has to swerve or to get around, it it would be considered to be impeding traffic.

Correct.

But there are times when it wouldn't.

So it really depends.

I don't understand that.

I don't understand the times that can you explain to me the times that it wouldn't.

Well it would depend on how how wide the roadway is.

Where it occurs.

Is there is there space between where the individual is and the traveled flow of traffic?

So the but we have I don't know if we have an ordinance, but we expect the drivers to maintain movement in their lane of traffic that they are in.

And if we have somebody who is hanging off of the median or maybe has their belonging or their pet that walks into that lane of traffic that would impede traffic, then who's in the wrong?

Or who who gets the ticket?

Somebody who's on the median median, that would then been be impeding traffic.

It would really depend on the circumstances.

That's a clarifying question.

Looking at the ordinance that's before us.

Is there anything about impeding traffic in the ordinance before us?

Or is it because it's from another not by a pedestrian?

This is so this particular p provision about a vehicle not obstructing or impede moving traffic to engage in distribution conduct was an addition that was requested by the city council to make sure that we were addressing driver conduct, not just pedestrian conduct.

So that's where that's where this particular provision came from.

And we'll get to this probably later, hopefully.

One of my requests or suggestions would be to more thoroughly define traffic obstruction so that we can look at that because I know that's uh a lot of calls for concern that I get are when people their body parts or their belongings or their pets are getting into that traffic lane, which is then causing people to have to swerve or break.

And so that may be a later discussion, but I think it's something that we need to consider.

To add pedestrian to add that to the ordinance, pedestrians impeding or obstructing traffic.

Potentially.

I mean, I think that needs to be part of the discussion.

Okay.

Shane.

Okay.

Um there were questions about a public education campaign and what that campaign might look like.

Um we would do that similar to any new activity or change in policy.

Um do that through a combination of press releases, social media posts, educational posts, some one-on-one interaction.

And we typically do that over 60 to 90 days.

Um the cost would just be normal costs.

Uh we don't anticipate anything additional or additional out of pocket expenses.

Um besides the ordinance, what projects or improvements will this pedestrian safety study lead to?

Um the pedestrian safety study will be used to help prioritize future improvements while we don't have any specific projects identified.

Um it does contribute to some of the safe streets for all projects we discussed earlier.

We can definitely use that as a resource in the development of some of those things.

Um we've also, as I mentioned earlier, we've had many recent successes in applying for those grants, and they are very heavily safety-focused.

Um then just kind of a little bit of a why do this now.

Um this is just kind of reiterating the core purpose is to enhance safety for all users on Columbia major corridors by reducing hazards and distractions for lingering on narrow medians.

Um we've seen these stats a couple times now.

Um according to B.

Heard, we estimated about 52 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed with some ambiguous ones in there.

Um we see it as one additional tool and not a replacement to anything we already have in place.

And we believe that we've um what you see here is a data supported measure to reduce preventable risks while continuing to strive for safe streets.

And with that, we'll open up to any questions you might have.

Appreciate that.

Um direction uh I'll give to or suggested direction to council.

Like this is our work session, right?

Clarifying some of our additional data, additional needs we might have for a data, um potential amendments.

Um this is not our time.

We are we will still talk about this again at our February 2nd.

Um so we do not need to spend a lot of time uh talking about like except for if it's going to hopefully influence what information we can get to us.

Um I say that because I know we are gonna talk a lot on that February 2nd meeting as well.

Um and uh I'm cognizant over the two hours we spent talking about it in November.

Not to say it's not a very important issue.

I just want to be conscious over not repeating ourselves and making sure that we're clarifying so we have the best information in front of us before we do a vote in February.

So questions for staff, anyone on staff, we have CPD representatives here, we have the consultant here, and we have public works and legal.

Yeah, Vera.

So I do have uh clarifying question.

Um this time it's it's not for you, Shane.

Uh I want to say thank you.

First of all, thank you so much for also bringing up those counsel questions again.

Um I so appreciate taking what you had sent to us over email and making sure that that information was all public.

Um I really uh appreciated that chance for everyone to hear your responses to those questions.

Um this one would be for police on the enforcement piece.

And it was that one question that I forgot to say out loud in the meeting, so I kind of sent it via email without the context, which was how would you actually determine the ability or lack of ability for someone to cross in two cycles?

Um and I'll give that example of when I was talking earlier about um just the other night when I was incredibly slow walking down 9th street here in Columbia.

It was not a day that I was using my mobility aid, and it was a day where I had been fully mobile walking at my normal pace for the rest of the day.

It was just that when I am outside and in the cold, it activates my disability.

Um so how would you how do you determine that I am symptomatic in that moment?

How do you determine that I am not able to cross the road?

So I'm gonna go back to what the intention of this is, right?

Which is for people to not stand and stay in the middle of the road.

So officers make they have to make judgments every day, right?

And we have a reasonableness standard, and then we train on all different types of things.

So every day they're applying what they know in their observations to whether or not they should enforce law and how they should enforce it.

So our number one thing is always to protect life, right?

So if an officer just let's just think in practical common sense terms how an officer is going to approach this situation, how they're going to come upon it.

Two ways is what I see.

A call for service where someone says, hey, there's a person on a median doing X, not moving, standing on their head, juggling, whatever it is, they're going to call and say there's someone out there on the meeting.

Or they happen upon it themselves and they see it through observation, right?

In either case, they're going to want to see has the requirements of the ordinance been met.

So the first question is going to be if the person is not moving, if they observe that two light cycles or whatever the it goes into a little bit more detail than that further down in the ordinance.

But if that doesn't happen, the first question is going to be, hey, what's going on, right?

Do you need some help?

That's our first concern is you're standing out in the middle of the road, that's unsafe.

So do you need some help crossing the street?

Yes or no, right?

Sure, I would like some help crossing the street.

Well, let's just say that you're not the most honest person.

And your intention was to stand out in the middle of the street and do any variety of things, right?

We still we that's still a win in my column because we got voluntary compliance for you to get out of the middle of the street.

And if it took us coming there and saying, sure, we'll help you cross the street, whether or not you really needed help or not isn't we don't really care at that point.

But we got you out of the middle of the street, you're not in the middle of the street where you're in danger, potentially distracting drivers and all these other things that we're concerned about.

So I don't think focusing on all these other things of do we need to know if you have, you know, we're not doctors, we're not mental health specialists, we're not psychologists, we're not traffic engineers or any of these other things, but we can make reasonable judgments and ask questions and then say, okay, or if we come back five minutes later and you're in the middle of the street, maybe there's some other things going on.

Ask some more questions and figure it out.

It's really a problem-solving exercise in my mind, with the whole um underpinning of it being just safety, right?

So that that would be my answer to that.

I I don't think we I would not want my officers to ask you what your medical history is.

It's just, hey, do you need some help crossing the street?

That's really helpful.

Thank you.

Sure.

Additional questions for staff on this.

Yeah, Jackie.

Um Nancy, this is for you.

Um you have thoughts uh that you can publicly share on what the risk of litigation is to the city if the ordinance were to pass as it's currently written?

I think it would be relatively low.

And we never know.

You know, anyone can see you for anything, but uh the city staff has done a really great job in uh researching the safety concerns in what they are, where they are, what triggers those and created the data that the data analysis to go along with that?

And I mean agree or disagree, I do think that that the the uh the background is in place for this ordinance to be supportable.

Yeah, done.

If in my reading through the ordinance and also Springfields, this is very closely modeled after Springfield, is that correct?

And that one has stood since, well, going on nine years, since you know, eight, nine years or whatever, and hasn't been challenged.

So I think the kind of kind of answers to address Jackie's question as well.

I and like you said, anybody can sue us for anything, but uh overall risk I think would be I wouldn't be inclined to agree with you, although I'm not an al- I'm not an attorney.

No, I didn't stay at the holiday inn, so I don't play one either.

You had your hand up?

Yeah, I did.

Um questions about risk of litigation.

Do you mean risk of losing a lawsuit or risk of being sued when you say our risk is low?

Like I said, anyone can see you for anything.

I mean, we we do get in involved in litigation um and whatever council decides that they want to to pass, we will defend it vigorously.

What about and I'm just addressing constituent concerns?

Um I have had people email me on both sides saying if we don't pass this, we will certainly get sued.

And if we do pass this, we will certainly get sued.

So what about the reverse?

Have you done a legal analysis on what our risk is if we do not pass this?

Are we likely I have we have not done an analysis on that now?

I mean, there's no there's no like I said, anyone can it takes a hundred and well, I don't know what the cost is today, $200 to to walk across the street and file lawsuit.

So the risks of litigation, I think are not a reason to make a decision on an ordinance like this.

I think that staff has laid out what the safety concerns are within the within the city and what council decides to do with that is ultimately your decision, and like I said, we'll defend whatever it is that you end up uh deciding to do.

Can I ask um so I just have a couple of things kind of thinking about so part of the conversation that I've heard from people is that concern over um and in Nick Foster is a mere he's not here right now, but I know one of the things that he brought up is the is the yes and right the idea of creating both the rules about safety and like use of streets, but also we need to do more for pedestrian infrastructure.

Like we know we need to create safer spaces, safer roadways for all users.

I and so I wonder if if it's possible.

So our vision zero goals that we have and the requirements we have, it's a resolution.

It's it's kind of voluntary.

Is there any way like Nancy?

Is there a way to put almost like uh and and Shane, you can tell me whether or not this is a a lift that's possible.

In the study that we have from CBB, they talk about recommendations for if you know they talk about recommendations for improvements to intersections.

And I imagine traffic engineers have other suggestions besides just the ordinance around the use of the space, but also what sort of physical infrastructure.

You mentioned the um safe streets for all grants that we want to apply for.

Is there a way we can also tie this to sort of like an expected report to come back to us on like and here are our recommendations of projects like as we work on funding to get based on this study?

So it's kind of showing our intent of both.

Is that a reasonable sorry?

I I don't think you can tie ordinance enforcement to like annual reporting to something coming back.

The actual enforcement of it or the the enactment of it.

Well I can't.

What the budget allows for that.

Would we maybe do with with staff's kind of support for what's a reasonable expectation, some sort of coordinated resolution that comes with this ordinance that shows that intent of like what because we do a vision zero report.

I don't think we've heard it for a couple of years, kind of an update.

But but I think it's also kind of to especially to this study, which you spent a lot of time doing this data on um.

And I I think I think it would help show that that was the initial intent behind this was safety in our infrastructure, and that we acknowledge both can be true.

Sure.

That was just I think they were kind of glaring on when we were talking about this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, the same things have been glaring to me.

And I guess I have a few questions and a few directions I want to go.

Um some of it may sound stupid, but we have a lot of reports that come to us, and I don't always recall all of them at any given point in time.

Um looking at that Swiss cheese model that they gave us where they have all these different layers to provide support to protect the public.

And the recommendations we got from the first work session, it really stood out to me that right now we're only talking about one of the recommendations that came to us.

Um CBB gave us uh a whole slew of other recommendations in our first work session that weren't part of this abbreviation abbreviated PowerPoint because of the direction that we're going.

I want to know that this is not a band-aid that we hold in place and then forget to pursue our other goals.

Um and and I think my question here is do we have a longer-term strategic plan for not just our vision zero, but for our um timeline on creating on completing our pedestrian-oriented projects as a whole.

Um when I look at some of our um pedestrian projects, they come through a lot of different ways.

Um of them are slow to complete, some of them are defeated for unpredictable reasons.

Um it's hard to it's hard to complete some of these goals, and I'm worried that it's easy to write an ordinance compared to building all of this infrastructure.

And I'm worried that it's easy to write an ordinance compared to building all of this infrastructure.

I think that's always that's our intent is to make sure that we're providing that the infrastructure for safe streets.

No, we're one of the earlier adopters for Vision Zero.

I mean, our goal is to make sure that our roadways are safe for all.

And so as we're looking at our capital improvement projects, as we're looking at our opportunities to move that that project forward, no, I I would say that one of the things the staff has really worked hard on, and we've been successful, is getting the funding to support those that development.

Now we've been great with working with MODA to really address some of our concerns about roadways.

And so I think this is in that same vein.

No, this is as Shane said, no, this is just one tool in the toolbox.

But our goal is to work toward not just an ordinance that deals with enforcement or deals with uh the median safety, but also looking at are there things that we can do in order to improve that built environment?

Now, when you look at Broadway, uh the uh the midway um pedestrian refuge that we was just was recently built, uh what's that two or three years ago?

That I mean, that's an example of saying that we understand that it is hard to progress that, and so what can we do in order to provide that refuge?

And so that's that's all always been our goal.

So I hear the question there, and you're mirroring my question.

I agree with you.

What I'm looking for is what are the projects that are outstanding to provide that next layer of support.

Is that in a strategic plan?

Is vision zero that strategic plan?

And what are the timelines for completion on those projects?

How do we hold ourselves to these other goals, right?

The other piece of our Swiss cheese package, where are we holding ourselves to that and what's our follow-up?

Well, Shane, you want to kind of talk about the vision zero and what where we're at in that study?

Sure.

So one of the things that uh we've got some funding for is an update to our um to our action plan, which kind of covers all those things.

There, and then that includes work we currently have a consultant working on what they call a pedestrian level of comfort map.

So that is finding the locations where people aren't comfortable with how they cross a roadway, how um the pedestrian accommodations, things like that, and also the high high injury network, like analysing analyzing a little bit further where where we know that there are crashes.

So all that goes into that action plan.

What I would tell you, and what I think gets to where where you're coming from, there's only so much traffic safety money in the capital improvement sales tax.

And so that's that's the amount of money that I have to move forward on some of those things, and that's why that grant funding has been so important to move some of those initiatives forward.

I think we're too early.

There's a lot of there was a lot of planning money that was available to go get, and we were successful in doing that, and we're still working our way through a lot of those things.

What's going to come on the back of that is exactly what you're talking about, and that is I have all I have all this great data, but I don't have that much money to move forward on a lot of those things.

And so that's a discussion that we'll have to have.

I think we're just too early to have some of those discussions because we're still working on getting basically getting our ducks in a row to be able to talk about that.

I think what I want to know is how long are we looking at?

I'm excited about the planning money.

I'm a lot more excited about the infrastructure money.

And it sounds much like on our um transit study, we're maybe at phase zero because we're we're doing the study to ask the questions to find out what's next.

I wouldn't know what's our timeline on building wider medions and improving crossings, raised intersections, corner truncations.

With right or wrong, the way we handle our capital improvement sales tax is we tell, we basically tell the voters, here's the ballot project list.

So I know what my projects are for the next 10 years, and there's not a whole lot of money there to do something outside of that.

Um addition to that, that's where we go looking for grant money.

We've got a little bit of cost share money in there.

So there isn't that much when you talk about the transit, it's very similar.

If we don't have a dedicated revenue source, it's going to be very difficult to move that, move those those things forward.

This is probably going to be a question for both DeCarlin and you.

Oh no, no, no, and I completely agree.

And I think that might be a good kind of update, especially as we're getting ready for the budget.

And you could probably pull out how many are pedestrian projects in the upcoming one that you do.

Because you have a set aside for some of your street completion, isn't that every project we do, we're gonna look at how that how we're going to do that project in the best interest of all users of the roadway, and that includes bicyclists and pedestrians.

So all of those road projects are pedestrian and bicycle projects.

There's only so much money specifically dedicated to traffic safety.

And there's only and there's only so much money allotted to annual sidewalks in that in that capital improvement sales tax.

And a lot of those discussions about what's on that list occurred before we took that to the to the voters.

And so a lot of that occurred when some folks that are on council now weren't on council.

I think most of us, most of us were not on So I think to that point, that might be like kind of a side note conversation to have about as we're getting ready for that one for going forward.

But maybe let's come back to this project that we have in front of us.

This is this project.

Okay.

How are those conversations now happening for the next 10-year one?

Are the things that we're talking about here influencing that for the next 10-year one?

Because this is directly related.

The not I mean w the 2025 capital improvement sales tax just started generating revenue on January 1 of 2026.

So it just started generating revenue.

So none of those conversations are happening currently.

I will tell you that I mentioned earlier we did get some funding to help us do highway safety manual anal analysis of roadways.

We did that on the roads that are on the current capital improvement sales tax.

So one thing that we need to decide is which roads we're going to spend that money on.

And so that's a that's an avenue by which we could bring forward roads just like we did with the capital improvement sales tax and say here's what we plan to h have the consultant take a look at from a safety perspective and get some input from council from that perspective.

That's the only thing I can think of that's currently in process.

Um, we pull from a lot of different locations when it comes to pedestrian improvements, the side the city's sidewalk master plan.

Um we look at what's on what's currently on MODOTs um unfunded needs list for multimodal.

So we kind of combine those things to look for places to make that money go farther.

And so that's a that's obviously a factor in that.

So I understand that.

And I understand the limitations for what's currently in process.

We need to start having the future discussions for what's in process next.

Um and it's fine if we put a bookmark in it.

But I think it's let's start those conversations now, because I don't want to be 20 years behind in 10 more years.

So um potential like clarifying questions that council has for staff.

Are there any things that are in the ordinance that you're already thinking of sort of like amendments or things that you want clarifications?

Um I think one thing that I heard in listening to the questions we have is that in like a supplemental memo that comes with this.

It sounds, Shane, like it would be useful in this coming Shane or Nancy to have the existing ordinances that were included in the staff presentation that maybe some of the questions, a just having the answers to the council questions is good.

But I think some of those ordinances that maybe we are being asked about, but are in another part of the code.

I think having those sort of called out would be helpful for when we have is that is a reasonable You already answered them, so I think it just by putting them is that okay?

Yeah, no.

Um my suggestion would be I will get council a copy of this presentation.

It quotes some of those things, but we'll also include the specific section on pedestrians in chapter 14 of the code of ordinances, which those are that's the one I read from earlier on, but all the ones that I quoted were in that exact same section.

So we'll get you that too, so you can see exactly what's already in ordinance.

Okay.

And then it sounds like maybe some data requests that specific data requests that some council members have had like to come to them for that review.

The other thing that I noted, Don was that we received some um we have the letters from boards and commissions that included to us, but we also received uh letters besides the should be heard, but like through like the business loop um and others.

Will those be included as attachments to the ordinance just to see is that possible?

It's yes, we can include those.

Yes, we can include those.

And then the other one that I have is you've mentioned this idea of the educational campaign.

So I think it'd be useful for council to know what what we're thinking of.

You know, what does that entail and what that does?

Those are just some of the things I heard from our comments here.

Other council questions or potential um requested amendments.

Yeah, Jackie.

So I have a list.

Um of the and I I'm gonna use the wrong subsection C under uh whatever it is.

It's the um the director of public works is authorized to designate roadways as major corridor.

Do we have a um is that a public list or map that is available to the community to see what the where the major corridors are?

So if we would if we would implement something like this, how would the public know where the major corridors were in the city?

And should that be part of this ordinance that it would be required of the director.

The only thing I was gonna say is we have we have a list of the roadways.

I'd have to defer to Nancy on to whether I need do when they need to be listed specifically somehow or how you wouldn't want to so the their list they are they're designated by definition.

So we wouldn't list them specifically in the ordinance, making them available either online or via um some sort of uh public facing.

That's what I'm more thinking of.

Yeah, I'm not thinking of like a list, because that can change.

Correct.

And you don't want to have a lot of different things.

So if it's a public facing on the website, a link that people can go and see what roads are defined in that way so they know that what would be impacted by what it's currently written.

Clarify on that one uh question that I had.

Um I don't know if you have an answer for it at this time, but the choice to do uh any roadway with the speed limit, you know, do that over like an primary arterial, like the words that you use often when you talk to us about roadway designations.

Like is there either a preference on that?

Because I think because when you have on that map, some of those ones where I'm like, I'm not really worried about the one that's in the middle of a neighborhood, but it qualifies as a major roadway, but it's not an arterial.

You know, I guess that's my question for you.

But it it may not qualify as so these are entirely separate um definitions from use from trying to tie it to the uh roadway designations in the zoning code and the street um your your major street plan because there aren't definitions in those documents that correlate to 35 miles per hour or 15,000 vehicles a day.

So when Shane and I had this conversation, and we actually discussed discussed it at length, what do we call it?

How do we designate it?

And so decided that an entirely different definition for those these roadways for this ordinance was necessary.

Okay.

And so creating that document that was requested, I think, and it he's required to have a schedule and having that posted uh online is a good thing.

Okay.

Um underneath prohibitions, um, and these are getting into questions slash can this potentially be an amendment if that's it.

Sorry, can I really briefly add on to the conversation about the list of corridors which is that publicly accessible document?

Um just a note that we'll want to be like as clear as possible that this is not relating to definitions under zoning, because we wouldn't want someone to be seeking that information, find it on our website, and then part way into the zoning process realize the in it was the same word being used two different ways.

Um so we'll just want to be very, very, very clear that this is not a document to utilize in the zoning process.

All right, so under uh prohibitions, subsection one, um was wondering if we could add a little bit to that.

So no person shall cross a major court or roadway at any place except in a crosswalk when such crosswalk is reasonably accessible and usable to take care of the accessibility um issues.

And then there's another, and I can email this later if that's helpful.

Um nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a pedestrian with a disability from crossing at a location other than a crosswalk when existing curb ramps, intersection geometry, signalization, or sidewalk conditions render the crosswalk inaccessible or unsafe.

So just so we're covering federal law there.

Um again, I can email these.

And for number two.

Um this one starts no person shall be located upon a median in a major corridor intersection and or a median that is less than six feet in width.

Um I have suggested in addition, no person no person shall remain in a median with a major corridor intersection when such median is less than six feet in width and when a pedestrian signal cycle permitting safe crossing is actively displayed, except as provided with the below pro the exceptions that we have.

And again, the subsection shall not apply to any person whose disability mobility limitation, use of assistive device, accompaniment of a child or service animal or safety considerations make compliance impractical.

Can I clarify on that one?

I thought I thought this ordinance would then would apply to all of so you're you're listing the qualifications for the medians.

I thought it was applying to all of the medians on the designated streets, even if the median is six feet wide.

I thought that the November meeting, the understanding was that this was simply not allowing someone in a median.

That's a question for staff.

I apologize.

I'm not sure I under quite understood the question.

So I'm so I guess Vera, I thought it was less than six feet, because that's what it says in the first sentence.

But you're saying that you interpreted it to mean any median.

That is how I had interpreted it on reading, but at the at the last meeting where we talked about it, I had interpreted it from staff that it was applying to all medians on these roadways.

Did I interpret that incorrectly?

I think we are looking at medias that are six feet or less with this one, and that that was the intent.

Right.

Thank you.

So just making sure I dispel any misconception I might be holding on to.

If the median is greater than six feet, even if the roadway is over what, 40 miles an hour?

35, it would not be enforced at that median.

Nancy's nodding, yes.

Okay.

And and it's one, it has to be one of the three, any one of the three.

Any one of the three, and it's enforceable.

So if it's greater than six feet, but any of the other two.

Okay.

Well, and I think that's a question that I had as a and I'm sorry to jump on in the amendment discussion, but since it's related to kind of what you just said, that was kind of one is it possible because to me, I think that the things we're thinking of.

This intent started from the data that we have shows that increase in speed, increase in volume, and not safe infrastructure leads to the potential of fatality, right?

That's that's the intent behind this.

And so is it possible?

And I don't know your your your data doesn't say like if two out of the three, it's not it's not something like that.

But I think I I view it as there are way for this ordinance to be written so that it's like if all three are true, this is these are the unsafe situations.

But I think in talking to staff beforehand.

Am I right that it's really the the highest ones are really the speed and the volume.

Correct.

And because that's where we have the potential number of risks as well as faith, the the uh danger of risk.

Is that correct, Nancy?

You're kind of looking at me.

Well, that is correct.

But at the same time, so the the median less than six feet, which also has at least either one roadway or intersection, which meets the criteria of 15,000 vehicles per day or 35 miles per hour.

So you still have to be on a major corridor um intersection or major corridor roadway with a median that is less than six feet wide.

But if it's only one of the three, then the median could be larger than six feet.

Or the median can be if if if you're not on a major corridor roadway or a major corridor intersection.

The median doesn't have to be six feet wide.

It can be any any width.

It's it's the it's the major corridor intersection and the major corridor roadway that are that are the triggers.

And then when there is a median present, if the median is not at least six feet wide, the median then becomes part of is basically part of that roadway, and you can't be in that roadway, if that makes sense.

So uh a smaller, a smaller median on a major corridor intersection or major corridor roadway is regulated.

But if you've got a median that is not in a major corridor roadway or major corridor intersection, it is not covered by this ordinance.

But if it's in the major corridor, roadway or intersection and it is eight feet wide.

It's not covered.

Even though it says and or median less than six feet wide.

That and which is also has at least one roadway and designated, which is designated as a major corridor intersection by the director of public works.

I'm I'm trying to pull up my notes as we're talking.

I believe that is different than we were told at the last meeting.

I believe at the last meeting.

And I could be wrong, I'm gonna pull up my notes here, but I I believe at the last meeting we were told that even if it was wider than six feet, if it met one of the other qualifications, it would still be not allowed to be there.

And I know so we're coming, I think it might be we I think we need some clarifications, especially I know there's a map in this study that kind of shows us the different things, and it might be useful for us to see those interaction because I I noticed that we are but you're doing some side talking.

Uh but we had said we'd be done at eight, so I want to make sure we get to all the amendments.

So if there's clarifying things, I think we want to get them.

Yeah.

I'm glad you brought up the map.

I'm sensing a lot of gray area for a common sense legislation.

Um and honestly, throughout this, I see a lot of gray area in a lot of different areas.

The map is helpful because we can look it up and say yes or no.

It's hard to find from a list, right?

That's not the way you think about streets.

The map does not have the resolution to zoom in and see streets.

So if you want this to be practical, I need better resolution on that map.

That was a council question back in November.

November, I think, maybe before November.

Can you get us a map that we can answer some of these questions from the other thing?

Yes, we can we can work with GIS to develop a map that has a little bit more better resolution.

Yeah, and the clarification over is it one or two or three of the things that we have.

Yeah, we can we could kind of give a little bit more clarification to really kind of narrow down.

Yeah.

Jackie, you want to apologize if we've had some sort of I'm trying to track what the question is, and I think it's not always clear to me what what we're trying to do.

No, we're good.

Yeah, Jackie.

Um okay, so the section that we talk about, the two consecutive opportunities, I'm that I am concerned about that section.

Um mentioned that earlier on on an enforcement um level because I do think that will be pretty um because our officers they do make thousands of decisions a day, but that's a thousand different ways to interpret what that is and subjectivity, and so I'm concerned about the enforcement of those two cycles.

Um which is why, well, we can maybe if we can talk about that a little bit or figure out how to make that so that the uh liability doesn't fall on our officers.

Um no person other than an occupant of vehicle shall be upon a major court or roadway.

If we could add when a continuous accessible pedestrian route is available and usable.

And then excuse me, to define that a continuous accessible pedestrian route means a sidewalk or path of travel that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including accessible curb ramps, service condition, width grade, and freedom from obstruction due to construction, weather, or disrepair.

And so that just makes it we're we're and that I think would help guide um future infrastructure discussions as well.

Um excuse me.

And then these, I'm almost done, I promise.

These next two.

So I'm concerned with the way number six is written for two reasons.

One because it's talking about vehicle operation, which is an entirely different section of the charter.

Um, two, because of the phrase distribution conduct.

I'm concerned about First Amendment.

And I know that that is a safe phrase, it isn't utilized by other cities, but I just wanted to express my concern with that.

So but I don't like to express my concern without offering suggestions or places to start talking from.

So what I have suggested no person shall intentionally cause or require, excuse me, require a vehicle to stop, stand or maneuver in a travel lane of a major corridor roadway in a manner that impedes traffic flow or creates an immediate traffic hazard except where such stopping is otherwise required by traffic control devices or congestion.

And similarly, no occupant of a vehicle shall stop or stand a vehicle in a travel lane of a major court or roadway in a manner that creates an immediate traffic hazard except as required by traffic control devices or emergencies.

And so that's more of like a behavioral approach.

And to clarify, this is basically your amendment for um amending six A, B, and C in replacing with potential um proposed amendment language.

Okay.

Um and then the only and that kind of goes back to the requesting the more clear definition of impeding or traffic um obstruction.

It kind of ties back into that request.

Because that's not a current definition in this, and so it'd be adding that.

Okay.

Let me double check, but I think that's it.

Yeah, I think that's under quest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so again, these are suggested potential amendments to come for council to then vote upon at the February 2nd meeting.

I appreciate that.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

And Nancy, I think this would be probably for you.

Um for um uh if for enforcement of this, is it a civil?

Like would this be the sort of thing that something would go eventually to municipal court?

Okay.

I just wanted to clarify on that one.

Okay.

So I apologize, my brain got the information flipped backwards.

So what I have from my notes in our council meeting on November 17th was I believe I had asked this question.

Um, is it true that this applies to all medians less than six feet?

Speed and volume capacity don't actually apply.

It is the width of the median.

Um the response that I wrote down getting from staff was yes, that it was just about width of the median.

Is that now that I have my notes in front of me, is that an accurate interpretation?

Does this apply to all six feet or smaller medians regardless of designation of the roadway?

No.

So that is different from what we were told in November.

I don't remember the context of what we were told in November, but I will tell you it doesn't apply to all medians that are under six feet.

It only applies to medians that are under six feet.

Um which are part of major corridor intersection.

So we might want to clarify then that in section.

Because it says major corridor intersection.

And I think that's your point is that you interpret that as major roadway, corridor roadway as well, which are the 35 plus and the 15,000 vehicles a day.

Okay.

I think it will be, I mean, obviously we have a lot more data.

I'm assuming that we're Beheard is still open for um is it still gonna be is it gonna remain open?

Yes, it's gonna be remaining open for two more weeks uh so that additional information can be gathered um for going in for that piece.

Um I think there's obviously some additional clarifying things that council has asked, which will hopefully be a supplemental memo and uh a presentation for the February 2nd meeting.

Council members, if you have some of those additional, like the suggested amendment things, please send it to staff to include uh as well as to council just so we can see um as it's coming forward and again send staff any questions you have on the things going forward.

Um I appreciate the time that's gone into this.

Um I know it's you know it I think the intent we have is this idea about safety, but we also have concerns over making sure that we're not having unintended consequences when that intent is there.

And so that's um definitely something that's mindful uh of this council and I think of staff.

So there's nothing else.

I'll go ahead and uh is there anything else for the good of the cause?

All right, we'll appreciate uh we'll go ahead and end at 749.

Thank you.

Thank you.