February 12, 2024 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Right now. Alright, Alex. thanks for Veronica. Go ahead and call to order the Transportation Advisory Board meeting for the City of Boulder for February 2024. Before we begin with our agenda, we'll turn it over to Veronica, our technical host, for the evening to over the technical rules. Alright. Could you see my screen? Yes. cool. We're pleased to have you join us today to strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security. The flying rules will be applied. This meeting has been calls to conduct the business of the city of Boulder. Activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time to speak is limited to 30 min. No person shall speak except when recognized by myself, and no person shall speak for longer than a time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting, using the person's real name. Any person believe to be using a name other than the one they are commonly

[1:03] know. I will not be permitted to speak. Please use the raise hand function to Re to be recognized for public comment. If you're on your phone. You will need to press Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. Nobody will be permitted except for the city officials, employees, and invited speakers and presenters. All others will participate by voice. Only. The person presiding in the meeting should enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rules. The QA function is enabled, it will be used for individuals to communicate with myself to and it should only be used for technical and online platform related questions. If an attendee attempts to use QA. For any other reason, the host or the city employees reserve the rights to disable individuals chat or access to the chat. Only the host of individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen during the meeting. Thank you

[2:05] of Alex. You are currently muted. Thank you. Thanks, Veronica. Before we get to the approval of the January 2024 min. Unfortunately, we need to begin this meeting the same way we've begun began our last meeting, and that is recognizing that there was a fatality within the city of Boulder's transportation network within the past month. Fantasy. Alejandro, a 24 year old woman from Denver, died at the intersection of thirtieth in the diagonal. The intersection of a can corridor, and a order that was recently rebuilt. I think highlighting the amount of work that we still have to do. I don't have much more than that. So maybe I'll turn over to Natalie if you have any other details you'd like to provide us at this time. Yeah, thanks, Alex, and certainly just another not so great way to start another meeting. The only I think you covered the information that we have. The only other information that was shared with us, and then also with the press release from Boulder, Pd. Was that the officers believe that speed and alcohol were factors in the crash, but it continues to be under investigation. So that's all the information we have at this time.

[3:31] Thanks, Natalie. Any other comment from the board. please do it. Yeah. So I know that it's not data. That's that's it's not reflected necessarily in our last safe streets. Report necessarily. It seems that most of our fatalities. We're trending on elderly people. But you know this is also a youngish driver, and that has just anecdotally been and a factor in a lot of our

[4:05] boulders fatalities in the last several years. Of course, speed is always not always, but almost always an element of these fatal crashes. We're, you know, of course, at the end of the meeting gonna be talking about stuff. But some of them I you know, one of the ideas that I've shared with with the board and with Natalie and and Natalie shared with other staff is is sort of an idea for speed. Reduction following a fatal crash. And so I think I will be in particular coming back to this board in in future months, with sort of more refined thinking about how we might choose to respond to fatal crashes. A lot of systems thinking and and sort of vision. 0 planning. is rightly trying to minimize the effects of a crash and to minimize sort of the severity of a crash when when they happen. I think that as a as a country. We ought to be doing more on crash. prevention, really, instead of just making sure people survive them, but actually trying to prevent them.

[5:11] But I think another big, sore spot in Boulder is not unlike many other cities of us cities of this size. We tend to have a blind spot about how how frequently this happens. And by we, I don't actually mean people on this call. I think that we are unusually aware of the frequency and severity of these. But I think, as a community, one of the things that's getting in the way of a more robust and swift response. Is the lack of awareness of a problem. And Ms. Alejandro's family is definitely aware that this is a problem. This affects these these families consistently, and for the rest of their lives in very dramatic ways. So I will continue rowing along with you, you know, grabbing an or and rowing as well as I can in the right direction, but

[6:02] it does feel like we need to be doing something New and different next year. With that, go ahead and move to agenda. Item number 3, which is the approval of the January, January 2024 min. Were there any requested edits? Tila? I have a very minor edit in the discussion about the de development at the end of Moorhead, where Moorhead meets the baseline I just had mentioned that there was precedent for tab being consulted. In the like sort of concept, planning stages of development. So I just wanted it to be a little more clear in the meeting in the minutes. It's not precedence, it's precedent. and that I was hoping for tab involvement at the concept planning stage.

[7:03] That's my only edit. Thanks, Meredith. You also thumbs up, for Meredith sounds good to me. There are no other requested edits. I'll welcome a notion to approve with the amendment. I move to approve the minutes as amended. I second all those in favor unanimous with 3. That's thanks, good job, Meredith. We'll now move to agenda. Item 4, which is public comment. Any member of the public wishing to address the Transportation Advisory Board on a transportation related matter, please use the raise hand tool to do so now, and you'll have 3 min to address us. Alright. Lynn, I am going to ask you to confirm. You're able to speak.

[8:05] I'm here. Okay. Next. Can I see the timer, please? Yes, I will put the timer on my screen. Are you able to see it. Yes. thank you. My concern here with Virginia. Is it the 90 year old? Okay, it's it's an area right by where I am. Alpine balsam is going in there. They're going to be more and more pedestrians in that area in the near future, and and the real issue here or 2 is urban planning and prevention. And I really like your bringing up the prevention issue to us because we've got already a plan that's kind of bad. We've got a huge it's I call it North Boulder Highway, north Broadway Highway. Everyone's going up, back up to North Broadway. It's a sprawl area up there. So long crawl up there, and it's and so there's speeding involved. Also there's more and more people. So there's more and more congestion and more and more alternate modes and pedestrians in the central area, which is where Virginia got hit.

[9:19] So I would say that that tab tab needs to be on board with planning board when they're making a decision like they did recently for Peacock Place on a flood plain, which is why the guy wanted to get Annex because his flut, his his well went bad during the flood. So they're building a development there for the common good of the folks at Boulder. I don't think so. It's another sprawl situation. All the people in that community are gonna be driving cars just like they are out to Waterview now called Weather Vane on 58 interapo. They're all gonna be, you know, in the rare cases when they can be on the bus. They're mostly gonna be driving

[10:09] because they they're bigger units. There. There's families you need to drop off kids and stuff. And and that's going to be a big disaster also. So it has so much to do with planning. And the thing is, you're the ones who are stuck with the problem. So it's almost it would be frustrating to me. I'd say I want to quit, because there's nothing I can do. I'm just part of the system. I'm effectively enabling it by finding better ways to do things, maybe making left turns that are appropriate that work better. But still the traffic is gonna be faster. There's gonna be more desperation for people to get across town with more people, you know, cause there, it's just gonna go slower. It's more congested.

[11:00] And this is happening all over Boulder. And and it doesn't matter if you've got a place at 2206 perl. And they're saying, oh, we're giving you a parking reduction, since you know, you're not gonna have cars there. Well, they're gonna be using cars like crazy because people use cars in boulder and they're getting their mountain gear from a storage for speaking to us tonight. It looks like we have one other person, Lisa White. I'm gonna ask you to confirm. You're able to unmute yourself. Hello! Can you hear me? Yes. great. Hi, yeah. My name is Lisa White, and I live in Central Boulder, near the Twenty-third Street, Green Street, and that I read an email about that earlier today. And it was just this morning. So I'm not sure if anybody's had a chance to read it yet. But I was a part of the pedestrian Advisory committee in 2,019, and was excited to see the improvements on Twenty-third Street as part of the low stress walk and bikes network

[12:18] but now that I've been using it every day with the improvements that have been put in, I I'm hoping that the city is going to invest further in it. When I use that route, I just feel like an afterthought like crossing to the sorry my one year old. Daughter is a little bit loud right now. Yeah. So like, when I'm going southbound on Twenty-third Street at Canyon. It's like you need to cross over to the opposite side of the street to cross, and then it's crossing a 5 lane highway on Canyon with no refuge, and it just feels kinda unsafe, especially, you know, and I have a one year old on the back of my bike every morning. And then similarly at a wrap a hall. I was really excited to see

[13:04] to see those improvements going in but in practice. I've noticed that people don't really stop, and I'm not even entirely sure whether they have to. You know, there's a sign that says. Okay, more Chinese. There's a sign that says, like, you have to stop at a crosswalk but like there's just the bike crossing. Well, there's a crosswalk, but there's also like nice paint for bikes, which is fantastic, and I assume I can cross there, but it's not totally clear, because people driving don't really stop like. The other day I counted 36 cars that went by before there was a break in traffic enough for me to just jet jet across this morning, after 11 cars, people did stop, and so that was a nice surprise. But yeah, so I'm hoping that the city will just continue to invest in this Green Street and other Green streets and you know, make it make the intersection more narrow to cross and add things like refuge and and blinky lights. And you know actual traffic lights that you don't have to wait 3 min, for, like the one at between Twenty-second and Twenty-third on or 20 first and twenty-second under wrap

[14:17] and that's it. Thanks for your time and listening. Thank you, Lisa. Alex, it doesn't look like anyone else has their hand up. So you should be done. Okay, Tila. yeah. I just wanted to comment on Lisa's email. Lisa, thank you for writing. I appreciate those traffic counts. But since you asked a pretty substantive question. I thought maybe we should maybe clarify what what the driver responsibilities are in terms of yielding my understanding. And I hope this is right, but hopefully Natalie could correct me. If I'm wrong, motor vehicles are supposed to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, whether striped or not. Technically, their behavior is much better when the crosswalk is striped and a crosswalk is at any intersection.

[15:06] That is not operated by a so across any intersection. Of course, if it's operated by a signal, you're supposed to obey the signal. But where you're talking where there's a stop. They're supposed to yield to you as a pedestrian. Now, when you're on a bike, you're you are unfortunately treated, and most for stop faster. You might trade dismounting. But I think, Lisa, you're correct in noting what the average driver behavior is. My other understanding is that the Green Streets program for now has been halted because City Council was trying to devote more transportation staff resources to the core arterial network. Because the the the the things that we're trying to gain from the green streets are terrific, but more quality of life and lives are actually at stake on our core arterials. And so that's why we're kind of trying to focus that energy. So if anything that I just said was incorrect, I hope somebody else will hop on and correct me. But I just wanted to let you know, Lisa, sort of what the what the rules are, and sort of what to expect from Green Streets in at least the near term.

[16:11] and II do appreciate your your contributions all the time. Thank you so much. And, Alex, if you don't mind, I'm happy to confirm that Tila's description of the crosswalk, you know, kind of interaction and responsibilities is correct. And we can. I don't have any details related to any of the other questions she raised. But I'm happy to circle back with the team after the meeting, and we can share any information out that we might have good thanks. There's no other discussion on what we heard during public comments. Go ahead and move on to 2. No full agenda items tonight we have 2 information, only items. So if you have any questions or comments you'd like to bring forward on these, please do so.

[17:02] First up agenda. Item 5. The Us. 36. Slash north foothills, highway bikeway feasibility, study. Caleb Becky any comments or questions on this one. so I looked at the well. I glanced at the report because it's like about a thousand pages. Allison is nothing if not thorough. Is there anything? And and I ex. I assume that that's the same memo that that got shared with council 2 weeks ago, or you know. Oh, I'm I'm on the other 10, you're right. I'm on the other one. Cool. Yeah. I've been in connect in contact with c, 4 C, because I know that they've been funding part of this effort. And I think the only feedback I got from them. I was checking to see if they're on. I don't see them right now. But was basically that they appreciate the partnership of Boulder County on this. And I think we're all really hoping to

[18:10] to see some progress on this in the near term is the idea that we have to have a feasibility, so to have a real chance at securing funding. To build it like, this is just kind of one of the essential steps that we have to take care of before we can really pursue legitimate grant opportunities. Is that fair? Yeah, that's correct. And Alex Phillips, from Boulder County is here to answer any questions. So, Alex, if there's anything you want to elaborate on there. Yes, I'm just curious. Since we're gonna you know, I assume that the next step after the study is done is to try to identify and apply for grant funding any idea on the timeline on that. Thank you for the question. Tila. Thank you. Everyone for having me. Alexandra Phillips, bike planner with the Boulder County and the project manager for the North foothills. Bikeway feasibility study. The study itself is actually a Grant fund. Grant Grant funded project.

[19:03] and we are always looking out for the next step in the money. In the funding for grants, the feasibility study will also develop a cost estimate of what it would cost to construct, which would help us also. Know what kind of grant we need, and also establish, if we need any additional right of way, and and that would go also into the cost and the timing. Okay, one more question. About the cost estimates. It looks like you're only considering an underpass option to get on the southern end, to get sort of under highway 36 to connect. So this is the city of Boulder Network. Is there a reason you're not considering an at grade treatment? That's interesting. You bring that up. Thank you. I actually for that wide of an intersection with that many turning movements and the speed of traffic. I don't know. Well.

[20:03] 2 things. First, I will. I'll finish my sentence and say I don't know if there could be a safe upgrade crossing, and we're also getting into the city of Boulder there, too, so we would have to be working with the city on that, and also to remind you that we are working in partnership with Cdot. On. This, of course, is the C Dot road. and on either side it's surrounded by a lot of city of Boulder, OSMP. Land and Boulder County parks and open space land and private land in addition to the out right away, right is the or the visual impacts a reason we wouldn't consider a bridge if you could think an app grade crossing wouldn't work. I think bridges are cheaper than than tunnels. Bridges can be simpler than tunnels, especially when, if you don't have to deal with drainage. And it's interesting that you would bring that up because it's something we've been looking at since the beginning of doing the design for 119 where I guess what I will say to that is, we are at the this is a feasibility study, and it's really just looking at the main alignment and

[21:15] a lot of your questions, I don't think can be answered until the next phase of the design. But they're all very important questions. Okay. So in terms of whether it's at grade like with a signal head, or a bridge or an underpass, are we saying that would just be such a small portion of the overall project that it's not worth kind of parsing out those options at this point. I wouldn't say that it's a small portion at all. It's actually. And that's kind of why we're we're more focusing on what needs what we can do to make the main what we're calling the main line happen along the road there. It's 11 miles between where you leave the city of Boulder and get to highway 66, and within that 11 miles about 5 miles of it is going to be pretty simple and within right of way simple to design.

[22:07] relatively simple to build. But the remaining 6 are a little more, a bit more complicated. And so we're con. We're concentrating on that now and doing what we can on the connections, knowing that they have to happen, of course, to make a viable bike way. And and before I past the mic, I do wanna say special. Thank you to Daniel Sheeter, who's been really helping us kind of thread the needle through all this and find the the right alignment. Great. Thank you. And thanks, Daniel. thank you. Exacts any other comments or questions on the 36 spikeway. Let's see me. Thanks for joining us tonight, Alex. And then our next information item, is the airport community conversion status until it sounded like you had something in mind on this one.

[23:06] Yeah. So I was trying to say, I assume this is the same memo that I communicated to Council and that there will be a second update no earlier than July. At which time Council is going to be asked to choose between those 4 options. Is that fair to say? Yeah, that it so? Yes, that's a pretty good summary. We are looking at July. At this point we have a tentatively scheduled for Council agenda in July. It will be highly dependent on. We submitted this information to the Faa and posed a few questions to them. And and this was directly in response to a request from Council to get Faa's perspective. And so we pose those questions. We expect it'll take at least 90 days to get a response from them. And that's really what's driving that timeline for when we would go, be able to go to council for a decision. So july, hopefully, is what we're looking at. But that's the point at which they'll have the information that they need to be able to just give us direction on next steps.

[24:19] Okay? So other than sort of assessing. I think it was like financials. Basically, that Council had asked for and assessing how the fa is response, the is there any other work that's happening on Staff's side to sort of prepare anything for for Council decision. No, it's the the legal strategy we're working on. Faa's kind of just the dynamic with faa and the financial analysis. And th, this isn't coming back to tab or planning board before then. Is that right? That's my understanding at this point. There's definitely been a question from one member planning board about whether or not this would come to planning board before it went to council for a decision. My understanding at this point is that that would not be the case. But it's possible that that could change.

[25:17] and if and if that were the case, if it were to go to planning board, we would probably bring it to Transportation Advisory Board, you know, at a minimum for information similar to how we have today. Okay, thank you. Yup. Becky, do. Do you have anything on this? Neither did I, which allows us to move on to agenda. Item 7. Which is matters first, matters from staff. Thank you, Alex. We have a couple of agenda items from matters from staff tonight. We're the first agenda item will be the pavement management program update related to mobility enhancements at Morehead Avenue and Valerie is going to kick us off on the second.

[26:05] And before that, did we want to do a quick? You're so kind the way you remind me. We have our new transportation planning manager on staff with us. Finally, yay, Stephen Rio comes from city and county of Denver most recently. He's with us here tonight and we're super excited to have Steven join our team and you all. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to meet him very soon if you haven't already awesome welcome. Stephen preferred working with you all. Thanks, Valerie. alright. So launching into matters from staff I just for the record. Valerie Watson, deputy director. Tonight. We're excited to bring you an update on Moorhead Avenue, one of our 2024 pavement management program mobility enhancement streets. And, as you heard last month's meeting. This project is on an accelerated timeline, due to the orchestration that's needed with contractor availability both for advanced concrete work and paving

[27:17] each year. As part of our mobility enhancements program, we have an opportunity to look at light touch improvements that we can install when resurfacing happens and light touch improvements are typically within the vein of striping and signage and build from adopted plans. Like our low stress walk and bike network plan. our team has been diligently working to explore what's possible within the limitations of this program and have been working closely with the neighborhood to ensure that their input is part of the design process. We're also documenting more capital intensive ideas for the future. For this street should funding become available to implement more robust treatments. The approach for Moorhead is a bit different than years past, which focus solely on those low cost roadway striping and signage treatments that did not have trade offs. And we're looking at how we can stretch our limited budget to also install more vertical treatments on Moorhead, due to the nature of the street, the destinations it connects, and the value to the network.

[28:15] I want to acknowledge the creativity shown by our staff across the functional areas of our department, working together to see what's possible while staying true to our city's fiscal realities and our goals around pavement quality. And now I'll turn it over to Daniel Sheeter to discuss where we're at with community engagement and design along with next steps. Thanks, Valerie. Good evening, Tab. Tab members. My name is Daniel Sheeter, principal transportation Planner, and the planning division of transportation mobility. Give me just a moment here to share my screen

[29:10] like, Come in through for everyone great in presenter mode. I am in presenter mode. Okay. that's give me one. Sec. How about now? Perfect. Great. Thank you. Okay. So here's a quick refresher of the limits for the project from Moorhead between 20 Seventh Way and Table Mesa drive the proposed mobility. Enhancements are coordinated with planned repaving as a cost effective and efficient way to make the streets safer for people walking, biking, rolling, driving, and taking transit.

[30:06] Moorhead, as as you all know, is, is a relatively long and straight corridor. There, between the the ends of the limits. From table mesa to 20 seventh. I shared information about the project's advance, concrete work to repair sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, as well as ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act last month. These are 2 additional examples of that work. So on the left is a reconstructed driveway with a steeper ramp that preserves a level 3 foot pedestrian path to travel along the attached sidewalk. and on the right is a reconstructed curb ramp with an angle, directional, warning surface that aligns with the pedestrian path of travel. These are small details, but I just want to show them to highlight the work that the advanced concrete does to make, you know, kind of subtle improvements. To the existing sidewalks, curves and gutters out there, and the driveway example here is not something that we could implement along the entire corridor, but where we were making substantial sidewalk or curb and gutter repairs adjacent to, or kind of within a driveway. That's where we took the opportunity to upgrade it in in that configuration.

[31:17] Looking back to January again, Staff hosted a corridor walk on January sixth, with Martin Acres, residents, and people throughout the city who use the corridor. We had a good turnout. and we heard a desire for traffic calming and more comfortable bike lanes. Improved connections were also suggested at the north and south ends of the corridor. and finally many shared concerns about limited visibility at driveways, pedestrian crossings and bus stops due to the on-street parking on the east side of Moorhead. So a quick summary of existing conditions along the corridor. The posted limit is 25 miles per hour. but the 80 fifth percentile speed was measured at 35 mile miles per hour, so 10 miles and miles per hour over that that posted limit.

[32:04] Bi-directional average daily traffic is about 3,000 vehicles and increases slightly from south as you move from south to north along the corridor. Moorhead is also a key connector for local and regional bike and scooter trips connecting south boulder in the Us. 36 bikeway to main campus and points north. The low stress walk and bike network plan recommends buffered bike lanes for the corridor. but due to the narrow 40 foot curb to curb width, which we'll cover in a few slides. A more significant reconfiguration of the street would be needed to add buffers to the existing bike lanes in both directions. So where are we going? With the mobility enhancements in response to what we heard from the community and the team's review of existing conditions along the corridor as well as the available resources that we have in the program this year we are recommending the following elements. So this would cover restriping traffic, calming intersection, visibility and bus stop access. and finally improvements to multi-use path connections at twenty-seventh way in table mesa drive.

[33:08] I'll go into more detail on on 3 of these in the following slides. but to touch upon the intersection, visibility and bus stop access. All elements are being coordinated with additional no parking any time signage that's proposed to be installed at t intersections throughout the corridor in order to improve visibility at those intersections, and and and the pedestrian crossings that accompany those intersections as well as bus stop access for the Rt. D. 2 0 4 route that travels along Moorhead. The first element to review is a typical Cross section. So with guidance from the recently updated design and construction standards. travel lanes, and the parking lane can be narrowed slightly to reallocate space. This allows a narrow buffer to be added to the southbound bike lane

[34:00] and the northbound bike bike lane can also be widened from 5 feet to 6 feet. so kind of given that existing curb to curb width. This is kind of optimizing that cross-section, narrowing lanes to reduce truck vehicle speeds and giving more space to cyclists and and hopefully creating a more comfortable facility for those that use the corridor. We're also considering some vertical elements, and to calm traffic at priority crossing locations along the corridor. So this map is showing existing mark crosswalks in the kind of black circles, black outlines. and then kind of priority locations we're considering for traffic calming, which correspond with key crossing locations along the corridor. And we're getting feedback and subsequent engagement in the community, beginning tomorrow night.

[35:00] on 3 options. And those are Splitter islands. Raised pedestrian crossings and speed cushions, and it's possible we may use a combination of those. But we're really honing in on, on key pedestrians, crossings to kind of have the dual effect of both calming speeds, vehicle speeds, and providing an enhanced crossing for pedestrians. Traversing the corridor and accessing the bus, stops along the corridor onto the connections piece. So we're paying particular attention to the north and the South End, where Morehead meets Table Mesa and 20 Seventh Way. So at the south end, at table, Mesa. there is a key connection here to the Us. 36 bikeway, as I mentioned. and the concept design recommends green cross bike markings adjacent to the white pedestrian crosswalks

[36:00] that direct cyclists to make you know this turn to the southeast corner of the intersection to access the bikeway, which is a multi-use path on the south side of Table Mesa. Here. As it heads east and and along us 36 we're also able to fit in a a painted southbound bike lane on the approach to the intersection which does not exist today. Currently bikes are are mixed with traffic, and and a through right lane. Then at the north end, you know. I think there's been a number of comments made here, and and also comments made on on the development project that Tila mentioned earlier at 2,700 baseline. But this area at the north end, where Moorhead meets twenty-seventh, serves a variety of of bike and scooter trips. both, you know, from the frontage road which meets Moorhead just off of this image, just to the just to the right, off to the right hand side of this image.

[37:02] With connections to the baseline road and multi-use paths. From that frontage road at the top of the the figure there and And then there's a key underpass here of 20 Seventh Way along Skunk Creek, which connects a multi-use path to Broadway, and then another great separated crossing of Broadway to the west. And these connections are kind of illustrated with from that underpass to points north along kind of the east side of Twenty-seventh way. Up to baseline and then informally kind of using this, the parking lot connection to the frontage road and an underpass of the Us. 36 southbound on ramp. And so those are major desire lines here from the underpass. But I wanna highlight kind of 2 particularly challenging movements here. That are also traversing this intersection, and one is for northbound cyclists on Moorhead

[38:06] who want to get to that underpass. And so today it is not very intuitive to to get there. You have to use. The mid-block pedestrian crossing here, and then you're faced with a narrow sidewalk. To travel to get to the the opening of the underpass and and kind of the widening of the path. A widened sidewalker path at that underpass ramp and then kind of in the a similar direction. If you're traveling from east of baseline east east of us, 36 on baseline. And you wanna travel West, and you want to hit that great separated under pass of twenty-seventh kind of coming across the parking lot here and doing the same movement and kind of, faced with that narrow sidewalk to get to the underpass. So the concept design here is recommending a short segment of On Street 2 way cycle track between the mid mid block pedestrian crossing

[39:04] to connect westbound cyclists from the crossing to the 20 Seventh way underpass. And this is achieved through reallocating space in this area. By eliminating some of the Medians that exist there, and just having a a single northbound lane and a single southbound lane. That provides the space for that short cycle track connection. and this. in our eyes, seen as an interim improvement in lieu of of the Tmp. Recommended under pass of Moorhead at Skunk Creek, and something we can achieve through the mobility, enhancements, initiative, and coordination with the repaving work. It is also compatible with future alignments that are being proposed for path connections and bike and pedestrian improvements by the 2,700 baseline project. But we kind of need to wait and see how that project advances past concept and into site plan. But it, you know, we see this as being compatible with multiple options there, and and further enhancements can be added in the future.

[40:02] Daniel, I'm trying really hard to not interrupt. But while we're on that slide, wh? What would it 2 way, cycle track look like are we talking about like? Is there anything else in the city where that exists that I can help imagine transplanted here. I think the best example probably would be to look at like the Broadway multi-use path, or the portions of the Boulder Creek Path near Broadway, where we have designated a 2 way cycle track adjacent to a sidewalk I was getting. I was getting to the difference which is, it would be at street level, so the bike portion would be below curb, and the sidewalk would remain that 5 foot sidewalk behind curb raised, but it would be delineated from the street with paint and vertical elements. where? You know where they're kind of where northbound cyclists are contraflow to the to the vehicle.

[41:05] Yup. And yeah, if you look at it through that perspective, some similarities with with Thirteenth Street through downtown right and and Grove Street as well where we have short segments of hunter flow. Thanks for the question. so that that concludes the review of the concept design we are scheduled for an open house in the community tomorrow night, 6 to 7 PM. At the Alvarado Village Community Center, which is just north of Bear Creek, along Moorhead and so we're eager to get these concept designs out in the community and and solicit some input there and also receive some feedback on the traffic calming elements or. yeah, traffic calming options. And hope to get some direction on where to go with splitter islands and race crossings and speed cushions. And get some input from the community. We'll also be doing some door to door engagement along Morehead through the end of February.

[42:12] And sharing, sharing these concept designs through the project website. And finally, yeah, that's kind of all summarized here in the schedule with a look ahead to beginning construction of these mobility. Enhancements are kind of the concrete or vertical elements in March and April. and then that would be soon followed by the milling and overlaying or repaving of Moorhead and then, when the new pavement is down, restriping would would immediately follow in the new configuration. and that concludes presentation. I think Garrett's here as well. If there any detailed questions, or or I'm happy to respond as well. And welcome your feedback or questions. Yeah.

[43:12] feel it. Thank you. I had 2 comments on sort of your existing conditions slides. Of course it's inherent in what follows. But you you don't mention that there's a bus route on the road as part of the existing conditions, and another existing condition I've encountered quite frequently on Moorhead is during trash. Pickup day. The was it the well, the side of the street that has no parking? That bike lane basically doubles as the place where residents are expected by the trash company to leave their trash cans and recycling and compost and it it renders the bike lane unusable for one day a week pretty much I was wondering if that has come up as part of your community engagement if there were any bright ideas about that.

[44:04] Of course, on the other side of the street people tend to use just the parking lane. To put their trash, but it is a persistent and and consistent problem on that street, and I was just wondering if there's any way to address that as part of this project. It is an ongoing challenge where we have kind of curbside adjacent bike lanes. This isn't limited just to Moorhead. I mean, I think from our perspective, we see the addition of the buffer, and giving a little more space to that southbound lane, helping that. That you know that the trash day or garbage day collection. And so I think that that is a benefit of the design. In addition to we also have challenges. With the current narrow bike lane of snow snow also having our time melting our melting out on that south side, because it's more shaded than the north side. So those are kind of 2

[45:02] 2 considerations, I think one thing we're fortunate of, and it's is that many I don't have a count off the top of my head. But many of those properties on that side do have side street kind of their front doors, face the side street, and might be able to look into doing a little bit of Education may be around hopefully putting putting the trash receptacles on the side street where the properties face those side streets. If that makes sense cause. There are not too many driveways on that side fronting Moorhead because of a lot of the accesses from the side street so we could look into that a little bit more. But it is challenging with the narrow curve to curb, to kinda dedicate. Dedicate space directly to that. Yeah. I was wondering if homeowners might be encouraged if they have to use the the Morehead for their trash receptacles to use the buffer instead of the bike lane.

[46:01] Via the trash protected parking. But a trash protected bike lane for one day a week. Yeah, we could. Yeah. We'd need to look at that a little more closely. I mean, we're I don't know if the buffer would be quite wide enough for that. And yeah, I'd need to look at that more. And maybe maybe something we could reach out to western western disposal about. But okay, what's a what's a Splitter Island. Yeah, I didn't have any. I should have had a example photo in the presentation of that. But these are essentially kind of a medium concrete Median Island in the center of the street that provide some deflection for the vehicle lanes so they kind of a chicane effect. So they There you go. Have to need to go around the the Median island there. Most recent example in the city is on 20 Sixth Street. So there are some. There's kind of a gateway splitter Island at the south end, just north of Kelmia, and additional one at the north end, just south of Jay implemented as part of the Nsmp project there. Okay. So who had said that they were they would be a key. Crossings is what the the slide said, but it sounds like it would be maybe on either side of a key crossing. Correct? Yeah. Okay. So a very hard hardened center line your picture of the crossing at table, Mesa and Morehead

[47:28] with the enhanced cyclist striping. It looks like you're anticipating cyclists to do it. 2 stage left hand, turn across one direction first, and then wait for the signal across the other direction. Which is a perfectly fine and legal way to do it. Many of the cautious cyclists do. but a a good number of, you know, more comfortable and vehicular kind of style cyclists just to take the left hand turn lane. So I would encourage you to consider a bike box there, or, you know, striping that that, you know left turning

[48:02] bicyclists would be there. That's not something that I saw on the slide. and then finally, yeah. And finally, looking at the beginning of your concept design about where cyclists are going and coming from, and the routing I feel like that whole thing is a little too zoomed in, because there is definitely some use of that. Not quite an access road. The little frontage road. Yeah, along the entrance of of and so people get to that frontage road on north, south, east, west, on on the east side. Kind of coming off of Moorhead before you know, there's an intersection, maybe just right at the edge of the slide or right before. So a lot of people are coming in and out and getting accessing the frontage road that way. And also there's a fair number of cyclists that are turning right on twenty-seventh way. Instead of crossing onto the the sidewalk or multi path, or whatever it is. But they're continuing to use the roadway and to to make a left hand turn on to Moorhead

[49:10] from the middle of the street. Yes, and I recognize this is outside the bounds of of where you're talking about. But just consider that because we're talking about the the cycle track and access and shunting people around and over. Just consider, there's a there's a fair number of cyclists that are at that on just for that very brief section of roadway back in the road having come off of the Broadway multi path, or you know, coming from the Basemar shopping area. Because those lights are kind of confusing. And and this the signage and and wayfinding finding for for people is a little bit lacking at that intersection at twenty-seventh and baseline so it's it's a lot of mayhem. So I'm hopeful that this project will help calm some of the mayhem. But in the meantime there are people who find using the street an easier access method to Moorhead, or at least I'm more obvious one, especially if they mostly drive through the area than knowing what you need to know to get onto that frontage road and then sneak onto more head outside of the right hand side of the slide.

[50:21] And thank you for the answers on the cycle track. That sounds very interesting looking to see, you know, further development of thinking on that but really appreciate your work. Thank you. Thanks. Tila. Yeah, Dana, this is very impressive. I think they're very cost effective treatments. And it'll help activate this corridor that, as you mentioned, is pretty long stretch of of relatively comfortable roadway, and hopefully, with the lower speeds. will be even more so, and I like the attention to the connections at either end of it, tying into the the broader network.

[51:03] I'm sure you mentioned this. But what are the extents of this cycle track? Segment? Is it from the East Cross Walk to the under pass entrance? Or is it all the way to 20 seventh day? Yeah. Good question. So it's a little hard to see here, and maybe I can. If I dare to zoom in a little bit you can see that layout in the the striping concept here. so it would just be a short segment from the mid block crossing to the ramp to the underpass, so it would not continue all the way to twenty-seventh. But we would preserve the kind of eastbound or southbound bike lane. You know, tila to your point just a moment ago. that's existing today, but also serves kind of those trips starting from Twenty-seventh, or maybe coming south down on Twenty-seventh and accessing Moorhead. So it really is just between this driveway and the the underpass ramp. Access ramp.

[52:00] Cool zoom again helped a lot there and then in the hatched out this buffer area. Would there be any vertical elements like flexbos are curbs still to be determined. But yeah, we're looking at vertical elements there, particularly in the transition or that, you know, in the transition as the Via southbound Vehicle Lane kind of bends out around to create the space for the cycle track. So kind of where my cursor is here, but there's nothing denoting that on the figure. Gotcha. Becky. Anything on more hips. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. This review and definitely looking forward to all of these improvements. I'll note that I you know, in a I guess in my highest aspirations I think this would ideally have protected bike lanes, because

[53:03] biking between the bus and all those parked cars with so many driveways is is not nice and especially because there it is often parked up so you can't see the driveways very easily. So there's just like site issue. and I actually used to live on the street. I didn't bike on it. I took the bus primarily, but I also ran on it a lot, and sidewalks. I know, but I just remember them feeling narrow, like feeling kind of squeezed. I think it's because, partly because it is. It's really parked up on one like you're between the parked cars. And often you're between like plants coming out on the other side. And then you have, like the sidewalk kind of coming. so like, yeah, the cuts for the driveways. And it just I remember that feeling of like running on and it feeling just tight. I don't know if it's different than other sidewalks. And and I just yeah, I don't know but or maybe because there's it is so hopefully parked up, which I understand makes it harder to then make bigger changes to the street if

[54:03] people are heavily using it for parking. So anyway, you know, I didn't expect expect that kind of treatment, because it's not in our plans any of our plans, to my knowledge, so I didn't expect it. But just wanted to register by feedback. I think you know, when we're thinking about big picture like big boat shift over time, you know, getting to those aspirational projects where we can say that, you know, we're going to use the space for really prioritizing other modes. You know, I think once we get there, then we'll really see more of the big shift, and until we get there. We won't see those really big shifts. So not not a critique, just. you know, kind of my, my, my hopes and dreams for the future. I'm listening here so, but thank you for all your work on this. I think, Becky and Dan, we're both like not here yet. When we had the conversation. Alex probably remembers with Mark Mcintyre wanting to turn this into just a bus. you know, bus and and and bike route, and not allowing, through traffic by motor vehicles, just having divergers every so often lights. I think it would be lovely, but it's not within the Pmp

[55:10] budget. But you're not. You're not the only one who wants to see something like that, Becky. I think Valerie mentioned also in her comments. Oh, sorry, Alex. I was. I was just gonna add, I think Valerie mentioned her comments. But one thing we will do as a kind of close out for the project as document longer term ideas that we're hearing from the community, and that we've also identified through through our work along the corridor. So hope to have an input there to future efforts. As a result of that. see yourself build out. That might make it. or urgent. and something larger than just a P. And P. Project. Thanks, Daniel. Exciting stuff. Thank you.

[56:00] Nice job, Daniel. Thank you. Yes. Our next item under matters from staff is an update on vision, 0 vision, 0 action plan. Work. Item with related to the pedestrian crossing treatment installation guidelines. And Devin is here to give us an Update. Thank you, Natalie. Let me pull up my presentation before I do. My name is Devin Jocelyn. I'm the city's principal traffic engineer. All right. Well, good evening, everyone. I'm here tonight to speak about the pedestrian crossing treatment installations, guidelines. Update since that is such a mouthful, I will likely use the abbreviation pick tig throughout this presentation when I'm referring to that document. But I just wanna share some excitement around this work effort and really just acknowledge the trajectory we've been on so far to get to this point. You'll recall that last year we updated the Vision 0 Action Plan.

[57:11] and out of that plan were a number of actions. And really, the primary focus for this year is to focus on updates to some of our existing guidelines and practices. This being one of them. And really, here we are, early in the year and already underway on this project. Getting it started off. So I'm gonna be talking mostly tonight about the picktig update and our process for engaging with tab throughout that. And one of the things that I'll be asking for at the end is for you to select a tab representative and alternate to be part of a stakeholder group. So please keep that in mind as I'm going through the presentation tonight. But I also, just before I dive into this further wanna

[58:02] remind you that there's this other effort that was born from the Vision 0 Action Plan this year, and that is to take a closer look at our signal timing practices. The way we determine where we put in leading pedestrian intervals, how we do left turn phasing, and how we determine where we put no right turn on red restrictions. So it's our hope that we can keep some continuity among stakeholders who are involved in that and would ask that you kindly consider kind of combining efforts on those and identifying people who could serve to help with both. This picnic update as well as the signal timing practices update. So with that, I'll give just a little more detail on the pick. Take update and our approach for that project. I'll go through the background purpose and goals some of the budget and funding, and then the scope schedule next steps, and that action request that I mentioned

[59:10] so again, just the background. Really, within the vision 0 action plan. It was noted that, some of our more serious injury and fatal crash types are those that include pedestrians. that get hit while crossing the street. and as one way to address that it was recommended that we update our pedestrian crossing treatment. Installation guidelines. That's really one of the ways. One of the many ways that the city is looking to enhance safety for all roadway users. As a result of the action plan over the next 5 years and the specific action within the plan was Action 6. And it said, quite plainly update the Pictig

[60:02] but then there was a second component to that that said document. Relevant highway safety improvement program information for existing marked crosswalk locations that no longer meet the guidelines. and this has to do with kind of reviewing crosswalks across the system and comparing them to the updated guidelines and noting where enhancements might be necessary, whether because of an apparent crash pattern, or just because of a change in the guidelines, guidelines themselves recommending that a crosswalk be enhanced and just keep in mind again that this is just one piece of the overall vision, 0 puzzle but it is an important one with each contributing and overlapping with each other, all working together to eliminate serious injury and fatal crashes.

[61:00] the historical context. Some of you might be aware of this, but really they go back quite a ways within the his. Within the city of Boulder we had a set of guidelines that goes back and was first developed in 1996. But the document that we're talking about updating is one that was published in 2011, and we realized that since that time there's been some new research within the field of kinda studying pedestrian crossings and compliance. And we wanna make make sure that we're reviewing the national best practices that and research that are currently available and really looking to align with. And you know. a align with those latest context-sensitive approaches. The goals of this effort are to improve the consistency and methodology of the design and application of pedestrian crossing treatments. And we really wanna again, just keep in mind that this would be something we use citywide and apply consistently

[62:08] and in a transparent way, when we get requests from community members, or when we are going back and reviewing whether a existing crossing is appropriate or not. There are 5 primary tasks that will guide this project. They're shown here on the slide. A stakeholder engagement, a best practices review a pedestrian crossing treatment, application, selection and methodology. The guidelines update itself and then formulating recommendations as a result of applying the new guidelines across the city. and keep in mind again that the the basis for the action plan and really the overall approach of it is to focus, first on reviewing the high risk network and then moving to other streets within the city.

[63:06] and we would plan to apply that same approach here with the application of the updated pictgate. So this takes a little bit deeper. Dive into each of those tasks. Essentially, we want to review the best practices that are currently described by Federal Highway administration. Macdo, as well as the recently published Mutcd eleventh edition. We'll take what we've learned. And through our conversations with stakeholder groups developed with a set of guidelines tailored for bolder. and then we will then take that tailored methodology along with how it was developed, and create a draft set of guidelines and staff will use this document to review critical locations and develop recommendations for any pedestrian crossing treatment changes

[64:03] in terms of stakeholder engagement. There are 3 primary components that we see as stakeholder engagement for this project. the first being touch points with you the Transportation Advisory Board. The second is a focused stakeholder group, and the third is a project website. You can see kind of the basis for each of those outlined on the slide. Here we anticipate that the community stakeholder group would be many of the same participants that we have working currently on the speed limit setting and signing project. and that includes members from Transportation Advisory Board Community Cycles Center for people with disabilities as well as boulder transportation connections in terms of the schedule we anticipate kind of an overall 6 to 8 month timeline

[65:04] the stakeholder engagement will ramp up here in a month or so. Once spring comes around, and we anticipate that being ongoing really through the summer, as we're looking to wrap up the project kind of early to midfall timeframe. We anticipate again, you know, in line with the vision 0 action plan really, in 2025 is when we'll take a deeper dive into applying the new methodology and implementing any changes to the system. That would start in 2,025. And beyond. I do wanna acknowledge that I myself and not the project manager for this effort. Leslie Mace, our transportation operations engineer over signs and markings is serving as the project manager for this project and will be the primary staff contact and the

[66:05] primary person who will work with that stakeholder group. But just wanna acknowledge that she was feeling a little under the weather tonight, and was happy to fill in for her to serve as the primary spokesperson tonight for this this effort. So the next steps are outlined there. Following the discussion tonight, we would look to kick off that stake stakeholder group probably again, within like a month or so. and then we'll continue to review the best practices and summarize those, and draw comparisons to how boulders current practice compares to some of those current national best practices. and then by fall is when we're targeting to have the guidelines update complete and likely, when we would come back to Tab to present that more complete document to you.

[67:02] So the action requested is summarized here. Again, we anticipate that this would function pretty similarly to the speed limit setting and signing project of which Alex is the representative currently with Becky as an alternate and this is probably just the the level of effort anticipated for the Pictig update and you could anticipate that for the signal timing practices update, it would likely be a similar level of effort. So. in a sense, asking you to kind of commit to double what's shown here on the slide. So somewhere on the order of 4 to 6 meetings that would be either virtually or in in person, and then some homework, such as reviewing national best practices and overall methodologies that are developed that would range maybe from 4 to 8 h.

[68:04] So that is what I have tonight and open to your comments and and helping guide the discussion as needed. Thanks, Devin. These come up a lot when community members have questions or ideas of crossing so excited. See if these are going to be revisited. Do you have a sense of when the first meeting is gonna be taking place? Which month? Yeah, that's a great question, Alex. I think we're probably at least a month or 2 out from the first meeting. Okay, would it work? Since they're only since my term is coming to an end, and they're only 2 candidates here tonight. Could would it be okay with you if we delayed one month to have attorney here for the conversation. Yeah, I'll defer to Natalie on procedure. Yeah, we we thought that might be the case.

[69:02] we weren't sure if she was gonna join the conversation by now. So yeah, I think we can figure out either offline or you know, in the intervening time. If we need to get a meeting scheduled, then we can certainly just figure that out offline. Okay, yeah, let me know if there's a more pressing, scheduling need. I can touch Base with Trinity in the meanwhile, to make sure that she's aware of this, and then can maybe revisit this at the the next meeting, if it's time to meet as the for the group, or maybe even another month, when there'd be all 5 feature members here that to sort through all the appointments. Sounds good. We'll stay in touch on this right? Thanks, Devin. And yeah, yeah, thank you. Somebody soon dealer.

[70:04] So I'm gonna be grumpy and ask, why, why are we doing all this whole step of stakeholder engagement? I mean, as part of the transportation master plan update that we did. We had a pedestrian advisory committee turned into a pedestrian Action Committee because they wanted to keep going with the work even after they were done serving as part of the update was done, we developed a low stress walk walk and bike network. We have the vision 0 action plan which says, Go ahead and do this. At what point do we have to just say, you know, the city staff are experts in this. We've been, you know, tasked with paying attention to this. Why, why should we take more time for city staff to talk again and start a conversation afresh, especially if it's going to be the the usual suspects we're already in regular contact with on on the speed limit. Stuff, you know. What level of engagement is this is this? Inform? Consult whatever you know in that that wheel. And what value is that? Gonna add to this process? I'm just so frustrated sometimes that we spend so much time

[71:11] allowing navel gazing, and we don't end up necessarily with a better product for it, and we don't end up avoiding criticism from the uninformed under informed too late to the table. People who are just gonna complain, anyway, what is stopping us from being enlightened despite here and letting Natalie and her staff say, here's what we're gonna do. We've got the best practices. This is our plan. We're going to inform the whole community at once. So is that directed. Would you like me to respond? So I think I appreciate that question. I'll I'll be honest. We had lots of conversation about what's the appropriate way to engage with stakeholders on the various vision. 0 Action Plan update kind of foundational pieces of work.

[72:07] and you know, from my perspective, I think we hear oftentimes, even from you know, folks that we regularly talk to in the community that They want more opportunity to either be informed or consulted. When we're doing work like this. And this is pretty foundational work, because so many of our decisions that we then make right going forward day to day are driven by the guidelines and the practices that we put in place. And so I think it's important that absolutely we be clear about what we're, you know, doing with engagement with the stakeholder team. And and it will be there will be an opportunity to consult and to provide some, input and also will also be clear that at the end of the day there's engineering decisions that need to be made and the technical experts will need to make decisions and then inform the the stakeholder group. So.

[73:12] But II think, based on the community that we work in and what we've learned over time that it would be. I think we would potentially need to spend more time going back and having conversations if we don't allow time in the process from the beginning. I'm just saying the beginning has already begun. The beginning began in 2018 and 2019, when we were getting this transportation Master plan kicked into gear. We II forget how many live, did an excellent job with this pack, and I was the person that pack, and we had at least 6 different meetings, and we I have a binder in this room of, you know, of all of the stuff that was compiled. And you know, a separate section of of my brain dedicated to low stress walk and bike network. We've been waiting for this update for the longest time, and I feel like you've already gotten all of the input that you need to get going.

[74:09] I would like you to just turn the key in the back of our automatons and say, you know, pick some intersections, pick some designs, plunk them in because you you're not starting now. You've already started. You started years ago under previous management, Natalie. and instead of telling pack members, thank you for your service. We'll take this notebook and shove it in a drawer somewhere, and then redo the effort in 4 years utilize the time, utilize the staff talent and agency and effort that these people went through already because you've already got, I think, enough information to go on. I don't think you need to. Yep, that's helpful. So if you're talking specifically about the picting, I think that that's helpful feedback, and we can go back and reference the work that was done through the Predestine Action Plan Committee work.

[75:01] So we hear you on that piece of it. And we can see how that will potentially inform our engagement approach with this work. I was think so. I know. I know I was thinking, though, like holistically, with the next phase of the work, that Devin referenced. there will need to be more opportunity for engagement and for feedback and so I hear you on the Pedestrian Action Committee work that was done. We will look at that, incorporate it into the work that we're doing with picnic? and we'll follow up on that. Okay. I've been frustrated with this for years, like you know about how slowly some of these processes unfold, and I still have never. I'm keeping my ears out. I have never heard a good articulation about when we decide whether or not to pursue community engagement, and at what level that is, you know, for all of that consultant work that happened years ago about engaging the community and conversation and decision making. It's still so squishy. And you know, this seems to me like an excellent time to just whip out the inform level. And you know. And say, here's what we're planning to do. Let us know what you think. We're all ears before we start painting this stuff.

[76:22] But start there, start there. Alright, I'm done alright that no, that's helpful. That's helpful feedback. And we'll talk about it. Thanks ready. Thanks. Yeah. This is actually so kind of calling it a tangent related to working groups and assigning people to working groups. I'm wondering if there's is there a reason that working group. whenever there's kind of one of one of these working groups that has to be a tab number fulfilling it versus other members of the community. So is the question, for. like with this example with the stakeholder working group. Will there be other members from community as part of it? Is that what you're asking?

[77:07] No, I just. I know more because there are a variety like of of these different kinds of working groups that come up for different like there's the South Boulder Road one, and there was an airport, one and Boulder Junction one and others. and a for me. I mean, I really appreciate the opportunity, but I haven't been able to attend any of the meetings. Because they mostly conflict with work for me and and I'm just wondering both because it'd be hard to do tab meetings and working group meetings. but also just because of this desire for involvement from more community members to some extent. if is it? Is there like any. Any reason why that kind of designated person couldn't like has to be a tab person versus another pool of of people. For instance, people who want to be on Tab, but maybe aren't selected but could be available for a working group participation slot is that I'm just wondering if anything anything like that is possible. Or if there's a reason, that's not.

[78:10] Yeah. II think one of the our intentions around having a tab member is that they're a conduit you know, to provide information back to the board, and and then vice versa. Right? So And also we have other, you know, members of the working groups or stakeholder groups. And so potentially, there's an opportunity to have somebody who would like to be on tab, you know, and it be on Tab, but wants to get involved in these types of things. I think there's opportunity for that. You know, in so probably select ways, cause we can't have 20 people on a working group. But yeah, I think I think that's something like, if if that's something you want to follow up on. If you have somebody in mind feel free to reach out to me, and we can definitely have that conversation.

[79:01] Thank you. Thanks. I know the common frustration, I think, with picktig is that it's people either want an an upgraded crossing somewhere, or and often it's not possible, because aren't the pedestrian volumes, or too close to a signal, and the document is very rooted in engineering judgments and data and asking people what they think and feel is probably gonna run counter to the engineering judgment and data settings. How I think they'll need to be mindful about the expectations going in. And it it won't speed. We're gonna have the community set engineering standards. But that's gonna need to be engine engineering standards that the community is reacting to. Yeah. Well, said Alex, I think the way I tried to ask. That is like, what's the value added to this, that that we would get out of that. And I think we've gotten the value. I don't think there's gonna be anything surprising that comes out of the stakeholder groups.

[80:02] You know. I walk on Bleeda and I cross Ninth Street and cars never stop. We you're just gonna hear that. Okay, go fix it. You guys are the experts we hear you. Alright. Thank you. Devin and Ally. Thanks for taking those questions and thoughts. Any other matters from Staff this evening. that's all we have. Thank you. Thank you. I'll move on to matters from the board. Our main thing tonight are to discuss items that might be included in the City Council letter. And Becky, and you've been working on this for many months appreciate you keeping us in for it from? Does you flush out the concept of parking reform and touch base with community members and councilmembers and

[81:00] Tila. Thanks for forwarding the white paper on reactions to fatalities within our transportation network. I didn't email anything. But I'll talk about Ken surprise surprise Either you want to go first on. Are there your items or the letter overall? I was hoping to just ask ask a question before we get into it, which was I just didn't understand. Under it says, under on the agenda, 2 to 3 community matters and 2 to 3 existing work items. So I assume this is guidance for how to create like, write the letter. But I'm not sure what it exactly. It means. Like. what does. Yeah. Is this guidance that city council gave. I think I think Alex and Becky and I can just go off off mute and just have a conversation here. I think it's just gonna our thing right now.

[82:03] Yeah, I don't. I don't. Just those 2 bullet points. I just didn't know. I don't know what counts as a community matter and existing work item, and what that means, as far as what we're supposed to. they second your question. yeah, just pull up the email that Meredith sent us a week ago Council invites you to share the top 2 to 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind and or the top 2 to 3 items on your group's existing work plan for Council's awareness ahead of their annual retreat. Okay? So Natalie gave us a little bit of a rundown last month on the work plan. I can't buy my notes from then, but I'm relying on the minutes, cause they're great. and I, you know I kind of had the the sense like having done this a few times.

[83:03] there! There is no better exercise and utility the tab does than to try to like come up with its own bright idea and impose something on, you know, Staff, that is not on their work. Plan reasonably be shoehorned into something. Cause these things on. It's like, you know, it's like trying to introduce a a budget item. You know, the year that that things are spent, and we've actually been budgeting for for years. So II would appreciate, just as usual, kind of thinking about what's already on Staff's work, plan, and what what we can, I think, hope to highlight as areas of opportunity for council to emphasize, prioritize or, you know, put their thumb on the scale while you're already thinking about signal policy, you know. Please, please. II you know affirmatively consider right turns on red, you know, Banning, right turns on red, and, you know, making all left turns in a central business district

[84:04] protected only that kind of thing like that kind of thing, asking Staff to to think about while they're already going to be doing some work. II think we are fortunate to have someone as as a sort of blunt, as Natalie will tell us. Yes, no, possible, not without a whole lot of double speak, because II remember at previous retreats, when I was quite new to tab, having impossible goals on our whiteboard, our retreat that we wanted counsel to to to look at, and there was just there was 0 chance. It was gonna happen And so if we're gonna be, you know, useful in terms of trying to to point people in the right direction. We have to at least be mindful of where the arrow is already flying. so in that respect, I think we're probably all 3 on board with can remaining an ultra priority right?

[85:04] Proceeding new pace. And I think Becky's draft letter highlighted that she and I have discussed it. I don't know that an ordinance is either advisable or possible. for a year or 2. Work plan. Item. Becky, I don't wanna put words in your mouth. But the the gist that I got was she wanted and I entirely agree with this perspective to make certain elements of a design on all arterial roadways in the can network to include certain minimum sort of standards. for pedestrians, for cyclists and micro mobility for transit. Where we have transit lines. Is there anyone on can that doesn't have? No, they all have transit. And I and I really appreciate that perspective. I think

[86:01] for too long we've been to. Yeah. Wedded to the idea that in in context, sensitive design, you have to accept what what is there now is sort of the baseline requirements, and I think we should be asking more of our community and more of our roadways. And I think that's where Becky was trying to get at with her with her proposed ordinance. So to some extent I think we should, we should reiterate the necessity of keeping can as a high priority. Item. and bearing in mind, council doesn't direct staff. But council identifies sort of what's important and what they want staff to focus on so without being too prescriptive. I think there's a lot of room for us to to craft something that says keep can at the top of the radar cause. That's really it's multi-year effort, and it's frustrating. But we still mean it. This is the third year in a row. We will have been raising it. So that's great And then same for sort of signal policy and crossing treatments like I mentioned. Like, if if they're I understand, Staff is already gonna be doing

[87:12] looking at that signal policy document. And it's it's basically just current practices is where it's at now. It's not really. It doesn't really have much policy. considerations. The documents pretty thorough about the trade offs of different decisions and different types of of environments. For how you have the signals operate. but if we want them to be, if we would like council to urge Staff to consider no right on red or protective left term phasing either citywide or in certain very congested areas or time of day kind of things. I think that that's an appropriately high level enough thing, and still sort of meshes which was already on staffs work plan to include

[88:02] Oh, gosh! And the parking minimum stuff, Becky, that's been fantastic work. Thank you for doing all that here letter with all the outreach for the boards. Or you know, from from individual board members. I think it's really telling that even with that level of buy in from a a disparate, you know variety of people. Who counsel has appointed to advise them that there's still some toe dragging but I don't think that that means we should be reducing our expectations. Or our, you know, requests like this. This is a much larger driver of land, use patterns and street use patterns and driving behaviors. Then, I think a lot of council members recognize, and fortunately we have a particularly insightful Council member now on transportation issues, and he might be the the megaphone that we need

[89:05] to convince other council members that parking, parking minimums, parking maximums. Allowing a lot of these decisions to be made by transportation staff that have their communities interest in mind as opposed to just the business community. I'm of course, talking about community vitality being in charge of a lot of policy making that I think it should not be in charge of, or not solely in charge of for our paid parking resources all over the city. So I would I would raise those 3 things I would say as our 3 things. that's that's kind of where I come out. so that you mind recapping. The 3 can parking, parking reform, general, and I think we could have, like a few bullet points under that. So taking away some stuff from community vitality and moving it to transportation, asking staff to focus on

[90:02] to consider Banning right turns on red and in and mandating more protected left turns either city wide or within particular districts, or by time of day to to evaluate that as part of their work, both on the signal policies and on the picktig like those those are both. They're relevant for both of those and so can parking reform. What was my other one? That was kind of yeah. And then that was the so basically that. So it was. It was how yeah. signal policy and and picktig can can be talked about that parking reform, talking about parking minimums and moving it from from community vitality to transportation. And then can. okay. I feel like with Ken due to the recent successful grants like, there's no going back in some ways with what's what's coming up. And the Grants line with staffs.

[91:09] prior priority corridors. And so hopefully, that's not an ask of additional resources. It's mostly just staying in the course. I think with parking, a few of these can be consolidated like the movement out of Cb into T. And M. Can be a part of overall parking an overall parking effort. And then, if the signal updates are happening, I think that would certainly be involved, and have the opportunity to advise counsel and provide recommendations to counsel on that, and that might be an opportunity to look for identify opportunities like right turns on red left terms being protected, and whatever else might come up through that process to make sure that that update isn't just documenting what's happening, but start to address

[92:00] some of our biggest opportunities there. So to me, it it almost there's maybe something that can be mentioned in the letter, but doesn't need to be a council work, item can, if it's already. both can and signal policy feel like they're in the works and there are opportunities for tap to weigh in on those as appropriate moving forward. I'll just clarify, I think, based on just conversations that I've had with the city manager's office and other departments. I think. My understanding is this opportunity to kind of put forward the 3 biggest opportunities. Or however you want to kind of frame it, that you see, are necessarily, you know, they don't necessarily have to be a priority, that you want. Council, then propose right and their retreat discussion. It's more so.

[93:00] you know, say, the 3 that Tila highlighted are the 3 that you were to move forward in the letter. It's really just affirming that kind of like the work that the Department is doing is on the right track, or the work that the city and council are already, you know, behind are on the right track, so doesn't necessarily need. I just wanted to. I mean, you could certainly make new items but I just wanted you to know. I don't think that they're expecting 3 new items that aren't currently on the work plan. Okay? And while while Natalie's chiming in do you have any reaction to our desire to look at parking reform. to eliminate parking minimums, look at institution parking maximums. moving, parking out of community vitality, give them the airport very much out of the policy round decision.

[94:07] on one and 2. I think those are consistent with really the work that we have planned, and to begin in 2024 with our partners in PN. Ds and and then transportation, mobility and community vitality. We're all at the tables, you know, starting to scope that work. And so I think that's consistent with what we're planning to do ahead of us. And then, Natalie, I don't think you saw Becky's draft letter. But she wanted to. Thanks. Yeah. Mine wasn't supposed to be a draft of the letter. It was just like all the things I was putting forth for, like thoughts that I had on different areas. And I didn't. I don't expect us to include it all. And I definitely through our conversation. Tila? yeah, since I sent it. And then also just spending more time thinking through it, you know, have like refined thoughts on it. So yeah. So I think I agree that.

[95:09] I you know, I think on the signal policy work. Since that is on deck. I think that is something that probably just acknowledging that that's really important work. And you know, we're excited to see it move forward. Is sufficient. Or to to Natalie's Point, you know, highlighting things that are already happening that we're side about. So I think that's sufficient around intersections and signal, etc. yeah. But then revisiting the parking pieces because those are things they should be familiar with at this point. And I yeah, I sorry I don't wanna cut off too much. I have a couple of other things say, but, Alex, you were kind of in the middle. So I wanna I don't wanna take away from? Okay. yeah. And then one other thing II do. Wanna speak to Tila. You referenced. It is

[96:04] I don't know if I ever mentioned on these calls before. But that so the idea behind an ordinance, whether it's can specific or otherwise, is effectively for folks who might be listening in on the call. there, in some cities there isn't. So a lot of cities have statements around vision 0 and complete streets. And you know, aspirations for multimodal roads that serve multimillion purposes. But not many cities actually have that like, have any sort of mandate to actually do it, that is enforceable in any way. Which ultimately means that when you get to a roadway project and you're considering, you know, the new design of the road. You're essentially these conversations sometimes start back at the beginning of what are we going to do at this road instead of safety? Is our top priority, because we have an ordinance that says, we will

[97:02] design these projects to meet a certain standard for multimodal safety, and that standard can be defined in a variety of ways. It can be defined externally by standard like Mac Dose, or it could be defined by work previously done by the city or state, or whatever entity it is and say, well, our plan. So as an example in Boulder, we have a bike walk, low stress network plan. We have standards in that that say, this is what should be on this street. But then, when we get to a project that's not necessarily what gets built and that's even if it does get built that we, we have often happen to go through this engagement process where we start from the beginning of what should we do on this street instead of we actually already made a plan. Why don't we build to the plan? And I don't want to say so so. And I don't. You know, I don't think it's super prescriptive, and it to the extent that it's not getting into the details of the design or

[98:02] without, you know, it allows for consideration of many factors. But. importantly, these kinds of ordinances ex but specify what isn't an exception to safety. So, for instance, there's some out there that say like providing, if if there is no space for a particular mode, that on that road, that that mode must be served before more space is given to another mode that already has something on that road. So that'd be a case where you can imagine where you have multiple lanes for cars, or you have parked cars. and there's my, you know, instead of saying, Well, there really isn't enough space for this expansion of the sidewalk and protected Bike Lane instead of saying, Well, if there are those multiple lanes for cars, you have to provide that space for people walking and biking because they don't have it right now. And I think the benefit of it is changing the conversation of community engagement at the outset, because you're starting from the expectation of meeting a certain standard of safety and then, but also it's really getting policymakers to hold themselves accountable, so that you know the the

[99:08] the what we aspire to doesn't fall apart when we get to the project stage. That, you know, we bound ourselves to meeting the standard. So I think it just makes it more efficient in the long run. You stop having so many project by project battles over what's going to get Bill, which is really exhausted for everybody. I think. So anyway, I just want to provide that. I know, Alex. You both probably have that context. But just for folks who are listening, and I wanted to provide that. No, I think that's really great. But and so, Natalie, if you could wave in on that like, you know to the extent that Tmp is like a plan that's not really enforceable. But we do have like designing construction standards which are kind of more enforceable. Yeah. So that's where my mind went. And I'm sure the team that's here right now. Are thinking similarly. So. I think I under, I hear you and I understand what you're trying to accomplish, because really, you know, the documents that we have, aside from the Dcs. But, like our planning documents, the visionary kind of documents aren't enough, you know, teeth to project by project basically require a certain design. And so

[100:21] you're trying to think of a mechanism that basically requires it. When you go forward, do a certain thing. And there's a certain context, you have to design a certain thing a certain way. And I think that that would be the Dcs. Or Garrett said, or the Brc. We'd have to probably talk to the city attorneys off about that. But just the distinction. But I think you know where my mind went is we are, and I think we've I've mentioned this here with Tab. But you know, we were doing kind of a piecemeal approach of updating the design and construction standards over the last several years, I think starting back in 2,019

[101:00] and we just kind of recognize like it's gonna take us by the time we finally get through this update, it's gonna be time to start all over again. And so our hope and I think, planning development services and the broader city are supportive of the approach of us, doing a more kind of sweeping Dcs and VCR Brc, update and we're actually having the kickoff to kind of start scoping that this week. It would be a a very significant project from a budget request standpoint. So we're trying to essentially determine what the scope and fee would look like, so that we could put it together for a 2020 5 budget requests. But that would be the mechanism. I think that we would want to use to try to have that conversation right with council about where we. where we prioritize certain treatments in certain contexts, and and how that becomes a requirement. I think the Dcs updates the place to do that. Garrett, Valerie, others, if I missed anything, or if you have other thoughts to add, feel free to chime in

[102:12] alright. It seems like I maybe got it. I have one more question for Natalie, and that is when you said, you know, we're trying to see if if the staff is on the right track, or we need to be redirected or something. 1 one place, of course, we know that we're not on the right track is just through our transportation report on progress. Right? Like III still think transportation staff is grading themselves a little easy. That there should be more more yellow and red on that report card. And so I I'm just wondering if there's anything if there's any thing to be gained by us highlighting that we are not on track to meet. Our climate and our transportation goals by 2035 and would that help, you say? Secure more budget for

[103:05] transportation staff? Would that help light a match on more serious thinking about different ways to get money to raise revenue other than just sales tax again. We had a we had an effort a couple of years ago that went didn't really go anywhere. It considered a few things and didn't adopt any of them. But is there anything that we can do cause we think? We we keep having resource, related conversations. And if there's anything that we can do with this letter, say to sure up a request by you for more resources to the next next budgeting cycle. Yeah, I mean, I think, appreciate just the question. II think it is always helpful to just remind council of where we are or are not on track in reaching our goals and the metrics that we use. and you know our our municipal budget is going to continue to be constrained. Our transportation fund budget is going to continue to be constrained and and it really comes down to just priorities as a city and trade off. So having that information, I think, is helpful, and then it gives them. You know, that information as they go into a 2025 kind of budget cycle and thinking about that.

[104:31] Okay, Becky. you have any other input about what you think or I mean, are we coalescing around these 3 or 4 ideas? What do we? I had a follow up question for Natalie on the Dcs piece. So if if a project doesn't like what happens if a project doesn't fulfill the Dcs standards or the DC. Dcs. Second. thanks, Garrett, for shaming. Yeah for the record. Garrett Slater. Principal transportation projects, engineer. And so it's right there, front and center on the page one of the Dcs. That all public as well as private

[105:12] improvements and public right of way, are required to follow the Dcs. So we are not exempt as a city organization. From following our own standard, we often develop those standards with a level of rigor, so that they can be applied systematically across private development, so that we don't wind up with irregular improvements across the system. But we, as an organization to be very clear, are required to follow the Dcs. And if we decide to build something that is not consistent with the Dcs, we have to get director approval and and obtain a variance to be able to move forward with that improvement from the director. We have to get that that variance in place. So we are bound by the same requirements as private development.

[106:00] Okay, thank you. And and I'm sorry. I really, it's it detail. So I don't know detail, but does it speak to what like space is provided on the road for different modes? Or does it just speak to if you provided. This is how it should be designed. Yes, so it's I think I am answering your question directly. So the the Dcs includes street sections for the various classifications for arterials. There are difference there. There's the minor in the principle than for collectors, and then for local streets. And then we have a Bay Street standard as well, and within that we have specific dimensions that are required for bicycle lanes, for travel, lanes for vehicles and sidewalk widths, and our most recent updates that took place last year provided a host of updates to bicycle and pedestrian standards to make them more consistent with Nactile guidelines

[107:06] and provided more clarity for the different facility types for bicycle lanes, so that whether it's a standard or a buffered or protected there, there's much greater clarity on the the standards and the dimensions by which those facilities would be implemented. So so. thank you. Does that so that mean like that? If it would direct when to implement that facility based on the conditions of the road. Like as the bike, the bike walk plan does that. It says, you know these are the yeah. Okay, I understand your question better now. So the Dcs would not say, build a protected bike lane here, and a buffered Bike Lane. There it it will tell you if this street is to have a protected bike lane. This is what it should look like. It's our other strategic and master plan documents like the low stress walk and bike network, the transportation master plan, the vision 0 action plan that are all prescribing the liquid locations where those various designs and treatments are are applicable.

[108:12] Okay, great. Thank you. And so I think, then, kind of going back to sort of my earlier comment. II feel like then the Dcs. Doesn't wouldn't like an update to it. Not that it wouldn't be valuable for for other reasons, but that it wouldn't actually give that mandate to say that what we, our plan says we should do, we have to do so. The plan remains effectively optional. as far back the comment, I guess the question. But yeah. And I think that's the distinction between design standards and kind of what I'm describing in terms of an ordinance that would say, You know, we in these circumstance, you know, we would aspire. We would include whatever our plan say is the highest level of safety for different modes. That's what we include on any. For instance, major

[109:07] road reconstruction project or something. You can bound it any number of ways. That's yeah. Yeah. II understand kind of the nuance that you're pointing to. You know, I think it's an interesting question, and it certainly it would be a policy decision, right if they wanted to. essentially require that on certain corridors there's like kind of a predetermined design outcome. I think that would be challenging, just because the context, the physical context of each corridor, even a, you know, across segments of that corridor change so dramatically across the city. That to say. you know, no matter what it's going to get this certain design treatment, I mean, I we're not here to to influence what you wanna put in your letter? I you know, I think it would just be an interesting question for council to consider.

[110:06] Thanks. So yeah, I appreciate you helping me like your how interacts with other pieces of our you know what we have in place already, and I not very many places have these kinds of ordinances. Only a few do but there are some State agency who state agencies and a few handful of cities that have them. yeah. But I feel like, for a city like this is just me kind of a pining now, but I feel like for a city like in Boulder's position, that has developed so many of these great resources around guidance and whole setting that, like making that next level commitment to to, you know, providing space for each mode. Particularly on our major roads, would be beneficial over time. But that said, You know, if we don't want to highlight in this particular met letter. I'm not. I'm not. Gonna

[111:02] spend a lot of time delivering it further, is it? Is, is, is it? Okay? If I share a little bit of our recent conversation. About the quarter specific ordinance adoption. Okay? So we actually, so since we are working on the 15% design for CO. 7, also known as Easter Rapids, and we are also going to be initiating the 30 street preliminaries on preliminary design and corridor work. We want to make sure that future private development and public investment in these quarters are consistent with what the the quarter study recommendations and the preliminary design, say we should be building, and we, valerie and I, had a recent conversation with the city attorney's office, where they walked us through the process which is actually spelled out in the Brc. How to how to to move forward through it. That we would have an ordinance that establishes align on the map.

[112:00] and says that these are the improvements and the land that must be exacted for these specific quarter improvements, and then that that you can. So what we learn is you can do that corridor by quarter as we develop these these plans. I think that the caveat with that is, it would go with a a process like with a public process. I think that's an important distinction, because I that's I don't necessarily hear that kind of Becky and your original kind of idea. Where this is a a tool, right? Just as Garrett described that we can use as we go forward with Thirtieth Street, for example. And we want private development to build. You know what we envision for can along Thirtieth Street, but that will be tied to a engagement process. it wouldn't be, you know, just a blanket requirement for that corridor or for future corridors.

[113:02] Yeah, I think that's okay. I think I get the distinction here. And and and to be clear wouldn't mean there's no community input on a project just that. like in the case of Iris, the starting point would be currently, there's no space for bicycling. We have to meet a certain standard of space for bicycling. That means, like, you know we have. There's only this sort of starting point, for designs are are going to be limited to ones that meet that standard. so that would be the outcome of having an ordinance like this. Granted, there would have to be when they have to be written, you know, with with some very specific exceptions for certain cases, of design or funding limitations, or whatever, but but done carefully, so that it doesn't compromise value of having a mandate. So anyway, so box on it. But thank you. I really appreciate the insight feedback. Is, is there anything in the in the like?

[114:01] The overhaul of the Dcs. And Natalie's describing. Is there anything that prevents us from incorporating? Say that you know the nacto table that says on a roadway of X minimum width with X minimum, you know, daily traffic volumes and the speed limit. you know, if that a minimum level, you ought to put a protected bike lane and say, that's that's our expectation. And if we can't or there's other things, then you gotta gotta go get a variance from the director like that. That. Seems like it wouldn't maybe accomplish. What Becky and I would like to see. Is that a possibility for the Dcs. Or is there some fundamental reason that couldn't be incorporated into this kind of overhaul this kind of thinking. I'm I'm not sure, Garrett, do you have a response to that? We can look into that if that's if we don't have that information. Yeah, I believe that's already identified in the Dcs as well as the transportation master plan the the the classification. And then the classification spells out.

[115:01] the, the, the, the the type of criteria that you're describing. Tila. Okay. okay, I'm I'm still not clear when we can, like, you know. force the Tmp to be implemented versus me like, well, sorry Pbsd doesn't wanna build that connector? Oh, I'm going to the ground ground breaking tomorrow. I think this is how it's come up my whole time on Tab, beginning with people being upset at what was being built, and they were told. If you pop the Tp update, then moving forward, only what's in the Tmp will be constructed. And I'm not sensing that's quite the case when it comes to Iris, where it sounds like the low stress walk and bike network indicates that it's to be built with vertical separation. And what we've heard is that it's possible that alternatives will be considered that don't include vertical separation. So be a little reluctant to even, you know. Go down the rabbit hole of updating the Dcs to try to

[116:04] solve something that is really just a policy decision that needs to be probably made at the council level. And we can draw out process on corridor studies and design standard updates. but really, to the earlier point about lack of progress on Tmp and and need for more money, I think in the case of Iris we can go build what's in the Tmp. And that would make progress towards the Tmp. And save a lot of money and free up staff time to work on the next thing. So II don't know what to do about this or in this thing part of me thinks the best time to do. It would be in conjunction with the Tmp update, with a broad understanding that when we Update this Tntp, we mean it. If the line on the maps is there, it's the intention is that when we there aren't

[117:01] there's no wiggle room when we when we finally get to implementation. So I think we absolutely need an ordinance. I'm I don't know if now is the the moment for it, though. Yeah, and I'm I'm okay with. If we don't want to make it a priority item this time. I think we'll make it a priority. That's great that I think it's great. The council members know about this as a mechanism people often refer to as the the Cambridge Approach the Cambridge Ordinance, that they have results there. And it's because of an ordinance and time with time. They've fully maintained and rebuilt their network. And it's produce things at a faster rate than it's we're seeing here. So there's one on the ballot right now in la, so that would be a big city without this kind of ordinance if it, if it passes

[118:02] cool. needs it. Okay. So next steps on this letter. we haven't heard a thing from tree. Becky, would you want to write? Or do you want me to write a draft to propose to circulate for next time? The way this often works is, we have a draft like like what you sent around. You know. BCC. Individual comments come back to the author and revise as well as possible before the next meeting, and then often this portion of the meeting, like what we just did. We will just revise it in real time. So we have it, you know, as good as we can get it going into the meeting. And then the final sort of word smithing happens in real time, often on a shared Google, Doc. during the meeting. So that's that's probably how we're gonna have to handle this one. What if you compiled the whole thing? But I send you some draft can like a draft paragraph on can. And, Becky, you send a draft paragraph on parking.

[119:08] Just we only send it to Tila. Tila compiles it, and then we all get see it at the next meeting. I think that's great. Well done, Mister Chair. It's always good to spread the workout we have until then, the twenty-second to send the final version. And so our March twelfth is the 12. So probably not. Eleventh, okay. deeper. Okay, I have nothing else. she says. Famous last words. Oh, I do have something else. I sent you that stuff on emergency streets. I've talked to both Becky and Alex about it.

[120:06] Can can I mention it in the letter as as as a thing to be looking into? I don't think it would fit on Staff's work plan for this year, anyway. But to, I don't know. Explore possibilities of boulder piloting such a project as part of its business 0 something or other. or would you rather I just leave that out of this this letter? It might distract a little bit from this. Have you sent it independently to council members, and you've talked to a couple. But have you sent it to the entirety of council? Not as a group? No. okay. I think it as a stand alone thing. It might not just be like a one more thing on the letter, but like the proper full attention it deserves. and I'd love to talk about that more at next month if if you want to. I would love to. and it'd be great to hear from from staff as well.

[121:05] but their thoughts on it alright like as deal. And I talked earlier today. My support for or against would be somewhat dependent on. But Staff thinks of it. If it. If Staff is totally supportive, it might not need to be a council priority. If it were gonna happen, and if it seemed like a very heavy lift that were, would require some shuffling or more time than that might not be the time for it to be a council priority. So but sounds like it's been well received, sort of broadly, and so good to talk about it as a group more, and hear from Staff when we do. Seems that way. Maybe just people are nice to me. I don't know. Okay, well, then, I have nothing else. Thank you. I don't know much. I've had every sense speed limit setting, working group incredibly in depth, analysis, and sort of approach to the framework that I think

[122:06] it took us a while to go through all the the process and the the rationale behind it, but then, seeing the tool in action it seems relatively straightforward. and generally will be a mechanism that can be used to make things more consistent, and also hopefully a little bit slower, and that will be presented at Tab next month, I believe. So that group is wrapping up because that was funded through a grant, and this those funds were expiring this summer. So I think they're trying to finance the whole thing in June. But we're gonna get an update in March. So, looking forward to everyone, getting to see what we saw last week. Any other matters from the board not seeing any. That's the agenda, and can entertain a motion to adjourn

[123:03] next Tila. I second. That's Becky, all those in favor unanimous of 3. Let's thanks everyone. Thank you. See you next month. Thanks. Have a good night.