November 18, 2024 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] And I'm seeing alright. Thank you. It is 8 pm. On November 18, th 2024. I am calling the November Tab meeting. Hi trainee to order before we get started I will turn it over to our technical host. To review the rules of engagement because we are meeting virtually on zoom. I will begin by sharing my screen. All right. Thank you for joining the Transportation Advisory Board meeting to strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security, the following rules will be applied. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the city of boulder activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time for speaking is limited. For 2, 3 min no person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding, and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted.

[1:01] Each person shall register to speak at the meeting, using the person's real name. Any person believed to be using a name other than the one they are commonly known by, will not be permitted to speak. Please use the raise hand function to be recognized for public comment. If you're on the phone, you will need to press Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. No video will be permitted. Except for city officials, employees, and invited speakers and presenters, all others will participate by voice. Only. The person sitting at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rules. The question and answer function is enabled, it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should only be used for technical online platform related questions. If an attendee attempts to use Q&A. For any other reason other than seeking assistance from the host. The city reserves the right to disable the individual's access to the chat. Only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen. During the meeting. Big deal.

[2:01] Thanks very much. I we will move directly now to item 3. The approval of the minutes. We have 3 sets of meeting minutes to approve this evening. I am confident we've read through them. And I would prefer to go through them one at a time. So, turning 1st to the August 12th minutes, August 12, th 2024 August meeting minutes, which were revised per my suggestions to better reflect. Sort of a joint planning board. Tab item. Are there any other amendments? And, Meredith, I guess I want to check what got circulated? We had some redlining or like was showing the changes which is helpful. But the the final assuming we approve the minutes. It'll just look like regular minutes. Is that fair? Okay, thank you. All right any further amendments or comments. Darcy, go ahead.

[3:01] Just my. My last name is misspelled, and the Board members present, so you might want to correct that. Thank you. Queenie. No, okay. Alright. Well given Darcy's minor correction. I will entertain a motion to approve. The August 2024 Tab meeting minutes. I second it. You move. All second treaty moves all second. It was Darcy. Seconds, years! Will it take. All in favor show hands or verbal. Okay, thank you. Those are, approved the September 9 min So I've noticed that the minutes look like they're in a different format for the more recent ones. Is there a reason for that?

[4:02] Yes, that is in an accessible style. Format for readers. Okay, understood. I appreciate it. They are incredibly thorough, as usual. So I have no suggested changes for the September minutes. Does anyone else have any comments, additions, changes for the September 2024 meeting minutes. Okay, terrific. I will entertain a motion to approve those. I move to approve this. Oh, my goodness, thank you! Amazing. Second, all in favor. Great, thank you. That's unanimously approved. The October 9, 2024 meeting minutes. Does anyone have any corrections or adjustments on the. 14.th Okay, that would be helpful. Thank you. Correct.

[5:02] I'm just looking at our agenda. I didn't actually pay attention to the date, but. And. Details matter? Any other corrections? I think that one thing that I would note sorry. Let me find them. To me. It was a little unclear Nope, not that one whether the the basically the tab member sign on to the letter that Mike and I wrote to me. It sounded like it, said Tab. Members will individually sign I just wanna make it clear that tab members at the meeting agreed to have their names added to the letter as drafted. Can we clarify that language, Meredith? Does that make sense to you?

[6:00] Yes, okay, thumbs up all right. So that would be my my amendment. I don't need feel the need to prescribe particular language. I just would like to make sure that we clarify that tab member signed on to that letter at the meeting rather than they would individually sign later. And I did submit. The letter via the online portal. Okay? So with that very minor amendment, and checking that the date is correct, I will entertain a motion to approve. The October 2024 Tab meeting minutes. I move to approve. Oh, there's Mike! Yay. 3 seconds! Oh, Trini gets it. Trini gets it. He gets it all in favor. Hey! Terrific. Those are approved as well. Thank you. Again, Meredith. Great work. Okay. We will move now to public comment.

[7:02] I see a few people have joined the meeting since I last looked. This is your chance. If you're a member of the public, and you would like to address Tab on any matter to to raise your virtual hand. and I will turn it back over to Veronica. Jen Oaks, I'm gonna ask you to confirm. You can speak. Hi! I know as it might not be relevant. But I saw you were talking about pedestrian crossings. And I just wanted to raise 2 comments. One was from the low vision community. They had concerns cause a crosswalk on Broadway. Can't remember what Cross Street and I said that can't help. but it's more diagonal than straight, and that's hard for them to navigate, because they're used to just go straight across.

[8:10] But obviously we can't do anything about that now. But you know, just keep that in mind. And then the other comment is, I love the free standing crosswalk buttons because you don't have to go all the way toward traffic, which can be scary sometimes, especially in a mobility device. So I just want to say kudos to that, and I love to see more on a route. How, if possible. Doctor. Thank you, Jennifer. It's nice to hear from you again. We. Yeah, we would like. We recognize your time on Tab. Appreciate your contributions, and I'm so glad you're still paying attention to this stuff.

[9:01] I do pay attention. Yeah. Good. Alright. I will ask Lynn to confirm the unmute button. I didn't know Jennifer was gone. I thought someone from Cavs talking on open comment. That's not right. So, anyway, takes me a bit. But I'm here out at the water treatment plant. I'm going to testify, just testified with them about water issues for all this growth that's going on. And they're doing a water plant tour tonight. So I had to come out here to do that. And of course I wouldn't want to miss testify in a tab. But you know the latest thing is the 777 Broadway, which ironically, was the homeless shelter supposed to be like 15 years ago, 20 years ago Mark risen, changed his vote. 2 weeks afterwards he was a swing vote. So it ended up in way, way, Nobo. So now we're doing all this transportation of all these homeless people going into suburban, homeless shelter, which is, you know, it's kind of like the disaster of Costco which happened years ago, you know, because Superior got Costco. And now we're commuting out. Everyone goes to Costco from all over Boulder. It's like not

[10:22] the 15 min Neighborhood right? So at 7, 7, 7, Broadway. What we've got now is Jared Polis on steroids for this occupancy limit lift. And what's interesting, at 777, which just got approval for demolition from a Lebanese guy that owns it, and that's the only reason I'm glad it got demolished is that he'll get piles of money. These demolitions are, you know, big money operations instead of 40 units. There they'll have 222. So I and I'm on the Lebanese side of things and Palestinian side. So I totally appreciate the fact that he's getting something out of this, because otherwise I really don't approve of demolitions like this, certainly, but it's a beautiful Hobie Wagner. There's a pyramid at the top with these clear story windows. It's just incredible. It's really sad that it's going down. But I'm glad for him. But in any case, 222

[11:25] by the bedroom. Their parking reduction is 57%. There's the and they have get this. They have 2, 3, and 5 bedroom units. I don't know the distribution of each of them, but I bet a lot of them are 5, because. you know, as a developer, you can cram 5 people into one, you know less bathrooms, one kitchen, one laundry facility, you know you make a lot more out of it. and you can do it because Jared's pushing it right, and it's a good idea, in a way. But Marpa House was a much better idea, I think, for a true communal living situation. These are just panaceas for developers. And then they get these parking reductions, too, what you know all these people populating, you know. You can't go to the farmers market and catch your.

[12:23] It's Flynn. Okay. Alright. Let me see, let me restart the clock. Kurt. Could you confirm? You're able to unmute yourself. I could unmute. Can you hear me? Yes, perfect. Great. Thank you very much. Kurt Nord back speaking tonight on behalf of community cycles. Alexi Davies, who is our ordinarily ordinary spokesperson, is unavailable. So I'm trying to step in, and I will also say that it was great to hear Jen and really appreciate her service on the board, and I'm glad that she is continuing to give input. At least we really appreciate that.

[13:07] I just had a few comments on the the pedestrian crossing treatment guidelines. You should have received an email from us about that. and we just have a few points. 1st of all, we do appreciate very much that the city is working on this, and we appreciate that significant improvements were made based on our earlier comments. So we're really grateful for that. There are a few things that we still have yet to that we feel that where there are improvements that could be made there's still a number of places where it talks about the trade off between safety and delay or mobility. and yes, there is a certain trade off to be made there, but the emphasis should be on safety that's consistent with vision 0. It's consistent with the transportation, master plan, vulnerability, comp plan, and so on. So we think that that needs to be clarified.

[14:11] We would also like to see greater emphasis on raised crossings which are highly effective treatment. And the standard practice, for instance, in the Netherlands, on the the crossings of what they're they're equivalent of multi-use paths. For example, we feel that they should be a standard treatment and multi-use paths near schools, maybe near near rec centers and parks, other places in particular, where there's a significant number of young people crossing. And last, we're concerned about the complexity and sort of bespoke nature of the process that's being outlined. And we're concerned that the amount of staff time and effort that that will take. We know staff is very busy and has lots of other things that they could be working on.

[15:07] and and so we would like to see that ideally simplified, streamlined and made more efficient for everyone. So those are our comments. Thank you very much, and look forward to hearing your discussion. Thank you, Kurt. And then it looks like Lisa. You have your hand up. Could you confirm? You're able to speak. Yeah, mommy's gonna talk. Can we be quiet? Please? Sorry. Leanna's asking about Kurt. so yeah, thank you for your time. So I was part of the working group on the pedestrian crossing treatment guidelines. And I really appreciate that the city is taking this on because I know that it's something that is

[16:04] really impactful in terms of the pedestrian experience. And sorry, I'm just gonna walk away for a second and I do think that. The draft that's out there so far is a really great improvement on the 2011 guidelines. But I do have some outstanding concerns. And I had sent an email. So I'm not gonna repeat everything that I had said. But I did also work with community cycles on the initial draft of feedback that was sent in, so I would echo a lot of what Kurt had just said. But then the the 2 other big things in addition to to raise crossings. Are how the city decides whether to put a crosswalk on just one side of the street versus both sides of the street, because there are some instances where it's just on one side of the street, and it can result in

[17:04] needing to cross multiple extra times like the example that I had put in the email and then the other big thing that I know isn't technically part of this update. But as part of the signal timing. Update is that this has some changes to use. Red indication like hawk signals and pedestrian pedestrian signals. which I think is really great, but I think it could also result in people crossing unsafely if they need to wait a really long time to cross the street. So, for instance, on Arapaho, before the city put in a crosswalk at, I think, 20 second, and Arapaho there was a pedestr. There is still a pedestrian light, but people didn't really use it. They kind of just crossed when there was a break in traffic and and ran across so I would be concerned about that happening if people need to wait a long time. And also, you know, just standing outside and inclement weather, and it extending the length of time it takes people to get places.

[18:13] So those were the the 2 biggest things, I think, in in addition to what What Kurt had mentioned. And I think the the one other thing I want to share is, I know this is just a tool, and the city has has other tools they can use, which are maybe outside of the scope of this document. But, for instance, the stock addresses like how to get across a 5 lane roadway at 35 miles per hour. When you know. Maybe we should be thinking about whether we should have a 5 Lane road running through the densest part of the housing in the city. and so thank you for your time. It doesn't look like anyone else has their hand up, Tila.

[19:01] Right. Alright public comment going once, going twice. thank you. As always, to the members of the public who bother to join us and pay attention to how the sausage is made. We listen to you and we appreciate your input. Well, we will now close public comment and move to item 5 on the agenda, the staff briefing and Tab feedback on Pictig. the Pedestrian crossing treatment implementation guidelines. Thanks. Tila. Valerie Watson, interim director of transportation and Mobility. I just wanted to say a few quick words, you know, really appreciate the team effort here, the participation of our community, many of who were commenting here tonight and in the staff time that's gone into this update, it's really a key piece of our vision. 0 action plan. It addresses 2 of the top 7 most common crash types

[20:03] across the city. And and that's why it was one of the priority initial actions from the vision. 0 action plan. So just just one. But a very key piece of the puzzle for accomplishing our vision 0 and Tmp goals. And the draft before you tonight represents significant strides forward in improving the level of crossing treatments that are recommended for any given location. And we really look forward to discussing this with you all tonight. I'm going to hand it over to Steven and Devin. Excellent thanks for that, Valerie, and I think, can I please get screen sharing access? It is not allowing me to do that right now. Yes. Can you try one more time, please. Awesome. It looks like it's working now. Thank you. Perfect.

[21:06] So hopefully. Folks are now seeing the presentation great. Yes. Awesome. So I think with that again. Thanks for the intro Valerie. My name is Steven Rijo, and I'm the city's transportation planning manager, joined by Devin, Devin, Joslin, the city's principal traffic engineer, and we're here to chat through the pedestrian crossing treatment guidelines so with that the flow tonight will be some background on the project. The feedback we received from the working group highlights of the update some examples of the crossing treatment selection matrix and how the updated matrix will be applied, and then we'll end with some next steps before getting into Q&A, and just wanted to say that the goal tonight is to share this near final draft guidelines before we go back to finalize some items and really want to discuss how they will impact the way the city handles pedestrian crossing treatments going forward.

[22:01] So with that, 1st guidelines were published in 96, and last updated in 2011. So I've been working at this for a while, to have a consistent standard way to evaluate crossings. You know each iteration building off the last to improve the outcomes in pursuit of a consistent system that advances our vision. 0 action plan and transportation, mobility or transportation master plan goals which will be Vsap and Tmp here going forward. So with that these guidelines are really a key piece of the puzzle as vision. 0 Action Plan identified the need to update them as a specific action, and one that we prioritize jumping into sooner than later. 2 of the top 7 crash types. That account for 62% of serious and fatal crashes are involved in crossings. So addressing crossings can really advance those vision, 0 action plan goals. And so again, it's really baked into all the elements here, and then also wanted to say how this offers a chance to update with some of the national standards that mutct or the manual

[23:05] on uniform traffic control devices had a meaningful update recently. And so it really informs a lot of these treatment types and thresholds. You know, we don't want to be putting out one of a kind new treatments here, but instead want our Rfbs. And our hawk signals to look similar to those around the State and country. So there's that advantage of the standards having some adherence to provide that consistent user experience for folks who are moving throughout the system. You know, which we think is especially important in our community that often has folks visiting from all over. So. Stephen, what's the pro wag on that slide? Yeah. So that has to deal with. A lot of sort of the right of way. And how you make, you know, curb ramps really accessible. All? Yeah, that's sort of the quickest version. I don't know. The

[24:01] acronym off the top of my head. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I can get that one for you as we jump into QA. So moving along there, we, you know, heard really mixed feedback on how to best you know, structure our approach here, and so combined with this board, asked us to do which was move quickly, have a really streamlined approach. while also, you know, listening to the interest to engage the community and receive that feedback. And so we felt that the community working group was a really great way to move quickly while also understanding the community needs and their lived experiences. And how you know, these guidelines can improve things. And so you can see, listed there sort of the groups that comprised this community working group and who we met with during this process. So with that, wanted to share a few of the high level themes that we heard from the community working group. That then, you know, we'll speak to more in the remainder of this presentation, and so spend a lot of time chatting about alignment with, you know, the city's guiding documents. As I've mentioned vision 0 action plan. The transportation master plan.

[25:11] conversations about the use of posted speed versus operating speed. You know the crossing, spacing, and proximity, also the crossing treatment enhancements. So things like raised crossings, refuge islands, curb extensions, you know, heard a few public comments about that tonight. There were conversations about desire lines and pedestrian volumes. So you know how to handle the locations of crossings and their warrants. In addition to signal coordination, which again, there was a public comment on so sort of that interplay with other traffic control devices. accessibility and visibility enhancements. And then, lastly, a lot of interest in the treatment and prioritization criteria which we'll say, falls a little beyond the scope of this effort which Devin will speak about later, how the prioritization will be in an action plan that follows, and really the focus of these guidelines is, how do we evaluate anyone crossing?

[26:07] That hits the team's desk? So with that, I'd like to hand it off to the city principal traffic engineer Devin Jocelyn, to take us through the remaining slides. Yeah, thank you, Stephen. Again. Good evening, Tab. My name is Devin Joslin. I'm the city's principal traffic engineer. I'll be walking through some of the highlights of the update examples of how the new guidelines are expected to inform crossing treatment enhancements and next steps for the project. There are 2 key items that have been updated in the 2024 guidelines which include the pedestrian crossing treatment, Flowchart and the pedestrian crossing treatment selection matrix. These 2 items are the foundational pieces of how a crossing location is evaluated, and what treatment, type and other elements are ultimately recommended and installed. There are some new key items that have been included in the flow chart. These include key destinations that can be exempted from meeting minimum pedestrian crossing volume thresholds. And these key destinations include where the crossing connects both ends of a multi-use path

[27:17] is a crosstown bikeway or green street that crosses a multi-lane collector or arterial, or is contiguous with a transit stop, or public school. Another item added to the Flowchart is the review of crash history to determine whether a location that does not meet the required pedestrian volume, demand or qualify for an exemption as a key destination can have a crossing treatment installed, based on a history of 3 or more crashes in a 5 year period that would be correctable through the installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment. In addition, the revised crossing treatment selection matrix now generally recommends an Rrfb or a red indication under a much broader range of site conditions.

[28:03] particularly across the majority of site conditions that have the potential for a multiple threat crash to occur next slide. This slide shows a side-by-side comparison of the treatment selection matrix from 2011 as compared to the one currently contained in the 2024 draft guidelines. Note that there are now many more cases where Rrfb or red indications are recommended, based on site conditions. as you can see in the 2011 guidelines, red indications were only recommended where speeds were 45 miles an hour, or greater, or the street being crossed had 6 or more lanes. Now red indications are recommended across a much wider range of site conditions. and essentially at all speeds. When crossing a higher volume, that is, a street with 15,000 or more vehicles per day.

[29:04] that has 4 or more lanes. The next slide speaks to some other highlights and new approaches infused within the updated guidelines. These are items that are described in the memo and are reflected in the revised draft guidelines provided to you in advance of the meeting. These are also the items on which we expect most of the discussion this evening to focus. For that reason I won't spend too much time going into detail about them here. But I do want to address that staff carefully considered the use of posted versus operating speed within the crossing treatment, selection matrix. as noted in the memo, the use of posted speed aligns with the city's long term goal of consistently setting speed limits, using a context, sensitive methodology working to transform corridors, to achieve slower speeds and expanding automated enforcement, to facilitate slower speeds and better compliance with posted speed limits again, regardless of posted or operating speed. The updated crossing treatment selection matrix now recommends a higher level of crossing treatment across many more cases, and again, particularly those that involve a multiple threat.

[30:22] Signal coordination is one more topic area that will come into play more frequently due to red indications being recommended under a broader range of site conditions, and, as was mentioned, the upcoming update to the signal timing practices will dive into this topic in much more detail. I do want you to consider for a moment, though, the Broadway corridor that's adjacent to Cu. This is one example where, based on considerations of all users, including those taking transit signal coordination is essential to keeping all modes moving in an organized and efficient manner.

[31:02] Next slide. So these next few slides walk you through some examples where it illustrates how Staff has been successful pursuing and earning grant money to make important crossing enhancements at spot locations. These are the types of outcomes that you can expect to see from the follow on Strategic Implementation plan that we will begin working on next year. That plan will complete a more holistic, system-wide review of crossing locations with the objective of developing a comprehensive prioritized list of recommended enhancements. The plan will help Staff know where to pursue grant funding and how best to spend our limited local dollars to maximize crash reduction. The plan that will assure that as enhancements to crossings are made over time based on the updated guidelines, the city will remain well positioned to continue to pursue grant funding from a variety of sources to expedite implementation.

[32:11] This particular example illustrates how the city has obtained Ss. 4. A funds to enhance the crossing of Broadway at Norwood Avenue from an Rrfb. To a red indication which aligns with the treatment type the new guidelines would recommend. Next slide. Baseline Road and Canyon Creek Road is another example of a location where the city successfully pursued and was awarded hsip funding to enhance the crossing from an Rrfb. To a red indication in response to a reported crash pattern. In this particular case a full pedestrian signal is planned to be installed. The design is underway with construction anticipated to occur.

[33:08] Next slide, Stephen, please. Wait. Sorry, Devin. We lost you for a moment when. When. Construction anticipated. Sorry. Summer, 2025, construction. This example shows that even though Pearl Street has a slower posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour compared to the currently posted 35 mile per hour limit. That's on Broadway and Baseline Road. For the prior 2 examples. It shows that the new guidelines would recommend a red indication because of the number of lanes crossed and the traffic volume along Pearl Street. And this is another location for which the city proactively pursued and was awarded. Ss, 4. A funding to make the enhancement

[34:08] sorry if I cut out again. My Internet has been so glitchy at home. I apologize. We lost you at make the enhancement. Okay? The enhancement aligns with the new guidelines. That's that's the other key point to to illustrate. Here. And I I just wanna say my slides are not advancing. Is that just me I'm like stuck at. Oh, okay, never mind it. Okay. Confused never mind. Okay, and then next one. Steven. Yeah, thank, you. So the crossing app of Arapahoe Avenue at 13th Street was one we heard recent feedback about prior to this meeting. But it was an example that Staff had top of mind as well. In this case the new guidelines would recommend that the static signs be enhanced to an Rrfb.

[35:04] Based on site conditions. This is true even when the posted speed limit, when and if I mean if I'm sorry, it's really, really, when you'll you'll recall that there are plans to to lower the posted speed limit on this segment of Arapahoe to 25 miles per hour. That was a recommendation from the citywide speed limit setting project. But in this case, whether it's 25, or 30 posted, the recommendation would be to go to an Rrfb. And this location is not yet prioritized for enhancement. But it is a location for for which a prioritization ranking can be developed as part of that strategic implementation plan next slide. So thank you for the opportunity to present this work to you. Tonight. We welcome your additional feedback as we look to finalize the guidelines this year and initiate work on the Strategic Implementation plan. Thank you.

[36:10] Terrific. Thank you, Devin. I would like to open this up for questions. By tab I mean, it's big job well done, and I recognize not all of it is encapsulated right here. Because there is some of the work on signal timings. But do do members of Tab Darcy, go ahead! You have your hand up. Yeah, I just wanted to ask. And this came up in some of the public comment that we received. There's, you know, there's a description of the warrants, but we don't see any place where there's an explicit warrant for a desire line or a place where people are naturally crossing. And so I'm just curious if that can be made more explicit. As I read through the document. I don't see

[37:04] desire lines were sort of other than volumes, you know, other than observing pedestrian volumes at certain places. I don't see that connection being made, and the public was so clear about the importance of of creating crossings where people are naturally crossing. So can you speak to that, Devin. Yeah, I can. I can kick us off. I would want to point out with respect to that. And and I know Garrett's on the line as well. But I believe the example that we showed in one of the slides the before and after of the location at Colorado and 33.rd My recollection of that location is that that was a a location that had a known desire line. I mean, you could see the the footpaths through that Median. So that is a prime example where, given the the crossing behavior and what we knew about that location that has since been upgraded to the Rrfb. Through the use of grant funding.

[38:06] Right. I'm just asking if it can be made more explicit in the guidelines so that people going forward can really look for those locations. I just I don't see that in the guidelines I see more standard kind of warrants. Okay. yeah. I mean, I think where my mind went to a little bit is the discussion around the the spacing of crossings that's called out as well, and that would be a consideration if a desire line was the proximity of that desire line to another crossing location. Would be a consideration. But, Steven, if you've got anything that comes to mind relative to that. Yeah, no, I think you covered it. The one thing that I'd add is it played into the addition of some key destinations as locations that can sort of skip the warrants looking at places that are, you know, generators of trips to and from. So that was another way at trying to bake that into the decision flow.

[39:06] So I think what I'm hearing to follow up on Darcy's question is that desire lines by themselves don't get ranked. but they probably align with some of the other warrants that are showing up in the revised guidelines. Is that fair Darcy? I think. I did notice that that the warrants include like proximity, you know, connecting proximity to school. These are the kinds of places where we often see desire lines. So yes, and using that language in the guidelines could be helpful to make sure everybody understands what the what our staff are looking for. And yeah, no, I. Like. It seems like something that a location where desire lines show up. Yeah. Where pedestrians are crossing at unexpected locations is quite likely to already meet these criteria that you've said. But Darcy's asking is, can the desire lines themselves

[40:11] be? I don't know something that advances. Work. You know that. Move something up the ladder in terms of prioritization. Or is that a choice that staff is not making with these guidelines. And I bring that up just because we're hearing it a lot from from the public. And people want to know that that's being considered so. Yeah, I'm I'm trying to process the additional information there. I appreciate it. I think the other thing that came to mind with that is certainly, if there, if there was an example of a desire line that was known to the community, but maybe not to staff.

[41:00] I mean, this is an instance where, again, there's a balance between, how proactive can the guidelines be versus reactive to a request from the community? And I think in this case. If a request was made to evaluate a crossing at a location that had a desire line you know, consideration of that activity could be given to that location in evaluation. But that's not in the current iteration. Yeah. Well, I guess I mean, I guess, explicitly as it stands now, the request would put it in the queue to be evaluated. And it would it would have to be. Is that desire line serving one of those key destinations? Has there been a crash history or something else that would exempt it from the volume threshold. And if not, you would want to see the volume threshold be met.

[42:07] Okay, I'm just gonna double advocate here. Sorry, Darcy, if you want to do this, go ahead. I would myself interpret the fact that there are sufficient volumes of people to form a natural footpath in an unexpected crossing location as an expression of community desire and request for accommodation, and to seek a formal request through official channels is actually exacerbating a known problem with less affluent, less and

[43:01] I don't know. Enabled, you know, marginalized populations who have difficulty interacting with bureaucracies and city government and who are used to just making do. I would say that a desire line showing up in a location we haven't previously considered, and maybe don't have A formal thing through our inquire boulder. Mobile website. Kind of deal is itself a valuable piece of information that ought to highlight the need for our city government to Understand that there's an unmet need. I would count a desire line as a request. Second, tier. I can imagine this like around a high school or around a middle school, and middle school students are not. Generally they're not here. They're not watching, Tab. They don't know that this is something they can ask for. I think I think that the points raised by Darcy and you know well echoed by Darcy, but raised by other members of the community about the message that desire lines are sending is is actually worth something, and I think it is worth addressing in these guidelines.

[44:20] May I just ask a clarifying question? You know we're using the term Desire line. But but, Tila, what you were just describing is like an informal social trail, or. Yes. A worn path in the dirt, if you will. Darcy, could you clarify what it is that you are not seeing in in the guidelines again, just so that we we fully understand your your comment tonight. Sure. So, looking at the steps, for instance, of you know how to determine where to install a crossing. the you know the it includes proximity to transit stops. And you know, multi use pass and all that stuff. But there's nothing explicit in there about

[45:11] noticing a natural crossing that already exists. That I mean, this should be, I think, step one right where there's an existing natural crossing, like the like the image you showed Devin across Colorado right? That was, that was a very clear warrant for having a crossing in that place, right? And you and you acted on that and created a crossing there. But I don't. I'm just asking if it can be more explicit in the guidelines, so that Staff can be looking for these things as indicators, as part of the process of determining where to put a crossing in, because it's not explicit. There, you know, there's identification of pedestrian crossing locations. Blah blah cross streets. I just it's just not. It's not explicit. And if we could just.

[46:04] Are you talking about social trails or something different? Well, these I think of a social trail as more like something on open space and a desire line as something that connects important amenities. So, for instance, you know, from that community to the east campus and across, you know any anything that connects like a shopping center and a and a housing. or whatever I mean. A social trail is more sort of a line in the dirt, like the one that was paved off on the way to Bear Creek, elementary, for instance, off of Lehigh Street, right? That was a social trail that got paved as part of that whole kind of crossing across Lehigh, and it's also a desire line, but a desire line. In this case, I think I'm thinking of something more like the crossing across across Colorado to the Cu East campus, that Devin illustrated earlier, where there's a clear need for a connection for a crossing in a place that could be very dangerous for pedestrians. I think that that's that's what people are getting at. And that's what I'm noticing myself.

[47:12] Does that make any? I'm sorry if I'm not making sense? I'm trying to sort of. I'm trying to figure out how to put it into the guidelines in a way that's very clear, and that provides part of the warrant right that just says, noticing an existing crossing that is not formalized. Right. And and, Darcy, I think your point. If I could just maybe extrapolate further and just so that we, you know, have some some clarity for what we can take back and think about after tonight is that when we conduct? You know the volume counts that Devin mentioned. That's a proxy for activity that helps us measure. And you're saying that there may. there may be unmet or unobserved demand because of the land uses that that you're saying are connected by these desire lines. And is, do I have that right and that you're you're looking to also augment that quantitative data with more qualitative understanding of of those.

[48:13] Precisely. Of course. Precisely. I think that that's part of it. And I think that often, you know, we make these measurements at times, and I appreciate that the guidelines call out making those measurements at potentially, you know, the peak times to observe activity at that location. That's really really important. And when we're talking about transit users, shift workers, people who are, perhaps, you know, creating these these places. You know, these making these crossings at a time that may not be may not be observed. It just would help to have an extra layer put in to say, make sure that you know this is a consideration where there are informal crossings already created. Let's prioritize that. So yeah, I, yes, and.

[49:02] That's that clarification. Okay. Okay, sorry about sorry. I wasn't speaking as clearly as I should. No thanks for that question, Valerie. That cleared it up for me, too. Anything else, Darcy? Okay. Particular point. But if we, if we can get into just feedback. So, Trini, I saw your hand up. Do you have any questions. No, I was just gonna elaborate a little bit on what Darcy was talking about, and just how important it was to consider those organic. You know. For sure. Ways, network. Okay. Great. Any questions. Mike. Well, the feedback we got was that the reliance on volumes of pedestrians as indications of where you know treatment should be upgraded. Yeah. Is, you know, the metaphor of deciding where to build the bridge? By how many people are swimming across the river. So

[50:03] I guess I you know volumes have to be used in some cases. But what we're saying is other things need to be considered as well. Okay, well, I have a couple of questions, and then we'll get into feedback. I noticed reference to sort of you know, consideration of of volumes of traffic. I really appreciated the definition of like multiple threat. I think that was an excellent thing to to keep in mind mindful that the average size of the Us. Fleet is has expanded like by both literal dimensions and weight. Somewhere around 11% over the last 10 years. Are the size of vehicles expected on a route accounted for anywhere.

[51:04] I know that under our current tmp, we don't have things like, you know, truck routes or places where we generally see heavier vehicles. We, of course, know where buses are going, but delivery trucks are are becoming fairly ubiquitous Is there anywhere to account for the size of vehicles in terms of whether a an extra protection might be warranted. Not not currently. Is that a workable thing? Cause? I think our current data basically collects counts. You know, it's numbers of of wheels that are going over a particular roadway at a particular location. Yeah, I mean, I think so. It

[52:01] we probably do have the data in a lot of cases on the major streets as far as the vehicle classification. And you might recall from prior discussions. You know, Fhwis, 13 vehicle classes. Right? So. I think the challenge becomes ha! What, what vehicles do you choose? What's the threshold? And and all of that and I think, for the most part. as is shown in the matrix that you you get to the highest level, that rate indication under many more conditions. And so I do think you are covered just under under many more conditions. Now you're gonna warrant that highest level of crossing treatment. Okay. So that's not to say that your your point isn't well taken, and

[53:00] that it has value, but I I think it. It's irrelevant. It's come matrix, and I think you know to say that you'd want those types of vehicles to come to a complete stop at the crossing. Does make some sense. Yeah. And that's what they would be required to do under that red indication in the matrix. Okay, I'm I am. I can't quote chapter and verse, but I also noted that there was some indication. And I'm assuming, I on my mind went to Linden, to that downhill Linden and around Commia, or maybe a little bit north of there. Where? I'm sorry. Broadway at Linden, where there's a signal, and during certain inclement weather events the decision is made to no longer make vehicles stop at that light.

[54:05] Because the vehicles, some buses at some point in time, had difficulty stopping downhill in like snowy or slushy weather. And there was some reference in the memo about choosing alternate crossing locations for pedestrians, which is akin to one of the critiques that was in Lisa Snow's email about making pedestrians do excessively complicated route, finding because of you know, difficulties for vehicles to be able to stop in time. Will this Pictig fix the problem at Broadway in London, or will it still allow that signal get turned off and expect people who are trying to access? Basically, the bus stops on Broadway to still go out of their way.

[55:08] The the Pictig. That is a signal timing practices, discussion. Is it? Okay? Okay, And then my last question before we get into feedback? I understand. And I have not studied but that basically signal warrants. you know, are there sufficient crossing treatments, vehicle patterns? Vehicle, volumes were part of whether you decided, let's say, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, to put a signal at a particular location

[56:03] as opposed to a stop sign. and I'm assuming this is the part I haven't studied that this was warranted under former versions of the Mutcd. Is that a fair assumption. That that the signals we have within the city were warranted under prior. Yes. Yes. And is it fair to assume that some of our current signals probably would not meet current mutcd warrants. I think that is a correct assumption. I think so too. So in thinking about pedestrian crossing treatments. Now, when we are dealing with existing signals. some of those signals are operating in a way that we would not expect under the current. Mutcd,

[57:07] and I'm just kind of curious how our thinking about future changes in crossing is reflecting whether or not a signal is even warranted there at all. So I know certain locations in the city late at night go to a flashing yellow and a flashing red. At certain times of the day, and that seems appropriate because just the traffic volumes and things are not warranting. But I I my understanding is that those are kind of pretty rare. And so I'm curious whether this Pictig could direct that more signals are going to sort of that off peak kind of operation during more hours of the day. I'm gathering from your facial expression. That's not. Well, I guess when you say off peak operation, you're suggesting the flashing operation or an uncoordinated like.

[58:09] Yeah. It's a. Yes, yes, either of those. Okay. I do think that's worth thinking about. Valerie. Go ahead. I I feel like this cross examination is only halfway through, and I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. This is it that was it? Okay. yeah, I I just wasn't quite sure what the intent of of those questions was relating to the the pictic guidelines. Is there. Hi. What would be the Oh, go ahead! I'm so i IA lot of I love the 4 new categories of you know, when we should, when we should stop, or what, what kind, what flavors of things we have! I think that it assumes that all of the signals traffic signals would continue to operate pretty much throughout the day, the way that they do

[59:05] even though. given what we expect under today's Mutcd, there probably wouldn't be a signal there at all, so could we make some of those sort of obsolete for, for lack of a better phrase. obsolete intersections and obsolete signals operate differently to more reflect what we want to have happen under our our 4 categories of of traffic coordination under the pictic. Does that make sense. Don't know that I I still don't know that I follow. I'm sorry. Okay. The is the outcome that you're looking to achieve more. immediate pedestrian actuation. Yes, or immediate. Well, that and sort of quicker cycles.

[60:00] In quicker. So if the adjacent signals were uncoordinated during that period. Yes. And you could somehow. And you could expect to be able to cross within 20 seconds instead of having to wait for a 90 second cycle, just because you know, the street 2 blocks away is on a 90 second cycle. Right. It's an interesting idea. I I don't know that. That's you know, that there's precedent for for that especially, you know, during daytime or you know, typically, we have flashing operation. And Devin correct me if I'm wrong, and in very specific conditions, very specific times of day. But it's something we can think about, certainly I but I I would say that is not a common practice. No doubt. Yeah, I mean, I. So I do think it does probably fall more into the nuance of the signal timing practices. But I can see the relation to the guy, the guidelines and pedestrian serving pedestrians. I do think there is

[61:05] a lot more nuance to it, and and there are a lot of other considerations for how we display the walk indication. For example, a lot of times our default is to have. The the main street will rest and walk. meaning that it gives a longer window for people crossing, you know, in that direction of travel with the main street. A much longer opportunity to begin their crossing before they are given the upraised hand and told not to cross the street. So that is one. you know. Benefit currently of how the signal displays are are given to people on the system. Whereas the the side streets, if you're crossing the Major street, they typically do just have the the time that's required to cross the Major Street displayed.

[62:03] Assuming you've made it in time to just wait at the corner. Correct. I mean, you need to be starting up your crossing pretty close to when it changes for the side street. Yeah. Okay, well, I'm glad to raise it, I understand. But yeah, it does make sense. It might fit into the signal crossings. But you know, one of my larger critiques of our transportation system in general is the emphasis on maintaining what we've already built without rethinking why, we've built it. and I think that these signals, some of them to me in town are kind of a little head scratching like. Why, why is there a signal 13th and pine. That would function just fine with a stop sign And so, you know, there may have been historic trends, but probably part of it is an outdated mutcd warrant is my guess. So just curious. And I would like you to to think about that as you're as you're working on the signal stuff.

[63:04] Okay, sounds like we're done with questions, Darcy. You had some feedback. I'll let you go. Alright, thanks. I have a lot of thoughts, but I'll keep it brief. Yes, yes, so thank you for putting this together for making this update. It's it's really thorough. The the main things that come to mind for me. So I appreciate that we're looking at safer crossings with the hawk signals and the red signals to bring cars to a full to a complete stop where pedestrians are crossing busier roads. And at the same time, I want us to integrate more design changes that actually make pedestrians safer. So those hawk signals.

[64:02] I mean, where I have seen them. And where I've seen people using them, I mean, they are across really busy, really wide roads. And that's terrifying, especially if you're a young person or a person using a mobility device. Do, is that really the right solution? I mean, it's a solution, and it's maybe an interim solution. But I want us to see. I want us to keep working toward designing, integrating street design that actually makes pedestrians safer. And I mean, we have underpasses, you know, more under underpasses are the perfect things, you know, for those extremely busy roads where we shouldn't be asking people to cross at grade, but I understand that they are warranted in some places, and they are better than Rfbs for some things. So there's that I want us to really work on street design. The other thing is the raised crossings. So I concur with a lot of the people who wrote to us that more raised crossings are really truly warranted, and are really truly important, even on arterial roads. I mean, wherever we're putting in

[65:15] big crossings, you know, like that, I'm thinking again, Devin, of that image you showed of Colorado like that would be so much better if there were all those things. And it was a race crossing, because it's such a wide road, right. How do we? I mean the the crossing on baseline between the shopping center and the residential area that should be raised because there are such volumes of of cars, and there are those. There are those double, you know the the lanes where people are not seen immediately, so I I would love if there, if it was possible to rethink the limits on raised crossings and speed tables, I'd like to see those in more places. I know that they're expensive, and it's and it's, you know, on streets under 30 miles per hour. Maybe it makes more sense because it doesn't slow

[66:06] traffic as much. But they're also very, very important for keeping keeping pedestrians and bicyclists safe. So I really like us to open up our considerations of some of these policies, and to to rethink the the warrants. I was also kind of just re-looking at the document, and I'm thinking the whole kind of desire line thing could really go under decision making factors, you know, after the 3 step process of where to install a crossing, there are, you know, some decision making factors you could just put in. Is there an existing pathway here that people have been using? You know, I mean simple language like that. Right? So anyway, that's the bulk of my considerations. I think we got some really important and powerful feedback from the community. I'd like to see that really, truly considered. But really the race crossings. And

[67:00] the, you know, redesigning streets to actually make people people safer and not just post lower speeds, but actually to create those speeds with street design is so important, and Boulder can really be an exemplar in that regard. So thank you. Thank you, Darcy. Other feedback, Mike or Trini, Mike. Yeah, I can go ahead. We got it. A number of of emails with feedback that are categorized into number of different categories. with some of which we've gone over 1st of all, using the actual vehicle speeds versus the posted speed. I know you mentioned. You considered that greatly. But it, the the emails we got really pointed out some of the drawbacks of

[68:01] relying on posted speeds when actual speeds may exceed that. And so obviously that requires using actual speeds requires some sort of detection of what speeds people are driving. so I don't know if if that would be very expensive. But it seems like a a worthwhile use of resources. And I want to emphasize again. You know the the raised crossings. I think they should be greatly expanded, not just in low speed. Low volume streets, especially near schools and parks and high pedestrian use areas. So we shouldn't prohibit them from our arterials, as seems to be the current thinking and

[69:02] sort of think of them as as the default are all sidewalks and multi use paths intersecting minor streets and driveways, as recommended by Nacdo. Lisa snow raise an issue of of Medians. a refuge in the in the middle of the street. That could be clarified to require all Median refuges to have clear markings and vertical separation to indicate their intended use and ensure safety. There's been good discussion of already here of the signal timing issues. One thing Lisa Snow mentioned was perhaps making use of some precipitation detector to

[70:05] make makes hawk signals more responsive when there's inclement weather. And also She had. She had mentioned that crosswalks are often in place on only one side of the street, and she gave an example of 21st Street, near downtown, where there are crossings, the crosswalks marked sometimes on alternating sides of that street which doesn't seem to make sense, so I would hope we could consider in situations like that, putting crosswalks on on both sides of the street. And in general, The the document talks about balancing

[71:03] pedestrian safety with vehicle flow, and I'm not sure that's consistent with vision. 0, I think pedestrian safety should be paramount in general. So I think that about covers most of the feedback we got. Thanks, Mike. I suppose I could have asked this question in the question, but my understanding is that when we're talking about crosswalks existing or not existing. I think there's a bit of confusion which commonly happens about whether it's a marked crosswalk or not. As a matter of State law sort of everywhere that streets intersect. Unless it's marked not a crosswalk, and you don't cross you're expected as a pedestrian to be able to cross and have the right of way. Whether there's a zebra

[72:00] striping or not. Is that more or less correct, Valerie. And I'll look to Devin if I misspeak here. But I believe you're referring to that, you know a a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing at an unmarked intersection. Crossing vehicle drivers are are asked or required to yield to them when they are crossing. Still in a crosswalk, even if there's not a marked crosswalk. Correct? Yeah, yes. And so there are places, I'm thinking, more in Denver. I can't think of one in Boulder, but there are places where there's definitely no pedestrian facility, and you're expected to make that 3 legged thing to be able to cross, but in general, in Boulder you you can cross whether there's, you know, paint on the road or not, and you are in a crosswalk, and you do have the right of way under State law. Yeah. sorry to butt in there, but I just wanted to cause that's been clear in a couple of the the emails and things that we've been getting

[73:05] other other feedback. Okay? I have a little bit, but not very much. I am really really pleased to see that the matrix. And I thought that was a really great visual representation of how the decision making will change before and after I find a lot of the concerns are, you know, probably answerable, because, like a similar answer to my my question, like, What about size of vehicle, you know. Like, don't worry. We're already gonna do something better, even if it's you know, a 6 ton truck. I I think this is an exceptional improvement. Over our current default.

[74:01] I'm curious why some portion of this wouldn't be imported into our design and construction standards. Yeah, I think you're speaking to maybe some of the enhancements that could go along with a crossing. So I I'll look to the team to give some examples, but I think you know something like a raised crossing or curb. Extensions do already have those types of got standards in our Dcs. Steven Devin, do you wanna just. But that's like when when. So I guess what my understanding is. The Dcs is like when you're putting in X X must be of. You know this, these dimensions. So with these guidelines. inform the when you're putting in x like, would would this change what the x is. Devin, do you want to speak to that.

[75:02] Well where where my mind goes with it, and if this isn't the right place, certainly let me know. But I I think of the the Hazard Assessment section, that where, if you know that if a development comes in, has a traffic study and they're along the high risk network or other forget the other condition. But they do the hazard assessment for their site. and it is that hazard assessment that might tell you. Well, consider, you know, curve extensions raised crossing? I suppose if they were actually going to be adding demand across the street, they could be required to put in the appropriate crossing treatment recommended under these guidelines. And I think that can happen regardless of of whether it's a hazard assessment

[76:01] or not. That's being conducted as part of a site review. Okay, I'm thinking, like, for instance, of Boulder Junction phase 2, whatever it's called. But you know they will be building new roads or the stuff in East Easter. I'm forgetting the words. around 47th Street between Belmont and Pearl. They're they're building new roadways, and so are these guidelines going to be just suggestions, or can they be mandatory? Ish as if they were in the design and construction standards? Well, I guess I'm trying to think exactly how it applies. In that case. We're building new streets, we're building new streets and we're building new places that pedestrians will cross. Do the existing. Does the existing Dcs. Let us continue to do it a little bit wrong, or will these with the will, this Pictic basically say.

[77:07] you're building a new crossing with X vehicle volumes, and therefore the crossing is going to look like the new Pictig. I think Devin fill in the blank the gaps here. But I think that you're speaking to the development review process, Tila, and that is, you know. No. Multiple departments are involved in. You know, looking at what there is a nexus for requiring developers to build as part of their their development and multiple departments. Look together and and provide comments. And so these guidelines would inform the the treatments that are identified in the development review process, if that's what you're asking. But sorry if I'm misunderstanding. I don't think that's what I'm asking, but maybe I don't know what I'm asking. I'm I'm assuming that you know some form of development and new roads is gonna happen.

[78:06] And so we'll these will there be raised crossings because it's a street with less than 30 miles an hour. you know, because it meets these Pictig specifications. Is that what's going to be built? Or is there something more lenient and more vehicular speed and throughput oriented thing that's embedded in the current. Dcs. that's going to let us build a less pedestrian oriented crossing for these new streets. That's what I'm trying to ask. I see? Yeah, I mean, I think I'm not. How mandatory can we make this. I I think I'm not aware of anything in the Dcs that would preclude the the outcomes that are kind of recommended in in the guidelines. For for any given location. So we can make sure to do a double check on that. But I I don't think that that is an issue that direction. Going Dcs to guidelines. But I I think it's a it's a great question. And I I do think you know, it's something we can certainly explore is just as part of the development

[79:22] processes as these kind of these redevelopment area kind of scenarios that you're describing where there's new roadways contemplated and the East Boulder sub community plan. You know they that those that plan does have general parameters for the layout of of the new streets and things like that, the dimensioning that that I think you're talking about. And and you're you're asking when it comes down to it what is actually built? In the fine grain sense. So you know, I think that is that development review process that I mentioned where, if a developer is required to build it, then then city staff are are reviewing it and

[80:06] and ensuring that our current guidelines and standards are being applied. If it's something that is a city initiated build, because sometimes there is, there are fees collected, and then city does like city initiated capital projects as part of the build out of some of those areas I'm thinking of, like the Transit village area plan is part of Boulder Junction that there's some city initiated work in that and capital investments that were made. And and again city staff would be applying our current guidelines and standards. So I hope I'm answering your question. I think you are. Yes, thank you. Darcy has her hand up now, though. So I just wanted to weigh in a little bit, just because I think you know some of these new streets that we're seeing right around the Boulder Junction area and other places. They're exemplary, and they're better than the guidelines right in some pieces, right? There are kind of really interesting and pedestrian, friendly new environments. I think, as we're building new.

[81:06] we're doing it right. The 1st time, I think the pictic kind of speaks more to retrofitting streets that have been car centered, and where we're trying to make it more comfortable for pedestrians. Right, Valerie, I mean, I see you shaking your head. But yeah, it's like, I see the Pictic as more of a retrofit guide and the new stuff as being more exemplary. And where we want to go in the future. That's what I'm seeing with the new streets around, like they're so much better than what we already have. So let's keep that up. Okay, I'm not seeing anything further. I just my last parting thought, here is I. I was a little surprised to see the feedback this week from some very involved members of community, Lisa Snow.

[82:01] Foremost among them. Darcy. You were also like a consultant during the the pedestrian advisory group. I was a member of Tab at the time I attended those meetings. It's hard to find people more involved and informed with a further, you know the breadth of the background on this. and to have someone like Lisa have so many unanswered questions was a concern to me. and and I recognize I have criticize the city for being too, you know. thorough, I suppose, in public outreach, but I am just a little confused that that someone who's been following a Kurt similar chuck Brock community cycles in general that they still have so many sort of basic gaps in knowledge about what this is doing and where it's going is telling me we're not actually

[83:06] doing a great job on this particular initiative about interacting with members of the public. There's a lot of in. and you know some output that happens. But it's not entirely clear where where, you know, we're like ships in the night, and it's it's not entirely clear where we have as as a city and as Tab integrated and either adopted or considered, or amended or discarded some of the ideas that we're getting from these members of the public, and I think we owe them a little bit more accountability and a little bit more transparency about these. So that's that's my only critique on this process. As I said, I am really in general.

[84:01] and you know the larger view very appreciative. We've gotten around to this. I do think it's going in a great direction. I do think like that. That spreadsheet is an excellent, or that the matrix is a great visual about how we are really doing better. And there's always work to do. I get it. If I might respond to that, Tila. Thank you for those thoughts, and I think you summed up the process really. Well, actually, we did have some timeline challenges with this effort, and you know there were some stretches where there were long periods where Staff were working on things. And you know, really appreciate the patience of everyone involved in this effort? You know, we're constantly weighing and balancing our different efforts that that we work on as a department and as a city and I can imagine that that can sometimes be not a very intuitive process. As a participant with us in the working group. I do want to acknowledge that our staff has reached out to members of this group to say that we'd be happy to follow up after this Tab meeting to help, you know, offer additional clarification around some of those lingering questions. If they, if they weren't indeed answered tonight.

[85:24] through the tab meeting in. If someone wasn't able to attend or watch the video, we'd be happy to to speak with them. And I think that's why we're bringing these in draft form tonight to you because we we want to demonstrate that that we want to hear the feedback from you all tonight and and combine that feedback with the remaining you know, items that that you're mentioning Tila from from some of the participants in the working group. So I just wanted to mention that that the door still open for us to make you know, a finalization of this.

[86:00] This this guidance document. And again, just thank everyone for the time and the effort. I mean, you speak to the pack and that kind of the thread drawn through the pedestrian Advisory committee to now. Ago. That was 6 years ago. It is pretty incredible. And and that's why we're so happy to be here tonight with this work. And you know, if I could just offer another kind of closing thought. I think it just really strikes me a lot of the questions tonight. One thing I just want to mention and and almost lift up and celebrate is that as we work on our core arterial network initiative as we implement the unprecedented 23 million dollars. Grant that we got for safe streets, for all we have big opportunities to work on transformative, holistic corridor level interventions. And we have the ability through those types of projects to do capital intensive work. And so, having these guidelines in place is really important for us to tackle a lot of the work where we're going to have projects on the boards

[87:11] in the coming years. And so that's why this work matters so much, and we're so appreciative of the participation of everyone that's put time into this is, it's really helping set us up for some very transformative corridor level work that the city hasn't really had an opportunity to do for many years, especially at this accelerated pace. So I just wanted to lift that up because we're, I think we're. We're all really focused on making these the best they can be together. And and the the opportunity is here. So yeah, just excited about that. And and thank you for allowing us to work with you on these. Oh, okay, thank you. All right. I think that's gonna finish this up.

[88:04] So we will now move just to matters from staff. I don't believe you have anything under matters from Staff tonight, so. Terrific. We'll move straight to matters from the board. I see a note about a debrief for community cycles. Bike ride about 30th Street I was not able to attend that. I have some family issues going on. Does anyone else have a did anyone else attend and want to debrief. I've seen the emails but cool. It happened. I I do. Wanna thank. I can't see if anybody from community cycles is on here right now. But I I seriously the like. The engagement and participation from community groups like that is so terrific and essential, and staff does pay attention and listen. And it's it's pretty terrific. So thank you for doing that.

[89:09] World day of remembrance. Was this past Sunday? Right? It was yesterday. As I mentioned, I'm in Savannah, Georgia. Mike is in Korea. Was anyone in town from Dab? Any any reports? I don't see trainee? I think. She dropped off at some point. Oh, I was hoping to hear from Trini. I couldn't attend. On Saturday. It came with the the sort of the details of the organization came up after I had already organized another event. So I'm I was sorry to miss it. But yeah, and the event in Denver looked amazing as well. So yeah, did anybody. No. you guys, are you guys. Valerie was there. Valerie was there. I wasn't valid. I was there, and steven Rijo was also there, and was really integral to to working with Trini to co-produce this event also in partnership with Boulder County, we had an array of of fantastic speakers. It was a moving day. I brought my children with me. It was. It was a really

[90:18] yeah, just a a great time for reflection. Steven, is. Is there anything you'd like to add on yeah, the the proceedings. What we did that day. On Saturday, and where we walked where we ended up, and and who was speaking. Yeah, happy to quickly speak to it. We'll channel Trini. But obviously I can't even touch. I think how she'd be able to speak to it. But the group, yeah, met at the county courthouse. I think there were, just, you know, kind of a gathering there, and then walked out along. Pearl took a left to walk southbound on the 9, th and then returned through the civic area on the Boulder Creek path, and so sort of ending at the band shell, where there was a little bit of programming, had a few council members.

[91:07] The mayor was there to speak. In addition to some community members and other advocates. And so I think just some real, powerful stories, right? It's a great reminder how so many folks, you know, beyond the transportation world that we often spend our time in have been touched by, you know, serious injuries and fatalities on the roadway, and those aren't necessarily stories that folks lead with. And so I think it was helpful to hear that and realize. how impactful this is in our community and that real commitment through all the levels of the city. I think I was struck by so just a good event. And yeah, I appreciate being able to help. It could be me. Put it on. Thanks thanks both for attending. I just wanted to say I was confusing those 2 events. I I did have to miss the world day of remembrance, but I

[92:00] I did attend the community cycles, north boulder. I thought so. And it. It was very, very informative and encouraging about what what is to come. Right. Alright now we're an open board comment. Does anybody have a burning issues venting, covetching, praising. Can I just say one thing, that. Oh, my God! I'm sorry that refers back to the fictic. I just wanted to say, you know, that that matrix it really I love that. It's going to be implemented more broadly. I live off of Lehigh in South Boulder, and the way that Lehigh was Redone, and the way that the crossings were put in. There is just exemplary, you know, and I think. And I was looking at the matrix and saying, Oh, yeah, it meets these conditions. It's like that's so great. I'm so glad that it's there. And so thank you. And

[93:01] I just love all the new crossings on Lehigh. And I see kids using them to get to school every day, and I just think that that's really it was really well done. And I want to see that everywhere with raised crossings. Right? That's it. Yeah, nice. I'll I'll give a hat tip to Alex Weinhoim, a former board member and chair because he was pretty involved, and the fine tuning of that. So appreciate that. Okay, any other open board. Comment me neither. Meredith. I saw today on my email that the December agenda setting meeting was cancelled. Are we rescheduling it, or are we not having a December meeting, or. That is correct. The December Tab meeting is canceled. We thought, with your approval.

[94:02] I approve. Okay, and when he is on I don't know. Yes, I saw. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry you guys had to leave. I I'm going through this thing with my mom. But I'm so sorry. I just wanted to just thank everybody that was at the World day of remembrance, event. And, Steven, I don't know if he's still here for all the amazing work he did. I mean, we had a great day and a lot of people. a lot of great panelists on the stage, and you know it's a really great and very meaningful event. So thank you for everybody that works so hard. Thank you, Valerie, for braving the cold. Oh! So just wanted to thank everybody that was involved. Great. Thank you, Trini Steven. Did speak a little bit about the event, and he channeled his inner trini. But all right, great so I guess we will meet again in January.

[95:08] Of course, as always, tab members you're welcome to send me any agenda items that you would like to see included. We will be circling wagons with city staff, but until then I wish you a happy end of year. Happy holidays. Happy New Year, and we will see you in January. Assuming that I receive some kind of motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn. Okay. Darcy. Thank you, Trini, and thank you all to staff. Happy end of year. I look forward to seeing you in the New Year. Thanks. Everyone. Thank you. Happy Holidays not. Good night. Good night. Disconnect.