Dec 16, 2020 Mobility Committee on 2020-12-16 9:00 AM

Okay. Good morning and seeing that we have a quorum present, I welcome you to the December 16th, 2020 meeting of the mobility committee. First up under items for individual consideration is approval of the minutes. I will entertain action. I'll move approval. I'll second. It is moved and seconded. All in favor. Aye. Okay. Minutes are approved. Moving on to item B. Receiver report, hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding updates from the DCTA. Is DCTA here? Should we put this one off of it? Anyone know? Tracy's checking, I think. I'm checking. She has not communicated. Well, let's move on to item C for the moment. Hopefully we'll be able to circle back and get that update. So item C is receiver report, hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding the city of Denton transportation mobility project status report for the Denton area. And I understand that we do not have our usual text. I'm supposed to with us, but Becky is incredibly prepared. I'm going to ask Brian who's currently sitting at the city hall to pull up the presentation and I'm going to do a brief overview of the items that are in the packet. If there are specific questions, we will be prepared to get those over to Mr. Poulster. And so with that, you'll hear me say next slide for Brian. So Brian, thank you for assisting me as I am remote also. So Brian, next slide please. So today Mr. Poulster has prepared a packet. As you can see here is kind of a project overall summary with different let dates, contractors associated with the project and the construction cost. Next slide. And the FM 2181 project is currently under construction. I think we're all aware that the city has utilities, water and wastewater utilities that are being relocated. And the project is currently under construction with Zachary Construction Company. And the overall construction completion date is currently anticipated for November of 2021. Next slide please. Next slide. The US 377 Fort Worth Drive project is also under construction. There were water and wastewater utility relocations done as part of this project. And then the current construction completion date is February of 2021. Next slide. Next slide. The next project is the I-35E Mayhill project. This is a widening project in this area. And currently to date there are right away acquisitions that are underway. And you can see from the packet there are several parcels that are still either in the negotiation phase or possibly going through the eminent domain phase. And then there are several parcels that are currently in possession of TxDOT. It does appear from the packet that they're working through utility coordination with several different entities. And currently it shows that that right away acquisition is anticipated to be completed this month. The utility relocation is to be completed within April of 2020. And it appears that they are going to be working forward to moving that project to construction in June of 2022. Next slide please. This project is the US I-35E US 77 Dallas Drive Interim Improvements. And the city is currently working with TxDOT in this area. And there's some conversations that have been happening about the actual median opening or opening as you exit off of 35 and get onto Dallas Drive. And so we're working through with TxDOT some interim design and construction in this area. And working through what's the best solution from this area. And it appears that that environmental clearance for this specific project is for January 31st of 2012, which has been quite some time ago. So we will be working with and have been working with TxDOT to work through what are the next steps to get some of these interim phases executed. Next slide please. This project is the I-35, I-35E, I-35W Merge project. As you can see from the graphic, this is basically the Y intersection where 35E and 35W come together all the way up to the 77 area north of Denton. Currently, the schematic approval and environmental clearance phase has been completed. It does appear from the information that they're working through right away acquisition, utility relocations are anticipated to be completed in June of 2022. And the project appears to be anticipated to start construction in January of 2023. You can see from the packet below, there are several parcels that they're still working through the right away acquisition on. 60% plans, which are considered plans adequate, were submitted, it appears in November, late November. And TxDOT is working through and negotiating the design fees for the Windsor interchange and that preliminary design of how Windsor Drive itself will interchange with the 35. Next slide please. So I-35 north, segments one and two is the next packet project that you see. It appears that they're working through right away acquisition. And there are several parcels as you can see there that are still in negotiation phase, some that are working through M&A domain and several that are already in possession. It does appear from the packet that they're hoping to have the right away acquisition completed in March of 2021. 100% plans ready for November of 2021 with a December 2022 let date. Next slide please. This project is specific to the I-35W main lanes. And this project is still moving through kind of that environmental clearance phase, schematic phase. The 95% schematic is at the design division currently for review according to the packet information. And this will be one that'll be moving through kind of the process. It's still in the beginning phases according to the information. Next slide. The I-35W frontage road project, TxDOT is currently working through and negotiating for the plans, the schematics and the environmental efforts with HNTB. And they're evaluating the priority project to do what they're possibly are looking into as breakout segments, which would require different portions of the project to be done in different phases. Currently from the packet information, you can see they're working on right away acquisition to be completed in December of 2021, utility relocations to be completed in September of 2023. And it shows the ready to let date of September 2023. They have requested a letter of support from the city and the city has provided that information. So next slide please. The next project is the U.S. 380/U.S. 77 project. And this project is specifically the city's portion of the project is sidewalks in this area. It was awarded to Regal Construction. And that's really the major impact from the city perspective is just the sidewalks itself. And so that project construction is anticipated to start here next month. Next slide please. And the 380 East project. This is specifically a project that looks from the information that they're still working through utility coordination. And it appears that they plan to let this project in May of 2021. And the city currently does not have facilities in this area that are directly impacted, but will make adjustments as needed. And this is specific to the 380 portion from U.S. 377 to the county, I'm sorry, the Collin County line, which is not specifically in the area of which Denton has facilities. Next slide please. Next slide. The loop 288 West project. This project is a project that Denton County is working to begin negotiations with Chank Patel and Yerby for the P.S. and East. Currently the project is showing a right away acquisition completion date of December of 2024. 100% plans appear to be anticipated for June of 2022 and are ready to let date of April of 2026. Next slide please. The FN1515 project, it appears from the information provided that Denton County is currently working with negotiations with LTRA for the P.S. and East. And it appears that the information shows they're working through the right away acquisition. They're hoping to have that completed in January of 2022 with utility relocations completed in December of 2022. And they're ready to let date shows of December of 2022 also to begin that project. Next slide please. The 1173 project, I understand there's been some environmental improvements that are continuing. There was a virtual public hearing that's currently available on the Keep it Moving Dallas website that you see in the packet. And right away mapping is continuing with currently it shows 60 parcels. And that project shows a ready to let date of December of 2023. Next slide. This project is currently also the integrated corridor. It is going through what we call the U.S. 380 feasibility study. You might have seen this information on the city website being able to allow and let individuals know that a public meeting has been scheduled. And this is really a public meeting period of which you can do online comment. That is from December 2nd up until this Thursday which is December 17th. So at the www.keepitmovingdallas.com-U.S. 380 Denton PM2 you can leave your comments specific to the integrated corridor 380 feasibility study project. Next slide. The Bonnie Bray Phase 6 project is currently working through its design phase. And there are no additional updates on this project at this time. It's just working through kind of that design phase and working through and coordinating with the high school opening. And basically there's a lot of easement acquisition that's currently working on and going through the process right now. Next slide. Bonnie Bray Phase 7. That is specific to a project that was working through with the city. We have worked with TxDOT and they have requested a lot of the schematic design that was put together for this area. And that project is now being handled through TxDOT. Next slide. The Mayhill Roadway project, as you can see from the graph, the Phase 1 construction is complete. And the city is currently working through the design phase for Phase 2. And that project is currently underway with the in-house capital projects division. Next slide. The McKinney Street project is currently under construction. Phase 1 is completed and Phase 2 is currently under construction along with the intersection of the McKinney and Mayhill area. And that project is currently being managed by the capital projects division. Next slide. Hickory Creek Road. I think we can skip currently the project of Phase 1 and 2 is under construction and Phase 3 is under design. And you can go on. And I think that's it, Brian. That's just kind of a summary of terms. So with that, I will answer any questions that anybody might have. I'll do the best I can and anything that I can't answer, I absolutely will work with Mr. Polster. I'm sure he would have had a lot more information to provide to you. And that was really just kind of a high-level overview of the information in the packet. And then like Council Member Meltzer mentioned, Mr. Polster is not feeling well today. So we're happy to provide that information. The packet's also included on the city's website. So with that, I'll entertain any questions that you might have. Council Members? I have a question that you all don't. I have two. Council Member Briggs has a question. Yes, ma'am. Change the way this thing is displayed. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Just two questions. On the Loop 288 project, I know that we've talked about that as a whole, but there were some other projects on that regarding frontage roads that we were discussing that were going to come in first. Is there an update on that aspect of it? Yes, ma'am. You probably will recall the city did a letter of support for the Loop 288 West project. And so what currently is happening with that is TxDOT is working through, working to get that consultant on board to work on kind of that design and then look at specifically if there's areas that need to be done in advance of other areas. Currently, it appears in the way that the project's being planned is that those northbound frontage roads will be done first. And so that's the current update at this time is they're working through kind of that next step phase with right-of-way acquisition and moving forward into design. Okay. Just a real quick follow-up, and you may not know, but it would be helpful. The timing of those frontage roads as compared to the full project, I think we saw 2024 as like the loop. So, and I know that the frontage roads we were looking forward to go ahead and get done sooner. So is that whatever that date that is, that would be helpful to know? Absolutely. Sure. We can work with Mr. Poulster and get that type of information. The next question, Chair, I know that on 380 there's the sign flashing, work is about to begin, and I've seen some comments. People are really nervous about what that means. Do you know what the work plan is and what we can expect? Will the one lane be shut down both ways or do we have any idea we can put out ahead for people to expect? And are you talking specifically about east of town? Uh-huh. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. I can get that information from TxDOT so that we can find out exactly what their, you know, what their traffic control plan is in that specific area so that residents can be aware, and we can work on trying to put that information kind of out on the website and, you know, to our social media front so we can share that information. I have not seen that traffic control plan specifically, so I can't answer that question, but we can work to get that information out to basically educate and allow residents and citizens to know, you know, how that will impact their day-to-day operations. Okay. Thank you so much. No problem. That's one for Ryan. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. The first one is on 377 regarding the railroad bridge. If they have any ETA on when they might be starting to set that since the project's only two months from completion, and they haven't brought that up at all as far as the dates, and that's probably something that'll have to go back to TxDOT, if I would imagine. Yes, sir. I will work to get an answer on that. I don't have an answer for that. Okay. Because it would make sense that they would set the portion over the southbound roads before they open that. Then the other one is on projects that aren't on here, specifically Bonnie Bray phases three and four. I know we've got the waterline project going in under phase three right now, but that doesn't seem to be having any momentum, and I'm wondering if there's any issues going on on that that we should be made aware of, because I've seen one track that has been sitting in the exact same spot for about three months. Yes, sir. Those two projects specifically are not related to the report that Mr. Polster puts together. Those aren't considered to be a part of his mobility report for an on-system report. We are currently working through with the contractor on that waterline project some concerns and issues that we have with that project specifically, and we're working through those currently, and as soon as there's more information that can be provided, we will absolutely provide that update. All right. Thank you. No problem, sir. Can I have a few questions? Forgive me if you addressed this while I was just in my interface, but my question is regarding whether there's any insight on any possibility of temporarily addressing the issue, and I think I might have heard you say something about the issue of the exit off of 35 onto 380 prior to the larger TxDOT project there, where we identified it as a dangerous and grievous area. Sure. Yes, sir. So specifically where 35E and 35W come together at that Y intersection and near that intersection of the 380 exit, we have been in talks with TxDOT. We did have a meeting with them a few weeks back, and we have been collecting data for a traffic study, and that data we have received, so now we're working through that analysis phase. Once that information is collected, we'll then send that information over to TxDOT, and so we're just working through kind of a step process. The city and TxDOT are working in a collaboration partnership to see if there's some temporary measures that can be done in advance of the construction project, knowing that that time frame's a little bit further out, and so we are working through those steps. So at this point, and we're just going through that cycle of collecting the data, working through that study, and then going through the analysis phase to see what measures can be taken. There are several different options that we've discussed with TxDOT and Dallas District just a couple weeks back. So we'll continue to provide updates as those are available. Would you mind giving even sort of flavor of kinds of things that might be under consideration? Sure. There were several different things that were kind of talked about in that area, and really specifically, you know, some of those things are changing the entrance and exit ramp. So at Oak Street, after you go through that intersection, you can enter Oak Street, from Oak Street onto the highway immediately. And so we've talked about kind of flipping those two ramps. So the 380 exit, you will get off sooner when you're traveling northbound, and the Oak Street exit could come onto the highway sooner, or I'm sorry, after that. So just really kind of taking those two entrants and exit ramps and flipping those. And the other thing that's been mentioned, and there are several different things, but the other thing that's been looked at specifically is, you know, flipping where the 380 exit ramp will be sooner, but then keeping that Oak Street traffic and the frontage road traffic working through the intersection at 380, maybe making some modifications to the intersection at 380 and taking that traffic northbound to then enter north of the 380 and 35 interchange in that area. So there's several different options that are being looked at. And based on the traffic study and that information, we'll then work with TxDOT as to what, you know, is the best solution for that and whether, you know, that's something that they can handle through kind of some of their maintenance type contracts and do some temporary measures in advance of the major project that won't happen for a few years. Is the point of the traffic study to determine kind of where, what the pinch point is, whether it's coming from, whether it's coming from exiting off of 35 or, you know, what is it that you're trying to determine in the traffic study? Sure. We're just basically looking at that overall area, trying to decide and figure out exactly where traffic is coming from and whether traffic is using the service road. And that will help make the determinations as to how many cars are going through a particular area. The traffic study specifically was related to that Oak Street interchange and then working through what are measures that could be taken to take traffic off 35 sooner onto that frontage road area. So that specific information then will help an overall analysis of that entire area from really 380 to Oak Street. And we'll be working through those with TxDOT. Great. I really think all the extra attention is merited. Related to that, can you remind us what the timing is on the TxDOT project with the Y versus the completion of the widening of Bonnie Bray? Because they're really related, right? The idea would be to have Bonnie Bray as an operating full capacity bypass while work is going on. So are we back to function that way? Sure. So really, the TxDOT 35E, 35W merge, the current let date for that project is January of 2023. So the specific dates related to the quarter of which that Bonnie Bray phase, we're working through all of those options. But I would tell you at this point, it's very apparent that if that area is within a construction timeframe that other individuals, residents, citizens will be wanting to use Bonnie Bray as an alternate route, specifically if that area is under construction. So we're still working through kind of the timing of that intersection. TxDOT currently tells us that they plan to let within the January 2023 timeframe. And so we're working through when Bonnie Bray construction will happen in that area. So those specific dates are still kind of something that we're working through, but we are absolutely coordinating because we do understand. And I think that's what you're really kind of thinking also from your question is Bonnie Bray would be used as an alternate route. So we're working through the timing of that project particularly. Well, I think the TxDOT funding, just to put that up, the TxDOT funding on Bonnie Bray says that that's how they're thinking of it too. And sort of the worst possible scenario is not pinning that one down and having them both under construction at the same time. Council Member Briggs. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just to follow up your question about 380 and 35 has sparked another question for me. I appreciate you asking about that. I know it's really important to the community. So when you mentioned TxDOT, their maintenance contracts, was that your way of saying that that's the way they're looking to fund it? Or would the city need to offer matching or how would that be funded? Because I know it's extremely important and it would be a priority for us to fix that intersection. So when you mentioned maintenance contracts, is that where they're looking to kind of fit those projects in? But sure, I don't think all those decisions have completely been made exactly how the funding is a TxDOT roadway and TxDOT will have to look through how their funding will be done. I know maintenance funding is something that has been mentioned. And so really, that's a TxDOT decision as to how they're going to fund that particular project. At this time, what they've asked the city and what our relationship is in the collaboration of trying to find a solution, an interim solution to this situation before the permanent solution of the roadway construction happens is to work through that study, that analysis, then work with the TxDOT folks to find out what the solution is. But currently at this time, the funding is not something that's been completely discussed or decided upon. Although I did mention that TxDOT has looked into and is looking at different things that can be done, whether it's from their maintenance funding or some advanced type of funding that needs to be done to fix that area. But at this time, those specific decisions have not been made. They're still waiting on the data collection, which we're still in that process. And then from there, they'll work through what the solution is and then how it will be funded. Okay. I just mentioned that because it always helps to have funding and know where that's coming from to get a project completed. Sure. Absolutely. And those decisions haven't been made at this time, but you're very much correct that it will take money to make anything happen in that area. So yes, thank you for bringing that up. Now, may I ask you a question regarding Locust Street 77, TxDOT for now. I just want to relate in an incident and give you an opportunity to give me some context. So I speak with a constituent and I brought it up in the context of how it was recently resurfaced as part of an arrangement for TxDOT to put it in good shape before it converts over to city ownership. And this ordinarily very well informed constituent said, "Yeah, we're supposedly going to redo a lot of infrastructure under there, pipes under there." And that seemed to have been totally dropped in that it was a surprise to the city that they went ahead and covered it. I blanched, I had no way to respond to that. I don't recall hearing that something happened that we didn't expect to happen. I would be very surprised if that were the case, but can you provide any context on the sequence of events of needed infrastructure work under Locust Street and resurfacing of Locust Street? I see Council Member Briggs would like to add something as well. Sure, Council Member Briggs. I was just going to mention that that is the case. It is a long section of road and there is a section that isn't the case for, but there is a section that it is true, that it will have to be pulled up and redone in the future. I remember when Mr. Estes was here, he provided a map or a chart of that road for us and it showed which sections that issue related to. Care to confirm? Sure. Absolutely. I wanted to give Council Member Briggs an opportunity to finish her statement. There is a project currently that TxDOT is working on for sidewalks in that area. If you have driven in that area, you will notice there are a lot of new sidewalks along both Elm and Locust. There are projects associated with the utility infrastructure that still needs to be completed in that area and at that time, we will be working with TxDOT for that resurfacing. There are basically this section from really north of the courthouse all the way to 380. There is utility infrastructure, whether it be water, wastewater, or drainage infrastructure that needs to be constructed in that area and TxDOT did resurface in some of that area in advance of that utility reconstruction. There will be a relationship of where we will have to have TxDOT go back through and we are still working through those specifics where that roadway will have to be resurfaced after those utility improvements are made, because you are correct, those utility improvements were not made in advance of that roadway construction. It was a resurfacing of that roadway that TxDOT had planned and executed. Did that make sense from our perspective to do it in that sequence? Really we would love to have the opportunity to get those utilities replaced in advance of that. That was not the opportunity that was presented at this time and do some coordination issues but we will work through that with TxDOT and TxDOT is aware and happy to work through that whole situation with us to allow us to get those infrastructure replaced in that area. Okay, see it leaves me with not a great answer to the constituent. Did we have control over the sequence? No, sir, that is a TxDOT roadway. We work with them to coordinate those opportunities to replace that infrastructure in advance but that is not what happened at this time. There was a coordination issue between the utilities that needed to be replaced along with the storm drain in that area and the resurfacing of that roadway. TxDOT is aware that those utilities do need to be replaced in advance of that roadway. This happened before your tenure, right? This would never happen under DeVine administration. Yes, sir, this did happen before my tenure but I will just tell you that we will work to collaborate as best as we can and we have had those conversations with TxDOT and they are aware that the infrastructure does need to be replaced and are going to coordinate with us the roadway resurfacing. Okay, thanks for fielding that. Anything else on this? All right, thank you for covering. No problem and we will get answers to those other questions that you had too. I appreciate all the questions. All right. I see nobody else pop up on the screen here. I am going to move ahead to item D, staff update regarding hickory bike lane bollard spacing, highway safety improvement program status, mobility plan status and next steps, 88 bike position update, hallway crossing diagonal ramps and markings. Thank you, chair and members of the committee. Brian Yon, traffic engineer. Let me call up presentation. How about we will take questions sort of after each item? That's all right? Something is locked, okay. Totally locked up. I know how that is. When you are interacting with the technology, it's hard to also -- I've got this giant screen of my presentation, but I -- You want me to smack it for you? Well -- okay. You all can't see it yet either, can you? Not yet. Okay. Did Nicole ever pop in for her update? Do we know? I'm seeing a blank -- oh, there she is. Yeah, I am here. I joined at like 9.02. You all are quite speedy today. Oh, well, you know, tick, tick. We've all got to -- all right. Well, then while Brian Wiley puts to that, we'll go ahead and handle item D, which is receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding updates from the DCTA. You're welcome. Thank you. Happy holidays. You too. I do have some exciting updates to share today. We have been working on what we are calling the DCTA priority actions, and so we've got some really big projects on the docket right now. We just concluded task order number one with Accenture for the purpose of the Transformation Initiative, where the contractor or the consultants came in and kind of did a full-body scan of DCTA to determine where we were most efficient, where we were inefficient, and some recommendations for a path forward. So at last week's board meeting, the board did approve a list of priority projects. There were 30 projects in total that are slated for the next five years for the agency, and so we're really excited about that. One of the top five projects was doing an -- bringing in some on-demand service providers to look at where we could make service more efficient, perhaps increase ridership and look at maybe more areas within the three member cities to serve. So we have had an open procurement since -- oh, gosh, the summer, where the board selected two providers, so VIA is one of them, and then a combination of Spare and Lyft is the second provider. And so we have been in coordination with both of those service providers to put together proposals for on-demand service. So at last week's DCTA board meeting, the board did kind of all agree that they would like to see proposals where the majority of fixed routes were removed, and we became primarily an on-demand provider. And so really DCTA being a broker of services. So at this point, based on board direction, specifically in Denton, we would be retaining the UNT routes, and then we would be retaining route three and route seven for a period of time, but really layering on-demand on top of three and seven, so that we can look at data that's provided by the on-demand providers to see is fixed route really the answer in those areas, which staff feels like it is, but looking at on-demand kind of to serve the rest of the city. And Lewisville, respectively, removing routes 21 and 22 and having full on-demand in that city. And we already have a non-demand service in the city of Highland Village. So it's a pretty big change that we're looking at. We plan to have those proposals back and to review them with our board at our January 28th meeting. At that point, the board would provide their insight and their recommendation on which vendor they would like to move forward with. And then we would have in-depth meetings with the vendor, as well as each of the member cities to go through a service plan for the respective city in detail to make sure that we're getting any insight and feedback directly from not just the city's representative on our board, but also city staff. Most likely, we're probably looking at like the May, June, July timeframe for actually launching a service of this type. But that transition plan would be part of that proposal review and those roundtable meetings as well. But with the amount of public involvement that will be required by the FTA due to the actual removal of routes, there's quite a bit of a lead time in order to make a transition like that happen. So it's a pretty big change and a major priority for DCTA. With that on the horizon, we are aware that obviously the number of fixed routes would become much smaller and then the amount of on-demand service would become much larger. So our board has approved the CEO to sign a letter of intent and Trinity Metro did the same thing. And DCTA and Trinity Metro were working together to see how we could leverage Trinity Metro's technologies and their managerial oversight in order to operate those remaining fixed route services. So we are currently in the exploration process, but we anticipate there being some sort of partnership and an alignment with the timing on the transition away from fixed route and to on-demand with Trinity Metro assisting us in managing the fixed route components as well as the ADA paratransit services. So DCTA would retain the direct management of all of the on-demand services in our member cities and contract cities, but we would basically partner with Trinity Metro and leverage their technologies to operate those remaining fixed routes. Again, pretty big change. With regionalism in mind, we are also partnering with DART. So both DCTA and DART signed a letter of intent. They are looking at potentially sharing some rail resources in order to explore and kind of plan an opportunity for joint rail operations in a maintenance facility. So we have the land. Our A train line connects to the DART green line. And so there are some cost efficiencies for both agencies in regard to kind of leveraging that space. And so there is a letter of intent that's been jointly signed by both agencies, but we are right now in the exploration phase of kind of what that would look like. So more to come, but lots of regionalism in mind for sure and lots of big changes. The other program I just wanted to let y'all know about is the TRIP program, which is the transportation reinvestment program that our board recently approved. And that basically takes a certain percentage of prior fiscal year savings and makes it available to the three member cities for the purpose of transit related projects. So that has been approved. The city of Lewisville has submitted their first project that's currently under review. And so that could be for projects such as like sidewalks, access to trails, access to transit. It could be for amenities on trails. And so anything that kind of enhances the customers or the public's experience with mobility. And so that's any type of mobility, walking, cycling, using transit, et cetera. So that program is active. I know in the past council member Briggs has brought up amenities for the trail and things like that. And so just to make sure that y'all are aware of that program, I'm sure that you're having those discussions at council level, but that funding is available for projects that do qualify. That is about it for this time around. Again, we don't operate service on Christmas day or New Year's day, but our customer service teams do remain open just to answer any questions or to help folks reschedule their trips. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Council member Briggs. The study or report that you mentioned, is that available online or for the public to review and read? Sure. It was included in the December board packet, but I am happy to also send it to this group if you'd like to see it. Yeah, I would like to see it as well. Thank you. That's what we're waiting for. Just so the members here or anybody watching has a better understanding, can you give a brief description of where seven and three are as to where we're going to continue to have some bus service? Sure, absolutely. So route three runs basically from the DBTC out to like where the Salvation Army is located. So there's a lot of human services, agencies, apartment complexes, as well as some justice departments are located along that route. So it's heavily what we would consider a transit dependent population and access to human services, which from FTA's Title VI perspective is a critical area for fixed route service. Based on data, it also meets the criteria of a minimum of 10 boardings per hour along that route, which is why we're recommending that we at least test out that route. And then route seven runs from the DDTC through downtown, through UNT, and then out to Razor Ranch. There are some human services centers located along that route, but it's also just a very highly dense area, specifically with traffic to downtown apartment complexes, to university, and then Razor Ranch. And so it again, in the analysis that was done, exceeds the threshold of 10 boardings per hour. So the goal is really to kind of keep those routes for a period of time, I am assuming probably about three months, and we will layer on-demand service on top of it. And we'll really be able to do some A and B testing. And so we'll be able to see, are we garnering additional riders because those who use the fixed route prefer to use the fixed route, but we're getting new people who would prefer to use the on-demand? Or is that on-demand service cannibalizing the fixed route, and the folks using the fixed route really prefer the on-demand? And that's data that we just don't have right now. We don't have hour-by-hour or constituent-based data for our routes. And so that's going to give us the opportunity to get some true A and B testing done and have that data and have that discussion with our board to make the best decision for the community. I'm certainly interested in hearing and seeing what the results of real behavior would be rather than the predetermined conclusion that we're moving away from fixed routes. So during that testing period, the routes that I talked about, fixed routes, we talked about keeping up, roughly what percent of Denton ridership do those fixed routes represent? I would hate to throw out a number, but of the eight fixed routes that are in Denton, those are the two best performing routes. But I can certainly follow up with an exact percentage. I can get that for you. I have that available. Yeah, rough would be fine. I don't need it exactly. I mean, just, you know, are we talking about, you know, by, are we pruning away the 80% of miles that only represent 20% of ridership? That would be like the ideal answer, right? That would be, you know, very efficient. So I'd be interested in understanding that. Sure. I can absolutely follow up. And then my other question is, in the study that led to this recommendation, that's now being contemplated, what was the degree of, or amount of input from transit dependent members of the public? So let me clarify. The Accenture report was an analysis that was based on an in-depth exploration of DCTA in their current state. The Accenture report does not recommend moving away from fixed route and moving to on-demand. So that was not part of the scope of work. It did, part of the scope of work, however, was to say, how are your routes performing against standards? And so it was really the DCTA board's decision in looking at performance and how effective and efficient that service is to say, okay, how do we address the inefficient service? And so we have had these MAS contracts under, we've had them under contract for two and a half years and we hadn't leveraged them other than for some contract city work that we have in Frisco and McKinney. And so it was really a collaboration from the board and saying, how can we provide more service? How can we provide more efficient service and take some of this maybe inefficient fixed route service off the road? So you won't, in the Accenture report that I'm happy to send out, you won't see a recommendation to remove fixed routes and add on-demand. That was really kind of an output after the board had reviewed those, that report and had been having some ongoing discussion about maybe what does the future of service look like? So are there plans in any part of this process to get input from transit dependent members? Yes, 100%. So the FTA requires us to partake in the public involvement process. So basically what would happen is we would get the MAS proposals from Viet and Spare next month. We would share them with our board. Hopefully we would have one for recommendation. Once the board approves that, we would then have a workshop with the member cities and the city staff to kind of tweak those service proposals. Once those tweaks are done, we would then take that kind of final proposed service plan model out to the public. And because this is such a major deviation from the typical way we provide service, we would do most likely like two plus months worth of in-depth public involvement where we're going out, we're virtually going out to different groups, talking to them about what the changes are, how that might impact them positively or negatively, to collect that feedback. Our board cannot formally and officially approve a service change of this magnitude without reviewing the public feedback in conjunction with the materials for approval. Councilmember Briggs. Thank you, Chair. During this conversation, of course, I came up with other questions. So if you would just allow me just a couple. On demand costs, are they the same as the fixed route cost? It really depends on frequency and the number of people that you're carrying. There are situations where on-demand service can be more expensive than fixed route. There are also situations where it can be drastically cheaper than fixed route. So it's really going to depend on how many vehicles per hour we have on the road and how many people we're carrying. Okay. So I'm just, I have a little concern about eliminating those fixed routes. I think that that is a good part of a successful bus system. And I know that on-demand is, you know, coming up, but I don't know that that's the solution. And when we talk about improving performance, I don't know that elimination is the way to improve a performance. I think it might be easiest. And so if we eliminate fixed routes for majority of them and go to on-demand service, which is a contract that eliminates overhead, right? That eliminates staff buses, bus routes. So does that mean you take in less tax money from the residents of Denton if you're not spending it? No, because the, the half cent sales tax was voted in. So we would still receive that half cent sales tax. I believe, and I don't want to speak on behalf of the board, but I believe the thought process is we spend the same, but we're able to offer much better and more service. So we're able to cover a larger service area with more frequency, which then becomes much more convenient for the consumer. So it also allows them to go like from curb to curb versus having to go to a stop. We're able to cover areas that currently don't have service now rather than waiting 30 minutes during peak and an hour during off-peak, maybe you're only waiting 10 minutes for a ride. So I think that the thought process is, is if we could provide more coverage and more frequent service within the current, what we're currently spending on fixed route, that would be the best plan forward. Well, if it, if it costs more money, it's not going to be equitable for all bus riders. So I just, this is one of my last meetings and I just want to make the comment that whatever changes are made, please make sure that there's equity in, in your decision for, for all of us. Absolutely. And as part of the FTA requirement, we will do a title six analysis and that specifically addresses equity. Certainly there will be some trade-offs that we will have to discuss with our board. So moving to a more on-demand model, what does that do from an equity or a title six perspective, but also what does that do from a federal funding perspective? Because our federal funding is based on total ridership and on the on-demand TMCs track ridership differently. And we're, they're still working with the FTA on, on how to kind of officially count ridership that would then go toward our federal funding. So there are what Accenture would call, would be some considerations that our board needs to weigh before making this decision. Thank you. Yes, and I did see a study for mass service in Louisville. Is that something that was done through DCTA? Did y'all get that, those numbers, or was that someone else who did? We have not, through our mass contracts, we have not done a proposal specifically for Louisville. As part of this open procurement, both Via and Spare did provide original proposals. And within those proposals, they carved out pieces of Denton and pieces of Louisville where they made some recommendations. But that was before our board had kind of made some decisions about the future of service. And so that's why we're asking Via and Spare to come back with an additional proposal. So not a direct proposal for Louisville DCTA was not involved. Okay. Well, and based on what I saw on there, and again, this was prior to this, there was substantial savings by switching to the mass in the Louisville area. I can't remember the exact percentage, but you know, it was about 900,000. And for about 100,000, they could add in Sunday service. So the ability to add services by changing over to this where our ridership is at that below 10 is definitely there. Some of the other things that have been contemplated are holiday service, which we currently don't, or longer hours where right now we're cutting off at 930. If we could get a little bit later, maybe up to midnight even with mass service, that would be very beneficial to people who right now when they want to go down to Dallas, they have to drive because unless you're going to finish everything up and be able to get back to Denton by 930, the train doesn't work for you. So absolutely, absolutely. The cost efficiencies with on demand allow us to kind of scale up and scale down much more efficiently than we could with fixed route, 100%. And so we are looking at part of those proposals will include what does it look like if we add Sunday service? What does it look like if we just like you said, Mr. Ryan, if we increase our time frequency and, you know, look at days of the week and holidays. So I mean, there are definitely some benefits to moving to an on demand model for sure. Right. And I wasn't, I had to step out of the board meeting the other day, I wasn't there to hear what the final vote was on how to proceed. Was there also going, were you also going to look at changing the bus routes to 15 minutes so that matched up and didn't create, because right now our bus runs every 30 minutes and on demand was going to be 10 minute peak and 15 minute off peak was estimated time for pick up. So there's an equity there that why would you wait 30 minutes for a bus when you could get an on demand in 10 or 15? Absolutely. We didn't get into that level, but I would anticipate that as we look at these proposals from both Viet and spare that any recommendations they make and then through the workshops with each member city, like once we have that final service plan, then we would go back and look at any of our existing fixed routes that are continuing to operate and we would tweak so that those connection points would make sense. And then that whole service plan, that comprehensive service plan is what we would then take to the public. Well, if I can make an unsolicited suggestion, if it were up to me to present of this, you know, sort of large change to the public, I'd include all the good stuff and not just that we're going to cut things. And I know there are some people who very sincerely believe it would be in the best interest of Denton to not fund public transit and instead fund the ability to write checks to corporations for economic development. That's a really poor framing. If in fact you can be moving toward, you know, greater service to the public and, you know, it may well be the case that if fully understood, you know, that on demand may provide better service to those same individuals. But all those good things, later hours or a train, you know, holistically one picture versus the other, it might be, you know, might be more tolerable. Absolutely. I feel like we're going to find out a lot in the next 60 days. So the next 30 dedicated to kind of our board's decision on those two on demand proposals and then the following 30 days kind of tweaking the final proposal and developing something to take to the public. So I feel like we're still in the exploration phase, but that we'll have so much more to share over the next 60 days for sure. Okay. Interesting times. Thanks for coming to update us. Absolutely. Thank you for having me. Okay. Do we think we can do item D now? We're going to try it one more time. So let me work so seamlessly for Becky's presentation. I already read the whole thing. So, okay. So can you see that? Yes. All right. Let me go to full screen. Okay. So again, good morning everyone. Brian Young, city traffic engineer here to talk to you just about a couple of things. Just give you some updates. The first one is the Hickory street bike lane bollards. We put these in, I believe in June and our spacing at the time based on what we were reading from the manufacturer, we put them at 40 feet. We've since discovered that this allows because our speeds are a little bit lower, this allows the drivers to actually enter the bike lane and temporarily park to load or unload or make some other maneuver. And so our plan moving forward, this probably won't happen until after the beginning of the year, just based on crew availability. We do have material on hand and in stock. But we're going to go ahead and in those areas where they're 40 feet apart, we're going to install an intermediary bollard. So it's a 20 foot spacing. And we think that's going to be a much better solution. We've talked with the vendor and they're on board with the 20 foot spacing as well. So over the next couple of months, you'll see that situation change a little bit. And moving forward, we will also set a maximum of 30 foot spacing. And a lot of it's speed based, but we just find that the closer spacing of the bollards just kind of tightens up, gives a little bit more of a visual barrier and tightens up that security on the bike lane. >> Would you mind if we stop for questions between each item? That requires you to take it down so I can see. >> Okay. >> That's a technical challenge, I know. See, I had a feeling. That's one of our breaks. >> Thank you so much for looking into this and adding more. I guess my question is, so are you going to add ones in the add some? Are you going to just be resetting all of them and adding additional ones? >> So we talked with staff and I think what we're going to do because they're 40 feet apart is just to go ahead and put additional bollards to change to a 20 foot spacing, leave what's there and add one in the middle. It's not difficult to remove them and relocate them, but I think the 20 foot spacing is still going to be satisfactory. We're going to like that a lot better than the 40. It didn't make sense to move them, just the staff time to move them from a 40 to a 30 or a 20, it just didn't make sense. >> I agree. I know it will happen quicker that way too. And so just to clarify, these are already, you've ordered these and then they'll just be installed? >> Correct. We bought extra when we purchased these for the Hickory and the Welch. And so we've got enough on hand, we think, to finish out this project. If not, we can certainly order the turnaround time. There's not a lot of lead time on these. It's not a high demand product so they typically have some in stock and they can deliver those fairly quickly. We have other streets that we've got planned for implementation as well. So we'll be ordering additional stock in the near future in any case. >> Is there any kind of learning or, I mean, I guess, I guess there's no official international standard or we would have followed it, but what are we basing 40 on? What are we basing 20 on other than it's better than 40? >> So the vendor has a range. There's a recommended range of spacing on devices and it's really based on speed so we picked kind of on the high end of the range initially for just cost effective and what we're finding is that the higher end of the range, if people are motivated to try and get into that bike lane, they will. It allows them to. So we just need, in certain areas we wouldn't, we may not have to, but specifically along Hickory adjacent to the commercial where people want to just run in real quick and pick up their pizza that they ordered, we're finding some violations and so we just, in that type of area we're just going to be consistent and take it to a 20 foot spacing. >> Do we know what's implemented in other cities that are similarly situated and have similar problems? >> Again, it's across the board. It's some cities, if you've got a lot of vehicular traffic that are going to a 15 foot spacing, 30 seems to be kind of a universal average, but again a 30 foot spacing is more than a car. Easily can maneuver, especially a small car, can maneuver into the bike lane to temporarily park if you don't see any cyclists, even if you do, people don't care, but we're going to take a little bit now, a little bit towards the lower end and use that 20 foot spacing. I think we're going to find that that's going to work for us in most places in town. >> Or it could set off like an arms war, where now everyone switches to Mini Coopers. >> Yes, the slalom run, yes. Or skateboarders. >> Okay, thank you. I'm going to continue now, thank you. >> John, did you have any question on this? >> No, I'm fine. >> Okay, thanks. All right. I can't see this. The next one is Highway Safety Improvement Program. This is a program really funded and led by the state by which we identify locations that have high fatality and serious injury crash history, and typically we will focus on intersections that are signalized because those are normally where the fatalities occur, but they're also some of the easily fixed locations. We've got six locations currently underway with this program. The three in green are actually under -- they've been bid and awarded and are going to construction early spring of 2021, and that's McKinney at Mockingbird, McKinney at Audra, and Teasley at 35. So those will either be modified or reconstructed. You've seen Council agenda item not too long ago about the funding, and we had to pay some overage on those, so those are moving forward to construction in early '21. I guess it's Magento. The ones on 288 are nearing completion of design. Those will be awarded probably bid and awarded May of '21 going to construction later that year. I guess King's Row at 288, McKinney at 288, and University at 288. So those three intersections will be receiving primarily technology upgrades, but King's Row is a full reconstruction. Again, you saw a Council agenda item on that not too long ago as well. When they're on system, we have the advantage of paying for 100% of the construction, and when they're off system like McKinney at Mockingbird, we pay 10%. So it's still a good deal, even if we have to pay our 10%. But just to give you a quick update on the status of those projects, you'll see the three in green there go to construction in a matter of months, and probably a year from now, you'll see those in the Magento color go to construction along 288 as well. >> Okay. I want to take it down to see if there's a question. Anybody? Councilmember Briggs. >> You mentioned McKinney and Mockingbird. That's a T intersection. Well, what will be done there? Just a new light? Like a -- >> So a lot of these are technology upgrades, which gives us the opportunity to sense traffic better. Well, we're, you know, advancing to LED street light attachments. A lot of it's inside the cabinet, really, rather than the uprights themselves. So it's either -- they may be getting some -- if it's an old intersection, and I don't want to speak at a turn on McKinney and Mockingbird, some of them are getting new. They're 25, 30 years old. They've paid their dues and they're ready to be upgraded. Some are span wire, and that's the wood pole with the cable across and the lights. Those are going to a steel upright with a mast arm. And then -- but the bulk of the improvements are technology based, just giving us, you know, better connectivity, running fiber, changing out the controllers to the modern version that we're using. So a lot of it is just really technology. It creates a safer intersection because we have better equipment in the field. >> Thank you. >> But when I asked about this in full council, some of the technology enhancements were described as improving sensing. >> Right, detection. >> As pedestrians and cyclists. >> Yes, yes. We're working with our provider, our vendor, to, again, I think I mentioned that they are -- pedestrian detection module is in testing mode, beta testing, and they're developing a cyclist bike detection module. So this particular device is that fisheye camera that hangs over the intersection and really looks at all four of the approaches at once versus having four different cameras. So it allows us to do a lot of things because it sees everything at once. It's a single device that's looking at all the input, and we don't have to interface between different devices. We've had good success with it, and the vendors continue to add modules. We can collect data with this camera, and we can sense, you know, now we can sense pedestrians, or we will be able to soon, and they're working on bicycle detection. So it's a very robust device, and that's really what we're moving towards in the future, using this everywhere in town. >> That's great. Okay. >> So the next one is the mobility plan update. So we have finished our community input. That ended in October. And the month of December, Walter P. Moore, our consultant, is finalizing the draft final, whatever you want to call it, the final draft or the draft final report and associated maps, and this is all three maps, the bike plan, the PED plan, and the transportation thoroughfare plan, what we used to call it. They will be submitting that to staff for review this month, and we will be taking probably most of January to go through that with a fine-tooth comb, make sure all of the citizen input that can be addressed has been addressed, and returning that, our comments, back to Walter P. Moore, and then in the month of February, they will be taking our comments, rolling that into the document, rolling out, again, that draft final report for -- we're looking in March to begin a work session with council to start talking about the document itself and the maps you've seen, but a lot of the associated text and policies, et cetera, you have not, so we'll spend the month of March going through that with council and looking forward to an April adoption. Hopefully by the end of April, we'll have all of the questions answered, and I'll be ready to move forward with the formal adoption of the immobility plan update. >> Questions? >> Sure, there are questions. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> Oh, excellent. Moving along. So the senior planner by civil ministry coordinator position was advertised in November, and the way we structured it was we were leaving it open until filled, so as of now, we've got probably 17, 18 applications. Staff is going through those applications and looking at each candidate, and our goal is to identify those that we are most interested in and start interviews in January, so we'll be coming back to you either January or February with some feedback on the process there, but we -- again, this is an interesting combination, to say the least, of skill sets that we're looking for, so the qualified candidates are few and far between. Like I said, we've got -- I've looked at them, we've got several very good candidates. I don't know that anybody is 100% satisfies all the different demands, but we're looking for that -- the right person. It's obviously some of it can be learned on the job, but that right person that fits the characters and the, you know, the expertise and the experience that we're looking for, like I say, I think we've got a couple in the pool right now, but we're going to continue to accept applications until we decide that, you know what, we found the right person, so we'll hopefully be conducting those interviews in January and have some more information for you following that. >> Council member, questions? Are you looking for someone who is mostly an engineer or someone who's got that -- not to say that engineers couldn't have this skill set, but are you looking for the skill set involved in a lot of public engagement? >> So very much the latter. Yeah, if it was going to be an engineer, it would have to be an engineer with crayons, as I call it, but very much a planner type person. It is a different approach. Planners just -- their education, their background is typically not like an engineer's, and we really appreciate that those characteristics in this type of role are key. That public engagement and the experience even, and the jobs knowledge is very, very different from engineering. It's not necessarily 100% data-driven. It's the softer side, and it's folding in the community needs and desires and combining those and marrying those up to what we can and can't do, but yes, it's very much the latter of your two choices there. >> Okay. What else you got? >> One more. Well, there was one more. Oh, it's here. It's not a separate page. So the last one is the -- we're calling now the all-way crossing, no longer the all-crosswalk. The committee on persons with disabilities has asked us to take the word "walk" out of it, since not everyone using this is walking. We met with them in November to get their guidance on the type of ramp, and let me share another -- I've got another -- well, it doesn't show up here. Okay. I'll go back to this. So if you remember, these four intersections are the ones around the square, and I was trying to share my explorer. I've got Google maps up. The intersections around the square adjacent to the actual square are fairly spartan, a lot of concrete, not a lot of plantings or furniture, et cetera, but the corners away from the courthouse have significant amounts of landscaping, or some have traffic signal hardware, some have street furniture, and what we went to the COPWD to gain was their preference on the type of ramp, the accessible ramp for these diagonal crossings, and that's really what this project is focusing on, is the diagonals. If you remember, you approved the continuation of the all-ped phase and asked staff to go back and add the diagonal crossings with ramps and markings so that everybody knows that they can go across instead of making an L shape to get across from one corner to the next. So this program, this project is really focused on putting in those diagonal crossings, and associated with those crossings is the new accessible ramping that's required to get to those diagonal crossings. We offered the committee a couple of different options. One would be what they call a transition where you lay the entire curb down all the way around the radius, and then you put the tactile surfaces where your crossings are going to be. They didn't like that because they were afraid that there may be some tipping issues with chairs or scooter-type devices, and then what they settled on was very much like what we have, is a directional ramp in the middle of the radius pointing diagonally to another directional ramp across the intersection. And so we are now working towards a design contract with a consultant, because we don't want to do this necessarily in-house. It could become a fairly complicated design if we've got to move signal hardware, and we do want to determine what the impact is on the plantings that are there. A lot of the landscaping, we're going to try and salvage as much of it as we can, obviously, or maybe move it to other areas around the crossing. But that's our next step is that consultant contract, and we hope to have that in place and be able to bring a contract to council for approval if need be, if the dollar amount is high enough in the month of January, so if not, then early February. So with that, I believe that is the last thing I've got, and I'll stop sharing and take questions. Questions? You're nearly about to ask something. Go ahead. Well, maybe a question, maybe just a statement. So on the diagonal crossway, will there be on the all-way crossing, will there be paintings as well? Yes, yes. We'll have to modify the signals. We'll have to put push buttons close to those ramps, and then we'll have the accessible ramps themselves, and then the markings that go across. The other way to do the, what they call the ped scramble, this all-way crossing, is to simply color the entire intersection, but we've got a lot of pavers and we've got a lot of treatments down there. I think just the regular white markings will be adequate. Anything else? All right. Thank you. All right, thank you. A lot of good stuff going on. So we're at concluding remarks. Is that what it's called? Concluding items. Okay. I'm going to go to Councilmember Ryan, because he so hogs the spotlight. Yeah, yeah. So true. Thank you, Chair. We used to have a matrix for mobility that I haven't seen in the last few meetings. I'm wondering if there was a reason, or I guess, if it's possible to bring it back, I'd like to see it come back. One of the items I had on that matrix was any of the major projects, and some of them got picked up by ITS, by John Bolster's group on that sheet, but not all of them did. Some of the other big projects that I think about are the other Bonneberry phases and Hickory Street that I'd like to see in more than just that one line that we have on the Friday reports. Sure. Councilmember Ryan, we can absolutely work through bringing back that matrix and adding additional items as they come up and working through the agenda. If there are some standard items that you want to see, something that we make an update to on the monthly basis, we absolutely can do that. So we'll work to recreate that matrix and make sure that the items that are appropriate are on there and be able to fulfill that for you. That's no problem at all. I think it's sort of anything bigger than a bread box, right? I mean, we kind of know what the major items are. I trust you to draw the line, but I agree with Councilmember Ryan, you know, whether it's Textud or City, we kind of want to see that overview. Sure. I think sometimes it's very interesting to see the projects that are included in Mr. Polster's report. Some of them are, you know, kind of projects that also Textud is working with us on and so we can work to provide that update to some of those major projects without a problem. That's no issue at all. Councilmember Briggs? Thank you. Also, I was wondering about the matrix as well, because I know there were a few items that were listed on there still. So I just want to go ahead and plug those. I know that the road diet for Carol was something that I had asked for and I think was coming back at some point. Just want to throw that out there to see if that was still on there and add a couple more as I'm leaving. I'd like to see you guys discuss the Cyclodea Open Streets event maybe next year if that would be a possibility. And also, I know that Bell is closed right now for, I think, water distribution, but in the process I mentioned that it was suggested to maybe be closed permanently and it opened up some conversation. So if you guys could discuss that or have a presentation on the future of Bell as with the mobility discussion coming up. I think that would be helpful for individuals out here. Thank you. Well, if I may, a couple items. About two years ago, I asked your predecessors to put together a map just so we could see holistically. It might be something that would be good right after John's, you know, here's all the money page. It would be actually a sequence of overlays. Tell me if this is like a ridiculously heavy lift, but if not, I think it would be useful. A map that shows here's everything being worked on in the present timeframe, whether text out or city. Then next layer would be here's everything in the next cycle. I don't know what the reasonable time cuts are. I don't want to be arbitrary about it, but you know, maybe it's construction season if there is such a thing. So for simplicity sake, let's say here's the 2020 view, here's the 2021 view, everything that's going on. What's our city look like? You know, and then subsequent years and, you know, the ability to overlay to say here's everything that's going to happen. It definitely led to just our clear perception among us that oh, every way in or out of DEN is going to be getting worked on at the same time. You know, it's something to just be able to understand and communicate. So, you know, I'd be interested in knowing whether that's reasonable, helpful to you, and not, you know, not just a backbreaking lift, but you have to answer that now. And then lastly, I would just like to comment that participation in these council committees is entirely optional for council members, and council member Briggs has served on this committee and many, many others willingly and energetically and constructively. And I'm grateful for all of her participation to date. I know we'll have other opportunities to wish you well in your next endeavors, but from the point of view of this committee, thank you. Thank you. And thanks to staff for all your hard work. Thank you. With that, we will adjourn at 1025. Have a good day.