Jan 29, 2019 Mobility Committee on 2019-01-29 2:00 PM

Good afternoon, and welcome to this extra meeting of the Mobility Committee of the City of Denton. Seeing that we have a quorum, we will convene. It is about 2.01 here at City Hall, and as a first item, this is kind of new, but we have a blue card, a citizen wishing to speak on a couple of items for individual consideration. Apparently, as chair, I can make the call to permit public comments, but I'm going to ask for input from other committee members. Is that acceptable to you if I include public comment? Timing-wise, the comment should come, in my opinion, after the presentation and before we do deliberation. I agree with that. Are you agreeable? Okay. So we're going to allow that. Our first item is item A, consider the approval of the Mobility Committee of the Denton City Council meeting minutes of January 8th. I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Okay. And I don't believe we need a vote on minutes. And then we'll move on to item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding the regulation of motorized electric scooters on city rights of way. Hi, everyone. My name is Mark Oliphant. I'm the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the City of Denton, here to discuss electric scooters and how they can be regulated on city rights of way. We have discussed this a little bit in the past, so I won't go into the same detail that I have in the past, but just in general, a lot of other cities in Texas and throughout the United States are having these shared electric scooters, and they're having different experiences with them. They can be rented out using apps. There are different sizes of scooters. Some can be bought privately, like from amazon.com or something like that on the left. These are very similar to those that are rented. They cost about $500 on amazon.com. On the right is the little red scooter. That one is typically children and things like that. That's a good size for them. It's about 100 watts. The others of these tend to have motors that are about 250 watts or greater. So these services are very similar to Bike Share. We have a Bike Share currently in the city, and that preceded these probably by about 10 years in the United States. Just a quick comparison of benefits and drawbacks from using these e-scooters. Some of the benefits are that they can replace short car trips. It tends to be about one mile is the typical distance. They're simple, they're accessible, they're affordable, environmentally friendly. They've shown to be much more popular than Bike Share, actually. We've heard up to 10 times more demand, more popularity, and they have a smaller footprint than Bike Share. Now, some drawbacks. There are some safety concerns. Some ways the jury is still out on that a little bit. But we've actually, just in the last few days since we turned in our readaheads for this, we've actually gotten two reports, one from Journal of the American Medical Association and one from Portland, Oregon. They did a 128 pilot, which I'll talk about. Here, for now, the universities are not really interested, and that's a big thing we need to look at. Best practices, these are so new that we don't really have good best practices yet as far as managing them and so forth. And then just general questions about where can they be parked and ridden and things like that, which have to be. We talked about this a little bit at the last presentation, so safety is a big issue. These are just articles we pulled from national news outlets about some of the concerns about safety to Slidesworth. And these articles keep coming. So here's some interesting information about Portland. They did a 120-day pilot report, which was just released, I think, last week, and just some of the data about it. So in those 120 days, they had 700,000 trips covering 800,000 miles, so just a little over one mile per trip. And that was on 2,000 scooters that were in the fleet throughout the city. Now, just to compare with Denton, that's a city of about 650,000, and I think we're 150,000, 160,000. But so interestingly, if you look at this, during that 120 days, there were only 176 visits to ERs and we call those other things urgent cares. And so just stats on that, so that's one ER or urgent care visit per 4,500 miles of travel, or one ER visit per 4,000 trips. Which I wonder if scooters are getting a bad rap because they are so heavily used that the numbers skew upward, but that you actually have a lot more trips going on. So I don't know that on a per trip basis or a per mile basis it's been established that they are that much more dangerous than other modes. Talk about, we've seen this slide too, just what some of the other cities are doing. In Dallas, they're all over the place right now, but Fort Worth doesn't do them. Waco has also chosen not to do scooters for now. And a reminder about what our powers are here. Under the Texas transportation code, the city has the choice to prohibit or not these types of scooters. That's the red type there. So yourselves within the city council, this is within your power to decide whether or not you want these operating within the city of Denton. Currently, they kind of fall into a gray area, can they be considered a toy device? Right now, the only place you could definitively say you can't have that is on the square, where we have the prohibition on roller skates and bicycles and so forth. So some of the options here, we have a spectrum of options of things to do. When we were here a few weeks ago, we proposed a full prohibition for now between transportation staff and legal staff talking it over. That's the easiest from our perspective, but I know there was some hesitation about that. So I'm going to talk about some other options that we've discussed since that time. So there could be a partial ban there in the middle. We could fully allow them, and then at the bottom, maybe just table it for a couple of months because the current bike share authorization, that does not, it will expire at the end of May unless action's taken. And so it will need to be considered in the next three or four months here. So major concerns though, really just the two things that stand out, or the two universities, don't act like they're ready, although I will say I was on UNT yesterday. And within the first five minutes, I encountered two electric vehicles, one a small bicycle and one a scooter, which aren't supposed to be there. But in many ways, I think this might be a tidal wave that is coming. And just that they are so new that there's not a really good standard of practice out there that we can just draw upon as far as operating hours or regulation, things like that. But with this new information, literally in the last week, Portland and American Medical Associates have released some information. So what are possible actions? We proposed complete ban there at the top originally, but so some others. Banning shared scooter services only, our legal advisors were a little bit leery to go that direction because we allow shared bikes. And operators may come to us and say, well, what's the difference or we're going to sue you? Why are you discriminating against the scooters versus the bikes? I think arguments can be made though about safety and so forth, but that was a worry. Another one is banning scooters with certain motor sizes. I think there was some thought here, well, what if a kid got one for Christmas or something? And 250 seems to be the turning point with the large professional scooters. Being a 250 or above, or professional, well, adult for real use. And whereas the toys tend to be smaller than that, so there could be some kind of a prohibition that says 249 or below is okay. 250 and above is not. >> I've got a question, Councilmember Briggs. >> What are the wattage of most of the scooter services? >> Most seem to be 250, right at 250, the ones, the lime and bird. >> Well, because you mentioned earlier the toy ones are about 100, and so from 100 to 250, that's kind of a lot, so. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I mean, and the toy ones are maybe for up to 120 pounds or something, whereas the others, I think, are about 250 pounds, something like that, that we can accommodate. >> My original concern and the message I sent after the meeting was mostly specifically banning children's toys, so that- >> Not wanting to. >> Not wanting to, yes. So I'm glad that this is back for more discussion. >> I don't know about the 250, I'll have to think about that. >> Okay, yeah, and then, of course, there could be, yeah. >> It's kind of a question of whether or not it was discussed to see these options up there. But banning on arterial collector, everything except for residential, because that's going to still allow the children to be out in the street in front of their houses in a cul-de-sac, that type of an area. But it's not going to encourage any shared scooter services to come into town, because who's going to want to put something that can only be driven on a residential-rated street? >> That's an interesting, yeah, Pritam, you want to? >> Yeah, I think that can be an option that we can look into, because certainly, they cannot use any portion of some of these arterial connectors that are long-distance connectors. For example, between the University of UNT and downtown square, we have Hickory and Oak, which are arterials. And if we ban them, then there are very few residential streets that directly connect. So you have to get onto an arterial to connect. So that is a possibility. But also, within residential streets, there might be an issue of, do we even have sidewalks? And if we don't, then where do children play? So, then we open up a whole other discussion about that component. >> Just to think about. >> Well, what is state law for scooters that are 100 watts? Because, I mean, we don't have sidewalks in a lot of areas, but we allow our children to ride the bikes. Parents, normally, more likely to have insurance, you're going to have a level of safety with helmets and things. >> Right. >> And personal responsibility on a more personal level. And if you own your own scooter, then you would if you're just renting one for a mile. >> Mm-hm, so this is the excerpt that we pulled. I know we looked at this, I looked at this with legal. I don't recall any any discussion of wattage of the motors. I mean, and I think like for motorized, like gasoline internal combustion engines, there's like a 49 CC. And I don't know if at some point so many watts of a motor becomes that or something, but unless. >> So if you go to the next slide, I think the section 18-13 says vehicles and toy devices are prohibited down sidewalks, especially in downtown. But also, they're not allowed on the roadways, except for crosswalks. So they're irrespective of if your toy device or skateboard or roller board, they're not allowed on city streets currently. >> So I just want to make sure I understand. >> So in this rubric, you could use a toy vehicle on a sidewalk. If you live in a neighborhood that doesn't have sidewalks, that's it. >> Yes, I mean, you can't be riding on the streets. >> I do want to add this, I talked to the city prosecutor about this issue. She informed me that technically a child under ten cannot be given a ticket. So whether that is a transportation ticket or a city ordinance ticket, they're not allowed to ticket a child under ten because they don't have the culpability that would be necessary. She said further, while city ordinances, it would be ten, you could be ticketed ten and up. Said most of the time, an officer won't ticket a ten-year-old. If they're doing something dangerous, they'll probably just call the parents. But you can't receive a traffic citation until you're at least 14 years of age. So some of these on the major streets, if they're impeding traffic, something like that, that could be considered a traffic ticket. And if they're under the age of 14, they could technically not be ticketed for that either. >> Okay. >> So I wanted to pass that along. >> Yeah. >> How do you feel about getting through the rest of the presentation, hearing the citizen comment, and then continue deliberation? >> Okay. >> I think that's it. >> So, yeah, those are the option. Allowing them is an option. >> And then finally, table it, wait until May when the bike share is going to be reconsidered and potentially wrap it up into all one package or something like that, and I think, yeah, that's it. >> Okay, I'm going to follow what I just said. Thank you, we do have a blue card. Clay Thurman, if you want to come to the mic, let's try for three minutes and just state your name. >> I may be able to do that. Clay Thurman, 1524 Snyder, Denton. And I'm on the Traffic Safety Commission, and this was a very conflicted vote to put this before the council. And when this was given to us, there were only an up or down option. So I'm glad to see that there's more options. I did vote in favor of it because I was concerned about the bike share and much of your presentation is oriented toward the bike share. My reservation, which I harbor to this day, and I'm still conflicted over that vote, is I'm concerned about the personal liberty of individuals and citizens to be out there and doing this. I understand trying to hold off to get it wrapped up with bike share or something, which I think is a good idea. But I'm concerned about the personal liberty of individual citizens, and that's my main thing right there. As far as the city holding off on bike share, forbidding it for bike share, contingent upon wrapping it up into the bike share program, I think that's okay. We actually would have preferred that a moratorium be put out, which is what our preferred language was, but that was not an option at that time. >> I'm not sure I understand how moratorium fits with particularly the personal liberty concern. >> Well, the moratorium on bike share services, scooter share, thank you. >> Moratorium on services, but a lot of individuals. >> Right, but I think it's something that you do need to put in to the bike share, and I think getting that completed when it comes up in May would be a good idea. But again, personal liberty is one of my concerns. >> Thank you. >> I'm glad to see that kids won't be ticketed. >> Because I'm sure there's a lot of parents that bought some things at Christmas that are going to be rather ticked. When they find that it's now illegal for their kids to be out there on that. >> I don't want to see a rash of crimes executed with nine year olds. >> Right, right, and I really don't see this as being much of an enforcement issue anyway. >> So, okay. >> Thank you, I have a question. So if we take no action, what is the status quo? What's true between now and May? >> My understanding is that under current statute or ordinance, there is nothing that expressly prohibits and there is nothing that expressly enables scooter share. I know we have had some inquiries and we said, yeah, we talked about that and we don't want that. Which was accurate. It may not be on the books, but the initial feedback from speaking to council about this was that, well, we're not ready for this yet. So if tomorrow, line came and dropped off scooters in the square, I don't know what our recourse would be. >> Yeah, so since you're already seeing scooters popping up and you know there's interest in other cities, you'll probably have to have a position one way or another. >> Great. >> That's just my opinion. Is that your hand raised or no? Okay. >> Oh, I thought you. >> I felt energy come in this way. >> Wow, it's a problem. You know, as Mr. Oliphant was mentioning, you know, we would not have a recourse, but it would be very similar to what we experienced last year with, was it V-Bikes? >> V-Bikes. >> V-Bikes, when they showed up on the square one day and there was a stack of them. And so we worked with the company to make sure that they would keep them in sort of an orderly fashion. But it was problematic, because on a windy day, they'd be knocked over, they'd be all over the square. We still have probably 20 or 30 at the service center that have yet to be retrieved, that have been found in trees or bushes or middle of ditches and lakes or ponds in the city. So it is a problem, and whether it's a moratorium or we wait until the end of May, we're still about four months. And we get sort of the information that we're getting on this bike share and then bring that item back to council to talk about the policy from both perspectives. You know, we're just kind of, at this point, just kind of taking our chances. But I will say, the entity or entities that have reached out to our office, they've at least called to inquire about what they would need to do to come into the city, as opposed to showing up. And I would hope that they would continue to do that. And our message has been that our city council has given instructions to not allow it, but there's nothing on the books that keep from preventing it as well. >> Let me see if we can take this a chunk at a time. On the shared programs, I think the consensus, correct me if you don't agree, is we're taking your guidance that kind of the data's not fully in yet on safety. So we don't want to do it now, but we want to be able to look at it again at some future point and reassess. So is May a point at which we will actually know enough, or does that just happen to line up with bike share? >> Well, I think some things could happen between now and then. I have not had the chance to read all the way through the Portland report, or the JAMA report. I know that the bike share provider for UNT and for the city, the currently permitted one that's working well, they'll ride. They do have aspirations to bring in electric bicycles, potentially, and scooters. And I know they need to talk to the universities about that. So I think some important conversations could go on in the next three or four months about this. And perhaps the universities could change their minds, or could at least become more educated about them, and so forth. So I think a number of things could happen, actually, between now and then. I'm told also Vail Ride has a prototype of the scooter, and I've said, hey, bring that by. Let's see what that might look like, you know? So we're all just, we're all learning about this, and- >> Council Member Brooks. >> So for legal, the difference between a temporary ban and a moratorium, isn't it the same thing? I mean, and if you have a moratorium, do you have to have an end date? I mean, because what if, for some reason, we weren't ready in May, would we be required to discuss it? If we weren't ready yet with the scooters, the scooter share? >> Technically, it's going to end up being the same, it's going to be the same effect either way you go. It's that you're going to have to come back for council action to do something to change whatever your original decision is. If you want to call that a moratorium, or if you want to call that a temporary prohibition, either way, even if you don't use the word temporary, it's going to be that because council can decide to come back and change its mind later. So if we call this a prohibition on electric scooters now, and just put that in the books, y'all can come back in May, you can come back in October, you can come back whenever, you can decide that you're going to amend that prohibition, and you can put in, change it either. At that point, it would, I mean, you can have this entire discussion over again at that point. You don't have to change just part of it, you can change the whole thing at that time. >> Everything is temporary. >> Right, exactly. >> In life, okay. >> Turn, turn, turn. >> Yeah, so I would entertain just as taking this a piece of time. To me, that sounds rushed, maybe we'll know some things, maybe we won't. The inclination on the fleet thing is, give us a year, look at it again in a year. And I don't care what you call it, I don't mind saying explicitly that it's a one year thing, to set expectations for industry that we're going to look at it again. But to say a one year moratorium pending what we learned about safety from experiences in other cities. Anything? >> I would agree. Some of the data that's on the Portland slide, if you can bring that up on the number of visits to emergency rooms and urgent care. Without having anything to compare, what does the bike share have in that? It's impossible to know, is that high, is that normal, is that low, is it, where does that really sit? It's just a set of numbers, but it's not usable data. >> That may be in the report, I just didn't have the time to read it. >> Of those 176 trips, how many of those were actual, the shared scooters, and how many were personal owned? That's another part of the data that I would like to see, to have a better feel for what this is. Because I would think that if you personally own it, you are going to have that helmet. You are going to be, you're going to use it with a little bit more, I don't know what word I want to use. >> Discretion. >> Yes, safety minded. And so I think really, the moratorium is about safety. I'd also like to know, we know Portland is 650 and we're 150. Okay, we know our OCI on our streets is 65, what's their OCI? Because the street conditions, that much better up there. That can be a huge difference on what the safety factor is. >> And how do you feel about a year? And I want to ask Council Member Briggs that question as well. >> I'm fine with a year. I think we do need to bring something forward as quickly as possible to council. Just to make sure that we don't have somebody come in in the dark of night. >> Yeah, and Council Member Briggs, what's your thoughts on that? >> I'm good with a moratorium or prohibition on the shared scooter services. I'm not particularly, I mean, having the time limit in there isn't one year or whatever isn't particularly important to me because it could be less than a year if more data comes or if someone approaches us or if UNT decides to come to us. I mean, I guess if you have a year, then that doesn't necessarily mean you have to wait a year, right? I mean, you could come back earlier. >> You can always change anything. >> Okay, right, well, I just wanted to make sure that we weren't saying, well, you know. >> Yeah, just hard press. >> Well, we're binding ourselves to one year. >> But we have the key and- >> Right, well, yeah, okay. And so, and I just want to say too that there's other cities that originally probably started with a ban and then did the studies and came out and then said, okay, well, this is what we need. This is how we're going to approach it with policy and procedure. And so we were just at that stage where we need more data, we need to figure it out. So having this temporary ban or prohibition doesn't necessarily mean that our city is adamantly against them and will never allow them. Just wanted to go on record saying that for those out there. >> And I think we're all in that place. So is that enough direction on that piece of it, the fleet? >> And then I want to talk about the individually owned scooters, right? That's the thornier one, potentially. >> And I'm not terribly familiar with the mobility committee, so do you- >> We make recommendations to council, right? >> Yeah, I mean, do you go through Robert's Rules of Order right now to say, let's, or I don't have any consensus. >> We're asked to provide staff direction. >> Okay. >> So it's not a formal vote. So it's just staff direction, and consensus of the group was to, of the committee, was to move forward with X. And so we'll stick that forward. >> To move forward with the ban for a period of time might be a year, but it's until we are satisfied that we know enough about safety and about the comparability of other studies so that we can make a different determination. >> And specifically ban the shared services. >> And then I want to then take up, as a kind of separate item, how do we want to approach the Christmas gift issue, right, the toy issue. Because we've got a few ways to go. There's wattage, there's certain streets, there's, what were the other attributes? >> Yeah, certain streets. >> Or just universal, and there's, well, we've already learned. We can't go without sidewalks. So, I think the cleanest thing is a ban's a ban. But I sense some interest in, well, certainly in the part of the speaker we had, but some interest in protecting the rights of individual Christmas gift recipients. Because having heard all the options, does anyone else have a leaning? I mean, I'll offer one if I, you know, if no one else will. >> I'm for option two or three, with motor sizes smaller than allowing scooters 200 or less. I don't, I think if you, but then I don't know how that affects the shared scooter. So I think whatever we need, we need to make sure that it does say shared scooters. >> Well, I think we've already established ban on the fleets, and we're, you know. >> Well then, I would think that individual ones would just be allowed then, because they're not shared fleets. >> That's a position, I mean, my inclination is both to ban the 250 watts and the arterials, you know, use on arterials. >> I think it's already in our ordinance, it says that. So, I mean, we don't really need to create something that we already have that's existing. >> Is that right? Because it's suggested here as a possible action, so I figured it was a possible action. >> So within our code, yes, it does allow ban of any vehicles or toy devices along city streets, except while crossing them. >> So, Chair, maybe our option is to redo the ordinance and allow them to be on residential streets and change it. Is that what you're saying? >> Well, I'm not sure I'm clear on what Preeten just said. You're saying it allows an ordinance. >> So can you, Mark, can you go back to the slides, 18-11? So that's the ordinance that bans roller skate, toy devices. >> Toys aren't allowed on the road. >> Exactly. >> All right, so, but we haven't yet said that we want to ban individual ownership of scooters that are not toys, right? So, for individual use. >> Well, at which wattage does it turn into not a toy anymore? >> I don't think there's a firm. >> So, I mean, you can't really say that it's either all or nothing, really, right, unless we specify the wattage. >> Yes, that's why I'm, what I'm suggesting, which I don't think is said now, is that no use of 250 watts or greater is permitted on our right of ways. And I do take your point that the ones that are below 250 can't go on the roads anyway. So in that case, I guess what I'm really saying, I don't remember which option it was. But I suppose it's just the third item, the third option in addition to the bike share plan, then. >> My personal inclination is just to do the temporary moratorium or ban on the shared scooter services and leave everything else alone for now. >> John? >> Yeah, I would agree with that. I think we might want to take a closer look at 18-11, if there's something that we want to make some changes on at some point. Cuz one question I've got is, are they Segway, the little foot pedal deals? How do those fall in? Are those actually an electric scooter? >> They're a toy device. They're motorized. They definitely have small motors, at least the ones you see the kids riding around. I think it goes right along with roller skates, toy device. >> Yeah, but they're an electric as opposed to roller skates or skateboards or not. Just so that we're not, I don't know what size motor they have. So if they're motorized and we ban 250 and they're normally a 300 or something, I don't know where that sets, cuz you- >> I think they're pretty small. But we could look into that, you know, hover boards, is that what they call them? >> Yeah, those little there, you just stand up on. >> It's the two wheels of the platform, yeah. >> But your inclination was in general just to do the, to catch on fleets? >> Yes, well, I think we need to take a closer look at the rest. But I think it's not a single issue type item. I think it's we need to look at the overall safety, look at some data, see if somebody's done similar to that Portland report on other items to do that comparison. Is that something we want to put in our mobility plan that they're allowed on, you know, in bike lanes but not in the share row? >> Yeah, those types of things that we might want to look at. >> Let's look at all the other kind of chickens and ducks in some future session. But I think you've got consensus then as far as taking direction. And, you know, I recognize that we're, you know, that we've heard a potential legal risk that you might get challenged on that. And, you know, we're, we think that, you know, I think implicitly, we're saying we think you've got enough to work with. But they're different enough from bikes, you know, that we're confident in you. With the record shows, addressing legal, all right? >> So just to be sure, just so there's clarity. So approximately one year moratorium on these could be sooner. But just based on just additional study data, whether it's here in Denton or on the state or on the region or on the country, as we get more information. But to prohibit temporary prohibition of the scooter share companies from being permitted to allow to set up shop here within city limits. And again, there's no intention of. >> It's not forever. >> Of siding or penalizing kids or children that are using their personal devices and are on the streets, correct? >> Yes, that's right. All right, so I'm going to, let's just say, anyone else has anything else to add? I'm going to close that item, and we'll move on to item C. So we're going to receive a report, hold the discussion, and provide staff direction regarding. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Oh, okay, yeah, we're going to. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah, you missed the preamble. >> So I'll just repeat for the benefit of the late comers that we discovered that it turns out the chair has discretion about allowing individual comment. And all our committee members are in support of allowing comment on individual items. We're going to go with a three minute limit. We'll have the presentation first, then we'll take blue cards, and then we'll have deliberation. So moving on to item C, receive a report, hold the discussion, and provide staff direction regarding bicycle lanes on West Hickory Street between Avenue B and Welch Streets. >> Okay, well, Mark Oliphant again, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, thank you for your time. We're going to discuss bicycle lanes on Hickory Street between Bonnie Bray/I-35 and Carroll Street. Hickory is being repaved right now, block by block. And the next section to be repaved is really what we're looking at. This has been discussed for a number of years. There's been a lot of discussion back and forth, a lot of good ideas. I'm not sure there's anything that will make everyone happy, but hopefully we can discuss some of the positives and negatives of the different options that we have here. These are just some pictures to familiarize you with that area. There are some bars, there are restaurants, coffee shops, it's next to the UNT campus. I'm going to skip this one, and I'm going to talk about this first. So in the current pedestrian and bicycle plan for the city it does call for bike lanes from, let's see, from Welch to Carroll, Texas Boulevard, Avenue C to Welch. And then I-35 to Texas Boulevard. It got a little in the printouts, I think that didn't come through very well. And the Oak Gateway area plan has also discussed this matter and it has sort of two options. Originally it was create a contiguous bike lane along Hickory Street. Although later, after some other discussion, they added some other caveats or I don't know what you'd say. Yeah, some details to that. So one interesting thing that we did look at is as part of the study, we mounted a camera for about a week on Hickory Street to see what parking patterns were. Because that's a big question here, is what we're looking at is we're moving on street parking, which has implications, and we wanted to know what happened with the parking. And generally, it seems during the day, during the week when school is in session, people park and they go to UNT. But during other times during the evening, they do go to the local businesses and so forth. So the parking is used for both purposes. So we went out, this was discussed back in 2017. And direction was given to engineering to go and get some more options and get some professional opinions about what we can do here. So we went out and we got a consultant named Ulta Planning and Design, which is very well known nationwide, especially for pedestrian and bicycle planning. And we came up with these five different options. And so I'm just going to talk you through those a little bit. This is like a master comparison list of what we get with each. Some we lose spaces, some we lose a lot of spaces, some we don't lose any at all, but there are other considerations. So let's get into number one. This one provides a parking protected bike lane on the south side of Hickory Street. So just to orient you in the top left there, that's the CVS Pharmacy. And then you have Avenue B. And prior to that, you don't have parking on the south side of Hickory Street. And what this would do is it would eliminate the parking on the north side, but retain parking on the south side. The parked cars would act as a barrier between the moving vehicles and the bicycles. That's that block. On the next block, so we come up, here's where Avenue A Fry and Hickory intersect. They, your bike lane continues. And then we switch so that the parking is on the north side here. And you don't have the parking protection, but you do have sort of a buffer. There are about two feet between bike lane, two feet, and then vehicle lane to protect riders. And then here at Welch, it transitions into just the regular bike lane that's planned for most of the rest of the route. So that's option one. Option one is from a engineering, from a safety and traffic circulation standpoint that engineering likes. Option two is not terribly different. Instead, we do have a bike lane. It is buffered, not protected by parking on the south side. So again, there's your CVS at the top left, just to orient you. And we retain the parking on the north side. An advantage there is the parking is closer to the businesses that it's intended for. UNT doesn't really have an interest in maintaining parking for them along there. It's the businesses that want and need that parking. So this is fairly similar to one, it's just where the parking is on Hickory Street. So you continue along, and you still have that buffer. This buffer is slightly wider, two foot to three and a half foot. Sort of the street isn't uniformly wide along there, but that's about what you get. And so your bicycles stay on that right side. Here at Avenue A and Fry, one thing we do watch out for is we have what's called a bike box. Which is that green thing there. And that allows so that at a stop light or something, bikes can get in front of vehicles so that they don't turn right in front of them. South down onto Avenue A. And that's actually a busy corridor right now for DCTA buses. I believe it's route 8 that makes that right turn. Yes, sir. >> Why is that? They don't stop there. >> That's a good question. >> Okay. >> So I can quickly answer. I think there is a, for this particular one, there are signals at this intersection and the next. So for the Fry Street signal, typically you want the bicyclists to be visible and not on the far right behind, a lot of times there are parked cars next to the bike lanes. So if you're hiding or not visible, someone that wants to make a right turn lane, you can easily get trapped with the right lane hook for vehicles. That's the reason to get them in front of everyone. >> I got that. My question was why does DCTA go through it busily when they don't stop there? >> You can ask that question, but I think that's one of their routes. >> Yeah, the turn at Welch is kind of tight, but I don't know. There may be one when it gets down onto Mulberry there, but not 100% sure. >> Okay, we don't know. >> Yeah, yeah, we can get back to you with it. And then here it joins, so we end the two block section at Welch Street. Again, we have the box because there is a light there and you just want to watch out for any vehicles that might accidentally turn right or even moving bicycles. I mean, the real danger is when the light is not red and a bicycle and a vehicle are moving in parallel. And if that vehicle doesn't, or they overcome the bicycle, forget they're there and then turn right and the bike can run into it. But this is a state of the practice feature that was recommended by ALTA. On to option three, so option three is the most, we move the most concrete and the most equipments involved and everything. And this one brings the bike lane entirely off of the pavement. Currently, there's about an eight foot sidewalk on the south side of Hickory for that first block, which heavily used by pedestrians. And the idea here is that space would be turned into a bike lane and we would extend the sidewalk into the UNT campus. But that requires a few things. There's a retaining wall there, there are trees, the land belongs to UNT. So there would be a lot involved there. In a number of places, these things do work though, having a separated bike boulevard or something is a good idea. >> Question, Council Member Briggs. >> So this is my choice. >> Okay. >> Actually. And I'm curious if you've talked to UNT before you put this out as an option or if you just said- >> Yeah, so we had a conversation with the business owners, Bright Street business owners and UNT did participate. I mean, they did not say, absolutely not, this can't work. They said, well, you know, maybe we can talk about this. And we haven't pursued it further and that was their transportation representative. So I don't know if it would be a slightly different master planning office within UNT. But I know they're dedicated to the safety of their employees and students and they would be using it. So I think it's within the realm of the possible. That is the, yeah, that's the feedback that we got from that. There are a few concerns that pedestrians, maybe say you park your car on the south side of the street and get out. You need to go toward UNT while you would be crossing that bike lane to get onto the sidewalk. But these sorts of things do work well in a lot of different cities throughout the country and the world. On the next block here, so it would need to rejoin the street when you get to the end of that block. And there are concerns there from the cyclists about returning to the street and vehicles not seeing them or again, vehicles turning right. If you're coming from the other side of parked cars like this and vehicles are moving like this and want to turn right or something, there's some potential there. Now, if you really want to get crazy, one idea has been floated about closing off, closing this off here potentially, and that could solve some problems. I mean, we may be getting away from what you challenged us to do with this study. But that idea has been floated, so there won't be any- >> I'm sorry, why is that crazy? >> It's just a lot more money. I mean, we were just tasked with, let's get some bike lanes along here and we're sort of changing the infrastructure of the area, but maybe not. I mean, I think it has some merits. If we did that, you could turn this into a cul-de-sac, vehicles could circle around. So they could come in, they could access Welch to Mulberry Avenue A, and turn around. The consultant did even look at the possibility of continuing this along here. You would need to move some light poles. You would have bicycles moving right in front of the bars where people tend to congregate. So we're a little more leery there. People wouldn't be paying attention or slightly inebriated or something like that. So it could be even squeezed in there further along. So there's a lot of possibilities there. I know too though, they're getting ready to lay these sidewalks and repave all of this. So we'd need to push the crews and let them know if this really is the preference of the city council. It has many, many benefits. Here, finally, come back to Welch. So it could, for the whole block from Avenue A to Welch, be off of the street. This is easy, this last little piece, because you didn't have to move light poles. And you wouldn't be in front of the bars, at least, running into people. But having your riders off the road, back onto the road, off the road again, all within a 1200 foot length is not really preferable. So that's option three. Option four, I hope you don't love it, because engineering hates it. But we did want to at least show this to you, that this is possible. That you save everything and you go down to one travel lane. But this is a secondary arterial road, carries a lot of traffic east-west, and we discourage this. There are also deliveries along here, where you have delivery trucks and so forth. But it saves all the parking, and the bicycles get their protected lane, but we don't recommend it. We do. >> And I'm glad that you put it in here, because I did send an email. Why don't we go down to one lane? Because right now- >> Do you feel fully supported in this? >> Yes, now I don't. I'm of course not an engineer, but with traffic and the construction being the way that it is, everyone now is actually going into one lane, and that's the way that the traffic is moving. And for me, personally, if we want to make this a walkable safe area, the less traffic moving and the more we're looking out, the better. And so that's why, I mean, it just kind of was a natural progression, and it seemed to work just fine. And you're only looking for one moving car, whether people are walking around you or pulling out or parking. So it seemed good to me. >> Yeah, I think the two lanes currently often do function as one lane, because you have tractor trailers pulled over to unload and maybe utility work in the street. And so I think two lanes providing you one is like the best you can do from this. Whereas if you just had the one lane and someone stops to parallel park, you can just really pretend you want to. >> Yeah, that's good, no, you don't have to explain to me why not, but just on the calmness of it, it seemed to make sense. >> I do want to point out at the meeting that we had with the businesses around, one of the things that they did raise that may not be a good alternative for them as well. Just given that if this area is congested and backed up, a lot less people will show up in the area or avoid the area. That's more detriment than having an area that traffic flows, and you can actually move through the area. >> Quick question, probably for Preetam directly. Just an idea, but like on the corner of Avenue A where we're concerned, we're talking about the possibility of shutting that off. Is there any areas of the country that maybe use a flashing arrow for the right turn? We're using flashing yellow for left turns throughout the city now. Have a flashing arrow for the right turn with a picture of a cautioned bicycle above it, so that people know when they approach that corner to keep an eye out? >> Yeah, I think there is a flashing yield sign, it could be a ball too, but that's a possibility. We can come up with something that anyone that approaches that intersection could be a yield. And if we're actually shutting down one leg, we can even look into if the signal is warranted, if there is no cross traffic that's going through the signal on Fryan Avenue A. If it's lower, then we'll have to redesign that. If signal is not warranted, if we shut that approach, then it might function slightly different. But I would want to point out that DCTA route that goes through there actually takes Mulberry on the other side of the campus, if you go to the map. There is a drop off next to one of their buildings. It goes on Hickory for a little bit and again goes down on Mulberry. So there are two drop offs or bus stops on either side which are really, I think they're closer to the buildings and help, one is next to the arts building. Zoom out a little bit, it'll show you the bus stops. >> Let's see, here's Avenue A. >> Yeah, there's one and then on the left side there's Avenue B. >> Oh yeah, right there. >> So those two are the ones, but they have to use that jog to get through to that area and that's why those DCTA buses move in that direction. >> So they come clockwise, right? >> Correct. It will impact their service. I'm not sure what their ridership is and how they function, but this is pretty strong route for them, especially given that these bus stops are really close to the buildings where they actually have a lot of students going. >> Yeah, but they don't have a stop there. So it's still, there's no compelling reason that's been expressed yet why they do that, but you know, whatever, maybe there is one. >> So there is need or there are a lot of people getting off of next to these buildings and these buses run from the field. >> But they don't stop there. >> They do stop then. >> The people are there, but the people didn't get on the bus there. You understand? The bus doesn't stop in that-- >> On Hickory, it doesn't, no. >> No, but it doesn't stop on Fry to Mulberry, as far as I know. You haven't told me otherwise. >> Oh, here's-- >> There's a bus stop right there. >> Oh, on Mulberry, okay. >> Okay, so there are two bus stops on either side and that's the middle route. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> That's-- >> Okay, that's-- >> That's the answer, isn't it? >> Mm-hmm, okay. >> So let me go back. So that's option four. Now, option five, this is where we got really creative. We call this the calm street option, but you may have also heard the-- >> You say creative like it's a bad thing. >> Huh? >> You say creative like it's a bad thing. >> Right, yeah. I'm glad to hear that from you. Please send-- I like creative and if leadership likes creative, let's-- >> Okay. >> Let's do that. So the calm street, AKA Woonerf inspired. So that term was thrown around. A Woonerf is usually a residential street that has a very shared feel to it. Vehicles do not automatically have right of way. People can cross it. They don't have to go to the crosswalk and so forth. So for the calm street, what we're thinking about here is the nature of Hickory is such that from Bonnie Bray to Avenue B, it's largely housing. There's some university buildings next to it, but then suddenly the character of the road changes a great deal. You have these small businesses, coffee shops, bookstores, restaurants, heavy pedestrian traffic, the bars. And so you really come to a node part way through Hickory Street and maybe a node should be treated differently than the other parts of Hickory Street. So what the thought was was could we use some physical infrastructure to essentially force motor vehicles to slow down. I'll tell you right now, a lot of Hickory that hasn't been repaved actually does this. If you go from Welch to Carroll, you can't go faster than 15 miles an hour, it's impossible. So in a way, we have an unintentional calm street there, right? And so there are things that we could do. What this would achieve is it saves all of the parking, brings cyclists into the common lane, but has infrastructure such that motor vehicles are forced to physically slow down. Currently, it's a 20 mile an hour speed limit in this first block from the CVS to Fry and then it's a 30 mile an hour speed limit to the next. So what we would do is make both 20 miles an hour and we would put an infrastructure that just makes it not possible to go faster than that or without having to, you know, replace your shock absorbers or something. So we come into it, we have a raised crosswalk here. All of these features, we specifically ask the consultant to make them non-permanent. There are these really great products that are bolt down and so you just have your regular street and then you bolt them into the street. They're made of very strong steel or high density plastics for the speed tables, crosswalks and that slows vehicles down. One thing I will suggest also, this idea came in kind of late and so it's still a little under development is you could also do mid-block crossings. There's an immense amount of jaywalking in that area and if you had a mid-block crossing say, you know, in front of the Vortmans or something like that, again, a speed table raised crossing, maybe with some of the flashing LEDs, we make this a living boulevard. So it's friendly to bicycles, it's friendly to pedestrians. Vehicles can get through but not at high speed. There are parking options. Let's see. So here we are at the Frey intersection. We have what are called these bulb outs when visually when someone's driving and the road narrows that tells them, oh, I need to slow down. There's a huge amount of psychology in how people drive and treat the roads and so forth. Bulb outs up here. I would potentially suggest also a mid-block crossing somewhere here. I think it's the Lucky Loos that it's in front of that just keeps things slow for this so that as vehicles come down Hickory Street, they realize, oh, I'm in a special place. I'm in a node. I've reached a destination. I'm going to slow down for two blocks and get through this and I'm going to notice pedestrians and the bicycles are here with me and then when they get to the end of it, they can sort of resume their travel. If you look, let's see. So there's where it ends at Weld Street. Over here on the right, I'll draw your attention over there. So you can see this is the speed table and you see it's not permanent asphalt. It's something that's bolted down on there. On the right, speed cushions, same thing. On the bottom, these are some of the steel bolt down products that, and you know, you can use that at these bulb outs and so forth and also planters, you know, put planters in the street. So it slows things down and there's a lot to be said for that but I will say that our consultants were not, they were not willing to put their endorsements on this, that they felt this achieved all of the objectives that we were looking for. But, you know, they said, well, you could try it for a year or something. So it's a possibility. Those are the five. I'm happy to take any further questions. >> Well, I'd like to, you know, hear the citizen comments and then we can pick it up again. So if you'll come to the mic, state your name and address and your time will begin. We're going to go for three minute chunks. If it doesn't work, you know, we can be flexible but let's try Clay Thurmond. And if there's someone else who came to speak and didn't know we were going to allow citizens to speak, turns out we can do that. So if you want to put in a blue card, we're here. >> Okay. Again, Clay Thurmond, 1524 Snyder, Denton. I would like to advocate for either options one or two. I particularly like option two because it maintains the continuity of parking and the continuity of traffic and when people are driving or riding their bicycles, a certain expectation of consistency is preserved by that option. I would like to ask why we couldn't have some flexible bollards put down on that stripe lane to add a little bit more to the protectiveness of it. One or two are probably my favorite options. Also, there's some of the cheaper options that we have. And number three, I just don't think that's going to work. It's very expensive. We're looking at getting over into some root lines on the trees over there and you're only doing it for a block or so. And so I think that's a lot of money for just one block to do. And similar to number four, I mean taking a secondary arterial from two lanes down to one lane is not going to be very good. And as far as the Calm Street, I think that's a great idea and that may be something that I don't know is being worked into the MUSE plan or not, but I don't think this is the right location for it. So I'd like to advocate for option one or two, preferably number two. >> Any questions? >> Thank you. Okay, we've got Aaron Powell. Please state your name and address and your time will begin. >> I'm Aaron Powell, 1011 Cordell Street, Denton. I represent Bike Denton, which is a bike advocacy group here in Denton. Similar to what Clay has suggested, options one or two are our favorite because of the consistency and expectation of the cars. I like option two better because rather than going behind the cars for a block and then having to come back out of them, concern maybe about visibility or expectations of cars watching for bikes. Whereas if it's a lane that's consistent on the street all the way through, which is what option two is, then the cars, you know, even if they have passed you at one point or you come up on them, they at least have seen you and they know you're there. While I like the idea behind option three, it's, you know, for a block, it's coming on and off and then on and off again, you know, it's not great. I mean, if this was the entire stretch of oak or hickory rather from, you know, Bonnie Bray down to Carol, that'd be, you know, a different conversation. I think Bike Boulevard's on sidewalk level, it can actually work really well. I lived in Europe for a couple of years and, you know, they have this infrastructure and it actually is amazing, but it's also consistent throughout the entire city or at least for an entire lane. So I think expectations of just consistency down the whole street are important. You know, that's also why I don't like option five and having the bikes merge into traffic for a block and then merging back out onto a lane. I'd rather just, if it's going to be a lane, which actually from Bonnie Bray starting on hickory, the lane there is actually really good with the protected stripes. I like that. And if it kept all the way, you know, from there to Carol, we'd have a really nice route to downtown, so. >> Thank you. Kim McKibbin, state your name and address and your time will begin. >> Hi, I'm Kim McKibbin. I own a business at 1306 West Hickory Street. I've been with this project since the very beginning. I've also served on the Oak Gateway Plan for the past year and a half or whatever it is we've been working on. I think over and over again we've looked at this and we've looked at this area. The Oak Gateway Small Area Plan allowed us to expand our thinking past the narrowness of the two blocks that we're talking about. I can say that I've had multiple meetings with the traffic people. We have had meetings with the business owners. There is a number of businesses down there. There are over 20. I can't keep count because some have closed again because of lack of parking. The problem is that the businesses do need the parking. The university needs the parking. It is 20 miles an hour through that area. It should never have been slated as a major ulterior to be a bicycle lane or to be a bicycle path. It should have been routed other ways, but we're past that now. But there's no reason to continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. I would like you to know that the businesses that are down there, I do speak for them at this point, are very much aware as are the communities that if you eliminate parking in the area, you're pushing the students out to other places. I personally am more interested in the safety of the pedestrians, of the cyclists, of the people riding vehicles. That's why I really do hope that you'll give some consideration to the plan that was brought forward by the Oak Gateway, the collective consciousness of all those people that worked for so long, which is the calming traffic area in five. Now, if you do not choose five and you choose to go with something different, please don't think or allow the cyclists of the city to believe that they are safe with two stripes on a road. They will need to have physical barriers between them and the moving traffic, and I don't mean the little plastic barriers, the ball yards. Particularly through the area there in the Fry Street overlay district, they will need concrete, they will need steel, they will need something in place because the students will continue to walk out in front of them. The cars will continue to pull out in front of them. And I think that there are some creative solutions with five that allows everybody increased safety. I know the cyclists don't want to be part of traffic, but the reality is, in a 20 mile an hour zone, they are more visible as part of the moving traffic than they are removed from the moving traffic. We're not talking about 30, 35 miles an hour. It's all the way down a hill. They're going to be doing 20 anyway. So, please give some of that consideration if you want to try it for a while or not try it for a while. I know you have been lobbied very strongly by the Bicycle Coalition, and I hope that you take that into consideration. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. And we have Kevin Marshall. Yeah, just please state your name and address and your time will begin. >> Okay, I'm Kevin Marshall, address 700 West Hickory, Dent, Texas, 76201. Yeah, I own Bullseye Bike Shop right there on Hickory. I ride my bike on that road every day. So, really, I mean, I feel like I have points in just about every single one of those topics, every one of those plans. So, if you all have any questions, I've been in a bunch of these meetings. But I would say, I don't-- looking at the budget, I have no idea how much money you have to spend and I know that y'all, you know, as a city, you work with millions of dollars. Like, my scope for what y'all deal with is way beyond, you know, what y'all, you know, I mean, y'alls-- what y'all deal with is way beyond what I'm used to dealing with. So, I-- my favorite one is, you know, if money wasn't an issue to actually just give us our own lane. Like, give us our own lane separate. I've cycled a lot in the woodlands. They actually-- they're in the top 10 best cities to cycle in in the nation and they actually have a separate bike lane through the infrastructure. So, they have the road and then they have their own separate from traffic bike lane. I think that would move-- it'd be the safest but I don't want to recommend something that will never happen or will happen in-- supposed to happen in five years and then get tabled and happen in five years and then get tabled. And so, if that's what it's going to do, don't push that one through. Go with something simple like one or two. Keep us-- I would say out of them, the one that actually just had a divider that kind of-- what's nice is if that street fluctuates in and fluctuates out, you can kind of use that buffer to kind of balance out the street and the lanes and the parking. So, that would be good what they showed of the dividers like the plastic things that stick up in that picture of five, right? I think those dividers are actually really helpful like cars. I've ridden in Austin where they use those to kind of separate the road and those actually, you know, they do give something that the cars are aware of or somebody starts to drift, drunk driving, people leaving the bars. I know this is a 20-mile zone but it's not treated or approached like a 20-mile zone. People leave the bars, you know, or they're trying to find a spot because they're late for campus, so late to get to class. So, they are going faster than 20 miles an hour. So, anything you can do to kind of separate us would be great. Yeah, so I don't think if you put the parking next to the road and the bike lane on the other side, I'm really not concerned about a person getting out of their car and not being aware enough to realize they're about to get hit by a bicycle. And part of riding a bicycle is we're constantly aware that pedestrians are going to walk out in front of us. Someone's going to open their car door into us. Someone's going to pull into traffic. A really big issue was exactly what you all are dealing with where when we stop at a light, there are cars that are taking rights. And whenever you're bombing down from Avenue B to Fry, when you're going down that, that's a pretty steep incline. And I mean, I'm breaking the speed limit. You know, like I'm definitely on a bicycle. I'm probably hitting 30 miles an hour like flying through there. So, not that I do that, but yeah. So I've got a question. Yeah, I wasn't that clear on, you know, sorry, on what your sort of ideal would be. The one that you hope you wouldn't advocate if it was going to get kicked down the road forever. But was that like when you say a separate lane for bikes, which one? It was that really the expensive one. Was that for where the carbon of the sidewalk or? Yeah, yeah, where it's separate. And then was that three, three, three. Yeah, so yep. OK, and did you have a question? And then, yeah. And then if that one's just never going to happen, I think it's two, right? Two's the one where we have her. But one or two, they both sounded good. I've got a whole bunch of stuff, too, if y'all ever wanted to close off Fry Street and give us extra parking, but that's. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to speak about that. Glad you mentioned that. Mark, would you mind speaking to the issue of the-- I forget what you call it-- the plastic? A bollards or delineators. Yeah, in what scenarios would they conceivably fit or not fit? So here, if you see the little SUV and that vertical white. This is option five. OK, option five, yeah. Coming out. Let me see. Oh, here it is. Yeah, right there. So yeah, we got them there. Yeah, these are fairly commonly used. We call them delineators. They come in different heights, different colors. They almost always have bands of reflective material at the top. They can be placed on asphalt with adhesive. Typically, we like to do that rather than bolt into it. This is what we're thinking of doing on Highland Street to divide the vehicle lanes from the bike lanes. They're fairly inexpensive. It is entirely a psychological deterrent. You know, there's no-- It doesn't stop a car. But would you mind addressing which of the other options they would conceivably be addable to? Yeah, you do have enough space. Let's see. Where are we? I'll go all the way. OK, option one. We have, if you can see here this measurement, three feet buffer. That's definitely enough space to put one of those sort of between your hash marks either at every interval or every other interval. They're fairly inexpensive. Option two. We're looking at, well, two to three and a half foot widths there as well. And you could do that. Definitely install those. No trouble and not a lot of extra cost. Three, it would be-- Well, I guess you could put some between the sidewalk and the bike lanes just to kind of help keep-- And you would do markings on the pavement. You know, bicycles over here. And so it's very clear. You know, further down you would have space. Yes, I think on all the options, this one has a four foot-- Oh, well, no, this is option four that we're not doing. Question within your answer here. Yeah. Well, just a comment because just start right here. What we've done is that we've acknowledged that this is a really high pedestrian-oriented area and that cars go really fast and that this calm intersection would be really great. But then in any of the other designs, it's not mentioned. And so I want to know why in this calm one when the bicycles are in the traffic because the intersection doesn't really have anything to do with the moving lanes of traffic. It's about the pedestrians getting across the street and moving through that intersection. So I mean, because I look at this and then I look at the bike lane, I look at the dividers and I see that, you know, these are things that we need, you know, not just here and in other parts of the city. But I'm wondering why this intersection is only being calm in this design and not in any of the others. I know it was something mentioned in the O-Gap plan that they are interested in it, I think, in general. Part of it was cost savings where we were looking at ways to just achieve this with paint or thermoplastic that gets heated and laid down. Do you want to? Yeah, to talk to that. I think at that particular intersection, Avenue B, the entire frontage of UNT is 20 miles an hour. It's a signalized intersection where everyone stops so there are signal-protected crosswalks. The way this was envisioned back in the day, about two or three years ago, when Hickory Street project started, is the reconstruction of Hickory Street was between the existing curb lines. They were not touching the curbs. They were just reconstructing the street. So this project would be implemented as part of a restrapping effort after the street reconstruction was completed. Now that we have all these... Now that we have certain parking issues and we wanted to look at options, we're coming up with certain options that change the curb lines that require redesign for a storm and redesign for how the street will be curbed. So these are a lot of expensive options. And originally, when this project was envisioned, these were not on the table. Now we're trying to come up with creative ways of how we can save the parking and implement something different. Just on that note with the parking, I drove by there earlier today and I counted 23 cars and that's because there was a section of it that wasn't being used because there was a construction thing working there. So just for reference. I have plenty to say so I'll wait. Yeah, I've got several things. I kind of like three, but I like some of the options that are in five as well. I think I agree with Council Member Briggs that we can do both. I know this area very, very well. I drive it every day. I've walked it many, many times. And between Avenue A and Fry is the heaviest congestion. So that explains why we will need to do that shifting of the bikes. What I'm wondering about, you know, you see New York is probably the biggest example of it. An actual concrete barrier for that bike lane is that I don't know how much more, I'm sure it's quite a bit more expensive, but it just depends on how you. Like a curb? Well, you know, how, yeah. What they use on the highway when they try and block off, you know, their, what, maybe 10 foot sections, 20 foot sections that, you know, the big concrete that they just. Concrete barriers. Concrete barrier. Dividers. On this particular one, I do want to point out that the bikeway is going to be six inches above the street level, above and elevated. That means there will be curb and the cars won't be parked or cannot enter the bike area. So they will be protected, if you may, as well as divided. And I look at it from a different standpoint, too. We talk about the amount of jaywalking. Well, how do you stop that? Well, that's one way you're going to direct them to use an actual crosswalk. And if we had to add another crosswalk in the middle, that's fine, but you're adding to the safety feature when you put that in there. You're directing people in a certain direction. What's the width of the Jersey barrier at its base? Do you know? Is it three feet? I think it's pretty wide. We don't have the space here. Big, yeah. Some of these we have three feet, but. And I think those are designed for really high speed areas. There might be something a little bit smaller than that that would work in the same manner. Wheel stop size, it won't be a super large barrier. Because I think if you just put the plastic ones out there and you've got the parking there, you're going to have people going over the... In the issue, somebody mentioned doors opening on a car as you're walking by. I guess if you put the concrete in there, you couldn't get out on that side as easily with only a seven and a half foot width. You're talking about New York, the thing they use to kind of prevent mid-block crossing, are those metal, like, movable fences, right? With slats like that and the bar across the top. And it's got a base which I think is narrower in footprint than the, what were you calling it, the New Jersey barriers? That might be what you had in mind. But I guess for me, I think it's 25 years ago was the last time Hickory was redone thereabouts. And so this is a major gateway of the community. Most everybody that's ever gone to UNT has been to this part. You might not have been to all of campus, but you've been to this area. And so to me, it's incumbent upon us as a council to take pride in this and make sure that it's done right and works well. So I'd like to know what UNT thinks a little bit more about the option three, where they stand on it. Did you, were you about to say something else? I just wanted to make sure that you know that I really like the flower boxes. Well, this is the Committee on the Environment. Yeah, I would love to understand a little bit better what the root zone issue might be or might not be. There are quite a few trees that will be impacted if we go and widen the sidewalk. The current sidewalk, we have checked. It's between eight and 10 feet wide. Yeah. It's on the wider side, but we will need more than 10 feet. So if you look at this photo, CVS is kind of to your left rear. You have the retaining wall, hydrant, and then up here, I don't know if you can see very well, but this is where you would have to seat up the bicycles here and then you would have your sidewalk out here. So there are lampposts and then quite a few trees. The other issue is there are steps starting right where the retaining wall is if you go further down from CVS and those need to be redesigned. If we move it closer, then you don't get the height for the steps. So it becomes an engineering challenge to add that width there. You like a challenge. Yeah. Is there anything that says a sidewalk has to be perfectly straight and not go on the other side of the tree and weave between them? Yeah, because I think my guess is we probably all-- this is the beauty of the environment. That we probably all like to preserve the trees that are part of the beauty of the area. UNT is amenable to that. Yes, it's a UNT. It's-- we don't have the right of way. It's talking to UNT if they're-- Yeah. They have a lot of shared objectives here, though, right? Yeah. I just don't want to lose parking because I know how-- in that area, when the space opens up, it gets filled back up when college is in session in a heartbeat. I'd like to-- go ahead. I'm sorry. I'd like to make a couple of points that are questions embedded in them related to the perceived trade-off of bike lane and parking. One is, I just want to acknowledge, just so we're open between us, I asked explicitly for a review of the data from studies that are done. Are you prepared to share anything about that? Yes, it's not included in the report, but-- so we received a very extensive literature review that was put together by some professional researchers. It's been done in the past about what are the impacts of removing parking and adding bicycle infrastructure. Of those, it's difficult to draw a direct comparison because many of the sample areas were New York City, San Francisco, downtown Toronto, large metropolitan areas with complementary transit and lots of other things going on. But there is evidence that bicyclists drive higher sales and especially in certain numbers of businesses. They make more trips more frequently. If you're traveling on a bicycle, you're much less likely to drive to the far side of town to hit Walmart or something, which is not at all friendly to bicycles or something like that. Already, the pedestrian nature of this area, the bicyclists who are accessing the campus and so forth, we know are already in the area using it. But I did not find something specific enough to a town in Texas or the Midwest or something like that, a mid-sized town where there was a strong indicator that removing parking absolutely made an economic case and made sense. I appreciate your responding to the request. Another issue I'd like to take up, given this potential of a trade-off, although actually you're hearing a lot of support for making the pie bigger with option three, if we can save the trees. But another thing that, I don't know if it's explicitly said, it's certainly implicitly in Oak Gateway is the idea of making this even more of an area with a sense of place. And I don't know why so frequently I hear raised but never seriously considered this business of closing off that section of fry one way or the other. You talked about possibly closing it off at the Hickory side, which I see some advantages to. What had occurred to me, not having heard that idea, was you extend the sidewalk in front of the shops across Mulberry and you pick up space that right now is Mulberry Street or is that angle, right? So it gives you the possibility of your one earth right there. >> Air, sir? >> Yeah, right now you've got parallel parking, I don't know if it's by law, but something by practice and it's in the picture along the west side. You could go angle there and pick up spaces. You could pick up pedestrian and bike amenities like bike rack at the southern end. In other words, if you extend the business side sidewalk straight south, right, until it crosses Mulberry. And you see what I'm saying? So you pick up that whole bit that's, you know, you close it off there, still allow emergency vehicles in and out, deliveries in and out, and obviously the cars were parking there in and out, but it's not a through street. The bus can stop at the corner of Hickory and Welch. They stop all along the way, I know, there's nothing precious about that particular spot. You pick up parking spaces, you add the possibility of a greater sense of place to the Fry Street area, and you still allow Hickory to be the arterial. Now as far as option five, I don't know if there's anybody here who could speak to how it feels to get hit at 20 miles an hour, I don't think it's great. So I'm not that compelled by how common it would feel to get hit by 20 miles an hour, so I'm more inclined to have the straight, protected path through. And if we can do option three, I'd totally support that, but that's not mutually exclusive with the idea of, you know, adding that sense of space to the Fry Street area and some parking. If I, or may I at least address that? So I really agree with what you're saying, and I think there does need to be some more holistic thinking about this area and what's going on. In our contract with the consultant, we were limited in a way, I actually brought up, hey, what if we close this off, and they're like, I think we're kind of getting off the scope there. So I like it, I would be from, as bike and pedestrian subject matter expert, I would love to talk about that some more. I just, I don't know where would it be economic development or planning or like how that would-- Where is the room for something that would be good for the city? There must be a place. It's part of, it is part of mobility. That's great. So just to better understand, quickly understand, you want to shut the northbound traffic along Avenue A Fry or the southbound traffic-- Well, look, if I can just respond to the question. It was just my idea. I'm always interested in hearing a build to a better idea. And actually, I can't even say it was my idea. I took it credit where credit is due. It came from a cyclist, and I just thought, wow, that solves a lot of problems. Susie Roomer. Mr. Roomer, yeah, yeah. If he's not here, he's here. It's very, very-- She'll watch it. Yeah. No, no, not Susie, it was her husband. Oh, Garrett, okay. Yeah. He said, yeah, you know, I've always thought, but then I've subsequently heard it from other people. Yeah, once it's kind of in your mind, it's kind of hard to let go. But yeah, the suggestion that I have made for consideration was you close it off. You have Mulberry end at basically the sidewalk on the east side of Avenue A. And I was anticipating the access in and out of the north, but it's just the way I thought of it. You know, it doesn't mean there's not a better way. It wouldn't happen. It could be closed off entirely to vehicles. This intersection, no vehicles out, no vehicles in. It could be closed in one direction. There's lots of good ideas. It could also be open to only buses and emergency vehicles or something like that. Well, I think you have to allow deliveries. I mean, that's-- Yeah. Right, that's the lifeblood of that block. Mr. Chair, if I may, because you also have a tour, you know, later this afternoon or here shortly. You think we're getting long? No, no, you can talk as long as you want. But if you would like at the end, you know, certainly this would be like a concluding item type discussion that we could look at some of that and do an informal staff report, bring it back to the committee and the whole council. I request the informal staff report now. It is pertinent to this posting in that it addresses the parking trade-off. No, I understood, but just as it means to-- I assert, Mr. Chair, it is pertinent to the posting. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Just from the standpoint of allow staff to do that research, I'd hate to put Mark on the spot about just trying to provide some what-ifs and-- Absolutely. Clearly, it opens the door for the consideration of staff. And that way, we can work with economic development, planning, engineering, and even DCTA, because what it affects with them. So it allows us to kind of have that more holistic conversation, internal and external, and see what options are available, and the cost and other things that just may affect that area long term. Well, so-- go ahead. I was ready to kind of try to articulate a consensus. Just to kind of add to what I'd like to see from staff, because we've got a pathway on Sycamore that's planned, that we've already gotten funds from COG for. And is that going to be just pedestrian? Because I understood that to be an 8 or 10-foot wide. That's a multi-use trail that's 10 to 12 feet wide. So as we're looking at this little area, we need to see how we connect these. That could be, you know-- Sycamore to Welch. And there are also improvements on Welch as part of that same-- So Welch will be road diet where you have one lane in each direction with bike lanes on either side. So since some of the capacity on Welch will be reduced, the parallel is Avenue A to get in and out, and is the access for the businesses. So we have to look at more holistic. Is it even an option given that we're going already set in one direction for Welch? And we can bring it back on that one. Okay, and Council Member Briggs? I have a few questions. One, is our mobility-- I mean, I know that our mobility and thoroughfare plan are getting updated, and along with that, it's our sidewalk is getting updated as well. What about our bike plan? 2012 is-- As part of the mobility plan. And so that will also be into that scope as well. Okay, because I feel like we need a big review of that so that we can kind of get a holistic view of what's going on. And I think it was just kind of piece milled together before, and we're kind of going through that now because we're doing all of this stuff on Hickory, and then we see that Welch and Sycamore is going to be a really nice way to get into and across to downtown. So it's just kind of like, do we do that now to avoid Carol and Hickory where people are getting hit, and it's really, really scary? So I mean, I think we need to have a bigger, broader discussion on that. But the other questions I have for this. On Avenue E, currently on Hickory, at Avenue E, there's no bike lane. Is it going to be a bike lane, or is it just all of a sudden not a bike lane in that area, and then it-- so our plan is to have a full bike lane of some sort from Bonnie Bray all the way down. Because right now it says bike lane ends, and there's-- it just kind of like dots and ends. And is that temporary for the construction? I think they just haven't striped it yet. They have not striped it. I think it's temporary. The bike lane should extend all the way. All the way through. So that's the plan. Okay, I just wanted to confirm that as well. And as far as it being a one-way street, Hickory, does that mean the bike lane is a one-way bike lane? Correct. It's only one direction. And so on-- you just said a boy band. And so on the Oak Street, is that going to be the same? Is that how people are going to move back and get-- Correct. It's the same direction of the traffic. Bike lanes are designed that way. Right, and so Oak, though, is going to be redone. And there's going to be a full bike lane as well on Oak, like we are expecting on Hickory from-- That's part of the master plan, yes, correct. Okay. I'm just trying to get a holistic view to make sure that we're not just, you know, thinking about these one or two blocks here and putting all this thought into it, and then nothing else makes any sense. No, let's just do a piecemeal. Right, well, I mean, we have done that before. Sure. So I'm just kind of going through here and making sure all our questions get answered. So I think that's pretty good for now. Do we have any plans as a city to have a private lot or a city parking lot anywhere in this area, like we do in the downtown area? Like on the northwest corner of Oak and A, for instance? Well, somewhere, I mean, have we-- But not occupied? At this point, I don't know, and we can look into this. This is much more involved exercise and effort, and I think it's beyond scope of what we're talking about. Right, well, we're talking about removing parking. Parking, correct. And so for me to be comfortable because the lifeline of businesses-- and I know that bicyclists use the businesses more in their studies as well. But in reality, those spaces are used, and if they're not there, then those cars aren't there. So I don't know if they're going to-- and in the study, we have parking behaviors, but I didn't see any pedestrian behaviors or bicycle behaviors in that same count unless they were all included. Oh, right, the purpose of the camera was just to record parking. The camera has great data, has 10 gigabytes worth of data, I mean, like a week's worth in three-hour chunks. And so we had an intern with the consultant go through nine or 12 hours of it, sort of picked randomly. So it was just a matter of not having the manpower and time to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. OK, well, ultimately, I just-- my goal is to make sure that this area is walkable and safe and friendly to the pedestrians because it is heavily used and accessed. And it's crazy right now, and I just want to make sure-- because I see lots of good suggestions and options, but I don't think that they're all-- if you do this, you can't do this or do this. I don't-- I think that at least there's one good suggestion in each option that can all be combined to make sure that we are doing our everything we can to calm traffic, protect the bicyclists, and alleviate some of the parking issues. Still, three is your lead? I want it all. I want my cake and I'm going to eat it too. Because I was going to articulate a consensus that centered around three, you know, at least investigating UNT and tree issues. But are you not there anymore? No, I am. I think that three is good, but I do want to also ask about bicycle lights because I've been in cities where bicycle lanes have actual lights and the traffic has to pay attention to them. And if that would help alleviate some of the turning issues. So if the bicycles get the light ahead of time and then-- I mean, I don't know, of course, but that's just a question I have that I'd like to explore on that. Because that part seems to be a big concern for the cyclist. Okay, yeah, we can look into bicycle lights if we can implement them. Okay. Do you accept that as consensus direction? That, you know, I would like to investigate the do-ability of three, you know, taking into account UNT's willingness and our ability to move around the trees and keep them healthy and extant. And then a second option, if not? What are you saying? Oh, do we need to-- Do you want to, well, I don't know. I'd rather wait on that to see whether other-- you know, I want to address what the other options are for adding parking to the area, right? And have that part of that conversation rather than say default right away to something else. That's taking into account the other parts of the picture. That's where I'd be. Okay. So that's our direction. So if there's no other comments, I'm going to close that item. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone who came to speak. And I hope you felt your influence, all of you. Mr. Chair, I would like for Preetam to address just the timing because I think one of the reasons why this item's here is-- Because they're working on the road right now. Well, we've got to stripe it, you know. So what do we do in regards, I mean, if we're working with UNT-- You've got to call UNT, sounds like step one. We'll do that, but just-- Any other advice you need? We will do that. But the plan is to wrap these two segments by summer and make sure that we're strapping is back, whatever parking we had and/or the bike lane is back in. And then we're going to work from the section from Welch to Carroll, we'll work on that. We're still in design phase for that. But we're going to get out of this area and be done with construction and not wait with tabs on the street and waiting for some decisions to happen. So we have to make quick decisions. I feel the option three requires a lot of design, right of way considerations, exchange of access easements, as well as coordination with UNT. With all due respect, you showed it to us as an option. And I feel entitled to take it. You can't tell me now, oh, it's too hard. I think you have to do it, you know, see what it means to do it. And then take it to council, obviously. It's not a matter of you can or cannot do it. It's a matter of what do we do as an interim. We're moving forward with our street project. There needs to be a direction. Let's go ahead and get back to what it is, what it was. Are you telling me it's impossible to do that on this timing or we just don't know if it's possible? I think you ought to find-- my opinion is we've got to find out if it's possible on the timing that you desire. Yeah, I think it would be difficult to design this whole thing. Within the few months that we have, because we have to get this designed. It has to be engineered design because of the retaining walls, stormwater improvements or stormwater inlets that have been in the ground for I would say more than 50 years. So it would be difficult to get something designed and construction ready in the timeframe we're talking about for option number three. I don't know, if you tell me it's difficult, okay, we do lots of things that are difficult. I mean, if you're telling me it can't be done, then I think that-- Let's go back and take a look at it and just get the, you know, with work with the consultants to see from an engineering perspective what can be done. We can make our-- we can start working with our partners at UNT to certainly solidify the space and then work through that. I mean, you're right, if that's an option, if it was placed on there, then it's doable. So we need just to be able to work through those things. There's a fantasy, it should have been labeled as a fantasy. Just add a unicorn stamp to it. You put it on the menu, you know, we ordered it. So what I'm hearing is we move forward with strapping the parking the way it is and then we'll work on option three, which is offside, which is on the UNT side. And that's a fair direction now. That's the opposite of what was just said. So I think what you're saying is that right now, you have to do the road work. So can you not just leave it unpainted and unstriped while it continues down? Because King's Row has not had striping for like five months. Like it's been micro sealed, but no striping. So I mean, it's like chalked on there. But it has, so I mean, I don't know if we can chalk or... It becomes tough in this area with parking. Then if you don't have space to strive, then people park on the curb, on the curb, it becomes a safety hazard. That's where I'm coming from. I'm personally willing to entertain this conversation. Well, it dovetails perfectly into the next item, which is meeting times and dates. And I think you see a willingness to take extra steps to be supportive on the part of committee members. And if you need us to come back quickly when you have more information, but the direction that you heard from Mario is the opposite of what you said, which is go find out. Difficult, but doable or not. And maybe you'll know more in not that much time, whether or not you can achieve this unrealistic timing. But I'm not for bait and switch. I know you didn't intend it that way, but that's how it ends up feeling. We'll take a look at it. - I have one more comment on this, because what we talked about parking, but we didn't talk about enforcement of parking and metered parking. And I do think that if this committee wants to make sure that parking is there, we need to make sure that it's enforced somehow. And I know that meters may be an option. I hope, I don't know if I would like for that to come back in the conversation, because it's, yeah. If it's not going to be, if it's two hour free parking right now, it's not enforced. And so there needs to be some mechanism of that or an idea of how we're going to handle the parking and the movement of the cars. - So potentially come bring back the meters that were removed from. - But being city, not university. - Oh, I see. - And then we can pay for all the replanting of the flowers and the flower boxes. - Well, we can also look at, you know, there's some smart options, you know, with parking. They're being used in other parts of the country. - But, you know, I'd say that would be an item for us to then review. I, you know, I don't know if, you know, Pratima's landed on that, but I would need, you know, more discussion on those options. And it's a whole separate piece, you know. I understand the impulse, but it's definitely, you know, an unaddressed issue. - So are we okay to close the item? Yeah, Pratima, I'm sorry, I'm squeezing your shoes, but, you know, you put me in a box. We put each other mutually in a box. Let's enjoy being in a box for a little while. But, you know, it's not a personal thing. So, okay, I'm going to close out item C. Let's move on to item D, identify, discuss meeting times, dates, and provide direction for future mobility committee meeting dates and times. Did you have a proposal? - So the reason this item is being considered, I think a few months ago, we came to the committee and we talked about what day we wanted to pick. And I think there was a consensus on Tuesday being the right day because you were here for council. And it would be, it would work out as a whole day for all of you to be here. Now, recently, I think there were some changes and the council start date has been shifted up. It's no longer, I think it's moving towards not being one o'clock or two o'clock, which was originally in the works, to being more of a noon start time. Given that, if our start time was still 10, that only gave us an hour, not even hour and a half, because they need that space for one hour to prep. That's the reason this is on the agenda, is do we wanna consider to move that 10 o'clock timeline to a nine o'clock where we meet in the morning and that gives at a minimum two hours until 11. And then we can move forward to the council meeting from that point. Is that something that is acceptable? Because that's the recommendation. We're not changing the date because I think it worked well for everyone on the committee. We're just recommending let's get some more time because every time you hear we're running out of time, we're getting squeezed. - Yeah, and I think the other thing, too, that Preetam's not mentioning is trying to be respectful of the fact that you are here for basically all of Tuesday, especially if we start at nine or 10 or whatever, depending on that evening's agenda, it could be very long. So just being cognizant of your time. And again, we were trying to start a two o'clock work session but starting to pare back to, we're starting to extend to starting at noon. And so just, we need the time to be able to bring items to you all. But they also need the time in this room to prep for the meetings, unless we want to decide to use a different meeting, which would be the council chambers. But it does change the dynamics of the meetings if you're not in here. - Y'all, references? - I do want to point out that that conference space is not videotaped. So we can't really, council chambers, okay. - How do you feel about going earlier? - I'm fine with earlier. - Okay, so 7.30. - I'm just thinking 6.30. That's what I do on Wednesday mornings. - Well, I'm gonna sleep down a little bit. Yeah, so I don't hear any problem with nine. And I truly wouldn't mind going earlier myself. - I have to get my kids to school. - Nine is the earliest. - And I think if we could start at nine and just sort of kind of get to a hard stop around 11, 10, 11, 15. It gives the staff enough time to prep the room, make sure that all the video equipment is working and everything is prepped for the use of the council. I think that'll help. - Okay. I'd like to do concluding items first before item E, if that's all right. What item E is, is we're all gonna go on a walk. And I think members of the public could tag along. Yes, no, right? It's an open meeting. But easier to do concluding items while we're still sitting here. So entertain any concluding items? - I do have one. I think I brought this up before, but I haven't seen it on the matrix. And that is the stoplight at Oak and Avenue C, which is with Oak being a one-way street. If you're walking in the opposite direction of traffic, there is no way to know what that light is doing without having to look back over your shoulder if it changes when you're midstream. There's not a crosswalk signal on that for people walking eastbound on Oak Street. - There it goes. - Good. - Well, actually, I would like to have this committee review all the Sherman updates just so that it's out there and can be reviewed by the public. I know that there's a lot of stuff going on. And we had the traffic study, and it was presented in an item. But just if it's as an individual thing, of all the information we found out so that it can be on the record and people can go back and review it all. That way I can quit emailing all the time about individual things that I keep forgetting. - You would like it as a presentation? - Yeah, yeah. - Okay, the upcoming meeting, okay. - Yeah, like the light at the loop in Sherman and some timing of the things. Thank you. - All right, so I have three somewhere just to make sure we got them. One is like an informal staff report potentially leading to consideration in this committee of Fry Street one-erf possibilities. Second, we'd like us to have a discussion in this committee on parking expansion options around the Fry Street area. And I note specifically whether there's an opportunity on the northwest corner of Fry and West Oak. And third, different subject. At some point I'd like us to have a comprehensive discussion about pedestrian and bike crossing options planned for getting across the major pedestrian and bike barriers in the city. 35, University Drive, Bonnie Bray, present and future, north and south loop 288. It's just not obvious where you go. And so can avoid cutting the city into completely into separate pieces. You know, it'd be great to have a discussion about how we envision pedestrian and bike connectivity at some point. And Council Member Briggs, you had your final. - No, well just to that point because you mentioned Bonnie Bray and connectivity with pedestrians and right there at Razor Branch on Bonnie Bray there's a bus stop, but there's no connectivity to it so people are crossing, just they're jaywalking from the shopping center to the bus stop on the other side of Torchy. So I don't know how we address that, but in that conversation add bus stops to the connectivity, maybe. - They're about Torchy's? - So I'm gonna close concluding items and I'm gonna open item E which is receive a report, hold the discussion and conduct a walking toward the downtown square and provide direction. I'm opening it only to say we're gonna close the indoors portion of that item and go ahead and take this walk and I'll close that aspect of the item shortly and ask that it come on a future agenda for us to discuss our observations from that walk. So with that having been said, I'm closing the item and I'm adjourning the meeting at the indoor portion of the meeting at 3.55.