Feb 12, 2019 Mobility Committee on 2019-02-12 9:00 AM

Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Mobility Committee. We have a quorum present. I'm advised that we need to do this in an hour and a half, but I'm going to stick to our new protocol that we will hear members of the present public, so I just ask you to be super concise and let us know what you want us to know. We have a quorum present. I'll move right into our first item, which is item A, consider approval of the minutes of the Mobility Committee of the Denton City Council, meeting minutes of January 29th. Move approval. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Minutes are approved. I'll move into item B, Receive Report, and hold the discussion regarding updates from the Denton County Transportation Authority from our very special guest, returning champion Sara Bagheri. [laughter] And her assistant. Right. Thanks, everybody, for having me. I appreciate it. I'll try to be brief. I brought the updated maps and schedules for -- oh, is it not on? It's green. It's on. Okay. I brought the updated maps and schedules, and I brought our budget document, and I just wanted to go over some of the goals that they have at DCTA. I don't know how much you've been briefed prior, but there have been some changes to the legislative program as far as the language, just a couple minor tweaks to what constitutes a quorum and what's a member city. So we'll have our legislative committee -- or our Executive Committee meeting today, and then we'll be down in Austin next week at Denton County Days advocating for that change. So that's kind of very, very near-term, created a local government company, or we are creating a local government company, so that'll take kind of the whole situation with the bus drivers, move it into a company. Implementing positive train control technology, that's another big one. And then just kind of looking forward, I know that the new legislation, should it be passed, one of you guys, one of the council members will be able to take the seat if they want to. I would recommend, however, the other member cities have their alternate as an assistant city manager, and I didn't run this by Mario, so he's probably upset, but anyway. So I would recommend doing that, and the reason for that is, it would allow Mario or whoever is in management to sit in on the closed sessions, and in the closed sessions, we go over some of the economic development and longer-term planning for the corridor, and I think that would be really helpful for somebody in management to be aware of what's happening on the Louisville end of things, and what could happen on the Denton end of things, and vice versa. So it just would improve communication, in my opinion, sorry. It's got lots of spare time. Yeah, I know. Well, I mean, I think somebody, just sending somebody that is employed by the city would be a good idea, because you would have some consistency, and you could actually have that information pipeline a little bit better. So I guess if there are any questions about any of the legislative stuff, I'll answer those, and then just move into really quickly some of the goals. Go ahead. Okay. So short-term goals, obviously, increased ridership. They did increase bus ridership this last quarter by reducing fares. Train ridership is down, and that's definitely been one of my discussion topics, is how do we get train ridership up. That inevitably leads to the longer-term goals of extending the train line, and connecting to US 380. And I don't know, John, you might know more about this, but my understanding is that the cog has a long-term goal of having transit connectivity in the 380 corridor. And so Denton is a really critical piece of that. So that's kind of very high-level, that's something to consider. Otherwise, I think DCT will probably look more towards extending a train line, like from Lewisville to Frisco is kind of another option that's being discussed, and obviously my preference would be to have a Denton connectivity rather than the Frisco, that other train line. So anyway, all very high-level, and I'm leaving the budget document, which has the guidance strategic plan in here, and you guys can take a look in your off time, which is so numerous, I'm sure you have a lot of spare time to read this. So anyway, it's actually a pretty easy thing to peruse. What's the sort of most critical piece of that document? It kind of depends on what your interests are. If your interests are the future, then I think the strategic planning document is probably the best thing to look at, to see kind of what's on. I know when I was on council, that's what I really didn't understand, was like where is this agency going, like what's happening with the agency. So I think that is probably the most helpful. If your interest is the financial aspect of it, the budget portion is very concise, and it's easy to read. I mean, really shortly, briefly, the train takes up half the budget, other operations take up another half. The other thing I should mention, really, okay, well the other thing I should mention is that DCTA, I don't think I understood this before I really got into the weeds there. They are a leveraging organization. That's how I think of it. Yes, we give them sales tax, but they leverage that into federal monies that come to Texas, and Texas is a net exporter of taxes, so DCTA is one of the ways that you can bring federal money back into the region. So I guess regardless of politics, that's really the reality of the situation, is that's how we get federal money. Please. I had a question and then I just forgot it. Was it this noise? So on the strategic plan, who creates that document? They have somebody that they hire to do it, is my understanding. And then it goes, they present it to the board, and then the board approves it kind of like how? Yeah, just it's here. Same process as here, really. Okay. There had been some news and articles on DCTA looking to change their contractors, is that? That's a part of the local government corporation, so it's not that the contractors will change, the people will stay the same, but rather than them being contractors, they will become employees of the local government corporation, which then a portion of our board will probably be a board of the local government corporation, so it'll be more like they're employees rather than contractors. Okay. So it's kind of, I guess transit agencies use these local government corporations pretty regularly for employment and things of that nature. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Great. Yeah, I'll ask staff just so that we can get the knowledge permeated more quickly to copy off, I'll ask Robin to copy off the strategic plan on the budget summary so we all get that right away and then we can take turns on the big book. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks, guys. Thanks for coming by. Thank you. Bye. Mr. Chair, would you, just because I know that we had not had in the past for mobility, we would have periodic updates from DCTA to the Mobility Committee. Is this something you would like to see on a monthly basis or how often would you like to have, just to where we can coordinate with Ms. McGarry? Do you have a recommendation about how frequently there's sort of anything new to say? Well, the other thing is do you want staff here because I can, you know, we can ask somebody from DCTA staff to be here as well, and they can probably provide more detail. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. Mike. Right. Forgot the situation. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The other question is do you want staff here so that they can answer questions in more detail? I'm kind of looking to you for guidance, like is, you know, is there stuff that, because I don't know what I don't know, you know. We're probably pretty busy right now because of the legislative issue, so I would think that you would want pretty frequent updates on what happens with the board composition. Yeah. So I'd say then let's go ahead and, you know, let's say monthly. Sure. And by all means, if staff can come along and fill in any part of the picture that you don't think, you know, if you think it would be helpful to you and convey to us, that would be great. Yeah, I mean, I'll see who on staff wants to come by and I'll bring them next time. Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay. So let's close out item A, opening B, and for those who came in later, we're trying to do this in an hour and a half, but, excuse me, that was B, so I'm moving on to C. So I want to hear members of the public just ask you to be concise, you know, because we've spoken before, most of us, you know, so try to focus on the new thing you want us to hear. Item B is receive a report and hold, excuse me, item C is receive a report, hold the discussion, and staff direction regarding recent developments to establish bicycle lanes on West Hickory Street between Avenue B and Welch Street. And we've got three cards, Kim McKibbin. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, sorry. Staff presentation. Yeah, staff presentation. You have presentation for us? Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you do that then? Then we'll do that. Pretend that you're a traffic engineer for the city. Good morning, everyone. Just a quick update. I know we went through the whole presentation and looked at a bunch of options and alternatives, their viability, feasibility, recommendations from consultant. And we went back, there were a few questions that were asked. We went back and looked at what is feasible? Is it even an option? The committee recommended alternative or option three, which required going over in this side and either widening this particular path into the UNT property to accommodate both bike as well as pedestrians or have a separate pedestrian path and then convert this particular existing sidewalk piece into a bike lane. So we looked at those options. Also in the interim, we went through the Traffic Safety Committee, which was on February 4th. They voted, they discussed all the alternatives and voted unanimously to approve or move forward with alternative two, which is taking parking on the south side out and replacing it with a bike lane. The alternative three requires us taking some either access easement or either sidewalk easement, some sign of easement or right of way from UNT in order to widen the existing pedestrian path. And we met with UNT on February 4th to discuss this option. They said they would get back to us. I think last week, mid to late last week, they got back to us. And what on February 6th actually responded that they're not interested in giving up any easements, access or right of way property for converting that area into a pedestrian bike facility. So at this point, option three is not feasible since UNT is the only area or just the south side is the only area that we can widen onto to accommodate every aspect. North side, the buildings are really closed. The sidewalk is a minimal sidewalk given the utilities on the north side. So at this point, given that UNT is not ready to work with us or provide access or sidewalk easement, alternative three is not an option. The committee directed us, yes. Who did you speak with at UNT? It was David Reynolds, the Associate Vice President for Facilities. Thank you. We do have an email from him saying that they're not interested in pursuing that. Yeah, I was, you know, kind of, yeah, obviously take questions as you have them, but you know, my thought about this was, once you reminded me, we have a presentation, hear the presentation, hear the public, and then deliberate, but, you know, if you, especially if it also helps members of the public to get the questions answered, that's cool. So I want to quickly go and talk about the last piece of this, last bullet. Talked about changing the way traffic flows on Avenue A, the south side of Hickory Street. See if we can add more parking in that particular area. To that end, this process is probably going to take anywhere between two to three months given that we have to coordinate with the businesses first, secondly, DCTA, and third, we have to see the feasibility if we have to reroute DCTA traffic to the intersection of Welch and Hickory. Very narrow intersection that turning radius is not present, so if we do anything with changing the pattern at Avenue A and Hickory, there are implications that we may have to move DCTA buses to this intersection, and given the direction that we go, there might be upgrades to Oak and Welch as well. So this might take about two to three months to go through the engineering process, to go through the public engagement piece, and finding out exactly, especially with these business owners, they use this loading area quite extensively. This loading area, you can see Jimmy Johns, you can see the pizza folks that are lined up. They want to get in and out quickly. They have deliveries that they make, so this is a complete loading area. There are about 10 spaces there currently. It's about 200 feet. So we do have to engage them extensively and understand they are using it, obviously. Understand that do they want those 10 spaces back even after going to an angled parking. So if we go to an angled parking, this may accommodate about 18 to 20 spaces, just from the planning level, high level review. Of that, we have to, if they want, we have to give back 10 more spaces for loading, so we're down to nine to 10 spaces net gain. That's the way I look at it at this point. We'll have to talk to businesses and see if we can gain all 20 spaces if we go that route. There are a lot of unknowns, so we don't know that this is a feasible alternative at this point, about a two-month process, as I mentioned. So that's a quick report back to the committee on what we've found. As far as moving forward with one of the alternatives, currently Hickory Street is completing construction in summer. If we pick an alternative, we go to council. I think it takes about a month to get on the agenda and another month for engineering design of signing and striping the alternative that we pick. So it's about a two-month process, so we want to make sure that we get ahead and not wait until the last minute after the street is completed with, given the pedestrian, the amount of traffic flow, and the whole area, it doesn't make any sense to leave it unmarked or tabbed. So we want to make sure that we are ahead and align things appropriately as far as schedule. So that's why we're bringing this forward and we want to move forward. I'll leave it up to the committee to discuss what alternative. Actually, I'll ask a question just because it might help the community as well as us. If you stripe it in any particular fashion now and then you have a different decision later, is that doable or what's involved? Yeah. I mean, it's doable, depending on how extensive, but if it's brand-new pavement, you have to actually go and grind it down. So that will leave the markings. We have to come back and reseal it. So it's cost implications and it's doable. Okay. I don't have more to ask about that. Thanks, let's hear from folks with blue cards, Kim McKibbin. My name is Kim McKibbin. I own a building and business at 1306 West Hickory. I'm pleased to finally hear Preetem say something is doable. Frequently, what I hear is more of, "We can't do that. That's impossible. It'll take too long." We did receive information from the city this week at the businesses there that at most would be finished at the end of April and they'll start at the beginning of May in tearing up the streets and redoing the sidewalks. A lot of the curbs will have to be done, I would think, because they're deteriorated on that side. So do we have two months to figure this out? Yeah, we do. I do continue to believe that there are solutions to this so that the bicyclists get a bicycle lane and that there is adequate parking or parking found in other places within a thousand foot radius to accommodate the businesses, but it will take work and it will take, "Yes, we can figure this out instead of we can't do this." One of the things that I am concerned about is the bicycle people have been promised a protected bicycle lane all along West Hickory. I drove yesterday in the rain from Bonnie Bray all the way down to where the construction is. At some points the bicycle lane end signs are still up. There is no protected bicycle lane and there is a three foot stripe along the curb for the bicyclists. So we do need to make sure that they're getting what they've petitioned for repeatedly and been quite tenacious about. The other thing is the sidewalk that UNT is saying they don't want to give up any right away is a very wide sidewalk and it is eight to nine feet wide. If the bicycle lane is currently only three to five feet wide on the rest of the parts of Hickory, I still don't understand why that can't be utilized in a raised pavement or raised walk put over part of the sidewalk that is going to have to be replaced when the streets are redone. Atmos did tear up a bunch of stuff. If you'll notice or maybe you hadn't even moved the fire hydrants recently. They moved them from the curbside to the inside. So somewhere in this this has been coming together. I also want to state that I found out that this project was never cleared with the business owners on Hickory Street prior to it starting or when the bicycle plan was being put together. I do have the number of the business owners if you'd like to speak with them at some point. My concern is as these things go forward that the community needs to be more involved. There needs to be conversations with people and not just this is what we're going to do and you can't do anything about it, but how do you see this coming out and working from a functional standpoint. So you know as the city transitions into a more multimodal sort of place, we are going to have to work harder and yes it's going to take time and it may take more staff and it may take more money, but making it functional is what it's all about. Thank you. My name is Susie. I live at 1700 Crescent Street. It's about a mile from the area in question. My new piece of information I have is regarding density. So previously I've sort of shared some information with all of you. Last night at 622 I emailed all of you some additional density calculations I've attempted. But previously I've sent you all some studies of other cities that replaced some parking with a protected bike lane and you know it's not dentin, I understand that. But so I was like okay well what's the density comparisons? So I did the best I could with the time I had to find the density of population in the cities that were studied and compare them to Oak Gateway. So what I found was according to the Oak Gateway area plan, there are 24,000 residents and I don't know if that includes UNT residents or not, but there are 24,000 residents within it's about 1.8 square miles I used Google to sort of measure it so it's a pretty small area and if I measured from like the Hickory Street businesses to each area at each piece of the perimeter it was about a mile and a half. And of those 24,000 residents almost 80% are younger than 35 so they're pretty young. And so that's a population density of maybe a little over 12,972. Because I don't have a slide I'm going to hold this up so you all can remember that number. All right so in Seattle where the density is about 18,000 people per square mile they removed 12 parking spots to install a protected bike lane. The sales index in the affected area increased more than surrounding areas. On Bloor Street in Toronto where the density is about 13,920 people per square mile they removed 136 on street spaces to put in a protected bike lane. And the transactional volume so they couldn't do sales tax stuff there but the transactional volume increased about 4.45% compared to about 2.2% in surrounding areas or a very similar area actually that had not removed any parking and did not put in a bike lane. So the one with the bike lane actually increased even though they removed 136 spots. In downtown Salt Lake City where the density is only 1,559 so way less than this right here they converted six blocks of angled parking into parallel spots. So that's you know a net loss of parking but they put in a protective bike lane with some other things to make it look nicer. And in that area the sales tax receipts rose 8.8% with 79% of businesses saying that business was good and 16% of those businesses indicated that business is up or setting records. So much less dense than here and you know things still went up. So other bike friendly places just to compare. Downtown Portland, Portland is a big bike city they have about 6.3% of people bike to work and their density in downtown is about 15,000 per square mile. Davis, California has a commuter population that bikes about 16% and their density is about citywide is about 6,515 and in Boulder, Colorado another very bike friendly city it's just outside of a larger city of Denver. You have a density of about 4,351 people per square mile citywide and they have 9% of people bike to work. So the density is very similar to the studies it kind of falls in line there and so I hope you'll consider that. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for all that. I had a question for her. No question. So in all the other areas that you did was there significant other like protected pedestrian infrastructure surrounding it or was it just simple bike lane put in the middle of speeding traffic with no other controls? There was, in one case it was a curb protected bike lane and there were other improvements to make it a more pleasant place to be so I would encourage that in this area, additional things to make it pleasant but yeah in most cases they reduced parking and put in a protected bike lane so if you just do it unprotected you're not going to get, you're going to get people like me who already bike using it but you may not encourage new people to use it. Thank you. Thanks. Garrett Roemoor. Hello, excuse me, I'm Garrett Roemoor I live at 1700 Crescent and yeah to keep it concise I wanted to voice again my support for option two. I think it fits most with the existing bicycle lane design on the road. It's also the most fiscally responsible is where I come to but it's reasonable choice that's been offered and yeah I'd really just like to see a safe way to move through the area if it's through fits with our existing decisions as a city through the bicycle plan and it aligns with all of our, I guess current talking points as far as wanting a multimodal way to move about town and then it also is is also present in our future planning documents with like the 2030 plan so I think it just makes sense to go ahead and finish up and complete the connection for the bike network in this segment so thank you for your time. Thank you. Patrice Lake. Hi, there we go, Patrice Lake, 1109 Egan Street, sorry I was late but I'm here to speak in support of option two and I just want to give you the historical aspect of the bike plan because I was on planning and zoning when a big portion of the bike plan was being vetted so I want to take issue with the you know the charge that there was lack of transparency during the bike plan. First of all, it was a two-year-long process really more than a two-year-long process. I was on there with you. Council member Ryan was on the commission with me when we worked through the bike plan. There was a focus group and again TOMA requires that all those meetings are open to the public that they are posted, that people know that they can come so even if somebody is going to hold your hand and bring you to that meeting, that meeting is open to you to come to give input and to become part of the process. There were two public meetings. Of course meetings are different than hearings so there were two hearings, one at planning and zoning, one at city council. So there was two years worth of time for people to come, give their input and for the plan itself to be moved around, to be amended, to be changed to meet the needs of the city of Denton and that includes bike riders, it includes pedestrians, it includes business owners, it includes the city and the engineers who have to engineer this. So as somebody who lives a four minute bike ride from Hickory street, which is also an 11 minute walk, I can testify to the density in this area. As chairperson of the gateway small area plan, I ran the numbers, I've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and I can tell you that this is an area that with the proper infrastructure is only going to increase non-vehicular traffic and that of course is what we need in this area. More people taking alternative transportation routes, whether it is their feet, whether it is two wheels on a bicycle, whether it's a long board. One of the things we haven't talked about, I don't know if Susie has mentioned it, but air quality, the air quality in the center of Denton can be somewhat deleterious to your health. That's the reason that we require an SUP for drive throughs in the core of Denton so that you don't have idling traffic waiting in your drive throughs. So for instance, Jack in the Box is grandfathered. We can't do anything with the Jack in the Box at the corner of Hickory and Avenue B, but further drive throughs in the area have to go through the SUP process. It's air quality. And if we want to increase those multimodal transportation, want to increase people walking, people biking, decrease the potential for idling cars and the air pollution involved with that, we need to take a look at the quickest option, the cheapest option, and the option that we voted on after a two-year process in 2012. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just thinking protocol-wise, for public hearing, generally, you can -- I don't know who I'm asking. Y'all. Yeah, yeah. So you've got to have a blue card here with a public hearing that say you can have people who don't have blue cards. I just want to know if I should ask if there's anyone else who wants to speak or not. Right. No. This isn't posted as a public hearing, so they would have to have a blue card. Okay. I just want to make sure it wasn't needlessly frustrating, anyone who came. So all right. So we're on. Okay. Questions for staff and comments and deliberation. Yeah. I've got a couple of questions. What would -- if we went with -- I guess I'm leaning towards option five because losing 24 spaces just does not really work real well in that area. If -- when we replace that sidewalk, what's the difference between what's at sidewalk being replaced, you know, because it's deteriorating, and it being used in the future for a bike lane? If we were to negotiate further with UNT, because I feel like, you know, we give up a lot to UNT. They control a lot of the parking in that area, and that's one of the big things to me is these are 24 spaces that they don't have control of that all of our citizens can use, not just students, that you get any further in, and you're starting to get to parking that, you know, you get ticketed and towed and et cetera. So which -- So first portion is the amount of space required for a bike lane is at a minimum six feet. We have to consider the buffers on either side and a minimum sidewalk width is five feet. Considering that, we require more than what's there today. Yes, we can continue working with UNT and see if we can get a couple feet or four feet on the other side and have both in the same general area. Portions of the sidewalk are bad, not the entire stretch, so it's pretty -- we wouldn't go back and do anything with the sidewalk on the sections that are not bad. So that's something that would be -- that would eventually happen, not immediately. So to answer your question, yes, we can continue working with UNT and see if that's still an option to get more width. But option five, I think, is just having the sharos. Is that what you're saying? With the alternate calming devices and that type of -- So go with alternative five as an interim and we'll continue working to get alternative option three. Is that what you're asking or is that -- I'm asking if that's feasible that, you know, if we just -- we do what repair we need to do to the existing sidewalk that would become a bike lane if we're able to negotiate with UNT in the future. Are there differences? Because I would think that ADA ramps and the ramp for the bike to be on there should be similar. Yes, they're slightly different but we'll have to separate the ADA component, pedestrian component with respect to the bike. So ideally, when the option three was presented, it was that the bike lane would be slightly lower. There will be a curb between the bike lane and the pedestrian walkway. That clearly delineates. If we don't have that, then there's always a mixing and that's where most of the safety concerns lie. So we can continue exploring that alternative and implement five. I mean -- Yeah, I think our discussion on our last meeting kind of leaned towards working with UNT to do a curving sidewalk to mingle through the trees so we wouldn't have to take any out. If you put it directly next to it, there are a number of trees that would have to come out. Correct. So we're able to do minimal damage by weaving through there. Yes, and we did talk to them about that and they're not -- at this point, at least they're not interested. Would you mind expanding on what their comments were? Just straight up folded arms, no conversation or was there a reason or why don't they care about it? I can read it to you because there was an email. Before you answer it, let me -- I think Councilmember Briggs wants to add here. And just what the ask was, like I just want to know what the ask was. As well. Yeah, how was it presented? Yeah. Yeah, what did we say? What did they say? Yeah. So I'll have more talk about what did we say, but I can tell you there's an email I can read. There was a response from Dave to Mark saying, "I checked, sorry, but no interest in UNT giving up more property for bike lanes or new sidewalks on Hickory Street." That was one sentence response. Okay. That was in response to what question? Good morning. Mark Oliphant, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. So I met with UNT staff last week, last Monday. I briefed them on the comments that we got from the Mobility Committee in your direction to pursue option three. So I showed them option three and what it entailed. And it was a question of what does UNT think about this. It was not couched as we really want to see this happen, come back with a counteroffer or something like that. It was just take this up your chain and see what it looks like to UNT, to the facility staff. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Can we go back and look at the Google map of Avenue A? I just want to point out that it looks to me like individual cars all along the west side there. I know it's marked for a loading zone, I'm just commenting, that's what I see. And Councilmember Briggs and I both had the opportunity to meet with a group of five street businesses last week who clearly acknowledged that there are tradeoffs no matter what direction you go here. There's just sort of not enough pieces of pie to slice up. But I heard a lot of openness to the idea of the diagonal parking there, even acknowledging that it presents an obstacle to it being a loading zone. But I don't know if there's any actual foundation, to be perfectly frank, for the implication that it is actually heavily used as a loading zone. I don't think I've ever seen cars not parked there, but I'm not there all the time. You may have some more information on that. Yeah, we can definitely go back and check if they're strictly using it for a loading zone. Most of the cars they see parked are delivery cars, they're marked. And UNT does enforce some of these options if they're not marked. Oh, good to know UNT does some enforcement. I have some other things I could suggest we bring up with them regarding that. That's what we were told, that UNT does do the enforcement. Okay, all right, that's helpful to know. Councilmember Briggs, do you have some other comments? Yeah, I just have a few comments and some questions. Because it has been a long process and I have been on the mobility committee since the initial recommendation. And I was on this committee that made the initial recommendation, which was, I think, option two for the bike. But when that was presented to us, we didn't get the full story. And by the time it got to council with the businesses and the parking, it clearly hadn't been vetted at the time. And so that's when I said, okay, well, let's, I was in agreement to make it go to Oak Gateway. And with the understanding that there was going to be a complete discussion on parking, on traffic, on businesses, on, and that a workable solution would come out of that committee. And I'm not 100% confident that that happened. I'm not really for Cheros or the calm street. I am for the calm street with other options. But I don't think that alone in itself is enough. So that is a bit of my history. I'm still not comfortable with option two so much, but I do want to know about these things on the parking that is there left if option two is chosen. Can we make that fry street business only parking towing enforced? Can we do the intersection of Carroll and Hickory? Because I have very big concerns of funneling a straight bicycle path all the way down to that intersection. And there is some really big dangerous. It's a dangerous intersection to be funneling pedestrians and cyclists into without any upgrade. So I will not consider that unless there's other options we can do there to straighten out that situation. Let's see. Can we, as we are doing fry and Oak, I mean, and Hickory intersection, can we go underground with the utilities to clean up that area just in that one or two blocks so that visibility is more prevalent for the pedestrians and cyclists and it would make a larger impact there. Next. Let's see. You're taking notes because I imagine you're going to want to answer some of these questions. I just want to say personally, I'm a little bit surprised that the biking community has been pushing for option two, which is for me an unprotected bike lane. Since I've been in office, I've been asked to implement protected bike lanes that just simply throwing paint down on the street isn't enough. And so I'm just a little confused by the advocating for an option, which I've been told since I've been in office, isn't enough in and of itself. So if I'm missing something, I welcome the conversation there. And I thought that with our option with UNT, it would be a little bit more protected. It would have the curb difference, so did you have a, yeah. Mark Ollifan again, if I may, I'm going to pull up the, oh yeah, there we go, okay, there we are. So if we look under option two, it's a little bit washed out here, can I make it bigger than that? Let's see. Okay. That's option one. Oops, sorry. Current configuration is your top right there, or I'm sorry, no, this, yeah, this is, are we still on one? Sorry, we're not still on one, excuse me. Here we go. Option two. Current configuration, existing condition is in our top right here. On the bottom is what is being proposed. So it is a buffered bike lane and maybe a lightly protected bike lane. So we do have between two and three and a half feet painted between moving vehicles and the bicycles, and we also do have these plastic reflective bollards or delineators as proposed as part of the plan. So there's not a physical barrier that would stop a car, but there are some elements of protection there. Well, let me, okay, I appreciate that because the little plastic things are something, but it's not protected as the things that I've been requested to start doing for more protection. And so I just wanted to put that out there. I was on, I went to Fry Street to this area three times and there are cars parked on the left side, there are, and in the first lane of traffic, large vehicle trucks, large trucks just stopped so that then it pushes cars over from one lane to the next. And then the cars in the last lane are pushed over closer so that if parked cars aren't there. Excuse me. I'm just trying to follow. I'm not sure if you're talking about Avenue A or Hickory. Hickory. Hickory. Hickory. I'm talking about the section of where we're talking about. So right here. So if cars are parked here on this side, which we're planning on keeping, and of course, we need to do that and enforce that. So then trucks and buses are stopped there. Then cars are going around over here and moving into where the bike lane is supposed to be. So if we do option two, we're going to have to have something better than little plastic sticks. That's just my opinion, and I'm not going to feel comfortable unless there's more separation there. Because if we are increasing the bicycle traffic, we are increasing the pedestrian there, as we've been told through studies, then we have to do something more to protect the individuals that are taking that route. That's where I'm coming from. So are there some of those that you'd like to hear a response on now? I guess I'll take them as you will. So on the protected part, I just want to add that there are options of adding a bolt-down curb as part of these delineators, in between delineators. If we add certain segments of bolt-down curves, of course, there has to be some gap between these bolt-down curves to allow for drainage, but other than that, that would be a six-inch curb between the actual travel lane and the bicycle. If we have to go that route, that would create a protected bike lane. Oh, yeah. Okay. Feel free to interact. So the question was cost, if we did that. I think the bolt-down curves are fairly cheap. I don't have the cost on top of my head, but it is a couple hundred bucks for a short section, but I can give you cost implications. It is not that expensive. So for the full segment, it's in the single digits of thousandths on the high side, not outside that range, most likely? I'll have to get back. I'm just doing simple in-my-head math of a couple hundred and it's a thousand feet. Well, let us do the analysis and the cost, and I would assume that these are manufactured offside and then brought onside and then bolted into the ground. So it's something that could be done with the lead time and then installed pretty quickly, so minimal construction. Minimal change in existing configuration. So I'll weigh in a little bit here. I'm inclined to think that there's a way to do some version of two, and I'm very intrigued by this whole idea of the bolt-on curbs, in combination with picking up spaces on Avenue A, acknowledging that it's got a lot of arms and legs to think through. I personally think it's worth a couple of months to see if we can kind of holistically address -- I hear a lot of times from one constituency or from another who say there's no problem if you only meet my needs, but what you're hearing, I think, pretty consistently is that this committee is trying to find a way to meet the needs for -- legitimately felt needs for parking and for a straight and safe bike path, and I'm not convinced yet that we can't do that and we have to totally do one at the expense of the other. Where was I going on that? So the question is, what do you do now, right, because you've got to stripe it? And is there a path to do some amount of the striping, for instance, the center, and, you know, without affecting -- with basically leaving it blank on the south side until you know if you can in fact go forward? One of the issues with that, and we have several issues, we did oak recently, and if you leave that segment unmarked or actually define the lines to park between, vehicles are parked all the way around the corner. So if we leave it unmarked, it may create more of a safety hazard. The vehicles will be parked much closer to the intersections and may create more issues. So we need to really delineate the space for parking. Is there, you know, I guess I'd ask, what's the minimum amount of marking that you need to accomplish the safety element of it, and is that anything less than the whole amount that would require the grinding and, you know, sealing and that whole elaborate process if we determine that we can in fact execute, you know, what I've described on Avenue A? So minimum amount of parking the way -- Minimum amount of parking marking. Markings. We have done something called a T, where you can see between parking spaces it's just marked as a T. So it clearly defines different spaces. At the corners it's an elbow corner, and then that area is only for parking. So we can do minimal parking. Something like what you have on West Oak Street on the south side there? Yeah, on the West Oak it's a continuous line for the edge, but this one will not be a continuous line. It will be T in between parking spaces. Just to conclude the fun. And does that offer any benefits if you were to later come back and implement option two? No, we'll need parking, and then we can come back and take the parking out and put an option two. Yeah, I mean, but is that better than -- That's better than putting the whole configuration. Okay. I'm just looking at this picture. Where are the bikes supposed to be on this street after you cross Carroll? Is it Charoes at that point? No, I think there is a bike lane that goes in. Let me go back to Carroll. Taking hands it down, the actual lane. Yeah. There's a big lane right there after Carroll, and then there is a lane all the way to Elm, to the square. Cedar, actually. And then it just into the traffic? That becomes the Charoes, yes. Just can you, while you have this, can you go to the Carroll and Hickory intersection so you can address that? I was there just the other day and I saw a car parked in the bike lane waiting for the light to turn. Yeah, as part of the new striping plan that will be done, we are planning on actually making this much more better. We are putting in buffer so that it delineates the bike area, meaning a two-foot buffer on either side and having a six-foot bike lane, because currently you have a eight to nine feet wide bike lane that's green and it almost looks like a car lane. So we'll make it more, we're delineated better to define it as a bike lane as it veers off from the edge here and comes into this area. So yeah, we have a different striping plan. Obviously, we know this did not work and we had to put in green paint and we're still struggling for people to understand that that's not, it's faded over the years, but having the buffer on either side will allow them to clearly see and then have the bike stamps on it. Yeah, have we looked, because you've talked about closing off Avenue A, have we looked at just making it a one-way heading south? So there are three options that we're looking at. Closing is obviously one option, not the best option because that, you know, prevents access. There's no flow of traffic for these businesses, not the best option. There's very little traffic going southbound on Avenue A. I know there are DCTA buses and route that goes in through here with a bus stop here, but other than that, there is very few people that go through or make this right in this area. So the best alternative, this is really at the planning level. We haven't dived deep into this, is to make it one way on the northbound side. So this whole segment, actually only this segment and then Mulberry can still remain two-way, but this segment will be one-way and we can make modifications here. It'll be angled parking, it'll match this angle parking, so that's where we're leaning at this point. We don't know. We haven't gotten to the deep end. I think we've got to resolve that. Well, and I ask that because we talked about last week that Sycamore is going to have a pedestrian bike path all the way down to the train station, and so if you did the one way, the other way, you could easily add a fair-sized bike lane that can get you over to Welch and we can figure out what to do between Welch and Sycamore to attach that, and that gives an alternative to only using Hickory to get to the downtown on the bike path that would help alleviate how much bike traffic you've got going through that busy intersection at Carroll and Hickory. Sycamore and Hickory is still a signal intersection, but it's not as vehicle heavy. So at Welch, part of the Sycamore project, we're putting in a road diet which will have bike lanes, so on either side of Welch, we'll have bike lanes that will connect to Sycamore and then connect Hickory. So that would be much more safer than going through here because there's a lot of solid waste and other issues at this corner that I've heard over years, and it'll be a better route just for bikers to be on Welch. Councilmember Brooks? I did hear from a business or some businesses on if we did close off Avenue A or not allow a right turn because what I am under the impression is that that allows to keep traffic moving a little bit more as a cut through rather than waiting, and there is a potential for the traffic at Welch and Hickory, I think, to get pretty backed up. So if there's not an option for that traffic to flow, it could be pretty consistently blocked. No, that's why I said we're at the planning level. We don't know the details, we'll have the analysis, we'll look at what the volumes are, how the signals are functioning, do we need to change the function of the signal if we reroute traffic. So that's why, I mean, it's going to be a while before we can actually say yes, it works or yes, it doesn't work, and there are three different options, closure and then one way in each direction, so we have to vet all of them to come up with the right option. Are we ready to give direction, you know, yeah, are we ready to give directions, review? Since it hasn't shown up on the screen, can you bring up option five real quick just so we can lay eyes on it one more time? And I'll share, yeah, that I'm just not, I'm just not persuaded that Charo is really doing anything for cyclists. And I understand that, but I mean, we've got an issue of not enough land to keep the parking and the parking at UNT, and this is a 20 mile an hour, I would definitely recommend we change, we readjust it so you go past Welch before we go back up to 30, because I think right now it goes up to 30 at Avenue 8, right before Welch, yes, you know, but in our downtown we do the same thing, we have lack of right-of-way available to us and have to use Charo's through the downtown area, which is not a good thing. Again, I'm looking at option five with continuing negotiations with UNT to add a walking path and then convert the existing sidewalk into a pipeline. Any thoughts on the Avenue 8 aspect of it? Continue to steady it is what I would say, because we, without the data of how many vehicles go each way, more conversations with the businesses, you know, I'm open to, I would say closing it is probably not a good option at all. Do you have any, are you ready to give direction? I think we should do option five, but not with Charo's, I think that is just a really great upgrade to have with all the pedestrian walkability that we need down there with the students. For anyone who hasn't, I recommend you just go down and sit in this area for a bit amount of time and see what all we need. I would be comfortable with option two if you could find me 20 spaces for cars, because I did meet with more than one business down there. There's six or several, there's several that maybe in the daytime aren't as concerned, but at nighttime, which we haven't talked about, depend on that parking for their establishments. There is a safety issue at nighttime where people don't feel comfortable so much walking around in the area and a car is a better way to get to that area and get out if they're not feeling safe. So I still am not 100% comfortable. I understand where we're going and the need for the protected bike lane and I am in favor no matter what of a protected lane somehow. It has to be divided with this intersection and I'm not so concerned about cost and I know that people keep saying go with a cheaper option, go with a cheaper option. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to make sure that safety is priority and that the businesses down here don't suffer because of a decision that we've made. >> So you're very clear that we want all the options at the same time. But, you know, there's, I mean, I'm joking obviously, but kind of not, right, what I'm hearing is, and I share, you know, the enhancements for pedestrian use, you know, very consistent with Gateway 2, you know, just generally enhancing the usability of this part of town, right, in a multimodal way. So we're liking the pedestrian part of 5 and I'm hearing, you know, support for seeing how far we can get and finding spaces in Avenue A while protecting the path. Seeing if we can still get option or the first option we looked for, you know, because I'm hearing some doubt whether UNT fully got it about the meandering path. You know, so doesn't hurt to take one more bite. I'm willing to go with you, too, if you want, if you get an in-person meeting. And I'm sure others here would, too. Just to see if we can come to a meeting of the minds and at least I could equally convey back, you know, know their arms were folded, their legs were crossed and they were holding their breath and going, you know, but so, you know, see if there is some room there. But I think we want to protect for the probable outcome of two with protection with spaces found somewhere. Is that enough to go on? I realize it's not utterly conclusive, but there's stuff to explore, you know, that's important to explore. We don't want to, you know, make a kind of decision that will stick around, you know, for five years that might be really deleterious to someone, you know. So I mean, unless you all are telling me something different, I'm expecting that they'll strike with the corners, marking the spots, they'll continue to investigate the options on Avenue A and talk to the university on three. And I think you're actually hearing move forward if you want something to hang your hat on, move forward on the pedestrian enhancements. Is that enough to go forward on? Or what else do you need from us? So let me clarify. So we move forward with putting the way things are right now, the way they are strapping back to the spaces and then continue finding spaces. Least possible striping to do that with the expectation that you might be grinding those bits off. Correct. And then move forward with the striping that we currently have with the parking in place the way it is. You have to say the part that I like, too. And then move forward with finding more spaces, either on Avenue A or somewhere else. Work with UNT to see if we can move forward with alternative three. So that's the direction I'm getting. Plus you're hearing solid support for the pedestrian aspects of five. Correct. Okay. Right. There's no obstacle. No. Councilmember Briggs. Well, if we're doing striping, I would prefer to put the parking in on the side near the businesses and then not do any other striping on that side near UNT. That would be my preference so that we get the parking on the one side and then we get the lane separation and then we can figure out on that side because that's where all the improvements are going to be. That would be my preference. If I can just interject, I don't mean to be unclear. I don't think there's any question about the north side. The corner treatment is on the south side as a sort of minimum marking for safety reasons, you know, rather than just leave it totally unmarked. Okay. Are you okay with that? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Good enough? Okay. All of you. We're going to move forward. I think there's a possibility, just looking at the time, and, you know, I think there's going to be a good amount of discussion on item D, that we may not get to item E. And I'm open to, you know, I've expressed in the past, I'm open to meeting as frequently as we need to to do the work of the committee and, you know, my other, you know, my colleagues have been very flexible in that regard as well, so I'll leave it to you all, if you don't get, if you don't have enough time for it, if you want to meet sooner or if it's, or if we can just, you know, wait until the next interval. But, you know, I'm happy to accommodate. So let's see how we go. And I think we have the flexibility for about 10 more minutes or 15, and if John can wrap it up in 10. Or we can, we have the report in the back, if there are any questions, we can answer those. All right. So press ahead and check in again after item D. So, all right, so that's going to conclude item C. Thank you, members of the public, for helping us work through this. So let's move on to item D. We'll have a presentation. We have some blue cards, and then we can deliberate on that. All right, let me see. So. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I do have one question. Open item C. Just ask item C, just ask this question. Sorry. Now that I have lost it. He found out we might have an extra 10 minutes. Yeah, yeah. No, just, well, my question, you don't have to answer it now. It's like, in the interest of time, it's just I question the sequence of meetings, of going to traffic safety after getting guidance from mobility committee, it would make a whole lot more sense to me, since that's an advisory body, to go to traffic safety and bring us that guidance as input, rather than, if you don't like what dad says, go ask mom. No, and that's not how that, I just want to just make a statement about that. The reason why this information was brought to you all at the last meeting was a special called meeting. The original intent of that meeting on the 28th? 29th. 29th of January was to do a tour of the square, and then bike share, or excuse me, scooter share, because of the issues that we were trying to bring forward. It was after the gateway presentation that a request was made to bring this item back to the mobility committee at the special called meeting. So we added a third item to the agenda, knowing that, well, you may not know, but we all know that the mobility committee, excuse me, the traffic safety commission meets the first Monday of every month. So yes, the sequence got out of sequence, the way the presentation. You share the view that the right sequence, notwithstanding exceptions, is to go through the citizen committee and then bring that into it. Sure. It was at the request of council to bring this item that we just talked about at your last meeting. Okay. I don't think we need a lot of discussion. Thank you very much. All right. So let's move on to item D. Go ahead. Oh, let me read what it is. And the receiver report and hold the discussion regarding the plans for short-term, parentheses, interim improvements to FM 428 Sherman drive and loop 288 and long-term improvements along FM 428 north of loop 288. So I don't have a formal presentation. I do want to start here. There are two steps to getting there. A lot of development going on in this particular area. Anything south of the loop is already approved under construction. Sorry. Got a question. Is there a reason why the T traffic study that the city initiated on this section isn't shared in the backup? The entire study? Yeah. There is no reason. Is that a confidential study? No. No. Okay. We can share the whole study. There's no reason why not to. So if we can get that uploaded to the background, that would be really good. Thank you so much. So as we know, this area is growing pretty fast. One of the fastest areas growing in the city. There's already construction in this area, the stark farms. This area is already under construction of new development. Large ranch on this side, other parcels are considering different types of uses. So all of a sudden the Sherman corridor north of the loop as well as going into the city has gained a lot of attention due to a lot of new added traffic that's going to use. Currently at these two intersections, these are stop control intersections. And they are text dot intersections currently. One of the major concerns is during the peak hours, people cannot use the turn lanes, get off the loop here on the other side, make that left out. Other left turns into the loop. So this intersection interchange does not function well. It is already warranted for a traffic signal where to go through the analysis but present a formal analysis to text dot for their consideration and approval. So we have an interim short-term project that will realign lanes and add capacity under the bridge. If you look at how much space you have under the bridge, we're planning on widening and redoing some of this ditch area, adding more lanes. If we can add more left turn lanes, align the through lanes. I think the through lanes are not aligned when you come in north. That lane does not really align with the -- because of this left turn and right turn lane, they're slightly skewed. So what we're planning to do is add more capacity, review the intersections for warrants, conduct a warrant analysis, and move ahead with the signal design component of this. These are short-term improvements, signalizing these intersections. The cost for that is not included in the short-term improvements. It was just a capacity enhancement project. We'll come forward to counsel on adding those signals at these intersections at some point in the near future. That's the short-term to improve some of the congestion, some of the constraint currently at these two locations. If you go on this side, where Princedia is, and we have the development there, so part of the -- I'm going to really throw up. So part of the issue is that -- what is the speed limit on 428 right there? >> I think this is 40 or 45, I don't know. >> 80, 82. So people on Poinsettia, and there is a really large housing development right there, and the apartment complex is going to actually enter on that as well to exit. And so turning left on 428 from that neighborhood is a pretty hard thing to do during certain times of the day. So will having a light at the intersection that you're talking about, will that help control that traffic so that they can easily get out more left? >> So yes, having a signal creates a gap, so it sends traffic in platoons, which means there's a bunch of cars moving at the same time. Then once it turns red, the cars will stop and provide gaps. But we definitely can look into that at this intersection particularly to study if a signal is required or if a acceleration lane on this side is required, like a two-way left turn, so that people can actually find a gap between these vehicles, stay here for a little bit, and then merge. So there are different alternatives and options that can be looked at. >> Even a center lane, somewhere where you can get in the middle for safety. >> For a little bit. >> For a little bit before you do that because there's going to be more development on this other side and more significant development. So that was an intersection that I wanted to address as well because I've heard a lot of concern about it on that. So when we say a light, will it be one on either side of the loop? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> It'll function like any other interchange off of 35E. >> Okay. >> It'll function that way. >> And just on the opposite side, I'm sorry, Chair, may I? >> No, no, please. >> Okay. And so we have people getting out the issue on Hartley Field Road, the same issue turning left during certain times of the day. So will a light at this intersection help alleviate that or will there need to be some other traffic mechanism further down the way? >> Yeah, that might be a combination. We don't know what kind of traffic we get on Hartley Field. So it would be a combination of providing a signal here but also looking to specific upgrades needed at Hartley Field. Similar to points that we need to study it. We haven't gotten to a point where there's localized intersections that are being studied where -- >> Okay. >> This is a short, small transportation project that was approved and we're moving forward design and implementation as an interim. But we have looked at long-term numbers and that's the next part of what I'm going to present is in the future when everything is developed, what is our need in this area? What are the arterials, the segments and the cross-sections required for some of these streets? I'll talk about that a little bit but specifically focused on this and this intersection, we've not dived into the details yet. >> Thank you. >> Moving forward, so long-term, we looked at a -- we conducted a study for this whole area. We worked closely with planning to gather the land use information. This is almost the edge of the city if it continues further north a little bit but this particular area has a lot of interest and people are coming in with plans for developing. We wanted to understand what would it take in order for this area to actually have the right traffic flowing or the right transportation facilities. Let's start. So some of the arterials, these are all the arterials that would be required to support it and then this is a very high-level study that looks at if this entire area is developed with residential as well as some commercial mix and we did work with planning on what type of mix there would be. Then we do require there's -- these are the furniture road linkage linking between Sherman and Locust. If we have those furniture roads, that would make it safer for people on Stewart to get in and out, right in, right out as opposed to actually connecting to the loop which is a freeway or a limited access facility in this area. We will require Sherman and I think I have a table that goes with this. So north of Long Road, FM428, currently we need four but we need to reserve right away for six because as the development comes in, we will have to widen it to a six-lane facility. FM428 on the bottom, so this is -- I think this is this part of 428. It still says that it needs to be a -- oh, actually it's talking about the intersection or the interchange. If you look at the way this is configured, there's improvements recommended in this study and we can explore further but this is a very high-level study that does not get into the details of what would work well at one intersection. Moving forward, I mean, Stewart Road, there's a configuration recommended. Cooper Creek, Collins, these are different projects in this -- all these yellow highlighted streets, we're talking about either a four-lane or a six-lane arterial. These are either going to be primary or secondary arterial and that's the study that was recently completed. We can share it with the committee members as well as the public. We had an ISR that was submitted to council in January. I think it was the second week that talked about this study and presented this information but if you have any specific questions, I can answer those. >> We do have a couple of blue cards. Council Member Briggs. >> This may be a question for Mr. Pulsner about the outer loop. How -- do we have -- is that in our update? Will you be discussing that on the next item? >> No, ma'am. >> No. Okay. Do you have any information to share with us on that and how that will affect what you see here on the slide? >> The COG's 10-year funding plan includes $50 million in Denton County for the outer loop that was established in 2018, so sometime in that time frame, COG is just expecting the county and then to move forward with some improvements or some study or some work on the outer loop that rhymes with the word $50 million and I don't know what that gets you. But it's in y'all's thoroughfare plan, it's in the county's thoroughfare plan, and there are funds available to establish that corridor environmentally, which is what you need to do to protect the corridor and begin to actually plan for some part of it being developed. So it's in -- for highway years, it's in a short-term window. >> I do want to point out that FM428 between the loop and outer loop is a TextDOT facility, so we have started discussion with John as well as TextDOT to see if we can move forward with some of the environmental schematic for this particular segment and then we'll have a better idea of at least the long-term we'll have the schematic and start securing the right of way as these developments come in, but in the short-term we can come up with solutions internally for the city to widen certain segments, especially closer to the city and then phase the project appropriately. >> And if you stick to relatively traditional design criteria, there's a good chance TextDOT will be willing to step up and do the funding of the project. If you go to more exotic types of traffic movement, they'll let you do it, but at the end of the day they're going to want you to take it off system. >> Like roundabouts, for instance? >> For exact. >> Okay. >> All right. Do we have time to talk about the virtues of roundabouts now? >> Is that what you were looking for? >> No. Not at all. Just a question. You may have said this, but I -- and so the intention is to have 428 as a four-lane-divided highway? >> So there are a couple of things we're looking at. There are several options. If we look at how this particular feeder road feeds into long-term big picture as part of our mobility plan considerations, this is a limited access freeway, loop in this area is a limited access freeway, 380 coming into the city will be connecting there. That's part of one of their alternatives they're looking at. So big picture, this may -- we may look at having this as a spur, which is also limited access from the outer loop to the loop. So a lot of things going on, but the interim, we want to make sure that we at least have some widening and at least a middle turn lane so that people can easily get in and out of some of these cross streets, partly field. >> So if we're talking about timing, the most -- the more recent thing that we're talking about is just adding a turn lane? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So it will be phased slowly depending on how the development comes in. So we'll -- at an interim, we're adding a turn lane at a minimum and then moving forward we'll phase in widening the street. >> And what is the timeline on that? >> We don't have a timeline at this point, but we'll be bringing that soon to council. >> Okay. >> You know, I can just add one thing. If TxDOT believes there's additional development that's going to come into this quarter, which I think that's easy enough to make, they're probably going to lean towards a six lane as opposed to a four lane because they've had experiences where they've allowed communities to talk them into four lane divides that come in and get developed later and then they have all kinds of mobility and access issues. So TxDOT are probably pushing you to a six lane if, you know, they're going to participate. >> So let's have more discussion after we hear from the members of the public wishing to speak. Walter McGovern? >> Thank you very much for leaving the screen on. My name is Walter McGovern. I live on 3110 Hartley Field Road and I just -- I'm not going to take a lot of your time. I do want to -- I do appreciate you letting me attend this meeting. The biggest thing, though, for me, for my wife and I is safety reasons. Both my wife and I moved from Valley View. We had a 60 acre horse ranch and now we have a seven acre horse ranch over there. We have a large trailer. Both of us do a lot of traveling with our trailers. We'll need to come down 35, walk from Aubrey. My biggest concern is safety coming off of Hartley Field Road. Coming from Aubrey, turning to go down. >> If you can stay closer to the mic. >> I'm sorry. >> We need a longer arm. >> Right. I'm sorry. Coming in from Aubrey, turning. >> I think you can kind of stretch it -- I think you can kind of pull it in the direction of that. >> All right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Coming in from Aubrey, coming from north down to Aubrey, from Aubrey down to Hartley Field Road to make that left-hand turn. I have to slow down almost to stop before I can turn. I have to wait for people to come -- coming from me. I have to stop -- I have to wait until I'm sure there's nobody coming over the hill before I make that turn. That's a safety concern for me. And then coming in from 35 to Hartley Field Road, I have to wait right at the loop. Sometimes I have to be pretty audacious about the timing to get me and my trailer on Sherman to make the turn into Hartley Field Road. So my biggest concern is safety. From what I hear right here, possibly going to a four-lane road, that would be great, plus to stop lights and everything like that. This is just my personal opinion, but I know they have some other experienced people out here, but I do want to go ahead and let you know, thank you very much for allowing me to do this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. And Richard Wells. >> Go ahead and ask -- go ahead and ask on the mic just -- yeah, but -- okay, but I'll ask the question. Can you indicate where the city limits are? That came up last night, too. People need to know. Where does the city end? Thank you, guys, for your time. Are you representing Council of Governments? I heard somebody -- oh, okay. >> He's our TextDOT consultant. He works -- he has a presentation next on all the TextDOT on system. >> Oh, great. Yeah. >> Another road nerd. Like this stuff. >> Yeah. While he's doing this, on 428, you all probably already know this, but TextDOT owns 150 feet right of way, and for a six-lane, it would be about 250. So it's going to be a whole lot of right of way that's going to have to be bought or purchased or -- yeah. Well, all mine comes from what I read online on their statistics and things. The reason that I'm asking for an overlay here is so you can kind of get a better idea. I don't know, but the city limits run kind of odd out there, and we're proposing these roads here, and some of those may not be within the city limits, which means you've got to work with the county and other folks. So that would be a bit of a concern. Yeah. I'm sorry to be a problem. It just concerns me, first of all, that when I -- and great stuff online, because I looked at all this before the meeting and best information I could get, and I looked at the city limits map, but I can't mentally do a good overlay. And I'm worried that some of that proposed roads, those long-term proposed that you talked about so nicely there may be not in the city, which means you've got to deal with the county and a whole bunch of other folks, too. So I just kind of was concerned about that. Do you have plans of empire pre-term, or are you trying to expand the empire here? That's because I live in the county. I'm surrounded now by the city pretty much already. So while y'all are doing that, I can go ahead and start a little bit, and it just came to my head because of the short-term -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. Did you give your name and address? I'm sorry. I'm Richard Wells. Yeah. Sure. Give your name and address and your time will begin. I'm 3830 Warshoen, about a mile outside the city limits. We're surrounded northeast and south by the city. And I've been in this discussion because we're talking a lot with the city, and the planning is only about the developments that are going to go on out there, which is not your concern. So it looks like some of the roads you proposed are not in the city limits in that long-term thing. They look like they go over county spaces. Correct. But it's within the city, T.J. Typically that's what happens is they plan our mobility according to that. I couldn't find it online, so I think that's one thing we need to consider. Okay, so back to your short-term thing, nice idea on the bridge and everything, but according to the Denton Mobility Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan of 2014, that's a major bicycle route, and if you get under that bridge and start doing all those roads and turn lanes and everything, you've pretty much killed the bicycle route through there. You didn't talk about that, so that's something I would just ask you to consider. I don't ride a bicycle out there, but in all the plans, both the North Texas Central Council of Governments, county and city, that is the only northeast bicycle artery, and it is considered in the Denton plans a major artery that goes from Hercules all the way out to Aubrey. So if you do all that stuff under the bridge, I'm afraid you're killing a bunch of bicycle lanes. On the other items, I had a 2014 study already shows that 428 level of service F in the early mornings, which means that it's already jammed up, so it speaks a lot to the safety problems we talked about and things like that. If you look very carefully, I'm sorry, you had this one up earlier, those proposed roadways go through what is called a watershed. It has high watershed scores on Milam Creek and Clear Creek. Denton County Greenbelt plan adopted that, talks about those watersheds, and you're crossing it in about seven places. That's a protected, not protected watershed, but a proposed watershed. So if you look at all those roads you've drawn, I kind of drew little circles on there, and it goes through some very sensitive areas for Denton County. So I would just ask you to consider that very carefully when you start building those roads across those watersheds. Already TexDOT and North Central Texas Council of Governance has major discussions about crossing the Greenbelt because of the historic bridge there and because of the Greenbelt, what it's used for and everything. One of the proposals was take six lanes down to four lanes to cross the Greenbelt and then go back up to six lanes, which kind of sounds kind of strange. I think that there are 10,000 students a day or something like that that attend the school out there. Is that correct? You're coming up on your time, so you know what I'm talking about. So I'm just saying the traffic out there is already very heavy. I think it would be make sure you look at proposed city limits and yes, you have the ETJ. That's true. Look at the wetlands, the floodplains, and all the reports that have come out about that and consider very carefully this bicycle thing that goes through there. I know a lot of people use that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Wells. Okay. So we're asked to hold the discussion, but you're not asking us for direction today. No, not at this time. Any other thoughts? If he has one, I just have a couple of questions. Continue with the current plan and as things develop, bring it back to us. I'm looking forward to the mobility update coming up later this year. Council Member Briggs? Just a couple of comments. I'm glad the gentleman brought up the use of horse trailers because during my neighborhood meeting I think 20 people were there and no one lived on any acreage less than two. And several of them had trailers and horses and cattle. So like Mr. Polster said, a roundabout in that area might not be the best for large vehicles traveling. And I don't know if that -- I'm just throwing that out there. So I just -- two things. I'm also glad that the greenbelt was brought up on 428 because 380 access has been blocked off for a really long time. And this is an important access point for us. And so I want to make sure that that bike lane and that access is protected no matter what kind of growth we have out in this area. And then I would also like a hard date on the lights at the intersection of -- or maybe a little better time frame on the lights and the upgrades at the loop and Sherman intersection so that I can share those with my constituents. Yeah, and just upload the study, the traffic study, in the back -- in the backup so that there's a better idea of the traffic coming to the area. I'll just weigh in -- you know, I don't want to get too far off the posting into land use, but just to say that I'm increasingly interested in how far we are or are not drifting from the 2030 plan in terms of the sort of intended look for the city in 2030. You know, this is all premised on the pace of growth in this particular corridor. And you know, I think we're going to have to at least sort of recheck against what was the intended look of this area because it is an important natural and rural part, and some areas are more kind of guided toward in-field development and some are not so that we end up with a kind of balanced picture when we're done with this whole dang thing. So you know, I'd just say there's probably more conversations coming that will affect the look of development in that corridor. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> Yep. >> All right. >> Janelle, would you all like us to put 428 improvements on your report that we did for Maryland? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. Thank you. So I'm going to close item D. And I understand we have five minutes for item E and staff reports. What do you want to do? >> I'm going to hit the highlights. >> All right. Go for it. So item E, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding TxDOT on-system projects in the Denton area to include the 35 Express project. >> We'll start with bad news. TxDOT did terminate the contract with MCM on 2181. TxDOT is looking at having a maintenance contract done to take and resurface some of the more difficult parts of the road that are deteriorating because of the construction. The bond council, I mean the bonding company is Berkshire Hathaway, and they are challenging determination. And so this could be anywhere from nine to 12 months before you see anything happen on 2181 other than what's happening now. We've got one closure that the bonding company is paying the sub. So the sub is continuing to make that improvement arrangement so they can get that thing back up and in about 20 days. So MCM has been terminated, they're no longer, TxDOT is going to be arguing with the bonding company but they're not going to allow them back on the project. So it will go fallow for a period of time. Just want you all to know that. Then 377 four-wheel drive has begun construction. I don't know if you notice that if you drive out there, they already started clearing the right away. We've got a few issues with some utilities that we need to address, but they're minor as far as timing goes. Your 35 Brinker Mayhill Project 288, the contractor has told TxDOT that they will be switching the traffic to the new bridge on March 9th, and last week I looked at it, I didn't think there was any way they could make it, but today when I drove through here, it's looking pretty close. So if they make that time frame, all the traffic that's on 35 will be moved up to the upper deck and then they'll do the remaining part of the project. Once they get the traffic up on the top deck, they will be able to open a temporary connection from Brinker across 35 to the development on the west side of the facility. Can I interject a little bit? He's already updated with the active construction projects, so if we can, can we skip the other projects that are fairly in the design phase? Yeah, I was going to say that. Those are the main issues. I wanted you to know that 2181, if you start getting complaints because nobody's working, it's because nobody's working. And then we're going to see some major traffic shift on 35 in the heart of your town next month. Mr. Polster, if I can ask, on 2181, how much information should we release to the public when it comes, just to help kind of soften the blow to at least be proactive in communications? So the only thing I would have changed on the report that I will change going forward is it's terminated, but TechStat area office is going to be contracting with a maintenance contract to keep 2181 viable as a roadway during this hiatus. Those are the only two major issues with that project. Thank you for updating us. One quick question if I may. Okay. Well, you know, you got the first one last time there was a conflict, so I'm going to let Council Member Briggs go first now. There will be a gentleman about it, I'm sure. Yeah, just on the, on the loop, because we've had some questions about that and some, just the, because it's moving along, but it's just the frontage, correct? No, we're clearing a controlled access freeway that's about 350 feet. We're acquiring all the, we'll acquire all the right-of-way for the entire facility. And then right now we're, we've got earmark on enough money to do the northbound frontage road, but I'm not giving up on, we got some time between now and then to find additional funds on it. To do the full loop? That's a minimum. Okay. Of where we'll start. And just for those listening, this is the inner loop, not the outer loop. That's the inner loop's a little bit closer. Loop 288. Yeah, Loop 288. Thank you. Thank you. I'll pretend. On 377, we talked about Rose Lawn would be opening up after the sanitary sewer. Do you know if that's true or because the railroad bridge is going in on that side and it's so close between the tracks and Rose Lawn, will that remain closed until a new bridge is in? No, no, the Rose Lawn will be opened once the sanitary sewer line gets moved, because the work that we're doing with UP at that area is pretty much within the UP right-of-way. Okay. We can't go outside. Okay. All right. Thank you. And that's within our time. You have 30 seconds for staff reports? Okay. I haven't ended the report. I'll quickly go over. There are a couple things in the matrix that I want to clean up. Number six, DCT update as we decided today that we'll get monthly updates from Sarah, and I would like to remove that item because we were going to agenda as it will be on the agenda. Okay. And then the next item, number seven, walking tour. We're planning on putting an ISR in the Friday packet for just what we've done and what we discussed at the tour. So that would clear off this item. So we plan on removing if you don't have it. Yeah, actually, we did. Yeah. Okay. And then the other items, we do plan on bringing them one after the other on the agenda, like for example, the protected bike lanes and connectivity and so and so forth. Quick update on the forest ridge. We are looking at options for removing the medians in the top section. That is a more, how do you say, that would address most of the concerns and based on the level difference between the two streets, but we don't know the fiscal impacts of that and we'll bring it forward at some point, but currently we are looking at taking the median out. Do you want to say about that D4? Well, and I believe someone from engineering will be at the February 25th forest ridge HOA meeting. I'm not aware of that, but we can tell. Someone from staff said that they've been contacted by them to be there for that. So, yeah, because the HOA recently paid for reinstalling irrigation and electric to that median about two years ago. Okay. So that would be a good discussion. I mean, yes. We're kind of pushing at burning items. Just one last thing. On the matrix, I'd like to add an item for our department or of mobility to consider adding a goal or adopting a goal that's been adopted by other cities known as vision zero. And so if we just need a work session on what that is and what we need to do to do that. And you can get back to me if you want via an email, I just would like to understand what the concept is for the road going through the going alongside the service center came up in town hall last night and Tracy could fill you in. So this is Roodell's real realignment. Yeah, I want to take the time now and then we are having a public meeting on that item next Monday. Okay. Yeah, please put that in the note and I'll post it as well when we're all out of town. Also quickly, I don't want to do one to remove it. The small area plan has been completed. So yep. Okay, good. Okay. So I'm going to close the meeting at 1043.