Apr 09, 2019 Mobility Committee on 2019-04-09 9:00 AM

Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Mobility Committee here at 901, I see we have Coram present, so I'm going to call this to order. Our first item is consideration of approval of the minutes, I'll take a motion. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. All in favor. Aye. That's the nuance or difference. Yeah, just to that, I noticed that this will heal in Lakeview on here, but when we had our neighborhood meeting about fireside, we talked about having these in Mimosa, and that's not listed as a neighborhood or street. Yes, so Mimosa, the way the meeting went is we had a project, Hinkle and Windsor Drainage project that's going to be a pavement project. So as part of that project, we had that meeting, but fireside is coming in. So what we did is we folded the roundabout design into that particular project. So it's currently under design, and it will be constructed as part of that particular project. So at some point, we'll have to come forward with a change order to the project to add that roundabout for the contractor to construct it. So it's currently under design. So there will be a roundabout in there at Mimosa and Hinkle, but there will be another traffic circle somewhere in the vicinity, and we have not gotten there yet. We want to make sure that the roundabout is in place before we get to the traffic circle. So yeah, we are working on that. Just because it's not listed in this doesn't mean we're not thinking about it. Exactly. That's part of a separate project, and it's a capital project. That's why it was folded into that one. Gotcha. Thank you. So everything that's listed, we're doing, and everything that's not listed, we're also doing. Exactly. We're doing it all. Okay. Just some clarifications on the traffic circles, because right now, if you're on the major road, you have the right-of-way, and if we don't have the traffic count, we don't put up a stop or a yield on the side roads. Will we put yields around on all four? On these, it will be yields on all four, because this is... And we will put signage out there for that? We will put signage and striping. Okay. Correct. Basically, a traffic circle is one lane. Is that a fair way to make the distinction? It's one lane, but it doesn't have the channelizing islands, per se. It's not a bigger footprint. It's really small, just local residential streets. The next one is Tissel Hill, and we did have a meeting with the community. We're still working with their president, HOA president. Their concerns were similar. If you have a straight-shot street, which is this portion, people are speeding to this area, and then these smaller areas, they are... Between this intersection and this bend, they're literally... They're putting the foot on the metal to the pedal, if you want to say that, but they're accelerating and then slowing down, screeching. Same thing happened on this. These are two alternatives, and then one here. These are the locations that were agreed upon by the community. I received confirmation that the community members that actually live across from these locations were okay having speed cushions, because there are a lot of time... There are issues with noise. It's associated with the speed cushion, because people come to a stop or have to really slow down to hit the brakes. Then there is a sound that the vehicle makes when it goes over it. If people that are living in front of these do not have a buy-in, then we run into a scenario where they come back after the fact and want it removed. That's something that we'll consider in this, and we did get confirmation from the community members, people that actually live on these streets, that they're okay with it. Question? Yes, because looking at it, maybe the one going here is the long street, but how did the other smaller street segments... What was the process by which this neighborhood was able to get four speed cushions, because I do know that it's an issue in other neighborhoods where there's shorter street segments as well. What was the process that this Hill neighborhood got the four? One of the important things was definitely speed. When we collected speed on some of these streets, there was definitely acceleration that between this point, speeds at this location were already between 28 and 32. Within that short distance, you could see that there was a lot of acceleration going on. Another thing also was the neighborhood. All these residents along these streets were on board for something like this, something so drastic, because it's not something that everyone wants to live through every day of their lives. They were really aggressive in saying, "Okay, yeah, even if it's close to 30 or 32, we still want it," because the rate of acceleration is very high. That's a short distance, but the acceleration really hits the safety issue higher than actual speeds. I know, but what was the process? Was it the HOA that contacted...? The HOA contacted us, and then we went out. We had a neighborhood meeting. We found out what their issues were, conducted the speed studies. We had enforcement go out there, the regular steps that we normally do, and then we submitted a list of things that, "Hey, are you okay with adding this?" Then we submitted... There were some pavement markings that we added, and there was immediate fix to add pavement markings at the bends so that the street is narrower. Right now, it's really wide at the bends, so people take a longer turn and go faster on the bends, so we put in pavement markings and raised markers there so that people wouldn't leave that actual roadway and go into an area that's more wider and turn faster. Yes, it went through a process, and I've been working with them since last fall. For a neighborhood like the one that I live in that doesn't have an HOA, would it be through the city council person, or would it be how, if they don't have an HOA to go through, but say a majority of people on the street, say like Emerson or Robinwood who have had issues, what would be their process? Would it just to be to individually contact you or do something with traffic safety? Yes, I think individually, if they contact us at our traffic engineering, then we can set up the community meeting. We typically, that's the first thing we set up, just understand what they need or what are the issues. Then we'll also communicate with PD. We go through their records of how many, what kind of old data they have, how many times have they gotten speeding concerns. There are locations elsewhere in the city that we're currently tracking. I think Mockingbird stands out. It has higher speed limits, I'm sorry, it has higher speeders going through that area. The speed limit is still 30. That's on our radar, and we'll go to the next level where we contact the community and set up a meeting and get that part going. But yes, if they contact us at traffic engineering and then we can go forward from there. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks. I was just going to say also on this, one of the major concerns is that this is the only through way between Ryan Road and Hickory Creek between Country Club and Teasley. The southern portion of this is River Pass, which doesn't have any houses facing. You've actually got a perimeter fence for the neighborhood next to it along River Pass. So while we still are concerned about speeding, it's not as big of a safety concern. But when you're actually going through that, weaving through that neighborhood, you're going in front of houses. They've had children at play signs up for years and years and have been working at many different ways trying to slow traffic down through there. It is part of a larger issue that we're seeing that between Ryan Road and Hickory Creek, there are no collectors or connectors in between. So right from Country Club all the way to Teasley, there are no connections that are collectors that do not have homes. So these are residential neighborhood streets here, there are residential neighborhood streets here that are facing the same issue. And as we move forward, some of the other parcels that are getting developed, they will have the same issue. So we sort of have a solution that we're thinking of adding a connector street. Now, the only space available is in this area where there is-- there's a lot of preserved land, I understand that, but that's the only remaining area-- >> Well, let's just pay the whole dang city to be dumb with it. >> But we are looking for a space where we can put in a collector that can-- connects these two, that would alleviate some of these concerns that are in the current neighborhoods. >> You know, is there more-- it sounds like the answer is going to be yes. Is there a systematic way to determine where some of this street calming might be needed where you don't have an organized HOA and where it's not just a squeakiest wheel kind of issue, right? There's-- I'm sure there are criteria, you know, so that we proactively identify where they're needed. But, you know, my personal experience just block walking, I don't think there's a neighborhood in Denton that doesn't have some street where people feel people drive through like maniacs and they need some street calming, you know? So there must be a systematic way to identify those. >> So typically the way it's currently done, and we don't have a traffic calming policy per se, but currently what we are doing is when we get a concern about speeding and neighborhood speed issues, one of the first steps is just collect data and see if there are, I think about 70 or 80 percent times it's a perception issue where people feel that-- >> But you're still starting from squeaky wheel, like-- >> Correct. >> Is there a way to start from-- is there some data that exists without going, you know, and doing a study in here and here and here, yeah, next slide. >> So short answer is I think yes, there is a way to get there, but right now we're still trying to bite off so many chunks and really the nucleus of this comes with mobility plan and a master thoroughfare plan which I know that sounds like we're taking on the big streets first but the reality is there's not a cohesive plan throughout the city that actually draws traffic to where you need them to be to make our neighborhoods safer. Get a lot of vehicular traffic out of the neighborhoods because what's happening in so many places is people are looking for alternative routes so they go through the neighborhoods. They go through the neighborhoods faster because they're frustrated, they're trying to make up time, they're doing all these other things and it's not a consequence to them because they don't live there so they're just trying to get someplace. So how we improve the overall network to get them out of our neighborhoods and on the streets where they really want to be anyway, that's the first step and then yes, we can absolutely start attacking individual neighborhoods as far as what kind of traffic calming measures should we have in place to mitigate some of that. What we can do in the meantime is as we go down the path of what is our street, our neighborhood street reconstruction program really looks like going forward, instead of just taking low OCI streets, we're taking the approach of okay, well, yes, our lowest OCI streets are in neighborhoods, this neighborhood here or this neighborhood here, let's attack the entire neighborhood at one time and then... Well, attack the improvements, but address them and that's a good time now that I'm looking at that neighborhood as a holistic piece. That's a great time to start evaluating what kind of traffic calming measures might I incorporate with the roadway reconstruction in the neighborhoods. Why don't you say something smart like that? That's great. Thank you. I'm not as smart as Todd. Anybody else? Oh, I'm sorry, did you have more to go? No, I think there are just two neighborhoods if you have any questions. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to close that item and if you don't mind, I'm going to do item E last because it usually takes a little while and just because I think we might have guests who want to hit the neighborhood issues first. So what I'd like to do is... Go ahead. Can we confirm that that's okay and our guest doesn't have to leave soon for any kind of meeting? I'm talking about... Me? Yeah. Yeah. Just want to make sure I saw you looking at... What? What am I? No. No meetings? We'll do what we ask. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. I appreciate that. Okay. So I'd like to move into item F and then after that I'll do G1 and then come back and pick up E. So if we could go ahead and open item F, receive a report and hold the discussion about bike lanes included in the design of West Windsor Street from Hinkle Drive to US 77 and East Windsor Street from North Locust Street to Old North Road. Good morning. Mark Oliphant, bicycle and pedestrian coordinator again. So we're going to be talking about the reconstruction of Windsor Street. This is happening in two sections. Actually, I'm going to pop out to the map quickly. So we have two sections we're discussing. Let's see. Here we go. Windsor. Okay. So first section is from Hinkle over to 77. That will be repaired and it will be striped back to its original or its current design, which we'll go back here, which we can see here. So we have six foot bike lanes on both sides up against the curb and then 11 foot travel lanes with a 10 foot center median used for turning both directions. So no change in that section. And then moving on to the East Windsor sections. Windsor is an interesting road. It accordions in and out a little bit. We don't have a consistent width along its entire length, but some of it does have excellent width actually. And in the bike and ped realm, width on a road is really a valuable asset because then you can include lanes and so forth. So this is our proposed layout or cross section in the area near Strickland Middle School. There is an issue currently with in the afternoon parents queuing up outside of the school waiting to pick up their children and blocking the bike lanes. So our proposal for that is to create a parking protected bike lane on the side of the middle school so that bicycle traffic can still travel through there. And there will be, there wasn't an option in this software tool, but we are also planning the vertical delineator posts there just as a way to remind the cars not to encroach on the bike lane. And then we will have 11 foot lanes, one in each direction with that center median turn lane. And in this area there's enough width right now to have these buffers, which is a great thing. We love having the buffers. And so five foot bike lanes on each side. Pape Dawson is the design company. We've already submitted, they had submitted 30% plans. We have marked them up with our preferred layout for the bicycle lanes and so forth. And so we're waiting for them to incorporate that and give it back to us. And then we'll move on. Here's another sample section. This is over in front of Wilson Elementary School, similar area. That's a transition area where it goes from narrow to wider, so this is after it has widened a little bit to the east. Eight foot parking lane on the opposite side of the elementary school. A five foot bike lane, 11 foot travel lane, 10 foot center turn lane. Another 11 foot and then we will have parking and the bike lane there also. One thing we are keeping our eye on is the design for Wilson Elementary School. The ISD has plans to rebuild that, build a new school on the play area, demolish the old one. So in those new plans, this is a very good thing, I think there's something like 80 spaces where parents will be able to line up and queue to pick up their children that are off of the roadway, which I think will be a big advantage as far as keeping vehicles from either blocking lanes or blocking traffic, anything like that. Because as I understand it currently, the queues spill out onto the public roads. So those are our proposals. Can we take a blue card and then deliberate? Sure. So we have one blue card wishing to speak to state your name and address and your three minutes will begin. Susie Rimmor, 1700 Crescent. May I use your presentation for, okay, go back one. So first off, thank you for bringing this up. I think Councilmember Briggs maybe first brought this up, I appreciate that. So with this cross section, I do have a question on whether, so you did say delineator posts will happen here against the school. I'm curious if they'll also happen across the street. In the evenings, if there's an event, a lot of times parents will all park in the bike lane. We've had that issue and it's like 20 cars in a row. So at least within a block, block and a half, I'd be curious if we'd have delineator posts on the other side. And then on the Wilson one, my first thought when I saw this, I understand this is a smaller width on this street. I just want everyone to imagine this car door opening and imagine how far that's gonna go into the bike lane. I would expect that door to come to about where the person is right here. So I'm just, I don't know if there's any way to kind of keep the cars a little further away because that will take somebody out if they're going pretty quick. And then I'm curious if we could also swap this bike lane with these cars. I know across the country, people have died riding in this style of bike lane. So what happens is, you know, cars are either wider than this or they don't necessarily go all the way to the curb. So they're further out. They open a door suddenly. They hit the person on the bike, the bike, the person on the bike falls into the road and gets crushed and killed by a car. So, you know, while we're looking at this, it'd be nice to sort of be steering away from a bike lane in between parked cars and moving traffic, if it's possible to flip them. I think those are my main thoughts on this. Thanks. Thank you. Mark responded. I know you want to speak first. Yeah. Yeah. Well, my comments were similar to those for Mark and the traffic. So thank you. I asked for this to come up ahead of time so that we could, because there are some other things that concern me on Windsor, and I appreciate the switch here for Strickland and Wilson because that is a concern, but when we think about it, Windsor, it's a very long road and it's a very heavily used pedestrian and bicycle road. It's also a route to school for all the kids they use to get to Wilson and Strickland. And now that we have the Windsor Oaks down at the very east end of Windsor developing, all of those kids too are coming up Windsor. So it's an opportunity for us to make sure that we do this right and that the pedestrians are safe there, and the kids especially. Kids are all over the place there in the morning and in the afternoons. So my wish list would be that we continue the bike lane towards the curb all the way down, further down all the way to keep it consistent. Eastward or just? Yes. Okay. Through the neighborhood, because when you're walking down, for anybody who hasn't been on Windsor, there's a large section, not really large, I don't know what happened, but between Churchill and Dunes, there's absolutely no sidewalk. So there's sidewalk from Sherman down to Churchill, and then it stops, and so the kids are pushed into the street because then the parking cars are here next to the curb. And so there's a lane that the kids have to use which is right next to the traffic. And traffic is going down really fast down Windsor because it's a straight shot. There's absolutely no stop, no anything between Sherman and when Windsor stops. So you just keep going east. So sidewalk, sidewalk, and then you'll see as you go, yes, and keep going. And this is before it looks like any length. So there's no sidewalk. That's been fixed. So you keep going down. And the striping's not there, so it's hard to tell what I'm talking about. But this is where it stops. And so when you, the parking for the cars is right next to the curb, and then the lane is pushed out. So that you have kids that are walking now all of a sudden have to go into the middle of the street almost to finish walking home. And that's a really big concern. So if we had that lane switched because we currently have it striped for a bike lane and parking, then it would be pretty consistent all the way down. That would be my one request. The other, as we talk about this, there's a, the bike lane at Bell, I mean, not Bell, I'm sorry, Windsor and Locust is kind of awkward. So I'm wondering if we're going to fix that here. It kind of switches. The bike lane is on the outside, and there's so many people turning off of Windsor, right? And they just kind of use the bike lane. I'd like to make sure that that striping is going to be fixed if possible. See the bike lane is right there, but when somebody wants to turn, they just kind of pull into the bike lane. And if there's an opportunity for us when we're restriping this or reconsidering the lanes, I'd like to look at this as well for safety. The next thing, I'm just going to keep going down my list. The next thing, and I'm glad Mr. Estes is here, is I don't know if this would be the time to, as we're repaving Windsor, talk about, is it the Eagle signal or Hawk signal there at Bell and Windsor to make sure that the kids can safely cross? And would that need to be something we do underground? Yes, so before we would even go vertical with the Hawk signal, we would definitely be putting in conduit, and that is part of this, is to put conduit under the ground so we can feed the wires and everything we would need to put that in place. So I just want to make sure, so we are thinking for the future and that's going to be installed underneath? Correct. Okay. All right. And then the next thing, and I'm going to request this I think every year, I think is another traffic study at Nottingham in Windsor. Traffic count for a four-way stop there just to get some sort of calm in between the storm, and I know that it might not be this year, but eventually we'll need to get that. That's really old Google, like I thought they were, it was updated, it's so hard to tell, and we have come a long way since this picture. Yeah, okay, yeah. Is this Nottingham here yet? So and again, you know, with that section of missing sidewalk, it would be, I don't know if it's a good time for us to put that in and maybe think about that in the future as well. So that's all I got, if it's not enough, I can keep thinking about more. See? Yeah. So first our citizen comments, let's see, about delineator posts on the opposite side. I think that is a possibility, the advantage of being next to the middle school is that you have long distances between driveways, and you do have vehicles going in and out of their driveways, but I think it's a possibility. I will put the caveat, too, that this is a long stretch of road, where it is wide enough, we are planning to do lots, but just showing the entire length, it goes in and out, so there's changes, and we just didn't think it practical to show the whole thing. So delineator posts on the opposite side of the schools, especially near Strickland, where we have the width for the buffer, I will definitely look into it, and I will look at the distance between driveways, and just make sure, it might be odd if we have driveway one post, driveway one post, or something, but we can look at that, yes. And then, let's see, the comment about near the Windsor area, so switching on the opposite side from the schools, switching the bike lane, and I can go back to switching, so switching these two here, we're hesitant because it is residential on that side of the street, just hesitant that the residents who live there won't feel comfortable, or will object to having their vehicles out from the curb, next to the traffic, but, yes. So one concern I have, any time we get into a residential neighborhood and we're showing parking on the street defined and striped, and then you switch, where you put the bicycle lanes closer to the house, is when somebody's backing out of their driveway, the visibility of that person trying to get out of their driveway is also hindered. So it increases the likelihood of vehicle on vehicle collisions, people not seeing each other, so it's a careful balance that they're trying to go through as they're designing this roadway. Most of your residential streets were not set up to where you give adequate vision to the driver, the cyclist, the pedestrian, all in one place. That's why you typically don't have a lot of parking out there delineated. You park out there kind of at your own risk, I hate to say that, but that's really what you do on a residential neighborhood street. The intent is to really get you off the roadway. You'd love to have sidewalks, but I really have a concern when there's that much distance between the two, at how far a driver can see any and all people coming and going, at least when you have the parked cars next to the back of curb, they can edge all the way out to the end of that parked car, which gives them a better chance of seeing somebody moving back and forth. You have a parked car and the bicycle lane on one side and the travel lanes on the other. You're looking for two modes of transportation moving back and forth at the same time, and you're not necessarily focused on really what should be going on. You're focused here, you're focused there, it's a very difficult scenario. So when you try to take a roadway like Windsor and put all these components together, it's a careful balancing act. At some point, the question has to come up. Do you really go down the pathway of providing delineated parking out there? So that's what we're trying to balance here. It's the safety of all modes of transportation. You have homeowners who their likelihood of being able to see what's going on around them is just greatly diminished. A lot of it depends on how parked that stretch of the roadway is. Some of these roads, we show them parked, they're not parked all that frequently. Some roads are. So my question comes back to why are we really focused so intently on delineating parking when we really probably shouldn't be? How baked is this? Are you still thinking about that and balancing that? Here's the transition that's tough for us is this is a roadway project that was in the bond program to reconstruct the road. We can reconfigure striping fairly easily. We have plenty of time to do that so we can continue to have this discussion. If you want to increase the width of the pavement, as Mark just talked about, having more width to do certain things with, that just takes more time and there was not money in that budget to go do that. Very similar to adding additional sidewalk segments, yes, we agree they need to be there, but I don't know how far we can stretch these dollars for something other than what they were intended, which was the roadway reconstruction. We'll look at that, absolutely. We're not saying don't do it, I hesitate to give you too much of a picture of all these wonderful things we can do when really we're very limited on what we can do here. To add to that, as Todd mentions, we're limited on the dollars. So it's not that it won't be on our long-term plan, so our bike and pedestrian master plan will include segments along Windsor for sidewalks. We currently don't know what kind of right of way we have, we have not engineered it, so we are unaware of the hidden costs and sometimes people think it's just a little sidewalk, but I think it's a little bit more complicated than that when it gets into people's front yard, when it gets into utility issues, and also the fact that this whole neighborhood never had a sidewalk. The segment that you're talking about between Churchill and Dune does not have enough width, and as Todd mentioned, we're going from one curb to another, we're not going to expand that as part of this particular bond project, so we have about 43 feet of curb-to-curb width, which can accommodate two drive lanes and then two parking lanes, maybe a little bit of couple two or three more feet on either side, but it's very difficult to squeeze all the infrastructure within the confines of this particular project. - Just to that, yeah, because there are times where the bike lane disappears and it goes straight to parking lane, so it's not consistent and so confusing. There's not a sidewalk there, so you're pushed into the parking lane, and I'm just saying if we did a pedestrian count on this street, it would be extremely high. It's used a lot by the whole neighborhood, so I'm not talking about expanding the street. I just want to make sure that whatever we do, we do it right here because it's an opportunity for us to do the striping correctly, and if we need to have a talk about parking, then we could do that, but so in my comment about the sidewalk is that it's a safe route to schools thing that we could maybe apply for funding for there because it's a direct path from the neighborhood to the school. - I agree with that part. We're looking at sidewalk locations for funding. - And I'm sure that this is gonna be in a criteria manual that you'll explain away to me pretty quick, but as we talk about traffic calming, we talk about if you narrow the lanes it's a calming, and I see this with 11-foot for the drive lane and 8-foot for the parking lane. Most cars when you park in an 8-foot, there's not much room to get out, so we're creating a safety issue for the person trying to get it. They're either gonna have to step out into the bike lane or step out into the drive lane. What is the reason we wouldn't think about maybe going to an 11-foot drive lane and a 9-foot parking lane to increase that safety? - 10-foot drive lane, and take one foot and move it over into the parking lane. - Oh, wait, 10-foot drive lane? - 10-foot drive lane, 'cause you've got 10-foot center lane and 9-foot, yeah, 9-foot parking lane. - So 10, 10, 10? - Yeah, and then add that extra foot to the parking lane so you've got that ability to partially get out, and I think about on Locust back when we used to have parking in that segment and you had a parking lane that was probably 6-1/2 foot, there was no way to get in and out of a car if, you'd always get out the passenger side 'cause Locust had so much traffic. - So I just wanna point out the purpose or the classification for this particular street is primary arterial, so it is one of the main street that connects east-west, and having that narrow of a lane is gonna really impede traffic, which may then lead onto other streets in the neighborhood, so there are consequences that they'll find alternative routes if we squeeze them here. So it's a give and take, I see what you're trying to do is provide more space for parking, but that particular segment, I'm not sure if it's that heavily parked, so parking demand is not as high in some of the segments that we're looking at, council member Brooks can answer that. - And I would say whether it's heavily parked or not, it is very heavy in residential homes that face the street in certain areas. - I will just say that we've been told that the smaller the lane, the smaller the driving area, the more it's likely to reduce the speeding, and that is a big issue here, especially going around the curb heading down East Windsor after Nottingham, people speed from Nottingham all the way down to Old North because they're going around that corner, there's not very many speed signs that tell you how fast to go. So I mean, if we had a narrower drive, it would make sense that people would start to slow down, I mean, using the philosophy that we've applied in the city and other areas. - We'll definitely look into that. - I'm hearing Pro Tem say he wants the speed there, so it doesn't end up somewhere else. - And I'm also hearing Mayor Pro Tem, it's a highly residential area, and it's part of the issue we have throughout the city where some of these neighborhood areas all of a sudden have these really fast major streets through them, so intention was one thing and it settled out to be something different. - I want to find a way to kind of wrap this item because I think we should probably be out here by 11, but what are next steps, because it sounds like this is kind of a proposal, but you're taking input and you're going to still think on it a bit, is that fair? - So I would propose that for this particular item, let us go back and do a little bit more head scratching on the lane configuration. The construction of the roadway will continue to go forward with Pape Dawson and we're going to rebuild the roadway within its confines, that's what we have, but we can come back with some alternatives on where we configure the lanes. I do think a further conversation, potentially a series of public meetings that would illustrate the issues to the residents out there. How much of this on street parking do you really feel like you need to have? Part of what Preetam is talking about here is we're not saying that or advocating that we want to build high speed roadways, but the reality is, as you said, Council Member Briggs, is that people are driving there and they do because that's where things have come, people are there, they're going back and forth and they're looking for alternative pathways throughout the town and we don't have them. Lack of planning years ago, now we're trying to catch up with it. Those avenues are not there so people are using them where they can find them and what should be a fairly confined residential large collector street is not being used that way. So the conversation really has to be had at some point on what do you intend for this roadway? I think we need a little bit of feedback on that so that we really can give you the best options. So from my standpoint, it would be we have one or two public meetings to get a little feedback on these lane configurations, reach out to the neighborhood in general and then come back with some better information. I'm very curious if out of that process we find out that there's much demand at all for it to be parked. Not every street has parking. There's no parking on Carroll as far as I know. Sure. Because then a lot of those interaction points go away. I would just quickly add to that the planning processes for Wilson Elementary and Strickland is also going to be rebuilt. I haven't seen that. Eventually. We haven't seen plans yet, but that will have an impact. I was very excited to see that they had built in 80 spaces for cars to queue up off of the public roads because that really changes the dynamic here and that information is evolving. I know the Wilson Engineering Group is supposed to be doing a traffic survey of some kind and so that will help inform this decision. I look forward to the next iteration. Thank you very much. I'd like to just briefly hit G1 and then we'll go back and hit item E. If you wouldn't mind. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the item about the safety concerns with Oak and Fry Street, I just wanted to highlight some of the things that's been done with a number of departments within the organization. Some things that were identified were poor lighting in the Fry Street area and Hickory Street and so we actually did a drive around with the municipal electric along with planning to just identify some of those areas where the lights were very dim. So DME has gone in and replaced a lot of the high pressure sodium lights to LED, so it's really brightened up the area in that location. And pardon me, the LED is 400 watts, I think we were saying, and what is the, is it from what to 400? What's the wattage of the-- I believe it was, I think it was 250, the high pressure of sodium to 400, so it's really brightened up the area since what it was before. Also identified along the drive there was some poor sidewalk areas there along Fry Street and my understanding based on staff's update is that should be replaced by the end of May. And then believe on the 16th of April, staff is coming to you all, to the whole council to discuss the pedestrian path through the UNT that's been on the, was on last month's mobility committee along with the one-way option along Mulberry. So that will be coming to the full council next Tuesday for direction on your part, the council's part is to pursue the UNT option or the Mulberry one-way option or potentially both. And for those who are watching, we're not deliberating, we're just receiving a report here. Correct, correct. And then the last thing that will be coming to you all on the meeting in the near future is that additional parking along Fry Street that's been discussed previously as those options come to light. So a lot more to come along that, but just wanted to give the committee an update on where we were and hopefully once we get direction from city council we can continue this on the matrix if you'd like or not, it's just your call. Okay. No action being taken now. Thank you very much for that update. I just thought that might have been interesting to some members of the public who are here. Why don't we go ahead and open item E, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the text out on system projects. All right, so we'll start real quick. I'm going to go pretty fast on this stuff. I was here last month, so I've learned a lot of changes in roadway years in a month. But the one good news is on 2181, the surety has already agreed to move forward with picking a firm from the one of the original bidders. MCM was the low bid, they're going back to those original bidders. We should know about that on the 11th. And as soon as we know that, they'll do a pre-construction meeting and we'll get a schedule and we'll be able to tell you fairly quickly that 2181 is back being torn up and reconstructed. Your four-wheel drive project, I'm going to skip to the text out report. The main issue that we're having right here is we cannot get Union Pacific to respond to us, which is not unusual. We have a conference call being set up for this and your quiet zones that are going to be addressed with the MPO. Union Pacific has some requests in for financial assistance in the region from the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the MPO says we'll help you there if you help us elsewhere. And so we're setting up a meeting. Mario has been pushing us pretty hard to get that done with the MPO and of course Michael Morris is very hard to schedule. He's the critical path on that island but we'll be talking to them about four-wheel drive and your quiet zones within the city limits. Your Mayhill project, this is... We have a question. On that, can we be notified when that meeting is scheduled? I think Mayor Pro Tem Ryan's going to be on that call as well because he's an RTC member. So we'll get you all noticed on that pretty good. Your Mayhill project, this is the ultimate configuration again, as we said earlier. It will be 12 lanes. It will include the pedestrian improvements. All of TechStop projects now include the sidewalks and outside lanes that are 14 feet. So we are at a point where the city has the design and the review in it to make sure we don't miss anything on it related to what TechStop's doing. But this will be the major north-south arterial in this part of Denton because we'll have six lanes coming up for 24.99 and you're carrying ultimate six on Mayhill all the way to US380. And then your brinker job, you'll notice I'm putting an asterisk there. It is OHL and they aren't cooperative. But by May or June, we should have the brinker underpass temporarily established so that you can make a movement into the Buc-E's facility. So that'll take a lot of pressure off of 288 for the traffic that's making the U-turn there. And then again, I took their report and changed it to an asterisk. They were saying September 16th of 2019 and I believe it may be September. I just don't think it's going to be 2019. So we took the date off. This is your $420 million merge for the 35W, 35E and all the way up to 77. And this has been submitted for clear lanes funding at the state level and an infra grant at the federal level. And if we don't get either of those, we'll go and fall back to a $150 million project where we add a second lane from 35W on to 35 and then we'll build the frontage roads between the Wishbone and 380 on the north and southbound side, which will include braided ramps in this area which should minimize the conflicts that occur south of 380, but it just moves the traffic problem north of 380, which is why we're trying to get this project additional funding to get all the way up to 77. And we'll know about that this summer. The 35 North project, that's included 380 up to the county line and the previous project we're moving this project up to about 77. So once we get this project cleared in May, which is the time frame we're supposed to be hearing about the clear lanes and the infra grant, this project will already be cleared and we'll be able to build this part of the project with the section that's already cleared to the south of there. It's a public hearing scheduled for April 4th, so that happened? Yes, sir. It's a public, I think it was at Sanger Public, yes, it did happen because I was at Tech Stunt when they were there at five o'clock saying, "I've got to get me some ice cream because I've got to go do a public hearing in Sanger." So yes, they did have it. I haven't heard what happened, but once you have a public hearing, the project is pretty much set in stone. The public hearing for people to hear what they're going to do to you and not what you can do about it. So we're going to skip this because this is a project that's on hold. HNTB is doing a full on project from the county line up to the Wishbone. That's on hold because of the next project. Tech Stunt has Jacobs on contract doing the frontage road projects from where we leave off at 114. We did the frontage roads from 114 to Eagle Parkway on the north and the southbound side where Tanger Mall and Buckeyes and all that is. From that project north to the railroad track, Jacobs is designing the frontage roads. And the reason HNTB is waiting on Jacobs is because there are cross streets in this area, Cleveland Gibbs, that are where we're going to flip the grade and take the interstate over and bring the cross streets under. And so once Jacobs finishes the design, sets the parameters for that, then they'll turn that over to HNTB and they'll incorporate it into ultimate and then put the main lane design back into it. So it's a two step process. This project is about, I can't read what that says, but it's a lot of money. $300 million just for the frontage roads and there's a lot of floodplain that we're going to cross, but once we get these frontage roads established and a lot of that down to like Robeson Ranch and Crawford Road, that city of Denton, that'll be open for development. 380 East, this project is all the way out to the Collin County line. We're in the process of acquiring the right of way and we are looking at a February 2021 ready to let. If we get the right of way accomplished quicker or the utilities move faster, that can move up because this project is fully funded in the state's unified transportation program. Loop 288, we had a meeting on March 28th at McMath to tell everybody what was going on. Most people, there were about 50 or so that attended and they just mostly wanted to know how it was going to impact them and they were mostly from the northern section. The intent is to build the inside frontage road so all the development inside of the loop can build out to the existing frontage road in its permanent location and we're looking at pretty far out there because if you see all these little white dots, those are gas wells and what's underneath the ground are transmission lines and we have to move those transmission lines and those are fairly expensive and they'll take a while. 15, Pre-Tim's got some silly ideas that he wants us to look at. Traffic circles at Western, et cetera. We had a meeting. Same time that we had, the 6 o'clock. Okay. Last week? Last week. To discuss some alternatives and we're still working those through an iterative process that we'll come back and hopefully I'll talk to Todd and he'll use some common sense on it because he didn't want to. The 1173 project, this is the other reason why we want to take the 35 project up to 77 is because we're actually working to realign FM 1173 to be consistent with the city's thoroughfare plan to tie into 77 at this location. Again Garver is on contract to do this work and we're looking at September 2020 for environmental clearance. After that it's just a guess, they haven't put it in the system yet but once they put it in the system they'll tell you what they think the right of way will be, utilities and when they're ready to let date is. FM 428, this is the one that was blank last time. We got it in now. This is all the way from 288 all the way into basically the outer loop. We're having a meeting with Michael Morris to go over various of Sunday projects. This will be one of them to see what he can do and if we get him to say yes to it then the local match requirement will be on the state level as opposed to the city having to participate. So if we do this right, they'll say yes and we won't have to put any money into it and I believe that's it. A question, and I know that the city has already contacted TxDOT but I just want to see what your comments are on the road on the underpass that loop in 35, Lillian Miller. So there's big giant swimming pools that I hear under the underpass and so they just keep getting fixed and then the next day they're broken again. So is that, I know that the city's contacted TxDOT and there's a plan but I just want to hear from you if you know any updates on that, if there's a plan to redo that whole section. Well there is ultimately with the finish of the OHL job but right now what TxDOT is doing is the basically the facility underneath the old pavement is concrete and the pavement that's there is popping off and so what they were doing is milling it to get down to a more sturdy foundation but I don't know what the latest is and I don't know if you've talked to them pre-tem but their only issue was they were going to just mill it to make it smooth but it's a temporary fix while they're under construction. Yeah I don't know that they've milled it yet. So they they did over the weekend go and mill it once more okay now we did have rain anytime you mill that particular type of material it's basically chopping up the top layer and then re-compacting it a bit. That's part of the problem is that it's a low spot that's where the drainage goes so anytime they do something they're doing a temporary fix and then they'll have to come back and do it again. The contractor does have other alternatives but once it's within the realm of the contractor working on the job it's the contract responsibility to maintain it now how they choose to do that there are multiple ways you can keep coming back and putting it back in you could do something a little bit more permanent that is something that is more their prerogative once they start taking over that contract. This is OHL so their prerogative is not to do anything I mean that's why this project was supposed to be done August of 2018. Well we have residents getting flat tires on on the regular here. The textile maintenance office at the Denton office they are sensitive to this we meet with them every two weeks three weeks and this is an issue we talk about and they are trying but about the only thing they can do is just go back in there and mill it each time to try to get it is what we're going to be working with and in fact I'm glad John's here we can talk after the meeting but but knowing that this is an issue along with some of the issues with 2181 with the sidewalks is is again the local office does basically the routine maintenance it's really the district office again correct me if I'm wrong it's the district office where we really need to to go to them and work with the various contractors and so so we just need to get with John and identify those those key principles at the textile office at the district office and and make that connection that way. Our local folks they do great we have a really good relationship with them and a good rapport with them and so it's not them it's it's really working at the district level and try to get some relief that way and so we're working on a variety of angles including our state representation. Okay well that's good to know because I mean you said the the final fix there's no there's no plan. I'm not going to tell you date because I'd like to I try not to and I know I am actually lying so I mean besides residents going down and dumping bags of concrete and all more us getting giant things of plywood and laying them out there I don't really know what else. I wouldn't suggest doing either of those but okay all right thank you. I'm good I just like saying pretend every time every once in a while. Okay thank you very much I think all I've got left is whatever's whatever's left on staff reports matrix. So on the matrix part I do want to start with a couple of number one and number two we've touched on it we're talking about protected bike lanes which is what part of Windsor was. If I'm not sure if you're looking for additional information and want this item back as a full blown agenda just to understand what protected bike lanes are or is this something that we can now put it off or use it through the Windsor presentation. We're gonna come back with Windsor information further along again. For me if it's just you know I'm just curious to hear ultimately how it fits in the mobility plan you know the bigger picture. Any other thoughts on do you want to hear something special on protected bike lanes? Yeah for me it was about Windsor but also when we get the bike and pedestrian update plan maybe that integrated into that somehow. Yeah thank you. So it will be part of the plan where it talks about different facility types within the bicycle and then it will be highlighted in the plan. So these will be the areas where you have protected bike lanes and stuff like that. And on item two was your thought that like really university is not an issue that they're all you know they've got facilities. You focused on 35. Correct that was our first step. So this you want to do more yes we can do great university will be the other barrier that we have there are certain arterials that we're working on but yes university will bring it back. I appreciate that. There are some more challenges than that. Anything else you want to hit on the matrix? About the item number eight I think this was the striping near on Kings Road near the new fire station I think it's been put in back. So is that can that can we take that item off or okay perfect. You got a yes? Yeah she Robin drove in she took some nice pictures she's like here are some pictures. On item number sorry going back on item number three I just want to make sure we're looking at the right bus stop and there is a bus stop north on Bonnie Bray that's next to the tortillas. So there is a currently a sidewalk that was fixed and we have a picture that Robin just drove around all these different issues and so do you want to take it off or do you want to have more information? Well my my reason for bringing that up was that I saw people just jetting across the street from like Academy or like right there the busy busy intersection they weren't walking to the light coming across and going back down. So my concern was it's already really congested right there and people are going fast trying to turn and pull out and so then you have people just trying to cross in the middle of the road there directly where the bus stop is. So that was I just I don't know that there's a solution for that I just wanted to bring that to your attention. So that that was a concern I saw a couple people do that and you know just take off in the middle of traffic and it was pretty concerning and I know that that's a behavior thing but it is happening. So as part of our Bonnie Bray project and also brought it up with the high school going up on north side we are looking at that Academy intersection and seeing if there are trips generated and there are enough for a signal or something of that sort that would provide interconnectivity between the retail on the other side of Bonnie Bray on the east side versus the west side and the Academy side. So as part of that study we will be reviewing that and we can report back on that when we find out. I'd like to add an item on the matrix which is just when appropriate to hear an update on the rogue curb painting areas I had some interaction with the city manager who said you know he's kind of well I asked if at the same time that we're addressing the quote unquote graffiti that we're also looking at what we think you think the right curb painting ought to be in those areas and he's replied that it's kind of on hold while some data is being gathered so you know whenever that happens we'll have to just hear what the outcome is. A few matrix item or questions so and I want to start by saying I appreciate all staffs hard work for the downtown connectivity for pedestrians I think it's going to be really good but I do have a couple of more items regarding downtown that I would like possibility to look at one would be no right turns on red especially right there at is it Hickory and Elm I think there's a lot of near misses right there by turning on red and if what kind of accidents could be prevented if we just don't have we have a sign not to turn red right there. The other one is I someone brought it this up to me and I never really noticed or paid much attention but when you're looking at the one ways around the square if you go to the west there's two way streets right up into the square and if you go to the east it's continued one way and so if we could have like just a map of that and why that's like that and if we could switch it back to two way on either way or just have that discussion and some people say that for economic development purposes if you have the two way street it helps. We're not laughing at you there's a work session next Tuesday is there okay yes and all those issues that you described about the two way versus two way all being all being brought to the discussion next to that is a very speedy response to that is that's the quickest thing that I've ever and I'm glad that that I'm not just funny looking okay and so that's really good and I just wanted to make a note that I go to Twisted Bodies to do yoga and Pilates and there's a giant window there looking out the street and I have been there maybe I'm there three times a week don't judge me on how often I don't work out and I look up and there is a truck just going the wrong way really fast and I don't know if it's because Eagle is shut down and they're just confused or are what but it's been and I talked to the owners there and it's been more consistent lately than before so we have people heading the wrong way on that street and so we may need to put a one do not enter sign I think it might be people trying to come from Fort Worth Drive and they just go straight through instead of realizing it's not a one way and then they get on that do you guys know where I'm talking about what's where we're putting the new the new little parky type thing in but I think it might be just because Eagles been shut down and so people can't turn and so they're just going straight through I just want to mention that I don't know what we could do maybe we could put up a sign that says one way only do not enter here and there may be one somebody's ignoring but that's just one of our policy bundle initiatives it's just really scary when you're looking up and seeing a truck flying down the wrong way and just so that you know we are in discussion with text on that as part of the turn back right where that segment is no longer state controlled as the city goes forward we'll be able to when we do have control of the roadway we can reconfigure a lot of that in a different way okay okay so that that and here's here's the big one here's the one that you guys are going to really love me for is it possible to do a road diet on Carol from three lanes from six lanes to four lanes so that we can put a I am bike way in one of those lanes for connectivity all the way through town the whole Carol corridor well from yeah University down to to Eagle because we have had the one lane down on one side for a while now with the construction and there hasn't been that much of an issue and I was there through around five o'clock traffic the other day too and it wasn't that significant so just just a hypothetical question I don't have anything for the matrix but I do for the street construction report since we're on the item in February we were at the Forest Ridge homeowners Association meeting and there was talk about a a neighborhood meeting regarding Forest Ridge in April and I haven't seen anything scheduled yet so I'm kind of wondering where that's at because I'm getting a lot of people who in that neighborhood or replace the panels on the section that's not being done they're going oh is that all I get is that is that the reconstruction of Forest Ridge it's not but you have two segments of Forest Ridge so you have the segment of Forest Ridge that's all concrete it's a newer segment and that's where we're doing concrete panel replacement then you have the segment where the long median exists it's all asphalt so it's two very different programs enacted in the same area so the panels are there because it's a natural course of just maintenance on a concrete roadway where we're seeing failures we're doing replacement of those particular pieces and they're not they're not catastrophic failures but we're seeing just wear and tear over time that we're placing those particular panels and then the actual project itself is removing that median potentially we're still going through that analysis and then reconstructing the roadway from where the concrete stops all the way north to Hobson. Right and I guess what I'm saying is because we haven't had that neighborhood meeting yet or scheduled it to talk about that there that's what's causing the confusion is people haven't been alerted unless it's been scheduled and I was not aware of it. I think there's been a couple of meetings. So that there is a survey monkey survey out there that were those put out with different options to just gather information and we're going that route after we get all that data then we can go back and have the actual community meeting that's the way we want to set it up so that it's not just people that in that neighborhood but also people that go further south and forestry to get to-- we get a feedback as to what the requirement and bike facility parking where the-- what does the community want. So we're collecting survey right now. It's online and I can send you the link. >> How are we advertising that? >> I think we're working with the PIO. They're putting it out there. They did receive an email from Jessica but I'll give you more information. >> Okay. >> I'll get you. >> Okay. We're going to be done in about eight seconds but if you have to go now, that's all right. Yeah. Sorry. Anything else? Oh, okay. I get it. Anything else on street construction reports? All right. I think we're good. We're going to-- what's the word, conclude, close, wrap-- >> Adjourn. >> Adjourn. That's the word. We're going to adjourn the meeting then at 1056. Thank you.