May 28, 2025 Mobility Committee on 2025-05-28 10:00 AM

We are at the City of Denton Mobility Committee Wednesday, May 28, 2025, 10 a.m., in the council work session room. We do have a quorum present. We know one member is on his way, council member Beck. Do we have any citizens comment on any of the agenda items? No, I see no. Then we'll move on to our items where individual consideration, AMC 25-021, consider approval of the minutes April 30, 2025. Anybody want to make a motion? They are, as I recall. I will motion they be approved as submitted. Second. Second. Any disagreements? All right. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Second. B, AMC 25-022, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the Ballard's evaluation. Good morning, Chair and committee members. Farhan Butt, Deputy Director, Transportation Services Division. I'm here to present the final of the series of Ballard evaluation presentations. This is the final presentation where we will conclude and provide the recommendations to this committee. Before we start on the recommendations, there will be a slide for the recap that will cover the importance of Ballard's, how they can significantly save or be lifesaving when it comes to extent between bikers and auto users, and then also it will highlight what the standard dimensions are for the Ballard's. And then later on, we'll have recommendations and then some selected corridors that staff has researched, not all of them, but some corridors have been researched and then others we have in our radar, on our radar, and we will, if needed, we can audit those as well. And we will have future recommendations as well, as a final slide. Excuse me. Yes. I'll make this statement first. I know that this particular topic is a significant topic for Dr. Benk, who's absent right now, and I would like for him to be here on this presentation, actually, I know that he's the one that brought this forward, and I didn't recognize that he would be late, but I know that this one is very important to him. And then the other thing is, the next one is the pitch. Is there any way that I can... I was hoping he walked through the door when I turned my head that way. Is there any way that I could be allowed to just change this one in exchange for the pitch to this? Can I do that? I mean, can I recommend that? And it's just a level of respect here, if he would come in the door and see that we're almost nearly pushing the way it's done, I know that he would be very disappointed. I don't want to do that. Okay? All right. Can we... So we're going to switch around? Would you set up the pitch? Are you ready to pitch? I'm happy to do that, but frankly, I'd like him here for this, for my item as well. Okay. So now what do you want me to do? Yes, sir. Madam Chair. I mean, I'm trying to be respectful to the guy. Madam Chair, I absolutely understand what you're trying to do. Yes. I might make a recommendation, is maybe just go ahead and we can take... Whether it is item D, if you want to start working through some of the staff memorandums, you can kind of talk through that. You did call that first item, so just pull that back and then go ahead and go to item D. And then we pull back the first item off of, and that would be MC25-0522. Okay. All agree? Yes? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. I feel like I was compelled. MC... We're going to move on to MC25-024 with the understanding that when Dr. Beck arrives, we will stop and then we will come back. Okay? Can we do that? Awesome. Yes, ma'am. All right. Let's start with the first one. Okay. Construction project information on Shady Oaks. Yes, ma'am. So again, we provided a response there. It looks like it was just some franchise utility work that was taking place in that parking lot near Curley. Since then, that work has been completed. The roadway has been restored back, including the parking lot there. So all should be good on Shady Oaks Drive. Okay. Second one here is the US 380 side path pedestrian impact. So Council Member Rumer had asked about this one. So according to the current schematic that's being reviewed by TxDOT, it will just continue along underneath the bridge. So no impact, no disruption, other than probably a little bit during construction as they're doing bridge piers and hanging girders over the top. Okay. And then I won't read through all of the quarterly construction reports, but we did provide some updates on Bonnebrae 3, 4, 5, 6, Riney Road East, Westgate 5B, McKinney Sidewalks, Ryan Road, and Hickory Creek 3. I will point out a couple of quick things. So Riney Road East, we have 100% design. It's going to be going to bid this summer. Westgate Road is also already been bid. This is the east-west connector to Bronco Way, Denton High School area. So we're hoping that's going to go forward to Council, either that last meeting in June or the first meeting in July, right after we get back from the break. Forgive me. Riney Road East, is that where Riney Road intersects North Elm Street? Yes, sir. Yep. And so it's essentially from the elementary school to US 77 there at Elm Street. Which couldn't be very much. It's not. No, I think it's -- For a while or -- Maybe that much. Maybe. Probably less. When will -- will that be finished before school starts? It will not be finished before August. So we're working with the Bonnebrae 6 contractor to have the section from Bonnebrae to the eastern boundary of the elementary school completed by August 8th, I believe is what we're tracking on. That section from the east side of the elementary school 277 probably will not start until after school's in session. So the goal will be have it completed early next year. When would you guesstimate it is complete from Bonnebrae to Elm Street? My guess would be Q1, Q2 of '26, depending upon how quickly we get through the bidding and advertising phase. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Any other questions? I'm just very pleased to see that McKinney sidewalks are still on the list. Yes, ma'am. I actually have a meeting for that later on today. So we're getting close to having our design finalized there. Excellent. Excellent. Okay. Well, you have a question about these? I do. I apologize. I was at the same meeting that you were on, the Bank County Owned List News reveal -- reveals the wrong word. But anyway, did we cover the strode element of the staff member random? We have not yet. We're about to get to that. Yeah. We haven't gotten to that. So we're going to stop here. Okay. And we've got to go back to the front with Barheed, with the bollards. You don't want to just complete this? Y'all don't want to finish this? You don't want to finish this? Yeah, let's complete this. Okay. Well, then let's complete this. All right. All right. Any other questions on project updates? Otherwise, I'm going to get it to Farhan to discuss their -- No, we'll finish this. We're going to finish this on time real quick. Now that you're here. Yeah. And then we'll go back. Yeah. That's fine. So keep going. Okay. Barheed, sit down. He's going to cover his items. Oh, he's got an item. Oh, okay. I used my teacher voice, didn't I? Sorry. Good morning, Chair, and committee members, Farhan Butt, Deputy Director, Transportation Services Division. So we have here on memo items, we have allowed use of TRIP funds, and the exhibit was provided. And if in case of TRIP funds, they are centric to DCTA's strategic plan, and any proposed improvements that we recommend as projects must align with that plan, and also they should be integrating or enhancing DCTA's service in terms of multimodal activities that not only includes pedestrians, but also bicyclists, and location enhancements, stop bus location enhancements, and more. So the detailed memo has been submitted. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to address. And then for increased wrapped equipment box locations, again, the memo has been provided, which talks about -- in details, it talks about how this plan is going. And in order to expand this program, where we add more wrapped equipment box locations, we would need additional budget. Roughly the cost is $1,500 per unit. And then there is a proposed honorarium that we are recommending to give to the artists. If we add that on, that will be around $1,700 a unit. And so we are happy to expand it, but as long as there is a budgetary approval for that, and if budget is available, the transportation services will be happy to collaborate with planning and CMO to expand this further. >> Okay. I think we have a question. Did you have a question? Oh. >> No, on this one. >> I'm sorry. He had his hand up a little. For Strouds, again, the memo -- for Strouds, again, the memo has been submitted with details on rather high-level details because individually we have to cover on segment levels if this committee is interested in looking into different segments. But to give a brief account of what Strouds are, they are a combination of streets and roads where they provide access to -- they are multi-lane arterials which provide access to businesses and residential developments right to the lanes. And so the access is -- there are multiple access points, and that makes them a bit risky from an engineering standpoint, but they are widely used in locations where multiple access points are needed. But from planners and professionals' viewpoint, they are not highly recommended in many places. The reason is that if we are not designing these Strouds correctly, we may put the road users at risk. So if it is recommended, it is expected that these Strouds are designed correctly by accommodating all road users, not only cars. And if there are any questions on that, I will be happy to address. >> Yes, sir. >> So I appreciate the framing and the definitions. I think that's going to be helpful for the committee and council going forward, so thank you for that. One of the things when I asked for this item that I was trying to get to was that next step that you sort of allude to in the conclusion, that you allude to just now in terms of -- I mean, we certainly in our mobility plan can say, let's avoid Strouds, let's have roads or streets, but we are -- as we expand, they tend to merge in the mobility plan because we tend to reuse existing roadways. And also then we get into the conundrum of, okay, now we have a street that has become a road or a road that has become a street because of development pressures and expansion. What are the recommendation -- I guess I was really looking for recommendations from transportation experts like you to how do we mitigate a lot of the risks that you lay out in the documents. So I like the definition, but I would like us to keep this on the radar because what I didn't hear a lot of was -- and it doesn't have to be a per segment definition, but what general approaches can we take that should be, you know, adopted in another committee or in council like DCRC or P&Z or council to create policies that prevent these, and then once we have them, what should we be doing to mitigate? That's what I was -- that sort of the next page of this memorandum would have been delightful. Is that a possibility to get some recommendations? There's a possibility, but they are highly dependent on land use, a mix, and on case by case basis, we'll have to figure out what treatments are needed. So if there are identified corridors as a first step that these could be potentially strode, then we could get into the criteria on what elements treatments would be included. For instance, if there's a strode near the college, and it is heavily used by bikers on the shoulder side, then we need appropriate treatments for that. But on the contrary, if there's a retail, big retail where there's a lot of auto presence, and it is conflicting with pedestrians, then we need treatments accordingly for pedestrians. So it all depends on corridors, and we will have to define these treatments -- they're context sensitive, basically, you know? Corridors to corridor, it depends. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and vice versa, I guess maybe something that would be helpful to various bodies is a delineation of where we have strodes, and whether those strodes have particularly reproducible characteristics like you just described. And I see you, I see you, but I can't pass the baton because only she can do that. But in that way, the various committees and bodies can interact with you and say, okay, this is a, just as you said, this is a retail area of a strode, and we have four strodes that have a retail presence, this is what staff would recommend for that sort of thing. And then later, get into the nitty-gritty of, okay, the razor ranch segment of 380 strode. And I understand that that's going to be further down the pipeline, but in terms of asking questions, setting policy, that's something that the various committees can do. Okay. Thank you. In what, did you have, yes, did you have something? I was just going to make a point, and Farhan can correct me on the dates, but I think the next budget year, not this upcoming, we will be looking to do or begin the update for the mobility plan, which I think is an ideal time for us to go through this exercise. And that would kind of put those next steps in place as we look at what we introduced with the previous mobility plan was contact-sensitive roads. This just furthers what that is, and I think addresses Council Member Beck's questions or concerns. No, I love the planning, I'm a little concerned about a year and a half away. I never, I understand that you have to weave together plans and not be reactive, but that feels like we could have a more current timeline for some of the planning elements to be. We'll work through that, and again, that would probably be at least a part of the mobility plan. Okay. Thank you all for giving these definitions of Strode. I'm curious, on the full memo, not this part, but the full memo, we had a list of some of the merits and benefits of Strode's. Until today, I'd never heard any benefits or merits of Strode's, so I'm curious, one, to see what the source material was for that, so you don't have to do that right now. But if you can send it to us after the fact, what that source material was. And then there was another item in that memo that said, "Strode's, if not conceptualized and designed properly, often proved to be an expensive and efficient and dangerous compromise." So I'm curious what a properly designed Strode would look like, and sort of also source material for that, because I haven't seen that before. So I've added three references at the end of the document. These are the main references, one of them is NACTO document. And so we can provide more, if that helps. And as far as the geometric design or design elements of Strode's, as I explained earlier, it is dependent on what type of corridor it is, and what types of treatments needed. As an example, again, if it is a college corridor, then we'll have to look for bicycle treatment. And if we go one step deeper, we'll have to provide buffers for bike lanes, we'll have to provide maybe bollards or blocks, concrete blocks, separation of flow of autos and active transportation. And if it is, on the contrary, retail spot with ATB or Walmart or Target, Super Target, then we'll have to look for pedestrian conflicts with autos exiting and entering these facilities. And not even there, but maybe a block away. Mostly the activities of turning, vehicles turning from these residential neighborhoods is a problem as well. So we can provide more details, but again, it will be example of two or three examples of retail versus college, or if this committee has recommended Strode corridor, we can look into that as well. So the NACDO document, because I've read the NACDO document before, I don't think I've ever seen Strode's recommended in it, I guess. That's where I'm getting a little caught up, because they tend to be, okay, either this is an area that's encouraging walking, biking, and trying to make a safe facility, which usually is not combined with high speeds. The high speeds and lots of street activity is generally what creates the worst crashes. And so I've never seen them, I guess, a thing that you want to do, it's something that you're trying to make safer is generally what I've seen. So I think that's why I'm getting a little confused by the memo. So we can provide the reference. And so one of the document is specifically talking about how improper designing activity. What happens is that if the developments usually follow once the facilities are built or designed. So once this full development scenario happens, by that time, those access points are, I won't call them obsolete, but they are outdated. So that means that facility with their full development is now acting like a Strode, but it was never designed to be a Strode. So that is the dilemma in traffic operations and transportation planning, where a street in the beginning was designed as an arterial, providing some access points to a development versus when the development had full potential with all the retail and commercial and residential activities in there, those access points are, their designs is probably outdated. So I think that's where the recommendation of looking at auditing these designs elements and providing proper treatments come into play. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. I feel like I was in a construction classroom, so thank you for the attention. Yes, ma'am? Hi. Thank you so much for your information. I was curious to know if we have surveyed or engaged the local residents kind of in these corridors and also our business owners to find out how these corridors are currently being used, maybe what issues that they face with how they currently are constructed, and then maybe also what they would want them to become if they're not serving them currently. Typically, that is a process when the developments come, we go to that public engagement process, and on top of that, as Scott mentioned, when we go into the mobility plan stage, we have active transportation element, we have smart mobility element of mobility plan that we are planning to address. So during that stage, we will have a public engagement process and we'll talk about these corridors. So before we get to that point, from what I understand, we're still in the kind of early stages of understanding what these corridors are, defining them as strobes. Would there be a process of asking for engagement from our citizens to find out this is something we really do want to prioritize and have a process for so we can get started maybe on some smaller segments of it, or where are we at on that? The challenge is the fragmented approach would hurt us more than helping us, because imagine if we go to one single corridor and then provide treatments there and are not able to account for other factors that are coming from regional elements, it may backfire, because now we are zooming in and looking at one small segment and trying to provide a treatment when the problem is occurring elsewhere. Those trips that are causing access problems at different retail developments or commercial developments or residential access points are originating elsewhere. They are not originating in that same community. So I think that's why a regional review of strobes, if any possibility, would be a better approach versus us individually going to these smaller segments and trying to address those. I understand that. What I might suggest though is that we've got where I live, I see a lot of elderly people in wheelchairs. I see kids. I see people walking around. I live kind of near Razor Ranch. That need is now -- I totally understand taking a long-term approach, but I also kind of am curious what can we do sooner and even in segmented or kind of quicker projects, even if it's a temporary fix, but at least it's allowing people to get where they want to go safely. I don't know. On the budget side, I'll let Scott talk about it, but I think we have a proposal ready for US 380. We submitted that project to HSIP, TextDOT's HSIP, and it was a pretty good project, well thought, and TextDOT was on board as well, but due to TextDOT's processes, this project was not selected, but there were some other projects selected which were high priority based on the fatalities and crash data. So this is our priority, that US 380 segment that you are talking about is priority to us, and we are looking for venues where we can apply for funding to plan improvements for this project, and hopefully we'll be able to give a good news soon on this. We are proactively applying for funding, as a matter of fact, this will become part of our SS4A application as well that is going in June. Great. Thank you. Well, that was very informal, informational, but I do want to remind the public that you don't know, I'm thinking about McKinney Street, I'm obsessed with McKinney Street, who knew that there would be six or seven apartment complexes that have come up so quickly on that road, and still having infill space that's still out there for that road, and you don't really know what's going to be coming there. So there is a process that everything has to go through before, I mean, we've been raising all kinds of stuff, noise, for McKinney Street, and so we're still in the process, and so that's what will have to be understood by many folks, that things are just not being ignored. It has to come through a process. So we appreciate you all for that. Alright, so then we got the walking audits. Yeah, so walking audits are basically... Oh, I'm sorry, did you have something over there? I'm sorry, go ahead, I'm sorry, go ahead. So walking audits are basically the preliminary audits at pedestrian locations where there are obvious pedestrian issues that we find, and they are sporadic in nature. For example, if there is one intersection where we have to go and audit the location, we just go and complete the audit by walking in the area, as if we are the pedestrians, and feel for it, and see what improvements are needed. And they're very helpful, they're quite helpful actually. And then if there is a serious conflict detected with autos or other modes, then only then we just go for comprehensive audits. So comprehensive audits would look into full length traffic operation measures, active transportation measures, and then safety measures, and crash data, and all the math that goes into it. So for the walk audit, we just simply walk the area, sometimes neighborhood folks join us in these walks, and I've seen a couple of cases where they would just ask us to join them, and then we will just audit the area and conclude with them what is actually needed as an improvement there. In other cases, we will just... This request would come from citizens, and staff would go and audit those locations. Any questions? Any comments? Any concerns? All right. So upcoming transportation service agenda items. Thank you. Are we still... Okay. Okay. All right, I guess it goes on to the next page there. There you go. Anybody have any questions? Any comments or concerns about the upcoming transportation service agenda items? We have one question there, Mr. Faughan. Can you just give us a little more color to the Malone University comments there? What's going on there? What are the delays? What are the concerns? Because we just sort of, we put it back in the cloud and left it nebulous. So what's going on there? Which item is it? I can talk about it, but I want to... Prohibiting free right turns at Malone? No right turns. Oh, yeah. So for this item, there was a request to reconsider and see if we are willing to look at it from the viewpoint that if these no turns are needed, these signages are needed, and then also highlighting of these signages. So these two considerations, we are already looking into this and we may... I think there is an audit that is scheduled for this, and we may come with more information in the next meeting. And these were chandras. They were carried forward for the mere fact that during school hours, there were safety concerns with the right turns. So it's just prohibiting the right turns on those three, I think the three... There's three road sections, but just in specific, this West University of Malone is really updating this body. And I think there's a request to highlight those signages as well. So we are considering those options and have more details in the next meeting. Is this something... I know that the way our policies are currently structured, these have to come back to council to get approval. Is that something where we could streamline this to make it easier for transportation services to implement? Because I have it in my four years now, I've never seen us say no to a safety recommendation. So and Vicki and I are now the senior members of council. So is there something that staff would encourage council to visit to streamline? If this recommendation comes from mobility committee, staff could draft something for that and present. But the recommendation has to come from mobility committee. All the recommendation for the streamline process? Yes. Yes. I would love to maybe... I don't think this is the right item. I think legal would check this. But for the right item, I'd love to explore getting that on the matrix to see if that's something that this committee could send a positive recommendation for. If this is a safety positive thing, I'd love to see that be... If we can do the recommendation somehow in this agenda, great. But I defer to legal whether we can do it today or not. But yeah, I didn't think so. So I would love to have that come back at the appropriate time for us to see if that's a good recommendation to push and maybe get staff's input on that. Yes, sir. The code would have to be updated. So staff can evaluate if there's anything that we can do to bring forth to this body just to say this would help to streamline. But code changes would be required. So it's more than what this body can do as an advisory. All right. Anything else on upcoming transportation services? All right. It looks like we can move on to upcoming public meetings, upcoming public meetings. Oh, okay. June the 12th, did you want to say something? So this is I think construction project maybe set would be... Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Betts. All right. So Seth Garcia, Interim Director of Capital Projects. So yeah, this is just that Westgate Drive reconstruction project that I was speaking of earlier. This is the east-west connector that's going to connect Bronco Way all the way over to the 35 northbound side. So that contract will be going to council here in June. And so we'll hold that public meeting right after to get started in construction. Thank you. You bet. Anybody have any questions about that? Okay. Well, while you're standing there, if there's not any additional questions in this regard for the staff memorandum, then we will go back to BMC25-022, receive a report, and hold a discussion regarding the Ballard evaluation. This is where we were. Thank you, Chair and committee members. Farhan Bhatt, Deputy Director of Transportation Services. This is the third presentation on Ballard evaluation topic. This is the last of this Ballard evaluation series. And we'll cover, we have previously covered the types of ballards and then a lot of information on their standards and locations and potential best practice users. And in this case, in this presentation, we will, staff will provide a brief recap in one slide and then we'll move forward to recommendations of ballard types that we have recommended for City of Denton and then for use in City of Denton. And then we'll have selected corridors for implementation that we are recommending based on our audit and future recommendations including, you know, what types of corridors could further be added. Oh, sorry, I did not realize, I apologize. And so, when it comes to ballards, we previously presented through references that, you know, they help reduce up to 56% of bike versus auto crashes in, you know, in most cases when added to a bike lane in particular. And then from standard standpoint, you know, average, if we compare with a standard full-size truck which is six feet by seven, ballards would stand for a four feet average bike lane around three to 3.5 feet tall and separating the flow, different flow movements and making it safer for the bike users to traverse through to the road. Based on our research on this topic and best practice use cases that we have already discussed, we recommend two different types of ballards. First is the typical ballards which are, you know, in most cases, they'll have 20 to 40 feet of intervals, sometimes 50 as well. And then they are in the form of flexi sticks which are added directly to the streets or sometimes based on they have a platform that is used to put those on the roads and streets. And also in case of curved locations or near the intersections, the distance between these ballards is usually dropped to provide safer traversing opportunity for the bikers. Typically they are made of plastics but there are other elements that are used as well. Sometimes they are aluminum ballards as well, they are available in the market. And design varies and based on the use and cost or budget available. Typically the ones we are recommending are made of plastic and then they'll have two feet buffer, closer spacing to curves, and then cost would be around 50 per unit, $50 per unit. Installation cost would be around additional $25 and total making it to $75 per unit, including installation cost. Second type of, this really is not a ballard but it's a concrete block separator that is used on, in bike lane buffers, typically, and usually they are sized at eight feet by one foot dimension and they provide a lot of opportunity for painting them, for accommodating different types of situations, their size could be changed as well, they could be interlocked. And then on top of, if their lighting is an issue due to whatever reason, design reasons, we could also put ballards on top of these blocks. I've seen some of those in Washington DC, in Boston, they are widely used where they are blocks, interlocked, and at some places they are buffered, but they have these flexible ballards on top of them, highlighting, delineating the safe traversing opportunity for the bikers. Bulk cost would be $300 per unit and installation cost is around $150 to $200, depending on the location, how complex it is, and then depending on project length as well. With that, we go to the selected corridors for implementation, we have Malone Street north of US 380 to Amherst Drive, as shown in Exhibit A. Malone Street is a two lane collector and it is connecting a residential neighborhood to US 380 or University, and the terminal part where it just connects to US 380 provides opportunity to have access to detail and commercial on both sides actually of US 380. In this case, we are recommending from Amherst Drive to US 380, which is a critical portion, that's where the conflicts are happening, because bikers would be trying to reach on other side or maybe on east or west side of this facility, and that's where we need to make sure that we are separating them from the flow movement. Another one is Georgetown Drive north of US 380 again to Amherst Drive, it's pretty much same neighborhood, similar conditions, connecting the residential neighborhood to the attractions on US 380, where bicycle users, they are trying to access these different choices they have, and again, we are trying to make sure that the conflicts in the last part of the segment of Georgetown Drive is made safer for bikers, because that's where the conflicts are happening, that's where the turning movements are, that's where the access points are, so all of those in that traffic chaos, we are trying to provide a safe way for them to cross. Another corridor, recommended corridor for implementation is Actors Street from US 380 south to Scripture Street, as shown in Exhibit C. Actors Street is a two-lane collector, and again, this, the northern part of Actors Street close to US 380 has some commercial, some retail, but then, as we go south, all the way to Scripture, it's fairly residential, and heavily used by bikers, based on our audit, and relatively heavily used by bikers, and so that's why we are recommending this as a potential corridor for implementation. We have Malone Street south of US 380 again, and all the way to Scripture, that's another corridor where, close to US 380, it has some retail and commercial activity, but then, as we go south, it's fairly residential neighborhood, and we are trying to ensure that bikers, while they traverse through this road, are safe. And there's a potential concrete walled roadway candidates, which is Carroll Boulevard, South Carroll Boulevard, US 380 to Parkway Boulevard, and it's a six-lane primary arterial, and so that's why, since it is a primary arterial, so speed is a concern, so the concrete blocks will not only provide buffers, but they will provide a clear exclusivity to bike lane, and make the whole travel experience safer for bicyclists. There are other future corridors, including Bonny Bray Street, Oak Street, McKinney, Elm, and more, more and more corridors we can come up with, but of course, you know, if we go in further details, we'll have to do audit, we'll have to do those checks before we recommend them for any treatment. So for future recommendations, we looked into the whole area as an activity or circle of activity image. So this image that we have drawn, the circles are going beyond the image on purpose. The reason is that we understand that there is a residential influence in this community all over, but then if you see that there's a square, which is a major attractor in off-peak hours in particular, then we have TWU, which is also a major attractor during the peak hours, then we have UNT on the southeastern side, a major attractor again, and then there's an elementary school, yes, in the middle right here, Newton Rays Elementary School, and many other retail opportunities. So what it essentially is trying to tell is a story, that story of bicyclists and pedestrians that are actively using these uses in this area, in this neighborhood, and so you can see that it overlaps, these circles are having, and the more overlaps, this central region of overlapping areas is basically the activity center. That's where things are happening, and the larger outer circles, that's where the trips are originating, and these trips are in many cases, bike, bicycle, and pedestrians. And so not only these corridors, and you can see that how these green corridors, they are going right through the heart of these areas, these activity areas. Staff believe that this entire area needs improvements when it comes to bicycle and pedestrians, and as we go, we will continue conducting audits and providing treatments when it comes to road safety and bicycle and pedestrian movements. And most of our audits will be context-sensitive, we'll not just look at the street, but we'll look at the uses, where people are actually coming from, where they are going to, where they are trying to go, and how we can connect them better. We will also update the active transportation plan, incoming mobility plan update, this element will be updated. I really appreciate the integration of the original request, and then the Malone focus that's come around recently, or the Malone University area, so all those are excellent, and I really commend the destination planning for tractors, all that. We have some existing corridors that also provided impetus to comments from the community, through us, through council, Hector, Parkway, Congress, Old North, some places where we're using the four inch bollards, and if you could talk a little bit about what's the plan for the old bollard locations integrating with the potentials that you talked about in this plan. Are you going to swap them out, or what's the situation? We have already done some audits at old bollard locations, and in cases where they are old, they are tangled, or displaced, or not in good shape, we are planning to, at least in one case, the audit suggested that we'll remove them and provide striping, because they are more appropriate, because they were, the bollard areas were, I think, exploited by parkings, so we wanted to get away from that and provide, so that audit is still continuing, and we are looking into that, and we can provide some information about the audit on, I think it's on Windsor as well, and then there is another road that we are conducting this audit. So let me just paraphrase so I understand, so some places you will swap them out for the new flexi sticks, other places you'll, depending on the outcomes of the audit, may be striping. Yes. Is that a summary? That is correct. Okay. All right. And we can expect that when, when's the ETA on these changes? It is tied to budget, and we will, if our ongoing budget allows, some of them may happen, but it is highly linked to budget availability. Last question, how much do the 4-inch bollards cost us to replace? Someone told us this a long time ago, maybe you, and I just don't remember, you were saying these are $50 each and with an additional $25 to install, how much are the round 4-inch bollards like we have now? I think that's the cost we came up with, so 50, so that predates me, the existing one that when they were purchased, but I think based on the current cost, this is our assessment, $50 per unit. And so we, I can, so staff can look into this and see what was the cost for the bollards that we purchased. No, I'm just curious what the relative cost of the old bollards versus this, the new flexi sticks concept is relative to each other is all, it's not urgent. It's what? The previous one will be cheaper. The previous one will be cheaper. Because of the cost inflation and all those other things. Okay, gotcha, thank you. Anyone else, yes? I just want to follow up on that, that seems incredible, that little, what is it, 4 feet tall? Yes, 3.5 to 4 feet, well, 3 to 3.5 feet tall. And is the block, is there an adhesive? Oh, the block? You're talking about the block? No, no, no, I was talking about the, what are we gonna call it, he called them flexi sticks, I hate that. So bollards is a, I think we can call them bollard or flexi sticks. Flexi sticks, okay. The flexi stick includes the vertical and the base, and it looks to be about a 12 inch base. Yes, and let me take it, yeah, so this is where we have dimension 3 to 3.5 feet. Is there an adhesive under that to hold the base down? Different options. We can bolt them, but adhesive is as well, there's an option for adhesive, depending on the use. If the use is at not very highly used location, for example, if it is a mall area where we are using bollards, it could be adhesive. Okay, that just seems like a stunning amount. And the blocks are eight feet by one foot. And they're $300. Yes, and that is a bulk cost. If we buy fewer, then it will be slightly higher. This is a great, I really appreciate your thoughtfulness on considering where people are traveling to. Like I mentioned earlier, I do live in this neighborhood, and we have a lot of neighbors that work at UNT or work on the square, and that is their direct path. And we're hoping to be able to get there safely. One thing I was curious about, the streets mentioned here, Malone, Georgetown, Ector, and potential, let's see, South Carroll. Those areas, there are no sidewalks for pedestrians, which is something that I'm really concerned about. I've noticed that on South Carroll, there's one side of the street where the people who live there are trapped. They literally cannot walk anywhere from their home. So I'm wondering if these protected lanes, could they be pedestrian and for cyclists? Could we mark them as for both, kind of like what happened by Newton-Razor, which right now after that has been implemented, it is being used by pedestrians and cyclists. And wondering if that could be a cost-effective way, instead of constructing sidewalks and side paths in those areas, could we mark these lanes for pedestrians and cyclists? That's a possibility. When we look into the implementation of the project and the design, we may look into the multi-use path option, especially because we are suggesting blocks, using concrete blocks. So there is a possibility, but of course we'll have to go to some kind of road diet because it will take additional space if we put a pedestrian there. But we are open to that idea. And then with the design at this, so after this, forgive me, I may not know the correct process here. So these are selected corridors for implementation and then there will be a design, and I'm curious in some of these areas where, for example, at Malone Street north of 380, right now there are three car lanes. If you're heading south, there's a turn lane, which I'm guessing maybe there would be reworking of some of those lanes. Would that be presented at some point when we come up with a, when you come up with a design for these protected lanes? It will be at the implementation. If we go towards the implementation of any of these projects, yes, they could be included in mobility committee presentations. And then my last question would be, I know the cost is something that we're concerned about. When we think long-term about if these lanes are here, I'm wondering if there's any way we, if staff or someone can find out what the economic benefits could be once these things are implemented, the cost, if that would kind of helps us think through offsetting the cost, if it allows people to get to more businesses or get to work, less road use, less cars on the road, how do we kind of find out maybe the benefits, the cost benefits for those, for the implementing these kinds of projects and then if we were to find a way to measure those things, could we then repeat that process when we maybe think about doing other corridors? It will depend on each corridor, how much savings are there, but yes, that cost benefit analysis is typically done post implementation. Great, thank you. Thank you for all this information, Farhan. One question I had, or clarification I guess, the picture of that plastic bollard is not necessary, y'all aren't necessarily recommending that specific design, that's just an example of a plastic bollard, correct? That is correct. So it could be any variety that y'all might go with? That is correct. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. I felt like maybe we were taking it as like that's the literal one, but could be that, could be the one we've been using, something like that, just as an example of a plastic one. And then on this slide, it does say spacing may be 20 to 40 feet. Do we have a standard of some sort that we will use for that? Because I know on Hickory near Fry, it was 40 feet and right off the bat I was like that's not gonna work, 'cause my car's like 15 feet long and people were just constantly pulling in between and blocking them. So will there be sort of a standard to figure out when it's appropriate to do it all the way between 40, 'cause a little Corolla like mine can easily fit in 40. So at high speed locations or relatively higher speed locations with a continuous flow, the distance, the offset will be higher and at slower speed locations or where the potential of parking is there, then the offset or distance between the bollards would be smaller. For example, it would go, I have seen that five feet or in some cases lower as well, just to discourage parking or interference with the bike lanes. - That makes sense. And then is it possible to sort of implement these two options incrementally? So if we're like, okay, let's try a protected bike lane right here. We start off with the plastic posts, that way there may be a little more flexible about adjusting the design a little bit, and then over time, of course, the plastic posts will get beaten up and tired. And if that design's working for that neighborhood or business area, that we might upgrade to the more expensive, more permanent, more sturdy concrete, and just sort of upgrade it over time once we know that that's gonna work for that location. - That will always be the case because strodes, if they become strodes and there are excess issues, then we will reorder the location and suggest something different. But typically, the blocks would be used where we have relatively high speed arterial or collector, and we are trying to reduce bike, so we separate the movements through blocks. And that's the objective. But yes, there's a possibility we will audit and see if there is a risk we can introduce this. - And I do agree on going just for the hard stuff right off the bat on higher speed, 'cause I know those plastic things will get taken out real fast. And then in terms of all of these recommendations that we're getting today, what's the plan to implement it to make sure that in the future, these recommendations are taken forward? What are we gonna update or where are we gonna put these recommendations more permanently? - They are tied to budget, and as long as the budget is available, staff will implement them and prioritize them. - But in terms of, let's say we have staff turnover every once in a while, so in terms of talking about these 20 to 40 feet, we're gonna use concrete or plastic, and all of these recommendations we're having here, are these ongoing recommendations or just recommendations for those specific segments that we talked about? - So we are planning to put that, put these recommendations when it comes to specific design formats into the transportation criteria manual as well. But not in this update, because this update is almost complete. It's a new update that we are starting that will go for some time, and we are planning to bring a lot of new design elements into that. - So long-term? - So if staff stays or leaves, the elements would be there, design elements would be there. - Okay, so transportation criteria manual is where this will ultimately end up just not yet, in terms of the standards. - That is correct. - Okay, great, thank you. And then one last one. Did I hear correctly that there's a possibility some protected bike lanes may become unprotected in the future? Did I hear that right? - There's a possibility where it is a residential neighborhood, low speed, and where we are seeing a lot of parking violations, as you highlighted, there are some spots where if it is low speed residential neighborhood where we have ballers and we have a wider offset where the car can park, we've been seeing that if it is exploited by the neighborhood, that means that neighborhood is in a way recommending that ballers are not the choice. So we will have public engagement sessions, and we'll come up with this striping idea for some of the neighborhoods that we have been auditing, and that may work because on one side we'll have bike lane and on the other side we'll have parking, and that's the arrangement we are looking at. - Okay, so you're not saying, because what I heard- - Not for arterials. - Yeah, what I heard earlier was if there's a bike lane and people are parking in it, we're going to remove the ballers, which would honestly encourage more people to park, because now it's even easier than it was before, but that's not what you're saying. - No, what we are recommending is that if people are parking and that's the natural behavior, tendency of the neighborhood, then let's go with that and provide a separate bike lane instead of having two bike lanes and one is being exploited. So I think that's the direction we are going, but it will never happen on arterials. We will have to separate the movements, provide exclusivity for safety. But this option that we talked about is always a possibility in residential neighborhoods where the speeds are relatively much lower. - So like two-way protected bike lane on one side, parking on one side, does that sound accurate? - Yes. - Okay, all right, thank you. - I'm going to pick right up from there, because the only place that I am aware of that that happens are Windsor and Old North, where it's already a mixed use transportation conundrum, because it's parking and bike pad, which is not ideal. The reason those bollards were put in was because people were swerving into cars and into pedestrians and bikes. So those were put in to be a visual barrier to prevent swerving, not to prevent overlap of parking and people, although I don't want to go too much down there. So I think I heard the answer to my first question when you were talking to a member of the room, that you're anticipating striping one side and striping the other side to different uses, one to parking, one to bike pad. Is that what I'm hearing? - That is correct. And then we will reinforce striping. It's not just going to be striping, but we'll have some reflectors, some other treatments that will highlight to the auto users that there's a separate mode going on on this lane, and it should not be used. - Okay. - So that swerving could be discouraged using these reflectors. - Okay. Good. I look forward to the engagement meeting to get the neighborhood to stop doing that. Whenever there's a change of behavior, there's always going to have to be engagement. The other partial question on that is, if you know whether we're going to continue to use the concurrent bollards or we're going to switch bollards, as soon as you can get some engagement with the community on the visual appearance of those, that would be lovely, because we've had many discussions where Idiots Hill likes the bollards, but hates the appearance of the four inch cylindrical bollards for whatever. I don't know why they hate them, but they do, but they like the presence of the bollards, but not the appearance of them. I know that's, yes, first world problems, but this would help mitigate some community angst if they knew what was coming to the changes. The last thing I will bring up is, I'm going to encourage staff to think about, for the cost benefit analysis, opportunities for sponsorship, the way we have trash pickup areas for sponsorship. If a business wants to be an attractor, say, well, I just say there's a bike shop somewhere in the area, and they want to be an attractor to Bikeped, then they might be willing to sponsor that segment's costs, so that we could have more segments, or a residence might be willing to sponsor costs, or an organization might be willing to sponsor costs, even though that wouldn't be a distributed cost across the entire tax base at $50 a pop or whatever. If they were willing to pony up, then that is a community benefit that I encourage you to look into opportunities for that. What would that look like after that? I have no idea, because I don't know what opportunities and pathways there are for donated funds into the transportation system. I don't know how that would work. That's why I'm asking a question of staff. We can circle back on, but typically, the development review process goes through these recommendations, especially in the design stage, what the street would look like. If there's a retail business coming, we would include these bike lanes as part of the review process, and then typically, the developers would agree to that idea. For new developers, yes, it makes sense. You put it into the concept plan, or the final platting, or whatever, but for existing neighborhoods, if a bike shop wanted to sponsor those, he's leaning hard on that bike shop. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else on this item? All right. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. See you. All right, we're going to move on to MC25. Oh, Dr. Butts, once again, the man of the hour. All right. Let me introduce this here. See, we're going to go to MC25-023, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding moving forward with a two-minute pitch to investigate the cost of returning East Hickory Street to traditional right-side head-end parking. Ken Farhan Butt, Deputy Director of Transportation Services. This is East Hickory Street back-end parking presentation. On April 1, 2025, Council Member Holland presented a two-minute pitch to investigate the cost of converting East Hickory to traditional front-end parking. There was an ISR that was published in the Friday report on April 25, 2025, and the Agenda Committee considered three options, and they recommended that staff route the pitch to the Mobility Committee for review before council consideration. The Hickory Street back-end parking was completed in 2014 as part of the Hickory Grand Street Project, a capital project, and approximate expenditure was around $3.2 million on this project. And potential solutions based on our audit staff conducted comprehensive traffic operations and safety audits on this location. And after our audit, we have some solutions to present. The first one is the audit findings suggest that we may be able to resolve these parking violations issue with the aggressive targeted enforcement. But another challenge is that this enforcement, when we spoke with the police department, they are tying it to the budget availability, and at the moment, they don't have financial resources to implement this additional enforcement that is needed, targeted to this location. Another option is that we transition from back-end parking to conventional or traditional parking, that is basically front-end, front-end parking spots, locations, but that too would cost significantly more, over $3.5 million when it comes to full implementation of this project. And the third option is implementing a one-way traffic system, which typically these back-end parking lots or parking locations are assigned to. Basically, they are assigned to one-directional flow so that there is no conflicting parking or violation chances. And so that is typically recommended for back-end parking, that at least the traffic flow is one way. And so this adjustment or reconfiguration will have to do, will warrant a lot of design and planning review in terms of how the traffic flow movement would be impacted, not only on this street, but also in the adjacent streets and in the area overall, because it is downtown, and especially during the peak durations. So these are the three options, and staff recommend no change when it comes to technically addressing this, because if we are tying it to the police enforcement, that is a minimal that we can do, and that is tied to additional financial resources. And other two options, staff is not recommending, because they would require significant redesign and planning work, and would cost a lot in terms of budget. And it's up to the mobility committee if this should be further forwarded to the council. Please. Yes. Why don't you start? I have a myriad of things to say about this, and I think the first thing is that we refer to converting East Hickory to traditional front-end parking. It's traditional. From California to the New York Island, that you park in head first. And that's the issue. Since we've done this, there's been no clamoring in the community for more rear-end parking, and the reason that nobody wants more rear-end parking is they don't like the rear-end parking we got. In this room last week, I spoke to the director of the Main Street Association, and I mentioned this two-minute pitch to her. She said, "I hope you can get something done about that. We hate it." And I'll be the first to admit, this is an unscientific study that I've done. But merchants up and down East Hickory can't stand it, because they're always having to explain to their patrons why this guy backed in and why this guy came in front. As far as the police enforcing it, the police don't want to enforce it, because it's a no-win situation. Even though the sign says, "Back in parking," the response is, "That's ridiculous." And it is. It's simply ridiculous. It was a bad idea the first time we did it. Mistakes are expensive, and it needs to be corrected. Enforcement's not going to help, because as you point out, the police have got plenty to do besides enforcing back in parking. I'm not sure that the citizenry can stomach another one-way street in the downtown area. But again, I don't think that's the situation. It's a bad idea. It was a bad idea from the day it was conceived. It's a bad idea today, and mistakes need to be corrected. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on this? Yes? I wonder if the committee has had an opportunity to review ... Farhan, do you remember when we did this like a year ago? It was like September of '23 or something in that time frame, September ... At least a year ago, I hope the committee had had an opportunity to review that ... This was brought up then, and while I don't know what I would have done back in 2014 when this first came up for $3 million, because I didn't precisely see all the backup materials, when it was reviewed a year ago, there was mild improvement in accident data, safety data, attributed to this. While I could see the argument being that it was mild enough that we shouldn't have done it in the first place, based on current conditions, I don't see decreasing safety to the tune of $3.5 million at this time, unless we are just flush with cash, which I'm not sure ... There's a lot of things we could use $3.5 million on, even if we left it in the mobility budget. We just talked about $50 to $300 a ballard, that $3.5 million is going to go quickly. I guess that is my encouragement. If you hadn't seen the ... It is admittedly mild, and please correct me if there is no safety enhancement that should be said, and then you could evaluate $3.5 million against no safety enhancement, but what I recall from a year and a half ago was there was a mild safety improvement that staff determined a year and a half ago. Is that correct? There's always room for safety enhancement, I would say, and no location is perfect. When it comes to safety enhancement, there'll always be room. One versus the other, there'll be advantages, there'll be merits, but the key challenge here is the budget requirement, and that is not only for the overall redesign, but even for the first recommendation of targeted enforcement, we need resources. I think all other options are open as long as we can tie some budgetary element to this, but at the moment, staff doesn't recommend any changes, we recommend that we proactively see for the right time when we have budget availability, we could look into this again. That's my question, and you ended on it there. If we had a magic wand and we had a spare, we found $4 million in the couch cushions, and it could only be used on transportation issues, would staff ... This conversion could stay or be converted back to the ... Because we have the $4 million available for it, would staff recommend reconversion, or would they not recommend reconversion is what I'm trying to get? Let's parse the safety issues from the budgetary issues. We'll recommend, if the funds are available, we'll recommend technology use, and there is a technology available that can detect the parking violations, and we could invest in that, and that will not only work for this location, but could be applicable to many other locations in the downtown. That is one option, versus we spend full $4 million to redesign and rebuild the whole parking lot, versus we use the technology, and that application will not be specific to this location, but it will also help us in downtown, in other locations as well. I think staff could look into that if that is needed, but at the moment, I think this is our recommendation, that we just do not do anything. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Farhan, I don't know if you're going to remember this, but I thought part of the reason they went with back end instead of pull in the first time was they actually got more parking spaces, I believe, from back end. Maybe Scott's the money of the river members. Has anybody been here that long? I recall seeing that. I don't remember how many spaces it was, so I would be very curious to remember how many spaces we gained by doing back end. I know quantity of parking really matters to people too, so that's a factor. There's a variety of people who prefer back end. Some prefer front end, right? It's kind of a mixed bag from what I've heard from people. In the literature I read before drafting the ISR, I found that it was pitched as a very innovative idea back then, and then it also won an award. I think it was a great downtown award. Great streets or something. Great streets award, and it's an award winning concept that Denton provided. As a matter of fact, I read some news articles as well praising it, so it was pitched as a very innovative idea to serve the community. I will back up Councilmember Holland's opinion about converting this to a one way street. At least one side of the road would have to be flipped, the parking, so that would still cost money, and the one ways are frustrating, and if it's a two lane one way, now you're talking probably faster driving speeds than what's currently there. I find it a very comfortable road on my bike or when I'm walking trying to cross the street because everybody drives naturally slower just because of the design of the street, so I would agree with Councilmember Holland that definitely not game for making it one way. I do know, I've observed other places when I see back end parking, I observe when I see everybody following the rules there, I'm always like, "Well, how are these people doing it?" It is usually a one way, or there's a median in the middle where they physically can't do it the wrong way. I do see if we were to do a future project like this, a two way street with no medians, probably not the best route, but I am concerned in terms of timing. I know we have budget challenges coming up in this fiscal year, and so if we're not sure if this is going to make it less safe, more safe, if it's not necessarily going to affect the economics of the area, because I know when we redid it that I know we've got a lot of investment in the businesses along there, and it's brought in a lot more tax revenue and that kind of thing, so it did create a bit of economic generation. Perhaps flipping it the other way would create more investment, I don't know, but until we know that this would create more investment and somehow make it safer, right now may not be the best time for it. I can just weigh in as a driver that I actually avoid going there because it's too stressful to back in, and it's too stressful to drive there because oncoming traffic could cut in front of me and then park across. I've observed this even recently online, this particular stretch always gets a lot of heated opinions from our residents, so that's anecdotal, the only thing I can think is to our residents this may be money well spent if it's something where now they actually want to go to that area, they feel safer to park, they feel less stressed out, and they feel like they, like us, like I would probably frequent the businesses down there more often if it was more comfortable. >> Okay, so we'll have to come back to the focus of what we are to do here, and that is to vote on whether or not we want to send this forward to the Council. And so what I'm hearing, I don't know what I'm hearing because of, you know, the differences of opinions, so I am going to go ahead and, let me get this to the discussion board if we need to, but we've got to move forward, yes. >> I was going to wait until you got to this point at least to answer a couple of the questions that I heard. >> Okay, so we want to go ahead and do that first, and then you can just-- >> It was Council Member Beck talking about safety and that there was, it was minimal as far as less incidents that were occurring as a result of the back end, certainly rather than people crossing lanes. The redesign from the standpoint of having a $3.5 million cost isn't realistic, isn't realistic today when we're looking at that we're going to have to make, you know, just reduce services or what we're doing to consider that. So looking at this and whether there's some alternatives for the enforcement piece, and then the second piece was on the number of spaces, well some of this was placemaking as well. So again, adding shade trees and doing different elements and just, it was placemaking that was part of the design, why it is that it ended up winning an award. So just want to kind of put that in there and then of course for this committee it's just really kind of reviewing what you've heard, and then making recommendation how it is that you want to send this forward or not send this forward to Council. >> So that's about a lot, yes ma'am, sure clarification. >> So I can understand the broader picture here, Council Member Holland made a pitch and it did not get accepted for further, okay so this is second step, and so we would be if we put something forward, we are recommending to Council for further discussion? Our recommendation or are we just recommending future discussion on Council? >> You got to go ahead because I have something right here. >> This was sent, his history is on there, but this was sent from the agenda committee based on the two minute pitch process, so this is part of that process, it was sent for mobility to make a recommendation to Council on the item, and then based on that recommendation I think that's, yeah. >> And whether that will be a work session or not going forward? >> Correct. >> I recall Council Member Holland asking for a work session, yeah, yeah, so whatever you decide here would be incorporated in a Council work session, yes or no? >> Well, from what I am understanding is that the City is recommending that we make no changes, that we do not move this conversation forward to, for the Council, that's our decision to do that. And if we want this conversation to go to the City, I mean, I'm sorry, to the Council, then that's when the process of the Council saying yes or no to whether or not we're going to move forward. If we decide right here, I'm asking for a vote on sending his pitch to the Council. The City has given us all the information and have given us their recommendation that we do not move it forward based on that first line item that they had given us, can you go back? >> Yes, please. >> Based on traffic fines, that backing in, parking, you know, can be effectively managed. Which way are we going to manage it? Are we going to go with the financial, are we more concerned about the financial impact in sending that? Because the Council is going to have to hear, either the Council is going to hear nothing, it's going to stop here, is that what I'm understanding? That it could stop here because they are not recommending any changes, you get it? In other words, keep everything the same, that could stop here. Or if we are recommending that it go towards the Council, the Council is going to have to look at this and decide on what we want to do at the Council, okay? >> Do you need a motion? >> Can we ask for a motion at this point, is everybody understanding the motion? Yes, sir. >> I would like clarification from legal because I don't think that's the process, I thought it was going to work session regardless of what we said, that just there would be bundled into the work session whether staff, what their recommendations, what the committee's recommendations were. >> Well, I mean, we have an option right now to either say yes, move it forward, or no, it stays here. >> That is what I don't believe is accurate, Chair. I would like legal clarity on that. >> I believe that the intent from the agenda committee was to have this vetted as an advisory board recommendation, and whatever your recommendation is, is your recommendation. I think at that point, the recommendation would go, and it would be, I guess, go through the process of the chart if Council, if it's on a work session, your recommendation has been noted, staff's recommendation has been noted, and that's kind of how, because the whole body, I believe, kind of went through the ISR process, the two-minute pitch process, which is the new thing that the whole body incorporated and agreed to. So then the whole body would, after this process has taken place, the whole body would take it up again as the understanding, and then you just, you've had time to vet it more thoroughly than the rest of the body, and then the body would make that decision based on that. >> Okay, so it sounds like we are, we have to send it to the Council. I mean, it's written here, "Vote on sending the pitch to the Council." Are we sending? >> It's a, yeah. >> I mean, we've got a-- >> It's a direction. >> Yeah, the direction. >> It's to give a direction to staff based on the two-minute pitch concept. >> So this goes back to which direction, what direction are we giving to the city, to send back to the Council? I would like to move, if that's the correct term, that the committee send this to the Council for a work session, for consideration. Is that the proper motion? Did I word that correctly? >> The, yes, that is the proper motion. The direction is going to be what the discussion is on, and if there's not a direction, then that is a direction, I guess, but that's what your discussion is going to be on the floor. The floor is, okay, it's going, but what's your, is your additional motion to, one way is that your additional motion to look at the 3.5, is your, make an additional statement on top of that, I guess, to clarify the direction. >> Okay. >> So the direction, go. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, please. >> Is the, two pieces, and Council Member Beck's position is going to the, it is going to go to a work session. So if we're recommending it, go to a work session, supporting, or what's staff direction when we're going forward? Mobility committee, staff's direction is that this is where we're at, you've heard that. Now the Mobility Committee has listened to the presentation, reviewed the documentation, what's the recommendation carrying that forward? When we go to work session, staff will be presenting in work session, it'll be deliberated, but what's the recommendation coming out of this body to, for that? Correct, Ben? >> That was correct, that's what I, so, goes back to whether or not we're going to send it back to the Council or not. That is the question, and we've got to get past that part. That's what I understand, that the new process is, is when you're coming to the committees for an advisory recommendation, or advisory recommendation, then it stays with the committee, or it goes back to the Council for further, for further approval. So now if everything's going to be, that comes to a committee, really this should all be done in discussion because we don't even have a second yet. So we're actually out of order right now, in our role with it, since we're here. If it comes, if we're going to bring things to a committee for advisory, everything that comes from the committee is going to go back to the Council anyway for continued discussion and approval from the Council. What I understand right here is we're giving direction regarding moving forward with a two minute pitch. Are we going to send this pitch back to the Council so the Council can approve it or do we stay here and we advise on what the City has recommended? The City has recommended that we do nothing, okay. That's what I'm understanding. Did you all hear that? The City is recommending that we stay as is, Joe Holland has put in the motion that we stay as is, but our information here is whether or not we're going to move forward with the two minute pitch to investigate that cost. And that's my motion, that we proceed. That we proceed to the Council? Yes. Proceed with an affirmative direction, so these are just advisory opinions, we're not stopping the process, we're saying our advice is go forward young man or stop, but regardless it's going to go back to Council is what Ben said. So whatever way we're going, we can make that recommendation but it's coming back to the three of us plus four more at some future date. So what's the correct motion? It needs a second regardless. That's really what it means. Can we get a second? Can I ask for a pause until we have direction so that it can be bundled with that? We've got to have a second to have the conversation, even have the pause to give the direction. You're not allowing us to move forward. We're still up here with fur on butt and we're trying to get past him so we can have a discussion to move it forward. We've got to have the motion to move forward to send the pitch back to the City to the Council unless we just stay here. Staff recommends mobility committee send pitch to City Council. You're getting tripped up on this presentation but I don't think that's the process. I think that's the statement of the presentation. Okay so what's the process? What's the process? Tell us what Ben said. Ben said what I said. No he didn't. He did. Council Member Holland, if you could just restate your motion to include the returning of East Hickory to traditional, whatever your opinion is. My motion is to send, for this committee to send to Council the recommendation that we investigate returning East Hickory Street to traditional front-end parking. Is that, does that touch all the bases? Yes and I'll second. All in favor, any additional discussion? Do we actually need a vote to move this forward or can we just do the little go down the line thing where we all give our opinion? Is that sufficient? Because it sounds like either way it goes forward in some regard. I think the important part to this is does this committee make a recommendation to make a change to the parking, no change to the parking, some of the things that we're saying here, whatever that might look like. It will be going to look at a work session. What does the mobility committee say? So I think the motion that I heard in the table is to make a 3.5 million dollar change. The motion in fact was to convert East Hickory to traditional front-end parking. Yes thank you. And then so it's a matter of if that's what this, if that's what this body is going to advise council, that's what they're saying. That's what you're going to come out of this with. So it's a recommendation of what the mobility committee says in that work session. So when they hear the work session and the mobility committee supported, denied, whatever, wherever it ends up, that's what this group is doing. Ben is? Correct. That's my understanding. We have a motion in a second. Okay, you're recognizing me. I'm not going to support the motion because there's not, it's not that I don't recognize the pain and stress that has been brought up by members of the community. If we had excess budget, I wouldn't care, we would hopefully go in and it wouldn't be too disruptive to Hickory to flip it back, but with that and not a clear indication from transportation services that we will not be decreasing safety. So if it was free to do and we decreased safety, I would vote no, like if it was a huge decrease in safety, I would vote no. If it's neutral to safety and a huge increase in budget, which is what I'm seeing on the previous discussion, then I'm still going to vote no because it's a huge increase in budget. If it's neutral to safety and we could just do it trivially, then I'd say sure, who cares, let's go for it. So that is the nuanced position, but two out of those three are no and we're not in a condition where we're either showing that it's an improvement in safety or not a huge decrease in safety and we're definitely showing that there's a substantial enforcement redevelopment or whatever cost associated with it. So at this time in 2025, I'm not going to be supporting the motion. - Okay, anybody else wanna comment? - I'll similarly have to back council member back on this. I just keep hearing about our budget in the upcoming fiscal year and I just don't think now is the time for that particular option. I could be amicable to the first option if they ever become available to be able to do enforcement, but I understand they're also short staff partially because of budget, but at this time I would not be able to because of the high price for the specific motion. - Okay. - Very quick. - Oh, you don't wanna say something else? - Sure. - Do we have discussion page? - In my humble estimation, we the city made a mistake in doing this experiment. I've not heard one person in my very unscientific study of this say, "Boy, that's a good idea. We ought to do that all over town." I haven't heard one person say that. What I have heard is people up and down East Hickory, particularly merchants that say they have to explain this to their customers all the time, I wish you'd do something about it. Mistakes are expensive and nobody wants to spend money to redo a mistake. Nobody wants to do that less than me, but it's a mistake when you jump off sides with a fourth and one, you pay a penalty. We're paying a penalty here. I'm sorry. - All right, we'll all have spoken. If you are in affirmative of this vote, raise your hand. And if you're not in favor, raise your hand. So we have an affirmative to this motion. Thank you. - Okay, time is getting short. That was a lively discussion. Thank you all very much and we'll see how that goes. - Our next meeting is when? I'm sorry. - Let me put up the matrix. We have got to look at the EMC 25-025, receive a report and hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. So we have this in front of us like we do every month and is there anything, we see the yeses on there. You want to run through those yeses real quick? - Yeah, sure. So a few of these items were covered today in some of our conversations, a lot were covered in the staff memo. So those increasing wrapped equipment boxes, the ballard evaluation, construction project information on shady shores, understanding strode, the US 380 side path and pedestrian impact allowed use of trip funds, walking audits, and then lastly that Hickory Street back in parking. So we would request to remove all those items and next month we'll work to remove some more. - Did you have a question? - Yes, on these. I'm comfortable removing all those items except for I think points were brought up during the strode discussion that merit revisiting at some point appropriating the agenda. So I'd like to keep that one on there for the updates that were asked for, but otherwise I'm supportive of the rest of them. - Anyone else? Okay, can we get a motion to remove the yes items as noted? - I'll make a motion to remove all the yes items except for strode. - Second. - Okay, all right, all in favor say aye. - Aye. - That looks like all has aye, all ayes, that is approved. - All right. - You have your hand up. - So we had earlier a discussion about putting on the matrix a discussion about whether councils should get streamlined recommendations from, the early discussion is our safety concerns streamlined so that transportation can implement them 'cause we're constantly coming back to council that discussion from early on. I would like to put that on the matrix for a discussion and positive or negative recommendation to council if people wouldn't mind, if the board wouldn't mind. - All right, so that's future matrix. Anything else? Yes. - Council Member Beck, is it okay if I tack on to that slightly? If staff think of anything besides that up to two additional items that are in a similar vein for us to look at, is it okay if we add that? - As a friendly amendment, I'd love to hear more safety recommendations, yes. - Sure. - Or whatever you're specifying, what are you asking? - Because you said no right turn on red specifically, yeah. - What, up to two more safety recommendations? - If there's something in a similar vein for staff, if they want, this is totally choose your own adventure. If there is an additional item similar to that where streamline is good, Council Member Bird does not like this amendment. - I don't like that amendment. - The only reason I'm hesitant is 'cause we're vague and I don't know what that means, whereas this is a highly specific item. I'm happy to add things into that that are safety concerns if staff has them, but I think wouldn't we have to have the matrix item to discuss them, to get them on the thing, and it's not that hard to get them on the list. - I'll pull back that. - Thank you. - Appreciate that. Anything else? Anyone else? So we did that, and so let's move on to the next meeting and concluding items. Thank you very much. Great job. Y'all did such a wonderful job. Concluding items, next meeting, June 25th, is everybody okay with June 25th? Yes? Are we anticipating being out? I believe that we have a new process for notifying committees, if you're not gonna make it to the meetings. - Oh. - Is that this meeting? - Oh. - I'm just trying to remember my city phone stuff, so I did receive something there, but I'll need clarification on that apparently. Next meeting, June 25th, is there anything else on board? Then we will conclude this meeting at Elyse. - Just real quick, welcome to our new member, Lauren Penn. I just wanted to recognize that as part of the meeting. Welcome. - Thank you. Glad you could be here. - Thank you so much for that. You just blended in. You were just blending. So we certainly do welcome you on board. - Yeah. - Yeah. Anything else? All right. If there's not anything else, we'll conclude at 1146. - Very good. - And you and I, we gotta get through a little bit of extra, and we gotta hurry up and get over it. - Sure.