WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:15.720 >> Well, that's a lot of morning and welcome to this meeting of mobility committee which I will call to order since I see that we do have a quorum present. 00:00:15.720 --> 00:00:23.560 We can dive right into item A, consider approval of the meeting minutes of November 12th, I'll entertain a motion. 00:00:23.560 --> 00:00:24.640 >> So moved. 00:00:24.640 --> 00:00:26.260 >> Second. 00:00:26.260 --> 00:00:27.920 >> All in favor? 00:00:27.920 --> 00:00:28.600 >> Aye. 00:00:28.600 --> 00:00:31.920 >> Aye, opposed to the approval of the minutes? 00:00:31.920 --> 00:00:34.720 >> No, aye, I accept. 00:00:34.720 --> 00:00:40.540 >> Okay, so two to one, no, no, he knows, seven minutes, okay. 00:00:40.540 --> 00:00:46.040 We're going to item B, receive a report of the discussion to provide staff direction regarding the text-off proposal. 00:00:46.040 --> 00:00:49.360 >> Yes. >> The removal of certain roadways in the state highway system. 00:00:49.360 --> 00:00:53.260 >> Oh, that's right. 00:00:53.260 --> 00:00:55.080 >> Didn't read the quorum. 00:00:55.080 --> 00:00:59.840 >> Yeah, that, you're trying to go too soon. 00:00:59.840 --> 00:01:01.340 Sorry. 00:01:01.340 --> 00:01:03.480 >> You're welcome to discuss this item. 00:01:03.480 --> 00:01:05.080 >> You'll be fully involved. 00:01:05.080 --> 00:01:15.920 >> I pretend they, Deputy City Engineer, I was talking about the turn back program that the state highway is being turned back to the city from text-off. 00:01:15.920 --> 00:01:28.580 So here's a quick overview of the presentation, background, what exactly is the turn back program, proposed roadways that are being considered in the turn back, and then options, what are our options. 00:01:28.580 --> 00:01:33.760 So background, there are several state highways that run through the city. 00:01:33.760 --> 00:01:45.680 Currently, as you can see, some of these are numbered here, this and that, from text-off website, this is, these are the highways on system, these are the roadways that pass to our community. 00:01:45.680 --> 00:02:02.100 Most of them are perceived local roadways, so there are a lot of citizens calling the city if they have any concerns, if they have any issues on these roadways, so they're considered as local roadways or city roadways, and the community accepts them. 00:02:02.100 --> 00:02:14.800 So if you look at this map, there are about approximately 12 state highways that run through the city, and this is outside of the main freeway system and loop 288. 00:02:14.800 --> 00:02:27.320 So these are US 380, US 77, these are main thoroughfares north, south, and east, west, and there are several other little spurs throughout the city that are within the city limits. 00:02:27.320 --> 00:02:42.540 US 77 particularly, that's the one that's the main focus, it starts at 35 in the north and then traverses all the way through the city, from the heart, through the heart of the city, and then back, connects to 35. 00:02:42.540 --> 00:03:06.020 What is the turn back program? It was implemented back in, starting in 2014. This is, the turn back was designed for turning back the maintenance, operations, and the control of certain state highways back from the, from Textile or from the state to the local entities. 00:03:06.020 --> 00:03:18.100 This program is completely voluntary, so if the local entity does decide that they do not want to have those highways turned back to them, that they have the option to do so. 00:03:18.100 --> 00:03:28.420 How does the program work? So the main objective is to transfer control, as I said, of the state owned highways, these are probably US 380, US 77. 00:03:28.420 --> 00:03:52.940 What are the candidate roadways? The main ones that Textile is not interested in is the ones that are low volume. At a certain point in time it had served its purpose, US 77 was the main route, it was really high volume, and now over years that volume has gone down, the purpose is no longer intended as a large regional connector or a regional facility. 00:03:52.940 --> 00:04:15.180 So those are the roadways that would be the candidates for taking them off system. And then action, the action is once the city accepts that, yes, we're ready to take on, you know, whatever the number of segments we have, these are the segments we'll take off, then it goes to the Texas Transportation Commission and that's where it's authorized to be turned back. 00:04:15.180 --> 00:04:40.300 So that's the process, that's the way the program works. Now what are the proposed roadway systems? If you can see, anything in red is associated with the US 77, so this is US 77 going through the system, primarily Elmond Locust and then you have Dallas Dive South here, and a portion of Locust or a spur of Locust, this is actually FM 2164. 00:04:40.300 --> 00:05:09.900 And then it continues north of the loop, but Texot is interested in turning back whatever is within the loop. The other roadway, a couple of roadways are, the green is Sherman Drive, currently the city maintains and operates this portion of Sherman Drive from Elmond Locust all the way to the loop, and we actually maintain it, so it's not that Texot maintained it, it's not going to be extra cost on our city expenses, 00:05:09.900 --> 00:05:25.740 we already do that as part of an MOU agreement. So Sherman is maintained, Texot does have some control over widening in the right of way because of the way the current agreement is set up. 00:05:25.740 --> 00:05:49.340 And then FM 1515 is a Texot roadway, they're currently looking at widening it, they have, they're currently in the schematic phase, once that is designed and widened at that point, it will be, it's a candidate for turning it back to the city because it doesn't really connect anywhere or go anywhere outside between the airport and 35W. 00:05:49.340 --> 00:06:10.300 So some of the streets that are within the city but then connect and they become Texot outside the city, if we were looking to just say take Sherman Drive for instance, further up towards Windsor, if we wanted to add a stop sign or a stop light or anything, Texot still need to weigh in on that? 00:06:10.300 --> 00:06:27.980 And if we turn it back, if the city owns it, there is no Texot say or authority or permits required, the city will be empowered to make their own decisions similar to what you can do on Carroll, similar to what you can do on other streets, Bell, Mingo. 00:06:27.980 --> 00:06:30.700 Okay, thank you. 00:06:30.700 --> 00:06:44.380 So I'll get into a little bit of detail of what these pavement sections are, Locust or US 77, the first segment is from 35 all the way to US 380, I'll talk about both these segments. 00:06:44.380 --> 00:07:04.700 This segment of US 77 that goes in front of the TTI, old TTI and now the UNT North Campus and then this segment, it's a concrete pavement, good condition currently, four lane divided segment and it does have a wide median in the middle. 00:07:04.700 --> 00:07:22.940 The section from this point all the way to US 380, this segment of Elm and then this whole segment of Locust is primarily asphalt and it is a two lane undivided segment for FM 2164. 00:07:22.940 --> 00:07:37.820 So this is the current condition and I'll get to why I'm talking about what kind of roadway it is or what kind of is it concrete pavement or asphalt pavement because it comes down to the maintenance dollars at the end. 00:07:37.820 --> 00:07:53.580 So US 77, that's the whole section of Elm and Locust going through the heart of the city from all the way from 380 to Eagle Drive here and down to Carroll, so they're willing to take this whole piece out of the system. 00:07:53.580 --> 00:08:06.860 It's a four lane facility, it's a two lane in each direction couplet, it's a one way couplet and both these roadways are asphalt pavement, fairly wide pavement. 00:08:06.860 --> 00:08:17.900 US 77, this is the last piece, Dallas Drive from Locust at the intersection of Bell, Locust and Dallas Drive all the way to 35E. 00:08:17.900 --> 00:08:34.700 This is, a portion of this is concrete, I think somewhere in the middle it ends, there's a concrete segment for this particular roadway and then from Teasley further south to 35E is an asphalt pavement, so it's both. 00:08:34.700 --> 00:08:43.500 It's a five lane section where you have a center turn lane and then four lanes, two lanes in each direction. 00:08:43.500 --> 00:09:01.580 This is Sherman Drive, it's a four lane undivided, it has two lanes in each direction with just a double solid yellow line strapped in the middle and it is a asphalt pavement, this entire stretch is currently maintained by the city under AMU. 00:09:01.580 --> 00:09:25.020 And last but not least, this is currently a two lane facility, but Textile is working on a schematic to widen it, it will be a combination, the section between I-35W to Western will be widened to a six lane, just given that Western is going to be that major connection to this industrial, a lot of truck traffic moving, so this will be a six lane segment. 00:09:25.020 --> 00:09:44.540 And then the segment from Western to the end will be a four lane section. Currently Textile is working on the plans and I think John can fill in on the details of what their timeline is with this project, but it will be most likely concrete pavement once it's said and done. 00:09:44.540 --> 00:10:01.340 And after the completion of the project is when Textile really wants to turn it back, the city would not accept it without improvements in place, they're currently working on the design and then after the construction is completed we can take it over. 00:10:01.340 --> 00:10:27.420 So what are the benefits? Quick list of benefits. We'll have obviously local control, we can obviously plan events, we can use them, we don't need take stop permits to get on and close roads, detour any traffic that we have during construction, detour any traffic that we have during events, so we'll have a good control over that facility that's turned back. 00:10:27.420 --> 00:10:34.220 We will have control over the driveway spacing and access provided onto these streets, then we can... 00:10:34.220 --> 00:10:43.740 Excuse me, you skipped right over, creates opportunities for economic development in New York. I was curious to hear how that is, or if you're just putting lots of things that are said on the list. 00:10:43.740 --> 00:10:45.340 I was going to cover that at some point. 00:10:45.340 --> 00:10:58.380 So economic development, one of the primary or our main focus is how can we convert some of these streets to complete streets. 00:10:58.380 --> 00:11:19.100 Elm and Locust are large, wide streets that can be used for adding more facilities, infrastructure for bicyclists, for pedestrians, creating that perfect environment. So if you create that environment on Elm and Locust that would definitely attract more businesses in this area to make it more economically feasible. 00:11:19.100 --> 00:11:38.060 So if you have some of these streets that are already complete streets and designed for more pedestrian friendly activities, that entices economic development, and we are working with economic development to put that in, but if we have local control over these streets, it is much more easier. 00:11:38.060 --> 00:11:54.300 We can do complete streets, we can narrow streets down just based on the volume. If tech stock controls it, it becomes much more difficult for them to justify the narrowing of streets and adding more parking or adding bike lanes and adding larger pedestrian sidewalks. 00:11:54.300 --> 00:12:04.940 So that's the economic development that you have. You can entice businesses to come to a place that's more appealing for pedestrians and walking and walkability in New York. 00:12:04.940 --> 00:12:29.260 And then moving forward on street parking, I touched on that. You can enforce it, remove it, change any parking layouts if you want to. Obviously the other thing is landscaping. You can make it much more prettier, you can add trees, you can add different shrubberies, street lighting. All of that is now possible because it's now under local control. 00:12:29.260 --> 00:12:45.980 Also the other thing is the right-of-way. The utility is being installed under the pavement. So currently if you have any tech stock roadway, any utilities that have to be installed there outside the right-of-way. So you need much more space. 00:12:45.980 --> 00:13:06.220 So if a roadway is say 100 feet wide, you need another 20 feet on either side for utilities, water, wastewater, D&E to be in place. Now what we can do is we can shorten the amount of right-of-way and have within the existing right-of-way, put all your utilities down, water, wastewater can be under the pavement. 00:13:06.220 --> 00:13:21.580 So that gives us more flexibility and control over where our utilities go and reducing the public right-of-ways. And obviously the last one is maintenance of the roadway and I'll get into the maintenance aspect of this. 00:13:21.580 --> 00:13:39.660 So to give you an idea, there are a couple of graphs here. This one is for asphalt to define the life of a pavement. This is typical asphalt pavement. It starts at year zero and extends all the way to year 40. And these are the different type of activities that are needed. 00:13:39.660 --> 00:13:55.180 So this is crack seal, this is crack seal and plus a micro seal and then so on and so forth. And this is a full overlay where you can see the maximum cost. So here's the cost implications. So first four years you don't have to do anything. 00:13:55.180 --> 00:14:15.100 At year eight you have to spend $20,000 and so on and so forth all the way to at year 24 you have to spend $140,000. Similarly there is a curve for concrete. And you can see here you start maintaining up until year four you don't have to do anything. 00:14:15.100 --> 00:14:30.300 Even year eight you don't have to do anything. After that the first maintenance around year five you start increasing. You go up to $40,000, $50,000. These are some minor, really minor repairs. These are not paneled replacements. 00:14:30.300 --> 00:14:51.660 So this is 5% repairs. Then you go to 10% and then so on and so forth. This is a typical curve in life for a concrete pavement. What we have done is the average annual cost of the total 40 year is divided annually. 00:14:51.660 --> 00:15:11.660 If you do that you get about $6,000 for asphalt pavement. So if you were to start at year one and start accumulating, hey every year I need $6,000 for this street and you get to year five then you spend the first $20 out of the $6,000 you've accumulated. That's the logic behind these numbers. 00:15:11.660 --> 00:15:35.660 I'm really glad you explained those charts because I didn't realize it was a time sequence. Has anybody discounted the cash flows to present value? Because you've got a big hit for concrete that's in like year four. So obviously you could invest a quarter of that or something in your zero to cover that. So how does it work? 00:15:35.660 --> 00:15:49.660 I think that's really counted in. It's just to give you an idea on an annual basis of how much your operating budget will be hit. If those streets are entered and you start collecting the money that you need at year five. 00:15:49.660 --> 00:16:01.660 But time value is very important on a 40 year set of cash flows. Could I answer that as a follow up? I'd be very interested to see what's the present value of each of those. I used to know how to do it myself but I don't remember. 00:16:01.660 --> 00:16:22.660 We'll get that. And then similarly concrete pavement is about a little over $11,000 on average annual maintenance cost. So the overall average annual maintenance cost is close to half a million dollars is $450,000. 00:16:22.660 --> 00:16:36.660 This does not include FM 428 because we're already maintaining that. That's not additional funds. And FM 1550, the date is not determined yet. It's not going to be wiped many times soon. So we don't know the implications of that. 00:16:36.660 --> 00:16:56.660 But if we take over US 77 and Locust, then these are the cost implications on an average annual basis. Now when we're taking over, one thing I do want to say is that TxDOT is ready to rehabilitate and reconstruct the majority of these roadways or all of them to a condition that is acceptable to the city. 00:16:56.660 --> 00:17:10.660 So we will not accept any pavement that's currently failing or ready to fail or on the brink. For example Dallas Drive, all the concrete panels are failing. There are holes and potholes. Those will be completely redone. 00:17:10.660 --> 00:17:27.660 TxDOT is ready to pull the trigger on a contractor to move forward the minute this thing moves forward. So once we say we're okay to take it over, then they'll go and do a bunch of panel replacements, bring it up to either city standards or higher. 00:17:27.660 --> 00:17:31.660 >> If we were not doing this, they would not repair the road? 00:17:31.660 --> 00:17:36.660 >> They will repair the road, but I think John can answer that question much more better. 00:17:36.660 --> 00:17:58.660 >> So they'll repair the road consistent with their maintenance schedule and the workload to have for the whole district and the whole county. So they try to get to it when you want to, but more times than not, their schedule and the locals don't match. 00:17:58.660 --> 00:18:10.660 So typically it will be on the list of the schedule within the whole county and then it will fall wherever it falls. But if we take it over, they'll expedite it. They're like, we're ready to give it to you. We'll fix it immediately and then turn it over. 00:18:10.660 --> 00:18:13.660 >> Councilmember Briggs. 00:18:13.660 --> 00:18:28.660 >> I'm not sure how you have a few more slides. My question is really more about asphalt versus concrete. Have we done studies on which is better or do we have a recommendation on if somebody's going to do something, what we would like for them to do? 00:18:28.660 --> 00:18:46.660 >> So these are already existing pavements, so a lot of them are already inbuilt and when they go and maintain or reconstruct them, they'll be put back as the same type of material. Both of these, if you look at both of these roadways, they have similar lifespan. 00:18:46.660 --> 00:18:58.660 You have to do a lot of continuous maintenance for asphalt, but for concrete, it's more sporadic, so you get a longer range. So you go eight years without doing anything and then you have to do something. 00:18:58.660 --> 00:19:20.660 So moving forward, this is existing conditions and they will be maintained as the way they are. Textile is not going to go and replace if it's an asphalt, replace it with concrete because that's not in their plan or maintenance dollars. So all they're going to do is if it's an asphalt roadway, they'll then go ahead and replace it with an asphalt or if it's concrete, they'll replace it with concrete. 00:19:20.660 --> 00:19:43.660 So right now we don't have too much say on this. As far as city roadways, we are shifting our direction. We're going in the direction where we want to convert most of our arterials into asphalt because it's quicker to get in and out, quicker to lay the asphalt down and be done and get out as opposed to closing lanes, disrupting traffic. 00:19:43.660 --> 00:19:58.660 So most of our arterials will slowly shift to an asphalt type of pavement and most of our residential streets that doesn't get that much traffic and don't really require anything to be done for years, those will remain concrete. 00:19:58.660 --> 00:20:13.660 So our city thought or staff thought is going to be going in that direction. But for these particular segments, we don't really have very much flexibility. 00:20:13.660 --> 00:20:37.660 So here's a quick summary of what's happening. The first segment of U.S. 77, that's from 35 to 380, it's the longest. It's 3.7 miles and it's completely concrete. So the expected turn back date, they'll fix everything that has to be fixed and by next fall, they will be ready to turn it back. 00:20:37.660 --> 00:20:50.660 We won't begin maintenance as you saw in the graphs for eight years and when the maintenance begins, it won't be the full amount, it will be smaller chunks of 20,000 to 40,000 a year. 00:20:50.660 --> 00:21:02.660 And then this is the total maintenance cost on the average annual basis. So you can see this is the longest segment, it is concrete and it requires the most amount of money. 00:21:02.660 --> 00:21:22.660 One concern I've got on this is right now they're planning on doing body break phase seven for us because it connects on system and if we take this off system, is there any concern over them backing out and saying it no longer connects on system? 00:21:22.660 --> 00:21:42.660 I'm looking at that. So body break phase seven, that little spur that connects between them. The reason they're saying that that's tech stock is because they're connecting those two roads together and you can go 600 feet past the intersection and that covers both of those roadways. 00:21:42.660 --> 00:21:53.660 My question is if we take this back in August of 2020 and that project hasn't started yet, then 77 has started. 00:21:53.660 --> 00:22:05.660 We're going to have a conversation about some of this stuff in a minute because I've got some concerns about the structure that have been disdained and we'll get to that whenever the time is right. 00:22:05.660 --> 00:22:27.660 Just to move through the rest of the segments, as you can see, most of the remaining ones are asphalt and they're smaller segments based on the length of the segment and the width of the roadway, the maintenance dollar amounts on the annual basis, average annual basis are fairly low. 00:22:27.660 --> 00:22:39.660 And most of them won't start maintenance starting from 2024, so we're not talking about maintaining them for another five years where smaller maintenance, crack season and stuff will begin. 00:22:39.660 --> 00:23:08.660 And then for 428, we already have the maintenance, so there is no maintenance dollars. As you can see, one of the things that was added here is sidewalk and street lighting. For the segment between US 77 from 380 all the way to Eagle Drive that goes to the heart of the city, there is another project where all the sidewalks will be improved by tech stock. 00:23:08.660 --> 00:23:26.660 So any sidewalks that are failing in that main drag between 380 and Eagle will be made 80 compliant, they will replace all the panels that are cracked up and you know, heaving, upheaving and all that, so they'll be replacing all that. 00:23:26.660 --> 00:23:49.660 They're currently working on the Elm corridor going up and down on some of the sidewalks on both sides and they do seem to have funding on the other side. So this is something that we've talked to tech stock and they've conveyed that they will be willing to work if we request in our turn back that we need all the sidewalks fixed, then that's something that they will put in and add dollars for their sidewalk. 00:23:49.660 --> 00:24:01.660 So that's one thing. Lighting improvement is something that tech stock doesn't do, so there wouldn't be any lighting improvement and we'll have to consider that as a separate project moving forward. 00:24:01.660 --> 00:24:15.660 What they can do is actually during the maintenance phase and rehab phase, while they're working, they can install the lighting or get a contractor on board to install it, but the city will have to chip in the dollars needed for installation of lighting. 00:24:15.660 --> 00:24:27.660 So that's why I included this sidewalk and lighting because this is always when you inherit a facility, that's one of the main things people start talking about how do we work with the sidewalks, what's happening with that. 00:24:27.660 --> 00:24:45.660 So the main segment between 380 and Eagle will be completely upgraded for sidewalks on element of those both locations. They will have the four or five feet sidewalk that they currently had will be all ADA compliant. There's a project currently going on. 00:24:45.660 --> 00:25:04.660 And then as you can see, some of these are further out the Dallas Drive. There is no sidewalk program for Dallas Drive segment at this point. There are portions that have sidewalk, but it does not have sidewalk all the way up and down. 00:25:04.660 --> 00:25:18.660 And TechStop doesn't currently have a plan to do that. But if council recommends that, hey, we need sidewalks on play before we can turn it over, that's something they're willing to consider. 00:25:18.660 --> 00:25:36.660 Yeah, on Dallas Drive, that one just sticks out to me because we've had a presentation on all the polls and the lights and I remember Councilmember Ryan bringing up, well, before we redo streets, we should have conversations about how much extra it would be for underground utilities. 00:25:36.660 --> 00:26:00.660 And so, I mean, I just see this as an opportunity to make that since it's a first entrance into the city for many people. When we redo the road, if we have sidewalks and we bring some of those utilities underground, I see that as a really great opportunity for that section of street before we get into the major conversation. 00:26:00.660 --> 00:26:18.660 Okay. And then last but not least are options. This is the committee, there's a committee to recommend moving forward to council, which is in a few hours. And if not, what are the options? 00:26:18.660 --> 00:26:37.660 You do have options to pick and choose if there are certain segments that you think that we're not ready, we can do that, if there are segments that you want to add. I mean, it's fairly flexible at this point right now that the recommendation can move forward to council and then there will be another discussion with the entire council. 00:26:37.660 --> 00:27:04.660 Councilmember Briggs. On Salmon Locust, right now there's a lot of work going on for the drainage project. And the businesses there are suffering. I see posts from small businesses all the time that their entrances are blocked off and especially since it's one way street, right, if a couple of entrances or connector streets are blocked off, you have to go all the way down and come back around and try to find a way to get in. 00:27:04.660 --> 00:27:16.660 So my concern would be, what would be the timing of this? Like for the drainage, so would it hit right after or have we thought about it that far? 00:27:16.660 --> 00:27:41.660 So I think currently there are two things happening. There's a concrete drainage project that's going through and that's cutting across Locust right now. The majority of that is on Wainwright but then it's moving into Locust. That's a big drainage project. But the other project that's happening is the utility relocations up and down Elm and Locust. 00:27:41.660 --> 00:28:03.660 So this is the first phase. From the square all the way down to EGLE, they're replacing and relocating. Atmos is doing its gas lines and we at Citi are going to go next, do the water and sewer. Once that's done and water and sewer is under the pavement, which is less disruption for the businesses so that they can keep the... 00:28:03.660 --> 00:28:19.660 So at this point our plan is to go forward and get the project completed as a whole. So right after our utilities are done immediately after it takes off, we'll come back and redo the pavement if we move forward with the turn back. 00:28:19.660 --> 00:28:37.660 That way we are out of the area and we don't go back redoing some of this over and over. That's one thing. As far as keeping the businesses access open, we've worked with our contractors and asked them to any changes to the way they're doing with the means and methods. 00:28:37.660 --> 00:28:57.660 Keeping the businesses open, especially if they have one driveway versus two and three. So we are working currently and yes it's going to be a little bit of disconferred or a little bit of access issue for a few months, but after that I think it's for the overall drainage plan. 00:28:57.660 --> 00:29:03.660 So you're saying that the drainage and a lot of the work that should be wrapped up in a couple months? 00:29:03.660 --> 00:29:16.660 Now the drainage that's crossing Elm and Locust that's impacting the traffic should be out of that area and then it'll get on private property on a parking lot and go behind. 00:29:16.660 --> 00:29:41.660 It was on Wainwright for a long time, now it's crossing, that's why you're seeing all that issue and it's a huge, it's a big hole that the drainage boxes need to be inserted so it's a safety concern. They're quickly moving so once that crosses we'll be in a private area so it shouldn't impact as much to the traffic. 00:29:41.660 --> 00:29:44.660 Any direction or questions? 00:29:44.660 --> 00:29:52.660 Well one of my concerns is I look at those dates and I know how we talk about roads and when they'll be done and when they'll be ready. 00:29:52.660 --> 00:30:00.660 And we should just quit putting years on things. 00:30:00.660 --> 00:30:24.660 That, I mean, Hickory is not going to be done for a while at this point and yet we're planning on redoing water and sewer which is already done on Hickory. And we're looking at April of '21 that we would have the drainage done and have the water and the sewer and take Scott to come back in and redo the surface. 00:30:24.660 --> 00:30:42.660 So these dates are not final, this is a tentative start. Currently we're moving back, moving with a MOU/resolution for saying we as a council or we as a city are ready to accept some of these terms. 00:30:42.660 --> 00:30:55.660 Now the actual agreement will come in at a later date which will have actual dates. So this is a tentative start for getting Tic-Toc rolling. 00:30:55.660 --> 00:31:09.660 So this is where I think being your staff disagrees. Because you know I work for other people and this is not my first rodeo and I have a client who went forward and passed a resolution saying that they were going to agree to do all this stuff. 00:31:09.660 --> 00:31:22.660 And at the end of the resolution it says the City of Crowley, Texas will begin introducing jurisdiction, operation, and maintenance responsibilities of the roadway upon an acceptable agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation. 00:31:22.660 --> 00:31:24.660 Seems straightforward, right? 00:31:24.660 --> 00:31:42.660 That resolution four months later resulted in a minute order from the Highway Commission where they turned it back and gave it to Crowley and so two years later when we want to go back to get money for assistance for that section of roadway they're saying it's already off system. 00:31:42.660 --> 00:32:00.660 So all I'm suggesting you do is don't pass a resolution. Get the benefits first. Say what your intent is that it's just an agreement, an agreement that's not binding and you can say right off the top it's not binding unless certain things occur. 00:32:00.660 --> 00:32:18.660 And then if they meet the dates you take it off. If they don't you say I'll see you when you do it. But I'm concerned the way it's structured and what I've seen that the Commission will take that resolution and when those dates hit, boom they're going to pass a minute order and it's yours. 00:32:18.660 --> 00:32:24.660 Whether or not you accepted it or not because that's what they did to the City of Crowley. 00:32:24.660 --> 00:32:25.660 We're working though. 00:32:25.660 --> 00:32:31.660 I'm banging on that bell. I'm going to bang until somebody tells me to shut up. 00:32:31.660 --> 00:32:34.660 Nobody told me to shut up. 00:32:34.660 --> 00:32:40.660 Yeah, I think it should be based on an event certain, not a date certain. 00:32:40.660 --> 00:32:55.660 I have some questions. It looks like a lot of real but kind of qualitative benefits and some very hard quantitative costs. 00:32:55.660 --> 00:33:16.660 But it seems that the case could be tightened up just from a pure, you know, pure cost benefit just by the fact that you've mentioned things that aren't memorialized here, they're just verbalized about sidewalks and things like that have real costs that, you know, have real financial benefit because we wouldn't have to spend them. 00:33:16.660 --> 00:33:25.660 So, you know, I'd be interested to know what the value is of things that they might do for us in such an agreement that they would not otherwise do. 00:33:25.660 --> 00:33:46.660 So I know they don't otherwise do sidewalks, but they ought to fix, maybe not to our liking, that's a qualitative thing, or not to our timing preferences, but they ought to fix the roads that are theirs anyway. So it's kind of a little hard for me to see why this is totally compelling to do with a $450,000 price tag. 00:33:46.660 --> 00:34:06.660 Another question I have is put that $450,000 in some kind of context. It's not general fund dollars, right? It's street maintenance. So what is that as a, you know, I kind of have a better feel for what that is as an increment to general fund. 00:34:06.660 --> 00:34:26.660 What is our total street maintenance? Is that like $15 million? Correct. Yeah. It's not insignificant, but what would the impact be, you know, of taking on that increment? What would we be taking it out of or, you know, would it have to go to the tax levy? It's not insignificant. 00:34:26.660 --> 00:34:36.660 I think I'd want to see how many hard quantitative benefits we could stack up against it. 00:34:36.660 --> 00:34:58.660 And then just as more of a refinement, because it's not determinative, you probably could have that present value, look at the maintenance cost of asphalt versus concrete by this afternoon. I mean, that takes two minutes if you know how to do it. But that's not determinative, right? You're going to have concrete and asphalt. 00:34:58.660 --> 00:35:10.660 Exactly. So that's kind of where I'm at. It's like, I like it. I like it for all the reasons you like it, but I don't know if I like it for the $50,000 worth. So one of the, I think you didn't have a question. A year. 00:35:10.660 --> 00:35:31.660 And your question was, was the cost benefit of time saving? Right. And the cost benefit of time saving is, if you're looking at, for example, a project like Dallas and Deesley, that project went through a design phase and right after design phase, it went through a long review and approval process with Textile for a permit. 00:35:31.660 --> 00:35:49.660 So we're talking about between anywhere, depending on, for that particular intersection, it could take anywhere from a month to four months. So we're talking about four months of construction cost inflation at the current rate between 10 and 14 percent that's going on annually. 00:35:49.660 --> 00:36:05.660 If you do that, that's a cost saving on every little project that we're planning on doing. Same thing with Sherman at the loop intersection improvements. We're going through the process. We're getting Textile engaged and their permits applied for the permits and getting those permits. 00:36:05.660 --> 00:36:23.660 So the time saving there on every aspect of the project is what it's cutting. How much and how does that compare to $450,000 a year? That's just a straightforward financial analysis. And if it's close, then maybe say, yeah, do it for the qualitative benefits. 00:36:23.660 --> 00:36:39.660 But it would help to be a strong aid to judgment to try to put a dollar value on it. We know how many little projects we do, how much each, compared to the other number. That would help me, Council Member Briggs. 00:36:39.660 --> 00:36:54.660 So I'm in favor of this in theory. I really want to pay attention to what Mr. Polster said. I think that he makes a lot of sense there on the resolution and how we go about doing it, the timing. 00:36:54.660 --> 00:37:07.660 We don't want to give them a reason to just turn it back. I mean, because we definitely don't want to have to make the needed improvements before we do the maintenance. So if that part can be handled right, I'm good with it. 00:37:07.660 --> 00:37:27.660 I mostly, because of the the tech stock communication and the issues and the confusion, I think it's beneficial to us to have these. We will have, we can make them complete streets, the economic development benefit of it if we decide, you know, one way needs to be two way. 00:37:27.660 --> 00:37:48.660 There's all sorts of things that we can do in the core of our city to make it better, I think, if we own these streets. Would we be able to, because I know tech stock has different rules for DCTA stops and things like that, so I feel like we could also put more stops in the core of our city as well. 00:37:48.660 --> 00:38:06.660 So I'm, I'm in favor of this, if we can get the ordinance or resolution or information right, I just, I want to be very careful that we're not giving them opportunity just to push everything on us and then we are responsible for all the updates because, you know, locus is pretty bad right now. 00:38:06.660 --> 00:38:20.660 I mean it needs to be fixed. Okay. I would pretty much echo it on say, proceed with caution. Lessons learned on McKinney. Yes. 00:38:20.660 --> 00:38:36.660 We've gone through that, yes. Okay. Does that give you enough direction that you could paraphrase this afternoon? With the, yeah, the, nailing down the exact cost is going to be a little bit of a challenge. 00:38:36.660 --> 00:38:54.660 And as Council Member Briggs mentioned that there's a lot of back and forth and confusion coordinating any changes a lot at Star Wars, so there's an effort associated with staff going back and forth, an effort associated with, you know, citizens getting more frustrated, so it's our customer service as well. 00:38:54.660 --> 00:39:14.660 Yeah, long list of qualitative benefits, I totally get that. I would like them to, I just want to know how much money, how much it's going to cost us to get those qualitative benefits, you know, or can we get, can we see our way to, you know, some effort at quantification that could make us feel a little bit better about it. 00:39:14.660 --> 00:39:30.660 Because that $450,000 that everyone is very eager to spend here, you know, that, what could we do with that? If we didn't do this, and we had $450,000 laying around in road maintenance, you know, what else could we improve in the city? I mean, I, so, you know, everything's a choice. 00:39:30.660 --> 00:39:46.660 Okay, all right, so moving forward, does the committee recommend this moving forward with Council overall, or do you still? I think you heard, you heard, she was saying move it, she was cautioned. You heard one saying, show me the money. 00:39:46.660 --> 00:39:48.660 Okay. 00:39:48.660 --> 00:39:51.660 All right. 00:39:51.660 --> 00:40:08.660 Okay. Let's move on to close out that item, open up item C, receive a report and hold the discussion on bicycle and pedestrian citation statistics and enforcement of laws, and then police department discuss safety ramifications with respect to these laws. 00:40:08.660 --> 00:40:23.660 Good morning, Mark. I'll open by pedestrian coordinator, pretend asked me to take charge of this topic but I've actually invited a tenant Preston polar from our police department is the neighborhood services commander to come and address the topic. 00:40:23.660 --> 00:40:37.660 But I'm also involved with the speak to it. 00:40:37.660 --> 00:40:45.660 Excuse me. Hopefully I'm not getting sick. Good morning everyone. Like I said, I'm Preston polar lieutenant with the police department. 00:40:45.660 --> 00:41:04.660 Lucky for me I did this presentation a while back for the, the other committee traffic safety committee so a little bit shorter than pretends, I'll, I'll skip through these first couple slides it just goes over our city's mission statement and vision. 00:41:04.660 --> 00:41:11.660 So we wanted both pedestrian and bicycle statistics within the city. Is that correct. 00:41:11.660 --> 00:41:24.660 I'll jump into it so here's our here's our bicycle related citation statistics. I included all of last year's, and this year's year to date as a week or so ago. 00:41:24.660 --> 00:41:43.660 And I'll just go through them. I checked our end code all of our citations that we do throughout the city, which includes our department and also if University of North Texas or TV you if they writing citations because it goes through our, our municipal court system. 00:41:43.660 --> 00:41:56.660 The first one our citations for no front bicycle lights. We've had for for so far this year, and bicycles riding on the wrong side of the road, we've had a couple, we had five last year. 00:41:56.660 --> 00:42:01.660 No rear reflector light. We've had to so far this year. 00:42:01.660 --> 00:42:16.660 And we haven't had any with for bicycles disregarding a stop sign this year we had a couple last year, and bicycles riding on a sidewalk, I put the asterisk there because there's just certain parts in the city where we're not supposed to do that. 00:42:16.660 --> 00:42:31.660 And then bicycle fail deal the right away we have to that could be related to like a crash or something to that effect. And then the last one bicycle disregarding a red light we've had one so far this year. 00:42:31.660 --> 00:42:47.660 So on the on the data chart that we got the number of bicycles involved in a crash, just for 2019 has been 20. So, are these citations written within those or is this something separate then they involve crashes. 00:42:47.660 --> 00:43:04.660 It would be both. So yeah, if there's a if there's a crash involved, and we write a citation that's it's all it's all in the same system or it could be, you know, for the real no rear reflector light that an officer could just see a bicycle right down the street. 00:43:04.660 --> 00:43:13.660 Outside of crash and write that as well. They both go into the same system. 00:43:13.660 --> 00:43:26.660 So out of 14 citations stuff some of those may have been likely in those 28 crashes. That's correct. Yes, I don't I don't have may be separate from. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. 00:43:26.660 --> 00:43:48.660 Kind of a Venn diagram bicycle riding on sidewalk probably not in the crashes, but bicycle failed to yield right away maybe more likely something like that for the crash. But it's not a subset. Yes. Yes. That's it. That's a safe assumption. Yes. 00:43:48.660 --> 00:44:00.660 Any sorry any other questions on that. All right. A few more different ones for the pedestrian related. 00:44:00.660 --> 00:44:11.660 So we haven't had any this year but the first one it's the failed to yield a pedestrian at a signal intersection. We had five last year, zero so far this year. 00:44:11.660 --> 00:44:26.660 The next one is failed to yield right away and a pedestrian and a crosswalk with a signal. That's, you know, pedestrians crossing in the square they have they have the right away they have the light. 00:44:26.660 --> 00:44:42.660 And the vehicle fails to yield pedestrian crossing a point other than a crosswalk. We've had seven so far this year and had 10 last year. Now the way that the law reads pedestrians are allowed to cross in the middle of the street as long as there's not 00:44:42.660 --> 00:45:02.660 lights on each side of corresponding intersections. So if they have like the best example is the square. We all see people do it but pedestrians are not supposed to do that on the square because they have controlled pedestrian crossings on each intersection. 00:45:02.660 --> 00:45:19.660 And next one just pedestrian soliciting on a roadway. Probably not relevant to what we're discussing pedestrian walking on a highway with traffic no sidewalk we just had one this year pedestrian walking on a roadway where sidewalks provided. 00:45:19.660 --> 00:45:24.660 We had seven last year and six so far this year. 00:45:24.660 --> 00:45:32.660 And then disregarding pedestrian control signal, we had three last year, and two so far this year. 00:45:32.660 --> 00:45:37.660 And then failing to yield to pedestrian and crosswalk with no signals. 00:45:37.660 --> 00:45:39.660 We've had one last year in this year. 00:45:39.660 --> 00:45:47.660 And then the last one disregard a school crossing guard we had one last year, and zero so far this year, still time. 00:45:47.660 --> 00:45:49.660 Yes. 00:45:49.660 --> 00:46:10.660 Oh, I was just, I was looking at the involved crashes again with the data I just find it so there's 40 involved crashes and I was counting, I'm trying to see, you know, the citations are written when the crashes are involved or if it's separate. 00:46:10.660 --> 00:46:25.660 I know that some of these probably aren't, you know, the crosswalk but I would like to see if there's a way possible to see on any of those actual crashes when response happened. 00:46:25.660 --> 00:46:40.660 Who or what received the citation, if it was the vehicle or if it was the pedestrian. Okay, we can get you the information. 00:46:40.660 --> 00:46:44.660 And, and I do know that the last one has occurred. 00:46:44.660 --> 00:47:00.660 Because I witnessed it. Yes, that's a. Yeah, that's it. That's a that's a big one. You know, of course, as you all know at the police department we have competing priorities but I would certainly say the school crossing guard is important for us. 00:47:00.660 --> 00:47:17.660 Just a side note this this past school year, I was able to get with one of the area superintendents to get probably 30 of the ISD staff members trained up with actual crossing guard training, so they had the, not just the ability but the authority to do it, 00:47:17.660 --> 00:47:32.660 and kind of as a supplement for our crossing guards so it is something that we're that we're aware of, for sure. I have noticed more crossing guards around the school so I really appreciate that. 00:47:32.660 --> 00:47:48.660 That was it for statistics. I don't know how deep you want to get in this also I touched on last time. In addition to just the statistics basically some of the things that we are doing in traffic as far as outreach that deals with pedestrian bicycle safety. 00:47:48.660 --> 00:48:03.660 We've had for this past year, we've been doing a bicycle pedestrian safety forms. We've done it three times attendance has not been great, but it's a worthwhile cause. 00:48:03.660 --> 00:48:14.660 We kind of focus on the traffic laws talk about safety tips and allow residents to ask us questions it's typically myself and then one of our traffic sergeants. 00:48:14.660 --> 00:48:20.660 The other one that's been real popular we do the police officer story time where we read to the kids about bicycle safety. 00:48:20.660 --> 00:48:33.660 The last one, we had over 100 children attend so it's been a good event for us and of course their parents are there too so we kind of hopefully instill some knowledge in them as well. 00:48:33.660 --> 00:48:50.660 Just a suggestion, on the forms that aren't heavily attended, maybe advertising to schools, elementary or middle schools or do one with DCTA. 00:48:50.660 --> 00:49:04.660 I know that now we have a larger social media presence than we used to but I think they're really beneficial. I don't know that I knew about the last one. 00:49:04.660 --> 00:49:31.660 So when you say attendance is low, you mean like four? Ilya averaged about half a dozen for the three that we've had each time. We're exploring, trying to find ways and that's a good idea with DCTA. 00:49:31.660 --> 00:49:43.660 Some of the other things that we've touched on, so the department is still developing, it should be pretty close to being done, just a comprehensive strategic plan. 00:49:43.660 --> 00:49:53.660 A little subset of that is just the traffic plan and this isn't all encompassing but part of what we recognize is prevention is a big part of that. 00:49:53.660 --> 00:50:15.660 A lot of, just some stats here that we wanted to mention, in 2017 40% of the fatal crashes, and this is statewide, involved no seatbelt usage and of the almost a little under a million crashes, over 30% involved the driver between the ages of 16 and 28. 00:50:15.660 --> 00:50:36.660 Probably not a shock to anyone, younger, less experienced drivers tend to be involved in more accidents but it gives us an opportunity, we want to do more with social media outreach, not just within our agency but with the school district as well and finding ways to really educate the kids a bit better. 00:50:36.660 --> 00:50:55.660 We're fortunate that we have a student resource officer sergeant in place now, that's their sole responsibility so part of their job is to try to get some more outreach within the school district related to this. 00:50:55.660 --> 00:51:09.660 So is the implication of those two facts that a key focus of your efforts would be to educate young people about the importance of safety belts, seatbelts? 00:51:09.660 --> 00:51:32.660 Yes, when I was looking at all the statistics to see, because there's a lot of safety concerns when it comes to people driving, people on bicycles and walking, but these were two of the things that really popped out to me where with our resources that we have, where can we do the most good. 00:51:32.660 --> 00:51:47.660 So these were the two things. So yes, but also there's more to it with the young drivers than just seatbelt usage. When you talk about distracted driving, cell phone usage, all that, it's a priority for us moving forward. 00:51:47.660 --> 00:52:16.660 We haven't lately, but there's been agencies that do, of course, the shattered dreams where it's like a mock scenario of someone that was at school and they were drinking and driving and got injured and it's just different ways to try to impact the kids and actually get it through to them, the importance of safety, especially when they're driving and things like that. 00:52:16.660 --> 00:52:29.660 All right, as far as our enforcement efforts, of course we do close patrols, targeted enforcement based on either things that we observe or citizen complaints or anything that comes from city hall or council. 00:52:29.660 --> 00:52:48.660 We'll certainly target. We have speed trailers. We frequently do speed studies along with traffic engineering. That's a big tool for us to see if there is a speeding problem in certain areas of the neighborhood and sometimes it's just a perception issue where the data just doesn't show that. 00:52:48.660 --> 00:53:14.660 In school zones, obviously we do heavy enforcement with that for every school year. We do at least two weeks of having an officer at start of school and end of school, a new school year, new batch of kids, new batch of parents, trying to get them to understand the routine and what they can and can't do and just have a visible presence out there helps out as well. 00:53:14.660 --> 00:53:36.660 I mentioned here the solar panel driver feedback signs. That's something that traffic engineering is doing, but I thought it was important there. The goal is at some point to try to get those feedback panels for the signs at all the school zones where everyone driving can actually see their speed as they're driving instead of just the flashing lights. 00:53:36.660 --> 00:54:05.660 And this was a little bit ago, but the National School Bus Safety Week is where we actually designate officers to, you know, throughout the course of the school year buses, they can file complaints with drivers that are ignoring whenever they're stopped, they just blow through as they're letting kids on and off where we take those complaints and we'll actually put officers out there where we've had the most complaints and just do some targeted enforcement there. 00:54:05.660 --> 00:54:25.660 That was going to be one of my questions about that because I've seen buses that have the stop sign and some drivers just disregard that stop sign as an actual stop sign and thinking that the kids are just going to get off on this side, but kids cross from one side to the other using that stop sign as safety. 00:54:25.660 --> 00:54:48.660 So do we know, have we ever written anyone a ticket for that? Yes, yes we have, yeah. I don't have the numbers on those right now, but yeah, absolutely, yes, because we've, especially within our traffic division, all of our guys, our motor officers specifically, that's one of the things that they certainly look for. 00:54:48.660 --> 00:55:13.660 And we try to always stay in touch with the school district because a lot of times the bus drivers will, you know, if it's happened a few times, they're like, hey, I keep at this part of the neighborhood that I have my route, these cars aren't paying attention, you know, so that is something that we try to keep an eye on. 00:55:13.660 --> 00:55:33.660 All right, and for the analysis, this is a part of my role, oops, probably about a year ago I was designated as just the department's pedestrian safety officer and all that really means is, as I wrote here, just a comprehensive review of any fatal crashes and specifically crashes that deal with pedestrians and bicyclists. 00:55:33.660 --> 00:55:59.660 Once the primary investigator is done with everything and the crash report has been finalized and sent to the state, I'll take a look at it and see if, obviously, anything that we can do as a police department, but anything we can do as a city to either improve the environment of that area and determine if there's, if I need to try to reach out to any other city departments to see if there's improvements to be made. 00:55:59.660 --> 00:56:04.660 Would you be coming back to us with that? You're saying you're going to be doing this? 00:56:04.660 --> 00:56:33.660 This has been occurring. Yeah, just the example that pops in my mind. Unfortunately, the lady, they got struck by the train by our police department. One of the things that came out of that was those signage that was put up there because she was crossing on the wrong side of the street, just extra gates as a safety measure were installed. 00:56:33.660 --> 00:56:52.660 So, little things like that. And then lastly, of course, we, as a police department, we try to have fairly regular meetings with traffic engineering just to work together to solve any issues that might come up on their end or our end. 00:56:52.660 --> 00:56:56.660 I think that is it for my presentation. 00:56:56.660 --> 00:57:13.660 Yeah, I don't know if this is in response to what I brought or asked about earlier, but on more about the bicyclists and from what I'm seeing on the data that we've had 28 crashes involving and there's only 14 tickets that have been written this year. 00:57:13.660 --> 00:57:32.660 I understand that we are, we are not, or the perception is we are definitely not enforcing bicycle laws. Is there any plan in the future to try and make that stronger because it's very difficult when people who are anti-bike lane come to me and say why are we spending money on this? 00:57:32.660 --> 00:57:45.660 If we're not enforcing the laws, because I'll give you an example the other day, and I don't know if this might not even be legal, but on Bonnie Bray, I had a bicyclist in front of me. 00:57:45.660 --> 00:57:51.660 Once we got past the roundabout, I moved over in the other lane, went past them, got down, had to stop at the light. 00:57:51.660 --> 00:58:05.660 Well, there are several other cars that get behind me, and I'm watching the guy in the rear-view mirror weave between everybody to get up to the very front of the light, and then he takes off in the middle of the lane again and blocks the traffic again. 00:58:05.660 --> 00:58:10.660 And so those are the types of things that aggravate people that make them anti-bike. 00:58:10.660 --> 00:58:21.660 So if we're enforcing stuff, we can at least point to, hey, we're trying to make sure that they're doing the right thing. 00:58:21.660 --> 00:58:37.660 It is important to us. With pedestrians and bicyclists in particular, it's one of those, if we're not there to observe the violation of the law, it's hard to take enforcement. 00:58:37.660 --> 00:58:46.660 So as far as a plan, it is important for us moving forward, and it's something that we've been discussing. 00:58:46.660 --> 00:58:55.660 I hate to bring it up, but again, a lot of it for us comes back to competing interests and limited resources. 00:58:55.660 --> 00:59:11.660 It's never a good reason, but I don't disagree with you that it's important to show, like you said, if we're going to make it a priority to be able to show that we are enforcing it as well. 00:59:11.660 --> 00:59:18.660 So it is something that we're looking at and finding ways to get better with, for sure. 00:59:18.660 --> 00:59:28.660 Well, I was just going to ask staff to take note. I think Councilmember Ryan just asked for a bike lane on Bonnie Bray. 00:59:28.660 --> 00:59:34.660 Once the roundabout is all two-lane, it won't be the issue. 00:59:34.660 --> 00:59:53.660 Your sort of overall view of the statistics you presented, would you say that these are relatively concerningly high levels, or thankfully low levels, they reflect changes in activity, or sort of inability to be everywhere at all times? 00:59:53.660 --> 00:59:59.660 What should our takeaway be from the raw data? 00:59:59.660 --> 01:00:19.660 I think it's okay. Now, I would say just personal opinion. If we pie in the sky in a perfect world, if we could have officers specifically targeting bicyclists that are doing violations of the law, the numbers would be higher. 01:00:19.660 --> 01:00:30.660 And that's just from my, even when I'm not working, you'll have bicyclists that will just disregard stop signs. 01:00:30.660 --> 01:00:38.660 I think our numbers are okay, by and large. I think our city does well, but there's certainly room for improvement. 01:00:38.660 --> 01:00:57.660 And that's part of the reason why we're trying to do the bicycle safety, because it comes from both sides. It's not just the folks on the bikes, it's also the drivers that either aren't giving them the proper distance or paying attention to them or acknowledging that they have a right to the road as well. 01:00:57.660 --> 01:01:01.660 So it's kind of a combination of things. 01:01:01.660 --> 01:01:17.660 And if you wouldn't mind saying so as bluntly as you can, what's at the top of your list as far as what council might consider that would help in these efforts? 01:01:17.660 --> 01:01:22.660 Who would you like to see us at least look at? 01:01:22.660 --> 01:01:26.660 That's a difficult question. 01:01:26.660 --> 01:01:44.660 For the police department, as long as we're all on the same page, our role as the police department is to obviously enforce the laws, but also a big component of that is outreach too. 01:01:44.660 --> 01:01:57.660 So I think as long as that's a city, including the police department, we're pushing out the same message as far as what is and isn't acceptable, that's important. 01:01:57.660 --> 01:02:12.660 But as mentioned earlier, it's incumbent upon us to make sure as we're improving bicycle safety in the city to hold those bicyclists that aren't conforming to those things accountable for that. 01:02:12.660 --> 01:02:21.660 So to answer your question, I don't know if right now I could give you kind of the highest, most important thing for the council to do to help us. 01:02:21.660 --> 01:02:24.660 But I can certainly find out. 01:02:24.660 --> 01:02:27.660 Well, personally I'm sure it's good for all of us. 01:02:27.660 --> 01:02:31.660 I'm very appreciative of you taking the time to investigate this and bring it forward. 01:02:31.660 --> 01:02:36.660 And I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on that. 01:02:36.660 --> 01:02:38.660 Sure, absolutely. 01:02:38.660 --> 01:02:42.660 Anything else? 01:02:42.660 --> 01:02:47.660 Yeah, I just want to repeat the same thing, better enforcement. 01:02:47.660 --> 01:03:01.660 Once it's just like on Dallas Drive and Bell, after the law enforcement's been there doing speed, writing speeding tickets for a couple of days, you'll notice that the average speed slows down. 01:03:01.660 --> 01:03:12.660 So writing just a few tickets out there to bicyclists, you're going to start seeing better enforcement of it, or better following of the rules once word gets out. 01:03:12.660 --> 01:03:14.660 Because word gets out within the community pretty quick. 01:03:14.660 --> 01:03:19.660 They don't enforce it, but they do enforce it, and we need to abide by these rules. 01:03:19.660 --> 01:03:21.660 Absolutely. 01:03:21.660 --> 01:03:22.660 Do you have something else? 01:03:22.660 --> 01:03:31.660 Yeah, I just want to say, and the same goes for drivers who are actually infringing on the rights of bicyclists as well. 01:03:31.660 --> 01:03:32.660 Just got to put that in there. 01:03:32.660 --> 01:03:34.660 I mean, it's not just always one way. 01:03:34.660 --> 01:03:35.660 I agree. 01:03:35.660 --> 01:03:42.660 And sometimes the reason bicyclists do what they do is feeling threatened, or like their safety is threatened. 01:03:42.660 --> 01:03:48.660 So I just want to make sure that it's not just the one-sided conversation. 01:03:48.660 --> 01:03:54.660 Seen a lot of parking in bike lanes? 01:03:54.660 --> 01:03:59.660 Depends, yes, in some areas we do. 01:03:59.660 --> 01:04:11.660 We've started last school year and this school year, I know specifically for UNT campus in surrounding areas and streets. 01:04:11.660 --> 01:04:15.660 We've dedicated a lot of resources and presence out there. 01:04:15.660 --> 01:04:18.660 Our parking officers now are public safety officers. 01:04:18.660 --> 01:04:21.660 The title has changed, but they still perform that role. 01:04:21.660 --> 01:04:24.660 They've been out there frequently. 01:04:24.660 --> 01:04:34.660 So the citations for that are, I'm certain, would be significantly higher than the numbers that you saw today. 01:04:34.660 --> 01:04:36.660 And I can give those to you if you'd like. 01:04:36.660 --> 01:04:37.660 Sure. 01:04:37.660 --> 01:04:42.660 It certainly could be a cause for safety issues. 01:04:42.660 --> 01:04:43.660 Yes, absolutely. 01:04:43.660 --> 01:04:51.660 Not just the blocking itself, but forcing bike traffic into car lanes. 01:04:51.660 --> 01:04:53.660 Anything else? 01:04:53.660 --> 01:04:54.660 Thank you so much. 01:04:54.660 --> 01:04:55.660 Thank you very much. 01:04:55.660 --> 01:04:58.660 Good to see you again. 01:04:58.660 --> 01:05:10.660 Okay, let's turn to item D, receiver report and hold a discussion regarding small transportation projects. 01:05:10.660 --> 01:05:13.660 This is a relatively small presentation. 01:05:13.660 --> 01:05:18.660 I just wanted to hit the main points. 01:05:18.660 --> 01:05:26.660 So as mentioned in the back up, there were two sets of separate small transportation projects that were authorized. 01:05:26.660 --> 01:05:34.660 The first set came in, I think an authorization went in early 2017, and we started working on the design. 01:05:34.660 --> 01:05:37.660 And here are all the projects. 01:05:37.660 --> 01:05:41.660 There were six projects that were included and completed, half of them. 01:05:41.660 --> 01:05:49.660 And I want to point out that the remaining projects, they're mostly -- the design has been completed a long time, 01:05:49.660 --> 01:05:55.660 but we're dealing with some of the issues with -- we're running with property owners. 01:05:55.660 --> 01:06:01.660 So it's the right of way take or it's working with the mall. 01:06:01.660 --> 01:06:05.660 For example, Colorado and Loop 288 were working with the mall. 01:06:05.660 --> 01:06:08.660 So it's kind of difficult to have that coordination and dialogue. 01:06:08.660 --> 01:06:10.660 We're shutting down one full access. 01:06:10.660 --> 01:06:13.660 We don't want them to be blindsided by. 01:06:13.660 --> 01:06:16.660 We just go in and do the project because it's in our right of way. 01:06:16.660 --> 01:06:20.660 But then they don't have -- they feel that as if they don't have an access. 01:06:20.660 --> 01:06:28.660 So we've worked with them all for almost -- I want to say eight to 12 months in the last year or so. 01:06:28.660 --> 01:06:34.660 And we've come to an agreement that will provide a separate access for them off of the Loop 288 01:06:34.660 --> 01:06:39.660 while we're closing the one on Colorado, which is the issue that we're addressing. 01:06:39.660 --> 01:06:42.660 We're extending the left turn lanes, the entrance to the bank area, 01:06:42.660 --> 01:06:46.660 or the mall will be taken out completely because that's what the conflict is. 01:06:46.660 --> 01:06:51.660 And in order to do that, we've been -- we had to get the permission. 01:06:51.660 --> 01:06:54.660 We had to get a new driveway approved. 01:06:54.660 --> 01:06:57.660 And that required a coordination not only with the mall but also with TechStop 01:06:57.660 --> 01:07:00.660 because now we're putting a driveway on Loop 288. 01:07:00.660 --> 01:07:05.660 So there are some things that are happening to the point in the previous presentation 01:07:05.660 --> 01:07:08.660 that takes a while to get coordinated with TechStop 01:07:08.660 --> 01:07:11.660 and work with them to get a brand new opening for a driveway. 01:07:11.660 --> 01:07:15.660 So at this point, we feel that we're done with all the steps. 01:07:15.660 --> 01:07:18.660 And the last thing that we're looking at is a signature from the mall 01:07:18.660 --> 01:07:22.660 and they're saying, yeah, we grant you permission to do that. 01:07:22.660 --> 01:07:25.660 We're anticipating that we'll start construction early next year. 01:07:25.660 --> 01:07:27.660 It's not a large project. 01:07:27.660 --> 01:07:31.660 It will not take more than four to six weeks to do it. 01:07:31.660 --> 01:07:36.660 But we anticipate that that would go to construction early next year. 01:07:36.660 --> 01:07:38.660 And then we can wrap it up in a couple months. 01:07:38.660 --> 01:07:42.660 So that's the timeline for the Loop 288 project. 01:07:42.660 --> 01:07:47.660 And then moving forward with the Hickory Country Club and Carroll Insurance, 01:07:47.660 --> 01:07:52.660 same thing, TechStop approval took a while because there is a bridge right there 01:07:52.660 --> 01:07:58.660 on 1830 where Hickory Creek comes in and there was an issue with the abutment, 01:07:58.660 --> 01:08:00.660 the card rails that went in. 01:08:00.660 --> 01:08:05.660 So we've been working with them to iron some of the concerns that they had. 01:08:05.660 --> 01:08:09.660 We feel comfortable that I think we're really close to getting the permits 01:08:09.660 --> 01:08:13.660 or the permits are almost approved and that will be next. 01:08:13.660 --> 01:08:17.660 Some of the challenges around these smaller projects also have been availability 01:08:17.660 --> 01:08:21.660 of street crews that will be doing this work. 01:08:21.660 --> 01:08:25.660 They're currently scheduled for some other projects that are going on as far 01:08:25.660 --> 01:08:32.660 as street maintenance, doing the bond program, street maintenance projects. 01:08:32.660 --> 01:08:35.660 And we have to schedule them around that as well. 01:08:35.660 --> 01:08:37.660 So that's another challenge. 01:08:37.660 --> 01:08:40.660 And then the last one, it's the right-of-way delay. 01:08:40.660 --> 01:08:45.660 We have a gas station on one side and there's a private owner 01:08:45.660 --> 01:08:48.660 on the other side where the signal cabinet is. 01:08:48.660 --> 01:08:53.660 So some of these delays have been negotiating with property owners 01:08:53.660 --> 01:08:56.660 and TechStop in order to get the design right. 01:08:56.660 --> 01:09:01.660 So we've spent a lot of months back and forth making sure that every party 01:09:01.660 --> 01:09:04.660 that's involved, our design has been complete for a while. 01:09:04.660 --> 01:09:10.660 So I want to say that we are getting to a point where we're comfortable to say 01:09:10.660 --> 01:09:14.660 that we will get these projects wrapped up within this timeframe. 01:09:14.660 --> 01:09:15.660 >> Council Member Perks. 01:09:15.660 --> 01:09:18.660 >> So the Carol Sherman one I've been really wondering about 01:09:18.660 --> 01:09:21.660 because that's been an issue there with that really tight turn. 01:09:21.660 --> 01:09:24.660 But I also want to make sure that we're coordinating 01:09:24.660 --> 01:09:28.660 that we don't have construction going on with the fair in August. 01:09:28.660 --> 01:09:29.660 >> Correct. 01:09:29.660 --> 01:09:32.660 So we'll be in and out before the fair ends. 01:09:32.660 --> 01:09:33.660 Exactly. 01:09:33.660 --> 01:09:34.660 That's our plan. 01:09:34.660 --> 01:09:37.660 We're doing the first half of next year so it's before the fair is there. 01:09:37.660 --> 01:09:38.660 Absolutely. 01:09:38.660 --> 01:09:40.660 We have that in mind. 01:09:40.660 --> 01:09:44.660 And the real challenge here has been working with the gas station owner 01:09:44.660 --> 01:09:48.660 who are taking some property on that particular side to widen that curve. 01:09:48.660 --> 01:09:52.660 So there is a sign that sits in the corner we're working with. 01:09:52.660 --> 01:09:59.660 So that has been our challenge to get that property owner to accept some of our designs. 01:09:59.660 --> 01:10:05.660 Next set of small transportation projects that came in a year after the first set 01:10:05.660 --> 01:10:09.660 and these are the next six intersections. 01:10:09.660 --> 01:10:14.660 We're pretty much done with most of the design on all of these. 01:10:14.660 --> 01:10:16.660 We're done with the design. 01:10:16.660 --> 01:10:20.660 As you can see, the delays are either related to tech stock 01:10:20.660 --> 01:10:25.660 or availability of in-house crews to do some of the smaller projects. 01:10:25.660 --> 01:10:30.660 So one of the things I do want to point out is this last intersection. 01:10:30.660 --> 01:10:32.660 We did the survey. 01:10:32.660 --> 01:10:37.660 We ran through initial feasibility tests in this area. 01:10:37.660 --> 01:10:43.660 And where the roadway sits, long road where it connects to Stewart, 01:10:43.660 --> 01:10:48.660 there's currently a big drainage area and it has become an environmental issue there. 01:10:48.660 --> 01:10:50.660 So it's environmentally sensitive. 01:10:50.660 --> 01:10:54.660 We identified that it was an ESA so we can't really -- 01:10:54.660 --> 01:10:58.660 we'll have to either put a bridge which makes this project feasible. 01:10:58.660 --> 01:11:03.660 So what we're planning on doing is that currently we're going to put this project on hold 01:11:03.660 --> 01:11:05.660 to straighten that locust. 01:11:05.660 --> 01:11:09.660 Once the property to the north comes in and develops, 01:11:09.660 --> 01:11:13.660 at which point we'll have better understanding of the drainage needs. 01:11:13.660 --> 01:11:16.660 And that way we can address that during that project. 01:11:16.660 --> 01:11:17.660 So at this point, this is on hold. 01:11:17.660 --> 01:11:20.660 Some of the funds, the funds that are available for this project 01:11:20.660 --> 01:11:25.660 will be transferred to Sherman and Luke 288, which really needs that signal. 01:11:25.660 --> 01:11:29.660 So that's our current plan and moving forward. 01:11:29.660 --> 01:11:35.660 And as you can see, we're going to wrap these up early, getting that text off, 01:11:35.660 --> 01:11:37.660 and get the right of way in place. 01:11:37.660 --> 01:11:41.660 We'll wrap most of them by summer next year. 01:11:41.660 --> 01:11:46.660 So we have someone here that knows how to speak to text. 01:11:46.660 --> 01:11:52.660 So is there anything -- I mean, because this -- these are, I mean, a delay. 01:11:52.660 --> 01:11:56.660 I know that some of it's the row acquisition and kind of I have a question about that. 01:11:56.660 --> 01:12:04.660 Is that, you know, legal issues or is that just homeowners or, you know, lack of staff? 01:12:04.660 --> 01:12:08.660 No, I think there's a whole legal statute and a process that we have to go through. 01:12:08.660 --> 01:12:10.660 You have to have a certain number of days. 01:12:10.660 --> 01:12:11.660 You send the first notice. 01:12:11.660 --> 01:12:14.660 Then there's a certain number of days that you have to give them to respond. 01:12:14.660 --> 01:12:16.660 And then so on and so forth. 01:12:16.660 --> 01:12:19.660 And then the negotiations itself may take a certain number of days. 01:12:19.660 --> 01:12:21.660 And then there are legal limitations. 01:12:21.660 --> 01:12:26.660 You know, you have to give them a six-week period for people to respond back and forth. 01:12:26.660 --> 01:12:30.660 So there's a legal statute that rules this. 01:12:30.660 --> 01:12:34.660 So we can't really push saying that, hey, we want to move forward, 01:12:34.660 --> 01:12:39.660 and you only have one week as opposed to four weeks that you're legally allowed to do. 01:12:39.660 --> 01:12:40.660 So we have to go through the process. 01:12:40.660 --> 01:12:42.660 That's why it takes a little bit of time. 01:12:42.660 --> 01:12:48.660 So on all our projects, we're definitely working that schedule into our large capital projects as well. 01:12:48.660 --> 01:12:52.660 Yeah, on that, I know those are legal times, and that should have been in -- 01:12:52.660 --> 01:12:57.660 or I would assume that was all in the original timing of the project. 01:12:57.660 --> 01:13:05.660 But as far as TxDOT goes, is there anything that we could have done different on some of these? 01:13:05.660 --> 01:13:09.660 Or was it just their process? 01:13:09.660 --> 01:13:13.660 I think it is their process, but there were some staff changes as well in their area. 01:13:13.660 --> 01:13:20.660 So I want to say that there were some staff changes in the review, the people that were reviewing some of our plans changed. 01:13:20.660 --> 01:13:23.660 So there are some inefficiencies there. 01:13:23.660 --> 01:13:25.660 So it's just a process that we have to follow. 01:13:25.660 --> 01:13:30.660 So you've also got an additional change for TxDOT here over the last year. 01:13:30.660 --> 01:13:36.660 TxDOT has been much more aware of some deficiencies they've had in the process when it comes to stormwater, 01:13:36.660 --> 01:13:40.660 which is every one of these connections that we're talking about. 01:13:40.660 --> 01:13:43.660 So as they go through this stormwater review period, 01:13:43.660 --> 01:13:50.660 they're taking a much more serious look at this, a more stringent look than they ever have in the past. 01:13:50.660 --> 01:13:58.660 With that being the case, they rely on the district's hydraulic engineer to actually do these reviews. 01:13:58.660 --> 01:14:06.660 The Dallas district, which we reside in, only has two people on the hydrology side to do this review, 01:14:06.660 --> 01:14:10.660 because most districts in the state, they have very small communities. 01:14:10.660 --> 01:14:15.660 There's not near as much development as going on in the Dallas/Port Worth area. 01:14:15.660 --> 01:14:21.660 They have one or two engineers that do nothing but hydraulics and hydrology, the stormwater component. 01:14:21.660 --> 01:14:25.660 They can get through things much quicker because there's just not as much going on. 01:14:25.660 --> 01:14:30.660 The Dallas district office, they're just overwhelmed by how many of these. 01:14:30.660 --> 01:14:36.660 There's a private development driveway that comes in every public project that is in the queue, 01:14:36.660 --> 01:14:39.660 going through the exact same funnel. 01:14:39.660 --> 01:14:45.660 We've recently worked with TechStop on an avenue that would go forward. 01:14:45.660 --> 01:14:51.660 We've had a good conversation with their hydrology folks, their drainage folks, and their bridge engineers to say, 01:14:51.660 --> 01:14:56.660 "As we go forward, you guys need to understand we're doing that in-depth analysis already. 01:14:56.660 --> 01:15:00.660 We're already doing that review both private and public. 01:15:00.660 --> 01:15:04.660 And if we give you a letter, we agree to that, if we give them a letter up front, 01:15:04.660 --> 01:15:09.660 tell them what we did to review and make sure everything looks good, would that help shorten that process?" 01:15:09.660 --> 01:15:12.660 So I'm very confident they were very agreeable with that. 01:15:12.660 --> 01:15:16.660 As far as I know, we're the only city that's asked for that. 01:15:16.660 --> 01:15:19.660 From that standpoint, I think it will get better as we go forward, 01:15:19.660 --> 01:15:25.660 but that is absolutely one of the hang-ups they have, is they're just very limited on who's reviewing that work. 01:15:25.660 --> 01:15:30.660 for the district office, and that's really catching us up on many fronts. 01:15:30.660 --> 01:15:35.660 Is TechStop opposed to concentrating resources where the work is? 01:15:35.660 --> 01:15:40.660 It's not. So TechStop for a long time has really been focused on the roadway. 01:15:40.660 --> 01:15:44.660 The drainage was really just a component of carrying it through. 01:15:44.660 --> 01:15:54.660 Now, for the vast majority, 98, 99% of the roadways that TechStop works, they're in agricultural areas. 01:15:54.660 --> 01:15:59.660 So you look at those areas, and the constraints they have for drainage are very minimal. 01:15:59.660 --> 01:16:05.660 So that's not been a huge focus for TechStop over its history. 01:16:05.660 --> 01:16:10.660 Now, over the last couple years, they have had a couple of legal scenarios that have absolutely impacted the state, 01:16:10.660 --> 01:16:14.660 where they could have done something up front to prevent some issues occurring. 01:16:14.660 --> 01:16:19.660 So they're now reacting to that, and it's something they're trying to catch up on. 01:16:19.660 --> 01:16:24.660 Many cities, they did some things that, in the past, maybe they could have done better, sure. 01:16:24.660 --> 01:16:26.660 Now they're trying to figure out how to do that. 01:16:26.660 --> 01:16:32.660 So what they've done is they've over-corrected to what extreme, but not really elevated the resources. 01:16:32.660 --> 01:16:37.660 Because, again, most districts in the state, they just don't have that volume. 01:16:37.660 --> 01:16:42.660 If you're in the Houston area or the Austin area, you've only got about five areas in the state 01:16:42.660 --> 01:16:45.660 where you have the volume that we have here in the Dallas district. 01:16:45.660 --> 01:16:50.660 So that's really what's going on behind the scenes, is they're trying to catch up, 01:16:50.660 --> 01:16:55.660 knowing that, in the past, they've not been as prudent as they should have been. 01:16:55.660 --> 01:17:01.660 And to add onto that, I think we're in the same exact boat when it comes to traffic signals. 01:17:01.660 --> 01:17:06.660 It's not their forte. They don't maintain them. They don't want them. 01:17:06.660 --> 01:17:10.660 And they have very little staff to oversee some of that. 01:17:10.660 --> 01:17:15.660 So oversight on signals, for example, the University of Nottingham has a signal. 01:17:15.660 --> 01:17:20.660 So any changes to that, they have to send it back to the Dallas district office, 01:17:20.660 --> 01:17:22.660 which they had one or two people do that. 01:17:22.660 --> 01:17:25.660 I want to make sure that I'm telling you what the problem is. 01:17:25.660 --> 01:17:31.660 I want you to understand that your staff is meeting with TechStalk every two to three weeks. 01:17:31.660 --> 01:17:38.660 And Councilman Ryan comes, and we beat each other pretty mercilessly in those meetings over schedule. 01:17:38.660 --> 01:17:49.660 And so we understand the delays, and we are valiantly fighting the city's position in these meetings with truck staff. 01:17:49.660 --> 01:17:55.660 People still have to get hurt sometimes. 01:17:55.660 --> 01:18:06.660 So the estimated completion dates we see there is when the project is totally completed and that road is back to being used. 01:18:06.660 --> 01:18:10.660 That's correct. 01:18:10.660 --> 01:18:12.660 Anything else? 01:18:12.660 --> 01:18:13.660 Thank you. 01:18:13.660 --> 01:18:14.660 Thank you. 01:18:14.660 --> 01:18:22.660 Okay. Moving on to item E, receiver report and hold the discussion about current sidewalk conditions 01:18:22.660 --> 01:18:28.660 and future improvements on Bell Avenue between East McKinney Street and East University Drive. 01:18:28.660 --> 01:18:31.660 Good morning. Mark Olfant, bicycle and pedestrian coordinators. 01:18:31.660 --> 01:18:35.660 I'm going to be talking about Bell Avenue between McKinney and University. 01:18:35.660 --> 01:18:38.660 It's actually right close to us here. 01:18:38.660 --> 01:18:44.660 And the condition of the sidewalks there, this is just an overview of the area we're looking at. 01:18:44.660 --> 01:18:46.660 McKinney's at the bottom. 01:18:46.660 --> 01:18:50.660 There's a number of major landmarks along this route. 01:18:50.660 --> 01:18:59.660 We've got the Civic Center, the Senior Center, the Municipal Pool, Quaker Town Park, and then the TWU campus, which straddles Bell. 01:18:59.660 --> 01:19:06.660 And I'm just going to take it piece by piece, starting from the south and moving towards the north. 01:19:06.660 --> 01:19:12.660 So McKinney to Mingo, you have nice sidewalks on the west side along the Civic Center. 01:19:12.660 --> 01:19:20.660 Generally, for the whole segment where it's public property, we have good complete sidewalks, but private property not necessarily. 01:19:20.660 --> 01:19:27.660 So the Golden Chick does have complete sidewalks, but at the new former backyard on Bell location, 01:19:27.660 --> 01:19:36.660 there are no sidewalks in place there, nor is there a place to cross the drainage area just north of Bell there. 01:19:36.660 --> 01:19:41.660 So the sidewalks are completely missing on that side, but we do have them on the west side. 01:19:41.660 --> 01:19:45.660 And there's a crossing of the drainage area as well. 01:19:45.660 --> 01:19:52.660 When you get to Mingo, we continue with the good wide sidewalk there in front of the Civic Center, in front of the pool. 01:19:52.660 --> 01:20:03.660 But we are missing sidewalks on the other side, on the east side, in front of that service center, a gas station, and there's a few other businesses there. 01:20:03.660 --> 01:20:12.660 But once we get up to where the homes are, then the sidewalks come back. 01:20:12.660 --> 01:20:21.660 We'll see. So that takes us to Withers. So we do have sidewalks on that east side. 01:20:21.660 --> 01:20:27.660 Now once you get to Withers, the sidewalks are quite good, there is one pinch point. 01:20:27.660 --> 01:20:28.660 It's the west side, right? 01:20:28.660 --> 01:20:30.660 Excuse me. 01:20:30.660 --> 01:20:31.660 Sorry. 01:20:31.660 --> 01:20:32.660 The west side. 01:20:32.660 --> 01:20:33.660 If you go back, it's fine. 01:20:33.660 --> 01:20:35.660 Wait, wrong way. This way. 01:20:35.660 --> 01:20:37.660 Oh, they're incomplete on the east side. You have them on the west side. 01:20:37.660 --> 01:20:40.660 Yes. 01:20:40.660 --> 01:20:46.660 So now to Withers, really there's just one spot on the west side where we have a pinch point, 01:20:46.660 --> 01:20:55.660 where we don't quite have the minimum ADA requirement of 36 inches. It's where we have a utility pole and a fence in that area. 01:20:55.660 --> 01:21:07.660 We don't have a current plan to be able to move that. We need to work with the utilities, but we are aware of it. 01:21:07.660 --> 01:21:16.660 On the other side, we do have a complete sidewalk. It is kind of the old standard, so three foot minimum. 01:21:16.660 --> 01:21:25.660 This is from Withers to Texas. And then approaching the university, we have very good sidewalk coverage. 01:21:25.660 --> 01:21:39.660 In places, we do have broken concrete slabs, a few little issues like that. But from Withers north, all the way to the university, 01:21:39.660 --> 01:21:51.660 there is definitely a sidewalk in some form on both sides of the street, serving the university there. 01:21:51.660 --> 01:21:58.660 Where the university, where we're on university property, they have done a good job of installing wide sidewalks. 01:21:58.660 --> 01:22:05.660 They actually drive a lot of golf carts on there, so it serves a number of purposes. 01:22:05.660 --> 01:22:12.660 I actually drove this this morning, and you know, one of the issues that you run into, even if you have a complete sidewalk 01:22:12.660 --> 01:22:20.660 and so forth, is there's actually a mobile sign giving information about closures that was blocking the sidewalk. 01:22:20.660 --> 01:22:31.660 So even when the infrastructure is all there, it doesn't always necessarily mean that it's open all the time. 01:22:31.660 --> 01:22:35.660 Was it a city sign or a university sign? 01:22:35.660 --> 01:22:38.660 I don't know that yet, but look into it. 01:22:38.660 --> 01:22:45.660 Yeah. And so all the way to that intersection at university, you have good coverage. 01:22:45.660 --> 01:22:51.660 So overall, this is what we're looking at. There are some planning efforts underway. 01:22:51.660 --> 01:22:58.660 There's going to be a traffic study with part of the mobility plan. 01:22:58.660 --> 01:23:12.660 Also looking at potential roundabouts at Administration Drive, I think another to the north. 01:23:12.660 --> 01:23:21.660 But if there were specific questions about Bell, I can certainly answer those. 01:23:21.660 --> 01:23:25.660 So I drive Mingo a lot. 01:23:25.660 --> 01:23:26.660 Mingo or Bell? 01:23:26.660 --> 01:23:28.660 Mingo, which connects to Bell. 01:23:28.660 --> 01:23:37.660 And part of that odd intersection is Bell Place and Bell, and then Mingo. 01:23:37.660 --> 01:23:43.660 And so I understand that we want to have sidewalks on the opposite side, 01:23:43.660 --> 01:23:53.660 but do we really want to encourage pedestrians on the backyard of Bell, a co-crossing there, 01:23:53.660 --> 01:23:56.660 where there's nowhere really for them to go? 01:23:56.660 --> 01:24:02.660 The sidewalk ends. There's not a safe crossing at Bell and Mingo. 01:24:02.660 --> 01:24:06.660 There's no sidewalks on Mingo to continue onto. 01:24:06.660 --> 01:24:13.660 So I feel like that adding that little section in front of the backyard on Bell sounds good, 01:24:13.660 --> 01:24:16.660 but what's our plan there? 01:24:16.660 --> 01:24:26.660 Because I saw someone try to cross, and I think we actually have a no-crossing recommendation there at Bell Place, 01:24:26.660 --> 01:24:28.660 right there at that intersection. 01:24:28.660 --> 01:24:34.660 It's really awkward, because you have the cars weaving in that have their own light, 01:24:34.660 --> 01:24:40.660 then you have Mingo, and then you have people crossing. 01:24:40.660 --> 01:24:46.660 Yeah, so what is the pedestrian situation, the crossing situation? 01:24:46.660 --> 01:24:54.660 I don't know that there's any lights that you can push to show for crossing. 01:24:54.660 --> 01:24:58.660 To answer your question, that whole intersection is currently under design. 01:24:58.660 --> 01:25:01.660 We're replacing the signal completely. 01:25:01.660 --> 01:25:07.660 As part of that, I think the turn lane that is a sweeping right turn lane that would be brought in, 01:25:07.660 --> 01:25:10.660 and you'll have crosswalk and AVM apps on all four corners. 01:25:10.660 --> 01:25:15.660 So we are making sure that that's ADA-compliant intersection once it's completely upgraded. 01:25:15.660 --> 01:25:18.660 So this weirdness that's going on will be fixed. 01:25:18.660 --> 01:25:22.660 So right now it's under design. It should go to construction fairly quickly. 01:25:22.660 --> 01:25:26.660 Well, then that makes sidewalks on that side much more understandable, 01:25:26.660 --> 01:25:29.660 because then you have someone crossing from downtown over, 01:25:29.660 --> 01:25:32.660 and they just want to stay straight, and they want to cross over. 01:25:32.660 --> 01:25:35.660 Or future sidewalks on Mingo, that connection. 01:25:35.660 --> 01:25:37.660 That makes more sense to me. 01:25:37.660 --> 01:25:44.660 I'm just done with sidewalks to nowhere, or putting more people in danger if there's not a crossing there. 01:25:44.660 --> 01:25:47.660 That's really the only question I had about it. 01:25:47.660 --> 01:25:50.660 So we are fixing this intersection definitely. 01:25:50.660 --> 01:25:52.660 That's good to know. Thank you. 01:25:52.660 --> 01:25:54.660 I appreciate you taking the time to look at it. 01:25:54.660 --> 01:25:59.660 I think this was in response to a member of the public reaching out to me. 01:25:59.660 --> 01:26:07.660 And it looks like, you know, less concerning than it might have feared, 01:26:07.660 --> 01:26:13.660 with the significant exception of that one pinch point. 01:26:13.660 --> 01:26:17.660 I don't know, what's the recommendation when you have a situation like that? 01:26:17.660 --> 01:26:19.660 Really nothing to do? 01:26:19.660 --> 01:26:27.660 I think if you go to the street view, you can see at the pinch point itself, 01:26:27.660 --> 01:26:32.660 the amount of pavement that's available is not completely used. 01:26:32.660 --> 01:26:36.660 So you can see it's painted off, not even marked for parking. 01:26:36.660 --> 01:26:44.660 So there is an option, an alternative, to go around it and have a safe area for pedestrians to cross over. 01:26:44.660 --> 01:26:46.660 It's just going to be a little more involved. 01:26:46.660 --> 01:26:50.660 It's more drainage, curb and gutter, pavement. 01:26:50.660 --> 01:26:53.660 But we can definitely make sure that we take care of that 01:26:53.660 --> 01:27:01.660 in our construction of the roundabout down the street at Withers at North Texas. 01:27:01.660 --> 01:27:03.660 There's a roundabout coming in there. 01:27:03.660 --> 01:27:07.660 So this doesn't require a whole separate effort? 01:27:07.660 --> 01:27:11.660 We'll probably fold it in and make sure that we're addressing it. 01:27:11.660 --> 01:27:15.660 And it will show up on our ADA transition plan as well. 01:27:15.660 --> 01:27:17.660 So we'll have to address it either way. 01:27:17.660 --> 01:27:24.660 It makes sense, but it would be better if you just addressed it. 01:27:24.660 --> 01:27:30.660 Okay, thank you so much. 01:27:30.660 --> 01:27:32.660 It's your time. 01:27:32.660 --> 01:27:36.660 Receive a report, item F, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding 01:27:36.660 --> 01:27:53.660 existing projects in that area. 01:27:53.660 --> 01:27:55.660 So these are the ones that work now, right? 01:27:55.660 --> 01:28:00.660 Not this, because I was always having to do this. 01:28:00.660 --> 01:28:06.660 Okay, so project list of projects that we're working on. 01:28:06.660 --> 01:28:15.660 Again, this is the total value of about $2.3 billion over the next three to five years. 01:28:15.660 --> 01:28:18.660 First project is the 2181 North/South. 01:28:18.660 --> 01:28:21.660 I want to let you know that Zachary's on board. 01:28:21.660 --> 01:28:25.660 They were given 558 working days, no weather. 01:28:25.660 --> 01:28:31.660 Calculations, the date on the contract is November 2021. 01:28:31.660 --> 01:28:36.660 And so we now can start showing you a construction report again. 01:28:36.660 --> 01:28:40.660 And right now they're out doing the mobilization, the signs, and the SW3P. 01:28:40.660 --> 01:28:47.660 So Zachary is out in the corridor, and we can now start monitoring their progress 01:28:47.660 --> 01:28:54.660 and continue to report that progress monthly. 01:28:54.660 --> 01:28:55.660 And the fourth drive. 01:28:55.660 --> 01:28:58.660 So I'm going to show you with a picture, you'll drive it, you know. 01:28:58.660 --> 01:29:02.660 From the railroad track north, you've got all of the northbound pavement, 01:29:02.660 --> 01:29:07.660 permanent pavement in its location, and it's actually being used as a detour 01:29:07.660 --> 01:29:09.660 for both north and south traffic. 01:29:09.660 --> 01:29:11.660 They're working on southbound main lanes. 01:29:11.660 --> 01:29:14.660 If you've driven the corridor, you know that the sheet flies in, 01:29:14.660 --> 01:29:16.660 and the old bridge is demolished. 01:29:16.660 --> 01:29:22.660 They are this week drilling the drill shafts for the future bridge. 01:29:22.660 --> 01:29:26.660 And then from that railroad track all the way south to the end of the job, 01:29:26.660 --> 01:29:30.660 the traffic is on the southbound side of the roadway, 01:29:30.660 --> 01:29:35.660 and they're working with City to replace the water, 01:29:35.660 --> 01:29:39.660 wastewater, and the storm drains on the northbound side. 01:29:39.660 --> 01:29:43.660 And that is what all this is. 01:29:43.660 --> 01:29:46.660 And their current contract is November 2020. 01:29:46.660 --> 01:29:50.660 We've got some time issues that we're analyzing 01:29:50.660 --> 01:29:53.660 related to this project that may push this a little bit, 01:29:53.660 --> 01:30:00.660 but the State and the City have not agreed with these time arguments yet, 01:30:00.660 --> 01:30:03.660 and we will keep you posted on how that impacts the project. 01:30:03.660 --> 01:30:09.660 But they are, seeming to be moving very well through this corridor. 01:30:09.660 --> 01:30:11.660 Your 35A Mayhill Ultimate. 01:30:11.660 --> 01:30:15.660 This is a project that's a little over $50 million. 01:30:15.660 --> 01:30:20.660 It'll add 12 lanes underneath 35 for Mayhill, 01:30:20.660 --> 01:30:25.660 and add the last part of the Furnace Road system up to 288. 01:30:25.660 --> 01:30:29.660 We're in the process of finalizing the right-of-way acquisition, 01:30:29.660 --> 01:30:32.660 and we've begun in earnest the utility coordination 01:30:32.660 --> 01:30:38.660 and the sub-utility engineering for this corridor 01:30:38.660 --> 01:30:41.660 to determine what's out there and what the conflicts are. 01:30:41.660 --> 01:30:45.660 And so we're shooting for a May of 2021 let date, 01:30:45.660 --> 01:30:52.660 and again, it's fully funded at the $53.4 million. 01:30:52.660 --> 01:30:54.660 Your 288 Brinker Mayhill. 01:30:54.660 --> 01:30:59.660 As you know, the good news is right before Thanksgiving, 01:30:59.660 --> 01:31:01.660 we opened up the Brinker Road to signal. 01:31:01.660 --> 01:31:03.660 The City did excellent work to get that thing done. 01:31:03.660 --> 01:31:05.660 The bad news is that the signal was open, 01:31:05.660 --> 01:31:09.660 and people started complaining about having to be stopped on the front of the road. 01:31:09.660 --> 01:31:13.660 So the City worked with that to try to work that timing out. 01:31:13.660 --> 01:31:19.660 It's an impossible task to please everybody, but they tried. 01:31:19.660 --> 01:31:26.660 December of 2019, this project is supposed to be what we call "substantially complete," 01:31:26.660 --> 01:31:29.660 which means that you'll be able to, generally speaking, 01:31:29.660 --> 01:31:36.660 move through the 288 Brinker intersections on pavement where you're supposed to generally be. 01:31:36.660 --> 01:31:42.660 There may be some land closures, striping, signal work after that. 01:31:42.660 --> 01:31:48.660 But by the end of the year, this project should be substantially operating as it will in the future, 01:31:48.660 --> 01:31:56.660 with it being completed probably totally at the end of January 2020. 01:31:56.660 --> 01:32:00.660 That's my story. I'm sticking to it. 01:32:00.660 --> 01:32:05.660 All right, so I've got to talk to you about this project and this project. 01:32:05.660 --> 01:32:11.660 This is the Section 1 of 35 North, and this is what we call the "merge." 01:32:11.660 --> 01:32:17.660 TechStop is going to combine the merge with the segment 0F77, 01:32:17.660 --> 01:32:20.660 which is this part of this total project, 01:32:20.660 --> 01:32:29.660 and then they're going to change this schedule for this part of the project to meet this schedule of July 2021. 01:32:29.660 --> 01:32:32.660 This is what's currently in the system when the funds are available, 01:32:32.660 --> 01:32:36.660 but if we can meet this date, those dollars can be moved. 01:32:36.660 --> 01:32:43.660 So the intent is to move this project up and then do all of the work within sitting it proper as one project 01:32:43.660 --> 01:32:47.660 as opposed to letting it up as segments. 01:32:47.660 --> 01:32:53.660 So that segment would go with the wishbone, and then, again, 01:32:53.660 --> 01:32:59.660 this segment schedule is for this entire project. 01:32:59.660 --> 01:33:04.660 TechStop is thinking about taking this project and breaking it up into more than one project as well, 01:33:04.660 --> 01:33:13.660 but once we get past 77, we have less interest, not that we don't have any, just less. 01:33:13.660 --> 01:33:20.660 This all starts, the wishbone part, the piece adjacent, all starts after body brace done. 01:33:20.660 --> 01:33:24.660 In theory. That is the current goal of the schedule. 01:33:24.660 --> 01:33:29.660 We are working hard to make that happen. 01:33:29.660 --> 01:33:35.660 And the good news is that TechStop's own osmosis will probably drag this schedule down a little bit, 01:33:35.660 --> 01:33:42.660 and so we have some chance to catch up. 01:33:42.660 --> 01:33:46.660 Okay, that was the 35s. 01:33:46.660 --> 01:33:52.660 Now, 35W main lengths, we've got the value engineering approved, the traffic's done, 01:33:52.660 --> 01:33:56.660 and so we're looking at having this project environmentally cleared October of next year, 01:33:56.660 --> 01:34:01.660 which means for all this part of 35W in the city of Denton, 01:34:01.660 --> 01:34:09.660 you will now be able to protect the corridor through your normal processes. 01:34:09.660 --> 01:34:15.660 The frontage road project, we're looking at June of next year for environmental clearance. 01:34:15.660 --> 01:34:20.660 Although it's a $300 million job, we have submitted it for the Texas Clear Lanes, 01:34:20.660 --> 01:34:24.660 saying why would you have frontage roads eligible for clear lanes? 01:34:24.660 --> 01:34:27.660 And the answer is we've demonstrated that when you have a frontage road system, 01:34:27.660 --> 01:34:30.660 it provides more redundancy toward your main lanes, 01:34:30.660 --> 01:34:34.660 and it provides more throughput on that corridor, 01:34:34.660 --> 01:34:41.660 and we broke that mold in the region on I-30 doing the frontage roads across Ray Hubbard, 01:34:41.660 --> 01:34:44.660 where there weren't no frontage roads, and they used clear lanes for that. 01:34:44.660 --> 01:34:46.660 So that's kind of our thought here. 01:34:46.660 --> 01:34:50.660 We don't have a lake, but if you drive out there through the floodplain, 01:34:50.660 --> 01:34:58.660 you'll see that it's mostly on fill, and it's essentially a lake with no water. 01:34:58.660 --> 01:35:00.660 I forget how long the frontage road is. 01:35:00.660 --> 01:35:05.660 Oh, so we should have the public hearing in April, 01:35:05.660 --> 01:35:12.660 which ties in with being a couple months later having the environmental clearance done in June. 01:35:12.660 --> 01:35:16.660 We're in the east, so this project is currently in two segments. 01:35:16.660 --> 01:35:21.660 We did get confirmation after our last mobility meeting, 01:35:21.660 --> 01:35:24.660 not mobility, this is mobility, task force meeting, 01:35:24.660 --> 01:35:28.660 that they've got one certification left for the utilities here, 01:35:28.660 --> 01:35:34.660 and the state is intending to let this project this fiscal year in the green segment. 01:35:34.660 --> 01:35:40.660 So we'll be able to probably report that to you the first part of next year, 01:35:40.660 --> 01:35:47.660 that this project is on a different schedule than this, the flood section. 01:35:47.660 --> 01:35:52.660 Luke Tridague West, we've got the traffic resolved. 01:35:52.660 --> 01:35:57.660 We are doing the IJR, which is an interstate access justification report 01:35:57.660 --> 01:36:01.660 for its tie-in at 35W and 35 segment. 01:36:01.660 --> 01:36:05.660 We are anticipating having the project environmentally cleared in April, 01:36:05.660 --> 01:36:09.660 which then means we can protect the corridor, which is important in this area, 01:36:09.660 --> 01:36:16.660 because this is a very active corridor for a corridor that doesn't exist. 01:36:16.660 --> 01:36:20.660 And again, we're talking about doing frontage roads first, 01:36:20.660 --> 01:36:24.660 but if we can get it done, get the project cleared, 01:36:24.660 --> 01:36:28.660 then we're going to continue to also push for ultimate improvements to this project, 01:36:28.660 --> 01:36:33.660 which is $400 something million. 01:36:33.660 --> 01:36:38.660 So why would this project not be a priority project for us? 01:36:38.660 --> 01:36:43.660 But right now, the county is paying for all the advanced planning, 01:36:43.660 --> 01:36:46.660 engineering, and environmental clearance, 01:36:46.660 --> 01:36:50.660 and TxDOT is the one that asked us, the county, to pick it back up. 01:36:50.660 --> 01:36:52.660 And so once we get it environmentally cleared, 01:36:52.660 --> 01:36:57.660 we believe that since they're the ones that asked us to start it again, 01:36:57.660 --> 01:37:01.660 the district will find a way to get it funded. 01:37:01.660 --> 01:37:04.660 Let me jump in. Since you brought the priority aspect up, 01:37:04.660 --> 01:37:09.660 I know we have to submit our priorities to the DMRC committee. 01:37:09.660 --> 01:37:14.660 And the way I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, 01:37:14.660 --> 01:37:19.660 is we have a list of projects that are state projects that are funded already. 01:37:19.660 --> 01:37:22.660 So they're already on our priority list, but they're funded. 01:37:22.660 --> 01:37:28.660 Now, the priority list that's required by the coalition is for any projects that are not funded, 01:37:28.660 --> 01:37:30.660 and what is the city's priority? 01:37:30.660 --> 01:37:31.660 That's what you're asking. 01:37:31.660 --> 01:37:34.660 Yeah, this can be on there. 01:37:34.660 --> 01:37:38.660 So as part of our process, I think we could put a list together 01:37:38.660 --> 01:37:42.660 and take it to council if that's something that we want to submit. 01:37:42.660 --> 01:37:44.660 Having it on the DMRC's priority list helps, 01:37:44.660 --> 01:37:52.660 because the RTC looks at what the DMRC wants for the eastern subregion. 01:37:52.660 --> 01:37:57.660 I apologize, I didn't understand the question. 01:37:57.660 --> 01:38:02.660 It's like asking me which one of my children I love more. 01:38:02.660 --> 01:38:05.660 Of course it's my daughter, but I wouldn't say that a lot. 01:38:05.660 --> 01:38:09.660 Okay, FM 1515, this is the project we were talking about earlier. 01:38:09.660 --> 01:38:16.660 It's part of the turn back, and it's currently as of May 2022. 01:38:16.660 --> 01:38:21.660 Is it December 2023? Is that what it says? 01:38:21.660 --> 01:38:27.660 The utility is December 2022. That's the ready-to-let date. 01:38:27.660 --> 01:38:35.660 So between now and 2022, our job is to, again, get $32 million needed for this project, 01:38:35.660 --> 01:38:39.660 and I think if we can get the turn back drafted properly, 01:38:39.660 --> 01:38:42.660 then the fact that we're willing to take it when it's off-system 01:38:42.660 --> 01:38:48.660 will push this up high in the priorities of the state to fund it once it's ready to go. 01:38:51.660 --> 01:39:00.660 FM 1173, again, this is a project where we're expecting to have the schematic done by 2020. 01:39:00.660 --> 01:39:05.660 The improvements that are going to be needed for this tie-in to 35 01:39:05.660 --> 01:39:10.660 will be included in the 35 project that you saw earlier we talked about. 01:39:10.660 --> 01:39:16.660 The actual roadway itself, we're trying to make sure it gets done on the same time frame, 01:39:16.660 --> 01:39:23.660 right now. It's not funded in its entirety, except the part where it ties into 35 01:39:23.660 --> 01:39:31.660 is part of the 35 north project, segment two. 01:39:31.660 --> 01:39:36.660 428, I talked to Lacey Rogers, the TPD, just last Friday, 01:39:36.660 --> 01:39:40.660 and she says they are still working on trying to get a consultant on board 01:39:40.660 --> 01:39:45.660 to do the work on a limited access facility for 428. 01:39:45.660 --> 01:39:51.660 Hopefully, by the time we see you again, we'll be able to tell you that that's happened. 01:39:51.660 --> 01:39:55.660 This is that project we were talking about earlier. 01:39:55.660 --> 01:40:01.660 The tie-in to the loop in '77, this is where we're talking about. 01:40:01.660 --> 01:40:08.660 TechStat and Cog is funding this project because those portions that are outside of TechStat right-of-way 01:40:08.660 --> 01:40:12.660 can be funded with Category 2 federal dollars. 01:40:12.660 --> 01:40:16.660 And so we're looking at getting a commitment on Phase 7 01:40:16.660 --> 01:40:24.660 so that we can get this whole corridor done in advance of the 35 project going under the knife. 01:40:24.660 --> 01:40:27.660 And we should have something by the first quarter next year resolved on that 01:40:27.660 --> 01:40:31.660 because we're working on the UTP for the next cycle, 01:40:31.660 --> 01:40:36.660 which is going to be approved in July next year, we're working on it right now. 01:40:36.660 --> 01:40:39.660 And I believe that's all I have. 01:40:39.660 --> 01:40:47.660 I have a question about 35 and Lillian Miller intersection there and under the bridge. 01:40:47.660 --> 01:40:52.660 What project is that and when is that going to be completed? 01:40:52.660 --> 01:40:56.660 Because it's not been on any of our updates, but it's -- 01:40:56.660 --> 01:40:58.660 35 and Lillian Miller? 01:40:58.660 --> 01:40:59.660 Yeah, so Lillian Miller -- 01:40:59.660 --> 01:41:00.660 288? 01:41:00.660 --> 01:41:01.660 288. 01:41:01.660 --> 01:41:05.660 Well, yeah, Lillian Miller on the other side, sorry, 288. 01:41:05.660 --> 01:41:08.660 And so there's just been a lot of questions and issues there. 01:41:08.660 --> 01:41:10.660 And they're changing lanes all the time. 01:41:10.660 --> 01:41:11.660 It's not marked. 01:41:11.660 --> 01:41:16.660 But I keep thinking that it's going to be done soon. 01:41:16.660 --> 01:41:18.660 What project is that? 01:41:18.660 --> 01:41:19.660 That's this one. 01:41:19.660 --> 01:41:20.660 Okay. 01:41:20.660 --> 01:41:24.660 So this is one where I was telling you they've got the Texas U-turns open now. 01:41:24.660 --> 01:41:25.660 Okay. 01:41:25.660 --> 01:41:30.660 They were focused on getting breaker open because that would reduce a lot of the volume of traffic coming through the loop. 01:41:30.660 --> 01:41:35.660 And by the end of December, they're supposed to have a look 288 essentially operating 01:41:35.660 --> 01:41:38.660 where the lanes cross where they're supposed to cross. 01:41:38.660 --> 01:41:43.660 And they'll just be temporary lane closures for final work up. 01:41:43.660 --> 01:41:48.660 But what we call substantial completion is supposed to be done before the end of this year. 01:41:48.660 --> 01:41:49.660 And that's what they committed to. 01:41:49.660 --> 01:41:50.660 284. 01:41:50.660 --> 01:41:52.660 You know, they said the 21st. 01:41:52.660 --> 01:41:54.660 21st and then the fourth was -- 01:41:54.660 --> 01:41:57.660 Yeah, December 21st is substantial. 01:41:57.660 --> 01:42:00.660 January is complete. 01:42:00.660 --> 01:42:05.660 We're saying the same thing. 01:42:05.660 --> 01:42:06.660 But he's always right. 01:42:06.660 --> 01:42:08.660 It's January final. 01:42:08.660 --> 01:42:10.660 But December substantial. 01:42:10.660 --> 01:42:11.660 Closely. 01:42:11.660 --> 01:42:14.660 So when that is open, it'll have -- 01:42:14.660 --> 01:42:21.660 It'll have two lanes going north and south or east and west, however you want to call it. 01:42:21.660 --> 01:42:27.660 Two lanes going into Lillian Miller and two lanes coming into 288. 01:42:27.660 --> 01:42:31.660 You'll have two dual lefts going north off of Lillian Miller. 01:42:31.660 --> 01:42:35.660 You'll have two dual lefts coming off of 288 coming south. 01:42:35.660 --> 01:42:37.660 There are a total of eight lanes so far. 01:42:37.660 --> 01:42:39.660 And you'll have two Texas U-turns. 01:42:39.660 --> 01:42:41.660 It'll be a total of ten lanes that operate. 01:42:41.660 --> 01:42:44.660 So the two turn lanes are going to come back. 01:42:44.660 --> 01:42:45.660 Absolutely. 01:42:45.660 --> 01:42:49.660 Those are strong movements in both directions. 01:42:49.660 --> 01:42:52.660 December 21st. 01:42:52.660 --> 01:42:54.660 That's what OHL said. 01:42:54.660 --> 01:42:58.660 I trust OHL. 01:42:58.660 --> 01:43:00.660 That doesn't sound convincing. 01:43:00.660 --> 01:43:02.660 I'm not convinced. 01:43:02.660 --> 01:43:03.660 Thanks a lot. 01:43:03.660 --> 01:43:04.660 Okay. 01:43:04.660 --> 01:43:05.660 Thank you. 01:43:05.660 --> 01:43:12.660 I'll let you identify to the extent the law allows. 01:43:12.660 --> 01:43:14.660 So can you hold on to that page? 01:43:14.660 --> 01:43:15.660 This page? 01:43:15.660 --> 01:43:16.660 Yes. 01:43:16.660 --> 01:43:22.660 But the priorities are some of these projects that are not funded that we need to push with the DRMC. 01:43:22.660 --> 01:43:24.660 Yes. 01:43:24.660 --> 01:43:34.660 So the ones that say TBD are the ones that we need to focus on because the rest are funded. 01:43:34.660 --> 01:43:35.660 Okay. 01:43:35.660 --> 01:43:36.660 So we'll put that list together. 01:43:36.660 --> 01:43:39.660 And I think 1830 can be added as well. 01:43:39.660 --> 01:43:45.660 So we probably, if you want, we can start -- I don't know what Texas is doing yet, but I know they want to do something. 01:43:45.660 --> 01:43:48.660 We can include 1830 to the list of offices. 01:43:48.660 --> 01:43:54.660 We can just have the priority list and send it and we can put it in a practical form or we can bring it into council or whatever works. 01:43:54.660 --> 01:43:56.660 But I wanted to clarify that. 01:43:56.660 --> 01:43:57.660 Yeah. 01:43:57.660 --> 01:43:58.660 Okay. 01:43:58.660 --> 01:44:06.660 And also I see where it says there that the loop, it doesn't -- I know that only the frontage roads, right, have the fundings. 01:44:06.660 --> 01:44:07.660 Yeah. 01:44:07.660 --> 01:44:11.660 So the loop, we need to probably change that to TBD. 01:44:11.660 --> 01:44:12.660 Yeah. 01:44:12.660 --> 01:44:16.660 They're pretty much committed to the frontage roads, but we're not going to settle for that. 01:44:16.660 --> 01:44:17.660 Right. 01:44:17.660 --> 01:44:18.660 I'll change that. 01:44:18.660 --> 01:44:19.660 Okay. 01:44:19.660 --> 01:44:20.660 Thank you. 01:44:20.660 --> 01:44:21.660 Okay. 01:44:21.660 --> 01:44:22.660 Appreciate it. 01:44:22.660 --> 01:44:23.660 All right. 01:44:23.660 --> 01:44:24.660 Thank you. 01:44:24.660 --> 01:44:27.660 Let's move on to ING staff reports and future considerations. 01:44:27.660 --> 01:44:28.660 Okay. 01:44:28.660 --> 01:44:32.660 So how about the matrix? 01:44:32.660 --> 01:44:47.660 I think we're -- 01:44:47.660 --> 01:45:10.660 So I think a lot of these are going to be a discussion and mobility plan discussion. 01:45:10.660 --> 01:45:19.660 We plan on bringing about four work session items in the next two, three months and the 01:45:19.660 --> 01:45:25.660 one-way, two-way streets and, you know, carol, boulevard, possible reducing number lanes. 01:45:25.660 --> 01:45:32.660 I don't want to have a discussion about Malone right lane versus the bike lanes and I think 01:45:32.660 --> 01:45:40.660 Mark can give you there are a couple options that he's going to talk quickly about. 01:45:40.660 --> 01:45:45.660 So just a quick reminder, this is northbound Malone where it reaches University of a bike 01:45:45.660 --> 01:45:52.660 lane on the right side and then two vehicle lanes and so there's concerns about conflicts 01:45:52.660 --> 01:45:57.660 with vehicles and bicycles and what we've decided to do is add signage there. 01:45:57.660 --> 01:46:05.660 So there's two signs staggered from the end of the intersection and those will warn bicyclists 01:46:05.660 --> 01:46:13.660 that the lane is ending there and so to be aware and watch for vehicles, right turning 01:46:13.660 --> 01:46:15.660 movements and so forth. 01:46:15.660 --> 01:46:20.660 And that -- they're not up yet but the request is in with the operations department. 01:46:20.660 --> 01:46:26.660 So I think they've built it in their schedule so the signage should be up in the next few 01:46:26.660 --> 01:46:29.660 weeks depending on their schedule. 01:46:29.660 --> 01:46:35.660 We're working through the next rest of the items. 01:46:35.660 --> 01:46:38.660 I think we're planning to bring some of this further. 01:46:38.660 --> 01:46:43.660 I think mobility plan discussion will get into details of some of the concerns that 01:46:43.660 --> 01:46:44.660 you have. 01:46:44.660 --> 01:46:46.660 And then I think that's it. 01:46:46.660 --> 01:46:51.660 We've covered a lot of them that were here that we've put on the agenda like the small 01:46:51.660 --> 01:46:56.660 transportation projects and MOU, turn back MOU. 01:46:56.660 --> 01:46:58.660 So we're slowly getting through this. 01:46:58.660 --> 01:47:00.660 Any new items? 01:47:00.660 --> 01:47:05.660 Well, yeah, I want to put a little sharper focus on the last item. 01:47:05.660 --> 01:47:17.660 The comment came to me from a citizen in the context of focusing on a specific road segment 01:47:17.660 --> 01:47:21.660 but I'm already communicating this through Stuart just to underscore it. 01:47:21.660 --> 01:47:33.660 This is about West Oak Street between Bradley and Monte Bray. 01:47:33.660 --> 01:47:39.660 So a perception that I think it's true is that that was resurfaced or reconstructed, 01:47:39.660 --> 01:47:43.660 I don't know, something was done to it within recent memory and I don't know if anyone's 01:47:43.660 --> 01:47:46.660 been out to drive it yet but it's a roller coaster. 01:47:46.660 --> 01:47:48.660 And, you know, what does that reflect? 01:47:48.660 --> 01:47:51.660 Does that reflect building to insufficient standards? 01:47:51.660 --> 01:47:52.660 You know, is it supposed to be like that? 01:47:52.660 --> 01:47:54.660 I kind of doubt it. 01:47:54.660 --> 01:47:55.660 You know, what does that tell us? 01:47:55.660 --> 01:47:58.660 Okay, so we'll add the context here because that was missing. 01:47:58.660 --> 01:48:05.660 It's a very general question here but West Oak Street and I think they are working on 01:48:05.660 --> 01:48:10.660 a response back what exactly we did and how much of their work was redone versus just, 01:48:10.660 --> 01:48:13.660 you know, resurfaced as opposed to completely reconstructed. 01:48:13.660 --> 01:48:18.660 But it appears to be, I'll wait to hear. 01:48:18.660 --> 01:48:19.660 Okay. 01:48:19.660 --> 01:48:20.660 All right. 01:48:20.660 --> 01:48:21.660 Any new additions? 01:48:21.660 --> 01:48:22.660 Test one of the bricks. 01:48:22.660 --> 01:48:25.660 So I have a couple of questions. 01:48:25.660 --> 01:48:27.660 I don't know if it needs to go on the matrix or not. 01:48:27.660 --> 01:48:29.660 Maybe just a quick update. 01:48:29.660 --> 01:48:33.660 Are we planning on having lights on Mayhill? 01:48:33.660 --> 01:48:34.660 Yes. 01:48:34.660 --> 01:48:35.660 Okay. 01:48:35.660 --> 01:48:41.660 Because it is extremely dark right now and so we're having, you know, people are driving 01:48:41.660 --> 01:48:47.660 faster and there's no lights and in the dark, like I almost seriously had an accident like 01:48:47.660 --> 01:48:48.660 that. 01:48:48.660 --> 01:48:50.660 The street lights are supposed to be installed on both sides of Mayhill. 01:48:50.660 --> 01:48:51.660 Okay. 01:48:51.660 --> 01:48:52.660 Very good. 01:48:52.660 --> 01:49:01.660 Second, is it possible to increase the walk time in the pilot downtown just by a couple 01:49:01.660 --> 01:49:02.660 of seconds? 01:49:02.660 --> 01:49:04.660 We can definitely evaluate that. 01:49:04.660 --> 01:49:06.660 Let me talk to Maria about that and see. 01:49:06.660 --> 01:49:07.660 Okay. 01:49:07.660 --> 01:49:09.660 Because I've heard pretty good feedback so far. 01:49:09.660 --> 01:49:14.660 It's just that for some people, and I know that we wanted to be able to get at least 01:49:14.660 --> 01:49:19.660 two sections and some of it by kind of the last section you're running or kind of, you 01:49:19.660 --> 01:49:21.660 know, there's some people that can't really run. 01:49:21.660 --> 01:49:25.660 So if you could just look and see if that is warranted. 01:49:25.660 --> 01:49:26.660 Sure. 01:49:26.660 --> 01:49:30.660 That's really the feedback I've heard for that, but generally really good. 01:49:30.660 --> 01:49:36.660 A lot of that, you know, we knew going into it without the diagonals already established 01:49:36.660 --> 01:49:41.660 in the ADA that as a pilot program, we knew there would be a bit of a tradeoff. 01:49:41.660 --> 01:49:45.660 And that was one of the things that we wanted to see where we were with the pilot program. 01:49:45.660 --> 01:49:50.660 You can definitely get better efficiency by going and putting in the diagonal so that 01:49:50.660 --> 01:49:52.660 people aren't having to rush at the same time. 01:49:52.660 --> 01:49:53.660 Yeah. 01:49:53.660 --> 01:49:54.660 Yeah. 01:49:54.660 --> 01:49:55.660 We'll take a look at that. 01:49:55.660 --> 01:49:56.660 Okay. 01:49:56.660 --> 01:49:57.660 Thank you. 01:49:57.660 --> 01:49:58.660 That's all. 01:49:58.660 --> 01:49:59.660 That's what we're running. 01:49:59.660 --> 01:50:02.660 I've got one on 2499 Hickory Creek. 01:50:02.660 --> 01:50:06.660 I noticed I took the barrels down and made that a right turn only. 01:50:06.660 --> 01:50:07.660 That's correct. 01:50:07.660 --> 01:50:08.660 And there's a pavement marker. 01:50:08.660 --> 01:50:09.660 But I didn't notice. 01:50:09.660 --> 01:50:14.660 I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of people just flumming through there because it looks 01:50:14.660 --> 01:50:18.660 like if you don't see the thing on the pavement, you're not going to know that you've got to 01:50:18.660 --> 01:50:19.660 do it. 01:50:19.660 --> 01:50:22.660 I don't know if there's anything that can be done. 01:50:22.660 --> 01:50:23.660 Yeah. 01:50:23.660 --> 01:50:27.660 If you put reflectors down to make it look like a right turn, the problem is people turning 01:50:27.660 --> 01:50:30.660 left are going to run over those and tear them up. 01:50:30.660 --> 01:50:37.660 The more signage, maybe the little, I don't know what you call it, little bumps that make 01:50:37.660 --> 01:50:38.660 you crash. 01:50:38.660 --> 01:50:39.660 Rumble strips? 01:50:39.660 --> 01:50:40.660 Yeah. 01:50:40.660 --> 01:50:41.660 Rumble strips. 01:50:41.660 --> 01:50:42.660 Something on there to alert people a little bit better. 01:50:42.660 --> 01:50:43.660 Let's take a look at that and see. 01:50:43.660 --> 01:50:44.660 That's awesome. 01:50:44.660 --> 01:50:45.660 It's a textile facility. 01:50:45.660 --> 01:50:46.660 It is a textile facility. 01:50:46.660 --> 01:51:01.660 What is the one that hasn't been communicated by some councilmember breaks that we see on 01:51:01.660 --> 01:51:03.660 Facebook a lot and people find frustrating. 01:51:03.660 --> 01:51:06.660 Is it going under Teasley where there's like a right turn lane? 01:51:06.660 --> 01:51:10.660 Shannon Barnhill and Karen Crothers are particularly vocal about it. 01:51:10.660 --> 01:51:13.660 Is there something very confusing about a turn lane there? 01:51:13.660 --> 01:51:15.660 Do you know what I'm talking about? 01:51:15.660 --> 01:51:18.660 Yeah, I think it's the Teasley intersection. 01:51:18.660 --> 01:51:23.660 There's a light there and I've sent it in once. 01:51:23.660 --> 01:51:28.660 It's a textile thing, but something we've vocalized. 01:51:28.660 --> 01:51:31.660 What location is it in? 01:51:31.660 --> 01:51:36.660 It's Teasley in 35, so it's that intersection there, I think. 01:51:36.660 --> 01:51:39.660 I also thought I heard one about Fort Worth Drive. 01:51:39.660 --> 01:51:42.660 It's something about turn lanes or going straight. 01:51:42.660 --> 01:51:45.660 We can find that for you, but yeah. 01:51:45.660 --> 01:51:47.660 Whatever it is, it seems very irritating. 01:51:47.660 --> 01:51:49.660 I can't quite follow it. 01:51:49.660 --> 01:51:59.660 I'll put it on the matrix and then if you have more information, we can add it to the discussion. 01:51:59.660 --> 01:52:04.660 If nothing else, do you want to share anything about street closure report or are we done? 01:52:04.660 --> 01:52:06.660 No, I think it's all in the report. 01:52:06.660 --> 01:52:09.660 Any questions I can answer. 01:52:09.660 --> 01:52:10.660 Great. 01:52:10.660 --> 01:52:12.660 Thanks everyone very much. 01:52:12.660 --> 01:52:16.660 We'll see you again in about an hour, 10 minutes. 01:52:16.660 --> 01:52:22.660 I'll adjourn at 1052. 01:52:22.660 --> 01:52:24.660 Thank you.