1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,560
 All right. Welcome everyone to our first virtual meeting for the Traffic Safety Commission.

2
00:00:09,560 --> 00:00:15,380
 Just a few points of housekeeping. In order to keep on track one, we do have a hard stop

3
00:00:15,380 --> 00:00:23,480
 at five o'clock. Is that correct, Becky? And so that's our allotted time. We will be, I'll

4
00:00:23,480 --> 00:00:29,760
 be transitioning this to Mr. Krutka in just a few seconds, but just to establish if you

5
00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:36,320
 have a question, I think there we can use the chat function or you can raise your hand

6
00:00:36,320 --> 00:00:43,040
 or one of the things we did like to has been working out well is if we could hold the questions

7
00:00:43,040 --> 00:00:48,320
 as much as possible to the end and let the presentations complete and then come back

8
00:00:48,320 --> 00:00:53,440
 and have a question and answer session. I believe that's been working better. So again,

9
00:00:53,440 --> 00:01:00,200
 welcome and I will now hand it off to Mr. Krutka. Chairman.

10
00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:07,720
 Okay. Thank you. And it's been a while since we've met. So hopefully I'm not too rusty

11
00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:11,680
 on running one of these meetings, but please let me know in this virtual environment if

12
00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:17,200
 there's anything that I get wrong. If my audio is slow at all, please let me know also I

13
00:01:17,200 --> 00:01:23,360
 can turn off my video to make sure that my audio is clear. Okay. So I think we're going

14
00:01:23,360 --> 00:01:30,560
 to start right into it. The first item on, well, first we, we do have a quorum, sorry,

15
00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:36,120
 for there's a little bit of noise in the background here. So we do have a quorum to start the

16
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:42,080
 meeting. So call to order. And so our first item that we can go ahead and do is we have

17
00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:46,880
 a presentation from members of the public. And I do believe we have one submission from

18
00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:55,640
 the public that we could hear now. No, we do not have any callers for presentations

19
00:01:55,640 --> 00:02:01,440
 from members of the public. Okay. Good deal. Sorry. I thought we had one. Okay. Well then

20
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:10,800
 we'll just go right into item A TSC 20-010 and consider the approval of minutes for the

21
00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:19,360
 March 2nd, 2020 meeting. Do we have a, for the approval of minutes, are there any corrections

22
00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:29,600
 that need to be added to the minutes? I didn't see any corrections. All right. All those

23
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:35,040
 in favor of approving the minutes, we can use an I, I guess we can do an I or a hand

24
00:02:35,040 --> 00:02:46,120
 raise too. Either way. I see Clay, Melissa, Connie, and I all approve. Okay. Seems like

25
00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:53,120
 then that one passes and we are on to item B TSC 20-011. Receive a report, hold a discussion

26
00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:58,240
 and give feedback regarding staff's recommendations to update the speed and parking ordinances.

27
00:02:58,240 --> 00:03:02,800
 Sorry, I was on mute. That's on me. Actually, we've got to take a roll call vote because

28
00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:09,320
 we're doing it by zoom. Okay. So we don't show everybody at every moment because we

29
00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:12,080
 just can't show it all. So we've got to do a roll call vote. You've just got to go down

30
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:18,640
 the list of those who are here. Sorry. Okay. So I'll just go down the list. Kevin sample's

31
00:03:18,640 --> 00:03:35,240
 not here. Um, let's go with, uh, clay, Connie. Yes. Is Jeff here? Jeff is not here. Jeff

32
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:48,240
 is absent. I correct. Yes, that's correct. He's, he's not here. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.

33
00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:58,240
 My video was slow for a second there and Melissa here. Okay. And, and I also vote I, um, does

34
00:03:58,240 --> 00:04:11,080
 that satisfy everything, Trey? You're muted, Trey. You're muted. I'm still muted there.

35
00:04:11,080 --> 00:04:17,400
 I looked on it, but it didn't undo it. I guess I'm supposed to be able to do a space bar,

36
00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:21,760
 but I can't ever get to the work for some reason. Okay. Um, going down the roll and

37
00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:31,880
 then just, you announced that it passed and we can move on. Okay. All right. So, uh, item,

38
00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:39,480
 item a TSE, uh, 2010, sorry, doing it like this. We've got to see your face while you're

39
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:49,520
 the one talking. Okay. My, my, my video is, is running slow, which is why I'm turning

40
00:04:49,520 --> 00:05:04,560
 it off. So hopefully you can, sorry, everyone. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Sorry. The,

41
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:09,520
 my internet connection is having some problems and that's why I turned my video off, but,

42
00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:15,360
 um, it seems like, uh, we ran down the roll and there's approval. So, um, item a TSE

43
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:24,320
 2010, uh, passed. And so if that's okay, then we will move on to item B TSE 20 dash zero

44
00:05:24,320 --> 00:05:28,760
 11, or see report or discussion and give feedback regarding the staff's recommendation to update

45
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:38,520
 the speed and parking ordinances. Hi. Good morning, everybody. I'm going to go ahead

46
00:05:38,520 --> 00:05:52,280
 and share my screen and go through our presentation. See here. All right. And can we all see the

47
00:05:52,280 --> 00:06:00,840
 PowerPoint presentation? Yes. Perfect. So, um, I'm Haley Salazar with capital product,

48
00:06:00,840 --> 00:06:09,160
 capital projects, and I'm here today to talk about an update to our speed and parking ordinances.

49
00:06:09,160 --> 00:06:14,560
 And the objective in doing this is to improve our transportation management, uh, as far

50
00:06:14,560 --> 00:06:19,560
 as the ordinances go for both of these areas. So both of our speed limits and our parking

51
00:06:19,560 --> 00:06:25,840
 ordinances. And we're doing this, um, Haley, this is Billy with the TV. We need that full

52
00:06:25,840 --> 00:06:39,000
 screen please. Thank you. Is that better? Yes. Perfect. All right. So in order to understand

53
00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:44,400
 why we're proposing the update, I want to run through how we currently handle the ordinances

54
00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:50,360
 for parking and speed limits. Right now, the way it works is each time we pass a new rule

55
00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:56,000
 for either parking or a speed limit, it gets passed as an ordinance. This is an independent

56
00:06:56,000 --> 00:07:02,280
 exercise. The language is gathered. The recommendation is made. It pounces passes through council,

57
00:07:02,280 --> 00:07:08,360
 any other governing bodies, and it gets adopted and stored into laser fish, which is our repository

58
00:07:08,360 --> 00:07:14,920
 for all of our ordinances. And there's all specific to certain areas. So each street

59
00:07:14,920 --> 00:07:21,120
 typically gets its own ordinance. Each parking rule gets its own ordinance. And therefore

60
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:26,560
 we're left with the transportation system that's governed by many separate ordinances

61
00:07:26,560 --> 00:07:34,240
 that get passed over time. But what we would like to do in order to streamline the process

62
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:39,400
 and not have to make sure that we're in accordance with all these separate ordinances, we want

63
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:46,480
 to make one holistic ordinance for all of our speed limits and another for all of our

64
00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:52,400
 parking ordinances. And what we'll do is we're going to divide them into tables. So for example,

65
00:07:52,400 --> 00:07:57,040
 if we're talking about the speed ordinance, we have a table that calls out all of the

66
00:07:57,040 --> 00:08:02,880
 speeds for our park streets, our textile roads, city streets, and school zones. And it's all

67
00:08:02,880 --> 00:08:08,180
 listed in one table. So you can get a glance any time we deviate from prima facie, which

68
00:08:08,180 --> 00:08:13,680
 is the 30 miles an hour that you can assume you can drive a road unless listed otherwise

69
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:19,600
 by an ordinance. You can get one quick glance at all of these changes to that 30 miles an

70
00:08:19,600 --> 00:08:26,880
 hour. Anytime we make an update, we would actually update the entire table and put that

71
00:08:26,880 --> 00:08:32,480
 into the AIS that we bring before the group. And then that way, when the updates are made

72
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:37,920
 and the presentations are made, we're actually okaying an update to the entire table and

73
00:08:37,920 --> 00:08:42,460
 nothing gets lost in translation. There's no singleton ordinance out there that can

74
00:08:42,460 --> 00:08:46,960
 get stored in laser fish and not applied to the whole table. We know we've got one place

75
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:52,800
 to look as well, which is really going to help the organization. In order to do this

76
00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:58,960
 overhaul, it is going to be quite a process. The first go around, we're very invested in

77
00:08:58,960 --> 00:09:05,080
 just making sure that the table we pull together as our master table is of the highest quality.

78
00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:10,800
 So what we did with the speed ordinance, and we're going to do with the parking ordinance

79
00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:16,160
 as well, is first we're going to visit the code and find what codified tables are there.

80
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:22,520
 And we're going to QC them to the best of our ability. Then we're going to go into GIS

81
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:29,160
 and pull all of the centerline data reflecting our streets and compare to the table and then

82
00:09:29,160 --> 00:09:35,480
 make any amendments that we need to the codified table based on what we find in GIS. We're

83
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:40,760
 also going to research all of our existing ordinances compared to the data set we have,

84
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:45,800
 really do an overhaul through laser fish, which again is our repository. We're also

85
00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:50,960
 going to drive the streets and compare what signage we see out there, just in case there's

86
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:57,520
 some signage that doesn't have an ordinance that we can find to back it. We're also going

87
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:03,720
 to QC all of this data against Cartograph, which is our asset management system for our

88
00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:09,800
 traffic system and our street system as well. Once we reviewed all of these separate areas,

89
00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:13,920
 we're going to compile all that data and then put that into the master table that we're

90
00:10:13,920 --> 00:10:18,720
 going to work off of going forward. And that'll be what we take to the boards and to council

91
00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:25,000
 for approval. And so the next steps are going to be pretty aggressive because we feel this

92
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:30,960
 is very important to get all of our data in one easy source of truth to reference. We

93
00:10:30,960 --> 00:10:35,520
 want to shoot for August, September to get our speed ordinance table pulled together.

94
00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:39,240
 And then we're going to repeat that process, kind of figure out what did we learn in doing

95
00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:45,060
 that and then apply that to our parking ordinances that we would hope to take before the group

96
00:10:45,060 --> 00:10:51,240
 in October. And essentially that's it. We just wanted to share our plan with the group

97
00:10:51,240 --> 00:11:04,840
 to get any feedback. Any questions or comments? I have one question. So can you tell me just

98
00:11:04,840 --> 00:11:12,040
 kind of practically what kind of will this result in like changes to existing speed limits?

99
00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:17,080
 Can you just kind of give me like some of the practical applications of these changes?

100
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:25,400
 Absolutely. So there should not be any surprises for a motorist out on the road. Right now,

101
00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:31,280
 if you go to our municipal code and you look up where our speed limits are listed, where

102
00:11:31,280 --> 00:11:37,340
 they deviate from prima facie, so where they're not 30 miles an hour, there's a table of maybe

103
00:11:37,340 --> 00:11:45,440
 about 12 streets listed in there. And I think most of the people on the call here could

104
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:49,860
 probably think of at least 12 streets off the top of their head, if not quite a few

105
00:11:49,860 --> 00:11:55,680
 more that deviate from that 30 mile an hour. So we really just want to make sure that we

106
00:11:55,680 --> 00:12:04,100
 have the ordinances to back up what's on the road. And so really, it's just a better articulation

107
00:12:04,100 --> 00:12:10,960
 of what's out there. And also, we anticipate that we might find some old outdated ordinances

108
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:16,400
 that don't necessarily have street signs representing them on the road that we really haven't been

109
00:12:16,400 --> 00:12:21,840
 following and there's no reason to keep them. Some of them are quite old. We've got some

110
00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:26,840
 ordinances from back in the 70s and 80s. We're even finding where the context of the road

111
00:12:26,840 --> 00:12:32,880
 and the development around it has changed. So really, the implication we hope for is

112
00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:37,560
 just kind of better management and a better source of truth for those enforcing the management

113
00:12:37,560 --> 00:12:41,660
 as well as our residents driving on the roads.

114
00:12:41,660 --> 00:12:48,300
 Does anyone else have questions?

115
00:12:48,300 --> 00:12:52,680
 Are you saying that this is going to help you with continuity also?

116
00:12:52,680 --> 00:12:59,800
 Yes. Yes. It will definitely help all of us. And I think it's going to be huge just being

117
00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:05,320
 able to have one source of truth in the code instead of all of these independent ordinances

118
00:13:05,320 --> 00:13:06,560
 out there.

119
00:13:06,560 --> 00:13:09,480
 Great. Thank you.

120
00:13:09,480 --> 00:13:11,960
 Thank you.

121
00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:20,160
 Haley, one thing we've had a discussion about in the past was even the idea of a more uniform

122
00:13:20,160 --> 00:13:25,240
 speed limit around the square, like surrounding the square area. Some cities have started

123
00:13:25,240 --> 00:13:32,160
 to do that as a way to give motorists a more clear sense they're entering a more pedestrian

124
00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:38,320
 active area. Is that something this process could be aligned with this process or would

125
00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:41,920
 that be totally separate? Is that something that could be considered?

126
00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:50,120
 Well, I think certainly any changes we make, we'll want to make sure that that's reflected

127
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:56,520
 in this table of ordinances. Any changes to existing speed limits and signage we have

128
00:13:56,520 --> 00:14:00,520
 now, that would be some additional effort and probably some studies that we would have

129
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:07,640
 to go through and just collaboration with our department. But the transparency of these

130
00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:16,360
 speed limits and rules will definitely come into play with this project.

131
00:14:16,360 --> 00:14:18,920
 Thank you.

132
00:14:18,920 --> 00:14:23,920
 Is there any other questions?

133
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:37,320
 Okay. If there's no other questions, then we can move to our next item. Our next item

134
00:14:37,320 --> 00:14:44,540
 is CTSC 20-012. Receive an updated report and hold a discussion regarding initiatives

135
00:14:44,540 --> 00:14:49,280
 to reduce wrong way driving.

136
00:14:49,280 --> 00:14:52,840
 Hello, everybody. That would be me again.

137
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:58,000
 Haley, can you make the screen big again, please?

138
00:14:58,000 --> 00:15:03,080
 I hit share. There's a bit of a lag. Is it, can we all see it on full screen now?

139
00:15:03,080 --> 00:15:04,080
 Yes.

140
00:15:04,080 --> 00:15:10,720
 Fantastic. All right. So this item is just us talking about our initiatives to reduce

141
00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:17,320
 wrong way driving on one way streets. And so the objective of the wrong way driving program

142
00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:22,520
 is to increase our public safety just within the right of ways. And it's through the implementation

143
00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:28,520
 of countermeasures that reduce wrong way driving on one way streets. Some background on why

144
00:15:28,520 --> 00:15:35,520
 we're working on this. This initiative was one of the initiatives we did not satisfy

145
00:15:35,520 --> 00:15:41,560
 in the 2019 policy bundle submission. For those unfamiliar with the policy bundle, it

146
00:15:41,560 --> 00:15:48,720
 is funding that we can get through cog if we satisfy 20 initiatives that are part of

147
00:15:48,720 --> 00:15:58,520
 mobility 2045. And we did, we satisfied over half of the 20. So we got $750,000 in credits

148
00:15:58,520 --> 00:16:03,700
 that we could use towards projects, which was really exciting. One of the board members

149
00:16:03,700 --> 00:16:09,520
 in mobility had mentioned if there were any initiatives though, that we did not satisfy

150
00:16:09,520 --> 00:16:15,260
 that we should look into and initiatives to reduce wrong way driving really stood out.

151
00:16:15,260 --> 00:16:20,500
 So we decided to take a deeper dive and see what, what this means and how it could be

152
00:16:20,500 --> 00:16:25,760
 applied to the city of Denton's transportation system to improve everything we have on the

153
00:16:25,760 --> 00:16:32,160
 road. Um, a little bit of statistics in wrong way driving that we found as we studied this

154
00:16:32,160 --> 00:16:40,280
 initiative was that in 2018 we had 170 wrong way crashes on rural roads. So that's roads

155
00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:45,640
 through cities, much like the city of Denton. We're not talking highways here. Um, they

156
00:16:45,640 --> 00:16:50,440
 are typically head on collisions, which means they're the most fatal cause you can double

157
00:16:50,440 --> 00:16:57,120
 the speed of the two cars, um, that collide, but most of them do occur between six at night,

158
00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:01,580
 six in the morning. And there's an even smaller window between midnight and three AM where

159
00:17:01,580 --> 00:17:08,080
 these crashes occur. Um, they're most often on weekends, most often they involve alcohol

160
00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:16,080
 and there's an over-representation of drivers under 25 or over 70. And when we consider

161
00:17:16,080 --> 00:17:21,920
 that we have a population that's relatively young here in the city of Denton, due to the

162
00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:28,960
 draw of the universities, we also have a very vibrant nightlife here as well as, um, with

163
00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:33,560
 these new drivers kind of here in town, a lot of them, it's their first year and they're

164
00:17:33,560 --> 00:17:41,200
 not sure, um, how to drive around one way roads. And so we thought given the statistics

165
00:17:41,200 --> 00:17:44,680
 and the fact that we do have a few one way roads, we wanted to go ahead and adopt this

166
00:17:44,680 --> 00:17:51,600
 program and just make the most of it to keep our drivers safe. So the first step we did

167
00:17:51,600 --> 00:17:57,720
 was we targeted all of the one way roads within the city of Denton. And so you can see a map

168
00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:01,900
 that we highlighted from our GIS system with just some of the one way roads we really want

169
00:18:01,900 --> 00:18:08,440
 to target first. So of course we've got the service roads along 35, but Elm, Locust, Oak

170
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:17,920
 and Hickory, um, Shady Oaks, Mayhill, Teasley, Carroll, and Loop 288. And there's also several

171
00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:22,720
 more roads we want to continue to target, but these, because they're so heavily traveled,

172
00:18:22,720 --> 00:18:28,920
 we thought what a great opportunity to increase safety on these roads first. And we've already

173
00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:35,320
 installed some countermeasures at Stewart and Loop 288. So for those not familiar with

174
00:18:35,320 --> 00:18:42,760
 this intersection, as you head north on Stewart towards Loop 288, we had one, and you can

175
00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:47,080
 look in the picture in the top right hand corner, we had one little signage that was

176
00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:52,920
 an arrow that said this way only. But if the driver was distracted, they could easily make

177
00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:57,780
 a left turn going the wrong way. But if you look across the bottom of this slide now,

178
00:18:57,780 --> 00:19:02,600
 you can see the new wrong way driving signs that our traffic crew has installed in that

179
00:19:02,600 --> 00:19:08,600
 area. So if a driver does in fact turn left or coming southbound, if they turn the wrong

180
00:19:08,600 --> 00:19:13,760
 way as well and miss that arrow, these large reflective signs are there letting the driver

181
00:19:13,760 --> 00:19:18,800
 know that they need to turn around quick. Luckily, another statistic with wrong way

182
00:19:18,800 --> 00:19:24,920
 driving is that the majority of drivers do correct and turn around before any incident

183
00:19:24,920 --> 00:19:30,840
 is had. And so if we do in fact have motorists going the wrong way, we're happy these signs

184
00:19:30,840 --> 00:19:38,460
 here are here to help alert them. The next area of focus is going to be Locust and Parkway.

185
00:19:38,460 --> 00:19:43,180
 So this is going at the intersection of Locust and Parkway. We actually just got word today

186
00:19:43,180 --> 00:19:49,400
 from TextDOT that we have approval to go ahead and install some signs here as well just to

187
00:19:49,400 --> 00:19:55,040
 let the driver know if they've turned the wrong way. Similar to 288 and Stewart, all

188
00:19:55,040 --> 00:19:59,540
 we have here is an arrow. So these red signs will help communicate that the driver is going

189
00:19:59,540 --> 00:20:06,840
 the wrong way if they do in fact miss the arrow. We also wanted to partner with our

190
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:11,720
 citizens. We do have a lot of roads we're trying to manage and our citizens have been

191
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:20,320
 fantastic letting us know where opportunities lie. So our webmaster Sarah Fullwood has done

192
00:20:20,320 --> 00:20:25,680
 something really cool. She set up an area on the website where wrong way driver people

193
00:20:25,680 --> 00:20:31,200
 can go and log where they think a wrong way driving sign could be of benefit to be installed.

194
00:20:31,200 --> 00:20:35,580
 Let us know. This is live on the website and then we'll get our crews out there right away.

195
00:20:35,580 --> 00:20:42,000
 Our traffic team is fantastic. We can actually print signs in house. So the turnaround time

196
00:20:42,000 --> 00:20:48,000
 once we see a need is very quick to get those signs out there especially if the opportunity

197
00:20:48,000 --> 00:20:54,160
 is within a city of Denton right away. So that's really exciting as well. Another project

198
00:20:54,160 --> 00:21:02,660
 that we're looking into is called a FLIR sensor product. Sorry, project. And this FLIR sensor,

199
00:21:02,660 --> 00:21:07,840
 what it does is it actually has a sensor that will pick up on vehicles going the wrong way

200
00:21:07,840 --> 00:21:14,520
 and it will illuminate with LEDs one of those wrong way driving signs. Instead of just being

201
00:21:14,520 --> 00:21:21,880
 a reflective sign, this is a bright flashing sign that really gets the driver's attention.

202
00:21:21,880 --> 00:21:28,700
 Where Avenue A and Hickory Street meet, that used to be a two-way street that we very recently

203
00:21:28,700 --> 00:21:34,920
 converted to a one-way street. And so this area is one of the targets that we're looking

204
00:21:34,920 --> 00:21:41,360
 at installing this sensor because many drivers who have been used to turning down Avenue

205
00:21:41,360 --> 00:21:46,920
 A where they can no longer turn might just happen to not see that arrow sign and then

206
00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:54,200
 the no longer the one-way sign as well. So this will be a huge countermeasure to prevent

207
00:21:54,200 --> 00:22:00,360
 folks from kind of going on autopilot and turning the wrong way down the street. And

208
00:22:00,360 --> 00:22:05,720
 so our recommendations are to continue our focus on a proactive wrong way driving prevention

209
00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:10,200
 program. We really want to get out there and find all the areas that can be improved with

210
00:22:10,200 --> 00:22:15,400
 those wrong way signs. We do want to continue to use a variety of preventative measures.

211
00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:22,600
 So as nice as that sensor sign was with the LED edge lit, it is a bit cost prohibitive,

212
00:22:22,600 --> 00:22:26,800
 but the signs, the static reflective signs are not. So we want to use those everywhere

213
00:22:26,800 --> 00:22:31,960
 we can and on key areas where we can provide additional safety, we want to look at those

214
00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:36,560
 alternative tools like the LED edge lit signs. And then of course we want to continue to

215
00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:43,480
 partner with the public to get signs communicating the correct directions in the wrong ways wherever

216
00:22:43,480 --> 00:22:57,640
 we can. And that's it. Any questions?

217
00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:03,880
 Thank you Haley for that presentation. I do have one question. Is part of the one-way

218
00:23:03,880 --> 00:23:10,480
 road initiative also to identify like unnecessary or unsafe one-way roads that could potentially

219
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:16,000
 just be made two-way? Have we looked at that as part of the solution too?

220
00:23:16,000 --> 00:23:21,980
 That's a great question. So right now the scope of the program is just to install the

221
00:23:21,980 --> 00:23:28,560
 signage. However, in doing that, we are definitely going to take note in any roads that don't

222
00:23:28,560 --> 00:23:36,120
 make sense to be one-way. If we see something and think, this really should not be a one-way

223
00:23:36,120 --> 00:23:41,520
 this is very dangerous with or without signs. We will certainly take a look at that and

224
00:23:41,520 --> 00:23:47,160
 then do any studies we have to to confirm whether or not we should continue as such

225
00:23:47,160 --> 00:23:56,120
 or look into making it a two-way road. Haley, can I ask a question?

226
00:23:56,120 --> 00:24:00,440
 Yes, sir. Okay, I grew up here. So I was here when they

227
00:24:00,440 --> 00:24:06,560
 changed these one ways, Locust and Helm, which was a lot of fun for even the people that

228
00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:16,320
 lived here. The only one that I see that they have problems at is that Locust and University

229
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:22,040
 right there where the CBS is that little shopping center. You catch people coming out of there

230
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:27,560
 and going down to the light, you know, pulling out of the parking lot either way, both ways.

231
00:24:27,560 --> 00:24:32,800
 Excuse me. That's the only thing that I've noticed the other day that was dangerous and

232
00:24:32,800 --> 00:24:40,360
 I've seen somebody do it, I think it was the day before yesterday, come out the wrong way.

233
00:24:40,360 --> 00:24:47,560
 He got a surprise. There was a policeman sitting there. So, but that's a bad intersection.

234
00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:51,240
 That's about the only one that I've really seen that everybody seems to not really pay

235
00:24:51,240 --> 00:24:56,380
 attention to when they come out of either one of those parking lots. That one's very

236
00:24:56,380 --> 00:25:03,120
 dangerous. But I would like to say I was here when they had Locust and Helm were two-way

237
00:25:03,120 --> 00:25:08,480
 and they were deadly. Even back when I was growing up here and like I say, I ain't gonna

238
00:25:08,480 --> 00:25:15,260
 tell my age, but they were deadly. But when they changed them to one ways, it helped the

239
00:25:15,260 --> 00:25:22,760
 traffic. It really did move it, in other words, University back to the square. So, and like

240
00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:28,720
 you say, there's some that, you know, you just have to look at. That's the only intersection

241
00:25:28,720 --> 00:25:32,480
 that I really see that's kind of dangerous right there. You know, everybody wants to

242
00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:40,200
 go down to University and go, you know, yes, unfortunately, I've witnessed that several

243
00:25:40,200 --> 00:25:45,680
 times as well. And I've only lived here 17 years and I can probably tell you quite a

244
00:25:45,680 --> 00:25:52,440
 few times. I've seen that but we are working on getting the permits for that intersection

245
00:25:52,440 --> 00:25:58,120
 as well. These, some of them do take a little bit longer to get the permits when we're coordinating

246
00:25:58,120 --> 00:26:03,560
 with TechStop right away, which I believe that is, but we are absolutely working to

247
00:26:03,560 --> 00:26:07,800
 secure the authority to put signs in there as well.

248
00:26:07,800 --> 00:26:10,480
 All right. Thank you very much.

249
00:26:10,480 --> 00:26:13,480
 Thank you.

250
00:26:13,480 --> 00:26:18,320
 Sorry, go ahead.

251
00:26:18,320 --> 00:26:24,680
 So to Connie's comment, I go down that street pretty often to go home. When I used to commute

252
00:26:24,680 --> 00:26:29,080
 from TWU, now that we're home, I don't do it as often, but yeah, absolutely. People

253
00:26:29,080 --> 00:26:32,840
 always, so you know, I end up flashing my lights to get people to realize they're going

254
00:26:32,840 --> 00:26:37,920
 the wrong way. That one, absolutely. But then I was going to ask, are you guys going to

255
00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:42,080
 try and do anything with the downtown square? Because I've actually stopped somebody who

256
00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:49,600
 was going the wrong way on Locust. They were going south, not north on Locust. And so I

257
00:26:49,600 --> 00:26:54,960
 was curious if you guys were going to do anything about that or talk about like different kind

258
00:26:54,960 --> 00:26:58,320
 of signage for that space. Thanks.

259
00:26:58,320 --> 00:27:05,320
 We can certainly look into the intersections along Elm and Locust to see if any of them

260
00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:11,040
 would do better with that LED edge lit sign. Right now, all up and down the Elm and Locust

261
00:27:11,040 --> 00:27:15,920
 corridors, we're targeting to get permits for wrong way signs. We had a resident reach

262
00:27:15,920 --> 00:27:22,800
 out to us just mentioning the opportunity to put them in at Parkway and Locust, how

263
00:27:22,800 --> 00:27:27,200
 I showed earlier. And as we looked at that, we kind of thought, well, let's look up and

264
00:27:27,200 --> 00:27:32,360
 down the corridor. And there certainly is a lot of opportunity up and down the entire

265
00:27:32,360 --> 00:27:37,200
 corridor to improve safety. So we'll keep in mind and definitely give the committee

266
00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:42,160
 an update if we find out there are certain areas within that corridor that we want to

267
00:27:42,160 --> 00:27:45,840
 go ahead and use that edge lit signage on.

268
00:27:45,840 --> 00:27:48,520
 Thank you.

269
00:27:48,520 --> 00:27:57,480
 Are there any other comments?

270
00:27:57,480 --> 00:28:11,080
 Okay. Well, we look forward to hearing back on that. So, okay, our next item is item,

271
00:28:11,080 --> 00:28:19,120
 let's see, DTSC 20-013. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction

272
00:28:19,120 --> 00:28:24,080
 regarding the 2020 Ditten Mobility Plan update with a focus on the one-way versus two-way

273
00:28:24,080 --> 00:28:29,360
 traffic analysis. So I'm following right on into that same topic.

274
00:28:29,360 --> 00:28:45,920
 Exactly. So I will be presenting this as Brian, let me share my screen. Okay. Can everybody

275
00:28:45,920 --> 00:28:57,880
 see that now? Making sure I'm not on mute. Okay. So I've changed this presentation. Originally

276
00:28:57,880 --> 00:29:02,760
 it was one-way versus two-way, but there's really no versus because both one-way streets

277
00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:08,360
 and two-way streets have an appropriate use. So I'm really, today I want to talk about

278
00:29:08,360 --> 00:29:17,500
 the characteristics of one-way and two-way streets and how they might impact the mobility

279
00:29:17,500 --> 00:29:24,520
 plan as we move forward. So one of the requests that council has made of our mobility plan

280
00:29:24,520 --> 00:29:33,000
 is that we evaluate Elm, Locust, Hickory and Oak relative to one-way operation as they

281
00:29:33,000 --> 00:29:40,680
 currently are and two-way operation and what would be the impacts of those changes. So

282
00:29:40,680 --> 00:29:46,200
 if you ask any two traffic engineers are two-way streets better than one-way streets, you will

283
00:29:46,200 --> 00:29:53,880
 get three answers. Yes, no, and it depends. And so it's this, it depends answer that I

284
00:29:53,880 --> 00:30:01,220
 want to focus on today because it does depend on the goals of the community and the leadership.

285
00:30:01,220 --> 00:30:07,520
 So several goals are listed here. Safety is always the highest on our, this is from the

286
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:12,240
 traffic engineering standpoint, that's our highest priority is to make our roadways safe

287
00:30:12,240 --> 00:30:18,160
 for all users. And so we look at pedestrian safety, cyclist safety, the number versus

288
00:30:18,160 --> 00:30:24,000
 the severity of crashes. So is it better to have fewer crashes, but some of them may be

289
00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:32,920
 more severe or is it better to have more crashes and just with a less of a dollar impact and

290
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:40,460
 a life impact. So, and again, lower versus higher speed. So safety is very important

291
00:30:40,460 --> 00:30:47,200
 to the determination of how these roadways need to operate. Economic vitality. So how

292
00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:52,520
 do the businesses that are on a given roadway, how are they affected by a one-way versus

293
00:30:52,520 --> 00:30:59,240
 a two-way operation? Ease of access, shorter travel distances. Mobility options. How do

294
00:30:59,240 --> 00:31:04,560
 one-way streets differ from two-way streets when it comes to offering ped and bike facilities,

295
00:31:04,560 --> 00:31:09,960
 when it comes to serving transit and even on street parking. And then the last one,

296
00:31:09,960 --> 00:31:15,300
 which typically would have been the first one, maybe 20 years ago, is decreased congestion,

297
00:31:15,300 --> 00:31:21,120
 but now we're learning to live with a little congestion. And so do we look at a roadway

298
00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:27,720
 network that provides less delay, improve vehicle flow, and then the negative side when

299
00:31:27,720 --> 00:31:33,440
 you get to congestion is this traffic migration issue. Are we pushing people from the roadways

300
00:31:33,440 --> 00:31:39,480
 that we have and intend for the drivers to use? Are we pushing them to parallel facilities

301
00:31:39,480 --> 00:31:44,320
 that may or may not be appropriate? So I'm going to go through these one at a time. Safety

302
00:31:44,320 --> 00:31:51,040
 again is the first and foremost concern. Relative to pedestrians, if you're crossing the main

303
00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:56,520
 street and it's a one-way street, you only have to look one direction. So that's a plus.

304
00:31:56,520 --> 00:31:59,240
 Two-way streets, you've got traffic coming from both directions. You need to make sure

305
00:31:59,240 --> 00:32:05,740
 that there's a safe gap or that both drivers see you. The streets that we're talking about

306
00:32:05,740 --> 00:32:10,560
 are all multi-lane. So there are two lanes in each direction or more, and they're currently

307
00:32:10,560 --> 00:32:16,780
 one way. So one of the downfalls of that is for a pedestrian is as you start off the curb,

308
00:32:16,780 --> 00:32:21,600
 you see a gap in the traffic, you're going to start walking. That first car stops, it

309
00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:27,000
 sees you, it comes to a stop, and it may shadow you from the car on the other lane. So that's

310
00:32:27,000 --> 00:32:35,920
 a concern of not only pedestrians, but cyclists as well. On two-way streets, because again,

311
00:32:35,920 --> 00:32:42,840
 we're talking about these four streets, if you convert them from two lanes in one direction

312
00:32:42,840 --> 00:32:47,200
 to one lane in each direction, you've opened up that visibility so there's not that shadowing

313
00:32:47,200 --> 00:32:53,840
 issue. It's a little bit safer for pedestrians. You've got better visual contact with drivers.

314
00:32:53,840 --> 00:33:00,000
 One-way streets typically will have very, very few or much fewer or much lower number

315
00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:08,180
 of conflict points. If we have a two-way main street and a two-way side street, when you

316
00:33:08,180 --> 00:33:14,240
 add in the vehicular and the pedestrian/cyclist conflict points, you've got over 40. Roughly

317
00:33:14,240 --> 00:33:22,000
 half of that if you've got a one-way main street, even with a two-way side street. Every

318
00:33:22,000 --> 00:33:27,440
 time we have a conflict point, that is a potential crash. It's a potential crash location. You've

319
00:33:27,440 --> 00:33:32,960
 got vehicles or pedestrians that are basically trying to use the same piece of pavement at

320
00:33:32,960 --> 00:33:40,640
 the same time. One-way streets. Can I ask a quick question on that? Do we know how that

321
00:33:40,640 --> 00:33:47,160
 plays out? Is there good data on not just the potential, but the actual results of the

322
00:33:47,160 --> 00:33:51,720
 number of wrecks at those conflict points versus one-way versus two-way? I'll get to

323
00:33:51,720 --> 00:34:01,720
 that in a second. Yes, it's a trade-off. On one-way streets, you have fewer but more severe

324
00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:05,680
 crashes because your speeds are typically higher or certainly have the potential for

325
00:34:05,680 --> 00:34:12,640
 being higher. On two-way streets, because you've introduced those conflict points, you'll

326
00:34:12,640 --> 00:34:19,280
 typically have a greater number, but with the slower speeds, you'll have less severe

327
00:34:19,280 --> 00:34:25,480
 crashes. It's kind of a trade-off. It's certainly something that we have to take into consideration

328
00:34:25,480 --> 00:34:29,460
 when we look at the main street volumes and the side street volumes and what our crash

329
00:34:29,460 --> 00:34:35,840
 history is. I do have a slide on crash history in here. Just a few slides ahead. We talked

330
00:34:35,840 --> 00:34:43,040
 about the higher speeds and greater severity of crashes on one-way, slower speeds, and

331
00:34:43,040 --> 00:34:49,760
 less severe but more frequent crashes on a two-way street. Here's some crash history.

332
00:34:49,760 --> 00:34:56,720
 This is from 2010 to 2020. This is all the crash data that I could gather from the TxDOT

333
00:34:56,720 --> 00:35:05,280
 online system. Oak and Hickory, you can see you've got fairly consistent crash numbers

334
00:35:05,280 --> 00:35:12,680
 throughout the corridor. You've got 617 crashes during those 10 years. No fatalities on record,

335
00:35:12,680 --> 00:35:20,560
 but 110 injuries. Elm and Locust, much higher volumes. I'm sorry, but north is to the right.

336
00:35:20,560 --> 00:35:28,240
 You see that 219, that's University, 380. You've got some hot spots. Downtown around

337
00:35:28,240 --> 00:35:39,840
 the square, 322. You get up to Congress or so. You've got 104, 113, and then up to University,

338
00:35:39,840 --> 00:35:46,240
 you've got 219, but you've got fairly low crash volumes in between there. That's just

339
00:35:46,240 --> 00:35:51,640
 something to look at. We've got almost 1,100 crashes in 10 years, the two fatalities and

340
00:35:51,640 --> 00:35:59,340
 362 injuries. Not all of those injuries, some are minor, some are severe. I don't have a

341
00:35:59,340 --> 00:36:04,680
 split of the severity of those injuries. That just gives you an idea of the crash history

342
00:36:04,680 --> 00:36:10,360
 that we see with the current one-way configuration.

343
00:36:10,360 --> 00:36:21,960
 These include cars? Yes, these are all modes. The next goal or topic is economic vitality.

344
00:36:21,960 --> 00:36:28,480
 This is one that a lot of people don't think about, but one-way streets, and I think Haley

345
00:36:28,480 --> 00:36:37,080
 did bring it up in the one-way wrong way, they're not as easy for visitors to navigate.

346
00:36:37,080 --> 00:36:41,440
 If you're not from here, you don't know which streets are one-way. You don't know if there's

347
00:36:41,440 --> 00:36:46,120
 a parallel one-way in the other direction, or if there is, you don't know which side.

348
00:36:46,120 --> 00:36:52,340
 Is it to the east, to the west, to the north, to the south? It's confusing or potentially

349
00:36:52,340 --> 00:36:57,920
 confusing for people trying to drive in and around town. Two-way streets take a lot of

350
00:36:57,920 --> 00:37:03,400
 that away. They allow access from all directions. You know that you can go one block over and

351
00:37:03,400 --> 00:37:09,880
 continue in the same direction, or you can take a U-turn and head back in the other direction.

352
00:37:09,880 --> 00:37:14,880
 There's no confusion as to whether or not the next intersection you come to is going

353
00:37:14,880 --> 00:37:26,940
 to offer a turn restriction. Another item that's related to the friendliness of one-way

354
00:37:26,940 --> 00:37:34,800
 versus two-way. So what I've picked here, and I just picked Giuseppe's Italian restaurant,

355
00:37:34,800 --> 00:37:41,640
 and a depiction of the travel distance on a one-way system versus on a two-way system.

356
00:37:41,640 --> 00:37:47,220
 So the orange line is with the current one-way configuration. If you're coming from the east

357
00:37:47,220 --> 00:37:54,640
 on University, you come over, you take Elm South, you cut across, and you come back up

358
00:37:54,640 --> 00:38:02,040
 onto Locust to get to your destination versus just simply turning. If Locust was two-way,

359
00:38:02,040 --> 00:38:05,920
 then you simply turn on Locust and travel to the restaurant and turn. So this is just

360
00:38:05,920 --> 00:38:14,160
 kind of an example of how that can add travel distance and travel. The industry, we try

361
00:38:14,160 --> 00:38:21,240
 to minimize vehicle miles of travel. It helps on emissions, it helps on congestion, and

362
00:38:21,240 --> 00:38:27,800
 it eliminates some potential crashes. So again, this is just a depiction of how a one-way

363
00:38:27,800 --> 00:38:34,300
 system is a little bit less efficient than a two-way system. So mobility options. On

364
00:38:34,300 --> 00:38:39,520
 a one-way street, typically you will have a bike lane in one direction. On a two-way

365
00:38:39,520 --> 00:38:43,560
 street, the expectation is that there will be a bike lane in both directions if you're

366
00:38:43,560 --> 00:38:54,000
 providing bike facilities. So it becomes again a trade-off or a balance as to how do we provide

367
00:38:54,000 --> 00:38:59,960
 all modes of travel on those streets that really want it. So Hickory and Oak each have

368
00:38:59,960 --> 00:39:05,880
 a bike lane in one direction or the other. If those streets were converted, now we have

369
00:39:05,880 --> 00:39:12,280
 the question, do we take away on street parking to provide a bike lane in the new direction,

370
00:39:12,280 --> 00:39:19,380
 or do we simply say we're going to maintain a bike lane on Hickory that is eastbound and

371
00:39:19,380 --> 00:39:24,960
 will maintain a bike lane on Oak that is westbound, and that serves as a couplet. But for people

372
00:39:24,960 --> 00:39:30,380
 using a bike, it's a little bit more confusing because you expect, again, if I'm on a roadway

373
00:39:30,380 --> 00:39:34,200
 that provides bike lanes, typically if it's a two-way road, there's going to be a bike

374
00:39:34,200 --> 00:39:38,400
 lane in each direction. So that's again another consideration that has to be taken into account

375
00:39:38,400 --> 00:39:44,880
 when we talk about converting from one way to two-way. This next one relates to primarily

376
00:39:44,880 --> 00:39:53,040
 deliveries, but also to transit because both maneuvers are very similar. The delivery vehicle

377
00:39:53,040 --> 00:40:01,480
 tends to park and either load or unload, and it is the same maneuver for transit, although

378
00:40:01,480 --> 00:40:05,600
 typically a much shorter time. But if you see on the left-hand side of your screen,

379
00:40:05,600 --> 00:40:11,640
 it's Hickory currently. We've got a delivery truck, and he's blocked a lane, but we have

380
00:40:11,640 --> 00:40:18,120
 that second lane eastbound where motorists can drive around and not have to wait for

381
00:40:18,120 --> 00:40:24,560
 that truck to move. So the other side of the screen is also Hickory. It's a two-way section

382
00:40:24,560 --> 00:40:31,040
 of Hickory, and you see a delivery van. I believe that's a FedEx van. And that vehicle

383
00:40:31,040 --> 00:40:37,320
 is blocking a lane, but there is no other lane. So anybody who's traveling eastbound

384
00:40:37,320 --> 00:40:42,440
 has to wait for this vehicle to clear or has to wait for a gap in traffic that's large

385
00:40:42,440 --> 00:40:47,880
 enough to provide a safe maneuver around that parked vehicle. So that's just another consideration

386
00:40:47,880 --> 00:40:54,120
 again that takes because the assumption that as we looked at the conversion from one-way

387
00:40:54,120 --> 00:40:58,680
 to two-way, one of the base assumptions is that we're not reconstructing these roadways.

388
00:40:58,680 --> 00:41:04,160
 So the curb-to-curb distance is what we have. We're not going to widen to get another lane

389
00:41:04,160 --> 00:41:08,440
 or to put an extra rule of parking. What we have is what we have, and how can we best

390
00:41:08,440 --> 00:41:14,200
 utilize that? And does it make sense to convert from one-way to two-way? And again, this is

391
00:41:14,200 --> 00:41:20,160
 talking about the on-street parking may limit or preclude an on-street bike lane in either

392
00:41:20,160 --> 00:41:27,280
 direction for one-way or two-way. And that again goes back to the goals of the community.

393
00:41:27,280 --> 00:41:34,600
 What is most important? What are our priorities? Is it mobility or is it parking? And that's

394
00:41:34,600 --> 00:41:39,840
 just another element that we have to weigh. So decreased congestion. This is again, this

395
00:41:39,840 --> 00:41:46,740
 is what would be the traditional traffic engineering concern is how do we move more cars faster?

396
00:41:46,740 --> 00:41:54,480
 So one-way streets provide up to 50% more capacity per lane. So if you think about locusts

397
00:41:54,480 --> 00:42:00,920
 and how many cars it can carry, so you've got locusts in one direction and elm in another.

398
00:42:00,920 --> 00:42:07,960
 What we're saying with this is that those four lanes of travel, if you convert them

399
00:42:07,960 --> 00:42:16,240
 to two-way, just the friction that you introduce by allowing left turns in all directions significantly

400
00:42:16,240 --> 00:42:20,840
 reduces the availability, the capacity that's available to move cars in those corridors.

401
00:42:20,840 --> 00:42:25,840
 So you're not going to be able to see the same throughput that you have with the one-way

402
00:42:25,840 --> 00:42:32,240
 streets on a two-way system. One of the other things, and this is very closely related,

403
00:42:32,240 --> 00:42:38,960
 but the one-way streets allow for what we call progression. So if you're in a signalized

404
00:42:38,960 --> 00:42:46,400
 corridor, it's much easier for us to give the basically that what we call a green band.

405
00:42:46,400 --> 00:42:50,200
 So if you get to one light green, you get to the next light green, you get to the next

406
00:42:50,200 --> 00:42:54,120
 light green instead of start, stop, start, stop. Again, when you introduce those left

407
00:42:54,120 --> 00:43:03,500
 turns, that decreases the availability of that opportunity to offer that green throughout

408
00:43:03,500 --> 00:43:09,600
 the corridor because you've got to offer out green time to the opposing direction. So left

409
00:43:09,600 --> 00:43:18,960
 turns can inhibit that available throughput. And this point is very, very important, especially

410
00:43:18,960 --> 00:43:27,000
 as we look at Oak and Hickory. One-way networks, because they offer that additional capacity,

411
00:43:27,000 --> 00:43:32,960
 because they are better at moving cars in a corridor, tend to retain that traffic in

412
00:43:32,960 --> 00:43:38,960
 that corridor. When you introduce that congestion and that delay, or even if it's just perceived

413
00:43:38,960 --> 00:43:44,920
 delay for motorists, people are going to try and find a quicker route, or at least the

414
00:43:44,920 --> 00:43:49,920
 route they think is quicker. And typically that will push them on to parallel facilities.

415
00:43:49,920 --> 00:43:55,680
 Now on Elm and Locust, we've got a lot of parallel facilities. We've got Bell, we've

416
00:43:55,680 --> 00:44:03,080
 got Carroll. Eventually Riddell will be improved and offer some more capacity. But on Oak and

417
00:44:03,080 --> 00:44:06,800
 Hickory, you really have residential streets that you're going to be pushing this traffic

418
00:44:06,800 --> 00:44:11,320
 through. That's something that we don't want because that's something that is these roadways

419
00:44:11,320 --> 00:44:16,880
 were not designed to carry through traffic. They are local residential streets that you're

420
00:44:16,880 --> 00:44:22,360
 supposed to get people from their home to a collector or to an arterial using these

421
00:44:22,360 --> 00:44:28,880
 roadways and not use them as cut through. So we get a lot of those engaged debt and

422
00:44:28,880 --> 00:44:34,920
 requests for speeding through the neighborhoods and cut through traffic through the neighborhoods.

423
00:44:34,920 --> 00:44:40,800
 And by converting or by introducing that congestion, by converting one-way to two-way, we're going

424
00:44:40,800 --> 00:44:45,080
 to see more of that. And that's something we try to avoid.

425
00:44:45,080 --> 00:44:52,960
 So what I've done here is we've asked our consultant to do a comparison, prepare a comparison

426
00:44:52,960 --> 00:44:58,960
 of the one-way streets and their traffic volumes that our traffic model expects, and then convert

427
00:44:58,960 --> 00:45:03,840
 those streets. And what we're looking at is all four, Oak, Hickory, Elm, and Locust, convert

428
00:45:03,840 --> 00:45:09,760
 those to two-way and see what the impact does through the modeling process. So this is kind

429
00:45:09,760 --> 00:45:17,400
 of the baseline. This is the 2045 model with one-way roadways. And you can look at -- and

430
00:45:17,400 --> 00:45:23,680
 I don't know if you can see my cursor, but Elm and Locust, 15 to 20,000 vehicles a day

431
00:45:23,680 --> 00:45:29,080
 north of 380 and about the same, a little bit higher when you get south of University

432
00:45:29,080 --> 00:45:39,680
 and through downtown. Oak and Hickory are carrying about between 6 and 8,000 each direction.

433
00:45:39,680 --> 00:45:46,060
 So when we go to a two-way system, just the friction and the congestion, if you want to

434
00:45:46,060 --> 00:45:51,620
 call it that, that is introduced with cars now traveling in both directions and the left

435
00:45:51,620 --> 00:45:58,040
 turns that that introduces, we see the Elm and Locust north of University drops about

436
00:45:58,040 --> 00:46:02,680
 11,000. So you look at where those cars went. Well, it looks like most of them went to Carroll

437
00:46:02,680 --> 00:46:08,400
 and/or to Bell. So out of the 11,000, you've got 8,000 accounted for just in those two

438
00:46:08,400 --> 00:46:12,600
 ways. But that's okay, at least especially on the Carroll side, because that certainly

439
00:46:12,600 --> 00:46:19,000
 is designed to accommodate the traffic volumes. When you look at Oak and Hickory, you lose

440
00:46:19,000 --> 00:46:27,040
 8,000. But there's no -- and I apologize, the model is not detailing -- the printout

441
00:46:27,040 --> 00:46:33,040
 that I had didn't detail it. But these 8,000 cars are now migrating through what will be

442
00:46:33,040 --> 00:46:39,440
 neighborhood streets. So for traffic engineers, we see that as a negative one. Much rather

443
00:46:39,440 --> 00:46:44,720
 accommodate those vehicles. Even though Oak and Hickory are residential streets, they

444
00:46:44,720 --> 00:46:49,320
 have morphed into something a little bit different. The expectation is different. But when we

445
00:46:49,320 --> 00:46:57,720
 push those volumes through two-way, two-lane residential streets, we begin to see increased

446
00:46:57,720 --> 00:47:06,520
 crashes, lower pedestrian safety levels. So the Oak and Hickory is much more of a concern

447
00:47:06,520 --> 00:47:11,080
 from a safety standpoint when we talk about that migration from the main corridor to the

448
00:47:11,080 --> 00:47:16,240
 parallel corridors. And I just have one more slide here on parking. And I want to talk

449
00:47:16,240 --> 00:47:21,720
 about a couple of things. We talked about the potential of conflict with bike facilities.

450
00:47:21,720 --> 00:47:27,560
 That's certainly an issue we need to consider. And then we look at is it angle parking or

451
00:47:27,560 --> 00:47:35,360
 parallel. And so parallel offers a lot of flexibility. It gives you fewer spaces, but

452
00:47:35,360 --> 00:47:40,640
 it offers the ability to approach that parking space from either direction. So if you're

453
00:47:40,640 --> 00:47:46,080
 -- I mean, if we convert the roadway from one way to two-way, if we have parallel parking,

454
00:47:46,080 --> 00:47:50,860
 we don't have to restripe anything. They're just going to park in that area. Angle parking

455
00:47:50,860 --> 00:47:57,040
 takes twice as much of the pavement width, but it gives you more spaces. So it's kind

456
00:47:57,040 --> 00:48:03,120
 of a tradeoff. You're giving up something, either a bike lane or a travel lane, the ability

457
00:48:03,120 --> 00:48:08,600
 to provide a turn lane to add angle parking. And typically, it is associated with one direction

458
00:48:08,600 --> 00:48:17,580
 of travel. Now, the exception is the rear, the back end parking, which is sometimes not

459
00:48:17,580 --> 00:48:22,920
 as popular with certain drivers. So the angle parking and the parallel parking is something

460
00:48:22,920 --> 00:48:29,860
 we have to look at. If we decide to convert, how can we, if parking is a priority, how

461
00:48:29,860 --> 00:48:35,180
 can we optimize the utilization of that pavement to provide the greatest number of parking

462
00:48:35,180 --> 00:48:42,800
 spaces we can? So just as a summary, I know it's a lot of information. One-way streets,

463
00:48:42,800 --> 00:48:50,880
 higher capacity, a little bit less congestion, allows delivery and transit to occupy some

464
00:48:50,880 --> 00:48:57,960
 space and still provide a bypass, fewer conflict points. Negatives include the increased travel

465
00:48:57,960 --> 00:49:01,920
 distance, potentially higher traffic speeds, which could be, you know, we're talking about

466
00:49:01,920 --> 00:49:08,160
 pros and cons. Some people see the higher speed as a pro. Some people see it as a con.

467
00:49:08,160 --> 00:49:12,360
 Because of the association with the severity of crashes, I see it as a negative. And that's

468
00:49:12,360 --> 00:49:17,140
 what the next slide, the next line says, fewer but more severe crashes. And we certainly,

469
00:49:17,140 --> 00:49:22,680
 we don't want to introduce, you know, nobody wants to introduce more crashes, but we certainly

470
00:49:22,680 --> 00:49:29,780
 want to reduce or eliminate the fatalities and the severe injuries. So two-way streets,

471
00:49:29,780 --> 00:49:36,080
 lower speeds, that's a plus. Reduction in severity, but increase in number of crashes.

472
00:49:36,080 --> 00:49:40,160
 We talked about the reduction in vehicle miles of travel. Just because it's easier, you can

473
00:49:40,160 --> 00:49:46,120
 go either direction. You don't have to make that U-turn and loop around. More convenient

474
00:49:46,120 --> 00:49:56,280
 access, a little more intuitive for visitors. Better visibility for peds and cyclists. Overall,

475
00:49:56,280 --> 00:49:59,600
 more conflict points. That's, and every time we have a conflict point, that's a potential

476
00:49:59,600 --> 00:50:04,280
 crash location. So we try and minimize those. And then the potential for increased delay

477
00:50:04,280 --> 00:50:10,200
 and congestion. We may introduce the need for doubling our bike infrastructure if bike

478
00:50:10,200 --> 00:50:15,720
 facilities are deemed a priority on a roadway or in a corridor. We talked about lower capacity

479
00:50:15,720 --> 00:50:21,640
 and that negative impact for traffic to migrate to parallel streets. If the parallel streets

480
00:50:21,640 --> 00:50:26,000
 are adequate and designed to carry the traffic, that's not a negative. But if they're residential

481
00:50:26,000 --> 00:50:29,880
 streets and they're not really designed to carry high speeds or high volumes, it certainly

482
00:50:29,880 --> 00:50:36,240
 is a negative. So just to give you an idea of why you're seeing this today, council has

483
00:50:36,240 --> 00:50:41,240
 asked us to take this to, and we have taken it to the downtown Main Street. We've taken

484
00:50:41,240 --> 00:50:48,160
 it to the economic development committee, and we took it to COPWD last week, the committee

485
00:50:48,160 --> 00:50:57,720
 on persons with disabilities. And substantial support of retaining the one-way roadway network.

486
00:50:57,720 --> 00:51:05,960
 Some were based on the concern about pushing motorists into residential areas. Some concerns

487
00:51:05,960 --> 00:51:17,540
 about why are we doing this now? They're working fine. The COPWD was fairly unanimous in support

488
00:51:17,540 --> 00:51:24,160
 of the one-way because of the safety factors that they lend to pedestrians and cyclists.

489
00:51:24,160 --> 00:51:33,520
 So what we are here today to do is just present this information and get -- there is no formal

490
00:51:33,520 --> 00:51:39,320
 action. The action that we're looking for is basically a consensus on does this group

491
00:51:39,320 --> 00:51:45,780
 support the one-way or support the two-way or however you want to attack that. So I'll

492
00:51:45,780 --> 00:51:52,440
 leave that with questions and comments. Just discussion on any of the items I've presented

493
00:51:52,440 --> 00:52:03,600
 and then basically a consensus of do you support the one-way, the two-way, combination or further

494
00:52:03,600 --> 00:52:12,320
 study. So I'll open that up. >> Okay. We can open up to questions if -- for

495
00:52:12,320 --> 00:52:23,600
 Brian. >> It was a lot of information in a very short

496
00:52:23,600 --> 00:52:28,680
 time, I understand. >> Can I ask a question? Like I say, I've

497
00:52:28,680 --> 00:52:34,760
 been here and I've seen them change. Why are they wanting to go backwards? They want to

498
00:52:34,760 --> 00:52:43,280
 go back to two ways on Oak and Hickory. They'd like to go in backwards, not forwards on all

499
00:52:43,280 --> 00:52:48,440
 these. >> Well, so this request came from city council

500
00:52:48,440 --> 00:52:54,380
 as part of the mobility update. And I think it's just -- staff had made a presentation

501
00:52:54,380 --> 00:53:00,440
 and I think the mayor wanted us to hire the -- get our consultants to look at the impact,

502
00:53:00,440 --> 00:53:06,760
 do the modeling and see exactly what would happen or what we think would happen with

503
00:53:06,760 --> 00:53:11,080
 this one-way to two-way conversion. I think it might have just been a fact check. And

504
00:53:11,080 --> 00:53:22,080
 so the data seems to support in some areas the one-way streets as a better, safer option.

505
00:53:22,080 --> 00:53:26,440
 But there is that -- I was always that concerned about the high speed and severity of crashes.

506
00:53:26,440 --> 00:53:33,080
 So I think they just wanted to look at it again and have this current mobility plan

507
00:53:33,080 --> 00:53:39,680
 take a stand on whether we're going to retain the one-ways or if we should consider all

508
00:53:39,680 --> 00:53:50,360
 or part of those roadways to convert to two-way. >> I'll add a comment. Connie, this I guess

509
00:53:50,360 --> 00:53:56,540
 speaks to your question. I actually think one problem with one-way roads is it's actually

510
00:53:56,540 --> 00:54:02,000
 hard to see, to me, the damage they've done. There's been a lot of research that one-way

511
00:54:02,000 --> 00:54:08,040
 roads are very bad for the local economy, right? The Giuseppe's example is a great example.

512
00:54:08,040 --> 00:54:13,480
 You get more people who drive past our local businesses as opposed to stopping or seeing

513
00:54:13,480 --> 00:54:19,680
 them and so you get this fast. But the other thing is the loss of -- if you go on Locust,

514
00:54:19,680 --> 00:54:24,480
 it's probably one of the streets I'm most concerned with, but Elm would fit, too. It

515
00:54:24,480 --> 00:54:30,900
 is a very uninviting street for pedestrians and cyclists, right? You just feel -- you

516
00:54:30,900 --> 00:54:36,880
 feel unsafe. So we are really losing the ability to have a multimodal transportation network

517
00:54:36,880 --> 00:54:41,720
 because these streets feel unsafe. I'm very against all one-way streets pretty much except

518
00:54:41,720 --> 00:54:47,400
 for in extreme circumstances. I think they're very bad for cities, particularly in the core.

519
00:54:47,400 --> 00:54:52,740
 And I think the recent changes to Locust, in particular, are -- I'm very scared we'll

520
00:54:52,740 --> 00:54:58,220
 have a death there soon. When you come off the hill, off the square, and you pass Oak

521
00:54:58,220 --> 00:55:03,880
 off Locust, you hit a downhill area where we've removed a stoplight and we don't have

522
00:55:03,880 --> 00:55:08,460
 a crosswalk at a new -- we've got a new ramp right next to Barlin Board and we did not

523
00:55:08,460 --> 00:55:13,180
 put a crosswalk there. So people are now going to be running across and there's also a library

524
00:55:13,180 --> 00:55:17,540
 there that children and families frequent. So I'm just really concerned. I think our

525
00:55:17,540 --> 00:55:23,280
 one-way streets are bad for Denton. And so that's my argument. But there's a lot of research

526
00:55:23,280 --> 00:55:28,200
 to back up the harms they do. And you can't see the harms they do because it's lost opportunities,

527
00:55:28,200 --> 00:55:35,320
 lost economic opportunities, lost transportation opportunities that would be there if we didn't

528
00:55:35,320 --> 00:55:40,120
 have one-way streets. So that's -- so I just would like to state that I would love to see

529
00:55:40,120 --> 00:55:45,200
 those all moved to two-way streets. And I think it was a mistake to ever move them and

530
00:55:45,200 --> 00:55:49,960
 Denton would see a lot of economic growth if they went back to two-way and see more

531
00:55:49,960 --> 00:55:51,960
 bicyclists and pedestrian use.

532
00:55:51,960 --> 00:55:55,960
 >> May I speak?

533
00:55:55,960 --> 00:55:58,960
 >> Yes. Melissa, go ahead.

534
00:55:58,960 --> 00:56:06,920
 >> Okay. Thank you. Well, looking at the data that was presented, it looks like to me -- and

535
00:56:06,920 --> 00:56:10,980
 I know there's a lot of balancing that goes on with that. But it seems like to me that

536
00:56:10,980 --> 00:56:18,120
 one-way streets have a slight -- to me have a slight edge over two-way streets. But I

537
00:56:18,120 --> 00:56:26,520
 would like to ask because I am a cyclist and people do go very fast on those one-way streets.

538
00:56:26,520 --> 00:56:33,100
 And I've ridden down them before on my bike. I always -- generally when I do it, we're

539
00:56:33,100 --> 00:56:38,520
 in a group. So we have a lot more people. I'm not alone. So a lot of times we'll do

540
00:56:38,520 --> 00:56:48,080
 a two-up. But that's not always the case. So what can we do to make those streets safer

541
00:56:48,080 --> 00:56:53,360
 for cyclists and for pedestrians?

542
00:56:53,360 --> 00:57:03,480
 >> So my response would be, when TXOT hands Elm and Locust back to the city. And that's

543
00:57:03,480 --> 00:57:08,880
 in the process right now. We're taking that 77 overlay. We're taking them off system.

544
00:57:08,880 --> 00:57:14,700
 The city is going to take ownership. And we'll have a freer hand to make modifications because

545
00:57:14,700 --> 00:57:23,720
 those will be city roads and not state roads. What we can do, certainly, is look at the

546
00:57:23,720 --> 00:57:28,640
 viability of something like what we've done on Hickory where we've got -- we took parking

547
00:57:28,640 --> 00:57:36,960
 off one side and put in that separated buffered bike lane. And that can -- we can replicate

548
00:57:36,960 --> 00:57:44,240
 that on Elm and Locust. We can also, to Mr. Kretke's comment about the pedestrians, one

549
00:57:44,240 --> 00:57:48,000
 of the things we're doing at Parkway -- and I'm not sure if we've ordered the hardware

550
00:57:48,000 --> 00:57:53,560
 yet, but it's in the process -- because we took the signal out and people were used to

551
00:57:53,560 --> 00:57:59,520
 being able to cross with the traffic signal, we're going to put in the edge lit LED crosswalk

552
00:57:59,520 --> 00:58:06,880
 signs so that you activate or passively activate. But when somebody wants to cross, those signs

553
00:58:06,880 --> 00:58:11,280
 -- and we're going to have four of them, so you'll have a lot of LEDs blinking at one

554
00:58:11,280 --> 00:58:18,080
 time -- but we're going to have them give a visual cue to the drivers that something's

555
00:58:18,080 --> 00:58:21,200
 changed. They're not going to blink. They're not going to flash all the time. But when

556
00:58:21,200 --> 00:58:26,120
 somebody activates it or when somebody's there waiting to cross, if we use a passive sensor,

557
00:58:26,120 --> 00:58:30,520
 then the signs will go active. And we can do that as well throughout the corridor. And

558
00:58:30,520 --> 00:58:35,960
 Haley talked about the one way/wrong way. We can look at some modifications to the speed

559
00:58:35,960 --> 00:58:43,960
 limits. There are a number of tools that we can utilize to calm the traffic in those corridors.

560
00:58:43,960 --> 00:58:48,560
 A lot of it is visual. If we could do something like the Hickory bike lane, just having taken

561
00:58:48,560 --> 00:58:53,560
 the parking off one side and having those pylons -- which I'm going to ask -- what do

562
00:58:53,560 --> 00:58:58,760
 y'all think of those white pylons that we've installed on Hickory?

563
00:58:58,760 --> 00:59:06,680
 I haven't seen them yet. I'll be honest. So we've talked about it so many times with

564
00:59:06,680 --> 00:59:11,840
 this group. Now that we actually installed them, we're just trying to get some feedback

565
00:59:11,840 --> 00:59:20,540
 on do they work? Are they too far apart? Are they too short? Just some general feedback.

566
00:59:20,540 --> 00:59:28,640
 But that certainly -- I can add, Brian. I've seen them. I was very excited the first time

567
00:59:28,640 --> 00:59:34,720
 I saw it after all of our talking to see them there. So I'm glad to see that. I'm very curious

568
00:59:34,720 --> 00:59:40,640
 to see how cars react to them. I think the physical, you know, the vertical nature of

569
00:59:40,640 --> 00:59:43,720
 them will hopefully lead to it. But it'll be interesting to see. I'm very interested

570
00:59:43,720 --> 00:59:48,260
 to see about their durability if they're hit and when they're hit. So that'll be interesting.

571
00:59:48,260 --> 00:59:53,400
 You know me. I'm always for bigger structures for bike lanes and things like that. But I'm

572
00:59:53,400 --> 00:59:55,160
 interested to see how they work.

573
00:59:55,160 --> 01:00:00,520
 Okay. So, again, to answer your question, how do we make those more friendly for cyclists

574
01:00:00,520 --> 01:00:07,080
 and pedestrians, there's a number of tools that we have. But on Elm and Locust specifically,

575
01:00:07,080 --> 01:00:12,320
 it's going to be a lot easier for us to utilize those tools once the city owns those roadways.

576
01:00:12,320 --> 01:00:14,720
 Thank you.

577
01:00:14,720 --> 01:00:24,640
 Daniel? Okay. I'm kind of with Melissa on the one ways and also with Connie. I appreciate

578
01:00:24,640 --> 01:00:34,960
 Connie's historical lived experience here. And I think that those are good. I've written

579
01:00:34,960 --> 01:00:42,000
 Elm and Locust on my bicycle quite often. And those shoulders, could those be part of

580
01:00:42,000 --> 01:00:43,720
 the bike lane?

581
01:00:43,720 --> 01:00:50,520
 Certainly. And we've looked at, again, we're talking about utilizing the existing pavement.

582
01:00:50,520 --> 01:00:55,320
 So we're not going to widen. But you've got shoulders on both sides. So what if you move

583
01:00:55,320 --> 01:01:00,520
 the traffic over and put a wider shoulder on one side? And I've actually measured some

584
01:01:00,520 --> 01:01:04,840
 of those and I believe in most of the areas where you've got those shoulders, if we combine

585
01:01:04,840 --> 01:01:10,960
 them, that we could do a fairly decent bike lane. It may not be quite as substantial as

586
01:01:10,960 --> 01:01:17,040
 hickory. But we may not be able to put the same size of pylon. We may have to go to something

587
01:01:17,040 --> 01:01:20,120
 a little bit smaller. But I think we can accomplish something.

588
01:01:20,120 --> 01:01:28,640
 Right. I would encourage us to do protected bike lanes with bollards there. And that will

589
01:01:28,640 --> 01:01:37,920
 be another very good, highly visible point for all of our road users to see. And it will

590
01:01:37,920 --> 01:01:44,440
 start getting some of our people that are hesitant to be on streets to be more comfortable,

591
01:01:44,440 --> 01:01:52,360
 to be on them, see that the city's taking these connected, protected bikeways seriously.

592
01:01:52,360 --> 01:01:58,760
 And one of the other things that we can do is just overall narrowing the roadways of

593
01:01:58,760 --> 01:02:05,760
 the travel lanes. So when tech stop stripes a road, they like a 12 foot lane and then

594
01:02:05,760 --> 01:02:12,520
 the outside lane wants to be 14. When the city takes ownership of Elm and Locust, then

595
01:02:12,520 --> 01:02:17,760
 we have a much freer hand of providing an 11 foot or a 10 and a half foot lane. Narrowing

596
01:02:17,760 --> 01:02:23,880
 those lanes typically has the effect of slowing traffic down as well. So not only does it

597
01:02:23,880 --> 01:02:28,440
 give us more room for the bike facility, but it also makes those drivers, even if it's

598
01:02:28,440 --> 01:02:32,200
 a one way facility, drive a little more slowly.

599
01:02:32,200 --> 01:02:38,680
 Right. And downtown also, I don't think two way would work very well, particularly with

600
01:02:38,680 --> 01:02:46,780
 all the deliveries that, you know, one beer truck takes up a whole lane. And if you make

601
01:02:46,780 --> 01:02:52,380
 that two lanes, then you're really stuck. And I was actually improperly ticketed on

602
01:02:52,380 --> 01:03:00,760
 Oak for off or unloading my mobility impaired wife, because I had to pull over to the side

603
01:03:00,760 --> 01:03:13,920
 lane because there was no parking access. But there is that issue also.

604
01:03:13,920 --> 01:03:20,480
 If I can, if I can piggyback a little bit on your comments, Clay, right now, I mean,

605
01:03:20,480 --> 01:03:24,800
 Elm almost has a bike lane because there's parking kind of on the street. It's not so

606
01:03:24,800 --> 01:03:31,120
 unused that I usually bike in that. So I, Brian, I agree with your comment that there's

607
01:03:31,120 --> 01:03:35,760
 a lot of road space to use and Locust coming off of Eagle, you know, going towards the

608
01:03:35,760 --> 01:03:40,920
 square too. It's just so wide when you're coming down that street and you can sometimes

609
01:03:40,920 --> 01:03:47,100
 take a picture with three lanes with no cars, you know, in it all the way down the stretch.

610
01:03:47,100 --> 01:03:52,240
 And so some of some of these don't really have the traffic counts needed for that many

611
01:03:52,240 --> 01:03:57,880
 lanes anyway. So I think we do have some road to work with. So I doubt that. But Clay, I

612
01:03:57,880 --> 01:04:04,760
 wonder, I can't answer your point to about a good drop off place, particularly for, for

613
01:04:04,760 --> 01:04:09,160
 someone with disabilities. I wonder if more loading could happen in the alleys. I was

614
01:04:09,160 --> 01:04:12,120
 going to ask about that. It doesn't really answer the second part of your point, Clay.

615
01:04:12,120 --> 01:04:21,360
 And I think that's a well, this was in front of a medical office where she services. And

616
01:04:21,360 --> 01:04:31,720
 eventually we did get a handicap spot put over there. But then I also saw the someone

617
01:04:31,720 --> 01:04:43,000
 who works in one of those buildings park there all day long.

618
01:04:43,000 --> 01:04:50,240
 There are there other comments. I have one more thought that just came to me. And that's

619
01:04:50,240 --> 01:04:56,220
 because I work for Texas Women's University. But I, I know that they've talked about trying

620
01:04:56,220 --> 01:05:02,480
 to close Bell and I don't know where that's at. But it sounds like to me, correct me if

621
01:05:02,480 --> 01:05:10,760
 I'm wrong, that if we, if we went from a one way to a two way on Locust, that could affect

622
01:05:10,760 --> 01:05:16,400
 Bell? Would that be a yes or a no?

623
01:05:16,400 --> 01:05:20,920
 So we do have a study underway that's, it's the same consultant and we're using the same

624
01:05:20,920 --> 01:05:26,920
 travel demand model, looking at the Bell Street closure. Basically part of it right there

625
01:05:26,920 --> 01:05:35,520
 in the middle of campus. I think it's from Chapel to Texas. No, anyway, forget for sure.

626
01:05:35,520 --> 01:05:42,480
 But what the impact that has is actually because the Bell traffic can no longer go through,

627
01:05:42,480 --> 01:05:51,880
 it pushes more traffic over to, to Locust and Elm. And so the only countermeasure that

628
01:05:51,880 --> 01:06:01,000
 we've, it is, it is a good one is the improvement of Redel to a four lane roadway. So, and those

629
01:06:01,000 --> 01:06:08,160
 plans are underway. I don't know that there's construction dollar that have been identified,

630
01:06:08,160 --> 01:06:14,400
 but we are looking to widen that facility from that two lane wide, two lane with parking

631
01:06:14,400 --> 01:06:20,880
 to a four lane roadway. And that will more than offset the, the traffic that's displaced

632
01:06:20,880 --> 01:06:27,160
 from Bell. Bell doesn't really carry the same traffic loading because it's for, it's one

633
01:06:27,160 --> 01:06:34,080
 lane in each direction, but as, as Elm and Locust do, but providing that improved Redel

634
01:06:34,080 --> 01:06:38,520
 offsets that displacement. So we're looking at that. We'll be presenting that to council

635
01:06:38,520 --> 01:06:45,520
 in the future. Okay. I guess I was just thinking in the sense that if there's less, if there's

636
01:06:45,520 --> 01:06:51,520
 less traffic on Locust because now it's a two way, would it get pushed over to Bell?

637
01:06:51,520 --> 01:06:55,760
 And if Bell got closed, then would that make it even worse? That's where I was going. Right.

638
01:06:55,760 --> 01:07:03,080
 And we've looked at all the scenarios and the consultant has looked at all two way,

639
01:07:03,080 --> 01:07:08,320
 all one way, half two way, half one way, and then all of those same scenarios with Bell

640
01:07:08,320 --> 01:07:15,360
 closed and without it closed. So we've, we've got, we've got a matrix of traffic volume

641
01:07:15,360 --> 01:07:21,840
 maps that show the impact. None of them are deal breakers and none of them are just throw

642
01:07:21,840 --> 01:07:27,840
 everything into complete failure. But again, it's, it's, it's okay. If, if Bell wants

643
01:07:27,840 --> 01:07:33,560
 to close and we convert Elm and Locust to two way, then that really heightens the need

644
01:07:33,560 --> 01:07:39,560
 to improve the Redel corridor so that it can carry that displaced traffic rather than push

645
01:07:39,560 --> 01:07:45,720
 it over to two streets that now have a less capacity than they had before. Okay. Thank

646
01:07:45,720 --> 01:07:51,360
 you. Melissa and Brian, is there talk of Bell closing still? Is that a, is there movement

647
01:07:51,360 --> 01:07:57,920
 on that? Yes, definitely full steam ahead. We're, we're looking at the, the university

648
01:07:57,920 --> 01:08:02,380
 is trying to create a pedestrian corridor, a wide pedestrian corridor through the heart

649
01:08:02,380 --> 01:08:07,960
 of campus. What we're looking at is creating some mini roundabouts on either end of that

650
01:08:07,960 --> 01:08:14,440
 so that your traffic is, is diverted East West instead of North South. Obviously it's

651
01:08:14,440 --> 01:08:20,980
 going to displace some people who use Bell as a through street, not associated with TW

652
01:08:20,980 --> 01:08:24,400
 and I think that's what Melissa's concern was. Well, if you're going to put, you take

653
01:08:24,400 --> 01:08:27,900
 that and then you're going to push it over to Elm and Locust and if they're two way with

654
01:08:27,900 --> 01:08:33,320
 less capacity, then what's that going to do? Because Carroll is pretty far to the West

655
01:08:33,320 --> 01:08:37,680
 to carry somebody who's, you know, wants to, wants to be on Bell. That's several streets

656
01:08:37,680 --> 01:08:43,080
 over and my response was that is what's going to heighten the need for us to complete and

657
01:08:43,080 --> 01:08:50,480
 implement that Redel corridor improvement. That's, Senator, I guess I don't understand

658
01:08:50,480 --> 01:08:55,920
 the closing of Bell because it seems like cars and people actually interact there like

659
01:08:55,920 --> 01:09:00,120
 they should in an urban environment. Cars move very slowly through the center of campus,

660
01:09:00,120 --> 01:09:05,720
 not once you get off down the hill that those areas can be a little better. But I'm surprised

661
01:09:05,720 --> 01:09:10,040
 to hear that's, that's moving forward because I think it's a good, it's a good safe way

662
01:09:10,040 --> 01:09:16,920
 to move traffic and keep pedestrians, bicyclists and, and cars that interact very, very smoothly

663
01:09:16,920 --> 01:09:21,800
 there from I worked there for, you know, four years right on, right on Bell and never really

664
01:09:21,800 --> 01:09:26,480
 noticed the problem. So when I say it's moving full speed ahead, our portion, the study is

665
01:09:26,480 --> 01:09:34,280
 moving. Gotcha. I, I don't think there's, there's, there is no guarantee that council

666
01:09:34,280 --> 01:09:40,280
 will adopt that change or the university will push that to occur. But the study has occurred.

667
01:09:40,280 --> 01:09:46,720
 We do have a final report and those travel demand model runs have been, have been made.

668
01:09:46,720 --> 01:09:51,460
 So we have the answers. Now we have the information to present to council for them to weigh and

669
01:09:51,460 --> 01:09:56,040
 make a decision. So that's when I say it's, it's moving forward. Our portion, the analysis

670
01:09:56,040 --> 01:10:03,000
 portion is moving forward. Will that come to us? Certainly. Okay. Cause I believe it

671
01:10:03,000 --> 01:10:10,600
 came to us earlier and I think then it'd be a good time to address it. We're kind of addressing

672
01:10:10,600 --> 01:10:19,460
 it a little bit now, different traffic of east and west. All this ties together. Yes.

673
01:10:19,460 --> 01:10:25,440
 So we kind of have to discuss it together. And my concern is less Riddell. Cause I think

674
01:10:25,440 --> 01:10:32,100
 the traffic you're pushing out to Riddell is going to be more eastbound. And once they

675
01:10:32,100 --> 01:10:38,680
 hit university, they're going to come back. But the other point is I'm concerned about

676
01:10:38,680 --> 01:10:46,920
 the traffic that would go through the neighborhood between Bell and Locust down Oakland and some

677
01:10:46,920 --> 01:10:55,760
 of the side streets there. You could be putting quite a bit of traffic into those neighborhoods.

678
01:10:55,760 --> 01:11:03,120
 So anyway, for next discussion. I think it's a good point, Clay, that this will come back

679
01:11:03,120 --> 01:11:10,720
 to us. We are being mindful of time where, you know, got about 35 minutes before we have

680
01:11:10,720 --> 01:11:24,760
 a hard stop. Are there any other comments or questions on this item? Okay. Brian, do

681
01:11:24,760 --> 01:11:29,600
 you need anything else from us? Right. And this is, this was just a discussion, correct?

682
01:11:29,600 --> 01:11:39,280
 Unless you want to, and again, it's just a consensus of, is the commission in support

683
01:11:39,280 --> 01:11:45,480
 of or one way or in support of two way or, and I think we have a mix. So I'm not sure

684
01:11:45,480 --> 01:11:53,400
 if we have a consensus, but we can probably just rely on the minutes to reflect the comments

685
01:11:53,400 --> 01:11:59,280
 from each of the commissioners present. Right. This was posted as a give staff direction,

686
01:11:59,280 --> 01:12:06,600
 not make a recommendation. Okay. All right. Well, if there's no more comments, then we

687
01:12:06,600 --> 01:12:15,120
 will move on to our next item. Another presentation. ETSC 20-014, receive a report, hold a discussion

688
01:12:15,120 --> 01:12:19,720
 and give staff direction regarding an update of the all walk crosswalk pilot program at

689
01:12:19,720 --> 01:12:25,240
 the downtown intersections at Oak and down Oak and Locust, Hickory and down and Hickory

690
01:12:25,240 --> 01:12:34,960
 and Locust. All right. And that's me again. So, and I'm going to make a change here on

691
01:12:34,960 --> 01:12:47,200
 the fly because we took this presentation to the committee on persons with disability

692
01:12:47,200 --> 01:12:51,560
 and they made the comment that it shouldn't say all walk, it just say, we should say something

693
01:12:51,560 --> 01:13:02,720
 else. And so we're choosing all way crosswalk. So in your packet, I included some spreadsheet

694
01:13:02,720 --> 01:13:07,540
 information and what this presentation does is just basically summarize the public input

695
01:13:07,540 --> 01:13:14,020
 that we got through the online survey and through the other means that our, our public

696
01:13:14,020 --> 01:13:22,580
 outreach people gathered this data and it shows the response from a driver or pedestrian

697
01:13:22,580 --> 01:13:28,980
 or from a cyclist on whether or not the all way crosswalk is a positive or a negative.

698
01:13:28,980 --> 01:13:33,480
 So it's a series of questions and I just picked some of the ones that made the most sense

699
01:13:33,480 --> 01:13:39,600
 to graphically represent, you know, and I use the pie charts, obviously. So the first

700
01:13:39,600 --> 01:13:47,200
 question was I am a and a visitor resident employee student or business owner. And this

701
01:13:47,200 --> 01:13:53,520
 70% is the Denton residents. So primarily the people who responded to this survey are

702
01:13:53,520 --> 01:14:03,620
 residents who were simply visiting downtown either for work or for dining or entertainment

703
01:14:03,620 --> 01:14:10,520
 is this just kind of gives you an idea of who's answering the questions. The second

704
01:14:10,520 --> 01:14:16,160
 question is have you traveled through an all walk all way crosswalk intersection and 92%

705
01:14:16,160 --> 01:14:24,040
 of the people who responded were positive and eight had not. And so most of the people

706
01:14:24,040 --> 01:14:32,160
 who responded to this actually abused it. So we can trust that they're familiar with

707
01:14:32,160 --> 01:14:38,400
 the way the operation the signals operate and the way the crosswalks operate. And then

708
01:14:38,400 --> 01:14:43,280
 this is the question that says are you are you an auto driver a cyclist transit passenger

709
01:14:43,280 --> 01:14:53,200
 or pedestrian 44% were drivers were motorists and 51% were pedestrians. So primarily pedestrians

710
01:14:53,200 --> 01:14:59,760
 and drivers very limited 5% total on transit and cyclists. So we didn't see as many cyclists

711
01:14:59,760 --> 01:15:06,600
 as we probably hope but we got a lot of pedestrians and a good number of drivers as well. This

712
01:15:06,600 --> 01:15:13,560
 question is regarding the safety for pedestrians and is it safer than before which is if you

713
01:15:13,560 --> 01:15:19,400
 remember that's the way we had these crosswalks working as the pedestrians and drivers would

714
01:15:19,400 --> 01:15:32,320
 move at the same time. We did have the potential for what we call a vehicle initial interval

715
01:15:32,320 --> 01:15:37,440
 so that the pedestrians get a signal first but with the with the all way crosswalk nothing

716
01:15:37,440 --> 01:15:43,360
 moves except pedestrians and then nothing moves except vehicles. So we've isolated those

717
01:15:43,360 --> 01:15:51,160
 two and remove the conflict points 55% of the pedestrians thought it was safer 35% thought

718
01:15:51,160 --> 01:16:01,200
 it was about the same and 10% thought it was not as safe as the previous operation. Again

719
01:16:01,200 --> 01:16:05,680
 pedestrian oriented question how safe do you feel using the all way crosswalk intersection

720
01:16:05,680 --> 01:16:16,720
 when no vehicles are moving 86% thought that that was higher safety level and 9% were neutral

721
01:16:16,720 --> 01:16:24,600
 and then 5% thought it was less safe than moving with the vehicles. Again predominantly

722
01:16:24,600 --> 01:16:31,840
 in favor or in support of the safety that we think the all way crosswalk brings. So

723
01:16:31,840 --> 01:16:39,880
 this is the drivers how safe do you feel 55% safer 28% less are neutral and then 17% less

724
01:16:39,880 --> 01:16:49,760
 safe. So my expectation is that the 17% is primarily due to the elimination of the turns

725
01:16:49,760 --> 01:16:54,440
 on red. We got a lot of feedback about how are you going to you know we can't turn on

726
01:16:54,440 --> 01:17:03,920
 red anymore and there's a lot of negative sentiment regarding that restriction. And

727
01:17:03,920 --> 01:17:08,280
 then this is for all users and you think the all walk crosswalks are safer for all modes

728
01:17:08,280 --> 01:17:15,600
 of transportation 78% yes and 28% no. So again significant support and significant finding

729
01:17:15,600 --> 01:17:22,280
 of increased safety with the all way crosswalk. And then this if you'll remember one of the

730
01:17:22,280 --> 01:17:27,120
 things that one of the negatives potential negatives that the all way crosswalks introduced

731
01:17:27,120 --> 01:17:31,840
 was because we're taking away that overlap when pedestrians and vehicles moved at the

732
01:17:31,840 --> 01:17:38,360
 same time and isolating into discrete movements. It adds a little bit of delay for drivers

733
01:17:38,360 --> 01:17:43,180
 for both drivers and pedestrians. So it's about a three or four second delay or a longer

734
01:17:43,180 --> 01:17:48,760
 wait and this question is do you think that's worth it and 75% of the people thought that

735
01:17:48,760 --> 01:17:53,680
 that additional delay that it takes before your signal comes up was worth the enhanced

736
01:17:53,680 --> 01:17:59,920
 safety that the all way crosswalks bring. Do you think that there are benefit to downtown

737
01:17:59,920 --> 01:18:06,160
 again the same 75 25 75% of the people who are using these crosswalks think that they

738
01:18:06,160 --> 01:18:14,280
 are positive for the downtown around the square. And then would you like to see us employ these

739
01:18:14,280 --> 01:18:19,080
 in other locations and I would say that the other locations that we're primarily looking

740
01:18:19,080 --> 01:18:24,280
 at are somewhere where we've got high pedestrian volumes around the universities around entertainment

741
01:18:24,280 --> 01:18:33,560
 districts two thirds of the people said yes and basically 25% said no and the 8% are people

742
01:18:33,560 --> 01:18:39,400
 who made a further comment about which roadway they wanted to see included. But again we're

743
01:18:39,400 --> 01:18:44,600
 looking for areas that have high pedestrian volumes fairly high vehicle volumes where

744
01:18:44,600 --> 01:18:48,320
 we want to separate the vehicles from the pedestrians we don't want to move it at the

745
01:18:48,320 --> 01:18:53,360
 same time we want to eliminate those conflicts. So with that I'll take questions or comments

746
01:18:53,360 --> 01:19:04,000
 and again we're requesting feedback in the form of is this group supportive of the all

747
01:19:04,000 --> 01:19:10,000
 way crosswalk. Do you think it is an enhancement. Do you think it is a detriment. There is no

748
01:19:10,000 --> 01:19:15,440
 formal action again we're just trying to get feedback from the different committees and

749
01:19:15,440 --> 01:19:22,280
 commissions and user groups that are affected by the all way crosswalk. So with that I'll

750
01:19:22,280 --> 01:19:40,360
 open it up for questions. Okay I like it and as both a driver and a pedestrian I haven't

751
01:19:40,360 --> 01:19:48,560
 gone through my bicycle yet but I think I would appreciate it as a cyclist I appreciate

752
01:19:48,560 --> 01:20:01,640
 it as a pedestrian and I think it helps quite a bit particularly with people with some hindrances

753
01:20:01,640 --> 01:20:09,160
 in moving fast to get across the street. I like that and there's nothing that precludes

754
01:20:09,160 --> 01:20:15,440
 anybody from doing a diagonal during the all way is there. No not at all in fact we had

755
01:20:15,440 --> 01:20:21,240
 that question that came up at the COPWD and actually in the survey as well why don't you

756
01:20:21,240 --> 01:20:26,480
 stripe the diagonals but if you remember this is a pilot program and so we did not want

757
01:20:26,480 --> 01:20:33,260
 to spend any capital money to make the changes that are going to be required to make those

758
01:20:33,260 --> 01:20:37,920
 diagonal crosswalks safe and legal. So we're going to have to add additional ramps on the

759
01:20:37,920 --> 01:20:43,800
 corners and markings on the street and it has always been our plan if this is something

760
01:20:43,800 --> 01:20:48,120
 that council decides to make permanent in which you want to continue the operation of

761
01:20:48,120 --> 01:20:52,160
 the all-way crosswalk then we're going to identify dollars come back and make those

762
01:20:52,160 --> 01:20:59,200
 changes that are needed to really invite that diagonal because that's truly the benefit

763
01:20:59,200 --> 01:21:05,960
 of having the you know another way to another common term for this is the pedestrian scramble

764
01:21:05,960 --> 01:21:10,200
 so you can go any direction you want to when it's you've got the green light and only you

765
01:21:10,200 --> 01:21:15,720
 have the green light and you can go diagonal or across in each direction what we did initially

766
01:21:15,720 --> 01:21:21,240
 with this pilot program is try and provide enough time so that you could cross two legs

767
01:21:21,240 --> 01:21:27,440
 so when we open up that diagonal we actually bring we may be able to bring some time back

768
01:21:27,440 --> 01:21:34,280
 into the vehicle mode so we lessen their delay and still provide safe crossings for everybody

769
01:21:34,280 --> 01:21:40,560
 because it takes less time to make the diagonal crossing than it has to make two single leg

770
01:21:40,560 --> 01:21:46,520
 crossings so again that's something that has always been the plan to include in if this

771
01:21:46,520 --> 01:21:52,480
 is determined to be a worthy operation and it becomes permanent then we're going to come

772
01:21:52,480 --> 01:21:59,500
 back and add those diagonals right I remember that we just got through reworking those corners

773
01:21:59,500 --> 01:22:05,680
 not too long ago yeah so I hate tearing it up that fast but I just want to make sure

774
01:22:05,680 --> 01:22:14,320
 that is any body out there can be unafraid of crossing diagonally and even if we put

775
01:22:14,320 --> 01:22:20,400
 the if we put the the markings down that would certainly invite the majority of the population

776
01:22:20,400 --> 01:22:26,520
 but for anybody who is disabled then we certainly want to be able to provide a safe crossing

777
01:22:26,520 --> 01:22:33,960
 detectable surfaces so that the unsighted person can find it easily we still have to

778
01:22:33,960 --> 01:22:40,160
 I know we just finished not too long ago beautifying those corners and making them nice and new

779
01:22:40,160 --> 01:22:44,080
 but we really need to add those if we want the diagonal crossing we really need to add

780
01:22:44,080 --> 01:22:53,120
 those ramps is there any problem with painting a X in the middle of the diagonal X that doesn't

781
01:22:53,120 --> 01:22:59,000
 go all the way to the corners maybe about four or five feet each direction none at all

782
01:22:59,000 --> 01:23:03,840
 and we can do that initially even before we put the ramps in but again we didn't want

783
01:23:03,840 --> 01:23:08,560
 to put any capital dollars everything we did was operational change we didn't add any hardware

784
01:23:08,560 --> 01:23:13,880
 we didn't there were no the only things we added were some no turn on red signs and I

785
01:23:13,880 --> 01:23:19,080
 think council did not want us to spend a lot of money going out and remarking if three

786
01:23:19,080 --> 01:23:24,480
 months remember this was supposed to be a three to six month trial well we passed that

787
01:23:24,480 --> 01:23:30,200
 but they'd have to go back and remove them so what we didn't want to do is have to mark

788
01:23:30,200 --> 01:23:34,360
 something or creates or build something and then have to go take it out if this was not

789
01:23:34,360 --> 01:23:44,920
 selected to go for a permanent operation I'd like to say that I'm part of it I really like

790
01:23:44,920 --> 01:23:49,200
 it I like the fact that you know when the cars stop everybody gets to walk it's your

791
01:23:49,200 --> 01:23:55,560
 turn you get to go and as an automobile list you know I know that I can't go anywhere and

792
01:23:55,560 --> 01:24:03,320
 I know I'm not gonna hit you buddy I'm just there and I'm waiting my turn I like it this

793
01:24:03,320 --> 01:24:11,800
 is Jeff go ahead I'm so thank you I'd like to Jeff excuse me Jeff you have to be visible

794
01:24:11,800 --> 01:24:18,160
 if you choose to speak in the meeting please okay I can't get my camera to come on so okay

795
01:24:18,160 --> 01:24:26,560
 thanks Trey how do you want to handle that I mean it's the open meeting Zach says that

796
01:24:26,560 --> 01:24:29,560
 if they're gonna if they're gonna speak and they're on the board they've got to be visible

797
01:24:29,560 --> 01:24:37,960
 I don't I don't have an exception to that it is it worth pointing out that I think he's

798
01:24:37,960 --> 01:24:42,680
 calling in by phone which does not have a visibility option I don't know if that makes

799
01:24:42,680 --> 01:24:47,800
 any difference as opposed to being on the zoom app which does that's okay my comments

800
01:24:47,800 --> 01:24:57,720
 were consistent it's okay I'll I'll add two quick comments I'm a little bit of a contrarian

801
01:24:57,720 --> 01:25:03,520
 today probably always I guess right I'm what I've my only comment is I'm concerned that's

802
01:25:03,520 --> 01:25:11,200
 the the all walk way it's set up has increased car speeds through the square which I think

803
01:25:11,200 --> 01:25:16,080
 puts more risk to pedestrians while I know it sounds really great you get to walk both

804
01:25:16,080 --> 01:25:19,840
 ways and everything like essentially that's how it used to be too because when I would

805
01:25:19,840 --> 01:25:24,240
 walk up to the square if I was going if I needed to cross both sides of the street I

806
01:25:24,240 --> 01:25:28,760
 could cross one and by the time I got there I could be able to cross the other so I mean

807
01:25:28,760 --> 01:25:33,160
 I think they're fine overall one thing I would say though if we really want to understand

808
01:25:33,160 --> 01:25:37,160
 what how the public feels about it is we might look at how we do those questions because

809
01:25:37,160 --> 01:25:41,260
 the questions we asked were pretty leading and so they wouldn't be very scientifically

810
01:25:41,260 --> 01:25:47,720
 reliable if you notice they were all framed as a new whenever you frame something as new

811
01:25:47,720 --> 01:25:52,360
 people tend to say yes that's great and so if we were able to frame the questions where

812
01:25:52,360 --> 01:25:56,920
 we actually pose some of it we didn't pose for example how the all walk the dot any downsides

813
01:25:56,920 --> 01:26:00,880
 really of the all walk or any threats and so as people read through the questions they

814
01:26:00,880 --> 01:26:05,280
 probably tend to get a very favorable perspective from the very questions that's all walk is

815
01:26:05,280 --> 01:26:10,280
 an innovation or an improvement so it's hard to really tell how people feel unless we develop

816
01:26:10,280 --> 01:26:16,480
 sign kind of more reliable and scientifically valid questions but but yeah if we do do it

817
01:26:16,480 --> 01:26:22,320
 I would love to see us to the earlier suggestion I would love to see is maybe even do some

818
01:26:22,320 --> 01:26:27,160
 kind of mural in the middle that really marks the square as a space that shows arrows across

819
01:26:27,160 --> 01:26:38,880
 and the all work or crosswalk could be really cool

820
01:26:38,880 --> 01:26:42,520
 so I will take this opportunity sorry let me add one comment about and that's something

821
01:26:42,520 --> 01:26:47,560
 you had mentioned the last time we talked about this and I wanted to bring up a point

822
01:26:47,560 --> 01:26:52,180
 that I think you asked if we could do a passive detection where you don't actually have to

823
01:26:52,180 --> 01:26:58,720
 push the button so we've had this and this was a result of the the cove it environment

824
01:26:58,720 --> 01:27:03,920
 not so much people not want to push a button they just don't want to touch anything anymore

825
01:27:03,920 --> 01:27:11,280
 but we're actually testing some hardware at Riddell and 380 probably 30 days out because

826
01:27:11,280 --> 01:27:17,240
 we're working with the same vendor who did the with the FLIR sensor for the one way wrong

827
01:27:17,240 --> 01:27:22,740
 way but we're going to be testing some passive sensors at that intersection that's a fairly

828
01:27:22,740 --> 01:27:29,680
 high pedestrian crossing of university and it's a long crossing but we're we'll be testing

829
01:27:29,680 --> 01:27:36,360
 and tweaking that hardware to see if we can fine tune it my biggest concern on on utilizing

830
01:27:36,360 --> 01:27:50,460
 that hardware is that around the square people are often opt to stand on a corner and talk

831
01:27:50,460 --> 01:27:55,440
 because the corners are I mean we've got benches we've got landscaping they're very they're

832
01:27:55,440 --> 01:28:01,960
 inviting and so you've got these wide sidewalks and you've you've got kind of a nice space

833
01:28:01,960 --> 01:28:06,760
 to be people are going to eventually cross but they may meet somebody or they're with

834
01:28:06,760 --> 01:28:11,560
 somebody and it's they they they're standing in the place where they want to cross but

835
01:28:11,560 --> 01:28:15,120
 they aren't ready to cross yet but the the detection system doesn't know that so what

836
01:28:15,120 --> 01:28:18,800
 we're going to try and figure out is we're going to we're going to learn how to place

837
01:28:18,800 --> 01:28:25,080
 those and where we can put them so that if it detects a person there's no question they

838
01:28:25,080 --> 01:28:31,440
 are ready to cross and instead of doing a more generalized wider sensory area we've

839
01:28:31,440 --> 01:28:41,120
 got one of these on the ground already on elm right across from the diesd facility and

840
01:28:41,120 --> 01:28:45,720
 i've seen it false call a lot of times because we've got and again this is just where it's

841
01:28:45,720 --> 01:28:49,640
 a learning curve we've got parking along the same side of street as we've got the sensor

842
01:28:49,640 --> 01:28:53,560
 so people coming in and out of their cars that's that space that's closest to the sensor

843
01:28:53,560 --> 01:28:57,680
 are often detected so that's what we want to learn with this hardware is how can we

844
01:28:57,680 --> 01:29:02,880
 deploy it till minimize the false calls we're going to do that up on university and then

845
01:29:02,880 --> 01:29:07,240
 we'll bring that to council and say okay we know how to use it here's what it costs do

846
01:29:07,240 --> 01:29:13,520
 we want to deploy it because it's pretty expensive it's eight to ten thousand dollars per intersection

847
01:29:13,520 --> 01:29:18,240
 to put those sensors out so it's it's not terribly expensive but if we're talking about

848
01:29:18,240 --> 01:29:24,960
 130 intersections and it will make this our standard then it does become a cost of and

849
01:29:24,960 --> 01:29:29,400
 maybe we only want to focus on certain areas where we do the all-walk crosswalks i don't

850
01:29:29,400 --> 01:29:35,360
 know but that's something that we are testing is that passive detection hardware and and

851
01:29:35,360 --> 01:29:39,320
 just to clarify i would be okay with it just always stopping like i mean i've been fine

852
01:29:39,320 --> 01:29:44,120
 with it stopping every cycle whether there's people standing there or not because i think

853
01:29:44,120 --> 01:29:50,440
 deferring towards the pedestrians is in our most pedestrian friendly area is um creates

854
01:29:50,440 --> 01:29:55,960
 a lot safer environments it also deters people who are wanting to speed through an area right

855
01:29:55,960 --> 01:29:59,480
 they say oh i'm not going to go through the square you get you stop at this you get stopped

856
01:29:59,480 --> 01:30:03,720
 on the square as opposed to thinking they might be able to speed through so um but i

857
01:30:03,720 --> 01:30:12,760
 think if that is software is doable it could be a good compromise

858
01:30:12,760 --> 01:30:19,320
 other comments i i this is on the topic that brian just brought up but i would like to

859
01:30:19,320 --> 01:30:24,520
 say to his comment about having i guess a system in which you could automatically have

860
01:30:24,520 --> 01:30:31,840
 the lights change is that's what i'm getting from that as somebody who was riding up oak

861
01:30:31,840 --> 01:30:44,280
 street going west and hitting carol in my car i watched two people cross carol even

862
01:30:44,280 --> 01:30:49,600
 though they didn't push the light to cross where there's all that construction right

863
01:30:49,600 --> 01:30:58,400
 now and they just like ran for it and the one was it was a couple and the man just like

864
01:30:58,400 --> 01:31:03,280
 walked in front and the car started to slow down and then he made his way over and then

865
01:31:03,280 --> 01:31:09,760
 his wife eventually made it and they didn't hit the signal which i don't understand but

866
01:31:09,760 --> 01:31:26,160
 with this technology in the right places that could be helpful right

867
01:31:26,160 --> 01:31:34,160
 any other comments

868
01:31:34,160 --> 01:31:40,400
 and again i don't think we need to you don't need any feedback from us formally on this

869
01:31:40,400 --> 01:31:46,260
 or any kind of votes on that so that is our last item brian are you good was there anything

870
01:31:46,260 --> 01:31:52,080
 else you need to say in response to anything before we move on the only question we had

871
01:31:52,080 --> 01:32:00,440
 or in concluding remarks or closing comments is our next meeting and there's still some

872
01:32:00,440 --> 01:32:05,800
 discussion about are we meeting and i'm going to let trey maybe are we meeting only if we

873
01:32:05,800 --> 01:32:16,600
 have time sensitive topics because as we have moved into this virtual realm we now have

874
01:32:16,600 --> 01:32:22,360
 to have daytime meetings and there are we're competing with i think becky said 27 other

875
01:32:22,360 --> 01:32:31,280
 committees and commissions and groups and we need to if we want to have an august meeting

876
01:32:31,280 --> 01:32:37,320
 we need to have that placeholder we need to grab that spot early we can so i think we've

877
01:32:37,320 --> 01:32:43,600
 got the third thursday in august tentatively penciled in for this committee i think it's

878
01:32:43,600 --> 01:32:50,320
 at 11 a.m becky is that correct yes so i don't need an answer now but look at your and i

879
01:32:50,320 --> 01:32:56,600
 think that's the 21st of august at 11 a.m if you could check your calendars and see if

880
01:32:56,600 --> 01:33:06,720
 that works it's actually the 20th okay august 20th just so we we don't want to lose the

881
01:33:06,720 --> 01:33:12,000
 spot we've we've kind of tentatively grabbed it we don't know that we're going to have

882
01:33:12,000 --> 01:33:15,880
 a meeting but if we are that's the date so if we get feedback on whether or not that

883
01:33:15,880 --> 01:33:25,980
 date works it'd be great okay i already have a conflict okay on that day would it be best

884
01:33:25,980 --> 01:33:30,560
 best to address this by email so that way everyone can check their schedules and sure

885
01:33:30,560 --> 01:33:37,840
 i don't need an answer now i just um and again moving forward we're not sure if we are only

886
01:33:37,840 --> 01:33:44,120
 having meetings if we have time sensitive issues for council or if we're just moving

887
01:33:44,120 --> 01:33:50,140
 into opening up for general agenda items we're still getting clarification on that but if

888
01:33:50,140 --> 01:33:54,280
 we want to have an august meeting we need to start and if that august 20th date doesn't

889
01:33:54,280 --> 01:33:58,240
 work we do need to start nailing that down so becky will be working with you and i think

890
01:33:58,240 --> 01:34:03,800
 email would be fine just so we can at least put one we can hold a place if we don't have

891
01:34:03,800 --> 01:34:10,320
 a meeting we'll cancel but and then that's no harm no foul so we just need to we need

892
01:34:10,320 --> 01:34:15,640
 to start thinking about our meeting dates they're not automatic anymore and so we need

893
01:34:15,640 --> 01:34:21,880
 to start thinking about whether or not we're having a meeting in the following month and

894
01:34:21,880 --> 01:34:26,600
 the current month so now is the time to start looking at our calendars and saying okay does

895
01:34:26,600 --> 01:34:32,640
 that work if it doesn't let's pick another date and time okay so we will look for those

896
01:34:32,640 --> 01:34:39,000
 emails so thank thank you brian um i i had a couple items i wanted to potentially just

897
01:34:39,000 --> 01:34:44,000
 add for when we next meet not necessarily uh it's not time sensitive but a couple requests

898
01:34:44,000 --> 01:34:49,520
 um becky is this an okay time to go ahead and and add a couple items to for potential

899
01:34:49,520 --> 01:34:55,600
 future agenda i believe that is correct as part of our concluding items trey right yes

900
01:34:55,600 --> 01:35:01,280
 this is the place to do it we just can't have any discussion on now yeah so i had a few

901
01:35:01,280 --> 01:35:05,480
 items that came out of today i'll say them really quickly one is i was just curious it

902
01:35:05,480 --> 01:35:09,920
 was brought up early in the discussion about the possible report on the feasibility of

903
01:35:09,920 --> 01:35:14,520
 a common speed limit around the square that had come up so i was going to see if there's

904
01:35:14,520 --> 01:35:18,520
 any way we could look at like what that would look like and again that's not time sensitive

905
01:35:18,520 --> 01:35:22,160
 but i think with the changes we're looking at that'd be interesting another is i was

906
01:35:22,160 --> 01:35:27,740
 i was wanting to to see if we could potentially get a report on the area i mentioned locust

907
01:35:27,740 --> 01:35:32,120
 going north off the square and those couple blocks there i'm very concerned about the

908
01:35:32,120 --> 01:35:38,080
 safety there's a new ramp there with no crosswalk um and there's the light area which we we

909
01:35:38,080 --> 01:35:42,080
 did get some of that but i was wondering if we might get some more advice on other safety

910
01:35:42,080 --> 01:35:47,320
 um uh possibilities there and just see if that could be something that could be brought

911
01:35:47,320 --> 01:35:52,880
 to us i'm i'm just very worried about that area and then lastly is just uh something

912
01:35:52,880 --> 01:35:59,480
 that didn't come up today but there's there's still a persistence in a lot of um construction

913
01:35:59,480 --> 01:36:04,160
 crews are placing you know whenever there's construction on the street they're placing

914
01:36:04,160 --> 01:36:09,600
 they're blocking sidewalks with their construction signs saying a lane is closed and they block

915
01:36:09,600 --> 01:36:15,600
 the full sidewalk is there a way that we could get a report on the city policy um on that

916
01:36:15,600 --> 01:36:20,920
 because it seems to be a widespread policy that sidewalks are good places for construction

917
01:36:20,920 --> 01:36:25,480
 street construction signs um and that just is a i was seeing if there's we could get

918
01:36:25,480 --> 01:36:31,680
 a report on the possibilities of reducing that practice um if if it is problematic and

919
01:36:31,680 --> 01:36:41,880
 that's it for me anybody else have items to add

920
01:36:41,880 --> 01:36:46,520
 okay with that and with not a lot of time left only 10 minutes it was great to see everybody

921
01:36:46,520 --> 01:36:51,700
 that that concludes all our items and that should adjourn our meeting so thank you everyone

922
01:36:51,700 --> 01:36:54,940
 for joining. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.