WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000 >> Okay. 00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:08.000 Welcome to the Monday, November 9th, 2020 00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:12.000 traffic safety commission meeting. 00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:16.000 It looks like we have a quorum of, I think, five of our commissioners 00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:20.000 are here. So we'll go ahead and get started. 00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:24.000 Are there, Rachel, are there any comments 00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:28.000 in the virtual white cards or anyone by phone commenting that we should know about as we get started? 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:32.000 >> No, we have no comments today. Thank you. 00:00:32.000 --> 00:00:36.000 >> Thank you. Okay. If there's no 00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:40.000 comments from the public, then we can go ahead and move to our 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:44.000 first item for consideration, which is item A, 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:48.000 TSC20-020. 00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:52.000 Consider the approval of the minutes of September 17th, 2020. 00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:56.000 Are there any corrections needed for the meeting minutes from any of the commissioners? 00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:00.000 Okay. 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:04.000 If there's no 00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:08.000 corrections to the minutes, which I'm not seeing that there are any, 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:12.000 we will need a motion to approve the minutes 00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:16.000 from the last meeting. >> I make a motion to approve. 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:20.000 >> I second the motion. >> Okay. We got 00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:24.000 Commissioner Thurmond made the first motion and 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:28.000 Commissioner Carr made the second motion. So that 00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:32.000 if we can go ahead and get a vote, everyone in favor 00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:36.000 of approving the minutes, yay? >> Yay. 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:40.000 >> Anyone opposed? 00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:44.000 Okay. I think that's all for the record. I think all of our commissioners approve 00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:48.000 the minutes. >> Daniel, excuse me, Daniel. 00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:52.000 In the virtual environment, we have to have a call out on the vote, so each 00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:56.000 commissioner can announce their name and their vote. >> One by one? 00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:00.000 >> Yes, please. >> Okay. No problem. 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:04.000 So we'll go -- I'll go in order from 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:08.000 the council place. Commissioner Carr? 00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:12.000 >> Yes, approved. 00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:16.000 >> Okay. King? >> Jeff King, yay. 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:20.000 >> Thurmond? >> Clay Thurmond, yay. 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:24.000 >> And Baker? 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:28.000 I believe you're muted, Connie. 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:32.000 Although I saw him say yay. 00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:40.000 >> There should be a little microphone image 00:02:40.000 --> 00:02:44.000 in the lower left-hand corner of your screen. 00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:54.000 I'll let you know when we can hear you, Connie. 00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:58.000 It should be on -- if you make the 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:02.000 zoom screen full screen, you can see it sometimes when you just 00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:06.000 see the small screen. It can be hidden from you. 00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:10.000 But on your own video, if you can see your own -- there you go. 00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:14.000 >> Ah. >> Yes. >> Yes. I approve the minutes. 00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:18.000 Yes, thank you. >> Okay. And I also approve 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:22.000 the minutes. And so that is a 5-0 vote. 00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:26.000 Okay. All right. Moving on to item B, 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:30.000 TSC 20-021, receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:34.000 and give staff direction regarding the continued development of an ordinance allowing golf carts 00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:38.000 to travel on city streets. >> Thank you, Chairman. 00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:42.000 And good afternoon to Brian Young, city traffic engineer. 00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:46.000 So let me share my screen. 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:50.000 And -- 00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:54.000 So can you see the presentation? 00:03:54.000 --> 00:03:58.000 >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So if you'll remember 00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:02.000 the last meeting, we had a brief discussion about whether or not we were going to consider 00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:06.000 an ordinance allowing the use of golf carts 00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:10.000 on city streets. We agreed to do so. And so this is the 00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:14.000 next step in that, as you may remember, 00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:18.000 I think the general consensus of the commission was that we wanted to limit it 00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:22.000 to certain streets and maybe not every street that is 00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:26.000 35 miles an hour or less, but actually 00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:30.000 craft a more restrictive list of streets. So that's really what our 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:34.000 focus today is. We also want to talk a little bit about the type of vehicles. 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:38.000 So just some quick review. 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:42.000 The code, the transportation code allows us as a municipality 00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:46.000 to pass an ordinance to permit the use of golf carts 00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:50.000 on city street other than the default, which is your 00:04:50.000 --> 00:04:54.000 two miles from a golf course, et cetera, et cetera. So 00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:58.000 we do have a draft ordinance. And with us today is Stephanie 00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:02.000 Berry and Brian Coase with our PD. Stephanie 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:06.000 is our lead prosecutor. She crafted an ordinance. 00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:10.000 And the ordinance that she crafted was specifically 00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:14.000 limited to UNT. However, we've had discussions with TW. 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:18.000 They also want to participate in the 00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:22.000 consideration of golf carts or other slow-moving vehicles 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:26.000 on city streets that meet certain criteria. So I have 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:30.000 and I don't think I can get to it. Let me try it real quick. Yeah, I can't open that file. 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:34.000 So I figured. We have an ordinance that's out there and I think 00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:38.000 it was included in your packet that allows 00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:42.000 golf carts to utilize roadways adjacent 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:46.000 or through. And I've modified it to say the two campuses, UNT 00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:50.000 and TWU. So what we need to decide or what you need to decide 00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:54.000 as a commission, is that language acceptable or do we want 00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:58.000 to broaden that or restrict it even further to certain, basically 00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:02.000 craft a list of streets that allows, on which 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:06.000 we allow the use of golf carts. So that's the first question in front of us today. 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:10.000 Here is a side-by-side comparison. UNT 00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:14.000 and TWU, where they currently 00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:18.000 utilize the 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:22.000 golf carts or slow-moving vehicles. So UNT is on the right and TWU 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:26.000 is on the left. Those roadways in yellow at TWU 00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:30.000 and the roadways in orange for UNT basically 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:34.000 would be the facilities that are in the ordinance as it's drafted 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:38.000 now. Adjacent to or through the university campuses 00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:42.000 both UNT and TWU. So that's our 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:46.000 starting point. 00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:50.000 So here's a map of all the roads that are 35 miles an hour or less. 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:54.000 Obviously, we've got a lot of facilities 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:58.000 that are not adjacent to UNT or TWU. However, 00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:02.000 the code allows us to include any or all of these roadways 00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:06.000 as long as the speed limit is 35 miles an hour or less 00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:10.000 and the golf carts are outfitted with brakes and lights 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:14.000 and seatbelts and all the bells and whistles that are included in the requirements for the code. 00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:18.000 This is a list 00:07:18.000 --> 00:07:22.000 of those same roadways. So 00:07:22.000 --> 00:07:26.000 here are options we can allow on currently... Could you go back to that 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:30.000 list just for one moment, Brian? Yes. 00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:34.000 So there are segments of all of these 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:38.000 roadways that are 35 miles an hour or less. So obviously 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:42.000 not the entire length of any of them, but there are pieces of these roadways that 00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:46.000 are in fact 35 miles an hour or less. 00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:50.000 I was just verifying. I think some of these roadways are 00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:54.000 pretty diverse, aren't they? I was just thinking about that. 00:07:54.000 --> 00:07:58.000 That's the pitfall, I think, of just picking that category of 35 miles an hour 00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:02.000 or less. Some of them are two-lane roadways, some of them are four-lane roadways. 00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:06.000 Some of them could very well be divided roadways. Very, very 00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:10.000 different context based on the roadway segment. 00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:14.000 So that's the discussion we have is 00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:18.000 which roadways are appropriate. 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:22.000 Again, the way the ordinance is crafted right now, it is limited to 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:26.000 roadways that are adjacent to or through the university campuses. 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:30.000 That may be a good starting point. If we want to grow this sometime later, 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:34.000 we can come back and revisit it and add streets. 00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:38.000 So I'm going to go back a little bit further. 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:42.000 I just wanted to make a note of one street as an example on there. Fort Worth Drive 00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:46.000 is 35 miles when you come off of 35, if everyone knows 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:50.000 that, right? If you come off 35 east 00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:54.000 onto Fort Worth Drive towards the core of Denton, that's 35 00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:58.000 miles. But really, the road is designed closer to, you know, it's like three lanes 00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:02.000 both sides. It doesn't feel like a 35 mile per hour road at all. It feels 00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:06.000 like a 50 mile per hour road. And people go 00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:10.000 a lot faster than 35 on it. And that's exactly the discussion 00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:14.000 we want to have is just because it's posted 35, that feel may not be 00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:18.000 35. It may be 55 or 45. And is it 00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:22.000 appropriate just because the speed limit is 35 to allow the golf carts or 00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:26.000 slow moving vehicles to utilize those roadways? So that's kind of what we 00:09:26.000 --> 00:09:30.000 that's where we are. So let me go back to that. So again, 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:34.000 we can utilize the maps 00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:38.000 that were submitted to the universities. That's probably 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:42.000 a pretty good starting point. We can expand it to all 00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:46.000 or some additional 35 mile an hour roadways. 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:50.000 Or we can, again, create the smaller subset 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:54.000 of that 35. We can incorporate 00:09:54.000 --> 00:09:58.000 characteristics like only a two-lane undivided roadway, et cetera, 00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:02.000 slower than 35, only roads that are, 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:06.000 we can come up with any kind of criteria that we want. It's really just a matter of 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:10.000 what the commission, there was a specific voice 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:14.000 opinion that we wanted to limit 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:18.000 only on certain roadways. And so that's where we are today. 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:22.000 There is another question that we need to identify 00:10:22.000 --> 00:10:26.000 and maybe it's for another meeting. I'll ask Stephanie if we're off posting. 00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:30.000 But the question has come up from, and I haven't heard it from 00:10:30.000 --> 00:10:34.000 UNT, but TWU also uses 00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:38.000 mules and other golf cart type vehicles. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:42.000 So I've seen other ordinances where they define, they call 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:46.000 them SMV, a slow moving vehicle. And so those types 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:50.000 of vehicles are described and categorized. And so even if it's a gas-powered 00:10:50.000 --> 00:10:54.000 mule or a gas-powered golf cart or an electric golf cart, 00:10:54.000 --> 00:10:58.000 we have a list of vehicle types in the ordinance 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:02.000 that we allow. So it's not just a golf cart, and that's 00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:06.000 kind of a loose, broad definition, but we actually are, we try 00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:10.000 and reflect those types of vehicles that the universities 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:14.000 use. And I think this ordinance is really intended to address the needs 00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:18.000 of the universities, but we may grow 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:22.000 that in the future if DISD, which we have not had 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:26.000 conversations with the school district, or 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:30.000 other entities want to use golf carts on city streets. 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:34.000 I think that's the phase two where we come back 00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:38.000 and add those streets or categorize 00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:42.000 those roadways somehow to allow those users. 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:46.000 So, 00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:50.000 I think we need to have a discussion today 00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:54.000 to talk about what the preference of the commission is. 00:11:54.000 --> 00:11:58.000 We will incorporate those comments if there are any changes 00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:02.000 into the draft ordinance that Stephanie's created. 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:06.000 We will bring it back to you one more time just to make sure that, alright, here's where we are, 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:10.000 and here's what we've included, and these are the roads, and this is the approach 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:14.000 that we're taking prior to taking it to council for adoption. 00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:18.000 So, the discussion for today is 00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:22.000 which roadways in Denton do we want to allow 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:26.000 golf carts to utilize? And with that, I'm going to stop sharing so we can 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:30.000 have that discussion. 00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:34.000 And just a reminder, we'll try to use Robert's rules, so if you can 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:38.000 indicate when you want to speak, either by using the 00:12:38.000 --> 00:12:42.000 virtual raise your hand or just kind of put your hand up, I can try to call on people. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:46.000 It looks like Commissioner Thurman has a comment. 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:50.000 Yes, I like the 00:12:50.000 --> 00:12:54.000 idea of starting just with a university since this seemed to be initiated 00:12:54.000 --> 00:12:58.000 by them, and I'm around T.W. quite a bit, so I think the 00:12:58.000 --> 00:13:02.000 expansion of the vehicle types would be good for that 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:06.000 of the mules as well. I don't see any need right now 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:10.000 to expand it out in the city. I think if we did, we'd probably be 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:14.000 creating more headaches for us, and right now I don't think we need those, but I 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:18.000 think it would be good to later go on and look at 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:22.000 the criteria that you had on the bullet point, the third bullet 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:26.000 point. I think those would be good. Just one 00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:30.000 observation, during election day, I was out 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:34.000 at Lifeline Church just off 00:13:34.000 --> 00:13:38.000 Teasley, and there was one person in a golf cart driving 00:13:38.000 --> 00:13:42.000 to and from the neighborhood and around the area, and I didn't particularly 00:13:42.000 --> 00:13:46.000 have a problem with it. That's not a big traffic through 00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:50.000 a neighborhood, but I can see how that could maybe be expanded 00:13:50.000 --> 00:13:54.000 in the future to include smaller neighborhoods like that 00:13:54.000 --> 00:13:58.000 that don't really have as much through traffic, but at this 00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:02.000 point I'm in favor just of limiting it to the universities. 00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:08.000 Commissioner Carl? 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:12.000 I would agree with Commissioner Thurmond. I don't see any 00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:16.000 point in extending it beyond the universities. My only other thought was 00:14:16.000 --> 00:14:20.000 we haven't included NCTC, and they have a campus now downtown, 00:14:20.000 --> 00:14:24.000 so I'm kind of wondering if they would have a use for it, but 00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:28.000 downtown traffic usually runs pretty slow, 00:14:28.000 --> 00:14:32.000 but I would agree. Keeping it to the 00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:36.000 UNT and TWU for now. 00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:40.000 Brian, what do you think about the possibilities of narrowing 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:44.000 those criteria a lot? I mean, I think 35 is clearly too high 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:48.000 in my opinion, but if we narrowed it to 25 00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:52.000 and narrowed it to two-lane roads, which would consider more neighborhoods, 00:14:52.000 --> 00:14:56.000 that would allow potentially more people. 00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:00.000 What are your thoughts on just making the criteria a lot tighter 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:04.000 so that it would only fit certain neighborhoods? 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:08.000 I would have to, one, I would recommend not using 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:12.000 25. I would recommend using 30. 00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:16.000 And the next presentation is going to explain a little bit about 00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:20.000 why my hesitancy to use 25. 00:15:20.000 --> 00:15:24.000 I don't have a problem with that. I just would want to make sure 00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:28.000 that all the roads that the universities have on their maps, 00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:32.000 I just want to verify that those are all less than 35. 00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:36.000 So if there's a 35 mile an hour roadway that's adjacent or through the campus, 00:15:36.000 --> 00:15:40.000 one of the campuses, I would not want to preclude them from being able to use that 00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:44.000 roadway unless, of course, we could find a parallel. But it really depends on 00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:48.000 their facilities are, you know, they're on every block, every block face. 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:52.000 So I would just want to verify that we would not eliminate 00:15:52.000 --> 00:15:56.000 a major opportunity for them to use 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:00.000 the roadway just because it's 35. And that's kind of why 00:16:00.000 --> 00:16:04.000 I brought the maps and I asked the universities to provide those. Where they 00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:08.000 currently operate is people are already used to seeing 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:12.000 slow moving vehicles, golf carts or mules or whatever, 00:16:12.000 --> 00:16:16.000 on these roadways. So it's kind of, I mean, it's a starting point. 00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:20.000 But we can, I can verify, I can't do it right now, but I can verify 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:24.000 that all the roadways that are shown on the TWU map and the UNT map 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:28.000 are 30 miles an hour or less. That's not a problem. 00:16:28.000 --> 00:16:32.000 Would it be possible to, 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:36.000 you know, set the criteria but allow for, like, 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:40.000 people to, I don't want to say appeal, but, you know, apply for certain 00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:44.000 roadways that maybe don't meet the criteria for exceptions. 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:48.000 And then those would be, for example, like added to a map. And so that would 00:16:48.000 --> 00:16:52.000 allow us maybe, I'm guessing that's why you don't want to tighten the speed limit 00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:56.000 because that would affect probably around the universities. Could we 00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:00.000 have a process like that or would that be too burdensome, you think, 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:04.000 for the city to maintain and keep track of? I don't think it would be 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:08.000 too burdensome at all. I'm going to defer to Stephanie and I'm not sure 00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:12.000 how often we want to update this ordinance. 00:17:12.000 --> 00:17:16.000 Because people could petition for a street 00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:20.000 at any time. And then we would be basically 00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:24.000 obligated to consider it and then take it to commission 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:28.000 and then to council. Just really depends on how often do you want to do that. 00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:32.000 Or should we, 00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:36.000 well, I'm not sure how we want to, that's a good discussion point, 00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:40.000 is how do we want to update or continue to grow this ordinance 00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:44.000 if we start small and want to add to what that process is? 00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:48.000 I think if you did it piecemeal with streets, like by application, 00:17:48.000 --> 00:17:52.000 it would maybe not, it wouldn't create a burden for the ordinance 00:17:52.000 --> 00:17:56.000 writing per se, but it would create a law enforcement burden 00:17:56.000 --> 00:18:00.000 for Sergeant Coase and the officers 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:04.000 knowing, wait, this street, it's allowed, this street, it's not, so it would 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:08.000 sort of, it would, from 00:18:08.000 --> 00:18:12.000 a police enforcement standpoint, it would be better to have it by 00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:16.000 okay, if you guys want to do TW and UNT 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:20.000 and then maybe at some point bringing in all the streets under 35 00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:24.000 or whatever, a set criteria, because 00:18:24.000 --> 00:18:28.000 I don't know 00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:32.000 how police officers would keep track of, oh, this 00:18:32.000 --> 00:18:36.000 street is legal and this isn't 00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:40.000 anyhow. I don't know if Sergeant Coase has any thoughts on that. 00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:44.000 No, I would concur with 00:18:44.000 --> 00:18:48.000 that, that any ordinance, ideally it would be easy to enforce, 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:52.000 easy to understand by the officers, so if it's 00:18:52.000 --> 00:18:56.000 changing a lot, we would have to produce new maps and constantly be 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:00.000 pushing out that info to officers. 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:04.000 For example, right now there's already some confusion 00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:08.000 as to what a master plan community is. I don't have a good definition 00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:12.000 for that, even though the transportation code refers to it in the golf 00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:16.000 card ordinance. So that already creates some confusion that 00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:20.000 hopefully with this ordinance we can get some clarification 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:24.000 that's easy to push out to not only us, but the TW 00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:28.000 officers, UNT officers that work the city as well. 00:19:28.000 --> 00:19:32.000 And one other 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:36.000 thing, not just for the police, but also for our citizens, if we start 00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:40.000 adding in a street here, a street there, there could be some 00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:44.000 confusion and someone might think they're allowed to 00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:48.000 drive a golf cart in their neighborhood, because 00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:52.000 some streets can and some can't, so we 00:19:52.000 --> 00:19:56.000 definitely want to, there's a fairness issue and a notice issue to our 00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:00.000 citizens also. So Stephanie, that begs a question that I had. 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:04.000 I think the way the ordinance is currently written, it simply says 00:20:04.000 --> 00:20:08.000 you can operate a golf cart on a street that is adjacent to our 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:12.000 neighborhood, passes through one of the two campuses. 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:16.000 Do we want to limit that to university personnel or just anybody 00:20:16.000 --> 00:20:20.000 who's got a golf cart can run up and down those roadways? 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:24.000 I can see some college kids having a golf cart. 00:20:24.000 --> 00:20:28.000 So I have thought about that and I'm not sure how we, if we want to 00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:32.000 roll that into, you know, basically define who the 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:36.000 allowable operators are. I think it says 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:40.000 university of business and is that strong enough so that 00:20:40.000 --> 00:20:44.000 a student can't say, well, I'm going to class, that's university of business. 00:20:44.000 --> 00:20:48.000 I think the language is 00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:52.000 probably adequate, yes. 00:20:52.000 --> 00:20:56.000 Any other comments from commissioners? 00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:00.000 Yeah, this is Jeff King. I had to just 00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:04.000 go back a little bit regarding the speed limits. I mean, 00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:08.000 the streets that you listed on that big list, I mean, you had multiple examples. 00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:12.000 I know that you mentioned Fort Worth Drive or Carroll. I mean, you have Mayhill, 00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:16.000 Lilliam Miller, Fort Worth Drive, Teasley, and then Teasley turns into Wind River. 00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:20.000 All those under 35 at some point and obviously those 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:24.000 are not places for golf carts. And then when you take a look at lower end 00:21:24.000 --> 00:21:28.000 the speed limits to say 25, I mean, most of your neighborhoods, and y'all correct me if 00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:32.000 I'm wrong on this, but just from experience, my neighborhood itself, 00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:36.000 Southridge, if you look at that, I believe all of those speed limits 00:21:36.000 --> 00:21:40.000 may not be posted, but technically are 30 miles an hour. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:44.000 And so if you're driving around the neighborhood, I mean, 00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:48.000 you're supposed to be going 30 obviously, and most people do because of the kids around things like that. 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:52.000 So, you know, limiting those neighborhoods 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:56.000 where there might be, you know, whether it's just a handful of cases 00:21:56.000 --> 00:22:00.000 of some, you know, maybe some elderly people driving down the street to a friend's house or something 00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:04.000 like that. I mean, obviously, are they going to get ticketed for that? 00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:08.000 Are they going to get caught for that? Or is that going to be an issue? Probably not. 00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:12.000 I mean, I would assume. So I think that those situations 00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:16.000 in those types of neighborhoods, using Southridge as an example, 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:20.000 you know, I would have no problem with somebody driving a golf cart down the street. You know, 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:24.000 you see a lot of it at Halloween, things like that. 00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:28.000 But, you know, that's just my two cents on those bigger streets. 00:22:28.000 --> 00:22:32.000 I haven't mentioned just a handful of them that I read briefly. There's no way I would want to see 00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:36.000 a golf cart or slow moving vehicle on those types of streets. 00:22:36.000 --> 00:22:40.000 But I would not have a problem with the type of neighborhoods or, I don't know, 00:22:40.000 --> 00:22:44.000 if you call them master plan communities or whatever, however they're defined, 00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:48.000 having access to them. 00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:52.000 So I want to follow up on that because we talked about 00:22:52.000 --> 00:22:56.000 lowering the, possibly, lowering the allowable speed to 00:22:56.000 --> 00:23:00.000 30 miles an hour or less. There are portions of McKinney that are 30 miles an hour. 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:04.000 And it probably would not be an appropriate place for a golf cart either. 00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:08.000 I agree. And Dahlstra? We will talk a little bit about speed 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:12.000 zoning in the next presentation, but 00:23:12.000 --> 00:23:16.000 the reason I'm hesitant to tie it to a speed limit, I like the geographic, 00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:20.000 the mapping. It's easy to understand. It's easy to enforce 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:24.000 adjacent or through a university. As we may be in the next 00:23:24.000 --> 00:23:28.000 12 months, we're probably going to be updating a lot of our posted speed limits 00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:32.000 just because of some of the complete streets and Vision Zero 00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:36.000 policies that we're trying to enact. And so if we wanted 00:23:36.000 --> 00:23:40.000 to consider a speed limit as a criteria, I'd say let's wait 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:44.000 until we get that speed limit update, that ordinance update, so that we know which 00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:48.000 streets we're talking about and something doesn't change midstream. So if we 00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:52.000 picked 30 now and then something changes and that roadway is 00:23:52.000 --> 00:23:56.000 no longer 30, but we, you know, I just, I mean, one of 00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:00.000 my recommendations, if we wanted to apply a speed limit 00:24:00.000 --> 00:24:04.000 criteria, let's wait until that speed limit ordinance is adopted. 00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:08.000 The update is adopted. 00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:12.000 So this item asks for 00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:16.000 staff direction, give staff direction regarding the continued 00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:20.000 development of the ordinance. So Brian, what do you need in regards 00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:24.000 to this from us? Do you need a motion or do you just need comments? 00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:28.000 I probably just need a consensus. If everybody's on 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:32.000 board with utilizing the way the ordinance 00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:36.000 is crafted now, and that's adjacent to or passing through one of the two university 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:40.000 campuses, and if you wanted to, we could go back and revisit 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:44.000 North Central Texas and see if they utilize golf 00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:48.000 carts or want to. And we can bring that back as a 00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:52.000 third map or something. We can do that. So it's really just 00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:56.000 which streets and if we want to go that geographic base that we've got in the ordinance 00:24:56.000 --> 00:25:00.000 now. And then the second part is, and 00:25:00.000 --> 00:25:04.000 Stephanie, let me know if I'm off posting because 00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:08.000 I think we've got, I know I've at least heard it from 00:25:08.000 --> 00:25:12.000 TWU. I've not heard it from UNT, but they want a little bit better 00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:16.000 definition than golf cart as far as vehicle type. I think we 00:25:16.000 --> 00:25:20.000 would be going off posting. We'll bring that back next time. 00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:24.000 But it's something to think about. 00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:28.000 So it seems to me like 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:32.000 there's at least a consensus on the campuses 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:36.000 using golf carts or similar. 00:25:36.000 --> 00:25:40.000 The NCTC to me, I 00:25:40.000 --> 00:25:44.000 understand why it's not included because it's just one building, right? 00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:48.000 So I don't know where the golf carts would be going to except to the parking garage. 00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:52.000 So I think at this time, I don't know if it makes sense to do that. That would actually maybe open more 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:56.000 wormholes than the kids driving them on campuses, right? And then now you can 00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:00.000 ride them around the square. 00:26:00.000 --> 00:26:04.000 So commissioners tell me what you think, but 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:08.000 I'm good with going forward with the plans for the campuses. 00:26:08.000 --> 00:26:12.000 I think that makes a lot of sense and considering 00:26:12.000 --> 00:26:16.000 whether that should be expanded or there should be further guidelines for opening it up to other 00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:20.000 parts of Denton in the future, I think seems like a 00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:24.000 wise approach. 00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:32.000 Excuse me. 00:26:32.000 --> 00:26:36.000 Thank you. So I'm just trying to understand. So if we just limit it 00:26:36.000 --> 00:26:40.000 to the appropriate personnel on the 00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:44.000 campuses and then leave it open for further discussion or 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:48.000 examination down the road for 00:26:48.000 --> 00:26:52.000 say neighborhoods or something like that. I mean, what's going to be the indicator? What's going to be the 00:26:52.000 --> 00:26:56.000 you know, the trigger that's actually going to open up that 00:26:56.000 --> 00:27:00.000 discussion again? How are we going to get back to that down the road? I mean, is that something we just 00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:04.000 don't know or something that we can plan on looking at down the road and make a date 00:27:04.000 --> 00:27:08.000 or something like that? 00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:12.000 So is that question directed to me? Yes. 00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:16.000 Okay. So my recommendation would be that we start with 00:27:16.000 --> 00:27:20.000 these two geographic areas and let's see what success we have. 00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:24.000 And my concern about as we grow 00:27:24.000 --> 00:27:28.000 this thing, how fast we grow it and how big we grow it is what 00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:32.000 Stephanie talked about is that's the enforcement and 00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:36.000 how much of a challenge are we creating for our police department 00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:40.000 to try and enforce? They have, like Brian said, they've got to, you know, every time we 00:27:40.000 --> 00:27:44.000 change it or add a street or add a region, we got to update the map and all the officers 00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:48.000 need to know and is it just in residential 00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:52.000 because that's the real, if we don't use speed limit 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:56.000 as a criteria, then it really becomes a mapping issue and 00:27:56.000 --> 00:28:00.000 the officers are just going to have to know 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:04.000 where they can enforce that and where they can't. And is it 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:08.000 every subdivision or is it just those that apply and then 00:28:08.000 --> 00:28:12.000 that leads to the, well, why not our neighborhood? Well, because you didn't apply. 00:28:12.000 --> 00:28:16.000 So I think, my recommendation would be let's see how this 00:28:16.000 --> 00:28:20.000 goes and then let's see where 00:28:20.000 --> 00:28:24.000 the desire is from the community is, hey, we want golf carts in our neighborhood. 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:28.000 We may not ever hear that. I don't know. 00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:32.000 But I think it would certainly be something that in 00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:36.000 the future, six months from now or six months after adoption, if the commission 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:40.000 said, you know what, that's working fine. So let's think about 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:44.000 expanding it and offering that to different users. 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:48.000 Certainly in the purview of the commission is 00:28:48.000 --> 00:28:52.000 let's talk about expanding the scope. 00:28:52.000 --> 00:28:56.000 Well, and I think Commissioner King's point is pretty good. 00:28:56.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Would it make sense to like return to this issue like in a year, right? 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:04.000 Like after this policy has been in place and can we do that? Can we make a note to return to this? 00:29:04.000 --> 00:29:08.000 Sure. So that we know that it actually-- We can put it on that. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:12.000 Commissioner King, would that 00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:16.000 meet your concern, right, that we actually do bring 00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:20.000 it back to the commission at some point? Well, I mean, what's going to be the 00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:24.000 evaluation process for the universities? I mean, what is y'all's plan as far as 00:29:24.000 --> 00:29:28.000 are you looking at two months, three months, six months, a year? I mean, as far as 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:32.000 what's working, what's not? So right 00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:36.000 now, they primarily utilize sidewalks. I think they do use the streets 00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:40.000 sometimes, but they know they're not legal. 00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:44.000 So the indicator that I'm going to use is crash experience. 00:29:44.000 --> 00:29:48.000 If we start having crashes with either pedestrians in golf 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:52.000 carts or vehicles in golf carts, that's, to me, that the safety 00:29:52.000 --> 00:29:56.000 issue or the safety aspect is the-- That's the big issue. 00:29:56.000 --> 00:30:00.000 Is it safe? If we don't see any crash history or 00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:04.000 crash experience increase, to me, that's a successful program. 00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:08.000 You know, I quite frankly think the golf carts or the 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:12.000 slow-moving vehicles of any kind belong on a street more than they belong on a sidewalk. 00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:16.000 So-- But it brings 00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:20.000 an inherent conflict between a 3,000-pound piece 00:30:20.000 --> 00:30:24.000 of steel and a 500-pound piece of steel. So it's just-- 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:28.000 or fiberglass, or whatever they're made of. So it's a new-- 00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:32.000 exposure that we don't have right now. And so that's 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:36.000 really what we're going to look for. We're going to see how safe we can keep it. 00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:40.000 - 00:30:40.000 --> 00:30:44.000 Yes. If we could set a date down the road, yeah, that would be my recommendation 00:30:44.000 --> 00:30:48.000 as well, in conjunction with the safety information. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:52.000 - And maybe we could get feedback from 00:30:52.000 --> 00:30:56.000 the police department, from, you know, crash data, anything-- anyone else 00:30:56.000 --> 00:31:00.000 that has comments about how this is playing out. And of course, part of the 00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:04.000 safety is-- I think the streets around the campuses tend to be safer and slower 00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:08.000 streets, fortunately. And so that'll be a good sign. But this will allow us to make sure 00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:12.000 that that's the case. So, yeah. So, Brian, if we could 00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:16.000 add that to the kind of our direction 00:31:16.000 --> 00:31:20.000 and staff direction is that we would like to have an update. I think we-- 00:31:20.000 --> 00:31:24.000 whatever a reasonable amount of time for that would be, whether it's six months, 00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:28.000 would that be a reasonable amount of time to return to this in six months? 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:32.000 Will we have enough information? - I would recommend a year because we've got to get this through 00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:36.000 council and we're going to bring it back to you one more time when we do that. So 00:31:36.000 --> 00:31:40.000 it'll probably be three or four months before this is adopted. And I'd like to give us at least 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:44.000 six months worth of experience. - Well, what if it was six months 00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:48.000 from implementation? What if that was our-- - That's fine. That's perfect. - Right. So that would-- okay. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:52.000 So six months from this going into effect, 00:31:52.000 --> 00:31:56.000 we want this to come back to council for an update on how it's going. - Okay. 00:31:56.000 --> 00:32:00.000 - Okay. All right. If there's no other-- are there any other comments from commissioners 00:32:00.000 --> 00:32:04.000 before I move on? 00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:08.000 Okay. All right. - I think Becky's got her. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:12.000 - Do we need-- sorry, Becky. - You have to have a consensus 00:32:12.000 --> 00:32:16.000 from the committee by vote again. - Okay. 00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:20.000 So if I can-- - I think it's by vote. Sorry. - Okay. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:24.000 So if I can summarize, I think our consensus is that 00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:28.000 the commissioners are 00:32:28.000 --> 00:32:32.000 okay with the current plan of golf carts around universities on 00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:36.000 university streets, but would like an update six months after implementation 00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:40.000 so that we can better understand how that's working 00:32:40.000 --> 00:32:44.000 and consider whether it should be expanded. Does that 00:32:44.000 --> 00:32:48.000 reflect our sentiment? 00:32:48.000 --> 00:32:52.000 - I would like to-- - Okay. All right. - Yay. - Go ahead. Okay. 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:56.000 So if you are-- - Commissioner Carr. 00:32:56.000 --> 00:33:00.000 - Yep. We'll go down the list. Commissioner Carr. - Yay for that. 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:04.000 - Commissioner Thurmond. - Yay for that. 00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:08.000 - Commissioner King. - Yay. 00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:12.000 - And Commissioner Baker. - Yes. 00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:16.000 - I also vote yay. And so that is a 5-0 vote in support 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:20.000 of that recommendation. Okay. We will move on to 00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:24.000 our next item, which is item C, TSC 20-022. 00:33:24.000 --> 00:33:28.000 Receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding the process 00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:32.000 of establishing speed limits in the city of-- 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:36.000 - All right. Thank you. 00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:40.000 Once again, Brian John, City Traffic Engineer. 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:44.000 Screen go. 00:33:44.000 --> 00:33:48.000 Can you see the presentation? 00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:52.000 - Yes. - Okay. So this is really an informational 00:33:52.000 --> 00:33:56.000 item. It is tied to the speed limit 00:33:56.000 --> 00:34:00.000 that you saw several months ago 00:34:00.000 --> 00:34:04.000 where we basically codified all the speed limits--not codified--well, 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:08.000 we put them all into one ordinance. All the posted speed limits, all the 00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:12.000 codified speed limits. And what this presentation 00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:16.000 is all about is giving you some background 00:34:16.000 --> 00:34:20.000 and some exposure on how we're going to go through the update 00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:24.000 process for speed limits. So 00:34:24.000 --> 00:34:28.000 a little bit of background on speed zoning in Texas, what the law says 00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:32.000 we can do, what it says we can't do. And then we're going to look at some emerging 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:36.000 and alternative speed zoning methods. NACTO's got some, 00:34:36.000 --> 00:34:40.000 ITE's got some, FHWA's got some. 00:34:40.000 --> 00:34:44.000 And then we'll look at some next steps and some timeline. So 00:34:44.000 --> 00:34:48.000 speed zoning in Texas. If you'll remember, we talked about 00:34:48.000 --> 00:34:52.000 the prima facie speed. And this is, I think, Commissioner King said 00:34:52.000 --> 00:34:56.000 that even if they're not posted, he thinks their roads are 00:34:56.000 --> 00:35:00.000 all 30. Well, in fact, 00:35:00.000 --> 00:35:04.000 if there is no sign, it's 30. And so that's the prima facie speed 00:35:04.000 --> 00:35:08.000 on anything that's not a freeway or a highway with a number or not a 00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:12.000 number. All city streets start out at 30 miles an hour. 00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:16.000 And if an alley starts at 15. So that 00:35:16.000 --> 00:35:20.000 first one, this is our purview for 00:35:20.000 --> 00:35:24.000 truly modifying speeds. We have the right to suggest a speed limit on 00:35:24.000 --> 00:35:28.000 I-35. Typically we allow the transportation 00:35:28.000 --> 00:35:32.000 commission to establish those speeds, TechStop. 00:35:32.000 --> 00:35:36.000 But we want to focus on city streets 00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:40.000 that don't have a number. And we can raise 00:35:40.000 --> 00:35:44.000 or lower that prima facie speed by conducting an engineering and traffic 00:35:44.000 --> 00:35:48.000 investigation. It applies to all city streets. So this investigation 00:35:48.000 --> 00:35:52.000 is something that was developed in the 60s 00:35:52.000 --> 00:35:56.000 and it's all based on how fast drivers are 00:35:56.000 --> 00:36:00.000 comfortable traveling. So if you've got a flat, 00:36:00.000 --> 00:36:04.000 straight road, how fast are you comfortable driving? Well, 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:08.000 pretty fast. So the process is established to, 00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:12.000 and let me get to this next, is established to recognize the 00:36:12.000 --> 00:36:16.000 85th percentile as that speed, you know, that 00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:20.000 normal and prudent driver would drive. And it's based on 00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:24.000 some research from the 60s 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:28.000 where you can see the average speed, the normal curve, and then this crash 00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:32.000 curve, and they identified, it's really 00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:36.000 close to 85, between 85 and 90. This point is 00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:40.000 your least exposure to a crash. 00:36:40.000 --> 00:36:44.000 People don't drive like they did in 1967 or so. 00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:48.000 So most professionals are 00:36:48.000 --> 00:36:52.000 beginning to understand that the 85th percentile is a little outdated. 00:36:52.000 --> 00:36:56.000 So the administrative code says that we have 00:36:56.000 --> 00:37:00.000 to use this 85th percentile to establish our speed. We've got 00:37:00.000 --> 00:37:04.000 two codes. Let me back up a little bit. We've got the transportation code, which 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:08.000 establishes the prima facie speed and gives us the right to 00:37:08.000 --> 00:37:12.000 lower the speed or raise the speed based on this study, 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:16.000 and then we've got the administrative code that tells us how to conduct the study 00:37:16.000 --> 00:37:20.000 and what we can do once we get the results. So we can adjust, 00:37:20.000 --> 00:37:24.000 based on the information in the Texas administrative code, 00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:28.000 we can adjust that 85th percentile, typically it says 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:32.000 within five miles an hour, up or down, to reflect for 00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:36.000 site distance restrictions, crash history, driveway density, 00:37:36.000 --> 00:37:40.000 and a number of other factors. Anything that we think makes it unsafe 00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:44.000 or 00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:48.000 unsafe to drive that speed, that's in a lowering case, or 00:37:48.000 --> 00:37:52.000 if we don't have any driveways at all, we can go a little bit higher. 00:37:52.000 --> 00:37:56.000 So I want to focus on lowering the prima facie speed because that seems 00:37:56.000 --> 00:38:00.000 to be the biggest area of request 00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:04.000 where everybody wants their speeds to be 20 miles an hour, and this is again, we're going back to 00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:08.000 the transportation code now. It says we can lower that prima facie 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:12.000 speed of 30 if we do the investigation, 00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:16.000 and the investigation says it's unreasonable or unsafe 00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:20.000 to drive 30. And remember, not remember, let me point out that 00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:24.000 this method strictly focuses 00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:28.000 on vehicular traffic, does not address pedestrian traffic, 00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:32.000 bicycle traffic, transit, strictly on a 00:38:32.000 --> 00:38:36.000 single occupant vehicle. And so if the driver 00:38:36.000 --> 00:38:40.000 feels, the study shows that it is unsafe or unreasonable for a driver to drive 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:44.000 30, that's one way we can lower. This roadway 00:38:44.000 --> 00:38:48.000 that we're going to lower has to be two lane undivided, and it cannot have a 00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:52.000 number on it, so it's got to be off system. So we can't, a four lane roadway can't 00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:56.000 be 20, a three lane roadway can't be 20. They used 00:38:56.000 --> 00:39:00.000 to have a width, I think of 35 feet, that was the most, the widest road, but 00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:04.000 they continue to modify. And then even if we, 00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:08.000 all of this is true, the lowest we can go is 25. 00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:12.000 So we can't sign, with the exception of a school zone, 00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:16.000 we cannot post 20 miles an hour, but we 00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:20.000 do. So if you'll remember, we had quite a list of streets 00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:24.000 in the city of Denton that in that speed limit ordinance that you saw 00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:28.000 previously were 20 miles an hour and less. So we even had some 00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:32.000 15s in there. When we're working through with our 00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:36.000 legal team on how we got to 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:40.000 that point, it happened obviously quite some time in the past. 00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:44.000 So here's a list of the roadways with non prima facie speeds. 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:48.000 Some of these are below 30, some are above 30. But this just gives you 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:52.000 an idea of the number of streets that 00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:56.000 we have from day one to now 00:39:56.000 --> 00:40:00.000 that we've modified. We've done the speed study, we've lowered, 00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:04.000 we've gone below 30, we've done the speed study, we've gone above 30. So anything that's 00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:08.000 40 or 45 or even 50, 00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:12.000 technically we have somewhere in the past performed a speed study 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:16.000 and shown this to be the 85th percentile or within five miles an hour 00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:20.000 of the 85th percentile. And we set those, we post those speeds 00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:24.000 based on that approach. So now let's talk about 00:40:24.000 --> 00:40:28.000 some of the emerging methodologies and what 00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:32.000 elements they take into consideration that might allow us 00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:36.000 to vary more than five miles an hour from that 85th percentile. 00:40:36.000 --> 00:40:40.000 So we've got a couple of different approaches. Target 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:44.000 speed limits. This really comes into play 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:48.000 with design. You design the roadway to 00:40:48.000 --> 00:40:52.000 basically allow the speed you want to post. 00:40:52.000 --> 00:40:56.000 So it calls for tighter centerline curves, 00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:00.000 little narrower, on street side friction, which is parking, 00:41:00.000 --> 00:41:04.000 or other elements. Context sensitive speed 00:41:04.000 --> 00:41:08.000 zoning. So if you're in an urban district, 45 00:41:08.000 --> 00:41:12.000 miles an hour around the square, it doesn't make sense. If you're in a park 00:41:12.000 --> 00:41:16.000 area or if you're adjacent to schools or if you're adjacent to a lot of commerce 00:41:16.000 --> 00:41:20.000 where we've got pedestrians and transit and cyclists, if you've got 00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:24.000 an on-street bike lane, those kind of context sensitive characteristics 00:41:24.000 --> 00:41:28.000 are what we want to be able to use to pull that speed limit 00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:32.000 down or take it up or however we want to use it. 00:41:32.000 --> 00:41:36.000 Slow zones and sensitive areas. And this is very much, it's just a 00:41:36.000 --> 00:41:40.000 kind of a hyper context sensitive. So if 00:41:40.000 --> 00:41:44.000 you've got, and I'll use, I know they're 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:48.000 private streets, but I'll use Robson Ranch as a 00:41:48.000 --> 00:41:52.000 context or a sensitive area where you've got 00:41:52.000 --> 00:41:56.000 possibly an elderly population, you've got a lot of pedestrians. 00:41:56.000 --> 00:42:00.000 This is really what we're looking for is 00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:04.000 is there a geographic area, maybe not just 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:08.000 one segment of a roadway, but is there a geographic area that is sensitive 00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:12.000 in nature to really desiring lower speeds. 00:42:12.000 --> 00:42:16.000 And then there's one that kind of puts all of this together. This is the ITE 00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:20.000 road risk method where it looks at land use 00:42:20.000 --> 00:42:24.000 and driveway and 00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:28.000 on-street bike and ped facilities. So 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:32.000 what we're going to do is use these 00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:36.000 approaches to modify that 85th percentile speed. 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:40.000 More than the five mile an hour guidance 00:42:40.000 --> 00:42:44.000 that's in the administrative code. The administrative code doesn't say we can't go more, 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:48.000 but you have to justify it somehow. And so this 00:42:48.000 --> 00:42:52.000 is the, these are the methodologies that we want to use 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:56.000 to modify those speeds. However, we can still go no lower than 00:42:56.000 --> 00:43:00.000 25 because of that language that's in the transportation code. 00:43:00.000 --> 00:43:04.000 So there has been a push and a number of 00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:08.000 in past years and a number of different legislatures where large 00:43:08.000 --> 00:43:12.000 groups have asked to lower the prima facie speed to 25, but it has not 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:16.000 yet been successful. And I have a feeling that it's going to be continued to be 00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:20.000 pushed. And if we adjust or if the state adjusts 00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:24.000 the prima facie to 25, part of that burden 00:43:24.000 --> 00:43:28.000 for the city is that any 30 mile an hour speed limit we have 00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:32.000 unless we have a speed that shows it's not, you know, 00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:36.000 it justifies a higher speed, we've got to resign that. 00:43:36.000 --> 00:43:40.000 And so it can get expensive. But the goal of 00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:44.000 this approach is to 00:43:44.000 --> 00:43:48.000 really put down what we think are appropriate speed limits and what are reasonable 00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:52.000 for either the geographic or the characteristic 00:43:52.000 --> 00:43:56.000 of the area in which that roadway passes. 00:43:56.000 --> 00:44:00.000 So next steps and timeline. 00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:04.000 In July, the city council approved a 00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:08.000 contract with a vendor for us to collect speed 00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:12.000 and volume data across the city. Again, because the administrative 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:16.000 code and the transportation code both say we have to use the 85 percentile, 00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:20.000 we still have to collect that volume and speed data for vehicles. 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:24.000 But this contract is all video based, which allows us to pick up pedestrian 00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:28.000 and cyclist volumes as well so that we can identify those corridors 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:32.000 that have higher ped volumes or higher cyclist volumes 00:44:32.000 --> 00:44:36.000 and then justify, use that to justify 00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:40.000 a speed reduction. So we're going to look at speed and volume for sure, 00:44:40.000 --> 00:44:44.000 but we're also going to look at the road characteristics. Is it a narrow roadway? 00:44:44.000 --> 00:44:48.000 Is the roadway surface in bad shape? Is it 00:44:48.000 --> 00:44:52.000 divided? Just basically bringing that 00:44:52.000 --> 00:44:56.000 context, that characteristic element of the roadway into consideration 00:44:56.000 --> 00:45:00.000 on, and I'll use Carol as an example, 00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:04.000 if you looked at the roadway, 00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:08.000 it's six lanes, it's divided, it probably shouldn't be 30. 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:12.000 So based on that. So we just want to bring all the data 00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:16.000 in or look at road classification. One of the key 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:20.000 for me, one of the key considerations is driveway density. If you're just talking about 00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:24.000 vehicle on vehicle, the more conflict points, and 00:45:24.000 --> 00:45:28.000 I believe we saw that in the one-way, two-way 00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:32.000 presentation several months ago, the more conflict points, 00:45:32.000 --> 00:45:36.000 the more opportunities we have for crashes. And so if we've got 00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:40.000 an area of town, and again, I'll use the 00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:44.000 town core, and even Elm and Locust as an example, 00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:48.000 those are older developments. 00:45:48.000 --> 00:45:52.000 It's a lot of very closely spaced driveways. We've got people turning in 00:45:52.000 --> 00:45:56.000 and turning out, so that can be a justification for a lower speed. 00:45:56.000 --> 00:46:00.000 And then do we have traffic control in the areas that a lot of all-way stops? Is there signals 00:46:00.000 --> 00:46:04.000 in the corridor? And then the adjacent land use. 00:46:04.000 --> 00:46:08.000 If you're adjacent to schools, churches, 00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:12.000 any of these areas that have the high potential for pedestrian 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:16.000 and bicycle traffic, that's what we're going to try and grab and pull into this model. 00:46:16.000 --> 00:46:20.000 And really do a much more thorough 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:24.000 examination and justification of what we're going to post 00:46:24.000 --> 00:46:28.000 as a speed limit. So 00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:32.000 the next step, and let me back up real quick because I want to talk about the timelines. 00:46:32.000 --> 00:46:36.000 This data collection, if you remember 00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:40.000 the street list for the non-prima facie speeds, 00:46:40.000 --> 00:46:44.000 there's about 60 or so, that's going to be the speed limits that we 00:46:44.000 --> 00:46:48.000 re-evaluate first, because those are already non-prima facie, 00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:52.000 they're already established. We want to validate those and make 00:46:52.000 --> 00:46:56.000 changes to that list as the first step. 00:46:56.000 --> 00:47:00.000 So we're going to collect that data as the core, and then 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:04.000 expand as our budget allows, and it's not a huge budget, so 00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:08.000 we want to make sure that we at least capture 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:12.000 the data for all the existing non-prima facie speeds. 00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:16.000 And that's going to take six to eight months. So 00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:20.000 after that, once we have that data in hand, then becomes the manipulation 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:24.000 of the characteristics of the roadway, the adjacent 00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:28.000 land use, the driveway density, and we will 00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:32.000 look at how much we can justify 00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:36.000 as a variance from that 85th percentile speed, because 00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:40.000 again, on a flat, straight roadway, 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:44.000 what are you comfortable driving? And that's why people, typically 00:47:44.000 --> 00:47:48.000 why people speed is because we have built roadways 00:47:48.000 --> 00:47:52.000 that are very comfortable to drive fast. So 00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:56.000 we have to pull that down slowly, a lot of education, 00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:00.000 a lot of modification, we've got a traffic calming program 00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:04.000 that's in its infancy, we're still pushing that through, so bringing those tools 00:48:04.000 --> 00:48:08.000 in on those roadways that are already built to try and 00:48:08.000 --> 00:48:12.000 accomplish. If we recommend a speed that's less than the 85th percentile, 00:48:12.000 --> 00:48:16.000 then how are we going to 00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:20.000 bring some kind of compliance into that roadway? 00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:24.000 And then after that, we'll bring that back 00:48:24.000 --> 00:48:28.000 for an ordinance update, we'll take it to this commission, 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:32.000 we'll take it to mobility commission, and then ultimately to council, and that's going to take several 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:36.000 months in itself just to be able to get on everybody's calendar. 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:40.000 We're talking about the administrative code says that 00:48:40.000 --> 00:48:44.000 speed limits that are non prima facie should be 00:48:44.000 --> 00:48:48.000 updated at least every three to five years. 00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:52.000 So with that list and with our budget constraints, 00:48:52.000 --> 00:48:56.000 we will bring back, and I'd like to do this at least once a year, 00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:00.000 and maybe twice a year, a handful of roadways as the city 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:04.000 changes characteristics of the corridors, 00:49:04.000 --> 00:49:08.000 change, we need to be responsive and 00:49:08.000 --> 00:49:12.000 say, okay, this used to be on a fringe area, now it's, you know, you're totally 00:49:12.000 --> 00:49:16.000 surrounded by single-family homes with school-aged children, you've got a brand new school 00:49:16.000 --> 00:49:20.000 that wasn't there when the speed limit was established, or you know, 00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:24.000 we've got new commercial, or we've got a new bike facility 00:49:24.000 --> 00:49:28.000 on street. As these things change, we want to be able to bring those back 00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:32.000 and recommend a modification if the modification is 00:49:32.000 --> 00:49:36.000 supported. So with that, I'll stop sharing, and we can have a discussion. 00:49:36.000 --> 00:49:40.000 There's not really any guidance. This is really an informational 00:49:40.000 --> 00:49:44.000 item, but if you want to ask questions or just have a general discussion, 00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:48.000 I think that'd be fine. And I'll defer to Council if we're 00:49:48.000 --> 00:49:52.000 off posting with a general discussion. 00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:56.000 I have a couple 00:49:56.000 --> 00:50:00.000 questions, Brian. Well, a couple questions and comments. 00:50:00.000 --> 00:50:04.000 I, you know, as you mentioned, 00:50:04.000 --> 00:50:08.000 I'm very curious about whether the formula's right. You're saying people 00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:12.000 have addressed this formula, addressed in the '60s, but I'll 00:50:12.000 --> 00:50:16.000 address one thing you brought up. You mentioned Carol as an example. 00:50:16.000 --> 00:50:20.000 Carol clearly can allow for high speeds, but I 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:24.000 think it's because it's designed wrong, right? Carol, to me, is designed 00:50:24.000 --> 00:50:28.000 inappropriately for where it's placed, and so that's the challenge of not 00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:32.000 just looking at this right, which historically has happened from the perspective of drivers 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:36.000 and cars and how fast they move to safety. And if I live on right off 00:50:36.000 --> 00:50:40.000 Carol, and you see people run for their lives across the street, it's awful. 00:50:40.000 --> 00:50:44.000 All the time, I see it every week that people sprint 00:50:44.000 --> 00:50:48.000 across the street hoping that no cars hit them. 00:50:48.000 --> 00:50:52.000 And so, you know, but if you look at it just from the driver's perspective, the street, 00:50:52.000 --> 00:50:56.000 you could say, we can go 50 on this street, and it would be fine. 00:50:56.000 --> 00:51:00.000 So then that brings me to my second suggestion, and I'm primarily talking about the stretch of 00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:04.000 Carol closest to the square, closest to the core, right, particularly 00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:08.000 for example, streets like Hickory and Mulberry that are 00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:12.000 more pedestrians and cyclists going between places like UNT and the square 00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:16.000 and the downtown transit county authority. 00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:20.000 Did I say that right? DCTA, downtown where the A train 00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:24.000 is. I've suggested this before, and I know some cities have implemented it. Have we 00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:28.000 looked at potentially having like identifying boundaries of the core 00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:32.000 that we define? I would suggest something like Belle, Carol, 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:36.000 Eagle, and what am I missing, McKinney, 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:40.000 potentially is like boundaries of the primary core and having 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:44.000 a single speed limit for all of those streets. And I know some cities, what they've done 00:51:44.000 --> 00:51:48.000 is they have special signage that kind of both serves as a marker for where you 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:52.000 are, right, it says like square or something like this, 00:51:52.000 --> 00:51:56.000 and then has a common speed limit. And while, because in most cases from my understanding, 00:51:56.000 --> 00:52:00.000 people tend to drive as fast as the road tells them. If you have wide 00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:04.000 lanes, they drive fast. If you have skinny lanes, they tend to drive slower, right. 00:52:04.000 --> 00:52:08.000 Like you said, if it's straight, they drive fast. If it's curvy, they drive slower. So they tend 00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:12.000 to indicate it. But from what I've read, there's been some 00:52:12.000 --> 00:52:16.000 success when you have like a unified kind of 00:52:16.000 --> 00:52:20.000 speed limit approach in like a certain area, because people then tend to pick up 00:52:20.000 --> 00:52:24.000 on that. It also is a signal that they're entering a different type of area. 00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:28.000 So would that be a possibility about looking at justifying 00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:32.000 the core where there's increased pedestrians, bicyclists, a lot of that 00:52:32.000 --> 00:52:36.000 activity as markers for justifying a 25 mile per hour 00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:40.000 speed limit which is lower than the prima facie speed that you mentioned? 00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:44.000 Sure. And that would be, that would really fall under the category of that sensitive zone. 00:52:44.000 --> 00:52:48.000 You identify the urban core and call it a sensitive zone. 00:52:48.000 --> 00:52:52.000 However, and this is a caveat that Texas has that a lot of states don't, 00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:56.000 the administrative code still says we have to use that 85th percentile. 00:52:56.000 --> 00:53:00.000 And so we have some procedures that we have 00:53:00.000 --> 00:53:04.000 to follow. What we're looking for with this new approach 00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:08.000 is additional justification for 00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:12.000 reducing that 85th percentile speed. 00:53:12.000 --> 00:53:16.000 So I would totally agree with you that, you know, Carol, 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:20.000 it was designed back in the day when bigger was better, man. 00:53:20.000 --> 00:53:24.000 We didn't need six lanes. We can zip up and down. 00:53:24.000 --> 00:53:28.000 So now that the neighborhood has maybe changed a little bit, 00:53:28.000 --> 00:53:32.000 and we've got some more, a little bit more urban character, that's the kind of, 00:53:32.000 --> 00:53:36.000 that's exactly the approach that we're trying to do, is take some of those 00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:40.000 non-vehicular characteristics and plug them into the formula, 00:53:40.000 --> 00:53:44.000 the equation, as justifications that it is unreasonable or unsafe 00:53:44.000 --> 00:53:48.000 to drive that 85th percentile. So if 00:53:48.000 --> 00:53:52.000 we've got a lot of pedestrians or we've got an on-street 00:53:52.000 --> 00:53:56.000 bike lane, then to me, it's 00:53:56.000 --> 00:54:00.000 unreasonable to be able to drive as fast as you want to drive because these are 00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:04.000 very much at-risk populations. They, you know, again, 00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:08.000 you have 3,000-pound pieces of steel versus a bicycle or a pedestrian, 00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:12.000 we know who's going to win. So if we can justify 00:54:12.000 --> 00:54:16.000 and quantify those characteristics, then we can justify 00:54:16.000 --> 00:54:20.000 that lower speed limit. Now, I will say that Texas does not have 00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:24.000 a blanket speed limit. Other states do. 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:28.000 We don't. 00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:32.000 We have to go through street by street and do that study and 00:54:32.000 --> 00:54:36.000 determine those characteristics. And some of that may help us decide where 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:40.000 that boundary is. If we see a drop of, you know, drop off in pedestrian 00:54:40.000 --> 00:54:44.000 or cyclist activity four blocks from the square, it's really just around the 00:54:44.000 --> 00:54:48.000 square in four blocks each way, then maybe that's the natural 00:54:48.000 --> 00:54:52.000 geographic boundary. But that's exactly what we intend to do. 00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:56.000 And I'll also point out that maybe even the 00:54:56.000 --> 00:55:00.000 built geographic boundary is a better way to say it because sometimes people don't walk 00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:04.000 in areas because the roads are unsafe, right, because they feel unsafe. And so 00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:08.000 if we redo any of those streets over time, 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:12.000 potentially we could see pedestrian and bicyclist activity increase 00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:16.000 in those areas if they were built better. Correct. And that's the challenge 00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:20.000 on the built environment is how do you morph that into 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:24.000 what you want. Here's what you've got and what are our tools to change it 00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:28.000 to provide the facility that we really need now versus what we needed 00:55:28.000 --> 00:55:32.000 30 years ago or thought we needed. City of Fort Worth 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:36.000 is a great example. They've got six-lane roadways everywhere. 00:55:36.000 --> 00:55:40.000 And it just, they don't need it. But that was 00:55:40.000 --> 00:55:44.000 I mean, 00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:48.000 I may have been part of that problem, but because I was a consultant 30 years ago, 00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:52.000 but everybody wanted 00:55:52.000 --> 00:55:56.000 this high density of, you know, a lot of cars, 00:55:56.000 --> 00:56:00.000 a lot of traffic, and it just, it never happened. And so especially with 00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:04.000 now everybody's working from home, we've, you know, we 00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:08.000 will see lower volumes than we had a year ago. 00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:12.000 So, and that may not change. People may continue to work from home. Now that we know 00:56:12.000 --> 00:56:16.000 we can, and we can do it quite successfully as we are right now, 00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:20.000 that environment may lend itself to 00:56:20.000 --> 00:56:24.000 allowing us to change some of those built environment roadways. 00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:28.000 Comments from other commissioners? 00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:32.000 Questions? Commissioner Carr? 00:56:32.000 --> 00:56:36.000 I'd like to add on to this last discussion. 00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:40.000 I ride bikes with 00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:44.000 a group of women, and we often get people who join us who 00:56:44.000 --> 00:56:48.000 feel frustrated that they 00:56:48.000 --> 00:56:52.000 want to ride, but they can't because they feel fear 00:56:52.000 --> 00:56:56.000 for their life when they get on the road. So I appreciate 00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:00.000 you guys looking at ways that we can lower the speed limit 00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:04.000 so that people might feel more comfortable riding on 00:57:04.000 --> 00:57:08.000 the road with a bike. Because as much as, you know, they want to, they get on the road 00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:12.000 and, you know, you get a car that gets too close, 00:57:12.000 --> 00:57:16.000 they get run off the road. I've heard numerous stories. 00:57:16.000 --> 00:57:20.000 I really appreciate us looking at these speed limits and trying to see what we can do to lower them. 00:57:20.000 --> 00:57:24.000 Thank you. 00:57:24.000 --> 00:57:30.000 Other commissioner comments? 00:57:30.000 --> 00:57:34.000 I had 00:57:34.000 --> 00:57:38.000 one question on, 00:57:38.000 --> 00:57:42.000 it was, I believe, that roads that are 00:57:42.000 --> 00:57:46.000 divided or multiple lanes cannot be 00:57:46.000 --> 00:57:50.000 prima facie or non prima facie. You mentioned three lane. 00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:54.000 Does that include road diet areas like Eagle and Malone? 00:57:54.000 --> 00:57:58.000 Well, so that's just basically the transportation code says it has to be 00:57:58.000 --> 00:58:02.000 a two lane roadway. If we want to go below 30. 00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:06.000 So we've got two thresholds that we're working against. One is that 00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:10.000 85th percentile, which is the measured speed, and then 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:14.000 the other is that 30 mile an hour, that's the prima facie speed. 00:58:14.000 --> 00:58:18.000 To go below the prima facie, 00:58:18.000 --> 00:58:22.000 we have to have that unreasonable or unsafe determination. 00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:26.000 It has to be a two lane roadway and we can only go to 00:58:26.000 --> 00:58:30.000 25. That's clearly stated in the transportation code. The administrative 00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:34.000 code is much more vague and really more process oriented. 00:58:34.000 --> 00:58:38.000 So a three lane roadway technically wouldn't 00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:42.000 qualify. So if we had a, and we're looking at one right now, 00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:46.000 Mingo, and based on our 00:58:46.000 --> 00:58:50.000 traffic studies that we've done with our mobility plan update, 00:58:50.000 --> 00:58:54.000 we think a three lane roadway is more than adequate because you've got the railroad on one side 00:58:54.000 --> 00:58:58.000 and you've got a lot fewer crossings. So you don't, without all those intersections, 00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:02.000 you know, you just don't need that turning capacity, which is where typically 00:59:02.000 --> 00:59:06.000 you widen at an intersection. That also allows us to put a side path, 00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:10.000 which is kind of a win-win because it gets the bike facility off the 00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:14.000 street. But technically that roadway couldn't be less than 30 00:59:14.000 --> 00:59:18.000 because it's three lanes. These are just 00:59:18.000 --> 00:59:22.000 some of the challenges that we're up against as we work through the transportation code, which is 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:26.000 kind of archaic and the administrative code, which is kind of vague. 00:59:26.000 --> 00:59:30.000 It's, we're 00:59:30.000 --> 00:59:34.000 looking, we're just looking for ways we can get creative on really lowering that 00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:38.000 going more than five miles an hour 00:59:38.000 --> 00:59:42.000 and I'm going to say below, that measured 85th percentile speed. 00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:46.000 Just because people feel like that's appropriate speed, 00:59:46.000 --> 00:59:50.000 if we've got extenuating circumstances or characteristics that 00:59:50.000 --> 00:59:54.000 show otherwise or should show otherwise, then that's what we want to be able to plug into that equation 00:59:54.000 --> 00:59:58.000 and pull that speed limit down. Even if we go out and measure a speed of 45, 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:02.000 that's the 85th percentile, that's too fast. 01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:06.000 I mean, it's just too fast for any kind of corridor where you've got 01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:10.000 the potential for pedestrians and cyclists, so personal opinion. 01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:14.000 But that's what we're trying to do. So yeah, the three-lane roadway wouldn't 01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:18.000 technically qualify for 01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:22.000 the 25. And that's marked lanes, not just, I mean, it 01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:26.000 can be, like I say, they used to have a width limit on it, but 01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:30.000 if you have a 36-foot wide roadway, you know, technically 01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:34.000 you could have three or four lanes in there, but if it's 01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:38.000 a residential street with parking on both sides, it's marked for two lanes. 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:42.000 So it's a functionality 01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:46.000 test versus really a width test, which I think is why they took the width 01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:50.000 criteria out. 01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:54.000 And to piggyback on to Daniel's talk about the core, I would 01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:58.000 suggest that Parkway or Congress be considered the northern 01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:02.000 boundary, because that would pull in Emily Fowler Library in Quaker Town. 01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:06.000 Right. Good. 01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:10.000 Other commissioners with comments 01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:14.000 or questions? 01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:18.000 The 01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:22.000 clarification real quick, but it does, the item 01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:26.000 C does ask us to give staff direction 01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:30.000 on this. I mean, would we, I know that generally what I get, I get your 01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:34.000 point, Brian, that you guys have a process that you have to follow, right, for this 01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:38.000 anyway, but is that, should we give 01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:42.000 just a kind of brief overview of what we talked about? Is that 01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:46.000 or am I reading the agenda wrong? No, it's fine. When we took it to 01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:50.000 council, we made the same presentation to council, we took the 01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:54.000 give direction out, and so it just snuck back in, because that's our 01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:58.000 standard caption. You can give whatever direction 01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:02.000 you'd like, yes, go forward, but you kind of have given direction 01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:06.000 about, hey, let's look at identifying some geographic 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:10.000 areas like the core. 01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:14.000 I'll leave that up to you, whatever direction you want to offer staff. 01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:18.000 Okay, I think based on this conversation, and please commissioners, correct me 01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:22.000 if I'm wrong, the commission would like to, so I'd like to 01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:26.000 propose that the commission would like to see 01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:30.000 consideration of possible urban zones 01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:34.000 that could be, where these speed limits can be looked at, 01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:38.000 potentially in uniform, and this could, when we consider 01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:42.000 clearly how this affects cyclists, and how these, you know, 01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:46.000 how far this should extend out, as Clay pointed out, Commissioner Thurman 01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:50.000 pointed out, you know, potentially looking beyond just that immediate area of the core, but other 01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:54.000 streets that make a lot of sense, like Oakland and others. 01:02:54.000 --> 01:02:58.000 So, if that's, does that seem to represent the 01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:02.000 commission's viewpoint? 01:03:02.000 --> 01:03:06.000 Okay, if there's no additions, all right, no additions, 01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:10.000 then we can kind of move that forward as a item, so we 01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:14.000 can just, for all in favor, and I'll go, we'll go down the list 01:03:14.000 --> 01:03:18.000 of that recommendation, Commissioner Carr? 01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:22.000 In favor? Aye. Commissioner Thurman? 01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:26.000 Yes. Commissioner King? Jeff King, yes. 01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:30.000 Commissioner Baker? Yes. 01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:34.000 And I'm also a yes, so we have a 5-0 01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:38.000 vote to recommend looking at those items as you all move forward, and we 01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:42.000 look forward to hearing about it in the future. Okay, 01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:46.000 on to our last item on the agenda today, item D, 01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:50.000 TSC 20-023, staff 01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:54.000 reports. One, we have a staff update memo regarding bollards for closing downtown 01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:58.000 streets. Also, Alice University pedestrian access, 01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:02.000 senior transportation planner, bicycle pedestrian, and ADA coordinator, and 01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:06.000 then also an item on identified items of interest for future staff reports. 01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:10.000 All right, thank you very much, Chair, and this is Brian Jahn still, 01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:14.000 city traffic engineer. Let me share my screen. 01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:22.000 Okay, so can you all see that? 01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:28.000 Am I muted? 01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:32.000 We can see it. Okay, all right. I just, I always ask because 01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:36.000 sometimes it doesn't work. So the 01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:40.000 first item on the update is something that we discussed at 01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:44.000 mobility, and we thought it would be of interest to the commission 01:04:44.000 --> 01:04:48.000 closing downtown streets, specifically 01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:52.000 around the square. Right now we use vehicles, 01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:56.000 fire engines, police squad cars, 01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:00.000 and there has been a statement of interest of 01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:04.000 can we find a better way, can we use bollards, 01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:08.000 because there's a lot of different types of bollards out there, 01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:12.000 and they come in four main types. 01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:16.000 The embedded bollards, those are permanent. So that's the permanent bollards 01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:20.000 around the federal building. The surface-mounted bollards are 01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:24.000 removable. So you have either a base or a 01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:28.000 receiving sleeve in the street, and you put this bollard in or 01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:32.000 bolt the bollard down. You've got rebounding bollards, and this is 01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:36.000 typically what we use on our bike lanes, and then retractable 01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:40.000 and removable bollards as well. So the retractable is that 01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:44.000 what you've seen on even 01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:48.000 wealthier federal buildings where they have the little hydraulic 01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:52.000 systems that can come up and down to allow traffic. So we're really 01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:56.000 only looking for something that is either retractable or removable because 01:05:56.000 --> 01:06:00.000 most times we want traffic to be able to circulate on those roadways. 01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:04.000 So we're a very limited number of days, truly, 01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:08.000 that we want to be able to block these off from a vehicular standpoint. 01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:12.000 And also one of the issues that we need to look at is whether or not 01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:16.000 these bollards will be designed to stop a vehicle. So 01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:20.000 it makes a difference on the type of bollard, but that's another 01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:24.000 consideration that the mobility committee has voiced. 01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:28.000 So here's some examples of removable and retractable. 01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:32.000 Upper right-hand corner, those are the hydraulic. 01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:36.000 That's an installed view. 01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:40.000 And then the yellow bollards here, basically 01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:44.000 you'll see there's a little receiver where you 01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:48.000 flip the thing up and you put the bollard in and then you 01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000 bolt it on. City of Fort Worth uses these around 01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:56.000 Will Rogers Coliseum, specifically during the stock 01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:00.000 show and when they have events. They don't stop a vehicle, but they're easy 01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:04.000 to install and remove. And then here's an example 01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:08.000 of the hydraulics or those much more 01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:12.000 permanent bollards going in. Very expensive process to install 01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:16.000 something that is going to be permanently in the 01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:20.000 roadway, retractable when you want to. They're also high maintenance and cost 01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:24.000 more. So our recommendation 01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:28.000 would be, and we're still in the preliminary stages, 01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:32.000 is that we don't really consider the hydraulics. 01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:36.000 We think the cost benefit for the City of Denton 01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:40.000 at this time is probably not there. 01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:44.000 We would suggest something more along the lines of 01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:48.000 more along the lines of the surface mounted or 01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:52.000 if we want to be able to stop a vehicle 01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:56.000 there's a type of bollard that is just a 01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:00.000 steel pipe, heavy pipe that you slide down into a receiving sleeve in the 01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:04.000 street. Still requires some coring and some excavation and 01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:08.000 some serious road work, but the removable factor 01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:12.000 saves you a ton of money. It's really just a matter of 01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:16.000 do you have to have a bobcat to install them, or can 01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:20.000 somebody pick them up. If they're going to stop a vehicle, 01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:24.000 an individual is probably not going to be able to pick them up. 01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:28.000 We want to look at as we get into this a little further, we now know that 01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:32.000 we would recommend we don't go with the hydraulic bollards, the retractables, 01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:36.000 but what characteristics 01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:40.000 of these bollards do we want to have? Do we want to have total vehicle protection? 01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:44.000 Do we want to have something that's firm, but it's not going to block a vehicle, 01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:48.000 or something that's really just topical in nature, and a visual barrier 01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:52.000 instead of a true permanent barrier. This is just 01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:56.000 our first blush as we move into identifying 01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:00.000 where these want to be. Is it just the block around the square? Is it two blocks away? 01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:04.000 Do we want to put these in other areas 01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:08.000 in the square? That's a bigger discussion. 01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:12.000 We have not had that discussion yet, but we will bring this back for 01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:16.000 your input as we develop this topic of conversation. 01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:20.000 The next one I know is of interest to this 01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:24.000 group, and that's the Alice University Pedestrian Access. 01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:28.000 Here's the current condition. We've got a crosswalk, and we've got a landing, 01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:32.000 and then we've got a curb. It goes nowhere. 01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:36.000 Don't tie into a sidewalk. It ties into the top 01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:40.000 of a storm drain that goes nowhere. 01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:44.000 I know the Commission has been asking for quite some time 01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:48.000 for us to pursue a remedy here, and we have in fact 01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:52.000 met with TxDOT. We've met with the property owners. We have a plan in 01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:56.000 place right here that allows us 01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:00.000 to ramp down, create a landing, and then 01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:04.000 allow a pedestrian to proceed into the parking lot. 01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:08.000 One of the things we're probably going to add to this is some 01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:12.000 markings, some striping to create a buffer zone so that 01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:16.000 we don't have that vehicular traffic zipping through here 01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:20.000 adjacent to this curbway. There's a lot of room to push the vehicles 01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:24.000 out a little further, and so right now 01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:28.000 we've got this plan. 01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:32.000 We're ready to move forward with construction. We're looking for some funding, 01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:36.000 and then the construction that you see here is probably less than 01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:40.000 $5,000. Most of the concrete's there. We're simply going to 01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:44.000 remove part of it and ramp down. It's not a lot of curb work. 01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:48.000 It's not a lot of flat work, so we're excited about getting this 01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:52.000 knocked out in the next few months. And then the last one 01:10:52.000 --> 01:10:56.000 is something I think is also of interest to this group. 01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:00.000 You'll remember that Mark Oliphant, our bike ped coordinator, 01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:04.000 left the city this past June, and so we are 01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:08.000 currently, the position is posted 01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:12.000 as a senior planner, bicycle, pedestrian, and ADA coordinator. 01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:16.000 So we've rolled a bunch of new roles and responsibilities into this. 01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:20.000 We've beefed the position up. We may be looking for a unicorn. 01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:24.000 Some people have said that, but we've got four applicants 01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:28.000 already, and it's only been out I think a week or so. So we're excited 01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:32.000 about the possibility of bringing this person on board to help with 01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:36.000 ADA issues, bicycle issues, pedestrian issues, 01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:40.000 but also transportation planning issues, which bring in 01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:44.000 that whole context-sensitive, complete street, vision zero, 01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:48.000 and the mobility plan update, all of those different aspects of 01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:52.000 non-vehicular travel that we're seeing 01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:56.000 such an insurgence of. So we're trying to be 01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:00.000 reactive and proactive, actually, 01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:04.000 and trying to get some good staff experience on board 01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:08.000 so that we can move forward with some projects that we've 01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:12.000 identified that are pedestrian or bike-oriented. 01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:16.000 So hopefully within the next month or so, we will have 01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:20.000 hired this person, and we'll bring him 01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:24.000 to--I'm being very hopeful--our next meeting in January, we'll 01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:28.000 have this person on board, and we'll all get to meet him or her. 01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:32.000 So with that, that's the end of the staff update. I'm going to 01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:36.000 stop sharing. We can have a discussion on any of those topics if you want to, 01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:40.000 and then if not, then you can proceed into items for future meetings. 01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:50.000 Regarding ALICE, has there been any discussion with the property owner about 01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:54.000 striping a pathway from that sidewalk 01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:58.000 up to the businesses? We have, and 01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:02.000 they were-- 01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:06.000 they said they would consider it. They were not-- 01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:10.000 that's a long way, and 01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:14.000 that parking lot is just--typically, 01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:18.000 you would have a-- 01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:22.000 bless you--a little bit safer pathway. 01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:26.000 The city--I'm uncomfortable doing that with city forces 01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:30.000 because it's so much, 100% private property. 01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:34.000 So we will continue to encourage them to consider 01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:38.000 some kind of a pathway, but 01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:42.000 I cannot make any guarantees. Our goal was just to get the barrier 01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:46.000 out of the way, because it just didn't make sense that we have a crosswalk 01:13:46.000 --> 01:13:50.000 to nowhere, or to an island, basically. 01:13:50.000 --> 01:13:54.000 So we just want to take the barrier off the next side. 01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:58.000 I realize that would be on the property owner to do that, just if they-- 01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:02.000 I was wanting to gauge of how amenable they were to it. 01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:06.000 They didn't say no, so that's always 01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:10.000 positive. Okay. Yeah, there's plenty of 01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:14.000 area to accommodate that. Also, on the 01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:18.000 new transportation 01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:22.000 planner, you mentioned that they would be one of three ADA 01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:26.000 coordinators. Who are the other--what departments are the other two? 01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:30.000 So we have HR, and 01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:34.000 we have Becky Davini, who is--the city engineers, 01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:38.000 there's an HR ADA coordinator in 01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:42.000 Facilities. Well, 01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:46.000 no, I take it back. Becky is currently 01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:50.000 an ADA coordinator, and she would be transferring her role 01:14:50.000 --> 01:14:54.000 in the right-of-way to this position. We have a Facilities 01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:58.000 HR--I mean, a Facilities ADA coordinator and an HR ADA coordinator. 01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:02.000 And I used to know all three names, but I think 01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:06.000 the Facilities person left, 01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:10.000 and I'm not sure who it is in HR, but that's the three--the 01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:14.000 stool, Becky likes to say. 01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:18.000 So we've got--this person is responsible for right-of-way, 01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:22.000 so a lot of PROAG, and 01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:26.000 but not so much in buildings and facilities. That's the Facilities person. 01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:30.000 But anything in a public right-of-way would be accommodated 01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:34.000 or overseen by this person. Okay, how would any 01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:38.000 request be filtered to these three? Who would be doing 01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:42.000 the filtering? There is a process, and I don't know 01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:46.000 it off the top of my head, but in our ordinance that identifies 01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:50.000 the ADA 01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:54.000 coordinators, there is a process by which people can petition 01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:58.000 action. 01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:02.000 I can send you a link or--I've seen it, I know 01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:06.000 I've seen it in a presentation a year or so ago, 01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:10.000 and I remember seeing it when I was looking for the list of-- 01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:14.000 I think it's on the website, in fact. If you just go to the cityofdetton.com 01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:18.000 and look under ADA coordinators, it'll have the list of the people, 01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:22.000 and it'll have the process by which you can petition action. 01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:26.000 Okay. Is this transportation planner 01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:30.000 going to be liaison to the committee like Mark was, 01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:34.000 as well as ADA? I would 01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:38.000 suspect so. I know that 01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:42.000 Ryan probably would voice that same 01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:46.000 hope. I have no reason to doubt that because the ADA 01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:50.000 coordinator is such a large portion of this job description, that 01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000 would be the staff liaison for COPWD. 01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:58.000 Right. It's going to--the ADA is going to take a very large 01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:02.000 amount of their time, and so I'm a little concerned how they would be able to 01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:06.000 do the bicycle coordinating and all of that, 01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:10.000 as well as, you know, one thing we're lacking is public outreach 01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:14.000 that we used to have with Julie. 01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:18.000 So those are my comments. 01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:22.000 I'll just second Commissioner Thurman's comments. 01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:26.000 I mean, I think because initially this position didn't even include the term 01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:30.000 bike or pedestrian, and it did it when it was re--so it 01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:34.000 very much felt like we were de-emphasizing 01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:38.000 pedestrians and bicyclists by the changing of this position, 01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:42.000 which I'm concerned with, so I don't know if that's something that we could 01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:46.000 send forward to council for further consideration about 01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:50.000 how much dedicated time people are going to have towards these issues in the 01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:54.000 city, because it does seem like this is being reduced, and I'm not 01:17:54.000 --> 01:17:58.000 sure this--that's the right move as we continue to see density and 01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:02.000 pedestrian and cyclist needs. So Commissioner 01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:06.000 Thurman, I don't know, would you--I mean, would you want to make a, you know, 01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:10.000 add a report or something on the amount of time 01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:14.000 that this position is going to be dedicated towards these issues, so that 01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:18.000 we can understand more fully where the city's moving on these? 01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:22.000 Are there any historical records of how much time 01:18:22.000 --> 01:18:26.000 Mark spent on pedestrian traffic issues versus ADA? 01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:30.000 Not that I'm aware of. Yeah. 01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:34.000 And technically, Mark was not the ADA coordinator. 01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:38.000 Right. But he was liaison to the committee. Yes, yes. 01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:42.000 And I understood that the coordinator was HR, capital projects, 01:18:42.000 --> 01:18:46.000 and facilities. Yeah. 01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:50.000 So would that be--could that be something we could get a report on about the 01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:54.000 changing of these positions and how much time is going to be dedicated in these 01:18:54.000 --> 01:18:58.000 people's jobs to do the work that previously Julie and Mark had been doing? 01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:02.000 I think we can get an estimate. I don't-- 01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:06.000 the one I don't have a real handle on 01:19:06.000 --> 01:19:10.000 is the ADA. I'd have to go back and look and see how much time 01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:14.000 Todd spent on the right-of-way ADA stuff. 01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:18.000 So I think some of the pathway forward 01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:22.000 has been clarified with our ADA transition plan 01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:26.000 being completed. So we now know where our 01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:30.000 shortfalls are, and we have a 01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:34.000 list of--basically a list of projects 01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:38.000 to remedy all that. So--but this 01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:42.000 position also will be looking at ADA for all new development. 01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:46.000 So they'll be part of that development review that the 01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:50.000 development team that surveys and 01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:54.000 examines the new construction. So 01:19:54.000 --> 01:19:58.000 I know we have planning people that do that as well, but I think that's going to be 01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:02.000 part of this person's role. So we can prepare what-- 01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:06.000 basically what we expect. It's always 01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:10.000 going to be dependent on what the workflow is at the time, 01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:14.000 but we can certainly come up with what we think is the 01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:18.000 expectations of how much 01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:22.000 time is going to be dedicated to the bike, the 01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:26.000 PED, the ADA, and the transportation planning. So the transportation 01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:30.000 planning is really the new--well, I guess both ADA and transportation planning 01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:34.000 are new elements. 01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:38.000 So the planning portion will probably start off small 01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:42.000 and--because we've got an established bike/ped 01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:46.000 need and we've got an established ADA need. So those 01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:50.000 will probably take the forefront, and then transportation planning is like 01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:54.000 the mobility plan, where it's every five years, or 01:20:54.000 --> 01:20:58.000 looking at--one of the things I-- 01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:02.000 something that Chandra and I do, and this person will do as well, 01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:06.000 is revision. When we have a CIP project 01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:10.000 and we're going to rebuild Carol or Elm or Locust, 01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:14.000 then we need to have the opportunity to revision that roadway 01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:18.000 for a complete street approach, a vision zero approach, and 01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:22.000 a context-sensitive approach. So that's a natural function of 01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:26.000 I think this position, because they'll be looking at ADA issues, they'll be looking at PED 01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:30.000 and bike issues as we go through our reconstructive corridor. 01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:34.000 Mitch or Car, do you 01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:38.000 still have a comment or question? 01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:42.000 I guess I was just--I haven't looked at the job 01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:46.000 description yet. I have not downloaded that to see, but I was 01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:50.000 curious. I mean, clearly--I don't know any 01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:54.000 job descriptions that generally say percentages, but 01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:58.000 I mean, it's got bike/ped on there, right? 01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:02.000 I don't know. 01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:06.000 It's in the title now, but it wasn't--the thing we know is it was not, right? 01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:10.000 That was only added after there was community feedback 01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:14.000 or committee concerns, is that if I'm understanding it correctly? That was not in the title. 01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:18.000 So my understanding is that the 01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:22.000 term "bike" or "bicycle" had to be added 01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:26.000 for funding purposes. The job description is the job 01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:30.000 description, and it's got three very clear-- 01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:34.000 you've got bike/ped oversight issues, 01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:38.000 you've got ADA oversight issues, and then transportation planning, 01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:42.000 which primarily right now is mobility plan type stuff, those oversight issues. 01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:46.000 The reason the word "bike" was specifically added back 01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:50.000 was so that we did not preclude ourselves from receiving grant funding 01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:54.000 that wants that in the title. 01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:58.000 For me, I'm fine with 01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:02.000 bike/ped in there. I have no problem with titles. 01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:06.000 For me, I'm much more concerned about the job description and what we're asking 01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:10.000 this person to do. 01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:14.000 We are about out of time, and I think I have a couple items I'd like to address, but 01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:18.000 I think one thing I'm hearing is just making sure 01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:22.000 I think the committee has some concern, or the commission has some concern that 01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:26.000 people will have dedicated time towards that, because the previous job seemed to be solely dedicated to it, 01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:30.000 now that seems to be a partial component of their work. So I don't know if that's something 01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:34.000 that we could be interested in moving forward. 01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:38.000 I'm hearing that from commissioners Karin Thurman. 01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:42.000 Is that something we'd want to maybe get a report on, or just 01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:46.000 give direction on? Is that something we can add for the future? 01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:54.000 I think just get a report on. 01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:58.000 I don't think we need to give any direction. 01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:02.000 One of the things is that this person is going to be 01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:06.000 pulled in two directions, and it's going to 01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:10.000 one month it's going to be pulled one way, another month it could be pulled the other way. 01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:14.000 So it's kind of hard to anticipate that, but 01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:18.000 one of the things that we've been lacking since 01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:22.000 Julie left is a public outreach. 01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:26.000 There were Bike with the City in May for Bike Month. 01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:30.000 There were quite a few things where 01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:34.000 we showed off what we've been developing, and now 01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:38.000 is kind of left for people to just kind of discover on their own, or have 01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:42.000 other outside sources do that. Perhaps that's something that 01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:46.000 communications could help with. 01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:50.000 So if we could request, is this, and I don't know if this is the proper, could we request a future 01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:54.000 item that maybe looks at both what the previous job descriptions 01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:58.000 were, that Julie and Mark held in this new position, and how we think 01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:02.000 they'll be, what is going to be gained and lost specific to 01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:06.000 bike and pedestrian interests, which those previous two jobs had. 01:25:06.000 --> 01:25:10.000 So could we get a report on how that's, we see that'll be changing 01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:14.000 going forward with the new position. 01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:18.000 And I just wanted to add, this is Becky Davini. I'm the City Engineer and Director of Capital 01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:22.000 Projects. I'm not sure I've met all of you, but as we are going 01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:26.000 through this project of actually working on trying to hire 01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:30.000 this individual, and through this, you know, overall 01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:34.000 posting of this position, I'd like to mention that we 01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:38.000 really would like to see what type of applicants we receive along 01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:42.000 with the job description that's currently posted, because it may 01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:46.000 be that what we are trying to do through the job posting, 01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:50.000 you know, is not something that is possible, or we're not going to get the type of candidates, and we 01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:54.000 may have to go back to the drawing board and try to relook at that overall job description. 01:25:54.000 --> 01:25:58.000 We're in hopes that we have an individual or can find an individual 01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:02.000 who can do, you know, the multiple jobs that are within this 01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:06.000 specific job description, but it may be that 01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:10.000 timing, it would be best to wait until, obviously, if the next meeting is in January, 01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:14.000 that might fall into play, but I'd like to just mention that as we're working through 01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:18.000 trying to hire that individual, it may be very difficult to try to bring forward 01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:22.000 something back until we kind of have that opportunity to review the applications 01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:26.000 and see if that type of individual is even out there for us. 01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:30.000 Thank you, Becky. So could we add that 01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:34.000 to the agenda for after that point in time that Becky identified? 01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:38.000 And I am concerned, Becky Owens, 01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:42.000 are we allowed to go past 2 o'clock or are we limited? Because we are 01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:46.000 almost at, we are, okay. Commissioner Carr, I saw your hand. 01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:50.000 So I just want to say really quick that, you know, maybe we don't 01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:54.000 pursue, you know, advertising 01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:58.000 or trying to get people to understand the new bike facilities, much 01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:02.000 maybe through this position, but maybe we seek out the 01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:06.000 part of the city that does recreation and 01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:10.000 we just refocus that energy on a different part of the city 01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:14.000 and let this position be more targeted 01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:18.000 towards streets and 01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:22.000 understanding how they interact with the other traffic for bike and 01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:26.000 ped. That's all I have to say. 01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:30.000 Commissioner Carr's point, I think that actually 01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:34.000 is a great point for getting a report on how the job's right, because if we see something that 01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:38.000 was done in the previous job descriptions and is now not done in that position, we might see 01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:42.000 could that be done elsewhere, like she's saying. I think that could be a great part 01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:46.000 of a report. Commissioner King, did you have a comment or did I? 01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:50.000 No. Okay. Okay. Becky, yes. 01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:54.000 Hope you're muted. 01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:58.000 Sorry, we can only go 01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:02.000 over slightly on our time, so we need to move along with our future items 01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:06.000 list. Well, I have a quick question. This may be for you, Becky. 01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:10.000 I'm not sure. Just really quickly, I had made some requests 01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:14.000 to have some things added to the agenda to get reports, brief reports on them that 01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:18.000 I didn't see show up and maybe I'm incorrect on my 01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:22.000 notes for our July meeting. One of the 01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:26.000 things I requested report on was the feasibility of a common speed limit around 01:28:26.000 --> 01:28:30.000 the square, which is something we discussed today, but I didn't see it on the agenda. 01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:34.000 Am I understanding the process when we make these requests 01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:38.000 for future items, how that happens or when that shows up on the agenda? 01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:42.000 Because for the last point, if we wanted a report on this, how does 01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:46.000 that process happen? Because I didn't see that on the agenda. 01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:50.000 It can happen in multiple ways. As a staff report, as Brian 01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:54.000 has prepared and presented today as part of the 01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:58.000 speed study, that agenda item was a bit inclusive of that. 01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:02.000 Or we can bring it back as a special, if you want to see it as a full-blown agenda 01:29:02.000 --> 01:29:06.000 item. Depends on how the request was entered 01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:10.000 or interpreted. 01:29:10.000 --> 01:29:14.000 We'll push that towards Brian to see how we want to, or 01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:18.000 how to incorporate that in the future agendas. 01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:22.000 Well, I think that item was addressed tonight, but I was just more concerned when we 01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:26.000 asked to add agenda items that they're added to the agenda, because I just 01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:30.000 didn't see that happen. Because I think I had 01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:34.000 also brought up asked if we could get a report on the design of the barley 01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:38.000 the new ramp and 01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:42.000 lack of crosswalk at barley and board that's right on the side of that building. 01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:46.000 And I think I'd requested that the last time and I didn't see that come back up. 01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:50.000 And then I'd also made one request about potentially getting a report about the 01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:54.000 city blocking sidewalks with signs for road closings 01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:58.000 and road construction, which has been a practice I've brought up. And so I asked 01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:02.000 if we could potentially get a report on whether that city policy to block 01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:06.000 sidewalks with with signs for road construction 01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:10.000 or whether that is something that is just being done without 01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:14.000 direction. I think I've been bringing that issue up for about six years, five or six years now. 01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:18.000 And it seems like nothing has happened. You can walk around the city and 01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:22.000 see it. So I don't know if that could be an agenda. That's an agenda item I requested in July that I 01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:26.000 didn't see added anywhere. Can we add that as a formal agenda item? 01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:30.000 Those items are, excuse me, sorry. 01:30:30.000 --> 01:30:34.000 Those items are shown on the list that Brian's 01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:38.000 fixing to speak to. It's the items for future consideration 01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:42.000 and requests for agenda items. That report's been retitled. 01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:46.000 It does show that you requested that in the meeting in July. 01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:50.000 And those are 01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:54.000 at the purview of the staff liaison, be it Becky and Brian, 01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:58.000 for when we begin creating the agenda topics and 01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:02.000 allowing for those items that need to go on to counsel and 01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:06.000 staying within our time limitations for this particular meeting. 01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:10.000 Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. I actually didn't notice that those items were on that list 01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:14.000 there, so that is very helpful. 01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:18.000 And so I would just like to add one last thing 01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:22.000 or two quick items. One, do we know why Commissioner Sample is not here? I'm concerned 01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:26.000 whether we're able to address whether these 01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:30.000 meetings are excluding some people, whether it's to work 01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:34.000 issues or other things, and I don't know if you need to publicly share it. 01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:38.000 Are we able to address that to make sure that there's not 01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:42.000 technology or work issues or anything that are excluding certain commitments? 01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:46.000 The attendance policy was attached to this meeting invitation 01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:50.000 as a reminder of how your attendance is to be reported. It goes directly to 01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:54.000 the city secretary's office. I can say personally that 01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:58.000 Commissioner Sample was invited. He did respond and said he was going 01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:02.000 to be present today. I had provided his telephone 01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:06.000 as well as his email address as points of contacts, 01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:10.000 and I haven't seen him come on. So his 01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:14.000 report will again go directly to the city secretary's office on his attendance. 01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:18.000 I do know when we were meeting on Thursdays 01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:22.000 as an alternate time during the workday, 01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:26.000 he did have a work schedule conflict, 01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:30.000 and we have to be mindful and respectful of that since we've moved our meeting from the 01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:34.000 evening time slot to the daytime time slot, but that's 01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:38.000 the only report I have available, but he is included. 01:32:38.000 --> 01:32:42.000 You all can see on the meeting invitations and the distribution of the information 01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:46.000 that everyone is included. It's a group invite 01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:50.000 and all listed commissioners are covered. 01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:54.000 Okay, thank you. I was just concerned about that. 01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:58.000 And then the last item, I just want to hickory the bike bollards on hickory. 01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:02.000 Citizens in the community have started to bring up that cars are parking between them. 01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:06.000 That was part of our discussion when those were put up. So I wondered if we could bring that 01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:10.000 back up about whether additional bollards are needed to 01:33:10.000 --> 01:33:14.000 prevent those bike lanes with bollards now from becoming parking spaces 01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:18.000 and delivery drop-off zones for people, because I think that's already 01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:22.000 happening. And from what I've heard, it's just being framed as an 01:33:22.000 --> 01:33:26.000 enforcement issue, but I think it's a design issue. And so 01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:30.000 I was wondering if we could actually get a report on whether the bike 01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:34.000 bollards are, at whatever future meeting, whether the bike bollards are working 01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:38.000 or whether cars are just driving between them. And that's on the 01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:42.000 hickory by UNT. 01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:46.000 Any other items or agenda items anyone would like to add? Any other commissioners? 01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:54.000 Okay. If we do not have any 01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:58.000 other items, then I believe we can 01:33:58.000 --> 01:34:02.000 adjourn this meeting. So thank you, everyone. 01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:06.000 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.