TAB Meeting Minutes 09.16.25
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
31265 characters
1 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES APPROVED HELD ON September 16, 2025 The Transportation Advisory Board of the City of Mesa met in the Lower Council Chambers, 57 East 1St Street, on September 16, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. TAB Members Present TAB Members Absent Others Present Daniel Hartig (Chairperson) Tara Bingdazzo Ryan Hudson Mike James (Vice Chairperson) Daniel Laufer Anna Janusz Dana Alvidrez Ryan Stokes Lea Bertoni Erik Guderian Justin Bond Rob Crist Melissa Leon Michelle McCroskey Tim Meyer Chairperson Hartig called the September 16, 2025, Transportation Advisory Board meeting to order at 5:30 pm. Item 1. Approval of the minutes of the Transportation Advisory Board meeting held on July 15, 2025. It was moved by Board Member Meyer, seconded by Board Member Bertoni, that receipt of the above-listed minutes be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Hartig – James – Alvidrez – Bertoni – Bond – Crist – Leon – McCroskey – Meyer NAYS – None Item 2. Items from citizens present. None 2 Item 3. Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to approve the installation of speed cushions on 2nd Street between Lazona Drive and Harris Drive (Council District 4). Ryan Hudson, Mesa City Traffic Engineer, introduced himself and indicated that he would be giving a presentation on the staff recommendation to approve the installation of speed cushions on 2nd Street between Lazona Drive and Harris Drive. Mr. Hudson provided an overview of the street corridor characteristics and shared photos of the street. He explained that 2nd Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, with an 85th percentile speed of 33 mph and an average daily traffic volume of 1,105 vehicles. He stated that 73% of primarily affected property owners support the installation of speed cushions, with minimal opposition from outside and secondarily affected property owners. Chairperson Hartig opened the public comment period. Michael Daley at 1420 E 2nd St, spoke in favor of the proposed speed cushions on 2nd Street. Chris Willis at 1428 E 2nd St, also supported the installation of speed cushions on 2nd Street. Board Member McCroskey asked Mr. Hudson about existing speed humps on this street. Mr. Hudson responded that two sets of speed cushions currently exist between Stapley Drive and Lazona Drive. This is the segment of 2nd Street immediately to the west of the subject segment. Board Member McCroskey inquired about proposed speed cushion locations. Mr. Hudson displayed a map showing the planned placements at this time. Board Member McCroskey asked if there was a school nearby or if there were bike lanes on 2nd Street. Mr. Hudson confirmed that 2nd Street has no marked bike lanes and is an unstriped residential street. Board Member Leon asked whether traffic might divert to nearby streets. Mr. Hudson acknowledged this possibility, noting that several nearby streets already have speed cushions. He added that if speeding becomes an issue on another street, residents may go through the same speed hump policy process to request speed cushions. Board Member Leon then asked if the residents of those streets would have to wait to get speed cushions. Mr. Hudson confirmed that they would need to go through the policy process if they wanted speed cushions installed. He added that nothing about this neighborhood street network gives a clear indication of which street traffic may choose, if any, to avoid the proposed speed cushions. 3 The neighborhood street network is a very typical grid street layout and there are existing traffic calming devices through the network. Board Member McCroskey inquired about the timeline for installation and the speed hump policy process. Mr. Hudson responded that the City of Mesa Speed Hump Policy process generally takes nine to twelve months in total. This includes warrant evaluation and traffic data collection, a three- month neighborhood acceptance survey period, a three-month neighborhood denial survey period, a two-week public comment period, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) approval. From there, installation typically occurs within three to four months after approval. Board Member Bertoni asked about the proximity of one speed cushion set to the intersection. She asked if there was a standard for placement and in maintaining certain distances from the proposed devices. Mr. Hudson explained that the map was schematic and the final placement would occur after field measurement and conflict evaluation. He noted that typical practice is to place speed cushions 50 to 100 feet from any intersections, maintain clearance from driveways, and maintain standard distances from stop or signal controlled intersections, as set forth in the speed hump policy document. Chairperson Hartig asked whether striping would be installed on 2nd Street. Mr. Hudson discussed that many factors are considered when adding striping to a local street cross-section, including street width and overall characteristics. He added that 2nd Street is a 40- foot-wide street and that adding marked travel lanes and bike lanes would eliminate on-street parking. The local street currently falls into a category of shared, on-street lanes. He stated that installing speed cushions would not require roadway pavement markings other than the speed hump arrow markings. Chairperson Hartig noted that he understood Mr. Hudson to say that 2nd Street continues through Harris Drive and that traffic on Harris Drive must stop. He asked where 2nd Street next stops to the east. Mr. Hudson clarified that northbound and southbound traffic on Harris Drive must stop at 2nd Street – it is a two-way stop-controlled intersection with the thru movement residing on east/west 2nd Street. He added that, east of Harris Drive, traffic on 2nd Street must stop at Gutherie Street. 2nd Street then ultimately ends with a cul-de-sac just east of Kachina. Board Member Meyer asked the members of the public to present whether they supported the proposed placement of the speed cushions. Mr. Hudson explained that several factors are considered when determining speed cushion placement, including intersections, driveways, manhole covers, and other existing roadway features. Residents are also surveyed to determine whether they would support the devices within 50 feet of their property. Staff generally aim to place the speed cushions 400 to 500 feet apart, as studies indicate this spacing is the most effective for positive traffic calming. Once 4 locations are identified, they are marked in the field, providing residents with another opportunity to comment before installation. Board Member Meyer asked how much influence one or two residents have in requesting that the speed humps/cushions be relocated. Mr. Hudson responded that adjustments can be made based on concerns from one or two residents. If a homeowner does not want a speed hump/cushion within 50 feet of their property, staff will make any reasonable effort to accommodate the request while still maintaining the goal of installing effective traffic calming devices for the street corridor. Board Member Meyer stated that he would like to hear from members of the public. Resident Michael Daley said vehicles travel fast around the curve, but he was unsure of the best placement to address the issue and would defer to staff expertise. Board Member Meyer commented that a speed cushion appeared to be too close to Lazona Drive and should be placed farther east. He also asked why stop signs were not installed at Harris Drive to slow traffic. Mr. Hudson explained that federal standards prohibit the use of stop signs as traffic-calming devices, as their primary purpose is to assign right of way at an intersection. Improper use and installation of stop signs at unwarranted locations can create traffic safety concerns. He added that the installation of two-way or all-way stop control depends on multiple factors, including traffic volumes for both streets, roadway characteristics, and other traffic safety components. While the intersection can always be re-evaluated, these intersections have operated under their current configurations for many years and have shown no negative traffic safety trends. Board Member Meyer stated that comments indicated many drivers speed along this roadway; thus, stopping or slowing drivers would be beneficial. Mr. Hudson explained that valley gutters are also present in the area for drainage. While not intended as traffic calming devices, they can slow drivers due to roadway dips. These features, in combination with the proposed speed cushions, will create effective traffic calming street characteristics. Board Member Bond asked whether the data collection tools measure speed or only traffic volume. Mr. Hudson responded that data collection includes both vehicular speed and volume data. Board Member McCroskey encouraged the public to contact the Transportation Department if the new speed cushions do not sufficiently reduce speeding, as additional measures may be available. Mr. Hudson stated that staff welcomes citizen feedback and will collect follow-up speed and volume data after installation. 5 It was moved by Board Member Meyer, seconded by Board Member Alvidrez, to approve the installation of speed cushions on 2nd Street between Lazona Drive and Harris Drive Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Hartig – James – Alvidrez – Bertoni – Bond – Crist – Leon – McCroskey – Meyer NAYS – None Item 4. Hear and discuss a presentation on Electric Bike Laws & Education. Ryan Stokes, Police Lieutenant, introduced himself and indicated he would present information on Electric Bike Laws & Education. Lt. Stokes stated he works in the Mesa PD Traffic Unit and outlined the unit’s responsibilities. Lt Stokes stated that electric bicycles cannot be visually classified by appearance alone. He explained the different classes of electric bicycles, which are determined by maximum speed and whether peddle assistance is required. He advised that Mesa City Code (MCC) prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from operating an electric bicycle on any public right-of-way. Lt Stokes shared recent experience – during a visit to Eastmark High School he observed that more than twenty percent of electric bicycles on campus would legally be classified as motorcycles. He then referenced MCC 6-10-2, which defines motorized vehicles and stated that this section of the Mesa City Code will be updated. Under the proposed update, Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles will be permitted on shared use paths, while Class 3 bicycles will not. Lt. Stokes noted that electric bicycles are not allowed on city sidewalks unless the motor is turned off and the rider is pedaling without power assistance. He then discussed electric motorcycles, explaining that riders must follow the same laws as traditional motorcycles. However, the Arizona Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Division does not register these devices because they lack Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), meaning they cannot be legally registered or issued. As a result, riders cannot meet legal requirements for operation, including registration, insurance and motorcycle endorsement. This ultimately makes it illegal to operate these devices on public streets and in public spaces. Lt. Stokes continued to explain that riders must be at least 16 years old, and riders under 18 must wear helmets. Additional requirements include mirrors and brake lights. As sold, these devices are not street legal. He expressed concern that many parents purchase these devices for children believing that they are safe and legal because they are electric, despite their rapid acceleration and top speeds of 50-60 mph. He added that in recent months he has seen serious crashes involving these devices and young drivers under 15 years old. He also reviewed examples of non-pedal assisted devices and their requirements related to registration, speed, and use of bike lanes. Lt Stokes concluded by stating that the Mesa Police Department will conduct an educational campaign for approximately one month, followed by targeted enforcement in areas with the highest number of complaints and accidents. He noted that citations related to illegal electric motorcycles can add up to $6,000. 6 Board Member McCroskey requested that the presentation be given at her annual community meeting and asked whether golf carts follow the same age requirements. Lt. Stokes stated that a driver’s license is required to operate a golf cart. Board Member McCroskey raised concern about electric bicycles being very quiet and how that can create issues near horses on trails. She then inquired whether signage will be posted for electric bicycle riders on the shared use paths that horses use. Lt. Stokes responded that only Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles, with a maximum speed of 20 mph, are permitted on shared use paths. Board Member McCroskey said they are still difficult to hear. Lt. Stokes agreed and stated he was not sure what signage would be included or whether the verbiage may need to be updated. Board Member McCroskey wondered why devices that are not legal for use on public roads are sold in retail stores. She noted that although they are marketed as off road, many buyers assume they may also be used on shared use paths and city streets. Lt. Stokes responded that it is likely because they are electric. He explained that they are sold with speed governors but noted that online YouTube videos show how to modify them to increase their speed. Board Member McCroskey inquired whether riders receive additional charges if an officer notices such modifications. Lt. Stokes responded there is no additional charge for the modification itself, but the rider could receive all the citations associated with operating what is considered a motorcycle. Board Member McCroskey asked if officers could lock down an electric bicycle deemed illegal on school property, like placing a vehicle boot on a car for a parking violation. Lt. Stokes replied that police cannot immobilize these devices on school grounds, though schools may enact their own rules. Once students leave school grounds, police enforcement applies. He added that when students see law enforcement, they often begin walking unauthorized electric bicycles. Board Member Crist inquired whether retailers selling electric bicycles without peddles understand public right of way and age limit laws, and whether they are required to inform parents. Lt. Stokes acknowledged that he was unsure but agreed it was an important point and suggested including retailers in their educational campaign. Board Member Crist said he believes retailers are not educating parents. 7 Lt. Stokes assured the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) that he will raise the issue so bicycle shops could be added to the educational outreach list, acknowledging that while retailers aim to make sales, the Police Department priority is ensuring the public understands the law, and the City of Mesa code. Board Member Crist said he is sure this is not being forced as part of the city code, since he noticed many children under 16-years-old riding those bicycles. Lt. Stokes noted that if officers find a group of underaged riders, they can begin asking their age and then likely educate their parents on city code requirements. Board Member Leon shared that she formed a community safety group in her area in March and she has worked with local retailers, many of whom were unaware of the laws. She noted that retailers were surprised when informed of the rules during visits with Mesa Crime Prevention Officers. Lt. Stokes noticed that every city is different in terms of city codes. State law applies statewide, but cities can impose their own unique codes. He invited board members to request police attendance at community meetings for public education. Board Member Leon acknowledged the Police Department has done a fantastic job educating her neighborhood. She inquired whether additional public relations (PR) support through news stories and articles on social media would occur once changes take effect. Lt. Stokes responded that news blasts will be distributed through social media and news agency platforms. Board Member Leon asked whether private and charter schools would be included in education efforts. Lt. Stokes confirmed that the department would attempt to reach all schools with students from 7th through 12th grade. Board Member Leon also asked about large groups of riders who block traffic despite prior enforcement. Lt. Stokes responded that most riders stop and are respectful, though some flee and later face consequences. He emphasized that education, not enforcement, is the department’s primary goal. Board Member Leon asked if the Mesa Police Department collaborates with other cities, especially because children from neighboring cities may ride in the City of Mesa. Lt. Stokes confirmed the collaboration, especially with the Town of Gilbert where the school boundaries overlapped. He explained an example that Eastmark High School is part of the Queen Creek Unified School District, but is in the City of Mesa, and some students live in the Town of Gilbert. He added that they coordinate with all the east valley cities. 8 Board Member McCroskey asked whether other cities had discussed Mesa’s 16-year-old age restriction. Lt. Stokes responded that other cities are aware of Mesa’s age restriction on electric bicycles and the City of Mesa can educate the public but cannot require other cities to adopt the same rules. Vice Chairperson James asked Lt. Stokes to explain why electric scooters are not allowed on the shared use paths, since only Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles were mentioned as being allowed. Lt. Stokes explained that the proposed language for parks was developed by Mesa Parks and Recreation and has not yet been finalized. Vice Chairperson James noticed that the Rio Salado Pathway is well suited for electric scooters. He said he is curious why the city would not allow them. Lt. Stokes acknowledged that was a valid point and he would need to research it further before rules are finalized. Board Member McCroskey asked how electric scooters are classified if they are not Class 1 and Class 2 devices. Lt. Stokes responded that it depends on their speed. Riders must be at least 16 years old to ride them according to the Mesa City Code. Electric scooters may be ridden in bike lanes and on roadways but must yield the right of way to pedestrians. He said they fall under many of the same guidelines as electric bicycles. Board Member McCroskey asked if the Transportation Advisory Board could receive a copy of the presentation. Lt. Stokes confirmed that the presentation would be uploaded to the website. Board Member McCroskey emphasized that any necessary changes to the Mesa City Code should be made now. Board Member Bertoni proposed to place updated City Code on the Transportation website for the public because many citizens are unaware of the rules. She highlighted the clarity of the chart included in the presentation. Lt. Stokes said the goal is to develop a tri-fold educational pamphlet, both in print and online on the Police Department website and possibly the Transportation Department website. Board Member Meyer questioned why the City of Mesa is more concerned about electric bicycles than traditional bicycles, noting both are quiet and can reach 20 mph. Lt. Stokes responded that reaching 20 mph on a traditional bicycle compared to an electric bicycle requires much more effort, and higher speeds increase the likelihood of injury or death. 9 He added that the goal is to keep electric bicycles away from walkers for safety reasons and to prevent young riders from traveling 30 to 40 mph on public roadways. Board Member Meyer restated his opinion saying that he does not see the issue if both types can reach 20 mph, though he understands concerns about devices that exceed 30 mph. He added that he plans to investigate the 16-year-old requirements. He said he understands it for devices that are like motorcycles. Lt. Stokes acknowledged that he did not know when that requirement went into effect because it predates his time. Board Member Meyer said he does not understand why 12- to 15- year-olds are restricted in the City of Mesa because 20 mph is not very fast. Board Member Crist disagreed, stating that reaching 25 to 28 mph on a traditional bicycle requires significant effort. He then added that electric bicycles are much heavier than traditional bicycles. Young riders lack experience to safe riding a bicycle at high speeds, on a path with walkers, joggers, and pets. Board Member Meyer inquired why it is acceptable for children to travel 20 mph on a traditional bicycle. Board Member Crist responded that most riders on traditional bicyclists do not travel 25 mph on shared use paths. Board Member Leon shared personal experience, stating her 10-, 12-, and 14-year-old children can only sustain 15 mph for a short time on traditional bicycles due to fatigue. She added that since July 31, when school started, there have been 25 crashes between bicycles and cars in her neighborhood alone. She emphasized that the issue is not just electric bicycles but also that children do not understand traffic laws, including stopping at the stop signs, making left turns, and yielding at intersections. She said inexperience is a problem and that collisions at 20 mph whether with pedestrians or animals, can cause significant injuries. Board Member Meyer inquired whether the educational campaign would use a warning first approach. He said in the past, he received a warning for a license plate light that was out and was told that if he did not fix it, he would later receive a ticket. He was wondering if similar approach would be used for bicycle violations. Lt. Stokes explained that warnings are documented in their system and during their enforcement phase officer will know whether a rider has previously been educated. Board Member Meyer acknowledged that he likes the warning approach but questioned the 30 days of education. Lt. Stokes explained that 30 days is not fixed and depends on how long it takes the educational component to reach the public. Enforcement may begin after 45 or 60 days depending on outreach effectiveness. 10 Board Member Alvidrez thanked Lt. Stokes and his staff for their work on the issue. Item 5. Hear and discuss a presentation on a Future Transportation Bond Program. Erik Guderian, Interim Transportation Director, introduced himself and indicated that he would be presenting an overview of a Future Transportation Bond Program. Mr. Guderian requested feedback from the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) regarding priorities for a future bond program. He explained that the City of Mesa has used municipal bonds for many years and while funds from the 2020 Mesa Moves Bond have not been fully spent, all funds are fully obligated, leaving no available funding. He noted that staff is reviewing previous plans and programs to help identify potential projects for future bond funding. He outlined the proposed types of projects, the input he is seeking from the Transportation Advisory Board members, and how that feedback can be provided. Vice Chairperson James inquired whether staff were primary seeking public preferences on where money should go, or for a more technical input based on studies showing where the needs are as the bond program is developed. Mr. Guderian responded that the process is in its early stages and staff is currently gathering information. He explained that previously identified projects are being reviewed and that staff is working with the Engineering Department to develop cost estimates. Over the next three to six months, presentations will be made to City Management and City Council, followed by public feedback. He noted that City Council must approve placing the bond request on the ballot in June 2026 if a bond is pursued. Vice Chairperson James stated that he believes that the Transportation Advisory Board, including himself, is particularly interested in safety related projects, including bicycle and pedestrian network improvements and intersection enhancements. He added that aspirational projects that allow residents to safely travel from their neighborhoods to destinations like Riverview - without using major arterial roads - are also important. He emphasized the value of infill and smaller projects that can have a meaningful impact. Board member Bertoni agreed and noted that the Transportation Advisory Board frequently hears from citizens about bicycle and pedestrian safety. While she acknowledges the necessity of roadway reconstruction, she stated that new bike lanes often have a more visible impact for the public. She added that she also recognizes that required projects consume a large portion of the budget, but she supports prioritizing projects that offer the greatest benefit, essentially the most “bang for your buck”. Mr. Guderian stated that he should have addressed costs earlier in this presentation. He explained that the approximate costs are two to three million dollars for a mile for a lighted shared use path, ten to twenty million dollars for intersection improvements, and ten to twenty million dollars for widening a mile of an arterial roadway. He noted that raising costs has been one of their challenges and know the list of potential projects will exceed available funding. Mr. Guderian also emphasized that staff’s goal is to equitably benefit all the City of Mesa residents, regardless of where they live. ITEM NO. 3 Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to approve the installation of speed cushions on 2nd Street between Lazona Drive and Harris Drive (Council District 4). September 16, 2025 Transportation Advisory Board Meeting SPEED CUSHIONS 2nd Street – Lazona Dr to Harris Dr 2nd St Stapley Dr Lazona Dr Harris Dr Guthrie St University Dr Existing Speed Cushions 1st St 3rd St Hall Williams Hill 2nd Pl 1st Pl 2nd Street (Looking east) 2nd Street (Looking west) Discussion – 2nd Street • 25 mph posted speed limit • 85th percentile speed = 33 mph • Daily traffic volume = 1,105 vehicles per day • Fire Department does not object to speed cushions • Survey of 97 affected property owners confirmed at least 70% approval (73%) • Survey of 64 secondarily affected property owners confirmed less than 70% opposition PUBLIC SURVEY SUMMARY Item No. 3 Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to approve the installation of speed cushions on 2nd Street between Lazona Drive and Harris Drive (Council District 4). 3 Mesa PD Electronic Bicycles and Motorcycles Overview Updates to Mesa City Code Identify the different classes of“E” bikes Identify which class of“E”bikes can ride in bike paths. Identify different styles E Motorcycles Education and Enforcements MCC 6-10-2 6-10-4 Updates Update definitions of E-Bikes Update definition of “Motorized Vehicle” Multi Use Path changed to Shared Use Path Class 1 and 2 allowed in park and motorized vehicles under special event license Other motorized vehicles and class 3 E bikes not allowed DIFFERENT CLASSESOF ELECTRICBICYCLES Class I 1. 20 MPH with peddle assist Class II 1. 20 MPH without peddle assist Class III 1. 28 MPH with peddle assist Motorized Vehicle MCC 6-10-2 MOTORIZED VEHICLE: AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE, AUTO CYCLE, CLASS 1 ELECTRIC BICYCLE, CLASS 2 ELECTRIC BICYCLE, CLASS 3 ELECTRIC BICYCLE, DUNE BUGGY, ELECTRIC MINIATURE SCOOTER, ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICE, ELECTRIC STANDUP SCOOTER, GAS OR ELECTRIC POWERED AUTOMOBILE OR TRUCK, GOLF CART, MOPED, MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIR, MOTORCYCLE, MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE, MOTOR VEHICLE, MOTORIZED QUADRICYCLE, MOTORIZED SKATEBOARD, NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC SHUTTLE, NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC VEHICLE, OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE, PERSONAL MOBILE CARGO CARRYING DEVICE, OR WORK UTILITY CART. BIKE PATHSAND SHARED USE PATHS Class I & II can operate on bike and shared use paths Class III can not operate in bike and multiuse paths No other motor vehicles allowed to operate in Park RIDING ON SIDEWALKS MCC does not allow any class of electric bicycle to be ridden on a sidewalk while under assisted power MCC does not allow anyone under the age of 16 to operate an electric bicycle (secondary offense) Motorcycle and E-Motorcycles (Surron / Talaria) Sold as “Electric Dirt Bike” Requires Motorcycle Endorsement Requires registration and insurance Requires helmet if under 18 Requires mirror and brake light Not Street legal (as sold) Speeds reach 50-60 mph DIFFERENT STYLESOF NON-PEDAL ASSISTED DEVICES DIFFERENT STYLESOF NON-PEDAL ASSISTED DEVICES EDUCATION / ENFORCEMENT Education Schools Public Enforcement Patrol Traffic QUESTIONS? Future Transportation Bond Program Transportation Advisory Board September 2025 Where We Came From 2 Mesa Voter Investments In Transportation • 2012 Parks Bond: $5.9M for active transportation projects • 2013 Streets Bond: $79.1M for transportation projects • 2018 Parks Bond: $6.4M for active transportation projects • 2020 Mesa Moves Bond: $100M for transportation projects All funding is fully obligated How We Got To Today 3 Preparing For A Future Bond Election Project recommendations will come from the following: • Mesa Bicycle Master Plan (2018) • Long Range Analysis and Prioritization of Select Intersections (2021) • Transportation Master Plan (2024) • Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (2025) • Capital Improvement Program • Unfunded 2020 Mesa Moves Program • Proposition 479 Projects Where We Are Today 4 Regional Roadway Improvements • Intersection focused • Segment focused Active Transportation Projects • Shared Use Paths • On-Street facilities (includes facilities behind curb) Safety Improvements • Spot treatments • Systemic treatments (citywide safety measures) Arterial Roadway Reconstruction Future Bond Program - Proposed Types of Projects Why We Are Here Today 5 We want your input • Priority areas for improvement • Gaps in active transportation (bike/ped) network • Safety hotspots (higher-risk intersections, speeding concerns, etc.) • Regional connections that support growth • Community concerns you’ve heard How to provide suggestions • Comment during today’s meeting • Submit written feedback to sabine.king@mesaaz.gov by Sep. 30, 2025 Questions/Discussion 6 6