MPO Policy Board Meeting   3/10/2022

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Ms. Laundrie.

Mr. Rieck with Jaunt.

Ms. Monteith with UVA.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Hudson with DRPT.

Mr. Long with FTA.

Mr. Fessel with CTAC.

And I'm present with the TJPDC.

All right, board, we're here today.

This is a special meeting primarily so that the board could have additional time to consider the information that will be presented.

There will be some public comment periods today.

We will be adhering to the schedule.

I just want everyone to know no action is being taken today.

So the primary time for action will be at the scheduled Metropolitan Planning Organization's normal meeting.

And there'll be a chance for public comment to be taken on that day as well.

So today, if for some reason, due to sticking to the schedule, if comments are not made or you don't get the opportunity to do so, by all means, email the policy board and you will have the opportunity to speak at the meeting where the decision will be made.

Anything else I should add in there, Sandy or Christine?

Very good.

So I'll hand things over to Sandy.

Um, yep.

All right, so we are scheduled.

We can do from 105 to 120 matters from the public.

We did not do sign up.

So if you would like to speak, you can raise your hand and you'll be called upon.

You will have to unmute yourself when you're called upon.

You will be timed.

You have three minutes to speak.

And then you'll get a 30-second warning when your time is almost complete if you get close to it.

So I see that there's one hand up currently.

Greg Goldberg.

You should have permission to speak.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm a physician who lives in Woolen Mills.

I've lived there since 1993 and I want to speak in favor of the pedestrian bridge that we're talking about.

I'd love to see it in the park so that we can add more parking there.

I understand that there are some neighbors who are opposed to this and my main belief is that

This bridge is for the betterment of the community.

I myself have forded the river on my bicycle several times during the month of August.

I use the county trail as well as the city trail.

And I believe that by building the bridge that more people will have access to nature.

And nature is one of the best prescriptions I can give somebody.

I would hope that the people who are opposed to it would think not so much about their own little

Castle, if you will, but more about what's best for the community, which is to build the bridge.

Thank you.

I see Alicia Savage has her hands up.

Hi, thanks so much.

I live at the corner of Chesapeake Street and Riverside, and I'm definitely interested in the idea of the bridge.

I think it'll be wonderful to create the connection between the paths.

I am a little bit nervous about parking at the Chesapeake location.

At present, the park can't contain all the cars.

and people that it attracts.

And so the parking spills over into the community and into the neighborhood.

And it means if I come back with groceries, I have to walk quite a distance because I can't use the street parking by my house.

I'm a little nervous that expanding the parking at the park will mean that there is no nature left.

So I would either vote to have the bridge go to the Woolen Mills location because the parking is already solved there.

or to not create such a concentrated pressure point for enjoyment of the river in this one location.

It would be nice if throughout the city we kind of could spread out the recreation along the river if possible.

And the next hand is Diana Webb.

So you now have, let's see,

Hi, my name is Diana Webb and I work at Central Martha Jefferson Hospital.

And I am definitely for the bridge.

I know that there's downsides and upsides at both locations that you all are looking at to connect.

But I think overall, I agree with what people have said that it's a really great opportunity and a great thing for the community.

And either option would end up being a really good option for individuals and the community as a whole.

Thank you.

And then Mr. Condor has his hand up.

Yes, I'm also in favor of the bridge.

I've in fact proposed a third alternative.

And with respect to parking,

Alternative I proposed has no parking at either end and doesn't need it because where it terminates is on Riverside Avenue.

That's bus route one.

People would either bike there or walk there or they can ride the bus.

There's no reason to have any parking.

And so none is provided and there should be no impact on

on the neighbors in the area that people would be parking on the street there.

So I hope you'll consider my alternative along with the other two.

Thank you.

I did not see any other hands raised at this time.

Oh, no, there are a couple.

Mr. Krebs, you have permission to speak.

Thank you.

I'm Peter Krebs from the Piedmont Environmental Council.

I'd like to thank the policy board for authorizing the increased analysis and outreach that we're seeing here.

Sandy and her team have done good work and many members of the community have invested a lot of time too.

In fact, many of you have taken personal time to visit the site and this meeting itself is beyond the normal calendar.

I know you all share the conviction that it's important that we get this right.

Either of the two options would be a huge win for the community and both are compelling.

Both options improve connectivity, foster economic growth, promote public health and safety while getting people out of their cars.

As a bonus, they connect people to the Ravenna River without actually touching it.

A successful bridge is one that actually gets built and one that many people will use.

I've heard the narrative that a popular bridge at Chesapeake Street would somehow harm the neighborhood or destroy Riverview Park.

I installed a trail counter there years ago, and I'm very aware of how visitorship of the park has increased, especially since the pandemic.

Frankly, I see more people enjoying nature and using our parks as a positive development and one that has probably saved lives.

I spend a lot of time at the park.

I see parents with strollers, teenagers walking off their stress, elders with their companions and many friends from the neighborhood.

How wonderful would it be if we could offer some of that same connection with the nearby hospital businesses and residents of Pentops.

Riverview Park has evolved since it was created and the neighborhood has benefited from that evolution.

Some of those investments have been very costly.

Regardless of what happens with the bridge, the park will continue to change and this is an opportunity to address a number of things all at the same time.

The Wolf Factory site is also a great option.

There's a multi-century narrative of history and transportation that many have described with great eloquence.

I love what Brian Roy is doing and I love what Albemarle County is doing there, as well as on Broadway and at State Farm.

Either bridge will need to be appropriate for this important location and worthy of the labors and aspirations that so many have put into it and will continue to do so.

As you evaluate the options, I would encourage you to prioritize the location that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

By my analysis, that would be Chesapeake Street.

Thank you.

Yep, there is one more.

Go ahead, Ms. Stafford.

Sandy, I can't decide whether to speak now or towards the end of the meeting.

Well, I am interested to hear how the discussion goes before I speak.

All right, very good.

If there's no others at this time, then they can sign up to speak towards the end after they listen in.

I will make just the comment that so we're clear, Mr. Condor did send in some written comments in addition to what was stated during the public comments section.

I think those comments received by everybody on the policy board and the written comments will be made part of the official record of the meeting.

It would have been too long to read all those comments in the given time, but we'll make sure the written statement is included as part of the record.

All right, Sandy.

So then next we need to accept the agenda that's before us.

The only change might be the indication that it states that the next meeting will be on March 23rd.

And we were just made aware of our conflicts.

All right, so the alternative meeting time, there could be one.

Yes.

Very good.

I'll second it then.

Yeah.

I'm balancing multiple screens here.

Supervisor Mallet?

Yes.

Good.

We have an agenda approved.

Sure.

And while we get started, I'm juggling a couple of different screens right now.

So for the policy board members, if you have a question and you'd like me to stop to ask the question, feel free to interrupt me.

I may not see if you raise your hand and I want to make sure we address that.

There are also a couple of other staff members, including Mr. Proctor with VDOT and several members of the localities that have been involved in different aspects of this project available to help answer some of those questions as needed.

So the first thing I want to do is just start by talking about SmartScale a little bit since that is the funding source that we are applying for with this project.

Most of you are familiar with it, but just to make sure you have this context fresh in your mind as we talk about this analysis.

SmartScale is the application process that we're going through to apply for funding for this project.

So every two years we have the opportunity to apply for funding for the priority transportation projects and these are competitive applications.

So this project will have to compete against other projects within the state for funding.

There's a benefit score that's assigned based on what the state's priorities are and how well this project helps to meet the state priorities for improving the transportation network.

And then that benefit score is divided by the overall project cost.

And basically projects that score the highest to oversimplify things a little bit are the ones that are funded.

This just shows what the benefit scores are based on.

So they're basically tabulated using a methodology that VDOT develops across a number of key measures.

And then, like I said, they're divided by the project costs overall.

These include factors like how well the project helps to support safety, how the project addresses access to jobs and other local opportunities, economic development, land use, those kinds of things.

And then as you all know, the MPO Policy Board adopted a new process for SMART SCALE that is being implemented.

And this shows just the process that we've been going through basically for the last year.

It's been a year since we've been working through this.

As you are aware, this project was identified as a priority project for additional stakeholder and public engagement.

And so a stakeholder advisory group was approved by the Policy Board for this project in the fall.

And we've been meeting monthly since November to discuss the pros and cons of the two alignments that are being considered.

So there's a lot that has got into getting us to the point where we are today, so I'm going to go ahead and start talking about how we ended up with the two bridge alignments that we're discussing today.

The need or desire for a bike ped bridge crossing the Ravenna River has shown up in many documents going back.

I think I saw a newspaper article from the mid-2000s.

And so as many of you are aware, this isn't the only location where a bike ped crossing is desired.

Other locations that have been identified include between Darden Tow Park and Penn Park.

And that's something that we got some comments on about why are we looking at this bridge option versus a bridge between the two parks.

an alternative to free bridge to provide a more comfortable crossing alternative for bicyclists and pedestrians and then the crossing we're discussing tonight between Pantops and Willa Mills.

The reason we started with this location between Pantops and Willa Mills first out of these three is because it has the biggest opportunity to meet a transportation network gap in addition to providing some recreational benefits for users.

There's a lot of commuting opportunity between the Woolen Mills and Pantops areas based on commercial developments.

And there's also a recreational benefit for the bridge to serve as a crossover connection between the Ravana Trail system on the west side of the river and the Old Mills Trail system on the east side of the river.

In 2019, the MPO worked with VDOT to retain the services of a consulting firm, BHB, and they conducted a feasibility study to determine potential locations for bridge between handoffs and mill and mills.

Initially, they identified six potential crossing options and then worked with a stakeholder group made up of state and local and MPO staff to assess the feasibility at these six different sites.

Crossings were eliminated on a number of criteria that included steep slopes, accessibility considerations, right-of-way impacts, and known protective resources.

And so out of the original six options to remain shown on this diagram is options one and four.

The two alignments that remained are the ones that you can see here on the diagram in red.

I know it might not show up.

Too strongly.

The top alignment is what we'll be referring to as a Chesapeake Street alignment, and it spans from the State Farm property right here on the east side of the river to the end of Chesapeake Street on the west side of the river, and it lands basically at Riverview Park.

And then this lower alignment is referred to as the East Market Street alignment.

It also spans from the State Farm property, and this isn't actually privately owned property.

This is property that's owned by Albemarle County.

And then it lands on the west side of the river near the end of East Market Street.

This is actually private property that is owned by the wool factory development site, but it does have a public use easement.

Because this is a transportation project, both of the alignments are required to have logical termini that provide access to the existing transportation network.

And so that means that on the east side of the river, a shared use path, which is shown as this white dash line right here, will be required to be constructed from the bridge landing to the transportation network and the

Termini for that or the connection point for that was determined to be Peter Jefferson Parkway and State Park Boulevard.

And then on the west side of the river, the bridge landing would tie into the transportation network, either through a dark connection at Chesapeake Street or through this public use easement at East Market Street.

So really the primary distinction between the two sites, because on the east side of the river, the final termini for the project is at the same intersection.

The main distinction on impacts is where the bridge will land on the west side of the river.

The consultants prepared a rendering of what a bridge could potentially look like at both of the proposed locations, and so this gets shown here.

shows a rendering of a cable-side bridge across the Ravenna River at the Chesapeake Street site.

It's important to note that either location could involve a different bridge design, but this is intended to provide sort of an idea of the potential visual impact of a bridge at the locations.

The elevation of the Chesapeake Street alignment is higher than the more southern alignment at East Market Street.

And it would also require what appears to be a single span.

So it looks like it's one structure.

The design itself is actually kind of a hybrid.

And I learned a little bit about technical language regarding bridge construction.

It's not technically a single span, but to the average person, it appears as a single span.

The planning level engineered cost estimate for the starlet bridge at this location is $11.3 million, but this should also be considered as being very preliminary since there are a number of technical analyses that would be completed as part of the project engineering before cost estimates could be more accurately determined.

And then this second sketch shows the potential visual impact of a two-span arched truss bridge at the East Market Street location.

And this bridge would have a pier that rests in the middle of the bridge on the island.

The elevation is lower at this location, so the water clearance is reduced compared to the first option.

And again, a different bridge design could be installed at this location, although the bridge design could also impact the cost estimate.

The planning level cost estimate, although also likely to increase as the engineered plans are developed, is intended to provide an understanding of the cost differential between the two different bridge options.

And then in November of 2020, after this feasibility study was wrapped up, MPO staff facilitated a webinar that reviewed the feasibility study with the public and addressed many of the technical questions that had arisen as part of the feasibility study.

The purpose of that webinar was to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the feasibility study and share comments and thoughts, but the MPO did not have clear guidance on moving forward towards project implementation at that time.

So I'm just going to talk about the engagement that we've been conducting to gather information that was used to basically inform the rest of the discussion that we're going to have today.

A stakeholder committee made up of a mix of technical staff, community organization representatives, and citizen planners was appointed by the policy board.

And this committee has been meeting monthly since November.

And we also conducted an onsite visit to the proposed landing sites on the Willow Mills side of the river to assess the potential impacts.

This advisory committee has discussed many potential impacts of the two alignments on the surrounding area and helped identify the relative pros and cons of the two alignments.

The meetings have been open to the public and the meeting agendas have included open comment and question periods at the end of each meeting.

We also held a public meeting on February 22nd to review the information that had been discussed with the public more broadly and to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide feedback.

We also conducted a MetroQuest survey that generated more than 800 responses and there is also a comment form that can be completed on the MPO SMART SCALE webpage to share comments.

We used a variety of methods to get the word out.

We sent information to the MPO committees and stakeholder advisory committees to have them distribute the information through their networks.

We also sent out a postcard mailing to all addresses within a half mile buffer of any of the proposed bridge landings.

You can see that on this diagram here, or map.

We posted information on our social media platforms, we provided information to local media and community organizations on request, and all of these contacts helped distribute the information and raise awareness.

So what did we talk about when we did all this engagement?

This is a list of the factors that were part of the discussion, and these factors were informed by the MPO's Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, and then they were reviewed and refined based on feedback from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.

So the first thing we can talk about this afternoon is how this bridge fits into the overall network connectivity for the area.

There is a need overall for improved network connectivity and everybody that was involved in this process knows that regardless of this bridge, there are still improvements that are going to need to be made to this network in the local area.

But this bridge is not intended to solve all of the network connectivity concerns in the area near the proposed landing sites.

It is intended to solve a very important network gap in the local area, which is getting across the river.

The river currently acts as a barrier to movement and so one of the discussions we have with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee is that right now the most important network gap that we need to fill is getting across the river and once we get across the river we can talk about how we're going to move through the different local areas at that point.

These orange dots right here show the approximate locations of the landing sites, and then the colored lines show the primary routes that a user may take to access different parts of Charlottesville from the proposed landing sites.

These two locations, just so you have this idea in mind, they're only about less than a quarter of a mile apart from each other.

So while some of the routes are more direct from one of the bridge landing sites versus the other, navigating to the preferred route from either of the alignments is pretty feasible.

The red line shows a direct route along Chesapeake Street.

So one of the advantages of the Chesapeake Street route is that it connects to Meade Park in addition to providing access to downtown Charlottesville, and it also connects to the Coal Tower Trail, shown in gray here.

There are continuous sidewalks down one side of Chesapeake Street, but there are no dedicated bike infrastructure along this route, and there's actually no dedicated bike infrastructure along any of these routes.

Feedback from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee included the fact that Chesapeake Street is hilly and narrow and may not be the preferred route for bicyclists for those reasons.

This blue line in the middle shows a direct connection down East Market Street.

There's a lower traffic volume on East Market Street near the proposed landing site.

So this area right here is very hilly and narrow.

It's a very steep hill.

There's no room for additional infrastructure in that section, at least on that section of the road, but there's also very low traffic volume.

So that makes it maybe feel a little bit more comfortable for pedestrians to use.

There's also inconsistent sidewalk infrastructure along East Market Street going into downtown Charlottesville.

But it also provides a connection to the coal tower trail.

And then the green line at the bottom shows the connection down Broadway Street.

And this would basically be facilitated by this connection at East Market Street through the public youth easement that goes through the wool factory development site.

However, it would involve traveling through the main parking area of the wool factory development and there's no dedicated bicycle or pedestrian pathways through that development area.

However, Broadway Street itself is wide and there could be opportunities for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to be constructed along Broadway Street.

It's just not currently in existence.

The next thing we talked about was the trail connections, and so also under consideration is how the bridge will facilitate connections between the two different trail systems.

On the east side is the Old Mills Trail, and then on the west side is the Ravana Trail system.

Both alignments will provide a similar connection point to the Old Mills Trail on the east side of the river, and then the Chesapeake Street alignment would provide direct access to the Ravana Trail at Riverview Park, so up through here.

Whereas the East Market Street alignment would provide a more direct access point to the Urbana trail system through the Wolf Factory development sites that are right through here.

Most of you probably, well, maybe, are familiar that there's a footbridge at the Wolf Factory development site that goes across Moore's Creek, so that would be the access point from East Market Street.

While either portion of the Ravenna Trail can be accessed from either of the bridge landing sites, there's a gap in the trail network of the Ravenna Trail between the sections at Riverview Park and Wolf Factory that requires a short distance to be traveled on the road.

And then as you heard in some of the comments, parking was a really big topic of discussion during the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings.

And this is due to an existing parking shortage at Riverview Park.

So this was a challenging conversation to navigate because it's outside the scope of this project to alleviate the existing parking demands.

But understanding the concerns that there will continue to be incremental impacts if a bike and pedestrian bridge is placed at this location, we at least wanted to have conversations with city and county staff to determine what might be potential options to explore to increase parking facilities in the area.

One thing we talked about in the Stakeholder Advisory Committee is that increasing the availability of alternative modes of transportation, which includes improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, as well as coordination with transit schedules and stops as an important factor in alleviating parking demands.

There are opportunities to expand and manage parking in the vicinity of the park in other ways that could be explored.

Those include developing new parking at the site of the former compensation.

Exploring whether the state acquisition of property that was owned by the railroad at Seacull Street could create an opportunity to provide an overflow parking area or potentially even looking into the implications of restricting parking along Chesapeake Street to make sure that if there is additional demand for parking, it's not causing a disruption to the neighbors that live along the residential street.

In addition to considering expanding parking facilities on the Woolen Mill side of the river, Albemarle County is also exploring opportunities to increase trailhead parking on the Pantops area.

So combined that with a pedestrian bridge that could serve to mitigate some of the existing and future parking demand, especially if people are coming from outside of the area to ride on the trail system, Pantops seems like a more logical place to get off the interstate and get onto a trail system if you're traveling from further away.

At the East Market Street site, wool factory development currently has 10 spaces that are dedicated for recreational use.

Off-peak parking is abundant and is currently made available for public use by the development.

At this point, additional spaces have not been dedicated for recreational use.

We talked a lot about ADA accessibility because this is a requirement for any transportation project.

And so the requirement is that any new infrastructure that is intended for bicycle or pedestrian use maintains a grade of 5% or less and lets it slow on a road that already has a grade in excess of 5%.

So when the feasibility study was developed, there was a portion of the shared use path that came from the East Market Street alignment.

That exceeded that 5% grade requirement, but it is possible to have that section of the shared use path rerouted to reduce the grade in order to comply.

However, while the project itself can still meet the ADA requirement, it was noted during this discussion with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee that traveling from the landing site near the end of East Market Street would require users to move upgrades of more than 5% along the established transportation network in order to access the road network.

So we talked about how that East Market Street section that basically goes through the private property, going to the bridge landings, that is really narrow and hilly.

So the project would not necessarily be required to address the slope of that.

Sandy, we have a question here.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes, thank you.

Could you point out where that section is about where it's not suitable?

The narrow and hilly, having walked it, I can't quite figure out where that is.

It would really be this section right here where it goes from the public street to the private property.

From the old apartments where the city line is down to the entrance to the wool factory.

Okay.

This section right here is pretty steep.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

Yes, Sandy, I think the steeper parts are maybe on Chesapeake.

And I agree, I think that lower East Market section is not quite so steep.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we spent some time also discussing the floodplain impacts and resiliency related to the two alignment options.

And so the feasibility study that was prepared noted that both alignments would require hydraulic modeling to determine impacts to the 100-year floodplain.

And so those are shown as the hash sections of this map.

And actually the hash sections are the floodway and the overlay on the outside is the floodplain.

However, the East Market Street alignment is at a lower elevation and it has a lower clearing over the water than the Chesapeake Street alignment that has a higher risk of impacting the floodplain as a result.

So as far as longer-term resiliency considerations, there's again more risk with the alignment at East Market Street due to the lower clearance of the floodplain should flooding activity increase in the area.

But there's still a lot of information we would need to, in order to know whether or not that risk differential is significant or not.

The local area is currently served by CAT as far as transit access.

And so on the PAMPOP side of the river, the closest stop is near Martha Jefferson Hospital.

And on the Willam Mill side, there is an existing stop, a mid-block on Riverside.

There's also a stop a little bit further up off this map of Chesapeake Street and this block.

As far as future transit connectivity, Albemarle County has recently collaborated with CAT to apply for a demonstration grant to pilot microtransit services through Pantops.

So that would, if successful, that would include access to the shared use path connection on the east market, or on the, excuse me, on the Pantops side.

And then on the west side of the river, transit connectivity in close proximity to the bridge landing site on Chesapeake Street is going to remain to be more feasible

Just because of the terrain and narrowness of the road on East Market Street, it's going to be difficult to get transit to be able to provide service any closer to that stop than it already currently is.

There could be some opportunities to bring transit down Broadway Street, but again, because the transit service wouldn't be able to

If we could operate comfortably along East Market Street, it would be difficult for it to be brought closer to that landing than would be possible at the Chesapeake Street landings area.

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee also discussed how each of the proposed design options could potentially impact water safety and recreational use of the river.

So at both of the locations, the bridge design intentionally avoided the placement of piers within the waterway itself.

And so that removes any obstacles that would have to be navigated around those for boating or floating the river.

But river access would be disrupted during the construction of the bridge location.

So as far as the water safety and recreational use, those two

The two bridges are probably going to be pretty similar in their impacts in that category.

We also spoke with the Ravenna Wastewater and Sewer Authority to discuss potential complications related to the placement of bridges at both locations.

There's a wastewater interceptor that runs through the project area that would impact where piers could be placed for the Chesapeake Street landing site.

And so engineers would need to ensure that the bridge abutments and piers avoid the easement area.

But the Ravenna Wastewater Authority indicated that additional parking could be accommodated at the site of the Chesapeake Landing area if access to the main hall was maintained and kept cleared.

So that would continue to be an option to place the bridge there or provide additional parking there if that's something that the city chooses to move forward on or would be an important factor in determining whether or not

One location for the bridges is more feasible than another.

And the interceptor that we just discussed does not present the same challenges regarding utilities at the East Market Street site.

Environmental impacts are a really important factor when we talk about the transportation projects, but there do not appear to be any significant differences in the environmental considerations between these two sites as far as habitat disruption or water quality considerations.

Ravenna Conservation Alliance does have a stream bank restoration project in Riverview Park near the Chesapeake Street landing, but has indicated that the location of the proposed bridge at the Chesapeake Street location would not interfere with that project.

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee also discussed that there may be greater challenges maintaining the area around the pier located at the Mid-River Island at the East Market Street landing because it requires access to water.

And so that could just make clearing debris that accumulates around the pier a little bit more challenging than at the Chesapeake Street site.

As far as the visual impacts, this really feels like it's a little bit more subjective of a consideration to some extent.

There are two sets of considerations related to the visual impact of the bridge in the river area.

One is the type of bridge that could be constructed at the two locations and the other is the impact based on the location.

So there have been three designs that have been determined as feasible at the two locations and I know there's another design that's been discussed and I'll talk about that a little bit later.

As far as what was presented to the public and what we know to be feasible at this time, there's a cable stayed option which is shown here, a standard truss option which is shown here, and then an arched truss option which is shown here.

The cable stayed bridge is typically considered to be maybe the more expensive of these whereas the standard truss is going to be the least expensive of the designs.

The consultants that completed the feasibility studies sketched a cable staid bridge design at the Chesapeake State alignment and an Arch Trust Bridge design at the East Market State alignment.

So this slide shows the potential view of the river from the approximate location of the bridge over the river and Piedmont Environmental Council made these 360 degree views, photos available.

So I'm just gonna go ahead and bring this up and show you sort of, this is what it might look like if you're on the bridge overlooking the river at these two locations.

And then this bottom one is at the East Market Street location.

You can see you're overlooking the Sediment Island, there's the Wolf Factory development.

We have some other historical types of structures or assets in the background.

So at the Chesapeake Street location, the bridge would have a greater visibility, you know, from within the watershed, but it would also have more of a, provide a greater opportunity for a larger portion of the public to be able to sort of appreciate this view of the river that really you can only appreciate by being on the river.

It does have a greater impact on the overall viewshed, but it also provides an opportunity for a greater portion of the public to be able to appreciate a view that is a little bit limited at this point.

On the other hand, the bridge at the East Market Street alignment would cross after bending the river, so it would not provide a significant of a disruption to the view from the river.

It would provide a greater overlook opportunity to what we refer to as a sediment island, and we discussed that a little bit in the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting as well.

It's actually a very stable way of mass and not really sediment, so sediment island is a little bit of a misnomer.

But it is an interesting geographical artifact in the middle of the river.

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee also discussed how even though the view of the river from the bridge at this location isn't quite as significant as at the Chesapeake Street location, it does provide some overlapped opportunities to make users aware of local historic resources throughout the corridor and that can be accompanied by informational markers along the bridge structure.

And then we also discussed how the bridge location may impact the desired design of the bridge.

While the alignment at Chesapeake Street will offer better views of the river, there was also a desire express for a bridge at the Chesapeake Street location to have a lighter design to minimize the visual disruption.

So whereas a more industrial design may not feel as out of place for the bridge alignment going to East Market Street.

We spoke a lot in the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting about how a bridge at either of these locations may impact local residents near either of these sites.

And this is, again, somewhat subjective and a matter of perspective, whether a bridge near a residential site is desirable or not.

What one person sees as a positive impact, someone else may see as negative.

So if a bridge provides a resident with more direct access to a location of interest, they might see it as having a greater benefit, whereas a neighbor may see the same bridge as attracting additional disruption due to increased activity and changes in the natural environment.

So the concerns that were raised through our Stakeholder Advisory Committee's discussions are shown here.

So there were concerns about parking as we already discussed.

There were concerns about additional vehicular traffic through the residential areas, especially along that really narrow part of East Market Street going into the Wolf Factory development site.

And then there was a desire and expectation that Riverview Park will be maintained as a natural area.

And then also what the impact of a bridge

at the park, just the visual impact of a bridge at the park would have on the local area.

And so I just want to, again, take a second just to make sure that we're maintaining the scope of the project because it's outside the scope of this project to address any of the existing concerns.

So what we're trying to consider is what the incremental impact of this bridge is on some of these pre-existing concerns.

And to the extent that it's appropriate, there could be some mitigation measures that are implemented that could help reduce some of those negative impacts.

So for example, at Chesapeake Street, if that bridge wanted to be moved forward, there are things we could do like landscaping or buffering that might mitigate some of the disruptions to the natural experience of the park that are being discussed as concerns.

At the East Market Street site, there are things that we could do to help mitigate some of the safety concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle movements through the parking area like pavement parkings or wayfinding signage.

And so these could all be considered as part of the project, but those decisions would be discussed at a later phase of the project if funding is approved.

And then we didn't really talk about project feasibility to this extent in the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.

We did talk about cost quite a bit, but this is a good time to talk a little bit about overall feasibility.

Again, the cost estimates that were prepared as part of that planning study are really preliminary planning level cost estimates.

And so there are additional engineering details that will be further reviewed and developed during the application process.

And then once the actual engineering design work starts, we'll have a better idea there.

But what these do is they give us an initial estimate of the relative differences in cost for the two alignments under consideration.

So in addition to a better refined base cost estimate that will be prepared once a bridge alignment has been identified, additional contingencies will be added based on the variability of costs that won't be determined until project engineering and construction design is already underway.

And that's because we're submitting projects before we've gone through some of the preliminary engineering that occurs.

And this is just one of the challenges with our particular SMART SCALE process is we are

Asking for project funding at 100% before a significant portion of the engineering has been concerned.

So this is going to be a similar process that every project that is submitted for SMART SCALE goes through.

And then because VDOT approves project funding several years out from the time of the application, there's also going to be an inflation cost escalation that's applied based on the anticipated project construction date.

So what that means is that the final project cost that is determined for the purposes of the application is likely to be higher than what is being shown here as the base cost estimate.

This section right here shows how the benefit score is going to be determined for the area type that we're in.

And because these two bridge locations are close together, the biggest distinction for how other projects will score is going to come down to cost because these benefit costs are going to be very similar for the two bridges.

So I want to go ahead and mention, I know there's been a lot of discussion about a bridge design that's similar to the Liberty Bridge in Greenville, South Carolina.

And so at this point, while I know that there's been a cost estimate that's been circulated, there's a lot unknown about that bridge style.

We don't know if that bridge is going to be technically feasible or how that cost of that bridge design may compare against the costs that were developed for these two bridges, because those were very, very preliminary.

The cost estimate was not specific to the location, it's not clear what aspects were included, and we don't know what other impacts that bridge design could potentially have on other factors that were evaluated, specifically where the placement of the piers would have to be to support the bridge if it is feasible, and whether that may require placement of the piers on the river itself, and whether that's something that is important to informing which design is preferable.

So we're at a point where there's no additional funding to evaluate the feasibility of another design, but that's not to say that it's off the table.

We need to be able to move forward with the application at this point.

And so the most effective course of action would be to base the application on the best quality of information that we currently have.

And then if funding is awarded, we could determine if there's an opportunity to construct a bridge

of a different design at the same or lower cost point.

All right.

Any questions before we move on?

Could I ask a quick question?

No, the design that I'm referring to, I don't know if that was sent out to everybody, but it was based on the Liberty Bridge in Greenville, South Carolina, and that is a cantilevered, cantilevered cable stay bridge, I believe.

And there was a, yeah.

Correct, yes.

I do have a question about the, it could wait till later, the proposal sent out by Mr. Condor.

Yeah, just briefly, I mean, I don't have enough information to weigh in decisively in any sort of way.

Was the notion that he put forward, I mean, it certainly seems creative in that it sort of bypasses, you know, goes over, flies over, literally Riverview Park, and yet is close to the Chesapeake alignment.

The BHB team did not consider that as part of their project.

We did discuss it with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.

There were some concerns because the location would impact some residential properties and so there would be a right-of-way impact to that.

It also landed between two residential properties and so it would be

More disruptive to the local residential area and then it would also have included a number of piers being placed in the park that was not supported by the City Parks and Recreation Department.

And Chuck, you may want to weigh in on this.

I'll respond first and let Chuck add additional context.

We could probably pretty comfortably evaluate whether another design would be feasible.

It would probably be more challenging to evaluate whether a different location could be considered because the benefit score is going to be based on the location of the bridge.

Yeah, I mean, one of the issues that we're running into is, because we don't have a hydraulics analysis done for any of these structures, we're not going to know what that impact is going to be.

Both of the current locations, Chesapeake and East Margo Street, the tie down point for those bridges is in the floodplain.

So we'll have to evaluate that at the beginning of the PE phase to see what those impacts are.

And that may further dictate some of the things that we have to do to move forward.

And there may be, we may have to make some modifications to those, where those structures tie down.

to lessen the impacts of the floodplain.

The new condors proposal, it actually spans the floodplain.

So it ties into the roadway above the floodplain on both sides, whereas the other two options, they tie down actually in the floodplain.

So there's gonna be a little bit more floodplain impact with those two options.

And we may have to look at

some modifications to those tie-down points to minimize that impact as much as possible.

Okay.

All right.

Great.

Yes.

Well, if it's related to some of these discussions, I think we can go ahead and address them now.

The next thing I'm going to talk about is the public feedback.

Okay, so just to make sure I understood correctly, I think I understood you to say that the trail cost on the east side is similar because they're both taking the loop up to Peter Jefferson Parkway.

So there's no necessary cost differential between option one and two.

As far as the trail itself, I think that the one from the Chesapeake Street is a little bit longer.

So it's likely that there will be a cost differential.

But the trail is, again, Chuck or anybody else that was involved with the feasibility study a little bit more, once that additional context, please, please jump in.

But I think the trail itself is a pretty small portion of the overall project cost.

It's different than what we were told before which was that the trail cost was a significant impact and right away and all this other stuff so I just wanted to make sure that we were

If right away it can be donated or something that those kinds of options are taken into consideration.

If it's the same trail route, then that's not material to this discussion here.

And I guess I would like confirmation that

It's after this process is when the more substantial questions about actual engineered locations and which designs would work is going to take place.

The reason I asked the questions last week or two weeks ago of VDOT staff as well was so that we didn't

I think it's a little bit unclear what those opportunities might be, but we know that we could explore them.

Yeah, I can respond.

Basically, when we do the cost estimates, we're looking at what we think the costs are gonna be, and then we assign a risk to that as a percentage, so that increases that option.

Because we haven't done a hydraulics analysis to know what the total effects are gonna be of any one of these crossings, that's gonna have a high risk, because those impacts may have a significant, require significant mitigation

That's going to be a substantial portion of the cost moving forward for the bridge itself.

But the trail is pretty minimal because we know what that's going to be and we can calculate that.

It's the bridge crossings themselves are the ones that are going to carry the most risk and going to be a highest costing part of the project.

So to speak.

As Sandy did say, because the Chesapeake location is further up the trail, the trail will be longer.

But if we mitigate the ADA issue of that 150 foot section at the southern point with a switchback, the cost may be similar.

for the trail portion of the project.

Does that answer your question, Ann?

The reason we're looking at wanting to know what type of bridge is because that may dictate

What we need to look at for the hydraulic analysis, because if you're putting structures in the floodplain, you need to know where those are going to be and what the impacts of those are going to be when you're doing a hydraulics analysis.

So the bridge type really is going to dictate what those impacts are in the floodplain, whether it's a pier or

or whatever it is.

I mean, even Lee Condor's option has multiple piers that are gonna be in the floodplain, even though the bridge itself is outside of the floodplain.

So we need to actually know what those are.

Okay, so is now the time to have input about that?

Or is that in a year when we have more decisions?

I just wanna know when to,

to ask.

Because if you have a suspension bridge and doesn't have piers in the water and doesn't have piers near the water, it may be in the floodplain, but it's not in the water, then that's something that may affect your hydraulics analysis.

But it sounds like that's not being done until after the award anyway.

Thank you.

And I know the one at Greenville, the Liberty Bridge

Both those piers are in the floodplain that support that structure.

The Chesapeake structure alignment has multiple piers in the floodplain, as well as the bridge itself at the tie-down point is in the floodplain.

Market Street Project, the pier is in the middle of the river, which is in the floodplain, but the abutment on the east side is out of the floodplain, and the abutment and the bridge on the west side is in the floodplain.

So those are gonna have to be evaluated to see what impact they're gonna have on the flood level with that, and basically it's restriction in the river.

so to speak.

So any structure that we put there is going to have to have this similar evaluation done.

Whether it's something similar to what you did in Greenville or one of these options that we're looking at considering here, those are all going to have to be evaluated.

And part of the concern that I think I have is can you have the bridge itself

Yeah, a question I have.

I can give you that number.

Okay, the tie-down point on the west side for both bridges is at 320 feet.

The city portion of it, in the park and in the Woolen Mills.

Both of them started out at 320 feet.

At East Market Street, there's an 18 foot rise in the bridge between the tie down point and the pier right by the river.

So it's at an elevation of 338 feet across the river, which is above the flood plain.

And that's where the 25 foot number comes from.

I mean, that's where the 40 foot above the normal flood water elevation, that's where that number comes from in 15 foot.

It's basically from the pier next to the river, across the river, it's going to be 15 feet above the floodplain.

But between the pier next to the river and the tie down point, it's basically traveling downhill at 18 feet in that several hundred foot, in that 330 foot distance.

So that's basically for the Chesapeake Bridge.

The East Market Street Bridge, it starts out at 320 feet and it rises to 325 feet at the center pier in the middle of the river and the island.

So it's going to be at that point, it's going to be above the floodplain.

And then it travels flat from there across to the eastern shore bankment and ties in at 125 feet.

Yeah, I think so.

I guess I'm just curious.

I mean, the city just wound up agonizing over floodplain levels in that area relative to a construction project a little further west up Nassau Street.

And one of the things we learned was that there is a lot of

There are a lot of very knowledgeable people who have serious concerns about whether the floodplain data for that area is correct or not.

And there are a couple of studies that are going on right now that we expect to have results on by the end of this calendar year.

that ought to tell us with some greater certainty what the real floodplain level along there is.

I know that right now there is the level on Morris Creek just west of the Rivanna there is at 324 and it goes up to about 326.4 probably half a mile or so up Morris Creek.

The surface level of the river at that point, my recollection is about 295.

The striped area in the middle is actually the waterway.

So during normal stages, that's flood stages, that's the elevation of the water.

The other one is gonna be during the 100-year flood storm, it's gonna go out to these locations, the outside of that green area.

OK.

I mean, that gives you an idea of where the bridges are located.

and where the impacts are going to be.

Like I said, for the east side, it's where you're seeing the most impact.

The bottom picture here makes a reference to an LOMR of February 2017.

That's the one that lowered the floodplain level.

BFE, I think it's called, from 330 to 324 and inspired a lot of criticism and concern about the accuracy of the 324.

So I mean, it could well be that upon the further analysis that is being done this year, that we may find that the 324 is itself not right.

I don't know if we'll make a difference.

We're gonna have to do a hydraulics analysis, which will include evaluating the floodplain data.

And if we, that's not gonna start for several years.

So when that data is available, I mean, we won't start these projects for till 2025.

So we've got, I mean, the data will be available.

But just as a practical matter in the way that this whole process works,

If we conclude, or let's say that the conclusion of this study is that the floodplain level really ought to be back at 330, not at 324, now all of a sudden something that's at 325 is clearly not a good idea.

And if we've selected a particular design or a particular route to be followed,

On an assumption that turns out not to be a buildable assumption, what does that do to the design?

Are we free at some point to say, oh, OK, well, if that design isn't going to work for various flood-related reasons, let's switch over to this design?

If it's not feasible, we'll have to look at what we can do to make it feasible, whether it's raise the bridge,

to get it out of the floodplain, because we're going to have to look at what the impacts are and what the ramifications of the bridge at that elevation is going to be.

And that'll be done as part of the hydraulic study.

And then we can, then at that point, we'll have to look at what the mitigation measures would need to be to resolve those impacts.

I understand, but I guess what I'm concerned about is

And this will reflect in part my ignorance of this process, but I remember from prior years consideration of these sorts of projects being told that once a proposal is approved or has preliminary administrative approvals at this stage that

that we can't alter the footprint of the area in which it's to occur.

And since these two designs reflect the areas that are on the western ends, probably a few hundred yards apart on the eastern end, probably at least a hundred yards apart.

I wonder whether, you know, if we pick one design and then said, oops, that's really not going to work.

I can't answer that question because the hydraulics analysis is specific to the location we're doing it at.

But at that point has the, whatever advantage we've got by having initiated the process, does that advantage go away?

Do we lose our spot in line?

Do we lose the money?

I don't think you'd lose your spot in line.

And we do that on a lot of projects.

It's not just, we try to minimize it as much as possible, but it is something that does occur frequently on projects.

Cause we're starting so early that we may not, there may be unknowns that come up during a project that causes us to shift the scope of the project and the alignment of a road or something like that.

Chuck, I'll chime in here.

It's a bridge.

If you don't have geotechnical work before designing a bridge, this is really a concept at the most right now.

So when you get down into the real nitty-gritty details of having to go out and do borings to figure out where the piers need to go, you can encounter subsurface issues that aren't

that require additional cost for the project.

So I mean, it's kind of very, it's very difficult at this early on stage on a bridge to kind of hone in on it.

So I think Chuck is right.

I think

As we go through the process, the project gets funded.

As we go through it, we'll cross those hurdles as we get to them, which is always a part of project development.

The key thing that Chuck did indicate, though, is the risk factor that is associated with these estimates.

Let me be real clear that the reason why I'm asking the question is that I think it was last year when we were discussing the proposal for a realignment at Preston Avenue and 10th Street and we were told, and Grady Avenue, and we were told that if we basically, if the

Further redesign was going to include going out of the initial footprint of the designated area that that was a no-no, that we would not be allowed to do that.

Not, oh, gee, we can fix that.

We wouldn't be allowed to do that.

Is that an A?

Is that an accurate statement?

So you're talking about totally changing the alignment of these projects.

You're not talking about picking an alignment right now, let's say the Chesapeake Street alignment, going through the project development process and determining you have issues.

You're talking about totally abandoning that alignment and reverting back to the East Market Street one.

That's what you're talking about?

or you're talking about trying to figure out a way to figure out how to make the Chesapeake Street alignment work.

Okay, and what I'm saying is supposing if we're trying to resolve a problem with the Chesapeake Street alignment and we realize the only way to solve this problem is to raise one end to a ridiculously high level and put in, I don't know, whatever else we decide, ramps or anything else that have to go in and then we sit there and say, you know,

Objectively, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

We should have done it the other place.

We wouldn't have had so many problems.

Correct.

And so those two are going to be regarded as, quote, different locations, close quote, so that it would not be clear, to put it simply, it would not be clear whether we could make the change from one to the other.

Correct.

Okay.

All right, I see Julia and Supervisor Malek both have their hands up.

Sure.

Quick question.

I've been following the SMART SCALE process for many years on the MPO board.

And I'm wondering whether there's been a project similar to this, Ped Bike Bridge, that's been approved by the SMART SCALE process statewide.

And if so, was it similar to this project?

That's the first question.

And secondly,

I can tell you that I know I looked at round four.

I did not go back and look in previous rounds and saw that there were two bike head bridges that were submitted that I found and neither one of those were funded.

I'd have to go back and look.

I don't know off the top of my head.

I know there's been several projects recently, or under construction projects, or under design projects in Northern Virginia, where they were looking at bike ped facilities.

One of them was across 495, near 66, and the other one was just completed on the W&O and D Trail in Falls Church.

Now, I don't know if those were SMART SCALE projects or not,

Okay, thank you.

I'm beginning to think that I should focus my attention on the local impacts only because it sounds like there's so much risk of the cost changing dramatically that we have no idea

You want me to take a crack at this one, Sandy?

I mean, the more information we have initially, the more refined we can make the cost estimate.

For this project, if we know the bridge type, that will dictate that cost.

If we know the location,

And that will dictate a cost.

The hydraulics analysis is going to be what it is for either location because that's going to have a significant risk because there's so many unknowns.

And like Sean said, the foundations of the bridge until we do the geology, do the borings and know what the geology looks like, we're not gonna know what type of foundations we need to put in to support the bridge itself.

Thank you.

I guess just a couple of things.

The situation you have here is we have to move forward with limited information and try to make the best decision we can with the limited information we have.

And as the professionals have noted, that's the reason why you have construction and project and design contingencies.

to try to insulate against future discoveries about, say, floodplain or whatever.

So it's the normal kind of chicken or egg kind of thing with project formulation.

And in this case, it's even more of a challenge because you're dealing with a process or the SMART SCALE system

that's you know it's a it's a shoebox so we've got to fit all of these sorts of things in we only have so much control over it um and so i certainly can appreciate the more information we have now the better decision we can make on the two but it seems to me that what's in front of us today or when we vote in a couple of weeks is based off what we know now based off the fact that each one has you could have similar situations in terms of

Risks that are latent within the East Market Street project.

We just have to make the best decision we can with the information that we have and make sure we've got suitable contingencies and that we've got professionals attached to the project who are thinking through all of these kinds of possible things.

And from my perspective, what I'm hearing is that, yeah, we do that.

We've got what we need to make a decision

Between these two, given the fact that either choice presents some level of risk, I guess for me, if I had to choose between the imperfect design or some element of this that's not ideal, I'm not saying something that's unsafe or I'm not saying that,

But if I had to choose something that was not perfect but that worked and was safe versus losing the opportunity to have a bridge at this juncture, I think I would rather err on the former side than the latter.

I think having access to a bridge over here is the thing that we should focus on.

Yep, thank you, Councilor Pinkston.

I agree with, so I mean, basically in a few weeks, if this board says we want, we have three bridge options presented before as A, B, and C, which one?

If we pick B, that's gonna dictate a certain cost based on the study.

And because B costs different than A and C. So one, we have to choose which bridge do we like?

What visually do we wanna see?

Then we have to decide which point A to point B do we want, and then the impacts of point A and point B at both of those locations.

We have parking impacts, we've got neighborhood impacts, not to mention the thought of, is this designed to activate what type of activity, connection to a park or connection to a more redeveloped area with dining and et cetera, two very different, two different thoughts.

So I'm just restating what I think is obvious to everybody, but at the next meeting, in order to figure out the hydraulics and all these other analysis, we have to decide which of the three bridges, which A to B, and then once we figured that out, the conversation about the impacts of that decision will have to go back to the respective boards and council because parking and

Things like that are beyond the MPO to determine that.

So I think the supervisors and the counselors involved will have to take that into account as they're deciding which way to go.

I certainly have some of my opinions on this, but today was more about information gathering than to start to give.

I think the opinions will come out during the next meeting.

Just in the interest of time, we're closing in on our schedule, and I would like to honor the 10 minutes that we had set aside for public comment, even though we're behind, just because we said we would give people that opportunity.

Are there any other questions by board members that need to be asked for information or clarity so that you can ponder on this before making a decision?

Just informational questions.

So, I mean, I think you end up with two spans, the combined length of which is

Yeah, it's like 594 feet, I think, for the southern.

And the top one is 536 feet or something like that, 64 feet.

And I will add that the reason it

It could be raised up higher, but the reason it's at the elevation it's at is to minimize the length because we're trying to tie into the trail on that side, which is at that elevation on the east side of the river.

We can lengthen the bridge and raise it a little bit to get it further out of the floodplain, but it just lengthens the bridge and raises the cost of the structure.

So we try to optimize

Next to an informational question, is there a difference in cost

The trust bridge requires more piers where the cable stay bridge

You just make the center appear longer and your cables go out further.

So you can do that because you're balancing the bridge on both sides against the counterweight on the other side of the bridge.

But it's significantly higher in cost.

The actual diagram of the southern bridge, it's actually a suspension bridge, but it's an arch suspension bridge.

It's not technically a truss bridge.

But they're about the same cost as the cable stay bridge.

So I guess what I'm just trying to figure out is the

The truss length for that bridge, when you're talking 296 feet,

For the span, the truss is going to be pretty significant to carry that load.

Yeah, and I think one thing too to add, Chuck, and I don't want to muddy the water here because I know we need to get to these comments, but I think the upfront cost is one thing, but the different types of bridges also require different types of maintenance for the long term over the life of those structures too.

And then my last question is,

Well, one of the challenges is funding to refine any of those design challenges.

I mean, there's no reason to

Wait, I mean, put it in our weight.

I mean, it's just how are we going to fund the additional work that would need to be done?

Because if you want to do you want to wait and see what the hydraulics comes in, we can wait and see.

I mean, we can't start even doing the evaluation because you don't want to fund the hydraulics for both locations.

You want to fund it at one location.

For the geology, you want to fund

Well, I guess what I'm really thinking is that number one, I just

I happen to think the Cable State Bridge looks cool, whereas the other one looks clunky.

Number two, the Cable State Bridge appears to be on a foot-by-foot basis cheaper than the Southern Bridge.

And number three, the Southern Bridge is the route that I think I probably prefer, but my concern is that we've got associated with that

A design that is going to make it less competitive.

And I would just wonder whether from the design perspective, whether there is a way to, to get the, what would seem to be the relative economy of the Northern design applied to what I would regard as the preferred position or location of the Southern design.

I also note the reference to the Greenville, South Carolina bridge.

That's a bridge that is much more, it's not exactly a cable stayed bridge, but it's more of that kind of a design than a trust kind of a bridge.

And I have now exceeded the limit of my knowledge of the structure of bridges.

And I'm not going to go any further, but I was just looking at it from at least in a slightly informed layman's position.

It sort of seems to me like we've chosen the most expensive to build design for a bridge that I would really rather have, and I wonder if there's a way to get a different design that perhaps the cable stayed or something similar to it on the southern bridge and therefore make it more competitive.

I frankly have a hard time seeing why a $15 million pedestrian solution is going to end up being competitive in the process anyway, but I'll have to rely on people with much more inside information than I possess to comment further on that.

So that's all I've got.

Well the one thing that I can't say in response to that is really we're coming up against the pre-application deadline of April 1st and so the most immediate concern is that we need to know should we be putting in an application to at least keep this on the table and which application should we put in.

There could be some opportunities to have some additional discussions to refine some of the specifics prior to the final application.

But again, to do any additional sort of evaluation or analysis in any level of detail, we don't have an identified funding resource to do that at this point.

Thank you.

I would like to quickly follow up on Lloyd's two questions, or actually one from Sean.

So is there a reason why the maintenance costs that you talked about is different enough that we should be taking that into consideration?

Because I don't see any information about that.

And so secondly, what about the idea from Councillor Snook that the cable stay bridge in the southern location is a solution?

And because I think the advantages of access over Broadway Street are significant, in my opinion.

I'll take the first question.

Yeah when I first started reading to this the first thing and I think we do it quite often sometimes we don't think about the long-term impacts of how much the infrastructure is going to cost to maintain once we put it in place.

I've done some quick checking with our district maintenance engineer here in Culpeper and he feels that the cable stay bridge maintenance costs are going to be a little bit more expensive than the trust but I want to get some information on that some hardcore information that we

This is the last thing, Supervisor Galloway, and I apologize for dragging this out.

To Mayor Snook's point, I wonder if in terms of cost estimates, if there were a way to sort of normalize or standardize or make apples to apples in terms of the type of bridge that would be built, a dollar per linear foot or something like that.

Because I think we're comparing one bridge type at one location to a different bridge type at another location.

Am I incorrect on that?

I don't think I'm bad about that.

And if there's a way to, and we don't have to have a bunch of renderings or anything like that, but a way to just sort of say in the cost estimate, put this sort of factor on this number to sort of equalize as much as possible between two distinct concepts.

I don't know how difficult that would be for the team to do.

We could look at it and see, I think in the estimates that VHB did, they had about $6,000 of linear foot for the cable stay and arch suspension bridge, and they had about $1,500 of linear foot for the truss bridge.

Yeah, I just wonder if there's a way for lay folk like us, if you could just, and obviously at this level of design, this is all schematic sort of concepts, conceptual sorts of discussions.

If there's simply a way to say, if we compare apples to apples in terms of bridge design, like Mayor Snook said, and I'm not

I'm prejudicing us one way or the other in terms of the type of bridge design but if we could at least get some sort of standard of that's equivalent I think that might at least illuminate some of the costs because to his point my personal preference is the Chesapeake alignment for because I think most people want it in the public but

As it stands in the current estimate, the estimate they did for Chesapeake Street had a section of

truss on the western end and then they had a suspension bridge basically for the part that crossed the river.

The image doesn't dictate it but when you look at the dimensions that's that's pretty much what they did so it's a combination if you wanted to go with their pure suspension bridge or cable stay bridge the

Center pier would be a lot higher and your cables would go out much further.

And that's probably where we'd end up going with that.

The only concern I have is in the floodplain, can you have a suspension bridge that's under part of it's underwater?

And then the other question I would have is there's a slope difference between the it's flat from the pier across the river on both, actually both locations.

And then from the pier,

to the west side, they're both on a grade.

So how does that, I mean, we'd have to take that in consideration or whether we'd have to have, what are the, we could do a pierce cable stay or whether it would have to be a combination bridge for that location.

OK. All right, thank you.

All right, board, we are past time.

Do we have any other questions needed asked for information?

Sure, there are several hands up.

I'll start at the top.

I don't see a name, but it is RAI9W.

So you are now allowed to talk and you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

The next hand up is Ms. Stafford.

You should have permission to talk.

You can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Thank you, Sandy.

So I was a member of the stakeholder committee.

I have never engaged in any sort of civic process like this before.

And I have to say, I learned something in every single meeting, and I just did.

Supervisor Galloway, I had understood that the MPO was the body that was going to make the decision about which to choose, and that the city and the county were going to have time to actually have public meetings.

So I'm curious about what the next steps actually are.

But I also want to advocate for the Broadway wool factory access to the East Market Street bridge.

I believe it solves any number of problems.

It preserves the natural area of Riverview Park.

It creates another badly needed access point to the Rivanna.

It's a simple solution to parking issues.

It does not add to already overwhelming traffic in the woolen mills.

And the alignment with Broadway provides a more direct and physically easier pedestrian bike route to downtown, not to mention the opportunities for economic development along the route.

To top it off, the owner and developer of the wool factory property welcomes this option.

So how to explain the results from the stakeholder committee, the webinar, and the survey indicating a preference for the Chesapeake Street Bridge?

I have come to the conclusion that the charge given to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to produce a narrowly defined study that recommends one of two bridge options wasn't broad enough for such a transformational landscape and neighborhood undertaking.

We were repeatedly told that this project was being taken in increments and issues around parking, congestion, bridge design, et cetera, would all occur after the option is chosen.

But if a project isn't set in a large enough framework, then the results from surveys, webinars, and stakeholder committees won't produce well-informed answers.

The larger picture is lost.

People choose what they're familiar with and most people get to the only city park on the Rivanna River via Chesapeake Street.

Almost nobody knows Broadway.

I know this because I had the privilege of giving many people tours of the two options for the bridge.

I always force march them through the wool factory parking lot and onto Broadway because I realized early on that even most residents of the woolen mills aren't aware that this straightforward connection exists between the river and downtown.

You have 30 more seconds.

Oh, I thought you said I was done.

You have 30 more seconds.

Sorry.

No, I think I made my point.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Mr. Hayes, you should be able to talk.

So my name is Chris Hayes.

I'm the person from Greenville, South Carolina, that suggested the Liberty Bridge to begin with.

I'm an architect with the 1900 Chesapeake right across from the park, and it's a great location.

And I love bridges.

I've kind of studied bridges at kind of more of an amateur status for some time.

But I think the idea of the bridge in the neighborhood is a great thing and would be a great thing.

The one thing that I guess I'd like to make the biggest point is this is a process of accretion.

We kind of learned this with the pump station, probably.

I don't know the exact date, but when they first plopped down a tiny little building for a pump station right down there across the street from us, right next to the Riverview Park, it was a tiny thing.

And they said it would stay small.

It wouldn't be a smell.

It didn't stay small.

It got bigger.

There was a smell.

There was a lot of work done to try and figure out alternate solutions.

And it was probably 40 or 50 years of a process that went on for dealing with the pump station that created enormous smells in that neighborhood.

I think the idea of the Chesapeake Bridge, I can understand it looks perfect.

It's right at the end of the street, beautiful, just crossing the river.

It looks like a great location.

But when you really think about it, you're creating a nexus right there where so many things are going to happen and notice beyond this board's

Pervy to study all these things.

But one, you're already showing potential parking right there where the pump station was.

So you're going to turn the natural area and something within the flood zone into more impervious parking.

Two is most likely what we've talked about in previous meetings, the potential of a boat ramp tagging on to the idea of the bridge because it's kind of a natural follow-on.

So a boat ramp means more cars, more boats coming in and creating... 30 seconds.

A really dense zone of traffic.

And I can attest by seeing it day by day and what's happened during COVID, what happens when it really gets dense.

So I just wish you to think about the potential history going forward.

And I would advocate for the wool factory location on Market Street.

And Katie Whelan.

You are given permission to speak.

Thanks, Sandy.

So I'm with Bonamos.

For those who are unaware, Bonamos is moving into the State Farm building.

We are making a food ingredient.

So we are under FDA regulations to maintain certain food defense compliance.

You know, we weren't planning to build a fence because the location and we're in kind of the back of the State Farm, the back corner where the warehouse was.

There wasn't a lot of foot traffic.

I've kind of been out of these meetings and then have come back in and seen the proposed trail that will go along the side of the building of which we're on.

Yeah, I can send you the feasibility study.

I think you should have that information.

Yeah.

Hello.

I wanted to add, yes, I read through the report that was posted online.

And it noted that the bridge recommended by VDOT was a standard trust bridge, which would be several million dollars less expensive than either of the two options that were presented by the consultants.

And so I want to know why you ignored the recommendation by VDOT to go with more expensive bridges than one that's

less expensive and a style of bridge that is already in use in Charlottesville and Albemarle County.

And then my other comment was

In the survey results, I'll just quote what I saw.

There was no responses that indicated a preference for a standard trust bridge at either location.

That's false because I submitted response in the survey recommending the standard trust bridge.

Mr. Condor also has his hand raised.

I'm going to limit to one opportunity because that was just based on the time frame.

Do we have any other speakers who have yet to comment?

We're right at the 10-minute mark as we had scheduled for comment.

We started around 2.44.

What I'd like to do is just because it was a process question, Ms. Stafford, I don't think you do understand the process.

For the MPO and the selection of the project, the peak comment or the points about different process would be anything that's in relative to the city's jurisdiction or the county's jurisdiction would have to go back through their normal process.

So if there was gonna be parking restrictions on a street that has to go through, the MPO wouldn't be doing that as part of their process.

And then any sort of survey confirmations or clarifications that are needed.

Sandy, I'll defer that to you, but no decision has been made on the bridges yet.

I can just comment that there were comments that were made that we have documented where people had indicated that in the comment section that they would prefer one kind of bridge.

Those survey responses for some reason did not register.

And all the survey questions and comments are available for viewing and for our review.

And then anyone who wishes to make additional comments or additional questions can do so via email.

And then the day of the next meeting that is scheduled, it will be in the form of a public hearing, correct, Chris, Sandy, public hearing for that one?

So the next MPO meeting, you would, if you would want to weigh in before a decision was made, you'd have to do it at the front part of the public.

Any additional items here?

If that is the case, then the board will adjourn.