MPO Policy Board Meeting   1/24/2024

Yes, Supervisor Malek with Albemarle County.

Here.

Haven't updated this, but Councilor Ostrom with Charlottesville.

Present.

Mr. Nelson with VDOT.

Present.

Do we have either Mr. Murphy or Mr. Espie with Jaunt here tonight?

Mr. Williams with CAT, Ms. Monteith with UVA, Mr. Wagner with DRPT, Mr. Minor with FHWA, Mr. Koenig with FTA,

And Ms. Jacobs with the TJPDC.

Okay, are there any members of the public that would like to provide comment?

There's a limit of three minutes per speaker and Ms. Shackelford will keep time.

My name is Paul Grady, I live just outside of Crozet.

Back in November I brought you a revenue sharing project

between Albemarle County, UVA, and VDOT to construct an interchange at Leonard Sandridge Road and add a third lane in each direction on the 250 bypass between Barracks Road and Ivory Road by connecting the entrance and exit ramps.

This is a very important project as it will reduce traffic on other intersections and should not just be put on a shelf with all the other ideas that I have brought to this board over the last 25 years.

Now I have another revenue sharing project, this time between the City, VDOT, and Kroger.

I believe very strongly that a section of Hillsdale Drive needs to be built between Hydraulic Road and Holiday Drive.

I won't go into why at this time, but will save that for another presentation.

I know that Kroger would like to enlarge their hydraulic road store but they can't because of the way the property is laid out and they don't have any spare flat land.

If you remember when Kroger enlarged their barracks road store, a new ABC store was built at the hydraulic store by filling in part of a very deep ravine.

There is still a good deal of that ravine left and the dirt to fill it in is on site in the form

of the redundant ramp that goes from the gas pumps up to hydraulic road.

If Hillsdale Drive were extended to Holiday Drive and the ravine were filled in, then Kroger could move its pharmacy drive-through and their secondary entrance

from the north end of the store to the south end of the store, thereby freeing up all the areas to the north of the building for future expansion.

The corridor would get more revenue, the city would get more revenue, and another important connection in the grid would get built.

But first, the maximum amount of money that VDOT contributes to revenue sharing projects needs to be raised substantially.

If localities are willing to pay half of the value of a project,

and VDOT should be able to pay the other half without restrictions.

Thank you.

Mr. Pinkston, Mr. Kondor would also like to make a comment.

Yeah, just briefly, when you get to it on the agenda, I had offered an alternate design for the US 29 North

Thank you, sir.

I'd like to speak.

I'm Peter Kreps from the Piedmont Environmental Council.

I'm a Charlottesville resident.

I'm here to invite everybody to sign up for the fourth annual Active Mobility Summit, the Charlottesville Albemarle Active Mobility Summit.

That's going to be held Thursday, March 21st at the Wolfpack.

We're very excited about it.

Whether you're a cyclist, runner, walker, transit rider, person in a wheelchair, or anyone that's simply interested in a more connected community or promoting active lifestyles, this all-day free workshop is for you.

As I mentioned, it's at the Wolf Factory.

It's going to be better than ever.

It's going to certainly be nicer and more beautiful than ever, but we're also going to have walks in the landscape for the first time ever.

We're going to have a happy hour.

Breakfast and lunch will be provided.

We're also going to have a special focus this time on Blue Ridge, which you'll hear more about in the agenda today.

That's the Community Regional Action Safety Plan or Safety Action Plan.

We're going to have a community panel and also as we have done in the past, we've had collaborative work sessions that have led to pretty successful things that none of us could do alone.

You'll be able to sign up for that by going to PECVA.org slash mobility summit.

Is there anyone else on the line who would like to speak?

Anyone else in the room who would like to speak?

Okay, we'll close.

Now it's from the public and then we'll move on to general administration.

We've got a couple of, well three in fact, new members and

The first one we'll introduce is Natalie Ochsner, a new city councilor, and we're really glad to have her.

Yeah, nobody had told me I was going to go.

She likes to stay with me.

Hi, everybody.

I'm Natalie.

I just started on the city council.

I grew up in Charlottesville, down by Meade Park.

I still live there now, in a different house, but no blocks away from my childhood home.

I went to city schools, then UDA, left and came back.

And my priorities are very transit-focused, bike lanes, buses, pedestrian accessibility, and to get people out of their cars as much as possible, which is going to be necessary if we're going to hopefully see the density that we're inviting with the new up-zoning.

Mr. Murphy, Mike Murphy, I don't know if he's all along from John.

Ted Rieck, who retired and got new folks over at Jaunt, so we'll look forward to hearing from them.

I would accept the agenda.

Second.

Okay, all in favor, please just raise your hand.

Aye.

Okay, we have an agenda.

The next thing we'll do is we will approve the December 11, 2020 meeting minutes.

There's a copy of that in your packet.

Maybe you want to have any revisions that you'd like to offer.

Could I please have a motion to accept those meeting minutes?

Seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Mr.

Chair, I need to abstain.

All right, so the next piece of our business today will be to switch up officers, have officer elections.

So I have really enjoyed being chair for a year.

It's hard on me to come up very quickly, but I know that the new person taking over will have a whole lot more experience than I will continue to learn.

Yeah, so the nominating committee consisted of Ms. Monteith, Mr. Nelson, and Supervisor Malek.

Our precedent has always been since the city served the role of the chair that that would alternate each year, so presumably there would be a representative from Albemarle County.

That would be elected as chair this year.

Fantastic.

You good with that, Ben?

Yeah.

Awesome.

Switched it.

Yeah, that's fantastic.

So what are we doing next year?

You can do that.

We should probably also ask if there are any other nominations from the floor.

Hearing none, is there a motion to elect Ned as the chair for the MPO Policy Board?

All in favor?

All opposed?

Congratulations, Mr. Galloway.

Thank you.

So then we need to open up nominations from the floor for the vice chair, which is typically then the city goes to that position.

And I believe the nominating committee had recommended Mr. Pinkston as the vice chair.

Yes.

As I think about it, maybe you should have chatted with us often.

We'll give her a year to get her for you.

All right, so hearing no other nominations, is there a motion to appoint Mr. Pinkston as the vice chair?

Is there a second?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

All right, so Mr. Pinkston, you are the vice chair.

Congrats.

And then that will take us to item number five, the meeting scheduled for 2024.

And Sandy, do you want to review or put any highlights there?

Yeah.

Sorry, I donated my agenda to your call, so I might have to.

We listed out the dates that are proposed for the 2024 calendar year for the meetings.

A couple of things that I'll note is that the last two years previously to this we've had to reschedule the March

Policy Board meeting due to a conflict with an Albemarle County Board of Supervisors work session.

So I put an alternate date on the agenda to determine if we need to go ahead and plan to have that a little bit separately.

And then we historically have combined the November and December meetings into one meeting that would be the first Tuesday of the month to accommodate Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I think we could leave it scheduled as such and then if for some reason it's just a get together then we can punt and cancel a meeting.

Sounds great to me.

Any conflicts with the night?

That's not a conflict.

That would be Tuesday, March 19.

Check.

I don't think so.

And what time?

We've also done it, I forget what we did two years ago.

That's the Tuesday before.

So it looks like 26 could work at 4 o'clock.

And then the first Tuesday for the December, I mean, I would think that may work for everyone.

It's enough lead time.

All right.

So moved.

All right.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

OK. That's approved.

So that will take us to item number six, resolution of support for Ravana River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge RAISE grant application.

It will be brief because I think most of you are familiar with it at this point.

But you will recall that the MPO has done a significant amount of work to move forward from a feasibility study that identified two potential alignments to create a bicycle and pedestrian bridge between Pantops and the Woolamills area of Charlottesville and urbanized Albemarle County.

So to date we have identified the need for the bridge through multiple planning documents in both the localities and the MPO planning processes.

We completed a feasibility study with VDOT.

We went through an extensive public engagement initiative and we had applied for the preferred alignment that was identified through those processes for a SMART SCALE application.

As you recall, the SMART SCALE benefits for the bridge were really high, but the project had a very high price tag due to a lot of unknown contingencies being constructed in an environmentally sensitive area and not having a good understanding of the mitigation measures that would be required as part of that bridge.

Part of the reason the contingencies were so high, which drove the cost estimates up, was because there was just additional information that we could not know at this time.

So our goal would be to find another way to complete the preliminary engineering phase of the bridge in order to get a better idea of what the actual mitigation measures that are required will be and in order to reduce the contingencies that will be required and get a more precise cost estimate.

Just as a reminder, this is the Savannah River.

This is the proposed location of the bridge.

So the other alignment was coming out a little bit north of this, connecting to Chesapeake Drive, basically at the Riverview Park.

And this committee had determined that the preferred alternative would be the southern alignment, which connected more directly to

So basically the wool factory development site.

Both of these were proposed to land at approximately the same location on the east side of the river.

And then there would also be a shared use path that would provide a connection up to the local road network.

So we are proposing a resubmission of our application for the Rebuilding American Infrastructure and Sustainability with Sustainability and Equity or RAISE Discretionary Grant Program.

The previous funding amount last year had dedicated $115 million for planning grants.

That number has been reduced in FY24.

However, in FY23, there was only $750 million that were allocated to the RAISE program for FY23 overall and in FY24, the total amount has doubled to $1.5 billion.

So awards are, it's a highly competitive process.

Awards are based on basically the strength of the application, but also making sure there's variety in the project type.

So they want to fund projects with all different types of modes, multimodal, roadways, rail, et cetera.

I'm sorry.

Oh.

The merit criteria that projects are evaluated against are listed here.

Safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, community connectivity, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, partnership and collaboration, and innovation.

So projects are scored in each of those categories.

They're given a rating in each of those.

Projects receive an overall merit rating.

So if a project is highly recommended in at least six of the categories and all of the categories are responded to, the projects will be highly recommended, which means they advance to a second tier review.

In 2023, we met that criteria.

So our project was highly recommended.

It was identified as a project of merit, and we were encouraged to resubmit the application.

So we met that initial threshold.

There's more money in FY24 than there was in FY23, so there's a good chance that our application would continue to be competitive.

So the scope is the same as we submitted previously.

It would be to complete the preliminary engineering project phase, which would include doing some of the hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, the geotechnical analysis, completing the environmental reviews, and actually getting to the point where we're designing plans and looking for cost savings measures.

The TJPDC would be the project sponsor and fiscal agent.

And then assuming we are able to reach the same agreement with VDOT that we did previously, VDOT will administer the technical aspects of the project.

So with that, we have a resolution of support that is in your packet for you all to consider.

Applications are due on February 28th.

So we would just ask for your consideration on whether you would like to support the reapplication through the RACE program for this project.

It was approximately $3 million last time.

Is there someone who would like to make a motion to approve the resolution of support for Ravana River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Raised Grant Application?

Motion was made and seconded.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

So that is approved.

Should we pause?

Is this online?

Yeah.

Because I think it was coming from one of these microphones, not those folks online.

I can hear Ned and Sandy beautifully, but everyone else is very garbled.

How about Sean?

Can you hear them?

Can you hear me?

Now I can hear you.

OK, we'll move to number seven, VDOT project pipeline.

Mr. Proctor is online.

Good afternoon.

Hello, yes, I'm available.

We've got four projects.

Two of them are in Albemarle County.

One of them is in the city.

Well, two of them, they basically cross the county line, Barracks Road.

We had the original, the stakeholders group meeting last week.

We're revising the alternatives.

scenarios so that we could develop a public outreach survey and that should be going out probably early next month.

Ivy Road, we're looking to schedule the review meetings for the alternatives from the consultants developing.

Those should be early next month and then we'll have the SWG meeting, Stakeholders Working Group meeting probably middle to later in the month.

Yeah, so I know

And both of those are challenging intersections.

The one at Ivey's particularly tricky, we'll say.

How do you imagine, Mr. Proctor, this moving forward in terms of good community feedback?

What is the sort of

The intent is to get a viable project or projects out of these pipeline studies for NPO and localities to consider for SMART SCALE.

Right, right.

I guess my question is, particularly with respect to the Ivy women, there are a lot of stakeholders, the university, the county, neighbors, and that is just a really complicated section.

That's why the county

I'll be interested to see what the options are for that.

Me too, that location.

That is a tricky area.

There's a lot of writing on it.

OK, any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

So that will take us to number eight, Smart Scale Round 6 Project Selection.

And Sandy, et cetera.

Yes.

At all.

We had adopted a policy that we wanted to start proactively identifying our SART SCALE projects and then we went through this big update to the SART SCALE program that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has been working through so we weren't able to identify our projects early because we were waiting to see what the MPA would be eligible to submit.

One thing that I do want to mention as an update from our previous meeting is that the vote in December by the Commonwealth Transportation Board voted to remove land use as a scoring criteria for SMART SCALE.

At their meeting in January, they reversed that decision.

So SMART SCALE is still going to be one factor that is considered as a scoring initiative or a scoring measure.

But it's not going to be a standalone scoring factor.

It will be a modifier which will reduce the impact that it has.

So there will be a small benefit from land use, but projects will not receive much benefit from that land use score unless they are receiving scores in other categories.

It's what the Office of Environmental Planning and Investment staff had proposed.

So basically whatever your benefit is that you would be getting from land use, you would add up your scores and all the other criterias and then based on how

Many benefits you have for land use compared to the high scoring project, you would multiply the scores and all the other scoring criteria to some sort of multiplier between one and two.

So it wouldn't reduce your score.

I guess what I was trying to get at is

Yeah, I mean, I think this is a happy medium because you're not going to have projects that are fully funded now just based on a land use score.

So do you feel like this is a good compromise?

So all that said, that could potentially impact how some of these projects perform based on that change.

So we have been working with VDOT to identify the projects that the MPO would be eligible to submit that are at an appropriate phase of project readiness that we could prepare for applications.

The other thing that's really important to remember through all of this is that while the number of applications remains the same, so the MPO will still have four applications, the requirements for submitting all of the documentation on time are going to be much stricter.

So we need to make sure that for the projects that we want to move forward, we need to make sure that we have enough lead time to get the projects prepared, which means we're not going to be able to introduce projects that we haven't done any work on.

at this point.

So the projects that are at an appropriate stage of project readiness that the MPO would be eligible to submit are listed here on the screen with a couple of caveats about the pipeline projects.

So first of all, we've been talking about a DDI or another alternative at the I-64 and 5th Street interchange.

We've already had the conversation with VDOT among those four that there was

General interest in studying that intersection and seeing what the preferred alternative will be.

So VDOT is already in the process of conducting that analysis.

So we do believe that we would be able to prepare that for an application.

We had had some discussions with city staff about interest in continuing to evaluate the Hillsdale South Extension.

What we determined is that while there may still be interest in considering this as an option for a project, there is some additional review that would be needed, and we do not have time to complete that review for this cycle.

I have a question.

So I know this particular item has been around for at least 15, 20 years, but is there a written direction

Anywhere in the hierarchy, which says what the localities need to get accomplished before moving something forward.

I mean, strictly, this is a right-of-way issue that previous counselors have had to stare down in the past.

I think the technical requirements are indicated in the VDOT process documents and technical manuals.

I don't know, Chuck or Sean, you want to speak to that.

I mean, it seems like the locality would need to be all in before asking anybody to do any work on it.

That's my concern is that there's been a lot of wheels spinning in the past.

Sure.

That just went away because all of a sudden it was not what people wanted to do.

And I'm not trying to squash anything.

Is it OK, Mr.

Chambers?

I'll object first.

Before I give an answer, I was multitasking, so what exactly do I do?

So the Nillstone South Extinction that's mentioned here

How much do you know about it?

Do you feel like it's viable?

So that sort of changes the design of what we need to do to extend south from there.

And now we have some potential impacts on Kroger.

So we need to work through what those design changes would be.

And as part of your normal consideration, there you are.

I was beautifully doing environmental also for the wetlands along the creek that are right there.

Okay, great, thank you.

But we would, we would have performed with a project that didn't have consensus from the locality where the project was in.

Well I don't want to get dragged into a corner either, but all of a sudden all this work has been done and then you have public display.

So the other category that MPOs are eligible for is a complete set of corridor projects that have been identified.

in a planning process that the state has either participated in or led.

So that would include the pipeline studies, like at barracks and Ivy, as well as STARS study, or potentially an MPO-initiated project that the state had close engagement with.

What this means is that the two pipeline studies that were completed for round five, which include Jefferson, Peter Jefferson Parkway and Walcon Road, as a set of projects in the Louisa Road and Milton Road project improvements, both of those sets of projects would be eligible to be submitted in this round, but both of those would have to be grouped together.

So instead of submitting those as one application for Peter Jefferson Parkway, one application for Walcon Road, we would have to submit those together.

because they came out of one study as the preferred alternative.

And then the same thing would apply for US 250 and Barracks Road and Ivy Road, which are the current pipeline projects.

So there could be an opportunity where there's one or two improvements that are identified that as a standalone improvement, if it impacts the interchange, the MPO would be eligible to submit.

Otherwise, the MPO would only be eligible to submit these projects if it was a combined improvement for all recommendations within the board or study.

There are some concerns about whether or not that IV project specifically would be at a point where we would have a complete set of recommendations for that.

It's possible there still could be some improvements that are identified for the interchanges directly though.

Barracks Road, I think,

Again, there could be some improvements identified specifically at the interchange.

Yeah.

Did you say with Louisa Road and Milton Road?

No.

Oh, I heard the other thing.

Yes.

Yeah.

If you want to, we can go through each of these projects a little bit more specifically, but I think looking at these overall,

The combined Louisa Road-Milton Road project did not score very high on the SMART scale, so it's likely not going to be competitive.

But we do have the information if we could move forward with it, but not likely to be competitive.

So the pre-application window opens on March 1st and pre-applications have to be submitted by April 1st.

So I think we are hoping to at least have a pretty good sense of what you are willing to support, at least moving forward, recognizing that there aren't firm recommendations

and three out of four of the potential projects.

But I think it's helpful to know if you want us to continue to pursue the projects that are identified, but we would probably need to have a firm commitment and understanding of what you want to move us forward to next month.

Thank you.

So the information and the details on the project were in the packet, so is there anybody that wants to go through those details now that we would be taking action officially at the next meeting?

I mean, I have looked at it and I feel like Peter Jefferson Parkway walking road improvements, we've seen it a couple times before, maybe I think that's right.

The reason why I would really defer to y'all in the county, if you felt that that was a strong

The Hillsdale one seems to me like that's not happening this time, so I think you can take that off.

The DVI at Fifth Street, that's one that you all have, it's not like you've been talking about it for a little while, but I would support that.

I mean the DVI of that is,

I think the primary, I mean obviously the left turns they get rid of, but it's backing out onto the highway.

Yeah, all directions.

It's a short.

Karen, I feel strongly about that.

Yeah, that's a 64 one.

I would think that Peter Jefferson Parkway broken road would take the priority over the other one, just because that was all alone and designed with the DDI at 124 as a way to improve that corridor coming into town.

I'd have to ask more questions if that's appropriate to have that ready for the next time.

Was the liabilities were able to score well?

Because that's just the 250 corridor, the DDI, all of that links together.

It was cost, and I think the most significant points were safety, but they were pretty low.

I don't think they had economic development.

I mean, the Ivy Road one is, I understood if something's not going to be completed in time, but that's a big one to get figured out.

But we also have to take the time to do it in a proper way to get the right solution.

So if it times out, I mean, that would then be, we'd go just kick to the next round.

And U.S. 250 in Barrick Road, that is also backing out onto 250.

Traffic backing out onto there is the primary concern.

So you do have a safety issue.

So I mean, I don't see any of these of me saying, no, it's not.

But you can only get, what, four?

And you don't have four if you take out the not able to complete.

Am I correct?

Well, you would, but then you have one that's not compatible.

Correct, yeah.

We would have the DDI, or there could be another alternative, ISC4 and Fifth Street, I think, where the Fifth Street corridor study indicated that a DDI was the most likely option.

Well, I mean, if I were prioritizing, Ned's supervisor would say the DDI and the Peter Jefferson Parkway would be my top two, and then the Ivy Road and US 250 would come into play.

Those would be the four.

I would say, oh, I like those four.

I think all of those impact both jurisdictions very, very clearly every day.

So it really all depends which if either of the pipelines have enough to be able to have a really strong application.

If it's not ready, it's good, not happening.

So, I mean, I would put Ivy Road over the U.S. to 50 yards road.

If it were ready and proper for how things are going to be accepted.

I have a process question.

So because we saw the barracks road last week, there's three major elements in that.

The MPO, it depends.

The MPO would be eligible to submit anything that impacted, like if there was an interchange improvement as part of that, we could submit that as a standalone project or we could submit the entire set of recommendations.

We could not submit anything that wasn't an interchange as an individual improvement.

So you're saying like it was just a

If you put a pen under the bridge or something like that in that particular intersection, you could not submit that.

Correct.

That is an example on the barracks.

Does that, to Ann's point earlier, gentlemen, you could help us with this, does that give us, if we,

Are we submitting something that we already kind of sense will not be competitive?

Does that hurt our chances in the future?

If it's a need, submit it.

So it sounds like based off that, Louisa Road, Milton Road, we should go ahead and if there's a genuine need there, go ahead and apply.

Yeah, they're not going to be like, oh, this project again.

So we have the DEIA, we have Peter Jefferson, we have Louisa, that's three.

Maybe we'll kind of keep Louisa and Milton, that project.

Yeah.

Sandy?

Yeah.

You can put in five pre-applications.

And then if you choose, and then at full application, you can just submit four.

So if you wanted to put in the Louisa Road, North Milton Road, you could set that one up to go in also.

So we could play a little bit more over that.

That sounds good.

Any other questions there?

All right, that will take us to number nine in the US 29 and Fontaine Avenue Interchange Improvements Project discussion.

I'll do a brief introduction and then I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Nelson to go through the operations analysis.

I wanted to just sort of orient you all to where we are right now.

In round four, the MPO had applied for a project to do some improvements that were at Fontaine, but were also intended to resolve the left turn movement coming up 29 Northbound, taking a left exit to get onto I-64.

So it was creating a situation where

A large volume of vehicles had to turn against oncoming traffic to get onto the interstate.

And so the MPO had actually been working on this with VDOT and Albemarle County for a number of years.

I think there was an application in round one or two to rebuild a bridge that was a 170 plus million dollar project.

And then in round three, we had applied for a diverging diamond interchange.

And that project was not,

funded based on the cost.

Would have been at Fontaine.

Right.

So the goal was to basically use the Fontaine interchange in order to move the traffic in order to reorient the traffic that was making that left turn to basically be able to facilitate that movement through the Fontaine interchange.

So Mr. Nelson is going to go through about the operational aspects of that project.

But the reason that we are talking about this today is because in round four, in order to create a competitive application, get funding to resolve this issue, we had made some adjustments to the scope of the project.

So instead of submitting the DDI, we submitted an application for a displaced left turn.

And there was some concern of reservations, even though there was ultimately support to go ahead and submit the application.

So prior to moving forward with, since the project was funded, prior to moving forward with going out to bed for the design build for the project, there was an effort and there was an opportunity for VDOT to go back and see what can we do with the funding that's been committed during this project to see if there are any alternatives for other things we could do to make some improvements in this area.

So that's what we're gonna talk about today.

This project has already been funded,

We're talking about what design alternatives may be available that could be moved forward within the funding and within the scope of what was approved through SMART SCALE.

All right, thanks, Sandy.

So I've got a fairly, I'm not going to go through this fairly quickly, because it should be, I sent you all some information previously.

All right, so as Sandy indicated, there was a DDI application that was submitted.

So this is the graphic of that DDI application.

Close Another Crossover will come up and have a dedicated lane to go back southbound on 29 to get back to 64.

This project did not score very well.

A whole lot of the issues with the estimate and why it cost so much is a large footprint of a project.

This kind of blows up the entire interchange right there at Fontaine.

You've got to do work on either ramp, on all four corners of this ramp.

There's multiple stormwater management ponds that have to be facilitated, and there's substantial earth work.

So when we went back and looked at this estimate in 2020, we're looking at $28 million, which is a substantial size project.

So in round four, we came back with this displaced left, which is kind of like partial VDI.

So, in this situation, the trucks from 29 North will come up, again have a dedicated lane to come back around to go back 29 Southbound.

But what that did was, it restricted movements here at the Northbound round.

So no one coming off the ramp could make a left anymore, and vehicles that were coming on going eastbound Fontaine would not be able to make a left to go north on 29.

So everyone would have to come straight through and make this U-turn movement here just on the west side of Racy Hunt to come back to go 29.

So those were

Right, but they would just go up and take the bridge around and come back down.

Correct.

Oh yeah, or just quite frankly, anyone that is coming

Eastbound on Fontaine that wants to go 29 North.

Got it, got it, got it, got it.

Because you can't, we've got a median that you can't get over.

Got it, got it, got it.

29th.

Trying to build 64 Westbound.

Gotcha.

Because right now it's just a median break.

Right.

So yeah literally right here this is the movement we're talking about that we would remove by having a median put in here and route that traffic further north to come back in.

So the question everybody asks is why not just put a signal there because putting the signal there could be problematic based on the volumes of traffic coming southbound on 29th

When you put a signal there, you've got to stop traffic to allow those trucks, and I think you all know in the afternoons, traffic coming southbound is fairly heavy.

It's probably going to be back up a little past 29.

Fontaine.

What you just said about we can't put a signal up because of the volume of southbound traffic but that's the reason the trucks can't cross and the southbound traffic is 155 and never stops or slows down unless they happen to be turning left at the mid-point.

But that's a great conversation of how that corridor function as a whole because you can't look at this as just one signal here.

Go ahead.

Apologies if this has been done before.

So, quick question.

You're kind of restricted right now by the bridges that you have, because you go underneath the 64, so you're kind of restricted there.

I know Mr. Kondor had mentioned something.

Also, but that also requires bridges to get over top of 64 and flyovers to kind of go over top and then back down, which are very expensive projects.

We can look at those, but it's not a $12.3 million project.

Yeah, I drive this to and from work every day, but I'm just going south and then coming back into town, so I never go the other way.

I mean, I think, and our staff has looked at, can we squeeze some lanes underneath the bridges to get another lane to product out?

Almost trying to do an EDI where you're going to have traffic on the opposite side of the road to get back on.

Yeah, it's just very difficult under those bridges.

I don't even know how you would construct it, but the slow protection, you've got there to even do that.

And how big of a problem is it?

I think it's a larger problem considering no one wants the trucks on local roads, right?

So you don't want a truck traveling down a secondary road to get to an easier accessible point to 64, let's say further up the mountain.

So you've got through-truck restrictions that are limiting trucks from traveling, so they've only got one access point, and it's very difficult for them to get across that median in time during the peak because you've got traffic at hand indicated traveling 55, 60 miles an hour going southbound heading towards Lynchburg.

So we've had some accidents, and most of the accidents have been

Because the trucks can't clear the interchange, the crossover in time, and vehicles are clipping them.

They're clipping them in the back.

A big roundabout at most, no.

There's been no discussion about a big roundabout at 29 at the ramp.

Now, as far as at this on Fontaine, it kind of goes back to the point I was making with this.

A roundabout would be a fairly large footprint, which would have cult implications with that too.

So I think we've looked at it, and if we scroll through,

There was a slide that I think I deleted that had talked about some of the cost considerations that we had with the project.

Is this?

Is this sort of notion or concept of, basically we're saying deferring the term in a way of going in one direction, only the U-turn to come back around and be able to eliminate or delete the left turn.

Is this something that is common or has been done in the region?

It seems like a lot of effort.

And maybe it is safety and crashes and all those things.

That's the reason we're here.

So I'm not willing to minimize that.

But this is really kind of a pretty significant

Project to address a simple left turning lane.

I realize it's not simple.

I think it is as simple.

But I'm just trying to get a sense with this sort of, we'll get to your thumb kind of approach.

Is this something you've seen in other places in the state?

I mean, is this kind of a common, I wouldn't say common, but is it?

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

And quite frankly, it's an economical solution to a problem.

But at Route 17, they have an enormous loop.

So you can no longer go across at the lane and go straight toward 28th.

But you have to go then.

So the other element of it is when you have a stopped truck then turns left to get up on 64, since they are at a stopped position going with that slope, the other safety issue is all the traffic heading west on 64 already and now you've got very slow moving trucks trying to merge in, which is where you see safety issues there.

And to add the truck lane up the right all the way up that mountain was

Not feasible when we did that cost estimate.

So the truck wing got dismissed or boxed out because of cost.

Because if you ran the truck wing all the way up there, then you at least give the trucks room to try to get up the mountain without all the people going to, you know, less of that interchange who are doing their own bit of speeding and traveling and not necessarily allowing people to merge.

So the reason I liked the loop around was it gave the trucks the momentum to get going up the exogram.

This is a creative solution to a very challenging problem.

I'm so sorry.

I have one more question.

So I'm just looking at it, and there's three of the clovers and just not the fourth one that would be the one that would solve this issue.

I think it would behoove us to get through this because we're trying to solve it on like the first three slides.

No, we have not considered putting a loop in the interchange that I'm aware of.

Because?

Institutional Nautilus.

There's a creek and the railroad tracks just east of the interchange that would be possibly be impacted.

Plus the back of the Fontaine Research Park is in that area too.

So there's a lot of

There's stuff going on right there that would be impacted by doing another loop.

We did not even consider that.

The first round project did look at converting the 118 interchange to a divergent diamond, but we grade separated the crossover movements.

So it was basically a free flow interchange.

And that would have solved the problem.

We just couldn't fund it.

So the reason, and then after that, what we did is we broke up and looked at the individual

issues at the interchange and we've basically put in and got funded projects to address all the individual issues except for this left turn.

And that's the DDI that we originally planned for this was the way to solve that in an economical stance.

And it would also address the issues that we're having at that interchange now between the weave between the interchange and the research park.

It's significant.

So it's a way to address a multitude of issues with one project.

So that's how we got where we're at.

We're just trying to get it funded.

I know you've got a slide show you want to take us through.

So sorry to interrupt.

All right, so this just kind of illustrates, and this is from Sandy's information this year, provides you all how this project scored out.

A majority of the points are in land use.

The good thing about that is if we make changes to the original application, it likely doesn't affect anything because the project is still where the project is at.

And as long as we keep the shared use path there, I don't think we'll have any issue modifying the scope of the project.

If we've got concerns with the original project.

Over the last couple of months, I've kind of articulated with some of the concerns and stakeholders have had.

We talked about the Loon here, the desire to maintain all movements at this intersection here and not restrict the ability to go westbound on Fontaine.

The width underneath the bridge, we've only got so much room to operate in.

We can't grow any more real estate without potentially having to rebuild the bridge, which would be a costly endeavor.

So Sandy kind of indicated that this is some of the direction that we were looking at to get from this board.

And that was to move forward the existing project in scope, potentially pull the project,

or pursue one of the conventional intersection configuration, which I want to kind of go through here in this presentation, but it wouldn't be addressing the left turn movements at the interchange.

But I think we may have a way to get past that too, so I will leave that until the end.

So we hired Michael Baker and Associates to kind of take on this endeavor from us about six months ago now.

And they were given directions that they needed to look at the engineering and lane alignments and the operations at both the interchange and radon drive and make sure that any solution they provided us could be done within the estimate that we've got, the same footprint, but it has to keep the shed use path.

The one thing that they were able to take off the table was the

The movements there at the interchange.

So we told them for the purpose of this exercise, assume that the crossover remains open.

So you're not diverting those trips to Fontaine because we heard that was an issue.

So this is the slide I was talking about.

When they looked at some of these alternatives, they looked at roundabouts, the DDI, the displaced left turn, which we already have,

A continuous green tee and a conventional intersection.

And these are some of the things that came up when they looked at those.

So with the conventional intersections, what I'm going to go through is what we have gotten feedback from with the consultants.

So when we looked at the alternative development, we realized that there were some critical moves in the morning and the afternoon that we needed to pay attention to.

These are those movements.

So coming

29 southbound to go eastbound on Fontaine with a critical movement.

The vehicles in the morning that are coming going 29 north and going down Fontaine with a critical movement.

And then you've got all the movement here at going into the research part.

And the PM is just the opposite.

So we wanted to make sure that we were trying to address these critical movements during the AM and PM on this corridor.

One thing we did find out was that we had enough room underneath the bridge to have a 10-foot shared-use path.

So they were able to determine that up front.

These sketches were done by traffic engineers and this is really based on their synchro models in trying to determine how the traffic will work.

So we're working on getting some pretty graphics, but we'll have to do with these for now.

So some of the lane assignments and the way the lanes look may be kind of weird, but this is kind of the base concept.

So on this concept, as you know, we're maintaining all the movements at this interchange.

So as you're coming northbound on 29 and get off on Fontaine, you're able to make the left go straight across and you still have the eastbound movements on Fontaine.

You've got two through lanes westbound, which is good.

Coming off of 29 southbound to Fontaine, you've got one lane that will accommodate all the movements.

You've got dual lefts to go back 29 southbound.

So this was the base of what they were starting with.

It should be noted that this far most right lane in these proposals is going to kind of be a free flow, somewhat free flow right going into Ray C. Hunt, which would actually be delineated by either some type of physical barrier or those post mounted barriers to keep the vehicles from doing a merge.

It's kind of already like that, right?

So here's what it would look like at Ray Hunt.

As you can see, there is no loon required with this option because we're accommodating all the movements at the interchange itself.

So we're not asking people to make a U-turn to go back westbound on Fontaine to go north.

So that is removed.

No.

So do I understand, I hope, unhappily, that there is net would be proposed to be a light at the West End.

This is where the exit ramp off of 29.

The reason that backs up is because people can't overcome the through traffic.

So.

I will note that this is based on them using Syncro.

They have now gone through, and I just got an update on Tuesday, that they're using VISN now, and we've been coordinating with the university and their consultants on the projected traffic they've got for racing on drive and the research department they're putting back there.

The numbers that they're seeing regarding these cues are getting better with the model that they're using.

So this is a worst case scenario and we've got updated information that we hope to have by the middle of next month that will be able to provide a better idea of what the cues potentially would be.

But what this is showing in the AM of the amount of storage we have on these legs with the cue at the busiest time, busiest hour would be.

So coming off the ramp,

It's a very limited queue here of 170 feet of 900 feet.

Coming southbound to get off, we're using 1,330 feet of the 2,100.

So you've still got some room there for capacity.

Everything else looks fairly good.

We are constrained in all models.

Basically, anything coming westbound on Fontaine because we've got this gap

That's between this project and the city streetscape project where there is no improvement.

Yes?

So this is Q analysis for the alternative development.

For the current configuration or for the

Okay.

Yes.

This is all based on vehicular.

Yes.

Right.

I wonder if this notion of an endless queue could just be really exciting or really horrible.

But I mean, I think we all know if you've got a choke point in the middle of those two projects or you've only got one lane in each direction,

Eventually, this too shall pass, I guess.

Yes.

The right is not adding capacity, but you need.

No.

The next was an upgrade to the base concept which helps

Operations immensely because in the westbound direction, now that we have closed this alt and restricted the left coming off of 29 northbound to Contain, you're able to have a free flow in the westbound direction.

So traffic coming out of the city going westbound, literally you have the light racing up, but from there moving forward, you're just moving and trying to get to the 64 or the 29 southbound.

So there would be no light stopping this traffic in the westbound direction.

That light is only for the traffic coming off of the ramp.

But the issue with this is we limit the movement here, which means anybody wanting to go west on Fontaine from the north has to go through a loop.

That's the only way to accommodate any vehicle.

If you're restricting movements, going westbound on Fontaine from 29 North, the only way to get them back to go eastbound is to have a unit.

Can you go back there?

Slide, please.

But the downside is you've got to have this one.

Yes.

Yeah.

One that's currently funded?

This is the one that's currently funded.

Yeah, that's what I'm asking.

Is that what you want?

I think it's the one where if the truck is trying to turn, they just go around continuously.

So why couldn't we do the EDI?

You don't have funding currently for an EDI.

So sorry, I'm looking at this more closely now with the intersection based on what we just saw.

And there couldn't be a way for the trucks to do a continuous inner loop.

that is separated from the eastbound traffic and the westbound traffic on Fontaine so that the Fontaine traffic is separate from the loop traffic and they meet back up on the on-ramp back on the 64.

And so that would make the eastbound traffic one lane.

Or give my art.

One of the things, let's see if I'm muted, is that the eastbound view, because all the traffic from the northbound ramp and all the traffic from the southbound ramp has to line up in that one lane to go through the signal at Ray Hunt.

And in the past, that has been an issue.

And what happens is a lot of the traffic going northbound at the off ramp would basically just go over into that lane and cut the people from the southbound ramp off.

And that's been an issue for, since I've been working in this area, I went out there when I was at the residency and used to watch that movement.

And there's almost been crashes out there every day for that particular movement in the morning.

That is a concern and that length is really short.

Once you start looking at the volume of traffic that needs to go into the city.

This scenario that we're looking at is, that's still an issue, but it's not as bad because with the, by separating out the one lane that's going into the university property, then

You're minimizing the weave that's having to occur between the southbound ramp and the northbound ramp trying to go into the city.

So my doodle is trash, but if you can hold that there, I can kind of indicate on it what I'm trying to ask.

OK, so here's the on-ramp in the town.

These people are doing fine.

They're cruising.

Here's the free flow this way.

They're fine.

They're cruising.

And then here's a light that they're going to use to turn onto the on-ramp here.

There's not tons of traffic, I'm assuming, coming across this way, right?

Correct.

So here's two lanes.

Now.

Right.

But here's two lanes.

So we have one lane, normal regular incoming traffic.

You still, yes, you could do that.

You're still going to have a load.

Well, I'm assuming those are going to be trucks.

Well, you can assume that, but I can't, I can't.

I think you'd also have a hard time doing that, maintaining the shared use path.

You'd have another median, and then it's going to get real tight and quick like that.

So you whip up the bridge, there's going to be someone living there.

But I appreciate the idea that you're basically sort of on closed traffic, trying to use one of the lanes for the return, to deal with the return solution.

Yeah, I mean, you're constrained because if you're on it, there's bridge piers that are literally right there that are structurally holding the bridge up.

Could I ask what feedback you got from the university?

Or if you want to just tell us.

I know you don't have conversations.

How does the university feel about all this?

Well, do we mean how do we feel about the displaced life term?

Because those are two things.

Because both, yeah.

Well, the concern that the university

The concern with the displaced left turn was articulated very well in Sandy's document, but in summary, I would say that there's three primary concerns that we have.

One is that there's a concern with taking statewide traffic that's at 64 and 29 and displacing one of those movements to a local intersection.

That's a concern.

A second concern is

that they're recalculating the model now, but it didn't include all of the developments that are occurring.

For instance, there's the Regents School that's being built west of this intersection off of Fontaine.

And that's going to be a very big school activity with students and vehicles.

That's just one example.

There's also the Affordable Housing Initiative at Piedmont, which is just to the east of here.

So for instance, all the improvements that the city's doing, their SMART SCALE project would be impacted by the additional movements.

And we just were concerned about how this would work with that loom in the middle of all these activities.

But you've just, I guess, only recently, tonight, or a little bit prior to seeing this new concept.

So we made public comment in 2020 when the displaced left turned, as did the city at that time.

But this upgraded concept that he's calling

In general, which looks like adding some traffic lights to the untrained guide, and there's more going on, but that's sort of the key thing that's making this work, right?

We saw it for the first time in November this year, and then there's some additional work being done on it at this time that Sean's going to present some of that today.

OK. All right.

Good.

All right.

So I'm going to skip some of these slides, because as you all can see, the operations on the upgraded concept get better based on the cues.

The cues are smaller.

So win-win for operations for the corridor.

The ultimate concept I'm not even going to go through.

I'm going to go to the base concept plus.

I think this is where the conversation will coalesce together.

So as you can see with this base concept, the first concept only had one lane coming off of southbound 29 to Fontaine.

And this upgraded, this base concept plus, you've got two lanes now.

You've got a shared lane that accommodates all movements and you've got a dedicated left turn lane.

So this is a fast improvement to help flush some of that queue off of the ramp and not backing up to 29.

You've got two lanes that are coming through.

We're accommodating the left to go back to go northbound on 29.

And here this ramp, we're also allowing all movements.

So this third, this leg of the intersection here would accommodate all movements.

It'd be a right turn, a through, and also a left.

So that is a vast improvement from the other concepts.

That is the one thing that we were not removing from the project, because if you remove the shared use path, you might as well just throw the product away.

Thank you for clearing that out.

OK. And racing hunt looks like it looks today, essentially.

There's no real main changes there.

We would make some changes to how the light operates as far as pedestrian calls and whatnot, but there was pretty much the same intersection.

Those cues, but it does not include the last one I showed because we did not model that at the time we went through this.

We're working through that now, but to your report, Councillor Pinkston, you were talking about the upgraded.

As you can see, the blue arrows is where the cues are at, and you can see where that is based on the base concept, which is the pink one, and then the this place left.

Kind of interesting to see where the queue's at along the corridor with all these options together.

And this is for the AM.

And then we've got a graph showing it for the PM.

So operationally, this kind of lets you know what you would expect for backups based on those options.

And we're going to do the same thing for the new alternative that we've come up with.

So direction needed.

I had to start because what I've asked the team to do

Since the VISN model that they're using now is showing better operations, I've asked them to now go back and introduce what it looks like keep closing the median at the interchange to see what operations look like with that future back added.

So essentially, if we close the median and if this was the concept that the MPO wanted to explore further,

You close the median, trucks would have to come up here to this light, wait at the light, make the left, come back around and go down.

Which, if we closed the median today, they would have to do that.

Is there a space for that?

That's what we're working on.

Yeah, I think in conversation we'd probably have to make sure we can trim back the nose of that median.

to make sure that the troops can make the turn.

And the shared use path is down the middle?

That's what I was thinking about that last term.

Thank you.

To ask a stupid question, the interchange at I-64, the one that we're trying to fix, basically all of that pavement, everything going up from that direction is going to be gone.

Cars can't use any trucks.

I mean, it's a part of this to edit some of the multiple concepts.

If you all are interested in the things that we looked at to come up with this, there's probably like 15, 20 of them.

And this was done back in 2020.

Can I ask a question, Sean?

Go ahead.

So has any of these options been cost estimated again?

No, there's no assurances.

So consulting has been asked as part

There are proposals to develop concepts, but by staying within the same footprint of the existing project that we've got, we're hoping to not be escalated more than inflation.

We're trying to stay within the same- The inflation was harder.

Yes.

We will take each project case by case.

OK.

So that's amazing.

That's amazing.

It depends on what the estimate increases.

But every project is looked at case by case.

Thank you so much for this, it's very helpful.

And it's also looking at adding in the traffic from the property that was being developed north-south of the interchange, the seed property.

I'm looking at Street View here and it's hard to tell, but what's the height of Fontaine to underneath the 64 bridge?

29th bridge, sorry, yeah.

It's hard to tell.

It's hard to view on Fontaine and extended now anyway.

Well, Sean, I, for one, appreciate all the work that's gone into this.

I'm trying to look at it like, holy smokes, what are you doing?

But clearly, you guys have really done a lot of work to try to make this, we're trying to throw the needle, yeah.

What do y'all mean to myself?

I'm Julia Falardo from Albemarle County Community Development, and I just wanted to acknowledge all the work that Sean and his team have done with all of us, both the county, the city, and UVA, to try to come up with this

We've had many hours of conversations about this and I just wanted to acknowledge him and his team and the whole region's worth of team members because I think we've all hung in there trying to find the right answer and so I just wanted to say thank you to the policy board as well for

Letting us go down this road and kind of support Sean and his efforts.

Thank you, Judy.

All right.

So it's decision time.

We need that right now because I've got more information to provide you all.

I think it's going to come a point because we're planning on delivering this Fontaine Project Build, Design, Build procurement, which we need to know by this spring what we're going to try to build.

By mid-February I should have a good idea operation wise how these options pan out with the closure of the median at the interchange and without.

I think based on how that goes is where I'm going to need this board to tell me are we going to move forward with the original project or revised project and does that revised project contain traffic from the interchange or not?

And the analysis that we're doing will let us know how that, I mean based on the number that I've seen from the TIAA that CEED provided, I don't think operation is going to be a big issue, but don't hold me to it.

The trucks?

I don't think it's going to be an issue.

Well, I think I have a little more time to just kind of adjust it.

Mr. Galli, can I ask Sandy to say one other thing just to make sure everybody understands of the options that exist.

Leaving it the way it was funded, the way it is, is the status quo.

That everybody knows that's exactly what happened.

If there were a change to the design of the scope, then that would need to be rescored under the rules that it was originally scored under, not the changes that the CTV just recently made.

I'm now doing the summary I asked you to do.

If for some reason none of these options feel like the right option and we're saying we would rather not do any of them than do one that we don't love, the option would be to not receive the funding.

Go back to the drawing board, reapply for the project under the new CTB rules for SmartScale, and knowing that some of the things that got it funded in the first place would then make it not competitive potentially the next time around.

And you would already have traffic counts at all these various things.

In many driving through this, the most I've ever seen is 15 trucks in the northbound lane trying to go west.

In 2018 the AM it was 28 and the PM it was 23.

You said it was 2018 on the first one?

Yeah.

That I'm not sure.

I think that was before.

Probably was.

So I mean, the more, and that's a part of this, right?

You restrict those roads.

That's all we need to get across.

It really is.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Sean.

So what happens, Ned?

Does this come back to us in the morning?

Yeah.

Sean's coming to the county board.

Sean knows he's coming to the county board?

There will be updated stuff in history.

So the Transportation Improvement Program, if you recall, is the document that basically

The spending or allocation or planned expenditures is from the dollars within the urbanized areas.

So any change to the document that is adopted over a certain amount is required to go through an amendment, which requires approval from the policy board.

And then any adjustments that are for lesser amounts are administrative modifications.

It doesn't require any action from the policy board, but they are included in your agenda packet as an informational item.

So I have several amendments.

That I'll go through briefly and then we will be asking you all to take action.

The MPO technical committee did recommend approval of the amendments as presented.

All of these are related to transit projects.

So the first one is that for a change in the scheduled spending for replacement rolling stock for CAT,

The amount of allocation that was identified in FY24 was higher than what was initially identified.

And so the amount has been adjusted to reflect the allocations for FY24.

And then the amounts for FY27 have also been added.

And then the amounts between FY25 and FY26 have been adjusted based on

The next amendment is to add a new project for CAT and this is for a capital project that includes two phases.

First of all, there will be some planned additions to the operations and that's to accommodate

Some additional bays, including bays and other infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles.

And then the second improvement is for some expansions to the administrative offices, which include the additional training facilities.

The schedule of the expenditures that I was given included spending FY24 to complete the site planning work and the design work.

And then there will be a period of review with the renovations to start in FY26.

FY27, we may have to come back and amend this, but this was the best information that we have right now.

Very general question.

So this is out of a transit bucket.

The Fourth Amendment is actually

One for the TJPDC.

As you all recall, Lucinda has been working very hard to get a mobility management program developed for the region.

So January 1st, we officially launched the call center to support ride referral services for individuals with disabilities and seniors.

But because we are now directors at the end of this federal funding, we needed to add it to the TIP.

So this is reflecting the expenditure or the funding that was allocated for FY24.

We'll have to go back and admit this when we know what our budget is for FY25 moving forward.

Any questions on this slide?

Okay, and then amendments number 5 through 11 are basically just removing all the TIP boxes related to Jaunt.

So since FY 2015, at least, we have included Jaunt into our MPO's transportation improvement program.

And we recently realized that Jaunt is not a director-cipient of federal funding.

They are a separate recipient from the state.

And so it is actually duplicative for us to include Jaunt in our tips, since they are also included under the state-scheduled funding applications.

So just to clean this up and remove those duplications, the amendment will remove all the references to John's planned funding allocations.

Those will be captured in the statewide documents.

And we will no longer maintain those changes in the schedule.

So those are the amendments that are being requested tonight.

And I'll turn it over to you all to take action or ask any further questions.

All right.

Is there a motion to approve the Transportation Improvement Program amendments and modifications as presented?

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All right.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

All right.

Thank you.

So that takes us to 11.

We are just moving from the next group.

All right, so we are moving through the needs identification process.

So we are ready to start talking about projects now.

So as a reminder, we have been talking to you all about identifying, how do we identify the needs?

So we identified the evaluation metrics that we are going to use to

Look at the entire network to help us identify where are their needs on our roadway segments.

We develop the thresholds that we would use to define what constitutes a need in each of those evaluation metrics.

And then we identify the weighting scenario.

And so the preferred weighting scenario based on the public feedback, based on your overalls direction was to use the accessibility focused weighting scenario.

So that determined how much weight each of these evaluation metrics contributed to identify the overall needs.

I do want to point out that while we did receive the transit on-time performance data, it didn't look exactly the way that we anticipated it looking from the transit providers.

So we're going to go back and look at this, but that specific metric is not included as part of our analysis.

It's not likely to impact the

needs identification there because it's such a low percentage of the overall score.

But we will look at it just to make sure it doesn't make an adjustment.

So when we ran this analysis, this is using, just throw some caveats out there first, this is using a data-driven approach to identify based on this analysis what might be a need, and that's just going to be one level of analysis that we're doing.

We're also going to go back and screen through the public feedback that we received to see where there might be additional needs that have been discussed by the public.

And then we're also going to, I think, recommend looking at the PSI locations separately and also looking at the travel demand model separately to determine are there any needs that might be a really high need of one of those categories that are picked up when we aggregate over a lot of areas.

So this is intended to inform our discussion.

This is not intended necessarily to end the discussion and say that we're only going to consider projects if they're highlighted on this network.

So once we aggregated these across several project areas, there was one that met the threshold of medium-high priority need, which means that it had an aggregated score between five and seven across all of those factors.

And that is the section of 29 between 250 and Greenbrier Drive.

When we go down to the next tier, so these are projects that had an aggregated score between four and five out of seven points would be the highest of something scored, the highest threshold on every single one of the metrics.

You start seeing more needs identified along 29 and you start seeing these projects along 10th Street, Bridge and 5th Street, some projects along, or some segments along right of road start popping up as well.

And then we go down to our median low priority needs, which was the next steps between projects that scored aggregated between three or four, starts expanding a little bit more, we see more needs implicated along 250, Emmett Street and Ivy Road, 29 continues to be some projects, Rybrook continues to be some needs,

And then if we look at projects or at the segments that scored, just any in general, but not at this medium level or higher, you'll see all these additional green segments that start popping up.

So again, this is intended to sort of be one way to review the data in full to determine where is there a need that potentially we may not see if we just start looking at the projects that we've already identified.

And then if we look at the public feedback, I just wanted to share this map.

This is a heat map of where we receive public comments.

So this heat map includes all the public comments that we received through the Metro Quest Survey that we conducted for the Long Range Transportation Plan, all of the in-person engagement that we conducted as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan, feedback from seatbelt plans together, feedback from the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, and the Regional Transit Fission Plan.

So the next step is going to be to overlay this data together

and then also take a look at where all of the most updated potential for safety improvement locations are and also just compare this against the operational assessments based on the travel demand model and then the MPO staff is going to start working with the locality staff to vet the overall list of projects that we have queued up to start looking at where do we have projects that align well with the needs that we've identified

What are the projects that the localities have determined as high priority needs to pursue over the next couple of years?

And where are there gaps in needs that have been identified in this process as maybe an area that needs some attention, but we don't have a project lined up yet?

And that will help inform what our planning priorities are going to be.

Yes, please.

So this is part of the Moving Toward 2050 framework, which used to be called LRTP.

yeah because it wasn't like in the packet itself i missed the link so i'm having to catch up here oh i'm sorry yeah that's really that's really just data though that's all the data that is associated with all of these maps right here if you want to go in and explore anything in further detail all of that data is here this really isn't intended to um to stop anything from being considered this is really just demonstrating what the analysis that we've been talking about has highlighted okay

So if you want to go in and look at that data, ask questions, kind of see maybe why things are scoring, where they are, that information is available to explore.

But we're going to create a more public-friendly interface to explore this data as well.

I just wanted to be updating you all as it becomes available.

Thank you.

Everything.

Those are photos, right?

So that takes us to item 12, staff updates.

So we're applying for funding for the Mobility Management Program as Sandy said it started up this month and we have our 800 number people are calling in and getting assistance finding rides through Java's counselors.

And we'll be applying to add a staff person.

Yes.

Just to get it funded.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right.

Any questions there?

And then the Regional Safety Summit update.

Kurtz?

So we had the Regional Safety Summit about two weeks ago,

Thank you to those of you who attended, including Councillor Pinkston.

And it was also a good representation from the county.

Jessica was there and most others.

So thank you all for coming.

We're going to be going to all the jurisdictions in the coming weeks to seek letters of commitment from all of you as part of our SSRO grant, which we're calling Move Safe to Blue Ridge.

This is something that's required for the grant.

And it's basically committing you all to engage actively in the process of developing this plan.

And committing to try to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the roadway network.

If you have any questions, just let me know.

That's all.

And that will take us to item 13, additional matters from the public.

Is there anyone in the room who wishes to give additional comment?

Is there anyone online who wishes to give additional comment?

Yep.

Closely won.

Oh, Brian said, oh, I had won the contest.

So that will take it.

Yeah, we caught up here in our hurry, didn't we?

So the last item is adjourned.

And if there is no objection, we will adjourn until February end of schedule B.

Thank you.