MPO Policy Board Meeting   2/28/2024

policy board to order for our let's say February 28, 2024.

And would you roll call?

Yes.

Did you do the roll call?

Yes.

Oh, sorry.

Supervisor Malek?

Present.

Councilor Pinkston?

Mr. Nelson.

Ms.

Laundrie.

We have folks rolling in.

Ms.

Monkey for PBS.

Mr. Murphy with jobs.

Mr. Williams, Pat.

Here.

Mr. Wagner with DRPT Mr. Minor with FHWA Mr. Kronek with FTN Mr. Condor with C-TAC Mr. Goetz with the T.J.

We need a motion to so we'll need a motion to allow you to participate electronically.

Is there a motion to

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

We'll go to item number two, matters from the public and speakers who wish to give a comment have three minutes to do so.

We ask that you come up to the podium and address your remarks to the whole group.

And I believe we do have some folks who wish to speak today.

Before I go to the end room, folks, is there anybody online that wishes to give a comment today?

Not seeing any?

All right, you're welcome to come up to the podium.

Hi Paul Grady.

I live just outside of Crozet and I really just have a question.

Last month at this meeting there was discussion about the Fontaine

interchange and and the 29-64 interchange and sending the trucks up through Fontaine and then back down to get rid of the left turn and I thought think that's a really horrible idea but at one point the

the concept of a diverging diamond was mentioned and the only comment was it was too expensive.

And I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough explanation for me.

I always thought that the smart scale concept was that you would end up with the best design and that cost was not going to be the deciding factor.

and so my question is, why is the diverging diamond considered to be too expensive and not a viable option?

Thank you, sir.

Any others in the room who wish to get public comment?

All right, we will close matters for the public and move to item number three, general

Add that.

Sandy, you've got, well, we need to review and accept the agenda.

Any changes to the agenda?

Move for approval of the agenda.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

Thank you.

The agenda is approved.

And then we have the January 25th, 24 meeting minutes.

Second.

Very good.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

And that will take us to item number four, the US 29 and Fontaine Avenue Interchange Improvements Project.

And Mr. Nelson, are you aiding us on that conversation?

All right, so last time during the interview I made an update on

Some alternatives and some concerns that have come up with the existing proposal for Fontaine which is the displaced left turn lane.

It's called a displaced left turn lane because you're not turning, you're going to have to stay there going around the whole way to come back around.

No, it's called a displaced left turn lane because you're like really driving on the wrong side of the road.

So if you look here, a lot of turn lanes will usually be on this side, you're actually coming across.

You got it.

So it's half of the exactly.

As mentioned previously, some of the issues and challenges with the current times that we've heard from stakeholders is the loom at Great Sea Hunts, which is a requirement to get trucks back going westbound on Fontaine if they're coming off northbound because here at the interchange when you come off northbound, the movements are restricted so that you can't go west on Fontaine Avenue.

That was one of the primary concerns that we had heard.

We also realized that there was a great need to handle the issue here.

Northbound 29 to go 64 westbound.

We were concerned that we'd have accidents there, and so we were packing up to go 64 westbound.

So that's the main reason for the project.

Yeah, it's pretty much all of the above.

I mean, we've got issues on Fontaine, and I can tell you the cross over right now.

So we had 64, and I didn't even think Fontaine.

I don't think anyone would like for me to do that, but I could do that.

OK, thank you, Tom.

Let's get through, if we could track questions and then get through the presentation, then we'll go back to the questions.

So we came up with a conventional interchange for, we're actually looking at alternatives.

So we came up with an alternative that maintained all movements and includes shared use path.

It does not require any U-turns or race heat hunt, and it still removes the crossover

on 29-64 West Bank, which will require the trucks and vehicles to go up to find things.

So everything that was included in the original project, we met all those, we checked all those boxes for this alternative.

So the question was, well, how well will the alternative work in the future?

This is what the alternative looks like.

It's kind of probably hard for you all to see that and I'll show it later and blow it up.

But if you can see,

So you can see the shared use path is on the south side of Fontaine Avenue.

So we've been able to accommodate for the shared use path underneath the bridges to continue going west on Fontaine.

So we've checked that box.

We're still here at this interchange.

We're able to maintain all movements.

And we're also

I'm able to maintain all movements here.

So we've essentially met all the design criteria that stakeholders would like to see in a call to practice.

I'm sorry to ask a question, but it's pertinent to just this graphic.

I think it's like a right-of-way line.

So I think that is right-of-way.

So a lot of people have been asking the question, like what is the, when we did this analysis, what did we include?

So we really took a baseline of what the university had done for their Fontaine Research Park, and we kind of grew on that.

So we included the information that was for the trip for the Fontaine Research Park, any development that was also included in that TIA.

I know the C property was added, which we did not include when the smart scale property was originally submitted in a regional school TIA.

We also grew traffic on Pontaine Avenue 1% and along 29 at 2% per year.

So this is going out, the analysis actually goes out to 2045.

So what I'm about to show you is the worst case scenario in the worst 15 period amount of time in 2045.

Okay.

Yeah, very much so.

So this is kind of the graphic, similar to what I showed last meeting about the alternatives and where the humans will begin.

So just kind of bear with me as I go through this.

The orange is the displaced left alternative and the blue is the alternative concept that Michael Baker has come up with.

Now I will say that it's

is kind of not like an apples to apples comparison because the lane designation between the displaced left and the conventional don't line up.

But I'm going to try to walk through this to kind of show you what we've got.

What we did notice is that during the AMP, the AMP, that the displaced left failed.

And the alternative that we proposed with Michael Bader does not fail.

As you can see, we've got cues here

in the A.M.

that spill out into 29.

Looking at the alternative, the cues are only going to move back to the pew.

There's graphics at the end of this presentation, in my opinion, that will give you detailed information on what those cues are.

But just to let you know, I mean, that's a substantial difference.

These arrows kind of indicate that the cue is extending behind or through that interchange behind.

So essentially, if you're coming off the ramp here, you've got a cue.

when you get through this interchange you still want to have a queue that is backed up continued back this way you're going to continue to run into a queue through this interchange in the morning before you get the race even also likewise going northbound in the morning the queue spilled back out on the 29th so both ramps failed in the a.m whereas with the alternative 89

The AM is probably the most critical time that we're seeing here, and this is the alternative to improved operations in 2045.

This is the big PM.

We don't really have anything failing per se here, except for standard sites on Fontaine and Gracie, that failed in both.

I think this has to do a whole lot with the fact that we don't have a whole lot of facts to go back into the city.

So you pretty much have an endless queue going for the city.

and we're also showing that at Ray C. Hunt the queue is a 24 to 5 backup beyond the roundabout of their proposal.

So that's kind of the analysis.

I've got a bigger blown up picture of this if you all want me to pull it up.

But go ahead.

Yeah, Mr. Henson.

It's just for clarification, it's further in than the current decision point.

Yeah, if you need to show us in here.

What could have changed?

Well, there's no longer this place left.

Okay.

So I think you see this graphic here.

So if you're coming off the interchange, you're going to come up, if you want to go wet bound on Fontaine Avenue, you have to go all the way to Racine Hunt and come back around.

to go west.

Also, if you're traveling westbound on Fontaine and want to go 29 north, you've got to go all the way down the Racy Hunt and turn around and come back to go northbound.

The alternative gets rid of all of it.

And how does it do that?

Signals.

OK.

The Displaced Black Movement goes away at the conventional intersection.

There is no alternative.

There is no innovation with it.

I wasn't here and you all voted, not me.

Well, part of the history of the speaker comment is if memory serves,

And there were discussions potentially, it's a bigger footprint.

There were concerns about having to build sound walls associated with that.

It was just, it was a more expensive project.

Sound walls because if you add capacity, you have to look at the noise mitigation part of adding a capital.

And that would be the Virgin diamonds here in the mountain.

Before that, we wanted to have the real intersection with the roofing that was not right like you could have done in the 60s.

And that was we were told was too much right.

And they didn't get adopted because it was already 10 million dollars or whatever.

I think they were too around that, instead of the 29, 64 inch.

and then we were told we had to cut it down so we cut it down and make it smaller and then now we can solve it.

And the purpose is to fix the westbound movement from the trucks coming up north which is exacerbated by some through truck restrictions that we put in place in the county and then the even forgetting the truck fees just the sheer volume of the intersection needed to be improved to help with the flow.

So that was the purposes behind or at least the discussion points for

and the county when we made the initial decision.

Sandy?

I got it correct.

Any other comments on the history?

Yeah, do you mind going back to the map of the proposal intersection?

Yeah, this one.

Thanks.

I just want to clarify what's different from what exists there now is that there's the shared use path and there's

Yes.

And additional width on the southbound lane.

We're doing work.

So, okay, but it's very similar to what there is now, just kind of a little bit

bigger there and then with the lights.

Why would you go buy an entrance that is open to make a left

Right.

So is there like, we haven't obviously done signage for that to encourage them to do this, but in the new plan, correct me if I'm wrong, I think I read it a couple of slides back that they're still, or maybe this is on the agenda, they're still going to keep that left turn open.

They're not.

No, no, no.

It may have been 23 per hour.

Right, on 29 North, trying to go left on 64th as is.

So I don't necessarily recall the backup, but that was a volume of traffic that we had attributed to making left there during the peak.

At some point in time, I can't remember what year that traffic count was from,

So that's not, I'm sorry, I want to make sure I'm understanding your question.

That's not the number of trucks lined up, queuing, waiting to turn.

OK, I was thinking it was a queue of trucks.

OK, got it.

So the questions I have would be,

I'm assuming, obviously, the queuing of the trucks going northbound would make the limit.

They'll have the swim radius to make the limit.

Correct.

Do you have to do improvements for that or is it there already?

It's going to be, it's going to have to be figured out in the design.

So we're going to have to cut some curve back in order for them to make that.

And they've done some all return movements on here now, but we'll get into those details during the time period.

And by the way, these are questions.

So the MRP Board of Supervisors had this presentation last Wednesday.

and are unanimously supportive of the alternative plan.

But the queuing was one of the questions, the turn radius of the track and trailers.

And then I have some of my own personal questions and may have hers.

The data for the queuing for the trucks specifically, what's just the sheer count of the trucks?

I mean, because you've got to take it a different length than you would a typical car queuing scenario.

I mean, I'm assuming that's factored in.

Yeah, I don't have that information.

But it is factored into the analysis.

Yeah, when they did the traffic count, they should have a classification of what type of vehicles there were.

So they can take that into account.

The cost difference, obviously, but there will be one.

This is a cheaper product.

We know.

Well, I'll hold any more comments on that, so we find out what it is.

and then the signage.

Can you speak to what that would look like?

No, that's just what we have designed, but we know we're going to have to indicate that trucks want to go south or go west on 64.

We're going to have to utilize the left lane.

So we're going to have to add in maybe a cantilever sign over the top of the ramp to indicate which lane of admission you need to be in, but that will all have to be done during the night and how the pavement message evolves.

and I can tell you that the board's primary was unanimous and shutting down the left movement on the 64 West for safety reasons and concerns that it's got a documented history of.

So that's our, I mean, that was probably the deciding, not the deciding factor, but the primary deciding factor was going to be an alternative.

There was no supervisor speaking in support of wanting to keep that movement open.

Last Wednesday, we had this because the board,

And I think what was in everybody's last week's personal experience rather than data driven is everyone has seen the backups of the ramps and all of these things every morning or afternoon for years and the most I've ever seen is 12 trucks standing

trying to go away at one time and taking a very long distance in the left-hand travel lane northbound by nine in order to wait their turn to get into the slipway to go.

So that is ambiguous.

And facing the 50 mile an hour traffic at least coming down, you know, heading south by nine, it's daunting for anybody trying to get a big way to go from zero to get across that is not safe.

and so I see this as a really big confidence gap.

They'll figure that out.

But there's enough width, at least, in the right way to make it all work.

The traffic lights are something I've been begging for over the years so I see very many confidence areas.

Other questions or comments?

I just think this seems like a great solution.

Thanks for all the time and effort that your team put into it.

is where we're prepared to vote.

But let me ask this question before we take the vote on the cost question.

So let's resume for a minute that this costs are lower than the current project.

Just talk about where those dollars get freed up and go.

So is this not going to work?

It is.

It goes back to the state fund.

And just get back in for future projects around the front of the committee.

We don't even know if we have enough money or if we don't have the ability to just be the one that is being put forward.

So, I mean, there's a lot that we've got to be able to put in the paper to figure out what we want to do.

You don't have to learn.

It's a small footprint, but we're adding signals and we're doing a whole lot more work on the frames.

Well, that's just a standard across the board.

But project to project, it should be, it seems like it would be a less expensive fund.

So, I mean, if we, if we went back and did an after-level comparison and did a revised estimate on the original proposal with our new estimate for the proposal,

probably still more than the amount that we've got.

I'll leave you guys there.

Yes, thanks.

I want to just first say I think this is a elegant, smooth solution, especially compared to the diverted diamond or that one.

I think it makes sense to loop it around and keep it pretty standard and always, of course, happy to see a shared use path.

Can we bump back to that map one more time?

please.

It's just hard to see on this, but on the key, it has proposed flexible bollard posts.

So that's probably going to be the cast separation between these two right lanes.

Okay, just kind of help with lane guidance.

We've only got so much road underneath that bridge, so it may be a barrier.

But it'll be something physical.

Okay, great.

All right.

Any other questions or comments on the problem?

We will need a motion to approve the alternative plan.

Second.

All right.

Supervisor Matt?

Yes.

Supervisor Galloway?

Yes.

Councillor Pinson?

Yes.

Councillor Ocean?

Yes.

May I hand it to Mr. Naughton?

Thank you for that.

Can I interrupt you for a moment?

Yes.

John, could you address momentarily the

Yes, on a response scale, we're supposed to get the best product that we could, but it still is in relation to the dollars available.

In response to the question earlier, that there has to be that cost.

Perfect.

All right.

So we'll move to item number five, approval of safety targets.

Yeah.

You may recall, Sami, the previous years,

So just a reminder that the reason that we have peer safety targets is because of the federal requirement.

So when the Moving Ahead for Progress and the 21st Century Act was passed, the Civil Federal Act of 2016, one of the things that it did was it established national targets.

And these filter down to the state that FPOs can implement.

So these are national targets that are established by the US Secretary of Transportation's office in order to

determine what the goals are for the performance of the overall transportation system.

States are then required to set targets that support the moving towards the national targets and then MPOs establish targets in support of the statewide targets.

So this is something that we do because we are required to do in order to comply with the overall budget regulation.

Every four years we have to review the whole slate of performance targets and then annually we have to adopt the performance targets, the safety performance targets.

And the state has provided a lot of information to us to help us in determining what our NPO or regional targets should be.

At the MPO, we are not necessarily accountable for whether or not we're meeting the targets that we set.

That happens at the state level, but the MPO's target should help the state achieve their goals.

And so, historically, until last year, we have typically adopted the statewide targets.

Last year, we adopted some alternative targets, and then we'll talk about what our target options are for today.

So there are a couple of trend lines that the state developed in helping us understand both the recent and long-term trends around the safety targets.

So what we are really talking about in terms of establishing targets is we're establishing a goal to reduce the number of fatalities, to reduce the number of serious injuries related to roadway incidences, and then to reduce the number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.

So there are a couple things that I want to make sure are really clear as we have this discussion.

No matter what targets that we adopt, all of the stakeholders involved in this are committed to improving the safety of the roadway system.

So the targets that are adopted by the state sometimes show an actual increase in the member fatalities and that is because there is a requirement

that the targets be based on data.

And sometimes the data is showing that the number of fatalities or serious injuries are increasing.

And so sometimes the target shows an increase in the number of fatalities, which is actually a positive difference instead of a reduction.

But the goal that they're setting is actually to minimize the rate at which that increase is occurring.

So I want to explain first of all why in some of the documentation you'll see that there might be a statewide target that shows a positive

change in the fatalities.

Even then, I think, as a general principle, everybody agrees that that is not the goal that we hope to achieve.

So the state did a couple of different things for us, and we sort of have some options on which of the trend lines we can adopt.

So first of all, we can adopt the statewide targets.

And I'll show a chart on the next slide that shows what the difference will be with each of those targets.

We can adopt the statewide targets.

If the state meets their targets, the MPO meets those targets, everything is consistent.

If we wanted to adopt a more regional target, there's a recent trend line and a long-term trend line that we could reference.

So the recent trend line, and there's not consistency necessarily in which one is better because if you look, for example, at the recent trend line, you'll see that there's a significant decrease in the rate of fatalities that are occurring.

but there's also a positive increase in the serious injury rates versus if you look at the long-term trend line you'll see that there's a small increase in the number of fatalities but a decrease in the number of serious injuries.

So those are some differences and that's just because it's showing that over time we're sort of localized the most recent five years

So I developed this chart to understand what the differences would be in the targets based on which set of those targets that the NPO adopted.

So I'm going to come back to this first column right here for a second.

The column on the far right shows what our targets would be if we adopted the state targets.

So state targets would show a positive increase in the number or the percentage of fatalities by 4%, a small reduction in the serious injuries, and a small increase in the number of non-veterized fatalities and serious injuries.

These two middle columns show the difference between the long-term trends and the recent trends if we're using regionally specific data.

And then this first column is what I am calling an aspirational column.

And this is because this is aligned roughly with the targets that are being developed as part of our Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.

and also with the statewide aspirational goals, which is to reduce the number of serious injuries and fatalities 50% by the year 2045, which is roughly a 2% annual decrease in the number of fatalities and serious injuries per year.

So the MPA Technical Committee voted to recommend using this aspirational target role.

And then of course,

you know, underline all of this.

We just want to underscore that, of course, our real goal is that we wouldn't see any fatalities or serious injuries.

But this gives us the milestones to work towards to achieve in progress of that goal.

So what we're really looking for today is a action from you all on which one of these goals you would like to adopt in terms of our NPO employees and for medical documentation to the state.

Questions?

Council President?

Yeah, is SNAP recommended?

Is that gone?

The state, this is what just me at the MPO committee recommended because, again, I think this is what we have historically recommended in the past.

Thank you.

So the aspirational targets have a yes, so there's the percentage change reduction in fatalities, but there's still kind of, I don't want to call it an allowable number, but a kind of that's what it is.

Well, I think this is one of the challenges because, you know, I think fundamentally everybody in this room and all the stakeholders are hoping that we don't see those numbers increase.

But if we're aiming towards zero, that would mean that we would need to have the local stakeholder engagement to adopt policies and prioritize improvements that would basically prioritize

I think it's a question of not wanting it.

It's a question of we're building sidewalks as fast as we can.

We have to make places for people to walk.

But we've already put three pedestrian fatalities this year.

So that's just the reality that we're dealing with.

And I think one of them is in a place where there was a sidewalk, but the most recent one is not.

I just think that we're, the reason in the past I think we've relied on the state is because we do think that we're doing as much as we possibly can all the time.

I think they, for me, it's the aspiration versus the reality.

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how that compares, but I mean... I mean, I'm not saying I wouldn't be voting for it.

Yeah, and so I just, I wonder why we aren't even more aggressive here, if it's just a general

target that we're trying to achieve.

I guess there's a liability included in your stadium that your policy is going to be something that the reality of when you can achieve it by, I think it changes with the dates and the targets of us trying to do a zero and out of our county what the dates would be.

We're not going to achieve that in five years, 10 years.

I mean, Vision Zero isn't a concept that's brand new.

There's strategies and there are cities and policies in place that people are using to do that.

I mean, it's little things like raised crosswalks first.

It's little things like, yes, providing sidewalks, but, you know, the

I just find it weird that we aren't, even if we failed, we tried.

The city has many more options to do things like race crosswalks that can just not happen.

I mean, yeah, right.

Of course, the specific applications are going to be different.

There's more opportunities to be a pedestrian in the city.

Not necessarily, in my experience, Councilor also be able to make a comment.

Yeah, these targets are basically a requirement that we provide to the state.

There is really no direct impact on what we establish these targets for in terms of whether or not we meet these thresholds or not.

This is communicated to the state because we are required to do this, but the state as a federal recipient of funding

is held accountable for meeting the targets that the state establishes.

And one other comment I would make is the aspirational committee talk about how it is connected directly to

So part of the reason we picked this target is because the PDC is working with all six of the jurisdictions within our region on this comprehensive safety action plan, which could be part of what you're calling the Vision Zero movement.

One of the requirements for that document is that each of the locality's decision-making bodies establish a target to eliminate or significantly reduce serious injuries and fatalities on the roadways.

So what most of the localities within this region have done is basically followed the statewide precedent, which is that 50% reduction by 2045 as a milestone towards eventually eliminating deaths and serious injuries.

Again, I think this is a debate more about do we want this to be more aligned with some of the other planning processes that we're working with?

Do we want this to be truly aspirational or do we want this to be based on the data?

But really the implications of that aren't necessarily going to be

Other comments?

So historically we have gone with the staff recommendation.

Last year the tech committee recommended that we go with

reductions in percentage based on the trend lines.

So we sort of picked and choose which trend lines had reductions in those and recommended that to this policy board.

And that was what was adopted last year.

Correct.

Mr. Cohen, can I ask you a question?

Yeah.

Just to confirm, when you say aspirational versus based on the data, based on the data means if we did nothing, this is what the trends would show, is that correct?

Correct.

And safety for all implies that we might do something.

Correct.

I think that

This is my third time looking at this chart, third year.

It's always, it's an odd thing to say or our goal is

anything more than zero.

But I guess the point of these charts is that getting to zero, we're all aiming to get to zero.

tend to want to vote for the aspirational, because I like that word, aspirational.

I wonder if it gets at what Natalie's trying to get at.

And also, it's coming from the MPO tech.

It was very frustrating.

I can understand like in some grand scheme of spreadsheets and whatever that somebody was tracking how this data helps inform some other decisions.

I will say that I think the aspirational targets are in a line with something that everybody is committing to do, which is the multi-jurisdictional safety action plan.

So that does give us a reason to say we're committing to this goal as part of that planning process.

In all regions that are committed to that, they've all taken action on it.

Or what's that?

I assume all jurisdictions, I've already played that game without them.

So, so it's, it's something I, in the future when we've switched to it, I think that was part of the, I mean, SS4A was among the flash here.

And I can say this discussion occurred at the governing boards almost in the hook sense, you know, where is,

Let's put an aspirational target, or let's set a zero.

And the discussion was, well, we anticipate that population increase.

How are our numbers going to go down if we're growing?

It seems completely unrealistic that we would say zero.

Not that we can't get there, but as a milestone to reach in a year-over-year safety target adoption, it seems unrealistic to say that we're going to want them to do that in a year.

So I think it's interesting that we're having that same discussion here from the other perspective.

and they have a higher percentage of people using public training.

14,000 miles a day is what our storybook is telling us.

And I just have a technical question.

The blue column shows an increase on the number of serious injuries and the number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.

So it's starting to increase with the two of those areas.

So I think as a set,

So do you want to understand what you said?

The yellow column would also fit in well with the place to throw.

Correct.

So for that reason, not knowing all the other consequences that might be bad, that makes it seem like it would be something useful.

I don't understand it at all.

Anyway, I'm sorry to admit that, but all those numbers, I know that they get bigger or smaller, except for the number of people in the world.

Yeah, I support the past literature and support recommendations

C-TAC already approved it.

And P.O.TAC.

Yeah, I'm sorry, yes.

It's all these names.

All right, any other questions or comments?

Then we'll need a new action list.

Yeah.

So we need to take a motion to approve

the 2024 projections based on aspirational targets.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, I'm going to start and I think what worked out well at MPA ATT&CK, I'm going to start just to get Chuck a chance to take a few things up, but they had some questions on the status of some of these pipeline projects, so I'll talk about kind of where we are in terms of identifying projects and then Chuck can jump in and give some updates on the project pipeline and then you can give us direction.

But really what we are trying to do at this point is finalize the projects that are going to be submitted for pre-applications for SmartScale.

The application portal, the pre-application portal opens on Friday and applications need to be submitted by April 1st.

So we're in that pre-application window, about to be in that application window, we want to make significant strides in preparing the pre-applications and not wait until the next policy board meeting.

So the projects that were currently identified that we have been moving forward with in terms of applications, largely due to Vida's efforts to prepare for these applications, are a DDI or another interchange improvement at I-64 and 5th Street exit, submitting the bundle of projects from the round five pipeline project, which is the Peter Jefferson Parkway and the Rolkin Road improvement,

and then preparing a bundle of projects that will be submitted probably or maybe allocated between Albemarle County and the MPO for the U.S.

tooth and bambaric storage pipeline project.

What we would really love to be able to prepare an Ivy Bay project, it's just not likely that we're going to have the public feedback in time from that pipeline project and so we are not

able to move forward on developing an application within the time frame we have at that point.

There's also some discussion about, we have discussed the Hillsdale South extension previously and determined that we would not be able to meet the project readiness requirements around six.

So that is a project that we will continue to keep on our list.

And then we have also discussed the Louisa Road and the Milton Road improvements, which were identified as a pipeline project in round five.

Based on the way that that particular project has forward, it didn't make a lot of sense to, again, be mindful of VDAC's capacity and the amount of support that is available to prepare those applications, but this project was moved forward for a application in this round.

So we have not been pursuing that at this point.

We do think that we would be able to have an application for the U.S.

250 and very sure there are alternatives that have been identified.

There's currently public feedback underway, but we won't be able to come back to you all until the next meeting to determine which of the alternatives to move forward with.

So unless you have any high level questions right now, I think what might make sense would be to let Chuck

talk about what the alternatives are that are being developed and then we can come back and talk about if you are in concurrence with the projects.

Any other questions before we turn it over to Chuck?

Are you ready?

Are you ready Chuck?

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah, that'll be good.

I just wanted to point out also, I was working on a presentation for Fifth Street, so I do have some slides I can show on that corridor for what the alternatives are that we're looking at for that interchange.

or you can skip a couple.

I did present this last night to the community along Barracks Road.

So and got some good feedback from them on and their support.

They really liked a lot of the the main preferred alternative that we're looking at.

But we do have several alternatives.

Basically, we're looking at the corridor from Georgetown Road all the way to Emmett Street through the Barracks Road interchange.

and we're it's open for public comment right now the public comment period closes on March 8th so hopefully we'll get some good comments from the from the community through that online survey okay Barracks Road and Georgetown we're proposing a roundabout alternative there we don't have another configuration for this location other than this roundabout

option.

We may modify the

what we're proposing in conjunction with an access management plan for the corridor.

But if we don't do the access management plan, we'd probably end up doing just sidewalk here for that one section of road.

On the north side, there's already sidewalks, so we're just basically going to keep that where it is and tie into it.

But that's pretty much it.

The next slide is the corridor itself from Georgetown to the interchange.

For this one, this option is to close the median and narrow it down to like four feet wide raised median, and that would

eliminate the movements from the side streets, but by doing that it will allow us to shift the roadway to the north a little bit, holding the northern sidewalk line and actually add a shared use path along the south side of the corridor throughout the entire length to the interchange.

on the

set down from the roadway, it's higher than the houses.

So by shifting the sidewalk out further, it would, like I said, significantly impact those properties, particularly between Surrey and on the bottom screen, those three houses right there between those two intersections are real close to the road.

And they're set down in whole.

So those would all be impacted significantly.

The next one is the interchange itself.

For this one, we're looking at a double roundabout option for these two intersections and a slip ring for the right.

By doing this configuration, the analysis shows us that we can eliminate the need for four lanes underneath the bridge.

And like we did for the Barracks Road portion to the west, it would give us the ability to run the shared east path underneath the bridge.

Similar to what you saw in Fontaine, we're really limited underneath the bridge.

There's sidewalk on both sides of the road now.

and but it's right up against the parapet walls, the pier columns, so there's not a lot of room space under there.

This will allow us to provide that space that we could accommodate a shared east path underneath there for bikes and pedestrians.

And would also include crosswalks of the ramps.

This is an alternative and this was submitted previously by the MPO for the interchange and it basically just adds a right turn lane if we didn't do the roundabouts you could add a right turn lane to that eastbound or southbound ramp in the eastbound direction to improve the operations of the

intersection, which currently cues up significantly in the morning and evening peak periods.

And we would also include sidewalk, as we had previously done.

This also closes off those first two crossovers and narrows the median down through this portion.

At the other

Interchange Terminal.

If we didn't do the roundabouts, we would actually provide dual left turn lanes and a right turn lane and expand the ramp to accommodate the volume of traffic that's currently queues out onto the bypass during the peak periods, primarily in the evening.

And we also look at extending the deceleration lane on the bypass to accommodate any queuing that we might see in the future.

even if we do this left turn lane improvement.

And then in the east side of the interchange, we would run a shared use path all the way to Emmett Street from the interchange.

And it would tie into the trail, Ravana Trail system that connects right there in the middle of that section right in that area.

And that's pretty much it I have for the slides.

And these are the same visualizations that are in the survey.

What are the applications we would basically, because of the changes in smart scale for this round, the MPO can only submit the entire study or they can submit

projects that do interchange improvements.

So what I would propose is that the MPO submit the interchange improvements, which I would recommend the roundabouts, and we'll have to wait on the public comment before we finalize what the preferred alternative is, along with the shared use path into the city.

And then the county would submit the shared use path and

access management on the corridor west of the interchange and the improvements at Georgetown Road, which would be the roundabout.

I'm hoping.

So we'll see what the comments come back once we get the comments back from the public and we can identify what the preferred alternatives are.

And that'll probably be later this month.

And then we'll start working on the final package of preferred alternatives and to include the concepts and the cost estimates for the two applications.

So can the pair of roundabouts go separately from the western channels?

Right, so do I understand that the whole western section

Correct.

Well, because we're eliminating the crossovers, the people that want to make those maneuvers, like the people that want to get into Bennington, Surrey or Chaucer, they have to actually go down to the Georgetown roundabout and come back to access those if they're coming from the city.

And the people that are coming in from the north

There's a sidewalk currently on the north side of the road and we were going to maintain that sidewalk as part of this project.

We weren't going to touch it.

So that would still be in place.

Primarily we're looking at work from the median south.

Oh no, if they want to go to Georgetown Road, they would have to go to the interchange and U-turn or they would have to go in the parallel network over to the intersection that road opposite Georgetown Road.

And they do connect to out of bounds, which is the neighborhood where the albemarle is.

So they can actually travel on that network to get to Georgetown that way.

Where's the vet's office?

On the corner?

Right there on the corner.

And then this.

And there's already a sidewalk from Millmont to Abbott Street.

There's sidewalk on the north side.

We don't have shared-use path.

Yeah, we're basically replacing that with a shared-use path.

instead of, so the bikes, because bicyclists, they don't, we don't necessarily want to have them on a sidewalk because there's not enough room for pedestrians and bicyclists.

And that's what I was, if you go back to the, this slide here, this is the alternative to the,

Eastern roundabout is the dual lefts with the right turn lane and then the deceleration lane up on the bypass.

And then if you go back one slide, for the other side, this is what's proposed for the other side.

In this option, there's currently a five-foot sidewalk underneath the bridge on both sides.

If you didn't do the roundabouts, that's all you would have underneath the bridge.

And it's right next to the travelway.

Yeah, would you mind going back to the double picture, please?

I don't know how recently anyone else in the room rode a bike, but 90 degree angles are pretty tough.

We can look at that and when we get these aren't the final designs these are just conceptual once we get through the review process and get public feedback and if this is the preferred alternative there's a lot of

there's there are a bunch of changes that we would make on on some from the geometry of the roundabout to the charities path configuration those crossings we could you're crossing a free flow ramp so it it you may not be able to carry that at speed you're gonna you may have to stop and so in this scenario the bikes have to wait for cars

First, as we find the other roundabout page, I do enjoy the fact that you've used orange and black in circles for this.

Go Black Knights.

We're not at that stage.

We weren't planning to raise them.

Yeah, my concern is that this is less of a roundabout and more of a slip lane.

tornado.

We can look at that.

I mean, that's something that we're not at that stage.

We're basically looking at the

footprint of the roundabout now and trying to make sure it'll work and get some of the geometry correct on it.

But we can consider that.

Yeah, for sure.

And then for the median that you've you've added in the straightaways here, is it wide enough for trees?

That would not be a part of the design of a smart-scale project.

And if the county or the city wanted to include landscaping, I would think that would be a cause of their benefit.

All right.

OK.

OK.

We'll have to see.

Maybe at least some flowers or something.

Great.

Hey, Sandy, let's see if I can do this.

For 250 in Barrickford?

We would be eligible, yeah.

I think at that point it's a matter of determining what is our best chance to get the project funded.

Sure.

Because then you have one big project versus two smaller projects.

Yeah.

We've always had to come back and relook at them.

And so I don't know what the alternative would be.

We did that with hydraulic bundles.

I know we did it up in Fauquier County and the town of Warrenton with their projects.

118 we did first round.

Now it was horribly overpriced and didn't do very well at all.

And what we found is that when we split them up, we tend to get better scores because the costs are less and the benefit, you're still getting a good benefit from that project.

I mean, so I think there's another option too.

I mean, you all get four hats.

There's three here.

I mean, you could do one where it's bundled and one with just the improvement type of interchange.

Well, yeah, we could do the two alternatives for that design.

Yeah.

Well, we, that's a separate conversation.

It would boil down to if both of them got funded, which the CTB members would pick, so we would probably not get them both funded.

But we have had one interchange up in Fauquier County where they funded both projects separately.

So we only needed to fund one of them when we got both of them funded.

So that can be an option.

That can be a concern.

I mean, in Warrenton, we had the same thing.

We submitted them separately and then we got them both funded.

Broadview and Frost.

I think we understand that.

Do we?

So we're good here.

Any objections to moving with this recommended set of applications?

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, we just wanted to give you a sneak peek on what is being proposed as part of the Unified Planning Work Program.

I'm not going to go into detail on this, but I presented this before if you want more information.

Just one of the requirements because we received federal funding for planning for the MPO is that we develop the Unified Planning Work Program.

So for FY25, we have started looking at what our proposed projects are going to be.

For Task 1 and Task 3, these are pretty much standard year after year, so I'm not really going to spend any time reviewing that.

But what I did want to just mention is the projects that we are considering pursuing or the new initiatives we're considering pursuing as part of FY25 to get a general feel for direction for what you all might support.

A lot of this is based on feedback that we've heard from the Long Range Transportation Plan and just other discussions that we have had throughout the community as well as some of the federal initiatives that are underway.

So the first project that we could consider pursuing is a travel demand management study, which would really be looking at how do we manage and plan for and prioritize projects to limit the vehicular movement of travel within the urbanized and growth areas.

So basically we want to figure out where are people coming from and where are they traveling to within the urbanized growth areas and what kind of strategies can we undertake to reduce the use of vehicular travel within the growth areas.

That would include the city as well as the identified growth areas in Albemarle County.

The second project that we are considering is this affordable housing connectivity study which is really looking at mapping where there are locations of population density or planned affordable housing throughout the region and then looking at what the multi-modal travel options are, connecting people to those destination points and determining what are the highest priority transportation improvements that could support

improved access and mobility for people based on where there's communities that already exist or are targeted in the future.

And then the last one that I want to just mention is more of developing a series of basically research or resources, kind of one-page summaries on pedestrian navigation of innovative intersections.

I think this is a question that comes up a lot and we would just like to

consolidate all that information that's available to understand what are the factors that should be considered when we're talking about how pedestrians or multimodal users navigate through some of these innovative intersections.

What are the design criteria?

What are the factors that are considered to be more of a resource for all of us as we have these discussions?

I think the thought is that it's pretty ambitious for us to try to do all of these.

And our staff thinks that if we can undertake all of these in the next fiscal year, we would love to, but we've probably heard most consistently that there's a need to start doing some practice planning around travel demand management.

So that would probably be what we would recommend prioritizing, but would like to hear any feedback from you all on stronger actions than any of these.

origin destination is what that used to be called.

I mean, is that the same thing?

That would be a large proponent of it, yeah.

And I appreciate the fact that finding out where people want to go, as opposed to saying, we're going to build a sidewalk here, and that's really watching the walk, which is a fiasco.

I think that's a good thing.

They're all good with that.

Oh yeah, we were estimating that you all wanted to move forward with that one, so we weren't asking if you wanted to.

Basically, we're trying to develop our work program for the next year.

And I think what we want to emphasize is this one doesn't necessarily fall off our radar.

It's just maybe not one that we pursue next year or we pursue it if we have the staff capacity and the resources and the tools to do both of them, we would consider that as well.

So would it be helpful to hear what we would each member would prioritize as a third?

Yeah.

So you've got the three that they're bringing up.

Maybe each of the members can say one, two, and three of those three where you would place them.

I'm certainly willing to go with staff as your recommendation to give you the travel demand as number one.

What is the third?

I'm going to begin because there's stuff out on the web already that's going to be a great resource for that.

Okay.

There's a list of innovative intersections, not the state maintains, but it's basically looking at some of the, I mean, more, less historically used types of intersections that are being implemented now in order to improve operations and safety of intersections.

Yeah, I would go with, personally, I don't know how counsel Ochman wrote it, but I would support what Ochman is suggesting.

Um, I it was.

It was travel demand, the portable housing, pedestrian navigation of innovative intersections.

And we're choosing from the list and task to, uh, well, we're prioritizing those three in particular, those three in particular to give staff an idea of if they go after travel demand this year,

Sure.

So, it sounds like you're in agreement.

Is there one that can be put

relative to Virginia housing complexes?

Are they doing things like that?

But that even furthers my ordering that, because it could be a creative way to get number two going.

Can I ask a question in terms of these dollar amounts?

These are estimates, I guess, for consultants or staff?

I thought it was staff, yes.

And I think it's also important to say, I'm sorry if you've read this and I missed it, but none of these would be, so for example, we wouldn't complete a compliment management study for 50,000 or 65,000.

We would begin scoping it and beginning the project next fiscal year.

It may take another year on the work program to be completed.

So really I think all this is,

is here are the things that we were hearing in the long-range transportation that had opportunities for us.

What is your first gut instinct on which ones you want to pursue?

And then we can go back to the drawing board with the resources and the money to say, with the resources, after we take out things like Regional Transit Authority and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, like those are placeholders for initiatives we're already undertaking and need resources for staff time, we can then come back to you after it's gone to CTAC and then biotech

with a more refined list.

We really just want to hear from you at the beginning of the process.

So if Councilor Ostrom in particular has some questions about these, there's still a chance to...

Well, I think even if today we said these three, there's still a chance because the costs and things would change.

There have been times in the past where they'll come back and go, oh, we skipped this.

Like the pedestrian, for example, is $20,000.

If the $50,000 turns into $30,000, hey, we could do the pedestrian one now.

They can kind of plug in that way.

We've also, in the past, picked one that everybody was

had consensus around and placed the resources in the contingency line item and not allocated all of it at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Here's an optimal idea and that is are there elements of the drought and demand that actually become important data points for the affordable housing life or vice versa but the data for that from the housing rule would be an component of

I'm not sure about that actually.

It looks like the determination of traffic generators is in both of them looking at the photos.

Yeah, the destinations probably would be helpful.

I think I think it's maybe the origin information that might be a little bit different.

Yes, thanks.

Yeah, it's in the Unified Planning Work Program.

There's a description in that big document.

I got lost in the scroll.

No worries.

Can I ask about, I'm getting ahead of things, but in this unified work plan, at the bottom there's a list of projects.

Okay.

Oh, the long range plan, yeah, yeah.

Any other questions here?

I think we're, it sounds like we have three and we're good.

You have what you need?

All right.

The Longage Transportation Plan.

So just as a summary of kind of what we've been doing, and again, you can provide, I know we're up against a time crunch, you can provide me with information and feedback later.

We've been starting with this needs identification process, which we have identified needs through two primary ways, and then we've taken some additional information.

The first is that we did this big data prioritization process where we looked at the data, and then we did this pretty substantive public engagement process where the public sees that their transportation system needs.

So the next thing that we did was we overlaid projects that have either been funded but not implemented yet or projects that have been recently implemented against the needs that we identified through that process.

And so that tells us we know that there's a system need identified there.

We already have a solution to that need.

We don't have to consider that for a future transportation project right now.

And that leaves us with the transportation needs that are uninterested.

So then what we did was we worked with the locality to determine what's already in your pipeline, what are the projects that you're prioritizing, made sure that we had those incorporated.

And then we also looked at what are some of the higher priority needs that we identified through this process that we already have projects in the key line that we haven't covered with other projects that we've already discussed.

And so those determine our priority infrastructure projects.

Now, the long-range transportation plan has to include a list of your priority transportation infrastructure projects.

Technically, any transit service operations are kind of identified through a different process, but we also know that a lot of these system needs are going to be adjusted through transit improvements.

So we're also including a list of priority transit projects so that we can make sure we are considering the overall transportation system for use of planes.

So we looked at where are their system needs that are being addressed by these priority projects.

And then where there's potentially a gap, we evaluated whether or not this makes sense for this to be a planning priority.

And so that's kind of what we're going to be using to plan what kind of projects we want to be identified and developing over the next five years between now and the next long range transportation plan.

helping us to develop a pipeline so that we have projects in an appropriate state of readiness that are being developed into projects that can be applied for grant implementation.

Does that make sense in the general process?

Okay.

And then there's the last category of unaddressed needs, and there might be needs that were identified that we're just not able to address for various reasons.

So I'm going to skip a little bit of the details.

I will say that we've updated the website.

There's a story map that takes you through this process visually.

If you want to look at the map and see the segments kind of get removed as you go through the separate process, there's a story map you can look at.

And then what was included in your packet was a list of what the projects looked like as they went through these different steps.

probably with the table.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the first list right here are the screened out projects.

And these are projects that were either committed, meaning there's funding already in place for these projects.

And so those needs are not, they don't need to be considered anymore.

I do want to note that we did move the East Chi Street project from 250 to Lucas Avenue off of the committed project.

There was a little bit of a miscommunication on my end.

So this is now a planning priority.

So that one got made.

I want to point you out.

So this first list of projects that are already addressing the identified needs.

The second list are the infrastructure priority projects.

These are projects that are either in progress or we've already identified through another planning process that are infrastructure priorities.

And then we have our transit service priorities.

So just upon the second, they're in the packet in a different order.

The first slide that you showed, the ones that were screened out, was maybe 57.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So these have been developed, and then this is a slide of some unaddressed needs.

The red are just changes that I made since MPO Tech, and I couldn't remember if those got updated in your hackins or not, but I wanted to make sure to point them out.

So again, this is hopefully setting us up, not just to have the projects that are identified and the longer transportation plan that will meet the eligibility criteria to apply for funding through our funding programs, but also to help us continue to develop a pipeline and identify how we're going to continue to develop pipeline projects for future applications.

So really, this is all very much in draft form.

I am working closely with locality staff to make sure that there are projects that are local priorities, that those are getting considered on the list.

But really, this is all for review, for feedback, for discussion.

I'd want to know if this adequately reflects what the priorities are.

And then we're also going to be holding some stakeholder and public engagement over the next month.

So we have an open house that is scheduled for next Thursday.

This is all up on the website, and then we'll have a public comment period where the public can put in as well.

We do, yeah.

The plan needs to be adopted at your main meeting.

Did you say this one is not in our plan?

It's just a different order.

The draft infrastructure, primary preference?

There was one where you had a random correct, maybe.

That one is found in our pathway.

We're collecting in the core.

Any questions?

More or less, can we get the presentation or the packet updated so what we're looking at it matches what we have?

Yeah, I think I took out the Louisa and Milton Road as a priority project just because it seems like it, yeah, so maybe that's good.

Understood.

What I'll be interested in is what our staff in the city, what they consider to be priorities.

I would love to have a conversation about that.

We have been very heavily involved working with Sandy on this list.

Excellent.

And then just to share transparently, because obviously we know that Sandy's last day of the eight, she will not be with us through the remainder of this, but she will as our VDOT person and has very much generously committed to making sure we see it through to the end.

But we will also have some support from the EPR.

They've been working with us throughout the process, just some technical support and additional.

So we've just extended the contract a little bit to see us through the media.

I can send these.

What I tried to do on these was to update where I did things.

So I'll make sure that.

Did you need anything else on there?

All right, and item 9, staff updates.

Yeah, unfortunately our staff is all under the weather.

We have some really brief updates.

The biggest thing for them is safely Blue Ridge is that we've been meeting with all of the localities to get the full commitment for the safety target that we will be meeting with Charlottesville.

Yeah, I think the biggest update from Lucinda is that they have, Java is officially hiring staff starting on March 1st to fill their position and then they'll be within the marketing.

If you're interested, I think the mobility management, we've received an update at the TJPDC meeting, right?

So if you were interested, you could go back and look at the 8th of February meeting and see the presentation.

Sorry, it's normally the 1st, but we've only been there.

So if that item, I don't think it was safe, it was on that meeting, but the mobility management was.

For those interested, you can always go back and check that and go out from the TJPDC meeting.

Alright, that gets us to round table updates and I'm just going to go around the room and Mr. Williams, I'm just going to do so.

I'm starting with Mr. Pinkham's major updates other than last night, the Council work session for the alternative fuel study and the recommendations

two pilot programs.

We were going to have one VDV where we could find a cleaner version with hydrogen for 27 than we would do a pilot of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also for 27.

So that was

major for us.

It allowed us to get to the implementation part, but also complete our study and that was extremely well received.

Thank you.

I will tell you the members of my district and members of the Jack Jewett district are fricking thrilled with my program.

So just sharing that information with you.

We are excited to welcome Sandy and our planning staff.

She'll be starting officially on March 25th.

We do have a second position that we are hoping to build down the street right now.

I think March 11th is the closed date and that one will really be supporting probably the northern portion of the district.

One thing I'll talk about when we're talking about smart scale, you know, Sam was attending a meeting earlier today talking about smart coal and getting projects ready.

So I'll just say that with this board, as we're looking at projects, if something is not ready to prompt him, I'm going to show him just being open to board with it.

At the end of the day, I think it's going to fall back on me anyway.

If the district engineer is about to give a project, it's submitted.

in the photo and I don't feel that it's ready for it needs to be.

So I think it's healthy discussion for us in this room when we get these.

There's something there we won't feel good about that most immediately gets awarded.

We're going to have issues moving forward less negative, but now before we think about something.

On another thing, and we've been working closely with the city of Charlottesville and regarding their local

performance on their projects.

We have now assigned, I know it's been signed by me, it's been signed by the same senators regarding their product development and improvement plans.

So we're the first in the state to have a locality to work on getting one signed.

So we'll continue to partner with the city to get that performance where it needs to be.

So all of that.

We appreciate it.

I'll mention that the county at a previous meeting, especially with thoroughness of applications you all received,

Sure, so March is going to be kind of busy for the city in terms of transportation.

Next Tuesday, we'll be going toward, as we said, to determine the safety targets for the safety action plans of the city.

Unlike the other localities that are involved, we are going a little bit more aggressively with our

fatality target.

We're going with an obligation of fatality by 2045.

We felt that we were situated to be able to do that because the fatalities, roadway fatalities within the city are already pretty low.

So saying we're going to cut them in half, it's like going from two to one seems sort of silly.

So we're going to be recommending zero fatalities going forward.

We look forward to this discussion on that Tuesday.

Later in the month, we will be putting out our draft

sidewalk priority list for public comment.

I don't have a solid date on that yet.

We're still putting together sort of the public engagement materials on that.

We'll also be looking to issue a notice to proceed to our consultant team that will be looking at our parking permit policy.

And they'll be looking at, you know, peer agencies and localities around the country and how they deal with the parking permits for all the street parking.

We're just looking at policy recommendations that are going to be forward.

And last thing I'll mention is we have our monthly walk series in the city, looking at a specific neighborhood or new neighborhoods every month.

It's the second Sunday of the month at noon.

This month, that's going to be a bright spring neighborhood.

I don't think we're partnered with UVA Sustainability this month.

We tend to grab partners and different partners every month.

Thank you.

Yeah, county staff are working really hard on the competence and plan update.

The Board of Supervisors is going to see the goals and objectives for transportation for the development area and rural area fairly soon.

We've already shared that feedback with the planning commission.

I lost my usual cheerleader, but we are getting ready to release the RFP.

We are putting out trail shared news path master plan that is going out in early April.

And lastly, preparing for smart scale applications.

There was a webinar today that VDOT hosted and outlining the brand new process, not brand new, but some updates to the process, including some checkpoints along the way that we will not be able to proceed forward unless we meet those trend points.

So just being as prepared as we can as staff

Do you have anything?

Yeah.

Johnson is currently undergoing three different studies, a rural transit needs study, a bus electric vehicle facility transition plan, and a microtransit study.

All of them are with, actually two of them are with DRPT on-call consultants.

I've also began

Great.

Well, just the one I sent you about Louisa Road, Milton Road 250,

C-TAC had recommended an alternative design, but looks like you're going to abandon that project anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Right.

Well, whatever.

Thank you for that.

No, I don't.

And we'll open up matters from the public again.

Any additional items, matters from the public in the room?

Any comments online?

Joe's got a lowercase J. All right, then great.

We are there at the light of the schedule.

So we will go, I will adjourn the meeting without objection.

And the next meeting will be, it's March.

What's the date?

Thank you, everyone.