MPO Technical Committee Meeting   3/19/2024

President, Elvera, Karina Barnett, Luis Garazano, Sarah Parker, Christine Jacobs, President, Jason Espy, Bill Palmer, Daniel Wagner, Sarah Pennington, Richard Duran, Thomas Zafranek, Garland Williams.

All right.

Do we have any change to the agenda or change to the mix?

minor edit to the minutes.

There's something where I say it's just like a typo.

I should say goals and objectives.

I think it's just like tools and objectives.

I have one other edit.

I'll double check if I'm recording nature.

Any opposed?

All right minutes are approved.

Yeah, that was just the acceptance agenda.

Can we just back up and make sure there's no fellow comment before that?

Sorry, yeah, I forgot about that.

Do you have any members of the public who wish to speak?

Good morning, I'm Peter Cripps from the Tiedmont Environmental Council.

I just wanted to give you a quick update about the Active Mobility Summit, which is happening on Thursday.

Just this morning, we had our 100th person registry, so it looks like we should have good numbers.

I'm also excited about the quality of the attendees.

A number of you, someone else, celebrities like Christine and Tommy will be there, but also the mayor.

There'll be a member of the board of supervisors, folks from the business community, folks from the health community, everything that we really want with the active mobility line.

I can also announce to our

panelists are.

We're going to have a morning transportation planners panel that will help Alberic, Kim Padlina, Ben, Chris Ginsig, and also Julia Monteith from UVA.

So that's going to be great.

Then our community perspectives panel.

I'm incredibly excited.

We're going to have Pastor Ken Edwards, who's Charlottesville royalty.

Super happy to have him here.

Ms.

Ina Howard, who is the president of Tempe Page, Gabriella Noboa, who is a county resident, who is a roller skater and fitness instructor, and also Ms.

Delphine Montes, who is one of the coin members of ProLectics.

We're going to have the official view and we're going to have the people's view right next to each other.

We have some fun walking tours scheduled for after lunch.

Dave Benish is going to give a tour of the Broadway corridor.

We're going to have a trip to Riverview Park to hear about the very exciting multi-million dollar river restoration project that the Rybana Conservation Alliance just won Grand Port and also a hike on the Rybana Trail.

collected doing in the afternoon like we always have, followed by a happy hour.

So if you haven't signed up, we have reached our technical cap, but we added one more slot.

So sign up at www.pecba.org slash mobility summit.

Hope to see you all there on Thursday.

All right, we got the public survey back.

I'm going to go through some of that with the preferred alternative slides.

So you guys can see what we've got.

All right.

Basically, this is the first portion which the coordination with the county that they were going to support.

And this is basically the roundabout at Georgetown Road.

Barracks Road intersection and access management along the corridor from Georgetown Road all the way to the interchange.

Basically, we're going to narrow the median and close it all the way through the corridor.

We're also adding a shared use path on that.

We're shifting the road over and adding a shared use path to where the outside travel lane is right now.

So that's the first piece.

The second piece is from the public's comment.

We had 66% of the respondents were in favor of the roundabout project.

And then for the access management, we had 56% of the respondents were in favor of it.

that's just on people that responded.

The verbal comments or written comments basically was only 618 of the 1400 respondents.

And those were predominantly negative.

So it corresponds if you add the two negative number percentages together, it's about the same percentage or the negative.

And that holds true throughout the study for all of the scenarios.

but basically this is what we got from response for these two alternatives.

Any questions about that?

So the next segment is the first piece of the MPO application and this is the interchange at the bypass and we're looking at converting it to roundabouts for both and running the shared use path on the south side through the interchange.

By doing the roundabouts, it allows us to

reduce one of the lanes to the roundabout in the eastbound direction and provide capacity and space to put the shared use path in.

The roundabout scored 51% were in favor of the western southbound ramp terminal roundabout and 55% for the eastbound ramp terminal.

But again, you've got 52% of the written comments were negative, but that corresponds to the negative percentages that were of the course of the respondents.

But it's a smaller portion of the response of the respondents overall.

So the negative responses, are they mapped out, rounded out?

I don't necessarily think that they said it was bad for Pike Bed.

Most of them were anti-roundabout.

They just don't like roundabouts.

And that's typical.

A lot of what we see for roundabouts, either they're really supportive of them or they're really against them.

Not a lot in the middle.

And in this case, we're seeing a lot of people want the roundabouts, but they're not providing any written comments.

The people that don't want the roundabouts are providing the written comments.

And that's what we're seeing throughout the study.

So the next portion is the ramp extension up on the bypass.

So this will be the northbound deceleration lane coming off of 250.

Right now it doesn't meet the standard so we would extend it because right now you have queuing up on this ramp.

and it cues out onto the bypass.

The roundabouts will will address that, but this will also address that.

So we're doing both of them to make it easier for people to get off safely.

And it definitely got some.

62% were in favor of this one over the do nothing, so we definitely think this would be the better solution for that.

Location.

and the next portion is the eastern end, which is the shared use path that runs from the bypass all the way to Emmett Street.

On the South side of Barracks Rd and it got 62% in favor of it also.

So that's basically it for the corridor.

Hold on, let me get out in the wrong way.

about that?

I can safely say I didn't read the comments.

So I've got these slides yesterday, so I don't necessarily know whether they're against Spike Ped on a shared use path or they're just impacts to businesses.

It was only 199 written comments.

and 36% of them were negative.

So you're talking about 40 negative comments out of the 900 in respondents.

We did.

I just didn't put them on these slides.

I have that slide deck.

I just didn't pull it up.

If you have any specific questions, I'd have to go back and put them.

Most of them didn't score.

They didn't score as well overall.

And that's why I didn't put them on here because I picked the ones that were the most supported as the preferred scenario.

And in talking with

staff and board members, they were in support of what we were doing to of these solutions.

I have it, but I don't.

Like I said, it's on the other slide deck I have because we have

the demographic breakdown.

We had the locations.

Most of them were in the area.

Can't remember off the top.

I have that.

I can pull it up and let you know if you want to look at it.

And I can send that out.

I just didn't.

I just got it one day.

So I've had a lot of opportunities or Friday.

Yeah, I can probably see what we can do about that.

I mean, I've got the other presentation.

I can put it out too.

I just summarized it here for this meeting so that you guys could, otherwise we'd be here for an hour just doing this.

Because it's like five times the number of slides because you got each scenario and each scenario's got their evaluation and polling information.

Yeah, I can, we have that too somewhere, I'll have to go pull it.

It would be helpful if it's like a future project to kind of see what the appetite is for these type of designs, for me at least.

I didn't get to the comments, so I haven't actually seen any of the comments.

yes so like do we have like another example of something like this going on that i can like go look at in person to see how i mean we've got roundabouts with crosswalks on most of our roundabouts have crosswalks uh typically i don't think we have any interchange where we have ramps um trying to think there are some

where we have them.

I'm not sure if I've got any in this district, because we don't have many interchanges with roundabouts.

One of them is a yield condition.

The other one is the on-ramp coming up the hill, so it's going to be free flow.

But we are going to install

pedestrian, either hawk signals.

The new guidelines, they just changed them.

Basically, put more restrictions on crosswalks at roundabouts.

I would like to speak to the issue more broadly.

So we kind of did a study a couple of months ago about the potential shared use path on Route 20 and the most negative comments we got were about the path crossing on and off ramps, particularly on off ramps.

So I'm still in favor of the roundabout solution just because it's the only thing that buys us a shared use path underneath.

I had questions when I met with

Typically the roundabouts are like 25 miles an hour maximum for the circulation lanes.

And, but on your approaches, you're slowing people down to that speed.

And then on the ramps, they're accelerating from that speed.

So it's just, it's not consistent necessarily, but that's typically what you're seeing, what we design for anyway.

And these are probably, um,

Bigger than normal, these are probably like 160, 170 foot diameter.

Once you calculate the slip lanes and the ramps, the two lane ramps, it's gonna have a lot of impacts to the properties on, especially on the west side, both where that big retaining wall is, the houses, possibly both the first two parcels and the house on the other side of the round on the south side.

Those are definitely gonna be impacted.

and we're not sure to what extent and then the gas station on the city side is possibly get impacted too.

We're trying to stay off of it as much as possible to accommodate the fastest path to make sure we can reduce the traffic down speeds down low enough that they can and then on on the one approach where you have them on the north on the westbound side where you have the two lanes two

Basically, you map the fastest path through the roundabout.

It's from the outside to the inside to the outside.

Well, you want to make sure that people are going to be able to traverse that at this design speed, which is 25 miles an hour.

So you've got to take that into consideration when you're designing them.

So it makes for a larger footprint.

We're also going to, it's not shown on here,

Well, and I worked for the Park Service in D.C., which runs like 15 roundabouts.

That's my background is those from 100 years ago.

basically the approach speeds are what a variable we basically use reverse curves on the approaches to slow the traffic down so that when they get to the yield bar the curves are dictating them to go between 20 and 25 miles an hour the circulation lean in the roundabout is designed to limit how fast people can go through the roundabout to about that same speed

We're going to have curves in there that are going to reduce those to not encourage speeding through those curves.

I mean these are the initial concepts we'll go through some iterations before we get to the final versions that are submitted as part of the application.

This is just the first take because there's a lot of stuff that I could pick these apart forever and there's a lot of issues I have with them right now.

so it's this is what we got from the consultants as just for purposes of discussion and get public feedback but we'll have to make a lot of corrections to these possibly not necessarily eliminate but we might have to reduce that crossing distance for where their slip lanes are to minimize that distance and to reduce that speed but they will be separated they will be separated because we will have veining in there regardless

Okay, well this is one of them.

I don't have them.

You had the one where it was like the county MPO one, MPO number two.

Okay.

This is part one of the MPO application.

This is part two of the MPO application and this is part three of the MPO application.

and then the MPO, the other MPO application is the whole court.

They're going to do both together.

OK, so I'm looking at MPO first application, the extension of the northbound deceleration lane that you showed us.

You said that that paired with the roundabouts at the interchange ramps would help with throughput.

But each of those things are helping with throughput, independently.

My question is, SmartScale being a cost-benefit analysis kind of program, do we want to have the cost of both of those items in the application?

The problem you run into is operations.

They may not operate separately.

because of the close proximity of the intersections, you may not be able to have a signal at one and have a roundabout at the other one without having queuing from the signal, locking the roundabout up.

So this has to be submitted as a package.

You can do that.

That's something that is just

We have to have a pre-apps due by the first, but the final submission is not till August.

So I need to know soon, but I don't need to know by pre-app.

I mean, we were there and we just, the final, it can tweak a little bit.

So between pre-app and final solution, we need a preferred alternative, but whether we include the extension or not, it's,

I mean Fifth Street, we haven't even gone out for public comment yet.

We're getting real close to having that scheduled and ready to go, hopefully next week.

But I won't even have that data until after the pre-ops do.

So we're basically moving forward with assuming that the DDI is the preferred scenario for that location.

Well, we haven't gotten to that point yet.

For Fifth Street, I have four alternatives.

Well, I mean we can remove at any time It's just something when I did the this slide deck I added it But it doesn't have to be something that we could consider we had some discussions about it But we hadn't gotten the public survey back and that's one of the things we need guidance from the MPO on on on

Are you guys agreeable to this as the preferred solution and this package of projects?

And that's what we still need to get confirmation on.

I don't need a resolution support at this time, but I need just guidance on where you guys want to go.

So we can... Yeah, okay.

For the alternative here,

They, like the one about roundabouts.

I was talking to someone who said that they, their parents or something live in that Westminster Road area south of Paris and are talking to VDOT representatives.

If you go back to the first slide,

If we do the access management on the corridor, that includes the shared use path on the south side.

But it stops at the interchange.

It doesn't go through the interchange.

Right now there's a fly... Are we talking about just the gap under... You could put one, but this project only is for the west side.

If we did something different for the interchange, it gets kind of sticky how everything works.

The shared-use path wouldn't be contiguous.

I can't put the shared-use path, it would be a lot of impacts on this corner parcel and it doesn't go anywhere.

It would end at the ramp.

Underneath the bridge, we tried to submit an application previous to add a right turn lane and a sidewalk to connect to what's already in the city.

Round four, I think, three or four, I can't remember, but it didn't score very well.

So this basically is another attempt to come up with a solution for this corridor.

and we have another scenario that just has sidewalk and it showed promise, but it's going to be very expensive because the right of way impacts.

There's a lot of houses on this corridor that sit real close to the road.

And if you just put sidewalk along there, you're going to basically impact several houses that are, I mean, we couldn't put the sidewalk in without taking the house.

I mean, if you look at this one house right here, I met with these folks.

This house here, there's a slope that's this tall in front of their house.

And their house is probably eight feet from that slope.

And there's on top, there's this much room behind the curb.

Basically, we put a sidewalk in there, we'd be moving it

OK, do that.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to yell at that.

No, that's that's I mean one of those.

I mean some of those scenarios.

The alternative scenarios of if you didn't do this were add sidewalk.

These passing have up here.

I mean you'll have we're basically have a five-foot sidewalk there now we will put back a five-foot sidewalk and right now it's right up against the piers and it's not going to move that you've got basically the same thing on both sides of the road there we're not improving what's underneath the bridge in that's in any of these scenarios on that side

Yeah, we didn't really zoom into these and get too detailed.

We just wanted to get some concepts out there for people to provide some feedback on.

Yes.

Well, that's what I was going to say.

Yeah, there's one roundabout in particular that finds

The retaining wall, once we start laying out the roundabout, we'll be taking down that retaining wall and the house.

That will be taken out because if we put back a retaining wall, it's going to be shifted back a significant amount of distance from the road.

and I can show you that.

Where this roundabout is on this side over here.

We're not, I mean, until we get better designs, this house right here, the tanning wall right here, yeah, we're going to basically, this is going to have to be shifted a little bit over here to come in and get the deflection right, coming in with the rat about so we can come in this way.

We're going to basically encroach on this property and this property and this property.

and we're going to have to put the side wall on the outside.

I'm not sure about this house.

We might be able to say this is so maybe oriented.

And then this property here is probably impacted too.

And I met with these folks.

They own both these properties.

I didn't meet with this person.

and I met with the guidelines at houses real close to the river and I met with the homeowners association here to talk about this whole thing so I mean they were all meanable to it and happy they actually the guy who lives over here he's happy about this because he can get we're basically not going to change where the shoulder break is now we're going to shift the curve line to the center where the skip lines are so where the skip line is now you know we're going to definitely trim them and then that will free up the straights all the way for sharing these down

So we can put a four-foot shoulder and then share the eight-foot shared-use path and still be where we want to go.

The road, I guess, a little farther from the properties?

Yes.

We're going to shift the road.

In this scenario, what we're going to do is we're going to take, see right now, we've got a wide median here, so that's 16 feet wide.

We're going to make it four feet wide.

That's going to give us 12 feet to shift the road.

So we're going to shift these lanes up to away from those problems and we're going to go shift these paths in where that lane is now.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

I mean that's why this is I think is a good solution for the corridor.

The downside is

I can go back to that slide.

And that's what I was when I was talking about the designs.

I don't have a blown-up picture, but like I was trying to tell Jessica, this approach isn't adequate.

We'll probably start back here and put reverse code coming in to slow the traffic down before it gets to this point.

That's typically what we do on all roundabouts.

We'll have an alien here, and so you're not going to be able to just fly through.

You're going to slow down the yields of traffic in the mountain island.

And the people that are coming down here and making this left, they're not going to be able to carry a speed once the light turns green through that intersection.

They're going to have to slow down and leave their fleet to something else.

So come down to this roundabout, they're going to be going to the bottom of us now.

And they'll speed up as they're going through, and they're not going to slow down yet.

So what we could end up happening is you may be able to lower the speed because you're slowing people down here.

You're slowing people down here.

We do a speed study, we're going to see that the speed, 80% off speeds are going to be down.

So we can go with speed.

There was some discussion about it.

It's something we could possibly look at, but we don't necessarily have to deal with this project, but we could consider it in the future.

I mean, we'd have to dive right into the sea.

The biggest thing is, let's get the speeds down below 0.5, then it's more amenable to putting the bar crossing.

The higher speeds, it's just not that.

The problem is that you've got to put curves in the road and right wing paths get significant.

Because this is pretty much a straight shot and there's not much we can do there to reduce the speed.

We could look at reducing the lane widths and you may look at that to further reduce the right wing paths if there are any, especially at both ends.

So you're you're still looking at a 45 mile per hour design speed?

I don't think that would change.

That's what it is now.

Yeah, but now it's going to be like 25.

I think you're slowing down.

We will speed up coming out of Roundabout and they will have to slow down at this roundabout.

So overall they will go slower than what they're going now.

Right now they can carry 50, 60 miles an hour all the way through that whole four minutes

Green.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And if you can put, if you can put a crosswalk right in the middle there, right at that bend, then that's going to force them to slow down a bit too, right?

Like I said, we got to look at it.

I mean, the thing about it is it's long crossing.

If you only have a four-foot meeting, it doesn't give you a lot of space in the center of the road to have people stop you.

Yeah.

I mean, right now you have that kind of slip lane entry into West Hartford that bend.

So you have a lot of right-of-way at that intersection.

I mean, at this point, that's not something we're considering with this.

We're just looking at this right now.

It's going to be expensive product, regardless.

Just around about $1.50.

I mean, it's not that much, but it's how much benefit you're going to get by adding that cost to it, especially if you're talking about why you're going to be shifting the running road out.

Well, I mean, you've got a half mile between crossings.

People are going to be running across this road.

I mean, just from a safety perspective, that just seems like that.

Yeah, possibly.

Like I said, this is what we scoped, and we've been through a lot of meetings, a lot of discussions, and work with the state holders group.

We got public comments.

I don't know if somebody could add that as a comment.

We could give back a look and see.

Yeah, I think we've been talking about it for a while.

I guess I do still understand, you know, what point in the process that should have come up.

Like I said, I haven't, I mean, I'm trying to remember when I first heard about that.

I don't know.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they crossed all along that road.

Well, once we've shared these pathways, unless they're going over here, there may not be any reason for them to cross necessarily, especially if they're damaging the town.

I mean, they could walk to school, obviously, and go here and go up there.

Right.

Well, if they're crossing because there's no facility on this side,

and we're adding a facility on this side, they may not want to need to cross the road end.

I think that even if you have facilities, I mean, if you want to get onto Gainesville or Van Trail, there is a facility to cross.

No one crosses there because no one's going to walk a quarter mile down, cross a quarter mile back.

I can understand.

Skip across.

I think if we realize that people aren't going to walk that extra, you know,

It's making sure that we, like I said, we haven't put any of that information into our concepts.

This is just what we initially came up with.

And this is what we'll want to move forward with for our application.

There's no guarantee that this will even be funded.

We won't do that yet.

It may be something that we could add, like I said, to you.

The four-foot minimum median makes it limited to what we can do about putting in a median, about a fifth block crossing because you don't have any refuge in the middle.

So that could be taught.

I don't know.

What do you need for that one?

You don't have to ask that question.

I said I don't want to be wide for a refuge.

All we had was about 4 feet.

From face to curve to face to curve is what we were proposing.

But that's not enough.

I don't know.

I mean if I was standing there.

I don't know.

I mean I don't know.

I don't understand.

Well, I feel like we could stop and be going, right?

I mean, I cross it with Ronald Donaldson.

I mean, I said, those are things, this is just for the application.

I mean, we could, we'll go back and look at it.

It's just timeframe.

Do you have enough time to do that?

I don't know.

And we, I mean, we're getting feedback from you guys, but this is what we took to the public.

We got comments from the public, we can consider it or if the board wants to add it, we can look at it.

I mean, right now, and it's not like we're designing it right away.

We're just trying to get funded.

So it could be something that during the public,

Well, I mean, not everybody's going to speed up, but when you're coming out around that and you've got a fully divided facility, people are going to probably speed up somewhat.

Yeah, pretty cool.

Why wouldn't you reduce the length?

I don't know what the length is on right now.

If there are already 11 feet, we would reduce.

If they're 12 feet, we could probably have 11.

You wouldn't reduce below 11?

Well, you've got to look at the traffic vehicles that you're having, and buses and everything else.

And there's only one current bus stop on the north side, right?

Do you need both lanes to be allowed in the buses?

Typically, from your curb, you're basically one foot offset, you know, you have a level of land that you can follow.

If you take away the

make it 11 feet, and then that one foot is the offset from the curve.

So you're technically at a 10-foot lane, but you have another foot between when you get to the curve.

So, yeah, and that's how we could treat it.

I'm not a designer, so they have the follow-up regulations, and that could be something that could be worked out in the design, what the actual looks like.

because we didn't take that into account okay we basically are trying to make it fit and i'm saying that it's 11 feet but i could be a mistake okay yeah i mean again i think people are going to cross when you have i mean it is it is a long distance you're crossing in the middle it just depends on where they're going and it could be that they're crossing because there's no facilities on the site yeah they want to cross where they are

Well, I mean, if you if you live in any in that Hamilton right and you want to bike to downtown, how do you deal with it?

That's the way it is right now.

Well, they're not.

I mean, we've got, there's a lot of development over here.

I don't think we should put facilities on both sides of the road.

I just think we should let them get to the facilities.

Yes.

But I mean, even if they're,

not at that crosswalk, they're still going to have to get to the crosswalk.

Yeah, but there's a difference between a third of a mile in the wrong direction on the sidewalk and then one block on the sidewalk.

Understood.

All right, and then for crosswalks at the roundabouts, are you looking at anything in terms of treatments beyond an RFP or an AWP plan?

I mean, we'll put in the crosswalks.

I don't know if we have blood beyond that.

What we'll do, that can be something we can look at as part of the design.

We're going to have the facilities there and we're going to put some sort of active treatment there.

We're not going to probably put raised crosswalks across the ramps, but we'll look at other things.

I don't know.

Like I said, I don't know if that's

It depends on the regulations.

Oh, you mean the off maps?

On the right, yes.

Yeah, I mean that's something that could be useful.

I don't think Ray's crosswalk would be

impact to the cost of the project.

They affect drainage depending on how the drainage shows, but that will be something that would have to be addressed.

But we'll have to look at that.

We don't have surveys.

We're not going to have a lot of that data to be able to make that determination at this point anyway.

Comment followed by question.

Back to this like potential crossing on the county side in between roundabouts.

You had said previously, Chuck, that we could revisit this at the design stage.

Would it be possible if there are comments from the public that indicated need or desire for some sort of crossing in this area?

I'm not going to say we could clear the hawk, but we could look at it and see what criteria we have reviewed that actually whether a mid-block crossing would be appropriate at that location.

There's a form you have to fill out as part of the application process.

We may have to do that.

I'm still figuring that part of it out since it changed some of the regulations because there may have to do it as a roundabout.

But I'm not saying it can't happen.

The biggest thing is can't be physically put there.

That part I don't know.

Well, we want to make sure the scope is inclusive and I'll have to get traffic engineering weighed in on.

Yeah, we can work on that.

Like I said, this is just what we had done

together with this process.

I think it's been discussions like you brought up.

You might be probably familiar with it.

So I don't know if it would be easier, but even a crossing at the west end, like the entry to the west side of the underpass roundabout, right?

I mean, we could look at the roundabouts.

I don't I don't think that's not something that we can rule out.

He's talking about at these roundabouts.

Yeah.

on both sides.

Paris, you gotta go all the way to the Interchange, turn around, come back.

To the roundabout now, I'm saying you would go to the roundabout and just enter and then stay in the roundabout.

Yeah, but I mean, if the roundabouts here

I had a lot of discussions with these folks and they were happy with it because they do have a good network on the side that allows them to get

Cross here.

Yeah, they're doing that now Yeah, because you can't you can't make these movements at each crosser which is right signal on this symbolized, right?

Right We've seen them

I know we're talking about this for a long time.

And we haven't even gotten to the next one.

On Georgetown.

Anything else?

Lane widths.

Yeah, I mean, well, like I said, that'll be a design feature because I don't know what the lane widths are now.

Yeah, but it probably would still be considered a mid-block crossing because we're closing the median, but yeah.

Well, if Albemarle is applying for the western side, then the MPO would be applying for the intersection near the east as one and the entire package as a second application.

So do you guys want to take that action now?

No, you don't need a resolution now, but they need guidance on what to put in the pre-app.

All right, here's the other one.

if you guys want to see it.

I mean, basically we're going to the trail connection in the middle and then from the trail connection all the way to Emmett Street.

I like the one that we looked at earlier with the roundabout.

I'm personally not totally sold on roundabouts at these locations.

Right now, basically, you've got a, I think it's five foot from the face of curb to the piers on both sides of the road.

That's what's under there right now.

And we couldn't, can't change that.

And so, um, I think the preferred alternative looks at double, basically the northbound ramp coming off ramp is three lanes, a right and two left turn lanes.

and you've got two lanes on the north side and two lanes on the south side.

And on the eastbound side, they were adding a right turn lane along Barracks Road and narrowing the median on that side so we could accommodate the right turn lane without having significant right-of-way impacts.

And then we were looking at sidewalk.

Yeah, so.

it's just it would make the impacts on that side probably more for that one property it wouldn't impact the north where the basically retaining wall is it wouldn't impact that property but it would definitely more impact this property to the south on the south side because you're putting in a shared use path all the way to the intersection well we're putting in a shared use path and we're adding right turn yeah so we are narrowing the median

but we're still taking more property and then you got to put the shared use path out there.

Whereas the roundabout, I mean, the roundabout impacts it too, but the share, the right turn lane goes back further.

I just feel as a walker or biker, I just feel more comfortable.

I mean, like I said, we're going to have treatments there, whether it's going to be Fox signals or rapid flashing beacons.

I don't know what the rules are and how which way will go, but you will have some kind of controls there, which is going to be similar to what you're going to get a signal.

I mean, I saw somebody bicycles get hit right up it.

and McEntire and Water Street.

Bicycles going across the roads and we made a left hand turn and t-boned him like I was the second car in line.

At least the guy didn't get killed, but he was able to get up and walk away.

There's no place to shift it at all.

The problem is you've got you've got left turn lanes plus you got two through lanes.

underneath the bridge.

You don't have any room to shift it around.

That's why I said the roundabouts, what the roundabouts allow you to do is in the eastbound direction, we take away one of those lanes so we can shift the road to the inside.

And that gives us that space on the outside to actually put a shared eastbound, which we don't have that space now.

I think county staff are pretty supportive of the roundabout option.

I think it's something, it's a very progressive idea coming from VDOT.

And I think that while it feels a little scary to look at the pictures and think about crossing on the, as a bike coaster, crossing on those ramps, Chuck is talking about some sort of stop control for vehicles.

And when you're at those ramps, you're going to have a stop control for one direction of vehicle traffic at a time.

You're only crossing.

one or two lanes at a time rather than crossing the entire thing all at once.

But you don't have a pedestrian refuge between the on-ramp and the off-ramp, right?

Is that really correct?

On-ramp and off-ramp.

As you're crossing the roundabout on the south side, let's say, you're, or wait, no, sorry, that's not right.

Yeah.

I mean, you're crossing one lane.

Well, and like I said, with this concept, I don't know if that's going to be the final solution yet.

And we may be able to pull that in.

We will have veining in between there.

We'll have to see.

Sometimes we put raised median between those lanes.

Just depends.

We're not at that stage yet.

Once we start doing the design, we will refine that more.

The biggest thing is, and it's not so much on the entry lane, it's the exit lanes because fortunately the driver is only looking at traffic in one direction.

so especially coming out we have something there they're not looking at any traffic because they're looking at the road in front of them they're going to see those controls and see and be alerted by there's something there so on the entry you cross behind the first vehicle that stops so the second vehicle is going to get that alert and they're going to have to slow down to stop anyway so it's just a matter of plus they're getting alerted and they're only you're only crossing typically one way at a time

in one direction.

If there's a refuge.

Well, I mean, like I said, in some of them, typically you don't have those two lanes, but we'll look at it and see if we can have a refuge if necessary, if we need to.

Otherwise you may have to cross two lanes, but we'll have to work through the logistics on that.

So quick question on that last bit.

At Krueger, like at the Barrett-Troton Center, they're pretty tight on space there in the right way, right?

Like there's a retaining wall that goes to their loading dock.

Are you guys taking some of theirs?

Are you talking about on the American side?

Yeah.

Yeah, there's a road between those two.

I probably, I mean, there's a sidewalk there now.

We'll basically widen the sidewalk to a wider sidewalk, probably eight foot sidewalk.

I forget what you guys are putting on Emmett Street off the top of my head.

I mean, don't be a shared use path all the way through there.

I'm just not sure, I mean,

The difference between a shared-use path and a wider sidewalk is you got like six or eight foot separation between the curb and the shared-use path.

Because basically we're looking at four foot side, four foot separation behind the curb and eight foot area for your shared use path, which

It's basically a wider sidewalk, typically.

It's what you're classifying it as, but it meets the minimum for a shared use path.

And that's what we're trying to do.

Because I mean, I've had this discussion with L&D, and they're really hung up on what you call something.

because of what the design standards are.

So we have a motion?

The original motion was just as discussed, and you're going to codify what that means in our file board.

We're giving the policy board a recommendation to move ahead with the pre-app or the Spare to Write project with the concerns and ramifications that we discussed.

And that's, you just take all that, we give that.

The crossing, but that would be free, thanks.

All right.

Ben Chambers, you know, sorry.

Yes.

Yes.

Please join.

Yeah.

Christine Jacobs.

I've seen Jason Esby.

Yes.

Yeah.

Should I also say, or does it matter?

No, you can.

I'm abstaining because I'm coordinating the meeting and writing all the materials and acting as staff.

So you can still vote.

And Tommy Sackett.

That's fine.

I'm sorry.

What are we voting on right now?

I thought just giving the policy board the recommendation.

You just voted to go back to the policy board.

Yeah, with all the things we discussed.

They're basically going to give us guidance.

Yeah, I guess I'm going to stay now on this.

All right.

I mean, we're not I mean, at this stage, we only know so much have so much information.

So we're trying to flush out as much.

And I mean, we do have a lot of public input, but I can understand where you guys are coming from.

All right.

MPO projects, smart scale.

These are the current projects that we are looking at this street 64.

We're completing the initial study.

We've got to do a framework document because it is an interchange that's being signed right now.

We've already met with everybody, including FHWA, so that's going around for everybody's signature.

It scopes the study that we have to do for what they call an IAR, which is an Interchange Alternative Report.

So we're going to have to do that between now and July 15th to get that in the process.

But that's part of that process.

But we have to have a signed framework document to submit the application.

So that's what we're working on.

We've got an initial concept developed, and we're working on putting together the public survey.

It's actually built.

I'm just waiting for my communications staff to finalize the web page and the public

outreach, or not the survey, but the ads for the public outreach part of it.

So once that's done, we can, we'll send that out hopefully next week.

250 Pan Tops.

This was two applications that were submitted last round of SmartScale.

One of them is for crosswalks on Rolkin Road, as well as sidewalk along the south side of 250 between Rolkin Road and

State Farm, and the other project was for improvements at, and I have slides for all these too, Peter Jefferson Parkway intersection to include a right turn lane, closing the crossover at the access to the Hilton, or one of the accesses to the Hilton, and basically converting the intersection to a through cut, which basically eliminates the through movement, but allows all the other movements.

and also includes a park and ride lot on the north side.

And the third project were the Barracks Road projects that we already talked about.

So this is the DDI concept that we initially came up with.

And one of the things I wanted to point out is that we're showing shared these paths on both sides.

We're only going to have shared these paths on this side here and this side here.

We're not going to put it here or here.

because there's no facilities, the facility can be decided.

You're crossing to the media and then moving across the bridge in the media and then crossing that road on this side.

This is north into the city.

What's the buffer inside of the medians?

Like, you're in the charities path, how much grass is between you and that?

What do you mean?

I'll tell you that right now.

This is a road.

We're just taking the center portion of the bridge that's there now and putting a barrier on both sides of the insurance patent.

Maybe like a barrier kind of?

Huh?

Or a new barrier?

Yeah.

You will cross on these points.

So, we're talking vertical?

And like I said, it's probably eight feet with two foot shoulders or it might be one foot shoulder.

It just depends on what we're trying to do is use the existing bridge structure.

I'm working with the bridge section to see how much of the bridge, what we've got to do to the bridge to actually make it work.

But this is the one that we have the best chance of getting without towing the construction of the bridge.

To get a show in these pathways.

If you go back to the ones that were built in Missouri, this was basically the original concept.

Most of them are typical.

You can put it on the outside.

I know at Don's Crossroads we did consider it on the outside, but we have two separate structures there.

You don't have any

So you can't put it across the middle unless you do a separate destruction.

What are design speeds, I guess, Bruce, that comes at 25 as well?

No, I think it's 45.

Yeah, it's basically not slow.

Can we keep the charities back on the northwest corner of this project?

I mean we can keep them all.

The only reason I was saying we're taking them off is because that was your reputation.

The other thing is you are crossing a ramp that's not single.

with no controls.

Whereas these are going to be controlled processes.

Yeah, they're part of the redevelopment.

We are expecting there to be shared use back along that parcel.

So it would have something to connect to.

We definitely don't need anything on the southeast corner.

That's just

I mean, I mean, we've talked about this because we did the long corridor study and I think we were looking at it.

I mean, coming out of the city, they got it on both sides.

I think we were transitioning to the one side.

I can't remember what we did to the street station.

I think we had a shared use cap.

I have to go back to the concept and look.

But one of them had a shared use cap on one side and then it might be a sidewalk on the other side.

Not necessarily a shared use cap.

This would connect all the way down, but basically here's the entrance where the crossover is right here.

We're going to go here, and then you've got the parking lot, we've got the shopping center right here, and the shared use path that's likely.

So we're going to run it all over.

We're actually analyzing this intersection.

Right now it goes up a lot of the way and we want to probably connect down to a lot of the way with the shared risk path because I think the developer is building the part.

We've got the roundabout at Old Williamsburg Road and then we were putting the crossings in at that roundabout and then the developer on that one corner is going to build the shared risk path along their frontage and I think they're coming all the way to Wildwood.

I can't remember exactly off the top of my head.

But we're going to try to connect whatever, whatever is not profitable already, we're going to try to connect to.

And I think it's a long way over.

There's a house, there's a house that funds, that's not part of the redevelopment on that side of the road.

Chuck, just so you're aware, for this project, we're working with the Fed Office, but we're not on a project that's involved with this reconciliation between systems of station.

Gary Adams?

The consultant that they have engaged is the same consultant with developing this.

So we're expecting that there's going to be some strategies between those two.

OK.

That's actually in terms of the model and making sure that the model and assumption are correct.

No, I wouldn't have learned that.

The biggest thing is the MPO submitted this street station parkway last round.

They're just not eligible to resubmit.

And since it's in the city, the county can't resubmit it.

And the city can't resubmit anything.

Well, it shouldn't resubmit anything.

Right now.

So that's something that's probably going to come back.

And that will connect the dots.

We went to Harris Street, whatever that one was on the side of the Johnson Center, and we looked there south, all the way through the corridor.

And this was the recommendation from that study, too.

We just were taking it further so that we could get it to an application system.

So any other questions about this?

The other alternatives, I don't have the slides for them, we looked at a SUI, which that's for full bridge replacement, and it's probably not feasible.

The other ones were, didn't include a ship-use path.

Both of those were like looking at mainly improvements on the outside, and we looked at shipping the lanes on the inside to provide

five foot sidewall on both sides, six foot sidewall on both sides.

Right now you've got it on one side and you have just a curve and all the other stuff.

This would shift everything to the middle one to have a six foot sidewall on both sides of the other.

That's the maximum we can do if we want to do something like this.

But those were the other alternatives that we put in.

And those were recommendations from the previous study.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, both of you guys.

This is a previous application that we did a pipeline study on, and this is the one concept for Rolkin.

Has this changed for anything we've seen?

No.

This is the first part of it.

And let me show you the second part real quick.

This is phase two, the other piece, which is down at Peter Jefferson Parkway.

The first one was at Rolkin and the other one's at Peter Jefferson Parkway.

The project, there's a gap between the two because there's two intersections that we're, we don't have to make any improvements at.

So, but this is what we're proposing at both ends.

You've got a R cut, I mean a, not R cut,

through cut here with a right turn lane and your park and ride lot and we're closing the crossover to that one entrance right there.

Mid block, median, closing the median break.

And we're putting in the bus, 50 space bus parking lot with, I mean, parking, park and ride lot.

And there's a bus, the buses can actually circulate around.

So they basically would come in here, circulate around and come back out.

So, and there's, there's pull off here for pedestrian pickup on the side.

I encourage people to commute.

There's two, these are combined into one project, but you have four slots.

Everybody's got four slots.

It didn't change the rules on that.

Yeah, that was one of the things they voted in December and said, we're not changing these rules.

So these will be combined because this is the whole study.

So we're combining this into one application.

And then the last one is the Barracks Road, which you already saw those projects.

That's it.

Schedule.

I have the Albemarle County projects if you guys want to see those too.

Like I said, we're doing 250 and Old Trail, the Rio Road, Hillsdale, Roundabout, Peanutabout, Barracks Road and Plank Road.

This is the

Crozet project with the roundabout.

We're actually doing some modifications to this.

We're adding shared use path on the north side and a crossing on the north side, and we'll probably move the pond over one of these parcels on the north side, one or two, I don't remember which one, but they're looking at that.

In any time, we take motion on the final MPO application and then we can send

applications.

I can just give them an update on schedule.

Pre-ops are due by the 1st.

Then we'll screen them and validate them, pre-screen them and pre-validate them between April

and the end of May.

June 1st, the portal opens up again to make revisions and refine the applications.

Supporting documentation all needs to be in by July 15th.

And then the final applications, August 1st, deadline it.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any assumptions?

All right.

Since there is no action required on the IED road, I think we should request tabling with that one because that would have just been an update.

There's no action required so that we can get to the LRTB.

We're getting ready to release the survey.

got a focus group meeting with the county folks, possibly first.

So next month might be better because I'll have more information I can share with you.

Cool.

Will the survey be between now and then?

Probably.

Cool.

Great.

I'm actually going to have Alan Simpson.

He's going to be sharing his screen with the presentation.

I know with staff turnover, we're given additional assistance to staff here, and I know we're about 15 minutes behind schedule.

So Alan's going to go through the list of projects here.

We're going to be pretty brief about it.

Any really detailed design questions, that's more for design phase, and he'll just

Can everyone see my screen?

No.

You cannot.

Okay.

One second.

Great.

All right.

Thanks everyone for being here.

In the interest of time, obviously, I want to be mindful of everyone's time.

So I'm going to try to get through this presentation efficiently.

By no means do I want to rush, but we have 17 projects to kind of go over.

And if we could, any questions or discussion, maybe save those for the end, unless you have any burning questions.

So we're just going to give an update on where we're at with the long range transportation plan.

The focus of this presentation is going to go over the stakeholder meetings we had this month,

and the Open House event and the feedback we heard from those and an update on the list of priority projects.

In your packet, you have a list of those projects as well as a list of brief descriptions of each project.

The list of descriptions is a little bit out of order.

I apologize for that.

That's pulled from one of the posters from the Open House and that was lettered for a map.

So these projects are not in any particular order, so just keep that in mind.

So just a quick recap of what we did this month.

So we had three stakeholder meetings, one open house event.

So we had a business stakeholder meeting on Friday, March 1st, public safety stakeholder meeting on the 4th and a community partner stakeholder meeting on the 6th.

We had representatives from Albemarle County, UVA, UVA Health, Visit Charlottesville, Albemarle County Police and Fire, Blue Ridge Health Department, CAT, the

Three Knots Trail, Piedmont Environmental Council, CAA, and the SCLC in those stakeholder meetings, four attendees each.

And then we had an open house event at the TJPDC lobby on Thursday, March 7th.

We had nine attendees and we received one comment card from that event over two and a half hours.

So just a quick recap of what the objectives were.

So we were looking to validate the proposed list of priority projects, gauge general agreement with the plan's recommendations,

We asked stakeholders to give feedback on how they would prioritize the projects to influence the list.

And when I go over the projects, you'll see on each slide, we have the priority level that we identified through the process that you've all been looped in on the data intensive process where we basically give a category to each

Road, each part of the road segment network.

And then we asked them how they would prioritize it.

And then we asked for any details or any other comments on each project that any questions or concerns that would help guide the project details and inform the designs.

So looking at kind of a high level analysis of this right now, not really getting into the weeds of the design phase with this presentation.

And just a review of how we identify priority projects.

We started with a list of candidate projects identified through various planning efforts listed there.

And then we identified priority projects from that list based on locally identified priority improvements and ones that address needs through the prioritization process that I just mentioned.

That was using all those evaluation metrics, the geoprocessing stuff that I worked on over the last few months that we talked about in previous meetings.

So any needs that weren't addressed by a recently implemented project or a priority project that we identified, we indicated those as planning priorities for the future.

So that informs the efforts that the region will undertake over the next several years.

You should have a list of those in your packet as well, as well as vision projects and another list of projects for the future.

So this is the list of priority infrastructure projects.

Again, those are in your packet and there's some brief descriptions of each.

Wasn't planning on going over the descriptions of each project in this presentation, just kind of the focus is going to be review the feedback that we heard in stakeholder meetings and the open house event.

So, first we had the 64 and 53 interchange improvement.

Each slide is going to have a vicinity map as well kind of showing you the general location of these improvements.

So the first bullet here you'll see from the prioritization process that we undertook

It was identified as a low need, so we have low, medium, high.

And then if we heard feedback from the stakeholders, in some cases we didn't really have, some groups didn't have a lot of feedback to give, so you might see NA for some of these projects, some groups had more to say.

So business stakeholders we didn't hear anything from, but public safety stakeholders indicated this is a high priority, community partner stakeholders indicated this is a low priority, so

General comments we heard that improvements here would improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at the interchange and enhance outdoor recreation access at Biscuit Run Park in the future.

We heard that a transportation hub could be needed here.

We heard one stakeholder who was against implementing a diverging diamond design here.

And some comments saying that this is needed but the entire corridor needs to be addressed as well.

For the Rio Road Peanut roundabout, we identify this as a high slash medium need.

And sometimes you'll see more than one need identified because it's by road segment.

So some segments of this road network were high need, somewhere medium need.

Again, didn't hear any strong feelings about this from the business stakeholders.

Public safety, interestingly, didn't identify this as a high priority, but the community partners did.

So business stakeholders, they did feel that speed was a concern, that there was a need for safety improvements.

We didn't really get a priority level from them though.

Our community partners definitely had concerns with safety, pedestrian deaths at this intersection, as well as issues with safely biking along the railroad corridor.

but interestingly the public safety stakeholders didn't seem to feel that there was there were many issues here so a little bit of you know different feedback from from these groups but um so we identified as a high need we also heard that it was low need high need we'll take that into consideration um airport road in 29 um the overall need that we identified was low business stakeholders seemed to think this was a high priority didn't have any strong fielding feelings from the other groups um

comments it's difficult for pedestrians to cross 29 under current conditions but as density increases in nearby areas it's going to become even more important and more of an issue so something should be done here our public safety stakeholders wanted to see improvements to stoplight timing sidewalks and crosswalks rather than a big capital investment like a roundabout for the ivy road corridor the overall need for this entire corridor came out as low but that this was identified as a high priority by two of our stakeholder groups

business stakeholders especially we're kind of looking at this from a tourism lens thinking that improvements to this area would be essential for tourism getting in and out of this area public safety stakeholders know that there were a lot of flooding and congestion issues in certain parts of this corridor and we heard there would be a lot of walkability benefits from adding a shared use path along old ivy road in this corridor

For this improvement, we're looking at Crozet, so US 250 next to Henley Middle and Brownsville Elementary.

Again, our prioritization process, the data was showing this as a low need.

Public Safety found this to be a high need, didn't hear much from the other two groups on this one.

Pedestrian access for students is a challenge.

There's inconsistent sidewalk access on nearby roads, sidewalks that kind of end and start abruptly.

There is a roundabout design proposed for this.

Someone mentioned that that might be kind of confusing for bus traffic.

So that's something to take into consideration as well.

This one was interesting.

When you look at the public comment map, we saw

This was a hotspot in the three intersections at Crozet Avenue at the schools and Old Trail Drive.

There was hotspots of public comments right there.

So that was one that the prioritization process might not have thought was a high priority.

But, you know, that was just one step of this whole process.

Public comment was also taken into account.

Now I'm moving kind of fast here, but I'm going to keep going.

Avon Street extended in Mill Creek Drive intersection.

Again, it was a low priority from the prioritization process.

We didn't hear any disagreement really with that from the groups.

So there's a lot of NAs here.

In some cases, I'll also mention that we didn't quite get to all these projects with these stakeholder groups.

We were running out of time in some cases, and we asked some groups to kind of, you know, if you had a strong feelings about any of these projects, we would take time to talk about those instead of going through the whole list.

So in some cases, we didn't get a lot of feedback on the actual priority level.

But there is a sense that this could be a good place for a roundabout.

business stakeholders felt that this could be a good future thoroughfare for Biscuit Run Park.

The Old Lynchburg Road shared use path, again that's a low need according to the prioritization process and we didn't hear much disagreement with that.

CAT did cite a need for a light or a roundabout at the intersection so that's kind of unrelated to the shared use path, sort of related but not necessarily what we were talking about but that was something that was identified as a potential need.

Berkmar Drive shared use path that was identified as a low need.

We didn't have a lot of strong opinions on this one, but just wanted to share that.

Again, Eastern Avenue connection in Crozet where we're looking at extending Eastern Avenue to connect the West Hall to 250.

That one is was not identified as a need in the prioritization process because that really doesn't exist.

Again, didn't hear a lot of feedback on this one.

People thought it was a necessary thing, but not necessarily a high priority.

For the Barracks Road corridor, overall that was identified as a low need.

And again, here's where we see kind of a discrepancy from our process and what we heard.

So business stakeholders felt this was a high need, public safety, generally kind of a medium need, high priority area for bike and pet safety and traffic congestion.

For this intersection here at Ridge, McIntyre, West Main, South Water Street, we identified this one as a medium need.

The business stakeholders agreed with us.

didn't get a priority level from the other groups.

But general comments that this is a really confusing and generally unsafe intersection for visitors and residents alike.

Equity needs to be a consideration here.

This area serves a lot of people living in low income housing.

We had a comment saying that the Ridge McIntyre streetscape plan needs to be implemented here.

We did have one stakeholder suggest closing off South Street to vehicle traffic.

Someone else brought up that access to Midway Manor would be an issue if that happened.

Pariah Road corridor improvements between Huntington Road and Greenbrier Terrace, we identified as a medium need.

Business stakeholders seem to think that was a higher need than what was indicated, but we didn't get really any comments.

Public safety stakeholders, that's blank.

That was an N.A.

as well.

For the Fifth Street multimodal improvements, you're seeing three prioritization levels there because it's a long stretch of road and different segments had different priority needs, but

Since the high was in there, we can consider that a high need.

Business stakeholders agreed with that.

Didn't get a priority level from the other two groups.

Some comments about this one.

Wanting to see this happen in conjunction with improvements to the entire corridor.

Kat mentioned that there would be a need for a bus lane on this corridor, especially going south in the future.

The Preston Avenue multimodal improvements.

That was identified as a high slash medium need.

The business stakeholders agree that that was a high need.

Comments here, just heard that the 10th Street intersection is confusing.

Hillsdale South extension, including the 2250 interchange and multimodal improvements, a high need identified via prioritization process.

Had agreement with that from the business stakeholders, but no real comments, just saying this is a high priority, we should do it.

For Peter Jefferson Parkway and Rolkin Road access management, a medium need identified through our process.

The business stakeholders, again, identified that as a high need.

Didn't hear much from the other two groups on that one.

No real comments in general.

And the Ravenna River Bike and Ped Bridge between Pantops and Will Mills.

That one was identified as a medium priority for our process.

Didn't hear any strong opinions on that one or didn't get to it with the other groups.

So that is the summary of the feedback that we heard from these meetings.

Other feedback that we got, we did receive one comment card from the open house and a couple of comments on the project website.

So from the open house, we got a comment about West Main Street saying that the city's plans are an interim phase, but there's no long term project identified in the long range plan.

a need for a sense that the vision projects were not as visionary as they could be, but general support for what was presented.

On the project website, we received a comment about the planning priorities.

So we didn't include detail on the planning priorities list.

We just kind of gave the list of priorities in the future.

Someone was interested in learning more about those and a need to see them studied very soon.

We had another comment about the 2050 level of service, which is something that we included in the needs prioritization process, kind of a sense that automobile level service might not be the best thing to use.

And just one comment that I'll make on that is we did that was part of the process, but congestion was really not a big part of the metrics that we used to identify the needs.

If you'll remember,

When we were looking at the waiting for the thresholds and everything, we were geared much more towards safety, multimodal accessibility.

So level of service, future level of service was in there, but it wasn't the most important aspect of the whole thing.

And just a comment sharing appreciation for the public forum.

Those are the only other comments that we got outside of the stakeholder meetings in the open house.

Next steps here.

So we're going to finalize the priority list using stakeholder and public feedback.

develop implementation strategies, final plan review, and we're looking at plan adoption in May.

And again, we're not looking for a recommendation or anything here.

This is just an update on the process so far.

Well, I guess first off, let me say I'm shocked that

I've got a question about, I guess we talked about the Ridge-McIntyre main intersection and someone said the Ridge-McIntyre plan should be finished.

What about Ridge McEntire itself and the Ridge McEntire-McEntire-Preston intersection?

I didn't see that on any of the priority lists.

We've got a lot of them on the right-hand side of Charlottesville.

Another place I frequently almost die.

We've included on that list several of the items that are north of that on McIntyre, like the extension of this charity path along McIntyre and from the town where they live.

And it's also on the planning priorities list, the 10th and page multi-modal improvements, including improvements along 10th street between Preston and Eric.

One kind of change with the LRTPs across the state is the way SmartScale has been developed in the last few years of

Even if your project isn't in the constraining list of projects, it can still qualify for Shakespeare all year.

So the important thing is having projects listed somewhere in the plan, whether that's the visioning list or the planning list or the constraining list of projects.

So that's kind of one thing, but the constraining list, it's intended to be, these are a higher priority.

I don't remember what the Carter study said for it, but it's a terrible road.

Moving on, on transit, looking at the transit list, it seems a bit, I don't kind of like transit, the cat transit things seem a bit limited compared to, say, the cat vision study that we just had.

but I can say with, I know when Sandy was working with the transit providers, I think she was kind of taking the lead from Kat and John on what the list in there for that.

So, and also the transit vision plan, I know that's a very long range document there, but really we, staff couldn't put things in there against the will of any transit provider also.

So it's kind of, they didn't want anything

OK.

Yeah, we're currently working on our TSP, so there are some recommendations that probably have been fully fleshed out and opted out.

We did provide the current interim draft recommendations to staff here.

Can we amend the LRTP later once we finish?

We can amend it at any time.

We've definitely done that ever.

I was here for a decade, so during that time we certainly amended the LRTP.

I think the 2035 plan

Storyteller of the BBC's history here too.

I know when we had the Western bypass situation.

So yeah, it's like a comprehensive plan in that when we talk about these five-year updates, but it really can be updated at any time.

the MPO to try to give it to a more grouped program as opposed to necessarily you prioritize it in the group but instead of having it separated out and have it consistently constrained this technically if you have something that's in the constrained list you're supposed to swap them out we typically haven't done that very much and by grouping findings together you can

No, you can avoid having to do that a lot.

So it reduces the number of times you have to change, go back and edit or amend a dollar, which makes it more flexible.

It seems to me what the vision is.

You can update it every five years.

It makes it work a little bit.

Other comments?

So our plan is, when you all meet in April, you're going to have a draft in your hands for the whole plan.

And then have an opportunity for y'all to review that by comments, questions.

So we're down to two months, the meeting under it.

Yeah.

And then when you have your May meeting, you'll have the updated final plan in your hands here.

Again, Jonathan can talk to this too.

The most critical part of that plan is that project list.

And everything else in that plan, really the rest of the document is there to describe how we got to that.

So really, when you all do get that draft, there shouldn't be any surprises in here or anything you haven't seen.

Because it's describing the needs evaluation process, what you did through the GAP process.

It's going through the public engagement process, which is very thorough here.

and everything that you all have seen has been privy to.

So they're really, really that's the purpose of the written part of the document.

Shouldn't be any surprises in there.

Did you guys include the formless metrics?

Yeah.

I guess I'm jumping in.

I don't know a lot about this.

This is my first time going through all of this.

Yeah, I mean, I was encouraged by the amount of input.

I know working on long-range transportation plans across Virginia, too.

Couple of variables here.

One, it is extremely hard to get public input on a long-range transportation plan or an NPO.

In the technical process, you're asking people mostly to provide feedback on possible 20-year plans of projects that may or may not happen.

I remember when I was here at the PDC, we had a meeting and it was an older crowd and they asked, when are these projects going to get done?

And we said, well,

You know, it could be 10 years or so.

And they said, well, we'll be dead by then.

And the whole room got up and left.

And so that was the end of that public meeting.

So it's a hard thing to engage.

But with that said, I do think staff went above and beyond of what I normally see in a lot of my transportation plan.

And I know Sandy went to the CAC meetings.

attended housing authority meetings.

So when residents met, she met with them and we went through the process with them as well.

We had a public survey that went out and we got, I can't give you the exact number, but we got good response to that, even considering that there had been at least half a dozen other surveys that were out, you know, within that year or so.

I know staff was at the transit center over here, downtown transit center.

We went through the,

police night out events.

We were doing public intercepts and going out and talking to people, stakeholder meetings, phone calls, talking to community groups and trying to get them to send information out to their mailing lists.

And so, I mean, it's a hard thing to engage people in, but I think just everything staff could do just went down that list and

went, filed a checklist, passed the checklist on to just what work we do.

It is an important plan, though.

So if you are new to the process, you're saying that the importance here is if you want your project to qualify for federal dollars, which is what makes a lot of these projects possible, it needs to be listed with land.

And the MPO is required to update this plan every five years under state, under federal code.

And this really is the regional transportation document.

Now when you go through the draft and find, it might not go down to as much detail as you might hope, or if there's some projects that aren't included, keep in mind also that it has to be regionally significant transportation projects.

So that's what we're focused on.

If it's like a 500 foot segment of sidewalk, that's not really a regional transportation access.

As for specific projects?

Well, I'll have to answer what need it's addressing there.

But yes, this project here is specifically for that roundabout there, and it's not addressing Avon north or south of that center.

OK.

That was interesting.

There was also a project that the county submitted last year, which wasn't

that went from basically the jail at the bridge all the way to this intersection.

No, the county's intention is to have sidewalk or shared use path on Avon.

There is a need for a roundabout at either this intersection or an adjacent one just to improve traffic congestion and left turnings out of some of those subdivisions there.

Oh wait, we do have Avon 3 Hold Down Mobile.

No wait, no, that's the city one.

It doesn't mean it won't happen, it just means

that it might not be significant compared to some of the other projects that are listed here.

It still could happen, but it's just the mechanism.

It doesn't need to be in the stock.

It's going to be hard to get it funded for the most part, but they'll keep it in the list.

It's going to be on the list.

It just may not be on the list that's listed in the Long Range Plan S.

Right, but it's not a meter at all, right?

And I'm asking this question because, not because I'm, it's your, you know, this is county, but so that I just understand, again, how they build apples, but I guess I'm a little surprised that it wouldn't score high.

It wouldn't be because there are all those folks on one side of the interstate and then there's all this retail and shopping on the other side of the interstate.

Is that because there's really no good pedestrian

access on the bridge.

Well, I think my question back at you is what do you bring to scoring?

I guess I don't know.

I guess I was referring to what Chuck was saying in terms of how it would.

So I guess maybe that is more Smirkscale.

That's why I said it didn't score very well last time.

It's going to be worse now because they changed their scoring methodology for land use.

So you've got a lot of points in land use for pipe and pedestrian comics.

You're not going to get that.

You've got to get your points from other facilities.

It keeps changing.

But again, since the Longage Plan, also keep in mind that the Longage Plan is a bit of a financial document.

The TIP is definitely the financial document of how funding is allocated by fiscal year.

the LRP key kind of opens up what funding you can bring in.

I mean, if there's a project that you want to do that's not on the list, at least get it on the vision list.

And it can live there in the vision list and be there and cover you in case you want to apply for certain funds.

So if there's something missing, we can put that in.

We're trying to assemble that constraint list, which is kind of our high priority regional network list there.

There's been some other projects in the past.

I think the city has put some projects in past LRTPs.

The county has put some projects in past LRTPs in the plan that weren't necessarily using those federal dollars.

And so it wasn't benefiting by being in the long range plan.

However, we put it in any way just to acknowledge that, hey, this is a project that is important to the region.

So we'll list it here.

And should I make a suggestion?

Would there be a redundancy issue with having the policy bond corridor plan on the vision list?

Because the corridor plan would be a perfect peer to the other things that are on the vision.

Yeah.

Matt?

And then, you know, there's a raised grant or something that comes available for that pedestrian bridge.

So we can just name all the streets.

Well, some of them.

No, I agree with you.

I just feel that.

Yes.

Yeah, I don't think the county is in any way opposed to it.

Like we said, we've applied for funding for multi-modal on this corridor before.

It's still our intention.

We are trying to piecemeal it together with development at this point, but we would definitely not object to having a non-vision list.

In terms of other things on the vision list, Randy brought up something about, I know UVA, for the city, has talked for a long time about the pedestrian tunnel under the railroad connecting UVA to Bikeville.

I don't know.

I don't think there's any imminent plan to do it, but it's a pretty big project, monetary-wise.

It might warrant being on that list.

Are we calling it on the Sunset Fontaine connector?

Is that finally dead forever?

I think that's still on our current LRTP.

I think we took it out of target, right?

It's gone.

I want to be mindful here to the agenda.

I know we were just passed over one minute over your agenda time at UPWP, and you all have your own schedules here too.

So I'll just put out there here, I believe you all have information in the packet.

And so if you have additional comments, if there's something that's missing that you want on that vision list, if you'd like something for our attention,

You can send that to staff and they'll forward that to us.

So I just, I want to be mindful of that schedule on your agenda and your schedules personally and your time.

But yes, we can add that to the vision list.

That is not a problem.

And as I mentioned before, you'll have a draft before you.

That's one more opportunity to provide additional comments.

I'll propose something but then you guys can say do it anyway.

I have a PowerPoint presentation and you had in your packet a full copy of the draft EPWP.

I can send you a copy of that PowerPoint presentation

I would just encourage you to read through that draft pretty carefully because next month it will require action of the policy board.

So it would have to be making any changes between now and the next meeting, not at the next meeting because there wouldn't be enough time to incorporate everything.

Okay.

I'm going to send you an email with Chuck's presentations, my UPWP presentation, the LRTP EPR presentation that you just saw,

As well as a one-pager on DRPT's updates.

And then I'm also going to send you calendar holds for the next three months, just to make sure you have this on your agenda.

I think in addition to that, in like maybe two weeks, being like, hey, Andy James, do you have the... Yes, I can do that as well.

Now's the time.

Yep, I'll schedule that.

I am.

You guys tell me if that's okay with you.

Yeah, I'll schedule that now.

All right, roundtable updates.

City?

Big thing coming out soon is our draft sidewalk priorities.

We'll be releasing those to the public for comment for about four weeks.

We're trying to put together our public comment materials, so hopefully we'll get it out next week, might be a week after that.

We're also getting out some paint and plastic projects this month.

We've got Safe Routes to School projects hitting the ground.

County has a lot of town halls going on so we're going out around the county to just talk about transportation projects along with some other county things like our upcoming budget.

So if you have questions about any projects you can come out first.

There are multiple for the southern and western neighborhoods.

I'll send you the link.

Just real quick and I will send an email follow-up for that but we are in the process of working on our strategic plan for the commuter assistance programs and we do have a survey where we're collecting some feedback on

commuting in the region.

So if it's okay with you guys, I'll send you just a little email with a link to that survey and maybe some people that you might be interested in passing it on to.

That survey will close by the time that we meet next, but there's still quite a bit of a window to respond to that.

at the end of April, beginning of May for public comment feedback.

We are aiming for adopting that as tax TSP sometime in June.

We are also in parallel with that moving forward with our zero emission bus transition planning.

We have gotten directions from city council on what we should be moving forward with doing a two phase pilot with battery electric buses and a

all wrapped up along with all of our site planning for any facility exams that we would need to do sometimes as well.

So there's still more work to be done on the zero emissions bus transition but it seems like a lot of it is aimed at figuring out that question of what the fuel is going to be but there are more questions beyond that and we'll be working through this to solve this.

Yeah, we have a few studies underway which I've mentioned before, microtransit study

bus electrification and fleet transition study lab.

We're having a meeting this week on the rural transit needs study and there was a survey that was sent to everyone here I believe maybe last week or something just for that and a few minutes to take a look at that survey may be helpful.

You're good?

Montaigne.

There's a lot of construction there that is mobilizing.

It's getting big.

I'm the only BTS of the terminal that has operations going on in there.

Cool.

Matthew Milik?

Peter?

Anything else?

All right.

Anyone else have anything else?

All right.

Well, I should return only eight minutes late.