MPO Technical Committee Meeting   3/19/2024

And then it does not look like any voting members.

If not, I'll take it.

I'll make sure I get that good finish.

I believe it says that James Freas was here last time.

I'll double check if I'm recording.

Those are the approved minutes.

Any opposed?

Next up, SMART SCALE alternative selection.

Yeah, that was just the acceptance of the agenda.

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

We actually do for a change.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Any questions about that?

So the negative responses, are they mapped out, rounded out, do they say mapped out, fed?

Let's skip that.

Was it 13, that last one?

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

The negative comments.

So it's not a high percentage.

I assume we're called to being another alternative aside from the roundabouts or what would we do with that?

So I feel comfortable in what we're proposing is what the best solution for the corridor.

I guess the only other question I have is, do you have any sort of demographic data where you've gotten results?

So I haven't had a lot of opportunity to, or Friday, I got it Friday and I haven't a lot of opportunity to really digest it fully.

Can we get the whole set of responses published somewhere?

I can get the consent and just send that to me.

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

Yeah, I'll just take that.

You know, I imagine in at least some of these comments, there's more nuance than positive.

This is just a summary I got from the consultant who went through them over the end of last week and sent them to me.

So do we have another example of something like this going on that I can go look at in person to see how...

So we'll have to put some kind of positive deterrent, whether Hawk signals or rapid flashing beacons that are button control at the crosswalks for the roundabouts.

But I recognize that the public is going to be really concerned about those things.

I mean, currently you've got sidewalk on the other side, now it's crossing the ranks.

And what's the design speed of the roundabout and the shoveling?

So that sort of deters people from moving.

This question is probably unfair to ask because we're pretty on the spot, but I'm just trying to learn more about roundabouts.

Okay, I'm an expert, so I can probably field it down for you.

What's the design speed off the top of your head for that one?

We don't want them to go faster than that because it's not safe.

They're all the same.

Yes, Jessica?

Can you go to the slide where you have the three different applications laid out?

This is the county's portion.

Can you go to that slide?

I don't have the whole thing together.

Oh, the bullets.

Right here.

Or is there value in pursuing one versus the other?

You either do both roundabouts or you don't do roundabouts at all.

What if we did both roundabouts but not the extension that the Northbound is selling?

This is just our first take at the recommendations for the preferred scenario.

What's our timeline here?

For Fifth Street, I have four alternatives.

So, Chuck, just for my own clarity, if we were to include the deceleration line in the pre-application, you're saying with further refining and feedback that could be removed for the actual application?

I just need something in the minutes so that they are letting us know where they want to go.

The share, well- What was your survey?

And I don't think there would be a lot of support for that from the board.

Yes.

breaks out 10 deep and then the slope down you'd be in that house.

I'm wrong.

It's just, it's something that we did get support for, but the cost would be prohibitive to do it.

And then for that area on the northbound side, and you guys haven't really shown it, but the sidewalk that's existing up there is going to be impacted by those roundabouts.

It's going to be put back.

But it's going to be put back and then with some sort of infrastructure to then cross.

But our intent is to maintain the sidewalk on the north side all the way through the corridor.

And basically we're currently six.

I mean, obviously when the roundabouts are there, they're going to impact where it's going to go around the outside of the roundabout.

Yeah, there's one roundabout in particular that finds

Probably Smith can't really put this roundout.

But did you just say it has the impact of the actual house?

Yeah, we'll probably be picking this house.

That would be nice.

That's the one.

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.

Yes.

So we're going to have to come out, throw a roundabout, turn around, come back.

So I just want to point that out because I remember doing something like that.

But we won't know that until after.

And have you explored like a mid-block, crosswalk, not the mid-block, but somewhere in the middle of the half miles?

But beyond that, we probably wouldn't look at it.

That's what it is now.

You're slowing down at 25, then you have a half an hour speed up, and then you have a down race track, and then you can slow it again.

So basically they're going to be almost stopped here and coming out of here at slow speed and going in here at slow speed.

And then you can keep it a lot much smaller lane widths.

So that's going to be one of the drawbacks.

I don't know.

We want to look at something in the future that might be something we could...

I wasn't going to add anything in still.

It doesn't really give you as much benefit as you think.

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

People are going to be running across four lanes of a 45 mile an hour road.

But at this stage in the game, I don't know if that's something we could add to everything's good concept.

I don't know.

And maybe Michael started this process, and he went to the county, and I'm picking up in the middle, so it might have got lost between the two of them.

When we went out there, I think we talked about it, I think we installed some of those crossings.

I mean every one of those connections here, here, and here, there's probably connections crossing that road.

In part because on the southbound side there currently is no facility, so they have to cross right now to use the sidewalk, which in theory might

Crossing here, crossing down there, I don't think this would simply make a difference.

But if we know that we're crossing, they're not going to stop.

That's what I'm saying.

Should we try to design for that?

And shifting, making the median wider, I don't even know if that's feasible, without writing that sphere of refuge for all, obviously.

All we had was about four feet.

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

Well, I feel like we could stop because the car would be going great.

I feel like I'm going to die every time, but somehow I'm going to make it through.

feedback process during the design phase being something that could be tapped.

Okay yeah that would be the way to get if we do want to avoid having to operate on design speed to be racking up stuff before speeding up and then

They may not be 45, but because they're going to have to slow down.

Is there any reason not to?

You've got to be able to make sure that you travel to verse the cooler water.

On the south side, there isn't currently a bus stop.

And there's one at Surrey.

Well, I mean, it doesn't mean it won't be in the future, especially with all the development that's happening here in the junior.

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

We basically are trying to make it fit and I'm saying that it's 11 feet but I could be a mistake.

Yeah, I mean, again, I think people are going to cross when you have...

Once you put facilities, there may not be as much need for them to cross unless there's a destination and you've got residential on both sides of the road.

You somehow, you bike down the right lane in the 45 mile per hour road until you get to the Georgetown roundabout.

So, yeah.

I guess you can have it, really.

We just, without having tremendous impact on right-of-way, to put facilities on both sides of the road is probably not feasible.

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

We want to try to get as much information as we can in there, but some of it is at this stage of the matter.

Can we look at something like a hawk at Surry Road as part of the preparation for the final?

It's more or less, yeah, I can put money in there for it, but if I can't, if there's geometric issues that don't make that possible at this location, then I can't answer that question.

Well, ahead of one of you in there, can't that decision be made at the design phase?

I mean, we haven't looked at it yet, as a mid-block policy.

Yeah, I think that's my request, is can we make sure that it's considered at this stage, rather than wait until design?

I think there was some discussion, but it never got brought up at the meetings where it was something that we added to.

I mean, we could look at the roundabouts.

I mean, we could...

So if you're on Westminster and you wanted to go north on Georgetown or west on barracks.

We're going to the south.

Yeah.

The crosshair is very efficient.

A lot of people do that.

Yeah, they're doing that now.

Yeah.

So are there any other questions about this?

We need a recommendation.

I wrote that in the news.

And then pavement treatments at the crosswalks.

On Georgetown.

Lane widths.

We'll have to, whatever the road is, we can't, there's certain dimensions that we can't go below necessarily without having an issue.

Design for the lowest possible designs being implemented by that.

I mean, we could consider reduced lane widths if possible.

One of the interesting things, we may not refer to it as a mid-block crossing though because most likely we'd be at an intersection which is already a perfectly legal place to cross and mid-block crossings have different requirements.

Okay.

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 basically, they probably need to be cons...

yeah yeah all right all right let me see if i get the other one loaded now

I move that we recommend that the policy board approves the design with the changes we've discussed

So are you saying that we have to make that recommendation now for the policy board?

The policy board is going to have a vote to tell us to go ahead and submit a pre-application for this.

Yeah, give us guidance on what the policy board wants to do because ultimately they've got to pass a resolution of support for their projects and they need to weigh in on them beforehand.

To confirm, you don't need a resolution.

And we're putting in a shared east path on the south side of the road.

I lean towards, and I hope to hear what you all have to say, everything we've looked at previously on the county side, and then a small, not as wide sidewalk under the underpass, and then a shared-use pass all the way down.

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.

Whereas the roundabout, I mean, the roundabout impacts it too but the share, the right turn lane goes back further so it's gonna have more impact for more parcels along that corridor.

I'm nervous about the crossing fire on the ramps.

But yeah, it doesn't necessarily mean you're any safer at a signal.

There's no place to shift it at all.

And we can't reduce the lanes underneath the bridge.

And with the roundabouts physically slowing down traffic, if they weren't as expected, I think it's still the safer option.

Is that correct?

On-ramp and off-ramp.

It's one direction from...

There's a big island in the middle.

And then there's a lane entering the route, right?

We're going to have the crosswalks and we can provide a refuge in between those lanes, we will.

My view is, you know, I think roundabout can work if you have basically all the pedestrian

But still, I think it's going to be, we can put controls up that are going to alert the motorists that there's something happening here.

So quick question on that last bit.

Are you talking about on the American side?

Yeah.

So we'll take some of that.

If we can narrow that down and put something in there that's still wider than a sidewalk, you still accommodate the same thing, but you still, you don't have to meet the necessarily what they typically call regulations for a shared use path.

Does that make sense?

So just to make that clear, what we're calling for is four-foot and eight-foot.

So we have a motion?

I already said it, but we have the ability to restate it if you guys want to restate it.

OK, do we have a second?

What are we, second?

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.

The crossing, but that would be free, thanks.

All right, all in, but I'll let you go.

Thank you.

You just voted to go back to the policy board.

Well, they're going to give the MPO guidance, basically give us guidance, so we know which direction to take if you want to submit this application this round.

I still have a lot of questions.

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-use path on both sides.

This is 5th Street right here.

This is north end of the city.

This is the Hall of the Inn.

What's the buffer inside of the medians?

How big is this burning generator?

I'll tell you that right now.

Is it at pavement level?

You'll cross on these points, basically you will come here, cross at a stop control, cross here at a stop control, go across the bridge, cross at another stop control, and then cross this at a stop control.

We're touching the bridge, yeah.

But this is the one that we have the best chance of getting without towing the construction of the bridge to get a share in these pathways.

Hey Chuck.

Yes.

Is that a common treatment?

And I don't know if they did anything at 124, at 250, at 60.

No, I think it's 45.

I think it's 45.

Can we keep the shared staff on the northwest corner of this project because we have that personal under redevelopment right now and we're trying to get facilities this far?

And that's why, from my perspective, I'm more comfortable with that.

But you're saying we'd go to that property in the Northwest?

Like you said, there's nothing to connect with that.

We haven't taken off and that's the only thing we have to do extremely.

And then just for other people looking at it, the shared staff would connect on the northeast side to, it would go up to the parking lot where we're having the pit street.

It's part of our study goals.

Do you know on the funny side, or do you know how far you will go?

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 a 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 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 that funds, that's not part of the redevelopment on that side of the road, and that's the sticking point in the connection.

They're helping us as well.

So, shooting with shade.

Any opposed?

You have zero minutes for discussion.

You can see the crosswalks on the one side.

I have a motion.

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.

So, but that's what we're going to talk about.

I encourage people to commute and light the lights.

Yes.

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

So we're looking at what we can do for that as part of the update.

I can just give them an update on schedule.

So, that's pretty much it for me.

We need a recommendation from the director, Senator Raulkin.

And we'll go forward with the project as well.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Jeff.

No problem.

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

We're looking at it possibly in the next week versus the following week to get it out there.

That's all I have for a part of it.

give a review of where we are and those practices.

Yeah.

Okay.

No.

You cannot.

How about now?

Yes.

And that's where we're at right now.

It's not listed as a project on the candidate projects, even though, well, there's a roundabout in the study, which is maybe not the solution I'd pick, but how does that vector in here?

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

So it's in the planning list.

And of course we do have a precedent for it or in this constraining list, but we can look at that.

So, I guess the written back error between the two bad intersections is out of scope of anything, even a vision twist, right?

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

What's the reasoning for not including other things, at least in the vision, or the ugly train lists?

That, I mean, I know Sandy had those discussions with CAT, so I can't interject myself and answer those questions specifically, but I know that we were taking lead of working with CAT on all of our projects to this.

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

Can we amend the LRTP later once we finish?

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.

It makes it work a little bit.

RGB?

What's your timeline on this again?

It's just that documentation steps.

That's the one.

This is my first time going through all this, but all the input, how did you all feel about the amount of input that was part of this process?

So we're focused on what are the region's transportation needs and what are the regional solutions to address those needs.

That intersection improvement is looking to just improve the intersection, but nothing else up and down, Avon, correct?

Okay.

I'm not sure what the planning priorities list says, but you may have Avon on that list because we haven't identified any sort of improvement to Avon.

So would we not want that out here?

So that's the intention of this project and the overall intention of improving the Avon corridor for all the

I thought that this covered what we needed.

Like Will was saying, is that a significant project?

My mom lives over there and I'm just thinking about her getting to live.

It doesn't need to be in the stock.

Yeah.

The highest priorities.

Access on the Bridge, and that would be a completely separate project.

Well, I think my question back at you is what are you scoring, like scoring for the Eller compete browser, scoring for SMART SCALE?

It wouldn't score very well for SMART SCALE.

Those that stand alone facilities aren't going to do

And I guess the hope, though, is that they change the scoring in the next five years to make it better.

I know that kind of part of what we're focusing on here is trying to get that constrained list of projects really deep out there.

Just for that one.

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

We have greater developments.

That's always definitely intended for that area, but not the connector.

And then we have a month there and then we get those changes and updates put in for that maybe.

Cool.

Now's the time.

Yep, I'll schedule that.

So are we going to skip that then for now?

I do encourage you to read it, though, because it is going to detail how we spend our deal funding into the next fiscal year.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, then we can... All right, roundtable updates.

We've also engaged prior to the budget committee

I'll send you the link.

I'll send you the link.

I'll send you the link.

And then I'll probably have some more updates once we narrow and honor some of our target markets.

Josh?

Yeah, that's it.

John Payne, Carter, there's a lot of construction there, it's mobilizing, hitting big, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a lot of construction there, there's a

Sorry for the others.