Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (2013-2026) Meeting   9/18/2024

I can move your name.

So let's start with the voting members.

Stuart Gardner said call, send an email saying he's sick.

He's not able to join us today.

Patrick Healy.

Here.

Ethan Heil.

Sarah Medley.

Here.

Marty Meth.

Chapman Munn.

Betsy Rotger, Peter Thompson, Greg Weaver, I got you.

Well, having done that, we're going to go on the matter to the public.

I did bring up at the policy board meeting our desire to get potentially involved in some of these projects in our earlier stage.

Where it will go, I don't know, probably nowhere, but at least didn't bring it up.

Lacking the floor when we can't do the minutes,

And, but as far as the agenda, I don't, no, I don't think any other body has been found with these animals.

Okay.

Absolutely.

So since you are an advisory body to the policy board, we are considered a public body.

Which means we are open to all of the FOIA and Open Meetings laws.

Most of us already know that, but there has been an update in the code.

So I wanted to update you guys on the electronic participation and the all virtual meetings participation.

Those are actually two separate things.

So one of them is when you have a meeting that is being held in person.

and there is a quorum established in person.

Folks can join the meeting electronically to participate.

If there is an in-person quorum, you can vote to allow them to join electronically and to vote as if they were in the room.

those rules haven't changed so those are the same you can still have a medical reason a personal reason 60 miles away those are all reasons for being able to participate electronically the other part of the policy is the all virtual meetings and that's if the body determines that they would like to rather than having an in-person meeting everybody participate electronically that's an all virtual meeting

You are allowed to do that up to 50% of your meetings.

It used to be 25%.

That is now 50% for regional bodies like us.

You have to be able to give access to the public virtually.

If it is a virtual meeting, cameras and sound have to be available in order to establish that quorum.

You have to be able to be seen and heard to vote.

And then anytime your camera goes off, if it's an all virtual meeting, you're actually considered absent from the meeting during that time.

So if there were any action items, you'd have to turn your cameras on, you would have to be present with sound in order to take action on any of those items.

There's also new rules in the code that in posting all virtual meetings publicly, we also have to give the public, excuse me, a means to communicate with us in real time should all virtual members lose access to the meeting.

So if we're holding a public meeting that is all virtual and the public cannot access it, you actually have to go into recess.

You cannot continue the meeting without the public being able to access that meeting because they have no other method to do that since you're not meeting in person.

And so I'm happy to take any questions on that.

A copy of both the marked up old policy and the revised policy were in your packet and the policy board adopted the policy.

Well, two things.

Donna joined us, so we now have a quorum.

So, first of all, I guess we can vote to include Nathan.

So, do I have a voting to include Nathan in the meeting?

And then for the minutes we're required, Nathan, can you please state your purpose for attending electronically and your location?

Thank you.

Alright, now we can potentially approve the meeting minutes from the

April 17th and July 17th meetings.

The graphic meeting minutes will end in your packets.

Does anyone have any corrections?

If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the meeting events from both meetings.

Okay, the move is in the second.

Seconded.

All in favor?

All in favor?

All right.

Now we can move on to item five.

Yeah, I then find I'm going to read this thing.

For the Highway Assistance Functional Classification, this is just an informational note to bring to you.

Last May, we received an email, NPO staff received an email from VDOT Division Administrator,

informing us that VDOT was conducting major statewide updates to the Federal Functional Classification, which has historically occurred following the Bicentennial Census.

And the most recent updates, which was in 2010 for Virginia, was approved in 2014 by Federal Highway Administration.

And since March, 2022, after the US Census released its 2020 data,

This served as a basis for the current statewide update.

So this VDOT CalPEPER staff have been coordinating with us for a review of the functional class.

The MPO had been working with localities.

We submitted the changes and the policy board was recommended to defer action until we get a final map from VDOT.

And that happened last month.

Therefore, next month, which will be October, the MPO Policy Board will have to adopt to approve the resolution for the changes that were submitted by localities and VDOT for the new functional classes.

And if you had the chance, I included the map on the agenda and the staff memo and the resolution of support for the functional classification classes.

And that's all.

Yeah, and page 18 in your packet shows the list of different proposed revisions that locality staff requested to the federal functional classifications and VDOT then conducts their own review of those.

And so we put in there the marked up version of which ones they approved, which ones they made different recommendations,

and then all of the approved recommendations were put into the revised map.

And so that revised map will then go before the policy board for them to take action on.

I guess you're all familiar with what functional classifications are, but I mean it's things like major arterial, minor arterial, major collector, minor collector, and local code.

Both of them are pretty obvious, but there is a complicated mechanism that VDOT has to determine, and then if the locality, once

a different classification for a road there is a process by which they can change and that's what this was mostly about is those changes and i guess as to why it matters it's it's instruction standards and speed limits and things like that is what is what it affects i think that's i guess i'm correctly correct okay so all right

So is that it for that topic?

Anybody have any questions about it?

Guess not, okay.

All right, well then I guess we're ready for Chuck.

All right, good afternoon or good evening, everyone.

Can you see my screen?

All right, yeah, we submitted 24 applications across the district and the MPO submitted four and the county, Albemarle County submitted four, the city didn't submit any this round.

We're still trying to make sure we got all of their projects coordinated and moving forward.

There we go.

Okay.

Basically, I'm going to go through the different applications that we've got for the

area and review the latest cost estimates that we just got over the past several weeks from L&D staff at the district to let you know what those ended up being.

So for the MPO area, we had Fifth Street, the 250 corridor and Pan Tops, which basically is the Rolkin Road to Peter Jefferson Parkway intersection, and then the Two Barracks Road

applications.

One was for the entire corridor from Georgetown to Emmett Street and the second was from the interchange to Emmett Street.

So they basically committed the interchange twice in two different applications.

The county submitted the portion in the county as one of their applications.

So for the first one, this is Fifth Street.

It's proposed to change the configuration from a traditional diamond to a divergent diamond interchange.

It also includes building a shared use path from the trail, which is just right at the city county line, all the way to tie in with the sidewalk on the west or the south side of Fifth Street.

Basically this was identified as a location because there's two significant intersections there that are high crash locations and we're also seeing a lot of queuing in the approaches to the ramps on 64 eastbound as well as the approaches to the intersection on 5th Street.

So the cost of this project ended up coming in at 79 million dollars for the improvement.

It increased originally we were looking at just doing the trying to just replace the bridge or the deck of the bridge but when they started looking at the existing conditions of the bridge once you take the deck off there's

The actual bridge itself needed to be rebuilt too.

So they figured they'd just include a cost in this as opposed to putting something in that's going to have to be totally replaced within the 20 year horizon year of the project.

So that's one of the reasons the cost increases.

And the other thing is we didn't find out that until later in the process.

So we weren't able to go back and look at other alternatives that might have

put the shared use path off of the structure so we didn't have to replace the entire bridge.

All right, next is, this is the Pantops 250 corridor.

It includes two applications from last year, or last round of SMART SCALE, but it's the entire pipeline study for this corridor that we did, includes the improvements, crosswalk improvements at Rolkin, as well as sidewalk along 250 between Rolkin and

State Farm, and then at Peter Jefferson Parkway, we're looking at closing a crossover, the eastern crossover to the holiday, or the Hampton, what is it, Hilton Inn Hotel site, and converting their entrance to a right-in, right-out.

They have another entrance just to the west off the map, because they tie into Westminster Canterbury, which is a full signalized intersection, just to the west of the

Strain.

We're also adding a right turn lane to the eastbound approach, and we're converting the intersection to a through cut, which basically eliminates the through movement from Peter Jefferson Parkway to Glenorchy and vice versa, but it allows the left turns to occur.

And the project also includes a 50 space park and ride lot,

with a bus circulating lane that basically could circulate around and pick up folks and go into the city or go back out to 64.

The price of this one was $36 million.

But we will, it does include purchasing a large portion right away for the right, for the park and ride lot.

That bus service part of

We're just providing the facilities that CAT can utilize.

We're going to build the park and ride lot in the bus loop with the bus pull-offs basically internal to the site with a bus shelter, bike racks, basically all the amenities and then hopefully CAT can incorporate this into one of the existing 10 route, Route 10 line.

You should have to follow up on that.

How has CAT been involved in the process at this point or is that wait a second?

They participated in the pipeline study that we did for round one, which was submitted last round of SMART SCALE.

We didn't involve them this round because we weren't really changing anything in this project.

All right, next question.

Next slide is, okay, this is the full Barracks Road corridor from Georgetown all the way to Emmett Street, includes a roundabout conversion, replacing the signal at Georgetown, converting the diamond interchange at the interchange to a

Roundabout Interchange, and it also includes installing a shared east path on the sort of south side of this corridor from Georgetown all the way to Emmett Street.

In addition, it does close the median on Barracks Road between Georgetown and the interchange,

So you can't make the left turn movements which have been problematic and have caused a lot of crashes and stuff in the past.

This was coordinated with the board member from this area and the communities on the south side of the road so that they were aware of what we were planning to do and very supportive of it.

We're also gonna include the re-establishment of the bus stop at just east of Surrey Road on Georgetown Road.

We're gonna add pads for future bus shelters in addition to the re-establishing those bus stops.

It's part of the project.

In addition, we're also looking at one on the east side near where the trail comes out from, Ravana Trail comes out across from Cedar Lane.

This is a general question about all of them.

Basically, the uninflated total is based on today's dollars, and then we inflate it to, because when the project is funded, it won't be officially funded until next year, July of next year, and then the actual funding won't be put on the project for three more years after that.

So basically, you're talking about before we even start on the project, there's four years of escalation in the cost between now and then, and then

EE right away in construction usually takes about four years to go through those processes before we start construction so there's additional escalation for there.

So typically it takes about 10 years to run one of these projects through the complete system and get it constructed.

So that escalation is factored into the cost.

And we're seeing like 30 to 40% in escalation in the last several years, it's caused us a lot of issues with our projects because the escalation has been so high.

And by that Chuck, you mean projects that were approved three rounds ago that are now coming to construction

Correct.

We've had to go through, I can't remember, one of the years of COVID, they've actually shifted money from the budget over to just cover escalation costs because all the projects were underfunded.

Part of it's got to do with supply chain issues, but the bulk of it is there's so much work on the market that the contractors can charge a higher rate and we don't have any control over that.

And so we use bid tabs and unit costs from contracts that are out for bid to develop our future estimates.

So if those are higher, because there's a lot of work and the contractors are

Um, stretch then they're going to charge a higher rate.

So they're going to, we're going to reflect those in the cost.

If the work drives reduces and there's, um, not as much work, the cost will come down.

Any other questions about this one?

Move on to the next one.

The next one is just the city portion.

This is the interchange and the Emmett Street, the section out to Emmett Street.

It's basically the same project.

Emmett Street's right here on the east end of the picture, going north-south.

Sorry, I should have been more descriptive in the other one.

So I mean, it's the same map is just not showing as much of the county portion.

Like I said, this one came in at $92 million.

And the big cost is the interchange.

You've got a lot of right of way that we're having to deal with.

You've got that large retaining wall.

You've got the sound wall and the retaining wall along the ramp.

This round is unique in that we made a lot of changes to SMART SCALE.

I don't have a good idea.

Out of all of them, I think Pantops has the best chance to get funded.

It did really well last round, and we really haven't changed it any, so I suspect it actually, the park and ride lot and the Peter Jefferson Parkway intersection was recommended for funding last round.

And it was switched out with District Avenue during the

Negotiation Processes with the CTB.

So I'm hoping that it scores as well this round as it did last round.

And its cost is reasonable.

Typically, we don't get too many projects funded over $20 million.

A good portion of our projects are over $20 million.

The new rules for scaling or scoring SMART SCALE projects had a lot of emphasis on interchanges.

Yeah, it depends, like I said, high priority.

You're competing against the other, every, of all the other projects in the state that are eligible for high priority.

So,

And there's a lot of the larger districts have the advantage of they're bringing money to the table to buy down the cost, which that creates a higher benefit for those projects.

We're not necessarily capable of doing that all the time or significantly.

We have done it in the past.

The county has done it in the past.

So there's a lot of variables that go into that.

That is a good project.

and if it's not we do still have a safety issue there that we're gonna have to address so if we if it's not funded this round we'll go back and re-look at it maybe look at how we can reduce the cost by possibly moving the shared use path to another location and not having to spend a lot of resources to replace that whole structure

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you for that.

No problem.

No, but Lee, to your point, another comment that we talk about as staff is with the changes and how not only what MPOs and PDCs are eligible to apply for has changed, but also the scoring has changed.

So I would think in the next round or two, we're going to need to do a lot of analysis on what are the impacts of that change because, you know, one of the impetuses for the change that we understand is, you know,

PDCs and MPOs were submitting smaller projects rather than these larger need projects.

But that means fewer projects might get funded that are just much larger in scope and cost.

The new scoring seemed to emphasize big projects.

Chuck, do you want to mention what the total program funding is for the high priority programs?

Okay, yeah, for the high priority funding, there's only $500 million.

to fund these larger projects.

I don't know the number for the district grant option because it's based on the fuel tax and that varies how much is taken in.

So that number changes from round to round.

Originally, it was $500 million in both pots for the district grant as well as high priority, but it's changed over the years.

And when the omnis bill passed,

All our gas tax is applied to the district grant pot of money.

So that pot of money is significantly larger.

It's like around $120 million.

Our district, go ahead.

And then without, you know, it does have to be a specific number, you know, from that $500 million, do you guys have statistics on how many hundreds of millions, if not more, in projects were submitted?

What we have right now, we're still, a lot of the estimates across the state are still being validated and adjusted.

So we don't have the actual final number, but we have that number.

We were looking at some where there was a, what was that one up in Northern Virginia?

There was a hundred and

$212 million and they were submitting, putting in $130 million of local funds to bring it down to $77 million.

So those kinds of projects are going to be hard for us to compete against because they're basically buying the benefit score.

$2.3 million.

$2.3 billion.

I have a quick question about the district funding part.

You said it comes from mostly fuel taxes.

So how is the portion, the amount, a portion to each district determined?

It's distributed by the funding formula and I don't necessarily have the funding formula.

I know they have it written down in central office on a big whiteboard and

I don't have the details on that but it's I forget exactly what the numbers is but it's we get a lot larger portion because the way it's funded most of the money goes in especially in other districts like Stanton district they only have a really small amount because most of their fuel tax money goes to the interstate corridor 81

because they have so many projects and so many needs on that quarter so most of their funding goes to the 81 quarter.

All right.

Next is, now we're getting into the Albemarle County projects.

They have four Old Trail in Crozet, Hillsdale intersection on Rio Road, the other Barracks Road, the county portion of the Barracks Road project, and then Plank Road down south on 29.

So the first one at Old Trail, this one actually is probably going to do well depending on the safety because of the score so low, I mean the cost is so low, but it's basically converting the existing signalized intersection to a hybrid roundabout and it also provides a shared use path along 250 from the middle school to the intersection across 250 and then

across the entrance to the high school.

And the county's school system is gonna actually build a rail that runs on the west side of the entrance to the high school down to the intersection.

So they're gonna make that connection in the future.

That's pretty much it for this one.

Any questions about this one?

Okay, next is the Rio Peanut.

This one was from a study that the county did and this is what the recommendation that they wanted to move forward with.

$45 million, I don't know if it's going to get funded because it's not, doesn't have enough safety benefit to justify the cost of the project and it's not a really congested area.

So I don't,

suspect this one will get funded in the district grant pot of money.

So we'll probably end up relooking at this in the future and seeing if the county wants to look at some other alternatives.

I know, Lee, you had some concerns about this and we understand your concerns and we'll have to look at something else.

I have talked to the traffic engineering folks and the one crash that recently occurred that was a fatality involved drugs, so it's not necessarily related to the intersection, but most of the other crashes weren't related to the issue that you were identifying, but we're going to look at it again to see

if we need to do something else there in the future.

Right, I understand.

Chuck, can I ask you more about the safety there?

Because that fatality, so two questions, one that wasn't the first, seems to be in the last 20 years, how much more safety you can get than people being killed and something more about drugs may be involved so

I'm just saying that's how the system works for scoring these kind of projects.

Because we can't, I mean, we can't address it for somebody that's impaired.

Yeah, that was the fatality's westbound vehicle on Rio that crossed all the way over into the eastbound lanes and crashed into the guardrail and whatever again.

I still think that's a dangerous assumption.

Saying it had nothing to do with it.

I can see- The reason I said that is because one of the issues that Lee had pointed out before is because of the coordination of the signal, there could be a situation where one of the turning vehicles would cross on a red light.

and that would cause a conflict with the opposite traffic in the opposite direction.

So how does the scoring take into account my understanding is VDOT's guidelines or standards?

Basically for SMART SCALE, for the scoring, we only look at

Crashes that are severe or fatalities?

Sorry, my dogs are working.

My question is a new one.

How, my understanding is VDOT's guidelines or standards don't like traffic lights being so close together.

How does that affect the scoring?

We're not, we wouldn't normally do this.

This was approved before our spacing standards became adopted.

So it was preexisting.

So we haven't really gone back to, it hasn't really been something that we've gone back and addressed.

Typically we try to look at it and that's what this is trying to do.

How does that get accounted for as a school?

It is a poor intersection and basically we look at the crash data and however the crash data is, that's how it's getting scored.

All right, next is

the Georgetown Barracks Road portion in the county.

The difference with this one, I will say is right at the interchange, we're adding a right turn lane, which isn't in the original one, but for this one to be a standalone project, we had to include the right turn lane for that movement.

but you can see the cost on this one is $37 million.

So this one is probably more likely to be funded.

You do have a lot of crashes on the corridor as well as at Georgetown that will be addressed with this application.

So I'm hoping that this one won't fare reasonably good.

Not about this one, but can you remind me of the total for the pan tops?

30.

Got it.

Got it.

That was totally off.

I mean this one that one has a lot more benefits because of the park and ride lot in how it's going to be scored because you will get a significant TDM reduction in the congestion score and that one has more congestion than this road so you will get a higher congestion score for that one as well as environmental because it does look at CO2 reductions

All right.

And the last project is Plank Road down in the southern part of the county on 29.

Basically, we're taking the existing crossovers and converting them to restrict your crossings.

And so you have to make a U-turn, make a right and make a U-turn from the side streets to go straight across.

It does include some special median for the center island so that larger, not larger vehicles, but the emergency vehicles can traverse straight through the intersection without having to go around.

And this one's at 22 million.

And like it says on the slide, this was a PSI location that was identified with by traffic engineering.

And they did a, this was basically the recommendation from the study that they did on this corridor.

And that's all I have.

Yeah, they're, you mentioned turning restrictions to people.

Correct.

You had just mentioned in passing something about a shared use or trail or something.

Yeah, I can go back to it and show you that slide.

Let me go back to that one.

It's the very first slide, hold on.

It's the next one.

Yeah, it starts, it goes, here's the Starbucks in the shop center right here.

It ties into the trail that's right here just on the north side of Starbucks where we're doing the other trail project.

It's going to connect to that trail, run along Fifth Street all the way from there all the way to, let's get this road, it's across from

Shoot, can't remember the name of it.

What are you doing specifically?

Right here at Starbucks?

I think there's a culvert that people use to go under Fifth Street, but we're actually building a trailhead there and it's going to connect to Fifth Street Station Parkway cross country with a bridge across the creek and then a trail section that's going to go to Fifth Street Station Parkway.

And it also has a stub that goes up to the Wegmans Shopping Center.

Okay, and then I have a general question.

It seems like the shared use is increasingly becoming part of all these projects.

And I wonder that is within the councils of VDOT, is there much or any discussion about moving sort of off-road

Well, the one that we're tying into was a trail project that was submitted last round or two rounds ago and was funded and it is off road.

It basically goes across country to Fishery Station Parkway and then crosses the creek

Yes, yeah, I'm familiar with that one.

Yeah, I mean we're going up the hill to tie into the Wegmans parking lot.

So we're gonna have to buy the right-of-way and actually design and build that corridor project.

I know Biscuit Run goes south and there's been discussions about going south along Biscuit Run to south of 64 and using the

Overpass at Biscuit Run to go continue south, and there's an existing roadbed there that could be utilized in the future for a trail.

So those are projects that could be applied for.

It's harder to score those projects or get the benefits, especially now with the changes to SMART SCALE.

So I don't know, like I said, we haven't had a, we do have a trail project, but most of the ones we're doing are long existing facilities.

Yeah, and I guess that's the nature of my question.

It's just getting the points for the application to get enough benefit to fund the project, and that's the issue.

And so, on our research project, we're actually helping them develop a prioritization system

because we don't have that right now.

I mean you do get points for a few categories, environmental, but basically you're diverting trips off of a roadway and you're getting the score for those diverted trips on the on the roadway itself.

There's no way to score it other than that in the current system, the scoring system.

So that's why I usually try to include it with a

Okay, thanks.

No, thank you, Chuck.

You're right.

If you have any questions, just feel free to reach out and Sandy or I can follow up with you and

and move forward.

So.

Yeah, I don't have updates on those.

I don't know if the group that's made would be relevant when we get updates.

It's not just what's two and 10 years out, but the questions I get from citizens are, I thought this was approved.

When's it going to start?

When's it going to get done?

This intersects is dangerous.

I thought you said it was approved.

Yeah, we can work with the MPO on providing something for you guys on that if necessary.

I mean to address that question so you have that information.

I think we used to do it historically, but we haven't been something the policy board, because usually it's at the direction of the policy board.

But if the MPO wants that, we can

I have a question too.

Well, we're still wrapping up the validation.

We finished validation on ours, but we're still waiting on central office to do the scoring process.

That'll be the next steps.

And then once they're scored, they'll be ranked, and then they'll publish the results, present the results to the January CTB meeting.

And then that'll be our first time seeing what the results are.

And they'll have some recommended,

funding recommendations for the list of projects that were scored and then between January and June we'll work with the CTB members on finalizing what the final list of projects is that are going to be funded and those will be included in the update to the six-year plan in next July.

And then also VDOT's website has a page for each previously funded project and the status of that project.

Yeah, they're updated as activity occurs.

Yeah, I thought it was a part of the, even the Whole Foods K-Mart bundle.

I don't think that was part of the big bundle.

Because I think that was funded in round four.

And Belvedere was funded in round five.

Okay, just two items in there.

The copy of the bylaws is really just there for you all to have a copy, but it's also related to the discussion or the comment that you made at the policy board of

how to better engage CTAC in some of these projects and a discussion with the chair related to what is it that the policy board needs from a citizen advisory committee so that we can deliver on that.

So instead of just coming up with topics either by recommendation or by staff's recommendation, what is it that they need of an advisory committee that is different than they need from a survey or the general public showing up to a public hearing?

so that we can really make sure that we're not only delivering what they need but making this a valuable time for you all so within those bylaws

You know, one of the things that we noted as staff is it's really about this kind of like, I don't have to say it wrong, like the spoken wheel, the hub spoke where we were working with you all, but then using you all to help do outreach and help bring back feedback from more general public.

And so really trying to talk through what that might look like with some of our projects.

Is that still the appropriate role or are there enough tools in place for us to get general public feedback that didn't exist when CTAC was developed?

So I just put them in there as we continue to have this discussion and continue to refine what this committee's comparative value is and what it can provide the policy board when they are needing to make decisions that are well informed by their advisory committees.

So that's really all that was in there for.

I did send also the chair and the vice chair of the policy board, CTAC's bylaws, its membership, its attendance over the last year, because they are also thinking through the same things that you all are, is how can we make it a valuable win-win situation for everybody.

So just putting that out there.

And then the meeting schedule, the next meeting is November 20th.

And I know, Lee, we had a conversation with you.

You were going to bring up something about since the new all virtual meetings policy is in place, you do have the option as a committee to elect to hold up to 50% of your meetings virtually.

If you would like to have some sort of alternating schedule of in-person

all virtual.

You can choose to still do them in person if you choose.

The one stipulation is that you cannot have consecutive back-to-back all virtual meetings.

You would still need to have in-person opportunities for people to attend.

So I wanted to put that out there to see if there was any discussion on your preference as a committee.

You know, some committees feel very strongly about in-person.

Some committees feel very strongly about let us meet virtually as often as we possibly can.

So I really wanted feedback from you guys

I'd like to suggest that January 15, 2025 meeting be urgent because if there's going to be inclement weather, that's when it's going to be.

It's cold, it's dark.

so uh does i mean i want to get your input i mean but what do you all think you think that's a good idea looks like that's nice i second that's the exact same reason if we're going to do virtual ventures a better time to do it well pretty soon well large so so yeah i guess let's plan on the

Great.

So we'll assume the next November one is going to be in person.

Right, right.

We wouldn't be able to have that.

That's right.

We can still be in person, but.

Yes, yes.

If there is an in-person meeting, you can attend virtually for the reasons listed in the policy.

All right, so that takes us to additional matters from the committee and public, so let's start with the committee.

I just had a staff update since you're going to be seeing more of him.

Gorjan Gjorgjievski on our team is also joining transportation planning staff working with MPO in the committees.

So he will be the lead staff member on the MPO tech committee.

and she is lead staff member on CTAC in the policy board committee, but we'll all be working very closely on all of it.

Okay.

And do we have any matters from the public at this?

Anybody online?

All right.

Great.