Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (2013-2026) Meeting   9/24/2025

I mean, I don't think there was much interaction.

Thank you.

Can I just text coordinate with Brad so I know that I'm confident.

And then, it just took so long for me to hear Galloway.

Can you hear us well?

Can you hear us?

Can you hear us, Nathan?

It's a little quiet, but I can hear it OK.

If I'm quiet, nobody else will arise.

Looks like we have one board member or one voting member who is attending virtually.

Oh.

Hello.

So do you want to do a sentence first?

I'm Sarah Chen.

There's Stuart Gardner.

Welcome.

Mr. Jose Gomez, we're going to attend today.

Mr. Patrick Healy.

Mr. Lee Kondor, is that most comfortable?

I'm kind of a resident call maker like most things that he doesn't like.

Mr. Mike Beck, Mr. Nathan Moore, I'm here online.

Welcome to yourself.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the call.

Mr. Danny Yoder?

I'm a city resident.

Mr. Peter Thompson.

So, I don't.

Well, maybe, or I'll... You start to project.

Nobody in person, but is there anybody virtually?

Oh, we have our guests that we're expecting for the meeting today.

Anybody want to bring forth to approve that?

I'll move to approve the agenda and the meeting minutes from the next meeting.

All right, and seconds?

So that's what I, and you don't have to go into all of that.

So that's why it's really important to project.

And when I saw it, I thought, well, let's see, Boston, Mass, Madison, you know, so yeah.

What section was that in?

Wait a second.

Would you like to approve it with that correction?

Yes, I'm adding my junction according to that.

It looks like we have, I don't want to butcher your name, but the Campo demand model used, the travel demand model used at Truck Campo.

And if our presenters online, if you all want to come off mute really quickly and maybe just introduce yourselves before jumping in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you want to introduce yourself?

NAG?

So I'm helping with the travel demand forecasting aspects of this model update.

Either is fine.

I can see the screen.

Can you see it now?

Yeah, I can see the slide deck.

Yeah.

We're seeing the presenters mode, which shows like the next slide in the notes.

Can you see it now?

Thank you very much.

If you ask the, sorry, now to share the screen, that probably won't be a problem.

Hey, Mag, are you able to share your screen?

Sure, I can.

Thank you.

It worked before the meeting started.

It shouldn't be this hard.

OK.

Are you going to lead us into the presentation?

Thank you.

So this is in brief what we have been doing and how the overview of the model and our timeline.

I'm not sure if this is like the choice of the consultant, so this is the way that VDOT prescribes these local models, but I just kind of wanted to know why we're not explicitly considering, yeah, block by, especially as we invest in more of these biking infrastructure around the city.

So these are kind of neat graphics that are intended for sort of a general audience and not specific to any one model.

The equations are being used in the choice model?

So we have a de facto household survey and then we have data from boarding counts and the like from on the transit side.

So my question then is, for the walk-bike mode, I believe in the National Health and Travel Survey data, it is only for the commute trip, right?

So we would have to infer for others, you know, the university and such.

It's not, we're not able to see that effect.

I haven't even got to that bike here this evening, I think.

And the orchard wouldn't be counted right now on the survey data.

pedestrian and biking system whatever forecasting into the model but the truth is even we add those system or function into the model we don't have a practice data historical count data to support your model can produce accurately relative confidence data let us say okay your model is validated so that means even you have the function you cannot apply this model into the future projections

It's useful for other things, of course, like trucking traffic and all these things that are important, but I think it doesn't tell us anything about all the investments we've been making into these other ones.

Right.

has been working on and I know in the past we used to do byte counts on whether it was a quarterly basis or however many times per year but the staff bandwidth and the volunteer bandwidth that was required for that I think was one of the reasons why that was stopped in the past so we've been doing research on byte counters that maybe we could purchase to start you know rolling some of those out there to start collecting this data and so I did want to share that that's on our radar to try and get better with collecting some of that.

That was my question.

Yeah, I have a similar question of like somebody could speak to the implications of this model or what it would be used for.

That's not the way it works.

Do we look at, you know, a more connected bike network that could take some of that demand away, you know?

Thank you so much for Chuck's explanation.

Yes.

But if it's calibrated with the historical data, the model may heavily underestimate that footage.

But thank you so much.

Yes, we do.

It seemed like we had a pretty robust discussion.

And also just a reminder for voting members online, you need to have your video and camera on at all times to be considered present.

So I can't see everybody who's online right now, but yeah, the CTAC members should keep their cameras on at all times.

Move that we, I guess we're writing a resolution to the policy board supporting this decision on demographic data.

Recommending that the policy board approve it.

Yeah.

Anybody want to second it?

That we said we reject the demographic?

Or we could make a recommendation with a dad on Twitter, something like that.

Exactly.

So if anybody had an addendum that they would like to add to this or that they would, yeah.

So if adding that, I would be able to send.

Okay, so you're bridging that and then does anybody want to second that?

Do we have like data like what they tend to like that data?

I know Charlottesville also has the dockless mobility scooters around here, so that could be some data that's available, but as far as comprehensive data sources, I'm not sure.

systematically getting incorporated into the models.

And certainly, BIPED might just be on

I do think that that data is not to be utilized for anything besides validating the tools.

You have to show that it's a good tool before you could use the data from the data.

Is this the VTRC pilot?

However, yeah.

And so what we're looking at, those are two different things.

And so what we can do with staff is we can work with the project team and get more information on what that would look like to build something like that out without the data available and maybe bring back like a couple scenarios or options that we could consider as part of this update.

That's a whole other discussion for me.

And then we could also make a separate recommendation to include like that data.

And like more broadly discussed like what was which assumption in the model.

That may be good for the technical.

Was it Mr. Danny Yoder and then Mr. Stuart Gardner?

I think we need another second just for the demographic data.

Okay.

So all of the, sorry.

What is an encouragement to use more robust PED data?

I think it was Danny Yoder that made the motion.

And so I struck that and went with Stuart and then Lee seconded that motion.

Okay, so we have to vote on that.

or if it's included in that motion, we accept the demographic data presented with an encouragement to use more bike-pet or robust bike-pet data.

All right, personally, this feels like two separate motions.

I agree.

Yeah, where we have the motion just to use the demographic data and then we have a separate motion to recommend bike-pet data and perhaps like more discussion about the model itself.

This is just for the demographic.

I'm recommending a 2022 demographic, basically.

Is that the most recent?

As most people can see.

So please, we want to change that.

So if that's the most recent data, then I'm OK with being appropriate.

Yes.

Yes.

Any opposed?

Opposed?

All right, so one opposed, the motion passes.

Oh, they're not out there anywhere?

Hi, we raised our hands, Peter and I both.

Can you change it so that we can see everybody?

I think the video was not on, the child couldn't see them.

I think it's just the way it flashes around to the main speaker.

Okay, so sorry.

Sorry about that.

Nathan and Peter, did you?

Peter can speak for himself though.

Anybody want to?

I would second that.

Okay, somebody's got a

I just don't want it to seem like we can say we can incorporate this in case we don't have the data to be able to support that again.

This is just a recommendation that we would like to use by PET data.

OK. One more concern is that if the data is really complete and bad, it may potentially be worse, is it?

I think that was the original intent of the recommendations.

So maybe we could have more specific language for the recommendation.

But the important thing is that those are included as modes in the model.

But I think what we're saying is that the calibration of data is more difficult because of the lack of data.

That puts you at ease as we wrap up this topic.

Danny, you had your data for your...

It just feels very technical.

It's just the fact it wasn't there, so all the alarm bells.

Let's add an agenda item.

Donna, what you just said seems to go in this direction because your complaint is that it just doesn't appear

We could guess, you know, like we can put the best of what we have, but it isn't going to be very good.

I have no idea.

I mean, and I think, I have a chance, what Chuck is saying is like, it depends on how we use it.

I think the sound left, I cannot hear anybody.

You know.

We need a gavel.

I was promised one when I became chair, but it never really showed up, yeah.

Maybe that one in the podium would be real.

I know.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Ryan will try to keep us brief since I know we had a lot of agenda items tonight.

We can leave now.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

At least I wanted to support.

I'm sorry for those bob-outs.

policy-related, so looking at something like a parking program maybe or an employer parking program to encourage that mode shift, things like that.

Alright, so this slide will use the SS potential with what method are we using?

So based on if there's sidewalk out there, based on if there's a bus route available, kind of what's the percentage likelihood of them switching their route if something else might have been available to them from auto to a different thing.

Was there a survey study?

So they did have a regional travel survey where they were using that information to

So we would just be using the conclusions from Minneapolis, like basically applying their functional therapy?

Yeah, that was really brief, but any questions on this one?

So I'm just curious if UEA and others are involved in the outreach.

Downtown Business Association, we did not have that in here, but that's definitely set up.

And we love this, but those aren't like recreational and like, I mean, you know, I'm going to run for exercise no matter what you do, but whether or not I'm going to walk to work is not relevant to how much I'm running for exercise.

And so if there are other groups that maybe we could tap into, that would be better.

Absolutely.

Anyone?

Thank you so much, Taylor, for going through that quickly.

Of course.

It looks like Florian is next with a discussion on the TIP amendments and adjustments.

That's all I have for tonight.

Yes.

So adjustments are just informational, but the amendments do require action.

And then, but they did already approve it.

So just the timing of it didn't align.

Thank you.

And so then we'll move on to item five informational and Taylor is going to talk about the recent discussions that we've been having between CTAC and CAMBO about CAMBO administration and CTAC participation.

And then we have CTAC as well.

How are the members of the policy board assigned or ready

And so their governing bodies determine who from the governing body will serve on each committee.

They're elected.

And then in 2009, we found a resolution of endorsement for new Amtrak passenger rail service through the region.

As far as past activities, I think that was one thing that was something

And then, of course, all the way at the end, we would eventually have a bylaws revision, membership, and appointment considerations.

Yeah.

I understand if

If you only come to CTAC, maybe you don't know that there's a policy board. Maybe you don't know there. that it was happening. Maybe I missed the sound like there was a meeting between you guys and the NPO. Are there minutes of that? Or is there a summary of all that and what was discussed that you guys could share with us? Yeah. I don't know if we have formal minutes, but we have notes that you can share, certainly. A lot of it is what Taylor addressed here in the kind of common concerns that you people feel like they're not.

And they're like, yeah, what is it that the policy board really desires from citizens who are frustrated?

Yeah, I think that was a really big part of it.

And I feel like in my experience over the past two and a half years, that's been very

What happens now that there's a general waiting for feedback from NPO to hear when they value the input in this room?

And they just requested like just another sort of agenda discussion item for their next meeting.

Right.

Oh yeah, October 25th.

I'm sure that those are great too.

Thank you.

Gorjan, did you want to present the final plan for State Streets in Roseboro?

That's kind of the major updates I had on the plan.

Sarah has a memo about AMPL policy board activities.

These are the things that the Policy Board will be taking actions on and if you have any topics to add or suggest so you are being made aware of everything going on.

Yes.

So we will bring back to you all any information that we hear from them as far as feedback about that application goes.

Usually the last or the fourth?

The fourth.

And then Chuck, Kirsten, do you have updates?

It seems like the congestion concerns were just the most consistent of all their responses, but safety, accessibility for other modes, aggressive driving also came up.

Sure.

Yeah.

for the US 29, and then real quickly for the timeline.

I mean having two masters like that is always going to be kind of a problem and I just you know part of this feels like rearranging the deck chairs on the USS should have built the bypass and I'm wondering if any of the study conclusions might suggest that we bring up bypass again.

At this point, but I will say that probably, that was probably a quarter of the comments that we got.

I feel you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Where's the time that there's like one more comment maybe from

the next 10 years to try to improve safety conditions there for everybody.

What's the mechanism to give people to like force the bundling of these things?

But that's, that occurs to me, that zoning is wrong.

Who's asking for that to be fixed?

Well, it's a safety issue.

Okay, so there have been five car crashes.

But I think the issue, as you pointed out, is that those access points are creating a bottleneck for people that are trying to get off

I think there's a word showed on the page.

What's that?

Strand.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, one solution I heard is really separating out the high-speed road and then kind of find strange.

Yeah, I understand.

Yeah.

But it is a challenge.

So Sandy, what did you think of my solution to the 29 interstate 64 ramp solution?

Well, yeah, but there's no new bridges, so I think it's probably under $12 billion, which is the

Well, we'll see.

Right now there's something similar that we're betting and so we'll see if it goes forward.

We do have maybe one minute to go around if anybody has any announcements about anything.

So I don't know, Sandy, what do you think the...

If you want to skip to like the next to last slide, that might be a way to do it.

Peter, put this on.

And that's what we're going to talk about.

Okay.

So it looks like there's six potential ones that we can submit five for the free application.

There will be a later vote for the policy board and the committees on actually pressing like go on submitting these.

So that one would probably, we're still waiting to hear back from OIP whether that one would be eligible or not.

I have just a quick question.

Why are some of the stuff, like the ones that, let's see, what is it, the fourth and the sixth one on this table, that both of them have to be northbound, off-ramp, from 250 to Paris, that they're considered like two separate projects?

There's some discretion.

The other one is basically some intersection improvements and to accommodate dual left turns at the signal slice intersection at Barracks Road.

So if you seem like things that should be considered.

Yeah, it could be one or the other, or they could be combined.

But I'm saying like, if right now we recommend one or the other, it's like we're already recommending a technical solution over the other one.

I think it's Surrey.

Was that proposed in the last SMART SCALE?

We wouldn't be able to get the shared-use path through there, but we could extend the sidewalk.

So yeah, if it was cheaper, that might be really beneficial.

Even if the right turn is the cheaper alternative?

So it's widening, it's not, it's basically accommodating those dual lefts is going to be the biggest thing.

I brought that up here before.

We're looking at that specific movement to see how we can solve that problem.

Is VTRAN priority one, is that the top priority or is that a lower priority?

Four is the lowest, one is the highest.

So I definitely support work on that one.

I mean, they're all necessary.

Okay.

Were we going to vote on?

Yeah.

Any opposed?

You raised your hand, are you opposed?

Sorry.

Cool.

Thank you.

Does anybody have anything that they want to bring to the group to share before we head out?

But whatever, I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

So interesting that there's a lot of flexibility actually in the federal knowledge that the states have access to.

If no one else has anything to share, then I would like to adjourn the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you everyone.