MPO Policy Board Meeting   10/23/2024

Great, so we will, I'll call the, oh, that's the wrong agenda.

We already did what was said.

I'll call to order the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Collective Planning Organization for our Wednesday, October 23rd, 2024 4 p.m.

policy board meeting.

We do have a request from Supervisor Malek to participate electronically.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to allow Supervisor Malek to participate?

We just have to have a quorum here, correct?

We have three out of five.

We have four.

I move for allowing Supervisor Malek to participate.

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

Great.

So Supervisor Malek is now officially in the meeting and allowed to vote and all those sorts of things.

That will take us to item number one.

Thank you.

Of course.

Supervisor Malek?

Which one of us here?

Yes, I'm here.

Supervisor Galloway?

Present.

Councilor Pinkston?

Here.

And Ms.

Thank you.

That will take us to matters from the public.

Members of the public are welcome to provide comments on any transportation related topic, including the items listed on this agenda.

We'll give this three minutes per speaker.

For those who are in person, they'll come up to the podium here and you'll have your time to speak.

And then if we have anybody on the line that wishes to speak, we may need you to just go take that by a raised hand so staff will know to permit you.

We'll allow the in-person folks to go first just to help manage that piece.

And then just to remind the public comment is something where you make all your comments to the board.

It is not a back and forth.

So we'll do our best to appeal to all the questions that come up and then to deal with it when it gets to the to the item in question which would be item four for that particular topic and then we'll say okay all right so are there folks here who wish to get public comment in the room that's three folks so we'll just start on the right and we'll go kind of down the list and just to correct you get the

Sure.

Yeah, I want to be on

TJPDC homepage today, right before the meeting.

And there's no listing of this meeting.

And then if you click on calendar, it takes you to another calendar and there's no listing of this meeting.

We'll take a look at it.

Oh, it's definitely accessible.

You have to know how to find it.

OK.

So in 1988, the Willam Mills neighborhood began to ask for traffic calming measures.

And I'm sorry, sir, could you... Oh, my name is Bill Lembery, and I live at 1604 East Market Street, and I'm speaking to the FSC item.

Yes, sir.

Thirty-six years later, we continue to ask.

Our local neighborhood pathways existed prior to the invention of the automobile.

If they are now federally functionally classified as collector roads, that designation will weigh against the neighborhood's use of the commons for the next 100 years.

There's a stark difference between applying labels and thoughtful planning.

Long-time Route 20 commuters know Free Bridge Lane is a shortcut between Route 20 and Charlottesville.

In the past, hundreds of drivers daily turned right on Elk Drive

turned right on 250 and entered Charlottesville.

November 1st, Free Bridge Lane will begin a one-year trial as a space for people.

That is planning.

Consider the counterfactual.

Free Bridge Lane is still in use.

It's carrying 3,000 vehicles per day.

It's proposed to be labeled as a minor collector

county elected officials and staff make assurances to residents and property owners that the classification doesn't mean much of anything.

That perhaps the collector designation will be a positive for the VDOT paving schedule funding or possible grants.

That is applying a label.

Responding quantitatively to the inappropriate use of local neighborhood streets and applying a label doesn't benefit anyone.

had masked issues at play.

A qualitative response is needed, a thoughtful response, not a spreadsheet, not a road to hell paved with professional credentials and automatic advice.

So I ask you to listen to the people who have invested their lives in this neighborhood.

I ask that you experience the ground truth, walk the streets.

I ask that you examine the merits and deficiencies of this FFC process as applied to Chesapeake and Market and as not applied to Broadway.

If approved today, the collector designation will paper over and further pile on to an existing problem.

The Willam Mills doesn't have an HOA or a neighborhood association or

and our city councilors are at large.

This petition, I've walked around with sheets of paper and the 99% have signed.

Please hear us.

Please respond clearly to the questions citizens have submitted via email.

Vote for 25 of the 27 FFC reclassifications proposed today.

As you know, this is a decennial process after the public's questions have been answered after meditation and contemplation.

Vote on the Market and Chesapeake classifications in the spring.

Hi, my name is Kevin Cox.

I live at 311 Fairway Avenue, close to Market Street, Chesapeake Street.

I've lived there for 27 years.

Every single day for those 27 years, I've either walked or driven on those streets.

I know those streets well, and they are neighborhood streets.

That's what they are.

They are not connectors of any kind.

They may periodically serve a few drivers, such as that function.

but by design they are on neighborhood streets and that design should remain.

I'm very concerned about this because we've been promised that, oh, the change in designation is only being done to get more money from the federal and state governments, but it won't really matter and the change won't affect the design of those streets.

Just the other day, over here on Elliott, a

personal living there requested a marked crawl across Elliott at second, a block from where that terrible accident happened a month ago.

That request was denied by city staff.

And in the explanation, it was noted that road is classified as an arterial street, arterial street.

It's not arterial street.

It's Elliott Avenue.

And the arterial is a much higher use than Elliott C's, but he used that classification to deny the installation of a critical

needed marked crosswalk at a dangerous but legal crosswalk and crossing that people use every day.

So don't make promises that you can't keep and tell me that that change in designation isn't going to affect design.

Never say never.

Okay, now I have a real big problem and that is because for transportation planners who are

sort of separated from the community or whatever.

You look at a map and you see downtown and you see the straight line that goes right to the interstate, the shadow.

And that straight line goes down Market Street and across the Rybana River.

That is going to be a perennial problem every time.

It's a natural route and people are going to see it and say, that's where we need a second bridge to divert the flow from the free bridge.

So this is going to come up.

I don't trust this because I really do fear that this is the beginning

setting the stage for that future.

So please reconsider the impact of that designation on the city and on the people who live in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Peter Krebs from the Goodman Environmental Council.

I have two quick announcements to share.

One is that we're hosting a community Halloween-themed costumed bike ride this Sunday at XR party.

That starts at 4 o'clock.

Show up.

We'll have a little contest for the best costume we stripped out.

I think it will be a fun way to experience the roads and do a little street level intelligence, as these folks have talked about.

And then the other thing I think is of quite a bit of interest.

So a number of the people in this room participated in the walkout that we organized with the Charlottesville Area Alliance AARP in America Walks back in May.

It was a great experience.

And now AARP Alliance, the Charlottesville Area Alliance in America Walks are back with

a series of locally focused webinars about walk audits and walkability and the intersection of transportation planning, walkability and equity.

So those webinars are going to be held at noon on Wednesdays, starting a week from today.

So that first one will be on October 20th and there'll be a panel discussion and I'll be one of the speakers on that panel.

That session is called Walkout.

It's Demonstrating the Need for Accessibility and Equity.

Then there'll be additional webinars, the following, and then culminating on November 20th with an hour and a half webinar.

So I have flyers over there at the table where Gretchen is going to be sitting.

Yeah, so I encourage everybody to stop by.

Those of you who are online who would like the details about that, just email me.

I'm easily accessible.

My name is Peter Krebs.

That's K-R-E-B-S.

My email address is P-K-R-E-B-S at P-E-C-B-A dot O-R-G.

So I look forward to seeing you all, hopefully at the bike ride and certainly at the weather.

Thank you.

Is there anyone on the line who wishes to give a public comment by raising your hand?

All right, seeing none.

We did, I know we received some emails.

We did receive one that requested we read it into the meeting.

So it's a short email.

I'm happy to read that.

It is received from Judy Marie Johnson, and she says I, that is long resident 1702 East Market, passed the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission NPO policy board to refrain from requesting 43% of the woolen mills neighborhoods local treats Chesapeake and Market streets in front by federally functionally reclassified as minor collector streets.

Judy Marie Johnson, she's attending

or she dropped it so she couldn't get online to say that.

I will think in the spirit of just transparency if other board members have received emails.

If you note that a staff person with TGP is here, the NBO is not included on the email.

We can just forward that to David, Christine, or Ruth, and we can have that made part of the record because we received their hand full of emails as well.

I don't think we received more than one

I'm sending the email sent directly to the policy board.

We just may have to do a little work on our part to do that.

All right, so that will bring us, we'll close public comment.

The next item is general administration.

We need to review and accept the agenda.

and then we'll submit it.

Is there, are there any changes we need to make to the phase in general?

Alright, seeing none, is there a motion to adopt the agenda?

Second.

Alright, it's been made and seconded.

If all in favor will please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

There you go, thank you.

The agenda is approved.

And then we have the draft August 28, 2024 meeting minutes.

I have a correction.

Any other edits or revisions?

All right.

Is there a motion to adopt the August 28, 24 meeting minutes as amended?

Second.

All right.

It has been the motion to debate and seconded.

All in favor, please say, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

final recommendation for consideration and adoption.

What I think, since we do have a very specific kind of area relative to the little Mills area, I would recommend we just go through the presentation as you would have planned to.

Let's get all that through.

May was the first time it came before the board.

To your point, I think what's important to note is that it was both county-wide and city-wide relative to the NCF footprint.

And it's been back on the agenda since then, so this is actually the third appearance of functional classification.

That's perfect.

No, that's a perfect segue.

So in late April, MPO staff received from TMPDV.staff an email that they were conducting the major statewide update to the federal functional classification of all the roadways that's historically done after the decennial census.

VDOT staff coordinated the review then with the MPO staff.

In early May MPO staff sent a request to all locality staff for their detailed review and included in that email the draft GIS map, the comprehensive FC guide with all of the criteria and procedures to review, and the methodology that was used for the review.

Then in May, in all of the MPO committee meetings, the Policy Board, the Technical Committee, and the Citizens Advisory Committee, the FFC was introduced to the public to inform that a comprehensive review was underway.

And again, that included the staff memo, the draft map, and a copy of the comprehensive guide of what review was going on with locality staff at the time.

At that time, VDOT had already conducted their own review and they had noted some changes in the map that had previously been approved but weren't within the map.

So there's multiple reviews going on at the same time.

Locality staff then conducted their comprehensive review and sent along to MPO staff who then forwards to VDOT district staff.

any recommendations for revisions to the draft map as it was presented.

District staff review and provide comments and then schedule discussions with locality staff to review anywhere where they may have a discrepancy between locality staff or VDOT recommendation.

Concurrence at that time was what was then provided to TMPD staff and then TMPD staff does their review.

TMPD reviews the requests, and then they provide their proposed revisions with comments.

However, at that time, a revised map wasn't quite ready.

So in August, when we came before all of the committees, again, Policy Board, CTAC, and MPO Technical Committee, we did give a thorough presentation on what Federal Functional Classification was.

That was a review 101 of what FFC is.

why the classifications matter and what the process or timeline for the review was, provided a list of all the proposed revisions along with both VDOT district staff and TMPD staff comments on each of the segments.

However, the draft map wasn't available so Campo staff recommended to you all that you defer a decision on that because what is in the resolution is actually that you are approving what is in the map, not necessarily what is in any of the comments that are going back and forth.

So before the policy board tonight is a final revised version of that map, along with a resolution that asks you to consider approval of the proposed changes, as well as documenting within that resolution, documenting to FHWA that the MPO was participating within VDOT's review, that it wasn't done completely by VDOT staff, that it involved the CA MPO and locality staff in that review, and then the state

Upon your consideration, if that were approved, the state would then send the resolution and the finalized map up to Federal Highways for their review.

And at that point, FHWA, anybody correct me if I'm wrong, FHWA completes their review and they finalize the classification map.

Happy to take any questions.

Okay, that's the part that I have.

Can you give people a sense of what the MPO tech committee does relative to the MPO in

Yeah, I'll certainly phone a friend for this one because we staff it as PDC staff.

MPO technical staff is intended to be all of the folks that are practitioners of transportation planning, whether that is at, you know, bike ped, locality, transportation planners, VDOT technical staff, there's several others.

And they are the ones that are looking at, I think it's a 70 page guidance document on the criteria of the classification.

what are the different things that you should use in order to identify what those classes, particularly for this topic.

I can certainly go broader if you need me to.

And then looking at, and within that guidance document, if anybody has had a chance to put their eyes on it, it's looking at things like width of the streets, the sidewalks, I mean, all of the technical aspects of each roadway.

They then used that guidance to look at each of the roadways in the map

and then provide not what they think it should be or what it will likely become, but what it is right now.

How is that roadway functioning?

Anybody, technical staff, that is not me, anybody technical staff that wants to correct anything I'm saying, do not hesitate to jump in.

And so there are, because this is a decennial review, it's looking comprehensively at the entire thing.

If any changes are recommended mid-cycle within those 10 years, then there's a very similar process.

Locality staff and or

MPO staff and or VDOT could put in a request to say this roadway is no longer functioning the way that it's currently classified and we would like to recommend a revision to the actual classification.

Is that helpful?

Yes.

And did you need more on what MPO Tech does?

Really, they are the technical advisory body to the policy board.

So just to kind of add to the clarification,

there's like the standards that, before this I reviewed my notes from the last meeting about, because we haven't done a lot of review of my notes, because I remember being really suspect of it at the beginning, that it was explained, and I was like, okay, but then I went back and looked at my notes and it was, well, hold on, I had hoped.

But the, so to clarify, there's all the different types,

Methodology.

Sure.

And I'm going to correct something I said to make sure that I'm not misinforming.

It is not a matrix of if it is this, it is that.

There is a lot of overlap and a lot of area for discussion.

So in some places, if it's between one and three feet, it could be this.

If it's between two and four,

it could be that and there's therefore there's that middle of the road where you have to have a lot of back and forth of let's look at all of these other characteristics so it's not as straightforward as if x then y and i think a lot of the ones we're talking about tonight and we're getting comments is because it's in that that middle of the road

So we will be testing our review on this on the part of the African Union and the city of New York.

The goal is to also serve on that committee.

Generally, we were looking at the obvious ones first.

There were some big ones like a little day before I arrived.

we looked at some some of the streets and said are they how are these streets functioning because we know that there is traffic blown through these neighborhoods these are neighborhoods where other

We look at where it's transit going through.

Is there a transit service along this?

Is there sidewalks along here?

Are there sidewalks that are planned along here that, you know, when we talk about, is this going to be available through federal or state funding?

We need money for sidewalks, so does it consider

So we took all those things into account and sort of looked at the neighborhood.

There were some things that we suggested to VDOT that they said, you know, you don't need to add this many new edits in here.

Let's focus on the ones that really do make sense.

So there were some things that we recommended that didn't get included in that network.

There are some things that VDOT pointed out that maybe we should include.

There was a little bit of a conversation between both of us because we look at our own network from a different

and we want to make sure that it is a consensus view to both of us before we go back to the feds and say, this is what we think our road now looks like.

So does that help to explain what we're doing?

Mr. Chambers, could I ask you, so with the recent up-zoning of the city, I'm assuming, I would think that that sort of plays into what you think these brothers are going to be thankful of in 2020.

is going to play in the future.

That's what we have our planning documents for.

That's what we have our streets that work.

And I'm glad to support it because in the city, we own our streets.

We make it as kind of exciting in the future.

That's a different classification system that we talk about within the city, among ourselves, and what people are going to do if they call on them to collect theirs in our materials.

And for all of them, we're talking about zoning, how the city can actually

In the streets that were programmed in the city, that would still be intact.

And we own our streets in the city, so it would entail some sort of control from VITA or anybody else to say you're going to double the size of your brother.

We've held a really similar process conferring with our engineering team and transportation teams, but we also had a similar process.

A lot of the ways that the county was filled out, it's a lot easier to see which, which classification the roads probably should have.

We also, the county also went through a process like in between the, this current functional reclassification on the previous one to change some of the,

the functional classification of our entrance corridors.

So we've had a time to look at it in between.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, yep.

Nope, I don't have a formal presentation.

We gave the FFC formal presentation in the last meeting.

If I may, before we get to the specifics to what the public comment was about, are there other, and I see Supervisor Malek is our man up, are there others outside of that public interest area that we need to address?

Any concerns about changes there?

Because I think that's what we should hit first.

Thank you.

So on a procedural basis, one of the difficulties that county residents have is speed limits and cut-through traffic.

So can someone explain to me whether these data points have impact on our ability to run a speed reduction process or to reduce speed if the data indicates for the roads in the county which are under VDOT control?

Well, I think Chuck might have some information he can pull up as well to provide some additional details.

But there are standards.

Sandy Shackelford, VDOT Culpepper District planning.

There are geometric standards that VDOT has based on the functional classification.

But there's a range, like we're talking about the overlapping diagrams.

So if you go up from a local road to a collector, a minor collector, or a major collector, there will be differentiometric standards based on the speed limits, but you can operate within that range of speed limits based on what's appropriate for the road.

And so that's kind of the high level.

And Chuck, I'll defer to you if you want to jump in with any more specific information or supervisor problems.

Excuse me, I can jump in a little bit.

Chuck Proctor, I'm the district planning manager.

In the guidelines for functional classification, as long as you don't, you're below an arterial

you can do a lot of things from a traffic calming perspective they're not prohibited.

Once you become an arterial that's when a lot more stricter regulations come in because you want to basically those roads are are for a lot more through traffic and to carry your commercial and your larger vehicles through your network.

They'll collect a road like

The ones we're talking about in the city right now, we're looking at the straight portions that go to

Riverview Park and the Woolen Mills area to the east.

So you do get a lot of traffic that doesn't have a destination necessarily on those roads, that it's through traffic.

And as Ben pointed out earlier, these are transit routes.

And those are the type of roads you want to have as your minor collector roads.

They still follow.

Speed limit is the part that creates the biggest

requirements for those type of facilities.

As long as you're at a 25 mile an hour speed, all of the difference between a local and a collector road are very minimal differences.

The biggest difference is your maintenance dollars that go to do any maintenance on your road.

If you're a minor collector or collector above, you can get federally reimbursed for the maintenance funding that you spend on a road.

whereas for local roads, those are all have to be burdened by the local governments or the state.

And those are the biggest differences between the collector type of facilities versus the local facilities.

And to address Ann's comment, it's the difference between collectors and arterials is where the biggest changes are.

And I don't know specific examples that you're referring to, but as long as it's a collector road, there's still a lot of flexibility in what we can do, even in the county.

The city has a lot more flexibility because they basically are the managers of the roads.

So they're the ones who are making the decisions on what improvements or not improvements are made along those corridors.

It's not necessarily VDOT has ways in on those at all.

It's going to be the locality that manages those road networks.

It does help, and I was not able to get the map to show me what I wanted.

So I guess as long as the neighborhood streets, narrow hundred year old streets with houses close to the road and no sidewalks are not ever in that arterial section, then I'm probably OK.

But I was able to look at the color coded map, but I couldn't get anything more granular than that.

So I think my questions have been answered.

have anything specific, just reach out to us.

We'll be happy to meet with you and go through it if you want.

Thank you.

I don't think there are any more questions in terms of changing classifications in the county.

None that I'm concerned about.

I certainly would have commentary, which we're not going to get about it, but I don't think there's any dispute about any of those items.

Are there any other things outside of the particular streets in question before we dive into that?

This is kind of boring.

Be a good segue.

Yeah.

So I know in the city right now we have Mr. Chambers who comes from a background that is quite head focused with experience.

We have a vice head coordinator who gets it.

We have a city manager who gets that.

I would be more concerned about other things than the functional classifications if that wasn't the case with the staffing.

The city staff already has plenty of flexibility when it comes to developing new standards and regulations that dictate what happens on our streets.

We have our own standards and design manuals on streets that work, design manuals as well.

It gets us opportunities to get funding for grants, for things like Smartskip, for things like tax funding, where you might want to be able to point out that, hey, this is an important street in my neighborhood that we need to focus on.

That's what this opened us up to.

There's not really, I mean, there are a lot of nefarious things that people would like to do with that, but I think we're worried about the people's staff currently at their disposal to change city streets than this thing that's just reporting to the federal government

And to add to that, Councilor Arshad, a lot of those funding sources that he's talking about come to Council or the MPO Policy Board for approval anyway.

So are there specific questions about the name

I guess my third question is probably there.

Is this something that we, if we change, like, I don't know, I'll use it as an example.

If I wanted East Royal Road to be a different classification and provided a rationale and said, here's the case, and this body agreed with me, can VDOT or defense go, no, it has to be this classification.

Can our assuming or our thoughts or opinions be, I guess, thrown out to their own

Leyland.

You mean after this fact?

Yeah.

Back to our vote?

I mean, we went through all of this.

It sounds like we made a request.

They agreed with us.

It sounds like they pointed out a few that said, hey, take a look at this.

What's your opinion on it?

So it sounds like there was a back and forth.

But I'm guessing at some point there could be a road where it's like, no, I'm going to try a road to being a local street.

That's a bad example.

But it's what?

It's a minor arterial now.

But if I wanted that to be a major collector and it just didn't jive,

I guess the facts could be like, no.

Is that possible?

This is a process question.

This vote, the VDOT staff, is actually the one conducting this analysis.

We are supporting that.

They will then take the resolution and the map and send it up to FHWA.

So they could, if we changed something, regardless of what the example is,

That's my understanding.

But anybody, BDOT might know that better.

Good morning.

We typically haven't had any issues with FHWA not approving something or making changes.

I know in the county, we had an interim changes.

They wanted to

Upgrade 250 east of the city to Minor Arterial and we actually ran it all the way to Fluvanna County Route 15 and then Avon Street South, mainly their entrance corridors into the county, into the urbanized area.

They wanted to upgrade them to Minor Arterial.

and we basically went through the process and submitted the information to central office who submitted it to FHWA and it was approved.

So I mean, typically we haven't had issues with them approving changes.

So even after this is adopted, if we wanted to change something, it can still happen.

We were working through figuring out what our long-term planning is, but we would be looking at, I believe East Market is a tier three

So you would include that fact in any grant application.

I'm not sure exactly what we have planned for Trustee off the top of my head, but if there are any applications for us to proceed with, that's the kind of thing that we are going to use in that neighborhood.

There are also similar upgrades happening throughout the city, so we're going to have to sort of balance our priorities and figure out what we're going to do through the next three to five years.

That's the kind of work that we're working on right now is to figure out a sort of that order of operations and how we're going to pull that off.

I think we're hoping that we're giving the money.

When you're applying for grants, you're always showing how it's aligning with other plans and documents that have gone through consideration over recent years.

When you're looking at the specific area, this functional best agent update would be one of those planning efforts that we would point to as, hey, we did this update.

We identified it as a part of our network that's important.

I don't know.

I don't have any examples to draw and point to.

Someone has definitely done this strategy before.

No, but it is just one stick that we could throw the pile of reasons why we should have that brain.

For them to know.

Good, you brought that.

I'm fine there.

So at this point then, I mean, I kind of look into the city because the city streets came up.

Is there any changes or upgrades to globalization versus the presentation?

There's none of this.

I would like to support what you mean by the proposal option.

Like last time I was like, this is suspicious.

And then I've been talked into understanding it better.

Not suspicious, just, you know, my gut instinct with roads and streets.

It's just always, there's been a hundred years of that as evidence.

And so when it's,

Someone comes along who is her wife, Penn Transit, who gets it and I reply to it.

I trust Ben and his theories.

So that's comforting to know.

But yeah, in general, cities all over the country have been destroyed for the last 70, 80, 90 years in order to create more far infrastructure.

And so I empathize with all of the commentary that we've been getting about people who have gotten these full presentations and are nervous that this sounds like, OK, now we're available to widen your road and then you're going to put up big highway construction in your city because that has happened before.

There is evidence of that.

So I get that sense of unease.

Um, great.

Then I mean, we're plus there's other comments to be made or questions to be made, but this is an action item.

I think before you make the motion, I'll just make the comment that having having had in the county, the

I mean for us the entrance forwarders specifically and kind of getting wavy into this a little bit and knowing how classifications play out in my particular district, sharing the ease of concern about how that limits or produces any other types of activities just watching this play out with

smart scale of the road projects we've done, traffic calming, speed limits, all that sort of stuff.

I've yet to see where the classification has become an impediment or an obstacle to achieve road plans in the county.

Jessica, are there any where that has become?

That you're aware of?

No.

And if it did become an obstacle to Robert's point earlier, you change it.

Part of the whole entrance corridor piece and getting that all lined up was us going through what we saw as a proper change to how they were classified and lined up with other priorities in the county, not just the classification itself.

Now, Will, if I could just make a city-centered point real quick, Mr. Chair.

Yes.

I appreciate the comments that have been made about, you know, promises that have been made before about this, this, this, that, or the other.

It's very hard as an elected official to kind of step into something dealing with the past and try to move towards the future, particularly with a highly transient constituency.

It's a challenge.

What I will say is that if you look at what our city manager proposed on Monday night,

at the first part of the meeting during reports and it's now online.

You can download it.

There's several parts of that, but one of them was focused specifically on pedestrian.

We had this individual, this tragedy that happened.

Others have been pointing out other places that we meet across blocks and so on.

The point I'm trying to make is I can't speak for the past, or I can speak for the future.

I'm really trying to get the staff on board, and I feel like the city manager

He gets it in order to try to get the $25,000 an hour across the whole city if that's possible.

So I know the awards are cheap, but we're trying to do what we can.

That's already pretty much.

All right.

The motion has been made and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Councilor Ostran?

Ms.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

The motion carries.

I would say that if there are issues that we would both, the City Council and the Albemarle County, I would imagine would encourage folks

outside I mean if there's issues you're seeing on your road to bring that to our attention so that it can be addressed whatever it is whether it's private comment or infrastructure because I know in the county we're certainly a lot of hot spots for things we're getting quite a bit of feedback right now I'll put it that way yeah it seems to be the thing that we constantly get feedback on are the roads now as well all right very good then we will move to the next item on our agenda

Let me share my screen real quick here.

All right, we have a lot of questions come up this round of SmartScale dealing with cost estimates and particularly the divergent diamond at 5th Street, how the project cost changed over time.

Okay, cool.

So basically we're coming back with you on basically the process that we went through for the 5th Street interchange update and then so we can

see where we're at in the end and possible next steps if the project's not funded this round.

Basically, I'll give you an overview, the project constraints, the alternatives we looked at, the cost estimates, and the timeline, and then we'll get into the next steps.

Basically, this is the process we went through to develop the application.

We started later in the year,

Basically, this was identified as a project in late 2023 and we started a very intensive study to get it to the point where we could submit it as an application.

And this is the process we went through to get there.

and these are the people that were involved in it, all the different sections that we had to work through to actually get it in on time frame.

The biggest thing was getting Bridge to reevaluate it and get back with us on what their criteria is and they changed it.

sort of late in the game which caused us to have to up the estimate to include the full bridge replacement but I'll get into that in a minute.

Next is basically the reason what we looked at is we do have a lot of crashes that are occurring at both intersections on that bridge and we are having queuing that's actually backing up down the westbound or the eastbound off-ramp

out onto 64.

So we need to get those addressed because those are going to be continued to be problematic and create more hazards and more crashes.

So we need to come up with a solution.

That's why we came up with a divergent diamond.

We did consider four other options optimized diamond where we basically just look at the optimization of this of the lane configurations and the signals and try to optimize it as best the best to get the most efficiency out of the operations you can without doing major changes.

we did include pedestrians connections across the bridge because that was something that was identified in the 5th Street Study which was previously looked at we considered a single point which is basically reconfigure of the whole interchange the divergent diamond which we looked at that because we figured that we wouldn't have to rebuild the entire bridge to put that in we can just reconfigure the lanes but that didn't actually

come to fruition in the end once they started getting into the details of the structure itself.

And then we looked at the existing conditions with just adding sidewalk.

Basically, from an eligibility standpoint, these are the options we looked at and these are the benefits for each one.

As you can see is the divergent diamond gave us the best safety benefit.

at a moderate cost and gave us moderate operational benefit, which was higher than most of the other ones.

The single point gave us the best, but it also cost the highest.

and in our for our area type for smart scale we're an area type C so these are the percentage multipliers that we get for that and this is a comparison from five to six so basically we want to have projects that have high safety improvements and address congestion that those give us typically give us the best benefit.

This is the concept we had actually put in for the application which shows the

DDI.

It also includes a shared use path across the bridge through the median and connects to the shared use trail that's already funded on the north end.

And it ties into the sidewalk on the south end of the project.

And this was what was adopted as a preferred alternative from public feedback, as well as what was initially recommended in the previous study.

Cost estimate, as you can see here, it was, ended up being $79 million total.

Part of that cost was a change in the bridge cost, which from originally we were looking at just possibly doing the deck replacement, but once bridge got into the details, because of the type of bridge deck it was, and this

status of the substructure they felt that we should replace the whole bridge so that's what we ended up including in the cost which caused the cost to be higher much higher than and then what we expected it would be and you can see down here basically the 16 million dollars which was more than what we thought it was going to be

So basically this is the process we went through.

We started going through in the fall and looking at the existing conditions and then by January we identified what the alternatives, we evaluated the alternatives in the early part of the year and then we came up with a preferred alternative by May and then we had to develop the concepts.

evaluate the risk and then put together the final cost estimate.

And that's the issue is because once you get the preferred alternative, there's no loop or the loop takes more time than what we had available.

And that's why we couldn't actually go back and look at a different alternative that had less impacts on the bridge because we could have looked at a divergent diamond with a separate bike ped bridge adjacent to the structure.

and might not have had to address the issue with the bridge replacement on the existing structure and still been able to do the divergent diamond.

That's something that

We can reevaluate later, but basically that's where we ended up.

So right now we're waiting for the SmartScale review and evaluation to see how this stacks up against the other projects in the area.

It is still a competitive application because it does have a high safety and congestion relief because of the door and diamond, but the cost may make it prohibitive.

There's a lot of changes between five and six with SmartScale, so I can't really predict how well it's going to do.

But compared to the other projects in the district, I think this one stands up fairly well from a high priority standpoint.

We're looking, we're doing some analysis overall.

of the projects across the state, but we don't have any data yet.

They're still finalizing a lot of the estimates in the other districts.

So we don't have a good data set yet to go for, but we are looking into that to see how well we're going to stack up.

But like I said, we're going through scoring now and we won't know what the final outcome of this scoring will be until January.

Okay, maybe I missed what was said at some point in the meeting.

I don't remember that we ever decided.

That's why we're talking about this is because through the application process once they got in and started looking at the bridge it is determined that if we wanted to do the design that is submitted it would require the bridge replacement.

This loop right here on the screen is where the issue comes in.

We were in this three month window when we identified that the full bridge was going to need to be replaced.

We didn't have enough time to go back through and separate out the shared use path on a separate facility and redo the whole evaluation.

I don't want to make an assumption, but assuming this does not get funded, we would then have the option to go through a start over process.

Yes.

And I can tell you that I'm already setting that up for reevaluation in the next round of pipeline studies.

We have a next round of round three of pipeline studies is we're looking at

locations right now.

And as one of those projects, I'm looking at the Fifth Street corridor to include Fifth Street Station Parkway intersection as well as the interchange to look at alternatives so we can actually

that intersection at 5th Street Station needs to be updated because of the changes that the city's making with the 5th Street Corridor.

So I want to make sure that we're looking at what the city wants to do on that intersection and we can incorporate that and carry it all the way through.

And as part of that, we'll relook at the interchange.

Part of the process is we have to update the interchange

Alternatives report, because we're looking at a different alternative.

So that's a significant study undertaking.

So I can't just necessarily do that really quickly.

Okay, so just so we have to make sure that I fully understand.

We submitted the proposal during the course of discussions about the proposal.

The bridge has to be replaced.

And so that was then the proposal was amended to be a bridge replacement.

If that gets approved and gets smart scale funding, then that moves forward.

What we're going to do is we're going to look at just an alternative of the divergent diamond without the with the basically the shared use path on a separate structure next to the bridge to see if we can reduce the cost because we're not having to deal with that whole bridge replacement.

Yeah, the bike lane down the center of the DDI was always something that I didn't love about this project because someone who prefers biking, that just didn't seem like a fun experience to be in the middle of that.

There are several examples across the country with the shared use path in the middle of the bridge.

It's behind barriers, so you basically have barrier on both sides and you're basically in a shared use path area between the barriers that goes across and you have crosswalks at either end.

And there's a lot of examples across the country where they built them like that.

So it's not something that's new.

Thank you.

So thank you, Chuck, for bringing up the most recent approach of getting the bridge out of the SmartScale project, because it seems really unfair to tank a really important

mobility project because it's tripled in cost because of a giant bridge.

So I am hopeful about that.

And I love the idea of hanging the pedestrian thing off to the side only because when I'm on 29 and looking at the people trying to walk in the center of 29 between Morton Drive and Angus,

There always is a look of terror on the part of people trying to do that with a pram stroller, grocery bags, whatever.

And I know we spent a long, long time many years ago trying to figure out a better way to get pedestrians through that tricky intersection.

I'm always grateful for looking outside the box as far as getting our pedestrians away from the heat of the cars and into someplace where there can be some shade and separate and true bonafide separation.

That was one of the things we definitely wanted to be cognizant of.

And I talked to Ben about it when we were looking at this and that you guys were making changes in the city.

We wanted to make sure that they were carried through to the interchange.

So that's going to give us a tool to do that.

And if the project is funded, we're still going to move forward with that study.

Great, thanks.

Okay.

All right.

Hold on.

Let me switch out now.

Let's see which one's next.

Okay, did it change though?

Ivy Road.

Basically, we're wrapping up the study.

We're working on finalizing the comments and the preferred alternative and the recommended final recommendations in the study.

And basically,

Oh, it went too far.

One slide too far.

Here we go.

This is the preferred comments or preferred solution from the study that we're going to, as the main recommendations.

There's some other long-term considerations that we're going to include also, but these are the main comments.

Basically, we're having a roundabout at Boar's Head Drive, Birdwood, or not next to Birdwood, that intersection right here to the

West, and then we have a roundabout at the Bel Air Market at Canterbury, and then we're going to close the median between those two roundabouts.

So basically you have a roundabout and a roundabout, and that will basically address a lot of the congestion and safety issues that we have at these two intersections.

We're also going to look at extending the A cell and D cell lanes on the old Ivy Road ramps,

and that will still be the main access way to and from the bypass for 250 traffic.

We aren't looking at doing anything with the current ramps that are there now on 250 off of Ivy Road.

We're also looking at what we call a triangle bout, which is basically a one-way circle around those three roads that make up that little triangle that's on the route

off of Old Garth Road and Old Ivy and the road into Stabb, as well as a shared use path along Old Ivy Road all the way to the underpass on the east side.

We're also looking at

reconfiguring the underpass on the east end to accommodate a six foot sidewalk or six to seven foot, however, whatever width we can get under there and one lane of traffic.

And right now we're looking at signalizing it so you can still have two way traffic underneath there that will be signalized.

But that's basically this is the recommendations that we're putting forward with the final document of the study.

Any questions about, well, I can go into the other ones.

There are some other long-term, these are some long-term recommendations.

I mean suggestions, not really recommendations.

There's a lot of, there's not a lot of needs out in these, out to the west of there, to where you really need to look at these right now, but we looked at the whole corridor to provide some

suggestions to this county as to what they may want to consider if they want to pursue projects out in this area or when needs start to develop because right now there's not a lot of issues out there currently but these would be there for consideration.

the connector road, which makes sense.

I mean there's stub outs at the east end and the west end.

Roundabout at Farmington.

Now we could do this.

I know there's been some skepticism about it because of the railroad crossing, but if you add a left turn lane and you signalize the left turn lane and you signalize the right turn lane in the westbound direction, when the railroad crossing

is closed, you could still, the roundabout would still operate because you could just stop those volumes from, that would be going into Farmington, so they wouldn't enter the roundabout.

Out on these, when we did the study, there wasn't, we weren't really sure where the, there's a three notch trail study, so where the trail's gonna actually go and where the facilities would be are still up in the air.

We're not precluding it in the study.

I know when we did some of the initial work for the White Gables development,

we actually had a shared use path that was shown on the concept along 250 for a short section of the road and it was never built as part of the development project when it went in but there's opportunities to put those in there and we could consider those in the future but we need to figure out where they want to run it because you could run it through

the south side through the Boar's Head property, there's a lot of play options.

So I didn't want to put it somewhere and that not be where we're going to put it.

And I know there is there is bike lane when you get closer to town on 250 and you know, I mean, once you get to once you get to Old Ivy Road at the East End, the shared use path, you can actually take the shared use path all the way to Old Garth Road.

The issue is going to come in at the underpass at the West End because there's not capacity there for getting bikes underneath the underpass.

So it's but we need to know where the where the three notch trail is going to go before we really can

This is the

Interchange improvements, and these are something that's probably needed because of the poor geometry at the interchanges in the short a-cell and d-cell lanes, but we didn't get support for it from the community, so we're not looking at

These are really long-term solutions, but if we have to widen the bypass at some point in the future, definitely beyond my career, this might be something that might be reconsidered at that time.

Because we could actually not move the ramps further south, we could keep the ramps here and just extend them underneath the bridges.

The bridges are just too narrow right now to extend those A-cell and D-cell lanes further to the north.

but to do the bridge replacements, it would require replacing all three of the, basically three bridges, because the railroad bridge, the old Ivy road bridge, and the 250 bridge, the railroad bridge and the Ivy road bridge are integrated, so they would have to be replaced together, because it's basically one structure.

The old Ivy road is separate, but it would have to be required too, because it can accommodate widening of the 250 bypass.

But like I said, this is a really long term recommendation.

And then the other thing as part of this to do the railroad wide, replace the railroad bridge, we'd have to double track the railroad through this area because we've got to maintain the rail service along this corridor.

This is the stuff on the east end.

These are some other additional improvements that the city or the county might want to consider for the various intersections between Old Ivy Road and the interchange.

And that's pretty much it.

Like I said, we're reviewing the

We've done an analysis on the east end and it will work based on the analysis but we're not sure from a safety perspective if we can make it safe for vehicles.

We can make it safe for pedestrians but we're concerned about because the vehicles aren't going to be able to see each other and there's such a long distance between where the stop bar is on the north side of Old Ivy Road and where the intersection is on the south side that

people might get in there when they're not supposed to be in there and cause a problem.

So that's something that we'll have to evaluate, but the analysis shows that we can make it work from an operational standpoint.

We're working on developing high level planning cost estimates for these improvements, and once we get those, we'll be finalizing the study.

Any questions?

Because that's my last slide on that.

Yes, we presented this and the county's presented it to the board.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Let me go to my list of questions here.

All right, so there was originally to be significant work as far as the pipeline study on Old Ivy Road from the access to the northbound bypass and the eastern trestle.

And I don't see any of those improvements in your

West of Old Ivy Road where there is no sidewalk and the concern when there was a zoning application there a couple of years ago

and that was when we first heard about this pipeline study and VDOT made great assurances that they were going to solve the problem, but there is no report on that section for the impact on pedestrians and things there.

So I'll just leave that thought with you and you can help me understand that better offline.

Question, so will there be a light at the Triangle about on the exit, the westbound exit on the bypass to what is now the local traffic only?

to the western trestle.

And the reason I'm asking is because when it is any time after about 2.30 in the afternoon, it is a steady stream of high speed traffic coming down that exit ramp.

And it looks like your plans will many times magnify the numbers of people going around the

Triangle about making that left turn off Faulkner Drive onto the bypass ramp.

I forget what you call that.

It has a name apparently.

And so how do we handle that?

Because I'm afraid that if there isn't some control to get people out into the traffic lane, then everything is going to back up, back onto Old Ivy Westbound, and then nothing will happen.

That has been something I've been mentioning off and on for a long time, and I haven't ever gotten an answer about that.

I was done when we analyzed it.

We're extending the ramp so that at least the traffic that's backing up there doesn't back out onto the bypass.

We're extending that off ramp, but the queuing is still going to be there as much as we can.

I'm hoping the roundabout

Our analysis shows that the roundabout addresses a lot of that queuing issue.

I have it in one of my previous presentations, but I don't have it in this presentation that shows what that queue is.

in the PM in the future.

So I don't have that right in front of me.

As to the intersection at the road that goes back to Stabb and Faulkner, I don't think there's a plan to put a signal there.

It's gonna be a stop controlled.

Now, I don't know if the off ramp is gonna be controlled by stop sign or how that's gonna be controlled.

but there will be a stop sign, which is a huge improvement for the people on the, on the exit ramp.

Whether it's, whether it's a three way, it would be a three way stop possibly, but I don't know for sure.

Okay.

right it's believe it or not it's a lot harder than you think is there a two lane so that there's a protected people from Faulkner Drive who could have the right-of-way and go into a left

left of 2 lane similar to what you did over on Route 20 to have a protected left lane for entering.

I'll just leave that thought with you because I don't want to take everybody's time thinking about that.

Let me go back to my last question here to find it.

OK.

You mentioned that there will still be access.

Well, the light from 250 East at the city line are going under the eastern trestle.

seems to no longer have a left turn light to let people who are in the left turn lane at the eastern end of 250 at the city line turn left to go down under the eastern trestle to go up to town and I was there the other day at five o'clock and

It was just completely a shambles and everybody was pulling out of the left turn lane and going up to foods and coming back around and I don't know how long that lasted.

So if it's supposed to be working and it was just a malfunction that's one thing but if it's something that does not have a left turn lane then you should

someone should block off the left turn place that shows that people are supposed to be able to do that because at rush hour there's absolutely no way to get out and no one will be generous to stop.

The only last thing is has the proffer for the light that was made when White Gables was approved was I think five hundred thousand dollars still

working, and can that be changed to something else as far as the structure, or was it only for the stoplight that we were supposed to have 10, 15 years ago?

On the proffers, I don't know.

That would be something the county would have to decide what that would be, because they could use that.

If there is a proffer there, they could use it towards the application.

for the project in SmartSkill in the future.

Regarding the left turn lane, we're showing it as being removed as part of the project for the westbound or the eastbound left turn lane.

to Old Ivy Road.

We're showing that as being removed because it's a low volume.

There's not very many people that make that maneuver and it just causes more issues at the intersection.

Okay, now I'm glad to know that because I won't make that mistake again.

The other end, you know, getting off 64 to go

Welcome.

That would have to be up to

funding programs that

For the shared use path to get to Ann's question on the shared use path and Old Ivy Road the bridge This would require a separate bridge across the 250 bypass Parallel to the existing bridge because we can't fit the trail on the existing bridge So that's going to be a driving factor in the cost, but the shared use path along the from the

Bridge East could be built as a separate project through a separate funding program, along with the improvements at the east end.

At least it would allow for all those developments on that road between the interchange and the east end.

I don't think so.

Yeah.

OK, thanks.

Mr. Eske, you have a question?

Yes, thanks Chuck for all this.

Jason here.

I really like the way that you said that you were going to coordinate the pedestrian exchange project, interchange, whatever happens there, DDI, non-DDI, replaced bridge, replaced bridge, with the city's study, right?

The spirit there is to coordinate

there's intersections involved.

But could the same courtesy be extended to the Three Knocks Trail project, understanding that's a $2.1 million project that's going to study non-motorized, well, the internal combustion engine non-motorized along the whole corridor.

It's a really important section, the whole island corridor of the west, the middle, and the end for that T&T.

So to what extent

Can you speak to the timeline of what's happening or could happen here and how it could be coordinated with the findings and recommendations of the TNT study?

I still want to get that lost in the weeds as an opportunity here.

I agree.

I mean, I want to do more due diligence to make sure we're all on the same page and working with the various localities and the university.

Mostly it's going to be in the county because most of that is

going to be to the west.

We're going to have this recommendation here, but there is still the opportunity if we do in the future work on the 250 corridor and those bridges, you could run it across along Ivy Road, possibly in the future.

But like I said, until we get more details about where we're going to put the three notch trail, and I'm not

as involved in that study.

We will be coordinating it.

We will be represented on that study with the county, but I'm not really plugged into that per se, but I definitely want to make sure that we're coordinating it because this has been something that we've been trying to look at for a long time because you could actually run that trail anywhere from 64 all the way to Garth Road.

anywhere in that corridor, you could run a trail.

You could even follow the 76 bike route if you wanted to.

It's just a matter of where does the county want to run it and where do we, where does the public want to get the utility from it at?

Other questions or comments here?

Hopefully this will go pretty quick.

Let me get this.

Basically, here's the two programs and the differences between the two.

They're not that much different.

Actually, STARS program has been around since the early 2000s.

We did a couple of the first STARS studies in Almar County.

One of them was on 20 north of 250 and the other one was on 53 from 20 all the way into Fluvanna.

So those were some of the preliminary ones, but basically these are the

sort of the ins and outs of the two studies.

And there's a little bit of difference in the timeframes.

We do star studies pretty much continuously

We have a new round every year, but I mean, you could actually start a STAR study in the interim if they have capacity available through the on-call consultants.

The pipeline studies, they basically line up with smart scale.

We're getting ready to kick off the next round for

the round six of smart scale so this will be round three of pipeline but basically the groups we have stakeholders groups for both and we for both studies and we basically have the same people pretty much involved on they may have a little bit of different name but it's pretty much the same folks and we coordinate with the localities like for ivy road we have a lot more

people involved in that one.

We had actually had other meetings outside of the typical framework document that's in Pipeline because we met with the Lupic folks and they had a separate focus group that they coordinated with that we helped provide material on for the county.

So there is some flexibility with those programs.

The timeframes are more stringent with Pipeline versus there's a lot more flexibility with STARS

but they basically can cover pretty much every type of study we want to do.

Next.

Okay, so right now we have three star studies in this area.

One of them is Emmett Street 29 and it's going to start at Barracks Road and run through basically up to Hydraulic Road and then it's going to go on the bypass from Barracks Road around to Hydraulic Road.

We never really looked at this with the Solutions 29 area.

We did look at the hydraulic area, but we didn't really focus on the 250 corridor or the interchange.

So we're actually going to focus on that particular location because we really haven't come up with a solution.

We've looked at it probably four or five times since I've been here through various studies, but we haven't really come up with a solution.

Back even from the initial stuff when we looked at it from

places 29 in the H-250 study that the MPO did with the county, where they looked at like a spooey with a triple left off of the bypass onto Emmett Street.

So, I mean, we're going to relook at that to see what we can do to make that work.

with from the study that we did before or the application that we funded before we actually pulled out Angus because of funding constraints so we actually removed it from the project to fund the other two location improvements along hydraulic road so we're going to actually look at that we'll include the Hillsdale extended there's some with the study that we did before for the Solutions 29 and the

and the hydraulic area study, we saw that the hydraulic 250 interchange or intersection started to fail in the future year.

So we want to look at that to see if there's some solutions there that we can implement that might help address some of those future problems.

as well as that section from the bypass to Barracks Road in the city, it's not really been studied.

So we wanted to work with the city on trying to see if there's anything multimodal we can look at, possibly look at addressing the

bike pedal on that corridor.

I know Ann brought up that issue with the median, how it runs down the median of the road through the intersection to see is there something we can do differently there to better accommodate the other modes through that corridor.

So that's the one part of it.

The second part is another study we're doing that

I didn't want to look at the whole corridor through Airport Road.

I'm breaking it in half and Woodbrooke is where the

and the

So we want to look at that to see if there's some kind of solutions we can come up to address the safety issues as well as the multimodal issues on the corridor.

There is some operation, but it's not that significant.

that we would like to address, but I know the county wants to look at multimodal on the corridor, and we also don't want to rule out possible transit options if there's some future BRT or something that the community might want to consider, and if there's something that we can identify with this study, it could be something that could be built as part of a project.

those there's those two studies and then the last one is we wanted to pick a location in the city that we could basically look at not a big corridor that we could get consensus on on the process so we could do some more studies with the city.

So we picked work with Ben and the city staff and identified the Main Street, Ridge, McIntire, Water Street, South

Water Street intersection as a location that we would like to study.

I know from firsthand experience, I saw bicyclists get t-boned in that intersection.

So I know there's a lot of issues there, the way it's configured.

It was previously submitted and the application was pulled back.

So we'd like to really come up with, work with the city and come up with solutions that address the needs that they have in the city at that location.

So those are the three studies we have moving forward on four stars.

Thank you.

Is there more length to come?

We'll relook at that.

That was something that was part of the application that's currently being built right now.

That included the roundabout and the improvements at hydraulic.

They added that piece to the project.

Alright, pipeline studies.

These are the two pipeline locations.

Like I said, we're going to look at the Fifth Street corridor, which is the eastern one on this little diagram.

Basically starts at Harris Road, I think it is, and goes all the way through the interchange.

So we're going to look at

taking into consideration what the city wants to do on the Fish Street corridor and just carry it through the corridor.

We'll relook at the improvements that were previously recommended for the intersection and submitted for smart scale to see if we need to change those and what we can get that might work better than what we've already tried for.

So that's one application.

The other application is the 118 interchange.

This was been looked at several times.

We addressed one of the issues that were mainly on 64 by closing the one loop ramp, but it's creating issues on the 250 south or the 29 south bound direction in the PM.

So we want to relook at that to see if there's anything we can do to

We also want to look at the

Park and Ride lot that actually a transit bus could possibly use if they wanted to get transit to it.

The reason the box goes further north is we may have to look at Fontaine, not necessarily the interchange itself, but the weave between the two ramps on between 118 and Fontaine.

We may have to look at reconfiguring how those work.

and possibly widen that bridge to accommodate a weave lane that goes across the bridge so we can get that merge to work between those two interchanges.

So that's why we're extending it.

We're not really going to look at Fontaine again as part of this.

We're just looking at the bypass configuration and how those ramps would work and how we can make those ramps function better.

Well, previous pipeline study could be submitted.

Oh, that might have been carryover from another slide.

I pulled this slide deck and read formatted it and that might have been carried out.

And what we had discussed is we wanted to clarify why we weren't considering that as a potential pipeline process.

That's because there was an alternative that was identified as part of the pipeline project that had already been completed that could be resubmitted in a future round.

Thank you.

The first one is a safe streets and roads for all update and that is Corianne and Sarah online reporting in from the Governor's Transportation Conference, not housing.

Thank you, Christine.

Just want to be very brief about this.

Since our last meeting in August, we conducted six sides visits in each one jurisdiction of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, two from which was in City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.

I have to say that that was not one location, but multiple locations that were identified through the high injury network.

currently we're working on prioritizing solutions and soon or

from November 11 to November 23.

We'll be going out to the public for round two of engagement, where we're going to be asking feedback from the public.

That's all I have.

I just want to mention, actually, I forgot one thing.

We had our fourth working group member meeting last week, and I just want to specify that meeting is not a public meeting and is only for stakeholders that were identified for the project.

In December, I'm planning to provide a formal presentation on this topic.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Yes, I was just going to make a comment saying

We will be having the public engagement events throughout the county and the city.

So just stay on the lookout and engage with the public.

Thank you.

Sorry, December meeting.

Sorry if that was us realizing we were not recording this, that we thought Ruth recorded it.

Oh no, it's recording.

It's on there.

Sorry for that interruption.

We just worked out a panic moment that we didn't hit record.

I can't see it on this.

That's right.

It's showing you because I'm the host.

Brilliant.

The other update is the December meeting time.

We had a discussion in our previous meeting about converting the December meeting to an all virtual meeting where all participants would be virtual, no in person.

And we were in a holding pattern to make sure no additional changes were happening to the outmodeled parent supervisors.

On here it says December 17th.

Since your board is not meeting on the 18th, if you guys want to hold our normal Wednesday, the 18th, we could do that.

It would just have to be an abbreviated 430 to six instead of four to six because we have a regional housing partnership backing up to that four o'clock.

OK, that brings us to roundtable updates.

I'll jump online here.

All good.

All right.

Thank you.

So we'll go to the room.

Mr. Esby?

Yeah.

Josh Seidam, we are happy to report that the research we've been working on are all nearing completion for the roll-out.

The rural transit needs assessment, we actually presented that to the raw market.

and then we're going to do the presentation.

Mike Murphy's going to present it along with the consultant at the regional transit partnership meeting in December 12th.

So you'll probably get lots of opportunities to hear all of these reports.

The next one is the mobility on demand, which is the microtransit study.

I think that's going to provoke some interesting conversation just about that technology and how it can be used.

It's worth looking at it.

around ADA service, also maybe some localized services in the counties, just in the rural areas.

But there's a lot to unpack there.

And the third is the Bus Electrification Study.

That probably won't really roll out until probably after the first of the calendar year, so like January, May, May, September, so we'll get on the agenda for some of these committees at that point for that study.

And we're going to attend the Champaign-Urbana

hydrogen fuel study, which is happening tomorrow, right?

So our study looked at electrification.

So we did an alternative study before my time on the fuels and they said stay with electrification, but always like to see what the hydrogen folks do as well.

Anyway, that's it from John.

Great.

I'll defer to Ms.

Alright, we'll come and get Stacey here in a sec.

Closing event, I love it.

Yeah, so we have some updates from the city.

We've had deaths and pedestrian fatalities in the city before and I really have not seen a reaction both from the community at large and also city staff to this one.

It's been kind of an amazing month for me working and just seeing how the changes happened.

Within a week of that incident, we had already identified an immediate solution to put on the ground in terms of quick fills,

making it so that our bike lanes were making the travel lanes a little bit more narrow to slow down speeds, provides protection for bicyclists and a little bit of an area for people who are pedestrian waiting to figure out when to save places to jump in the traffic.

We had also announced pretty soon thereafter within that first week that we are going to be looking at reducing speed limits.

neighborhood streets and figuring out what to do about it.

That also means we have to look at the traffic fault, which brings a whole different set of questions for us to address.

And as we were sort of sitting down as staff, strategically thinking through how you deal with issues like this, how do we meet the goals

State.

So as you can imagine, I've been pretty busy the past few weeks trying to wrap my head around how to do those sort of big things.

In the meantime, we are still doing other stuff.

We have other updates as well.

All right, so here

If we get that funding, we have a lot more funding to do sort of traffic calming studies and figure out what works on our streets but we want to get out ahead of that.

You know, we're going to have to talk about that whether federal money comes or it doesn't and we want to make sure that our fire department and our other large view of operators in the city are giving us the feedback that they need so that they can continue to give us the services that they provide.

We're

We are currently wrapping up our first batch of tier one sidewalk designs to get the cost estimates for those who are going to be handing those off to Public Works and not freeze up by bike type coordinators to start looking at the West Main Street Striking Project, which will look

Working with VDOT on a road diet on 5th Street.

Chuck mentioned that a little bit earlier of how our study looking at our road diet going southbound on 5th Street is going to interact with some of the plans for VDOT's planning, which is a global because we know a long-term at 5th Street station intersection is going to cause us a lot of problems if we're trying to just train some of the capacity there.

We are working with the county on some of the work that needs to be done in the setting

A couple of construction updates.

On the hydraulic project, the road work on hydraulic itself will be completed in November and we're working now on the ped bridge.

The drill shafts for the bridge piers are completed on both sides of the road at the center will be completed shortly.

Next to come in the area is the Albemarle

bundle of improvements, five improvements.

That one's been awarded, the design phase is underway, and then the first project that we'll get going is the $242.50, $680 roundabout and rosé.

And then finally, Fontaine, we continue to work with our central office pretty actively at this point on funding the deficits on both the interchange portion of that bundle, which is how we intend to deliver

those projects and the city's portion of the gap in between.

So that's looking favorable.

We still need to have approval, but the funding, additional funding to be from those projects.

But the project team has begun the steps toward advertising that envelope, the design build, narrow risk assessment meeting.

Is there anyone else you remember?

It's nice to see it happening and everything.

We have additional matters from the public.

Are there additional comments that wish to be made this evening?

Will you just confirm that no one online?

Does anyone online like to give a public comment?

Thank you.

And with that, and if there is no objection, then we will adjourn.