MPO Policy Board Meeting   2/25/2026

And Stacy Londrey, can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Say present, please.

I'm present.

Ann, can you hear me?

She's muted, so even if she's responding, we're not hearing it.

Do we have a control for her microphone?

We've sent a thing to her to ask her to unmute.

She looks tiny, whatever that background is.

Garland Williams.

Present.

I would certainly like to give you a... Well, now it's official.

I've always wanted one of these.

Okay.

I would certainly, if you would like the opportunity to say a few words of intro by all means.

Having attended a lot of RTP meetings and been involved in transportation as a mode to better health for the district, it is an honor to sit and be part of this decision.

Do we have any others?

Do I go up there?

You have three minutes once you begin.

Intersection that doesn't include a roundabout is just putting lipstick on a pick.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Krebs.

You can learn more by going to PECVA.org slash Mobility Summit, and iFLIRIS, which I'll leave on the

All right, Mr. Condor.

Thank you.

Are there any yes?

Can we check and see if Ms. Malek is present and we can vote her in if she is?

I don't think she is present.

showing that she's on using her phone, but we're not getting a response.

Because I'm not seeing her.

No, there's another page full.

Oh, there it is, the blue arrow.

Someone might need to call her offline.

Please come back.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved.

So I'll let you guys speak about what you feel about that.

We would like to keep things as is.

I'll look to Taylor.

So I'll invite them to go ahead and unmute and share their screen.

Yeah, so this is where we are and the summaries of the 2050.

I invite all the support members to ask any questions.

What are you looking for from us?

OK.

Do you have more questions?

It says Darden on there, but it doesn't say UVA Health or Med School.

That was the targets provided by the UVA.

OK, so both.

Can you repeat the answer, please, just to make sure that we got it?

I believe that includes both the health and the university, because that's the total provided by the UVA.

Were there any assumptions made about remote work in the employment model?

So to answer the question, it does not include any specific category.

Okay, thank you.

There's UnivPop and UnivEnter.

So the one difference we see is due to the rounding, but otherwise, yeah, it's the same.

Because that's a little different.

We have not used any other sources.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

That we should use different projections than what are provided by the university?

Are they, are there decisions they're making about reaching a specific capacity so they're tapering off or not?

So I could wonder if some of that- Fewer young people.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Another question, Papa?

to sources in advance?

We worked with city staff, county staff to make sure everybody had an opportunity to get their eyes on it, suggest edits before this came over.

Travel demand model 2050.

Second.

That model is approved.

Thank you.

All right, performance safety, is Gorjan here?

Gorjan will be presenting virtually today.

Sorry.

Time to figure out how to stop this.

Thank you.

Now, is there a way that you could stop sharing?

Oh, OK. Or maybe I can leave and then come back.

Thank you.

Questions, comments from the board?

Does that take into account the actuals from 24 and 25, or are these the projections we had before we got to 24 and 25, and they're just noted here for reference to compare to 26?

Other than 2026.

So 2026 is the projection, but 2024 and 2025 are the actual five-year averages.

Yes, that is my understanding.

Do we have or do you happen to have on hand not the five-year average, but the actual 2024 and just that alone and 2025 alone fatalities?

Not on hand, but I can probably get it by the end of the meeting and send an email out.

That's all I have, thanks.

So I think it would help maybe if we can come back to this board at some point in time in the future to talk about the major projects that have come through the MPO board and how we've addressed some of the safety issues based on the numbers.

If you could please just state your location and reason for attending electronically.

I am back at my home having had a doctor's appointment and was not able to get to the building.

Ann, is there a motion to permit Supervisor Malek to participate electronically?

I move to permit Supervisor Malek to participate electronically.

All right, you are now officially in the meeting and please go ahead with your question.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions or comments about the presentation?

What was adopted in 25, now in 26, the number we're adopting would be higher?

Again, it's that piece where we're like, well, it's not like we're asking or we're going out there looking for two more.

And the VMT is up 1.37% or whatever.

You aim for the percentage, you might achieve it, but the end might have gone up.

And design the necessary roads better as well, which is where Sean comes in.

Are we adopting the performance safety targets, Christine, or are we accepting or Taylor?

Adopting the aspirational performance safety targets.

Motion to adopt the aspirational performance safety targets.

Thank you, Gorjan.

Thank you.

And Taylor, remind me, am I setting this up or are you setting this up?

I have one slide to share, but ultimately, it'll be no discussion.

I didn't want to just skip if there was.

I'll pass it over to you, Ned.

Anything there you would like to add?

That's basically all I have to add for a little more color commentary about the process we've been going through.

Sarah, do you have anything to add in addition to what we've done in terms of framing the conversation?

Thank you.

Ann?

Thank you.

But do you have any questions or comments about where you're at or any clarifying questions?

What did you expect, why did you join CTAC and what did you expect when you joined and how has that reconciled with what's really happened?

But at the same time, as much as I would like to be able to have a say or to have my voice heard in these, it hasn't felt like there was a good mechanism for CTAC to actually influence any policies or anything.

Hearing Sarah's response and kind of knowing that it's not leaving out engagement by kind of sunsetting CTAC, I think I'm leaning towards let's let CTAC sunset and we can stay engaged with CTAC members for other opportunities slash mechanisms to do that advocacy work and make an impact on transportation elsewhere.

Sir, would you like to chime in as well to that question that was just asked of your chair?

And I wish you all the luck in the world.

The current planning process, the actual process.

Yeah.

So it gets done during 2027 and approved in 2028.

It's about a two year planning process.

Natalie, would you like to?

So ask questions?

Yeah.

OK. Do you have some now?

Is there a preference on the CTAC members part in terms of those different scenarios or is it none of the above and something else altogether?

Sarah, can you answer that question?

If having more citizen non-voting members in those two boards might be a bridge away from CTAC, so to have people sitting in those meetings but not having a separate committee itself.

This one.

Yeah, sorry.

If you had others or follow up.

I just wanted to hear from them.

I can just talk to Natalie any

I don't mean to be an idealistic political wonk, but kind of like Big Ball of Cheese Day on the West Wing, where you invite people.

Andrew Jackson.

I don't know.

Am I making that up?

That was that style, right?

Yeah.

You attended as a community.

You were allowed different opportunities for engagement from the public outside of a formalized committee.

But because it was so baked in and I'm assuming and it is I'm being reassured that it will be again, I think it's already covered.

And then if there's not, we don't try and force it.

Can I add something?

The Long Range Transportation Plan year hosts, and then that's what CTAC is for.

I don't know if that even approached your, what you were searching for.

Yeah, you're like, let's give it a try before we give up is basically.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I heard you say, Bingo, did I steal your thunder?

Like it starts in the counties.

But I don't know that MPO needs an accountability group.

Ann?

getting people in the room to talk about something would be I think a really great experiment and hopefully we have these people who have been involved and they will stay you know on a list and help us to generate those kinds of actions so I am I would be in favor of keeping things alive and evolving as opposed to disbanding things and seeing how it goes I really like that approach thank you

You were kind of in the middle there a little bit.

Are you still?

Well, that is the other option.

I mean, you guys have a lot of flexibility here.

So we're feeding two birds with one's goat on that.

Yeah, I like that.

But you could disband CTAC as it is, and you could stand up a temporary committee to serve whatever purpose you need.

But if that takes them, if this hour, you know, every couple hours, every once in a while is taking them away from other projects that they could be advocating.

Right.

If we already have the community outreach meetings, if we already have public commentary options for every project that comes to us,

But also through the ad hoc structure, what I'm hearing is something pops up and we're like, oh, this would be great to have it.

Right.

So would it be, okay, everybody is on this committee, but just wait for our call instead of meet regularly?

If you stand up ad hoc, then you'd say, we're setting this committee up, we're taking up, you publicize it, the applications come in and we select.

This is how often you'll meet, these are the things that you'll be making, you know, recommendations.

This board, it would probably mean the county would appoint some, the city would appoint some, TJPDC would appoint some.

I'm interested in that.

I don't think that takes a lot.

Certainly that's y'all's decision, what you want to do.

No, I like that.

But I like tracking like, oh, we could have used a, that tracking piece over time will help us make that decision, I think.

I feel like this is a happy kind of go forward because it's not a just disband and leave it behind us, continue to figure out how to make it work and hope some of these folks would be energized to want to rejoin based on the new charge, what the purpose is, structure, good structure.

But we can try and look and see what and if there is.

And then I know because our role as elected as conveners is to still help with other to find those pathways to get them to the pressure points for our own respective legislative bodies to be able to do what they're hoping or asking to do that they thought CTAC was a venue for.

All right.

So just repeat what you said, Christine.

and then use the next year to develop, is there a way that we need an ad hoc committee to advise on developing the long range transportation plan and formalize a structure for that if it's determined that that's needed?

So I think we need a motion to disband the CTAC committee as it currently operates.

So moved.

All right, I got so moved at the same time.

Ann can move it, and I'll second it.

You don't have to, but if you feel like you would like to make any comments, I invite you to do so.

We all wanted to be working so I think likely I would be interested in following up if you had any need for comment or input later on and I think anybody else from CTAC would also.

Specificity and expectation management will be the name of the game.

Just thank you and best of luck as I said before and I'll probably just send an email.

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

It's not an action item.

Any questions?

Staff reports here that need to be done out loud?

No, we included our written update for the sake of time.

Sandy, are you taking the lead on this one?

And Sean, did you want to talk about where we are with that project?

to come up with a solution that we may not be able to fund through SMART SCALE, but for us to at least have a discussion about ultimately with this interchange and that corridor needs.

Any other questions?

I can't see any.

So is that in case one of them doesn't

The real benefit of the Boars Head roundabout is to try to improve the operations at Canterbury Road.

Right, because one roundabout needs another to have good flow.

But you don't want to not potentially get Canterbury.

Is that kind of the idea?

The other thing that I will very briefly mention is that in the February CTB meeting, they introduced the idea of potentially adding innovative intersections as an eligible project type to the high priority projects program, which means that if that is approved in March at the CTB meeting, these roundabout projects onto US 250 would potentially be eligible to compete for the high priority project funding.

Thank you.

Did she have her hand up?

I don't see any hands raised.

All right.

Thank you.

And did Chuck have any updates here that we needed to do?

Do you have any updates, Chuck?

Well, you have pipeline study on there.

Yeah, I think Sandy's covered it all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is Pat?

That is me from Consultant at home.

Garland, do you have a round table update, Mr. Williams?

So that's our update.

Thank you, sir.

I'll let Jessica introduce herself.

and starting to think about some revenue sharing applications for the next round.

City of Charlottesville.

So a busy spring for me.

Did I miss anything?

So we're putting together a group of folks from all areas to sit and kind of meet on a routine basis to talk about coordination while these projects are under construction.

Any additional matters from the public?

Yeah.

We've got three minutes.

That's all.

And do we have a location on that, or is that virtual?

No location yet, but we'll be in person.

It's Friday together.

Anything in particular you want us to call out or note is

There was also included in your package, should anyone be interested, we did not receive the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant that we applied for last June, but we did attend a debrief meeting and we included some notes in your packet if you're curious to hear about the feedback that they have from that.

And then not in that staff report, but based on the results of this meeting will be prepared in your next regularly scheduled meeting, not the SMART SCALE workshop, but the next one with a red line version of your bylaws related to CTAC and making sure that there's inclusion of language on standing up ad hoc committees as requested.

All right, so without objection, then we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Can we work into the bylaws that you can't show any members?