MPO Policy Board Meeting   3/20/2026

All right, I'll call the Charlottesville, Albemarle, Metropolitan Planning Organization to order for our special Friday, March 20, 26, 3 p.m. meeting.

I'm not used to where everybody's sitting.

Vice Chair Oschrin.

Present.

Supervisor Malle.

Here.

Councillor Fletcher.

Here.

Ms. Londrey.

Present.

Ms. Jacobs.

Present.

Mr. Rucker.

Mr. Koenig.

Mr. Wood Hudson?

Ms. Monteith?

Here.

Mr. Murphy?

Mr. Epstein?

Representing.

So just a quick, this room, the speakers are in the ceiling.

So as you speak, it doesn't help with amplification in the room.

But for those online and for the recording, that's where we got to just make sure we're using a loud voice, enunciate, et cetera.

And if your head is up, it'll go into the speaker.

But if it got here, it'll get a little problematic.

So I just want to mention that.

And we have a special guest today joining us.

How are you, Captain?

Very well, yourself?

Good.

We have another question about, did we still refer to you as a captain?

So welcome and thank you for joining us.

So we will first go to matters from the public.

Is there anyone in attendance who would like to give public comment?

Anybody online?

All right, we will close public comment and move to review and acceptance of the agenda.

Any changes to the agenda?

The motion has been made and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

We also have the approval of the draft February 25th, 26th meeting minutes.

Any changes or edits to those minutes?

All right.

Is there a motion to approve those?

Second.

All right.

Motion has been made and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

Great.

Thank you.

And now we're going to get right to what has brought us here today.

And we appreciate Mr. Nelson having this brainstorming this idea.

So looking forward to because I hope this is the first advantage.

I guess this is not something that we're going to solve today, we know that, but I think we get off to the first good step that's going to lead to the second question.

Happy to hear things I already knew, sir.

I'll figure it out.

Is that all?

Does it split away?

Welcome today.

I think if I had known that this was going to end up in a meeting three to five on a Friday, I probably would have felt differently.

So today, like you indicated, by the beginning of the conversation, what a recent strategy could look like.

So we want to move towards doing project applications away from moving applications from an isolated local effort

for viewing them as a synchronized regional portfolio.

By having each entity here today to share their planned projects, it allows the NPO to understand those projects, to make an informed decision when offering a resolution of support, to also understand the synergy of how these projects work together regionally.

This also allows Terrell Byers, our CTV member here, to hear a consistent message regarding the importance of these projects for a state form of quarantine.

I don't know if we've done this before.

I'll say that this is a good opportunity for those applicants to be before this body to kind of explain why those projects are important, how they fit into the overall picture of the region.

So this all really started in my mind.

I gave a presentation at the Land Use Environmental Planning Committee meeting multiple times regarding the amount of work that is in this region right now.

So kind of to understand why the strategy matters, we've got to look at

at the landscape that we've gotten to understand what is currently active in the pipeline.

Over the next three years, Albemarle and Charlottesville will have approximately 39 projects that are advertised and exceeding over $300 million in value.

The locals will be administering projects in excess of $100 million.

That's a lot of work.

This GIS graphic is just busy, right?

But it gives a representation of land use projects, construction projects,

Maintenance projects, utility projects, just in this region alone.

It's a lot of work.

We have come to the conclusion that on the operational side of things, we need to be coordinating better to make sure when we don't have conflicting work zones where somebody's got a lane closed on 29 and adjacent roadway has a lane closed.

So we're working together with county staff, city staff, the department staff, and other local partners, including the UVA,

to figure out how we can come together to make sure those things don't happen.

So that is a plus.

So we also need to think about how the planning side and planning for capital projects in the future also plan that.

So with this opportunity, we're looking at it for this round of SmartScale, round seven.

We're not really disclosing how much work we're potentially going into the pipeline.

or providing details that there's 23 projects being considered for smart scale round seven.

12 are within the PDC and knowing that that volume exists and what that competition may be, it helps us realize that we're competing for very limited results.

So kind of need to take a look at that.

That's why a coordinated strategy can help ensure that we're not crowding ourselves by submitting too many similar projects, but rather presenting a balanced approach of safety, mobility, accessibility priorities

and we must also have a reasonable expectation of how these projects will score and understand that there's limited amounts of funding and we really need to be intentional with the project that we're putting forth.

So at the joint solve, our MPO meeting, the joint meeting we had a couple of months ago, I talked about our menu or project.

This is where another strategy comes in.

We really need to be intentional about those planning studies because those planning studies are the pipeline, right?

So we need to identify locations strategically of where we feel work needs to happen and then build projects off of those.

And we also need to be honest about the recommendations from a study and an application so we don't spend a whole lot of time on concepts that will never have a viable path of funding.

And during the last meeting, I was very candid about the 118 study.

It was half baked, there was no point of us continuing to move forward with that until we get better ideas moving.

So, what have we learned from previous rounds of SmartScale?

I think history tells us, in particular for round six, that the state almost exclusively funded projects that hit a VTRAN priority one or two needs.

So any strategy that is developed for SmartScale should be aligned with those identified needs.

Part of the strategy should be our application should align with addressing the needs that have been identified in those priority one and two locations.

We also need to be willing to have a serious conversation of the month-half project component versus the nice-to-have project component, because that helps prevent scope pre, which drives up the cost of these projects.

And as you know, in smart scale, it's benefit over cost.

So if you're adding these things to projects that don't really address the root concern,

you're pricing yourself out of Antropet.

Other regions, like the ZVTA in Richmond and Stahl, they found success by aligning their regional data to match these state-defined weak spot.

And I've linked here some of those actual plans that they've got.

So what I will do next, kind of go over some of those.

From the last slide, we saw that 14 of the 14 high-priority projects all met

the priority one needs, right?

So in Richmond, the CVTA regional region, that is a fundamental.

So they collect taxes and they fund transportation within their region.

They allocate up to 35% of its own revenue for high cost regional projects.

So they're using it to buy down the match on their project.

So they place a strong emphasis on consistent travel demand models and outputs to justify projects across multiple jurisdictions.

So that's kind of similar to what we've got in our scenario now at this NPO.

But as you can see in round six, Standard District and Richmond District kind of cleaned up on high priority projects.

And that's kind of the focus of this group in the NPO.

We're really targeting high priority projects that we really need to be strategic in understanding which of those projects work well.

So what does a strategy potentially look like?

I think we don't really need to reinvent the wheel,

I think our LRPP really provides a good strong foundation for that.

We can use it as almost like a strategic filter.

The idea would be potentially as a locality identify the need.

It can be run through the LRPP's data model to see how it scores regionally based on the things that the region thinks are high priority.

And then the focus of that needs to be on location, not a specific treatment.

Like we have to focus on where the locations are a problem.

This approach would allow the local priority to be validated through the regional data and ensure that by the time a project gets submitted for funding, its success is already supported by the metrics and the long range plan.

There's another key here with a strategy that could provide immediate value.

Got typologies, right?

So the state scores is differently depending on location.

in the urban MPO area, which is area type B, reducing delay and increasing accessibility are major factors.

However, our rural areas have successfully shifted to a type D, which just happened this year, where safety is 40% of the score.

A strategy could involve matching projects to the right scale.

We wouldn't want to send a safety-heavy project to the urban scale where it only gets 20% weight if we can avoid it.

Though again, we'd have to be really intentional with projects and who submits them.

We also must acknowledge the reality that some local priorities, no matter how important they are to them, may not align well with the statewide funding program.

When this happens, we have to be clear about what is driving the importance of those projects and acknowledge that localities will need to determine a funding strategy.

Not everything fits in smart scheme.

And I think we just really need to understand that.

And that's not to say that there's not other funding sources.

With Sandy presented on my other, this next slide kind of touches

So a concept of what a strategy could look like in practice is maybe three buckets, right?

You've got this bi-directional bucket, which includes where local needs roll up to the region for validation and regional data rolls back down to help the local planning.

Bucket one could be for projects that hit statewide needs perfectly.

Bucket two could be for regional collaboration projects.

Bucket three could ensure that vital local projects like the RIO

wrote Peanut Crown about my favorite project, Aren't Lost.

They just get directed to more appropriate funding sources like revenue sharing or federal safety grants, rather than being forced in a smart scale where that process doesn't favor those types of projects.

So this is kind of what identifying a project is a project.

Start with the location, identify there's a need, and then let's collectively work together to determine

What's the best funding source for that project?

And it may not be, it may not fit into anything at all, but I think us being just aware of that and not spending a whole bunch of time and energy and resources and trying to push a square peg through a rail hole.

So to wrap up, these are just suggestions.

I am not trying to really provide much anything here except what it could look like.

I think being proactive using the approved LRTP is the foundation of what we should be looking at.

Like I said, today's not me directing the strategy, but offering what a shared framework could look like for us to work more efficiently together and fund projects that citizens care about.

But I look forward to the presentations today from the localities and thoughts on some of these concepts that have been brought forward.

Yeah, I'd like to do just some questions, if you don't mind, to clarify that we all understand that.

So when you were just describing that state exit 118, which would it be?

Because it's clearly a COSS.

It wasn't done right in the 60s.

We're all standing for it.

It's all dependable identified with the leader in trying to strategically address those

And it could be now, I know we've had this conversation where we may need a big project, but I think we're going to have to look at how we phase that to get the bigger project.

So it may not be one $200 million project.

It may end up being three projects potentially to get that.

And there are other funding sources potentially that could be used for that.

There's IOEP funds that we have not evaluated.

The issue with the 118 Act is

The concern right now is annotated.

It's on point, right there.

So that's where it kind of gets a little fuzzy with the Iowa people.

So I think we really need to, moving forward with the study and looking at additional metrics on point nine, figuring out what are smaller utility projects that can be done to solve the critical issues that are there.

I think with the Fontaine project, getting rid of the left to go westbound, that's going to solve one issue.

We now just have to resolve the eastbound issue.

Do you have, I think it does sound right to not just keep trying to shove everything into smart scale and the opening up the doors to other more aligned funding sources seems like a no brainer.

That's great.

But do you have any vision yet for how

I think it's a lot of people.

Between the MPO, the Culpeper District, between some of our folks and partners in central office to help with that.

So we get a list of projects based on those locations, we can identify whether they're priority one, priority two needs.

If they're not,

And that can be part, like when we do these planning studies, a whole lot of it's focused on smart scale.

There's nothing to say we can't as part of those studies have a scope to identify potential other funding sources as we work through that.

Quick follow up question to that.

You said we get a list of projects.

Where does that list start?

Is it here?

And if it's here, I feel like it usually gets presented to us after it's already a list.

Like if I have an idea, it doesn't feel like this is the venue where it gets to you then comes back to us.

I think it starts at the local.

Nothing.

It rolls up potentially to the MPO regarding where it fits at in the LRTP, right?

That's where it rolls up and then there's a categorization of that and then it rolls back down to the local.

That's the way I see it.

I don't think anything starts here.

I think it's about location, ways to define project.

And we've got a lot, like I talked about at the joint meeting, this meeting that we've got.

I don't know if we've ever all sat in and looked at all the stuff that's on the books.

We've never had a work session and say, well, then we paid all this money for a study and we had both recommendations.

And guess what?

None of them happened.

They just kind of go sit somewhere on a bookshelf and duck.

First, they go through the history itself.

They were the final board of the division.

and then we broke it down into four projects and the left turn at Fontaine is the last of the four projects that we got funded.

Yeah, back to what we do, sort of building off what Sean is saying and pointing to, the LRTP is our starting point, not starting point.

We actually have created needs for it within our

So we have a place to start with there.

We also have a list of projects for LRTP.

And those priorities don't align necessarily with smart scale.

So I think we've got to get out of this mindset of it's just smart scale.

It's a means to an end for certain projects.

So the LRTP may have a project that's ranked

30, if they're not ranked, but if it's like number 30.

But guess what?

That project may score very well in smart scale.

That doesn't mean you don't go after it, but you have to have a strategy on what you're going to do with the 29 above it.

And in the strategy, maybe we just don't have a funding.

So, I mean, there's really limited revenue share and there's these direct grants that go to the out there.

We don't have it.

The department, we don't have it.

So what you just described, the district grant, is what you used, the district used to divide.

I'm curious, I think you said smart scale for the big bucket that deals with those statewide need issues and maybe revenue sharing or some other federal sources for the bucket number three.

I'm curious where you think we're getting money from bucket number two, because that seems to be where we're having the hardest issue finding funding.

So I think that really helps inform what our strategy is going to be if we're really going to try to figure out what's going on.

It's probably not a positive thing to say, but I came from a region where a locality, this was at the beginning of smart scale, had a bond record and they cleaned up the revenue sharing and smart scale and all the projects in that region right now that are

built and being constructed all came from.

So there's power in the locals trying to figure out a way to fund it themselves.

And competing priorities for your local dollars.

Yeah.

But now I have, it might be different

is B-trans, and so there's such a permanent factor.

So the priority one is the 1%, right?

It's the top 1% identified based on the VTRANS method.

Priority two is the top 5%, and priority three is the top 15%, I believe.

But the conversation happens at the TTV with me, right?

So they have assessed what they feel, and there was a presentation at the lab board meeting on Tuesday, they kind of went through all of this and explained it at the TTV.

Those priority locations are nothing more than identifying where there are problems at based on certain metrics, right?

My question, perhaps a little more discussion and informative.

I think that is a major source of what will these products, the selecting.

So that's the criteria for selecting these products.

Yeah, it would just be interesting to see, and I think we'll see it during some of the presentations, how projects that we have selected align with priority one and priority two.

I would like to think that the locations that have risen to the top as a need for a locality

are on priority one and priority two.

That's where we have indicated that there are metrics that show that we have the most problems.

Now, if you're trying to be proactive, that's where I think the issue comes into play.

If you can foresee an issue happening 10 to 20 years from now and you're trying to be proactive to address it, I'm not sure that aligns with the way the current system is set up.

I guess my questions would be the piece where the localities are putting in for cost sharing, try to reduce costs.

So the nuance here I'm hearing is that, for lack of a better word, niceness.

So the locality

Let's say it's a $10 million project, it's got a million dollars in niceties, we're paying a million bucks for the niceties, but we still haven't moved the needle on the score because you're not even caring about niceties.

So the cost sharing is not going to the initial 10 million.

So that's going to hurt us in the metric.

So we need to actually bring down what you care about.

And I don't know if we're doing this, I'm not suggesting that we're doing that, but it may not be my sound out.

But I think sometimes it would be easy to trick yourself into thinking, oh, it's a $10 million project, and it's got a million dollars of multi-use paths, so it doesn't help the scoring.

But we'll pay for that.

We haven't got shit, though, the props.

We haven't done anything with the project to bring down the $10 million costs.

We're just paying the extra.

And we're not getting scores or any brownie points for it.

So what happens to these?

Well, I guess that's a bigger.

It's a bigger question, so I'll just throw it out as the rhetorical that you said we've got to stop trying to fit in square pegs or poles because then it's like, well, what do we do with the square pegs?

Because it's not like they are all done.

We just have to be aware that

doesn't fit in the smart scale.

Well, no, I got that.

I just thought, like, I heard square pegs, round holes, maybe the round holes are all your funding mechanisms.

And we still have square pegs that aren't fitting in.

In any of them, that part.

This is a minute ago that we'll get to the projects.

I don't want to take up a lot of time on it.

I had a town hall last night in my district for my budget, and one of the functions actually deal with the transportation stuff, and they mix it in with road.

How do you get ahead of things and all of that?

And I'm not going to get on my soapbox about the funding piece, but, you know, I tried to explain to them that, you know, when you get over 30 billion dollars in smart

smart scale application requests.

And look how that's statewide.

And then statewide you have over a billion dollars in locality match money coming and the state only pays or approves or awards 80 billion.

That's a third of what was submitted.

And smart scale applications are not the fluff projects.

Those are because you're limited in how many and since it's competitive,

you're putting out your best, like the most critical ones.

So if the state isn't even giving out a third of a limited group of needs and requiring that much local dollars to help get it there, this captive buyer, here are the new set of ears that has to listen to me say, this isn't about carving the pot out there.

This is about y'all's pot.

It's not bigger.

and to give the just point that the citizen asked, how do you work with the state to get the resources, to get these projects done?

And my first answer before all my other commentary was the line and complain method.

I mean, what else have I been doing for a year?

The lining and complaining about transportation funding is pretty nice.

And it's frustrating to have a citizen ask, what are you doing?

Now I told him what we do.

to try to win projects so that we're ready to roll and try to do this.

I appreciate this meeting today because it's about that's really what we're talking about doing here is not it.

This is the reality we live in, so let's play the best game we can in it.

But that doesn't mean that we lose sight of that, that we're just not doing our job in maintenance at growth road projects at this stage.

Point one, imagine.

I had a question about the smart scale scoring.

We're in round seven now and there have been tweaks to the scoring throughout.

Ned asked about, sorry, Mr. Gallaway asked about the niceties and how sometimes those are

locality priorities that seem to be must haves.

But the scoring doesn't give them benefits.

What is the process to then have a locality be able to influence how it gets scored?

Because if this is a process that will continue, it will need to evolve.

Are there opportunities?

There's an opportunity to influence the process for smart gales through the CTB in order.

That's where I think it also starts at you have concerns, the spring public meetings coming and speaking to those concerns where they are present.

You watch the CTB since the change in administration meeting

Dr. Donahue is the brainchild behind Montscale to begin with, right?

So I think he is very passionate about making it work the best for the state and trying to also capture those local needs.

It's never going to be perfect, but I think if there was ever a time to start to talk about potential changes that the locals would like to see, it won't change for round seven.

That should sail, I believe.

But I think for round eight, moving forward.

And it may be, I don't know, maybe it's a different program.

I mean, that's one of the changes.

Yeah, I'm thinking specifically about, to my knowledge, and I recognize, like, I don't know all the things about how smart scale is scored, but if you're converting an existing sidewalk to a shared use path, you don't get any extra benefits from that in the scoring.

You do?

I can't correct it.

Pedestrian improvements, if you're adding bicycle improvements to the corridor, you can get additional points for that.

But if it's already got sidewalk, pedestrian, by adding the sugar's path, it may or may not change it.

But I think I know where your question's coming from.

The part of the issue now depends on the broader network.

You have to be connecting an entire network lead.

So if you're connecting, if you're

I've heard that the direct grants potentially may be going away and they may be going back to a formula approach.

So it's one that you make everybody go, oh, how are we going to figure out the method?

Well, but it's also distracting you from going, well, the dollars haven't changed.

Now we're all focused over here.

And then we got to figure out how to do the political game.

All right, great.

We move on to the next.

We're going to hear about the projects.

Well, happy Friday, everyone.

Yes.

Oh, it's not sharing?

Thank you.

Let me do that.

All right.

Can you see it now, Sarah?

Perfect, thank you.

All right, so today, you all will get some updated information about the projects that are under consideration in the region for submission for smart scale round seven.

You'll hear from myself, I'm Taylor Jenkins.

I work at the MPO, Jessica Demick with Albemarle County and Ben Chambers from the city of Charlottesville.

And so before we jump in, I will cover a little bit of just like foundational smart scale knowledge.

Happy to take any questions about that before we jump into projects.

And then all of the concepts that you'll see, all of the cost estimates, all of those are still preliminary.

So those probably will change between now and if there's a full application submission.

So I just wanted to throw that out there for everyone.

Alright, so the purpose of today is to again provide you all more information on the projects in the region that are being considered for SmartScale funding.

Staff are working on pre-applications and the deadline for those is April 1st.

And so we're going to talk through SmartScale funding, brief program overview the projects and then touch more on that future funding strategy development.

So SmartScale, as you all have already heard, is a really significant funding method for large-scale transportation projects in the state.

So it's administered by OIP, under the Secretary of Transportation, and it funds 100% of project costs.

So there's no match required, and SmartScale fully funds projects.

Localities and regional bodies are eligible for SmartScale.

We can each submit up to four applications each, and right now we're in the pre-application period, but there's also a full application period where the projects will be better fleshed out.

You'll have more documentation to submit these projects for funding.

And so the CTB selects these projects through a competitive scoring process.

So first we have the peer recommendation from staff.

So based on the evaluation metrics, they get a list that they then pass to the CTB and the CTB at their discretion can ultimately determine what gets adopted into VDOT's six year improvement program.

All right, so any project before you can even submit for SmartScale, any project first has to be identified in V-Trans, a statewide transportation plan to be eligible.

So that's sort of the first hurdle that you have to cross to even get access to SmartScale.

SmartScale is made up of two funding programs.

So there's a district grant program that is open to local governments only, and then the high priority projects program, which is open to regional bodies, transit agencies, and local governments.

So district grant program is competitive within the district and the high priority projects program is competitive statewide.

Regional bodies, so the MPO is only eligible to submit projects that meet needs on a corridor of statewide significance, so the COSS, or on regional networks.

And additionally, projects that meet specific eligibility requirements for the high priority projects program.

So like Sean touched on a little bit earlier, everything doesn't fit in SmartScale, and additionally, everything doesn't fit for the MPO to submit.

And so I took a screenshot from the SmartScale technical guide that's basically what tells us, you know, here's everything that you need to know about applying for SmartScale.

We can only apply as the MPO for these very specific project types.

And so roadway on new alignment, HOV, HOT lanes, transit facilities or high capacity transit, so like a bus rapid transit or heavy rail, for example, or rail improvements.

These really significant, almost capacity-related projects are the ones that the MPO is now eligible to submit for.

So in addition to the scoring methodology, project cost is also considered in project evaluation.

Any project that's located in the MPO boundary is scored according to category B factor weighting, so not just the MPO's projects, but anything that falls within the MPO area is scored according to that.

And so those scoring factors and their weights are up there on the screen in this table, where you can see that congestion mitigation and accessibility are the highest percentages of how our score is weighted.

And can you, why does accessibility indicate this?

So correct me if I'm wrong.

There are three different scoring factors.

One is accessibility to jobs.

The other one is accessibility to jobs for disadvantaged populations.

We get into the

And I will add that it doesn't really specify.

The environmental quality does have a component that is influenced by biped.

In adding to those facilities, they basically convert it to less congestion, and they convert that to a CO2 emissions reduction.

And that's how we calculate what that environmental, what the amount is.

So when there is another factor that does influence biped facilities, and one of the reasons

Any congestion mitigation after that, I hope.

That's what we need to look at.

But that balance comes with costs associated with it, right?

Yeah.

And there's also a note on here, so another takeaway from round six.

Overall, so for both district grant program and high priority project program, $18.6 million was the cost of the average funded project in round six.

For the high priority projects program, that average funded project cost was $27.2 million.

Sorry, I didn't think of this question when I reviewed these in advance.

Is that the

Total project cost.

That's right.

Okay.

It might be the smart scale portion because you have total cost and then you have a smart scale portion.

The score is based on the smart scale portion.

Thank you.

And one other note I will make on the scoring as well.

One thing that I don't think is acknowledged very often is that all of these are relative scores as well.

So if you're on council, you've already

and so many other people together, the adaptation.

This was also identified as a location that was a priority because we had a garage interior.

We knew that this was a need that we had, but we knew that it was not a need that we had to fund it.

We handed back the funding for that project because it was a little too rich for our wood and didn't really do all the things that we needed it to do.

And so when we were looking for a new project to do, we said, if you don't, you know, the place would be my focus because we have to need it still.

Next slide.

So what are those needs?

First, we knew we had safety needs there.

There have been fatalities in practice there.

So we knew we needed to address the safety needs for all the road users there.

And I say all road users there because this is a very busy intersection.

It has all kinds of road users.

There are pedestrians prompting it every time that a pedestrian signal goes on.

There's cars crossing it every time the vehicle signal goes on.

And sometimes there's bikes mixed with bikes.

We wanted to make sure that the traffic flow of all of these users was a little bit more coherent and easy for people to use.

One of the biggest obstacles to that is we have a big staffing pedestal in the middle of the intersection.

It creates some issues with sight lines, it creates some issues with crossing distances for pedestrians.

It's very confusing for bicyclists who are trying to be across that tunnel lane that sort of breaks through the lane right there going eastbound on West Main.

So we really need to deal with the pedestal,

So we decided we wanted to make sure that we were maintaining some space.

It may not be the pedestal itself, we may be a part of that thing and use it for something else.

We made sure that there was some space here for our whole world component in the future to be defined later.

And most critically, we wanted to make sure we could get money for it.

So back in November of 24 we started collecting traffic data.

March of 25 we did a public survey about the conditions in the area.

In April we published the existing conditions findings for that.

In August, we went out to the public with three alternatives.

You'll see them up here.

They're real small.

You can see what they are.

But all of them included turning Water Street into one when it westbound.

That frees up some turning movements and some signal timings so that we could get that intersection operating more safely and continuously.

We didn't have to rely on

and the offices we looked at.

So we narrowed it down to one select alternative based on sort of the middle one right there.

We'll go to the next slide.

We took that to the public in January of 2025, towards the end of the month.

And we took that preferred alternative to them and said, give us our feedback on this alternative right here.

And we got a lot of feedback.

Sandy I think got quite a few emails from her and talked about the

It's confusing to get downtown today.

How is this going to make things better?

We also had a lot of folks email in and say, this is great.

I haven't had to get downtown before and it's going to be a safer connection to get downtown.

And, you know, we had a lot of different feedback.

We're going to be looking to sort of clarify that feedback as we refine this design.

But the big components of this are, it is still a five-leg intersection, but one of the legs is that one way westbound on Water Street, the bus, and then a protected second track between 3 McIntyre and 2nd Street, south east.

It's an F-2, a protected second track, and the bus is bound up on the other side of the intersection.

You'll notice a certain little jaw, we think,

Routing it that way instead of giving it its own signal timing is what gives us that signal savings so that we can keep it apart through the center section.

So benefits for all users that we saw going into this and opportunities to make some new connections, right, specifically.

Next slide.

Yeah, our project benefits, I kind of like on this already, we're building

We're improving the churn visibility for West Main by removing the stacking.

One of the things that you can't see from the top down is we're all looking at what you're finding.

Right now if you're sitting on West Main looking eastbound, you'll see a brown sign that says, hotel.

That sign was put up before there was more than one hotel.

Now there's about five.

We get a lot of feedback.

If you get to that intersection, you don't know where the downtown is.

The one update that I have through this presentation that I didn't have on Monday is if you have a thought estimate, or at least our initial thought estimate, which is 11 and a half million dollars.

So our next steps, we are going to be doing an engagement with downtown

We've got a lot of things like, hey, what's going to happen with deliveries?

We're going to go back to them and say, well, what kind of deliveries?

Where are you delivering from?

Where are you picking up from?

What are we specifically talking about?

That might not change the overall design of this project, but it will help us make tweaks and also help us inform our leaders.

On July 20th, we're planning on updating this project to City Council.

At the same time that we're sort of waiting to see how that funding is going, we're gearing up to address the rest of West Main.

West Main right now, if you are not unaware, is about to be interrupting early.

I talked about this just a little bit so we are putting together a public engagement

I think that is all for me.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have on this project.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Would you all go ahead?

Yes, sir.

It's probably one part of food.

It's some message priority too for the construction of a statewide priority for it, but that might be in the last spot.

There's a lot of segments in there.

Yes, that's right.

It's really hard to say.

Old segments to the east, priority four.

The other thing is they just updated priority classification in V-trans.

So that's just been posted, like the last month.

So there are, there is a new priority.

It's out.

It's not finalized yet, but the draft is out there.

Yes, it's in the nation.

Especially if a project takes 10 years, how does the priority attach to it?

Does it update every year?

The priority tells you what the data is showing and that data is what's going to be used to score it.

put this out of patient.

Next question.

Are you also looking at the Monticello-Mitch intersection in concert with this?

And if you make this one more efficient, you're going to end up having problems from the Monticello intersection.

Yeah, we didn't do the traffic counts on that part of the traffic modeling for this project, but that also when we identified as down the line, that's probably our next step is, you know, branching off from this.

We have issued that by children.

Other questions?

You want me to start us off?

Yeah, sure.

I'm Jessica Demick.

I'm the principal transportation planner with Albemarle County.

I'm Jessica Dimick.

I'll be presenting with Taylor the projects that are located in Albemarle County.

The county has four application slots.

The MPO has four application slots and all of their slots are located in Albemarle County.

Several of the project locations are right next to each other.

So we'll be going through them based on geography.

We're first going to go to Barracks Road at the 29-250 bypass.

These are two projects that were identified in the Barracks Road project pipeline study that VDOT performed and wrapped up in 2025.

And these are solutions to address safety needs as well as pedestrian and bicycle access needs as defined by V-Trans.

The county is planning to submit an application for the 29-250 southbound ramps on the western side of this interchange.

And this is a project that will add a eastbound right turn lane onto the southbound on-ramp

It will relocate a bus stop currently at Surrey Road, which is on the leftmost side of the screen, what is on the south side, which is actually, yeah, that's still the south side of Barracks Road.

That bus stop will be relocated to Bennington Road, where you can see the purple in the drawing.

and it will add a pedestrian connection from that bus stop to the sidewalk on the north side of Barracks Road and connect to an existing sidewalk, including a crosswalk across the southbound off-ramp

A crosswalk across Barracks Road and new sidewalk along the south side of the road between the on-ramp and Bennington.

It will also construct a median, close the median opening that currently exists at Rickey Road.

We just got the cost information from VDOT and the cost that is here is the total cost of the project, including inflation, which is what will be scored.

I think that's all I have to say.

And this is a value engineer solution, right?

So we've seen this area before.

In the last round, we've split it the entire western side of the interchange from here to Georgetown Road, include a roundabout at Georgetown Road, median closure all the way to Georgetown and interchange

This is an authority to location.

Yes.

I've been here frequently.

Our congestion is certain.

We look at the change by adding freight train lane, a lot of traffic coming from Georgetown is basically making a way to go on there.

By adding the right turn lane, you're improving the floral traffic that's going into the city

Because you're separating out that right-turn mean that you're having a dissertation.

Right, and all of the right-turners will have a dissertation.

Correct.

The right-turning will extend all the way back to anything.

So it states that there's a high need priority for transit access and a very high need priority for district safety.

Are we reorganizing the asphalt that's already there or are we widening the road?

We are widening the road to a certain point.

We are going to reduce it as much as possible and work those in the meeting a little bit through that section.

We're adding the two-stage crossing in the meeting so we can't shrink it down fully.

The section further west is going to go with a four-foot meeting.

This location has got to be wider to accommodate the pedestrian crossing at that location.

So we are shrinking it down to the extent possible, but most of it is going to be wider.

It's a, it's not a straight cross, it's a zigzag, so you're going to go up parallel at the second, so it's a two-stage crossing.

I appreciate having the wheelchair use pack.

My note about having kind of a jagged crosswalk there is that right turns at a short distance are really hard on the bike.

That extreme turn, if you're crossing the street there on your bike,

Are we assuming people are walking in a car?

So there's no...

It's not a shared use path on the sidewalk.

It's just a sidewalk.

Shared use path is all along the south side.

The ramp to Benington Road is the shared-use path.

Once you cross the ramp, it goes from, because we can't go underneath the bridge with a shared-use path, we're basically going to continue it as eight-foot sidewall, right?

And then it's going to narrow down to a five-foot sidewall to go underneath the bridge on the south side.

The north side is just a five-foot sidewall along this existing that's out there.

And we are going to make it,

instructed to meet ADA requirements, like if it's not, then meet with parents now.

Well, that was a piece of the project that was supposed to continue to the west as part of the larger application.

So that's what it would do in the future in that other section.

All that neighborhood on the south side, they don't have any facilities, this will connect to that neighborhood.

So they can get to this and use that facility.

It just, there's a section up that's not going to be wider.

Okay, so okay, sorry, just to clarify.

There's going to be a sidewalk in the middle, but there's not going to be a sheriff's package.

There'll be a crosswalk and there'll be an eight foot wide section.

You can see that and then it will narrow down to a sidewalk through that section.

With the designs and detail, will there be private control for

people maneuvering in any of the multi-modal, non-particular things going east continuously.

So right now, people are either going straight east, turning south, or if they're not there, then the people going west and turning south are, everybody's using that intersection.

So it will be a full stop for everybody.

And will there be a great turn on red?

It's they're going to have some.

So we'll have to, we haven't worked out which is all we have.

So this is just a preliminary.

Once we get it, if we get it funded, we'll have to go through a whole infrared design process.

It's a reasonable cost so far.

We should never invest that much money in that case.

If that house was in that vintage cinema house, we wouldn't be able to do it.

It's just the burden of a phone call.

Basically.

Well, frankly, yes.

So I think that was a good segue into the next one that we have here.

So this is the MPOs project along the same stretch, but at the off-ramp.

And so I want to first acknowledge that this is different from what you all first saw in December.

So when you first saw this project, it was the dual left turns off the ramp and a ramp extension.

And so since

These concepts that we just received a couple days ago and how the project has changed is that now instead of a ramp extension it is an auxiliary lane that connects the Barracks Road off-ramp to the Leonard Sandridge on-ramp and the reason for that is because when they first did reviewing the first sketch that was completed they determined that the space between those two ramps was actually substandard

and so they opted to connect them instead in this design.

And so the preliminary cost for this one is 21.4 million.

We did change the alignment a little bit to shift it away so it's not

We've analyzed this and based on our analysis and we're just encouraging you all to come to us and have a conversation because when we saw this we were surprised.

and a couple of things.

According to our analysis, this does go on UVA land.

We've constructed a right-of-way based on our data.

but we would need to confer with you on that.

This particular property is both nationally and state listed.

It's an 18th century core in the building and it was part of a large historic farm so it has regional significance.

So we would encourage VDOT to have a conversation with us about this and

If you look closely, there's a pay gap here.

And that's the economy filter.

to accommodate both of those and still not hit the bridge.

We have to, there's limits to what we can do with the skew.

We won't make it T, we're going to skew it, keep it skewed.

It's just pushing it closer just further makes it closer to the bridge.

So there's limits to what we're going to do.

Without, basically, totally no leverage.

So we're all trying to do, all trying to fit all that together.

The other thing is,

So we're going to get that back to you.

Yeah.

You mean this one and which one?

They all both have pictures.

Let's say it's a couple hundred feet.

It's not three and a half feet.

So this is again why I mean the road.

The next thing it is...

It's just not 300 feet from where we were.

I mean, right now, in certain times of the day, the grant fees add up to bypass.

And the 30% of crashes

along the Bexford corridor right at the north side of South Livers.

Five years.

21 years.

I don't know.

Exactly.

I think that's something

All right, so operational safety.

And it's basically if we look at all of this, and it's part of the new, not environmental document, but something we have to do to get that interchanges primarily to when we make modifications at a certain level, we have to do this study.

And as part of that study, we need to update the crash data.

And so this data was taken from the barracks road pipeline study that was completed.

And for, you know, the cost benefit analysis of it all, adding those three interdiction exceeds, that's something that's not

The concept of the project and the elements that provide the benefit, that's what you're really focused on.

But there's, through the project, like, it's not like a song about the rock.

If we encounter rock as we start PE,

We're not done.

We're going to figure out a way to get that.

I was more than asking my age.

This adds more cost to it.

They turn it down because of this additional cost.

There's no way for us to quickly go back and say, okay, we'll take that part out.

So what is the risk benefit analysis that went into deciding to add this extension?

Well, no, it's because if we extend it,

The off-ramp to where we were initially, it creates, it shortens the distance between the on-ramp and the off-ramp, introducing new safety issues.

We did a point to introduce a new safety issue, trying to resolve the existing safety issues.

We have an estimate, and that's just a high-level cost estimate, but they're just finished this concept.

They just got this.

So they have this actual concept hasn't been placed yet.

But I think you do make a valid point.

Yeah.

If you can address, smart scale won't catch this, right?

I don't think if we create an issue,

Well, either that or, well, during the design process, this one will show up as an issue, and then we've got to figure out how to fund it.

Yeah, how to fund it.

We've actually designed this product, so it's better to catch it now as opposed to waiting and then become a problem

And for the, you've mentioned sound walls.

How's the server doing?

I don't know about this.

They just got this concept, and we're sending it down to environmental sections of the office to do its voice analysis.

Well, I apologize.

Well, I'll take that.

I'll step in here because we're not going to end up font A and part 2.

If there's going to be a project that's going to be proposed, that we're going to submit, and then a stakeholder is going to come in once it's funded and say we've got issues, we're not doing that.

So if there's issues, we need to work through them.

I do appreciate that.

Well, we just got the system.

We have consultants looking at planning studies, and then we pack it off to our staff to work with other consultants with these concepts together that meet the design criteria to make sure we have a project that meets standards and also we can estimate.

That's the way.

So this is the kind of getting the concept down on paper without doing a whole bunch of real engineering.

But we're not going out doing explorable stuff.

I would assume that you're going to pull back the sidewalk and pull back the median so that the truck in the left-hand lane or even the right-hand lane can easily do that.

The tracking loop, because that's why, you look on the right side of the ramp, there's a black valve area, that's additional asphalt that's added.

But that's a swing valve.

What's the issue you're talking about?

There's, you've got to have so much movement before you get to the allotment.

which is where the bridge comes in, north side, you've got to be able to get those lanes back and wind underpass.

So there's only so much room.

And the skewed angle that we've got coming off the ramp, that affects that radius of those vehicles making that turn.

And is this limited to,

Or do you have a box or are you leaving a size or a 60 foot box?

I'm not sure I think they're using it.

We're moving over to Crozet now.

This is at the intersection of US 250, Rockfish Gap Turnpike and Old Trail Drive.

The proposal here is for a roundabout that was identified in the Crozet master plan.

This, like all of the other projects, are in the constrained LRTP.

This particular project was submitted twice.

for SmartScale in prior rounds and narrowly missed being funded both times.

The image on the next slide shows the sketch as was submitted last round

We are currently working with VDOT on this.

The proposal is essentially the same, a roundabout with pedestrian crossings across 250 as well as the side streets and some sidewalk connections.

One of the things we're working with VDOT on is to potentially extend the sidewalk on the southwest corner further south along the high school entrance to connect to a sidewalk that was recently constructed as part of the parking lot expansion.

And potentially shifting, we're still working through this, so Chuck and Sandy, correct me if I'm misstating anything,

The other thing to note is that we have been in conversations with Albemarle County Public Schools to try to bring down some of the right-of-way cost or reduce the right-of-way risk.

The unfortunate thing is that

That cost reduction cannot be counted until there is an actual deed in place.

And so for this round, we will not get any reduced cost savings.

Even though we have had positive conversations with school.

By August 1st, the pre-application deadline.

Is that what I?

OK, sorry.

For the school property, you just need a right-of-way letter.

If it's public property, you just need a letter.

Okay.

We need a letter for the schools.

We are.

Yes.

Okay.

You want to move to the next one?

OK, now we're going back to the 29-250 bypass, this time near Ivy Road.

Ivy Road was studied in a VDOT pipeline study, which wrapped up in 2025.

And there are four project applications at this location.

I'll speak to the first two that will be submitted by the county, and then Taylor will speak to the second two that will be submissions by the MPO.

This project that you're seeing now, Project C, is a version of Project D. This one is direct recommendations from the project pipeline study.

It would construct a roundabout at the intersection of Ivy Road, Canterbury, and Old Ivy.

another roundabout at Ivy Road and Boarshead Drive and a median in between the two for access management.

as well as a shared use path, the details of which we're still working on with VDOT on.

You can see the cost here is $38 million, which is much higher than the average cost that Taylor mentioned, both for the district grant program and the high priority projects program.

So we are planning to submit that to see how it scores.

Project D on the next slide is kind of a scaling back of that to just the roundabout at Ivy and Canterbury, as well as some portion of shared use path along Ivy Road.

The cost that we've been given for this is just shy of $17 million, which is more in line with the cost figures of average funded projects in prior rounds.

So in a sense, it is doing that thing we were just talking about where it's like,

You asked for too much, so you get nothing.

This is, you're asking for the whole thing.

Separate project, so we're using two of our four slots.

If we wanted to just try for Boershead roundabout alone, that's right.

What we saw in the analysis was that while there are issues at Boershead, the safety issues are much greater at Canterbury, and so that will score very well alone.

Whereas Boershead, if we pursue Boershead just alone,

And go back a slide.

So you have a solid I mean, look, okay.

I look at the one on the left.

I look at the one on the right.

The one on the right looks more expensive to me.

So it's 17 million to do the one on the right one.

Yeah, but that is interesting together.

It's destroying the impacted by these, so it reduces the safety issue here.

People come out, leftbound eddies back, protected by the determinants, those germinator jugs to have people jump out.

Does it make sense to the point earlier about connecting and links?

If the Canterbury gets approved, there's a shared use path.

Then later, the Boreshead one now has something to link to when signal forms get higher.

Is that enabling the system effectively?

Right.

You've said that it scores better if it connects to something.

And right now it doesn't.

And if you build them both together, they're connected to each other.

But if you get the kindergarten bearing one now and it works, and then later when you want to reapply for the forest bed one, it is connecting to the shared use path that wasn't existing before.

We're also, it's not shown on here, but we are adding crosswalk on the west side of the intersection.

So it doesn't get points, but it's going to be?

No, it's just that.

We're still working.

I mean, we don't have those discussions, but that's something that you, I mean, and there is an existing crosswalk there now.

some kind of request from the county to make sure that happens.

Well, that's we don't necessarily know.

And I think when we did this study, we didn't know what that alignment was going to be.

So we didn't really need to do the study for this portion, because we weren't sure if it was going to go here versus here.

I don't really want to talk about that during this study development.

All right, then for the MPOs projects, the first one is an off-ramp extension at Ivy Road.

And this location is a VTRAN Priority 3 location.

And this project includes increasing the length of the off-ramp by approximately 600 feet.

This one?

because what is, what's happening here that, cause this is the one that I got into B-trans and really nerded out on.

And I can't find in it any of the needs or the priorities that, like it's not saying that safety's a need.

It's exactly the same as he spent.

We'll address the operations issues so we don't have that queuing.

But like I said, a part of it is, like Sean said, you want to find out where you can make

and impact with combining a bunch of different projects into the solution to address the issue.

By doing both, we should have that issue.

But it's the roundabout.

But one guy had to pay him here to invite Terry for a minute when that car was kind of gone.

Well, it's still just the operation.

Oh, no, I'm a big fan of roundabouts.

I'm just saying it's also a deuce to me.

I mean, it's not it's not solved.

What are you going to watch?

And the pipeline study looked at a large area that was at the fountain of part of a beach range beach.

Correct?

The recommendations from that study make the project

applicable to be applied for high priority funds, although correct.

But that may be some of the disconnect that you're seeing too.

Because at the time we went through a pipeline study looking at Ivy Road and everything around it because we're having all these issues.

That study came up with multiple recommendations, which is an OIP approved that we went through OIP to get it done.

Okay, yeah, because it just seems pretty far downstream.

The updated V-trans speeds went from a two, went from a three for this segment of 250 to two for the segment.

And it starts at the, basically the Gore area and heads north.

So basically what that's saying is the cues are backing up,

And it's causing a problem at that segment of the bypass because people are backing up with the bypass.

But it's not reflecting because you don't have a body issue on it.

It can vary.

On the bottom, it's not falling.

Yeah, that.

And there's no like multimodal, anything built into this.

This is just making more freeway, basically.

Right.

I mean, it's just this, it's just an odd thing.

We try to understand what's at this table.

The newest members exclude me.

But this is the whole point.

The big frigging project that costs $80 million to fix all the problems.

Or value engineer down and do little things.

And then bounce back up and do little big things and it's ridiculous.

And this goes to my funding problem.

If the funding was better,

We would probably do solutions that would rather than be expanded from.

Because now we're looking at Fontaine, there's a problem of 118 down.

You could expand out like the solutions all across this whole corridor.

and then it links over to where it hits on walk 29 and powers coming off in 250.

We're getting hurt right now.

We're talking scroll, which is the land use problem.

So here's where we don't need.

But right now we have cars on the highway.

And we've got issues at Canterbury.

We've got issues at down in Fontaine.

We've got issues at 118.

And, you know, all of this works together.

We've got issues at barracks or even 250.

Yeah, submit that project.

See when it gets approved.

I mean, somehow they get bridges and tunnels built underwater with huge projects.

And this is a good point.

The projects that you're seeing right now, the ramp improvement projects that you're seeing right now, are the only projects that the NPO is eligible for.

So you're not making a decision on the NPO will submit this or submit something else.

But this isn't one of those.

This is only the weirder ones because it is such a like a dog.

It's a tiny thing that's not connected to any other.

I mean, we're talking about the roundabout, but that's a separate submission.

It's not built into any other thing.

Right.

It's the same team.

My question really was, in seven years, this issue is going to be either way worse or completely different from what we're looking at right now.

This is a safety issue right now, we're saying, and it's a mandate for

for that.

But you're talking about, are there other ways to go about this than, I mean, this isn't a state issue.

Is this even really going to score well?

Because it's priority three.

This is a state.

This information was taken from the pipeline study when it was complete.

That's what I accept, but I'm new.

We can keep moving, but yeah, this is a problem right now that you cannot waive that moment.

So I didn't know if this was one of the ones where you were like, it's a small project.

It doesn't really serve our plans to be multimodal.

It doesn't serve plans to work together to make better flow.

It's really like a Band-Aid project.

And so increasing the length of the on-ramp and adding an additional on-ramp from Old Ivy Road

and then similar to the barracks project, connecting the Ivy Road on-ramp with the Leonard Sandridge off-ramp by an auxiliary lane.

Question about the 9% of crashes, the 22% I assume that's the same years as the other one.

How does this impact the all the construction going on and the demand and needs that are at Leonard Sandrich now?

I don't know what's being built there.

I know this is private development.

So what was your question?

It's right.

It's older because there's every everybody who's entering and exiting is on Ivy Road.

And so the last one is 5th Street at I-64 exit 120.

So this project initially was previously submitted.

So the 5th Street DDI and the concept is on the next screen.

And so recently there was another study on that to value engineer it to bring the cost down because it was too expensive previously due to a bridge replacement that was included in the previous project.

And so currently the preliminary cost estimate that we have for the existing concept, $44.7 million.

And so this would convert the existing interchange to a diverging diamond interchange, construct shared use path along 5th Street northbound from the previously funded 5th Street Trail and Hub project to the I-64 westbound off-ramp.

I won't read every single one of those, but there are a lot of pedestrian crossings that are in this project and they're also controlled.

adding fencing to the bridge.

So even though we can't do a full bridge replacement right now, we can make it feel safer.

And there will also be signage for bikers to dismount when they're crossing the bridge.

And then additionally, at the Holiday Inn, constructing a bus boarding platform and a shelter pad at Pitt Street Landing.

Do?

What in the matter?

It's confusing to drive through, which I think slows people down and makes it safer.

It removed it to the left because of the complex it got rid of.

That's why it's flowing better.

And then I would offer the fact that they do have to go slower to know what they're going to do.

It's making anything less severe.

It's like a roundabout.

Yeah.

It's like people are like, what is it?

What is it?

The Virgin Dime window a while back and it was amazing.

A few were crashed and we had, but I thought it was.

Martha Jefferson has some issues with it.

They were asked to stop.

Awesome.

I've got a quick question on this slide.

Can someone walk me down the shared use path headed out of town?

So we're on it.

We go across the off-ramp.

Okay, on the third.

Okay, I just got it.

It doesn't go to the third crosswalk.

That's just sidewalk.

The diagram doesn't show crosswalk there.

It'll be a dash.

It should be on the map.

She's got the best view across the crosswalk.

Shirley Pathcozzi, because ultimately when we replace the bridge, the Shirley's path will be getting middle, not on the outside.

Okay.

Thanks.

I think just the lack of the zebra crossing there was confusing.

We're trying to bring that door.

You can see the apartment complex that's in the image.

We're going to be able to develop our contribution through sharing a path with their entrance.

Sunset Road.

The Sunset extension that goes under 64.

I think that was submitted several years ago by the county.

I'll have to go back and look.

That was an application that was submitted.

No, I think there's another.

It was not funded, it was asked, but that's where it's from.

Yeah, we're trying to come from the center chain based only on the following pieces.

Great, so I think we got all of our questions for now.

Okay.

And so just tying it all back together, I just wanted to pull out from our long range transportation plan to build on what Sean was saying, we already have a regional vision, right, which is moving toward 2050, our adopted LRTP.

And so I listed the goals.

I won't walk through every single one of these since I know that we're tight on time, but just bringing the focus back to that.

and preparing for future funding strategies.

So as Sean mentioned, leveraging the LRTP as our foundation.

So we have goals, we have priorities and we have a project list for the region.

But is that still the priority?

Going back through those project lists and seeing how they align with what's a priority in the city and in the county.

And so I know that's work that Albemarle County is currently doing, walking back through your transportation priorities.

I know the city has done work prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian initiatives for the city.

And so doing the same thing at the MPO, looking through our LRTP, getting a status of all those projects and bringing it back for our committees to say, are these still the priorities?

And then finally, matching the projects to funding programs.

So making sure we're in alignment for that funding pursuit, which projects should go to which funding sources.

And so this is the same chart that you all have seen at a previous meeting, but really just doing the work to figure out what's going to be the best fit for the priorities that we have as a region.

So next steps, the pre-application deadline is April 1st.

And so next, April 7th, all of this information will go back before MPO Technical Committee.

And so a lot of this was new today, so Tech Committee will get the same update.

And at your April 22nd meeting, the goal is to get the resolution of support to accompany our full applications.

You can vote however you'd like to.

And then after that, OIP, VDOT, and DRPT review those pre-applications and give us any feedback for those.

The full application deadline is August 1st.

January of next year, we should look for that staff recommended funding scenario.

So how did the projects do just based on score?

Are you already planning to share out the project list with all of us?

I know that some small groups in here are working on it already.

Yes.

I can pull what's currently in our long-range transportation plan.

Good enough to find the end screen.

Can I follow back up on that question that you just asked, whether the policy board and MPOTAC will vote on

I think it would be helpful for staff to get direction from you all on how we want that presented to you so we can come to you with those draft resolutions already prepared.

Generally, in the past, it has been all projects listed on one resolution.

We can talk to our team and then at the agenda setting.

All right, I have one comment.

Well, any comments from anyone on the policy?

I would say that this kind of work is something that I've appreciated.

I've found this sort of helpful today.

And we may need to think in pre-agenda as well of how to work these into normal writing.

I got to be honest with you.

I mean, I get it.

We get updates, we get reports.

But this to me is different than a report that I can read.

And if I can get this 15 minutes of air time, I'd rather do that and get a report that I can read and know that I can pull the next questions up.

So I know sometimes these committees get into a cadence if we do it because that's the way we've always done it.

But this is a shift, I think, in how we can start having a good conversation.

I think it also should be that

In terms of reading reports, pulling in what even the TJPDC, TJPDC umbrella is doing, just like we're kind of getting a look under the tent between Albemarle and Charlottesville to understand where the counties are going around us as well, because I know TJPDC does some of that, helps them with that work.

So I think that's easy to be able to collaborate and provide to us.

I have one question for you, Mr. Byers.

I know, given your career, that you know the reality on the ground of what we're talking about.

In terms, though, of transportation priorities that two legislative bodies set, is that, and it's just a I don't know question for me, is that something that at your level you're aware of what we've prioritized?

I mean, you know the reality.

But in terms of, this area is more important than this area on a prioritization list that avoids supervisors where a city council goes.

And with what you do, would that even be helpful to know that?

Yes, it is.

And Sean shares that information with me consistently.

Do you know how many are on our transportation priorities?

I know what you mean by that.

So that's what I'm saying.

I'm not saying

I'm saying the county's transportation priorities.

We're up to 160.

And to see what those are, now we have to go, they're going through the process to bring to the board to do a reprioritization.

The current one's on based off 2003.

I've seen you off the list, but I mean, it comes to the conversation I would have with Captain Bayard when he comes to SmartScale and the project that he is, get a recommendation.

There's a strategy where he doesn't have to agree with that recommendation.

So if I know that this project in Albemarle County is their top priority, they've been trying to get it for six years, but it didn't score well,

Great, because I think that's something we need to just make sure we're thinking ahead

But in the past, has there been like 100, 150?

They're going to spread all the blood strength

What I'm learning through working at the PGPC on the commission level is understanding what each of the six localities are dealing with and what scale they're having.

Because you can get so hyper focused on your own jurisdiction or us and our two city counts, but having that scope and understanding of what they're dealing with ultimately is what helps us get to this funding issue about the bigger problem.

Did you know that I wasn't getting frustrated with you about your points about the thing, it's getting frustrating

And that's the constraint we're getting put in to have to deal with that frustration because of the bigger funding issue.

So I would, Christine, hope that we could maybe move in those other localities and what we're doing for them, even though it's outside of the NPO jurisdiction, just for awareness.

And Sean, in your regional approach,

Are we regional in this room today, or are we regional in the facilities that are active in other parts of the COVID district, and some of the lighting is in the light for you?

We'll just take a few minutes to invite you.

It's just knowledge and support to have them.

We can't recently have everything working.

But I appreciate that.

People here were involved in the transportation at the state level and the funding buckets.

What you're describing basically is like, you know, Charlottesville is the center of the donut.

There's Albemarle.

People are coming from Green, Louisa, Savannah, Nelson to get to Charlottesville as the economic center of a lot of the region, basically.

And it is the responsibility of each of those entities to support their constituents.

But that means for Charlottesville, it's the responsibility of us not to make Charlottesville a parking lot for all of those people.

So when we talk about transportation options, I mean,

We have CARTA going on too, but cars are not the only thing that we want funded enthusiastically.

That is not the only thing, the only way to get people around.

And when you have that scale, it's simply a, there's a finite amount of space and the amount of space a person takes up is very different than the amount of space a car takes up.

So just long-term thinking about how we prioritize transportation funding statewide and

And I think to Ned's point, to add on to what you said, is a lot of our surrounding counties outside of the urbanized area do not necessarily see Charlottesville and Albemarle as their own economic center.

You know, you look at it with Lisa in Richmond,

Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Nelson, Augusta, Amherst, you know.

So it's also really important that we're thinking about centering all of our planning.

It's not centering everybody's coming here.

It's how do we make the entire area have good connection systems.

I think in Florida, we can't only think about how do we get the people to see around the counties into the city.

We have to think about what about the residents in those counties that are not coming into the city and where are we providing transit?

And the first view is this area going outside.

That's why the Albemarle model, that's a big thing.

We have to understand that and get behind with that model the same.

Awesome.

I am going to, we're going to have this cut out the round table.

My apologies.

Are there any additional matters from the public today?

Online?

Can't see it online.

And I want to thank Sean, your team, Chuck, Stacy, everybody, Brian.

We didn't get into it.

I hope this was worthy of your time as the buyers for what you both learned, the hearing reaction and what we had to say about these things.

And I think it's a good probably first step that we aren't strangers to one another, continue to talk about these transportation priority lists, not just individual projects and what we're working with and the reality of it, but then also bigger scheme things like how things are funded in this state.

All right.

Is Christine Taylor am I missing anything?

All right.

So with that, I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.

I thank everybody for their time today and do apologize again that we're going to cut the roundtable out.

We will be adjourned to April 22nd, 2026 at 4 p.m. And that is a virtual meeting.