MPO Policy Board Meeting   8/26/2026

Good afternoon, I'll call the board of the Charlottesville Albemarle and the Spalding Planning Organization for our Wednesday, August 26, 2026, 4 p.m. meeting.

Supervisor Galloway?

Here.

Thank you very much.

I will read the non-voting members now.

Christine Jacobs, Ivan Rucker, Dan Koenig,

Thank you.

All right, now we don't have any remote participation today, so matters from the public.

Are there any members of the public who would like to do comment in person?

Any online?

All right, seeing none, we will close matters from the public.

And we have both our review and acceptance of the agenda.

Are there any changes or edits to the agenda that need to happen?

Is there a motion to adopt the agenda?

Motion to be made and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

All right.

And then item B is approval of the draft June 24-26 meeting minutes.

I'm going to move option.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

And we will move to new business in item 4A.

Each year we have to renew our remote electronic participation in all virtual meeting policy per the state code.

So we need to handle that item.

There is no changes within last year's and this year's.

I just want to remind everybody that for that policy, 50% of your meetings can be virtual, so you choose to, but you can't have two consecutive meetings online.

If you have one virtual, the next one has to be in person.

Since there are no changes, is there a motion to adopt the remote electronic participation in all virtual meeting calls?

Motion has been made and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

Great.

They don't care.

So item 4B, we have fiscal year 27, Canto activities.

Carolyn, do you want me to use this one?

I'm going to put that up.

I'm going to bring it out.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, good evening, everyone.

I am here to help us kick off this fiscal year as our first meeting after July, just to give you a preview and an overview of everything MPO staff are gonna be working on this fiscal year.

You all approved the fiscal year 27 work plan in April, so all the activities that we'll go through today are included in that work plan.

And so the first thing I wanted to walk through with everyone is a little bit of a big picture understanding over time.

of the activities that the MPO does.

So you all have a nice printout and then on the screen I have put in a rectangle in red sort of where we are in this year of activities.

So this graphic is intended to provide a high-level overview of what we're either responsible for or involved with.

We do a lot of coordination here at the MPO.

Most of these activities are federally required, like the long-range transportation plan and the TIP and also performance targets, while other things on this graphic are state requirements or local priorities that our staff might be involved with.

So even if we aren't submitting an application

For revenue sharing, for example, we could be involved in coordinating with our local partners to get them data to help them with application materials and things like that.

So one of the challenges of this is that the activities that we work on don't always happen on the same cycle.

Some of them happen annually, some happen every other year, every four years.

So this is really meant to just give us a big picture understanding of when these things should come up over the years.

So this is how we complete our UPWP.

All right so before I move on from this slide are there any specific questions about this?

Okay and I do want to emphasize this is somewhat of a living document as you all know planning things and changes to schedules happen all the time as you'll hear with our tip document for example but this is something that we hope to put in front of you all a little bit more often.

All right, so this fiscal year, the most immediately top of mind thing, of course, is SMART SCALE round seven.

So we did submit four applications for the MPO by the August 3rd deadline.

So we just completed that step.

But the activities for SMART SCALE don't just stop there.

There's additional coordination that we do with VDOT and OIP as they work to review applications, ask clarifying questions as we wait to hear about scoring results.

And so after those steps, OIP typically provides a SMART SCALE update to the CTP in October.

That's when they give an overview about how many projects were submitted statewide, how many screened out, and big picture takeaways from that.

So we would hope to bring you all also that information once we see that meeting.

Then in January, the staff recommended funding scenario would be presented.

And that is the list that goes to the CTB from OIP staff that says, if you all were to fund these projects just based on data, here's the list and here's the order of those projects.

So that's the first cut of what we see for project evaluation and project scoring.

So after that January meeting, we would also be looking to bring that to you all as well to show you here's how all of our projects did, not just for the MPO, but also locally, bringing you all kind of that regional understanding of our projects.

We would review those scoring results.

And then of course, VDOT and DRPT host their SIP spring public hearings in April or May in each VDOT district.

And that includes all projects that are proposed for state funding, but in a SMART SCALE year that also includes SMART SCALE projects.

So that's when those will be happening.

And then in June is when the CTP officially adopts the consensus scenario.

So that's when, if they want to make any changes to what the staff presented, bring something into the funding scenario, take something out, that is a version that we will see in June.

So sometimes CTB members will look at the list and the localities will as well and sometimes localities make a direct ask right like maybe they see one of their projects funded but maybe they had a different one that they wanted to see funded so sometimes a locality or a region may make a direct ask to a CTB member or ask to do some of that trading with what's already been funded

Other things a CTB member might see because they represent an entire district, right?

So they might see a project that they know is a priority for one of their other constituents and they might ask, we instead want to bring this into the funding scenario and trade it for this other project.

I think every round.

Thank you.

And it had not been within our district before when staff recommended the Pan Top Spartan Ride, but the CPB member switched it for the

Roundabout, District Avenue.

There was also a time when the city received funding for a project.

I have to go back in the low.

One was Ridge Cherry and the other was on testing grade.

And you asked the question, the prices were very similar.

The scores were very similar.

And the CT for that one.

All right, also included in the UPWP this year is a benchmarking effort.

And so the purpose of this work is to take a look around at all the other Virginia MPOs to see how they carry out their transportation planning activities.

So MPOs all share the same federal requirements.

We all complete them, but we may do them a little differently.

Partnership structures may look a little bit different.

Some people have a lot more member jurisdictions.

And so really just looking around to have an understanding of how they're completing the things that are set out in their charge.

So we'll look at how many jurisdictions that they serve, what planning and programming practices they have, how they undertake public engagement, and things like that.

And so what will also be incorporated into this was when the policy board voted in February to sunset CTAC, you all also asked us to look at how we can set up an ad hoc committee for public engagement during the LRTP.

And so this work is also meant to inform that piece from that action in February.

And then I just have a little note here that this is not intended to rank any of the MPOs in Virginia.

We are all very different.

We all have sometimes different funding sources, different populations that we serve.

Well, if we can find some great ideas someplace else, let's jump on them.

This is something that was identified two years ago, something you wanted to work on, but the UBWP had already been approved.

And as you all know, so every year we adopt safety performance targets.

We do that on an annual basis.

Every four years, we adopt other performance measures.

So we are in a year where we are doing all of the other performance measures.

So that's coming up this fiscal year.

Those targets would be infrastructure condition, which includes bridges and pavement.

And that will also be system performance, which includes highway and freight reliability.

Yes, I think he's managing it from his chair here.

Thank you.

So performance targets sit underneath OIPI's umbrella.

So the same state agency that administers SMART SCALE, they also lead the federal performance target setting process.

And so VDOT and OIPI work closely to evaluate and produce a performance summary for federal targets and to recommend targets to the CTB.

They have already taken action on safety for this year.

They did that in June.

And then coming up at their September meeting tentatively is when they would take action on infrastructure condition and system performance.

And that's what officially kind of sets our clock for when it's time for us to take action here at the MPO.

So on the MPO side, we review that statewide performance data and targets in coordination with VDOT.

LEP typically also offers to meet with us if we have any questions about any of the performance targets or the data.

We also develop the target setting options for committee considerations for you all to approve.

And this year, you can expect to see those in December for approval.

These also get adopted into our TIP document and so you might have noticed in the newly approved TIP those tables were blank and that's because we were coming up on a new time to set these new targets.

All right, other things that we're working on this fiscal year, so the MPO actually used to maintain a dashboard specifically for TIP projects and so we are looking to bring that back.

So as you're familiar with every year, even though we adopt a tip, we also do adjustments to that tip.

We do amendments as things change.

The additional thing that is included that wasn't necessarily on our radar for this one, and there's an additional staff memo in your packet addressing this specifically, you all took action in April to approve the brand new tip.

So we did a comprehensive update to our tip document that was approved in April.

Initially, it was supposed to be effective as of October 1.

It's on a federal fiscal year timeline.

But we have been informed by VDOT that unfortunately, there is a delay in STIP approval at the federal level, which means our TIP cannot take effect until the STIP has been approved.

And so there's a little more information in your packet in that memo about that.

But the lack of information is happening in some jurisdictions, again.

Yes.

The federal government can't add on.

Yes.

But the rest of us have to wait.

Can you go back some?

Yes.

We do not have this currently.

These are screenshots from other mapping things, like this one down here, I believe is from the Richmond area MPO.

So this was just meant to show an example of what that would look like.

And so for TIP projects, we do have in the TIP document, like the schedule, we have how much federal funds are allocated to it.

We have where it is in the status.

We have all that information.

These are two RTS online.

So all the layers are integrated within the website itself.

We do have our own GIS.

Yeah, the CA-MPO.

Yeah, ultimately, those layers can be shared with the city and the county as well.

I didn't know that.

Yeah.

We have had meetings already with DRPT and VDOT just to understand to make sure we don't have a gap in any of the compliance.

In Virginia, they do do overlapping TIP years, and so there's always one good extra year of overlap, so we're pretty fortunate in that instance where we're not going to have

No tip document currently, we still have our existing one that's taking effect.

Yes.

And so the action still stands that you all already took, we're just waiting on the formal federal approval.

Yeah.

Alright and then also annually we do complete an annual obligation report that's also connected to our TIP that's basically an accounting of all the federal funds that were actually obligated onto projects and so that doesn't require action but it's an informational report that gets put in front of our committees and posted for the public every year.

All right.

Also included in our UPWP is exploring the idea of doing some bicycle and pedestrian counting.

This is something that we've talked with our local partners about, and folks seem to think that this would be really valuable.

And so spending some time to explore, like, what are the types of equipment that are out there?

What are some good locations where we would want to count if we wanted to do a pilot at the MPO?

Is the MPO the right pilot organization to take this on, really exploring this type of work?

And then continuing work on the TDM study.

So this is something that was in our UPWP last year.

So we rolled it over because we still want to do it.

This is not something that we want to forget about.

The goal was to identify long term initiatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled or VMT within the MPO area, support sustainable transportation options and improve regional mobility.

There's also a bullet in here just to make you all aware that as part of the rural work plan, TJPDC staff, we have kicked off an update of the rural long-range plan, which will have some overlap with this TDM study.

And so the work that we do with streetlight data to look at origins and destinations and to look at trip lengths and things like that will be informing both of those efforts.

One of the initiatives to reduce the overall travel,

Is that something that we can incorporate into this?

Or even the current zoning, if this was built up completely, this many people could get compared to here instead of driving through here.

Because one of the things that we hear a lot whenever somebody gets built in the city is, oh, the traffic.

But it's like, our traffic is people coming in and out of the city.

That's so within the city.

So we, as part of the rural long range plan update, what we've done for that document for the existing defense is the TJPDC is also currently completing a regional housing study.

And so any data that's already been collected that our team has already worked on to look at housing stock, opportunities to make improvements and policy changes for housing, anything that's included in there, we can also incorporate into here, bring it as additional information for this group to know as well.

So they did a really high level commuter analysis for the regional housing study, but I think they looked specifically at urbanized areas.

I'm thinking simply of like the, depending on some of the, you know, I think project that's going on, there's been a bunch of, throughout the whole process, people will learn just about traffic, but it's like, these are students walking just a little bus street.

So the traffic demand models for all apartment buildings are not based on the same set of circumstances.

So that's going to have a different type of expectation.

And if that's some building was built,

You know, it's three miles further down.

I just wondered how the models react to where the house would go.

Thanks for that.

Yes.

The Strava, you mean, like the app that they have?

Yes.

Sure.

All right.

So we can move to fiscal year 2017.

I'll tell you what we can see.

Yes.

Me again.

OK.

So I will be pretty brief with this one.

We just wanted to give you all an official update to show you the materials that were submitted with the final SMART SCALE applications on August 3rd.

I do want to preface before we go to the next slide.

So when we first develop or when VDOT first develops cost estimates for SMART SCALE projects, they are very high level, very big picture, you know, just like a concept.

If the idea of this project were to be implemented, how much would this roughly cost?

Once we get to the final application stage and they get closer with those estimates, they have a lot more detail.

You are going to see some increases to these cost estimates because they are now location specific.

They are constraint specific.

So if there's a certain type of topography that they have to account for in that location, they have a lot more detail.

And so just wanted to preface us with that because I know some of these will be a shock to everyone.

All right, so for our first project, the I-64 5th Street DDI, we were very excited to see this actually had a reduction in its cost estimate, so everybody's happy to see that.

It went from 44.7 million to 39.4 million for this project.

Not many changes to the concept itself.

There was a bus stop that was relocated, so it was in the wrong place on the sketch, and they just updated that to move it to the right place.

And then there was a minor change to the location of

And so previously, there was one.

There was one connection here.

And now, instead, there is a ramp right here for confidence back in the peak.

It's not over the bridge.

And used it to get back onto the side.

I was thinking about this and seeing the shared use path on the north.

The right side.

And then on the left side, it's just sidewalk.

That's a good question.

Yeah, it's because it's not connecting to shared use path on the other side.

It's connecting on the sidewalk.

So I know there is a long-term desire for that entire connection to the shared use path.

But what other, for instance, SMART SCALE, is that a logical term in that?

And so since it's not connecting to another shared use path, or not a funded shared use path, that would provide that connection.

We're doing sidewalk for now, longer term.

We know that when there's the opportunity to reconstruct the bridge,

So the shared-use path currently...

Sorry, every time I zoom in, it changes the page I'm on.

The shared-use path picks up in the middle of a grass triangle and heads into town.

So how is that any more of a logical termini than actually ending all the way down here knowing that the central connection is the sidewalk?

Because we still don't have a shared-use path on the bridge itself, we're connecting to a sidewalk on the bridge.

So we're getting to the bridge and in the future we'll update the bridge to a shared use path connection over the bridge when we can do that through state of good repair funding.

And then the other consideration is just the cost.

There are some

Another part of that is managing the overall cost of the project, knowing that our primary goal is to get it funded this round and keep it competitive.

Yeah, so from this picture, it's hard to tell if there's due graphic constraints, so that to me makes sense.

If it's just, I mean, you build things in sections and eventually they all connect.

So if it's geographically simple to share the path, and if that's something that makes sense, if it's not geographically simple, then I look forward to explaining that in the future.

But ending the shared use path in the middle of a triangle doesn't seem like a logical terminus.

as a justification for that.

I think the existing sidewalk on the south side left is right there at the six-way road, where that was.

Yeah, so since it is legal to bike on the sidewalk in the county, that would seem like that is a connection that could be made if it

Alright, the next project is the 29-250 on-ramp extension at Ivy Road.

This is the one that also has an auxiliary lane connecting to the Leonard Sandridge off-ramp.

This cost estimate went from about $13.9 million to about $20.6 million, so there was an increase on this one.

I do want to share that Albemarle County does have an enforceable proffer

Where this location is for this project, they were able to leverage $500,000.

And is an appreciable amount of this cost right away for that subdivision?

I'm not sure, but I can get you that answer.

And then the off-ramp extension at Ivy Road.

So for this project, it was just the ramp extension.

The pre-application inflated costs went from about $10.7 million to just over $11 million for this project.

And then finally, I'm sorry that the top is cutting off here, but this is the Barracks Road off-ramp project with the pedestrian improvements.

So this one had the largest increase to its cost estimate from the pre-application.

So this one more than doubled.

Yes.

And so this one doubled primarily to it was due to the cost of the right-of-way.

And there were also costs that had to be added to the project to help mitigate some of the impact to this historic property that's located right here next to it.

Isn't it possible?

I don't know.

It's probably not absolutely feasible right at this moment.

If the person we don't know doesn't get picked or doesn't get picked, I think having a shared views path there is useful for everyone anyway.

And so if we can enter that into a

All right, any other questions about SMART SCALE?

Yes, that's very easy for us to do.

And it's half an increase, so the whole may have an increase.

Yeah.

That's something we can easily provide to you.

1.1 million for the other one?

I mean, it would be able to see what the increases are, but that's starting to break out.

OK. And I do want to just take a moment to thank everybody who helped with all these applications.

I know there have been tons of emails flying with local staff, with VDOT, so I just really appreciate everybody's help.

OK. Can you talk about this general?

Oh, that's a good idea.

Like, do we ever crawl?

I'd love to see something like that.

So, you know, but otherwise, they're just general problems.

So maybe you can see the large picture.

Cool.

All right, so that will move us to 4D, which is the transportation improvement program.

Thank you.

So this, this is an

for the NPO Policy Board.

It pertains to the maintenance, traffic, and safety operations where $1 million is moved from federal fiscal year 27 to federal fiscal year 26.

This adjustment is district-wide and it's not tied to any specific project UBC.

This adjustment is by request from VDOT.

And sometimes, so the TIF can sometimes be a little bit hard to understand.

We also only get a piece of the puzzle in the TIF.

We get just the federal funds.

And so we don't know what else has changed, what state funds that could be in the system maintenance category.

So sometimes it's hard to look at it apples to apples and, you know, make any conclusions about what might have happened to those big system-wide ones.

There are also different types of funding that an activity could be eligible for.

That's quite a presentation.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

So first of all, I too would like to thank everybody for their support and coordination with SMART SCALE.

We had 22 applications that were submitted over on the Cool Pepper district by the deadline.

None of those applications were within the MPO area.

And as Taylor said,

The applications are submitted.

The work isn't over yet, but we're working through the screening validation and scoring that will occur over the next several months.

So we'll still be coordinating, but we really appreciate the support of everybody in reaching consensus on submitting the applications and then also on doing the work behind the scenes to get them submitted.

So as we're winding down this round of SMART SCALE, we are always planning for developing high quality projects that can continue to be identified to be submitted through our different funding programs.

And so we're kicking off the next round of the planning studies.

We spent a little bit of time in the last couple of months talking about what their studies will be.

So I have some updates on the studies that have been approved.

Remember, we have the two programs, STARS and Project Pipeline.

They're administered by different agencies, but for all intents and purposes, they're going to accomplish similar goals.

They're going to focus on multimodal improvements, addressing high needs within the roadway network system using a data-driven performance-based planning process.

You all have provided input on the studies that you would like to see requested through both STARS, mostly STARS, but also Pipeline.

So this is the list.

I forgot to take off the status pending, but we have confirmed that this is the list of STARS projects that have been approved based on the available statewide funding.

I also wanted to include the list not just of the projects within this region but within the whole Culpeper District just so there's an awareness that we are working not just within this region but across our entire Culpeper District so we'll be undertaking eight projects total.

For SARS, we are going to be continuing our work with the 118 interchange, specifically looking at the southbound US-29 left turns onto I-64 east, but we're going to take a broader approach.

In looking at that interchange and building off of the work that was started in the pipeline process, we will be undertaking a study with the City of Charlottesville at the Preston Avenue and Ridge McIntyre intersection, and then another project in the town of Culpeper.

And then in order to maximize the number of studies that we are able to support for the region, we will be undertaking the US 29 and Airport Road intersection study under the project pipeline process.

And then we will be doing some additional studies both in the Rappahannock, Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission and outside of the MPO in the TJPDC region.

All right, so as we're gearing up for these, we are already working to set up some study alignment meetings for all of the projects that are going to be supported through the project pipeline process.

They're implementing a new phase zero process this round, and this is really to help us solidify the scope and the extent of the project before they are formally approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

But for both programs, both STARS and Pipeline, there's a framework phase where all of the study working group members sit down together, talk about what the goals are for the project, and finalize the scope of work.

And this is what is used to develop the actual scope of work that

the consultants use to guide the efforts for the process.

And so what we're going to do today is talk about what is agreed upon in this framework phase as part of this process.

Getting into it may answer my question, but I hope I can just throw it out here just for you when it is for this building.

It would be very much appreciated for both of these topics and Albemarle.

Did somebody make a list of all the creepiest efforts that have been done since 1966 from 1980 and it didn't work the day we had it?

And all the different applications, first from $20 million, then from $40 million, and that's too small, the next one's too big, and it's just, I don't want any consultant to be hired to go forward and think that they're, again, blank-based because they'll just do the same except.

The same thing on Airport Road and the kind of rates that were in the interchange all the time in 2004 that disappeared.

So those kinds of things I would hope you would require to be based on so that people understand what is already been studied and either thrown out or left unfunded, which is also simple.

Because there's a whole lot, I mean the whole

Understood.

Yeah, we certainly try to capture that.

I don't see the difference.

Okay.

Going back a slide, I know he had

One of those was the US-29 at Airport Road intersection.

So given the available state resources, we

We determined that it would be better not to do that through STARS than to do that through Pipeline.

So we're still able to do that one just through the Pipeline and not the STARS.

The other one was the project that we were talking about with both the city and the county.

That would include East High and looking at the two intersections on either side of Free Bridge.

Based on available statewide funding, Facebook determines the final list.

Yeah, so the Transportation Mobility and Planning Division reached out to us and said we can support this many studies in each district, what are your top two?

And so we submitted the top two based on the feedback that we had heard previously when we had these discussions with the county and the city based on what their priority lists were.

And then we were able to go back and add a third study.

And again, the consideration was looking at both

Yes.

And then in this winnowing down process based off of these conversations,

We based this on the information we had previously.

About a year or so ago, there was a previous study at the Longstreet intersection down there, and I remember that people presented the study, and we got our presentation pretty taken aback when they were told by the city that there will be no acceptable changes.

Great.

Alright, so the framework document, we've been talking about what this looks like.

It is really important because this sets us up for how we're going to undertake the study, what level of resources are going to be needed in order to do the study as well, and it makes sure that everybody understands what their responsibilities are to be able to move through the process.

So I'm just going to go through the components of this study.

I'll spend a little bit more time on some of these than others.

Some of them are a little bit more technical.

It's important that those are discussed by, there's less flexibility and leeway with some of these than others.

So the very first thing we do is we all work together to determine what are the primary goals of this study.

We look at what the needs are.

and what the purpose is of potential improvements.

And the important thing with all of this is that this needs to be a data-driven performance-based process, meaning that the decisions that we make are supported by information and analysis that's available.

So there are different data sources that we can use.

We don't necessarily have to address all of the needs, but we need to make sure that the needs that we are working to address are supported by some of the needs that are identified by the data.

That includes the Virginia Transportation Plan, V-Trans, it could include potential for safety improvement intersections,

PB-SAP is the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan.

Previous studies, those kinds of things, but there needs to be a basis for establishing the goals and purpose of the study.

And then we're also going to do some work to look at what are the different analysis requirements going to be based on the characteristics and the classifications of the roadway network we're looking at.

So if we're looking at something like on US 29, that's classified as part of the arterial preservation network, which means that we are trying to maintain throughput.

That is a statewide decision.

There are certain analysis requirements we have to meet based on that.

If a roadway is considered a corridor of statewide significance or if there are pedestrian and bicycle safeties that are identified through that pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan, we need to make sure that those are identified as part of the study characteristics and that those discussions are part of the analysis that we undertake.

And then we're also going to work hard really early on to nail down what the actual physical extent is of the study area.

That's going to help us identify the intersections we need to study, what the boundaries are of the project, and what the area of influence is going to be.

Sometimes we'll have a project at one intersection, but we need to collect data at adjacent intersections in order to assess what the impacts are of any improvements at that intersection.

So this is where this nails down just the extent of the data that we need to collect and what is going to be eligible to consider for improvements.

So that's the first part of the framework document.

The part that I think is really important is identifying what the roles and responsibilities for everyone that participates in the study working group process.

This is something that Project Pipeline especially is trying to reinforce.

They actually are identifying some

specific requirements for the study work group participants as part of this process.

But one of the most important things is that we need to know who is the voice of the organization as represented on the study work group.

You can have multiple people from an organization, but we need to know like when a decision is made, how do we know when that is the decision of the organization and know like what channel that needs to come from for us to consider that final.

And then it also explains what is expected of the study work group members in terms of providing information, participating in the meetings, providing feedback within their organizations, etc.

The data collection plan is based on the project extents that we mentioned earlier.

So this is where we're going to collect data, what kind of data we're going to collect.

And then we'll also talk about what the analysis is going to look like.

So for every study, we look primarily at what happens during the peak hours.

So we want to know when the peak hours are.

And then we want to know how far out we'll need the improvement to be effective, because that's

What we use to analyze the future impacts of any improvements that we identified against what we call the future no-build analysis.

We'll project what conditions are out into the future.

We have to agree on how we develop those future traffic volumes, and then we'll compare any improvements against what we expect to happen in the future if no improvements are implemented.

We'll talk about what kind of traffic analysis tools we're going to use.

There can be some discussion on what measures of effectiveness we're going to capture.

Specifically, this comes up a lot with the bicycle and pedestrian movements.

How are we going to account for pedestrian and bicycle improvement?

What measures of effectiveness will we use?

But largely, a lot of this is informed by

The manual that VDOT maintains on traffic operations and safety based on the characteristics of how much traffic there is compared to capacity.

There are standardized measures of effectiveness and calibration thresholds we have to meet.

So while there can be some flexibility about some of the measures of effectiveness, a lot of this will just be driven by the location of the project itself.

And then we'll also talk about how we're going to forecast the traffic.

There are a couple of different methodologies.

The important thing here, though, is that we have to use an established methodology.

So there can be some discussion on which of the methodologies that are available are most appropriate.

But for any of the projects that are on the Arterial Preservation Network, these will ultimately have to be approved by central office, not by the VDOT district.

And so we are going to, we don't have a lot of flexibility on how we do the traffic forecasting.

It has to be justified.

Yes.

Yeah, there are three primary ways.

So one is using a trend analysis, so that's looking at historically how traffic has grown over the last several years and assuming that that same trend is going to continue into the future year.

For all the projects within the MPO, we can use the travel demand model to forecast what the current and future volumes are.

And then the third method is like a trip generation method.

And you would mostly use that if there is proposed development in the near vicinity where you know there are going to be traffic impacts.

Again, I've kind of been thinking about the 4117 Ag project where that building size in different locations as different travel domain based on proximity to stuff.

So you don't have to like confirm this, but to do an analysis of a project like that to do traffic forecasting,

Something like that would use the trip generation that is calculated from that site.

So if it's a large enough site and a large enough development and it's going to have a large enough impact, there's going to be something called a traffic impact analysis that is completed for the project that's going to go through a justification process of what they think the traffic impacts are going to be of that development.

Well, it will be based on, they'll have to justify it.

So they'll do a trip generation and then they'll say so many trips will be diverted to different alternative modes of transportation from single occupancy vehicles.

And that will be justified in the traffic impact analysis.

Yeah.

Sure, yeah, understood.

Yeah, no problem.

Oh.

Yes.

What the data was?

And then it's also in a development area based on Albemarle County, so it's been an area that Albemarle County staff has brought to us with high interest to find a solution for.

All right.

Okay.

We're on the last slide.

So the last thing we're talking about is what the development of concepts is going to look like in cost estimation.

So again, this is something that might be a little bit more based on making sure that the concepts that are developed and the cost estimates that are developed meet VDOT requirements or

use an appropriate methodology to estimate the cost but the goal at the end of the study is to be able to move improvements that are identified through these studies forward to implementation and so we want to have well vetted concepts and fairly solid cost estimates that can be used as the basis for decisions on moving forward.

We will also be documenting if there are any environmental considerations that need to be factored in as we consider different concepts.

What level of public engagement is going to be necessary as part of the study?

And then in the STARS Study Framework document, there's also a section for additional considerations.

And this could be anything that is identified either by VDOT or the study work group members that they want to make sure is

It is captured as part of the process.

So for example, it's not spelled out as much in the STARS framework document, but in the pipeline document, there are very clearly indicated expectations for when elected officials need to be updated throughout the study process.

So that is something that as an example could be added under the additional considerations to make sure that everybody who is participating in this study from VDOT to the localities to the regional bodies to the consultants all have a shared understanding of what it's going to take to move forward.

forward through this process.

And again, our goal is not necessarily just to develop projects for SMART SCALE, but that is typically one of the things that is identified through this process.

But it could also be to identify projects that could be implemented with the support of the residencies in traffic engineering or as revenue sharing or top applications where it could even support applications for federal discretionary grants.

It's not limited to SMART SCALE but we do want to make sure that at the end of the study we have projects that will meet the eligibility requirements and the readiness requirements to be submitted from SMART SCALE if there is interest and desire from the localities and regional entities that are eligible to submit those applications.

So again, we're going to be working to start setting up these meetings to get this concurrence and agreement underway.

And then we'll be kicking off the studies a little bit later this fall.

But are there any other questions?

Yes, you all have a written staff update that was included in your packets.

There's a couple of things I wanted to pull out.

The Pulpeper District does have a new CTB representative out of July 1.

His name is Jim Molloy, and he's been well with Virginia, so I'd like to make you a little aware.

of that change.

And then the other item that I'll pull out, and there was already correspondence related to this, but we did receive notification that we were not awarded our build application for the Ryan-Annett River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge for Luminary.

Thank you.

I noticed that you had a question about it and it's, you know, how many times did you apply for this?

And back to that, as always, we appreciate that that's a project that would be useful, but it's too expensive.

And so maybe if I could zoom out, maybe give some background on this one.

We have submitted it many, many times.

Originally, this bridge was actually submitted as a SMART SCALE application.

Faculty and FBO was eligible to submit it as a project.

And so it was submitted there for construction.

And so that's when we got the feedback that it was too expensive, it didn't get funded.

And the direction you can get in at that time was we need to find a way to do a little bit more studying to get us to a better process to make this more competitive for the future.

And so that's when we started applying for BUILD just for preliminary engineering.

So I think it was about $3.5 million, which was kind of on the low end compared to a lot of the other products that we saw that were funded.

And so they tell us every time, you know, their life looks great.

It's a really great product.

You all should be submitting it.

Know this is the best funding opportunity.

We don't know where else to point you all.

But it just hasn't been successful as a teaching like that.

And so I do think we have not answered your question.

We have not had any additional discussions about, like, is this the right location, or is this the right approach?

We have not had that yet.

But we've started talking with local staff about, you know, what are our next steps?

We're going to have to see this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We haven't yet heard feedback that it's about the cost that's not making it better.

It's actually scoring, merit scoring recommended going all the way up to the top of the view.

It just hasn't been selected as one of the projects.

The max grant amount that they're awarding in mill grants is 25 mill.

So in the three point something range, it's still the most competitive plots compared to some of the other projects.

But they only take a handful of planning grants.

We only got three in the state of Virginia this year and then we're zero in the state of Virginia last year that we're selecting.

So it's an incredibly competitive national grant.

But I hear what you're saying.

Is there something else we can do to change the applications?

Well, we'll change the power that we're trying to get it.

We need to know.

Like, one of those things about persistence goes up.

The important part is that we have it.

Let's see.

We have requested the debrief for this round and have shirts at from their team that do the number, high volume of debrief requests.

It could be many people sitting here from us, but we will take them from us.

So you can hear from what I'm saying.

All right.

So we'll go to our round tip.

Let's see.

It will go online first.

Oh, there's Wood.

Sure thing, happy to go first.

Just a couple small items to share with the MPO today.

First off is DRPT is conducting a statewide TOD, that's Transit Oriented Development Study.

This is a General Assembly mandated study that DRPT is undertaking.

I wanted to mention that and let the MPO know that there are some opportunities coming up for engagement.

We've had some engagement opportunities throughout the month of August and the next round of engagement will be in October.

If people are interested in learning more about that project, I recommend going to the DRPT website where there's a lot of good information about that.

Additionally, we're actively working through the state rail plan update.

And there is a public meeting coming up shortly, September 8th.

And so if you're interested in providing input or learning more about the state rail plan update, head over to our website and engage through that public meeting.

We also have a stakeholder survey.

This is another stakeholder survey that's going out in September, followed by a third virtual public meeting in November.

And then a CTV presentation is scheduled for December relating to the state rail plan.

The last update is that I know performance measures were mentioned earlier during today's meeting.

DRPT does the transit performance measures on behalf of our smaller transit agencies, so this includes CAT and Jaunt.

We are working through the final phases of having those approved through our transit asset management plan.

We anticipate those will be approved prior to

October 1.

Once approved, that sets a 180-day window for the MPOs to take action to add those new targets into their documents, the CLRP and the chip.

As in previous rounds, we will provide the MPO staff with targets, access to our data dashboard for transit asset management,

and then boilerplate language that they can use to include those items in the appropriate documents.

Final update is I'm now back representing the DRPT on the Charlottesville Albemarle MPO.

I'm really excited to see a lot of new faces and some old faces.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help me?

Mike, Mr. Murphy, John, can you help

I would just say quickly even though my camera's not on I feel like when he said old faces Wood was talking about me and it hurt my feelings.

As for job updates I would say most relevant to this group is that we have some funding from the state that's going to provide

New commuter route from Greene County into the Charlottesville and Albemarle area and pick up some new stops perhaps in northern Albemarle County that haven't been served before.

And we're also going to be through a demonstration grant bringing in midday service from Fluvanna and Louisa this year for the first time.

Thank you, sir.

That should take care of online, so we'll go in the room.

Well, yeah, you got updates?

First of all, fall semester has started, if you're not aware of that.

That started yesterday.

And I just wanted to mention that in the quarantine garage opening, the expanded, let's call it the UTS, is now called UPA Transit.

Everybody's getting rebranded.

UVA Transit has extended their bus line to extended Fontaine Research Park now.

And it goes from the West Grounds area to Fontaine, and then back to the health system, and then back to its normal circuit.

So that's extended service that helps serve that garage now because it's so being a commuter function.

We have four new battery-operated buses.

They're distinctive because they are not connected yet.

So they are just big, navy blue buses.

And that's how you can tell which ones they are.

They will get painted at some point.

So there's those four.

And then you might have noticed the smaller fleet of e-jets vehicles, which are kind of like cute little white vans.

And those are all electric.

So we have a couple of different fleet types that are not just gas operated.

And we convert it into those that are battery operated and also refined.

I think that's it.

West grounds, is that normal?

I'm sorry, when West grounds is over by where the stadium is and student housing and all of that between there and Fontaine.

Well, that's part of the loop.

Because a lot of the health system parkers park at stadiums, and then now a number of people are parking at Fontaine, and then a lot of those are health system people, so there's a loop that goes back.

And we do a special series of shuttles in the morning to move those people to their jobs.

One other thing I should mention is that in North Grounds, there's a new garage at Massey and Copley, so near JPJ, and that's going to be opening towards the end of this year.

And those bus loops are also really patient.

There is a special UVA health shuttle for patients, so most of the patients take that rather than the UVA transit, which is kind of a smaller system.

So the main hospital is the biggest disaster.

So where does one start to get the shuttle?

Is that at the Bonté Garage would be where one got the

We're building out our mobility plan that the county is doing some of this right now.

That scoping effort has bloomed into a second RFP.

We were really focused on doing one big RFP that sent over 16 different tasks.

Now we're going to do one RFP that does 15 tasks, and then a second RFP that focuses on engagement.

And that's partly because we're not just doing mobility planning.

We're also doing an update to our health plan, probably doing an update to our housing plan following that.

So we wanted to make sure that we're not inundating the community with too much quick.

We wanted to make sure that it's being coordinated pretty well.

The other thing that's in the engagement scope is going to be setting up a transportation initiative for the city.

So what we heard about from CTAC was CTAC doesn't make up a whole lot of sense at the regional level.

We'll be putting out information about volunteering, joining the watch next week.

Great.

This one's awesome.

Once volunteered, that will be already out there.

So we successfully submitted four SMART SCALE applications.

Thanks to VDOT folks for that.

The county is continuing to work on scoping for our multiple plan.

We've been working on process design, public engagement planning, and data collection.

And we hope to give a more formal update on that soon.

And then we have kicked off two roadway reconfiguration studies.

This is a program through VDOT's bicycle and pedestrian realm.

We are looking at Greenbrier Drive from 29 to Whitewood Road and South Kansas Drive.

So we've had our kickoff meetings and on-site visits in July.

and the consultant is working through developing some concepts.

Awesome, thank you.

Yeah, just a few things.

I mentioned acting assignments.

So Carrie, a lot of you probably work for Charlottesville Residency.

She's at the different for a time, filling my normal duties.

And then Greg Cooley, who is our construction engineer, is wearing two hats.

He gets to carry the big weight of not only the team level role, but also the Charlottesville residency.

Steve May, Steve Wright's name, law and communications, seeing the meetings.

Taylor mentioned Mr. Moy, our new CTE member.

He is very interested in engagement with our localities and we're great to work with so far.

We do hope that we will have a lot of participation

in an upcoming fall session program meeting.

So normally we do a spring public hearing years ago, probably, I don't know, but it's been a number of years.

We're supposed to, between five and 10 years since we did a fall meeting as well, but the current administration wants to go back to that.

So we're looking at early November, possibly November 10th, but they haven't confirmed that date yet.

Don't know the location either.

But please plan to come to that for people.

And we'll share more.

As for construction, we've got a lot of things going on, as you all know, around the city and the county and really throughout our district.

I'll just mention a couple of things.

Karen really has more information than I do about these.

But we are kind of broken through some right-of-way challenges out at Rio and John Warner.

So that's a positive.

Keep moving on that project.

And we do have a completed task order, change order for the gap piece at Fontaine.

We have the county's project, supposed to be interchanged, the city streetscape project, and the left was very short gap.

We were able to get that change order put into place, and there have been designs right away on that project, as well as the hydraulic district avenue roundabout.

All the biggest stuff.

We do have a planning position open, so close Friday, all right.

Justin Hooner in our office has left VDOT, so we're filling that role.

It's a small team.

Chuck's in the end of this position, so if you know anybody, good.

Thank you all.

So we will move to additional matters from the public.

Are there any members online who wish to get public comment?

Are there any members in the room who would like to get public comment?

No?

No?

We will close matters from the public if that concludes it for today.

So our next regular meeting is October 28th at 4 PM.

That will be in person.

And if there is no objection, we will adjourn until then.

Thank you very much.