MPO Technical Committee Meeting   3/16/2021

Meeting to order.

Start with the statement.

The governor has declared a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the nature of this declared emergency makes it impracticable or unsafe for the CA MPO tech committee to assemble in a single location.

This meeting and the required public hearings will be held utilizing electronic virtual communication with the Zoom software application.

And in accordance with virtual meeting procedures and policies is outlined in item 4.0-01 of the Virginia state budget HB 29 as effective April 24, 2020.

Thanks, Rory.

OK, I'll do attendance.

And if you could just unmute yourselves to note that you are here.

Kevin?

Here.

Dan Butch?

I saw Dan earlier.

He might join us again.

Alex?

Christine, Jeanette, Steven Johnson, Tim Keller, Juwan Lee, Bill Palmer, Sarah Pennington, Chuck Proctor,

and Dan Butch.

Here.

Great, thank you.

Great, let's go ahead and get started with the agenda.

First item up is the approval of the draft meeting minutes.

Does anyone have any changes to the minutes?

OK, we have a second.

Yeah, I second it.

Okay, we have a motion from Kevin and a second from Chuck.

I think we can just do a vote by acclamation for this one.

So all in favor, raise your hand.

Any opposed?

No opposition, any abstentions?

Motion carries.

All right, minutes are approved.

Next item up on the agenda, the MPO leadership transition.

I think all of you know through other meetings that we've been in with you all, but Tripp is obviously over as the city manager.

I'm serving as the interim executive director of the PDC, so I'll be sitting in as the staff member on this body.

All right.

Well, welcome aboard.

So yeah, ahead of schedule.

That was less than five minutes.

All right.

So next up, we've got the Albemarle County functional classification changes.

Sure.

We like to think that this is not really just about entrance corridors, although it was entrance corridors that brought it to our attention that we noted that

And a number of the roads in the county that were previously identified as collectors were probably being used different than what a typical collector is used as.

And so we thought it was appropriate to entertain the idea that we could request changes to the functional classification to upgrade them to arterials.

If you look at, and I don't know,

Kevin, you should be able to share your screen.

Okay.

No, I can.

I'm sure I can do it.

I just didn't know the process.

I'll just pull up the map so you can see which roads we're talking about.

I think you can see this map right now.

So as you can see from the map, almost all of these are situations that all the black lines are existing arterials and the red are the ones that the county is considering requesting that we upgrade to arterials.

They're currently major collectors.

And almost all of them are really extensions of existing arterials.

So you got Route 250 from the intersection with Route 22 all the way out to the county line.

You've got Avon Street, which is an arterial within the city.

And then when it hits the border, it turns, it currently turns into a collector.

We're looking to

make that an arterial all the way out to Route 20, a small extension of Route 631 from where it currently ends at sunset out to the new proposed Hickory, which is going to be a major intersection once the southward development completes.

So we thought that made sense to push that one out.

Barracks Road from the city line out to Georgetown.

And then the other one that is not an extension, but we thought it was appropriate to probably reevaluate its classification is Route 53, the Thomas Jefferson Parkway, all the way from Route 20 out to the county line.

There's general guidance in the FHWA's definitions of functional classification.

and all of these meet those general guidance as far as the range of trips that are done on it, the use of it, that it's making connections from populated areas and the geometry of the road.

They all tend to match what we would typically see in arterials.

So what we have to do, the process is that the MPO has to be the one that

I wanted to bring this to the technical committee to get any feedback and thoughts and see if we can maybe make a recommendation to advance this to the policy board with that request.

and see where it goes.

Like Rory mentioned, this was something that came about because we noticed that it was brought to our attention that entrance corridors by Virginia state code have to be arterials.

that a locality cannot regulate an entrance corridor if it's a collector.

So we did look at that and we thought this could kind of kill two birds with one stone.

We're actually not recommending all of our previously identified entrance corridors that are collectors become arterials.

Some of them we just didn't think really met that definition.

Route 6 down in the southern part of the county is one of those

I think Route 22 possibly was another one.

And there's also, Barracks Road was an entrance corridor going further out into the county.

We're only trying to change a portion of them.

So we recognize that not all of our entrance corridors meet the arterial qualifications, but we're just asking for the ones that we think do be advanced.

I'm happy to take any questions on that.

I have a question.

Sure.

Well, one of the pros is going to be that we can, once again, regulate these as entrance corridors.

And we think that's appropriate because that gives us some ability to

Look at the aesthetics of development and how they relate to the road.

So we think that would be a benefit to us.

It also changes the funding, which I'm not exactly sure how that matters, but maybe I'd rely on Chuck to give us the details, but it would bring, I believe, some additional funding with it to the county.

for maintaining those roads, not directly to the county, but to VDOT for work in the county.

And really, we just think it's just a more appropriate way to look at these roads because they are, I think, being operated as arterials.

I can't think of any negatives necessarily to doing this.

Kevin, could you speak a bit about the alternative segments?

That showed up on several of them earlier and now I'm just seeing I think on 53.

You know, so our intention is to make the request for all of Route 53 and that we, if that is not approved, then we would look at other lengths of that one.

There are other roads, I guess,

Maybe what you're referencing is that the roads that are entrance corridors currently that we don't think meet the qualifications to become arterials, we're looking at other ways to regulate the architecture or the aesthetics of those roads through like turning them into some sort of like historic corridor or scenic byway kind of thing.

Is that what you mean?

I really didn't have any hidden agenda.

I was just curious as to why several of them had that.

And now it makes sense that if it doesn't cut for VDOT the whole way, I mean, my sense is it's locked all the way to Palmyra, the full extent of 53 from Route 20 in Albemarle to Palmyra in Savannah.

But we're only talking about this for

Yeah, correct.

So are there formal definitions of arterial and collector here?

You know, it seems a little bit vague, you know, I see really the proportion of service chart.

But, you know, looking at some of these roads, I mean, certainly 53 serves primarily

for mobility from people coming to the lake.

But Avon Street has quite a lot of businesses and residences along that corridor, that stretch of Barracks Road or Garth.

It has a grid system around it, some pretty dense development, actually even to the west of there into what's supposed to be the rural area is like

You know, the 20 unit per acre barracks west and the colonnades.

So it seems like there is a fair amount of local access or land access, which is, you know, collector, it seems like is, you know, between

80-20 and 20-80 and then arterials are less than 20% land access and locals are more than 80% land access versus mobility.

Yeah, I would keep in mind, though,

when you're considering how those factors are evaluated, that these arterials are also extended into the city where there's a high amount of access given to them.

And in a lot of cases, very little change between what you're seeing within the city that's already an arterial and what's outside the city in the arterial.

With Avon Street, you know, when you get out to the Mill Creek area that we've even got roads fronting on there similar to how it is in within the city, or we've got development fronting on Avon, residential development fronting on Avon.

similar to how it is in the city.

So the city classifies all these as arterials, barracks and avon?

Yes.

Is this going into the city also arterial?

I don't know about every line, but I can tell you that where you are proposing to make a change, the road is already an arterial in the city.

That's honestly kind of surprising to me.

I wonder if that's kind of a relic of when we saw barracks and Avon is kind of highways to the outside rather than

I guess another question is, what are going to be the impacts of this change on potential developments around here?

Obviously, your old Lynchburg change is going to mean that the

Habitat redevelopment of Southwood is going to be now subject to additional scrutiny.

And I know just last week, City Council passed the Star Hill Vision Plan, which calls for our city yard to be moved out to the Avon Street site where Cat is and the parking lot.

Is that going to be limited?

I mean, they will be required to meet our ARB guidance at that point, which, you know, that makes the, I think, the point for the county be a little bit stronger that, you know, a yard, and don't get me wrong, I think that's a great idea to move that out there, but we don't want this, you know, this primary corridor to

to have the appearance of something that is not representative of the county and the city, that we have some screening guidance that we can enforce on something like a city yard.

I don't think that the ARB requirements are that difficult to meet, especially for things like that.

Now, when you're getting to like a Wawa station,

I know for Southwood in particular, I remember reading quite a few kind of angry letters from the folks across the street in Mosby Mountain talking about the potential for apartments to maybe be visible from the road

and people being very upset by that.

Potentially the apartments being scaled back or moved away from the road as a result of that.

No, it would be more about the type of architecture that they use for those buildings that front Avon Street and the landscaping requirements.

That's correct.

Step backs are already regulated in our

Okay, thanks.

Tim?

If I could just, Rory, because I deal on the county level with like you do in the city level, just several things that might be of interest to you.

One is that when we talk about Avon Street Extended, we are talking about a major regional park that's going to be at the end of it.

And so I think

That is another reason for us to be thinking about that continuum from the city to the county and what occurs along it.

And that this is an opportunity to think about that holistically.

You sort of dismissed 53 as people coming from Lake Monticello.

However, and I don't have the workforce numbers, but I think that they're available.

The number of people who commute from Buckingham and that southwest corner of Albemarle is huge, and many of those come up the 795 into 53.

That's why I was particularly interested in that quadrant.

And as we have the Belmont Bridge reconstruction, a number of those people are going to be thrown off

on to 20, more people are going to be thrown off on to 20 in the interim so that they can get to the hospital.

Sentara, for instance, by cutting that back way by the woolen mills.

So I think that there are other reasons and rationales just besides aesthetics to be able to think about why

some of these ones that at first blush you kind of look at and say well this isn't really the same as some of the others that there really are reasons that we're seeing in the in the county for instance and one of the things from an aesthetic standpoint which is interesting is that and Kevin correct me if I'm wrong but 53 the first solar farm that's been approved in Albemarle County is on the

corner of 53, I'd say Mount Eagle Church, I'm not sure what that route number is.

And at that point there was still entry corridor that went that far, correct Kevin?

And so there were some buffer issues that allowed that to be approved as opposed to one that is going to be coming through soon.

that won't have that same kind of buffering and so there's more controversy about whether it should or shouldn't be located where it's being proposed.

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, at 53, it makes sense to me that it's primarily a route for mobility rather than land access.

Like you said, both because of travel from the lake and from Albemarle, actually, we're trying to live in the Flavanus out of Scottsville, that's true, he drives up there.

But

Yeah, some of these other corridors, I guess I'm a little bit more skeptical about and I think it's a good point that it's, you know, not really, it's obviously intended to be a classification of the road and how the road operates.

But it also seems like maybe the most practical effect will be on having aesthetic regulations.

And I'm, I gotta say the argument that you're reducing the output of your solar farm in order to

screen it doesn't seem like a super positive thing to me.

And even when you're talking about articulation of facades, you're talking about driving up the cost of a very important

redevelopment projects.

And at the same time, both on that road, on Avon, and on barracks, it does seem like there's a lot more of a land access role than just mobility.

It doesn't seem like it's predominantly mobility, which also seems like a problem with the city's classification, if that's what it is.

I'm not sure if that is a factor.

Yeah, I can chime in.

I have a couple of things to say.

First thing is part of the requirements are they're percentage based in the number of miles of the different types of facilities that you have across the state.

So that's going to be weighed in, as well as some of the other criteria that Kevin had mentioned.

One of the big things is determini.

And you want it to terminate at a logical location.

Most of our arterials, they terminate at other roadways that are major collectors or other arterials.

So you need to factor that in.

Regarding SmartScale, it doesn't matter what the classification of the road is.

It may, the higher the ranking, it may show up as a need, as a greater need, but it's not part of the actual scoring matrix that we use to evaluate projects.

Generally, safety and congestion, those arterial roadways, they're going to have more volume and probably have more

crash incidents.

They're also going to have more economic development related relations around them.

So those are the kind of things that might help an application, whereas a local or a collector may not have as much.

I was also going to point out that Avon Street, from where it meets 20 there in the south all the way into the city, actually is almost double, I think, the volumes.

So most people that are trying to get into the city from southern Albemarle, from Scottsville, from Buckingham, that are coming up 20,

They tend to get turned on to Avon and go into the city that way as opposed to using 20 up towards the highway and into the city that way.

And what effect does this have on speed limits and design for speed?

You know, I know in Avon in particular, we kind of have a speeding problem really as you cross the bridge with the big downhill.

And there's just generally in the city been a lot of talk about reducing speed limits citywide, you know, as part of

The eventual goal of eliminating pedestrian traffic deaths.

So, you know, at the very least, it sounds like this would require intersections be placed further apart, which would seem to encourage faster speeds.

There are speed limit guidelines, but they're really broad.

So you can have, I mean, you can have a 25 mile per hour arterial.

I don't even know, actually, maybe because the city does have arterials that are 25.

Maybe those are actually outside of the limits that they typically prescribe.

But I think when you're getting to the heart of that question, you know, safety really is the issue.

I don't think this prevents us from doing any improvements that could make the road a safer road.

Obviously, speed isn't the only factor to consider there.

The access points, the reduced access points tend to make a road safer, even if they could increase speed limits a little bit.

But we can use other measures to try and address speed as opposed to like access control.

But we do have, you know, we've looked at the Avon Corridor study as we were evaluating this and tried to consider whether

The recommendations we had in the Avon Corridor study that I think are going to make it more of a bike-ped friendly road and hopefully reduce speeds.

They all were still, you know, we can still do all the recommendations that we have in there under an arterial classification.

So I don't think it really makes that big of a difference in that sense.

And I would caution, as I'm sure Chuck and probably others would say, just reducing the speed limit on a road isn't gonna help much.

I was going to say one of the things I wanted to point out was many years ago they changed some of the classification criteria.

It used to be classified as urban or rural, but now they took that out of the functional class.

So it's just classified as an arterial or collector.

And that is a big distinction.

When you get down to the road design, you're going to pick that design criteria, whether it's urban or rural, when you're developing your typical section for your road and your treatments and some of those factors that go into it.

And that's where you can really have an impact on speed control.

Yeah, as we looked at this, we were suspecting that possibly the reason the arterials did end right at the city line was actually a holdover from

the old functional classification prior, that was like 2014 I think that they made that change or thereabouts.

And have you guys taken a look at, you know, with the new spacing requirements that would be added with this change, how that comports with the existing conditions on that road?

Like I see from the functional classification guide and thanks for that, Linkwood, that for a collector with a 35 to 40 mile per hour speed limit, it has to be minimum of 660 feet within intersections or between intersections, which goes up to 1300 feet.

for a principal arterial, personally doesn't say what a minor arterial is, but I'm looking at like, you know, affinity to mountain view, for example, is only about 615 feet between intersections.

And a lot of them do seem to be pretty close like that.

Things like, I don't think so.

We took a look at that and we didn't see any issues with it.

Things like Mountain View is considered a commercial entrance, not an intersection.

Oh yeah, sure.

Yeah, it doesn't actually count across the street.

They look at those differently.

Yeah, we took a look at it and we didn't see any problems with any upcoming development in all these situations.

But we would, you know, it's something to keep in mind.

I don't think, we wouldn't change the existing conditions of these things that would make them nonconforming to the current thing.

And they'd have to, if they ever came back in for a new site plan, maybe they would have to change in that case.

VDOT would require that.

But often we can even, you know, if we're making the overall system work better, we can still move through, you can still have non-conforming things, just if you can improve on what's out there.

And safety really is the main issue with those standards they have, trying to make the road a safer route to travel.

Okay.

Does anyone else have any other questions?

I'll make the motion to support this proposal.

I don't think we do.

OK, second from Juwan.

Motion from Tim.

Sure.

You'll have to bear with me while I found where I've written out everyone's name.

Dan?

Alex?

Christine?

Yes.

Jeanette?

Yes.

Sarah Pennington?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm going to abstain.

All right, motion carries.

So just want to jump in here and say I forgot about matters from the public.

I apologize for that.

If we do have any members of the public who'd like to speak, we do have another opportunity at the very end of the meeting under additional matters from the public on the agenda.

Sandy.

Sure, thank you.

Let me just pull up a presentation for you.

All right.

Are you all seeing, you're seeing the presentation now?

Yep.

Great.

Okay.

And Jessica and Rory, if you could just help me if there are questions.

Oh, I don't know how to change this, so we'll just go with this.

You'll have a preview for what's coming.

So, we talked about this a little bit at our previous meeting as we were developing the Unified Planning Work Program, but just to remind you all that

that we are, every year we have to basically provide a work program that shows how we are going to be using the planning funding that we are provided for through FHWA and FTA with a state and local match to show what we're going to be doing to support the goals of transportation planning throughout our region.

This is a federally required activity.

We do it every year and for FY22 our budget with the combined contributions from all of our different sources is just under $321,000.

Just as an FYI, there's also, when you look at the actual UPWP budget, there's also another line that says VDOT SPR funding.

That is basically an additional amount that VDOT gives their staff to allocate to support MPO programming in our region.

So that does not come through the MPO.

That is a separate line item that VDOT has budgeted.

So what we did at the previous meeting in January is we presented an overview of everything that we were pretty sure was going to go into the work program and then we asked for you all to give us some feedback about what you would like to see with some discretionary spending that we had identified.

Based on some of the input, we did make some adjustments.

Most notably, probably, we reduced the contribution from the MPOs portion of the North 29 corridor study.

So we reduced that a little bit too and bumped up what we are putting into the rural work program.

to get us to the overall funding for that project.

So it's going to be a little bit more balanced.

We're asking for an additional $30,000 to be identified in the Rural Work Program to support the North 29 Corridor Study.

I also bumped up this MPA strategic plan a little bit.

We did have a strategic planning effort that was done in-house that covered 2017 to 2019.

Especially with a lot of our staff transitions lately, we think this is a really good time to go back and look at that previous plan and see where there are opportunities that we didn't quite make happen and where there are new opportunities to really provide a guiding framework for the MPO.

So we did increase that a little bit just to better support that effort since I think it's really important.

We also, as you know, we've been talking about smart scale.

We'll be talking about that a little bit more, but we did put a pretty substantive amount into this budget line item.

This will both support our public process that we develop and then also support our staff as we submit applications on behalf of the MPO.

So I think that is going to be a pretty large investment, but obviously it was something that was very successful in our last round and we want to do everything we can to continue to put the effort into developing good, thoughtful projects that will

result in transportation improvements on the ground in our area.

The rest of these are pretty standard things that we have to do, the administration components just to make sure that we're in compliance with everything, some of these federal documents that we have to maintain like the transportation improvement program.

This slide item right here is generally to support the alternative modes of transportation and to make sure that

We are having a tie in between the MPO and the Regional Transit Partnership that we're pursuing travel demand management and also to provide general bike pad support that may not be identified as a specific project.

Performance targets are also a federal requirement.

We're anticipating there may be another opportunity to submit a grant for the Amtrak station improvements.

So we wanted to make sure that we have staff time allocated for that.

And then there's also this general kind of public outreach CTAC category that we want to devote some resources to.

This total amount was not updated based on the total

amount that we got.

I did not have the, I believe it was the FTA number finalized when I put this together, but it's within $2,000.

Correct.

Those are not included in the totals.

We will put them in the work program.

Yes, Andy.

With the breakdown on the costs here, are those

Where's the local funding?

Correct.

Yeah.

So this, this is the total amount.

So FHWA and FTA both give us a breakdown and they say, this is your total budget of this total budget.

80% comes from the feds.

80% comes from the state.

or 10% comes from the state and 10% comes from the local.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, so then what we need to do at this point is we really need to determine what is going to make up this project to be determined blind item.

And so, as you recall, we had some conversations in the MPM meetings last month just to talk about some ideas and see where there was generally some excitement and interest about what we could pursue.

So I also went back and looked at the strategic plan that was current.

It's a little bit outdated, but still the best framework that we have and really looked at what some of the priorities identified were in that strategic plan to try to develop a better scope and framework for what we could potentially do.

based on that feedback.

So we've really divided it up into two options.

You can either do option A or option B.

And what we're going to be asking you all to do is to make a recommendation to the policy board of which of these options you would prefer for us to pursue in FY22.

So option A is one big analysis project, and we would be looking at bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis throughout the MPO area.

Based on some of the initiatives that are happening locally regarding a focus on equity, we think this would be really important since, you know, one of the things we would be looking at is the socioeconomic demographic type of information of people who are

involved with bicycle and pedestrian crashes.

It has a major safety component.

And then again, based on the existing strategic plan, there was a pretty strong desire for there to be more work done towards supporting specifically pedestrian infrastructure and access.

So that would

that would focus, this would be the focus of this project.

So we would basically use that entire budget.

And what we would be looking for is to develop over either a five or 10 year time period, really do a more in-depth analysis to understand what are the factors that are contributing to people being involved in pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes.

So we would be collecting information on things like functional classification of roads where these crashes are occurring, lighting, time of day, what kind of infrastructure facilities were in place at the time, ages, any sort of demographic information that would be available.

and starting to try to figure out if there are some common factors.

We think this would be really helpful to either identify where there needs to be opportunities for investment as far as new infrastructure.

If there are some geographic specific findings that come out of this, but also to help with other sort of education and outreach efforts to understand

What some of the factors are that are less tied to geographic locations so that we can improve any sort of outreach efforts based on what we know is actually contributing to

higher involvement of crashes.

We did have a discussion with some of the bicycle and pedestrian planning staff with Albemarle and Charlottesville just to confirm they said this was not information they had and that this would be information that would be helpful for them to know as they plan their facilities.

And then the second option would be breaking out the total amount we have available into two different research projects.

Based on what the policy boards interests are, one of these would be looking into how we can incorporate climate action impacts into transportation planning processes.

This is a requirement for certain localities that are in non-attainment areas.

That is not Charlottesville, but we could look at places specifically that are in non-attainment areas, see what they're doing to measure and track and factor in climate action impacts into transportation planning and develop a report of best practices.

And then the second one would be a next step to what we've been doing with the transportation revenue research that we've been conducting, which is less looking at what are the mechanisms for transportation funding through additional sources like things like tax increment financing districts or

public-private partnerships or developing an authority and really looking more in depth at some case studies to see where have these types of interventions been successful and what made them successful.

So to better understand the dynamic of taking something from an idea into implementation,

If you look at your packets, I've listed a couple of ideas.

Those are just examples of the types of case studies that we could do.

They're not necessarily intended to say that we would focus on them, but just to give you an idea of some different examples of different ways that people have been able to leverage additional funding and we could pursue those just to see.

a little bit, what lessons can we learn from what they did that we could potentially provide to our area?

So again, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Andy.

I am curious for option A, how would one go about that?

I imagine that there are some bicycle and pedestrian crashes that occur that are that involve the police.

And so I would expect the police have some record of that.

But for all of the other minor crashes that don't get reported,

How would you even start to collect data on that aside from just posting cameras everywhere or people observers?

Yeah, I mean, this would be looking at VDOT's crash data basically using their database.

Well, Sandy, can I just jump in?

The hospitals collect the purpose of the injury.

So if anybody was in an accident and the police were not involved, but they went to the hospital, we would know.

Probably not.

Yeah, I mean, it's definitely not going to be perfect.

You know, if it's a minor injury where somebody just got bumped, you know, in a crosswalk or something like that, and, you know, no harm kind of thing, we probably wouldn't be able to do that.

I wonder if you could also do some public outreach with that and get people to tell us about issues they've experienced.

And I know it's hard to lay

you know very specific details about those things because they could change in the person's mind or they could be remember them differently or they could be making things up I don't know but still it would be good to know and hear about that kind of stuff and you could have like a map thing where people go in and input places where they've had even close calls I mean you know the difference between a close call and a death is

It's very minor, unfortunately, when it comes to pedestrian and bicycle injuries.

Definitely, and I think there's definitely a room within that project.

Look at some different options to collect some of that data.

There have been some examples of other MPA's that have done this.

I think I might have given you a link to one in your pocket.

So we do have some examples that we can follow.

Andy, if I could just jump in and tie things up with a nice bow.

I'll just say I think I like option A.

We're actually currently dealing with a situation where we had a pedestrian injury from a car and it's kind of blown up around here, having us try and figure out what we can do about it.

And we do this all the time.

I mean, I have, when a death occurs, we sit there and we pore over that information and figure out like, what could we possibly change that would improve this situation?

And I try and pool data to try and find hotspots, but finding hotspots with this stuff is difficult.

I would welcome that assistance.

And then if the result were maybe some

You know systemic recommendations or even place specific recommendations.

If you find hot spots, then I think that would be of a lot of interest.

Not that the other option B isn't interesting.

I just feel like that's

Some of that stuff we can take care of on our own.

I think we're already moving forward with our climate action plan.

And I think a lot of the steps, at least for a while, are gonna be pretty obvious what we need to do for climate action.

And also the funding situation where those are things that we already work on.

Hey, this is Chuck.

Yeah, I'd like to chime in too.

I don't know how much data is available.

I know you guys have referenced a couple of sources.

But I mean, like you said, there's a lot of near misses type of instances that I don't know if there's a good way to collect those that can be validated.

And that might be a concern if you just focus on that.

I know with the One Map project that we've wrapped up for the most part, we've got a good map of facilities and what the needs are.

If we could overlay, collect some of this data and overlay that on that, and then look at more or less what other criteria you might want to come up with to come up with a prioritized list of

where we need to make the improvements and that could facilitate into projects moving forward and it would assist with the development of a long range plan in the future.

I think that might be a better utility than just to focus on this one small aspect of it because I don't think there's going to be a lot of data and it's going to be, I don't know if you're going to find it focused in one particular area.

I'll second that.

And I think that feeds into option B, that

I think in some ways there already is clarity about what kinds of infrastructure we need for bicycle and pedestrian safety.

The obstacle is not that we don't have the data.

I think the obstacle is that we have limited funding and that's mostly for political and cultural reasons.

But if option B is going to help us have more funding for

Yeah, I'm a little bit torn because I think they're all great ideas, but I think

I think part of the reason that there isn't a ton of interest in funding it on the locality level is a lack of understanding of the series injuries and deaths that do occur.

And I think, you know, compiling them and putting them into

you know, a format where I would hope it would be more than just numbers, right?

And have, present those narratives and those, you know, case studies of, you know, what happened.

Because I feel like, you know, when someone gets hit by a car or a truck, you know, right over here at Ridge and Main happens every year or two, right?

And,

It's like a minor news story, and policymakers don't really see them.

So to me, I think there's some real value in that.

And I'd be interested as well, if you do come across significant difficulties in collecting good data, to offer some prescriptions about how to collect better data moving forward so that we can start to really compile that information in an effective way, if that's something that we

are capable of doing and getting the relevant agencies who collect the data to collect whatever additional information we would need.

I like the idea of self-reports, but with the equity lens, there's always going to be a bias in who ends up self-reporting on a web form, especially

depending on the outreach that we do to make people aware that it exists, right?

Like we'll circulate it through the bike head advisory committees, but that gets you pretty into the recreational or dedicated cyclists crowd.

But I think if you put up flyers at intersections where someone on a bike who isn't involved in that might see it, that could get you a better sample.

I like the things in option two, but I'm

I kind of feel like it might not be the best time for them.

Like, especially on the funding sense, like the localities are still in kind of a COVID crisis mode.

And maybe that makes more sense to do the following year once things start to return to normal and we realized, oh, wait, there are still constraints on funding, even though we have all this money again.

And yeah, I think

Climate change, I think, is the most important thing facing us.

But yeah, I think, I don't know, that's tough because I think a lot of it has to do with land use.

And some big chunk that isn't covered by land use is going to be covered by the transit vision plan that recently got funded.

And then, you know, the remaining chunk of active transportation, I think, is served by a

and the options that will hopefully present themselves as part of that.

I think Rory said it well.

Other thoughts?

All right.

Does anyone have a motion either way?

All right.

All right.

I have a motion from Kevin and a second from Christine.

I guess I'll just do a roll call, but it sounds like we're divided.

All right.

Kevin?

Yes.

Dan Butch?

Yes.

Jeanette Janicek?

Yes.

Sarah Pennington.

Yes.

Great.

I think that motion carried.

Yep, pretty sure.

OK.

Yes.

Great.

So thank you for that.

And now let's go on to SmartScale round five.

Sure.

Before we move away from the Unified Plan Working Plan, I just wanted to add one note.

I know at Jaunt, in all of our planning, we're trying to really draw a focus to measurements and sort of data-driven planning.

And I think that is of benefit to the planning industry as a whole.

So I don't think this is really the time to make changes to the unified plan working plan, but I'd just like to make a note that in the future, I think we could read through this and look for opportunities to be a little bit more specific about measurable outcomes.

So I'm just going to like cherry pick some examples here.

Project C, Travel Demand and Management, Regional Transit Partnership and Bike Ped Support and Products Continue efforts to improve carpooling and alternative modes of transportation in MPO.

That just seems so vague and I'm curious, like, could we sit down sometime and brainstorm?

What would an actual measurement?

look like?

How would we measure whether we are succeeding in improving carpooling and alternative modes or improve communication between transit providers, localities, and stakeholders?

Jon's really interested in that, but how could we measure that to, again, know are we actually succeeding in doing these things or not?

Sure.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

So we've been talking about a new process for smart scale for this next round, which will actually be around five.

And I'm assuming Chuck, unless you tell me differently where we're going to assume that we still have our four projects that we can submit and that the timelines will be roughly the same as previous rounds.

So just for those of you... Yeah, that's currently correct.

Okay, great.

All right, so I'm assuming that everybody is familiar, but this is Virginia state process to select transportation projects for funding.

So this is where we go through and we develop with you all's support and with VDOT support, we develop applications to actually get infrastructure projects funded to be implemented.

So this last round, we got several within the MPO area.

We were very excited about it and we're hoping that we can build on that success and continue to

submit successful applications.

Applications for round five will be submitted next fiscal year.

The pre applications will be submitted next fiscal year.

Again, we can submit, as far as we know, up to four projects and for the MPO to submit projects, they have to meet certain eligibility requirements.

And generally speaking, those are that they need to meet an identified need in V-TRANS.

V-TRANS is the statewide transportation plan to identify where the highest priority needs are for the transportation system overall.

They have it broken up so that there are priorities both on a statewide basis and also on a more regional basis within the VDOT construction districts.

For the MPO to be eligible to submit a project must meet a need on a corridor statewide significance or on a regional network, which is defined in the fee transplant.

So the general process we are looking at is we are in March 2021, as we had discussed, we want to develop an initial list of projects that we would be interested in potentially pursuing for smart scale.

Of those projects, the MPO Policy Board with feedback from the MPO committees and the local governing bodies will

recommend or select two projects that will move forward with a more intensive level of support.

So additional public engagement, stakeholder meetings, potentially some additional technical support if VDOT is able to provide that support right now since we don't have another designated funding source for that.

But basically just projects that are important that are identified as being high priority needs both

due to eligibility, but also to the local area that needs some additional work to prepare for an actual funding request.

So we're starting the initial discussion right now in March.

We're going to be receiving project requests in April going into May from the local governments to determine what their highest priorities would be for this additional public engagement for the smart scale projects.

And May, we are going to be taking all of that information and presenting you all back with a finalized list of potential projects.

So this will just be all of the projects that meet the eligibility criteria that are of interest to the players within the MPO area.

From there we are going to be making project selections on the projects we want to pursue in July and then in September we will be appointing the advisory committees and then we'll have from September through May basically to conduct the stakeholder group meetings to do public workshops and to better refine the projects that we're going to be submitting.

I have a quick question or point.

I'm not going to be speaking to the board on this until probably May, I think middle of May.

I don't want to make any decisions on it until I've at least got some feedback from the board.

In general, they're probably going to support, you know, the projects that we've talked about.

but I would like to get their input on it.

Maybe what we do is we have a draft and then we can present what the final request from the boards are at that point.

It should be, do you know, Kevin, would that be before, it should be before the policy board.

OK.

Actually, no, it must be May 19th, because that's a Wednesday.

OK.

That's fine.

We will make it work.

I think the biggest thing in May is just to have what the actual potential projects would be, because we're not going to be selecting, asking the policy board and UL to make recommendations on them until July.

So this was mostly, the purpose of this May deadline is just to get a finalized list in front of everybody so they can start asking questions and start the process of understanding what those projects are and what that additional support might

B, that's needed for the projects that are selected.

Hey, Sandy, I have one comment.

Yes.

Since the TJPDC can submit projects in the MPO area, you may want to consider the number of projects you're looking at and then make the decision on who submits them at a later time.

That way,

because it gives you more flexibility that way on the number of projects.

So I'm just saying you may want to look at having a larger pool of projects and then figure out who's going to submit them

Okay, I see.

Gotcha.

Thank you for that clarification.

I do not know.

Thanks.

All right.

So we have a list that is in your pockets of potential projects within the MPO area that we've already started talking with the local government staff to create this list.

So we didn't officially really establish this identification criteria initially, but basically the projects that we're already putting before you as an initial list of potential options basically meet these four criteria.

So first of all, they're an identified need for the Campo region, both in our long range planning document and also through V-Trans.

They are multi-jurisdictional.

So the project will improve the transportation system operations for both Charlottesville and Albemarle.

There's a previous planner study that has been completed that could be used to move the project forward.

So there's already some level of technical work that has been completed.

And there's also already been some level of public engagement and public support for the projects that have been generated largely through those previous plan studies.

One thing in talking to the local government staff that we established is that it seems like it would be the most efficient and effective opportunity to take things where there's already a pipeline where the projects have been identified and keep moving those identified projects forward through that pipeline from sort of the planning and strategy phase into an implementation phase.

So that's basically the criteria that went into developing this list.

And so again, this is just based on our discussions of that preliminary sort of unofficial criteria that generated this list of potential projects that we've identified as being able to move forward.

So the first one is the Hillsdale extension, which we actually applied for in this last round.

And it was not funded, but it did rank, it was number 21 out of the 20 projects that were funded.

So it did score pretty well on the smart scale analysis.

And there could be some opportunities to improve that potentially if there's additional work that's put into it.

Also related to the hydraulic plan, and I should have really put these together, is a district avenue roundabout, which was identified as being a high priority in the long range transportation plan.

It was not submitted as part of this smart scale application for either of our hydraulic 29 projects, but it is identified as an important need there.

You all are probably all familiar with the feasibility study that we contracted with VDOT to do for the Ravana River Bike and Pedestrian Crossing.

So that's another one that meets all of those criteria.

And then there have been a couple of corridor plans for Avon Street and Fifth Street that make some recommendations for corridor improvements that include multimodal components.

And then this last one, I wanted to mention it here because it was discussed as being a need, which is a connection between Sunset and Fontaine.

While we do understand the importance and it does show up in the long range transportation plan, at this point, it doesn't seem like we would have the resources to really make this into a feasible application.

So that's something we may want to keep in mind.

If this was something that's a priority for the local areas, this might need to be a focus for a future study in order to develop it into an application.

At this point, though, it doesn't seem likely that it would be project ready by the time we got to submitting smart scale applications.

So Jeanette and Kevin and Chuck, especially if you have any other additional comments on this

you know, initial list.

Yeah, I think I gave you my comments.

Some of them you've got still in here.

Yeah, Fontaine and Sunset, that's been something, I mean, I recall this my whole time I've been here, that that's been a

In the Area B study and a number of studies, it's just, and the counties try to get it as part of development, it does have a lot of issues, especially across the, crossing the railroad tracks.

And how do you coordinate with the university now on getting out to Fontaine once you get, getting out to, along Stribling once you get to the other side to connect to Fontaine.

So I think that one needs a lot of work.

to actually produce an application.

The rest of these, I think, are good.

I'd like to add one more that sort of goes with the hydraulic 29 Hillsdale.

As part of that study, we did look at the intersection at 250 and hydraulic.

And our data shows that it's going to start to need some kind of improvement there.

in the future, and we may want to consider that as an option.

We did look at a couple of different alternatives there as part of the hydraulic 29 work so that we do have some information available for that.

And I mentioned it to Jeanette before, so I noticed, and the city didn't want to incorporate it into the hydraulic 29 study, but I think it's something that we need to consider moving forward

Hey, can I just add, yeah, I echo Chuck's sentiments on Sunset, Fontaine, Connector.

Okay.

That's good to keep in mind.

So for Sunset Fontaine, I think one thing worth noting is potential land use developments along that corridor.

I don't quite know how solid the alignment was, but along Shribling, one of the last major pieces of greenfield land, should be coming before us in the next couple months here.

and then I know the Granger property, I think in this committee a year or two ago, we heard from the county that there was renewed interest in potentially pursuing something there.

I don't know what the status of that is, but I guess it kind of looks like from the civil media picture that the alignment's on the south side of Moore Creek.

But one thing to consider is that maybe if we wait too long

Yeah, or at least, you know, conceptually.

Tim?

I'm also interested in this one.

It's interesting that we're hearing it from all different levels.

And I guess I have a question for

Bill, and I'm not sure whether you can speak to it or not, but Luis, the UVA representative on the County Planning Commission was telling us about some future super long range plans for connections from Fontaine around the 250 West interior through Birdwood and Ragged Mountain and all of that.

So I'd be curious whether there's any opportunity if you

if we do end up thinking about Sunset and Fontaine Connectors, how this ultimately plays out to a much bigger, what would we call it, almost south to east connection.

I'm thinking particularly for the working community,

for the hospitals, the support force communities from both the city and that part of the county out Avon Street and Fifth Street extended.

There could be opportunities and I think this would play to some of our other members' interests in alternative circulation to the private automobile.

Connection from Fontaine to 250 West.

Yeah, I mean, I think maybe to say some sort of shuttle.

Yes.

No, I'm thinking about where they meet.

Yeah, like if there was ever a,

kind of a commuter hub, let's say at Fontaine.

Yes.

Yeah, that would be a logical kind of not termination.

commuter routes, potentially.

Yeah, where Jaunt or KAT, I guess KAT or Jaunt might then be able to use what we're talking about to connect with the university system.

Sure.

Yeah, or like a UTS.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I mean, I think stuff that's out there, you know, kind of looking at Fontaine as

Yeah, certainly take a closer look at that at some point in MPO technical committee.

The plan I think is on our website.

It is on our website, so if anybody's interested in looking at it themselves, that's always there as well.

So thank you.

So maybe what we need to do is it sounds like there's interest in looking at the Sunset and Fontaine connectors.

So maybe we need to keep this just in the forefront of our minds when we have the next opportunity to do a more in-depth study that this was one of the priorities that we consider.

Yeah, it seems like definitely something we should start thinking about if we want to eventually do it.

It's possible this body isn't the one that that would move through also like like I mentioned the the Lupeck committee and you know maybe with some engineering study that's done by through the county it's just that we you know we want to make sure that if a big project like that happens that all the major stakeholders are roped in and so that's why I think I brought it to you guys is

a possibility, but it doesn't have to go through here and it looks like we got plenty of other projects on a plate anyway that we can choose from.

The county will continue to look at Sunset Fontaine and we'll, you know, bring everyone in as needed on that one, but we can, we don't have to do that as one of these projects.

Can I also follow up with a question on the technical aspects of some of these?

I'm assuming that VDOT is still planning to be available to do some technical work coming up with concepts and

in cost estimates for these projects and maybe even the studies that they've done in the past.

That would be part of the efforts to move any of these forward is that we would ask VDOT to do the same level of work that they've done in the past, but do it more in consultation with

That's my understanding Chuck.

I think we've talked about this but that's also why it's really important to make sure that we are making sure that the projects meet the eligibility criteria so that Chuck can use VDOT

supported time and resources to help with that application preparation and support sort of the more involved process.

Well, I don't know about definitively.

We have resources available.

It's whether I can use on-call consultants or whether we have to do it in-house.

And that's going to depend on what it's going to need and how many of those resources are available.

So, and that's mostly I think we can do if we get the scale right, I can use my, we can do them in house, as long as we have all of the enough information available, like we did for the Fifth Street Hub project, the 250 corridor project.

A lot of those were those were in house projects we didn't use consultants on.

So from that perspective, I think those resources will be available.

Yeah, so the goal is that in May we'll have any additional projects that are requested either through MPA TAC so you all could vote to move other projects forward.

CTAC will have that same opportunity.

We're also going to present this information to the Regional Transit Partnership.

again, because I think there's an important tie-in to make sure that we're thinking of transportation planning cohesively.

And then the Charlottesville and Albemarle governing bodies will also have the opportunity to request additional projects for consideration.

So in May, our goal is going to be to put that full list of requested projects or to finalize that list of requested projects and start talking about them in more detail so that

Gotcha.

Well, you know, I just went out, I know a few months ago after, you know, kind of a rash of deaths on on Fish Street, our traffic engineer presented to council about a few other potential projects on Fish Street besides the the Harris to 64 corridor and specifically like a roundabout at Bailey Road.

I know in the corridor study, there's a whole bunch of

stuff all the way up to like the Ridge, McIntyre and Preston intersection.

I think it actually goes further north, but it's not as problematic up there.

I don't know if those would be more like city smart scale projects.

Maybe Jeanette could speak to that.

And I'd also point out, you know, we're just finishing up, or soon, we'll be starting a direction anyway, on the Barrett, or sorry, the

Preston, yeah, Barrickson, Preston, God, same road, different names.

The multimodal path up there, the tree holocaust one.

And it kind of just ends at Buckingham Road and doesn't really get to where the 10th and Grady project is going on.

And then there's just, I think we're going to paint a bike lane, which will be helpful on one side of the road.

But, you know, I think

All right.

Well, that's it for this first one.

All right.

Thanks, Andy.

So next up is the North 29 corridor study.

Thanks.

I'm going to share my screen with you.

That one, I think.

OK, you guys can see my screen.

OK, I'm going to take that as a yes.

So the Route 29 corridor study, we've done a lot of studies on the southern part of this corridor of 29.

And so this is kind of continuing up to do a corridor study from the airport up to the Rutgersville intersection.

and it will be kind of a broad transportation recommendations that are going to complement the existing land use designations that are already there.

There have been some studies from VDOT on certain intersections in this corridor.

So we're going to work on kind of using those and then looking at other kind of hotspot areas and combining them all into one cohesive plan.

and this will include transit, bicycle and pedestrian transportation as well.

The budget for this is $50,000 and it's going to be over kind of two project years.

So it's starting now and it will end June 30th, 2022.

So, so far we've met with the planning and development staff from Albemarle and Green to discuss the goals of the project.

We met with the VDOT staff to discuss if we could get some technical assistance.

We formally requested the technical assistance and we received it.

And we have identified potential organizations to be represented on a technical advisory committee.

And the next steps are to talk with the counties about who they want on the technical advisory committee.

And also if they want to have a

a separate kind of community advisory committee as well.

We're working on creating a scope of work for the project right now and then we'll finalize that with the counties and finalize the technical and advisory groups as well.

And then we'll collect the data with VDOT's help and we'll use that to indicate areas of concern along the corridor

We'll engage the public and the stakeholder committees, advisory groups on what their priorities are and we'll develop alternatives and engage the stakeholders and public again on what their thoughts are on all the alternatives and then we'll make recommendations.

And that is it.

Lucinda, do you know if Green has like land use plans that change anything that's going on up there that would be integrated into this?

I think they're working on their comprehensive plan right now.

So that's one of the things that we're going to be looking into with this study.

Right across the border.

Yeah, there's a lot going on.

I know Terrace Green, which is just south of 607.

There's a big development that's been in the work for 20 years or more and they're adding more residential, but they're also adding a bunch of commercial and it sounds like it's moving forward based on the last discussions we had a week or two ago.

They've got a new TIA that we're vetting right now and we should be finalizing it next week, the comments.

We've got the connector road project right there south of 607 and there's a lot of improvements that are planned there.

So I mean there is some stuff coming forward but I know there's some stuff south of there that we don't have any improvements for identified along that corridor.

So that's primarily why we sort of stopped at 607 as the cutoff.

Originally it was to go all the way to 33

But we had a study that was done a few years ago for smart scale that went from 607 all the way to 33.

We identified a series of improvements along that corridor to address the traffic and the safety issues on that portion of the corridor.

But mainly, and we've got, like I said, we did the study for Frays Mill that we were looking for probably incorporate into this

This study, and then I know there's some improvements that were from earlier studies with North Point at Airport Road, that section north of Airport Road, where they just completed the one R cut, and there's another one planned for Lewis and Clark.

So all that stuff's going to be evaluated and included in this study moving forward.

The big issue is right at the

Ravana Station and that whole section from Camelot through Austin Drive, which is that middle section.

That's one of the tier one needs on the 29 corridor.

So that's a hotspot for the district.

And that's the reason we're able to fund this study with SPR funds because of those that particular area being one of the top tier one needs in the district.

So

And most of our focus is probably going to be from a transportation standpoint is going to be centered on there and we're going to look at these other areas to incorporate them into the study moving forward.

I want to chime in a little bit about transit.

At Jaunt, we're really excited about this area.

There's a lot of change.

Last year, Jaunt assumed management of Greene County Transit.

We also had the Park Connect service that we were running up to the research park near the airport, and that was discontinued when quarantine went into effect and nobody was working up there anymore.

And we're really curious about what the future of transit is going to look like along this corridor, particularly, you know, what is the interface going to look like between Jaunt and CAT?

I think that, certainly from our perspective, we're very excited about

Having more of our rural services connect with CAT and have really successful transfers.

But I think that level of coordination is a little untested.

So I won't speak for Juwan, but I hope that CAT is also interested in those possibilities.

We currently don't.

And that expansion study, is there like a hard kind of end point to it?

For us, it's really, there's several stages, I guess.

So for now, it's sort of finding a, we're actually putting something out for a sort of park and ride in the north side of town.

And we're hoping down the road, that's going to be sort of a stepping stone to be able for us to go further beyond up to the airport, maybe.

We haven't really looked at anything beyond that, because I think

You know, we're trying to take baby steps on this.

But yeah, I mean, with all that new development, and as Kevin put it, the bedroom communities.

Yeah, well, I mean, if the demand's there, certainly we'll look at expanding further.

But for right now, airport is sort of the endpoint that we're thinking of.

And you mentioned, John mentioned stepping stones.

I think that having John and Kat work together really helps because that allows us to bring a wider variety of different types of service.

So if someplace is not ready for fixed route yet, we can still leverage John to provide a commuter bus or demand response service that can then feed into, you know, what is that end point where it makes sense for Kat.

We can help feed into that and really strengthen that service.

But I think we have more to learn about how to coordinate.

It's not just about what physical facilities exist at a park and ride.

It also needs to be process considerations.

Yeah, I did neglect to mention that all these

thought process we have right now does include ways to sort of feed people into sort of the cat.

So like Steve's mentioning, you know, we certainly want to utilize John, who's already up in that area as best as we can to bring the people to our buses.

Yeah, and we don't want to duplicate what Cat's doing, because that's not an effective use of our resources.

But if making our customers transfer on a cat means they're

Journey takes 30 minutes longer than it would otherwise, then that's when we kind of wind up duplicating it anyway.

So a lot of this is going to be covered in the actual transit study.

Yeah, so just to clarify, we have this North 29 corridor study that Lucinda talked about.

Steven and Juwan are talking about additional work that the transit agencies themselves are doing.

And then there is yet another study between the PDC and Albemarle County where we're looking at three locations within the county to prioritize transit service.

We talked about that a little bit at our last meeting, but one of those locations is North 29.

Yeah, my thoughts on this were pretty similar, I think, to Kevin's with regard to land use, but it seems like there's a fair amount of uncertainty about the land use in this area.

Like, obviously, Green has some pretty big plans for the area, and they just gave the go-ahead to Creekside.

It's going to be like 1,200 homes up there at Pretty Creek.

But at the same time, you know, their neighboring counties just shut off their water supply plans.

So that could end up being a pretty big constraint on their housing growth over the medium term, which would obviously make for somewhat less traffic going south.

And then, you know, on the flip side, you know, Albemarle, it seems like obviously you've got, you know, Brookhill and North Point going up, but

Planning Commission a couple weeks ago seemed pretty bearish on additional development near Forest Lakes.

And that, you know, if they continue to be, that might, you know, put a damper on traffic going northbound towards Engic and the research parks.

So I'll be interested to see how you guys deal with the uncertainty in what it's going to look like in the future on both sides.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the North 29 plan?

I was going to respond to what you were saying, but I think I would just hold on.

Yes, you're right.

It's a lot in flux.

I do think that we're seeing a tremendous amount of development in that direction and that will continue to occur.

Even the one that you referenced, I think, will indeed be

developed to a pretty high density.

So I had a reason to go north for the first time in a few months.

And I was quite taken aback by how much development there is and how that will translate given the issues that our colleagues have just talked about with mass transit.

In the short term, it's going to be

Yep.

Yeah, and I hope we do put transit service in there that the density and demand supports it.

But I will say on the green side, at TJPDC, the green supervisor that's on it has always seemed very kind of defiant of what the RapidAN service authority people are doing to them and insistent that they're going to end up figuring something out on the water supply plan to make their growth plans go forward.

So I would expect it would be less about, you know, them restricting growth and more about

how much demand for growth up there spills over across the county line.

So yeah, any last thoughts on 29 North, North 29 rather?

All right.

Well, so we're running a little short on time.

So I think let's go ahead and open it up for matters by the public if anyone would like to speak.

And then after that, we have a couple minutes left or if people want to stick around, if anyone has any important updates to share with everyone.

We can share those.

So do we have anyone from the public who would like to speak?

Go ahead and unmute yourself.

Looks like we do have one member of the public here.

Okay, if not, does anyone have anything in particular to share?

I think that might be quicker than going around the room.

Anyone has anything?

No?

All right.

Is that our whole agenda here?

I think it is.

All right.

Well, thank you so much, everybody.

We actually managed to finish six minutes early.

Good work.

Thanks, everyone.

Thanks, Rory.

Thanks, all.