MPO Technical Committee Meeting   12/2/2025

Lonnie Murray here Charles Proctor Sandy Shackelford here Christine Jacobs present Sarah Simba present Jason Espy present Bill Palmer

here.

Could you provide a location and a reason for online attendance, please?

Yeah, I'm based in Richmond, Virginia.

Sarah Pennington.

Yeah.

You can do a roll call.

Next up, we are going to do matters from the public.

Do I have anybody from the public that's like there at least?

Thank you.

All right.

Sandy's going to take us through this one.

However, it's easier to put yourself in.

Good morning, everybody.

There are different match requirements that vary by the specific program and they can be really highly competitive, but there are additional funding that could be pursued to the community to support some of these projects outside of SmartScale.

How far does VDOT support that application development for something that's not a VDOT application on this large scale?

So if there's an opportunity to move that project forward, I don't have the final say, but I think as long as it's practical, as long as it makes sense, VDOT has historically been very willing

Because you're right, you know, depending on

So if there's a project that's a high local priority that doesn't fit well in SmartScale and it's within those other parameters, revenue sharing

It's not a benefit-cost ratio.

And then there are some of these other programs that maybe aren't used as regularly, but still do provide additional opportunities to fund local projects if they align well with the program guidelines like transportation alternatives, federal lands access program, etc.

Do you have any examples of where maybe an MPO has helped organize locality and working together to go after revenue sharing?

So that gives a little bit more flexibility as well.

Interesting.

But we are going to plan to take this out to the public for a second community input meeting in January to do a final vetting

County.

So there would be a shared-use path as part of this project.

Where does the shared-use path go?

It would connect to the, I think it's about right there, connect from the intersection to the existing shared-use path that goes into the Henley Middle School.

OK, that's Henley.

one of my classmates was actually hit by a car you know at that intersection is why that the crosswalk exists now so I'm just wondering I know that I know the traffic circles in general are safer for pedestrians but I am very concerned about making sure that we don't take as anybody we've worked really hard to make safe more of the pits across that and making it less safe

So I would imagine if there were crossing guards, they would be at their crosswalks.

How does it work with a crossing guard at a traffic service somehow?

That's beyond my ability to speak.

How are the crossing guards going to figure out?

Well, does this design say to put Rapid Flashy Peak into back in at the crosswalks?

There will be some sort of pedestrian control signal.

So can there be some way that it activates all the other, you know, like letting all the other oncoming traffic know in advance of coming into the roundabout that there's people crossing on the, let's say, east side of the roundabout?

I will say that this is a resubmission of the project from the previous round.

or like a pedestrian crossing to go over the road.

Do you mean like crates up right now?

I'm making a note about this.

So it would be working with the county to determine what they want as part of the application.

It's so.

And then they would close the median crossover at Rickey Road, and then there would be a sidewalk or shared use path if we can fit it

What's the roof of the East project sidewalk?

I'd have to verify.

When you say Sandy, is VDOT standards that the five foot sidewalk needs a buffer?

But I don't know that there's a lot of extra width to go beyond the minimum requirement.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, right there.

Are you talking about just making that compliant?

Improve it, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Or make sure that connection goes all the way through.

It's like at the ramps and such.

Well, and we would probably have to do that anyway because we're connecting that to the cross country.

Just in the few minutes we were there, we saw multiple scooters and other things.

Like if you don't have a sidewalk on the other side, how are people going to access those bus stops?

I see.

In the county, you just have to use sidewalks.

We can't.

and I guess I don't understand why there isn't enough space since truly VDOT owns all that land.

Wait, enough space where?

Not under the bridge, but all the rest of the purple.

So you can't have a sidewalk that just ends without ending at a specific location.

That ties into an existing five-foot sidewalk with no buffer?

I don't know the answer to that.

Like, I don't see how you can say that that's a logical terminus and not, you know, going to the sidewalk here.

Wait, so they get for the shared use path?

10 sidewalk with a buffer.

I can't guarantee that the answer is going to be like, yes, we can do that, but we'll be happy to help.

Thanks, Andy.

You know, going back to the

So we should be including mitigations for bikes and gestures as part of that.

We're also trying to

Yeah.

This is the one at Forcehead.

They always felt to me like a wealth thing, like, you know, that because people in Farmington and then of course had more money that they got traffic circled in some roundabouts.

So again, that just helps us identify where we're trying to keep the costs below in order for this project to be viable as a SmartScale project.

Sandy, do you know how much money will be available for the HPP POTS for SmartScale round 7?

So questions on this one?

You agree that that's a shared-use path going right into a sidewalk, right?

That it's a shared-use path going right into the sidewalk.

So logically, there's no, like the only terminus of that shared-use path is the five-foot sidewalk.

Is the five-foot sidewalk.

So I guess my big question is, can we widen that sidewalk?

OK.

Yeah, that was part of it.

So there are a couple of things that we would do.

Hopefully not that way.

So I think we can have these conversations as soon as possible, but it's dependent on the ability of the other departments to, you know, do the work to give us the answers.

So the concept as it is now does not include any side-by-side.

you know, a concept plan that would move forward to conceptual design.

Is that a fair statement?

And so yes, I think that that's true, but there are a whole lot of reasons for that heat map to be hot, not just in the national trips.

Yes.

Are you generally supportive of moving these projects forward?

It seems like the answer would need to be yes for us to continue answering those questions for this one specifically, right?

Yeah.

But there's another point at which you come back and say we want to submit this as an application.

We're not asking for a resolution or support for the applications themselves right now.

And if you don't lean into getting that last little bit of that connectivity, which is getting across 64, that's always obviously the hardest part, then, you know, this is on the

We're going to get to a point where we're beyond the ability for this project to get funded.

We just saw how hard it is to get those type of projects funded, especially since land use is only a multiplier now.

So we're not just leaving that stuff in the future.

So it's also going to be a funding question.

So we can make those decisions on what our priorities are.

But also, if you give me a 10-foot sidewalk on that bridge, I will be thrilled about this project.

Don't know that 10 feet is going to be terrible.

build the bike pit stuff in this project?

To get feedback.

I kind of assumed that, but I guess, why?

How do we prioritize on these different projects that provide different types of connections for different groups of people?

Okay.

Understood.

I do want to mention, though, that while this was the concept that was submitted and was funded, this is the concept that was actually constructed with the double left turn base.

So it does have double?

Again, we're not asking for your recommendation on any one of these projects specifically at this time, just generally asking if there's consensus to continue with input.

What's your process for developing a solution?

Yeah, we'll determine, those are already, we already have information on this, but basically we'll look at what the future growth rates are and apply those to the project improvements, make sure the improvements will function adequately based on what the future productive traffic volumes will see and work with the study work group on the recommendation and then it will come back before this committee and ultimately the policy board to determine if there's support to submit the application.

Any other questions?

Is there any way we can just make it less than what we have to build today?

I think if we're reconstructing it, so we can use the current infrastructure as it is now, but we wouldn't be able to reduce the standards for anything we'd reconstruct.

Just seems like, yeah, I've thought about this for a lot of stuff, like all the 215 things, and that was built in 1955, and they were like, we're going to have 8,000 cars here a day, forever, and now we don't.

It doesn't seem like any of these break.

In your mind, there's an improvement to the park and ride?

And the county does have an option to get a connection from Tilly to Redfields.

Yes.

So how long is that compared to what exists?

So it looks like it would at least triple it.

Triple?

Yeah.

At peak times.

So, but that's one of the things that we would have to look up in the next round and did operational analysis.

Any other questions?

Is there an expectation for when we're going to have more detailed concepts or analysis done?

It's also possible for this one, especially that maybe there's, you know, a, um, maybe one of the preferred alternatives is not any one of these explicitly, but as some sort of variation or modification to one of these that was moved forward.

How are those funded?

Or in some cases, like Northern Virginia in some cases, may have improvements that they're just doing out of pocket.

There's a separate fund for interstate operations and enhancement projects.

major improvements.

Another question.

Do you want me to turn that already along?

And so we would recommend swapping those two from what's in the staff memo and submitting up to our application limits in that order.

Are we saying that the old ID ones are our lowest priorities?

Give me one second.

Or a packet that we can zoom into?

I will not.

Are you asking for the project locations?

Yes, I'm sorry.

What was the operational issue that made that

So it's a little bit confusing in terms of how projects are evaluated, but if that's the true operational need, we would be supportive of submitting that one instead of the, yeah.

There we go.

As the fourth.

Will that force to get the operational to be eventually reflected in V-trans that gives it a higher probability of being funded in the future if we waive those reflections?

And so I'm not sure, is that another year and a half that we'd know when those needs would be updated?

I'm not sure what they've been said.

2019.

So if the data you're showing, when you look at that specific improvement based on the project you're submitting, whichever one shows more improvement is going to have a higher score, I thought.

And so certainly we'd be bringing these back to you before staff actually submitted them in March for consideration.

opening that question up to everybody else here answering that.

But maybe I'm wrong about that.

Yeah, how do you feel about project setting for 2964?

2964?

I think the question is going to be, just as our support for one of the improvements to the program.

Do you think that would require compressing the study time frame in a way that sort of makes that decision more rushed?

This time schedule was scoped specifically to be ready for slides.

Is it possible to just pair that with the existing roundabout location at Canterbury?

I'd be happy to get some additional thoughts on that.

Does the Canterbury Road roundabout not alleviate these queuing issues?

I don't know.

So when queuing is backing up under 29, is that not because it's backed up from the lightened IV past the stop sign all the way up the ramp?

Is the bottleneck further up frame?

Depending on if you have people that are trying to turn left and they pour it over, it's still going to be stuck.

So we're just now looking at Old Ivey and Ivey.

It would be a monster project.

So.

So barracks over Old Ivy ramp.

Anybody from Albemarle who may have this question being that it is in Albemarle?

on that question.

Bonnie, would you like to weigh in on that?

They lack a lot of impact views and uncertainties.

Alright, at this point if there's no other discussion I can take a motion to move forward with these five as presented by staff or I can move forward with it.

Can you say the five again just to make sure?

And the motion would be to recommend to the policy board.

To recommend to the policy board but I don't want to move forward with these five.

Are you guys not looking for a motion to prioritize

If you all want to say it to them in the way of, and we would further like you to consider them in this order, I think that's perfectly appropriate.

up for discussion, we can make a motion to do it as staff recommended, but if anybody has an alternative.

I would move that we support moving the formula on these applications.

Let's take a vote on that one.

Sandy Shackelford?

Aye.

Bill Palmer?

Aye.

Meech Huber?

Abstain.

Sarah Pennington?

Yes.

Barry Herring?

That's all the word.

and if we're going to talk more about this for the next few months.

that it's coming quicker than we think.

Their meeting next week.

So there is no meeting after the next one before we would have to have a commitment to submit.

I always enjoy performance safety targets.

Sorry, right now our goal is to go down but we're going up Well, technically yes because these long-term trend line and the recent trend lines show actual trends what really happened in the past year so that's why the percentage goes up and sometimes they're focused on tackling the rates rather than having an immediate reduction on the number itself

but our rates are also going up, right?

Yes, but in most cases historically that has been the case until this year.

So even if there were three wins in the recent years that they expect a couple years ago, those still may be reflected.

and then, but the rate goes down.

Like what is the rate measuring exactly?

Yeah, yeah.

And it's VMTs, right?

So the higher the DMT, the higher the rate is going to be.

There is an increase or decrease in the alcoholism and injuries.

Like if there was an improvement somewhere and how that impacted these rates, these are just general across the embryo boundary.

And I'm not sure if they do it as part of the target setting process, but OIP who administers the SmartScale program, they do do before and after analysis on projects after they're completed.

There was, and this was before you joined, a like DTRC study of viewing cameras to sort of get near miss data to get higher

So within this NPO, we have about 15 spot specific locations that we could apply for, but also we could, there's a lot of systemic improvements and policies and programs that we can consider as well.

And all those 15 spots are all in urban areas, right?

Yes, all the 15 spots were identified within the NPO boundary.

So you need us to give you a recommendation on which targets to sell.

Yes.

So I would take a motion to recommend these targets to Paul Seaborg.

Yeah.

Let's not be aspirational.

So, yeah.

We recommend the East Highlands.

Second.

If you have for one question, are we also recommending a VMT target?

the rates and the non-materized number of italics and filters.

It's not a metric that we're trying to set a target for, it's just a metric that you're using for our target setting, right?

I'm sorry?

We're not setting a target with that one, we're just using that as a metric that we can use for it.

Exactly, yeah, that would be the projection that the same PO... All right, well, I've got a first and a second on the motion.

The Regional Transit Partnership was created in 2017 as a committee of the MPO to provide recommendations on transit-related matters to decision-makers.

And so what we need on this item is a recommendation to the MPO Policy Board to sign that RTP amendment to officially formalize the sunsetting of the RTP.

Any abstentions?

For the Transportation Improvement Program adjustments.

What is that specific?

The Autism Sanctuary?

And that project is funding for them to purchase a vehicle to be able to provide services.

I think so.

Any other questions on this side?

There's no action that's required for it.

Any questions?

Awesome.

I'm sorry?

appetite for scenario three.

But certainly some members expressed, if we can't do certain things, then why does the committee exist?

For discussion on our thoughts on these,

Well, we're really just presenting it to you all as informational to make sure that you're kept in the loop as another MCO committee, that the policy board will be taking some sort of action on this at their meeting in two weeks.

And are you losing advantages that you might get from reconstituting the committee every time we want it to start?

Is that action likely to just be let's plunge into the next meeting or do you think they're actually, is there a recommendation that they'll be discussing going forward or is it all three of these?

I think it's up to them.

Then that becomes the committee for the LRTP and so on.

Steph agrees with that.

Any other discussion on this one?

Anything else on there?

We keep you guys in the loop of all those discussions.

Going back to VDOT, Sandy, do you have anything on stars and pipeline for us this summer?

do some advanced review of alternatives that we would like to keep moving forward before we put those back out for help.

Goryan, any updates on SS-4A?

Great.

Taylor of the Alumni Management Study.

So we sent that request in again, and then we're waiting on complete information from parking and transportation at the university for the Wahoo Commutes Program.

What's your question?

But they just signed a new permit like within the last 30 days so there's some things we're working on.

Next meeting, we need to take a vote on it, it looks like.

So we need a vote from this committee

Say aye.

Aye.

I'm going to start with the county.

They're in a public meeting on December 4th at, I forget the... 6 p.m.

I just had to wait.

No trip.

Sarah, I'm going to turn to you for ride share.

so we're looking forward to seeing what that translates data-wise into participation and really the big thing is as of yesterday the DRPT grants dropped so it is officially great season for the next two months to work on getting in our operating fund for next year so that'll be kind of our focus and we'll get back to fun giveaways after that.

Mitch, do you have any updates from DRPT?

And that is it for me.

Have you heard any news on the Virginia breeze as people route?

But in that process, we're still finalizing stops and routings and timings for everything.

Do we have an ETA on one of my servers by start?

Early spring, I think, is the current target, early mid spring.

All right.

Nobody's alive from FHWA or FTA.

Yeah, just a few things.

That's a lot.

Yeah.

All right, well, both your legs.

Thank you for your interactions.