MPO Technical Committee Meeting   4/7/2026

Our first order of business is going to be to introduce a couple of new folks.

I'd like to introduce Jessica Dennet from Albemarle County who will be joining us, and Zona Kupunberg who will be joining us from the city.

For buying the alternate.

All right.

Sounds good.

Ben Chambers.

Present.

Tom Dussefranek.

Present.

Danny Yoder.

Present.

Jason Espy, here.

Bill Palmer, Mitch Schubert, here.

Wood Hudson, Sarah Pennington, here.

Thank you, Sarah.

Yes, I am also traveling.

Garland Williams.

All participants can be voted on.

Yeah, so we're going to vote to allow the online participants to participate.

All in favor of that, say aye.

Aye.

Anybody want to oppose that?

All right, thank you guys.

You're welcome to join us.

If you don't have anything in the public, I'd like to come on down.

I'm unscripted so I set myself a timer meeting.

All right, so I'm Peter Cribbs from the Piedmont Environmental Council.

I just wanted to share just a couple of thoughts that I think are good guiding things.

So I attended the last MPA policy board meeting, and I think it was great to have a just general discussion, like take a step back from smart scale and think about it.

And so I think we've seen a sort of situation where

SmartScale is a funding stream and it is so tempting as planners to get into a mindset that says, what does our funding source need?

Where it's like the client is the funding source, not the population.

And we're kind of at a dead end with SmartScale in some ways.

Like I heard a pretty big frustration from one of the supervisors saying something like, okay, so

Every two years, we get to do four big things.

And one of them is extending an exit ramp by 100 feet or whatever.

Like this is our big moonshot.

So we as a community need to think about different ways of doing transportation.

We're entering the off cycle.

And if we say to VDOT, how do we solve our transportation problems, they're going to say,

I'm glad you asked.

We've got TAP and we've got revenue sharing.

And still, that's just a different flavor of the same situation.

So broadly speaking, let's be thinking about ways to address the community transportation needs by thinking about what the community needs rather than what the funding needs.

And we have to do both.

We do need money.

We do have an opportunity, and I applaud the idea of that sort of let's take a step back approach.

And I think that sort of let's take a step back means to continue for a little while.

I was super encouraged by that.

And I was talking to my leaders, our CEO of the PC about the nature of the problem.

And he said, well, you know, there is a neighborhood level of transportation problem

and there's a regional transportation problem.

Which one are you talking about?

And my answer is kind of like, yes, it's both of those things.

And how do we bridge between the block level and the region-wide level?

Like that's where we're flailing a little bit.

So let's make that a focus.

And then next year, find some good solutions.

We're not in a LRTP.

Move on to general administration.

Viewing acceptance of the agenda.

Any issues concerns with the agenda?

Alright, and I will.

Also see if anybody has to.

The meeting minutes from the last meeting, February 3rd.

No changes there.

Okay.

On both of these items, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right.

Next item is moving on to new business.

Thank you.

So we have an amendment to the current fiscal year 24 to 27 transportation improvement program.

That is from a request received from DRPT where additional funding is added to the operating assistance of the TJPDC zero group project.

That is the project that supports the PATH program.

The funding is added to the Federal Fiscal Year 2026, $6,000 in 5310 federal funding, $5,000 in state funding, and then $1,000 in local funding.

The next is not an amendment, but it's just an informational item, this adjustment to the tip where

And so we need to approve or recommend the approval of a resolution for the amendment, but not the assessment.

Is that correct?

Exactly.

I have a quick question.

So the amendment

The amount of money meets the threshold for the total of the project.

So the reason why the difference is less money for this project is because the total for the PATH program project has a lot less money in the general pot.

We'll see the proportion of it.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Any other questions on the

I'm going to take a motion to recommend the passage of this resolution.

So moved.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All right.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Thanks.

The clock is there, okay.

There's still work in progress.

So we're here today to maybe discuss the fiscal year, so federal fiscal year 27 to 30, transportation improvement program is sort of mooted.

This is a federally implemented process that happens every 40 years.

The tape is a federally required document for NPOs and includes transportation projects with these federal funds.

This specifically, the Charlottesville-Albemarle NPOs, contains highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects.

to be financially constrained.

And the projects that are presented into the transportation improvement program are also presented into the six-year improvement plan, as well as the state's transportation improvement program.

We followed several processes for development of the program.

Number one was coordinating with the local and state partners.

including Vida, the ERP team, Paul Morakami and the City of Charlottesville.

We developed new ways to present the projects within our current FID based on the updates from the bottom lines.

We made it here so that we could use and provide feedback on the FID from the Empire Technical Committee.

Then we also provided

Information for a public hearing that was posted in Daily Progress as well as in the CMPF PDC's websites.

A public hearing will occur at the CMPO's policy board meeting on April 27th of item.

Then the policy boards will take action and should they go to adopt a TIP, the projects will be included in the statewide improvement program.

Some of the key updates for the new tip include the comprehensive update of the entire document.

We updated the maps in RPS Pro.

We updated the language and several funding sources.

We also communicated with GDOT to update projects, costs, and schedules for all projects that are highway or group projects and as well as from DRPDs.

Charlesville area transit.

One other thing that is different from the old tip or current tip of fiscal year 24 to 27 to this new tip is how CATS projects are shown into the tip.

They are combined now based on the category of the project.

For example, all projects that included equipment, hardware, or passenger amenities

They were grouped into the category passenger names for short with the hardware.

And finally, the removal of completed cancel or formally closed projects.

So the first one, the UPC 115869, the statewide technology project, that was a statewide project that was canceled.

Therefore, it was removed from the tip.

And then the next two, the bridge replacement at Route 702 and Hillsdale Drive extended three lanes.

Those were completed projects.

No new projects are added in the tip, as of right now.

I'll talk about the sources that are included in the tip.

There's a lot of

different types of pots of money, but most of the general sources are the FTN, FHWA funding sources, and then the smart scale for the state sources and local match.

The funding sources for FTN are mainly 53 pan bonds or avionics.

Here we have the summary table for the transit projects.

We have 5307 funds and 5339 funds, as well as 5310 funding.

Then we have local and state map.

This is a little bit of a bigger table because you know it has a lot more

projects included.

So a few highlights here are the HBP funding or NHBP funding is included in this summary table.

The fifth document itself has a projects five table separated from each other, but this table just shows the general

The next steps would be to get a recommendation from the MPO Technical Committee today and then get feedback from the public scheduled for the public hearing on April 22, 2016.

All right.

Any questions on the next PIP?

I have one more question.

On the table, on the

Earlier slide.

Okay.

Okay.

Gotcha.

I have one on this table as well.

I think that's for our statewide passenger rail initiative where that funding was allocated and MPOs throughout the project area.

Can you go to the previous?

So 5311 is not included in this 5311 funding?

All right.

Ben, to your question about the CPAG, there is a specific table among the project tables for that five.

Okay.

And I do have a motion to recommend the adoption of

the post-warrior 27 and the post-warrior 30 transportation improvement program.

Can I make my comment on that?

Yeah, I did find just like I'm doing a like technical review.

I did find one adjustment that will need to be made just a little typo.

So I've already communicated that to Gloria.

There were two numbers that were flip-flopped.

I'll move.

All in favor of recommending say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Right there.

Good morning everyone.

I am here to share the second time an update about the UPWP for the MPO.

This is our draft final document up for threefold today.

So updates since the first draft.

We sent it out an updated staff memo.

There should be it's been fixed around the table for everyone.

And as of Friday, one small change from the presentation that went out in the packet was that we received our FTA out of fictions.

And so we updated our document to capture those.

It was a difference of about $3,000 for our current fiscal year 2017 allegations that we're going to get next year.

So that's one change from what you all thought.

In addition to that, we also received the fiscal year 2017 PL allegations from PDOT.

Those are any updated budget tables.

Specific updates to the tasks that were included in this final draft were direct expenses related to travel, training, and professional development.

were identified as a separate line item.

And that was based on guidance that we received from VDOT coming from FHWA, which they wanted to see that separately broken out and our UPWP with a value added to that.

So we made that change.

We also added the hosting of a joint meeting of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority, or CARTA, and the NCO Policy Board for next fiscal year.

And we removed administering the Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee following the policy board's action at their February meeting to send to FHWA.

For task two, we added an activity line for special studies projects, programs, and competencies to match the task three.

And we additionally added a bullet under a long range transportation plan to capture beginning to develop a public engagement framework and the process for setting up an ad hoc committee for public engagement.

That's also related to the action that the policy board took related to CTAS.

And so here's our updated budget table.

This is different from the one that went out in your packet, just reflecting that FTA allocation that we received on Friday.

And this is funding by task.

All of the percentage splits for each task remain the same, and they were just updated with the fiscal year 27 allocation that we received.

And these are all slides that you all have seen before.

For next fiscal year, we have ongoing and continued activities that include general NPO administration,

Continuing start-up coordination, participation in VDOT-led studies, performance targets, the TDM study, and also continuing to develop and submit other discretionary grant applications.

New things that were captured in the UPWP.

These are unchanged from the last time you will receive this presentation.

So doing some best practices and benchmarking work, looking at other NPOs around the state, what they're doing to really solidify the processes that we have.

for the LRTP and the fiscal year 27 to 30 TIP, doing some geospatial work to get those projects matched, to really take the opportunity to look at all the data that we received from VDOT and determine what's the most valuable to communicate with you all, to communicate with the public, and maybe put some of that online as well.

And finally, bicycle and pedestrian counting.

So we incorporated that into our new UCWP to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a count program here at the University of Colorado.

For next steps, this was posted for public comment and review on our website.

Public do this was also published in the Daily Progress.

And we've also shared the UQWP with FHWA and FHDA staff.

And so this is up for approval at the policy board meeting this month.

And the following approval will apply to our DRPTs.

5303 funds, which are MPA funds, and that application is due May 1st.

I have a comment, and this pertains to Peter's comments about rethinking how we fund our, how we identify our transportation needs and how we fund them and taking a step back.

I like how you have the benchmarking and best practices, and I think that researching

Tying the regional funding priorities piece into that will be very important.

I don't think we're the only MPO where the funding eligibility and criteria are somewhat mismatched with maybe what our regional priorities should be.

And so maybe it's a multi-pronged research effort on like looking at funding opportunities, but also seeing how

That's a great comment.

Questions on UPW?

I don't think so.

I think we've captured all of the things that we've identified are regional priorities.

So a lot of it is related to data.

Some of the stuff that's come out of Blue Pack and just learning how we can better help coordinate with the city and the county, some data things that are happening around.

but really digging into smart scale, benchmarking, project prioritization.

I think all of that is captured.

The really important work is captured.

I second.

Thank you.

All right.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right.

So I am here today with the Smartscale update.

As you have already heard, so on March 20th, the Policy Award

had a special meeting that was in Smart Skill Workshop where we presented them additional information on all of the projects that are under consideration in the region.

And so the purpose of today is to bring to you all specifically the MPO project information.

So these will have updated concepts that you all saw at your last meeting and updated costs associated with them.

And following the discussion, we also have draft resolutions that are included in your packet for these projects.

So just a refresher for smart scale eligibility.

So any project has to meet an identified need in the trans to be eligible for submission.

So that's the first checkbox that we have to be able to meet.

Two programs support this smart scale prioritization process.

That's the district grant program and the high priority project program.

The district grant program is competitive district wide and that's only open to local jurisdictions.

And the high priority project program is competitive statewide and that's open to regional bodies and local governments and trans agencies.

Regional bodies are only eligible to submit projects that meet the trans needs on a corridor of statewide significance for a regional network or, in addition, projects that meet eligibility requirements for the High Priority Projects Program.

So the smart scale policy defines the types of projects that are eligible for HPP funding.

So this is a screenshot taken from the Brown 7 smart scale technical guide that shows what types of projects the MPO is eligible to submit for.

So these are, I won't read all of them, but adding a new through lane, making changes at interchanges, grade separated areas, and then there are high capacity transit and rail improvements that the MPO would be eligible for.

Scoring methodology and costs are also considered in project evaluation.

So the MPO is in category B, and it has the following percentages attached to each of those scoring factors that you see in the table at the bottom.

The project concepts and cost estimates shown today are the most up-to-date information that we have, but are subject to change between reapplication and full applications, which would be submitted in August.

So these were the start dates that were identified in the cost estimate letters that we received from BCOT as soon as it would be eligible to start at.

The first project is the I-64 5th Street DDI shared use path connection and sidewalk connection.

This is a resubmission from the last round of smartscales.

The last round, the project was too expensive to be funded because it included a full bridge replacement.

So this is a value-engineered version of the application from last round with a preliminary cost of over $44 million.

And so this would convert the existing interchange into a DDI.

It would construct Shear Butte path along Fifth Street from the previously funded Fifth Street Trail and Health Project to I-64 West Rock off-ramp.

There are various pedestrian crossings included in this concept.

And just for a reminder on that project, the previous version of where we had the bridge replacements in, like, remember was that 60s?

79.

Any other questions on this line before we move forward?

It might be easier to do questions.

Remind me what the competitive threshold is for projects.

Yeah, and I don't have that.

Yes, so typically for the high priority projects, I believe it was like around $25 million.

But we did go back and look at based on the benefits for that this project received in the previous round and what the lowest funded project was and the high priority project program was.

It would have needed to be in the low $40 million for this project to have been competitive in the previous round.

And this project on 5th Street south of the interchange going towards Old Lynchburg Road, it's only a sidewalk is constructed.

The county staff, we've been having conversations with VDOT to see if it's possible to construct a shared use path on that south side, given that we are working with other developments to get other segments of shared use path built from the roundabout that's at Old Lynchburg and Fifth Street.

and a couple of development projects contributing segments as well.

But the reason why that is not included in this is one, because of cost and two, because of logical termini, it would tie into an existing sidewalk.

Yeah, currently I'm going to size.

And I think in the longer term,

I think VDOT is supportive of having a shared use path run through the whole project area.

Gotcha.

And the other thing that we've been thinking about is

So we're, eventually there's a plan to put a shared use path parallel to the interstate going west, but north of the interstate.

So where, is it okay if I get a pinpoint?

So there's,

And what we would like to ask is that, so the shared use path connection is on the east side, this is north, north is to the right, going from the Fifth Street Trails and Hub projects that runs along the east side going south.

And I understand that that cannot be accommodated right now, but given that the expectation is that we would have a shared use path, you know, is it possible to design this such that that

Yeah, we are aware that that is likely going to be a future initiative.

So we have three years to figure it out.

It's not off the table.

A bit of the timing doesn't align up.

But you know, if this goes into an extra number two of funding applications, we can coordinate that.

Okay.

Sandy, you said something kind of pertinent here.

You said long-term VDOT support building a shared-use path once we can accommodate the shared-use path on the bridge.

What's the bridge?

Yeah, it would go through SGR at that point.

We don't.

It's currently, I think it's currently rated pretty good.

It looks like it's in pretty good shape.

So, you know,

I'm confused.

It has a sixth rating on how they evaluate the state of good repair.

And I think to be even eligible to receive state of good repair funding, it has to be rated a five.

below, but not all sixes are created before it is to what extent that six can be maintained.

I was going to say about that.

We would like to put that connection across the ramp.

It's just maintaining it until the shared use path gets there because we would have to put all that infrastructure in and then we would have to maintain it.

And it's just the cost of the infrastructure to put the

Fox Signals and Controller and all that stuff in, that's not going to be used.

But our understanding is that when the shared use path comes there, the crossing will be accommodated at that point in time.

that hopefully that'll appease the county on that.

That's the whole intent because originally we wanted to put it in, but it's a cost factor of putting it in and maintaining it till the shared use path gets there because it doesn't go anywhere at this point.

And on the state SGR, like Sandy said, it is a fair

The bridge that prevents us from adding a path, it's the reconstruction, the structure fitting it, creates a lot of complications because of how bridges are designed and how all the systems are integrated together.

Okay.

What also needs to be mentioned, right, we need an excellent amount of space.

It's about how, it's about how all of this is not, not really, because I think when we rebuilt the bridge, we think we can put everything in the same footprint.

It's interesting.

I might pick your brand about that later.

Like this.

There's a lot of stuff under those bridges.

Yeah.

Any other questions on this one?

It's not... Well, maybe just again, it's been a while since we've talked about these months go by and whatnot, but we have a shared use of that on the eastbound side coming from the trails up.

right on 5th Street to the interchange.

It's using the crosswalks and then turning into a sidewalk over, like on the bridge over the interstate and then going to continue being a sidewalk until potentially the county can figure out some sort of agreements with the developers and such.

But the whole argument around the logical termini, like I get what you're saying on the

Southside of the interstate, where you need that logical termini and just build a shared dispatch into a sidewalk.

But we're essentially building a shared dispatch into a new sidewalk.

Right?

Right, but it's a continuation from an existing shared dispatch.

Right.

Right.

Well, it will be when those things are built.

There's one, there's at least one logical term.

All right, the next project is the ESOL 29 northbound US 250 eastbound on-ramp extension at Ivy Road.

This project involves increasing the length of the on-ramp and adding an additional one ramp lane from Old Ivy Road.

and connecting the Ivy Road on-ramp with the Winter Standard off-ramp by an auxiliary plane.

The preliminary project cost for this one is $13,865,000.

I do have a lot of comments about this one, but I'm going to hold until the end.

But I do have one question about what we're saying about Route 2, St. Louis, and entertainment.

when we aren't really, we're just creating a big area for people to weave and merge.

And so I think that one is addressed with the auxiliary lane.

And so if someone were to be getting on and getting off at the immediate next exit, they would not have to weave and merge to be able to get off.

It's at least a few hundred people that do that because there's not a direct connection necessarily from Old Ivy to Leonard Sandridge.

So this is right by where you guys are building that, or redoing the brick, right?

Yes.

R?

You're talking about where the, like, just on-ramp.

No, we're not touching the bridge.

It's just a bridge.

It's just a street.

Yeah.

So, this is adding another lane to the on-ramp.

Okay.

And, the old Agri Residences is building a surety's path along Old Ivy right now.

I went by there on Sunday, checked it out,

Success.

Great.

My understanding is they, um, there was some sort of communication with Huntington Village that they were going to go to the series path potentially, or they had the offer to, but they maybe declined that.

But this whole area seems like it needs a lot more bike pit infrastructure in general.

And the, this project is probably going to squeeze out the Red Bay to trail connection that was agreed upon during that development project.

Oh, the last I hear otherwise, that's what I'm assuming.

The RTS patch is still aligned with the area where the branch widening would be cut, would be proposed.

So yeah, I mean, how it actually impacts the existing trail, I mean, the development is built for large buildings next to the trail, you know, on each side of it.

My understanding is that that building right there, they cut out a piece of it to accommodate the trail.

So we're...

It's the type of sweeps.

What would I think Residences?

The developer?

The next project is the US 29 southbound US 250 westbound off-ramp extension at Aggie Grove.

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

And the preliminary cost for this project is $10.6 million.

The next project is the U.S. 29 northbound, U.S. 250 eastbound off-ramp and pedestrian improvements at Barracks Road.

So since the last time you all saw this project, there have been some changes.

So what's the theme is the dual left turn lanes on the off-ramp onto Barracks Road.

But now this project also includes connecting the Leonard Sandridge on-ramp to the Barracks Road off-ramp by an auxiliary lane.

So similar to a couple projects back, one of those Ivy Road projects that you've heard about.

This project would also disrupt sidewalk on the southbound side of Barracks Road and add a crosswalk across Barracks Road at the US 29,000-bound, US 251,000 on-ramp.

And the preliminary cost for this project is $21.3 billion.

Yeah, I'm curious what that was for the last minute change for the connection to Leonard Sandridge.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, Fannie, but I believe when L&D reviewed the first concept for this project, they determined that if they were to extend the off-ramp, it would be a substandard distance from where the Leonard Sandridge on-ramp was.

and that was the issue.

The Leonard Sanders acceleration ramp was too short because it was substandard and there's a volatility issue on the bypass.

If you have the merge and the weave real close together, it creates a really bad volatility point where those two points meet.

All right, so if we're looking at trying to reduce the volatility of the highway traffic in this project, could we also look at reducing some of the volatility of the pedestrian and bike traffic?

It seems like we have a fat sidewalk that goes underneath the interchange connecting to a sidewalk extension.

Yeah, I'm just thinking that the companion project is the county's project on

into that neighborhood.

I'm curious if we could make and stop the city side instead of being a sidewalk, make that a shared east path and then make the logical termini the ramp and no line.

I mean, a part of it is there's a culvert we have to cross next to that entrance where we terminate where the two logical termini is.

And if we have to extend that culvert in the city, it would be a lot more at a cost.

Well, the part under the bridge is a restriction that we have no space under the bridge to do it.

On the east side, we're basically widening it out to an eight foot wide offset sidewalk.

L&D doesn't classify that as a shared use path because it doesn't meet the standards for the shared use path because offsets only two feet versus six feet.

It's tying to that entrance where the driveway comes out from that historic property that UVA owns.

Where that driveway comes out is where we were going to terminate that sidewalk.

That was a logical term.

You go on the other side of that driveway is a culvert that we would have to extend across.

Okay, I think I see where the constraint is going to be just going to drive up a

We got comments back from the environmental section central office that we don't need to have sound walls on this project.

We've also modified this curve from the original design, so it's not quite as sharp as it was before.

But I think, and we forwarded this concept to the UVA for them to review.

OK, great.

Glad to hear that's been worked out.

I'm curious, what is the actual cross section of lane widths and underneath the bridge?

How wide is the sidewalk underneath the bridge?

They won't be reduced to 11 feet.

Yeah, we did confirm that they are assuming a length of 11 feet.

I don't know that we have a specific sidewalk width.

I know the feedback was going to get us as wide as we can.

I can't tell you right now.

Yeah, but we might have that.

The thing that I think everybody

that we talked to as we're talking about designing these right now that will want us to emphasize, right, is that this is a preliminary concept and the design will be finalized until the project is funded.

If it gets funded, it will go through with more information, it will go through a design.

So we'll make it as wide as we can.

I have a follow-up question on that, Sandy.

So are you saying that, you know, right now the picture that we've drawn shows an eight-foot-wide sidewalk with a two-foot offset.

Does that mean, like, the space between the travel lane and the sidewalk is two feet?

Is that what that means, offset?

Okay, so we're all looking at a picture with the eight-foot-wide sidewalk, two-foot offset, 11-foot lanes.

but this is all very preliminary.

In the final design, is it possible that we undercover some constraints where we can't even get that?

Like where we recognize there's some, I don't know, geological constraint or something that like, so like I guess I'm just raising the question,

We all agree that we want to provide as wide a facility as possible.

But in VDOT's eyes, how likely is it, or we just don't know yet, we may find that it's possible to provide something wider.

I think the concern, I think there's less concern once you're out from underneath the bridge because there's more opportunity to make adjustments to the design.

I think under the bridge is a big constraint because there are peers that we can't touch.

And so I think everybody

is a little, I think we want to make it as fine as possible under the bridge as well.

It's just that we're going to be more limited as to what options we have as we're working in that space.

Yeah.

I mean, the only thing I would say additional to that is that property on that lower quadrant in the city is the same historic property that we're impacting with the ramp.

So we will be impacting it with the sidewalk as well.

I don't think it's going to be an issue.

They're more related to taking down the trees on the property than most of the other issues.

At least that's the stuff they quoted in the reasoning for the historic

One of the characteristics that they stressed in their documentation was the trees around the property.

So if we can limit the impact to the trees, I think it won't be a problem.

But we're going to try to meet with the city or the UVA and figure out what their

because there is a utility line, power line, overhead power line that runs across the property that we're not going to be necessarily impacting that already has taken down trees.

So we're going to bring that, have a discussion about all these issues to see how we can resolve this going forward because it's going to be an issue.

We're going to have to go through the 4F process during the design of this project and make sure we

basically do everything to address their concerns.

That's our plan is to put the eight foot wide sidewalk in there.

I don't foresee anything other than impacts to the historic property.

That would be a reason we couldn't do it, but I don't think that's going to be significant.

And I think EVA would be amenable to that as a minimal impact.

I will say one other thing.

We did add a sidewalk on the east side of the bridge, so you can cross on the east side without having to go just to the crosswalk on the west side.

Great, thanks for pointing that one out.

Well, I mean, I know that there's been a lot of questions about getting a crosswalk closer to the Ravana Trail, and there's some geometric issues on the Barracks Road at that crossing that limits it.

And this crossing, if we want to add this one, it'll be approximately 300 feet away or thereabouts.

And these were just a couple of slides that were included in the SmartScale workshop, the special meeting with the policy board.

So this table just identifies different funding opportunities that there are for transportation projects in addition to SmartScale.

So there are also federal discretionary grants and then other opportunities like revenue sharing and as well.

And we also included a couple slides for that workshop just tying it all back to our long-range transportation plan.

So we just pulled some of those goals out of there.

This is a refresher.

Goal number one is safety.

Goal number two is multimodal accessibility.

Goal three is land use.

Goal four is environment.

And goal five is efficiency and economic development.

As far as next steps, so today included in your packet

are two different sets of resolution.

So there's one resolution for the locality project.

And so as a condition of smart fail client for it, one of the policies is that the local governments have to have a resolution of support from the MPO if they have projects that are occurring within the MPO boundaries.

There's one resolution in your packet for those projects specifically, and it calls out the titles of those in that one.

And then separately for the MPO's projects,

There are individual resolutions for every single project.

And you all, if you would like to vote on those one at a time for which ones you would like to recommend in the policy board for approving or not approving.

There's a step between where we have to go to our board and the council wants those approved as well.

So that's when WAFE takes all of the projects and presents them to the CTV if they were to fund them just based on ranking for how all of the projects were.

And then by June 2027, the CTV will approve B.CIP, which will include any discretion that they have and how they want to fund projects coming out of SmartScale.

So they can decide to reorder, they can pull something out, put something in.

College of Funding is there to do that.

Okay, so that's the end of my slides.

Sure, so you've got a few different motions to go through here.

I think first, probably the easiest low-hanging fruit is to knock out the motion recommending the locality projects.

So the three

Second.

All right.

I'll just do this all by voice vote.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions on the localities?

MPL ones, let's start with Barracks and 5th Street.

I think we pretty much all kind of agree on those two.

So I would package those two resolutions together and accept a motion to move both of those resolutions to the Policy Board with our recommendation.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

Any abstentions?

All right, for the last two, these are the fun ones.

So before we do these last two, I'm going to do something a little odd and use my project as the chair to share my thoughts directly with you on these projects.

I want to acknowledge that I would have thought to do this little maneuver without

Watching a hero of transportation in this region, Diane McKeel used her time as chair effectively to share her views on and clarify how we were sharing responsibility for achieving our regional transportation goals.

Former Supervisor McKeel chaired the NPO Policy Board, the Regional Transit Partnership, and was the founding chair of the Regional Transit Authority, and she was on a foray to get the clear direction on where she thought we could work together.

So this will be one of our more unusual votes that we're going to take together as the technical committee.

It's very rare that we as a technical committee have a difference of opinion that registers so strongly that there are opposing votes to anything that comes before us usually.

Usually we see compromise and it's even rarer that the opposing votes are going to come from each other.

So I feel an obligation that I need to explain my decision to you.

I don't think any of what I'm going to say is going to sound new for most of you, but I hope through this final attempt at clarifying my position on these projects will be clear where our opportunities lie as a region and as partners with the state to address shared priorities.

Defining our shared priorities as a region and delivering a strategy for addressing them is the job of the MPO, in particular the

working to create the long-range plan that de-emphasized congestion mitigation as a priority and raised up safety and operational enhancements for all users as the focus of investments to be made in the circular.

In the constrained project list of moving towards 2050, the Ivy Road corridor project is ranked low in terms of overall prioritization, and its project restriction mentions both improvements at the interchange and multimodal improvements along Old Ivy Road that would come out of the VDOT pipeline study in 2024.

The pipeline study is where we get these two old IV grant improvements.

This is where they were originally identified.

The final report for that study does not identify any B-trans needs for safety in this area.

The B-trans needs shown in the study are for congestion mitigation, which is listed as a high priority, and transit access for equity emphasis areas, transportation demand management.

All of these are listed as very high needs identified by the state.

Indeed, when VDOT was reviewing existing conditions in 2024 with myself, staff from UVA's Office of the Architect, and from the county, we identified Old Ivy Road underpass as the bottleneck impacting all users and the key priority for the pipeline study to solve.

The recommendations of the pipeline study did not end up doing that.

The pipeline study final report does not stress the need for projects on the Old Ivy ramps.

It states the ramps experience moderate traffic congestion due to high volume.

It's a assessment of the extension of the southbound ramp option.

The study states, the overall deceleration lane is satisfactory.

The build conditions improve on the no-build scenario, which has level of service B and C during the AM and PM peak periods.

These are not the failing conditions we are now told we must prioritize with this.

There is no safety need even identified with these ramps in any type of study.

Most surprisingly is that the study never actually concluded with any preferred alternative.

Only the work of the first two phases of the study are shared in the final report.

No preferred alternative was ever costed or evaluated by this study.

There was never a final alternative from that study that was brought to the MPO or to the city.

I understand county staff shared a presentation on a draft set of recommendations with their board, but none of those recommendations were shared with the MPO or with the city.

Feedback from city staff, most loudly me, has been consistent that the recommendations that were underdeveloped in the pipeline study, which are now whittled down to these old Ivy Grant projects, do not address our needs as the city or as a region in this corridor.

This project is strictly between the county and VDOT.

The city and its association with the MPO should not be playing a part in its smart scale application allotment.

Instead, we are being asked as technical experts for the city,

to allow these projects to proceed because of the dire need for roadway safety.

There is an implication that the city does not care about safety and will not advance obvious solutions to address serious safety concerns.

To any of you harboring that opinion, I must challenge you to look at the record the city has put into our region's planning efforts.

The city and my team in particular has been advocating for the strongest safety goals we can possibly set and want our infrastructure priorities to align with meeting those goals.

We have pushed annually to set the highest aspirations for the regional safety targets.

We were an active partner in the development of our regional safety action plan, New Safety Blue Ridge,

and seven most aggressive targets of any partner in the region aiming to eliminate roadway fatalities in the city by 2050.

Looking at the Move Safely Bridge plan, these projects aren't in there.

This need wasn't identified as the location where we as a region have agreed there is a safety indicator.

There are several other needs that show up in the plan that are part of ongoing VDOT studies that are currently underway, but for each of these needs, where we all agree, we have no projects to advance.

In the 5th Street project, which we just advanced, the study was supposed to include recommendations for the intersection of 5th Street Station.

This is one of the most dangerous intersections in the city, and it is a barrier to extending bicycle facilities into the county.

A person died in that intersection just last month.

Where is the urgency from our regional and state partners to address this safety issue?

Why isn't there a project application that addresses it?

We also had a fatality on the US-29 Lorton Meadows area of the city last October.

This corridor is an area of persistent concern and a place of agreement between the city, county, and the state as a priority for addressing safety, access, and operational needs.

The county submitted multiple Reconnecting Communities grant applications with the city's support to get federal assistance in studying and recommending improvements to connect users along this corridor.

When those federal grant opportunities did not pan out, VDOT

helpfully stepped in with a pair of STARS studies covering the same study area.

However, there has not been an update on potential design options on this study since last fall.

We have no clue why this pair of projects stalled out, but we have lost a valuable opportunity to advance a smart scale application to address some of our biggest shared priorities.

Now with a notice of funding available under the Federal Safer Streets Program, we are again at risk of losing an opportunity to address the issues in the U.S. 29 corridor because we have no solutions in hand.

And yet, design and engineering resources have continued to flow into these old value projects instead.

Where we have obvious needs, VDOT has not provided any answers.

And where there is no obvious need, VDOT is asking us as local experts to disregard our local and regional priorities in order to align with uncertain state funding opportunities and invest our time and resources in projects that we do not have confidence in.

This does not seem like a process we can rely on in the future to achieve what we envision moving towards 2015.

Some of you may vote for these projects because your agency or department expects you to, not because it's based on your technical assessment of whether these projects are a good idea.

You are expected to vote for them to maintain existing relationships.

I have heard concern that the opposing vote that I will take on these projects, likely along with some of my colleagues from the city, will change the nature of the relationship between the city and the county of Vida.

And I will tell you this, I am not concerned, because I am welcoming that change.

I expect this difficult process to highlight a need for us to return together as a community to focusing on our priorities instead of chasing dollars for the least necessary improvements.

Some of you may be voting for these projects because you're committed to delivering projects for your jurisdiction and I understand that and I respect that.

I want to deliver the one project for my jurisdiction.

I want it to perform well in this competitive process and I want it to be delivered successfully and on top.

I don't want it to be competing in the high priority pool with a similarly priced highway project that doesn't do anything to help the city or the region.

Especially when I know the scoring process is weighted in favor of highway improvements and against shipping mode opportunities.

It would be technically fully shipped and you could be recommending this project because of that.

And so I will vote on these projects and I will oppose them.

I do not think it had to come to this.

I have asked for multimodal improvements to be considered along every step of the process since the early stage of the pipeline study.

I have expressed how unfavorable I view these kinds of improvements and how low of a priority they were for us as a city and region at every chance.

I have offered compromises and trades and offers of support for other county projects, but instead we would have returned over and over

that have limited application choices that are limited to only adding more highway pavement.

And VDOT is also telling us we don't have a regional strategy to do otherwise.

I will tell you the strategy we've been sticking to the entire time.

We are pairing roadway improvements that will get us through smart scale scores with multimodal investments that we need state assistance to afford to make more load options available to everyone.

That's it.

And neither of these projects fit that strategy.

There is nothing that indicates that they will get a good score and no multimodal improvements have been offered.

They will only have a negative impact on our region achieving its shared priorities and goals as these projects would induce additional demand for vehicles and create additional congestion and safety issues in the future.

Following the MPO Policy Boards vote to endorse MPO project applications, I will be taking the city's single application

along with the MPO applications to council on July 20th to obtain their support ahead of that August deadline that we've just shown.

If these old Ivan projects are included, I will not be offering a staff recommendation that they pass resolutions to support these two applications.

I cannot anticipate how they gave out, but I cannot imagine the city council will find it easy to support applications that did not have the support of the staff and may not have the support of its policy board appointees.

I personally do not see a path forward for these old IV RAM projects.

I think we can avoid continuing to drive these projects into a dead end today.

I will be voting to oppose them.

If there is a motion to recommend them to the MBO Policy Board, I will not be offering that motion.

Before I open before to allow someone to offer that motion, I will offer my own motion.

We should table the projects from consideration from this round of smart scale.

I will take a second on this motion if anyone wishes to vote affirming that strategy rather than advancing the proposed resolutions.

I'll second.

All right.

And I'm not going to do a voice plug for this one.

Yeah.

The motion is to table the two delegates.

I guess that's the semantic question that I have.

I'm voting that we table them and not recommend them at all.

So I don't know if that's functionally the same thing, but yes, I made the motion.

I think we do one motion at a time, but if you have a potential amendment to that motion, that would be well considered.

Okay.

I have an idea for a revision to your motion, which is to table it,

June.

And applications are due August 1st.

Sorry, and when was the policy board meeting?

June 24th.

I'm debating whether I want to actually move that because I don't know that we will unless there's some way we can either adjust these two projects or make adjustments to the other two projects to beef them up in some way.

Maybe it doesn't

Will we have any additional information in a month from now that we don't have today?

I guess I forget that I said that.

The projects have largely been the same for the past few months, so I don't really foresee a whole lot of changes.

So I guess, Correa,

Again, point of order.

I just want to make sure we have it for the minutes and for the memo for the policy board.

Table is a little bit ambiguous.

That's helpful.

In your suggesting

Can I ask another clarification?

And we're missing UDA today.

Who else are we missing?

We're missing one.

That's right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Ben Chambers?

Yes.

Danny Yoder?

Yes.

Is he still on?

Jason Vespi?

I abstain.

Mitch Schumer?

I abstain.

Mary Herring?

We've been having some discussion among the Albemarle County staff on both of these projects.

particularly on the southbound off-ramp.

And like it or not, SmartScale is the funding mechanism that we have for major transportation projects.

And it only comes around once every two years.

It is our job as local government staff to seek to maximize funding opportunities.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Peter Krebs mentioned in his opening comments that we need to seek a better funding strategy.

But the question that is before us is, do we take these projects off the table and miss out on a funding opportunity with nothing for this round to backfill them with?

The pipeline corridor study, I recommended these projects.

I hear

Mr.

Chambers, concerns with that project, with the process and the study.

My understanding is that VDOT recommended the MPO pursue these projects because they are eligible and competitive for SmartScale and would have a solid chance at getting funded.

I was not involved in that pipeline study, but I have reviewed the data analysis and results.

And from the study documentation, I understand that the core of the issues is at the Canterbury intersection, the intersection of 250 Canterbury and Old Ivy Road.

and that there is a concern that the southbound traffic backs up quite significantly today and in the future that it will, that that will get worse.

there are a large number of crashes at the Canterbury intersection as well as the ramps onto 50 from the bypass.

And so fixing that intersection, Canterbury, is kind of like

what we should be focusing on.

The county has, we are using two of our four smart scale slots to try to get a roundabout funded at that location.

Through the work that VDOT has been doing to prepare that and dig into the design a little bit deeper, we are seeing that that roundabout

is likely going to be more impactful and more expensive than initially presented in the pipeline study.

And so we feel less and less confident that the roundabout solution at that intersection will be funded through SmartScale.

If we can find a way to address the issues at that Canterbury intersection, then

We probably don't need the southbound off-ramp extension because we will be solving the safety issues, the operational issue, the intersection will operate more efficiently, and we'll get some pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as well.

But we don't have a guarantee or even a likely outcome

that that will be funded and so the backups remain.

The southbound off-ramp extension project would provide a space for the traffic that backs up to move out of the main mainline

bypass lanes.

And that movement serves the western neighborhoods in the county's development area as well as Crozet, which is where we are expecting growth.

And while we want to encourage and do as everything we can to encourage non-auto trips, the reality is that there will be some of that new growth that is traffic.

So, because we have no guarantee or even a likelihood that we will get something funded there, that leaves us with the option of the southbound off-ramp.

It does not address the root cause of the issues there.

It's not our highest priority project, but we don't have another one to slot in its place.

And I would not want to walk away from the opportunity to get something funded that would provide even just a marginal improvement.

I respect that this whole conversation brings up the question we've been circling around, which is

aligning our regional priorities with feasible funding opportunities.

And I think we can take steps as an MPO to be more proactive about that.

I recognize I'm saying that having been on this committee for just a short while.

But I think we can work on that.

So

I think I will offer my support to the projects for the sole reason that we don't have another one to slot in its place.

And I do see some benefits to those projects.

The other thing to think about, as Miss Jenkins mentioned in the timeline,

is that they're, you know, the scores of SmartScale don't, just because you're ranked highly doesn't mean you're automatically selected.

The CTB does have discretion to move things around.

And so if there's a way that we can come together as a region to advocate for a project that is

that we all agree upon is a high regional priority.

That may be a pathway to elevating a project.

So I guess I would move to maybe separate the projects to entertain a motion for each of these separately.

Again, Christine online, the way that they're written into the agenda is as separate votes.

So it doesn't actually require a motion or action.

I do have a bit of a comment on sort of the tail end of what you said.

I very much agree with, I think we should be working together to work with our CTV member to support our priorities.

I think if we're all agreeing that these two are not our priorities,

It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for us to submit them if we're going to go with that strategy of trying to get the CTP to support one of the projects where we do have agreement.

Those of us still online, it just named me as the host.

Yeah, I noticed it froze on my end.

All right, you good?

So the rule of the state is to suffer through a process.

I hear a lot of the feedback.

I understand where you all are coming from.

But one thing that I just want to make sure that we're all reiterating is that these are the set of applications that were developed because they were eligible as a high priority project site for the NPO to submit.

So some of the other projects that you all are mentioning

just would not have been on that list of smart applications because they don't meet the right needs.

They're not the right project type.

There was a very short list based on the eligibility criteria for the smart scale applications that the MBO was eligible to submit.

And these are on, you know, the VTRANS needs assessment.

So they do need a statewide need.

I think some of the other projects you all are interested in, you know, you mentioned some,

Ben, that you felt would be higher priorities.

I think the state is also interested or the Culpeper District is also interested in helping develop those further.

And it's not that we don't want those to be able to be submitted.

But in this context, we were just talking about what was eligible for that high priority projects program.

That is my understanding.

We can't, we can't make adjustments in who the applicant is at this point, because we're already past the pre-application phase and we can't change

But to your point, Ben, about the off-ramps being wasted or throwaway applications, if the roundabout at Canterbury is now eligible for HPP funding, not only does it

move into direct competition with the southbound, the off-ramp projects.

But it also opens up, I think, opens up greater possibility for it to do, well, I don't know if it would do better.

I think it changes the kind of like strategy of can we,

is it changes the strategy for can we try to move it up the list.

So back to my thought of we won't have more information if we come back to this in a month from now, I think we will have one piece of additional information, which is our innovative intersections now eligible for HPP funding and does that

Okay, so do you want to make a motion to keep these in consideration until the next meeting?

I'm not recommending that.

So your original motion.

But her original motion.

Right.

Oh, true.

I'm wondering if we want to separate the two.

And take a vote and move forward of the northbound ramp extension.

OK, so which one do you want to do first?

Okay, so you are making a motion to recommend the northbound on-ramp project of all the agitators in the policy portal.

Right.

Do I hear a second?

Bill Chambers?

No.

Mr. Franny?

No.

Charles Proctor?

Yes.

Giz Espich?

Abstain.

Will Schuber?

Abstain.

Barry Harry?

Yes.

So that passes.

The more I think about that, I'm confused.

So make sure I understand this clearly.

That southbound extension project, you're saying that that would be eligible for HPP?

So you're saying you would take that

and move into that funding source.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

It would be eligible for both.

So we're,

Okay.

We do have a meeting on the 17th, I think.

Okay.

Okay.

The table.

The table, the discussion until our June

Perfect.

Thank you for that verification.

All right.

I will just do a voice on this one.

So all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right.

We're good to not talk about that for a moment.

All right, so thank you for that difficult discussion.

That was probably the most fun about it on the NPO file.

We do not need to take a vote on that.

So this is informational only for you today.

We've included in the packet updates to both the technical committee and the policy board bylaws and the MPO's public engagement plan specifically related to the action taken by the policy board to sunset CSAC.

And so CTAC was a non-voting member on tech committee, on policy board.

They were captured in our public engagement plan.

And so we are just going back to make sure all of our documents match our present state.

And so they're before you today as informational.

They'll come back before you at your next meeting for a form of.

And there are some things in the bylaws for how many days you have to get it in advance and if there must be a hearing for some of those things.

Any questions about what we're doing to tighten up our technical community bylaws and policy board bylaws?

All good?

Awesome.

Thank you.

About 100 persons with STARS and pipeline studies.

Should EDOT have any information?

We're basically getting ready for the SWG meeting for the 29 Star Study North.

So I know you pointed out some of those things in your remarks, Ben.

Early on, we felt that this study was going to take

significantly more time to make sure we had enough public involvement, both from the county's perspective and the city's.

So that's why we haven't gotten to a point where we have an application from that study.

It's still moving forward and we want to make sure we're going to have good applications out of that study.

So it is moving forward and we're getting ready to schedule the SWD meeting to talk about the alternative, advanced alternatives on both those applications.

The SWP of the city projects, wrapping up the final report, hopefully we'll have that finalized in the next month.

The pipeline studies, the 118 project is basically we've converted it to a data collection proposal or study to just

Prep is for a larger regional study of that interchange to make sure we're addressing the overall needs of the interchange as well as the connecting roads to it.

DDI project is, we just basically, it was a re-look at this DDI project, but mainly for this SGP portion of it, because we couldn't, it was too costly.

So that's finished, basically done.

We are considering the, what was developed as part of the previous Fifth Street Corridor Study.

There are improvements that were recommended at Fifth Street Station.

and as part of that project, we're going to revalidate those improvements to make sure that they're still valid and they still work.

So that's still being worked through by the consultant and that will be forthcoming.

I think that's pretty much it.

The city project, like I said, it's being wrapped up.

No, I don't think so.

I'm looking forward to

All right.

So thank you, Chuck.

That was a great update.

Staff updates.

So we have a staff report.

Yeah, there's a couple of highlights that were included in the staff memo.

There was two presentations at the CTP, one for smart scale and one for safety.

Another key highlight in the staff memo is the State Streets and Roads for All.

FY26 NOFO dropped.

Just want to remind everybody it's $1 billion dollars available across the U.S. 30% is allocated for safety action plan development and the other 70% is allocated for implementation funding.

Again, we have spot-specific locations in our safety action plan for specific projects, but also we have the systemic improvements.

which can be applied across the entire high injury network that was identified in the plan.

Yes, so unlike last year's NOFO, where it was June 30th, this one is May 26th, I believe.

I think I'm going to have some meetings on next year.

It's important to note that that does have to go before the TJPDC Commission and they only have one more meeting before the due date and that's the first Thursday in May.

What is that date that the TJPD said?

Did she say the second?

The first birthday?

In May 7th.

All right, so we are now at the roundtable of dates.

I will clear this off with some obvious from the City of Charlottesville.

Same ignition and their update that they are wrapping up the West Main

We're sort of in the process of making it, taking it from being a PEDOT-like study to now it is a city application.

We're the one owning it.

So we're here working insanely, as well as our economic development department and the Friends of Downtown to do some additional public engagement around that.

It's going to be an event on April 27th where we will be inviting folks from the downtown business community as well as residents from the downtown area to come give us some additional feedback, give us some more detail based on what we heard in our last round where we were sharing the preferred alternative

We got a lot of feedback from the business community with concerns about how that would impact their businesses, how people would find downtown, how they would get to parking or delivery locations in an efficient manner.

And so we want to talk through where those concerns actually pop up and where there may be some opportunities to refine our design.

So that's going to be a fun opportunity for public engagement at the end of the month.

It's going to be sort of a focus group style, so we're not

We're really trying to get that specific group of folks to sit down and sort of give us the feedback that we're looking for.

So that's one big engagement that we're doing.

The other one is around a repaving project on Rose Hill Drive.

We'll be repaving Rose Hill Drive next year.

So right now we'll have the opportunity to figure out what the stripes are going to look like and if there are any opportunities for us to make improvements to ADA, provide

This month, next week, the 13th, we'll be having an open house to look at some options.

We don't have sort of the full corridor designed yet, but we want to provide some options that they can look at and give us feedback on before we come up with some full corridor design concepts.

This project is moving pretty quickly.

We kicked it off in March.

We will be going before city council in June with the proposed preferred alternative.

It's a quickly run project.

We're trying to make sure that we are aligned with any construction engineering needs so that next year when we're ready to put a new laptop on the road, we're ready to rock and roll.

Those are my two fun projects that I have been working on a lot recently.

The other one that Tommy has probably been working on more and more these days is Bike Month.

We are gearing up for May being Bike Month.

We've got a ton of things on the calendar that Tommy and I will be running between and riding as bikes between.

I hope you all will join us.

Check out the calendar at bikesteville.com so that you can follow along with events that the city is hosting.

We're also

If I will pass this off to... Good shout out to Tanya for joining us on our neighborhood walk through Johnson Village.

Our next one is on Sunday.

Bill is not here, but he's going to be leading it.

It's going to be through UPA North Rounds, and we're going to be exploring some of the projects that they've been doing over the past couple of years, but also in Emmett Street.

We talked about the Emmett Street Scape project.

So if you all are free on Sunday,

So the first thing is, in the beginning of our multimodal transportation plan, we are presenting that as one of five work projects for implementation of

AC44, the county's recently adopted comprehensive plan.

We're going to the board next week, April 15th.

We were scheduled to go on April 1st, but got bumped because of the budget where we will seek board approval to take that on as a project.

And so following that vote, we will be getting started on scoping.

The County Board of Supervisors has asked our staff to revisit our project prioritization.

So we are in the middle of updating our list of 170 projects that have been identified in prior planning efforts and studies.

Looking back at the method for prioritizing and the criteria that was used when the County did this,

a couple of years ago and going through the effort to turn the crank on that again.

And we will be presenting the results of that initial prioritization on June 3 to the County Board of Supervisors.

We are kicking off a traffic calming project on Park Ridge Drive in Crozet.

This has been the subject of multiple inquiries over the years as part of the Crozet master plan.

We are following VDOT's process for traffic calming studies.

We are collecting data this month.

The process will involve two public meetings.

It will wrap up with a survey of residents and businesses that are affected by that.

And we're scheduled to wrap that up in the fall.

If that is successful and gets like 50% of the surveys

of the people in the survey area to approve, then VDOT will consider the proposed improvements.

And the last thing is we're continuing to work with Tommy and our other regional partners to plan for Bike Month.

We have two e-bike demos scheduled, one at Lakeside Middle School and the other at the county office building.

I believe there's a volunteer sign-up form that is circulating and so

If anybody wants to bring their e-bike and come to the e-bike demos and talk to other people who are interested in e-bikes, you're welcome to come and you're welcome to sign up and let us know that you'll be there.

Hi everyone.

My updates will mostly be Bike Month as well.

It's an exciting time.

As the weather gets nice, it's what we all think about.

We do have some changes to our Bike Month business challenge that we're doing, but they're all very positive.

We will be running the whole challenge through our Agile Mile platform, which will make it easier.

There's no additional sign up that folks have to do for their teams ahead of time.

It will kind of just all run into the system as you sign up as an individual.

Your organization is something that you have to list.

So that will be the process for that.

The exciting part is that we will be offering both to individuals as well who are participating on their own or people who are participating on the Bike Month Business Challenge side, as an individual each week we will be drawing a $25 gift card for folks who logged bike trips that particular week.

So you'll have four opportunities to win those gift cards.

And then the state is offering two $500 gift cards to anyone who logs trips throughout the month and two $250 gift cards.

So lots of opportunities.

And then when we get to the actual employer side of it for those employers who have climbed a leaderboard

All month, not only in addition to the bragging rights, which I hear is actually the biggest prize of all, we will also be offering a prize pack kind of like we did last year with some gift certificates or coupons or things like that for area businesses that are supporting the challenge.

So we look forward to that friendly competition from you guys again.

I know we had some participants

in this room, and then also helping to grow this as well.

So very exciting.

We're starting advertising opportunities in the next week or two.

So yeah.

Thanks, Sarah.

I was going to clarify to make

This is something that we can participate as employees as well.

This is open to public employees and Tommy has been leading the charge as one of our big bite years in the past couple years in that program.

Yeah, and thank you to the city, the county, PEC,

UVA, some additional community groups.

We've had such wonderful partners and I think that might be my favorite part of doing the Bike Month activities is just getting to work with everybody together on this as an initiative.

We're so much, we can do so much more when we come together as a group as opposed to just ride share trying to get people to make these behavior changes.

Thank you for that update, Sarah.

The only other thing I'll say is that we had 22 pre-applications submitted.

Thank you everyone getting your reapplications and we're working through the validation, the pre-app screening.

The one thing I want to mention, and I've mentioned this to everyone before, but as you go through the pre-screening process, at some point before the applications roll into full applications,

You will be given a pre-application status that is either screened in, conditionally screened out, or screened out.

And probably all of your projects will be indicated as conditionally screened out because there's something that is not finalized, whether it's a cost estimate or a draft study.

It does not mean your project is not eligible to be moved forward.

It just means it does, if you are submitting it as a pre-application, it would not meet the full application readiness requirements.

Just a reminder that we've released our CHISM plan.

That's our Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan.

So anything 15 through 10 related, if you want to know more about how we run them, it's online.

State Road Line is still well underway.

Hopefully, you've all had a chance to submit any survey responses about transforming rail part two as they continue to develop that.

Virginia Breeze, our fifth line kicks off April 20th.

So that's the tidewater current.

So tickets are on sale if you want to take it from here to Harrisburg or here to Virginia Beach.

Those are now available for purchase.

And that's it.

It is, it must be located on to where the Flitz bus currently stops on.

Even more convenient.

Yes, well thank you.

and so we haven't returned to Zoom.

Jaunt.

Yeah.

Super excited.

We had a demo grant from DRPT to do a mobility on demand pilot for both Green Card.

Right now, if you go to the App Store and Google or Apple and you search on Jaunt, right Jaunt, there's an app out there now.

which is a hard bigger of the future hopefully.

So essentially it's microtransit.

In Greene County, we're rolling it out in a rural area.

So it's going to be an interesting model.

We are using the VIA software, the same thing that TAP uses for microtransit to do scheduling and dispatch for ADA service in the city of Charlottesville.

We're not really on the app for that just yet.

We just want to see the efficiencies from the new software first.

And then eventually we will roll it out, I believe it is now.

Anyway, so if you want to go look at the app in Green County, you want to do intra-county.

What we did, there's still circulator service in Green County.

That means you can go anywhere, anywhere in Green County with an advanced reservation.

But we drew a core zone.

We looked at all the origins and destinations of all the trips in the core zone, and it's pretty much along 33 and 29.

We got like 92, 94% of all pick up some drop-offs in that core zone.

If you live or work in that core zone and you want to travel to another place in that core zone, you can just like an Uber, book it 30 minutes or even minutes of events and get same day travel.

So happy about that.

The other thing to announce is, again, we're celebrating our 50th year this year, September 30th.

We're going to have an event over at the Hillsdale Conference Center, a CAR on Hillsdale.

So stay tuned for some things that are happening there.

It's what?

Oh, OK. All right.

So just so people know, the software rollout is happening now.

April 7 is we're starting to take reservations in this new VIA software.

We're going to start implementing service on April 14.

So it's hot and fresh.

and eventually John wants to transition to mobility on that service for all of our region.

Good luck with the testing of that.

Thank you.

Don't have anyone from UVA here, so that will be our roundtable updates.

Do we have any additional matters from the public here?

All right, then I will adjourn us until our next meeting, which will be on June the 5th.