MPO Technical Committee Meeting   6/2/2026

OK. Hello, everyone.

Welcome back to in person.

This is great.

I think what's awesome in here is good to see everyone.

Ben Chambers.

Thomas Safranek here.

Taylor Brown here.

Danny Yoder here.

Alberic Karina-Plun, here, Jessica Dimmick, here, Tonya Swartzendruber, here, Lonnie Murray, here, Charles Crocker, Sandy Shackelford, here, Christine Jacobs,

Mitch Huber?

Wood Hudson?

Barry Herring?

Here.

uh yeah that's the nitrogen public anyone wants to speak right now amen okay cool um let's go over and see what acceptance of agenda that's wants to start that motion make a motion second everyone approved say aye any noes any extensions no we

So we're going to do your approval of the meeting minutes.

I think that changed.

Quick change.

Second.

Thank you.

Everyone supporting please say aye.

All right, any noes?

Any abstentions?

I don't have my glasses, so I have to see if I can put you through them.

Do we want to go to the Campo Bylaws and Political Engagement, or is that what I'm going to let you know?

Think here, the red line.

Yes, so just a little bit of background.

This item came before you all at your last meeting as informational, so all of the changes proposed

and the technical committee bylaws, policy board bylaws, and the public engagement plan are related to the sunset of the CTAC.

So we made those changes in there and it's just up for your approval today.

Any questions?

Okay, motion to approve.

I guess I can start with a motion to approve.

Second.

Anybody supporting?

So part of MPO bylaws, the chair and vice chair of the committee served for one year.

One question I have is, so for the vice chair and the chair, we're voting next meeting, right?

Yeah, so are they automatically in?

Do they have to be nominated right now?

Do they have to accept that nomination right now?

Yeah, because mine are seen as the vice chair.

Wait, vice chair or?

I'm a vice chair.

Right, vice chair, or co-chair.

Their term is for a year, but they can continue in that role if they wanted to, correct?

Exactly.

Okay.

I mean, the bylaws are not specific on when should they be nominated, but usually we try to do it in a meeting in advance so we can have enough conversations so the chair and vice chair can start

Give my two terms as vice chair.

I officially removed myself from the Vice Chair

This nomination stands as Ben Chambers, fellow chair, and Jessica Dimmick for vice-chair.

Full votes that are ruled by an obvious meeting, correct?

Thank you.

You have some approval for that as well?

Okay.

Aye.

Any no's?

Any exceptions?

I guess we have our ticket for

or next year.

New business.

Our first presentation is Smart Scale Round 7 of the Panoplydical Projects, but it's still at Lowery's.

I'm also going to walk through the rural projects that are being submitted in our weekend for this round.

So I wanted to start with a bit of a recap.

Since we met about two months ago, it's been a little bit of time since we last met.

So at your last meeting on April 7th, one of the action items on your agenda was recommending that the policy board provide or not provide resolutions of support for the MPS smart scale projects.

And so the first item, just a reminder, you all recommended adoption of the resolution that endorsed all of the locality submitted smart scale projects.

You recommended adoption of resolution to support for three of the MPO's projects, so for the Darrick's Road, S-64 5th Street, and the full Bagby Road on-ramp projects.

And then you deferred taking action on making a recommendation to the policy board for the old Bagby Road off-ramp extension.

Following that meeting, on April 22nd, we had two meetings on the same day, for the Commonwealth Transportation Board met, and the MPO Policy Board also passed.

On the 22nd, the CTB approved an update to the SMART SCALE policy that allowed for innovative intersections of an eligible project type for the high priority project program.

And there's a note here to refer to the staff report for a presentation that was provided by the team to recap the changes from the CTB and how they were addressing it in this round of SMART SCALE.

So that's in your packet for your videos.

Also on the same day, at the policy board meeting, the policy board approved the resolution and were to induce admission of

SMART SCALE applications by the local jurisdictions, and the policy board also approves the resolution of support for all of the MCO applications listed.

So next up for SMART SCALE this round, the first bullet there for May says, review the three applications and providing feedback and screening this again.

We received notification via email yesterday from the portal that all of the MCO's applications were noted as screened out conditionally.

And what that basically means is that the documents that we submitted to the planning studies are still ongoing and those aren't in final form.

And so they have to be in final form by submission of the full application.

So we were aware of that going into it, that those studies were in progress.

You all have been receiving updates on those same studies for starts and pipeline.

So that wasn't necessarily alarming for us to see that we anticipated that.

Starting June 1st, so yesterday, the Round 7 full applications opened in the total.

There's ultimately a full application training that staff are going to sit in on.

And then for the local resolutions of support, June 15th is the tentative date for the Charlottesville City Council to provide a resolution of support.

And June 17th is the tentative date for the County Board to provide a resolution of support.

July 15th is when all supportive documentation is due for full applications, and August 3rd is the official final application deadline.

Following that, January 2027 is when we expect the first staff-recommended scenario to be presented, so based on all of the scores and how projects are evaluated, the staff recommendation would be for how the CTD should fund projects, and then by June, the VDOT, not VDOT, the CTD will

I'm officially selecting those projects that are going into the 6-year improvement program.

Good question, Taylor.

So the supporting documents, does that include all the planning studies and everything?

Yes.

All right, so before I jump into the real context, I also wanted to provide just a quick kind of where are we in this process.

I know that there are a lot of things going on with studies and also smart field, so I just wanted to graphically kind of show where we are in this two-year cycle of these things happening.

And so we are there in June, so we know that smart field is a biennial cycle,

But also noted on this graphic is the project pipeline process.

And so you can see December, January is when the CTB selects the next round of product pipeline studies.

So SARS isn't noted on this timeline specifically, but it operates on a similar timeline as product pipeline.

Yeah, they're trying to fish it out a little bit this year.

So that's late as well.

And she links on all the January's, so a little bit.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And so this is just meant to show, you all are also going to get presentations today on the next study locations for product pipeline and stars.

And so I wanted to just show how all of these things work together on this two year title.

So next we'll talk about the SmartSCALE projects in our rural jurisdictions for a reason.

This came out of a request for an interest from the policy board.

And we had our SmartSCALE workshop in March.

They indicated an interest in

Knowing what other people in the region were applying for for this kind of personnel.

So the TJPDC is a regional body.

We are not submitting any applications, but in our planning, the 5th Green County and Nelson County are both submitting two applications.

For Green County, both of their applications are resubmissions.

So the first of which is US 29 613 RPEP project.

So the D-trans needs that are noted along this corridor

Our testing, preservation, safety improvements, transportation, demand management, and collective access.

This project area also includes a PSI intersection and a PSI segment.

And so installing this archive has mentioned improved safety by reducing the number of conflict points and reducing operational delays.

And the preliminary cost for this project is 23.6.

The next project for Greene County is on US-33 at Advance Mills and Greencroft at those intersections.

This project will implement VDN U-turns to address the V-trans needs of safety improvements.

This project area also includes a BSI segment.

And the preliminary cost for this project is $13.9 million.

For Nelson County, this first project,

This first product is a resubmission and it's actually noted as a custom V-trans need.

So when I reached out to the VDOT Lynchburg district to just ask and learn a little bit more about this one, there are no V-trans needs that are currently noted at this project location, but there is a line in the technical guide and it's pretty small at the bottom of the slide, but I wanted to put that on there for reference.

where if there have been three or more injuries at a location, you can work with OIP to propose a custom detran safety need to meet.

And so they did that correspondence with OIP and determined that this would be eligible for a custom safety need.

And so that's how they're eligible to submit this project.

This project would install dedicated right turn lanes and the southbound and eastbound lights of Rockfish Valley School Lane and Rockfish Valley Highway intersection.

Preliminary cost for this one is 2.5 million.

And the second project for Nelson County is US 29 corridor improvements from Route 655 to VA 56.

The V-trans scenes noted along this corridor are for fasting preservation, transportation demand management, and safety improvements.

And this project area includes a PSI segment and two PSI intersections.

And so for this project, they would be installing an R-cut.

Good question.

Where is this beautiful road name?

And the preliminary cost for this project is $10.8 billion.

So the two for Greene County are resubmissions, and then the first one for Nelson County is a resubmission.

I don't believe this one is.

I think this is a re-submission.

That's correct.

Which smart scale bucket are these eligible for?

So the jurisdictions are always eligible for the district grant program.

OK.

But some of these are in a different district.

They're not in a public district.

Right.

Correct.

OK.

So they'll be in a different pool for the district grant program.

OK.

Not in terms of your eligibility, but how products are stored, depending on where they're located.

Thank you.

Alright, so we have been in the process of starting to kick off our next round of studies and one of the questions that came up as we were finalizing the projects that we're going to be submitting for SMART SCALE is just a question about how do different projects get initiated that end up flowing into SMART SCALE or other funding applications.

And from the VDOT perspective, the start of that is to go through a study process to identify the locations that meet high statewide needs for VDOT or localities can look at other types of needs that maybe the locality identifies.

And then we start working towards developing improvements that can be implemented to adjust those needs.

So the selection of the locations for our studies through the SARS pipeline process really starts the process of queuing our project that can then be submitted for usually a SMART SCALE, but can also be considered for other funding applications.

So it reminds me of you have been involved with SARS and project pipeline studies previously, but I just want to take a second to go through and talk about the overall process, what they're intended to do and what the expectations are.

And then the Culpeper District has been reaching out to the localities and to the MPA staff to work with them to determine where is their interest in conducting the next round of studies through both of these programs.

So the two study programs that we're talking about today are very similar, but are technically managed by different divisions within the state of Virginia.

The first is Project Pipeline.

These are managed by the Office of Intermittal Planning and Investment, which is the organization

and also there's the SMART SCALE program.

And then there's SPARS, which stands for strategically targeted affordable runway solutions.

And that's managed by VDOT Central Office.

The real distinction is that the OIP, the Office of Intermittal Planning and Investment sits directly under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

And then SPARS is managed by VDOT Central Office.

So both of these are managed by a central statewide agency.

We identify locations throughout the Culpeper district, so while we're talking about locations within the MPO, we're also looking at locations outside of the MPO area and the northern portions of the district and the Rappahannock-Rappateau Regional Commission as well.

And then the goal is to identify implementable solutions that can be funded through SmartSCALE revenue sharing, HSIP, even ongoing district

So we put them side by side.

They kind of are reflective of each other with some nuances.

So the purpose and the goals of SARS are a little bit distinct from project pipelines.

SARS was really intended to focus on addressing safety and congestion-identified needs, whereas pipeline is defined with a project goal of addressing needs that have been identified in the Commonwealth Transportation Board statewide plan, which is B-Trans.

The real thing is that for all intents and purposes, they're going to look pretty popular to most of us.

Both of them are administered by a statewide agency.

Both of them have goals to identify cost-effective, implementable, multimodal improvements.

Both of them are intended to address and identify statewide priorities.

They both require collaboration among stakeholder organizations and across a broad range of different transportation-related disciplines.

And then they both follow standard transportation study processes that incorporate both a comprehensive data analysis and public engagement approach to support position making.

Both of the programs also start with a framework phase.

So we go into the study and the first thing we do is we define who are the study working group members that need to participate in the study process.

So that stakeholder working group or study working group meets together

We define what the goals of the project are going to be based on the identified statewide needs as well as based on maybe some of the locally identified or regionally identified needs.

We will meet together to agree on the technical analysis and the approach that's going to be conducted as part of the study.

And then we'll also determine public engagement needs.

And then once we get through the framework phase, we will all sign a document that says that we agree on the general approach to how we're going to conduct the study.

And then we will actually conduct the study in the study phase.

The study phase will include all the technical analysis, the pressure review, the operations review, traffic forecasting, developing the different alternative improvements and eventually selecting a preferred alternative.

And then there'll be a minimum in both studies of two points for public engagement.

That's at the need identification phase and then selecting an advanced alternative.

Sandy, I have a question.

On the technical analyses, how flexible are the technical analyses?

For example, if you want to, if there's a desire to

Look at more than one forecasted growth rate or if there's a desire to define different levels of adequacy for traffic operations.

I mean the growth rate is going to be defined.

I don't know that there's flexibility to veer from like our defined processes for things like defining what the growth rate is going to be.

Maybe what you're asking is could we look at different scenarios like a midterm and long-term kind of first scenario.

And I think to some extent that's built in maybe like a sensitivity analysis kind of

kind of thing.

I think there could be some opportunities to do that, but we'd have to talk about what exactly the desire is for the study.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah.

I think it could be discussed.

The different roles and responsibilities are important because, again, these are managed centrally.

So any of the studies that are moved forward will have to be consistent with the overall goals of the programs that there

So the statewide agencies that are overseeing the programs are going to provide general program oversight and make sure that we are meeting the intended purpose of those study programs.

They will also oversee all the contractual arrangements, make sure that the scopes are in line with what they expect, especially given the financial constraints of the overall funding for all the programs.

And then sometimes you'll see that these central statewide agency staff will also attend the stakeholder working group meetings.

The district staff serves as the overall point of contact and as the project manager for each of the studies.

So we're making sure that we're coordinating with the consultants, that we're meeting our deadlines, that things are moving forward in the way that they need to, to be on time and on budget.

We work with the consultants to coordinate

establish the parameters of the study.

We are responsible for reviewing and doing the final approval on all of the study materials that are developed.

And then we also make sure that any concepts that are moved forward would be consistent with VDOT design standards.

So we have a lot of the logistical coordination.

and doing a lot of the quality control review alongside the consultants as well as providing materials to the consultants.

And then for the study working group members, the most important thing is to be involved and participate and provide information early and in an ongoing way as part of the study process.

Typically, there are about four to six meetings over the course of the study and sometimes it feels like we have more because we have two studies that are going on simultaneously.

but usually it's about four to six meetings in the course of the study and that can be a mixture of in-person and virtual and that's also something to consider during the framework phase if you prefer in-person versus virtual to make sure we're accounting for whatever resources are needed to support the types of meetings.

So similarly, the stakeholder working group meeting, or team group members are going to be reviewing the materials and providing comments back to VDOT

will be compiling all of those and working with the consultants to make sure they're addressed.

Assistance sharing information about it in public meetings or surveys or communication, review the concepts and provide feedback, provide information as needed.

And the one thing that I think is really important to you is to make sure that the members of the study working group are sharing information and decisions from local governing groups and elected officials and making sure that

The study is moving forward with the awareness and support that the liberal elected officials are providing us information if there is some sort of political concern that we need to take into account as part of the studies.

So again, what we are looking for right now at this step is that VDOT has reached out to localities instead of being able to start having some discussions about what locations might be of interest for the next round of studies.

Looking to, over the next month, finalize the study location preferences and then we'll start working to submit those requests.

I just want to reiterate that VDOT's Central Office or the Office of Environmental Planning and Investment and ultimately the Chemical Transportation Board do need to cut off on all of the studies.

While we do have some flexibility to discuss what the goals are of the studies, we do have a framework that we have to stay within.

And then once we submit those requests, we can start working forward to finalize our notices to proceed with an anticipated kickoff later this summer or early fall for post-study programs.

I have a couple questions.

Thanks, Sandy.

This was really helpful.

On your earlier slide with the kind of two side-by-side programs, the Suggested Study Work Group Members, one of their stars is VDOT District and CO Planning.

OK, cool.

And then, so how many stars in pipeline studies is the regional album zone undertake?

So there are a couple of considerations.

One is like remember we're looking at the whole Culpeper district which is two planning districts.

So we're looking probably I think our own and then we have managed there's budget considerations, there's staff capacity considerations, and then there's the capacity of the local stakeholders that have to engage as well.

So I think for this region or this area I think it's around five or six studies that we're looking at but I think kind of the maximum we could take on

Yeah, and I think that especially for, I'm Stacey Melandri, I'm the assistant district administrator for Jack Culpepper District over planning and yeah, I don't know my name right now.

TMPD, especially for the STARS program limits statewide because of budget constraints and resources too.

To some degree we're, you know, able to, there's some flexibility there, but I would agree.

I think that's, we've talked a lot about our capacity, right?

Yes, I mean, maybe it's too early to say, but are the number of proposed study locations about right, do you think?

Or is that the question kind of to be answered later?

Yeah, I think, I think what we had discussed is there's,

Especially in the study, I think there were more proposed notifications going through the count.

I think we had some initial discussions to kind of figure out, at least from the staff perspective, everywhere how to prioritize.

I think there are a couple of projects that are on the jurisdictional boundary.

There's at least one project that's on the jurisdictional boundary.

And then I think we were looking at one additional project with the insurance.

They'll correct me if I'm wrong.

And then one more question.

So at the end of the framework phase, you kind of said that sort of like the working group or whoever the meeting at that point is going to agree on, this is our approach, right?

Yeah, I mean, to some extent it's up to the state, it's up to each of the representatives

Any other questions for Sandy?

I guess one question I have is in terms of like looking at multi-modal solutions, how are we

So I think that, so remember that we're focusing on these that are identified, they're like a statewide process.

So we're going to focus on those locations.

And at those locations, we're going to look at any of the needs that are identified or discussed as part of looking at those locations.

But then in terms of specific targeted outreach, I think this is where, again, because we have to manage the budget, we're going to have some limitations on scope.

But this is also where maybe we need to work with millennialities to figure out what is the best way to reach some of the communities that we want to make sure have

Those perspectives are represented as part of the process.

So I think we all need to understand that we're going to have a consultant, we're going to have an overall guidance on the process.

Yes.

Oh, just, so, something is part of the thing when we're improving these intersects.

or like studying for the season of sessions, but as Danny was saying, improve safety for multimodal jet field.

So I was just looking at what kind of engagement is being done or could be done to reach out to communities that do frequently walk, but if I go wrong, I don't do.

I think what I'm reading and I'm hearing you, Sandy, is that VDOT is probably going to lean on

Help identify those groups and invite them to public meetings, share the online surveys, and be the connector, if you will, right?

So for this process, that's kind of our responsibility.

And it should also be discussed during the framework phase.

Sandy, so you may have touched on this already, but technically speaking, neither one of these programs are, well, maybe I'm giving back up.

STARS is the study and it's not necessarily a study to identify the project for SMART SCALE, but it's not in its definition for that purpose.

Yeah, pipeline is definitely more in line with the SMART SCALE schedule to sort of get projects ready to apply for SMART SCALE, but that doesn't mean that that's the only purpose of a pipeline study either.

So I'll also mention one of the things that we're working to do in both of these study processes is SMART SCALE is really kind of intended to identify solutions for what we would consider midterm solutions, so things that will solve the need for 10 to 20 years out.

Alright, so what SMART SCALE doesn't do though is necessarily do these like low cost improvements like update guide signs to provide better information to do different payment documents to do some of these like lower cost things that could be incorporated into just like a regular maintenance budget or six year improvement program outside of like a big product like SMART SCALE

So both of these programs can also identify some of the short-term solutions that can be implemented outside of SMART SCALE, as well as longer-term solutions that we know we don't have funding to do these right now, but we probably need to start thinking about what ultimately will need to happen on our major assets, specifically for things like error changes that are much more expensive to maintain and replace, so that we have a plan of where

A 30- or 40-year horizon to eventually make those improvements.

I don't think we'd limit it by the funding programs.

I think we have that in mind throughout the process is, you know, as we start talking about solutions, we'll start making these in buckets.

Like, this is one of my solutions.

This is the midterm solution.

This is the long-term solution.

So I think that's something that we consider throughout the study process, but I don't think we limit the study process based on funding sources up front.

Would the study results then potentially be like,

You've got the package that you can use for going after the SMART SCALE, but you have these greater things that are baked into the study, to your point, that we can use and bake into our routine maintenance or whatever, or even locally fund projects.

So we'll have a thing where like, here's a preset, you can go after X, and here's some other things you can do, either locally or go after even smaller scale funding.

Yeah, I don't know, it was kind of a long time ago.

I know that's what I heard in the long period.

But I do remember my other early conversations, I did have a little custom group that were presented.

Those are typically not the ones that will go out for the public feedback then, because they're not really like big projects.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I do want, maybe just, you know, when we go to the next meeting, because I think that some of those like low stuff were stuff we kept hearing over and over again from the public, right?

The survey and whatnot.

So like things like wayfinding, for example, like even though that's not really baked into the current application that we're putting in for, that's one that we just heard over and over again.

I have one.

Yeah, so what they have right now is that there is a form that you can fill out and it doesn't meet any of the other criteria, but it is an alternative that was identified

in one of these studies.

It's only part of it.

You can build a form.

And it just has to continue to need, like you can't apply for, like, if there's an improvement at this end of the form or this end of the form or, you can't just apply for those two, but you can apply for a portion as long as it's like contiguous, needs logical term and that's a reasonable thing.

So it's just the form you have to fill out.

I'm thinking as a follow-up to yours, if the studies have a preferred alternative that is fundable or is competitive for a SMART SCALE process, but then there's these also low-hanging proof options and or long-term strategies that need to be addressed that aren't the preferred alternative, would we be eligible applicants for that entire range of projects?

As long as that remains a CTP policy.

Thank you.

If you're joined on the Zoom meeting from your computer, you can do it from there or you could come on here.

I'm the Director of Economic Services for the City of Charlottesville and I'm presenting our recommendations for STAR Studies for the next round.

I just want to say thank you, Sandy, for your overview of the process.

I think it's very helpful to understand that larger context bringing to mind for me a lot of things that we can do for the next round to help prepare these recommendations and make sure we're getting, you know, broad input and feedback as we bring them forward.

But these recommendations were developed by staff based on a lot of prior discussions with stakeholders.

internal and external, particularly recommendations from adopted plans, the priorities of the state, and also our understanding of what

and recent lesson learned like what a STARS study is really oriented to try to achieve, what sort of community engagement is baked into the process and also, you know, what really the expectations should be for as a locality is to provide supplemental community engagement.

So our recommendations really kind of acknowledge that there, if you are reading forward one of these recommendations for a STARS today, there is a heavy lift by the locality to support that study from a community engagement perspective and what do we as a

a city, you know, have the bandwidth to really support recognizing that there's a lot of other, you know, ongoing priorities for the city.

So our recommendations focus on areas that, you know, have been identified as there being a need already in adaptive plans, but where we believe that the opportunity to support the community engagement is something that we can manage.

That's

potentially because there is available right-of-way and will not be as many constraints or considerations for private property or where we know that there won't be a lot of other political considerations that need to be brought to bear and have a community engagement processes tailored.

So I just wanted to kind of use that as a way to set the stage for our recommendations.

And the first one is the Princeton Ridge-Mackinac intersection.

This has been identified as a p-trans made for bicycle, pedestrian, safety, and operations.

It's identified in the streets that work as the number three priority corridor from West Main to Preston and the number four priority corridor, Sierra Street to McIntyre Road.

Eighty-nine crashes at this intersection have been documented over the previous nine years, and we anticipate a better support and realistic project coming out of the study of this intersection than some other opportunities.

This would be a city of Charlottesville ledge study, which was something that was requested to be identified to help kind of set that expectation moving forward for who would have ownership for this effort of being a VDOT study.

Our second recommendation is the ridge corridor from West Main Street to Cherry Avenue.

This ties into the study work that has already been completed in the previous round of SARS and extends south to the 5th Street Road diet that is currently being proposed.

It is an identifier of the trans need for bicycle, pedestrian safety and operations.

It's the number nine priority corridor in streets that work.

It includes the 5th Street-Cherry intersection, which is the number two priority intersection, and the Ridge-Monicello intersection, which is the number three priority intersection.

90 crashes on this whole roadway segment between West Maiden and Sherry over the previous nine years.

And this one would also be led by the city.

Finally, we did want to note that we looked at a few other options as well.

East High Street from 10th Street Northeast to the 250 Bypass, Princeton Avenue is a full corridor from McIntyre to 10th Street Northwest and Elliott Avenue.

But as I mentioned previously,

Questions?

Yeah, two questions.

It's a tiny commission, go ahead and weigh in on this, because maybe I'll keep my question brief.

This is something that I think for the next round, we should really try to bake into the product.

Because my understanding is that the next opportunity is really for the policy committee to put out these recommendations.

Well, then I'll ask my questions.

Not too long here.

So when will the actual expense of the study be determined?

Is that in the framework stage or is that before we go to OED and VDOT and say, these are our data locations, we have to say the study area ends here?

Typically we'll want to define that ahead of time because sometimes we even do data collection.

Okay.

I think the Ridge Street, I mean, I'm very happy that these locations say that.

I think they're really important, especially connecting to the Proposed Road Diet.

I think one of my main issues with Proposed Road Diet is that it kind of drops you off on a place where there's no more protected bike lanes.

So I think I'm really happy to see this, I guess like bigfoot.

Even after this study, the current study, and then we do Preston, Ridge, McIntyre, there was still a gap of one or two blocks that hasn't been looked at or will not have been looked at.

So basically, from Preston down to Maine, West Maine.

Yeah.

So what we would typically do is we would, for a study like this in an urban area, is that a minimum?

We would take the intersection that we're studying.

We're going to focus on improvements at that intersection, but we will usually at least at a minimum do data collection at the next civilized intersection to measure those in the path.

Yeah.

Great.

I mean, um,

I think improvements at this intersection are definitely needed, but I would hate to see kind of a one or two block gap where there are no improvements, or we have to look at improvements and identify anything to help that.

And my last question, so my understanding is that the last SMART SCALE round, like basically the only projects that were recommended for planning were feature-inferred in one or two locations.

Yeah, this is a little bit, it's kind of art and kind of science because it's

Some of the VTRAN's needs are more closely affiliated with what the improvements for the benefit score is going to be than others.

Can I just add, you know, not having an engineering background, not even having a planning background, and after going through our last study, I'm still

I'm a little curious about how we do intersection design without really having a better understanding of what the rest of those corridors look like and I think it really affects like bikes facilities more than like you know sidewalk facilities or you know travel lanes you know facilities transit for that matter so I just I wonder if we're going to kind of fall and not we're going to

Some issues are going to come up not really knowing what's happening with the rest of Preston or East Market or McIntyre outside of the intersection it is.

Yeah.

So, so I think, I think it's really important to understand, like Kelly mentioned earlier, like what these studies are intended to do versus something like what you're talking about, which would be more of like a,

Citywide or corridor-wide, bicycle or pedestrian or transit or a little key plan.

So typically, hopefully, we would know what those high-level goals are and we'd look at them at these individual locations and help figure out how we could make it work in a more detailed way at a smaller project area.

But the start of pipeline studies are not going to do like those big corridor-wide plans.

No, I get it.

I'm just making a comment about the nature of blackness.

So we are scoping a citywide mobility plan, which will, Sandy referred to, really help establish the guiding principles, the overarching goals for

These and many other locations.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi everyone, I'm Jessica Dimmick.

I'm the principal transportation planner for Alameda County.

I'm going to present the three study locations that county staff has been speaking with VDOT about for pursuing for this next amount of studies.

These are study locations that most closely align with the VDOT program goals, the B-Trans needs, and our long-standing priorities for the county.

The first location is focused on US 29 at Airport Road.

This has been a location the county's transportation planning team has wanted to study for a long time.

It's number six on the PSI intersection list for the VDOT Culpeper District.

It's the source of a lot of traffic congestion, especially during weekday peak hours.

It's adjacent to three different activity centers that are designated in our AC44 comprehensive plan.

The Holligney Town Center, the Holligney Town Center to the southwest, north point to the northeast, and Timberwood Shopping Center to the southeast.

There's a lot of development going on and expected in the future.

There are no facilities for bicyclists or pedestrians to move around or cross 29.

And the county wants to develop in a way that encourages transit.

In a recent STARS study for the US 29 corridor, we heard a lot about wanting to make the 29 corridor start to move in the direction of being supportive of transit

And so we think that this would be a good place to do a study to look at all of these challenges and to develop solutions that would work to meet the various goals.

The yellow circle in the center indicates that that intersection is the focus, but we would want to look at how the intersections work together, both to the north and south, as well as on Airport Road.

The extension of Worth Crossing is something that will be provided by the North Point Development as a parallel facility and VDOT's working on the design for the missing link of the birthmark connector to Lewis and Clark Drive.

So there's a lot to be gained by looking at this area in more detail.

These two maps show the B-Trans prioritized midterm needs for the overall construction district priority.

And you can see there priority one and priority two means throughout the 29th over on this segment.

And not only is this the number six PSI intersection, but there are other PSI intersections identified as well as the PSF segment.

The second location is the US-250 at Freebridge area.

County staff are interested in studying this location for multiple reasons.

The Pantops area contains multiple activity centers for future growth, including the regional activity center of lower Pantops, where redevelopment of the Pantops shopping center could accommodate significant growth.

There are other activity centers like Barbana Ridge and Peter Jefferson Place and redevelopment opportunities like State Farm nearby.

And so this is a clear area of growth for the county within biking distance and served by transit.

So the county is considering the South Panfops area as one of the first activity center plans to do, although the timeline for that is to be determined.

County staff actually facilitated an activity within our organizational leadership team to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the Pantops area and congestion, specifically congestion that limited the potential for growth was raised in at least the group that I facilitated as the number one issue.

So your study would be about congestion, but not just about congestion, it's also

How do we make meaningful bicycle and pedestrian connections and opportunities for transit?

Improvements will be made very soon at the Stony Point Road intersection and this new study would be intended to look at how the intersections work together.

It seems like this is an area that's a good candidate to study and that the fact that it crosses the city-county line would be an opportunity

for us all to really dig in and work together to address this issue, these issues of this location.

This map shows, again, the VTRANS prioritized midterm needs with priority one and priority two segments.

And this map on the right shows the bicycle access needs in VTRANS.

And you can see that it's priority one, sorry, very high.

in the red, almost all along, as well as down along High Street.

The last location is exit I-64, exit 118 at US 29.

This would be picking up where the current VDOT pipeline study left off.

It was interesting, I was doing some historical research into the county's transportation project prioritization efforts.

And back in 2015, when SMART SCALE first was created, the county's planning team developed that first prioritization list.

And this location was number one on that project list.

I-64 Exit

I think that just underscores how much this is a long-standing area of concern and wanting to develop feasible practical solutions that will work here.

In addition, so the VDOT study, the VDOT pipeline study that is currently going on, my understanding is that they are developing a VISN model to study traffic operations

including adjacent intersections.

And you can see in the blue dashed line, that is the expense of the MSN model that is being developed.

So because of that, we would like to continue to study this location.

In addition to just the traffic operations, there is a current park and ride on Teal Lane,

And so we would like to include that in this study as well as there's a development plan on the STEEC property that includes a pedestrian crossing across 29 at a new signalized intersection and a shared-use path that would connect to the east.

So we would like to explore pedestrian connections

and not forget about those.

So I think there's multiple opportunities and multiple issues to address.

The V-trans needs include a very high segment through the interchange and up through the Fontaine interchange.

And this PSI segment is number six for the Culpeper District.

which was one of the reasons why it's been studied in English studies.

So county staff discussed other ideas for study locations as shown on the slide.

In talking with VDOT decided that the three locations I just presented were the most ideal candidates.

So for example, US 29 from the South Fork

of the Ravana River to Greene County.

That's nearly seven miles, and it's a very large study area.

Greenbrier Drive and South Pantropsch Drive, those are two studies that we are trying to initiate a roadway reallocation study with David Cook's group in VDOT central office planning.

And I will say that, as Kelly mentioned, the city's multimodal transportation plan effort will sort of illuminate priorities.

The county is also gearing up for a county-wide multimodal transportation plan and the outcomes of which will help us inform decisions for priority locations for future rounds.

With that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Yes, so this is one of the,

The criteria that you're definitely focused on in the development areas.

I think, I mean, there are some other problematic intersections that I've thought of, known about for years, like Owensville Road, for example, on 250.

I don't know if anyone has ever looked at the batch data from that area.

It seems to be an identified area that's been out there for

as long as I can remember.

There's an elementary school not so far away.

There's several businesses.

Noted.

I will say that I know there is a recommendation for that particular intersection from a prior study.

Several years ago, there was a study of 250 West.

So we do have improvements identified at that intersection.

Yeah, that'd be great.

I mean, I think also just there are a lot of people that

People that want to walk to, for example, the store or other things or something.

I think, you know, they're sort of the same.

I'll just go to China.

I think the Free Bridge Hand Tops Project

I'm sure that's going to be a big opportunity.

There's certainly a lot of room for improvement here.

And I mean, you've noted the need for bike and pedestrian connections.

And I think, you know, there's some very significant, you know, geographical constraints here with the bridge.

And, you know, I don't think the city is ever going to add winnings to High Street and the bypass to the city.

You know, and looking at how do you move more people, you know, alleviate congestion in a way that allows fans to develop.

I really hope the study will focus on, you know, some high-capacity transit improvements, bike bed improvements, moving people outside of cars, because I don't know how we move more cars into the city at this point, even if you were through, you know, the intersections here.

So thanks.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Last part of this is we have a staff member

Background with that.

After Sandy with the current U.S. Clean Act SARS, what about you?

That's one step.

Should we do two separate things for each jurisdiction or do we have one item?

Can I ask a question?

Well, the reason I bring that up is I think we have at least one more study that we're planning to support in the City of Charlottesville specifically.

Okay.

I proposed a motion to recommend it be pre-proposed studies.

Pre-proposed studies?

Or maybe the motion is

Recommendation for these projects with this one location, discussion amongst yourself, the one location where you would say this would be our lowest priority.

Can I, maybe this is a,

I know there was opportunity to comment on the actual projects individually, but it seems I didn't know what the county's projects were going to be, and it seems like there was a lot of talk about the free bridge, and we had talked about it internally.

Is there any talk about that location in more detail in the city county?

I don't know.

I'm surprised that there wasn't more discussions about the projects themselves, I guess.

Not about the technical components, because obviously there's not much to discuss.

We're just adding on what we want to study, and therefore there's no technical questions.

Maybe in need of this, because this is the first time we're doing this to NPO, right?

This is our first time recommending a SARS study, and we're recommending for the policy board, correct?

And what you're saying, Taylor, is you're saying we're voting, but we're also voting in terms of like a priority, but hey, this is kind of what we really want to move forward with.

Okay, I mean,

My understanding based on the conversations we had with staff before this meeting is that we would do either Preston, the Preston, Ridge, McIntire intersection, or we would do the Ridge corridor with the City of Charlottesville, but probably

Because working on this study, there's a lot of engagement expectation.

We probably need to limit it to one of those two.

We did present the recommendations in an order of priority.

So we would recommend that the Preston Ridge-McIntyre intersection as our first priority.

And then the Ridge Street corridor as our second.

Yeah, what was the third project?

There might be another same project.

What was that one?

I was waiting for clarification.

It's the East, the East High intersection of 250.

I thought that was the one.

Oh, okay, so you're saying that, that,

Can you?

I don't know if I got it.

Oh.

OK. My understanding, talking to the city, when VDOT met with the city to discuss locations, is that we understand that working in the city, there's a lot of additional engagement that is needed, both from local staff as well as from VDOT.

So to do these well, we wanted to make sure that we don't take on more than

We all have the capacity to do.

Oh, okay.

So maybe we misunderstood that conversation because I understood that that was, that the Freebridge-250 intersection

East High Intersection Project was one that the county was recommending and the city would be happy to support that.

Or it could be a joint project, that's fine.

And then one of the other two.

We're getting a bonus.

What would be the time within the how many

Airport Road and SM-182.

So are we seeing that?

All right.

So there would be three county projects, one city and one joint.

So I still don't feel comfortable, like, telling policy work.

to go one way or the other.

I think maybe we should sleep up to that at this point.

But the city- What do they mean?

On the 24th?

Of June?

Yes.

Here's a Carlowman Terryman type suggestion.

You guys just disbanded CTAC under the premise that the policy board embodies community engagement.

If you don't think that you have the knowledge to make a

Really holistic, a decision that goes beyond technical things.

We still want to move in motion and have the votes to see if some recommend, some don't.

And maybe before we do that, if I could ask, what other information do you think would be helpful?

or this type of decision.

I think, I mean, I think I would like to have a conversation with staff on this, like, for, in my thinking, the project that staff does not prioritize

is like directly adjacent to a road diet that the city is considering.

And so to me, without a lot of intimate knowledge of the technical details behind the scenes, like that makes a lot more sense as a priority.

Like let's connect that city project into less nature, which is a current project that is being studied.

Whereas Preston and Ridge McIntyre, I mean, it's really important, but it's kind of on an island by itself.

But like, I can be convinced that I've got it backwards, but I guess I just, we haven't had that conversation with staff yet.

I mean, I would be inclined to say like, that we recommend the policy board consider these proposals and just kick the can down on prioritization.

Like if the city can't study all of those locations, fine, but like, do we have to, like, I just, I'm not comfortable

Okay.

I'm going to try to get this right.

I motion to approve the selection of projects from the city and the county, including the joint East High project.

for consideration that the policy board will choose to prioritize the city project.

Does that make sense?

So I think they'd be presented with the same question.

So I would recommend maybe a motion to recommend that the policy board consider study locations as presented.

Okay, we'll try to get that.

I just want to be very clear that VDOT capacity, we will only do one of the two projects at Charlottesville.

Yeah, I understand that part.

It's the part where we have a joint project at 250.

Well, in the pant, what do we call it?

Okay, take four.

I propose a motion to recommend the selected projects to the policy board, understanding that one of the be Charlottesville projects, only one of the Charlottesville projects will be studied by VDOT.

Period.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

Any nays?

Any exemptions?

That was in the back of my head.

That's, that's the reason he's going to be watching my YouTube video.

Um, okay.

Now Sandy's back with the US 29 Star

All right.

It's been a while since we've updated you all, so just as a reminder that there are two studies that are going on on US 29 that are adjacent.

but are technically separated, so one is of the US-29 corridor from hydrolytes to the front and the other one is for the back.

So what we have been doing over the last several events is we have, the last time I presented, and I don't remember exactly when that was, we looked at the existing conditions, so we looked at where there were operational issues, where there were safety concerns, we looked at the pedestrian facilities, et cetera, and what we did was we started brainstorming and we looked at preliminary alternatives

at all of the signalized intersections along US-29 and at the interchange.

And what we did in phase one was we did a very high-level conceptual training.

We used the tool that VDOT has developed called eGEST, Virginia Junction Screening Tool, something like that, if that's what you're interested in.

So we use the screening tool.

Basically, this just uses a calculation of volume over capacity.

And it says this type of design can handle this much traffic.

And we put in our traffic count.

And it says your volume to capacity ratio is number one.

This looks like it can still work.

Or your volume to capacity ratio is 17.4.

This will definitely not work.

So this helps to start screening out which concepts could potentially

meet some of the needs and could be viable to move forward to do additional analysis.

So we're in the process, we've largely completed this, but there's still additional work to do where we are doing the advanced alternatives analysis.

So we took the concepts from phase one that got me that first initial conceptual screening process and are modeling it using more advanced modeling software that can actually do simulations and look at

Operations in more detail, intersection by intersection, and making sure that any intersections that we want to continue to keep moving forward works operationally, not just based on that volume or capacity number, but based on how a modeling system predicts that vehicles would lead to that area.

Again, not looking at the whole system altogether, but looking at this intersection by intersection.

So we've been using Synchro to do that, and this is the phase where we are finalizing and finishing up that advanced alternatives analysis, verifying that fun stuffs will work.

And then the next phase that we're about to move into will be to prepare concept sketches for all these advanced alternatives and take those out to public survey.

Once we have the public survey, we'll be able to compare safety improvements, improvements to bicycle and pedestrian connections,

operational improvements and the public feedback.

We'll be able to put all of that together and all that information presented out to the state work group and to different stakeholders and then start working to select preferred alternatives.

So just as a reminder, the corridor study we're looking at goes from Woodbrooks to Hydraulic Road.

This graph just shows where we have collected data at all the study intersections, which is a boardwalk.

And these are the study goals that were determined during the framework phase.

So from VDOT's perspective, we were largely interested, again, meeting the statewide goals for the SARS program and improving safety, reducing congestion, and maintaining throughput because U.S. 0.9 is a corridor statewide significance.

But the county also has goals to create faith-making corridors, to increase bicycle and pedestrian connections across 29, to connect our activity centers throughout the area, and to support increased transit frequency throughout the corridor.

So all of those have been goals that we've been talking about as we have evaluated alternatives.

So getting through that initial preliminary alternative phase, we have about 15 or 16

different ideas that were thrown out.

We used this matrix to sort of help compare and contrast the trade-offs with different alternatives.

And we used this to sort of start narrowing down which improvements we would move forward with.

A lot of the improvements we're looking at were initially included using the Hillsdale Drive as a parallel route.

And the feedback we got through the stakeholder engagement is that

Probably we want to make sure that we're not overloading the capacity on Bill's scale.

We're trying to make sure that any of the improvements that we move forward with are largely focused on keeping the traffic on the US-29.

And so as we went through this process, as we did the advanced screening, and as we got additional feedback through this study working group of voters, we narrowed this down to approximately by half to about eight, I think, also alternatives.

that we are preparing to move forward for public survey.

So a lot of these are looking at innovative intersection types of considerations or other ways to eliminate some of the traffic events on US 29.

And we're focusing on the intersections that you see here with the exception of the Woodbrooke Drive northbound improvements.

And the goal for those Woodbrooke Drive northbound improvements would be to try to

Minimize and eliminate the weaving that's ingrained at vehicles that are positioning both before they get to the right of road underpass and after they get to the right overpass through that depending on where they're trying to go.

There are vehicles that maybe are using the left two lanes but really they're going to make a right turn as soon as they get through the overpass and so they're veering over to the right after they get through the overpass and vice versa, vehicles who

So we're looking at potentially some barriers that could be considered to help eliminate the movements, but most of these other improvements are really looking at things like arc cuts or through cuts or other ways to relocate or eliminate some of the left turns of some of these intersections.

which will give lower priority to the mainline at US 29 because it's reducing the number of turning units that are occurring at these intersections.

And then the other thing that we have been able to do for several of these intersections is increase, it creates some much better ways for pedestrians to safely cross 29, reducing the number of lanes that they actually have to cross, reducing conflicts with some of the

left turn movement vehicles, especially at the archives.

And so we're able to identify and accomplish both the county schools to increase connections for those multimodal connections across the corridor, as well as improve safety of operations at the intersections themselves.

Due to time, I wasn't planning to go through all of the improvements one by one.

They have been included in the packets for reference.

If there are any questions, we can look at them.

But the other thing I want to mention is that at the end of the list of these improvements that are listed here, there are also some of these short-term or long-term improvements that we talked about.

So things like signage improvements or delineating intervals that could be put out to help with certain movements, things like that, that could be implemented on outside of like an actual funding application process.

One.

On this slide, the Hillsdale Drive shared use path is a few projects that hits high benefit in multiple categories, not in the advanced alternatives.

Yeah, it's really because what happened is that we started off thinking about improvements that would utilize Hillsdale as an up and around route to 29 and divert some of the traffic.

But in our conversations, the improvements all moved towards doing improvements directly on 29.

Okay, so what do you say we use as an alternative for vehicle traffic?

Like one idea was to divert more traffic off 29 of Hillsdale, so you're not doing that, you're going to keep it on 29.

And so does that mean that the

I don't think so.

I just don't think that there was as much of a nexus between the improvements that we were moving forward with for the advanced alternatives to the shared-use path.

That's not to say we couldn't pick it up.

We can include it as maybe like a longer-term recommendation in the study to be able to support it.

Kim?

Oh, go ahead.

We've done a lot of analysis.

So we've looked at the existing pedestrian crossings, we looked at the existing network, we looked at the existing land use.

But again, I think we understand the need to connect the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and we want to work to do that.

But we also can't focus on that to the exclusion of the overall safety and operational concerns on US 29.

I mean, I think that the big thing, I mean, just to state the obvious thing, like the 29th Cold War itself, I mean, 29 is just atrocious.

I mean, like, you know, we look at it, maps of where people are even walking, they're in the second line of life, I mean, there's the dead zone, that's what Flint said, no one wants to cross that thing, except for the new pedestrian group, which is the East.

So, I mean, I think, you know, you have to have sort of parallel, I mean, I agree with

It's just saying that emphasis of the study moved away from Hillsdale to doing improvements on 29.

Building on that, SMART SCALE requires

There's preference given in some shape or form to projects that are identified as the preferred alternative.

It sounds like what we're saying is this shared use path on Hillsdale Drive, it has benefits.

It may not have a clear nexus to the purpose of the study, but if it is a project that

the county wants to seek funding for in another form, maybe transportation alternatives or revenue share or some other.

I don't...

If the rules of SMART SCALE stay the same,

So that's the caveat.

I don't really think it matters if it's a preferred alternative or a future improvement.

We would just want to make sure that it is consistent in the recommendation.

But I think more importantly, it would be more important that it's reflected in the county-identified priorities, like in your multi-medical study, that kind of thing.

But I think at a minimum, we can just continue to say that there's interest in that and that

I guess it's been a little tricky staying with this study.

It's very complex.

I remember at the last meeting, I think Michael brought up not seeing the shared use path on Hillsdale, and I guess I didn't realize that it

wasn't, as of right now, maybe part of the future planning, but it sounds like maybe we can add it into some sort of additional recommendations for the future.

Just taking a step back, we have US 29, we have sidewalks, and we're really focused, it seems like, on improving the actual crossings for pedestrians.

But one thing I noticed is there hasn't been a whole lot of talk of how bicyclists cross 29,

You know, we have those little charities paths.

It would be nice to extend that.

And there's a birthmark charities path on the other side.

So there's parallel charities paths.

How those two interact with one another.

I don't know if we're currently doing a good job of like figuring that out.

Like I know we're talking a lot about pedestrian crossing, but so in theory, a bicyclist can use the same crossing as a car

So, I will try to do a better job of bringing that up during our meetings, but it can be tricky.

I'm saying this as someone who's in all these meetings, so you know, but it's hard to stay with it.

Yeah.

In 2019, it's challenging.

I hear what you're saying.

I think maybe some of the other goals that we're planning that the county is doing might also start edifying opportunities to work share these possibilities method.

I mean, I hear you.

I know this isn't like this is this is not a big meeting about this project.

This is just updating us on and some of us are involved in the meetings.

But can you remind me like kind of like where we went?

Because we decided pretty early on.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We said pretty early on to not look at the

Well, I think Branson just wasn't a high priority because it's already grand separated.

Well, it's just that at the time we were early in the planning process, when we were talking with the county, we had a meeting, we talked about extending that Hillsdale shared use path up to Broward Road, and then

You know, if you cross, then you're tying into the vertical ride share, you fast.

So that would be the kind of low and like that makes the most sense.

Like I know what's the, what's the crossing that we're looking at improving as the fashion square crossing, right?

And so like, you know, if there was good signage and wayfinding, then we can maybe like target people through fashion square mall to that crossing.

Just a general, and I'm sorry, this is probably outside the scope of the study, but like, so it's like the study you're looking to increase traffic flow in 29, respond to the development and growth and driving to happen.

And, you know, but maybe separately, like we need to invest in alternatives driving 29 or else in 20 years we'll be doing another one of these studies.

So like, how can we get more capable of moving 3.9?

Yeah, and I will say, in case this was kind of lost, knowing that not everybody was here at the very initiation of this, we did include a pretty extensive transit propensity analysis for higher frequency transit along the corridor.

And as Jessica alluded to,

The sort of determination is that the corridor is not ready right now, and so it identified opportunities to get it ready.

Could you talk a little bit more about where Woodbrooke is crossing 29?

Suggestions for crossing there?

Because you have this large residential area on one side, and then you have this large commercial area on the other side.

It just seems pretty obvious that the people that live on one side would very much like to get to the commercial side on the other.

There's already a crossing there.

They already put in a crosswalk at Woodbrook and there just weren't a lot of opportunities to improve the intersection itself.

We looked at a couple of things that we could do at that intersection in the very, very, like, early phases.

I don't know if that was on this list or not.

In, like, a bow tie, for example, at Woodbrook.

And there are just some challenges because there's a school there, which permits the ability to restrict some of the movements.

We don't typically want to put a bow tie where there is, like, a residential area, so there's a neighborhood back there, so you wouldn't want to direct a lot of the 29 turning movements into the neighborhood.

And so there just weren't a lot of opportunities that we thought would be viable to move forward, but to actually improve the perception of itself there.

Any other questions?

So then the second part of this is looking at the southern portion, which is in the study of Charlottesville, and looking at the Emma Street interchange, the study area, the Barrick Street interchange,

with the bypass and also the hydraulic and the hydraulic intersection with the bypass as well as going up to Angus Street.

So this is a diagram of the semi area.

And then again, the goals were similar to reduce congestion, increase safety, improve accessibility for multi-modal users, improve accessibility and connectivity.

So these are the advanced alternatives that ended up being moved forward for a higher level of analysis.

At Angus Road, we're looking at eliminating the left turns out, so a right out only.

The improvements that we're looking at at the U.S. 250 interchange with Emmett Street included eliminating or relocating some of the low volume movement on some of those ramps.

We looked at a DDI and an extension of Hillsdale from the roundabout at Hydraulic currently south to connect directly to 250.

And then we looked at several different improvements at Hydraulic Road in the U.S. to the interchange or intersection.

And so based on these, I guess, nine or 10 advanced alternatives that went through the initial DJIS screening,

We ended up reducing that down to six.

We'll be moving forward to get additional public comment on.

And so I just want to be really clear right now that we are not committing to anything for any of these studies.

These are really to get public feedback, to add additional information to

to the more technical analysis that we've already done, and then we'll be able to bring this information back to identify what preferred alternatives would be for the study areas.

It says eastbound to southbound left turns.

No, for Eliminate Low Volume Ramps, it was 250 Emmett Street.

Yeah.

It would be these two ramps right here.

Just want to make sure I was thinking of the right... Oh, and then that's the other one there.

Oh, can you... Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Any other questions on these?

All right.

Thank you.

Next is the approach coming forward.

That's what we said in the state of adjustments.

Hello, everyone.

So this item pertains to our current temp, the fiscal year 24 to 27, the transportation improvement program.

We have three adjustments, which are only informational.

They do not require action from the technical committee or the policy board.

The first one is from the VDOT urban project pertaining to development bridge replacement, focuses on reallocation of funding for preliminary engineering phase, right-of-way, and the construction phase.

I want to be brief due to the timing, so I'm not going to go into the funding, but the funding is available in the tables within the staff manual, and we're currently working on posting our updated document on our website.

The other two adjustments pertain to the mobility management program and PATH program, and they both come with request by the DRPT.

For these adjustments, we have increased in funding, but since they do not meet the threshold for an amendment, they are presented as adjustments for this program.

That's all I have to say.

I have a question for Goryon.

This is for the Belmont Bridge project.

I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

So when it says release, that means that that was funding that was allocated that we are essentially giving back.

And add means this is funding that we're getting in addition to what was originally.

So it's not any additional funding that's being added to the bridge.

I think what my understanding is how VDOT presents an entity of in the folders add this reallocation to a different year, so fiscal year.

So in my conversation with VDOT, there was no any additional funding being added, but

So VDOT has overall the whole commonwealth, several levels of all of our different federal funding types.

And there's different eligibility for all of these different colors of money.

So at the beginning of the federal fiscal year, we have a plan on how we plan to obligate for all of the billions of dollars statewide for every type of work, every project that's done.

and then as you get into that the project is not this project but overall in the state if there are surpluses needed on certain projects or a project is cheaper than we expected it to be we may be either over or under in those different colors and certain ones are really difficult to find projects that have that ability to work.

Demo funding is one of the ones listed here.

That's old funding we need to spend.

We have a time limit on that.

And we work toward getting that money like the Tetris game.

Where can we find a project that's eligible and has the ability to take that money and we release the types that are more flexible and then add that type of funding in there.

So it's just a

Yeah.

That's super helpful.

And honestly, this is something that happens at our central office level.

So I have some knowledge of the process, but we don't even touch this.

It's done.

It's done in our central office to look at the whole big picture.

So I just have one follow-up question to that, which is if you add up all of the ads and subtract all of the releases, that block is a minus $12.5 million.

Does that mean that the project ended up being $12.5 million less than it was expected?

I don't have to look at the exact details on that.

We're now closed out.

So it could be that there was surplus funding that was being released.

I see here one of the releases is revenue sharing.

So that's possibly money that was intended to be spent maybe last in the process.

And some of that will be released a small amount.

I'd have to look at the exact details.

And it also could be that

You're only seeing theoretical fiscal years 24 through 27.

So some of that may have been funding that was in previous years.

This is gone.

We have funding back to the aughts, I think, on this project.

And for most of the projects in the test, it also only shows the federal funds.

So we're kind of only seeing a snapshot of the picture.

Yes, there is a portion.

I have a similar question to VDOT, because when I saw that, I was like, whoa, how is this adjustment?

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Awesome.

So I will be brief.

I know we're getting a little close on time, but a few things I wanted to highlight from the staff report.

We have a special meeting of the Regional Transit Authority scheduled for Friday that I wanted to highlight if anyone was interested in joining.

The board will be welcoming the new DRPT director, Maria Zimmerman, and they'll receive the presentations from TJPDC staff, a statewide transit funding overview from DRPT,

and also we're welcoming the Central Virginia Transportation Authority Executive Director, Chet Parsons.

He'll be giving an overview of CVTA at that meeting as well.

Last month we also received a draft of the regional travel demand model and so now it's in the testing phase where we're basically doing things in the model that we would typically do like running scenarios to make sure that everything is working correctly and following that testing phase VDOT will provide sort of the stamp of approval as final and complete and it'll be ready for use by the end of June.

So I wanted to highlight that.

Other things

The SMART SCALE round seven presentation from OIPI is also included in the staff report.

And I've also highlighted some of the work that's going on with our PACT team, which is our mobility management program and some of the outreach work that they're doing right now.

So Safe Streets on Roads for All, the application deadline, well, it was the May 26th from the 28th.

From the PDC side, we submitted an application for Green County, specifically for purchasing equipment for their spares for the fire department.

This equipment will directly impact road safety as it pertains to saving lives or people that are trapped in vehicles.

So extracting them sooner, but also while extracting them sooner, that means that the responders will

Stay Less on the Roads.

So it also has a safety feature for them as well.

The other application was submitted by Albemarle County.

All right.

Yes, so the FY 27 meeting schedule for the new fiscal year that's presented for your records will meet every other month.

The first Tuesday of the month at 10 a.m. and the first meeting was going to be on August 4, 2016.

Alberic, if I could add, for this item,

Are there any for the meeting schedule?

Last week is the roundtable updates in the folder event.

Adopted the secondary six-year plan.

Will she please pay for some of the roll words and be telling that were requested and voted by residents?

Jessica, she's going tomorrow to the board of supervisors to present our prioritization methodology and draft rating.

So far, that's the same.

I think you covered it in tomorrow's presentation.

Yeah, it's hydraulic road, Whitewood, Lance Road intersection, and it has shares that went down to the Georgetown Road intersection.

So it's been proven else along that side of the road.

Let's go to the city.

Tommy, go ahead.

You can save it on the video.

Sure, yeah, yeah, we just finalized a three-year agreement with the Godfors Fomability from the NABO after they've turned in several plans that we have approved as part of the permit and we're happy to, you know, keep working to come and then if the county wants to start conversations now will be the time that we can start the process.

Bike Month concluded, it was a success, we did all the great things, partners are amazing, and we couldn't do it without everybody in this room and many more.

Excited for, you know, continuing that and promoting RideShare, and thanks to the VA, I've got a neighborhood wall coming up on the 14th, we're gonna explore the Locust Grove neighborhood, and leading a special

Father's Day bike ride, Parks and Rec.

So if you guys want to come out and explore the quiet routes in Charlottesville, that's what we'll be doing.

And Craig, I don't know if you've got anything that you want to share.

Or does Cat have his own?

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

What was that?

I was just seeing some updates from the city of Charlottesville.

No, what you were talking about.

I mean, obviously, we've gotten some oodles with some

News Service Encourers, and I suspect you guys will be advised when we get back, you won't formalize, but which will be coming in short months.

So we're excited about that.

So you're trying to get that expanded.

Thank you.

God save you.

And some more things to note.

There was some problems, but I don't have enough.

So I'm really excited to see.

But things are moving in a positive direction.

Thank you.

And then, yes, more information coming about.

So, frequently, number on 5th and 7th, aiming for fall operationalize that.

Also, still working on fall timeline for the 2A, 2B bus stop operationalizing.

We're between 30% and 60% design plans and working with a consultant to get engineering status and approval with VDOT, which

at several meetings.

Both our partners at IRN are looking forward to figuring out what permits look like and seeing how we can replicate it for future projects.

We're also still looking, relevant to the hydraulic 250 project, we're still looking at designs for the NMA.

Awesome.

Let's go to Bill, UVA, and school has ended for you.

It's quiet.

We're on the reduced bus schedule.

So for academic side, the bus schedule for like the health system and employee is the same.

And we're now running a what we're calling the purple line.

I think it's not

Yeah, they're kind of...

I didn't want a bit normal, very short bus.

Well, it's a lack of a bus.

And we have our full-size electric buses in service now.

I see those around.

North Grounds Garage is under construction still.

That's going to be probably opening in the fall.

It's something we don't have an exact date.

That'll have a good hub for parking and then getting on a bus or getting on a bike.

So it should be pretty cool.

I was going to say staff paying attention to the house service transportation bill and the recommendations that they're making in there including the Senate one AMPO puts out a pretty good newsletter that does high level of some of the things that are relevant to this group related to MPO, PL funding, competitive programs like Safe Streets for All who are reauthorized so we're continuing to watch that we can bring an update once

All right.

Yeah, can you all hear me all right?

Yeah.

Great.

So just really quickly, I know we're past time, but just some reminders, the next SIP 27-32 approval is scheduled to be voted on at the June 17th CTB meeting.

I know there'll be several other presentations as well, so feel free to tune in for that, for all the riveting conversations there.

We have some high level initial results from our state rail plan survey that was sent out in April.

At a high level, I also sent this to the MPO as well so you can request a copy from them or myself if you want to get into more specifics.

but the stakeholder surveys that were sent out in March and our first round of work groups convened throughout the month of May and we held our first virtual open house last night so hopefully some of you had a chance to tune into that some key takeaways from the survey were that there is a strong preference amongst the public for expanding access to rail transportation

with a majority of those supporting in-state services versus out-of-state services.

And most respondents were in favor of expanding rail travel between Virginia and DC, as opposed to other out-of-state connections.

And nearly 60% support a balanced approach that includes both new routes and enhanced services on existing corridors.

So more to come with that, for sure.

The May Director's Report to CTP can be found online as well for your review.

And a quick Bike Month update.

We held our inaugural Bike Friendly City Challenge through the Connecting VA app, which was held throughout the month of May with six cities in participation.

And the City of Charlottesville did have the most bike trips recorded throughout Bike Month.

So congratulations, City of Charlottesville.

And that's a part of the over 4,000 bike trips recorded through the app, which is over a million calories burned and a thousand gallons of gas saved, according to our metrics.

Awesome.

I think that's it.

Well, follow-up question.

I do have one more update about SMART SCALE.

So the pre-screening information has been released.

I'm still going through some of the comments specifically related, like the changes in feedback.

So I'll be touching probably later this week with some more targeted feedback on the district, based on what the WICI screening looked at.

The other thing I want to mention though is that

The pre-applications were moved over to full applications.

Ignore the program eligibility line item, Andre.

I believe all the projects that were submitted within the MPO are eligible for HPD, but because of all of the policy changes that occur a little bit later in the process, that is not going to be reflected necessarily accurately on the full application.

So I'll be in touch if that's different, but I think the only way that

wasn't already indicated that I know should be, was the City of Charlottesville as part of that because it wasn't an innovative intersection, but it is a star study agreement.

So, in other words, just let me know if you have any questions.

All right, thank you for the updates.

Any additional matters from the public before we adjourn?

Hearing none, I return this meeting.