Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting   1/18/2022

Sure thing.

This meeting of the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee is being held pursuant to code of Virginia 2.2-3708.2, which allows a public body to hold electronic meetings for the locality in which it is located, has declared a local state of emergency, and the catastrophic

The nature of the emergency makes it impractical or unsafe to assemble a quorum in a single location and the purpose of the meeting is to provide for the discharge of its lawful purpose, duties, and responsibilities.

This meeting is being held via electronic video and audio means through Zoom online meetings and is accessible to the public with closed captioning and there will be an opportunity for public comment during that portion of the agenda.

Notice has been provided to the public through notice on the TJPDC offices to the media website posting an agenda.

The meeting minutes will reflect the nature of the emergency.

The meeting was held by electronic communication means

and the type of electronic communication means by which this meeting was held.

Thank you.

Yeah, that would be great.

I knew that was the next thing.

Sure.

Mr.

Ms. Bishop?

Here.

Mr. Proctor?

Here.

Ms. Pennington.

Present.

Mr. Johnson.

Here.

Mr. Benish.

I think Cindy might be the alternate for Tom.

Yes, that's correct.

I just typed a note in the chat.

I'm not necessarily an alternate for Tom.

And I apologize.

Do you mind, I haven't looked at the ability to share, but can you share the agenda?

I was trying to pull it up on the website, because I don't have time to look through my email to find it.

And the latest thing on the website for meeting materials is last year, so.

Okay.

Perfect.

OK. Yeah, so we did a roll call, which actually brings us to matters from the public.

Do we have any members of the public attending the meeting today?

So I will close matters from the public, which brings us to approval of the draft minutes.

We did receive a copy of those in our packets.

Did anybody have any questions about the minutes?

Any comments?

So moved.

That was, Douglas was moved.

OK. And I'm just making sure it's easier for people to take the minute.

So we have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

This is Dylan Bishop.

I'm just going to abstain.

OK.

I was not at the meeting either.

OK. Abstention from Kevin also.

Sorry.

And I haven't done a quick head count.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's why I was looking at the squares that I can see, but counting those is I think we're okay.

Yeah, so in your packet is the letter of support and then this morning I sent the statement of work but actually that was also attached as a Word document in the packet that I sent so

And I'll introduce this.

As you know, we've been conducting a transit vision plan study and that will be completing in this summer.

And part of the vision plan has recommended that the region

generate additional revenue to support the vision plan and they have some ideas on how to do that kind of revolving around an authority and levying some sales tax.

So the TJPDC has decided that the best

Path forward would be to do a governance study.

So what we're doing is applying to DRPT for a technical assistance grant to conduct a transit governance study for the TJPDC region.

Earlier, many years ago, the region looked at

forming an authority and had some legislation passed to do that.

And we're revisiting that, but we also want to ensure that we include the rural communities as well.

That's in the vision plan and also in the governance study so

We're asking for support from you all and the county and city and TJPDC to conduct the study.

The study will establish a formal arrangement to support regional coordination and planning around the transit operations.

And then it will also, you know,

The ultimate reason is to increase transportation investments and outcomes and improve the transportation services for the community.

As you know, we've had kind of a segmented transit system in the area.

About 18,000 workers commute into and out of the Charlottesville city from all of our counties in that region.

We just think it's a good idea to maybe move forward with more funding for transit and more regional structure.

So the question that we're asking the technical experts that we'll be asking them to answer in the governance study is what is the appropriate governance structure to move regional transit priorities forward?

And as you can see in the scope of work, we've included kind of a

Like review of the existing conditions and having a lot of meetings with the Regional Transit Partnership where we would like to invite staff from the rural counties to participate in those meetings.

And then also there'll be individual meetings with the rural staff as well as with the urban and service providers throughout the study.

So we're selecting the consultants through an advisory committee of

Kat with Garland Williams, Jaunt, Ted Reich, UVA and UTS with Julia Monteith, Charlottesville will be represented by Sam Sanders, the PDC is representing, Christine Jacobs is representing PDC, Trevor Henry is going to represent Albemarle County, and for the Regional Transit Partnership is Diana McKeel.

The Regional Transit Partnership has some rural representatives there,

And then as I said, as this moves forward, we will be inviting the rural staff, you guys, to any RTP meeting that talks about the governance study.

The total project cost for the governance study is about $180,000.

30,000 of that is administrative for the TJPDC to administer the grant.

The RFP asks the consultants for not to exceed $150,000.

And there's a 50% match, which will be split, hopefully, between the PDC county and city.

We're working on securing resolutions of support from the county and city and PDC as we speak.

So the timeline for this, the draft scope of work has been kind of we're working on it, we've shared it with you, we've shared it with Kat, Albemarle, and Jaunt as well and had comments back which we incorporated into the scope of work.

We sent it to the DRPT bench consultants early, we sent it to them on December 28th

because we wanted to get something back before we applied for the DRPT proposal, which is due on February 1st.

So then the selection committee would meet in late February

and we would notify the selected firm in March.

The scope of work would be refined with the consultants between March and July.

So we still have time to make changes to the scope of work if any of you have any comments on it.

And then we won't get the DRPT notices to proceed until July, 2022.

And then the project would start in August and it's an 18 month project we expect to end in January, 2024.

And so what are we going to get out of the study?

We're going to have a recommendation for a governance structure to facilitate regional transit coordination and generate additional funding.

Hopefully, we're looking at the funding.

The consultants are estimating it to be about $30 million a year for the region.

and the study will help us kind of look at how to distribute that amongst the partners in the governance structure, whatever they recommend.

And then we also hope that this study will build consensus among the jurisdictions and stakeholders around the study's recommendations and then obviously ultimately improve transportation for everybody in the area.

Do you guys have any questions?

I'm asking for you to, I guess, vote to sign the letter of support for that study.

I'll start with a question, Lucinda.

So I mean, I think the overarching assumption is that if the entire region is involved in planning and there's a structure in place for funding, that better routes, better service can be provided.

The major players are listed, so City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County Public Services Department, CAT,

Jaunt, and so Jaunt is the agency that serves most of the rural counties.

So how do the counties play into this group, even though we're

We contract with or work with Jaunt as our provider.

So Jaunt is actually at the table.

Jaunt's part of the final equation.

How does that break down to one's approval signing support from Albemarle, Nelson, Greene, Louisa?

You're asking about how the rural, I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand it.

Well, even I guess maybe a little of both because you're asking for our support moving forward technically in the main organization there.

And maybe that's part of the decision through the study, but we all

to present our approvals through Jaunt.

So the county doesn't make decisions for Jaunt.

We work with Jaunt and they work with us to try and meet our needs and our community.

Lucinda, I can respond if you need me to.

Okay.

Part of what we're looking at, so first of all, we're following the structure of the Regional Transit Partnership, first of all, as far as how we set up the development.

So that includes John representing the rural localities.

The second thing that we're looking at as part of this is how to generate additional revenue that will support some of those transportation priorities.

And those would be directed

through the local governments to some extent.

So while we're sort of including Jaunt because they're represented on the regional transit partnership, part of the decision about whether or not you all want to be involved in generating additional revenue on behalf of your localities to support some of the service expansion will need to come through the local government level.

I believe it does.

And I think

It's also sort of a gray area and I don't know Kevin and I don't remember else who else is here from the other counties Kevin's the only one I can see but it also sounds like you're asking for support towards this and I think we all support studying and determining it but

None of us can speak on behalf of the boards who are really the local government.

That's a good point.

I think that I wanted to make sure that it was on the agenda for us to discuss because I want to make sure that the rural counties are included as part of the study and right from the very beginning.

You know, I want this to work for the rural counties as much as for the urban ones.

So I wanted to have it on our agenda.

And I thought that a letter of support would be a good way to do that.

I can see how you're and we kind of discussed this behind the scenes.

You're not a governing body.

I'll just go ahead and make the comment that, you know, I understand what you're saying, Jim, regarding, you know, any future recommendations and despite, you know, the fact that I think this would probably, but if there is a recommendation to form a transit authority, Albemarle County would probably be one of the groups.

Most impacted by that change, but we're not considering that at this time.

We're just considering whether or not we'd appreciate to hear what a study, what the results of the study would be.

And I don't think it, you know, and

You know you're bored better than anyone here, but maybe they would be interested just to understand the implications or the potential benefits or negatives to how something like a transit authority would work.

And so that's really all we're supporting.

In the end, even if it makes the recommendation that

A transit authority may be beneficial.

I still can't say whether or not our Board of Supervisors would support actually implementing that.

At this point, we're just interested in hearing what the results of the study would be.

Other thoughts?

I'll second what Kevin said.

And another thing to keep in mind is that I expect the study to be kind of a compare and contrast between what we have today and what we could have if we had a regional transit authority.

And I think that even if we don't wind up implementing a regional transit authority, this study could still shed some insight on the working relationships that exist today because

I, you know, as a Jaunt staff person, we're always trying to find more opportunities to, to coordinate more effectively with CAT.

I don't think we're doing that perfectly.

And I think, uh, I apologize that Kevin said it very well.

I was jumping ahead to try to think how this all would work.

Of course, I support learning about what the opportunities are in a sudden, and RTAC, I think it's an appropriate thing to support.

Any other thoughts on this?

Yeah, Jim, this is Douglas and Fluvanna.

I think it's great, the draft scope of work.

I appreciate it on page three, the historical background information.

Okay, that's what I figured.

It looked like it was going on until summer of 2022.

You guys will be adding that, but no, I would say Fluvanna, we're generally in support of the resolution and we, Lucinda, you know, Mrs.

Eager and I attended your last session and that was helpful for us for working on regional transit.

Okay.

Unless there are any other, well, we can ask for comments later.

We have a motion from Kevin of support.

Is there a second, please?

Second.

Is that Douglas?

Yes, sir.

So we have a motion and a second.

Just say from a Lynchburg district VDOT standpoint to the county identified in the study.

Awesome.

Thank you.

So a motion and a second.

Any other comments?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion carries unanimously.

Well, I don't know how exciting it will be, but I'll share my screen and go through.

I've got nine slides.

I actually did this for CTAC probably in September.

So it's basically the same presentation to talk about roundabouts.

Roundabouts are one of our

Innovative intersections that we try to do.

See, make sure the right screen here.

All right.

OK.

Come on, slow, slow going here.

Roundabouts, like I said, they're just a general history discussion about roundabouts, how they operate and what to consider in the benefits.

So basically they've been around for a long time.

They started out in Europe,

Many, many moons ago.

If you've seen European vacation, you've seen Chevy Chase get lost in this one right here on the lower left corner.

Not be able to get out of it.

This is one in Paris, France at the Arc de Triomphe.

It's one of the oldest roundabouts around.

I think they started out in Germany initially, but they pretty much migrated throughout Europe.

The first one in the United States was built in New York City.

at Columbus Circle, that's shown in the right hand, but it's a similar, these were called large traffic circles.

And basically they were just, your road would come in and it was a free for all getting in and out of them.

Over time, they've evolved, especially during the, probably the sixties and seventies, we started to look at them more closely and develop

Refine them, I mean we had a lot of them across the district.

I know at 33 and 29 that was a traffic circle at one point.

Same as 15 and 250 in Louisa, that was a traffic circle originally also.

But they were basically like a little tiny donut and I mean a little tiny island in the middle of this big giant area of travel and

They weren't very safe and they didn't really do anything to reduce this approach speeds or their travel speeds through the roundabouts.

So as traffic grew, we started to have problems with them.

And so a lot of them were removed during the 50s and 60s because of the safety factor and we put in signals instead.

One of the things they did to try to address this was this is a rotary, what we will call a rotary.

And it's a large traffic circle.

But basically, you could maintain speed through these.

And these are like huge footprints.

This is one in Fort Worth, Texas.

But these were all a lot of these were all popular over all over the country, probably started in the 60s and 70s.

as a way to maintain traffic and operations at large intersections to where you didn't have to necessarily reduce the speed.

The other thing is that they adopted the control features from what the UK did where basically the circular travel vehicles in the circulation lanes would have

Precedence over the approaches, the approaches would have to yield to the people that were in the circulation lanes.

And that's predominantly what has carried forward from a safety perspective since then.

But like I said, because these were high speed, you still had a lot of crashes in those weave locations where the roads entered the roundabout or the rotary at this point.

Modern roundabout came about, and this is

A graphic of the modern roundabout and some of the characteristics of it.

This one is what we would refer to as a hybrid in that it has two lanes in a portion of it and one lane in a portion.

But basically the geometry and the characteristics are the same.

You basically enter and you go in a counterclockwise circulation around the island in the center.

You don't change lanes in a roundabout.

Just like you wouldn't turn left

At an intersection from the right lane, you wouldn't want to turn left in a roundabout from the right lane either.

You would basically be in the left lane to make the left-hand turn.

There are yield conditions on the entry.

The geometry is such that basically when you approach the roundabout, it's going to slow you down.

So when you get there, you're already traveling in about 20 to 25 miles an hour.

And when you circulate through the roundabout, the circle is such that it

Basically tries to have you maintain no higher than that speed through the circulation of the roundabout.

You don't change lanes.

Like I said, you enter, stay in the lane you're in, and it'll guide you out in and out of the roundabout.

So you don't need to worry about changing lanes.

Basically, some of the other considerations you want to have when you consider a roundabout is you want to have a lot either

A sort of a balanced entry of approaches or you want to have a heavy left turn movement.

And those basically allow for an even distribution of your gaps in the roundabout so you can easily enter the roundabout from the side streets.

on the approaches.

Another thing that it does if you have a lot of intersection with a lot of angle crashes or head on collisions, the roundabout pretty much eliminates both those types of crashes because of the deflection on your approach.

You're not going to be at such an angle where you're going to hit somebody if you do have a crash at a severe T or 90 degree angle.

It's going to be more of a skew also that your speeds are such that

Any crash that would occur is going to be minor as opposed to more of a severe type crash.

One of the things you want to try to do is limit the number of driveways that are in close proximity as much as possible.

You can accommodate some, but the closer they are, the harder it is to accommodate.

Another thing you want to be concerned about is your distances between possibly a roundabout and a signalized intersection because you can have queuing that would back up from a signalized intersection, you know, roundabout, and that would cause it to break down.

Those are just some of the things you want to consider when you're doing it.

One of our round one SMART SCALE projects is the roundabout at 15 and 53 in Palmyra down in Fluvanna County and it's performed really well.

This was a single lane and it's designed so that it can be expanded in the future to accommodate a northbound left turn lane and also a slip ramp on the southbound westbound approach.

This is another roundabout.

This is up in Culpeper, right in the town of Culpeper where business 1529 meets 229, which is coming from the north.

Subsequent to this being built, the county built this other leg to the west.

It's the interloop that goes over to 522.

We had proposed a stub out, but they've actually completed the roadway.

But this is another hybrid.

It's actually a multi-lane roundabout that's been reduced so that it only has the capacity of what's needed.

Because generally when you go with the higher the number of lanes, you can reduce the severity of the crashes, but you may opt for, have more overall crashes, even though they're minor in severity.

Basically,

What the roundabout tries to do, it reduces the number of conflict points from what's in a traditional intersection, which could be up to 48 conflict points and reduces it down to like eight.

So just in that regard, it has a tremendous effect on the safety benefit of a roundabout that it provides for an intersection.

Also, it's the geometry, like I said before, you're slowing the traffic down before it gets here.

And as it enters and progresses through the roundabout, you're at a slow speed.

So any conflicts you do have or crashes that might occur are going to be relatively minor and probably result in a property damage only type of crash.

As you can see, this roundabout has pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian facilities at a roundabout, they cross from the outside to the splitter islands and across on, they can be on one, two, or all four approaches.

They're located approximately 20 feet from the stop bar, so you're basically behind the first car that's

Yielding to go into the roundabout.

And you're only having to cross one direction at a time.

And there's always a protected island in the center.

So you can only you only have to cross a portion of the roadway at any one stretch.

Because it's a yield condition, it's much more efficient than a traditional intersection, and it can provide more capacity for a longer period of time.

Like I said before, speeds are reduced because of the geometric improvements that you're making on the approaches.

So your speeds are relatively low, both on the approach and circulating through the roundabout.

The cost, upfront cost is generally more expensive than a traditional intersection, but long-term there's much less.

You don't have the maintenance and of the signal versus and the control and all

I mean, supplying power to the signal over 20 years can be pretty expensive.

So you don't have any of those with a roundabout.

The only thing you may have is lighting.

And in certain situations, there may be enough ambient lighting from the surrounding businesses that you may not have to light it.

But we do look at that when we're developing the designs to make sure that you do have adequate lighting for the roundabout.

One of the other features about a roundabout is you can have an aesthetic feature in the roundabout.

So if you're looking at an area in a rural area that's you're approaching a town or something like that, you could actually put something in there.

Welcome to Louisa or something in the roundabout.

So that can be an amenity that you can

This is a series of roundabouts that's in Culpeper on the Interloop.

As you can see, there's three in a row.

One to the west is at 522 and the road between the two is what the town built, the interconnect, and they actually put a roundabout and this is a four lane divided road.

If you want more information, I can click on and show you a video, but basically has the same information that gives you an example.

of a roundabout and how they operate.

And the links provided here to our innovative intersection webpage where you can look at roundabouts.

But it has also other innovative intersection types if you're interested in looking at those or wanting to see how they work.

And if you're interested in possibly looking at some of those at some of your intersections in your locality.

That's pretty much all I had.

Yeah, Chuck, this is Douglas and Fluvanna.

Yeah, let me go back to that slide.

Basically, if you can look from the south, the south is to the left corner, left lower corner of the screen.

North is, 15 is to the right.

and 53 is coming here from the top of the screen south.

Basically, the splitter island is wider on the south or in the northbound approach.

So you can add an additional left turn lane to that approach.

And then the island is set up so that you can actually put in another lane on the inside of the roundabout to accommodate a left turn movement if it's needed in the future.

This was originally designed to have a possible fourth leg on it that would go into a development that was planned by a local developer, but it hasn't moved forward yet.

So we only built the three lane as for the project.

One of the reasons this first came about was the

Developer wanted to have a fourth leg to the intersection, and there wasn't enough distance from the bridge across the Rovanna to accommodate a left turn lane.

So at that time, we recommend they look at a roundabout at this location.

And originally, he was going to participate in the project and fund it.

And this started out as a revenue share project.

And then it was fully funded in SMART SCALE, first round of SMART SCALE, because we were short on some of the

But like I said, it's designed so that you can install a northbound left turn lane in the future.

Also on the southbound, 15 southbound, you could put in a slip lane.

And the reason for this is at the time we were designing it, there was a large residential development that was planned north of Palmyra.

It's subsequently gone away.

and is not coming forward now.

Neither has this development, commercial development on the other leg of the intersection.

So neither of those have come about.

So this should work fine well into the future.

And if those come in, we'll have to look at it at that time and see at what point other improvements may be needed to it.

No, that's great.

That's exactly what you just summarized was exactly what I've researched for our comp plan.

So I just wanted to verify that.

And one thing I'll add to that, from a Lynchburg district standpoint, you're gonna see, we have a lot more rural roundabouts coming into play.

Some roundabouts are gonna appear in places where you would probably least expect them.

Yeah, I agree with Rick.

We do have a lot of roundabouts that have been funded in the past.

Pretty much every round of SMART SCALE, we get one or two funded.

Chuck, I'd like to pose a quick question on this topic.

or maybe not quick, and this is probably similar to roundabout questions that you've gotten from us before, but we're working on the location at Earliesville, Ray's Ford Road intersection, and just outside of the development areas and rural area of Albemarle County.

And one of the questions that has repeatedly come up about potentially putting a roundabout at that intersection is regarding options for reduced size roundabouts or, and I'm not sure exactly

I don't know how to describe this, but some idea of a roundabout that is just easily placed.

It's more of a temporary solution, I guess, that you could place in the middle of an existing intersection with limited widening.

And I'm curious if you have seen anything like that, or if you would know how to respond to someone

There are basically many roundabouts.

Any roundabout that's smaller than 90 feet in diameter is considered a mini roundabout.

Most of our roundabouts like this one, this one I think is right at 150 feet.

Most of ours are run about 140 feet just because

For trucks to track through the roundabout, you need to make sure that the size is appropriate so that they'll drive on the center island and that's what the apron is for.

But if you go less than 140, what happens is you tend to have the need for outside aprons because the truck trailers will track over the curb on the outside of your radiuses.

Tends to be more the issue than anything else.

That's why we look at 140 feet.

If you go to a 90 feet or less, generally you don't have a center island is all paved or I know traffic engineering is looking at some, there's been a couple of different designs for these modular type of roundabouts that you can bring in and just nail down to your pavement.

You still have to look at your intersection to make sure you can get the geometry to work.

So your approaches have to be a certain width to actually put in your splitter islands.

There's been some, I know in Northern Virginia, they put in one at a major, one of the major intersections and it was just, they did it basically a weekend, put the whole thing in and it operates very well.

I'm not sure how well it does during snow duty, snow removal and those kinds of situations, but if it's damaged, you can take out a section and replace it.

We are looking at some possible locations for putting some of those in.

I know Troy, our district traffic engineer, he's trying to come up with some areas where we can actually put some in to see how they're going to work.

Yeah, that'd be great.

I'd like to get a little bit more information on the potential for that at this location before I go back to the board.

I mean, we do have one mini in the district.

Well, I would say one, but there's probably two.

The one on

It's up in Fauquier County at Falmouth and Business 1729.

It's a mini, but it's got a slip bypass lane on one side.

And it's basically a location where you have a four lane road coming into a meeting with a two lane road.

So at that location, the town actually built it.

And it's a single lane, like I said, roundabout.

And actually I've seen a WB

A large tractor trailer, not a 67, but a 62 actually turn around in the roundabout.

So I was really shocked that it would happen, but they can do it.

So it's just a matter of having a good driver that knows what he's doing, but there's a lot of opportunities.

The biggest thing is making sure that it's, you've got the lower speed roads.

I know out in the rural areas, the problem, most of the problem is

The speeds are too high that you want to make sure you get good deflection before you get to the intersection.

Otherwise, people will just try to drive straight through it and that's going to cause more crashes then.

Yeah, anything less than 45 would probably be fine for a roundabout.

You still need to look at the entry deflection because you wouldn't want them coming straight into the roundabout.

You want to have the curvature at the, right before you get to the circle so vehicles don't try to drive straight through.

And that's fastest path.

And that's part of the design of the roundabout that we look at.

And we're looking at some other locations for smaller roundabouts.

I know the town of Warrenton is interested in another location where they want to try to mini.

Chuck, what size is the one in Somerset?

Do you know?

Because that's a high speed.

It is.

The L&D did that one.

I think most of those that L&D does, they're opting for 140 feet just so they can get the geometry for the truck traffic to work without having to put outside truck aprons.

If you look at the one on Earliesville Road and Dickerson Road just south of the Charlottesville Airport, you can see it.

If we could have the record note that Tom Egeland has joined us.

And obviously, we're to the roundtable discussion and identification of future topics.

Sure.

Sorry, everybody.

I have a Board of Supervisors meeting tonight on a 1,200-acre solar project.

And I found out at 1240 I was having a neighborhood meeting via Zoom.

Here I am.

So starting off, I'll go ahead and start.

Tonight, Alan Saunders and Chuck Proctor will be helping me present our three intersections to the Board of Supervisors to get comment from them on SMART SCALE for this round.

We're still working on the science crossroad transportation study, as I'm sure Douglas is well aware of.

And that's all I have for transportation.

I'll jump in real quick.

I defer to Chuck because mine is more of a question about transportation study that we're working with Greene and Albemarle on and it looks like

There are four recommendations in the latest letter that came out.

All of them end with a sentence that we recommend going forward with X, which is intersection improvements, bow tie.

There are four different options for each, R cuts.

Basically, I think we're going to go to the those are the ones we're looking at taking to the public for comment on to see which ones they prefer before we really finalize which is the preferred solution at any one location.

Similar to what we're doing with the pipeline studies and other localities across the district.

But if you guys want to provide feedback, you can.

But we're looking to

Carry those forward to our next public meeting for public input, and then we'll go ahead.

Thank you.

And from Greene, the only other thing, the biggest significant is that 2933 project has started with the demolition of some of the buildings that need to be removed.

That's all.

So Stephen, my updates real simple.

We are doing our TDP process at Jaunt over the next year.

Hey, it's Dylan and Nelson.

So we finally selected a consultant to do our comp plan update and then zoning and subdivision ordinance recommendation.

So we're going to be working with the Berkeley group.

So once our board finalizes the scope and fee, we'll kick off in February.

So very much looking forward to nailing down some smart scale ideas, other grant funding opportunities, working with VDOT.

So very much looking forward to that.

I know we're having some upcoming discussions on the Route 151 corridor potential needs assessment.

So just yeah, over the next couple of years, definitely incorporating all that and moving forward.

I can go.

The only update I can think of that might be of interest to everyone here is that we are getting ready.

We are right now kicking off a comprehensive plan update for Albemarle County.

As part of that, there is going to be a multimodal transportation plan that will become

Essentially the transportation chapter of that comp plan update.

This is something that we expect to take probably about three years to complete.

And we're just kind of getting the organizational pieces together right now.

Funding, we're going to be having a consultant doing some of the work for us.

But I don't think that consultant's been selected yet.

Good afternoon, everybody.

This is David.

Just a couple of quick updates.

So we have our project pipeline study underway in Nelson County at the intersection on Front Street and 29 in the town of Livingston.

And that project has been moving along.

And we'll be having our second stakeholder meeting on January 24th.

And I believe Sandy and Steve Carter have been invited to that meeting.

During that meeting, we're going to be presenting a couple of alternatives for that intersection, basically looking at a couple of different ideas, archive interchange potential.

And then after that, we'll be presenting that to the public.

So I'll be working on a MetroQuest survey immediately that week after or during the week of that meeting.

And that'll be pushed out at the beginning of February.

So be on the lookout for that.

I'll send it over to Sandy and she can review if she has any comments.

Dylan, I can send that over to you as well if you'd like to take a look and provide any comments on that as well.

Otherwise, just gear it up for SMART SCALE and folks, just be aware that March is coming up soon and to get your pre-apps developed and all of that good stuff.

Yeah, this is Chuck.

I'll follow up.

We've got two pipeline projects in Albemarle County that are, we've already had this third stakeholders meetings.

We've finalized the surveys, and those should be live the end of the month for public comment starting on the 30th, 31st.

And the surveys will go for two weeks.

And then we look to go into phase three with

finalizing the recommendations for both Pantops 250 corridor and the Shadwell area at 250 and 22.

Like David said, we're working on SMART SCALE.

I've got a number of projects, both in MPO and the PDC, as well as most of the counties.

As Tom said, I'm gonna be working on the presentation for

the meeting tonight with the Louisa board.

So if we will, I'll be with Alan at that meeting.

And then pretty much that's pretty much it.

I know Jim, I've sent you the stuff.

And then if you guys have any questions, give me a call or let me know.

And then basically we're moving all three of those locations forward.

Tom, this is Douglas.

Yeah, pretty much a summary of everything that's been said.

We've already met with Chuck doing our SMART SCALE application information with Chuck Allen and Bethel.

And we're steadily moving forward with that.

We've got a large rezoning case.

that EPR has been helping the applicant on with their traffic study numbers, the aggregate background numbers all through the 53 quarter.

So that's been a bulk of our fall leading into the new year.

But the real cool thing is we're getting ready to do some of our open house

Involvement information early spring to late spring with the community, especially in the northwest quadrant of Lake Monticello area in 53.

So that's pretty much what we've been working on transportation wise.

Thank you, sir.

All righty then.

For future topics, I know this is way down the road, but Dylan, I'd be really interested in seeing your comprehensive plan section on 151 and all of the businesses on it.

Jim, thanks for holding down the fort.

Sorry, I was late.

Shame on me.

I'd be happy if we want to do on the next one to kind of go over.

We have, Louisa has 32 set conditions and part of that's the transportation plan and conditions that we have like 35 mile per hour speed limit.

We have a work session on battery storage, although that's not really transportation related, but I have some materials I can give you.

Does anybody else, Douglas, do you have like your own set of conditions and stuff for transportation?

Yeah we have ours aren't probably quite as extensive but pretty similar but yeah the battery storage stuff for us outside this project I'd be interested in like we talked about and I did it real quick on solar I did have a

As it relates to construction and crossing county lines, we are working with Goochland County, Fluvanna and Goochland on some large solar that's in both localities and not one locality.

So it creates a new dynamic because it also is in two different VDOT districts.

So it gets a little more interesting that way as well.

I'm happy to have that as the next item.

I can obviously talk for five to 10 minutes on.

Douglas probably can.

No, we have so many limited opportunities.

We don't have any land near the power grid.

We don't have any land that's not vertical.

We're the fourth smallest land mass county in the state, and a third of it is national park.

I like the solar idea.

OK.

And I could probably share my screen in that meeting and just kind of go through the conditions and I can give you a link to videos and things like that.

That'd be great.

Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak before we close the meeting down?

All right, everybody.

Well, I appreciate your time.

Second.