Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting   1/17/2023

I don't see anybody from the public.

So I motion to approve the minutes with my changes to update some of the facts and figures.

I'm looking for a second.

Second.

Michael, do you want to start it off or make it a new one?

I've been on the good in the classroom.

I've been on the good.

I've been on the good.

We can see it.

We could see the wrong slide very well.

I'm back.

Sorry, guys.

Well, I'm going to share it so that it's useful to you.

So interestingly, Lucinda sent me over a packet that Coldiver had put together with a summary of their transportation projects that their communications department had put together showing their performance measures

So basically every district does a little bit differently.

Ours is a little bit more succinct.

So this is just kind of an overall top level summary of our long-term performance, looking over the past couple of years and current year to date.

So I can go ahead and share this with everybody.

It may be a little hard to see up there,

Currently, basically what it's tracking is our project development and a six year improvement plan, project development on goal and delivery.

So you can kind of see we're in the green for just about everything except secondary pavement conditions.

So we're a little bit below our goal for the state of secondary roads out there, but there's an empty little map you can actually look up on Virginia roads where you can actually

This just kind of summarizes the total mileage and what percent are in good or fair conditions.

Also looking at bridges as well.

So otherwise, basically the number of construction or the number of projects in the six-story treatment plan, currently about 556 million.

If you want to break down at the next meeting, I can provide a little bit more detail on some of these projects and what we're looking at this current six year improvement plan.

But this is kind of an overall summary of all that information.

Also the people who work at the district office, I believe it's just beneath at the very bottom.

So if you scroll down a little bit,

This is just going to be who we are at VDOT, a bunch of our districts and same counties, law school, three residencies.

I can't tell you how many area headquarters, but many area headquarters.

So 609 positions, 73% in the field, 27% are eligible, retired five years.

So we're definitely going to be looking to hire people.

It's going to be a big issue.

Baby member, a lot of people aging at VDOT and that's going to be one of the big things going forward.

So yeah, we had six preventable employment crashes in 2021.

It went up on this double to 11 in 2022.

So that's an issue as well.

Like I said, it's just a very high level summary of a lot of this,

Okay.

Yeah, that's it.

So I assume that our localities get this report.

Have you all seen this report from the district?

Michael, I haven't seen this.

So, of course, it's attached to the minutes of this meeting.

Some of our communications department tries to give a fairly high level overview of all projects that are going on within the community and by county.

Most of the projects that have been funded and are moving some would be through engineering or construction.

and also touching on some of the other elements the VDOT is doing with maintenance and other aspects of our district.

I don't have that much detail to provide you.

Each for your locality, any project that is been funded, you can find more information about that in the document.

If you need us much more,

some of you all but certainly for the Charlottesville Albemarle area there's a there's a listing of all the projects that are currently whether they're instructional as well as a few that are VDOT managed.

It is what we'll be for and I do apologize I've been on the road I got back from Colorado last night and

It's really, we have to edit it and make sure it's accurate.

So I think it's really good information to read up, but more general things going on in the district and pull out stuff here.

I'll leave it there.

No, this is more of an annual review at a higher level.

It's not getting into a lot of the more detailed issues that your local resident engineer will be providing to you at the board.

Those are more on a monthly basis of what's actually going on in that individual project at the fast pump too.

It's a bit higher level than that.

And for what it's worth, Chuck just texted me to tell me that

So, it's SMART SCALE, so yeah, I have it up on stage 12 in our district, including, well, recommended for funding under the draft scenario, so the final decision will be made in June.

interesting so ones that will interest this crowd the Avon Street multi-modal project one southern one of the two the one that was out south of the interstate and also the Belvedere project is Albemarle was funded

as well as the improvements that Peter Jefferson Parkway, the Thomas Jefferson PDC had put in.

So, there we are.

I had a really quick question.

Does the transportation board know that Greene exists when it comes to the SMART SCALE?

I think they, they might not just skip G's because we get passed over every year.

Got to wear a taj.

One of the things that did this round was change land use to spread it out among all the area types.

And that allowed the town of Warrenton and the town of Culpeper to make a lot of projects funded, which they hadn't been able to do in the past.

Any further questions about the transportation update?

All right, well, thank you, Chuck and David.

So, like, am I doing something wrong?

I don't know.

I don't know why.

But I need to get out of trouble.

I can just get out of here.

Sorry.

Oh, sorry.

Ted Rieck, I'm CEO of Jon, I've known Jon for about 13 months.

That's not an answer.

So I'll give the update on the governance study.

Over in the interview, I was able to get it in the packet because I got it yesterday.

and it's going to be a draft until the final report, so we're not putting it out to the public, but it is, it'll be in the packet, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm saying.

So the first number for the government study is going to look at existing commissions of transit and legislation that kind of cover these existing provisions.

The second phase will be a review

The first will be looking at potential revenue generation, and then the work will be to develop a governance scenario and funding allocations, and then the last one will be making revenue gains.

So this first tech memo provides an overview of the current transit operators in our region, the PAC, Jaunt, UTS, and

the RTQ meeting with Tom as well.

And it looked at the kind of an overview of the organization, the organizational structure, their governance structure, how they made the decisions, and their findings, which I found really interesting.

And then the second part of them compares four examples of governance structures in Virginia that support transit.

So that's, we have a current authority

It's just not funded.

So we have the Charlottesville, Albemarle National Transit Authority, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, and the Central Virginia Transportation Authority.

They all have a government structure and revenue to support transit.

So they looked at those and made some comparisons between them all.

And this will be kind of the basis of

on seeing what we need to do in the legislative process and building a set of objectives for consideration.

So that's the first memo.

We're actually working on our second memo right now, which is going to be a peer review.

So we're going to look at other

statements like regions that are similar to our region where the university can have the same population and land area.

And once we get those peer regions, we're going to look at how they make transportation decisions and what types of systems they use to govern transit.

And so that's going to be coming in a few weeks.

And that's the governance study update.

First of all, I think Jon's a pretty familiar organization.

Just a picture on the same page.

Jon is actually what we call a public service corporation.

We're kind of private, we're kind of public.

We are owned by five governmental entities.

Albemarle County, the city of Charlottesville, Louisa, Nelson, and Fluvanna.

They comprise our stockholder shareholders, and they have a voting membership on our board.

We also serve Greene and Buckingham County.

They're in an exit 50-0 goal, and maybe someday they'll be part of the corporation,

That's yet to be determined.

Just again, we provide public transportation services throughout our service area that you saw.

We're trying to promote independent living, engaging in place type issues.

We think by getting people to medical appointments and other services, about healthy outcomes for individuals, they can take John to get an appointment instead of

deferring medical needs, which may have done more costly and impactful labor.

We think we provide a good return on investment for most of our funding partners.

Most of them may put in a dollar worth of local money and we give them three dollars in service.

Not everybody, but most of them.

And then by providing access to jobs and other opportunities, we promote equity in your communities.

Some things that we're working on, I'll head over to these areas in turn.

A couple of years ago, we were involved in some controversy, which I'll refresh you and your memory of.

We're also looking at alternative developing fuel vehicles.

We want to get into something called microtransit.

We've also embarked a flying program called the Transit Development Plan.

And then we're also trying to recover from the pandemic as well.

The first thing is we were embroiled a couple of years ago as a controversy.

Some of the issues involved staff members maybe not being as diligent with taxpayer money as probably should have been.

Maybe some bad choices were made.

But there was more to it than that.

I'm not sure how much action was being followed.

But certain procedures within John

We created some issues about how we reported our financial information, how we used our funding, and a few other issues as well.

First of all, certain staff members basically, we think, kind of cooked the books when it came to our performance data.

And we kind of inflated our operating statistics, which was relatively much funding that we got.

That was all straightened out.

We had to pay money back.

Herefore, we're doing a better job in tying our data to an actual operation.

So we tell you how far we've driven in a year.

We can tie that back to a real bus driver schedule and things of that nature.

Also, we undercharge our social service agencies.

We provide services to like job at a pace.

We have not been charging them the correct rates.

We are in the process of addressing that, trying to fine tune how that gets done and creating more up-to-date operating agreements with them.

Most likely, with all the significant price increase, which in that part of our business might kind of go away.

Hopefully, we will be able to do that.

And if I'm getting to the weeds, let me know or if I'm saying something that doesn't make any sense.

Also, John is a separately complex operation.

We operate in the rural and urban areas and we receive in one way or another federal money operating in both environments.

You can't mix those environments.

You can't use rural money.

in urban service and vice versa.

For decades, Jon did that.

He used rural money in urbanized areas, which benefited the urbanized areas until they kind of caught up with those.

I'll give you an example.

On the left is the map showing in the blue, the rural area.

In the green is the urban area, which we call the ADA zone.

We provide services within.

The blue area has also been where we've used our rural money.

That on the right, though, shows a kind of a whitish area outside of the green zone.

Those are urbanized areas which are eligible for urban transit funding, which we get no urban money at all.

The money we get for urban service is strictly for the green zone.

And the blue area for rural money

can't be spent in the wide area for many years.

This has consequences.

We get operating and capital money on the operating side means we're providing services in an urbanized area, which we have no federal money, which means the local areas have to make a decision.

Do we pay more local money or do we cut the service?

And by this map, it kind of illustrates that

Our service is kind of a home angle all over the area, so it's going to be difficult to kind of play out one part without affecting the rest of it.

And we're working on solutions to that problem right now.

It mainly impacts Albemarle County, where we've been in discussions with them about how to address that.

On the capital side, we get a separate pot of money for capital,

Originally, the traditional method would be an 8% federal, 16% state, and 4% local to make 100% of our funding for capital.

So annually, we'd get about $2.6 million in capital needs.

That means the locals would pay about $104,000, and that's spread among the seven jurisdiction partners.

Because of this,

urban rural thing, we have to alter the formula.

The reason is because we may have a bus operating in the rural area, but come into town.

So we start in Louisa, take someone to UVA hospital for cancer treatment.

We may turn that bus around to the city of Charlottesville, trip, and then that bus goes back out again to the rural areas.

So it's very difficult for us to

have a dedicated urban, a dedicated rural fleet.

To be efficient, we need to mix our national operations.

Since we can't dedicate it in a way, we have to adjust our funding formula to reflect how much of the federal money can be used in our assets.

So going from an 80% to about a 49% share means that the wealth will share those with 4% to almost 36%.

That means with the same capital program,

We're going from $100,000 to almost a million dollars in mobile contributions.

Have I lost everybody on there?

Okay.

Needless to say, people aren't happy with that change and the people being the urbanized areas.

So not only are they getting nailed on the urban operating side, they're also getting nailed on the capital side.

And we spend probably more capital in the urban areas than anywhere else.

So we have to figure that out.

We have some solutions that we're working through

In fact, we may be over the conservative on how they count urban and rural services and we're reviewing that with DRPT as we speak.

I'm curious, does the federal government recognize that?

Yeah, I mean, it's because of the federal regulations that we have this situation.

I don't know why John was able to get away with this for so many years, but it did.

So in some ways, the ergonizer is bad at it from our mistake.

But you can by doing things like this.

What we do is we figure out if we're operating urban or rural, how much is urban and how much is rural?

And you adjust the formula to reflect that operating environments.

So we do about a 60, 40 rural urban split.

So we kind of split our funding up that way.

State funding doesn't matter where you are.

They don't make that distinction.

But on operating and capital, they do.

On the operating side,

We only get able to use urban operating money from the city of Cap in the study of Charlottesville.

And they say you can only use an ADA paratransit in no other urban service.

That's an issue that needs to be worked out.

Probably a good issue on how to deal with it.

Is there a specific definition that they use to define rural and urban events?

Is it density?

Also, the census has had a lot to do with it.

It's sure to draw the lines and stuff like that.

And depending on how we interpret the data, we might be able to decrease this penalty that we're looking at.

But we need to work that out.

And this creates a challenge on the capital side.

First of all, we have 108 new revenue vehicles.

The revenue vehicles plus is actually used to pick up riders.

as opposed to the non-vegetables, which is more of a support vehicle.

We discovered we have too many vehicles, especially long, so we need to reduce that by at least 20, maybe more.

Our vehicles, typically last five years, or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first.

You can imagine if we're running in a rural area, you can put a lot of files off real quick.

Another problem we're seeing is the price of vehicles have shot up dramatically because of supply chain issues.

And also delivery time has also gone up as well.

The chart I'm showing you, the local bars, is there a mile between breakdowns?

You want those bars to be high, as you can see they're going down.

We're having more breakdowns and our vehicles get older.

Our average speed age is the blue line, and the secondary axis

Our average age of our buses is 4.2 years.

And of course, the average that we've been in place is five years.

It's not that the bus is more expensive, you're thinking on it twice.

But it's causing us to take some actions to extend the lives of our individuals.

So the challenge is to balance this out.

And it's affecting a lot of our funding partners

It's not just the death threats issue that we're calling it.

That's where the urban federal funding is not available.

But we've also had an increase in driver wages because of the driver shortage.

Also, Jon probably took an informal approach to distributing costs and funding among our funding partners.

And we're trying to be a more formal, professional way of going about it, more transparent than we have in the past.

that particular way, it changes the dynamics by which people pay for transit, and it's not always a good news.

And then we also got a lot of COVID money in the last couple of years, which enabled us to decrease how much local money had been paid out.

Now that money is gone, plus the fact that our costs are up and we're taking a more transparent approach to funding, it's causing some concern among our funding partners.

Here's an example, Louisa.

It's kind of hard to follow, but we're showing on the left, this shows the percentage of funding covering operating expenses for various geographies.

So there's the John Federal Operating Assistance on the far left.

That's what the average community who are seven

jurisdictions received.

As you can see, it's probably below 40% of their costs was covered by federal operating.

Louisa has been getting more than that in the average share, and that's typical in other communities too.

The black line, 50%, typically you're only allowed to cover 50% of your costs with federal money.

So while other communities have gotten below average,

Places like Louisa have gotten above average.

And this has been a rude awakening for our funding partners.

We're trying to bring things back down to a more normal level.

And it's causing a lot of conversations with our funding partners.

And if you keep going down in the case of Louisa, they have benefited from this informal cost distribution, funding distribution that we're trying to correct.

Again, it's causing some issues.

Moving on to more pleasant term discussions, we're looking ahead, everyone's concerned about the environment.

We're trying to become better stewards of the environment by looking at the possibility of going through alternative refuel vehicles.

Our goal, we just recently completed a study to give us some direction as to which way we ought to go.

The direction appears to be better electric buses.

We want to reduce our

Greenhouse gases by 45% in the next seven years and net zero by 2050.

I think this is in line with other goals, I think at least to this day.

So we look at different, look at CEG vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, as well as battery electric vehicles.

We're going with battery electric vehicles is the most, I don't know,

Feasible way to do it.

The other two methods require a lot of infrastructure to be put in in order to supply that.

Plus it's not sure if the supply side creates more issues than actually having my own commissions.

And there's more to that if you want to use it.

One of the problems we have in the demand response areas, especially in the rural areas, are vehicles travel businesses that outlast and charge their vehicles.

So this chart, the vertical dash lines is in the ranges of the vehicles, and the horizontal is how far our vehicles tend to go.

In many cases, they exceed the distance that we can go with battery electric technology.

The solution may be is to create fast charging stations at key locations in the rural areas.

So in the middle of the day, the bus would stop, maybe for lunch, recharge, and then continue on instead.

RPT for next year as we've studied our implementation.

On the base grid side, we want to make sure your bus services don't stick within the branch.

So those may be really the ones that you can look at to convert to battery electric.

This is a map showing road Laffy Double to distribute these things.

Another thing we're looking at is called microtransit.

Another way of putting it is like Uber or Lyft for transit.

Our typical client will call and ask them to make a reservation to use our service.

They call them a football center, and we book their trip based on day and time that's convenient for them, and we have space available.

If you're familiar with Uber or Lyft, you can do a course on Haney's trip.

You can also book it on your cell phone.

So what we want to be able to do is offer that as a service to equipment vendors.

We are looking at various opportunities to do that.

And we've also filed a new grant to look at which market areas and rural areas are best suited for that technology.

We are also permanently talking to three micro-transit companies to see if they would partner with us on various

Microtransit opportunities which are coming up this year and maybe in the future.

As I also mentioned, we're looking at doing a 10-year plan, which is about the, which is wrapping up right now.

And the plan is basically to look at all of our goals and objectives and what we need in order to meet the needs of transit, what that's gonna cost us,

to do that.

And the TDP provides a basis for us to make other actions like acquiring electric vehicles.

There's a process involved.

I won't go over this too far with you.

We looked at the needs of the dark and the colors and more of the need for transit populations.

This is our six county plus Charlottesville area.

You can see their needs all over the area.

over adults, same picture.

And then this is an overall aggregation of various metrics to measure need.

Again, it means that you're going to be all over the place, especially if you're a woman.

We also did a customer and stakeholder status fashion survey.

We generally scored it out.

Jon has a very good community goodwill, which I'm proud of, and I'm proud of him.

and we need to maintain that.

There are a number of recommendations, everything from creating a half-based booking system for our services.

There's a Monticello transit opportunity that may be a couple of years off.

And there's some other improvements such as Nelson County, Buckingham, or Lisa.

And we also have some commuter bus options to fix as well.

Also upcoming, we're also making a grant application to do a rural transit fees assessment.

We want to take this data and quantify it.

How much transit does Nelson County agree?

And where do we fall in that matrix?

And how much funding will it take to bridge that gap?

This is step one in making sure that communities have that transportation.

Also, we need to do a technology roadmap

We need a better strategy about how do we use advanced technology with Jon.

We've been an early adopter, but we've kind of lost our way a little bit, so we need to have a better road now.

And I like this.

That's right.

Sorry about this.

I can't even lay with you a chance to practice this.

Right.

You're still running fair and fair?

Yes, we are.

And through the TDPM continuing to run fair and fair to the court's able future?

Yes.

I mean, you really didn't have any recommendation on it.

There was a study done before I got here.

I said it costs more money to collect bears than we actually got with bears.

Cause we're very labor intensive on the bear collection side.

And so it was expensive.

I have not examined the study to determine if that's true or if there are other ways.

In the locations where we're seeing an increase in pricing to our clients, our funding partners, you know, they bring up the idea of can we charge bears, like Buckingham for example,

Derivation going way up, and they raised that issue as well, so we may have to revisit that conversation.

What we haven't seen though is usually when you have pre-service, demand goes through the roof, but we haven't seen that as much in both areas.

It's a really great story.

We're going to put it in the packet, which would be on it for this one.

Thank you very much for being a pleasure.

I can never figure it out soon.

Ted, one quick question.

The question came up from my Fluvanna cohort, but

We have to go by the census definition.

The census draws the line and under federal regulations for our funding that's the determining factor.

So looking at pockets like Rutgersville, unless it's already part of the UCA, we don't turn this ourselves.

Certainly, if everybody did their own determination, that might skew the results.

So they have us relying on the census.

Yeah, I was going to add that it should be much better

I won't have the updated lines, but I know there was a change in the definition.

So basically smaller areas, I think 25 to 30 or less dropped off urban areas.

So there was like 800 plus areas that actually like are no longer considered urban and became rural.

And also, the definition, I think, for the level, in terms of household density, also went up.

So a lot of urbanized areas either shrank or split apart.

And I know the Greenville sector wanted the bus population, because well, it became its own urbanized area, with this last update.

That's good to know.

It may not help us with the grand cycle if we estimate our grand summary first, but we have other ways to kind of move the line.

I think the way we count our rural service will be a little bit too conservative, so we're trying to revisit that.

But hopefully what you're saying helps out as well.

Well, thank you, sir, for your presentation.

Lucinda, would you like to walk us through the governance study update?

No major updates.

We're still progressing on the proud 151 study, so by the next meeting we should have a little bit more if you guys submit updates on that, but basically looking at the safety analysis of the core

So definitely a passionate group of people I think lived up there so I suspect for the public meetings we'll have quite a few people.

So this is an updated study we did 10 years ago and that study we had well over 100 people at the public meeting and just from based on people sobbing and pulling over asking questions about what we're doing out there and I think it's well we're already seeing that but yeah we should have a meeting here soon probably before the next TTC meeting

So, yeah, I mean, that's in the draft.

Oh, you mean the round out going up in the new one?

Yeah, we had somebody come out and surprisingly, he said we need bike lanes on this whole corridor, but we don't need that round out up there.

It's like I've been on this corridor my whole life.

That's... No.

Oh, good.

How many of you are doing our second year?

Is it certain updates for one of the board in March and also a public presentation?

and May as well.

And then Jessica has taken points on Creebridge Lane and Morgan to convert that to either a full pedestrian promenade.

The Creebridge Line is between 250 and Barrens Hill Park.

So convert that to either a pedestrian promenade or a one-way.

Which direction?

We're not too sure yet.

that's going on in the county.

I don't know if I've had a whole lot of news going on, we're still working on the comp plan and just got a bunch of solar projects in the queue.

I did start talking with each of them a little bit.

There's a proposed project on sharing orders and they also have their solar ordinance in public meeting in February.

It's supposed to be this month that I got switched over.

Not a whole lot of Nelson, David said, we're at 151 Corver, studies still going on, I think we're meeting first.

So we're working on our comp plan, we have our second work session tomorrow evening.

So they'll be going over community facilities and infrastructure, natural and cultural resources.

How many rounds?

Three rounds?

I'm the Transportation Planning Manager.

Not a lot with rural transportation going on to the city.

I can't share it.

RFP for a transit strategic plan, which is similar to the effort that Ted had been undergoing with the transit development plan.

you know we work a lot on creating a concept plan and estimate for localities in that sort of compressed time frame about three to four months before the actual applications would do.

We're treating this ground with revenue sharing and tabbing just on the odd years.

Last round we started trying to do that a little bit for some more localities we worked with with revenue sharing and tabbing applications.

One of the things we found is

that in that compressed timeframe, it's important to try to really have a good concept when we get into the process.

And so we're gonna try to reach out over a series of meetings next week on Wednesday at one o'clock with counties that are in the Charlottesville residency.

And then on Thursday at one o'clock with those folks who are in the Louisa residency, these meetings will be at the residency to talk about this process that we're starting out

Hopefully all of you will have got invitations to that before last.

Essentially, what we're trying to do is a series of long-arranged goals and short-term objectives.

The long-arranged goal is, you know, each of our communities, whether through the planning district or their own planning efforts, creates numerous projects and

The idea is to try and prioritize which ones you will hope to achieve in the next three to five years so that we have sort of stable projects that we can roll projects from, depending on which cycle we're in, whether we're in the SCARS sketch cycle or if you're sharing a TAP cycle, and start working on those, say, multiple community-active pre-apps open up so that we can go out and do a site visit, we can bring out not only folks

myself, Chuck and I in the planning section, still the folks in our location and design section, as well as if it's like a bridge or something, bridge roads, equivalent sections might be important.

We'll talk with the locality about the project that they're considering, sort of start vetting some of the issues that might be with it, maybe suggest potentially alternative alignments, but sort of settle in on a sketch plan, really high-level sketch plan, that is.

I suppose it is a little bit more detailed project narrative that will explain not only what the scope of the project is and the intent of the other project area, but also maybe make sure that we're looking a little bit outside of the project area to get a little bit of context.

That can serve two purposes.

One is to sort of make sure that the planners who are in that locality could understand some of the engineering challenges they've been facing with the project.

Trying to shape it, there's certainly obvious issues that we might have to overcome with the project and determine whether or not we should continue to change the plan, try to overcome the objective, or if they are something we need to deal with in the project itself.

But also to transfer to other people to be in the engineering side of the thing.

What really is the intent of the project?

What is the planning goals and the context?

Do you have land use around it?

or maybe if it's a phase project like a bike trail, what the future phases of the project are trying to achieve.

So that when they're entering into the design portion of it, they have that contact.

And then eventually we'll go into the pre-app applications we've done previously.

So if you want to work with us on, this is not a mandatory process, the county will be able to do their own, you know, development of a pre-application,

But with all of these applications, one of the big problems I think we're all experiencing is the projects that are underfunded because they weren't well conceptualized, but the estimates going into the funding round were maybe a bit too low.

So all projects will need to be signed off by our district development engineer, Mike Jacobs.

That's part of the application process for these things.

Even if you are a locality who is a piracy consultant to do a plan, if you want to put it in your own estimate, we'll be vetting that and sort of having either, working with that, particularly, I think one parallel to try and get us to that point with the application.

But I think the, hopefully the benefit of this thing is that locality is, people bridge that divide that sometimes happens between engineers and planners, where the planners

have good ideas, but don't always have the sort of technical understanding or the technical, better understanding of the technical or engineering practical aspects that make it not as good an idea or maybe it's in between.

And then on the engineering side where they're basically focusing on their standards and sometimes a little bit more narrow about understanding the planning context that happens.

So I'm very excited about this.

Again, talk meetings are next week.

And if you have any questions,

VDOT came up with

The Boston Information Office passed two years ago, they put it in effect, it was around the SMART SCALE.

And the contingencies that come out of that are guided in part by, so we can, if there are opportunities to know more about it, maybe if it's something like a large structure we're trying to put in, and maybe it makes sense to do a little bit of geotech work before, I don't know who pays for that, maybe a little talent does,

Yeah, we have a pre-application module in Microsoft Word that we hope to start to be used more intensively.

I think that this being a new endeavor, we're going to have some things to cycle up to and work through and there'll be lessons learned that we'll get to the modalities and we'll get to ourself and try to improve this, but yeah, definitely to try to put it

A lot of information in that pre-app portal.

Certainly, I think we all recognize, go back three, four, five years ago, were applications that were going through the process that were, some might think of where they printed out something off our GIS and, you know, made some numbers and notations on it, and that became, you know, for a bike drive that cost, you know, six, eight million dollars.

And so, this is trying to get a little bit

TJPDC perspective,

So those are recommended scenarios.

As David said, these will be vetted and reviewed by the CTB and these will become official when the criminal transportation board adopts the six year improvement program in June.

And sometimes there are adjustments or additions that are made to their recommended list for them.

And then also, these are typically programmed for several years out.

So none of these are going to start

You know, within the next year, they'll start, you know, four or five, six years out.

No, probably.

The only other thing that I'll mention is that we have a new transportation plan that is starting next week.

So we're excited about that.

There will obviously be a little bit of a learning period to get them on board, but they will probably be plugged in.

So you'll get some feedback on the next time we meet.

And then

The last thing that I'll mention is that we should be hearing about the Safe Streets for All grant award, whether or not our application was awarded in the next month or two.

Regardless, we should be working with VDOT to start collecting funds, processing the data, starting within the next month or two anyways.

We're done with the in-room updates.

I'll leave the chairman for last.

Just wanted to reach out and say thank you to the COPEP for engineering staff.

We do have a safety concern intersection to northern intersection on Route 29 in Greene County has terrible line of sight distance because it's right at the top of a hill.

And they did determine that we could

implement an R-cut intersection which

Seems new and innovative in our area, but there's 10 plus years of data on how much safety improvements come out of these.

So we're working with the local board to take advantage of the hard work and generosity that the staff there in the Culpeper Engineering Department has created for us by coming up with a solution.

So I just wanted to give a heads up and say thank you for that.

And then the quick question came up.

Another question for Ted.

You have the final report that you submitted with our package.

Is that something that we can share with our boards?

Ted.

I'm sorry.

I put the link to your website that has the transit development plan and the rule study report on it.

Sure.

The continuing fee on the website is up.

So you can, but if you wait a week or two,

Unless you're bored.

I know you're bored.

You're very manly.

But you're welcome to.

It's public information.

It's out at that purpose.

Thank you.

And that's all we have.

Thank you, Vice Chairman.

For Louisa County, we have Lake Anna Resort planning and development after several deferrals.

We'll be going before the Board of Supervisors tonight.

It'll be a long night.

Good afternoon.

Matt Lawless, Tout Administrator.

Appreciated learning everything here.

Thank you.

Oh, so topics for the next meeting.

Does anybody have any suggestions?

That sounds good to the committee.