Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 01 77 WS PC Minutes-52- February 1, 1977 WORK SESSION The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on February 1, 1977, 5:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider the service road concept. Those members present were David W. Carr, Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Leslie Jones. Absent were Peter Easter', Vice-chairman; Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegor, Planner; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. The chairman opened the meeting by stating that this workshop is open to the public, however there would be no public discussion. Mr. Tucker presented a series of handouts to the Commission ( see attached sheets ) and brought the members up to date on the data that had been collected by the staff since the public hearing of the previous week. Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, briefly addressed the Commission on the scheduling of the matter at hand. He informed the Commission that though the Board is scheduled to hear the service roads in a public hearing set: for February 16, the Board would prefer that the Commission take the necessary time to made a well-informed recommendation. He did ask, however, that the Board be notified of some realistic time schedule in order to properly inform the public. Mr. Keeler told the Commission that in the study area there are approximately 23,000 turning movements that can be accounted for each day. There are movements through intersections that cannot be accounted for. When questioned how current the data is, Mr. Keeler replied that it was collected in July, 1976. The east side of 29 North is estimated for Hydraulic Road. He did point out that there are several T-intersections where there is no through traffic( an example was Greenbrier where there were 63 turning movements on the east side and 3,856 on the west side). Woodbrook Carrsbrook, Dominion Drive, and Berkmar Drive account for over 8,OOO some turns. Dr. Moore reminded the Commission that at the previous meeting there were suggestions for plans other than what was shown on the map illustration: two high speed lanes down the median, third lane, and that sort of thing. There was some discussion about how much traffic could flow in the third lane concept. Also discusse' nat would happen with left and right turnlanes, making five lanes per side. He wondered what the improvement in traffic flow from those sorts of concepts would be. Since one of the major factors with that is traffic lights, he inquired about the improvements in traffic flow that would result from timed traffic lights all along Route 29. -53- Dr. Moore further stated that anything that can be done will not only improve the traffic situation, but also the energy and pollution situations. Mr. Tucker stated that the third lane possibility had been considered by the staff also. He asked if the Highway Department has any completed studies that compare efficiency of the third lanes to the service roads. Mr. Roosevelt stated that to compare the two concepts, one must consider the short term and long term effects of both. In the long run he felt that service roads will be of the biggest benefit to citizens of the area, because there will be four lines of mainline roadway that will function as arterial highway, and two lanes on both sides of the highway for local traffic. However, in the short run, the third lane concept will do more to move traffic than the service road concept. While the service roads are being built, it only serves as access to one particular area and this property can only be gotten to by the service road. That entrance would require a decel lane; so while the service roads are still disconnected pieces, there will be a decel lane and an entrance to the service road, and then an entrance to the commercial property. Until a few sections of service road were connected, there would be just as many entrances from Route 29 to the service roads as there are now entrances to the commercial property from Route 29. As sections between secondary intersections become hooked up, the Highway Department will be able to close the individual accesses to the services roads. Eventually there would be only the connections to the service roads and the remainder would be a closed system. But that would not occur until the whole section of service roads is connected. Dr. Moore said that when thinking about the two concepts, and assuming that either one of them could be built at one time, it seems that one could build four lanes of service roads at approximately the same construction costs as two lanes of third lane to national highway standards. He asked if this sounds reasonable. Mr. Roosevelt stated that if one were starting from "scratch" he would say "yes." But unfortunately this is not the case here. The area where the third lane would be constructed is already graded out at almost exactly the same elevation as the existing roadway. Thus there would be very little grading to build the third roadway. Where the service roads would go under this concep� falls in land that has not been graded and in some cases would require considerable grading. overall, the construction of the service roads would be more expensive. In an attempt to clarify matters, Mr. Jones said that when he thinks of service roads, he thinks of two lanes of traffic in one direction, then three lanes in the middle in the same direction, then three lanes and two lanes. About every four miles or so they hook into the fast flowing traffic in the middle. He stated that he is attempting to picture this type of service lanes and high speed traffic. Mr. Roosevelt stated that under this concept, the service roads would connect to the secondary crossings. People would get on the secondary connection and in turn would connect onto Route 29, which would mean access to Route 29 at the secondary connections. In this case they are much closer together than four miles; he stated that it is not unreasonable to expect some of the secondary connections to Route 29 to close some time in the future. Mr. Jones stated that he was trying to get an idea how fast through traffic can move if the service roads don't tie in so often. Mr. Roosevelt said that the fewer the connections, the faster the traffic on Route 29 will move. VQQ MOST RECFNT S`.' T NAh1E LOCATION COUNTS Route 29 Carrsbrook - Rio Rd. 17200 Rio Rd. - 17800 Hydraulic 30200 Bypass - Hydraulic 27100 Barracks Rd. - 30200 Bypass Massie - Barracks Rd. 23700 Massie - Ivy N/A N. of Stadium - Jeff. Park 13400 Jefferson Park Railroad - Fontaine 11700 Emmet - 14000 Main 12600 Alderman Rd. Arlington - Ivy 8500 Ivd. Alderman - 12800 Emmet 12800 Univ./Main St. Emmet - 16700 Rugby 16700 Rugby - 16300 ' 14th St. 16300 14th St. 14900 Jeff. Park 14900 Jeff Park - 17600 loth St. 17600 loth St. - 20200 9th St, 20200 9th St. - 15800 McIntire 15800 Rugby Road Grady - tfniv.(Main) 10400 14th St. Grady - Univ.(Main) 5600 M G-VeAW e rS -54- �ht mot^ l 74 PEAK t''o'i`t 2000 _ 1974 1974 74 CAP. 2000 2000 2000 c": ASSGN. CAP. V/C ASSGN. CAPACITY V/C 1764 .59 45800 1560 1.76 1764 .61 41400 1560 1.59 1560 1.16 64900 1560 2.50 1560 1.04 60700 1560 2.63 1680 1.08 50300 1800 1.65 1680 .85 46500 1600 1.55 15000 720 1.25 23700 600 2.37 600 1.34 14700 480 1.64 460 1.46 18500 600 1.65 840 1.00 19600 960 1.2.3 840 .90 15200 720 1.27 600 .85 19900 780 1.53 1080 :71 21700_ 840 1.55 680 1.13 24400 1080 1.36 780 1.29 32600 1080 1.61 960 1.04 32600 1080 1.E1 840 1.16 27500 960 1.72 1080 .91. 27500 1140 1.45 960 .93 25200 1080 1.4:0 960 .93 25200 1080 1.40 960 1.10 34500 1080 1.92 1080 .98 34500 1080 1.92 1080 1.12 32400 1080 1.80 1.140 1.06 32400 1220 1.59 11.40 .83 28800 1220 1.42 840 1.13 28200 840 2.01 480 1.30 11200 360 1.67 360 .93 5600 240 1.40 -55- MOST DECENT 1974 >Tk:*wwr NAb"d LOCATION COUNTS ASSGN. 'ark St. High, St. - 7300 Bypass Bypass - Melbourne 5700 3arracks Rd. Rugby Rd. - Rout.e 29 12100 rugby Rd. S. of Preston -- Preston N/A 10100 Rugby Rd. Preston - 1.7000 Rugby Ave. 17000 Rugby Ave. - 16400 Barracks Rd. Barracks Rd. - Gentry 5100 Rugby Ave. Rose Hill Rugby Rd. N/A 5100 7_,FSAK 2000 PF__ 1974 74 CAP . 2000 2000 2000 Cr.: CAP. V/C ASSGN. CAPACITY V/C 600 .73 11700 600 1.17 840 .41 17800 840 1.27 480 1.51 14600 360 2.47 540 .1.12 10200 600 1.02 600 1.70 19700 480 2.46 720 1.42 19700 720 1.64 960 1.03 18600 960 1.16 240 1.28 5600 240 1.40 240 1.28 6700 240 1.68 Other SECTIONS BY YEAR 2000 Route 250 W. Westleigh - N/A 7900 860 .55 14700 860 1.03 Bypass 12500 860 .87 23C00 860 1.60 Rt.654(Barr.Rd.) Old Salem Apts. Georgetown 3000 580 .31 10900 560 1.13 Rt: 743 N. of Rio - Rt. 676 4400 730 .36 13700 730 1.13 Rt. 631 Rt. 659 - Route 29 3100 580 .32 14900 580 1.54 .2 Mi. E. Rt.29 3500 .33 11500 1.10 NCL 4900 630 .47 1.4100 G30 1.34 Rt. 250 E. Route 20 Pantops N/A 14800 830 1.07 34400 830 2.49 Partops - W. of I-64 11900 830 .86 179C0 830 1.29 E. of I-64 N/A 8900 .64 16900 1.22. Rt. 22 7100 830 .51 10300 830 .74 M -56- TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION: INTERSECTING ROADS: EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 29 NORTH EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 29 NORTH ROUTE NUMBER NAME 24-HOUR TRAFFIC 1453 Greenbrier Drive 63 1452 Westfield Road 133 1417 Woodbrook 2,323 854 Carrsbrook 1,646 Subtotal 4,165 (turning movements) 631 Rio Road . 4,058 643 "Polo Grounds" Road 200 649 Profitt Road 1,336 9,759 743 _ Hydraulic (Estimated) 172121 Total 26,880 WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 29 NORTH ROUTE NUMBER NA111E 1453 Greenbrier Drive 1452 Westfield 851 Dominion Drive 1403 Berkmar Drive Subtotal 24-HOUR TRAFFIC 3,856 (unofficial) 168 2,420 281 6,725 (turning movements) 743 Hydraulic Road 9,390 631 Rio Road 1,982 643 "Polo Grounds" Road 100 649 Profitt Road 3,390 Total _ 21,587 TURNING MOVEMENTS (MIN11UM) Subtotal: East Side 4,165 Subtotal: West Side 6,725 Difference: Through Roads 11,961 Turning Movements 22,851 -57- DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC: U.S. 29N AND HYDRAULIC The following are rough estimates of the disposition of traffic passing a point north of the intersection of U.S. 29N and Hydraulic Road (Route 743). These estimates were developed solely as indicators and should not be employed as measures due to their assumptive nature. Residential trips is the total of U.S. 29N trips generated by the major residential developments (Berkeley -Four Seasons, Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, Branch - lands is assumed fully developed and occupied and the total count has been adjusted to reflect this assumption). This figure represents only those trips which are direct to 29N within the study area. Residential trips have been adjusted to account for an assumed! aggregate 5.4% out -commutation to work. Non -local trips were estimated at the Carrsbrook intersection and are those trips not generated or destined for Charlottesville. Trip Disposition No. of Trips % of Total Trips Non -Local 4,700 13.3% Residential 11,175 31.6% Other 19,525 55.1% Total 35,400* 100.0% The "Other" figure represents: 1) all non-residential trips generaged or destined within the study area (primarily commerical and industrial); and 2) all other trips not accounted for in the table travelling through the study area segment of 29N. While no further breakdown has been attempted as to the disposition of' the "other" trips, staff assumes a large percentage to be work -commutation trips (In 1970 there were 19,867 total City -County and County -City commuters. _Additionally, there were 1,551 in- and out -commu- ters with respect to Greene and Madison Counties**). * Unpublished figure from Charlottesville -Albemarle Transportation Study (30,200) plus projected residential traffic generated by Branchlands. **Projections and Economics Base Analysis, DSPCA, October, 1973. -58- jr COST ESTIMATE OF COUNTY'S SHAPJ: OF SERVICE DRIVES —59— TAX MAP - PARCEL # rrr 61W - 2-A- 2 61W - 2-A-1 61W - 2-B-3 61W - 2-B-1 61W - 2-C-3 61W - 2-C-1 61Z - 3-2 61 - 134 61 - 133 61 - 122 61 - 123 45C 45B(1) - 5A10 45B (1) - 5Al 1 46 - 28A 32 - 42F 32 - 37C 32 - 41A 45 - 68A 45 - 112D 45 - 120P 45 - 120D 61M - 12-1-C 61W - 1-C-1 TOTAL EXISTING DEVELOPMENT R.M. DAVIS 29N GULF TOM JONES SUNOCO FIRST VIRGINIA BANK EXXON AVIS AUNT Lfi11MA' S ALBE11TARLE BANK AND TR1 ST SKIBO NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST ALBI ARLE SQUARE WOODBROOK VILLAGE FURNITURE OUTLET REAL ESTATE III ANDY'S PIZZA HOLLY MEMORIAL GARDENS MERCER CARPETS u AIiRPO MOTEL ROCI:INGHAM BETTER LIVING L MODEL WHITE AND WEEKS, I12C G ',"TRY' S LAFAYETTE EAST COAST SHOPPER'S WORLD BET. COVEY' S & TIERKET-TY COST ESTIMATES EXCLUDES LAND ACQUISITION AND CONTINGE'.-CIES. 9450' X $80 _ $756,000 FOOTAGE 2250' 550' 160' 7 00' 500' 30' 370' 600' 800, 600' 170' 250' 400' 70' 250' 650' 300' s910' Mr. Gloeckner stated that no traffic lights are done away with in the immediate plan; in other words the speed of the traffic ( if the service roads were built right now ) would not be increased on the arterial route because the traffic lights would still be there, unless those are sychronized. Dr. Moore stated that some left turn traffic would be done away with. He then inquired if left turns would still be permitted, or if cars would be put on a sort of service road that would cross Route 29. Mr. Roosevelt stated that it could be worked so that there would be a sort of service road crossing Route 29 in order to make left turnlanes. It could be worked so that the phases would be cut down - no through phase and left turn phase would be needed on Route 29. There could be a two phase on Route 29 and a through phase at places like Greenbrier. Dr. Moore agreed that this would help the flow some. Mr. Roosevelt stated that this is one of the options of service roads which cannot be gotten from the third lane. He emphasized that the point he is trying to bring out here is that service roads are more beneficial to the traffic flow on Route 29 in the long range. He stated that if this system is adopted now, there may be no real benefit from it for ten years. Mr. Gloeckner asked if 10 years is a realistic date of completion of the service road concept. Mr. Roosevelt did agree that it will move no faster than the third lane concept. He cited the James City case of trying to force properties to build sections of service roads, just because thev happen to face on a road like Route 29, is aaainst the law. The onlv wav to make them participate in the construction of the service roads is when the property is redeveloped. The only time a service road could be added is as the property develops. Mr. Carr questioned the principle of the high speed lane in the center of the existing road. He further stated that if high speeds were permitted, he realized that either bridges or underpasses would be necessary at the major intersections. Then the existing roads, with the third lane concept , become what would be built on the periphery of the road. One problem with that would be that the developer or user pays part of the bill. However, he does feel that things are moving in that direction and it is desirable. If the high speed lane were adopted, then the developer would become the builder of the third lane. Mr. Roosevelt said that there are two experiments going on in northern Virginia along this line. This is usually know as the bus lane or the pool -car lane. It is a high speed lane that hypothetically could begin at Carrsbrook and end at Charlottesville. It would have one exit point and one entrance point. This concept has been used on I-95 in northern Virginia, but a road there, at the Washington, D. C. line carries 110,000 cars per day(not the bus lane, but the entire roadway). In the vicinity of the beginning of the bus lane, it carries approximately 85,000 cars per day. Here we are talking about a situation that even in the year 2000 will be carrying only 60,000 cars per day, if the estimates hold true. He stated that only now is this area approaching the number of cars per day that have been in the northern Virginia area for many years. He said that he hopes this puts the high speed lane into perspective. He does not feel that funding will be available to the Highway Department for this sort of solution for many years. -61- Mr. Carr said that ig that concept is, good where there are 110,000 cars does not necessarily mean that it is not a good concept for this area which has 50,000 cars. There would have to be lots of factors considered in such a solution. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he is not saying the concept won't work - in fact it does work in northern Virginia. He said that there are figures which show that more people are moved in those two lanes than are moved in the six lanes outside. But that is because the lanes are for the exclusive use of buses and pool -cars, carrying four or more passengers. Therefore, fewer vehicles run in this lane. A similar restriction for buses or cars with four or more people might work here but if such a restriction were not placed, and cars with 1.25 people were permitted to travel this bus lane, then more confusion and congestion would result than currently exists. Mr. Roosevelt told the Commission that another concept that is working on Route 50 is a bus lane on the outside of this route. What has been done in this case is to take a four -lane highway that is very similar to Route 29, build two lanes on the outside, and use them exclusively for buses during specified hours. Vehicles making right turn lanes also get to use this lane. He felt that would compare to the third lane concept along Route 29, with one important difference: Route 50 already has a service road on both sides of the roadway for most of its length. The bus lane, in many locations, has a parallel service road to serve local traffic. This prohibits entrances into the buslane and protects the bus lane from becoming clogged. Some time in the future, either of these concepts could be used. For an exclusive bus lane or for a third lane to work properly, one has to have the service roads to handle local traffic. Mr. Tucker questioned the interval of accesses to service roads. He said that he had been under the impression that there should be access to the major arterial every 1000 feet or so. He said that he realized that the more entrances to this major arterial there are, the slower the traffic will be. He said that the problem with fewer accesses is that people have to drive so much farther than they really want to go. Mr. Roosevelt replied that his experience with service drives shows that they should not be brought directly into the secondary connection. The connection between the secondary road and the service road is within 25-50 feet of the intersection with the main road. People would get on the service road, try to get out on the side road, and could never break into the main line of traffic. Moving back to the secondary is essential to making the service road work. Later there were breaks between the service roads and the main lines. Any connection between the service drives and Route 29 could be done away with because the two will be so close, except for the secondary connections. Mr. Tucker stated that he is concerned about 29 being a major "mover" of traffic. The more intersections there are, though they are existing, the more likelihood of another traffic light that is not currently existing. Is the purpose being defeated by having an access every 1000 feet? That purpose of moving traffic. As long as there are traffic lights along Route 29, Mr. Roosevelt replied, only so much traffic can be moved down Route 29. The maximum number of cars that can travel one lane under ideal conditions does not include a lane that has traffic lights. The only way to remove the traffic lights is to put some sort of grade structure over Route 29. With overpasses, the service roads could be used as the ramps to get to these structures. They would already be in place. The cost of a structure (interchange) would be greatly reduced. Thus the service roads could be worked into an interchange system. There is no way to work the third lane concept into the interchange. -62- Mr. Jones addressed the possibility of eliminating all left turn lanes, making these through lanes. All turns are made from the right side of the road, automatically giving a third lane. Another lane that might be built, where there is a reserved right-of-way, would give four lanes. Mr. Roosevelt stated that in this concept, in order to go left, one makes three rights. This concept works on city streets. However, he did not feel it would work in this case unless there were some short route to make the three rights. Mr. Jones stated that what he is addressing are loop turns. Mr. Carr stated that they are positioning loops for signals, etc. Mr. Jones said that one turns right and then turns back toward the left. Mr. Roosevelt said that the plan on the bulletin board would work that way. Col. Washington stated that he understands that Hydraulic Road is to be improved and act as a major collector. Does this include a grade separation on Route 29? Mr. Roosevelt said that there are no plans for a grade separation here. Col. Washington stated that this is the highest density intersection and no grade separation is planned here. Thus he asked how it would be possible to get grade separations in the other places. Mr. Roosevelt stated that at such time something has to be done on Route 29, the fact that we have service roads at these points, would give a number of options that could be considered. One option would be to connect the service roads. Another would be to incorporate the service roads into grade separations, to reduce the cost of the grade separations. He said that grade separations might not be what is finally come up with. If a time comes when grade separations are needed, Hydraulic Road will be the place it is considered first. Mr. Carr asked if the requirement of service roads would delay the development of Route 29, though he noted he was not suggesting this or advocating this. Mr. Tucker felt it would definitely have an affect on marginal type uses. They just could not afford to build a service road. Dr. Moore felt that not only would service roads be needed, but parallel roads would also be needed. As he sees it, the present method of financing roads will not help the traffic situation. He felt that the Commission should consider asking the Board to look at other means of financing, whether by bonds or by establishment of a corporation, or whatever. They need to take a big view of it with the idea that they have to have these connecting roads, that Route 29 will never be adequate as the t own grows, and we will never be able to catch up with it with the present methods of financing. Secondly, he felt that this sort of planning should be done without thinking so much about the cost or the time schedule at which it is put in. What is needed should be decided upon, and where they will go also needs to be decided. Everyone needs to know, whether he is developing or not, if eventually his land will be condemned. Possibly if these are considered, a little better long-range planning can be done. -63- Mr. Barksdale asked if anyone has done a study to determine how much undeveloped land is still on Route 29 North. He said that he realized that anything , that is already developed cannot be forced to build a service road. Dr. Moore asked why this would not be possible, since other places assess people. Mr. Carr asked if the existing could be forced to comply. Mr. Gloeckner felt that this would be for the health,safety, and welfare of the public - eminent domain. Mr. Payne said that he wished to answer Dr. Moore's comment. There are alternative means of financing this. The first mentioned was bonding. He said that he is not prepared to comment on whether bonding is available for this, although at this point he doubts it. The reason for that is that, with very few exceptions, narrow exceptions, counties are not permitted to spend monies for roads. That is a 1932, Depression Era, statute. Counties are very strictly controlled on what they can issue bonds for. Thus he had serious doubts about issuing bonds for this sort of thing. Assessments in kind: there is no statute that provides that a property owner will contribute to the development of this road just because he is there. That speaks specifically to the man who has already developed his property. He sees that happening, according to the statute, for sidewalks, but not for roads. There are three other means of financing roads, in this situation, and they are all limited to some extent. He felt the best way to do discuss them was in descending order of importance. The first is in the use of gifts, bequests, grants, and that sort of thing. The statute permits the county to use gifts of land, monies, materials, or whatever it might be for road purposes. That is a new statute enacted last year; it is Section 33.1- 225.2 of the Code. These are consecutive statutes. The second statute is Section 33.1-225.1, providing that the County's share of revenue sharing funds, either in whole or in part, may be used for road purposes. The third, and possibly the widest ranging, is Section 33.1-225, which generally provides that counties cannot spend county funds on roads. But there is one major exception that applies to Albemarle County and that is a county that is adjacent to a city of the first class, and suburban conditions have occasioned a problem which requires remuneration, the County has two choices: it can levy either general road taxes - county wide road taxes - or district taxes. As Mr. Payne understands it, that money has to be used in concert with Highway Department funds. In other words, the County cannot go build its own system of roads if it is going to stay in the secondary system. He did not think that there was any limititation on this in terms of ratio. A county -wide road levy would cover just that, the whole county. There is such a thing as a district levy, which used to be used generally, when the County maintained its own roads. It is possible to take a magisterial district and assess everyone in that district an additional sum on the property tax. In this case, and it is a very good example, since all the area being discussed lies within the Charlottesville District, it is possible to isolate this as one district's levy. This levy would be separate, though it would be included in the total amount of taxes; for instance, it could be additional penny on the real estate tax; it would be segregated. The special road fund would be given to the Highway Department to supple- ment their funds.for this road. That is an alternate means of financing. Mr. Carr asked if toll roads could be used to finance the roads. Mr. Payne replied that toll roads are a whole different question. There is a whole chapter in the Code which addresses toll roads. He did not know the authority on this matter+ however, he did state there is no general authority on toll roads. The County certainly could not set up toll booths on Route 29 just to collect funds. -64- Mr. Gloeckner stated that what bothers him is that essentially the County has a city street and an arterial highway; and the county is trying to save both concepts (maybe); the planning has been that it become commercially developed along the road and adjacent to what is heavily developed residentially. He said that in twenty years the development would extend much further than currently exists. He pointed to the map, stating that when it gets to one certain point, the County might be able to stop that development. In twenty years the County will have to be thinking another distance down Route 29. He said that this needs to be considered as a major access to Charlottesville, but the County also needs to get some of the traffic that is going down to that interchange away from Charlottesville so the local people can use it. Dr. Moore agreed. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the other thing is that the service road concept is good from the safety standpoint but not so much from the speed standpoint. He did not feel that the commuting time could be decreased. Dr. Moore felt that the commuting time could be decreased somewhat, since some of the traffic would never get on the road. Mr. Gloeckner felt that since it has to go somewhere, and instead of implementing the community concepts or commercial cores, get them away from Charlottesville. We are making Charlottesville a bigger city, mainly because the services are here. They are not where we would like the little core communities to develop. He said that he did not see anyway of not realizing that the County is stuck with a city street that wants to be used as a / acitess to the University, downtown Charlottesville. Mr. Jones said that this even further indicates the need for over- and underpasses, and the sooner they are built the less expensive in the _long run they will be. Mr. Gloeckner said that looking at the map (see page 58), and remembering how Charlottesville has developed in the past fifteen or twenty years, there is already a central core of city streets. They have gotten out as far as Hydraulic. Within that main road, all of that will be developed inside the roads that exist. The only way to get around that is start a peripheral of bypass, have an interchange on Barracks Road, come back in to where the interchange exists for the 29-250 bypass at Route 250 West. That sort of skirts the whole pattern of development. That is what is needed for the long range planning. This should be started right now, stating this is where we are going to put the bypass: start just this side of Rivanna South, and skirt the whole network of urban streets; and the same as we need to go south of town, connecting out here (he pointed to the map). Then the County will have some sort of circumferential about the whole area that is currently bursting at the seams. He said that he is still undecided that the service roads are going to do what it is hoped they will do. He did feel that a lot of traffic would be done away with by having the bypass itself. People will go out of their way because it will be that much quicker. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Gloeckner if he did not feel that the parallel roads would serve the same purpose. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to see those developed, too, because they will have to come. We are talking about twenty years down the road. Mr. Carr said that in 1949, State Farm Insurance Company was built. Dr. Moore said that when he came in 1962� Rutledge was about the only subdivision north of the bypass. -65- Dr. Moore said that he had checked, and ten years ago from Hydraulic Road to the river, there were only four establishments that would have interfered with service roads at that time. Mr. Jones questioned such places as Monticello, and other attractions, which draw traffic to the area. He said that they really don't contribute to the roads, and yet much of the traffic is to those establishments. Mr. Gloeckner said that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation gives a great of money to the University and other agencies around Charlottesville. Mr. Jones said he was talking about the highways; none of the money benefits the highway. It is not helping problems they are helping to create. Mr. Carr said that in theory the car that uses the road - its gasoline tax is supposed to pay the bill. At one time that apparently worked, but now either the tax is too small or the cost of building roads is too great. It is obvious that those two things no longer come together. Mr. Carr said that he does not want to wait twenty years to build a service road. He said that he does not want to make a decision here that will take 15 years to implement. It seems, if you could ask the public to build the legs, it would be more equally advisable to tax the public for "x" period of time to build some underpasses or overpasses. This way, eventually the money could be collected, and the project could be achieved eventually. Mr. Gloeckner said that the financing of this doesn't bother him, since he feels this can be worked out. He felt that the County has a couple of major decisions to make on when the County would like it to happen. He pointed to the history of the development of Charlottesville, and the County needs to figure according to this history, how far it will move in the next twenty years. He felt that it would probably move that same distance again in the next twenty years. Mr. Gloeckner stated that there is no other place that people are trying to go. He said they are not trying to go south or east. Most are trying to go north and northwest. Mr. Jones said that one reason for this sort of development to the north and northwest is that better roads to the south are not being built. Mr. Gloeckner said that the reason is partly because of the County's zoning. There is very little commercial land south of Charlottesville. Access to the south of Charlottesville is across the interstate and that sort of acts as a barrier. Mr. Jones felt that if the roads were improved, more people would move to the south. Currently there is no choice. Mr. Gloeckner said that the problem to the south is not just the roads, but there are no facilities either. He did not feel, though, that the County i(t ready to tackle that now. Col. Washington asked Mr. Roosevelt if the long time that it would take in arriving at service roads, in order to connectthem, would help. He felt that until they are connected that the County has no benefit from them. He said that the County might have some unhappy developers who would pay for this and then it would not solve any problems. If the funds to complete the service roads were available right now, and they were finished in the next three years, it would be most beneficial. He said that he could not conceive of that happening, though he could conceive of a third lane happening in a relatively short period. Part of the third lane is already there, and furthermore, there is no right-of-way problem. Dr. Moore said that he wonders if those individuals who had objected to the service roads, those who had spoken at the public hearing, would object if they did not think they had to pay for it directly. He suggested that if there were some other financial scheme, perhaps they would be happy with it. Secondly, he asked if they had realized that if the road (delineated red on the aerial maps) were constructed, they could build on both sides of it. Mr. Tucker said that the problem with that is that it would encourage in those areas that it is stripped commercial now, more commercial development on the other side. Mr. Carr said that multi -family dwellings could be built on that side. Mr. Tucker said that the argument would be that it is on one side, why not commercial development on the other side. Then there are cases where this concept would hurt some establishments or planned establishments, having some of the operation on one side of the road, the remainder on the other side. Dr. Moore said that another idea toward financing might be if the County could come up with the money, and the developer would not have to pay his share until his property is developed. That would eliminate the piece -meal construction. Col. Washington said that he has a feeling that if the County goes for the service road concept now, that indirectly a building moratorium is being placed on that area. Mr. Carr said that a certain amount of that would be of benefit, if he is to follow Mr. Gloeckner's reasoning. Mr. Carr said that if the sort of development that exists now is to go all the way to the river, then he is prepared to have a slowdown of development along Route 29. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the City is satisfied with Emmett Street; do they have the traffic problems with it that occur on 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the figures on some of the data passed out during the early part of the evening point to the fact that there is a problem. He said that he had not conferred with the City as to whether they have accepted it or can live with it. Mr. Gloeckner aaid that what he means is has the City accepted Emmett Street as a slow -moving city street. Mr. Roosevelt said that since the construction of the 29-250 bypass it has been acknowledged as a city street. At least the arterial system runs down that bypass. Mr. Gloeckner said that is his point, this has been permitted to go too far with the previous planning, and it has been turned into a city street. The potential is even worse. The long range thinking now is to get back to an arterial route. -67- This arterial route should take us by Charlottesville, give us more access to Charlottesville. Mr. Carr said that he does not have trouble with the long range bypass but somehow the County is suffering with Hydraulic to Ivy Road (Downtowner Motel). Take that and make it three times longer and put the same problems on it, and it'may wane. He feels that activity on that area will go down and there are several important functions of the community on that road. If it is killed it will deteriorate. He said that what he is getting at is that people have lived with that so long they continue to fight their way through it. If that problem area is lengthened, and a bypass is built around it, they will not fight their way through it, and businesses will be by-passed and decay will set in. Mr. Gloeckner disagreed, noting that with the projected population, the County will keep pushing out. In time, if the bypass is accomplished, one will see esentially the same thing that has happened with the 250 bypass. Nothing has died within that. Mr. Carr said that the reason that hasn't died is that the leg is short. Mr. Carr further noted that what exists now on 29 should not be compounded. Dr. Moore and Mr. Gloeckner felt that a bypass is going to be essential, or else some drastic zoning changes are going to have to take place in order to make businesses go somewhere other than Route 29. Dr. Moore felt that people should be told now if a bypass will eventually take place. Mrs. Graves said that at least if the County supports the concept, whether veto the definite location is decided now or not, the developers could have this passed on to them. Right now a third lane is being required and it service roads are planned everyone should know about it. Mr. Carr said that the point is that while service roads are being planned for, third lanes must be built, because the service roads won't service the traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said that it would not be a full third lane, only deceleration lanes. Mr. Carr said that the point is that it would end up wherever development takes place. Dr. Moore said that in considering this, there is no doubt that some people will be hurt, in the short term at least. Col. Washington pointed out that if there is any development on a bypass, there will be no bypass, it will be a city street. But if it is a limited access bypass, he did not feel as though it would wither any existing business area. It would merely speed traffic into the business area by another route. Mr. Carr said that he does not want anyone to misunderstand what he has said. His only point is that when a business district is prolonged (he gave Military Boulevard in Norfolk as an example), business will wane. Weak spots will result from the tremendous length of the business district. Col. Washington said that he favors only the limited access bypass. Iwo The following data was requested from the staff for the next meeting on service roads: 1. the kind of flow that can be achieved on extra lanes and how this would be improved by synchronized traffic lights; 2. the cost of a two-lane bypass, limited access, with an interchange at Barracks Road and an interchange at Airport Road, to be tied into area at Piedmont Tractor; Mr. Graves pointed out that if a bypass is considered, it must be decided on which side of the reservoir it will go. Mr. Gloeckner said that he is interested in either the east or south side of the Rivanna so that the reservoir does not have to be crossed. He also pointed out that this might cut off development at the reservoir. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr.,Secre ry