Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-03 adj09'8 December 3, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from November 19, 1986) (Page I) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 3, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room 5, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 19, 1986. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:25 P. M.), and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St John, County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; and Mr. David W. Bowerman, Chairman, Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 4:02 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Statement - Route 29 North Improvements. Mr. Fisher stated that the Board has asked the staff to prepare a summary of the Route 29 North situation. Mr. Tucker spoke from an outline which presented a brief history of the transportation planning over the past 10 years and which focused on the improvements to Route 29 North. The outline follows: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 1982 (from CATS - no timing of Phases Proposed) ae Committed Project: Meadow Creek Parkway from Melbourne Road to Rio Road Phase I: Route 29 North six-laned from Hydraulic Road to South Fork Rivanna River Phase II: Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to 29 North (Hollymead connector) Phase III: Rio Road Grade-separated Interchange Phase IV: Hydraulic Road Grade-separated Interchange II. SIX-YEAR HIGHWAY PLAN (Current) Aw Primary. Roads: 1. Route 29 North Bridge Improvements (South Fork Rivanna River) 2. Route 29 North - Six Lanes (Hydraulic to Rio) Secondary Roads: 1. Hydraulic Road - Four Lanes 2. Meadow Creek Parkway (Melbourne to Rio) III. COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (March 1986 - list of needs not currently in Six_Year Plan) Ce Interstate System: 1. Interchange at 1-64 with Avon Street (State Route 742) Primary System: 1. U.S. Route 29 North, Eastern Bypass 2. U.S. Route 29 North grade-separated interchanges with Hydraulic and Rio Roads 3. Widening U. S. Route 250 East from the East Corporate limits of Charlottesville to 1-64, including the widening of the bridge over the Rivanna River 4. Connecting Meadow Creek Parkway with U. S. Route 250 East 5. Improvements to U. S. Route 20 South Secondary System: 1. Completion of widening Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Rio Road 2. Widening of Rio Road from Hydraulic Road to the Meadow Creek Parkway 3. Improvements to Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 780) 4. Improvements to Old Ivy Road (State Route 754) 5. Improvements to Sunset Avenue (State Route 781) IV. PRIMARY SYSTEM PREALLOCATION HEARINGS (November 1986) Eo Route 29 North Improvements, Hydraulic Road to the South Fork Rivanna River Route 250 East from Locust Avenue to 1-64 Interchange - Avon Street at 1-64 Route 29 North Improvements, South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road Improvements to Route 20 South Improvements to Route 240 into Crozet Vo CURRENT VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION U. S. ROUTE 29 NORTH PROPOSAL Eight Lanes between Hydraulic and Rio Roads Grade-separated Interchange at Rio Road VI. STUDIES FUNDED OR BEING CONSIDERED December 3, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from November 19 1986) (Page 2) ' 099 B. C. D. VII. ae Be VIII. Co County/City Eastern Bypass Study (completed) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Urban Area Transportation Computer Model (Federally funded - under contract) County requested City to jointly study the environmental impact on a Western Bypass Alignment Community support for a Comprehensive Urban Area Transportation Study COMPREHENSIVE URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY (possible scope and parameters) Scope of Work: 1. Update of CATS data base 2. Investigate local and through traffic problems and solutions 3. Socio-economic impact of improvements 4. Environmental impact of Bypass Alignments 5. Develop transportation systems for highways, public transit, park and ride, etc. Timing - Six to Twelve Months Cost - $200 - 250,000 (approximation) ALTERNATIVES TO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION CURRENT PROPOSAL Defer all 29 North Improvements and Bypass Planning until comple- tion of comprehensive transportation study Support Eight Lanes on 29 North with grade-separated interchanges at Rio Road and Hydraulic Road, provided: 1. Rio Road is four-laned east of 29 North to Berkmar Drive (rather than only from 29 North to Phillips Building Supply) 2. Entrances on 29 North and Greenbriar Drive (southwest quad- rant) at the gas station/convenience store should be closed as originally proposed 3. Landscaping of Median Support eight lanes on 29 North with deferral of grade-separated interchange, provided Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above are included Support eight lanes on 29 North with grade-separated interchange at Rio Road, provided Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above are included Mr. Tucker gave a report which followed closely the above outline adding to it some further details. (Note: Mrs. Cooke arrived at the meeting at 4:25 P.M.) Mr. Fisher commented that under Section VII-A o£ the outline, the data base that is being used is supported by 1974 figures. The local traffic volume has clearly increased since that time, but it is not clear whether the through traffic volume has increased as fast. All the proposals being made by the Highway Department are based on the estimate that 14 percent of the total traffic in the area is through traffic. They assume the percentage is still the same. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he had heard there might be some private support for a major restudy of this problem because the information that is being used is so outdated. The action of the General Assembly in freeing up funds for transportation projects has speeded up the need for accurate data. There are still significant differences of opinion in this area as to how to solve the transportation problem. Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres recently proposed such a study, and it is supported by some members of City Council, as well as by some people at the University. What is being suggested and possibly supported is a broad study with substantial subsidization from the private sector. If, in trying to put together the support needed for such a study, the Highway Department is asked to defer its project for a month, would such a deferral jeopardize the County's credibility with the Highway Department or cause the Highway Department to cross this project off its list completely? If the Highway Department is willing to delay for a month, it would give the various parties in this area the opportunity to further explore the possibility of undertaking this study. Mr. Fisher stated there is a similar study going on in the Richmond area. There are problems caused by the release of funds for transportation projects in several other coun- ties. The sudden new funding has made people aware that the actual undertaking of the project is very near. Albemarle County is closely tied to Charlottesville, and until the Board has met with City Council to decide on an ultimate solution, it is difficult to reach a decision on where the County is heading. If the work proposed under VII in the outline could lead the community toward a common goal, and at the same time commit the parties concerned to carrying through, this project could be worthwhile. He mentioned the Meadow Creek Parkway which has been planned for ten years, and on which no progress has been made. Mr. Bowie stated that until there is some sort of ultimate solution to the traffic problem, the City's concerns are the same as those of the County. What will the effect of each individual project be on another one. There are three jurisdictions that need to agree on a comprehensive solution. He stated he has two concerns: 1) the undermining of the credibility of County planning; and 2) the possibility that the Highway Department will decide to do what they propose whether the County likes it or not. The other decision the Highway Department could make would be to take the money available and improve the highways somewhere else. He stated that if a decision has to be made today, he will support the Route 29 North project. He added that if a postponement will jeopardize the County's ability to give its comments to the Highway Department, he is opposed to it without assurances from the Department. He would like something official from the Highway Department informing the County that it has until a certain date to make its input to them. December 3, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from November 19, 1986) (Page 3) Mrs. Cooke stated that the proposal which the Highway Department recently presented was very different from what the County had expected. The drastic change the Department brought without warning certainly is a cause for "putting on the brake." She said she is unable to support the present Highway Department plan. Mr. Henley said he cannot support anything that doesn't improve Rio Road. He feels that is a bad intersection, and eight lanes will only make it worse. Mr. Lindstrom stated there are two questions here: 1) can a decision be deferred long enough to see if the aforementioned study is possible; and 2) the General Assembly's action in freeing the funds for these transportation projects made a comprehensive solution to this puzzle a real possibility in a reasonably short period of time. In the past the County has looked at one small piece here and another there, knowing the funds were not available and that perhaps over a period of 20 years a solution might present itself. Suddenly the County is faced with available resources and the Highway Department is talking about actually doing something in this area with those resources. They are speaking not only of Route 29 North, but of bypasses and other projects which the County has not supported. The County must not fall into the trap of dealing with the Highway Department in a piecemeal fashion; the Depart- ment is thinking in a comprehensive and complete manner. So, if there are some private resources available which would assist the County in a comprehensive study, it should not hurt the County's credibility with the Highway Department to ask for the time for such a study. Mr. Bowie said he feels there must be some kind of written assurance from the Highway Department that a delay is acceptable to them. This would make the time available to find out if the three jurisdictions do, in fact, want to get together, and if there are any funds to support a joint study. Mr. Agnor stated that he had invited Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres to the meeting today, but that he was unable to attend. He stated that Mr. Van Yahres informed him that as a result of a conversation with Mr. Ray Pethtel, the Highway Commissioner, he had the impression that there was time available to update the data in order to be sure the County is heading in the direction dictated by current data; and that consideration would be given, if requested, for the Highway Department to participate in the funding for this study. Mr. Fisher stated that his concern is that the County not lose the opportunity to accomplish the projects it wants done. If the County stalls too long without any agreement from the State, the available funding could be jeopardized. Mr. Henley said he, personally, will be hard to convince that it is necessary to spend tax money to study this project again. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Henley. He stated that he finds it hard to believe that all of the planning over the past ten years has been done with figures from 1974. Mr. Lindstrom summarized a little of the history of this data. The County wanted to do an updated study some time ago, but the Highway Department requested that they be permitted to do the study. When nothing resulted from the Department efforts, Commissioner Harold King took the study over and came up with eight proposals, one of which was for a Piedmont Corridor. Actually, up until this summer, all these studies have been exercises in theory because the possibility of having the money to do these projects was so remote. He mentioned the study being done in Richmond right now because of a Highway Depart- ment proposal. The Highway Department is funding $900,000 for that restudy. Mr. Bowie asked about VI-B of the outline, the MPO Urban Area Transportation Computer Model, which is being federally funded. He asked if that could fit into this study. Mr. Tucker said that the model should be used in any comprehensive study contemplated. This model will be used in the future for analyzing any changes in land use and the impact they may have on any transportation system. Mr. Moore stated that there would be completely new socio-economic data for all the traffic zones. Mr. Fisher stated that he suspects that the through traffic is now less than 14 percent of the total traffic on Route 29 North. Mr. Agnor stated he believes the reason the community and the Highway Department have stayed with this 1974 origin/destination study is because there has been no funding to do another one. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows there is skepticism about taking on the study, but it seems to him that the County should communicate with the Highway Department to find out if there is time to pull the pieces together. He feels this study is a most significant and long reach- ing step to be taken by the community. If the 1974 information can be updated, and this opportunity is not taken, it would be unfortunate. He continued that his concern is that the Board might end up with no position at all. Mr. Henley said he doesn't understand why the Board can't just support the Highway Department's proposal for Route 29 North and let them get on with it. Mrs. Cooke mentioned the hearing at Albemarle High School and the lack of support for that proposal voiced by citizens of the area. Mr. Lindstrom stated he doesn't know what a study will show. The only proposal that has any joint support was the proposal of the Eastern Bypass Committee. The essence of that was to use the existing Route 29 corridor to provide an opportunity for local as as through traffic. The Highway Department's present proposal, if acted upon, would being able to build an expressway in that corridor since that would mean tearing up improvements made under this proposal. If the County doesn't want to build an Eastern because of park land and mountains, and doesn't want a Western Bypass because of the , there aren't too many options available. If the Eastern Bypass Committee recom- ,n is now cemented up with improvements which cannot later be adapted, the options are out. Mr. Lindstrom said he had taken seriously the Eastern Bypass Committee's recommendation an "elevated roadway," and with advice from Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bowerman as former Eastern ~ypass Committee members, studied that recommendation. He feels it can be done for a lot less money than the combined costs of a bypass and the Route 29 North improvements as now projected (about $90 million). He said that the engineering staff has done a sketch of this ~oncept, which was of great help to him. He suggested that if a study is undertaken, this December 3, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from November 19, 1986) (Page 4) 101 idea be considered as part of it. If it is decided not to look at this recommendation as part of a study, he suggests that the Board consider it specifically. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he agrees with the Eastern Bypass Committee recommendation that there is no need for a bypass. Mr. Lindstrom went on to explain that the highway he is proposing is not an elevated roadway. An expressway would be constructed with no stop lights from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Route 250/29 Bypass. Cross traffic movements would not be blocked, and a three and one-half mile long bridge would not be built. Several short overpasses or underpasses would be constructed. Some crossovers would be closed, but this plan would allow local traffic to get on and off at several points. This roadway would serve through traffic and would offer the advantage of serving local and commuter traffic needs as well. A drawing of the proposed express road was placed on the table. Mr. Lindstrom proceeded to describe the various aspects of the proposal. Starting at the South Fork Rivanna River, the traveller makes a decision depending upon his destination. If he's going to Lynchburg, he gets on the left-hand ramp and can drive from there to the Route 250 Bypass without stopping. Mr. Lindstrom continued describing the various ways in which local traffic could move in this area. He said that in all highway studies, the cross traffic at Rio Road has been a major problem. This plan would give traffic that does not want to turn right or left the opportunity to bypass that interchange entirely by getting on the express ramp and going through. Someone coming from the north wanting to get off at Rio Road, would be able to slip out of the express lane and make whatever turn necessary. Mr. Lindstrom showed the Board how the cross section would look. He pointed out Route 29 North has a 160-foot right of way. He stated that this proposal would fit be divided by a six foot barrier. The expre~ by a 20 foot median, which would remain invi¢ exist. There would be over/underpasses at Ri Greenbriar. There would be an overpass at Sc access to the expressway at Hydraulic Road as Albemarle County ends. Mr. Lindstrom asked 9 Department to explain the connection between that the only problem not yet worked out is t that wants to go north. Mr. Lindstrom emphas moving south, not the east-west flow. · that into that right of way. The express lane would s lanes would be separated from the local lanes late except for the points where slip ramps o, the entrance to Fashion Square and at minole Square Shopping Center. There would be well. At this point, the jurisdiction of r. Stephen Crestwell of the County Engineering this point and the Route 250 Bypass. He stated he traffic coming from the west on the Bypass ized that this plan is to facilitate traffic Mr. Fisher said, to summarize, that this the express road and the four outside lanes a the advantage to having the "bypass" here is get on the expressway, and get out of the loc pressure on the local roadways. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Crestwell if it was the existing right-of-way. Mr. Crestwell sta before that could be ascertained. Mr. Lindst necessitate putting the northbound and southb Department considers essential. Businesses o done. is an eight-lane road, the four inner lanes are re for local traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said that that it gives local traffic the opportunity to al lanes. This should significantly relieve clear that this proposal could be built within ted that the proposal requires further study rom added that the expressway proposal would ound lanes on the same grade, which the Highway n Route 29 North will be impacted if this is Mr. Bowie asked about the slip lanes. fast moving traffic going off into two lanes the ramps would be built into the median betw Lindstrom emphasized that this plan is only a real engineering work behind the proposal, he Hs is concerned about the safety of two lanes of Df slower traffic. Mr. Lindstrom stated that ~en the local and the express lanes. Mr. ~ idea. He stated that although there is no feels it is worth looking at further. Mrs. Cooke commented that she feels this she appreciates the time and effort spent doi offering this plan as a suggestion for furthe is a very palatable concept. She added that this study. She said she has no problem in study. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowerman, who had been a member of the Eastern Bypass Committee, if he had any comments to offer. Mr. Bowerman stated that the only thing he wished to add is that the Committee looked at all the possible~alternatives and this was the only route the Committee could unanimously agree on. The other benefit is that this plan opens the opportu- nity to get on with the Meadow Creek Parkway because it provides an outlet for through traffic coming down Route 29 North that would,not then exit at Airport Road or any alternate connection and try to sneak through the City.! Mr. Fisher said that he feels this is something! that can be shown to the City Council as an alternative and it will let them express w]~atever comments they have. He said that it seems to him that the plan might solve many o: the City's concerns. Mr. Bowie asked if anyone from the Highwi Lindstrom said no. Mr. Fisher stated he appr~ Board must remember that it is conceptual and won't know whether it is really possible. He Mr. Lindstrom stated that it is only a c¢ proposal felt that even if six outside lanes % than the Highway Department's project. He sa~ jointly support a plan like this, it would be into it. The important point is to obtain jof Mr. Fisher suggested that the County Sta~ discuss them before the Board's meeting with Mr. Lindstrom stated that this plan must y Department has looked at this proposal. ~ciates the opportunity to see this plan. until some Highway Engineers are involved, said, to him, it looks pretty attractive. Mr. The ~ncept. The engineer from Richmond who saw the ~ere built, it still would be less expensive .d that if the City, County and University could hard for the Highway Department not to look .nt support for the plan. if inuite City Staff to see the plans and ~ity Council. be looked at in contrast with what is being proposed. Building this expressway only makes sense as an alternative to what is proposed to be built. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that staff contact the Highway Department concerning the delay in the Board's response to the proposed Route 29 North improvements. ]02 December 3, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from November 19, 1986) (Page 5) Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning, stated his concern over' the computer models. He is looking for some direction. He said that staff is within a couple of weeks of signing the contract for the model. If it's going to be superseded by a second model very shortly, perhaps the signing shOuld be delayed. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Horne should not sign the con- tract until he receives updated information. Mr. Agnor said that he did not believe the model would be superseded. Rather there might be just one element amended. An expansion of the model is very possible. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to contact the Highway Department and get whatever informa- tion he can directly from them. Agenda Item No. 3. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M. CHAIRMAN