Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-10 ADJOURNEDDRAFT AGENDA UPDATED March 29, 2000 Work Session on Transportation Issues Charlottesville City Council and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Monday April 10, 7:30-9:30 p.m. The Senior Center Greenbrier Drive & Pepsi Place, Charlottesville Goals · Educate elected officials and public on history and current status of regional transportation planning, including its relationship to land use · Develop a list of items and issues to be addressed. These will be stated in the form of questions to make it easier to identify the appropriate followup action. · Identify followup actions Agenda 7:30 -8:30 p.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Presentations Introductions: Led by Virginia Daugherty and Charles Martin Local Land Use Planning Philosophies and Relationship to Transportation Presenters: Wayne Cilimberg, Jim Tolbert (15-20 minutes) Regional Transportation Planning Overview Presenters: Hannah Twaddell (10 minutes) Single-Occupant-Vehicle (SOV) Alternatives Planning and Programs Presenters: Hannah Twaddell, Helen Poore, Donna Shaunesey (10 minutes) Key Issues Presenters: Sally Thomas, Meredith Richards (15-20 minutes) 8:30-9:20 p.m. Discussion and Listing of Questions for Further Examination The Board, Council, and audience members will be provided with index cards at the start of the meeting. They will be asked to write one question per card as a way to begin the facilitated conversation. At about 9:00 a staff member will collect the cards from the audience and share any additional questions or ideas. All the cards will be collected at the end of the evening in order to prepare a summary in the meeting minutes. In addition members of the public will be encouraged to continue providing comments and questions to the officials and staff. 9:20--9:30 p.m.: Action Plan to Address Questions Adjourn April 10 City County Transportation Work Session: Presentation Notes Page 1 Draft updated March 29, 2000 Land Use Overview (Wayne & Jim): 15-20 minutes To be viewed & discussed Monday April 3, 1:00 at Wayne's office. Topics should include land use philosophies, pertinent initiatives such as County DISC, City Neighborhood plans, and Eastern Planning (I can flesh that out in the transportation overview, but it would be worth mentioning here), and how local transportation priorities support land use plans. Regional Transportation Overview (Hannah) (note, some items may have more than one slide) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) MPO formation, purpose, members, relationship to fed, state, local. Relationship of MPO to TJPDC and RATS; map of Planning District Map of urbanized area, CATS 2015 and CATS 2025 study areas (can be done on one image with dotted lines around each boundary). MPO Activities (Major past studies, current Work Program, Eastern Planning Initiative) Outline Transportation planning process Outline Transportation funding programs Changes in federal policies with ISTEA,TEA-21 CATS 2015 TIP Three Party Agreement: current status of each item Single-Occupant Vehicle (SOV) Alternatives Planning and Programs 1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (Hannah) - JABAWAC, 91 City-County-UVA bike plan, City sidewalk plan (Dan- provide list of projects still to be done), County sidewalk studies, UVA Groundswalk, City Bike Advisory Committee, Enhancement grants, funding issues, 2) SOV Alternatives Advisory Committee (Hannah) - committee charge, current status 3) Transit/Ridesharing info (Helen, Donna take over at this point): Service Areas and Routes (CTS, JAUNT, UTS, Greene County Transit) 4) Transit Ridership (perhaps compare to estimated current total trips). May also note issue of data collection to accurate evaluation of success. 5) Park and Ride Lot development (Tina provide current map and info to Helen) 6) Carpooling matching - RideShare database map? 7) Employer Programs and Neighborhood Trip Reduction Program (sample employee map, tax benefit program, etc. Tina provide summary to Helen) 8) Commuter Information Team - highlights of joint marketing 9) Upcoming Transit Development Plan/Rural Needs Assessment 10) Long term consideration for rail: Eastern Planning Initiative, SOV Alt Committee literature review 11) Transit Funding: How transit is funded, how to use road program funds for transit, challenges to be addressed. April 10 City County Transportation Work Session: Presentation Notes Page 2 Draft updated March 29, 2000 Issues for Consideration (Sally, Meredith, perhaps also Charlotte - Sally will talk it over with her. Put these in the form of questions) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Transit funding County Urban Road funding City and County sidewalk development and maintenance Coordinated land use/transportation planning Setting effective goals and data collection programs to chart traffic reduction Case Study - Route 29 - it has it all! Mixed local/through/truck traffic, congestion, intersection issues, pedestrian issues, transit service and needs, local arterial, national commercial highway, access management & parallel road system. Route 250 East - avoiding another 29? Documents for Notebook · CATS (summary) · TIP (summary) · Three party agreement - original, status report · List of past MPO reports & studies · Current work program MPO & RATS · Glossary of transportation terms · Member list MPO Policy Board and key staff · Transportation funding summary and charts · Transportation planning char/ Maps City County Land Use Plans (Wayne) MPO urbanized area, 2015 study area, 2025 study area Eastern Planning Initiative Study Area CATS 2015 traffic projections with v/c (Dan and Juan develop?), Transit routes (PDC JAUNT map, CTS map), Rideshare database Park and ride lots Sample RideShare employer map OTHER NOTES Personnel to Run/Support Meeting: · Moderators: V Daugherty & C Martin · Minutes: E Carey & J Cox · Flip Chart Recorder: H Twaddell · Staff to gather notecards from audience and read off questions not already on the flip charts: Donna Shaunesey & Tina Sherman? April 10 City County Transportation Work Session: Presentation Notes Page 3 Draft updated March 29, 2000 Items to Put up on Wall: · Maps (with 1 lx17 copies for each participant) · Poster with contact information for City, County, and MPO (phone, address, website, names of key elected officials & staff) - this should also be a handout - Hannah will provide Other Notes: · Lee Catlin will arrange publicity, meeting room, media coverage. Room will provide horseshoe seating arrangement for board/council members so they sit close enough to converse in a friendly manner, audience-style seating for public, with good view and easy to hear, probably will want to arrange for microphones at each seat, appropriate space for slide shows & presenters to stand while speaking as well as space for flip chart & ability to tear off flip chart sheets & post on wall (using the space we used earlier for presentations). Make sure it can be filmed easily. Notebooks and final agenda will be prepared by Hannah on Wednesday April 5, delivered to Jeanne Cox and Ella Carey for distribution on Thursday April 6. Hannah will post agenda on PDC website, Jeanne and Ella can place a link on their websites to this one. Website will have interactive button to email additional comments to TJPDC - Hannah will forward them to elected officials as they come in and keep them in a summary file. PDC will develop meeting summary from minutes prepared by Jeanne and Ella and post on the PDC website after approval from participants. Hannah will make copies of the powerpoint slide shows to hand out at meeting. Hannah will invite VDOT & VDPRT staff to observe & be available to answer questions; Angela Tucker & Reggie Beasley, Don Wells, Chip Badger, Jack Apostolides, Carter Myers Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Co~e~s A) Proposed FollowupActivities 1 B) Questions Raised at the Meeting 2 C) Verbatim Questions/Comments from Discussion and Postcards 5 D Information Presented at the Meeting 8 Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 1 A) Proposed Followup Activities The Work Session on Transportation held April 10, 2000 by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council elicited a wide variety of questions and ideas, as well as a comprehensive picture of past and current transportation planning activities and ideas. The following pages summarize the questions raised and proposed followup activities for each question. 1) Future joint session(s) with noted agencies to create goals and strategies for: · Coordinating with state (VDOT, VDRPT, CTB) · Coordinating local planning entities with each other UVA in regional context · Exploration of creating a transportation district · Funding for all transportation projects (road, transit, bike, ped) 2) Educational forums, fact finding tours, and other activities. Topics include: · Possible impacts of technology on our future · Making high density development attractive to residents and developers 3) Staff reports on: · Progress with new transit technologies, possibilities of moving toward more demand- response, flexible routing, and/or real-time ridesharing systems · Status of success with traffic reduction incentives and in public attitudes/interest · What is our public attitude/interest in traffic reduction? Do we have a love affair with the automobile that can't be changed and which precludes transit as a real solution? · Is our transportation planning plan based solely on a goal to get rid of cars? · History of proposed interchanges on Route 29; future plans for intersections. · Current status of cooperation on transportation and land use planning, economic development, and environmental planning; recommendations for improvements. Suggested improvements include a regional planning authority, appointing nonvoting. planning commissioners from City onto County and vice versa; regular joint planning commission meetings. · Status of/ recommendations for community planing information center at library and community design resources center 4) Incorporating questions within an existing planning process (city comp plan, regional economic development strategy, Eastern Planning Initiative, Transit Development Plan). Topics: · Planning for attractively design higher densities in City and County · Shared vision for transit and land development, corridors, busways 5) Addressing questions through MPO discussion and review. Topics: Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 2 New modeling on effects of Meadow Creek Parkway on downtown, Avon Street, and Rio/Park street given two-lane plan. Review of Rio Road - Rt 250 connector ("near- eastern connector") which was dropped between CATS 2010 and CATS 2015; why it was dropped, whether it's worth resurrecting. Cost-effectiveness of Route 29 bypass; comparison to rail as an option. Success of traffic calming programs, recommendations for improvements. Membership of MPO, whether it should be expanded to include other stakeholders and/or citizens. MPO role in coordinating land use & transportation planning. B} Questions Raised at the Meeting: Questions centered around the following issues. Proposed followup activities are noted in italics after each question. · Transit · Traffic Reduction · Land Use Plans · Traffic and Road Plans · Decision Making Process · Community Involvement Transit · What is our plan to use new technology to create a more flexible demand-response and/or real-time ridesharing system? Transit staff report · How can we support our transit plans with land use plans? Transit development plan, comprehensive plans, economic development plans, Eastern Planning Initiative · Are we serious about investing in rail as an alternative to widening/bypassing Route 29? If so, what are we doing, and what .should we do? Talk with VDRPT and freight industry as first step · Additional issue raised by MPO members, not discussed Transit Funding. Transit Development Plan? Followup Session on Transportation District? Traffic Reduction · How are we tracking our success at reducing automobile dependence? Commuter Info Team & MPO & Sustainability Council report · What specific incentives are we working on to achieve traffic reduction (parking pricing, tax benefit promotion, UVA participation, high school student driving, etc.)? Commuter Info Team report Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 3 · When in the process do people's attitudes change? Do you need new attitudes to create new programs, or do new programs foster new attitudes? Commuter Info Team report · How can we be more open to the possibilities of technology and ready to take advantage of those features which can reduce our automobile dependence? Commuter Info Team, Eastern Planning Initiative, educational forums to increase our understanding of these issues (VA Piedmont Technology Council, etc) · Additional issue raised by MPO member, not discussed: City and County sidewalk development and maintenance MPO Bike/Ped Plan Update; future session on funding? Land Use Plans · Where is high density really planned (a lot of the comp. plan map shows low density)? How will it be ensured to be attractive? Comprehensive plans, DISC followup, Eastern Planning Initiative · What is our shared vision for transit and development, especially along specific corridors such as Fifth St. Extended or areas that would make good busways? Comprehensive plans, Eastern Planning Initiative Traffic and Road Plans · Are our plans based on a goal to get rid of the internal combustion engine? MPO report · Do Americans have a "love affair" with the automobile which precludes public transportation as a solution? Will new roads alone (Meadow Creek Parkway and a western bypass) solve the problems? MPO report · What do we know about the Rio Road/Park Street traffic situation? How have we addressed the question of whether the Parkway will stimulate through traffic out Avon Street through the city? Will a near-eastern connector between Rio Road and Pantops help? MPO review/discuss · Is the Western Bypass, supposedly estimated at $200 million now, too expensive to be considered cost-effective? Is the concept of a rail line between Charlottesville and Danville for $180 million an alternative worth exploring? Talk with VDRPT · Why were the proposed interchanges on US 29 dropped? What's planned in their place? MPO report · Additional issues raised by MPO member not discussed: County Urban Road funding, Followup meeting with VDOT/ on funding; · Additional issue raised by MPO member not discussed: Traffic Calming MPO track City's traffic calming plan update, recommend next spring whether to proceed with regional plan Decision Making Process · Should the MPO have more members? representation? MPO consider, report Does it need a broader community Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 4 · Who coordinates City and County comprehensive planning, economic development, and environmental goal-setting? Local staff report, topic for a followup strategy-setting meeting? · What should be the MPO's role in coordinating land use plans with transportation? How is the MPO assuring that its plans and policies are meeting local goals? MPO consider, report · How can the Planning Commissions better work together? How can this be improved? One suggestion was to have one Commissioner from each board serve nonvoting on the other board. Another was regular joint meetings. Local staff report, part of future strategy meeting? · Should we have a regional planning authority? TJPDC address, topic for future forum? · How can we better coordinate our land use plans with VDOT plans such as saving right of way where it's needed and coordinating development with sensisible road access to avoid creating congestion? M?O discuss with VDOT? Topic for future forum with VDOT? · How can we make VDOT and the CTB understand and respond to our needs better? How are they required to respond to local voices? Topic for future forum with VDOT? · How can UVA be more visibly involved in community planning? Topic for future forum with UVA? Review effectiveness of PACC? Community Involvement · Could we create a community planning resources center at the library? Stafffollowup · Could we support a community design center, such as the one proposed by UVA? UVA be asked to update us on their proposal, topic for future strategy forum? · Should/could VDOT and the CTB hold more, well advertised public meetings? Topic for VDOT forum? Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 5 C) Verbatim Questions/Comments from Discussion and Postcards Transit: More small, more smart buses! Does it seem like a good idea, in light of our goal to reduce automobile usage, to build the Meadow Creek Parkway at a time when better state funding opportunities, along with GIS and GPS capability, stand to revolutionize public transit and ridesharing? We should stop building any more roads until we have a real- time ridesharing system that puts technology to work making transit and ridesharing more efficient. Didn't Portland make extensive use of planning sequences where it committed to transit service routes first, before development, and then encouraged development around transit? Have Traffic Reduction How do we track the changes and trends in reducing automobile dependence? What comes first? Do you change the system, or people's attitudes toward automobile dependence? Could we create more cooperative incentives to reduce automobile dependence, such as parking programs to give carpoolers an advantage? How about Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies for demand-response (on- call) transit? How can we get kids back on school buses and out of their cars? It's a problem from several fronts: high teenage accident rates, school resources wasted on under-utilized buses, and a training program for a new generation of automobile-dependent adults. What is UVA doing to reduce its traffic impacts? Land Use Plans the City and County planned this? Unlike schools, water, police and fire protection, why should all county residents pay for a service for a few along bus routes? Or do you plan to offer bus service to all the square miles of Albemarle County? If urban areas need transportation, why not create a transportation district which would be taxed to provide transportation services? Is rail a real option for trucks using Route 29? The General Assembly just endorsed a study proposal on moving trucks off of 1-81. Rail freight is competitive to truck freight in terms of speed and reliability for hauls of at least 500 miles. If transit-friendly development is a goal, why is so much very much of Charlottesville zoned single-family, Iow density? Shouldn't there be much less yellow on the zoning map? Is there a shared vision for the Fifth Street Extended area? The City economic development corridor study includes design recommendations for transit- oriented development very similar to the DISC recommendations - can we start, as did Portland 20 years ago, to combine these plans with dedicated busway plans? (Note - Portland only started their rail program 13 years ago; it was preceded by years of land use planning and busways). The DISC initiatives and City Comprehensive Plan analysis support high density communities that are more attractive than traditional Iow density options. How can we actually achieve that kind of density physically and politically? The City's transition zone area currently being developed near Fifeville may be a demonstration case. Traffic and Road Plans Americans have a "love affair" with the automobile. Providing public transportation is Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 6 not going to solve the problem. Meadow Creek Parkway and a western bypass will solve the problem. Why did supervisors veto overpasses at Hydraulic and Rio Roads? I don't agree with Al Gore that we should get rid of the internal combustion engine, which seems to be the basis of much of your planning. What percentage of current traffic on Rio Road/ Park Street has origin/destination of 1) Pantops and 250 East and 2) Avon Street Extended? What is the current status of the Western Bypass? What is the status of the study of water resource impacts of the proposed Route 29 bypass? Mrs. Humphris noted the consultant study is now underway and recommendations are expected by July. broader group of stakeholders be planning our regional transportation planning future? In the interest of the 3-C planning process, shouldn't the City and County coordinate their comprehensive planning and economic development efforts? Why is this not coordinated? It appears there is no coordination between VDOT and local governments to ensure that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to expand highway capacity is not nullified by intensive land development along the highway. VVhat mechanisms can be developed to prevent major highways from suffering from excessive numbers of access poitns (driveways) so Route 29 North doesnt' end up congested with many traffic lights as it does north of Danville and Lynchburg? Has right of way for the Eastern Connector between Rio Road and Pantops (mentioned by Meredith Richards) been designated? Where? The scenario [mentioned by Ms. Thomas] in which 19,000 additiona vehicles (11,000 trucks) per day could be diverted onto Route 29 in Charlottesville is projected to occur only if Route 29 north of Charlottesville were completely upgraded to a 65 mile-per-hour limited access facility, which is doubtful. Why were the proposed interchanges on US 29 dropped? Mr. Martin noted this was a Commonwealth Transportation Board decision to drop all three interchanges based on the City's request to drop one at Hydraulic Road; the County did not support this decision and felt they were still needed. How do we develop and convey our voice to VDOT/CTB regarding our local needs? How do we organize the public to do so? How do we use state law and regulation of VDOT to insist on a voice and hold VDOT accountable? Do you believe it is possible to have a City Planning Commissioner on the County Planning Commission and vice versa, in a nonvoting role? If not, why not? It seems logical and necessary. How about a regional planning authority? Is UVA an official member of the planning committees mentioned, such as the DISC? Can UVA be invited to take more of an official role, such as speaking on a panel at the next joint meeting? I was told by a VDOT consultant that the Western Bypass would cost $200 million (latest estimate) not $180 million. An entire new rail line from Charlottesville to Danville would be $180 million. The Policy Statement on the wall states that the transportation plan will be consistent with local environmental goals. What specifically are those goals? Who sets those goals? How is consistency of plans and goals ensured? Decision Making Process Community Involvement Hannah identified the membership of the MPO as two city councilors, two county supervisors, and one VDOT member. Shouldn't a much Could all these documents and maps also be placed at the public library? It's useful to have them on the Internet, but a comprehensive Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 7 reference of all paper documents is also needed. Could VDOT/CTB hold more public meetings to solicit community feedback, and could such meetings be well advertised with lots of notice? What are the statutory or policy mandates for such meetings? Could the localities create a community design center, so that maps, planning tools, documents could be kept on display, and so community forums could be held? Mrs. Humphris noted the University of Virginia Design Resources Center had made a presentation to the County Board a year or two ago with a proposal to set up just such a center. They were now looking for funds, she understood. Impact of Technology We are thinking of the future as if it will be similar to today, but in fact travel patterns and lifestyles are likely to be radically altered by new uses of technology. Look at any issue of Business Week -- the way we conduct business is nothing like it was even five years ago; government and education are sure to change as well. In particular, it is becoming less and less necessary to physically move people in order to communicate. In 15 years kids may attend school classes from home half the week while their parents telework from home. How can we be more open to the possibilities of technology and ready to take advantage of those features which can reduce our automobile dependence? D Information Presented at the Meeting Below is the meeting agenda. The following pages include the slide presentations and minutes of the discussion. Charlottesville City Council and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Work Session on Transportation, Monday April 10, 7:30-9:30 p.m. The Senior Center, Greenbrier Drive & Pepsi Place, Charlottesville Goals Educate elected officials and public on history and current status of regional transportation planning, including its relationship to land use Develop a list of items and issues to be addressed. These will be stated in the form of questions to make it easier to identify the appropriate followup action. Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 8 Identify followup actions Agenda 7:30 -8:30 p.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Presentations Introductions: Led by Virginia Daugherty and Charles Martin Local Land Use Planning Philosophies and Relationship to Transportation Presenters: Wayne Cilimberg, Jim Tolbert Regional Transportation Planning Overview Presenters: Hannah Twaddell Single-Occupant-Vehicle (SOV) Alternatives Planning and Programs Presenters: Hannah Twaddell, Helen Poore, Donna Shaunesey Key Issues Presenters: Sally Thomas, Meredith Richards 8:30-9:20 p.m. Discussion and Listing of Questions for Further Examination The Board, Council, and audience members will be provided with index cards at the start of the meeting. They will be asked to write one question per card as a way to begin the facilitated conversation. At about 9:00 a staff member will collect the cards from the audience and share any additional questions or ideas. All the cards will be collected at the end of the evening in order to prepare a summary in the meeting minutes. In addition members of the public will be encouraged to continue providing comments and questions to the officials and staff 9:20--9:30 p.m.: Action Plan to Address Questions Adjourn Charlottesville City Council/Albemarle Board of Supervisors Report: Work Session on Transportation April 10 2000 Prepared by MPO staff DRAFT April 26, 2000 Page 9 attach copies of slide show and minutes here. AIb C ville_Transportation_Sess CTITLE Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mrs. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr.& Mrs. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. FNAME J.S. Katie Robert Rodney David P. Charlotte Len Charles S. Bob Blake Angela George Don Kevin Petie Jerry Dan Eldon Peter Deborah Bruce Tony Gilbert & B Tracey T Paul Doug Stratton Michael LNAME Cragwetl Hobbs Tucker Thomas Bowerman Humphris Schoppa Martin Watson Caravati Tucker Larie Wells Lynch Craddock Deily Painter Wood Kleeman Murray Appleyard Gardner Black Hopper Pollard Blinkoe Campbell Salidio Mahan TITLE COMPANY Colonnades President AIb. Neighb County Exe County of A Charlottesv Associate Dept. of Go Chairman Board of Su CALAC VDOT VDOT TPD Chville Fed Retired Federal Rail Transportat City of Char Southern E Southern E ADDRESS City State 2600 Barra Charlottesv VA 337 Carrsb Charlottesv VA 401 Mclntir Charlottesv VA 3411 India Charlottesv VA 401 Berwic Charlottesv VA 109'Falcon Charlottesv VA University o Charlottesv VA 200 Pinerid Charlottesv VA 550 Hillsda Charlottesv VA 1108 Little Charlottesv VA 701 VDOT Charlottesv VA 107 Tally H Charlottesv VA 1401 East Richmond VA 609 Locust Charlottesv VA Rt 9 Box 4- Charlottesv VA 1309 Carte Charlottesv VA PO Box 91 Charlottesv VA 104 Village Charlottesv VA 407 Hedge Charlottesv VA 201 West Charlottesv VA 201 West Charlottesv VA 1608 Marin Chalottesvil VA 114 Hessia Charlottesv VA 2552 East Charlottesv VA 1825 Yorktown Circle VA 118 Deerwood Road VA 2552 Easth Charlottesv VA 900 Avon S Charlottesv VA 701 E. Hig Charlottesv VA ZIP 22901 22901 22902 22901 22901 22901 22903 22911 22901 22902 22911 22901 23219 22902 22902 22901 22902 22903 22902 22901 22902 22911 22901 22911 22911 22902 FAX 296-5800 979-4685 973-0302 296-7806 924-3359 979-0696 817-2836 296-9636 979-3759 Y Y 804-225-47 Y Y Y Y 970-3359 Y 293-8534 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 977-1483 977-1483 ACT Session Y Y Y Y Y .y Y Y Y Y Page i Charlottesville 'City Council and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Work Session on Transportation Monday April 10, 7:30-9:30 p.m. The Senior Center Greenbrier Drive & Pepsi Place, Charlottesville Regional Transportation Information Notebook Contents Meeting Agenda Thomas Jefferson Planning District Transportation Planning Program The Transportation Planning Process (chart) Sum~ mary Of Transportation Funding Programs CATS 2015 Project Plan (includes Glossary of Transportation Terms) * Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Improvement Program 1991-92 Three party Agreement and Related MPO and CTB Resolutions Fiscal Year 2000 MPO Work Program Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative Project DesCription Highlights of Regional Transportation Studies and Reports MPO Policy Board Members and Staff List Presentation handout~ (to be distributed at meeting). * The CATS plan references s'everal maps which are not included in this notebook. A number of CATS 2015 maps and other more recentl~ updated maps will be distributed with the handouts at the meeting. Other CATS 2015 plan maps are available upon request, or can be vieWed on the M PO's website at www.avenue.oro/tjpdc The Thomas Jefferson Transportation Planning Pro g rarn ~ Planning and promoting activities to protect and enhance the quality of life in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. now and for generations to come, through a balanced transportation system which integrates all travel modes and complements environmental, economic. and community development goals. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization The Thomas Jefferson Rural Area Transportation Study Program RideShare Post Office Box 1505 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 phone: (804) 979-7310 fax: (804) 979-1597 emaih tjpd@state, va. us Website: avenue.-org/tjpd Updated November, 1999 The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the forum for cooperative transportation decision:making among Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) officials. The N[PO Policy Board includes two City Councilors, two COunty Supervisors and one_ VDOT representative. The MPO Technical Committee includes local citizens and local, regional, and sta._~ transportation planning staff. The Charlottesville Area Transportation Study fCA TS) is the 20-year transportation plan for the MPO study area, updated every five years. Transportation projects requiring federal approval must be included in the CATS as well as the annually updated Transportation Improvement Program, which lists, proiects for the coming three-year period. The CATS 1995-2015 mission and guiding policies were approved by the MPO in December, 1994; a project plan was adopted in January, 1998. A CATS 2025 update is expected to be done by the end of 2003. CA TS 2015 Mission The Charlottesville-Albemarle metropolitan area transportation system will provide an appropriate blend of transportation alternatives to support the movement of people, goods, services and information in the most efficient and effective manner possible, addressing regional and statewide transportation needs in a manner consistent with local goals to maintain and enhance quafity of life. · Policy 1: Environment: The transportation system will support preservation and enhancement of the natural environment through two major objectives: A) Integrate and promote alternatives to the automobile; and B) Ensure transportation plans are consistent with local land use and environmental preservation goals, and that facilities are developed and built in a manner sensitive to the environment. · Policy 2: Economy: The Charlottesville-Albemarle metropolitan area transportation system will support and enhance a vital local and regional economy. ~- · Policy 3: Neighborhood and Community Development: The transportation system will support ioC__~ government plans to support and enhance neighborhoods and a sense of community within the region. · Policy 4: Community Services and Facilities: The transportation system will support the needs and goals of people in the region for access to community services and cultural/recreational facilities. CA TS 2015 Project Plan Objective: Establish a transportation infrastructure which supports development of a sustainable community and initiates a trend toward reduced dependence on the automobile. · Strategy l: Develop road, air, and rail infrastructures which provide human-scale connections among urban communities, and efficient global access. · Strategy 2: Build a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities among and within urban communities. · Strategy 3: Establish a foundation of infrastructure, programs, and policies which initiate a long-term trend towards reduced dependence on the automobile. Transportation Modes for which CA TS 2015 projects are proposed include(see last page for FY99 projects): · Air and Rail Transportation · Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation · Coordinated Land Use and Transportation Planning · Public Transit and Ridesharing · Road Transportation · Telecommunications · Workplace and Neighborhood Trip Reduction The RuralArea Transportation Study Program is the cooperative forum for transportation planning among VDOT and the localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (T]PDC). The Rural Area Transportation Study Policy Board includes the twelve elected officials and citizens of the T]PDC. ,The Technical Committee includes PDt, and YDOT planning staff working with Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson Counties; the City of Charlottesville also participates in Rural Study meetings. The Rural Area Transportation Study Year 2015, will be coordinated and compatible with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study Year 2015 developed by the Charlottesville-Albemarle ]Vletropolitan Pla nning Organization (lvlpo). The chief goal ofthestudy is to merge important transportation issues and transportation funding priorities with local and regional land use trends and policies so that transportation decisions and land use policies work together. Outline for Rural Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Executive Sum mary I Introduction A. Purpose of the Study B. Study Area C. Regional Profile and Population Trends !I Overview of Regional Transportation System A. Regional Transportation Network B. Six Year Improvement Program for FY 1998-99 C. Roads and Data From ! 994-20! 5 Statewide Highway Needs Inventory D. Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes E. ]AUNT and Greene County Transit F. Charlottesville Transit System (CTS) and University of Virginia Transit System (UTS) Service Areas ' G. RideShare Program H. Park and Ride Lots Ill Individual County. Profiles A. Albemarle County: Profile and Population Trends; Local Transportation Network B. Fluvanna County: Profile and Population Trends; Local Transportation Network C. Greene County: Profile and Population Trends; Local Transportation Network D. Louisa County: Profile and Population Trends; Local Transportation Network E. Nelson County: Profile and Population Trends; Local Transportation Network IV Conclusions V Recommendations V! Priorities RideShare is a regional agency with programs that support alternatives to single occupant vehicle transportation. Housed at the T]PDC, RideShare services include carpool and vanpool matching, referrals to transit providers, inventory of Park ~ Ride lots, assistance developing neighbOrhood trip reduction programs, a Guaranteed Ride Home Program, promotion of bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and customized planning for employers who want to improve commuter choices, save money, and reduce traffic. All RideShare services are FREE. Studies and Activities in which the Thomas Jefferson Transportation Planning Program is involved include: 1) Air and Rail Information Development A) Information-Sharing with Airport Authority and Amtrak B) Data Collection on Light Rail Options and Feasibility (SOY Alternatives Committee) 2) Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation (Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking AdviSory Committee) B) C) D) E) F) Route 29 North Urban Area Pedestrian Study (Implementation) Regional Bicycle Plan Regional Pedestrian Plan TEA-21 (ISTEA) Enhancement Grant Development Bicycle Safety Promotion/Education Traffic Calming Pilot Projects 3) Coordinated Land Use and Transportation Planning A) Eastern Planning Initiative (development of regional computer model and 50-year vision/plan) B) Albemarle Development Areas Initiatives Study C) Neighborhood Accessibility Index C) Fluvanna County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Component D) Louisa CoUnty Comprehensive Plan Transportation Component E) Nelson County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Component (proposed) F) Data Development for Urban Area Year 2025 Traffic Model 4) Public Transit and Ridesharing (Single Occupant Vehicle (SOY) Alternatives Advisory Comm/tte A) Transit/Ridesharing Marketing and Service Improvements B) Park and Ride Planning and Development 5) Road Planning and Design A) B) C) D) E) F) G) H) Route 29 Bypass Design Meadow Creek Parkway Design Route 250 West Corridor Study Route 250 East Corridor Study Route 29 South Corridor Study Route 29 North Access Management Studies Route 29 North Urban Area Intersection Study (proposed) Route 151 Corridor Study (joint project with VDOT 8[ University of VA) 6) Telecommunications A) Computer Transportation Information Center (fund development to test an operations center) B) Transit Automatic Vehicle Location System Proposal C) Traffic Signal Coordination Strategy D) Telework and Internet Impacts/Opportunities (through RideShare and Eastern Planning Initiative) 7) Worksite and Neighborhood Trip Reduction A) B) C) D) E) Employer Initiatives Neighborhood Trip Reduction Program Guaranteed Ride Home Program Trip Reduction Education and Events (Traffic Diet Game, Give Air a Brake Day) School and Community Education THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: How Projects are Proposed, Planned and Implemented Graphic prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, 12;'95 LOCALITY ] REGION I STATE City Public Worka Dept builds or contracts for small projects, bandies city transit service and ad,Ases YDOT on contracts for state/federal projects funded locally, and advise VDOT on contracts for state/federal funded projects. MPO and PDC monitor status of projects, may participate in design studies in advisory capacity Specific locations and designs developed by Central Offie~ Design/Location Division and/or District Engineer. Right of Way purchased by ROW Division. Construction contracted by District or Resident Engineer's office. Transit grant funding fonvarded to local government operators by VDRPT. 4) Implementing Projects Local improvement plans, such as Albemarle County's six-year road plan, identify priorities and funding sources. Local Capital Improvement Plans include projects to be done with local funding. Local governments approve allocations to JAUNT and CTS each spring as part of the local ~get cycle. M~PO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), updated annually, identifies federally approved road, transit, and related projects to be completed in the urban region. Other state, local, or private projects, are included in the TI~ for information. (Approved in August, forwarded to state for State approval in September) State Six-Year Improvement Program, updated annually, identifies state budgets and anticipated federal funds for road, transit, safety, maintenance, and congestion reduction projects, (Approved in June for July 1 fiscal year). State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), updated annually, identifies federal funds to be matched with state and other sources (Approved in September for Oct 1 fiscal year). 3) Planning Budgets and Timetables Comprehensive Plans (updated every five years), special neighborhood or area studies, and ongoing maintenance plans for County engineers and city Public Works department are primary sources of information. MPO Charlottes~411e Area Transportation Study (CATS, a 2- year plan updated every five years, PDC Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS) ongoing regional traffic modeling assessments, and special studies of the MPO and the PDC are primary sources of information. State Multlmodal Long Range Plan (20 year plan updated every five years) Highway Needs Assessment (ongoing database updates), special area studies, Environmental Impact Statements and annual VDRPT rail plans and transit evaluations are primary sources ofinforrnation. 2) Assessing Needs & i Identifying i Projects Public 6omment is soUght prior fo the approval of annual budgets, including Capital Improvement Plans, and throughout the process of updating Comprehensive Plans. Members of the public may speak at any local council or board meetings, and to individual elected officials or ,~lanning commissioners. Citizens !so regularly appointed to serve c...~ocal planning boards and . comrmttees. Public comment is sought every February and June for the Annual update of the TIP, and throughout the process of developing the CATS update. Public hearings are held each June prior to approval of the MPO annual work program and regarding completion of major bi-PO or PDC studies. Members of the public may speak at any MPO or PDC meetings, and to any indMdual M-PO or PDC member. Public comment is solicited every spring at the District and Central offices for the annual update of the state six year program, and for each stage of major plans, environmental impact studies, and design and location studies. Members of the public may talk with their Commonwealth Transportation Board representatives at any time. 1) Public Input City Council THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: Staff, Committees and Boards Who Develop and Approve Plans Graphic by Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, 12/9.5 Commonwealth Transportation Board MPO Policy Board II County Board of Supervisors The CTB approves the Statewide Six-Year ~..,~ Program every June and the Statewide Transportation Improvement program every September, as well as making amendments as requested through the year. Local government bodies approve annual capital improvement plans, urban and secondary road plans, and transit budgets every spring, as well as the local comprehensive plan every five years'. The MPO Policy Board approves the Transportation Improvement Program every July, and updates the CATS (20-year plan) every five years. City Planning Commission MPO Technical Committee County Planning Commission Planning Commissions review transportation improvements with site plans, and update the local comprehensive plan every five years. The MPO Technical Committee reviews study results and serves as a forum to discuss local plans. City Staff& VDOTUrban Engineer MPO Staff'& VDOT Transportation Planning Engineer MPO and Local Government Citizen Advisory Committees & Task Forces County Staff & VDOT Resident Engineer Local staff and engineers discuss new or updated planning ideas every autumn Appointments to Committees /~--~, are made by local governments or the IMPO. Applications are advertised in local media. Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902; (804) 979-7310; fax: (804) 979-1597 Virginia Relay Center for hearing impaired: (800) 828-1140 (voice); (800) 828-1120 (TDD) cmail: tjpd~state.va.us; website: http://avenue.org/tjpdc Summary of Transportation Funding Programs, Updated January 27, 1999 FEDERAL PROGRAMS Transportation funds from the federal. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) are allocated to Virginia through a variety of.federal categories, some of which are set by formulas and others of which are competitive grants. The federal funds are. allocated to the State, which allocates them through the Six Year ImprOvement Program updated annually by the Commonwealth TranspOrtation Boar& A few grants can be accessed directly by local governmentS, and/or the MPO, such as the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot program. The federal regulations allow the use of funds as described in each program, but do not necessarily require those uses. For example, NHS and STP funds can be used for sidewalk improvements, but do not have to be. In some cases, federal rules do require set asides for programs, such as the Enhancement and Safety programs of the STP. However, the choices are made bYthe States as to which projects are funded under those set asides. Federal Highway Construction Programs (most can be 'flexed" to other alternatives) National Highway System (NHS): .Allocations are made to each state based on miles of principal arterial, vehicle miles traveled, diesel fuel used, and per capita lane miles, for projects on the NHS and Interstate system, including connectors to other modes~ public bus terminals, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) capital improvements, and natural habitat migration. Interstate System/Maintenance (IM): Within the NHS, IM funding is allocated based on lane-miles of interstate routes, vehicle miles traveled, and commercial vehicle contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. Projects include completing gaps, building certain additions, and reconstructing sections. States which do no have interstate cOnstruction needs may transfer IM funds to other NHS projects. Surface Transportation Program (STP): STP funds are allocated based on lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, and contributions to the Highway Trust Fund, and can be used for a wide variety of projects including highways, rural minor collectors, NHS roads, bridges on any public ro.ad, transit capital, public bus terminals and facilities, environmental provisions (natural habitat migration, stormwater retrofit, anti-icing), sidewalk improvements to meet ADA requirements; ITS capital imprOvements; and private intercity bus terminals and facilities. Ten percent of STP funds must go to Safety programs; and ten percent mustgo to Enhancements. Virginia's Enhancement program allows funding for any projects eligible under federal law; some states chose to restrict eligibility to a subset of the federal categories. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation: These funds may be used for any public road bridge improvement. Up to 50 percent can be transferred to NHS or STP projects, but the amount transferred is deducted from the following year's formula calculation, Federal Lands Highways: For improvements to Indian Reservation roads, Park Roads and Parkways, Public Lands Highways (including Forest Highways) and Refuge Roads, which are federally owned public roads to or within National Wildlife Refuges. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Summary of Transportation Funding, Updated January 27, 1999 Page 2 Federal Transit Programs Formula Grants: After set asides for the Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program, the Clean program, and the Alaska Railroad, fimds are allocated by formulas to urbanized areas, non-urbanized areas, and elderly/disabled programs. Areas under 200,000 may use funds for operating or capital. Capital expenses can now include preventive maintenance, non-fixedmute paratransit service, equipment or facility leasing, safety equipment and facilities, transit enhancements, and facilities that incorporate community services such as day care and health care. Transit enhancements can include historic preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian and bicycle access, and access for people with disabilities. Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program: Funding for public and private intercity, local commuter, charter, and local fixed route bus services to become accessible to people with disabilities. Clean Fuels formula grant program: Funds allocated based on non-attainment rating, number of buses, and bus passenger miles to purchase or lease clean fuel buses and facilities. Capital Investment Grants: Programs include new starts, fixed guide way modernization, and bus projects. Rural Transit Assistance: a planning and research program for rural areas. Federal Rail Programs Maglev Technology Deployment: Funding for nationally significant demonstrations of the feasibility and safet-f--~ of magnetic levitation transit. Several projects may be funded for planning; one will then be selected construction. Staff has just learned that Virginia Tech has abandoned its plan to develop a one mile section of experimental MAGLEV track, and is checking to see if the project can be relocated to the Charlottesville area. Light Density Rail Line Pilot: A new program for pilot light rail projects. The Secretary is required to report by March, 2003, on the importance of light density railroad networks in the states. Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing: A loan program for buying, developing, improving, or rehabilitating intermodal or rail equipment or facilities including tracks, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops. Special Federal Programs Access to Jobs: Funds to support transit for welfare recipients and Iow income people to and from jobs, with a special Reverse Commute program for transit from urban to suburban areas. States are also offered funds to support training of welfare reform clients in highway construction. Large transit providers in Virginia apply directly to the FTA for these grants; smaller providers submit applications to VDRPT which bundles them together in priority order. Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP): This is a new program for planning and implementation of ideas and projects to promote the efficiency of the transportation system, promote the land use/transportation connection, and avoid the need for costly investments in highway infrastructure. Localities~-., MPO's, and states apply to their FHWA state office, which submits the proposals to the FHWA headquarters f~ ,..~j selection. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Summary of Transportation Funding, Updated January 27, 1999 Page 3 Innovative Finance: New experimental public-private funding mechanisms include Direct Federal Credit to public-private sponsors of major surface transportation projects, enabling them to gain access to capital markets; state infrastructure banks in CA, FL, MO, and RI; federal matching flexibility allowing adjustments of match requirements during the life of a project; and increasing the possible sources of match to include sources such as the fair market value of public land, and funds from other federal agencies to support trails and enhancement projects. VDOT staffis participating in training programs to leam about new federal credit programs. Virginia was participating in the ISTEA state infrastructure bank program before TEA-2 ! was passed which limited availability of the bank program to four states. The Virginia program had raised $18 million for the 1-895 road around P,~chmond. Requirements to comply with federal regulations in order to use the loaned funds (even those used to repay.the :loans) were a disincentive for Virginia to lobby for inclusion in the TEA-21 bill for this program. Congress may adjust the regulations and the list of eligible states in the upcoming session, as several states were severely hurt by being dropped from the program. Minimum Guarantee: This new program fills the gap after funds from all other programs are allocated, so that Virginia's total federal allocation is 90.5% of the gas tax revenues it collects (up from 80% under ISTEA). The CTB allocates these dollars into the CTB Statewide fund; in FY99 it elected to use this $35 million at the statewide level, largely to continue projects that were in the STP statewide program under ISTEA. For example, $4 million of VA Railway Express program funding was continued through this function, as well as a statewide allocation to VDRPT for bus purchases. Federal Bicycle, Pedestrian, Environmental Programs Transportation Enhancements: About three times more funding is available; match can include other federal sources; and new categories have been added including safety education for pedestrians and bicyclists; transportation museums; and projects to reduce wildlife mortality. Projects must show a clear relationship to surface transportation. States may set their own priorities for eligible projects. Virginia allows any project eligible under federal law to be funded under the Virginia program. Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways: NHS funds can now be used for pedestrian walk-ways; safety and educational activities are now eligible.for TE funds. Increased emphasis is placed on bicycle/pedestrian planning. Recreational Trails: About three times morelfunding is available. States must establish a trails advisory committee. 30% of funds must go to motorized trails; 30% to noumotorized; the remaining 40% can go to either or both. Federal share is raised from 50% to 80%, and match soumes are expanded to include other federal sources and soft match from public agencies. Currently Virginia has not been allocated any funding from this program. National Scenic Byways: Funding for states to develop byway programs and related projects along National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, and State Scenic Byways. Virginia has been allocated a small amount of funding from this program. Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot: Funding for planning, research, and implementation of projects which improve the efficient relationship between transportation and land use and lessen the need for costly futUre public investments. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Summary Of Transportation Funding, Updated January 27, 1999 Page 4 Federal Safety Programs Alcohol Programs: States with active DUI laws are eligible for incentive grants for any project under Title 23 the US Code. Grants are also available to enact drunk driving countermeasure programs (such as suspending licences). States without open container lawS and minimum penalties for repeat offenders will have a portion of their NHS, STP, and Interstate funds transferred to their highway safety program for use in developing DUI programs and laws, and/or Hazard Elimination projects. Virginia does have an active DUI law, and got $3:8 million for FY99 to go towards safety and .behaviourial programs. Virginia's open container law does not meet the requirement for federal funds; a General Assembly bill introduced in 1998 has been carried over to 1999 to bring Virginia into compliance.. If the bill is not passed, Virginia will be required to move $6 million from highway and transit programs to behaviourial programs each year. Seat Belt and Occupant Protection: States who produce savings on federal medical costs based on their seat belt use rates are eligible for grants toward any Title 23 project. Grants are also available for seat belt and child passenger protection education and programs. State and Community Grants: This is a behavioral and roadway highway safety formula grant program, of which at least 40 percent must be spent by each state on local traffic safety problems. Infrastructure Safety: At least ten percent of STP funds must be. set aside for safety construction, including off- road and bicycle safety improvements; Rail-Highway Crossings, including bicycle safety; Hazard Elimination, including highways, interstates, public transit facilities; public bicycle and pedestrian paths, and traffic calming. Other federal programs of interest · Transit Benefits: The limit on'nontaxable trans}t and vanpool benefits is increased fi:om $65 to $100 per month as of January 1, 2002. Beginning January 1, 1998, transit and vanpOol benefits can be offered in lieu of compensation. These changes make transit benefits more similar to existing parking benefits. · Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Protection (CMAQ): For congestion and traffic reduction in nonattainment areas; Charlottesville may quali .fy after the new EPA standards are applied. Virginia has concerns about, the potential for several areas being added to the CMAQ eligibility based on the new standards and/or 2000 Census population figUres, given that no additional funds are proposed for these new areas. · Emergency Relief: Funds for repairs in case of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. · Bureau of Transportation'Statistics · University Transportation Centers: Funds the VA Transportation Research Council at UVA, along with 22 other centers. · National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation · Ferry Boats: VDOT staff is checking to see if the Hatton Ferry is eligible for these funds. · State Highway Safety Data Improvement Incentive Grants · Highway Safety Research and Development · National Driver Register · Automobile Safety and Information · Motor Carrier Information Systems ~-~ · Motor Carrier Safety Enforcement and Compliance ° Recreational Boating Safety · Operation Lifesaver, a national program for rail/highway crossing safety education Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Summary of Transportation Funding, Updated January 27, 1999 Page 5 · Congressional Reports: Among other reports, the US Secretary of Transportation is required to report by June, 2000, on the involvement of local elected officials in transportation planning and programming. Value - Pri~ing: Funds't0~ irripldrh~fit ~,'~lue"pri~-i~'proj'~ in u~-~td' ~5 r~dw s'{~te and l~t~l- pr'(~-~r~i~ns,"including public participation and planning.. Replaces ISTEA Congestion Pricing Pilot program. · On the Job Training/Supportive Services: Funds to support promotion and programs for transportation "teChnology' ~areers/ · .High Speed Rail Development: Continuation of the Swift Rail Development Act, which is incrementally building high speed rail corridors throughout the country. · High. Priority Projects: Earmarks were set for 1,850 special projects,, none of which were in the Thomas Jefferson region. STATE PROGRAMS The Commonwealth Transportation Board allocates federal and state transportation dollars to localities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District through the following programs. Some programs have specific formulas which specify the amounts ofm.0..n, ey available to the program, and the amounts allocated to each VDOT district and/or locality, based upon factors such as miles of highway and vehicle miles traveled. While funding formulas determine the amount of funds available for each locality, they do not restrict how those funds can be u~ed. Localities work through their Urban'engineer (in cities) and their ReSident engineer (in counties) to identify transportation needs and propose projects of a variety of modes (such as roads, transit, pedestrian, bicycle) to the Commonwealth Transportation Board during the Six Year Program Pre Allocation hearings every spring. The CTB usually fimds the requests for Urban and Secondary funds as presented, given availability of monies; requests for primary and interstate projects are more heavily weighed against statewide needs. A 1998 General AssemblY bill Was Passed to ensure that the fleicibility of state funds ~natched the fl~xibiiity-o f federal funds. If a locality wishes to use a highway allocation for a transit project, they need to work with their VDOT representative'on a proposal which identifies the project and, if applicable, its effect on current road project budgets. Primary and Interstate: All primary and interstate roads (route numbers less than 600). Allocated by. formula. Urban: ~All City road projects except Primary and Interstate. Allocated by formula.' Secondary (inc]~dir~paVihg of d-i~'-r0'~td~): All Cotin¢-~t~ate-maihtaihed i¢hd~s"Wlih-~0fit¢~numb~rs'd00 or' greater. Allocated by formulas. - Rail/Highway Crossing: Part of the federal safety set aside is used for this program, which focuses on lights, guard rails, and other improvements at rail road crossings. New federal guidelines allow improvements specifically for bicycle safety, and require that bicycle safety be considered in planning for this program. Hazard Elimination: Part of the federal safety set aside is used for this program, which includes projects such as guardrails and fog lighting. Bridge: All bridge construction and repair in urban and rural areas is funded through this program, which has 80% federal funding. Revenue Sharing' A 50/50 funding program with local governments for up to $1 million total project cost per year. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Summary of Transportation Funding, Updated January 27, 1999 Page 6 Transit: Matching of federal grants. Allocated by'formulas. VDRPT submits a request for. funds each year to the CTB .................................... during the preallocation hearings; the amount approved is'allocated to transit prov_i~ers t~o~ugh the formul~'' · system. Ridesharing: Entirely State funded in the Thomas Jefferson PDC area; regions in nonattainment areas can use CMAQ funds for ridesharing 15rograms. 'Coihpetitive grant program. Experimental Funds: State programs for innovative transit facilities. Technical Assistance: State programs with some federal funds for transit research, planning, and educational activities Enhancement: Virginia created a competitive grant program with its enhancement set aside; local governments apPly each year for the total pool 0f funds. Attempts are made to distribute the funds evenly throughout the state, but no formulas are used: Traffic Calming (,pilot program): This is currently in the pilot stage for the new funding program; Albemarle County i.s participating in the pilot and has found it difficult for suburban or rural areas to qualify; the program is really designed for 'cities. Cut-Through Traffic Reduction: Cities or counties can request projects to be funded through this program, which funds measures to discOurage cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. It is not a separate set-aside, but a type of projeCt Which. can be funded, usually at the discretion of the resident engineer. This program, along with the Traf~,~-~ Calming program and the process through which Counties can ban trucks on VDOT roads,_comprises the mdi-~,~ resource Counties have for traffic management. ~ .... _ Intelligent'Trati'Sp~i~tation Systenis: VDOT's ITS divisi0ff funds research-and develop-mefi( Of ITS 'Projects. TEA-21 alsO allows the use of NHS, STP, and Transit funds for ITS projects District or Resident Engineer's projects can include: road and sidewalk maintenance; traffic signals; some traffic_ calming prgjec~_s; road signage (including trayeler~informa~tion);~_ ~an.d !.~dsc~Pi..ng. Legislative Earmarks: Funds can also be obtained through the General Assembly and Congressional delegations in order to get funds earmarked during the annual allocations of funds. $1 million was earmarked to UVA in the TEA'21 bill f6i: a portion of the prOpOsed pedestrian/small van bridge over Emmet Street.' FUnding Chart On the following three pages are charts which summarize the major programs through which localities can request transportation funds from the Commonwealth Transportation'Board. These were ~ompiled by Barbara Reese, VDOT Financial planning and Debt Management Division, and by MPO staff. Funding Categories City Street Payments CTB Statewide Enhancement Safety Non-interstate NHS Construction Urban Co nstruction Recreational Access Industrial, Airport, and Rail Access City Transportation 'Unding Programs Distribution Meth od Municipality by formula based on lane miles of eligible streets within city Share of Federal Minimum Guarantee funds for statewide distribution Share of Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds for Statewide distribution Share of Federal Surface Transportation Program funds for Statewide distribution Project Selection Funding is provided direct to Municipality for urban street maintenance Funded to system or mode by project need Funding in manner of grant Program based on project eligibility; competitive grant requiring CTB committee approval Statewide based on competitive basis and accident history Distributed Statewide based on Statewide based on needs [ency Contact Urban Division Programming and Scheduling and Urban Divisions ramming and Scheduling Division Traffic Engineering and Urban Divisions Programming and needs State formulato municipalities by populations Up to $3.0 million annual allocation Statewide Up to $5.5 million annual allocation Statewide Urban division in conjunction with Municipalities Project eligibility and fund restrictions per project Project eligibility and fund restrictions per project Scheduling and Urban Divisions Urban Divisi on Residency and Secondary Roads Division Residency and Secondary Roads Division Locality Input :unded by State Code direct to Municipality Request at preallocation headng or submit written request Apply at preallocation hearing and submit grant request City applies at Urban level Request at preallocation hearing or submit written Direct involvement in project selection Locality must pass resolution and submit request Locality must pass resolution and submit ~st Prepared for the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO by Barbara Reese of the Virginia Department of Transportation December 3, 1998 Page 1 Funding Categories Primary Maintenance Secondary Maintenance CTB Statewide Enhancement Safety Non-Interstate NHS Construction Primary Construction Secondary Construction Revenue Sharing Recreational Access Industrial, Airport, and Rail Access County Transportation Funding Programs Distribution Method Statewide by needs within districts Statewide by needs within districts Share of Federal Minimum Guarantee funds for statewide distribution Share of Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds for Statewide distribution Share of Federal Surface Transportation Program funds for Statewide distribution Distributed Statewide based on needs State formula to construction district weighted by lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, and need State form ula to counties weighted by population and land area County to apply for Primary or Secondary System Projects Up to $3.0 million annual allocation Statewide Up to $5.5 million annual allocation Statewide .. Project Selection Allocated by district based on needs within counties Allocated by diStrict based on needs within counties Funded to system or mode by project need Funding in manner of grant Program based on project eligibility; competitive grant requiring CTB committee approval Statewide based on competitive basis and accident history Statewide based on needs Prioritized to projects within district County Boards of Supervisors with VDOT Resident Engineer County Boards of Supervisors Project eligibility and fund restrictions per project Project eligibility and fund restrictions per project Agency Contact Residency and Maintenance Division Residency and Maintenan ce Division Programming and Scheduling and Urban Divisions Programming and Scheduling Division Traffic Engineering and Urban Divisions Programming and Scheduling and Urban Divisions Programming and Scheduling Division Residency and Secondary Roads Division Residency and Secondary Roads Division Residency and Secondary Roads Division Residency and Secondary Roads Division Locality Input Submit written request Submit written request Request at [ion hearing or submit written request Apply at preallocation hearing and submit written grant request Re~q uest at ~n hearing or submit written request Request at ~n hearing or submit written request Request at preallocation hearing or submit written request Local Boards of Supervisors set Locality resolution requesting project Locality must pass resolution and submit request Locality must pass resolution and submit uest : Pr~.ed. for the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO by Barbara Reese of the~--~ginia De ;)artment of TransBodation December 3. 1998 Paqe(- .... ~ Public Transportation unding Programs Funding '1 'Distribution Method Project Agency Locality Input Categories Selection Contact Formula Funds Local governments, public service corporations, or transportation Statewide VDRPT - Locality endorses district commissions receive assistance based on total operating based on Chip Badger annual grant expenses needs application Capital Funds Local governments, public service corporations, or transportation Statewide VDRPT - Locality endorses district commissions receive capital assistance based on total based on Chip Badger annual grant operating expenses needs application TDM / Ridesharing Local governments, public service corporations, transportation Statewide VDRPT - Locality (or PDC) Funds district commissions, or planning district commissions receive based on Gus Robey endorses annual Rideshare assistance on a discretionary basis needs grant application Demonstration / Local governments, public service corporations, transportation Statewide on VDRPT - ' Locality applies Experimental Funds district commissions, or planning district commissions receive competitive ?? through VDRPT Demonstration assistance on a discretionary basis basis Technical Local governments, public service corporations, transportation Statewide VDRPT - Locality (or PDC) Assistance Funds district commissions, planning distriCt commissions, or human based on Jack endorses grant service agencies receive assistance on a discretionary basis needs Apostolides application Intern Program Local transit properties or Ridesharing organizations receive Intern Statewide VDRPT- Locality (or PDC) assistance on a discretionary basis based on Jack endorses grant needs Apostolides application Transportation Local governments, public service corporations, transportation Statewide on a VDRPT - Locality (or PDC) Efficiency district commissions, planning district commissions, or competitive Gus Robey endorses grant Improvement Funds transportation management associations receive funds ona basis application (TEIF) discretionary basis MPO Program Discretionary Federal program available to MPOs through VDRPT Nationwide on VDRPT- MPO submits grant a competitive Jack application basis Apostolides Elderly and Disabled Discretionary Federal program available primarily to private non- Nationwide VDRPT- ?? Program profits through VDRPT based on Neil Sherman needs Non-Urbanized Area Discretionary Federal program available to local public bodies, Nationwide VDRPT- Locality endorses Program nonprofits, and transportation operators through VDRPT based on Darrel Feasel , grant application needs Prepared by the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO December 9, 1998 Page 3 Charlottesville 2~rea Transportation Stx~y Year 2015 Phase 2: Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Prepared by the Char]ott,svi]/,-AJbemar]e M, tropo]itan P]anning Organization PO Box 1505, Charlottesvi]/e, VA 22902 (804) 979-7310; fax 979-1597; email:tjpd@stat,.va.z,s Nancy K ©'t~rien, £xec~tive Director Hannah Twadde[/, Senior P]anner Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) Year 2015 Citizens Advisory Committee and Staff ... Advisor~_f Committee Gib Akin, Charlottesville Planning Commission Bruce Dotson, Albemarle Planning Commission (1995-96); Tom Blue, Albemarle Planning Commission (1994-95) Sta. ff Assistinb the Committee: Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director Hannah Twaddell, Senior Planner Tina Sherman, Ri&Share Coordinator Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO; POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 979-7310 Fax: 979-1597 Robert Canar, US Army National Ground Intelligence Center (Major Employer) Hild Creed, Charlottesville Citizen Albert Whalley, U .r)iversity Transit Service Wayne Cilimberg, Director David Benish, Chief, Comm. Development Juandiegb Wade, Transportation Planner Albemarle County Community Dev. 401-Mclntire Rd, Charlottesville VA 22902 (804) 296-5823 Fax: 972-4035 Becky Graves, Yellow Cab George Larle, Albemarle Citizen Betty Newell, Albemarle Citizen & JAUNT Board Helen Poore, Charlottesville Transit Service ~4 JAUNT Board Virginia Schatz, Charlottesville Citizen Satyendra Huja, Director Ron Higgins, Senior Planner Charlottesville Community Development; POB 911, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 971-3182 Fax: 971-3299 Wayne Woodcock, Sr. Transp. Engineer Bill Outer, Transp. Engineer Virginia Department o~ Transportation 1401 E. Broad St, Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 786-9348 Fax: 225-4785 Donald Sours, Charlotte$,~lle Citizen Mark E. Watson (Chair) Al/gemarle Citizen Members o_f the MPO: Charlotte Humphris, Albemarle Connty Meredith Pdchards, Charlottesville Jack Apostohdes, Sr. Transp. Engineer VA Dept of Rad & Public Transportation 1401 E. Broad St, Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 786-1722 Fax: 786-7286 Pete Anderson, University of VA Architect The Rotunda, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 924-6205 Fax: 924-601& Kay Slaughter (Chair), Charlottes~ille Sally Thomas, Albemarle County Donna Shaunesey, Director, JAUNT 104 Keystone P1, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 296-3184 Fax: 296-4269 Don Wells, VDOT Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Phase2: ' Project Plan ,4 dopted January 5, 1998 CATS 2015 MISSION The Charlottesville-Albemarle metropolitan area transportation system will provide an appropriate blend of transportation alternatives to support the movement of people, goods, services and information in the most efficient and effective manner possible, addressing regional and statewide transportation needs in a manner consistent with local goals to maintain and enhance quality of life. PROJECT PLAN OBJECTIVE Establish a transportation infrastructure which supports development o fa sustainable community and initiates a trend toward reduced dependence on the automobile. STRATEGY AREAS Strategy 1) Develop road, air, and rail infrastructures which provide human-scale connections among urban communities, and efficient global 'access. Strategy 2) Build a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities among and within urban communities. Strategy 3) Establish a foundation of infrastructure, programs, and policies which initiate a long-term trend towards reduced dependence on the automobile. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page i CATS 2015 PROJECT PLAN: CONTENTS Section Page Introduction " 1 Summary of Issues and Recommendations 6 Air Projects 14 A)Apply traffic reduction strategies related to airport travel B) Increase use .of air travel as an alternative to road use for local residents, visitors, and freight movers, helping to reduce traffic along maj or entrance corridors. C) DeveloP airport infrastructure improvements identified in Airport Master Plan. Bicycle Projects 17 A) Update ~-egional bicycle plan to achieve a complete network of bicycle facilities fo~ all classes of cyclists, connecting residential, employment, shopping, education, medical, and recreational centers, and coordinated with pedestrian and transit improvements, to reduce dependence on the single-occupant automobile. B) Include updated bicycle safety strategies in regional bicycle plan. C) Improve planning, implementation, and promotion of bicycle facilities. Land Use and Environmental Planning 20 A) Integrate and connect modes in neighborhoods, employment, and retail centers, including access and connections for local traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. B) Link transportation plans to community development plans at neighborhood and regional levels. C) Integrate transportation plans and fhcilities with local goals to preserve the natural environment. D) Monitor'and reduce air pollution associated with vehicles. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 ProJect Plan Ado, pted January 5, 1998 Page ii pedestrian Transportation 3: '-.- i 23 A) Update regional pedestrian plan, connecting residential, employment, shopping, · · ~., eduCation, medical, and recreational centers, and Coordinated with bicycle and transit improvements to reduce dependence on the single-occupant automobile. B) Include updated pedestrian safety strategies in regional pedestrian plans. C) Improve planning and development of pedestrian facilities. Public Transit and Ridesharing 26 A) Establish sustainable, coordinated funding and structUre to maintain services, support~ growth, and coordinate decision-making for regional transit. B) Improve transit service efficiency and effectiveness C) Establis.h roUtes to serve growing areas and'reduce congestion on primary corridor~. D) Improve transit infrastructure resources · E) Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology project to reduce traffic congestion and increase mOde choice for commuters by coordinating and enhancing transit and ridesharing information. F) Improve ongoing planning efforts to support and develop transit. 'G) Expand availability of and incentives to use park and ride lots. Rail and Intercity Transit Projects 31 A) ImProve rail access to and from the region for local residents and Visitors. . B) Study and improve accessibility of rail freight as an alternativ~ to truck freight. C) Increase use of intercity buses and private transit as an alternative to the automobile. CharlOttesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page iiI Road Projects -'~'~ ~? ~ 33 A) Develop new suburban connector roads to improve mobility within the region. B) Improve the existing netWork of primary roads for lOcal and through travelers. · C) Improve the existing network of urban County secondary roads to increase local mobility. D) Improve the network of City streets to increase local mobility. E) Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements for urban County roadways, intersections, and bridges to enhance local traffic flow and safety. F) Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements for City streets, intersections, and bridges to enhance local traffic flow and safety.. G) Implement regional TranspOrtation Systems Management (TSM) improvements. H) Develop strategies which improve roadway access to major activity centers serving residents and visitors and ensure a smooth flow of visitor and freight.traffic. I) Ensure roadway designs are comPatible with the historic and cultural character of the region.. Telecommunications 57 'A) Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure to reduce traffic congestion and increase mode choice for commuters and visitors. B) Improve public participation and planning through technology. Travel Demand Managemeni 59 A) Encourage employer-supported transit and traffic reduction programs. B) Reduce demands for single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. C) Promote alternatives to the SOV. D) Manage parking to give advantages to SOV alternatives. E) Reduce the impact of University student vehicles circulating Within the community. F) Improve data available to support traffic reduction planning. Glossary of Terms 63 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page iv MAPS (Map Section) CATS 2015 Study Area and Thoroughfare (Road) System Future Land Use Bicycle Plans Pedestrian Plans CTS Service (existing) UTS Service (existing) Park and Ride Lots (current and proposed) Regional Fixed Route Transit Service (current and proposed) Roadway Improvements Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Improvements 1994 Average Daily Traffic 2015. Average Daily Traffic, Existing Thoroughfare System ("no-build") 2015 Average Daily Traffic, Future Thoroughfare System ("build") Charlottesville Area Trans portation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page v IntrodUcti6n The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Each urban area in the U.S. of over 50,000 persons has a board called a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to plan, review, and endorse transportation projects. The Charlottesville- Albemarle MPO consists of two elected officials from the City of Charlottesville, two from Albemarle County, and one Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) representative as well as nonvoting members and a Technical Committee including citizens, University of Virginia staff, local planning,, transit., and engineering/public works staff, and representatives of VDOT, the VA Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), and the Federal Highway, Transit and Aviation Administrations. The MPO is staffed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and is supported by federal, state, and local govermnent funds. The Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) The CATS is a comprehensive list of transportation improvements recommended for action or further study. It is a blueprint for local, state, and federal transportation planners as well as local citizens, identifying the vision of the MPO and, in this project plan, specific proposals to support that vision. In order for a proposed transportation project to receive federal approval, the concept fo~: it must be. included in the CATS. The CATS does not specify design features or other levels of detail for projects, allowing flexibility for these to be developed as the proposed project moves toward implementation. In this plan, some basic features such as number of lanes in a proposed road or endpoints of a proposed transit route are suggested, but final decisions on these features are made in later stages of planning, and design. Not all the projects in the CATS are certain to be developed; some may be determined to be unfeasible or too expensive after further study, while, in other cases, new alternatives may be found to be more effective than the proposed project. For this reason, the CATS is updated every five years, so that projects can be dropped, added, or changed as transportation needs and land use plans develop. The CATS Study Area (see Map Section) includes the City of Charlottesville and the portions of Albemarle County which are urban or anticipated to be urban within the coming 20 years. The boundaries of the Study Area will be changed for the CATS .2020 update in order to reflect Albemarle County's land use plan adopted in 1996, which shows planned development shifting away from the west and moving toward the east, south, and north of Charlottesville. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted JanuaD' 5, 1998 Page 1 How This Plan Was Developed The CATS Advisory Committee, a group appointed by the MPO of planners, citizens, and representatives of major employers, transit, and the University of Virginia, began meeting in 1993. Through a course of monthly meetings and public forumsover a period ora year, the Committee set forth policies and goals to guide the selection of projects. The CATS Policy Plan was adopted by the MPO in December, 1994. Major points of the policy plan included, a mission and proposed goals and strategies for the major areas of community life in which transportation plays an imp6rtant role: Environment, Economy, Neighborhoods, and Community Services and Facilities. Policy Plan Mission (adopted 12/94) The Charlottesville-Albemarle metropolitan area transportation system will provide an aflproflri.ate blend of transportation alternatives to support the movement of people, goods, · services and information in the most efficient and effective mannerpossible, addpessing regional and statewide transportation needs in a manner consistent with local goals to maintain and enhance quality of life. Policy Plan Goals Environment: The transportation system will support preservation and enhancement of the natural environment through two major objectives: A) Integrate and promote alternatives to the automobile; and B) Ensure transportation plans are consistent with local land use and environmental preservation goals, and that facilities are developed and built in a manner sensitive to the environment. Economy: The Charlottesville;Albemarle metropolitan area transportation System will support and enhance a vital local and regional economy. Neighborhood And Community Development: The transportation system will support local government plans to support and enhance neighborhoods and a sense of community within the region. Community Services and Facilities: The transportation system will support the needs and goals of people in the region for access to community services and cultural/recreational facilities. For each goal in the Policy Plan, proposed strategies xvere suggested for consideration in development of'this Project Plan. A basic list of road projects was included in the Policy Plan in order to allow budgeting and planning for federally funded roads to continue. These were reconsidered in the development of this Project Plan. Charlottesville Area'Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted Januao~ 5, 1998 Page 2 After the Policy Plan was adopted, the Committee met-from the spring of 1995 throughout the summer of 1996 to deVelop this project plan. At monthly meetings and public forums, experts and citizens discussed transportation needs and strategies. VDOTstaffused the MINUTP transportation planning model to idelatify road planning needs and develop road project alternatives for the committee's review. The MINUTP model was also used to identify routes with the highest peak hour congestion; this information helped the committee form transit and ridesharing recommendations. A Staff team of local planners, transit agencies, RideShare, VDOT, VDRPT and the MPO prepared information for the committee, During 1996-97, the draft plan was reviewed by the MPO Policy Board, Technical Committee, local planning commissions, City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. It was presented for public hearing by the City and the MPO prior to adoption. The final Project Plan was adopted by the MPO January 5, 1998. Criteria for CATS 2015 Evaluation of Road Plan Alternatives The committee reviewed and recommended the road projects in this plan for development or further study, keeping in mind criteria they had established to ensure full consideration of the proposed project's relationship to the Policy Plan. Committed projects (those which had already been through a planning process and were in some stage of design or construction) were assumed as "givens" and not evaluated according to these criteria. However, design studies on three of these projects (the Route 29 Bypass, the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the Fontaine Avenue improvements) are addressing at least some issues raised by these criteria, particularly neighborhood and environmental impacts. The criteria were as follows: 1. Promotes alternatives to the automobile: Establishes and provides incentives to use modes other than the automobile including bicycling, walking, ridesharing, public transit; and/or reduces the need to travel during peak congestion periods through use of technology or flexible work schedules. 2. Supports given land use and environmental preservation goals: Promotes efficient land use and limits negative impacts on the air, water, soils; wildlife, and plant life. 3. Enhances local and regional economy: Provides efficient, flexible access to and circulation within economic activity centers for commuters, tourists, commercial patrons, business travelers, freight carriers, and agricultural industries; and/or supports local goals for affordable housing. 4. Enhances neighborhoods and sense of community: Protects and enhances the scale, character, safety, affordability and stability of existing neighborhoods and protects against destruction or encroachment upon areas which contribute to the character of the region. Interconnects neighborhoods xvith an appropriately scaled transportation network. 5. Supports access to community services~public facilities: Expands the range of safe, affordable alternatives for transportation to human services, cultural and recreational facilities, and schools. 6. Enhances intermodal access: Promotes multimodal choices and intermodal connections. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 3 7. Supports intended road networkfimction. Supports efficient, appropriate use of roadways, i,e., through routes carrying through traffic, local routes carrying local traffic. 8. Meets Level of Service (LOS) standards: In the CATS 2000, recommendations for road projects were based upon the goal of achieving LOS C on County roads and the Greenbrier neighborhood of Charlottesville, and LOS D in the City. LOS scores reflect congestion standards established by the Transportation Research Board Committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service. For the CATS 2015, the Committee reviewed road planning recommendations by examining the Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio of different alternatives. V/C is a key factor in LOS, but does not reflect the somewhat subjective nature of the LOS measure, whiCh assumes perceptions of congestion are consistent nationwide. The committee did not establish planning goals of LOS C or D based on geography, but reviewedprojected V/C ratios on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind all the other CATS planning criteria and allowing for the possibility that accepting a higher V/C ratio, or lower LOS, could be preferable to increasing road capacity. For example, the committee recommended Georgetown Road be maintained at two lanes with spot improvements rather than widening it to four lanes; although this meant the road would not be operating at LOS C in the 2015 traffic model, it was felt the location and function of the road was more similar to a city street than a suburban highway. In this case, slo~ver travel times (i.e. a lower LOS) would be preferable to the impacts of widening the road on the dense neighborhood it serves. In addition, traffic reduction strategies to relieve congestion are an immediately viable option, since it already has transit service and pedestrian access. The CATS committee recommends the MPO revisit the issue of LOS as a performance measure in developing information for the CATS 2020 update, and consider ne~v strategies such as identifying an urban ring of City and urban County road~vays in which LOS D ~vould be an acceptable base for planning, and/or using additional data such as the measures outlined in the Traffic Reduction section. 9. Ensures safety of travelers: Reduces the likelihood of accidents among or between automobiles, buses, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, and airplanes. 10. Ensures emergency vehicle access: Ensures ability of emergency vehicles to move quickly to any area at any time of day or night. 11. Enhances traveler convenience andflexibiliO,': Increases travelers' choices of where, when, and how they want to travel; reduces travel time; and/or improves information for planning trips. 12. Complements state, national, global transportation net, york: Improves mobility and connectivity for commercial and personal travel in, out, and through the region. 13. Is favorable to "no build" ahernative: For constrnction projects, addresses problems better than comparable options such as changing land use policies, transit scheduling, or parking pricing. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, t998 Page 4 Project Plan Objectives and Strategies The Project Plan is organized around a major objective and three strategy areas, which reflect the most important actions needed to support the CATS Policies at this point in time. Recommended proj ~cts for each .transportation mode reflect consideration of these strategies. Project Plan Objective Establish a transportation infrastructure which supports development of a sustainable community and initiates a trend toward reduced dependence on the automobile. Strategy 1: Develop road, air, and rail infrastructures which provide human-scale connections among urban communities, and efficient global access. Projects included in this strate, gy area address road, air, and rail transportation. Strategy 2: Build a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities among and within urban communities. Projects' included in this strategy area include bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Strategy 3: Establish a foundation of infrastructure, programs, and policies which initiate a long-term trend towards reduced dependence on the automobile. Projects included in this strategy area include land use policies, transit and ridesharing, traffic reduction, and telecommunications. During the years 1997-1999, the traffic model will be updated and studies will be carried out in order to allow the Policy and Project plans to be updated in the year 2000 for the CATS 2020 plan. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 5 Summary of Issues and Recommendations Five geographic areas need the most attention for transportation planning in the coming 20-year period. Three of these areas are Northern Albemarle, Eastern Albemarle and the Route 250 Bypass area in the City. An L-shaped pattern of traffic growth is expected to emerge along these corridors in the coming years, stretching frOm the rapidly growing commercial/residential community of Ruckersville (on Route 29 in Greene County) to the growing commercial corridOr and residential communities along Rotate 250 in eastern Albemarle and western Fluvanna. In addition, Southern Albemarle and the University of Virginia are focal areas of growth and traffic demand. Below are summaries of issues and recommendations for each area. Northern Albemarle Traffic on Seminole Trail (Route 29) north of Charlottesville through southern Greene County is anticipated to continue growing due to the combination of residential, industrial, employment, and shopping centers along this corridor. Greene County's growth rate has been higher than Albemarle' s for several years, particularly among families searching for more affordable housing. While commercial and industrial development is beginning to occur in Greene, the majority of Greene County residents are, and wilt likely continue to be, centered in the Charlottesville urban area for work and shopping. A major influence on employment will be the University North Fork Research Park just north of Airport Road (Route 649), with some three million square feet of industrial sites which are now beginning to develop as moderately sized companies (100-500 employees) purchase parcels. Residential and commercial development is also planned for this area. Other traffic impacts will be felt from continued residential development near Seminole Trail and from major employers (with 500-1,000 employees)just north of the CATS study area such asGE Fanuc, Badger Fire Protection, and the relocated US Army National Ground Intelligence Center. Shopping centers along Seminole Trail are also significant employment sites; Barracks Road Shopping Center, just south of the Albemarle County limits on Emmet Street (Route 29) attracts 1,200 emploYees to stores within the center. The CATS 2015 plan includes a combination of strategies and recommendations to mitigate congestion along the Seminole Trail (Route 29) corridor in the year 2015. Existing or planned mitigation factors include: The road will be eight lanes ,,vide, including two continuous turn lanes, through the heaviest commercial areas from the city limits north to the South Fork of the Rivanna River. North of the River, the road wii1 be six lanes wide to Airport Road (Route 649); VDOT and County planners are currently considering design alternatives to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians on this section. The CATS 2015 recommends improvements to east-west traffic flow at the intersections of Seminole Trail (Route 29) with Hydraulic Road (Route 743), Greenbrier Drive (Route 866), and Rio Road (Route 631). The Route 29 bypass will provide an alternative to Seminole Trail (Route 29) for through traffic between its northern terminus (near the South Fork of the Rivanna River) and the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 6 southern terminus (at the Route 29/250 Bypass.), with a spur into the North Grounds of the University of Virginia. Using a parking facility and transit center under consideration by the University at the terminus of the North Grounds Connector, academic and medical center employees from the northern parts of Albemarle and Greene County, as well as students and sports events fans, will be able to use the bypass instead of Seminole Trail (Route 29). A park and ride lot near the northern terminus of the bypass is also being considered in the design of the Seminole Trail (Route 29) widening from the River to Airport Road. The plan proposes a study o f northern connector roads, extending from the bypass northern terminus to Airport Road (Route 649), and from Seminole Trail (Route 29) to Dickerson Road (Route 606). This would allow northern Albemarle residents from western areas such as Earlysville as well as eastern communities such as Forest Lakes and Hollymead, to access the bypass or the Meadow Creek Parkway. These connector roads were introduced in studies of the Meadow Creek Parkway as "W" extensions to improve access to the University North Fork Business Park and the Airport. Travelers to and from the north or east of the City will be able to use the Meadow Creek Parkway, a lower speed road than the bypass with several at-grade intersections accessing existing and developing communities of northeast Albemarle. The Parkway will share a northern interchange with the Route 29 bypass, allowing eastern residents access to the bypass. A network of side streets on both sides of Seminole Trail in commercial and residential areas, such as the proposed Hillsdale Drive Connector, will allow local residents and shoppers choices other than Seminole Trail for 'travel by car, transit, bicycle, or on foot. Sidewalks will continue nc rth on Seminole Trail from the City limits to Hilton Heights Road (at the bridge over the Rivanna River) and possibly beyond to Airport Road (Route 649). A study of pedestrian crossings for Seminole Trail is included in the design of the Seminole Trail (Route 29) widening from the River to Airport Road. Fixed route CTS transit service will continue to be available at least as far north as Rio Hill Shopping Center, and should be extended to the Airport and the University North Fork Business Park. Greene County Transit will continue to offer commuter and daytime shopping van services from points north at least once a day, while JAUNT will continue service for people with disabilities, and commuter van service to northern Albemarle residents. Regional ridesharing and traffic reduction programs ~vill continue to ser~:e this area, targeting retail, manufacturing, and other employers, as well as residential clusters. Residential and commercial areas will be more mixed and more densely concentrated, allowing transit, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities to serve them more efficiently. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 7 A vibrant business community along the existing Seminole Trail (Route 29) commercial corridor, enhanced with sidewalks and transit service and contained from sprawling further northward by local land use controls on retail dev.elopment north of the Rivanna River, will help avoid the "leapfrog" retail strip development often experienced in suburban communities, which can contribute to the decay of retail centers within and close to the city. The propOsed Major Investment Study of the Eastern Connector area will provide new insights into land use and transportation improvements to reduce congestion. Eastern Albemarle Commercial land along the urban portion of this corridor has begun to develop, and several major residential and employment sites are anticipated to be added over the coming years. Of note are the Village of Rivanna east of Louisa Road (Route 22), which includes the residential community of Glenmore; Pantops shopping center and a growing number of nearby retail services; and Peter Jefferson Place, an office park under development. In addition., Fluvarma County is one of the fastest-growing counties in Virginia, outpacing Albemarle's rate of growth. Fluvanna's growth is concentrated near the Albemarle border, including areas such as Zion's Crossroads, Lake Monticello, and the western border just south of Lake Monticell©. Increasing commuter traffic from Fluvanna places pressure on Roure 250, 1-64, and Route 53 in eastern Albemarle. Like Greene County, Fluvanna has relatively few mai or employers and shopping areas within the County; most Fluvanna residents travel to the Charlottesville urban area on a daily basis. Compared to the Seminole Trail (Route 29) Corridor, fe~ver specific techniques or visions are in place for the Richmond Road (Route 250 East) corridor. Existing or planned congestion mitigation factors include: The development of the Meadow Creek Parkway, linking the eastern and northem portions of the urban area. The existence of Interstate 64 as an alternative for local and through traffic which would other~vise have to use Rictnnond Road (Route 250 East). The development of a system ofroad;vays connecting some shopping and employment sites on the south side of Richmond Road (Route 250 East), of use to both local vehicle and bicycle traffic. The development of sidewalks serving Pantops Mountain Shopping Center from nearby residential areas. Regional ridesharing and traffic reduction programs, and JAUNT commuter van service. The region's flagship employer for traffic reduction is located on Richmond Road (Route 250): Over 300 of the 1,000 State Farm employees travel to work in company-subsidized vans or carpools encouraged by preferential parking spaces. County and VDOT efforts to control access points along the highway to avoid the development of too many individual driveways and traffic lights. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 8 Zoning to avoid sprawling commercial development between the urban area and towards the growing commercial/industrial area of Zion Crossroads in Fluvanna County The Route 250 Functional Study and/or the Eastern Connector Major Investment Study will investigate several issues for which detailed plans do not exist, including: Mixed use land development, allowing residents of this corridor to make at least some trips by foot or bicycle. Transit service and increased ridesharing along the corridor. A net~vork of sidewalk and bicycle facilities, including safe crossings across busy roads such as Richmond Road (Route 250 East). The Route 250 Bypass The pressure of growing traffic along Seminole Trail (Route 29) and Richmond Road (Route 250) comes to a head at the Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. This is the region's most congested corridor in the Year 2015, with anticipated peak hOur congestion vehicle/capacity ratios of over four, several times the capacity the road is designed to accommodate. The likely effect is that peak hour traffic periods will spread out over a period of several hours, with bottlenecks developing during morning and evening peaks. There are virtually no road capacity improvements, such as widening or new highways, which would be feasible or desirable in this developed area. Mitigations planned or under consideration include the following: Three areas are targeted for traffic reduction strategies to reduce the level of congestion on the Route 250 Bypass: Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), Richmond Road (Route 250 East), and city streets. Travelers making the L-shaped trip between east and north need to be using alternatives available along these corridors to avoid creating a bottleneck at the'bypass, while travelers using the bypass for short trips within the city need to be able to choose alternatives such as transit or bicycles on city streets. The plan proposes development of a comprehensive transit, route which offers frequent services along the Seminole Trail (Route 29) / Richmond Road (Route 250) corridor serving and connecting the major employment and activity centers: the North Fork Business Park, the University and Health Sciences Center grounds, downtown CharlOttesville, and the Pantops area to Peter Jefferson Place. Residential neighborhoods along the route would have frequent access to this major route through fixed route and/or demand response feeder services. The proposed Eastern Connector Corridor Major Investment Study .xvill be important in assessing strategies to avoid future congestion on the Route 250 Bypass. If an Eastern Connector road was developed, it would reduce projected congestion on Seminole Trail (Route 29) and Richmond Road (Route 250) corridors, but would not, by itself, significantly improve congestion on the Route.250 Bypass. The Major Investment Study will identi~' a blend of land use, roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian development to ensure smooth mobility 'and avoid traffic congestion in the future. Although land use plans to support pedestrian, bicycl.e, transit, and ridesharing modes have improved for both corridors, they are Charlottesville Area Transportation Stud,,,' Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 9 still vulnerable to sprawl or low density development, which causes residents to rely heavily on the automobile. Significant historic and scenic qualities in the Southwest Mountains and along the Route 20 corridor must be recognized in.the MIS. Southern Albemarle Residential and small-scale commercial and industrial growth is expected to occur in the southern urban area, affecting Scottsville/Monticello Road (Route 20 South); Avon Street (Route 742); and Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631 South). Single-family residential areas such.as Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia are creating a market for commercial development, and higher density housing in this area is beginning to develop as well. Congestion on County north-south roads (Old Lynchburg Road [Route 631 ], Avon Street Extended [Route 742] and Monti cell o/Scottsville Road [Route 20]) and within southern City neighborhoods is growing due to the lack of east-west cross roads in the grooving residential and commercial areas south of Interstate 64. The ne~v Monticello High School is planned to open in the late 1990's between Scottsville Road and Avon Street Extended, adding to the mix of travel demand in this region. Pl.anned mitigation factors include: Two proposed nexv connector roads, the Avon Street (Route 20) ~Scottsville Road (Route 742) Connector (serving the new Monticello High School), and the Southern Parkway, intersecting at Avon Street (Route 742)a short distance from the Monticello High School Road entrance, and continuing to Old Lynchburg Road/Fifth Street (Route 631). These are envisioned as three-to-four-lane roads with sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and transit service. They would allo~v residents of the growing southern urban area to travel between neighborhoods, to schools, and to local shopping centers and employment sites without the need to detour north into the streets of the City or use Interstate 64. The connectors, recommended by the MPO Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study, were determined to be more effective than a nexv 1-64 interchange at Avon Street in accommodating anticipated traffic demands in this area as well as reducing travel on southern City streets. In addition, the study found that an interchange at Avon Street would be too close to existing nearby interchanges to qualify for inclusion in the interstate system. Albemarle County has made a commitment to encouraging mixed use land develoi~ment in this area as it grows, drawing residential areas closer to retail services so less vehicle travel is needed to fulfill basic needs. The County has also committed to developing sidewalks and bicycle facilities in this area as it gro~vs. Proposed Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements on Old Lynchburg Road, a popular cycling corridor, will make it safer for bicyclists and vehicles to share this road. The CATS 2015 plan includes a proposal to increase transit service as this area groxvs. Charlottesville Area Transportation Stt,dy Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 10 University of Virginia The University is by far the region's.largest emplOyer. The majority of the University's faculty and staff of approximately 10,000 comes from the pool of 80~000 commuters in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (1990 Census figures). A little more than half of the University's employment is in the Health Sciences Center, comprised of facilities within and around the City of Charlottesville and urban Albemarle County, while the rest of the employees work within the grounds of the academic University. These include undergraduate facilities based around central Charlottesville, and graduate schools on the north grounds at the western border of Charlottesville. Within the City and urban County, a maj or issue continues to be traffic congestion related to vehicles operated in the community by University students during school terms. Over half of the University's 18,000 students live in off-grounds housing, some of which is not directly accessible to UTS buses. Traffic congestion related to mai or sports events such as football and basketball games is a recurring problem. This particularly affects Seminole Trail and Emmet Street (Route 29), and side streets within City neighborhoods. Over the pa. st ten years, the University has developed and participated in several strategies to help address congestion. The CATS 2015 supports continued development of these activities: UVA and the UVA Health Sciences Center have been active with the regional Commuter Opportunities Group (COG) since its inception in 1991, participating in employee surveys, .ridesharing programs, and traffic reduction promotions such as Give Air a Brake week. The University is the prime candidate for increased development of transit and traffic reduction alternatives. The regional RideShare program, which assists employers with developing commuter alternatives to the single occupant vehicle,-from carpooling and transit to telecommuting, is beginning to develop tailored programs for specific University departments as a way to encourage traffic reduction throughout the University community. University Transit Service (UTS) and Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) have worked together to coordinate routes and establish a free transfer system so University students and staff traveling on UTS can transfer back and forth to CTS buses without payment. UTS has also agreed to extend and coordinate its routes to serve the planned CTS Downtown Transfer Center to be located at the Union Train Station on West Main Street, close to the University hospital and academic grounds. Several local government or MPO studies over the 1980's and 1990's addressed the benefits of merging CTS and UTS, but a politically and financially feasible strategy has not vet been agreed upon. The CATS 2015 encourages strategies to improve coordination, planning, and marketing of these systems. City, County, and Univ.ersity bicycle plans were coordinated through the MPO Bicycle Plan adopted in 1991. The City and University were awarded ISTEA Enhancement Grant funds to develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Rugby Road, a major connector for students, residents, and visitors to the community. An important new facility tinder consideration by the University is the development of a multimodal parking fkcilitv at the terminus of the North Grounds Connector, a Spur offthe southern end of the planned Route 29 Bypass This facility, xvhich could include a child care center and other amenities, would be served by UTS, CTS, and JAUNT, making it an Charlottesville Area Transportanon Stady Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January' 5, 1998 Page'I 1 attractive park-and-ride site for University employees and possibly some community members working near the University. Sports fans attending major events will be able to ~tccess the North Grounds parking, facility using the Route 29 Bypass or Interstate 64, cutting down on traffic and parking demand within the City and urban County. Methods to avoid increased traffic on Emmet Street due to the parking facility are being considered in the University study. In addition, proposed Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies may provide new capabilities for redirecting traffic quickly and providing "real-time" information to the public on routes and parking during peak traffic times. The draft University Master Plan includes updated bicycle and pedestrian plans to improve circulation within eack part of the University and to link the North, Central, and East Grounds. The CATS 2015 supports the efforts of the University to improve its transit, bicycling, and pedestrian facilities for staff and students. Regarding traffic generated by students, the CATS 2015 proposes the development of an agreement among City, County, and University officials.and students to address this problem through a series of coordinated strategies including establishing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities targeted to meet student needs; providing storage parking for student vehicles; developing policies to limit the number of.student vehicles traveling daily within the community; and encouraging students to play an active role in planning and implementing community traffic reduction strategies. Charlottesville Area Transportation Stt, dy Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 12 The CATS 2015 Vision This plan reflects the hope that the Charlottesville-Albemarle community will develop sustainable, economically sound alternatives to the sprawling development and congestion experienced by many other growing metropolitan areas. Parts of this vision are in place or taking shape now: Charlottesville and Albemarle are supporting mixed use, denser urban development. The County is beginning to experience success with plans to direct sprawl away from the western watershed, and concentrate growth in northern, eastern and southern urban, areas. New VDOT subdivision street standards allow the County to work with VDOT and private developers to design smaller-scale local streets. Both Albemarle and Charlottesville are working on the development of traffic calming street design strategies. The University of Virginia is considering an improved network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities coupled with satellite parking for student2 and staff. Both Albemarle and Charlottesville are increasing the development of bicycle and sidewalk facilities. Charlottesville has a strong sidewalk development program, an active traffic calming program, and support for transit. The Commuter Opportunities Group is actively encouraging employerzbased traffic reduction strategies, staffed by the regional RideShare program, which is expanding its marketing efforts bevond carpooling to include all alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Other parts of the vision require increased commitment in order to be firmly established: A variety of links between and. among neighborhoods, employment centers, and commercial areas, which offer residents choices to walk, bicycle, ride the bus, or drive on low-speed neighborhood streets, relieving pressure on increasingly strained arterials, maj or secondary roads, and neighborhood streets which attract 'cut-through traffic. A complete network of bicycle and sidewalk facilities throughout the region, including a financing structure for development and maintenance of County sidewalks. A coordinated, sustainable regional transit financing and decision making structure which ensures the maintenance of existing services and encourage growth to meet new needs. Mixed use, high density development, especially in the urban County, in conjunction with and supporting strategies to reduce dependence on the single-occupant automobile. Through commitments to traffic reduction and carefully managed gro~vth, this region is building a foundation towards a sustainable future. It is the intention of this CATS 2015 Project Plan to illustrate these commitments and provide transportation recommendations which support that future. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted Januao' 5, 1998 Page 13 Air Transportation A) Apply traffic reduction strategies related to airport travel. 1) Establish public transit service to airport for residents, visitors, and University students. Service should link airport to University, downtown, and Pantops areas, as well as major manufacturers and tourist destinations. 2) Using some of the additional parking space to be developed through the Airport Master Plan, develop a park and ride lot for local commuters at the airport, linked to public transit service. 3) Engage Airport Authority as an employer in the Commuter Opportunities Group. B) Increase use of air travel as an alternative to road use for local residents, visitors, and freight movers, helping to reduce traffic along major entrance corridors. 1) Identify barriers and create incentives to encourage local residents to use the Charlottesville- Albemarle airport instead of driving to other airports. 2) Identify possible traffic reduction benefits for local' freight customers (manufacturers and retailers) to switch from track to air freight, and, if appropriate, identify strategies which would support the change, such as improvements for intermodal transfers between air and truck freight. C) Develop airport infrastructure improvements identified in Airport Master Plan. A copy of this plan is available from the MPO, including detailed descriptions, budgets, and background information concerning the projects below. Projects in the Master Plan that have already been completed are not included in the following list. Phase I Projects 1) Complete environmental assessment for extended Runway 3 safety area, identifying features such as ~vetlands and grave sites. 2) Relocate Rt 606 (Dickerson Road) and Rt 743 (Earlysville Road) to allow for Runway 3 safety area. This is required, and funded, by the Federal Aviation Administration. See also County Road Projects list # C 19-20. Build 26 T-Hangar units. Establish Localizer Directional and Approach instrumentation for Runway 21, increasing navigational flexibility and safety for landings. 3) 4) Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 14 Phase II Projects 1) Reconstruct Taxiway A. 2) Construct additional de-ice apron. 3) Construct 34 T-Hangar units. 4) Demolish existing 20 T-Hangar units between the NAVCOM hangar.and the General Aviation Terminal, in order to facilitate reconstruction of General Aviation ramp. Demolition, rather than relocation, is recommended due to the age and condition of these units. 5) Reconstruct the General Aviation Terminal ramp; add 7,900 square yards of ramp west of the existing terminus, including 20 aircraft tie-down spaces. 6) Acquire remainder of Runway 3 Protection Zone property. This consists of a few residential structures near the areas of Hydraulic and Dickerson Roads to be relocated as part of Phase I improvements. FAA regulations do not allow residences within safety zones. 7) Install one'12,000 gallon Jet-A fuel tank within the existing fuel farm area. 8) Construct 250 terminal area public parking spaces. 9) Construct Community Hangar, with access road and parking, south of the existing community hangar and north of the proposed aircraft apron. 10) Demolish NAVCOM Hangar. The useful life of this structure has expired. 11) Constru. ct 100 additional rental car parking spaces near the Air Carder Terminal complex in the space formerly occupied by the NAVCOM Hangar (see item 10). 12) Construct 7 aircraft tie-downs to the west of the existing General Aviation ramp. 13) Acquire l~nd (2.7 acres) and construct Terminal Access Roadway from US 29 along Rt 649 (Airport Road), connecting with the Air Carrier Terminal Complex. Phase 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) III Projects Construct 7,200 square yards of General Aviation apron with 21 tie-downs, access road, and parking lot. This will be located east of the future Community Hangar and north of the based aircraft apron area. Construct 16 T-Hangar units east of Runway 3. Install two 12,000 gallon Jet-A fuel tanks in the existing fuel farm area. Construct 280 Commercial Terminal Area parking spaces, east of the existing parking lot and west of Rt 606 (Dickerson Road). Construct 30 rental car parking spaces, Construct 21 tie-downs on the site of the demolished T-hangars (project 14) and on the General Aviation apron (project 15). Projects Related to Air'Transportation in CATS 2015: Travel Demand Management Projects: Visitor Travel System. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 15 -) CATS 2015 Recommendations: Air Transportation Projects Task '~ :::::': ',:-:-: ::::::: ' ~ I L'ead Ag'~fi'cY ~,;:i::::'ii~::ii:iiI Tir~ id?time 'i~;ii:,:::::::l,i:Estimai~6d:i:~St :~?:::i;:::::.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A) Apply traffic reduction strategies related to airport travel 1) Establish public transit service to airport for residents, visitors, ' CTS/Airport Auth. Short Term '$63,000 per year for service and University students 2) Develop park and ride lot for local commuters at airport, RideShare Short Term $2,000-$50,000, depending on whether existing spaces linked to transit service are used 3) Engage Airport Authority as employer in COG I RideShare Immediate no additional cost B) Increase air travel as alternative to road use by local residents and freight 1) Identify barriers, create incentives to increase local passenger Airport Auth 1 Long Term ! n/a service as alternative to driving to other airports __ -- 2) Identify issues and possible traffic reduction benefits for iocal Airport Auth. Long Term nla freight customers to switch from ground to air freight C) Develop airport infrastructure, improvements. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 16 Bicycle Projects A) Update regional bicycle plan to achieve a complete network of bicycle facilities for all classes of cyclists, connecting residential, employment, shopping, .education, medical, and recreational centers and coordinated with pedestrian and transit improvements to reduce dependence on the single-occupant automobile. 1) Form Jefferson Area Bicycling and Walking Advisory Committee, to oversee update of urban plan, development of rural plan, and strategies to fund, stimulate, and monitor development of facilities. The plan should be sensitive to the needs of rural areas to avoid significantly widening or straightening roads, and should address the needs of different classes of cyclists, including high-speed road riders and low-speed novice riders. 2) Complete updated urban area network plan, coordinated with UVA bicycle plan. Focus should be on facilities which serve high density neighborhoods, schools, parks and recreation areas, visitor sites, and transit connections. Priority areas to examine include: · Entrance corridors from the County into the City ° West Main Street connecting UVA to downtown (this is partially complete) · University Avenue between Jefferson Park Avenue and Emmet Street. · Emmet Street between Jefferson Park Avenue and Barracks Road. · Fontaine Avenue between Jefferson Park Avenue and 1-64, with a continuous roadway facility from the City to the gravel road leading to the Ragged Mountain trail. · Rugby Road between Chancellor Street and Preston Avenue · Preston Avenue between Barracks Road and Mclntire Road · Water Street/do~vntown mall area · Avon Street (Route 742) to connect growing residential areas around Mill Creek to do~vntown as well as to southern area shopping and school facilities. · Airport Road (Route 643), concurrent with roadway widening and pedestrian facilities (see Road Project C 19). · Ivy Road (Route 250 West) from Emmet Street to O~vensville Road · Richmond Road (Route 250 East) from Free Bridge to Shadwell · Seminole Trail (Route 29) from Barracks Road north, either on-road or parallel facilities · Thomas Jefferson Parkway and connection to downtown · Meadow Creek Park~vay and Mclntire Park · Greenbelt corridor system, linking Rivanna River, Moore's Creek, Meadow Creek, and Powell Creek (some trails in system are currently planned for pedestrian use only; options for improving them to accommodate cyclists or providing alternative cycling routes should be explored). · County secondary roads with high bicycle usage, such as Old Lynchburg Road (Rt 631). Facilities on secondary roads should avoid the effect of significantly widening or straightening the roadway, which can unintentionally encourage faster vehicle speeds. · Unfinished links between existing facilities, such as the corridor from Old Lynchburg Road (Rt 63 I) to Ridge Street, West Main Street, and the University. · .Heavily traveled intersections 3) Develop Rural Netxvork Plan for all localities in the Planning District, using as a fOundation the maps of desired routes and facilities developed by the Rural Area Transportation program in 1996-97. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 ProJect Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 17 B) Include updated bicycle safety strategies in regional bicycle plan. Implementation of the following strategies can begin while the update is being developed: 1) Establish pavement smoothness standards for roads; target areas with heavy bicycle use and all planned facilities. (note Palo Alto, CA, model standards) 2) Implement bicycle safety education program ~for adults (motorists/cyclists) and children 3) Consider development of regulations such as bicycle licensing and inspection, a helmet law and traffic laws, and increase support for enforc6ment of existing safety regulations. Encourage reduction of glass litter by promoting recycling; supporting a bottle bill, and requiring immediate cleanup of debris from traffic accidents. 5) Improve crossings by such devices as traffic signal pressure switches for bicyclists and pedestrians at major intersections; rubber panels for cyclists on railroad crossings where visibility permits crossing without dismounting, or signage instructing cyclists to dismount and walk across; and curb/pavement abutments for smooth curvature. 6) Install "Share The Road" signs along all-major corridors. 7) Develop climbing lanes for heavily traveled hills and safety pulloff areas for cyclists' on narrow roads, and/or pave shoulders on all primary and secondary roads in study area. VDOT policy calls for paved shoulders on all primary roads to l:educe long-term maintenance costs. This goal must be tempered with the need to avoid widening roads to the point that faster vehicle traffic is encouraged or rural character is spoiled. C) Improve planning, implementation and promotion of bicycle facilities. 1) Establish bicycle access as criteria in each local site review process. 2) Include bicycle planning updates in regular MPO review process 3) Add computer modeling capability for bicycle planning to MPO/VDOT resources. 4) Consider development of a public bicycle program, similar to those implemented in several European cities and American cities such as Portland, Maine. Projects Related to Bicycle Transportation in CATS 2015: Travel Demand Management: Visitor Travel System, Neighborhood Connections Assessment Land Use: Traffic Calming. Programs t>edestrian Transportation: ~lefferson Area Bicycling and Walking Advisory Committee Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998' Page 18 Task CATS 2015 Recommendations: Bicycle Projects A) Update Regional Bicycle Plan 1) Form JABAWAC MPO/PDC Immediate 2) Urban Area Network Plan 3) Rural Network Plan B) Improve Bicycle Safety MPO PDC Shod Term Shod Term $2,500 (half of annual staffing; see also Pedestrian section ) $20,000 $15,000 1) Pavement Smoothness Standards Local Planning/VDOT Short Term n/a 2) Education Programs MPO/RideShare Short Term $8,000 3) Regulations and Enforcement MPO Shod Tern $3,000 4) Glass Litter Cleanup Shod Term MPO/VDOT Local Planning/VDOT 5) Crossing Improvements n/a $1,000-$55,000, dependi.ng on type of improvement * Long Term 6) Share the Road Signs Local Planning/VDOT Shod Term $10,000 (40 signs @ $250 each) 7) Climbing Lanes/Paved Shoulders Local Planning/ VDOT Long Term n/a C) Improve Planning, Implementation, Promotion 1) Bicycle Criteria in Site Review 2) Regular Implementation Udpates Local Planning Shod Term JABAWAC/Local Shod Term Planning 3) Bicycle Computer Modeling Capabili[y MPO/VDOT Immediate $10,000 4) Public Bike Program RideShare/City Long Term $20,000 $2,000 no additional cost * Improvements could range from simple signage to signal switches or rubber panels. For example, rubber panels will be installed on the Norfolk Southern RR crossing on Preston Avenue, for a total cost of $55,800, of which VDOT is paying $27,900 in parts and the railroad will pay $27,900 in labor. Charlo'~sville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted Janua,-,,¢3 1998 Page Land Use and Environmental Planning A) Integrate and connect modes in neighborhoods, employment, and retail centers, including access and connections for local traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. 1) Conduct Development Area Initiatives Study: this is a consultant study, fimded primarily by the County, to improve urban area design strategies, MPO funds wilt support the development of strategies linking land use to multimodal transportation plans. Recommendations from the study, while primarily geared toward new developing areas in the County, will also be shared with City planners, who will participate on the study advisory committee. 2) Conduct Neighborhood Connections Assessment: this study will identify and recommend improvements in pedestrian, bicycle, transit, carpooling, and road connections within and among urban area neighborhoods. Preliminary recommendations will be discussed with neighborhood associations to identify desirability and priorities, and will then be recommended for inclusion in local and/or state transportation plans. 3) Develop' Traffic Calming Master Plan and Program for urban area neighborhoods and mixed-use residential/employment/retail clusters. The City of Charlottesville recently began a program for city neighborhoods, funded with local capital improvement monies. The master plan will recommend a coordinated system of improvements to ensure measures complement each other, with the end result that all areas are safe and accessible to low-speed traffic, including walkers and cyclists; support traffic reduction by increasing attractiveness of transit; and reduce cut-through traffic. The program will assure vehicle safety, especially for transit, school, and emergency vehicles. Strategies can include: Reducing roadway width and allowing steeper grades · Developing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities · Establishing landscaping and visual cues to slow traffic Locating parking lots at sides or rear of buildings, and allo~ving bdildings to front sidewalks · Redesigning parking 16ts to allow for bicycle and pedestrian access through medians, landscaping, and marked paths or facilities. B) Link transportation plans to community development plans at neighborhood and regional levels. 1) Update transportation planning and evaluation processes to include community development issues. For example: · The MPO can include, in the annual Transportation Improvement Program, a discussion of how transportation projects relate to community development such as affordable housing goals, or policies to support the character and stability of existing neighborhoods; VDOT can include, in the project design process, criteria to support community development, such as those developed by th'e Route 29 Bypass and Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committees, · Local planning agencies can evaluate economic, environmental, and social impacts of proposed transportation improvements for consistency xvith local comprehensive plans as part of the site review process. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Draft Adopted Januao' 5, 1998 Pa_e _0 2) Update land use, design, site review, and economic development policies and planning to support transportation plans. Localities could: Adopt policies to integrate residential, shoppi.ng, and employment sites; discourage cul-de- sacs; and discourage sprawl by limiting new roads and utilities in non-growth areas. · Integrate traffic reduction strategies into local fiscal impact models, allowing localities to weigh alternative transportation investments. · Develop land use plans and designs to support transit and, eventually, light rail along major corridors (see also Rail and Intercity Transit Project A-l, study of light rail). 3) Implement MPO Entrance Corridor Guidelines: visual bufferS along entrance corridors and pathways to historic areas such as landscaping, shielded street lighting, and sign control. 4) Propose a Livable Commtmities initiative to develop an area with the highest possible multi-modal access and lowest possible dependence on the automobile, which would serve as a pilOt to study benefits and encourage additional development in other areas. The initiative could focus on redesign of an eXisting urban area and/or development of a new growth area. The area could be chosen based in part'on the Neighborhood Connections Assessment (see project A2 in this section). C) Integrate transportation plans and facilities with local goals to preserve the natural environment. 1) Preserve or replant trees and indigenous plants affected by road development. 2) Protect viewsheds of mountains and historic areas such as Monticello and scenic routes 3) Develop regular evaluation/reporting method and process to evaluate existing transportation conditions as well as possible effects of planned improvements for consistency with local goals for quality of water, soil, and wildlife, and historic preservation. Relevant documents include CounW watershed protection efforts, Open Space Plan, Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, Historic Preservation Plan and City critical land use area plans. D) Monitor, reduce, and prevent air pollution associated with vehicles. 1) Install local air monitor,to measure vehicle emission levels from autos and tracks. Set goals to reduce emissions where needed. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Develop emissions testing and improvement program with strategies to provide assistance for those financially unable to comply. Educate citizens about efficient, clean use of existing fuels Encourage development of alternative fuels for buses, trucks, and cars: CTS began running three electric buses in 1997, and UTS has begun researching alternatives. Reduce total use. of fossil fuels through reduction in automobile use. Investigate impacts caused by idling vehicles on congested road~vays and at facilities such as drive- through windows; reduce pollution using traffic reduction and/or and design alternatives. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Draft Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 21 t Task CATS 2015 Recommendations: Lam, ~se and Environmental Planning A) Integrate and Connect Modes in Neighborhoods/Employment/Retail Centers 1) Conduct Development Area Initiatives Study Local Planning Immediate $15,000 (transporta[iOn component) 2) Conduct Neighborhood Connections Assessment MPC/PDC Immediate $20,000 .i 3) Develop Traffic Calming Program Local Planning I Short Term $15,000 B) Link Transportation Plans to Community Development 1) Update transportation planning/ evaluation process 'Mpc Long Term $5,000 to include community development issues . 2) Update land planning, design, site review, economic Local Planning Long. Term $10,000 development policies to support traffic .reduction 3) Implement entrance corridor design guidelines Local Planning Long Term n/a (dePends on projects) 4) Propose Livable Communities intiative MPO/PDC Short Term $5,000 C) Integrate transportation with environmental protection goals 1) Preserve/replant trees and indigeneous plants Local Planning/VDOT Long T~rm n/a 2) Protect viewsheds Local Planning Long Term n/a 3) Develop regular evaluation/reporting methods _ MPO/Local Planning Short Term $5,000 D) Monitor, reduce, prevent airpollution from vehicles 1) Install monitor, establish goals MPO/PDC Short Term $35,000 2) Develop emissions testing/improvement program Local Planning Long Term n/a 3) Educate citizens on clean use of fuels RideShare Immediate $2,500. 4) Encourage use of alternative fuels RideShare Long Term. $2,500 5) Reduce fossil fuel use MPO/PDC . · Long Term n/a 6) Traffic reduction and decreased auto idling MPO Long Term n/a Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 22 3) Continue. City program of improving eXlsiing tSaCillties to meet ADA standards. Ensure new facilities in the City and County meet standards C) Improve planning and development of pedestrian facilities. 1) Establish pedestrian access as criteria in each local residential, commercial, and industrial site review process, and encourage private development of sidewalks. 2) Include pedestrian planning updates in regular MPO review process 3) Add computer modeling capability for pedestrian planning to MPO/VDOT resources. 4) Develop coordinated, regionally funded program ~to maintain sidewalks, building upon Ci,ty public works program. Currently, the County has no major funding provisions through local or VDOT sources to develop and maintain sidewalks, or keep them clean and clear; this must be addressed in order to ensure continuity of the system along entrance corridors into the City, and to promote significant pedestrian transportation options in the County. This is also a critical component of meaningful transit service, as riders must walk to and from bus stops. 5) Develop new funding sources for pedes_trian facilities, such as. funding for sidewalk development as part of transit capital expenditures. Projects Related to Pedestrian Transportation in CATS 2015: · Travel Demand Management: VisitOr Travel System, Promotion of SOVAlternatives · Land Use: Traffic Calming Program, Neighborhood Connections Assessment · Bicycle Transportation: JefferSon Area Bicycling and ~'alkingAdvisory Committee Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project .Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 24 tTask CATS 2015 Recommendations: Pedestrian Projects A) Update Regional Pedestrian Plan 1) Form Jefferson Area Bicycling and Walking Advisory MPO/PDC Immediate $2,500 half of annual admin. Committee support (see also Bicycle section) 2) Priority Urban Area(s) Network Plan MPO Short Term $25,000 to develop plan 3) Rural Communities Plan PDC Short Term $15,000 to develop plan B) Improve Pedestrian Safety 1) Pedestrian-Activities/Safety Study 2) Seminole Trail Crossings Study 3) ADA Improvements . MPO/VDOT MPO/VDOT LocalPIanning Short Term Immediate Long Term 5250,000 to conduct study $100,000 to conduct study n/a C) Improve Planning, Development of Facilities 1) Pedestrian Criteria in Site Review Local Planning Long Term $2,000 (staffing) , Immediate n/a 2) Regular Implementation Udpates 3) Pedestrian Computer Modeling Capability JABAWAC/Local Planning MPO/VDOT Immediate $10,000 or portion (see also bicycle computer modeling) 4) Regional Maintenance Program Local Planning/ Long Term nla VDOT 5) Develop Funding Sources Long Term n/a Local Planning/ VDOT Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 25 Public Transit and d'esharing A) Establish sustainable funding and structure to maintain services, support growth and coordinate decision making for regional transit. 1) Regional Transit Strategy: DeVelop a Regional Transit Strategy which includes recommendations for local governments to establish a coordinated transit planning and budgeting process. Include strategies for local, state, federal and private sector partnerships to secure ongoing transit funding that maintains existing levels and can grow with increased demand. Approaches could include the formation ora regional transit district with taxing authority, and should result in a seamless regional system and increased citizen involvement in transit planning. 2) MPO Regular Transit Review: Incorporate review of transit issues and plans as part of regular MPO Policy Board discussions. Ensure information from discussions is shared with member jurisdictions. B) Improve transit service efficiency and effectiveness 1) Night aftd Weekend Service: Establish service for, nights and weekends, particularly targeting needs of health care and retail employees. Include employers in planning and possible funding of services. This issue is critical to addressing the needs of new employees in the regional workforce under the welfare reform regulations. 2) Increased Service Frequency: Increase frequency of fixed-route service along priority corridors to improve transit's status as a viable alternative to the automobile. Targeted corridors includes areas of increasing congestion such as Seminole Trail, Fontaine Avenue, Richmond Road; and West Main Street. Additional study is needed to determine the optimal frequency along given corridors. 3) Strategies for Senior Citizen Services: Update strategies to serve increasing numb.ers and percentages of senior citizens. C) Establish routes to serve growing areas and reduce congestion on primary, corridors: 1) Expanded Neighborhood Service: Increase services to unserved or underserved urban area neighborhoods. For areas in which a regular fixed route would not be cost effective, consider alternatives such as route deviation or demand-response services. The CTS LINK service, which began operating in the Greenbrier neighborhood in 1996, is an example of a demand-response program, allowing residents to use taxis to link to the bus system instead of running a fixed route bus through the community. JAUNT's Big Blue service on Seminole Trail, begun in 1997, provides additional commuter options for residents and employees of that area. The addition of Automated Vehicle Location systems will improve the ability to make routes flexible and easy to use 2) Seminole Trail Retail Shuttle: As a pilot project for transit service major trip attractors alon~ corridors, initiate a shuttle al ong Seminole Trail (Route 29) linking employment and retail areas. The shuttle should primarily serve daytime shopping trips for people living and working along the corridor, and should support employer traffic reduction programs by providing employees with alternative transportation to use during the work day. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Draft Adopted.January 5, 1998 Page 26 3) University of Virginia-North Fork Shuttle: Establish a service linking the main grounds of the University of Virginia and its Health Sciences Center with the North Fork Research Park, possibly along the proposed Route 29 Bypass. This service can carry employees traveling between the two locations during their work day, and commuters using proposed park and ride lots at the Airport and the University North Grounds. 4) Airport Road- Downtown Express Commuter Service: Establish an express transit service, and explore feasibility of establishing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes during peak commuter hours, from the Airport Road area to downtown. Transit connections to the service should provide easy access to the University and to growing areas along Richmond Road (Route 250 East) such as Pantops, Peter Jefferson Place, and the village of Rivanna (see project C-5). The service should reduce traffic along Seminole Trail and the Route 250 Bypass. 5) Richmond Road (Route 250 East) Services: Establish services, linked to the proposed Airport Road- Downtown Express Commuter Service (see project C-4), which provides transit to and from the rapidly growing residential and employment centers east of Charlottesville. The services could include demand-response transit, car and vanpooling programs, and/or fixed route transit, and should reduce traffic using the Route 250 bypass. 6) Southern County service: Expand service to southern urban County area, utilizing the proposed road to Monticello High School, the proposed Southern Parkway, Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street. D) Improve transit infrastructure resources. 1) Transportation Plaza: Build transit transfer center as part of Union Station renovation on West Main Street (see also "Rail" section). Coordinate University, City, JAUNT, and taxi services to this center. Pedestrian and bicycle access will also be available to the center, which will feature a mix of retail as well as transportation services. 2) UVA Intermodal Parking Center: Develop parking facility with coordinated transit service, bicycle/pedestrian connectors, and amenities such as basic retail services and a child care facility at the terminus of the University of Virginia North Grounds Connector. Facility design should encourage access from the Route 29 bypass and Route 250 without adding ,significant amounts of traffic on Emmet Street. See also Park and Ride Lots, below. 3) Shopping/Employment Center Facilities: Establish taxi parking, bus stops, pedestrian access, and bicycle facilities such as racks, which encourage transit at major shopping and employment centers. 4) Electric/Alternative Fuel Buses: Decrease emissions through using electric or' new fuel technologies. CTS began running three electric buses in 1997; UTS is exploring alternatives. 5) Bicycle/Bus Connections: Improve connections between bicycle and bus transportation., including placing bike racks on buses. CTS began equipping its fleet with bike racks in 1997. E) Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technolog3' project to reduce traffic congestion and increase mode choice for commuters by coordinating and enhancing transit and ridesharing information. A study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council conducted for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District in 1996~97 includes the following recommendations for transit (see the Telecommunications Chapter for other recommendations from this study): Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Draft Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 27 1) 3) 4) Automated Vehicle Location/Dispatching: Equip regional fleets so that dispatchers can track vehicle locations and plan demand-response or route deviation service quickly and efficiently. Data from the system can also be used for transit agency planning and for residents and visitors to use through the regional Transportation Information Center (see "Telecommunications"). Signal Pre-Emption: Equip buses with capability to pre-empt traffic signals for priority access through congested corridors such as Seminole Trail and West Main Street. Public Information Access: Improve information for residents and visitors making travel decisions through Web page development, real-time telephone or .highway advisory radio systems, and/or variable message signs. CTS and RideShare currently have Web pages available through the region's community Intemet server, and JAUNT is developing one. Automatic Fare Collection:'Explore possibilities for equipping fareboxes with technology to allow for use of debit cards or billing systems to replace the need for exact change or purchasing tickets. F) Improve ongoing planning efforts to support and develop transit, building upon the existing MPO Transit Development Plan. l) Site Review for Transit Access: Establish transit access as criteria in each local site review process, to be re.viewed by l~cal Planning staff and commissions. 2~ Bus Pullout Criteria: Establish criteria for bus service infrastruCture as part ofroad~vay planning. 3) Computer Modeling of Transit: Upgrade regional traffic modeling process to allow transit analysis. 4) Cost Comparisons: Develop methods to compare the complete costs of single-occupant vehicle transportation versus ridesharing, transit and other modes. The information should be useful to individual consumers and to public bodies weighing the costs of investments. G) Expand availability of and incentives to use park and ride lots. l) Urban Area Lots: Establish park and ride lots at the termini of the Route 29 bypass; along Route 29 North; along Route 250 East; and in new southern County neighborhoods. Market existing lots. Identify and develop additional locations for lots within shopping centers, and resolve legal and financial barriers to approving them. See also UVA Intermodal Parking Center, (D2). 2) Rural Lots: In cooperation with the Planning District Commission's Rural Area Transportation Study program, identify sites along major commuting corridors for new lots, including existing public and private lots which are underutilized during commuting hours, such as church lots. 3) Neighborhood Lots: Develop.park and ride lots xvithin existing and developing suburban residential neighborhoods; encourage carpooling and transit use. Projects Related to Public Transit and Ridesharing in CATS 2015: · D'avel Demand tldanctgement: Promote Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Draft Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 28 Task CATS 2015 Recommendations: Public Transit & Ridesharing A) Establish sustainable funding and structure to maintain services, support growth and coordinate decision making for regional transit, 1) Regional Transit Strategy CATS Staff Short Term $15,000 for study 2) MPO Regular Transit Review MPO Immediate no additional cost B) Improve transit efficiency and effectiveness 1) Night and Weekend Service CATS Staff Short Term $295,000 (5 demand-response · buses, 6 p.m.-10 p.m. weekdays, 9a.m.-10 p.m weeends) 2) Increased Svc Freq. ency (Seminole Trail, West Main) CTS Long Term n/a (depends on frequency). 3) Senior Citizen Services CATS Staff Short Term $15,000 (planning) C) Establish routes for growing areas and congested corridors .1) Expanded Neighborhood Service CTS Long Term n/a (depends on areas served) . 2) Seminole Trail Retail Shuttle CTS/County Short Term $40,000 (2 buses, 11 hrs/day) 3) University/North Fork Shuttle UTS/UREF/CTS Long Term n/a 4) Airport Rd-Downtown Express Commuter Service CTS/JAUNT/ County Long Term $63,000 (2 buses, 11 hrs/day). 5) Richmond Rd Service (Rt 250 East) CTS/County Short Term $30,000 (1 bus, 11 hrs/day) 6) Southern Urban County service (Southern pkwy, CTS/County Short Term n/a (depends on routes) Monticello HS) Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page~O~ I Task CATS 2015 Recommendations: Public Transit & Ridesharing D) Improve Transit Infrastructure 1) Transpodation Plaza at Union Station CTS/City Short Term. $3,750,000 2) UVA Multimodal Parking Center UVA Long Term n/a 3) Shopping/Employment Center Facilites · CTS/RideShare Long Term $5,000 staff time/signage per lot 4) Electric/Alternative Fuel Buses CTS/ JAUNT/ UTS Long Term n/a 5) Bicycle-Transit Connections CTS/UTS Short Term n/a E) Intelligent Transportatibn System Technology 1) Automatic Vehicle Location/Dispatching Features ITS Task Force Long Term $157,500 to equip 65 buses 2) Signal Pre-emption ITS Task Force Long Term n/a 3) Public Information Access ITS Task Force Short Term n/a 4) Automatic Fare Collection ITS Task Force Long Term n/a F) Transit Planning 1) Transit Criteria in Site Review Planning Depts Short Term $2,000 staff time to establish ' 2) Transit Modeling Capacity MPO/VDOT Immediate $20,000 or portion (see also bicycle/pedestrian model update) 3) Cost Comparison/Education RideShare Short Term $5,000 G) Availbility/Incentives for Park and Ride ' 1) Urban area lots RideShare Short Term $~,500 per lot (ads, staff time) 2) Rural lots RideShare Short Term $2,000 per lot' 3) Neighborhood lots RideShare Long Term ' $500 per lot Charlottesville Area 'l'rallsportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 30 Rail and Intercity Transit Projects A) Improve rail access to and from the region for local residents and visitors. l) Conduct feasibility study, including identification of corridors, funding sources, and land use plans to suppOrt long-term development of commuter and/or light rail on existing or proposed new lines and right of Way, Proposed services should serve local mobi}ity needs such as connecting downtown, University of Virginia, and Route 29 North areas; as well as supporting commuters from suburban areas to the urban area, and traVelers to and from Richmond and the northeast corridor. 2) Complete the restoration of Union staion, including the proposed transportation plaza, which will be a multimodal center for public.and private transit and rail services as well as a mix of commercial spaces geared to visitors. 3) Work with rail operators to expand intercity passenger rail service, taking into account the recommendations of the Bristol to Washington rail passenger study. Of particular interest are service'to the northeast corridor and Richmond. A Virginia Railway Express car, reserved for Charlottesville passengers, was added to the existing Amtrak line serving New Orleans to New York for a few months in 1997, but dropped. However, Amtrak subsequently changed its reservation system to make booking short-term trips easier. B) Study and improve accessibility of rail freight as an alternative to truck freight. 1) Study traffic reduction benefits of encouraging local manufacturers and retailers shift from track freight to rail freight, and, if appropriate, identify strategies ~vhich ~vould support the change. Take into account the newly increased access for rail freight to this region due to new double- stack capacity bridge on West Main Street. Strategies should address such issues as barriers to intermodal transfers between track and rail freight. C) Increase use of intercity buses and private transit as an alternative to the automobile. 1) Identify opportunities, issues, and iraffic reduction advantages related to increased transit for persons traveling to and from the region. Strategies should include linkages to local surface transportation options. Projects Related to Rail Transportation in CATS 2015: Land Use: Updating Land Use Plans to support transit develoflment Travel Demand Management Projects: Visitor Travel System, Public Transit: Transportation Plaza at Union Station Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 31 CATS 2015 Recommendations: Rail and Intercity Transportation Projects A) Improve rail access to and from region 1) Commutedlight rail feasibility st'udy MPO/PDC Short Term $75,000 for study 2) Union Station restoration City Immediate - $6,800,000 (funded with ISTEA Enhancement and private sources) 3) Expand passenger service RideShare/MPO Long Term , n/a B) Study/improve accessibility of rail freight as alternative to trucks 1) Identify opportunities, issues, traffic reduction advantages I MPO/PDC I Long Term I $20,000 for study C) Increase use of intercity buses and private transit as alternative to automobile. 1) Identify opportunities, issues, traffic reduction advantages I MPO/PDC I Short Term 1520,000 for study Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 32 Road Proje4ts The following projects are recommended to address roadway deficiencies anticipated in the year 2015 based on traffic model data and information from local planning staff and citizens. This list of proposed construction projects and studies is arranged under goals for: A) development of new suburban connectors; B) improvements to primary roads; C) improvements to secondary roads; D) improvements to City streets; and E, F, and G) County, City and regional transportation systems management improvements. Additi anal studies are proposed regarding H) access to activity centers and I) roadway design. In order to be eligible for federal approval, projects must be identified in this plan. However, the inclusion of a project does not guarantee it will be funded. Some projects may be completed with local, state, or private funds. In order to make the plan as comprehensive as possible, all major projects, regardless of anticipated funding source, are included. Some of the terms used throughout this section are defined as follows: Phase IProjects (Committed): These are projects approved for funding (as of July; 1997) and in some stage of design. Projects under construction as of July, 1997 are considered complete for the purpose of long range planning and are not included in the CATS. As with any project, inclusion of Committed projects in the plan does not guarantee they will be built; final decisions rerhain with VDOT and local governments. Phase II Projects (Recommended for Development): These are proposed projects which have undergone some study already, and are recommended for design and engineering. Phase III Projects (Recommended for Study): These are potential new projects which have been introduced for the first time in this study. They will need feasibility studies to identify specific recommendations and alternatives before any stage of design is considered. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Improvements: These are improvements to roadway segments, intersections, and/or bridges, which can usually be accomplished within a one-to-five year period. They can include such features as turn lanes, geometric improvements (such as straightening or widening a dangerous curve), intersection configuration improvements, bridge repair, or traffic calming design techniques. TSM improvements do not change the roadway's fundamental character or function, or improve capacity to the point of increasing vehicle speed. Functional Study: Periodically, VDOT will update information about a roadxvay's function and performance through a functional study. Functional studies typically identify roadway and intersection improvements necessary to accommodate local and through traffic levels anticipated due to land development served by the corridor. In this plan, a functional study of the Route 250 Corridor west and east of Charlottesville is proposed, which will include analyses of the current adopted land use plan, transit and traffic reduction alternatives to road capacity improvements. Charlottesville Area Transportation Stu dy Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 33 Develop new suburban connector roads to improve mobility within the region. Phase I Projects (Committed) A-l) Construct Avon Street-Scottsville Road Connector, between Avon Street Extended (Route 742) and Scottsville Road (Route 20), to serve the new Monticello High School. Three-lane road (within a four-lane right of way) including bicycle and sidewalk facilities to be built by Albemarle County in conjunction with Monticello High School construction. Road could be expanded to four lanes, in the future if needed. Stattts: Roadway construction is underway. Committed Project. A-2-3) Construct Meadow Creek Parkway between the Northern City Limit (NCL) at Melbourne Road and Seminole Trail (Route 29), connecting with the proposed Route 29 Bypass entrance near Polo Grounds Road (Route 643). This project is broken into two Phases. Phase I, the ~OUthern section, includes City project D-2 for a total span from Mclntire Road at the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road, near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center. This is a four-lane, divided highway with at-grade intersections, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The City will ban trucks on its portion of Phase I (from Melbourne Road to Route 250 Bypass); the County and VDOT may do the same for the remainder of Phase I in order to maintain consistency. An MPO Citizens Advisory Committee has been formed to work with the design consultant to address such issues as community and environmental impacts affected by the road design. Care should be taken in road planning, design, and si gnage to avoid negative impacts to city neighborhoods due to ParkWay related traffic. Of particular concern is the historic Ridge Street neighborhood, which is located between the terminus of the Parkway and an' interchange with 1-64 on Fifth Street Extended. The design study should address methods to direct Parkway traffic wishing to access 1-64 to use the Route 250 Bypass rather than traveling through this neighborhood. Also of concern are impacts on Mclntire Park; the design committee is working with VDOT and the City Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to best avoid or mitigate impacts. For example, the design speed of the road was lo~vered from 50 mph to 40 mph. Acreage of parkland lost to the roadway should be mitigated xvith replacement acreage of equal utility from land north of Melbourne Road. Phase II is the northern section from Rio Road (Route 631) to Seminole Trail (Route 29) north of Polo Grounds Road (Route 643). The road will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and is planned to have several at-grade intersections throughout its length to existing or planned neighborhoods. The north terminus may be an interchange shared with the Route 29 Western Bypass interchange. An important issue regarding Phase II is the question of funding. Currently, the proposed road is included in the County's secondary road system, which is not a realistic source for funding; the current cost estimate is approximately S30 million, and the County is allocated Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 34 In accordance with the findings of the EIS, a 199'1-92 agreement among the City, County, and University, which was also adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, resolved that the Route 29 Bypass should be constructed, if traffic conditions warranted, after the widening of Seminole Trail (Route 29) and the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway in its entirety. Also included in this sequence of projects, to be done after the widening of Seminole Trail, were three grade-separated interchanges 'on Seminole Trail, at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road. Plans for these interchanges were dropped in 1995 by the Commonwealth Transportation Board based on concerns raised by the local business community and a request from the City to drop plans for the intemhange at HydraUlic Road. The localities maintained their commitment to the sequencing of the remaining projects, and there was no notification from the Commonweal'th Transportation Board to the localities regarding any change to their resolution regarding the sequencing of the remaining projects. The MPO Policy Board adopted a resolution in its FY97 and FY98 Transportation ImlSrovement Program indicating it was not prepared to support the use of federal funds for construction of the bypass., although it approved completing the design study and purchasing right of way in order to relieve property owners of other~vise unsaleable property. The resolution identified several issues the MPO determined must be resolved before agreement could be reached on federal expenditures for construction, including the appropriateness of the cost estimate; potential impacts on the regional water supply; and appropriate funding to support the projects to be completed before the Bypass according to the agreed-upon sequencing, particularly the Meado~v Creek Park~vay. Discussions among VDOT and MPO officials are ongoing regarding resolution of these issues. In April, 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution opposing expenditure of further public funds for the bypass, citing many of the issues raised in the MPO TIP resolution (see above paragraph). Stattts: Design study is underwav. The alignment and footprint for right of way were approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in April 1997~ The MPO Design Advisory Committee will continue to work with VDOT on detailed construction plans, paying special attention to stormwater management facilities, protection of the community's reservoir, landscaping, and noise mitigation strategies; these are expected to be presented in 1998. Committed Project B-9) Develop grade-separated bridge on Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) at entrance to Monticello. Statzts: Funding awarded as part oflSTEA Enhancement Project for bicycle, pedestrian, and safety improvements to Parkway. Committed Project Phase H Projects (RecommendedJbr Developmei~O Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 38 B-10- ll) Widen Monticello Avenue/Scottsville Road (Route 20 South) between the southem City Limits and proposed Avon St.-Scottsville Road Connector. Thisrecornmendation, based in part on anticipated traffic to the new high school, could include widening to six lanes including acceleration and turn lanes from the City Limit to Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53), and continuing south at four lanes. A bridge replacement is also needed. This project is included in the County Priority list, but has not yet been allocated funding. Status: Design needed. Recommended For Development. Phase III Projects (Recommended for Study) B-12)- 13) Study concept of Route 29 Bypass-Airport Road (Route 649) Connector between the Route 29 Bypass Northern Terminus and Airport Road (Route 649): A four-lane facility, was recommended in County/VDOT studies of the Meadow Creek Parkway as a "WI" addition to the parkway. Two-lane spurs along this Connector to the intersections of Seminole Trail (Route 29) with Timberwood Parkway and Hollymead Drive would provide access to the bypass and Meadow Creek Parkway for residents of Forest Lakes and Hollymead. An additional spur (# 13) is recommended to provide direct access from this connector west to Dickerson Road (Route 606). This spur is the "W2." recommendation from the Meadow Creek Parkway Task Force :recommendations. Status:.Some review of this concept was conducted as part of the Charlottesville-Warrenton Route 29 Corridor Study. ReCommendations for this study have been put "on hold" pending the completion of two studies, now underway, of the remaining corridor (Warrenton to 1-66, and the North Carolina border to Charlottesville). Recommended For Study B-14)- 15) Study improvements to Ivy Road (Route 250 West) between the Western City Limits and the Mechums River: The 1985 CATS included a proposed widening of this section from two to four lanes; the CATS 2015 traffic modeling process recommended widening it to six lanes from the City to Broomley/Old Ballard Road (Route 677), and to four lanes west of that point to the River. This concept will be reconsidered as part of this study.= Intersection improvements and paved shoulders for bicyclists, as well as improvements for transit and pedestrian modes, will be included in the analysis. Anticipated growth in the Crozet area will also be taken into account. Status: VDOT has contracted with a consultant for the study; it is hoped the study will be complete by the end of 1998. A County citizens' advisory committee is working with VDOT on this study. Recommended For Stztdy. B-16) Study improvements to Richmond Ron d (Route 250 East):A possible xvidening to six lanes from Stony Point Road (Route 20) to Louisa Road (Route 22) will be considered as part of this VDOT functional study of Richmond Road (Route 250 East) from the City limits to the Fluvanna County line. The CATS committee recommends VDOT also consider the Route 250 Bypass in the City as parr of this study (or in a separate study) and to ensure that transit, Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 39 traffic reduction, and land use planning alternatives are considered as part of the package of improvements to improve the facility. Intersection improvements and paved shoulders for bicyclists should be included in the analysis. ' Status: Study tobe conducted by VDOT staffor consultant; the study may be incOrporated into the proposed Eastern Connector Corridor Major Investment Study (project A-5). In the meantime, the VDOT Resident Engineer is working with the County on short-term traffic management and access improvements. Recommended For Study. C) Improve the existing network of urban County secondary roads to increase local mobility. Phase I Projects (Committed) C-17) Upgrade Old Ivy Road (Route 601) between Ivy Road (Route 250) and the Route 29/250 Bypass to accommodate future demands; including sidewalks and bicycle lanes. The roadway may need widening or straightening to improve vehicle and bicycle safety, and/or relocation of the section passing under the CSX railroad bridge to avoid periodic flooding. The intersection around the Bellair community is particularly problematic; intersection improvements are slated to be made during 1998. The relationship of the road to the ramps for the proposed Route 29 Bypass also needs to be taken into account. Status: Advertise Winter, 2001; complete Spring, 2003. If proposals to raise the bridge prove unfeasible, the proposed completion date may be extended. This project is Priority 10 of 59 in the County Secondary Road Program. Committed Project c-18) Widen Rio Road (Route 631) to five lanes (including two-way center turn lane) between Berkmar Drive (Route 1403) and Hydraulic Road (Route 743). This completes a four lane widening of the entire Hydraulic/Rio Road loop within the urban commercial/residential area; the improvement includes continuous sidewalks and bicycle facilities. Status: Advertise Fall, 1997 and complete Spring, 1999. This project is Priority 4 in the County Secondary Road Program. Committed Project C-19) Widen Airport Road (Route 649), to four lanes between Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Seminole Trail (Route 29), including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This need is anticipated due to both needs for improving airport access and increased employment at the University North Fork Business Park, which ~vill have a main access from Route 29 (Seminole Trail), and additional access points from Airport Road and Dickerson Road. Status: Advertise De6ember, 2000; complete, Winter, 2001. This project is Priority 7 in the County Secondary Road Program. Committed Project Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 40 C-20) Relocate Dickerson Road (Route 606) between Earlysville Road' (Route 743) and Airport ~Road (Route 649) to accommodate airport safety zone regulations. status: Complete by 2000, funded by Federal Aviation Administration. Committed Project C-21) Relocate Earlysville Road (Route 743) between Rio Mills Road (Route 643) andDickerson Road (Route 606) in order to allow for airport safety zone regulations. Status: Complete by 200.0, funded by Federal Aviation Administration. Committed Project Phase II Projects (Recommended for Develo_pmenO C-22) Widen Dickerson Road (Route 606) to four lanes between Eaflysville Road (Route 743) and Airport Road (Route 649). T-his is proposed based on anticipated traffic to the airport and the University North Fork Business Park. Status: Design is needed. Recommended For Development Phase III Projects (Recommended for Study) C-23) Improve access to Avon Street Extended (Route 742) with complete or partial widening, turn lanes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and/or intersection improvements between the Southern City Limit and the intersection, with Scottsville Road (Route 20). This need, identified in the Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study, is anticipated due to growth in the southern urban area and the new high school which will have access from Avon Street Extended (Route 742) and Scottsville Road (Route 20). It is recommended that this improvement incorporate traffic calming design features, to improve safety upon entering the City. Status: Further study needed. Recommended For Study D) Improve the network of City streets to increase local mobility. Phase I Projects (Committed) D-l) Construct Ninth-Tenth Street Realignment between Cherry Street and West Main Street. Pedestrian and bicycle facili-ties are being developed with the project. Statzts: Construction was slated to begin in 1997. Committed Project D-2) Construct Meadow Creek Parkway (Mclntire Road Extension) between the Route 250 Bypass and the North 'City Limits (Melbourne Road): This is the City portion of Phase I for the entire Meadow Creek Parkway project described in detail under Project A2-3. The four- Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 41 lane roadway ~vill include bicycle facilities and at-grade intersections with pedestrian signals at the Route 250 Bypass and Melbourne Road. An MPO Citizens Advisory Committee has been formed to work with the design consultant to address such issues as community and environmental impacts affected by the road design. For this section, particular attention is being paid to the design as it relates to plans for Mclntire Park; the design committee is working with VDOT and the City Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to best avoid or mitigate impacts. See Projects A-2-3 for more information. Status: Currently in design Phase. Construction is expected to begin in 1998 with completion in 1999. See also Projects A-2-3. Committed Project D-3) Widen and improve Ivy Road (Route 250), between Emmet Street (Route 29) and the West City Limits: Widen to four lanes with landscaped, raised median, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Ivy Road Design Study sponsored by the City, County, and University identifies detailed degign features of this improvement. Status: The City section of this road improvement is in the VDOT six-year plan for funding by 2001. Funds are needed for commitment to the County section. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements proposed for ISTEA Enhancement funds. Committed Project D-4) Improve Fontai ne Avenue, between Maury Street and West City Limits: This ,,~as included in the1985 CATS as a four-lane improvement, but the 1995 City Comprehensive Plan notes neighborhood preferences for a two-lane, divided boulevard with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In the 1997 Transportation Improvement Program, the MPO approved federal funds for this project with the caveat that VDOT work with a citizens' advisory committee on the design. Agreements developed by this task force and subsequently adopted by City Council indicate this will be a three-lane improvement with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Status: Design being developed by VDOT based upon City/~ task force recommendations. Committed Project Phase II Projects (Recommended for Development) D-5) Construct Water Street Extended, between Tenth & Market Streets to Meade Avenue (parallel to East Market Street, along the railroad tracks). This ~vas recommended for study in the City comprehensive plan. Status: Design study needed. Recommended For Develoflment D-6) Construct center tm'n lane on East High Street, between Long Street (Route 250 Bypass) and Ninth Street. This was recommended in the 1985 CATS and is endorsed by the City for development. Status: Design study needed. Recommended For Development. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 42. Improve safety of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) between Seminole Trail (Route 29) and Commonwealth Drive (Route 1315) by restriping to create an additional turn lane (without adding new pavement). Status: VDOT will restripe during 1997-98. Committed Project. Phase II Projects (Recommended for Development) E-5) Reconfigure intersection at-Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53)and James Monroe Parkway (Route 795). This was identifiedas a priority in the 1995 Albemarle TSM Study. Status: Design needed. Recommended for Development. E-6) Improve intersection at Ivy. Road (Route 250) and MOrgantown Road (Route 738) to increase safety. Currently, Morgantown Road (Route 73 8) intersects Ivy Road (Route 250) at th/'ee points. The proposal, identified as a priority in the 1995 Albemarle TSM Study, is to close access at the westernmost intersection and replace it with a new turn lane at the middle intersection. Stattts: County will include inthe Ivy Road (Route 250 West) Corridor Study (projects B-14- 15), to be completed in 1997-98. Recommended for Development. E-7) Lengthen turn lanes on Rio Road (Route 631) at entrances to Albemarle Square and Fashion Square. This was identified as a priority in the 1995 Albemarle TSM Study. Status: Design needed. Recommended for Development. E-8) Complete spot improvements to Proffit Road (Route 649) between Seminole Trail (Route 29) and Judge Lane (Route 8 t 9). This was identified as a priority in the 1995 Albemarle TSM Study. Status: Design needed. Recommended for Development. E-9) Improve sight distance and/or add turn lanes to intersection of Garth Road (Route 676) and Free Union Road (Route 601), from eastbound Garth Road onto Free Union Road and fi:om southbound Free Union Road onto Garth Road. This was identified as a priority in the 1995 Albemarle TSM Study. Care should be taken to ensure the rural character of the road is preServed, and that improvements do not encourage faster vehicle traffic. Statzts: Design needed. Recommended for Development E-10) Improve sight distance at intersection of Garth Road (Route 601) and Barracks Farm Road (Route 658) by clearing brush and/or improving alignment. This was identified as a Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 44 E-16) Study need for improvements to Woodlands Road (Route 676) from Hydraulic Road (Ronte 743) to Free Union Road (Route 601). The 2015 traffic model identified projected congestion along this corridor and recommended widening it to four lanes, but local residents expressed concern that widening or straightening this road would encourage more and faster traffic while disturbing its scenic, rural character. Improvements may be limited, therefore, to TSM-type spot improvements ~which preserve safety without fundamentally altering the character of the road. Status: Further study needed to determine whether improvements are needed (and, if SO, what types) in addition to the spot improvements recommended in the Albemarle TSM Study of 1995 (see Project E9-11). Recommended For Study E-17) Study improvements to Hydraulic Road (Route 743) from Rio Road (Route 631) to Woodland Road (Route 676). The 2015 traffic model identified Projected congestion along this corridor and recommended widening it to four lanes, but local residents expressed con~ern that widening or straightening this road would encourage more and faster traffic while disturbing its scenic, rural character. Improvements may be limited, therefore, to TSM-type spot improvements ~vhich preserve safety without fundamentally altering the character of the road. Status: Further study needed. Recommended For Study F) Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements for City streets, intersections, and bridges to enhance localtraffic flow and safety. Phase I Projects (Committed) F-l) Improve intersection of Barrac 'ks Road and Emmet Street between Emmet Street and Meadowbrook Road, possibly extending east of this point, to improve turning movements and access to businesses and side streets. Status: City is designing. Committed Project F-2) Replace/ repair Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge over Norfolk Southern Railroad. Maintenance is recommended due to aging of facility. Statzts: City is designing. Committed Project Phase II Projects (Recommended for Development) F-3) Improve Emmet Street (Route 29) / Stadium Road intersection for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. This would complete a package of improvements along Emmet Street. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 'Page46 Drive (Route 866). Grade-separated interchanges at these locations were recommended in the 1985 CATS as amended based on the Route 29 Bypass EIS//Location Study. Proposed designs were rejected by the Commonw6alth Transportation Board in 1995. Strategies could include development of continuous flow Ianes for east-west traffic which pass under or over Seminole Trail (Route 29). Cost estimates in this plan are based on this type of scenario. Because of anticipated right-of-way needs and the costs of excavation or elevation, they are not expected to be significantly lower than the estimates for proposed interchanges. Another suggestion is to use Intelligent Transportation Systems technology to improve flow through computer-controlled signals. The ITS Study completed by the MPO/PDC in t997 recommended development of coordinated, computer-controlled signals along this corridor, which should improve flow for the coming years. It should be noted, however, that computer controls .cannot greatly improve flow in an area completely over capacity. Status: Design needed. Recommended For Development H) Develop strategies which improve roadway access to major activity centers serving residents and visitors and ensure a smooth flow of visitor and freight traffic. H-l) Identify netxvork of truck routes, loading zones and issues related to local mobility and neighborhood development; define and implement needed improvements. H-2) Implement Route 29 Corridor Study, Charlottesville-Warrenton (phase 1): Study of feasibility to improve Route 29 as a Highway of National Significance, through a combination of access management and/or targeted land use planning, These study recommendations were presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the fall of 1996, and included a request from the participating localities for support to develop coordinated land use and access management plans. The CTB elected to delay action on the recommendations until the completion of Phase 2 of the study (see below). However, Albemarle and Greene Counties wish to work xvith VDOT on access management plans during the interim. H-3) Complete Route 29 Corridor Study, Charlottesville-North Carolina (phase 2): Study of feasibility to improve Route 29 as a Highway of National Significance, through a complete range of improvement options including roadway, transit, land use, and other alternatives~ This study is currently underway. See also Projects B-14-16 (Route 250 Studies) and Project A-5 (Eastern Connector Corridor Major Investment Study). Charlottesville Area Transportation Studv Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 48 I) Ensure roadway designs are compatible with the ~historic and cultural character of the region. 1) Implement design strategies to protect and develop the character and safety of entrance corridors as identified in MPO Entrance Corridor Study. 2) Develop visual buffers along pathways to historic areas (downtown,Monticello/Ash Lawn, and. the University grounds) through landscaping, street lighting, sign control, and utility line undergrounding. Projects Related to Road Transportation in CATS 2015: Land Use, Neighborhood Connections Study: Identify and develop multimodal connectors among neighborhoods and commercial/employment clusters, ensuring a variety of mobility alternatives for travel to and from 'each area by road, bus, bicycle, and/or foot. Road connections for this study include but are not limited to: Hillsdale Drive from the Senior Center to Seminole Square (see project D-7); Berkmar Drive to Commonwealth Drive; Woodbrook Road to Old Brook Road; Madison Ave from current dead end to Preston Ave; Sunset Avenue from current dead end to Fifth Street (Route 631); and a link among the subdivisions of Hollymead and Forest Lakes North and South. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 49 CATS 2015 Recommeno ~ n : Road Projects A) Develop new suburban connector roads A-1 Avon St-Scottsville Rd Avon St Fxt (Rt 742) Scottsville Road (Rt 20) U3 $1,800,000 ' N/A 2,800 Connector A-2 Meadow Creek Parkway Phase Meadow Creek Parkwy terminus Rio Road (Rt 631) u4 $10,280,157 NIA' 37,600 (or [ . @ NCL (Melbourne Rd). 40,821 if no '(County portion; see Project D-2 for City portion) ' Eastern Connector concept assumed), A-3 Meadow Creek Parkway Phase Rio Road (Rt 631) Seminole Tr (Rt 29) R4 $'31,281,000 N/A 13,200 (Or 17,986 if no · Eastern Connector concept A-4 t Southern Parkway , ' Avon St Ext (Rt 742) Old Lynchbur9 Road (Rt 631) U2 $3,522 000 N/A 7 500 A-5 Eastern Connector Corridor Richmond Road (Rt 250 East) Seminole Tr (Rt 29) R4 $33,184,000 NIA 8,600 Concept (Study) A-6 Easte"rn Connector - Meadow Eastern Connector Meadow Creek Parkway R2 $1,866,250 N/A 5,900 Creek Parkway Connector Concept (Study) C.2harlottcsvillc Area Transportation Study Year 2015~ Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Urban design, R = Rural design; Cost estimates in 1994 dollars; ADT = AVerage Daily Traffic Page 50 Route/Street CATS 2015 Recommendations: Road Projects B) Improve Network of Existing Primary Roads Seminole Tr (Rt 29) Rt 29 .Bypass T Jefferson Pkwy (Rt 53) Bridge S. Fork Rivanna River Rt 291250 Bypass Thos Jefferson Pkwy (Rt 53) Airport Road (Rt 649) Seminole Tr (Rt 29) Monticello Entrance $17,939,000 40,200 37,400 $168,428,000 N/A 21,600 (24,000 in Year 2022 Design) $2,250,000 7,300 8,900 Monticello Ave (Rt 20) 1-64 Scottsville Road (Rt 20) Thos Jefferson Pkwy (Rt 53) IThos Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53) Avon-Scottsville Connector $2,393,750 18,700 21,500 $2,668,750 N/A 8,300 Rt 29 Bypass - Rt 649 (Airport Road) Connector ("WI") "WI" - Rt 606 (Dickerson Road) Connector ("W2") Ivy Road (Rt 250 West) Ivy Road (Rt 250 West) Richmond Road (Rt 250 East) Rt 29 Bypass/Meadow Creek Pkwy Interchange @ Seminole Trail (Rt 29) Airport Road (Rt 649); includes spurs to Timberwood Pkwy & Hollymead Drive "WI" Connector @ terminus of Dickerson Road (Rt 606) Ftollymead Drive Spur WCL Old Ballard Road (Rt 677) Old Ballard Road (Rt 677) Mechums River Eastern Connector Louisa Road (Rt 22) $9,275,000 N/A 24,000 (VDOT/ County Task Force Study) $1,500,000 N/A 10,400 $19,014,000 21,700 36,000 $19,410,000 8,700 9,600 320,000 22,200 45,800 Charlottesville Area Transportatml~ Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January $, 1998 * U ~/-'"~n design, R = Rural design; Cost estimates in 1994 dollars; ADT = Av¢/'"'lDaily Traffic Page 51 I Route/Street CATS 2015 Recommendal}ns: Road Projects C) Improve Network of Urban Secondary Roads C-18 I Rio Road (Rt 631) Berkmar Dr (Rt 1403) Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) U4 $3,750,696 15,400 21,100 O-19 I Airport Road (Rt 649) Seminole Tr (Rt 29) Dickerson Road (Rt 606) I U4 I $2,470,000 14,400 4,500 C-20 I Dickerson Road (Rt 606) Earlysville Road (Rt 743) Airport Road (Rt 649) I Spot I $487,500 5,900 15,800 C-21 I EarlYsville Road (Rt 743). t Rio Mills Road (Rt 643) Dickerson Road (Rt 606) I SpOt I $487 500 7 500 9,000 C-22 t Dickerson Road (Rt 606) Earfysville Road (Rt 743) Airport Road (Rt 649 ) U4 $3,893,750 5,900 I 15,800 0-23 J Avon St (Rt 742) l SCL ' I Southern Parkway Iu4 I $6,874,500 I' ~,400 I ~,~00 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 * U = Urban design, R = Rural design; Cost estimates in 1994 dollars; ADT = Average Daily Traffic Page 52 Route/Street CATS 2015 Recommendations: Road Projects From' ""'" ':'?:':::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ':'::?:'"':"":':':::-~.:'~'~:;~i '[':"~::""":::':'i: D) Improve Network of City Streets D 9th/10th St Realignment Meadow Creek Parkway (Mclntire Rd Ext) Cherry St. West Main St. U3 $14,133;000 N/A 13,800 Rt 250 Bypass NCL (Melbourne Rd) U4R $4,255,000 N/A 27,800 (or 30,406 if no Eastern Connector concept assumed) Emmet St. (Rt 29) WCL I U4R $5,325,000 15,600 22,600 I Maury St WCL .1~ U3R $3,500,000 11,100 13,300 Ivy Rd (Rt 250) Fontaine Ave Water St. Ext. East High St Hillsdale Drive Connector 10th & Market St. Meade Ave Long St (Rt 250 Byp) Ninth St Hillsdale & Greenbrier Drive $1,260,000 $4,76O,OOO Seminole Square Shopping $300,000 Ctr N/A N/A 19,760 24,500 N/A N/A 23,200 24,100 Emmet St. (Rt 29 Bus.) Ivy Rd (Rt 250 Bus.) Arlington Blvd IU3 I $8,248,000 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 *U= 3 ~-'~. Daily Traffic /--:, n design, P,. = Rural design; Cost estimates in 1994 dollars; ADT = Ave(._.. Page 53 I Route/Street l'Fmm 2015 Recommenda-) CATS uons: Road Projects E) Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Improvements for Urban County Phase 1 (Committed) ... i./~:' i '.i" ii:i:![:: :i.''' '.'i!.i'"ii:i"i:.;:' ..i!i..i.'.?ii!i ~::~i;i?i.liiii'i:!i.:?.:::.[:~ii::;:~ :?!iii'::::~:'i:':/ii~'[!.:i::?' i;: :' :i: ::ii::!':.::.i:i~i::.::::;i;:::::.::i:.:;'i/ii:i ~::::::;..:~: i::.::,i;? ?~!~::iii!i:?i Phase II E-5 E-6 Monticello Ave (Rt 20) Old Lynchburg Rd (Rt 631) Georgetown Rd (Rt 656) Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) (Recommended For Developmenl T Jefferson Pkwy (Rt 53) Ivy Rd (Rt 250 VV) Rio Rd (Rt 631) Proffit Rd (Rt 649) Garth Rd (Rt 676) SCL Avon St Ext (Rt 742) I Spot $10,000 18,700 21,500 'lSpot Red Hill Rd (Rt 708) Sunset Ave (Rt 781) $10,000 2,000 7,100 Barracks Rd (Rt ~54) Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) I Spot $500,000 16,000 16,300 Seminole Tr (Rt 29) Oommonwealth Dr (Rt 1315) I Spot $10,000 21,900 21,900 Thos Jefferson Pkwy (Rt 53) J Monroe Pkwy (Rt 795) lnt $25,000 N/A N/A Ivy Rd (Rt 250) Morgantown Rd (Rt 738) Iht $25,000 N/A N/A Albemarle Square Fashion Square Iht $25,000 N/A N/A Seminole Tr (Rt 29) Judge Ln (Rt 819) Spot $10,000 14,900 6,000 Garth Rd (Rt 676) Free Union Rd (Rt 601) int $10,000 N/A N/A Garth Rd (Rt 601) Barracks Farm Rd (Rt 1658) Int $10,000 N/A N/A Tilman Rd (Rt 676) Ivy Rd (Rt 250) Int $50,000 N/A N/A Owensville Rd (Rt 676) Iht $50,000 N/A N/A Garth Rd (Rt 601) Tilman Rd (Rt 676) Decca Ln (Rt 678) Decca Ln (Rt 678) Phase III (Recommended For Study) E-13 I 1-64 interchanges 1 E-14 I Garth Rd (Rt601) / E-15 I Barracks Rd (Rt 654) E-16! (Rt 676) I Woodland Rd E_17 I Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) Richmond Road (Rt 250) Fontaine Ave (Rt 29) Barracks Rd (Rt 654) Barracks Fm Rd (Rt 658) Western City Limit Old Garth Rd (Rt 601) Hydrualic Rd (Rt 743) Rio Rd (Rt 631) Free Union Rd (Rt 601) Int I $200,000 Spot' I $10,000 Spot I $10,000 Spot I $10,000 Spot I $10,000 Woodland Rd (Rt 676) N/A 6,900 7,200 3,000 .7,500 N/A 10,600 11,800 8,300 9,000 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 * U = Urban design, R = Rural design; Cost estimates in 1994 dollars; ADT = Average .Daily Traffic Page 54 Route/Street CATS 2015 Recommendations: Road Projects F) Implement TSM Projects for City Streets F-1 Barracks Rd / Emmet St Barracks Rd Emmet St Iht $25,000 N/A N/A F-2 ·Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge , Jefferson Park Avenue Jefferson Park Avenue Br $1,885,000 11,900 ·9,400 .F-3 Emmet St / Stadium Rd Emmet St Jefferson Park Avenue Int $25,000 N/A N/A F-4 West Main St Jefferson Park Ave 'Ridge/Mclntire Rd . ' Spot $10,000 15,700 16,600 F-5 Barracks Rd/Rt 250 Byp Barracks Rd Rt 250 Byp Iht $25,000 N/A N/A F-6 Locust Ave/Rt 250 Byp Br · Locust Ave . Locust Ave ._, Br $1,200,000 8,600 10,600 F-7 Dairy Rd/Rt 250 Byp Br Dairy Rd Dairy Rd Br $585,000 2,300 3,600 F-8 . McCormick Rd/Emmet St Br McCormick Rd McCormick Rd Br $648,000 N/A N/A F-9 CSX RR Bd Emmet St CSX RR CSX RR Br $864,000 N/A. , N/A G) Implement Regional TSM Projects G-1 Seminole Trail Intersections Hydruaulic Rd Greenbrier Dr, Rio Rd Iht $60,000,000 N/A N/A (east-west movement) Spot: Geometric recommendations between intersections to improve roadway alignment, grade, and drainage as appropriate at selected locations. Br: Bridge repair/replacement/reconfiguration Iht: Intersection improvements such as sight distance improvements, turn lanes, or improved signalizations. Clmrlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 ~ U - Urban design, R - Rural design; Cost estimates in 1994 dollars; ADT = Average Daily Traffic Page 55 Telecommunications Projects A) Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure to reduce traffic congestion and increase mode choice for commuters and visitors. A plan for ITS was developed by the Virginia Transportation Research Council for the MPO/TJPDC during Fiscal Year 1997; below are listed the major components recommended. 1) Establish Transportation Information Center to collect and disseminate traffic-related data. The UVA School of Engineering, with financial support from VDOT, has agreed to develop a pilot Center during 1997-98. 2) Develop and install system for computer-controlled traffic signals along the West Main Street and Seminole Trail (Route 29 North) corridors to maximize traffic flow and allow for safer bicycle and pedestrian crossings. 3) Develop a Traveler Information System based on the information available through the Transportation Information Center; tools could include a Web page o f area travel information, updated with real-time data and available at a wide variety of locations; highway advisory radio systems; and variable message signs. Also included in this plan was a recommendation to install Automated Vehicle Location technology on area public transit: see Ridesharing and Transit section.for more information. "' B) Improve public participation and planning through technolo~my. 1) Develop telece mmunications alternatives for participation in public meetings and processes, such as email or electronic newsgroups available through Monticello Avenue, the community's free Web server available through public libraries. . . 2) Incorporate data collected from Transportation Information Center as part of the body of planning information. For example, accident data from the Center can be collected and mapped to assist in identifying key intersections to examine for pedestrian and bicycle improvement. Projects Related to Telecommunications in CATS 2015: Public Transit and Ridesharing: Automated Vehicle Locators Travel Demand Management: Reducing need for SOV travel Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015. Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 57 4) Develop traffic reduction education programs for children and teenagers through schools. Analyze potential benefits and strategies of limiting.high school student automobile use; ensure alternative transportation and incentives are part of any plan for restrictions. I)) Manage parking to give advantages to SOV alternatives. l) Develop and promote facilities for drivers (including carpoolers, vanpoolers, and single-occupant vehicle drivers) to park at suburban satellite locations and use transit within congested areas. 2) Investigate feasibility of establishing commuter parking pricing for sites where it is now free, and using revenues to support single-occupant vehicle alternatives. 3) Lessen development ofparkirig spaces by allowing developers to build fewer spaces in exchange for supPorting traffic reduction programs. E) Reduce the impact of University student vehicles circulating within the community. 1) Develop an agreement among City, County, and University officials and students to 1) create strategies which minimize student automobile needs, particularly those of off-grounds students; and 2) work towards restricting the, number of student vehicles circulating within the community. 2) Involve University students in local traffic reduction planning and implementation efforts~ building upon participation in traffic reduction studies, Give Air a Brake, and bicycling advocacy. F) Improve data available to support traffic reduction planning. 1) Upgrade regional modeling system t0 include capability for Travel Demand Management analysis. 2) Establish indicators of progress towards traffic reduction, set goals, and measure success. Indicators could include: 1) total time spent in vehicles 2) time spent using SOV-alternative modes 3) transit ridership 4) number and use of park and ride lots .5) participation in carpooling 6) vehicle occupancy rates 7) traffic counts on key corridors and intersections 8) travel delay time on key corridors and intersections 9) vehicle miles traveled on key corridors 10) total consumption of fossil fuels 12) level of service for SOV-altemative modes Projects Related to Travel Demand Management in CATS 2015: · Land Use: Neighborhood ConnectionsAssessment; Livable Commtmities Initiative; Traffic Calmi~Tg Programs Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 60 CATS 2015 Recommendations: Travel Demand Management A) Encourage employer-supported transit use and traffic reduction programs 1) Commuter Opportunities Group I RideShare 2) UVA Employee Strategy I UVA/RideShare 3) Traffic reduction incentives Local planning B) Reduce demands for single-occupant vehicle travel Ongoing I.mmediate Long Term $1,500 annualstaffing $2,OOO $3,000 1) Employer management options 2) TDM strategy for new large worksites 3) Visitor Travel System 4) Identify opportunities for trip reduction through increased technology alternatives. COG/RideShare County/RideShare MPO/RideShare MPO/PDC C) Promote alternatives to single-occupant automobile Short Term Short Term Long Term Long Term n/a- depends on number of companies $1,000/site n/a $5,000 for study 1) Regional marketing strategy 2) Promote livable communities 3) Neighborhood based traffic reduction programs 4) Education/high school student program CTS/RideShare/JAUNT Immediate $70,000 (grant funded) RideShare/Local Long Term $3,000 Planning RideShare Immediate $15,000 RideShare Short Term $3,000 D) Manage parking to create advantages for Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) alternatives 1) Reduced development and size of parking lots Local Planning Short Term $3,000 for study 2) Commuter parking pricing programs RideShare Long Term $2,000 for study 3) Incentives for developers to lessen number/size of Local Planning Long Term $3,000 for study parking spaces Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 61 Glossary 16 Planning Factors Items which must be considered in the CATS according to federal planning regulations stated in the 1991 ISTEA and the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act. 23 Factors Items which must be considered in the state long range plan according to federal planning regulations adopted as part of ISTEA. Activity Centers: Neighborhoods, commercial areas, and employment sites which attract or generate travel. ADA Americans with Disabilities Act, federal legislation requfring public transit services for people with disabilities comparable to existing public services at no more than twice the regular fare. JAUNT provides services for the CTS area and the Planning District. Big Wheels Companies participating in the MPO's COG are called Big Wheel companies. The Big Wheels Policy Board, directors of these companies and local officials, meets annually to review COG progress and approve the upcoming COG work plan. CATS Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, the 20-year plan adopted by the MPO and updated every five years. CN An abbreviation used in the' TIP to show funds and timeline for road construction. COG The Commuter Opportunities Group, an MPO committee of employers promoting traffic reduction through increased alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commuting. CTB Commonwealth Transportation Board, appointed by the Governor which approves all plans for state-funded transportation projects. See VDOT Six Year Improvement Program. CTS Charlottesville Transit Service, the public bus service for the City and selected routes extending into Albemarle County. FAA Federal Aviation Administration. FHWA Federal Highway Administration, provides road funds through programs such as STP, NHS and ISTEA Enhancement program. FTA Federal Transit Administration, provides grant funding for transit capital, operations, and MPO planning. See Section 8, Section 9, VDRPT. HOV High Occupancy Vehicle, such as a carpool, vanpool, or bus. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 63 Human Scale Connections: These are connections between and among communities which allow and encourage travelers to experience and appreciate the character of the neighborhoods and commercial areas in and through which they are traveling. Vehicle travel on human-scale connections is typically slower than on a major highway, and traffic calming features.are often incorporated into the road design. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel is encouraged on human scale connections. ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, adopted by Congress in 1991. Includes increased funding for transportation, sets forth broader planning requirements which include consideratiQn of land use and multi-modal alternatives, allows flexible use of transportation funds for roads, transit, or other alternatives. ISTEA Enhancement Program Ten percent of the state's federal STP funds must be set aside for transportation enhancements ~vhich support the Clean Air Act, protect historic resources, or otherwise enhance the community. ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems, using computer information technology to improve a transportation system. JAUNT Public transportation service for people with disabilities and the rural public in the Planning District. Originally named Jefferson Area United Transit, owned by the localities of Planning District 10 and overseen by a board of directors appointed by the localities. Livable Communities: FTA began an initiative in the early 1990's to promote planning and .development of neighborhoods whose design is friendly to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle use. Grants are available from FTA to work on studies of such designs for existing o.r new communities. MINUTP The computer software model used by VDOT to project traffic on area roads. BaSe data on population and land use trends is developed by local planning staff for VDOT. Mobility Index: The CATS 20 t 5 introduces this term as a data item to be developed by the MPO which identifies the multimodal mobility of residents in neighborhoods and employment sites. Data from the Index will help identify priorities for development of neighborhood improvements such as bicycle and pedestrian connectors. MPO Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, formed in 1981 when the federal government called for its formation due to increased population density. All urban areas in the US have an MPO. Its job is to coordinate long range plans and approve plans for federal transportation funds in the region. The Policy Board includes two elected officials from Charlottesville, two from Albemarle, and a VDOT official. The Technical Committee inclUdes local planning staff and citizens. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 20'15 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 64 Multi-modal Including more than one mode of transportation (road, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, water, air, rail). -- NHS National HighwaY System, a network of roads of strategic economic and military importance approved by Congress in October, 1995 which are eligible for designated funds. Routes 29,250 and Interstate 64 are NHS roads in the MPO study area. Non-Attainment Area An urban area which falls below federal Clean Air standards, eligible for special sources o'f transportation funds for projects which mitigate congestion. The Charlottesville area is currently in attainment. PACC Planning and Coordination Council, an ad hoc planning group of Charlottesville, Albemarle and University of Virginia officials. PDC Planning District Commissions are regional planning bodies established by the Virginia Area Development Act in 1969, operating on funds from the state, member localities, and public or private grants. There are 21 planning districts. See TJPDC. PE An abbreviation used in the TIP to show funds and timelines for Preliminary Engineering of a road. PL FHWA funds which support MPO planning, in addition to FTA Section 8 funds. Preallocation Hearing An annual public hearing onthe draft State Six-Year Improvement Program, usually held for the Culpeper district in late March. Public Participation VDOT and the MPO are required to have formal plans to ensure ample opportunities for participation by all members of the public in the development of transportation plans and projects. '~-: Public Hearing VDOT and the MPO must have public hearings on long range plans;.annual transportation improvement programs, and work plans. VDOT must also have public hearings on proposed locations and designs of new roads. Sometimes VDOT or the MPO hosts public information meetings at which comments are solicited, but they are not considered formal public hearings. RideShare A regional program funded by VDRPT and staffed by the TJPDC which promotes traffic reduction through the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, including carpooling, vanpooling, transit, bicycling, and ~valking; and employment options such as flextime, staggered hours, and telecommuting. The RideShare program supports the Big Wheels Commuter Opportunities Group and works with the MPO to plan traffic reduction strategies. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 65 RW An abbreviation used in the TIP to show funds and timelines for Right of Way acquisition for a road. RATS Rural Area Transportation Study, a transportation planning program for rural Albemarle, Louisa, Fluvanna, Greene, and Nel son Counties, staffed by the TJPDC. Section 18 FTA funds which support rural transit services such as JAUNT. Section 9 FTA funds which support urban transit services such as CTS. Section 8 FTA funds which support MPO planning, work (see also PL). SPR FHWA funds to support VDOT planning and research activities with the MPO. SOV Single Occupant Vehicle (a car with one driver and no passengers). STP Surface Transportation Program, the FHWA funding program for roads (or transit if the MPO or VDOT wish to transfer funds), safety, and enhancements. Study Area Each MPO has a geographic area for long range planning purposes., The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO study area extends slightly east of the City, about two miles north and south of the City, and about eight miles west. Sustainable Community: The Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council, formed ir/1995, is 'currently working towards plans and policies which support communities' ability to link the preservation.and protection of natural and social resources with the growth of economic vitality and opportunity. The CATS 2015 Plan includes policies and projects which reflect the r~egion's commitment to sustainability as it relates to transportation TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone, a geographic area which attracts and/or generates traffic. P6pulation and land use data for zones in the MPO area is used to develop traffic forecasts. TIP Transportation Improvement Program, the annually updated plan of road and transit prpjects for the MPO area. Regionally significant projects requiring federal funds or approval must be endorsed in the TIP. TJPDC Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, a twelve-member regional planning commission of elected officials and citizens appointed by local governments of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson CoUnties. Staffed by an Executive Director, planners, technicians, and support staff, The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is housed in the TJPDC office and staffed by the TJPDC Executive Director, a Senior Planner, and support staff, See also PDC. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page 66 Traffic Calming: Traffic calming techniques are design features applied to roadways to slow down vehicle traffic and/or encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. They can include narrowing roadway widths, allowing more curves, or creating visual cues through landscaping and road design which encourage drivers to slow down. TSM/Transportation Systems Management: These are relatively low cost improvements to roadway segments, intersections, and/or bridges, which can usually be accomplished within a one-to- five year period. They can include such features as turn lanes, geometric improvements (such as straightening a dangerous curve), intersection improvements, bridge repair, or traffic calming design techniques. TSM improvements do not change the roadway's fundamental character or function, or improve capacity to the point of increasing vehicle speed. UMTA The Urban Mass Transit Administration, a old name replaced, as part of the ISTEA legislation, to "FTA" UPWP Unified Planning Work Program, the annual plan of work for the MPO showing budgets and tasks for studies and administrative .functions. UTS University Transit .Service, a private service of the University of Virginia funded through student and staff parking fees. : UVA University of Virginia, the major employer of the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. UVA has a nonvoting representative on the MPO Policy Board and a voting representative on the Technical Committee. .~- VDH&T Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, an old name for VDOT. VDOT The Virginia Department of Transportation, handling road planning, construction,-and maintenance for the state. Staff of the VDOT Transportation Planning Division in Richmond Serve as voting members of the MPO Policy and Technical Committees. Other VDOT divisions with whom the MPO works are the Culpeper District Administrator's office, the Charlottesville- Albemarle Resident Engineer's office, and the Location and Design division in Richmond.- VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program Updated every June, shows funding allocations and timelines for transportation improvements throughout the state. VDRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, formerly a section of VDOT, now its own agency reporting to the Secretary of Transportation. VDRPT manages grant funds for CTS, JAUNT, RideShare, and a portion of the MPO planning funds. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan Adopted January 5, 1998 Page'67 ' Charlottesville-Albemarle 'Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804). 979-7310; 979-1597 (fax); tjpd@state.va.,~s (email); www. avenue.0rg/tjpd (website) VA Relay Center for hearing impaired: 1-800-828-1140 (voice); 1-800-828-1120 (TDD) Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Improvement Pro,ram Adopted SePtember 21, 1999 CharlottesvilleiAlbemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted September 21, 1999 Contents What Is The TIP? An Introduction 3 Resolution of Adoption 8 Resolution Regarding Route 29 Bypass Construction Funds 9 FY2000 Statement of Certification 13 Comparison of FY1999 to FY2000 TIP 14 FY2000 Transportation Projects: Introduction : 16 Interstate Road Program 22 Primary Road Program 25 Urban Road Program 39 Secondary Road Program , ' 48 Safety Program ~ 8 Enhancement Program 62 TEA-21 Restoration Act Funding 73 Public Transit Program : ~ 75 Charlottesville ~ Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Fr 2000 Transp'ortation Improvement Program Adopted 0972 i'/1~ page 3 of 77 ,"- What Is The TIP? -,An Introduction The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (Mt>O) , Each urbanized area in the U.S. of over 50,000 persons has a board called a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to plan and endorse federally funded transportation projects. A map of the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO study area is included on the neXt page, The CharlotteSVille,Albemarle MPO consists of two elected officials fr°m the City, two from Albemarle, and one VDOT representative. Current voting members include Sally Thomas, C~hair, Albemarle County; Charlotte Humphris, Albemarle County; Meredith Richards, Charlottesville; Maurice Cox, Charlottesville; and Don Wells, VDOT Transportation Planning Division. The MPO also has nonvoting members and a Technical,Committee comprised of citizens, University of Virginia staff, local planning, transit, and engineering/public works staff, and representatives of VDOT, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation CVDRPT), and the Federal Highway, Transit and Aviation Administrations. In addition to reviewing transportation projects, the MPO prepares regional studies and plans. It is staffed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and supported by federal, state, and local government funds. Citizen committees working with staff on particular studies include the Route 29 Bypass Design Citizens Advisory Committee, the MeadOw Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee, the Route 250 East and West Corridor Study Advisory Committees, the Jefferson Area Bicycling and Walking Advisory Committee, and the Single-Occupant Vehicle (SOV) Alternatives Advisory Committee. Beginning in July, 1999, the MPO will also participate in the Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative, a two- "'"'~year, $517,000 transportation and land use planning project conducted by the TJPDC with federal funds from the Transportation and System and COmmunity Preservation Pilot Program. A large advisory committee of public and private partners will work with the MPO and TJPDC to develop and test a new computer model which allows flexible, interactive transportation and land use planning using 50-year scenarioS with strategies for intermediate actions over the next 25 years. The study area includes the fast-gr0win, g eastern half of the planning district, which includes Greene, .Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Louisa Comities as well as the City of Charlottesville. The pioject team includes the TJPDC, the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Architecture, the UVA Design Resources Center at the Institute for Sustainable Design; and private consultants in transportation, land use, and facilitation. ' ' The TIP: A List EndorSing TranSPortation Projects for Federal Funding and/or Approval The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a list of transportation projects planned for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Study Area. The federal government requires regionally significant transportation projects in the urban study area which need federal funding and/or federal approval to be endorsed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Inclusion of projects in the MPO's long range plan (the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015) and the TIP indicates this endorsement. Additional Projects Included For Information Federal regulations require °nly that projects requiring federal funding and/or other federal approval appear in the TIP. In Charlottesville-Albemarle, state and locally funded projects are included for a more comprehensive document. Inclusion of these local and state funded projects indicates approval by the MPO but does not necessarily indicate endorsement of them by the individual local governments, nor does it indicate state r'~,. endorsement of local proj ects~ Page 4 of 77 Charlottesville"- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation Improvement.?rogram Adopted 09/21/1999 Study Area Boundary (Starting at Westernmost Point) Mechums River at 1-64 to South Fork Rivanna River South Fork Rivanna to Rt. 660, Earlyswille Rt. 660 to Rt. 743 Rt. 743 to North Fork,'Rivanna River Noah Fork Rivanna to Rt. 649 Rt. 649 to Rt. 20 Rt. 20 to Redbud Creek Redbud Creek to Southwest Mtn. Range South~vest Mm. Range to Barn Branch Barn Branch to 1-64 1-64 to CSX RR CS X RR to Rt. 729 Rt. 729 to Houchens Creek Houchens Creek to Rt. 795 Rt. 795 to Lee Jones Creek Lee Jones Creek to Carter Mtn. Ridge Carter Mtn. R/flge to Murphy/Sowell Creeks Murphy/S owell Creeks to Rt. 20 Rt. 20 to Rt. 708 Rt. 708 to'I-64 1-64 to Mechums River Note: area is outside the~ ,/ Thonkqs Jefferson Plannine District PO Box 15n'~ ~ Charlottesvtlic, x, :x 229u2 htlp://aven uc .org/tjpck: e:\vdot\ f~,99_tip_x dot_co t=~ty_m aps. apr p data :O VI)OP 1¢)8 Charlottesville ~ Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organizati~8~ ;~ '~ ,, FY 2OOO Transportation lmprovement Program A do~ted 09)i21?i g~9 ~ ., PageSof77 /--,.iDekelopment of Statewide Six Year Program and State TIP: A pre-allocation hearing was held by VDOT in March, 1999 in CulpePer for comments regarding Charlottesville area projects to be included in the VDOT Six Year Improvement .Program. At this hearing., the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO presented comments (see statement below). A final VDOT Six Year Program hearing was held in June, 1999 in Richmond, and the final State Six Year Improvement Program was adopted by June 30 in keeping with the state'fiscal year beginning July 1. Projects requiring federal approval were then sent to the MPO for endorsement; they are inclUded in this document. The MPO's TIP will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program sent to the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations by September 30, 1999 in keeping with the federal fiscal year beginning October 1. Charlottesville.Albemarle rvlPO Statement FY2000 VDOT Six Year Program Pre Allocation Hearing, March 15, 1999 The MPO requests that funding be allocated to City and County transportation projects in accordance with the following objective and strategies as stated in the CATS 2015 Project Plan: Objective: Establish a transportation infrastructure which supports development of a sustainable community and initiates a trend toward reduced dependence on the automobile. Strategy 1: Develop road, air, and rail infrastructures which provide human-scale connections among urban communities and efficient global access. Strategy 2: Build a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities among and within urban communities. Strategy 3: Establish a foundation of infrastructure, programs, and policies which initiate a long-term trend towards reduced dependence on the automobile. In addition, the MPO requests that the CTB respond to the following priorities stated in the MPO FY2000 Work Program when allocating project funds: · Visible steps to integrate land use with transportation planning, with an eye toward long-term possibilities such as commuter rail. · Assurance that new roadways, particularly the proposed Route 29 Bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway, will not endanger the Community's natural resources, and will be designed to minimize negative impacts on the community. The MPO will continue to work with VDOT and the local jurisdictions toward resolution of design issues and advancement of the projects. You should be aware that the MPO will not support VDOT's proposed use of federal funds for Bypass Construction until the issues listed in the attached resolution from the FY99 Transportation Improvement Program are resolved. The MPO recognizes the following projects to be of regional significance and is committed to endorsing federal funding f~i them in the TIP if requested, with the exception of those elements about which concerns have been stated; see the attached resolutions for more_i~ormation. CONTINUATION/COMPLETION OF EXISTING TIPPROJ ECTS: Transit projects, including: 1. CTS and JAUNT capital projects and operating expenses. The MPO encourages VDOI to increase the uti ization of road funds to increase transit coverage, hours of operation, and frequency in order to maximize the use of existing corridors before constructing new facilities. Enhancement projects, including: 2. Thomas Jefferson Parkway trail, including bridge over Route 53 3. City of Charlottesville Union Station renovation City of Charlottesville/University of Virginia Rugby Road Bicycle/Pedestrian project Rivanna Greenbelt Extension City of Charlottesville landscaped island at Preston Avenue, pending final design approved by local government Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and landscaping on Airport Road Ch~r)o~t~'~[lt~~- Albemarle Metrot~olitan Planning Organization FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program ,4dopted 09/21/1999 I Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO.Statement at FY2000 VDOT Six Year Program Pre Allocation Hearing,. Page 2 Primary, 8. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Secondary, and Urban System Projects, including Preliminary Engineering for Route 29 widening between Sou~h Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road. If a parallel access mad system is chosen as the method for widening Route 29 between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road, the MPO endorses inclusion of sidewalks and bicycle lanes along the access roads. Replacement of South Fork Rivanha River Bridge on Route 29 with bicycle lanes and sidewalks consistent with plans for the section north of this point. Route 29 Corridor Study Charlottesville-North Carolina State Line Completion of Route 29 Access Management Stud}, recommendations (Airport Road to Greene County). Existing Route 29 Bypass From Route 64 to Fontaine Ave, third lane north and southbound. Proposed Alternative 10 Route 29 Bypass Preliminary Engineering and Right of Way only. Route 53 Bridge Replacement over Buck Island Creek Fontaine Avenue three-lane expansion with sidewalks and bicycle lanes, as endorsed by City advisory committee Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Union Station Transit Transfer Center (funded with City Urban Road monies). The project title in the SixYear Program needs to be updated to read "Union Station" as opposed to "Downtown" transfer center. EXPANSION OF FUNDING FOR EXISTING TIP PROJECTS · Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I: additional Right of Way funding for purchase of land to be donated to the City of Charlottesville for the purpose of restoring acreage to Mclntire Park which is taken by the road. · Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I: additional Construction funding for joint use stormwater detention/recreational pond. · Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (including bicycle lanes and sidewalks): Preliminary Engineering, Right of Way, and Construction fund rig. This project is currently eligible only for secondary road funds, which are not adequate to cover the anticipated cost of the prOject. The County has already committed secondary road allocations transferred from other projects and revenue sharing funds. The MPO supports the County's continued requests for alternative sources of funding to be developed for this project, either by upgrading it to primary road status, or by developing new sources. · Proposed expansions of regional transit service coverage, frequency, and hours of operation, upon.endorsement by local governments NEW PROJECTS: · Intersection study of Route 29 North from Barracks Road to Airport Road, to identify and recommend improvements which result in the best possible safety and flow for, and the least contention among, vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian [ravelers. This is in the draft MPO FY2000 Work Program, proposed for primary road Preliminary Engineering funds. · Extension of Hillsdale Drive from its current terminus near the senior center to Seminole square, upon endorsement by ~cal governments. Options for this proposal are currently being considered by MPO and local staff with representatives of Great Eastern Management and Pepsi. · Implementation of Route 29 Pedestrian Study Recommendations, as requested by localities based upon the report just completed by VDOT planning division for the MPO. · Implementation of Neighborhood Accessibility Index Study Recommendations, As requested by localities based upon the report just completed by the University of Virginia for the MPO. · · Widening Route 20 north between Route 250 and'Elks Drive, the'access to Towe Park. (extends the existing turn lane section for about a · West Main Street Pedestrian Link Enhancement Project · Court Square Initiative Enhancement Project · Albemarle county sidewalk development enhancement project. .· new transit routes, upon endorsement by local governments · Proposed additional passenger rail capacity from Bdstol, VA, to Washington, DC, which will result in a significant addition to travel options '¢^- r~ ~;H~nf~ ~nH wie~tnre f~ ~nH fromm (2, h~rlnff~vill~ The MPO attached copies of the FY1999 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution of Approval and the FY1999 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution on the Route 29 Bypass to this.statement. halfmile). Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2OOO Transpdrtation lmprovement Program Adopted 09/2~/i~9 ~ag~ ? o£77 Public Involvement in ,the Development~ 'of_'the MPO TIP: Comments from the public on transportation issues' 'were also .solicited locally b~,.the MPO and Ic~cal governments several times throughout 1998-1999. All MPO boards'and committee~ included time for the-public to.speak as a regular part of their meeting agendas. Public comments were also solicited at MPO committee meetings and Staff maintained regular dialogue thro~/~h email citizen group netw0rk~ ir/eluding the Charlottesville Albemarle Bicycle Alliance and Sensible Transportation' Alternatives to the Meadow Creek Parkway. Comments on the draft FY2000 TIP were solicited by the MPO at a public hearing held August 17th, 1999. Copies of the draft TIP were placed, two weeks prior to the public hearing, in the local libraries and offices of local planning departments, the MPO, and the VDOT resident engineer, as well as on the MPO website. Notification of the public hearing was sent to local media and the MPO mailing list of over 300 individuals, organizations, businesses, and private transit providers. Comments from the August 17th' 1999 public heating are summarized in the table below. A complete Copy of minutes from meetings in which comments, were solicited are available, upon request, from the MPO, and can be viewed on the MPO website (http://avenue,org/tjpdc). F/riter/Speaker Medium Summary of Comments ~ Mr. Donald Lyon verbal, Representing the Rio Hill Neighborhood Association, Mr. Lyon letter nOted their support for extending Hillsdale Drive to. the Seminole · Square Shopping Center. He said the extension would increase safety 'and provide a more efficient travel alternative for residents Of the surrounding neighborhoods. He also noted the property owners and localities would both benefit due to increased access, sales, and tax revenues. Mr. George' Larie ~ Verbal, Representing'the Charlottesyille Albemarle TrahspSriatlon letter Coalition, Mr. Larie expressed their continued opposition to the proposed Route 29 Bypass, and reque, sted the MPO remove the Route 29 Bypass project from the FY2000 TIPto force action on .- the issue rather continuing to postpone-a final d~cision; Charlotte~ille ~ ~'lbemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Tran~portation lraprovement Prograrn Adopted 09/21/19~ Charl0tteSville-Albe :] ; etJopoh n'plann O ganlzati0n POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902; (804) 979-7310; fax: (804) 979-1597 Virginia Relay Cente; for hearing impaired: (800) 828-1~140 (voi~e); (800) 8~8-1120 (TDD) emad: t~pd@state.Va.us; website: htt?://avenue.or~tipdc . Resolution Of Adoption FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program WHEREAS,' the U. S.. Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that each urbanized area over 50,000 -population prepare a transportation improvement program for the upcoming three or more years; and WHEREAS, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been designated for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Urbanized Area; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, JAUNT, Charlottesville Transit Service, and the jurisdictions of Charlottesville and Albemarle have submitted proposed transportation improvements to said MPO; and WHEREAS, public participation has been sought and considered in accordance with the MPO public participation policy adopted in February, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) endorses the Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2000; with the loll owing caveats: 1) That no federal funds for construction of the Route 29 Bypass be allocated or accrued until the MPO and VDOT have 'successfully addressed issues identified in th.e MPO resolution or' July 25, 1996, regarding incorporation of said funds into the TIP. 2) That improvements to 'Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivannd' River be consistent .with recommendati 0ns from the Route 29 Corridor Study Phase I (C~_arl ~o. ttesville-Warrenton). Adopted this 21Stday of September, 1999, by majority vote of the MPO Policy Board. ATTESTED Nancy K. ~)'~rien, Executive Director Date Charlottesville -~ Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization .~ ~:..~..:.. . .... FY 2000 TransPortation Improvement Program 'Adopted 0'9/2 I/t~99,.' .... · Page 10 of 77 Resolution Regarding Route 29 Bypass Construction Funds in MPO .... TIP, Page 2 Address each element of CTB Phase I recommendations-of November 15, 1.990 [these included 1) widening of RoUt~ 29, 2) reserving right of way for interch.anges as may be needed at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive; and Hydraulic Road, 3) restricting, to the extent possible, local land use development on needed right of way in the aforesaid areas, 4) acquiring any needed right of way under advanced acquisition policies, 5) developing North Grounds connector facility with additional mass transit, 6) recommending approval of Alternative 10 as a corridor for future development and Albemarle County assistance in preserving necessary right of way and minimizing adverse impacts associated with development. :of the corridor, 7) providing Albemarle County with preliminary plans for the Alternative 10 corridor to aid local officials in the preservation of the corridor and development of compatible land use plans; 8) noting that the preservation of the Alternative 10 corridor would assist the Cou~nty in a no-growth position in the watershed and assuring that access to the corridor 'would only be provided at the request of the County]; Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to ~U~S. 29 North 'as soon as funding is available; Construct grade-separated interchanges on U.S. 29 North at Hydrauli~ Road (Route 743), Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) and Rio Road (Route 63 I) with early acquisition of right-of-way for these .interchanges based upon hardship (same program being used' for early acquisition for Alternative 10 Western alignment); Construct an alternate controlled vehicle access [sic] for traffic bound for University areas only, including the north grounds from Route 291250 By-Pass; Complete remainder of CTB Phase II recommendations of Novembel~ 15, 1990 [these included 1) constructing interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, a~nd Hydraulic Road as traffic continues to increase and economic conditions allow, 2) continuing the preservation of right of way for the Alternative 10 corridor and the advanced acquisition of right of ~vay as needed and economics permit]; : Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the above and when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study. WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agreed to the construction of the Alternative 10 Bypass only after receiving specific assurances from the CTB in two separate resolutions and only after receiving several additional assurances from the Secretary of Transportation, as recently as June, 1994, that said sequence of construction improvements would be followed. WHEREAS, on February 16, 1995, following a motion with no discussion and without prior notice to Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, or the MPO, the CTB passed a resolution rescinding specific actions of the Board taken at its meetings November 15, 1990 and December 19, 1991, "... which relate to the interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road..." and "... relating to the phasing of construction for the Route 29 Bypass based on increases in traffic and economic conditions." Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization' FY 2000 Transportation Imp.r..qvemen_t Program. .. Adopted 09/21/19'99 Page 11 of 77 I Resolution Regarding Route 29 Bypass Construction Funds in MPO TIP, Page 3 WHEREAS, the aforesaid February 16, 1995 CTB resolution (1) was contrary to the findings of the $3.7 million Route 29 Corridor study, (2)ignored the recommendations of the VDOT Chief Engineer concerning the sequence of Route 29 improvements, (3) violated the' agreements and assurances made by VDOT to Albemarle County conceming the sequencing of Route 29 improvements, and (4) was contrary to the Three Party Agreement and the CATS. WHEREAS it is' contrary to the Three Party Agreement to commit public funds to the construction of the Project until Currently committed projects, such as the base case widening of Route 29, the four-laning of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, and the Meadow Creek Parkway are completed, and a reasonable period of time has passed after the completion of those improvements so that a determination can be made of their effect upon traffic flow in the Route 29 corridor. WHEREAS, the improvements in the Route 29 corridor scheduled to be completed prior to beginning construction of the Project, as identified in the Three Party Agreement, the CATS, and the CTB resolutions of November, 1990 and December, 1991, have not been completed. WHEREAS there is currently being conducted a Design Study (the "Design Study") for the Route 29 Bypass in which many important community impacts from the Proiect are being identified which had not been previously disclosed or determined, such as the visual, social, anc~ environmental costs associated with the cut through Stillhouse'Mountain and the impacts from a yet-to-be designed three-lex, el Southern Terminus. WHEREAS there have been numerous variations and increases in the VDOT cost estimates for the proposed Project and the total cost of the Project shown in the present TIP appears to be substantially less than the actual amount which will be needed to construct the Project as estimated at the conclusion of the Design study. WHEREAS, at this time, this Board does not have accurate information upon v~hich to make a reasonable' determination of the ultimate cost of the Project. WHEREAS, there is currently being conducted a study of the U.S. Route 29 Corridor from Warrenton to the North Carolina State Line; Phase I of the Route 29 Corridor Study extended from Warrenton to Charlottesville, and the ongoing Phases II and III extend from Charlottesville to the North Carolina State Line (15hases I-III are collectively known as the "Route 29 Corridor Studies"). The Corridor Studies include several proposed options which may significantly affect the design of the Route 29 Bypass as it relates to the overall corridor design and anticipated traffic. WHEREAS, this Board deems it to be imprudent to approve construction funds for the project until the Route 29 Corridor Studies are complete. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that funding for the Project should be approved for planning, engineering and right of way acquisition only, and that no funding for Project construction be included in the MPO 2000-2002 TIP at this time. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the MPO will reconsider inclusion of construction funds for the Project upon completion of the following processes: it 1) Completion ofihe "Base Case" improvements (widening the present Route 29). Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organizatio~., ,~,.,~ ..... - ...... ~ ..... , ...... . _ FI'2000 TranSPortation Improvement Program Adopted 0972]?]~ .......... , '~: ...~" ' .... ~9'-, · ~' ............. : .... · . ' ' ?, ~:~, ~: ~:'~.' ' P~qge-!2 of 77 ,,'~. Resolution Regarding Route 29 Bypass Construction Funds in MPO TIP, Page 2) Completion of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, in. cluding information related to the impact of the corridor study recommendations on the deSign of, and projected_traffic upon, the Route 29 Bypass. 3) Completio'n °i' the' Route ~29 Bypass Design ~tudy, including cost estimates and indications as to the .relationship of the Bypass to the overall corridor design identified in the Phase I of the Route 29 Corridor Study (from Charlottesville to Warrenton). The Design Study should give as accurate an estimate of anticipated costs as possible, as well as thorough information on environmental and community impacts. There are issues vet to be 'settled, including protection of water resources, 'impacts to the trail 'complex at Jack Jouett school, and mitigation of noise impacts. These issues may extend the deSign stage and may require increased funding. The MPO supports funding for designing, planning and purchase of fight of way related to the facility. 4) Completion of a cooperative process between the MPO and VDOT to agree upon funding, scheduling, and inclusion in the TIP of the projects identified in the resolutions and agreementS described in this resolution, including elements in the Route 29 corridor improvements adopted by the CTB in' 1990 and 1991, and as more fully set out in a letter tO Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors F. R. Bowie dated November 4, 1991 from Secretary John G. Milliken, and agreed to by the City, County, University of Virginia, and MPO in 1991 and 1992, excluding the grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic and Seminole Trail (Route 29). Approved July 25, 1996 by majority vote of the MPO Policy Board (Mr. Wells abstaining), with rewording approved by telephone ballot September 9, 1996. Endorsed by the MPO for inclusion in FY98 TIP on August 11, 1997 and for inclusion in the FY99 TIP on December t5, 1998. Rewording approved for inclusion in FY2000 TIP on September 21, 1999. ATTESTED: Nancy K. O Brien, Ekecutive Director Ch~lo't[e~v~ill~ - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program .Adopted. 09/2 i/19~9 Charlottesville;Albemarle 'Metropolitan Plgnn g OrganizatlOfi'- POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902; (804) 979-7310; fax: (804) 979-1597 Virginia Relay Center for hearing impaired: (800) 828-1140 (voice); (800).828-1120 (TDD) emaih tjpd@state.va.ns ;' website: http://avenue.org/ti¢dc FY2000 Certification statement The Charlottes~'ilie-All~emarle Metropolitan Planning OrganiZation 0kfPO) and the Commonwealth of Virginia certify that the transportation planning process is being carded on in conformance with all applicable requirements of 23 USC 134, 49 USC 1607, 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFR Part 613, and Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) bfthe Clean Air Act as evidenced by the following: 1) A 3-C agreement defining the roles of the various local agencies and VDOT was executed on October 22, 1982 and updated in June, 1995. 2) In December, 199,~, the MPO approved a Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CA~S) Year 2015 Policy Plan. A Project Plan was adopted in January, 1998.. 3) The FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program was approved by the MPOon September 21st, 1999. 4) A Unified Transportation Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY00 was yproved by the MPO in April,~.. 1999, with subsequent approval by VDOT and VDRPT. 5) A TSM element was prepared and approved by the MPO on May 12, 1983. 6) The Environment.al Protection Agency has determined that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Urbanized Area is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). , 7) The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), which staffs the MPO and the regional RideShare program is an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action employer. The TJPDC and area public transit providers follow procedures designed to increase effective solicitation of business enierprises of minorities and women for contract services. : 8) A Private Sector Participation Process, including a statement of policies and procedures, was adopted on May 27, 1986. An update was adopted in January, 1990. 9) A Public Participation Policy in accordance with ISTEA regulations was adopted February 24, 1994, following a 45-day comment, period. Adopted September 21 st, 1999 by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization. State Transportation Planning Engineer Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Charlottesville :. Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted 097~i/19~9'~ '-',Comparison of FY1999 MPO TIP to FY2000 MPO TIP Interstate System (all figures in thousands of dollars). ~ Interstate 64 Sewer System at Ivy Rest Area: The interstate rest area project is now split into two parts - one for the rest area on eastbound 1-64 and one project fo~ the rest.area on westbound 1-64. The eastbound rest area is outside the MPO ~study area and.consequently not included in this year's TIP. Preliminary engineering for the westbound rest area project has been moved from FY2000 to FY2003. District wide: Allocations are same as FY2000 except Rumble Strips, increased from $200 to $300. As with last year, there is no way to tell which, if any, ~ire in the MPO study area. Primary_ System (all figures in.thousands of dollars) . Rt 20 Widening at Rt 53: Funding same, time line extended to 2001 from expected completion in FY1999. US 29 widening NCL to Rio Road: Funding same, time line same (construction complete). US 29 Widening Rio Road to SFRR: Allocations raised slightly, time line same (construction complete). US 29 widening Rt 643 to Airport Road: Currently PE and RW only. PE raised from $1,467 to $2,060; RW remained constant. Time line extended for completion of RW from FY2001 to FY2005. US 29 Access Management Study Airport Road to Greene County Line: PE only. Estimat~ constant at /$200. Scheduled for completion by end of FY2000. US 29 bridge replacement SFRR: CN lowered from $6075 to $6020, projected allocations increased. Time line moved up, project appears to be finishing ahead of schedule in early FY2000 instead of end of FY2000. US 29 Charlottesville Bypass: Funding estimates remained the same; additional funding required decreased from $137,064 to $133,317. FY2000 allocation for non-NHS monies increased from $3,080 to $3,105. Time line: CN start date delayed from FY2003 to FY2004. Allocation continues to show an add!tional $1,000 in NHS funds towards accrual for CN, six million total to date. This is in conflict witltMPO TIP resolution withholding approval of CN funding or accrual towards CN. US 29 Corridor Study Warrenton-Charlottesville: PE only. PE increased from $1,600 to $1,614; allocation of $14 added to FY2000. Not aware of any additional, activity on this study; recommendations were submitted to CTB in fall of 1998. : .. : US 29 Bypass 1-64 to Fontaine Ave: CN estimate increased from $165 to $248. FY2001 allocation increased from $60 to $143. Construction scheduled for completion in late FY2000. US 29 Corridor Study Charlottesville to North Carolina: PE only. PE remained constant. Scheduled for completion in mid-FY2000. US 250 Intersection Realignment at Bel Air: PE same. RW lowered from $140 to $71; CN increased from $320 to $ 516. Construction is currently underway. Albemarle PE for Connector Road to UVA (North Grounds Connector): Funding and time line remain the same; PE appears to be complete. District wide projects: Allocations increased in amounts ranging from $25 to $500 for all projects except ~ Guardrail Traffic Barrier (same) and Variable Message Sign (appears to be complete) Fiber Optics Resource Sharing is new. C'harlo[t~s~ille*- Albemad-e Metropolitan Planning Organization '..~z,::.:x~'~ -~', ~' FY 2OO.0 Tranqportatioq I_mprovement Prograrn ,4dopted 09/21/1999 ~ ' ' :'.--: . , ,Urban System (all figures in thousands of dollars)" ., . Fontaine Avenue: PE increased from $352 to $360; CN increased from $1,810 to $20,060. Allocations similar across: years or slightly increased. Time line remained the same. Emmet Street Traffic Signal Coordination: New (this project appears to have evolved i;r°~ the MPO Intelligent Transportation Systems study recommendations). Ivy Road'Widening: RW increased from $1,900 to $2,150, allocations increased across board, time line remained the same. Meadow Creek Parkway: RW increased from $775 to $993, CN decreased from $5,806 to $5,334. Allocations modified slightly. Time line extended; RW was expected to end FY1999, now ending FY2001; CN expected to start FY2000, now mid FY2001. 9th/10th St Realignment: PE increased from $1,277 to $1,289. Time line extended slightly into Fy2000. Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge: PE increased from $276 to $278. Allocations modified slightly. Time line extended; CN was expected to start FY2000, now mid FY2001. Transit Transfer Center:' No changes. Cit-ywide Traffic Signals: New project. Secondary_ System (all figures in thousands o£dollars) Rt 601 (Old Ivy Road) Widening: CN increased from $3,250 to $3,750; Time line remained the same; CN scheduled for FY2003. Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) Spot Improvements: No changes. CN scheduled for FY2003. Rt 651 (Free State Road) Bridge Replacement: No changes. CN scheduled for FY2001. Rt 743 (Hydraulic Road) Restripe Lanes: CN cost estimate included for FY2000 of $280. Hazard Elimination Program (all tTgures in thousands of dollars) Rt 631 (Rio Road): PE increased from $4 to $68; RW decreased from $150 to $0. 'Project on schedule to be finished mid FY2000, Rt 743 (Hydraulic Road): Funding same. Project now shows a time line. The FY2000 TIP had several safety and rail crossing projects which appear to all have been comp. leted now and do not appear in the FY2001 VDOT Program. These include rail crossings at 9th/10th, Preston, Shamrock, and Concord. Transportation Enhancements (all figures in thousands of dollars) ' All projects from previous year are same. New projects include Thomas Jefferson Parkway site improvements to provide access from Visitor's Center and Charlottesville Historic Court Square. Public Transportation (alt figures in thousands of dollars) Charlottesville Transit System: Operating expenses increased from $1,135 to $1,941. Capital expenses decreased from $849 to $716, and Miscellaneous expenses increased from $68 to $160. JAUNT: Operating expenses increased from $1,880 to $2,120. Capital expenses decreased from $2,638 to $450. RideShare: Program expenses increased from $100 to $132. Charlottesville -Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2OOO Transp'ortation.Improvement Prograrn Adopted09/21/1999 FY2000 Transp6rtati0n?r0jects Introductioni The following pages list projects plarified from FY2000 through'FY2005 based on the VDOT Statewide Six-Year Program.-The MPO is required to approve of projects which 1) use federal funding and/or require other federal approval and 2) are proposed for FY2000, 2001, or 2002. Also included for information are state and locally funded projects. The VDOT Six Year Program is developed in cooperation with local governments and updated each year.. Federally funded projects in the MPO Study Area require approval from the MPO, indicated by inclusion in the TIP. All projects in the lists from the Six Year Program reflect state and federal funds (no local funds), and are shown in thousands of dollars. It is important to note the following points: MPO endorsement applies only to urban study area projects slated for federal funding and/or f~deral approval which are scheduled for FY2000, 2001 or 2002 (the shaded area in the funding table). Other projects are included for information only. Funding allocations beyond FY2000 are estimates. They are not guaranteed, and may change in future annual TIP updates. Following this page is a description of the format and abbreviations Used for individual projects included in the TIP. Projects are divided into the following funding categories: Primary. Transportation, Urban Transportation, Secondary Transportation, Transportation Enhancements, Safety, and Public Transportation. The complete Secondary Road program developed by Albemarle County is included for information. Transit projects include Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) and JAUNT services 'planned for federal funding allocations in the MPO study area. The RideShare program budget is state funded and shown for informational prirposes. All state and federal transit programs are matched with local government funds.' The Downtown Transit Transfer Center is funded through the Urban Road system in Charlottesville and is included in that list. Statement Regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: All new road projects should consider'construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as specified in the MPO Bicycle Plan and local pedestrian plans. 'Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program ._Adopted 09/21/1999 Charlottesville City Council Resolution Regarding Construction of the Meadow Ci:eek Parkway July 19, 1999 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville that the Mayor is hereby instructed to send the following letter about the Meadow Creek Parkway to the Virginia Department of Transportation : July 20, 1999 Scott Holtis Reginald H Beasley, Jr. Virginia Department of Transportation ' 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 Re: MClntlre Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway) VDOT Project No. U000-104-102; 0631-002-128 City of Charlottesville Gentlemen: Preliminary road plans presented by the Virginia Department of Transpodation [VDOT), propose four motor vehicle travel lanes crossing the eastern portion of Mclntire Park at a design speed of 70kin/hr (43.5 MPH). VDOT sought public comment on this proposal at a hearing held May 27, 1999. We have been given the right to submit written comment in behaIf of the City. This letter is delivered to VDOT onty after Council has received considerable input from many of its citizens about this project before, during, and after a pubtic hearing held by Council as June 21, 1999. We also have carefully reviewed the work of the City's consultant, a report done by Rieley and Associates entitled "A Study of Roadway Alternatives for the Meadow Creek Parkway in Mclntire Park" dated April 27, 1999, (hereinafter "the Rieley Report"). An extra copy of that report is enclosed for VDOT's reference. The City's formal position or comment item by item, · - for which there is majority support of this Council, is as follows: '-"' 1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks''~j that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a maximum speed of 60 kin~hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be graded and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley Report so that the'road will be "blended as gracefully as possible into the existing land form." This should help to reduce the project's impact on Mclntire Park. 2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes, rather than [our (4), be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the "study alignment" referred to in the Rieley Report as 4-Lane Divided (4-D), pp. 4-5. If and when a future City Council were to approve an additional two fanes, new primary travel lanes could then be constructed with a minimum of disruption to the Park, its landscape, and greenery and at lower costs for the State and the City. 3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Four (4) Lanes. Right of way for four (4) lanes of motor vehicle travel should be acquired a.t the outset as part of the current project. 4. The Intersection at Route 250. Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include a tightly drawn intersection with a relatively small footprint. The initial VDOT design is far too large. We believe that the total number of lanes created by the intersection should not exceed seventeen (17). Access [or pedestrians and bicycle travel to Mcintire Park through and aFound the proposed intersection from the south and east also must be accommodated at grade in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire. 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle lanes on each side of the Parkway's north- south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared pedeslrian/'DiCycte path much like the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in width. 6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, makes sense to all of us. The City will do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway. Charlottesville ,- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ,: ': :-...,. ,-, .. FY 2000 ~dnsportation Improvement Program Adopted 09/21/1999 Page 18 of 77 Charlottesville City Council Resolution Regarding Construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway, Page 2 7. Additional Park Land. The' City respectfully requests that VDOT acquire and donate to the City and County, as part of this project opportunity, the greatest amount of additional land as is possible north and south of Melbourne Road. Our objectives are several. These include replac ng any park land losses r~esulting from th s project, .enhancing and expanding the northern and eastern sides of Mclntire Park and joining with the County in seeing that park land north of Melbourne, through a linear park o'r otherwise, becomes a reality before acquisition of additional land in that location becomes occupied or too expensive, These acquisitions shou Id be made easier through VDOT's use .of money saved, from the City's requested design changes, including those seeking a reduced design speed, two rather than four lanes, and combination of the storm water detention facilities. 8. Cell Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the public rights-of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquired solely for traditional mad system purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to private compahies who then construct wireless telecommunication towers ("Cell towers") on the sites along :)ur highways. Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are larger or taller or both..Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in Virginia. This new cell tower highway program has occurred without any local government zoning Or land use oversight or permission, and without any meaningfu opportunity for the pubtic to participate in deciding where the next tower will appear. For these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers anywhere along Phase I of this project without th'e express permission of this Council and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. We' wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local government involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves forward. 9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept Of a limited access Parkway for this road as it travels through Mclntire Park. It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and signed to prevent truck traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing the right Of'way as is conventional in many limited access highways. As the Rieley RePort indicates, "with the lower-speed design and the objective of making this roadway as much a pan of the park as is possible" fencing is not "necessary or desirable". 10. Regional Transportation and The Eastern Connector. While the Council supports construction of a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described in this letter, Council has no interest in this Parkway's becoming a de facto "eastern connector", i.e., being used by the public to travel from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route 20 North, The Parkway should be viewed as only one part of the regional transportation solution. We urge VDOT, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the County of Albemarle to develop new regional approaches to solve our traffic problems. '11. The MPg Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee. This Committee is commended by Council for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway designs heretofore put forward by VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this Committee to ensure "that the road is compatible with the community's natural and built environment, and enhances the multi-modal mobility for area residents". To the extent that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future from the City in these continuing efforts, the City may h. ire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council and City staff as the process moves forward. '12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final desig'n plans evolve, proper measures must be taken by VDOT in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which currently is located gna hill in Mclntire Park near the proposed intersection of the Parkway and the 250 By-Pass. - .. The foregoing items - one by one - are each in their own right important, crucial, elements in any final design that the City and this Council wilt support. These components were coupled together in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that the City has any right, by law or practice, to approve the final design, we ask and expect that VDOT will remember this linkage. Finally, if there are questions that VDOT has about Council's position as stated in this letter, please let us know, through contact with City staff or directly. We stand ready to cooperate with VDOT in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction. Sincerely yours, (signed) Virginia Daugherty Mayor CC: Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, Culpeper Cader Myers Approved by City Council July'ri9, ~ 999 (Signed) Jeanne Cox, Clerk of Council Charlottesville -Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization :~_,--r~:~.:~-c., . ?~,: .-.-,- ~. ~ ~ ......... : . . . ' '~' .... ';- "-'Page .1.9 of 77 FY2000 Transportation Impt~oYement pr. ogram Adopted09/21/1999 How to Read the Proj&t Information Pages ,! ...... ............. i-:' :.i_.': The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO has developed this listing of transportation projects and funding within the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Study area in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation. Each project page in the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) corresponds to a project listed in the VDOT stat~wide Six-Year Improvement Program. 'The MPO has supplemented the information provided by VDOT with a sketch map. of each project and more detailed information on project status along with any specific comments or concerns the MPO has. The top of each page contains an individual project number followed by a brief description of the pr°Ject. Following this, there is a rough project location map on the left side of the page, and a small table on the right Side of the page. The table contains information on the particular system of a project - Interstate, Primary, Secondary, Urban, Hazard Elimination Safety Program, Enhancement, or TEA-21 Restoration Act); the locality the project falls in (Charlottesville or Albemarle); the length of the project; the~ funding source(s) of the project (see Table 1 below for a listing of possible funding sources); status of the project; and information on any MPO resolutions or caveats regarding the project. Table 1: APD - Appalachian Development Funding Source Identification AD - Defense Access BOND - Bond Issue - Bridge Replacement - Bridge Rehabilitation BR BH CM - Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality - Demonstration DEMO EN - Enhancement F - Consolidated Primary HES HPD ID From VDOT Six Year Improvement Pro IMG - Interstate Maintenance Grade Crossing IR - Interstate 4R IX - Interstate Substitution M - Urbanized MR - Maintenance Repl'acement NH - National Highway .. · -... IM - Hazard Elimination - TEA-21 High Priority - Interstate Discretionary - Interstate Maintenance - State STP - Surface Transportation Program. TB - Timber Bridge - Toll Facilities Revolving Account - Rail Highway Grade Separation TFRA RRS All designations except "State" indicate that federal funds are to be used for at least a ~ram) ~ortion of the project. The project maps were developed with base map data provided by VDOT through the Enhahced Digital County Map Series program. The Charlottesville:Albemarle MPO wishes to express their appreciation to VDOT for the use of these digital files and hopes the program will continue to be updated and refined over the coming. years. The roadway labels and symbols are copyright VDOT 1998. Below the project map is a large table with project cost estimates and allocations. Ail figures in these tables will be given in thousands of dollars (e.g. 4,505 in the table equals $4,505,000.00). The following paragraphs contain explanations of the individual row and column headings. Estimated Cost (in thousands of dollars)' The estimated costs given in this column begin as rough estimates usually based on historical data for the area. As work progresses, better cost estimates are developed. The estimated costs are updated at critical stages such Charlottesville r Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2OOO Trahsportation lmprovement Program Ado~ted 09/21/199~ Page 20 of 77 as the time of the final field inspection, when plans are more defined and estimates can be relied upon to closely compare with the final project costs. Within the estimated cost column are four rows with budget figures: 0 Preliminary Engineering (PE) - In this phase a preliminai~ field survey, utilit3' location, environmental/historical studies, road design altemativesi drawingsi final field inspections and public hearings will be'done. This process can take a few months to several years to complete. A time line showing how long this phase will last for this project can be found on this row in the ACTUAL ALLOCATION and PROJECTED ALLOCATION columns (each "xx" -- 3 months, "xxxx" = 6 months, "xxxxxx" = 9 months, and "xxxxxxxx".= 1 year). 2) Right-of-Way (RW) - This is the portion of the project in which negotiations with property owners take place, payments are made and arrangements with utility companies are finalized, to obtain the land necessary for the project. As with the Preliminary Engineering portion, the cost estimates are to the right, followed by the time line for the work in this part of the project (each "xx" = 3 months, "xxxx" = 6 months, "xxxxxx'''= 9 months, and "xxxxxxxx" = 1 year). Right-of-way work ~will not begin until most of the preliminary eng!neering steps are complete. 3) Construction (CN) - In this phase the project is advertised to prospective contractors for bids. Once the bids are opened and a contract awarded, construction can begin. The cost estimate and time line are shown to the right (each "xx" = 3 months, "xxxx" = 6 months', "xxxxxx" = 9 months, and "xxXXXXxx" = 1 year). 4) Total (TO) - This is the total of all cost estimates and should represent the final estimated cost of the project. Previous Funding This column indicates prior allocations given to this project in the years preceding the current Six-Year Improvement Program. Additional Funding Required This column shows the total PREVIOUS FUNDING. allocation needed to complete funding of the project, less the amount in Actual Allocation 1999-2000 The column shows how much money has been allocated to the project for the current Six Year Improvement Program fiscal year (FY2000). It is the current year's allocation. Next to the allocation is an abbreviation of the funding source in parenthesis. For example, a project, funding with Surface Transportation Program'funds is abbreviated STP. Table 1 on page ! 9 contains a listing'of all the possible abbreviations. The years shown under the ACTUAL ALLOCATION and PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS header, represent fiscal years beginning July 1 and ending June 30. The series of x% found in the year columns depict time lines for the Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-Way, and Construction activities. The placement of the time line within the fiscal year column indicates the start of the activity. Each column represents the 4 quarters of the fiscal year, with each "xx" representing a span of three months. For example, a project activity starting in the second quarter of the fiscal year could be interpreted as beginning in October, November or December. Projected Allocations This column has five subcolumns listed by fiscal year· Each column shows the amount of money anticipated to be available for the project for that fiscal year. r~'~ Balance to Complete This column shows allocations needed in future years, beyond the Six-Year Improvement Program, to complete paying for the project. Adding the BALANCE TO COMPLETE, PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS and ACTUAL ALLOCATION will equal the amount shoxvn in ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIRED column. Charl'otte'svi~le Albemarle Metropol#an Planning Organization . FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program ..Adopted Secondary ioad~ (gen~r-aily. ro. aas"with route numberi'60'0 and above)are not included in the'VDOT SiX-Year~-~ Improvement Program, bUt the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO includes these projects for public information. The secondary road program, is developed by each county in Conjunction with VDOT. The next item on the page is ia box for any specific notes on projeCts. In the lower left-hand comer of the NOTES box there is a heading for a VDOT PPMS Number. This is a VDOT internal Program Project Management System number used to track the project. At the bottom of the NOTES box, there is a VDOT State Project Number. This number appears on all documents and correspondence related to the project. - The project number can be broken as follows: (FO)OR(NFO)0340-007-106, PE104, RW204, C504 (FO)-(NFO) beginning with Fiscal Year 1995-96 new projects showing a prefix in parentheses of "FO" represents federal oversight and "NFO" represents no federal oversight in the construction phase of'a project. This only applies to construction contracting and management issues and does not affect the standard environmental review process for transportation projects. All federally funded tranSPortation projects must include the required environmental documents regardless of whether or not there is federal oversight in the construction contracting and management phase of a project. 0340 - means that this project is located on Route 340. A project beginning with U000 is an Urban project and located only in a city. Those projects beginning with a 6, such as 6522, mean the road is all arterial corridor. 007 - is a county/city code. 007 is the code for Augusta County. 106 - is a section number assigned sequentially along each route. This number also helps differentiate this project from others on Route 340 in Augusta County. An "S" in place of the first digit represents a safety' project, an "F" represents federal oversight in all phases and a "V" represents no federal oversight past the environmental process. PE104 - is the preliminary engineering number. Usually this is a 101 number. A 104 number indicates that three other projects relating to this project' using the 0340-007-106 number are or have been in existence. RW204 - is the right of way number. As with the PE number, this number usu'ally is 201i.A 204 number indicates other projects relating to this project have been or are planned to be built. C504 - isthe construction number and follows the same format as PE and RW above. Other construction letter codes are tis follows: P = Paving,. G = grading, L = lan~tscaping, B =.bridges, M = minimum plan, N = no plan, D = box culvert / drainage structure, FS = flashing signal (railroad crossing), S = sign plan Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Fr 2000 riri~kortation Improvement Program Adopted 09/2 i/199) Interstate System ProjeCts Charlotte~ille - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000. Tr. ansRortqtien Imp.r, qv_ qmeqt ~rogram Adopted09~2771999 Project t - Interstate 64 - Upgrade Sewer System. At Ivy Rest Area - Mile Marker 113 Westbound (Rest Area 3W) Project MaP -- N 0 1 2 Miles & System Interstate Locality Albemarle County Funding Source I Interstate Maintenance Status of Project I PE begins 2003, CN mid-2004 MPO Endorsement I Endorsed Purpose [ Upgrade deteriorating rest area sewer system. (All Figures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost Previous Additional Actual Projected Allocations Funding Allocation Balance to Funding , Required 1999.2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete Engineering ~,:. ...... 0 0~)~J 8%.~0~ r~ ;~ 350 350 384 0 Notes VDOT PPMS Number: 52338 VDOT State Proiect Number: (FO)0064-O02-F07, PE102, RW202, L802 /---% Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted 09/2 i/19~'~ Culpeper Districtwide Interstate ProjeCts VDOT Culpeper District System Locality Interstate Albemarle County M PO Endorsement Endorsed Description Previous Additional Funding Allocation Actual Projected Allocations Balance to Funding Recluired 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete Beautification 180 ~30~ · 80 30 30 30' Improvements New Signs 300 ,~;50'~ ~;~;50~ ~0,~ 50 50 50 Rumble Ships 300 300 ~0~.~ ~00~ ~!'00~ 0 0 0 Fiber Optic Resource 30 Sharin~ Initiative ........... ~ 0 20 40 Miles (Ail Figures are in Thousands of Dollars Primary System Projec. ts Charlottesyt.?[e.- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ~ :~:':,~:~-??.~_~ ~.-,,:,~r,~ .~r~?&- "- . .... :.:,~:,.:--,~..':~ ~,, ~Page 26 of 77 FY2000 TransportationlmprovementProgram Adopted09~21~1999 ?, ~,.'., ~. ',_ ~-,,. .... ::',", ..... - .... :-:',~ ':<,,~, , . · .-: '. ,~project 2 -eR°Ute.20'- Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes (Preliminary Engineering iOnly) · .-,0:4km North Route 53 - 1.5 km South Route 53 Project Map ' N 0 0.5 1' Miles System Primary Locality Albemarle County Length 1.9 km (1.2 Miles) Funding Source Surface Transportation Program Status of Project PE on hiatus MPO Endorsement Endorsed I PurP°se I Increase r°adway capacity near new M°nticell° IHigh School. are in Thousands of Dollars) Additional' Actual .... Projected Allocations ,, ' , '--Ba ance to ....Previous Funding AllO(~ation '.' Estimated. Cost Funding Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Preliminary .~200 ':~ '~ ~~l ¢¢ " Engineedng ....... ~ , ~ ' ~ ..... - Right-of-Way 0 Construction 0 Notes VDO'[ has spent part of the $200,000 on Preliminary Engineering. Work on the project has stopped until additional money is allocated to right,of-way and construction. There is no scheduled start date at this time. .j VDOT PPMS Number: 17619 I VDOT State Project Number: {NFO)0020-002-127, PE101 Charlottesville -'zllbemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization :~-~,:'~-~7>-,5.~ ':-,:,:~-,~:¢~. ~:>?,9~< ..... x.~ .......... ,~:~ ~- ~ .... ~ ........... ~ :~ 'Page 27 of 77 ' FY2000 Tra~portation Improvement Pro, am ~doptedO9/21/199P" ":~ ~: '%7, ~,-.r:,~:.~ .:-:;:? ~.,:~:~r~.~,.' w.4 <: ~ ........ ~.:" -: - ' -~ Project 3 -' US Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes w/Cont. 'Right Turn lane in'each Directio Corporate Limits Charlottesville - 0.2 mi North RiO'Rd (Rt. 631) Project Ma p ....... US 29 "Widening N 0 0.5 1 Miles j~ System Primary Locality Albemarle County Length 1.8 Miles Funding Source I Surface Transportation Program Status of Project I Construction Complete MPC Endorsement I Endorsed Purpose I Increase roadway capacity and provide sidewalks fOr pedestrian access. ures are in Thousands of Dollars) ............. ' '-" Previous Additional -Actual ' · Estimated Cost' ' Funding . Funding Allocation : Proje~tedAIIocat.!ons Balanceto :. Required '1999-2000 ·2000-01 I 2001-02 2002-03 2003.04 2004-05 . Complete Preliminary 1,844 ' ~; Engineering '~~~ .. Right-of-Way 3,866 ~.~~ Construction 15,485 i ~= ~~ -' ~':i Total 21,195 19,485 1,710 :i~:,l,000(ST~,i'"~;~,}:~¢'j~:~ :~,~;~,~-~*,~+';-, · ~:~;~.u ~ 0 0 0 0 Notes Sidewalks were built as part of this project. Remaining allocations to finish payment of construction costs. VDOT PPMS Number: 13348, 2521 VDOT State Project Number: 6029-002-119, PE101. RW201; F19 C501 Charlottesville - ~tlbemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Tr~portation Improvement Program ,{dopted 09/2 !/1999.'..~ Page 28 of 77 Project 4 - US 29 - widen'from 4 to 6 Lanes w/Cont. Right Turn Lane in each Direction 0.2 mi North Rio Rd (Rt. 631) - South _Fork Rivanna River Project Map O 0.5 I Miles System Primary. Locality Albemarle County Length 1.3 Miles Funding Source Surface Transportation Program Status of Projec[ Construction Complete MPC Endorsement I Endorsed I Purpose I Increase roadway capacity and provide sidewalks for pedestrian access. Thousands of Dollars) ~ .' ....... Additional Actual ' " ~ Projected Allocations Balance to ~revlous_. Fu~din Estimated Cost Funding . Requir~i .' Allocation ' '- · 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002.03 2003-04 2004-05.. Complete Engineering Right-of-Way 1,047 Construction 9,545 Notes Sidewalks were constructed as part of this project. Remaining allocations to finish payment of construction costs. VDOT PPMS Number: 2304 VDOT State Project Number: 6029-002-F19, PE102, RW202. C502 Ch~.lo[t~rville'- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ',", ~:'"~ ~;"'.'~ ':~-'..~;~ : .... r ~ '-":"~' ~:"'"~'~"'?~"- Page 29 of 77 FY 2000 Tra~portation Improvement Pro. am Adopted 09/2i/i~9 ~; '¥. ........ ~; ~.. ~,x . - Project 5 - US 29 - Corridor Improvements (Preliminary Engineering and Right of-Way Only) 0.2 km NOrth Route 643 - 0.2 km North Route 649 (Airport Road) us :/6 Widening / /- Project Map 0 0.5 1 Miles System I Primary . Local ty Albemarle County Length 4.0 km (2.5 Miles) Funding Source Surface Transportation Program Status of Project PE Underway MPO Endorsement Endorsed with caveats* I ['Purpose I Increase roadway' efficiency and capacity. ures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost Previous Additional Actual ·ProjectedAIIoca{ions ' ": .; , Ba anceto · Funding Funding Allocation - - . Required 1999-2000 2000.01 12001-02 2002-03 2003.04 2004-05 Complete Engineering : ,,'~ Construction 0 Total 9,915 6,209 ~~1~ Notes *- Albemarle County endorses the use of parallel access roads in the design of the corridor improvements. The current project design does not include bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The current roadway is four lanes wide. VDOT PPMS Number: 3160 VDOT State Proiect Number: 6029-002-F21, PEI01 RW201 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ; ...... ~ ..:: ~, -" '~-~.=,rc~z\'~ :~':-; :..~: :'.:t-'t ~'.,~.:w5.6.\ r,.- Pag~ 30~ of 77 FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted 09/21/1999 ... :. Project 6 -US.29.- Access Management Study (Preliminary Engineering Only) Route 649 (Airport Road) - Greene County Line Project Map 0 I 2 Miles System Primary Locality Albemarle County Length 7.5 km (4.7 Miles) Funding Source Surface Transportation Program Status of Project MPO 'Endorsement No start date currently scheduled Endorsed with caveat* . I Purpose [ Increase roadway efficiency and capacity. (All Fi! ures are in Thousands of Dollars) Additional Actual . ProjectedAliocations ' i ~ ' ' - Balanceto Previous Funding Allocation - · ' . Estimated Cost. Funding Required t999-2000 '2000-0~ 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04- 2004-05._ Complete Preliminary 200 ' Engineering~~ ~ ,~~ Ri9ht-of-way : Construction ~~ Notes *- MP.O caveat states that any new roadway construction should be consistent with Phase Iof the Route 29 Corridor Study (from Warrenton to Charlottesville). Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Rural Transportation Committee is sharing information on this study with the Greene County Access Management Study of Route 29. The current roadway is four lanes wide. Related Projects: Project 5 - US 29 Corridor Improvements: Project 10 - US 29 Corridor Study Preliminary Engineering VDOT PPMS Number: 17621 VDOT State Project Number: (NFO)6029-002-131. PE101 ,. Project 7 - US 29 Bridge'Replacement SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER 0.3 km South of South Fork Rivanna River - 0.2 km North'Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road) Project Map : / \ o System Primary Locality Albemarle County Length I 0.7 km (0.4 MileS) Funding Source Bridge Replacement/ Surface Transportation Program Status of Project Construction Underway: MPO Endorsement Endorsed Purpose I Replace aging bridge structure. lures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost Previous Additional Actual - Projected Ali0cat[0ns ..... Funding Funding Allocation Balance to 1999-2000 2000,01 2001.02 2002-03 2003-04 2004.05 ' 'Complete Preliminary 751 69 ConsffucUon Total 6,840 1,802 5,038 307 0 0 Notes Project includes bicycle lanes, but no sidewalks in current design. The replacement bridge will be wide enough to accommodate additional lanes of traffic when future corridor improvements are specified. Related Projects: ~- US 29 Corridor tm_.~rovements VDOT PPMS Number: 15998 V~DOT State Pro~ect Number: 6029-002-121, PE102, RW202. C502, B622. B624 Charlotte~ille::- Alb'~marle Metropolitan Planning Organization : x,'- ,.~. '...~'~'... ",-':,~.~ ~ .... :: : ,~' . FY2000 Transportation !mprovemen~t Prograrn Adopted09~2!/1999 · · Project 8 - US 29 CHARLO ESVILLE BYPASS Alternative 10 (Western Route) Project Map System I Primary Locality Albemarle County Length 6 miles · Funding Source State / National Highway System / Surface Transportation Program Status of Project Purchasing Right-of-Way and continuing to accrue funds toward construction.* MPO Endorsement See Notes* I Purpose I Provide alternate route of travel around US 29 I north of Charlottesville. f N Miles /[ {All t-lc~ures are lrl i llous;qllu~ ui Estimated Cost Previous AdditionaIFunding AllocationACtual prOjected, Allocations: . ;: Balance to Funding~ Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 ,2003-04 -2004-05 -, Complete Preliminary 11,011 : ?. ' Engineering ........ . Right-of-Wa)' 27j448 ::"~':i?!ii iii~ ~i~i~ xxxxxxxx ' ', ; :'.;:2'(1~!:~1,000.? :;!!(li~:!~!.,000:: .i!i{i')"!i~j~000'!il (1) 1,000 ¢) 1,000 ¢') 1,000 Total 168,472 35,155 133;317 .'; ".::~'::'~4,105. 'i~:i;i:"?'~.,360: '.!i.;:78.510.;, 10,000 10,000 10,000 86,342 (S/NH/STP} Notes (1) - Natio'nal Highway System Allocations *- MPO endorses funding for Preliminary Engineering and Right of Way, but is currently withholding endorsement of funding for Construction or accrual of Construction funding until the issues identified in the TIP Resolution are add ressed. For more information on this project, see the MPO resolutions on US 29 Bypass Funding (page 9), and TIP endorsement (page 8). '"""" ,PO Citizen Adviso2/Committee is working with VDOT on this design. Current areas of concern include the draft 1~ection 4(f) evaluation of impacts to the trail complex at Jack Jouett Middle School, noise impacts, and water resources impacts, particularly on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The MPO will work with Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to study the water resources impacts during fiscal year 2000. tVDOT PPMS Number: 16160 VDOT State Project Number: 6029-002-128, PEI00, RW201: PE101, RW202, C501, B625-633, B635-B640 Charlottedwille Albemarle ~x,~_,:,,~e,r~l~oman Planning Organization~c :, ~. :' -?.::':.) ;:.,-;, :. ?' ~ ~ .~..;-,:.~ ..,~ L ~, ~ ..... Page 34 of 77 FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted 09/21/1999 ' · ~.' :,:,~ ...... ~. ~ · . ' ......... project 10 - us 29 Bypass - Complete Third Lane Northbound and Southb0'uhd - Interstate 64 -Fon taine Ave Project Map System I Primary Locality I Albemarle County Length 0.6 Miles Funding SoUrce State Status of Project Construction Underway MPO Endorsement Endorsed Purpose Add lanes to increase roadway capacity and facilitate easier merging and exit movements near the Fontaine Avenue exit of the US 29 Bypass. N 0 1 2 Miles (All Fi ures are in Thousands of Dollars) .... Estimated Cost Previous Additional Actual 'Project~d:AIIocation; ": Balanceto Funding Allocation .. - Funding Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 '2004.05 "' Complete Preliminary 20 Engineering ' Right-of-Way 0 , ~ ~ ~ ,, -' Construction 248 J I-~ ~i'~ I Total 268. 50 218 I !;~:~i~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 I '~'"" ~t~ '~ ~o~ . Notes VDOT PPMS Number: 18900 VDOT State Project Number: 6029-002-132, PE101 N501 Charlottesville r Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ~,:. .. v-? FY2000 ~'[[tnsportation Improvement Program AdoPted 09/2 ]/1999 ... ~:~ '. , . .-...: Project ,11, US 29 ~ Corridor.Study Phase II and III -. .... ,' "-...- '- ' (Preliminary Engineering Only),.. ' . - North Carolina State Line - PropoSed.Route 29 B~;paSS bf charlottesville'" NORTH CAROLINA Project.Ma p N 0 20 40 Miles System I Primary Locality ' ' -: Albemarle, Nelson, Amherst, - . '- Lynchburg,' Campbel, 'Pittsylvania * Danville Length I 135 Miles Funding Source I Demonstration Status of Project I, Study Underway . MPO Endorsement I Endorsed IPurpose I Study transportation needs and potential facility I improvements alon~l US 29. (All Fi~]ures are in Thousands of Dollars .... Additional . Actual · · . --.. Projected All0cationS :' ~-sumateo ........ uos[ Previous. .. "Funding Allocation Balanceto · ~unmng. Required 1999-2000 -2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 ~ 2003-04 2004-05 Complete' Preliminary 1,650 ~ ~" ~?~'~ ~"' Engineering ' -' Right-of-Way 0 ~~ ~~ ~ ' . , Construction 0 ~. ~.~ ~~ ~~ : Notes Corridor Study to Determine Method of Development and Feasibility. A MPO Policy Board member is participating on the study advisory committee representing Albemarle County. tVDOT PPMS Number: 16600 · VDOT State Project Number: (FO)6029-963-FO1, PE100 Charlottbs~ill~ - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization .' "'.'~:~':.;.". "5: .... -r;' '; ~.7 FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted 09/21/1999 :-~ "~' ':' . ',. :, "' :.:':~,~ Project 12 - US 250 Intersection'Realignment at Bel Air Subdivision Entrance .... 0.1 Miles West of Route 809 (CanterbUry Road) Intersection :01-1 Miles East of Route 809 Intersection Project Map N 0 0.5 I Miles ~ (All ures are in Thousands of Dollars) System Primary . · - . Locality Albemarle CountY Length 0.2 Miles Funding Source I State .... Status of Project I Construction Underway :',-. · MPg Endorsement I Endorsed IPurpose I Reconstruct intersection for safer, more efficient operation. ' Additional Actual Projected Allocations Balance to Estimated Cost Previous Funding Allocation ... Funding Required 1999-2000. 2000-01 2001-02 .2002.03 ..2003.04 2004-05 Complete Prelim,nary 121 Engineering r,~*~.~ ~ -- - Right-of-Way 71 Construction 516 . Total 708 365 . 343 I:~,,~'IS~'S")~I~'~ 0 0 0 0 Notes VDOT PPMS Number: 17146 VDOT State Proiect Number: 0250-002-112. PE101, RW201, 0501 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Tr6ns~ortation Improvement Program Adopted09/21/1999 'Page 37 of 77 Project 13 - North Grounds ConneCt6r toUVA (PE Only) US 250 Bypass - Massie Road (Northgrounds of UVA campus) Project Map N 0 0.5 1 Mires A System, Primary LOcality Albemarle County . Length . 0.6 Miles Funding Source State Status of Project Design Underway [part of Project #8] MPO Endorsement Endorsed (see Notes*) I Purp°se IPr°vide access t° University °f Virginia N°rth Grounds campus from the US 29 Bypass. (All Fixtures are in Thousands of Dollars) ..... · ' Additional - Actual -- :,.--Projected Allocations - Balance to Estimated Cost Previous ' Funding Allocation ..... '- -' ' ........ Funding Required '1999-2000 2000-0i 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 12004.05 ComPlete Preliminary . : 300 Engineering .... Right-of-Wa), "~" . Construction ' 0 Notes Design for the North Grounds Connector is being conducted as part of the Route 29 Bypass Design Study. A MPO Citizen Advisory Committee is working with VDOT on this design. Particular concerns associated with the North Grounds Connector include impacts to surrounding areas and traffic between North Grounds and Emmet Street, Current design plans call for a four-lane roadway. The North Grounds Connector is listed as Preliminary Engineering only at this time, but funds will be allocated for Right-of-Way and Construction of the project if the Route 29 Bypass is constructed. Related Project: Project 8 - US 29 Charlottesville Bypass VDOT PPMS Number: 12784 VDOT State Proiect Number:' RUVAo002-101 PE101 Ch~rloitb~vill$- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization '..,.,-.. ~.,r~'~,:~,.,,,~ .... ,-**., ..... -.. ~ ~ ...... ,~, ..:.. .... - ~ .7 X ~,: ' ', ,~,~ ~. Page38of77 rr 2000 Tramportatio~.Imprqvement Program Adopted 09fi21/1999. 2:_" 2' .'....:.~"'::'_?:ZZ~ ..'i i'2'dS' ~"~" ZZ;?Z'i'2~"~.:'i:.~ ...... ~' ' Culpeper Districtwide Prima ry Projects VDOT Culpeper District .System · . Primary Locality Albemarle County, '.City of Charlottesville MPC Endorsement I Endorsed . (All Fixtures are in Thousands of Dollars) Description Previous Additional Actual 'Projected Allocations Funding Allocation Balance to Funding Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete 'Advance Funding for Preliminar~Engineering 225 25 ~¢;~!2~(.S.')~_~;:~,¢.~¢: ¢~~..~ '- -0 .... 0 ...... 0 Bridges 1,250 :: ;~.~250 (S)~ ~150~ ~!50'~ 200 .250 " 250 Beautification ' Improvements · 330 ~;.;,55Jg)'~ ":;%'55 ";' '55 '"': :" Guardrail 1,375 ~¢/~215~(s~.~1'"¢;~ ~Z~~o.¢, ' 200 - 275 275 Guardrail (Tra~c Barrier 0* Safe~) '125 ~~~.~,,' ~,u ~ ¢~¢m~m 0 0 ' 0- "0 Pavement Markers 600 ' 5,0 50 50 50' Signs 1,825 ~2~, 250 325 325 Signals' I 2,335 ~685 (s)~ ~350~ ~ 50~ 250 400 400 State Tra~c Operations and Safety Improvement 500 ~';3~( ~'~ ~ ' 40 40 40 Program Variable Message Sign 153 0* ;~":~r0 (fiR):' ~5%}~0; ~..,,~ ~ ~;0~.: 0 0 0 Prima~ Matching Funds - Required for Saree 0 0 Pro~ram -~:~?~v~-~.~,~¢~.;.: .::.~, ~ ~,~,,~ 0 0 0 '0 Fiber Optics Resource ?:~;;,p~{~);~ ~.~:;~20~ 110 0 0 Sharing 145 DISTRICT SUMMARY ?'¢;~.18,7,1~ ~418,~09~ :~,~;83Z~ 19,978 21,034 23,337 90,652 CTB/STP STATEWIDE ALLOCATIONS NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS .. ~¢¢5d,500. ~ 1,500 1,500 1,500 SPECIAL APPROPRIATION {TEA-21) projects use State funds except those marked with a *, which indicates National Highway System funds. r<:~..:~,~.~.~.,, '~n,~~. ..... x ........-. '~ ......... ~ Page 39 of 77 FY 2000'~T.r[t~s"~ortation Imt~rovement Program ~4do£ted 09/21/1999. ....... .': ~, .~', ,~-,..~qc;4~'. ',-,.~--.- ......... ? ~ 7.~'~xr,,.~.~<~,r:,'~"..:-': Urban System Projects ..... PrOject'14': Fontaine Avenue - Widen from 2 to 3 Lanes West Corporate Limits of Charlottesville - Jefferson Park Avenue Project Map N 0 0.5 1 Miles A System Locality Length Funding Source Status of PrOject MPO Endorsement Urban City of Charlottesville 0.8 km (0.5 Miles) Surface Transportation Program RW being acquired, CN by 2001 Endorsed Purpose I Increase roadway capacity to accommodate greater demands of the Fontaine Research Park. ures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated 'Cost Previous Additional Actual Projected Allocations Funding Allocation ' Balance to Funding Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002.03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete Preliminary 360 Engineering Right-of-Way 2,085 Construction' 2,060 I Total 4,505 1,621 2,884 ~700~ 624 0 0 0 Notes The MPO, City of Charlottesville, and VDOT have agreed the proposed improvements to Fontaine Avenue in the Urban System will be consistent with the design features and number of lanes developed in FY97 by VDOT with the City-appointed citizen's task force. The task force proposed a three-lane typical section with bicycle lanes, and this has been agreed to by VDOT Urban Division. VDOT PPMS Number: 14643 VDOT State Pr0iect Number: 7029-104~V03, PE101, RW201, C501 ' Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning OrganizatiOh -.~ .... ~:~"7~', .... ' ~, :~.,.~.;:.~,::~., ~..', ::. ? . ....... ~,,. Page41of77 FY2OOOTrdnSportationlmprovementProgram AdopteaOV/dl/lY9~. -.~ :.. ,:.-~,.¢':~ ?,~: ~- -_ .- ,..~. ~.. ~::.~:., project i 5 - Er~met street Traffic sigfial Coordination ..... Hydraulic Road - Barracks Road - Project Map ~mmet Street Traffic Signals 0 0.5 I Miles System Locality Length Funding Source Status of Project MPO Endorsement Urban City of Charlottesville 0.8 Miles State New project; RW scheduled for early 2000 and CN Scheduled to begin early 2001 Endorsed PurpOse Improve coordination of traffic signals between City and County signal controllers, and provide more efficient movement for vehicles. (All ures are in Thousands of Dollars) '1' ' Additional .... Actual .......... Projected Allocations ~' ................ Balance to - EStimated Cost Previous Funding -Allocation Funding. Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 '"2003.04 2004-05 . Complete Engineering ~,~ ~,~ ~ ' ..' Right-of-Wa)' 0 ........ ~!~~~ Construction 200' ~~1 '~.~:~xx~.~ 21 ' ~:~ Total 0 0 210 I ~:;~f~)~! ~0.~ 0 0 0 Notes The project will improve coordination among traffic signals along Route 29 in both the City and County using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies for the signal controllers. The signal coordination was conceived and recommended by the Jefferson Area ITS Deployment Study completed in 1997 by the Virginia Transportation Research Council for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. VDOT PPMS Number: 52178 VDOT State Proiect Number: 0029-104-104, PE101, C501 ., t. nar~ou~avme - Albemarle Metrot~olitan Planning Organization . o ....... ~ .... ._ ' ...... rage ~z oj// FY2000 ~rampoft_q~o_q (mprove~ent P~_qgr~m Adgpte~ ~9~21/Ip99 -'" Project 16 - Ivy' Road :--'Widefi'to.'4 Lanes West Corporate Limits of Charlottesville -'Emmet Street Project Map N 0 0.5 1 Miles A System Urban · Locality City of Charlottesville : Length - 0.8 krn (0.5 Miles) Funding Source I Surface Transportation Program Status of Project I PE scheduled to begin in FY2000, ~ RW in FY2002 and CN in FY2004 MPOEndorsement I Endorsed Purpose I Increase roadway capacity. ures are in Thousands of Dollars) ......................................... ' - ,"~ - -; ...... i_ . :Estimated Cost " Previous Additional Actual ': :';:"Pr°JectedAll0cati°ns'::"".i ' ::' I Balanceto Funding AII0cati~n ·. Funding Required 1999-2000 2000-0t 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete Right_of. Way · 2,150 Construction 4,373 Notes Design recommendations for this project were developed in the Ivy Road Design Study of 1994 sponsored by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia. The Design Study includes plans for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping along Ivy Road. ' ~ Albemarle County is interested in widening the portion of Ivy Road in the County from the City line to the Route 250 Bypass in the same time frame as this project in the city. VDOT has suggested this urban proiect could be extended into the county for funding purposes. - VDOT PPMS Number: 14644 VDOT State Proiect Number: 7250-104-V04. PE101 RW201. C501 Charlottesville y Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ,. .~: . FY 2000 Tr ortation Improvement Program Adopted 09/21/1999 ProjeCt 17 ::'Meadow Cre-ek Parkway [CitY of Charlottesville Portion] Route 250 Bypass - North Corporate Limit of Charlottesville Project Map N 0.5 I Miles r '1 System I Urban Locality . City of Charlottesville ~ Length '~ 'l 0.8 kin(0.5 Miles) Funding Source ·1 State Status of Project. Design underway. Commonwealth Transportation Board approval of alignment scheduled for fall 1999. MPC Endorsement Endorsed with caveat (see Notes*) Purpose [ Provide new travel route between downtown "[ Charlottesville and Rio Road. ures are in Thousands of Dollars) - · Previ. Ous Additional <'Actual -: .~Projected Allocations ... Balance to :~Funding'...Allocation -Complete ' · Estimated Cost Funding Required ~999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Preliminary · 1,412 ..... i · ~ -' Engineering ' 'i " . Right-of-Way 933 " ~ ~~~ . . Construction 5,334 ~ ~ ~~ xxxx Total 7,679 3,307 4,372 ' ~ 901 0 0 Notes Cooperative project with Albemarle County Secondary System. *- The project is referenced in the MPC resolution regarding the Route 29 Bypass (page 9). The resolution states the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I and Phase II to Route 29 are to be completed prior to constructing the Route 29 Western Bypass Construction. The project is also referenced in the MPC statement at the March 1999 CTB Pre-allocation Headng (on page 5) requesting additional Right of Way funding for purchase of land to restore acreage to Mc ntire Park taken by the road The City of Charlottesville recently endorsed several design stipulations for the Meadow Creek Parkway. The stipulations included a 60 km/h ~3L25 mph) design speed and a two-lane cross-section constructed on four-lane right-of-way. The complete text of the City Council resolution includes a number of additional conditions and is located on page 17. The design includes on-road bicycle lanes and an off-road enhanced pedestrian trail for shared use. VDOT PPMS Number: 2529 15487 VDOT.State Proiect Number: UOOO-104-V02, PE101, RW201; U000-104-102, C501 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization .'":" ..... ~,, -x .:~ .:~v~ -~. :'. r ........ i~ -:.-. ~.-,, .{~? '~'~:~'~ .... · FY2000 Tra~ ortation Im ...... ' ~ ~ . ~age.44 o 77 Project.18-9th/10t~Realignme~t 3 £aA;~;rpass· ~ ~ Cherry Avenue .; Main Street Project Map System . Urban ' Locality City of Charlottesville · Length 0.5 km (0.3 Miles) Fu. nding Source Railroad. Highway Grade Separation / · ... Surface Transportation Program/ Safety Improvement Program Status of Project . .Under Construction MPC Endorsement Endorsed Purpose I Increase roadway capacity. N 0 0.$ 1 Miles ~ ~" -,~ I Thousands of Dollars Estimated Cost Previous Additional -,.Actual Funding ..Funding Allocation ' " 'r, ' Balance to " .... Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02, 2002-03 '2003-04 2004.05 Complete Preliminary .1,289 Engineering _. Right-of-Way - 2,250 . ~~i~ '" - Construction 10,907 Tola! 14,446 11,554 2,892 ~ ~' ~ ~ ,~ 0 0 0 0 Notes $2,880,000 provided through the Safety Improvement Program. This project includes bicycle lanes and sidewalks. VDOT PPMS Num bet: 2525 VDOT State Proiect Number: U000-104-V08, PE101 RW201, C501, B605, B606 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ~-: ..... -"~ :-A~v,:;? t~rf.,. ., .... . .:..~:;~--..?', ~ .Page 45 of 77 FY2OOOTransportationlmprovement'Program Adopted09~21~1999 .... ~..:,~.. r~;-:'~'...?-~",~,:-. .... · ~,'.~.-:'~72~,~'~:'.".- ,. Project 19 ~ Jefferson Park Avenue Extended .~ Bridge Replacement Bridge over Norfolk Southern Railroad Project Map 0 0.5 I Miles N System ' ~. Urban ' Locality ' City of Charlottesville Length :- 0.2 km (0.1 Miles) .. , Funding Source Bridge Replacement/ " Surface Transportation Program Status of Project : RW scheduled-to begin in mid-1999, CN scheduled to begin early-2001 MPO Endorsement Endorsed I Purp°se '1 Increase roadway capacity. (All Figures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost" ' Previous Additional Actual ProjectedAll0cations .... '" :"Balance to Funding Funding Allocation " ..... Required ~999-2000 2000-0~ 200~-02 2002-03 .2003-04 2004-05 Complete Engineering . - "~ Right-of-Way 250 ......... ~,'~~ ~ :~ "' .. , - Construction 1,660 ~,~,~ ~:X:~, ~ xx Total 2,188 '1,183 "1,005 ~~ 136 0 0 Notes The City of Charlottesville is interested in ensuring the replacement bridge has bicycle lanes and sidewalks and is wide enough to accommodate a possible future transit line running in the median. VDOT PPMS NUmber: 14645 VDOT State Project Number: U000-104-V09, PE101, RW201 C501. B607 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation lmprovement Program Adopted09/21/1999 Project 20 -~ Charlottesville Downtown'Transit Transfer Center -AtUnioh Station ' .-' .... ' - Project Map ~ . ..:.,:-- N 0 0.5 1 Miles I System Urban '- Locality , City of Charlottesville Funding Source - Surface Tra.n, sportat on Program Status of Project CN scheduled to begin in late 2000 MPO Endorsement Endorsed Purpose I Increase roadway capac t¥. lures are in Thousa'nds of Dollars) Estimated Cost ' Previous Additional Actual ........ Projected Allocations ..... ~' .... Balance to Funding Fund ng Allocation · Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 .. 2003-04 2004-05 - Complete Engineering ~ Right-of-Wa)/ 500 .~ ~*~, ~~ .. Construction 2,100 ~~ Notes (~) Includes Commonwealth Transportation Board / Surface Transportation Program Statewide Allocations (2) Right of Way to be Provided by City This complements the Union Station restoration funded through the Enhancements Program. The city transferred urban road monies to transit in order to fund this project.. The center wilt provide a facility for Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), University Transit Service (UTS), JAUNT, and private taxi services to circulate and coordinate routes. VDOT PPMS Number: 51414 VDOT State Project Number: U000-104-113, PE101. RW201 C501 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization . ~. ........... ·: .... ~ .... ,' '~ ,. r-.x .,' -'.,,,~,,, ..,,,", .... ~. .~,,,..-;~. ~ . Page 47 of 77 FY 2~O00 Tr~ortation lmprovement Program -Adopted 09/2i/1999 .. . ~. . . ? ............. .,,. ~; "-" I- ::":- ...... ' .... ::'" ~": .... Project '21Traffic ;' Cityc)idesignalsTrafficSignalat 6 Locations'ih§t~lla'ti°n Project Map .(~ ( System Urban Citywide I ~'~ ~:~-;A /"' Locality City of Charlottesville Traffic .~~j'/~'~ .. ~ Source Signals , -,~..~¥/x.~J~.~x.'~.L~/ '.~ ~.- -~_~ .~~// ~.(~ ~. Status of Project PE scheduled to begin mid-FY2000 ' ~- ~:' .~ Purpose I Install and/or replace traffic signals where ~~) , conditions warrant or where older equipment  ~.. [ makes this necessa~. 0 1 2 ~les (All ures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost Previous Additional Actual Projected Allocations Balance to Funding Allocation Funding Required ~999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete EngineeringPreliminary 20 ~~~~ .............. ~:~:~~ Right-of-Way 10 ~~ ~ I~~ Construction 600 ~~ ~:~~ : To iai 630 0 630~:~,,~.~.~.~...., '" '~.~..~ 0 0 0 Notes IVDOTPPMS Number: 52176 VDOT State Proiect Number: U000-104-114 PE101. RW201 C501 FY2OOOTram ortationlm rovementP ' ~' ':~.~¥r,&;!- ' ?,:~-,?,x'5.%,'~:w~;e~,,m\ ', ~ Eage48°j77 Secondary ROad Program Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ~?.' -.~ :':~,,,:~.~,/~ -3;~'~.~..,.~:~¥.', ~2:¢..oq~*:~ ,~ :4::~? ,:v:d2 :, . Page 49 of 77 FY2000 ~portation Improvement Program Adopted 09/21/1999 -. " .,.~ ,-?.., ~. .v"~,~:: -... ¥.~ :~ ~;.~-v,,:~.-~,- - ..................... :' Proje'st'22:"RoUt~ 601 (Old Ivy Road) - Widen from 2 to4 Lanes ....... -'.':. ~-'i- us250 (Ivy Road) -'ug 29 Bypass' . .... Project Map N I ~0. 0.5 1 Miles /~ System I Secondary Locality ' I Albemarle Length "I 0.7 Miles Funding Source · i Surface Transportation Program Status of Project Construction scheduled for FY2003 MPO Endorsement Endorsed Purpose I Increase roadway capacity. Thousands of Dollars) .. ·: - ..: . "-- .. PrevioUs Additional . .Actual ProjeCted AIl~'cations :~; , Balance to ' :' Estimated Cost Funding ' Funding Allocation ... ~-? ~"- ~' .. Required 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 .2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete: Preliminary Engineering ~~~ ,~." .. Right-of-Way ' ' ', ~ ~ ~~! . Construction 3,750 .~ ~~; 3,750 . : 3,750 Total 3,75O 0 ' "'1 ~,u,~ ~,,,~ 0 0 ' 0 Notes iVDOT PPMS Number: 8807 VDOT State Project Number: 0601-002-237, C501 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metro olitan' plannin r a iz 'P g 0 'g n FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted Project 23- Route 631 (Old Lynchbuig,R°ad) :: Spot Imprb'veinents 1.4 Miles Sou(h Interstate ~4 '-~ R0-ute'708 (Tayl°rs Gap Road) Project Map N 0 I 2 Miles /ti .System .. Secondary Locality , Albemarle Length ' -:'- 5.0 Miles Funding Source · Surface Transportation Program 'Status of'Project Construction scheduled for FY2003 MPO Endorsement I Endorsed I Purpose I Perform intersection and roadway geometry spot I improvements to increase safety and capacity. ures are in Thousands of Dollars) Additional I Actual .; .- Projected AlloCations ....~-~ , Estimated cost Previous Funding Allocation ......... Balance to. ' :'" 'Funding I Required 1999-2000. 2000-01,~ 2001-02 I 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Complete Preliminary ' Engineering ~~~ .. Right-of-Wa), Construction 2,550 , Total 2,550 0 0 I ~'~'*~t ~ t~) * ! '~*~-~:~u~ 2,550 0 0 0 Notes VDOT PPMS Number: 15328 VDOT State Proiect Number: 0631-002 Charlottesville -.4lbemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization .... , . FY2000 TranSportation Improvement Program ~4dopted 09/21/1~9~ . Project 24 "'Route 651 (Fr~6""State Road), Bridge Replacerhent ~, ~"~ '~ 0.5 Miles south Route 1428 (Huntington Drive)- ROUte 1428 (Over Norfolk Southern Railroad) Project Map System Secondary - Locality · Albemarle Funding Source Bridge Replacement Status of Project I Construction scheduled for FY2001 MPO Endorsement t Endorsed . . Purpose I Replace timber bridge to increase structural integrity and Vehicl~ capacit,/. ' N 0 0.5 I Miles /[ (All Fi ures are in Thousands of Dollars) .... '; " · Previous Additional Actual ;iPr°Je~ted Allocations " ' Funding. Allocation ' .. Balanceto Estimated Cost ~ ~ Funding Required 1999-2000 2000-01 200~-02 2002-03 I 2003-04 2004-05 . Complete Preliminary~~~~ Right-of-Way - ~~i ~ ~'~i .- ..... ' ' ' Construction 1,200 ~ ~ ~ . _ . Total .: 0 0 :~ ;,uu.~ 0 0 0 0 Notes IVDOT PPMS Number: 2504 VDOT State Proiect Number: 0651-002-189, M501. B645 Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation Improvement Program Adopted 09/.2.!?1. ~. 9._~'~ Pr6ject 2.5 - Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) ,'Re,~tdpe ROadway,and Signal Modification-[ OS 29 ;'Route ;1455 (WhiteWOo~J'R~d) ~:~. .... - -' -_. _ Project Map : ..... , J N 0 0,~ 1 ~ile, System .. Secondary · LoCality ' ':,. -Albemarle County Length : · 1.1 Miles : Funding Source Surface TransPortation Program Status of Project Construction Complete MPO Endorsement I Endorsed , ~ Purpose Increase safety of Hydraulic Road along length near the intersection with US 29. ~ures are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost · Previous .Additional Actual ...... . Projected AII0~:ati0ns Funding Allocation .... . Balance to Funding ReqUired '1999-2000 2000-01 '200'1-02 2002-03. ,2003-04. ,2004.05 " Comple{'~ Preliminary ~, -- ~ Engineering · ' Right-of-Way ~- ~~ ~:~ ........ -.- .- · Construction 280 ~ ~~ . , - Total 280 ~ ' 0 0 0 0 Notes Cooperative fun ding with Hazard Elimination Safety Program Project 28. VDOT PPMS Number: 17092 VDOT State Project Number: 0743-002-S67, M501 ~harlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2000 Transportation 'Improvement Program 09/22/99 Page 53 of 77 .... Figures are in actual dollars (NOT in thousands of dollars) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1999-2000 THROUGH 2004-2005 APPROVED BY The Board of Supervisors October 21, 1998 VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated ' Description/Comments Priority Proposed - · From-To Completion , Cost ' ' ..... . List Rankin~l Date . ~ , 5* N/A · 631 Rio Road · Route 29 to Route 743 May 1999 $15,138 widen to four lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, · ' ' IRS96197 under construction' ' -' 'N/A* N/A 606 Dickerson Road Intersection of Rt. 743 June 2001 $.50,880 relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/ . Fed. funds N/A* N/A 743 Earlysville Road Intersection of Rt. 606 ? $50,880 relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/~ Fed. funds ' N/A* 1 West Leigh Rd. from Rt. 250 to Rt. 677 June 2000 $360,000 rural road addition project .,. :., .. '. it -.i 1' 2 County wide County wide June 2005 $1,150,000 signs, pipe, plant mix projects same fund ng 1 * 2 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program June 2003 $300,000 VDOT traffic management initiative pilot program throughout County 2 3 625 Hatton Ferry Hatton Ferry June 2004 $120,000' operation of ferry [211] , :.. 3* 4 631 Rio Road City line to Pen Park Aug. 1999 $66,000 add guardrails [25,000] Lane . .. · . - . 4* 5 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 250 to Rio Road May 2000 $9~580,t58 plans being der. with citizen adv. cmt., · ' inclUdes bridge over Meadow Creek 4* 5 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over CSX RR May 2000 $700,000 widen to four lanes (associated With project above) - . " 6* 6 649 Airport Road Route 29 to. Route 606 Feb. 2001 $4,000,000 widen to four lanes, bike · · lanes,sidewalks,RS97198 [16:,000] ! .: 7* 7 .Meadow Creek Parkway Route 631 to Route 29 January 2017 $31,300,000 new road, County also petitioning for eligib, for, ~ prim fund .... 8' 8 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 Dec. 2000 $900,000 spot improv, pedestrian access, urban cross- , . .., ..... : .. section, RS 97198 [21;747] ..... ' ..... 9* 9 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250129 Byp. Oct. 2002 $5,000,000 widen, improve.align, bike/sidewalk access, RS ..' ' 2000/01 [5,389] · 10' 1'0 651 Free State Road Free State Road Dec. 2001 $1,000,000 improve substandard bridge in Developed Area ,, .... ~ ...... '~ [403] 11 11 691 Jarmans Gap Road RoUte 240to Route 684 Dec. 2002 $2,978,418 serve increased traf wlmin widening, ped/bike. · ' access, RS 1999/00 [2,t18] 12* 12 631 Old Lynchburg Road Route 780 to Route 708 Oct. 2003 $2,500,000 spot improvements at various locations,RS01/02 [2,032] · = Project is located in MPO Study Area. Projects in bold are located in Albemarle County Development Areas. ~Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program 09/22/99 Page 54 of 77 VDOT's Priority List 13' County's Route Number and Name .. Location PropOsed - 14 15' 16 13 18' 19' 2O 21' 22* 23* (note a) (note a) 24 *25 *25 *26 27* (note b) 14 15 17 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 N/A N/A 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 781 Sunset Avenue 726 James River Road 679 Grassmere Road 625 Hatton Ferry Road' 810 Browns Gap Road From - To Rt; 780 to Rt. 708 Route 795 to Route 1302 .25 miles south of Rt 738 .75 miles south of to RR Intersection of Route 78-'-~ 676 Owensville Road,,~ Intersection of Route 601 678 Owensville Road 795 Blenheim Road 649 Proffit Road 606Dickerson Road 795 James Monroe Pky Southern Parkway N/A 643 Polo Grounds Road 641 Frays Mill Road 641 Frays Mill Road 631 Rio Road 743 Earlysville Road 684 Half Mile Branch Road 602 Howardsville Tnpk 601 Garth Road 676 Owensville Road 691 Park Road Project is located in MPC Study Area. Intersection of Route 250 )n of Route 790 Estimated Estimated Completion Cost Date March 2003 $500,000 Sept. 2003 $500,000 March 2000 $100,000 April 2001 $100,000 Aug. 2004 $550,000 April 2004 '$200,00--"--~ April 2004 June 2004 Route 29 to Route 819 Route 649 to Route 743 Aug. 2005 Intersection of Route 53 June 2005 Avon Str. to Fifth Str. ? Route 240 to Route 250- Route 29 to Route 649 Rt. 641@Jacob Run Rt. 641@Jacob Run-- Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Rivanna River to Rt 643 Rt. 691.to Rt. 797... .01 miles south. Route 621 Intersection of Route 658 Route 614 to Route 1050 Park Road to Route 250 ? Dec. 2006 DescriptionlComm ents spot improvements at various locations spot improve, improve sight distance,R'S02)03-- Railroad crossing with no lights or ~ ~ .. _ ' ,, .. ,,._~ . ', intersection improvement, RS03/04 [2,270] intersecti~ent,RS03.04. [~,080] . $650,000 intersection improvement [3,000] ~ $250,000 intersection improvement. [580] $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $350,000 $3,522,500 N/A $1,500,000 Aug. 2007 $440,000 Aug. 2007 $60,000 $1,000,000 Dec. 2008 $1,000,000 Projects in bold are located in Albemarle County Development Areas. CATS recom.,improve sight dist and. .alig.,bike/sidewalk,' RS02/03 [14,889] ~mprove to handle projected traffic, CATS recomm recommended from tATS; inte'rse~'tion im_m_proveme~ ...... will be constructed to serve development as it Occurs .__ interconnect of future neighborhood streets as needed public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety r_elated, RS04/05 91~ install box culvert,Revenue Shadng 2004-05 ,,.. install box culvert Inter, improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [25,000] public request to improv align, spot improv, safety spot/safety improvement to 'serve incre~ v/ minimum wide~ Railroad.crossing with no lights or gate [154] add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS spot improvements at several points, CATS recomm. [2,000] extend to eastern 240/250 street system ~ ) ottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization F¥2000 Transportation Improvement Program 09/22/99 Page 55 of 77 VDOT's Proposed Route Number and Name 34 678 Decca Lane 692 Plank Road 708 Red Hill Road 641 Burnley Station Road 640 Gilbert Station Road 616 Union Mill Road 743 Advance Mills Road 732 Milton Road 795 Hardware Street 622 AlbeVanna Springs Rd 622 AIbevanna Springs Rd 744 Hunt Club Road 611 Jarmans Gap Road 1310 Ferry Street 642 Red Hill Depot Road 671 Millington Road 682 Broadaxe Road 813 Starlight Road 759 Three Chopt Road 637 Dick Wood Road 791 Wyant lane 605 Durrett Ridge Road 679 Grassmere Road Location From - To Intersection of Route Route 29 to Route 71------2 Route 20 to Route 29 ~orfolk Southern RR Estimated Completion Date Estimated Cost Norfolk Southern RR FCL to Route 759 Description/Comments _. improve intersection, located near school, spot improvements, safety related [1,000] improve alignment [2,000] . , bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [139] project with Iow sufficiency rating [112] improve align~"~nt [4,-~-0] improve approach to bridge [1,300] spot improvement, requested by Public [880] spot improvement, requested by Scottsville intersection improvement- [750] intersection improvement [750] ng with no gate [188] no gate [167] ssing with nO gate [113] Railroad crossing with no gate [15] intersection improvement [115] spot improvements, p~-~lic request [150] School request, needs turn-around space [50] unpaved road, R-O-W available, 35 39 4O (note b) 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 2---8---- 52 30 54 31 55 56. = Project is located in MP--O~ea. At Jacobs Run ~ of 762 Near inter, with Rt. 20 Intersection of Route 795 Intersection of Route 773 .02 miles from Route 22 Off .Route 691 .05 miles south.of Rt. 6 .28 miles northeast Intersection of Route 665 Woods Road Off Route 712 Route 616 to FCL Route 635 to Route 692 Route 635 to Dead end .83 from Greene-County Sept. 1998 $210,000 Dec. 1999 $1,100,000 Aug. 2000 $260,000 $306,000~, Route 738 toDead end July 2000 $425,000 Pr~ects in bold are located in Albemarle County Development Areas. unpaved road, R-O-Wavailable [132] unpaved road, R-O.Wavailable [218] unpaved road, R.O-W a~Tailable [89] unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [485] ~ Charlottesville. Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program 09/22/99 Page 56 of 77 VDOT's County's Proposed 57 58 35 59 60 61 38 62 - 39 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 RoUte Number and Name 708 Secretarys Road 615 Lindsay Road 667 Catteron Road, 737 Mountain Vista Road 702 Reservoir Road 640 Gilbert Station Road 633 Heards Mtn Road 606 Dickerson road 712 North Garden Road 769 Beam Road 623 Woods Edge Rd 666 Allen Road Estimated Estimated i. Description/Comments Completion Cost .. ,.; Date ~ ) July 200.1 ~ $685,000 unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [156] June 2003 $220,000 unpaved road, R-O-W available [292] '6 April 2002 $300,000 unpaved rOad, R-O-~V available [130] June 2003 $650,000 unpaved roa~l, R-O-W available [~'-" -- -- Dec. 2~04 $940,000 unpaved road,, public request, R-O-W ~ undetermined, sidewalks March 2004 $300,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-V(/ .... June 2005 $300,000 unpaved road; public request, R-O-W 0 Oct. 2006 $1,000,000 unpaved road, R-O-W not available [212~--"------' _ unpaved road, R-O-W not available [139] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W -- undetermined 8__[~_~ ~.. unpaved road, public request, R-O-W :~: ,,..~¢ i.,, :.:. -- undetermined 3_~[~9_~L' unpaved road, public request, R-O~W. · ,.. -- undetermined 1_[_!.~ unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [178] _ unpaved.road, R~O-W not available [1.73] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W _ unpaved road, R-O-W not available [i58] -- un~aved road, public request, R-O-W un_ determined [139] ' ' un ~aved road, public request R-O-W . , unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined 1_[..~ ·" ' . .... unpaved road, R-O-Wnot available,.[113] '" bemarle County DeveloPment Ar~_n~ ~ . Location 5r,-: From - To Route 795 to Route 620 Route 639 to Louisa CL MI SE Rt 776 to Rt 776 Route 6 to Route 726 Ramp to Dead end Route 641 to Route 747 Nelson CL to Route 63z Route 850 to Route 10 Route 29 to Route 692 Off Route 20 north Route 616 to dead end Route 664 to Dead end Route 795 to Rt. 1807 Route 600 to Route 640 Route 616 to Dead end Route 784 to Route 20 Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 734 Bishop Hill Road 784 Doctors Crossing 685 Bunker Hill Road 640 Gilbert Station Road  74 __ 75 76 · = Project is located in MPO Study Area. 712 Coles Crossing Rd 645 Wildon Grove Rd 668 Walnut Level Road 682 Broad Axe Road Rt. 608 to Orange CL Rt. 810 to dead end 637 to 1764 ~.,, _ Projects in bold are located in Alt ~ ) "lottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2000 ~ , anst)ortation Irnt)rovement Program 09/22/99 VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Priority Proposed 77 678 Owensville Road ~ 78 760 Red Hill School Road 79 723.Sharon Road 80 674 Sugar Ridge Road ~ 81 608 Happy Creek Road 82 707 Blair Park Road = Project is located in MPO Study Area. Location From - To Route 676 to Route 614 Route 29 to RHES -- Route 6 to Route 626 Route 614 to Route 673 Route 645 to Route 646 Completion Date Page 57 of 77 Estimated Cost Projects in bold are located in ~ ~ . . Albemarle County Development Areas Total Cost for all secondary road projects in priority list: $80,$67,076 The List includes projects from Scottsville not reviewed by the Planning Commission. note:a: Currently not eligible for VDOT funding note b: New project to priority list [ ] - Average 'Daily Trips Description/Comments unpaved road, R-O-W not available ~ unpaved road, public request, R-O-W. undetermin~ ,., unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [7__!J ;- unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined~ " unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined [65] FY 2000 TransDortatio. r~ ...... .~ --.~nnmg Organization t ................................ , ...... ~ ....... ~ ...... ~.ovement rro~am 09/22/99 ~ ' { ~age 58 of 77 Tra n sp o rta tio n Sa f e t y Imp rove m e n t Pro grarn x' z zuuu lrat~portation lmorovement Proffr,,,, no/,9/oa ..,.,a ..... ~ ...... "- :' ....... - ': :' ' ~ .-..,- ..... ~, v'd,'r ~e~.~age oy oj//~ _ Project 26 - Route'22 Inte?section Realignm ht "' ..... : Project Map System Hazard Elimination Safety Program ........ . (Section- 152) "Locality Albemarle County Length '- : ' 0.1 Miles Funding Source Surface Transportation Program" Status of Project ' I ': .... . ' MPO Endorsement Endorsed [ Purpose [ Increase safety of h~zardous intersection. Miles (All Fi ures are in Thousands of Dollars Estimated COst Previous Funding Preliminary ..... 20 .... 1 O0 N Additional Actual Funding Allocation 1999-2000 Total 170 153 0 ,2000-01 "2001-02 Pr~ected Allocations :2002-03 :2003-04 0 0 Notes Includes $153,000 of previous funding from the Surface Transportation Program. Balance to Complete IVDOTPPMS Number: 18902 ~==)/~ State Project Number: (NFO)0022-002-104, PE101 RW201. C501 ~ Charlottesville_ Albemarle Metropolitan Planning ..... ~,,,-.-~, ,;~,,,v,~.~: ~ .-.~: .............. ~ ..... -, .:-:~, ........... FY20.00 Tra~Portation Improvement Pro, am 09~22/99 ,..v '; ,. ..... :--: ........ :~,,,-~ ,.', ............................................... " ' _}__.-:_.~___i2~__:22.:~5'''~, .............. Page 60 of 77 ..... ' .~te'631 (Rio Road~- W;~'~ ~~?. ~'...-L~ , Co.S,=,,.;; ?,0 t ' "~ (Section 152) "':"': 1 Mile . --' ' . Surface Transportation Program Construction underway, scheduled - Endorsed ~ . .~. ~ . N _ 21 j[ Miles olD, rs) -- ....... !, - : -' _ Estimated Cost PrevioUs Additional ...... '- Funding - Funding Allocation '" : l~'0jected AIIocation~ 68 0 297 --Balance to: .... Complete Total 365 0 0 0 0 Notes ~includes $329,000 of previous funding from the Surface Transportation Program transferred from previous allocation-'~'. VDOT PPMS Number: 17903 VDOT State Proiect Number: 0631-002-S66, PE101, RW201. M501 Charlotteo'ville ~ ,4lbemarle Metropolitan ~ct '2'8'~, Route 74~ ~]] ]]. · "~" ......... .... . - 455 (Whitewood Road) ............ J ' Pro;ecl Mat: - Hydraulic Road Safety Project Miles 0.5 System Length . Funding SourS. status of Project Hazard Elimination Safety Program (Section 152) Albemarle ~ . 1.1 Miles ~ransportation Progra~ Construction Complete ---- Endorsed . ~ ~safety of Hydr~ Rea d a long le~.~ L_.___~ear th-e-i~tersection with US 29. Th~ Estimated Cost Preliminary Previous Additional Actual Funding Funding Allocation 1 1999-2000 2000-01 Pr~ected. AIIocations 2001.02 2002.03. 2003.04 0 Consiruction 275 Total 276 248 0 Notes Includes $248,000 of previous funding from the Surface Transportation Program. 0 0 0 Balance to Complete - PMS Number: -- /_.Del State Prelect Number: 0743-002-S67, PE101, RW2.01, M501 ~ CharlotteSVille - A arle FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program 09/22/99 ...... ---'~"~?--'Pag-e~'62 of 77 Transportation nhancement Program '%¸ 0 0.5 I Miles Project M~h System .' . Transportation Enhancement 'Locality,',., ~lbemarl.e_County / Thomas~ ,. .. ' . ~io'n .. I Length · : 1.5 ...... Miles_ J Funding Source Enhancements' Status of Project Endorsed ~.n~d,.e.r..C~ ~onstrucfion '. ousands of Dolla rs) ;~. '::-,C:~ ~,: .... Additional Actual * Estimated C0.s.[ ....... PrevioUSFund}ng Allocation' ProjeCted AII6cations..:" :;': ........ '::':"'; .. Balance'" to 190 . . 1999-2000 :2002-03 2004-05 Complete 200 Construction Total Notes ' P tudor as a true parkway,' this will include' scenic ...... ' ' · · and safety enhancement of roadside landscaping, a bike-hikin§ trail connecting the visitor's center to Monticello, a native plant arboretum, scenic overlooks, and pond and fOot trails -/D-'-'O"r PPMS Number: 137~2 /DOT State Pro'ect Number: EN93-00.2-V05, PE101, PE102, RW201, C501 Status of Project ~ Estimated Cost Previous ~" Funding Allocatio(~ L:' ] .- :2 -.;Balance to Complete 'ora/ /o/es base Il - incl, ud/ng safety and aesthetic/mprovemen:s,t pedestrian and ~ bicycle access to Mo ~TSta/e Pro.'ect Number: EN94'002-V09, PE101, PE102, RW20.1, C501 v~l~'~'harlotte, ville'_ ~llbemarle Metro olitan Pla ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ System ~unding Source -- tatus of Project s Jefferson Memorial Fouhdation 0.5 1 Miles N Estimated Cost Previous Actual Funding Allocation ~relimin~ Projected Allocations ~:i '- ~tal Balance to Complete ores ~ils, plantings, and o~erlook. ~rect Number'. ~NFO EN96-002-119, PE101, PE102.., C501 2000 Trq~portation Improvement Pro'am ...... ..... °e~ae Page 66 of 77 ' ' ' . ........ ¢,, -,o~[u~ u ~e~ter I Project Map ~rce: . of Project MPO En~ Albemarle County / Thomas deffer-~on Memor[a.I Foundation .......~ ....... 0 0,.5 ~ Miles N Estimated Cost Actual *~*: Funding" Allocation Construction Total 750 '. "400 Notes Site improvements to provide acces~ from Monticello to the Monticello Visitor's Center. rural project cost is $500,000.00 State Pro'ect Number: EN99-002-143 PE101, PE102, RW201, C501 !-Balance to ~ Complete J Charlotte~'ville. Albemarle s,r ~ffortatton Im rovem ....................... ~roject 33.,Uni6fi"-St~~o~ Pro Statos-Of Project / /¢'~0 1 2 Miles (All Fi N Estimated Cost Orelimi, 506 987 ~onstructi, Previous Additional Actual Funding Funding Allocation Projected Allocations *oral lores elated Project: PP g structure. 'oject Ct 19, Charlottesville Downtown Transit Transfer ce nter ))~,ate Project Number: FN93-104-V02, PE101, PE102, RW201, C501 N 0 0.5 ~ Estimated Cost Previous Actual ~-.'~-" ":" Funding" Allocation- ":i':'..: i P~'~)jected AIiocation~s 130 sfuction ~ Complete :OS 'pora ted the A sidewalkY AvenUeis to WaY~e~ roadway, proposed for the east side of/he road. sectiOnonal funds°f thiSto completePr°ject waSthemOreentireeXpensiVecorridor, than an fid,,a~e-,--. ,, , u, the City and University of Virginia are. seeking ;tare Pro~.v05, C501: NFO:EN95-104~121, PEI01, PE102, RW201,.C501 - ~. Riva~na Greenbelt Extensio PrOject.. 3.5 n "! "::~;'"'''' " '~ ""' Project Map 0 1 2 Miles Sy§tem .,: I Transportation Enhancement 'Lo.c.a!ity :: ~ City of Charlottes¥.il!.e../ . . .- ;-'::' .... "~ Albemarle County Length :;:, ~'~ 1.2 Miles Funding Source Enhancement ' Status of ProjeCt Acquiring easements (see Notes*) MPO Endorsement Endorsed (All Figures are in Thousands'of Dollars) .... '.' , !; ~ Additional :~'Actual Estimated Cost ' i ....,. Previous -Fundi~ig:: ~,llOcation-.- :' .; ~ ..'" ;.proJected Allo..cat,o, ns '---~'~'. ; .... i~lance-to ......... Funding Required~i 1999-2000' 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04. 2004 05 '" complete Engineering Preliminary ........... 5 ~ · . ~-~ ~ ...... . Right-of-Way - 3 ................ ~~ ~..~ ~~ . Construction - 142 ......... ~,~~~ Total .- - 150 t20 .......... ;" .:%~.:,~ ,.-. (EN), · ..... ': ~ .¢:;?;~,~,.~;' .... Notes .... ' ..... -- .- -- . .. Pedestrian, bicycle and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible trail connecting Rivanna Greenbelt to Pen Park and Darden Towe Park. City of Charlottesville staff is working to secure easements for trail corridor. I VDOTPPMSNumber: 17567 VDOT State Project Number: (NFOIEN97-104-106. PE101. PE102, RW201, C501 FY2000 lransportatton Imorovement Pr ..... no/~/ao ~;-:r~'.~ ...... . ........ ~ x ...... ,:~ ~. ~ .... Page 70 of 77,- * Prbject' 6 LahdScajSed Isl ihd ':.:'- intersection of Pr. esto ,n Ave.hue with.Mclntire,Road Project Ma p - '. 7:.:, '2 C :~ N 0.25 0.5 Miles .. ures are in Thousands of Dollars System/:. ,: : I Transportation Enhan.cement Locality ~ ' City of Charlottesville .. Funding Source , Enhancement ,. , Status of Project Design under study by the City MPO Endorsement Endorsed Estimated Cost .... Previous Funding :]Funding ~ Allocation ':'~ ....... ?"'"']:Y]~rojecte._d AIIdcatiohs '~-~:';"z'?~;x'- .... 1999-2000 2001-02 2002.03 "2003.04 :2004-05 Preliminary ~' 60 : .] .... 60 Constructio~ 280 ..... - Total 400 320 "B'~'l~nc~ 'to Complete Notes ............................ Gateway landscaped island at a..rnajor'intersection and e.~trance into downtown Charlottesville. _ ...... Location and design of island is under study. VDOT PPMS Number: 18690 VDOT State Project Number: EN98-104-125, PE 101, PE102, RW201, C501 arlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning 2000 '.rans~,ortatton .m~.roveraen. .ro~ram 09/22/99 ........................................ Pr0jebt 3.,J. [ irp -R6ad cor'ridorlEnhancements Project Map lq 0 I 2 I~les System Transportation Enhancement ~ Locality Albemarle County (erroneously listed ...... ~;:~.~ ~ .. .:, _.., :: .. as Charlottesville in VDOT.Six Year :' .... Improvement Program) 'i ' . Length 0.9 Miles . Funding Source . ,Enhancement . Status of Project ,PE underway · MPO Endorsement I Endorsed ~ ures are in Thousands of Dollars) ·: :,:,~- ..~': · AdditiOnal I "' Actual ...... . .. ~r:., ::':'~$' :~ Balance to Previ0'us' .~. ,._ "EstimatedCost ' :':,' Funding "Funding ........... Required 1999-2000" ~2000-01 ~-2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 · Complete Prelimina~ 66 ~ ~:~~~~~~~ ~ .... Engineering , .' ~ ............. ,.... ¢ Right-of-Way ' ' ' Cons~c~on 664 Notes Landscaping and construction of bicycle lanesand sidewalks as part of the Airport Road widening project. This project also uses the Airport Access program as an additional source of funds, IVDOT PPMS Number: 50103 VDOT State Proiect Number: EN98-104-138. PEI01, PE102. C501 ,:.",'~' ~'": .'-*'Project'38' HistOric cdurt SqUare-',: '": ' Project Map N 0.5 I Miles r System'., ,..:::';%:2.:.-I Transportation Enhancement .'-. .' .. Locality ' %~.;~ City of Charlottesville ' Funding Source -:i'.?.~;; Enhancement . . Status of Project ¢ '- Design. under study by the City. ~" MPO Endorsement ' Endorsed .- ures are in Thousands of Dollars) .,. Estimated Cost .Fund!.ng,. :Funding ¢ :Allocation ,.. ; .......... Required- t999-2000 .,2000-0~';' :200~-02' :2002-03 ' ~0(~3.04'' 2004-05 :. Complete Notes Preserve the unique and significant historic eleme~nts of Charlottesville's Court Square District., Consultant study underway. Total project cost is $563,000.00 VDOT PPMS Number: 52019 VDOT State Proiect Number: EN99-104-142. PE101 PE102, C501 TEA-21 Restora-tiOn. "'~-~..~..C . . _ .~. '" 7.- Act Fund:ing FI' 2000 Transpo_r.t_at. io_n_I_mpr, gyement Program ~09/22/99 Project 39 - University of Virginia Pedestrian Bridge Project Map Over Route 29.(Emmet Street) System TEA-21 Restoration Act Funding Locality University of Virginia / City of Charlottesville Funding.Source TEA-21 Restoration Act Status of Project ~der study MPO Endorsement ~ Endorsed 0 0.5 1 Miles are in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated Cost Previous Additional Actual Funding Funding Allocation 1999.2000 2000.01 Projected Allocations 2001-02 2002.03 2003-04 2004-05 Construction To[al 'Notes 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 Balance to Complete This pedestrian bridge is part of a long-term University of Virgin a plan (the Groundswalk Plan) to provide better transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections across the campus. The concept,ual design was recently approved by the UVA Board of Visitors, but the University needs to identify additiona~ fudding before moving forward with more detailed designs. Plans and Contract Administra[ion by University of Virginia. ~ PPMS Number: ~ect Number: - ' "-;.:;;;'; ............ .~ -. albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization '09/22/99 P U b lic . Tra n sp tio n program ~ Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ' · Page 76 of 77! FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program 09/22/99 · : .: ~ FISCAL yEAR 2000 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIoN'IMpRoVEMENT PROGRAM Charlottesville.Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ~ in actual dollars (NOTin thousands of dollars) ~(¢;~ReCiPient i~, ~~= ~l~i~eral~F~~n,ds!s~tirce~ Se~ice I Opera~ng Expenses $1,941,305 $489,033 FTA Sect. 5307 ~99 Capital Expenses Replace 2 Transit Coaches Service Expansion to Pantops Area Purchase 2 Expansion Body-On-Chassis Buses CTS Facility Study CTS Transit Development Plan Transit Intern JAUNT, Inc. Operating Expenses· Capital Expenses Purchase 10 Replacement- Body-On-Chassis Buses Thomas Jefferson PDC Rideshare Program Administration CHARLO'I I ~-SVILLF AREA TOTALS $530,000 $186,250 $67,500 $72,000 $20,279 $424,O00 $33,000 $54,000 $57,6OO $0 $2,120,344 $450,000 $131,685 $5,519,363 $637,580 $360,000 $0 $2,05~,213 FTASect. 5307 FY99 FTASect. 5307FY99 FTA Sect. 5313b FY99 FTA Sect. '5313b FY99 FTA Sect. 5311 FY99 / FTA Sect. 5307 FY99 FTASect?5309 FY99 l~State'~.Funds~f¢ $388,850 ~$45,580 $6,750 $7,200 $19,265 $391,100 $45,000 $105,348 $1,086,043 ~'~State~Eunds~ ~ rc~ MTTF. MTrF.. ~ MTTF / Demo MTT~,'/,Tech MTTF / Tech ,!' ~: ,., MTTF / D~o MTI'F ,.~ $351,000 $712,422 $60,420 $20,000 $56,300 $6,750 $7,200 $1,014 $1,091,664 $45,000 $26,337 $2,378,107 Operating Revenues Lo'cai ~nds Local General Funds Operating Revenues Local General Funds Local General Funds Local General Funds Local General Funds Fares and Local Funds Contract Funds Local Funds Funding Note: M / I F = Mass Transit Trust Fund; Demo = Demonstration Program; Tech = Technical Assistance Program; TEIF = Transportation Efficiency Improvement Fund. .., ' These figures are revised fi'om the VDOT FY2000 Six-Year Improvement Program. ~harlottesville - ,,tlbemadle Metropolitan Planmng Orgamza~ton. ; ." : ' ~ ~ ..... . FY'2000 Transf~°rtation ImprOvement Program ~ 09/22/99 ·"; - :?': :. :': '.: '."' ....'.:- ". ; ~ . ' -Page 77 of.77 Job Access and Reverse Commute T~'ansitfRidesharing Grant This broad collaboration between three transit systems and the region's ddesharirtg program will provide both urban and rural service.to assist in getting low-incom6 people and TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) clients to jobs. JAUNT is the grant recipient and will provide targeted transportation sergice throughout the entire planning district twenty-four hours a day, using JAUNT vehicles,. Greene County Transit, and local taxicab providers. CTS will continue running Route 7 until 11:30 PM Monday through Saturday, along with feeder routes to help people access this trunk route from other neighborhOods. The RideShare program will expand two programs, allowing TANF clients additional emergency rides under the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and providing additional car- and vanpools to serve TANF clients as well. The program has been funded for one year. Federal grant funds in the amount of $351,500 'have been awarded, with the remaining $346,407 expected to come from state TANF funds. ' ' ~' The expected start date is the end of August, 1999. Chadottesville-AIbemade-UVA Three Party Agreement, 1991-92 Regarding Sequencing of Transportation Projects Scanned from Original by Thomas Jefferson Planning DiStrict Commission February 15, 2000 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Char Charlottesville, the County Albemarle and the University of Virginia have reviewed the improvements proposed by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board CTB for the 29 North Corridor; and WHEREAS the City, County and University believe a unified and cooperative implementation agreement with the CTB and the Virginia Department of Transportation VDOT is necessary to provide for these improvements in an expeditious and efficient manner; NOWTHEREFORE BE ITRESOLVED, that the City, county and University jointly support and request that the CTB and VDOT implement improvements to the 29 North Corridor in the following sequence: Widen Route 29 North as provided for in 1985 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study; Design the North Grounds connector road facility; Address each element of CTB Phase I recommendation of November 15, 1990; Construct the Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 By-Pass to U. S. 29 North as soon as funding is available; Construct grade-separated interchanges on U. S. 29 North at Hydraulic Road (Rt 743), Greenbrier Drive (Rt 866) and Rio Road (Rt 631) with early acquisition of right-of-way for these interchanges based upon hardship (same program being used for early acquisition for Alternative 10, Western alignment); Construct an alternate controlled vehicle access for traffic bound for University areas only, including the north grounds from Route 29~250 By-Pass; Complete remainder of CTB Phase II recommendation of November 15, 1990; and Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the above and when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985 CharlotteSville Area Transportation Study. BE I:T FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution b~ transmitted to the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), requesting the MPO to ame nd the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study to reflect this resolution's priorities. F. R. Bowie, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Date Signed: 12/11/91 Alvin Edwards, Mayor City of Charlottesville Date Signed: 12/1/691 John T. Casteen, President University of Virginia Date Signed: 2/2/92 Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization AMEND MENT TO CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE TRANSPORTATION STUDY YEAR 2010 APPROVED 1/92 WHEREAS, the city of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia have reviewed the improvements proposed by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for the 29 North Corridor; and VVHEREAS the City, County and University believe a unified and cooperative implementation agreement with the CTB and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is necessary to provide for these improvements in an expeditious and efficient manner and VVHEREAS the City and County have requested the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to amend the Charlottesville Albemarle Area Transportation Study (CATS) to be.consistent with the improvements and priorities adopted by the City, County and Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board; NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved that the MPO amends the CATS to include the improvements and sequence of the following: Widen Route 29. North as provided for in 1985 Charlottesville Area Transportation Stu dy; Design the North Grounds connector road facility; Address each element of CTB Phase 1 recommendations of November 15, 1990; Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 By-Pass to U.S. 29 North as soon as funding is available; Construct grade-separated ed interchanges on U.S. 29 North a at Hydraulic Road (Route 743), Greenbrier Drive (Route 266) and Rio Road (RoUte 631 ) with early acquisition of right-of-way for these interchanges based upon hardship (same program being used for early acquisition for Alternative 10 Western alignment; Construct an alternate controlled vehicle access for [raffic bound for University areas only, including the north grounds from Route 29/250 By-Pass; Complete remainder of CTB Phase 11 recommendation of November 15, 19110; and Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the above and when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolutioh be fo~varded to VDOT for the Department's concurrence. Charlotte Humphris Chair MPO Policy Board Date: February 18, 1992 C TB Resolutions Regarding Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Project Sequencing November, 1990 and December, 1991 Scanned from Originals by Thomas Jefferson PDC, February 15, 2000 Page I MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD Manassas, Virginia November 15, 1990 10:00 a.m. The monthly meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board was held in the Ramada Inn at Manassas, Virginia on November 15, 1990, at 10:00 a.m.. The Chairman, Mr. John G. Milliken, presided. Present: Messrs. Milliken, Pethtel, Bacon, Candler, Davies, Hoffler, Howlette, Malbon, Mastracco, Musselwhite, Smalley, Waldman, Warner, Wells and Mrs. Kincheloe and Dr. Thomas. During the Public Comment period, Kathleen K. Seefeldt, Chairman, PRTC and a Prince William County Board of Supervisors member; Edwin C. King, PRTC member and member of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors; and Robert L. Cole, Chairman, Prince William County Board of Supervisors, spoke briefly welcoming the Commonwealth Transportation Board to Prince William County. Also during the Public Comment period, Mr. John J. Cramsey, a Dale City resident, expressed to the Board his reservations and opposition to commuter rail in Northern Virginia. Due to public interest and attendance by citizens, Item No. 11 on the Agenda "Location: Route 29 - City of Charlottesville and Albemarle Co. Proj. 6029-002-122, PE100Fr: Route 29~250 Bypass (City of Charlottesville) To: 0.31 Mi. N. North Fork Rivanna River (County of Albemarle)" was handled as the first -ire m on the agenda. Moved by Mrs. Kincheloe, seconded by Dr. Howlette, that WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board a Location Public Hearing was held in the Days Inn Charlottesville Hotel on June 26 and June 27, 1990 and in the Performing Arts Center on June 28, 1990, for the purpose of considering the proposed location of Route 29 from Route 29/250 Bypass (City of Charlottesville) to 0.31 mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River (Albemarle County) in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, State Project 6029-002-122, PE-100; and WHEREAS, proper notice was given in advance, and all those present were given a full opportunity to express their opinions and recommendations for or against the proposed project as presented, and their statements being duly recorded; and WHEREAS, the economic, social, and environmental effects of the proposed project have been examined and given proper consideration, and this evidence, along with all other, has been carefully reviewed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the location of this project be approved in accordance with the plan as proposed and presented at the said Location Public Hearing by the Department's Engineers in three phases as indicated: Phase I Short Range Recommendations BE IT. RESOLVED, that to construct Route 29 Base Case improvements from Hydraulic Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. These improvements will provide six lanes plus continuous right turn lanes with sig nalized at-g rade intersection. These improvements will help satisfy the immediate needs for additional highway capacity, on existing Route 29. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that right of way necessary for the construction of interchanges as they C TB Resolutions Regarding Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Project Sequencing November, 1990 and December, 1991 Scanned from Originals by Thomas Jefferson PDC, February ~ 5, 2000 Page-2 may be needed at Rio Road, Greenbriar Drive, and Hydraulic Road should be reserved initially. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville should be encouraged to restrict, to the extent possible, further development on the needed right of way in these areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should it be necessary, we recommend that the Department acquire any needed right of way under our advanced acquisition policies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend the North Grounds access facility be developed as soon as possible, along with additional mass transit, to immediately begin to improve traffic conditions along Route 29, Emmet Street between the Route 250 Bypass. and the University and free up parking around the grounds of the university. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend Alternative 10 be approved as a corridor for future development and Albemarle County assist in preserving the necessary right of way, de~/eloping local plans to minimize any future adverse impacts associated with the future develcpment of this corridor. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that refined preliminary plans for Alternative 10 will be provided to Albemarle County to aid local officials in in the preservation of the corridor and development of compatible land use plans. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the preservation of the Alternative 10 corridor will assist the county in a no-growth position in the watershed. Access to the corridor would only be provided at the request of the county. Phase II - Medium Range Recommendations BE IT RESOLVED, that as traffic continues to increase and economic conditions allow, we recommend interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road be constructed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend continuation of the preserVation of right of way for recommended Alternative 1'0 and the advanced acquisition of right of way procedures be exercised as needed and economics permit. Phase III Long Range. RecommendationS BE IT RESOLVED, that as such time traffic conditions along the Route 29 corridor become unacceptable and eco nomic conditions permit, we recommend the construction of the preserved corridor Alternative 10. Motion carried. Messrs. Wells, Warner and Smalley voting No. C TB Resolutions Regarding Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Project Sequencing November, 1990 and December, 1991 Scanned from Originals by Thomas Jefferson PDC, February 15, 2000 Page 3 Moved by Mrs. Kinchloe seconded by Mr. Davies that WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Commonwealth Transportation Board by resolution dated Novbmber IS, 1990, approved the location of Project 6029-002-122, FE-100 in three phases; and WHEREAS, the three phases provided for short range, medium range, and long range recommendations for the construction .of the project in conjunction with other projects in the city of Charlottesville and Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, by letter dated August 1, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has requested that this board take positive steps to commit to the priorities which were set forth in the Board's resolution of November 15, 1990; and WHEREAS the Board believes that the orderly development and funding of this various projects in accordance with.the three phases as set forth In the Board's resolution of November 15, 1990, is in the public Interest; and WHEREAS the Board recognizes that state and local transportation priorities should be harmonized where possible; and WHEREAS it is the sense of this Board that the Department of Transportation adhere to the schedule of improvements as set forth in the November 15, 1990, resolution; and WHEREAS the Board strongly believes that the Route 29 Bypass should be constructed in concert With the remaining construction projects of the CATS Plan after Phase I and Phase 2 recommendations of the Board's November 15, 1990, resolution has been completed; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board direct the Department of Transportation to take all steps and make all efforts to complete the projects approved in its resolution of November 15, 1990, as more fully set out in a letter to F.R. Bowie dated November 4, 1991, from John G. Milliken, which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. Motion carried. 12/11/91 C TB Resolutions Regarding Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Project Sequencing November, 1990 and December, 1991 · Scanned from Originals by Thomas Jefferson PDC, February 15, 2000 Page 4 John G. 'Milliken Officeof The Governor Richmond Virginia 23219 November 4, 1991 The Honorable F. R, Bowie Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 MClntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Chairman Bowie: This letter is intended to reply in more detail to your letter of August 1. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is committed to the sequence of construction as set forth in the CTB's November 15, 1990, resolution. The CATS Plan is an approved Plan for the Charlottesville Albemarle County area and it is the intent of the Department and the CTB to carry out that Plan as funding on the primary system becomes available. To keep the plan on schedule, however, it will be necessary for the City of Charlottesville to keep its projects at a high priority and for Albemarle County to schedule the secondary projects in the CATS Plan. It was never the intent of the CTB or the Department that the CATS Plan not be carded out as currently proposed, provided funding was available. However, the Department and the CTB believe that a Route 29 Bypass is an integral and important part of the regional transportation plan and will be needed in the future, even with the implementation of the CATS Plan. With those general comments in mind, I would like to review the status of the three phases included in the CTB's November 15, 1990, resolution which were also addressed in your letter of August 1. Phase I, Short-range Recommendation tons: The widening of existing ROute 29 to Six lanes with contiguous right-turn lanes from the Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the Rivanna River will be accomplished by two projects as shown on Page 38 (Items 3 and 4) of the 1991-92 Six-Year Improvement Program. The first project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is scheduled for construction in July 1993 and the second project, from Rio Road to the river, is scheduled for advertisement in July 1994, all subject to available funding. The design work is currently underway. As additional funding becomes available and scheduling permits, a design will be prepared for three interchanges to be added to the Base Case. The design of these interchanges Is, of course, subject to public hearings and CTB approval. The preservation and acquisition of right-of-way for each element of the Plan was part Phase I. If this Plan is to succeed the County and the city must do everything possible to preserve the right-of-way required for the construction of the Base Case, the three interchanges and the Alternative 10 Corridor approved by the CTB. The refinement of Alternative 10 is currently underway, and a preliminary plan (functional plan) will be provided to Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to assist in the preservation of right-of-way along that corridor. After the design has been approved and right-of-way plans are prepared, and subject to available funding, VDOT will consider acquiring property which meets the Department's requirements for advanced right-of-way acquisition along Alternative 10. C TB Reso/utions Regarding Charlottesville-A/bemarle Transportation Project Sequencing November, 1990 and December, 1991 Scanned from Originals by Thomas Jefferson PDC, February 15, 2000 Page 5 In order to work with the County in the protectiOn of the watershed, access points on Alternative 10 will be limited to those approved by the CTB when the corridor was designated, unless additional access is requested by the local government. Phase II, medium-range Recommendations: Three grade-separated interchanges along Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road will be built when traffic conditions dictate and funding is available. The construction of each interchange is subject to approval of the design after public hearings are held during Phase I so that right-of-way for the Interchanges can be preserved. Phase III, Long-Range Recommendations: It is the intent of the CTB and the Department to construct Alternative 10 when traffic on Route 29 becomes unacceptable and funding pe rmits. You asked us to consider how tt~is commitment to the CATS Plan and the phasing of Projects might be solidified. The following sequence of activity spells out that commitment and I would be pleased to seek CTB ratification of this specific sequencing if the Board of Supervisors requests I do so. Of course, the commitment of the Board and the City Council to each 'do its part is necessary as well. 1. The widening of Route 29 to six lanes with continuous right lanes from the Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the Rivanna River This is currently being designed. 2. The remainder of Phase. I contained in the CTB's resolution of November 15, 1990. 3. The completion of the Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 north as urban and secondary road funding becomes available for the facility's right-of-way acquisition and construction cost. 4. The construction of the interchanges on Route 29 north at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive as traffic demands and funding permits. 5. The preservation and acquisition of right-of-way for Alternative 10. This will be accomplished an funding is available for this established corridor's right-of-way acquisition and construction. In closing, I trust that this letter assures the' County of the Department's and the Commonwealth Transportation Board's commitment to the construction of the CATS Plan and that the County will assist the Department in preserving right-of-way for the approved corridor for the Route 29 Bypass. If the contents of this letter meet with your approval and if the County wishes to move forward with the preservation of necessary right-of-way I would be pleased to bring the attached draft resolution before the CTB for its concurrence. Sincerely, John G. Milliken Cc: Constance R. Kincheloe Mr. Ray 0. Pethtel Richard L. Walton, Jr., Esquire .Charlottesville. Albemarle Metropolitan ~ PO Box 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902 . ~ (804) 979-7310 phone; (804) 979A597 fax ~ ,email: tjpd@state.va.us; website: http'://avenue.org/tjpdc ~Organization Fiscalyear 1999-2000 Work Program Approved by~MPO Policy Board April ,20, 1999 Charl°tte,sVille-Albemarle'Metropolitan planning Organization PO Box 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 979-7310 phone; (804) 9.79-1597 fax · email:-tjpd@state.va.us; website: http://avenue.org/tjpdc Resolution' Adopting FY2000'Unified Planning Work Program WHEREAS, MPO and local staffhave developed a draft workprogram for Fiscal Year 2000, and WHEREAS, the MPO has found the UPWP satisfactory for.l-999-00 urbanarea planning needs, in accordance with the continuing, comprehensive, cooperative (3-C) transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public comment has been sought and addressed in the development of the proposed Work Program; and ·; WHEREAS, the local governments of Charlottesville and Albemarle County as-well as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission have each included the~ necessary-matChing funds in their FY2000 budgets; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO approves the FY2000 Unified Planning Work Program, pending approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation and Department of Rail and Public-Transportation. Adopted the 20th day of April, 1999, by the MPO Policy Board. ATTESTED: Nancy K. O'Brien Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 1 CharlOttesville-Albemarle MPO Fiscal Y~ar 2000 Work Program ~ Purpose of MPO: The purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (IV[PO) is to be a forum for cooperative transportation decision-making among City, county, and VDOT officials. The local governments of Charlottesville and Albemarle created the MPO in response to a federal mandate through a memorandum of understanding and bylaws with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (PDC), JAUNT, and VDOT in 1982..MPO funding is provided by the Federal Transit Administration, .the ~ Federal .Highway Administration,. VDOT, VDRPT, local governments, and the PDC. Staffed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the .MPO. conducts transportation studies and ongoing planning activities, including an annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which lists road and transit improvements for the upcoming three years, and the 20-year Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS), which is updated every five years. Other activities address traffic congestion redUction, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and transit/ridesharing programs. The Unified Planning Work Program CU-'PWP) of MPO activities is developed each spring. The MPO study area includes the City of Charlottesville and the portion of Albemarle County which is either currently urban or anticipated to increase in density during the upcoming twenty years. A map of the study area is included in the back of this document. Public Involvement in Development of the FY2000 Work Program: In January, 1999, the MPO Policy Board established work program priorities based upon progress with and public comments on a variety of plans and studies at the local and regional level. All MPO boards and committees routinely solicit matters from the public at least once, and often twice, during their meetings, and comments are frequently offered at the Policy Board meetings. The MPO also maintains information about meetings and studies on the Planning District Commission web page, which gets an average of about 1,000 hits per month, and staff participates on local Intemet email discussion groups for bicycle and road alternatives. · .... ' . The draft work program was available, for review in public libraries, planning and VDOT offices, prior to the fihal pUbli~ hearing 6h. uarch 16, i999; With comments received until March 31} 1999."There were no comments from the Public hearing process. Priority Issues: The priorities of this work program were developed based in part on'the ideas and concerns aired through-these opportunities. Priority issues identified by the MPO for consideration in the development of the draft Work Program included the following: The need for improved transit and ridesharing services to support the goal of reducing dependence on the automobile and to meet the needs of new workers affected by welfare reform. The need to improve strategies to make the community friendly to bicycles and pedestrians through neighborhood-based improvements and traffic calming programs. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 2 · The need to take more visible steps to integrate land use with transpOrtation planning, with an eye towards long-term possibilities such as commuter rail. A strong concern to ensure that new roadways, particularly the proposed Route 29 Bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway, would not endanger the community's natural resources, and that they would be designed to minimize negative impacts on the community, These issues will be considered in the work program, through Transit and-ridesharing, development through the Single Occupant .Vehicle Alternatives Advisory Committee. The Committee will also examine the long term feasibility of rail. Integration of the NeighborhoOd Accessibility Index .into' the regional transpOrtation` planning model. Local initiatives to research and develop traffic calming projects and programs. Bicycle and pedestrian planning and support for project development through the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee An integrated land use/transportation analysis of the fast-growing eastern portion of the region called the Eastern Planning Initiative. Continued close work with VDOT thrOugh MPO Advisory Committees on the design of the · Meadow Creek Parkway and the Route 29 Bypass. Funding: MPO planning activity is funded by two federal agencies: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In the budget tables on the following pages, FHWA planning funds are noted with the initials "PL"; FTA funds are noted with the initials "FTA". These federal funds are matched with.state and local funds. The total PL and FTA budget reflects 80% federal funds matched with 10% state and 10% loca! funds, divided among Charlottesville City, Albemarle County, and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (?DC), which uses funds for MPO staffing and for RideShare planning. In addition, the Virginia Department of Transportation CV'DOT) receives federal planning funds from FHWA for State Planning and Research which are noted With the initials "SPR". The total budget for SPR items reflects 80% federal funds and 20% state funds. The table on the following page shows the total amounts available for use in fi~cal year 2000, by category. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO F¥2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 3 FY2000 Work Program: Funds Available, by Source " ': - , Federal ' State. ': Loca! Total ' ' " "' * $203,604 PL Total . * $162,883 $20,361 $20,360 New for FY2000 · :' "~: $101;845 ' $12,731 ' ~ ~'$12,730 . $127,306 Carryover frOm FY98 ' . "$45,038 : ." "$5,6'30-. i - , .~'~$5,630:, - ' ' $56,298 . Carryover from FY99 ~'$16,000 ' $2,000 ' '. "$2,000 ~ · ': '$20,000 FTATotal $36;000 $4,500 $4,500' :' '" "$45,000' pL and FTA Total $198,883 $24,861 - . $24,860 $248,604 SpR* $166,40 $41,600 $0 $208,000 TOTAL ALL SOURCES $365,283 , $66,461 - ~. $24,860 $456,604 * Used by VDOT for their participation in MPO activities On the following page is the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study map, which Shows the Study Area covered by the MPO for long range planning. Charlottesville Area Transportation Study 2025 Study Area Boundary Study Area Boundary (Clockwise from westernmost point) Meehums River at I-(C[ to South Fork Rivanna River South Fork Rivanna Rivor to Rt. 660, Earlysville Rt. 66O to Rt. 743 Rt. 743 to Greeno County Line Greene Coun.ty Line to Norfolk Southem RR Norfolk Souttiom RRto Rt. 600 Rt. 600 to Rt. 20 Rt. 20 to Redbud Creek Rcdbud Creek to Lon RL 22 to Rt. 616 Rt. 616to Fluvanna County Line Fluvanna County Line to Rt 53 Rt. 53 to Buck l~sland Creek Buck Island Creek to Houehins Creek Houehins Creek to Rt. 795 Rt. 795 to Lee Jones Creek Lee Jones Creek to Carters'Mtn. Ridge Carters Mtn. Ridge to Sowell Creok Sowell Creek to Rt. 20 Rt. 2O to Rt. 7O8 Rt. 70g to 1-64 1-64 to Mechums River Note: Gray areas are Outside the MPO boundary. 5 10 Miles N A 0 0 _Pr~p~ ared by: Tliomas Jefferson Planning D~ / · PO Box 1505 Charlottesville; VA 22902 http ://avenue.org/tjp de e:\vdot\cats2025_boundary, apr Base map data'© VDOT 1998 4/28/1999 dwr Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Ft'2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 5 1.0 Maintenance of the Continuing Urban Transportation Planning Process 1.1 Administration A) Reporting Complete F,Y2000 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); draft FY01 TIP; develop draft and fmal FY01 Work Program; write progress reports; complete and process funding agreements, invoices, and billing. :End Products: Completed draft or final documents and regular.rePorts.-.. Staff Responsibilities: MPO staff will develop TIP ~and UPWP. ~.MPO and local ,staff will complete progress reports and invoices; VDOT and VDRPT staffwill process invoices and handle reimbursements. . _ B) Committee staffing and participation, including public participation efforts: Prepare materials, write minutes,-handle public participation, and otherwise support the following committees:- ~MPO pOlicy'Board MPO Technical Committee Jefferson Area Bicycling and Walking Advisory Committee Single Occupant Vehicle Alternatives AdVisOry Committee Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee ..... ~ ',' '. ~ ~' ' Route 250 ,East Corridor Study AdVisory Committee CATS 2025 3/dvisory Committee Additional committees as directed by the MPO Policy Board. End Products: Committees meet -regUlarly W4h p3epar a minutes, and information needed. Meetings Will be publici,~ed through media' n0tices;'mailings t6 hsts' Of intereSte citizens and asi'°ciati0ns, and p6'stin~s On tho Ini'e~et~. ? Staff Responsibilities: MPO will staff MPO Policy Board, Technical Committee, and the Route 29 Bypass and Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committees. MPO, VDOT and Rural Area Transportation prOgram staff will work with the Jefferson Area Bicycling' and Walking Committee.. RideShare will work with the MPO to staff the Single Occupant Vehicle Alternatives Advisory Committee. VDOT will staff the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory committee. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 6 C) Information Sharing: Conduct ongoing intergovernmental discussion/ coordination of transportation projects; maintain highway facility inventory; attend informational meetings and training sessions. VDOT will also review road plans for conformance with current transportation plan; review the federal-aid functional classification system; coordinate multi-modal activities and maintain transportation inventory; monitor regional travel; review enhancement project proposals; and review local and regional transportation planning activities and attend Public hearings. End Products: Policy Board, Technical Committee, and staff will conduct ongoing review of issues and data; staff will attend meetings and training as needed. Staff Responsibilities: Local, MPO, and state staff will gather relevant information for committee discussions; VDOT staff'will maintain highway facility inventory. D) Public Involvement: MPO and local staff will participate in and help develop community events and educational forums related to.transportation planning, including community Internet discussion groups, local and University seminars, and neighborhood meetings. End Products: Increased participation by community members in transportation plans. Staff Responsibilities: Local, MPO, and'state staff will participate in and help develop vehicles for communication and education, respond to questions, concerns,,.-and suggestions, and will evaluate progress towards the end goal. 1.1 Administra[ion Charlottesville Albemarle PDC RideShare VDOT Total Federal PL ': "~' $3,978 ~':' $3,978 $19,822 $0 $0 $27,7z8 Federal SPR $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 Total Federal $3,978 $3,978 $31,822 $0 $40,000 $79,778 State Match PL $497 $497 $2,478 $0 $0 $3,472 State MatCh FTA $0 $0 ~1 ,500 $0 I ~0 r ~1 ,500 State Match SPR '- $0 $0 - $0 · $0 $10,000 $10,000 Total State Match $497 ' $497. $3,978 " $0 $10,000 $14,972 Local Match PL ' *, $497 $497 $2,477 ' $0 ..~ $0 $3,471 Local Match F~TA $0 · $0 $1~500 $0 $0 ' $1,500 Local Match SPR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local Match $497 $497 $3,977 $0 : $0 $4,971 Charlottesville-Albemarle M~O FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 7 2.0 UrbanizedArea Transportation Plan Development~ - 2.1 Long Range Planning 2.1.1 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2025 ~ A) Data Development: VDOT, MPO, RideShare and local staffwill develop input data for~the 2025 MINUTP traffic model including socio-cconomic, land use, bicycle, pedestrian, transit and travel demand management components. ,. Upon completion and approval ~of the data, VDOT.will run the model to identify base year and projected transportation patterns, Local staff will also compile data for all urban area neighborhoods on neighborhood accessibility by mode, using the Real Accessibility Index developed by the MPO in FY97-98. This information will be used to complement the data from the MINUTP model, allowing for a more in-depth analysis of small area needs and their relationship to the region. . . End Products: Base year' and 2025 projections oftraffic and SOV alternative usage. Staff Responsibilities: Local staff and interns will develop socio-economic, transit, bigycle, and pedestrian data, tying to local GIS where appropriate. RideShare will develop TDM data. MPO will coordinate staff review and Policy Board approval of data: :VDOT staff will participate in staff team review and develop traffic model projections. . B) Eastern Planning Initiative: Continuing from a study begun in FY99, this study is designed to complement the VD OT Route 250 East Corridor Study .and access management studies of Route 29 North, and to provide information useful for the CATS 2025 update. The study focuses on land use and transportation issues in the rapidly growing eastern half of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Working jointly, the Rural Area Transportation and MPO :Technical Committees.~;.wi!l ~gather transportation and travel demand data, analyze land use trends, and examine the connections between 'land use plans and transportation alternatives. During the first year, staff developed data ~md maps to support the analysis. During FY2000, the MPO and Rural Area Transportation committees will .analyze transportation and land use development alternatives and develop recommendations for localities and the IV[PO to consider. ~ '~ · The PDC has applied for a Federal Highway Administration grant to conduct a planning process resulting in a broad, 50-year vision and transportation/land use planning model for this study area. If this is funded, the transportation study described here will become one component of the larger study. If the larger study is not funded, the results of this study may form the basis for a Major Investment Study of this area, as recommended inthe CATS 2015. End Products: Analysis and recommendations for transportation and land use improvements to address projected transportation problems in the study area. Staff Responsibilities: LOcal, MPO, VDOT, and VDRPT staff will develop the information for review by the MPO and Rural Area Transportation Study Policy Boards. VDOT will prepare long-range recommendations for the Route 250 Corridor within Albemarle County (that portion of the study area within the MPO boundary). Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 8 C) CATS 2025 Update: Upon completion of the Eastem Planning Initiative and the MINUTP modeling data, an advisory committee will be convened to begin updating the CATS Year 2015 project plan to the year 2025. If the Eastern Planning Initiative recommendations are drafted by the spring of 2000 (which depends in part upon whether the MPO's TCSP grant is awarded), the advisory committee will begin their work using those recommendations. If the Initiative is still in progress, the advisory committee may not be convened until fiscal year 2001. VDOT will assist the MPO with development of the plan, and will evaluate and review comments and responses to concerns relative to the update. End Products: CATS 2025 Advisory Committee convened and initial meetings held. Staff Responsibilities: MPO staff will lead a team of local, RideShare, and VDOTstafftojointlY develop information for committee review. MPO staffwill handle logistical tasks such as preparation of agendas and minutes. Task 2.1 Charlottesville Albemarle - PDC RideShare VDOT Total CATS 2025 FTA Code: 41.13.01 Federal PL ~ :' $17,900 $17,900 $39,091 $2,400 $0 $77,291 Federal FTA. $0 $0 $12,000 .. . .$0 . ~. $0 $12,000 F~deral SPR -' $0 ' ' $0 - $0' ~ ' - $0 : $76,000 . $76,000 Total Federal: ' $!7,900 $17,900 $51,091 . $2,400 ~ $76,000 $165,291 State Match PL State MatchFTA.~. ~ - ~ . $0 , ~ . $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 State Match SPR $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,'000 $19,000 Total sta~e Match $21237 $2,237 .-' $6,387" !~ i. $300 $19,000 $30,161 Local Match PL. :- $2,237 $2,237 $4,886 $300 $0 ' $9,660 Local Match FTA $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $1 ;500 Local Match SPR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local Match $2,237 $2,237 $6,386 $300 $0 $11,160 ' Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 9 2.2 Short Range Planning ~; :, :,- ,.. :,~ :.,~ . 2.2.1 Intermodal/Congestion Management Planning A) SingleOccupant Vehicle Alternatives: The SOV Alternatives Advisory Committee, established in FY99, will evaluate, propose~ and monitor improvements to transit and ridesharing services and workplace traffic reduction programs. Particular focus will be paid to short term improvements and marketing of:SOV alternatives and the feasibility of long-term improvements such~as rail..: ~The committee will-also participate in the review of the area Transit. Development Plan, which will be conducted by. a consultant to Charlottesville Transit Service.; VDOT :will :provide information on transportation system deficiencies and recommendations for improvements to alleviate unacceptable conditions, and coordinate recommended improvements with other plans and studies. VDOT will also assist in coordinating planning activities with the private sector to identify mobility and commuter access issues. End Products: Committee develops and recommends short-term and long-term improvements for increasing the availability, feasibility, and usage of SOV alternatives. ~ :- Staff Responsibilities: The MPO will staffthe committee. ::Local and state transit,--~VDOT and . ridesharing staff will serve as committee members, along with citizen advisors. B) Bicycling and Walking: The Jefferson Area Bicycling and Walking committee, convened in FY99 jointly with the Rural Area Transportation Program, will support the completion and implementation of the regional bicycle and pedestrian plan, working with local governments to identify funding sources and promote development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. VDOT will provide information on transportation system deficiencies and recommendations for improvements to alleviate unac~ept~able conditions, and coordinate recommended improvements with other plans and studies. End Products: Regular communication with local governments on updated plans, strategies for ~development, and current or anticipated progress. Staff Responsibilities: MPO 'and Rural Transportation Program staff will develop agendas, minutes, and general staffing needs of committee; local and ~VDOT ::staff-will~ assist in developing information; RideShare staffwill assist in developing public education, events, and public-pqivate funding for development of facilities. C) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Initiatives: Two projects will be developed as a result of the regional ITS study conducted during FY97 and implementation plans developed during FY98-99. 1) Transportation Information Center (TIC): The MPO will apply for funds to allow a working TIC laboratory, developed in FY98 by a team of University of Virginia engineering students working with MPO and PDC staff, rto be operated on a trial basis. Local consumers likely to interact most frequently with the system, such as emergency service providers, transit agencies, local media, and VDOT operations offices, will participate and evaluate the trial. Based on the trial, the MPO Technical Committee will recommend whether and how the TIC should be integrated into community public works facilities. It is anticipated the presence of the TIC will spark development of a Traveler CharlotteSviile-Albe/~iarle -:MPO FY2000 Wobk P~ogram APisroved by MPO, 4/20/i)9 Page 10 Information System (a long-term initiative identified in the FY97 study), i0'b~ dev~16i~i PrimarilY by the private sector. The Traveler Information System would package TIC information for area commUiers and Visitors, througl~'media'such as highway advisory radi0s, W~b pages, and public computer kiosks. It could be developed by local media, tourism councils, econon~iC development agencies, visitor service industries, and public'Intemet sources such as Monticello Avenue~ ~2) AUtomated Vehicle Location system (AVL): BaSed on ~eC0mmendations from the FY98 .analysis 0f transit ITS alternatives, local transit fleets are d6~l°pir~gplans'to be ~quipPed withc0mpute~ sYstems to support real-time location identification and communications .t6 quickly re-route and .dispatch vehicles, allowing for more efficient, flexible routing and immediate responses to consumer .requests for service. End Products: Evaluation of demonstration TIC site; plan for AVL system. Staff Responsibilities: MPO, VDOT, VDRPT, RideShare,'and local planning and transit staff will participate in TIC and AVL development. D) Ti~affie~hlrain g prOgrams: Local staff, Supported by the MP.O and VDOT, will'assist ~the City and County in developing traffic calming measures to be applied at the local and regional level Activities may include educational seminars; literature searches of traffic calmii~g plans in similar communities;' and recommendations for funding and development by the public and private sectors..Both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville have allocated Capital Improvement Funds to traffic calming.` programs, and the CoUnty is participating in a VDOTstudy of pilot programs in suburban corn~ unities and villages. The County pilot study may result in identifying potential improvements to' the VDOT traffic calming program which enable it to be applied to a wider variety of situations. It is anticipated that the ldCalities,'working thr6~igh the MPO, will Pull together information fron~ ~e F;Y~0 .?°cess to develop a regional traffic calming master plan as part of the FY01 Work Program. ' End Products: Educational events, research, local development of traffic calmifi~ ~easUr~s. :~taffRe6~oi~3~bilities: Local}:~MPOi~fimt VDOT ~taffwiii deyeioi~ informatiori-. ...... E) Route 250 East Corridor Study: This study~ to be conducted by VDOT staff, will complement the Route 250 West Study completed in FY99 and the Eastern Planning Initiative (task 2.. 1) A multi-modal transportation plm~ for improving roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access along the corridor from the eastern City limits to Rout~ 795 in Louisa County will be developed. 'Information on the section outside the MPO study area will be shared with the Rural Transportation Technical Committee.-. End Products: Multi-modal transportation plan for the Route 250 corridor. StaffResponsibilities: VDOT staffwiI1 conduct the study with pm-ticipation fr°m the' MPO and Rural Area Transportation Technical Committees, and will staff a citizens advisory committee appointed by local governments from Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvauna and Louisa. See also a note in Task 2.2 under Eastern Planning Initiative regarding longzrange goals, for the corridor. Charlottesvillb-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 11 Task 2.2 IMCM Charlottesville Albemarle PDC RideShare VDOT Total FTA Code: 41.16.14 Federal PL . $10,440 $10,440' $35,334 $1,600 ' $0 $57,814 Federal FTA $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 i $12,000 Federal SPR ~ $0 . - $0 $0 $0 $50,400 $50,400 Total Federal . $10,440 $10,440 $'47,334 $1,600 $50,400 $120,214 State Match PL $1 ,'306 $1,306 $4,417 $200 $0 $7,229 State Match FTA . $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 State Match SPR . $0 ' $0 $0 ~ $0 $12,600 $12,600 Total State Match $1,306 $1,306 '$5,917 $200 $12,600 $21,329 0 Local Match PL $1,306 - '$1,306 $4,417 · -~ $200 '$ $7,229 Local MatCh FTA ' $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 Local Match SPR · ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . ~i.-. $0 Total LoCal Match $1,306 ' ' $1,306 $5,917' - $200' ' ' $0 : ' $8,729 Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Progr~tm ApProved.by MPO, 4/20/99 P[tg~ 12 3.0 Consultant Studies A) Route 29 Intersection study (uafundeti)i Fundifig for this ~tudy h:as r~O~ yet been'identified. The MPO and local governments have requested that VDOT consider assigning it Preliminary Engineering funds from the Primary Road allocation for FY2000. It is planned :for FY2000 in response to a recommendation in the CATS 2015 to identify~mprovements to the Rou~e 29 intersections at Hydraulic, Greenbrier, and Rio Roads. Grade-separated interchanges were recommended and planned for these three intersections based On the VDOT Route 29 Corridor Study of 1990. Tl~e Corridor Study stated that interchanges at these locations would raise the Level of Service on Route 29 to an A or B; without interchanges, the LOS for th~ corridor would be an F. 'The plan ,for the interchanges was dropped by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1995 due to concerns raised by the City of Charlottesville over the scale of the facility at Hydraulic Road. and the potential loss to business revenues at that location. This study will review the findings of the 1990 Corridor Study, taking into account intersections and traffic projections which have been developed since that time, and recommend intersection improvements to ensure the best possible safety and flow and the least contention among vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles on-Route 29 and along the east-west streets with which it- intersects. End Task: Identification of problems and recommendations for intersection improvements which ensure the best possible safety and flow, and/the least possible contention among all modes along Route 29 and cross streets. - Staff Responsibilities: Consultant-will conduct the analysis and prppose recommendations' for. consideration l~v'iheMPo Technical Committee and Policy Board. COnsultant management will b~ by VDOT or a local/MPO staff committee, depending on the funding source. B) Ti'ansit Development Plan: This is a five Year urban area plan being ~ted by a grant to CTS fr-~n~ the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. The scope of W0rk is currentlY being developed. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 13 FY2000 Budget Summary by Funding Source Charlottesville Albemarle PDC RideShare VDOT Total Federal PL $32,318 $32,318 $94,247 $4,000 $0 $162,883 Federal FTA $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $36,000 Federal SPR $0 $0 $0 $0 $~166,400 $166,400 Total 'Federal ' $32,318 $32,318 $130,247 $4,000 $166,400 ~ .$365,283 .State Match PL . $4,040 $4,040 $11,782 $500 $0 $20,362 State Match FTA $0 $0 $4,500 $0 $0 :$4,500 State Match SPR _$0 $0 $0 $0 ' $41,600$41,600 Total State Match - $4,040 - $4,040 · -$16,282 $500 $41,600 $66,462 Local Match PL $4,040 $4,040 $11,780 $500'' · $0 - $20,360 Local Match FTA - $0 ' ' $0 $4,500 $0 $0 ~ - '$4 500 LoCal Match SPR -$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local Match $4,040 $4,040 $16,280 $500 , .. $0 ~ , $24,860 Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO FY2000 Work Program Approved by MPO, 4/20/99 Page 14 FY2000 Budget Summary by Task, :including .f~deral, State and Iodhi'sources Task ' ..: Charlottes- -Albemarle -! PDC , Ride- VDOT Total 1.1. Administration ', ..$4,972 $4,97~ $39,777 $0 .$50,000 $99,721 B) Committee Staffing C) Information Sharing D) Public Involvement - .. 2.1 CATS 2025 $22,374 ";$~2,374 $63,864 $3,000 $95,000 - '$206,612 A) Data Devel6pment B) Eastern Planning Iriitiative - - 2.2 lntermod~.l/Congestion '$13,052 :$13,052 : $59,168 '$2,000 $63,000 ' $1'50,272 Management A) SOV Alternatives: :-:., ~ -.~ B) Bicycling and Walking Traffic Calming E) Rt 250 East Corridor Study A) Rt 29 Intersection Study B) T el0prfieht Plan Total $40,398 $40,398 $162,809 $5,000 $208,000 . $456,605 NOTE: inadditioh {6 il~ abbve~Studie§'i"/he Thorfias :J~ffers°n~Planning District CommisSion has applied (.f0r a grant fri3m'tii¢ F~d~ral Highw~iy Administratiofito develop a brOad-based, 50-yeai: visioning and. ' modeling process for the eastern area which will dovetail with the Eastern planning Initiative. If funded this grant may result in about $500,000 in transportation planning funds for the region over the next two fiscal years, divided among consultant assistance, University of Virginia faculty and staff, and the Planning District Commission. , Thomas JeffersonplanningDistrict,,Commission ............ :--:~'~ ' - 300 East Main Street, 1st Fl, Mall Entrance PO Box 1505, Charlottesville VA 22902-1505 (804) ~79-PD10, (7310) FAX (80?) 979-15,97 City of Charlottesville -,. : ..-- Th'd Jefferson Area EaStern Piannin~t Initiative ~¢reathM. mch~ ' ' '; Summary bf the Project"~nd The Advisory Committee Kenneth Sch,~ ' " ' }uPdat~ed Ap~ilS,' 2000 Albemarle CoUnty Waiter V. Perldn~ The ProjeCt:,. The eastern portion 0fthe Thomas Jeffersen Planning District, which includes Sally H. Tho** the Counties c;f Greene, Albemarle, Louisa, and Fluva~'na, and the City of Charlottesville, is ~lu~nua Conn~ growing quickly, especially in rural areas. This rapid growth is putting a strain on existing amo~ E. ~ar~ infrastructur_e,..and is expected to ....... 0v~h~Im the cap~acity ..... of~ facilities .......... Such ~s...major roads S~ord M. P,ce within twenty years. The region's leaders and citizens have committed to sustainable planning Greene County - ' .... pri~eiplds' brit' these plans have' n~t'7.a,l~vays been cooi~btin'at~d,-and a p~0c. ess for integrated ~euneth ~-a~sou' -- ~-land use and .transportation plan, ning, has not been establish:ed. The p~0j~'~t w'il!'~ccomplish ' foil go Philllp Arms e. o als: Louisa County ........................ , . · Desi~j'ri-a 'mOdel ;~nd process for integrated land use and transportation plan ning which Fitzgerald A. Bam~ . flows from regional goals for quality of life. The model will be simpl~ enb~u& h for other Jane H. Poore .... . : small urban and rural areas, t_0.u~e_,_ yet. robust en.p.ug~ tO suPP0.(t ?a!istic decision- Nelson County making. The planning process will help the community'understand the root causes of ,*~-~y s. Harris problems, weigh the costs and benefits cfa wide variety of land use and transportation .Bo§er, Chair solutiOn~s and make decisions witha clear 0nderstanding "of how strategies will Executive Director implement regiOnal goals for quality of life. -' -' :. Na .ncy K..O'Brien ' ':' regional priorjt!es' for.quality: of li~eq~ inc!u4]~g:.~!4~ for sustainability, economic development, environmental preServation, transportation, a~d human services. · Develop a regional, integrated land use and t. ransportation plan with short-term and long-term goals that lay the groundwork for achieving the vision. The project'team includes TJPDC staff, faCulty from the University of Virginia School of - APchitecture ahd the Design Resources Center at the UVA Institute for Sustainable Design, and consultants with expert!se in traffic modeling~ land use planning, and public participation. The Advisory Committee: An advisory committee appointed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Comm!ssion (TJPDC) will provide advice and feedback on each stage of the study, and will act as ambassadors for the project by discussing it with the organizations and communities they represent and by advising and/or assisting the project team with design charettes, focus group discussions, survey.s., newsletters, a- Web page, art and story writing events and other methods of c0mmunic~a~ting with the public, Staffing is provided by the TJPDC and members of the P~oject Team. :~' Jeffer~sdh ~4redEastern t~lanning Initicit],v~: £i;oj~t Summarp ~n'd_ Cq~mittOe DeScription- ~- .... U1)dated ~4pril 5, 2000 Advisory Committee Members: Each 10'Cai government in the stu~l~"a~h (Ch']arl~0ttesville City, Albemarle, Greene, i'~ Fluganna,'~nd Louisa C0~'nties) was'asked to appoint one planning commissioner and one citizen at-large to the committee.: In addition a number of community organizations were invited to send a representative to the committee: The list pf organizations.was developed by PDC staff and endorsed bythe PDC in an attem pt to include a wide variety bf do~i~'i]nity gFoups;-sOcial service provider-s, ar~s. and~. · cultural grou ps, environmental preservation and planning groups, housing advocates, and business/econ3miC'development interests, .The PDC may elect to add Committee ~e~be~rs.as .th_e p.roject p._r0.c~.e.d~._in ?de~ t.p~?ain~ain__?.~ i?!u_s?_e nat[ire of th'e project. All committee meetings will be open to the public and there will be times set aside during eact~-meeting for comments from the 'public; Half of.the committee meetings wilt include public'charettes to which all members of the community will be invited to pa~[c, ipate Committee .... :_: Bobbye Coc~..ran, Charlottesville Regional Tourism., David Kalergis,. Virginia Gateway - Co Chair ..... Council -'-.~ Howard E~e~green, Louisa/Fiu~'ha -Housing Robe~.'HkuS~'h~': Ch~ville Regional~ Chamber Of J '. Foundations -. Co Chair Rodney Thomas, Albemarle Planning Commission Paul Grady, Albemarle Citizen Represe.ntative M a rs h all S la~6 ~,'Ch~rlog~t~e~vi/le PlanninO Com~hi~io~ ' Gary Okerlund; Chariotte sville'Citize[i i~epresentatiye Vernon Rathbone, Fluvanna Planning Commission Charles Layman, Fluvanna Citizen RelYresentative , Greene Planning Commission .... i Greene Qt[~en Representative Richard Havasy, Louisa Planning Commission Wayne Poore, Louisa Citizen Representative Katie Hobbs; Albemarle Neighborhood Association Kevin Lynch, Ch'ville Federation of Neighborhoods Suzanne Cha?in, League of Women Voters Jim Elmore/Nancy Brockman, Piedmont Council of the Arts 'Tri p Pollard, Southern Environmental Law Center Greg Jackson, Charlottesville Area Bicycling Alliance Linda Seaman, Ch'ville,Albemarle School Business Alliance Ben Walter, Jefferson Area Board for Aging Jim Wilson, UVA Real Estate Foundation Jay Kessler, Leadership Charlottesville Alumni Assoc. Sally Thomas, Thomas Jefferson Venture & C-A MPO Calvin Biesecker, Greene Future Karen Klick, Piedmont Housing Alliance Teresa Ta?scott, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Laura Hawthorne, University of Virginia Jeffrey Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council Robert DeMauri, T.J, Partnership Economic Development Shelly Wright Jefferson Area DisabilityServices Board Commerce Paul Grady, Albemarle Citizen Representative James Peterson, Region Ten CSB Bob w~t~o/~; Ch;ville A~ea As'so~ation'of Real~o~s Bob Bu~kh'~ld~r, VA Farm Bureau (Greene County) Rich 'Carter, Blue Ridge Homebuilders Assoc, Mark Giles, Virginia National Bank/ Virginia Piedmont Technology Partnership Ex Officio: Carter Myers, Board Commonwealth. Transportation Staffi. Project. Team: Hannah TWaddell, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (project manager) Chris Sinclair, Renaissance Planning Group Bruce Dotson, UVA School of Architecture Kenneth Schwartz, UVA Institute for Sustainable Design Local, S;cate and Federal Staff Liaisons: Juandiego Wade, Albemarle County Dan Painter, City of Charlottesville Cabell Lawtdn, Fluvanna County Nick Hahn, Greene County Pete Bradshaw, Louisa County Helen Poore, Charlottesville Transit Service Donna Shaunesey, JAUNT Wayne Woodcock, VDOT Tran* portation Planning Jack A?ostolides, VA De?t of Rail & Public Trans?. Ivan Rucker, Federal Highway Administration ~Jefferson "Area EcJstern Planning lnitiative: .Project Summary and Committee Description · · . ?. ~ .,~ ~). Updated April 5, 2000 Meeting Agendas and Dates Meeting I: Kickoff (Wed. January 5, 2000.), 7:00 p.m. The P~oject Team will present the work scope and schedule, and howthe Advisory Committee (AC) will be invo ved in the process. ,The AC will be given an assignment for the February meeting to list those issues of importance to them, and to talk with Others about issues of importance.~ · 'Meeting 1 outcome -- Advisory Committee Understands proceSs.and their role Meeting 2: Identi~~ existing community elements -(Wed. ~Feb 2, 2000, 6:30 p;m.~w/AC and Thurs Feb 3 W/Transp°rt'a-~[O~~ Tech Commit'tee'.~. Th~'. r~tud3/- te?m"w[ll presei~t vi~uals'(g'raphics-~nd pictures) of existing protOtype communities, in the Eastern Jefferson Plan'ning ~rea'and possible prOtotype_S. (such as rural villages). Prototypes are the b~i'~ building bl0bks thatwill be ~ed in tile m~del to displayan~t tes~t land design alternatives. The' A~O~vil Fell,ne ~he'Ibr0totyPes and hellS'define~otl4erb~--This meet n'g is' intended tO getthe AC comfortable with use a n.Ominal~group' t~chniq0e to'h'elp ~h~ 'A~. a"hd i~6blic-:'~ .efin'e %ality bf lif~' i,~!c~'~/~b~s.. The t~m'.W_il! pre.sent ,i~'mm&itY'i~rototype..!m'~ge~ to help'.s, tructure the workshop.: Next; the.AC:an~d i~ublic W. ill break (nt.o small groups ~2~Vel~-.'--hh'd~':FiO3~iC~g'i'ndi~ator'~ f0~ ~bh-6f'th~ 'p~3~gy¢'~$~fi~t for th~- ~i~tire stLidy aCea. The entire grou? will then re~iew and core'lent on: each group's conclusions,._The project team will provide information on previously .~-<teveloped vision statements and quality of life indicators.. -.from studies and plans in the region on which the group an build. __A concept _th?_t_ h~lps_ ?ersonaliZ~ ~l~'e"~u~lity:'0:fiife ii~(cators is using "samPle p.eople".w~o encompass Some of the important characteristics, of people in the community,, such as an elderly man living in a rural, area. Land use and transportation, altern?ti, ves can be tested., against how. they enhance, or diminish each sample person~s quality of lifeJ~· The study team will identify a _representative list of sample people for the AC and public to Meeting 4: Launch demonstration computer model .(Wed, Mav 31, 2000 With AC and Thurs. June I, 2000 with Transportation Technical Committee.): The project team will present a~ ove~!ew of the computer model to the AC, MemberSwill h'age ai~' opportunity'to..he!~ Calibratet_h~'_~da~.t.~.an.d_a_soump_t!ons, and to use the toolset during an interactive session, Meeting 5, Community Workshop: Imagine alternative futures (Sat, Sept 9, 2000)i .The project team will lead a workShop in 'which thb AC and public use the 'community elements and quality 'of life. indicators to develop four distinctly different future visions for the Fegion, The project team wi!l. pFo_vide map's, graphics and props for the exercise, as well as background on' previously.de~eloped vision statement_s, · Meeting 5 outcome -- Agreement on conceptual framework of four visions _ .. · Meetin~l 6: Develop land use/trans?ortal~[on Sceha~i'~S ~l.'-NOv 1, 2000-w/AC dn-d Th~' NO¢. '2, ~000 with ranspo~ation Tech Committee): The project team will present speci~c land use and transpo~ation scenarios mr each of the alternative futures. The AC will review and r~ne the scenarios in preparation for testing through the model. Meeting 6 outcome -- Approve four land use/~ranspo~ation scenarios for ~sting JefferSOn Area Eastern Planninglnitiative: Project Summary and Co,~mitteq Description -: .- --~:.~'.- '~ Updated April 5, 2000 Meetin~ 7, Communitv Workshop: Select best la~'d USe~tran'~po[~ation '~ :'~ ' ~' . _ scenario(s) (~ati' Jan 13, 2001'1: The project team will present the results of the alternatives evaluation with the model and will lead an exercise that helps the AC and public rate the scenarios using the quality of life indicators, and select a combination of land use and transportation scenarios to be the basis of a final plan conce.~ pt. · Meeting 7 outcome '-~ Review altern~atives egaluation and ~elect combination' of scenarios for development of final plan Meeting 8 Community Workshop: Draft 50 year p/an (Sat Apr 7, 2001 preceded by Thurs April 5, 2001 w/Transportation Tech Committee)! :~he project team will present a draft final plan and implement;ation strategy and the this meeting, the and receive comments from .the?rf_~n?po~ation T_ec~.C~m!~ee, the AC ~._ ~... pU~!!c. Following draft will be presented to'e~ch Planning C6mmission and Board of Supemisors_/City Council in the study area for comments, i ......................... : ................... ; ........ 7 ............ - : ; .- _: · Meeting 8 outcome-~ Public comments and endorsement of draft plan: followed bY presentatioo~,to local governments for comments-' .................................... z ........ Meetin~l 9: Approve 50 vear vision;plan and implementation strate~.v(Wed June 7, 2001): :-The p~oj~b~'~eam Will present the final draft report to the AC.- ............... A'~ - ': · Meeting 9 outcome -- Advisory'Committee approval of Plan After the Advisory Committee endorses the Plan, the project team. will. present it for. endorsement bYthe Planning District CommissiOn and each local goveFnmeht a~ ~' guiding ~document for their comprehensive planning process, and by the MPO as a guiding document for the Charlottesville Area-Transl~o~ation StudY' UPdate. The plan, process, and computermo.del will be submitted tothe Federal Highway Administratic;n as a national demonstration project which will be distributed ~0 'otl~er commu"nities wino Wish to engage in:simil~ processes.'': . L~~ i ~:~ ..... ~ .... ,~: ~ . .... ~. . ~ -.~:, ~-.?-~ .::~-.. · Charlottesville-Albema?le Metro?olita,~ Planning Organizat~i~n~ est. 1982 Highlights of Regional Tr~anspo~ation Studies and Re?or~s Updated April 5, 2000 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 1985-2000 (1985) (two previous CATS studies were developed by VDOT with Charlottesville and Albemarle in the 1970's) Albemarle and Charlottesville Pedestrian Studies (1985, updates pending as par~ of Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Committee regional plan) Public-Private Transit Alternatives for Urban ~.lbemarle County (1988) Household Survey of Charlottesville-Al~bemarle Transit Needs (1989) Guidelines for Transit Operators Contracting with the Private Sector (1990) Charlottesville-Albemarle Bicycle Plan (coordinated with UVA bicycle plan) (1991) Charlottesvilie-Albemarle Traffic Reduction Strategy (1992). This launched the Big Wheels employer group, which organized the Give Air a Brake event'and other traffic reduction projects and programs still ongoing today. Computerized mapping of the MPO study area (1993 and ongoing GIS development) Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, 1995-2015: Phase 1: Policies and Goals (1994) see also 1998 ~ Regional Transit Development Plan (1994) ...... ~ .... Ivy Road Design Study (funded by Char ottesvi e and A bemar e County,,reviewed by MPO) 1994 Route 29 Interchange Study Design Advisory Committee (1994~ disbanded upon project cancellation by Southern Charlottesville Transportation Sl~udy,(1995) (recommended Southern Connector with bicycle and pedestrian facilities) Entrance Corridor Study and Design Guidelines (1995) Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee Evaluation of VDOT Design (1995) Forum on Transportation, Sustainability, and Intelligent Transportation Systems tn the Jefferson Region .(1995] . Jefferson Area Intelligent Transportation Systems Study (1997) Route 29 Pedestrian Study (1998) Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, est. 1'982 Highlights Of IRegional TcansPo~tation Studies and Reports Updated April 5, 2000 'Charlottesville Area Transportation Study 1995-2015: Phase 2 Project Plan (1998). Traffic Diet Game (1998) (winner of year 2000 international award from Association for Community Transit for innovative community transportation educational tools) Forum on Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of the Proposed Route 29 Bypass (1999) Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee Evaluation of VDOT Design (1999) Forum on the Future of.Public Tr. ans?ortation (1999) Neighborhood Accessibility Index and Pilot Neighborhoods Study (1999) Neighborhood Trip Reduction Handbook (1999) Developed by RideShare with MPO assistance (first home-based trip reduction program developed in Virginia) Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative (initiated 1999, to be completed 2001) Employer Traffic Reduction Program Handbook (to be corn pleted by RideShare 2001) Route 250 West Corridor Study (2000) Route 250 East Corridor Study (2000) Albemarl~ County Develop~nent Areas Initiatives Study (2000) (MPO funded a portion of the study to examine transportation issues) Jefferson Area Regional Bicycle and Walking Plan (to l~e completed 2001') Literature 'Review of Light Rail Initiatives (to be completed ~000) Report on Regional Transportation Districts (to be completed 2000) I~egional Travel Patterns and Transit Su~ey (to be completed 2000) CTS Transit Development Plan/JAUNT Rural Needs Assessment (to be corn ?leted 2001) Report on Water Quality and Qu. antity Impacts of hte Proposed Route 29 bypass (to be completed 2000, funded by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, administered bY TJPDC/MPO) CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE ME.,. J-)POLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ) POLICY BOARD 1999-2000 . REPRESENTING,. ~'~'*~ 'TELEPHONE' ''/ ''-'~'AX~ ' E~MAIL ' /TITLE . , ,~-~ ADDRESS VOl'lNG M]gMBERS (Bold indicates voting member/Regular indicates staffor alternate). ' ' ' · ' ' ,., City of Charlottesville . 1621'Traiiridge ROad Meredith Richards, Chair 295-6234 ., 984-1578 ., mmrich~cstone, net City Council Charlottesville VA 22903 Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Robert W. Tucker 296.5841 ~ ,~ 296.5800' ; ' '.."btU~ker@albemarle.org_' i County Executive: Charlottesville VA 22902 :', : ' ' Albemarle coUnty`. . ~ . "" ' ":-: i:,'~- ---' . . Director, Planning' ,' " ' : ~ - 401 Mclntire Road Cilimberg . 296-5823 :. :, ' 972'4035~ . i'--, :';: wcilimb~albemarle.°rg ' ' . Community Dev ~ ,: Charlottesville VA 2290i~ Wayne . :: ~:~ :. , . " · '- '-:', Albemarle County:':,. · 109 Falcon IJrive Charlotte I-Iumphris 296-7806 ~.'..,29627806' ~! ~ i' 2 Chumphri~albemarle. org, · . ~ ,,: . Board of Supervisors : ~Charlottesville VA .. ' .. ~ ; .... :~ :. .... ~ .: .:.,. ~ ~ . ,. . . .. _Albemarle Co' . ~- ..~ .. d~: .-::- ~};" 4 -: ~:,; .:.. -: ': - Planning Community Der 401 McIntireRoad'" ' ': David Benish 296-5823 972-4035 dbenish~albemarle.org Charlottesville,VA 2 1 ' : .' ' City of Charlottesville 702 RidgeStreet- Mauriee Cox 295-8352/984-0038: 295-8627 mdeSe~virginia.edu City Council Charlottesville, VA 22902 .... ' - , ' City of Charlottesville PO Box 911 ~, Gary O'Connell 970-3101 970-9523 oeonnell~ci.charlottesville.va.us City Manager , Charlotteswlle VA 22902 Sally Thomas, Vice Chair 295-1819 ~ ' 295-!819 sthomas~albemarle.org , Albemarle County Charlottesville,889 West Leigh Street ~9~ Board of Supervisors Va 2290! Judith MueIler ~ ~ ' . . 970-3301 970-3187 mueller~ci.charlottesville.va.us. ,: - City of Charlottesville PO Box 911 Rm B230 · Public Works Charlotteswlle VA 22902,7 - '~' VDOT ,: .' ' i 2.: ' ", . ~ ~/ : " '; :. Transportation i 1401 EBroad S~ll4A' Don Wells 804-786-2981 ·804-225-4785 ' :, wells 'dh~vdot. state.va.u~. ; Engineer Prog Richmdnd VA 23219 . ..... ~ -. Supervisr ':'- ?i : ' '" ':":" rransportati0n Engineer' 4'0iE ad:st/t ...... :".' ~ : : ~ VDOT '1 Bro 114A Wayne Woodcock 804-786-9398 804-~25-4t85: "woodcock wc~vdot, state.va.us Senior , RichmOnd VA 23219 REPRESENTING NAME TELEPHONE' FAX E-MAIL /TITLE ADDRESS NON-VOTING MEMBERS/STAFF ....... ' ., .... : ,~ ~: .... ~ ,~ .... : ~ ~ ~' ,,~, c~ ' . . , ::: : · ~ .. :, ,. .... ' "POBox91'1 :' .... Helen Poore ' 970-3840 . 970-3841 ,. poore~ci.~harlottesville.va.us ' CTS Manager ' Charlottesville VA 22902 · ~ ""'~' :"' "' ' :: ' ~ Office of the Architect ',~ i~ 'i,'~: · ,: , .:::' ,' . ,: ' ,-,,,.' ~' UVA The Rotunda, SEWing SamuefA. Anderson 924-6015 ' ":' 924-6014'~ . ,~': ',,, saa4u~virginia.edu :.., . UVA Architect Charlottesville VA 22903 ~ ~' ~' : "~ ~"" )" ":' ' , ~ JAUNT 104 Keystone Place (~,'~ Donna Shaunesey 296-31'84 ' -'~ i 298-456~)/ . :,." } ~ jaunt@~venue.°rg; ~: ':'~ Executive Director Charlottesville VA~2~902~, ..... ,~. - , i,. FHWA . 1504 Santa Rosa~Roid' Brace Turner' 804-281-5114 '" 804-'28125101 ,.i i.,-:~' Lbmce:mm~r fhwa.dot.go{) ..i;. ~,'Division Administrator Richmond VA~23229 ~,~. Sheldon Kinbar 215:656-6900 . '215:656~7260,.~ ::" iii: sheld~nkinbar@i;~ihot.go~) :~ :i~egional Administrator Philadelphia PA,1910~ . .... '.;' r? '~ ..... ,~.~:~i... "'i ~'''' ,;~i" ,~ :~.i.,,''''~ . ii,.' ".' ;VDRPT 1401E; Broad Str~et ,;: · , Richmond VA 23219 :" Jack Apostolides '804-786234~07' : ~b4'~586;72'8'6.~ apostolide~'_"je®drpt.'state.va}Us"~ , Trans Eng. Senior- ,. ~ ~': ' i ~',c:~,;:~, :ii, ,~i~, :~':::"' "'"'" -' ..... "vDRPT ':"':' ~:''' ... "' ' .............. ~:.:~ ,~ ~. ~, ,.! - :~ , 1401E Broad Street (,) ~-~ Ekoy Bentick 804-786-3446 ',' ' 804S8~'2~:~6:'[ .... '" ' ..... ' ..... !::.. ,'.,'benttck_ew~drpt. state.va.us · ' ,, Trans Eng Senior , Richmond VA 23219: ... ,. ~ ~401 Mclnt~r¢ Road .... [ ) i Juandiego Wade 298-5823 x3368 '; :':~:!9~-~'~3~; i'll '~ ,jWade@albemarle.erg .'*::: ' . Transportation Planner Charlottesville VA'22902 Bryan Elliot 973-8341x 4. '~' :::} 974,74761:' ¢-. ~" ,,:boe@cfw.com ';: i:!: '.' Executive Director Charlottesville V~ 2~901)~ ·., ...... ~:. · :- "- 5702 GulfStr d' :" '~ :: : '": " " VA Dept of Aviation Richmond Intl ArptVA 23250,'~ P. Clifford Bumette 804-236-36 2x106 : 804;23ff-3635" "' bumette~doav;state.va.us Senior Aviation Planner 2422 .. ~ MPO STAFF .~ , :':::~ 7,: ~} .~, ": ;:" i... Nancy K. O'Brien 979-7310 9;/~-1597 :'~ :'." nobrien.tjpd~state.va.us :; Executive Director Charlottesville VA 22902 · ' ' ' ........ TJPDC/MPO PO Box 15051 · Hannah Twaddell 979-7310 979-1597 htwaddell.tjpd~state.va.us ' Assistant Director Charlottesvill6 VA 22902' *Call first before faxing REF: q:\transportation\committees\policy boardLMPO Policy,List.wpd Updated April 5, 2000