1982-01-28 adjJanuar~ 27, 198~ _ 2 (Afternoon Meeting-~djourned from January 25,
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on January 27, 1982, at 3:0'0 P.M. in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from January 25, 1982.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C.
Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers Present:
R. St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George
The meeting was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion
was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive
session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, and Mrs. Cooke, MW. R~her, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:30 P.M. and motion was immediately
offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to January 28, 1982, at 7:30
P.M. in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler,~ Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley. ~ j~ ~~~~
CHAIBMAN
January 28, 1982 (Night Meeting--Adjourned from January 27, 1982)
An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on January
28, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Office Building Auditorium, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January 27, 1982.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler (arrived at 7:50 P.M.), Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M., by
Board of Supervisors Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Charlottesville-Albema
that this was the first time in many years that
visors, City and County planning Commissions an
met together to discuss a mutual problem; trans
is only a public presentation of the plan which
Next to speak was Dr. Wallace Reed, Chairm
ration Study Policy Committee. Dr. Reed review
the many members who have served.
Mr. Ken Lantz, Jr., Associate Transportati
cie Transportation Study. Mr. Fisher noted
the entire City Council, Board of Super-
1 Highway Department representatives have
oortation. Mr. Fisher stressed that this
has not been adopted.
~n of the Charlottesville Area Transpor-
~d the history of the CATS Committee and
on Planning Engineer with the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, was uext to speak. Mr. Lantz presented through
the use of slides the findings of the CATS stud~. (NOTE: Complete text of Mr. Lantz's
presentation is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Lantz noted that the area covered by the study includes all of the City of Charlot-
tesville and those portions of Albemarle that are expected to exhibit major growth in
population, by the year 2000. The boundaries of~the area are the Mechum River to the west,
the Rivanna River to the north and east and I-6~ to the south; an area of 70 square miles.
Mr. Lantz said this plan updates and replaces the Charlottesville 1985 Major Arterial
Street and Highway Plan completed in 1967.
Mr. Lantz stated three goals and objectives for the CATS study; those being:
1) To develop a safe, efficient and balanced transportation system for the movement
of people, goods and services.
2) To promote the social, economic, physical and environmental objectives of the
area jurisdictions.
3) To promote interjurisdictional cooperation in order to achieve the study's
objectives.
Levels of service were calculated for roadways in this area. Service levels de-
signated as levels A (highest quality) through F (lowest quality) were established.
Roadways below the minimum specified levels, identified as deficient, include:
4O
Januarv 28_~~' t_M_e ' ~,- ~[o --
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Route 29 north of Charlottesville
Route 250 east and west
Rio Road (Route 631)
West Main Street
Portions of East High Street, Avon Street, Jefferson Park Avenue,
Cherry Avenue, Park Street and Barracks Road.
Following the identification of roads which needed improvements, methods were tested
to get people into fewer cars and encourage the use of mass transit. Road improvements
proposed include widening of existing roadways and the construction of new facilities.
Roads proposed in this plan for widening are:
1) i Route 29 north between the South Fork of the Rivanna River and Hydraulic
Road. This would be widened to six lanes divided.
2) Rio Road (East) between Route 29 north and the proposed extension of
McIntire Road to the Vo-Tech Center, widened to four laneS divided.
3) Route 250 east between East High Street and 1-64, widened to four
lanes divided with six lane divided cross section at East High Street.
4) Rio Road (West) between Hydraulic Road and Route 29 north, widened to
four lanes undivided.
5) East High Street between 9th Street and the 250 Bypass, widened to
three lanes with the center lane reserved for left turns.
6) Route 250 West between the 29/250 Bypass and Route 637, widened to
four lanes divided between the bypass and Route 677 and four lanes un-
divided between 677 and 637.
7) Ivy Road between Emmett Street and the 29/250 Bypass, Widened to four
lanes with a flush median.
8) Ridge Street between West Main and Cherry Avenue, widened to four
lanes divided.
9) Georgetown Road between Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road, reconstruct
two lanes to improve alignment.
10) Fontaine Avenue between Jefferson Park Avenue and the 29/250 Bypass,
widened to four lanes undivided.
11) Route 637 between 250 West and 1-64, reconstruct two lanes to improve
alignment.
Facilities that would be partially or completely built on new alignments include:
1) 9~h Street between Cherry Avenue and West Main Street would be recon-
structed and aligned with 10th Street to improve north-south access and
improve traffic flow on West Main Street.
2) Route 631 South would be reconstructed to four lanes divided to
improve alignment.
3) A western bypass between Route 29 North at the South Fork o~ the
Rivanna River and the 29/250 Bypass. This four lane divided limited access
facility would have interchanges with Route 29 North, Route 743 (Hydraulic
Road), Route 654 (Georgetown Road) and the 29/250 Bypass, and would sub-
stantially relieve existing Route 29 North of through traffic.
4) A two lane extension of Greeflbrier Drive between Whitewood Road and
Hydraulic Road to improve access to growth areas and the proposed Western
Bypass.
5) A four lane divided connector between Route 20 North and Rio Road to
facilitate east-west movement and provide access to growth areas.
6) A two lane extension of Madison Avenue to Preston Avenue to improve
neighborhood access.
7) Grade-separated interchanges at Route 29 North and Rio Road (Route
631) and Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and at Hydraulic Road and the 250
Bypass to eliminate bottlenecks at these intersections.
8) A four lane, partially controlled access extension of McInti. re Road
between Rio Road (Route 631) and Route 29 North to be built largely in
conjunction with and to provide access to planned residential growth.
The above listed improvements were grouped into four possible construction phases
based on the immediacy of need. In addition to major highway projects, a number of trans-
portation system management projects, which consist of improved signalization, improved
geometrics, and other measures; were approved by the committee, y.
In studying the area of mass transit, the following recommendations were reached to
alleviate existing problems:
1) Extend transit routes into areas not presently served as demand
warrants.
January 28, 1982 (Night Meeting--
Adjourned from January 27, 1982.)
2) Increase the attractiveness of public transit through implementation
of short-term improvements to fare structures, marketing programs, elderly
and handicapped services, bus stops and location of fringe lots.
3) Improve the a~ministration and planning of the areas three public
transportation providers through development of formal agreements defining
common areas for cooperation and coordination.
4) Consider using school buses for emergency transportation and midday
and summer programs. Refurbished buses might be used for special commuter
and shuttle runs.
5) Expand the role of taxis in public transportation through the insti-
tution of innovative services and pricing schemes.
6) Increase ride-sharing participation through continuation and expansion
of JAUNT's Ride-share Program and the institution of approp~r±ate incentives.
Bicycle travel was another mode of transportation analyzed in the study. Short and
long term engineering tasks to eliminate roadway hazards, add paths, lanes and other
roadway features that enhance safe cycling.
In order to make this transportation study comprehensive, air and rail transportation
was also studied. Although the recently completed master plan prepared by the Airport
found few existing deficiencies, the CATS study makes the following recommendations:
1)
2)
Improvements should be made to the Airport's navigational equipment.
Improvements should be made to present parking and terminal space.
Finally the areas major rail transportation system was analyzed. Included in the
analysis was an examination of such issues as prospects for continued rail passenger
services and the effects of proposed mergers and abandonments; identification of agri-
cultural, forest products and wholesale and manufacturing firms that are served by rail
and the degree of their rail dependence; and available industrial and business sites with
rail access. It was concluded that rail-serviced industrial development should be en-
couraged through zoning, extension of utility lines and designation of appropriate Sites
in the comprehensive plans. Lastly, efforts to identify and correct hazardous railway
crossings should be continued.
Following Mr. Lantz's presentation, Dr. Reed opened the meeting to questions from the
audience. Questions included costs involved for the proPosed improvements; if 1980 census
data was included in the study; and how much authority the City and County have over the
improvements which will be implemented. Mr. Reed and Dr. Iachetta of the CATS Committee
stated that the cost of the proposed improvements is not known because of the inflationary
factors involved, however, the greater percentage of those costs paid directly by the
local governments, the greater discretion those local governments will have in decisions
regarding the improvements. Dr. Reed noted that the 1980 census figures arrived too late
for inclusion in this report.
The remainder of the questions from the audience involved the proposed "Western
Bypass". Concerns were expressed not only as to how such a bypass would relieve traffic
on Route 29 North, but the proposed location, costs, access points and other options in
lieu of such a bypass. Dr. Iachetta stated that the entire possibility of such a bypass
project is questionable because of the extreme costs involved, the unavailability of land
at the northern-most point, and lack of potential financing at any government level.
Following the question/answer period, Mr. Fisher said this report is now in the hands
of the City and County Planning COmmissions and that eventually it will be brought before
the City Council and Board of Supervisors for action.
At 9:28 P.M., motion was then offered by'Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to
adjourn to Monday, February 1, 1982, at 2:00 P.M. in Meeting Room #5 of the Albemarle
County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Chairman