2002-10-7(II) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 Mr. Cox noted that Council held a work session just prior to the meeting and the Western Bypass was prioritized next to the last. He said Council has decided to wait until November to advance a resolution to the MPO regarding the Transpo rtation Improvement Program, so no action will be taken on it tonight. Mr. Cox said Council is also asking the MPO to defer action on the TIP until November. Ms. Richards said she thinks it is the MPO's decision to defer, not Council's, though she under stands that the MPO chair has indicated that will happen. Ms. Richards said she thinks deferring is failing many citizens who are concerned about the Bypass, and she feels it is an obligation of Council to consider these concerns. RESOLUTION : RECONSIDER ATION OF INTERCHANGES ON ROUTE 29 NORTH Mr. O'Connell explained that this resolution was deferred to allow time for additional public comment. Mr. O'Connell said before Council is a request to the MPO to study the interchanges and economic impacts, a r esolution rescinding Council's 1995 resolution regarding grade separated interchanges, and the scope of work for the MPO study. Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said that the scope of work has been under review by the MPO T echnical Committee, and includes two phases: review of all previous studies and intersections from Emmet and Ivy Road to the North Fork. It will take a multi - modal look at the corridor and will factor in major road projects. It will include preliminary engineering at four intersections (Rt. 29/Hydraulic, Rt. 29/250 Bypass; Hydraulic/250 Bypass, and Barracks Rd./250 Bypass). Economic impacts, both short and long - term, will be studied, and public involvement, including both residents and businesses, will be a component. Phase II will include preliminary engineering for any other intersections along the corridor. Mr. Cox said that specific language has been added regarding economic impact. Mr. Lynch said that given that the University is planning to go forward with the North Grounds connector with an at - grade intersection, he would recommend putting that in the first phase of the study. Mr. Tolbert said that will likely add several thousand dollars to the study. He said that interchange could be desig ned separately and not affect the project. Mr. Tolbert said consultants can be instructed to look at both at - grade and grade separated interchanges in Phase I. Mr. Cox said the MPO made it clear they support the North Grounds connector only if it is gra de separated. Ms. Richards said she thinks it would be sufficient to have it in the model in the first phase with no preliminary design since that is not the City's responsibility. Mr. Lynch asked what mechanism we have to ensure the project is done co rrectly if the University goes forward with an at - grade intersection if we do not have it as part of the study. Ms. Richards noted this is outside the purview of the MPO since no federal funds are involved. Mr. Lynch said the City and County have indic ated a strong preference for a grade separated interchange, and he asked how we can get some action from the University. Mr. Pete Anderson, Architect for the University of Virginia, said that VDOT will require a traffic analysis, which is proposed to sta rt shortly. Mr. Anderson said that there are three studies of this area that have been proposed, but feels that all three are not needed.