Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br />? ? Implement a public involvement strategy to help develop and evaluate <br />concepts, review recommendations, and build consensus on a shared <br />vision for the corridor. In addition to continued oversight by the <br />Project Steering Committee, activities should include open public <br />worksh ops as well as a series of focus groups and meetings with <br />affected business and landowners, adjacent neighborhoods, and other <br />interest groups. <br /> <br />? ? The State Funded study should be by a qualified traffic engineering <br />firm under contract to the MPO in its role a s a regional transportation <br />planning agency. <br /> <br />? ? The first phase of the study should examine the entire study area in <br />context of developing an integrated transportation system within the <br />urbanized Route 29 Corridor. The study through the Steering <br />Committee shall offer a range of solutions for the governing bodies <br />and State to review. The study shall also prioritize implementation of <br />all suggested solutions and offer preliminary cost calculations. At <br />least one of the studies should include preliminary engi neering for <br />improvements to the intersections at U. S. Route 29 North and <br />Hydraulic Road and the intersection at U. S. Route 29 and U. S. Route <br />250, the intersection at U. S. Route 250 and Barracks Road and the <br />intersection at U. S. Route 250 and Hydraulic Road. <br /> <br />? ? A second phase of the study might expand the integrated <br />transportation system area to include the Route 29 corridor from <br />Greenbrier Drive to Airport Road with preliminary engineering at <br />selected intersections as determined at a later date. <br /> <br />3. A cop y of this Resolution shall be send to the Commonwealth <br />Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation, and <br />to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Thomas <br />Jefferson Planning District Commission with a request that they su pport <br />the studies requested herein. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati made a motion to ask the MPO to postpone their vote on the current <br />year TIP by one month and to direct the City's MPO representatives to support the delay. <br />Mr. Lynch seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards as ked if Council's vote can bind a representative on a board <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that each board would have to be looked at individually, but said <br />that in the case of the MPO, their bylaws say that the members speak for and on behalf of <br />their localities which s uggests that Council's appointees represent the wishes of Council <br />when acting on transportation issues. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said that with the Rt. 29 study we have a real shot at solving the <br />Bypass problem, and supports delaying approval of the TIP by a month. <br /> <br /> M s. Richards asked if we are talking about doing what is best for our community <br />or for other communities in order to get funding for other projects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he is interested in what others have to say, however he is not <br />moved by the use of it to remove it. He said to take the Bypass out of the TIP takes away <br />all leverage the City has. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards expressed concern that Council is not really talking about one <br />month's delay, but about a more long - term delay in taking the Bypass out of the TIP. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati called for the vote. <br /> <br />