2003-10-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 Mr. Caravati said he would like to have information that shows the yield of the funds, including the number and type of housing provided. Ms. Richards said a lot of the funds in rural areas go toward plumbing and upgrading of existing homes. Mr. Wanner said he would provide an evaluation of the program over several years. REPORT/APPROVAL : VDOT STATEMENT RE: HIGHWAY PRIORITIES Mr. O'Connell said that the City's annual statement needs to be presented to the Virginia Department of Transpor tation tomorrow night. He said that Council had asked that staff come up with an new prioritization process. Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said that the new process used a point system that translated into individual ra nkings for projects. Mr. Tolbert said that the top seven projects remained the same as determined by the previous ranking method, but the order was different for priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Tolbert said the ranking was as follows for projects not yet s cheduled for construction: 1) Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange; 2) Hillsdale Drive; 3) Eastern Connector; 4) Meadowcreek Parkway; 5) North Grounds Connector; 6) Southern Parkway, Increased Urban Allocation for Transit, Hwy 29/250 Improvements; 9) Bike/Ped Plan; 10) Intelligent Transportation System; 11) Meadowcreek Parkway (Melbourne to Rio); 12) Fontaine Widening; 13) Rio/Pen Park Intersection; 14) Western Bypass, with conditions; 15) Millmont Connector; 16) Ivy Road Widening; 17) Meadowcreek Parkway (nor th of Rio). Mr. Tolbert said a draft statement has also been provided to Council. Mr. Schilling said that in looking at the actual scores it is difficult to understand one particular discrepancy. He said he is not sure that Meadowcreek Parkway's #4 pri ority ranking accurately reflects Councilors position. He asked why the Meadowcreek Parkway interchange is ranked high by Mr. Cox and Mr. Lynch separately from the Meadowcreek Parkway itself when it is not of any use without the Parkway. Mr. Cox said th at the interchange is a stand alone process that facilitates access to McIntire Park and helps the 250 Bypass independent of the Parkway. Mr. Schilling asked if Mr. Cox believes that VDOT will consider the interchange without the Parkway. Mr. Cox said VDOT is considering the Parkway without the interchange. He said the interchange is unfunded, and until Council can impress upon VDOT the importance of the interchange, it will remain unfunded. He said a clear signal has been sent to the Commonwealth Tra nsportation Board about Hillsdale Drive Extension being a priority, and it is on a track for the CTB to try to figure out how to fund it. Mr. Cox said he could support the interchange independent of the Parkway. Mr. Schilling asked Ms. Richards, one of the City's MPO representatives, if the interchange has ever been considered as a project without the Parkway. Ms. Richards said no the interchange has never been described as a project independent of the Meadowcreek Parkway with a "T" intersection. Ms. Richards said she did not rank it as a priority with it being a "T" intersection. Mr. Cox said it has long been said that an at grade intersection at that location will not work and it makes no sense to building the Parkway if the intersection fails. Mr . Cox said the CTB has not allocated funds for an interchange and ranking it as a priority has the effect of signaling how important that money is to the City. Mr. Cox said he is comfortable with the discrepancy of the Parkway ranked lower since he knows it is funded.