2006-08-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 Dr. Brown said we address a lot of traffic issues piecemeal, and he does not think that is an efficient way to manage. He said looking comprehensively is a good idea. He asked if we have examples of similar work products from other localities. Mr. Owen Peery, RKK Consultants, working on the Rt. 250 Bypass interchange, provided a powerpoint presentation of the alternatives recommended by the Interchange Steering Committee. Mr. Lynch expressed concern that a lot of information is coming fast about the interchange, especially given the uncertainty about VDOT funding the Meadowcreek Parkway. He said he thinks all interchange options presented are larger than they need to be and feels a lot is driven by VDOT models. He said Free Bridge is the real constraint. He asked Council to direct the consultant to use the constrained numbers to develop their models. He said another decision point is the no build alternative. He said if we do not have an interchange, we will not build the Parkway. He said the Parkway is tied to the Eastern Connector as well. Mr. Lynch suggested that other existing Rt. 250 Bypass interchanges be looked at, including accident data, to get the optimal size. Mr. Peery said changing the numbers would change only change the size the interchange slightly if at all. Mr. Bill Hellman, RKK Consultants, said that the interchange is larger because of the geometric design, not the numbers. He said 8% is the maximum grade allowed by VDOT and FTA which makes a longer ramp. He said two lane roundabouts are also required. Mr. Lynch said the interchange has certain aesthetic expectations to serve as a gateway to the City. He said we need to ask how much traffic we want on this road. Mr. Peery said he agrees, but he said he has to use federal criteria. Mr. Lynch said that given what the long range plan says, maybe the Eastern Connector needs to take more traffic. Mr. Hellman said the model has to be based on the plan. Mr. Lynch asked about the suggestion made by Mr. Collins that we go the de minimus route rather than mitigation with a 4f review that might provide some funding to offset the environmental loss. Mr. Hellman said that mitigation is an important part in either the de minimus or 4f review and he does not see the benefit of one over the other. Mr. Norris asked it is possible to use the interchange project without the Parkway to improve traffic on the Bypass and provide a gateway into the City. Mr. Owen said he does not think so as the interchange has to be prepared with the roadway. Dr. Brown said he agrees with Mr. Lynch about the interchange on several points such as the minimal visual impact and imprint. He said it also needs to be as pedestrian and bicycle friendly as possible. Mr. Lynch said that if FTA requires us to look at the long term plan, we may need to more clearly define what is in the long term plan and make clear that it is either a Parkway with an interchange or nothing. Dr. Brown said that he is opposed to the idea of a developer of property in Albemarle County paying for a portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway in exchange for access to the development from the Parkway as mentioned by a member of the Board of Supervisors.