1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1!2 panel for the P!O and was vew impressed with Ms. Cannon and looks forward to working with her. Ms. Levering said that she hopes the City wi._'!! give Ms. C~_non a chance. Ms. Levering said that while it would be nice for the PIO to be a City resident, it is not an important consideration. REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING: CHARlOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARlE TRANSPORTATION STUDY (CATS) YEAR 20t5 Ms. Slaughter explained that the public hearing is being held to provide input for Council on the CATS, who wi!! then make recommendations to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (iVIPO). Ms. Slaughter noted that she .will no longer be involved wkh issues dealing with the 29 Bypass due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. Ms. Slaughter said that at the end of the discussion she will offer a motion to request that the 4f review process for the Meadowcreek Parkway be revisited. Ms. Slaughter said that she will request that the traffic counts for the Meadowcreek Parkway be rerun without the e~stence of the 29 Bypass and eastern corridor. Ms. Hannah Twaddel!, Transportation Planning for the MPO, explained that the MPO works with the State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration to assure that local goals are consistent with state and federal goals. Ms. Twaddell said that the CATS is a summary of major transpo~ation goals with regional implications. Ms. Twadde!! reviewed the major strategy areas in the CATS. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Kevin Cox, 3 t t Fairway Avenue, expressed concern about the attention given bus passengers and pedestrians in the CATS plan, about the low ridership on the HOO bus, and about the use of inefficient electric buses. Ms. Elsa Pau!sen, 1115 Hilltop Road, objected to the Meadowcreek Parkway and asked that Mc!ntire Park be saved. Ms. Pau!sen asked that Council hold a referendum if it votes to move forward with the Parkway. Mr. Hal Noakes, 622 Wilder Drive, opposed the Meadowcreek Parkway because the long-term benefits are unclear and the trails wi!! be lost. Mr. Noakes said that Council should insist on a rigorous environmental study and should look at alternatives to automobiles. Ms. Elizabeth Waters, 1935 Thomson Road, said that the need for the Parkway still exists, and noted that other proposed routes would have taken homes and impacted schools. Ms. Waters noted that Council voted to terminate the Parkway at the 250 Bypass because of concerns that it be used as a through-way. Ms. Waters recommended that if Council pull back on its decision about the Parkway that it be done in a comprehensive way. Ms. Waters said she does not believe the community is willing to give up cars and therefore a balanced road network is needed. Mr. Tom Vandever, 9 ! 6 Druid ,avenue, read a letter from former Mayor Alvin Edwards who said that while he voted in favor of the road, he was always concerned about the impact on Ridge Street, and now has changed his mind and asks that the Council take a closer look at the road Mr. Vandever said that he has serious reservations about the Parkway and it was never intended to be a stand-alone solution. Mr. Vandever noted that the County abandoned the agreement by opposing the 29 bypass. Mr. Vandever asked Council to reconsider its position and oppose the Parkway. Mr. Eugene Williams, 620 Ridge Street, General Manager/owner of property on Ridge Street, opposed the Parkway, saying it is a costly project that will destroy property values on Ridge Street. Mr. Williams asked that the Parkway be revisited and a better transportation solution be found. Mr, Craig Barton, 717 Locust Avenue, opposed the Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Barton said that absent a comprehensive planning study, traffic volumes will increase on all streets.