Laserfiche WebLink
123 <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said that she would like to see the Meadowcreek Par!cway redesigned to <br />be two lanes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that she would not agree to making Meadowcreek Parkway <br />two-lanes because she feels that if it is built it should be built as an effective road. <br /> <br /> Following a discussion of the portion of the CATS dealing with M~adowcreek <br />Parkway, Council reached consensus on the following: !) The Meadowcreek Parkway <br />should be constructed as part of a genuine regional transportation network which includes, <br />but is not limited to, roads planned for the County which minimize the possibility of <br />Meadowcreek being used as a _highway through the City; 2) The Meadowcreek Parkway <br />should be engineered and designed for 35 mph speed; 3) The Meadowcreek Parkway should <br />enhance the bicycle network throughout the urban area; 4) Trucks should be prohibited on <br />the Meadowcreek Parkway Phase I and effective measures should be planned to ensure that <br />such usage does not occur; 5) The Meadowcreek Parkway should be designed to minimize <br />negative impacts on Mc!ntire Park, to incorporate and enhance the present system of walking <br />trails, to improve accessibility to the Park and provide for amenities within it, and should be <br />coordinated with the Mc!ntke Park Master Plan. VDOT should continue to work with the <br />City's design review team to develop such a design; 6) The Parkway should terminate at the <br />250 Bypass and be signed to move traffic not destined for downtown and the City to other <br />areas of the region along the 250 Bypass. <br /> <br /> Council did not reach consensus on the following, but asked that they be discussed by <br />the MPO: 1) Lack of specificity in CATS re: Phase !I of Meadowcreek Parkway. Concern <br />about impact on City of Phase II if29 bypass is not built; 2) !fPhase tt of Meadowcreek <br />Parkway is designated as primary road, can tracks be prohibited on that portion? Will this <br />impact funding for that phase? 3) Study possibility of HOV lanes on Meadowcreek Parkway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he does not feel the County's resolution opposing the Route 29 Bypass <br />should be referenced in the plan, and made a motion to request that it not be a part of the <br />CATS document. Ms. Daugherty seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she feds that what the County would support regarding the western <br />bypass needs to be clarified. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he wilt vote against the motion as he does not kmow the implications <br />of asking that the County's resolution be deleted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox's motion died by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Cox, Ms. Richards. Noes: <br />Ms. Daugherty and Mr. Toscano. _Abstaining: Ms. Slaughter. <br /> <br /> With regard to the entire CATS, Council reached consensus on the following: 1) The <br />City's _MPO representative should recommend inclusion of a representative of the VDRPT as <br />a voting member on the MPO Policy Board following an investigation of the feasibility of this <br />option; 2) The Council unanimously endorses moving Goal A-1, a study of commuter rail, to <br />the top of the list of priorities for Public Transk and Ridesharing and including in this <br />description the need to identify corridors, funding sources, and land use plans; 3) Council <br />unanimously endorses a Traffic Calming Master Plan which provides a system for <br />coordinated improvements to urban neighborhoods to mitigate cut-through traffic and <br />improve pedestrian safety and amenities, and recommends that tbJs study be undertaken <br />/mmediatdy; 4) Endorse a feasibility study for formation of a Regional Transportation <br />District; 5) Council seeks a commitment for more joimly funded City-UTS bus routes linking <br />points in the City and County and serving regional commuter needs; 6) Endorses joint <br />planning between Albemarle County and Charlottesville for County growt..h areas and how <br />traffic from them will be mitigated in the City; 7) That the MPO develop specific goals for <br />traffic reduction and continue to support aggressive campaigns to promote ridesharing, <br />tra~it and van pooling among the areas' major employment centers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked staff to provide information on the possibility of VDOT waiving the <br />requirement that the City pay the portion the State has spent on the Meadowcreek Parkway <br /> <br /> <br />