Laserfiche WebLink
124 <br /> <br />and should be studied, and said that a grade separated interchange and removing the west <br />exit from Park Street would substantially reduce the traffic on Park Street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if it would be possible to look at a regional service destination if <br />the Meadowcreek Parkway were in place, and Mr. Rieley said it would be possible. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked whether the assumption is that the number of tanes in the City and <br />County should be the same, and Mr. Rieley said that they should either be the same or <br />there should be a very tong transition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano asked why the two lane option uses more than half of the land <br />needed for a four-lane road, and Mr. Rieley said that the same amount of land for cut and <br />fill is needed for two or four lanes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked if the savings in the cost of the road with tess cut and filI <br />would match the additional cost needed to add a pond, and Mr. Rieley said that he thinks <br />an overall savings would be realized. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that a 35 m:p.h, speed limit was recommended by Council in a <br />1997 resolution and as part of the MPO CATS Plan, and asked why VDOT designed the <br />road for 45 m.p.h. Mr. Rieley said that design speeds are.converm'onally made higher <br />than the posted speeds and it was also increased because of metric conversion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards noted that projections for traffic are 22,000 vehicles per day and she <br />feels the design of the Parkway should provide for alternative transportation and public <br />transportation, and questioned whether pull-overs had been included in the design. Mr. <br />Rietey said that they have not been included, but his assumption is that they would exist. <br /> <br /> Ms~ Daugherty asked if it would be possible to have an interchange similar to the <br />Park Street and 250 Bypass interchange, but Mr. Rieley said that such an interchange <br />probably could not handle the traffic with short ramps. <br /> <br /> Council discussed their options for soliciting public input and providing their <br />feedback to VDOT, and agreed to hold a public hearing on the design and construction of <br />the Meadowcreek Parkway on June 2I~ followed shortly thereafter by a work session. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if VDOT's design is still a viable option for Council, and Ms. <br />Daugherty said that it probably is not, but Council needs to react to that plan~ <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that he feels that VDOT holding a public hearing on its design ,Mil <br />antagonize the public. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he does not agree with Mr~ Cox, noting that 'vq)OT's plan are <br />not finalized and they will base their design on input received from the public. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hannah Twaddelt, Senior Planner for the Metropolitan Planning Organization <br />(MPO), said that the MPO's design committee will be looking at Mr. Rieley's report on <br />May t3 and they will provide feedback to VDOT. <br /> <br /> Mr. COx asked how Council's interest in a new study of traffic projections can be <br />communicated to VDOT, and Ms. Daughemy said that will have to be explOred. <br /> <br /> Counc~ discussed the timing of thek response to VDOT since the proposed public <br />hearing wilt 'be held after VDOT's public hearing on May 27th, and Ms. Angela Tucker <br />from VDOT, said that VDOT will accept Council's comments if made -within a <br />reasonable time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati suggested that VDOT provide in writing confirmation of the time <br />period in which they wilt accept CounciI's comments. <br /> <br /> <br />