Laserfiche WebLink
161 <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano agreed with Ms: Daugherty and said that in order to have traffic <br />calming, the intersection may have to be-failing, but noted that this does not mean that the <br />road does not work, but rather just does not move as quickly. Mr. Toscano said the <br />County needs to assist in having a regional network and one way to accomplish this is to <br />have a two-lane road, with right-of-way for four lanes, and expansion conditional on <br />certain things being in place prior to approval of such expansion. Mr. Toscano said this <br />will allow the Council to make a decision ara provide flexibihty to work with the <br />County: <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he would favor making a two-lane road conditional on certain <br />things occurring. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said this does not address the'serious problems on Rio Road and <br />Park Street. 1Vn:. Toscano said he has some problems with a two-lane road as it takes <br />parkland but does not solve the problem, but is willing to take it one step at a time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he would like to see Rio Road closed longer. Mr. Cox said he does <br />not have a tot of faith in saying the widening of the Parkway is contingent on a connector <br />road because he does not think it will happen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he thinks the three-party agreement is a "paper tiger" and a <br />hollow document, and he does not agree with the sequencing of roads in it. <br /> <br /> }dr. Cox said that if Council can agree on significant conditions there may be a <br />consensus for two lanes. <br /> <br />Intersection <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said the concerns about the intersection will be greatly helped if <br />there is only a two-lane rod. Ms. Daugherty said she would favor a tight urban <br />intersection, with pedestrian crossings and-bike lanes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he feels support of a two-lane road should be contingent on <br />resolution of the issue of the intersection. Mr. Cox said he would like to see a tight <br />intersection with bike and pedestrian access, but he would like to see the possibility of <br />that verified-first. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty asked if such an intersection could be designed, and Mr. Wilt <br />Rieley, consultant for the City, said options would include: staggered signalization; <br />having bike and pedestrian access under the 250 Bypass, or having an overhead <br />pedestrian and bike lane. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said having a pedestrian and bike crossover and tight intersection <br />would satisfy him, with restricted lanes at the intersection. Mr. Toscano suggested using <br />language from the MPO Design Committee recommendations about having as small an <br />intersection as possible to accommodate present and future traffic flows, with restricted <br />number of lanes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox questioned xvhy the intersection should be designed to accommodate <br />future traffic loads. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty asked that staff work on the language regarding the lanes and <br />intersection and bring it back to Council. <br /> <br />Speed Limit <br /> <br /> Mr. Rietey said that if the design speed is reduced to 50 km, there can be a <br />decrease in the super-elevation on the curves. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that no parkland is saved by lowering the design speed below <br />35 mph, and because of that, he feels the risk is run of VDOT not accepting a lower <br /> <br /> <br />