Laserfiche WebLink
172 <br /> <br />Ms. Richards said she would rather limit trucks by size or weight. <br /> <br />Mr. Caravati asked Mr. Gouldman to look at weight limitations for trucks. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch asked if the limited access means that no additional roads would be <br />going into the road in the County as well as the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said it should be made clear that a new neighborhood in the County <br />would not have direct access to Meadowcreek Parkway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that a statement saying that Phase I of the Parkway will be <br />limited access should be satisfactory. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rieley said the only gray area is where the parkway would blend into Rio <br />Road, but said he has never heard of any intention to change the access issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano and Ms. Richards said that the City may want to have access to <br />Mclntire Park from the parkway in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if it would be better to put in the text of the letter that the parkway <br />would not have primary road status, and Mr. Gouldman said it would. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards recommended that wording be inserted saying that future access <br />into Mclntire Park would not be prohibited. <br /> <br />The previous wording regarding the Vietnam War Memorial was reaffirmed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she is committed to the idea of a two-lane road, and is <br />concerned about leaving a four-lane right-of-way, and feels that limiting the right-of-way <br />to two lanes gives a mandate to reducing traffic in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch agreed with Ms. Richards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said it makes some sense if the secondary road is not unlike Park Street <br />and the two lanes can be counted on into perpetuity. Mr, Cox said a truly two lane road <br />has some merit. Mr. Cox said that he does think we will miraculously get traffic <br />reduction, and his support would be contingent on a regional transportation network. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that in Northern Virginia roads were built and no right-of-way <br />was provided for future mass transit options, and he feels that balance is the issue here <br />and he does not want to foreclose such a future option. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he would favor having a much more arduous process to expand <br />the road to four lanes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said the roadway is not the ideal rail corridor and he would be more <br />inclined to look at the existing rail line. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano agreed, but said it would not have to be rail, and said he would like <br />to reserve the option to come back in the future for more right-of-way for mass transit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that Council will have a hard time imposing restrictions on <br />future Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox said he does not think Council should build in an escape clause. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said that he supports two lanes and a two-lane right-of-way. Mr. <br />Caravati said that if any place exists for light rail or dedicated mass transit it is this, but <br />he feels it would be very difficult to build light rail there. <br /> <br /> <br />