Laserfiche WebLink
214 <br /> <br /> MS. Richards asked if Councilors are willing to put money on the table with the <br />interchange. Ms. Richards expressed concern about other contingencies suggested, such <br />as regional roads. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he does not feel gu~y that he is not willing to have the Parkway be <br />the de facto eastern bypass. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati asked how long it will take to construct the Parkway if there are no <br />changes, and Ms. Tucker said construction could start in 18 months to two years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Lynch noted that this time fi-amc takes the issue into the next election <br />anyway. <br /> <br />Mr. Toscano said that if that is the point, why put in contingencies. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman noted that the resolution approving the design is tied to the <br />consultant's report, and that design needs to be approved once there is a set of plans. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he thinks the interchange idea is intriguing, but thinks it should <br />be done in a way to allow the project to proceed with construction. Mr. Caravati said that <br />if Council votes for the interchanges, it is stopping the project for three to four years. Mr. <br />Caravati said he does not think much will happen until that issue is resolved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that the choice is to fall back on an intersection that fails. Mr. Cox <br />said he feels an environmental study of the interchanges should be done. Mr. Cox said he <br />can't make that choice, and he understands that it wilt take a long time to get something <br />he will be satisfied with. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards suggested requesting a study for the long-term of a grade separated <br />intersection and moving forward with the Parkway. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox said the Parkway then debuts as a total failure. <br /> <br /> Mt-. l~nch said that the mOdel seems to indicate that the more freely the 250 <br />bypass flows the less traffic there will be in the neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that as a short-term solution, the intersection lanes could be <br />increased to 22. Ms. Richards -said that VDOT's cooperation and funding is more likely <br />to be gotten if Council moves forward with her suggestion. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox asked about access to the park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said pursuing the interchanges makes sense, but not if it holds up the <br />road. Mr. Lynch said that Mr. Lynch's statement about traffic in neighborhoods argues <br />for increasing the number of lanes at the intersection in order to keep the Bypass traffic <br />free flowing. Mr. Toscano noted that support of the interchange was not what was <br />argued before, and noted that certain Councilors appear ready to embrace the idea <br />without public input. <br /> <br /> M-r. Lynch said he would agree to hold a public hearing. Mr. Lynch said he could <br />agree to a-wider intersection frrst, then building of the bridge, then building the circle. <br />Mr. Lynch said that rrdght be acceptable. Mr. Lynch said he is not willing to support the <br />Parkway until he knows that we have a working intersection. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he supports moving forwar~ seeking fired/rig and authorization <br />to administer the contract for the interchange, and in the meantime go forward with the <br />road project. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch said that some localities have floated bonds for funding road projects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he is hearing that the road is not contingent on the interchange, <br />and _Mr. Caravati agreed. <br /> <br /> <br />