Laserfiche WebLink
216 <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she finds the !anguage confusing and is not sure what the <br />lan~m~age commits us to as far as the contingency for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Ms. <br />Richards asked how it differs from where we are in terms of specific projects and why <br />current studies are not moving towards that. Ms. Richards asked if there are other <br />specific prQects Councilors would like to see move forward that are not in CATS. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said there are as well as certain processes..Mr. Lynch said he would <br />like to see studies turned into tangible plans and tangible implementation. Mr. Lynch <br />said there is no commitment to act on the results of our studies, and noted that the eastern <br />corridor is disappearing as an alignment in CATS. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said there is no proposed alignment for the eastern corridor, but it is <br />referenced in the TIP, and we may want to look at how it is referenced. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said his notion is that the eastern corridor would be a two lane secondary <br />road. Ma'. Cox said that it is uncertain as to whether the western bypass will be realized, <br />and the Meadowcreek Parkway is being asked to be everything, which he thinks will be <br />suicidal for the City. Mr. Cox said until there is clarity on building a network of roads in <br />the County, he thinks it is fooIish to say the Meadowcreek Parkway will happen. Mr. <br />Cox ~mpported making the Parkway contingent on getting back at. the table to have a <br />regional network, and redo the three-party agreement. He said he wants to have the City, <br />County and University working hard to come up with a plan within a year. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned making the Parlm~ay contingent on development of a <br />plan, and said he thinks we c4~n get to a plan, noting that the University and County have <br />indicated their interest. Mr. Toscano said he thinks the language can be approved. He <br />noted that we have had a regional plan for years, and the County has built a series of <br />roads. Mr. Toscano said what we need to say is that we need m modify the plan. <br /> <br /> ~Mr. Lynch said that ifthe Park~vay is not contingent on the plan, how can it be <br />kept from being the eastern bypass. Mr. Lynch said it would be helpful to have it in <br />writing~ and noted that members of the Board of Supervisors have indicated to bSm their <br />interest in developing a plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano suggested using the word contingem and applying it to the City, <br />County and University's commitment to work on a plan that does not increase traffic. <br />Mr. Toscano said he thinks it will take longer than a year to develop the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch said he will agree with a clear commitment that w/Il work on a plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Toscano suggested using "significant increase in traffic, not net increase." <br /> <br />Mr. Gouldman suggested using "minimize" increases in traffic. <br /> <br /> ~. Cox said his prLmary concern is that the Parkway will be the eastern <br />comlector and City neighborhoods will suffer. <br /> <br />Ms. Richards said this assumes no advancement on the eastern corridor. <br /> <br /> Mr~ Toscano asked if there is support for the co~tingent clau~, a_nd if m, what <br />the clause. <br /> <br />Mr. Caravati said he supports the contingent clause. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that the two options for consideration are Mr. Lynch's language <br />and making the Parkway contingent on a commitment by the City, County, University <br />and VDOT to participate in development of that plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Richards said she agrees with committing to planning. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch said he supports making it contingem on a plan. <br /> <br /> <br />