Eco-Logical: Final Meeting November 19 th , 2014 Charlottesville - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Eco-Logical: Final Meeting November 19 th , 2014 Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission

Project Goals: Goals of Stakeholder Group • To develop a viable project option for improving congestion issues at US 250 Free Bridge.  To enhance and improve the existing Regional Ecological Framework (REF) Tool. Goals of Eco-Logical Program Grant  To test the Eco-Logical approach for infrastructure planning and development on a local scale.  Increase awareness of Eco-Logical approach among federal, state, and local transportation and resources agencies.

Meeting Goals • Identify a possible alternative(S) for further study/consideration by the MPO • Provide your feedback on the Process • Provide your feedback on the REF tool • Mitigation requirements for impacts

Public Open House • 26 Attendees • Two methods of collecting feedback – Dot voting with red and green dots – Comment cards with space for questions and check off boxes • Positive feedback and good discussion

Public Open House 16 Eco-Logical Public Open House Polling 14 12 10 Number of Dots 8 Yes No 6 4 2 0 A-1, US-250 A-2, High Street B, River bike/ped D-2, Rivanna F, Increased G, S Pantops I, Intersection Overpass Jug Handle trail River PKWY Capacity on Free Drive Connector Improvements Bridge Alternatives

Eco-Logical Process Chart Cost We are here Feasibility Selected Project Ranking Project(s) Congestion MPO Process Environment Outside of Free Bridge Project

From Concept to Transportation Project CHARLOT TESVILLE -ALBEMARLE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Relationship with Local Plans and Studies Charlottesville Albemarle Comp Comp Plan Plan Special Studies Long Range Transportation Plan

Process • Plans/studies result in concepts for projects • Concept submitted to the MPO Policy Board • MPO Policy Board officially begins review – sends MPO Committees (Citizen and Technical Committees) • Committee reviews proposal and submits recommendations to the Policy Board – Includes opportunities for public comment • Final Public Hearing at the Policy Board Level

LRTP: Visioning vs Constrained List Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) • Projects that are expected to be funded by 2040. • Not enough funding available to construct all projects – thus MPO prioritizes projects into this list • Projects that cannot be funded are placed in the visioning list (Unconstrained Project List) • 72* projects on the CLRP

LRTP: Visioning vs Constrained List Visioning List (Unconstrained Project List) • Projects not reasonably expected to receive funding by 2040 • Yet – still priorities in the communities • 73 projects on the Visioning List • If funding becomes available, projects can move up to CLRP

Eco-Logical Process Chart Plans/Studies LRTP TIP/STIP Six Year Improvement Study/Engineering/ Program & $$ Construction

Questions?

Alternatives Congestion Ecological Cost Alt Name Impact Score Feasibility Relief (Million) Intersection Improvements at I $7.4 Low Low High 20 and High St Increased Lane Capacity on F $20.5 Moderate Low Moderate Free Bridge B Rivanna River Trail $9.3 Low High Moderate South Pantops Drive G $27.0 Low Moderate High Connector Bridge A2 High Street Jug Handle $9.0 Low Low High D2 Rivanna River Parkway $68.0 Moderate Moderate Moderate A1 US 250 Overpass $141.2 High Low Low

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts X Alternative A-1 Access Impacts X Utility Impacts X Park Impacts X US 250 Overpass Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic X Impacts Bridges X Cost: $141.2 Million Floodway Influence X Drainage Structures X Impacts on Property: High Earthwork/Terrain X Retaining Walls X Environmental Impacts: Low Construction Feasibility X Expected Congestion Relief @ X Expected Congestion Relief: High Free Bridge Expected Cost $141.2 M Environmental Impacts (REF) x

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts X Alternative A-2 Access Impacts X Utility Impacts x Park Impacts X High Street Jug Handle Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic X Impacts Cost: $9.1 Million Bridges X Floodway Influence X Impacts on Property: Mod Drainage Structures X Earthwork/Terrain x Environmental Impacts: Low Retaining Walls X Construction Feasibility X Expected Congestion Relief @ Expected Congestion Relief: Low X Free Bridge Expected Cost $ 9.1M Environmental Impacts (REF) X

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts X Alternative B Access Impacts X Utility Impacts X Park Impacts X Rivanna Multi Use Trail Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic X Impacts Cost: $11.9 Million Bridges X Floodway Influence X Impacts on Property: High Drainage Structures X Earthwork/Terrain X Environmental Impacts: High Retaining Walls X Construction Feasibility X Expected Congestion Relief @ Expected Congestion Relief: Low x Free Bridge Expected Cost $11.9M Environmental Impacts (REF) x

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts x Alternative D-2 Access Impacts X Utility Impacts X Park Impacts X Rivanna River Parkway Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic x Impacts Cost: $68.0 Million Bridges X Floodway Influence X Impacts on Property: High Drainage Structures X Earthwork/Terrain X Environmental Impacts: Moderate Retaining Walls X Construction Feasibility X Expected Congestion Relief @ Expected Congestion Relief: Moderate X Free Bridge Expected Cost $68.0 M Environmental Impacts (REF) X

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts X Alternative F Access Impacts X Utility Impacts X Park Impacts X Increased Capacity US 250 Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic X Impacts Cost: $20.5 Million Bridges x Floodway Influence X Impacts on Property: High Drainage Structures X Earthwork/Terrain X Environmental Impacts: Low Retaining Walls X Construction Feasibility X Expected Congestion Relief @ Expected Congestion Relief: Moderate X Free Bridge Expected Cost $20.5 M Environmental Impacts (REF) x

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts X Alternative G Access Impacts X Utility Impacts X Park Impacts X South Pantops Drive Connector Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic X Impacts Cost: $27.1 Million Bridges X Floodway Influence x Impacts on Property: High Drainage Structures X Earthwork/Terrain X Environmental Impacts: Moderate Retaining Walls X Construction Feasibility X Expected Congestion Relief @ Expected Congestion Relief: Low X Free Bridge Expected Cost $27.1 M Environmental Impacts (REF) x

LOW Mod HIGH Property Impacts X Alternative I Access Impacts X Utility Impacts X Park Impacts X Intersection Improvements at 20 & High St Trail Impacts X Railroad Impacts X Project Information Maintenance of Traffic X Impacts Cost: $7.4 Million Bridges X Floodway Influence X Impacts on Property: Moderate Drainage Structures X Earthwork/Terrain X Environmental Impacts: Low Retaining Walls X Construction Feasibility x Expected Congestion Relief @ Expected Congestion Relief: Low X Free Bridge Expected Cost 7.4 M Environmental Impacts (REF) X

Questions?

Alternatives Discussion • Which Alternatives do you think would do the best job at reducing congestion? • Which Alternatives are the most feasible? • What mitigation would be needed? • What considerations should be made for phasing and timing of an alternative?

Process Discussion • Has this process been useful? • Do you have a better understanding of Eco- Logical? • What should be done differently? • How could it be improved?

Next Steps 1. Develop final report – Engineering Report Available online 2. Develop data agreements with data providers 3. Present findings to MPO 4. Continue to intergrade Eco-Logical into transportation planning – House Bill 2 Prioritization requirements – Continue to intergrade Eco-Logical 5. Feedback Survey

Questions? Links: www.tjpdc.org/ecological Contact Information: Wood Hudson Sr. Environmental Planner Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission whudson@tjpdc.org