Work Session on AC44 Draft Transportation Chapter - May 28, 2025
Work Session on AC44 Draft Transportation Chapter - May 28, 2025
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a work session on May 28, 2025 at 2:00 PM in Room 241 to review the draft Transportation Chapter of the AC44 Comprehensive Plan. Deputy Director of Planning Kevin McDermott and Planning Manager Tonya Swartzendruber presented community input, planning commission feedback, and an overview of the chapter's objectives for both development and rural areas. The board discussed the distinct approaches for the two areas, the concept of a multimodal transportation plan, and specific action items.
Discussion Items
- Rural vs. Development Area Approaches: Board members generally agreed that different strategies are needed. Supervisor McKeel emphasized that rural roads serve local users beyond just getting to growth areas. Supervisor Mallek stressed that rural roads are not only for goods movement and that local users within rural areas are equally important.
- Multimodal Transportation Plan: The board supported the idea of a multimodal transportation plan that integrates all modes (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, vehicular). Concerns were raised about potential duplication with existing regional planning efforts by CARTA and TJPDC. Supervisor Gallaway noted the need to coordinate with CARTA to avoid overlapping planning efforts. Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley clarified that multimodal means equal consideration for all modes, not just transit.
- Active Recreation on Rural Roads: Board members expressed support for investigating a program to support active recreation (walking, biking, running) on select rural roads, but with significant guardrails. Supervisor Gallaway wanted to ensure safety and prioritize essential trips over recreation. Supervisor Mallek noted that many users are local residents, not tourists, and that speeding is the primary safety issue. Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley had concerns about safety on narrow rural roads where widening is infeasible and cars and bikes share the road.
- Safety and Traffic Calming: Multiple supervisors raised concerns about speeding and the difficulty of enforcement. Supervisor Mallek called for more effective traffic calming measures beyond just reducing speed limits, such as structural changes like roundabouts, speed tables, and even art on crosswalks. Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley noted that VDOT is conservative and resistant to change, but traffic calming is crucial. Supervisor McKeel mentioned that police often cannot enforce speed limits because there's no place to pull over.
- Transit and Microtransit: The board discussed transit improvements, including microtransit. Supervisor Mallek expressed concern about the cost of free microtransit and supported means testing or fees. Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley praised the microCAT program but noted funding uncertainty. Supervisor McKeel emphasized the need for better transit connectivity to the airport and synchronizing traffic signals with the city.
- Specific Action Items: Board members provided detailed feedback on individual objectives. Supervisor Gallaway opposed using county funds to supply bike parking to businesses (2.5). Supervisor Mallek criticized micromobility (scooters) as a safety hazard and litter problem. Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley wanted to avoid tying the county to a steady funding stream for bike/ped projects (2.3), preferring annual budget appropriations. Supervisor McKeel noted the need to include UVA in corridor planning and to address equity in rural areas.
- Wildlife Crossings and Debris: Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley and Supervisor Mallek noted the importance of wildlife crossings and debris removal from storms. Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley suggested working with the Virginia Transportation Research Council.
- Implementation and Next Steps: The board agreed that the next step is implementation, with a multimodal transportation plan to provide details. Staff will bring the implementation discussion to the board on July 16, 2025.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes were taken; the work session was for discussion and feedback.
- Staff to consider board comments and revise the transportation chapter accordingly.
- The board directed staff to explore a program for active recreation on rural roads with careful guardrails.
- The multimodal transportation plan concept was generally supported, with attention to avoiding duplication with regional partners.
- Next meeting on the topic: July 16, 2025 at 1:00 PM to discuss implementation.
Meeting Transcript
Please call the order of this meeting of our credit supervision this 28th of May, 2 p.m. through 241 back to our office. County office building. I'd like to know at the table we have Supervisor Mike Bruitt of the Scotchville District, Supervisor Blue Priest McCurner District. Supervisor Dan McKeel from Jack Hewitt district Supervisor Anna Malic and the White House District. Supervisor Calloway today. We're also joined by our uh county executives, every wall and thank you. Um Mr. Richardson is on able to attention today. Uh Mr. Andy Herrick, our county attorneys here. Uh and Ms. Claudia Gorderson, our clerk. Um, also let me please welcome the county Caldemoro County Police Officer President present, excuse me, officers uh Shaka Joiner and Regina Crying. Welcome. Thank you for being here for the service here today. Um we have one major item uh on the agenda, uh which is a work session on HC44 draft transportation chapter. And I believe this is being on the table here. Um deputy director of planning. I'm sorry, Clinton McDermott, deputy director of planning. Tony's horse and road planning manager. Sorry, I thought that was like that too quickly. Uh and Barcelona, deputy director of media. Welcome. There's others as needed. Um thank you. Thank you. I am Tanya Schwarzenegger, planning manager. Um here to speak about the transportation chapter of the AC44 comprehensive plan. So just a quick agenda for floor today, go through some um community input themes, a summary of the PC um feedback that we heard a couple weeks ago, and then uh the chapter overview and an upcoming schedule. And as always, we have the focus topics uh slides that will show up at the end of the presentation as well for you to reference. To start off, we heard a couple of things about transportation in the development areas, mainly about um providing safety and comparable infrastructure for all the modes, including sidewalks, paths, and bike lanes. Um that's separated from cars. Something else we heard is that transit needs to be frequent and reliable for those that are choosing transit over driving. Specifically related to driving in cars, we heard that we need to slow cars down and potentially reduce parking requirements to reduce the amount of space and impervious coverage coverage for parking. There was a concern about traffic congestion and infrastructure keeping up with growth, as well as safety in general. The rural area, a little bit heard a little bit different, but some similar themes. Um we'd like to explore and implement ways to make walking and biking in the rural area safer, both um by small scale improvements and potential improvements to um to rural roads, like widening shoulders and adding signage. Um increasing access to transit in the rural area, especially um access to the urban area of the development area to serve daily needs for those that live and work out there. What we heard from PC specifically on development areas is there needs to be additional bike and pedestrian uh connectivity, not just um or sorry, in addition to bike and pedestrian connectivity, we should promote vehicular activity. And what this means is eliminating cul-de-sacks and dead ends so that you know cars can move more freely and have other choices to other routes to get around. Um we heard that we should consider completing a study to enhance um connections to the airport, prioritize infrastructure investments and multimodal connections despite the funding challenges that we've all been hearing about at the federal level, and then consider a recommendation to establish a parks and trail fund to support public space and greenways. Specifically in the rural area, what we heard was, as I mentioned before, explain expanding the rural road margins, which is that shoulder piece outside of the line markings for walking and biking along our major multi-road routes. And then we then we were asked to consider moving rural rural roads away from the floodplain where flooding occurs, or at least when roads are being laid out to really focus on keeping them out of the floodplain. And then we did have a bit of a focus on recreational users specifically in the rural area. Really felt like this might imply that all the other users are lesser priority and they should be prioritized the same. Thanks, Tanya. To start out with, uh you might have noticed from Tanya's description about the feedback that we've been hearing is that there is real distinct difference between the way we look at transportation in the development area and the way we look at it in the rural area. And so that's kind of a theme that you'll see as we move through the chapter that there is a difference. We have different goals, different uh objectives and different needs.
openpublica.com