# Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) - August 23, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 23, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5892 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5892?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-08-23 - **Last revised**: August 23, 2023 - **Length**: 18,610 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) met on August 23, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Lexington Fayette County Council Chambers, located at 200 East Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Jessamine County Judge Executive David West presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, including administrative matters and key transportation infrastructure discussions. The meeting included one formal vote on administrative business, specifically the approval of meeting minutes from the previous June 28, 2023 TPC meeting. The committee also considered Resolution 2023-15, which involved approval of MPO Project Boosting Scores for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Strategic Highway Investment Formula for Tomorrow Program (SHIFT). Two informational presentations were delivered to the committee. The first was a presentation and review of the Final Recommendation Report from the East Lexington Trail Connectivity & Traffic Safety Study, providing insights into pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements. The second presentation focused on the Richmond Road/Athens-Boonesboro Road HSIP Safety Project, which incorporates a Restricted Crossing U-Turn design (RCUT) to enhance traffic safety at this intersection. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, allowing the committee to focus on the technical presentations and policy matters before them. The session addressed both routine administrative functions and substantive transportation planning issues affecting the region's infrastructure development and safety improvements. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included consideration of one formal resolution, though complete voting details were not available in the meeting records. **Resolution 2023-15** was presented for consideration, which concerned the approval of MPO Project Boosting Scores for the KYTC Strategic Highway Investment Formula for Tomorrow Program (SHIFT). This resolution would have established scoring criteria or methodology for transportation projects under Kentucky's SHIFT program framework. The resolution addressed the Metropolitan Planning Organization's role in project evaluation and prioritization within the state's strategic highway investment program. However, the meeting records do not contain complete information about the motion process, including who made the motion or provided a second. The final outcome of Resolution 2023-15 is not documented in the available meeting materials. No vote tallies, roll call results, or individual member voting positions were recorded. The voting method used (voice vote, roll call, or other procedure) is also not specified in the meeting documentation. Without complete voting records or transcript timestamps, it cannot be determined whether this resolution was approved, rejected, tabled, or withdrawn from consideration during the meeting. ## Approval of Meeting Minutes from June 28, 2023 TPC Meeting The Tulsa Preservation Commission considered agenda item 2.1, the approval of meeting minutes from the June 28, 2023 TPC meeting. This was a standard procedural item requiring commission action to formally approve the record of the previous meeting's proceedings. No specific transcript timestamp or detailed discussion information was available for this agenda item. The outcome of the vote on the minutes approval was not recorded in the available meeting materials. This type of agenda item typically involves commissioners reviewing the written minutes from the previous meeting to ensure accuracy and completeness before providing formal approval. The minutes serve as the official record of commission decisions, discussions, and actions taken during the June 28, 2023 meeting. ## Resolution 2023-15: Approval of MPO Project Boosting Scores for the KYTC Strategic Highway Investment Formula for Tomorrow Program (SHIFT) The meeting addressed agenda item 2.2, Resolution 2023-15, which concerned the approval of Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) project boosting scores for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Strategic Highway Investment Formula for Tomorrow (SHIFT) program. The resolution focused on the discussion and approval of MPO project boosting scores that would be applied within the KYTC SHIFT program framework. The SHIFT program represents Kentucky's strategic approach to highway investment prioritization, utilizing a formula-based system to allocate transportation funding across the state. While the agenda item was scheduled for consideration, specific details regarding the presentation content, key speakers who addressed the resolution, or the nature of any debate that occurred during this portion of the meeting were not captured in the available meeting documentation. The discussion would have typically involved technical aspects of how the MPO's project scoring methodology aligns with or enhances the state's SHIFT program criteria. The outcome of the resolution vote was not recorded in the available meeting materials, leaving the final disposition of Resolution 2023-15 undetermined based on the documentation provided. This resolution would have required formal action by the meeting body to either approve, deny, or table the proposed MPO project boosting scores for integration into the KYTC SHIFT program. The SHIFT program's importance to regional transportation planning would make this resolution significant for future highway investment decisions affecting the MPO's jurisdiction, as approved boosting scores could influence project prioritization and funding allocation within the state's transportation improvement program. ## Presentation and Review of the Final Recommendation Report from the East Lexington Trail Connectivity & Traffic Safety Study The meeting included agenda item 3.1, which was a presentation and review of the final recommendation report from the East Lexington Trail Connectivity & Traffic Safety Study. This was an informational presentation focused on sharing the completed findings and recommendations from the study. The agenda item was structured as a presentation-type discussion, indicating that officials would be reviewing the final report's contents and recommendations regarding trail connectivity and traffic safety improvements in the East Lexington area. The study appears to have been a comprehensive analysis of transportation and pedestrian safety issues in this section of the community. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, and no key speakers were identified in the available meeting documentation. The outcome was classified as informational, suggesting this was primarily a briefing session rather than an action item requiring votes or formal decisions. The East Lexington Trail Connectivity & Traffic Safety Study represents the community's efforts to address pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure needs while improving overall traffic safety in the eastern portion of Lexington. The final recommendation report would typically include proposed improvements, cost estimates, implementation timelines, and priority rankings for various infrastructure projects. This agenda item provided officials and potentially the public with an opportunity to review the study's conclusions and understand the recommended next steps for improving trail connectivity and traffic safety in East Lexington. ## Discussion regarding the Richmond Rd / Athens-Boonesboro Rd HSIP Safety Project The meeting included a discussion of agenda item 3.2 regarding the Richmond Rd / Athens-Boonesboro Rd HSIP Safety Project, which incorporates a Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) design. This Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project represents a safety enhancement initiative at the intersection of Richmond Road and Athens-Boonesboro Road. The RCUT design is a traffic engineering solution that restricts certain turning movements at intersections to improve safety and traffic flow. Under this configuration, some vehicles are required to proceed through the intersection and make a U-turn at a designated location rather than making direct left turns or crossing movements. The discussion was classified as informational in nature, indicating that the item was presented for the purpose of updating attendees on the project's status or design elements rather than requiring a formal decision or vote. No specific key speakers were identified in the available meeting documentation for this agenda item. The project falls under the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program, which provides funding for infrastructure improvements designed to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. The incorporation of the RCUT design suggests that traffic safety analysis identified this intersection as having safety concerns that could be addressed through this specific traffic control measure. No transcript timestamps were available for this discussion item, and the available documentation did not include details about specific concerns raised, technical presentations made, or public comments received regarding the project. --- ## Decisions - **Resolution 2023-15** — unknown (0-0): Approval of MPO Project Boosting Scores for the KYTC Strategic Highway Investment Formula for Tomorrow Program (SHIFT) --- ## Full transcript Our first item is the approval of our minute meetings from June 28th that are on pages 1 to 6. Do we have a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by raising your hand. All right. We have a resolution 2023-15. This is the boosting scores for KYTC and we have a staff presentation. Chris. All right, good afternoon, members of the Transportation Policy Committee. Real quickly, the shift process is a big long term that I will avoid going through, but this is the process that the Transportation Cabinet uses to select projects for consideration within the State Highway Plan. It is a data-driven objective approach. There are seven criteria that we'll go over shortly that they use to score projects to get an assessment of how well each project that has been sponsored is going to address various criteria that the Transportation Cabinet and MPOs and elected leaders throughout the state have considered important. The transportation cabinet, once we have a final process here, we'll then use the final scores after the boosting process that we're going to talk about here. To populate the state highway plan and provide a recommendation to the state legislature. And then is the state legislature that actually adopts the final plan and they can move projects around according to the priorities they feel are important. Now back in April, there were 36 projects from either Fayette or Justman County that were sponsored for analysis, either by the MPO or District 7. And those were the projects that were scored as part of this process. And then the MPO is permitted to apply a boosting score to 10 projects within our region, and that boost would add 10 points to the final score for that project. And we have until September 15th to go ahead and select the projects for a project boost. Now let me also note that District 7 also can apply boost to projects within their territory, but that is a much larger territory that they have responsibility for, so it's not just Fayette and Justman counties in that particular case. And we'll review the projects that they're choosing to boost within our region as well. So the seven attributes that each project has been evaluated on, the first is safety, And basically we're looking at how well does the project reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. You can get a total of 15 points for that criteria. The next one is congestion reliability. This is looking at two criteria, vehicle hours of delay and travel time reliability. And that will get you 10 points, a maximum of 10 points. Asset management is the third one. This is looking at the condition of pavement and bridges for various facilities. That's worth 15 points. Economic growth, basically this is just access to jobs to and from the segment of highway that's being evaluated. And then freight travel time reliability on that corridor. That's 10 points. Benefit cost, this is looking specifically just at safety benefit costs. So how much are we reducing fatal and serious injury crashes relative to the cost of that project? And that's 15 points. So you can see there's a big emphasis on safety as part of this process. Resiliency, how important is this facility as a detour for another important facility, for instance, Interstate 75? That is 10 points. And then non-motorized mobility, bike ped, are there provisions being made for those two mobility options, and that's worth a maximum of five points. This tolls up to 80 points. And then when we look at the boosting scores from MPOs and District 7, that gives us a grand total of a maximum of 100 points for each project. Now we do want to point out that all of these criteria are weighted towards existing roadways. So there is a bit of a bias here for new roadways on new alignments. And we'll point that out. That does affect a couple of projects that we've identified as a high priority within our region. And the cabinet is aware of that. and the boosting scores is attempt to try to address that bias within the scoring system. So there are a number of statewide priorities that have been identified off the top. These are projects that the cabinet has identified as being such importance from a statewide perspective. They are automatically going to move forward into the recommended state highway plan. We have one project, such project within our region. This is a section of the I-6475 common route between the northern split and Newtown Pike. It's about a $25 million widening and reconstruction project. We do not have to worry about applying a boost to this particular project. There are a number of other important statewide priorities. They are focused within either northern Kentucky or the Louisville area, but they're very expensive projects. And so we want to point that out to you because it does limit the number of other priorities that can be funded across the state. And that is limiting the number of boosts that we can provide for projects within our area. So before we get into the projects that we're recommending a boost for, these are some of the considerations that staff considered when making our recommendations. So we wanted to emphasize projects within our region that do a better job of accomplishing state and regional objectives. These are generally your higher scoring projects because we're generally trying to accomplish similar things. We're also focusing attention on those projects that are going to be ready to go into construction within the next two or three years. Again, these tend to be our higher scoring projects, and these are the projects that we have boosted in the past. for other phases of work. And then finally, we also want to identify those projects that have been identified previously by the Policy Committee as a high priority within our planning process, but would be very difficult to fund using the resources that come to the, the federal resources that come to the MPO, basically referred to as the sub-allocated funding, or trying to use local resources. So these tend to be the more expensive projects within our plan. and these are the ones where we're dependent on the pots of funding that the cabinet has at their discretion. So these are the 10 projects that we are recommending for boosting. We have provided a map showing where these projects are located at your desk here, and I'm just going to go over these really, really quickly. The first one is what's referred to as Lexington Road. We refer to it as Nicholasville Road, but this is the Jessamine County portion, basically from the Western Bypass all the way north to Manowar Boulevard. This is an access management project. Then we have two sections of Georgetown Road. Effectively, it may be two projects, but it goes from Spur Road all the way up to Ironworks Pike when you combine the two. These are a reconstruction and widening project. Then we have a section of Winchester Road from Polo Club eastward to Haley Road. This is also a widening and modernization project. We have the final phase of the East Nicholasville Bypass. We have a section of New Circle Road between Trade Center and Wood Hill. This is also another widening project. We have a section of Liberty Road, which is in the right-of-way phase right now, between Grafton's Mill and New Circle Road. This is a road improvement project. Another road improvement project is Brandon Road between Harrodsburg and US 27. We have an extension, the final phase of the Newtown Pike extension, which would basically connect Oliver Lewis to the UK campus. And then we have the Hamburg connector, which would construct a new roadway between Polo Club and Sir Barton in between Winchester Road and Manowar Boulevard. And this is basically to provide another access point, which has been identified as pretty important, not only from a bike-ped perspective and from another roadway connection perspective, but LexTrain has let us know that this is really important to them to be able to adequately serve the new hospitals in that area. Newtown Pike and Hamburg are new roads on new alignments, and you'll see that their pre-scores are fairly low. This is that bias that I was telling you about, about the scoring process. And so what we understand is that while the scores are used to help identify what finds their way into the final recommended plan, it's really a starting point for conversation that the cabinet can have as far as what projects they're looking at. And projects that receive a double boost will likely get additional attention when those decisions are made. You'll notice up at the top that each of these recommendations is also being recommended for a boost by District 7. So MPO staff have coordinated with District 7 quite a bit on that. And so basically the projects that we're recommending are also the projects that District 7 are recommending. And so we've included these maps at your table here. On the left are the projects that were sponsored by either the MPO or District 7, the 36 projects there. On the right are the projects that were recommended for boosting, and there were three projects that we actually asked the technical committee to consider for the final boost, and the recommendation was to apply to the section of Georgetown Road between Spur and Kearney Ridge. So the Congestion Management Air Quality Committee reviewed each of these recommendations from the perspective of a congestion management perspective, and they recommended approval of the staff project recommendations. Those recommendations were then forwarded to our TTCC Technical Committee, And they've reviewed these recommendations from a perspective of whether they're going to accomplish the goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. They are recommending approval from that perspective. And, Judge, if there is anyone here that is here to speak on this particular item, we are available to address that. But I see we also have a question. I've been on this committee for several years, and I know the council member before me also advocated for Versailles Road, and I'm extremely disappointed that it is not on this list. It has scored high and high and high and high, and I think some of my colleagues would support me in this. I know we've had this conversation before. We had this conversation last year, and I'm disappointed that not even a little bit of it is on this list. It is a roadway that is in dire need of being redone. It is unsafe. People are walking next to the road, and I'm especially disappointed that the state wouldn't make it a priority in some way. I know it's a big, heavy lift, but it's been ignored for 20 years. And so I just wanted to publicly state my disappointment in that and that I'm not happy with this list. Thank you. If I may, Judge, we had a lot of conversation about Versailles Road. And you may remember that two years ago, when we last went through this exercise, we had more boosts than we have now. Part of that is because we don't have, or the state has told us, they don't have as much money to work with in this biennium period. Now, with that said, there are a lot of new programs that have come out as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law. And we're trying to work with the LFUCG Mayor's Office to identify opportunities through a lot of those grant opportunities as another option for funding those projects. And so, you know, that's kind of the tack that we're suggesting at this point, partly because we think Versailles Road will be competitive for those particular projects. we've had challenges with the state highway plan for Versailles Road we haven't had it we've boosted the projects but they haven't found their way into the final plan previously well we did apply for a federal grant last year and scored very high on it but still we're not awarded the grant and we're applying for another one but I don't think that that can be the only option because what happens when we still don't get a grant. I just would like that this project not be ignored or put off because of its heavy lift or expect federal government to step in and save the day because the reality is they may not. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Same topic. I just looked at the list again. So Versailles Road ranks has four different projects ranked in the top 10 of scoring before the boosting. Knowing, having set in those rooms on federal grants, that's one of the questions that'll be asked at that level too. So take us through your thinking and how something that has 40% of your top 10 scored projects doesn't, at least part of that effort, get boosted up where it's on the boosted list? Yeah, we've, like I said, we've had a lot of conversation about where this needs to fall in terms of our recommendation. And part of the challenge is we don't have as many boosts that we can apply this time around. I think if we had the same number as we had last time, we would probably apply our last two boosts to one or the other of these phases along Versailles Road. I think we were encouraged that the project did score highly in the raise opportunity. Of course, that's a very competitive process, as we all know. the city is applying for the Reconnecting Communities application, which actually has a lot more money this year, not only from Reconnecting Communities last year, but even from the RAISE program thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. I guess my question, though, Chris, and you all do fabulous. This is not meant to be argumentative. But you've got four of the top ten over Sales Road. why would it score so highly when you're just scoring overall and then not get more consideration for a boost? Why would it score extremely well here and not score well over here? What makes it where you don't want to score it with the boost score when you're scoring it extremely well just on a normal basis? So one of the other considerations is that if it's already scoring very, very highly, then it's already competitive, at least from that perspective. And then we have to look at the other projects that have already been identified as a high priority by the policy committee, but did not score quite as highly. And I mentioned earlier that we have a couple of examples of projects that were impacted by the scoring bias because they're not they're a new roadway on a new alignment and so how do we balance that i think is our is what our perspective is yes sir got a mic yeah uh i've got several questions but let's just stay on this for sales road here um are we allowed as an mpo are Are we allowed to change your boosting points? Well, you're allowed to change which project you're applying the boost to, absolutely. In other words, if I wanted to make a motion to boost for Sales Road by 20 points, I could do that? Well, it would only be by 10 points. Yeah, is that all I get? Then you would have to decide which project we're removing from a boost. Well, I think it's, I'll let some other council, well, other committee members chime in, but I certainly agree with Councilwoman about the Vercels Road. we've been dealing with this for some time and it looks like to me we've got one two three four sections of our sales road is that correct in that that's correct and i would assume by the the rating they're all pretty close they're in the 50s i guess close so let me back up just a minute how much money are we talking about that we're going to have to do these projects? Well, the Trans-Trans-Trans-Trans-Chair Cabinet will have to make that decision when they're putting together the final plan. Okay. But, I mean, obviously we've never been able to complete all 10 of these that we've boosted or anything, but it's just a matter of moving around and up and down the ladder. But having said that, the Vercels Road, I'm not sure which of that section, maybe somebody else would be, But if we could get that started, and if we get discretionary money that's supposed to come down, because we're supposed to, you know, federal government has said something about infrastructure projects for a couple years, that can be applied to another element of our roads or something like that. No. That's going to have to be for sales roads. It has to be for the project you're applying for. You cannot move the discretionary dollars around. Okay, well, I think that and when we're looking at these that you boosted, how many can we go forward with? Do you just, like we've got that 10, if we said, okay, these 10 is what we want, then you're going to do them in order based on money available? Is that the criteria? Well, we have 10 boosts that are available. We don't know about money at this point in time. We're just identifying the projects that we feel are our highest priority. But they're not, even score-wise, they're not in the top ten. Versailles Road still will move into that top ten. And you're welcome to substitute projects around. Okay. I need a little bit more thought and study on what to substitute. but I'm in favor of Versailles Road being moved up somewhere, and let's get this thing going because it's long overdue. Thank you. I'm in favor of boosting Versailles Road as long as, so long as it does not overtake Liberty Road. That is an area that has been, as many of you all know, this has been on our list for a while. those residents have been questioning why the state is not doing its job and so my question is this previously as previously the roads that you have boosted is it always 10 roads now previously the last time we went through this we actually had 12 boosts and i believe that number fluctuates up and down from each biennium. So it's based on how much money the cabinet anticipates is going to be available. In this biennium, it's going to be less than what we previously had. And of those roads that were boosted last time, how many of those did projects begin in some sort of way? Oh, we'd have to take a look at that. We did not get all of those 12 projects in the final state highway plan. Do you have a percentage just off the top? 50%? Yeah. 50% sounds about right, but we'd have to get back to that. The final decision is really up to the state legislature. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. To kind of follow up on that question about the, it sounded like if we added a section, director, that we would have to take a section away. So if we did 12 last year and 10 this year, what is that number? What dictates that number and why is that number inflexible? That is given to us by the transportation cabinet. This is their process and this is what they provide to us. So this year they said you get 10. That's correct. So I wouldn't mind if Councilmember Reynolds, you know, if there is enough support on this committee to move Versailles Road into this. It sounds like there are four sections, and it basically goes almost all the way from New Circle Road all the way to Oliver Lewis in four sections. Councilmember, are there sections of that that you would prioritize if we could only get one or two of them onto this list? So the city did a part of Versailles Road up to Mason-Headley. That's not actually shown here, but it's near Oxford Circle. So it would be the next section that we've identified is Mason-Headley to Red Mile. so I wonder if that would be Oxford Circle to Red Mile and right there at Mason Healy which is near Oxford Circle is where the new Fayette County Public School is going there's going to be actually more than one and so there will be a lot of traffic on that corner coming out there onto Versailles Road and then they have an entrance It's on Versailles Road as well, and the state is going to have to do some work there anyway for a turn lane. So your top priority would be Oxford Circle to Red Mile? If I had to pick one because that's the next section, yes. And what would be your second choice? The next section, which is Red Mile, let's see, Red Mile Forbes to Porter Place. Gotcha. So starting at Mason-Headley, Oxford Circle towards Oliver Lewis, since that's what the city has already done from Parker's Mill to Mason-Headley. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Chris, just to make sure I understand, when we're looking at the proposed list, the second one down, is that what is the red section on the map? Yes. okay so if we're talking about which ones to switch off you know if we're going to take one off to put one on that's that's my proposal um because i feel like we could still do the other section of georgetown road but take that one off in order to switch out over sales road corridor that's just my two cents and then i i while i do not represent nicholsville i'm going to talk all about it because i'm right there with you guys um so highly supportive of the nicholasville demand a war corridor improvements it is one of the most traveled roads that we have in lexington and that definitely needs to be addressed especially for pedestrian safety because we have none and then curious about the brandon road improvements it feels like we're doing some right-of-way stuff there because i see a whole lot of pink tags on trees is that kind of where we are in that process can kelly can you give me an update please yes we're currently in the right of way phase so they're out doing appraisals and kind of the entry level part of that phase so yeah that's where we're at with that so so we're purchasing right away going to be moving utilities next so in anticipation of getting funds for for construction and that's what this would be would be the next that project is currently in the highway plan so this would be for the next phases of the project okay and highly supportive of that project as well so um that's all i've got for right now thank you thank you anyone else yes ma'am just have a point of clarification um council member um baxter um what road did you mention uh to remove georgetown when the georgetown road i didn't hear you correctly it was actually it was the just that on the map that red section that was on for consideration of a boost but it was ranked number two on our list um yeah so this is the section from spur road to kerney and i would make an argument against that since um well we can argue about anything on this list right but i i just have to i represent that area well and you know but sorry i would have to argue with the growing population with the number of homes that are being built in that area that we are having a large number of residents who are traveling that way and our roads aren't necessarily built for the number of people that are currently traveling it so that's just a point to make so thank you chair um director a couple questions about um two things that are on this map the section of new circle between i guess boardwalk and north lime program, does that factor into the larger picture of Imagine New Circle Road and those plans? Right. So this is another project that the city has applied for a competitive discretionary grant for, that being Safe Streets and Roads for All program. And that was the application that the policy committee voted to support during our previous meeting. Again, a lot of discussion on that one as well, and the feeling was we feel we're in a really competitive position to receive the project award for that particular project. And being that we have a limited number of boosts, we decided, you know, let's hold off for now. Hopefully, we get the grant. If not, we'll revisit this during the next shift process. So kind of in that same vein then, if we are looking to knock one or two things off and replace them with some Versailles Road, are there other instances of this where this isn't the only avenue that we can get funding or get these projects moving, and those might be the ones that we could move off as opposed to ones that this is the only way we're going to get them done? Yeah, I think each of the 10 projects you're seeing on our recommended list do not have a clear, straightforward path like that. Okay. Which was part of our consideration. And then in your experience, you know, if somewhere around only 50% of the things that we're proposing that the state's actually going to do, do you have a sense from your experience of what things end up getting done and therefore are more, you know, like why put up a bunch of stuff if we have a feeling or a notion that they may not get done anyway? Right. We do know the legislature pays a lot of attention to the scores. We also know that they pay a lot of attention to the final recommendations of the Transportation Cabinet, it, but we also know they pay a lot of attention to any input they receive from our elected representation, basically you. So come January, when we're looking at the start of the new legislative session, we are going to be asking that you consider reaching out to our representation in Frankfort to let them know how important these projects are to our region. And then last question, the Hamburg connector piece, that one is, I assume, related to all the health centers going in there, right? What is the urgency slash timeline of that one getting approved and done in relation to all that development? So we don't even have a design phase funded for that particular road. We know design phases probably are about two year process. Before you can even start requiring right of way and relocating utilities, you have to have that work, the design work done. So we're probably looking at some period of time to get through the right of way and utility relocation phase. So each time we're pushing off two years for a new biennium, it's just two years further down the road we're waiting to get even get started with that project and so we're probably already maybe five years out forcing any type of construction for that perhaps longer gotcha thank you director thank you chair yes ma'am just going back to my liberty road um speaking of which how far down the line since liberty road has been on this it's i've said it numerous times it's been on this list for some time i know that the state is in the process but how long uh just from your point of view are we down the line and starting this work um kelly you may have a better perspective on this than than i do okay so similar to brandon road liberty is a project that we're you know we're actively working on it just takes time to move through those phases you know we're buying the you know once we get to the right of way phases so we just want to make sure that the funding is there for the phase when we get there so you know with this you know that project again has been in the highway plan but we'll need construction funding in the next highway plan to be able to keep it going so that the construction phase is what we're shooting for here with this project so that's that's what we're looking for but it appears we're not working it just you know it takes time with these projects to work through the phases so you know you're you know sometimes it can take a year and a half two years depending on the number of parcels that you have to purchase or is there condemnation cases or whatever that you're dealing with so you know it takes time to work through that but you know that it's hard to give it a definite time period but you know a year year two years is where we'd be looking at construction down the road thank you okay i don't see any other hands yes sir thank you judge and chair and i'll be brief and i you know i want want to share some of the same sentiments about for sales road but uh chris is the application for the reconnecting communities grant is it all the all these phases on this list are included in that application believe so yes okay so so knowing that and seeing how well it scores without being boosted i think you can still make the case when when it gets to that point in the grant application and hopefully it has some weight with whether or not it moves forward. Looking at this list of the recommended boosted, I would have trouble removing any of these. I think these are all really good projects that we need boosted. And the fact that we have Bersales Road really in a position to be competitive for these federal grants, which could get all of this funded, I would keep an eye on the grant and see how it goes and then look to fund these projects, and hopefully the state values them as much as we do and fund these. So that would be my recommendation. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Yes, sir. Just one thing I wanted to add to Council Member Brown's point. You know, we've got a lot of really good projects in Fayette County. It's no slight to Vercel's Row. We know that that's a very important project, too. when you try to squeeze it in the tin it gets kind of tough sometimes to do that another thing to think about is just because we boost or don't boost doesn't mean that it's not going to be in the highway plan obviously that boost is the terminology we use and kind of it helps it but we're scoring scoring is important but just you know local support through their representatives when we get into the General Assembly is important too so just keep that in mind Just because it's not boosted doesn't mean you can't make it in there. Yes, ma'am. I left off one Nicholasville project. I'm just going to ask about it because I'm curious. Where are we with the East Nicholasville Bypass project? Like, at what phase are we in? How far are we out on completion? Okay, so the bypass was broken into three sections. We built the southern section on the southern end. We're currently in construction right now with the middle section. the northern section is the we talked and the judge and the mayor have talked about this that's the important part of that because to get the most benefit out of that we need to get that northern piece in there but that's also the most expensive project of the three there too so one is built second one's in construction we're going to need a lot of funding for that the northern northern piece okay so i'm definitely in favor of leaving that on the list too thank you we appreciate the support so I had a question perhaps for Kelly if this body reconsiders any projects does that cause any action on your part or reconsideration well I Chris is saying that you know this is input that we want I mean it's still still open to to make adjustments so if there's something we want to pull out of that list and slide in there we're we're open open to that you have a moment for public comment I don't see any of the people that signed up to speak today to speak to that anyone that's got any input on our shift boosting all right then that brings us to our action phase and of course staff has asked us to approve or disapprove the project boosting scores for the 2024 shift program we do have the right to disapprove or change any project boosting scores. So do we? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor, please signify by raising your hand. And? No. One no. All right. We will move on then with our information discussion item for the East Lexington Trail Connectivity and Traffic Safety Study. All right, members of the committee, this is a study that has been ongoing from the MPO perspective for about a little over a year. we hired Strand Associates to provide some recommendations about conceptual design for a section of trail between the Isaac Murphy Art Garden and the end of the current Bryden Rail Trail. And we have Chase Wright from Strand to give us an overview of some of their recommendations. So, Chase. Big button. yep thank you so the the east lex trail connectivity study was was born out of the 2018 lexington mpo bike and pet plan they identified to have a major connection from hamburg area all the way downtown and tie in to the town branch commons and the legacy trail at the isaac murphy memorial garden and the construction portions of the trail or the Brighton Trail facility which go all the way to the Clark County line and then ties over now with the new bridge over Man of War and ties into Liberty Park right behind Liberty Elementary and one of the projects we talked about boosting would be the next segment where a shared use trail facility will get all the way to New Circle. The state's New Circle Road project which is on there too is going to look at potentially how that crossing can get across New Circle Road, which is a very important connection. And then the city is looking to build a facility all the way to Winchester Road. So the focus area of our study was really how do you get from Henry Clay Boulevard and Liberty Road to the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden. So looking at the trail route analysis, the arterial route, which is Liberty Road and Winchester Road or US 60, You know, it's the most direct route, but it also has the highest traffic volumes of up to 25,000 vehicles a day. You have Jif, peanut butter factory there with heavy truck traffic, higher speeds. And so that is the first route, which is in purple. The next route we looked at was can you use lower volume, lower speed neighborhood routes? and looking at the corridor, Henry Clay Boulevard that has the large trees as you kind of go through it. And then there's a couple of neighborhood routes that if you look at the city's or the MPO's bike and pet plan, it identifies what a bicycle boulevard is, and that's just basically a street that you would feel comfortable. It's got lower volumes. Some of these roads to the neighborhood have only 1,600 vehicles a day compared to 25,000, and so it's easier to take. and then walton avenue we also looked at how you can parallel the railroad there was a lot of discussion about uh about the rail line rj corman railroad operates that line but one of the things we're going to focus on their their policy specifically prohibits csx's that of having it within the their right of way and so we looked at a route that they could could kind of parallel it but there were some pretty big impacts and then you have both to residential and commercial properties So the recommended project sections, this is a common section. This is basically connecting the Town Branch Commons at 3rd Street and Midland Avenue to Walton. And one of the things we wanted to focus on with that was minimizing trail conflicts. And so the trail crossing happens just west of 3rd Street. Cars cannot turn right from 3rd Street onto Midland Avenue, so there's no conflicting movements. It also avoids the truck entrance off of Midland Place for JIF. A shared-use path facility would be constructed along the south side of the roadway, and there's, I think, maybe a proposed redevelopment that could happen in this area, too. But a lot of people today utilize this section to connect over to the National Avenue area. Traffic calming. One of the things when looking at these corridors, similar to what we talked about in Versailles, is that you need traffic calming. And so there's a median island that would be added opposite of the left turn off of Walton to help slow speeds traveling through the corridor. And then converting the, basically, historically, 3rd Street was US 60 before Midland Avenue was constructed. And so cars have basically a continuous ability to go through 3rd Street. And so this would make that into a pocket right turn bay to help slow speeds entering the east end. This is a section, there's a lot of familiarities to what you see on Town Bridge Commons with a small vegetated buffer, and then you can see this is looking east, then with a vegetated median buffer and a shared use facility. While the recommended section was through the neighborhood route, we want for the actual officially signed section of the Bryden Trail, we still want to focus on improvements to US 60. and winchester road and so the existing section had six foot bike lanes with 11 foot travel lanes you see the image there next to jeff and and so we wanted to look at providing a a separated facility so separated facility has a buffer but also has a vertical element in there to help separate bicycle users for motor vehicle users and so the top image is basically like a retrofit it's a you know just a mill like there's already been mill and overlay but it doesn't require full reconstruction and when you look at the other options further down those really result in basically rebuilding all of winchester roads it becomes a major a major project replacing all the pavement so one thing i want to talk about success story so during the study um wanting to see action the state had a mill mill and overlay project to resurface Winchester Road. And so we worked with the MPO, the City of Lexington traffic staff and KYTC staff within about a week, worked to redevelop the the marking plan to provide a three-foot buffer for the bike lane. And what why that's important is because the state was already making the investment to do a mill and overlay. So with the little additional cost they were able to get this buffer in and then if the city and state want to come back later and consider a vertical element within then they have the space. And so just commend the staff to work on such an aggressive timeline while you actually have construction going. It just shows the partnership between the district and the city and NPO. And that actually extends further, so it kind of connects almost all the way to New Circle now. So it's an enhanced facility. So we looked at Walden Avenue. It only has four less feet of right-of-way than Winchester Road. So there's 80 feet of public right-of-way. It doesn't feel like it because a lot of the properties have encroached on that public right-of-way. So the photo shows there's a lot of back-end or diagonal parking, and the modification would be to basically create parallel parking on both sides to mitigate parking loss, but it also allows enhanced bike and ped facilities on both sides of the street. And this area is actively changing, so again, just provides better connectivity. The crossing itself, right across from Eppings, there would be a pedestrian refuge island, so you're only crossing one way at a time. It's safer, and that's pulled away from the intersection, so left-turning vehicles from, you aren't crossing right at Winchester Road. The trail facility would then be on the neighborhood side. So this would be a streetscape-type improvement that could take place, all the way to Kramer and then beyond. There's already a pedestrian crossing where people access. The neighborhood access is an elementary school, so it could be extended to cover that area. Then you look at Kramer Avenue. If you were to look at the aerial from above, when Kramer was one of the older neighborhoods, it actually has 80 foot of public right-of-way but only 24 feet for vehicles. And so it lines up perfectly with 3rd Street if you look further back. And so at one time, it was planned to be a major roadway. but now it's a neighborhood street. We talk about bicycle boulevards. You see a lot of bicyclists on this already. They feel comfortable. Parking on one side of the 24-foot roadway makes people passing each other go very slow. So it's a very nice, calm roadway. So for an interim option, there may be just a little bit of enhancements with signing and pavement marking. We did look at a dedicated facility, but I think one of the things we heard is that while people do want a dedicated facility, I think it's important for people to experience this corridor first. So after some of the major roadway improvements can happen on the sides, let's hear how the public perceives it and what kind of improvements are really needed before replacing what's already there. This is what a two-way biking facility, if you were to construct one on Kramer, would look like. So once you look at Owsley, Owsley has less traffic than Kramer, but it feels much faster. The road, there's 45 foot of public right-of-way. The sidewalks are less than four feet with utility poles within it, so there's not a walkable area. And parking's allowed on both sides. And so, again, looking at the interim options, signing this as a bicycle boulevard, and then before improvements are made, considering what does the neighborhood really want? Do they want ADA-compliant sidewalks on both sides or would like a path? and I think that that's an important thing to work through with the neighborhood to see what they do want because moving and providing improved pedestrian facilities will result in loss of onster parking on one side. So anyway, why don't we figure out what the right facility is for the community after they can experience the corridor. Moving to Menifee, Menifee has a little bit more right-of-way with 50 feet, but parking on it long minute fee is almost non-existent and so one of the things we did throughout the project was drive the corridor multiple times a day different different days of the week to get a feel for how much the on-street parking demand is and it's very low just given how the lights were configured and so this you could still have one you parking on one side but again you could decide if you built a shared use facility or just improve sidewalk connectivity with with buffer space moving to Henry Clay Boulevard this is one of the more challenging traffic volumes increase it serves as a collector roadway this section has really nice mature trees and through the public engagement section that was one of the comments about the Liberty Park Trail is there's not any shade and this is one of the streets that has shade and and so looking at what type of facility that you could do while maintaining the curb lines so that the trees are not impacted. So if you were to do a two-way facility on one side that could provide a four-foot shoulder opposite so the cars are a little bit away from from the trees but what it could also do is allow for some on-street parking bump-ins about five or six so that there could be some on-street parking because the negative for this side is if you build a bike facility and don't modify the curbs you can't accommodate the on-street parking that does exist. The bottom one just shows what it would look like if it was a protected one way on each side of the street here's a concept of a two-way facility on one side with the shoulder the bridge this bridge was can over the railroad was constructed in 2001 with three lanes at the time if you look at the traffic volume projections they basically thought the road was going to be twice as big as it is today and and so the three lanes are not needed and so the existing space on the bridge could be reallocated depending on what type of of facilities on either side to accommodate bike and pedestrian, better accommodate bike and pedestrian use. So looking at these projects, you know, the most important is to get the design and construction going for US 60, Walton Avenue, that's why it's on the top of the list, and then Henry Clay. And once those improvements can be made, then you can evaluate and determine, do you really need to reconstruct some of those neighborhood streets, or can they function as is or slightly be modified and make a wise decision for the investment you're making. We still think that you should consider additional enhancements to US-60, whether some vertical buffers could be added in the future. But, again, the Transportation Cabinet did a great thing by adding the buffer space there. Is there another slide? Yep. So what we wanted to do is just to let you know what the next steps would be after this. So we need to identify what the highest priorities along this corridor would be in terms of identifying a design phase. So these are conceptual ideas here. We now need to set up engineers to come in and actually look at the specific details and some of the challenges of this corridor and how to actually address that from an engineering perspective. From there, funding that will be the question. And so we do have some pots of money that we have at our discretion as an MPO. I've noted here the transportation alternatives program, our SLX dollars and even the carbon reduction program are eligible uses here. We have also been very successful at the statewide tap program for projects like this trying to get the design phase going. And then once that is complete, then we can have a conversation about how to actually fund the construction. For something like Winchester Road, we're probably dependent on the state highway plan, just because of the overall costs associated with that project. And that would probably also be looking at a number of other recommendations along that corridor, which we think may best be addressed by doing a similar study to what we've just completed with New Circle Road to look at not just the transportation improvements, but also the land use perspective and what the city feels is appropriate along that particular corridor. You're not asking for any action, just comment? There's no action at this time. We wanted to give you an overview of what has been recommended and let you know that you'll be seeing some of these very shortly as we develop our new Metropolitan Transportation Plan and be asking for your input about what the highest priorities here are. Yes, sir. I'm excited to see this. I'll be one who will be personally using this. I feel safe on the roads riding my bike. I know others, really one of the big things is they want a protected path. And when you say the vertical, are you talking about bollards then? The vertical separation could be a number of different items. FHWA has a separated bikeway guide, and basically they define as separated as anything vertical. It could be anything from tubular markers to raised curbs to medians. It could be a number of things. Like if you're talking about on Winchester Road, you know, the state's going to want the shape of, it probably would be more of like a median type curb that would be installed. That would be separating it then? Yes, they could go in that buffer space. You know, but once it's an old concrete road with limited drainage, and so once you start saw cutting and doing very much effort to, you know, modifications to Winchester, you're going to end up doing reconstruction. So it becomes much more expensive. So if there is something that could be put in that buffer space as an interim option that just helps provide some separation but doesn't require full reconstruction, that number was closer to 400,000 versus millions of dollars. Well, we've done a good job going north and going west, and now we're working our way east, and then south, I think, is the next one we need to work on. It'll be 28 miles once you get this section all the way to the east. and so we talked to 22 with the town branch and the legacy trail and then that's expanding further into georgetown so it's really exciting and then like i said then we need to work south because that's the one that is not as easy to get to but i'm excited where we're headed and and i will be using it thank you yes sir thank you chair i'll echo my colleagues uh excitement as well anything that gets us closer to a real multimodal transportation, more access to bike pad and safety and sustainability. In terms of some of these programs that we might be eligible for, like the carbon reduction program, so like each one of these little sections, you've given us kind of different design options, right? Are there particular design options that would qualify us more than others for some of this federal or state money potentially? Well, these are dollars that are directly sub-allocated to the MPO. And so it eventually will be your decision on how to use those dollars. Now, we've introduced a call for projects process, which we will be looking at later this fall or early spring, asking for project submissions, which we will then evaluate, provide a recommendation to you. And then when it comes time to adopting the new transportation improvement program next year, that's where you get to make the decision on how to use those dollars. Okay. And then with these different design suggestions and options, and then one of your last pages is the costs for all these different sections. Like, do these particular options vary greatly in cost, and how did you come to the estimate numbers? Well, so over the last 15 years, I've been working with the city on urban transportation projects dating back to the original streetscape, downtown streetscape, and Legacy Trail and Town Branch Trail. So we took recent projects that we've worked through and developed cost estimates based on the type of infrastructure that would have to go in. And it can vary, and obviously we've seen recently costs have been dramatically different, we tried to use recent projects both you know before and after COVID to take a look at them from a from a costing standpoint. So from that costing so for example like Walton to Liberty you have three separate options are you kind of just taking an average? No so the the reconstruction both of when you're messing with the curbs on both sides you're going to be rebuilding the drainage infrastructure so that reconstruction cost you're already moving both curb lines so the cost is going to be roughly the same between those. If you're just doing marking, a lot of people do feel comfortable on those streets today, so if you're just doing that, that's a low cost, and we had a different kind of line item for just some interim signing and pavement markings that can go in. So those could happen now, because I do think that once, we had over 1,000 public comments on the initial survey, and so a lot of people don't know what they until they experience it until you do you go down Kramer and see just how nice and calm that street is you don't realize that you may be comfortable on it so it's important that more people get to see what it will actually function like so once you get to the point where you're narrowing down from all these different options so like I'm thinking about bicycling in particular you have the share road with the markings you've got the dedicated either one or two lane bike and then you have the multi-use where you have bike and pet on the same thing. Ultimately at that point what informs your decision as to which route to go? So as far as what the typical section is? For any of them? Yeah so there's a number of factors, conflicts, you know speeds, that are the number of the number of vehicles on the roadway. So when you're looking at a neighborhood street, a lot of cyclists would prefer to be in the roadway. And so what we heard is, you know, people that may be riding with their kids would rather them ride on the sidewalk or a path and versus, so you actually hear a very different response from each of the different types of riders based on their experiences. So I think it's working with LFUCG and NPO to determine what that appropriate facility is. So we got a lot of good feedback, And I think once more people can ride Kramer, they may be comfortable in the street on those because the volumes are so low. So the city or the MPO has a matrix that they developed, and it's based on vehicle volume, speeds, and it talks about the type of facilities that may be appropriate. And so utilizing those guides as well as the continued work that they're doing to kind of hone in on what's a more appropriate facility type. So it could change street to street? Yes. So if you're on Winchester Road, you really have to be separated. People, obviously there's a buffer today now, but if people are going to want to ride on it, they're going to want to be separated from those 25,000 vehicles. Gotcha. Yeah, let me also add that there is another process for input during the design phase itself. So if there are additional concepts, ideas, concerns, that can be addressed during that phase of work. Okay, great. Thank you all. Thanks, Chair. All right. As much as I appreciate the robust conversation that's been needed on the shift and the bike, I did not anticipate it lasting as long, and I've got a meeting to attend in Jessamine County. concerning the construction of our new Justice Center. So at this time, I'm going to have to turn the meeting over to Vice Chair Brown. And thank you for your service. Okay, fine. The next item on the agenda is the discussion. I think we got through all the discussion on the traffic safety study. The discussion regarding the Richmond Road slash Athens-Boonesboro Road HSIP safety project incorporating the restricted crossing U-turn design R-cuts. And we've got the information in our packet. Staff presentation is needed on that. Okay. So I'd like to start off with just a very brief history of this project and the status of this project where we currently stand. This project actually dates back to about four years ago when KYTC identified an issue with crashes along a section of Richmond Road and Nathan's Moonsboro Road, really between the Squires Road, Yorktown Road interchange, really all the way out to Interstate 75. They identified a preliminary design and began developing that to identify What could be done to address that concern? In the spring of 2020 or 2022, the transportation cabinet came to us and requested that we consider an amendment to our transportation improvement program in order to be able to use federal dollars for the construction of a conceptual project. That action is a requirement in order to be able to use the federal dollars. And we coordinated at that time with the transportation cabinet to basically get better word out about the concept of this project. To make sure that folks were aware of what was being proposed and also give them an opportunity to provide input. And we'll go through a little more detail about the process that was used to accomplish that. Then we had a process that we engaged in to actually consider the tip amendment. We presented this through our, or vetted it through our technical committee for their recommendation about the merits of the project. And then we presented that to the policy committee in August of last year. Now, there were three earlier conversations with the policy committee on this particular project as it was in the process of being developed. The first in October of 2021, next in February of 2022 when the public outreach was beginning, and then in April 2022 as well. So where we stand right now with this project is as currently in the right-of-way and utility relocation phases, and we're anticipating right now that construction could start next year. We included this slide last year, basically to give some perspective on how an RCUT would operate, since this is something new to our region. and really quickly. Basically, if you're on Richmond Road, it's not going to change at all how you operate and how you perform certain turning movements. It affects the cross traffic. So instead of being able to go straight across Richmond Road or making a left turn, you would first have to make a right turn, then make a U-turn, and then if you made an additional right turn, that effectively is the same as going straight through the intersection. If you continued straight on Richmond Road, then that would be the equivalent of turning left. There were originally four intersections proposed for this design treatment. the Yorkshire Squires interchange, the entrance to the Ellerslie Park neighborhood, the intersection of Aphidsway and Hayes Boulevard, and then the entrance to the Brenda Cohen Elementary School. There was a fifth intersection identified that does not currently exist, but this was identified as part of the development plan that was associated with the proposed soccer complex in the vicinity of the Athens-Boonesboro I-75 interchange. So we wanted to give you some updated statistics about crashes, because RCUTs, their primary objective is to reduce crashes, especially fatal and serious injury crashes. Since 2015, there have been a total of 770 crashes between the Richmond or the Yorktown Squires Interchange and the Brenda Cohen Elementary School. 18 fatalities and serious injuries from those crashes. We sometimes refer to the serious injuries as life threatening injuries. But there were also another 173 minor injuries. Although the federal program requires us to call those minor injuries, I don't think you or I would call those minor. This includes things like broken arms or legs, back injuries, neck injuries, head concussions. Yes, they may be things you can recover from, but it may be months or years, or in some cases, it may be longer than that to recover. We also want to remind the policy committee that this past April, the policy committee did unanimously approve a goal to work towards zero fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2050. And this is one of those projects that we feel is effective at helping us work towards that goal. Last year, KYTC gave us some statistics about our cuts that had already been implemented somewhere else in Kentucky. And doing a before and after study of fatal and serious injury crashes, there was an 87.1% reduction in those types of crashes at those intersections. Even for the more minor property damage only crashes, it was a 31.5% reduction. These are pretty significant reductions. Our cuts also do have a secondary benefit. This isn't the primary purpose of the project, but they do benefit traffic flow in that they greatly simplify signal phasing where the signals are actually installed. Basically, it allows us to accommodate more vehicles per signal cycle. And then because of the safety component, we are reminded that nationally approximately 40% of delay along a corridor is related to crashes or incidents that are blocking lanes of travel. And then finally, more and more states are identifying RCOTs as their default intersection design when they're building new roadways. Three of those states include North Carolina, Florida, and Michigan. So I mentioned that the MPO coordinated with KYTC about public outreach. So this goes back to February, where KYTC agreed that there needed to be some more outreach related to the project itself. They developed a website which is still live. You can actually go out there and find information about the project and it's RichmondRoadImprovements.com. There's also still a live opportunity for folks to be able to submit input via that website. There was a media event at that time promoting the website and requesting citizens to provide feedback. And at least as of the TPC action last year, there was over 7,700 unique visits to that website, representing about 4,800 individuals. Now, in addition to the media outreach, KYTC also did do 4,000 direct mailers, focused within one mile of the particular project. And there were eight public interest meetings. Some of these were meetings of neighborhood associations. And those were directly attended by KYTC staff to address input or comments regarding the proposed design. KYTC estimated that there were probably about 150 folks at those eight meetings. KYTC staff also did meet with a number of individuals that represented property ownership along the corridor that could be potentially impacted. Out of these efforts, KYTC received 156 official comments and there were a mix of folks in favor, opposed, as well as folks just asking a question about the project. The MPO perspective is, is this an appropriate project from which to use federal dollars 4, and we conducted a separate process soliciting comments on that. And we received a total of 19 comments, which were very similar to the comments that were received by the Transportation Cabinet. Now, we felt that both processes were related, and so we provided all 175 comments that were received by either ourselves or the Transportation Cabinet to the Policy Committee in advance of that August meeting. Finally, there was a public hearing conducted at the policy committee meeting in August of last year, and we had a total of 15 folks address the committee at that time. Now, there were a number of design changes that the Transportation Cabinet did implement as a direct result of input that they received from this effort. These are some of the more significant changes, and those were included in your packet if you have questions about those. But we want to bring you up to speed to where we are today and the request that has been presented to you today. As a reminder, the Policy Committee did unanimously approve amending the TIP to include this project last year. Since that point, MPO staff, and I think some of you individually, have received a number of requests for the TPC to reconsider that vote. And many of the concerns are similar to concerns that were expressed previously. Fayette Judge Executive Mary Diane Hanna has formally requested, recently requested as is her purview for the TPC to consider a reconsideration or rescinding that earlier decision. And so before we get to that point, we need to have a quick discussion about whether we're at a position where we can take that type of action. And basically it's regarding whether construction has started on this project or not. And that is not the case. And so the answer is yes. You do have the option of changing your mind if you so choose. A further reminder, though, is that if you continue to support this project and do want to see it moving towards construction, there is no further action necessary on the part of the Transportation Policy Committee. So if you do want to reconsider this, we do have a process we need to follow. Now, first of all, since we have an earlier action that was approved by the policy committee, the staff needs some direction from the policy committee indicating that you wish to move in a different direction. You can take that action today, and basically it would be in the form of a motion, a second and majority vote. And we'll walk you through what that motion needs to read like in the next slide. Then if we are processing a new tip amendment to effectively remove the project from the tip, staff will have to conduct several tasks. Three of the more significant ones are listed here. We have our own review that we have to conduct. We have to then vet a recommendation through our TTCC technical committee based on the technical merits of that request. The TTCC will produce their own review and recommendation, once again, based on the technical merits of the request. And then that will be presented to the policy committee for your October meeting. but prior to that we would have a 15-day public comment period and we would solicit folks to provide input into that request at that time. Now let me also mention that the input that we've received up to this point we will also include as part of that process as well. So once those tasks have been completed, then the TPC is able to take action on approving or disapproving the requested amendment to the TIP, and that would be during your October 25th meeting. So where we are today, we do have an opportunity for folks to be able to address the Policy Committee, and Chairman Brown, I believe you do have a number of comment cards, But the action that is being requested of you today is a motion to direct MPO staff to process an amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program removing the Richmond Road-Athens-Boonesboro HSIP safety project. And so, Mr. Chairman, I believe Judge Hanna has requested that she be provided the opportunity to present her presentation. And I believe she also has a video that she wishes to show the policy committee at this time. Mr. Chair, I believe it's at your discretion whether we do that now or after the public comment phase. I might have to have some legal give me a little bit of direction but I would think that we'd have to have a motion from four on this committee from somebody and a second to even enter into discussion and then we can have discussion prior to that if the motion didn't pass I don't know that public comment would make any difference at all So I thought maybe legal could tell me which direction to go in as far as having public comment first. But I think I don't have anything as far as what's on the table. So I'll recognize Judge Executive at this point and we'll go from there. and if legal is in the building maybe they'll send somebody down for me thank you one thing I wanted to do is to ask Susan Jones maybe to come up here and join me because she's part of my presentation and if she has some papers that she needs to have placed up there then you may hand it to the person your left before you no no you may hand the person behind you papers that might have to go up and you can sit by me and you've got three minutes if you're presenting part of my presentation he's part of your presentation then she she should do it I just want her to sit here if she wouldn't mind is that okay or not she'll be presenting okay well not at this moment yeah okay thank you Chris and the staff and the mpo members thank you for indulging me in this kind of rogue venture here i don't ask much of the mpo and i don't say a lot at the mpo meetings i'm still kind of green i've been here for eight months and i did attend a few last year including the one where it did get approved but it was approved in a different manner than with wholehearted approval So we usually don't have a lot of conflict or controversy, and this meeting is usually about an hour left, so I apologize for that because it's way over an hour at this point. This is one policy that is or has been controversial. I've had tons of people call me, what can you do, what can you do about this? The MPO members are accustomed to agreeing with the staff and those in charge of the roads ask a few questions and usually things move along smoothly. But I want to say that this issue deserves utmost attention to the detail with a very, very keen sense as to the potential outcome. Please bear in mind this RCUT project could be a disaster waiting to happen and the people in Frankfurt or 99% of those who worked on this will never have the opportunity to probably even travel in this area. And I think some of you all might, Chuck Ellinger will, probably on a bicycle. But most of you all aren't probably in this area for the most part. First of all, I wanted to recognize, have the people who are here, who support changing this, please stand briefly in the audience. And I think some people have left, but I do have people here that are here because of this particular situation. So thank you for indulging me and revisiting this issue. I do have something that I would like to talk from, and you all have a copy of it in front of you, but I wanted to go over the history, and I'm sorry the Greens aren't here. They were planning to, but Linda did have, Linda Green has an appointment, a doctor's appointment, and I was hopeful. Okay, this one? Okay, thank you. I was hopeful that they would be able to come, and I don't think they have. So the initial thing that happened was that Dennis Anderson told the Green, Dennis Anderson's a local developer, he told the Green family of 4485 Old Richmond Road about this project. That's how they learned about it. Beverly White Cox and Mary Lena White, and Beverly's husband is here, Doug, at 3515 Richmond Road learned about the project in the newspaper, like in an article in the newspaper. Neither of these were initially given any notice by any authorities. Gloria Martin and I met with Clay and Linda and Curtis Green about what Dennis had said, and we thought, this just can't be, this has to be crazy. I got a letter about the plan, and I live 4.2 miles, basically, from where, well, the intersection at Jacobson Park. I found out that nobody else in my neighborhood, they're like, what are you talking about? Nobody received these letters. Let me interrupt you just a minute because I'm not sure what our policy and procedures are. Usually it's a five minutes is all a committee. When we're on council, we only have five minutes to present or make a motion. And your time is going over that five minutes. So that's why I called law to determine whether this committee is under the rules and procedures of the council or the city, because I'm just not sure. Okay, I was told I could make my presentation. Pardon? So, Mr. Chair, the MPO is independent of the city in that respect. And so it's really up to the policy committee as far as the amount of time you wish to provide. Well, when you say policy committee, you say in this committee? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay, I'm going to allow you three more minutes in your presentation. And does the lady there have a presentation? She does. She will be given three minutes also. Okay. Okay, so long story short then, we visited, I got in touch with the people at the state. We visited with them. They came out, they looked at different things, but the state is supposedly required to give a hearing for people or a voice or a presentation to people in the area. And they did have eight meetings, but those did not include Old Richmond Road people. We had our own meeting. We did have David Lee come out and talk to that, but it was difficult for people to see and hear. It was a very small screen on which he showed everything. And so we've worked with him. We had him come out to Austin Kerr's farm and showed him various vehicles and things that would be adversely affected by this situation. So let me see if I can move on here. The MPO about the ARCUT, the $8 million grant was enticing. It's always great to say, here's $8 million, but it could have been just as well that you didn't have that. There is some part of that funding that also will be incumbent on the city government to utilize. So basically, we're going to say we were not notified by the authorities. It was kind of a blind side when the motion was made for this plan back last year. Gloria Martin made the motion and she made it with a caveat that we don't want to lose the money, but we would like to revise the plan. So we started working with Stan Lee, or we tried to work with, I mean, David Lee. And basically he just shut us off. He said, no, what you want to do is not what, it's too big of a change. And so the MPO review, we had an MPO review of this body, which happens every four years, and we had lots of people speaking out against that. We had lots of people writing letters. I have a pile of letters here that includes 27 different letters. I think my husband said Nick Vale, I don't think is in here, but he sent these to me. So that is kind of the scoop on that. We had people come to a Zoom meeting and two Zoom meetings and an in-person meeting. We had one owner objector in the first Zoom meeting, nine RCUT objectors in that meeting, one owner objector to the RCUT. At the second Zoom meeting, over 13 more people objecting. And in the in-person at the library, 12 attended, two affected property owners were included, and 10 Old Richmond Road area objectors. So the basic gist is that we have had a lot of objections, but that isn't the place where you can actually make any change. So we asked if we could make some change here because so many people had been against it. and I would like Susan Jones, I will come back to the rest of mine, but I'd like Susan to speak. She is a lawyer in town, and she has some technical comments about all of this situation. And I do want to verify, Mr. Brown, that my speech here just about the accidents in conjunction with Ms. Hannah's does not diminish my three minutes that I can speak independently about my concerns, correct? because she's asked me here to speak about the accident reports relevant to these intersections. These are not my personal comments. This is my portion of her presentation, basically, that talks about the accident history. Well, her three minutes is up, and you have three minutes to whatever presentation that you do, and then we'll turn it over to see if the council has any comments or any motions. And this is exactly what happens to the people who are against something. Could I please get us to waive the three-minute rule? This is what happens to these people. Her presentation is three minutes. She's not under public comment. She's under presentation from the judge as part of her presentation. If she wants to do public comment, then she has to step away, and I think I have her on the list here. It'll be up to you. You want to do a presentation for three minutes? That doesn't mean you can't still have public comment. That was my question. So if I give this presentation, I still get my three minutes of public comment. Yes, ma'am. That is what I was asking. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Go ahead. So, well, I've got three minutes here. But as far as the accidents go and the information that Mr. Avila provided today, I do dispute the accident totals because I looked at information. Mr. Avila provided me with an email last week on August 18th, and then he directed me to a crash site website that the state has. And I looked at accidents at Ellerslie, Old Richard Road, and Hayes Boulevard, because that's where you're proposing to put the R cuts. In those intersections, there's a total of between 295 and 300 accidents. Using Mr. Avila's, it's 300 accidents. Using what I found, it's 295 accidents. Not 576, which was in the original NPO report. And today, now they're saying there's 770 accidents. But no, in the intersections affected by RCUTs, it's a total of 300 accidents tops. And in those intersections, the intersections that are being affected by these RCUTs and this tremendous amount of money that's being spent for RCUTs. At Ellerslie, there were zero fatal accidents in an eight-year period. That's from January 1 to December 31, 2022. That's an eight-year time frame. There were zero fatal accidents. There were two injury accidents and a total of only 24 accidents in an eight-year time frame. At Old Richmond Road, which is being proposed to shut down, it's been signalized, etc., there were zero fatalities during that eight-year time frame. There were four serious injury accidents, and that was it. And, of course, we acknowledge that four serious injury accidents shouldn't happen, but that's over an eight-year time frame. And at Hayes Boulevard, I don't have all of the detail there, because I'd requested that from Mr. Avila, But that was this morning, and I know he didn't have the chance to give me the full detail. There were two fatal accidents at Hayes Boulevard, one in 2016 and one in 2018. But as far as the accidents go in this corridor, the high accident intersections are New Circle and Richmond Road, which has 1,235 accidents during the same time frame. which has 1,136 accidents during the same time frame. Those intersections aren't even being addressed, but you're being asked to spend $9 million to fix 300 accidents over an eight year period, of which there have been only two fatal accidents and four serious accidents between Old Richmond Road and Hayes Boulevard. like I said, only two injury accidents at Ellerslie. And we believe that this is overreaching. I'll explain in my comments later about why the RCuts are inappropriate here, but thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I would like to say the basic gist of our problem is the taking of the land of- Just a minute. I haven't recognized you. Sorry. Judge, you had your presentation of three minutes, and this lady had her presentation that piggybacked onto yours. I'll entertain a motion from any committee member at this time before we can go on. As Robert's Rules of Order, we have to have a motion in a second before we can even discuss anything further. So that's where we stand right now. Committee member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Is this on the agenda right now? So this topic is on the agenda? This is on the agenda for a discussion. So now you can choose to direct staff to begin a process, and that can be done through a motion, second, majority vote. I'm sorry, I didn't say that again, I'm sorry. So you can direct staff, you always have this option, to begin a process. In this case, it would be to begin a process to amend the transportation improvement program. Now, we would have to have a motion second majority vote to be able to do that. And so that's what has been requested, or at least we have been requested to have the conversation. I believe if Judge Hannah wishes to have that move forward, She probably needs to make that motion at this time. Okay, I'm afraid this is going to take a while, and I'm not sure if we're going to be able to have a quorum, because I know I have to leave at some point, and I want to stay for this discussion. I don't know if we should put this at the top of our next agenda and discuss it. So what would happen at our next agenda is that we would actually have a formal action item. If you direct us to begin this process, we would actually have a formal action item, and formal public hearing at the next meeting on this particular topic. I think this one has been pretty controversial that we probably need to have that, in my opinion. So I will make that motion that we put this as an action item for our next meeting. So moved. Do I have a second? We have a second. Okay, so I'm just clarifying here. The motion is for the MPO staff to begin a process to amend the transportation improvement program to remove the Richmond, Rd, Athens, Spoonsboro, H-Cit project from the tip. I don't think that was my motion. My motion was to put this on to. Just for discussion. Just for further discussion. Okay. Yes. Okay. That clarified the motion that you wanted just this to start where we're leaving off here because we may not have a And we may not have the time element because we still want to hear from the public and we want to hear from council members. So your motion is just to put it on as a discussion item, first item. And is that okay with the second? Can I make a comment on the motion? Yes, a lot of people came here today to speak to this, so I'm not in favor of postponing this any longer. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments from committee members? Could we go with what Mr. Ellinger said, but allow the public to do their speaking today that are here and continue it at the next meeting as well? Is that an option to let them be able to speak? I think if once we lose a quorum, the meeting is officially adjourned at that point. Have we lost a quorum now, or we're about ready to? Well, I think Mr. has mentioned that. Just to answer your question, Judge, you're saying let everybody do the public comment today, and let everybody do the public comment at the next meeting also? That would be- Well, that's kind of redundant to this committee. Well, not the same, you know. But we have a motion on the floor, we have a second. Any other comments or discussion about the motion? Okay, I'll call. Sorry. We have to have eight members present. We're good. We're good. Yeah. Yes. Council Member Brown. I have a few questions, but they're not necessarily to the motion. And I guess I'll ask them because they may be pertinent. So we had public comment on the agenda, and it was just for the presentation. Is that correct? Actually, this was part of our general call for public comment, which could be for any item of business. All right. That was one question, and I guess that matters since it's not for this particular agenda item. My next question is the majority to reconsider that motion. Is it a majority of this committee or the majority of the quorum that's present? It's the majority of the quorum that is present. Okay. And then to reconsider the item, can this committee reconsider any item that is approved in the past, or do you have to be a member of the prevalent side that voted in support of it to ask this committee to reconsider? So, we would, well, first of all, we have certain things we have to perform under the federal program before you can act. So we would need some direction from the policy committee telling us to start that process. So we have to do a public involvement process, we have to do a staff report, a staff review, our TTCC has to do their review as well. And since we have an approval from you previously, we have to assume that that's your will unless you tell us you want to do something different. All right. So I'm going to support the motion to put this on the agenda at the next meeting. But while we still have quorum, I would like to hear from the representatives from the state that are in charge and working on this project and get their perspective on some of the things that we've heard today. Okay. Thank you, Chair. I believe Mike Vaughn, the project lead, is here today that can answer probably some of those questions. You have specific questions? No, I just wanted to summarize what's been going on with the project and where they're at and what they would recommend. But we can address that after the motion comes forward. Yeah, I don't know that that's pertinent to the motion, but it may be legally. I'm not sure. But anyway, any other questions on the motion? And Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. So what we're considering is no action by the staff in the interim, but to move this conversation to the top of the agenda for our next meeting. Is that my understanding? Yes, it would be for presentation, again, just to move it up. because of the time and maybe losing a quorum. Yes. So I don't know if this pertains to the motion, but sorry, Vice Chair. But how many are leaving? How many do we know that for a fact we're going to lose quorum? That's not pertinent to the motion. We need what we've got now. I mean, we've got a quorum right now. The motion's on the floor. We've had a second. if there's any other questions about the motion then go ahead so the question to my understanding the motion is stay it again okay all right so this would basically um add an agenda item for further discussion at our our October 25th meeting. But that's contingent upon us losing a quorum. No. So no matter what, the motion is to put this on the agenda for the next meeting. For discussion. For discussion. For discussion. And not make a decision today. That's correct. Vice Mayor, you got another comment? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify that whether or not we move this conversation to the next meeting, do we honor the public comment that's scheduled for today? Because that can be relevant to any presentations given. So even if we continue this conversation to this next meeting, are we not still obligated to hear public comment in this session? Give me some legal advice. Thank you, Michael. Do you all have an agenda item for public comment? Yes. Yes. And is the concern that you all may lose quorum at some point during this meeting? Yes. Because if you lose quorum, then technically you can't act. And so then the meeting is effectively adjourned for lack of quorum. Which means if you don't have quorum to meet, what is the public comment being directed toward? May I make a comment? So oftentimes in meetings we listen to public comment and we do not always have quorum because public comment just on the agenda is not for action, it's for listening. So if we're just listening to public comment, no matter what it's about, it doesn't matter if we have a quorum or not because we're not making a motion. But if you're receiving public comment as an agenda item for the committee and the committee has effectively adjourned. I mean, I'm not saying you can't, if any member of this committee wants to hang around and speak to the public, they can, but as a board, you all are effectively adjourned if you lose quorum. So the public comment is just in a vacuum, essentially. Chair, can I follow up with Michael? Yes, go ahead, Vice Mayor. Okay, so I guess my question again is, regardless of what this vote on this motion is, if we vote to continue this conversation next time or if we continue, you know, just have this conversation today, we will still be having public comment because it is on our agenda? You all would proceed with your agenda until you lose quorum. So whatever you all want to do in terms of your agenda, moving things around or whatever, you all can do that in terms of your agenda. But once you lose quorum, the meeting ends, essentially, because you as a body have adjourned for a lack of quorum. We've got public comment in two places on the agenda, so there's no problem. Public comment will be made in one form or another. but it doesn't affect this motion I don't think. Right but public comment will happen today at this meeting. It's on the agenda here I'm going to follow the agenda as long as I have a quorum. Gotcha thank you chair. Okay we've got a call for question. Vote all those in favor of making this discussion as our first item for our October meeting signify by raising your hand. One, two, three, four, six, five, six. Those opposed? One, two, three, four, five. The motion is passed. Six to five. we'll go on further with the agenda I've got a call for general public comments and I think this is our next agenda item so I'm going to recognize or actually allow the individuals here to enter into the public comment area and I've got about seven so we're talking 20 30 minutes more for those who are worried about their time or being able to make the quorum. So we'll, as far as what's on the agenda here, we have general public comments, and we'll take James Hodge first, and Mr. Hodge, you'll have three minutes, and Charles Martin, well, here's another one, will be up after Mr. Hodge, and then Susan Jones. In that order, please. We got, you keeping the time over there? Can Mr. Martin yield his minutes to me, Mr. Chairman? Okay, that'll be fine. You have six minutes. As you know, I don't talk very fast. Okay, and we've got a timer. Somebody's timing, I think. Are we timing it? Okay. All right, you're on. And I apologize for any redundancy that may occur in October. My name is James Hodge. I live at 6050 Old Richmond Road, which is where I've lived with my wife, Mary Ann Delaney, who was commissioner of law for over 25 years here, and I was commissioner of law before her. But the point of all that is, is living out there all that time, we've always worked downtown. So we've basically come to town for like six days a week for 40 years or something and gone through this intersection. And what I'm going to tell you is strictly anecdotal, and I acknowledge that. But during this time period, Dee Dee and I have been rear-ended on Richmond Road five times. Five times. The last time, my car was still in the body shop because they discovered more damage than they thought they did. And when the lady hit me, it knocked one of my hearing aids out of my ear. But I'm here talking to you. The point is that of these five times we've been rear-ended on Richmond Road, and the first time I got rear-ended on Richmond Road, it totaled my car because it hit me and it knocked me in. And I was sitting still all these times. Hit me, knocked me into the car in front of me, and the poor old guy in front of me was already going to the hospital because he had back problems. But in any event, the point is of these five times we've been rear-ended on Richmond Road, None of them were in this segment that we're talking about here today. They're in the segment where the other lady just talked about. They're either close to or at the intersection of New Circle Road and Richmond Road or Man of War and Richmond Road. And in addition to the five times I've been rear-ended, I've basically managed to avoid getting hit one more time because I swerved through three other cars that ran into one another. And the hood of one car went way up in the air and about came down on my car when I came through. So we would ask you to give close attention and support the will of the people out here and spend our money on the portion of the road that really needs to be addressed because of the volume of the accidents at those parts of the road. rather on this part, which may or may not, and reasonable people can differ on this, but may or may not have something to do with the proposed development process that's on the table and at some point will come back to one or more of you all. So in the interest of moving along, I will end with that and just ask you to seriously consider amending the plan and to remove this project from the plan at your first available opportunity. And I understand your next meeting, Mr. Chair, is in October. You know, on the list here, on the bottom of our agenda, it's September the 30th. Right, that's a special called meeting for one item that we will be addressing. Our next one will be October the 25th? That is correct. Okay. So anybody interested in this issue needs to come in October, correct? Yes, sir. All right, thank you all very much. Okay, who was next? Susan Jones, was that my next? Susan, and then I have Elisa. No. You'll be after Susan. Go ahead. My name is Susan Jones. I live at 5153 Shepherd Lane. We have been there over 20 years, and, of course, many of the people here have lived there longer than I have. I know three minutes is not enough time for me to convey to you all of my concerns. I have a letter, and I've got 15 copies, and I would ask that it be distributed and ask that you read the letter before you vote on the motion to rescind, which I fully support. To get right to the matter, RCUTs are not accurate for what's going on here. I have researched RCUTs, and RCUTs are where there are minor roadways intersecting rural highways, low-volume intersections that do not justify signalization. In the Federal Highway Authority memo about RCUTs, it says, For intersections with very high left turn and through volumes from the side road approaches, which is Old Richmond Road, RCUT intersection design is not the optimum choice. And what they're asking you to do is put an RCUT where we already have a signalized intersection. RCUTs have been used in spaces that don't justify signals. RCUTs are a precursor to a signalized intersection. R-cuts are where there are low-volume intersections that don't justify the traffic signal, and then they go ahead and put in those U-turns. Old Richmond Road has been signalized for over 30 years. We have a left turn signal there. We have a high volume of left turns at Old Richmond Road. This is not the proper application for an R-cut. And any statistics contained within MPO, I believe, are for where RCUTs have been properly applied. So they wouldn't even apply. You can't even apply the statistics that they've provided to the intersection at Old Richmond Road because I know for a fact where they installed an RCUT in Georgetown, it was a proper application. That was a subdivision that did not have a traffic light, low traffic volume. They installed the RCUT. That works well. That's not for an intersection like Old Richmond Road with a high traffic volume. What you're going to end up doing is closing down Old Richmond Road and moving backwards because it's already signalized. You're going to be destroying farm property for the Greens, Belmar Farm. You're going to be putting in our cuts in a spot. You're adding five traffic signals actually where there are only two traffic signals. You're going to make the traffic flow worse, and it is a misapplication of RCUTs, especially in accord with the Federal Highway rules on this. And again, my letter has a whole lot more information, and I truly ask you to consider it. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Dottie Bean. And then after Dottie, Ms. Bean would be Dave Osborne. I'm sorry I'm sorry I had Lisa I'm sorry Miss Bean I have Lisa first and then Miss Bean. Dr. Lisa Gonneau 7525 Old Richmond Road and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this because I do believe citizens have a right to be heard about this and I was one of the people that didn't get notice about this until Judge hannah told me about this project and i have submitted written comment and i've been to a couple of the meetings regarding this so i do think it's important to be a part of this process it seems to me that there's maybe some accuracy that's lacking in what the information we receive regarding the number of traffic accidents so i have questions about that as mentioned you know there there's a soccer field that's going in down the road and he mentioned there's another place for our cut but you know this hasn't been discussed it's not you know anywhere where we can see this so that hasn't been discussed and you know there's a another development that just got approved for the corner of old richmond road and richmond road so that you know i think that's going to have an impact as well we haven't heard anything about that and i am concerned about the lack of due process for the knowledge that on this project and it's still not clear to me from the presentations i've i've seen about what's going to go on with aphids road versus old richmond road to me when i leave my house and i want to go into downtown i'm going to have to turn right away from town and then get over left and now we're talking about this new project that's going to be on this corner and people you know maybe wanting to turn into their apartments or gas station or whatever and so i've got to get all the way over to the left to turn around and go back downtown so i have a lot of concerns about this um and there's a norm enormous amount of traffic going out of town that way in the afternoons i think it's going to be a really difficult situation So, and right now there's work on the interstate right on 75 there. And so people are cutting through, and I agree, there's a lot of people that are turning left onto Old Richmond Road because it's being used as a cut through now. I think there's a lot of things that haven't been considered. And so as one of those people that kind of came into this game late and didn't know about a lot of this, I'm asking that you amend and remove this project. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Bean? And then Dave Osborne will be next after Ms. Bean. Committee members and others, we want to make a very brief objection on the record to any of your meetings being held on Zoom, accessible only to a few people who have computers and can use them to attend a Zoom meeting. These matters are too important, too complicated, and too expensive for us as taxpayers to let you exclude anyone who does not want to use computer assisted means to talk to our government, state, local, or federal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Bean. Dave Ogbierne. And then Carolyn Boone. And then Mr. Hannah. Good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for your service on the committee. My name is Dave Osborne. I'm the president of the Ellerslie Homeowners Association, and that slide you saw earlier is what we deal with every single day. It's a really difficult challenge. When we talked about the public meetings, they said there was 150 people attended. There was over 100 at the Ellerslie HOA meeting. A couple of the council members were there. We had three council members and Mike Vaughn was there and answered every single question there after the sun went down. So we know exactly what this project's like. When I moved into Ellerslie, the number one concern for my neighbors was getting a traffic light at Ellerslie Park Boulevard and Richmond Road. Then when I started, when I got involved in the HOA, I realized that everybody in that community. Currently today we have 299 families in there. At any given time we have 12 to 15 houses under construction. is under construction when we build out in the next eight to ten years we're gonna have 500 families living in Ellerslie there's one way in and one way out and that was by design based upon people who didn't want Ellerslie to be built in the beginning I didn't live there then I didn't go through it I deal with it now so my next door neighbor has two daughters a 12 and a 14 year old and he told me he will move leave Ellerslie if we don't get a light because he's not going to teach teach his children how to negotiate that NASCAR-esque intersection. And if you all from the committee, if you have not gone out there in the morning or the evening and tried to get in or out of Ellerslie during rush hour, you need to experience it. You really need to experience it. I've been to anti-terrorist evasive driving school in the military. It puts me to the test getting it out of there. I've worked very closely with KYTC. I've worked with the council. I think this is the right thing to do because we're going to save people's lives, bottom line. Thank you. Thank you, sir. My name is Caroline, people call me Cavie Boone. I live at 1111 Walnut Hill Road. I've been out there since 1981. Aphids was a country road when we moved out. We asked for it to be not paved and it was. The big story I have is the neighbors really were not informed about this. I called Vulcan Materials yesterday. They're one of the huge quarries out. They knew nothing about it. They have 40 to 50 trucks, 80,000 ton trucks that drive down Richmond Road, Old Richmond Road every day. There is no way they can come to the light and make a U-turn. One, it would be dangerous, it would be very slow, it would be very slowing of the traffic. it would be as some people use a shifting of the road as they make the turn. I don't know the technologies of that, but I do think that more information needs to be out there. I understand coming from town to go out, it might be faster, but there are more people that you realize coming in off the tributary roads to Walnut Hill, from Walnut Hill, Richon Road, DeLong, Hayes Boulevard, all those people feed into there. So I really think this project is not a good design for what it's supposed to do, and I think it should be really reconsidered. That's all. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Hanna? Hey, I'm Lyle Hanna. I've spoken to you all before. I appreciate you letting me speak up. I appreciate all the work time you put into this. Fred, it is unfortunate that the chairman walked out and left you with this bear, okay? But you know what? He had given us every indication that the judge was going to be able to speak about a whole variety of things. So she had quite a report that she prepared, not knowing that you were going to put a five-minute limit on her. That's all of a sudden. That was not part of the plan. We were communicated differently about that, so that's too bad. That's why a lot of us are having to step in and say stuff. But I just want to add a few things because we had a lot more information to share with you. I'm glad we're going to do another meeting. I'm sorry it's delayed so long. But the situation is far more complex than just the arc cuts, okay, because of this development that's being approved. It complicates the thing tremendously. You understand Richmond Road goes away. It won't exit straight out onto Old Richmond Road. The end of it goes away. It's being given to the developer. Now we're going to have to swing around and do some other things. But I live four and a half miles out that road, and some days I can't pull out. I have to wait and gun it to get across there. So kind of like what he's talking about. We've got a lot more traffic out there than we used to have, but we need a thoughtful process. Because, Fred, this isn't the first time this group has been told, okay, you only got three minutes, and then you don't even get to talk. Like when the meeting happened in the library, the library closed on us. So in the last 30 minutes, they kept interrupting every speaker. So people didn't get to speak. When we came for another meeting recently, we had so many people that put us out in the hall, we couldn't even hear what was going on. So that was a different issue than this. I get it. But it had something to do with the R cuts. They are all closely tied together, and you really need to get the whole big picture to be able to understand why we're so opposed to this thing. Because there's so much of it that's being rammed down our throats without much opportunity to really understand. Now, you think you've explained it to everybody, and we realize you've tried, but it hadn't worked. If you said you put out 4,000 letters, but none of us out on Old Richon Road or all those citizens out there on all the streets got any letters, We know they didn't get them because we've talked to them all. They must have gone to people in town or somewhere, like 4,000 letters. I can't imagine. So there's just a lot of things that don't make any sense and a lot of communication that's been rammed, hurried, and so forth. I've got 49 seconds, but I'm going to give you back 45, okay? Thank you all very much. We appreciate your chance to talk to you about this one more time. Thank you. And we appreciate you giving it serious consideration. Well, I think it's not our intent or this government's intent to quash any type of conversation or presentation. Just trying to meet the level of what we can as a committee. I know for a fact that we've had this discussion, we've had public comments, we've had homeowners association meetings. There's been a lot of activity and meetings related to this particular subject. Now, have we covered at all? Obviously, some people think we haven't gotten the information out. Now, this, by us delaying this and having this discussion in October, it just gives furtherance to the fact that people will be able to come back down and speak again and get the information out there. So I think this government and this committee has done its due diligence there. Moving on on the agenda, we have any old business to discuss from anybody? Okay, none, seeing none, any new business? Just want to mention that we are going to need to have a special called policy committee meeting on September 20th. Yeah, I've got that as the next item. That's a Wednesday. It's basically to begin a conversation about our metropolitan transportation plan and goals and objectives for that plan. Okay, that's the next meeting date. Okay, entertain a motion under adjourn. So moved. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.