When will these storm drains be cleared?

The two storm drains on Fourth Street N.E. between High Street and Hedge Street had silt barriers installed many months ago to keep soil eroded from the Juvenile and Domestic Court renovation from adding to the silt burden in the storm water system. There is so much silt collected in one that a good crop of vegetation is growing in it. The other is heavily burdened with sand, gravel, soil, and other material that only a small area is open to receive storm water.

Now that the Juvenile and Domestic Court project is essentially complete (and an opening ceremony held several weeks ago) I am thinking that these drains have been abandoned by whomever was obligated to maintain the drains and the silt barriers. I contacted the city's environmental coordinator who promised to find out who should handle this material last week (and offered to do the job myself if that was necessary). The court project is a city project, and I believe they could easily identify who is responsible for this work. If the city claims to be eco-friendly, they also need to attend to eco-impacts from their projects.

I saw a city street cleaning truck work this block and watched the driver avoid the drains rather than address the situation. I did report the situation via charlottesville.org several days ago and not heard or seen any sort of response. Perhaps I will take action and bundle up the silt baffles, the trapped material and deliver it to someone at the city. Any suggestions as to whom I should bring the collected material?

Proposed Deed of Easement to RWSA in McIntire Park inconsistent with stormwater design for McIntire Road Extended

On May 5, 2008, City Council approved a concept plan for the stormwater management design for the McIntire Road Extended project in McIntire Park. The images below show how the plan is to look to a pedestrian walking along the trail next to the McIntire Road Extended. But, as discussed at City Council last night, a forty foot wide (varies a bit, actually) easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would make many of these trees unplantable. The proposed deed of easement states "that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be located within the Sewer Easement." As pleasant as this artist rendering of the pedestrian experience appears to be, it is a total fiction. Much of the northern portion of the roadside area will be a 2:1 slope that won't support trees, and a forty foot wide swath of land will not allow trees or even shrubs. The ability to plant a vegetative screen of shrubs and trees to protect historic properties impacted by the road is limited especially in the area by the Rock Hill Garden - a property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Tree and shrub screening is one of the suggested mitigation alternatives under consideration as part of the historic preservation (Section 106) consultation currently in progress.

I was disappointed that council moved and seconded an ordinance that would grant this easement to RWSA to bring up a second reading on this ordinance at the next council meeting. It appeared to me that three councilors would prefer to defer consideration of the ordinance until some of the issues presented to council could be investigated and modifications to the easement ordinance and deed could be worked out with RWSA and possibly others. But, it only takes two of five council members to move this item to a second reading.

I am curious to know what forces are pushing this project forward in spite of potentially serious defects in the planning process, the plans distributed to various agencies and jurisdictions by VDOT, and images being presented to the public. I will encourage city council members not to approve this requested action, but rather take a comprehensive look at the interrelationships among the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road and McIntire Road Extended projects. There are currently at least two different sets of plans being circulated to key stakeholder groups. Shouldn't decisions be made using a common description of the project under consideration.

Very detailed images for both drawings below are available as part of the May 5, 2008 city council agenda - with background posted on the city website. But, I think you can imagine that these concept drawings do not relate to the reality of what a pedestrian will experience if city council approves what has been presented to them by the city staff and RWSA.

VDOT is Pushing the Parkway Agenda

I was surprised to read the headline in Rachana Dixit's Oct. 16, 2008 Daily Progress entitled: Parkway plans pass another milestone. Apparently VDOT is eager to get this project moving in spite of the fact that the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project are still in preliminary engineering and as I see it still wrought with potential project design problems, environmental compliance problems, funding considerations, and other potentially project delaying (or termination) requirements.

This action reminds me of the strategy National Football League teams use to avoid reconsideration of a controversial football play call. Teams will hurry to the line of scrimmage and try to get the next play in motion before the play is challenged by the opposing team. Sometimes it works - sometimes not. Unfortunately, we proponents of using our funds for better transportation alternatives can't simply throw a red flag onto the playing field to request a review.

In VDOT's action, they are hoping to maintain that the county project - Meadow Creek Parkway - is totally independent of the city project - McIntire Road Extended. I and others contend that it is essential to consider all three related projects (Meadow Creek Parkway, McIntire Road Extended, and the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road) together for environmental review purposes. It appears that even the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) considers Meadow Creek Parkway and McIntire Road Extended to be one combined project for purposes of determining appropriateness of water quality permit applications for storm water discharge and stream impacting activities of those projects. In fact the USACE is just beginning the process of reviewing impacts of these projects on Nationally Register of Historic Places eligible properties prior to considering signing any required permits. Given that this Historic Property process (known as the Section 106 process) is supposed to be completed prior to selecting a final project design it appears that VDOT's advertisement for bids on a final project is a bit premature.

I do not know what VDOT's rationale for their most recent action is, but perhaps this is going to turn out to be our own local "October Surprise." I am ever optimistic our elected officials will realize that the financial and resource costs to construct this set of road projects is not consistent with our future needs and both Charlottesville and Albemarle will look to fund and construct better public transit solutions to meet our needs of the future - and not build these road projects that may not even have been good solutions to our problems of the past.

Note: Photo from Charlottesville Tomorrow.

As a follow-up to my previous posting - Where will all the flowers grow?, here is the city council approved 1975 Open Space Plan for McIntire Park. Click on the graphic to see it in greater detail. One goal of this plan was to "plant thousands of crocus and daffodil bulbs" in McIntire Park. This is also the plan often cited as justification for constructing a grade-separated interchange and parkway (then called the McIntire Parkway) in the eastern part of the park. It appears that neither the planting of thousands of bulbs or construction of an interchange and parkway or many of the other proposed improvements happened in the life of this plan. It is interesting to note that the proposed McIntire Parkway provided access to the eastern side of McIntire Park where many recreation opportunities were proposed - unlike recent McIntire Road Extended plans that simply cross through the park from Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Road - and in plans dated May 2008, McIntire Road Extended plan starts in the park about 775 feet north of Melbourne Road.

Perhaps some bulbs were planted in McIntire Park in the late 1970s after city council approved this plan. Council did pass a request that a parkway (without an interchange) be planned by VDOT in 1978. Many plans for McIntire Park and a parkway through the park have apparently come and gone since this 1975 open space plan. Interestingly, little discussion about the eastern side of McIntire Park 0ccurred during presentation of recent McIntire Park Master Plan activities at the May 19, 2008 city council meeting.

Council has scheduled a work session in June to discuss the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road and its relationship to what is still officially considered the independent roadway project called the McIntire Road Extended. Yes, if you question (as I and many others do) how these two projects can be considered independent by our transportation planners, you are invited to join the conversation. The public will not be able to speak at the upcoming (I believe June 4) worksession, but you can attend and listen and provide your feedback to councilors by phone, email, letter, and at future council meetings. I hope you will join in this important discussion about the future of McIntire Park and vehicular transportation in greater Charlottesville.

McIntire Road Extended plan no longer even connects at McIntire Road!

As part of the storm water plan, new VDOT plans for McIntire Road Extended were developed. Now, however, the starting point for this roadway through McIntire Park is about 775 feet north of the Route 250 Bypass. McIntire Road Extended is no longer an extension of McIntire Road but a bit of a road to nowhere.

VDOT, and City and County transportation planners consider McIntire Road Extended, the Meadow Creek Parkway and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road to be independent projects - each having independent utility (would make transportation sense if built independent of other transportation projects). This no longer appears to be true. Building the current McIntire Road Extended project without the southernmost 775 feet of road makes no sense.

The plan illustrated above shows Route 250 Bypass, the first section of McIntire Road Extended (it extends for about 2100 feet north to Melbourne Road), and the multi-use trail in blue. The pink areas are land that will be bulldozed to contour the land to accommodate the roadway and provide maintainable slopes (typically 2:1 slope). The storm water improvement is highlighted in yellow. Continuing to claim that this project is independent of the interchange project is ridiculous.

The removed 775 feet of roadway is roughly one-fourth of the length of McIntire Road Extended which from a funding point of view results in a substantial decrease in project cost for this project. I wonder if this is a way of allowing the McIntire Road Extended project to remain fully funded using only state and local funds while the cost of the missing piece is now paid through the interchange project that is a federally funded project. It appears that these two projects are now neither physically nor economically independent.

I and other interested stakeholders have long argued that the interchange and the road need to be studied as one integrated project. With the new plan shown above I can't see how VDOT or the Federal Highway Administration can continue claiming these to be independent. Now is the time to combine the projects and follow the complete Federal-aid Highway process for project development and environmental review. Only then can we in the greater Charlottesville area clearly determine if this project is a desired expenditure of our ever more scarce transportation dollars than investments in transit and other modes of travel.

McIntire Road Extended Stormwater Management Concept Approved by Council

On May 5, 2008 city council approved a stormwater management concept for the McIntire Road Extended project that if build would be an approximately one-half mile road through McIntire Park. The concept was presented to council, but the city staff has apparently already developed construction and planting plans for the entire project. These plans, however, were not made available to councilors or the public prior to the council meeting. No, that doesn't make sense to me either.

I have been overlaying various planning plans on a one-inch equals 100 feet base map of McIntire Park. When I overlay the current Route 250 Bypass Intersection at McIntire Road plans on the base map along with the proposed McIntire Road Extended (with at-grade intersection) alignment, they don't line up. In fact, the connection to the McIntire Road Extended alignment from all of the alternative interchange designs appears to travel about 100 feet east of the original McIntire Road Extended alignment. Due to the large foot-print of the interchange designs, they apparently need to have the ramps, etc. shifted to the east to avoid the Dogwood Viet Nam Memorial in McIntire Park. As I see it, the connecting road to McIntire Road Extended from the interchange, and the multi-use trail both would go through part of the stormwater management area in the concept map. My hunch is that this may also be a conflict in the city staffs stormwater and planting plans, too. City staff stated during the council meeting that this is not the case - but I am curious if they have checked the apparent plan conflicts with each other.

My other observation from the concept stormwater plan is that stormwater from the interchange would be managed in the proposed ponds. I have not seen any consideration of the stormwater from the several acres of interchange land ever considered elsewhere in the park. How independent can the interchange and the roadway be if they require joint stormwater management planning to manage storm flow and to avoid polluting Schenk's Branch with roadway runoff? I was pleased that Councilor Huja agreed with my recommendation that the interchange and the roadway projects in McIntire Park be combined. I will continue to encourage other councilors to see the merits of integrating these projects into one - especially when the southern several hundred feet of roadway throught McIntire Park could be considered part of the interchange project (and paid with federal funds) - or part of the roadway project (and paid with state funds) depending on the ultimate design.

Yes, this project is no less confusing now that new parkway related resolutions are being passed. In fact it may become ever more confusing as more and more conditions are place on each successive resolution.

Graphic source: agenda packet for May 5, 2008 city council meeting.