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.

I Recommend You Hike the Path of the Meadow Creek Parkway

Although I have been involved in issues surrounding the proposal to build a parkway through McIntire Park in Charlottesville and land in Albemarle County between Melbourne Road East of Charlottesville High School (CHS) athletic fields and Rio Road east of CATEC (Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center) I had never explored the wooded area in Albemarle that will be the path of the roadway. So, I went on a brief hike with a friend along the Rivanna Trail from Melbourne Road to the point where the parkway would cross Meadow Creek and marveled at the size of some of the trees and beauty of the area just a short walk from the City/County line on Melbourne Road.

Here is a view across the roadway alignment. This area will be totally bulldozed to cut material (and the trees) from just behind the CHS baseball field and fill as far as 115 feet or so distance from the field to create a 2:1 slope and accommodating the Meadow Creek Parkway 10 to 20 feet above the current land elevation. It appears that every living thing in this 115 foot wide zone will be replace by grasses suitable for growing on these relatively steep slopes.


Below is a photograph of a particularly nice spot where the current Rivanna Trail travels along Meadow Creek a bit further north from the photo above. I definitely plan to visit this spot again on one of the hot summer days ahead where I expect the temperature will be dramatically lower than most everywhere else in Charlottesville.


And here is the double culvert that passes under the Norfolk & Southern Rail Line that accommodates Meadow Creek. A bridge is proposed to cross Meadow Creek about one hundred feet from where this photo was taken.


It was not possible to continue further north along the proposed parkway alignment without going through a working cattle farm. But, I highly recommend you find an opportunity to do the short hike along this section of the Rivanna Trail and see what will be lost if the Meadow Creek Parkway is constructed. The loss in tree cover alone will be very hard to replace in our region. I am not sure how we will ever meet our regional goal of expanding tree cover and meeting the challenges of climate change. Removing tree cover (that will sequester greenhouse gases) and replacing it with a parkway (that will increase emission of greenhouse gases) is not at all consistent with being the sustainable community we have committed to as a region.

Our transportation planners and government officials need to hear from you about this project - for or against. We will clearly be giving up significant resources to build this parkway. I don't see that the benefits (if any) that are projected from the parkway justify use of these resources and many millions of dollars in construction expenditure. Exactly what is the benefit of adding an additional 20,000 vehicles each day traveling this route and adding to the congestion already occurring where the parkway projects will meet Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road. I am still looking for a simple cost-benefit justification of the parkway project. I do not know of one ever being provided for the public to review.

I have heard of the 'power tie' - but now here is the Power Dress

I came across this Power Dress article in the current issue of my May/June 2008 MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Alumni Magazine - Technology Review (also available as a subscription journal if you are interested). In Charlottesville, perhaps we all will soon be wearing some version of this rather intriguing garment at Fridays After Five or while visiting art galleries on First Friday. Brown is not my fashion color choice, but this dress is 'green' even though it is brown. I guess that I am more active than the average person in Charlottesville, and could generate a fair bit of energy if I had perhaps some power clothes. I don't carry a cell phone or MP3 player, but perhaps I could transfer my generated power to a home appliance or power an LED flashlight while walking at night in our Charlottesville neighborhoods with less than adequate lighting. Let me know what you might do if you had some power clothes to wear around town. If we have to wear clothes, why not get some electronic benefits, too. Of course this will only change that age-old question of 'what to wear' to 'watts to wear' or something like that.

Below is the complete news article from the May/June issue of Technology Review for the education and amusement of kleemanblog readers. Enjoy.

Power Dressing

"An MIT-designed outfit modeled by grad student Heather Knight at the Seamless: Computational Couture fashion show at Boston's Museum of Science in Janu­ary captures and stores energy generated by natural body movements. The dress's designers, Media Lab grad students Amanda Parkes and Adam Kumpf, stitched thin strips of piezoelectric film onto the garment near the elbow and hip joints; they also sewed on buttonlike piezoelectric coins at strategic spots. With a positive charge on one side and a negative charge on the other, the piezoelectric material creates a voltage when it moves or is bent or twisted. A rectifier circuit connects the strips and coins to capacitors, which store electrical charge and are wired to a central coin near the wearer's belly button--or what Parkes calls "the point of life of the dress." Parkes is now optimizing the design so that one day, wearers will be able to power their cell phones, MP3 players, and other portable devices by plugging them into the central coin."

Travel the World at Saturday's Festival of Cultures

I hope you all will consider visiting the Festival of Cultures at Lee Park in Charlottesville on Saturday May 10, 2008. I attended this event the last two years and enjoyed it greatly. This year I will be participating along with the Albemarle Morris Men as part of the international dancing schedule (we or other morris dancers will be performing at 10:00 am and at 3:00 pm).

If you are not familiar with what is scheduled, here is a bit of information from their newsletter I received and was encouraged to share.


Charlottesville Festival of Cultures Coming Up on May 10 - The Charlottesville Festival of Cultures marks its 5th year celebrating diversity in the community on Saturday, May 10, 2008 from 10 am – 4 pm with cultural exhibits, live dance and music performances, vendors, crafts for kids, and delicious ethnic foods. The Festival takes place in Lee Park, on the corner of Market St. and Second St. NE. Don’t miss this chance to travel the world without leaving downtown.

You can visit the festival website for more information.

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.

Charlottesville City Council Moves Parkway Easement Forward

The Charlottesville City Council moved and seconded the draft ordinance below at the first reading on May 5, 2008 to grant an easement for construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway (State Project 0631-002-128). After some discussion an ordinance roughly as provided below will be presented to council on June 2, 2008 for a second reading and council action.

I am curious to see the impact of the conditions relating to timing of the three closely related projects - Meadow Creek Parkway, McIntire Road Extended, and the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road. These conditions are in addition to conditions already put on these projects by city council when conditionally granting an easement for construction of the McIntire Road Extended. Although there are so many interrelationships of these projects and conditions connecting them, the project are still officially being pursued as totally independent projects. Yes, it doesn't make sense to me either. But, Councilor Satyendra Huja did express interest in combining the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Byapss at McIntire Road projects to avoid disconnects in planning the two projects independenty. I fully support combining all three projects, but that, I assume, would be beyond council's power.

Now that a public hearing on this matter was held, any comments you wish to provide on the granting of this easement should be addressed to city council by letter, phone, or by email. Mayor Dave Norris indicated that he will be voting against granting this easement. Perhaps other councilors still have open minds on the matter. Much can happen in the next four weeks.

General form of the ordinance being considered for June 2, 2008 by city council.....

AN ORDINANCE
GRANTING PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS
ACROSS CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY (MELBOURNE ROAD AREA)
TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (VDOT)
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY.

WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), has asked the City of Charlottesville to grant permanent and temporary easements across City-owned property on or near Melbourne Road in the County of Albemarle (Tax Map 61, Parcel 193), described as follows:

(i) Permanent easement of approximately 1.796 acres for road right-of-way;

(ii) Permanent easement of approximately 2.561 acres for drainage, stormwater management and slopes;

(iii) Approximately 0.504 acres for utility easements; and

(iv) Temporary construction easement of approximately 3.722 acres to facilitate construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway and a public walking trail; and shown on the attached highway plan sheets for VDOT Project No. 0631-002-128, C502,

WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code '15.2-1800(B), a public hearing was held to give the public an opportunity to comment on the conveyance of this easement; and

WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the request and have no objection to the conveyance of said easements to VDOT; and

WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City School Board has considered the proposed conveyances and by Resolution adopted on May 1, 2008 expressed their consent to the granting of the easements, subject to certain conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute one or more Deeds of Easement and such other documents as may be requested by VDOT, in form approved by the City Attorney, to convey the above-described easements to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of Transportation.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Council’s consent to the conveyances of easements as described herein is contingent on the following conditions:

(1) that no part of the Meadow Creek Parkway project (i.e., the Albemarle County Meadow Creek Parkway section, the City McIntire Road Extended section, or the Interchange/Intersection project at the 250 Bypass and McIntire) will be open for public use until the entire project is complete and ready for opening;

(2) that safe and efficient means of passage for bicycles and pedestrians will be created and maintained at the intersection of the Parkway and Melbourne Road, as well as around Charlottesville High School property generally and around CATEC property (At a minimum there will be, well-marked crosswalks with pedestrian-activated, timed crossing lights at the Melbourne intersection and the entrance to CATEC);

(3) that appropriate landscaping and planting will be done to screen the Parkway from the playing fields;

(4) that the speed limit will be 25 miles per hour on the Parkway approaching the intersection in both directions at Melbourne Road and approaching in both directions the entrance to CATEC, marked by standard school zone signs with flashing lights; and,

(5) that the deed of easement conveying the permanent easement for construction of the road right-of-way will specifically provide that the duly constituted authorities of the City of Charlottesville shall have and retain exclusive control, jurisdiction and dominion over the intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway / McIntire Road Extended and Melbourne Road for purposes of maintenance and the control and regulation of motor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

[The following expectations were added by council at its first reading from the City School Board resolution of May 1, 2008. The wording in the presented ordinance may be different from this text]

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board’s city council consents to the conveyances as described herein is with the further expectations that:

(1) if other practicable pedestrian-bicycle connections are identified, the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and VDOT will earnestly commit to working together to secure funds as required either through VDOT contingencies, state “enhancement grants,” and/or other local public (and private) sources as necessary;

(2) suitable replacement athletic field space will be created and made available to meet the needs of Charlottesville High School athletic programs or suitable existing athletic field space will be made available;

(3) truck traffic will be prohibited along the entire length of the Parkway;

(4) public transportation opportunities and/or carpooling will be encouraged to thereby cut down on the number of vehicles using the Parkway;

(5) the replacement park land being acquired for the City, as part of the Meadow Creek Parkway project, and the land designated for the linear park on land already owned by the City, will be placed in a Conservation Easement or will be otherwise similarly protected against development into the future; and

(6) that ongoing and timely School Board input into the design, location and funding of the intermediate bicycle-pedestrian connection(s) as well as the final design of the intersections of Melbourne Road, Rio Road and the Parkway will be ensured.

School Board fails leadership test - need to get tutorial from Burnley Moran SCA/Leadership students

Eighteen students from the Burnley Moran Elementary School (the Bobcats) presented a series of projects their student council association have undertaken in this school year. One aspect of the presentation was to present what they have been learning about leadership. One student stated that leadership required clear information to be an effective leader. In my opinion, the School Board action to approve granting an easement of school land to build the Meadow Creek Parkway through school property demonstrated that perhaps they need a work session with the Burnley Moran students as much as they needed a work session with the city council to develop a set of clear information upon which to make this decision.

There was an interest among some board members to arrange a work session with council prior to voting, but it seemed the board got wrapped up in parlimentary procedure and felt obliged to vote on the easement resolution before even considering the option of arranging a work session and acquiring clear answers to questions the board felt they needed during the discussion. I was surprised at the lack of information clarity provided by both the city staff and VDOT in responding to direct questions. Here are three examples of particular concern to me:

• Board member Colette Blount inquired about the differences in environmental and historical property consideration between federally funded and state funded projects and asked if the Meadow Creek Parkway project was ever a federally funded project. City staff provided that federal projects would undergo a more stringent review of impacts, but claimed they were not aware of this ever being a federal project. In fact, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project (federal project M-5104(108)) was signed by the Federal Highway Administration on April 13, 1995. Also, a Dec. 22, 1997 letter sent to then mayor Katherine Slaughter discussed the federal role in this project. It is troubling to me that either the city staff did not know details of the history of this project - or that they knew and chose not to answer the direct question from a member of the school board.
  

• Board chair Ned Michie also asked if it were true that the entire linear park including replacement parkland (not land replacing school land, but land in McIntire Park to be used on the McIntire Road Extended project) would be deeded to the city. The response from staff was that it would be deeded to the city. But, in a map posted on the city's website, a large portion of this land is indicated as not becoming public land - only a public easement will be acquired. As I understand it, the land deed will be held by private owners so that they do not lose development rights and the ability to construct more housing units on their property than would be allowed if portions of the land were deeded to the city.
  

• Board member Llezelle Dugger asked directly if in fact the McIntire Road Extended project has been approved for construction and could be build independent of the school board's decision. The answer to this from staff was an unconditional yes. As I understand it, the city council has several conditions yet unsatisfied to be met before council will consider granting right-of-way easement for the road. Council will have to pass a resolution acknowledging that the conditions have been met. City council passed the easment resolution with these conditions at their October 1, 2007 meeting. To my knowledge, no confirmation of these conditions being met or resolutions authorizing construction has yet been even proposed.

I have been following this project since the mid 1990's and have seen many of these documents in the city's files. Perhaps it is time to have our city staff involved in this issue reacquaint themselves with the history of this project and review their files. Then they can actually provide credible answers to direct questions from elected officials making critical decisions such as the one taken by the school board on May 1, 2008.

I believe the school board, the city staff and VDOT staff all jcould have done a much better job in considering this action. I hope the staff at Burnley Moran will consider this issue as a case example of what can happen when decision makers fail to demand that clear information be available before acting. Go Bobcats.

Graphic Source: Burnley Moran school website.