Summary of Interchange Public Hearing Comments provided to Charlottesville City Council

Below is the summary of comments as provided to Charlottesville City Council by the city staff. the full text of comments are available through the city clerk's or city attorney's office and contains several hundred pages. City Council wisely deferred considering any design approval to allow councilors to actually consider public commentary. Council also is reported as not feeling that pedestrian and bicycle access to East McIntire Park is adequate - especially given that providing pedestrian and bicycle access is a key element of the project purpose and need. A report on the public hearing results will be provided to council at their Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, but consideration of a resolution approving the essential features of the design has been deferred.

This project is perceived by many to provide benefits to Albemarle County residents with all of the impacts occurring in Charlottesville City. My brief scanning of the comments indicates that many of the comments in support of the project are from Albemarle County residents. I will be urging councilors to be sensitive to the balance of comments between city and county commentators given that this is a city project primarily funded by federal, city, and Charlottesville's portion of the State Urban Road System funds. Albemarle County provides no direct funding for the interchange project to my knowledge.

Here is the city staff summary of comments as provided to City Council on Nov. 13, 2009:

---

A Design Public Hearing for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project was held on October 29, 2009 at City Space. Attendees viewed displays about the project and the Revised Environmental Assessment including the Preferred Alternative and the likely environmental impacts of the project.

The following summarizes input received from those who attended the public hearing as well as those who submitted comments during the designated comment period (September 29, 2009 through November 9, 2009).

SUMMARY

• 94 people attended the hearing
• A total of 168 comments were received
o 41 people provided oral testimony, either publicly or privately
o 12 written comments using the hearing comment form
o 109 comments were received through the project website
o 6 comments were received via letter or email letter
• A total of 146 people provided comments

MOST FREQUENT COMMENTS (No. of People Commenting)

• Oppose the project (38)
• In favor of the project (38)
• Pedestrians and Bicyclists not sufficiently accommodated / prioritized (72)
• Interchange is too large (8)
• Project should be combined with McIntire Road Extended Project (7)
• Historic properties impacts too great (31)
• Additional traffic in neighborhoods (29)
• Environmental impacts can be / are appropriately mitigated (17)
• Environmental / park impacts are substantial (31)

---

Pedestrians take action to make their neighborhood safer.

Local residents on a residential street ( Louise de Colignylaan) in a neighborhood in Naarden, the Netherlands took pedestrian safety into their own hands when traffic was channeled through their neighborhood while a nearby major highway nearby was under repair. Residents painted their own unofficial crosswalk on their street. This action angered local government officials because of the cost in removing the painted crosswalk. But what about the issue of pedestrian safety? Is this going to be a new wave of pedestrian action beyond Naarden? Will this start happening in Charlottesville? Will neighborhoods start putting in their own speed bumps, too?

I am not advocating that residents start acting independent of the city in maintaining our pedestrian infrastsructure, but I urge our Charlottesville city staff to be proactive in providing pedestrian safety signage or other safety measures - permanently or temporarily - as unsafe pedestrian circumstances arise. I admit that I have contemplated mixing some QUIKRETE cement patching material to fill holes and large cracks in the sidewalks of Charlottesville (but I haven't actually done this). Maybe Charlottesville can start an "Adopt a Sidewalk" program and provide willing citizens training, approved patching materials and access to tools to fix some of these safety issues on their own. I am sure there are legal implications about letting citizens do infrastructure repair, but with so many tripping hazards on our sidewalks and crosswalks maybe this is something worth considering. Maybe Charlottesville can be a leader in channeling citizen action into safer pedestrian ways. I am happy to sign up for duty.

If you want to see the online story or view the news video (both in Dutch) , they are available through de Telegraaf - online.

Pedestrian Safety Press Event

While vacationing near Chesapeake Bay earlier this year, I came across this "walk at your own risk" sign posted at a local business with some badly cracked walkways. I don't know if posting a sign like this limits ones liability, but it is always a good idea to be safe when walking. In an effort to reduce the risk of being a pedestrian, Charlottesville is working with local citizens to improve the pedestrian environment and deliver safety information to the public.

Today, City Councilor Julian Taliaferro hosted a press event to announce progress in promoting pedestrian safety in Charlottesville. The event was scheduled at 11:00 am in the Omni Hotel parking lot near the location of a recently installed lighted crosswalk across Ridge-McIntire Road. The audience was made up of local press, several city staff, some members of the city council appointed pedestrian safety committee. Being a member of the committee, a frequent pedestrian in downtown Charlottesville, and an active supporter of improved pedestrian safety I walked over to hear the presentation. Ric Barrick, Director of Communications for the City of Charlottesville said coverage of this event will be shown on TV-10 in the near future. This is all part of Charlottesville's effort to educate the public - and motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in particular - in being safe on Charlottesville's streets.

Jeanie Alexander, City Traffic Engineer said some funding may still be available to improve pedestrian safety. So, don't be shy - if you know of some unsafe pedestrian situation, contact Jeanie Alexander at 970-3182 and let her know about it.

High Heel Shoe Wearers Must Still be Vigilant in Downtown Charlottesville

One of the many arguments for re-bricking the Historic Downtown Mall in Charlottesville was the problem of high heel shoe wearers having their heels break or at least get caught in the many areas of missing mortar between bricks. But, even if the entire mall is redone and no heel-sized openings remain, heel hazards will still exist in the downtown area. The photo here was taken on Fifth Street N.E. just off the mall. The metal grates allow drainage of water from the walkway and cover where a downspout from an adjacent building crosses the walkway and discharges into the street. Unfortunately, these grates are neither fixed in place nor are they restrained from moving in the channel. And, these grates seem to move under normal use. Several of these drainage grate locations are in the sidewalks on my normal path from home to the downtown mall and I routinely find gaps like the one shown in the photo. I can simply kick the grates back into place, but a few days later gaps appear.

On occasion the grates will be totally out of the channel. My guess is that an automobile tire pushes the end grate out of the channel when someone parallel parks and their tire hits the grate. Again, it is easy to put the grate back in place, a small separation between grates is clearly a problem for high heel shoe wearers, but a flipped grate is a hazard for pedestrians in general.

What can be done? Some of the grates are cast with openings for bolts that would fasten the grate to the channel in which it sits - but the channels do not have appropriate threading to hold a bolt. But, I am sure this can easily be remedied. I believe spending millions of dollars to re-brick the mall will solve part of this pedestrian problem, but I suggest the city put a few more dollars into making the side streets safer for pedestrians too.

The Pedestrian Zone - not without its hazards.

I happened to bring my camera with me to the downtown mall this week to download a few photos at the library for my last blog entry and decided to walk on Sixth Street NE from East Market Street to the mall. A welding contractor (for the city I suppose) removed the bollards so that he could drive onto the mall and work near the Discovery Museum. The bollards were placed on the only sidewalk on that block creating the first major pedestrian obstacle I encountered as I was just entering the mall next to City Hall. If this is our pedestrian zone this is not an acceptable practice for contractors to use. What are these contractors thinking? Maybe they need a reminder that pedestrian spaces need to be clear of obstacles. Perhaps some notice needs to be included in permits to work on the mall so pedestrians don't have to contend with lazy and dangerous behavior on the part of contractors.

As I walked just two blocks further down the mall I encountered the Fourth Street East mall crossing being used as a loading/unloading zone. There are such zones available on the side streets and when I took this photo there were open loading zones. Again, this delivery person decided that there is no problem blocking the entire length of the crossing with the truck, trailer and ramp making pedestrian traffic have to avoid this fifty foot or so obstacle on the pedestrian mall.

So, in about three minutes I encountered two major pedestrian obstacles as I walked from Sixth Street East to Fourth Street East. Is this a rare occasion? I think not. As a frequent pedestrian on the downtown mall I find obstacles like these on a regular basis. This is not the only truck that uses the mall crossing as a loading zone. I routinely encounter Brinks trucks making money deliveries at local banks, building supply trucks unloading construction materials, and JAUNT buses, taxicabs, even private vehicles idling in the crossing for extended periods. I find it is more likely than not that there will be unnecessary obstacles to pedestrian traffic on the mall and the number of obstacles seems to be increasing. Perhaps there are occasional interactions between the police and flagrant violators, but I haven't seen any. If contractors and delivery vehicle drivers believe this is a reasonable and risk free behavior I believe pedestrians will find obstacles at an increasing rate.

Council has been alerted to these sorts of behaviors, but I believe some identifiable action may be necessary to encourage better behavior from pedestrian area violators. Perhaps more interaction with violators (warnings or tickets) are needed to get the message to those who ignore the pedestrian area regulations. Without any action by city officials, I believe the downtown area being a safe pedestrian area is in jeopardy.

Next time you walk on the mall, count how many unsafe and unnecessary obstacles you encounter. Perhaps with the rebricking of the mall, the city can actively work to make the mall a better and safer pedestrian zone.

City Council need to "walk the walk" and keep pedestrian projects in CIP

As Charlottesville City Council ponders its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) spending, it appears that our pedestrian friendly city - committed to a balanced transportation system - is opting again for cars over pedestrians. Councilors need to literally "walk the walk" of making Charlottesville a truly walkable city and not eliminate the pedestrian oriented elements from the CIP as appears to be the current plan. Rachana Dixit wrote in the Nov. 26 article "Work that will have to wait?" that protecting funds for the Meadow Creek Parkway (actually the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Interchange at McIntire Road) will remain but:

"in 2010, $350,000 in West Main Street improvements, $250,000 for Forest Hills Park, $120,000 in neighborhood projects and $300,000 for new sidewalks are some items that are proposed to have their 2010 funding completely removed."

With over $1.5 million of city transportation funds spent on planning for the proposed interchange, and many thousands more spent and yet to be spent on building the controversial road and interchange through McIntire Park - Charlottesville's most significant parkland and land eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

I will encourage city council tonight to "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk" of making Charlottesville truly pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly. If you care to weigh in on this matter, tonight - December 1, 2008 - is your next opportunity. You can comment during the Matters from the Public item that starts about 7:00 pm at council chambers in city hall.

Should the new downtown mall brick be placed in mortar or sand? Or is it best to repair the current bricks?

The most recent public discussion about how the bricks on the Charlottesville downtown mall should be repaired or replaced brought out a standing room only crowd at the city design space. The MMM consultants promoted the idea of replacing all of the bricks with new brick and placing them in sand rather than using mortar as the original bricks were installed. Apparently, MMM has determined that placing the bricks in sand is the current standard installation technique around the country. But, if we look at the recent brick and stone installed in sand at in the crosswalk at East High Street and Fourth Street NE, there is obvious damage to both bricks and stone due to automobile traffic.


This is already the second installation of these bricks. The first installation had significant settlement of the bricks and stone, and many of the brick and stone elements were chipped. But, the two photos of this crossing taken on July 5, 2008 show similar damage (but no further settlement). The stone pieces are loose and the sand between the stones and the bricks is no longer in the joints. Is this what we will see on the two vehicle crossings of the mall?



Another problem with the sand joints is evident in the sidewalk bricks by the Albemarle County Sheriff Office. The bricks have only been in place for a few months in the entrance to the Sally Port (where prisoners are loaded and unloaded behind the just installed steel gates), but the sand joints have lost most of the sand. And, in the sidewalk section near Jackson Park on East High Street, crab grass is growing in the joints.

I am curious what the difference in installation would be between these installations and that to be done for the hundreds of thousands of bricks proposed for the downtown mall. My guess is that there will be a significant maintenance requirement to keep the sand joints in good order. Is the sand installation better or worse than the mortar installation? I can't tell. The mortar installation on the mall lasted over 25 years with not much routine maintenance. Can sand installation really do better than that? Clearly the vehicle crossings won't do well if the installation is similar to the 'improved' installation at the pedestrian crossing at East High Street and Fourth Street NE.



I hope MMM and the city will make sure they consider if the problems shown in these photos will occur on the mall, too. Maybe repairing and replacing the mortar in the existing bricks is the best solution after all.

Bicycling to work can be more than a once a year thing. In some cities in Europe, many people bicycle to work (and lots of other places) most every day. Groningen - a major bicycling city - in the north of the Netherlands has about 50 percent of commuters traveling by bicycle to work (US average is less than 2 percent). But, having a great bicycle route system can make a huge difference in bicycle commuting appeal. Friday was bicycle to work day and all of us were encouraged to ride a bicycle to work. Depending on where you live and work in the Greater Charlottesville area, however, this can be a fun opportunity or a challenge for even the most serious and experienced cyclist.

I received an account of what it would take to do a commute by bicycle from north of the city to the downtown mall in an email from Steven Ashby. One clearly needs a strong will, a strong bicycle, and a strong sense of humor to attempt commutes of this type. I have experienced some of these very same sorts of obstacles in bicycling in Charlottesville and the Ashby commute is perhaps best done in one's imagination rather than on an actual bicycle. Steve Ashby sent this email to our local government leaders as a means of encouraging expansion of our bicycle infrastructure and safe commuting options. But, he also agreed to my posting it here for your enjoyment - and perhaps to encourage you to contact your councilors or supervisors about making bicycle commuting a real option for you and many of our area residents.

---

Dear Board of Supervisors and City Council:

Thank you so very much for your kind invitation to take my bicycle to work on Monday. Although I am now retired, I thought it might be fun to bicycle to the Downtown Mall.

I loaded my panniers with water and a light repast and started up Tompkins Drive, in Jefferson Village. Whistling merrily and thinking of the vast improvements made since 1999, when I first sat on the Community Mobility Committee, I was shocked to see no pedestrian/bicycle path between Tompkins and Timber Pointe. Instead, I was greeted by a NO TRESPASSING sign. I relaxed when I remembered that I could access Timber Pointe and the other public roads in Forest Lakes, via a tiny path in the woods on the Baker-Butler Elementary School property. I quickly applied insect repellant, remounted, and braved the forest primeval.

Not long after porting the stream at the base of the path, where the roots of a hardy native red maple form a bridge, I came upon a large official Forest Lakes Association sign, which proclaimed NO TRESPASSING so loudly, it completely drowned out the murmur of the pines and hemlocks. I was more than a bit annoyed. I steadied myself and pedaled my lunch and Longfellow's dactyls back up the path, down Tompkins and up Colonial Drive to Proffit Road. I was a bit winded, by then, I admit, but, hey!—it's great exercise, right?

I snugged my helmet and switched on my strobe-light. Then I gave my quadriceps the OK to speed their burden west toward the safety of U.S. 29. The bicycle lane (the soft, gravel shoulder to the right of the white side-line) was a bit rough and often gave way to a ditch filled with water, rocks, and litter. It seemed that quite a few county residents were unaware of your thoughtful invitation, for many of them roared by me in their automobiles—one or two of them shouting friendly, but anatomically impossible, suggestions of where I might wish to place my two-wheeled conveyance. Several unfortunate amputees smiled and waived, showing their remaining middle finger. I kept my two intact hands wrapped in a death-grip around the handlebars.

Tired and tense, I finally reached the light at 29. I smiled, when I remembered Ken Boyd's public forum a number of years ago, where Wendel Wood, Jr., and Steve Runkle described the planned bus stops at the soon-to-be-built Hollymead Town Center. I turned left on the green light, then right at CVS, made my way into the Center's burgeoning parking lots, and began looking for a bus stop. I knew that all CTS buses have easy-to-use bike racks and was looking forward to a restful ride to Fashion Square Mall, where I planned to continue under my own power. I looked and looked. No bus stop signs anywhere! I interrupted a Target employee, who looked up from his long line of shopping carts, and said, "I don't think I've ever seen a bus out here. You could probably get a cab at the airport." Disappointed, I reached into my left pannier for water. Along with my bottle, out came my long-forgotten CTS schedule, with its inviting, smiling-sun logo. A glance and a sip and I was off to the nearest stop: WalMart, just 3 miles south. This'll be a piece of cake, I thought, taking pride in my trite metaphor.

The cake proved stale. The bicycle lane, though wider than the one on Proffit Road, was nearly as soft, with grass nearly two-feet high, and much broken glass. In a few places, it narrowed to the point that I was forced into 55mph traffic. Horns blared and flat-bed trucks and big-rigs slowed and crept by within an inch or two of my left elbow. I gave a joyful "yah-hoo" when the road finally widened again on the downhill to the South Fork Rivanna bridge. As I turned into WalMart, I saw the 5-bus pulling away. It would be at least an hour before the next bus. Somewhere out of my Methodist childhood came an oy gevalt!

Thank goodness for the cool weather! I ascended the steep incline—well in excess of the new county driveway ordinance—and turned onto East Rio Road. I was going to have to hurry to meet my fellow cycle-commuters at the Mudhouse. Again I smiled, when I remembered Sally Thomas speaking proudly of the wonderful bike lanes, planned for the Meadow Creek Parkway. I found myself singing the old Al Jolson hit, "(Across the Breakfast Table) Looking at You," rhythmically cranking my way towards Rio Station. Soon I'd be sipping coffee and eating my brown-bag breakfast with my chums.

Passing CATEC and approaching the bridge at Rio, I anticipated taking the ramp to the southbound lane of the Parkway. It wasn't there! Then I heard Rod Serling's voice: "Consider one Stephen Ashby, a typical Albemarle County citizen and his bicycle—about to take an exit into [pause] The Twilight Zone...."

I recalled Peter Kleeman's suggestion that the Parkway be declared an off-road vehicle right-of-way. My Mongoose has hybrid tires, so I girded up my loins and headed down to where the Washington City, Central Virginia & Great Southern Railroad once ran. Although there were a few times I wished I had my machete, I made it to McIntire Road and eventually to the Mudhouse.

After breakfast, I begged a ride home from a friend with a station wagon. For my next bicycle adventure, I plan to drop by Ken's & Brenda's for lunch in the lovely Key West subdivision.

Anyhow, thanks, again, for inviting me to join in the "fun" of bicycle commuting in our well-planned community.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Ashby

Charlottesville School Board to consider easement for Meadow Creek Parkway again on May 1, 2008

Yes, the Charlottesville School Board will again consider whether or not to approve the granting of a construction easement of about 9 acres of city property to VDOT for the Meadow Creek Parkway. I have been lobbying the school board against giving away use of this valuable school resource (including one softball field) with no positive compensation. The school will get traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, loss of tree cover and screening, decreased student safety, and likely other negative results from this 'deal'.

The school board will consider a new resolution including some conditions discussed at the last meeting where the vote on the easement was tabled. I am unsure that any of these conditions will be enforceable and if I were a board member I would likely suggest that if VDOT wants to build the parkway it should acquire this land through eminent domain - and provide fair market value for the land used. The land to be eased is about one-third of the 27 acre parcel the city owns that is zoned R-15 (the county's highest residential density zoning) and assessed at about $7 Million. Fair market value would appear to be in excess of $2 Million. The school could then use these funds to mitigate the impacts to the school from loss of the land and impacts from the parkway construction and traffic load.

I am not convinced that a simple signalized intersection at Melbourne Road can handle the design year traffic (2000 vehicle in the peak hour on the parkway - and significant High School traffic in the morning peak hour on Melbourne Road) at an acceptable level of service. I suggested that the city provide an intersection analysis of delay at the signal, anticipated length of queues in the peak hour and related data for consideration by the school board and the public. I was surprised that the host of city, county, and VDOT staff present at the April 17 board meeting didn't have answers for many of the boards questions about the project.

You can participate in commenting on this at the school board meeting on May 1. It is at Charlottesville High School library and scheduled for 6:00 pm. The Meadow Creek Parkway item is early in the agenda so be there at 6:00 pm if you wish to comment.

Here is the text from the draft minutes of the April 17 meeting included in the School Board agenda packet. Check this out before you comment on May 1.

Draft Minutes from April 17, 2008 School Board Meeting

B. Meadowcreek Parkway Resolution: Prior to any discussion on this item, Mr. Wade said he was going to respectfully recuse himself from voting on or participating in any deliberation to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Mr. Wade is employed by Albemarle County as a Transportation Planner. Mr. James Henderson introduced this action item to the Board for consideration. At the April 3, 2008 School Board Meeting, Mr. Spencer DeJarnette, representative from the Virginia Department of Transportation, presented an overview of the Meadowcreek Parkway project which included the exact location and design of the right-of-way. VDOT contacted the City of Charlottesville requesting a donation of the right of way and easements necessary for construction of the parkway. The property involved is approximately 9 acres which is titled to the City of Charlottesville, but is utilized by Charlottesville High School for junior varsity girls’ softball practice. Spencer DeJarnette from VDOT; Gary O’Connell, City Manager; Craig Brown, City Attorney; and Angela Tucker, City Engineer were present at the meeting to answer any questions the Board might have. Discussion by the Board centered on issues of speed, pedestrian and bicycle safety and, access to the linear park on the east side of the parkway. Specifically, the following requests were made by the Board:

• That the posted speed be 25 mph on the entire parkway and reduced (if possible) to 15 mph at the Melbourne/McIntire Road Extended intersection.
• Signalization at the Melbourne/McIntire Road Extended intersection for pedestrian safety.
• Flashing signals be appropriately placed on the Meadowcreek Parkway and McIntire Road Extended to alert motorists they are approaching a school zone.
  

In addition, Ms. Galvin asked that the Board consider amending the resolution to include:

• That provisions be made to ensure the future design and construction of an east/west bicycle-pedestrian connection between the CHS site on one side of the Parkway to the multi-use trail and linear park on the other side of the Parkway.
• In order to ensure the feasibility of funding the construction of the bicycle-pedestrian connection(s), it is understood that the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle 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.
• That ongoing School Board input into the design, location and funding of the intermediate bicycle-pedestrian connection(s) as well as the final design of the Parkway itself, especially at the intersections of Melbourne Road, Rio Road and the Parkway will be ensured by appointing a Charlottesville City School Board member to sit on a Parkway Design Review Committee or whatever established vehicle charted with that purpose.
• That a suitable replacement field space be created that meets the needs of Charlottesville High School.

Ms. Blount made a motion to table action on the resolution until the May 2, 2008 School Board meeting. Ms. Dugger seconded the motion. Mr. Michie stated the delay will allow time to discuss this matter with City Council and for Board Members to consider the suggested amendments to the resolution. Mr. Michie called for a vote. The motion passed with Ms. Blount, Ms. Galvin, Mr. Michie and Ms. Dugger voting aye; Dr. Edwards and Ms. Puryear voting nay.

Graphic: from the Charlottesville City School logo.

The Sunday article in the Daily Progress by Seth Rosen - Interchange design plans tied in knots (April 27, 2008) again demonstrates the disconnect among the goals of our community and how the components of the trio of transportation projects (Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road, McIntire Road Extended, and Meadow Creek Parkway) are being developed and brought before our decision making bodies. City council declined to approve either of the two interchange designs developed by the council appointed interchange steering committee. The steering committee appeared to be more of an interchange lobbying committee at the most recent council meeting where several committee members were pushing the council to make a choice among two not very appealing alternative designs after they themselves were pushed by the interchange design consultants at the most recent steering committee meeting to make a choice. I applaud our council members for resisting the push.

Council members will schedule a work session and expressed an interest in developing some new ideas that will lead to new candidate solutions - be they alternative interchange designs or choices using modes of travel other than automobiles whizzing around massive roundabouts and ramps in McIntire Park. Where will these ideas come from? VDOT? Neighborhood Development Services? The design consultants? I don't think so. I believe that the only way to develop new ideas is to reframe the transportation problem being addressed. My recommendation is that the three 'independent' projects that are clearly interdependent in their design and construction be combined into one project. This project should address the broad range of alternatives for meeting the growing transportation demands among areas north and east of Charlottesville. Maintaining the three projects as independent studies - linked by an ever expanding set of conditions, design linkages, precedents, and other directives that overdetermine the set of choices and eliminate even the possibility of identifying new creative and more environment and neighborhood friendly solutions. One alternative suggested by several members of the public at the city council meeting included expanded transit development along with improvement of the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road intersection (without building a road through McIntire Park) to meet future transportation, park access, and pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety concerns. Under the current three-project scheme, this alternative can not even be considered!

The interchange consultants, staff, and steering committee failed to identify any interchange design alternatives that meet the pedestrian and bicycle access and safety concerns often claimed to be the prime objectives in this planning effort. The consideration of of impacts on historic properties and most recently on city owned land in Albemarle County that are athletic and recreational recources at Charlottesville High School were hardly even considered in any timely way so as to influence the design process. Effects of the interchange on historic resources is still to be determined, yet these concerns have be relegated to mitigation issues rather than preliminary design issues. Student safety at the Melbourne Road, Meadow Creek Parkway, McIntire Road intersection was a topic of significant discussion at the most recent Charlottesville School Board meeting and no clear resolution of this concern was achieved at that meeting even with a host of VDOT, Charlottesville, and Albemarle planning staff on hand to address school board concerns. Coordination of these independently designed - but not really independent projects where three different design teams are operate under three different project development administrators is simply not working and may not even be workable. It is difficult enough to develop one project without having to coordinate three overlapping projects under development simultaneously.

Perhaps the parkway project promoters believed that a 'divide and conquer' strategy would bring the over forty years of debate to an end. But, I think it has done just the opposite. I urge our city councilors and our school board members to demand that a unified project encompassing the current three projects be started with the goal of meeting our future transportation needs. It is time we stop limiting our planning to putting roads through our parkland and historic resources - simply because we haven't been willing to rethink decisions promoted to solve the transportation problems of the 1960s.

Photo: from www.250interchange.org - traffic on Route 250 Bypass, Charlottesville VA

Route 250 Bypass Interchange at Route 250 designs sent back to the drawing board

Charlottesville City Council heard about three hours of public comment concerning current proposed designs for an interchange at the intersection of Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road. The vast majority of commenters opposed approval of the designs recommended by a city council appointed project steering committee. Several of the steering committee members commented and asked council to approve their recommendation.

Opponents pointed out their assessments that the designs were too large, had too much impact on McIntire Park itself and on other nearby properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, didn't solve traffic needs, did not adequately provide pedestrian access to the park, and a host of other concerns. Charlottesville Tomorrow posted a comprehensive summary of the interchange discussion in a blog entitled "Council defers decision on Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange" that is well worth reading. I also expect that the video of the council meeting will be broadcast on the city cable TV-10 channel over the next few weeks where you can see all the comments and discussion.

This deferral of action is another twist in the ever twisting events surrounding what is often called the Meadowcreek Parkway. As this project changed over time it evolved into three independent projects: Meadow Creek Parkway (from Melbourne Road to Rio Road in Albemarle County - a state funded secondary road system project); McIntire Road Extended (from Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Road - a state funded urban system road project) ; and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road (a federally funded interchange project being administered by the City of Charlottesville). I believe these three projects are so interdependent that it makes no logical sense to develop and design each one separately. They should be one project. Of course, as one project that would use federal funding for construction the entire project would have to undergo environmental review where several federal statutes would need to be followed. I think this would be the best possible path for considering if a parkway with or without an interchange should be built. One project on one time schedule with one study team should break the ever confusing boundary and funding issues that have plagued the project development over the years.

I applaud all of our city councilors for deciding to investigate this interchange further. I urge council (as I did in my comment at the public hearing on Monday night) to combine the interchange and the McIntire Road Extended projects so that better and more environmentally sensitive solutions to our transportation needs can be considered. Only then can some truly new ideas enter the conversation. Too much money has been spent for too little value on these inappropriately segmented project studies.

One citizen suggested solution is to combine improvement of the McIntire Road/ Route 250 Bypass intersection and expand transit options in our community. This forward thinking and promising solution can't even be considered in the current multi-project environment of convoluted project assumptions. It is clearly time for a refocussing of these independent efforts. Little is to be lost and so much to be gained. I believe that city council, the city school board, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration all need to put their minds and efforts toward a unified goal. Only then can this project get analysed and finalized - whether to build or not build should become a clear and defensible decision when addressed as a unit.

Photo is from Charlottesville Tomorrow weblog.

Charlottesville School Board Tables Easement Decision

The Charlottesville School Board met on April 17, 2008. After about 90 minutes of presentations, discussion, and questions to which only some answers were available from VDOT, Albemarle County, and the City staff the board voted 4-2 to table the issue until the next school board meeting. Apparently the school board only got involved in this issue - "A Resolution of the Charlottesville City School Board Consenting to the Conveyance of Certain Real Property Interests by the City of Charlottesville to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway" - about three weeks ago. Although this property was purchased for school division use in 1982, and use of this property for a roadway has been considered in some form since well before that date, this is a new item on the school board's agenda. A work session included discussion of this issue occurred on April 3, 2008.

Kathleen Galvin lead the questioning of VDOT, county and city staff asking how this project will benefit the school, and about the safety issues associated with the parkway design and plans for the at-grade intersection where the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway and McIntire Road Extended projects meet at Melbourne Road. Galvin said she made a list of the 'pros' and 'cons' associated with this project, but the discussion clearly was dominated by exploring the 'cons'. I am curious what she had listed in the 'pro' column. My own personal listing of benefits to the school division from this project is void. Other board members also expressed concerns about safety issues and limitation on access to the natural area blocked from both Charlottesville High School and CATEC by the proposed roadway.

Kathleen Galvin lived up to her campaign slogan in the November 2007 election. She clearly did her homework on this issue. The issues she raised included troubling safety concerns and loss of needed athletic fields by the high school and appear to have convinced four of the six members who will be voting on a resolution (Juandiego Wade recused himself from this matter due to his being a transportation planning staff member employed by Albemarle County and involved in the parkway project in that capacity). The school board and city council have a luncheon meeting today (April 18 - 12:00 at city hall basement conference room) and I expect this resolution and its ramifications will be a topic of discussion. This meeting is open to the public. I plan to attend and see if any positive features of this proposal emerge.

This proposed resolution is what I consider to be a lose-lose situation - unfortunately if city councilors and school board members all don't do their homework it just might be approved. I will continue to encourage all of our elected officials to identify what benefits - if any - this project provides, and weigh the environmental, safety, athletic, educational and other costs against those benefits to make whatever decision is best for the school division and our community at large. These are the tough decisions we elect our local officials to make. I hope the board doesn't default to what appears to be the lose-lose decision as the material presented to the school board at yesterday's board meeting suggests to me.

Background Material on April 17, 2008 School Board Item

Here is the background information provided to the Charlottesville School Board regarding transfer of nine acres of land to VDOT for construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. The meeting starts at 6:00 pm at the Booker T. Reaves Media Center in Charlottesville High School and this item is early in the agenda following comments from members of the community and board member comments. The background material below identifies the safety issue and loss of recreation/athletic fields but doesn't address any of the health, environmental, and natural resource impacts of reprogramming this land for highway use. I also find it interesting that there is no statement as to the value of loss to the school from this request, or any statement of what benefit to the community will be gained (if any) in return for the undefined loss of use this property transfer would cause.

As decision leaders for both the city school division and our community as a whole, I encourage the school board members to identify the costs and benefits to the school division and our community for the alternative choices they have relating to the 9-acre parcel of land. As elected officials, our school board members need to consider actively the concerns of the public in their actions. The agenda packet states "the Superintendent recommends the Board deliberate and take action on the resolution." I couldn't locate the text of the proposed resolution. But, I do hope you will contact the school board members and encourage them to indicate clearly why they believe their ultimate action - to approve or deny - is in the best interest of the schools and our community.

08-106: Information Items:
A. Meadowcreek Parkway Resolution - Mr. James Henderson presented this information item to the Board. The Virginia Department of Education contacted the City of Charlottesville requesting a donation of the right of way and easements necessary for construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway. The property involved is approximately 9 acres which is titled to the City of Charlottesville but utilized by Charlottesville High School for junior varsity girls’ softball practice. Mr. Spencer DeJarnette, representative from VDOT, was present to give an overview of the project which included the exact location and design of the right of way and easements needed for the parkway. The Board had received a packet from VDOT which contained a copy of the resolution, VDOT’s property owners manual, plan sheets and copy of the request to the city to convey the easements to VDOT, and accompanying legal documents. Mr. DeJarnette reviewed the easement information with the Board. The road project is slated for advertisement this summer. Relocation of the utilities at the CATEC end has started. VDOT expects if they obtain all the right of ways necessary by the summer, they will go to ad in August or September and construction of the roadway should begin in January or February of 2009. Mr. DeJarnette said he understood this was a working meeting and he and Mr. Rome would be glad to attend the Board meeting on April 17th to answer any additional questions Board Members might have prior to approving the resolution.

Mr. Michie asked Craig Brown, City Attorney, to explain the legal part of the ownership. Mr. Brown explained that the property was purchased in 1984 for the purpose of use by the schools. For a number of years after the school was built, the outdoor recreational facilities at the old Lane High School were still being used which necessitated the acquisition of the property across the street. The property is titled to the City of Charlottesville and was never deeded to the school division. Given that it was acquired for use by the school and historically been used for that purpose, from a public perception it is seen as a part of the Charlottesville High School campus. It was Mr. Brown’s opinion and in consultation with the School Board’s legal counsel, Patrick Lacy, that this was fairly characterized as school property. Under Virginia Law, they agreed this Board’s consent was necessary before the easement could be conveyed. Mr. Michie asked if the School Board had any identifiable interest in the property. Mr. Brown said none of record.

After Board discussion and questions, the consensus of the Board was there should be conditions on the resolution which would include making sure there is assured pedestrian access either over or under the new parkway, that the intersection is extremely safe for pedestrian crossing and the timing with the city end of the road is extremely critical. Mr. DeJarnette said he would gather information on all three of those points as quickly as possible and get the answers back to Mrs. Atkins and Mr. Henderson. He also told the Board he would have the planners and designers of the project come to the next meeting if that would be helpful.

Graphic Source: the Charlottesville City Schools logo from their website.

Caveat Pedes - "Let the Pedestrian Beware"

I just got to read the background material relating to my previous posting concerning making the East Fourth Street mall crossing permanent. After a public hearing on whether or not the mall crossing was consistent with the comprehensive plan at a recent Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Commission work session (where the public is not invited to participate) where the following recommendations to the city council were developed.

---

Planning Commission Recommendations to council on mall crossing issue

1. That the additional mall crossing be at 4th Street, East.
2. That the directional flow remain unchanged.
3. That the section of 4th Street between Water and Garrett Street be reopened as two-way and that new signage be placed there to insure safety and that in twelve months Council evaluate to determine if its changing to two-way has resulted in significant increase in cut-through traffic through the adjacent neighborhood and on the Mall.
4. That the Council be urged to reconsider its decision to close the 4th Street crossing during Pavilion events.
5. That increased efforts by law enforcement should be made to reduce stopping, parking and standing in the crossing and that the redesign should include spaces for drop-off.
6. That the final design come back to the Commission for comment.
7. Elimination of the two-hour parking spaces nearest the mall – consider eliminating all to avoid congestion – replace with a drop off area if recommended by the pending parking study.
8. Include better signage to direct traffic to the alley perpendicular to 4th and 5th Streets when 4th Street is closed at the mall.
9. Provide better design, striping, and signals at crossing to alert pedestrians and vehicles to the crossing.
   

---

To my surprise, the budget impact has changed dramatically - from an estimate of approximately $1 Million in construction cost to make the crossing suitable for vehicular traffic in prior council material to the following budget impact statement.

Budget Impact: There will be some impact on the budget to redo the bricks in this area and make other signage improvements. However, until there is a commitment to do major side street improvements in this area, there are no budget impacts anticipated other than those that can be absorbed through the mall improvements project.

Perhaps we have seen the trend of trying to flex road funds to benefit pedestrian and bicycle project development flipped to using pedestrian mall improvement funds to support automobile crossing construction that introduces rather than mitigates pedestrian safety issues.

Given that many people have been involved for several years in developing a rational set of facts and options concerning vehicular traffic options in the vicinity of the downtown mall, I believe we should have an opportunity to be part of this discussion through an informed public participation processs to understand what is actually being proposed here and to provide input.

One of the alternative solutions to facilitating vehicular circulation around the mall and to parking structures (that could possibly eliminate the mall crossing) was improved signage. Signage is now being proposed, at $1 Million, but it looks like the city is promoting both the mall crossing and signage. Where is the logic in this? And how is it that the mall crossing is now viewed as not having a significant cost associated with it? What are the facts here? Does anyone know? Or will the facts only cause confusion in this project decision process? So many questions remain.

I am not sure we as members of the public will be able even to comment on the proposed resolution at council on April 7 in that this may be considered an issue for which a public hearing has already been held. But, all of the proposed details of the resolution were developed without public participation after the joint council/planning commission public hearing on this issue.

Interestingly, the proposed resolution is all about vehicle traffic - not pedestrians. The only part of this resolution that addresses pedestrian issues is that pedestrians will be alerted to the vehicles using the pedestrian mall. So it is Caveat Pedes - let the pedestrian beware!

RESOLUTION (Proposed)

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville requested the Planning Commission to: (1) review the issue of an additional vehicular crossing of the Downtown Mall; (2) determine whether an additional vehicular crossing is consistent with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan; (3) provide guidance on whether the crossing should be at 4th Street or 5th Street; and (4) recommend the direction of traffic flow; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on March 11, 2008 and made recommendations to City Council with respect to such issues; now, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Charlottesville that:

1. An additional vehicular crossing is permanently established at 4th Street, East betweenMarket Street and Water Street.
2. The southbound directional flow of 4th Street, East shall remain unchanged.
3. The section of 4th Street between Water Street and Garrett Street shall be re-opened as twoway and new signage placed there to ensure safety. In twelve months Council will review this decision to determine if changing the direction to two-way has resulted in a significant increase in traffic through the adjacent neighborhood and on the Mall.
4. Increased efforts by law enforcement will be made to reduce stopping, standing, and parking in the 4th Street crossing.
5. The final physical design of the 4th Street crossing will be presented to the Planning Commission for comment.
6. Improved signage will be installed to direct traffic to the alley running perpendicular to 4th and 5th Streets when 4th Street is closed at the mall.
7. Enhanced striping, signage and/or signals will be installed at the 4th Street crossing to alert pedestrians and vehicles to the change in traffic pattern.
   

Will City Council Ignore Study Results and Opt to Make Second Mall Crossing Permanent?

I got my email containing the April 7, 2007 city council agenda from the city. I was surprised to find the following item included:

7. RESOLUTION* Permanent Vehicular Crossing of Downtown Mall at 4^th Street
(1^st of 1 reading)

Having followed this project since the beginning, I am surprised that council is poised to simply approve this as a permanent crossing. I immediately sent the following email to Mr. Craig Brown, the City Attorney with copies to all of the city council members expressing my concern about the project and the process. I agree that reasonable people can disagree on issues of this type, but when virtually no compelling data has been generated through the actual transportation studies supporting this project (theoretically a basis for making a decision) - and the near $1 Million price tag for making this crossing into a permanent vehicle crossing I wonder how we got to this point. I guess the power of special interests can still trump field data and analytical findings that show degraded rather than improved performance in studies to date.

Of course my thoughts on this issue are based on my experience and information generated by the city and their consultants. But shouldn't there be some identifiable benefits to our community presented prior to making decisions of this type that impact our city in such significant ways and at a significant cost?

---

Sent to Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney with copies to all city councilors on April 2, 2008

It is my understanding that City Council never determined that a permanent mall crossing was consistent with the Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan. Isn't that supposed to be determined before Council actually even considers which crossing (if any) should be a vehicular crossing? I thought council's next action would be to consider Planning Commission input on consistency with comp plan as a separate action - to then allow the public a fair opportunity to present their concerns about the issue.

Is it legitimate or even desirable to simply act now without following what appeared to be the process previously described by your asst. City Attorney when this issue was last discussed at council?

I am alarmed at the level of traffic using the temporary East Fourth St. mall crossing. The volume of traffic crossing and using the mall as a loading/unloading spot and stopping for long periods of time is ever increasing. I have not done any actual counts on that street, but it appears to me that the mall crossing (E. Fourth St. between Market St. and Water St.) may be among the most heavily travelled block in the North Downtown area. What was promoted as a convenience for visitors in getting to near downtown parking has become a major travel route and a major disruption and potential hazzard to mall pedestrians.

The last actual data collected for the crossing indicated that the original goals of the project (promote parking access, improve business sales, etc) showed results directly opposite of what the crossing was to provide. Without any new information, and based on my own frequent crossing of this area as a pedestrian, I can only conclude that this project demonstrates no truly credible benefits toward meeting the goals outlined for the project.

Is this a model of public policy making the city can be proud of? As a pedestrian and motorist in Charlottesville and resident of the North Downtown neighborhood I see absolutely no compelling data supporting making this crossing permanent. In fact, based on the negative outcomes of the performance measures reported, I see no compelling reason to even continue the temporary crossing. I am also curious to learn on what basis the city believes this crossing is even consistent with our comprehensive plan and the major goal of reducing vehicular traffic in the city and promoting pedestrian travel and enhancing pedestrian safety.

This is a project that appears to be running primarily on inertia and political influence from special interest groups in the city contrary to the stated goals, objectives, and stated review process for determining if a mall crossing is at all in the public interest.

Please let me know what the basis for having this action as listed on the council agenda prior to consideration of consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Sincerely, Peter Kleeman

---

Photo: From online posting of Dec. 11, 2007 article in the HooK

Pedestrian Safety Committee needs to Walk the Walk

Twelve residents and eight city staff met for about an hour in the basement of city hall to explore how Charlottesville can become a much safer place for pedestrians. Residents were from several neighborhoods and represented a variety of pedestrian interest groups. Staff from the Police Department, Public Works, and Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) were involved in the meeting as well. Jim Tolbert, Head of NDS presented opportunities the committee can pursue and what personnel and other resources the city can provide in supporting the Pedestrian Safety Committee.

A lively discussion ensued and it is clear that there are significant pedestrian safety needs in Charlottesville. This committee will need to prioritize its effort to get real safety improvements in place in the near future. We did a fair bit of 'talking the talk', but I am hopeful that the group at the meeting will do their best to 'walk the walk' - after all, what better group could you assemble to 'walk the walk' than Charlottesville's outspoken pedestrian advocates.

I am sure this group can map out excellent strategies and priorities for improving pedestrian safety. The true test is getting sufficient political will and resources to implement the committee's ultimate recommendations. You can be a big part in keeping the city on track. Do share your thoughts with city council and the budget office about investing in pedestrian safety projects. I suggested in a previous blog entry that we could dedicate some of the $4.3 million in economic development funds to this effort. Perhaps you have even better ideas to contribute. We are all pedestrians so don't be shy about getting involved. All of us will better from improved pedestrian safety.

Photos by Peter T. Kleeman 1. some of the attendees; 2. Jim Tolbert leads first meeting.

How we can spend some of our economic development fund

Seth Rosen's article in today's Daily Progress entitled "City officials say scrutinize fund
Rules sought on use of economic development money" suggests that there is currently $4.3 million in a fund to promote economic development. I believe it would be a terrific idea to invest some of this fund in improving pedestrian infrastsructure in the commercial centers of the city. A more pedestrian friendly environment will certainly attract people to these areas and increase economic activity.

The first meeting of a newly formed Pedestrian Safety Committee is happening today at 5:00 pm in the Basement Conference Room at City Hall to investigate some of the challenges pedestrians face in much of our city's commercial areas. I think having the city put some funding behind this effort is a timely investment in our community. I would like to know that my efforts in identifying ways of improving pedestrian safety will have a chance of actually leading to implemented improvements. I will be sure to suggest use of some of this fund as part of any safety improvement strategy this committee might develop. The better Charlottesville's commercial areas meet the needs of people, the less financial incentive we as a city will need to provide to get businesses to locate in Charlottesville. Although I am not a fan of the term, this just might be a 'win-win' opportunity for the city and the public. A few hundred thousand dollars in pedestrian improvements can likely provide benefits that the public will truly notice and appreciate.

Note: See Pedestrian Safety Committee forming post for more information.

Pedestrian Safety Committee forming

The city of Charlottesville is forming a Pedestrian Safety Committee to study pedestrian issues in Chalrottesville. The committee will commence on March 12, 2008 and will be exploring pedestrian safety issues in the colored area in the attached map. The Charge is an ambitious one with the following elements

• Analyze each intersection within the area shown in detail including Signal Timing, Crossswalk Condition, Handicap Ramp Condition, Crosswalk Signal Type, and Crosswalk Signal Timing
• Examine lighting throughtou the study area
• Examine sidewalk conditions including Cracks/Hazards, ADA Issues, Obstructions
• Physical safety impediments
• Signage - location and directional
• Develop an education campaign for both the motoring public and pedestrians
• Evaluate existing crosswalks for safety and ADA compliance and need for additional crosswalks city-wide
  
• Evaluate pedestrian safety around all parks and schools.

I have been invited to serve on this committee and have accepted. It sounds like this is a very ambitious plan of action, but I believe it is very important that pedestrian safety be improved quickly. I walk frequently in the study area and know of many spots that need pedestrian safety improvements.

I encourage you to identify some of the pedestrian areas along your path to school or work or wherever and send them to me. I will be happy to include them in the inventory of issues for consideration and hope the city will be able to invest sufficient resources to make a significant improvement in our pedestrian network now, and as part of a yearly improvement policy.

Send any pedestrian safety thoughts you have to peter.kleeman@gmail.com