CPMP sends letter to FHWA on McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Environmental Concerns

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is beginning work on the northernmost end of the Meadow Creek Parkway project. The Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) contends that VDOT has inappropriately segmented this project into three parts to avoid carrying-out environmental review of the project as a whole. There was a news story on this start of construction in The Hook some time ago showing the start of clearing the proposed construction area (and the source of this photo) but now VDOT is starting utility and other construction work near Rio Road.

Andrea C. Ferster, attorney for CPMP sent a letter (provided below) to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) identifying CPMP's concerns regarding avoiding environmental consideration and inappropriately segmenting the project. The letter contains a legal argument, but to help you understand what this all means I have reconstructed this letter with links to all of the referenced material that I could locate online. I invite you to read this letter and visit some of the court cases that make up the basis for the argument presented.

I have been involved in this project in one capacity or another since 1997 and have learned much about the way highway projects are planned in Virginia and elsewhere. As you can see some of the material referenced in the letter were responses to inquiries I made on the legalities of the project development process by FHWA. I have gotten such good exposure to the legal issues surrounding this (and other) highway projects that I am currently contemplating pursuing further formal legal education.

I invite you to explore this letter, the legal basis for the arguments made, and comment to this blog, Charlottesville City Council, Albemarle Board of Supervisors, VDOT, or FHWA as appropriate and participate in promoting a sustainable transportation future for our Charlottesville / Albemarle County community.

---

ANDREA C. FERSTER
LAW OFFICES
2121 WARD COURT, N.W., 5TH FL.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
__________
TEL.(202) 974-5142 FAX (202) 233-9257
AFERSTER@RAILTRAILS.ORG
WWW.ANDREAFERSTERLAW.COM

February 13, 2009

Mr. Roberto Fonseca-Martinez
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration -Virginia Division
400 N. Eighth Street
Richmond, VA 23240

Re: Route 250 Bypass Interchange and McIntire Road Extended

Dear Mr. Fonseca-Martinez:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment (“EA”)/Section 4(f) Evaluation circulated by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road. In my opinion, the FHWA has unlawfully constrained the scope of the EA and Section 4(f) Evaluation by failing to evaluate McIntire Road Extended and the Interchange as part of a single, federalized project, in violation of both the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (“Section 4(f)).” 23 U.S.C. § 138; 49 U.S.C. § 303.

As you know, from its inception in the 1970s, the Meadow Creek Parkway has historically been developed as a single facility running from Rio Road, through the McIntire Park and golf course to the Route 250 Bypass, for which an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was contemplated. However, in 1997, VDOT decided to subdivide the Meadow Creek Parkway into separate “projects.” Funding for a new interchange at the Route 250 bypass was later earmarked by Congress as part of the 2005 transportation re-authorization funding act. As a result, the Meadow Creek Parkway is now characterized [a]s consisting of the following segments: (1) the federally-funded Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road, including a 775-foot segment of a new highway --- McIntire Road Extended -- north of Route 250 Bypass; (2) McIntire Road Extended, a two-lane highway extending 2100 feet north from the end of the 775-foot segment of McIntire Road Extended to Melbourne Road; and the (3) Meadow Creek Parkway, from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. As segmented, only the Route 250 [Bypass] interchange, plus the 775-foot segment of McIntire Road Extended, is characterized as a major federal action, to which NEPA applies.

The scope of the Draft EA/Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Route 250 bypass interchange is confined to the impacts of the interchange itself. This document does not evaluate the impacts of or alternatives to the full McIntire Road Extended under either NEPA or Section 4(f). This is particularly troubling, since McIntire Road Extended will use 13 acres of land from McIntire Park and the golf course, both of which are resources protected by Section 4(f). As the EA for the Route 250 [Bypass] interchange itself acknowledges, “McIntire Road Extended will introduce features into the park that are incompatible with the qualities that make the resource historic, including one of McIntire Park’s contributing historic elements, the McIntire Park Golf Course, which will be altered by both projects. These two projects will result in a larger incremental impact on the historic resource than what has occurred from past development, and is thus considered a cumulative effect.” Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road, EA, § 3.11.3, at 42. While the EA further acknowledges that cumulative impacts include “conversion of park recreational land to transportation uses, increased traffic and noise through the park, and impacts to habitat and wildlife in the park,” (id. § 3.11.3, at 45), the EA fails to evaluate whether or not there are any prudent and feasible alternatives to the construction of McIntire Road Extended under Section 4(f)’s stringent standard. [Note 1: Section 4(f) states that the Secretary of Transportation “shall not approve any program or project” which requires the “use” of land from a park, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, recreation area, or historic site, unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the site, and (2) the project incorporates all possible planning to minimize harm to the protected site. 23 U.S.C. § 138; 49 U.S.C. § 303.] Instead, the EA considers only a series of alternative design options for the interchange itself.

While NEPA and Section 4(f) are triggered only by major federal actions, such as funding, “[t]he absence of federal funding is not necessarily dispositive in determining whether a [transportation] project is imbued with a federal character.” Historic Preservation Guild of Bay View v. Burnley, 896 F.2d 985, 990 (6th Cir. 1989). Rather, “[i]n order to determine when a group of segments should be classified as a single project for purposes of federal law, a court must look to a multitude of factors, including the manner in which the roads were planned, their geographic locations, and the utility of each in the absence of the other.” Id. at 991 (citing River v. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, 359 F. Supp. 611, 635 (E.D. Va. 1973)). The FHWA’s regulations codify this standard by requiring that the action evaluated in any NEPA document “shall: (1) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; (2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e. be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f) (emphasis added)

In general, “courts should look to the nature and purpose of the project in determining which termini are logical.” Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11, 18-19 (8th Cir. 1973)). In the highway context, the courts have looked at whether the segments terminated at “crossroads, population centers, major traffic generators, or similar highway control elements.” Id. at 18. At a minimum, in order for a segment to possess logical termini, the terminus must be at a point where there is an opportunity for traffic to enter or exit. See, e.g., Patterson v. Exon, 415 F. Supp. 1276, 1283 (D. Neb. 1976).

Here, the preferred alternative for the proposed Route 250 Bypass interchange clearly does not have logical termini. The northern ramp of the interchange extends 775 feet north of the Route 250 bypass, and terminates in the middle of McIntire Park, without connecting to any existing roadway, crossroad, or traffic generators. Absent the planned construction of McIntire Road Extended in its entirety, there would be no need for the 775-foot piece of McIntire Road Extended, since this highway stub would end “literally in the middle of the woods.” Patterson v. Exon, 415 F. Supp. at 1283; see also Swain v. Brinegar, 542 F.2d 364, 270 (7th Cir. 1976) (Court held that a highway had been improperly segmented where “[t]he northern terminus ends in the country at no logical or major terminus.”).

Moreover, it is clear that the interchange as a whole, and most particularly the 775-foot stub of McIntire Road Extended, would not “be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f). To the contrary, as the EA concedes, the current signalized, at-grade intersection at McIntire Road and the Route 250 Bypass currently operates at a satisfactory level of service for most traffic movements. EA, at 2. The EA makes no attempt to determine whether or not a grade-separated interchange would be needed at McIntire Road and the Route 250 Bypass purpose “even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f). Instead, the need for the massively over-designed interchange depends almost entirely on the traffic volumes generated under “Future Conditions,” which are based on 2030 traffic projection for “the future intersection of the Route 250 Bypass, McIntire Road, and McIntire Road Extended.” EA, at 2. Clearly, there would be no need for the interchange --- and certainly no need for the massive interchange proposed here – but for the construction of McIntire Road Extended.

In determining whether a highway has been unlawfully segmented, the courts have looked at whether the segments were planned as a single project or whether the segments were "planned to be constructed if at all at different times in the future over a period of years." Save Barton Creek Ass'n, 950 F.2d at 1141; see Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Barnhard (finding no segmentation where "the [federal and statefunded] projects are, at best, only peripherally related"); Historic Preservation Guild of Bay View v. Burnley, 896 F.2d at 990 (finding no unlawful segmentation where federally funded segment was built 25 years before state-funded segment). In determining whether such segmentation is unlawful, courts have also looked at whether the state and federal segments served different or similar purposes. See River v. Richmond Metropolitan Auth., 359 F. Supp. at 992 (federally funded road provided commuter access between residential areas west of Richmond, while the state-funded segment connected two highways and provided access to residential area north of the city); Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d at 441 ("projects were separately proposed to accomplish independent purposes").

Here, as noted above, the Route 250 Bypass interchange and McIntire Road Extended were and continue to be planned as a single facility. The EA’s insistence that “[t]he purpose and need of the proposed interchange project is independent of the purpose and need for the McIntire Road Extended” (EA, at 4) is completely belied by the EA itself, which demonstrates that the need for the interchange is predicated on the future traffic volumes that will be generated by construction of McIntire Road Extended. Indeed, the two projects are so wholly intertwined that, as the FHWA acknowledges, “VDOT and the City [of Charlottesville] intended to issue construction contracts for the McIntire Road Extension project and the Route 250 Bypass interchange project as closely together as project development activities.” Letter to Peter Kleeman from Mr. Fonseca-Martinez, FHWA (Sept. 4, 2008).

The FHWA’s claim that the Route 250 interchange is “independent” of McIntire Road Extended, and that the two projects are being simply constructed jointly “in order to minimize disruption to the environment, adjacent communities and the traveling public” (id.) cannot be squared with the record here. Rather, the opposite is true: the City of Charlottesville has made it clear that it will not move forward with construction of McIntire Road Extended unless the grade-separated Route 250 Bypass interchange is funded and advanced by the FHWA and VDOT.

Specifically, as early as 1999, the City made the construction of a grade-separated interchange at U.S. 250 Bypass an express condition of its support for McIntire Road Extended. See, e.g., Letter to Charles Rasnick, VDOT, from J. Blake Caravati, Mayor of Charlottesville (Dec. 11, 2000) (attached). Ultimately, the City approved the design for McIntire Road Extended only after the City determined that “it now appears that adequate funding will be available to fulfill the condition stated in paragraph 4 of Exhibit A, regarding the design and construction of a separate project at the intersection of U.S. Route 250, McIntire Road, and the Meadow Creek Parkway.” Design Public Hearing Approval Resolution (Jan. 17, 2006). Paragraph 4 of that document expressly stated that: “any final design [for McIntire Road Extended] has to include a grade-separated interchange,” to which VDOT responded “We remain committed to this project [i.e. the Route 250 interchange] as a necessary improvement to both the U.S. 250 Bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway.” Letter from David E. Brown, Mayor of Charlottesville, to Mr. Greg Whirley, VDOT, at 2 (Jan. 18, 2006) (attached).

For that reason, there is no support for the FHWA’s bald assertion that McIntire Road Extended will be constructed regardless of whether the Route 250 interchange is constructed, and therefore the “no build” scenario should assume construction of McIntire Road Extended as a “predictable consequence” of no action alternative. Letter to Peter Kleeman from Mr. Fonseca-Martinez, FHWA (Nov. 4, 2008) (citing CEQ’s “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations,” Question 3a, 46 Fed. Reg. 188026 (1981). There is absolutely no evidence that McIntire Road Extended will be constructed as a result of a decision by the FHWA not to fund the Route 250 bypass interchange. Rather, as noted above, the record shows that the two projects are so interdependent that neither can proceed without the other.

The FHWA cannot have it both ways: the purpose and need for the Route 250 bypass interchange project cannot be predicated on the planned construction of McIntire Road Extended-- a design that as a result encroaches substantially within McIntire Park – and at the same time have independent utility and logical termini “even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f). The reality is that the massive interchange footprints for each of the alternatives evaluated in the EA– and significantly greater impacts on Section 4(f)-protected resources -- are designed in order to accommodate McIntire Road Extended. As a result, the only way for the FHWA and VDOT to take advantage of the “efficiencies” of jointly constructing these plainly interrelated projects is to consider the Route 250 interchange and McIntire Road Extended as part of a single, inter-related federal project, which must be evaluated in a single NEPA and Section 4(f) document.

Finally, there is strong evidence that the project was deliberately segmented in order to evade federal environmental laws. Despite the fact that Meadow Creek Parkway was originally (and continues to be) planned as a single facility, the FHWA deliberately “scaled back” the scope of the project considered to be the “federal action” so that “the potential significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIS and associated with the proposed project were eliminated.” Letter from Mr. Fonseca-Martinez, FHWA to the Mayor of Charlottesville (Dec. 22, 1997). Evidence that a project was deliberately segmented for the express purpose of evading federal environmental laws "will weigh very heavily in support of the project splitting theory." River v. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, 350 F. Supp. 611, 635 (E.D. Va. 1973). See also, Sierra Club v. Volpe, 351 F. Supp. 1002, 1007 (N.D. Ala. 1972) ("Waiver of federal aid . . . . at the last minute . . . should not be made a ground for disclaiming the federal nature of the project where it appears that the purpose is to avoid compliance with federal statutory environmental requirements); Save Barton Creek Ass’n, 950 F.2d at 1143-44 (“We recognize that if a state has segmented for the purpose of evading federal environmental requirements and without other valid justification, a holding of evasive violation would be justified”).

Accordingly, unless the FHWA takes immediate steps to ensure that the impacts of and alternatives to the Meadow Creek Parkway, including both the Route 250 Bypass interchange and McIntire Road Extended, are evaluated in a single NEPA document of an appropriate scope, the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park intends to pursue all available legal remedies, including but not limited to litigation to enforce NEPA and Section 4(f).

Sincerely,

[Signature: Andrea C. Ferster]

Andrea C. Ferster,

Counsel for Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park

Enc.

[This is a version of the original letter formatted as an .html file including links to referenced documents and other supplemental material.]

Kristin Szakos announces her candidacy for City Council

Although my photo of Kristin Szakos seems to be subject to some unknown electrical or light interference, Kristin presented a clear picture of what she will bring to Charlottesville as a city councilor. She presented her ideas for the city with great enthsiasm to about 50 people at the Downtown Transit Center at noon today. I imagine there will be many opportunities for you to meet Kristen in the months ahead, and I look forward to seeing her expand on her message given today as the campaign moves forward.

Kristin Szakos' handout stated the following:

I pledge to work to:

- Make City government more responsive to under-served neighborhoods
- Get people involved in the decisions that effect their lives
- Listen to all sides and strive to find common ground
- Find new and creative solutions to persistent community problems
- Use "people power" to bring needed change
- Find new ways to save money and reduce energy consumption

Charlottesville is an amazing city, and our Council can do amazing things if they're not afraid to act. I plan to bring a new energy - your energy - to City Hall next year. Let's transform Charlottesville into a place where everyone has the opportunity to thrive, a place that shows the world what's possible.

You can find out more about Kristin's candidacy at KristinforCouncil.blogspot.com.

What are your thoughts on building a road through McIntire Park

If you are at all concerned about construction of a road through McIntire Park, you have until February 27, 2009 to send in comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding their granting a permit to allow this construction. The 'Legal Notices' section of the February 12, 2009 edition of the Daily Progress included the public notice copied below. The proposed road project will be constructed in the eastern portion of McIntire Park through part of the McIntire Golf Course and through some of the densely wooded area along the western side of Schenks Branch. If you haven't hiked through this area, I recommend you do so. And, send your thoughts on this proposed project to Kathy Perdue at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - the person coordinating the permit review. The address is at the end of the public notice.

---

PUBLIC NOTICE
VDOT Project No. U000-104-V02, P101, PPMS 02529
McIntire Road, Extended
Charlottesville, Virginia

Notice is hereby given concerning coordination among the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (VA SHPO), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) regarding effects to historic properties that will occur as a result of the construction of McIntire Road, Extended, in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The proposed project involves the construction of two 11-foot travel lanes, two 5-foot bike lanes and a 10-foot-wide enhanced pedestrian trail on new alignment. This new roadway begins 775 feet north of the Route 250 Bypass and runs north approximately 2100 feet to intersect with Melbourne Road. The city of Charlottesville is currently in the process of planning a separate interchange project at the intersection of the Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road, which will connect the McIntire Road Extended project to the Bypass. As part of the project, a permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for one road crossing and one utility line crossing of a tributary to Schenks Branch.

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16USC470), the U.S. Army Corps of engineers is required to take into account the effect of permitted actions on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. A potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places property, McIntire Municipal Park, will be adversely affected by the construction of the new roadway. Contributing elements to the park which may be affected are: McIntire Golf Course, the Old Southern Railroad Bed, the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial, and a Springhouse. The VA SHPO, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the VDOT are developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), to address the adverse effects on this property and to determine treatments to mitigate the effects.

The Virginia Department of Transportation ensures nondiscrimination in all programs and activities in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For additional information about this project, please contact Randy Lichtenberger, VDOT Preservation Program Coordinator, (434) 941-8488; or Kathy Perdue, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager, 201-7218. The hearing impaired can receive additional assistance by calling TTY 771.

Comments on the project must be submitted in writing to Kathy Perdue, Norfolk District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096, and must be postmarked no later than 15 days from the date of this notice.

---

photo sousrce: www.c-ville.com

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.

To spend or not to spend.

A fairly large bundle of capital improvement money - $10,353,701 to be exact - is the subject of a public hearing at the February 2, 2009 Charlottesville City Council Meeting. If you are concerned about spending millions of our transportation dollars in Charlottesville on the Hillsdale Drive Extended ($2,345,667) and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road ($8,008,034). The Charlottesville Planning Commission voted to drop the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road funding from this year's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and it will be interesting to see how (if) the Planning Commission's position is received by city council.

The $8 million for the interchange is but a small portion of the approximately $30 million project. And the interchange only a portion of the so-called Meadow Creek Parkway project that would connect Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road through McIntire Park and some magnificent natural property just north of Melbourne Road in Albemarle County. It appears that the majority of the Charlottesville Planning Commission believes that whatever the benefits of this proposed project are - they are not worth the many millions of scarce capital improvement dollars required. I have requested an accounting of anticipated benefits from this project to compare with the costs (including actual costs, impacts to parkland and historic properties, and increased congestion on nearby roadways). I believe that the anticipated benefits of this and the associated parkway projects don't provide sufficient benefits to justify these capital investments.

The decision appears to be more of a political decision than a transportation decision so it is not likely we will hear much discussion about the transportation benefits and the environmental and other costs of the project at the council meeting unless citizens bring these issues to council's attention during the public hearing. So, if you have an opinion about throwing another $8 million of public funds into this project as compared to reprogramming those funds for other transportation projects, February 2 is a great opportunity for you to share your opinion and present alternatives to council. The hearing announcement as it appeared in Sunday's Daily Progress is as follows:

---

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Charlottesville City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 605 East Main Street, Charlottesville, Virginia to consider an amendment to the City's FY 2009Budget. The proposed budget amendment will increase the Capital Improvements Program budget by $10,353,701 to support the following projects:

Hillsdale Drive Extended - $2,345,667
Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road - $8,008,034

State and Federal Grants totaling $10,353,701 are allocated to the City and funds will be received as they are expended (federal) or quarterly (state). The City's share of the costs of the projects are funded throught the Capital Improvements Program.

A copy of the full text of the proposed appropriation is on file with the Clerk of Council. This notice is advertised pursuant to Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-2507.

---

Inauguration Music Choices

I am amused at the conversation on TV, radio, newspapers, and elsewhere about the live music/ recorded music issue at the Jan. 20th Inaugural event. For an event in January in Washington D.C. I would think cold weather would be likely. Choosing a musical ensemble with cold weather sensitive instruments as part of the program seems not to be such a great idea. Yes, it is great to have the great instrumentalist of our day participate in the event, but why not select instrumentalists that perform on instruments that are not so temperature sensitive - or go with vocalists?

Perhaps this would have been a great opportunity for the melodeon - an instrument I play - to get some national attention (although lots of other choices exist). I have managed to play many times in extreme cold and freezing rain for First Night Virginia events and on the Swan Tavern Morris Men's winter solstice dance-out on the third Saturday of December on the Charlottesville Downtown Mall. I guess I have played melodeon in temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

I was sorry I didn't get a ticket to the inauguration to see the event live but enjoyed being part of the audience at the Paramount Theater to see it on a super-sized HDTV screen. When watching the musical number with Itzhak Perlman (violin), Yo-Yo Ma (cello), Gabriela Montero (piano) and Anthony McGill (clarinet) I thought the motions of the musicians and the music were out of sync but didn't realize that the music was a taped broadcast - not the live feed. Perhaps anticipating a balmy January day in Washington D.C. was an extension of the message of Hope.

In the current world of extensive conversation about decisions made that are inappropriate to the prevailing circumstances on the economy, security, and the like, why not choose musical ensembles appropriate to the weather. Perhaps I am not the musician for the next inaugural, but I can play my melodeon with mittens on in the freezing rain if someone holds an umbrella over me and my instrument.

John W. Warner Parkway? Why blame Sen. Warner for this.

Senator John W. Warner wisely declined to have his name associated with what is generally known as the Meadow Creek Parkway while he was Senator, and I certainly recommend that he decline to have his name linked to this project now that he has retired from the Senate.

If this road is constructed as the John W. Warner Parkway, drivers on this facility will link Senator Warner to the long delays they will surely endure attempting to use this facility as a quick way to get from Northern Albemarle County to Downtown Charlottesville. Without a previously required Eastern Connector and current congestion on Route 250 Bypass at Free Bridge and low capacity on existing McIntire Road it is difficult for me to see how this road can be other than a highly congested facility. I would love to see an engineering demonstration of how this facility will be able to carry at an acceptable level of service the 20,000 or more vehicles per day anticipated to use the parkway - a two-lane facility with traffic signals controlling traffic flow other than at the proposed interchange at Route 250 Bypass. Adding these additional vehicles to the current traffic on Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road with no forseeable traffic improvements to mitigate the increased demand is an invitation to congestion.

If I were Sen. Warner, I would decline any name connection. What will the nickname for this facility become. Being from Long Island in New York, I remember the Long Island Expressway as the Long Island Distressway - might this be the model for the John W. Warner Distressway or the John W. Warner Congestway - or worse.

While commuters, shoppers, soccer moms, and others idle in place somewhere in what is now some of McIntire Park's most beautiful areas, I believe many of them will link the name Warner with the destruction of this parkland and loss of habitat currently supporting populations of deer, beaver, fox, and other life not generally found in Charlottesville.

Senator Warner did facilitate the $27 million federal earmark for construction of the "Meadow Creek Parkway Interchange" in the most recent major transportation legislation - SAFETEA-LU. But, as I recall, a group of local project supporters visited Sen. Warner and provided him material showing only how this was our areas primary project of interest and that there was no opposition to this project. Perhaps Sen. Warner did inquire about the potential downside of this project including impacts on parkland, historic properties, and the environment in general and still supported the project. I wonder. Opposition did and continues to exist. Impacts on environmental, historic, and recreational resources are still being evaluated, promises for "necessary" additional traffic carrying facilities (e.g. the Eastern Connector) will apparently not be honored. Sen. Warner's support for our region in meeting transportation challenges is commendable, but this project is not one I think will enhance the Warner legacy.

I am sure this facility will find a name for itself once its operational characteristics are known (if it ever actually gets constructed). I believe the real heros will be those who facilitate not building this road - and who recognize that these project funds would be better reprogrammed to transit and other non-roadway projects. I invite Mr. David Brown, Mr. Satyendra Huja, and Mr. Julian Taliaferro - the three Charlottesville City Councilors currently supporting this project to become community heros and join with Mayor Dave Norris and Ms. Holly Edwards in opposition to building this road through McIntire Park. Hero opportunities are few and far between, but now is the time that councilors Brown, Huja, and Taliaferro can become true community heros if they choose to facilitate a sustainable transportation future for the Charlottesville area rather than support a project designed to solve transportation problems of the last century.