HOME | CONTACT | WRITE TO THE EDITOR | WORK AT C-VILLE
www.scps.virginia.edu/communityscholar/
 
Issue #21.44 :: 11/03/2009 - 11/09/2009
Residents pack 250 Interchange design hearing

Opponents list ill effects of interchange

BY CHIARA CANZI

More than 40 people took the microphone at the October 29 public hearing for the proposed design of the Rte. 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Park.

The public hearing for the proposed 250 Interchange at McIntire Road design drew a large crowd between residents and city officials. Some residents questioned the impact of the project on the environment. John Cruickshank thought the interchange and the subsequent McIntire Road Extended (both part of the Meadowcreek Parkway) would pave a “beautiful landscape” and would “create a monstrosity.” Nancy Taylor, however, said the project would relieve “horrendous” traffic.

Angela Tucker, project manager for the City of Charlottesville, told the audience that the purpose of the proposed grade-separated interchange under question is to address and alleviate current traffic deficiencies and improve community mobility. The proposal calls for a diamond-shaped interchange with signalized ramp intersections at McIntire Road. In turn, the 250 Bypass would pass over McIntire Road.

The majority of speakers opposed the interchange and, consequently, the Meadowcreek Parkway (MCP).

The construction of the MCP has been divided into three projects: a road in Albemarle County from Rio to Melbourne roads—Meadowcreek Parkway; a city portion planned through McIntire Park—McIntire Extended; and the final portion—the 250 Interchange. The federal government originally spawned the interchange with a $27 million earmark in 2005 from then U.S. Senator John Warner.

Much of the opposition to the interchange stems from its impact on McIntire Park and other historical properties. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires taking into account the effect a project will have on buildings and sites that are included in the National Register. Currently, VDOT identifies five properties that will be affected, including the Covenant School, the Rock Hill Garden and the park, among others.

“I don’t feel there were too many surprises tonight,” Tucker told C-VILLE. “I think it’s helpful for the community to hear various points of view that have been shared. If our Council chooses to move forward with this interchange project, I think we will come away with some good guidance on how to do that.”

Nancy Taylor lives at the corner of Park Street and Rte. 250 and is impressed by the design. “I guess I was expecting a bridge to go up and over. This is appealing to the eye,” she says. “I think it will alleviate some of the traffic on Park Street. It’s horrendous, trying to back out of my driveway with the traffic coming in the morning is next to impossible.”

The added bonus, she says, is the bike and pedestrian trails the design calls for. “Now it’s like ‘take your own life in your hand if you try to ride your bicycle on Park Street,’” she says.

Members of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park were also present. Rich Collins, also a member of Sensible Alternatives to the Meadowcreek Parkway (STAMP) called the design “a bad idea,” and an “auto-centric pornography.” John Cruickshank, president of the Piedmont Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that the project would pave over a “beautiful landscape” and would “create a monstrosity.” Cruickshank, a consulting party in the Section 106 review, argued that the use of federal money for the interchange is legally very questionable.”

Daniel Bluestone, UVA professor of architectural history and avid preservationist, argued that with the interchange built, Downtown Charlottesville will be left in a worse position in terms of traffic and walkability than it is today. The plan, he said, “is nothing short of appalling.”

Furthermore, the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park drafted a letter that will be sent to all the agencies with review responsibilities for the MCP. In it, the coalition lists a series of inconsistencies in design and approach.

On November 16, the City Council will hear a presentation on the design. The $30-plus million-project is expected to be completed in late 2013.

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.

 
Comments
Whatever one’s opinion about why Charlottesville and VDOT chose to segment this project, there is indisputably a very consequential falsehood underlying much of the parkway/interchange process. As this fiction is stated in its Route 250 Bypass Interchange project website's “Frequently asked questions“: “If the interchange is not built, the McIntire Road Extended (City) and Meadowcreek Parkway (County) projects will proceed as planned… The no-build alternative would include an at-grade, 17-lane intersection at the Route 250 Bypass, McIntire Road and McIntire Road Extended.” The above statement is a rewriting of history. VDOT’s own engineers advised against such an intersection, as it would dramatically undermine the function of the Rt. 250 bypass. More importantly, Charlottesville did not agree to, and in fact explicitly rejected this 17 lane at-grade version in City Council’s letters to VDOT and in its resolution to authorize the use of Charlottesville’s parkland. Thus, the Route 250 Bypass Interchange project team – under the supervision of a majority of Charlottesville’s City Council - is misleading citizens with the statement that an at-grade, 17-lane intersection would “proceed as planned“absent an interchange. No such plan has been agreed to. Intentionally or not, the city’s fabrication has been used by the FHWA to make a determination that this project can be lawfully segmented. As it also forms a false premise from which to determine the need for, impacts of, and feasible alternatives to the federally funded interchange, the results of these studies are not only inaccurate but deceptive. VDOT, the administrating agency for MRE, is engaged in similar duplicity. In a June 30, 2008 letter, VDOT wrote to Charlottesville’s City Manager: "This letter also certifies that this temporary construction easement will not be used to construct an at-grade intersection at the Route 250 Bypass. In addition, the construction plans for the MRE project have been revised to terminate before reaching the Route 250 Bypass at the proposed project limits of the new interchange...” Yet, despite this acknowledgment, VDOT recently submitted the discarded 17 lane at-grade design to the U.S Corps of Engineers for permit approval while coordinating a different set of plans with the city and FHWA to build a road which, without the interchange, would end in a field 775 ft from the Rt. 250 Bypass. As owner of McIntire Park and the administrator of the Route 250 Bypass Interchange project, City Council must come clean with its citizens and partner agencies and acknowledge that a 17 lane at-grade intersection was not agreed to, and that the interchange was deemed by Charlottesville a critical component of the Meadowcreek Parkway project. This stance would necessitate evaluation of the project as a whole with regard to compliance with federal law, and citizens would then have the information needed to meaningfully participate. The CPMP has sent a letter to Senator John Warner requesting that he support allowing the earmark he sponsored for the Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange to be re-appropriated to other transportation projects in the Charlottesville area. We ask council to do likewise. The parkway/interchange proceedings have been largely founded on the 17 lane at- grade untruth, and this must be corrected if the process is to be made legitimate. The CPMP advocates that the parkway/’interchange project not be built. Regardless of your position on the merits or shortcomings of the proposed road, we hope you will agree that Charlottesville’s citizens have the right to honest government
strattonNovember 3rd, 2009 06:14pm
The design of this road is 50 years old. Why can't the planners redesign it to go along the railroad, if they MUST have this highway?The park could be saved and the county monied types who want this can get their road at the same time. It is also a big expense of taxpayers money for two lanes! And, with all the intense development the city has surrounding it, we need this open green space in the city more than ever. This appears to not to benefit the people who live in the city, it's just a way for county people to get through the city (ask newly elected county supervisor, Dwane Snow. 'Snow knows"
HowardNovember 8th, 2009 09:27pm
Have your say
*
*
*
Your comment will be displayed after it has been reviewed by our editors. Please refer to our comments policy if you have any questions, or email editor@c-ville.com.
C-VILLE site search by Charlottesville's Best News and Entertainment
charlottesvillepavilion.com/
petitbebe.com/
doubletree1.hilton.com
www.cvillemedresearch.com
www.nestrealtygroup.com/
www.eagleslandingva.com
www.charlottesvillepavilion.com/fridaysafterfive/
Circulation VerifiedCopyright © 2010, Portico Publications
Copyright Info | Portico Corporate
Powered by PLANet w3 CMS Content Management System
PLANet Systems Group 2010