December 11, 2000
H. Charles Rasnick
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-1939
Re: McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
VDOT Project No. U000-104-102; 0631-002-128
City of Charlottesville
Gentlemen:
BACKGROUND
Early last year, preliminary road plans were presented by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), proposing four motor vehicle travel lanes crossing the eastern portion of McIntire Park at a design speed of 70km/hr (43.5 MPH). VDOT sought public comment on this proposal at a hearing held May 27, 1999. Mayor Virginia Daugherty, duly authorized by a Council resolution approved July 19, 1999, forwarded comments to VDOT by letter dated July 20, 1999. While the Mayor's letter contained 12 numbered paragraphs on specific categories, the primary thrust of her letter in behalf of the City was to obtain a redesign by VDOT which would result in a two-lane parkway through McIntire Park in accord with recommendations from the City retained consultant, Rieley & Associates, rather than allowing construction of a four lane highway
The current design, as presented by VDOT requires further modification to be acceptable to the City. The latest revisions to the preliminary plans submitted by VDOT to the City and Rieley & Associates in August of 2000 represent a step in the right direction toward a design that the City can accept, but the City in not yet willing to approve the major design features of that plan or sell the necessary right of way to VDOT until the design is further amended and necessary assurances given by VDOT and Albemarle County to comply fully with the comments contained in this letter. The specific or technical design revisions which the City thinks are still needed in order to achieve a true parkway concept are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City will not endorse or approve any design activity for the Parkway which deviates from the guidelines set forth in Exhibit A.
REVISED COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL
In addition to asking that VDOT make proposed technical revisions described in Appendix A to the current VDOT plans for this project, the City Council by majority vote also submits herewith comments which effectively revise portions of the City position stated in Mayor Daugherty's letter of July 20, 1999. Set forth below using the same numbering system that was utilized initially are all 12 points of the City's position, as revised (paragraphs that contain revisions when compared to the July 20th letter are shown in italics).
1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a maximum speed of 60km/hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley Report so that the road will be "blended as gracefully as possible into the existing land form." This should help to reduce the project's impact on McIntire Park. (VDOT's amended plans have responded in part to this comment by lowering design speed).
2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes, rather than four (4), together with bike lanes and pedestrian paths, be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the "2-U Study Alignment" (2-Lane Undivided) identified on Page 6 in the first Rieley Report (dated April 27, 1999) entitled "Alternative Alignments and Profiles."
3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Two (2) Lanes. Right of way for only two (2) lanes of motor vehicle travel, bike lanes and pedestrian paths should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project.
4. The Intersection at Route 250.
(a) Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include a tightly drawn intersection with a relatively small footprint. The initial VDOT design is far too large. We believe that the total number of lanes created by the intersection should not exceed seventeen (17).
Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to McIntire Park at the proposed intersection also must be accomodated in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire and in accord with the second Rieley Report (dated August 31, 2000, copy of which is enclosed).
(b) While the approval process, design and construction of the Parkway project goes forward, Council is committed to seeking VDOT funding and approval for a second project - one that results in a tight urban interchange which replaces the intersection described in section 4a. Council's commitment is based in part on recommendations contained in an October 2000 report of Rieley & Associates (copy of which is enclosed), and in part on a belief that such an interchange will operate more efficiently, allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the Park, provide aesthetically pleasing access to the City, and help address long term traffic movement needs between the 250 by-pass and the Parkway. To further underscore a desire on the City's part to facilitate this second project, the City is willing to perform design, bid, and construction phases of this second project - all within the required oversight parameters for this type of process.
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle lanes on each side of the Parkway's north-south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in width.
6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, is essential. The City will do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway.
7. Additional Park Land. The City's approval for the Meadowcreek Parkway design shall be and is contingent upon the acquisition of replacement parkland and green space by the City, the County, and VDOT to create a greater contiguous Park, for the use of our citizens throughout the region and confirm the status of this new road as a true Parkway. This new park land and green space is intended to replace the land lost to the Parkway as well as the loss of use imposed on some of the remaining portions of McIntire Park. It is also intended to serve as a community asset for Park/Rio and its environs, and to protect the view shed surrounding the Parkway and Park/Rio Road. While an expert evaluation could be provided by a third party, such as the Va. Department of Conservation and Recreation, we suggest that 50 acres of land, contiguous to the existing park would be an appropriate replacement amount.
8 . Cell Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the public rights-of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquired solely for traditional road system purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to private companies who then construct wireless telecommunication towers ("Cell towers") on the sites along our highways.
Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are larger or taller or both. Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in Virginia. This new cell tower- highway program has occurred without any local government zoning or land use oversight or permission, and without any meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in deciding where the next tower will appear. For these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers anywhere along Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Council and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local government involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves forward.
9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept of a limited access Parkway for this road for its entire length, from the 250 bypass to Rio Road, except for the single intersection of Melbourne Road. It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and signed to prevent truck traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing the right of way as is conventional in many limited access highways. As the Rieley Report indicates, "with the lower speed design and the objective of making this roadway as much a part of the park as is possible" fencing is not "necessary or desirable".
10. Regional Transportation and The Eastern Connector. While the Council supports construction of a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described in this letter, Council has no interest in this Parkway's becoming a de facto "eastern connector", i.e., being used by the public solely to travel from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route 20 North. The Parkway should be viewed as only one small part of the regional transportation solution. To this end, the City's approval of the Meadowcreek Parkway is contingent upon receipt of a commitment within six months from the date of this resolution from Albemarle County and the University of Virginia, in cooperation with the MPO and VDOT, to develop a new regional transportation network plan which, among other things, will minimize increases in automobile traffic in City and County neighborhoods through the year 2015. Development of this plan shall include focus on reviewing all data that has been created. The goal of the plan shall be to develop new regional solutions to our current and future traffic problems, without adversely impacting existing City and County residents or businesses or overly depleting our region's natural resources.
11. The MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee. This Committee is commended by Council for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway designs heretofore put forward by VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this Committee to ensure "that the road is compatible with the community's natural and built environment, and enhances the multi-modal mobility for area residents". To the extent that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future from the City in these continuing efforts, the City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council and City staff as the process moves forward.
12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final design plans evolve, proper measures must be taken by VDOT in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which currently is located on a hill in McIntire Park near the proposed intersection of the Parkway and the 250 By-Pass.
The foregoing items - one by one -are each in their own right important, crucial, elements in any final design that the City and this Council will support. These components were coupled together in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that the City has any right, by law or practice, to approve the final design, we ask and expect that VDOT will remember this linkage.
Finally, if there are questions that VDOT has about Council's position as stated in this letter, please let us know, through contact with City staff or with me. We stand ready to cooperate with VDOT in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction.
Sincerely yours,
J. Blake Caravati
Mayor
cc: Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, Culpeper
Carter Myers
Board of Supervisors
Approved by City Council
December 6, 2000
Signed: Jeanne Cox
Jeanne Cox, Clerk of Council