July 20, 1999
Scott Hollis
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:
Preliminary road plans presented by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), propose 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. We have been given the right to submit written comment in behalf of the City.
This letter is delivered to VDOT only after Council has received considerable input from many of its citizens about this project, before, during, and after a public hearing held by Council on June 21, 1999. We also have carefully reviewed the work of the City's consultant, a report done by Rieley and Associates entitled "A Study of Roadway Alternatives for the Meadow Creek Parkway in McIntire Park" dated April 27, 1999, (hereinafter "the Rieley Report"). An extra copy of that report is enclosed for VDOT's reference. The City's formal position or comment, item by item, for which there is majority support of this Council, is as follows:
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.
2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes, rather than four (4), 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 "study alignment" referred to in the Rieley Report as 4-Lane Divided (4-D), pp. 4-5. If and when a future City Council were to approve an additional two lanes, new primary travel lanes could then be constructed with a minimum of disruption to the Park, its landscape, and greenery and at lower costs for the State and the City.
3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Four (4) Lanes. Right of way for four (4) lanes of motor vehicle travel should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project.
4. The Intersection at Route 250. 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 through and around the proposed intersection from the south and east also must be accommodated at grade in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire..
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, makes sense to all of us. 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 respectfully requests that VDOT acquire and donate to the City and County, as part of this project opportunity, the greatest amount of additional land as is possible north and south of Melbourne Road. Our objectives are several. These include replacing any park land losses resulting from this project, enhancing and expanding the northern and eastern sides of McIntire Park, and joining with the County in seeing that park land north of Melbourne, through a linear park or otherwise, becomes a reality before acquisition of additional land in that location becomes occupied or too expensive. These acquisitions should be made easier through VDOT's use of money saved from the City's requested design changes, including those seeking a reduced design speed, two rather than four lanes, and combination of the storm water detention facilities.
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 as it travels through McIntire Park. 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 part of the regional transportation solution. We urge VDOT, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the County of Albemarle to develop new regional approaches to solve our traffic problems.
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 directly. We stand ready to cooperate with VDOT in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia Daugherty
Mayor
cc: Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, Culpeper
Carter Myers