STAMP-2025: Sensible Alternatives to the Meadow Creek Parkway

Tuesday, 11 April 2006

Phase I Contract Agreement Approved by City
Topic: Contracts

RK&K Engineers and the City of Charlottesville have agreed to terms for Phase I of the Route 250 Bypass / McIntire Road Interchange project. The necessary approvals occurred in late March about the same time as the March Citizen Information Meeting was held. To view the tasks, schedule, and deliverables associated with this contract visit Phase I Contract. The tasks to be done by RK&K and all of the sub-consultants are included in one document. If your interested in how the $1.5 million is to be spent, check it out.

I believe some of the described limitations on project development are not in compliance with FHWA regulations (public involvement in development of purpose and need) and NEPA regulations (consideration of all reasonable alternatives). I plan to address these and other concerns in future postings to this blog, and in letters to FHWA, VDOT, and the City of Charlottesville.

posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 11:55 AM EDT
Permalink | Share This Post

Friday, 31 March 2006

Code of Virginia relating to the Vietnam Memorial
Topic: Code of Virginia

The public information meeting on the Route 29 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project provided graphics of the footprints of several possible interchange designs. Interestingly, the ramps associated with these would have significant impact on the existing Vietnam War Memorial in McIntire Park. Below are relevant sections of the Code of Virginia to impacting memorials of this type. I believe it is essential that the study team and steering committee explicitly consider the implications of these impacts and provide the public with how they intend to consider this memorial in all future planning activities.

? 15.2-1812. Memorials for war veterans.

A locality may, within the geographical limits of the locality, authorize and permit the erection of monuments or memorials for any war or conflict, or for any engagement of such war or conflict, to include the following monuments or memorials: Algonquin (1622), French and Indian (1754-1763), Revolutionary (1775-1783), War of 1812 (1812-1815), Mexican (1846-1848), Confederate or Union monuments or memorials of the War Between the States (1861-1865), Spanish-American (1898), World War I (1917-1918), World War II (1941-1945), Korean (1950-1953), Vietnam (1965-1973), Operation Desert Shield-Desert Storm (1990-1991), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003). If such are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation and care of same. For purposes of this section, "disturb or interfere with" includes removal of, damaging or defacing monuments or memorials, or, in the case of the War Between the States, the placement of Union markings or monuments on previously designated Confederate memorials or the placement of Confederate markings or monuments on previously designated Union memorials.

The governing body may appropriate a sufficient sum of money out of its funds to complete or aid in the erection of monuments or memorials to the veterans of such wars. The governing body may also make a special levy to raise the money necessary for the erection or completion of any such monuments or memorials, or to supplement the funds already raised or that may be raised by private persons, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion or other organizations. It may also appropriate, out of any funds of such locality, a sufficient sum of money to permanently care for, protect and preserve such monuments or memorials and may expend the same thereafter as other funds are expended.

(Code 1950, ? 15-696; 1962, c. 623, ? 15.1-270; 1982, c. 19; 1988, c. 284; 1997, c. 587; 1998, c. 752; 2005, c. 390.)

? 15.2-1812.1. Action for damage to memorials for war veterans.

A. If any monument, marker or memorial for war veterans as designated in ?? 15.2-1812 and 18.2-137 is violated or encroached upon, an action for the recovery of damages may be commenced by the following:

1. For a publicly owned monument, marker or memorial, by the attorney for the locality in which it is located; or, if no such action has commenced within sixty days following any such violation or encroachment, by any person having an interest in the matter; and

2. For a privately owned monument, marker or memorial, by the private organization, society or museum that owns it or any member of such organization, society or museum. Damages may be awarded in such amounts as necessary for the purposes of rebuilding, repairing, preserving and restoring such memorials or monuments to preencroachment condition. Damages other than those litigation costs recovered from any such action shall be used exclusively for said purposes.

B. Punitive damages may be recovered for reckless, willful or wanton conduct resulting in the defacement of, malicious destruction of, unlawful removal of, or placement of improper markings, monuments or statues on memorials for war veterans.

C. The party who initiates and prevails in an action authorized by this section shall be entitled to an award of the cost of the litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to limit the rights of any person, organization, society, or museum to pursue any additional civil remedy otherwise allowed by law.

(2000, c. 812.)

posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 12:16 PM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Wednesday, 15 March 2006

Citizen Informational Meeting Announced
Topic: Public Involvement

Here is the announcement for the March 23, 2006 citizen information meeting on the Route 250 Bypass / McIntire Road Intersection project. Please attend to comment, or write your comments on this project as indicated in the announcement.

CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road
VDOT Project No. 0250-104-103, PE-101
STP-5104 (158)
Senior Center, Inc.
1180 Pepsi Place
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Thursday, March 23, 2006
4:00 PM to 7:30 PM
The City of Charlottesville announces a Citizen Informational Meeting, open forum format, for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road. The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 23, 2006 from 4:00 PM to 7:30 PM at the Senior Center, 1180 Pepsi Place.
Meeting attendees are invited to provide the City with their comments and input on the proposed project. The purpose of the meeting is to present project background information, including key themes for the Draft Purpose and Need, Draft Goals and Objectives, Area Resources, and Preliminary Interchange Concepts for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road. Members of the Project Team will be on hand to answer your questions and listen to your input.
Interested persons are invited to express their views in writing, giving reasons for support of, or opposition to, the proposed project. Comments will be received during the meeting or can be mailed (postmarked by April 3, 2006) to City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, PO Box 911, Charlottesville Virginia 22902. For additional project information visit www.250interchange.org.
The above meeting location is accessible to persons having disabilities. Any person having special needs or requiring special aid, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, is requested to contact the City of Charlottesville one week in advance.

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTE: This notice appeared in the Sunday March 12, 2006 edition of the Daily Progress as a legal notice in the classified advertisment section.

posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 7:57 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006 10:24 AM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Tuesday, 7 March 2006

Response to Public Involvement Inquiry
Topic: Public Involvement

Here is the response to my February 22, 2006 Inquiry
To: Peter Kleeman
From: Angela Tucker
Date: March 6, 2006
Reference: Route 250 Interchange Project; Public Participation; Purpose and Need; Alternative Selection
Peter:
Thank you for your e-mail of February 22, 2006 regarding: 1.) public involvement in Steering Committee meetings, 2.) the project Purpose and Need document, and 3.)compliance with current federal project development requirements.
As you know, the Steering Committee’s current position is that the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on Steering Committee meeting agenda items, at the end of each meeting, time permitting. Be assured, we will always attempt to have time available for public comments. As noted at the March 2, 2006 Steering Committee meeting, the matter of public involvement in the Steering committee meetings will be discussed at the next Steering Committee meeting, tentatively scheduled for April 20, 2006.
At the second Steering Committee meeting on January 11, 2006, we had intended to divide the Steering Committee into two groups to review the preliminary interchange concepts. We also intended to have a third group for public attendees. Each of the three groups was to include Project Team members to facilitate the discussions. It was anticipated that each group would summarize and report their comments back to the full Steering Committee. However, time did not permit this approach and you were invited to join with the Steering Committee in providing comments. In the future, when reviewing alternatives, we intend to follow this format and will provide a separate work table for the public, facilitated by members of the Project Team, to review and comment on the range of interchange alternatives, and the detailed interchange alternatives/ recommended interchange alternative.
The role of the Steering Committee is noted on slides 11 to 14 of the November 3, 2005 meeting presentation and slides 4 to 7 of the January 11, 2006 meeting presentation, all of which are included on the project website. A major component of that role is to assist the Project Team in facilitating and enhancing the public involvement effort. It is clear that the public involvement process, including the public workshops, meetings with those most directly affected by the project, the project website, etc. will significantly benefit from Steering Committee input. The material to be presented at the initial Citizen Informational Meeting has been enhanced thanks to the efforts of the Steering Committee members at last week’s meeting. We have encouraged the Steering Committee members to attend and be involved in the Citizen Informational Meetings and to experience first hand, public comments and recommendations.
The Steering Committee is free to reach a consensus and make recommendations on various aspects of the project, should they choose to do so. If they choose to make comments or recommendations about the project, we will advise the public of these comments. However, project decisions are NOT the responsibility of the Steering Committee, but rest with the City of Charlottesville, VDOT and FHWA. Informed project decisions will consider public input, along with that of the Project Team, Steering Committee and the Environmental Resource and Regulatory Agencies.
The Project Team is in compliance with current federal statutes and regulations. In fact, we will exceed those requirements by conducting public meetings at each key milestone of the project development process. We are currently in the phase of the project that involves collecting pertinent information and data, preparing for our initial public meeting and developing key themes for the draft Purpose and Need, and project Goals and Objectives, along with the starting point for preliminary Interchange Concepts. The key themes of the draft Purpose and Need are noted in the Steering Committee meetings information, included on the project website. You are welcome to provide comments on those themes, at your convenience.
The initial kick-off Citizen Informational Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 23, 2006 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Senior Center. Citizen Informational Meeting #1 will include the presentation of the following types of information for discussion with and comments from the public:
* Purpose of Citizen Informational Meeting #1
* Draft Purpose & Need – Key Themes
* Draft Goals & Objectives
* Environmental Coordination Process
* Public Involvement Initiatives
* Initial Environmental Inventory
* Traffic Analysis/Travel Demand Modeling/Long Range Plan
* Context Sensitive Urban Design
* Project Design Challenges
* Interchange Concepts – Starting Point – October 2000 Report
* Refined Preliminary Interchange Concepts – 2006
* Project Schedule/Next Steps
The draft Citizen Informational Meeting #1 material was reviewed with the Steering Committee at the March 2, 2006 meeting. You were provided with a copy of that material, as were the other members of the public in attendance. The material has also been placed on the project web site and will be available for public comment until Thursday, March 9, 2006. The material will then be refined, placed on the project website and presented at the March 23, 2006 Citizen Informational Meeting. The notice for Citizen Informational Meeting #1 will indicate the availability of meeting material. Based on the comments we receive at the initial Citizen Informational Meeting on these and others items, the Project Team will develop a draft project Purpose and Need statement which will be placed on the project web site for public comments and also made available to the environmental resource and regulatory agencies and to the Steering Committee for comments.
The draft Purpose and Need will also be presented at the Citizen Informational Meeting #2, along with a potential range of Interchange alternatives. The Purpose and Need will be a living document, and it will be refined as appropriate through the project development/ NEPA process. Following Citizen Informational Meeting #2, the Project Team will meet with the environmental resource agencies to review the draft Purpose and Need, the potential range of alternatives and the methodologies and level of detail required in the evaluation of each alternative. Following the meeting with the resource agencies, the Range of Interchange Alternatives to be evaluated in detail will be determined. This Range of Interchange Alternatives will be evaluated over the summer and presented at Citizen Informational Meeting #3 in the fall. This detailed evaluation of Interchange Alternatives will be included in the draft environmental document, which may include a preferred alternative.
Thank you for your comments. We look forward to meeting with the public on March 23rd to present, discuss and receive their comments on the initial project information.
Cc:
All Steering Committee Members
All Project Team Members
posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 4:27 PM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Response to Public Involvement Inquiry
Topic: Public Involvement

Here is the response to my February 22, 2006 Inquiry
To: Peter Kleeman
From: Angela Tucker
Date: March 6, 2006
Reference: Route 250 Interchange Project; Public Participation; Purpose and Need; Alternative Selection
Peter:
Thank you for your e-mail of February 22, 2006 regarding: 1.) public involvement in Steering Committee meetings, 2.) the project Purpose and Need document, and 3.)compliance with current federal project development requirements.
As you know, the Steering Committee’s current position is that the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on Steering Committee meeting agenda items, at the end of each meeting, time permitting. Be assured, we will always attempt to have time available for public comments. As noted at the March 2, 2006 Steering Committee meeting, the matter of public involvement in the Steering committee meetings will be discussed at the next Steering Committee meeting, tentatively scheduled for April 20, 2006.
At the second Steering Committee meeting on January 11, 2006, we had intended to divide the Steering Committee into two groups to review the preliminary interchange concepts. We also intended to have a third group for public attendees. Each of the three groups was to include Project Team members to facilitate the discussions. It was anticipated that each group would summarize and report their comments back to the full Steering Committee. However, time did not permit this approach and you were invited to join with the Steering Committee in providing comments. In the future, when reviewing alternatives, we intend to follow this format and will provide a separate work table for the public, facilitated by members of the Project Team, to review and comment on the range of interchange alternatives, and the detailed interchange alternatives/ recommended interchange alternative.
The role of the Steering Committee is noted on slides 11 to 14 of the November 3, 2005 meeting presentation and slides 4 to 7 of the January 11, 2006 meeting presentation, all of which are included on the project website. A major component of that role is to assist the Project Team in facilitating and enhancing the public involvement effort. It is clear that the public involvement process, including the public workshops, meetings with those most directly affected by the project, the project website, etc. will significantly benefit from Steering Committee input. The material to be presented at the initial Citizen Informational Meeting has been enhanced thanks to the efforts of the Steering Committee members at last week’s meeting. We have encouraged the Steering Committee members to attend and be involved in the Citizen Informational Meetings and to experience first hand, public comments and recommendations.
The Steering Committee is free to reach a consensus and make recommendations on various aspects of the project, should they choose to do so. If they choose to make comments or recommendations about the project, we will advise the public of these comments. However, project decisions are NOT the responsibility of the Steering Committee, but rest with the City of Charlottesville, VDOT and FHWA. Informed project decisions will consider public input, along with that of the Project Team, Steering Committee and the Environmental Resource and Regulatory Agencies.
The Project Team is in compliance with current federal statutes and regulations. In fact, we will exceed those requirements by conducting public meetings at each key milestone of the project development process. We are currently in the phase of the project that involves collecting pertinent information and data, preparing for our initial public meeting and developing key themes for the draft Purpose and Need, and project Goals and Objectives, along with the starting point for preliminary Interchange Concepts. The key themes of the draft Purpose and Need are noted in the Steering Committee meetings information, included on the project website. You are welcome to provide comments on those themes, at your convenience.
The initial kick-off Citizen Informational Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 23, 2006 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Senior Center. Citizen Informational Meeting #1 will include the presentation of the following types of information for discussion with and comments from the public:
* Purpose of Citizen Informational Meeting #1
* Draft Purpose & Need – Key Themes
* Draft Goals & Objectives
* Environmental Coordination Process
* Public Involvement Initiatives
* Initial Environmental Inventory
* Traffic Analysis/Travel Demand Modeling/Long Range Plan
* Context Sensitive Urban Design
* Project Design Challenges
* Interchange Concepts – Starting Point – October 2000 Report
* Refined Preliminary Interchange Concepts – 2006
* Project Schedule/Next Steps
The draft Citizen Informational Meeting #1 material was reviewed with the Steering Committee at the March 2, 2006 meeting. You were provided with a copy of that material, as were the other members of the public in attendance. The material has also been placed on the project web site and will be available for public comment until Thursday, March 9, 2006. The material will then be refined, placed on the project website and presented at the March 23, 2006 Citizen Informational Meeting. The notice for Citizen Informational Meeting #1 will indicate the availability of meeting material. Based on the comments we receive at the initial Citizen Informational Meeting on these and others items, the Project Team will develop a draft project Purpose and Need statement which will be placed on the project web site for public comments and also made available to the environmental resource and regulatory agencies and to the Steering Committee for comments.
The draft Purpose and Need will also be presented at the Citizen Informational Meeting #2, along with a potential range of Interchange alternatives. The Purpose and Need will be a living document, and it will be refined as appropriate through the project development/ NEPA process. Following Citizen Informational Meeting #2, the Project Team will meet with the environmental resource agencies to review the draft Purpose and Need, the potential range of alternatives and the methodologies and level of detail required in the evaluation of each alternative. Following the meeting with the resource agencies, the Range of Interchange Alternatives to be evaluated in detail will be determined. This Range of Interchange Alternatives will be evaluated over the summer and presented at Citizen Informational Meeting #3 in the fall. This detailed evaluation of Interchange Alternatives will be included in the draft environmental document, which may include a preferred alternative.
Thank you for your comments. We look forward to meeting with the public on March 23rd to present, discuss and receive their comments on the initial project information.
Cc:
All Steering Committee Members
All Project Team Members
posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 4:25 PM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Public Involvement in Project Development
Topic: Public Involvement

Here is an inquiry sent to the Route 250 Bypass / McIntire Road Steering Committee chair concerning the lack of opportunity for the public to participate in the development of project Purpose and Need or selection of alternatives for consideration as required.
From: Peter T. Kleeman
To: Angela Tucker; Owen Peery
Cc: Ivan Rucker (FHWA)
Sent: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:39:42
Subject: Route 250 Interchange Project: Public Participation; Purpose and Need; Alternative Selection
Angela Tucker, City of Charlottesville project manager
Owen Peery, RK&K Engineers project manager
The Route 250 Interchange Steering Committee does not include any opportunity for input from the public, which appears to be not in compliance with Federal Highway Statues. I am bringing this concern to you and to our local FHWA Community Planner, Ivan Rucker, for your consideration along with another request that the Steering Committee agendas be revised to include opportunities to participate particularly when discussion on purpose and need, and study alternatives are being addressed. I am providing you material I believe is particularly appropriate for your consideration now as these items have already been addressed at committee meetings without Federally required public participation opportunities. The material provided below is from the Highway section of the United States Code (23USC139) that was just enacted into law in the SAFETEA-LU legislation in section 6002 of that act.
The specific section of the US Code of interest here is entitled: Sec. 139: Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking. In this code section the requirement that the public be invited to participate in development of the purpose and need statement, and determination of the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental review. By not allowing public participation in these discussions I believe you are not in compliance with this section of the US Code.
I have included below the text of 23USC139 Subsection (f) that directly addresses the need for public involvement in the currently ongoing activities of the steering committee that are - in spite of my several requests - being denied.
I have copied this email to Ivan Rucker so that he too will be aware of my concern that current activities being carried out by the City of Charlottesville in its role as a lead agency in this Federal-aid Highway project appear not to not be in compliance with current Federal law.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you further and request that a partial solution to this apparent non-compliance would be to include opportunities for matters from the public on all upcoming committee agendas. In addition, I recommend that interested members of the public be provided opportunities to participate in purpose and need discussions and discussions on selection of project alternatives when those items are the order of business of the committee or any subcommittees that may be formed for these purposes in the future.
Sincerely, Peter Kleeman
23USC139
...
(f) Purpose and Need.--
(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the environmental review process, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in defining the purpose and need for a project.
(2) Definition.--Following participation under paragraph (1), the lead agency shall define the project's purpose and need for purposes of any document which the lead agency is responsible for preparing for the project.
(3) Objectives.--The statement of purpose and need shall include a clear statement of the objectives that the proposed action is intended to achieve, which may include--
(A) achieving a transportation objective identified in an applicable statewide or metropolitan transportation plan;
(B) supporting land use, economic development, or growth objectives established in applicable Federal, State, local, or tribal plans; and
(C) serving national defense, national security, or other national objectives, as established in Federal laws, plans, or policies.
(4) Alternatives analysis.--
(A) Participation.--As early as practicable during the environmental review process, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in determining the range of alternatives to be considered for a project.
(B) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under paragraph
(1), the lead agency shall determine the range of alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead agency is responsible for preparing for the project.
(C) Methodologies.--The lead agency also shall determine, in collaboration with participating agencies at appropriate times during the study process, the methodologies to be used and the level of detail required in the analysis of each alternative for a project.
(D) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the development of such higher level of detail will not prevent the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to whether to accept another alternative which is being considered in the environmental review process.
posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 4:04 PM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Tuesday, 21 February 2006

SAFETEA-LU Funding
Topic: Project Funding

Here are the sections of the most recent transportation legislation references to funding of the Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange in SAFETEA-LU (PL 109-59). It is interesting to note that the funding is designated for the Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange which is a clear link between this funding and the parkway project.

SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be available (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(16) f this Act) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out each such project:

Highway Projects High Priority Projects
------------------------------------------------
No: 5044
State: VA
Project Description: Construct Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange, Charlottesville
Amount: $25,000,000
-------------------------------------------------

SEC. 1934. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there are authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are necessary to make allocations in accordance with paragraph (2)to carry out each project described in the table contained in
subsection (c), at the amount specified for each such project in that table.
(2) Allocation percentages.--Of the total amount specified for each project described in the table contained in subsection c), 10 percent for fiscal year 2005, 20 percent for fiscal year 2006, 25 percent for fiscal year 2007, 25 percent for fiscal year 2008, and 20 percent for fiscal year 2009 shall be allocated to carry out each such project in that table.

(b) Contract Authority.--
(1) In general.--Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the funds shallremain available until expended.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a project under this section shall be determined in accordance with section 120 of such title.

(c) Table.--The table referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is as follows:

Transportation Improvements
-------------------------------------------------
No: 408
State: VA
Project Description: Construct Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange, Charlottesville
Amount: $2,000,000
-------------------------------------------------

posted by Peter Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 6:09 PM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Thursday, 9 February 2006

Matters from the Public Still Not Welcome at Steering Committee Meetings
Topic: Steering Committee

Although several members of the public have asked for the opportunity to present matters of interest on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange project to the steering committee, a time for matters from the public is still not part of the upcoming agenda for March 2, 2006 [time:4:00-7:00 at a location to be announced].

Also, at the Charlottesville City Council meeting on February 6, 2006, council decided to appoint alternate committee members to represent committee members who cannot attend on a regular basis. The original policy established by the committee was the following:

"Members may designate an alternate to attend and participate in discussions in his or her absence. Alternates may vote in the absence of the member, except on the vote to adopt final recommendations."

My hunch is that city council was unhappy that Maurice Cox participated as a designated alternate at the second committee meeting and presented some concerns about the scale of the proposed project, and questioned how encountering two roundabouts and a massive overpass would be perceived by visitors to Charlottesville passing through this gateway to the City. I thought Maurice Cox's comments were on target, but my guess is that Maurice won't be appointed as a committee alternate.

At the end of the meeting, members of the public [only Colette Hall (President of the North Downtown Resident's Association) and I were there at that time] were invited to participate along with the committee in commenting on existing preliminary interchange designs proposed in the Reiley Report and other designs suggested by RK&K Engineers (the consultants for the project). Although it appeared that Owen Peery (RK&K project manager) planned to have the committee divide into two groups with members of the public working independently as a third group in this exercise (although this was never communicated to the public prior to that moment), the two of us were invited to join with the full committee to have a single group discussion of project issues.

My guess is that this limited - and last minute - opportunity for those from the public who sat through the more than two hours of the meeting to participate will be presented in the future in a manner that overstates the public's involvement in these meetings. I am waiting for the time when the committee will truly invite responsible comment and involvement by members of the public.

posted by Peter Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 5:50 PM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Monday, 30 January 2006

January 18, 2006 City Council letter RE:McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
Topic: City Council Resolution

Below is an online version the letter approved by Charlottesville City Counci on a 5-0 vote updating council's position on the McIntire Road Extension project.
January 18, 2006
Mr. Greg Whirley
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1939
Mr. Dennis Rooker
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
VDOT Project U000-104-102:0631-002-128 City of Charlottesville
Gentlemen:
On December 11, 2000, Mayor Blake Caravati sent a letter to VDOT officials regarding the City’s stance on the Meadow Creek Parkway. This letter was in follow-up to a previous letter from the City dated July 20, 1999. While we are committed to a completed Meadow Creek Parkway as designed at this time, we are excited about the funding for the interchange project, which will greatly improve the function of the Parkway.
The conditions below are enumerated as essential conditions that will allow Council to support the project. Council desires to construct the project and believes adherence to the issues outlined below will lead to a better transportation network for our community. We do desire prior to bidding the project to review the final construction plans for compliance with all conditions below that are design specific. 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 December 11th shown are shown in bold italics). Council acknowledges that VDOT has made substantial progress in meeting conditions outlined in the letter.
This update and revision to the letter is based on action taken by the City Council on January 17, 2006 to move this project forward.
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 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." VDOT’s amended plans comply with this request.
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. Right-of-way plans show road right-of-way sufficient for two lanes only.
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 grade separated interchange.
Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to McIntire Park at the proposed intersection also must be accommodated in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire and in accord with the second Rieley Report (dated August 31, 2000). This is best achieved by a grade separated interchange.
(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, 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. Council desires to work with VDOT and Albemarle County to pursue funds to construct the interchange at the same time as the Meadow Creek 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. Council has engaged a firm for engineering services for the design of this project and thanks VDOT, the County Board of Supervisors, and especially Senator Warner for their efforts to secure funding for the interchange. We remain committed to this project as a necessary improvement to both the U. S. 250 Bypass and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway.
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. Current plans show a five foot shared pedestrian/bike path. This should be eight feet.
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. The current pond design is acceptable to the City.
7. Additional Park Land. The City's approval for the Meadow Creek 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. The City believes the park acquisition plan shown on the attached drawing (Exhibit “A”) meets this requirement and will only support the project with this land acquisition proposal and a commitment from the County to begin acquisition.
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. No change in our position.
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". The plans address this concern.
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 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 Meadow Creek 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. The recently approved CHART plan provides the planning framework for this regional network. City Council is now desirous that the County and VDOT demonstrate a firm commitment to the Eastern Connector. Specifically, the City has committed $250,000 towards funding a location study as has the Board of Supervisors. An RFP is being developed so this study can proceed.
The City also expects to see a funding commitment for the Southern Parkway by VDOT and/or the County by 2008 before construction begins on the parkway. This is another important road that is needed to further complete the area road network.
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. The Committee participated in this effort and achieved a successful design of the project. Council has developed a new Steering Committee to work with the interchange design consultant and staff to achieve a compatible interchange design.
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. No change in our concern.
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 or the County have 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 in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Brown
Mayor
cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
John J. Davies, III

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 11:38 AM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION
Topic: City Council Resolution

The following resolution was passed by the Charlottesville City Council at their January 17, 2006 council meeting. This resolution authorizes VDOT to move forward with purchasing right-of-way for the McIntire Road Extended project. Although an Exhibit A is referenced, it has not yet been provided to me by the city. I will post Exhibit A when it is available.
DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a Design Public Hearing was conducted on May 27, 1999 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed design of the McIntire Road Project #U000-104-V02, C501 in the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and
WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Charlottesville were present and participated in said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and
WHEREAS, following the Design Public Hearing the City of Charlottesville, through its City Council, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, through its Department of Transportation, agreed to changes in the design as presented at the public hearing, which changes reduced the scope of the Project in order to minimize its impact on McIntire Park, and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has previously expressed its conditional support for this Project in letters to the Virginia Department of Transportation dated July 20, 1999 and December 11, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville now reaffirms its previously-stated position that the Meadow Creek Parkway should only be built under certain conditions, which conditions are set forth in the attached letter from Mayor David Brown to Greg Whirley of the Virginia Department of Transportation and Dennis Rooker of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors dated January 18, 2006 and attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, in light of the progress made toward the fulfillment of the conditions stated in Exhibit A, the City of Charlottesville is willing to approve the agreed-upon design and request the Department of Transportation to proceed with acquisition of the right-of-way necessary for the Project, and
WHEREAS, the Council considered all such matters; now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Charlottesville hereby approves the major design features of the proposed project presented at the Public Hearing, as subsequently modified by mutual agreement between the City and the Commonwealth; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville will acquire and/or furnish all City right-of-way necessary for this project and certify same to the Department at the appropriate time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to acquire all rights of way necessary for this project conveying said right-of-way to the City at the appropriate time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville, all necessary railroad and utility agreements required in conjunction with acquiring such rights of way, and, upon written confirmation from the City to the Commonwealth that all agreed-upon conditions for constructing the Meadow Creek Parkway as set forth in the attached Exhibit A have been substantially fulfilled, the City Manager shall be authorized to execute all other associated standard agreements for construction activities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that actual construction of the McIntire Road Project #U000-104-V02, C501 in the City of Charlottesville should not proceed if any of the conditions stated in Exhibit A are unfulfilled due to factors beyond the control of the City.

posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 10:53 AM EST
Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older

«	May 2006					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31