City Council OKs 49 acres for parkway
Charlottesville’s City Council was nearly split down the middle Monday when considering approval for a temporary construction easement to build the Meadowcreek Parkway, the controversial 2-mile thoroughfare that has stagnated for nearly four decades.
Councilors voted 3-to-2 to approve a temporary construction easement for the Virginia Department of Transportation to build the parkway. An identical vote came shortly after at the council’s Monday meeting in approving a design concept for the interchange at the U.S. 250 Bypass and McIntire Road, the parkway’s endpoint.
Councilor Satyendra Huja, a proponent of both items, said he believes the parkway is necessary along with increased commitment to mass transit, and increasing bicycle and pedestrian activity.
“Transportation is a part of any community,” Huja said. “Part of it is a balance of transportation.”
The council approved a similar VDOT grant in October. However, councilors were required to re-approve the resolution Monday night because the easement’s boundaries changed as a result of new storm water drainage system designs.
In an interview last week, Councilor David Brown said, “Because of some final design things having to do with the storm water ponds, there’s some tinkering with some boundaries.”
The resolution allows the state transportation department to have a permanent easement on 49.1 acres of property that will be dedicated for city use as replacement parkland. The easement will not be used to construct the parkway’s endpoint — a grade-seperated, diamond-shaped interchange at the intersection of McIntire Road and the U.S. 250 Bypass.
During a June work session, the City Council selected the interchange over a roundabout design because it is smaller and provides safer access to McIntire Park. The junction would be the parkway’s terminus and connect with East Rio Road in Albemarle County.
The city has secured $29.6 million in federal and state funding, and construction of the interchange is slated to begin in spring 2010.
Once the parkway’s construction is completed, the easement will expire.
“I do think for where we are now, this is an important road,” Brown said during Monday’s meeting.
About 22 acres will be used within McIntire Park to construct the 2-mile parkway — which could begin as early as this fall — much to the chagrin of some area residents.
Peter Kleeman, a longtime critic of the proposed parkway, said in addition to other residents’ arguments, he thinks the historic nature of McIntire Park has not been adequately addressed.
“I’m proud that our City Council has been outraged by some abuse of historic properties in the past,” Kleeman said at Monday’s meeting. But, he added, “I’m disappointed that I do not see that same level of protection of the historic property that is McIntire Park.”
City resident Mary Kelly agreed.
“If I were asked what legacy I would like to leave our great-grandchildren, it’s something that’s disappearing over time — and that’s our green space,” Kelly said.
Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris and Councilor Holly Edwards voted against the resolution and the interchange’s design. Norris said he did not believe significant progress had been made on other area transportation projects.
John Cruickshank of the Sierra Club brought to councilors a 425-signature petition denouncing the parkway’s construction and subsequent loss of McIntire Park land.
“This parkway has gone from a bad idea to a monstrosity,” Cruickshank said.
Cruickshank said the city needs to look forward to solve the area’s transportation problems.
“This parkway is a 20th-century solution to transportation problems that require 21st-century thinking,” he said.
This article was edited to change “at-grade” to “grade-seperated” in the seventh paragraph.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I wonder why people consider T.J. a progressive person yet the Charlottesville city council and Albemarle B.O.S. both seem to want to block any progress this area needs and/or wants.
I wonder why it took over $100k to “calm the traffic” on Park Street when some strategically placed STOP signs and “Warning: Running STOP signs will result in $200 fine” would have been a heck of a lot cheaper and could have generated more money for the City Council to spend.


Advertisement