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.
