George,

The letter from Meredith Richards and Blake Caravati to “Friends in the Democratic Party” concerning the easement proposal for the Meadowcreek Parkway dated December 20, 2003 serves only to increase the influence of the Meadowcreek Parkway in the upcoming city council election rather than reduce it (as appears to be their intent). Rather than this issue distracting from other concerns mentioned in the letter including social and racial justice, participatory democracy, and economic prosperity for all, parkway issues include these concerns in quite significant ways.

In recent weeks, several council members have promoted consideration of easing - rather than selling - parkland to VDOT for parkway construction. Discussions of the easement option were held in closed session, by electronic mail among three of the council members (without the knowledge of the other two), and in general outside the view of the public. I believe this behavior is inconsistent with participatory democracy ideals of our community and appear to be in violation of Commonwealth of Virginia open meeting and freedom of information requirements.

Committing to construct the Meadowcreek Parkway will have great impacts on social and racial justice in our city. The many millions of dollars that will be expended on this parkway will benefit primarily the development community and will promote sprawl development in our region. Little benefit will go to economically disadvantaged members of our city and those unable to (or choose not to) rely on automobiles to meet their transportation needs. Will this project provide economic prosperity for all or just those connected to property development? The impacts associated with this project are primarily borne by those receiving little if any of the benefits.

This letter also asks us to “once-and-for-all put the Meadowcreek Parkway behind us as a political issue and allow the regional transportation planning process to take its course.” But, this project has been discussed primarily as a political issue by city council. Little discussion is heard about the transportation benefits of the proposed parkway that is defended by credible modeling results.

The most recent transportation models of traffic demand on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway and other proposed highway projects presented by VDOT in December 2003 as part of the CHART long-range transportation planning process show that anticipated traffic demand in 2025 is almost twice the design capacities of the parkway and the other proposed highways. These VDOT projections do not indicate that the parkway will "improve the overall quality of life for citizens who live along Park Street and in adjacent neighborhoods by alleviating congestion in those areas" as Ms. Richards and Mr. Caravati contend, but will likely decrease significantly their quality of life. All of the traffic projections I have seen from VDOT and other sources show that traffic demand and congestion on Park Street will be higher if the parkway is built - not lower.

I encourage all stakeholders in our community to look carefully at the likely benefits, costs, and impacts on our parkland, environment, and society relating to the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway construction. I don’t believe those promoting this project have demonstrated that the transportation benefits they claim are adequately demonstrated, or even if achievable are necessarily a fair exchange for the negative impacts associated with the parkway. If this project is to be once-and-for-all put behind us, I believe that current research suggests that dropping the project would be the correct decision. If any clear information exists that shows this parkway to be a significant benefit to meeting our future transportation needs, I haven’t seen it. I hope you will join me in asking our city council members for evidence that this project is about more than politics.

Peter Kleeman (electronic mail, December 29, 2003)