George,

In his commentary supporting a quick decision on the Meadowcreek Parkway, Frank Stoner (among other things) said that "Opponents have argued that we cannot move forward with the parkway without a grade separated interchange because the at-grade intersection will fail. ... The fact is that we all use failing intersections in our area every day. They may not work as efficiently as we would like during rush hour but at most times of the day, they perform quite well". In other words, Stoner is saying that we already have failing intersections; why not build another one that will clog two more roads (the new Meadowcreek Parkway and the 250 Bypass)!

Why not endeavor to achieve a grade separated interchange and make the Meadowcreek Parkway workable from the get-go? This would save money -- retrofitting a separated interchange after the Parkway is built would double the cost. If a grade separated interchange is not built as part of the original Meadowcreek Parkway, residents of Park Street are going to see more traffic than ever. What are savvy local drivers going to do to avoid a long wait at Meadowcreek and the 250 Bypass (while the traffic lights go through their cycles)? They will take the less time-consuming Rio-Park St. route. Also, when the Meadowcreek Parkway is built, developers (such as Frank Stoner) will put up hundreds of dwelling units on property near the Parkway. What route are these new residents going to take when they go to and from downtown Charlottesville and Pantops?

There are three major obstacles -- dare I say "roadblocks" -- to getting the Parkway started:

1. The shortage of funds at VDOT.

2. The slow progress in negotiating with the County and VDOT to achieve the 12 conditions spelled out in the letter from the majority of the Council to VDOT and the County Supervisors, dated December 11, 2000. (Note that that letter, among other things, included the following passages: "The City's approval for the Meadowcreek Parkway design shall be and is contingent upon the acquisition of replacement parkland...", and "Council has no interest in this Parkway's becoming a de facto eastern connector".

3. Now, more recently, the attempt by some members of Council to convey the park land needed to build the Parkway via a constitutionally questionable easement scheme. There are legal opinions supporting the constitutionality of this scheme, and expert opinions calling it unconstitutional. Only the opinion of the State Supreme Court can settle the issue. A court case is inevitable, and while the case is being adjudicate, the Meadowcreek Parkway will be on hold.

If people want the Meadowcreek Parkway to be built sooner rather than later, the logical thing to do is overcome these three obstacles. The first obstacle could be greatly mitigated if VDOT had more funds. Those who have influence with the majority party in the General Assembly could help immensely by trying to persuade Republican legislators to support a gasoline tax increase or otherwise find revenue for VDOT.

The second obstacle could be overcome if we all worked together -- City and County, Republicans and Democrats, developers and environmentalists. We are all living in the same area. We are all neighbors. None of us want to see our roads become congested and unusable. I am sure developers like Frank Stoner do not want to see the quality of life that draws new people to the area degraded. The City and the County have come a long way in developing a good design for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Work on an overall transportation plan is progressing. Divisive political maneuvers by some members of our City Council (and others) do not help. They create turmoil when everyone should be pulling together.

The third obstacle can easily be overcome by withdrawing the easement gambit.

The roadmap forward is clear. If there is the will, there is a (Park)way. Let's everyone stop playing games, stop trying to score points in the press, and start moving forward.

And let's stop blaming Maurice Cox and Kevin Lynch for something they have not even done. Frank Stoner and others assume Maurice and Kevin will vote against the Parkway in the future. In fact, in a recent press release, Maurice and Kevin make a commitment to vote for the Parkway if certain conditions are met -- essentially the same conditions that Blake Caravati and Meredith Richards spelled out in the December 11, 2000 letter (referred to above). Maurice and Kevin state in their press release that "We believe that the consensus agreement worked out by Council three years ago remains the basis for achieving the best possible result. We said then, and we say today, that a Meadowcreek Parkway done right can be a great asset to the community. A poor road will be a negative." They say further that "We will work and vote for an excellent parkway."

It is Blake Caravati and Meredith Richards who have done a u-turn on the Parkway. They voted for the 12 conditions set forth in the December 11, 2000 letter and now they are abandoning that commitment. They are willing to let the Parkway go ahead (through the easement deal) without waiting for VDOT and the County to meet all the conditions they (Blake and Meredith) signed onto. Is this consistent and reliable behavior?

David RePass (electronic mail, December 21, 2003)