RECENT COMMENTS
Route 5 Study Public Meeting set for Monday
There is a very important meeting this coming week regarding the Rt. 5 Corridor Study. This is an important opportunity to voice your thoughts and to help guide this decision in the most favorable way for the future of this part of our City.
Rt. 5 Corridor Study Public Meeting
Monday, February 13 at 7:00 p.m.
John Rolfe Middle School
6901 Messer Road (adjacent to Varina High School just off Rt. 5)Among those in attendance will be Varina District Supervisor Tyrone Nelson, Lee Yolton of Richmond Regional Development, and Todd Eure of the Henrico Planning Commission.
Many of you are familiar with the Rt. 5 Corridor Study and the two alternatives (#1 Widen Route 5 (PDF) / #2 Widen New Osbourne Turnpike (PDF)) that have been presented to both the City of Richmond and the County of Henrico. We at PSG feel strongly that both proposed alternatives, on which the MPO is supposed to vote on March 8th, have room for improvement. The existing alternatives as currently drawn have the strong potential to:
- worsen traffic coming into Richmond on already-heavily traveled routes
- speed up sprawl by providing infrastructure required for rezoning farmland
- cause irreparable damage to historic areas such as Marion Hill, Church Hill, and a site of particular historic significance near Rocket’s Landing
- and will cost a projected $70 million or more in taxpayer money.
There is no immediate expansion required on the Rt. 5 Corridor, so we have the time to review the issue further, and come up with another alternative which will take care of projected traffic needs while minimizing the negative consequences inherent in the existing proposals. The following WRIC Channel 8 coverage of the issue summarizes the issue well (please be patient with the advertisement and load-time)
We hope you will join us on Monday to express your views on this very important issue!
Thanks,
Jan Hatcher
Executive Director
Partnership for Smarter Growth
2319 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23223
Is anyone even clammoring for changes to be made to Route 5. It’s not clear to me what the problem is that they are trying to solve for. Just doing something for the sake of doing something? Route 5 is not as overdeveloped as most of roads so we should pop out a mall along it?
I often drive down Route 5 to get to points east of Richmond. I was just on this road yesterday at 9:30 a.m. – there was very little traffic in both directions. I’ve also been on the road at “rush hour” times, and see little if any need to create more traffic lanes.
If you read between the lines of the presentations you will see that the developers of Tree Hill and Wilton Farm are the ones pushing this. Note the comment, above, about rezoning farmland.
Agree with the comments so far. Projects such as this are often disguised as being needed for safety or to keep traffic flowing, when in fact it’s about one thing….TAX REVENUE! It’s just like red-light cameras….think they’re for safety? Guess again…it’s to generate revenue. Yes, it will cost $70 million, but in the long run the county will recoup that plus more. While I don’t live out there I love driving route 5 and feeling like I’m out in the country within 5 minutes of Richmond. Is there anyone who lives out that direction during rush hour who could shed more light on the situation? Do you view it as a good or bad idea?
Both plans seem to have the same inherent problems associated with today’s poor traffic planning (ie Broad St. and Midlothian Turnpike). You can build the road 10 lanes each direction and eventually it’ll fill up. Concept 2 seems to be the lesser of the two evils in that it leaves Old Osbourne one lane each way at least til you hit the Grubb’s auto shop…that would keep the bulk of the traffic further north rather than channel it towards the river.
Every other major road out of the city already has a sprawling wasteland at the outskirts, guess these guys figured they’d make a buck and do the same here…
Sadly, I guess the fact that this stuff continues to happen suggests it is profitable and people like it.
I used to live on 301 out past 295 and it was pretty wide open and peaceful with plenty of farmland. Was shocked to see how much the developers shitted that up when I went back a few months ago. Route 5’s a really pretty drive and I’d hate to see the same.
Why they don’t bill the developers directly for any costs to expand roads to support their sprawling projects is beyond me. To ask all of the folks whose lives will be negatively impacted to pay more to widen the roads so that some other folks can have an easier drive when they move in is BS. Let the developers pay for that and see how much sprawl results after that.
These kind of projects are only profitable because developers get sweetheart infrastructure discounts from the local politicians who they took on some junket or donated to the reelection fund of.
Henrico has proposed incredibly dense zoning for east Henrico and there are large farms that were on track for major development before the housing market collapsed.Rte 5 is the only corridor into the city, hence the purpose of the study (to study long-range options).
However, this product is a choice between bad and worse. The study is a classic suburban modle of creating a big arterial funneling all traffic to a single point. In the end their “new urbanis” models of development will just be more suburban garbage with all of the typical traffic and poor planning. They completely ignored a number of issues. and the estimated costs are well below what it will actually cost to build. Not to mention they ignore various bottlenecks but proposed big, multi-lane intersections elsewhere.
Lastly, the one option proposes a 60′ tall flyover (above the existing grade of the RR bridge at Main and Williamsburg.) Imagine what a 70′ tall overpass at the riverfront, right below Church Hill would look like and how far back it would have to extend. Absolute joke!
I’m in agreement with much that has already been said in opposition to the current plans to widen Rt 5/New Osborne Tnpk and build a flyover bridge funneling traffic into Main Street.
One of the deciding factors in purchasing my home in Union Hill was the fact I could ride a bike out the city and be surrounded by farmland and forest in less than 15 minutes.
In recent years, suburban sprawl and the Pocahontas Pkwy have already done a lot of damage to the once rural environment of Eastern Henrico. I’d hate to see that trend continue.
Where were you when we needed you! I find it disheartening that people are just NOW deciding to get involved in a study that started over 18 months ago. The public input process ended last fall. The study was supposed to end months ago. But, since we can still influence the process, we welcome all the Johnny-come-latelys.
First, be sure you understand the strengths of the opponent’s argument. It is a fact that there are massive projects ALREADY approved for these areas. Thanks to the housing crisis, the houses haven’t been built yet, so the traffic has not yet arrived. The traffic may not be there today, but this isn’t a plan to build. It is merely good planning to develop a vision before the onslaught arrives. Keep in mind this plan does not in any way force the county & city to follow it.
Also, keep in mind that when you look at a map of development in the Richmond Region, the most logical place to focus growth in the coming decades is in eastern Richmond and Henrico. Building in those areas that are close to the city is much better than sprawling further out in Hanover, Western Henrico or South-West Chesterfield.
We need to base out arguments in logic and what is a better solution than what is proposed. Also, people often criticize the city and county for not coordinating themselves. We should acknowledge that it is a good thing for the city & county to be doing this visioning exercise together.
A couple points to please avoid saying at the public meeting, as it will only hurt our cause. (1) Saying that you like to bike 15 minutes from the city to farms only points out the strength of their argument that this is where fore-planning is needed. Plus, it is classic NIMBY-ism to say that your right to bike from the city to farms is more important than the rights of hundreds of landowners. (2) Saying that this is being pushed by developers is not based in any factual evidence whatsoever. It only gives them the opportunity to remind us that the developers have already gotten their projects approved. (3) Saying that developers should pay makes us sound uneducated to the facts, because the developers do pay. (Google: Virginia cash proffers).
Instead, let’s try to come up with some compelling and true arguments. For instance, why are both alternatives so pro-automobile? Why must it be one widened artery with drastic impacts, instead of various improved, but smaller arteries with smaller impacts? Why does the study not consider luring traffic elsewhere by making other arteries more attractive (i.e., 895, 64)?
Let’s not look like fools who are easy to blow off. Let’s understand the issue and make certain that a good plan comes out of this.
We love this area, so don’t be surprised that others might love to move here in the future. Growth happens and we cannot prevent it. But we can make sure that it happens in a good way that maintains the strengths of our older communities.
RS – regarding the cash proffers, are you saying that the $70M costs are offset fully by proffers? I’m willing to bet the amount of this cost borne by the developers is nowhere near that amount. That’s worth discussing IMO since we wouldn’t need to have this discussion about transportation if they hadn’t chosen to plan a development that is likely to overburden the existing infrastructure. That said, you clearly know more about this issue than I do so I’d like to hear if I’m missing something.
Going tactically into the various proposals, I agree that the single artery option is a poor one and even if I were going to use that approach, Route 5 would not be the artery I’d tap into. Even if they widen it outside of town, Main Street is two lanes each way with lots of stoplights and cars idling in the right lane once it hits town and this is just going to get backed up badly once it gets here. I don’t think it’s possible to do much with the portion of that route that is in town with all the existing buildings in place.
64/895 are a lot better positioned to move people quickly into town so they’d be much better options to link up to if we want to do single-artery.
It’s also interesting how the proposals show no sections cut from where the bridge would run next to Libby Hill. Only a section would show the lines of sight one would experience when looking out over the hill. In my experience, if something crucial like that is left out, it’s because the result is far from desirable. There are also no spot elevations on the proposed bridge so the public cannot research for themselves the height of the bridge and its impact to surrounding topography.
Alex, i totally agree about I-64 being the mass-traffic route in to Downtown. Main Street simply can’t handle the crush of all the forecasted population boom that RS is predicting/developers might be eyeing.
RS, as for being able to enjoy farm land near our city? Hell yeah, that’s important for our population’s fresh air and quality of life. Not just for me, but for everyone in RVA and Henrico. Ok, I’ll admit that I could spin my argument a different way for a public meeting, but for our survival, indeed, our planet’s survival, we don’t need more cars and more paved-over forests and fields.
Keep in green, Eastern Henrico.
Couple of things:
(1) The route 5 study has included two years of public meetings. Hundreds of people have attended them.
(2) These developments in Henrico are not proposed, they are entitled. They have been approved. All they need is a good lending climate to be real.
(3) They will be built. If opposing this is supposed to prevent that, good luck. All non-implementation of this plan is going to do is make people cut through Church Hill b/c Main bottlenecks between Poes an Rocketts.
So, say goodbye to the near city farms no matter what and be glad they are planned to be dense, urban, mixed use and mixed income instead of Bandermill.
If you want to be productive, ask the city and county implementors to:
(a) finish the capital trail and bike routes
(b) protect view sheds by having the fly over down by the train yard and not at Main and Williamsburg Rd
(c) require buffers and green space as a trade off for density for future developments
(d) reserve areas for future bus and rail connectivity
(e) prevent cut through traffic in Church Hill
(f) open the one way streets in the Bottom and restore Franklin under the station so the City’s grid can absorb traffic naturally
Otherwise, this is just another exercise in NIMBYism. Propose alternatives or the decision makers are going to continue to ignore us because all we say is No.
@14, ok all good points. You appear to be well-informed. Did you/or anyone you know attend the meeting on Monday night? If so, can you provide an update? I searched the RTD and apparently, they didn’t send a reporter.
Good points.
One question that I don’t think this question covers is where are all these new folks going to park. Downtown parking is already a mess and if the assumption is that all these folks are working downtown (which this plan seems to imply/assume), then mass transit will be all the more important.
Why not start with an express bus that goes right from the new developments to downtown offices with no additional stops (to keep the commute time short)? The time and cost saved on parking might make this more feasible/attractive than most mass transit routes.
Rail service is another option but that might be more expensive.
In this tight economic climate and without the demand being there yet, it might be a good time to push for a less blown out answer to the problem until bigger solutions become necessary. I personally am skeptical that there is still a great unmet demand for suburban sprawl housing and think it will be a while until there is after the meltdown we just went through and given that we have this sort of thing already all around the other sides of the city. I’d hate to invest heavily in building infrastructure that may not ever be needed when a simple solution will work.
If people don’t want to take the express bus, let them worry about traffic backups and finding parking. That’s the price they pay for living out in the suburbs. It’s not so much NIMBY-ism as it is NWMMYD (Not With My Money You Don’t). I don’t like the idea of dumping $70M of taxpayer money to build out crap that isn’t required and only serves a small portion of the population.
Sorry for the rant but these types of reckless and unsustainable building projects are a personal pet peeve.
Monorails. That is what this town needs. Just like Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.
What about redoing the Church Hill tunnel?
Technology has improved quite a bit since the early 1900’s.
Bus Rapid Transit, with a study being done by GRTIC/Dovetail Cultural Resource Management in Fredericksburg, is a part of the plan. The parking issue is really not an issue for me. Good–let parking be an issue, in fact, make it an issue. Force our city to be more walkable and pedestrian oriented.
Anybody have anything to report from Monday’s public meeting?
I talked to two guys tonight who attended the meeting, both of whom live out in eastern Henrico and already experience traffic problems (in spite of what someone on here said about there being no traffic). Both were actively involved and pretty heated up about it, I’ll try to get one or both to post here soon. What I took away from them is that they both think that both options are horrible, and that the only real option is to tie in to either 64 or 95 -one said another bridge over the river to connect with interstate 95 around the Maury St. entrance and exit is a viable alternative. I got the impression that there were a lot of rants at the meeting most having to do with disagreement with either of these options.
The other clear thing that I got is that this is an Henrico thing, spending 70 million bucks to essentially widen a mile of Old Osborne Turnpike, but still send all the traffic into Richmond basically at the intersection just down from Poe’s, which is already a problem area for traffic coming in going fifty miles an hour.
Also, they both said the developments out there are already zoned, it’s just a matter of time until they are built. Five, ten, fifteen or twenty years – that housing is going to happen, and those people and cars will be there. They said the big thing for them and a lot of other residents out there is getting their supervisor to vote against this, or else to hope that if it’s allowed that someone will come to their senses and get another plan in place before they spend the money.
I asked what we as city residents in an area that would be impacted could do, and was told that we should talk to the mayor and our council rep. (hah) and try to get them to meet with the Henrico people. I don’t hold out any hope for either of those things.
Oh, one last thing – one of the guys said that a good part of the money is to pay forward the tolls on 895 so as to lower the current tolls and encourage more of the eastern area residents to use 895.
Elaine O., I mentioned your comment about liking to be able to bike out there and be in what feels like country in a matter of minutes, and was told that the bike path and capital trail when finished will be a definite enhancement to that experience. Again, I will try to get at least one of those guys to post here, it might enhance our views to hear from an eastern Henrico resident. Sorry I can’t add more, I’m getting the idea that someone who was actually at the meeting really should post here.
Follow up, just read the minutes of the Jan meeting of CHA which is in the Feb. newsletter, and apparently they (CHA) plan to vote at the Feb. 21 meeting to send a letter to the mayor about concerns with both plans.
Check page 14 of the Feb. newsletter.
http://www.churchhillrichmond.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012-02.pdf
CRD, thanks for all the follow up, especially w/ the Henrico residents who attended the mtg.
I’m thrilled to hear I’m not the only person who thinks either a bridge to i95 or a connector to i64 are viable options. Both would be considerably more expensive to build.
14 makes good points and the suggestions are wonderful but there is no doubt that this would be a tremendous mistake. Even if the developments east of downtown are inevitable this project is a waste of funds. Let me make clear exactly what I mean. Baltimore’s light rail system cost less than 20 million per mile to construct. This project is 70 million so at 20 million per mile that is 3.5 miles. In short, with this much money it may well be possible to construct a light rail line all the way from Broad and Boulevard to Broad and 25th street. Which one do you think will be more effective in fighting sprawl and encouraging downtown and overall economic growth? Consider also the money that would be made in the collection of fares for the next say, 100 years if the system charged at all? It may be too late to stop that area of farm land from being turned into a semi suburban wasteland even when our city is in need of infill projects. Despite the odds seemingly laid out against us we must try to stop it from happening. Our city has often been plagued by defeatism but we are closer to our goals than we think. If we simply speak up loud enough, we may be heard.
The meeting on 2/13 in Henrico was covered by Channel 12
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16927669/route-5-corridor-public-meeting
Projects like this always have the ability to to cause divisions/arguments between local areas affected. In this case it seems most important that neither concept provided now is sustainable or well-planned instead of becoming divided over “which is better?”
I listened to residents before and after the presentation and heard it said that the Rt 5 study doesn’t ignore the Capital-to-Capital bike trail (which follows New Market road all the way from Richmond to Williamsburg.) Instead the study suggests building the bike trail, then destroying it later and rebuilding it beside the highway again. How can this be?
Also pointed out while the crowd settled in was the fact that the study plain ignores figures from the most recent county-wide survey. As part of the recent Comprehensive Plan public input : 82% of Henrico residents polled state they want “further restrictions on development in rural areas.”
Audience comments and questions during the presentation included:
Study representatives there did not know anything about a park now in the works at the bottom of Fulton Hill. Audience member responded “this will not fly with my Council-person,” to applause.
Study has a grade of D for traffic congestion. An audience member who asked what’s the worst grade it can get and was told “an F,” then followed up by asking, “Is that the best you can do for us, a D?”
Questions were asked about why the study named and mapped proposed developments but potentially impacted current neighborhoods were not named or included in research. Special strategic neighborhood character preservation areas in the new Henrico Comprehensive Plan said not to be included in study planning.
Both concepts have historical preservation concerns that audience members said not taken into account. Low or no public awareness of study or process was also questioned.
Local residents who work professionally for Smarter-Growth pointed out current damaged roads and bridges need work before more are built.
Commenter (who turns out to have a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning, and is now Richmond’s new Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Coordinator) asked why alternative routes to get traffic into the city including Laburnum and Mchsville Tnpk haven’t been looked at and why Dock Street has not been properly investigated. Study representatives claimed not to understand these questions and be confused.
Resident asked why costs for concepts given in monday’s slide presentation were different than the costs given during public segment of the study. stating projected costs have been changed since voted on by public input.
Public safety concerns were brought up about the lack of height restriction in some concepts opening up Henrico’s residential areas and Main St. to tractor-trailers, cutting residential Marion Hill in half and removing local homes on New Osborn.
A local middle school student spoke about the safety of the children of the future. It was again repeated that funneling traffic in past Poe’s Pub would create a massive bottleneck and allow semis on city streets. Most touched on was concern for the destruction of Marion Hill, and how a 4 lane road could be kept to 35 m.p.h.?
Overall audience participation revealed belief the study is incomplete and inaccurate and needs to be extended. Varina Supervisor Nelson said he would not be rushed to decide. All in all a good meeting. There should be enough ideas here pointing out that neither concept proposed is appropriate.