RECENT COMMENTS
A letter to Mayor Jones regarding the Route 5 Corridor Study
A letter to Mayor Jones from Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth:
Mayor Dwight C. Jones
City of Richmond
900 East Broad Street, Suite 201
Richmond, VA 23219
Re: Route 5 Proposals Harm Richmond Residents and Economic Development
Dear Mayor Jones:
I write to you to share serious concerns about the Route 5 expansion proposal both as a resident of the City of Richmond (2711 East Broad Street in Church Hill) and as an experienced planner in my capacity as the 14-year Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.
Your intervention in the Route 5 planning is urgently needed and I hope you will order delay to the study and consideration of alternatives which will better serve the city. City of Richmond planners are currently engaging in final negotiations with planners from Henrico County and the Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with an aim to selecting a final concept in February for approval by the Policy Board of the MPO in March. Yet, at a briefing for the Church Hill Association on Tuesday night it was clear that most of the residents were not familiar with the plan and have very strong concerns about both road concepts being proposed.
We first met during your chairmanship of the General Assembly’s Black Caucus and we have spoken at a number of events since, including Richmond’s Arbor Day and the East End Charette. My wife, Alli Alligood, and I have adopted Richmond as our home and the community in which we wish to make a long-term investment. We are committed to assisting in the inclusive revitalization of the city, ensuring that all who live here can benefit from an improved economy, education and jobs, affordable housing, a vibrant urban life, and a green, sustainable community.
The proposed expansion of Route 5 is at odds with these goals. In some ways it reflects the same planning of the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s that led to the large highways and one-way streets that today speed suburban commuters in and out of the city, dividing our neighborhoods, and harming our local retail and the pedestrian environment. These traffic volumes require massive parking structures that contribute little to the tax base and take land from productive commercial and residential uses, and leave the city empty, uninviting and unsafe at night.
Both of the concepts for Route 5 are designed to increase the number and speed of vehicles entering the city from the east. These four lane roadways will fuel sprawling development in rural areas of eastern Henrico at the expense of residents, businesses, and investment in Fulton, Shockoe Bottom and the Downtown Central Business District. The study calls for levels of service for vehicles during peak rush hour ranging from A (free-flowing) and B, to C and D, moving as many as 2400 cars in the peak hour, or 40 cars per minute at some intersections. Most economically successful urban centers operate with a level of service of E. Both concepts would require more wasteful parking structures.
Vibrant, successful cities depend on an active, lively streetscape with heavy pedestrian activity. Yet, the strong emphasis on moving vehicles quickly through our downtown along Main Street depends on signal timing that favors vehicles at the expense of pedestrians. The loss of more on-street parking for longer periods of time will undermine existing and potential retailers in the corridor. The high volumes of traffic and the harm to the pedestrian and retail environment could very well inhibit the revitalization of Fulton, Shockoe Bottom and the Central Business District.
The City should be focusing on the people who currently live in the city and our local businesses, as well as the people and businesses we wish to attract. City residents have the opportunity to walk, bicycle and take transit to work, they pay property taxes to the city, and they will spend more money in the city than those who live outside the city. Changing demographics and market demand offer a tremendous opportunity to attract more residents and investment to the city, but not if our transportation policy is focused on simply moving cars into and out of the city as fast as possible.
Both concepts proposed by the planners and consultants assume levels of growth in eastern Henrico that might not happen given the dramatic shifts in the real estate market, or could create a self-fulfilling prophesy by facilitating growth and higher traffic volumes in an area that still retains rural character. The study area was also so narrowly defined that it failed to evaluate the potential for focusing future development in eastern Henrico in the Williamsburg Road, airport and Mechanicsville Turnpike areas that so desperately need revitalization. It also failed to develop concepts for utilizing I-64 and I-95 to handle a larger share of the traffic.
The planners intend to funnel a major share of the traffic from eastern Henrico through just one chokepoint, the intersection of Main Street and Williamsburg Road below Libby Hill Park. Concept 1 would make Main Street the main road into the city from the east, and includes one option for a 60-foot high bridge for Main Street OVER the CSX tracks, requiring Williamsburg Road and the intersection to be raised 30 feet at the base of Libby Hill Park. A 55-foot embankment would be built on the river side of Main Street. The intersection would be significantly wider, with Main Street increased to four through-lanes and the addition of turn lanes in all directions. The barrier between Church Hill and access to the river would be significant.
Concept 2 would expand the wooded two-lane New Osborne Turnpike to four lanes from its intersection with Route 5 east of the city, would add a 60 foot high bridge over the eastern end of the CSX rail yard, and direct the traffic onto Williamsburg Avenue and into the city. The intersection below Libby Hill Park would be expanded. Again, the large intersection and the volume of traffic would create a barrier between Church Hill and the river. But the impact on Fulton would be particularly significant, dividing revitalizing residential areas north of Williamsburg Avenue from potential mixed-use revitalization areas south of the road, and creating a dangerous barrier for children who may wish to walk or bicycle to our greener and more public riverfront.
The City should be concerned as well about the potential impact on historic tourism and the upcoming World Bicycling Championships. Despite some haphazard suburban development, the rural, two-lane Route 5 is still a scenic byway to the east connecting the significant history of the city to the history downriver to Williamsburg and Jamestown. Conversion to a high speed, four-lane divided highway would undermine the rural and historic character of the corridor, diminishing the experience of bicyclists on the future Capital to Capital Trail and tourists who drive the corridor. Maintaining a rural, agricultural area like that of eastern Henrico so close to the city would offer a significant boon to the City and Henrico County in terms of tourism, recreation, and local, sustainable agriculture. Retaining the current scale of the roadways will provide a more appropriate historic context for the interconnected history of the City and communities downriver, including Colonial history, the tragic history of slavery, and President Lincoln’s historic walk from Rockett’s Landing to the State Capitol.
Please call for delay in the study, while calling for:
- Study of: 1) the potential impact on residents, businesses, pedestrians and investment in Fulton, Church Hill, the riverfront, Shockoe Bottom, and the Central Business District; 2) consideration of alternatives with different growth scenarios and locations for growth in eastern Henrico; 3) analysis of a broader study area and other travel alternatives including access to and use of I-64.
- 3-D visualizations of the proposals – particularly to show the impact on Libby Hill Park;
- Maintaining Route 5 as a two-lane rural road, using roundabouts at key intersections. A two lane road with roundabouts functions better and more safely than a four lane road with traffic lights.
- Evaluation of a design for the Main Street/Williamsburg Road intersection that is appropriate for the historic context of the area and is a welcoming gateway into the city that honors the beautiful setting and form of Libby Hill Park and the view from the park to the river. It is simply not appropriate to install a standard, oversized suburban intersection.
- A concept for both Williamsburg Avenue in Fulton and our Main Street that favors pedestrians, bicyclists, and the economic development of the Shockoe Bottom, Tobacco Row and Fulton as vibrant, safe and livable communities, rather than just a commuter corridor.
I would be pleased to discuss these issues with you and your staff and the city’s planners. Thank you for your time and for your focus on the continued revitalization of our city for all who live here.
Sincerely,
Stewart Schwartz
Executive Director
(Resident: 2711 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23223)
Absolutely PERFECT letter that covers all the relevant issues! Hopefully we can get Mayor Jones to read this and thank you for your time, thoughtfulness and expertise Stewart.
A fabulous letter. Intelligent and sensitive to our city in a way that the city has often failed to be. Thank you
The mayor is excellent at calling for studies. You may just be in luck.
As a Virginian, I find the Study’s blatant disregard to historic resources and potential tourism revenue to be careless.
As a property owner and an employee in the City of Richmond, I am distressed over the Study’s failure to stem the bottleneck into Main Street.
And as a property owner in Marion Hill, the Study’s Concept 2 is just plain frightening.
Many thanks to Stewart Schwartz for this letter to Mayor Jones. His focus on the Study’s shortcomings as they pertain to traffic flow and economic impact are critically astute and attest to his professional insight as an experienced planner.
I would like to note the Study falls short in other areas also. Here are but a few examples:
1) Community outreach – The Study’s efforts to publicize, to include ads, mailings and three Public Workshops, failed to reach the communities most affected by the Study’s proposals; Marion Hill, Fulton Hill, Fulton and Church Hill. Furthermore, the 23 days between the release of the Study’s final “Concepts” on September 29 and the close of the Study on October 21 is insufficient time for comprehensive and valid public input.
2) Public input – The fourth paragraph of the Study’s homepage begins, “Public input will be a major factor in the success of this study.” Public input has never been included in the documents on Rt. 5 Corridor Study website. The public input should be made public and include the weight it was given in determining the Study’s recommendation.
3) Unbiased objectivity – The historic, 90-home neighborhood of Marion Hill, with at least 20 properties abutting New Osborne Turnpike, was not mentioned by name once in the Study. Yet, Tree Hill and Rocketts Landing are referenced over many of the Study’s documents. Additionally, Kimley-Horn & Associates and Timmons Group, the Study’s consultants, are both companies that work for Tree Hill and Rocketts Landing. Is it not a conflict of interest to retain these two companies in these capacities? No surprise that Marion Hill was omitted.
Thanks again to Mr. Schwartz and all the communities and organizations currently active in questioning these unacceptable proposals.
Stewart,
Fantastic Letter – What more can we do to make sure the mayor takes notice? Would additional letters (in the same vein) increase that likelihood?
Tracy
In addition to writing your own letters to the Mayor and Council, if you are a Church Hill Association Member please attend association meeting on Tuesday night (Feb 21) at 7 pm where you can vote on a CHA resolution of opposition regarding Route 5. I am trying to confirm the meeting location since it won’t be in its usual location in the Parish Hall.
Stewart and all:
See below for the meeting location – everyone is welcome
Church Hill Association to vote on Route 5 Corridor Study
The CHA’s February membership meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 21st, at 7PM in St. John’s Church. Agenda items include: presentation of the new CHA website, issuing a statement in support of keeping open and refurbishing the 25th Street Post Office, and an up or down vote on whether to proceed or not to proceed with the 2 concepts recommended under the Route 5 Corridor Study.
Glad to see public awareness of these issues in the spotlight. In high hopes the CHA consensus calls for the study to be revisited.
It may also help to read CHPN’s post regarding the most recent Henrico public meeting. The gathering on 2/13 at John Rolfe Middle School drew over 100 people and was called out of resident’s concern over the Rt 5 Corridor Study’s “Concepts 1 & 2.” Disdain was voiced there over potential impact in both Henrico and Richmond.
http://chpn.net/news/2012/02/11/route-5-study-public-meeting-set-for-monday_21424/#comments
Very uninformed letter totally contrary to smart growth and green principles. The metro area population will add 5000 people per year for the next 20 years based on census projections. Shall these people all go on 2 acre lots per family in the exurbs or shall they go on dense lots inside the 295 ring? If inside the ring, that means they will pollute less and destroy less open space IN THE WHOLE REGION. They will be closer to jobs with enough density to support public transportation. Following this letter’s recommendations would promote sprawl around the entire region by eliminating the one place left within the 295 ring.
This letter is pure NIMBYism because it ignores the benefits Rte 5 development has to preventing sprawl outside the 295 ring. I wonder if the so-called Partnership for Smarter Growth is ignorant of this or intentionally misleading? Quit fomenting balkanization, Partnership. Thank goodness some people in this town have your number.
I would rather an interstate connector be built that sends drivers east to hook up to the highway instead of funneling them through downtown. However, although I am not a traffic engineer, I cannot see any easy way to do this. There is 895, but this is the toll road and I believe most people are going to use Main Street to avoid the toll.
I am not sure what the solution is and I hate both of the existing options. With the predicted amount of traffic, Main will be at stand still during rush hour, not too mention the hazards to pedestrian and bicyclists. I guess the idea to have a more walkable community will have to fall by the wayside.
Have any studies been done for a “third option” that Schwarz mentions (utilizing I-64 and I-95 to handle a larger share of the traffic through eastern Henrico)? Otherwise, it seems to me that the only way to prevent gridlock is to slow/stop development along Route 5 and I doubt we can do this.
um, since when does Route 5 go through Church Hill? Tobacco Row, Fulton, and Shockoe Bottom are not Church Hill.
Nadine #16, one of the people I have spoken to who lives in eastern Henrico and opposes both of these said that part of the money was to pay forward the tolls on 895 to make it more attractive for drivers. (ANDY – Please explain more!!!) Also one of the guys thought that a bridge over the river off of Route 5 to connect up with interstate 95 around the Maury Street interchange might work. Just saying….there are options.
Can someone explain to me why a ton of money was dumped into Pocahantas if it doesn’t serve the purpose here? Seems like this may actually be the best option if I understand correctly where the new development will be built.
Sure it’s a toll road but which makes more sense:
a. Asking all taxpayers to foot the bill for more roads so that the folks who decide they want to live far away can get to work.
b. Giving the folks who decide they want to live in a sprawl community the choice of taking a bit longer to get to work or paying a toll to use a faster road.
It annoys me that folks seem to think they are entitled to have a direct high speed road right from their doorstep to their place of work wherever they live, even when it has massive impacts for quality of life for other people, is economically and environmentally unsustainable and destroys historic views to construct.
There are tradeoffs to any place you want to live. We get shitty schools, noise, crime and trash. In return, we have the option of walking places, a cozier neighborhood and nice parks. Escaping to the suburbs eliminates some of the downsides with city living (crime, schools) but a longer commute is the price you pay.
To fuck up the walkability, and ruin most of the character of downtown neighborhoods to construct some massive artery straight to downtown (on top of all the other arteries already in place) so the suburban folks can have their cake and eat it too is a slap in the face. I’m fine taking their ugly roads if we can send our crime out their way. Otherwise, suck it up and recognize that when you buy out in the suburbs, you will have to drive a little longer.
JJ, Many CH residents use Main Street (Route 5) on a daily basis.
Route 5 is actually the boundary for part of Church Hill, at least according to the classic definition. That makes it as much a part of Church Hill as any other neighborhood.
Making Route 5 into a non-pedestrian road would also effectively form a wall between the neighborhood and the river. I’d say we have as much right to complain as anyone — certainly more than the average suburban dweller who has no stake in keeping the city pleasant for those who actually live there.
JD, so do many New Kent residents. What does their association say about it?
JJ, I follow CHPN, not NKPN, so I don’t know. Any changes/improvements made to Route 5 will have a far greater impact on CH residents than residents in New Kent County.
@ 11/16 It doesn’t matter that we live in CH. We use Rt. 5 and Main Street (also Williamsburg Rd) often and regularly travel to the Varina area (via car and bike.)
We may live in CH/Union Hill, but we spend a good portion of our time in the Bottom and along Main on down to the canal. It’s where we shop, buy gas, go to restaurants and pubs, and walk to the Great Shiplock Park to get a great view of the river.
So yes, my household and other Church Hill/East Enders should have a say in the Rt 5 plans.
Not to mention our tax dollars as Virginians are to be used for the project. That in and of itself is more than enough justification to weigh-in on this topic.
Lastly, it’s been my observation that New Kent folks use Rt. 60 and 64 as their primary road into Richmond. Eastern Henrico and Charles City Co folks are more likely to use Rt. 5.
JJ, I wouldn’t expect to have a say in what crap gets built in New Kent. If they want to build another sprawling strip mall filled with the same soulless stores right next to the McMansion farm, let them go ahead. It’s not my style but that’s their neighborhood.
This road is in our neighborhood so it’s reasonable to expect folks who have to live with it to get a say. Just because you drive by an area everyday doesn’t really give you a stake in it. Living next to the site of a major project does give you a pretty big stake in it.
How about you guys build whatever crap you want out there and when it gets to our neighborhood, you butt out of our business. If you guys like super highways, build them 50 lanes wide right in front of your house. Keep tearing down all your land to build more Targets.
We actually have left some of our parks in place however, and would prefer to keep them.
JJ, we Hillcats are passionate about our neighborhood and have every right to voice our opinions about the study.
Let’s be clear…the schools aren’t shitty. You do a great disservice to the teachers in Church Hill who work their asses off daily in the neighbourhood schools trying to make a difference. There are quite a few RPS teachers here, including the owner of this blog.
Does any one remember the impact on Jackson Ward when I-95 sliced through it? Actually I don’t suppose you have to ‘remember’ it…you can see what happened to that part of Richmond any time you drive that piece of the interstate.
(Off topic but in response to 21…)
http://chpn.net/news/2011/10/11/armstrong-lags-behind-in-4-year-graduation-rate_19664/
The school comment doesn’t mean every school, every level. But are you really saying RPS overall are anything better than what I called them?