Welcome to the City of Charlottesville’s website for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at  McIntire Road Project. This site is the source for information related to the study of interchange alternatives and public involvement. We encourage you to review the project materials and the Steering Committee information, and offer your comments, suggestions and input via our e-comment form found in the Public Outreach section
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT
The Environmental Assessment / Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation document was presented to the public at the November 1, 2007 Public Hearing. The hearing was held at the County Office Building on McIntire Road in Charlottesville. Click here to review the project materials presented at the public hearing.
RECENT EVENTS
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION – JUNE 4, 2008
On June 4, 2008, the City of Charlottesville City Council conducted a worksession with the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project team to discuss Alternatives C1 and G1, and to hear the project team’s consideration of City Council comments heard on April 21, 2008. The City Council comments were focused on size of interchange, safety of pedestrian and bicycle trail users through the interchange area, and project cost. The project team described modifications to both Alternatives C1 and G1 for council review. City Council determined Alternative G1 Modified, with a relocated north-south stream trail, as the preferred alternative that would best accommodate the concerns raised at the April 21, 2008 City Council Hearing and instructed the project team to proceed. Click here to review the materials displayed at the June 4, 2008 City Council Worksession.
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON APRIL 21, 2008
On April 21, 2008, the City of Charlottesville City Council conducted a public hearing on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project alternatives. The public hearing was conducted on Alternatives A (No-Build), C1 (Diamond Interchange with Roundabout) and G1 (Diamond Interchange). Approximately 35 citizens spoke against and for the project during the public hearing. City Council raised several concerns to the project team and requested a Council Worksession be scheduled to see if the project concerns could be addressed. These concerns included safety for pedestrian and bicycle trail users for at-grade crossings, methods to reduce the size of the interchange, and project cost. Click here to review the presentation materials at the April 21, 2008 City Council Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD NOVEMBER 1, 2007
On November 1, 2007, the City of Charlottesville hosted the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Public Hearing to review the Environmental Assessment / Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation document results at the County Office Building. The meeting was attended by 52 individuals comprised of local elected officials, citizens, neighborhood associations, and Steering Committee members. The project team was available to answer questions, describe features of the proposed alternatives and review the environmental assessment results. A video of the two Preferred Alternatives was continuously shown from both a pedestrian’s view and a driver’s view. One of the Preferred Alternatives includes a modern roundabout within the interchange and a video was shown that instructs pedestrians and drivers how to navigate a roundabout. Public comments were accepted during the hearing via written and/or oral recorded comments.
The Environmental Assessment / Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation document is available for public inspection on this website (go to Public Meetings/Public Hearing 11.01.07 and open the document in its entirety or by chapter). In addition, the EA / Section 4(f) document is available for viewing at:
- City Hall, Dept. of Neighborhood Development Services (610 East Market Street, Charlottesville)
- Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (201 East Market Street, Charlottesville)
- Virginia Department of Transportation – Charlottesville Residency (701 VDOT Way, Charlottesville)
- Virginia Department of Transportation – Culpeper District Office (1601 Orange Road, Culpeper)
The Public Hearing comment period ended on November 13, 2007.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
On July 2, 2007, the Charlottesville City Council indicated their preferences to the Project Team for two Recommended Preferred Alternatives – C1 and G1 (see images below). The Project Team and Steering Committee will continue to refine Alternatives C1 and G1, prepare the environmental analysis and NEPA documentation, and schedule a Public Meeting to present the project impacts and solicit public input. To view the City Council presentation materials click on City Council - July 2, 2007.
ALTERNATIVE C1 |
ALTERNATIVE G1 |
|
|
(Click to enlarge) |
(Click to enlarge) |
OTHER ALTERNATIVE C1 VIEWS |
OTHER ALTERNATIVE G1 VIEWS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEER REVIEW WORK SESSION / STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #8
On May 2 and 3, 2007, the Project Team facilitated a Peer Review Work Session and Steering Committee Meeting #8 (see Meeting Materials). The focus of the Peer Review Work Session (May 2nd) was for the Project Team  to provide the Peer Review Panel with project background, technical information, an overview of recent activities and to answer questions. The Peer Review Panel was comprised of independent professionals experienced in transportation design, Context Sensitive Solutions, parkways, landscape architecture and urban design. The three Peer Review Panel members included a professional engineer and two landscape architects. The May 2nd meeting began with a short Steering Committee meeting where committee members discussed their project vision directly with the panel. The Work Session also included a review of the Refined Alternatives. The committee and the public were invited to observe the Peer Review Work Session. Public comment was also received following the Work Session.
On May 3rd, Steering Committee Meeting #8 was convened with a brief overview of recent activities by the Project Team, a review of the May 2nd Peer Review Work Session activities, and to receive the Peer Review Panel report, observations and recommendations. The Steering Committee and Peer Reviewers next engaged in a question/answer session to clarify the ideas offered by the panel. Public comment was also received during the Steering Committee meeting. |
