Spring Street Connector?

Laurel Street neighbor Tommy Birchett continues to ask some good questions in reference to the proposed 2nd Street connector.

His latest:

What if they built a Spring St connector instead?

Newmarket could donate land at the bottom of their hill above Tredagar and they could connect Spring through to 5th st.

No disruption to canal

No steep incline

Direct connection to west meadvaco from 2nd st

Seems like it would be better for traffic

Just a thought for an alternative proposal.

In fact, this question actually goes back farther to 1991 when Ethyl was given permission to destroy the architecturally significant 2nd Street Bridge. It should be noted that Oregon Hill residents spoke against this demolition. What’s even more interesting is that according to a 1991 Richmond News Leader article, Ethyl received permission to demolish the 2nd Street bridge on the grounds that Spring Street would be extended to increase access to the river.

Local public watchdog C. Wayne Taylor shared the thought. In investigating the question, he discovered that the city entered into a deal with Ethyl (NewMarket) to remove a planned Spring Street extension from the master plan. In exchange, Ethyl agreed to provide land and partial funding for street improvements in other areas. Part of that agreement is that if the city ever extends Spring Street, the city has to pay for the other land and give back the partial funding. In other words, Ethyl may have bought protection against having to fulfill their earlier promise to extend Spring Street.

Jewell Supports Road Despite Citizen Opposition

The Times Dispatch has an article about the 2nd Street Connector At City Council yesterday. It manages to not mention the citizen opposition from the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association and the Sierra Club Falls of the James group.

Richmond is preparing to build a new road to its downtown riverfront, while keeping open a remnant of the city’s historic canal system to one day float boats again.

The capital budget that will be presented by Mayor Dwight C. Jones next week for the fiscal year that begins on July 1 will include $385,000 to preserve a section of the James River and Kanawha Canal with an open-bottom culvert beneath the proposed Second Street Connector.

However, it does mention how 5th District Councilperson Marty Jewell is supporting the road (despite the neighborhood’s wishes):

Councilman E. Martin Jewell, of the 5th District, supports the road but not the culvert beneath it because of the $385,000 price tag that the mayor is expected to include in his proposal capital budget for fiscal 2013.

“To do this now is ridiculous,” Jewell said.

But city planning and economic development staff said Richmond would get only one chance to preserve the remnant of the canal that extends from downtown as far west at Maymont Park.

“This is the first opportunity for the city to have a say about how the canal is treated,” planner Jim Hill told council.

“We think there’s an invaluable benefit to the city … by not foreclosing the opportunity for the future,” Hill said.

2nd Street Connector At City Council Monday

Well, here we go. It will be interesting to see which riverfront vision Council sides with…

Richmond City Council
INFORMAL SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL – SECOND FLOOR

As of 2/23/2012

Monday, February 27, 2012
3:00 P.M.

III. 2ND ST. CONNECTOR – JENNIE WELLIVER, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

See previous 2n Street Connector posts here, here, and here. And don’t forget the coverage by C. Wayne Taylor’s City Hall Review.

Sierra Club Speaks Against Proposed 2nd Street Connector

The letter:

February 1, 2012
Honorable Dwight C. Jones Office of the Mayor
900 East Broad Street, Suite 201 Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: Opposition to Proposed 2nd Street Connector

The Sierra Club Falls of the James group would like to express our many concerns regarding the recent proposed riverfront development just west of downtown. In particular, we see several issues with the proposed “2nd Street connector road.”

Lack of Amenities for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
First, we share the concerns expressed by neighborhood and bicycle groups about the lack of bicycle lanes and pedestrian features in plans for this development. It is absolutely hypocritical for the City to declare itself “bicycle-friendly” while creating a new roadway in its downtown riverfront without these measures. This sends all the wrong signals as the 2015 World Road Cycling Championship approaches.

Disrespect for Historic Context
Secondly, we are very interested in protecting the historic features of the Kanawah Canal that this proposed roadway will bisect. The canal, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is of great historical significance to the City of Richmond. It was first development of the city. Samuel Pleasants Parsons, a noted abolitionist, whose home (built in 1819) survives at 601 Spring Street, was the Superintendent of the Canal in 1840 when the Canal was expanded westward to Lynchburg. From about 1850 to 1875, John Messler ran a canal boat building enterprise in the Penitentiary Basin. Messler had a short walk from his home the Jacob House (which survives at 619 W. Cary Street) to the canal basin. Based on these facts alone, we believe that any construction in the area should be preceded by careful archeological investigation. All of the historic images of Richmond’s Kanawha Canal emphasize how important this area is to the City’s identity, and it deserves better than the typical corporate campus driveway treatment.

Environmental Degradation and Canal Boat Impasse
Thirdly, in addition to the history of the canal, its natural aspects also bring up important environmental concerns. Putting a paved road over the canal and so close to the river will have a significant effect on stormwater runoff in the area. With the James River Park so close by, any development of this area will have an adverse effect on the environment. We understand that the land above the canal area is ready for development, but the canal area itself is not. While much of the land for this proposed road may be on private property now, for the City to accept its donation under these circumstances is not proper environmental stewardship.
Moreover, we are listening to Jack Pearsall, who has served with the Historic Richmond Foundation and City planning committees and who has championed the canal as a transportation alternative. He has raised red flags with regard to how this proposed road will meet the historic canal. He has estimated that the culvert would be about 12 feet high with only about 6 feet of clearance if water flow were restored. That means typical canal boats would not be able to pass.
In a recent Richmond Times Dispatch article, Mr. Pearsall was quoted as saying, “The purpose of the canal is to float boats. If we’re going to float boats on this canal, they’ve got to be able to pass this constriction.”

Disregard for Possible Alternative Future Uses
We also note public support for this restored canal concept. There was support for it twenty years ago, and support for it was again expressed at the recent public riverfront planning meetings. Planning for the canal might be a question of whether the chicken or the egg comes first. At first the canal might be seem to be mostly for tourist boats up to Maymont and an extension of the history tour on the canal downstream; but some day the larger culture may see the benefit of and begin to use “water taxi” for transporting commuters downtown or to the slip, and eventually it may be functionally necessary again for commercial forms of traffic moving up the river. Navigable water is wisely being mapped with an eye on the future value to the state and municipalities as real estate. The movement to open and protect blue-ways is focused especially on keeping a cap on the scale of expansion or commercialization. Re-opening the canal must also be designed within the context of supporting conservation easements to prevent sale of any segments of James River Park.
We might say to ourselves that that little canal would have to be expanded to carry significant traffic once again, yet we must also look at the canal as it is: an existing option that we protect with foresight now while we have the chance, in preparation for the time it might need to be pressed into service because of a lack of resources for the kinds of massive infrastructure projects that we in our time are temporarily fortunate enough to consider ordinary.

Exacerbated Traffic Problems
Finally, we share concerns expressed by neighborhood groups with regard to traffic and further riverfront development. We recall our opposition, along with that of over a dozen other neighborhood and environmental groups, to Dominion Power’s Special Use Permit for its headquarters building on the riverfront. At the time, traffic was brought up as a chief concern, and Dominion assured City Council that existing roadways could serve the additional traffic created by its development. Now ten years later, Dominion is insisting on this new road while at the same time saying it has no plans for new development “at this time.” Oregon Hill neighborhood residents have made it clear there already are problems with additional traffic coming from the 195 expressway onto Idlewood Avenue that would be exacerbated by the 2nd Street connector. The City Department of Planning has not delineated the necessity of this road for emergency access.
In summary, the Sierra Club Falls of the James Group does not see the purpose of this road, and more pointedly, we are opposed to its current planning for the reasons set out above. We are not totally opposed to development in the area, but what has been suggested so far in regard to the Kanawha Canal and the 2nd Street Connector is not acceptable. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you.

Sincerely,
Adele MacLean, Co-Chair

Cc: City Council, Planning Commission

Historic Canal Area Controversy Continues

The Times Dispatch had a report on a recent Planning Commission meeting about the proposed 2nd Street Connector. It did not mention Oregon Hill citizens’ troubles with the project, but it did focus on concerns about what the road might mean for future use of the historic Kanawha Canal.

Excerpt:

The Richmond Planning Commission on Tuesday approved a final design for the estimated $1.3 million Second Street Connector despite concerns that the culvert may be too small to allow boats to pass if water flow could someday be restored to the canal.

“The purpose of the canal is to float boats. If we’re going to float boats on this canal, they’ve got to be able to pass this constriction,” said Jack Pearsall, who is trying to reignite interest in restoring a functional canal system stretching from Great Shiplock Park to Maymont.

Pearsall, who served on a Historic Richmond Foundation committee that studied the idea more than 20 years ago, estimated that the culvert would be about 12 feet high with only about 6 feet of clearance if water flow were restored. That means typical canal boats wouldn’t be able to pass, he said.

Meanwhile, C. Wayne Taylor has compiled some very interesting images of the canal area on his blog. They are well worth checking out. If nothing else, they give some perspective on how important this area has been to Richmond’s identity over the decades.

Which vision will City Council and City government ultimately align with, the citizens’ desire for a working, refurbished canal or another corporate driveway? Who does the City work for?

More on 2nd Street Connector Proposal

Blogger extraordinaire C. Wayne Taylor has post up now on City Hall Review that evidently quotes a city official.

“I don’t have any documentation on emergency access conditions in the area of the proposed Second Street Connector. I checked with Lory Markham and she doesn’t either.”
James Hill, Principal Planner
Division of Planning & Preservation
Department of Planning and Development Review

This raises more questions about the motivation, need, and the rush to create this new street, which would intersect or go over the canal.