University of Virginia Library

Suggest Alternate Routes For Gordon Thoroughfare

City Planning Students Criticize Highway Department Proposal

By Chuck Hite
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

The following is the first of a series of articles on a
critical study of the proposed Grady-Gordon/Preston
Avenue thoroughfare. The six-week study was undertaken
by a group of graduate students in city planning and
includes their suggestions for alternative routes. —Ed.

In a project analyzing Charlottesville's proposed
transportation plans, a group of graduate city
planning students have labeled the Grady-Gordon/
Preston Avenue thoroughfare as too costly for
its potential benefits, and reflecting "a complete
disregard for the non-monetary requisites to be
sacrificed. . ."

Their analysis proposes three alternate plans
which would be more desirable than the proposed
expressway, which was developed as part of an
overall traffic system by the Virginia Department
of Highways.

In commenting on the development of the analysis,
Arthur G. Foster, assistant professor of city
planning, stated that he originally told his students
that Charlottesville's transportation plans
"could bear another look."

In their "look at" the plans the students probed
deeply, first considering the planning report prepared
for Charlottesville by Wilbur Smith and Associates.

Presents Projections

This report, according to the firm, "presents
analyses and projections of several land use and
socio-economic factors which will be used by the
Virginia Department of Highways in determining
future transportation requirements for the Charlottesville
area."

Mr. Foster stated that the land use plan within
the report "was merely an extrapolation of present
conditions and not an ideal plan." He went on
to say that the report represented an estimate of
trends but did not ask if these trends should be
allowed to continue.

In making a report of this type, data collected
by the investigating firm is fed into a gravity
computer model which allocates the traffic and
gives an idea of where to construct new highways
and increase the efficiency of other roads.

Erroneous Report

Mr. Foster and his students felt the report erroneous
in that it assumed a great amount of
expansion in the central business district which
would never come about.

"We looked at the city zone by zone," said
Mr. Foster, "and some of the zones could not
take the amount of people allocated by Wilbur
Smith. We also disagreed with the future distributions
of retail sales. The methodology they used
was unclear and somewhat arbitrary."

New Data

New data generated by the students has not
been fed through a gravity model, "so all we could
give was a critical analysis of the report."

The students first examined the overall transportation
design and, for the most part, agreed on
it except for the new east-west corridor. They
divided up into an analysis team and three other
teams which would propose alternative plans.

Alternative Proposals

The three alternative proposals, recently reviewed
by a panel of faculty members and other
interested parties, received a favorable reception.
"We feel the answers proposed by the students
are good answers," stated Mr. Foster, and that
"any one of the three is better than the one we
are faced with now."

Mr. Foster implied that possible local pressures
influenced the choice of the designer, who was
"not conscious enough" of all factors, "particularly
in social areas."

Beyond Goal

"I think it can be said with confidence of the
proposed road that it goes far beyond the goal
of merely alleviating congestion and appears also
to be a facility constructed for the purpose of
enhancing the economic position of the central
business district."

In addition, Mr. Foster suggested that the
present plan will increase comparative shopping
traffic flow between Barracks Road and downtown,

without enough consideration of its effects on the
University and the neighborhoods it transverses.

Particular Objections

The student analysis team, composed of graduate
students Walter Cox, Nanak Manku, Abinash
Mude, and Graham Pervier, pointed out particular
objections to the Highway Department's
Grady-Gordon/Preston Ave. route.

Their analysis first asks if the extensive improvements
of the route "actually reflect the
desired routes of the public or of the troubled
downtown merchants?" They point out that the
projection for 1985 indicates that the present
central business district will be involved in only
21 per cent of the study area's total retail sales.

As described in the Highway Department's 1967
"Major Arterial Street and Highway Plan," the
route is designed to ". . . relieve the traffic congestion
on Ivy Road, University Avenue and Main
Street."

The analyzation group points out that, according
to the alternate proposals developed by the
other three groups, "the traffic demands of the
east-west corridor can be accommodated with
less cost and greater convenience."

Three Areas

Specific objections to the route are divided into
three general areas. The first of these deals with
Copeley Hill, Emmet Street, and Lambeth Field.
As it stands now, the route would interfere directly
with the development of new law and graduate
business school facilities.

It will occupy a portion of recently completed
playing fields and parking areas east of University
Hall, and the underdeveloped area north
of Massie Road, once considered as suitable for
fraternity house sites.

The route would also create a pedestrian hazard
in the vicinity of the married student dorms and
would mean the destruction of one and possibly
two of these dorms. It will require the demolition
of the Executive Plaza, the Gridiron Restaurant,
Lupo's, and units G and H of University Gardens.

Rugby Road, 17th Street, and 16th Street is
the next area examined. The Gordon-Grady
diagonal in this area would require the removal of
three fraternity houses, two rooming houses and
five other dwellings.

A tremendous problem for pedestrian safety
will be created in this area; the nine fraternities
"isolated" to the north of the route will generate
perhaps 900 pedestrian crossings per day themselves.
There is danger that property values will
be reduced along with general neighborhood
deterioration.

Last Area

The last area concerns the neighborhood from
14th Street to 10½ Street. The proposed route
will more than double traffic volume in the Venable
school district with one pair of lanes running
adjacent to the school grounds.

It will again cut diagonally across two residential
blocks, this time between 12th and 10½ Streets.
It will undermine a valuable neighborhood, entirely
Negro, and affect six residences. It is expected
that these owners will have trouble finding
equivalent housing.

In summation, the group states that "Neighborhood
values and safety considerations are overwhelmingly
against a route. In the face of alternate
proposals it seems needlessly expensive, perhaps
unnecessary, in land acquisition and engineering
costs as well."