Everything you could possibly want to know about it and then some…
The Winchester Watchdog hasn’t touched this because it didn’t look like it was needed. Various local media outlets have rigorously covered the debate, and citizens have actively engaged in the debate through local online and public forums. However, when readers request more information the WW typically will oblige.
One local resident asked, “Has anyone ever looked into the relationships that members of the planning commission and decision makers have with the University and Board of Trustees?”
Looking at relationships is very tedious and time consuming. And just because there appears to be a relationship on paper, it doesn’t mean there is one in reality. That being said, however, sometimes things will catch your eye and make you go “Hey, wait a minute…”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Lead Story (Page 1)
Key players in Millwood plans (Page 2)
List of the individual “Decision Makers” (Page 3)
Government and University Ties (Page 4) UPDATED
Public Debate (Page 5)
Local coverage and discussions on Millwood Proposal (Page 6)
Well, folks, it looks like this Millwood plan has been in the works for nearly a decade. Shenandoah University just had to wait for a more sympathetic City Council. According to Planning Director Tim Youmans, a previous effort to close the stretch of road in 2002 was met with opposition by the City Council, which approved a resolution specifically against it on December 10 of that year. But things changed in September 2009 with a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Shenandoah University leaders. According to The Winchester Star, two of its points called for them to “work together on examining and improving traffic flow around the intersection and creating a new entrance to the city and university from Millwood Avenue.” Vic Bradshaw reported on May 13, 2010 in an article titled “Committee wants to study closing Millwood near SU“:
Creating a new entrance to Winchester and SU from Millwood and improving the traffic flow around Jubal Early and Millwood were two of the five projects city and SU officials had in mind when they signed a memorandum of understanding Sept. 21.
And on May 14, 2010, J.R. Williams reported for The Northern Virginia Daily:
Exploring the issue was among items in a memorandum of understanding between the city and the university recently approved by City Council. […]
City Planning Director Tim Youmans said using the stretch of Millwood solely for entrance to the university has been discussed.
“That’s just one idea,” he said, but the study will provide guidance. “City council said, before we go out and take action to close it, they wanted to have this traffic study done.”
The Traffic Study
On March 2, 2010, the Winchester-Frederick Metropolitan Planning Organization (Win-Fred MPO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) held a meeting that included a discussion on the Fiscal Year 2011 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) draft. During the discussion, Jerry Copp, VDOT maintenance manager for the Edinburg residency, reported that
he has attended several meetings with the University and the interim Winchester City Manager in regards to [the portion of Millwood Avenue located in front of Shenandoah University.] He stated that the University is proposing relocating the Millwood Avenue entrance. Mr. Copp stated that he received a letter from the Winchester City Manager requesting VDOT to perform a study. Mr. Copp stated that the cost of the study would be in the range of $75,000 and he has not been successful getting the approval from VDOT to perform the study.
It was obvious from the meeting minutes that MPO member Jim Deskins really wanted to see this study go forward, and considering that he has been working with SU President Tracy Fitzsimmons to increase the presence of Shenandoah University in Old Town Winchester, it’s no surprise. Mr. Deskins is also Executive Director of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Winchester.
During the TAC meeting, Mr. Deskins stated that the City is concerned with safety issues in the area and several other critical issues, not just related to Shenandoah University. His motion to forward a request to the Policy Board approving the use of local technical assistance funds to begin the RFP [Request for Proposal] process for the Millwood Avenue Study was approved by the committee. (A Request for Proposal is basically an invitation to companies to bid for a job, such as studying traffic patterns of a particular location.)
During the May 11, 2010 TAC meeting, Chris Price of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission stated that the Policy Board requested that the TAC review the RFP and make a recommendation to them in May. He also stated that the deadline in the RFP would be changed.
At the May 19, 2010 Policy Board meeting, Mr. Price informed the group that the TAC had reviewed the RFP and recommended approval. Mr. Dehaven (who appears to be on the Project Steering Committee) requested that the Project Steering Committee lead the Study. Visitor Richard DeBergh asked how the project would be funded, and Mr. Price referred to the FY 2011 UPWP. He said that the study is a work task in the UPWP with a budget of $75,000. The RFP can be viewed here. Originally the consultants were tasked with only developing two scenarios: no improvements or access changes versus closure of Millwood Avenue.
On June 16, 2010 Mr. Price gave an update on the Study to the Policy Board. Thirteen proposals had been received and would be reviewed on June 30th by the Project Steering Committee who would decide on which consultants to interview.
A long discussion took place during the July 13, 2010 TAC meeting over the selection of Gorove/Slade since they were not the low bidder. According to Chris Price, the reason the Project Steering Committee chose that particular company was because “their presentation had the strongest stakeholder participation process and they made a point to recognize the University as a unique animal and thus needed to be treated as one.” He also discussed Gorove/Slade’s relevant project experience and references.
During the July 21 Policy Board meeting, Mr. Price gave an overview of the consultant selection process for the Study. Four of the proposals were submitted by local firms, and the lowest cost proposal was not interviewed due to errors and the scope of work did not conform to the request. John Willingham stated he would like the Board to use local firms as often as possible but the recommended firm was the leading selection. Richard Shickle expressed his concern in regards to the consultant selection process and subsequently voted against the motion approving Staff’s recommendation of Gorove/Slade Associates. Mr. Riley also voted against the motion.
The study was completed near the end of 2010, and a final draft can be viewed here at the Win-Fred MPO website.
One thing made perfectly clear was that “Safety was stressed by all stakeholders as the primary focus.” Considering that the entire reason for the Study was to determine the short- and long-term traffic impacts associated with the proposed closure, let’s look at that, shall we?
According to the Study, “the potential closure of Millwood Avenue could impact traffic flow on the commuter route between the I-81 Interchange or arterial streets east of the City and downtown Winchester.” Also, “the amount of traffic that uses Millwood Avenue between Jubal Early Drive and Apple Blossom Drive is significant, representing 44% of the traffic traveling into the City on Millwood Avenue. A slightly less percentage is seen in the reverse movement from downtown towards the East. The evening split is not as high to downtown, which is likely due to the influence of retail-based traffic on overall traffic patterns.”
When looking at key intersections, the Study found that “the potential closure of Millwood Avenue could lead to increases in delay at these key intersections, since a significant amount of drivers travelling toward downtown use the section under the study.”
During commuter peak hours, a Level of Service grade of “E” is considered to be at capacity and “F” is considered unacceptable:
Well, what about pedestrians?
According to the Study,
The amount of pedestrians crossing the area along the stretch of Millwood Avenue under consideration for closure was not collected, as observations indicate that few pedestrians cross in this area.
What about car accidents?
The crash data shows that the vast majority of crashes occur at intersections, with rear end collisions representing the majority of accident types. No pedestrian or fatal accidents were among the police reports provided by the City.
The highest intersection crash rates were at Millwood Avenue/Pleasant Valley Road with 3 crashes per million entering vehicles and Jubal Early Drive/Pleasant Valley Road with 2 crashes per million entering vehicles. According to the Study, “transportation engineers consider a crash rate over 1.0 a concern and over 2.0 as a significantly high rate where further study is needed.”
The principal crashes at these intersections are rear end collisions. This is typical at signalized intersections, where rear end collisions are a large percentage of the total crashes. Rear end collisions are generally caused by following too closely or by driver distraction. Speed certainly plays a factor in rear end collisions as the higher the speed, the larger the following distance that is required to stop without collision and the greater the potential severity of the crash.
Left turn crashes are the next highest crash type at these intersections. Failure to yield was noted in many of the crash reports as the reason for the crash. The skewed geometry of the Millwood Avenue/Pleasant Valley Road intersection could be a factor in the very high crash rate at this intersection. Skewed geometry results in longer turning distances, so turning vehicles are in the path of oncoming traffic longer and turning drivers may misjudge the appropriateness of the gap in oncoming traffic for making the turn. For this reason, along with others, skewed intersection geometry should be avoided.
Most crashes in the study area occurred at the intersections outside of the immediate area of the Millwood Avenue section contemplated for closure. The crash history showed nine total crashes during the 2006 to 2009 period at Millwood Avenue/Apple Blossom Drive with a rate of 0.5.
Based on the computer simulation, the intersection at Hampton Inn & Millwood Ave will be far worse under the proposed closure, now and in 2035. The intersection at Jubal Early Dr & Apple Blossom Dr will presumably be better under the proposed closure, but that assumes the closure will include signal timing improvements at the intersection in conjunction with the addition of the free-flow right-turn lane. Also the 2035 projection assumes that the signalized intersections in the study area would be retimed in order to account for future projected growth. How much better would the intersections be if the City kept Millwood Avenue open while still improving signal timing and adding a free-flow right-turn lane?
Common sense tells us that the more cars you cram in an area with less alternatives, the more congested remaining intersections and roads will get. Perhaps the authors of an editorial piece in The Winchester Star put it best when they wrote:
Blocking Millwood, we admit, will reduce confusion – and, perhaps, accidents – at the I-81 “chokepoint” near the Bob Evans Restaurant by funneling all traffic onto Jubal Early. On the other hand, the elimination of Millwood as an option – a safe option, may we add, comparatively accident-free – means all 36,000 cars passing through that intersection each day will be obliged to travel on Jubal Early where more accidents have occurred. What’s the advantage, in terms of safety and traffic flow, to placing all such vehicles onto Jubal Early?
There seems to be this false dichotomy in the Study that either something is done with Millwood and improvements are made elsewhere or nothing is done with Millwood and no improvements are made elsewhere. Obviously this was done on purpose by the folks who commissioned the Study in the first place.
How about keeping Millwood open and making needed improvements to intersections on Jubal Early, Apple Blossom, and Pleasant Valley? But that would mean Shenandoah University would not be able to acquire public land for its private use.
Changing Tactics
As was already shown, the stated primary purpose of the traffic study was safety. This was confirmed in public news and discussion. For example, Christopher Bean of Stephen City, (maybe the same Christopher Bean who is Director of Shenandoah University’s Libraries?) wrote in a Letter to the Editor of The Winchester Star on February 11, 2011:
The primary reason for considering the relocation of Millwood Avenue is traffic safety. No amount of directional signage or speed limit signs is going to alleviate the problem with this very confusing and dangerous roadway.
And on April 6, 2011, Alex Bridges reported for The Northern Virginia Daily:
“The overall takeaway from all this, we’re looking beyond just a delay and level of service for vehicles,” said Tim Youmans, Winchester’s planning director. “We’re basically saying we want to create a safer situation, and certainly the traffic light at the Hampton Inn-Beltone location provides for the safe pedestrian-bike movement for the university students and what will hopefully be a growing number of people using the Green Circle trial.”
On April 22, 2011, The Winchester Star published an article titled “SU plans gateway entrance to school,” but Jim Vickers, the chairman of SU’s Board of Trustees, was adamant that safety was the number one priority:
While aesthetic improvements are envisioned, Vickers said the SU trustees’ main concern is vehicular and pedestrian safety.
[…]
“The driving point, the major concern, always has been safety for pedestrians and cars,” he said. “That’s a concern for the university and the city.”
But the traffic study clearly showed that pedestrian safety is not a problem on that stretch of Millwood Avenue. Vehicular safety is also not a problem on that stretch of road. In fact, it is a much safer alternative to taking Jubal Early Drive.
The SU President, however, thinks otherwise. On June 11, 2011, Alex Bridges reported for The Northern Virginia Daily:
SU President Tracy Fitzsimmons spoke to local media at her office Friday afternoon and released new renderings by architectural firm Van Yahres Associates that depict how the area targeted for closure may appear should the city approve the proposal.
Officials have expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians walking from the Vickers Communication Center to the area of the Ohrstrom-Bryant Theatre.
“That’s the part of Millwood Avenue that’s really a raceway,” Fitzsimmons said.
In addition to solving the traffic and safety issue, the architectural firm sought to create “a more aesthetically pleasing, inviting, beautiful entrance to Winchester and the university,” Fitzsimmons said.
“You should first be welcomed to the city,” Fitzsimmons said. “When you get to the entrance of the university you should be welcomed to the institution.”
And in a Letter to the Editor of The Winchester Star on June 20, 2011, SU Trustee CJ (Carol) Borden wrote:
Safety of SU students is my main concern. SU now has students who live across Millwood Avenue from the main campus, and with the converging of roads, it is an unsafe area for SU students to cross over to the main campus.
In addition, entering Winchester from I-81 onto Route 50W, from the viewpoint of a stranger to the area, is not an attractive entrance, and definitely not a welcoming one. By closing Millwood, a much more attractive entrance could be designed.
As became increasingly clear in the local news this spring and summer, the focus was less on safety and more on asthetics. Yes, safety remained a “goal” (although there is no evidence that safety has ever been a problem on that stretch of Millwood Avenue), but now the big push is for a “grand entrance” to the City, and particularly for the University.
As reported by TV3 Winchester on June 30, 2011:
[Vice President for the Advancement of SU, Mitch] Moore says having a more attractive entrance and allowing the University to prosper allows the city to prosper as well.
Even a City Planning Commissioner felt the need to comment on the motives behind the Millwood proposal. Alex Bridges reported for The Northern Virginia Daily (July 2, 2011):
Planning Commission Chairman Nate L. Adams III questioned the motive and need to close the section of Millwood Avenue just to improve the entrance to the city. [SU Board of Trustees Chairman Jim] Vickers acknowledged the university could do so without closing Millwood, but he said the result would be less appealing.
It is obvious what has happened here: the City and the University have planned to close Millwood for nearly two years and they simply wanted to find justification that was palatable enough for the public to accept.
The Winchester Watchdog 
and don’t forget the “Spring Street Connector” project that will tie in very nicely with the “new” Millwood Ave!
Fill me in.
the “Spring Street Connector” is the city’s plan to make Spring Street the main traffic artery for the proposed new shopping center planned for the 9 or so acres beside the K-Mart.
Currently, Spring Street is about half a block long and connects Millwood ave & Greystone Terrace. It is seldom used except by local residents and a few Good Will customers.
The development has been on hold for about 12 years thru 2 sets of owners because of the main profer; that access had to be gained through the K-Mart traffic light, which is (was) a privately owned drive.
So this year, the city took the needed K-Mart property through condemnation and eminent domain, traded some real estate with JDC for the Spring Street Connector, and will relocate Spring Street through JDC’s property & tie in to the K-Mart light so JDC can build their 9 acre shopping center.
The K-Mart traffic light (as you know) is between Millwood Ave and Jubal Early. I can’t believe the “Spring Street Connector” has escaped any media & public scrutiny, esp in light of the Millwood closure. Most of the “pieces of the puzzle” to the development are done and Spring Street was the key.
In fact, Council is to vote on rezoning some of JDC’s property from MR to B2 on the 12th.
After you posted your comment the other day, I looked into it. The media has reported on the project somewhat. I will probably write something about it this weekend…and perhaps with a “Fox News spin” just for our reader Common Sense. 😉
With regard to Millwood, many issues that you make comment on show either your ignorance of the facts or that you choose to ignore them to show your bias against the proposed project. Please go back and pick up the star articles (May 12, 2010; May 20, 2010, July 7, 2010) which will show that city officials are concerned about the “Y” at Jubal Early Drive and Millwood Avenue and other safety concerns.
Most important get some help in accurately interpreting the Millwood Avenue Traffic Diversion Study. Several of your facts like the LOS comment concerning the Jubal Early Drive/Apple Blossom Road intersection are wrong and very misleading. OVERLL the LOS of that intersection improves. It’s the south bound left turn lane that gets the lower rating. Tim Youman’s admitted on June 30 that this was not an issue. Also pedestrian issues were addressed in the study. You fail to mention that the MPO TAC and the Policy Committee unanimously voted to accept this study which is a strong statement on its validity.
If you want to shed light on the current project that will catastrophically change that area of Millwood Avenue then report on the proposed “graded separation” ALREADY in the 2030 long range transportation plan and referenced in the City newly adopted comprehensive plan as the plan to move forward. That plan removes Beltone from the map completely. (See draft of 522 Corridor Study for a diagram) and will remove any notion of an attractive entrance to the City’s eastern gateway.
In an effort to shed light on the subject you really do a disservice by choosing only select facts which is compounded by your not having a technical background to understand the traffic study. If you are not careful you become as irrelevant as the Pibbster’s Pub and the editorial page of the Winchester STAR.
It appears that you didn’t read my article, or perhaps you didn’t read the final draft of the study. Either way, it looks like you are uninformed.
I never said that safety was not a “concern” with city officials. As I stated in the article, Jim Deskins said the city was concerned with safety during the March 2010 MPO meeting. I stated THROUGHOUT the article that “safety” was the main concern, remember? Do you recall the quote from the article about the stakeholders’ number one priority being safety? However it has been obvious that the University has progressively pushed the “aesthetic” argument this spring.
Did you completely ignore the quote from the study that said the amount of pedestrians crossing that road was not collected since it appeared that few pedestrians crossed in that area? Do you think I made that up or something?
Here, I’ll post it again:
You didn’t like the LOS comment concerning Jubal Early & Apple Blossom? Weird, since it came straight from the study too.
Here is what I wrote:
And here is what the study said:
I never said the study was “invalid.” I said the study presented a false dichotomy (that is a type of logical fallacy, by the way) and I placed the blame for that squarely on the folks who commissioned the study — the MPO. That the MPO would vote to accept a study that went with their goal (which is to close down the road) is a given. Why would I need to add that into the article? Although I certainly can if you think it is that important.
The point is not whether I think the project is a good idea or not (although I don’t.) The point is that the outcome has been predetermined since September 2009, and the idea that there is public debate and that the public has any say over the matter is a farce. The City and Shenandoah University (and subsequently the MPO) have simply been working to find the best way to publicly justify closing the road. Period.
That the City has plans to acquire more private land for public use is no surprise. It also doesn’t surprise me that they would “remove Beltone from the map completely.” It’s called eminent domain, and municipalities use it like a mighty hammer to get their way. Just look at the Spring Street Connector Project.
Thankfully your opinion of my “relevancy” has very little bearing on what I write or will write in the future, especially since you haven’t really read what I’ve written anyway.
Have a good day.
Here is a direct quote of Chris Price, former executive director of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, from the Northern Virginia Daily’s May 20, 2010 article “Regional Planners to study road closure”:
“Shenandoah University has growth and development goals for the future and they’ve had discussions with the city … and what would the impact of the development plans be. At this point, these plans are conceptual but, in conversations with the city that go back years, I think that there’s been a desire to say, ‘OK, if we’re going to consider this, we need to do this as part of the overall transportation network’ because the potential closure of Millwood Avenue in front of the university is an issue that has broader community concern.”
I’m telling you, the closure of Millwood has been a done deal since September 2009.
Well Watchdog, like Fox News and the other conservative news blogs you can spin a story to say whatever it is you want it to say. We can argue “tit fot tat” all day. I know that study pretty well and know that you aren’t taking all of the information and presenting it in a balanced way. A For example before your comment on pedestrian data complete ignores the paragraph on page 10 that begins the topic concerning “Pedestrian Data” which clearly states that a fair amount of pedestrian traffic crosses that area during the peak hours of traffic. Data wasn’t collected because it was already provided by the City.
Problem I have with your spin is that you presume that the closure of Millwood is a done deal. If, in fact, that was the case the City could have just given the edict to close the road and it would have been a done deal. In fact what has happened and is still happening is that discussion is taking place and various pieces of information are being collected to help make a good final decision for the proposed project.
Don’t mind you reporting just be fair in your conclusions. I can say with certainty that this isn’t a done deal and never has been.
Fox News? Are you serious? You’re going to throw an overused red herring like Fox News into the conversation? This has nothing to do with “liberal” or “conservative” and everything to do with the government and a private entity working in cahoots to make something happen against the wishes of many local residents.
If the reason pedestrian data wasn’t collected “because it was already provided by the City,” then why did the FINAL DRAFT of the Study state that the reason data wasn’t collected was because observations indicated an insignificant amount of pedestrian crossings? During morning rush hour, an average of 21 pedestrians and 2 bicycles cross that stretch of Millwood per hour, and during the evening rush hour an average of 33 pedestrians and 1 bicycle cross per hour. Besides, does the City have pedestrian numbers for other well-used roads in Winchester that we can look at? How did they come up with the raw data?
The project is a done deal as much as the move of DSS to the Snapp Foundry was a done deal and the use of tax dollars for the Taylor Hotel is a done deal. If the City wants to make it happen, it will happen. To give an edict to close the road would be political suicide. Come on, Common Sense, you have to know how the game of politics is played, even in small cities like Winchester. If you just look at the gist of the talks over the last two years, it becomes clear that it was never “if we close Mildred” but WHEN. And that is what many people have been starting to realize. I am not the first to come to this conclusion, and I certainly won’t be the last.
Again, page 10 of the final study looks clearly at the Pedestrian Data issue. You actually do a good service by linking all the newspaper articles. I have pointed three from May and July 2010 that I suggest you include.
Just report fairly and leave your bias conclusions out. You are simply wrong to say this is a done deal and has been since the beginning. I know that is not the case.
Have a nice day.
Incredible. You are focusing on a NON-ISSUE.
Here is what the report says on page 10:
This is typical in any city. People who walk to work are going to be on the road around the same time that people are commuting to work via automobile.
Whether it is “moderate” or not depends on what the consultant considers to be “moderate” and how it compares to other roads of comparable vehicular use in the city. The term remains undefined in the report and no comparisons are provided.
I seriously doubt the City will be closing every road that intersects the Green Circle Trail.
And Common Sense, considering I am simply a non-syndicated citizen journalist on a non-syndicated blog website with no obligations to ANYONE, I think I can report however I want. If that means incorporating my “bias conclusions” and commentary when I feel like it, I will do so. 🙂 What is “fair” is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Really, then quit implying that you are “keeping an eye on local government so others don’t have to!” That implies that you are looking at things in a fair and unbiased way which obviously, as you state above, you are not inclined to do.
Perhaps Fox News will buy you out someday! I’ll check in on occasion to keep you honest. Glad I could help do so on this important issue.
You are a bossy bit of goods. 😀
What you think is “fair and unbiased” may be completely unfair and biased to me. EVERYONE has personal biases that will come out in the way they speak and write and what they choose to talk about or what they choose to avoid. If a newspaper omits certain facts or avoids certain discussions, is that “fair and unbiased”? If a newspaper gives a disproportionate amount of attention to one side of a debate, is that “fair and unbiased”?
I am looking out for the average Joe citizen and the average business owner who is nickel-and-dimed to death while watching their property rights erode. I am not looking out for the best interests of government officials or their cronies in large private corporations. Seriously, average Joe citizens and average business owners typically don’t have the time or energy to “keep an eye on local government” like the officials and their cronies do.
I am not telling lies in my posts, Common Sense. If something is my opinion, most readers are astute enough to figure out that it is an opinion. What I do do, however, is come to rational conclusions based on the evidence.
And from everything I’ve seen, heard, and read, the University has wanted Millwood closed for over ten years, and in 2009 they finally had a City Council sympathetic to that wish. Bye-bye Millwood.