Public Debate
Many people have posted comments at various news sites regarding the Millwood plan. Some are amusing, some are eyebrow-raising, and some even make sense. Here is a compilation of the most interesting quotes:
Boz (September 18, 2010)
Mr. Vickers writes, “Neither the city nor the county nor the university are paying for the [MPO] study.” Really? Then who IS paying the $50,000 fee to the consultant, Gorove/Slade?
Getting It Right (September 19, 2010)
Seems that City government employees agree that the closing the short section of Millwood Avenue is a matter of vehicular safety. They admit that the Y intersection at Millwood and Jubal Early is a confusing dangerous intersection: The idea of a new right turn lane was reported on since May. Looks like SU is willing to help make that a reality. Perhaps we should not be so quick to demonize them?
Rufus (September 18, 2010)
Front Page, Winchester Star:
WINCHESTER- A study commissioned by Shenandoah University has estimated the school’s annual economic impact on the city and Frederick County at nearly $90 million, supporting 1,342 jobs.
Editorial Page, Same paper: we acknowledge that no plans are etched in stone, no “done deals” have been cut.
Open Forum, same paper, same day:The Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization is currently taking a comprehensive look at traffic in the gateway, and I think it is an appropriate time to give serious consideration to the closure of Millwood from the fork at Jubal Early to University Drive just southeast of the Armory. A number of important factors indicate the time to close this small portion of Millwood is at hand.
Connect the dots and I suspect you can see what will happen even though it is not “etched in stone” this morning.
Boz (September 18, 2010)
It’s like JMU trying to close I-81 because the interstate bisects its campus. As for all of the “gateway” talk being promulgated, the only “gateway” being formed is a Watergate-way. If SU wants to be a good neighbor, it will consider what is the greatest good for the greatest number in Winchester and give up this selfish land grab that only benefits the university.
eaglemom53 (January 13, 2011)
Looks like a lot of money was spent for a lot of big words…”eliminating ambiguous geometries, reducing vehicular conflict points, reducing curb radii and intersection skew, and creating a signalized crossing for pedestrians.” I’ve never heard of an accident being referred to as a “vehicular conflict.”
CasualObserver (January 13, 2011)
The Millwood Avenue spur is quite valuable for anyone wanting to enter downtown Winchester from the US 50/522 corridor. Certainly most of the 600 drivers per hour that use the end of Millwood to bypass Malfunction Junction during morning rush (page 38) are relieved that they do not have to use the traffic lights on Jubal Early that already back up more than enough.
This proposal is clearly not about “vehicular-pedestrian conflict points”, but rather whether SU can muscle the city government into giving up a well used public road. Let’s see if our officials can stand up for the people of the city.
Livia (January 13, 2011)
Anyone who thinks the outcome of this ‘study’ wasn’t a forgone conclusion is delusional. I sat through one of those meetings, and I can tell you that the people looking into this ‘proposal’ weren’t interested in finding out whether they SHOULD do it, but how best to IMPLEMENT it! That was the whole premise of the study!!! Saying it was done by this part of the city govenment or that one is beside the point: this simple fact is that the study was formed to come to the conclusion that that stretch of Millwood should be closed and how it should be closed. The opening sentence of the company doing the ‘study” stated as much! All else was so much window dressing.
[…]
The ONLY reason for closing this part of Millwood is that SU wants it closed, and our city council is willing to bend over and kiss their feet. It doesn’t matter that this move will destroy a lot of downtown businesses. I can’t help but wonder who on the council will benefit from this. Has anyone noticed the VERY large. new sign on Buettner’s Tire Distributor, which can be seen very easily when people are forced to use the new traffic pattern? I fully believe this was a done deal out of the gate.
tojo45 (January 13, 2011)
“The report says the alternative was selected because it improves safety, convenience and appearance.”
Convenient for whom? Appearance? The college is the only beneficiary and they could afford to build a pedestrian overpass, or a tunnel, IF the safety of those crossing the street is the issue, instead of INCONVENIENCING everyone else. Even another light would be better than what they are proposing.
Sarge (April 22, 2011)
This is bull****. This is a deal that was reached in a smoke filled room between the cronies in town and the cronies at SU, and us peon surfs are going to take it up the you know what when this is done. Just last Saturday I was sitting at the light in front of Perkins, traffic was backed up the other way from the Toys R Us light and I counted 21 cars that used Millwood just in the time it took to cycle the light
So when it’s busy, let just say 20 cars per minute. And they’re going to funnel all of that onto and already congested and backed up road?
Hope you boys enjoy your little kick back from SU
Art Major (April 22, 2011)
I don’t agree with the assertion that this decision has already been made (at least not by council).
I certainly believe Sarge is way off base in making the accusation that anyone is receiving a “kickback”. Pretty insulting, certainly sad and absolutely false.
really (April 22, 2011)
Maybe not a kickback, but some serious question of intelligence on behaf of the City. The City will need to stand up and do the RIGHT thing, or it will appear to most as if they gave in to SU. This problem w/ our “leaders” has been evident for years.
Boz (April 23, 2011)
Thanks to the Star for this tactful analysis, maybe even too tactful. For example, the editorial states, “Even if VDOT matches SU’s contribution . . . that would leave $730,000 unfunded.” What the editorial leaves unsaid, however, is where would the matching VDOT money come from? VDOT is not run by Oprah. It doesn’t just give money to projects. All of the money it “gives” previously was taken from Virginia taxpayers.
Jeff Milburn (April 23, 2011)
AOC and the Star have raised valid questions.
IMHO, SU missed the boat by not being more transparent in the very beginning with this idea as I believe if this was revealed in the very beginning vs. citing safety concerns, then maybe the public may have been more receptive.
There is no doubt that an enclosed area will make the area better and more pleasing to visitors but it just seems like the wrong location because of the amount of traffic.
IMHO, why not do a test run by installing temporary concrete barriers (minus right turn lane) like is used on interstates to actually get a real live demo of what it will be like for about a week or two week period and do a study on the amount of traffic funneling into that main artery then.
By doing this, the study experts will be able to determine how much traffic is going to use the right-turn lane and how much will continue going straight while utilizing the other intersections and what type of impact it might have on people getting downtown.
Robina (April 23, 2011)
That the City of Winchester is even contemplating this travesty is evidence that, at least in this instance, they are less concerned with protecting and promoting the “common good”, than they are in acquiesing to the political pressures of certain private entities.
Sarge (April 23, 2011)
Anyone find the humor in yesterdays picture linked to SU article, which showed in just that one second in time, 6 cars using Millwood and two more coming down the hill to use it as well?
marie (April 23, 2011)
What I don’t like is the dishonesty on the part of SU. This issue began with SU claiming the so-called safety problem of students crossing the street – when in reality we all now see that they actually want this stretch of road to become their own to create an impressive entrance to the college.
dikaiosyni (April 27, 2011)
When you distill this down, the bottom line is that Shenandoah U. is in a terrible location…and there isn’t anything that can change this. When it relocated from Dayton in 1960, it found land adjacent to an interstate under construction — and knew growth around this area was inevitable. JMU’s growth has brought it to I-81, and even across the Interstate through open land that was available. Shenandoah does not have this opportunity. Giving up a city park, as one writer suggested, to mollify the ego’s of a few board members and university administrator’s is not a solution. The university needs to remain small, and accept things as they are…you built in the wrong place.
mmwinc (June 3, 2011)
It wouldn’t be direct City tax dollars, but you can be sure SU will be going after VDOT (taxpayer) money. Vickers is noted in the article as stating that VDOT might match SU dollars, and hey, they have an ” inside guy” on the state’s transportation board – Fitzsimmons’ predecessor, Jim Davis. Buettner’s statement that he would not support using VDOT money is reassuring. Hopefully, Council would go beyond not supporting it to actively opposing it, because any money VDOT would direct to that project will undoubtedly be money that the City will not get for those projects that they have prioritized as Buettner mentioned.
Boz (June 3, 2011)
mmwinc writes, “Buettner’s statement that he would not support using VDOT money is reassuring.” Actually, that may not be true. If SU assumes full responsibility for the cost of closing Millwood, it would be SU that would apply to VDOT for taxpayer funding, and not Buettner or city council. If Buettner wanted to play semantic games, he could support the closure of Millwood and still claim he and city council did not ask VDOT for taxpayer funding to effect the closure. Until I see evidence to the contrary, though, I’ll hold to the notion that Mr. Buettner is a more honorable man than to play such slick word games.
Old Town Dweller (June 3, 2011)
According to the consultant’s report which is posted online, during the morning traffic peak, 44% of traffic headed west takes Millwood and 56% takes Jubal Early. During the evening peak, 32% take Millwood and 68% take Jubal Early.
Sarge (June 20, 2011)
Regarding the closing of Millwood Avenue. Not living in Winchester, I was terribly confused when entering Winchester when Jubal Early Drive was first opened.
This was over twenty years ago. If you were that confused back in the day, I can only imagine what your state of mind is now. Are you sure you’re up to sitting on that board at SU?
I am now on the Board of Trustees of Shenandoah University and have a renewed interest in the closing of Millwood Avenue
I’ll bet you do
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.
And the entrance to town looks much better coming in on Rt 7? Or 522 coming from the west? Or on 50 west for that matter? Is SU, with their concern for attractive city entrances, going to foot the bill to beautify all those entrances as well?
Fuddy Duddy (July 1, 2011)
Historic Route 66, once the route of choice from Chicago to Los Angeles, now exists in widely separated pieces, victim of the Interstate Highway system. My Bucket List says one of these days I’ll try to find one of those pieces and drive my old Corvette on it, depositing the obligatory twin patches of rubber.
Millwood Avenue is poised to join Rt. 66, thanks to Jubal Early Drive. As Winchester’s Eastern Gateway, Millwood was never much more than a narrow 2-lane cow-path of a highway into town. From my office in Washington, D.C. I drove Millwood into town many times over the years. Now, even the cow-path is disappearing. Developers hungered for new roads to serve their mega-shopping centers. Grateful for tax revenue, city authorities paid for Jubal Early Drive, shunting traffic away from Millwood.
Now comes another form of greed seeking to completely close Millwood and erect a building. City authorities eager to win favor from their puppet masters are tripping over themselves in their haste to jump on this bandwagon, citing many nebulous reasons that benefits not one citizen, but undoubtedly puts smiles on the faces of a few Good Old Boys.
When that happens you can’t get to Millwood Avenue from here… you have to go somewhere else and start. Millwood has become Route 66.
R.I.P. Millwood.
Bonnie Aaronson (July 2, 2011)
Why do people continue to act as if SU has some nefarious plan here? It’s driving me crazy! Of course the City and SU are compromising and collaborating on this as well as other projects past and future. That’s what relatioships are about. Do you think it’s any different between other Cities and large employers and/or universities.
This is what I absolutely hate about the new ‘tea party’ age. The slightest compromise is being seen as capitulation and selling out. Compromise is how cities and the quality of life in those cities improve in democratic societies. I applaud it.
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.