22 Mile Trail Parallel to I-66 — Helpful Video and Input Needed

@huskerdont 164295 wrote:

On the home page of the Washington Post, with some politicians objecting to the plan as currently designed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/17/virginia-lawmakers-oppose-plan-to-sandwich-i-66-trail-between-a-sound-wall-and-traffic/?hpid=hp_local-news_gridlock-845am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Unfortunately, my Senator and Delegate were not among the signers – I guess I’ll pick up the phone to find out if they were aware of the letter and if they were, express my disappointment for not signing.

(EDIT) I sent the following to my State Senator and Delegate, who I identified by using this interactive map. Feel free to plagiarize:

Dear Senator/Delegate X,

I am writing to draw your attention to a letter drafted by Senator Scott Surovell and signed by 18 of your colleagues in the Senate and House of Delegates strongly opposing VDOT’s current proposal to place a multiuse trail inside the sound barrier on a portion of the planned expansion of I-66, as reported in the Washington Post on August 17. The letter explains in detail the many problems with the proposed approach, as summed up by the following quote: “I-66 Trail users will be closely sandwiched between a sound wall and traffic exposing them to concentrated quantities of car exhaust, noise pollution and road debris.”

I urge you join your colleagues in opposing this proposal in its current state. Trail users, whether they are on foot or on bicycles, deserve trails that are separated and sheltered from the noise, pollution and hazards freeway traffic poses.

Sincerely,

Name and address.

My senator spearheaded the letter according to WaPo, so I sent a thank you note

My delegate was not though, so reaching out to him is now on my to-do list…

I sent a thank you note to my state senator and state delegate. They need to hear that their efforts are appreciated and necessary. That VDOT proposal is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

Update in the [URL=”http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/changing-trail-design-could-jeopardize-entire-i-66-widening-project/2017/09/03/76b5be86-8e5d-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_i66project-552pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b87daa5f521d”%5DPost today[/URL] does not sound promising.

@sjclaeys 164852 wrote:

Yes, VaDOT is taking no responsibility for allowing a faulty design or not consulting with trail users earlier, so of course VaDOT blames the potential trail users.

Lies. It is incredible to suggest that the MUP could stand in the way of this $2.3B foregone conclusion. This MUP was designed for budgetary elimination, and lobbying efforts to improve the facility require those caught at this game to attempt to shift the blame for the eminent domain takings to those with the temerity to argue against it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

@lordofthemark 164424 wrote:

This is what advocacy looks like.

Unfortunately, it smells like defeat.

@lordofthemark 164889 wrote:

Meh. I’m not ready to give up just yet. In particular I want to hear WHY the utility trucks cannot access utilities by driving on an outside the sound wall MUT.

because vdot doesn’t want to. they’ll drag their feet on dealing with this until the project is finished, and just do whatever they want. the same way they refused to talk about the trail at all during the planning meetings over the past few years even though they were apparently planning this the whole time. (because “it was too early in the process to talk about those details”.)

real alternative: utilities in the shoulder. then maybe you’d lose one of five interstate lanes when work is needed, instead of one of one MUP. But this isn’t about real alternatives…

I don’t think VDOT has said anything about how the MUP is supposed to work when it’s torn up for utility work because, again, they don’t care.