Well you asked

Well, you asked

A community meeting to gather community input about a proposal to extend Ashland Road south of Route 250 to connect with Hockett Road near the Hickory Haven subdivision filled the Centerville Company 3 meeting room on August 27.

Elected officials and staff got an earful. County Administrator Rebecca Dickson repeatedly said that no decisions on the matter have been made. Given the response from those in attendance, it seems likely that the county and Dewberry engineers retained for the project, are headed back to the drawing board.

Comments that followed a brief presentation by the county’s Principal Planner Tom Coleman were negative in the extreme. 

According to Coleman and Dickson, the realignment of Hockett/Ashland has been on county land use projections for decades, but had no funding. 

The Metropolitan Planning Organization, which prioritizes road improvements on a regional basis, recently authorized funding for engineering studies in 2014, and about $1.5 million for construction. The funding is time sensitive. If construction is not begun in the next few years, the money goes back into the MPO “pot” for use elsewhere in the region.

Coleman illustrated his remarks with sketches of possible solutions  that involved bisecting the parcel of land currently in agricultural use on the south side of Rt. 250 behind the road stub. See the presentation on the county website www.co.goochland.va.us.

One version made a cul-de-sac out of the northern part of Hockett Road, effectively cutting off all through traffic. Business owners there, especially the proprietor of the emergency vet, expressed extreme displeasure with that concept. All the proposals would do, they said, is move the traffic bottlenecks  south of  250, and perhaps make things worse.

Another proposed iteration--this is all hypothetical,no decisions have been made--kept Hockett Road open to through traffic but put an intersection, possibly a round about, near Hickory Haven to funnel northbound traffic through the area. Wetlands in the area complicate the situation, and some of the versions could result in “removal” of commercial buildings and homes.

The consensus seemed to be that the permanent traffic signal at Hockett and Broad, which will be in place by the end of 2014, will handle traffic problems for the foreseeable future and no other improvements are needed. 

As traffic volumes increase, and they will as new housing developments are built out, turn, and perhaps additional traffic lanes will be needed. This could have a negative impact on existing businesses, especially those on the corners. The proposed road changes were supposed to avoid taking any more road frontage property in rights of way.

Coleman and Dickson explained that traffic counts on Goochland roads are expected to  rise dramatically in the near future due to construction of at least 300 new homes in the Hockett Road corridor and growth in western Henrico.

Indeed, demographers expect the population of the Richmond region to increase by 450,000 in the next 20 years. That’s roughly one and one half Henricos. While Goochland will not bear the brunt of this population increase, the newcomers will be driving through the county.

But how many of those vehicles will be traveling along both Hockett and Ashland Roads?

There were several suggestions about connecting Hockett to Ashland Road on the north side of Rt. 250 cutting through the open land behind the water tower. This is undeveloped land, so no buildings would be in peril, and is flat and seems to be free of water hazards.

For that matter, why not just widen Plaza Drive, which many westbound residents already use regularly to avoid congestion on Rt. 250? The route is there, additional rights of way would need to be obtained, but more traffic might make the parcels in that corridor more marketable. Add a signal at Ashland Road, and the problem, if there is one, has been addressed.

During the hearings for the latest residential enclave on Hockett Road District 5 Planning Commissioner Tom Rockecharlie contended that a north south connector road is needed to relieve traffic pressure. Perhaps that option should be explored instead. Over the years, a road parallel to Hockett inside the boundaries of West Creek has been mentioned and a few speculative lines drawn on maps. Such a road could be built with enough lanes to handle traffic counts expected at build out. It would open up more land on West Creek for development--remember that is an office/business park, not a nature preserve--and spare existing buildings.

When this realignment was added to the county's comprehensive land use plan, Hockett Road was the sole transportation corridor between Rts. 250 and 6. For the past decade, there's been another option, Rt.288, which was built to move large volumes of traffic. Southbound through traffic on Ashland Road is better served by using  288.

So, who are those drivers going north on Hockett? Most likely, they are residents, or Capital One folk heading to Centerville. It does seem like the traffic signal will eliminate the opportunity to play "chicken" while attempting a left turn across fromMcDonald's. 

Most of the citizens at the meeting seemed to be from The Parke at Centerville. They expressed displeasure at the thought of any more commercial development in the Broad Street corridor. Ironically, when that subdivision was brought up for approval, there was a good bit of dissent. People contended that permitting a high density residential community on Hockett Road would destroy the rural character of the Centerville Village. Tiny lots, opponents contended, were better suited for the suburbs. Since then, at least two additional high density residential enclaves have been approved for Hockett Road, in addition to a very high end subdivision off of Tuckahoe Creek Parkway roughly opposite Kinloch.

During the hearings for the latest residential enclave on Hockett Road District 5 Planning Commissioner Tom Rockecharlie contended that a north south connector road is needed to relieve traffic pressure. Perhaps that option should be explored instead. Over the years, a road parallel to Hockett inside the boundaries of West Creek has been mentioned and a few theorhetical lines drawn on maps. Such a road could be built with enough lanes to handle traffic counts expected at build out. It would open up more land on West Creek for development--remember that is an office/business park, not a nature preserve--and spare existing buildings.

Dickson explained that property owners have the right to ask to have their land rezoned for its highest and best use. The county’s comprehensive land use plan, explained Dickson, has indicated that the Broad Street Road corridor in Centerville is designated for commercial development. Served by public utilities and with good road access, development here is seen as desirable, in order to keep the rest of the county more rural.

Do not expect cows to graze behind the Shell station in perpetuity. That is prime commercial land and will be developed at some point. Roads parallel to Rt. 250 have also been under consideration to build a grid system as the village grows. The crowd did not like that either.

Several people asked about the master plan for Centerville. Short answer, there is none. Design standards, considered too strict by some, too lax by others, are about as good as it gets.

Speakers also contended that the speed limits through Centerville (45 mph) and on Hockett Road (55 mph) need to be reduced. Dickson explained that the county has asked VDOT—the state agency whose motto is “Oops!”—to do that on several occasions and was turned down.
Dickson said repeatedly that no decisions about the proposals have been made. Too bad the community meeting was not held before the engineers turned on their meter.