Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hanover board narrows Route 301/54 sidewalk plan after split vote
Summary
After hours of debate over $270,000–$370,000 in proposed sidewalks tied to the funded Route 301/54 roundabout, the board voted 4–3 to add sidewalks only in front of the post office and a nearby gas station, removing the longer stretch across undeveloped property.
The Hanover County Board of Supervisors on Oct. discussed whether to expand sidewalks as part of the funded Route 301/54 roundabout project, and after extended debate approved a reduced scope: sidewalks in front of the post office and the gas station only.
Transportation staff presented a preliminary engineering estimate for a full extension and an engineer’s preliminary cost of about $270,000, plus a $100,000 contingency to cover unknowns (right‑of‑way acquisition and subsurface conditions), producing a planning figure of roughly $370,000. Staff said including sidewalks as part of the roundabout project would take advantage of on‑site construction efficiencies and align with the county’s comp‑plan vision for a more walkable village center.
Supporters argued the sidewalks would support long‑range village planning, pedestrian access for county employees and visitors to the historic courthouse area and businesses, and that it is cheaper to add them during the larger construction. “If we don’t do this now we will probably never do this,” Supervisor Pritchard said during the debate.
Opponents questioned near‑term pedestrian demand, particularly for large stretches that cross undeveloped property, and cautioned about competing infrastructure needs. Some supervisors suggested that future private development could be required to add sidewalks when parcels are developed. One supervisor said, “I just don’t think there’s enough pedestrian traffic to justify spending this money.”
The board first voted on a motion to eliminate the longer aqua‑colored sidewalk extension (the larger plan); that motion failed. After additional discussion the board approved a subsequent motion to include only two small sidewalk segments — at the post office and the gas station — by a recorded vote of 4–3 (Davis, Stoneman, Hudson and the Madam Chair in favor; Pritchard, Floyd and Herzberg opposed). The motion carried with the board directing staff to proceed with the reduced scope and to return with design details.
Funding for the sidewalk extension was proposed to come from CVTA local reserves; staff said the reserve balance can cover the work without delaying other projects. The board also asked staff to refine right‑of‑way needs and return with more detailed costings before final contract actions.
