Active Prince William

Advancing active mobility in greater Prince William, Virginia

Category: Advocacy (Page 5 of 13)

Will Prince William’s Road Expansions Bust Our Region’s Climate Goals?

April 5, 2022 /

To lessen catastrophic climate change from the burning of fossil fuels, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) has collectively pledged to substantially reduce our region’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the level that existed in 2005–by 50% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050.

The major sources of our region’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Transportation (yellow bars) is now the largest single source of our greenhouse gas emissions, comprising at least 40% of the total.

Prince William County and all other localities in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)–and the associated National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB)–have committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of the 2005 level by 2030.  In the County, the transportation sector–cars and trucks, primarily–is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.   By 2030, there will be more electric vehicles (and a somewhat cleaner electric grid), but most vehicles will still be powered by fossil fuels and emit carbon dioxide from tailpipes.

The County’s traditional business-as-usual transportation planning–expanding highways for drive-alone commutes–would sabotage efforts to meet the 2030 target.  In particular, the proposed Route 28 Bypass would not increase local jobs but would increase solo auto commutes and greenhouse gas emissions.  Spending well over $200 million in County tax revenue on the Route 28 Bypass would subsidize housing and jobs in other localities, while sabotaging efforts to meet our region’s 2030 greenhouse gas target to lessen our global climate crisis.

Instead of building the Route 28 Bypass, the eight members on the Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) could plan to meet our region’s 2030 climate target and invest the savings to upgrade local infrastructure to better access local jobs.  What makes the most sense to you?

Below is our recent email exchange with BOCS Chair (and TPB Member) Ann Wheeler.   Active Prince William sent similar messages to Neabsco District Supervisor Victor Angry, Manassas Vice Mayor Pamela Sebesky, and Manassas Park Mayor Jeanette Rishell who also serve on the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB).

From: Active Prince William <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 6:46 PM
To: Wheeler, Ann <[email protected]>; Angry, Victor S. <[email protected]>
Cc: Belita, Paolo J. <[email protected]>; Canizales, Ricardo <[email protected]>
Subject: Metropolitan Washington 2030 Climate and Energy Action Plan

Dear Chair Wheeler and Supervisor Angry:

As members of the Transportation Planning Board (TPB), you have an especially important role in sustainability planning and advancing the Metropolitan Washington 2030 Climate and Energy Action Plan.  

Without action by TPB to adopt climate change mitigation goals and strategies, the region will not meet the 2030 and 2050 targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

Technological changes will not be sufficient; we need policy changes that reduce regional VMT and VMT per capita as well.  Fundamentally, the TPB must adopt targets and policies to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.  The impact of new projects in Northern Virginia’s long-range multimodal transportation plan, TransAction, need to be quantified.  Otherwise, how can the 24 jurisdictions in MWCOG meet their 2030 and 2050 targets?

Similarly, each jurisdiction needs to “do the math” regarding planned land use changes.  Transit-Oriented Development can minimize the greenhouse gas emissions that will be increased by population growth.  Those increases must be offset in order to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets, and the impact of changes in land use planning must be quantified. Otherwise, how can the 24 jurisdictions in MWCOG meet their 2030 and 2050 targets?

As noted by the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels is essential for keeping our planet in the safety zone.  We cannot afford to ignore the cumulative impacts of emissions between now and 2030 and focus only on the 2050 target.

From: Wheeler, Ann <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: Metropolitan Washington 2030 Climate and Energy Action Plan
To: Active Prince William <active.princewilliam@gmail.com>, Angry, Victor S. <[email protected]>
Cc: Belita, Paolo J. <[email protected]>, Canizales, Ricardo <[email protected]>

Good afternoon-

Thank you for reaching out to our office.  I have attached the MWCOG plan for achieving GHG reductions.  As you can see on page 11 there will have to be various ways to address this issue and I know both MWCOG and TPB have discussed these at length.  Prince William County is a still growing outer jurisdiction, without Metro, which makes discussion of some of the items you brought up more difficult.  It is my belief that as an outer jurisdiction, with a current heavy reliance on automobiles, we should have a much, much greater focus on electrification of our County-owned fleet as well as encouragement of conversion to EVs through a robust charging infrastructure for our residents.  Even looking at the major activity or transit centers in the west where the housing growth will come from (Broad Run Station, the commuter lot on Route  29 and the commuter lot at Groveton) it will be difficult to get very high density around these three locations for various reasons.   I believe one of the strongest ways to ultimately reduce vehicle miles traveled is to expand our commercial base in Prince William County so people don’t have to commute to their job locations and that is what I am focusing on.  I am sure you will agree that ultimately this is a goal everyone can get behind.

Thank you for you comments as we continue evaluating our land-use and mobility plans to assure our future for the next twenty years.

In service,

Ann Wheeler

From: Active Prince William <active.princewilliam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Metropolitan Washington 2030 Climate and Energy Action Plan
To: Wheeler, Ann <[email protected]>
Cc: Angry, Victor S. <[email protected]>, Belita, Paolo J. <[email protected]>, Canizales, Ricardo <[email protected]><

Chair Wheeler,

Thank you for your response to our message regarding the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.  We certainly agree that “one of the strongest ways to ultimately reduce vehicle miles traveled is to expand our commercial base in Prince William County so people don’t have to commute to their job locations.”

That perspective should shape the county’s investments in new transportation infrastructure.  We should prioritize building new capacity that maximizes mobility while minimizing Vehicle Miles Traveled.  The 2040 Comprehensive Plan should focus on creating walkable communities to accommodate the expanding population.  The County priority for new mobility infrastructure should be expansion of local Omniride and shuttle/trolley services, plus bike/pedestrian connections that anticipate increasing use of e-bikes.

To expand our commercial base and increase local jobs, we should stop funding construction of new lane miles designed for Prince William commuters to leave the county–and for auto commuters who live to our west and south to commute through Prince William County–for jobs in other jurisdictions.  In particular, the county’s $200 million subsidy for the Route 28 Bypass is inconsistent with a priority to expand our commercial base in Prince William County so people don’t have to commute to their job locations.

That project, especially when the destruction of houses in an Equity Emphasis Area is viewed through an equity lens, should be cancelled.  The funding earmarked to repay the $200 million in county bonds, should be re-purposed in a joint venture with the school system to fund the Sustainability Action Plan that the Sustainability Commission will complete in the next year.

###

Our Comments on the Mathis Avenue Improvement Project

March 31, 2022 /

On March 31, 2022, Active Prince William submitted the following comments to the City of Manassas regarding its proposed Mathis Avenue Improvement Project:

Re: Mathis Avenue Improvement Project (T-086) Public Meeting Comments

On behalf of Active Prince William, I’m writing to submit the following comments in response to the March 17, public meeting for the above-referenced project.  Our all-volunteer organization seeks improved active mobility and public transportation throughout greater Prince William, to create more livable, equitable, and sustainable communities.

An Improved Public Process for Transportation Project Development

We sincerely appreciate the improved process used to involve the public at the 30% design stage for this capital transportation project, which included both a February 23 virtual public meeting and an in-person meeting held on March 17.  This public involvement process is far better than the one used by City staff for its recent Sudley Road Third Lane Project, which excluded all public input before preliminary engineering was at least 90% complete (including when that project had been re-scoped substantially twice, in December 2017 and in February 2021).  We hope this public comment opportunity reflects a permanent policy change to proactively involve the public in all City transportation projects going forward, ideally starting at the project scoping stage.

The Proposed Design is a Reasonable Interim Aesthetic Improvement but Lacks Essential Pedestrian Amenities for a Vibrant, Mixed-Use Street

As a final condition for a revitalized Mathis Avenue as a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented street–ideally with robust bus transit service–the proposed design would be a major disappointment.  However, as an interim improvement intended to transform the appearance of this somewhat desolate commercial street and to promote future mixed-use redevelopment at minimal cost, this project does appear to have merit.

In particular, the proposed design provides sidewalks that are too narrow for comfortable two-way walking, are too close to the roadway, and lack street trees and pedestrian-serving street furniture in what should be much wider curbside planting strips and furniture zones.   In addition, the sidewalks are interrupted with frequent curb cuts, where motor vehicle cross flows impede safe and comfortable walking.

However, considering the need for Mathis Avenue to continue serving the existing auto-oriented businesses beside it, especially along the east side of this street, until redevelopment occurs some years in the future, the imperative to minimize right of way takings and to preserve the existing curb cuts is understandable.

To effectively promote the specific forms of redevelopment that the City seeks and to ensure that this redevelopment incorporates the necessary mobility infrastructure to equitably support that redevelopment, the City’s Department of Planning and Community Development should undertake a robust community-based planning process to develop a detailed form-based zoning code for the Mathis Avenue corridor.  Form-base zoning codes are a proven tool to effectively promote the specific forms of redevelopment desired by localities.

Bicycling Accommodations and Roadway Design Speed

The lack of bike lanes (or any alternative bicycle facilities) in this project is disappointing but is also understandable since the existing curbs are not being moved to keep the existing storm sewer infrastructure in place, to minimize costs and commercial property impacts.  However, without bike lanes, the construction of raised medians will degrade bicycling conditions substantially, and those degraded conditions are unlikely to be remedied by a future roadway widening when the corridor is eventually redeveloped.

Presently, motorists can readily safely overtake people riding bicycles on Mathis Avenue by passing in the two-way central left-turn lane.  The raised medians, however, will prevent motorists from overtaking bicycle riders, who typically travel at 10-16 MPH.  Thus, people riding bicycles on Mathis Avenue will serve as slow-moving traffic-calming devices.  This roadway change will make bicycling unpleasant for nearly all riders and will subject people riding bicycles to increased harassment from frustrated motorists who are unable to pass.  Moreover, since Mathis Avenue would probably not be rebuilt with added bike lanes when redevelopment occurs in the future, this degradation of bicycling conditions on Mathis Avenue is likely permanent.

The fact that nearby Portner Avenue is designated as a bicycle route is no reason to degrade bicycling conditions on Mathis Avenue.  While many through bicyclists already prefer to travel on Portner Avenue, only Mathis Avenue serves the businesses and jobs located along Mathis Avenue, and people will someday live on this segment of Mathis Avenue too.

Thus, for both bicycle access and pedestrian safety, this project should strive to reduce the design speed for Mathis Avenue–and ideally the posted speed limit–to 20 MPH or below.   The raised median with street trees—and especially street trees in future curbside planting strips and future taller buildings closer to the roadway—should encourage motorists to drive more slowly on Mathis Avenue, but other design changes are needed too.

Shorter curb-return radii at corners and narrower sidewalk curb cuts would help reduce motor vehicle speeds, and electronic speed-feedback signs paired with posted speed limit signs (dynamic speed displays) would warn speeding motorists to slow down.  In addition, shared-lane markings (aka “sharrows”) centered in each travel lane would inform both motorists and bicycle riders that this is a shared roadway.

More Visible and Shorter Crosswalks

One notable design feature that should be changed is the proposed use of brick-colored stamped asphalt crosswalks.  While intended to impart historic charm, brown-colored crosswalks are far less conspicuous to motorists than modern high-visibility and reflective thermoplastic crosswalk markings.  The primary purpose of marked crosswalks is to alert motorists to the likely presence of crossing pedestrians, encouraging drivers to slow down, look for, prepare to yield to, and stop for pedestrians who may be crossing the roadway.  A faux-brick aesthetic is far less important than the safety of people who are walking across the street.

In addition, the final design of each intersection should pay particular attention to shortening the length of all crosswalks to the extent feasible and to install two separate curb ramps for the crosswalk landings at each corner.  The present design includes a single combined curb ramp at the southeast corner of Mathis Avenue and Sudley Road and at all four corners of Mathis Avenue and Liberia Avenue, the two on the north side not being rebuilt.

Designing shorter curb-return radii at all intersection corners, as suggested above to reduce the roadway design speed, would also reduce the crosswalk lengths at those intersections.

Consider Short Left-Turn Lanes at Reb Yank Drive and Carriage Lane

The advertised design does not include any space in the center of the roadway (beyond the intersection itself) to store vehicles waiting to turn left at Reb Yank Drive (from both directions) or southbound at Carriage Lane.  While shortening the raised medians to add short left-turn pockets at those three locations could increase travel speeds along Mathis Avenue and could also remove the proposed median refuges for crossing pedestrians at those unsignalized intersections, it may be prudent to add those left-turn pockets to smooth traffic flow, reduce traffic congestion, and lower the incidence of rear-end collisions at those locations.  However, if traffic studies have already documented that those left-turn pockets are unnecessary, then please retain them.

Thank you for considering our comments as you finalize the design of this project.

While Better, the Revised Design of the Route 234-Brentsville Road Interchange in Still Badly Flawed

March 30, 2022 /
Prince William County DOT’s currently proposed circuitous trail routing through the Interchange, assuming that a direct trail bridge connecting the existing Route 294 and Route 234 Trails is included in this project

Our proposed trail connections through the planned interchange to reach Route 234 Business (red line) and the future trail along the Route 234 Bypass (blue line).  A trail (red line) running along the north side of Route 234 would pass underneath both new roadway overpasses. The three light blue circles show where box culverts could allow the trail to be routed beneath highway ramps.  The areas shown in yellow are existing roadways that are planned to be removed.  This design eliminates all at-grade trail-roadway crossings, except to reach Route 234 Business.  However, by building a shared-use path along the west side of Route 234 Business (connecting to Godwin Dr), trail users would be required to cross only 5-lanes of stopped traffic at just the western leg of the signalized intersection of Bradley Cemetery Way and Route 234 Business, not 12-lanes of stopped traffic plus one lane of free-flowing right-turning traffic at two separate legs of that intersection.

This post follows up on the comments we previously submitted in response to the December 8, 2021 Design Public Hearing for Prince William County DOT’s Route 234-Brentsville Road Interchange Project.

On March 18, 2022, the County released this followup video presentation on the proposed project design.   County DOT staff are willing to at least partly addresses three concerns with the proposed trail connections that were raised at the Design Public Hearing:

1) In response to public comments from Active Prince William and others, the County is now studying the cost feasibility of a new, dedicated trail bridge over Rte 234, just east of the interchange, to directly connect the existing trails along Route 234 and Route 294.   If this trail bridge can be added without the project exceeding it’s $55 million budget, it will be included in this project.   Otherwise, it probably won’t.

2) In response to safety concerns raised by many about the four proposed closely spaced at-grade trail crossings of free-flowing highway ramps near Route 294 and Bradley Cemetery Way in the northeast corner of this project, those hazardous at-grade trail crossings may not be built, at least if the added trail bridge discussed above is actually built.    However, this change would produce a long, circuitous trail route between the western legs (Route 234 Bypass and Route 234 Business) and eastern legs (the existing trails along Routes 234 and 294) of this interchange (shown in the top image above).

3) In response to objections that the design completely omits the long-planned trail along the Route 234 Bypass that should join the existing trails along Route 234 and Route 294,  the design team has identified a future location for this trail along the northwestern edge of the interchange (see the blue line in the second image above).

However, all trail connections to and from Route 234 Business and the long-planned future trail along the Route 234 Bypass (aka Route 234 North) would still require a two-stage at-grade crossing of 12 signalized traffic lanes plus one free-flowing right-turn lane at the rebuilt intersection of Bradley Cemetery Way and Rte 234 Business plus a second at-grade trail crossing of a free-flowing highway ramp at the south side of the interchange (at the on-ramp from Brentsville Road) .  Those remaining design flaws would still create considerable delays and hazards for trail users.

Under Prince William DOT’s revised design for this interchange, this slow and hazardous crossing of 13 traffic lanes at two legs of the signalized intersection of Bradley Cemetery Way and Route 234 Business would remain.  All trail access and egress from either Route 234 Business or the future trail along the Route 234 Bypass would need to use this routing to join either of the existing trails along Route 234 and Route 294 or Brentsville Road.

As a followup proposal, we suggest routing the long-planned trail along the Route 234 Bypass along the north side of Route 234 (per the second image from the top), connecting that trail to both the existing Route 294 Trail to the east and to a new shared-use path along the west side of Route 234 Business (where the existing pavement, depicted in yellow, is planned for removal).   This trail (depicted with a red line in that image) would pass underneath both new roadway overpasses being built to carry Brentsville Road and Route 294 over Route 234 and could also pass underneath three single-lane interchange ramps inside box culverts (see the light blue circles).

Under our proposal, the long-planned trail along the Route 234 Bypass would run along the north side of Route 234 and pass under both planned roadway bridges.

 

Three short box culverts could be used to route our proposed trail along the north side of the Route 234 Bypass beneath three one-lane interchange ramps.  Only one such box culvert would be needed for the connection to Route 234 Business.

Our proposed design eliminates all at-grade trail-roadway crossings, except to reach Route 234 Business.  However, by building a shared-use path along the west side of Route 234 Business (connecting to Godwin Dr), where only a sidewalk is currently planned, trail users would be required to cross only 5-lanes of stopped traffic at just the western leg of the signalized intersection of Bradley Cemetery Way and Route 234 Business, not 12-lanes of stopped traffic plus one lane of free-flowing right-turning traffic at two separate legs of that intersection.

Our proposal could also lower the cost of this project by eliminating the need to include a 14-foot wide shared-use path on the proposed Brentsville Road bridge.

Active Prince William believes that first-class, safe and direct trail connections for all five legs of this interchange can and should be provided within this project’s existing budget of $55 million.

Our Comments on the Old Bridge Rd/Occoquan Rd Intersection Project

February 18, 2022 /

On February 3, 2022, the Prince William County Department of Transportation held a Design Public Hearing for its $11.85 million project to straighten the curve on Old Bridge Road near its intersection with Occoquan Road.   Below are Active Prince William’s written comments on the proposed design of that project.  View the public hearing brochure and the public hearing presentation to see the proposed design.

Active Prince William submits the following comments for the Design Public Hearing for the above-referenced project.  Our all-volunteer organization seeks improved active mobility and public transportation throughout greater Prince William, to create more livable, equitable, and sustainable communities.

Our concerns with the proposed design for this intersection-reconstruction project can be summarized as follows: 1) lengthened crosswalks, 2) inadequate replacement sidewalks, 3) lack of bicycling accommodations, and 4) excessive design speeds.

Although framed as a “safety improvement”, this project does little to make walking, bicycling, or transit access safer.  At the same time, this project would promote speeding and add unnecessary vehicle capacity.

According to the traffic crash reports compiled by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Prince William County experienced a total of 804 traffic crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists during the past decade (2012-2021), resulting in 232 severe injuries and 53 deaths among people walking or bicycling.  Undoubtedly, the excessive design speeds on Prince William County’s multilane arterial roadways are largely responsible for this carnage affecting people walking and bicycling, while also causing many additional deaths and severe injuries to the drivers and occupants of motor vehicles.

According to VDOT’s 2019 traffic count data, Old Bridge Road (VA 641) had an AADT of 53,000 west of Occoquan Road and an AADT of 45,000 east of Occoquan Road, whereas Occoquan Road (VA 906) had an AADT of 13,000 south of Old Bridge Road and an AADT of 2800 north of Occoquan Road.  However, those traffic volumes will likely decrease once the southbound bottleneck on I-95 south of Mile-Marker 160 is fixed.

Lengthened Crosswalks

The proposed design would lengthen all three marked crosswalks at this intersection.  With the added right-turn lane on eastbound Old Bridge Road, the Old Bridge Road crosswalk would become eight lanes wide.  The crosswalk across the southern leg of Occoquan Road would remain six lanes wide, and the crosswalk across the northern leg of Occoquan Road would now cross four lanes of traffic, including the separated right-turn pocket from westbound Old Bridge Road.

To help mitigate the adverse impacts of those longer crosswalks, the design should create protected median pedestrian refuges in each crosswalk.  In addition, whenever pedestrian crossing signals are activated, leading pedestrian intervals should be triggered to give the crossing pedestrians a head start over both right-turning and left-turning vehicles.

Moreover, serious consideration should be given to not adding right-turn lanes on eastbound Old Bridge Road and/or southbound Occoquan Road and to eliminating one or two of the existing turn lanes on northbound Occoquan Road.

On eastbound Old Bridge Road, the existing curb lane approaching Occoquan Road should be redesignated for right turns only, rather than adding a new right-turn-only lane.  The VDOT traffic data show that the Old Bridge Road leg east of Occoquan Road carries 8,000 fewer vehicles/day than the Old Bridge Road leg west of Occoquan Road, indicating that two eastbound straight-through lanes are sufficient at that location.

On southbound Occoquan Road, which carries only 2800 vehicles/day, a short right-turn pocket with a pork chop island pedestrian refuge could be created as an alternative to the proposed new right-turn-only lane.

On northbound Occoquan Road, one of the two existing left-turn-only lanes could be eliminated and/or the right-turn lane replaced with a short right-turn pocket with a pork chop island pedestrian refuge.

The overall objective should be to shorten, not lengthen, the three existing crosswalks.  

 Inadequate Replacement Sidewalks

The proposed replacement sidewalks, along both sides of both roads, are only five feet wide and separated from the roadway by only a four-foot-wide grass buffer.  While this does represent a modest improvement over the existing deficient sidewalks, the replacement sidewalks should be both wider and separated farther from the roadway.

Walking just four feet away from a busy multilane roadway is noisy and unpleasant, and five-foot-wide sidewalks do not comfortably accommodate two-way pedestrian traffic or walking two abreast.

Furthermore, in winter, snow and ice plowed onto such narrowly buffered sidewalks from the adjacent roadway can render such sidewalks impassable for many days and weeks.  In the summer heat, the absence of street trees growing within a viable tree-planting strip makes walking without shade miserable.

In addition, the proposed sidewalks are devoid of much-needed pedestrian amenities such as benches, pedestrian-scale streetlights, and bus shelters.

The realignment of Old Bridge Road will abandon much of the existing roadway along the south side of that road.  That abandoned roadway provides ample right of way to build a wider and better-separated replacement sidewalk at that location.

For future projects, the County should revise its road-design standards to provide better pedestrian accommodations.

Lack of Bicycling Accommodations

Old Bridge Road and Occoquan Road both lack bicycling accommodations, so they are not Complete Streets.  Without even a sidepath (a wide sidewalk intended for both bicycling and walking), these roadways should be restriped or rebuilt with at least conventional (striped) on-road bicycle lanes.

Besides improving bicycling conditions, conventional on-road bicycle lanes enhance the pedestrian environment by increasing the separation between the sidewalk and vehicle traffic and by shortening pedestrian crossings of the vehicle lanes at intersections.

Old Bridge Road has overly wide 12-foot travel lanes, the width used on Interstate highways with 70+ MPH design speeds.  Thus, bike lanes could easily be retrofitted on Old Bridge Road at any time, simply by restriping its six 12-foot-wide travel lanes as six 11-foot-wide travel lanes and reallocating the freed-up space for bike lanes.  When added to the existing two-foot-wide concrete gutter pans, the freed-up space would produce five-foot-wide bicycle lanes, meeting the AASHTO minimum width.  Some additional space for bike lanes (or wider medians) could be created by narrowing all left- and right-turn lanes to 11 feet as well.

Since Occoquan Road has only 11-foot lanes, narrowing those lanes to create bike lanes—while still somewhat feasible—might not be approved by VDOT.  However, it is readily feasible to modify the current project to redesign the rebuilt north leg of Occoquan Road to incorporate five-foot bike lanes in both directions.

The south leg of Occoquan Road has at least four travel lanes between Old Bridge Road and US-1 yet had an AADT of only 13,000 in 2019.  This roadway is thus a prime candidate for a four-lane to three-lane road diet, producing a roadway with only one travel lane per direction, a two-way left-turn lane in the center, and two one-way bicycle lanes.

Such roadway reconfigurations, if managed by VDOT during scheduled roadway resurfacing, are highly cost effective and are accomplished at no cost of the County.  Prince William County should coordinate with VDOT to retrofit bike lanes on the entirety of Old Bridge Road and of Occoquan Road whenever those roadways are next scheduled for periodic resurfacing.  If either roadway is reconfigured before the current project is completed, the current project should ensure that those bike lanes are incorporated into the final roadway striping plan for the rebuilt segment.

Excessive Roadway Design Speeds

At the public hearing, project staff reported that the proposed design would preserve the present 35 MPH posted speed limit on Old Bridge Road and aims for a 40 MPH design speed.  Those speeds are too high for an arterial roadway through a commercial corridor with nearby residential neighborhoods and a large park-and-ride facility.

Project staff also noted the traditional highway engineering practice of posting speed limits based on the observed speeds of the motorists that use the roadway (i.e., the 85th percentile speed).  Such an antiquated and dangerous practice is the opposite of a safe systems approach; namely, engineers should select roadway design speeds and standards that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to survive most collisions with motor vehicles.

Narrowing the lanes on Old Bridge Road to 11 feet (or less) would be one simple step to reduce the excessive design speed on this roadway.  In addition, the curb-return radii at all corners of this intersection should be reduced to conform to the 30 MPH design speed that is appropriate for this roadway.

Thank you for considering our comments as you finalize the design of this project.

Sincerely,

Allen Muchnick and Mark Scheufler, co-chairs Active Prince William

###

Active Prince William Advocates Reforms at NoVA Transportation Meeting

January 7, 2022 /

Active Prince William Co-Chairs Allen Muchnick and Mark Scheufler submitted the following statements for the Annual Joint Northern Virginia Transportation Public Meeting that was held on December 15, 2021.

Northern Virginia needs a transportation system that moves people and goods effectively, safely, equitably, and sustainably.  Sadly, our region’s pursuit of wider and faster roads over the past 70-plus years has failed to achieve those objectives. 

It’s long past time to stop expanding regional roadways for toll-free travel in single-occupant vehicles and instead focus new homes, jobs, and transportation investments in regional activity centers served by high-capacity public transportation and expeditiously retrofit existing arterial roads for safe and efficient travel by walking, bicycling, and bus transit. 

Robust and strategic Vision Zero programs are needed at the statewide, regional, and local levels, and the region should prioritize completion of the National Capital Trail Network.

We appreciate this annual joint transportation meeting and public comment opportunity for Northern Virginia.  However, the conspicuous absence of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (or TPB) from this annual meeting should be promptly fixed, with or without state legislation.

With the TPB excluded, the public, elected officials, CTB members, and agency staff are not fully and fairly apprised of the TPB’s critical role as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the National Capital Region, which includes Planning District 8, and they are not kept aware of the TPB’s many policies (e.g., the TPB Vision, Regional Transportation Priorities Plan, Visualize 2045 Aspirational Initiatives, Equity Emphasis Areas, strategies to achieve regional goals for greenhouse gas reduction and for locating the bulk of new housing in regional activity centers served by high-capacity public transportation), priorities, objectives, studies, planning activities, and transportation project and system evaluation processes.

In addition, the TPB does allocate funds for several transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside, the FTA’s Enhanced Mobility Program (Section 5310), the TPB’s Transportation Land-Use Connection (TLC) technical assistance planning grants, the TPB’s new Transit within Reach technical assistance program, the TPB’s new Regional Roadway Safety Program, the Commuter Connections’ suite of transportation demand management programs, the Street Smart Safety Campaign, the TPB’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), etc.

Transparent and impactful public involvement throughout the development of transportation projects is vital for creating better transportation projects.

The CTB and NVTA should require all localities or agencies to hold advertised public hearings on their proposed submissions for funding transportation projects with SMART SCALE, NVTA, CMAQ, RSTP, Revenue Sharing Program, Transportation Alternatives, HSIP, and other non-local funds before the project funding requests are formally submitted by staff and endorsed by the local governing body.  Only if such advertised public hearings are held in advance by agency staff or a local advisory body should the governing body itself be relieved of holding a [second] public hearing and simply endorse the project funding submission(s) as a consent agenda item prior to any public comment opportunity.

The CTB and NVTA should also require localities to hold advertised public hearings that generally comply with VDOT public involvement guidelines before a locally administered transportation project is either advanced beyond a feasibility study or approved for construction.  While VDOT has excellent public participation and environmental review procedures for its own projects. Virginia’s public involvement and environmental review requirements for locally administered projects are far less stringent. Locality transportation staff have long exploited lax VDOT oversight of locally administered projects to minimize input on the scope and design of transportation projects by the public and even elected officials.

Prince William County’s rigged and prematurely aborted feasibility and environmental assessment studies for its proposed Route 28 Bypass along the Flat Branch floodplain are prime examples of a corrupted public process.  The City of Manassas has also repeatedly evaded meaningful public scrutiny of its Sudley Road Third Lane Project along Route 234 Business.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight.   To meet the regional, state, and federal greenhouse gas emission objectives and goals, a structural change in the transportation planning and investment needs to occur.

In addition to improved vehicle emission standards and investing in electric vehicles and infrastructure, vehicle miles traveled or VMT for Single Occupancy Vehicles as a whole needs to decrease even as the Northern Virginia population grows.

At a basic level, this means that we need to stop expanding unmanaged roadway lane miles.  This means Northern Virginia’s section of the Visualize 2045 constrained long-range plan needs to be radically changed. Any government funding for highway expansion is one less dollar going to meeting these urgent climate goals in the transportation sector.

A large number of major roadway projects in Northern Virginia are going to be completed in the next few years that will dramatically increase the VMT in the region.  We need to change the paradigm that Congestion is reduced–not by adding roadway supply to the system–but by reduced Single-Occupant-Vehicle travel demand.  This will require reducing car dependency by developing near high-capacity transit, repurposing roadway space for transit and non-motorized users, and reforming parking requirements and level of service standards, especially in outer jurisdictions.

Route 1 in Fairfax County is an example of a project that we cannot afford to replicate. Instead of repurposing the existing roadway corridor with dedicated bus lanes, we are investing over $1 billion to keep or expand to six lanes of high-speed traffic plus added dedicated bus Lanes to create an unsafe environment for all users in the corridor that will take additional 10 years to complete.

But, most importantly, the public needs to be educated on why these structural changes in transportation planning and investment need to be implemented. We need to move away from “investments in ‘multimodal’ transportation solutions” to “investments in everything but projects that induce SOV travel demand”. We need to start tonight…time is running out.  Thank you for considering this input.

###

« Older posts Newer posts »

Archives

© 2025 Active Prince William

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑