The Rural Crescent

The long awaited “Prince William County Rural Preservation Study Report” was posted on the Department of Planning web site. I treasure the quiet and rural character of my home and I am a strong supporter for maintaining the Rural Crescent for ecological and water quality reasons as well as for quality of life for the entire community, so I was anxious to read the report. I attended a couple of the community outreach meeting and was left discouraged by the challenges that we face.

When the County Supervisors created the Rural Crescent in 1998 they slowed the loss of rural land in Prince William County. Limiting development density to one house per 10 acres combined with the limit on sewer extensions, creating one of the most protective zonings in Virginia, was a first step to preserve agricultural land. However, according to the consultants and based on the experience of the past 16 years, unless the zoning is very protective (one home per 30 to 50 acres, zoning alone will not preserve agriculture in the county and we are doomed to see the Rural Crescent cut up into 10 acre lots.

The Prince William County Rural Preservation Study found a broad support among stakeholders (community groups and residents) that it is important to maintain a Rural Area within the County. Another point of general consensus was that current preservation policies (primarily 10-acre zoning) is a one-size fits all approach that is not working very well across the large Rural Crescent area, which varies greatly in character from one end to the other. More tools are needed in the County’s Rural Crescent preservation toolbox to preserve a rural area. Furthermore, the consultants argue that mindful use of a series of tools can advance both Rural Crescent preservation areas and development goals.

According to the consultants, the County has a narrow window of opportunity to develop additional programs to maintain the character of the Rural Crescent. The 20,000 to 30,000-acre pool of farmland is fairly small and has been shrinking. Subdivision of the remaining farmland continues. The Study makes a series of recommendations that the consultants believe if fully adopted would result in a net increase of approximately 1,150 houses in the Rural Crescent and an increase of approximately 10,700 acres of permanently preserved land.

This 10,700 acres is far less than the County’s master plan stated goal of 39% protected open space, but almost 39,000 additional acres would be needed to meet that goal, and the pool of land still available to achieve this is less than 30,000 acres. Without policy changes, the Rural Crescent will likely continue to develop dominated by large lot residential development, with little contiguous open space and significant loss of agricultural lands, losing the open space for the county and the rural character of the area. So, the consultants recommend that the Supervisors adopt within the Comprehensive Plan a vision that describes what the County wants the Rural Area to be and use that vision as the basis for setting policy. They suggest:

“The Rural Area is a landscape dominated by agriculture, woodland, open space and other undeveloped land. The Rural Area allows for low-density residential development that is planned and designed to not dominate the landscape. The Rural Area accommodates a variety of activities and lifestyles associated with rural areas including farming of all types, low density residential living, rural businesses, cultural heritage, recreation, and preservation and enjoyment of the natural environment.”

The more I thought about it, the more I liked that vision for the Rural Crescent (which the consultants always call the “Rural Area.”) The consultants go on to recommend that each development proposal should be reviewed on a case by case basis to consider whether it would further the vision and policies for the Rural Area and limiting maximum gross density of one unit per two to three acres and a minimum 50 % open space requirement.

Tools that the County needs to develop for maintaining the Rural Crescent are adopting a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. A Purchase of Development Rights is a voluntary program in which a landowner agrees to sell his or her development rights to a government (local, state, or federal) in return for a cash payment. A reasonable, though aggressive, goal according to the consultants would be to preserve 8,000 acres through a PDR program. This level of preservation would maintain the largely rural character of the agricultural parts of the Rural Crescent. The consultants recommend that the County appropriate $5 million to begin funding the program using local and non-local revenue sources that are further outlined in the report (see section 4). Five million dollars could preserve at least 1,000 acres using a cap of $5,000 per acre and with additional acreage possible through leveraging state and federal matching funds and partnering with preservation-oriented organizations. There are several existing programs for matching.

The consultants also recommend that the County explore the creation of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. A transfer of development rights (TDR) program creates a market in development credits through the county government. The County would give development credits to landowners in a designated preservation area. A system of TDRs allows ownership of the development rights on a privately owned parcel of land to be separated from ownership of the parcel itself. These rights can then be transferred from that property to another property in a different location that has been designated as a receiving area and that the county will allow higher density development if TDRs are purchased. Having transferred the development rights, the original landowner and all future owners of that property are restricted from developing the land by a conservation easement or deed restriction. The buyer of the development rights uses them to develop another piece of property with more density than allowed by its comprehensive plan zoning.

Protected areas, the sending areas, should be the highest value agricultural, scenic, and culturally significant parts of the Rural Area. Receiving areas would be: appropriate locations in the Comprehensive Plan’s Development Area; what the consultants calls Nokesville Village, Sector Plan Core Area; and areas within the Transitional Ribbon (see diagram below) where higher density development would be more protective of environmental resources and rural character than development of the sending areas.

the proposed Rural Character Areas

Tim Hugo Holds a North South Corridor Press Conference

On Wednesday, September 4th 2013 Delegate Tim Hugo (Virginia House of Delegates R-40th) along with Delegate Michael Webert (R-18th), Delegate Randy Minchew (R-10th), Delegate Bob Marshall ( R-13th) and Prince William County School Board Members Alyson Satterwhite and Gil Trenum held a news conference in front of Sudley Methodist Church on Sudley Road within the Manassas Battlefield. The news conference attended by about 75 community members and media was to announce that Tim Hugo along with Bob Marshall, Randy Minchew, Michael Webert and the other elected officials listed below have sent a letter to Governor McDonnell regarding the North/South Corridor Project also known as the Bi-County Parkway and asking for a meeting with the Governor. Delegate Hugo will personally deliver a copy of the letter today in Richmond.

The news conference was held ahead of today’s Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CBT) scheduled meeting. At the VDOT meeting they will discuss and potentially sign the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for the Bi-County Parkway which would provide $7 million to acquire the private land and design the Battlefield Park Bypass. In addition, once the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is finalized in the near future the Federal Highway Administration will sign the Record of Decision and VDOT will be free to begin the design phase of the Prince William County portion of the project with the $12 million already allocated to the project.

Though in public meetings it was emphasized that the roadway is 25 years away, as Delegates Hugo and Marshall pointed out the VDOT and CBT have made several misleading and conflicting claims and statements about this roadway. Meanwhile as Delegate Hugo pointed out opposition to the roadway grows, from a small group of activist residents lead by Mary Ann Ghadban, Philomena Hefter, and Page Snyder opposition to the Bi-County Parkway has grown. According to Delegate Hugo 700 attended the last Town hall meeting and group of supporters attended the news conference. A coalition has seemingly grown from a “diverse group who could not agree on the time of day but can agree that this is not the right project.”

In the news conference Delegate Hugo besieged the CBT, VDOT and the Governor to “Stop. Think. Slow down. Listen. This (Bi-County Parkway) is not the right project.” Delegate Randy Minchew followed Delegate Hugo and though Delegate Minchew (whose district covers sections of Loudoun, Clark and Fredrick counties) supported the Transportation Budget he wanted the take the time to make sure that the money is well spent. He, too, felt the process needed to slow down to get more input from the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Delegate Bob Marshall pointed out the false and misleading statements that have been made by VDOT and CBT about the Bi-County Parkway.  In addition, Delegate Marshall felt false claims have been made about the desirability and usefulness of the road to Dulles.

The Delegates felt that Governor McDonnell and Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton were rushing the Bi-County Project through to assure their legacy before they left office. According to the Delegates this would be the wrong legacy to leave. The constituents need to have a voice. The concerns raised need time to be addressed in a fiscally responsible manner. Though according to Delegate Marshall Secretary Connaughton said "most will go along with the road after they use this issue for campaigning,” the fight against the road can continue even if the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Programmatic Agreement is signed today. Delegate Hugo does not think this is a partican issue (though the list below is all Republican); he called the opposition to the Bi-County Parkway a citizen issue. “If the Programmatic Agreement is signed we will continue the fight in January when the House of Delegates is in session.” The legislature can fight with budget amendments, legislation and by changing the composition of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

In case you are new to the issue the North South Corridor or Bi-County Parkway will be a limited access highway approximately 45 miles in length running through what is now the Rural Crescent, predominantly agricultural and rural lands, and is essentially a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. The only access points in Prince William County will be I-66, Route 29, and existing Route 234 west of the Battlefield. The new road will also be called 234 and be 2.5 miles west of Sudley Road and expanded to carry 4 lanes of traffic.

In addition to the $19 million mentioned above, funds have been allocated for “traffic calming” on route 29 through the park ahead of the development of any other roadway. VDOT has not explained what kinds of traffic calming measures would be used. In addition, though Sudley Methodist Church will maintain an access route and be eligible for signage, though their road will be closed to the public. Prince William County community objections to this planned parkway have focused on several issues that are still of concern to the community:

1. The Bi-County Parkway will drive all the east-west traffic from route 29 which will be effectively closed to through traffic by "traffic calming measures" to I-66 increasing traffic on that road.
2. The Bi-County Parkway is intended to be a 4 lane and 6 lane highway that will provide direct access to Dulles Airport, but have limited access to the Prince William community, yet will utilize a section of the Rural Crescent for the road essentially destroying the intent of the Rural Crescent.
3. The planned road will require that Virginia invoke eminent domain to take land from more than a dozen homeowners. The Programmatic Agreement allocates $3 million to acquire the desired land.
4. Route 234 through the Battlefield, providing road access to several businesses and Sudley Methodist Church (that predates the Civil War) will be eliminated. According to Reverend Mitchell, closing the road to through traffic will remove the Church from everyday lives of its members and potential members in the community, and effectively land lock and isolate the Church within the park to a slow death. This has happened to other churches.
5. Closing route 234 through the park and route 29 through the park to through traffic essentially isolates northwestern Prince William County from the rest of the county and Manassas. There is no route from Heathcote Health Center to Prince William Hospital without going on I-66. The only route from Dominion Valley, Regency and all the development on route 15 to Manassas or anywhere will be I-66 which will be the only way to cross from western Prince William County to Eastern Prince William County.
6. The Bi-County Parkway does nothing to improve east-west traffic, instead it provides connectivity to the airport that Prince William residents do not want, divides the county and eliminates connections within Prince William county and only benefits the Loudoun County developments.
7. Delegate Hugo stated “If this road through groundwater in the Rural Crescent is severely threatened.” The route through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damages our watershed and water resources. The Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has called the corridor one of three priority conservation area for the region.

Other signatories to the letter to the Governor are:
State Senator Dick Black (R-13th)
State Senator Richard Stuart (R-28th)
State Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-27th)
Delegate Rich Anderson (R-51st)
Delegate Tim Hugo (R-40th)
Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31st)
Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13th)
Delegate Randy Minchew (R-10th)
Delegate David Ramadan (R-87th)
Delegate Michael Webert (R-18th)
Prince William County Board Supervisor Maureen Caddigan (R-Potomac)
Prince William County Board Supervisor Pete Candland (R-Gainesville)
Loudoun County Board Supervisor Janet Clarke (R-Blue Ridge)

Public Meeting on the Bi-County Parkway

Monday evening June 3^rd the Virginia Department of Transportation, VDOT, held a Public Information meeting from 6 to 9 pm at the Hylton Performing Arts Center in Manassas, VA. The meeting was held in response to public outcry against the roadway variously known as the Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Outer Beltway and North-South Corridor and Battlefield Parkway.  For the first hour, VDOT had materials in the lobby outlining the history of the planned roadway, and addressing public concerns that had been raised, collected questions and a list of people who wished to address the meeting. From 7 to 8:15 Charles Kilpatrick who is the Chief Deputy Commissioner for VDOT addressed the crowd.  The meeting was held in a packed auditorium attended by a crowd of over 500 that thinned out considerably after the VDOT presentation and as the evening wore on. VDOT did not answer all the questions submitted (only those selected by staff) nor did they call on everyone who requested two minutes. There were too many questions and Mr. Kilpatrick only addressed the questions that he felt able to address. Someone at his level cannot be expected to know the environmental impact details, details of the section 106 mitigations negotiated, legal aspects of eminent domain or how to pronounce Catharpin and on which corner on route 29 is the Stone House.

The first thing that VDOT settled is the planned road is called the Bi-County Parkway.  Mr. Kilpatrick presented the VDOT plan for all the improvements in northern Virginia and the reason this parkway is planned at all. The basis for the plan is VDOT’s projections of what the traffic and population growth will be in the next 30 years. In addition he showed the current traffic congestion in the north south roads getting from the housing developments in Dominion Valley, Gainesville, the new massive housing construction in Loudoun between the Loudoun county line and the Greenbelt on both sides of route 50 between route 15 and Loudoun County parkway. All those residents need to reach an east-west route to commute and try to avoid the traffic problems that construction in Loudoun and route 50 have created.  VDOT projects that the north south traffic will continue to increase (though mostly north of the Loudoun County line according to the VDOT traffic projections) and that by eliminating route 29 as an east-west corridor through Prince William county that traffic will be alleviated in the north south roadways.

In addition in addressing concerns that the limited access Bi-County Parkway will be a toll road, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that while I-66 will get HOT toll lanes, the four lane portion of the Bi-County Parkway made HOT lanes impractical. This seems to be a change in position for VDOT, though Mr. Kilpatrick did not frame this as being a response to public concern and the efforts of Delegates Marshall and Hugo.

There had been a significant negative community response to the plan for the Bi-County Parkway in the past two months since VDOT released the “Northern Virginia North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance –Corridor Master Plan” on April 8, 2013. In that document VDOT stated “the Northern Virginia North-South CoSS (Corridor of Statewide Concern) will be an integrated, multimodal network of transportation facilities that connect major centers of activity within and through the Commonwealth and promote the movement of people and goods essential to the economic prosperity of the State.”

The key elements of the Bi-County Parkway outlined in that publication were:

• “Construction of a continuous high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility between I-95 and the area west of Washington Dulles International Airport, which would operate during peak periods in the morning and evening.”
• “Establishment of a high-occupancy toll (HOT) system for the Corridor between the intersection of VA 234 and Country Club Drive and the Washington Dulles International Airport area. Vehicles carrying three or more persons (HOV 3+) would be able to access the system at no cost, and other vehicles would pay a toll to access the HOV/HOT lanes during peak periods.”
• “Construction of a new roadway connection between the North-South Corridor and the Washington Dulles International Airport area, providing connections to VA 606 and improving regional and statewide access to the airport, surrounding freight facilities, and the Metrorail Silver Line.”
• “Provision of new and expanded transit services operating throughout the Corridor... They will provide north-south mobility as well as connections for individuals destined toward the east and west via transfers at convenient locations such as park-and-rides and rail stations. Construction of a continuous multi use trail along the Corridor for the use of bicyclists and pedestrians, allowing them to access activity centers throughout the north-south corridor seamlessly.”
• “Improvements to transportation demand management programs (TDM) within the Corridor, focused on marketing and promotion of the expanded transit services and the HOV network.”

During the meeting on Monday Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the Rural Crescent will not be opened up to development by this multi-lane highway because the road will be limited access through Prince William county. The only access points in Prince William County will be I-66, Route 29, and existing Route 234 west of the Battlefield. The environmental study is being completed. There is only $12,000,000 available for design in the current 6 year plan, though money has been allocated for “traffic calming” on route 29 through the park ahead of the development of any other roadway.  Mr. Kilpatrick did not explain what kinds of traffic calming measures would be used. In addition, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the Battlefield will be enhanced, Sudley Methodist Church will maintain an access route and be eligible for signage, though their road will be closed to the public. Finally, Pageland Road will remain open.

Delegate Bob Marshall followed Mr. Kilpatrick. He said the VDOT presentation was three years too late, and there had been a lack of candor or transparency in the process. Delegate Marshall said that there has never been a corridor of significance in absence of an existing road, and designation of this corridor as CoSS had not followed VDOT’s own procedures. He said that this was road was being built for political purposes or was a developer’s road to a round of applause. Delegate Marshall was followed by a legislative aid for Delegate Hugo who read his statement. The Delegate had met with the Governor on Monday and could not attend the meeting.

Prince William County community objections to this planned parkway have focused on several issues that are still of concern to the community.

1. The Bi-County Parkway will drive all the east-west traffic from route 29 which will be effectively closed to through traffic by "traffic calming measures" to I-66 increasing traffic on that road.
2. The Bi-County Parkway is intended to be a 4 lane and 6 lane highway that will provide direct access to Dulles Airport, but have limited access to the Prince William community, yet will utilize a section of the Rural Crescent for the road essentially destroying the intent of the Rural Crescent.
3. The planned road will require that Virginia invoke eminent domain to take more than a dozen homes.
4.   Route 234 through the Battlefield that provides road access to several businesses and Sudley Methodist Church (that predates the Civil War) will be eliminated. As the Reverend Mitchell explained the Church believes that closing the road to through traffic will remove the Church from everyday lives of its members and potential members in the community, and effectively land lock and isolate the Church within the park to a slow death. This has happened to other churches.
5.  Closing route 234 through the park and route 29 through the park to through traffic essentially isolates northwestern Prince William County from the rest of the county and Manassas. There is no route from Heathcote Health Center to Prince William Hospital without going on I-66. The only route from Dominion Valley, Regency and all the development on route 15 to Manassas or anywhere will be I-66 which will be the only way to cross from western Prince William County to Eastern Prince William County.
6.   The Bi-County Parkway does nothing to improve east-west traffic, instead it provides connectivity to the airport that Prince William residents do not want, divides the county and eliminates connections within our county and only benefits the Loudoun County developments.
7.  The route through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damages our watershed  and water resources. The Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community.  Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has called the corridor one of three priority conservation area for the region.

VDOT Public Hearing

From Piedmont Environmental Council

Last evening the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) held a public hearing at the VDOT District Office, Potomac Conference Center in Fairfax to hear comments about the “essential” projects identified in the state's working draft of the Fiscal Years 2014-2019 Six-Year Improvement Program. The program allocates $15.4 billion, a $4 billion increase, in funding to transportation improvements over the next six fiscal years beginning July 1, 2013. The draft report was released by VDOT on May 15th 2013 and suddenly projects that had just been talked about for the future became real with the list of projects selected by the CTB for Transportation Alternatives Program funding, including the roadway variously known as the Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Outer Beltway and North-South Corridor. The meeting was held in a packed meeting room attended by about 160. The CTB said that public comments will be considered before the CTB adopts its final program in June, but this narrow window was the only opportunity to have input in Northern Virginia, though Deputy Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick kindly invited anyone who was interested to drive down to Roanoke and Hampton Roads with him for the next two meetings.

The meeting was well attended by our supervisors, delegates, NGO representatives and about 150 regular folk. Our elected officials talked about the concerns and needs of their communities. I intend to only focus on some of the comments about the North-South Corridor/ Bi-County Parkway which represented about two thirds of the comments made last night. The planned crescent shaped North South Corridor, limited access cargo and truck highway, (or Bi-County Parkway) is approximately 45 miles in length, and is essentially described by VDOT as a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. The North South section is reported to cost over $1,000,000,000, run through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damaging our watershed and impacting our groundwater resources, eliminates one of three corridors in our green infrastructure and once the segment of the Tri-County Parkway between I-66 and VA 234 is complete, U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park are planned to be closed. As Delegate Hugo stated in his Bull Run news conference “this road will destroy the Rural Crescent, land that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has pledged to protect.”

Why the Rural Crescent was formed is less important than understanding that the Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. These green corridors maintain a tree canopy and control runoff to prevent stream bank erosion and water quality impairments and maintain adequate water flows through groundwater and surface recharge. These green corridors are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region. In building out the county and highway system Fairfax County overdeveloped eliminating much of the county’s green corridors and is now dependent to a large extent on the regional green infrastructure from neighboring Loudoun and Prince William Counties. It’s important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Delegate Tim Hugo was the first to speak after Deputy Commissioner Kilpatrick’s introductory comments. Delegate Hugo was succinct in making his main points: The North-South Corridor is a misallocation of resources. The planned highway closes 234 and “traffic calms 29” through the park driving all the east/west traffic onto route 66 increasing congestion.

The Loudoun County Board in the person of Chairman York voiced their support for the North-South Corridor and the importance of such a route to their National Conference Center at its northern end. Mayor Kristen Umstattd of Leesburg voiced the town’s support for the many projects in her community and her support for the North South Corridor (which those in Loudoun apparently call the Battlefield Parkway).

Marty Nohe, the Coles District Supervisor for Prince William County and Chairman of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) apparently made his specific comments in writing, but when I grabbed him on his way out the door and asked him if he supported the current planned route for the North-South Corridor through the Rural Crescent and trough the Green Infrastructure Corridor of Significance as designated by the Northern Virginia Regional Commission, he replied that he supports the connectivity that it represents, but will not support any particular route until after the June 3, 2013 VDOT public meeting to discuss the project to be held at the Hylton Performing Arts Center in Manassas.

Delegate Bob Marshall talked only about the North-South corridor. He stated that in both his research and Congressman Wolf’s, the planned road is not supported by the freight shippers who were described as being the beneficiaries of the road and its advocates. Delegate Marshall reiterated his point that alternatives to building the road had not been fully examined and that the main beneficiaries would be developers. Many large parcels of land bordering the planned route of the North-South Parkway have recently been acquired.

When the members of the public were allowed to speak the majority of speakers spoke about the North-South Corridor. Kenn Knarr from Catharpin spoke in favor of public transit strategies that would improve and increase public transit options in Prince William County instead of building the North-South Corridor. Page Snyder of Gainesville (and “Stop the Tri-County Parkway”) pointed out that Northern Virginia already has too many toll roads and the North-South Corridor will be a limited access/ HOT lane access/ toll road. That will do nothing to alleviate traffic in Prince William County. Philomena Hefter of Gainesville and “Stop the Tri-County Parkway” spoke in support of east/west traffic solutions that would alleviate the traffic congestion problems for commuters. Ms. Hefter also pointed out that over 100 property owners would be impacted and that the North-South Corridor Parkway is not consistent with the Prince William County Master Plan. Others spoke in defense of the Rural Crescent, and some spoke of concern for the environmental impact.

Then several people spoke out against the North-South Corridor in support of Sudley Methodist Church. This church is located on route 234 in the park and would lose their road front and access. Deb Angerman, the program director for the Church, spoke passionately about the church that was founded in 1822 and used as a military hospital during the Battles of Manassas. Sudley Methodist Church is a living church that serves it community and has a vibrant congregation. The church is not a historic relic. Ms. Angerman pointed out the lack of transparency and engagement with the community and stakeholders, and asked that this project be withdrawn until its full impact on the community and environment can be evaluated.

Many more Prince William County residents spoke out against the planned parkway. The President of the Western Prince William County Homeowners Alliance that represents 5,000 families living in their member HOAs stated that none of the Alliance’s priorities included a route north from route 66 to route 50. The Alliance’s concern is east-west movement which is the main commuter traffic patterns. The Alliance also had concerns about what the impact of the plan will be on local traffic. The Sierra Club voiced their opposition to the North-South Corridor and then moved on to other topics.

Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority spoke in support of the Bi-County Parkway which he described as a very important road with flawed communication. He also thanked the CBT and the commissioners present for their hard work (something we should all remember to do). It seems apparent that NVTA is in support of the North-South Corridor Parkway.

If you did not attend the meeting, there will be a Public Information Meeting Monday, June 3, 2013, from 6 to 9 pm at the Hylton Performing Arts Center 10960 George Mason Circle, Manassas, VA 20110. Comments can also be sent by mail or email. For VDOT projects, the mailing address is Programming Director, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401 East Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219 or email six-yearprogram@vdot.virginia.gov.

Tri-County Parkway Public Hearing

If you have strong feelings about the Tri-County Parkway or you simply care about road development you need to attend the VDOT public hearing in Northern Virginia on May 29, 2013, 6 PM. The meeting will be held at the VDOT District Office, Potomac Conference Center 4975 Alliance Drive, Suite 1N201 in Fairfax, VA 22030.

The hearing is intended to solicit public comments on the draft Six-Year Improvement Program that is being released by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) ) on May 15, 2013 in in VDOT’s Central Office Auditorium located at 1201 E Broad St., Richmond, VA, and will be available online at www.Virginiadot.org on May 15th after the meeting.

As a result of the transportation funding plan passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor McDonnell this year, funding is available for highway, road and bridge projects as well as rail, transit, bicycle, pedestrian and other transportation projects. The projects planned for the next six fiscal years beginning July 1, 2013 will be finalized in the next 45 days.

CTB will hold four public hearings to solicit comments about these “essential” projects identified in the draft report. In addition, the tentative list of projects selected by the CTB for Transportation Alternatives Program funding will be available on May 15th . The CTB states that public comments will be considered before the CTB adopts its final program in June.

If you cannot attend the meeting , comments can be sent by mail or email. For VDOT projects, the mailing address is Programming Director, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401 East Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219 or email six-yearprogram@vdot.virginia.gov.

Opposition to the planned route of the Tri-County Parkway is building on the county level. On May 2nd Delegate Hugo, Delegate Marshall and Supervisor Candland participated in a well attended community meeting organized by “Say No to the Tri-County Parkway” at Bull Run Middle School. Then during Citizen’s Time at the Prince William County Board of Supervisors regular meeting on May 7th  several people associated with "Say No to the Tri-County Parkway” spoke out against the planned route of the Tri-County Parkway and the closing of U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park and asked the supervisors to support the community group in their quest to stop the parkway.

Chairman Stewart while affirming the need for an outer beltway, pointed out that in 2005 the PWC Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of locating the Tri-County Parkway east of the Battlefield which would move it out of the Rural Crescent and away from the direct watershed of Bull Run. He stated that closing VA 234 and U.S. 29 through the park would be very disruptive of traffic and that the Board of Supervisors did not in any way support that plan.

On May 14th Congressman Frank Wolf sent a letter to the Governor that can be read at this link.

Tri-County Parkway to Destroy the Rural Crescent

From VDOT final report 2013

When the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, David Tyeryar, presented the scope of the planned crescent shaped North South Corridor, limited access cargo and truck highway, (the Tri-County Parkway) he glossed over a few key essential points. The Deputy Secretary pointed out the highway corridor is approximately 45 miles in length, and is essentially a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. What he forgot to mention is that the North South Corridor portion alone will cost over $1,000,000,000, run through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damaging our watershed and impacting our groundwater resources, eliminates one of three corridors in our green infrastructure and once the segment of the Tri-County Parkway between I-66 and VA 234 is complete, U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park are planned to be closed.
                             

red is 6 lands and blue 4 lanes

As Supervisor Candland (whose Gainesville District will be bisected by the six lane highway) pointed out this plan is troubling on many levels. Supervisor Candland has concerns about the effect of the planned Tri-County Parkway and greater crescent shaped roadway will have on commuters, the environment and our community, but the Tri-County roadway was approved by the Prince William County Board of Supervisors two years ago. So, on the county level, it has been approved. Supervisor Candland was not in office at the time, but the Gainesville Supervisor at the time (John Stirrup) was one of two votes against the plan.

Last Monday, April 29, 2013, Delegate Tim Hugo (R-40th), along with State Senators Dick Black (R-13th), Richard Stuart (R-28th), Jill Vogel (R-27th), and Delegates Bob Marshall (R-13th) and Michael Webert (R-18th), have all come out against the planned Bi-County Parkway (the North-South Corridor). Delegate Hugo will be attending a community meeting tonight at Bull Run Middle School at 7 pm in the cafeteria. The meeting was organized by "Say No to the Tri-County Parkway." There is still an opportunity to impact the VDOT plans through our state legislature and also through allocation of Federal Transportation funds so also contact Congressman Frank Wolf, Senator Tim Kaine, and Senator Mark Warner with your concerns. You can go to the Piedmont Environmental Council action center to help you express your concerns to our elected officials.

As Delegate Hugo stated “this road will destroy the Rural Crescent, land that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has pledged to protect.” This project threatens our water resources and green infrastructure. The Rural Crescent is located within the northeast quadrant and eastern quadrant of the Culpeper groundwater basin and consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic that is highly fractured and overlain by a thin cover of overburden. Groundwater is typically protected against contamination from the surface by the soils and rock layers covering the aquifer, but there is inadequate overburden in much of the Rural Crescent. Once contaminated, groundwater is very difficult to clean and there is limited if any natural attenuation in this type of geology and the aquifer could be polluted beyond our ability to remediate.

Why the Rural Crescent was formed is less important than understanding that the Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia.

In building out the county and highway system Fairfax County overdeveloped eliminating much of the county’s green corridors and is now dependent to a large extent on the regional green infrastructure from neighboring Loudoun and Prince William Counties. These green corridors maintain a tree canopy and control runoff to prevent stream bank erosion and water quality impairments and maintain adequate water flows through groundwater and surface recharge. These green corridors are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region.

The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has developed a Conservation Corridor Planning Project which is a regional effort to identify essential green infrastructure and help area governments to avoid the mistakes of the past and maintain the few remaining green corridors along the rivers and reservoirs in Fairfax and integrate green infrastructure planning into the future development planning of Prince William and Loudoun counties.

This roadway cuts through and destroys one of three priority conservation areas for the region. The conservation area begins at the Bull Run Mountains and heads east across Route 15 to Manassas covering the land between Route 50 and 29 to the confluence of the Occoquan River with Belmont Bay. This corridor is rich in water and environmental resources that ultimately deliver drinking water to over one million Northern Virginia residents. The Occoquan Reservoir, one of the country’s first water reclamation facilities where sewage treatment water is returned to provide water recreation. The western portion of the area is part of the Culpeper Basin Important Birding Area and the Culpeper Basin Groundwater Aquifer. Preventing water contamination and ensuring adequate groundwater recharge are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, recreation opportunities and the ecological integrity of the region.

Read more about happenings with the Parkway If you want to protect Prince William County, go to Say No to the Tri-County Parkway's  meeting speak to Delegate Hugo and write to Congressman Frank Wolf, Senator Tim Kaine, and Senator Mark Warner.