Posts about Roads

Downtown, for instance, at one point bicycle planners were thinking about cycle tracks on I Street and bus planners wanted bus lanes there. On 16th Street in Columbia Heights there are dueling ideas for a median, to enhance pedestrian safety, or a bus lane, to speed transit. The 14th Street plaza, meanwhile, grew the public space but slowed down cars and buses.

Should Connecticut Avenue get a median? Wisconsin Avenue get bus and/or bike lanes? Is it possible to do all of these without creating too much traffic? If streetcars go on some corridors, will there be parallel cycle tracks so cyclists don't get caught in the rails? And should M Street SE/SW be for cars, transit, bicycles, or pedestrians if it's not possible to give all modes what they want?

Will this plan have an impact?

Many plans end up as long documents with a lot of general policy statements, some of which are vague and some of which conflict. The Office of Planning is basing the zoning update on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, but for every policy statement it cites in support of its recommendations, opponents cite other policy statements that they say counsel against change. Many plans don't really turn into much more than long documents on a shelf that quickly become out of date.

Other times, plans have a major impact. They might not dictate specific projects, but a good plan can give officials inside an agency ammunition to convince others. A transportation plan that sets clear objectives could cut through much of the arguing over one mode versus another. It could guide engineers toward what kinds of transportation facilities the District wants.

However, setting most any objective also means some other, competing objective loses out, especially in transportation where many decisions involve allocating limited road space. A plan could define which corridors are bus lane corridors versus bike lane corridors versus candidates for road diets or medians, but right now they're all car corridors, and any change to the contrary inconveniences some drivers.

Is it worthwhile to participate?

Therefore, residents who support improving transit, walking, and bicycling will have to speak up. We'll have to participate at the February 9 meeting and at future events in person and online. DDOT will have to balance competing imperatives to involve residents as much as possible, but not to just wear everyone down with endless events. The zoning update, which has dragged on for almost 5 years and still has the most important hearings yet to come, has forced advocates to show up to meeting after meeting where the real final decisions still aren't being made.

There are a lot of residents who can't attend many meetings, which is why it's good to see DDOT plans online engagement. In some other processes, despite social media participation, decision-makers ultimately end up weighing the volume of comments at public meetings, or behind-the-scenes meetings with influential groups, more strongly.

The good news is that the people I've spoken with involved in the project, from DDOT planning head Sam Zimbabwe to GGW contributor Veronica Davis who is part of the public engagement team, seem to really want public input and come with a good set of overall values about the importance of sustainable modes of travel.

This effort has good promise to truly move the District forward. It's also possible many of us will spend countless hours contributing to something with little effect. If we don't participate, it's also very possible DC will end up with a plan that entrenches bad policies of the past. I hope many of you will advocate for better transportation choices throughout the process.

Purple Line: The Sierra Club says, "The Purple Line is estimated to have 68,000 daily commuters when complete, replacing an enormous amount of automobile traffic, enhancing air quality and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution. ... Construction on this project is will begin in 2015 and the line is scheduled to open in 2020."

If, that is, Maryland can come up with money to get it built. Local leaders and stakeholders are meeting tomorrow for a "Regional Transportation Funding Summit" to talk about how the state can find the necessary money for its share of the project; right now, it has no funding from 2014 on to keep going with the project.

Silver Line: The line has already spurred TOD at Tysons Corner and is projected to displace 91,000 car trips with both phases complete. "The project will also help preserve the rural nature of western Loudoun County by absorbing growth in higher density TOD around the two stations in the eastern part of that County," notes Sierra Club. It can do that best if Virginia doesn't also build the Outer Beltway to generate more sprawl.

Meanwhile, Virginia's highway-building spree, which Governor McDonnell accelerated but Governor Kaine laid plenty of groundwork for, is causing significant damage and warranted 3 dishonorable mentions:

Outer Beltway: "The project has been repeatedly rejected because it doesn't relieve traffic on the overly congested Washington D.C. Beltway, I-95, or I-66. It will induce greater traffic demand by encouraging housing developments, strip malls and office parks along its route in the now rural areas of western Prince William and Loudoun Counties."

Look for the McDonnell administration to try to push this through in the final years of his term; he's promised to find a solution for transportation funding, which to him means only road funding.

Coalfields Expressway: "Located in Southwest Virginia, [this] is a proposed project to construct a new four-lane highway through rural areas of the Appalachian Mountains via mountain top removal coal mining methods." It will pollute the environment and do little for mobility in the lightly-populated area.

Route 460 in Hampton Roads: This $1.5-2 billion project would create a new 4-lane, 55-mile road paralleling an existing one, which will create more sprawl and environnmental damage. Sierra Club writes, "The new parallel highway is intended to serve as a truck corridor for the Port of Virginia, detracting from a less oil-intensive freight rail alternative for the port."

Transit cuts: Another "worst" project is the nationwide cuts to transit, pressure to raise fares, or both that systems around the nation are facing as the federal government, states, and municipalities reduce their investments in transit.

"A survey of 117 transit agencies by the American Public Transit Association in 2011 found that "nearly eight in ten transit agencies (79%) have cut service or raised fares or are considering either of those actions. Half of the transit agencies (51%) have already cut service or raised fares," the report says.

It didn't take long to realize that this project is just one piece of a major corridor connecting burgeoning Loudoun county (and beyond) with Fairfax County's biggest jobs magnet. For that reason, no one can afford transportation business as usual.

To simply add more car lanes will only make it easier for traffic to inundate the heart of Tysons. We need a new paradigm to provide more options. That's why we'd like the entire length of Route 7 from Loudoun to Fairfax to offer high-quality mass transit. I'd favor something like Portland's MAX light rail.

But there's a roadblock. The current Fairfax County comprehensive plan doesn't allow for enhancing transit on Route 7. So, with comment time running out on this phase of the project, there's only one thing to do: tell VDOT to work with Fairfax County to change its comp plan so Route 7 is designated an "Enhanced Public Transportation Corridor," just as it is on the east side of Tysons.

Only by doing that can VDOT begin to consider transit options along the route. Ideally, the 2 new lanes should be dedicated from the outset to bus and HOV-3. They should connect to a system of commuter park-and-rides in church and retail parking lots, as well as on public land such as behind the new fire station at Beulah Road.

Time is of the essence. This summer, VDOT breaks ground on an adjacent Route 7 project at Georgetown Pike. In this case, they are widening the road from 4 car lanes to 6 for just one mile, but it will cost $37 million and have no provision for transit. We want to make sure the Reston Avenue project and the remainder of the corridor doesn't suffer the same costly, short-sighted fate.

Send comments on the Reston Avenue project by this Saturday to meeting_comments@vdot.virginia.gov using "Route 7 Widening project" in the subject line.

Sunnyside Avenue is a short street connecting Route 1 in the west with Edmonston Road (the northern extension of Kenilworth Avenue) in the east. Between Route 1 and the CSX railroad tracks, the road is 4 lanes wide. East of the tracks, though, the road narrows to 2 lanes and crosses the undeveloped Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

The road crosses Indian Creek on a bridge that is only 2 lanes wide, and which does not have room for sidewalks or bike lanes. Additionally, its height is actually below the 2-year flood level, which means it's frequently closed by high water.

The $13.5 million project will reconfigure Sunnyside all the way from the railroad tracks to Edmonston Road. It will raise and lengthen the bridge so that it is clear of the 50-year flood level. It will also add bike lanes and sidewalks between Edmonston Road and the tracks.

The county should be commended for including bike and pedestrian infrastructure in this project. It's refreshing to see that Prince George's does seem to be serious about allocating road space to users other than just motorists.

But in a somewhat troubling development, the reconstruction includes full-width shoulders to the entire length of the project. This means the roadway will be 4 lanes wide, although initially, at least, the road will only be striped for 2 lanes.

If the county decides to widen Sunnyside to 4 lanes, after this project all it will take is some repainting. In fact, the county could decide to just stripe the bridge for 4 lanes during construction if they wanted.

But according to Susan Hubbard, a PIO with the county's Department of Public Works and Transportation, the county doesn't plan to make the road 4 lanes wide. It's not going to be built to 4 lanes, and it's not going to be widened to 4-lanes. Based on the email exchange I had with Ms. Hubbard, it doesn't even sound like anyone in the department has even considered widening the road. One wonders if she doth protest too much.

It's quite strange that the county is making the road so wide, but doesn't seem to even be willing to admit that they might want to use the shoulders for lanes in the future. Perhaps they're afraid doing so will bring out opposition.

But it will be so easy to widen the road in the future, since it will only take line paint and a few hours. If the county wants to "widen" the road in the future, will they even need to ask the community?

Why widen?

According to Hubbard, the road needs to be so wide because of the construction phasing. First, the county will construct a new 2-lane bridge north of the existing bridge, and move the cars there. Then the county will tear out the old bridge, and widen the northern span to take up the space where the current bridge is.

It's not clear why Prince George's thinks all this extra concrete is necessary in the end. Hubbard claims that reducing the width of the bridge won't reduce the cost, however. Besides, she says, the county has already spent the money to design this concept, and it will cost money to redesign the bridge (eating up the savings).

The area between the railroad and Edmonston Road is not going to develop. The land is owned by the Department of Agriculture and is environmentally sensitive. Additionally, while Maryland hopes to widen 2-lane Edmonston Road, that project has no funding and many in the area oppose it.

While Hubbard contends that 2 lanes of concrete will cost the same as 4 lanes of it, I'm not sure that argument holds water.

I'd much rather see the money for the 2 additional lanes across the bridge be spent completing the sidewalks on the western section, or on any number of other bicycle, pedestrian, or transit projects in the county.

Regardless, if the county rebuilds Sunnyside Avenue as planned, with 2 extra (unused) lanes, it will surely be tempting for engineers in the future to widen. It would be great if the county would make assurances that such a widening will not happen without a public process.

It examines the PPTA's history and process, and highlights two recent projects for in-depth analysis: the I-495 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia and the Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK Extension in Hampton Roads. The study also analyzes the substantial policy issues the Act raises and offers recommendations for reform.

The PPTA authorizes private entities to build, maintain and/or operate "qualifying transportation facilities" under an agreement with state or local entities such as the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The intent was to reduce the up-front costs to government by attracting private sources of funding and to tap into private sector creativity and efficiency through competitive bidding to speed and improve building projects.

Since it was enacted in 1995, only four PPTA projects have been completed (Route 288 and Route 895/Pocahontas Parkway around Richmond, Route 199 around Williamsburg, and the new Beltway express lanes). Another 17 projects are partially completed or currently under construction, under contract, or under consideration.

The PPTA has expanded far beyond the General Assembly's original intent to supplement the traditional transportation improvements process. It is now the major method for constructing large new projects, and it concentrates decision-making in the Governor's office with little effective oversight.

Moreover, as the report notes, it "has evolved into a process in which large private-sector construction consortiums propose design/build/operate projects funded using as much state/federal funding and taxpayer-subsidized debt as can be negotiated with the state, coupled with toll revenues that are as secure and protected as possible."

There are significant differences between the PPTA agreements made between the Commonwealth and private entities. The I-495 Express Lanes project, for example, increases transportation capacity while still leaving existing toll-free transportation choices in place for the public. This agreement does not contain any "non-compete" clauses that limit future transportation improvements, although it does have a troubling provision that could increase taxpayer liability or dissuade high occupancy vehicle (HOV) use. The private partner is taking on true demand risk in return for its investment.

In contrast, the Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK project expands an existing free facility already once paid for and currently maintained by the state, but with no viable travel alternative for the public. There is little rationale for the amount of state subsidy provided and the contract allows for automatic toll escalation and penalties for creating competing transportation alternatives.

In another project, the proposed $1.4 billion new Route 460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, the state plans to provide $1.1 billion public in direct subsidies (tolls will cover the rest) to build a destructive highway that will parallel an existing, relatively uncongested route. This project is a much lower transportation priority than many others throughout the state, yet it is slated to receive the highest subsidy.

The report recommends a number of reforms to the PPTA, including:

• Providing more information to the public (including the cost-benefit analysis), and requiring a public hearing at least 30 days prior to signing a comprehensive agreement;
  
• Increasing the role of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and other oversight boards, by requiring it to evaluate and approve a proposed comprehensive agreement before it can be approved, and giving the Board greater independence by limiting the ability of the Governor to remove members without cause;
  
• Creating a greater role for the legislature in the process, such as requiring the findings of the cost-benefit analysis to be provided to the General Assembly prior to initiating a PPTA procurement process to ensure that the assumptions contained in the analysis can stand up to public scrutiny, and by requiring the Assembly to approve subsidy levels (particularly debt) and the use of toll facilities;
  
• Ensuring greater competition by requiring more bidders; and
  
• Adding conditions for prioritizing state PPTA subsidies.

These solutions will help ensure that the PPTA process is good at producing public benefits for as low a price as possible.

Recent PPTA deals show why the current debate over transportation funding needs to focus on ensuring that taxpayer funds are spent wisely—and not just on raising more revenues for transportation. The legislature needs to improve the PPTA before the state signs additional agreements or authorizes any additional funds for public-private transportation projects if we are to promote smarter transportation investments and adequately protect our communities and environment.

If you have seen the remake of La Cage Aux Folles, you might remember the lively streetscape of Espanola Way, where Robin Williams buys an elaborate birthday cake for his partner. Follow that street two blocks west, and you will find that already-narrow sidewalks have been cut in half in order to widen a roadway that functioned perfectly well before. Why? Because the standards had changed—from walkable to not.

I have never heard a proper explanation for the creeping expansion of America's street standards. All I know is that it is very real, and that it has a profound impact on the work that city planners do every day.

In the late nineties, I was working on the design of Mount Laurel, a new town outside of Birmingham, Alabama, that was modeled on that city's most successful prewar neighborhoods. We had measured the streets of Homewood, Mountain Brook, and the city's other best addresses, and planned our thoroughfares with the same dimensions. We were then told that our streets did not meet the standard, and our engineering firm was unwilling to stamp the drawings for fear of legal liability.

I remember one particular afternoon, when we convinced the County Engineer to tour these great neighborhoods with us in our van. Perhaps anticipating our consternation, he gripped the door handle with white knuckles and shouted "We're gonna die!" as we motored calmly around the narrow, leafy streets of Mountain Brook. I'm pretty sure he was joking, but his ultimate pronouncement was clear: we had to re-engineer our streets with a higher design speed.

This logic—that higher design speeds make for safer streets—coupled with the typical city engineer's desire for unimpeded traffic—has caused many American cities to rebuild their streets with lanes that are 12, 13, and sometimes even 14 feet wide. Now, cars are only 6 feet wide—a Ford Excursion is 6'-6''—and most Main Streets were historically made of 10-foot lanes. That dimension persists on many of the best, such as ritzy Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida. Yet, many cities I visit have their fair share of 13-footers, and that is where much of the speeding occurs.

For me writing this, and you reading it, it is undoubtedly clear that building wider lanes would cause drivers to speed. After all, if highways have 12-foot lanes, and we are comfortable negotiating them at seventy miles per hour, wouldn't we feel the same way on a city street of the same dimension? Yet, in the bizarre parallel universe of the traffic engineer, no such relationship exists. Motorists will drive at the speed limit, or slightly above, no matter what sort of drag strip we lay in their path.

As with induced demand, the engineers have once again failed to comprehend that the way they design streets will have any impact on the way that people use them. By their logic, just as more lanes can't cause more driving, high-speed lanes can't cause high speeds. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to the second great misunderstanding that lies at the root of most urban degradation today. Widening a city's streets in the name of safety is like distributing handguns to deter gun violence.

Just in case you think I am making this up, let's turn to the calm analysis of Reid Ewing and Eric Dumbaugh, professors at the University of Maryland and Texas A & M, respectively. In their 2009 study, "The Built Environment and Traffic Safety: A Review of Empirical Evidence," they assess the situation this way.

Considered broadly, the fundamental shortcoming of conventional traffic safety theory is that it fails to account for the moderating role of human behavior on crash incidence. Decisions to ... widen specific roadways to make them more forgiving are based on the assumption that in so doing, human behavior will remain unchanged. And it is precisely this assumption—that human behavior can be treated as a constant, regardless of design—that accounts for the failure of conventional safety practice.

How costly is this failure? In another study, presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Rutgers professor Robert Noland calculated that increased lane widths could be blamed for approximately 900 additional traffic fatalities per year.

We can only hope that these studies eventually have an impact on thoroughfare engineering as it is currently practiced in the typical American city. Currently, engineers still deny their stamp of approval to streets configured without "adequately" high design speeds. "We're afraid of being sued," they say.

Some day, I might get up the nerve to respond as follows: "Afraid? You should be. Now that we've publicly presented to you that narrower roads save lives, we are going to sue you when people die on your fat streets."

There is some good news. Thanks to the labors of the Congress for New Urbanism, a nonprofit focused on making more livable cities, we have made a start in changing the standards. The CNU teamed up with the Institute of Traffic Engineers to create a new manual, "Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares," that recommends street lanes of 10 and 11 feet wide. With the imprimatur of the ITE, this book can now be waved at planning meetings in support of more reasonable standards. I just wish that "11" wasn't in there.

Another cause for hope is the growing "20's Plenty for Us" movement that, having taken the United Kingdom by storm, is just beginning to win followers in the US. Recognizing that only 5 percent of pedestrian collisions at 20 miles per hour result in death, vs. 85 percent at 40 mph, the British have introduced 20 mph speed limits in many of their cities.

There are currently more than 87 "Twenty's Plenty" campaigns in the UK, and about 25 British jurisdictions, with a combined population of over six million, have committed to a 20 mph speed limit in residential areas. In June, 2011, the European Union Transport Committee recommended such a rule for the entire continent. It is easy to imagine 20 mph becoming a standard throughout Europe in the near future.

On this side of the pond, Hoboken, New Jersey, may be the first city to have instituted a "Twenty is Plenty" campaign. Unfortunately, in true Jersey fashion, the 20 is just a suggestion, while higher official speed limits remain in place. As I write this, New York City is pioneering some legitimate 20 mph zones.

These developments are important—but not as an end in themselves. As any London pedestrian will tell you, a 20-mph sign does not a 20-mph driver make. Most motorists drive the speed at which they feel comfortable, which is the speed to which the road has been engineered. "20's Plenty" is most useful as a first step to slower design speeds. Once 20-mph zones proliferate, we may finally be able to convince the engineers to design 20-mph streets.

Speck's book comes out on November 13. You can pre-order it on Amazon. For more from the book, see also our first excerpt.

Promoting the ICC seems a strange use of state money when Maryland's governor has set a state goal of doubling transit use by 2020. An MdTA spokesperson claimed that this is standard outreach aimed at encouraging use of the electronic E-ZPass system to pay tolls. But the focus of the agency's signage was the ICC itself, not the electronic pay system.

If the ICC were an isolated road, encouraging more people to use it might not be a problem. Yet drivers on the ICC access it from other crowded roads, such as I-270, Route 29 and I-95. These roads need fewer drivers, not more.

Are any readers aware of a campaign anywhere in the world that is trying to make people drive more?

One of the targets for redevelopment in this area is the Greenbelt Metro station site. Currently a sea of almost 4,000 parking spaces, it's a prime site for transit-oriented, mixed-use development. The transit hub is home not only to the Metro, but also to MARC trains and several bus lines. The plan also leaves open the possibility for the site to develop for a GSA tenant like the FBI.

The plan also targets Beltway Plaza and the Greenway Shopping Center for redevelopment. Both of these auto-oriented retail centers are along Greenbelt Road, a major suburban arterial corridor. This wide roadway forms a barrier separating neighborhoods.

The plan notes that major roadways like Greenbelt Road have created "significant barriers to connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle safety, effectively separating the sector plan area into isolated sections." Greenbelt has been split into several pods over the years by freeways like the Capital Beltway, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, and Kenilworth Avenue, and citizens spoke out about the divisions these roadways have created.

As a result, the plan seeks to address the problems created by decades of investment in auto infrastructure and years of underinvestment in alternative modes.

"The sector plan area is characterized by major highway intersections and freeway interchanges that directly and negatively impact pedestrian and bicycle mobility and access."

The plan proposes to transform the area to "maximize pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, mobility, and safety." It calls for completing a continuous network of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails; for reconfiguring Greenbelt Road to include dedicated bike facilities and wide sidewalks; for coordinating transit services to increase ridership; and to enhance safety for all users.

All of those improvements are terrific ideas, and they've been needed for years. Unfortunately, it sounds like the plan isn't really serious about these improvements.

Plan counteracts its own solutions

Seeming to have forgotten about all the problems created by bigger and wider roads, the plan calls for widening several arteries in the sector plan area. Most notably, the plan calls for adding a lane in each direction to Greenbelt Road in front of Beltway Plaza and Greenway Center. It supports widening Kenilworth Avenue and the Capital Beltway. The county also proposes widening a 2-lane section of Hanover Parkway to 4 lanes.

The plan still includes a proposal to spend several million dollars reconfiguring the Greenbelt Road/Kenilworth Avenue interchange into a "diverging diamond," which will be even less friendly for non-motorized users.

It's especially ironic that these elements are in the plan, since at the community meetings planners talked about the exact opposite: road diets.

And in this case, road diets are probably warranted. A traffic study conducted as part of the planning process found that none of the roadways in the sector plan area was failing. Neither were any of the intersections.

So, despite a lack of congestion; despite talk of road diets; despite wanting to increase walking and bicycling; despite all of that, the plan still calls for widening roads.

It's almost as if, having decried the unintended consequences of the transportation policies of 1975, the plan says: there's nothing wrong with solving those problems with the same solutions.

Widenings confound positive changes

What's most baffling about these highway widenings is that they'll not only counteract the solutions proposed make walking a true option in this corridor, but they'll also make the mixed-use vision less likely to come to fruition.

A walkable node at Beltway Plaza is all well and good. But how well will it be connected to Berwyn Heights on the south if it's separated by a 10-lane road? Putting bike lanes on Greenbelt Road sounds nice. But how safe will it be to bike alongside 10 lanes of traffic? Completing the sidewalk network is long overdue. But how pleasant will it be to walk alongside one of the widest arterials in the region?

Speeding trips through Greenbelt will also encourage more suburbanization in the less-developed sections of the county. That will take office and retail demand away from the parts of the county where the infrastructure already exists to serve it.

No, the plan will not enable the future it envisions, because it still clings to the infrastructure changes that created the divided, pedestrian-hostile environment it seeks to fix.

It's not too late for Prince George's to build the foundation for a more walkable and sustainable Greenbelt. But the Planning Board and County Council need to urge changes to the plan. Without the uncalled-for widening of the roadways in the area, the plan has a chance of creating the mixed-use nodes and increasing walking, biking, and transit use in the planning area.

The Prince George's County Planning Board and County Council will be holding a joint session public hearing at 7 pm Tuesday in Upper Marlboro. If you're a resident of Prince George's, write the Council or come to testify. Tell them that positive change requires taking a different approach than ones past.

Slated to run through the Manassas Battlefield Historic District, the new Tri-County Parkway would open up rural land to development, multiplying the already-major traffic woes on major commuter routes like I-66 and Route 50.

More harm to a historic land

Controversy over unwanted development in the area is hardly new. Manassas has been the scene of some of the nation's biggest preservation fights. Many longtime area residents will remember the 1994 fight to stop Disney's theme park just west of the Battlefield, which drew national attention.

Fewer may recall the fight in the late 1980s when local residents stopped developer John 'Til' Hazel from building a new shopping mall on then-unprotected battlefield land. Federal taxpayers paid an astounding $134 million to buy the Battlefield land and keep Hazel from building the mall.

VDOT now proposes to run a highway past that same land acquired at such financial cost in the 1980s and contested at such personal cost 150 years ago.

According to documents related to the 2006 expansion of the historic district surrounding the Battlefield, "The battlefield retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association with the historic events that occurred on the property during the Civil War. With reference to the man-made resources, such as the dwellings, military embattlements, and the Unfinished Railroad, Manassas Battlefield has integrity of design, workmanship, and material."

The Tri-County Parkway would cut directly through that historic district, taking up 20-35 acres of land, running past the August 28, 1862 position of the right flank of Confederate troops led by Stonewall Jackson and the left flank of the Union General Pope's troops. It would also cut off the August 29 approach path of General Longstreet, which led to the largest massed counterattack of the entire Civil War. Longstreet's approach path across Pageland Lane would be replaced by a 4-6 lane highway and major intersection.

This battle at Manassas enabled General Lee to march into Maryland, led to the Battle of Antietam, and played an important role in the series of battles that led President Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps the Post misquoted Manassas Battlefield Park Superintendent Ed Clark when he reportedly questioned the historical value of the western edge of the battlefield. From our reading of history and the 2006 expansion of the historic district, the historic district and its rural landscape are indeed important to the setting of the Second Battle of Manassas and the critical strategic positioning of the Confederate army that led to their victory in that clash. The land in the historic district merits permanent preservation.

VDOT's own letter to reviewing agencies confirms the damage the new highway would likely bring. The letter states that the Parkway will "convert a portion of relatively intact rural landscape" into a highway, "introducing into this setting an increase in traffic-generated noise and visual elements that will alter and potentially obscure significant battlefield viewsheds. These direct and indirect effects will result in a diminishment of the integrity of setting, feeling and association of [Manassas National Battlefield Park] and the [Manassas Battlefield Historic District] [the adjacent land not formally in the park]."

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Parks Conservation Association, Piedmont Environmental Council and Southern Environmental Law Center carefully reviewed the draft agreement between VDOT and the NPS, and submitted strongly critical joint comments.

In our view, VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration were obligated by law but failed to study prudent and feasible alternatives that could avoid harm to a historic resource like Manassas Battlefield. The composite low-impact alternative that we have repeatedly offered during both the Tri-County Parkway and Manassas Battlefield Bypass studies would not only preserve the historic landscapes of the battlefield, but also meet the National Park Service's goal of closing the roads through the Battlefield.

A misallocation of resources

By focusing on north-south highway movement in this particular area, the Tri-County Parkway also represents a misallocation of scarce transportation dollars. Expert review of the Tri-County Parkway study and our review of the most recent traffic counts based on VDOT's numbers show that the vast majority of traffic in the area of the new highway is moving east-west on I-66 and Route 50 to reach jobs. We also show that much less costly local road upgrades including roundabouts will address local trips, moving them efficiently around the Battlefield.

VDOT needs to husband every last dollar to invest in road and transit improvements in those corridors, including Virginia Railway Express, dedicated express bus and HOV lanes, parallel local roads, and fixing intersection bottlenecks. For those trying to reach Dulles Airport, the expanded I-66 and upgraded Route 28 offer the fastest route to the terminal and will continue to do so. The Tri-County Parkway and connecting routes west of the airport would be about three miles longer than these existing routes.

The development link

It's not surprising that advocacy for new highways follows speculative acquisition of land for development. Til Hazel's original purchase of battlefield land for a shopping mall strategically secured a site next to the future interchange with the 234 Bypass, the former name of the Tri-County Parkway corridor. VDOT constructed a section of the 234 Bypass from southwest of the City of Manassas up to I-66 based on a 1988 approval with the hope by proponents like Til Hazel that it would be extended northward past the Battlefield. Land records show that today others are hoping for a windfall, including an entity named "Route 234 LLC" farther north along Pageland Lane, reflecting an expectation of the extension of the Route 234 Bypass.

Loudoun County recently approved the southward extension and expansion of "Northstar Boulevard" and "Belmont Ridge Road," denying that these were connected to the Tri-County Parkway even as they plotted these roads on the same exact route as the Tri-County Parkway. The highway also corresponds with the 1997 proposed route for the Western Transportation Corridor and forms part of an Outer Beltway.

According to the Post, VDOT Secretary Connaughton says he might change the name of the highway to "234 Extension," the name it had back in 1988. Intentional or not, the many names for the road corridor can get confusing, and make it difficult for the public to track and evaluate the proposals.

Just a week after the Loudoun Board's decision on Northstar and Belmont Ridge roads, another Board matter proposed authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire land from two developers along the Northstar Boulevard/Tri-County Parkway corridor.

Secretary Connaughton told the Post that the Tri-County Parkway "could be financed in the future traditionally or through public-private partnership," which could involve proffer trade-offs with developers or private builders who collect tolls. This certainly indicates the continued close tie between development and new highways.

Simply put, the Parkway and connecting roads are about opening rural land in Prince William County's Rural Crescent and Loudoun County's lower density Transition Zone to much more development. This development would mean thousands more cars commuting on Route 50 and I-66.

In addition, Dulles Airport boosters have campaigned to create a freight warehousing and distribution center around Dulles Airport and want the highway in order to draw thousands of trucks into Loudoun County and western Prince William County. This proposed economic development strategy and related truck traffic would seem to undermine the quality of life for area residents, including those who were attracted to work in Virginia's knowledge economy.

A better way

Preservation of the historic district around Manassas National Battlefield and the associated rural lands would ensure less traffic from this area in the future. Conserving our scarce transportation dollars to invest in commuting options for the Route 50 and I-66 corridors and funneling growth to the right places would better address the priority needs of commuters.

Adopting a lower impact alternative and winning legally-binding commitments to close the roads through the Battlefield would preserve the Battlefield for future generations. But conceding to VDOT's highway and the draft agreement would destroy our history and waste our tax dollars.

If you're interested in learning more about the Tri-County Parkway and the Outer Beltway, visit the Coalition for Smarter Growth's Outer Beltway Resource Center. Convinced the new highway is a bad idea? Sign the Coalition's petition to Governor Bob McDonnell asking for the real transportation choices northern Virginians deserve.