|
Smart Mobility, Inc. Finds Tri-County
Parkway and
Manassas Battlefield Bypass
Fail to Address Congestion Problems
Report Summary
Analysis by Smart Mobility, Inc., a nationally recognized transportation
consulting firm, shows that Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposals for two major highways
around Manassas National Battlefield would fail to address the primary
east-west traffic problem and would likely increase traffic. Moving forward
with these highways would divert scarce transportation funding from higher
priority needs for reducing commuter congestion.
The Tri-County Parkway and Manassas Battlefield Bypass could be part of an even larger, more costly, and more destructive Outer Beltway around Washington. They would generate significant scattered development and the associated traffic, noise, and air and water pollution, harming communities and historic resources while costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. More effective and less destructive alternatives are available and should be adopted by VDOT and FHWA.
Tri-County
Parkway
The
Tri-County Parkway is a proposed major new north-south highway between
Prince William, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. VDOT’s recent draft
Environmental Impact Statement evaluates three routes for this highway,
ranging in cost from $175 million to $550 million. Two routes would run
just west of Manassas National Battlefield Park, slicing through the expanded
Historic District and placing a major four-lane highway at the western
border of the Park. The third route would parallel the Park’s eastern
border and bisect Bull Run Regional Park, bringing the noise and pollution
of a large highway to an area of parks, small horse farms and wetlands.
Analysis
VDOT argues that this new highway is needed to reduce traffic congestion
in the area. However, the study by Smart Mobility, Inc. casts serious
doubt about the project. Among other things, the Smart Mobility study
found that:
• Future congestion on east-west roadways in the area will be much worse than congestion on north-south roads. However, because the Tri-County Parkway is a north-south highway, it would do little to alleviate these congestion problems.
• None of the proposed routes for the highway would significantly reduce average travel time, vehicle miles traveled, or vehicle hours traveled in the study area.
o The proposed routes
would only reduce trips from one end of the proposed corridor to the other
by one to three minutes.
o The duration of many shorter trips within the corridor would increase.
o The total number of hours drivers are expected to travel in the area
will be the same whether or not the new highway is built, regardless of
the route ultimately chosen.
• While the new road would have almost no effect on relieving current traffic congestion, the new travel and development the highway would trigger would actually increase traffic in the study area, and along I-66, in particular.
• While the Tri-County has been proposed by some as a bypass for Route 28, none of the proposed routes effectively reduce traffic congestion on Route 28. Instead, it would primarily generate new traffic.
Recommended
Alternatives
The Tri-County Parkway would squander hundreds of millions of dollars
of scarce transportation funds that would be better utilized on projects
that address east-west traffic in the area. Taxpayer money should be invested
in more effective, less destructive and less costly solutions –
solutions VDOT’s draft study largely ignores – such as:
• Improving I-66 as an east-west thoroughfare, including extension of HOV lanes;
• Funding and fixing the Gainesville Interchange, a site of huge backups;
• Extending Virginia Railway Express to Gainesville and Haymarket, and improving bus transit along Route 50 in Loudoun, I-66, and Route 28;
• Targeting local road and safety improvements to cost-effectively reduce incidents in the high accident sections;
• Protecting Prince William’s Rural Crescent, the Loudoun Transition Zone and western Fairfax from overdevelopment that would add more traffic to major east-west commuting routes while shifting development to locations with enhanced access to transit; and
• Funding and completing the upgrading of Route 28 to improve access to the major job concentrations east of Dulles Airport.
Manassas Battlefield Bypass
Concurrent with the Tri-County Parkway study, the National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration are proposing over $250 million in new highways with the hope of removing traffic from the Manassas National Battlefield Park. Route 29 and Route 234 currently divide the Park into four quadrants and bring heavy commuter traffic that impedes access to many important historic sites and detracts from the visitor experience due to the noise and air pollution the traffic generates.
Unfortunately, by proposing a new 4-lane highway to loop around the Park through undeveloped lands on the northern, eastern and western borders of the Park, they could bring yet more development and traffic. Worse, the agencies’ preferred route slices through the expanded Historic District west of the Park before looping back down through the northeastern corner of the Park, effectively severing an important piece of this monument and irreversibly impacting important historic resources.
Moreover, there is no commitment or guarantee that the roads running through the Park would actually be closed if a new highway were built – the entire reason for the proposal in the first place. Indeed, the federal agencies cannot provide such a guarantee since that decision ultimately rests with the state government. Thus, these roads could remain open with the new highways adding yet more traffic to the current problem.
Analysis
Smart Mobility, Inc. concluded that FHWA:
• Failed to follow industry standard traffic modeling rendering the entire study invalid;
• Failed to account for new traffic induced by the development that would follow the highways into currently rural areas north of Manassas Battlefield;
• Included virtually the identical north-south highway in its “no-action” alternative, thus failing to provide a true “no-action” alternative;
• Improperly concluded that four lane highways were needed to divert the traffic on Routes 29 and 234 in the park, when a network of substitute 2 lane roads would provide the capacity to carry this traffic.
• Provided a flawed transit alternative that looked at just three short bus routes and improperly rejected Transportation Systems Management alternatives.
Recommended
Alternatives
Smart Mobility, Inc. proposed a more comprehensive and effective alternative
that would allow for closing the roads through the Park and diverting
the vehicles onto an improved road and transit network. Existing roadways
in the area can be improved to handle traffic from the Park as well as
to alleviate some of the current congestion around it for a fraction of
the cost of a major four-lane highway. Alternatives could include:
• Adding a two-lane frontage road between I-66 and the southern border of the Park and upgrading Pageland Road west of the Park with shoulders and roundabouts at intersections;
• Linking enhanced transit service such as extension of Virginia Railway Express to Gainesville and Haymarket, and expanded regional bus service with land use policies to improve development near, and access to, transit; and
• Combining
these with an expanded I-66 to handle east-west traffic.
Conclusion
Frustrated commuters sit today in nearly unbearable traffic on I-66 and Route 29, commuting east and west to work. The VDOT and FHWA studies show that this is the primary traffic problem now and in the future, and that proposed new north-south highways do not reduce congestion nor address the east-west traffic. Focusing on fixing today’s east-west commuting problem and adopting a comprehensive set of local road, transit and land use solutions would more effectively address traffic and community needs.
The full report is
available online at: www.SmarterGrowth.net
or from the Coalition for Smarter Growth (202-244-4408) or the Southern
Environmental Law Center (434-977-4090 x 306)
