|
Board review, discussion and
adoption of a resolution regarding the Route 29 Corridor
Study: Preliminary Recommendations.
Background Information:
Funded through the Virginia
Commonwealth Transportation Board and managed through the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Route 29
Corridor Study affects an area that extends from Prince
William County to the boundary with North Carolina. The
study’s expressed objective is to identify achievable short,
intermediate and long-range improvements that will:
-
Increase safety;
-
Enhance mobility through
choice of transportation mode; and
-
Boost economic activity
within this corridor.
Programmatic Stages:
This major and multi-year
CTB/VDOT effort has three basic stages:
a.
Stage 1:
Corridor Plan (The Blueprint).
This stage represents where we are currently in the overall
project. The product at this juncture will present common
goals and strategies; corridor-wide policies and practices;
and specific recommendations for short/mid/long-term
improvements;
b.
Stage 2:
Corridor Implementation.
After stage 1 is complete, the next step is envisioned to be
a 1-2 year VDOT effort, including each locality in the
corridor, to develop a more detailed plan. That plan stage
would include the following specifics: current and future
access points; methods of alternate access for properties on
the corridor; multi-modal improvements; and integrated land
use and transportation plans/networks to reduce corridor
congestion and improve safety; and
c.
Stage 3:
Projects & Funding.
Here the actual “rubber hits the road” with the
identification and development of detailed improvements
targeted for funding to enforce compliance with the Corridor
Implementation Plan (e.g., revenue sharing funds), as well
as new transportation service districts to fund
improvements.
VDOT Route 29 Corridor
Study (The Blueprint):
The following section
summarizes VDOT’s overall phased planning approach and
presents the Preliminary Corridor Study recommendations.
This County staff assessment starts with VDOT’s general
recommendations that affect the entire corridor study area,
and then provides comments regarding the VDOT preliminary
recommendations contained in the 5-map series that relates
specifically to Fauquier County. All maps have been attached
for Board reference. Attached also is a County staff
prepared and proposed resolution for Board of Supervisors
consideration. Recommendations are due to VDOT by October
16, 2009.
1.
Broader
Corridor Recommendations:
The following corridor-wide recommendations will now serve
as the consistent guidelines which will thread through the
three referenced plan stages:
a.
Implement cost-effective improvements over the short term to
address existing operations and safety needs; ensure that
short-term solutions are consistent with mid- and long-term
recommendations;
b.
Refine and expand VDOT’s role as steward of the Route 29
transportation system; modify current policies and
procedures to ensure that VDOT can adequately preserve the
public’s transportation investments in the corridor;
c.
Implement transportation, land use, and access management
projects and policies that support Route 29’s role as a
corridor of statewide significance and as a higher-level
roadway primarily intended to serve regional and
corridor-wide travel needs;
d.
Implement roadway improvements to address mid- and
long-term safety, operational, and capacity needs;
e.
Develop transportation improvement strategies that seek to
address travel demand requirements first through transit,
commuter and carpool services, bicycling, and walking,
rather than improvements that serve single-occupant motor
vehicles;
f.
Enhance capacity and improve reliability of intercity
passenger rail service;
g.
Promote transportation-efficient land use patterns, and
ensure that the location of various patterns matches
existing and future transportation plans;
h.
Promote transportation that enhances quality of life and
seeks to preserve the historic, environmental, and visual
qualities of the corridor; and
i.
Ensure coordinated planning and implementation of
transportation improvements and land use changes throughout
the corridor.
Finding:
These general recommendations are consistent with the
County’s basic goals and objectives contained in its adopted
Comprehensive Plan as well as the associated transportation
and Service District Plans. These are general guidelines
and should be supported.
2.
Stage 1:
Preliminary Recommendations for the Route 29 Corridor Study:
The VDOT/Parsons
Preliminary Recommendations for the entire Route 29 Corridor
are summarized in map form. Attached are only the five
associated maps that extend from the Town of Culpeper to
Prince William County; each map includes the general
recommendations affecting Fauquier County. The following
highlights only key recommendations in each identified map
and provides County staff comments for Board of Supervisors
consideration:
a.
Culpeper
Map (Town of Culpeper to Remington):
Identifies the Rt. 28/U.S. 15-29 intersection as a grade
separated interchange. Finding: This recommendation
is consistent with the transportation element for the
adopted Bealeton-Opal-Remington Service District Plans;
b.
Mid-Fauquier/Warrenton Map (Opal to Warrenton):
This illustrative graphic has marked numbers that represent
recommendations contained in the text boxes adjoining the
map. Some recommendations are not clear in the detail and
will need further explanation for local governments to
understand, as well as the far more elaboration on
decision-making responsibilities of and funding implications
to the Board of Supervisors.
More specifically, the
following findings should be noted:
1)
Grade Separated Interchanges: Findings: (a)
the identified intersection locations for the Rt.
17/U.S. 15-29 (Opal) and Business 29/U.S. 15-29 (south of
Warrenton) interchanges continue to be consistent with the
adopted Opal and Warrenton Service District Plans
respectively; (b) the Opal Road (Rt. 687) realignment is not
reflected in the adopted transportation element of the Opal
Service District Plan. However, this link may be added in
the future as a result of a pending study referenced in 2)b)
below;
2)
Parallel Roads:
a)
Finding:
As marked in the
study, the parallel and public service roads are consistent
with the Opal Service District Plan. The County and VDOT
have a pending HNTB “Public Service Road Network” project
funded for commencement in 2011. The plan objectives are to
identify realistic service road alignments and bridge
connection(s) linking them on either side of U.S. 15/29
within the Service District; develop phased access
management guidelines; establish an effective public
outreach that will involve business and property owners;
consider realignment of Opal Road to the planned interchange
and the extension of Fayettesville Road as part of the
public service road network.
b)
Finding:
The conceptual road network identified for the Bealeton
Service District area is not an accurate representation of
the transportation element for the adopted
Bealeton-Opal-Remington Service District Plans and needs to
be updated accordingly.
c.
New
Baltimore Map (Warrenton North to New Baltimore):
1)
Distributed
Network Development.
This type of proposed network grid can be described
generally as a combination of interconnected public streets
on either side of Rt. 29; some could have different
functional classifications, some of these streets would run
parallel to this federal highway, while a limited number
would serve as connectors to either side of Rt. 29 via
bridges. Findings: This approach is not currently
consistent with the adopted New Baltimore Service District
Plan which consistently has designated U.S. 15/29 as a
“Rural Freeway” in the long-term (limited access; with a
series of interchanges).
The distributed network,
however, could be an effective alternative.
If this is the practical option of choice, VDOT must
indicate clearly to this County where and how such an
alternative will restrict new street connections, eliminate
existing entrances and median cross-overs, require
specialized service roads and new bridges over U.S. 15/29
and connecting to parallel street networks. Such an option
requires a major financial and disciplined commitment for
planning, design, r-o-w acquisition and utilities
relocation, and construction along this corridor leg that
has not been shown at the private, local, state or federal
levels. Such an alternative will also require a different
approach and focus regarding local land use and zoning
decisions. Finally, if the County decides to seriously
pursue this alternative, the Comprehensive Plan will also
need to be revised.
2)
Controlled
Access Roadway without Signals (Uninterrupted).
Findings: The concerns raised previously for the VDOT/Parsons
“Distributed Network Development” recommendation (c.1) apply
here. It seems inconsistent that the same Route 29
“Controlled Access” recommendations do not apply from
Warrenton through Prince William County to its connection
with I-66.
3)
“Long-Term
Planning Corridor”:
Identifies a proposed planning corridor connecting with
Route 29 in the vicinity of Route 676 (Riley Road) and
extending north of the Village of Buckland and connecting
with Rt. 15 as a 4-lane limited access roadway.
Recommendation:
The alignment needs to be removed from the study’s New
Baltimore & Prince William County Maps, since it:
a)
Is not consistent with the adopted Chapter 6 –
Districts (transportation element of New Baltimore Service
District Plan) and Chapter 8 – Rural Areas Land Use Plan of
the overall Fauquier County Comprehensive Plan;
b)
Is contrary to the consistently stated Board of
Supervisors “non-support” recommendations during
VDOT/Parsons public information meetings, as well as
VDOT/Parsons scheduled meetings with the Board;
c)
Presents severe impacts to the “Buckland Races” Civil
War battlefield site whose limits and landscape have been
verified through the requisite historic and technical
studies, is National Register eligible, with easement
recordation and other land use instrument activity
increasing;
d)
Presents significant impacts to The Journey Through
Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area efforts; and
e)
Represents an effort to distract focus from past
subsequent development approvals, land use and
transportation commitments that continue to remove capacity
options along existing Route 15 and Route 29 alignments.
Along the existing
alignments for Route 15 and 29, future capacity and safety
improvements can be delivered from the Fauquier County line
to I-66 in Prince William County. Such an approach is more
appropriate and challenging, with serious attention required
for land use, transportation and fiscal incentives to make
that approach possible. Otherwise, with no such discipline
and incentives within these corridors, the search for future
capacity is forced to consider and focus on the unnecessary
consumption of “open land”. Now Fauquier County has that
“outside” focus being placed on its highly protected Rural
Agriculture (RA) zoned land which has unfortunately been
targeted as the long-term relief valve for the latter two
corridors. This “bypass and limited access corridor”
Fauquier County strongly opposes for the reasons cited
herein.
d.
Prince
William County Map (Vicinity of Route 215 to Prince William
County): It
is recommended that the designated “Long-Term Planning
Corridor” be removed from the vicinity of the U.S. 15/29 and
Rt. 676 intersection extending to Rt. 15 for the reasons
cited in c.3.
e.
Route 28
Corridor Map:
The Study recommends several rail and public transit
options: (1) Add a second track to the rail line and expand
service; (2) Expand VRE service to Culpeper County; and
Establish permanent commuter bus service to Northern
Virginia along the Route 29.28 Corridor. Finding:
These are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and County
long-term efforts to provide more public transportation
options for its residents. |