This is the quick presentation I made to Congressman Wittman on August 26, 2013.

1. Bi-County Parkway
“Question the Generalizations”

3. Traffic Source for Graph
• Source: VDOT Traffic
Modeling and Analysis
Memorandum
• May 18 Revised
• 366 pages
• Page 15 Analysis is easy
to understand
• The proposal for this
road is based on
percentages, should be
based on actual
numbers and capacity

4. Notice significant decrease in traffic on
Gum Spring Road, but not significant
decrease on other roads

5. This road helps Gum Spring Road
Personal Testimony:
I drove up Gum Spring
Road during PM rush
hour last week and
there was no traffic.
Recently, Gum Spring
Road has been
widened to four lanes.
There is no need to
relieve congestion on
Gum Spring Road
anymore.
I question whether
these traffic numbers
take the new lanes on
Gum Spring Road into
consideration.

6. 2040 PM Traffic No Build
Road color indicates capacity
• Notice Gum
Spring Road is
Purple going
south
• Arrows point
to true
congestion
• Source: Mr.
Kilpatrick’s
VDOT Hylton
Presentation,
July 3rd, 2013
?

7. 2040 PM Build Scenario
• Notice Gum
Spring Road is
now pink
going south
• All other areas
stay the same
for rush hour
traffic
?

8. Land Bought by Developers
• Source:
Piedmont
Environmental
Council

9. ?

10. Corbelis Developer to Build Part of BiCounty Parkway
• Source:
Washington
Biz Journal,
http://www.
bizjournals.c
om/washing
ton/breakin
g_ground/2
013/04/tran
sportationlarger-issueinloudoun.ht
ml?page=all

11. Environmental Impact: Trucks Through
Rural Crescent

12. Environmental Impact on Water Shed
• “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.”
• GreenRisks, http://greenrisks.blogspot.com/2013/05/tricounty-parkway-to-destroy-rural.html, Elizabeth Ward, May 2,
2013

13. Bi-County Parkway is not Justified
• Traffic congestion does not exist and will not be
relieved
• Economic data is non existent
• Issues with cargo
– This was touted as a cargo route at the public
information meetings in December and January 2013
– The cargo demand is down 11% at Dulles this past
year
– Mr. Connaughton said that it was no longer a cargo
route at the August 6th meeting for the Prince William
County Board of Supervisors

14. Bi-County Parkway Process Issues
• Lack of consideration for local roads, including
Featherbed Lane, Pageland Lane, Groveton, and
proper analysis of Balls Ford Road
• Public hearing did not include closing of 234, nor
did any of the official public info meetings
• How is it ok for the NPS to take private land
without homeowner’s permission?
• No engineering study for the Corridor of
Statewide Significance
• Stacking of comments in the Corridor Master Plan

15. Bi-County Parkway Creates
Transportation Issues
• There is no way for someone to get from Rt 29
to the Bi-County Parkway
• Traffic on Balls Ford Road will increase to
pandemic congestion as a result of the BiCounty Parkway

16. Suggestions
• Focus on public transportation
– Gas prices are going to go up as we run out of
“easy oil”
– Advocate to build bus, VRE, and metro
infrastructure now to prevent an uncomfortable
transition to alternative transportation later
• Build VRE to Gainesville
• Increase buses to/from DC, including the commuter lot
at 234 bypass and during off-peak hours
• Advocate for Metro to Fairfax County Parkway
• Add a bus from Gainesville to Woodbridge

17. What about the connection b/t PWC
and Loudoun?
• Build the Battlefield Bypass first before closing
234, as was intended in the 1988 resolution
• Is there a way to make a little two lane
connection from 234 Bypass to Pageland Lane
that doesn’t utilize park land?

18. What about the traffic in the park?
• Put up “No
Trucks” signs
• Lower the roads
within the park
- or • Build pedestrian
tunnels under
the road
• Example:
JMU pedestrian
tunnel to the
arts facility. It’s
beautiful!