Bypass Logic

It is important we restate the Friends of MNBP position.  We have never and do not now advocate the proposed Rte 234 Bypass Ext.  If a major north-south corridor must be built, we continue to support the TCP instead of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. The TCP would be far less intrusive on the MNBP, would do more to relieve existing area traffic congestion, and would not facilitate massive regional development that would pose an even greater future threat to the Battlefield.  Should the TCP be built first, it would relieve the need to extend Rte 234 / Prince William Parkway to the Loudoun County line.  In that event, the Friends would advocate relocating US 29 onto our modified Alt. G alignment, and relocating Rte 234 onto an upgraded Pageland Lane.  At present, however, it appears the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. will be constructed before any Battlefield bypass can be built.  Consequently, we are obliged to incorporate this assumption as we continue our assessment of the DEIS.

Another debilitating presumption is that Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane would remain open to through traffic even if a bypass build option is implemented.  The present daily traffic volume on Featherbed Lane of less than 500 vehicle trips would swell to a projected 7500 vehicle trips by 2025, a volume of through traffic that would seriously imperil the interpretation of Second Manassas.  This is a destructive and counterproductive presumption that partially defeats the original intent of the Bypass Study, to preserve the historical and cultural integrity of the MNBP by removing the through traffic that is corrupting the Park.

Critical engineering oversights include the inadvertent isolation of a number of private properties along Sudley Road by the Alt. D and Alt. B designs, and the failure to provide convenient access for all traffic between the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and US 29 in the Study’s Alt. G design.  These and other design and analytical deficiencies are addressed in our detailed assessment of the DEIS, with appropriate recommendations for resolving the problems.

We recognize that the following analysis is prohibitively lengthy and detailed for the casual reader, and urge you to treat the text as reference material.  Utilize our format and headings to enable selections of those entries that may be of particular interest.

DETAILED  ANALYSIS

DRAFT  EIS  PHASE

The DEIS is the most detailed and comprehensive public documentation of the Battlefield Bypass Study’s project to date.  In this analysis, we will present our assessment of the six options remaining as defined by the Study (five Build Alternatives and No Action), with emphasis on Alt. D (the Study’s preferred option) and Alt. G (the Friends’ preference).

While Alt. D has been designated as the DEIS preferred option, all five Build Alternatives are still under consideration pending the Study’s final recommendation.  Alt. G could still receive the Study’s final build recommendation if we can win support for a modified Alt. G design.  A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for each alternative will be produced by the Study. 

We arrived at our assessment by employing the following priorities:

·        To preserve the MNBP and restore its integrity, it is imperative that the current routes 29 and 234 within the Battlefield be relocated.

·        The Build Alternative that poses the least adverse impact on the MNBP is the most desirable.

·        It is also imperative that newly constructed alternate 29 and 234 routes dramatically improve commutes, and efficiently facilitate traffic flow around the MNBP.

·        The Park’s neighbors residing in low-density communities and farms provide a valuable buffer for the Park against the development that frequently accompanies highway construction, and their properties should also be protected in the interests of the MNBP.

·        In addition to sharing historical significance, the MNBP and neighboring environs host wetlands and a variety of wild life that should also be protected.

You may find it helpful to access the best Build Alternative maps available on line at the Study’s official Battlefield Bypass website.  The high resolution maps are very large and will pose a challenge for dialup modems, but these maps enable you to zoom in and identify bridges, fills, overpasses, and intersection / interchange details.

We all should remember that we have entered the “Draft EIS Phase,” and that the Study is still a work in progress.  We can help ensure a complete finished product by identifying omissions and errors, and submitting our observations to the Study as constructive recommendations.

THE FRIENDS’ GREATEST FEAR:

A most undesirable consequence of the Battlefield Bypass Study would be the construction of any Build Alt. or bypass segment that would usurp MNBP property for right-of-way (ROW) and would further compromise the integrity of the Battlefield, but would not close the existing Rtes 29 and 234 within the Park to through traffic.  The Friends foresee that this unwelcome development could evolve in three ways.  First, Virginia (VDOT) and/or Prince William County (PWC) could utilize the Study’s documentation and EIS to construct one of the bypass alignments without any obligation to relocate Rtes 29 or 234.  Second, a Build Alt. would be constructed and the existing Rtes 29 and 234 closed within the Park, only to have these roads forced open again in the future to relieve massive regional traffic congestion.  Third, a Build Alt. is constructed and Rtes 29 and 234 are relocated with the intention of closing the MNBP to through traffic, only to find that the Park does not have the resources to staff a controlled access gate or to maintain their newly acquired roads within the Park.

VDOT and PWC have submitted approved plans for extending Rte 234 to the Loudoun County line, and PWC acknowledges it will incorporate the Study EIS for this highway.  The current 2004 CLRP links to documentation for constructing the four-lane VA 234 Bypass, and assigns this project a completion date of 2012 which is prior to any proposed date for completing a bypass.  The DEIS repeatedly asserts that the Rte 234 Ext. will be constructed before any bypass could be built.

Requested Commitments:

To alleviate concerns about Park roads being forced open in the future, and reservations about the MNBP’s capacity to maintain a Park closed to through traffic, the Friends urge two of the major players in the Battlefield Bypass undertaking to make the following commitments:

·        Virginia commits to transferring VDOT’s title to the 76.2 acres of US 29 and Rte 234 ROW within the MNBP, and for ceding the ROW for Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane to the National Park Service (NPS) on completion of a viable bypass.

·        The NPS commits to funding the MNBP requirements to staff at least one entrance gate and to maintain the present Rtes 29 and 234 and Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane within the Park on completion of a viable bypass, and preparatory to closure of these roads to through traffic.

CRITIQUES COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE BUILD OPTION:

At least some portion of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. is common to each and every Build Alt.  PWC and VDOT appear committed to building this major north-south trucking/commuter corridor which would link Prince William and Loudoun Counties.  The DEIS repeatedly asserts that the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would be completed [as an independent project] before any bypasses could be built.  The DEIS and detailed Build Alt. plans present the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. as an innocuous four-lane highway with on-grade traffic light intersections (even though this design demonstrates a failing LOS when US 29 traffic is added).

The Study does not accurately describe the major highway that would have to be built to effectively link Prince William and Loudoun Counties, and grossly understates its impact on the MNBP.  The Study can only justify its meager Rte 234 Bypass Ext. design by predicting that both it and the TCP will be built before any bypass, and projecting that the TCP will carry substantially more traffic.  The DEIS adopts this erroneous and misleading presumption by ignoring the TCP Study’s stated plan of action.  The TCP Study will submit only one of the three routes they are reviewing to Virginia’s CTB, and the CTB will authorize only the one route.  The CTB Study will provide a final EIS for only that one route.  The three routes under review by the TCP Study are:

·        The Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (TCP Alt. C) and a north-south corridor within Loudoun County to Leesburg (TCP Alt. D).

·        The Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (TCP Alt. C), a connector to the Loudoun Parkway at Braddock Road (TCP Alt. G), and the Loudoun Parkway from Braddock Road to US 7 (TCP Alt. F’).

·        The extension of Godwin Drive from Sudley Road in PWC to I-66 in Fairfax County (TCP Alt. E), connecting TCP Alt. E to the Loudoun Parkway at Braddock Road (TCP Alt. F), and the Loudoun Parkway from Braddock Road to US 7 (TCP Alt. F’).  Throughout this critique, this alignment is referred to as the TCP, or as the TCP east of the MNBP.

Yet VDOT and the involved counties regard extending Rte 234 into Loudoun County as an alternative to completing the TCP, a view documented by the Study’s detailed maps which locate the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. on the “TCP Alternative C alignment.”  Given the limited funding to build either of these highways, we may presume that only one would be built, and that one would have to carry most of the traffic the DEIS predicts would be carried by both.  As the only major north-south corridor linking Prince William and Loudoun Counties, the 234 Bypass Ext. could not possibly provide satisfactory LOS as the four-lane highway with on-grade traffic light intersections described by the Study.  If the alternative constructed is to be the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., then the Study is obligated to correctly describe it with adequate traffic lane capacity and the separated grade interchanges essential to provide an acceptable level of service.  The DEIS should recognize and document that this enhanced highway design would inevitably intrude more onto the historical viewsheds of the Battlefield.

The following observations are made based on the present highway construction and improvement project priorities as indicated by project completion dates in the current CLRP (these priorities are subject to change).  The DEIS assertion that the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. will be completed before any bypass appears likely.  The 2004 CLRP lists the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. completion date as 2012, and a VDOT proposal would have included Alt. D in the 2005 CLRP with a completion date of 2021 (this proposal was deleted at the request of the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division).  If the CLRP completion dates are a reliable guide, it appears likely that TCP Alt. C (the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.) with a completion date of 2012 will be part of the CTB authorized north-south corridor, rather than TCP F (east of the MNBP) with a completion date of 2020.  However, the TCP segment south of I-66 (TCP E) with a CLRP completion date of 2015 is likely to be constructed as a stand-alone project before a bypass since it would serve as an alternate route accessing I-66, thus relieving the congestion on both VA 28 north of Manassas and on Sudley Road at the dysfunctional I-66 / VA 234 Bus. interchange.

Both the DEIS text and the detailed Build Alt. maps are confusing and self-contradicting because the Study has incorporated incompatible presumptions concerning future road programs.  It would appear that much of the text, impact analyses, and most features of the detailed maps presume the Build Alt. bypasses are stand-alone projects, and that neither north-south corridor has been constructed.  Projected traffic volume, LOS assessments, and significant detailed map features presume both the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and the TCP have been built.  The scenario we feel is most likely (the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and TCP Alt. E both constructed, with Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane closed) is not considered.

MNBP Management Plan:

Specific plans for managing access to the MNBP in the event Rtes 29 and 234 are closed to through traffic should be made public along with the Study’s final build recommendation.

·        Plans for visitors should include provisions for the congregation of Sudley UMC, visitors to the Stonewall Memorial Gardens, boarders of and service for Paul Carter’s stable, customers of the meat packing facility, and guests and services for resident in-holders.

·        Residents outside of the MNBP who currently use Rtes 29 and 234 through the Park for access to their properties should be advised if they will continue to have use of Park roads.

Defining Private In-Holdings (3.4)

The Study has only addressed those private property in-holdings that are within the Legislative Boundary of the MNBP.  This would be appropriate if the Study was focused on acquiring additional land for the Park, but the Study’s objective is to assess the viability of closing routes 29 and 234 within the Battlefield to through traffic.  For the Study’s purpose, in-holdings should be redefined as those properties whose access would be controlled by the Park once the MNBP was closed to through traffic.

Gating Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane (Figs. 4.2 – 4.6)

Projected traffic flow analyses for all build options indicate the Study does not allow for the closure of Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane to through traffic.  This road should be gated to facilitate controlled access to the Park, and to preserve the integrity of the Battlefield.  Traffic volume on Featherbed Lane as high as 7,500 vehicles per day is projected by 2025 (the present traffic volume is less than 500 vehicles per day).  This traffic volume would seriously compromise the historic interpretation of Second Manassas.  The present unpaved segment of Featherbed Lane could not possibly sustain this volume of traffic, but the DEIS does not contain any proposal for upgrading this country lane.  The traffic flow projections for all routes affected by the gating of Groveton Road and Featherbed Lane should be recalculated.

US 29 and VA 234 Projected Traffic Flow (Figs. 4.1 – 4.6)

It would be helpful if the projected daily traffic flow for US 29 west of the MNBP, and VA 234 south of the MNBP and west of Sudley Park were included in the 2025 traffic volume figures.  At present, only the projected traffic flow for US 29 east of the MNBP is shown.

Recommendations:

·        Prepare a single model presuming the most likely road projects in place by 2025, apply that model to all of the Study’s impact and performance analyses.  We suggest this model incorporate the following presumptions:

o       Presume the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. connecting to Loudoun County and the TCP E connecting Sudley Road to I-66 will have been completed, but that the TCP F connecting to Loudoun County will not be built.

o       Presume that Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane will be closed to through traffic when US 29 and VA 234 within the Park are closed to through traffic.

·        Update the official detailed Build Alt. maps accessed from the Study’s Battlefield Bypass website to include the proposed Rte 234 Bypass Ext. connections with US 29 and approved Build Alt. design changes.  These maps are valuable because they allow viewers to zoom in and study design details, such as intersection / interchange configuration and number of traffic lanes proposed.

·        The MNBP announce a comprehensive plan for managing access to the Park with the Study’s announcement of its final Build Alt. recommendation.

·        The Study redefine private property in-holders as those properties whose access would be controlled by the Park once the MNBP was closed to through traffic.

·        The Study addresses the issue of Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane:

o       Join the Friends in our appeal for VDOT to cede the Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane ROW to NPS when Rtes 29 and 234 within the Park are closed to through traffic.

o       Recalculate projected traffic volumes and reevaluate affected LOS assessments presuming Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane has been closed to through traffic.

·        Include complete traffic volume projections for roads entering the MNBP, and roads directly affected by Build Alt. decisions.

RTE 234 BYPASS, A LEG OF THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR?

One suspects there exists a direct correlation between the number of names assigned to a proposed Virginia highway and the degree of controversy generated by that highway.  This certainly appears to be true of the planned extension of the Rte 234 Bypass north from its existing interchange with I-66 to connect to the Loudoun County Parkway.

The Study has referred to the proposed highway connecting the 234 Bypass / I-66 interchange to Sudley Road at Sudley Park as Concept 1, Corridor 1 and finally as the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (though the DEIS also recognizes that the proposed Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would extend to the Loudoun County Line).  The CLRP has designated the proposed corridor from the I-66 / 234 Bypass interchange to the Loudoun County line as the VA 234 Bypass or the VA 234 (Manassas Bypass).  PWC has referred to this same road as the Route 234 North, and VDOT designates it the Rte 234 North Bypass Ext.  VDOT’s TCP Study tags the same alignment as TCP Alt. C.  All of these aliases refer to the same proposed highway, which we will refer to as the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

The highway segment in Loudoun County that the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would link to bears three separate designations.  The CLRP identifies the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. connection in Loudoun County as the Rte 659 Relocated.  VDOT’s TCP Study names this same link as TCP Alt. G, and Loudoun County officials have referred to it as the Loudoun County Parkway [Extension].

By whatever name, connecting VA 234 / Prince William Parkway in PWC with the Loudoun Parkway in Loudoun County will complete the supposedly abandoned Western Transportation Corridor (WTC).  If completed, the WTC would extend from Dumfries along Rte 234 and Rte 234 Bypass, continue along the Study’s Rte 234 Bypass Ext., cross Sudley Road at the Sudley Park, and proceed into Loudoun County to connect to the Loudoun Parkway at Braddock Road.  This major north-south corridor would provide a trucking and commuter highway connecting US 1, I-95, Prince William Parkway, the Manassas Regional Airport, VA 28, the hoped for industrial centers in PWC, I-66, US 29, US 50, the industrial and commercial center planned in Loudoun County, the western docks for air freight at Dulles International Airport, and US 7.

Anyone who doubts that the Study’s 234 Bypass Ext. alignment was planned to accommodate the WTC should ask this question: Why did every variation of the Study’s Rte 234 Bypass Ext. terminate at PWC’s Sudley Park?  Even when three diverging alignments for the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. were explored, all three converged to terminate at the Sudley Park.  The answer is that PWC owns a dedicated ROW adjacent to the Sudley Park that extends north from Sudley Road toward the Loudoun County line.  This ROW is outside of the scope of the Battlefield Bypass Study, but is significant because it was acquired to accommodate another segment of the WTC alignment.  The Study consistently portrayed six lanes of traffic (four lanes on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and two lanes on Pageland Lane) from US 29 at Pageland Lane to terminate on a two-lane country road (Sudley Road).   The Study maps superimpose the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. on a broad corridor designated the Proposed Tri-County Parkway Alternative C, another euphemism for the WTC.  Only now does the DEIS officially acknowledge that the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. will link to Loudoun County.

The Battlefield Bypass Study will provide the EIS and define the precise alignment for the critical and controversial segment of this highway north from the I-66 / Rte 234 Bypass interchange, onto the Manassas Battlefield, and through private property to its intersection with Sudley Road at the Sudley Park.  PWC is conducting its own study to extend the Rte 234 Bypass to the Loudoun County line, and has acknowledged PWC will incorporate the Battlefield Bypass Study’s Rte 234 Bypass Ext. final EIS into that study.  The TCP Study is reviewing three alignments, and the CTB will bless one as the preferred north-south trucking/commuter corridor.  We feel the most likely route to be authorized by Virginia will incorporate TCP Alt C (the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.), TCP Alt. G (an alignment connecting the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. to the Loudoun County Parkway at Braddock Road), and TCP F’ (the not yet completed Loudoun County Parkway between Braddock Road and US 7).  The planned simultaneous completion of these three studies (Battlefield Bypass, PWC, and TCP) will pave the way for completing this major Prince William Loudoun County connector before any Battlefield bypass can be built. The Study’s role in this endeavor is reflected in the DEIS repeated assertions that the Rte 234 Bypass North will be built before any bypass is constructed.

There are additional reasons for presuming that the existing Rte 324 and the Study’s 234 Bypass Ext. will be incorporated into the WTC:

·        Acquisition of ROW and actual construction of segments of Rtes 234 and 234 Bypass as part of a planned PWC / Loudoun County connector are documented as early as 1980.  These concrete commitments to the Rte 234 corridor dramatically predated a more controversial WTC proposal for an alignment from Fredericksburg through Fauquier County, and the TCP Study, both put forth in the mid-1990s.  All of the officially designated WTC alignments have been withdrawn, and only now is it apparent that the TCP Study will be the instrument that will ultimately define the north-south trucking/commuter corridor.

·        Segments of the WTC have been and are being built in increments even when other projects that appeared to have a higher priority were shelved for lack of funds (VDOT has purchased ROW and is widening Rte 234 between Montclair and Independence Hill while critical sections of I-95, I-66, VA 28 and US 29 remain gridlocked).

·        ROW has been obtained and much of the Loudoun County Parkway has been constructed between Braddock Road and US 7.

·        Most of the WTC, by whatever name we choose to call it, has already or is being constructed as a major four-lane north-south trucking/commuter corridor.  Only a few miles past the MNBP and across low density / rural land remain to complete the WTC.

THE RTE 234 BYPASS EXTENSION:

The Rte 234 Bypass Ext. is best defined by the Alt. G’s alignment for relocating the present Rte 234 in the Park.  From south to north, this alignment starts at the I-66 / Rte 234 Bypass interchange, proceeds northward to cross over US 29 just south of the present 29 / Pageland Lane intersection, continues north on Manassas Battlefield land between Pageland Lane and the high tension power lines, exits the MNBP and veers slightly east to intersect Sudley Road just east of the Sudley Park.  Alts. A, B, C and D would locate portions of their US 29 and Rte 234 bypasses on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment.

We believe the DEIS Rte 234 Bypass Ext. design is grossly undersized for the following reasons:

·        The DEIS presumes the TCP F north of I-66 will also be built and will carry even more north-south traffic than the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.  We expect Virginia’s CTB to approve either the TCP F or the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. as one leg of an authorized north-south corridor, but not both.  In any event, we do not believe there will be funds available by 2025 to build TCP F in addition to the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.  Unless existing commitments are retracted, we expect the CTB to bless the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and anticipate that most of the DEIS projected TCP F traffic will actually be carried by the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

·        The DEIS does not mention either the Prince William or Loudoun County Parkways.  The Prince William Parkway is currently co-located with the Rte 234 Bypass at the I-66 / Rte 234 Bypass interchange, and the most likely link-up in Loudoun County would connect the partially completed Loudoun County Parkway with the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.  Connecting these two busy arterials will create an additional and independent source of traffic on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

·        Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane should be gated and closed to through traffic, adding most of its projected daily traffic onto the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

An Alternative to the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.:

The DEIS does not consider the real possibility that the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. may not be built before a Bypass Build Alt. is constructed.  Plans to extend the Rte 234 Bypass could be shelved if the CTB authorizes the TCP east of the MNBP instead of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., or if there is no funding available for either north-south corridor.

The Friends advocate relocating Rte 234 onto Pageland Lane if Alt. G is finally approved as the bypass build option, and if the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. is not constructed as part of a north-south highway connecting PWC and Loudoun County.  Pageland Lane would have to be upgraded and connected to a completed I-66 / US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass interchange.  This version of Alt G would provide the least expensive option for relocating Rte 234, and impose the least adverse impact on the Battlefield of any build alt. still under consideration.  An upgraded Pageland Lane should be able to accommodate the volume of traffic if the Rte 234 Bypass is not connected to Loudoun County, especially if the TCP has been constructed east of the Park.

Pros: Rte 234 Bypass Extension

·        The Study’s Rte 234 Bypass Ext. forms a logical connector to the existing Rte 234 Bypass, and would efficiently reroute VA 234 and/or US 29 traffic currently transecting the heart of the MNBP.

·        It is an integral part of each and every build option still under consideration.

·        While a portion of this route would take Park land, this portion is located north of US 29 between Pageland Lane and the high tension power lines on the extreme western border of the MNBP.  This strip is already corrupted by the presence of the power lines, and is far less intrusive than the original VA 234 extension ROW alignment that would have run through the Brawner farm and across the most sensitive section of the Unfinished Railroad Grade.

·        The WTC would promote professional and technical jobs in both Prince William and Loudoun Counties, expanding the tax base and facilitating local commutes.

Cons:  Rte 234 Bypass Extension

·        A full-blown separated grade interchange would be necessary to efficiently merge US 29 and WTC traffic should the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. become the WTC.  For No Action and Alts. A, B, C and D, this interchange would be located at the present intersection of US 29 and Pageland Lane, in full view of the Park Administrative Complex and an important Second Manassas interpretive site at Lee’s Overlook.

·        At least six lanes would be required to accommodate the combined US 29, VA 234 and WTC traffic if Alts. A, B, C or D were constructed.

·        A second interchange would be required for Alts. A, B, C and D where the northern leg of the relocated US 29 diverged from a Rte 234 Bypass Ext. that extended into Loudoun County.

·        The interchange / intersection for Alt. G is incomplete as proposed, and does not allow for convenient access for all traffic between US 29 and the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

·        11.2 acres of Park land will be taken to locate the 234 Bypass Ext. between Pageland Lane and the high tension power lines on the western border of the MNBP.

·        The Draft EIS data does not identify homes displaced by the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. independent of total displacements incurred by each Build Alternative, but it does appear that there are homes jeopardized by the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

·        While homes and farms west of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would continue to be serviced by Pageland Lane, there are residences east of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. that would be isolated without provisions made to access their property.

·        The WTC would be a major trucking corridor and hazmat carrier dramatically increasing regional traffic volume, and impacting local roads and existing corridors that are already congested.  Consequently, PWC commuters would have to compete with increasing numbers of long haul trucks on Rte 234 and the Prince William Parkway.

·        Completing the WTC would open the rural landscape north of the Battlefield to extensive commercial and residential development, further increasing regional traffic congestion.

Recommendations: Rte 234 Bypass Extension

Advocate relocating Rte 234 within the MNBP onto an upgraded Pageland Lane if the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. is not to be built for any reason, and if the Alt. G US 29 is recommended. 

Implement the following recommendations should Virginia’s CTB decree that the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. be approved as the TCP Alt. C:

·        Remodel the 2025 projected daily traffic volume displayed in Figs. 4.1 – 4.6, to include the following presumptions:

o       The Rte 234 Bypass Ext. has been built and extended into Loudoun County.

o       The TCP north of I-66 has not been built, but the TCP south of I-66 has been built.

o       Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane has been closed to through traffic.

o       The Prince William Parkway has been linked to the Loudoun County Parkway.

·        Upgrade the Rt. 234 Bypass Ext. design to accommodate the revised projected 2025 daily traffic volume, and include this revision in the detailed Alt. maps.

·        Presume the US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. intersection/interchange will also have to accommodate TCP, Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane, and local parkway traffic.  Assess the LOS for an on-grade [traffic light] US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. intersection for No Action and Alts. A, B, C and D (we anticipate a failing LOS).  Reassess the LOS for an upgraded US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. separated grade interchange.

·        Design a US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. separated grade interchange for No Action and Alts. A, B, C and D.  Design the divergence interchanges between the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and US 29 for Alts. A, B, C and D.  Revise the detailed Alt. maps to include these interchanges.

·        Revise the Alt. G design as follows:

o       Design an I-66 / US 29 / 234 Bypass interchange at the southwest corner of the MNBP that provides convenient mutual access between these highways.

o       Relocate Pageland Lane west of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and close (not just gate) the US 29 western entrance to the MNBP if Alt. G is constructed.  These actions would permit an on-grade design for the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., minimizing intrusion into the Lee’s Overlook viewshed.

o       Design the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. to be free of intersections/interchanges from the I-66 / US 29 / 234 Bypass interchange to Sudley Road.

o       Include these revisions in the detailed Alt. G map.

·        Unfortunately, there are few cost-effective and practical remedies for the intrusion into sensitive viewsheds and the traffic noise pollution that would result from the construction of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.  Sound barriers may be beneficial, and trees planted either by the MNBP or along the highway ROWs may be appropriate and could effectively alleviate intrusion in the future.  These remedies could also be applied to reduce adverse impact on private properties.

·        Provide at least one overpass or underpass crossing the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. and connecting Pageland Lane with the properties isolated by the construction of the 234 Bypass Ext.

·        Inform the public of the likelihood that a major north-south trucking / commuter corridor connecting Prince William and Loudoun Counties will be built on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment.

·        Inform the public that if the WTC is built on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment, a separated grade interchange at its intersection with US 29 will be necessary if US 29 is not relocated, or if Alts. A, B, C or D are built.  Raising public awareness could favor the selection of Alt. G, or at least influence engineers to design a less intrusive interchange.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE D (The Study’s Preferred Option)

Alt. D merges US 29 with the 234 Bypass Ext. at the present US 29 / Pageland Lane intersection, the combined Rtes 29 and 234 proceed north on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment to just south of Sudley Road.  Rte 234 will continue on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (assuming that highway has previously been built) to intersect with and proceed on Sudley Road to its present terminus at US 15.  US 29 diverges eastward to join and displace the existing Sudley Road southeast for about one mile to the Robin Drive intersection, continues independent of Sudley Road just south of the Bull Run Overlook community, bridges Bull Run, follows the north bank of Bull Run skirting the Fairfax National Golf Course, bridges Bull Run again to avoid the Field of Dreams recreational park, crosses the northeast corner of the MNBP, bridges Bull Run a third time, and turns south to merge with the present US 29 alignment east of the MNBP. See the separate analysis of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. for an in depth assessment of that portion of the Alt. D Build Option.

The official high resolution Alt. D detailed map.

The official low resolution Alt. D detailed map.

·        Alt. D does remove both US 29 and Rte 234 from the heart of the Battlefield and does relocate 29 and 234 traffic to less intrusive locations, restoring the MNBP integrity at its core, and providing visitors an enriched historic experience and unfettered access to most of the Park.

·        As designed, the four-lane limited access Alt. D design could improve through traffic flow past the MNBP.

·        Alt. D would divert the overflow traffic expected to enter PWC from Loudoun County’s growing residential population, ensuring this traffic will not compound PWC traffic congestion south and southwest of the Battlefield.  This feature may be the primary reason Alt. D is favored by PWC officials and planners.

·        A number of interpretive sites on the MNBP would be compromised by the sight and/or sound of Alt. D highway and traffic.  Lee’s Overlook and the Park Administration for certain, portions of the Unfinished Railroad Interpretive Trail would likely be impacted, the present view of historic Sudley Springs Ford from below the Thornberry House would be devastated, and the historic Poplar Ford and vicinity would be isolated and corrupted by the intrusive presence of US 29 within the Park.

·        It is difficult to determine by how much, or even if, Alt. D would improve US 29 commutes past the MNBP. Instead of the current single traffic light, the Study's Alt. D design would require US 29 traffic to negotiate three traffic light intersections, and a fourth would be necessary to avoid failing LOS access to US 29 from a realigned Aldie Road and Marble Hill Drive. In addition, the Alt. D US 29 bypass is nearly twice as long as the present US 29 through the Battlefield. In any event, the Study's Alt. D is projected with a failing LOS, and would be totally inadequate if the TCP was not available to share the load. If Alt. D incorporates the only north-south corridor connecting PWC and Loudoun County, we believe its Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would require six lanes and two separated grade interchanges to be functional, in addition to two traffic light intersections on the Alt. D US 29 bypass

·        Visitors to the MNBP accessing the Park from US 29 are apt to find it confusing and difficult to find the Park entrance.  We may surmise that, should the MNBP be closed to through traffic, only one entrance gate will be maintained due to staffing constraints, and that entrance gate will be located on the south side of the Park to provide convenient access from I-66.  Visitors whose maps depict US 29 on the border of and within the MNBP may not be looking for signs to the Battlefield directing them onto I-66 as far away as Centreville.

·        Implementing Alt. D would encourage residential and commercial development in the low density / rural neighborhoods along the 234 Bypass Ext. north of the MNBP and on the leg of US 29 between Sudley Park and Robin Drive.  This development would add to the volume of area traffic and eventually defeat the intended concept of limiting access to the bypasses, creating additional sources of gridlock for through traffic.

·        At least 25 private properties and the Mt. Cavalry Church and cemetery directly or indirectly access the present Sudley Road between Sudley Park and Robin Drive, a stretch of road that would be displaced by a limited access segment of US 29.  It would be impractical and unsafe for these private driveways to directly access US 29, yet the Alt. D design map does not depict any other provision for accessing these homes or the church.  The number of homes isolated obviously is not included in the thirteen homes that would be displaced by Alt. D.  Nor have frontage roads on both sides of this segment of the proposed US 29 alignment, the property required for frontage road ROWs, and the cost of these frontage roads been included in Alt. D data.

·        Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane access US 29 with separate T-intersections that are too close together to permit traffic lights.  These intersections would likely be dysfunctional and unsafe during rush hour.

·        The watershed and floodplain on the north side of Catharpin Run would be severely impacted by the extensive berm required by the construction of US 29.

·        As noted by the Study, the Bull Run Overlook community would be severely impacted by the presence of the Alt. D US 29 alignment.

·        Three separate crossing of Bull Run must have a cumulative impact on the Bull Run watershed.

·        The Study only totals the Park acreage lost to bypass ROWs, but the acreage isolated in the northeast corner of the MNBP by the intrusion of Alt. D’s US 29 alignment should also be considered as lost.  Even if accessible by hiking or equestrian trails, any historical interpretive value of this corner of the Park and the historical Poplar Ford would be totally compromised by the presence of US 29.  Isolating this corner of the Battlefield would prevent the Park from interpreting the significant action that occurred there during the Union retreat at the close of Second Manassas on August 30, 1862.

·        The Study has proposed providing equestrian trail access under US 29 in the northeast corner of the Park.  Presumably, this access would utilize a previously existing bridle path along Bull Run.  This bridle path involves a very steep grade along a sheer drop with tree roots and other obstacles, and has been closed because it was deemed treacherous for unskilled riders and horses that are not trail savvy.  In short, this trail was deemed unsafe without the distraction of passing under a major highway.  A significant number of the equestrians regularly utilizing the 28 miles of developed bridle paths on the MNBP access the Park through the northeast corner.  Loss of this access route could compromise the supportive and beneficial equestrian program on the Battlefield, and jeopardize commercial equestrian stables that successfully market access to the Battlefield trail system.

Recommendations: Build Alternative D

·        Reject Build Alt. D.

·        Unfortunately, there are a limited number of remedies for the intrusion into the Park’s historic viewsheds and for the traffic noise generated by Alt. D highways.  Sound barriers may be beneficial.  Trees planted either by the MNBP or along the highways may be appropriate, and could effectively alleviate intrusion in the future.  These remedies could also be applied to reduce adverse impact on private properties.

·        Ensure adequate signage is posted on both US 29 and I-66 directing potential Park visitors to the public entrance gate for the MNBP should US 29 and Rte 234 be closed to through traffic.

·        Perform LOS evaluations of the US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. design intersection, the US 29 divergence from the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. intersection with Sudley Road, the US 29 / Sudley Road intersection at Sudley Park, and the US 29 / Sudley Road-Robin Drive intersection.

·        Upgrade the detailed Alt. D map, presuming the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. has been built, to show the US 29 divergence from Rte 234 Bypass Ext., and the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. crossing Sudley Road and extending toward Loudoun County.  Make design changes as necessary to ensure satisfactory LOS, including additional traffic lanes and interchanges.

·        Provide access for those properties isolated by the existing Alt. D design on both sides of US 29 between Sudley Park and Robin Drive.  Additional impact on these properties should be minimized.  Frontage roads and/or a network of connecting lanes, possibly utilizing Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane, could be employed, but accessing US 29 with individual private driveways must be avoided.

·        Assess the LOS for the unsignalized intersections of Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane with US 29.  If these intersections are LOS F as we anticipate, realign Aldie Road with Marble Hill Lane, and add a traffic light intersection at that location.  Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane could be employed to provide access for the properties on either side of US 29 isolated by the Study's Alt. D design.

·        Consult with the equine organizations using the Park to ensure viable and safe bridle paths accessing the MNBP, especially in the northeast corner isolated by the Alt. D US 29.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE G (The Friends Preferred Option)

Alt. G is the only remaining build option that would relocate US 29 south of the MNBP.  The Alt. G design diverges US 29 from the present US 29 alignment west of the MNBP, and directs it southeast, bridges the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. just north of the I-66 / Rte 234 Bypass interchange, proceeds east on Park land paralleling I-66 along the southern border of the MNBP, intersects Groveton Road, continues east along southern border of MNBP, displaces Bulloch Drive in Park Gate Shopping Center, intersects Sudley Road, proceeds eastward displacing Battleview Parkway to its terminus, continues east displacing Vandor Lane on Park land, bridges Bull Run at the historic Ball’s Ford, and angles northeast to rejoin the present US 29 alignment east of Bull Run Post Office Road (BRPOR).  An alternate US 29 alignment is included in the event that the TCP is constructed north of I-66 on the eastern border of the MNBP. See the separate analysis of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. for an in depth assessment of that portion of the Alt. G Build Option.

The official high resolution Alt. G detailed map.

The official low resolution Alt. G detailed map.

Alt. G, as presented in the DEIS and by the official detailed map, is dysfunctional and fails on a number of counts.  With major surgery and by invoking several assumptions that we believe represent the most likely developments, Alt. G can be transformed into the most efficient traffic mover and the only build option design without traffic lights, left turn lanes, or intersections.  Our proposed modifications preserve Alt. G’s two most valuable characteristics: of all the options, Alt. G poses the least threat to the MNBP, and disrupts the fewest communities.

Presumptions:

The Friends anticipate the following transportation decisions will have been implemented by the time the Alt. G bypass could be placed in service:

·        The Rte 234 Bypass Ext. will be completed before Alt. G is constructed, and it will be a major north-south trucking and commuter connector.

·        The Rte 234 Bypass Ext. traffic volume will exceed the capacity of four lanes and on-grade traffic light intersections, even if US 29 is diverted onto the Alt. G alignment.

·        Groveton Road / Featherbed Lane will be closed to through traffic when Alt. G is completed.

·        The TCP F (north of I-66) will not be completed before Alt. G, but the TCP E (south of I-66) will be built. 

The Friends do not advocate linking PWC and Loudoun County via the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., but we do recognize that this connection will most likely be built.  If a major north-south highway must be built, the Friends prefer the TCP to the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

Engineering / Design Modifications:

·        Redesign US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. interchange to provide mutual access via ramps.

·        Redesign Rte 234 Bypass Ext. with 6 lanes and separated grade interchanges.  No interchange or intersection is necessary in the vicinity of the present US 29 / Pageland Lane intersection (this would entail closing the present US 29 western entrance to the Park).

·        Relocate Pageland Lane so it is entirely west of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

·        Remove the US 29 / Groveton Road intersection and extend the Groveton Road overpass to include both I-66 and US 29.

·        Relocate US 29 so it is not co-located with either Bulloch Drive or Battleview Parkway.  Design ramps linking US 29 to Bulloch Drive and to Battleview Parkway.  Access to Sudley Road would remain at the existing Bulloch Drive / Battleview Parkway / Sudley Road traffic light intersection.  Design a US 29 / Sudley Road overpass that would not interfere with the I-66 / Sudley Road ramps.

·        Relocate the proposed Alt. G US 29 east of Bull Run so that it does not displace any private homes.  Implement the option to connect the Alt. G US 29 bypass to the present US 29 alignment east of Bull Run Post Office Road.

·        Alt. G does remove both US 29 and Rte 234 from the heart of the Battlefield and does relocate 29 and 234 traffic to less intrusive locations, restoring the integrity of the MNBP and providing visitors an enriched historic experience and unfettered access to most of the Park.

·        Alt. G is the least objectionable build alternate because it alone is located on the already corrupted southern border of the MNBP.  The US 29 traffic noise and intrusion into historical viewsheds are mitigated by presence of I-66, school campuses, commercial and industrial complexes.

·        The modified Alt. G design provides for a US 29 bypass that is free of traffic lights and intersections for its entire length.

·        The modified Alt. G design should ensure the interchanges, intersections and roadways directly affected by Alt. G are restored to a satisfactory LOS.

·        Alt. G is the only Study option that would not require a separated grade US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. interchange at the present location of the US 29 / Pageland Lane intersection, in full view of Lee’s Overlook and the Park Administration complex.

·        Alt. G would provide convenient access for MNBP visitors driving to the MNBP on US 29, since it may be presumed that the only visitor gate to a closed Battlefield would be located on the south side of the Park.

·        For the most part, Alt. G locates US 29 either on Park land or through an industrial / commercial community that is already developed.  Consequently, Alt. G would facilitate far less development that would impact the MNBP than any of the other build alternatives.

·        Alt. G impacts fewer homes and communities than any other build option.  It alone does not compromise any of the communities north of the MNBP that have served as valuable buffers for the Battlefield.

·        The modified Alt. G would not require the removal of any business or large structure, or the realignment of either Bulloch Drive or Battleview Parkway.

·        Congressman Wolf has stated that he will oppose any Bypass that displaces private homes.  Only Alt. G modified could win his support, and Congressman Wolf’s support is essential if federal funding for Bypass construction is to be obtained.

·        Alt. G’s capability to accommodate future growth of traffic demands is the most limited of all of the build options.  Its proposed location adjacent to I-66 severely restricts the prospects for future widening of either I-66 or US-29 south of the Battlefield.  The Friends’ proposed modifications do not resolve this objection.

·        No direct access is provided for Rte 234 Bypass traffic (either northbound or southbound) onto US 29 east.  Rte 234 Bypass traffic desiring to access US 29 east must either travel west on US 29 and make a u-turn, or take I-66 east to Sudley Road or one of the I-66 / US 29 interchanges east of the Battlefield.  (Addressed by Alt. G modifications and presumptions.)

·        Alt. G creates unacceptable traffic congestion during PM rush hour on Sudley Rd (Rte 234 Bus.), on Battleview Parkway, by westbound I-66 traffic exiting onto northbound Rte 234 Bypass Ext., at the US 29 / Balls Ford Road intersection, and at the Rte 659 / Sudley Road intersection.  (Addressed by Alt. G modifications and presumptions.)

·        VDOT legitimately objects to Alt. G’s extended proximity of I-66 and US 29 alignments, noting the increased risk that a hazmat accident could close both.  The DEIS repeatedly asserts that the TCP will be completed before any bypass.  While it is unlikely that the TCP leg north of I-66 would have been built, the southern leg of the TCP connecting I-66 to Rte 234 at VA 28 (CLRP completion date 2015) will probably be built before Alt. G could be constructed.  This south leg of the TCP would provide a viable emergency bypass route in the event a hazmat accident closed both I-66 and Rte 29 along the Alt. G alignment.

·        Alt. G is already the most expensive build option.  The additional ramps, ROW acquisition and the US 29 / Sudley Road overpass entailed by the proposed modifications would add to the cost of modified Alt. G. However, the modifications and presumptions we propose would mitigate the comparable expense of Alt. G as follows

• The expense of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. / US 29 interchange at the present intersection of Pageland Lane and US 29 (required by all northern build alts.) would offset or exceed the cost of expanding the I-66 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. interchange to accommodate US 29.

• Removing the Study's Alt G US 29 / Groveton Road intersection would eliminate an expensive fill required to raise US 29 bypass to the overpass elevation.

• Bulloch Drive and Battleview Pkwy would not have to be realigned.

• Neither businesses nor homes need be displaced by the modified Alt. G US 29 bypass.

·        Loudoun County overflow traffic would be funneled onto the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., the Alt. G US 29 bypass, and I-66 to merge with and further congest PWC and Fauquier County traffic west and south of the MNBP.

·        Alt. G’s alignment could interfere with the ongoing installation of wetlands by the Smithsonian in the Stuart’s Hill tract.

·        The Study Summary’s assessment that the Small Whorled Pogonia (an endangered species of orchid) would be impacted by Alt. G may be misleading.  The Draft EIS paragraph regarding Threatened and Endangered Species (Chap. 4.22, p. 187) states “A cursory inspection in July 2004 by surveyor confirmed low-to-moderate habitat quality and that presence of pogonia is not likely.”  A single transient sighting of a bald eagle near the Groveton / I-66 bridge was noted, but no nests or fledge sites were observed in that vicinity.

·        Recommend funding and constructing a modified Build Alt. G.

·        Implement the design modifications enumerated above.

·        Recalculate projected daily 2025 traffic volume and reassess LOS for affected interchanges, intersections and roads incorporating Alt. G design modifications and presumptions, and the pertinent recommendations we have made for the Build Alts. including our recommendations for the Rte 234 Bypass Ext.

·        The Friends should make every effort to ensure that no recommended build option threatens an endangered species, especially the modified Alt. G design we advocate.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE A

Alt. A merges US 29 with the 234 Bypass Ext. at the present US 29 / Pageland Lane intersection, the combined Rtes 29 and 234 proceed north just within the MNBP western boundary on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment between the power lines and Pageland Lane.  Rte 234 will continue on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (assuming that highway has previously been built) to intersect with and proceed on Sudley Road to its present terminus at US 15.  US 29 diverges from the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment northeastward as it exits the Park property, snakes through a number of private rural holdings, usurps parts of several Sudley Mountain Estates properties and a portion of the Davis Tract.  US 29 intersects Sudley Road with a separated grade interchange just east of the Sudley Road / Gum Spring Road intersection, proceeds northeast through the heart of Bull Run Overlook community, and bridges Bull Run into Fairfax County.  The alignment proceeds eastward north of Fairfax National Golf Course through a traffic light intersection accessing Fairfax National Estates and the golf course, continues north of the Field of Dreams recreation park before turning south east of Bull Run and the MNBP to intersect the present US 29 ROW just west of the quarries. See the separate analysis of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. for an in depth assessment of that portion of the Alt. A Build Option.

The official high resolution Alt. A detailed map.

The official low resolution Alt. A detailed map.

·        Alt. A does remove both US 29 and Rte 234 from the heart of the Battlefield and does relocate 29 and 234 traffic to less intrusive locations, restoring the MNBP integrity at its core, and providing visitors an enriched historic experience and unfettered access to most of the Park.

·        As designed, the four-lane limited access Alt. A design should dramatically improve through traffic flow past the MNBP.

·        Alt. A design provides one of the shortest US 29 bypasses of all the Build Alts.

·        Alt A, with Alt. B requires the least land from the MNBP and associated historic district.

·        A number of interpretive sites on the MNBP would be compromised by the sight and/or sound of Alt. A highway and traffic.  Lee’s Overlook and the Park Administration for certain, and portions of the Unfinished Railroad Interpretive Trail would likely be impacted.

·        The Study's Alt. A is projected with a failing LOS, and would be totally inadequate if the TCP was not available to share the load. If Alt. A incorporates the only north-south corridor connecting PWC and Loudoun County, we believe its Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would require six lanes and three separated grade interchanges (two for US 29 traffic, and one for Rte 234 traffic at Sudley Road. In addition, two traffic light intersections would be required on the US 29 bypass.

·        Visitors to the MNBP accessing the Park from US 29 are apt to find it confusing and difficult to find the Park entrance.  We may surmise that, should the MNBP be closed to through traffic, only one entrance gate will be maintained due to staffing constraints, and that entrance gate will be located on the south side of the Park to provide convenient access from I-66.  Visitors whose maps depict US 29 on the border of and within the MNBP may not be looking for signs to the Battlefield directing them onto I-66 as far away as Centreville.

·        The Alt. A US 29 alignment mounts historic Stony Ridge, requiring a major cut and fill and/or an imposing bridge.  This alignment severely impacts several privately owned homes and displaces one in the Stony Ridge / Sudley Mountain community.

·        The Alt. A US 29 directly intrudes onto the historic Davis Tract and its historic easement.

·        The watershed and floodplain on the north side of Catharpin Run would be severely impacted as Alt. A US 29 / Sudley Road interchange ramps and berms.

·        As noted by the Study, the Bull Run Overlook community would be bisected by the Alt. A US 29 alignment, devastating a number of privately owned properties.

·        The Alt. A US 29 alignment appears to isolate six properties in the Fairfax National Estates, and no provisions have been made to provide access for these properties.

·        The Alt. A US 29 would devastate Union Ridge Stables, one of the two largest equestrian facilities directly supporting the Battlefield’s equestrian trails program.

Recommendations: Build Alternative A

·        Reject Build Alt. A.

·        Unfortunately, there are a limited number of remedies for the intrusion into the Park’s historic viewsheds and for the traffic noise generated by Alt. A highways.  Sound barriers may be beneficial.  Trees planted either by the MNBP or along the highways may be appropriate, and could effectively alleviate intrusion in the future.  These remedies could also be applied to reduce adverse impact on private properties.

·        Ensure adequate signage is posted on both US 29 and I-66 directing potential Park visitors to the public entrance gate for the MNBP should US 29 and Rte 234 be closed to through traffic.

·        Perform LOS evaluations of the US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. design intersection, the US 29 divergence from the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. intersection with Sudley Road, the US 29 / Sudley Road interchange, and the US 29 intersection at the entrance to Fairfax National Golf Course.

·        Upgrade the detailed Alt. A map, presuming the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. has been built, to show the US 29 divergence from Rte 234 Bypass Ext., and the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. crossing Sudley Road and extending toward Loudoun County.  Make design changes as necessary to ensure satisfactory LOS, including additional traffic lanes and interchanges.

·        Ensure access to all private properties is provided, and that no property is inadvertently isolated by the Alt. A design.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE B

Alt. B merges US 29 with the 234 Bypass Ext. at the present US 29 / Pageland Lane intersection, the combined Rtes 29 and 234 proceed north on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment to just south of Sudley Road.  Rte 234 will continue on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (assuming that highway has previously been built) to intersect with and proceed on Sudley Road to its present terminus at US 15.  US 29 diverges eastward to join and displace the existing Sudley Road southeast for about one mile where it intersects Sudley Road / Robin Dive at a traffic light intersection, then proceeds independent of Sudley Road to bisect the Bull Run Estates community and bridges Bull Run into Fairfax County.  US 29 is routed north of Fairfax National Golf Course through a traffic light intersection accessing Fairfax National Estates and the golf course, continues north of the Field of Dreams recreation park before turning south east of Bull Run and the MNBP to intersect the present US 29 ROW just west of the quarries. See the separate analysis of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. for an in depth assessment of that portion of the Alt. B Build Option.

The official high resolution Alt. B detailed map.

The official low resolution Alt. B detailed map.

Pros: Build Alternative B

·        Alt. B does remove both US 29 and Rte 234 from the heart of the Battlefield and does relocate 29 and 234 traffic to less intrusive locations, restoring the MNBP integrity at its core, and providing visitors an enriched historic experience and unfettered access to most of the Park.

·        As designed, the four-lane limited access Alt. B design could improve through traffic flow past the MNBP.

·        Alt. B would divert the overflow traffic expected to enter PWC from Loudoun County’s growing residential population, ensuring this traffic will not compound PWC traffic congestion south and southwest of the Battlefield.  This feature will be regarded favorably by PWC officials and planners.

Cons: Build Alternative B

·        A number of interpretive sites on the MNBP would be compromised by the sight and/or sound of Alt. B highway and traffic.  Lee’s Overlook and the Park Administration for certain, and portions of the Unfinished Railroad Interpretive Trail would likely be impacted.

·        It is difficult to determine by how much, or even if, Alt. B would improve US 29 commutes past the MNBP. Instead of the current single traffic light, the Study's Alt. B design would require US 29 traffic to negotiate four traffic light intersections, and a fifth would be necessary to avoid failing LOS access to US 29 from a realigned Aldie Road and Marble Hill Drive. In addition, the Alt. B US 29 bypass is twice as long as the present US 29 through the Battlefield. In any event, the Study's Alt. B is projected with a failing LOS, and would be totally inadequate if the TCP was not available to share the load. If Alt. B incorporates the only north-south corridor connecting PWC and Loudoun County, we believe its Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would require six lanes and two separated grade interchanges to be functional, in addition to three traffic light intersections on the Alt. B US 29 bypass.

·        Visitors to the MNBP accessing the Park from US 29 are apt to find it confusing and difficult to find the Park entrance.  We may surmise that, should the MNBP be closed to through traffic, only one entrance gate will be maintained due to staffing constraints, and that entrance gate will be located on the south side of the Park to provide convenient access from I-66.  Visitors whose maps depict US 29 on the border of and within the MNBP may not be looking for signs to the Battlefield directing them onto I-66 as far away as Centreville.

·        Implementing Alt. B would encourage residential and commercial development in the low density / rural neighborhoods along the 234 Bypass Ext. north of the MNBP and on the leg of US 29 between Sudley Park and Robin Drive.  This development would add to the volume of area traffic and eventually defeat the intended concept of limiting access to the bypasses, creating additional sources of gridlock for through traffic.

·        At least 25 private properties and the Mt. Cavalry Church and cemetery directly or indirectly access the present Sudley Road between Sudley Park and Robin Drive, a stretch of road that would be displaced by a limited access segment of US 29.  It would be impractical and unsafe for these private driveways to directly access US 29, yet the Alt. B design map does not depict any other provision for accessing these homes or the church.  The number of homes isolated obviously is not included in the thirteen homes that would be displaced by Alt. B.  Nor have frontage roads on both sides of this segment of the proposed US 29 alignment, the property required for frontage road ROWs, and the cost of these frontage roads been included in Alt. B data.

·        Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane access US 29 with separate T-intersections that are too close together to permit traffic lights.  These intersections would likely be dysfunctional and unsafe during rush hour.

·        The watershed and floodplain on the north side of Catharpin Run would be severely impacted by the extensive berm required by the construction of US 29.

·        As noted by the Study, the Bull Run Overlook community would be bisected and severely impacted by the Alt. B US 29 alignment.

·        As noted by the Study, the Bull Run Overlook community would be bisected by the Alt. B US 29 alignment, devastating a number of privately owned properties.

·        The Alt. B US 29 alignment appears to isolate six properties in the Fairfax National Estates, and no provisions have been made to provide access for these properties.

·        The Alt. B US 29 would devastate Union Ridge Stables, one of the two largest equestrian facilities directly supporting the Battlefield’s equestrian trails program.

·        Reject Build Alt. B.

·        Unfortunately, there are a limited number of remedies for the intrusion into the Park’s historic viewsheds and for the traffic noise generated by Alt. B highways.  Sound barriers may be beneficial.  Trees planted either by the MNBP or along the highways may be appropriate, and could effectively alleviate intrusion in the future.  These remedies could also be applied to reduce adverse impact on private properties.

·        Ensure adequate signage is posted on both US 29 and I-66 directing potential Park visitors to the public entrance gate for the MNBP should US 29 and Rte 234 be closed to through traffic.

·        Perform LOS evaluations of the US 29 / Rte 234 Bypass Ext. design intersection, the US 29 divergence from the Rte 234 Bypass Ext., the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. intersection with Sudley Road, the US 29 / Sudley Road intersection near Sudley Park, the US 29 / Sudley Road-Robin Drive intersection, and the US 29 intersection at the entrance to Fairfax National Golf Course.

·        Upgrade the detailed Alt. B map, presuming the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. has been built, to show the US 29 divergence from Rte 234 Bypass Ext., and the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. crossing Sudley Road and extending toward Loudoun County.  Make design changes as necessary to ensure satisfactory LOS, including additional traffic lanes and interchanges.

·        Provide access for those properties isolated by the existing Alt. B design on both sides of US 29 between Sudley Park and Robin Drive.  Additional impact on these properties should be minimized.  Frontage roads and/or a network of connecting lanes, possibly utilizing Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane, could be employed, but accessing US 29 with individual private driveways must be avoided.  Ensure access is provided for any Fairfax National Estates properties inadvertently isolated by the Alt. B US 29 bypass design.

·        Assess the LOS for the unsignalized intersections of Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane with US 29.  If these intersections are LOS F as we anticipate, realign Aldie Road with Marble Hill Lane, and add a traffic light intersection at that location.  Aldie Road and Marble Hill Lane could be employed to provide access for the properties on either side of US 29 isolated by the Alt. B design.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE C

Alt. A merges US 29 with the 234 Bypass Ext. at the present US 29 / Pageland Lane intersection, the combined Rtes 29 and 234 proceed north just within the MNBP western boundary on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment between the power lines and Pageland Lane.  Rte 234 will continue on the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. (assuming that highway has previously been built) to intersect with and proceed on Sudley Road to its present terminus at US 15.  US 29 diverges from the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. alignment northeastward as it exits the Park property, snakes through a number of private rural holdings, usurps parts of several Sudley Mountain Estates properties and a portion of the Davis Tract.  US 29 intersects Sudley Road with a separated grade interchange just east of the Sudley Road / Gum Spring Road intersection, continues independent of Sudley Road just south of the Bull Run Overlook community, bridges Bull Run, follows the north bank of Bull Run skirting the Fairfax National Golf Course, bridges Bull Run again to avoid the Field of Dreams recreational park, crosses the northeast corner of the MNBP, bridges Bull Run a third time, and turns south to merge with the present US 29 alignment east of the MNBP. See the separate analysis of the Rte 234 Bypass Ext. for an in depth assessment of that portion of the Alt. C Build Option.

The official high resolution Alt. C detailed map.

The official low resolution Alt. C detailed map.

·        Alt. C does remove both US 29 and Rte 234 from the heart of the Battlefield and does relocate 29 and 234 traffic to less intrusive locations, restoring the MNBP integrity at its core, and providing visitors an enriched historic experience and unfettered access to most of the Park.

·        As designed, the four-lane limited access Alt. C design should dramatically improve through traffic flow past the MNBP.

·        As designed, Alt. C only requires US 29 traffic to negotiate two traffic light intersections, the least of any of the northern build options.

·        A number of interpretive sites on the MNBP would be compromised by the sight and/or sound of Alt. C highway and traffic.  Lee’s Overlook and the Park Administration for certain, portions of the Unfinished Railroad Interpretive Trail would likely be impacted, the present view of historic Sudley Springs Ford from below the Thornberry House would be devastated, and the historic Poplar Ford and vicinity would be isolated and corrupted by the intrusive presence of US 29 within the Park.

·        The Study's Alt. C is projected with a failing LOS, and would be totally inadequate if the TCP was not available to share the load. If Alt. C incorporates the only north-south corridor connecting PWC and Loudoun County, we believe its Rte 234 Bypass Ext. would require six lanes and three separated grade interchanges (two for US 29 traffic, and one for Rte 234 traffic at Sudley Road. In addition, one traffic light intersection would be required on the US 29 bypass.

·        Visitors to the MNBP accessing the Park from US 29 are apt to find it confusing and difficult to find the Park entrance.  We may surmise that, should the MNBP be closed to through traffic, only one entrance gate will be maintained due to staffing constraints, and that entrance gate will be located on the south side of the Park to provide convenient access from I-66.  Visitors whose maps depict US 29 on the border of and within the MNBP may not be looking for signs to the Battlefield directing them onto I-66 as far away as Centreville.

·        The Alt. C US 29 alignment mounts historic Stony Ridge, requiring a major cut and fill and/or an imposing bridge.  This alignment severely impacts several privately owned homes and displaces one in the Stony Ridge / Sudley Mountain community.

·        The Alt. C US 29 directly intrudes onto the historic Davis Tract and its historic easement.