Battlefield Bypasses

The Draft EIS has been published and is accessible on the official Bypass Study web site. The most detailed build option maps available are also available at this web site. These maps are very large PDF files, and the zoom feature on the high resolution maps permit detailed analysis of each engineering proposal.

Build Alternative D has been designated the preferred build option in a formal Bypass Study Draft EIS announcement. The selection of Alternative D at this time does not necessarily mean that D will be the final recommendation.

Explore the Friends comprehensive critique of the Draft EIS on our Bypass Logic page.

BUILD OPTIONS as of January 2004:

The Draft EIS Build Alternative maps are essentially the same as these 2004 maps.

Build Alternative A:

Build Alternative B:

Build Alternative C:

Build Alternative D:

Build Alternative G:

Build Alternative Legend:

Major Developments:

• Build Alternative G (aligning US 29 on and along the southern border of the Battlefield, paralleling I-66) replaces Build Alternative E (colocating US 29 on I-66).

• The Study timeline has been delayed with the EIS phase to be conducted during the summer.

• The Transportation Management System (TMS) option has been dropped.

• The Concept One option has been defined as a single alignment (previously pictured as three alternative alignments.

  All build options will be studied as four lane highways.

March 16 Workshop #4

Assessment of Developments:

• The Friends would prefer to see 29 colocated onto I-66 because a traffic lane on an interstate highway is much more efficient than a traffic lane serving strip malls and negotiating traffic lights. However, we are told that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has refused to sanction colocating 29 onto I-66. Unless the CTB can be persuaded to revise this position, colocating 29 onto I-66 is no longer an option. Of the currently studied Build Options, Alternative G provides for the least intrusive relocation of US 29.

• Further delays are possible.

• The TMS would have utilized and upgraded existing roads, and included colocating 29 onto I-66.

• This single alignment of Concept One will be adopted by Prince William County and Virginia as the alignment for the proposed extension of VA 234. The extended 234 is planned to connect with the Loudoun Parkway to provide the trucking highway linking I-95, I-66, and Dulles Airport.

• Anyone aware of the volume of traffic attempting to traverse the Battlefield on 29 and 234 anticipated that any functional alternatives would have to be four lanes. The initial proposal of two lane routes was deemed to be less invasive than four lane highways, hence more acceptable to the communities affected.

SUMMARY:
Likely results of the Battlefield Bypass Study:

• The Bypass Study's final recommendation will be one of the six surviving Alternatives: No Action, and five Build options incorporating differing combinations of four Concepts (the Transportation System Management option has been dropped).

• The Bypass Study will not result in federal funding of any of the five Build options, and it is likely that 29 and 234 will remain open and that the commuter traffic will remain in the Park.

• Extending 234 to Catharpin (Concept 1), and possibly construction of other Concepts, will be attempted by Virginia and/or Prince William County (PWC) within four years.

• All of the Build Concepts (except for alternative G, and this alternative only because the southern border of the Battlefield is already corrupted) would violate the integrity of the Battlefield, destroy private homes, and invite commercial and residential development to the borders of the Park.

• The Study evaluations and EIS assessments for each alignment will become public documents if the feds do not fund that route. Virginia and Prince William County (PWC) could adopt an available public Study and EIS for their own projects without any obligation to relocate commuter traffic in the Park. A worst case result of the Battlefield Bypass Study would be that routes 29 and 234 and their traffic remain in the Park, AND the destructive northern alignments are built and envelope the Battlefield in urban sprawl!

• The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) must approve the redesignation of highway route numbers in Virginia, regardless of who builds the roads.

Time Line:
It is critically important to recognize the time line for the remainder of the Study. There will be a draft EIS workshop and the final EIS is due for release during the summer of 2004, and then the Study Group will submit the final recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. The earliest we could expect authorization of federal funding of the bypasses would be in the appropriations process in the fall of 2004 for FY 2005. Virginia and PWC could move faster using the existing Bypass Study and EIS if the Study recommends No Action.

On July 16, the Bypass Study Group held Public Workshop #3 and announced the alignments that would be forwarded for EIS assessment. Seven options were still under consideration, including No Action, Transportation System Management, and five Build Alternatives. The proposed Build Alternatives alignments had been narrowed from 1500 foot wide Corridors to 250 foot wide Concepts providing specific routing information. The Build Concepts would also be analyzed as both two lane and four lane roads (only Corridor / Concept 1 had been modeled as a four lane highway in the preliminary study).

Public Workshop #3 official July 16 presentation:

Public Workshop #3 July 16 Brochure:

Four Concepts are combined to form five Build Options, a No Action Option, and an upgrading of existing roads option are still under consideration by the Bypass Study Group as of July 16, 2003:

Concept 1 (extending 234 along the western border of the Battlefield):
It must be noted that the extension of 234 is provided for by all of the Study Alternatives. The Study allows Concept 1 to be built by Virginia or PWC if not by the federal government because extending 234 (as the 234 Bypass) is sanctioned by the PWC Comprehensive Plan and included in the regional Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP).

Concept 1 is presented as a continuation of the 234 / Prince William Parkway four-lane highway with median, and could follow any of three Concept 1 alignments. Corridor / Concept 1 has been modeled as a four lane highway throughout the Bypass Study, a model showing a total of six parallel traffic lanes (four on Concept 1 and two on Pageland Lane) between the 29 / Pageland Lane intersection and the existing two lane 234 Sudley Road near Catharpin.

There is every indication that the Study anticipates that the Concept 1 highway would not terminate at Sudley Road as the Study maps show. All three of the Concept 1 alignments converge at the precise location of a 250 foot dedicated highway right-of-way that extends north from Sudley Road toward Loudoun County. From that location, it is less than five miles across open country to the present terminus of the Loudoun County Parkway. The construction of Concept 1 would constitute a crucial step in connecting the Prince William Parkway and the Loudoun Parkway, forming a Prince William-Loudoun Truckway, a major trucking route bridging the I-95 and the I-66 corridors to Dulles International Airport and vicinity.

Concept 1, by itself, would only relocate 234 traffic. Therefore, it is always depicted in concert with another Concept as a Build Option.

Concepts 2A and 2D:
Concept 2A would loop through low-density neighborhoods north of the Battlefield, is designed to carry both 29 and 234 traffic, and would relocate both routes either by itself or in conjunction with Concepts 1 or 2D. Concept 2D is also located north of the Battlefield and would also accommodate both 29 and 234 traffic, but must be paired with either Concepts 1 or 2A to complete the bypass. Concept 2D has received a great deal of attention because it cuts through the northeast corner of the Battlefield. Both Concepts 2A and 2D would position a major through highway (US 29) on an undeveloped border of a national tourist attraction, thereby inviting extensive commercial and residential development. Both Concepts 2A and 2D would compromise the integrity of the Battlefield by their very presence, and would disrupt the communities that buffer the Park.

Concept 3, Colocating 29 onto I-66:
Concept 3 would involve widening I-66 between Gainesville and Centreville to accommodate US 29 (and some 234) traffic. Concept 1 is combined with Concept 3 to allow closure of both commuter routes within the Battlefield. Colocating 29 onto I-66 is the only surviving Concept that does not compromise the integrity of the Battlefield (the Park's southern border is already corrupted), or devastate the communities buffering the Park. However, Concept 3 is the most expensive remaining option, and fails to provide an emergency alternate route in case of a serious accident on I-66 in the vicinity of the Battlefield.

No Action:
This is the most ambiguous option, in part because there is no map associated with No Action, and because of the assumption that road construction specified in the CLRP will be accomplished. No Action presumes the following:

• No Action recommends that routes 29 and 234 would remain open within the Manassas Battlefield (even if a suitable road were constructed that could relocate the 29 and 234 traffic). This is not clear in the July 16 Bypass Brochure, but is specified on page 18 of the official Public Workshop #3 presentation as the first item under the No Action Alternative.

• No Action presumes that VA 234 from US 1 in Dumfries to its present termination at I-66 will be extended north of I-66 and parallel to Pageland Lane. This extension of 234 is alluded to in the final item under No Action Alternative on page 18 of the official Public Workshop #3 presentation (the route 234 extension is referred to as the Route 234 Bypass Extension because that is how it is designated in the CLRP).

There is a technical but significant distinction between No Action and No Build recommendations which should be noted. A No Build recommendation would allow for the relocation of 29 or 234 traffic onto a newly constructed road (i.e., the 234 extension), permitting the closure 29 and/or 234 in the park even though the Study does not recommend building the new road as a Battlefield Bypass. As previously mentioned, No Action specifies that 29 and 234 should remain open within the Battlefield. These terms have been interchanged in conversation, but No Build does not appear to ever have been an option of the Study.

A No Action recommendation could result in our worst case scenario. Routes 29 and 234 remain open in the Battlefield with a significant increase of traffic, AND the northern bypasses are constructed by the State and Prince William County using the Study evaluations and EIS assessments to expedite their projects.

Transprotation System Management (TSM):
The most comprehensive official explanation of the TSM can be found in the November 2002 Bypass Newsletter.

Essentially, the TSM option would recommend the following:

• Routes 29 and 234 would be closed in the Battlefield, and their traffic relocated onto existing but upgraded roads.

• US 29 would be relocated onto I-66 which would be widened between Gainesville and Centreville to accommodate the additional traffic, and selected I-66 interchanges would be upgraded.

• VA 234 would be relocated onto an upgraded two-lane Pageland Lane, and the interchange at 234 / I-66 would be completed connecting Pageland Lane to the existing 234.

• This option presumes the four-lane extension of 234 north of I-66 and parallel to Pageland Lane would be built, but not as part of the bypass project (note wording of first item under Transportation System Management Alternative on page 19 of the Public Workshop #3 official presentation).

Build Options:
The Build Options still under consideration after July 16 share the following characteristics:

• Routes 29 and 234 would be closed within the Manassas Battlefield, and their traffic would be relocated onto the recommended alternative route(s) which would be constructed with federal or a combination of federal and state/local funding.

• All of the alternatives, except for Alternative E which colocates 29 onto I-66, would combine both 29 and 234 traffic on each leg of the proposed routes.

• For the Battlefield Bypass Study to result in the construction of alternative routes to relocate 29 and 234, the Study Group must recommend one of the Build Options to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary then must support the recommended Build Option and submit it as an Interior Department budget request, or advocate the Federal Highway Administration seek funding for the Option. The House Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation must approve the allocation [no doubt as part of a larger funding request], both Houses of Congress agree to fund the Build Option, and the President signs the legislation into law.

• With the exception of colocating 29 onto I-66, all of the proposed build options would: violate the integrity of the Manassas Battlefield, dislocate private homes and devastate community lifestyles, and invite commercial and residential development to the Rural Crescent (a region zoned for minimal residential density) north of the Park.

Build Alternatives Shown as 250 Foot Corridors:

The Balls Ford Road option (Concept 4 shown in gold) was rejected at the July 16 Workshop. Build Alternative A (Concept 2A)

The revised alignments were first publicly explained and discussed at the Study's Citizen Advisory Board meeting on April 24, 2003. This information was made available to those citizens who were on the Study's mailing list in the May 12 Bypass Newsletter. To be included on the Study's mailing list, e-mail Jack Van Dop at () and provide your name and address for their hard copy mailings.

Preliminary Corridors courtesy of the Battlefield Bypass Study Group

The Friends cannot condone nor support locating a major four lane highway on any undeveloped border of the Battlefield.

The Friends adamantly reject ALL of the bypass options north of I-66, and wholeheartedly support colocating Rt. 29 onto an enhanced I-66 between Gainesville and Centreville.

The Friends are no longer advocating our Original Bypass Proposal [locating Rt. 29 onto Ball's Ford Road] in favor of focusing our entire attention on achieving the colocation of Rt. 29 onto I-66. Visit the Original Bypass Proposal.

The Friends must also reject the Bypass Study Group's "Transportation System Management" option which we once supported as our Alternate Bypass Proposal. The TSM option would extend Rt. 234 along an upgraded Pageland Lane, but the Study's Corridor / Concept 1 has alerted us to just how detrimental this alignment could be for the Battlefield. The Study has modeled Corridor / Concept 1 as the only four lane bypass proposal with the obvious capacity to become one leg of a proposed trucking route that would bridge I-95 to Dulles International Airport. Our support for relocating Rt. 234 onto Pageland Lane was contingent on Pageland remaining a two lane road sharing the north-south traffic load with the Tri-County Parkway. With the TCP removed from consideration, the Study projects that Corridor / Concept 1 and Pageland Lane would accommodate all through north-south traffic adjoining the Battlefield. In addition, we now note that the TSM would sanction Corridor / Concept 1 to be built parallel to Pageland Lane as an extension of the "234 Bypass" as stated in the CLRP. In view of these Study proposals, the Friends can no longer support any extension of Rt. 234 along the Pageland Lane right-of-way.

Links