Active Prince William

Advancing active mobility in greater Prince William, Virginia

Tag: Active Prince William (Page 1 of 3)

Our May 2023 Comments on the Route 28 Bypass Project

May 9, 2023 / / 0 Comments

On April 19 and 20, 2023, the Prince William County Department of Transportation held a pair of public information meetings to present the status of its Route 28 Bypass project at roughly the 30% design stage.  In response to the information presented, Active Prince William submitted the following written comments on May 3, 2023.

Please consider these comments on the Route 28 Bypass, based on information that was presented at the April 19 and 20 Route 28 Bypass Project Public Information Meetings:

Traffic and Environmental Studies, Sustainability, and Cost Comments

The ongoing traffic forecast and environmental studies for the Bypass should report relevant data that will help the public, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, environmental oversight agencies, and other stakeholders determine whether building this highway project would be a prudent investment for both our region and for Prince William County taxpayers.

 1.  Please report the additional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions this project would generate vs. the no-build alternative.

Justification:  The information will help the PWC BOCS make an informed decision about the project as it weighs competing priorities about the environment and sustainability, including consistency with Visualize 2050’s policies and the objectives of the County’s own Community Energy and Sustainability Master Plan.

2.  Please report the additional noise and air pollution this project would generate within ½ mile of the corridor vs. the no-build alternative.

Justification:  Understanding the full impacts on nearby property owners within an Equity Emphasis Area that would lack direct access to the roadway facility is paramount for PWC BOCS to make strategic future decisions about this project vs. other priorities.

3.  Please report the residency locations of the projected Route 28 Bypass users; in particular, what percentage of projected highway users would reside in a) Prince William County, b) the City of Manassas, c) localities west or south of Prince William County, and d) localities north or east of Prince William County?

Justification:  With 90%+ of the cost of the project being funded by PWC taxpayers via NVTA and the 2019 Mobility Bond, this is useful information to help the PWC BOCS make strategic future decisions about this project vs. other priorities.

4.  Please report an updated project cost estimate based on the 30% design.

Justification:  With highway construction costs increasing by 50% in the past two years, it is difficult for stakeholders to understand the viability of a 2019 $300M cost estimate as the PWC BOCS plans to invest significant taxpayer $$$ into the project soon.

* * *

Shared Use Path/Trail Comments

If located in most other suburban communities, the Flat Branch stream valley would have been developed–decades ago–as a linear regional park, with non-motorized access serving and unifying the communities on either side.  Because the County has long reserved this corridor for a potential future freeway, the development of such a stream valley park has been delayed for decades.  Construction of the Bypass would establish a permanent man-made physical highway barrier between the equity-emphasis-area communities on each side.  In the interests of environmental justice and sustainable transportation, it is essential that the Bypass include a robust network of paved (and natural-surface) trails for transportation and recreation, both along and across the stream valley.

* * *

5.  Please consider relocating the adjoining shared-use path–along the Bypass segment between Sudley Rd and the Bypass bridge over Flat Branch–to follow the west side of the Bypass, to facilitate access from the Fairmont, West Gate, and Sudley communities.

In addition, build local asphalt shared-path connections between the relocated shared-use path along the west side of the Bypass to the Fairmont, West Gate, and Sudley neighborhoods from at least these five locations:

Also, please ensure that all shared-use paths are generally designed to be as flat/level as the Bypass roadway, except where needed to achieve grade-separated roadway or stream crossings.  Provide physical barriers between the shared-use path and the roadway–such as non-mountable concrete curbs and/or jersey barriers–especially wherever the grass buffer between the shared-use path and the roadway would be less than eight feet wide

Justifications:  The Flat Branch stream would limit and complicate access to any shared-use path along the east side of the Bypass from the neighborhoods in Loch Lomond; any shared-use  along the Bypass requires frequently spaced connections to nearby neighborhoods for reasonable access by foot or bicycle; and any shared-use path near the Bypass must provide a physical barrier from roadway departures by high-speed motor vehicles.

 *  *  *

6.  Please consider developing and improving the existing UOSA access road to the east of the Bypass as a second, better separated shared-use path , with trail bridge connections across Flat Branch and its tributaries to serve the Loch Lomond neighborhood between Sudley Rd and Splashdown Waterpark.  This shared-use path should be extended beyond the current northern end of the UOSA access road, to parallel the remainder of the Bypass to its northern terminus along its east side.  Trails along UOSA easements are common in Fairfax County.

In addition, provide access to the UOSA access road/future shared-use path along the east side of the Bypass from the Loch Lomond neighborhood via asphalt shared-use paths (with ped/bike trail bridges across Flat Branch and/or its tributaries where necessary) from at least these eight locations:

Use trail underpasses in stream box culverts, the Bypass bridge over Flat Branch, or along both sides of Lomond Dr to connect the shared-use path along the current UOSA access road to the relocated shared-use path along the west side of the Bypass and from there to the Fairmont, West Gate, and Sudley communities.

Justification:  The area along Flat Branch should be developed into a linear park for enjoyment by the surrounding communities that would lack direct access to the new roadway.  By providing shared-use paths along both sides of the Bypass, the shared-use path connections under the Bypass would become much more effective in linking the low- and moderate-income, majority-minority communities that the Bypass would otherwise permanently sever

* * *

7.  Please design a shared-use path /trail connection under the Bypass bridge that crosses over Flat Branch.

Justification:  This connection would provide non-motorized access between communities on the east and west of the Bypass and provide communities on the east side of the Bypass with access to Splashdown Waterpark, thus reducing vehicle trips along neighborhood streets.  Moreover, north of the Bypass bridge over Flat Branch, only one shared-use path would be provided along the Bypass, on its east side, and the UOSA access road ends south of that crossing .  In other words, this trail connection would extend any adjacent shared-use path that begins on the west side of the Bypass at Sudley Rd though the remainder of the Bypass route.

* * *

8.  Please consider leaving all or part of the existing Old Centreville Rd Bridge over Bull Run in place as the Ped/Bike connection over the waterway.

Justification:  This reduces the cost to the project and is a much more pleasant access point and amenity to the surrounding community than walking or biking next to a 45-mph roadway

* * *

9.  Please consider including as part of the project planting hundreds/thousands of canopy trees to absorb and filter stormwater, reduce highway noise in the adjoining neighborhoods, and provide much-needed shade for trail users in warm and hot weather.  The trail(s) should also include user amenities such as trail lighting, benches, and trash receptacles.

Justification:  This project clearly bisects Equity Emphasis Areas while simultaneously not providing them access to the roadway.  It is imperative to add trail, park, and flood control amenities with the project to support the surrounding community.

* * *

Roadway Comments

10.  Please consider implementing a Continuous Green-T intersection at Route 28 Bypass/Old Centreville intersection.

Justification:  This allows for a non-stop southbound trip between existing Route 28 and Sudley Rd.

11.  Please consider providing some form of [emergency or uncontrolled] left turn capacity from Northbound Route 28 Bypass to Ordway Rd.

Justification:  During  incidents  in or around the Route 28/Compton Rd intersection, this capacity would provide a relief valve to clear traffic congestion more quickly

12.  Please consider adding a left turn from Route 28 Northbound to Route 28 Bypass Southbound (with access to Ordway Rd) and removing both left turns from Route 28 Compton Rd intersection.

Justification:  This creates a third light phase to the Route 28 Bypass/Route 28 intersection and reduces the Compton Rd/Route 28 intersection to three light phases.  Access via Ordway Rd provides the route to Compton Rd.  This will improve synchronization between the two adjacent light signals (Route 28/Route 28 Bypass & Route 28/Compton Rd).

* * *

Thank you for soliciting public comments at this early stage of project design.  We would be happy to meet with members of the project team to discuss these comments in more detail.

Sincerely,

Mark and Allen

Mark Scheufler & Allen Muchnick, Co-Chairs
Active Prince William
Advancing active mobility for a more livable, equitable, & sustainable greater Prince William, Virginia
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.activepw.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ActivePW
Twitter: @Active_PW https://twitter.com/Active_PW

###

Our Statement At The VDOT NoVA District’s Spring 2023 Joint Transportation Meeting

May 4, 2023 / / 0 Comments


Annual Joint Transportation Meeting for Northern Virginia, May 1, 2023
Statement of Allen Muchnick, Member of the Virginia Bicycling Federation
and Active Prince William Boards of Directors

Good evening.  I’m Allen Muchnick.  I live in the City of Manassas, and I serve on the boards of the Virginia Bicycling Federation and Active Prince William, statewide and sub-regional active transportation advocacy organizations, respectively.

We thank VDOT for recently re-filling its statewide bicycle and pedestrian planner position and for staffing a new statewide trails office.  We look forward to seeing those offices advance safe active mobility.  We believe it’s time to review and update both VDOT’s 2011 State Bicycle Policy Plan and the CTB’s 2004 Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations.

I commend VDOT’s NoVA District Office for initiating a study to estimate the cost to complete all locally planned but unfunded bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the NoVA District.  While most NoVA localities have robust active mobility plans and even Vision Zero programs, Prince William County still lacks both, so its official inventory of missing pedestrian and bicycle facilities is woefully incomplete.

Since 2010, VDOT’s roadway reconfiguration program has cost-effectively retrofit bike lanes and pedestrian crossing improvements on many dozens of roadways during scheduled resurfacing, especially in Fairfax County.  Prince William County, however, has largely ignored this enormous opportunity to improve the access and safety of its vulnerable road users.  We urge the County and VDOT to actively implement this program in our communities.

The alignment of US Bicycle Route 1 through Prince William County is a prime example where retrofitted bike lanes or paved shoulders are desperately needed.  Although AASHTO and VDOT established this route more than 40 years ago and a VDOT consultant re-evaluated the route’s alignment through NoVA nearly a decade ago, the bicycling conditions on several Prince William route segments are horrendous.  For example, the County’s online Bicycle Skill Level Map labels Old Bridge Road, part of Minnieville Rd, Aden Rd, and Fleetwood Dr—all lacking bicycle facilities and posted at 45-MPH–as “Roads to Avoid” and tags Hoadly Rd and Tanyard Hill Rd as “Low Comfort”.  VDOT’s 2015 Bicycle Level of Service Map for the NoVA District rated those segments similarly.  It’s long past time for VDOT and the County to fix these embarrassing and potentially deadly deficiencies.

To address the ongoing epidemic of pedestrian fatalities, VDOT should aggressively implement design-speed reductions and pedestrian safety improvements along its multi-lane commercial arterials.  VDOT and Prince William should also establish safer bike/ped crossings of I-95 and I-66 and extend the I-66 Trail, now being built in Fairfax County, over Bull Run to connect to both Balls Ford Rd and the Northern Virginia Community College’s Manassas campus.

In closing, we strongly support the recommended SMART SCALE, CMAQ, and RSTP awards for Manassas, Manassas Park, and Prince William County.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

###

Our Comments to NVTA for 2023

January 15, 2023 /

The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority held an public annual hearing on January 12, 2023.  Active Prince William’s co-chairs delivered the statements reproduced below.

Statement by Allen Muchnick, City of Manassas Resident

2022 was a busy year for the Authority.  While the processes for updating TransAction and the Six-Year Program were badly flawed, I appreciate that the outcomes were better than many had feared.

I urge the Authority to devote 2023 to reevaluate its approach to transportation project development in our region, to better align its processes and outcomes with its Core Values of Equity, Sustainability, and Safety and its goal of developing “an integrated multimodal transportation system that enhances quality of life, strengthens the economy, and builds resilience.”

A transportation program that—in our outer suburbs–is heavily focused on expanding fast, multilane arterials is neither equitable nor sustainable and only worsens safety and access for vulnerable road users and non-motorists.  NVTA funding—which is devoid of any motor vehicle user fees—has not effectively addressed our region’s growing traffic violence problem.

The Authority should establish a task force this year to reevaluate its fundamental policies and procedures, starting with its statutory emphasis on reducing traffic congestion.  The recent TransAction planning process found that–even if our region could obtain $75 billion to complete every listed project over the next 23 years—traffic congestion overall would be essentially unchanged.  The Authority should evaluate more cost-effective, equitable, sustainable, and safer approaches to regional transportation planning and investment and then recommend changes to its current statutory mandate to the Virginia General Assembly.

A simpler, yet much-needed, NVTA reform would require advertised public hearings before a relevant governing body endorses any project for NVTA-related funding, including from the CMAQ and RSTP programs.  Currently, such funding requests are often developed behind closed doors and simply placed on the governing body’s consent agenda.  Requiring advertised public hearings before governing body endorsement could alter the mix of the submitted projects and/or expand or modify their scope in light of the early public input.

The Authority also needs to develop and adopt a robust Complete Streets policy, to ensure that all NVTA-funded projects adequately meet the access and safety needs of vulnerable road users.  Early public involvement before projects are submitted for funding is related to this need, to ensure that project scopes and funding allocations will properly accommodate vulnerable road users.

Thank you for this public comment opportunity and for considering my recommendations.

Statement by Mark Scheufler, Prince William County Resident

Good Evening. Mark Scheufler. Prince William County.  Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight.

To meet the regional, state, and federal greenhouse gas emission objectives and goals, a structural change in the transportation planning and investment needs to occur.  In addition to improved vehicle emission standards and investing in electric vehicles and infrastructure, vehicle miles traveled (or VMT) for Single Occupancy Vehicles as a whole needs to decrease, even as the Northern Virginia population grows.  At a basic level, this means that we need to stop expanding unmanaged roadway lane miles.

This means the recently adopted TransAction plan would need a major modification.  Any government funding for highway expansion is one less $ going to meeting these urgent climate goals in the transportation sector.  We need to change the paradigm that Congestion is reduced–not by adding unmanaged roadway supply to the system–but by reduced Single Occupancy Vehicle travel demand.  This will require reducing car dependency by developing near high-capacity transit, repurposing roadway space for transit and non-motorized users, and reforming parking requirements and level of service standards, especially in outer jurisdictions.

The one roadway widening project that I do support, that is currently being studied, is modifying the I-95 express lanes to a bi-directional configuration.  Somehow this is not included in the $74B TransAction list.  According to the TransAction documents, NVTA supports more general-purpose widening of the existing I-95 roadway that VDOT indicated would be a very poor investment.

But this only makes sense if jurisdictions simultaneously take advantage of the opportunity to transform the currently adjacent high-speed deadly Route 1 arterial  corridor in Fairfax and Prince William.

I applaud Arlington County staff for recommending a 25 mph design speed for their section of Route 1 through the National Landing area.  I would hope it can be a model, along with dedicated transit lanes in the Route 1 corridor, for all the other jurisdictions from Pentagon City to Dumfries.  These types of regional initiatives should be the focus for the NVTA this coming year.

###

Our Comments on NVTA’s Draft Transportation Plan

September 12, 2022 /

On September 8, 2022, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority held a public hearing on its draft five-year update to TransAction, the regional authority’s long-range transportation plan for Northern Virginia.   Active Prince William’s co-chairs, Mark Scheufler and Allen Muchnick, delivered separate oral statements at this hearing, and both statements are posted below.  

A recording of the public hearing, which featured 21 citizen comments, is here.  Mark’s statement begins at 1:10:50 in this recording, while Allen’s statement follows immediately at 1:13:40 .

Additional written statements submitted on September 18, 2022:

Good Evening.  Mark Scheufler, Prince William County.  Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight.

I am a member of Active Prince William, which is a volunteer group of concerned citizens who advocate for better opportunities, support, and infrastructure for active transportation and healthy lifestyles within Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park.

I have reviewed the list of projects and associated documentation in the TransAction package and continue to be disappointed in the goals and outcomes of this process.

I do not believe a directionless, hodgepodge, all-the-above-list-of-projects approach of expanding capacity to reduce roadway congestion is the best path for the region.  Reform to the NVTA statute is needed.

I compare the Northern Virginia transportation situation as it relates to congestion to be comparable to obesity.  The solution for obesity should not be to loosen the belt for extra capacity which is similar to the 20th century concept that unmanaged road widening is a solution to congestion in urban areas such as Northern Virginia.

Unfortunately the Transaction list includes 117 projects with the word “Widen” in it.

This update to the TransAction along with the NVTA statute will continue to point outer jurisdictions of Fairfax, Prince William and Loudoun to submit car-first projects that serve to increase car dependency to future six-year funding programs.

In addition, while excellent projects, the fact that the 24th, 25th and 26th ranked projects (out of 26) in the last six year plan were funded, diminishes the value and purpose of the NVTA and questions whether funding should just go directly to the jurisdictions based on the funding contributed by each jurisdiction.

For Prince William County, with all the traffic information available, the best fully funded project in the last six year plan was a roadway extension through a data center development.  Prince William County probably could have developed better outcomes outside of the NVTA process and restrictions.

In closing, I will submit this testimony via email and provide a list of project additions, subtractions and modifications for consideration as many of my concerns discussed here will not be addressed in this TransAction process.  But I hope NVTA reform can be addressed by the state legislature to create better land use and transportation outcomes for all Northern Virginia residents.  Thank you.

Good Evening.  I’m Allen Muchnick.  I live in the City of Manassas, and I also serve on the board of Active Prince William, an active mobility advocacy group.

The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s transportation planning and programming processes are fundamentally flawed, starting with its statutory mandate to focus on traffic congestion, while ignoring the critical roles of land use and induced demand as well as the environmental, equity, and traffic-safety problems caused by our region’s over-dependence on auto travel.

Northern Virginia’s roadways have been expanded for the past seventy years, yet we still face perpetual traffic congestion, and most NoVA residents will continue to lack viable alternatives to driving alone for most local trips.  Repeating the same activity over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Developing an independent Northern Virginia transportation plan that does not reinforce and advance the goals, objectives, and strategies of Visualize 2045–the federally mandated long-range transportation plan for the entire Washington region–is counterproductive and foolish.  An unconstrained and un-prioritized transportation project wish list, whose price tag far exceeds the funding that is expected to become available before 2045, is largely a wasteful exercise.

In June 2022, the TPB committed to a strategy of completing all planned segments of its National Capital Trail Network (NCTN) by 2030.  Yet, no planned National Capital Trail Network segments are identified in the TransAction project list, and it’s likely that many are not even included.

In the TransAction project list, many of the road-widening and interchange proposals do not mention the inclusion of associated pedestrian and bicycling elements, which might be new, upgrades, exact replacements, or preserved preexisting facilities.  For over 18 years, VDOT has operated under a Complete Streets policy adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.  The NVTA also needs to adopt a Complete Streets policy that requires all NVTA-funded projects to incorporate all related pedestrian and bicycling accommodations as safe, direct, and efficient facilities, unless one or more specified exemptions exist.

Another much-needed, yet simple, NVTA reform would require advertised public hearings before the relevant governing body endorses any project for NVTA-related funding, including federal RSTP and CMAQ allocations endorsed by the NVTA.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment orally.  I plan to submit more detailed written comments via email by the September 18 deadline.

Our Comments on PWC’s Proposed Transit Alternatives Map

April 15, 2022 /

Prince William County’s Proposed “Future Transit Alternatives Map” Dated March 17, 2022

On April 15, 2022, Active Prince William submitted the following public comments on the draft “Future Transit Alternatives Map” that defines the public transportation element for the update to Prince William County’s Comprehensive Plan known as “Pathways to 2040”.

1) The Future Transit Alternatives Map needs to identify specific sites for proposed High-Capacity Transit stations that would exist by the year 2040.

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments needs to accept those sites on its map of High Capacity Transit Station Areas and to agree that they qualify as “Regional Activity Centers” (using the MWCOG definition of that term), so Prince William’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Washington Planning Framework for 2030.

Unless specific station sites are identified, the Mobility Chapter will not be integrated with the Land Use and Housing Chapters.  Identifying the planned locations of future VRE and Metrorail stations is required for the Land Use Chapter (including Land Use Map) to specify where new Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) will be planned within walking distance of High-Capacity Transit Stations.  Identifying the planned locations of future VRE and Metrorail stations is required for the Housing Chapter to plan to meet regional housing targets set with MWCOG.

MWCOG’s Regional Housing Targets

2) The Future Transit Alternatives Map should clarify if all projects shown on the map are planned to be completed by 2040.   If some projects will have a longer time frame, then the projects planned to be completed by 2040 should be identified clearly or included on a separate map.  In particular, the proposed extensions of the Metrorail Orange Line and the VRE Manassas Line are redundant, and both are likely unnecessary with the advent of the I-66 Express Lanes.  The Future Transit Alternatives Map should clearly identify that the existing I-95 and imminent I-66 Express Lanes are “existing” High-Capacity Transitways.

Knowing what projects are expected to be built over the next 20 years is necessary so other Comprehensive Plan policies, action strategies, and projects can be budgeted and synchronized.  Maps showing planned roads and trails should also identify projects planned for completion by 2040, plus other aspirational projects using the same approach for transit projects.

3) The Mobility Chapter should include action strategies to acquire right-of-way for the proposed route of the Orange Line to Gainesville or that project should be removed from the map.  Unless located within the I-66 right of way, the right-of-way for the Orange Line extension may require going through Bull Run Regional Park, Manassas National Battlefield Park, and/or high-value commercial properties.  Fairfax County committed almost $60 million to preserve right-of-way along the I-66 corridor for extending Orange Line to Centerville during expansion to create Express Mobility Partners toll lanes, but Prince William preserved no right-of-way–suggesting a proposal for extending the Orange Line to Gainesville is more of a fantasy than an actual plan.

4) If the proposed route of the Orange Line to Gainesville remains on Future Transit Alternatives Map , then the Land Use Chapter should include plans for town centers with T-5 and T-6 Transect Zones at the station locations.

5) The Mobility Chapter should define the southern terminus of the proposed Blue/Yellow Line in eastern Prince William, and that terminus should subsequently be identified in the Visualize 2045, TransAction, and VTrans plans.

6) The Mobility Chapter should include action strategies to acquire right-of-way for the proposed route of the Blue/Yellow Line to Triangle or of the proposed BRT system.

7) The proposed route of the Blue/Yellow Line to Triangle , or of the proposed BRT system, should be clarified so it will be clear what land parcels will be suitable for Transit-Oriented Development.  In particular, it should be clear if the large Potomac Mills site will have a High-Capacity Transit station at one edge, because portions of that property could end up more than one-half mile from a station.

8) The Quartz development at the intersection of Minnieville Road and Prince William Parkway, and the intersection of Dale Boulevard-Minnieville Road should not be designated as “MultiMobile Hubs” if those sites will not have a High-Capacity Transit station.  Bus stops with commuter lots technically might be “multimobile,” but should not be planned for the same level of development as sites with a High-Capacity Transit station.

Proposed “Future Transit Alternatives” for Eastern Prince William County

9) Plans for town centers with T-5 and T-6 Transect Zones should be included in the Land Use Map for all sites in eastern Prince William where a High-Capacity Transit station is planned.

10) Action strategies in the Mobility Chapter should identify how to obtain local, state, and Federal funding for extension of Metrorail to Prince William, creation of a Bus Rapid Transit system and shuttle/trolley systems, and development of infrastructure for the proposed commuter ferry.

11) The Land Use Map should identify where affordable housing is planned within walking distance of planned High-Capacity Transit stations, in order to meet the MWCOG targets.  Families are cost-burdened if housing costs exceed 30% of Area Median Income, but also cost-burdened if housing and transportation costs combined exceed 42% of Area Median Income.

12) The 2040 Comprehensive Plan should quantify the shortage of affordable housing units for families earning 30%, 50%, and 80% of Area Median Income now, and the projected shortage in 2030 and 2040.  The Land Use Map should identify where new affordable housing will be developed by 2030 and 2040 to eliminate the shortage of affordable housing in those three categories, and those locations for new affordable housing should be planned within walking distance of High-Capacity Transit stations.

13) More-detailed shuttle/trolley routes and boundaries of areas where service is planned should be identified on the Future Transit Alternatives Map.  The Mobility Chapter should include an action strategy to complete and update regularly origin and destination studies for proposed shuttle/trolley routes, in order to integrate the Mobility Chapter with other 2040 Comprehensive Plan chapters and with the Comprehensive Plans in the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park. Shuttle/trolley routes should be structured to connect Activity Centers as defined by MWCOG and also nodes of existing/planned dense development as shown on the Land Use Map.

14) An action strategy should be included in the Mobility Chapter to identify the year when shuttle/trolley service will become operational, so rezonings and construction plans can be synchronized.

15) If “[s]pecific objectives include adapting to changing mobility trends, improving multi-modal options, increasing the use of public transit, increasing travel time reliability while concurrently striving to decrease the use of vehicle fuels that contribute to climate change,” then the Mobility Chapter needs to add Local and Express Bus Service maps showing areas to be served by bus service and the stages in which that service will be expanded over the next 20 years.  Upgrading local bus service to facilitate access to local jobs, schools, healthcare, retail, and other key destinations for less-advantaged households is at least as essential as extending commuter rail routes that carry white-collar workers out of Prince William. Upgrading low-cost local transit and upgrading bike/pedestrian access offers the greatest opportunity to invest in upgrading equity.  Fairfax Connector Transit Strategic Plan Update offers an understandable format that can be used to support comprehensive plan update effort

16) “High-Capacity Transit”, as identified on this map, should be adequately defined in terms of weekday boardings, peak-period headways, and service hours.  Bus service that operates for fewer than 16 hours on weekdays, has peak-period headways longer than 15 or 20 minutes, or experiences fewer than 500 daily boardings is merely ordinary transit service.

17) The “High-Capacity Transit” lines in the western part of the county, which lack connections to Downtown Manassas, the Manassas Park City Center, the Godwin Drive Technology Corridor, and Sudley Road/Route 234 Business, are missed opportunities.  Recommend coordinating with Omniride which represents the entire Greater Manassas area.

###

« Older posts

Archives

© 2023 Active Prince William

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑