September 3, 2001
Chairman Sean Connaughton
Prince William County Board of Supervisors
One County Complex Court
Prince William, VA 22191
Ref: I-66 / Route 29 Sector Plan
Dear Chairman Connaughton:
We, the undersigned residents of Prince William County, would like to present to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, an independently conceived, developed and prepared Plan for the I-66 /Route 29 Sector. This independent Sector Plan came about when a large number of residents realized that they were not satisfied that their concerns were being adequately addressed by the official Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC.) In consequence they came together and determined to devise an independent Sector Plan.
In 1999, the Board of County Supervisors authorized the study of the area identified as the I-66 / Route 29 Sector area and we observed the process in which the CAC developed its Sector Plan. We came to believe that both the Current Comprehensive Plan and the CAC Sector Plan for the area permitted development that would result in too high a population density, and is far too intense to be economically viable or sustainable or is reasonable for Western Prince William County. Furthermore both plans would stress the transportation network beyond its capacity, cause substantial and undesirable damage to the environment, and would represent a considerable challenge to all aspects of our infrastructure and services. Furthermore it would displace many long-term residents and completely erase a significant historical area. In sum, it would diminish the quality of life of many present and future residents.
Many of the residents who participated in this Sector Plan have worked to provide public awareness of a better approach to planning for areas such as Gainesville - planning that actually addresses the challenges that we all face as we move forward in the 21st century. Gainesville is a transportation nexus in Northern Virginia. It is also the home for a large and growing population and potentially the center for a vibrant community for those who will be living in the area. The "Residents' Sector Plan" attempts to address these issues in a coherent way. It integrates the input from numerous involved and committed people who want to be part of developing a plan that addresses current and future traffic implications of land-use in the Sector They wanted to provide a blueprint for future development that would create a Village on a scale that would allow it to be the focus of a diversity of surrounding neighborhoods. Such a village would improve the quality of life for all but would not be a generator of ever more traffic.
The idea that the Gainesville Sector is actually made up of neighborhoods that will have a profound impact on larger communities and Prince William County as a whole, if considered at all, rarely merits more than a brief mention. Yet such considerations are one of the primary purposes of a Sector Plan. That is, a Sector Plan is applied to a defined area that has unique characteristics. If planned and developed with special attention, the Sector Plan can promote economic prosperity for the Sector area and the county, and enhance the quality of life of both current and future citizens within and without the area of the Sector Plan. So it is incumbent on us to articulate forcefully the importance of establishing a framework of community and neighborhood goals within which the use of individual parcels and groups of parcels in the Gainesville Sector must be considered.
We believe that cumulative impacts are inadequately acknowledged in the approach used by the county and by the CAC. Yet it is obvious to everyone that every individual, enterprise, agency and institution county-wide will be impacted by cumulative negative effects that will result from implementation of the plan proposed by the CAC (and the Comprehensive plan itself.) A more sensible approach is to state appropriate goals and to present a plan that provides a matrix of land use distributions that make the goals attainable. Among the goals are a rational distribution of land uses and an equitable distribution of the costs of providing infrastructure and services.
One of the issues is that of what kind of neighborhoods and communities should exist and what their characteristics in terms of land use should be. In this context much is made of the matter of density, but density (units or people per acre) is not the problem. The problem is the total number of acres in the sector and in the immediate surrounds and thus the huge excess in the total number of housing units that might be built. The overarching question is whether there is adequate infrastructure or market for such a large number of units. Heritage Hunt for instance is relatively high density. But there is a market for such neighborhoods. Heritage Hunt does not overburden the infrastructure and with its neighborhood retail and office space (if and when they actually get built) it will be a "balanced neighborhood." (About which more later.)
The most viable "solution" is to build balanced components of housing, working, shopping, school, etc. in the Sector. Near the core of the DC Metropolitan region (10-15 miles from the Memorial Bridge) that means balanced communities encompassing several neighborhoods. Thirty miles from the core, at Gainesville for example, that means balanced neighborhoods and villages (a.k.a. town centers).
Traffic at the Gainesville nexus of Route 29, Linton Hall, I-66, Route 15 and other roads is the most significant issue facing any Gainesville Sector Plan and will impact the surroundings out to 10 miles or more. The challenge is to create a plan that will not exacerbate an already serious problem and may even ameliorate the problem. Traffic congestion has become a central issue affecting the quality of life of Northern Virginia and Western Prince William County Residents. And that concern is reflected by residents within the Sector area. Any approach to a realistic sector plan must make that a prominent feature of any proposal.
In the following sections of this letter we will provide a summary of what we believe are the over-riding issues that need to be addressed and the approach that we have taken.
THE VILLAGE CENTER AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS
Gainesville should have a variety of neighborhoods. These neighborhoods need to be balanced so that their residents can attend to many of their needs without making unnecessary auto trips on and across many congested roads. Traffic to the Village Center will thereby be reduced.
Village Centers do not need to be large. They need to be just large enough to serve the "village" of which they are the core. For example, the new upscale Town Center in Manassas Park by the VRE stop uses only 11 acres. As the "core" of a group of neighborhoods, Gainesville's village Center could be somewhat larger than needed to fill its residents' immediate needs.
The Gainesville Village Center should be modest in scale, about 30 acres. It would easily accommodate a small hotel, a large number of ground level shops, restaurants, delis', maybe even a two-floor upscale department store, a grocery such as Fresh Fields, bakery, etc. By comparison the imposing Reston Town Center is only about 30 acres. Despite its lack of transit and the fact that it was designed as a pedestrian and automobile access only TC, it is still a valid example of an approach to planning communities that is superior to the typical approach. The lack of transit, there as here, has begun to have its predictable impact and will have to be rectified sooner than later.
In addition to its retail/commercial component the Village Center would include approximately 200 apartments/condos (10-15 acres). In the immediate vicinity there might be up to 300 townhouses in clusters with abundant green space separating groups (40 acres.) Outside the townhouse area there would be a modest area of carriage house style single family detached units (or other viable styles), perhaps numbering 150 (50 acres.) They must be within easy walking distance of the Village Center via bike/jogging/pedestrian paths.
The Village Center needs recreational facilities integrated into it. Possibilities include a skating rink, band stand and, in particular, the kind of facilities and activities that will appeal to teenagers. One important component of the Village would be a Kindergarten to grade two facility. Schools are another critical component. Neighborhoods should have schools. By combining housing, working, shopping, schools, etc., the Village Center will be "balanced." It will not be perfect, but within the "community" made up of the Village Center and other nearby neighborhoods there can be an approximation of balance. Finally there should be provisions for future office space to encourage local jobs, particularly professional level jobs that would appeal to local residents.
The retail Center of the Village would become the "Core" of the surrounding neighborhoods. Dominion Valley, Heritage Hunt, Westmarket and others will have sufficient retail to provide for much of the daily needs of their residents. Each will be imperfectly "balanced," and so the somewhat larger amount of retail in the Village Center will offset their limitations without itself being overburdened with local traffic.
The surrounding neighborhoods must be connected. Greenhill Crossing residents must have a way other than by automobile to get to the Village Center. Similarly Virginia Oaks residents must be able to get there without crossing one or more major roads that may be more than six lanes wide. Pedestrian and bike tunnels and bridges must be made available. They will provide a safe means for teenagers to go from neighborhoods to the Village Center where they can meet.
There is an extreme overabundance of land zoned M1 or M2. There is no conceivable possibility of this land being used for this purpose in the foreseeable future, and in any case such uses should be directed further south into the major areas designated for that purpose such as Innovation and which do not immediately impinge on residential neighborhoods. It is also noteworthy that a similar statement can be made for the acreage that is presently zoned B-1.
TRAFFIC
The existing CAC plan is extremely deficient in regard to traffic. It largely ignores the new Linton Hall Route 29 interchange, the cul de sacs that will terminate route 55 and Wellington Road, other cul de sacs off Old Linton Hall Road, the east west connector that will run from Wellington Road to Route 29 opposite Conway Robinson Forest Park and other features.
There are some important data that put the need for an alternative plan into perspective. The CAC plan would add about 3500 new homes to the sector where about 1770 are already planned. Those 5300 homes would generate more than 35,000 Vehicle Trips Per Day (VTPD) to the area roads. The CAC plan would permit, at a minimum, 2,200,000 square feet of commercial/retail space that would generate 97,000 trips per day on area roads, primarily Route 29 and Linton Hall Road. At or near the maximum, the allowed retail could generate 264,000 additional VTPD. Another 100,000 VTPD could be generated by the 15,000,000 square feet of commercial space. The roads servicing those facilities would be hopelessly overburdened by such traffic increases. Presently the traffic on Rte. 29 amounts to about 42,000 VTPD. The capacity of Rte. 29 is about 75,000 VHPD.
Furthermore the new Route 29/Linton Hall interchange is not designed to increase the capacity of Route 29 or Linton Hall Road. Its purpose is to solve a safety problem at the railroad crossing. Even if the capacity of Route 29 were increased, the increase of traffic on it would negatively impact the congestion on all the connecting roads. The CAC plan would generate at a minimum 130,000 VTPD, an amount that far exceeds the capacity of Route 29 as it exists or is planned if a modest fraction of these trips were on it. The maximum would be more than 300,000 VTPD, an amount that is hard to grasp. It is more than double the amount of traffic on I66 east of Sudley Road. Route 29 is already near capacity and can accommodate a limited amount of additional traffic. A better approach to the sector plan is needed - one that accounts for the impacts of all the surrounding neighborhoods and their planned developments.
In the neighborhoods already approved (Heritage Hunt, Dominion Valley, Westmarket, Braemar, etc.) there will be up to 1,000,000 square feet of retail, far in excess of any neighbor needs. It would be very desirable for this retail development to be scaled back, otherwise the 44,000 VTPD generated by those retail areas becomes a substantial part of the traffic at the Route 29/Linton Hall/I66 nexus.
The Village Center (see below) must be located so that it takes advantage of the new interchange at Linton Hall Road and Route 29 and especially the parallel connector that will join Wellington Road and Route 29. It is imperative that there is easy access to the Village Center.
The Village Center was briefly described earlier and those results will be used to provide traffic data for the area roads. The newly planned Single Family Detached (SFD) units will generate 7000 vehicle trips per day (VTPD.) The Town House units and Multifamily units in the Village will generate 3000 VTPD. The total new trips of 10,000 per day will be a fraction of the trips generated by the retail. A total of 400,000 square feet of retail will generate 17,600 VTPD. But because this is a "balanced" neighborhood, up to 40% of the traffic generated will not exit the Village.
Retail is the largest component of traffic congestion except during rush hours. Office is much less of a traffic generator than retail, but still generates significant traffic. But the cumulative effect of retail in and outside the village will impact the traffic. Additionally the planned residential developments in the "community" will further strain the capacity of the existing and planned road network. We cannot unplan these developments but can find a better way to accommodate the traffic that they will generate. As has been demonstrated in dozens of metropolitan areas similar to ours trying to accommodate the added travel needs solely by expanding the road network simply does not work. Improvements are fleeting at best.
Consequently a mass transit component is essential, because its mere presence will prompt people to use it and reduce the amount of commuter congestion. (Note that, just as it has been demonstrated that the mere presence of a new or expanded road acts as a generator of traffic in excess of what was predicted by modeling, transit experiences the same effect - ridership always increases more rapidly than predicted by the models!) Ridership on the VRE has more than doubled in less than three years (44%/year.) If we eventually get Metro, so much the better. In the meantime Omnilink shuttles from the surrounding neighborhoods and communities to the VRE will serve to make it viable and further reduce traffic on the two roads through Gainesville. Mid-day trains, at least hourly, will become essential fairly soon and will further increase ridership and decrease automobile use. Parking at the VRE station will be very limited (Village residents only) in order to encourage the use of the shuttle service.
The VRE accommodates those commuters who need to get to Manassas, and to the Metropolitan Core areas and its surrounding communities. Those commuters have no route to that core other than through Gainesville. Any significant number of commuters taking the VRE will result in a net reduction of commuter traffic. Both traffic modeling and actual results in other locales with a similar situation demonstrate the validity of this expectation.
Comparisons
There are a number of comparisons that can be made among the existing Comprehensive Plan for the Sector area, the CAC Sector Plan and the Residents' Plan. The following table compares the acreage allocated to the four principal categories of residential, retail, employment and land not planned for the first three categories.
It is note worthy that in all three plans the amount of employment area is extremely large. We believe that such allocations are highly unrealistic. In the other categories the values shown for the Residents' Plan are much more in keeping with the carrying capacity of the area, and in keeping with what many residents believe is a supportable and desirable plan.
One of the more significant facts comes to light in a comparison of the allowable square footage of retail of the three Sector Plans, with the size of several existing large malls. This comparison is shown on the next chart. Another important comparison is with an estimate of the square footage of the entire retail space along the Sudley Road strip excluding the three big box stores.
Each of the comparisons brings into sharp focus the disparity in the quantity of allowable retail in the Sector area with what actually exists in other areas which are notable for their large size. In addition it is estimated that in the Sudley Road area alone there are approximately 200,000 square feet of unoccupied retail space. This is sufficient to occupy the entire Festival at Bull Run Shopping Center. It exceeds the retail space at Village Center at Virginia Gateway Shopping Center.
The residents who prepared this Sector Plan believe that it is highly likely that a major expansion of retail in the Sector Area as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan or the CAC Sector Plan could only occur at the expense of other area such as the Sudley Road area. They conclude that such unconstrained development in the Sector would lead to a condition similar to the one that was created along the Route 1 corridor. That condition arose as a consequence of an unfounded confidence in the notion that retail could be developed in a largely unlimited fashion without producing any negative consequences. The evidence of the falsity of this notion is plain.
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL AND EMPLOYMENT ACREAGE AND
PROJECTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, RETAIL AND EMPLOYMENT SQUARE FEET
Acreage Mix | ||||
| Residential | Retail | Employment | PL+ER+PARKS | |
| 1998 COMPL PLAN | 46% | 12% | 43% | |
| CAC PROPOSAL | 55% | 12% | 33% | |
| RESIDENTS PROPOSAL* | 41% | 4% | 30% | 25% |
Projections | ||||
| Residential (units) | Retail (sq. ft.) | Employment (sq.ft.) | PL+ER+PARKS (ac.) | |
| 1998 COMPL PLAN | 4920 | 6,622,602 | 26,492,251 | |
| CAC PROPOSAL | 5297 | 6,170,522 | 15,912,261 | |
| RESIDENTS PROPOSAL* | 2950 | 1,400,000 | 15,940,000 | 818 |
COMPARISON OF RETAIL SPACE IN THE THREE SECTOR PLANS WITH
RETAIL SPACE IN OTHER MALLS AND LOCATIONS
| COMP PLAN | 6,622,602 square feet |
| CAC PLAN | 6,170,522 |
| RESIDENTS' PLAN | 1,500,000* |
| TYSONS I AND II | 2,700,000 |
| POTOMAC MILLS | 1,700,000 |
| SUDLEY ROAD AREA | 2,000,000** |
Conclusion
The residents who prepared this Sector Plan believe that they have addressed the issues of the future of the Gainesville area, and specifically the Sector Plan area in a responsible and imaginative way. A way that provides a vision of the future of the Sector area that is both realistic, economically viable, and that would enhance the quality of life of present and future residents.
Like all such plans it is not perfect, and others will find fault with it in various particulars. But on balance those that have been involved in its conception and realization are confident that it is in the best interests of residents, landowners, and businesses within the sector, in the greater Gainesville area, in western Prince William county and in Prince William county as a whole.
We trust that you will give this Sector Plan careful consideration on its merits and look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Sincerely:
In addition to the above individuals, a number of other residents have indicated their strong support for this Plan and have contributed to the final product. The contributions and support of the following individuals, among others, are acknowledged:
| Denise Costly | Frank Maresca | John Pickeral |
| Geraldine and Kevin Ferguson | Martha McDaniels | James Michael Price |
| Nancy Finucan | Bobby and Michael McManus | Catherine Ring |
| Greg Gorham | Tommy McManus | Betty and James Steffanic |
| Neil Hepp | Sean A. Moler | Jane Strong |
| Michael Lythgoe |