Rogers
Penniman
26 June 2013
NOTE FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Meeting with FC DOT Officers and Contractor re
the Soapstone Connector
Summary and comment: Although FC DOT has taken aboard a variety of
comments (including RCA, Penniman, Stowers, RA PBAC and many individuals), they
were not prepared to tell us about recommendations or conclusions on the
Soapstone study. They were still in the
process of agreeing on them. The study
is still in process and they must brief Supervisor Hudgins first. For the most part, they were wary of saying
anything definitive. However, they
appear to be staying with the same parameters as presented earlier rather than
covering options that some think would be more expeditious or economical
alternatives.
*********
On 12 June Bill Penniman, Joe Stowers and Dick Rogers met with Fairfax County Department
of Transportation official as well as contractor Warren
Hughes for one and one half hours to discuss the Soapstone project. In addition to Hughes, the FC DOT staff was
Jane Rosenbaum, overall supervisor, and Kinnari Radadiya, project manager. Rosenbaum spoke on all the broader issues
leaving technical details to Hughes. Radadiya
said little.
Current process
Asked where the study is now. Jane
Rosenbaum said they are still working to come up with a proposal. But they are not ready “to issue an official or
unofficial position.” They have not made
a recommendation yet and are still interacting with Warren Hughes. They have not met with Supervisor Hudgins yet
about their recommendations, which is essential before they issue a public recommendation.
(Note: On 19 June Hudgins’ transportation aide Paul
Davis said the Supervisor has met with FC DOT officers on Soapstone on 17
June. He was cryptic about what had been
discussed.)
Later in the conversation they were asked if Supervisor Hudgins “Board
Action” of 19 March and subsequent Board endorsed call for higher priority to
be given to Soapstone planning had made any difference. Rosenbaum said she was
unsure what the “Board action” would ultimately do.
They did not indicate that they had
broadened their consideration beyond the initial five parameters set out in
their Feb-March presentations. Their
comments did not indicate they were seeking ways to expedite construction or
curtail costs beyond the routes already being considered.
Specific Issues
Re property owners in the overall connector
area, FC DOT staff said that there is no clear consensus on what should be
done. No ground swell for one or another
option. They did note that Association Drive
area is much more susceptible to re=development than other areas.
Soapstone Drive Connection: They did not directly commend on this
but noted the importance of respecting the views of those in south Reston
uneasy about the location of the connection.
The discussion focused on the detailed maps of several of the alternative
routes but not on those that do not connect with directly with Soapstone Drive
(such as the ones that intersect with Sunrise Valley
to the east or west of Soapstone
Drive).
Re doing the project in phases,
they said the overall goal has been to
connect Sunrise Valley and Sunset Hills, implying this means a
continuous road built all at once.
Re connecting to Reston Station Blvd, they said that a
specific connection to this proposed street was not initially in the scope of
the study and is still outside it. However, they believe the connector can be
integrated into the planned grid of streets and are taking proposed Reston Station Blvd
into account. However, they do not have
an exact fix on the location of the road and when it might be built.
Pedestrians: They said that an 8% grade is the maximum that they
could envision. Under ADA restrictions a 5 % grade is the maximum for
pedestrians. ADA
also requires that you have to periodically build level areas into the walkway
every few feet. They said they had heard “loud and clear” the RA PBAC view that
there should be a link to the WOD trail
Bill Penniman reviewed with them his proposal (sent to DOT earlier)
that the Connection could reach Sunset Hills with two lanes going between the BAE garage and the building immediately to the
west. He noted that there are 34 feet
between the garage and a free standing wall which could be removed to increase
the available space to 48 feet. This
would allow two lanes to connect to Sunset Hulls initially with widening to 4
lanes, if desired, when either of the neighboring buildings is
re-developed. In the meantime, the other
two lanes of the 4 lanes crossing would connect to Reston Station Blvd. and the future
internal grid of streets. He also noted
that this route could be extended across Sunset Hills which would allow a connection
with the WOD, and to Isaac Newton
Square with a short road that utilizes the existing
VDOT parking lot.
Warren Hughes said they had studied this but
that the criteria given them required 4 lanes to reach Sunset Hills from the
outset. He also indicated that the route might compromise auto access to the BAE
property since it would mean a crossing of Sunset Hills less than 650-750 ft
from the signalized intersection at Metro Station Drive. Bill pointed out that the entry to the BAE property could be moved to the east which would
avoid this possible problem.
Height above Dulles Toil Road: They indicated the travel lanes
would be 25 ft above the DTR. However,
the base of the bridge would need to be 17ft over the DTR lanes and to meet
Metro’s clearance needs over the Metro tracks.
Constraints
They noted a number of constraints
influencing there thinking. They noted that it will be easier to get “broad approval”
if the recommended alignment is part of the Reston Master Plan recommendations. To this end they are meeting with Heidi
Merkel of DPZ on 19 June.
Regarding the proposed 10 ft wide
shared use path (in addition to two bike lanes and a pedestrian walkway) they
said this is part of the VDOT “urban standard.” “The
shared use path services a different population than the other paths.” In its absence a waiver would be needed to
justify elimination. They think they
cannot exclude any feature that may create objections. This means that they cannot build a route for
only one mode of transport. Similarly it is necessary to meet federal standards
for federal funding, even if getting federal dollars is not certain.
Wiehle impact: In conclusion
Rosenbaum said that we should remember that the Soapstone Connection “will not
change the dynamic” of Wiehle traffic. The
DOT model does not show it having the impact on traffic or improving access to
the Station to the degree that RMAG
predicted. On the other hand, she agreed
that it would help to mitigate traffic at key intersection even if not as much
as some have hoped. .
