On March 9, 2022 the legal counsel for the PW Digital Gateway applicants forwarded a number of documents to the “Board of County Supervisors members and Planning Commission members in an attempt to provide clarity and detail, so that the discussion of this CPA application becomes narrowed to real issues and concerns, rather than imagined ones”.
To be honest, the submission does just that, however, I would suggest that rather than supporting the public assertions by those behind the PW Digital Gateway CPA the documents undermine their arguments and instead underscore many of the opposition’s “real issues and concerns”.
Simultaneously, the BOCS is crowing that they have killed the Bi-County Parkway (BCP) but the applicant’s submission and existing VDOT plans tell another story. As currently planned, the BCP is proposed as a 4 lane, divided, limited access road with a shared use path providing alternatives for traffic through the Battlefield. The PW Digital Gateway documents denote the Pageland Lane improvements as a 4 lane, divided, limited access road with a shared use path, in other words, a segment of the purportedly dead BCP that ties in with recent County proposals for bypasses around the Battlefield.
Exhibit 5 – Mobility Plan 030922
If indeed the BOCS was genuine with respect to removing the BCP then why would it appear in each of the ever-changing renditions of the “Roadway Segments for Consideration in the Thoroughfare Update” maps to the Comprehensive Plan dated February 10, February 17 and March 7, 2022. Similarly, if the BCP has been removed from the County’s plans then why are all the associated Manassas Battlefield Bypass routes also included in the draft maps (road proposals requiring routes through Fairfax County, routes Fairfax County has resoundingly rejected).
Mobility map from 021022 meeting display
Planning-Roadway_Segments_for_Consideration-2022_0217
Planning-Roadway_Segments_for_Consideration-2022_0303
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it probably is a duck, or in this case the BCP. Until these road designations are removed from both the PW Digital Gateway and Thoroughfare Update plans, the rumors of the BCP’s death have been grossly exaggerated.
Should the BOCS proceed with the Thoroughfare Plan Update as planned, PWC taxpayers should ask several additional questions:
- Despite assertions by the PW Digital Gateway applicants that the data centers would pay for the improvements to Pageland Lane, as the data centers do not have the authority to condemn the numerous properties they do not own, how much would it cost the county to acquire those properties?
- Given the current statutory restrictions on proffers, can the data centers legally proffer construction of the entirety of the proposed Pageland Lane improvements?
- Would the expansion of Pageland Lane to a 4 lane, divided, limited access road with a shared use path accelerate VDOT efforts to complete the Sanders Lane component of the Bi-County Parkway?
- Given Fairfax County’s opposition to the Manassas Battlefield Bypass north of the National Park, why is PWC pursuing the project?
- Who would pay the condemnation and construction costs of the Route 29 Alternate Road plan paralleling I-66?
- Given the multiple changes in the Thoroughfare Update Map over a period of roughly one month, what other changes might the taxpayers expect prior to a public hearing?
- Why do the proposed changes to date appear to reflect only the input of the Gainesville Supervisor and the PW Digital Gateway applicants?
- Who proposed the expansion of Route 234 from Manassas to Route 15 that compliments the BCP and who will pay for the condemnation and construction costs?
- Who proposed the similarly complementary widening of Route 15 from 234 to the Loudoun County line and who will pay for the condemnation and construction costs?
- Will these road projects result in the need for more schools, fire stations and other public infrastructure as a result of residential growth that will assuredly follow?
- How will these project costs impact the County’s ability to make needed improvements to the crumbling public infrastructure in the eastern and central districts of the County?
Can PWC accomplish any of these “improvements” without yet another increase in the residential tax rate or levy of additional regressive taxes?
Bob Weir
Haymarket