Well this is the great issue most of the cities have big problem on traffic it the duty of the government to come up with some solution.

Loyalty Programs | Air Frequent Flyer

Traffic is great problem all over the world. Its depends on the driver if he forcibly wants to get his car in the smallest place. Planning will never happen for traffic.
Hermanus Accommodation

I have the opportunity of working at the Development Policy Divivion at the Planning Commission of India, but am not getting a clue as to how would the experience be. Currently I am a student of a PG Diploma in Securities Markets at Indian Institute of Capital Markets, Navi Mumbai. Please revert soon if anyone has an idea.
    .

I’m perplexed on how the “richest” county in the country has major roads like Rt. 50. It’s one of the poorest planned transportation methods, always backed with traffice and unnecessary lights. The wrost part is that there’s acres of land throughout the road system which is just left undeveloped which can be used to improve it.

Mental patients run the county governments. That would explain why the roads here are designed for horse traffic.

p.s., re “picking a road” to build:  if the land is developed in the absence of a fully realized adjoining network (and much here IS—good old by right!), then you are only talking regional contributions.

That is at the discretion of the county where to apply it, as part of the proffer negotiations (including how they are triggered).

In addition, no project can be forced to contribute more than what mitigates its own impact—even in commensurate regional contributions.

Tim P, the “builder Board” is the one that voted to halt applicant initiated CPAMs.  (this BoS initiated a doozy, with the Ches Bay).

The issue you raise with “must build by” can be partially addressed with the triggering of the proffers.  Poor triggers will produce the scenario you outline to a degree.

As to land going to the banks, and proffers, guess what?  I know a man in Round Hill, who has a small building company, and he has hired 10 new workers—-to fulfill proffered road improvements in Dulles that BANKS are now having to execute as part of developments they took over from development entities.

The one thing that no one can get around in terms of building is the economy—that determines all.

But that raises its own issue—in the absence of an economic environment conducive to developing/building (and even in the boom, almost no one did on spec—that is most galling to see people who SIGNED A CONTRACT authorizing a builder to DEVELOP THEIR HOME rail about “specualtive building”—-and they do rail!), it makes it even more shameful for people who imply they know better to fearmonger about “floods” of applications.

The current process for a CPAM is that they are Board initiated…but under the last (aka builder) Board, they were applicant initiated (ala the Greenvest rezonings and accompanying CPAM’s they brought forth). The BOS has the ability to switch back that policy regarding CPAM’s…but ultimately, the BOS approves or denies them, whether they or the developer ‘creates’ it. I agree, shame on the fear-mongers and half-truthers. And for gosh sake, Greenvest defaulted on most or all of that land, Iberstar (?) bank then sold some/all of it, and let’s not forget, our current Dulles Super tried to get the state to purchase a chunk for the first ‘state park’ in Loudoun! Too bad.

Rezoning approvals, and proffers, run w/ the land, aren’t transferrable (except if it’s a cash contribution for ‘regional’ use), but let’s not forget, there is no timetable or ‘must build by’ date…an unfulfilled proffer for lack of development is the same as virgin land never touched by the developer’s lance. It only means something if they develop. So prioritizing just based on an approved proffer is silly…look at all the prime land along Rt. 7 (ala Commonwealth Center across from Univ. Center, the Ashburn Village office, the Belmont retail center near where the concerts occur), it has a bunch of old approvals on it, and nothing built to date. The easier path for a developer to win a rezoning is to provide what is most wanted by the County…so picking a road higher on a priority list would seem to serve that purpose of the County getting the roads it wants built, built sooner…but that’s not an absolute obviously.

Aldie, it makes sense for any road planned in the CTP to be built regardless of its place in the priority queue if an application provides the money to build it, most certainly in the suburban planning area.

Proffers can’t be applied anywhere—they are tied to specific land and specific projects.  A proffer can’t be tacked on to a different project because of a prioritized list.

The suburban policy area is the most likely place for any proffers to be obtained for roads, and the best place: continued by-right development in the one policy area planned for development ensures continued attrition in road planning.

Do you oppose use of proffers where merited?

Look at Kincora:  the road proffers are significant.  If the rezoning is approved and the proffers become available, would you NOT use them?

Let’s get back to that fictitious “flood” of CPAMs—that is a much more egregious (and untrue) what-if than possible changes on a list of planned roads, if funding through proffers becomes available in discrete specific instances.

Seriously, The Group needs to get a new boogeyman:  “Citizens for Community Schools” (against schools) shouted that if schools were built in the transition area (an allowed use in the Comp Plan), then “The CPAMs were coming back!  They’re only putting schools there so they can build houses!”

Now the same people are “Citizens for a Countywide Transportation Plan” (against the CTP, and roads) and say “If the CTP is approved, CPAMs are coming!  They only want to build roads so they can build houses!”

Please, get a new line!

Ms. Munsey, thank you for your comments.  However, I am confused as to whether you oppose the road building priorities set forth by the Planning Commission in Appendix A3, or support these priorities.  Can you clarify?  For the record, I generally support the priority structure that is proposed and oppose allowing builder proffers to change that priority structure.  Do you support or oppose allowing builder proffers to change the priority structure in Appendix A3?

Aldie, first of all, CPAM filing has nothing to do with CPAM approval, as you are no doubt well aware, but neglecting to say so removes the convenient boogeyman.

The Plan is predicated on CURRENTLY approved density in the Comp Plan, against COG growth projections.

A CPAM—Comprehensive Plan Amendment—could change density, IF APPROVED.

But guess what?

the biggest thing you’re leaving out (on purpose?) is that ONLY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS is allowed to initiate a CPAM.

There will be no “flood of CPAMs” filed, unless the Board does so (as they have with the CBA).

IF the Board initiates a CPAM and THEN approves it, any developer seeking to take advantage of that would have to file a REZONING, which again, might not be approved, and only IF filed and approved (again, IF a the BoS INITIATED and then APPROVED any CPAMs) would there be any chance of proffers.

The constant misinformation and fear tactics of the transition zone coterie is either misinformed, or deliberately DISinformative for the purpose of inflaming fear of raods.

Many people in the county have a greater fear of NO or POOR roads than The Group has of any roads, or schools, etc.

I understand that using words like CPAM can make it sound like you have definitive knowledge of how it works (and thereby providing false proof of the fear tactics), but the fundamental lack of understanding displayed in declaring there would be a “flood of CPAMs” pretty much proves the lack of knowledge of the process.

Tim - There are locations in Loudoun underserved by present roads.  I fear the present CTP won’t fix that problem.

Some supervisors want the CTP right of ways (ROWs) to be sufficient to support a full build out of the Revised General Plan (RGP), a 50 year growth plan.  Other supervisors want to limit the ROWs to what is sufficient to support a 2030 population, a 20 year plan.  The Planning Commission wrote Appendix A3 in an attempt to broker a compromise.

Appendix A3 prioritizes road projects into near-term, intermediate term and long-term priorities.  The growth of the roads would be orderly if the near-term projects were executed first and so forth.  However, the Planning Commission included a loophole through which you can drive a truck.

If a builder proffers to build a needed road, a long-term priority for example, and the county approves the project, the proffered road construction instantly becomes a near-term priority.  Of course, builders want something in return for the road construction, usually rezoning to a higher residential density.  The Supervisors would have to approve an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM).  The priority scheme advanced by the Planning Commission survives only until the first CPAM application is filed.

Residents who now suffer traffic jams in locations poorly served by the existing roads and who think the near-term priorities in Appendix A3 of the CTP might provide relief will be disappointed.  CPAM applications will upgrade long-term priorities to near-term priority while most otherwise deserving near-term priority improvements languish. 

This loophole where a developer’s proffer automatically upgrades the road improvement to a near-term priority should be removed.  Otherwise, the Appendix A3 priorities are an illusion.  A flood of CPAM application will determine the road improvement priorities in Loudoun.

Be quiet Jimmy Guy, someone writing the CTP might be reading your ideas. 

Seriously, I think the “buy the Greenway” idea is the best one.  Unfortunately if it gathered any steam, the Australians would hold Loudoun over the fire for it. 

Simply making that road an option for more people would go a long way.  Lower the toll and make tolls based on the distance traveled.  How many people would take 267 from Broadlands to Leesburg if they could do it for $0.50 instead of the current full toll to travel half the highway.  If it were reasonably priced, I would certainly consider taking it to get to the DTR instead of my current route of Waxpool and 28.  Paying a reasonable toll would be worth it to avoid that merge area of 267, 28 and the access road to IAD.  Some “important” person always cuts in at the end almost causing a pile up.  You can count on it every morning.

fedup, you don’t understand—we HAVE to keep everything two lanes (dirt, if possible!) to teach people (other than those who are OKAY to have moved here—a very very small group) that they shouldn’t have come.

If you improve roads, then people drive on them, and we don’t want that!

(Actually, the Imperial “We” DO want that—but only for themselves.  No one else.)

So how much fun was that for everyone trying to get home last night north of Leesburg?  ROute 15 was shut down in both directions again from an accident.  People were diverting over to Taylorstown Road from Stumptown and New Valley Church to find that that Taylorstown was closed down from an accident as well.  People were coming from the Lovettsville area saying that Berlin Turnpike was closed down due to accidents.  So my question is, “Why in the sam hell can we not widen Route 15 to 4 or 6 lanes north of Leesburg to Maryland?”  It is a mother f****** joke!  It is a major commuting route and traffic flies on there at speeds not meant for a little two lane by-way.  Last night the ambulances and police cruisers could not even get anywhere as ALL the routes to get to the response sites were clogged in each direction.  Seriously, it was havoc!!!!  And this cannot even make the news in this newspaper?  People were literally standing outisde their vehicles on the corner of ROute 15 and Lucketts Road, as well as New Valley Church and Stumptown Roads.  Idiots in redneck pickup trucks were driving in the left lane into oncoming traffic, cops were yelling at those fools who were doing it.  WIDEN ROUTE 15 YOU MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1. Put calming circles along Route 7 at 28, Sterling Blvd, and Belmont Ridge.

#2. Force the Greenway to raise their toll to $20.45 each way, even for one exit’s travel.

#3. Insist that every new road twist and turn as much as Claiborne Parkway.

#4. Change the name of every major street every 2.5 miles.

#5. Never, never NEVER widen Route 50 and put more lights along the South Riding stretch of 50.

#6. More calming circles along 9.

#7. In other words, continue screwing all commuters, Loudoun County commissioners, just as you have for decades!

I absolutely agree with Tim Plumbee.  The planning on Waxpool was ridiculous.  The fact that the lanes go from 3 to 2 when Waxpool turns into Farmwell Rd. (going west) is unbelievably bad planning, considering that the majority of traffic turns onto Ashburn Village only about a 1/4 mile down the road.

I just want Belmont Ridge opened to 4 lanes from Rt 7 to Brambleton.  That road is a nightmare and extremely dangerous, especially at night!

The obvious cause of the traffic gridlock is the Greenway.  The BOS should look into ways to buy the road and reduce the toll to $.75 per trip.  That equates to $12 million in revenue at current traffic volumes (which would surely increase with a realistic toll).  This should cover annual maintenance and expenses.  The reduced traffic on Rt. 28, 7, 50 and Waxpool would be a huge relief to everyone.  To put it into perspective, the purchase price of the Greenway a few years ago was LESS than the cost to build a new high school.  The resulting profit each year would go towards paying down the debt.  Think outside of the box.

dd, hate to break it to you, but the CTP is the same as BEFORE the “builder board”.  The last no-growth board began review, but was so busy downzoning (with bad advertising) that they didn’t get it done.

Hate to break this to you too, but the CTP projects based on EXISTING zoning, and COG growth forecasts within that framework.

To continue to cry wolf that the roads have been sized for unapproved development that will magically come if we build (or even connect!) a road network is unadulterated fertilizer.

That is every bit as stupid and venal a lie as the one told by the same little group when they were calling themselves Citizens for Community Schools (which protested schools near their community—which is apparently the entire county), when they said if schools were built in the Transition Area (an allowed use, see Chapter 7 RGP), it meant “the CPAMs were coming back!”

We need connections in every direction, because the attrition-based policies that produced the current LACK of infrastructure have been effective in one thing only—making a mess.

We will now be paying travel and accomodation for the absentee consultant who provided the GI-GO report to the small perennial protest group of current and former county advisors to come and muddy the water some more.

We can’t afford to fund public safety or schools, let alone roads, but we can pay for the Board’s cronies to bring in a consultant saying all we need is ped mobility and more tarffic “calming”?

It doesn’t get much calmer than gridlock!

The traffic problem is West-East and there is no need to have 6 lane highways North-South. Did I mention that these 6 lane highways have a speed limit of at least 50mph and therefore are not just residential roads? Also the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance is not about transportation, but is a lobbyist who is closely associated with the developer community and business. They don’t care about residental communities, quality of life or how their lobbying effort affects peoples live. They want big roads, because developers and business believe they turn a few bucks more on their balance sheet, if they can super size Loudoun. Also another objective is the outer Beltway, check their web page it’s an eye opener. Theses unnecessary north-south roads are for developers to put more homes on these roads and guess what’s gone happen next: more traffic problems West-East, where people drive to work. The CTP is still the same as it was with the pro growth Board of Supervisors, nothing has changed. Most of the over estimated North-South traffic are assumed car trips from Prince Williams County and guess who is lobbying for the inflated numbers

Way too many approved cul-de-sac developments instead of thru roads that allow more points of way to get where you are going.  This causes traffic to be “dumped” onto a few “main” roads leading to congestion.  We need more arteries to releive the heart attack.

Lincoln-THe Planning Commission does not make final decisions on rezonings that proffer to construct roads. And proffered roads follow the prescribed roads in the CTP (please read the above article, except w/ the understanding that the CTP is the guide for prescribed roads, not the definitive plan that the County will pay for and build every lane mile outlined in it…which is routinely espoused by critics of the very existence of the CTP. It’s merely a blueprint, not a wholly inclusive A to Z road building document, but it must be in place when/if someone wants to come in and build a road).  Anyway, the BOS approved/denies rezonings, and thus, has the final word.

And Waxpool is the only E/W road currently built, but all others between 7 and the Greenway are and have been PLANNED…Russell branch, Glouscester, Claiborne, Broadlands, probably missing some..but the $$ hasn’t been there to build them (crossing Broad RUn the #1 reason why). Thus, why rezonings like Kincora are so important. So don’t criticize or confuse ‘planning’ from what’s on the ground…there is a serious disconnect between the two, by nature.

Nothing in here about easing congestion on Waxpool huh?  That road is an excellent example of the great “planning” Loudoun has done with its development, and why future development needs to demand better traffic proffers.  I am sure the developers of the Target/Wegmans shopping center submitted a plan that projected an acceptable level of service for entering and exiting from Waxpool Road.  A few years later, what you have is a disaster.  Same with the intersection of Waxpool and Loudoun County Parkway heading towards Broadlands and Brambleton.  There are four active developments down that way (Loudoun Valley Estate, LV Villages, Moorefield, and Brambleton) yet no plans to fix that intersection.  Good job BoS.  More great work. 

Does anyone on the LC Planning Commission actually have a background in traffic or urban planning?  Maybe that should become a requirement.

What beguiles me most is:
1.) These criticisms are mostly about the existing layout and location of roads, and how they don’t provide the critics ‘ideal’ level of mbility…well, those roads are built, and neighborhoods built around them, so they aren’t changing, so the CTP works to make the most of the crappy curvilinear 1980’s uber-suburbia parkways and boulevards that this County has embraced for 30+ years. The only way to accomodate the 2030 build-out population (estimated at 100K+ more)is to increase capacity of these existing right-of-ways in the developed east. Securing all the ROW you can is then the only way that maybe, someday, the political will will be there to institute dedicated bus lanes, light rail, or other means.
2.) The criticized omissions (expansions of 15 and 9) are directly caused by citizen uproar against an initial staff recommendation and study to increase their capacity (look back at the draft CTP under the 04-07 BOS). A bypass of Hillsboro was on the table to eliminate the destruction of that village by the WVa commuters, but they themselves put that down (thinking that a 2-lane road will stop the traffic??). That 4-lane divided Rt. 9 in WVa is getting closer and closer to Virginia folks…yet if the CTP doesn’t advocate any changes for Rt. 9…whatever, Hillsboro can topple, they deserve their fate.

Eliminating planned roads and widths will not stop development, period. It will only make the impacts worse. The only major criticism I can agree with is the lack of non-road options and ROW acquisition for transit, which should be an addition to the CTP.

Rt. 7 and Rt. 50 are two main corridors, but are plagued by traffic lights.  Rt 66 has no lights, but is a horrible mess.  That only leaves the Greenway/Toll Road to go from East to West/West to East. A parkway that truly was an E-W/W-E crossing has got to be part of the solution. With Dulles airport being the center of the jobs, having more than Rt. 28 or a toll road access is a major mistake. Leesburg needs a true bypass with acceleration deceleration lanes from 9, 15 and 267.  Every night is a nightmare.

Here is what is funny about Northern Virginia and it’s haphazard road infrstructure planning.  I compare it to Virginia Beach all the time as I witnessed a simliar exponential growth pattern there back in the 1980’s similar to the one here in the 2000’s.  The biggest thing Virginia Beach planners did differently than here was to make the major roads 8 lanes instead of the 4 or 6 lane highways that the planners here seem to opt for. 

It makes no sense to me as there are hundreds of thousands more people living here in this area.  However, the traffic problem in Virginia Beach and Norfolk is mostly limited to the major interstates along 64 and sometimes 264 and 664.  Never did one hear of traffic backups on small 2 lane (in some stretches) highways like Route 15.  Route 50 and ROute 7 with 6 lanes are the joke of Northern Virginia!  Seriously, only 6 lanes with this many people?  These are main arteries yet are not treated like such with all the traffic lights along them.  I compare them to Northampton Blvd, Princess Anne Road, Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Blvds back in Tidewater. Those roads are all non-interstate highways which have at least 6 lanes each way, with Va Beach Blvd having 8 lanes.  It likely doesn’t even need 8 as it runs parallel to I-264. Maybe the light will go on in some regional planner’s brain one day here?  Just build more lanes on the major highways and build more connector roads throughout the system to connect people to places.