I-66 trail changes were made late without consulting all stakeholders, so any delays are VDOT's fault

Virginia transportation leaders are claiming that moving the I-66 trail outside the noise barrier is putting the whole project at risk and that it would also require taking more property from adjacent land owners, but they haven't explained how either of those things are true and it seems like this problem is very much of their making. 

The I-66 Outside the Beltway project will include 22 miles of parallel trail, but for ~5 miles that will inside a sound wall.

For about five of the project’s 22.5 miles, the trail would be squeezed between the highway and the concrete wall that will serve as a buffer between traffic noise and adjacent neighborhoods.

Trail users, led by FABB, want the trail to be outside the sound wall. 

“It is air pollution, it’s noise, small particles that get kicked up from the highway,” said Bruce Wright, a member of the Fairfax Alliance for Better Bicycling. “Imagine riding on this trail and there is really no place to go if you have a problem. You are right next to a very tall soundwall, and you are right next to a jersey barrier.”

However Virginia is now saying that it's too late to change things, despite pleas from state lawmakers that they do so, although they appear to be making an effort.

Susan Shaw, director of Mega Projects for VDOT, said the department is working with the project’s private partners to find other locations within those five miles of trail where the facility could be moved to the other side of the wall. A modified design would be released for public review this fall, she said.

There are some mixed messages from VDOT and I can't get a clear answer as to what the issue is. Is it that more property will have to be taken

 Changing the trail location would require additional right of way, officials said.

Or is it because neighbors want the wall between them and the trail.

Officials say they understand the design isn’t ideal, but they cite neighbor opposition to having the trail on their side of the wall. The option they settled on addresses the neighbors’ concerns and the corridor’s right-of-way constraints.

Because if it's the latter I'm not sympathetic, but the former does matter. What isn't clear is why additional right-of-way would be needed or how much or where. They should answer those questions. Right now they're planning a roadway barrier with fencing, then the trail, then the noise barrier. It seems like, if anything, they could reduce the width by combining the two barriers into one. So why do the need more space and why can't they tell us how much additional width they need. 

They claim that "a deal.. was reached after years of negotiations and compromises to reduce the impact on homeowners" but as near as I can tell trail advocates like FABB were not included in those negotiations.  The earliest I can find this was mentioned was in a December 2015 draft RFP document, but I'm not sure when that was made public.  Regardless, maps from June 2016 show the trail (solid green line) outside the sound barrier (green and black line)

But in April 2017, show it (green) inside the noise barrier (blue and black)

What happened over those months? Why weren't trail advocates notified of such a big change?

If there is an engineering reason why the noise wall can't be placed where the road barrier is planned, and so moving the trail outside the wall would take 10-12 feet from people on Brian Drive, that I am sympathetic about (but dubious, I mean why can't you put the sound barrier where the road barrier is planned); but they need to explain that. If not, then they're kowtowing to irrational fears of neighbors. Give them a nice privacy fence, sure, but this is a terrible plan.

If it really does mean a larger taking, maybe we could look at a narrower trail, or lifting the trail up above the roadway (which would be pricey I admit). There has got to be a better solution.

I have to say that what it looks like is this - late in the game they screwed over trail users by changing the design to placate homeowners and now they're complaining that trail users want to go back to the original design when it's too late in the game.

Comments

[Roo_Beav]

I think I read somewhere about utilities being buried in the area below the "trail" and that it needed to be on the highway side for access. Not sure how true that is or not, but it's poor planning if it is.