Rt. 50: Highway as Beast

Highway as Beast
http://loudounconnection.com/article.asp?article=51035&paper=67&cat=104

Steve Snow's Route 50 Task Force is headed by developers who have proposed building 22,000 new homes in the Rt. 50 corridor. To get a good perspective on what this will mean, read this article from the Loudoun Connection on Rt. 50 traffic now and then imagine the 22,000 new homes in the Rt. 50 corridor plus the 2,000 more yet to go up in South Riding and the ones being built in Stone Ridge etc. Many frustrated drivers are already leaving Rt. 50 for alternate routes because the traffic is so bad. How many more car trips a day will this mean for Rt. 50? Certainly 3 - 4 times what they have now.

There are some people around here who always characterize anyone who is not 100% pro development as being against all development and growth. There are some who oppose all growth in Loudoun but many more including myself who accept growth but question Steve Snow's vision for embracing massive growth as fast as it can be approved without first ensuring the road infrastructure will be in place to handle the increased traffic. Snow seems to think that turning Rt. 50 into a 6 lane limited access highway will solve the traffic problem. It may be necessary at this point but will this really make traffic better on Rt. 50? By the time this or any other solution is implemented there will be thousands more homes going up and lots of cars driving to work etc. The improvements to Rt. 50 would help the existing level of traffic but will it help when traffic increases by 2 or 3 times?

The current situation shows how South Riding was poorly planned from the start with regards to infrastructure. Seems like a build it and then agitate for infrastructure, services and more homes to justify the improvements approach to me. Ashburn was planned with a 6 lane limited access highway from the beginning which made good sense. I hope that others on this list are watching Steve Snow and the Rt. 50 Task Force carefully. We are also stakeholders since these decisions will affect everyone in the Dulles district. Unfortunately our part of the district is not represented on this task force.

I agree that Dulles South needs better infrastructure and services but I feel strongly that building 22,000 new homes in the next 10 years on Rt. 50 will be a traffic and quality of life disaster.

skins fan

 

Skins, do you find it humorous that the entire issue was devoted to Dulles South? Why, if there's nothing here?

Do you ever find it humorous that a paper supposedly serving eastern suburban communities gets so much input from western districts?

Are you referring to the Greenway as the 6-lane limited access that was planned before Ashburn was developed? Are you aware that 50 has been planned as 6-lane limited access for some time? Look it up, in relation to the Greenway. 50 has been around far longer. It is historic for being a ROAD.

At least South Riding was planned. I'm not going to take the bait on your dismissive opinion of it, because the information you apparently believe is the same "information" propounded by the money groups that oppose all infrastructure improvements in Dulles South, who always have, and whom I do not doubt always will.

The "facts" propounded by the "stakeholders" who don't live here are lacking, and should be checked. The CDA bonds will default to the developers, not the county. They are included upfront, with full disclosure, in the cost of the homes.

By-right development is a disaster on what remaining land zoned for housing we have left, because every improvement you've mentioned being concerned about takes LAND to do Who owns the land to do it on, as well as selling an in-demand product that gives them the money to build the infrastructure on it?

Do some background reading, and see if you can find any specific improvement that the PEC supports? I can't think of a one, except for the urban density at the transit node next door to you.


Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

I don't have a problem with additional housing communities along Rte 50, as long as these Developers address the impact.
Requirements should be made to provide infrastructure off site, such as improvements along Rte 50.
The Creekside development south of Leesburg is a great example of this. The Developer would built a 400 acre fully equipped park as well as $200 million in road improvements (which included wident Belmont Ridge to 4 lanes and building an interchange at Rte 7). These infrastructure proffers far exceeded the impact of the development. It's unfortunate that Loudoun County is letting Leesburg dictate how Loudoun County's land should be used and it appears this may all disappear. Way to go!!!!!

 

No kidding, Cliff. An e-mail alert went out to a lot of the ball buddy lists, and the BoS was flooded with "we voted for Phil Bolen park" letters, and now that Mitchel has withdrawn, everybody seems to be having an Emily Litella moment--even the Times-Mirror ran an editorial about the one that got away. Where the heck were they when it was still on the table?
PEC/Campaign for the Future is lauding their "victory" in "saving" Bolen Park, by the way. Unbelieveable.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

Besides.....what better place for a park than next to the prison????????......yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'm sorry ... I still can't see how the developer using a CDA is good for the county. We're going to add more housing, the developer is not going to be paying for the infrastructure, and all we're going to get is a new population in the county that won't be able to afford the county taxes, plus the additional per household yearly 'tax' the CDA will require.

And after all that, we're still not going to get the 'affordable' housing that one person said that her son cannot find in Loudoun. (See Friday's Leesburg Today).





Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

 

NeilZ, there has been a lot of disinfo about the CDAs. They have been demonized as defaulting to the county, when in fact they default (IF they default) to the development company. The figure I saw quoted was less than $2K per year for the most expensive home, and it is disclosed upfront. Apparently where this has been tried other places, people welcome the fact that infrastructure will be paid for.

Their are several tiers of housing in the Greenvest proposal, including senior and affordable, with different loan structures available.

I'll have to check the L2Day, because my friend from Mt. Gilead was quoted in the article on the CPAM "stakeholders" meeting (funny how so many people and groups nowhere near here were included--PEC is based in Warrenton), and she in fact supports the CPAMs. Her son would love to find even a condo under $200K, and she is an economics major who knows that restricting a resource raises the price. She's an amazing woman, and fascinating to talk to. She lives in an A-3 neighborhood (which actually developed out at about A-10 to 15, because of the steep slopes on Hogback Mountain).



Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.