Belmont Ridge Expansion to Six Lane Highway Instead of Four

[Mike-and-Kim]

Originally Posted by Steve Campot

If my house backed or almost backed to Belmont Ridge I would sell it ASAP. I believe the county will be under immense pressure from the state to approve the current 6 lane proposal.

When we were looking years ago we checked out the Carr houses along Belmont Ridge, which we really liked. In fact we went back several times. Asked the sales guy about Belmont Ridge widening and he claimed to know nothing...we looked at it and said if that ever did get widened it would be just a little close and the road noise would drive me nuts.

[OSimpson]

It is good to look at many other examples and how other communities have been effected with big roads and what it does and it doesn't bring. Or can we even know for sure. The bottom line is that communities that are becoming more and more appealing and on high demand are not traditional suburbia anymore. We all have invested in our communities in many ways including financially.

Great information about how communities are changing here:
http://www.walklive.org/project/videos/

How Not To Forecast Traffic
How a Washington state transportation council misuses statistics

Oh, jeez, this is like shooting fish in a barrel: a picture-perfect demonstration of how not to estimate future traffic volumes.

On the website of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, I ran across this doozy of a chart, showing projections for future traffic across the Columbia River between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA.


It seems that the chartmaker used a linear regression (which comes standard on most spreadsheet programs) to draw a straight line through traffic data from the early 1960s through 2010, and continue that line through 2030. Then—apparently with a straight face—the Transportation Council presents this line as a “projection” for future traffic volumes, “should current trends continue.”

And since the state of Washington itself hosts the page, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this kind of linear regression is a reasonable way to project future traffic volumes.

But wait, I can use Excel too! Here’s my take, based on the very same data plus a wee bit of historical context:



When you present the chart this way, traffic across the Columbia River divides into three phases:

The first phase (1961 through 1982), when there was just one bridge across the Columbia north of Portland, saw fairly consistent traffic growth.
The second phase (1983 through 2001)—while both the I-5 and I-205 bridges were open, gas prices remained low, the Baby Boomers entered their peak driving years, and the Northwest economy hummed—saw even faster growth in traffic.

During phase three (2002 to the present), gas prices started going up in earnest, rush-hour traffic on the CRC bridges neared saturation, the economy roller-coastered, and the Baby Boomers aged past their peak driving years—and traffic essentially flatlined.

So if you run a linear regression from “current trends”—where “current” is defined as the last decade, excluding what happened in the 1960s through 2001—you wind up with a “projection” of essentially zero traffic growth through 2030.



But more importantly, a linear regression on this data set can generate all sorts of different lines, depending on where you set the starting and ending points. In the animation to the right, I ran a series of linear regressions on the CRC traffic volume data. All of the regressions use 2010 as the endpoint, but the start date ranges from 1983 to 2004. The “projection forward should current trends continue”—the expression used in the transportation council’s chart—is practically whatever you want it to be; all you have to do is choose what you mean by “current trends.”

Luckily for you, I won’t insult your intelligence by claiming that any of these linear regressions represents a legitimate prediction of future traffic trends. An Excel linear regression just doesn’t count as a forecast. So just to be clear: I’m NOT predicting that traffic between Vancouver and Portland will remain flat indefinitely. All I’m saying is that running a linear regression, with no other information for context, is a nonsensical way to make a forecast of the future.

Instead, a real estimate of future traffic would look at macro-economic forecasts, land use projections, future gas prices and fleet mpg, population growth, population age structure, recent trends by age and demographic groups, and a host of other factors. Even with all of that baked in, of course, a forecast will almost certainly be wrong; very few predictions, even the most sophisticated and thoughtful, hit their mark. (For example, the actual track record of the Puget Sound’s transportation model is simply laughable.) But at least the Council would be able to explain their projections without getting red in the face.

As it stands now, though, a regional transportation planning group has presented a “projection” that’s essentially a meaningless, cherry-picked line. At the same time, I notice that the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council has voted to support a much wider I-5 bridge. One has to wonder: was their decision to support the wider CRC influenced by their simplistic projections? Or did they create the projection to help justify a decision they were going to make anyway? Either way, it’s a bit embarrassing.

________________

Good to hear from Steve Campot Realtor, about his view on real estate value, and Mike about how his decision was effected by this road as well.

Thank you.

[vacliff]

Originally Posted by GAJones

The fact is that Loudoun County roadways often changed in the CTP as the County evolves. Some with more lanes, some with less. There was a lot of new info learned during the last CTP, which affirmed that BRR dones not need to be built out to 6 lanes (which is why former Supervisor Miller and why the current Supervisor Shawn Williams opposes the expansion). Yes additional ROW is preserved IF additional expansion is needed (so again, why the change back to 6 lanes). The impact to residents living along BRR (including Broadlands)will be much less (especially if the roadway is expanded from the outward from the revised centerline -- which is what Cliff and ALL other PC members supported last year).

You may well be right. The road might not be need to be 6 lanes.
If they would ever finish the small missing piece of Claiborne, a lot of traffic will probably move off Belmont Ridge.
My point, again, is that Belmont Ridge has been planned for 6 lanes before it was tweaked a year ago for political reasons.
Because of the preserved 6 lane right-of-way, this is, in my opinion, much ado about nothing.

[GAJones]

Originally Posted by vacliff

You may well be right. The road might not be need to be 6 lanes.
If they would ever finish the small missing piece of Claiborne, a lot of traffic will probably move off Belmont Ridge.
My point, again, is that Belmont Ridge has been planned for 6 lanes before it was tweaked a year ago for political reasons.
Because of the preserved 6 lane right-of-way, this is, in my opinion, much ado about nothing.

Agree that 6 lanes not needed. But just because BRR was once designated 6 lanes doesn't mean that it should be set in stone. As you said, Claiborne, LC Parkway, and other north-south roadways have (or will be) extended so BRR doesn't have to handle all of the north-south traffic (putting aside that the data used in the model has serious flaws in the first place).

Remember TOO that other roadways (such as Claiborne, Ashburn Village, etc were also being sized to 6 lanes (that is until Lori and Scott got involved and decided to reduce them back to 4 lanes). The decision to reduce BRR to 4 lanes was no different...although there was the "re-vote" because Sally had a senior moment (her position on BRR had always been to limit it to 4 lanes....but the voting procedure was confusing at best).

There are advantages to designating the road to 4 lanes. For instance, when expanding BRR from 2 to 4 lanes, it could be expanded from the centerline-out, thus providing adequate buffer space between the edge of the expanded roadway and the existing homes (homes that were not built for a 6 lane 150 ROW BECAUSE AT THE TIME THE BRR WAS DESIGNATED TO BE BUILT IN A 120 FT ROW (NOT 150 ROW) AND BECUASE THE COUNTY DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE ULTIMATE RELOCATED CENTERLINE (MT HOPE CHRUCH CAN'T ABSORD EXPANSION ON THEIR SIDE OF THE ROAD)...SO THE NEW CENTERLINE WILL NEED TO SHIFT IN THE OTHER DIRECTION....ALL OF WHICH PROVIDES FAR LESS BUFFER SPACE BETWEEN THE EXPANDED ROADWAY AND EXISTING HOMES)....

[Steve Campot]

Originally Posted by Mike-and-Kim

When we were looking years ago we checked out the Carr houses along Belmont Ridge, which we really liked. In fact we went back several times. Asked the sales guy about Belmont Ridge widening and he claimed to know nothing...we looked at it and said if that ever did get widened it would be just a little close and the road noise would drive me nuts.

Most "Sales Guys" at new construction sites are not licensed real estate agents and therefore are not under any legal pressure to tell the truth or play by a fair set of rules. Always bring a buyer's agent with you.

[vacliff]

Originally Posted by GAJones

...SO THE NEW CENTERLINE WILL NEED TO SHIFT IN THE OTHER DIRECTION....ALL OF WHICH PROVIDES FAR LESS BUFFER SPACE BETWEEN THE EXPANDED ROADWAY AND EXISTING HOMES)....

If you want to know how close the road could be to the homes on the east side of Belmont Ridge, look at where the fire hydrants are located. They are outside the right of way for the 6 lane road.

[GAJones]

Originally Posted by vacliff

If you want to know how close the road could be to the homes on the east side of Belmont Ridge, look at where the fire hydrants are located. They are outside the right of way for the 6 lane road.

The fire hydrants in the common area will have to be relocated.

They were put there when BRR was designated to be in a 120 ft ROW (versus the change to 150 ROW)...and BEFORE the County realized that BRR's centerline of the raod has to shift to the east.

The distance between the cemetery to the backyard of the home located directly across the street is ~170 feet (and VDOT has said that they may actually need more ROW to support the needed curvature for a 6 lane raodway IF the speed is to remain above 45mph).

This is why when BRR is expanded from 2 to 4 lanes, we need the roadway to be built from the relocated centerline-out (rather than putting in a large median like they did on Crosen Rd) to avoid the edge of the roadway from being situated too close to existing homes.

There are other developments on BRR with similar issues further North.

[We Love Disney]

Was anyone able to make it to the meeting last night and what was the outcome?

[GAJones]

Originally Posted by We Love Disney

Was anyone able to make it to the meeting last night and what was the outcome?

118 emails were sent to the BOS before the public hearing:
- 116 were opposed to the expansion
- 1 was in favor
- 1 was undecided

At the meeting, the Washington Airport Task Force, the commercial real estate development association, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance (i.e.road builders) spoke in favor of the expansion.....but the majority of people attending were local businessmen and residents living in the community from the Village of Waxpool, Broadlands, Belmont Country Club, Belmont Ridge, Brambleton, etc....and the PEC.

Chairman York said that the real reason for the meeting was to increase the 2-lane section of Gum Springs Road south of Braddock road..."if the ROW would not have been restricted on Gum Springs Road during the last CTP....today's meeting probably would have never occured".

The BOS decided to defer the vote until May 2nd as they try to reach a "compromise" to reduce BRR to 4 lanes in a 120-150 ROW while increasing the ROW further south.

Here's the link to the AshburnPatch article: http://ashburn.patch.com/articles/compromise-anticipated-on-belmont-ridge-northstar-plans

[vacliff]

Originally Posted by GAJones

The fire hydrants in the common area will have to be relocated.
They were put there when BRR was designated to be in a 120 ft ROW (versus the change to 150 ROW)...and BEFORE the County realized that BRR's centerline of the raod has to shift to the east.

Well, that's not what I was told by Loudoun Water when I asked about this issue, and I specifically had them confirm the hydrants were outside the 6 lane ROW.
I'm not saying you are incorrect, just what was told to me by Loudoun Water.