Letter Templates

If you oppose the widening, send one email to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and your Virginia State Delegate Dave Albo. Use the following email addresses:

chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov
dranesville@fairfaxcounty.gov
hntrmill@fairfaxcounty.gov
mason@fairfaxcounty.gov
springfield@fairfaxcounty.gov
braddock@fairfaxcounty.gov
leedistrict@fairfaxcounty.gov
mountvernon@fairfaxcounty.gov
providence@fairfaxcounty.gov
sully@fairfaxcounty.gov
ClerktotheBOS@fairfaxcounty.gov
dave@davealbo.com

To send your comments via U.S. Postal mail, use the following addresses to send a letter to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and Delegate Dave Albo:

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
Government Center
12000 Government Center Parkway Suite 530
Fairfax, VA 22035

Virginia Delegate Dave Albo
6367 Rolling Mill Place
Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22152

Cut and paste arguments from this web page, or you can use one these two letter templates to voice your opposition:

[Template #1]

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Supervisor Sharon Bulova, Braddock
Supervisor John W. Foust, Dranesville
Supervisor Catherine Hudgins, Hunter Mill
Supervisor Jeff McKay, Lee
Supervisor Penelope Gross, Mason
Supervisor Gerald Hyland, Mount Vernon
Supervisor Linda Smyth, Providence
Supervisor Pat Herrity, Springfield
Supervisor Michael Frey, Sully

Reference: VDOT State Project 0638-029-156-PE 104, RW-204, C-504

Earlier this summer our Committee presented to you a petition to stop this project. The petition represented 82% of citizens in West Springfield Village—we are a mile south of the intersection of Rolling Road and Old Keene Mill Road. You summarily dismissed our petition and dismissed us. We tried to connect to our supervisor, but to no avail. We have asked Delegate Albo, who has been very supportive on many other projects, but he disagrees with us.

We went to the Governor and he says he has no Constitutional authority or statutory authority to challenge the County on this issue. We now are back to you, the Board, our elected officials and though we are not constituents, save for the Springfield supervisor, we are appealing to your better judgment and the fact you collectively have tutelary responsibilities for our tax dollars. And we do pay you a salary.

Here is a litany of reasons why this project should not continue (not in any particular order):

  • You want to spend over $30,000,000 (that is Thirty Million Dollars) to take one mile of roadway from two lanes to four lanes. It demonstrates a complete disregard for taxpayers at a time when every penny counts.
  • Prosperity Avenue between Route 50 and 236 is a two lane road. Some sort of special disposition has been afforded these citizens to not widen the road, this is according to VDOT.
  • We can fill pages with safety issues, but suffice it to say that safety is going to become a major issue in the future because of the proximity of the roadway to the housing area. Some front doors of homes along Rolling Road will be a few feet away from the road.
  • Another major safety issue involves those drivers in the community trying to access Rolling Road to go either North or South. They now must cross two lanes, and in some areas there is no space in the middle afforded for drivers to cross halfway and wait for the second half to clear so they can be on their way. Add to this issue, the speed of those driving on Rolling Road. A typical speed during non-rush hour times is in the 35-45 mile an hour range, with a few drivers exceeding 50 MPH.
  • We know of no other project in the County where your plan puts the roadway in either the front yard for those on the West side of Rolling Road, or the backyards of those on the East side of Rolling Road. Parenthetically, there is a newly constructed house on Prosperity that is no more than a few feet away from the roadway, suggesting there really is no plan to widen Prosperity roadway between Route 236 and Route 50.
  • Though the project has been in the County plan for decades, it has been opposed for an equal time. It has been the Springfield supervisor who seems to have a burning desire to have this section of the road widened.
  • The County is facing demonstrable revenue shortfalls and needs to save money where ever it can—here is a sizeable amount of money that can be put back into the County coffers.
  • There is no rational argument for this project. VDOT’s data on traffic flow has been wrong for the decades this project has been on the books. Consequently there is no valid reason to support traffic flows.
  • Developments at the U. S. Army’s Engineer Proving Grounds (EPG), now a part of BRAC will not have the impact that our supervisor is projecting. Further, because the County’s deafness to issues brought about by BRAC at the EPG, taxpayers and citizens on the south end of Rolling Road near Fullerton Road are battling for their lives. Again, it seems Representative Albo is coming to the rescue.
  • The County’s efforts to support mass transit are avoided. It seems the Board prefers to leave such issues to the state and federal officials. Yet, you stand ready to take the dollars whether they make sense or not.
  • Very little consideration has been given by the designers of this project to how those living along the roadway will be able to safely encounter Rolling Road from the many side streets.
  • Crossing Rolling Road on foot will turn into an impossible task.
It is understandable that many of you have no idea what is happening in this community. We appeal to you to become involved. It is a simple case of asking questions.

  • Ask your planners to give specifics about the safety concerns with this project.
  • Ask your planners about water runoff issues with this project.
  • Ask your planners about the distance from the nearest front door to the center of the Rolling Road.
  • Ask your planners what the projected traffic load of this roadway was when they did the first study to support the widening.
  • Ask your planners what the traffic load was on the last assessment (I think you will be as shocked as the citizens were).
  • Ask yourselves how come some county residents get exceptions to such expansions of roadways, such as those along Prosperity yet citizens in Springfield do not get such considerations.
  • Ask the county executive what he could do with $30 million.
  • Ask yourselves how much you really understand the County’s transportation problems, as opposed to your parochial interests for just your District.
  • Ask homeowners if they would like to have the $30 million applied towards their property tax.
If you believe our supervisor, then you agree with him the only reason to proceed with this project is because it is in the County plan. Such rational defies any logic and insults the citizens of this community. Try as we may, we struggle to refute the idea that our supervisor really thinks we are as stupid as he seems to think.

To top it off, the Springfield supervisor has abandoned us because of his political ambitions. Unless one of the other Board members is willing to step up to listen to the majority of people in this community and to ask questions we are left with our Representative Albo. He is not really in a position to do much.

We realize we will best be represented by a political action initiative to elect officials who will listen to all of the constituents. We need elected officials who not only listen, but who can understand the necessity of a strategy to deal with issues on one level, and at the same time have the wisdom to engage citizens living in communities.

From the perspective of being in the trenches where many of us see things, the model being developed at the national level, is a model board members may want to check out. Change is coming. The stories about Rolling Road have been collected at this web site: http://rollingroadnorth.blogspot.com. The Committee encourages you to review what is being said, along with your own investigation and voting your conscious.


[Template #2]

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Supervisor Sharon Bulova, Braddock
Supervisor John W. Foust, Dranesville
Supervisor Catherine Hudgins, Hunter Mill
Supervisor Jeff McKay, Lee
Supervisor Penelope Gross, Mason
Supervisor Gerald Hyland, Mount Vernon
Supervisor Linda Smyth, Providence
Supervisor Pat Herrity, Springfield
Supervisor Michael Frey, Sully

Reference: VDOT State Project 0638-029-156-PE 104, RW-204, C-504

This VDOT state project has been designated as a top priority within Fairfax County’s Secondary Six Year Plan with the intent to relieve congested traffic that occurs during peak usage, plan for traffic increases caused by the expansion of Fort Belvoir under BRAC, and improve safety along the Rolling Road corridor. However mundane these reasons are, there are unique circumstances along this portion of Rolling Road that does not validate the justifications, and will likely prove to be a wasteful use of financial resources for an uncertain future.

This project plans to spend approximately $30 million dollars of federal funding to widen 1.4 miles of Rolling Road, between Old Keene Mill Road and the Fairfax County Parkway, from two lanes into 4 lanes of traffic. The consequences for such action on a small portion of residential roadway seem to be an acceptable risk for the County because of the funding source. I want to remind you of these consequences and request a reevaluation of this project to use those funds on road projects that have both a higher priority and will provide a greater return on investment for taxpayers. My concerns are that the widening of this portion of Rolling Road will result in an increase in traffic volume into a residential neighborhood, which enhances the safety risks that will not be adequately mitigated by road design or police enforcement.

A major impetus for the widening is the current traffic conditions and the increases expected to occur with Ft. Belvoir. Historical VDOT traffic growth projections have shown the volume projection of 43,500 cars per day was for 2031. VDOT studies used the Council Of Government (COG) traffic model, based on traffic projections for the entire Washington, D.C. National Capital Region, which is hardly focused on our specific area of Rolling Road or even just our county. Since this project has been part of the County’s Comprehensive Road Plan since the 1990s, there have been many citizen involvement meetings used to exaggerate the justification and attempt to alleviate concerns. The latest 2006 growth model results showed a DECREASE in growth over time of 2.2% per year. The previous growth rate used in 2001 was 2.4%. The model actually showed a reduction in the growth rate. Many have asked it before and bears asking again. Where is all this “growth” supposedly coming from in our area when there is no real estate around upon which to build? If traffic volume increases at all, it will be BECAUSE Rolling Road gets expanded to 4 lanes and thus presents a more inviting route than other roads that run parallel to it.

Under the BRAC, 8,500 employees of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency will move into new facilities at the old Engineer Proving Ground (EPG). Sounds like a lot of folks introduced to our local road system. In the absolute worst case scenario, all 8,500 drive themselves individually to work and all decide Rolling Road is the route of choice vice Backlick Road or the Fairfax County Parkway. NGIA is a 24/7 operation, so assuming 3 shifts per day, we are now looking at 2,833 per shift and two days are on weekends. Using VDOT’s current estimate of traffic volume of 23,000 per day, that doesn’t look like the kind of new traffic load that warrants construction of a “mini-interstate” that splits a residential neighborhood with drivers who already exceed the speed limit by 10-15mph on a 2 lane road.

NGIA headquarters is currently located in Bethesda, MD. Are all those employees going to move en masse to homes in Springfield and Burke? Some probably, but most will not. Many will commute from their current homes, using I-95/495/395, and accessing the EPG from the east via I-95 and Backlick Road. Those that do move to Northern Virginia will typically be scattered across the area and use any number of routes to get to work to include the Fairfax County Parkway that will cut right along the EPG.

Lastly, the third major reason to justify the widening of Rolling Road is to improve safety along the corridor. Engineers at VDOT tout that widening the 2 lane road into 4 lanes will improve safety because it will straighten the numerous vertical and horizontal curves along the 1.4 mile stretch. Their attempt to address safety concerns by designing the road with a maximum speed limit of 35 mph defies all logic given that a 4 lane road will only exacerbate both intentional and unintentional opportunities to exceed this by 10-15mph. While this occurs today on a posted 30mph two lane road, it is hard to comprehend this safety risk mitigated with a 4 lane road. Police enforcement is short shrift now and will likely continue given the finite resources and security priorities of the County.

Many County 2 lane roads have been expanded in the past, however, this 1.4 mile stretch is unique, and the justifications and results of widening does not have parity. One historical example that has been frequently used in comparisons is the widening of Rolling Road between Braddock Road and Old Keene Mill Road. Not only are the house setbacks completely different, but also every significant cross street (Forrester, Burke Road, Southhampton) has a stoplight. While some elected officials seek to alleviate the safety risk by removing the planned bike path, it does not address the unique safety hazard to residents, pedestrians, and drivers. Traffic accident statistics used to justify the safety reasons for widening should be recorded from areas within this 1.4 mile stretch rather than at the outskirts along a major intersection such as Rolling Road and Old Keene Mill Road.

Earlier this summer, residents living in my community, the Civic Association of West Springfield Village, presented to you a petition to stop this project. You dismissed our petition and we tried to connect to our Springfield supervisor, but to no avail. We have asked Virginia Delegate Dave Albo, who has been very supportive on many other projects, but he disagrees with us. Governor Kaine states he lacks the statutory authority to challenge the County on this issue. We now are back to you to appeal to your better judgment because of your responsibilities with our tax dollars regardless of funding source. With such negative impacts and suspect justifications, the case for spending finite resources on this small project vice other County priorities has not been adequately made evident to taxpayers. To better understand the arguments and see the impact, please visit http://rollingroadnorth.blogspot.com. Thank you taking the time to listen to these arguments and I look forward to hearing from you soon.