Last day to take the Survey!
Special Interests are pushing for River Crossing Option A, but it is the costliest option, has direct Impacts to many landowners and has a high environmental impact to the streams that lead to the Waterfall. I believe the large amount of land disturbance to the streams will silt up the waterfall
The high cost and impacts of option A will require many mitigation measures that could push the bridge construction back many years.
FAMPO is doing a River Crossing Location Survey. They ask for the public to do a location ranking.
My recommended rankings are B-2 followed by B-1, C, A and D last.
https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/25ed12ae0cc94b7bbb9543ea1451c9fa
Option B-2 is the best River Crossing Option for the following reasons:
1. Least direct impact to private property, only two landowners directly impacted (City of Fredericksburg and the Silver Company).
2. Least environmental impacts to Resource Protection Areas.
3. Shorter connection with the least clearing and Enviromental footprint.
4. Option B-2 costs millions of dollars less than Option A, so the crossing could be built years sooner than the other options.
5. Option B-2 has no impact to the waterfall.
6. Option B-2 is far enough from I-95 where the traffic noise will not impact the serenity on the bridge trail overlook. There would also be more scenic views without having to look at and hear I-95. We should consider a design of the bridge trail similar to Belle Island. The pros to a suspension trail is it could be adjusted to any elevation to meet up with other trails, less traffic noise, shade, closer to nature, shelter during storms and views from both sides of the trail. I'm sure there are cons, but it's worth exploring different designs.
7. Longer bridge span that will allow more wildlife migration and more possibilities for trails to pass underneath the bridge.
8. The longer bridge span has a much smaller footprint and has much less Enviromental damage to the RPA than the many culverts of option A.
9. Option B-2 is about 1/4 mile shorter than option B-1.
The projected traffic counts for 2050 are 40,000 trips per day.
A 1/4-mile reduction in 40,000 trips is a reduction in miles driven of 10,000 miles per day, which will significantly reduce air pollution.
10. A longer bridge will allow the runoff to be controlled for greater distances to be channeled to more environmentally friendly locations for containment and treatment before it reaches the river.
11. It maximizes the use of over $100 M in existing infrastructure and will have better traffic flow than the other options. The many connections to Route 17 and the Celebrate Virginia transportation grid will diffuse traffic congestion.
12. Option B-2, B-1 and C will improve Fire and Rescue Response and Transport times in some areas of Stafford, especially in the Del Webb Senior Community.
The study shows driving from the Del Webb Senior Community to Mary Washington Hospital currently takes 30 minutes, but with option B-2 it would take 10.2 minutes to transport to Mary Washington Hospital. That's a reduction of about 20 minutes of transport time. Reducing 20 minutes of time our ambulances are out of service can't be overstated.
It will take 10 years until the bridge is built. The seniors will be older and might want to live 20 minutes closer to the hospital. I'm sure family member will appreciate saving an extra 20 minutes each way. Stafford has a high transient rate of about 11% to 14%. In 10 years, most will not be here.
Option B-2 will reduce the mileage to 4.5 miles to transport from the Del Webb Senior Community across the river to Mary Washington Hospital. That section of road currently has only 3 traffic lights.
13. Establishing a Regional Park will mitigate the impacts to the conservation easements, providing more recreational opportunities, protecting open space and showcasing dozens of historic sites.
14. The river crossing at option A would put the parking too close to the waterfall. I believe the parking should be around 2 miles away, so that people will not bring as much trash. Having the parking too close would trash the area around the waterfall. The runoff from option A would also negatively impact the waterfall.
Thanks for reading and taking the survey,
Joe Brito