Category: Bi-County/Tri-County Parkway (2012-2016) (page 1 of 2)
by Jill Palermo, InsideNOVA.com, 18 March 2016
[Pictured: “Alan Johnson (left) and Philomena Hefter, both residents on Pageland Road in Gainesville, hold a banner that says ‘Say “No!” to Tri-County Parkway’ during a 2013 protest.
by Jill Palermo, InsideNOVA, 23 February 2016
“For the past 30 years, the controversial Bi-County Parkway has existed only as a line on local and regional transportation planning maps.
Prince William Board of County Supervisors votes to initiate full study of county road network instead of just removing controversial Bi-County/Tri-County Parkway Parkway from its system. Supervisors May, Caddigan, Candland express opposition to roadway, while Stewart, Nohe continue to express support. Pro-parkway supervisor Covington casts only vote against study, though Candland describes it as "just a way of not voting (up or down on the bi-county parkway) and kicking the can down the road." Read More
Citizens interviewed on reasons for opposing bi-county parkway (BCP). Reasons include disruption of or damage to: schools, existing neighborhoods, historic sites, and traffic flows. Other reasons include need for relief from east-west traffic, wherein most traffic congestion lies, not from north-south traffic -- i.e., the BCP solves a non-problem. One citizen wonders why former Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman and now-VDOT Secretary Connaughton is "so hot to trot" on BCP and says the public has a "right to know who will benefit from the by-pass." Read More
Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) approves citizens resolution by bi-county parkway (BCP) foes that promises to keep open US 29 and Route 234 inside Manassas Battlefield until bypass around battlefield is completed. Jackson Miller Former BOCS Chairman and now-VDOT Secretary Connaughton and current BOCS Chairman Stewart strongly support BCP while Gainesville Supervisor Candland opposes. Read More
Citizens, Virginia state assemblymen, congressmen refute VDOT claims of Fedex, UPS support for Tri-County Parkway (TCP)/Bi-County Parkway (BCP) and Chamber of Commerce claims that "only a small group" is opposed to TCP/BCP; in fact, at major TCP/BCP presentation to public, 38 of 40 public speakers oppose it. Read More
Congressman Wolf concerned at "fast-track" approach and lack of transparency regarding Tri-County Parkway (TCP)/Bi-County Parkway (BCP) by VDOT and other TCP supporters. Also concerned at TCP/BCP opening up Rural Crescent to residential development, closing of traffic through Bull Run Battlefield, and plans to make TCP/BCP a toll road. Wolf also wonders how much the TCP/BCP, a north-south road, will improve daily east-west and west-east traffic jams, as opposed to instead investing road money in I-66. Read More
Prince William Board of County Supervisors unanimously delays vote Tuesday that would have reaffirmed the county’s support for a proposed Bi-County Parkway (BCP)/Tri-County Parkway (TCP) , in another victory for BCP/TCP opponents. Virginia Assembly Delegate Bob Marshall notes that widening VA 28 is alternative. Map of BCP. Read More
Amid widespread opposition to Tri-County Parkway/Bi-County Parkway, Virginia State Assembly Delegate Bob Marshall calls it "a developers’ road," saying he "would like to know who currently owns the property that would be purchased for the right-of-way, and who has taken options to purchase property along the right-of-way. I believe that it is primarily developers and that rather than helping create a road to move traffic in a timely manner, this would be an opening for extensive development which would only create more traffic problems." Read More
Residents voice "anger" at Tri-County Parkway cutting through Manassas Battlefield, Rural Crescent, local farmland; may open up area to residential development; VDOT, National Park Service behavior criticized Read More