Bury the Wires and Tame the Traffic
Working Meeting, April 30, 2003
On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, a meeting was
held at the offices of Kimley-Horn and Associates in Herndon, VA, to discuss
progress and move into the next phases of the project entitled Preliminary Engineering
Services to “Bury the Wires and Tame the Traffic” in Waterford, VA.
Attendees
Loudoun County Department of General Services: Dick Pezullo and
Sheryl Gates
Kimley-Horn and Associates: John Martin, Scott Mingonet, Roger Henderson,
Matt
Sellers, and Stephanie Cutlip
B2E Consulting Engineering: Nick Santore
William H. Gordon Associates: Bill Ackman and Eric Spencer
Williamsburg Environmental Group: Loretta Cummings
Louis Berger Group: Eric Voigt and Phil Pendleton
Dominion Virginia Power: Jerri Northedge
Handouts
-
Meeting Agenda
- Summaries of results from March 6, 2003 public meeting for this
project:
- Issues and Concerns for the Village of Waterford – Community Vote
- Issues and Concerns for the Village of Waterford – Team Comments
- 20-Year Visions for the Village of Waterford
- Waterford Citizens’ Core Values
- US 50 Traffic Calming Project Typical Detail
- Summary of Results from Traffic Data Collection in Waterford
Table of Results from Pavement Coring in Waterford
Discussion
The meeting began at approximately 9:00 AM with introductions of the
attendees and an outline of the agenda. John Martin gave a quick
overview of the project’s
progress to date, stating that the data collection tasks (Task 1 of the Scope
of Services) are nearly complete and the engineering studies (Task 2) are underway.
The purpose of this meeting was to begin pulling the data and the analysis together
with the goal of beginning to develop design alternatives to meet the mission
or purpose of the study.
John recapped the overarching mission of this
study, which was captured by the citizens of Waterford in a 1999 consensus
document and further reinforced
during
this project’s initial public meeting on March 6, 2003. John handed out
copies of the summaries of the results of that meeting.
Dick Pezullo and Sheryl Gates reinforced the
study parameters by stating that all recommended improvements must
be derived from either burying the
wires
or taming the traffic. Drainage can be improved if the solution is linked
to a traffic
calming or utility relocation alternative. Our marching orders come from
the TEA-21 grant application submitted to VDOT in 2000, which outlines
the purpose
of a study to “bury the wires and tame the traffic.” Everything proposed
for this study must meet the objectives and scope of the grant.
This grant application was discussed at a meeting
between VDOT, Loudoun County, and Kimley-Horn, held at the VDOT Residency
had been held the day
before
(April 29). (See Memorandum for Record.) Dick and John recapped that
meeting, noting
that the VDOT Environmental representative said that proposed improvements
would need to have “no adverse impact” for an environmental document to
be accepted. By the nature of the improvements, there will NOT be a “no
impact” finding, and for the project to move forward, there cannot be a
finding of “adverse impact.” Dick had suggested an additional ruling
of “enhancement,” but there is no category for that.
Loretta Cummings, Eric Voigt, and Phil Pendleton
said they would watch over our engineering studies and development
of alternatives to help
us arrive
at recommendations
that will have “no adverse impact.” It was suggested that a “no
build” alternative (doing nothing in the Village) would eventually have
an adverse impact to the National Historic Landmark. The historic nature of the
village is the backdrop of our decision making.
Sheryl mentioned that a similar study is occurring
in Loudoun County with the US 50 Traffic Calming project east and west
of Middleburg.
It was agreed
that
this project for Waterford could benefit from the decisions made by
VDOT for the US 50 project. Scott Mingonet noted that details had been
developed
for
roadway cross sections and curb and gutter. John handed out copies
of one example that
VDOT had provided. The VDOT project manager for the US 50 study is
Jan Vaughn. Sheryl Gates took an action item to contact Jan to set
up an
initial meeting.
It was agree that it would benefit this study to understand what will
be acceptable to VDOT with respect to pavement types, curb type, etc.
Dick
remarked that
the US 50 study is setting precedence.
John asked the question that when homeowners
improve sidewalks or build additions, who is the approving authority?
Sheryl indicated that the
Architectural Review
Committee of Loudoun County participates. Bill Ackman mentioned that
he had been to a meeting the included discussion of improvements to
a sidewalk
in
Waterford.
Phil remarked that there are published historical guidelines and Department
of the Interior standards.
“ Framing the Issues”
John turned to Scott and Roger to frame the issues with respect to
the recommendations that will come from this project. Scott reviewed
the
preliminary engineering
design process, taking the group through steps of looking at specific
locations within the Village. He discussed possible traffic calming
measures, utility
relocations, and related improvements to the drainage and enhancements
to the roadway.
Roger asked the group for the top three issues
we need to consider as we develop recommendations. The issues of (1)
historic context,
(2) VDOT
standards
and
maintainability, and (3) traffic/driving/walking experience were discussed.
Phil and Eric discussed the difference between
existing characteristics and characteristics that make the village
historic. Some of the significant
characteristics
include
architecture, roads, trees, rural(ness), open edges, and relationship
between agricultural and urban areas. Generally, those elements before
1860 are
very significant, before 1940 fairly significant, after 1940 not so
significant.
The group agreed that making sure improvements
are acceptable to VDOT has more to do with maintainability. For example,
snow on a cobblestone
roadway
cannot
be easily plowed. VDOT will need to be coordinated with during this
study. The team should do its best to plan ahead for regulators’ questions. It is
important we work with them and that they work with us.
Before moving to a discussion of traffic, Roger
reviewed the outline of “our
mission” (which he posted for all to see):
From the TEA-21 Grant:
- Tame the traffic
- Bury overhead utility wires
From the 1999 Consensus Document:
- “Less is more”
- “We want the Village to look muck like it does today”
- “Keep sidewalks as the exist today.”
- “Keep our trees”
- “Add historically correct streetlights”
For environmental compliance: “No adverse effect”
Traffic
Stephanie Cutlip outlined the traffic data collection efforts and the
findings. She handed out a table of results from speed surveys, traffic
counts, and a sign inventory. The attendees remarked that speeds were
generally in the
range
expected
for the particular streets for the bulk of the traffic.
However, there were remarks of surprise at the vehicles speeding over 50, 60,
and even 76 mph
(on Clarkes
Gap Road, just south of the Village). Overall, the daily
volumes are
relatively low through the Village. Roger remarked that the volumes
are
well within
the range for VDOT’s recommended traffic calming guidelines.
Drainage
Bill Ackman and Eric Spencer outlined their data collection
efforts, noting that they have completed a drainage map of
the Village
showing overall
drainage patterns.
The existing stormwater outfalls appear to be functioning
adequately, but some need cleaning. Bill noted that if pavement
is added
throughout the
town and
the impervious area increases, there will be a need to
address stormwater management requirements.
Some general ideas for drainage that Gordon
has developed include interfacing with the existing stormwater drainage
outfalls
with underground pipe,
depending of course on traffic calming measures. Bill asked
the question of whether
or not diverting the stream that crosses lower main street
(just east of the mill)
to interface with the mill operation would be appropriate.
It was agreed that more specific questions and ideas will
arise when
the
areas of
design focus
are designated in the Village.
Electrical
Nick Santore discussed the issues behind burying the wires.
In general, Dominion Virginia Power would like to stay
out of VDOT
roads. Also,
power through
the village is single phase, and Nick said that Virginia
Power does not have single-phase
transformers that can be buried. “They don’t exist.” There
was a suggestion that we could convert the village to three-phase wiring, but
it was agree that such a conversion would probably be prohibitively expensive,
and that there would be little incentive for Dominion Power to do so. Nick suggested
that converting the power would be double the cost of the 3-phase vault-mounted
(underground) transformers. Overall, Nick estimated the cost for buried wires
and at grade transformers to range between $700,000 and $1,000,000 per mile.
Jerry Northedge from Dominion Power joined the
meeting. She confirmed that to her knowledge there are no single-phase
transformers that can be buried,
and
wiring the village three-phase would mean also rewiring
each
house. There is three-phase power in the area around the
school. She estimated
that
it would
take 2 to 3 large 3-phase transformers (6'x6') by the school
and 1 single-phase transformer (3'x3') for each group of
10-15 houses.
The 3'X3' transformers can be shielded with
vegetation, fences, rock walls, etc. The clearance requirements are
10 feet on
the side with
the doors
and 3 feet
on all other sides. The power company also needs clearance
above the transformers (but removable covers may be acceptable).
Accessibility
is directly related
to their ability to service the equipment when needed,
which is their main concern
(not just for Waterford customers, but for everyone else
on the grid as well). Dominion Power needs to be able to
access
the
transformers through
access
easements, as appropriate.
Underground options including placing the power
in duct banks under the road, under the sidewalk, and/or in dedicated
15-ft
easements
(possible easement
locations are behind the houses on either side of Second
St.).
The question was raised as to alternatives to
the little green transformers. Covering them may be a possibility.
Alternatives to the boxes may
exist, but they may cause maintenance problems down the
road. It may come
down to finding
creative placement solutions for each condition. The group
was reminded that with this study developing concept plans,
it should
focus providing
typical
solutions for consideration by the Village of Waterford.
Regarding acceptance of transformers and covers
and/or shielding for the transformers, Phil and Eric indicated
that such designs
would need
to satisfy
the homeowners,
but that they will probably be OK with the Virginia State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Phil suggested that for maintenance of unique
items within the Village (transformers, lights, etc.), the Villagers
may need
to form a compact.
John mentioned that
the Waterford Foundation already employs landscapers to
maintain some of the common areas of town and that perhaps
a maintenance
contract for electrical
items would be appropriate. It was suggested that the foundation
may
need other
mechanisms
(short of reincorporating) like a Homeowners Association
to maintain aspects of the Village.
There was a discussion of the degree of innovation
that Dominion Power can provide, given their current resources,
but also
given the potential
visibility
of this
project within Virginia and the U.S. After some discussion
of options to provide an electrical design for burying
the wires,
Jerri indicated
that
Dominion Power
can work on creative solutions using their standard components.
John reaffirmed to the group that this study
is after two things with respect to our traffic calming and utility
relocation recommendations: feasibility
and cost.
It was agreed that the electrical concepts would
include Village plans of existing and proposed electrical distribution
with
typical details
(elevations, figures,
etc.) showing screening of transformers. Nick indicated
that Verizon and Adelphia would follow the path that Dominion
Power takes through
the Village.
The location
of starting the undergrounding would be to the east of
the
Village.
Environmental / Historical
Continuing the discussion of data collection, Loretta summarized
for the group her firm’s effort with the tree survey, which was performed to state and
landscape architecture standards. Phil mentioned that the National Park Service
(Interior Department) also has standards for documentation, which we will meet.
It was agreed that the consultant team is producing
a document for this project for (1) the client (Loudoun County) and
(2) to meet
environmental requirements.
The study document will look at options for traffic calming
and utility relocation, select and test alternatives (with
public
input), and
culminate with a set
of preferred concepts.
Architecture and archaeology will be a part
of this documentation. Waterford was granted is historic status in
1970. The fact
that the Village of
Waterford is a National Historic Landmark is unique. There
are only 1,200 landmarks
throughout the U.S., and very few of them are entire villages
or towns.
Roadway
To continue the discussion of data collection and engineering
studies, John covered the team’s look at the roadways and pavements within the Village. Working
with Gordon Associates, the team now has good base mapping, with elevations and
widths of the roadways now apparent. At several locations, the elevations of
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and pavement were surveyed and incorporated into the
mapping.
John reviewed the results of pavement coring
with the group, indicating that the asphalt thicknesses ranged from
4-1/2" to 7-3/4". He also shared
with the group VDOT’s version of the pavement history, that is, prior to
1975, the pavement consisted of chip and seal (stone and asphalt emulsion) over
the gravel roadways. When the Sanitation Authority installed the sewer, the pavement
was removed. VDOT came in after the installation and placed 2+ inches of asphalt.
There have been succeeding layers since then, including the paving of the ditch
along lower main – which accounts for the steep slope between the curb
and roadway on the south side of the street.
John noted that one sample showed large stones,
and Eric Breitkreutz suggested another set of cores to look at the
underlying pavement
structure (i.e.,
to see is cobblestones or other pavement exists). John
said he would ask ECS to
go back
out an perform a half dozen more cores.
Traffic Calming
The conversation shifted to traffic calming ideas. Roger
Henderson and Scott Mingonet reviewed sketches and talked
through some
ideas, which
included looking at alternating parking on main street,
tweaking intersections (sharpening
corners,
reducing pavement, etc.), and roundabouts at key locations.
Paving materials were discussed. A “hump back” bridge or two were also suggested on
Main Street and/or Water Street. “Pinch points” on Second Street,
Factory Street, and High Street were also discussed. At the gateways into the
Village, signs could be erected to notify motorists that say, “Traffic
Calmed Area.”
Wrap Up
The group committed to continuing discussions of traffic
calming ideas, as well as utility relocation, drainage,
pavements, environmental, and historical
issues
over the coming weeks. A weekly conference call was established
for 9 AM Tuesday mornings, starting with May 6.
As concepts are being developed, John reiterated
Dick Pezzullo’s statement
that we don’t get too detailed in our efforts, that
this is not design for construction, but a feasibility
study. John continued by saying that we need
to get enough into the details to verify feasibility and
estimate cost, but from a presentation standpoint (marketing
pieces, public meetings, and final report),
concept designs and typical configurations will be presented.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30
PM.
Action Items
Loudoun County - Sheryl
1. Contact Jan Vaughn (VDOT PM for the US 50 Traffic Calming
project east and west of Middleburg), set up a meeting,
begin coordination
between 2
projects
2. Reserve room for May 7 progress meeting
3. Reserve room and provide directions for May 27-28 Design
Workshop
B2E - Nick Santore
1. Coordinate with Verizon and Adelphia and provide feedback
to the group
2. Continue coordination with Virginia Power
3. Investigate larger single phase transformers with splice
boxes in lieu of more transformers
4. Develop overall concept designs for Village of Waterford
(in coord with Virginia Power) within next 2 weeks; coordinate
with
Kimley-Horn
for mapping/drawings;
provide alternatives
5. Perform lighting survey
6. Provide lighting fixture examples to Kimley-Horn
Gordon Associates - Eric Spencer and Bill Ackman
1. Provide questions for VDOT to Kimley-Horn for use in
a coordination meeting between Loudoun County and VDOT
re:
US 50 project
2. Provide digital files to B2E and Virginia Power for
their use in developing electrical designs
3. Provide simple roadway sections (from survey) to Kimley-Horn
4. Research ROW with VDOT and Loudoun County to determine
(officially) the nature of the roadways through the Village,
i.e., are they
on 30-ft prescriptive
easements
or dedicated ROW?
5. Provide sanitary sewer as-builts from LCSA to Kimley-Horn
6. Coordinate with LCSA regarding the nature of the pavement/underlying
structure (e.g., presence of cobblestone? flagstone?)
7. Coordinate with Loretta regarding the tree survey for
base sheets
8. Coordinate with Kimley-Horn regarding locations of traffic
calming measures, related drainage improvements
9. Coordinate with B2E regarding locations of utilities/conflicts
Williamsburg Environmental Group
1. Continue to investigate the 106 process. Is a 4F document
required? Need definitive answers on SERP and FHWA requirements
2. Continue to coordinate with team members on alternatives
to ensure "no
adverse impact"
3. Provide estimate of fees required to develop the environmental
document for this project
4. Coordinate with Kimley-Horn regarding database input
Louis Berger Group
1. Complete inventory of architecturally significant properties
2. Coordinate with Kimley-Horn regarding database input
3. Provide support to WEG with regard to 4F document issue
Kimley-Horn
1. Summarize traffic and roadway data collection activities
and results and the description of existing conditions
2. Provide mapping and GIS guidance to team members
3. Coordinate with Loudoun County re: US 50 study
4. Develop work products:
Typical cross sections - existing and proposed
Typical plans - intersections and roadway segment
Overall plan - options / spacing / gateways
5. Work with B2E and develop lighting options for Village
6. Develop agenda for Design Workshop, in coordination
with Loudoun County
| Home | Site
index |
| Waterford
history
| Loudoun
history |
traffic, bury wires, traffic calming,
roads, esthetics, burying overhead wires, automobile speed reduction,
waterford, va, virginia, waterford va, historic towns, loudoun county,
civil war towns, villages, village, national historic landmark
