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
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
