Printer
TextTransportation Issues - 2009 Retreat
There are fiscal challenges due to declining state funding. To keep most major planned transportation capital construction projects moving on schedule, the County has obtained or provided funding from many other sources.
However, significant unaddressed needs remain.
-
View Presentation Slides (includes funding charts, needs,
options for taking over roads (e.g. city status))
Other issues include increasing frustrations regarding the inflexibility of state design standards and the regulation of traffic and parking operations within a highly congested and urbanized region; a growing demand for small-scale projects; increased complexity in funding and regulatory requirements; reductions in state transportation workforce levels; and the larger role the County has taken in funding and implementation by default.
The County’s Department of Transportation is transitioning to a full-service transportation agency during an estimated two-to-five year time period. Under development is a road map for future transit service through a Transit Development Plan, a 10-year plan for improving Fairfax Connector and Metro bus service countrywide.
The Board discussed priorities for undertaking additional changes in the transportation program.
They also talked about possibly taking over the roadway system in the County. In 1990 the Board had commissioned a study to explore the feasibility of taking over responsibility for “the construction, control, maintenance, and repair of its secondary, or secondary and primary road systems from VDOT.” Several years after that, a Blue Ribbon Commission looked into the possibility of Fairfax County either becoming a city or negotiating a charter that would give us more authority over transportation. None of this happened. The Board rejected takeover options due to cost implications, an economic recession at that time and concerns about further assumption of financial responsibilities from the state.
The County Executive pointed out that the state was devolving this issue to localities financially and legislatively over time, and he worries that the County eventually will be responsible but without sufficient funds to do so.
The question is should we negotiate with the state for funding and facilities to take over the secondary roadway system in the County? Two approaches could be taken: to consider becoming a city with the additional responsibilities and authorities that city status entails or to consider taking over all or portions of the roadway system responsibilities within the current County government model used in Arlington and Henrico counties.
The state would continue to focus on primary roads and interstates.
Financially, using the current formula, it appears we would do better by becoming a city.
The Board will engage in a review and public discussion to consider taking over the secondary roadway system in the County, currently a responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation. This will be staffed and future discussions will take place in the Board’s Transportation Committee and Legislative Committee.
Other transportation priorities identified by the Board:
-
Fund median grass cutting.
-
Dedicate more C&I funds to spot improvements and pedestrian
improvements.
-
Reverse the order of Route 7 widening.
-
Incorporate transit connections into Route 495 HOT lanes.
-
Utilize increased capacity of HOT lanes at 395, 495 and
95 for transit.
-
Reevaluate service standards and level of service and tie land use with
transit planning.
-
Improve signalization.
-
Areas of opportunity to promote transit.
-
HOV/dedicated transit on Route 7.
-
How to increase transit while making transit reductions.
-
Where have we disconnected transit/shuttle service due to funding
issues and lack of ridership?
-
Focus on gaps, where to make connections.
-
Fund improvements through bonds.
- Design standards for roads – excess ROW increases costs; pavement width, on road vs. paved bike lanes/paths.
Website Survey 