Non-motorized Transportation Committee Meeting
Committee Member Attendees: Bruce Wright, Hunter Mill/Chair; Robert Michie, Lee; Michael Shannon, Springfield; Allan Jones, Braddock; Dennis Frew, Washington Area Bicycle Assn.; Mary Flowers, Equestrian Society; Jenny Pate, Fairfax County Park Authority; Christina Schuler, Park Authority Trails Program Manager
Staff Attendees: Sheng-Jieh Leu, Fairfax County Dept. Planning and Zoning; Mimi Murray, Fairfax County Department of Transportation; Ann Pimley, visitor from disabilities services
1. Call to Order
Bruce Wright, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM, after a brief discussion with those present to allow time for possible attendees not yet present to arrive.
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes for July
The meeting minutes for July were reviewed. Mike motioned for the minutes to be approved, Allan seconded, no discussion, 8 in favor, 0 nays, the motion passed approving the July minutes.
3. Staff Reports
DPZ – Sheng Leu: Trail Waiver request updated— There was a question about a Springfield decision not yet posted and request for clarification on the “Y” in the district column. “Y” indicates that a district, in this case Sully, recommended approval of the waiver. There was some discussion about the way in which District Representatives were kept informed about waivers. Discussions with District Supervisors, use of the DPZ waiver report, and involvement in district task forces/committees were ways discussed. It was noted that some waiver requests go directly to the DPZ and generally information about such requests goes to the District Supervisor Office. It was also noted, with some concern that there seems to be a general granting of waivers across the Districts. Reasons for waivers, including but not limited to school requests, “first-in and last-out,” and the specific details of the projects were mentioned and briefly discussed. It was also noted that the DPZ waiver report now includes a column commenting on the rationale for the waiver action.
There was a teleconference today (September 14, 2005) with the Mount Vernon Trail Extension group regarding trail alternatives B and C on park land – ecological problems and potentially dropping the project were discussed. Superintendent Audrey Calhoun is writing a status report and “reflecting” it upward to see what recommendation the supervisor will accept. The Homeowner Association for Langley Oaks has been contacted; they prefer for the Trail to use all the park land because they do not want any trails in their community creating additional access. The MT Vernon Representative and Supervisor Office are fully aware and informed of the situation.
DOT - Mimi noted that a new staff person, Nohemuy, came down for her first bike tour coordination meeting this morning (September 14, 2005), she will be on the pedestrian program; an engineering position in the pedestrian program has been announced, for intersection improvements, hired from DPWES.
Bike to Work Day 2006 is scheduled for May 19. There has been discussion about getting a bicycle planner for FCDOT, the Board of Supervisors seemed opposed to adding the position during a carry over.
There is currently a budget surplus of $5 Million earmarked for transportation, such as roads and sewers; it is unclear what portion of the amount, if any, will be for Trails. Trails has had no money allocated for about 3 or 4 .
Supervisor Smith submitted a Board Matter regarding the Global TDM study in which a bicycle planner position is partly funded.
4. Bylaws and Charter Discussion
Ann Pimley, disability services/pedestrian task force (formerly): I am interested in having the by-laws cover all sidewalks, trails, crossing etc. Also would like to have two positions added: pedestrian and one from VDOT so everyone is represented. 6% of Fairfax Co is disabled, use trails for health and for disability transport to get places—accesses to bus stops and metro. Ms. Pimley is very interested in being on the board (clarification of committee status for the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee “Trails” made) because so many people with disabilities depend so much on pedestrian travel. We do look at ADA and know that all of the projects are reviewed, but its good to have someone else look at this, someone with a different perspective can sometimes see things.
Examples of where the letter of the law was followed but access for pedestrians with disabilities remained poor include the Government Center. The code was followed but access points were not very useable. There are things that might be up to code but their ability to be used needs to be considered. There was a utility company that tore up a sidewalk, did not mark it properly and left chunks of concrete about. Ann spoke with them, but still the cable company did it again. Many ramps in the housing area were built in 90/91. All of them are corner ramps, with no markings and aggregated stone. The code indicated that new construction or utility work just needed to replace what was torn up rather than replace to standard destroyed. Ann is really hoping that the committee will consider expanding its area to cover all pedestrian needs. There was discussion of continuing the Pedestrian Task Force, but felt that it would be redundant.
Trails: Bruce (Chair) clarified that we are a committee and not a board. He also summarized the earlier discussions we have already had on this topic (see June and July minutes). At this juncture, it had been decided to add a Disability Services Board position. The position was specified in the revised Bylaws, up for vote at this point in this evening’s meeting (September 14, 2005). Early discussions were leaning towards, but not formally decided, that VDOT would be given an invitation to attend periodically, but not create a permanent position on the committee. Reasons of authorities and separation of responsibilities, as well as fostering appropriate closer working relationships were cited. It was also clarified, via Bruce and general discussion, that the revision of the Bylaws to include a Disability Services Board representative to the Trails Committee was for adding a position. Once the revised Bylaws were approved, the Board of Supervisors would be notified. Actual appointment of a specific person to that position would then be dependent upon the Board of Supervisors and the Disability Services Board.
Many Trails committee members also voiced their understanding of the issues that Ms. Pimley had raised, sharing similar accounts. They also emphasized that many committee members were in fact pedestrians as well; that they did understand the importance of the Disability Services Board perspective and welcomed it to the Trails Committee.
Ann asked a question: How many sidewalks are under VDOT? Bruce and Sheng responded that DPWES has a map. It is being digitized now. Once digitized, we will know the answer. Ann: so you don’t have the answer? So, who is looking over those sidewalks, my understanding is no one. Bruce clarified citizens’ involvement and the kinds of matters brought to the committee and our role (see Bylaws and Charter). Ann emphasized the need for a citizen group such as us to be looking at the safety issues. Jenny explained the VDOT State status and the limited powers of the County relative to State transportation and pedestrian matters. One recommendation might be a pedestrian advisory to VDOT, but that’s VDOT’s call (Jenny). Mike, reiterated the citizen to supervisor route for issues. Bruce clarified that the Trails Committee did not have a watch dog role; at least it has not been one the committee has traditionally played. The need for differentiating between the formal role of the Committee (Bruce, Jenny, Mike, Bill, Mimi) and what we might want (Ann) was discussed. Mimi indicated that we’re still in the inventorying stage. FC is large--395 sq miles--to ask the Trails Committee to be a watch dog organization over it is a huge request the Committee can’t handle. Mimi emphasized the role that the Committee does have in maintenance and issues brought before it.
Ann stated that taking this on is not just about maintenance, but about advocacy and education. Bruce restated that we do look at all facilities, regardless of who owns it, we have inventoried and we have made recommendations.
It was noted that a motion to approve the revised Bylaws and a second for that motion was still open. Additional discussion on the adoption of the revised Bylaws raised a few grammatical corrections, and minor wording changes in E.1. to clarify the “Examples” nature of the items listed and the Committees ability to engage in other operations (grammar check and correction for the items e, 4, 1,4 and 5 see modification on actual bylaws page) . The motion was restated and Mike moved to accept the new Bylaws following incorporation of the grammatical and minor word changes by Bruce. Dennis seconded the motion and it carried with all in favor and none dissenting.
The Charter discussion was brief. It was noted that the majority of changes were grammar, or organizational changes, such as the name change of the Department of Zoning, or Department of Transportation, and the replacement of Trails with Non-motorized Transportation Facility. It was also noted that Item 5 should read “environmental services,” not “systems”.
Jenny raised and the Committee discussed the issue of the Trails Committee’s authority to change the Charter. While the Bylaws indicated that the Committee could in fact change their Bylaws, there was no such overt statement in the Charter. The difference in the legal character of a charter versus bylaws was discussed and questions were raised as to whether the Board, or another Government entity had approved the original Charter and whether their permission, formal or informal, were required for revision.
It was agreed that a vote would be taken on the language only and that Sheng Leu will check with David Marshall, regarding the Committee’s authority for changing the Charter. It was further agreed that identification of and decision on what action to take would be tabled until the next meeting when it is hoped answers to the outstanding questions will be had.
It was moved to vote on the language and seconded. All were in favor, no one opposed and the revised language has been adopted.
5. Chair Report
Secretary minute assignments: the at-large is doing the minutes in October and Mary is doing them in November
Fairfax Trails and Stream invited Bruce to speak. He gave a talk as usual (this information has been distributed to Committee members earlier via e-mail). A topic that came up of some interest was natural surface trails.
Update on the Tyson’s Corner Special Study Group—John Lynch from VDOT, discussed flexibility in use of ASHTO standards, road standards; advocating for pedestrian access. While creating an area that can be accessed by pedestrians and even have something of “walk about” community design has been mentioned by developers and the County, actual plans, negotiations and discussions at this point do not seem to be supporting that end vision.
6. New Business
Bob presented and facilitated a discussion on the Residence Inns Streetscape project in Springfield. His presentation consisted of drawing a diagram of the area in question. That diagram is not reproduced in these minutes, but is described as follows. The area resides on the side street perpendicular to and overlooking the newer Old Keene Mill Road/Franconia pass through and the late night movie store. The side street runs from Old Keene Mill Road to Backlick Road. The plan calls for an on-road bicycle route, which, because of the design of the road and the amount of automobile (high speed) traffic, is not practical—it would never be used. The developer is proposing to have the trail waived and to put into place a Streetscape instead. Springfield has decided to grant the waiver. The discussion was focused on communicating specifications and expectations for the Streetscape to the developers and assuring that their was minimal discrepancy between the plans on paper and the actual streetscape developed. Concerns about the quantity of benches, flower pots, trees and other items reducing, or even eliminating any actual walk/passage space were raised and discussed. The problems of brick pavers impeding passage were also discussed and it was recommended that the higher quality faux brick pavers be used instead. Attention to the layout of the Streetscape, the overall area that it will actually cover, its abutment to adjoining sidewalks, crosswalks, etc., actual footage of unobstructed passageway, passageway usage specifications (pedestrian, bicycle, rollerblades/skateboards) and materials being used were all considerations cited during the discussion.
7. Old Business
No old business was raised or discussed.
8. Adjournment
Mary moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded, everyone was in favor, 0 opposed, the meeting adjourned at 9:23 PM.
Next meeting is October 12, 2005, Room 8, Government Center
