Date: March 17, 2015 | Time: 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. | Location: Rooms 9 & 10, Government Center
Agenda
- Approval of Minutes of the January 20, 2015 , Meeting
- Dulles Metrorail Silver Line Phase 2 Status and Funding – Mark Canale (FCDOT) and Joe LaHait (DMB)
- Richmond Highway Transit Alternatives Analysis Next Steps – Tom Biesiadny and Leonard Wolfenstein (FCDOT); Fred Selden and Marianne Gardner (DPZ)
- Requirements for Pedestrian Improvements on Road Projects in the Board’s 6-Year Priority Plan and Bridges – Tom Biesiadny and Karyn Moreland (FCDOT)
- Fairfax Connector Riders Advisory Committee – Stuart Boggs and Nick Perfili (FCDOT)
- New Business
Minutes
Members in Attendance:
Supervisor Jeff McKay, Chair
Chairman Sharon Bulova
Supervisor John Cook
Supervisor Michael Frey
Supervisor John Foust
Supervisor Penny Gross
Supervisor Pat Herrity
Supervisor Catherine Hudgins
Supervisor Linda Smyth
Members Absent:
Supervisor Gerald Hyland
County Executive: Edward L. Long Jr. and Deputy County Executive Robert A. Stalzer
TAC Member in Attendance: Jeff Parnes, Chair
Supervisor McKay called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Lauren Mollerup, VDOT, introduced Mitch Ball, who replaced Andrew Beacher, as the Assistant Transportation & Land Use Director for Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VDOT Northern Virginia District.
1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting
The minutes of the January 20, 2015, meeting were accepted with a minor edit regarding the members in attendance list.
2. Dulles Metrorail Silver Line: Phase II Status and Funding Updates
Martha Coello (FCDOT) and Joe LaHait, County Debt Coordinator, Department of Management and Budget (DMB), briefed the Board on the status of the Dulles Rail Project. Ms. Coello described the number of punch list items for Phase I. She also noted that the Wiehle-Reston East Garage is 85 percent full on weekdays.
Ms. Coello reported that: the design of Phase II of the project is 81 percent complete. The overall project is 18 percent complete. In terms of the County activities, there were community meetings held regarding the Herndon Station (south side) garage. The Phase I and Phase II Annual Dulles Rail Tax Advisory meetings were held in March 2015. The design team completed the schematic design review for the Herndon and Innovation Center Station garages. Construction of the Innovation Center Station garage is expected to start in March 2016. Construction of the Herndon Garage is expected to start in April 2016. Both garages are expected to be complete in April 2018. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan closed in December 2014 with the second lowest interest rate in the history of the TIFIA loan program (2.73%). The loan amount is $403.3 million.
Supervisor Foust asked about the 274 punch list items for Fairfax County. Ms. Coello replied that these items include landscaping and stormwater issues. These items are checked on a monthly basis. Tom Biesiadny, FCDOT, clarified that Fairfax County identified these items to be fixed before the County can accept the facilities for maintenance. VDOT has additional punch list items that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) needs to resolve.
Supervisor Herrity asked if there are stormwater issues on Phase II of the project. Ed Long, County Executive, replied that the project team is trying to determine the stormwater issues regarding timing, location, and cost based on the new Virginia stormwater regulations. Mr. Biesiadny noted that the new stormwater regulations will affect major and minor projects in the County.
3. Richmond Highway Transit Alternatives Analysis Next Steps
Tom Biesiadny and Leonard Wolfenstein of FCDOT; Fred Selden and Marianne Gardner of Department of Planning and Zoning; and Barbara Byron of Office of Community Revitalization presented staff’s efforts related to related to this study. Mr. Biesiadny said that the purpose of staff’s effort is to incorporate the recommendations from the Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis prepared by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) into the Comprehensive Plan. The DRPT recommendations include implementing bus rapid transit (BRT) in three phases:
Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley
Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir
Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Route 123 in Woodbridge
There will be three parallel processes: an environmental assessment, Comprehensive Plan amendment, and transportation assessment and modeling. A tiered approach is being recommended for the environmental assessment which will allow the BRT and road widening projects to move forward, while developing a funding plan, placing the projects in the appropriate programs, and determining the best station area plans, land use mixes, and intensities, etc. The Comprehensive Plan review will analyze three DRPT BRT phases to determine what changes should be made to the plan. There will be public hearings after each amendment to the plan is completed. The public outreach effort will be led by a steering committee with a series of open houses for public input. The team will be asking the Board’s feedback on the approach, endorsement of the DRPT recommendations, and authorization to do a planning study. The next steps for this study will be a Board item on May 12, 2015, followed by a discussion of resources.
Supervisor McKay asked about the process and timeline for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Biesiadny replied that staff will look at the cross streets, parallel roadways, and how transportation in the corridor will work together. Supervisor McKay asked if a consultant will be hired to help with this process. He raised some concerns that the timeline was not defined in the study, the public outreach and Comprehensive Plan process. He was concerned that the not miss any transportation funding opportunities. He asked that staff come back with the final timeline.
Supervisor Cook stated that the right-of-way (ROW) acquisition requirements should be defined early in the process, so the Board can understand the impact along the Route 1 area. Mr. Biesiadny replied that staff will engage this and keep the Board members up to date with the ROW requirements as they were developed. Supervisor McKay stated that the ROW for each section has different requirements and impacts. Supervisor Cook stated that there is a big difference between taking a couple of parking spaces versus a building or houses. Mr. Biesiadny replied that the ROW impacts will be different in some cases, and will not necessarily be all residential or commercial properties.
Supervisor Herrity asked for the cross section information. Mr. Biesiadny stated that information is not yet available. He stated that the cross sections will not be uniform throughout the corridor. Staff will try to determine how the cross sections will look for each segment of the project. Supervisor Herrity was concerned with the additional ROW required for the bicycle and pedestrian element of the project which will further widen the total cross section of the roadway. Supervisor McKay stated that the pedestrian and bicycle projects are very important for the Route 1 corridor. He said that the County will try to minimize the ROW impacts; however, Route 1 has a history of heavy pedestrian and transit usage. The people living in the area want to fix the pedestrian issues on Route 1. Supervisor Herrity was concerned about the cross section of 36 feet or more, because of additional pedestrian and bicycle requirements. He requested the final cross section information. Supervisor McKay stated that at the end of the process, the information will be available.
Chairman Bulova stated that Route 1 has inadequate sidewalks and trails for pedestrians, and as a result, there are pedestrian fatalities. She noted that there are many older and small community lots along Route 1. She stated that the County needs to encourage more successful revitalization projects. Mr. Biesiadny stated that most of the new developments, such as the South County Government had taken into account future road widening, and the ROW was reserved as a result.
Supervisor McKay stated that it is important to phase land-use opportunities in the Comprehensive Plan, because some developments will depend on different types of transit improvements. He stated that the County needs to balance the need for redevelopment and ROW impacts. He reiterated the need for a timeline and noted that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority score for this study was lower than he expected.
Supervisor Gross mentioned the Route 7, Columbia Pike, and Route 50 areas which have good bus services; however, that does not translate into good usage for pedestrians. The issue is how people walk to the bus stop areas. She questioned the role of the Southeast Fairfax Development Corporation (SFDC) on the Steering Committee for the public outreach process. Supervisor McKay stated that during the Area Plans Review (APR) process of the Comprehensive Plan, SFDC had the most nominations. This Route 1 study area stretches over two magisterial districts (Lee and Mount Vernon), and a community group like the SFDC will help provide feedback on the public outreach process. Staff is still determining how to make that work, and will have discussions with SFDC.
Chairman Bulova observed that the environmental assessment is for BRT and Route 1 widening, and not for the extension of the rail project. Mr. Biesiadny explained that by the time the rail project is ready to be implemented, the environmental assessment for rail would be out of date, if prepared now. Supervisor McKay agreed with that strategy. Mr. Biesiadny stated that the staff want to start the BRT project as quickly as possible.
Supervisor McKay stated that this study will come as an action item to the Board at the May 12, 2015, meeting to consider the endorsement of the DRPT recommendations and authorize a planning study. He requested that the DRPT Policy Committee’s resolution be circulated to the Board.
4. Requirements for Pedestrian Improvements on Road Projects in the Board’s 6-Year Priority Plan and Bridges
Tom Biesiadny and Karyn Moreland of FCDOT briefed the Board on the requirements for pedestrian improvements on road projects and on bridges. Mr. Biesiadny noted that the Board has expressed some concerns about the width and ROW impacts of sidewalks and trails, especially on or adjacent to bridges. Some examples include the pedestrian facilities built as part of the Beltway Express Lanes, Route 7 Bridges over the Dulles Toll Road, and Soapstone Overpass. Ms. Moreland went over the guidelines in the Fairfax County Policy Plan, VDOT Road Design Manual (RDM), and federal guidelines such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). She said that design plans initially include all required minimum widths for sidewalks, shared-use paths, and separation from roadway edge according to VDOT RDM and AASHTO guidelines, and must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The waiver of the standards may be requested to reduce the minimum widths, but they must still comply with federal regulations. The Board provides input on projects during the design phase. The public can provide their input through the public hearings or public information meetings.
Supervisor Smyth stated that the sidewalks on Idylwood Road bridge are only three-foot wide, and that it is a relatively new bridge. She was concerned about the growing number of trails and sidewalks, and the need to balance between impervious surface runoff and stormwater management for trails and pedestrian crossings. She stated that an eight-foot wide sidewalk on Lee Highway is big enough for a U.S. Postal Mail truck to travel; therefore, there is no need for the ten-foot wide sidewalks. Mr. Biesiadny agreed the need to reduce the widths to accommodate the environment where the projects are located. He explained the reason for a sufficient buffer separating the travel lanes and the pedestrians, that when snow-plow trucks come, the snow will not cover the entire sidewalk. There are trade-offs on this issue.
Supervisor Hudgins thanked Mr. Biesiadny for his detailed explanations. She stated that people wanted to walk and bike, and the challenge of keeping the balance of development for wider roads. She stated that people do not cross Reston Parkway, because it is too wide.
Supervisor McKay stated that it is not just bridges, but that Route 1 has not changed much for 75 years. Fort Belvoir has become the largest employer in the County, bringing in thousands of commuters to the area, but the infrastructure improvements are inadequate.
Supervisor Foust stated that the minimum roadway design standards do not work for established communities. The waivers are critical for those communities. He requested that FCDOT communicate with VDOT regarding flexibility on the standards. Mr. Biesiadny replied that VDOT does give waivers to the County on sidewalks, but there are trade-offs. Supervisor Foust stated that he did not know that VDOT has granted the County the waiver ability. Mr. Biesiadny explained some examples of the waivers. Mrs. Moreland provided an example of working around a problem to preserve trees for a community with a VDOT granted waiver.
Supervisor McKay suggested staff provide some examples on the Richmond Highway Transit Alternatives Analysis project. Chairman Bulova reminded everyone to keep safety in mind as cars sometimes cross over onto the sidewalks.
Supervisor Herrity stressed the importance of balancing between safety and needs. He asked for an explanation of the details of the VDOT Road Design Manual standards on the shared-use path on bridges (on page 10 of the presentation). The answer for that cross-section was 28 feet. He mentioned that Key Bridge connecting Rosslyn (Arlington) and Georgetown (Washington, D.C), that the sidewalk is about eight feet for a heavy pedestrian population. He raised some concerns with Lorton Road having a cross section of 36 feet for pedestrian and bicycle usage and compared that with the Key Bridge example. He stated that it does not make sense having Lorton Road that wide, and that the costs outweigh the benefits. He emphasized the trade-offs between costs, benefits, and safety, versus the needs for pedestrian and bicycle usage. Mr. Biesiadny clarified the width of the Key Bridge. He stated that Lorton Road is on U.S. Bike Route 1 which stretches from Maine to Florida. The County designed the facility to accommodate the national bike trails. Ms. Moreland explained the on-road bike facilities are for the commuting bicyclists, and the off-road facilities for pedestrians, children, and people who do not want to ride on the roadway.
Supervisor McKay stated that projections are an art. In the past, projections for Route 1 did not anticipate that Fort Belvoir would bring in thousands of commuters. There was a discussion between Supervisors McKay and Herrity about widening Rolling Road. Supervisor Herrity would support a five-foot sidewalk with a ten-foot trail on the other side of the road. He stated that FCDOT wants the ten-foot trails on both sides and an on-road bicycle lane.
5. Fairfax Connector Riders Advisory Committee
Stuart Boggs, FCDOT, briefed the Board on the Fairfax Connector Riders Advisory Committee (RAC) study. At the June 4, 2013, BTC meeting, the Board asked staff to explore the idea of a Transit Riders Advisory Group to provide input on transit issues. Staff researched, reviewed, and met with various transit user groups and committees. Staff consulted with the Fairfax County Transportation Advisory Commission (TAC). The TAC provided their input on the role of the RAC, the differences between the RAC and the TAC, and how the two groups would interact. Staff recommended that the Board create a committee called Fairfax Connector Rider’s Advisory Committee (RAC) to provide input on customer service and operational issues. The RAC will have 13 members appointed by the Board. Staff will oversee the on-line application process and recommend the eligible candidates for the Board’s consideration.
Supervisor McKay asked if this committee would provide input for route changes. Mr. Boggs replied that it would. Supervisor McKay questioned the appointments from the Disability Service Board, Fastran, Metrobus, etc., regarding the role “non-rider” candidates for this committee. He asked if staff had any discussion with the school system, especially the high schools. Mr. Biesiadny replied that non-riders would provide feedback on how Fairfax Connector could make its service more attractive to people who currently do not ride the bus. Supervisor McKay agreed with Mr. Biesiadny’s explanation, but he suggested that the non-riders do not need to be associated with any organization. In the report, staff proposed that the non-riders will be nominated by the Fairfax Federation of Civic Associations and the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce. Jeff Parnes, TAC Chair, suggested that the nominee does not have to be a non-rider, but the best person for the RAC. Supervisor McKay stated that the Board will make a decision on the non-rider issue.
Supervisor Smyth asked for the potential location of the RAC meetings. Staff will need to provide an answer. Supervisor Hudgins stated that members of the RAC should provide guidance and advice rather than complaints. She did not think that the committee would need the non-rider members. Her desire is that the Board would move forward with the establishment of the RAC.
On the issue of non-riders, Chairman Bulova suggested that a better way would be to have community outreach opportunities for input. She said that the composition of the membership looks good. Supervisor Hudgins stated that she likes the on-line application idea.
6. New Business
Chairman Bulova distributed a list of recommended projects selected by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) for public consideration and comment. The recommended projects on the list were highlighted in yellow. The non-highlighted projects on the list are also eligible to be selected. She announced the meeting dates and locations for public comment. Fairfax County residents will have two opportunities to learn about the projects the NVTA has advertised and to share their comments. Both meetings will start with an open-house where residents can ask questions, followed by a presentation lasting approximately 20 to 30 minutes, and continue with an opportunity for residents to make comments for the record.
The meetings will be:
Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, 3040 Williams Drive, Suite 200, Fairfax, VA 22031, Open House at 6 p.m.; Presentation at 7 p.m.; Public Hearing immediately following presentation.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Fairfax County South County Center, 8350 Richmond Highway, Room 221, Alexandria, VA 22309. Open House at 6 p.m.; Presentation at 7 p.m.; Public Hearing immediately following presentation. This is for projects in Fairfax County only.
Chairman Bulova requested that individual Board members distribute this information to their constituents. For more information about the projects, they can visit this website at:
http://www.thenovaauthority.org/
Mr. Biesiadny stated that NVTA is looking for feedback from the public. He stated that some projects that were not highlighted can still be funded. The March 25 meeting is the NVTA hearing, and the March 31 meeting is the Fairfax County Town Hall meeting that covers the Fairfax County projects.
Supervisor Herrity requested an explanation of the $400 million for the Fairfax County Parkway Study. Mr. Biesiadny replied that this study includes improvements and what the cross-section configurations will look like. Supervisor Frey asked what is included in that study. Mr. Biesiadny replied that it includes the recommendations in the current Comprehensive Plan. Supervisor Frey requested an explanation between the NVTA score and the House Bill (HB) 599 score. Mr. Biesiadny explained that the HB 599 score only examined a congestion relief factor, which was a requirement of the Virginia General Assembly. NVTA examined a number of factors such as air quality benefits, connecting major activity centers, providing multimodal choices, etc. The factors that FCDOT used to evaluate the benefit-cost-analysis for our projects included congestion relief, air quality benefits, and travel time savings. The different method used to score a project results in a different rank.
Supervisor Gross stated that looking at the list, there were no projects inside the Beltway for Fairfax County, and asked for information for some individual projects in Alexandria like 9J and 17. Mr. Biesiadny replied that after the Countywide Dialog on Transportation process in 2013, and the subsequent adoption of Board approved projects, staff looked for different revenue sources to match the projects. The NVTA list is a regional funding source for significant regional projects. Supervisor Gross requested a footnote to explain the above reasons on the NVTA sheet. Chairman Bulova stated that at the Fairfax County Town Hall meeting, the County will make that distinction clear to the public. Supervisor McKay agreed and stated that there is a need to explain how the funding will be distributed among the jurisdictions over time. Mr. Biesiadny agreed to the request from Supervisor Hudgins to provide language the County had written from the 2014 Bond Referendum available to explain to the public.
Supervisor McKay stated the need to explain the NVTA score and the HB 599 score to the public. Chairman Bulova appreciated what staff is doing to sort through ten different funding categories and to make them work.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for May 19, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.