Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation

Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation/ City Interdisciplinary Transportation Team Meeting Wednesday August 13, 2014, 7:04 pm to 9:58 pm Meeting Minutes Attendance City Staff Present CACT Members Present 1. Captain Rick Campbell 1. Paul Baldino 2. James Mak 2. Hal Morgan (arrived 7:12) 3. Paul Stoddard 3. Andrea Caumont 4. Doug Devereux Council and Planning 5. Addison Heard Commission Liaisons Present 1. Karen Oliver Agenda 1. Resident Petitions 2. Miller House, referral from Council a. ACTION: finalize comments 3. Neighborhood Traffic Calming (NTC) Program http://www.fallschurchva.gov/ntc a. Review updates to Living Document b. Review Traffic Calming Programs from walk-friendly communities 4. Meeting Minutes Approval – July 2014 5. Traffic Calming, Parker Ave and Kent Street http://www.fallschurchva.gov/parkerkent a. Status update 6. Fairfax County, Seven Corners Planning Concept a. ACTION: finalize comments Page 1 of 6 1. Resident Petitions None. 2. Miller House, referral from Council At the July 2013 meeting, the CACT agreed that Addison Heard should work with staff to prepare draft comments. Mr. Heard described the draft comments. Paul Stoddard asked if the CACT wanted to make some statement about the merits of the proposed project in addition to commenting on transportation issues related to the proposed use as a group home. After discussion, the CACT agreed to insert language stating that the CACT accepts the findings of the Economic Development Office (EDO) and the Housing and Human Services Department (HHS) that a group home is a good use of the available space. The CACT approved the draft comments with an additional statement to accept the findings of EDO and HHS by a vote of 5-0. 3. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Paul Baldino described the methodology he used to investigate traffic calming programs from walk- friendly communities. Mr. Baldino selected localities within the Washington, D.C., region and jurisdictions of a similar population size to the City. In reviewing the various programs, Mr. Baldino identified common themes present in all or most of the programs. The CACT discussed the themes identified by Mr. Baldino. The table below captures the content of that conversation and the consensus positions reached by the CACT. Page 2 of 6  Type of Discuss Change Change Considered Description Pros Cons Further? Require applications to demonstrate - spends staff and CACT Yes neighborhood support for traffic calming resources more efficiently - what is the right level of generally. Currently, an application can be - starts grass roots efforts support to require? Require applicants to assure a level submitted by a single resident. Under the earlier. In previous case of public support as part of the current Program each application received cases, better grass roots requires hours of staff and CACT time to efforts correlated with better application process review. Requiring a demonstration of outcomes support would help apply staff and CACT resources where they are most desired. Require applicants to establish a Require the neighborhood to establish a - helps to develop consensus Yes working group. The working group would among different stakeholders Neighborhood Working Group or designate a interact directly with City staff and the in the neighborhood Responsibilities Neighborhood Representative to CACT in developing the recommended participate in the development of traffic calming solutions and in communicating with the rest of the the TC solution neighborhood The working group, the CACT, and staff - allows working group - potential for social pressure Yes would work together to develop a particular members to explain process - working group members proposal and a specific write-up to and "sell" concept may not be impartial, though Require applicants to obtain and describe it. Then, the working group would staff and CACT are also not document public support for the be responsible for canvassing the impartial recommended TC solution neighborhood to get signatures in support - loss of staff control over of the proposed changes information (mitigated by premade write-ups) Reestablish TC as a staff- Revert the program to a staff administered - could deliver solutions more - when would a project need No program as opposed to the current process quickly review by the CACT Not for engineered solutions, administered program without an which has a lengthy public engagement - faster implementation and but perhaps for non-physical appointed citizen body in the process lack of public engagement changes decision making process could lead to mistakes Current process uses case-by-case study - concern about pre-set areas, No areas. Should definition be pre-set to would require a long public include pre-defined study areas, or should process to define study areas be expanded to capture more - concern about pre-set areas, Include in the TC voting area potential volume increases? they will change with Public Engagement residents/property owners on development patterns - concern about pre-set areas, streets expected to receive people may be "stuck" in one significant increases in traffic area and unable to apply for volume as the result of a TC neighboring area installation - concern about expanding study area, would all households in the expanded area always vote no? Page 3 of 6  Include willingness of residents to Some traffic calming solutions may be Yes desirable for the neighborhood, but not for have measures installed in front of adjacent property owners, perhaps their home because of noise or light Currently, the Program is based on No Refine criteria for eligibility to apply "households". Other common units are Maintain status quo, and vote for TC solutions "residents" and "property owners". household, it seems to be working without problem. Currently, each dwelling unit gets one vote. Yes Establish a rule for counting votes Should that be different for buildings with - staff to investigate how from single properties with multiple multiple dwelling units? other jurisdictions handle dwelling units votes from apartment or condominium buildings Expand the Program to allow residents to - provides a broader context - requires more resources in No Incorporate the TC program into a request installation of sidewalks, curbs and for projects staff and funding than the - not feasible with current larger neighborhood enhancement gutters, street lights, park improvements, - could allow neighborhoods City is willing to commit resources, but worth program and neighborhood art. to develop a "small area plan" - expected limit of resources considering in the future for their neighborhoods is $200,000 per year Program Scope Currently, the Program is restricted to - provides mechanism for Yes Expand TC program eligibility to "residential" classified streets. Expand this residents along these streets collector streets to include "collector" streets, which are to request traffic calming typically very residential in character. Consider traffic volume in evaluating a - moves conversation beyond Yes neighborhood's need for traffic calming. 85% speed - consider whether street Include measures of traffic volume - could incorporate changes classification should be a in TC decisions in streets over time, growing factor, either for or against traffic volume traffic calming Evaluation of Need Consider what amount or percentage of - is cut-through traffic the No the traffic is cut-through traffic problem, or is it really speed Safety risks can be Include measures of cut-through and volume? evaluated by assessing traffic in TC decisions - should volume be speed and volume discouraged? Provide a schedule or timeline in Provide a schedule by which applications Yes would proceed. Include language that Look for ways to reduce the program literature to inform stipulates progress under current staffing number of steps in the applicants of the major milestones levels. current program. Schedule and time that typically elapses between application and installation. Page 4 of 6  Require applicants to apply by particular - creates a hurdle to No dates throughout the year in order to be requesting traffic calming Set a due date for receipt of considered during a particular timeframe - only meaningful if staffing applications to be considered within levels would adjust to the number of requests received, the fiscal year but staffing levels are constant in the short term Consider enforcement, information, - could deliver solutions much - moving faster could lead to Yes When feasible, implement solutions education, signs, paint, or striping that faster incomplete solutions, or could deliver solutions quickly before - could allow for "short perhaps make things worse that do not require physical TC engaging in a longer planning, engineering, cutting" of longer public - do not want to see devices before proceeding to and construction process. engagement process if the intermediate solutions engineering design Program stipulate changes become a requirement for that can be made quickly larger changes Provide diagrams or photos of Provide diagrams in handbook with nearby Yes acceptable TC devices in program examples of different measures. Explain pros and cons of each. literature. Specify prohibited TC devices in Provide diagrams in handbook with nearby Yes examples of different measures. Explain program literature. pros and cons of each. Provide a mechanism in the Program - could be handled by adding Yes Allow neighborhoods to use the TC through which neighborhoods can request one line to the Program, - should neighborhood have removal of traffic calming devices. allowing for application to to pay for removal? program to apply for removal or remove traffic calming Implementation and modification of a TC device - good to have an option to "undo" previous changes Selection of Traffic Calming Solutions Allow neighborhoods to fund a percentage - concerns about equity, No Allow neighborhoods to fund of the changes to prioritize implementation instead of applying funds approved TC enhancements or to include aesthetic changes. Could also according to need and include special assessments. established process Establish a program whereby residents can - outreach and education tool - requires some Yes request bumper stickers that signify they - makes people think about administration Establish a Pace Car Program are driving the speed limit and courteously their behavior as they drive - could be a conflict for to improve safety multiple drivers sharing one or more cars Provide more information in the Program Yes Handbook Traffic Education Make more use of the speed feedback trailer Require neighborhoods to create a long- - would prolong an already No term plan, or for applicants to first work long process - consider deploying mobile Establish prerequisites before a TC with Police Department, or to attend a - increased enforcement speed feedback trailer upon application is accepted traffic calming workshop. commonly requested already requesting traffic calming request Page 5 of 6 4. Meeting Minutes Approval – July 2014 The CACT deferred approval of the July minutes to the September meeting. 5. Traffic Calming, Parker Ave and Kent Street Mr. Stoddard provided an update on the Parker / Kent traffic calming case and the estimated timeline for installation, including the following:  August meeting with neighborhood petitioners and adjacent property owners  August begin engineering work  November review engineering plans with CACT to confirm engineered solution comports with neighborhood-approved solution  December finalize engineering  Spring 2015 begin construction 6. Fairfax County, Seven Corners Planning Concept Mr. Baldino presented draft comments regarding the Fairfax County planning effort for Seven Corners. The CACT approved the draft comments by vote of 4-0. The City of Falls Church is committed to the letter and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To request a reasonable accommodation for any type of disability call 703 248-5041 (TTY 711). Page 6 of 6