Coraggio Consulting
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee, Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Place: Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Virginia
Length: 1h 17m (video)
Official meeting video (Fairfax County): https://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/3980
Official Board of Supervisors page (Fairfax County): https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/boardofsupervisors/

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-28. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:04] Thank you all. I would like to call the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee meeting of December 2nd, 2025 to order. We always start with an approval of the meeting minutes from the last meeting on September 16th, 2025. Does anybody have any changes to the minutes? Shocker, no one does. They are hereby adopted. With that, we are going to move into our agenda today. We have several items on the agenda. Just as a note, the last item on

[00:00:41] the agenda is an update about DMV moves, which will be very poignant and timely because it will talk about transportation funding. Things really do fit together today, but that agenda item will be presented by our county executive, Brian Hill, as well as Clark Mercer from the Metropolitan and Washington Council of Governments, and they are expected to be here around 12 o'clock. So you may never hear me say this again, but feel free to be verbose until then. That being said,

[00:01:15] we're going to start with a presentation from Nicole Winans about our draft active transportation and trails plan. Thank you so much, and the floor is yours. Thank you so much. Good morning. My name is Nicole Winans. I'm with the Fairfax County Department of Transportation, and I'm joined you today by Laura Gauche, as well as Mike Garcia and Taylor Wehmeyer. I appreciate the opportunity to present an update on the Act of Transportation and Trails Plan, and as part of the Act of Fairfax Transportation Plan Study, Plan Amendment 2025

[00:01:55] CWT1. This plan builds on several years of work. Phase one started in 2020 and established the foundation through public outreach and existing condition analysis. Phase two, beginning in 2022, focused on developing the active transportation toolkit, detailed active transportation and trails network recommendations, and facility selection guidance. It also included a second round of community engagement. In May 2025, the board authorized drafting the active transportation and trails plan, amendment to consolidate the bicycle master plan and countywide trails plan.

[00:02:35] We are now in the refinement phase following public comment, with adoption anticipated in spring 2026. This update has three main goals: to streamline and clarify our existing planning guidance; to revise the bikeway and trail network based on convenient travel routes, key destinations, and physical and environmental constraints; and to align our facility recommendations with current best practices. These changes will improve safety and accessibility for people walking,

[00:03:09] biking, and using other micromobility modes. The plan strengthens multimodal connections to major destinations, prioritizes design for all ages and abilities, coordinates transportation with land use, and supports environmental stewardship. Most importantly, the updates also helps ensure that priority transportation corridors remain eligible for federal funding programs, many of which require facilities to be included in the comprehensive plan. This is especially true for

[00:03:42] designated regional routes. Community engagement for the Active Transportation and Trails Plan took place this fall. It included a public survey, two virtual community meetings, pop-up outreach in high pedestrian areas, and a coordinated social media effort to broaden participation. To support public review of this proposed plan, the project team also prepared outreach materials, including flyers and a project quick guide to clearly summarize key elements and help community members provide informed feedback.

[00:04:21] The community survey for the Active Transportation and Trails Plan was reviewed by nearly 3,800 community members and ultimately generated 562 responses and 131 comments. Considering the high number of views but low response rate, it is likely that many residents did not have a strong opinion about the proposed changes in the plan.

[00:04:44] Community members that did take the time to respond highlighted several key themes. First, many participants expressed general concerns about pedestrian safety in existing conditions. There was also strong support for expanding the trail network and improving multimodal connections across the community.

[00:05:03] In addition, respondents emphasized this preference for more off-street bicycle facilities, such as cycle tracks and shared-use paths, and for improvements that enhance pedestrian comfort and accessibility. As a reminder, the Active Transportation and Trails Plan highlights the planned local and regional trail network.

[00:05:23] along with other key active transportation corridors. While sidewalks, bike lanes, and crosswalk locations are not shown on the map itself, the accompanying notes and tables provide specific recommendations for those facilities. In response to community and stakeholder feedback, several revisions were made to the proposed Active Transportation and Trails Plan that we would like to bring to your attention.

[00:05:47] In the upper left corner, the introduction has been refined to offer a brief overview of the project purpose, or the plan's purpose, and its major components. In the upper right-hand corner, the legend and map nodes have been updated to more clearly distinguish between recommended trail network facilities and broader active transportation recommendations.

[00:06:11] The nodes now provide a baseline facility recommendation for each line on the map. In the lower left-hand corner, the facility selection table has been divided into three distinct tables. Table 1 presents the primary facility recommendations, which are most often applied to private development.

[00:06:32] Table 2 outlines alternative facilities, options that offer equal or greater user comfort and that typically require corridor-wide implementation through public capital projects. Table 3 provides guidance on appropriate crossing spacing, which varies based on land use, type, and density.

[00:06:55] The updated network map organizes all active transportation routes into five main typologies, each color-coded to reflect its role and purpose. These typologies were refined to better represent both their geographic context and intended function.

[00:07:12] Several categories, trails along roads in special areas, trails along other roads, trails through open space, and stream valley trails are now grouped together as part of the Countywide Trails Network. Neighborhood connectors, which serve more localized access needs, are shown as a separate category.

[00:07:36] The map is supplemented by the Active Transportation Toolkit, which offers planning guidance for special area plans and implementation guidance for project delivery, intended for both public and private partners. The toolkit is intended as a living document that can evolve as standards, best practices, and funding opportunities change.

[00:07:56] It will be included in the Active Transportation and Trails Plan by reference. The content of the toolkit has been updated to align with the changes to the draft plan and the most recent federal and state standards. We will seek board endorsement for the toolkit in spring of 2026.

[00:08:15] Several policy updates accompany the revised Active Transportation and Trails Plan. Within the transportation element of the policy plan, Appendix 3 will be updated to reflect the plan's vision, its commitment to all ages and ability design, and the revised set of facility types.

[00:08:35] In Appendix 5, reference to the Bicycle Master Plan will be removed. And within the county's special area plans, all references to the Countywide Trails Plan and Bicycle Master Plan need to be updated to align with the new consolidated Active Transportation and Trials Plan. You're requesting your feedback by December 30th on three key questions. Is the board comfortable with a proposed network of key Active Transportation routes shown on the Active Transportation and Trials Plan map? Is the board comfortable with a specific Active Transportation facility and

[00:09:10] amenity recommendations outlined in Table 1 through 3 on the plan? And is the board comfortable with the proposed updates to Appendix 3. Your input on these items will guide the finalization of the plan. With that, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present and open the floor for questions.

[00:09:29] Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to turn it over to the chairman to ask any questions he has. Thank you very much. First, again, thank you for all the public outreach. I do have a couple of questions. um one is with that public outreach that was done from may to um august september time frame uh the chart on page five has the you know kind of gives us the survey participation um but do you have that mapped so that we know who participated in this where they live yes we can share the comments i think it would be helpful just for us to see if there are certain themes in certain

[00:10:08] areas of the county because obviously i think the general themes here are good i'm sure there's some outliers in there. But I think just seeing how that was distributed across the county and that we got input from the entire county would be helpful. And then my second question is, is between August and September of last year, we have the, in the winter, we have the publishing of the draft map and then we have the board and PC committee meetings refining the draft based on public comment. So is the draft completed now that incorporates the public comment or is that

[00:10:44] still being worked on so the draft uh that was shared with you all and that's currently available on the website is updated so that is updated already with the public comment and so what happens between now and the spring of 2026 in terms of public outreach because it's not specifically mentioned here i mean obviously we're going to have a board meeting and a pc committee meeting which engages the public in the public hearings but is that the next step for public comment if you now see the draft your next chance to comment on it is at the pc and board public hearings yeah that's correct okay all right for me the answer to all three

[00:11:19] questions is yes I think there's been a lot of good staff work done here I would like to just verify before moving forward that the public participation piece was was spread throughout the county and in a equitable way just to make sure we're capturing the entire county sentiments on this issue I wish there were more than 66 participants but you know you can't force someone to participate, but I'm presuming we did everything we can to try to raise that number, and that's just where we landed. It's a tiny percentage of the county, and that's the reason I want to see the map, just to make sure there weren't areas of the county that for some reason we just weren't

[00:11:57] able to reach. But I'm comfortable with the three questions at the end being asked. Walter and then Pat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, great job. I'm glad this is moving forward. It's, I know, been under development for a while, and I know the public outreach was one of the things that took a little time, you know, to get those going. I did have one question, really dumb question about the map, and I assume this is the case, but when you pull it up online,

[00:12:33] there's a notation. I couldn't find it in the notes. It looks like, it looks like for a bridge or, you know, it looks like a little bridge, but I couldn't tell for sure. And it was located, there were a couple places where I saw it that, yeah, but then there were some others that I didn't know that we were thinking of, say, bridging the W&OD Trail over Hunter Mill Road, for example.

[00:13:00] Is that what that is, the markation? Is that right? Yes, so it's a great separation that's recommended. So it could be a bridge or a tunnel. Okay, all right, thank you. That's super helpful. And I guess my only suggestion, and I think it is going to be useful for all of us to really take a deep dive into the map and just make sure that everything looks right.

[00:13:20] I did find one other thing. There is a trail extension that is just now finally moving forward that goes from Hunter Mill into the Drainsville District at Colvin Run Mill. And that's actually not on this plan.

[00:13:37] But I think the reason is because it's new infrastructure that was just built with the Route 7 widening. There's an underpass for pedestrians there. And so I know we worked for a while to get that connection. So I would just encourage staff to do one more take on basically projects that are underway that might be associated with some new infrastructure like that, just to make sure that's reflected on here, too.

[00:14:04] But this is looking great. I'm really excited we're getting this close and, frankly, look forward to getting sort of one more round of public feedback as we go through the finalization process. So, thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Alcorn, Supervisor Herity.

[00:14:23] So, and we've already had this kind of, I'll start with the easy one. You know, we need to get, I think we need to get to the point where we start doing statistically valid surveys in addition to community outreach. If we want to find out what our citizens really feel about something and to make sure that we're not getting back just responses from activists that pay attention to bike projects.

[00:14:50] And it's tough. A lot of people don't take the time to get into local issues. We don't have local media that covers local issues really anymore. So, and it's not just on this. It's just that that's just a general comment. I know we did that with older adults and we got some really good feedback.

[00:15:08] Some of it we didn't like. said people want to stay here, but they can't afford to stay here, so they're leaving. I mean, that's what our older adult survey told us, one of the things that it told us. The second thing is this is a fiscally unconstrained plan, correct?

[00:15:25] So this is kind of our wish list of what we'd like to do if we had unlimited resources. Have we kind of put any kind of ballpark figure on what the unconstrained plan would cost us?

[00:15:45] So, it's really hard to determine because there are multiple facility options, and some of these will be included through road projects as part of larger VDOT projects, like the Road 7 projects, and then it's built into the project cost.

[00:16:02] Some of these facilities will be provided by development, and then we have, for example, more flexibility in this plan where, for example, in neighborhoods, we can provide lower cost improvements such as a neighborhood greenway or pedestrian first street in particular pedestrian first street is in lieu of sidewalks which we know are really expensive and you know there's a lot of need along major corridors so we can reach a very comfortable active transportation environment within neighborhoods much more cost efficiently with the new

[00:16:40] recommendations. So what we know is it's probably going to cost less than the current guidance with the refinements and the flexibility, but it's very hard to put a ballpark on it. And I kind of didn't expect you to have one, but your answer was absolutely perfect because it basically says it's going to be paid for by other things. And what we've done is increase the cost of our road projects. We've increased the cost of our development projects. But the word that I like that you used and i think we need to make sure is in the plan guidance is flexibility and it's absolutely critical that we do this because you know what what happens too often

[00:17:19] is we approve this unconstrained plan and then in the development process it be it becomes the plan because it's the plan and it didn't really look at what it what it was going to cost us but some road project some trail process trail project whatever kind of projects all of a sudden going to get burdened with a lot of additional costs, and I just want to make sure that as we go through this, we continue to build in that flexibility piece so that these don't become hard requirements that we then have to find a way to pay for through project costs, through

[00:17:58] increased cost of housing, increased cost of businesses, et cetera, et cetera. So that's my big concern is that this is a wish list, and I hope it doesn't become the requirement, and we need to make sure we keep the flexibility built in as we do the policy plan piece.

[00:18:20] Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Supervisor Stork in a moment, but I just want to jump in. On page three, can you explain the asterisk that you put in number two, where it says, fill gaps in plan network and mitigate potential impacts on natural or cultural resources?

[00:18:42] And then the asterisk says, federal funding sources may require facilities to be included in and or be designated as a regional route in the comprehensive plan. What does that mean? Sure. So, um, Fairfax County does seek federal grants for our active transportation projects, particularly the larger projects like, um, trails. Um, so, uh, that, you know, we want to make sure we, we, you know, the money's on the table that we can tap into that. Um, and those grants have certain requirements, including, um,

[00:19:19] that those facilities that we are seeking funding for are included. in the countywide trails plan or in the comprehensive plan in general. And there are specific funding available for regional facilities only, so it's very important that we highlight where the regional facilities are on the map.

[00:19:39] So at the risk of trying to synthesize a point made by Supervisor Herity and a point just made, this aspirational plan is aspirational, and a part of the aspiration is so that in the future, should we look for other funding sources, such as federal funding, we have this somewhere so that we can unlock that funding. So while I share Supervisor Herity's concern about things that are too hard and too rigid, there are aspects of being aspirational that may actually make some of these

[00:20:13] facilities cheaper in the future as well, correct? Correct. So it would be an 80% cost saving for final grants with a 20% match on our end. Okay, great. Yeah. Candidly, when this plan was first brought into my office, and if you really want to see how comprehensive and how incredible it is, you can print out the whole thing. It's kind of, you know, it's like this tall and everything.

[00:20:40] And I remember saying, wait, this is a lot of work. And I asked why we were doing so much work and why we were being so aspirational and the point was that this plan that again is huge and that covers the whole darn county is actually supposed to set us up for decades so that if we ever come to see this as an opportunity we are there and ready to take it but it is not necessarily a hard and fast rule and not everything on this plan will be realized but we want to be sure that If we decide to realize it 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the line, we can.

[00:21:21] Supervisor Stork, go ahead. Thank you, Chairman. First off, this is a huge project and one that I fully and strongly support. I think, again, aspirational, but it's also visionary. And I think the visionary part of that is why we need to be doing it.

[00:21:41] It's also why we're going to tussle on some of the information that's in here about whether or not it goes far enough or it doesn't, goes too far, et cetera. And so that's a lot of the conversation that we've had to date. I know that, as well as the number of responses.

[00:21:58] I'm disappointed with the number, and I think there is value to having more. One of the things we did recently, we had more than 1,000 people comment on. And so I know you can, I know we can do it because it's a collective thing. It's not just you all. But I think we get it better when we have more feedback like that.

[00:22:17] But again, I think this is a huge project. I strongly support the efforts. I'm going to start with what is unique about Mount Vernon District, and we've talked about that, is that we have two rivers, we got eight creeks, we have potentially soon to be four rail lines, two major highways, two interstate highways, and a number of other major roadways.

[00:22:42] And those all create numbers and challenges for barriers as well as opportunities to build an infrastructure that actually supports active transportation, not just cars or mass transit, et cetera. So I'm looking forward to helping having this document really create that vision because I know most of what we're talking about doing is going to take decades to realize, particularly the rail lines that we're working on now.

[00:23:10] Some of those, while the first round is done, funded, if you will, the second and third rounds are going to be into the future still. So I wanted to point you to something I thought was incredibly well done, and I know that you've received it, but I don't know if there's been a response to that.

[00:23:28] As Jim Klein, who's a transportation person, I mean, on our transportation committee, has done a fabulous job of really laying out a number of issues, concerns, at least as of Yesterday, there hadn't been a response to that. Have you all received it, and is there going to be something prepared to, if you will, maybe it's not point by point, but at least broadly address the issues that he's raised.

[00:23:53] And I can go through them, and broadly I would go through them to say it's kind of where I just started, which is all the different transportation connections. It's the different types of transportation issues that we have, as well as, in particular, the East-West Highway, East-West S Trail and active transportation connections, and then ultimately the funding, which we all have been talking about already.

[00:24:18] So let me just ask that and go from there. Yes, thank you. We did receive Jim Klein's comments and addressed all of the ones that were feasible to address. Some of them are a little bit more broad, and I think we are very much in line with those comments as well, and we will provide a response this week to Mr. Klein.

[00:24:43] He said it in September, and none of us have gotten any kind of something that says we got it and we are incorporating it into it. Is that the essence of you've taken his comments and the iterations that you're creating now are including those in there, and we should see some of those points at least covered in the iterations that come forward?

[00:25:08] Yes, so we did receive it. It is already included in the plan, but we can provide a formal response. Mr. Klein's comments were submitted as part of the public feedback, so we generally don't provide responses to the public feedback we received through the survey, and I'm glad he emailed because his comments were not captured in the survey.

[00:25:29] I'd be happy to provide responses to Mr. Klein. Okay. And one of the things that he particularly brought up, and I know from our conversations that we've had, I've been concerned about any one, if you will, local organization vetoing or limiting what this active transportation plan should be.

[00:25:56] In particular, we've had conversations about this being connected to the comprehensive plan in areas that some of these are already in the comprehensive plan, some of these are not. And is that going to be part of how this gets brought forward so that if a particular entity doesn't like something, i.e. the park authority says, no, we don't want to do that, that still gets, if you will, flushed out or worked out, worked through as part of a comprehensive plan change that then would be part of what the board has committed itself to achieve over time?

[00:26:32] Yes, so if any changes to the plan are necessary for whatever reason in the future, it can be done through a plan amendment. And especially with the special area plans coming in pretty frequently, those changes will also need to make as part of an amendment.

[00:26:52] Or if there's something on the plan that the park authority would like to add or change, we can go through the process of amending the plan as well. Will these does this get incorporated into the comprehensive plan?

[00:27:10] Maybe that's what I want to make sure I understand. Yes, so those that would be an amendment to the comprehensive plan once This plan is adopted. So then over time That would be addressed and we would be able to see it directly in the comp plan. Yes Okay, I think that covered the key things I wanted to raise. Thank you. Oh Supervisor Lusk first and then back to Supervisor Alcorn. Go ahead. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, I'll have a three questions and a comment. So I'll start really appreciate the work that's been done here and

[00:27:49] acknowledge the outreach give you credit for the outreach because it was Helpful and I could see you and your team out at a number of different events in my own district. So thank you for that within the question I have is within Policy B of objective aid of the transportation element of the policy plan I noticed that there was language that was removed, avoiding environmentally sensitive areas and I believe the board has the option and choice to avoid environmentally sensitive

[00:28:28] areas based on a situation or context. So I wanted to ask if staff would be amenable to considering a change to the language to read avoid to the extent possible or minimize I know that this issue in my own district has a bit of poignancy as it relates to the cinder bed road project and just want to make sure you know we are considering and I'm not saying avoid in every instance but looking to avoid where possible and then

[00:29:05] minimizing adverse environmental impacts so just wanted to see if that's a possibility from the staff we can certainly review and get back to you okay I appreciate that and then second I wanted to ask the way that we formulated the plan for active transportation and the trails plan would it be possible for us to convert that to GIS once it's finalized I think it'll be a little bit easier to kind of manipulate and see for those who are visually challenged like me it makes it a little bit harder um so just wanted to make that request

[00:29:42] if possible yes we are planning on uh providing the uh trail and and active transportation route data in js format um on the public uh okay open data form as well um so anyone can download it or or you know using the interactive map to kind of zoom in and and also click on the lines to get the attributes for the roads and speed so to have an easier time determining the roadway context.

[00:30:12] That'll be a lot better, but I recognize this is the first step, so just as a future step, so thank you for saying that. And then I wanted to also ask, in terms of the timing for reviewing the plan in the future, what is the thought about the sequence and timing for the future?

[00:30:29] To confirm after it is adopted? After it's adopted. The best practice is to update every, do a comprehensive review just to make sure every five to ten years, depending on how much change is in the community and in kind of the best practice for the industry.

[00:30:50] And it will be updated nearly every year based on the special area plan update. So there's always the opportunity to refine as part of that as well. Okay. And then as a personal comment, I just want to acknowledge I appreciate the work that you've done over the years, and you've made a difference, and just want you to hear that from me. Thank you.

[00:31:16] Thank you. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. Just very quickly on some of the earlier discussion. First of all, my dumb question was really dumb. I did find the legend in the bridge or tunnel, so thank you for pointing that out.

[00:31:33] that was a truly dumb question, but I did want to just, sort of building on the discussion earlier, this will be part of the comprehensive plan. So what it does mean is, yeah, it gives us an opportunity to try to find funding for it, but it also means whenever there is development activity along these trails and roadway, basically these active transportation things, it's going to be expected that whoever's doing the development will also make the improvements associated with what's on the comprehensive plan in terms of

[00:32:10] building the trail connection you know or improving it so that that is true but there is a process there are from time to time there are situations that frankly it doesn't pass the lab test and I would just say that that's part of our job as district supervisors uh to basically to to get involved and uh to point that out and make sure that um that the things we do and require do pass uh the laugh test i would also just note that

[00:32:45] there are some things and i'm noticing in particular with reston um you know i think a lot of this follows the grid pattern that's in the comprehensive plan that's not yet built out and so there will be There will be lots of, I think, changes over time as some of these areas, particularly in our TSAs, develop.

[00:33:08] And, you know, the grid is, I think, notional is the word I've heard or conceptual. So I think some of this is going to have to evolve and will evolve over time, even though, you know, it is in our comprehensive plan.

[00:33:26] And then my last point is this is really fantastic, but I would also point out that this is not a complete representation of our county's active transportation infrastructure. There are lots of smaller pedestrian connections, trails, sidewalks that are not on this map that people use all the time.

[00:33:51] And that's okay. That's all right. But this basically provides the spine for our active transportation network that all those smaller neighborhood things, you know, can support. So I want to make sure we understand that we're coming in at a certain level, but there's more here than that's shown.

[00:34:11] And I think that's okay. That should be expected, particularly as we see redevelopment in some of our communities. So anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. But a real quick thought to that, we talked about all the reasons why the study is important.

[00:34:27] One reason we didn't talk about is making sure that development when it comes in does not preclude these connections from being made as well. And so that's one of the challenges we have across the county where connections are more difficult because developments occur without a plan that shows how they can be arranged to support connections that make our trails and bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities more amenable.

[00:34:52] And so, you know, there's multiple reasons why this has to happen, but preventing them from connecting is also one of the reasons. So I think to close this portion of the meeting, comprehensive planning is hard.

[00:35:07] It is difficult to be comprehensive in a county our size, but by trying to plan in advance, you try to set up contingencies to set yourselves up for the future. This is an effort to do that, and I just want to thank you both for your work on this.

[00:35:27] I am very comfortable, as well as the chairman said at the very beginning, answering all three questions in the affirmative that were on your feedback page. With that, I am going to skip around a little bit in the agenda because Mr. Hill and Mr. Mercer clearly took the express lanes to get here.

[00:35:50] got here before 12 so we're gonna turn right now to the next item which is DMV moves for an update on the DMV moves process and what's going on with DMV moves and with that the floor is yours gentlemen well thank you supervisor Beerman and we did not take the toll road we had ample time on the highway there was not a lot of traffic because we've done such a great job and moving people around in our Northern Virginia region.

[00:36:23] I do want to say thank you for allowing us this opportunity. As you know, I have been associated with DMV Moves for the last 18 months. I didn't realize it was that long, and I do want to thank the board for allowing me time off with good behavior to work with Clark Mercer, as well as Jack McDougall from the Board of Trade.

[00:36:44] Today, we were in D.C. at George Washington University. We spoke about where we are in the process, and I thought it would be a good idea to have Clark Mercer come address our board, particularly address our board before he addresses the Loudoun County Board, because I want to make sure that Loudoun knows that DMV moves starts in Fairfax County.

[00:37:06] So, Clark, go ahead. Yep, gotcha. Thank you. And the express lanes are nice when you need them, so just a nice option to have. I will preface this by saying I'll move through this quickly because it's many topics and recommendations I think you all have seen before, and several of you participated through the DMV Moves process and have seen this.

[00:37:31] But a big thanks to Brian. Brian led the Government Partners Group, which was every CAO in the region and the district in Maryland, the NVTCs and MDTAs of the world. He partnered with Jack McDougall from the Board of Trade, and that was a group of 40 folks every chamber group federal city council greater washington partnership our labor groups our environmental groups our passenger advocacy groups and it was large and unwieldy groups by design and you know kind of the promise at the front was we may not find consensus on everything but i don't want there to be a group in this region that says you came up with these recommendations we didn't have a seat at the table and a voice hopefully we find consensus but everyone did have

[00:38:10] a voice and an ability over the last 18 months to really hold metro and our transit partners feet to the fire and ask any question that they wanted when it came to financial management. And so this is a summary slide here. I will kind of also preface this by saying we worked in conjunction with the SJ28 work group and NVTC at Cape Matheis.

[00:38:30] The numbers may be a little bit off. It's because SJ28 took our initial numbers and really refined them. And so in the right-hand side there, that 65 to 80 million is the number needed in new new investment annually for all of our transit partners across the region, including Maryland and the district.

[00:38:48] And I think the numbers came down a little bit in Virginia based on SJ28's work. But that left-hand part of the slide is the question we came up on the funding was, you know, and the task force really laid out the ground rules here, was what's it going to take to have a safe and reliable metro system that invests in the current system and really invests in the bus network, does not invest in expanding the rail network?

[00:39:11] At State of Good Repair, the number started out much higher with Metro, and over the course of 18 months, that number came down by 60%. And $460, when you split that up between the partners, Virginia pays the, actually of the three states, the least amount.

[00:39:27] But, a big but there, and you all know this, in Virginia, you typically split that bill with the state. So in Maryland, it's a little bit different. Their bill goes to Annapolis, and they pay 100% of that out-of-state coffers. So your CAOs are a little bit more attuned to what that number is and how they're going to come up with it than perhaps their counterparts in Maryland.

[00:39:46] So of that 460, 142 is the Virginia number, and it comes out to a little under $33 million a year for Fairfax County. And these recommendations were made. The DMV Moves Task Force voted on a resolution, which you will see shortly.

[00:40:02] The two boards, COG and WMATA, came together a couple weeks ago, voted on that resolution. And what I would like to do is send that from Brian so you all can all see that. Four of you voted on that and voted in favor of it at the last meeting. But if you would like to bring that up at a future meeting of the supervisors and take action on that, that is what Loudon is doing this afternoon.

[00:40:26] The middle, and included in that 460 number, they call it modernization. You could take Secretary Duffy's comments about the FAA and the signaling and communications equipment that we have at a national level and replace that with Metro's signaling and communication software.

[00:40:43] It's 40 years old, and they spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year patching that network right now. So they're already spending a lot of money to patch a network that was built 40, 50 years ago. And part of the upgrade here in the 460 would be modernization, similar to what you have at Dulles Airport.

[00:41:02] When you go to Dulles and you go from A terminal to B sections, those doors that open and close automatically, it's a lot safer. They don't have folks throwing themselves in front of the trains at Dulles, which never happened. They go faster, and you can move more trains. And part of that, and Chairman McKay has spoken to this, I don't think ultimately long, long-term, it would relieve the need to perhaps build a new tunnel near Roslyn.

[00:41:26] But for the next 20 or 30 years, you could move more trains and move that bottleneck in a way that we wouldn't have to talk about that kind of expansion. Next slide. I'm not going to go through all of this. These are recommendations that this region has made for 40 years.

[00:41:42] And when we started this DMV Moves process, and I got folks like Chairman McKay to agree to participate, his response was, if we're still just making the recommendations we've made for 40 years, I've got no interest in participating. How are we going to implement those recommendations? So making sure that our bus routes apples to apples comparison in terms of what you're doing with Connector, what you're doing with Metro, recognizing that bus service at the local level can be nuanced and different.

[00:42:08] Fares, kids ride free, 18 and under across the region. You don't have to show an ID from George Mason in Montgomery County. It's gotten a little bit ridiculous, the reciprocity on how we handle young people and how we handle seniors. When you go to Reagan National Airport and you have everyone's logo on Terminal A and it's nice and organized, can we move to one sign, one flag, one number in this region so you're not at the Pentagon and you see 13 different signs for buses?

[00:42:34] This gets pretty wonky and granular, but it makes a difference to the end user. When Fairfax Connector has a stop and Metro Bus has a stop, that bus is numbered on the back end, and that back end feeds all the technology so you can see when the buses are arriving on time.

[00:42:49] All the bus routes are numbered something different. Can we at least agree on numbering them all the same so it can be fed into the same IT system when we know what buses arrive and when? The one observation I'll make about all of these recommendations is I think the reason in the past why they haven't been implemented is groups like COG comes along or, you know, former Secretary of Transportation comes along and makes these high-level recommendations, issues the report, and then leaves town. And everyone looks at each other and says, that's a good idea, but who has a lead on it? And Brian says, it's not us, it's not COG, and we all just go about our business. So we're committed in this report to taking ownership through COG and TPB or Metro when it's appropriate, or Fairfax County, hopefully,

[00:43:29] when it's appropriate, these recommendations to running these recommendations to ground and execute. Next slide. This just goes into some description of what I just talked about. We did talk about bus corridors here and obviously Route 7 Leesburg Pike is one of those and look generally everyone agreed yes when a bus leaves Fairfax County and goes into Alexander and DC we should work to effectuate that route so the bus moves the entire time and folks get from point A to point B and we are committed to working with our partners in Alexander Arlington DC and VDOT to make that happen what we're not committed to through the DMV moves process is putting up extra money right now into a regional bus fund when we

[00:44:07] don't know what the details are. So everyone kind of agreed moving forward on a handful of these corridors to commit themselves and their staff to working with COG and TPB and Metro to try to get some of these key corridors that we know buses are moving and there's lots of folks who are moving per day, try to move them faster. Next slide. You all know this, you're just going over your legislative agenda here. We are now kind of at the process where we're handing these recommendations off to delegates and senators as they go to Richmond, as they go to Annapolis, and as D.C.

[00:44:38] works through its process. I will tell you all three of those states are at a different place where their budgets are and when they're ready to act to move. It does look like Virginia may be in a position to attempt to move first, which then could start kind of a domino effect with our partners across the river. Next slide. And there are additional slides, which I won't bore you with, but I think you get the idea here. I'm happy to take any questions.

[00:45:03] Before you do that, Clark, there's something that I also wanted to make sure everybody understand some. DMV moves, I think, was a good process. It's a process that can continue to move forward, but SJ28, once that is taken care of, I think where we really need to be as a region is thinking about Longbridge and how we can interconnect Prince William County, Charles City, Maryland, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and get away from expansion of Metro, but think about what we can do with VRE. I've had several conversations with folks in the district about

[00:45:40] the amount of money they are being charged. And as Clark said, Virginia pays the least amount. I've actually stated to somebody there that no problem, let's do everything one third and we'll give you half of the bill of our VRE bill. And then let's talk because we are trying to be interconnected of all. And I think DMV moves process provided that segue into SJ28 and now the other localities, i.e. D.C., as well as Maryland, are looking at ways to be a little bit more user-friendly and play in the sandbox together. So I do believe we have done some

[00:46:16] significant work to ensure that we're all on the same page. Now the question is, how do we fund the same page? And I think we're close here in Virginia. Hopefully D.C. will come along and hopefully we can get Maryland and the governor, Governor Moore, to understand the importance of the economic impact that WMATA and our region provide not only to Maryland but to D.C. and to Northern Virginia.

[00:46:43] That's a great point about VRE, Mark. We had kind of a passenger rail summit at Union Station, and when you look at other metro areas that are our size are frankly a lot smaller, and you look at the number of folks that ride passenger rail, the numbers are much higher. And so rebuilding Longbridge is kind of a once-in-many-many-lifetime opportunity to increase the number of trips that you have on VRE.

[00:47:06] reliability for those and also the planning needs to happen now so that we can have VRE trains going into the district in Maryland and mark trains coming into into Virginia and that and that was you know so it's a nice good comment to make as we did get some recommendations or letters during the process you know kind of recommending that we look to extend Metro kind of down 95 into Prince William and further south and and that really is why you have passenger rail and we are spending it's not it's not fair to say the least amount because the commonwealth commits lots and lots of money to the metro system so i don't want

[00:47:42] to to make that sound to minimus but is also investing billions in dollars and acquiring right-of-way and this manassas line that governor youngkin's administration has acquired as a game changer to be able to turn those mark trains around and send it back across the river thank you mr chairman yeah just just a couple points um first on on long bridge i mean that is for for vre what fixing the Roslyn Tunnel would mean for Metro.

[00:48:08] I mean, it is that much capacity. Virginia didn't spend what it spent on this to not take advantage of the opportunity. So I couldn't agree more. I would just say the discussion about the district and their concerns about the amount that they would have to fund here, I just want to be really clear that it was not within the mission or scope of this group to look at the funding formulas that are embedded in the compact for the Metro jurisdictions.

[00:48:33] And so I think if you asked any of us that are in that compact, we would have complaints about the way the funding formula is determined. But that was way outside of the scope, and so I just wanted to be clear on that. The other thing on the bus plan that's here, I think it's really important that our bus systems get in alignment.

[00:48:55] But that being said, I think it's also really important, and I made this point. and I've made it multiple times, I will keep making it, that jurisdictions still maintain some autonomy over their bus operations. And for us, that's really important because the last thing we want to have to do is go to the WMATA board and ask them for permission to make a route change or a change in what the cost of the bus service is or anything like that.

[00:49:20] I mean, nobody knows that better than the people sitting in this room where development patterns are happening and other things. And so alignment, sure, takeover. especially if a bus system our size is not what's recommended here, nor would we ever support that.

[00:49:35] And so I just want to be clear on that. The other thing is I agree that, you know, we aren't looking at extensions here. I know that's troubling for some folks, but one of the elements of this plan that was so important was to drive down the cost into something that could actually be achieved.

[00:49:54] And really, a fundamental way you do that is to take off the page a real aspirational plan. That doesn't mean there aren't aspirations out there. I think many of us still hold on hope that, you know, Metro could be extended to Prince William County. I know that that's a commuter rail opportunity, but I would also argue that we have commuter rail down the 66 corridor.

[00:50:16] Again, why not down the 95 corridor? Can we have Metro extension? We have Metro going out in 66. We have commuter rail going out 66. We have Metro going out 395 until it gets to the end of Fairfax County. We have VRE running down I-95.

[00:50:33] And so I don't want to walk away from the long-range plan still to be able to do that. But where we sit right now today is we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to properly fund Metro and have the political willpower, I believe, to be able to do it.

[00:50:49] There have been – I have also said this before. I'll say it again. I don't think there have been transit systems across the country that have been more studied than this one. And we can't keep studying the problem. We actually have to do something about the problem. To do it, you got to have a number that's within reason. And I appreciate all the work that Randy and WMATA and our team here has done to drive that number down to one that is within reason and can be achieved. The second thing to grow ridership is you have to improve the reliability. And a lot of things are being done by the WMATA board on safety and reliability, which are great, but state of good repair is a key driver of reliability that drives ridership.

[00:51:29] And so we have to be able to take good care of the system we have for the foreseeable future if we're to expect the continued ridership growth. And WMATA has had significant ridership growth compared to other systems across the country. But lastly, and I stressed this recently with a business community I was meeting with, this is the only system in the country that doesn't have a dedicated revenue source that allows for Metro to do long-range planning and to be able to be sustainable. And that's an embarrassment, frankly, in the nation's capital that we've never gotten to a point where that is established. And then the last thing is there is

[00:52:06] a lot of oversight that is built into this. So this is not just a, if this were to be approved, a check goes to Metro, they take the check and walk away. There's a number of layers here that require reports back, monitoring, and fiscal accountability at Metro. And if we're going to sell this to the general public, sell it to the business community, everyone, I think, agrees that that accountability factor has to be in play here. I think Metro has come a long way over the last couple of years, certainly since the years I was on the board a long time ago. And I think a lot of that is attributable to Metro's management. But this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us

[00:52:46] to sustain this long-term and to realize the huge economic impact that Metro brings to the entire DMV area. And so I just wanted to kind of reset some of those things, thank the folks who worked on this, and we absolutely will be bringing this forward to our board for endorsement as other DMV moves jurisdictions are doing, certainly sending that message strong to our General Assembly.

[00:53:10] And I know that a number of our General Assembly members, one in particular that I talk to almost daily. It's hard at work on what this could look like in Richmond and how we can put together a plan in Richmond that can bring the state funding necessary that is going to be required to make this plan work. And those efforts are already afoot. Something that will endorse this plan, but more importantly for us, is going to be endorsing the instrument in Richmond that's going to be needed to actually fund this. And that's where all of our help is going to be needed.

[00:53:41] Thank you. Vice Chair Smith? Okay, Jermaine, not Jermaine, but since expansion was mentioned, I have to find out a way to get an answer to this. So I represent Sully District, which has a plan for three stations on the Orange Line, one of them being in Centerville.

[00:54:01] I have come to the realization this will not ever happen in my lifetime, but it is more complicated because we're working on the comprehensive plan for the Centerville area. And so that decision, you know, a few years ago when I thought we were doing this, we would want to build in density at this spot.

[00:54:20] And so now my task force is coming to an end, and there's this back and forth, how do we deal with this? And so I always thought Roslyn was going to be the problem because you couldn't get more trains in there. But how do I answer this to my task force and my community that would love to see the orange line come out?

[00:54:39] This is a 30-year-in-the-future maybe. This is a never. Just any insight that I could get would be helpful. I will say this. Roslyn is really not the biggest problem or biggest hurdle we have because with automation and this plan, we will go from having trains go through the Roslyn tunnel.

[00:55:00] We'll probably shave off five minutes, which means we get five more chains through the tunnel. I'm not saying that's going to help out what we need in Sully. I mean, I am looking to figure out how we get it to here, just to the VN. past Vienna, let alone Sully. The question is, you know, future planning, more growth. We have a lot of housing opportunities here in Northern Virginia region, and we are behind in housing. We're going to need it. The question is, when are we going to have the funding and the sources adequate to support it? Clark, do you want to? Sure. I mean, you go around the table, we may have 20 different

[00:55:38] opinions on an expansion of the metro line, so this is only kind of my perspective, and it comes in play with other projects as well. I mean, we talk about the Wilson Bridge as an example, and we housed the Transportation Planning Board, and there was a project put on the table and discussed there, we've got to generate some local match for expansion of Metro Rail. And you can pull down 50% of a cost of expansion of the Orange Line from the feds, but you've got to have 50% in hand to go after it. And that was kind of a discussion on the Wilson Bridge. And looking at Dulles Toll Road, it took decades to generate the local match to pull down the federal dollar. So

[00:56:13] So, you know, that's on TPB's long-term plan, the first thing we look at is do you have the money to pay for the project? And we joked a little bit about managed lanes before, pretty heavily involved in those in Richmond. They're not a panacea for everything, but when you have something that's a multibillion-dollar project and a private sector willing to pay for it, you've got to structure the deal right.

[00:56:35] Again, it's not perfect all around, but it's an option. So I guess your job is to advocate, but we've got to come up with a realistic plan to pay for the expansion of that metro. And that was also outside the scope of DMV moves. We weren't going to come up with a list of, here are the top three expansion plans.

[00:56:52] And if I didn't have that project on the list, you probably would be disappointed, right? And so, you know, once the task force said, look, what is it going to cost to maintain a state of good repair and invest in what we have now and invest in bus, which the bus lines that are carrying the most folks, show us what that number is, make it manageable and doable, and let's get it done, and let's leave some of the expansion plans for another day.

[00:57:14] I think, if I could just add one thing, I do think it's practical to look at what has been done on the Richmond Highway Corridor and how that can be replicated in other areas, because there is a metro extension on the plan, but there's zero dollars for it.

[00:57:30] And so we tackled this issue of, you know, how do you come up with the right density to support a future metro extension for the demand element? And part of the philosophy there is build, you know, a sophisticated BRT system that builds ridership in the corridor and build densities that can be supported by the BRT but also have a long-range comprehensive plan that allows for some metro-oriented densities in core areas along the corridor.

[00:57:57] And that's always a tough thing for the community because most people obviously want the infrastructure before the impact of the growth. But the reality is it's impossible to build a metro extension without having some of the growth in place first to support being able to get the funding for it when that opportunity comes up.

[00:58:16] And so I do think that we thought of how do you come up with an interim approach so that you keep hope alive for the metro extension, but that you start developing in a transit oriented area that needs revitalization, the types of densities that could ultimately support that. It's a tough question.

[00:58:34] Sure. Just on, I mean, Dulles Corridor is a great example. And what we had with Dulles Corridor is that we had the dedicated lanes that you could run express bus and then, you know, move on from there. 66, what we're doing in Fairfax is focused on the express lanes and the ability to start with express bus.

[00:58:55] Then maybe you get the BRT. But you got dedicated lanes at guaranteed speeds, which is why that area is booming in housing in Fairfax. And there's no reason Centerville couldn't do the same. Build some of the infrastructure. We've got the parking garage at Fairfax Corner, and then go on from there.

[00:59:14] Supervisor Alcorn and then Supervisor Lusk. Yeah, just to build on that a little bit, there was also a planning exercise that most people have forgotten about in the early 90s for Tyson's. This wasn't the big Tyson's task force that happened about a decade later. But that initial task force did look at where a future route for Metrorail would go.

[00:59:35] And it included some density, but it included, I mean, the route was really the critical piece. And there were still triggers for transit-oriented development density in that plan, as well as in the 2010 Tyson's plan.

[00:59:52] It talked about it being when funding was programmed for, then that would allow for the density to be in place. So there are, I think, some things that could lead toward that, but maybe it's not close enough in view.

[01:00:09] So anyway, just a thought. One thing just to get back, first of all, thank you, Chairman McKay. Great comments on a number of things earlier, and I did want to compliment Brian and Clark and the whole team for the DMV moves work. There is – it's going to be a little confusing as we go into the General Assembly session.

[01:00:30] There are different sets of numbers out there. So a lot of people with DMV moves, we talk about 460, 460, 460. That's the regional capital need for WMATA. There's another number that's come out of SJ28. It's 400. And 400 is the number just for Virginia.

[01:00:48] And that number includes the portion of metro for the capital needs. But it also includes VRE, local bus, the needs associated with that. And we can't forget about this because this, I think, is really important. You know, one of the reasons we have trains running as well and the system is running as well overall for WMATA is, frankly, we paid for it.

[01:01:13] We paid for it a couple of years ago when we blew through the 3% cap. It was called re-baselining. And really what that meant is we had to catch up because there just wasn't enough money available in the operating to cover the operating expenses based on keeping it within that 3%.

[01:01:34] So in Virginia, we're also looking – we need – if we're going to do this once-in-generation thing, we also need to cover that re-baselining amount. And it basically is about equal to what the capital needs are, at least Virginia's share of it.

[01:01:51] So that's where that $400 million number comes from, and I am hopeful that we're going to get there because this is absolutely critical. It would be a huge step to get a dedicated revenue source, but I'll point out that it's not going to cover all of the met.

[01:02:12] We're still going to be using general fund money to pay for transit. It's just we're not going to be relying, at least at the local level, almost exclusively on general fund money to pay for transit. And that, frankly, is really important.

[01:02:30] And I see going into this discussion as much a transit funding discussion, but it's actually tax reform as well. And it's coming up with a way to cover these costs without just putting it on the property taxpayers.

[01:02:47] So, I think that is going to hopefully help move this whole process along and ensure a bright future for our transit system. So, thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Alcorn. Supervisor Lusk?

[01:03:02] I'll just make a quick comment, and that is I just want to acknowledge the hard work of so many people, including those who are in the room, Brian Hill, Clark Mercer. I'm thinking about Randy Clark, so thank you for recognizing him as well and the efforts that he made. But also the co-chairs of the committee Charles Allen and Paul Smith are leading the effort. This was a Herculean Undertaking very complicated and I'm sure there were some were probably at the beginning of the process not sure how it was going to land But it had a very significant landing and just appreciate all those who were engaged and They've made a difference for the future here in this region. Thank you. Mr. Chairman

[01:03:42] you know Supervisor Behrman and Chairman Behrman, Supervisor Alcorn made several very interesting points. Now the question is, how are we going to fund it? And it's going to be on many of us to figure out a funding source moving forward.

[01:03:58] So I'm looking forward to our legislative delegation meetings to see if we can figure that out, because I do not want to be cornered into using funding from the state specific for. I need to have some ability to work around the margins, and I'm hoping that we're going to be speaking to our delegation as such.

[01:04:18] That's a great point, and to try and bring together a lot of the things that we're doing today since we started today with a legislative committee meeting, we're going to end today with a joint fiscal forecast meeting. I think that to go back to Vice Chair Smith's point, asking about the future, I'm going to offer an extremely optimistic take, but I think it's important, which is that this is a very, very important first step to solving a very intractable problem.

[01:04:59] And I'm not going to call out specific individuals, but I will say if you go back and watch the COG meeting where we actually endorsed the DMV moves resolution. It was very funny because in one of the last comments before it was endorsed, someone from another jurisdiction said, well, wait a second, you know, we're not even talking about the funding formulas and we pay more than they pay and I'm not sure that's fair. And then used a term about their budget, which then caused

[01:05:38] a certain person from a different jurisdiction to say, well, you're using that term about your budget, but it's apples and oranges to my budget. And I got to say that was the easiest vote I've ever had to endorse that resolution. Because the problem with Metro, the challenge we have always had is pretty obvious. We use three different jurisdictions to pay for it. And the incentive of every politician around the table dealing with it is to try and spend as little money as possible,

[01:06:11] as little money of their taxpayer dollars as possible to make this work, which has created immeasurable challenges. The idea that we could bring all of those people together and at least come up with a number, this 460 million number, and agree on it, is a Herculean task. And in fact, I think it is something that in a way represents the best of what government can do, because government is about solving collective action problems. And the irony here was we kind of solved a collective action problem that was a collective action problem among governments

[01:06:50] themselves. So to be way too pie-in-the-sky optimistic for Vice Chair Smith, this is the type of building block that will get us to the future in which we have a metro station in Centerville someday. And I think that's really important. I think also to tie back to the things that we're talking about today. At the fiscal forecast meeting this afternoon, I went back and looked at the where it goes from our budget last year. And we had about a $65 million contribution

[01:07:29] to Metro and a $46 million contribution to other transit in the budget next year. And when you see our baselining for looking at next year, you'll see on one of the slides that we have a placeholder of $24 million in an increase in transit funding for next year. Yet we have a real opportunity here because the same people who are calling Jeff here every day from Richmond saying that they're going

[01:08:02] to work on something big are talking about trying to reduce that general fund number. They are not claiming that they can solve the problem and get us $100 million a year. Sorry, taxpayers, we can't go that far. But they are saying that by creating a dedicated funding stream, they think that we can cut into that number. And so I implore the other members of this board to talk to the members of the delegation and to fully endorse the efforts of SJ28 to figure that out using this DMV moves

[01:08:40] framework as a starting point anything else on this topic okay great well thank you Mr. Mercer and Mr. Hill we have nine minutes left and I think we can actually get through the next nine minutes in fewer than nine minutes which is I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Steverson to Greg Steverson director of transportation to discuss some of the potential 2026 topics for board transportation committee meetings. Thank you. Again, Greg Stevenson, director of FCDOT, and this will

[01:09:16] definitely be a short presentation because it's not really a presentation. I just wanted to give people a little bit of a heads up as I plan out sort of the meetings. I think we're going to have five meetings, if I'm correct, for next year, trying to plan out some of the things that I want to talk about. A lot of them come from the conversations that we've had throughout the course of this year and questions that may have popped up as we were talking about things.

[01:09:42] These aren't in any particular order, but the main thing that I wanted to talk about up first, the one that is in order, SmartScale, that one's going to be on the first meeting as we come out. I believe it's in February. We've had a lot of conversations about SmartScale, but we're also doing a very heavy, deep dive into the black box that is SmartScale.

[01:10:04] And so I wanted to come back to you all and really give you some insight as to what we found out, what the strategy we think should be coming forward for submitting for SmartScale this go-around. So that will come out in the first meeting, I believe it's in February.

[01:10:20] A couple other things we're going to talk through, Fairfax Connector. I know you all had your EV discussions at the environmental group. I know we need to talk about that from the connector perspective and where we are with some of the propulsion discussions, hybrid, electric, and things like that.

[01:10:37] There's a lot of conversation that's been going on about project timelines. I know you all are very, very interested in talking about that. We're putting together a number of pieces of information to sort of talk through projects in terms of what can delay projects, some of the things that go into the time frames of projects.

[01:11:00] So that's going to be one of the meetings, I think, in the middle. We had our what I call our 101 level course of funding. We talked about how we fund projects. There were a number of questions that came through about local funding and some other things that were questions at that meeting that we want to come back and talk about.

[01:11:16] So we'll do a 201-level course on project funding. I know you all wanted to get an update on the active transportation projects, so we're going to do that as well. And then closer to the end of the year, NVTC is doing work on the eastern side of Route 7 as they work on sort of some recommendations.

[01:11:38] We're also going to come in and make recommendations about how we tackle BRT along the corridor. And so that's going to be closer to the end of the year. But even more so than that, what I wanted to sort of say as I map out the meetings that we're going to have for next year, if there are topics that you all are really, really interested in or something that you really feel is important for us to either present on or talk on, please reach out to me and let me know.

[01:12:02] So I am really trying to, again, map out the year so that I know what is coming when and where. So if you have any thoughts or if there are things on here you just really would never want to hear or see about, you can let me know that as well. I don't think that will be the case.

[01:12:18] But reach out to me and let me know. And Chair Bierman and I will definitely sort of map out the year as a whole so we kind of know what's coming and when. So with that, I am done. Mr. Chairman? Yeah, I think the one big missing thing here is something we've talked about here a lot, which is what strategies can we put in place to expedite project delivery?

[01:12:42] And, you know, we had, I'm not going to recount the conversation that we had at the last committee, but we need to, as an agency, we need to be looking at that. And I know there are some holes at VDOT. There's going to be some changes at VDOT. I know our development industry is frustrated beyond belief with VDOT trying to get permits and other things.

[01:13:03] So I know it's not an exclusive Fairfax problem, but we've got to do better and get these projects delivered faster. And I'd like a presentation on what steps could be necessary to do that. Okay. Yeah. And so the standard project timelines and costs will have a lot to do with that.

[01:13:22] But if we want to separate something out maybe during that same meeting and talk about that in more detail, we can do that. But the standard project timelines and costs was going to tackle a lot of that. Thank you. I will say that the theme of next year is how can we do things faster, more efficiently, and more cheaply because time is money on these projects.

[01:13:43] So by doing them faster, we can actually save lots of money. I see the standard project timelines, frames and costs, and the update on the active transportation projects as both in that same vein. I will also note that on the audit committee work plan for next year, first quarter, we have an audit of our active transportation processes to figure out how we can deliver things faster, cheaper, on time, on budget.

[01:14:11] That's out of a commercial, but, you know, I think it's Granger on time and on budget. But still, that's got to be Fairfax County's, you know, through line going here on out. And that will definitely be the through line of every transportation committee meeting next year.

[01:14:27] And let's, if we can call it that, what this says is standard project timelines and costs. I know including things impacting both, but to me, the word standard is unacceptable for us. What we want is expedited project timeframes and improved cost efficiency.

[01:14:44] And if it said that on here, I wouldn't have just wasted a couple minutes bringing it up. But let's call it what it actually is, because that's what we need to do. Cosign. Supervisor Herdy. If you can go back to your list real quick. So the first one, SmartScale, I think the important part of that, to go to the same kind of thing, is really strategy and what our strategy should be, because SmartScale is what it is.

[01:15:09] How do we align our projects, or how do we need to align our projects so that we can get the money? You know, the same thing on the project timelines, I was going to say pretty much, you've got to tell us, you know, where our own processes are holding things up, where VDOT processes are holding things up, because we can put stuff in the legislative agenda to go try to make changes, but we can't do that if we don't know where they are.

[01:15:39] And I know way back in 2009, you know, on the Commission for Local Mandate Review, we got rid of some VDOT processes. It can be done. It's just we need your help kind of identifying them. So the chairman's point was right on. Tell us what needs to get changed so that you can move quicker.

[01:15:58] Sure. And in the smart scale vein, it currently is what it is. We may, when we come back and talk about this, there may be some things that in our mind we're like we would rather them not be what they are. And that would be something that we may reach out to you all and say, hey, cost, for example, is the issue.

[01:16:19] We really need to try and find a way to better balance cost with benefit. So that might be a piece of discussion that we come back with when we have that smart scale discussion. Thank you. I think what you're hearing is that on a lot of these projects, we recognize that there are timelines that are set and are managed and are influenced by VDOT.

[01:16:41] That allows us to understand those timelines so that we can go lobby the state. But with respect to the timelines that are within our control, we are going to move as fast and as efficiently and as cheaply as we can. So with that, okay, thank you, Supervisor Stork.

[01:16:58] I just add to, I mean, best practices, I mean, is there anybody else in the country that's found a cheaper, better, faster way to do that and help us maybe see that there are other ways that we don't see or processes or techniques that we do that we should, that we don't do that we should consider?

[01:17:15] So I'm, that would be my bottom line is help us see what else is out there that could be better, faster, cheaper. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, for the first time, I'm ending a Board of Transportation Committee meeting on time. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com