Thursday, May 27, 2010
 

Wiehle Ave Metro development approved by Board

Fairfax County owns the land on which the Reston East Park & Ride lot is located. This lot is adjacent to the planned Wiehle Ave Metro station on the new Silver line.

As we noted in an earlier posting, a major mixed-use development is being proposed on this site, which is very close to the W&OD Trail.

At the Board of Supervisors public hearing on this development we made the following comments:
Good afternoon Chairman Bulova and members of the Board,

My name is Bruce Wright and I live within a mile of the proposed development. While in general I support this application, bicycle access to the site is not well-planned and some facilities recommended by the Reston Metro Access Group are missing.

While several pedestrian circulation diagrams are included in the application, bicycle circulation has not been properly planned. Bicycle access and pedestrian access issues are different but developers and others often assume that the same facilities serve both users.

I met with the applicant and when I asked how cyclists would access the 150 Metro bicycle parking spaces I was told they would get off their bikes and walk on the sidewalk with pedestrians. That likely won't happen. In this and future applications around Metro stations I suggest that bicycle as well as pedestrian circulation be planned and facilities be provided to reduce bicycle/pedestrian conflicts and provide safe passage for cyclists.

According to the RMAG report, a shared bus/bike lane is recommended on Comstock Metro Center Drive from the W&OD Trail to the station entrance. Bike lanes are recommended on Reston Station Blvd through the site. The trail along Wiehle Ave is recommended to be 10 feet not 8 feet. According to the report: "The sidewalks along Wiehle Ave between the station entrance and the connection to the W&OD Trail should be wider than in other areas to accommodate larger numbers of bicyclists." From what I have seen, these recommendations are not being met.

The RMAG recommendations were developed by VHB and finalized by the RMAG which included VDOT and county DOT staff. If there were reservations about the recommendations, they should have been expressed at that time. If we can't get good bicycle access at this Metro site, adjacent to the W&OD Trail, it's not a good sign.

I also think that providing 1 bicycle parking space per 20 residential units is insufficient. Arlington Co uses 1 space per 5 units and in Tysons we are using 1 space per 10 units. Since the county currently has no guidelines for bicycle parking, I believe that more detailed guidance about number, placement and type of bicycle parking is needed within the residential and commercial buildings.

Thank you.
In response to my comments about insufficient access to the site, the applicant said that an 8-foot asphalt trail along Wiehle Ave is sufficient for bicyclists and pedestrians. He also said that "we have made our lanes somewhat larger to try to facilitate bicycle access. Our curb lanes in front of the project will be 14-feet not 12-feet to give a little additional room for bicycle access. Ultimately I think the creation of bicycle lanes is something that can occur with development to the north and east of us occurs and provides additional right of way. The site is somewhat constrained by the available right of way willingness or ability of MWAA to condemn additional right of way."

Having wide curb lanes through the site will help bicyclists, but the 8-foot shared path from the W&OD to the site is not sufficient for bicycle and pedestrian access, especially during rush hour, and the county should have forced the developer to adhere to the RMAG recommendations.

Regarding bicycle facilities, Supervisor Hudgins did add two additional development conditions before the Board approved the project:
• Where feasible, the applicant will provide additional bicycle racks and storage in the commercial garage or in buildings for use by the patrons of the private development by demand. Locations for these facilities shall be determined jointly by the applicant and the County’s Department of Transportation at the time of site plan submittals for the proposed phases of development.

• A minimum of one male or female shower facility shall be provided in each office building.
While the two conditions are welcome, they are much less than what is required in Arlington Co. Without bicycle parking guidelines, the county is forced to negotiate with each developer and has no real leverage in these negotiations. The phrase "where feasible" in the first bullet will likely mean "never" and is vague and difficult to track and subject to employees having to demand additional facilities.

For every 50,000 square feet of commercial development Arlington requires "one (1) shower per gender shall be installed, up to a maximum of three (3) showers per gender. Also, a minimum of one (1) clothes storage locker per gender shall be installed for every required employee bicycle parking space." The guidelines go on to give specifications for lockers including size and placement. In Fairfax it's up to the whim of the developer to decide the kind and location of these facilities. While we think the county is getting close to a first draft of the bike parking guidelines, they can't some soon enough.

Labels: , ,

Comments:

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007