Our Community in Fairfax County, Virginia

Fairfax County's programs to reduce traffic volume and speed on residential roads are consistent with similar programs in other large US cities.  In Fairfax County, cut-through traffic appears to have increased disproportionately to the overall increase in traffic.  Primary roads have become saturated with high traffic volumes, and the state has generally failed to increase the capacity of these roads and intersections, making residential cut-through roads a more attractive alternative to drivers looking to minimize their time on the road.

Most everyone agrees that the best solution to reducing cut-through traffic is to increase traffic capacity on primary roads, which is unlikely in the foreseeable future for the eastern part of Fairfax County.  Few improvements were planned for our area even before the recession forced Richmond to scale back its 20-year plan for road improvements, and most of the funds raised in any sales tax in-crease will go to road projects outside the Beltway.

The explosive growth of four-way stop signs, speed humps, speed tables, traffic circles, and "No Right Turn" signs is the result of residents frustrated with increasing cut-through traffic on the streets that they live on.  Multi-way stop signs are the most common obstacles requested for our side streets, as they are the easiest to get.  All it takes is a majority of residents at a civic association meeting to vote in favor of a multi-way stop, and if VDOT voices no objection, the Board of Supervisors approve the proposals and the stops signs go in.

VDOT often rejects requests on the grounds of safety-the requested intersection is too close to another intersection, too close to a blind curve, or on a steep hill where drivers cannot stop on icy road conditions.  However, VDOT is not allowed to reject a request on grounds that the stop signs are unlikely to benefit the community or that the traffic speed profile is similar to that of other roads that do not have multi-way stops.  There are other shortcomings to this process:

• The civic meetings where multi-way stop sign requests are voted on typically involve about one percent of the driving population in that community-often the people who believe they would benefit the most-and civic leaders typically choose to not offer the option of absentee ballots for residents who cannot attend the meetings.


• Because of the way civic association boundaries are drawn, people in an association can vote on a stop sign proposal for a street that they never use, while residents in adjoining neighborhoods who live close to the street and rely on it to get around have no say in the matter.


• At these meetings, nobody is required to provide data on the magnitude of the traffic volumes and speeds, how they compare to similar streets, the inability of stop signs to control speeders, the added noise of cars stopping and then accelerating, the inability of multi-way stop signs to reduce traffic volume, and alternatives to addressing speeding problems.  My experience has been that residents who show up to these meetings are frustrated, want to do something tangible, and often don't care about the impact on the vast majority of drivers who do drive safely on these roads.


• Some residents recognize that multi-way stop signs are likely to prove far less effective than desired, but they vote for the signs anyway because stop signs are the easiest road restriction/obstacle to get.

This process has similar shortcomings to the multi-way stop program.  VDOT can reject some alternatives for reasons of safety and legal requirements to keep certain roads accessible at all times.  However, it cannot reject alternatives that it knows from experience are unlikely to be effective or are not justified based on the magnitude of the problem.  Further:

• The civic meetings where cut-through requests are voted on typically involve a few percent of the driving population in that community-often the people who believe they would benefit the most-and civic leaders typically choose to not offer the option of absentee ballots for residents who cannot attend the meetings.  Also, any rejected request can be raised again and again until it finally passes.


• Because of the way civic association boundaries are drawn, people in an association can vote on a cut-through proposal for a street that they never use, while residents in adjoining neighborhoods who live close to the street and rely on it to get around have no say in the matter.  The same is true of residents living in adjoining neighborhoods that would likely see an increase in cut-through traffic as a result of the cut-through proposal.  (The result can be a cut-through program race-for example, all the streets that connect Annandale Road to Sleepy Hollow Road have added several multi-way stop signs or speed tables following the installation of four speed humps on Kerns Road.  Fewer cars on Kerns Road means more cars somewhere else.)


• During the petition drives, nobody is required to present accurate data, to include information and arguments against traffic cut-through measures, or to detail all the possible restrictions that will be considered.


• Members on the traffic committee who later work with government officials to develop a specific plan typically have a vested interest in maximizing restrictions.


• Few communities take advantage of the option of phased plans, whereby a lesser number of measures can be installed with the proviso that if follow-up studies do not show significant improvement, additional measures previously approved as phase 2 measures can be implemented at the request of the community.

I used to think it was up to VDOT to balance the safety of residents on a street with the needs of people who drive on that street when deciding the need for multi-way stop signs and other obstacles.  Instead, it is a largely political process with few checks and balances.  VDOT is supposed to be in the business of moving traffic, but the political process of cut-through programs forces them to expend resources on adding obstacles to traffic.

We can do better:

• I believe that Fairfax County should better educate its residents with the perceived and actual benefits and drawbacks of cut-through measures, as well as the total costs of cut-through programs to the county and ultimately the taxpayers.  How many projects to improve traffic safety and increase traffic volume on major roads could have been funded by the money spent on traffic cut-through programs?


• I believe that adjoining neighborhoods should be given the opportunity to be involved in early discussions of proposed traffic obstacles and to have the views of their community considered before adopting a proposal.  In my experience, residents are willing to accept added obstacles to nearby roads that they use if a case can be made that a change is needed to reduce a safety hazard.


• I believe that the Board of Supervisors needs to extricate itself from the business of promoting traffic obstacles on our residential streets.  I would like to see traffic safety engineers from both VDOT and FCDOT agree that a requested traffic obstacle is in the best interest of all county residents before a request is approved.  Further, once these two organizations agree, I do not see any need to delay implementation by requiring a public hearing and approval by the Board.  Likewise, if they do not agree, I do not want people to be able to use the political process to overturn the opinion of the experts.