I can hear you.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Excellent.

All right.

So I'm calling to order the July 27th meeting of the traffic and parking board.

Um if you would like to speak at this meeting today, please fill out a form at the back of the room.

Um hopefully that's where they are.

Um and I believe the first item on the agenda is um elections of the chair and vice chair.

Am I right?

Yes, let's move on with that.

And I will um since you're online, I'll help conduct that business and then we can move on to our chair and vice chair.

Okay.

So we'll start our meeting with um election of our chair and vice chair.

Um are there any motions?

Um I vote to elect Annie Evers as the chair of the traffic and parking board.

Sorry about this.

Yeah, and we'll vote all in favor?

I threw it.

And then we'll move on to elect our vice chair.

Are there any motions?

Yeah, we'll leave to the like.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, great.

We have our new chair and vice chair, Ashley and Annie.

Um, since you're all on virtual this meeting, do you wish to chair them?

I would love it if Ashley can share the meeting.

Since she's there in person.

I think our first item is we have our new director of transportation and environmental services with us tonight.

So she was fun to um speak with you and give you a little bit of an introduction.

Yeah.

Great.

Thank you, everybody.

I um I'm Leah Riley.

Uh I'm the new director for Tech.

And uh about three months.

And so um, I just wanted to punk tonight and introduce myself and to meet all of um in person and also just thank you for knowing that you're giving a lot of your personal time to help the city in terms of traffic and party.

Um I understand uh this might be a longer agenda.

I probably will not stay for the whole meeting.

Um, but um just wanted to be available at the very beginning.

If anybody has uh any questions of me or things that they would like to share before we kick off the agenda, I'd be happening, happy to um take any questions or hear any concerns that you have that might be relevant for me.

I'll ask a question.

Um could you share a little bit about your background and some of the things you started getting um your hands busy with to be started?

Certainly, certainly.

So um, I've been a public servant for probably over 25 years.

I have a pretty extensive background in transportation, some in transit um and in public works.

Uh I worked in the city of Washington, DC for about 14 years and was at the Department of Transportation there for quite some time.

From there I went to Chicago where I worked for Mayor Rama Manual in the Chicago Department of Transportation.

And then from there I went to Portland, Oregon, where I was the director of transportation for the city of Portland for a little over five years.

Then after that, I took over the CEO of Nelson IGARD, which is the transportation planning firm and did that until COVID hit.

And then I have a single mom of four young kids for 7,000 workforce school that developed my kids now.

We the COVID pandemic.

And here I am.

So in my three months, I really just spent a lot of time trying to learn our programs and people and understand the city, even though I moved in BC, Alexander is a whole new piece, so I'm um really getting acclimated.

Um and that we are serving um the residents of Alexander in a very basic format.

So we are a service organization, and I want to make sure that we have the right regulations and policies in place.

So that's where I've been focusing my time.

One of my goals for this year that was probably very relevant to you all is I think that in order to get ahead of growth and to accommodate uh where the city of Alexandria is heading that we need to have a uh more comprehensive curb side management program.

So I'll be working closely with Hillary and her team to be looking at technologies and ways that we can um more effectively manage curb space.

As you all know, with uh Uber with Lyft with scooters with uh Tour Dash and all the things and visitors and residents, there's a lot of competition for curb space.

Um so uh we want to try to get ahead of that a little bit um with a curbside management program.

Okay, you're welcome.

Um before we uh continue on the agenda, I did want to welcome our newest board member.

Um say any words of introduction.

Um don't have much to say uh Marcos.

I'm super excited to have been uh selected for this role and excited to serve uh the city of Alexandria.

So the next item is approval of the June 22nd, 2026 project and parking board meeting minutes.

Does anyone have any changes to the minutes from the last meeting?

Yeah, um under the public hearing items number seven, um, the motion made that um seconded.

We went through these um item by item, right?

So on number one, it was A C F G.

J.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other changes?

Is there a motion to adopt the minutes with the provincials?

Sorry.

All in favor, aye.

Any against the question over the next two days?

Like it's not to change them.

Yeah, I can give an update.

So um we have discussed at a previous meeting that we would be going through the minutes or the format would be um referencing the video recording.

You might recall last meeting was a bit of a an interesting meeting.

We had a power outage right when our meeting started.

Yeah, we had some uh types when the generator kicked on that.

We tried our best.

Big up and up and running as quickly as possible in our haste.

Um we neglected to hit the record button until later in the meeting.

So that's why you're while your notice only part of the meeting is recorded.

We don't anticipate that happening again.

We apologize.

Okay.

We're moving into the public discussion period, uh, which is item four.

And this uh is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item that is not currently documented on the agenda.

If you would like to speak during the public discussion, please fill out a form and give it to Sheila at the front if you've not already done so.

And if you are online, you can also raise your hand to speak.

We have any speakers for public discussion.

I've seen one person so far.

Um online, and we don't have anybody in the room who signed up to speak on during the public discussion period.

So I'm gonna move to our speaker online, Matthew Bean.

I'm going to allow you to speak.

Great.

Can you guys hear me?

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to um, I don't know if this is the right form or not.

However, I've been a resident of um Old Town Alexandria since 2014.

I live here on Payne Street over in the southwest quadrant of Old Town.

Um, I have a daughter that goes to Lyles Crouch Elementary School.

She's going to be in the second grade.

Um, we just were informed at the end of June that we are quote unquote in a walk zone.

So there's no more school buses for our children that live over here that attend Lyles Crouch, and that we're in a walk zone.

And so I'm very concerned, along with all the other parents in the neighborhood, that the city, whether it's the school board, the department of transportation, your board, um, the city staff view um Route One and Washington Street, safe streets for young children to cross.

We're all very baffled and very confused, but more very concerned.

I don't trust adults to cross those streets.

We've had buses, but yeah, we've had buses in the neighborhood year over year.

And it looks like they are changing it.

So I wanna I just I ask everybody to really get away from policy and really to kind of put their parent head on and really understand and feel like if it's truly safe for young children to cross those streets on unattended.

Unfortunately, we don't have any like juris, we don't decide like what the walk zones are.

That's ACPS.

Um, and so we all were also surprised, some of us were surprised to see those walk zones.

Um, even though my kid goes to MVCS and it's always been you know a mile radius, they don't that's they don't provide busing if you are inside a mile radius.

So I would um I would talk to Lyles Crouch.

No, we talked to Lyles Crouch, I talked to the city, I talked to the department of transportation.

The problem is is anybody and everybody that we speak to, um, they just they revert back to two things.

They revert back to just policy, they always state policy number one, and then they always state that it's not their problem, that it's another department's problem, and that they just revert back to walk zones or I'm surprised.

Fortunately, I believe that there are going to be school buses um starting this school year because enough parents have raised concern.

Um I just voice and flag this to all of you because if this is how the city views and treats young children going to school and it's a safety hazard, this is why I'm speaking about it.

Is it's all about safety.

You guys all are very familiar with old town.

You understand the traffic, you understand people go down runways incorrectly, people run red lights.

The old phrase of if you lived by a busy street, there's always gonna be a school bus, I guess, has just gone away.

So, Matthew, this is Leah.

What is in uh transportation environmental services per review are safety assessments of the streets, and so what I would encourage you to do is to submit a 311 that will come to the department for review.

That being said, we have a pretty full um uh we already have a lot of requests in the system, but it will go in for review.

I cannot commit to you at a time that we would be able to assess the specific crossing intersections that you're talking about, but in terms of engaging tests for follow-up that follow-up, that's the appropriate method for us.

Okay, do you know when the last testing was done?

Okay, do you know when the last testing was done?

I do not I have sorry, I do not okay.

I will flag for you, uh Matthew.

We have been having a new cadence of coordination meetings with ACPS, and um we did receive additional public comment letters in addition to your hearing your comments tonight, and so that's been flagged for us to bring up with them as well.

So um I will commit to providing a written update for um folks who wrote in about this and are it it'll be in the next uh docket.

Okay, and then I did one last thing, and I know you guys have a busy calendar and a busy schedule this evening.

Um you guys are all aware what I'm talking about, right?

The traffic that I'm citing in Old Town.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Um would you um would you guys allow your young children to cross those streets on your own on their own for going to Lyles Crouch to school?

I mean, I have this is a little bit unusual for this format of this meeting, but I have to said that my kids cannot cross Route One until they are 18.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That solidified everything I just said.

Thank you for your comment.

All right, thank you.

Do you have any other public comments?

I'm not seeing any other hands raised um to speak during the public comment section.

Again, if you want to speak on items not on the docket, please raise your hand and we will get to you at this time.

I'm not seeing any close the public discussion period and move on to the next item on the docket, which is on the written updates from staff.

Are there any questions from the board on the updates?

Well, thank you.

Um two comments on the whole rate update.

First of all, I just wanted to know an information item because a related project and uh issue talked about previously uh an earlier meeting was the situation of West Street and uh uh uh Duke Street.

The no turn on red sign uh has been installed.

So thank you to the city staff getting that done.

So that now traffic going northbound on West Street, why I could turn right on the Duke Street.

Uh must should it's supposed to stop on red and you should go elsewhere as with all projects that introduce new travel patterns is expected to use with required time to adjust them right and so that it's not yet really informal very well, but it's a step forward.

The second one, I just want to know the record uh so it doesn't get lost.

I think we had a commitment from city staff to look at the uh intersection of West Street and Jameson, uh, which we got expected by the hallway and uh improvements and to look into a pedestrian crosswalk on that.

So I just want to know that little right thank you.

That's we actually we did go out um and look at it.

So and it's uh it's an issue with write-up way, and that we don't own that right-of-way.

Um, but um who owns the right will control.

I believe so.

Yes, I can I can have Alex provide a okay.

Yeah, you'll let me know on your follow-up.

So thank you.

Um, I have a question on I have A and then a question about something else.

Um dates.

Um so uh one very much appreciate Helen Lane.

I was Helen Lane um the new infrastructure actually earlier today, and there were numerous numerous, like I think I counted sixer writers, like right within like a 10 minute period.

Um, and not counting um migranters, I saw lucky up at um old boots.

Um Ryan, I know I emailed you about this, but is there any updates on the bike signal timing?

Because what happens is if you're you're on a bike or scooter and you're in the lane approaching D stream.

You're side intersection, you have to politely ask a pedestrian if they're there, and that kind of freaks them out when they're yelling at them like can you push that button?

Um, or like call your bike up, walk over, push the pedestrian button or not, because otherwise it'll skip.

There's no testing there to get that same.

Um I say that being stuck there for like two minutes months.

I know it's yeah, uh, and for the record, Ryan Knight on the transportation engineering division chief of the city, um, and uh one of the project managers for the Holland Lane project.

Um so we are currently working on that.

I know I gave you that as uh that uh that answer before, but we are currently working on that.

The the issue that we're having, or the reason why it's taken so long is that um coincidentally uh you can hollow the intersection is this also maybe uh our adaptive phase one project.

Um and so with that the that project we changed out the controller in the in the cabinet, um, and the controller meaning basically the computer for the uh with the intersection and we'd have the program and way to phase the the license that makes it changed it out.

So we've had to make some manipulation to that controller that we changed to uh to uh to add on to the fight uh signal and then also the other variations of the uh phase in the section.

So it's taking a little more time than we initially thought.

We're working with our contractors to uh get that moving forward because um there are other issues that we wanted to address with uh the changing of the controller and programming of it.

Um so um it's about enabling and trying different things and testing it out um you know outside of the field.

So um all that being said, we're we're continuing to work.

The other question I had is not on either of the written staff updates, but um I think I requested a few meetings back whether staff didn't include as a written staff updates, any updated any sort of monthly PES month or year to date um pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists um uh incidents um that the city's aware of tracking, and I just haven't seen those of the staff updates yet.

So I'm wondering if there's a timeline on that, or just needs a friendly reminder for me.

No, no, we're definitely tracking that out at Carol.

She wanted to give a presentation first before starting the written update series, and uh, this was the meeting, and unfortunately didn't work out, but September you should expect that oral update and then follow-up would just be written up.

Okay, sounds great.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Um I guess I'll also follow up.

So we brought up the mill and famous uh crosswalks, but has there been any movement on the signalization either?

Because I still see a lot of kind of protected left with no cards there.

And what tends to happen is the pedestrians or bicyclists will get answing, will enter the intersection, and then someone will air down the road and your left towards Eisenhower.

Uh and so I feel like that protected left is really doing a lot more harm for really limited traffic patterns from what I've said.

Understood.

Um, and again, um right actually vision tape.

Um, so you're talking about the protected left uh that is for the eastbound direction going towards or for the westbound westbound.

Going towards the Wegmans, turning left south towards Eisenhower.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, we'll we'll look into that.

Um I believe we made some adjustments there, um, but we most likely made it another adjustments uh not pertaining to that.

So that's it.

Mill and Jameson grew.

Um it's uh it's an awkward one because I think James uh said or one of the roads current and the street that you would think is kind of one road is actually two.

It's Jameson before and Mill afterwards, and one of the roads turns basically.

So it's a weird kind of time I got okay.

Yeah, I'm working with Daniel on that.

Any any questions or comments on written staff updates?

No, thank you.

Well move to item six uh and consent items.

Are there any questions from the board or requests to take items off the consent agenda?

Is there a motion to adopt the consent items?

Second.

Second.

Any discussion all in favor?

Aye.

We move to item seven in the public hearing agenda.

Staff record.

Yep.

And I'm gonna help out my colleague on three women's uh with this um with this presentation.

Again, the record Ryan Knight Transportation Engineering Division Chief talking about the curb cut appeal for uh 315 East Raymond Avenue.

Next slide.

So uh this is uh on located on East Raymond, uh just uh west of Montrose Avenue um at 315 uh East Raymond.

Next slide.

All right, so uh this is the kind of a caption of what the house looks like, uh and then the uh screenshot of the application, as you can see.

Uh they applied for curb cut uh that's that's directly in front of the house.

Uh the house that we're that we're referencing is the red one.

The left one white one, sorry about that.

Um so it's a uh white one uh that we're referencing um and uh the curve cut would be directly in front of the house.

Next slide.

All right, so uh important notes to to document uh the existing depth of the front yard is about 21.2 feet.

A typical parking dimension is about feet uh eight by 20, so 20 feet pump.

Uh so that only leaves about 1.2 feet of uh discrepancy between uh the uh the house and uh the parking space.

Uh so uh next slide.

Uh the city's uh position was uh not to support the curb cut application based off of the uh the section city code 5-2-14 C, which states that the location and the operation of the curb cut will not interfere interfere unreasonably with vehicle, the hitler or pedestrian traffic, the demand and necessity for parking spaces and means of ingress and ingress from adjacent front.

Uh given the uh size of the uh the front yard excuse me, the front yard or the frontage um and the required spacing for a uh or a parking spot, uh we've we determined that uh uh there would most likely be sidewalk obstructions, which would uh you know uh not be within ADA compliance uh by obstructing the sidewalk and potential encroachment of personal property on the public driveway.

Good all right, so uh something else that we kind of look at within our evaluation and some board notes.

Uh most of the driveways on the uh side or most of the driveways within that block were on the side of the house.

Uh some driveways are in the front, uh, as you can see in the middle image there.

Uh that middle image, it appears uh that the frontage is about 25 feet.

Um and there are you know two driveways within the same block that are similar uh in depth uh for this application.

Um however, those driveways have not been approved within the last 10 years.

So our recommendation is for the board to uphold the denial of the curve cut application.

Any questions?

Yeah, um what is the minimum required parking space dimension?

A standard dimension for parking space is 8 by 20.

I believe there is a standard for uh a what they call a compact parking space, and that minimum is about 17 or 2 feet.

Okay, so that drives the like what you guys use in all your proposals when you're laying out spaces for each one.

Right.

So the side the potential for sidewalk obstruction is somewhat speculative, right?

I mean, if I've got like a crew cap one bit, pick up truck that's over 20 feet or an RV, then it will be overhang into the side block and strict the pedestrian walkway, impacting the compliance, but I'm just parking the standard vehicle.

Yeah, if you're uh parking a standard vehicle, which a standard vehicle is about you know not even uh uh 17 feet uh long with the love, but you're parking the standard vehicle, then you should be okay.

Um the determination that we made um when looking at this and viewing this application is that uh the fact that it requires you to park uh so close to the uh building or the house in order to avoid the sidewalk that theoretically speaking, or or you know, generally speaking, you would need to be you would need to cautiously park one foot away from the building every single time in order not to obstruct the sidewalk.

If you have a 20-foot long vehicle, correct but we have plenty of people with longer driveways that can park back and overhang up at the sidewalk, and then that becomes a code compliance issue.

So I have a question about the dimensions of the attachment five layout or parcel three.

Um I guess my main question is I can't quite tell if this is a picture of the property generally, or the ends of the sidewalk.

And that sidewalks are good three feet back from the firm.

Um and so I guess my question is the sidewalk crossing this infrastructure here implicitly, or is it is this ending at the sidewalk and the curve is further out?

The um the dimension that you see uh or the purple line that you see is the the property line, so uh it is determined that the property line is the back of the sidewalk.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that one more time?

The property line is yeah, so the property line is at the back of the sidewalk.

So you have the the street, then you have the little uh landscape strip, right?

And then you have the sidewalk, and then you have the property, right?

So the sidewalk goes right up against the property, right?

Okay, thank you.

Go back there.

You go yes, so basically the property line is where the grass uh grass starts.

Can you show the comparison houses?

Thanks for your time.

Any other questions for staff?

Do we have any public speakers?

Yes, we have a public speaker in person.

Uh William Orlane will invite you to speak at the pump here.

So we're just gonna confuse them both because we had another house for losses down at 205 while we don't have doing that, but um they've had your broadway also put for an 8 by 16 and giving your example with the 24 truck that would be that to be projected, but it's it wasn't so we were just also kind of concerned where the standard comes to the 20th.

We were also looking up throughout the 50 meter versus and if you've got anything, and the standards again is about 1416 feet.

So if 8x20 was too much, then we look at this 8x18 or maybe some chance of modifying the dimensions, but yeah, and also along that street between the one road and great battery just that team intersection that's full of cars, and it makes it pretty much impossible for us to find public parking in, but there's a mechanic over called I think George Towns other shelters like that.

We have over 10 to 15 cars, sometimes 20 cars too, they'll just park along that street, which makes it impossible for a lot of the residents who under find with any parking type parking, and for us it takes us something we need about 30 minutes up to 45 and 2.700 button.

So those are our comments, and we just we're looking to put some of this around this.

Thank you.

Any follow-up questions for staff.

So there's a make sure I'm clear my understanding.

So the the section of the code has criteria and conditions that it should be considered, but there's no specific detentions included, you know, how to thank you.

some of this one but any questions for the speaker thank you any follow-up questions for staff so there's sort of make sure I'm clear my understanding so the the section of the code has criteria the conditions that it should be considered but there's no specific detentions included you know how to find it thank you thank you are there any other in person speakers not seeing any other in person if you're interested in speaking on this item when you're online please raise your hand not see anybody online is there any um discussion among the board say I have one other question for staff if I can get back i i'm guessing not given the like procedural posture of this but was there any if it provide any like comments submitted from neighbors or the neighborhood was were others outside of the applicant at all provide anyput into the into this project like outside the city staff parties and the applicant was there anybody else that was consulted or provided input and if so what was that like any neighbors that maybe you know you're already during the um new curve code process um part of the application that uh you have to contact your two adjacent neighbors and they have the opportunity to object to the actual curve so there was no objections there were no objections are there any motions um i would say that we repeal the denial and approve the curb cut yeah second the second discussion well i'll insert some discussions so i'm leaning towards upholding the denial and some of this is uh then on a lot of roads and i think we should honestly maybe be looking at some of these other curved cuts and having a a wider allowance a deeper allowance for the use than 20 or 25 feet because if a car overhangs into that parking lot it creates a safety hazard for anyone in quality device and we have a fair bit of pedestrian traffic over in Delra so I think in some in a lot of ways I wish we were more consistent about this but I also saw those pictures and it's way too close for me to approve a current pattern here because I feel like it's I feel like it is a safety issue maybe an access issue of people who are in strollers or on a on wheelchairs could be easily forced into the screen um with an overhang and I would actually uphold the denial those things first another question sorry I should have there this that would be clear procedurally like if we if this board were to like obviously affirm the denial then it would be done if if we if the vote were to um returning um the the city decision here would that automatically render it like it would go back and it would be the curve code application would be approved or is there any additional process that would be part code would be approved to this this is the one item of the board has like full final decision on so whatever you decide here is I mean I appreciate the discussion and I hope we could have some conversation I just there are plenty of people with longer driveways that parked back too far intentionally or unintentionally or they try to stack multiple vehicles that don't fit and this is a code enforcement issue I think it seems very onerous for us to deny this I mean we're assuming that they're gonna always violate and park back too far and overhang and quite frankly city code enforcement should be going out and writing citations any time any one of us park and obstruct the sidewalk but I don't see what uh any other why we feel we need to disapprove this when we have no information that they're gonna park over the sidewalk or this big RP that can't fit or intend to violate the codes in the city anything yeah a couple things the first is that

I don't see what any other we feel we need to supprove this when we have no information that they're gonna park over the side block of this big RP that can't fit intend to violate the code city.

Annie.

Yeah, a couple things.

The first is that I I'm opposed to I think we should uphold the um the decision.

Uh 20 feet is not very much space.

So if your car, if you want to be able to walk around the front of your car, there's not a lot of space to do that without parking on the sidewalk.

And I think that maybe maybe the first owner of this home may like maybe they're very conscientious afterstanding like that there has been quite a big deal made about this curb cut, and maybe they park all the way up to the house, but that doesn't mean the second owner or the third owner does that.

Um and the other thing I want to mention is like we're taking to approve the curb cut.

Um like I'm not categorically opposed to curb cuts for private properties, but this would be taking away a street parking space, which is public and making it because we have to make the space for the curb cut, and that would make it a private parking space.

Um, and so I don't know, those are the two things that go into my thought process.

Yeah, sorry, in comments and then I realized that question um the applicants in the comments mentioned that you know, like I have done the street, um got a curve cut approved.

Do we have any like just to staff take a look at that property and when that was approved and whether it was the same dimensions?

I think I have some concerns if there's sort of an arbitrary nature of like similar properties with different decisions.

I am not aware, I'm personally not aware of that uh other uh property and and why the uh curve cut was approved about there.

Um I did double check our references to see if there um there were any comments or anything like that uh based off of that application.

Um but um yeah, to my knowledge, I'm not aware as to how that uh got moved forward.

Um I will mention that uh as Andre kind of point out just to uh be clear.

Uh there were um there is no parking on that one side.

So uh just to be clear of where the property uh is adjacent to, there is no on-street parking because the street is so narrow that we can't park two cars on the same same side.

So this would be is there um a motion for the item?

I'll move to up all the file recurred application.

Out second.

Uh all in favor.

Aye.

Those against uh three to four four to three.

So the um denial is upheld.

Right.

Um the next item is uh for a parking removal um that block crossing of the 300 block south north.

All right, uh this is me again.

So um this is for the parking removal uh installed mid-block crossing on South Oriol Street on the block to South Street here.

Uh the location is on South Royal between Wolf Street and Doom Street.

Um and you can see uh in this uh drawing here, uh the basilica of St.

Uh Mary Church.

Um it's uh in the middle there, uh the alley to the parking lot uh in which the patrons of that church park or is across the street and uh directly center of the block.

Uh something for uh to kind of point out uh the leadership of uh the basilica of St.

Mary's um uh reach out to the city uh with earned for their patrons crossing the southword of uh mid-block on the parking lot to process.

So uh whenever looking at doing ever looking at putting in a mid-block crossing or new crosswalks, uh we have to do somewhat of an analysis or evaluation.

Um D dot does have guidelines, DOT's in the department of transportation, guidelines as to when to consider an unsignalized crosswalk.

Um a lot of things in that uh consideration for one of the things that we kind of measured was the uh if a crosswalk activity has more than 20 people crossing the street during the power.

So we did an analysis, we uh collected data in September 2025 on Sunday uh when obviously charges uh in session.

Uh we uh counted 390 people crossing uh uh within the mid-lock range on a weekday, so on a typical Wednesday, uh we counted uh about 50 people crossing uh because there is a weekday activity at the church as well.

Really?

Uh so with all that being said, uh, with the uh Virginia Department of Transportation's guidelines of mid-block crossing is one.

Um it's important to note that uh obviously we live within the city.

The city owns it maintain their own roadway, so the DOT guidelines is just that, it's just guidelines at this point.

So we don't have to uh meet we aren't required to meet any other standard uh which is so uh this is kind of a mock-up of where we anticipate the crosswalk to be uh the uh put it somewhat directly in the middle of the block.

Um we would have to remove uh one parking space on one side and about two parking spaces on the other side, uh and then also along with that comes uh curve ramps as well.

The outreach included engagement with the silica staff uh as well as the old town system association who uh shared their support uh for this project as well.

So uh we recommend that the board recommend the director uh team yes to remove the four parking spaces and we relocate the two ADA for any questions.

Why the four parking spaces and zombies uh includes the width of the crosswalking so yeah includes uh the no parking spots uh for daylight and crosswalk and then one to three don't recall where the other ones I apologize for that.

So I believe one of the spaces or one of the daylighting spaces is a lot longer than space of uh they said four spaces.

Are there any questions for staff?

Um that mid block crosswalks are not the preferred approach.

Did staff look at or was there any request for our speed tables or anything to accompany our mid-block crosswalk?

Uh we did not look at the speed table only because we knew that uh in order to make it a speed table, it would have to be a certain distance and certain requirements and therefore require more parking spaces to be removed.

Um that certain requirement or uh mentions would have to basically meet our uh fire EMS uh requirements, and so it would have to be so long that you know it just uh would create um a significant amount of parking loss, and then also uh it gets closer to the uh to the intersections anyway.

So any other questions for staff do we have any public speakers on this item?

Yes, we have a couple speakers in person who I'll call first, and then if you're interested in speaking on this item online, please raise your hand.

Our first speaker in person is Mary Petrina, followed by Tom Carter.

So I have sent in my summary comments.

So staff look out and actual copying of what I'm going to comment on, not for comment and summary.

I've been a member um first of all, then an Alexander resident for over the two years and for 35 years, uh a member of this congregation and uh a daily communicant at St.

Mary.

So I see a lot um of the same going that were very actively captured by the staff report.

So I stand in favor of the staff report, and actually for some other reasons that were not raised by our pastor's letter or by some of the reporting that's done.

One of them concerns safeguards and public safety, and it's just because on Saturdays and Sundays, and this pertains particularly to winter months, um, from 4 p.m.

6 p.m.

on Saturdays and Sundays, and then from 6 a.m.

to 8 45 a.m.

seven days a week.

Um we have services, and there are people crossing at that time.

Um many people are blissfully unaware of the fact that their dark clothing uh basically blends in with the pavement, they're very hard to see.

So without the benefit of a crosswalk, um, we could run into problems, and in fact, we have had a couple of incidents with senior citizens.

Fortunately, um near misses with children, but you know, it just becomes an issue when people are trying to cross over to the parking lot, which has about 75 uh spaces available.

So there are a lot of people who park there.

There are also people who don't attend our church who park there and pay park in the that lot.

Um we also have concerns for visitors.

Our church is a minor basilica and the destination of pilgrimage for many people from around the country and indeed around the world who are aware of our basilica status, and therefore they attend the uh three daily masses and the eight weekend masses, and they also come for other reasons.

They come for weddings and funerals and things like that, where people are not necessarily paying too attention, paying good attention to public safety.

We also want to better serve drivers in the city of Alexandria who frequently use South Royal Street as a way around the traffic on either Washington Street or other streets to get to their destinations, and particularly in the early morning hours, a lot of people aren't paying good attention.

So we've had some some issues with that, and then finally, it'll make it easier for us to um to support a lot of the charitable activities we do by having this crosswalk because we'll easily be able to empty out the sidewalk, which is very very limited space, and we can do collections that are uh that include food and clothing and fundraiser for local Allegheny City and charitable uh common health of Virginia communities.

Thank you.

Okay.

The next speaker is Tom Carter, followed by uh Stephen Sarah.

I sound like a frog, it's because I got a bad told.

I've been a parishioner there for 60 years.

And um many times I've watched people um step out of the road from between parked cars and nearly get hit.

So it's a real pain turn.

So that's my principal concern is opening as some putting a crosswalk to alert drivers to the fact that people are going to be crossing them.

Um then we've also got this uh adults group uh it's grown excidentally in the last few years, and they're around a lot, they're crossing the street constantly.

I don't think those the numbers are even reflected in the staff's numbers, but um it's just a heck of a lot of activity.

Thank you.

Our next speaker button is uh Steven Sarum, and then we'll meet the speakers online.

Hi, uh I've seen as uh Red and uh person of Parish for uh years.

Um really thanks again to the staff for setting up uh and you know monitoring traffic that they have kind of speak for itself that it is a naturally best and trapped area, and I emphasize that because of this, this isn't necessarily a present setting thing on mid-block crosswalks posting on a particularly high traffic area and it's to the concern of uh speed speed bumps or other measures and it's more the problem more is not the speed of the vehicle, but sort of common communication between driver and pedestrian, which having a centralized crossing point will help this you know establishes where where it's gonna happen and uh you would also help see how through by ensuring pedestrians all cross through this one point, so they're not so they are centralized as a clear signal.

And uh also help speed over by ensuring pedestrians all cross through this one point.

So they're not so they are centralized as a clear signal.

Um speak on this item and you're online, please raise your hand.

Not seeing any speakers online.

Uh that closes the discussion.

Is there any uh discussion among board members?

Is there a motion for this item?

I move the board recommended director TMES for you for parking spaces and remote to existing parking spaces.

Motion from Dane.

Is there a second?

Second.

I think Rosemary beach you any second from Russell Marine.

Totally fine.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion passed.

Item is uh Russell Road practical improvements.

Can you all hear me all right?

Yes.

All right, fantastic.

Um, thank you again, all for the flexibility on allowing me to speak virtually since I'm unable to attend in person tonight.

Um for the record, my name is Silas Ulivan.

I am the complete streets coordinator um and TNES, and tonight I will be presenting on C Freds of School recommendations for Russell Road.

So the project location includes six intersections um near Naomi Brooks Elementary School, um, going from north to south, West Myrtle Street through West Masonic Avenue, West Chapman, West Oak, West Walnut, and finally ending at West Maple Street.

There are numerous plans and policies that align with this project.

Um first and foremost, the Alexandria Mobility Plan, which is the city's guiding transportation document, um business the action plan, but then more pertinently um the safe routes of school walk audits.

So the safe routes of school program was launched in 2003.

Um the walk audit for then Maury Elementary School was completed in 2017.

Um the walk audit included recommendations for both Russell Road and Commonwealth Avenue.

Um the recommendations for Commonwealth Avenue were partially implemented in 2021.

Um the recommendations for Russell Road are now being pursued due to resources now becoming available for this corridor.

Um I just would like to say too that there have been over 330 recommendations citywide for safe rest of school projects.

Um so it is a big initiative to get them done school by school, and we're finally happy to be um really focusing on Naomi Brooks now.

Um and finally, um, I would like to say that Russell Road is on the repaving calendar.

Um, and that does also bring forth the complete streets policy, which was adopted in 2014.

Um, this basically states that it requires the city to pursue safety improvements to any street um being repaved.

Next slide, please.

Um, so basically the goals and objectives of the project were to implement the safe rest of school recommendations.

Um, on top of that, some of the goals and objectives that we really expressed with the community um was that we would like to reduce vehicular speeds near Naomi Brooks Elementary.

Um we would like to provide safer pedestrian crossings.

We would like to make it so that you can see and be seen when driving through the corridor or trying to cross a street and the corridor at each of the intersections, and then finally, um, we wanted to make sure that parking was maintained where it was most needed for the Brooks school community.

Next slide, please.

Um, some existing conditions on the corridor.

Um in some locations you might have faded crossings.

Um, of course, these will be touched on once the street is repaved and restriped um next spring.

And then also uh we do have issues in some locations of parked vehicles blocking sight lines at the intersections.

Um as you can see at the picture on the right, um, the pickup truck is parked too close to the intersection.

So if you were pedestrian trying to cross from in this picture at least, going east to west, um, you would not be seen until you were past the parked vehicle in traffic.

Um, so that is some of the things that we currently see on this stretch of Russell Road.

Next slide, please.

Some of the data that staff collected for this project.

So first I'll focus on speeds.

So the prevailing speed along the corridor is the posted speed limit, 25 miles per hour.

Of course, this is not consistent along all the corridor.

There are parts where folks slow down more than others.

I will say that the highest recorded speed by a few cars was going as high as up to 49 miles per hour, which is well above the posted speed limit.

And also considers the fact that there are speed cushions along the corridor.

I don't have the granularity of knowing if they went around speed cushion, this or that.

This is just what the data tells us.

But we did do a parking study this past spring as well.

We did it from a Tuesday, Thursday.

We did morning, afternoon, and nighttime.

So we did it during the peak periods when school would be in session.

We found that of the parking from West Myrtle to West Maple on Russell Road, the highest observed occupancy was during morning pickup drop off, and that was at 34% occupancy of parking spots on this corridor.

Of that, the average not during peak time, so about 15 to 20%.

So there is a good plethora ability of available on street parking.

I will caveat though that the parking is not consistent in terms of signage on this corridor.

Toward the southern part of the corridor, there is a um district restriction.

So there are three hour parking restrictions, um, which does limit the ability of the Brooks school community in terms of teachers and faculty being able to park on certain um segments of Russell Road along this corridor.

Um finally, um, the crash history that staff was able to collect was that since the um safe rustle school recommendations were written, there have been seven total crashes on this corridor with two injuries.

So now before we talk about some of the concepts that were considered during the engagement period, I'd like to talk about some of the treatments that were considered along with them.

Next slide, please.

Um, so first staff considered high visibility crosswalks at each of the signal, or I'm sorry, at each of the intersections along the corridor.

Um high visibility crosswalks are proven to improve visibility for folks trying to cross the street.

Um, as you can see here, sometimes they're called zebra crossings, but you often see them as streets are repaved throughout the city.

Um, for example, recently Washington Street was repaved, I believe, in 2023 or 2024.

Um, and as part of that, all of the crossings across Washington Street were um upgraded to high visibility crosswalks.

Next slide, please.

Um, paged curb extensions were also considered.

Um, painted curb extensions are proven to shorten the crossing distance for folks.

Um, improve visibility.

Again, it allows you to see cars and to be seen by cars when trying to cross the street.

Um, and it also slows down the turning um movement of cars trying to turn right at an intersection.

It helps tighten the intersection a little bit to make you consciously um slow down before making a right turning movement.

Um, these treatments also, sorry, Max.

Um, these treatments also can be implemented um rather quickly.

Um, all you really need is paint and um a vertical element in this picture, it includes a flex post, but um there are other vertical treatments as well that can be paired together to really um extend the sidewalk area for the pedestrian in a safe, efficient and tactical manner.

Next slide, please.

Um, another treatment that was considered were median refuge islands.

Um, these are often placed in the middle of the road, um minimum six feet wide, and they typically are built up out of the street, so they're kind of made of concrete often.

Sometimes they have plantings as you can see in this picture here.

Um, what these treatments do is allow you as you cross the street to cross one lane at a time.

Um, and also be seen and see cars as they're coming as well.

Next slide, please.

Finally, um, as with any repaving project across the city, um, improved ADA recurb ramps are also implemented as well.

Um, I believe most of the locations across the corridor have already had their curb ramps updated.

Um, typically your public works will come through um a year if they can ahead of repaving to um upgrade the curb ramps.

I think as part of this project, there are a few locations where the curb ramps would be relocated to better align with crossing distances and minimize impacts on um the current roadway geometry.

Next slide, please.

Now I'd like to discuss some of the concepts that staff considered during the public engagement period from May 21st to June 17th.

Next slide, please.

So first, concept one.

This would advance the safe res of school recommendations through a variety of measures.

One, each crosswalk across Russell Road during this corridor would be upgraded to high visibility crosswalk markings.

Painted curb extensions would be added to each intersection along this corridor.

Curb ramps would be improved to the latest ADA standards.

And finally, um, in order to provide the painted curb extensions at all the intersections, um, this would require the removal of four parking spaces.

Um, I will say that most of the intersections along Russell Road at these intersections are already or already had the required amount of daylighting.

Um, not all though, so that is why the select parking removal only at the intersections where it is not up to standard um would be included.

Next slide, please.

Um, the second concept that the city shared with the community, um, also advanced the safety rest of school recommendations through high visibility crossings, painted curb extensions at three intersections, um, but also median refuge islands at three intersections as well.

I believe they were West Masonic View, Walnut, and Maple.

Umproved ADA curb ramps.

And then finally, this concept would have required the removal of up to 20 parking spaces.

Um, the reason that the number is a lot higher than concept one was because with median refuge islands, it requires a vehicle to transition from the travel lane in the center of the road toward the curb to go around the crossing island.

And then once you proceed past through the intersection through the cross street, you then have to have the space to go past the island and return from the parking lane toward the travel lane again.

So I'm sure Ryan and the engineering team have better ways of phrasing that, but um essentially it requires some additional space um to make those movements.

Next slide, please.

Ultimately, um, staff came to the recommendation of a revised concept one after a robust engagement process.

Um revised concept one would advance safe route to school recommendations through high availability crossings, the painted curb extensions of each of the intersections, along with adding um a new ped crossing at Russell and West Chapman.

Currently, there is no ped crossing at this intersection.

Um, improved ADA curb ramps, and then also through the removal of up to two parking spaces.

Um staff through engagement through stakeholder meetings, um, identified an opportunity to actually add two parking spaces back in front of the school on the 600 block of Russell Road, I believe, um, which decreased the total ask to um a net loss of two parking spaces along the corridor.

Next slide, please.

Um, now I'll just kind of give a run through of where some of the parking modifications that revised concept one would call for.

Next slide, please.

Um, so on the 400 block of Russell Road on the north side, so this is just north of Maple, um, require up to 20 feet of parking on each side of the street, as identified there.

Um next slide, please.

On the 500 block of Russell Road, um closer to the intersection with West Oak, as you can see there at the at right, um, up to one parking space.

Next slide, please.

On the 600 block of Russell Road between West Oak and West Chapman, um, that is where staff identified the opportunity to add two parking spaces.

Next slide, please.

And then on the 800 block of Russell Road and that kind of weird offset intersection with West Myrtle Street.

Um, that's where staff identified um removing up to one parking space as I as seen in the middle there.

Next slide, please.

Um staff had a community engagement period from May 21st to June 17th.

Umludema emails to stakeholders along the corridor.

Project notice signs were posted along corridor as well at every intersection.

Um staff sent mailers to every home address on the corridor that fronted Russell Road.

Interactive concepts were shown, um, were linked to the project web page that allowed folks to essentially look at the concept options as if it was Google Maps.

You could interactively zoom in along the street and toggle between how the street is today, um, concept one and concept two, what they proposed um at each intersection, the mid-block areas, and also there were call-outs identifying exactly where potential parking modifications um were being considered.

And finally, staff had three stakeholder meetings during um this period.

Um, an in-person meeting with the Rosemont Civic Associations Planning Environment Land Use and Transportation Committee on June 8th, um, a virtual meeting with Brooks faculty and staff on June 15th, and then finally a virtual meeting with the Brooks PTA on July 8th as well.

Next slide, please.

So in total, staff received over 170 comments during the initial comment period.

Um of those, roughly seven and ten supported um making changes to support the recommendations for Safe Rest of School.

Um of our main takeaways though were that really the Brooks teachers in the larger Brooks community was concerned about maintaining access for faculty and staff near Brooks.

Um, like I said previously, though the corridor has a pretty low parking occupancy, as we identified 34% during the peak that we identified.

Um that doesn't paint the whole story of staff parking at Brooks.

They don't have off-street parking.

Um so they do rely on parking on the local streets um to again go to work.

Uh staff really made a considered effort based on feedback in those direct meetings after honest conversations to come forward with a proposal that fully advances the safety goals that are being sought while also making sure that there was a net neutral ask, at least on the parking where teachers can currently park.

Um the revised concept one would result in no loss of available parking for Brooks teachers where they can currently park.

Another thing that we've found that we heard a lot of was, you know, we want traffic calming, but we need to keep the speed cushions.

Um when this project kicked off, um, staff wasn't really sure if we would kind of the future of the speed cushions, especially as we considered other forms of traffic calming.

Um I will say though that after meeting with folks, you know, in person, online and hearing from them, um, the speed cushions aren't going anywhere.

If anything, we staff might consider you know repositioning them along their specific blocks, um, just that they pair better with some of the traffic calming treatments being pursued, like the painted curve extensions, but um the speed cushions will stay um on Russell Road.

And then finally, um, we did hear a lot of robust support for that new pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Russell Road and West Chapman Street.

Oh, and then finally, sorry.

We did receive two letters of formal letters of support.

Um, these were for concept two.

Um, this was from the Washington Area Bicycles Association, and then also from the Alexandria Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

So staff would recommend that the board recommend that director of TNAS approve the following parking modifications, removal of one on-street parking space on the 800 block of Russell Road, addition of two on street parking spaces on the 600 block of Russell Road, removal of one on-street parking space on the 500 block of Russell Road, and removal of two on-street parking spaces on the 400 block of Russell Road.

Thank you, Silas.

Um we'll start with Annie online if you have any questions for staff.

Yeah, I have a couple.

Silas, I think you touched on this, but um the refuge islands from concept two.

Did they not make it into the recommendation because of the amount of parking that would need to be removed?

Um, twofold.

So one, partially yes.

Um, after consultation with the community, we believe that the parking ask um was a little too large in terms of the trade-offs.

Um, just because the painted curve sentence do achieve the safety goals that we are seeking.

Um but one thing I don't think I did touch on was that because of the roadway geometry of Russell and how kind of narrow the approaching streets are, yeah.

Um, we wouldn't be able to really achieve a full median refuge island anyway.

So instead of basically being able to cross the road, have that protected you know, center where you can be and then keep crossing.

Um the median islands would have to be cut short before the crosswalk.

Um technically you would have you would have a vertical traffic coming ahead of the intersection, but if you're coming through the intersection, there wouldn't be that typical raised element like you would see, say on seminary road or or King Street.

Okay.

Um that makes sense.

My other question is how is the day lighting going to be marked?

Is it just going to be signage or is there gonna be are there gonna be like flex posts or something to keep people from parking in that no parking zone?

So the the areas that would need to be daily, it would be painted curve extensions.

So it would be a mix of paint um and a vertical element.

Um the vertical element would be decided upon during the design detail.

But there's a vertical element.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

That's it for me, Ashley.

Thank you, Annie.

Um questions for staff for board members right now.

Um Rosemary.

Um sure.

Yeah, I was curious about um some of the recommendations from the um this say school audit um back in 2017.

You know, they mentioned um the poor visibility at the walnut intersection.

Um it seems like um saying reduce parking, um, you know, and make the um curb extensions there, but it seems like that's happening at Maple.

What's changed?

Um so what's changed to improve visibility at Walnut?

Um, and why is it now worse if needle?

Do we know?

So there are so we would propose in the concept to add painted curve extensions at every intersection along the corridor.

So painted curve extensions that would come at maple would also come at walnuts as well.

Um your concept two or concept one?

Under the concept one, the revised concept one.

Okay, all right.

And do we know did any of these um school audit recommendations, even some of the short-term ones, have any of them been implemented yet?

Some I believe have, for example, um, I don't have the copy of the recommendations exactly in front of me, but I believe, for example, the crossing um the leading pedestrian intervals at the signalized intersection.

So at Oak and Russell, they have an all a dedicated all-way crossing phase now there.

Um but I would have to, I apologize, I don't have the list of recommendations in front of me right now.

Great.

Thanks.

It's great to hear that the um speed cushions are going to be retained.

Is it possible to look at there is one on the south side of Masonic view.

Um I know that there was a recommendation to make the Masonic view um crossing, a raised crossing back in the 2017 review.

And could we just move that speed cushion to north of Masonic view on Russell to like serve so it slows you down before the people are in the crosswalks, right?

Like so I could go zip through the crosswalks and then I hit the speed cushion, but it would kind of like serve as the um as the raised crosswalk, and that's really important, right?

Because this is sort of like if I'm coming from north and I'm driving south down on Russell, you know, I'm picking up some speed from the previous speed cushion or speed table.

And I just think that we should be strategic about that orientation to start to get kids or drivers to focus on slowing down.

And you know, I think Masonic view is pretty much right there where the school property begins, just what I would start, the school zone.

And then I feel like they're pretty safe on the south side, but I think that's something that we probably need to look at.

Yeah, so I would say two kind of answers, partial answers to your question.

One, um, the speed cushion location can definitely be considered in terms of where it could be relocated.

Um ultimately I would defer that decision to our engineering team in terms of the specific placement and if it could be made north of the existing intersection.

Um in terms of you're correct about the point from the recommendation for um a raised intersection or raised crossings at what's that West Masonic view?

Um at this point, we consider that kind of prior to engagement.

Um that treatment currently is unfunded, but um staff will consider seeking grant funding in the future um for raised crosswalks at that intersection.

Extensions going to be the are they gonna be stanchions or the armadillos like you guys implemented on Commonwealth.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

I couldn't hear clearly like for the little curve extension markers, are they gonna be those tall stanchions or the what do you call those armadillos, right?

Uh okay, I understand what you're saying.

Um that currently is undetermined, it would be a vertical element and I doubt it would be the armadillos, but um that would be a decision that we'd make during the detailed design phase, but there would be a vertical element.

Okay.

Um I just I want to make sure that we're hitting the most important areas that were identified.

Um I do have to say that I appreciate all of the comments that we've received, where many.

Um I do have to say that I appreciate also your um extending the comment period.

I do think that public input on these types of projects where they affect school children, fam walk-in that looks at school, the teachers, the faculty, and everyone that lives on the four door of the adjacent streets, like public input is key.

And the timing of this, you know, opening the public input was not ideal.

Um, you know, right after school lets out everybody kind of leaves town, checks out until he doesn't want to think about school or anything associated with it.

And um, I know that there were a lot of comments about the timing.

Um, so at the very least, it was nice that you extended the period.

Um, but I do think that when we're looking at some of these projects around these school corridors, we should think about reaching out while schools in session and not summer vacation, just so that we can ensure that looking transparent, being collaborative, which you want to have.

Um is it possible that like I just want to be sure?

Are all of this will the same number of speed tables exist?

We can confirm that the same number will exist.

There won't be a decrease in speed tables.

Um, if anything, we might need to reposition them slightly if they were, for example, if there was a current one where a painted curve extension might extend to, it would need to be repositioned, but um staff has no desire to reduce the number of speed tables along the corridor.

Well good that Masonic one view uh Met Masonic people and me have the content.

That's great.

Um another kind of question comment.

So I was looking at the vision zero data.

Thanks for including that.

Um the snapshot shows the two yellow dots, but when you go into the viewer, the tablet viewer or whatnot, any filter on um bestrian accidents, you see that there's none um no yellow dots, but when I scrolled into these, I was like, wait, what are these yellow dots?

I you know I'm working for pedestrian accidents, but there might be something wrong with the viewer because um rest sure um of these eight crashes, you know, four of them are rear ends, two more size-wise, one's some kind of property damage, and one's like a turning angle.

Um so can someone look at the vision zero data set and see why the viewer is highlighting two of these crashes, one that's a rear end uh on eight two nineteen as a pedestrian, and this other one that's an angle collision on 3141 as pedestrian second one's on West Maple up at West Masonic View because I do think this type of information, like just to understand this is a very heavily road, you know that you have the traffic data.

Um, and I think it's just important to know what's happening on the road.

So is there someone that can um RGIS mentions the map on zero page?

Yeah, so we can collaborate the mission.

RGIS needed to make sure that we're showing more acting.

Okay, all right.

We have other one or questions for staff.

Yeah, are you?

Yeah, so you're adding two spaces on Russell between West Chapman and Oak.

And I think this stretch you showed us a slide.

Currently, this entire area is no parking.

Is that correct?

Because of the congestion and the bus drop-off zone on the other side of the street.

Like you showed that picture of that car that was parked, that black pickup that was parked, and you're like, oh, it's too close to the road.

Yeah, but it's also an end of parking zone.

That so the picture I showed was up at West Masonic View.

I believe parking is permitted there.

Um, but the stretch closer between West Oak and West Chapman, there is no parking permitted currently.

I think I believe I heard that cars illegally park in that on that segment, but parking is not permitted.

Sign post of the parking in this stretch, right?

Between Chapman and Oak, but you're proposing to add two spaces here.

Correct, yes.

Um so on the other side, we have the bus drop-off zone and pickup zone.

Is there like what are you guys thinking about congestion adding that parking there?

Is that going to be a problem?

And is there a more strategic location to add these two spaces?

Staff was not able to identify any other locations along the corridor to add parking.

Um just because the other side of the street is largely like you said, fronting the school property is school bus loading unloading, and then some of the no parking area further back towards West Masonic View, which is right along kind of like the playground frontage.

Um, staff didn't believe that adding parking there would be as permissible just because if there's overflow from buses, they need to utilize the space.

Um, we did I try to identify if there were any other opportunities on like adjacent streets.

For example, um, one thought that came out of one of our stakeholder meetings was looking at Johnston Place behind the school property um near Beach Park.

Um, we coordinated with the fire department on that, and they did not feel comfortable per policy with adding parking on that stretch just because the roadway is not wide enough.

Um, so where we identified the potential to add the two on street spaces on the 600 block was really the only location um we were able to identify and that north side and that west masonic view on the south side next to the fence and the parts what's not permissible either.

No, um yeah, the issue being that the roadways, I believe um they're very narrow.

They don't even go ahead of I don't think 30 feet.

I think some are around 24 feet wide.

Um and the fire department requires 22 feet of clear space, essentially on all streets.

Some some of the streets, I believe, in the Rosemont Delray area or grandfathered in for lack of a better term.

Um, but kind of the policy is you we can't add parking that would encroach on that 22-foot clear space requirement.

Um any new I thought I propose that we keep moving to because I think we had some comments online in the room.

Are there any other um staff questions from the board members?

We'll go to Mark next.

Yeah, thank you, madam chair.

Uh two questions.

First one, uh actually already answered, but I will mention it anyway.

I was going to ask about the status speed cushion, which you have answered.

So uh number one, I think that was the right call.

Uh number two, it would have been helpful to go add that information of the report because we were had lots of removers of chatter about speed cushions, but uh it was already in the report that was presented to us.

I think we're helpful if we add that information.

Make sure to be more transparent in the future with including that in the written report.

Thank you, right?

Sorry, sir.

I think that was the right call.

Number two, I think I know the answer to this, but um I I like your idea of payment curved extensions.

Um extensions are even better, but of course they're more expensive.

Did you look at uh paint curved extensions?

It's a matter of policy cost.

If you look at that question, so yeah, so probably concrete curb extensions, permanent curve extensions were considered.

Um unfortunately at this time, a treatment of that expense is unfunded.

Um that's why paint the curve extensions were kind of proposed as the next step down.

You can get those in pretty quickly.

Um, and likewise, similar to the raised crossing at um West Masonic View, permanent curve extensions would be a logical next step that staff would pursue grant funding for in the future.

Um as funding resources allow.

Thank you very much.

Well put your project.

Uh thank you so much for the silence.

Um, I I don't want to repeat any questions, but I just a question for clarity.

Regardless of concept or whatever decision that this board makes tonight, the speed cushions would stay the same number, at least minimum same number of speed cushions would be yes, they would they might have to be repositioned based on the treatment.

So if they're too close to an intersection, they might have to be repositioned, but um the same number will stay.

Okay.

Um, and then I just had a couple questions because I think this comes up.

I I get a lot of questions and comments every time that there is um parking analysis or parking study in.

So I just want to be clear for the record.

The traffic and parking study, the the corridor was that was that looking at parking spaces just along Russell Road.

Was it looking at any of the intersecting side street spaces?

Just on Russ, just Russell Road.

Okay, and I see that the report says 34%.

So I'm sorry, I could put you on the spot.

Do you have a uh like a denominator denominator number?

Like how many?

I know like we talk about 8x20, right?

Um max would be along Wessel Road under current conditions.

So under the current condition, basically between West Myrtle and West Maple, we identify that there are currently 122 spots along the corridor.

Um I don't have the hard number of what 34% of that is right now, but I can that number.

Um I'm good.

Okay.

So I'm going to kind of segment my questions.

The first is I appreciate in some ways your public engagement, but I'm not entirely happy with some of the way staff is conducting this.

Um my first question is um, are you prepared to go if we choose to investigate option two to go forward with that?

I believe that unless Katie and Sheila correct me if I'm wrong, we always move forward with whatever the board adopts or well, can I just clarify that the board is making a recommendation to the director?

So if you choose to differ something from what the staff is recommending, and it has some sort of financial impact or impacts to engineering that we don't support the director and her permit to choose not to put that thing.

Of course, as part of that process, she would come back and notify the board explaining why she can follow.

And that's totally fine.

I'll defer to you on my feasibility that talked about if you total view use cutting.

I I get that.

I guess my concern is taking feedback from the city and from residents when we have a clear bifurcation between option one and two, and then really kind of eliminating from some consideration option two is disrespectful to the people who spoke in favor of it.

I think we have to consider the community members as engaged participants, and I think that plays a role in sort of how I'm approaching this is I feel like option two still needs to be on the table because we received a substantial amount of support current.

Um there were concerns in the Alexandria Times that projects aren't if complete there were issues.

Is there a feasibility issue if we implemented option two that you know right now?

I I'll defer to future ones that you might find, but is there feasibility on the next idea?

With option two, um, I think it's just what I've kind of said previously, in that it wouldn't be able to be a full median refuge island.

Um, so you wouldn't have the protection from traffic coming across the intersection, just with how narrow the roadway geometry is.

Um you might have some protection coming from approaching traffic on before the intersection.

Um that would be by one comment.

I guess my my main point is I I would prefer if SNAP gave us a broad array of options, and then let us have the value judgments about what to prioritize.

Um so for safety, which is safer, option two or option one revives.

Both options provide safety benefits.

Which is safer.

I'm unable to make that classification.

Both treatments are pursued by city staff and projects citywide.

I guess I'm good.

I'm concerned that we're not prioritizing the safety of the elementary school students.

And the thing that's on top of my mind is the Washington Liberty View High School crash, where uh uh high school student almost lost their way after a safe route school project was implemented because of parking concerns that didn't provide sufficient room for the students.

Um I'd say as far as the parking, I guess I understand you mentioned the southern three-hour parking.

I just am not sure how we can square a 34% occupancy rate.

41 spaces um out of 122 and say that there are that there is insufficient parking, public parking in the Surrey.

Is any other parking meter?

I do not believe so.

Um, have any cars been picked?

I'm sorry, could you res say that?

Have any cars been towed?

What's parking enforcement said?

I would need to consult with parking enforcement for um exact figure of cars being towed.

All states straight out, even if there's a thing with the southern end, I don't see how the square the idea that we have a 34% parking utilization and inability to accommodate 20 parked 20 cars on this area with 80 plus parking spaces available.

That strikes me as odd.

No more questions.

Marcos, do you have any questions for staff?

Um my question is um if you could Silas summarize um kind of the difference in terms of uh you know, every every change has trade-offs.

There are things you're gaining, there's things you're losing.

So I think it's clear that the difference between the two concepts that staff are recommending have a differential of 16 parking spaces.

Um could you summarize the things that are being that would not be included um in concept one in exchange for the additional parking that would be preserved?

Um so I know we talked about the medians.

Um what are other aspects that that this parking you know is being considered in exchange for?

So between the concepts, the only difference is the would be the between basically between concept two and then both iterations of concept one would be the median refuge islands at um that were proposed at West Masonic View, Walnut, and Maple.

Otherwise, um painted curb extensions, painted curb extensions at the other intersections are um continuous through each concept.

Um the speak cushions would be staying, the new pet crossing at West Chapman and Russell would be there.

Um the upgraded visibility markings, the new ADA ramps would all be consistent as well.

So the only difference would be the um median islands at those three intersections.

And what about the impact on daylighting such as at Walnut?

So the impact and daylighting would be those intersections with the um meaning refuge islands, there would be um a bigger parking ask, like I said previously, to allow vehicles to exit the travel lane, move toward the curb, proceed through the intersection, and move from the curb toward the middle of the travel lane.

Um and I believe of the parking differential between the concepts, um concept two would require the removal of seven parking spaces that are currently able to be parked by teachers and staff at Brooks.

So it would require a uh loss of seven parking spaces currently available to um staff.

So those space is currently main daylighting minimum requirements, but would they benefit from additional daylighting if the parking were removed?

Could you clarify your question?

I'm sorry, I'm not fully understanding.

Again, I'll take one as an example since Rosemary mentioned that one.

If if parking were removed and um intersections installed as under concept two, would there be additional daylighting, for example, for a pedestrian crossing or even a car on walnut crossing Russell to be able to see on coming traffic before they cross.

The parking proposed to be removed and the concepts is the parking that would be proposed to be removed.

I'm sorry if I'm not fully understanding.

So if there's a if there's a car parked on Russell and Walnut, and that parking spot in concept two is removed, is there more or less daylighting for pedestrians and cars crossing Russell?

There would be more because I believe correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not looking at the concepts right now, but I believe in order to have the median refuge island, you would need to remove two parking spaces on the north side of that intersection on both sides.

So it would be more technically.

No, yeah, you have to be a resident to get um with that um couple of questions.

We'll be able to come back.

I think we'll switch to public um speakers.

Yes, we have uh folks signed up in person, which we'll go through and then we'll after that go to folks online.

So I'm gonna start with our speaker list of people in person.

We'll have Becky Hammer followed by Mike Doyle, followed by Zach Peterman, followed by Brian Eden, followed by John who I have in person.

There's anybody else's person to speak on this item, please submit a speaker form, and after those we'll move to online.

Hi.

Um my name's Becky Hammer.

I live in Rosemont.

My daughter is horizontally for creator in Brooks.

So during the school year, we walk the bike through the project area every day.

Um, our experience has been that crossing Russell Road is really quite risky, especially when I take my daughter up from after planner in the evening.

Um, but there's no crossing guard there at that time.

The school zone's tubularin aren't in effect, and park cars that block the site lines uh make it difficult for motorists to see crossing streets.

Um we have to jump back out of the way of cars all the time.

It's not a grammar event, it's a regular road.

Um, I supported option two during the public input period.

I do feel disappointed to see how that was eliminated before it was even brought to this board.

Um, you know, I understand that staff was you know addressing concerns from teachers about parking availability, and I do sympathize with that since most teachers have to commute in um due to the high cost of housing here.

Um and it's important to consider that, but um it does feel like the way that staff has kind of approached this is like this project has a dial with part with pedestrian safety on one end and teacher parking on the other, and they're kind of you know kind of flipping back and forth, like they're two zero sum alternatives that can't you know both be achieved at the same time.

And that's resulted in parents being pitted against teachers.

There's a lot of I think unnecessary like conflicts that has been created in the BRICS community because of the way this has been framed up.

I also think that it's resulted in a proposal that's a bit underwhelming, a bit of a missed opportunity here to really improve safety for our kids for our neighbors.

The city's data shows there is you know capacity to take away the spaces.

If teachers are concerned that they can't park these on sessions of the corridor, you know, maybe the response should be to explore other options, like can they be given residential parking stickers so that they can park in those zones?

Could there be a dedicated teacher parking zone?

You know, what can we do so that we can achieve both of these goals?

You know, allowing teachers to park and also including safety.

Um this compromise just feels like it's based kind of on a false binary.

We shouldn't have to sacrifice one goal for the other.

Um it doesn't seem like any of those other options were considered.

Um so I would just ask the board, you know.

I would really urge to let you two reconsider option two bringing it back because we really need safer streets.

And you know, to the extent that you can ask staff to consider some of these other ways to ensure teachers have somewhere to park, you know, if that really is a demonstrated problem, then that would be my preferred outcome.

That said, if the board does go ahead with this option that's being presented tonight, I would really not recommend adding the on-street parking spaces on a 600 block across from the school.

I think it would cause a lot of vehicle crowding in an area where buses and cars are pouring over the problem.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike Doyle, followed by Zach Visiton, followed by Brian Hingan.

Hello, my name is Mike Doyle.

I can second director and founder of Board of Papers for State Streets with Baptist Standard River.

And we're an all-volunteer group from the pedestrian safety.

And speaking of the half or find out to the board.

And we had to approve option two, even though option two is a label.

But the simple reason why we encourage option two is because it improves the state.

So that's everyone in our group is survivors.

But what option two does it does it improves daylighting?

I would encourage the transportation department to look at the islands, refuge islands.

Some form of refugee island islands can be an improvement.

I think the idea in terms of giving a deference to the uh the teachers uh by giving them a uh resident or some type of special parking uh sticker so they can find uh during the day better parking conditions that would be good.

There's still a lot of unused parking spaces there, but first and foremost, and I think people really am disappointed in what the transportation environmental services group has come on board.

I think you've sacrificed for the betterment of parking, sacrifice pedestrians say that's the support.

Thank you.

Okay.

And you have speaker is active in followed by Brian Egan, followed by John Hutton, followed by Carl Carl Batchman.

Okay, uh members.

Uh, thank you for being here.

Um here to support concept two.

This is the staff recommendations, concept one.

Um I prefer concept two, which provides uh that's your refuge island relocation, which was the side view, West Walnut Street, and West Maple Street.

Um refuge islands, even if they don't have any protection on the one side are still secure for extensions at this location.

So let us keep walking to biking across one problem at a time, which is particularly important on Russell Road given it's my truck volume is um rafting cross with kids on our bike.

Um it's very common that traffic one direction in both directions, of course, because away longer.

Um people don't want to stop for us, even if we've had shadows at the crossword.

Um really appreciate 15 years ago the city saw a break out of Cedar Street uh on Russell Road here.

Um and that's significantly improved uh people uh really cross there, it's like impossible to cross the for um but one street's important connection for people biking this as he doesn't bike route helping people uh like from the new bride road bike lanes to things from beyond West Hot Views, also grade rough for biking because it's less steep for Westbound riders long street.

That's gonna simplify the staff trying to work with stakeholders and supporters teachers.

Um age from how many three years ago they found they've uh seven upstream bases, off street spaces, five of which are assigned that appears to be a semi-admitted van uh on the city uh staff.

Um also one of the parkingly purpose, a block or two away from school itself or the city's parking uh city uh use uh two of those those written downs are central zones, so they're kind of used by teachers.

Um section I hope reserve plenty of spaces in right next to itself.

Um, and people outside of school hours also need to get around too, especially considering the playground each parking for some playground feels to keep it as if you for kids and uh their friends um supporting set too.

My next speaker is Brian Egan, followed by John Hutton, followed by Carl Calbetta.

That's all the speakers have in person.

I think we want to tell enough to use this.

Um writing about Rosemont resident.

First, I just want to thank everyone, especially staff.

I'm sure this must be like unwinnable position, more parking, more biking, more streets.

Thank you for your patience and for uh all the work you do.

I have three young kids, I live in Rosemont.

Um, all of them bike or walk across from Brent Brooks, um, crossing Russell Road and Mount Vernon.

Sorry, crossing Russell Road at Music View every day.

So I'm really familiar with the area and with getting kids across it.

Um there are like large construction trucks that are constantly at the end of those.

Every morning I work sticks of beef for my son, like it is out to look on one side, and it's like it's head to the other, and it's a little nerve-wracking every single day.

Um, and until two years ago, I actually owned a house in the 800 block of Russell Road.

Um, so I'm in only familiar with how unbeatable asses parking spaces are.

The two spots directly in front of my house were like never used during the day.

So seeing that data, only 34% of parking utilization, that's like medium spots, even losing 20, it seems okay.

That makes sense.

That checks out.

Um, I was very excited to see option two, especially the pedestrian islands because as someone else just mentioned, you look you know kids edge out, they look one way, you can train one way for the car, but cars are coming the other way.

It really makes it so much safer to get across one lane at a time, especially because especially in the morning, especially in the winter when it's dark, you're going to school.

Like I lay off kids fighting Christmas trees because we have to go across that we're recording.

If we can solve that, it's very disappointing to hear the ring left perfectly if you have any other good.

And we can't make the greatest refuge islands we can ever do.

So it's just not doing it at all.

Why not?

Um really disappointing.

So it also just seems like there's a lot of potential solutions in the future parking problem.

As I said, it's underutilized now, parking on the street.

And I heard people told that you're doing the future parking houses.

Maybe the parking problem.

Seems like there's solutions to that problem that don't involve making the street.

Let's say like this is a big missed opportunity.

We don't need the street safety.

So I just want to urge the board to reconsider and support option two.

Um, thank you for that.

Our next speaker is John Putin, followed by Carl Karlbecker.

Thanks for having me here.

Uh, hearing what I have to say, add some questions.

Uh first thing the main thing I came here about was the speed cushions.

Uh, I appreciate that they are remaining.

Uh really proposing speed efficients, uh, but certainly in other times when people are going pretty fast.

Uh, I live um at 603 Russell, so right at that 600 blocks, the two spaces will be going.

Uh, so you know, I guess all the data said 45 to 49 miles per hour.

There's time from those cars going much faster than that.

They either try to make a light.

So uh keeping those people cushions considering adding something more um would be great.

So uh thank you for that.

And I do think it would have nice to have been in the report, so we knew um that was the case.

Um, I had a question um on the adding of the parking spaces at the 600 block.

Um, yeah, exactly how close to the driveway.

I'm a little bit concerned about visibility um for personal reasons, but that creates potentially uh danger for others as well.

Um exactly where they are on the road uh between the driveways um and the end of the road at Chapman.

I guess if we will respond to questions.

Um we can note the question and okay, thank you.

That would be helpful to know um if there's a concern for that.

And I know uh I would also note that just take into account the the type of congestion that happens during school drop-off there as well.

Um part of the things great.

I wouldn't mind an extra parking spot, but at the same time, I think there are some potential concerns there.

Um I think the overall compromise is pretty good.

Um I do think there's a concern with parking for teachers.

I want teachers going to school taking care of my kids to have the ability to get to the school.

Um, and I think this provides a big compromise of some daylight and visibility for people in terms of without the moving too many parking spaces, uh, especially as we're looking to have a denser neighborhood with uh some of the starting changes that have occurred.

Um, what you take away now might be later at the local station is different.

So I would I don't think my neighbors should be losing parking.

I don't necessarily think it impacts me personally, but I think it is important for the neighborhood.

Um I would be concerned about the uh a modified median refuge.

I think the full medium refuge may provide some real safety additions, but I'd be worried about kids as they get older and they cross the street themselves using that and kind of standing in a relatively unsafe part of the middle of the road.

I don't want them doing that.

Um, so you can't do the full thing.

I concerned up and kind of have measure median refuge.

Um and I also consider uh you know, I think a raised cross off would be really helpful.

I understand there's not uh the funds for that, but uh considering that in the future or um having that part of some time would be very helpful.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Carl Raptor, and then we'll look to folks online.

Thank you.

Um I live directly across from the Naomi Brooks School at 25 West Oak and witness the daily rootness of cars of people.

The city's option one plan is a slighted a slight safety improvement, but it is woefully insufficient addressing the current safety risks at this elementary school that's located on that major collector road and a 2025 B dot AADT of 8500 cars and recorded speeds of 49 miles per hour.

Every day I witness young children at severe risk of being hit by cars and trucks.

A common sighting is a family walking to the school, one kid on a bike, another one on the scooter, and they're always ahead of their parents getting to the light.

Imagine though, if you have a five-year-old or an eight-year-old, and perhaps they don't stop in time.

And you have 8500 cars per day going through some of them at 49 miles per hour.

What we have here is a school that shouldn't be located on a major collector road.

In fact, there are very, very few elementary schools that are located on major collector roads, and there's a reason for that.

I just hold that.

The problem the other problem with Brooks Elementary, aside from the not having on off-street parking, is they do not have a semi-circle driveway for buses.

This is the only school in the school district that doesn't have a site semi-circle driveway.

So we're talking about daylighting, and the buses are blocking the daylight because they're on Russell Road.

So this is a very insufficient uh project.

Compounding the problem is the school just got renovated.

Lead base paint and lead windows, asbestos were taken out.

Seems like a good idea.

But if the lead isn't peeling and the asbestos isn't fryable, then there is not a direct exposure pathway.

The Sunny Circle Driveway should have been the priority.

We have folks at TES saying it's not in their budget, but there's a city manager and there's a city council, and there's a traffic and parking board that should be looking at the bigger picture, and they're not.

We're not looking at the safety of the children.

So I recommend put money towards the driveway and do not take away the two, don't add the two parking spots.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um not seeing any more speaker forms in the room.

So we're gonna move to people offline.

I'm seeing um, so you are online wish to speak on the side of them.

Please raise your hand.

I'm gonna go with the folks I've seen with hands raised.

Um, and I'll continue to add to the to the list, but the first couple are gonna be Megan Fox, followed by Paula Moran, followed by Marta Schantz, followed by Joseph Prey, followed by Nicole Radshaw.

Megan Fox, I'm going to allow you to speak.

Uh Megan, you're still muted.

Megan, you're still muted.

Sorry, I I didn't see that.

I I can can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so um thanks for taking my comments.

I moved back to Virginia after living in New Jersey for about 20 years, and one of the first things that I experienced moving to Alexandria was just how confusing it is to see cars that are parked all the way up to the stop signs.

Uh, it always seemed unsafe to me because it makes it hard to see oncoming traffic when you're at an intersection.

I have gotten used to New Jersey's daylighting, and which cars had to park about 50 feet away from stop signs.

Uh now we know New Jersey has a reputation for not having the best drivers, but I think they made the right decision and using daylighting to make their towns and cities safer.

It's a congested state.

We know lots of people are looking for parking, similar to what we're dealing with.

Um, so we know that this must have required a sacrifice on some level.

I support proposal number two, as many people have said today, uh, because I think that the significant long-term change is not going to come from a place of comfort.

I think the discomfort and sacrifice that some community members might experience uh with this change could be worth it to prioritize safety.

I think that sacrifice was worth it for New Jersey and the 39 other states that research shows have adopted these rules, and I think it's worth it for Alexandria to create safety for drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and especially the kids.

Our next speaker is Paul Moran, followed by Marta Schans, followed by Joseph Praye.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Um sorry, my camera is not available right now.

Um I have I have lived on West Chapman for years and recently located to the Johnston place.

I have raised two children from when they're first walking, walk these roads.

And there's a lot of effort on safely crossing them.

Um I am here to support revised concept one.

I think we're looking at a lot of different things.

And I praise the staff for coming up with that compromise.

Um looking at the difference of the partial refuge islands as the one big difference.

Um still going with revised concept one.

I want to emphasize when we're thinking about, I will disagree with the staff's traffic assessment of utilization of spots.

Um I have been walking my kids to school for two years, and I have been walking around the neighborhood for years.

Um there, if you think about the more smaller section between Masonic View and Walmart, well, wall nut.

You suddenly get a rush at drop-off and pickup at 80 to 90 percent of what is there.

Um also the street comes to a crawl between four and six p.m.

It backs up all the way from um the Callahan intersection, but that's a different issue.

Um when you are considering this at the two spots to be added on Russell Road, I do support that because cars are illegally parked there all the time.

Um there are only two school buses that service the school.

So when we're thinking about do we add spots, how many vehicles are really there?

There's two buses, they're in and out very quickly.

Um looking at my other notes, listening to what you all have said.

Um I do want to emphasize that uh the tall stanchions are a better solution than the armadillos because all the armadillas you installed on Commonwealth, the snow plows took out a large section of those.

Um my other reasoning for supporting concept one is that there are evening events, including sports leagues and scouts that are gonna need the parking that's maintained in concept one.

Um, if we take more parking away as you get in concept two, you are going to end up with increased families and children dashing across the street from further distances and trying to get in on time.

So keep the parking so they can get parked and cross at the improved intersections.

Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Martha Schantz, followed by Joseph Ray, followed by Nicole Radshaw.

Um I'm gonna move on.

I'm no longer seeing Martha Schantz.

I'm going to move to Joseph Ray, followed by Nicole Radshaw.

Uh can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I'm a resident of Rosemont and walk or bike with my daughter to Brooks every day.

I was disappointed with the water down proposal one that staff has presented.

This plan does virtually nothing to increase pedestrian safety on this heavily used corridor.

So the safety of my daughter, her classmates, and other pedestrians along Russell Road.

I am requesting that you approve proposal two.

This affects teachers' abilities to park reasonably close to the school.

Staff should look at the solutions to preserve teacher parking that do not impact pedestrian safety.

Thank you.

Next speaker is the correct followed by 10 notice, followed by William Burger.

Hey, hi, sorry, just found the unmute button.

Um good afternoon, evening.

Um my name's Nicole Ratcha.

Traffic and parking board, thank you for all you do.

And staff, thank you for all you do.

You know, I usually talk at these meetings as a pedestrian or as a cyclist.

But um, I'm gonna talk about a driver because I just had to buy a new car.

And um things I've noticed is that when we were looking at dealerships, we'd show up there and there were cars that were like, I don't know, five feet tall, like like six feet tall, like over the hood.

So I don't know how they could see children.

And um, and I've noticed the car that we got, it's a little bit higher, it's a little bit wider.

Um, and I've been looking at daylighting.

And I think we need to daylight as much as you can, which I think removes more parking.

So I think that's probably option two.

Um just from a sight line, like when you pull up to uh the maybe the crosswalk and you look left and you look right.

Um, sometimes you got to creep.

A lot of cars creep.

They creep through the crosswalk and they creep up to see left and right.

So I don't get hit by my car getting hit by a car, but then I'm creeping into pedestrian and bike visibility.

So I totally recognize parking as an issue, uh, especially because the high cost of housing in Alexandria.

I am an ACPS uh teacher.

I float around to all the schools and and Brooks can definitely um be a little bit confusing about where to park.

So I would love if we could figure out how to give teachers um, you know, they can give them parking zones, even though they're non-residents.

Um that might be a great way.

Um, you know, and a lot of times um as a parent, sometimes I would just park far away and then like walk to pick up my kids, or as an educator.

I, you know, actually I've done this in DC.

I've parked far away and I put my bike in the car and then and the bike to where I want to go.

Um, so there's a lot of different options.

Um, and anyway, I just day daylight everything, like less parking spots.

Um, option two, uh, thank you guys for all you do.

Bye.

Speakers, I noticed followed by William Berkshire, followed by Marcia Schans.

Followed up on the paper.

Good evening.

Uh I would like to thank staff uh for their hard work.

Uh, welcome to Alexandria, Silas.

Uh, I support option two.

It is clearly the uh option that maximizes safety.

I would like to address parking.

Uh, I understand that there, while there are parking spots available in the neighborhood based on staff analysis.

Uh, there is concern that uh the resident parking permit uh district does not allow teachers to utilize them.

Uh clearly that means we should be reforming our parking ordinance and making it more flexible.

As documented in Donald Shoop's book, the high cost of free parking.

There are many ways uh to be more flexible about parking, to make it more responsive to the market, transferable parking permits, gray markets and parking permits, or just uh an exemption for teachers.

That's probably up to council.

I would ask that staff if uh we if uh the choice is made to go with option two.

Staff recommends that to council or the board, recommends that to council.

And in fact, I think that would address issues in other parts of the city as well.

Thank you.

Option two, specifically the pedestrian refuge islands, uh, substandard as they may be.

I I hope that uh this board and staff understands that uh the trade-off that we make when when the when the city decides to build infrastructure on streets is between safety on the one hand and convenience on the other.

Um, and specifically here uh in front of elementary school, is the safety of young children on the one hand versus convenient parking on the other.

The book, high cost of free parking is an excellent one.

It focuses on the economics of parking.

Um, but in this case, it's not just economics, it's literal safety of children.

As the parent of a rising fourth grader in ACPS, there can be no higher priority for me than the safety of my child.

And that's why I'm here to speak on behalf of option two today.

I hope that you'll, if you can't recommend option two entirely, find a way, please, to keep those pedestrian pedestrian refuge islands in place.

And in fact, everyone else.

Thanks for your time.

Our next speaker is Marta Shant, followed by Jacqueline Kittridge, and that's all the hands I'm seeing raised.

So if you're looking to speak on the side note, please raise your hand.

Hello, can you hear me now?

Hello.

Thank you.

Oh, thank goodness.

Thank you, Traffic and Parking Board for your meeting tonight.

Thank you, staff, for your work on Safe Roots to Schools.

My name's Martha Schantz.

I live on East Chapman Street, so just one.

I'm on the other side of Commonwealth.

And I take my rising first grader to to Brooks almost every day, whether by bike or by foot.

And I also take my rising pre-K four-year-old to Abercadabra preschool, like in a big loop.

So he's also traversing those routes all the time.

My older son is a scout, so he goes to events at Brooks in the evening every other week or so.

And we go to that playground, you know, at least a couple times a week as well.

We are frequenters and usually on foot, just because like it, you know, it's easy.

It's it's a neighborhood spot.

But it is not safe to cross Russell Road.

I sent an email to the traffic and parking board a few days ago, so I don't need to repeat all of that, but I just want to um reiterate what a number of folks who have spoken today have already said that that I was very excited about concept two uh to remove a lot of the on-street parking uh in favor of safety for these students.

Like they're just so young.

They need they need more daylighting, and as much as parents try and be there to help and and moderate things, like we're not always and so the safer we can make these streets, the the better it is for the kids and for the overall neighborhood.

Thank you so much.

Concept two.

Next speaker is Jacqueline Kittridge, and that's the last hand I'm seeing.

So again, if you wish to speak on this item, please raise your hand.

Yeah, not you to we can't hear you.

You can't uh can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Um hi, my name is Jacqueline Kittridge, and I support option two.

I lived for many, many years on Northview Terrace, and so I had to cross Russell Road either in a car or on foot or in a bicycle, and it would it was almost impossible without nosing your way into the intersection and almost getting hit any time you did it.

So I support option two because it increases safety by daylighting um these intersections, which sorely need it.

And that's all I have.

Thank you so much for all your work.

The last hand I'd see online.

Are there any additional discussion from board or further questions for staff?

Hey.

So uh for the central option two.

What would that require as far as removal of on street parking?

It would require 20 parking spaces to be removed.

Uh can you list them out in a similar way to what we have for the option one that you have printed in the uh um traffic and parking for the one second pull up the concept.

Apologies.

So it would require four parking spaces to be removed on the 300 block of Russell Road, four parking spaces to be removed on the I'm sorry.

Four on 300 Russell, seven on the 400 block of Russell, four on the 500 block of Russell.

I'm sorry, six.

Six on the block of Russell.

Um one on the 700 block, and then three on the 800 block.

That's 21.

Maybe I misspoke on one of them.

It should have been I'm sorry, six on the 400 block, not seven.

Correct.

All right.

Thank you.

I do want to praise your staff, does a great job on the engineering work, but I don't praise you enough for the work you did on product and the technical skill that you have with a lot of the um the proposals that you get to us.

I don't think I've like the director of TNS hardly ever comes back with amendments to what goes through traffic and parking.

Um I think my main critique tonight has been let us weigh the pros and cons openly and present us a broad spectrum of options so that we can decide what priorities and how best to implement the city's vision zero and other shops.

But I do want to thank you for the word moments.

Annie.

Okay, thanks.

Um so ACPS teachers can never find parking.

This is like a totally so this is a question for staff.

Um ACPS doesn't provide parking.

Teachers can never find parking.

Um I live next to MVCS and it's like a very hot topic of conversation.

During the last snowstorm, teachers approached a private parking lot and asked if they could use that spot in the parking lot, the owner of the parking lot said no.

Um and the teachers do need some relief.

I'm just wondering if this is going to be or has been a topic of conversation in these meetings you're having now with ACPS.

In regard to off-street, like providing off-street parking.

Yeah, parking for teachers.

Um creative ideas.

Um, because ACPS isn't gonna make new parking lots at schools.

Like what how are they gonna support how what can we do?

Staff did consider creative ideas.

Um I'm sorry, Silas, I don't mean just like for Naomi Brooks in particular, but like all of ACPS.

Um if staff is having these regular meetings with ACPS now, is this a topic of conversation with them?

And like on for every school.

I would need to defer that question.

Um Katie.

We can add it to the list.

Thank you.

I will add that um by nice situation.

I will add that we've had in our latest or most recent discussion with ACPS on another project.

Um part you did come up with that particular project.

Um that in that project, uh, they did have on-site parking that was so it has been a topic of conversation.

Uh not for anything else, Annie.

No, thank you.

Um I appreciate Annie that you raised that question um about working with KCPS and figuring out sort of big picture creative solutions to teacher parking, you know, I take seriously the concern for staff.

Um, I'm an ACPS parents.

Um, we have finally now a nice big parking lot at Patrick Henry, um, but it took years during construction, so there was no no on-site parking there either.

Um, so it was a challenge, but it was a challenge that has key got through.

I will say also that the parking lot at like Patrick Henry at some of our bigger schools that have newer parking lots are so big that if you get the farthest away parking spot, it's like a couple blocks walk um for the for the teachers walking in.

Um so I don't know that I really have questions here, but I think there's it like I say I have one, and this is probably not a fair question of city staff, but I don't know if we got this information from the ACPS.

Um Neo B Brooks Elementary School Stack Directory currently shows 53 staff, and I imagine that's maybe not 100% accurate, but there may be some floating, you know, um encore staff that are for some reason opposite at that school.

Do you Silas let's say it CPS able to provide you or any of the teachers that commented any any numbers of how many staff works has?

No, I'm not able, I at least I didn't hear from them a direct number.

Um I can always reach out and ask, but I cannot confirm the exact number right now.

But if we go with 53 is probably directionally accurate, I mean a school has like 1200-ish students, it's a relatively small population student.

Um if the traffic, if the parking utilization study is correct, you know, obviously there's a difference between dedicated parking spots and non-denicated parking spots.

I think I hope that it doesn't care, but there will still be available non-denicated parking spots.

So again, would strongly encourage city and ACPS to work together to find solutions to support dedicated parking spots for staff.

Um staff who are driving or parking are ultimately pedestrians too is a thing that I keep um in the back of my mind that even if you're you know, even if you're driving to work at Brooks or wherever and you're parking on the street, you got you gotta probably get across the street as well.

Um so that sort of pedestrian visibility does affect our um ACPS stack as well, even if they are driving to work.

Um and then I think as we're thinking about this, you know, I I keep going back to the um the impetus and vision and purpose behind safe rocks to school, which is to support children finding alternate ways besides our drop-off line to get to school.

So bike pedestrians to walk.

Um and as has our ACP as fast as parents, as any um anybody who works about children, um, the expectation that children who do not have fully formed frontal loads will behave as uh make rational um safety decisions, uh the same as hopefully a fully orange frontally loaded adults would make um on a on a street corner on a sidewalk is is unrealistic.

Um children behave unexpectedly and in ways that we I certainly as a parent don't like them to do very often.

Um that's developmentally normal behavior for children.

Um so I think I'm just keeping that in mind as we're considering um the options before us.

Any other questions for staff, Mark?

Yes, uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Um first of all, I agree with Dane's point that it would have been better had we had more fully worked up options to look at.

Uh my question goes, and I think based on the information we have so far.

I think the right call was made going with option one.

Uh but I wish option two had been fleshed out more.

And in particular, let me ask the question, which I think to me is a pivotal question.

Uh I think Silas mentioned that uh the uh pedestrian safety island would be uh substandard.

Uh and I want to pursue that a little bit more because I think the idea of pedestrian safety islands is a great idea in the abstract, but the question is is it the right solution here and does it work here?

And particularly uh the MACDO National Association of Safety Transportation design guidelines say that a pedestrian safety island should be a minimum of six feet wide and desirably eight to ten feet, and that is based on you know the rule that or that came from six feet, uh taking that to be the typical length of a bicycle or the length of uh round covered by uh an individual uh with a scroller.

So can you please uh maybe Silas, I guess, comment more on why you judge that or engineering reasons for pedestrian safety, the island uh would not work at this location.

Yeah, sure.

Um I'll just touch on briefly that um essentially you can't have the full treatment with the protection on both sides of the crossing.

Um, do the geometry of the intersections um with how narrow the adjacent joining streets are that touch Russell Road, the cross streets, um to have the full basically protected element on both sides, um, would portrude into the turning radii at the intersections.

Um, one way to get around that is to be able to move the curve to move the ADA ramps further north or further south, some of the intersections, so you kind of pull the islands back.

Um but when staff was fleshing out these concepts even before releasing them to the public, um, realize that in some of those locations that you're really not able to because of where drains are located or where trees are located.

Um, so that's why it's prohibitive um to do the full crossing island treatment um at those locations.

So the go to the wind question, please, how wide would you could you make the soul view there?

How wide would you could you could make the scope view there?

You could make them six feet.

I believe the curb to curb width of Russell there is 36 feet.

Um so if you factor in the travel lanes, you would have more than enough space to do a six-foot wide um median island.

So getting and getting a standard width of a pedestrian shape child, you could get that width.

Could Mark, could you restate what you're saying?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

I'm saying the minimum according to the design standards I've read, the median, the the minimum width of that island uh to facilitate to be real safe a safety spot where people take refuge, it's gotta be six feet, ideally eight to ten feet.

So otherwise you're gonna have people hanging out the rear end there, uh and looking one way in the bike or you know, the stragglers again may not make the best judgment, you're gonna have a clear two hanging out in the wrong here.

Uh so that's my question.

Can you get that space or is your space the longitudinal issue only going the other way?

I wish we had this design workup so we could see what we're looking at here.

That's what I'm trying to get and trying to visualize.

Yeah, so uh Silas, let me uh help you out with that.

So uh to Sala's point, we can get the six feet uh of the E.

Okay.

However, as I was kind of pointed out, in order to get that six feet, you have to push it back from the intersection because pushing it back from the intersection allows for uh vehicles, specifically large vehicles to turn from the side streets and be able to have that space to turn.

So I guess longitudinal or or width wide, you can't get it.

Okay, um, but uh you have to push it back now.

If you have it at the intersection, and um Silas, I might need your help on that.

If you have if you have it at the intersection uh to allow those uh turns to get there, I'm not exactly sure how many feet uh we we could get, I would assume because of the the width and of the space and all that, and would definitely be less than six feet, uh most likely around four feet.

Uh but Sal is uh uh you have more information about that.

Yeah, I would agree with your assessment, Ryan.

As you come to the intersection, it would be more narrow.

I'm sorry, someone speaking.

Styles, I don't know if you're able to pull up the visual, but I have uh um the one of the um links that is on the website that shows the the comparison of the two concepts, you can kind of zoom in and see the the medians and how they're you know not flowing in the intersection.

I don't know if you have that readily available.

I do not I think Max is pulling it up.

It should be linked right from the project web page, Max.

Let me see if I can drop the link.

Where's this concept options there, Max under community engagement?

And then Max, if you want to see crossing islands, go to Masonic View to the north or to Walnut and Maple to the South.

So what we're showing here is still the six feet of width, but um again, what Max referring to?

I'm sorry, not Max.

Uh Silas is referring to when you said protect on all sides, uh, it would be what you see in the green, and then also what we call the median nose.

So the other from the core side is far side to protect your traffic curve.

So we wouldn't be able to do that uh with this uh being so close to the intersection.

So in order to get that nose, and or to get that other side of the median, you would have to back out the way out of the south.

So you were just the sidewalk, or are you actually just hatching and walking back to get to the green so when we're uh uh taking it back when we're pushing the crosswalk back?

Yeah, so sorry, Mark, do you have a few more questions?

No, okay, road rate.

So would I be walking from the corner back with the hatching C hated back to get me to the green island?

Or I'm actually walking in front and I'm just not protected.

Yeah, you're just not protected.

Yes, you're walking within the hatch there and the after possible there and just wouldn't be protected off that on that one side or only and just to clarify.

So on concept one, if it's just the site, the crosswalk treatment, you would also be blocking across the unprotected front side of the crosswalk as well.

Any additional questions for um staff?

Is there any discussion or a motion?

Oh I will move well.

Aside from what was included in the letter in the comments that we received um before the meeting, was there any outreach or did staff have any um comments from constituents of the George Washington middle school, which is also within the proximity of this area and where um for example, I know walnut is frequently West Walnut is a frequently used street where students will walk by um scoop um to get to that location?

So it's are you able to answer received direction from um can you hear me?

Yep, now it's okay.

Sorry.

No, I was in direct indication with um Mount Vernon.

Sorry, George Washington on this.

We did not have um perceived direct comments from George Washington Middle School.

Okay, thank you.

So uh motion from Dave.

Yeah, so I'm gonna process over the comment.

I've seen some safe streets efforts fail up in Arlington because we didn't do enough.

Um the one that's bravest to my mind happened only a few months ago at Washington Liverpool High School.

I want to go as far as we can to make sure that our students are safe, and particularly here where we have 34% street occupancy, let's work with the school and the teachers to try to find ways to accommodate people who are driving, but I think we need to go further than what staff has proposed.

So I would move that the board recommend the director of TNES approve the following part of the modifications removal of four on-street parking spaces on the 300 block of Russell Road, removal of six on-street parking spaces on the 400 block of Russell Road, removal of six on-street parking spaces on the 500 block of Russell Road, removal of one on-street parking space from the 700 block of Russell Road, and removal of three on-street parking spaces on the 800 block of Russell Road.

Motion from Dane, is there a second?

Second.

Uh second from Annie and um Kirsten has an additional comment.

Right.

So it's okay.

I have a friendly amendment to in addition to the motion as stated at um indirect um staff to bring the back to the track of the parking board proposals for um potential um uh track uh on street parking solutions for um uh CPS staff.

Oh yeah, is there a second with the friendly amendment?

Yes from Mark and second again from Andy.

Um in uh so we can vote uh on the proposal with the friendly amendment.

All in favor?

I aye.

Any discussion.

And all in favor, okay.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

No.

Two, nay, and four and uh five, I think.

Five.

Five um in favor.

So the motion with the friendly amendment passes.

So what's the next item on the agenda?

It's administrative procedure for stop signs at city intersection.

All right.

Uh hello again.

Uh one last time.

I think it's not the night.

Uh fish engineering efficiency.

Uh, here to talk to you about uh recommendation to procedural uh adjustments to T intersection.

Um location is citywide.

Uh so this proposal um background, we have many uh existing local streets that are on T intersections that do not have a stop sign or yield sign operation.

It's just kind of uh link.

Uh most likely uh way back when uh whenever these uh streets were built.

It was most likely to promote efficient travel flow and to operate under the right-of-way rules.

So um basically the the point of not having a stop sign is basically because the volumes are so low on some of the side streets or or the uh the street that it intersects, then you basically yield in that condition if you do not see any.

However, some community members have expressed concerns regarding the safety within these intersections.

Uh the uh they've uh uh addressed their or expressed their concern with perceive uncertainty of the right way.

So whenever there are vehicles within the uh intersection, uh who has the right of way, a potential conflicts between vehicles entering and crossing the street, and they would like to reduce the likelihood of crashes.

Next slide.

So uh within the transportation engineering uh field, we have what what I call a 124 protocol, our UA MNCCD standard.

So this is uh manual of uniforms that control devices.

Uh so this is a nationwide uh standard uh handbook for how we implement signs, payment marking signals, things of that nature, uh, so that everything's kind of uniform throughout the entire nation.

Um so within these uh standards, uh it is recommended to install stop signs at locations that demonstrate operational or safety needs, such as restricted site distance, documented crash patterns, and traffic volume relationships.

Um the benefit of stop signs is clearly the finds for bride of way using the potential for angled internal conflict, increase uh driver awareness, and encourage lower approaching speeds.

So our proposed uh administrative process of staff uh to implement stop signs at T intersections without requiring to come to the traffic parking board.

Um whenever the following are met.

Uh the stop sign is on the uh minor street.

Um this and it's supported by transportation engineering staff uh through engineering evaluation or analysis.

Uh doesn't result in an always stop, and it doesn't result in any other uh measures that would require traffic parking board actions, such as loss of parking, name modifications, uh things that happen.

Uh the benefit of this administrative process is to streamline the implementation of routine traffic engineering decisions.

Uh basically uh there would not be a T intersection that uh the transportation engineering team would uh uh not put a stop sign at if there weren't no stop signs, so uh this kind of streamlines that that process next slide.

So uh our recommendation is that the board recommends recommend to yes to approve the proposed administrative process to install stop signs at intersections for staff of the board members.

I don't have a question.

I I think this is if they keep ready to work on this.

I think this is exactly the kind of spaces that we should be finding ways for our city government to deliver without excessive red tape.

Um, and so I believe we should have not hold this.

Do we know about uh do we know approximately how many uh T intersections without stop signs we actually have in the city?

Do we know approximately how many intersections without stop signs they actually have in the city?

I don't know.

I'm surprised every day that somebody calls me about it.

So we need too many to uh be comfortable with.

So that's why we bring it.

It's again some of these uh requests that we get on local local streets, um local streets that have very low volume.

Um so it hasn't been an issue uh thus far.

It's not it's not really a safety issue.

I think it is more confusion of like why is this like this and how we operate under these conditions?

So I think it stops on just kind of mediate that yeah, thank you.

Uh sure I just rebound uh I think it's fine proposal on the board.

Uh one note of caution, I'm sure you're aware of this.

Uh stop signs can be often motivated, uh come from uh emotional response citizens in particular space.

Uh and with the result that does not necessarily prove safety and people uh the labor thinks stop signs or break remedy for everything and use traffic when they're not in fact if you put it in too many traffic, so uh stop signs you you engender disrespect for the stop sign, seeing this multiple states uh and people stop video does not intuitively support uh understanding why there's a stop sign or start blowing through or rolling and so that's just another caution.

I hope you're constantly aware of that.

Of course, yeah.

No, I mean uh that is why we have such uh a rigorous evaluation whenever it comes to all way stops uh and particularly at uh four legging intercessions uh because of that very same reason the major streets uh whenever we get requests for uh stop signs on major streets.

Uh the first thing that uh the kind of gear towards is how compliant would it be?

Um because again, if if you're on a major street and you stop, you should be expecting uh some type of crossing um or some tiny uh roadway user crossing the street and basically every time that you stop.

If you don't expect that, then and majority of the time that you end up at a stop sign if nobody's coming.

The next time you go through it, you inherently think okay, nobody's coming anyway.

So stop sign.

So that is something that we take in consideration very.

I think with this program again, you know, uh we're we're thinking of just the um minor street to have a stop sign.

So with that, uh it's kind of inherent that at a T intersection, you're basically at a dead end.

Um so you should stop anyway.

Um, but yeah, we're we're definitely considering serving the uh compliance with the stops.

You have any questions or comments?

No, thank you.

Anyone else?

Um are there any public speakers?

If you're interested in speaking on this item, please raise your hand.

Okay, uh seeing no public speakers, uh public discussion is closed.

Is there a motion for this item?

I will move this board recommends that moving director of TAS approves proposed administrative process and sell it and delegate authority to the director of transportation and virtual services to install stop signs at T intersections with engineering analysis determines such control.

Motion from Freshon, is there a second?

Second, second from Mark, all in favor.

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Um staff updates.

Oh mean to go first, man.

Um no, it's okay.

I just thought it was the end, sorry.

Um, well, thank you, everyone.

Uh uh wait for Mark to get back.

Uh thank you, everyone.

Um, I know it's late and nice, so I'll try to keep this brief.

Um my name is Max Villers.

I'm uh parking curbside management planner for the city.

Um what we're what we're trying to um gather from you all today is feedback on two um changes to city code that we're looking to make.

So again, you won't be making a decision.

And you know, this is not the end all be all.

Just want to get some ideas, get some feedback and and kind of test the waters here.

So this first item is something we actually brought before the board about two years ago.

Um, but then we had other competing priorities, and um and uh so this kind of fell down the priority list.

Um, but essentially the proposal is the same.

Um I'll just start with some background.

So our car share policy for the entire city was approved through a uh city council resolution in 2013.

Uh it remains unchanged since then.

Um I'll get to this later, but resolutions are meant to be somewhat temporary and less formal.

So you know, it's been 13 years since we've done anything with this.

Um it's the resolution only permits car share on public right-of-way in Old Town and Carlisle.

Uh and uh companies must pay 2300 per designated car share space in Old Town and 1500 in Carlisle.

It currently only permits stationary car share, uh, which means that uh the car share vehicle must be parked in a designated space.

So the signage, the pain, et cetera, and paid for by that car share company.

Um and whereas free floating car share, which which many of us know as um uh a company called free to move, it is permitted in DC and Arlington and many other jurisdictions around the country, but not here in Alexandria because our resolution was passed before that kind of technology even um was you know came out came about.

So um with whereas, yeah, so free floating allows users to pick up a vehicle in one location and drop it off in another, whereas stationary requires you to bring it back to that same spot where you picked it up.

Uh, I often like to say stationary car share is like your IKEA car share.

Um when you don't have a car, it's what you it's what you use to go shop at IKEA and come back.

Um so some issues that we have as a result of our current policy.

Um, so first and foremost, we received several complaints over the years.

Uh, I've been with the city for five years, and we hear about it here and there uh from residents about the lack of coverage as well as the lack of options in the city.

Um it without uh a robust car share program, it kind of can make it difficult for people to um live a car light or car-free lifestyle.

Um again, if you want to go buy those those bigger items or go visit a relative in a in a small town nearby, it can be a little frustrating.

Um, like I said earlier, resolutions are somewhat less formal and temporary in nature relative to a city code ordinance.

Um so we would really like to get this on the books in the city code.

Um it also makes it more difficult for the public to find uh a resolution where City Co, you know, it's on Municode.

Um, and you know, you can search in the search bar for that sort of thing.

Um many other neighborhoods with relatively low car ownership, which I've circled here in blue.

Like this is not uh, you know, um scientifically uh arrived at, but essentially you get the idea.

There are many parts of the city that could benefit from having uh stationary car share.

Um because people tend to have fewer cars in per household.

The lack of a free-floating option significantly reduces ability to make one-way journeys uh by car share, which can encourage things like driving under the influence.

If you can drive to a nightlife destination and then Uber back, then that is way more likely to happen than someone driving their own vehicle there, Ubering back and then going to pick it up the next day.

Uh, that's much more costly as well.

Um the cost per space should be dynamic on a block by block basis relative to parking demand.

You know, if it's gonna be on King Street between the metro and the waterfront, obviously that makes sense for it to be as expensive as as it is.

Uh, but if it's on a you know, a block with very few houses, maybe there's a park across the street, probably makes sense for it.

We could make it a bit more affordable to kind of encourage more of these spaces throughout the city.

So the proposal uh at this time, we were you know, we're still working through the actual ordinance language, but uh and and working with our attorneys, but the proposal is to create a new chapter, so you code under Title IX in the licensing regulation title, um, to expand the and to expand where stationary car share can operate throughout the city.

Um, we're hoping for citywide, and um charging for those on-street spaces to be commensurate with parking demand rather than this fixed price that just has to do with the neighborhood at large.

Um, and aligning a free floating car share ordinance with those of Arlington and DC to provide that option as well.

Um again, that doesn't it doesn't um solidify that a company will come here and operate, but it provides that option.

And if they are aligned with Arlington and DC kind of reduces the barriers that people will be able to cross um jurisdictional boundaries and and and not have run into too many issues with their um and then also ensuring that that ordinance is consistent with the regulations for you know our micro mobility devices, scooters and e-bikes, uh taxi cabs, food trucks, so we can stipulate how and where these vehicles.

So some outcomes we're hoping to get from this again.

Here is just a little you know map I made of trying to uh improve accessibility for everybody in the in the region and um having you know clear regulations and licensing requirements to encourage companies, car share companies to operate here in Alexandria and provide those options for for residents, um creating more flexibility and fair fees relative to uh relative to demand to again encourage um cover more coverage citywide, um enabling those one-way car share trips with float free floating options and enabling free floating car share to easily cross boundaries in the Arlington DC as needed.

Um and so the timeline here is essentially we are working with our attorneys, like I said, through the beginning of September to um to solidify that that city code language, and then we'd bring this before you all on the 28th of September for your consideration.

Of course, if if it needs to be deferred, etc.

It can be deferred.

This is not uh especially urgent, and then we would bring it before city council for the actual vote, the final vote, sorry, um, in October, November, or you know, two months after you all uh approve what we've brought before you.

And yeah, just hoping to get some feedback and see how you all are feeling about that.

Requests from the traffic and parking or no.

Sorry, sorry.

If someone if a car share company is requesting dedicated space, does it come to traffic and parking or is it done in kind of flexible test?

Yes, so currently that is the case.

It it's still done um with a vote from you all, and we would continue to um have that same procedure because technically it's like a removal parking space for the public.

Regards to the free floating barch, like I'm not familiar with the understanding is just that they would be permitted under the reform to city code to be able to operate here, and the way that we're is you know, some of them would are just needed at any city space, or not city space, but you know, street parking space where they be otherwise permitted to park if they had a personal vehicle.

Exactly.

Yes.

So right now, free floating car share, so like free to move is not permitted in the city at all.

And yes, they would be able to, well, we could decide where they're able to park and not park.

You can um change up with geofencing, for example.

Um if I remember correctly, DC it's citywide, Arlington, it's specific parts of the county.

So you can geofence it so they can you can only park and pick up in certain areas.

Okay.

Sorry, a few questions.

I think the first is I want to make sure double check.

Is there a minimum uh dollar?

Are we gonna make sure that we're charging for all of these spaces, even though there's low demand in the area of the request?

Yes, yeah, yeah.

We definitely would would charge, of course.

Yeah.

Um, and my second question is with designated spaces like those, I could see an issue where some drivers parking would be freedom share cars and other car share programs outside of their space.

Would we have any mechanism to enforce or deal with that sort of uh non-compliance for the free for the free-floating car share?

Yes.

So yeah, again, those would not have designated spaces.

You can technically park it anywhere where that would be permitted by us.

Um, and yes, it would still be enforceable by parking enforcement if if they are parked incorrectly, and that would be dealt with between the vendor, like whoever pays, right, is dealt with between the vendor and the person who used the car and parked the car.

Uh I guess my understanding was we were looking at expanding those and providing a permitting process where they could select different locations to have their freedom or their car share program park, uh, we would designate a certain space or spaces for them, pay the whatever be from low to high, depending on the demand of the paragraph.

But that it sounds like that's not quite what's happening.

No, so sorry.

Um, I probably just went through it too fast.

So essentially, there's right now we currently allow stationary car share, that's like zip car.

And uh so for example, zip car currently pays us money every every year to use to have this designated space, right?

Um, on the street.

And they one side of this is formalizing that process and kind of tinkering with it to make it better and encourage more of that throughout the city so that people could have it in the West End, Del Ray, right?

Um the other side of this proposal is to first off allow free floating car share.

That's what we're proposing.

And free floating car share would have no designated spaces.

You could park anywhere in the city or you know, within these geo-fenced parts of the city, uh, depending on what we all come to decide upon.

Um that fee structure would be completely different.

They wouldn't pay for a designated space, you know, the same amount every year, they would be paying it in a different way based on number of vehicles, how many how much vehicles are being used, that sort of thing.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, yeah, they would not be free parking though.

Annie.

Yeah, yeah.

So I have a question for now.

What happens then when the car parks outside of the geofence?

Like, say when you create your old town and north of Dela Ray or whatnot, they and then like just somewhere outside of the zone, then what happens?

So it's it's like how scooters and e-bikes work today, where the your session won't be able to end if you're outside of a geofenced area.

And so you will get a notification.

It's like we see you left your car, we're still charging you, you know, ten dollars a minute or whatever.

You need to park, you know, one block further, whatever.

Yeah.

I just want to I think this is really interesting.

I'll be curious to see what you come back up in terms of like zones or citywide.

Um, because I just want to raise it, I think it's a huge equity issue for the West Even.

We have a lot of people who can't afford a car, can't to own a car, can't support to pay for a condo parking space, and as CPS redistricts, we've got now, etc.

School where there's a you know no public bus line to their stools.

So this is very exciting to see I think from an equity perspective.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

Yeah, the my personal proposal would be citywide for both, but I'm sure things will get a little down.

I guess question too, like in terms of when you come back with um a proposal, especially thinking about you know that proposal may be geoensing or thinking about like the sensitivities and and demand for existing street parking.

Um, is that outreach like are you to the point where you're figuring out what outreach looks like?

Is it like I think it's important that like civic associations be um engaged with but also like condo boards and other community groups because there's there's gonna be a lot of stakeholders that may be presented by civic association.

Um so I would just put in a plug for a robust uh no, that's a great point.

We're definitely gonna have to think through how we for I mean free floating is gonna have to be like a whole right citywide push, and then with the designated spaces, we'll have to definitely go probably door-to-door mailing notifications, yeah.

Yeah, Mark Hubson.

Uh you have any ideas right now about DC's supposed for your example, how they charge use fees for the free the free floating.

Yeah, I looked at it a long time ago.

Um, and I forget exactly how they charge.

Um, but it's it is it's a combination of usage and number of vehicles, kind of like how um we charge for our scooters and uh e-bike companies.

So we charge for for those, for example, we charge a permit fee, right?

That's very high.

And then depending on the number of vehicles they want to deploy in the city in that given year where they have that permit, it's also another fee that we charge the two combined is what they end up having to pay us, and it's pretty large sum.

Okay.

Uh any other questions.

Well, thank you for your questions and your feedback.

We'll move over, move on to the next one.

This is another city code update.

Um, much simpler and much less contentious, I imagine.

Um, but uh something that we don't often talk about here at the board is that you know our team also um administers the entire disability parking program for the city on public right-of-way.

Um and we have a very set procedure that's actually written in code for disability parking on residential streets, but not for um disability parking on commercial or institutional blocks, industrial blocks, that sort of thing.

So just keep that in mind.

This is just for residential streets.

So we have an existing code and ordinance um from 2001, or that was updated in 2001, and uh it remains unchanged since then.

So it's been 25 years.

Um, as you can imagine, a lot of those procedural steps are outdated.

Um they call for several requirements that place undue burden on applicants as well as city staff.

Um, you know, it takes us a lot of time.

Applicants often get very frustrated, they don't understand why it has to be a certain way.

Um and and also it's just outdated, just given how things have advanced over the last 25 years, um, and how ubiquitous you know, computers and sharing files via text and email has um how all that has changed.

And then on top of that, we currently any waivers to the application approval requirements require formal memo be written, review and then reviewed and signed by the city manager.

Um, so that also adds a lot of time and um stress for these applicants.

Um issues, you know, again, we get complaints from residents about the complex invasive procedure.

Um I mean really unhappy sometimes.

Um, so that's why we're really looking to make these updates, you know, is to help help these people who um have a hard time getting to our offices and filling out this paperwork.

Um, a lot of people don't have um access to some of the things that we're expecting them to have access to, et cetera, et cetera.

So um, yeah, they have limited mobility to furnish documents in person, it's complex paper and mail-based procedure, um, stipulated by code, which expends not only our time but also our our resources, mailing, all those things, etc.

Um it again requires the city manager to approve waivers, which prolongs the waiver process for residents and expends the city manager's time.

And um, and then and like I said earlier, we don't have a similar procedure for disability spaces on non-residential blocks, so that's something that we're also considering um either adding or just creating a procedure for that we will have you all um weigh in on.

Uh so part of the proposal is um hopefully working with other departments internally to obtain documentation so as to reduce the that burden on applicants.

Um so when they apply, that's obviously on them to do so.

But then every year we also require every single applicant um who is who has an active space to recertify right now.

We have 70 uh disability parking spaces in the city.

So every year they have to recertify every single one of those 70 spaces.

So if we could figure out a way to make this happen um and check in on that documentation internally, uh we could feasibly recertify these spaces every two years instead of every year, um given that you know the vehicle registration in Virginia lasts two years.

Um and then we would like to remove the requirement to mail letters of approval, denial, recertification, etc.

etc.

Right now that the city code requires that, and that again takes a lot of time, it's it costs a lot of money.

Um, and we now have the email addresses for 96% of those 70 people.

So obviously the four percent we would still be mailing to them, and that we we we do that anyway.

Um that's no problem, but if we can just email it at least, you know, like that we have a paper trail, etc.

It works out for everyone.

Um we would also be interested in delegating those waiver approvals down to the director of TNES instead of the city manager.

I think it just makes sense given the director's purview anyway, and um we would maybe propose a similar procedure for disability spaces on non-residential blocks.

Since right now, what we currently do is if we get a request from someone, which we got maybe two years ago from a hair salon, we brought it before the board and it was just a public hearing item.

Whereas if we had a procedure, we could do it without needing the board's um time.

And so hopefully with this update, we could have clear and user requirements for applicants, less frustration for them, uh, reduce city staff time spent on the administration of the program, uh, reducing the duration um of that the waiver approval process takes for those residents, reducing the cost of eliminating mailing, and um maybe even formalizing the disability uh space process for non-residential blocks, and again uh the timeline is the same uh for this one where we would be working with uh our attorneys over the next couple months.

We would bring that um ordinance before you all at your September 28th meeting, and then city council a month or two after that.

Any questions?

So I'm gonna first comment.

I I strongly support those.

Um I guess my question is um can we do more?

Because we have like a hundred thousand plus people in the city, and I know way more than seven are struggling with no building parking.

And I feel like the low numbers we're seeing here are an indication of we're way over formalizing this process.

So is there some way we could adapt from like V dot and their disability parking stickers or something like that?

So that they don't even have to submit a request, it can just be something that's sort of automating the thing on a V dot sticker or something similar from a virgin unit.

Yeah, that's a great that's a great point.

Yeah, it might not be like legally feasible, but I can definitely look into it.

I just want to echo that.

I mean, I think this is a great like our first pass initial pass of this, but I mean I think this is like an area where recommended needs locate from procedures and paperwork and stats that uh already go through to reduce their time and burden, but also to reduce um straight, you know, the amount of delivered city resources, whether it's staff and all it seems like a no-brainer, like the more that we can automate this for streamlining it to the point.

I think I would I would love for a like a fairly aggressive button uh recommended for those on here.

Yeah, great, thank you.

Any other comments, Eddie?

through to reduce seritime and burden but also to reduce um strain you know the amount of delivered city resources whether it's staff time seems like a no-brainer like the more that we can automate this for streamline it to date's point I think I would I would welcome a like a fairly aggressive uh recommended proposal here yeah great thank you any other comments Patty okay thanks sorry I know it's late everyone okay but um if I have two sheets of paper I mean you'll basically these be emailed to draft um that we have to submit uh the attendance report for the board and then the annual report um so you know if you notice any errors in the attendance report please let me know and then the annual report I notice I know there's an error in the dates for the goals um but I will just kind of highlight I tried to in the accomplishments highlight with the big big decisions you all made and then the goals I didn't make any changes those were the same goals we had last year but we could if you guys wanted to change or add any or I know it's late if you want you could email me with ideas and then I circulate them and we can make a decision.

And we should email just you directly you guys want to do that instead of having a little type of just email me by the end of it okay.

Anything else on that we have any commissioner updates the transportation commission doesn't mean those numbers there a motion to adjourn the meeting motion by Mark second second from Dane all in favor aye first meeting that thank you everyone here or is it both made