Planning Commission defers decision on Gallows Road project
Following an Oct. 7 hearing on a rezoning proposal to allow a housing development on Gallows Road, the Fairfax County Planning Commission voted to defer a final decision to Oct. 14.
The developer, Madison Home, wants to demolish 11 homes across from Woodburn Elementary School and replace them with 32 single-family homes. The Board of Supervisors approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment on Aug. 25 to facilitate the development.
The main issue for the Planning Commissioners and community members is traffic and pedestrian safety on Gallows Road. Many drivers ignore the flashing yellow beacon at the crosswalk in front of the school, and there have been numerous near misses in that location.
Mason District Planning Commissioner Alis Wang made the motion to defer a decision because she said the developer should pay for at least part of the cost for two proposed traffic signals.
Related story: Community groups urge the county to fix Gallows Road traffic issues before approving new housing
The Fairfax County Department of Transportation’s Gallows Road Study, which is expected to be completed by the end of the year, recommends two paired, three-way traffic signals at Aston Street and Hemlock Drive. The signals would be synchronized under one controller.
Most of the funding for the signals would come from FCDOT, but VDOT might contribute as well. It’s not known when funding will be available.
Land use attorney Kathy Taylor, representing Madison Homes, said the developer has not proposed a proffer to cover the cost of the signals because the developer has already agreed to other proffers related to traffic, including a bus shelter and the elimination of several driveways on Gallows.
Also, she said, the traffic signals won’t bring a major benefit to the residents of the new homes.
Gallows Road currently has an average of 25,000 daily trips, said a representative from FCDOT. The new development would only add about 330 trips a day.
Some contribution toward the cost of the traffic signals “would be a good faith effort to respond to neighborhood concerns,’’ said Planning Commission Chair Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner. “It would be a catalyst for addressing a long-term problem.”
“This application is consistent with the Gallows Road study,” Taylor said. “If something comes out of that study, we have proffers that allow us to be flexible.” The developer is willing to contribute to a fourth traffic signal if recommended by FCDOT and VDOT.
To allow a new access point from a proposed private road in the development between Wheatwheel Lane and Hemlock Drive, VDOT would have to approve a traffic management exception, as it would be too close to an existing intersection.
An FCDOT representative explained how the two new signals would work:
- When both lights on Gallows are green in both directions, the lights on Hemlock Drive and Aston Street to Gallows will be red.
- When the lights from Hemlock are green, all the others will be red.
- When the lights on Aston are green, all the others will be red.
If there is another light from a proposed interior road in the housing development to Gallows Road, the pairing won’t work, so the interior road won’t be connected to Gallows Road. (See the yellow star on the map.)
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hold a hearing on the rezoning proposal on Oct. 27.
Developer should pay for traffic lights
Developer is adding a little over 1% more traffic to Gallows Rd. with their additional residences, yet are expected to fund two 3-way lights downstream from their development? Is that equitable? How about the County request contributions in the form of special assessments from the Holmes Run Acres, Holmes Run Woods, Gallows Estates, Holmes Run Heights and other off-Gallows neighborhoods for the two signals – after all, they’re the ones that will benefit FAR more from these two lights than the new development will.
That 1% number does not reflect reality. All of the added traffic would be turns onto and off of Gallows. As a 4-lane road with poor sightlines and excessive speed this is much more dangerous than the numbers suggest. Even if the signal is not at the entrance to these homes, the synchronized gating afforded by the signal would allow the new residents much easier and safer access.
Why can’t the intersection at the yellow star be the entrance and exit point for the subdivision and straighten up the road to align with Hemlock? This would avoid the need for another light, other than the proposed 2.
This. Close off the western Private St. entrance to Gallows and make the southern entrance the only development access. It would remove the cost of, and timing complexity associated with, the dual 3-way signal at both Aston and Hemlock; it would remove the need for the VDOT exception at the (current) western Private Street intersection; and the developer would directly benefit from the signal they are requested to fund. The beacon and crosswalk currently at Aston could go away as all peds and school kids could use the new 4-way signal to cross Gallows.
It sounds like the dual-signal solution has been embraced as gospel by FCDOT under the Gallows Road Study, so there would likely be some pushback to your idea, unfortunately.
This is a red herring. A traffic light? This is a band aide on gash. Gallows Rd is a dangerous and under serving roadway (or highway if you check the drivers’ speeds). Elected officials should spend a weekday morning and evening observing the cars, school buses, trash trucks, bikes, [now] scooters, and pedestrians all using the same constrained and congested roadway. If this development moves forward with no consideration of substantial improvements shame on the approval authorities.
Genchi genbutsu
The supervisors will never spend a morning observing as you suggest, but they should, and this type of issue is exactly what we pay them to solve. We don’t need pikes, covid memorials and art. We need our kids to be alive.
You know who could pay for traffic lights? Andres Jimenez. If he has enough money and time to buy a brand new Porsche, he should be able to improve this deadly school crosswalk.
The county should indeed pay for the lion’s share. The existing homes have a combined annual property tax of around $80k. The new homes would have a combined annual property tax of around $780k. The net increase in tax income alone in 2 years is more than enough to fund the signal.
I don’t know about you guys, but I personally wouldn’t want to live next to the most dangerous crosswalk in my district, especially knowing that the developer doesn’t care to fix it.
This is extortion of the developer. The traffic light needs existed before the development was approved and the approval of the development does not trip the decision one way or another. FFX County needs to stop extorting our developers, which is part of why the cost of housing is so high. FFX Co should bite the bullet and pay for the lights.
Oh, the poor, down-trodden developers–so unfortunate. Will someone please help lift them out of the trenches? How my heart aches for their misfortunes!
The county is only interested in Income generation. I have pointed out many times that the suggested packing of 32 homes on this site does not work out when you deduct the 31% open space –quoted by Rosenberg. into the equation. This is ignored by the planning dept.