The current Fairfax City Council, like those that came before it, is trying to thread the needle on a planned trail that’s proving contentious.
One year after the Fairfax City Council failed to find a consensus on alternatives for the long-planned completion of the George Snyder Trail, mostly new council members remained similarly divided at a March 11 work session, with most leaning against the project.
The proposed trail segment would run along the south side of Accotink Creek for about 1.8 miles from Chain Bridge Road (Route 123) to Fairfax Blvd (Route 50), connecting the current George Snyder Trail to the I-66 shared-use path.
But the project has generated considerable controversy, particularly from environmentalists who have said it would eliminate hundreds of trees and negatively impact the area’s woodlands.
At the work session earlier this month, city staff presented city council members with basically three options for the trail:
- Continue with the project as proposed
- Cancel the project
- Construct the west half as designed, but leave the east half in natural/current conditions
The unique wrinkle to this project is that it received $17 million in funding from I-66 Express Mobility Partners, which operates the I-66 Express Lanes outside the Capital Beltway and agreed in 2017 to contribute over $500 million toward local transportation projects in the corridor.
Some of the concessionaire funding for the George Snyder Trail has already been spent and might have to be repaid if the project is canceled.
However, if the city decides to advance the project as is, despite the environmental backlash, additional funding may be required, according to the staff report. The project is estimated to cost $20 million and $20.6 million in funding is available, but with a construction contract not awarded yet, the city may incur additional costs.
Option 2 would require the city to repay some or all of the $3.7 million spent to date from the general fund, and unused funding would be returned and can’t be used on a different city project.
Staff warned that canceling the project “will impact the City’s reputation/ability to receive future awards” and may affect its ability to proceed with the trail extension in the future.
The third option suggested by the Virginia Department of Transportation seeks to balance both interests: use the I-66 funding to construct the west half of the trail — 0.8 miles of the 1.78 mile total — while removing the eastern, more forested half. The new route would connect to Fair Woods Parkway at the east end.
This option would preserve over half the impacted trees and create less disturbance to the forest. Per city staff, it would reduce the overall project cost from $20 million to $12 million. VDOT said the city likely wouldn’t need to repay the $3.7 million already spent, but that isn’t certain.
Revising the scope, though, would require staff to draw up new plans, adding approximately a year to the time frame needed for the already prolonged project to receive authorization for a construction bid.
Overall, some on council members seemed to favor the third option, but opinions in general remained bitterly divided.
The council has only one incumbent member, along with Mayor Catherine Read, who said she views her reelection in November as a mandate to move forward with the trail project.
“Voters had the opportunity to elect a candidate to kill this trail or to reelect me, knowing I support this trail,” Read said. “So, if the city truly doesn’t want this trail, they elected the wrong mayor.”
Read said canceling the project will reflect poorly on the City of Fairfax and will hurt its reputation.
“When funding is given to a jurisdiction, it’s because we made a commitment to build a project that benefits not only our city but our region,” she said. “We made a commitment, and if we vote to cancel this trail, this city has reneged on a commitment it made to the [Northern Virginia Transportation Commission] and VDOT … I want to make it clear where I stand as mayor of a city and how seriously I take the commitments our city makes to the rest of the region when we take money.”
Read was joined by Councilmember Stacey Hardy-Chandler, who is in her first term.
“I believe cancellation of this … would be irresponsible for setting this type of precedent for multi-year projects,” Hardy-Chandler said. “From a policy perspective, I think it’s a disturbing precedent to cancel a project that has had this history.”
While many on the council didn’t share Read and Hardy-Chandler’s support for the project, they still expressed frustration and disappointment at the bitterness of the public discourse.
“I’m disappointed in the community discussion and attitude in the arguments,” Councilmember Anthony Amos said.
Amos said he was undecided, but others were either firmly against the project or advocated for the third option.
“I’m not against trails; I’m against roads in the woods, which is what I personally feel like this is,” said Councilmember Stacey Hardy-Chandler. “I do not support a full build at all.”
“It’s clear based on testimonials and the data by local naturalists, environmentalists and our city’s own stormwater specialist that the east side cannot support this project environmentally,” Councilmember Rachel McQuillen said.
Read called some of the opposition to the project “conjecture” and “fear-mongering.”
Amos asked staff if the council could have more time to consider the plan and save it for a future meeting. Staff said the deadline for advertising a construction bid is in May and warned that city staff has to proceed on its current course, unless the council takes formal action to cancel or alter the project.
City Manager Bryan Foster advised the council to take an official stance before May 28 to keep current advertisement authorization alive.
“You need to take official action to tell us to do something contrary to the existing official action,” Foster said. “We’re not going out tomorrow to advertise. We have until May 28, but until you decide to tell us to do something different officially, that is still the path we are obligated to do.”
“So we don’t need to make that call tonight,” Amos said, “but we need to make it soon.”
As of press time, the city council hasn’t added the trail project to its list of future agenda items.
