To the Editor:

The overarching problem with FCDOT’s and VDOT’s proposal for Sherwood Hall Lane is that it is concerned exclusively with the imagined needs of bicycle riders of whom there are only a handful and with passing through commuters of whom there are already far too many. The residents of the neighborhoods stretching from Route 1 and Gum Springs to Ft. Hunt Road, which include Hybla Valley [Frances and Schelhorn], Sherwood Estates and Hollindale are being told to accept changes to the road that will only degrade the neighborhood further and, therefore, decrease property values. The first degradation occurred in the early ‘70s with the widening of Sherwood Hall Lane from a little two lane road to what we have now. We lost property and many fine trees but at least we got sidewalks [we do have walkers and runners] and on street parking.

We are still a neighborhood with needs associated with suburban living. The parking lanes are integral to that way of life. From the library east to Ft. Hunt Road on the south side of Sherwood Hall Lane there are 20-25 homes that have only a one car garage or no garage. They have limited driveway space. Most families have multiple drivers and multiple vehicles. Being able to park on the street is therefore a necessity. The elimination of on street parking will cause spillover parking onto side streets such as Evening Lane, encroaching on innocent neighbors. People still do have get-togethers of all types --Birthdays, Thanksgiving, Christmas among others. Where will the plumber and other repair men park? Where will the contractor, who is remodeling a bathroom or kitchen park? The Tree Company or Landscaper? Where will brush for collection be stacked?

The proposed bike lanes are unnecessary. The parking lanes, because of their ample width, provide sufficient room for bikers even if a full size SUV or Pick-up is at the curb. At a meeting several years ago with Supervisor Hyland, instigated by a biking enthusiast, it was agreed that the above was true and the idea of bike lanes was dropped.

FCDOT and VDOT maintain that eventually there will be bikers coming from Route 1. That strikes us as highly unlikely. Even if bike lanes are put along Route 1 when it is finally redone, that would be many years from now and who would want to ingest all the fumes.

We, of course, oppose the dedicated left turn lanes because 1) they cause the elimination of the parking lanes, 2) they will only entice more cut through commuters and thereby increase the already high volume of traffic and 3) they are unnecessary from Ft. Hunt Road to Parker’s Lane because that is not where the back-ups, because of left turns, occur.

Queenie Cox, Gum Springs representative, has brought to our attention the proposed transit center to be located at either Hybla Valley Center or the South County Government Center location. A copy of the Gum Springs Resolution coming before MVCCA, which we strongly support, is attached.

Concept #2 between Ft. Hunt and Kirkside: because this narrows the parking lane it will make it much harder to back out of driveways or nose out to merge into traffic. A narrower lane will barely accommodate full size vehicles. Opening the driver’s door to exit one’s vehicle will be less safe. But, most importantly, by far, it will be easy for VDOT/FCDOT to convert Sherwood Hall Lane to a true 4-lane road simply by eliminating the parking lane stripe. Then we would have 4, 11 foot lanes --our worst nightmare.

In conclusion:

This is a hasty, poorly researched concept rushed into being simply because of the re-paving of Sherwood Hall Lane. As Winston Churchill and later Rahm Emmanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” But there is no “crisis.” The road will have to be re-paved again in 10 years or so. By then, perhaps changes to Route 1 will be planned or in place and it will be clearer what is eventually needed for bikers.

If the present proposal is imposed on the neighborhood there will be no traffic “calming”, only congestion.

The impact on our community, outlined above, has not been considered.

More thought and study is imperative, taking all of the above into consideration, including specificity about locations of accidents, where drivers crossing the parking lines are being ticketed --how many and over what period of time (years). Also, counts, other than at 4 p.m., of cars using parking lanes.

Finally, the nail in the coffin of this harmful concept is that Charlie Strunk, FCDOT Bicycle Program coordinator, told the MVCCA Transportation Committee that, “The lack of bicycle-friendly bike paths on Fort Hunt Road is the number 1 complaint received from Mount Vernon citizens. Various problem spots were identified and will be monitored and promoted.” First things first! Fix Ft. Hunt Road first! We are already bike friendly. We want Sherwood Hall Lane between Ft. Hunt Road and Parker’s Lane to be re-striped as it is now.

When Cingular Wireless wanted to install a cell tower at the site of the Masonic Lodge located near Elkins Lane and Fort Hunt Road, residents of the surrounding neighborhood who lived the closest to the proposed site opposed the installation. Even though a larger population backed by the Fairfax County Planning Commission and the MVCCA wanted the tower, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors turned down Cingular’s application. Cingular appealed the decision before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia/Alexandria Division. That court upheld the Supervisors’ decision and when it went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 12, 2012, that court upheld it as well on March 19, 2012, on the grounds that the validity of a decision to deny a particular land use application turns on the quality of concerns about the proposal, not the quantity of objectors. “Given the proximity of those residents opposing the tower to the proposed site, the Fairfax Board acted reasonably in according significant weight to their concerns.” Among the arguments the neighbors made against the cell tower were 1) it would be aesthetically unappealing, 2) inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood, 3) would likely lead to declining property values in the area, 4) would disrupt the neighborhood and 5) a cell phone tower and its accompanying facilities do not belong in a residential community such as ours. The Court found those objections to be “eminently reasonable.”

The same concerns are equally applicable to the proposal to transform a two-lane road with parking areas on both sides into a road having a third lane down the middle for turning purposes, two bike lanes and elimination of street parking in numerous portions of the road. These proposed changes will adversely impact property values, are not commensurate with the residential character of the neighborhood and will not accomplish the goals of reducing vehicle speeds and enhancing safety. For all of these reasons, it is most appropriate to retain the current configuration of striping for Sherwood Hall Lane.

At the March 19 meeting of the Sherwood Estates Citizens’ Association and adjacent neighboring associations, the attendees voted 53 -1 to maintain the present striping configuration for all the reasons cited above.

Christopher Granger

President

Sherwood Estates Citizens’ Association