One thing we can all agree on is that this project is taking a long time. In 2017 when the grant was awarded, staff confidently told the Council that it would be completed in 3 to 4 years. It has already taken twice that long, and it is not even out to bid. It will take at least two or three more years to bid and build. The reason it has taken so long is primarily because we have a small staff with a lot of irons in the fire. The transportation staff keeps busy, and frankly they are probably working on projects that are higher priority. The city’s slow rollout turned out to have a silver lining because it took three years for citizens to get wind of the project. Once they did, they quickly realized that it was too destructive, without any minimal offsetting benefit, and that plans needed to be reconsidered. If Council had listened to the residents back in 2020 at the one and only public hearing and taken a serious second look at that time, we would likely have a different but viable project under construction today. So when the mayor and staff proclaim that any more delays would only “tie up the money for another two years, essentially” with “still no assurance with a project that can move forward” really the city has only itself to blame.
The good news is that with a new Council getting its bearings there is hope on the horizon for some common sense and transparency in the Snyder Trail deliberations. The work session on March 11, 2025, was the first time that all six Council members participated in an earnest discussion of the pros and cons of this project and displayed a steadfast, earnest and serious intention to do their best for the city. In contrast, the previous Council included three members who would simply not countenance any modifications to this project. So it is a big deal that we have a full bench of Council members who are open to discussing alternatives. At the same time, we have also learned that VDOT is also open to options. In fact, it has come to light that two years ago VDOT staff suggested some alternatives for the trail to staff that would be less destructive! Not only is VDOT willing to consider alternatives, but they also suggested some. This was not communicated to previous Council members.
At the March 11 work session, with support from his colleagues, Council member Peterson broke through the wall of resistance and was able to cobble together a path forward. Council member Hall stressed the need for more information and less fear mongering. She’s right, the threats have been like storm clouds gathering over this project during Read’s reign as mayor. Those clouds will dissipate once dialogue can begin in earnest with the entities involved. Either the so-called threats (e.g. damage to the city’s reputation, millions of dollars of indebtedness, angry “regional partners”, groups of activists ready to throw wrenches at every project) will be revealed to have little substance and can be put to rest or minimized.
Council members Peterson, Hall, McQuillen and Amos set the example -they asked questions and then asked follow ups, and we watched a real dialogue begin to take place.
The ultimate reason this project is collapsing is because there was not enough public engagement early on. Given that most of the community still doesn’t know about the project more than eight years later, it is pretty clear there has not been nearly enough public outreach. Mayor Read even noted that her neighbors had never heard of the Snyder Trail. And they live next door to the mayor! Part of the reason that public outreach was so limited is that staff knew that wider outreach would spark greater controversy. This is a community that has repeatedly voiced support for protecting our remaining woodlands. And maybe, deep down, staff knows it’s a bad idea to plow through intact habitats and stream buffers for a six minute bike ride. Yet the mayor and staff are still pushing a process that is basically, ‘you all decide what you want to do, and then we will inform the community’. But every single Council member asked for more information before committing to a course of action. The mayor and city manager instead pressed Council members to take a position. The mayor demanded, “Do you want a resolution to cancel it or a resolution to pursue half of it?” Council member Amos diplomatically pushed back, stating that a decision did not need to be made that night. To put it more bluntly, the Council needs time and information to provide the guidance to the staff so that appropriate options can be identified. Then the city needs to come to the community with options BEFORE Council makes any decisions on the project’s disposition.
This process has also resulted in some very good things:
We are making progress adding, improving and widening sidewalks and installing bike lanes throughout the city. We may find we can make Fairfax Boulevard safer for bicyclists and people sooner than later.
We have reinvigorated support for protecting natural spaces from bulldozers. We should proceed apace to protect these places from future errors of judgement.
We are learning about what good public engagement takes, and how important it is. And we are experiencing the truth behind the proverb, “If you want to run fast, run alone, if you want to run far, run together.”
Our new leadership is willing to speak frankly and to listen to citizens.
Overall, all of us can consider ourselves fortunate that this project has finally encountered a Council that will take it in hand and either mold it into something the community will support or fearlessly take the steps necessary to move on.
