Memo #1
Introduction
Fairfax County should consider the following recommendations by focusing on costeffective measures in accordance with the Transportation Priorities Plan. The TPP is
implementing cost-benefit analysis to strategically assess the importance of increased
functionality on the Braddock Districts’ plan to improve transportation methods. A major
area of focus and consideration should be to expand the Fairfax Bicycle Paths. This is
both a change to bicycle laws and pathways for more safe and efficient riding. The
aspects of law will increase safety for riders and improve road functionality for all forms
of transportation. The increase in pathways will complement these laws and increase
bike-friendly paths adding over 1,000 miles to the existing 350.1 This includes a Bicycle
Network map with improved bicycle lanes, pedestrian bridges, trail accesses, and much
more. These solutions all currently fit within annual budgets but with an increase,
projects could conclude sooner to close the Bicycle Network.
Background
The Northern Virginia area has had a steady growth in its population. These programs
in transportation will increase the functionality of travel in a dense district of Virginia.
The Bicycle Network will be complementary to other features within the Transportation
Priorities Plan. This includes improved public transit from both Fairfax connector and
WMATA, green incentives for electric vehicles, road improvements, and finally our
bikeway program. The goal of such planning is to find complimentary ways to use land
as needed, improve on existing features, and continue to promote efficiency in
transportation.
Policy Options
● Strategic road improvements will open safer road standards. This includes
widening bike path roads from 3-4 feet to VDOT stands of 5 Feet. These widths
can vary pending speed limits up to 10 feet.2
● Improved pavement markings for increased awareness for drivers and riders
alike. This includes both signs at visible points and road markings by color
pathways. Reduction of speed limits in dense Bike Paths, as needed per VDOT.
● Efficient laws that give hybrids laws for riders to follow that increase time and
safety. Yields at intersections, right of path in right lanes, decreased crosswalk
services.3
1 Fairfax County Bicycle Master Plan. 2014, www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation.
2
“Virginia Department of Transportation State Bicycle Plan.” VDOT Bicycle Policy Plan, 2011,
www.virginiadot.org/programs/resources/VDOT_Bicycle_Policy_Plan.pdf.
3 BicyclingBy Wyatt Gordon (Virginia Mercury ) January 25, 2021 22. “This New Bill Could Make Streets Safer for Cyclists in
Virginia.” Greater Greater Washington, 25 Jan. 2021, ggwash.org/view/80201/this-new-bill-could-make-streets-safer-for-cyclists-invirginia.
● Improved off-road and on-road access points. Strategy for improved sidewalk
usage in areas where ridership is highest.
● Flexibility on facility implementation and improved pathway innovations in smallscale uses. Such as street parking removal when parking capacity is higher than
parking needs for vehicles.
● Collaborative efforts should be made with specialist that envision efforts for zero
fatalities in transportation. Innovative efforts in both policy and infrastructure must
be adapted to achieve this goal.4
Pros and Cons
● Funding this Bicycle Network can be a major hurdle if specialized approaches
are not taken. Federal, state, and other safety or environmental funds exist and
should be exercised.
● A major win for the Bike Network is its well-rounded aim at environmental aid to
reduce carbon emissions. Increase human health, increase economic savings
both to state government, local government, and riders alike. 5
● Creating incentives for users to switch from car to bicycle can be a challenge.
Concerns over bicycling annual deaths and increased focus on handsfree laws
may deter riders in the short term.
● Increase in the Bicycle Network, along with removal of street parking, will cut
costs on routine maintenance of areas. These funds could relocate temporarily to
conversion of bicycle stations or bicycle path improvements.
● In densely populated area improved infrastructure aids in improved quality of life
in forms of less air pollution, noise pollution, and expenditures related to
increased transportations.6
Recommendations
● Prioritize the Bicycle Network, this program is the most cost-effective and timefriendly program. This gives a fast impact on removing traffic density and
increasing environmental awareness.
● Focus on dense areas of consumerism, areas like the Mosaic, Old Town Fairfax
have tremendous opportunities to scale bicycle initiatives. Removing street
parking and curbside parking in place of bicycle friendly stations will increase the
walkability of a centralized property for walkers and riders.
● Collaborations should be had with VDOT on standardizing lane markings, sizes,
reduction of street parking, along with other measures to incentivize bikeways
● Less red tape for future adjustments need to incorporate new innovative
techniques to policy and infrastructure.
4
“Resource Library.” Vision Zero Network, visionzeronetwork.org/resources/.
5 Pucher, John, and Ralph Buehler. “Safer Cycling Through Improved Infrastructure.” American Journal of Public Health, American
Public Health Association, Dec. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5105030/.
.
6 A. Bauman, M. Crane, et al. “The Cost-Effectiveness of Bike Share Expansion to Low-Income Communities in New York City.”
Journal of Urban Health, Springer US, 1 Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-018-0323-x.
References
A. Bauman, M. Crane, et al. “The Cost-Effectiveness of Bike Share Expansion to LowIncome Communities in New York City.” Journal of Urban Health, Springer US, 1
Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-018-0323-x.
BicyclingBy Wyatt Gordon (Virginia Mercury ) January 25, 2021 22. “This New Bill Could
Make Streets Safer for Cyclists in Virginia.” Greater Greater Washington, 25 Jan.
2021, ggwash.org/view/80201/this-new-bill-could-make-streets-safer-for-cyclistsin-virginia.
Fairfax County Bicycle Master Plan. 2014, www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation.
Pucher, John, and Ralph Buehler. “Safer Cycling Through Improved Infrastructure.”
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, Dec.
2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5105030/.
“Resource Library.” Vision Zero Network, visionzeronetwork.org/resources/.
“Virginia Department of Transportation State Bicycle Plan.” VDOT Bicycle Policy Plan,
2011, www.virginiadot.org/programs/resources/VDOT_Bicycle_Policy_Plan.pdf.
Memo #2
Issue Summary
The Fairfax County government should promote economically and environmentally sustainable
transportation through the development and maintenance of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure.
The EV industry in the United States is currently at a deadlock: consumers will not purchase EVs
due to a lack of charging infrastructure, and private companies will not install charging
infrastructure due to a lack of demand. Government-sponsored EV infrastructure development
will break this deadlock, and provide momentum for the environmentally sustainable practice of
EVs.
Background
72.7% of commuters in Fairfax County use a personal vehicle as their primary transportation
method1
; policy affecting the environmental sustainability of personal vehicles will be the most
efficient in seeing tangible and positive change. In the Northern Virginia area, an internal
combustion engine vehicle (ICE) emits 13,043 pounds of CO2 per year whilst an EV emits 7,167
pounds of CO2 per year. Additionally, EVs are more cost-efficient after six years than traditional
gasoline vehicles2
.
However, consumers are hesitant to purchase EVs for three main reasons3
:
The upfront cost of EVs
The limited range of EVs
The lack of local charging stations
The issue of EV’s expensive upfront cost is addressed through current federal tax credit policies4
,
however, the other two issues are not adequately addressed. Modern-day EVs have a comparable
range to small ICEs5
, but the lack of EV charging infrastructure means that consumers are not
able to reliably travel long distances. The lack of charging stations also means that consumers
worry over their ability to conveniently recharge EVs. The Fairfax County government can
address this issue directly by sponsoring the installation of new charging stations throughout its
district. This will create a positive shift in public opinion of EVs, which will not only combat
carbon emissions but also put Fairfax County at the forefront of EV infrastructure in the U.S.
5 evadoption.com/statistics-of-the-week-comparing-vehicle-ranges-for-gas-bevs-and-phevs/
4 www.irs.gov/businesses/plug-in-electric-vehicle-credit-irc-30-and-irc-30d
3 www.autolist.com/news-and-analysis/survey-electric-vehicles
2 www.fairfaxcounty.gov/soil-water-conservation/here-comes-electric-car
1 www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demographics/commuting-patterns
Policy Options
EV charging policy and installation programs in other countries can serve as different
models for policy implementation within Fairfax County.
In the first half of 2020, the U.K. Department of Transport is mandating that every new
home with a dedicated parking space will be required to install an EV charger with a
minimum power output of 7 kilowatts6
.
In November 2019, Bristol U.K.’s council-owned public EV charging network Revive
launched the region’s first EV charging hub. The hub features Level 3 (described as
“rapid-charge”) charging connections7
.
In November 2013, the City of Charlottesville created the EV Charger Mini-Grant
Program to support the development of EV charging stations located near commercial
and retail activities. The cost of the equipment and installation is shared between the
mini-grant program and private property owners who wish to host a public-use EV
charging station8
.
Pros and Cons
EV owners will find that charging stations located in locations such as gas stations will
not be convenient; the time it takes an EV to charge to full is much longer than the short
time it takes ICEs to refill their tanks. A level 2 charger will add 15 to 40 miles of range
per hour of charging, while a level 3 charger will add 120 to 150 miles of range per hour
of charging9
. Expecting EV consumers to wait at gas stations for hours is unrealistic.
Tax rebates and incentives for the purchase of EVs require less research and effort than
the installation of EV charging stations. However, this does not address the full concerns
consumers have when it comes to purchasing EVs.
It is more expensive for Fairfax county to directly install EV charging stations than to
incentivize them through government grant programs. However, while both encourage
the development of charging stations, there is a higher level of control of the scale EV
charging stations are developed when it is done by the government.
Locations that consumers park their cars at for extended periods of time serve as good
candidates for EV charging stations. Examples of these would be office complexes and
shopping centers.
Making charging stations publicly accessible ensures that individuals unable to install
chargers themselves at home are still able to fully and conveniently make the decision to
use EVs.
9 clippercreek.com/level-1-level-2-charging-stations/
8 www.charlottesville.gov/765/EV-Charger-Mini-Grant
7 news.bristol.gov.uk/news/new-and-improved-electric-vehicle-charging-network-launches
6 www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/uk-proposes-world-first-ev-charger-mandate-for-new-homes
-and-offices
Recommendations
The government should implement a grant program to incentivize installing public EV
charging stations, especially in areas with high levels of consumer traffic.
The policy should aim for charging stations to be fairly evenly distributed throughout the
district.
A commission should be created to manage and install charging stations at government
office complexes should there be unused grant money.
A commission should be created for the regular inspection and maintenance of EV
charging stations.
Memo #3
Issue summary
The Braddock district should fund Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in strategic places using modeling framework to support the transition to a net-zero carbon emissions nation. There are many economical barriers that prevent the public to switch to EV, but limited availability of charging stations is the number one.[1] There are federal and state rebate programs that incentivize businesses and individuals to build charging infrastructures. However, these approaches have a better response in the long run. By funding charging stations in strategic places in the Braddock district, using modeling framework, the more efficient and faster the transition to net-zero carbon emissions the U.S. will be.
Background
In the United States, the top carbon emitter is the transportation sector, producing around 30% of the total carbon produced.[2] According to the U.S. president, Joe Biden, our nation will be carbon neutral by 2050. Therefore, transitioning to a more efficient and much smaller carbon footprint energy is a key step to accomplish this nationwide plan. EV are proven to be more energy efficient and reduce 20% to 30% of CO2 emissions even when the electricity does not come from a renewable source.[3]However, EV have higher up-front costs that prevent consumers from buying them. The U.S. government has different programs to subsidize a percentage of the total price and provide with tax credits to EV car owners. The federal government has in place different incentives for individuals to build charging stations, such as a tax credit for a ChargePoint Home Electric Vehicle of 30% plus installation costs.[4] In addition, Dominion Energy Virginia has a Pilot Program for businesses that are interested in building charging stations that was launched in November of last year.[5] Nevertheless, these programs have a limited capacity and do not seem to be cost efficient.[6]A policy alternative is to fund charging stations that provide full accessibility to EV owners in the Braddock district. The construction of charging stations should be prioritized because not only decreases the fuel price, but also decreases the “range anxiety” which is why many consumers decide not to switch to EV.
Policy Options
The optimal use of charging stations can be predicted through a nonlinear, non-convex mathematical program, and algorithms in the Braddock district.[7]
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of a Level 1 type station with a single port ranges from $300-$1,500. A Level 2 type costs between $400-$6,500 and the DCFC type, which is the most time efficient, costs between $10,000 and $40,000. However, these prices do not include installation prices, which depends on charging type station and site.[8]
The time frame would depend on how much funding does the program acquire and how many charging stations are going to be built. In contrast, other EV federal tax credits have up to two years of duration and can be extended one more year.[9]
Pros and cons
Changing a federal law that provides funding is extremely difficult and would need Congress approval. However, many other approaches can be taken, such as local funding or partnerships with businesses that do not involve as much as bureaucracy as changing a federal law. In addition, requesting a loan from the U.S. Department of energy can be another option to fund this program.
Fuel price for EV will be less variable compared to fluctuating gasoline prices due to that the government can fix it. This will reduce the U.S. dependency on imported petroleum.
Studies suggest that the construction of charging stations would be more cost efficient than federal rebate programs. In addition, tested scenarios suggest that even when federal rebate programs increase their subsidy by 35%, they do not have meaningful increase in results due to that the fuel price plays a key role in buying EV. [10]
Recommendations
The Braddock district should develop a charging stations plan using mathematical models to predict consumer’s behavior to reduce fuel price.
The Braddock district can identify these strategic points and propose the construction of charging stations to small local businesses and residential houses.
The district should also consider partnering with businesses that have charging infrastructure programs in place to reduce the total cost.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928765511000200
[2] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100ZK4P.PDF?Dockey=P100ZK4P.PDF
[3] U.S. Department of Energy, “Alternative Fuels Data Center.”
[4] https://www.chargepoint.com/incentives/commercial/?type=14&state=58
[5] https://cdn-dominionenergy-prd-001.azureedge.net/-/media/pdfs/virginia/save-energy/scip-faqs.pdf?la=en&rev=bf56c5684f704641882ab06c2cafde48&hash=8E5D697364C2641B4AAAA22FA31076C9
[6] https://www-sciencedirect-com.mutex.gmu.edu/science/article/pii/S0191261515002726#bib0030
[7] ibid
[8]https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20a%20single,51%2C000%20for%20DC%20fast%20charging.
[9]https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/Guide%20to%20Federal%20Funding%20and%20Financing%20for%20PEVs%20and%20PEV%20Charging.pdf
[10] https://www-sciencedirect-com.mutex.gmu.edu/science/article/pii/S0191261515002726