Comments on What happens if Loudoun drops out of Metro? - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:40:41 EDT

"Re Route 7. Yes, there is a reference to Route 7 in Table 7. It must be improved by 2030"

is table 7 a list of every project that must happen in the county by 2030. No. its a list of whats needed to accommodate certain level of development in Tysons. If its not incremental to the Tysons redevelopment, it does not belong on table 7. Otherwise table 7 is misleading in terms of looking at the costs of Tysons redevelopment.

As for phase 1 vs phase 2, I certainly assume that more capacity will be allocated to the silver line when Tysons is five years further down the redevelopment process. Im not sure why that is difficult to understand. Where that will come from I don't know. My understanding is that it will involve the additional orange line trains added under rush plus, which are serving as placeholders for the silver line.

as for transit on rte 7, i have little to say about that. From what I know of the corridor it has little walkability - most users will necessarilly be commuters. But only ones from significantly closer to rte 7 than to the silver line stations. And I dont expect many from the Great Falls side of rte 7. So a few folks from north reston, mainly. Frankly its a sop to transit - especially since it will come BEFORE more needed transitways, such as on 123 to Vienna, to Falls Church, and down Gallows road - those are back loaded, while this project is front loaded.

Frankly this has not raised by esteem for Sharon Bulova.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:21:37 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

Phase 1 versus Phase 2. That doesn't make any sense. There are 27 train slots for the Potomac River Tunnel. Now 10 belong to the Blue Line, leaving 17 for the Orange Line. The 17 will need to be split between the Orange Line and the Silver Line. Let's say for sake of the argument the Silver Line gets 7 slots when Phase 1 opens. That will carry over to Phase 2 unless the Orange Line loses slots again when Phase 2 opens. Moreover, I think there would hell to pay from some Fairfax Supervisors and legislators if they knew the Orange Line was going to lose even more capacity. The best government decisions are made when all the facts are on the table. Why don't you want decision-makers and the public to know the capacity of the Silver Line?

Fairfax has multiple re-zoning applications for Tysons pending and is planning for Reston. If WMATA was giving the Silver Line 10 slots, the County would make different decisions (more density) than if WMATA were giving the Silver Line 5 slots (less density). Doesn't that make sense? Similarly, I strongly suspect the Loudoun BoS would approve Phase 2 if the Silver Line were getting 10 slots and probably oppose it if WMATA was giving just 5. Both counties should know WMATA's plans - even if subject to change.

Re Route 7. Yes, there is a reference to Route 7 in Table 7. It must be improved by 2030. But it was also in the 1994 Plan. Why? Because of traffic volumes on Route 7. Source: Dan Alcorn, chair, Tysons Task Force (1990s). However, there was community opposition to widening the road, such that the Supervisors opposed John Foust's 2007 motion to support widening. Foust lost 9-1. Source: John Foust, Dranesville Supervisor.

Then came the battle over VDOT's plan to convert the left turn lane from Route 7 to Georgetown Pike into two left turn lanes. VDOT's goal was safety on Route 7 as the single left turn lane backed up the left travel lane eastbound. The Great Falls Citizens Association, later joined by the McLean Citizens Association, opposed VDOT's two left turn lanes proposal. This caused "everyone" to look at alternatives, which quickly turned into a longer left turn lane with physical separation from the east-bound travel lanes, along with widening Route 7. Source: personal involvement.

Janet Howell, Barbara Comstock, and John Foust quickly supported the widening effort. They receive support from Sharon Bulova and Frank Wolf. The BoS reversed its anti vote, and VDOT put the project back on its active project list. Source: Foust & personal involvement

Howell and Comstock got $50 M in planning money for the widening. New VDOT NoVA Region chief Garrett Moore formed an informal advisory committee of representatives from Reston, McLean, Great Falls, Vienna, Loudoun County, and the Tysons Partnership to work on planning issues, including transit options. The group meets monthly.

Source: Garrett Moore & personal involvement.

Route 7 will be widened. The best thing to do now is suggest ways that transit can be worked into the plan.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:52:47 EDT

"Absolutely not, IMO. Both Loudoun and Fairfax Counties are making important decisions soon that depend on the Silver Line's capacity. We need WMATA's best estimate now, with the recognition things might change. I submit both counties might make different decisions if there are only 5 Silver Line trains per hour than if there were 10. Indeed, Chairman Bulova told the Fairfax Federation that she is concerned that she doesn't know the Silver Line's capacity yet."

The capacity is different than the decision about how much capacity will be allocated to the orange line, and how much to the silver line, at the date phase 1 opens. the latter does not impact Loudouns decision, which depend on the allocation when Phase 2 is completed. Fairfax will presumably have decisions throughout.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:49:22 EDT

"Route 7 needs widening and has for years. The 1994 Tysons Comp Plan assumed widening."

"ost, if not all, supporters would add that Route 7 should be widened west of Tysons even if Tysons were not being redeveloped."

why is it in table 7 section ii, which is states that its projects to accommodate 60 million sq ft of development?

Comment by tmtfairfax

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:17:13 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

"Many here think the current commonwealth admin, and VDOT in general, have a bias against transit." And likewise, it seems to me that you have a bias for transit. We all have some level of bias. Mine is to to act conservatively on density that depends on transit. I think that bias is held by most members of the Planning Commission and the BoS. Also, FC DOT has on a number of occasions indicated that transit results may or may not be as good as they estimated in the TIA. When making decisions on density, it's better to be conservative on transit and then, if we get better results than projected, make additional allowances on density than to grant more density now on transit hopes only to find out results are not as good. We cannot take away density easily.

"Rush plus just began less than 2 weeks ago. Don't you think its wise for them to review the results before committing to an operating plan for the silver line?"

Absolutely not, IMO. Both Loudoun and Fairfax Counties are making important decisions soon that depend on the Silver Line's capacity. We need WMATA's best estimate now, with the recognition things might change. I submit both counties might make different decisions if there are only 5 Silver Line trains per hour than if there were 10. Indeed, Chairman Bulova told the Fairfax Federation that she is concerned that she doesn't know the Silver Line's capacity yet.

Route 7 needs widening and has for years. The 1994 Tysons Comp Plan assumed widening. Widening is supported by VDOT, FC DOT, nine Fairfax Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the Tysons Partnership, the Great Falls Citizens Association, the Reston Citizens Association, the town of Vienna, the McLean Citizens Association, several local chambers of commerce, and various legislators. There is no organized opposition. If half of these groups felt differently, I might bet on your argument prevailing.

Most, if not all, supporters would add that Route 7 should be widened west of Tysons even if Tysons were not being redeveloped. Having a four lane road connected with eight lanes on one end and six lanes on the other end doesn't make sense. Foust says there are 65,000 vehicles on Route 7 west of Tysons every day. It needs six lanes - and did 10 years ago.

I agree with you that a widened Route 7 takes traffic off the DTR. But it also directs more traffic to and from Tysons. The biggest complaint of McLean, Vienna and Great Falls residents is cut through traffic. The engineers believe a wider Route 7 will keep more traffic on it.

Comment by Capt. Hilts

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:37:16 EDT

This dicussion has blood coming out of my ears at this point.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:28:32 EDT

" VDOT and DRPT comments on Fairfax County's 527 TIA suggested the County's transit projections were optimistic."

Many here think the current commonwealth admin, and VDOT in general, have a bias against transit.

" I'd sure like WMATA to release the number of train slots the Silver Line will have when it begins."

Rush plus just began less than 2 weeks ago. Dont you think its wise for them to review the results before commiting to an operating plan for the silver line?

I would think empiricism would lead one to make plans based on actual results - you seem to want WMATA to rush to its operating plan before analyzing the results of Rush+, and you seem to want to commit to the rte 7 widening without looking at how the silver line actually works after it opens.

Whats the rush? Do you want the rte 7 superhighway to move towards implementation within the next 18 months?

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:23:11 EDT

@TMT

If I had a particular political strategy in mind, why would I share it with my adversary on this issue? I am not going to give up because of your statements about FFX cty politics, even if you are on a first name basis with all the decision makers.

I will look at the rte 7 plan. If it only adds transit lanes and no net SOV lanes, that would be different. Thats not what it sounds like.

If we add widen rte 7 into a superhighway unnecessarily, then the extra capacity on rte 7 diverts traffic from DTR, undermining the funding for the Silver line, and also making auto a more attractive option, actually lessening the transit mode share, and by bring more autos into Tysons (relative to any given level of redevelopment) lessening the transformation of Tysons. That is the risk. Plus of course $300 million that could have been spent on many other transport needs.

IF the widening IS needed, than we we simply go ahead and do it - but wait till AFTER the need has been established.

As for replacing Bulova, etc, afaict we won't be close to needing this until the individuals you named have gone into retirement. At that point we will know more not only about the silver line ridership, but about many other things - how much improved MPG will offset rising gas prices (the current eurocrisis induced drop wont last), how rapidly global warming will develop, how far the millenial cultural shift will go, etc, etc. Considering all those as factors may sound ideological, but I think they matter.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:00:47 EDT

@Jasper: They do every time when engaging in long-term agreements. Or do you think the next legislature can get out of the HOT-lanes contract?

The government NEVER cedes its sovereignty.

Not familiar with the details of these contracts, BUT: the normal government contract is for a one year period, to be renewed at the government's option. If it is the best interest of the government, it may decide to not renew a contract. It will certainly do this in the case of fraud. If no such reason exists, the government may still not renew a contract at its option and pay a severance fee that may have been negotiated in the contract.

The reason for the short term contract is that Congress never authorizes money for more than a few years, and always reserves the right to terminate any funding.

So yes, if the government sees the need, it has the power to get out of any long term contract.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:27:21 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

Who is going to turn the Route 7 project around? Who has credibility with the the Planning Commission, BoS, legislators, VDOT? And based on what? It sure isn't the Coalition for Smart Growth. They were politely listened to, but then ignored.

You better plan on getting rid of Bulova, Smyth and Foust because each of them is dedicated to getting Route 7 widened and hopefully with some type of transit option. The Tysons landowners are also committed to the project. Ditto for community groups. Can you persuade these people and organizations to change their mind? What do you offer to persuade people to change their minds?

I don't know how many riders and car-drop-out riders will take the Silver Line. VDOT and DRPT comments on Fairfax County's 527 TIA suggested the County's transit projections were optimistic. I'd sure like WMATA to release the number of train slots the Silver Line will have when it begins.

If you are correct, such that there will be more transit riders, and Route 7 is still widened to match what's there from Reston west, there probably isn't much harm -- especially if we can get a transit option too. A reserved lane for express bus service from Loudoun would be of great benefit. At least the stakeholders think so.

But what if you are wrong and we get the density without the transit growth (remember the Silver Line is only a spur line) and traffic gets even worse. Then everybody suffers. I just don't see elected officials going your way especially given the history of the Tysons replanning.

If Route 7 is not widened, there will be great pressure to tamp down development. I don't see that in the cards. Am I missing something?

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:45:23 EDT

"By ideological, I mean those individuals and organizations that testified to the Planning Commission and BoS but refused to address the traffic studies, the transit studies, etc."

would someone taking seriously 29,000 new transit riders on silver line phase 1, instead of 10,000 be considered an ideologue for listening to a govt transit study?

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:41:50 EDT

"This makes me wanna puke. The Potomac is disgusting. Luckily, FFX at least treats the water. DC seems to funnel it straight into its old rusted waterpipes. Yuck."

I believe the intake is relatively upstream - near Great Falls? I don't think its quite that disgusting up there - most of whats bad comes in at Rock Creek or Anacostia, Cameron Run, etc.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:39:47 EDT

"But it would take a sea change (realistically, a decrease in auto traffic) for projects to removed from Table 7"

that would seem to imply that the need for them is not based on incremental traffic due to the Tysons redevelopment. That suggests to me that the whole "table 7" is somewhat deceptive.

As for the politics, it may well be that an undesirable project has too much political momentum to stop. If a 9-1 decision against can be reversed though, if Loudoun's support for the Silver Line can be reversed, I wouldnt assume that the rte7 widening is cast in stone. Certainly a decision to accept 50 million from the Commonwealth to plan is not the same as spending 300 million+ on building.

Of course I am not asking to remove the project from table 7. If in 2050, the superhighwaying of rte 7 is still on table 7, still being planned, I will be more than pleased.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:49:06 EDT

Fairfax Water draws surface water from the Potomac River

This makes me wanna puke. The Potomac is disgusting. Luckily, FFX at least treats the water. DC seems to funnel it straight into its old rusted waterpipes. Yuck.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:09:24 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer

Re Funding. Yes, funding is the key issue right now. The County needs a plan to allocate costs between public and private sectors, with specifics on state, local and federal, and plans to raise that money. One thing that will likely be a part of this plan is bond issues that address Tysons and other parts of the County. What's in it for Chantilly is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

I think we both agree that there is no sense in building things well in advance of their need. Ditto for the need to take periodic looks and make adjustments, most likely in timing of projects. Slow growth should mean slower construction of road projects -- the 2030 date could slip to 2034, for example. A higher transit modal split would also likely delay some road projects. A booming economy would advance projects.

However, there will not be development at Tysons without the roads. The supervisors and legislators that have Tysons and nearby areas as their constituents will see to this.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:51:49 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

Status of Route 7. Because of County opposition, VDOT was not planning to widen Route 7 to six lanes west of Tysons. Supervisor Foust persuaded the Supervisors to reverse its 2008 vote (9-1 against widening)to 9-1 in favor. With that and support from community organizations and the Tysons landowners, VDOT put the project back on the planning list. Senator Howell and Delegate Comstock were able to get a $50 M appropriation for planning. VDOT is now in the planning process, which includes key stakeholders.

Of course, the project is not funded. But I don't see any reason why it won't be funded over time. You are not alone in opposing the project. But I think the support is too strong to turn it around. Besides the BOS, the plan has bipartisan legislative support (Howell, Favola, Comstock, Brink and Keam); support from the Tysons Partnership; and multiple community associations. I don't see anyone turning this around. I don't see where anyone can get enough political power to undo this one. What do you see that I don't?

Needs in other parts of the County. As you note, they are real. That's why local officials have been talking about a number of bond issues that combine Tysons needs with those in other parts of the county. Similarly, state and federal money will be split among various projects in the County, including Route 7. The projects will not be built at once, but over time. This issue has been thoroughly vetted.

I agree with you that stakeholders and the County will take periodic looks at development and infrastructure. If transit modal splits are higher than projected, for example, I would expect to see some adjustment on the timing of big projects and the adjustment of small ones. But it would take a sea change (realistically, a decrease in auto traffic) for projects to removed from Table 7. If all of landowners at the stations removed all parking from their plans, the County would probably make some adjustments. But recently, many of them have been pushing the other way on parking, arguing they need more to remain competitive.

By ideological, I mean those individuals and organizations that testified to the Planning Commission and BoS but refused to address the traffic studies, the transit studies, etc. Their testimony was smart growth and transit will make Tysons work. Just trust me. They had no credibility whatsoever and were rejected. Most of the stakeholders did try to address the studies and the arguments of others. The latter had significant influence on the adopted Plan.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:18:29 EDT

you have been misinformed

"The two primary sources of drinking water in Fairfax County are the Potomac River and the Occoquan Reservoir. Water from these sources is treated and distributed by one of several service providers depending on your location within Fairfax County. Fairfax Water is the largest supplier of drinking water in the county; Fairfax Water draws surface water from the Potomac River and the Occoquan Reservoir (which is fed by the Occoquan River). "

Comment by Joe V.

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:54:56 EDT

By this logic, "we" can cut off your water, you know "your" reservoirs are completely in loudoun county. I like your thinking, how about we cut off your water and go from there.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:48:57 EDT

I think things are generally moving in the right direction TMT, and this is really the first time I have found common ground with you, but I wish you could see the side of lets not put the cart before the horse. Lets get the funding squared, have it available and not touched, and then see where it leads us.

@AlanF

I think when metro opens there will be enough (though not great) access to where the actual existing offices are. SAIC, Booz, Northrup, Mitre, Tysons malls, (the rest of Greensboro), etc will all be accessible because the existing walk systems are in place. They arent great, but they also dont have to walk across something like International or Route 7. So for office workers atleast, the transition should be smooth. For us residents, not so much. Most of Tysons residents live pretty far from where the new metros are going (beyond the 1/2 mile) so we will have to take the many great bus options to those stations or walk/bike a bit to get there. I think if you take a walk or bike down Westpark, Greensboro, Tysons Blvd, you'll find that some of the less vehicle prioritized systems are in place. Improvements will definitely need to be incorporated if Tysons is really gonna be a city though.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:48:52 EDT

to get back to the beginning

"I also agree that Table 7 will be implemented at a changing pace based on the level of development. If things stay slow, road and non-rail transit will be added slowly. When development picks up, Table 7 projects will be constructed quickly. But all of those projects, plus additional ones that are identified as part of the three new traffic studies being completed will be built."

They will be built if the county decides to build them. The county will certainly look not only at the pace of development, but at how "ideological" assumptions about modal split, and number of residents with jobs in Tysons, pan out. Its POSSIBLE the conservative assumptions about Tysons resident share of employment, AND about modal split, will pan out. Its quite possible (and I dont think one needs to be an ideologue to think so) that they will not. Certainly the County should use the benefit of their post 2012 empirical data in making decisions on the table 7 investments. And as for how much to weigh the impacts on through traffic and on diversion from Rte 7 to Great Falls Road, versus many other urgent problems in the County, I am sure future boards will make their own prioritization decisions.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:42:19 EDT

"I don't know where the FTA got the 10,000 figure, but it was not from the Final EIS. That document forecast about 29,000 new trips from Phase I."

well since the 29.000 is from the EIS, and we dont know the source of the 10,000 (since FTA does not do their own ridership analysis AFAIK) why don't we use the 29,000 in our discussion, instead of constantly citing the 10,000?

The 29,000 seems closer to what TE has been discussing.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:38:05 EDT

pardon

"make that relevant in the SHORT run"

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:36:03 EDT

1. I am not arguing for higher caps on development at Tysons at this time. I doubt theres sufficient demand for office space to make that relevant in the long run. There is time to adjust in the long run, if mode shares evolve more in the direction many of us hope, and some of us expect, than in the direction indicated by studies using traditional methodologies

but as for the proposed table 7 road expansions

"Road projects will be triggered by development approvals and traffic impact analysis. I don't think anyone is still considering your proposed standard -- the impact of LOS on Tysons development alone. That factor will be considered, but so too is the effects on through traffic and on surrounding areas. Your view was argued to the County, but rejected."

AFAIK many of those, including much of the expansion of Rte 7, has yet to be approved. Ergo, it will be argued again. And I hope to participate in that argument, and yes, I think that expenditure on the superhighwaying of rte 7 if it proves unnecessary to support Tysons growth, and is primarilly to support the surrounding areas, areas which are among the most affluent in the county, and which are getting the benefit of the silver line, needs to be weighed against other urgent transport needs in the county, including complete streets in places like Annandale, transit and complete streets projects to revitalize the Rte 1 corridor, the county bike plan, and transit expansions both serving Tysons (including on Gallows Rd) and elsewhere.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:25:33 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

I am trying to write about what has been decided and why, as well as what was not examined. There was no significant study of how many people will live and work in Tysons. I recall that some estimates were gleaned from other transit projects. Like you seem to be doing, I question whether anyone really has a good handle on how many people are really likely to live and work there. I've asked Walter Alcorn to provide me with the assumption being used by the Planning Commission and will post it when I hear back.

My gut feeling is similar to yours. I would think many people would move there because someone in their household is working in Tysons.

I don't know where the FTA got the 10,000 figure, but it was not from the Final EIS. That document forecast about 29,000 new trips from Phase I.

I am not arguing that there may not be some flaws in the studies or things may need to be revisited. But I strongly oppose decisions being made by Fairfax County, VDOT, the feds, etc. based on theory. As I'm sure you are aware, a number of people pushed for massive increases in development and urged the County to ignore traffic studies, etc., and decide based on wishful assumptions (and even ideology) that the availability of rail and high-quality mixed use development would make Tysons work. A large number of us pushed back and persuaded the County to make decisions based on studies and analyses. We won, and the Comp Plan is good -- not perfect, but good.

Road projects will be triggered by development approvals and traffic impact analysis. I don't think anyone is still considering your proposed standard -- the impact of LOS on Tysons development alone. That factor will be considered, but so too is the effects on through traffic and on surrounding areas. Your view was argued to the County, but rejected.

I am not anti-transit. I use Metrorail regularly. I'm not pro-highway. I've been working on an effort to stop the outer beltway - for the very same reasons I take a hard line on Dulles Rail - the studies don't justify the conclusion that the project is being touted for.

IMO, the only way to protect the surrounding communities and taxpayers generally is to push for decision-making based on government studies and analyses.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:30:35 EDT

"The Federal Transit Administration has forecast that there will be 87,500 Silver Line riders by 2030, but only 10,000 will be new transit users. Everyone else will just shift from one form of transit to another - the Silver Line"

that has to come from the EIS - FTA does NOT do their own ridership estimates for new starts. There could be many reasons it was done conservatively. Note the ridership study was done to cost benefit justify the construction of the silver line, and so a "conservative" estimate of transit ridership, would be a low estimate.

If, OTOH, you are looking at justifying highway construction, a low estimate of shift to transit would not be "conservative"

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:25:21 EDT

@tmt

IIUC the plan proposed 100,000 residents in Tysons. If only 44,000 are employed in tysons, that implies the majority are either not employed, or are employed outside tysons. I doubt that Tysons will draw many retirees or children, given the housing costs and amenity mix. I also doubt it will draw many households without at least one person employed in Tysons, given the housing cost and amenity mix.

I would suggest either the 44,000 is low, or the 100,000 is high.

I have no objection to planning for road expansions, including the widening of Rte 7 into a superhighway. However I do not want that implemented until needed. And I do not want the determination of need to be based purely on level of service and related criteria, but also on evidence that poor LOS on Rte 7 is actually restraining growth in Tysons, and not primarily leading to diversion to DTR and to non SOV modes.

Comment by AlanF

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:24:33 EDT

Now that Gov. McDonnell has weighed in to push for the Silver Line to Loudoun, that should tilt the all Republican board to vote in favor, so much of this discussion may be moot.

As for WMATA not stating how many trains will be running on the Silver Line when Phase 1 opens - assuming that is not in a public document somewhere that has been overlooked - there are several issues that may be causing them to hold off on final plans for starting the service extension. First, there is uncertainty as to how many new cars will be ready for service by then. Yes, they have stated they will use current rolling stock for Phase 1, but how thin are they willing to stretch the fleet?

The bigger question is what will the access look like around the 4 stations in Tysons on opening day? The stations will be fully built with access walkways, but if those walkways lead to dead ends or sidewalks that dead end 100' further on because of on-going construction, that will limit commuters in Tysons using the stations. Tysons has big plans for extensive redevelopment, but right now, it is still one of the more pedestrian hostile communities around. What will the roads, sidewalks, access walkways look like for the first 3-6 months after Phase 1 starts service? I've seen little on this in the press. Until the development and construction around the 4 stations can catch up, those 4 stations are likely to lag in passenger traffic.

On the FTA 2030 projection of 87,500 weekday passengers on the Silver Line, I don't buy that at all. The Silver Line will exceed that not long after Phase 2 opens. Tysons, Reston, and Herndon will have mostly caught up on TOD projects by then.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:02:53 EDT

TMT

On review of that document, I still think 10,000 is very little, but the reason it isnt closer to 30,000 is because the last station in their study is Wiehle, which is in no way connected in the existing to an TOD. Once the stations go to the populated regions of Reston and Herndon, that ridership will FAR exceed 10,000 new users.

I still call BS on 75,000 existing transit users down the dulles corridor, I'd love to see what they are calling "transit"

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:42:34 EDT

@ goldfish:No legislature can limit actions of any future legislature.

They do every time when engaging in long-term agreements. Or do you think the next legislature can get out of the HOT-lanes contract? And that the next Chicago Council can get street parking back?

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:33:47 EDT

Wait wait wait, 77000 people use transit down the dulles corridor right now? FTA has made a mistake, sorry but that number is not correct.

As far as the comments on Route 123... you are making my point for me. If the rational behind widening within Tysons is to somehow keep people off of side roads in McLean and Vienna, then its bogus. As it is right now, all of the traffic occurs AFTER old Courthouse on 123 and after DTR in McLean where both lanes go down to 4. The portion within Tysons, between Courthouse and DTR on 123 flows free, and dangerously over speed limit.

There are times when the international intersection is messed up, but this is when Route 7 is backing up right turn traffic. Route 7 is backed up because they were zippering a metro line down the center of the damn right of way.

Your rationale that politically people in McLean, Vienna, and other areas want Route 7 and 123 widened is pure politics not FUNCTION. If you widen 123 in Tysons MORE people will use 123 to avoid 495 and to get to 66, therefore increasing the total number of people going on Maple Ave through vienna, therefore increasing the total number of people spilling over to off shoot residential roads.

You are creating the very negative effect you are supposedly fixing with that design. Get Route 7 back up to full operation, get 495 up to full operation, get DTR back to full oepration, and people wouldn't be avoiding them like the plague anymore. This problem is of our own making.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:11:42 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer

I have not heard any proposal to widen 123 north of the Dulles Connector Road nor south of Route 7. The road widening for 123 are only within Tysons to help move traffic to the DTR and the Beltway. Widening 123 in Vienna and/or McLean are non-starters. Neither community would support it. But 123 will be widened in Tysons. No stakeholder is opposing this.

As far as Silver Line ridership is concerned, no one has made any forecasts that would 20-45% of the DTR commuters would take rail. The Federal Transit Administration has forecast that there will be 87,500 Silver Line riders by 2030, but only 10,000 will be new transit users. Everyone else will just shift from one form of transit to another - the Silver Line. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/VA_NOVA_Dulles_Wiehle_Avenue_Ext_2013.pdf See page 1. These figures are contained in other FTA documents as well.

Moreover, as you have correctly noted, we don't even know how many Silver Line trains will be running when service starts. We need to know this now so that projections can be re-tuned and decisions tweaked to the extent needed.

Comment by TiredOf FiersOnMyCar

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:47:51 EDT

I am so tired of the few remaining opt-outers and that giant pig leaving fraudulent fliers on cars and using lies and fear to push their dying agenda. We NEED the rail in Loudoun. The Governor supports it as do the majority of us who live here. We will lose out big time if we do not get this project going! Yes to METRO!

Comment by Ann Siford

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:15:28 EDT

Loudoun Needs this. The Metro is the key to economic growth here. The Metro will create jobs, change traffic patterns, and reduce stress for some commuters. Bring it out here!

Comment by Squalish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:14:42 EDT

Tyson's Engineer:
I offer you another perspective on a river crossing - in the $200M instead of $40B region of consideration.

Conventional aerial tramways are routinely used to move ~3000 passengers per hour at 15mph in a number of cities in the US and worldwide, and at ski resorts all over the world. The infrastructure involved is a bunch of towers and a few ground-level stations, rather than a continuous tracked system which has to address watershed issues, underground cable marking & avoidance (in one of the densest areas of the nation for this), and very expensive bridge construction. The visual and environmental impact of an aerial tramway on the Potomac is nearly non-existent.

An unconventional design like the Aerobus suspended train would move ten times as many people twice as fast, but I understand why our area may not be interested in the more experimental options.

An aerial tram that begins at the terminus of the Purple Line in Bethesda could run down the Capitol Crescent Trail without the complaints or hazard of the Purple Line, serving the Friendship Village and Sumner areas, before crossing the river above Little Falls, and hitting Langley's tens of thousands of employees with a station. Another station in McLean would give way to half a dozen stations in the fractured urban space of Tyson's Corner, including at least two Metro stations. An aerial tram can jump highways that are in the way easily, without the vast expenditure involved in roadway bridges and connecting ramps, or even the costs of doing quality pedestrian bridges through all of these areas.

In the event that one tramway isn't enough or isn't fast enough, a second express track would be easy to tack on without much additional work. The fact that they don't need drivers cuts out a large chunk of operating expense.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:02:06 EDT

If McLean wanted people to stop driving on Chain Bridge, and to drive on Dolley Madison, they would have widened it from 4 lanes to 6 lanes through mclean a long time ago. Widening within Tysons wont change ANYTHING about driving patterns in McLean. All it will do is make it even more difficult to NOT drive a car everywhere you go. If McLean really wanted that, then widening 123 in McLean, see how the rich folk feel about a giant 100' right of way splitting their houses from the stores and see THAT political mess.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:00:05 EDT

Reston/Herndon/Sterling are more well situated around higher density zones than West Falls Church and Vienna. I used the same numbers of riders averaged from WFC and Vienna (conservative based on the fact that the silver line corridor is far better established as stated above), and extended that to Wiehle, Reston, Herndon Monroe, and Innovation. Now admittedly a lot of people use connector/herndon monroe already to come down the DTR, but considering I used the conservative WFC/Vienna model for stations like Reston, which will see far better ridership from non-parkers, I think its a fair assumption.

WFC/Vienna numbers come from the 2009 ridership WMATA. http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/FINAL%20Transit%20Ridership%20and%20Market%20Trends%20Report.pdf

Also consider that 135,000 commuters currently use DTR, it is not absurd to believe that 25-40% of these could be rail converts... no more so than only 44% of Tysons working in Tysons atleast.

Widening 123 to Courthouse will only encourage people to continue to go through Vienna, not reduce it. That's the problem when you have career politicians making decisions on things they know nothing about.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:59:03 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer - where did you get the number of 30 to 50 K taking transit?

I'm still looking for a more exact figure for residents of Tysons working there also. I will update when I find it. This discussion deserves an accurate number.

As far as built out of the road improvements, I'm not sure what else to say. Clark Tyler and several others proposed a "wait and see" approach as well. That was strongly objected to by the surrounding communities and VDOT, and then, rejected by the Supervisors. I just don't see any changes in the cards at least until 2020 or so.

The BoS, especially Bulova, Foust and Smyth, feels great pressure to reduce the Tysons-generated cut-through traffic that hits McLean, Vienna, Falls Church and, to some degree, Great Falls and Reston. Key to that effort is making sure the Tysons traffic can get on 7, 123, the DTR and the Beltway as soon as possible after they leave Tysons. That requires the major road improvements listed in Table 7. If the BoS were to back down and permit development at Tysons without the road improvements, the political scene would get pretty ugly immediately. The lanes will be added as planned.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:06:26 EDT

44000 out of 200000 might seem like a drop, but what is really occuring is

Current = 100,000 workers coming into Tysons, of which by your ratio 4400 (44% of the 10000 residents) work/live in Tysons. Net result 95600 people demanding on roads (because those 4400 are generally off peak from the rest as are the remainder 5600 who are out of Tysons well in advance of the rush hour crush).

Future = 200,000 workers, coming into Tysons, of which 44,000 will be local. Add in that 30000 to 50000 will come via metro or transit. Net result around 126,000 to 106,000 people demanding on roads, as compared to 95600. This is not a catastrophic increase when you view the actual net change in these terms. Definitely not something that we need to start panicking and building right now.

Fix traffic? Stop these massive detour requiring mega projects and see what the level of service is with them in place. Getting full use of all the road lanes will improve capacity more than adding another lane anyways.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:47:07 EDT

@MJ: I can: Loudoun County backing out of a regional partnership to extend Metro at the 11th hour.

But those LC residents are already paying the cost in the form of tolls.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:45:35 EDT

@Falls Church: The development around the proposed Silver Line stations in Loudoun would be similar to the examples on the Not Radical list.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] It will push out much further than just around the station (see what I wrote about gradient above.)

Comment by tmtfairfax

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:42:00 EDT

@ Falls Church

Grid of streets - everyone agrees the grid is needed. While Fairfax County's funding plan for transportation is not final, it is generally expected the landowners will pay for the grid of streets, either though direct profffers or by Road Club funds (to construct the grid where development has not occurred.) Finalizing plans for the grid of streets is a key goal of the three CTIAs. That will also include transit, bike and pedestrian components.

FC DOT is using the following Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)•Level of Service and Delay at Intersections; •Vehicles Mile Travel; •Hours of Delay; •Average Speed; •Travel Time; and •Queue Length.

FC DOT is using the following methodology to address increased traffic, in tiers: 1.No right of way impact (traffic reassignment, signal modification, lane restriping); 2.Some right of way impact (turn lanes, additional through lane, additional grid link); and 3.Additional mitigation (i.e., big stuff).

The County has broken down the Table 7 projects by year based on expected levels of development. Of course, as the pace of development changes, so will the infrastructure development. In sum, much the grid of streets is scheduled for completion by 2030. So are: Widen VA 123 to 8 lanes from Rt. 7 to I-495"; "Widen VA 123 from 4 to 6 lanes between Rt. 7 and Old Courthouse Road"; and "Widen Rt 7 from 4 to 6lanes between I-495 and the City of Falls Church," among others.

The pace of development and the growth in traffic will certainly have an effect on these projects. If more people live and work in Tysons or we hit another recession, the road widenings might be deferred. If the economy booms, the widenings might be accelerated. But just as the grid of streets will be built to accommodate urban growth at Tysons, so too will the road widening projects occur. Fairfax County has firmly concluded that all Table 7 projects are necessary to accommodate growth at Tysons. I cannot foresee anything that could change this conclusion. Affect timing and cause tweaks here and there, absolutely. But eliminate an item on Table 7, absolutely not.

Comment by Falls Church

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:33:45 EDT

So you advocate stasis in MoCo, but yet it is ok to radically transform Loudoun county?

Also, I don't advocate stasis for MoCo. I advocate growth through additional density in existing retail/residential areas.

Comment by Falls Church

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:27:55 EDT

So you advocate stasis in MoCo, but yet it is ok to radically transform Loudoun county?

Goldfish, look at my list of what I believe constitutes radical (farmland to residential/retail) vs. NOT radical (increasing density of existing residential/retail) transformation. The development around the proposed Silver Line stations in Loudoun would be similar to the examples on the Not Radical list.

Radical transformation for Loudoun would be transforming more farmland to residential/retail uses. I think that kind of sprawl is not a good idea and the Silver Line would provide Loudoun a way to grow without that kind of radical transformation.

Comment by Matt Johnson

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:21:32 EDT

@goldfish:

But I cannot imagine a more open declaration of war than if the metro parking charge LC residents more than what they charge FFX county residents

I can: Loudoun County backing out of a regional partnership to extend Metro at the 11th hour.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:18:24 EDT

@Tysons Engineer, re: parking: fairfax used to have resident stickers. No reason why this couldnt come back. All garages in Fairfax will be privately built, it wont even be using state funding. You can deferentially charge, and frankly its the prudent thing to do...

Agree that this is probably technically feasible. But I cannot imagine a more open declaration of war than if the metro parking charge LC residents more than what they charge FFX county residents, and given that LC residents will be the one to pay most of the tolls for this project, the outcry would be something fun to see.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:03:42 EDT

@Tysons Engineer: Yes, and those developers didnt help fund any permenent systems and created the sprawl and traffic issues we have today.

You are blaming developers for things that are not their fault. Developers develop in response to economic needs, within zoning constraints. BTW, a city that does not have development pressure, one that is shrinking like Detroit, is a far worse state to live in. So when a city needs to expand, its development pattern is based on geography and the transportation network. The problem is when the traffic on the roads outgrow its original plans. To suggest that this is the fault of developers is to misplace the blame.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:47:04 EDT

@Falls Church: That's not to say that we should never have radical transformations, but we should be a lot more cautious about radical transformation and not transform all our rainforest to farmland rapidly or all ag space in MoCo to retail/residential rapidly.

So you advocate stasis in MoCo, but yet it is ok to radically transform Loudoun county?

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:40:42 EDT

@Jasper: Perhaps it was sloppy to not write the check earlier, but nevertheless, the decision has been made.

The decision is made when, and only when, the check is cashed and clears. No legislature can limit actions of any future legislature.

Comment by Falls Church

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:25:32 EDT

@TMT

I agree more road capacity will inevitable be needed. But why not prioritize funding for the street grid in Tysons (which currently has insufficient funding) over an expansion of 7 & 123? The street grid has the advantage of both increasing walkability AND relieving congestion on 7/123.

Comment by Falls Church

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:13:59 EDT

Only insofar as thinking that changing a farm into something else -- a shopping mall, a gas station, or a new housing development -- is "radical". Don't forget that all existing farmland was once radically transformed from its original use, virgin forest.

Ag use to retail/residential use = radical

Virgin forest (or rainforest) to farmland = radical

3 story building to 7 story building = NOT radical

Single family home to SFM + Accessory Dwelling Unit = NOT radical

That's not to say that we should never have radical transformations, but we should be a lot more cautious about radical transformation and not transform all our rainforest to farmland rapidly or all ag space in MoCo to retail/residential rapidly.

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:11:48 EDT

@ goldfish:My only point has been that LC county board is faced with a immense decision

The point that many are making is that previous Loudoun boards have already made that decision. Democratic decisions have consequences. Perhaps it was sloppy to not write the check earlier, but nevertheless, the decision has been made. The building permits have been handed out. Developers have made investments counting on metro (can't belief I'm almost defending developers).

Comment by tmtfairfax

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:09:45 EDT

"as for wmata, I'm not sure that they can commit to an operating plan for phase 2 which is still years away." So what happens when Phase 1 opens? How will the 17 slots now used by the Orange Line be divided? I'm not asking what happens when Phase 2 opens, only what happens when the Silver Line begins operation to Reston.

As far as SOV traffic is concerned, have you looked at the traffic estimates? Have you met with FC DOT? The last time I did was June 21, 2012. FC DOT told the McLean Citizens Association that the three ongoing CTIAs will likely show more automobile and truck traffic generated from urban development at Tysons beyond what was was forecast in Fairfax County's December 2009 TIA submitted to VDOT. These new traffic projections, which are not final, assume aggressive TDM measures as set forth in Table 5 to the Comp Plan. But bottom line, an urban Tysons will generate considerably more auto and truck traffic, which will require billions in road and non-rail transit improvements.

There has not been a good study of how many people will likely live and work in Tysons. The Task Force didn't study it, and the County has been too busy working on transportation. I recall the Task Force had an assumption in the low 20% - say 22%. Let's use it for want of something better. That gives us 44,000 of 200,000 workers. It's also why it is important to know how many passengers the Silver Line can carry.

No one familiar with the details of Tysons thinks more traffic congestion is a laudable goal. But it is a realistic result. Accordingly, it seems only reasonable for Fairfax County and VDOT to plan for and build additional road capacity.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:01:59 EDT

Simple solution, want a new subdivision built, provide the costs of what that means IN ALL FACETs, not just proffers. City developers always have to do this with special taxes and convenants. Its cheapo sprawl developers that skimp. Part of the cost of owning in the exurbs should be HOA covenants that collect enough funds from residents who live there to cover what the state and county has to pay to make it so they can live there, road maintenance, etc.

Unfortunately the system of tax assessment is broken in that the further you live out, the cheaper your land and assessed value is, therefore the less you actually have to pay even though people who live further out cause more cost than those closer in for utilities, roads, traffic mitigation, and environmental mitigation.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:59:15 EDT

Yes, and those developers didnt help fund any permenent systems and created the sprawl and traffic issues we have today. Its fine to have strip malls and gas stations, but when you have 4 in every 5 applications for a county being this form of development and rezoning from farm land to this cheapest form of development, then you see why it is such a plague.

Its not to say that ALL of this form should be stopped, it is to say that 80% is a ridiculous ratio. That countys should look closer in and make those areas better before continuing the ponzi scheme of expanding every outward until traffic and tax revenue vs cost is unsustainable

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:42:50 EDT

@oboe: But in almost every other case of a property owner wanting to radically modify the zoning on their property

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:37:54 EDT

@ goldfish:The point all of you are missing is that as an organic entity, all cities have a gradient at the edge (not including geographic limitations such as water).

Hmmm. This is a relative new developments for cities. For centuries, cities were clearly defined by walls, moots or other geographical constraints.

Comment by oboe

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:35:32 EDT

You example is extreme, but zoning is indeed an infringement...

One could argue that living in a civilized society is an infringement. Zoning is a set of trade-offs. I think what I was objecting to was the idea that the farmer's interest in maximizing his sales price was the overriding concern.

But in almost every other case of a property owner wanting to radically modify the zoning on their property so they can maximize their profit at the time of sale, most people instinctually see the "wrongness" of it.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:30:50 EDT

@MJ: If having TOD nodes at two Metro stations in Loudoun means that there can no longer be a line, then how do you reconcile Montgomery County?

Two things. (1) Mountgomery county has not yet reached its ag border. The zoning issues you point out are all ok so far as they reflect the current reality. If and when they get built out, there will be immense pressure to increase the density and thus sharpen the gradient. Portland Oregon is facing the problems I described. Without a physical boundary such as water or in ancient times, a wall, to resist city growth is like trying to resist changes in the human need -- in the end, zoning MUST give way.

(2) My only point has been that LC county board is faced with a immense decision, that will affect development patterns and the county character for many decades. To built this or not will be far more significant that any zoning.

Comment by Matt Johnson

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:14:07 EDT

@goldfish:
Is that what you think the Montgomery County Ag Reserve is? A solid demarcation line?

There is a very discernible gradient. If we just take a look at a zoning map, we can get a sense of the density stratification.

But a transect across the county has you drop gradually from mostly R-60 (about 7 units/acre) to R-90 to R-200 to RE-1 (1 unit/acre) to RE-2 (1 unit/2 acres) to Rural Residential down to the Ag Reserve (RDT zoning).

And the line isn't definite anyway. It's not like people change what they think of their neighborhood based on whether its in the RDT zone or not. There are plenty of people who live in the RE zones who consider themselves to be in "rural" areas.

For that matter, there are people who live in R-60 zones on the District border who consider their neighborhood to be "suburban."

If having TOD nodes at two Metro stations in Loudoun means that there can no longer be a line, then how do you reconcile Montgomery County?

It has TOD nodes at several Metro stations, including Friendship Heights, Bethesda, White Flint, Rockville, Silver Spring, and Wheaton. And despite that, it also has a defined "edge" (the Ag Reserve) and also a stratification of density as one moves from the urban core toward the Ag Reserve.

A county as large as Loudoun doesn't have to pick whether to be 100% rural or 100% urban. There are in betweens, as evidenced by every county in this region.

But if you insist that the demarcation line must be the arbitrary invisible line dividing Fairfax County from Loudoun County, then it's too late. The suburbs have already crossed that line in the proverbial sand.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:12:41 EDT

@oboe -- Is it an infringement on my essential liberties that I can't sell my rowhouse to someone who's going to open a strip-club?

You example is extreme, but zoning is indeed an infringement, because (as you are well aware) a new strip club will affect the property values of its neighbors. However, as has been pointed out many times in other threads, cites need the ability to adapt to new uses, and when zoning hinders this, you have problems.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:04:05 EDT

No one is saying to do to that goldfish. That doesnt mean that subdivision shouldn't be located within a development zone. Sewer and water zones do this all the time. Subdivisions are not allowed to go outside of these zones. Also master zoning plans do this all the time where A-1 uses are tough to convert to R-1 etc. The point is, to slow the expansion of people that continue to keep building out. I mean theoretically as population always increases then it will always have to grow out, but the way DC Metro has been doing it is just WRONG. Its almost ALL been outward instead of restabilizing and restraining that to remain closer in.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:58:56 EDT

So farmers who want to sell their land because suburban lands are beginning to encroach is a design scenario we want to work to? Wouldnt it be better if farmers were closer in to distribution areas...

The point all of you are missing is that as an organic entity, all cities have a gradient at the edge (not including geographic limitations such as water). Different urban land uses require differing amount of density. In an office, communication is paramount and so it is best suited in a dense environment. A food wholesaler needs more space, and therefore these places are closer to the edge. The gradient reflects the diversity of urban uses. The size of the city is determined by the economic profitability of its core industries (e.g., DC = federal government; Detroit = making cars) balanced against the cost of its internal transportation. If the core industries gets less profitable, the city shrinks and vice-versa. But to support the core industries, there will be a diversity of uses that value land differently, that leads to the gradient at the edge.

To try to do away with this slope at the edge is to try to confound the differences that are essential to provide for ALL the needs of the residents. So no, you can't have farm land butt up against office towers without distorting the underlying reason for having a city in the first place.

Comment by oboe

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:32:21 EDT

This distorts property values, and landowners that normally would want to sell -- such as farmers near the edge -- cannot. This is NOT farmer-friendly, who are first and foremost are in a business, and like all businesses, need the ability to sell their property for more profitable uses if this opportunity arises.

This seems obviously wrong to me. Farmers can sell their farms whenever they like--to people who also want to farm. What they can't do is sell their land for non-agricultural uses. Is it an infringement on my essential liberties that I can't sell my rowhouse to someone who's going to open a strip-club?

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:31:16 EDT

"Since there are other sections of the metropolitan area that do not have these restrictions -- namely, norther Virginia -"

That is incorrect.

LC does have a growth boundary, at Rte 15, and also many of the properties west of rte 15 are under conservation easements, as is most of fauquier beyond warrenton. There IS debate about LC's transition zone - the still Ag area west of South Riding and east of Rte 15, IIUC. But its not correct that only Md has limits on sprawl.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:27:51 EDT

@goldfish

the silver line is a development tool for the proposed TOD zones near the 2 stations. It will not urbanize the rest of LC, and could be used to funnel growth to those locations.

the dialog in LC has NOT mostly been about the negative effects of the TOD - its been about cost. The antis do not say we dont want TOD at the stations - they say the line wont lead to new development, and is a waste of money. And yes, while some of them would rather see no phase 2 at all, some do think that theres no need for lc stations because they can drive to FFX stations.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:26:53 EDT

Shakes head, dunno what to say goldfish.

So farmers who want to sell their land because suburban lands are beginning to encroach is a design scenario we want to work to? Wouldnt it be better if farmers were closer in to distribution areas, so that they can sell their crops without freight costs being their driving factor? Wouldnt it be better if their land was so profitable that they wouldnt WANT to sell for a one time gain? Wouldn't it be better if the agro business wasnt one of scale where only the monsantos of the world can make a liveable profit?

This does not impede anyone from building out a house in rural areas, what it does do is stop developers from building subdivisions outside of the core area just because the land is cheap, and not contributing to the mitigation of future problems.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:14:39 EDT

The reason why MoCos ag reserve is a GOOD development incentive is because it stops sprawl style developers and forces people to look closer in and make do with what is available

Except when they actually reach those boundaries. They will be artificial "now we are in the city -- now we are in the country" without a gradient. This distorts property values, and landowners that normally would want to sell -- such as farmers near the edge -- cannot. This is NOT farmer-friendly, who are first and foremost are in a business, and like all businesses, need the ability to sell their property for more profitable uses if this opportunity arises.

Since there are other sections of the metropolitan area that do not have these restrictions -- namely, norther Virginia -- the spawly development goes that way. Unless the entire city is surrounded, the result is that these sorts of restrictions undermine their purpose.

Yes eastern LC has basically gone suburban. But as others have pointed out, the Silver line is a development tool -- and the best way to slow or stop such development is to stop this project, if that is what you want to do.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:53:30 EDT

AWalkerInTheCity

Just lemme know where to send that check ;)

I don't care which one eventually is right or wrong. I mean would I love it if traffic was no longer there and the roads could be reclaimed as pedestrian friendly? Heck yes, but I understand that some roads have to remain as arterials and that everyone in Fairfax will not be living in Tysons and that the future might still need those roads.

My point is, lets play some risk avoidance, lets not pencil ourselves in to a solution before there is even a problem. First lets get construction on the massive infrastructure we are doing out of the way and see how things work because frankly Route 7 is a shell of itself right now as far as capacity due to all the construction, as is 495, as is DTR, and all of that added on top of a brand new metro and improved bus circulation might mean that the traffic is of our own creation and not the actual condition. Either way, lets just calm down, save up the money and get design plans completed so that they actually are shovel ready (not shovel ready as in ok start designing it) so that in the worst case if it is needed that we can mobilize and fix in the same amount of time.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:50:32 EDT

"SOV is the main form of transportation today and will be after Tysons matures into an urban center"

they say on page one of the transforming tysons website that it will be a walkable, sustainable urban center.
Walkable. Sustainable. Urban. There are conflicts between each one of those and SOV dominance.

That they used conservative assumptions does not indicate to me that the fulfillment of those assumptions is the desired outcome.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:47:14 EDT

"It will be challenging to get people to live in Tysons with higher rents and fewer amenities unless they simply want to live where they work. But with people changing or losing jobs more regularly, that factor is weakened to some extent too."

more regularly? what does that mean? people have changed jobs for years, and continue to do so. We haven't had "lifetime" corporate employment since the 1980s. People still try to live near work. And if there is employment instability, that may advantage Tysons, since its such a large employment center. I agree with TE, the assumption that the proportion of tysons jobs filled by tysons residents will stat small is a very conservative one. i also think that the office market looks much weaker than the residential market going forward. Again TE is right - lets look at the traffic that develops rather than assume the future relationship of sq ft to VMT will be the same as at present.

as for wmata, I'm not sure that they can commit to an operating plan for phase 2 which is still years away.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:26:25 EDT

TMT

I just disagree with when you are saying these things are needed. Why is that "development" is the trigger. Why cant we actually use traffic as a trigger. I continue to scream about the waste of land, money, function and safety that 123's widening has been. I see it EVERY DAY, and EVERY DAY it flows free, completely free. In most cases people disregard the rarely posted speed of 35 and go 55 on it. The only traffic on 123 is OUTSIDE of tysons in McLean and Vienna where the bottle neck from going 8lanes to 4 lanes is causing more trouble than good.

The only other time 123 is any issue is when 495 is backed up into the spill lane, and people are trying to cut in line from 2 lanes over, something that can be solved by simply putting up a barricade.

This is proof of what bad decisions look like when you build something because of what is anticipated, instead of what is actually occurring. Traffic doesnt just magically turn bad in 1 day, if its starting to get bad, and funds are available THAT is when the corrections can be made.

Comment by mikedc

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:21:01 EDT

@tmtfairfax - The Loundon County Board did not want labor agreements tossed?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/707531
GOP'ers stop at nothing.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:12:04 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer

I misread your comment about amenities. I agree with your comment. It will be challenging to get people to live in Tysons with higher rents and fewer amenities unless they simply want to live where they work. But with people changing or losing jobs more regularly, that factor is weakened to some extent too.

I also agree that Table 7 will be implemented at a changing pace based on the level of development. If things stay slow, road and non-rail transit will be added slowly. When development picks up, Table 7 projects will be constructed quickly. But all of those projects, plus additional ones that are identified as part of the three new traffic studies being completed will be built.

Examples of the latter are the superstreet and the Lewinsville-Great Falls overpass and diamond interchange. If the projects cannot be built for financial or political reasons, the County will need to cut back on Tysons development.

A key unknown factor in my mind is the capacity of the Silver Line. How will WMATA split 17 trains per hour between the Orange and Silver Lines? I don't see how the County can approve any rezoning applications without knowing that information and adopting a funding plan to pay for the roads and non-bus transit.

@ mikedc

Union busting. There is very little to bust in Virginia. There aren't many unions contractors in Virginia. 97% of those companies are non-union, as permitted by federal and state law. More Virginia companies and workers are likely to be employed by Phase II without the mandatory PLA.

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:44:17 EDT

@ Melvin Summers:Look at the polls, and you will see the will of the people.

The only poll that counts is the one on election day. Did you vote last time?

Comment by mikedc

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:38:53 EDT

Have all the theories and numbers you want, but we all know what this is.... a bunch of GOP schmucks willing to stand in the way of progress.... They did it with Medicare, they did it with Social Security, they did it with the voting Rights Act (which they want to undo in VA), and now they want to do it with transit to follow through on their union busting.

It's almost funny to watch the theories, when we all know what is really going on.

Comment by Melvin Summers

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:38:23 EDT

Look at the polls, and you will see the will of the people. The politicians can not ignore how many of us want the Metro. It's time for Loudoun to finally get good public transportation and join the rest of the Northern Virginia area. The benefits are countless so I for one can't wait for them to vote.....

Yes to Metro

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:15:05 EDT

PS If they were to charge that rate they would find out that there are far too many competing rates that would be able to undercut them with just as many amenities as Tysons West.

You can find 2brs in Tysons for 1800, so to think that suddenly new inventory is going to change the game that much is a bit of a stretch. Tysons will always be less expensive than Arlington, otherwise the market simply would choose to live in Arlington or DC for that matter. Currently highend 2br in established neighborhoods with nice units like Park Crest Lofts go for 2500-3000. That would be the high end, and thats a 2br.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:11:46 EDT

TMT

I said Tysons has LESS amenities than R-B, which is why it is prudent to believe that most of the people willing to dish out higher rent cost than R-B do so out of necessity to live near their job. Otherwise they would live in R-B closer to where they work if they didnt work in Tysons, get better amenities, and it would cost less.

This is a major flaw in the logic of Tysons planners. Why would someone sadistically live in a more expensive place that has less amenities unless the main reason was because of all the jobs there. With that reasoning, it's not crazy to think that many of these NEW people will not be SOVs at the rates we see today.

As far as people came up with this with alot of planning etc. Thats fine, I am not against the master plan, what I am against is the mind set that you are reinstating, that it has been agreed therefore, like some sort of doomsday clock, the plans MUST go forward as planned. No one knows what is gonna happen over the next 40 years in this area, lets set aside the funds, but use some sort of in situ knowledge instead of relying on planning studies when addressing our needs.

Two scenarios arise

1) We use the money as table 7 indicates when appropriate to build stuff, not all in advance in the anticipation of some future congestion apocalypse.

2) We find out some of the improvements aren't needed, by waiting to see how conditions are, we have a windfall of tax revenue which we can reserve or if we feel that the predictions were simply off, redistribute to other needs.

Whats so wrong with that concept?

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:14:08 EDT

@ TheCivicCenter:I would be glad to see the entire Silver Line project cancelled

Welcome to 2012. Phase I has been built. I won't be cancelled and removed.

@ goldfish:LC may just see itself more as an ag reserve, and channel the urban/suburban sprawl elsewhere

They may see themselves that way, but that would be in their dreams. If they'd wake up, they'd see that Eastern Loudoun is suburban. They themselves (or their predecessors) have given out the building permits and allowed the rezoning from ag to McMansion. Ashburn, Sterling, Brambleton and South Riding did not pop up overnight. They've had long and spirited debates over that. They've decided that the eastern part of the county would be developed while the western half would stay as is. US-15 roughly being the divider.

Now, the current BOS may not agree with that, but that does not mean they can deny reality and change the past. Reality is that many farmers are under significant pressure to sell to developers and that the eastern part of the county is suburbanizing.

And it's not just Loudoun. The same is happening in northern PW County and the US-15/29 corridor in Fauquier.

The decisions to give out those building permits come with the obligation to provide infrastructure so that those new residents can get around. Metro is part of that.

Also, what Tysons Engineer said.

Comment by Ben

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:08:05 EDT

End the Silver Line at Dulles and use the remaining funds to build light-rail down Route 28, connecting I-66 to Dulles airport and Route 7. Route 28 is already a moderately-dense corridor with jobs, the Air & Space museum, hotels, and other businesses.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:38:42 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

Yes, that is a superstreet, which is being considered for Route 123 near Old Meadow. FC DOT is working to integrate bike paths and pedestrian crossings into the design. Because of traffic volumes on Routes 7 & 123, most bike paths will likely parallel those highways. Major advantages of the superstreet are: 1) low cost (c. $10 M); 2) no need for additional right-of-way; 3) reduction in traffic congestion; and 4) fewer major accidents. This is according to FC DOT as of 6/21/12.

@ Tysons Engineer

It's clear your vision for Tysons differs significantly from that of Fairfax County and the Tysons landowners. I can respect that. But the bottom line is there is a detailed plan, based on reasonably good studies, considerable input from stakeholders, with a bit of political compromise thrown in. That plan is based on heavy levels of automobile and truck traffic, proceeding to, from and through Tysons. SOV is the main form of transportation today and will be after Tysons matures into an urban center. Moreover, Routes 7 and 123, the Toll Road and the Beltway are, obviously, major through routes, which must be maintained to federal and state highway standards.

I hope you are right in that many more people will live and work in Tysons. But Tysons will be a very expensive place in which to live. As I've posted before, JBG officials have told the McLean Citizens Association that they expect typical rent for an 800 sq. ft. apartment in Tysons to be $2600. I've been told recently, but cannot verify, average rent in the R-B corridor is between $1800-1900. I don't know how many square feet that is either.

I don't agree with your assumption that Tysons will have better amenities than the R-B corridor - at least not for many years. I expect commercial use to grow faster than residential in Tysons for many years - say 15-20. But that is just an educated guess.

I do agree with you the details for Tysons will be tweaked many times before the area is fully developed.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:10:38 EDT

Also, parking garage attendant etc

Metro already has passes that you display for certain users, additionally fairfax used to have resident stickers. No reason why this couldnt come back. All garages in Fairfax will be privately built, it wont even be using state funding. You can deferentially charge, and frankly its the prudent thing to do to ensure

1) People don't get to use something they refuse to pay for on the backs of Fairfax Residents

2) It will be an incentive for many who exodus'd fairfax for greener pastures to perhaps reconsider if their own county can't afford to provide them the amenities they evidently want

3) It will ensure 4000 or 5000 people don't crowd the fairly quiet and well established town of Herndon without anyway to stop them, stealing spots at parking garages from residents who ARE paying for it, and making roads more dangerous.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:06:31 EDT

Goldfish,

You need to understand that what you are saying is exactly the misunderstanding most residents have between what is good and bad development.

The reason why MoCos ag reserve is a GOOD development incentive is because it stops sprawl style developers and forces people to look closer in and make do with what is available, not beg the state or county to help fund a big road to One Loudoun because the developer cant afford to.

Maybe if the developer cant even afford the capital cost of something as simple as a road connection, then he shouldnt be planning "manhattan in Loudoun county" just a thought.

The point of setting aside these massive land conservations is SO that people dont have to make the decision between bucolic and urban. Loudoun county is a huge land mass, so say all of it must remain rural is frankly not looking at the facts of the matter today. The eastern edge of the county ISNT rural, it has massive commercial and residential use. You gotta get past that fact.

Want to stop the destruction of bucolic regions? Stop projects like One Loudoun which grab up 500 acres like its nothing to build poor quality construction as cheap as possible with no funding towards future traffic and infrastructure mitigation.

Support projects that develop around Metro that have urbanized housing, they house more people in less land space, therefore leaving more areas of Loudoun rural.

Urbanists love farmers FAR MORE than suburbanites because we want to keep those areas prestine, where as they want to build 600 mcmansions on them in order to fit all of their margaritaville margarita machines

Comment by Brian D

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:00:24 EDT

To Sand Box John, re: Silver Spring garage: Well now we know where MTA got the design for the "transit center." That parking garage is only slightly uglier, and is on that exact piece of land.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:52:11 EDT

1. Charging more $ for parking will also hit FFX residents. The parking attendant won't be able to distinguish cars by where the driver lives.

2. The premise of this thread, "Virginia shouldn't let Loudoun get something for nothing", is offensive because it belittles county board as parsimonious freeloaders. In reality, the board is faced with a hugely consequential and expensive decision. Yes the cost matters, but what matters more is how this will influence development -- bucolic suburbs vs. urbanzed office parks -- for many decades. Many (most?) residents moved there for the former, not the latter. They have the right and responsibility to set the tone of that development to satisfy the residents' expectations.

In a similar vein, Montgomery county has set aside a large portion of land as an Ag reserve, which forces its development in other directions such as the 270 corridor all the way up to Frederick. Yet the ag reserve is universally praised as good planning despite the fact that, like a whack-a-mole, restricting development in one area encourages it in another. LC may just see itself more as an ag reserve, and channel the urban/suburban sprawl elsewhere, such as PG county, which is closer to the core.

Comment by Chris Lopresti

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:41:21 EDT

If Loudoun loses the Metro we all lose. The Metro has so much potential for economic growth in Loudoun County. We would lose out on job creation, changing traffic patterns, reducing stress in the life of commuters, and so much more. We can't afford to miss out on this one. I welcome the Metro.

Comment by abroderick

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:34:55 EDT

Bringing the Metro to Loudoun would bolster our economy. It would benefit everyone in one way or another. Our public transportation is not where it needs to be for such a modern area. Yes to Metro.

Comment by AlanF

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:17:22 EDT

@Different parking rates not ok (unusual name, ahem), there is no federal funding going to Phase 2 of Silver Line. So there should be no federal funding restrictions with regards to the parking rates. Unless there is some exposure because of aviation funds from the airport authority.

As for Loudoun, from what I know, most residents of Loudoun county - or at least the residents in eastern Loudoun support the Silver Line extension. Some rather conservative, if not reactionary types, won in a low turnout election. Likely some one termers on the Loudoun Board of Supervisors - especially if they opt out of the Silver Line project. In the meantime, they can throw a wrench into the works.

Comment by The Civic Center

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:06:25 EDT

I would be glad to see the entire Silver Line project cancelled because a subway system like Metrorail is inherently an urban form of transportation. The Commonwealth of Virginia should instead build a VRE line out to Winchester or Front Royal.

I would likewise oppose any extension of any of the other Metrorail lines.

Comment by Different parking rates not ok

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:49:33 EDT

If the federal government chips any of its money for any parking or other transportation facility like a garage at the Innovation Center or anywhere else on the Metro system, federal law prohibits different rates for residents of different towns, cities, counties, etc... Not sure about the impact of state funds.

So if Fairfax wants to charge a different higher rate for Loudon residents, aka the freeloaders, it can only do so if no federal money (and perhaps state, I don't know) is used to pay for the garage.

As a local example, I think it was Manassas about 8 years ago that learned this the hard way when they charged different parking rates in a VRE lot partially funded by federal money. They lost in court when the non-local parkers sued and won.

Comment by The Baconator

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:37:57 EDT

We need the Metro, that's the bottom line. I do not know how we will fix our traffic problems without it.

Comment by Sand Box John

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:31:23 EDT

Here is the threat WMATA used against Montgomery County if it chose not the build the Glenmont end of the Red line north Silver Spring

Comment by Melvin Summers

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:09:47 EDT

This whole area needs this project to move forward. We need to link to our neighboring counties with the same Metro services they have. The Metro will connect us all in new ways this area has not seen yet. Loudoun is a modern thriving county and we need a thriving public transportation system.

Comment by Adam L

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:56:44 EDT

@Jack Russell

FWIW, Georgetown was never seriously considered as a site for a Metro station. The fact that the geology would make a station far too costly to build, the area didn't have enough jobs/commuters to satisfy the original criteria for site selection. That said, the fact that a station was never seriously considered didn't stop a few Georgetown residents from protesting it anyway. Haha

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:36:07 EDT

@ AWITC:Service deterioration will NOT make the region more enthusiastic about metro.

Well, lacking a leader with a vision, it is what's actually happening. The Silver Line will bring the Rosslyn choke point very close to collapsing. But apparently, nothing happens to metro unless people suffer more. So, let's introduce more suffering by extending.

@ Tax Pig:The reality is that loudouners will be zipping past the Metro trains making a trip from Loudoun in much less time than the poor folks stuck standing up on the slow and jerky trains.

Just like all those Fairfaxians are zipping past the Orange Line on I-66? Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: The Orange Line moves more people along I-66 than I-66 itself. Reality is that Orange Sardines are zipping by people stuck on a HOV-2 interstate. There is no reason to assume anything different will happen along the Silver Line/267 corridor.

@ Tysons Engineer:This is very much an economic tool, something that the Blue Line in fairfax failed at.

Well, anybody could have predicted that since the Franconia-Spingfield is hidden behind a parking garage and a 6 lane highway. But also because you can't expect a local boom from one (hidden) station. [Yes, Van Dorn counts as half Fairfax, but the county can't do anything with it]. However, should the FBI decide to move to Franconia, and the Spingfield Mall be rebuild with TOD, then that boom can still happen. Especially if the Blue Line is extended along the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286).

Regardless, F-S is an perfect example of penny-wise, pound foolish. Of course that station should have been under the Mall, even though that cost way more. That would have caused a local ecnomic boom. But people were narrow-minded and chose the el-cheapo option, leading to many more years of waiting for their return on investment. The same thing goes for the incredibly short-sighted decision to save a few bucks by building the Dulles metro station behind a parking lot in stead of under the terminal.

Loudoun could learn from this, and the example of Georgetown that someone mentioned. But they won't. Short-term re-election rhetoric is always more important for politicians than "things for residents".

The economic effects from metro are long term investments. Sometimes decades. Only ten years ago, there were empty blocks in Court House and Clarendon, more than 10 years after the stations were built.

@ tmtfairfax:I agree strongly with your comment bus fares need to be raised.

Consider your wish granted: just today I got a flyer from the Fairfax Connector that the bus rates up to $1.80/$1.60.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:15:06 EDT

TMT

I simply think any supposition as to the future traffic demands should be made in a more orderly manner than, GIMME GIMME MORE! In Tysons.

Yes I know there are triggers on total sqft, but honestly that is such a dumb metric. SqFt implies that all uses and designs are equal. We need to get real about our infrastructure addictions, something you and I have had endless arguments about.

Let me ask a question. The plan assumes that there will be 200,000 jobs in Tysons by 2050, and 100,000 residents. It makes very few indication on how they believe those two numbers will be related. Wouldnt it make sense that a very large majority of people willing to live in a place as expensive as Arlington, with lesser amenities, would likely be primarily Tysons employees? I mean I'd love to see what percentage of Tysons already does this, of which I am one.

Therefore, this idea that 100,000 more jobs = 100,000 more commuters that need to be addressed by transit/road pivots on the concept that this same 100,000 more jobs wont be facilitated simply by people who will be living in Tysons, leaving the current amount of commuters the same, but with an unimpeded DTR (which is currently running at 75% capacity) and a brand new silver line which will be capable if necessary to carry as many people as the orange line atleast to Tysons.

The answer is not always infrastructure, sometimes its better land use and resident spread. I know I know, people smarter than me have investigated this for the good part of a decade, but then again that is no reason to not question assumptions they have formed for a 40 year period. In engineering a good design narrative should start with what assumptions were made, and what impact those assumptions will have. GMU sorta did this with the high end low end development, but didnt analyze what the systematic shift from a commuter city to a resident city would have as well. These are the things I question, and just by the fact that the design period is so huge, leaves me to think that we are using extremely high precision on a very low accuracy idea.

Lets plan for the worst case, ie set aside a special no touchy fund, but lets not set ourselves in the mind set of "THIS MUST BE BUILT!" The worst thing we can do is build something based on a trigger instead of reviewing to see if the darn thing even makes sense when the funds or trigger initiate it. That's the definition of a boondoggle.

Comment by Jack Russell

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:10:48 EDT

If Loudoun thinks they can do it later, they should look at Georgetown - they opted out of the Blue line decades ago, and have yet to be offered a redo.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:47:11 EDT

is this what you mean by a superstreet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstreet

I hope that was done with 123 does not undermine the goal of the effort of creating a walkable/bikeable Tysons.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:45:21 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer

"Rail doesn't have those inefficiency issues as much as bus service... also one of the big reasons why rail is actually operational solvent where as bus revenue is only 20% of operational expenses based on WMATA 2009 budget." I agree strongly with your comment bus fares need to be raised. One more reason Virginia needs to make more decisions on its own.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:44:56 EDT

Well I live in Annandale, which is waiting for the (more or less urbanist) rebuilding of LRT in line with the Annandale plan. I certainly cannot favor any commitment to more roads to feed into Tysons when the goal should be to dramatically reduce auto mode share there. Of course its POSSIBLE growth there (esp office growth) will offset that, though the current and likely future weakness of the regional office market suggest to me that accommodating increased auto traffic to Tysons is not urgent. I would certainly like to see what relief the Silver Line, both phase 1 and phase 2, brings. Tysons redevelopment is envisioned as a 30 year project, so widening those roads further down the line is something we could consider - as are some additional transit improvements into Tysons. I would also like to see the fruits of the first serious bike planning in the county.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:34:50 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer

VDOT's comments on the Tysons 527 TIA did, indeed, have an impact on Fairfax County's transportation planning. But what actually happened is laid out in my prior response to AWalkerInTheCity's comments and questions. John Foust, Barbara Comstock, Janet Howell and Frank Wolf's support of the Great Falls Citizens Association's desire for an alternative to the two left turn lanes on Route 7 and the support given by other associations to support the GFCA was what jump-started the project. There is strong support for widening Route 7 and expanding transit to avoid cut-through traffic. One of the biggest complaints in northern Fairfax County is cut-through traffic.

I believe that elected officials see widening Route 7 as taking some pressure off the DTR and the need to widen it by as many as three-to-five lanes to handle urban growth at Tysons. I've heard representatives of Tysons residents state they support widening Route 7 west of Tysons to take traffic out from Tysons more quickly. I am sure that their views are not unanimous. But the speakers have the seats on the various community boards and committees.

Until WMATA makes public the number of Silver Line trains, I'm withholding judgment on the relief rail will bring. But I do know FC DOT has made great progress on their three consolidated TIAs and is telling the public that there will likely need to be more road improvements to handle the urban growth than is contained in the famous Table 7. There will need to be more left and right turn lanes, some additional right-of-ways for widened roads, and a superstreet on Route 123. The county is also looking at a number of intersections outside Tysons, e.g., Lewinsville-Great Falls-123. That one will probably need an underpass and a diamond interchange.

Comment by Lu

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:23:11 EDT

It's an inaccurate generalization to say "loudonites" don't want to pony up...the majority of us "loudonites" are more than happy to pony up and bring the Silver Line out here! Don't let that annoying little group leaving flyers everywhere advertising made up numbers and scare tactics and driving a lame ass pig float around fool you...we want the metro! Let's just hope the BOS actually pays attention to what their constituents want for once.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:12:45 EDT

@ AWalkerInTheCity

John Foust is supervisor for the Dranesville District. The effort to widen Route 7 west of Tysons began as a part of the opposition of the Great Falls Citizens Association and others to VDOT's plan to build two left turn lanes from Route 7 to Georgetown Pike near Seneca Road. The GFCA did not want to funnel additional commuter traffic on to the Pike, which, as a historic byway, does not have the capacity to handle much more traffic and will not be widened. Looking at alternatives, community leaders from Great Falls, Reston, Vienna and McLean quickly focused on widening Route 7 as the best choice. The community was supported by elected officials, Foust, Barbara Comstock, Janet Howell and Frank Wolf. Foust also persuaded the BoS to support the Route 7 widening project, and Howell and Comstock got $50 from Richmond for planning. VDOT agreed to make the widening a priority and established the informal committee of stakeholders. The committee is looking at a variety of issues, including transit and bike trails. The time frame on this was 2010-11. I hope this helps.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:00:50 EDT

Sorry one more thing,

Fairfax has tons of bus service already in this corridor, the fact of the matter is, this is not about commuters in Fairfax. This is very much an economic tool, something that the Blue Line in fairfax failed at. This project isnt a net winner for the county just because of being acommuter tool, it is a HUGE benefit to the county and therefore taxpayers based on the 300million dollars in annual tax revenue that will be generated by the end of the decade in land assessment alone, let alone the advancement of our economy which has already been proven by several companies noting their corporate relocation and expansion of jobs due to the proximity to two major airports connected by rail.

These aren't just fairy tale ideas, actual company press releases are noting these as major rationale for their moves.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:56:59 EDT

Tax Pig, the bus service is excellent, but fares currently are far too low to have reliable full day service, hence the presence of connector buses which are like the VRE of bus service. If Loudoun wants full day service they will need to pay more for bus fares (in order to cover the periods of the day in which the buses run essentially empty). Rail doesn't have those inefficiency issues as much as bus service... also one of the big reasons why rail is actually operational solvent where as bus revenue is only 20% of operational expenses based on WMATA 2009 budget.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:52:38 EDT

Foust is on the board. I am sorry, but read chapter 527 from VDOT and you will see it was State "guidance" which got Fairfax to agree to these road widenings and arterial urban roads which conflict with the goals of urbanism and smart growth.

How can you imagine people and not cars, if 9 out of 10 decisions by number of actions and by cost, are made in favor of motorists instead of residents and transit users?

Route 7 is packed because people are avoiding the Dulles Toll Road. The Dulles Toll is messed up temporarily due to construction, and because frankly it is THAT important of a commercial corridor, hence the Silver Line. Widening Route 7 undercuts both of those MORE sustainable options of infrastructure which return value not takes tax revenue.

Users of Route 7 might want this, but do they want it for 500 million in tax funding? Consider that is 4 brand new schools, that is 50 years of local funding contribution to metro, that is 1/4th of a new bridged river crossing. Sure everyone wants bigger all the time, but its about priorities and effectiveness, and in that respect Route 7 is a loser.

Comment by Tax Pig

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:51:28 EDT

The reality is that loudouners will be zipping past the Metro trains making a trip from Loudoun in much less time than the poor folks stuck standing up on the slow and jerky trains.

Sorry folks but not everyone plays follow the leader. Oh those bus seats a sooooo cushy and comfy. Too bad Fairfax didn't look into some alternatives that were more focused on commuters and less focused on making developers rich.

Comment by MLD

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:46:22 EDT

If Loudoun drops out FFX and MWAA should just put a nice toll booth on the DTR off-ramps into the Innovation garage with a fat toll for Loudoun freeloaders.

Matt is absolutely right, Loudoun people they need to realize that this is not a "maybe later we could do it cheaper" discussion. It should be framed by pro-Metro people as "do you want Metro or not? Because if you don't sign on now you won't get it for 30 years." That is the reality of the situation. It's not going to be maybe 4 or 5 or 10 years after Phase II is built. It's going to take WAY longer than that unless Loudoun wants to pony up 100% of the cost and build it themselves, because there are plenty of other priorities that the region will move on to.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:36:08 EDT

tmt

when was the public debate about the Rte 7 widening? I have lived in the county for 10 years, and I have not heard a discussion of it, and I do not know who John Foust is.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:32:24 EDT

and I do not see this piece aimed at the LC discussion anyway. Its trying to start a FFX county discussion, which must take place, about strategies going forward if LC (as is their right) says no. Certainly it does not make sense to double or triple planned parking at Innovation, for LC residents who have just determined this is a cheap way to get metro service - and esp not if there is a reasonable chance of extension. We may want to look at parking options, as Matt says (I say "we" because I live in FFX county). And yes, LC can listen on that discussion, and take it into account in making their decision.

Comment by MLD

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:31:42 EDT

@Matthew B

Induced demand does not necessarily rely on new residents - just new traffic. That traffic can be generated by people currently living there who choose to make additional trips just because it is easier to drive. E.g if traffic is bad you may plan more carefully and do more trip chaining like stopping at grocery store on the way home from work. Make traffic better and some people will plan less carefully and make additional trips.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:26:25 EDT

@selxc

the fact that someone advocates for a position does not mean they are taking away the right of someone to make their own decision, as Pelham implied. Analysis pieces that overlap reportage, analysis, and opinion are a well established part of american journalism, in such reputable magazines as Harpers, Atlantic, The New Republic, Commentary, and the National Review. Blogging, at its best, can try to do the same. Of course much blogging falls short of that. I think GGW actually does a pretty good job.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:22:12 EDT

"Extensions are much easier, especially because that will get more legislators involved, both in-state and Congressional. Remember, DC has nobody in Congress.

So, the only way to get more metro in DC, is to feed more people from the suburbs and get them stuck "

you seem to assume that no one in the wider community will notice the problems of system collapse, and that they will not raise those in regards to extensions.

The smart ones will do so BEFORE the extensions.

The ideological antis will do what they are doing now - use deteriorating service as an argument AGAINST extension.

Service deterioration will NOT make the region more enthusiastic about metro.

Comment by Matthew B

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:19:44 EDT

@Falls church

Induced demand is when you build a new road or widen a road in greenspace, then allow the building of new developments along the road because it now has "extra" capacity.

I'm talking about taking a road that is already at maximum capacity and resides in an already built-out area. The extra users I'm talking about would be shifted from secondary roads such as Georgetown Pike to Route 7. If they were new residents, then that would be induced demand - like the Loudoun Parkway, for example.

Comment by jim

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:11:30 EDT

There are several people saying that Metro hasn't said how many Orange vs. Silver trains there will be.

The WMATA Long Range Planning Group has been briefing the Technical Analysis Group on the Regional Surface Transit Plan for a couple of years. Pdfs of the powerpoints are posted to the web. The base case they use for 2030 has 24 Red Line trains per hour, 10 Orange, 10 Silver, 6 Blue, 10 "Yellow1" (Huntingdon to Mt. Vernon Sq.), 5 "Yellow2" (Franconia-Greenbelt) and 11 Green. That's been consistent across presentations since July 2010.

That doesn't mean that WMATA won't alter the numbers based on actual ridership, but that's the best indication of their current planning.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:51:45 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer:I think adding another 30,000 users daily through an expansion to Centreville will finally exacerbate the rising bottleneck at Rosslyn.

I agree. But the powers that be currently find the situation acceptable. So, the only way to push the system towards unsustainability/collapse, is to keep adding passengers by extensions. At some point, even the most lenient model will say that an extra crossing is needed and only then it will happen.

@ selxic:have a problem with an article not presenting all sides and the subtleties of a situation

What sides and subtleties would you like to have seen in this article?

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:49:31 EDT

Selxic,

Progress land planners do get defensive at times because the cards are generally stacked against us. I don't know Matt, I thought he did a fairly good job of being unbiased and pointing out that there is some loop holes in the mind set of FFX/Loudoun planners as to what would happen if Loudoun opted out.

In this way, Matt I think has done a good job of reporting. I do see the derisive nature of comments sometimes on here, and I think this site is clearly DC/Arlington centered. I will let you know that I personally lived most of my life in Western and Central Fairfax. Frankly I still do by most accounts in Tysons Corner. Geography isn't the issue, its culture, and as long as Loudoun continues to look at COST only, and not benefit to residents and proper land use, then those divisions will exist.

It wouldn't be a big deal to the rest of the region if everyone existed in loudoun as an island, unfortunately Loudoun continues to grow its infrastructure footprint on closer suburbs, and with the state threatening devolution this has suddenly become very confrontational between the jurisdictions.

Comment by Capt. Hilts

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:44:45 EDT

Maryland doesn't want to do anything to undermine Friendship/Balt.-Washington Airport. They just built a massive, expensive highway to support it. They don't want Dulles siphoning off their customers for that road, or the airport.

Comment by selxic

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:33:53 EDT

I think I just failed miserably at posting my last comment. There was more... I didn't mean to have those quotes just hanging around.

Comment by selxic

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:28:59 EDT

@Matt Johnson: The problem with some of these discussions is that the posts/articles fall somewhere between advocacy and reporting, but when confronted on the basis of reporting aren't always held up to the standards of reporting.

But those citizens need to be making an informed decision, which is part of what this article encourages.

If that's what they want, that's fine by me. But I'm not sure the electorate realizes that they're making a pretty final decision to save a few dollars now.

When Pelham1861 and others have a problem with an article not presenting all sides and the subtleties of a situation, the post shifts towards advocacy over reporting.

@Jasper: It's often funny (to me) reading comments about different places here on GGW. The blog is supposed to be about bettering the entire region, but one might think Gaithersburg is an inner suburb at times while Tysons is "far out there" and Loudoun is 'on out yonder.' (Somebody needs to remind me if Dulles Airport is down in Burke or out near Chantilly.) The shift from "we" and "us" to "they" and "them" in some comment sections is a fun thing to notice although some don't realize how derisive small things like that can be.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:28:45 EDT

@ TysonsEngineer

I agree. The number of trains (Orange and Silver) is extremely important to commuters, businesses and development at Tysons. This issue has been raised for a number of years, but WMATA won't answer the question. Local elected officials need to pressure WMATA to release its plans now.

Comment by AlanF

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:27:19 EDT

@Adam L, referring to your earlier post on turning around Silver Line trains between the McLean and East Falls Church station, I don't believe there are any provisions or plans to do that. A pocket track on the east side of the McLean station would allow the trains to turn around, but that would result in some Silver trains running completely separated from the rest of the system. A Silver train that turned around at East Falls Church would allow for transfers, but EFC will be a long run from the McLean station and the 2 track segment would be a bottleneck, even if the train could turn around there.

Too bad the West Falls Church station was not located a little further east on I-66. Maybe then the Silver Line spur could have been designed to connect on the western side of the WFC station. With 3 tracks, WFC could probably be used as a turnaround point for some of the Silver trains to create a WFC to Loudoun subset.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:26:37 EDT

Jasper, I dont think that's the ONLY way to get a river crossing. I think adding another 30,000 users daily through an expansion to Centreville will finally exacerbate the rising bottleneck at Rosslyn. There is no point in expanding this, without having the proper foundation in place at the river to handle these new users, otherwise you are trading one form of traffic for another.

Like I said, funding sources should be analyzed today for the purpose of less turmoil in 2020.

I would also suggest to create a path that makes the most economic incentive as well, which is why I suggest connecting Tysons to Bethesda via a bridge and then tunnel down Goldsboro. Add a station at Langley to get federal funding for the project (and to address a large federal traffic demand).

Environmental groups have said no new bridges west of 495 and short of point of rocks... they never opposed inside the beltway. This would split Bethesda road users, which constitute approximately 30,000 river crossings a day, from 495 to 270 users. The right of way is available along Goldsboro for 2 more road lanes. The tunnel would be a hard sell, as we have found in this era of cost is everything.

End result

1) Orange Line will effectively be split in 2, Orange Line to Arlington and Orange Line bypass to bethesda/DC (which will remove a large portion of users west of Arlington to the new route). Arlington users will get a tunnel that doesnt carry as many orange line passengers outside of Arlington.

2) Tysons and Bethesda, the states two fastest growing economic hubs will be directly linked with road and metro expanded capacity

3) Maryland will gain access to Dulles Airport via metro.

4) CIA can expand with less traffic impact to GW Parkway/123.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:26:09 EDT

@ Falls Church

Expanding Route 7 from Tysons west to the Reston area is a top priority for the Fairfax County BoS. John Foust was able to turn a 9-1 vote against widening to a 9-1 vote in favor. Only Cathy Hudgins opposes. Local legislators obtained $50 million from Richmond for planning. The various communities and their associations along Route 7 support the widening. VDOT has established an informal advisory group from nearby communities and the Tysons landowners to provide input for the widening, road features and transit options. They are making progress.
As money becomes available, the widening will occur. VDOT, state legislators, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, and the community associations all support this one. With all of the stakeholders on board, it will happen.

Comment by jim

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:20:37 EDT

I don't think we're going to get more Metrorail expansion. It's crazy expensive and neither state is going to be willing to fund it, nor put up with the mishegas that we've seen with the Silver Line (and that'll be even more true if Loudoun drops out).

We might get some more interlining (the Rosslyn wye, for example). Otherwise, we're going to have to look for cheaper feeders, like the Purple Line or the planned Arlington and DC streetcars, or BRT in the outlying suburbs.

The one low-hanging piece of fruit might be upgrading existing commuter rail, MARC, VRE, to near-Metro service levels.

Comment by Feldspar

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:16:27 EDT

The real question is why the Silver Line does not go all the way to Leesburg.

And the answer is that is a route more fit for a commuter train (VRE).

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:11:21 EDT

@ AlanF:There will be those pushing for extending the Orange, Yellow, Blue, Green lines versus those who want to build a new route through the city core. It will be a long debate with umpteen feasibility analysis studies before any substantial decisions are made. Needs to be started sooner rather than later.

Look, we need it all. Sooner, rather than later. The problem is that a new Potomac crossing is both expensive and multijurisdictional. Extensions are much easier, especially because that will get more legislators involved, both in-state and Congressional. Remember, DC has nobody in Congress.

So, the only way to get more metro in DC, is to feed more people from the suburbs and get them stuck so they go and complain to their legislators, who will then take action. Moran and O-Connely are working on the extension of the blue and yellow lines, with soft support from Warner and Webb (and Kaine if he gets elected). The MD folks are working on the purple line. Perhaps I missed it, but as far as I know, Holmes-Norton is not working on getting more metro to DC. So that's not gonna happen. It's a lack of vision and representation.

Is this a pretty method? No, but it's the only way I see working. If Holmes-Norton or Gray go to Congress and try to get money for more metro in DC, they're gonna just get laughed at. Especially after the next elections.

Comment by Cynic

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:09:51 EDT

Loudoun Board of Supervisors wouldn't withdraw from the Silver Line except for one and only one reason: They want to put their money into a western bypass to benefit the developers who funded their campaigns.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:09:07 EDT

As much as I hate VDOT, I have to agree with the decision to finally widen Route 7 from the DTR in Tysons to the Route 7100 interchange - I grew up in Dranesville/Great Falls, and it's way overdue, to the point where it would feel crowded even after the expansion, and not because of induced demand.

When you build more road capacity and it immediately fills up from additional cars (like you're suggesting would happen to an expanded 7), that's the definition of induced demand. VDOT's unfunded mandate to FFX to expand 7 is a raw deal. If it's needed to serve people from other counties, those other counties should chip in or VDOT should pay. The problem is that this administration views FFX as a golden goose that should be milked for its eggs (because they sure aren't going to get any votes from them). That's how the McDonnell admin likes to punish success.

Comment by Adam L

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:02:54 EDT

@Tyson's Engineer

But... where would that new river crossing go? And what would it connect to once it crossed into DC or Maryland?

Comment by AlanF

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:41:01 EDT

@jasper, you do realize that if the "inner core collapses" from too much traffic from the outer part of the system, it will take 10-20 years if they start from scratch to build new capacity? The study, environmental assessment, review, and public outreach phases of the process now take an staggeringly long time.

I agree that there should be a coherent long range planning process for Metro expansion that involves all the stakeholders that should start after it is known how far Phase 2 of the Silver Line will go. What the Purple Line will look like and where it will go is getting pretty well established. The question for the Purple Line is how long will it take to get the funding lined up and when it might open.

With the Silver Line to Dulles or Loudoun and a Purple Line starting service in 10-12 years included as part of the planned Metro system in 10-12 years, GGW should play a role in engaging in a public discussion on what the next expansion of the Metro system should be. There will be those pushing for extending the Orange, Yellow, Blue, Green lines versus those who want to build a new route through the city core. It will be a long debate with umpteen feasibility analysis studies before any substantial decisions are made. Needs to be started sooner rather than later.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:35:43 EDT

I think if a special 25cent fare was proposed to all lines in support of a new river crossing ONLY, that most metro riders would gladly pay it, but then again I have disposable income so I might not be in touch with ALL riders. If we use time in our favor, and not against us (as was the case in Silverline) by preparing for the future with a special fund, then the next improvement won't be such a subsidized/politicized mess.

250 million trips x 10 years x 0.25cents = 625 million dollars from a special fund
Add in a toll backed bond for the road portion of the bridge
Add in assistance from Feds/MD/VA of about 250 million

And you could wisely fund a 2-3 billion dollar connection in the 2020s between Bethesda/Silver Line/Orange Line(DC Express)which will allow Arlington orange line/blue line cross by itself

I wrote about this on TTC if you want more info (sorry GGW for referencing my site)

Comment by Bwig

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:32:52 EDT

It would be great if everyone understood the ramifications of not bringing Metro to Loudoun. There's a small minority here producing all sorts of scary, propaganda-type flyers and spreading lies about taxes and the costs that Loudoun will incur.

Most of us want Metro past Dulles, and see the benefit to our county and the whole region. There are just some crazy folk here who are having problems getting unstuck from their fear of progress.

Comment by William

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:31:11 EDT

Just terminate the Silver Line IN Dulles, as it was originally conceived.

Also, I do not believe there can be an Orange Line extension unless it is tunneled or elevated over I-66.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:13:06 EDT

@ Tysons Engineer: I still think there is a looming capacity problem ... Will it be the next Virginia expansion?

I hope so. Since there is no proper future planning for metro, the only way to get an extra Potomac crossing is to keep expanding outwards until the inner core completely collapses. Yeah, I know, in a sane place that would be now, but this is DC, so it will take another decade or so.

I truly hope the Silver Line will crush the Rosslyn choke point, but if not, then let's hope it's the extensions of the yellow and blue line. The faster the inner core collapses, the shorter we all have to suffer.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:57:16 EDT

Adam,

Thats an issue that again better transparency by WMATA would assist with. I still think there is a looming capacity problem for the next generation that is far more pressing than how far west metro extends, and that is the lack of additional crossings and what the mechanism and trigger that will financially obligate this improvement to occur. Will it be the next Virginia expansion?

It is my belief after Purple line that any other metro expansions should be review for how Virginia and Maryland will partner to fund said crossing, and do so hopefully in combination with right of way for a new road crossing as well (which will help reduce the cost if each crossing was done independently, provide a venue for toll backed bonds, and really address east west congestion which will be the future of both ROADS and METRO).

Whole other discussion though.

Comment by Adam L

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:47:03 EDT

Is there currently a plan for some trains to turn back between the McLean (Tysons East) station and the East Falls Church? I still can't figure out how Metro is supposed to make the Silver Line run at a rush-hour schedule without resorting to turning back some trains. Or does Metro just plan on screwing over Orange Line riders at Vienna, Dunn Lorring, and West Falls Church?

Comment by movement

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:45:30 EDT

@selxic

I mean Ashburn is a suburban hellhole. It has no live entertainment to speak of, no interesting bikeable/walkable space other than the WO&D line, no decent restaurants, just a bunch of disconnected housing developments and strip malls. I've spent more than enough time in the area to know that I couldn't wait to get out of there. Alexandria is utopia in comparison.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:40:03 EDT

@ Tom Coumaris:I don't like Metro going out there. It's what VRE is for

That seems to imply that VRE offers a service that can be compared to metro. Which is not true of course. It's an apples to small spear of broccoli comparison.

@ Matthew B:Route 7100

VA-286 = OLD 7100

VDOT is actually replacing the signs at the moment. [In a totally random and sloppy way, as expected]

@ selxic:you may want to visit the area some time.

That's what I was thinking. I see a lot of false presumptions about western NoVa here that make it very clear that people never go there.

It's a good reminder that for many here Tysons already counts as 'far out there'. Not to mention that many don't realize that Great Falls NP is not on the Skyline drive, but just off of I-495.

Comment by movement

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:35:39 EDT

By no means is WMATA helping any thing with skeptics by keeping costs/fares/current ridership/future ridership/etc as secretive and opaque as possible.

I assume that this is because they have no idea and that they hope to just get the thing built and deal with the details later.

Comment by selxic

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:26:44 EDT

I'm not sure if you have ever been to Virginia before (outside of a couple areas in Arlington), movement, but:

culturally Ashburn is basically the middle of nowhere. The only reason people live there is because it is cheap.

?
Yikes. I'm not sure what that is all supposed to mean, but you may want to visit the area some time. Also, an expansion project seems like a fine comparison versus an entirely new project.

Comment by watcher

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:23:56 EDT

Great post. I am enjoying reading the discussions between Matt and Tysons Engineer.

Comment by Matt Johnson

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:22:52 EDT

@Pelham1861:
You seem to be reading what you want to see, rather than what is actually written in this post. That's unfortunate.

It is patently false to suggest Loudoun Couty had for four decades been a partner with METRO.

First off, no one ever said that Loudoun County has worked with WMATA for four decades. It would be false to say that, and I didn't say it.

However, the Silver Line has been talked about by regional leaders since before Metro opened. And in the most recent attempt at building the Silver Line, Loudoun has been a partner.

And let me suggest again, it is up to they and their voters (taxpayers) whether they are in or out.
GGW always argues for the blackmail route on funding rather than facts.

You're correct. It should be entirely up to Loudoun citizens to determine whether they're in or out. I agree completely.

But those citizens need to be making an informed decision, which is part of what this article encourages. And additionally, they don't deserve a free ride on the backs of Fairfax taxpayers. So if they're out, maybe they should pay more for the privilege of parking.

Talking about what happens if Loudoun drops out is something we have to do as a region, since that's precisely what they're threatening to do.

But that doesn't mean I am or anyone else is making a value judgement about whether they should stay in or out.

We also learned this past week that the new cars could not even be tested if they were in fact ready from the manufacturer...because planning for the testing track is behind schedule.

Actually, that's not what we learned. The test track is behind schedule, yes.

But Metro can still test the 7000-series trains when they arrive. They managed to test and accept the 5000-series and 6000-series without the commissioning facility, and those were far larger orders than the first 64 cars for the Silver Line.

Metro needs the commissioning facility to avoid disruption to Green Line riders and also to accept the large number of cars that are parts of the rest of the car order. And since that's behind schedule due to the tsunami in Japan, it won't matter that the test track is late.

But the test track's lateness will not really affect the Silver Line. What will affect it is the lateness of the 7000-series cars, and that was beyond Metro's control.

METRO can always expand to Loudoun in the future if necessary...maybe now is not the time.

Maybe you're right. Maybe now is not the time. That is a decision that Loudoun will have to make.

But it's not like a light switch. They can't just turn it on. If they back out now, they will likely be delaying Metro for decades.

If that's what they want, that's fine by me. But I'm not sure the electorate realizes that they're making a pretty final decision to save a few dollars now.

And if they do decide to join later, it will certainly be more expensive than it is today.

I'm very sorry that you think our reporting is substandard. We do the best we can with an all-volunteer workforce. Nonetheless, I'm happy that despite your disagreement, you still stop by to contribute to the discussion.

Comment by Matthew B

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:17:25 EDT

@tysonsengineer

I remember driving home from my job at the tower Records in Tysons at 11:30 PM on a Tuesday in 2005 and sitting in traffic on Route 7 because it's just too small for the area. I'm the biggest proponent of the Silver Line there is, and I think it should be extended out to Leesburg, but sometimes you need an "All of the Above" approach, as BHO would put it.

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:15:28 EDT

would you think it could be done for 270 million? Potomac yard is an infill project for goodness sake and its half a billion.

You'd expect an infill station to be more expensive, given the need to maintain operations on existing track.

No, I don't think it would come in at less than 270 million. Yes, Loudoun is getting a good deal. I'm just curious where those numbers came from.

Even if they drop those stations, you'd still need to build quite a bit of elevated track for the yard lead. You'd still need a majority of the railcars on order. In short, the common expenses would still be there.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:13:29 EDT

TMTF

Finally you and I agree. By no means is WMATA helping any thing with skeptics by keeping costs/fares/current ridership/future ridership/etc as secretive and opaque as possible. I am the first person to say that a large virginia presence with WMATA can help reform the agencies fiscal problems and promote more openness.

I don't think that is necessarily pertinent to this particular discussion except for saying "how much will 270 million really buy Loudoun as far as trips reduced". Regardless you and I both know the cost of a system is 1) capital to construct facilities and 2) line length/operations. 270 million and 10 million annual contribution is still a hell of a deal.

80 million just for 1 road to serve 1 sprawl developers psychotic project at One Loudoun. Thats just the capital for the project, not the annual maintenance etc. If we want to review cost for cost, roads and transit need to be viewed on a truly similar metric not just dollar amounts.

Comment by GeorgeS

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:11:54 EDT

I'd say if Loudoun continues to drag its heels and not pony up, then deliberately engineer the Silver Line in such a way as to make expansion to Loudoun county unfeasible in the future (say, route it southward from the airport terminal to the Udvar-Hazy Center, and have it terminate at Centreville, perhaps meeting up with a future Orange Line extension there).

If Loudounites don't want it now and won't play ball, then fine, they can never have it.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:07:41 EDT

@ Falls Church

I agree Loudoun needs to consider costs of alternatives to TOD. It would also be very helpful to all if WMATA released information as to how many Silver Line trains it plans to run when the line opens. That information should have been made public a long time ago.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:01:16 EDT

Pelham, you are blaming the Japanese psunami and earthquake on sloth by WMATA... [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:00:13 EDT

The billion might seem high, but let me ask you something. If someone came up to you and said we need to build 4 miles of double track rail outside of the dulles toll road with 2 brand new stations and connecting across an international airport... would you think it could be done for 270 million? Potomac yard is an infill project for goodness sake and its half a billion.

The 1 billion is based on their own estimates of each stations cost as well as a prorata rate of the cost per mile of track. I dont see anything in the Loudoun portion of the project which would cost significantly less than the rest of the project.

The toll road paying for the use of this station is interesting, but then again all things being equal fairfax residents are going to be paying that rate AND for the rail... relative to Fairfax's contribution they will be getting something for nothing.

PS, through VDOTS memo527 the state is requiring that Route 7 be widened, paid for by fairfax County. This will create an 8lane pseudo freeway which runs parallel to both the silver line and toll road... Gee I wonder why the state GOP would be requiring this, paid for by liberal fairfax, to Loudoun...

The Route 7 project will completely undercut the toll road fees and the silver line, in order to create a subsidized free road to Loudoun.

Comment by Pelham1861

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:55:11 EDT

It is patently false to suggest Loudoun Couty had for four decades been a partner with METRO. That's baloney like so much else here on GGW about the Silver Line. And let me suggest again, it is up to they and their voters (taxpayers) whether they are in or out.

GGW always argues for the blackmail route on funding rather than facts. The Silver Line is being poorly managed, cost overruns, insider deals, etc. and yet not a single investigative article from GGW. We also learned this past week that the new cars could not even be tested if they were in fact ready from the manufacturer...because planning for the testing track is behind schedule. Such sloth has kept Virginia pressuring for more accountability and they got it. Loudoun should do the same. METRO can always expand to Loudoun in the future if necessary...maybe now is not the time.

Comment by movement

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:54:57 EDT

Okay, so my distance estimates were crap. Still, 16 miles from Tysons? That's not exactly around the corner. Who the heck is going to want to pay a premium to live in TOD in Ashburn when they could live in Tysons itself? Don't forget that culturally Ashburn is basically the middle of nowhere. The only reason people live there is because it is cheap.

I'm just not seeing the value that the "pro-growth" folks are envisioning.

BTW, Virginia Beach is completely different. It is more of an established community. The arguments over the Alexandria/Arlington or Columbia Pike Streetcars are more relevant.

Comment by AlanF

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:48:40 EDT

A Silver Line topic: guaranteed to generate a ton of comments!

That the rail yard is on the grounds of Dulles Airport simplifies the engineering changes of the line itself if Loudoun opts out (for now). They will have to decide where to cut off the elevated tracks heading north from Dulles to the Greenway and how to configure the connecting tracks to the rail yard. But that should not require a major re-design.

The two stations in Loudoun WILL get built. The only question, IMO, is whether they get built in Phase 2 or 4-15 years later. If the Loudoun board votes against the Silver Line, it will likely be by no more than a 5-4 vote against. After 1 or 2 election cycles, the board could easily switch back to 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of the Silver Line to Loudoun.

The problem is the uncertainty it creates and the difficulty of re-assembling the additional funding later, with the extension to Loudoun now costing more. The issue for Fairfax is what happens if they invest in adding 1,000 to 2,000 parking spaces each at Innovation Center and Herndon-Monroe and then the Loudoun County stations are back in and built 3 years after the extension to Dulles opens. Does Fairfax (or WMATA?) get stuck with expensive excess parking capacity that does not generate the revenue they projected when expanding the parking garages?

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:40:19 EDT

The Loudoun equation is missing one important variable -- the cost of the road and non-rail transit (bus) improvements that will be needed to support dense development at the two Loudoun stations

The other relevant data point is the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to support sprawling development if Loudoun chooses to go that route instead of TOD.

Also, I wouldn't say that if Loudoun drops out of the Silver Line they'll get something for nothing. Considering that 50% of the line is financed through DTR tolls and Loudoun residents are heavy users of the DTR, it's the opposite case -- they'll be paying high toll rate but get very little in return.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:38:53 EDT

Loudoun is playing Greece.

Threaten to pull out to get the maximum return and best agreement you can. This is ordinary bargaining.

(Personally I don't like Metro going out there. It's what VRE is for).

Comment by Thayer-D

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:29:59 EDT

Even if I support this idea whole heartedly, I agree with Norb, it WILL keep the development concentrated around DC's center. Looking at the Prince Georges article, it's clear that transit accesible communities are in hot demand.

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:29:42 EDT

The billion dollar cost savings seems way too high.

Comment by Tysons Engineer

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:28:14 EDT

Dulles World Center is proposed at Innovation which includes 1200 multifamily. Additionally this station is the closest to the very large office developments along Sunrise Valley which are a smaller version of Tysons Corner. This area could be modeled in a TOD format and stay fiscally/financially sustainable for this stretch if proper land use is incorporated.

On my blog I went a bit farther and said the parking should be removed, but this concept is likely more approvable with Fairfax residents.

Nice article

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:26:24 EDT

@ movement: only 10 miles from DC

2.7 says Google. But that's only because the closest bridge is that far away. Geographically, Potomac Yards borders on DC, since it's on the banks of the Potomac. And remember that the DC/VA line is that the high water mark. So the station would be mere yards away from DC.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:21:41 EDT

@ movement:How could it possibly be cost-effective to invest a billion dollars for two stations 40 miles from DC?.

The 40 miles from DC is not relevant. What's relevant is that it's 16 miles from Tysons.

The real question is why the Silver Line does not go all the way to Leesburg (28 miles from Tysons).

Comment by selxic

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:18:01 EDT

@movement: Where did you get 40 miles to Dulles or 10 miles to Potomac Yards from DC from? I think you might have the wrong idea about the size of the Potomac River.

Comment by jim

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:17:11 EDT

IIRC, the deal with LaHood was that the counties could get some kind of federal funding for parking at the stations. I assume that funding is non-increasable. So the size of station parking is probably fixed (unless there's a general back to the drawing board reaction and everything gets redone and there's a five year delay).

Comment by Capt. Hilts

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:10:58 EDT

This reminds me of Virginia Beach not wanting to participate in Norfolk's light rail. They now regret that decision.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:58:09 EDT

The Loudoun equation is missing one important variable -- the cost of the road and non-rail transit (bus) improvements that will be needed to support dense development at the two Loudoun stations. Those costs should be forecasted before the supervisors vote on rail.

For a point of reference, Fairfax County staff informed the Planning Commission in January 2012 that the 2051 costs for the road and non-rail costs for Tysons was $5.46 billion, including inflation, but excluding interest on bonds. Note those costs did not include any estimates for the two new rail lines (unspecified) that would be needed to permit Tysons to grow beyond 84 million square feet.

Also, Fairfax County DOT is conducting three new traffic studies to measure the effect of full buildout of Tysons to what is permited by the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan allowed more density than was studied by FC DOT in connection with its December 2009 527 Traffic Impact Analysis submitted to VDOT. The Agency has said the infrastructure costs for the period to 2030 will be higher than what has been forecast.

Loudoun County should use Fairfax County's work as a point of reference to measure the reasonableness of Loudoun's estimates.

Comment by movement

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:52:06 EDT

A billion dollars for two stations? How could it possibly be cost-effective to invest a billion dollars for two stations 40 miles from DC? There are concerns of the cost of Potomac Yard but even the most pessimistic estimates come in under $500 Million. That region is much better positioned for development, only 10 miles from DC and surrounded by relatively high density.

Also I have no idea where the $10 Million figure came from, but Loudoun can expand their bus system quite nicely for $10 Million a year. It is a heck of a lot better than giving existing residents the shaft by forcing them to drive to Ashburn to get to Metro.

Comment by Dan's High Top Fade

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:42:13 EDT

I know it'll never happen, but if Loudoun County doesn't want to chip in, then let's move Dulles airport out of Loudoun County and see how they like that!

Comment by Matt Johnson

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:36:23 EDT

@Nathan Richardson:
The Dulles station won't change. Parking for commuters will not be added.

The rail yard is currently proposed to be west of Dulles station, with Route 606 and Route 772 beyond that. The rail yard will still be located on airport property beyond the Dulles station, regardless of what Loudoun does.

Comment by Nathan Richardson

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:33:19 EDT

Will it create problems if Dulles is end of the line? It would need a pocket track/turnaround, which is not currently part of the design (right)? What other facilities besides parking were planned at the end station in Loudoun and would have to be moved to Dulles where land is more expensive?

Comment by norb

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:30:52 EDT

Let them go. It will help concentrate development closer to DC anyway.

Comment by Transport.

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:26:17 EDT

Nice article. If Dulles Airport becomes the end of the line, Innovation Center Station may not be able to act as the only end-of-line for commuters. Access to that station will be easier once the new interchange opens at Route 28 and Innovation Ave, but I doubt Fairfax County will want to build more parking than what is currently planned. Herndon-Monroe, with existing direct access to the Dulles Toll Road, from and to the west, may be better for this... and it will require Loudoun County commuters to pass through the western main toll plaza to help pay for the Silver Line.

If there are no stations west of Dulles, Loudoun County commuters should have to pay both tolls to reach the stations and higher parking rates as suggested in this article. Heck, Fairfax County should add extra toll booths for use of the direct ramps to/from the toll road.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:25:55 EDT

"However, the other regional jurisdictions were also counting on $10 million annually from Loudoun to support operations of the system. Without that money, Fairfax might need to contribute more than it had been planning."

From what I can understand of WMATA budgeting, this ins't correct. Fairfax wil pay more -- but nowhere near $10 million. That number will be shared with all jurisdictions.

Was there any plans for high density around "Innovation" station? (incredibly annoying name for beltway bandits)

What other stations are planned down the line -- Reston? Tysons? Falls Church?

Good riddance. We shouldn't be wasting money on exurbs.