Comments on Rein's "OMG $15 billion" Tysons costs include transportation far from Tysons - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Tysons Realist

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:14:58 EDT

Vik - How about allocating the costs for the Orange Line expansion and other "more remote" projects to Tysons Corner based on the relative number of "users" going to, and coming from, Tysons Corner via those facilities? For example, if the number of Orange Line commuters traveling between Tysons and locations served by the extension was 10%, then 10% of the costs should be allocated to Tysons Corner. If it's 30%, then 30% of the costs should be so allocated. These would be substantial, fair and supportable allocations.

Hopefully, we are closer to agreement in our positions.

Virtually everyone wants to see Tysons continue its economic success. Those who build outstanding buildings at Tysons should profit significantly from selling or leasing space. But it makes no sense whatsoever for them to make money on zoning changes when those zoning changes are predicated on the massive increases in infrastructure unless the beneficiaries of the zoning changes make payments for such infrastructure that are fully proportionate to the gains. We need to reward those that expend capital to create tangible assets at Tysons Corner and not those who can game the zoning process.

Comment by Matthias

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:45:28 EDT

The Post has really been going downhill as evidenced by bad reporting, poor writing & editing, slews of typos, etc.

@Jasper: Thanks for the explanation--I'd almost forgotten what a newspaper is. I used to be a subscriber, but never got up early enough to fetch it and the Post wouldn't refund my money unless I called before 10am to tell them the paper hadn't been delivered. Bah.

So now I seek out my news online. But not from the WaPo.

Comment by Vik

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:09:46 EDT

I'm not against building roads. I understand that with what they're trying to do in Tysons, basically building a city, new road infrastructure is going to be needed. But I don't think you can attribute every road and rail project in northern and western fairfax county to Tysons redevelopment. Those areas will grow regardless over the next several decades and we are already behind in some aspects with road and rail infrastructure. Tysons landowners shouldn't have to subsidize a metro rider in Centreville or Sterling getting to their job in DC either. If you say the costs are indirect or interrelated, fine, that's alright by me, but you should at least be honest about it.

I don't know every detail about the task force although I've kept up somewhat with it. I agree that contingency plans and the like and smart management is needed. I am a cynic about this kind of stuff to an extent, I'm sure there will be a lot of overruns. It may be hard to have everything set up from the outset w/ respect to some of those land acquisitions it seems, I'll just cross my fingers I guess.

Comment by Tysons Realist

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:50:28 EDT

Vik - your arguments seem very hollow to me. Fairfax County's traffic studies show that, even with the four rail stations and now more than a billion dollars of road improvements, the transportation network fails -- total gridlock -- if and when Tysons Corner grows to 84 million square feet. That suggests a limit of something less than 84 million square feet. Doesn't it?

If Fairfax County limits development to that level or lower, I would readily agree that the Orange Line extension, etc., cost should NOT be included in the Tysons Corner costs. Are we in agreement now?

But the Task Force and landowners want to build Tysons larger than 84 million aquare feet. Ergo, we need improvements (especially transit) beyond the Tysons Corner area. Those too will be costly, and those costs should be recovered, at least in substantial part, by Tysons development beyond 84 million square feet. Otherwise, everyone else is subsidizing Tysons Corner development. Why should a commercial landlord in Annandale, for example, subsidize the competition in Tysons?

How big should Tysons be? We haven't seen all of the studies yet, including the capacity study for the Silver Line. So I'm not ready to support a specific number of square feet. But two key factors necessary for Tysons to grow much beyond its current 45 million square feet are adding three new interchanges to the Toll Road (at Tysons), expanding the Toll Road to 13 lanes (which will include taking residential and park land), and adding another lane to the Outer Loop between Tysons and I-66 (which also will likely require the acquistion of homes and businesses). If federal (Wolf Trap Park), state and local officials are willing to take these land transfer and acquistion steps, then they should say so now and Tysons can grow to something less than 84 million square feet. If, on the other hand, the National Park Service will not give up part of Wolf Trap and the state/Fairfax County will not be willing to condemn residential and commercial properties, they should say so now and Tysons growth be limited substantially.

The Task Force was and is a joke. It performed no supportable analysis. There will be political repercussions when the total costs are made known.

Comment by Vik

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:23:10 EDT

"Alternatively, we can make a plan that lets Tysons add density just at the rail stations and at a level that does NOT require five more Toll Road lanes, three more interchanges, another Outer Loop lane, Orange Line expansion, etc."

What plan is this? Tell us what density level you feel is appropriate to achieve this. I don't understand how the Tysons plan will require us to extend the orange line. An orange line extension would probably be on the short list of extensions and infill stations in Northern Virginia as it is. 40-50 yrs is a long time, at a modest growth rate, in this time period, there would be greater demand and strain on the area's roadways and rails even if we don't drastically increase density at Tysons Corner.

Fairlee-MetroWest, more development in Arlington, development in Falls Church, Dunn Loring, Fairfax Corner/Gov't Center, all these areas and developments will need infrastructure upgrades and it's not right to say incorporate these costs in with the Tysons redevelopment project. Same for the Dulles Corridor. There will be more growth in Loudoun, it's likely that areas like Reston, Chantilly, Herndon, etc. will be employing more people.

It's expensive for sure, it's a fairly wealthy and populated county that employs lots of people and has some influence and it's trying to position itself for the future. Even if it were a couple billion over several decades, people would still find a way to rail against it.

Comment by Vik

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:10:41 EDT

Unless you can prove that absent the relatively bold plan for redevelopment at Tysons that there wouldn't be any upgrades to I-66 or an orange line extension to C'ville, it's misleading to use the costs of those projects against Tysons development. Thinking 40-50 yrs down the road, it's likely that we would see a push for metro and more lanes on I-66 regardless. The area between I-66, 267 and Tysons on I-495, even if there were no new development, would need some traffic alleviation. In case you didn't notice, there are a lot of traffic-clogged areas in Northern Virginia that have either been mismanaged or neglected and need upgrades just to provide a better quality of life at the current level of population and usage.

Also, adding the costs of the silver line out towards Dulles and Loudoun County also shouldn't be lumped in with Tysons; at the very best it's misleading. Originally, there wasn't going to be metro through Tysons, and while it's certainly added a lot of costs to route it through Tysons, nevertheless, the costs of extending the metro into reston, dulles and towards wiehle ave. should have their own title or be separated from the direct costs of Tysons redevelopment.

A variety of projects throughout Northern Virginia will have effects on moving people towards or through Tysons, but unless you're upfront about it, it misleads a lot of people who simply read headlines and use something like this to rail against gov't and developers and hippie smart growth advocates. It can't be emphasized enough that with a dollar figure like this, it's for the long-term and covers a wide range of costs to facilitate growth not just in Tysons, but growth at a modest rate across the county and to make improve current high levels of traffic.

Comment by Tysons Realist

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:15:35 EDT

Lisa Rein's article was quite good. If any of you had taken the time to follow the multiple years of proceedings on Tysons Corner, you would likely agree with the article.

First, I agree adding density at the four Tysons stations makes sense. But how much density and under what conditions?

The traffic studies show that, even with mixed use and the four rail stations, the majority of travel to, and from, Tysons Corner will continue to be by single occupancy vehicle. You may not like that conclusion, but it's what the best evidence shows.

This means, of course, that there needs to be huge, costly road improvements, including adding three more interchanges to on the Toll Road between the Beltway and just past Route 7. That, in turn, requires the expansion of the Toll Road from 8 to 13 lanes to Hunter Mill Road, four of which must be distributor-collector lanes similar to I-270. Those lanes will likely require the taking of backyards, homes and park land, including portions of Wolf Trap. Also, we need one additional Outer Loop lane from Tysons to I-66.

Then, when these and all other expensive road improvements occur, the studies also show that all transportation fails once Tysons grows to 84 million square feet. The landowners, of course, want to go well beyond 84 million square feet. Thus, the county says we need massive investments in mass transit for Tysons to grow beyond 84 million square feet -- expansion of the Orange Line, for example. But for expanding the Orange Line, Tysons cannot grow beyond 84 million square feet. Unless someone can prove the county's analysis incorrect, isn't it fair to include the Orange Line costs in the calculation?

Alternatively, we can make a plan that lets Tysons add density just at the rail stations and at a level that does NOT require five more Toll Road lanes, three more interchanges, another Outer Loop lane, Orange Line expansion, etc.

Tysons Corner is a mess. Pretending that rail and mixed-use fix things is wrong. The facts and analysis show otherwise.

Comment by John T.

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:50:39 EDT

"The $15 billion also covers rail to Centreville, for $2.3 billion, which wouldn't even go to Tysons."

Yes, but people coming from Centreville and other parts of Fairfax County take I-66 to get to Tysons. If we want to convert Tysons to a walkable urban center based on rail connections, extending the Orange Line along the I-66 median to Centreville is part of that strategy. In the absence of a rail strategy, the alternative would be to expand I-66; that would still cost significant amounts of money, though it would be cheaper than extending Metro.

You're certainly right that the headline doesn't make it clear that this is part of a 20-40 year strategy, and that it's a document for all of Fairfax County. But if we're serious about making Tysons a walkable urban center, then it makes sense to provide a way for people in the rest of Fairfax County to get to Tysons by Metro instead of having to drive. It is a sensible part of an overall rail strategy.

Saying that the Orange Line extension "wouldn't even go to Tysons" is a little misleading. Yes, it would have a connection at West Falls Church, but it "wouldn't go to Tysons" in the same sense that I-66 "doesn't go to Tysons" right now.

Comment by MattF

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:17:10 EDT

The larger point, entirely ignored by the Post article, is that there is a cost for congestion, whether it is urban or suburban, planned or unplanned, paid for deliberately through policy or paid for happenstantially by whoever is unlucky enough to get in the way. There is no cheap way out-- it's either pay now intelligently or pay later stupidly.

Comment by Jasper

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:20:14 EDT

By the way, let me explain the younger readers here what a newspaper is. It's kinda like a blog, but not distributed through the internet or on a computer. The text is distributed on thin layers of mashed dead tree, bagged and thrown in your front yard by some high school kid. So instead of just grabbing your PDA and reading the news, you had to get up and dressed, pick the newspaper from the front yard and unpack it. This is basically how your parents always got up so early.

WaPo? RIP!

Comment by Rich

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:39:14 EDT

Journalists seem usable to do anything with numbers. they also seem incapable of using Google. WaPo scribblers also seem to know little, if anything, about the DC area.

Comment by цarьchitect

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:07 EDT

Please get her on here for a chat. I can't decide whether to hate her or pity her.

Comment by Steve Davis

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:24:53 EDT

Wow. Just wow. I mean, we all complain about slants or about "windshield perspective" or little slights here and there that can often just be ingrained in someone's perspective. But this is a whole other level of just terrible reporting and journalism. Aside from the focus on this one reporter, it's terrible work and oversight by her editors, who should really be on the hook for something this bad. Yikes.

Comment by Justin.....

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:55:39 EDT

@stevek - That is an interesting idea. If it gets me accurate reporting, I'd be willing to pay a bit for my local news.

Comment by stevek_fairfax

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:50:42 EDT

Have any national newspapers like the post or NY Times considered charging for local news (metro, local politics, local sports etc), but leaving national stories free?

That might be a model where they could rectify advertising desire for website "hits" from Anywhere USA folks interested in national politics with local desire for acurate reporting - which does not draw as many hits by the nature of the web.

Comment by stevek_fairfax

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:44:25 EDT

I've read the Washington Post my whole life. If took a tabliod-ish turn about a year and a half ago.

I understand they have to make money, but they are undermining their reader loyalty with increased sensationalism in the process. If the paper had started charing for the web site about 2 years ago I probably would have subscribed, and still been a subscriber had they kept up their reporting. I don't know any more.

Comment by NikolasM

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:36:00 EDT

Using their math the cost of Tyson area workers would be near infinite. Most pay parking and then there is gas and general wear and tear. Multiply that by 50 years and 100,000 cars+ a day...

Comment by w

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:10:24 EDT

the WaPo is no longer loyal to the city or our citizens .
It is now mostly oriented to the suburbs and to other places in the USA far away from DC. I am continuosly astonished by false or mis-informed statements about DC & it's history made by woefully un-informed reporters or writers in the WaPo who seem to think that no one lives in DC for more than 5 years- so they never bother to learn about us.

It is mostly written by transients or people who live in the suburbs and have absolutely nothing to do w/ the city.

Just because it promotes "liberal" leaning politics does not make it a progressive newspaper.

Comment by Gavin Baker

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:49:17 EDT

Maybe the Post has the same people doing the numbers on circulation and revenue as they had doing the research on this story.

If David's got this right, then this is remarkably bad reporting.

Comment by Cavan

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:36:27 EDT

...and the hits just keep coming from the Post transportation coverage.

Comment by David

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:10:50 EDT

Journalists and math often don't go well together. The Post is just publishing poorly researched garbage here, the revenue and circulation declines are really showing up in a lot of what's getting written there. But when you start associating this with a particular viewpoint on the subject matter, you're giving them more credibility than they deserve.