@ Silver Line
7 billion for the silver line just blows my mind. How can can it cost that much. It makes the 3 B ICC look like a good deal. Does that include the extension past the airport?

If not I would defend holding off on building Phase II due to cost concerns. That far out busses could be used to move people to the airport.

Or perhaps it could be extended just one station past the airport and be setup as a commuter hub just like Shady Grove is.

by Matt R on Mar 18, 2011 9:02 am • link • report

Congress has the right to investigate the operations of the District government, that is clear. However, the one thing that really irks me is Issa's rationale for greater oversight because "Federal taxpayer dollars fund a large portion of the District’s budget".

Yes, that's true, but the Federal government funds a large portion of every state's budget. Some states, like New Mexico, receive more money from the Federal government than the state raises in local tax revenue!

Statements like Issa's perpetuate the popular belief that Congress begrudgingly delivers a truckload of undeserved money to the Wilson Building every year. If only that were true.

by Adam L on Mar 18, 2011 9:20 am • link • report

@Matt R:
Yes. Phase II includes the stations beyond the airport.

by Matt Johnson on Mar 18, 2011 9:26 am • link • report

$7 Billion is the cost for the entire Silver Line (phase I and II).

Cost per mile is $305M vs. $158M for the ICC. But the Silver Line also has external benefits and can move more people.

by MLD on Mar 18, 2011 9:28 am • link • report

Does anyone know the cost per mile of operating a rail line vs. highway.

I'm pretty sure the ICC has external benefits as well. I think what MLD means it the Silver Line may increase "density" which is sort of a holy mantra around here.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 9:39 am • link • report

@charlie

It's not just about density. If I can commute from D.C. to Tyson's without a car, I'm not only decreasing congestion and operating costs of I-66 and Leesburg Pike, but also on every road that feeds into them.

That's the key difference between transit and highways... you can't just take the cost of operating the soon-to-be 18 miles of the ICC and then compare that to transit, because it leaves out the added traffic and maintenance costs associated with all the roads that feed into it.

by Adam L on Mar 18, 2011 9:52 am • link • report

@Adam, yes and that's the inherent danger of some DC residents not seeing the forest for the trees.

From what I understand, Republicans have never shied away from interjecting themselves into DC affairs, usually because they can.

However, we should caution ourselves against creating an environment whereas it becomes easy for them to do it. I honestly believe that the Wisconsin/Union issue is due to democrats making it easy for Republicans to paint unions are the answer to all that ails, whether it's budget or student performance in schools. People were so willing to jump on the bandwagon that they couldn't see the tsunami rounding the corner.

Now we're here. People will be so willing to "get" Gray that they will make it easy for congressional insinuation.

by HogWash on Mar 18, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

@charlie

As Adam L says, it's not just density. Actually I wasn't really thinking much about density, but more about the benefits of congestion reduction, decreased maintenance on roads, emissions reduction, consumer savings, etc.

Also keep in mind when comparing capital costs of a system that new roads externalize many costs, especially parking costs. The silver line costs include the track and stations, so if you want to compare those costs you should really include the cost of all the parking that serves the ICC or any other highway, which is ultimately borne by the community at large anyway.

by MLD on Mar 18, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

@AdamL; I suspect very few people will be doing a Metro commute from DC to Tysons. Lack of government workers in Tysons -- and their free rides -- will limit that.Given how cheap parking is there -- and how it will remain cheap for 10+ years -- well.

And my point about externalities is they go both ways. Yes, rail has externalities. Everything does -- both positive and negative. That's why outside their original context -- law -- they are a fools game.

So from a cash standpoint, I think you could extrapolate cost per mile. I'm not sure highways would win. It does cost a lot -- potholes, snowplows, police, emergency, etc.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

@Adam, charlie, et al.: What about cost recovery? Roads, unless they're tolled, don't recover costs in user fees at all. Rail lines do.

by Tim on Mar 18, 2011 10:25 am • link • report

@Tim; gas tax is type of cost recovery. On a accounting basis, separating highways from local roads makes sense, however, in reality roads are a integrated network as well. You'd have to throw in various forms of vehicle sales tax, title taxes, etc as well.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@Tim

Rail covers < 50% of their operating cost typically. That cost differential is covered by State and District funds.

I'm not sure how much roads cost, but their funding is partially covered by gasoline taxes and partially by car registration fees.

So your statement that roads don't recover fees, is false.

by eb on Mar 18, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

There are plenty of people doing the "reverse commute" from DC to Tyson's Corner. Having a Metro option will reduce that congestion significantly.

The primary externality provided by metro is the reduced congestion and hence emissions. However, providing transportation and related housing options is a significant benefit to the region. That is why the collective "we" are investing in reshaping Tysons and building the Silver Line.

by Andrew on Mar 18, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

@Tim
Roads do in theory recover costs from gas taxes, though we all know its never ehough to fully fund a road, but neither is the metro trip fee.

I also understand the density arguement and it is very valid between the airport and DC, but beyond the airport will there eventually be added density or will they become commuter stations?

For that matter we have to ask the question, do we even want added density out that far?

by Matt R on Mar 18, 2011 10:34 am • link • report

@charlie

To go on what Andrew said, there are many reverse commuters to Tyson's, and not just from D.C. but from Arlington, especially. In addition, the projections are that many commuters who will be wokring in Tyson's Corner are actually going to come from points west, making the completion of Phase II of the Metrorail project even more imperative. The people who live out past Reston and Herndon are unlikely to be commuting all the way into D.C., but rather to Tyson's.

by Adam L on Mar 18, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

That's the key difference between transit and highways... you can't just take the cost of operating the soon-to-be 18 miles of the ICC and then compare that to transit, because it leaves out the added traffic and maintenance costs associated with all the roads that feed into it.

I support transit, and would call that statement into question, since we're specifically talking about the ICC here. Even though I don't think the road needed to be built to as high of a standard as it was, it really was a missing link in the region's road network.

If we discount the effects of induced demand, the ICC reduced the commuting distances (and times) of those who use it by a very considerable margin. I think that might tip the scales in its favor, when you consider the effects on local roads.

(Now, that being said, induced demand may very well tip the scales back in the other direction. Similarly, its status as a toll road will encourage shunpiking, which is bad bad bad bad for everybody involved. It is in nobody's interests for the state to provide financial incentives for drivers to take less-direct routes to their destinations. It increases wear on the surrounding roads, burns more gas, and makes people unhappy.)

by andrew on Mar 18, 2011 10:51 am • link • report

If Loudoun pulls out, what happens to Phase II? Does it terminate at the airport? Does it get canceled altogether? If it terminates at the airport, does the Route 28 stop get built? Or would the Route 28 stop be reconfigured to lie wholly in Fairfax?

by jim on Mar 18, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

@andres and Adam L; yep, I agree. Lots of reverse commuters.

However, my position is a small minority of them will be using the Silver Line out to Tysons to commute.

1. Government: we know something like 40-50% of WMATA rail riders at rush use smartbenefits and a good chunk of them are government. How many government workers are in Tysons?

2. Parking: Parking, as I said will remain cheap and affordable in Tyson for the near (10 year) future.

3. Silver Line placement: For people who live on the red line in DC, the Silver Line will NOT be optimal for metro riding. Same is true to a large extent for Green.

On the plus side, gas prices and 66 reverse congestion are only going to get worse in the next 10 years.

Silver Line will benefit N. Arlington and Fairfax County (orange line) commuters: agreed.

Haven't seen projection on ridership to Tysons past Reston but I suspect that will also not be that large. And that is my point: better to kill the Silver Line past Reston. You've got the best parts in place, kill the rest. The minor connivence of taking the train to Dulles isn't worth it. (3-4 billion)

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 10:58 am • link • report

@charlie

Killing the Silver Line past Reston would be very short-sighted. Western Fairfax and Loudoun are in a similar situation as Rockville and Gaithersburg 30 years ago. People back in the 80s could have very well said "stop the Red Line at Grosvenor, it doesn't need to go all the way out to the boonies... it's too expensive and nobody out there will use it." I'm glad planners didn't make that mistake then and I hope we won't make it now.

by Adam L on Mar 18, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

@andrew; hmm -- induced demand on a toll road would actually be increased toll recovery?

And how can the ICC encourage shun-piking? I mean, getting across the county before already involved local roads.

Does the ICC allow trucks? I always expected buses and trucks to dramatically increase maintainance costs on roads, but have never seen figures, for instance, of the GW Parkway and 66 inside the beltway.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 11:07 am • link • report

1. Gray has certainly set some kind of land speed record for having gone from inaugruation to Congressional investigation in ~ 2 months. As expected, a Gray administration is going to be a complete and embarrasing disaster.

2. I think people aren't considering the length of time it takes to commute out the orange line. I occasionally take metro from Foggy Bottom out to the Vienna stop. I've never done it in less than 30 minutes, metro's own trip planner said it takes 25. Now extend that out to Tysons. A trip on metro out to Tysons will take a minimum of 40 minutes when you can (and I frequently do) drive there from Georgetown in the morning rush out 66 in 15 minutes. I am sure there will be some people willing, but I would venture to say that many people won't be willing to give up the flexibility of their cars to spend an extra hour a day on their commute.

by freely on Mar 18, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

@charlie: The minor connivence of taking the train to Dulles isn't worth it.

A large number of users are people who work at the airport. It's not a minor convenience for them. Although there is a danger that the cost of riding will be so high that many of the low-wage workers drive anyway.

by David desJardins on Mar 18, 2011 12:08 pm • link • report

@ David desJardins; yes.

I've often seen airline workers on the Flyer bus, they get a discount.

I don't see many airport workers on the 5A. The price increase ($6), free parking at Dulles, and limited stop (DC/Rosslyn to Dulles) is probably a limiting factor.

Part of the motivation for moving the station it is easier for airport workers to use it. Very legitimate, and I do suspect a large percentage of the eventual users will be airport workers rather than passengers.

However, the eventual price will be high -- probably around $10 or so -- which isn't helpful.

Having a special station tax (like the $1) at union station might also make sense.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 12:18 pm • link • report

Reducing congestion and whatnot is an issue that we should be serious about, but the Silver Line is also about future growth and transit oriented development. If land is becoming more scarce and expensive and the way to make money is to extract the most revenue possible from each sq. ft., than rail is an effective way to accomplish this. I'm not sure how roads and rail compare in this regard, but due to our current understanding of urbanism and development, denser development happens to be where rail is. That's why Tysons is such a big component of the Silver Line. For what Fairfax County is trying to accomplish, having limited land and higher economic aspirations, heavy rail seems to be able to do things that roads can't. Ditto for Reston.

I can understand Loudoun's position on this Dulles station b/c of what's at stake for them, but I don't think terminating the line at Reston is a good idea. I think it should go to Dulles. Having rail there does offer some, less costly way to get downtown, but more importantly, it provides more opportunity economically to businesses in the Dulles and I-66 corridors.

I can understand if people think that this emphasis on future economic development and growth is misplaced or unfair given our current problems, but that seems to be what it's really about, not reducing traffic and congestion.

by Vik on Mar 18, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report

@charlie: Part of the motivation for moving the station it is easier for airport workers to use it.

I think this is sort of backwards. Most airport workers probably care less about walking several hundred extra feet, than air travelers do. They value their time less (on average) than air travelers, and are more price-sensitive. If they were paying the extra cost, the airport workers would probably prefer the cheaper station, while the air travelers would tend to prefer the more convenient station.

by David desJardins on Mar 18, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

@DaviddesJardins; the proposed "cheap" station is actually closer to the Dulles offices than the passenger terminal.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report

On the Dulles Airport ridership:

Most commenters are talking as though the Silver Line extension is to allow area residents to choose between driving to the airport or taking Metro. It seems to me that that has it backwards. The primary ridership will be non-area residents arriving at the airport and needing to get to their hotels choosing between renting a car at the airport, dropping $50 on a cab or taking Metro. (That's an argument for the Rosslyn wye, by the way: it would provide single seat rides between the airport and the hotel clusters at Pentagon City, Crystal City and Alexandria.)

Making the station as convenient as possible for arriving visitors will considerably raise ridership.

by jim on Mar 18, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report

On Loudoun funding:

Eyeballing the route, if Phase II is terminated at the airport and the Route 28 station is dropped, then Phase II becomes three stations vice six and slightly over half the mileage. Which implies that the reduction in cost from avoiding serving Loudoun would be much greater than Loudoun's contribution.

by jim on Mar 18, 2011 1:09 pm • link • report

@charlie: the proposed "cheap" station is actually closer to the Dulles offices than the passenger terminal.

OK, but I think the majority of workers traveling to the airport are working at or around the terminal. You make a good point that there are other work locations too.

by David desJardins on Mar 18, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report

@jim: The primary ridership will be non-area residents arriving at the airport and needing to get to their hotels choosing between renting a car at the airport, dropping $50 on a cab or taking Metro.

That can't possibly be the primary ridership. Look at airport rail connections around the country, nowhere are there enough travelers from other areas to support the ridership you need. I haven't seen the ridership projections for the Silver Line (and I'm sure they are overstated), but I'm sure it doesn't have travelers (even local and non-local combined) as a majority of riders.

by David desJardins on Mar 18, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report

Not Silver Line ridership. Dulles Airport boardings.

by jim on Mar 18, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report

Any reason why we can't simply end the line at Dulles, and leave the remainder for potential future development? (ie. Phase III?)

Or does the Dulles Railyard complicate that too much?

by andrew on Mar 18, 2011 1:57 pm • link • report

@David desJardin; MWAA has already cited the "cheap" location as better for the workers there. I doubt the majority of Dulles workers at at the Terminal. It is a very spread out airport (largest in area next to Denver?" and the complex includes cargo, hotel, gas stations, rental cars, etc. ATC and firefighters are several miles away. I agree with your general point that the time value for workers is probably less than air travelers.

@Jim; I very much doubt out-of-town tourists will be the majority of boardings. Right now Dulles is mostly an international/west coast airport. That can change -- let's say a major discount airline sets up again (like Independence did briefly). With luggage, international travelers will find the Silver Line very bad. It is certainly possible a UAL/CON combination will try to take on USAIR at DCA, but there isn't the same volume of tourists out there. I suspect, given the distance, price and time to DC, the majority of boardings will be airport workers and people from Reston/Tysons.

This is a fools game, really. I **wish** the would kill the Silver Line II or at least delay it more. However, all this maneuvering is basically everyone telling MWAA they don't want an underground station.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report

When did the cost of the Silver Line become $7 billion? It was a projected $6.5 billion in the Examiner article yesterday. Is the higher figure if they go with the underground station at Dulles? But from the political rumblings from Loudoun and Fairfax and the extra cost, it is going to be the cheaper aboveground station.

A month ago, I would have pushed for the closer underground station. But I flew out of Dulles several weeks ago, using the daily parking garage. By the time I walked and carried my bag from: the middle of the parking garage 2 into the terminal, to the new security screening megacomplex, to the AeroTrain stop, take the Aerotrain to terminal C which drops you off a long walk from the terminal entrance point because C&D are "temporary" terminals, and then to a C gate located near the end of the terminal, an extra 600' from the metro station with slide walks is nothing. Dulles is not a compact airport. No, go with the less expensive above ground station - which will be quicker to build too - so we can get the complete Silver Line done by 2017.

As for the attacks on the Silver Line, I think many do not appreciate just how jammed the Dulles Toll road and for that matter, Route 7 from Sterling to Tysons get in the morning rush hours. The Silver Line will see 2 way commuting ridership from Ashburn, Herndon, Reston, south Sterling to Tysons and DC and from DC & Tysons westward. It will see a big drop-off in weekend traffic until a lot of TOD takes place, which will take 10-25 years. Where I live, I wish Phase I was up and running right now.

by AlanF on Mar 18, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report

" the benefits of congestion reduction, decreased maintenance on roads, emissions reduction, consumer savings, etc." Dulles Rail Not

Dulles Rail through Tysons will give the landowners more density. But the density also requires about $1.5 billion in added road improvement costs, including widening the Dulles Toll Road and adding another lane beyond HOT Lanes on the Beltway from Route 7 to I-66. The Toll Road widening will likely require strip takings from homeowners and Wolf Trap National Park, the invasion of a number of Resource Protection Areas, and the removal and reconstruction of a number of support facilities for the Silver Line.

The icing on the cake is the fact that once Tysons grows to 84 million square feet from today's 45-46 million (estimated by George Mason University to occur in 2030), all major road systems (Beltway, Toll Road, Route 7 and Route 123) will reach total failure every evening.

Heavy rail was hijacked by the Tysons developer crowd. Dulles Rail will be the last expansion of Metrorail in Virginia. It is a huge boondoggle that no one can afford to fund. Rail should have been built in the median of the Dulles Toll Road or that right of way used for Bus Rapid Transit.

by tmtfairfax on Mar 18, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report

Tysons should have rail. I'm glad it was "hijacked". You can argue whether it should have 4 stations, but I'm glad that Tysons is getting rail now rather than building a line to Dulles in the median as simply as a commuter shuttle and then regret not having built a stop at one of the largest employment centers in the region.

by Vik on Mar 18, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report

@AlanF; tmtfairfax does a better job explaining why this is a bad idea.

But the initial costs were 2.6 billion, which have boomed now into 6.5. Color me very skeptical about MWAA's stewardship of this project. Again, this is a project with minimal land acquisition, and the land that it did acquire was rebated down to reflect a market crash.

Throw in the costs of maintaing 26 miles more track, degraded service in Arlington, and taking Metro to dulles will becoming a joke, you can safely say the Silver line is the silver bullet for killing a WMATA vampire. We'll see the benefits, if any, in 20+ years.

Kill Phase II. Now.

by charlie on Mar 18, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report

I can no longer support Phase II of the so-called Silver Line as currently proposed. It is too expensive to build, will be too expensive to operate, and because everything out there is so decentralized, I don't even believe it will do much to alleviate road congestion. People will have to drive quite a distance just to get to the line. When the funding for Potomac Yard is still not a slam dunk (a place much more suited to a transit-oriented model), I think we should be very careful about a project that costs 10 times as much and is three times as far away from central DC.

I want to bring BRT back onto the table to service this corridor. It would be possible to implement BRT from Reston / Tysons to both Leesburg and Manassas for a fraction of the cost of Metro.

by movement on Mar 18, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report

I would prefer an underground station at the the main terminal, but if that's not possible, why don't they split the difference and put the station in the middle of that huge parking lot, leaving commuters and travelers each with short walks via skywalks to both the terminal and the parking garages/offices?

by retrostyleguy on Mar 18, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report

Vik, have you read Fairfax County's Chapter 527 Transportation Analysis and VDOT's comments in response? Fairfax County spent huge amounts of money on preparing this analysis, which contributed to its winning an national planning award for its work on Tysons Corner. Rail is projected to handle only 17% of all trips to and from Tysons in 2030. That's less than Rosslyn-Ballston, Bethesda and, of course, downtown D.C. And VDOT believes the estimate is optimistic.

A larger Tysons means many more automobile trips. The plan is to put 200,000 workers in Tysons and 100,000 residents too. An expanded road network will reach total and complete gridlock every work day evening. Read the studies and VDOT's comments. Rail is no magic bullet to fix transportation hell, but an expensive means to bring more automobile traffic to Tysons Corner and surrounding areas.

by tmtfairfax on Mar 18, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

@tmtfairfax:

The plan outlines a 15% increase in square footage over what is already projected to happen in Tyson's. Seems to me that the 17% of trips by rail is going to cover that extra growth. You're being misleading when you say "The icing on the cake is the fact that once Tysons grows to 84 million square feet from today's 45-46 million." You make it sound as if there would be no growth whatsoever without the "developer crowd" redoing Tysons. The reality is that the comprehensive plan predicts that Tysons will grow to 73 million square feet in that same time period regardless. By routing the rail through Tysons they are leveraging the traffic-reducing effect of rail to its full effect - just having a station in the middle of the Dulles Greenway isn't going to accomplish that.

by MLD on Mar 18, 2011 4:31 pm • link • report

MLD The old Comp Plan for Tysons assumed three, now four, rail stations and extensive road improvements. Without them, Tysons could not grow to 73 million under the old Comp Plan. Very few of the road improvements have been built or funded. There has been some widening of Route 123, but not all that is contemplated by existing plan. Spring Hill Road has just been widened. But most necessary road improvements are not there. It is doubtful that landowners could build to 73 million without extensive proffers towards roads.

I honestly don't understand how you can assume 17% of many more daily trips will fix traffic problems. Only Clark Tyler and Bill Lecos made those wild claims. Fairfax County and VDOT predict total gridlock even with rail, good mixed use development, substantial increases in bus transit, mandatory paid parking and other TDM measures, and $1.5 billion or so in major road projects at 84 million square feet.

Bottom line, we would not even be thinking about 73 million square feet for Tysons with rail in the DTR median. Realistically, we cannot go to 73 million without many road improvements. People who live and work in and around the Tysons area would not be facing massive increases in traffic had the rail been kept in the median of the DTR. Tysons would not likely grow much bigger than it is today.

by tmtfairfax on Mar 18, 2011 5:15 pm • link • report

@tmtfairfax

Sure you can. You just become urban.

Downtown DC has far more square footage than Tysons with far less road infrastructure and capacity. What it does have is an efficient grid, good transit, and a walkable environment. That's what Tysons is after.

As MLD notes, the growth will happen either way, and urbanizing is the only real solution to deal with that growth. Additional road capacity won't solve Tysons' problems - that very capacity is the problem.

by Alex B. on Mar 18, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report

Alex B. Most people in Fairfax County do not want to live in an urban area. If they did, they would already live in such an area, as there are a number of such places in the Metro region. I think it is great to offer more housing choices by putting urban housing near the rail stations. But most people in Fairfax County like suburban living and will fight to retain it. Most people believe that Fairfax County is essentially built out and will vote against politicans who will attempt to force excessive growth on them.

Growth can occur outside Fairfax County by putting more jobs outside the area so as to permit people to avoid commuting into Fairfax County. I know people who would support using Fairfax County tax dollars to promote commercial development in Loudoun and Prince William Counties. Development in Fairfax County continues to degrade the quality of life. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. People are sick of traffic congestion, overcrowded classrooms, overused parks and open space. Etc. They would gladly see development occur outside Fairfax County even while accepting some rational growth around the rail stations. But forced urbanism will never be accepted. Many people believe that more sprawl is in their best interests as the costs for development (roads, schools, parks, police, etc.) will not need to be funded by Fairfax County.

As far as added road capacity is concerned, please read Fairfax County's 527 analysis and VDOT's response. A bigger Tysons will require huge and expensive increases in road capacity. An urban Tysons means more automobiles and trucks on the roads.

Trying to ram urbanism down people's throats is not the way to promote the concept. Bill Lecos and Clark Tyler tried, and were met with strong opposition. Moreover, they lost and lost big time because of that opposition. The Comp Plan changes adopted by the Fairfax County BoS on June 22, 2010 was a complete repudiation of their plan and tactics.

by tmtfairfax on Mar 18, 2011 6:06 pm • link • report

@tmt

I'm talking about urbanizing Tysons, not all of the county. Tysons seems to fit that exact mold you discuss - adjacent to future rail stations.

However, my larger point was this - people associate growth with congestion. That doesn't need to be the case. A place like DC has grown without increasing congestion. The R-B corridor in Arlington is the textbook case of massive growth without any increase in congestion. The point is that there are other models for growth, ones with positive feedback loops.

The growth is coming, whether you like it or not. Urbanizing areas like Tysons is a good strategy to deal with that growth. I would argue that building more roads or trying to keep the area static is a bad strategy that will backfire.

by Alex B. on Mar 18, 2011 6:18 pm • link • report

Alex,

I agree with you about Arlington. It is quite successful. But there are major differences between Tysons and the RB corridor. The latter had most of its infrastructure in place when rail came. They didn't need to build schools, a grid of streets, parks, etc. Rail is underground. The RB corridor is narrow and development is concentrated. A number of neighborhoods near rail were blighted or nearly so. There was strong citizen input during every stage of the process. There is minimal access to highways --only I-66 is nearby.

Tysons is unique. Ask planners. It is 1700 acres of potentially developable land. It is not linear. And every landowner no matter how far from the rail stations wants density. Infrastructure for anything more than commercial development is absent. There is significant access to highways - The Beltway, the DTR. Routes 123 and 7 are also heavily traveled. I-66 is close by. The existing streets are wide and winding. There is no grid of streets. Building a grid will take at least 25-30 years. Tysons is far from blighted. It is a tremendous commercial success. Few of the landowners want to give up any space for public facilities. There has been no meaningful citizen input to the process. Clark Tyler purposely fought to keep citizens out, claiming he and others adequately represented the citizens. Indeed, until forced to do so by Supervisor Foust, Tyler would not allow a citizen even to ask a question. Indirect citizen input was ignored by the Task Force. Only because of the existence of the 527 transportation review process, the years of developer lying to county officials, the refusal of Walter Alcorn to accept fantasy and the consistent diligence of citizens groups did the final plan enter the zone of reality.

But the facts remain: Tysons' redevelopment will result in substantially more traffic. Massive new road construction will occur. Tysons is not the RB corridor. It is not like anything else in the world.

by tmtfairfax on Mar 19, 2011 9:25 am • link • report

Sure, there is no increase in congestion in the R-B corridor. It was congested before and remains so.

by movement on Mar 19, 2011 5:29 pm • link • report