Seeking Public Inputs on "Scenario E" for Tuesday's RTF Meeting

All--

As you may have read on the Reston 2020 blog earlier, the only item on the draft agenda for the Tuesday, 8/14, meeting of the Reston Task Force is to discuss "Scenario E."  I would welcome your thoughts to inform my thinking as I go into that meeting as RCA's representative to the task force.  Please feel free to share your thoughts on this blog (including anonymously) by using the comments section below or you may send me an e-mail at terrmayn@yahoo.com.

"Scenario E" is the scenario that now stands as the basis for developing the Phase 1 Reston Master Plan language for the Metro station areas (Wiehle, Reston Town Center, & Herndon-Monroe) through 2030.  It essentially calls for allowing a doubling of density in the TOD areas with the mix showing a modest shift toward residential from the current highly office-centric development.  By my calculation, it would allow about 50K people (vs. 6,000 now) to live and 100K people (vs. 70,000 now) to work in the TOD areas by 2030.

• Here is a link to the County staff "Scenario E" presentation:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/presentations/09-13-2011_tf_pres_gmu_allocation.pdf
• Here is further detail on the density and mix:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/documents_reference/2030_development_map_charts.pdf 
• Here is the link to the County's webpage in which these materials and more info is available:   http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/scenarios.htm .  This webpage also discusses an alternative "residential-intensive scenario" ("Scenario F"), which was a ridiculous alternative based on ramping up residential development while sustaining non-residential development at the same high levels as offered in Scenario E.  It was suppose to provide a counterpoint in ensuing impact analyses, but it was too silly to be given much consideration.  To be remotely realistic, the scenario should have shifted density from non-residential, not added more density to residential. 

As you may recall, the RTF has also been exposed to a series of County staff presentations about the impact of the scenario if implemented.  Here is quick rundown on those impacts:

• Transportation--FC DOT did a thorough job of looking at the impacts in a presentation at our last meeting two months ago, at least along the immediate Dulles Corridor area although no one can like the results.  They suggest a doubling of traffic delays in peak periods if all the currently planned (and mostly unfunded) road improvements are implemented.  It does not address bus transit or other transportation issues/opportunities, most notably biking and walking.  Here is a link to the presentation on the County website:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/presentations/06-12-2012_transportation_analysis_results.pdf

• The other presentations were more prosaic:  
• Public schools:  The FCPS could/would not provide any insights beyond six years.  Useless.  My estimate based on Scenario E is that we will need at least one new elementary school in the Town Center area by 2030. 
• Public Safety:  Need new or expanded fire station. 
• Parks & Recreation:  In March, we were told by a FC Parks/Recreation & RA panel that Reston needed about 110 acres of new space devoted to parks & recreation, but didn't say where.
• Here's the presentation:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/documents_reference/03-27-2012_phase1impacts_parks_rec_culture.pdf.  
• They also provided a "needs" handout:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/documents_reference/03-27-2012_parks_rec_needstable.pdf

All of the above are set against a background of more recent forecasts indicating slower growth in the Dulles Corridor stemming from the recession, likely federal budget spending cuts, and the exorbitant increases in Dulles Toll Road tolls.  

And not until our last meeting--when the horrific transportation impact results were presented--did we have any discussion of implementation issues (eg--linking development to completion of needed road, other transportation improvements).  We have yet to discuss who would pay for any such improvements--an issue that is dogging the Tysons plan implementation effort. 

I would definitely appreciate hearing your thoughts, questions, concerns, ideas, etc.  Thank you for your help.

Regards,

Terry Maynard

RCA Rep to the RTF