Reston 2020: Citizens Shaping Reston's Future

Notes: RA DRB Workshop on Fairway Apartments Redevelopment, January 25, 2012

2012-01-30T08:09:00.001-05:00

Wednesday’s DRB / JBG workshop was interesting. Before the workshop began, I read my Oct. 22, 2011, letter to Cathy Hudgins (see link) citing the reasons a senior oriented development would make great sense and followed up with the stat from last the January 24 Reston Task Force meeting by Lisa Sturtevant of GMU that 60% of retirees stay in Fairfax Co. and probably that percentage is larger in Reston due to its unique flavor. I stressed the win/win philosophy of Reston 2020.

JBG stated that they can’t afford to keep going back to the drawing board and wanted some direction from DRB as to what would be approved. JBG’s John Schlicting was there and stated that he is retiring Feb. 1st. He introduced Greg Trimmer who was there with his project partner, Bailey who would be taking over from him.

Nothing majorly new was presented by JBG except contemporary façades on the buildings. DRB member Richard Newlon wasted no time in pointing this out. He is not subtle and put JBG on notice early on that he was disappointed. Other board members followed suit.

During a two hour discussion and back/forth, some on the DRB board gave passing thought to approving Texas Donut construction. Comments were made that those cheaply constructed buildings do not age well and are miserable mass housing options not suitable for the community-focused Reston landscape. Ed Abbott was particularly opposed to the Texas Donut and pointed out that when the DRB first met with JBG many months ago, it stated categorically that Texas Donuts were unacceptable structures for Reston .

Jennifer Byl was very concerned with the height at 3 ½ floors of the townhouses bordering the complex. I was thinking that wasn’t as important and may even help integrate the bigger buildings in the complex except for the units directly adjacent to the Clubhouse Cluster. Too tall townhouses would block their western light. Since there are only 8 of those units, not too many of the Fairways units might be affected if sited correctly.

At the end, I spoke up again and said to JBG, “Ditch the donut and pay attention to whom you are marketing. If it’s young and singles, you will want one type of development but if it’s seniors and handicapped, you will design to another style.”

I was trying to facilitate a win/win by having JBG realize that seniors wouldn’t want or need a Texas Donut which would’ve helped the DRB get the substantive changes it needs to approve JBG’s plan, but Mike Miller commented that the DRB wasn’t concerned with JBG’s marketing focus. Jennifer Byl did speak up in favor the senior concept, however.

What we need here is a classy development with superb architecture that will be welcomed with open arms and not devalue the neighboring properties by creating a traffic nightmare and overburdening of the surrounding infrastructure.

Another workshop is scheduled for February. I don’t know if the BOS meeting (to approve the JBG proposal) will remain as scheduled. That will be decided later. Clearly Supervisor Hudgins is mediating between the DRB and JBG regarding comments made by the DRB who felt they had been taken advantage of by JBG’s going to the county P & Z before getting concept approval from the DRB.

I spoke to Greg Trimmer after the meeting briefly as well as wishing the JBG architect good luck and telling them both to not even consider a donut as it would never be approved in Reston .

Tammi Petrine

Co-Chair, Reston 2020

RCA Study Shows Wilbur Smith Toll Revenue Forecast Errors Put Dulles Toll Road at Risk

2012-01-27T10:05:00.002-05:00

PRESS RELEASE Point of Contact:

January 27, 2012 Terry Maynard

703-476-5376

terrmayn@yahoo.com

RESTON CITIZENS ASSOCATION STUDY SHOWS MASSIVE OVERESTIMATES IN WILBUR SMITH FORECASTS UNDERMINE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF TOLL ROADS; CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT FORECAST BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH PHASE 2 OF THE METRORAIL SILVER LINE.

“Our analysis of a number of Wilbur Smith Associate’s forecasts for toll facilities indicates they frequently overestimate the toll revenues,” Colin Mills, President of the Reston Citizens Associations (RCA) Board of Directors said. He continued, “These overestimates have led to major financial restructurings and even toll road bankruptcies in the cases we looked at, resulting in major losses to investors and bondholders as well as often requiring new public funding and higher tolls.” RCA completed the study as Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) is about to complete its third traffic and revenue forecast for the Dulles Toll Road and the “funding partners” for the Silver Line are preparing to approve a decision to move forward with Phase 2 of the line’s construction.

The 81-page analysis, entitled Wilbur Smith Associates’ Traffic and Revenue Forecasts: Plenty of Room for Error, examines the widely recognized phenomenon of “optimism bias”—overestimating traffic and revenues—in toll road forecasts and how Wilbur Smith Associates’ (WSA) work fits into that context. Data from a national study of toll road overestimates indicates WSA’s forecasts averaged a 127% overestimate of revenues—more than double—for the first five years for twelve projects it supported. Other forecasting groups performed nearly as poorly, but WSA’s forecasts did not improve over that time span while the others improved markedly. RCA made no broad judgments that WSA’s studies were better or worse than any of its competitors since it didn’t study its competitors’ work in depth.

RCA looked at four cases where WSA seriously overestimated near-term future revenues, sometimes by more than half, with adverse results. In two cases, the toll roads filed for bankruptcy; the others required major financial restructuring. All ended up with major losses to owners and bond holders as well as larger, longer debt servicing arrangements that saw local taxes and/or tolls climb further.

In looking at these toll road cases and two cases involving pending toll bridge construction decisions, RCA discovered several disturbing trends in WSA’s forecasts.

The initial forecast by WSA in a series of reports for a project tended to underestimate the revenue maximizing toll. Subsequent reports forecast that much higher tolls were needed.
It routinely used the most optimistic population and employment forecasts available to drive its forecasts upwards, resulting in significant errors when compared with 2010 Census data.
The four toll roads that used WSA’s forecasts usually saw the shortfall in revenues within one or two years. Nonetheless, they tended to continue to use new WSA forecasts for some time with few improvements in results.

The RCA assessment notes that WSA’s work in its two studies of the Dulles Toll Road so far (2005 and 2009) show the same disturbing trends. Its 2005 forecast put the revenue maximizing toll at $2.00; its 2009 study called for tolls to reach $11.25. It used the highest available population and employment forecasts in both forecasts, overestimating 2010 Fairfax employment by 25% in 2005 and 52% in 2009.

The pattern of overestimates in WSA’s forecasts suggests a substantial risk in proceeding with the Metrorail line’s current financial plan. The report notes risks that:

Lenders will not fund the three billion dollars needed to finance Metrorail construction, or will require state guarantees or funding for an investment grade rating.
Tolls may double those forecast by WSA to meet debt servicing requirements, compensate for the revenue overestimate, pay higher interest rates, and offset reduced traffic demand.
Much higher toll rates on the Dulles Toll Road will discourage economic growth along the Dulles Corridor and force a substantial flow of traffic to already congested nearby highways and roads.
MWAA may have to use airport revenues to pay Dulles Toll Road debt servicing obligations.
MWAA may face default or restructuring of its Dulles Toll Road debt at a greater debt servicing—and greater toll— expense over a long period of time.

In its recommendations and a cover letter to Virginia Governor McDonnell, FHWA Administrator Mendez, and the Silver Line funding partners—MWAA, and Fairfax and Loudoun counties—RCA calls for an immediate independent traffic and revenue forecast overseen by Virginia’s Department of Transportation. It further calls on the funding partners to defer any decision on proceeding with Phase 2 Metrorail construction and FHWA to withhold approval of any financing until the independent forecast is prepared and differences between it and the WSA forecast are resolved. It also calls for MWAA to release the upcoming traffic and revenue study as soon as possible, and for all the funding partners to engage the public in a dialogue on whether and how to proceed with Phase 2 under the current financial plan. Longer term, it calls on FHWA to oversee a process that would lead to a substantial improvement in traffic and revenue forecasts.

RCA Board member Tammi Petrine added, “We are particularly concerned that the upcoming Wilbur Smith forecast will not consider recent GMU’s authoritative research indicating regional growth over the next two decades will be much more slower than they had previously forecast. Both the continuing hard climb out of the recession and coming cutbacks in federal spending will slow Fairfax County growth significantly for a number of years. The new WSA report should be carefully read to see how it treats these variables. Given the WSA record of ‘optimism bias,’ particularly its past use of excessive Fairfax County employment projections, this may become a major problem.”

“RCA has long been enthusiastic about Metrorail to Dulles via Reston,” said Terry Maynard, the report’s principal drafter, “but we do not want a rail line at any price, especially one that forces Dulles Toll Road users to absorb most of the financial burden and area communities to absorb added traffic on already crowded local roads. The prospects are even worse if the WSA forecasts overestimate revenues as much as our research suggests. We hope that an independent forecast, combined with ‘value engineering’ for Phase 2 and restructuring the financial arrangements will lead to a better outcome for everyone.”

RCA Study--Wilbur Smith Traffic & Revenue Forecasts--012712

Moody's: "In light of the ongoing rise in debt, our outlook for the toll road sector remains negative"

2012-01-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

Announcement:
Moody's medians show large increase in toll road debt

Global Credit Research - 25 Jul 2011

New York, July 25, 2011 -- The rated debt of the U. S. toll roads rose 19.2% in 2010, to $72.7 billion from $61 billion, which will exert negative credit pressure on the established toll roads, according to a new report from Moody's Investors Service.

"In light of the ongoing rise in debt, our outlook for the toll road sector remains negative," says Moody's Senior Vice President Maria Matesanz, author of the report.

"As the economy recovers, toll facilities are going to issue debt to finance both upgrades for aging infrastructure and new projects to increase capacity," said Matesanz. "Both cash-strapped state and local governments will look increasingly to their toll roads to finance transportation projects that they can't or are unwilling to fund with tax revenues."

On the positive side, says the Moody's report, traffic has been stabilizing, and even recovering in some regions, and gasoline prices have declined from their peak in early 2011. In addition, increases in toll rates and cuts to operating expenses have offset some of the pressure of the higher debt service and preserved the liquidity and operating ratios of most toll roads.

Furthermore, many toll road operators are forecasting a resumption of slow-but-steady traffic growth, which is consistent with Moody's global macroeconomic GDP growth forecast for 2011 of 2.5% to 3.5%; over the long term, rekindled traffic and revenue growth are going to offset the additional leverage needed to fund new capital projects and update an aging infrastructure.

"However, " said Matesanz, "any positive, stabilizing trends have been tempered by the growing servicing costs for the rising debt, especially as, since the 2008 crisis, many issuers have had to replace their liquidity providers at higher costs or refinance debt with higher fixed rates, which raised their servicing costs and made for lower DSCRs."

At the same, despite declines, fuel prices are still volatile and could depress traffic growth, and as the toll roads start to rely more on rate increases to support their escalating debt service costs, they face the rising risk of traffic loss or diversion.

Moody's "U.S. Toll Road Sector Medians for Fiscal Year 2010: Heavy Debt Issuance Continues to Pressure Metrics" is available at www.moodys.com.

An omen as MWAA looks to add $2 billion to that top line total to finish Phase 1 and begin Phase 2 financing?

Loudoun County may back out of Dulles Rail Project, WTOP.com, January 25, 2012

2012-01-25T23:38:00.000-05:00

Hank Silverberg, wtop.com

FAIRFAX, Va. - The first phase of the new Silver Line is well underway, but now there's concern Phase 2 of the 23-mile Metro expansion to the airport may run into money troubles again.

Loudoun County Supervisors, with seven new members in a budget-cutting mood, have talked about possibly dropping out of the project and canceling the last two stations of the $2.8 billion project.

It's a prospect that has Fairfax County supervisors, including Pat Herrity, asking a lot of questions. . . .

Rail construction is well underway in Tysons, along Route 7. (WTOP/Colleen Kelleher)

The article identifies a number of issues a Loudoun back out would pose for Fairfax County. Check it out here.

Continuing Sizeable Commercial Real Estate Vacancies in Fairfax, Reston

2012-01-23T11:14:00.000-05:00

Commercial real estate broker Avison Young has published its quarterly update for the Washington region and it paints a picture of malaise in the northern Virginia CRE market, especially in Fairfax County and Reston. Here's what we found:

Northern Virginia had a net negative absorption (occupied space) of 188,000 GSF in 2011 and its overall vacancy rate climbed from 13.3% to 13.7% as deliveries (space available) rose by 853,000 GSF.
Within northern Virginia, Fairfax County had a slightly worse vacancy rate (14.5%) than the region as a whole although net absorption for the County was positive (705,000 GSF),
Within the county, Reston had a substantially higher vacancy rate at the end of the year (17.1%) than the County as a whole, and saw a negative net absorption over the last year (-147,000 GSF), including a negative absorption of -308,000 in the fourth quarter.
Even Tysons Corner's vacancy rate remained high at 14.9% with little absorption over the year (162,000 GSF).

The "winners" in last year's commercial real estate market were Washington, DC, which saw year-end vacancies at 8.1% and absorbed 1.6 million GSF over the last year. In NoVa, Arlington County sustained an even lower vacancy rate (7.5%), yet lost 247,000 GSF in absorption.

Fairfax County's Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) reports similar data for the county and Reston as of mid-2011, but its reports are usually printed five months after the fact and are not particularly valuable in looking at the current state of the CRE market.

For more data on Washington metro area CRE markets, read the full report below.

Commercial RE Data for WDC Metro--4Q11

County Says Future Tysons Infrastructure Costs to Rise 24% Over Previous Estimates; Notes from January 19, 2012, PCTC Meeting

2012-01-23T10:24:00.002-05:00

Presented below is a lightly edited version of an e-mail prepared by an observer at the most recent Planning Commission Tysons Committee (PCTC), January 19, 2012. Key news:

Total infrastructure costs for the next 20 years have risen 23.6%, largely on increased estimates of "Tysons-wide" transportation improvements (35%).
With total 40-year costs now put at $3.0 billion (vice $2.5 billion), the author suggests costs could actually reach $4 billion when interest costs are included.
Committee members suggest that, given the absence of growth in the last two years, the whole plan may "shift to the right" or later years.
The issue of who pays for all this remains up in the air. County staff didn't help the matter by grouping federal, state, and local public payers together. (The issue has focused on how much Fairfax County taxpayers will have to pay. The PCTC has a proposal that they should pay two-thirds; the McLean Citizens Association--supported by Reston Citizens Association--has advocated that taxpayers pay for no more than one-quarter. The MCA-RCA proposal is based on who benefits financially from the infrastructure effort.)
Besides the local taxpayer vs. landowner split, there is a split between landowners who have property close to the Metro stations and those who do not as to who should pay for the improvements.

It is important for Restonians to understand--and maybe become involved in--what is going on at Tysons because it is quite likely that whatever is agreed to there will be the basis of tax planning for the Reston.

The ongoing debate also highlights what RCA Reston 2020 has long advocated: Implementation considerations should be addressed during the process of putting together a plan to make it realistic, not afterward when legal rights have been established for developers.

We suffered a setback of sorts at Thursday's PCTC, but first I'll open with some sobering news. The 2012 cost estimates for all Tysons transportation improvements from 2010 to 2050 went up 20%. I hope these tables come out formatted and readable.

Estimates of Total Infrastructure Costs for Tysons Corner, 2010-2050 ($MM)

                    * Previous Estimate*     * New Estimate *     *   Change   *
2010-2030       $1,698 $2,099               23.6%
2030-2050          $831       $939       13.0%
Total             $2,529       $3,038       20.1%

Estimates of Total Infrastructure Costs for Tysons Corner, by Type, 2010-2030 ($MM)

*Previous* *Updated* *Change*

Grid of streets    $443                               $519    17.2%
Tysons-wide           $810            $1,095                      35.2%
Transit    $374             $408                         9.1%
Neighborhood       $70       $77       10.0%
Total          $1,697       $2,099           23.7%

A few caveats to bear in mind:
1. These are 2012 planning estimates using up-to-date VDOT and county costing methodologies.
2. When the engineering starts, the costs may go up or down on a project basis, but generally the costs go up.
3. Fairfax County DOT will be revising these estimates one more time within the coming weeks. This revision will take into account the projected year of construction of each project and they will add in a 3% inflation rate.
4. These estimates do not include the cost of implementing a streetcar system in the 2030-2050 time frame which is estimated at $870,000,000. Staff does not yet know whether they will recommend a street car system, so the cost was not included in this estimate.

I think these costs could easily come to $4 billion, even without the streetcar system, once the inflation factor and, more importantly, the cost of financing bonds is added. For example, a 40-year $500M bond at 3.5% interest would cost $400M in total interest payments. By the way, no one at these meetings has speculated how much would be bonded or what the terms might be. This is my example using what I think would be a low interest rate.

The Tysons Comp Plan is based on an assumption of fairly high growth over a period of 2010 to 2050. Obviously the first two years produced next to nothing and the amount of redevelopment the in next two years will be modest. So essentially, the 40-year plan will be shifted to the right until significant redevelopment in Tysons starts. I've heard staff speculate that could be in the 2015-2018 time frame, but they were quick to note that no one knows. Staff did comment Thursday night that the pace of transportation improvements in Tysons over the next 40 years would be paced to keep up with redevelopment. If a recession occurs and redevelopment slows significantly, transportation spending would go down accordingly.

Tom Biesiadny, head of DOT, said they would model the planned growth in Tysons over the next 40 years to estimate when a sustained revenue stream from redevelopment would start and and how much it would vary over that time. Commissioner Alcorn commented that it would be interesting if they also modeled a 40-year period with a couple of recessions thrown in. Biesiadny agreed to do it.

Now, for our favorite topic, the allocation of responsibility for funding all these transportation improvements. Over the last 4 or 5 PCTC meetings, the commissioners divided the responsibility into three categories:

1. County taxpayer
2. Private sector
3. Federal and state contributions

For reasons I'm unsure, staff produced an analysis that divided the responsibility into two categories: public sector and private sector. A huge step backwards in my opinion and I said so. Commissioner Alcorn replied in a few weeks they would go back and divide the public sector into two: county tax payer and fed/state contributions.

Staff produced a handout that I hesitate to distribute because it is busy and confusing, but I'll try to explain it. Over the prior two months, the PCTC divided responsibility into 3 categories, but many transportation projects were actually put into multiple categories. For example, the widening of Gallows was assigned 75% public and 25% fed/state and the widening of Rt.7 inside Tysons was assigned 75% private and 25% fed/state. During these discussions, the commissioners would rate each project as 'mostly public' or 'mostly private' with the remaining costs going to the feds/state. Only one project was assigned 100% to feds/state. The commissioners did not know exactly how much 'mostly' should be, but for purposes of discussion they guessed the 'mostly' meant around 75%. They asked staff to look at who principally benefits from these improvements to determine what percentage 'mostly' might be. So, that bring us to staff's handout that analyzes three scenarios where 'mostly' meant 51%, 75% or 90%. Staff's conclusion after doing all the math was, and I'm quoting here, 'the final figures didn't change significantly over the three scenarios'. I looked at the numbers only in passing and concluded the analysis added little value to the process. I was happy with 'mostly' equaling 75% as first proposed because I thought the final costs assigned to county taxpayers were not unreasonable when everything is taken into consideration. Also, whether mostly means 51% or 90%, it applies equally to taxpayers and the Tysons developers.

So where does this leave us? We still do not know how much county taxpayers will be expected to fund. The PCTC needs to break out taxpayers' costs again out of the public sector category and how they will go about deciding this has not been discussed.

The last agenda item was a report by the Tysons Partnership (TP) on how Tysons should be funded. The TP representatives actually talked about many topics, but didn't actually present a plan for paying for the transportation infrastructure. Overall, their discussion points were even more sobering than the 20% increase in costs.

1. In order to make Tysons work and to fund the much-needed transportation improvements, there needs to be a Tysons-wide tax district where the landowners tax themselves to raise revenue. It would operate much like the existing Silver Line tax district where landowners have been paying 22 cent per $100 of land value to raise $400M to help fund the Metro. As they reach the $400M goal, the tax will gradually be reduced. The TP would like to keep the tax at 22 cent tax and dedicate the excess to Tysons transportation. The problem, and it's very big problem, is that many landowners are steadfastly refusing to pay for these transportation improvements. Why, they reason, should they pay this tax when many of them do not plan to redevelopment for a very long time (10-15 years or more) and when their land lies outside of the TOD areas and does not qualify for the much higher densities being given to landowners near the Metro stations. Also, Lerner and Macerich, who are inside the TOD area, have already obtained county approval for their significant redevelopments and see no benefit in paying this tax.

The reality is the landowners outside the 1/2-mile TOD areas WILL benefit from the transportation improvements, but they don't want to pay as they feel the TOD area landowners lopsidedly benefit. These problems associated with establishing a Tysons tax district are well-known within the Tysons landowner community, but this was the first time the TP has discussed them in public testimony at a PCTC meeting.

2. Even if the landowners inside the four TOD areas decide to form their own tax district, any tax revenue raised, by state law, must be spent inside the tax district boundaries. Unfortunately, the needed transportation improvements cover all of Tysons and many of them even lie outside the border of Tysons.

3. The TP would like to create a separate tax district where landowners outside of the TOD areas would pay a very modest tax, say 5 cents, as this would create a constant revenue stream for 40 years, something everyone agrees is essential. However there may be state constitutional issues with this idea and it would most likely require supporting legislation from Richmond. In the meantime, the words 'law suit' are being thrown around by people opposed to seeing separate tax districts established. My take is this is a serious issue that will require a political solution.

4. The TP is upset with the 20% increase in transportation cost estimates. They thought the previous estimates were already very high. The TP wants the county to set a firm, fixed price for their share of the transportation improvements. Of course they want that, who wouldn't? They were able to get a fixed price of $400M for the Metro and now the Silver Line costs overruns are being passed on to the Toll Road users. That was a great deal for the Tysons landowners, but it won't happen again.

5. They reported that the cost of development in Tysons has risen 41% in the last three years, however they provided no data to substantiate this claim. Frankly, I find it hard to believe. I would like to see a breakdown of all these costs to better understand which components have increased so dramatically.

6. The TP also plans to do their own growth modeling.

Agenda: Reston Citizens Association Board Meeting, Monday, January 23, 2012, 7:30PM, Sheraton Reston Hotel

2012-01-20T16:27:00.000-05:00

Effective this month, the Reston Citizens Association Board of Directors will be having its monthly meetings at the Sheraton Reston Hotel, 1810 Sunrise Valley Dr, Reston, VA, next to Reston International Center, rather than at the COMCAST studios. The Board decided to make this move after several discussions late last year concluded that we needed better arrangements to facilitate its deliberations with fewer time constraints.

The Board welcomes your attendance. We will be meeting in a conference room at the Sheraton Reston Hotel and the specific location will be posted in the hotel lobby. Below is the draft agenda for our meeting Monday evening.

And thank you to the Sheraton Reston Hotel for welcoming us!

DRAFT Agenda

RCA Board of Directors Meeting

January 23, 2011

Item	Time	Topic	Disposition	Presenters
1	7:30 PM	Adopt Agenda	Action	Colin Mills, RCA Board
2	7:35 PM	Approve November 2011 Minutes	Action	Debra Eastham
3	7:40 PM	Treasurer’s Report	Action	Diane Lewis
4	7:45 PM	RCA Citizen of the Year	Discussion, Action	Colin Mills, RCA Board
5	7:50 PM	RCA Strategic Plan	Discussion	Colin Mills
6	8:00 PM	Planning for First Community Forum	Discussion, Action	Colin Mills, RCA Board
7	8:10 PM	Paper re: Toll Road Forecasts	Discussion, Action	Terry Maynard, RCA Board
8	8:25 PM	License Plate Campaign	Discussion	Dan McGuire
9	8:35 PM	RA-RCA Relationship	Discussion	Dick Rogers
10	8:45 PM	Fairways Update	Discussion	Tammi Petrine
11	8:55 PM	Town Center Office Building	Discussion, Possible Action	Tammi Petrine, John Hanley
12	9:05 PM	IT Committee Update	Discussion	Gary Walker
13	9:10 PM	Other Business	Discussion	RCA Board
14	9:15 PM	Location and Time of Next Meeting; Adjourn	Action	RCA Board

BREAKING: RA CANCELS BUTTERMILK CREEK WALK DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER

2012-01-20T12:18:00.000-05:00

RestonOnline Reston Association

Due to potential inclement weather, the Buttermilk Creek meeting and walk are canceled for this weekend. New time and date to be announced.

Federal spending cuts to impact local economy, Fairfax Times, January 20, 2012

2012-01-20T12:12:00.001-05:00

Expert: ‘We will not slip back into recession, but we will see much slower growth’
by Gregg MacDonald, Staff Writer

Shamus Ian Fatzinger/ Fairfax County Times The Dulles Corridor building in Reston.
Northern Virginia is projected to lead the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area in job production in 2012, but overall it will be an “anxious” economic year, according to the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University. . .

. . . (GMU Center for Regional Analysis Director Graham) Fuller said during the next few of years the D.C. area’s economy is expected to continue to outpace the national economy, but cutbacks in federal spending eventually will hit the area hard.

Fuller said federal spending cutbacks likely will begin in full force after the November presidential election, and already are being anticipated by many agencies.

This Fairfax Times article provides excellent coverage of Dr. Fuller's comments at the regional economic conference last week. The latest County commercial real estate report (mid-2011) indicates that direct office building vacancy rates in Reston then were 15.3% and climbing while the County-wide average was 12.8% and declining. Obviously, with the high proportion of government contractors and even government-leased space in Reston, that percentage could go higher next year--and maybe several years.

Opposing Views on Whether Dulles Rail Should Go to Dulles

2012-01-20T11:17:00.000-05:00

FOR: Dulles Metro must go to Dulles Airport, GreaterGreaterWashington

By Dan Malouf

It seems like a no-brainer that the long-planned Dulles Airport Metro line should include a stop at Dulles Airport, but to one key decision-maker, that remains an open question.
At yesterday's meeting of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), board member Robert Clarke Brown, a presidential appointee, suggested re-routing Phase 2 of the Silver Line to skip Dulles Airport.

The airport station is expensive, he says, and so MWAA should consider simply not building it. Metro riders hoping to access Dulles would instead transfer to some kind of shuttle or people-mover from the Route 28 station, the next closest.
Skipping the airport and replacing it with a people-mover would reduce the project's overall $2.8 billion price tag by approximately $70 million. That, argues Brown, is reason to take his suggestion seriously. It shouldn't be. . . .

Photo by XYZ+T on Flickr.

AGAINST: Does an Airport Line Have to Reach the Airport? The Transport Politic

By Yonah Freemark

Yesterday, Robert Brown, a member of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), suggested rethinking his agency’s planned Metro rail extension out to Dulles Airport, the Washington region’s prime international gateway. Instead of the bringing this $2.8 billion rail link — frequently referred to as the Silver Line — directly to the airport, Brown noted that replacing the final 1.5-mile connection with a people mover would save $70 million thanks to a more limited right-of-way and the construction of one less Metro station.

The Silver Line is an extension of the Washington Metro’s Orange Line and will eventually reach Loudoun County. The first segment of the project, to Tyson’s Corner and Wiehle Avenue, is planned to open for service next year.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the idea was perceived as heresy, both by local commenters and board members. Mame Reiley, one board member, said “I just don’t think that’s what we labored for… it is not rail to Dulles.” Concerns were raised that the federal government might delay the program because the board was “starting over.” And indeed the proposal appears to have been dismissed by the authority board as unacceptable.

Counter-intuitively, however, such a change in alignment could be a reasonable money-saver and may actually improve transit service for both commuters and air travelers. And though the question is immediately relevant to the Dulles Rail extension, it is equally valid to many cities, as the issue of extending rail networks out towards airports is frequently of concern for transportation planners in major metropolitan areas. . . .

Check them both out!

Board weighs eliminating Metro stop at Dulles, Washington Examiner, January 18, 2012

2012-01-19T11:40:00.000-05:00

You just can't make this stuff up! Yes, you read that right: An MWAA Board member proposed eliminating the Dulles Metrorail station in the "rail to Dulles" project. This utterly ridiculous comment has already garnered nationwide attention--and well-deserved embarrassment for MWAA.

This Washington Examiner article (click to link) by Liz Essley has the best coverage of the comment and its context. Here's how the article begins:

The airports authority in charge of building the Metro rail extension to Dulles International Airport is considering eliminating the Metro station at the airport.

Instead of stopping at the airport, Metro's new Silver Line would drop airport passengers off along Route 28 in Fairfax County. Riders would then have to ride a bus or a light rail train another 1.5 miles to the airport, according to a proposal discussed Wednesday by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

An interesting side issue raised in the article is private financing for the line, an idea first raised as an idea to explore by MWAA CEO Jack Potter at a November meeting of the Dulles Corridor Advisory Council (MWAA, VRPT, Fairfax, & Loudoun leaders). Here's where it's at now:

The authority on Wednesday also weighed an offer by a Chinese company that wants to help finance the rail line. Board members have talked about seeking a private investor to help reduce the public's cost of the project, but board members said Wednesday that they believe private financing may end up being more expensive than loan deals being offered by the federal government.

"I think we're off on a wild goose chase to be quite honest with you," airports CEO Jack Potter said, adding that private investment wouldn't be worth the risk.

Well, that was a quick change of thinking by Mr. Potter, not that he was all that enthusiastic about the idea in November.

Who knows what the MWAA Board will think of next???

The 8 to 80 Problem: Designing Cities for Young and Old, John Lorinc, Atlantic Cities, January 18, 2012

2012-01-18T18:47:00.002-05:00

Penalosa travels the world with a trenchant question that arose out of those experiences: how do we create cities in which both 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds can move about safely and enjoyably? "We have to stop building cities as if everyone is 30 years-old and athletic," he says.

A girl walks next to an elderly woman selling plants at the entrance of a pedestrian subway in Kiev, Ukraine. (REUTERS/Konstantin Chernichkin)

“We have to stop building cities as if everyone is 30 years-old and athletic”
His 8 to 80 litmus test involves imagining a public space, but especially a busy city street or intersection, and asking whether it is suitable for young and old alike. In all too many locations – signalized crossings on wide suburban arterials, narrow bike lanes, over-taxed sidewalks, etc. – the answer will be no.

By way of solutions, Penalosa’s group has advised cities like Seville and Guadalajara on the importance of more accessible surface transit, improved cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, and more programmable park space.

But in many aging societies, where the proportion of seniors will grow as much as four-fold over the next two decades, public space improvements alone won’t make large urban areas, especially car-dependent suburbs, more suitable to the needs of older residents. Indeed, one of the most difficult questions facing urban areas is how they will go about making themselves more age-friendly.

Click here for the rest of this article, including some solutions.

Steven Pearlstein: For development, all signs point inward, Washington Post, January 14, 2012

2012-01-17T11:47:00.001-05:00

Business reporter Steven Pearlstein provides a regional overview of future growth in the Washington metropolitan area that, as he says, "the next phase of growth in the Washington region will focus on these underdeveloped areas in the eastern quadrants of the District and some of the region’s older, closer-in suburbs." The excellent article is available here.

Here are a few key thoughts I took from his piece:

It’s not just smart-growth planners and anti-sprawl activists who think (that the focus will be in DC and east per above); most developers I’ve spoken with in recent weeks agree. The models for the future, they say, can be found in Pentagon City rather than Dale City, along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor rather than the far reaches of the Dulles corridor, in the NOMA area near Union Station and the downtowns of Bethesda and Silver Spring. The pressure of development now points inward toward the Capitol, not outward toward Germantown, Gainesville, Waldorf and Laurel.

(Comment: If true, this bodes ill for development along the Dulles Corridor--including Reston--and runs contrary to Fairfax County leadership thinking, planning, and investment.)

The same fate (as closure of White Flint's Bloomies and the vacancies in Georgetown Park) is in store for the suburban office park that, not so many years ago, was the bread and butter of the commercial real estate business in Washington. Workers no longer prefer to work in them, companies no longer want to occupy them, banks no longer will finance them, real estate investment trusts no longer want to own them and planning boards have become reluctant to approve them. In the future, developers say, offices will be part of mixed-used developments, with shops, restaurants, schools, day-care centers and doctors’ offices, preferably within walking or biking distance of condos, townhouses and Metro stops.

(Comment: This is consistent with goals the RTF--and Tysons TF--are pursuing, although the term "mixed-use" is much more office-oriented in developers' eyes than in citizens groups views. "Mixed-use" is one of those terms that means very different things to different people.)

Traditionally, one advantage of the “infill” development is that it can leverage existing infrastructure — roads, Metro, street lights, water, sewer, parks — without the need for new investment. But today, adding significant density in many instances may require expanding the capacity of that infrastructure, which can get pretty expensive and generate plenty of community opposition.

(Comment: From an RCA Reston 2020 perspective, the Reston 2020 very much wants--no, insists--that the infrastructure be expanded to handle the increased density in Reston transit-oriented development (TOD) areas. We do not oppose re-development within reason linked to complementary infrastructure development. As outlined in its planning principles, sustaining (if not improving) the infrastructure on a "per capita" basis in Reston is imperative to sustaining the community's excellent quality of life.)

Virginia and the District probably don’t need such heavy-handed intervention (as in Prince George's County), but they should consider the possibility of special taxing and redevelopment districts, such as the one used to finance the extension of Metro to Dulles International Airport. It is reasonable to ask landowners who will realize windfalls from infrastructure to help pay for these public investments, and in the current political environment it is folly to think that other taxpayers will agree to do so.

(Comment: RCA Reston 2020 couldn't agree more. We are pleased that Fairfax County has taxed businesses along the Dulles Rail route to help cover the costs of that endeavor, although we are concerned that the cap on those taxes may be inadequate to cover the costs. On the other hand, the County is now trying to force about 2/3 of the cost of infrastructure development in Tysons on to the public, rather than on to the businesses that will profit from the business that new infrastructure will bring.)

100,000 Reads!

2012-01-15T15:46:00.002-05:00

We don't usually flaunt the audience for this blog, but every once in awhile we hit a major milestone of one kind or another. In this case, the documents Reston 2020 has posted on scribd.com--its document archive or library--have been read 100,426 times as of this afternoon. Sometime in the last week, we passed the 100,000 "reads" threshold.

Contributions by Reston 2020 (as opposed to the writing or presentations by others we often post) have been among the most popular "reads" by scribd users. Here are the top half-dozen Reston 2020 original posts and the number of reads:

"Reston Transportation: Meeting the Needs of a 21st Century Planned Community," Transportation Work Group, RCA Reston 2020 Committee, June 1, 2010

1,107

"A Strawman Proposal for the Wiehle Transit Metro Station Area," Bill Penniman with Residential, Urban Design, & Livability Work Group, RCA Reston 2020 Committee

1,098

"Parks, Recreation, & Public Facilities: Needs for a New Master Planned Reston," Parks, Recreation, & Public Facilites Work Group, RCA Reston 2020 Committee, June 1, 2010

1,052

Proposals for Parks in North Town Center, Guy Rando & Kathy Kaplan, with Residential, Urban Design, & Livability Work Group, RCA Reston 2020 Committee, June 1, 2010

979

"Sunrise Valley Nature Park: A Suburban Wetlands Park," Environmental Work Group, RCA Reston 2020 Committee, June 1, 2010
Proposed Planning Principles for Reston Master Plan Special Study	880

913

Check out these items. And thanks for all your support!

Terry Maynard

Retrofitting the Suburbs to Increase Walking, Marlon G. Boarnet, Kenneth Joh, Walter Siembab, William Fulton, and Mai Thi Nguyen, ACCESS: The Magazine of UCTC, Fall 2011

2012-01-15T15:24:00.000-05:00

This article suggests that some California planning researchers have recently been channeling Robert Simon's "village center" concept, although they never use the word and they really don't push that far. In brief, their article suggests developing sufficient residential infill around "walkable" business centers that are also well served by public transit. Nothing quite as rich as Bob Simon's "gathering place" idea for village centers, but, based on their research in southern California, the core idea of a walkable center is similar--and workable as well as walkable.

Here is what they have to say about their work:

The tricky part is that the business concentration needed to encourage walking appears to be larger than most neighborhood residential populations can support. Given that, suburban regions should focus both on fostering pedestrian centers and on knitting those centers together with transportation networks, though such networks need not accommodate only cars.

We suggest both a land use approach and a mobility approach, and coordination between the two. A land use approach would focus on identifying and promoting walkable centers. . . Planners can develop pedestrian-oriented centers through densification and infill development, for example by offering density bonuses. Planners might reduce or remove minimum parking requirements or even limit parking.

A mobility approach would promote transit service, tailored to the context of the suburbs. Rather than the common approach of running underutilized central-city style buses, in a region like the South Bay transit might include high-frequency shuttle bus service between neighborhood centers. A more ambitious but possibly more appropriate approach would promote the use of small, fuel-efficient vehicles (such as neighborhood electric cars) and through carshare programs. . .

Overall, the first step would be to develop walkable nodes of neighborhood businesses that would then be connected through regional mobility networks. . . .

If this sounds intriguing, read the rest of the article here.

Agenda: Reston Task Force Meeting, January 24, 2012

2012-01-15T15:02:00.000-05:00

                                                 RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY
                                                                      TASK FORCE
                                                                  January 24, 2012
                                                                Task Force Meeting
                                                            South Lakes High School
                                                     11400 South Lakes Drive, Reston

AGENDA

7:00 p.m. Public Comment Period

7:10 p.m. Administrative Items – Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair

7:20 p.m. Briefing on Metrorail Silver Line project

Pat Nowakowski, Project Manager

7:50 p.m. Proposed upcoming meetings to review impact analysis

Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning

8:00 p.m. Briefing on “Housing the Region’s Future Workforce” Report (October 2011)
published by George Mason University’s Center for Regional Analysis

Lisa Sturtevant, Assistant Research Professor, GMU

9:00 p.m. Adjourn – Patty Nicoson

Reston P&Z Committee Agenda, January 23, 2012

2012-01-15T14:54:00.000-05:00

THE RESTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE

MEETING AGENDA

Monday, January 23, 2012 – 7:30 pm

Community Room

North County Government Center

12000 Bowman Towne Drive, Reston

1. Discuss and vote on recommendations of the Membership Selection Committee; welcome new members and those reappointed.

2. Election of officers for one year terms: chairman, vice chairman, secretary/parliamentarian. Nominations are to be made from the floor. Those nominated and those who are nominators must be members in good standing of the P&Z Committee. No absentee ballots or proxy votes are allowed.

3. Chipotle Mexican Grill application: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., (the “Applicant”) requests approval of a Special Exception to permit a fast food restaurant in accordance with Section 9-601 of the Zoning Ordinance. The application property is located at 11160 G2 South Lakes Drive at the South Lakes Village Shopping Center in Reston, VA. The proposed Chipotle will be located in a vacant retail space within the existing shopping center, which was previously approved under site plan #4453-SP-03-02. The site is zoned Planned Residential Community (PRC) and the proposed Chipotle will require that a Special Exception Plat be submitted to Fairfax County for Zoning Evaluation Division review and approval. The Applicant will be the contract lessee for the retail space.

4. Reston Association Seminar on “Sustainability Principles for Reston” scheduled for February 11, 2012, will be discussed by member Nichole Wynands.

5. Committee discussion of any other business, new or old, and approval of previous meeting minutes.

6. Approve next meeting date and adjourn.

Agenda subject to change without notice by order of the Chairman, David Vanell, (703) 904-9299, or Arthur S. Hill, Vice Chairman, (703) 264-1178.

January 15, 2012

Tolls and more tolls: Are you ready for this???

2012-01-12T14:05:00.000-05:00

TOLLROADnews.com, the leading toll road news website, reported a few days ago that Transurban, licensee to build and operate the new express lanes on the Beltway, is beginning to publish information about using the new lanes. Here's what Transurban has to say about express lane tolls:

Because toll prices are based on demand, it is difficult to predict exactly what the tolls will be at any given time. We expect they will range from as low as 20 cents per mile during less busy times, to approximately a $1.25 per mile in some sections during rush hour. An average trip cost is estimated to be between $5 and $6.

So you work in Springfield or somewhere south of there and you want to take the new express lanes from the Tysons area to the I-95 interchange, about an 8.5 mile drive on I-495 according to a distance calculator. At $1.25 per mile, that's about $10.60 one way--and not in some distant future timeframe. The good news (if any) is Transurban says you will know what you will pay when you enter the express lanes.

That "less busy" time will be 2-3 AM I would guess.

Now add that to the future cost of tolls on the Dulles Toll Road which, I suspect, will soon (maybe as soon as next year) include peak period ("congestion") pricing to add to your toll pain. (MWAA mentioned the idea of "congestion pricing" at a recent meeting of its toll road advisory group.)

. . . OR you can take the existing free lanes on the Beltway or the Fairfax County Parkway to Springfield.

BTW, you should read the full TOLLROADnews piece. It provides good background on the new lanes, Transurban's plans, and other roads/lanes like these.

It will be interesting to see if the Beltway's tolled express lanes works as a money-making idea for Transurban. If not, of course, they will need to raise the tolls to pay their debt.

Terry Maynard

Density Decreased on Herndon Metro Area Study, Herndon Patch, January 10, 2012

2012-01-10T17:05:00.000-05:00

The newest version of the Herndon Metro Station Area Plan includes only 38 acres that will be considered for redevelopment, down from the previous plan's 110 acres.
By Leslie Perales
The scope of the Herndon Metro Area Study has changed once again, and the study area has been decreased from 110 acres to 38 acres, which includes nine properties.
In November it was discovered that there were errors in the Herndon Metro Area Study and consultants Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., went back to rework the plan to correct the mistakes. The new plan was presented to the public for the first time at Monday night’s Planning Commission public hearing. . . .

The new plan for the Herndon-Monroe Station area limits development to the area south of the Herndon Parkway.

. . . The last version of the Metro Station Area Plan called for an FAR of 4.5 on the land between Herndon Parkway and the Dulles Toll Road. A floor area ratio of 4.5 means the building constructed on the land can be 4.5 times the size of the square footage of the land unit it sits on.

The newest version of the plan calls for the buildings closest to the station to have an FAR of 4.3, while the buildings not adjacent to the station will have an FAR of 3.8.

By decreasing the study area and density, growth of workers and residents in the study area has dropped by about half, Robertson said. Employees traveling in and out of the study area has decreased from 28,122 to 14,849. . .

The area will still require a number of road improvements, including a right turn lane from northbound Van Buren Street to eastbound Herndon Parkway, which is already in the works, Robertson said. She said the cost of road improvements has decreased by about a quarter of a million due to reducing the study area.

The west side of the study area will receive an extension of Worldgate Drive from Van Buren Street to Herndon Parkway. The east side of the study area, near Spring Street will, will require a number of additional turn lanes, and although traffic is improved from the last plan, some intersections are still rated D. . . .

Click here for the rest of this story.

Although I'm not sure what the "mistake" was, I'll wager that the Town Council heard loud and clear from the Herndon downtown business owners that they didn't want to see their business sucked away by over-sized development along the toll road.

More to the point, it's a most pleasant surprise to see a municipal government not cave in to developers seeking huge density increases. If/when the corridor area develops to near its capacity two ore more decades from now, the Herndon Town Council will have the option of increasing the density and expanding the area of development. That incremental approach is a far wiser one than is being pursued in Fairfax County at either Tysons or Reston.

Well done Herndon!

Master Plan, Metro To Make Progress in 2012, Reston Connection, January 5, 2012

2012-01-10T16:46:00.000-05:00

Village Center, Metrorail station development planning to take place throughout the year.

By Alex McVeigh
Thursday, January 05, 2012

As Reston plans for the future, 2012 will be a crucial year. Planning for the arrival of Metrorail, as well as the continuation of the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force into its second phase will be a major part of this year’s events.

The second phase of the task force will examine the future of the five official village centers, as well as the Home Depot shopping center on Baron Cameron Avenue and two small commercial developments.

Heidi Merkel of the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Development says the task force hopes to build on Reston’s successful past planning.

“We’re not planning from scratch, we’re not saying we’re going to take the existing plan and put it on a shelf,” she said. “We’re building on a fine foundation we have in place.”

Click here to read the rest of this story.

From this RTF member's perspective, we have more work to do on Phase 1. I suspect it will be Spring and maybe Summer before we start on Phase 2.

Skepticism about Traffic Studies: "Green Light," Washington CityPaper, January 4, 2012

2012-01-05T17:05:00.000-05:00

Posted by Lydia DePillis:

It was an hour and a half into the Zoning Commission’s tenth hearing on American University’s campus plan this fall, and chairman Anthony Hood was asking how the school planned to respond to days of testimony from neighbors, mostly complaining the plan would bring a crush of new cars to their residential streets. Hood leaned onto the dais towards the school’s traffic consultant and said something unusually frank.

“I think you said that traffic impacts will be minimal. That’s what I got out of your presentation, that we won’t even notice it,” Hood told Dan VanPelt, a principal with Gorove/Slade Associates, which handles the lion’s share of traffic engineering for developments in D.C. Anything that needs wholesale zoning changes has to come with a traffic study, which describes how a project might affect pedestrians and cars, and what can be done to mitigate its impact. “I’m going to tell you the truth: I like you, I know you got your job to do, but I don’t believe it…Come on, man. Let’s be realistic. I understand, make it sound good. But let me tell you, this is one commissioner that does not believe it.”

For the rest of this article, click here.

Delusion and Deception in Large Infrastructure Projects, Bent Flyvbjerg, et al, California Management Review, Winter 2009

2011-12-27T11:27:00.001-05:00

This research report written by Dr. Bent Flyvbjerg, one of the world's leading experts in infrastructure planning, with Massimo Garbuio and Dan Lovallo provides an important overview of the many factors that cause infrastructure plans, especially those for transportation, tend to arrive later and be more costly than anticipated. The article notes (emphasis added):

There are some phenomena that have no cultural bounds such as maternal love and a healthy fear of large predators. We can add to this list the fact that, across the globe, large infrastructure projects almost invariably arrive late, over-budget, and fail to perform up to expectations. Cost overruns and benefit shortfalls of 50 percent are common; cost overruns above 100 percent are not uncommon. For example, in one study of major projects in 20 countries, nine out of ten projects had cost overruns.4 Similarly, a study of 44 urban rail projects—in North America, Europe, and developing nations, including London’s Tube and the metros in Washington, D.C., and Mexico City—found that the average construction cost overrun in constant prices was 45 percent; for a quarter of the projects, cost overruns were at least 60 percent. In addition, passenger ridership was, on average, 50 percent lower than forecast. Furthermore, for a quarter of the projects, ridership was at least 70 percent lower than estimated. An appropriate slogan seems to be “over budget, over time, over and over again.”

The causes are straightforward:

The underlying reasons for all forecasting errors can usefully be grouped into three categories: delusions or honest mistakes; deceptions or strategic manipulation of information or processes; or bad luck. Bad luck or the unfortunate resolution of one of the major project uncertainties is the attribution typically given by management for a poor outcome. . . .

. . . Both delusion and deception see the high failure rates for ventures as a consequence of flawed decision making. According to the first explanation— delusion—the flaw consists in executives falling victim to what psychologists
call the planning fallacy. In its grip, managers make decisions based on delusional optimism rather than on a rational weighting of gains, losses, and probabilities. They overestimate benefits and underestimate costs and time. They involuntarily spin scenarios of success and overlook the potential for mistakes and miscalculations. As a result, managers pursue initiatives that are unlikely to come in on budget or on time, or to ever deliver the expected returns.

According to the second explanation—deception—decision making is flawed by strategic misrepresentation or the presence of what economists refer to as principal-agent problems. Whereas the first explanation is psychological, the second is due to the different preferences and incentives of the actors in the system. In this situation, politicians, planners, or project champions deliberately and strategically overestimate benefits and underestimate costs in order to increase the likelihood that their projects, and not their competition’s, gain approval and funding. These actors purposely spin scenarios of success and gloss over the potential for failure. This results in managers promoting ventures that are unlikely to come in on budget or on time, or to deliver the promised benefits.

This figure from the report highlights the importance of delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects, especially rail projects.

The authors detail various specific causes falling within these three categories and move on to some recommendations about how to limit delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects from both inside and outside perspectives. Within the latter category, the authors highlight the importance of reference class forecasting. In brief, this process involves comparing the current proposal with the experience of a group of completed projects of similar size, complexity, etc. Typically, such a review shows not only the weaknesses in cost and schedule forecasting, but the many specific sources of error that can lead to budget and schedule overruns. The article notes that the American Planning Association has recommended this procedure for large infrastructure projects.

Why is this important?

Underestimating the costs and overestimating the benefits of a given project results in an artificially high benefit-cost ratio, which in turn leads to two problems. First, the project may be started despite the fact that it is not economically viable. Second, a project may be started instead of another project that would have yielded higher returns had the actual costs and benefits of both projects been known.

To read the full article, click here.

Who will buy Dulles Toll Road bonds and pay the operating costs?

2011-12-18T09:38:00.007-05:00

In a recent post on TollRoadsNews. com, editor Peter Samuel has written a lengthy article regarding Virginia Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli's opposition to Virginia contributing further funding to the construction of the Silver Line. Under the LaHood MOA, Gov. McDonnell pledged to propose to the General Assembly that Virginia pay $150 million to help cover debt service costs in the first five years of Dulles rail's Phase 2 debt issuance. That still has to gain legislative approval. The article notes Cuccinelli's long-time opposition and says:

Cuccinelli who is from northern Virginia says the whole rail project is a disaster for the region and the state from the huge debts being run up, and the losses that will be incurred and subsidies needed for a facility few will use. High tolls will hit not only Dulles Toll Road users but other residents as traffic diverts.

Late in this article, Samuel raises questions about who will pay for Dulles rail:

There has been little discussion of this but it far from clear that the MWAA will be able to sell $2,700m of toll revenue bonds in the capital markets without further guarantees from area governments. And even if such guarantees were given state and local budgets could be in such difficult straits as to lack credibility to bond investors. The financing is far from assured.

Also hardly discussed is who will pay for the operating losses of the rail line. MWAA and the Toll Road are being stretched to finance capital costs. The deal is that on opening the line is handed over to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to provide service and subsidies to cover the difference between fare revenues and operating costs. WMATA has major challenges maintaining its existing 5-line 106 mile, 171km network, the oldest parts of which require expensive excavator replacement, trackwork and new signaling and control systems. Union contracts make its labor costs high.

The Dulles rail line will be WMATA's Silver Line added to Red, Blue, Orange, Yellow and Green Lines and will add over a fifth to its trackage (23 miles added to 106 miles) and an eighth to its number of stations (11 added to 86).

Fares barely cover half of the operating costs of the WMATA system (including buses) and the ability of area governments and the federal government to cover a widening deficit is in question too.

One vital financial topic the article does not address is whether the revenues generated by the much higher tolls on the Dulles Toll Road, if approved by the "funding partners," will be adequate to cover the debt servicing costs, forcing a default on the bonds. The "optimism bias" in toll and revenue forecasts has been well documented, including by the the NAS Transportation Research Board. This bias has led to defaults on bond payments and bankruptcies that have forced the sale of the roads to for-profit ventures or led to state and local taxpayer bail outs.

Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA)--the consultant doing the toll and revenue forecasts for MWAA--has not been immune from this outcome. It repeatedly over-estimated the revenues for the Southern Connector (Greenville, SC) and the San Joaquin Hills (CA) toll roads that was a major factor in their default and bankruptcy. In Virginia, WSA prepared the toll and revenue forecasts for the Pocahontas Parkway (near Williamsburg) that forced the not-for-profit company managing it to sell to for-profit investors when toll revenues fell far short of WSA forecasts. Moreover, its revenue projections for the yet-to-be-approved Knik Arm bridge (Anchorage, AK) and the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) have been challenged in alternative toll and revenue forecasts as being overly optimistic.

Devolution's Impact on Fairfax Property Taxes

2011-12-13T12:22:00.002-05:00

The Potomac Almanac today has an article, "Fairfax to Richmond: Do Us No Harm," discussing the issues in "devolution" of funding for the maintenance and repair of county roads as viewed by local legislators. The article covers a variety of issues related to devolution, but the money quote (literally) is the following:

Tom Biesiadny, director of Fairfax County’s Department of Transportation, estimated that Fairfax County would have to make a one-time investment of up to $208 million to take local control of local roads, which would mean a property tax increase of about $479 for the average household.

Click on the article title above for the very good full article.

RA to Consider Indoor Tennis at December 15, 2011, Meeting, GoReston.com

2011-12-13T12:04:00.004-05:00

GoReston reports:

RA Board to consider costly indoor tennis facility at Dec. 15 meeting
by Guest Posts on December 13th, 2011

The RA Board will discuss a highly controversial proposal to build an indoor tennis facility at Lake Newport on Thursday, December 15 at 7:00 p.m. RA is considering spending up to $13 million to build a 46,000 square foot indoor tennis facility to benefit less than five percent of Reston’s residents. RA would spend $75,000 on a referendum if they decide to move forward with the project. Reston homeowners are encouraged to attend the meeting. Location: RA Headquarters, 12001 Sunrise Valley Drive.

For more on this topic, see Reston Patch's latest article by clicking here.

Will Reston's TOD Housing Demand Follow California's Trend?

2011-12-12T14:27:00.003-05:00

The Urban Land Institute (ULI), one of the premier urban design organization in the United States, has just issued a study looking at demand for housing in California. These are the report's five principal findings:

First, the existing supply of conventional-lot (over one-eighth acre), single-family detached homes exceeds the projected demand for these homes in 2035. This finding does not mean there is no market for new conventional-lot homes in niche markets. It does mean that overall the expansion of the supply of conventional-lot, single-family detached homes would be in excess of current and projected demand (see figure 1).

Second, housing and neighborhood preference surveys indicate that Californians consider transit options to be far more important in choosing a location in which to live than the rest of the nation: 71 percent in California, compared with 47 percent nationally. The demand in 2035 for residences located within one-half mile of public transit stations—called transit-station areas, or TSAs (transit service areas)—will exceed the aggregate amount of current supply plus all new residential units built in these metropolitan areas between 2010 and 2035 (see figure 2 and table 1).

Third, through modest redevelopment that will happen anyway, existing developed land with nonresidential uses could be sufficient to accommodate all new jobs created over this period. In particular, existing and potential TSA development may have sufficient capacity to accommodate 7 million jobs, or more than enough to absorb all new jobs between 2010 and 2035 (see table 1).

Fourth, changing demographics in combination with changes in home mortgage finance will reduce the rate of homeownership in California by up to 5 percent from 2010 levels and perhaps by as much as 10 percent over the long term. A 5 percent reduction represents a market condition where three-quarters of the demand for new housing in the state’s largest metropolitan planning organization (MPO) areas will be for rental housing. This demand should lead to an increase in existing residential units being used to house multiple or intergenerational households
as well as to a variety of hybrid or new housing formats, such as accessory dwelling units or new nontraditional multifamily housing options.

Fifth, these long-term market trends represent a directional alignment between the real estate preferences expressed by consumers and the greenhouse gas reduction objectives expressed by the state of California in the form of Senate Bill (SB) 375.

The vital points from these findings is that ULI anticipates an eight-fold demand in residential housing in TOD (or TSA) areas in the next 25 years (9.2M HUs--18.4M residents), but supply will only triple (about 3.5M HUs--7M people) in that timeframe. In contrast, employment growth over the next 25 years is expected to slightly more than double (3.0M to 6.5M).

If this kind of situation applies in Reston, current proposals to roughly balance incremental housing unit (HU) and employment construction could lead to a serious housing shortage and possibly an over-supply of commercial space in Reston's TOD areas.

UPDATE: On December 14, KPBS, San Diego, published an article on the ULI report above titled, "Study: Single-Family Homes May Be History." A couple of key quotes:

The study looked at California’s major metropolitan areas — including San Diego — and found that by 2035 the supply of homes in conventional subdivisions will far exceed demand. . .

On the flip side, Nelson's study predicts that demand for town homes, multifamily units and small lots will far exceed the supply of these types of housing over the next 25 years. Demand for housing that's close to public transit will also outstrip demand, according to the study.

"The bottom line is that as many as 9 million households would like the option to live in locations served by public transit," Nelson wrote. "But today, only about 1.2 million California households can claim to have it."

The study relied on demographic, employment and housing trends, and surveys to develop its prediction for the future. Nelson said California is a bellwether for the rest of the country. . . .

Click on the title above to read the rest of this article. The New California Dream, Nelson, ULI, 2011

Rigging reports for rail - even left-Dems see bias, Dulles Toll Road cited, TollRoadNews.com, December 12, 2011

2011-12-12T13:34:00.000-05:00

The website TollRoadNews today published an article that provides an extensive overview of a May 2011 report criticizing bias in transit decisions toward selecting rail options. The report focuses on the effectiveness of bus rapid transit (BRT) as an alternative. The article begins:

A report published by the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy says that the transit selection process is rigged in favor of less effective rail projects and seriously biased against bus and road. The report "Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit: a Survey of Select US Cities" is written by Annie Weinstock, Michael Replogle and Ramon Cruz. Replogle at least has been a vocal opponent of roads and a transit supporter, employed for years at the Environmental Defense Fund. The ITDP report has an Introduction by longtime transit enthusiast Congressman Earl Blumenaeuer, Democrat-Oregon.

Dulles Toll corridor prime example of bias & mis-selection

Cited as an example of rigged selection against bus is the Dulles Toll Road corridor where an approximate $6 billion rail transit line is currently under construction, the financing being heavily based on toll revenue bonds.

The financing plan for Dulles Rail assumes huge surpluses that supposedly can be generated by the Toll Road with large increases in toll rates.

A problem is that estimates of the revenue yield of high toll rates are especially uncertain in the case of several fold increases in tolls. At some point a revenue maximizing toll rate is hit - beyond which further increases in toll rates actually reduce revenue. Where that revenue maximizing toll point is located is very difficult for modelers to estimate.

If less expensive bus rapid transit had been chosen instead of rail the huge risk being taken with toll revenues of the Dulles Toll Road would not have been necessary.

Read the full article by clicking here.

The study itself is a huge PDF file--some 26MBs--and can not be stored on available document archive sites. To access this full report, click on this link.

Opinion: How Virginia can make ‘devolution’ work, John Cook, Washington Post, December 9, 2011

2011-12-10T14:53:00.000-05:00

This well written and balanced opinion piece by Braddock District Supervisor John Cook explains how the prospect of "devolution" of local road responsibilities to counties can be made to work. It begins:

As identified recently in The Post, the potential “devolution” of responsibility for local, or secondary, roads may headline the Virginia General Assembly’s agenda when it convenes in January. Local control of local roads is the system used by 47 states and by Virginia’s cities. The Fairfax County executive, staff and other leaders across the commonwealth all agree that this system has clear benefits in terms of increased responsiveness and meeting neighborhood needs.

I understand the trepidation of some county leaders to take on this responsibility [“Why road ‘devolution’ is a bad deal for Northern Virginia,” Local Opinions, Dec. 4]. Yet if it is done correctly (a big if), the devolution of secondary roads could bring positive change to Northern Virginia roadways. Here’s what is needed to make devolution work: . . .

Click here to read his ideas.

The hard part of this will be for the General Assembly to give away the authority it has over local roads commensurate with the responsibility it is likely to pass on to Virginia's counties.

Wolf Expresses Concern about Greenway Toll Increase, Fairfax News, December 9, 2011

2011-12-09T19:07:00.000-05:00

Rep. Frank Wolf is highly irritated with the recalcitrance of Dulles Greenway officials on matters affecting tolls and service. This Fairfax News piece includes both reporting and the full text of Rep. Wolf's letter to the Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton.

Is this what happens when the state turns over responsibility for managing a toll road to a private corporation--or a public entity (like MWAA) that acts like one?

The article begins:

In a letter today to Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10^th) expressed his continued frustration with the owners of the Dulles Greenway. Wolf wrote that he is concerned area residents are unaware of the planned toll increase on January 1 and remains dumbfounded by the company’s refusal to do a distance-pricing study.

“It is my understanding that the company’s bond insurer won’t permit expenditures that will not increase revenues,” Wolf wrote. “How then is the Greenway able to make contributions to political campaigns? The Greenway even pays former VDOT Secretary Whit Clement to lobby members of the General Assembly.”

Wolf also is upset that the owners of the Greenway are pushing back on an effort to erect signs detailing the toll rates on area roads leading up to the Greenway.

“Why should a [Greenway] user have to visit a Web site to find out what the toll rate will be,” Wolf said. “This is simply unacceptable.”

Read the full Fairfax News report and Rep. Wolf's letter here.

What about Dulles Metro Phase 2 coming in early and under budget? BART can do it!

2011-12-09T09:18:00.000-05:00

An article in the December 8, 2011, San Jose Mercury reports that it appears that construction of an extension of the line to San Jose, CA, is likely to come in as much as 18 months early and $77 million under estimates.

BART trains could begin running in Santa Clara County before Christmas 2016 -- nearly 18 months ahead of the projected 2018 timeline.

Using the promise of millions in incentives for construction companies to finish early, project director Mark Massman said it was very likely "that by the end of 2016 we should be ready to roll the trains."

The news came Thursday as the Valley Transportation Authority approved spending $772 million to begin construction of the $2.3 billion, 10-mile extension from Fremont to the Berryessa area of San Jose east of Highway 101. . . .

. . . And the winning bid came in $77 million under the VTA's estimate. . . .

A BART train bound for Fremont leaves the Union City stop. ( Len Vaughn-Lahman )

The article notes:

This is the first major contract to be awarded for the project, and as the unanimous 12-0 vote was announced the 150 people in the Santa Clara County supervisors' chambers broke into a long, sustained applause.

Haven't seen much of that going on here around Silver Line decisions.

Click here to see the rest of the Mercury article and how commuter rail contracts ought to be handled.

Cuccinelli: Metrorail could hit funding snag, Washington Times, December 8, 2011

2011-12-09T07:57:00.000-05:00

Anticipates General Assembly will not approve $150M for Dulles project

By David Sherfinski

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II is betting against the General Assembly approving $150 million for the Dulles Metrorail project — a prospect that would throw a wrench into months of delicate negotiations among stakeholders who have finally reached a tentative accord on its financing. . .

. . . “I would oppose putting a single penny of state dollars to bail out Phase 2,” he said. “I hope that legislators will not agree to spend the $150 million.” . . .

The prospect of the state contributing to Phase 2 of Silver Line construction has always been an "iffy" proposition at best, both with Gov. McDonnell's weak endorsement of the aid contingent on limiting any PLA provisions in the Phase 2 contract and the partisan divide within the state assembly. Gov. McDonnell's position was to put forth a proposal to the state assembly that Virginia help pay for debt financing in the first five years of Phase 2 financing to the tune of $150 million. In the scheme of things, $150 million is about one percent of the total cost of financing the Silver Line--which could run $12-$15 billion over the next 30-50 years depending on whose estimates you use for debt servicing costs.

Because Virginia's contribution, if any, would go to pay debt servicing and not directly figure in the construction cost formula, it is unlikely that a decision by the Virginia assembly not to contribute to Phase 2 would alone scuttle the project directly. It remains to be seen, however, whether a Virginia withdrawal from the LaHood pact would mean the US Department of Transportation would also scuttle its agreement to offer cheap TIFIA financing to the other funding partners. And Loudoun County also remains hesitant about participating in the Phase 2 effort. All that could unravel the LaHood MOA despite the small size of the potential TIFIA contribution--about $315 million--and Loudoun's limited planned contribution (4.8%) to the cost of building the Silver Line.

For the rest of this Washington Times article, click here.

"Whose Road is it Anyway?," Reston Connection, December 5, 2011

2011-12-08T18:01:00.000-05:00

This excellent article by the Connection's Victoria Ross captures both sides of the transportation funding "devolution" debate going on between Richmond and the suburban northern Virginia counties. The article begins:

State and local government officials agree that Fairfax County’s roads are in deplorable shape, but who should fix the problem has sparked a heated political debate.

On Dec.1, Fairfax County, along with Prince William and Loudoun Counties, issued a joint statement firmly opposing any hint of legislation from the Virginia General Assembly that would shift road maintenance responsibilities from the Commonwealth to counties, a process known as road devolution. . . .

. . . County officials argue that devolution would lock in the state’s chronic underfunding of secondary roads, and county taxpayers would be on the hook for the cumulative effects of deficient maintenance measures when the big bills come due.

Photo courtesy of VDOT

This section of Hunter Mill Road in Reston was the first of six roads and bridges to re-open after being extensively damaged by Tropical Storm Lee on Sept. 8.

The other side of the argument begins later:

But not everyone agrees that devolution is a problem.

"[Local control of local roads] is a great idea," said Del. Dave Albo (R-42), who has been a member of the House since 1994 and a key player in obtaining funding for road projects in his district, which covers Springfield and Lorton. "We would not have to ask Richmond which roads to get repaved. We could ask our county supervisors, who personally know which roads are in need of repair."

Albo said legislation, along with a reallocation of resources to pay for it, is likely this session. . . .

It is interesting that Del. Albo takes this position as his district is one of the areas hardest hit by the BRAC re-location to Fort Belvoir which will require much new road construction (largely state & federal funded) to accommodate the thousands of new workers commuting there daily. Once, the roads are built, Fairfax County would be responsible for funding their repair under devolution.

As it stands now, the state has been giving very limited funding to counties for maintenance and repair of local roads--but counties don't have the authority to use their own funds (and presumably raise taxes) to pay for repairs. And northern Virginia counties have been complaining loudly about it as they hear from their constituents. A year ago, this led Fairfax County's Board of Supervisors to begin an initiative to look at changing its charter from a county to a city--which can spend its own money on road repairs--under the Virginia constitution. Now Fairfax has joined other NoVa counties in opposing devolution and, of course, begging for more state money to repair local roads. How quickly perspectives change when one is threatened with the prospect that they can no longer spend other peoples' money!

A clear longer term implication of devolution for area counties is that they will likely be less anxious to build new roads--or they will seek much stiffer proffers from developers--because they will be stuck with the much higher long-term cost of maintaining those that they create. The alternative is to raise local taxes to cover road repair costs--or end up with even worse roads than we have now. And the building of fewer roads could mean less development generally, unless Fairfax and its neighboring counties can figure out how to make public transit really serve their constituents.

. . . and more public transit in Reston linked to its coming Silver Line stations would be a good thing.

There is much more in the Connection article, which you can read by clicking here.

Letter: Inequity in Financing Metrorail Construction with Road Tolls, John Norton, December 8, 2011

2011-12-08T15:24:00.000-05:00

The following is a copy of a letter Mr. Norton sent to Chairman Bulova today.

Dear Chairman Bulova:

I just received your latest Bulova Byline with a section devoted to the Phase 2 funding problem for the Metro extension. I am aware that the recent funding agreement doesn’t change, by much, the fact that Dulles Toll Road users are being forced to pay up to 75% of the cost of the extension – but it does hold out some hope that the percentage may be somewhat lower. I’d like you to know – and the whole Board of Supervisors to know – that, while I am a supporter of the Metro extension, there is considerable anger among those of us who use the Dulles Toll Road over the fact that we have been selected to carry the bulk of the financial obligations of this undertaking.

Dulles Toll Road users are, by definition, NOT using the Metro extension. Why on earth have we been selected to pay for most of it? Why aren’t users of the Metro extension being asked to pay the 75%? That question is rhetorical, I suppose, since the costs are enormous and the fare increases for Metro riders would be similarly enormous, and that would hurt Metro ridership. A more pertinent question is, Why aren’t Maryland, DC, and Virginia being asked to pay for these costs as they have paid for, and are paying for, the rest of the Metro operation? I am at a loss to explain.

Over the years, ever since its construction in fact, I have paid tolls for using the Dulles Toll Road, knowing that because I live in Reston I have the “privilege” of paying tolls on the major highway through my community, when virtually all my neighbors in the surrounding Washington DC, metropolitan area do not pay tolls for using nearby roads. We all pay taxes for roads, but until recently only Dulles Toll Road users paid something more. (Maryland’s ICC and the Beltway “Hot Lanes” are two new toll-supported highways. Those roads, particularly the “Hot Lanes,” are for another email.) Dulles tolls are something I accepted early. When the tolls were scheduled to expire (about five years ago I believe) I did not really expect them to, and I was right. But I believed that the collected tolls would always be used to maintain and expand and improve the Toll Road - and not be used for other county and state obligations. That’s where I was wrong.

The Toll Road fees, as it turns out, are an easy target for the political establishment. They are already being collected. Users are thought to have become accustomed to increases from time to time. And, apparently, they are not treated as a tax. (Perish the thought that taxes be increased to pay for needed infrastructure!) But it is fundamentally unfair to impose this funding burden on Toll Road users.

I view the Metro extension as a “public good” that benefits everyone. Similarly, the construction and maintenance of public highways is a “public good.” Philosophically, we can talk about whether user fees, such as tolls, should fund our roads or whether roads ought to be funded through general revenues. It makes sense that road users should pay more for the costs of our highways than nonusers. But we should also acknowledge that highway and general transportation infrastructure is an essential element for any community, county, and state. Taxes should fund most of it. Everyone benefits. Perhaps those who benefit most, such as frequent users, could and should pay a bit more.

But a single subset of Fairfax County residents who may benefit in some small way (i.e., Toll Road users benefiting from a presumed lessening of congestion because some potential Toll Road users are riding the Metro extension) should not be asked to pay for a disproportionate piece of the pie. Yet that is exactly what you are asking Dulles Toll Road users to do. If Dulles Toll Road users are asked to pay, shouldn’t Route 7 users pay; shouldn’t Route 66 users pay; shouldn’t Beltway users pay; shouldn’t Dulles Connector users? I envision DC and Arlington residents driving west on Route 66 and the Dulles Connector to their jobs in Tysons Corner (the “reverse commute” on Route 66 inside the Beltway is very heavy), but they will pay nothing for the Metro extension. Yet Fairfax County residents who drive east from Reston or Herndon on the Dulles Road and Route 66 to their jobs in Arlington and DC will pay for the Metro extension. What sense does that make? The notion that the latter group of residents is using the Dulles “corridor” is a red herring. The Reston/Herndon residents are no more using the Metro extension than the DC/Arlington residents. That’s the point.

I hope you will continue to work on this issue to fight the inequity I have described.

Sincerely,

John Norton

Reston, VA

cc: Supervisor Cathy Hudgins

Fairfax signs off on Dulles rail agreement, Fairfax Times, December 7, 2011

2011-12-07T15:33:00.001-05:00

Today's article by Kali Schmitz, Fairfax Times, reports on the Fairfax Board of Supervisors signing off on the LaHood Silver Line Phase 2 financing arrangement. Besides some new comments by various supervisors, it ends with a brief discussion of future tolls like this:

The airports authority is conducting a new traffic and revenue study for the toll road that will shed more light on future tolling rates needed to support the bonds. That study is supposed to be released early next year.

Jonathan Pagan, of airports authority consultants Wilbur Smith Associates, said at a meeting Wednesday that the first draft of the study is almost complete. Despite all the changes with the project since Wilbur Smith last prognosticated future toll rates, in 2009, Pagan said he expects very few adjustments to those projections.

That report projected costs for a full trip on the Dulles Toll Road to rise to $3.25 by 2015, $5 by 2020 and $7.50 by 2030. The current rate for such a trip is $2, and it is already slated to increase to $2.25 on Jan. 1.

“That [tolling] schedule is about where tolls are headed, and the report that will be released early next year will confirm that,” said Robert Clarke Brown, who chairs the airport board’s Finance Committee.

Given that the total cost of Phase 2 has risen from the 2009 figure of $2.5 billion to the recent LaHood MOA cost of at least $2.8 billion, one would have to expect at least a 10% toll price increase. Nonetheless, there are any number of assumptions that will go into WSA's calculations (that were left untold in the 2009 study) that could affect the toll price rise, maybe debt servicing cost assumptions most importantly. Also, it's doubtful the study will consider total construction cost contingencies higher than the current $2.8 billion estimate and, thus, provide no guidance on how likely cost increases may affect tolls. That said, because of the way the financial partners (MWAA, Fairfax, Loudoun) have structured their agreement, toll road users will end up paying three-quarters of any additional construction costs.

For the full Times article, click here.

Last Night's MWAA Dulles Toll Road Open House

2011-12-07T09:56:00.001-05:00

Last night MWAA held its annual open house for the public to see what it is doing on the Dulles Corridor. According to a Washington Post article by Dana Hedgpeth, who has been following toll road developments for some time, only about three dozen people showed up to review the exhibits and speak with MWAA staff who were there to answer questions. While Hedgpeth doesn't try account for the poor turnout, three reasons might be (a) everyone knew what MWAA was going to say because it released its presentations a week ago, (b) there was nothing significantly new in the presentations or the conversations, and (c) toll road fatigue--the constant public discussion about delays, costs, and tolls has worn out the public.

Some brief comments on errors in Ms. Hedgpeth's article:

The article states, "Some toll road users and watchdog groups are concerned that even higher rates will be imposed eventually — perhaps as much as $17 per round trip . . ." Actually the fare quoted is for one way, not a round trip. It was calculated by Mr. Tom Cranmer, who has been tracking toll road developments for some time. It remains to be seen whether this future toll projection is correct, but Wilbur Smith Associates will be presenting its latest official toll forecast for MWAA later this month.

Later in the article, it states, "The toll increases (for future decades) were agreed to years ago." Actually, the only rates that have been agreed to are those that run through 2013--and these need re-confirmation by the MWAA Board on an annual basis. In that regard, tolls will go up a quarter at the main gate beginning January 1, 2012. The rest are just forecasts.

Click here to read the WaPo article.

Opinion: Transportation: Secondary thoughts, Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 6, 2011

2011-12-06T13:56:00.000-05:00

The opinion piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch provides an important historical perspective as well as a look at both sides of the issue of "devolution" of road maintenance funding to counties. It adds a valuable complement to the letter by the area's three Board of Supervisors chairmen that devolution is a bad idea. Here is the crux of the discussion:

Large suburbanized counties (like Fairfax) have the bulk of such roads and would bear the brunt of devolution, a proposal they would consider an unfunded mandate. Chesterfield, for instance, would need to come up with more than $10 million a year.

To state officials, however, the current arrangement looks like an unfunded mandate that leaves Richmond on the hook for maintaining roads it had no say in creating. The system dates back to the Great Depression, when the General Assembly adopted the Byrd Road Act to take fiscal pressure off struggling rural counties — counties that are, in much of the state, now all grown up.

Interestingly, in mid-2010, at an offsite "committee of the whole," the Fairfax County Supervisors began an initiative to look at the option of changing its state charter status from county to city, precisely so it could fund local road maintenance because the state was not providing adequate funding.

Right now, while the state is not funding road maintenance adequately, it denies the counties the right to do so. Devolution would give the counties the right (actually, the obligation) to maintain the roads they build. So, if the state is not funding road maintenance for budget reasons, why is Fairfax County (& others) objecting to being given the right to fund maintenance for the roads they built? Obviously, no local politician wants to take on a responsibility that will mean raising taxes.

Click here to read the rest of the opinion piece.

Is Closing Streets a Possible Solution for Reston's TOD Areas?

2011-12-06T12:47:00.002-05:00

Last night, "Rock Center with Brian Williams" featured this 2:25 minute discussion by Harry Smith with New York City's Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan on the closing of streets in Times Square and elsewhere in the city.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Although Reston doesn't have the same congestion as Manhattan, there still might be a lesson in this video for closing some of Reston's most urbanized streets, such as Market Street from Presidents Drive to St. Francis St. This would not impede residents in the area, but yet would offer pedestrians and bicyclists unimpeded access to the office buildings and retail in the area. That Reston Town Center already closes Market Street for special events shows the value of this approach on a more general scale. As density grows in Town Center and the other two Reston TOD areas, maybe parts of the the new "grid of streets" could be walking boulevards instead of roads.

Agenda: Reston Planning & Zoning Committee, December 19, 2011

2011-12-06T12:15:00.000-05:00

THE RESTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE

MEETING AGENDA

Monday, December 19, 2011 – 7:30 pm

Community Room

North County Government Center

12000 Bowman Towne Drive, Reston

1. A proposal by Fairfax County to build a new two (2) story building on the site of the current Police Station Supervisor’s Office. The building will be built behind the current building which will be torn down when the new building is finished and ready for occupancy. The new building will have a maximum length of 260 feet and a maximum width of 135 feet. The height will vary because of the slope of the land but will be on average 40 feet. It will be two stories high with an area of 36500 square feet. The present structure contains 16500 square feet.

Presenter: Kimberly Callahan P.E.
Planning and Design Division of Fairfax County

2. This is a request by applicant, Core Site, for a special exception for an increase in floor area ratio in the I-4 District for a 13.88 acre property owned by CoreSite and located at 12100 Sunrise Valley Drive . There will be no change in zoning for the property. The property is developed with a 265,000 square foot building used as a data center with some limited office space. The proposal will add an additional data center building of 158,399 square feet. The buildings will be connected via a skywalk. The proposed building will be no more than 60 feet in height and will be located in the rear portion of the property behind the existing building. Parking spaces will be reduced to 221 on the property.

Presenter: Lori Greenlief
McGuire Woods

(Note: Core Site is located opposite the USGS on Sunrise Valley Drive at Edmund Halley Drive.)

3. Committee discussion of any other business, new or old, and approval of previous meeting minutes.

4. Approve next meeting date and adjourn.

5. Agenda subject to change without notice by order of the Chairman, David Vanell, (703) 904-9299, or Arthur S. Hill, Vice Chairman, (703) 264-1178.

December 6, 2011

The Transportation Planning Rule Every City Should Reform, Eric Jaffe, The Atlantic Cities, December 5, 2011

2011-12-06T11:21:00.000-05:00

This is a lengthy, thoughtful article about the evolution of transportation--and particularly road--planning in San Francisco, but it has broad applicability to Reston and, indeed, the rest of the United States.

The article highlights that using the national standard "level of service" (LOS) grading system to evaluate impacts of non-auto transportation on congestion generates an inappropriate result; that is, more bike and pedestrian facilities lower the LOS grade--which is viewed as bad in an auto centric culture. To change that mentality, it discusses how San Francisco is shifting to a different metric--automobile trips generated (ATG)--to better show the trade-off between auto and other transportation options. Here is the summary:

Each new automobile trip added onto San Francisco's transportation system contributes to environmental impacts, especially in terms of pedestrian safety and greenhouse gas emissions. Under the proposed approach, CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) transportation impact analysis would measure the net new trips generated or induced by proposed projects, rather than changes in automobile delay at intersections.

Instead of seeking to preserve system efficiency by expanding capacity for driving, the ATG measure recognizes that constraining the growth in automobile trips on San Francisco streets is critical for maintaining system efficiency on our network of finite automobile capacity.

The article is especially timely for Reston given the County studies now underway on the transportation impact of growth in Reston's Metro station areas on traffic congestion. Thematically, the studies may need to look more broadly at how Reston can substitute public transit, bicycling, and walking for driving in these areas, which will be much more populated with workers and residents 20 years from now. In particular, the studies would be of much greater value if they considered potential alternatives to driving, including better bus service, improved walking/biking facilities (including grade-separated crossings at key intersections around the Metro stations), and various traffic demand management (TDM) policies (such as parking restrictions, road diets, etc).

It's an interesting article that I would encourage you to read. Click here for the full text.

Does Reston TOD Planning Have Something to Learn From Plano, TX?

2011-12-05T11:44:00.000-05:00

In her December 2 post "How to Make TOD Work in Metro Dallas: Plano Shows the Way" in the DC.Streetsblog.org, Angie Schmitt describes how decades of TOD planning are beginning to pay off for Plano, TX, a large suburb of Dallas, as its light rail line (DART) arrives there. She begins:

For decades, Dallas mega-suburb Plano planned and prepared for this moment.

The historic downtown — a poorly-scaled anachronism from when this city of 260,000 housed a mere 3,500 people — was revitalized and reimagined as a “transit village.” Tax increment financing helped support urban-style, walkable development.

All because DART was building a rail line and forward-thinking town leaders wanted to be ready. Now decades of careful planning and preparation are paying off; Plano is poised to secure $60 million in transit oriented development near its two rail stations.

Important in her description of the Plano initiatives is the development of a $30 million mixed-use apartment complex with 280 units and a similar initiative by a second developer. She adds:

The new rail stations have raised property values along Plano’s rail corridor about 200 percent, said Deputy City Director Frank Turner. That has generated about $40 million from Tax Increment Financing, a method for taxing projected increases in property values. That money will be used to help advance its vision for a vibrant, walkable downtown, . . . .

Downtown Plano after the arrival of DART.

While there are obvious differences between Reston and Plano's situation--Reston has a much smaller population, an apparently larger and more successful commercial and retail "downtown," and will be served by a commuter (vice light) rail system--the lessons here point to the value of creating a balance of residential and commercial uses in Reston's TOD areas and points to tax increment financing (TIF) as a way to accomplish that goal.

Click on the title above and read the whole article.

Wolf Dresses Down Recalcitrant Airports Board, Fairfax News, December 2, 2011

2011-12-05T09:52:00.000-05:00

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) board is getting a lesson in governance from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.).

Perturbed by the unelected board’s practice of letting members continue to serve after their terms had expired, Wolf pushed through legislation last month that prohibits the practice. The measure also increases the size of the board from 13 to 17. Virginia got two new appointments while Maryland and the District of Columbia each got one additional board member.

Amazingly, the board’s chairman, Charles Snelling, is resisting the changes and informed Wolf in a letter that the board has hired outside counsel, which advised the board that it was not necessarily bound by all of the law’s provisions until Virginia, Maryland and D.C. change their laws to match the new federal measure. Wolf wrote back to Snelling, basically advising him to get on board.

Rep. Frank Wolf

Click here for the full article.

As this article illustrates, anyone can hire a lawyer to take the position one wants to take. That said, it is loathsome--and stupid--that the MWAA Board (or some over-paid legal stooge) believes it can challenge the authority of Congress, which created MWAA in the first place. In the end, MWAA will lose, but this MWAA Board position undercuts any pretense that MWAA, a public entity, is working in the public's interest.

Letter: Why road 'devolution' is a bad deal for Northern Virginia, Sharon Bulova, Corey Stewart, and Scott York, Washington Post, December 2, 2011

2011-12-03T12:20:00.000-05:00

The authors of this letter are, respectively, chairman of the Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudoun County Boards of Supervisors. It begins:

The Virginia General Assembly may soon consider a scheme that could cause a significant property tax increase for residents and businesses of Northern Virginia. This tax increase may come under the guise of transportation funding reform called “devolution.” Simply put, devolution shifts the cost of certain state responsibilities for transportation from the state to local governments. Although we are of different political parties, we are firmly united in opposition to devolution because of the massive property tax increase it will produce for the residents and businesses of Fairfax, Prince William and Loudoun counties.

After years of neglect, Virginia’s transportation construction and maintenance funds are nearly depleted. Our roads, particularly in Northern Virginia, are in deplorable shape. By the Virginia Department of Transportation’s own admission, 34 percent of secondary roads in Virginia are in substandard condition. This problem — long in the making by the General Assembly — must be addressed by the General Assembly. Local governments and taxpayers should not be expected to shoulder what is now a responsibility of the commonwealth. . . .

Click here for the rest of this letter.

Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities, CEOs for Cities, August 2009

2011-12-02T09:58:00.000-05:00

"Walking the Walk," a major report written for the CEOs for Cities non-profit group by Joe Cortright, Impresa, Inc., documents how walkable neighborhoods increase the value of homes. The press release describing the report notes:

The report, “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities” by Joseph Cortright, analyzed data from 94,000 real estate transactions in 15 major markets provided by ZipRealty and found that in 13 of the 15 markets, higher levels of walkability, as measured by Walk Score, were directly linked to higher home value.

“Even in a turbulent economy, we know that walkability adds value to residential property just as additional square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms and other amenities do,” said Cortright. “It’s clear that consumers assign a tangible value to the convenience factor of living in more walkable places with access to a variety of destinations.” . .

. . . "These findings are significant for policy makers,” said Carol Coletta, President and CEO of CEOs for Cities, which commissioned the research. “They tell us that if urban leaders are intentional about developing and redeveloping their cities to make them more walkable, it will not only enhance the local tax base but will also contribute to individual wealth by increasing the value of what is, for most people, their biggest asset."

The following is the summary of the report:

More than just a pleasant amenity, the walkability of cities translates directly into increases in home values. Homes located in more walkable neighborhoods—those with a mix of common daily shopping and social destinations within a short distance—command a price premium over otherwise similar homes in less walkable areas. Houses with the above-average levels of walkability command a premium of about $4,000 to $34,000 over houses with just average levels of walkability in the typical metropolitan areas studied.

This paper explores the connection between home values and walkability, as measured by the Walk Score algorithm. Walk Score measures the number of typical consumer destinations within walking distance of a house, with scores ranging from 0 (car dependent) to 100 (most walkable). By the Walk Score measure, walkability is a direct function of how many destinations are located within a short distance (generally between one-quarter mile and one mile of a home). Our measure of walkability reflects the convenience and proximity of having shopping and cultural activities close at hand, as well as the value households attach to mixed-use neighborhoods.

Using an economic technique called hedonic regression, we estimate how much market value homebuyers implicitly attach to houses with higher Walk Scores. We looked at data for more than 90,000 recent home sales in 15 different markets around the nation. Our statistical approach controlled for key characteristics of individual housing units (their size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, age and other factors), as well as for the neighborhoods in which they were located (including the neighborhood’s income level, proximity to the urban center and relative accessibility to employment opportunities).

After controlling for all of these other factors that are known to influence housing value, our study showed a positive correlation between walkability and housing prices in 13 of the 15 housing markets we studied. In the typical market, an additional one point increase in Walk Score was associated with between a $500 and $3,000 increase in home values. In one market (Las Vegas) there was a negative correlation—housing prices decreased with higher Walk Scores, and in one market (Bakersfield) there was no statistically significant correlation between prices and walkability after controlling for other factors.

These results show that consumers and housing markets attach a positive value to living within easy walking distance of shopping, services, schools and parks. The property value premium for walkability seems to be higher in more populous urban areas and those with extensive transit, suggesting that the value gains associated with walkability are greatest when people have real alternatives to living without an automobile.

It should be stressed that our measure of walkability captures not
just the benefits associated with walking but with greater accessibility generally. Even households that don’t walk to every destination have shorter trips (and more nearby choices) than households with lower Walk Scores.

And because places with higher walk scores tend to have more mixed
uses and better transit services, some of the value measured here may be attributable to those assets.

This research makes it clear that walkability is strongly associated with higher housing values in nearly all metropolitan areas. The choice, convenience and variety of walkable neighborhoods are reflected in housing markets and are the product of consumer demand for these attributes. The nation’s urban leaders should pay close attention to walkability as a key measure of urban vitality and as impetus for public policy that will increase overall property values – a key source of individual wealth and of revenues for cash-strapped governments in a tough economy. (emphasis added)

‘Walkable’ Steps Into Spotlight, New York Times, December 1, 2011

2011-12-02T09:20:00.000-05:00

This article from the New York Times highlights the importance of walkability to aging in place--a key initiative of Supervisor Hudgins for Reston--as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

By MARCELLE S. FISCHLER
WALKABILITY is an asset of an increasing number of (Long) Island communities as the fabric of suburbia changes, and it was a must for Judy Rosenthal, a health care writer from Great Neck, when she recently sought a new home for her mother not far from her own.

The mother, who doesn’t drive, will soon be relocating from Brooklyn, where transportation and shopping are both easily accessible. “Everything is walkable in Brooklyn,” Ms. Rosenthal said, “and that was the criterion for making a move. It is possible for her to move out of the boroughs, into the suburbs, because of the walkability Great Neck has. . .

. . . The goal of more walkable communities, with village centers close to mass transit, is being pursued statewide by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who in August signed “Complete Streets” legislation to make roads safer and more accessible to pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users. . . .

Kathy Kmonicek for The New York Times

Pedestrians stroll through a new median strip on Great Neck Road, which was narrowed to one lane from two, each way.

So why not in Reston--and Tysons where the just drafted urban design guidelines appear not to meet this need--and the rest of Fairfax County?