Fairfax County is using the results of the Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG) final analysis of traffic demand and improvements for the next three decades to guide its planning of Reston roadway improvements. In the following paper, John Mooney, RA Board of Directors, takes a look at some of the shortcomings in that analysis.
Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label FC DOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FC DOT. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Monday, May 1, 2017
Op-Ed: The County’s Reston Transit Station Area Planning Deception, Terry Maynard, RestonNow, April 24, 2017
The following is the text of an op-ed written by Terry Maynard, Reston 20/20 Co-Chair, and published in RestonNow on April 24, 2017. The only difference between this printing and that in RestonNow is that we have included here the spreadsheet used to develop the conclusions reached in the RestonNow publication.
Our County Board of Supervisors, led by Chairman Sharon Bulova, is in the process of overbuilding and underserving residents in Reston and across the county. The result will be the eroding livability of Reston and other county areas facing urbanization.
And this is being accomplished by a simple arithmetical trick: Overstating the amount of space new housing and office space require to accommodate residents and workers. Very simply, county planners continue to overstate the space needed for office workers as 300 gross square feet (GSF) per worker when studies globally over nearly a decade show it is now under 200 GSF/worker and could be headed to 150 GSF/worker.
At the same time, as it started to plan for Tysons’ redevelopment nearly a decade ago, the County raised its planning assumption for the size of station area dwelling units (DUs) from 1,000 GSF/DU to 1,200 GSF/DU. Nonetheless, a County planning study for Tysons showed then (2007) that the average size of Tysons residents was 1,100 GSF, mostly in garden apartments before the recent advent of massive high-rise residential development there.
Now, the average high-rise DU size is shrinking well below 1,000 GSF/DU, more than offsetting the few mid-rise and single-family attached DUs in station areas, as some recent Reston development proposals show:
The impact is straightforward: The resulting planned densities (total GSF of development divided by the square footage of the lot on which it sits) will allow half-again as many office workers and 28 percent more residential units than the County plan officially intends. Yet developers and the County are only planning to provide services — improved roads, schools and parks, and more — based on the lower count envisioned in the plan. The result will be reduced services and higher taxes.
So what does that mean for “real people?” Based on GSF information provided by FCDOT to the Supervisors serving as the Board Transportation Committee, the current Reston station area plan offers the potential for 76,280 added residents (at 2.0 residents/DU) and 29,059 added office worker jobs (at 300GSF/worker) in the next four decades.
If instead of using the County’s faulty planning assumptions, we use real world experience, we can anticipate that the allowable development could result in an addition of 101,492 total residents in 50,746 DUs and 78,559 office workers, including retrofitted office buildings, market conditions permitting.
More specifically, it suggests an order of magnitude explosion in residents (11,720 in 2010 vs. 113,212 then) and more than twice as many office employees (69,941 in 2010 vs. 148,500 then) in Reston’s station areas. Overall, Reston can expect twice as many people living and working in the station areas as is anticipated by the Reston plan.
Let’s take a look at some areas where this will affect Restonians and others similarly affected by these false development assumptions.
TRAFFIC: We are near the end of the painful two-year RNAG experience, a truly dysfunctional FCDOT-managed, Board initiative based on false assumptions about an alleged “funding gap,” to address the worsening traffic conditions that will come with the urbanization of Reston’s station areas. Already the County has reduced the standard for intersection traffic service levels to a new “urban standard” in which “unstable flow, operating at capacity” is good enough, and Reston’s station area streets don’t have to try to meet community needs for traffic from, to, and especially through the station areas, including Dulles Toll Road users.
In doing its planning, FCDOT has been using the forecast employment and residential data it says area in the Reston Master Plan. Unfortunately, instead of 41,455 added people, the increase is likely to be 90,955 people — some 63.5 percent greater than what FCDOT is planning.
We all know the two major consequences of that result: Worse traffic congestion for Restonians driving near the station areas and ever higher Transportation Service District (TSD) taxes on the residents of the station areas.
SCHOOLS: There may be no single issue of greater concern to Reston families (and those countywide) than the availability of quality public school education for their children. Like traffic, the quality of our children’s education is likely to erode because of the County’s insistence on unrealistic population forecasts that under-estimate the need for classroom capacity.
Using data in a 2012 FCPS letter to the County’s Planning Department regarding the future of Reston schools, we can update FCPS’ forecast of the number of students in the decades ahead. This requires, first, updating the understated population from Scenario “G” prepared for the Reston planning task force to the plan’s expectations and then updating that to our estimate of future Reston station area population. The result more than doubles the number of dwelling units (and, therefore, the number of students) in station area schools — from 24,559 in Scenario “G” to 56,606 in our forecast.
Applying FCPS’ planning parameters for student yield ratios and mixes laid out in that letter, we calculate that Reston can expect about 6,700 new students from the station areas to be added to the 11,000 students now in all Reston’s schools over the next four decades. That’s about:
PARKS: The County’s Urban Parks Framework and the Countywide Adopted Service Level Standards for Athletic Fields establish guidance for park size and recreational facilities. Suffice it to say that the Reston plan does not remotely try to achieve the guidance laid out in these documents based on the County’s faulty assumptions, much less our adjusted estimate of future population and employment growth.
The prospective population and employment totals should mean the availability of more than 187 acres of parks within 1/2-mile of the Metro stations under the Urban Parks Framework. That’s about 1/8 of Reston’s total station area. Given preliminary notions of additional mid-sized parks in north and south Town Center plus one in the Wiehle station area, we think it may be possible to reach 90 acres of public and private parks in Reston’s station areas four decades from now. Bottom line: Reston’s station areas will have fewer park acres per capita than Manhattan does now.
The County master plan also sets as “a goal” the construction of 12 ballfields at 2.2 million GFA (50 acres) in Reston’s station areas, and a minimum of three. Yet the County’s population-based facilities guideline for the 113,212 people who our adjusted plan suggest may live in the station areas calls for 35 ballfields, nearly triple the plan’s most optimistic “goal” and an order of magnitude greater than its meager minimum objective for Reston.
Aside from the impact on livability and total disregard for Reston planning principles, the ruinous shortage of open space, parks and recreational facilities in the station areas will almost certainly see RA’s facilities overrun with non-RA members no matter what the price for non-member use.
But the Board of Supervisors doesn’t care. The more development there is, the more property tax revenues it generates, and the more the Board can spend without raising those tax rates or adding new taxes on voters. Even so, however, we’ve just seen the Board add the TSD tax on Reston’s station area residents essentially because it can get away with it. It is certainly unjustified as we’ve commented here before. Will they also be taxed to provide schools or parks to meet the explosive growth?
What you need to know is that, like the new Reston station area TSD tax, Restonians (and others) are being misled by their Board and the County staff on the scope of County urbanization plans and their tremendously adverse and virtually immutable impact on our community, including your quality of life. We all will continue to be misled until we replace this cabal with responsible and responsive leaders and staffers of integrity.
Our County Board of Supervisors, led by Chairman Sharon Bulova, is in the process of overbuilding and underserving residents in Reston and across the county. The result will be the eroding livability of Reston and other county areas facing urbanization.
And this is being accomplished by a simple arithmetical trick: Overstating the amount of space new housing and office space require to accommodate residents and workers. Very simply, county planners continue to overstate the space needed for office workers as 300 gross square feet (GSF) per worker when studies globally over nearly a decade show it is now under 200 GSF/worker and could be headed to 150 GSF/worker.
At the same time, as it started to plan for Tysons’ redevelopment nearly a decade ago, the County raised its planning assumption for the size of station area dwelling units (DUs) from 1,000 GSF/DU to 1,200 GSF/DU. Nonetheless, a County planning study for Tysons showed then (2007) that the average size of Tysons residents was 1,100 GSF, mostly in garden apartments before the recent advent of massive high-rise residential development there.
Now, the average high-rise DU size is shrinking well below 1,000 GSF/DU, more than offsetting the few mid-rise and single-family attached DUs in station areas, as some recent Reston development proposals show:
- JBG/Wiehle and partners plan for 1,300-1,500 residential units in 1.2 million GSF of development in two 5-story buildings, or 800-925 GSF/DU;
- Golf Course Plaza proposes 413 DUs in a 392,600 GSF multi-family building or 950 GSF/DU, also in 5-story structures;
- Faraday’s proposes redeveloping the area just south of Wiehle Station with up to 500 apartments in two buildings with about 487,000 GSF of residential space that will reach about 975 GSF/DU according to its plan submission.
- Lerner Enterprises is planning a 457-“luxury apartment” complex called Excelsior Park with average unit size at about 1,050 GSF in 423,587 rentable square feet (RBA), which equates to 481,350 GSF.
The impact is straightforward: The resulting planned densities (total GSF of development divided by the square footage of the lot on which it sits) will allow half-again as many office workers and 28 percent more residential units than the County plan officially intends. Yet developers and the County are only planning to provide services — improved roads, schools and parks, and more — based on the lower count envisioned in the plan. The result will be reduced services and higher taxes.
So what does that mean for “real people?” Based on GSF information provided by FCDOT to the Supervisors serving as the Board Transportation Committee, the current Reston station area plan offers the potential for 76,280 added residents (at 2.0 residents/DU) and 29,059 added office worker jobs (at 300GSF/worker) in the next four decades.
If instead of using the County’s faulty planning assumptions, we use real world experience, we can anticipate that the allowable development could result in an addition of 101,492 total residents in 50,746 DUs and 78,559 office workers, including retrofitted office buildings, market conditions permitting.
More specifically, it suggests an order of magnitude explosion in residents (11,720 in 2010 vs. 113,212 then) and more than twice as many office employees (69,941 in 2010 vs. 148,500 then) in Reston’s station areas. Overall, Reston can expect twice as many people living and working in the station areas as is anticipated by the Reston plan.
Let’s take a look at some areas where this will affect Restonians and others similarly affected by these false development assumptions.
TRAFFIC: We are near the end of the painful two-year RNAG experience, a truly dysfunctional FCDOT-managed, Board initiative based on false assumptions about an alleged “funding gap,” to address the worsening traffic conditions that will come with the urbanization of Reston’s station areas. Already the County has reduced the standard for intersection traffic service levels to a new “urban standard” in which “unstable flow, operating at capacity” is good enough, and Reston’s station area streets don’t have to try to meet community needs for traffic from, to, and especially through the station areas, including Dulles Toll Road users.
In doing its planning, FCDOT has been using the forecast employment and residential data it says area in the Reston Master Plan. Unfortunately, instead of 41,455 added people, the increase is likely to be 90,955 people — some 63.5 percent greater than what FCDOT is planning.
We all know the two major consequences of that result: Worse traffic congestion for Restonians driving near the station areas and ever higher Transportation Service District (TSD) taxes on the residents of the station areas.
SCHOOLS: There may be no single issue of greater concern to Reston families (and those countywide) than the availability of quality public school education for their children. Like traffic, the quality of our children’s education is likely to erode because of the County’s insistence on unrealistic population forecasts that under-estimate the need for classroom capacity.
Using data in a 2012 FCPS letter to the County’s Planning Department regarding the future of Reston schools, we can update FCPS’ forecast of the number of students in the decades ahead. This requires, first, updating the understated population from Scenario “G” prepared for the Reston planning task force to the plan’s expectations and then updating that to our estimate of future Reston station area population. The result more than doubles the number of dwelling units (and, therefore, the number of students) in station area schools — from 24,559 in Scenario “G” to 56,606 in our forecast.
Applying FCPS’ planning parameters for student yield ratios and mixes laid out in that letter, we calculate that Reston can expect about 6,700 new students from the station areas to be added to the 11,000 students now in all Reston’s schools over the next four decades. That’s about:
- 3,700 elementary school kids (about five average-sized Reston elementary schools),
- 1,000 middle schoolers (about the enrollment at Langston Hughes), and
- 2,000 high schoolers (nearly South Lakes’ enrollment).
PARKS: The County’s Urban Parks Framework and the Countywide Adopted Service Level Standards for Athletic Fields establish guidance for park size and recreational facilities. Suffice it to say that the Reston plan does not remotely try to achieve the guidance laid out in these documents based on the County’s faulty assumptions, much less our adjusted estimate of future population and employment growth.
The prospective population and employment totals should mean the availability of more than 187 acres of parks within 1/2-mile of the Metro stations under the Urban Parks Framework. That’s about 1/8 of Reston’s total station area. Given preliminary notions of additional mid-sized parks in north and south Town Center plus one in the Wiehle station area, we think it may be possible to reach 90 acres of public and private parks in Reston’s station areas four decades from now. Bottom line: Reston’s station areas will have fewer park acres per capita than Manhattan does now.
The County master plan also sets as “a goal” the construction of 12 ballfields at 2.2 million GFA (50 acres) in Reston’s station areas, and a minimum of three. Yet the County’s population-based facilities guideline for the 113,212 people who our adjusted plan suggest may live in the station areas calls for 35 ballfields, nearly triple the plan’s most optimistic “goal” and an order of magnitude greater than its meager minimum objective for Reston.
Aside from the impact on livability and total disregard for Reston planning principles, the ruinous shortage of open space, parks and recreational facilities in the station areas will almost certainly see RA’s facilities overrun with non-RA members no matter what the price for non-member use.
But the Board of Supervisors doesn’t care. The more development there is, the more property tax revenues it generates, and the more the Board can spend without raising those tax rates or adding new taxes on voters. Even so, however, we’ve just seen the Board add the TSD tax on Reston’s station area residents essentially because it can get away with it. It is certainly unjustified as we’ve commented here before. Will they also be taxed to provide schools or parks to meet the explosive growth?
What you need to know is that, like the new Reston station area TSD tax, Restonians (and others) are being misled by their Board and the County staff on the scope of County urbanization plans and their tremendously adverse and virtually immutable impact on our community, including your quality of life. We all will continue to be misled until we replace this cabal with responsible and responsive leaders and staffers of integrity.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
County Transportation Department will recommend Transportation Service District tax Option #12 to Board Transportation Committee
In its planned presentation to the Board of Supervisors acting as the "Board Transportation Committee" this Tuesday, December 13, FCDOT will recommend that the Board adopt Option #12, a Transportation Service District (TSD) for Reston's station areas with a tax rate of $0.021/$100 valuation. This tax will apply to all property owners in the station areas, including residents.
Below is the full FCDOT presentation. The recommendation is highlighted on p. 16.
Although the initial tax rate would be set at $0.021/$100 valuation, there is absolutely no restriction on the Board raising that rate (just like property tax rates) as transportation improvement costs rise. Moreover, as assessed property rates rise, the cost to residents will increase with appreciation. (Note: As we documented just last month, early estimates of major roadway improvement costs routinely double and triple in a very short period of time.)
Despite FCDOT's assertion of broad endorsement of this tax, no community representative from the Metro station areas has served on the Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG). The only Restonian who lives in these areas serving on the RNAG is a stakeholder representative who is a paid representative of Boston Properties as Executive Director of the Reston Town Center Association. This is truly taxation without representation.
Below is the full FCDOT presentation. The recommendation is highlighted on p. 16.
Although the initial tax rate would be set at $0.021/$100 valuation, there is absolutely no restriction on the Board raising that rate (just like property tax rates) as transportation improvement costs rise. Moreover, as assessed property rates rise, the cost to residents will increase with appreciation. (Note: As we documented just last month, early estimates of major roadway improvement costs routinely double and triple in a very short period of time.)
Despite FCDOT's assertion of broad endorsement of this tax, no community representative from the Metro station areas has served on the Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG). The only Restonian who lives in these areas serving on the RNAG is a stakeholder representative who is a paid representative of Boston Properties as Executive Director of the Reston Town Center Association. This is truly taxation without representation.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Is the County positioning itself to redevelop Hidden Creek golf course for high-density development?
In this video excerpt from last week's RA Board of Directors meeting, RA land use attorney John McBride briefs the Board on how the RNAG's pending "grid of streets" plan positions the County for taking land from the south end of Hidden Creek golf course for redevelopment. About 6 minutes into this excerpt, McBride highlights a County-proposed street in the grid that would border the golf course, but the topography of the area would require the street to actually go through the golf course to American Way Way north of Plaza America. The entire discussion takes about 12 minutes, but feel free to watch the balance of McBride's important presentation on Reston's future development.
As McBride states, Reston intends to remain a two golf course community, but this proposal would sabotage that goal if carried through.
https://youtu.be/RzBme5B9Vzw?t=8883
As McBride states, Reston intends to remain a two golf course community, but this proposal would sabotage that goal if carried through.
https://youtu.be/RzBme5B9Vzw?t=8883
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Backgrounder: The Proposed Reston Transportation Tax District, Reston 20/20, April 20, 2016
Backgrounder: The Proposed Reston
Transportation Tax District
What is the
proposed special Reston transportation tax?
The County Transportation staff (FCDOT) has proposed to the Supervisor-appointed
Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG) that a special “transportation service
district” tax be created just for Reston to help pay for street improvements in
Reston’s station areas. The tax would
apply to both Reston’s commercial and residential development and the rate could be altered by the Board of
Supervisors any time.
- One version of the tax would impose a $.035/$100 valuation tax on the station areas.
- A second version would add a $.025/$100 valuation tax to all Reston homeowners.
The funds generated by the tax would be used for the
construction and maintenance of roadways in Reston’s Metro station areas,
including the new “grid of streets” within each area and improvements to
through streets, such as Reston Parkway.
FCDOT puts the cost of these improvements at $2.6 billion. The goal of these improvements would be to achieve
a peak hour intersection delays of 55-80 seconds, worse than the current County goal of 30-55 seconds delay, even on Reston’s
major through streets.
How much
would this transportation tax district cost Reston homeowners?
Like a property owners’ regular property tax bill, the cost
of the tax to Reston homeowners would vary depending on the value of their
homes. Here is a table FCDOT has
provided on the annual cost in today’s dollars.
We’ve have highlighted the two tax rate proposals FCDOT has proposed:
What the above
“constant” 2016 dollar table does not reflect is the impact of home
appreciation on tax assessments and out-of-pocket tax payments. Three percent appreciation per year at a tax
rate of $.025/$100 valuation over four decades on a $600,000 home would more
than triple the tax cost:
Over the next 40 years of a
community-wide transportation tax fixed at $.025/$100 valuation, Reston
homeowners would pay more than $350 million in special Reston-only transportation
taxes.
Who benefits from the new Reston transportation tax?
The
short answer is that Reston residents would have an added tax burden with no discernible
benefit while landowners’ for-profit development is subsidized by homeowner
taxes and the County has a new tax revenue stream.
Reston
residents would be paying for roadways that everyone else uses for free. Free users include more than half of the daily
commuters who live elsewhere as well as shoppers and diners in Reston’s station
areas, present and future. If taxed,
Restonians using the roads would receive no unique benefits in the station
areas, including free parking. And, as
stated above, homeowners would be paying added taxes to drive in worse traffic
conditions than they now experience.
On the other
hand, the transportation tax subsidy from Reston homeowners would lower the
costs Reston’s developers face in building the needed streets their
for-profit endeavors, generating more tenants, customers, and rental and sales
revenues. Yet even if Reston homeowners
do not pay a special tax, the developers will still build or improve the roads
to meet County requirements. The road
improvements would cost them less than
five percent of their forecast $53 billion in profits in the next four
decades. Of course, if the developers
choose not to develop, the added roads and improvements will be unnecessary.
For the County, the new Reston
transportation tax district would mean a new tax revenue stream at its disposal
whose rates the Board of Supervisors controlled. Not only would the new $.025/$100 valuation tax
mean an added $4 million per year to start in revenues from Reston homeowners,
but the County revenue tax stream will grow as Reston home values appreciate
and developers construct their high-density buildings.
You must act now. The proposed
Reston transportation tax district provides no linkage between who pays
and who benefits. It is grossly unfair
and inequitable to all Reston homeowners. Please contact these key County and community officials
to share your views on this deceptive Reston transportation tax
proposal.
Name E-Mail
Chairman Sharon Bulova chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov
Supervisor Cathy Hudgins huntermill@fairfaxcounty.gov
Tom Biesiadny, Chief, FCDOT tom.biesiadny@fairfaxcounty.gov
Kristin Calkins, RNAG Project Manager kristin.calkins@fairfaxcounty.gov
Cate Fulkerson, CEO, RA Cate@reston.org
RA Board of Directors Board@reston.org
Andy Sigle, Chief, RNAG Advisory Group awsigle@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Help Shape Reston's Future Bus Network! Participate in Connections 2015.
Buses will become a more important element of transportation in Reston in the years ahead as its corridor area becomes more urbanized and suburban residents seek access to the Metrorail stations and shopping areas. This is especially important as we anticipate the arrival of the Silver Line at Town Center and Herndon-Monroe in 2018.
Now Restonians have an opportunity to contribute to the effort as the County Department of Transportation puts together a new ten-year transit plan. Restonians played an important role in the developing of the detailed plan for buses with the arrival of the Silver Line at Wiehle, and now you have a chance to look further into our future.
The Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) has begun work on its Comprehensive Transit Plan (CTP), a ten-year aspirational plan for Fairfax Connector and Metrobus service within the County. The CTP builds on the County's 2009 Transit Development Plan (TDP), our previous ten-year plan, and will extend our ten-year plan's horizon year from 2020 to 2025.
This plan will be supported by information collected through an extensive outreach effort, Connections 2015. We want you to help us develop the next ten-year plan through participation in Connections 2015. Your ideas and suggestions will help us develop bus service recommendations and an implementation plan. We will be collecting feedback from County residents, workers, and visitors from September 9th through October 14th. We will use your input to help us develop draft recommendations that will be released to the public for comment in the spring of 2015. Your input is an important element in crafting the recommendations for improving bus service so that the plan can better reflect your needs.
Now Restonians have an opportunity to contribute to the effort as the County Department of Transportation puts together a new ten-year transit plan. Restonians played an important role in the developing of the detailed plan for buses with the arrival of the Silver Line at Wiehle, and now you have a chance to look further into our future.
The Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) has begun work on its Comprehensive Transit Plan (CTP), a ten-year aspirational plan for Fairfax Connector and Metrobus service within the County. The CTP builds on the County's 2009 Transit Development Plan (TDP), our previous ten-year plan, and will extend our ten-year plan's horizon year from 2020 to 2025.
This plan will be supported by information collected through an extensive outreach effort, Connections 2015. We want you to help us develop the next ten-year plan through participation in Connections 2015. Your ideas and suggestions will help us develop bus service recommendations and an implementation plan. We will be collecting feedback from County residents, workers, and visitors from September 9th through October 14th. We will use your input to help us develop draft recommendations that will be released to the public for comment in the spring of 2015. Your input is an important element in crafting the recommendations for improving bus service so that the plan can better reflect your needs.
There are multiple ways to get involved:
1) Go online to www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/Connections2015 to find out more about the existing and future bus systems.
2) Join FCDOT online during the Ask Fairfax! online chat!
Wednesday, October 8 from 12:30-1:30
3) Attend a workshop
where you will learn more about the County's existing transit network
and help plan for the future through small work groups. Upcoming works
shops include:
Thursday, October 9 from 6-8pm
Chantilly Regional Library
4000 Stringfellow Road
Chantilly, VA 20151
Tuesday, October 14 from 6-8pm
Mount Eagle Elementary School
616 N. Kings Highway
Alexandria, VA 22303
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Notes on Meeting with FC DOT re the "Soapstone Connector", June 12, 2013
Rogers
Penniman
26 June 2013
NOTE FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Meeting with FC DOT Officers and Contractor re
the Soapstone Connector
Summary and comment: Although FC DOT has taken aboard a variety of
comments (including RCA, Penniman, Stowers, RA PBAC and many individuals), they
were not prepared to tell us about recommendations or conclusions on the
Soapstone study. They were still in the
process of agreeing on them. The study
is still in process and they must brief Supervisor Hudgins first. For the most part, they were wary of saying
anything definitive. However, they
appear to be staying with the same parameters as presented earlier rather than
covering options that some think would be more expeditious or economical
alternatives.
*********
On 12 June Bill Penniman, Joe Stowers and Dick Rogers met with Fairfax County Department
of Transportation official as well as contractor Warren
Hughes for one and one half hours to discuss the Soapstone project. In addition to Hughes, the FC DOT staff was
Jane Rosenbaum, overall supervisor, and Kinnari Radadiya, project manager. Rosenbaum spoke on all the broader issues
leaving technical details to Hughes. Radadiya
said little.
Current process
Asked where the study is now. Jane
Rosenbaum said they are still working to come up with a proposal. But they are not ready “to issue an official or
unofficial position.” They have not made
a recommendation yet and are still interacting with Warren Hughes. They have not met with Supervisor Hudgins yet
about their recommendations, which is essential before they issue a public recommendation.
(Note: On 19 June Hudgins’ transportation aide Paul
Davis said the Supervisor has met with FC DOT officers on Soapstone on 17
June. He was cryptic about what had been
discussed.)
Later in the conversation they were asked if Supervisor Hudgins “Board
Action” of 19 March and subsequent Board endorsed call for higher priority to
be given to Soapstone planning had made any difference. Rosenbaum said she was
unsure what the “Board action” would ultimately do.
They did not indicate that they had
broadened their consideration beyond the initial five parameters set out in
their Feb-March presentations. Their
comments did not indicate they were seeking ways to expedite construction or
curtail costs beyond the routes already being considered.
Specific Issues
Re property owners in the overall connector
area, FC DOT staff said that there is no clear consensus on what should be
done. No ground swell for one or another
option. They did note that Association Drive
area is much more susceptible to re=development than other areas.
Soapstone Drive Connection: They did not directly commend on this
but noted the importance of respecting the views of those in south Reston
uneasy about the location of the connection.
The discussion focused on the detailed maps of several of the alternative
routes but not on those that do not connect with directly with Soapstone Drive
(such as the ones that intersect with Sunrise Valley
to the east or west of Soapstone
Drive).
Re doing the project in phases,
they said the overall goal has been to
connect Sunrise Valley and Sunset Hills, implying this means a
continuous road built all at once.
Re connecting to Reston Station Blvd, they said that a
specific connection to this proposed street was not initially in the scope of
the study and is still outside it. However, they believe the connector can be
integrated into the planned grid of streets and are taking proposed Reston Station Blvd
into account. However, they do not have
an exact fix on the location of the road and when it might be built.
Pedestrians: They said that an 8% grade is the maximum that they
could envision. Under ADA restrictions a 5 % grade is the maximum for
pedestrians. ADA
also requires that you have to periodically build level areas into the walkway
every few feet. They said they had heard “loud and clear” the RA PBAC view that
there should be a link to the WOD trail
Bill Penniman reviewed with them his proposal (sent to DOT earlier)
that the Connection could reach Sunset Hills with two lanes going between the BAE garage and the building immediately to the
west. He noted that there are 34 feet
between the garage and a free standing wall which could be removed to increase
the available space to 48 feet. This
would allow two lanes to connect to Sunset Hulls initially with widening to 4
lanes, if desired, when either of the neighboring buildings is
re-developed. In the meantime, the other
two lanes of the 4 lanes crossing would connect to Reston Station Blvd. and the future
internal grid of streets. He also noted
that this route could be extended across Sunset Hills which would allow a connection
with the WOD, and to Isaac Newton
Square with a short road that utilizes the existing
VDOT parking lot.
Warren Hughes said they had studied this but
that the criteria given them required 4 lanes to reach Sunset Hills from the
outset. He also indicated that the route might compromise auto access to the BAE
property since it would mean a crossing of Sunset Hills less than 650-750 ft
from the signalized intersection at Metro Station Drive. Bill pointed out that the entry to the BAE property could be moved to the east which would
avoid this possible problem.
Height above Dulles Toil Road: They indicated the travel lanes
would be 25 ft above the DTR. However,
the base of the bridge would need to be 17ft over the DTR lanes and to meet
Metro’s clearance needs over the Metro tracks.
Constraints
They noted a number of constraints
influencing there thinking. They noted that it will be easier to get “broad approval”
if the recommended alignment is part of the Reston Master Plan recommendations. To this end they are meeting with Heidi
Merkel of DPZ on 19 June.
Regarding the proposed 10 ft wide
shared use path (in addition to two bike lanes and a pedestrian walkway) they
said this is part of the VDOT “urban standard.” “The
shared use path services a different population than the other paths.” In its absence a waiver would be needed to
justify elimination. They think they
cannot exclude any feature that may create objections. This means that they cannot build a route for
only one mode of transport. Similarly it is necessary to meet federal standards
for federal funding, even if getting federal dollars is not certain.
Wiehle impact: In conclusion
Rosenbaum said that we should remember that the Soapstone Connection “will not
change the dynamic” of Wiehle traffic. The
DOT model does not show it having the impact on traffic or improving access to
the Station to the degree that RMAG
predicted. On the other hand, she agreed
that it would help to mitigate traffic at key intersection even if not as much
as some have hoped. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)