As the Reston Task Force Turns . . ., A Concerned Restonian

The following is a post submitted by a person who wishes to remain anonymous.  Anonymous contributions are welcome "as long as they are relevant, constructive, and decent."  

We welcome comments, rebuttals, etc., on this letter--including anonymous ones that meet our guidelines.  You may either write a comment at the end of the post or submit your own letter or post. 

Here is the post as provided:

As the Reston Task Force Turns…

 

I have been following the meandering trail of the Reston Master Plan Task Force off and on now throughout its three-year odyssey.  I’ve read the occasional press coverage of the meetings, but it has dwindled as it has become apparent nothing is happening.  I read the Reston 2020 blog, which actually provides some timely information that reflects that group’s views--which I generally share.  I even occasionally visit the County website for the task force effort to catch up, but it's worse than RA's for finding anything.  I’ve even attended meetings I thought might be important, none of which lived up to its promise.  It may actually be worse than watching Congress DO NOTHING and flame on about everything. 

Yet what the task force is SUPPOSED to be doing is very important to Reston’s future.  It is supposed to be developing a plan for growth around Reston’s three new Metrorail stations that (a) offers an opportunity to exploit the economic potential offered by the Silver Line while (b) also meeting the needs and values of the community beyond the station areas. 

It hasn't even come close.  Overall, their focus on allowing large-scale commercial development has overwhelmed any consideration of the needs and values of the rest of the community.

So what has the task force accomplished?

Well, they did pass a vision and planning principles statement a year and a half ago.  Bravo!  It accomplished in about three-dozen pages what Bob Simon accomplished in a half-dozen paragraphs 50 years ago.   Still, I’d have to agree that it’s pretty meaty and hits on key themes important to Reston. 

Two years ago, it created three committees to generate visions of each of the three Silver Line station areas in Reston that produced two and one-half reports. 

--The half report was on the Herndon-Monroe station area and said nothing much is going to change there.  The end.

--The Reston Parkway station report flew off the charts in terms of development potential based on an outdated and outrageously optimistic economic forecast from GMU’s Center for Regional Analysis, the local home of developer-sponsored regional economic research.   (No conflict of interest there.)  

--The Wiehle station group actually sought out a broad range of public inputs and compiled a reasonably balanced report, although it, too, was overly influenced by the excessive GMU growth forecast.  (And why the county staff and task force insisted on using the “high” GMU forecast as the basis of plan development, I’ll never know.)

The good news:  The task force hasn’t yet approved any of the reports, but it could at any time--maybe just to spite the community.

So now what is happening?

When the county examined the traffic impact of the development potential suggested by the three committee reports, the so-called “Scenario E,”  (all these proposals are alphabetized “scenarios,” at least until they run out of alphabet a decade from now) traffic will come to near-complete paralysis in the Reston Parkway and Wiehle station areas during the evening rush hour.   Apparently, there is some county or state limit on just how bad traffic congestion can be allowed to get.  Three and four minute delays at an intersection exceed that requirement.   Oops!

So the planning staff came up with “Scenario G.”  This scenario seems to reduce commercial development, focusing the remainder in the immediate station areas.  It also adds more housing because within a half-mile of the stations because, in general, a better balance between housing and commercial space eases traffic.   So far, however, the planning staff has not detailed the full scope of allowable development so the task force is a little perplexed about just what the staff is proposing.  And the transportation staff won’t have a full assessment of the new proposal for four months!  (Yes, Scenario G could still fail the traffic test!)

But that didn’t matter:  You should’ve heard the crescendo of outraged cries from developers and land use attorneys at the last meeting as some of us did.  This plan would mean no “tear down” and re-building, just less desirable infill construction—if any!—they said.  Limiting development for traffic reasons is “the tail wagging the dog!”—they added.  This will prevent Reston from achieving the visions laid out by the task force’s committees!—they raged.  In the only counterpoint offered, one task force member noted that congestion is a major Reston problem now, not a hypothetical one for the future.

 Is that it?  Isn’t community mobility throughout the entirety of Reston an important quality-of-life issue?  Doesn’t getting from one side of Reston to the other in a car over the Dulles corridor-choked bridges through the station areas mean anything?  If not by car, will local public transit take everyone—including the very young and very old—everywhere they need to go safely anytime they need to go with little delay?  Why should residents be burdened unduly so corporations can make more money?  Why are two-dozen developers being allowed to dictate to 60,000 residents, including some 20,000 property owners, the future of development in the heart of our community?  What are corporations willing to give up to compensate for the additional burden placed on local driving?  (Apparently not density!) 

                . . . And what’s next?

So the drama and tension builds, but the task force won’t meet again until next year.  It’s not clear that any resolution is in sight.  Will the county staff stand firm on meeting some minimal traffic requirements that forces a plan with reduced development potential?  Will the county cave to developer demands for greater development opportunities?  Will the interests of current and future Reston residents even be part of the equation? 

Stay tuned--as the melodrama that is the Reston Task Force turns (ever so slowly and randomly)! 

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions and I am increasingly discouraged that anything good for the Reston community will come out of the task force.  I also can’t imagine being a member and going to all the mindless meetings over the last three years.  It is ugly!  And more balanced Restonians than me aren’t paying any attention to what’s happening.  Maybe I shouldn’t either, but I’ve lived here a long time and I’d like to believe we can build a better Reston, not just a bigger one, for our children and others.   I doubt, however, that will be the outcome, if there ever is one. 

One of my New Year’s resolutions is stop going to any more task force meetings.  They are just two hours or more of my life that I will never get back.  Hopefully, the news media or Reston 2020 will keep me informed on what, if anything happens--ever.  Otherwise, count me out. 

In the meantime, Happy Holidays and a Great New Year to Reston 2020 and all of Reston!

                                                                                                A Concerned Restonian

Change is Going to Come, Colin Mills, RCA President, Reston Patch, December 5, 2012

Last weekend, I sat for an interview for the forthcoming documentary on Reston’s history.  Our interview covered a wide range of subjects, from my childhood exploits on the golf course near our neighborhood to the impact of the Metro Silver Line on Reston’s future.  But one theme that kept emerging throughout our conversation was change.

Having lived in Reston practically my whole life, I’ve seen a lot of change, as our community took shape and then took off during the tech boom years.  My dad, who was also interviewed, mentioned that in those years, after returning from business he’d sometimes get lost driving around town, because of all the new construction.  I had the same experience coming back for visits during college.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about change, both the opportunities it offers and the instability and challenges it presents.  Change is coming to Reston, and I don’t just mean Barnes and Noble closing.  The Master Plan Task Force is grappling with the challenges and opportunties that the Silver Line and related development will bring to our community.  The task is not easy, but I believe we can meet it if we figure out the tradeoffs we need to make to build the community we want.

Change is disruptive.  It requires shifts in the way we’ve always done things, and that can be bothersome, even if the change is positive.  For instance, let’s say you’ve just landed a new job, one that offers better pay and a shorter commute.  Congratulations!  But even though you’re happy to have more money and less time in traffic, there are plenty of adjustments you’ll need to make: navigating a new office culture, learning different systems and software, meeting new coworkers.  Humans are creatures of habit, so it’s understandable that even positive change can be scary.

And the change may not be all positive.  Your new job may pay better, but you also have to work longer hours.  Now you’re spending less time with your family, and missing out on your kids’ events when you’re stuck in the office.  Maybe the new job involves a lot of travel.  This can be exciting because you get to see new places, but constant travel can be fatiguing, and it also keeps you away from home.  Most changes offer these sorts of mixed blessings.

The same is true in Reston.  We’ll have an easier and faster connection to downtown DC on the Silver Line, and the new development promises to bring more jobs, exciting new restaurants and shops, and new housing options.  But it will also probably mean more traffic and more competition for our facilities and open space.  The more we have of the good, the more we get of the bad.  It’s a balancing act.

In my view, one of the Task Force’s biggest shortcomings is that we haven’t thought much in terms of tradeoffs and balance.  We’ve thought largely in terms of vision: creating exciting new places with great architecture, new buildings, and community amenities like a performing arts center and a university.  We were encouraged to think about what we wanted, and the subcommittee reports reflected that.  But we weren’t encouraged to think much about what we’d have to give up in order to get what we wanted.

That’s why the traffic analysis was a dash of cold water in everyone’s face.  The Planning staff reacted by dialing back the density in the hopes of bringing traffic under control.  But now a lot of Task Force members are concerned that the new scenarion sacrifices too many of the things we want in order to minimize the negative.  Developers caution that the reduced density will encourage infill rather than redevelopment, and inhibit place-making around the stations.  And some community members are concerned that if there isn’t much development, then we won’t get our desired amenities.  In an era of constricted government budgets, we’re reliant on developer proffers for a lot of our new amenities.  They’ll only proffer big-ticket items in exchange for big-ticket development.

So what’s the answer?  Some on the Task Force are urging us to declare that greater congestion is not a problem.  More traffic is inevitable, they argue, and our vision of place-making around the stations is what matters.  These folks are not insensitive to traffic concerns, but they believe that congestion can be managed, and that fulfilling our vision is worth the risk.

Perhaps.  But I think that approach is too blithe about the risk involved.  We want to create great developments and maximize our investment in the Silver Line (I know I do), but we don’t want a major negative impact on our quality of life.  Returning to the well-paying but long-hour job analogy from earlier, if you take that job without a second thought because you want more money, you risk being unhappy down the line when you realize that the only time you see your family is when they’re asleep.

On the flip side, the mere fact that the job has downsides and risk isn’t a good reason to reject it.  If you refuse change because you’re afraid of risk, then you become stagnant.  Similarly, saying that we shouldn’t encourage any new development around the Metro stations because of the traffic doesn’t make sense.  We want people to use the Silver Line, and it’s more enticing to do so if there are jobs and houses near the stations.

The key, in the end, is minimizing the downsides and ensuring that they’re outweighed by the benefits.  In the case of that job, that could mean flexible scheduling, working from home, and reducing the number of business trips.  With Reston’s development, that could mean developer contributions to expand our roads and provide connections over the Toll Road, measures like restricted parking and transit subsidies for workers, and better internal transit options (like high-frequency bus service) to encourage people traveling within Reston to stay out of their cars.  It could also mean providing more community facilities to serve our new population, and taking steps to preserve our open space.

Let’s explore the options, and come up with a plan that allows us to have the places we want without creating too many headaches for the people who are already here.  With careful planning, and not excessive fear or breezy disregard of risk, we can develop a plan for Reston’s future that works for all of us.

Reston balks at Metro station development, Washington Examiner, November 11, 2012

By Taylor Holland

Reston residents are objecting to a massive redevelopment along Metro's new Silver Line, saying the new construction will only increase the area's traffic problems when the new buildings open in 2014.

Reston is one of the nation's first post-World War II planned communities, and development there is tightly controlled. And residents said they're now concerned that the evolving plans for development around the Wiehle Avenue station would be incompatible with the existing community. . . .

Click here for the rest of this article.

Local Editorial: In Reston, Silver Line won't prevent gridlock, Washington Examiner, November 10, 2012

Mass transit is supposed to reduce traffic congestion by getting more people out of their cars. That's the theory, anyway. But a detailed engineering analysis of traffic in Reston by 2030 around the three new Silver Line Metrorail stations by the Fairfax County Department of Transportation indicates otherwise. The county's baseline planning scenario -- "Scenario E" -- shows gridlock at two key intersections: Sunrise Valley Drive and Reston Parkway, and Wiehle Avenue and Sunset Hills Road.

That's because the scenario envisions doubled density around the Metro stations, shoehorning 50,000 new residents and 100,000 more workers into an area that currently contains 6,000 residents and 70,000 workers. As the DOT analysis suggests, the newcomers won't all be walking to the subway. In fact, "peak of the peak" traffic at these two intersections will ground to a standstill for nearly four minutes, creating backups in the surrounding neighborhoods and beyond.

That's even if the county adds all the new turn lanes and other upgrades that it has planned for the intersections but hasn't yet figured out how to fund. . . .

Click here for the rest of this editorial.

Message to Reston Task Force Members from Department of Planning & Zoning re Next RTF Meeting, October 19, 2012

Members of the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force received the following e-mail message this afternoon from Heidi Merkel, the Department of Planning and Zoning senior staff officer who is coordinating the work of the task force. 

Dear Task Force members,

Staff has received a lot of feedback regarding Scenario G since the Task Force meeting on October 9th.  There is not enough time prior to next week's Task Force meeting for us to synthesize everything we've heard and bring back new information regarding Scenario G.  We will be prepared to talk further about Scenario G at the Task Force's November 13th meeting. 

Therefore, at next week's meeting, we will present information about the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning Staff report re: Jobs:Housing ratios and the draft George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis updated forecast.  Chairman Patty Nicoson will also talk about drafting the Task Force report. 

Thank you. 

Heidi Merkel

As Colin Mills, RCA's President, reflected in his Reston Patch blog post this week, the discussion of Scenario G at the last RTF meeting generated a lot of controversy.  Ms. Merkel presented a modified draft scenario--Draft Scenario G--reflecting some lower densities and a slight shift of mixes to more residential use that the previous mainline scenario, Scenario E.  The reduction of density and shift in mix was driven by FC Department of Transportation analysis that showed that, if achieved, the density/mix in Scenario E would cause absolute traffic gridlock at two critical intersections, even with the best efforts to mitigate those situations.   Such a situation would not be received well by state transportation officials who must review major changes in traffic planning.   

So the task force will be discussing the jobs/housing balance, itself a thorny issue, and listen to GMU's latest forecast for Reston TOD area growth.  Based on a presentation by GMU's Dr. Lisa Sturtevant in January, we anticipate that this forecast will suggest much slower growth that GMU earlier forecast for the task force.  

The next meeting will be on October 23 at 7PM at RCC--Lake Anne. 

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

All--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Terry Maynard

RCA Rep to the RTF

Agenda: Reston Task Force Meeting, August 14, 2012