DOT's Silver Line Phase 2 Cost-Cutting "White Paper" Proposal, July 3, 2011

Below is the official "white paper" prepared by the US Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Agency (FTA) for the Metrorail partners explaining how it believes costs can be cut substantially for Phase 2 construction. 

A special hat tip to David Schultz, WAMU's transportation reporter, who surfaced this document. 

Dulles Metro Rail 1 FTA White Paper

State to bump up funding for Metrorail extension, Loudoun Times, July 6, 2011

by Crystal Owens

Virginia officials have agreed to commit an additional $150 million to the Dulles Rail project, according to Loudoun County Chairman Scott York (I-At Large).

York’s announcement came July 6 as supervisors discussed whether or not to accept a recent mediated proposal by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that would drive down overall costs of the Metrorail extension by more than $1 billion, but would add $135 million to the total Loudoun must pay toward the project for construction of three parking garages. 

Loudoun supervisors made no decisions on the transportation secretary’s proposal, instead opting to return July 19 for a final vote. . . .

 Click here for the rest of this story.  

Could Silver Line Phase 2 cost "just" $2.6-$2.8 billion???

The letter from the Silver Line Phase 2 Coalition below suggests that the costs of Phase 2 of the Silver Line could be cut to $2.6-$2.8 billion.  It is the first time we've seen this much of a cut proposed and the details of what those cuts might be.  Along with the shifts in costs to local jurisdictions that are also being contemplated, this could mean a major reduction in the growth of future Dulles Toll Road fares--at least from building the Silver Line's Phase 2.

We are not counting these chickens before they've hatched, however.  Nonetheless, it's nice to know some of the hens have laid some eggs.  Now we can just get the big, ugly MWAA hen to do its part, we might actually have something, well, worth crowing about!

Silver Line Phase 2 Coalition Letter to MWAA, July 5, 2011

Editorial: Airports Authority Faces a Decision: Will It Save Dulles Rail? Washington Post, July 3, 2011

BY NOW it is crystal clear that Metro’s Silver Line extension to Dulles International Airport will not be completed without ruthless cost-cutting and major concessions from all the project’s stakeholders.

For the board of directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, whose recklessness has led the Silver Line to the edge of death, that means it’s crunch time: Unless the board gives up on an underground station at the airport — when an aboveground station would serve just as well and save hundreds of millions of dollars — the Silver Line will collapse.

For the rest of this no-holds-barred editorial, click here.  

Spectrum Center is Principal Agenda Item, Reston P&Z Committee Meeting, July 18, 2011, 7:30 PM, North County Govt. Center

         Reston Spectrum LLLP has submitted PRC Plans for the redevelopment of the Spectrum Center located north of New Dominion Parkway, east of Fountain Drive, west of Reston Parkway and south of Baron Cameron Avenue (PRC 86-C-121-04).  The PRC Plan implements the Town Center Concept Plan approved by Fairfax County in 2008.  The project is divided into three Land Bays (A through C).

         Land Bay A (north of New Dominion Parkway, south of Bowman Towne Drive, west of Reston Parkway and east of Fountain Drive) is planned for up to 546 dwelling units, 255 hotel rooms, 172,000 square feet of office space and 62,500 square feet of retail uses within buildings of up to 180 feet.

         Land Bays B and C are bounded by Baron Cameron Avenue to the north, Bowman Towne Drive to the south, Reston Parkway to the east and Fountain Drive to the west.  Land Bay B is planned for up to 643 dwelling units, 270 hotel rooms and 48,650 square feet of retail uses. Land Bay C is planned for up to 237 residential uses and 134,896 square feet or retail and bank uses. Approximately 84,000 square feet of this retail space is currently existing within the Harris Teeter store and will be retained.  Building heights of up to 120 feet are proposed in Land Bays B and C. 

 There will be at least one additional meeting on this matter with a proposed date of  September 19^th.  An FCPC date of September 28^th has been scheduled.

Presenter: Atty. Mark Looney, Cooley LLP.

Notes on the RTF Steering Committee Meeting, June 28, 2011

                                       29 June 2011

                                       R. Rogers

    

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING: 28 June 2011

     Summary: The meeting focused on DPZ efforts to allocate density and mix in Reston for the purpose of submitting a proposal to transportation experts for review.  There was much discussion, but no decisions, except to identify issues and inputs needed to complete the current strawman proposal, which will not be submitted for transportation analysis until sometime after the July 26 full task force meeting.

Attendance: Good (even the Hendon–Monroe sub com reps were present). Notably missing were Looney and Otteni.  Also not attending were Fred Selden and Goldie Harrison.

Announcements: Patty Nicoson mentioned continuing discussions with Ray Lahood regarding Silver Line financing.  She mentioned that she had participated in a session with Chamber of Commerce and business officials who advocated cost containment measures for the line.

Public Comment: John Hanley read a statement from Reston 2020 questioning the use of GMU 2030 high data plus 20% for the transportation comparisons.(Comment: As with previous public comments, some of the impact is lost when key DPZ staff members and committee members are not yet present.)

Allocating GMU 2030 Development Projections

     The meeting focused on DPZ proposals for allocating potential development along the line of the GMU 2030 projections to different TOD areas.  In response to persistent question about why this was needed, Heidi M said that the location of development relative to the Toll Road and key arteries would have an impact on the transportation analysis.

     For this purpose DPZ put forward new maps (revised and edited versions are on the DPZ website. These somewhat clarify the confused figures handed out at the meeting).

     One, the “baseline map” included significant approved but not constructed development along with existing development to create a base line for allocation. The approved developments included – Spectrum, Oracle campus residential development, Comstock, JBG Reston Heights, as well as some others.

     This “baseline” was subtracted from the GMU 2030 projections to give an amount available for new development.

     DPZ also put forward a “2030 Scenario D” map which concentrated the area for new development immediately around the transit stations (also North Town Center and Isaac Newton).  The map included projected FARs—the most significant change from earlier DPZ projections was by granting a “5” FAR to the key Boston Properties site at North Town Center metro; other FARs proposed by the TC sub com remain downgraded.  Included in the fine print were estimates of the mix of uses.

     The proposal to concentrate development in a relatively small area triggered some unease for some sub-com members.  Heidi defended it saying that “we cannot provide infrastructure to all of the areas” identified by the station sub committees for development.  After discussion, it was left somewhat ambivalent whether development rights could be transferred to other areas in the TOD districts.  Heidi suggested that if developers were to come in to suggest more residential, they might get preference. Robert Goudie offered assurances that none of this has been agreed on for the plan, just for the test.

     Discussion then turned to revised DPZ tables projecting development levels at Wiehle and Town Center. These tables list the “baseline” number of residential units and square footage of residential, office and other non-residential development at each station.  (For the first time, DPZ rounded the figures.)  The new charts then compare the “baseline” totals against the GMU 2030 High +20%, and calculate the amount of incremental development that would be possible under the adjusted GMU projection (green columns on tables).  The new tables also listed the amount of incremental development used by DPZ in Scenario D (pink column), which assumes total redevelopment, not infill in the dark blue areas on the map.  Separate tables provided some background data for particular land units.  Robert Goudie requested additional background information regarding DPZ’s calculations.  During the discussion, several errors were noted which are corrected on the version subsequently posted to the DPZ site.

     Generally, the incremental development totals calculated by subtracting the baseline from the adjusted GMU projections were similar to those assumed by DPZ for purposes of Scenario D (compare green and pink columns), except for differences in mix of uses.  Possible reasons for the relatively minor differences were discussed; for example, the total square footage for office at Wiehle includes the educational component.  DPZ will continue to make refinements, including adding a column requested by Paul Thomas showing current on-the-ground development.  Heidi hopes that future discussions will focus on orders of magnitude, rather than specific numbers, and said the committee needs to make more decisions at the next meeting.

Before the next steering meeting, Patty, Heidi and other DPZ staff will develop a list of issues and items/inputs that must be discussed before the developing scenario is submitted to transportation staff for analysis.  When county transportation staff appears before the full task force in July, they will discuss additional analysis they have performed on the current traffic conditions, which may assist the task force in further refining the scenario.  This apparently will include additional transportation links, which might require shifting some of the redevelopment assumed in DPZ’s current scenario.

  Heidi indicated that the transportation analysis will be performed by county staff with support from consultants (Cambridge), and revealed that funds are only budgeted for one full analysis.  (This may explain the recent shift in focus from quickly finishing Scenario C, obtaining the analysis, then incorporating the results/lessons into a new scenario to perfecting a more polished, possibly final scenario for analysis.)  The single scenario/analysis possibility seemed to surprise some committee members, one of whom noted that the Tysons plan took five years.

Heidi reported on a follow-up conversation with John McClain, who explained that while the cooperative forecasts historically have underestimated residential, GMU did not use the cooperative forecast.  Instead, GMU used an econometric model.  While they did not anticipate a significant proportion of people living outside the statistical area and commuting in to work, he nevertheless stands by his GMU forecast.

Next Meetings

     Heidi noted that the full Task Force will meet on 26 July.  The next steering committee meeting was set for Tuesday, July 19, time and place to be determined.

Dulles rail talks in flux with airport station location on the table, Washington Post, June 30, 2011

By Ann E. Marimow, Published: June 30

Federal transportation officials floated a plan Thursday to shrink the cost of the Metrorail extension to Loudoun County by building an aboveground station at Dulles International Airport and transferring responsibility for parts of the project to local governments.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been mediating discussions between Metro project officials and regional leaders for the past month in an attempt to reach a consensus. . . 

 This is the first article I have seen in which the concerns of Dulles Toll Road commuters--who face $20 tolls by 2040 according to MWAA--is being considered as part of the general allocation of the Phase 2 costs.  Besides the Dulles station location, other ideas on the table include:

• Transferring the cost of the Rt. 28 station to Fairfax County--a shift (not a savings) of about $136 million.
• Fairfax and Loudoun counties building the five parking garages to shift $235 million (although I understood that Fairfax had long ago agreed to build--and pay for--a second garage at Herndon-Monroe and, of course, it's paying for the Wiehle/Comstock garage.)

Apparently as part of the above, US DOT is considering lending money to the counties to ease the interest cost of that construction, and not to MWAA.

It is still far too soon to tell how all this will be resolved, but apparently some progress is being made in (a) cutting costs and (b) shifting them away from DTR commuters.