Will Elliott, who has been following MetroWest most closely on behalf of Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, unfortunately isn't available to launch this chat today, but I will volunteer that I am hugely proud of his group.

FairGrowth was a co-sponsor of the April 2005 Town Hall ("Are We Heading for a Breakdown") on development issues in Fairfax County, which Congressman Davis attended and which drew his focus and the attention of a large segment of our community on the details of MetroWest and whether its doubling in size from the 1,100 or so units initially considered by the Task Force to the 2,200 or so now contemplated is really the "smart" solution and a true "transit-oriented" project that will work given the fact that the Vienna station is a terminus station which many commuters drive to, and given the overburdened road, schools, and parks situation in Vienna.

I have to say I didn't really understand the County comment reported in the paper that failure to include the Metro land in the development will force people back into their cars. The whole point of transit-oriented development is to put it 1/4 to 1/2 miles from the station, which by definition is walkable to Metro from all areas of the higher-density center. The narrow little strip of Metro land by the station (see map in the article) is not going to stop folks from walking to Metro if they live or work in the new development.

I'll demur on the point of who can claim victory here, and consider it a good thing the process of public discussion can continue. But I do want to take exception to the Post's unquestioning acceptance of the MetroWest promoters' position that the development would be "smart growth" (with or without the WMATA land). The MetroWest plan lacks essential characteristics of "smart growth" as described by leading organizations.

Among the "Principles of Smart Growth" (from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments) that MetroWest fails to meet:

--The high-density plan does nothing to "[p]reserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas." No land is being protected because of this development, in Fairfax County or elsewhere. In fact, development continues at a brisk pace in Loudoun and Prince William Counties, and other farther-flung locales.

--The planning process did not "[e]ncourage community and stakeholder collaboration." Community input has been rebuffed by the promoters, both private and governmental.

--The out-of-turn plan amendment that permitted doubling the planned residential density and adding hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail and commercial space at the site is completely contrary to the goal to "[m]ake development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective."

Similar "common characteristics of smart growth" are identified by the Urban Land Institute (and are similarly lacking at MetroWest);

--"Development is economically viable and preserves open space and natural resources."
--"Land use planning is comprehensive, integrated and regional."
--"Public, private and nonprofit sectors collaborate on growth and development issues to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes."
--"Certainty and predictability are inherent to the development process."

--And of special note in the ULI listing: "Infrastructure is maintained and enhanced to serve EXISTING and new residents." (emphasis added) Absent from the impact discussion of MetroWest is how current users of Metrorail, I-66 and our local roads will be affected by this development.

Just calling something "smart" doesn't make it so.

Absolutely, Laurie! This project lacks key features that can result in a fair labeling of it as "smart" or as "transit-oriented."

More public discussion can only help make this thing come out better.

This isn't about Connolly or Davis. This is bigger than them. But I'll give the slight edge of a moral victory at this point to Davis, only because he showed up and listened to the hundred of citizens who assembled at Oakton HS on April 19th - and because he actually did something and put a shot across WMATA's bow that got everyone's attention and now will let us return to discussion.

IF we get a REAL transit-oriented development here that works - something we are far from at this relatively late date -then we ALL win - the citizens, the developers, Connolly, Davis, etc.

Chairman Connolly is attempting to frame the debate in an inaccurate way when he says that it's "smart growth" v. sprawl.

This is a debate between those who want to claim things are "smart growth" and those who want development that really IS smart growth.

Hopefully the Metro Board will truly listen. I confess to having doubts, after seeing how the County Board holds token hearings, with their minds already made up, then chastises the citizens after the public comment period is over.

Is the WMATA Board different? Will they truly consider the facts and what citizen-stakeholders bring to the table? Will the WMATA Board be open to pleas for compromise (echoed by federal, state and local officials of both parties, plus neighborhood groups, the park authority and PTAs) - or will they simply defer to their county counterparts and rubber-stamp a sale for a project that is actually hostile to transit-oriented development?

It's tempting to be cynical, but we must give the WMATA Board a chance to prove their merit. But it WILL be interesting to hear why they did not solicit public input earlier, only waiting until FairGrowth reminded them of their promise to be open and transparent.

Looks like Kauffman has already made up his mind:

Before scheduling the public hearing on the land sale, Kauffman said he believed it would be "inherently dumb not to include the Metro land" in the project.

According to my dictionary that means the dumbness is a "natural, inseparable, basic and inborn quality" of the idea.

Do you think that means he might could maybe have possibly already made up his mind?

I agree with some of the comments made today, however I think that some folks are lost in the details and forgetting about the big picture. What I mean is that people are saying that this development is not smart because of the high density and because it is not preserving green areas and open spaces. However, what these people have forgotten is that having a project like this where the development is compact then we are saving a lot of green spaces in other areas that would otherwise get developed to accomodate our growing region. So in my mind that is Smart Growth. People forget that our county will continue to grow, and the question is, woudl we rather have 1 acre homes, where people have to drive everywhere or do we prefer to have as many units as possible close to a metro station and preserve the open spaces that we have. I prefer the latter.

To New Metro Rider above:

You say, "..or do we prefer to have as many usnits as possible close to a metro station and preseve the open spaces that we have."

The problem is, we'll get all these units next to the metro, people will drive anyway, the metro can't handle it, AND IT DOES NOTHING TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE. The open space that we have gets developed anyway. There is no open space being preserved as a result of Metro West or any other high-density project. We get the worst of both worlds; so it's not REAL smart growth.
- And how about using an original name. ;-)

Sorry, to continue, how does new Metro Rider define "as many units as possible?"
We need real facts; not half-baked, incomplete traffic studies, not conflicting data showing different impacts, not fantasy-based traffic projections lacking real-world support. But that's what we've got.
What is the basis for saying how many units are "possible?" Why 2250? Why not 1500? Or 10,000? Yet another question that's never been answered.

Metro Rider: a question and then a comment.

Just where are you seeing these green spaces being saved in Fairfax County development?

We need planned neighborhood green spaces AND the preservation of parkland. As I've heard one lady say over and over, "The kids need a place to throw a Frisbee around!"

The proposed design for Fairlee MetroWest is dreadful. No one in FairGrowth (that I've heard) has said that they want this land to stay at R-1 or R-2 zoning. Most of us just want a better design that will fit into the environment, that will be somewhat scaled to its surroundings, and that won't completely overwhelm the area with paralyzing traffic, overcrowded schools, and watershed problems that will destroy a neighborhood park. We're looking for a better and scaled down design for the project, not the retention of R-1 zoning near the Metro station.

OK, I'm going to say that I'm glad that Metro Rider posted and offered everyone the opportunity to address on the merits the concept that real "smart growth" implies a trade-off for density in one area and green space in another. Let's not "snark" this poster to death just because some of us (not me) may know more about the complexities and nuances of the issue.

As far as I understand, this trade-off is the reason why we got the "green belts" that the current Study Area is in in the first place -- in exchange for greater density in Reston and Tysons. So do these "reserve areas" expire at some point when MORE density is wanted by yet MORE developers? Where is the new "green belt" they are offering. What is the reason that the existing "green belt" should be sacrificed? Or not.....

If this blog is to be part of the public debate process then that segment of the public with the strongest most prevalent views has to make sure that we welcome all voices. And I count myself among the ones still in need of a lot of education.

So who can wax wise and profound on this issue?

As the NY Times magazine article told us, nothing will stop sprawl. The developers are truly "chasing ground," and the development of high-densities around Vienna and future Metro stations will not solve the sprawl problem. Urban densities just give developers one more type of housing in their portfolios.

If our current Board of Supervisors continues on its chosen path, we will be left with a totally urban county surrounded by 150 miles of suburbia in most directions. We will have to get into our cars to reach the little green space that's left for passive recreation.

An additional point: WMATA is in a position that it must sell land to survive. They don't sell land because they are experts in the land use planning process or because they know something about managed growth. They sell land because they need the money. We might be facing a different situation if WMATA were adequately funded. Unfortunately, WMATA seems willing to sell land in the short-term without considering its long-term needs at the stations.

I will give them credit for holding off on a decision until they could hold a public hearing. It may be a sham hearing, but at least we will be heard. After that hearing, will Supervisor Kauffman recuse himself from the Metro West rezoning vote?

As one who has often criticized Representative Davis and his actions, I would like to commend him for staying true to his word and removing language from the proposed bill that would have blocked the sale of Metro land to ANY developer. It is scary when Federal legislation is used to address what is ultimately a local issue. (Yes I understand the Federal Government's role over WMATA. Let's not go down that road again.)

I hope this meeting on the 1st of November will be productive. I hope it does not become an issue of WMATA's competency or about the systems lack of capacity. What the Metro system suffers from is what we all suffer from - the unexpected and unprecedented growth in the DC Metropolitan area. No one could have envisioned that the area would have grown so much over the course of three decades. As a result, our mass transit system (like our highway system) has not kept up with the HUMAN SPRAWL within the region. Regardless of where we build the new homes and retail space - THE PEOPLE ARE COMING. In fact, a majority are already here.

The discussion on the 1st should be about Metro West and how the development (or its analog) will coexist with the station. The fact of the matter is that WMATA needs to sell the land for financial reasons. The question is who it should sell the land too and for what purpose. As a group the WMATA board should be careful to ensure the sale of the land will be to a developer that will maximize the potential brought by the proximity of the land to a mass transit station and the tens of thousands of riders who use the station on a daily basis. The land should be sold to a developer who can develop the land (retail or residential) to ensure that the WMATA would benefit by a direct increase in the number of riders.

Finally, in discussing the lost TEMPORARY parking spaces, the meeting on the 1st should focus on how WMATA can ensure additional parking will be made available at the station. It is obvious the TEMPORARY spaces did not intend to serve a long term purpose. As a result, it should not be the focus of discussion the 1st. In my view the TEMPORARY spaces are irrelevant to the discussion of Metro West.

Congrats to all - the discussion continues to go on. Hopefully, it will be a productive discussion.

Vienna is currently the terminus of the Orange Line. Parking spaces fill up fast and early with both local residents' cars and the cars of those who drive here from points west. To my mind, it makes no difference whether existing parking spaces are characterized as "permanent", "temporary" or even "purple." We simply need more.

S. Malaveetil above says: "No one could have envisioned that the area would have grown so much over the course of three decades." I tend to disagree -- I think the seeds and sprouts of this phenomenal concrete kudzu have been there for all to see for quite some time. But even leaving the retrospective analysis aside, this statement clearly should be taken as a dire warning that we had better plan NOW for the next three decades of growth.

If Metro sells what little land it has around the Vienna Metro Station, how will it accommodate future ridership? Will the parking structures have to be 10+ stories high? There is no more land for Metro to use in connection with future expansion if it sells its land now to developers. Even if currently "temporary" parking spaces can be sacrificed, we need to think about permanent solutions.

At a PDC meeting several months ago, Supervisor Kauffman was the guest and he indicated that he thought it would be better for Metro to lease the land to Pulte. Giving a bureaucracy that has shown itself to be bad with managing money one big pile of loot all at once is not a great idea; giving them a guaranteed steady income from land over the long life of the lease is a far better one. Kauffman seemed to recognize this - heck, he said it - so what has changed? Hmmm?

The only options I have seen discussed recently are selling versus not selling. Something strikes me as fishy here, as there is a better option.

Leasing should still be held out as an option - after all, what is best for WMATA and its riders is what matters - or what SHOULD matter - the WMATA board. Pulte could still use the land, but WMATA would be the owner and would derive steady incolme. There are TOD oriented loans out there available from major commercial banks, and this type of arrangment could work, although the developers will surely cry wolf that it will not.

Also, I want this matter taken up when the RAC is up and running. Riders need to have a formal say in this. After all, we ride the rails. Half the WMATA board members probably wouldn't even know how to operate a SmarTrip machine. They seem out of touch with their own customers. And when they seem to be largely ignoring the concept of a steady flow of income via a long-term lease that they have the upper hand in negotiating, it seems to me that they are out of touch with good business sense as well.

What gives, WMATA? Who do you serve?

By the way, if WMATA does decide to enter into a business deal with the developer (sale or lease), it would smack of the "appearance of impropriety" if Supervisor Kauffman were to participate in the Board of Supervisor's deliberations and voting on Metro West. This is one rare situation where he cannot comfortably wear the two hats of WMATA chairman and County Supervisor. I believe the Supervisor is an honorable man and I am sure he has thought about this possibility and will come to the right decision regarding recusing himself.

Have the Strom Water & Sewer Impacts beeen considered?? I suggest NO
Long range plannig is most important for ues of high densiy development. In Providence District continuibg developmnet without properly considering Storm Water Management has resulted in down stream flooding of existing houses by Fairfax County Approved up stream development. County Supervisors including Scott, Hanley, & Connley were advised beginning in 1997 prior to construction of Route 66 that additionl highway and housing subdivision development would ultimately result in significantly impacting by storm water flows in the Providence District. Yes and it did happen on August 11, 2001 d continued developmmnet was Approved by Fairfax County actions - about 7 houses along Tripps run north of the former W&OD Right-of Way & Tripps Run were flooded by storm waters. All three prior Fairfax County Supervisors were warned by property owners, since 1978 that this would happen if up stream development was allowed with out correcting the storm water flows. Violations of Federal, State and local law were allowed until these homes were placed in an intermident flood plain environment during peak rain fall periods - and the houses were flooded. This flooding situation has continued for going on 5-
years. The county should be very concerned about the impacts of not only transportation but sewer and strom water impacts associated with High density development - more rapid & volums of strom & sewer run off is becoming a majot probbem - to say nothig about teh future requirement for water to be provided for this type of developmnet - is there an adequate supply of frees water? Ask teh City of New Orleans about these problems adn they will tell you their officals did poor planning that ended in disater. The City of Falls Church is also at fault for not improving the Tripps Run chanel to improve strom water flows tyhrough the City. Seems many of our Public Officals do not know what they are doing OR do not care. Seems the Citizens of Fairfax might need a change of Leadership. Lets try to get development around the Metro stations right and well thought out.
Letrs make it Happen !

The latest population growth estimates for Fairfax county are that we will get 250,000 new folks in the area in the next 20 years. Let's say that these guys are nuts and so lets cut their estimate in half. Our number would then be 125,000 for the next 20 years. On average, this means that we will have an increase of 6,250 persons per year into the area. The issue now becomes how we want to manage this growth.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do realize that it is better to locate these folks near public transportation, rather than not. This will give them the option to use other means of transportation besides their car. If on top of that we have retail and office near their place of residence it seems to me that we are helping the community overall by keeping potential drivers off our highways and demanding less fuel and polluting less. We would potentially benefit surrounding communities if they can shop and/or work closer to home. The issue raised by others is why the mentioned density? Why not more, or less? Like I said before, I'm not an expert in this, but from looking at the plans, I can see that we are not building downtown Manhattan here. But we are not building a group of townhomes exclusively either. My guess is that to attract retail and an office tenant in to the site there had to be a balance between "Manhattan" and "1 acre lots". From reading a little about this project I have learned that it has been in planning and design stages for the last 3 to 4 years. So, because I know that I am not an expert in this matter, I would like to propose that we look at how others have dealt with this same issue. Let's look at Arlington or Southern Montgomery County. THe density that this project will give to the VIenna Metro area is lower than the densities near any of the metro stations in Arlington or Montgomery County. What I hope that we do, and I agree with most of the folks here, is that we create a plan that focalizes development in the areas that will benefit our county the most. Just as a reference, Arlington did this exercise back in the 70's....
So I agree with James that we should try to get development around the metro right and plan for the future. To conclude I will say that this is a good problem to have, as opposed to other cities which are dealing with a declining population and job losses.

Fair point, JJ, but you do miss the point a little. No one is arguing that we should not put relatively higher density around transit stations. But high density does not transit-oriented development make. I agree with you tht we have to try to do this "right." But I think a lot of people really miss the point that doing "right" is where the Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth are coming from.

What we NEED is the right mix of housing and support uses (e.g. retail) for the area. We need to make sure everything is REALLY walkable for those who are able to choose to walk. We need to reduce reliance upon driving by minimizing the need to drive and by encouraging marketing to people who plan to use transit.

The big problems I see with Metro West are its lack of usable green, recreational space - where are the townhouse people going to play with their kids? and doesn't the rec center/gov building look a little too much like it could be more of the latter? - and that it permits far too much parking for its residents. The usable green space is also important from an environmental standpoint. A "green roof" is no substitute for nature and that area of Hunters Branch and Hatmark has some serious SWM problems.

Many experts argue that overparking units built adjacent to transit stations is a mistake, yet the County has not reduced the parking to a reasonable level for a TOD yet. This is a matter for the rezoning. The County should not cave to the developer. Developers always cry that they cannot get financing if they underpark, but the truth is that there are TOD friendly programs out there (yep, from major banks) to encourage them to do just that.

I walk to Vienna/Fairfax Metro every day. I'd sure like to be able to buy a doggoned cup of coffee and maybe poke my head in a small bookshop or buy some flowers - the latter types of retail shop are totally lacking the area. The local Safeway looks kind of Soviet sometimes in that it is so popular food flies off the shelves. A grocery store to serve the thousands of people who could already walk there plus the new residents would be great. Not a big box grocery store, but something like a Trader Joe's perhaps.

There is another factor, not to be ignored here. Arlington has urban rail stations on the Orange line; the Fairfax stations are suburban. Arlington's stations are designed mostly for the walkable surrounding communities. No mammoth parking structures at most of those stations, no huge surface lots. In Fairfax, some brainiac transportation plan ran the rails down a highway median - okay, helpful from a couple perspectives, but that makes them harder to work with if you do exprience a lot of growth.

Also, Vienna/Fairfax is the terminal station, with only an opportunity for a "reverse" commute to any offices located there. Think about that for a moment. Short of designing a company town, you're going to have a LOT of cars going to any office space there.

Frankly, I think the office space will be moot. With so much primo space opening in Arlington in Crystal City and Pentagon City because of BRAC, I expect somewhat of a giant sucking sound as defense and Fed contractors in Fairfax (and there are a lot of them) leave to be nearer to their clients and closer to the truer urban center of DC/Arlington. So much of our local economy is dependent upon Feds and the military, after all.

Remember, too, that there is a failed office building project at Vienna/Fairfax now. It is about to become condos. I don't hold out much hope for a robust office market in the area based upon history and based upon better locations opening up in the near future.

Getting it "right" is not going to be easy. But with all of the citizens involved and if the County government decides to open its ears and listen to what is really being said to them, we might just get there.

I don't think people understand the importance of that "little strip" of ground to making it a walkable community. As a former Fairlee Drive resident and Metro rider, I walked it many times. It is dark at night - no lighting and we had one rape in that area while I was living there. A well lit, level walkway is important to making it more usable. It reached the point where my husband would pick me up at the metro rather than cross that strip of darkend ground in the Winter months. No matter how walkable MetroWest is it is not transit oriented if the connection to the Metro is hazardous. Also, the storefronts will not get the business they need to operate if other riders (non-MetroWest) cannot easily walk accross to them and back to the station.
Just my 2 cents.

- Linda