TO: WMATA Board of Directors (BoardofDirectors@wmata.com)

FROM: Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. (FairGrowth)

RE: Public Hearing on Sale of Land at Vienna/Fairfax/GMU

DATE: November 4, 2005

Dear Chairman Kauffman and other members of the WMATA Board:

Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. (FairGrowth) was grateful for the opportunity to present our views, and to listen to the opinions of others - especially members of the public - at the public hearing held on November 1, 2005 at Oakton High School. We consider public meetings of this nature as an important step in WMATA's efforts to become more open, accountable, and transparent to the community it serves.

This letter is a summary of the issues Metro faces in the wake of Tuesday’s hearing. Based on these issues, we strongly urge WMATA to delay action on this transfer of land until you have a better understanding of its implications. Failure to do so could injure the long-term interests of WMATA, rail riders, and residents of the greater Washington suburbs.

1) In particular, several board members seemed to view this sale as a routine matter and a local land use issue that did not merit close WMATA investigation. This perspective misses the central point that WMATA is a stakeholder, and a critical one, in planning matters. Transit-oriented development is fundamentally changing Metro’s relationship to the region and its residents. Like it or not, Metro is a key element in a type of development that will change the face of many suburbs, and which will routinely stir community passion and anger. It would be a grave strategic mistake to blunder into this new world without a significant policy discussion on how to protect WMATA’s public standing and trust during this process.

2) While it was hard to understand WMATA’s discussion of rail capacity issues Tuesday night, what we heard seemed alarmingly naïve. It is unclear that Metro can absorb the demands imposed by MetroWest alone. We heard no discussion of what cumulative strains will be felt by Metro as similar developments spring up throughout the Washington region. Again, we urge Metro to stop and look at the big picture before crossing this Rubicon.

3) Finally, as many citizens mentioned, Metrorail is not the only, or even the predominant mode of transportation. Even at MetroWest, the number of automobile commuters will significantly exceed rail commuters. That ratio will be much worse at other proposed projects.
If your goal is to improve regional mobility, we believe it is crucial that Metro-related development not inadvertently overwhelm local and regional road systems.

To summarize, this new wave of Metro development could collectively become a “perfect storm” that puts WMATA in the middle of broad community backlash, rail system overload, and unintended road gridlock. While the first signs of this are evident at MetroWest, we believe they are no more than the tip of the iceberg.

We will expand on these issues, as well other more specific matters, but we believe the Brookings Institution is absolutely correct when it says transit systems must look at station-area development “at the system-wide scale” while “fostering long-term rather than short-term value.”

Metro’s staff recommendation is not only short-term, it is shortsighted. The $17 million in cash and physical improvements will not remotely compensate WMATA for the costs of a poorly considered decision at MetroWest.

None of this contradicts our belief, as stated Tuesday night, that transit-oriented development is the right general strategy for many Metro stations. But without some system-wide standards, we believe the piecemeal redevelopment of Metro station areas will inevitably undermine
the goals of this development method.

In every case, we believe WMATA and the region would benefit from some general policy parameters on what constitutes appropriate and beneficial development near Metro stations. In cases such as MetroWest, where WMATA is being asked to participate by selling land, we believe WMATA should ascertain that citizens have had a genuine voice in the project's local review; and that it will not damage either WMATA's or the local community's overall transportation infrastructure. We believe MetroWest has not succeeded in meeting any of these standards.

There is no established harm to WMATA from NOT making this sale, or approving a lease, until after these and other key issues have been examined. Given the complexity and scale of these system-wide concerns, we believe it would be reckless of Metro even to attempt a final decision on this sale or lease on November 17.

Before you make any final decision, we ask that you respond in writing to the issues raised in this letter, before casting your votes. We believe they are too significant to WMATA’s long-term interests to merit a quick vote without in-depth discussion. We ask that you
fulfill your stated commitment to openness, accountability and transparency.

SPECIFIC ISSUES:

Public Involvement

There was significant discussion about citizen exclusion by Fairfax County. In truth, before Tuesday’s meeting, WMATA itself has not done well in this area, when it comes to MetroWest. During the meeting, WMATA staff remarked that WMATA had met with Fairfax county officials
and the developers regarding Metro West — a dialogue that, according to one document, transpired over 18 months. This underscores the fact that no representatives of the local community or Metro riders have had a similar opportunity to engage in discussions with WMATA on the details and potential ramifications of the proposed sale of land beyond brief “public information” sessions.

FairGrowth respectfully requests that the community representatives and riders have a significant opportunity, just as county officials and developers have had, to review the proposed land transfer in detail before a transfer is made.

In Fairfax, there is a widespread perception that the county has let developers radically disrupt patterns of living without listening to the public, and many voters are frankly angry over this.

The best insurance against this kind of backlash, which could undermine WMATA’s quest for dedicated funding, is to slow down the process and truly involve the broader community in a meaningful dialogue on Metro development policies. If you do not, the sins of over-eager local
governments could well become your own.

OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES

While we are grateful for the hearing and for the opportunity to participate, a number of important issues remain unresolved.
Specifically:

- We remain uninformed about why WMATA provided for no public input on land transfers at Dunn Loring, and waited so long in the process to do so with regards to Vienna/Fairfax/GMU. This is troubling, as FairGrowth specifically requested detailed community and rider involvement in any proposed land transfers in our statement to the WMATA Board on April 21, 2005, noting these two stations explicitly.

- There has been no discussion of why alternatives such as leasing were not even considered regarding the Vienna/Fairfax/GMU station. This is especially curious, as leasing was suggested as a potential alternative well worthy of consideration by the WMATA Chairman when he spoke to the Providence District Council on January 18th, 2005.

- No new information on Metro West's impacts on capacity has been presented. WMATA noted that current funding levels should provide adequate rail car capacity for the next six years. However, as FairGrowth highlighted in our opening remarks, Metro West's impacts are projected to reach their height in 2012, the same year WMATA projects Orange line cars to be so crowded as to be “unmanageable.”

- Discussions of station capacity were again limited to the Vienna/Fairfax/GMU station. FairGrowth has repeatedly raised concerns about station capacity along the Orange line, especially at downtown core stations, if the terminating station is subject to development at
the levels under consideration. WMATA's response from a July 12 information session was that core station improvements were unfunded. WMATA should engage the community and riders to better coordinate the relationship between station capacity and funding needs.

- Parking issues remain a major concern. There are serious questions about how efficient satellite parking might be, and whether or how soon additional Metro parking might become available. An illuminating article appears at
http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/11/02/news/d_c_news/00newsdc02metro.txt.

WMATA's SMART GROWTH ROLE

Is it appropriate for WMATA to take an active role in “local land use planning?”

The Brookings Institution's Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy published a paper called “Transit Oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric to Reality.” (Dena Belzer and Gerald Aulter, June 2002 - see
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/publications/belzertodexsum.htm).

According to the Brookings Institution, transit agencies should “participate in planning for both transit agency property and the wider station area with the aim of fostering long-term rather than short-term value.” (Page 31.)

Furthermore, Brookings suggests that transit agencies should plan “at the system-wide scale, assessing opportunities at each station site and thinking regionally about the interplay between land uses around each station.” The paper also notes that smart growth goals can sometimes be enhanced at the regional level. Finally, Brookings says that any smart growth project “will be made more effective if it is planned with other station areas in mind.” (Page 32.)

As proponents of true smart growth, FairGrowth endorses Brookings' suggestions. Not only do these recommendations suggest that leasing land may be preferable to outright sales, but they also strongly suggest that WMATA should actively participate in planning for both the Dunn Loring and Vienna/Fairfax/GMU stations. Brookings notes that when station areas are planned comprehensively, “the line as a whole will provide a reasonable mix of jobs, housing, retail, and commuter parking.” (Page 32.)

To the best of our knowledge, there has been no attempt by any entity to coordinate the planning of Dunn Loring and Vienna/Fairfax/GMU, or to take a “system-wide” or “long-term” view of transit-oriented development as it relates to WMATA.

FairGrowth agrees with the Brookings Institution's assessment that transit agencies do have a vital role to play in planning, both on a regional and station-by-station basis. If you believe WMATA has conformed to these principles cited by the Brookings Institution and other smart growth authorities, we request that you publicly cite your reasoning before voting on MetroWest.

NEXT STEPS

FairGrowth requests that WMATA suspend consideration of land transfers at both Dunn Loring and Vienna/Fairfax/GMU until such time as WMATA, members of the community, county, state, and town officials, and members of the Riders Advisory Council can comprehensively examine the issues cited in this letter.

Much about the Metro West proposal is touted as precedent-setting. WMATA should set precedents now, seeking maximum public input, and taking an active role in coordinating plans for station areas. As Metro seeks to expand to Tysons Corner and beyond, and as local governments in Maryland and Virginia all begin planning similar mini-cities, it is vitally important to get these precedents right.

Sincerely,

Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc.
fairgrowth@fairgrowth.org
http://www.FairGrowth.org