The McLean Citizens Association released an open letter this month expressing their disappointment and concern over the rising cost of infrastructure for Tysons Corner with regard to Planning Commission document Strawman II (the document which indicates the allocations and share of funding from public and private sources). The letter was written by Sally Horn who takes over as president from former community leader, and Tysons planning participant, Rob Jackson. Unfortunately, the letter distorts reality to serve an agenda against development. Of significant concern is rhetoric coming from MCA about the inflating of costs for the Tysons infrastructure, citing the increase to approximately five billion dollars. What is not noted is the increase of two billion dollars from previous analyses directly attributable to the increase in the design period from 2030 to 2050. Typically, doubling the analysis period has a funny way of increasing costs.
The annual funding (a number that actually matters and is a much less scary $120 million) requirements have stayed relatively stable through the reanalysis and most of the cost, as we have discussed several times over the past year, are attributed to projects outside of Tysons Corner. These projects are part of Fairfax County’s overall infrastructure master needs. However, we do agree with a central point being made by the MCA, federal and state funding is extremely difficult to depend on. In fact State funding of road infrastructure within Fairfax is at an all time low and with district adjustments that have created strongholds for the two parties. We should not expect any changes in this dynamic for the next decade. However, in review of the funding sources, one finds that State and Federal funding is barely being demanded. At the heart of the MCA’s letter is the continued fear of “urbanization” and its effects on McLean, even though no study has shown that McLean will be detrimentally affected by traffic, school crowding, or crime in anyway by Tysons development. So is funding and tax payer risk the problem here?
The MCA denotes that the Route 28 improvement project was built using a 25-75 funding split between public and private sources. The improvements of the limited access Route 28 which occurred over a decade were funded in large part by the private developments along the corridor through a special tax district and simply went towards the capital costs of building the road improvements. Unlike the Tysons Strawman no transit, pedestrian, or bike improvements were funded by this revenue.
The MCA didn’t discuss in their Route 28 comparison the cost that was incurred beyond the modifications to the limited access highway including cross streets which demanded improvements and were paid for by public funding outside of the tax district. The sprawl of Western Fairfax has far more impact on tax funding needs than just this 1 spot improvement project, and all other needs were funded by public sources. So what percentage breakdown was Western Fairfax’s development really subject to? It is likely that when viewed holistically, including the needed improvements to transit that occurred to Fairfax Connector and surrounding infrastructure projects that the sprawl style development incurred a 75-25 split of public to private funding.
At its core the MCA complaint doesn’t differentiate in their analysis what the Tysons Corner Project’s 50-50 split between public and private special tax district goes towards in funding.
- Streets with Tysons as noted in the Strawman will be primarily funded by private funds. Let’s say this in other words; all of the roads actually within Tysons are attributed to private development and everyone agrees that these should be funded by private sources. In fact the strawman has been revised to fund these roads completely (formerly 90-10 split) by developments and landowners within Tysons Corner. This accounts for about $900 million of infrastructure costs.
- Access for multi-modal transportation as defined by the Strawman will account for only $77 million in cost over the next 40 years and provides for pedestrian and bike facilities associated with making Tysons Corner less car dependent. The plan notes that federal and state sources can be counted on for this. In fact because of several pedestrian and bike grants being provided from federal sources it is extremely likely if we finalize this strawman (now on year 2 of completion) that we can attain funding from the pro-transit Obama administration. Let’s think about this though, the cost is $77 million split over 40 years, coming out to less than $2 million per year. This is not a cost to be worried about seeing as no one seems to complain when a road like Route 123 is repaved for maintenance and routinely costs more. It is certainly not beneficial to stop the process now to figure out a liability for this funding if it is not available from federal sources, seeing as the longer we wait the less likely it might become to attain from those same sources.
- Transit as defined by the Strawman includes circulator buses within Tysons but in majority for an expansion of the Fairfax Connector system that brings people to Tysons but serves communities around all of Fairfax. Wait!!! The cost went up $450 million. Of course it did, we add 20 years of operation cost of a bus network into the budget. If you view the capital cost they have stayed the same. The primary source of these funds SHOULD be from the county over all because the improvements are largely going towards the County’s transit master plan for the Fairfax Connector. This $900 million cost has very little to do with Tysons expanding and far greater to do with Fairfax County having done very few public transit improvements over the past 20 years and now trying to play catch up with a centralized plan. Even with this being the case, the private sector within Tysons is paying for their pro-rata share of these improvements with funding of transit stops and facilities within Tysons Corner as well as their appropriate percentage of operating costs. The real question becomes, why is the MCA demanding developers in Tysons pay for parking lots and bus transit centers in Springfield? Let Springfield form a private tax district, otherwise let the tax payers pay for their own improvements if deemed needed.
- Tysons Wide Improvements therefore becomes the crux of the disagreement, and at it’s heart is Table 7. For more than a year we have argued that projects like Route 7 widening are antithetical to what a rising city of Tysons needs. It undercuts improvements made from the Silver Line, and provides a highway parallel to the Dulles Toll Road. It is not needed, or atleast not necessary as far as Tysons development is concerned. If Fairfax deems it to be needed, then Fairfax should pay for it. That is exactly what is being suggested in this case as a 90-10 split is being used. If the project is outside of Tysons then the city through the special tax district will fund 10%. If the project is within Tysons then the taxpayers will only fun 10%. Why is this not acceptable and why has no one questioned to date if the projects outside of Tysons are actually needed? This part of the funding is the largest component at 1.2 billion dollars and yet is the least scrutinized.
Lastly, the recommendation of the MCA to reduce development levels is antithetical to their root request; reduce the burden of infrastructure costs from the taxpayer. This is a dream made in fantasy land where all of the needs for our county are scapegoated onto the urbanization of Tysons. This is not a zero cost scenario; whether or not Tysons is developed the county needs a funding source for many of these projects. Reviewing the strawman it is clear that many of the elements being provided are more attributable to the County’s infrastructure needs than Tyson’s needs. So far the numbers when discussed continue to be lumped into “Tysons Urbanization” by media outlets and active community groups. In reality much of the 1.2 billion dollars is necessary right now for projects outside of Tysons Corner. In reality much of the $900 million for transit is moving forward whether or not urbanization occurs in Tysons. The only real costs directly attributed to Tysons urbanization are parts 1 and 2 listed above which constitute less than 1 billion dollars and almost entirely covered by the special tax district.
By decreasing the density of Tysons you barely modify the funding needs described above, but you drastically reduce the revenue that will come from the assessed value of the properties. Per capita, users of the new Tysons Corner will demand far less infrastructure needs than current levels. The more the city becomes a city, the more usable non-vehicular infrastructure becomes. Additionally, the more like a city Tysons becomes, the more funding is gained to transit such as the Fairfax Connector service and metro which are pay as you use services, unlike road infrastructure. To obstruct projects like Capital One which will provide new amenities, infrastructure, tax revenue, and more importantly directly increase the corporate presence of a Fortune 500 company and encourage more jobs in this area is shooting ourselves in the foot for the sake of blaming developers. Last time I checked we live in America, a capitalist country which encourages paying your fare share and taking the profit that is deserved. Tysons continues to be the reason why our tax rates in this county can stay so low compared to other regions of our State and County and is the single largest source of revenue to the County. These developers are buying into the future of Tysons and funding much of the growth of the city, so why are we demonizing them with letters like this one from the MCA?